Experimental approaches to understanding variation in grain size in Panicum miliaceum (broomcorn...

Res

earc

h

The early chronology of broomcornmillet (Panicum miliaceum) in EuropeGiedre Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute1,2, Richard A. Staff3,Harriet V. Hunt1, Xinyi Liu1 & Martin K. Jones4

The majority of the early crops grown in Europe had their origins in south-west Asia, and werepart of a package of domestic plants and animals that were introduced by the first farmers.Broomcorn millet, however, offers a very different narrative, being domesticated first in China,but present in Eastern Europe apparently as early as the sixth millennium BC. Might this beevidence of long-distance contact between east and west, long before there is any other evidencefor such connections? Or is the existing chronology faulty in some way? To resolve that question,10 grains of broomcorn millet were directly dated by AMS, taking advantage of the increasingability to date smaller and smaller samples. These showed that the millet grains were significantlyyounger than the contexts in which they had been found, and that the hypothesis of an earlytransmission of the crop from east to west could not be sustained. The importance of direct datingof crop remains such as these is underlined.

Keywords: Europe, Neolithic, broomcorn millet, Panicum miliaceum, AMS dating, ceramicgrain impressions, Eurasian connections

Supplementary material is provided online at http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/motuzaitematuzeviciute338/

IntroductionOne of the most economically important plants in prehistory was broomcorn millet(Panicum miliaceum), a cereal in the same grass subfamily as maize, sorghum and foxtailmillet. Today, P. miliaceum is grown as an economic plant mainly in eastern and central Asia,India, Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe (Russia and Ukraine) and North America.It is mostly consumed as porridge or placed in meat stews, or roasted grains are eaten with

1 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB23ER, UK (Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected])

2 History Faculty/Department of Archaeology, Vilnius University, Universiteto 7, 01513 Vilnius, Lithuania(Email: [email protected])

3 Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU), Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art(RLAHA), University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK(Email: [email protected])

4 Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK(Email: [email protected])

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.ANTIQUITY 87 (2013): 1073–1085 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0871073.htm

1073

The early chronology of broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) in Europe

milk. In North America, it is grown primarily for animal feed, although its importancefor the human food market is increasing (Graybosch & Baltensperger 2009). Broomcornmillet completes its life cycle in a very short (40–90 day) period (Nesbitt & Summers1988), has the lowest water requirement of any cereal (Baltensperger 2002) and its grainsare nutritionally more valuable than wheat, barley or rice (Rachie 1975; Baltensperger 2002;Weber & Fuller 2007). This crop therefore was and still is highly suitable for growing bysemi-nomadic societies in central Asia inhabiting arid climatic regions. The prehistory ofbroomcorn millet in Europe is of interest because it does not belong to the Near Eastern suiteof crops, and its presence in the European agricultural package therefore requires separateexplanation.

In their review of records of the millet genera Panicum and Setaria across Eurasia datingto before 5000 BC, Hunt et al. (2008) highlighted the interesting and unusual pattern of theearliest records of broomcorn millet. It appeared unique among crops in being found at thisearly period, at both ends of the continental landmass, in Europe and in northern China.This distribution has prompted speculation and debate about the possibility of multipledomestications or unusually early cross-continental spread (de Wet & Harlan 1975; Harlan1975; Verloove 2002; Jones 2004; Lawler 2009; Zohary et al. 2012).

The available genetic data, from microsatellite markers, lend more weight to thehypothesis of a single (Chinese) domestication rather than multiple (European and Chinese)domestications, but the evidence is still equivocal (Hunt et al. 2011). Furthermore, in relationto the archaeobotanical evidence, Kreuz et al. (2005) cautioned against drawing an inferenceof intentional cropping from individual grain finds. Also in relation to the archaeobotany,the validity of the early broomcorn millet chronology in Europe has been recently calledinto question by Boivin et al. (2012) as none of the Neolithic millets found in Europe hashitherto been directly dated.

In northern China, a few charred broomcorn millet grains have been directly datedfrom one Early Neolithic site, Xinglonggou in Inner Mongolia, producing a single date of7670–7610 cal BP (Zhao 2011). Both botanical plant remains found in quantity and stableisotope analysis of human bones have shown that millet was a major food crop in Neolithicnorthern China (e.g. Cohen 1998, 2002; Zhao 2005; Crawford 2006; Barton et al. 2009;Lu et al. 2009; Liu et al. 2012). Neolithic broomcorn millet records west of the Caucasustypically occur in small quantities, frequently only one or two grains, while the evidence forbroomcorn millet becomes more prominent only in the Late Bronze Age in Europe.

The main aim of the work presented in this paper is to establish whether direct dating ofbroomcorn millet supports the presence of this crop in Europe before 5000 BC. If this is thecase then there is a clear discrepancy between the spread of this crop and the earliest evidencefrom material culture of east-west contact across Eurasia, which falls at a much later period,in the second millennium BC (e.g. Sherratt 1996; Mei 2003; Kohl 2007; Frachetti 2012).

The small size of broomcorn millet grains has, until recently, precluded the possibilityof direct radiocarbon (14C) dating of individual grains. The latter constraint has now beenovercome, as continued methodological refinements allow ever-smaller samples to be reliably14C dated (Santos et al. 2007). We employed these refinements to scrutinise the dates of theearly western broomcorn millet grains, and thus to re-examine the chronology of its unusualprehistoric geography.C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

1074

Res

earc

h

Giedre Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute et al.

Figure 1. Location of sites containing AMS-dated broomcorn millet grains.

Broomcorn millet records from west Eurasian Neolithic contextsHunt et al. (2008) list finds from 31 sites between Germany in the west and the Caucasusin the east, the northernmost in Poland and the southernmost in Greece, for whichbroomcorn millet records prior to 5000 BC had been published (Table 1). Since this 2008publication there have been further archaeobotanical finds, but none, so far as the authorsare aware, significantly modify this overall time range. These records split evenly betweengrain impressions in ceramic items, and charred grains from archaeological sediments. Thenumber of records per site is typically low, ranging from 1 to 97 grain impressions or 1 to13 charred grains per site record. Whilst around a third of the site records have 14C datesfrom associated archaeological materials, none of the charred broomcorn millet grains havebeen directly dated, for the methodological reasons described above.

The records reviewed by Hunt et al. (2008) relate to work conducted up to 50 years ago,and not all of the primary material is easily accessible. Through widespread communicationwith active European archaeobotanists, we received broomcorn millet grains from sevenarchaeological sites in Europe (Figure 1) dating to the Neolithic period, relating toLinearbandkeramik (LBK) sites in Germany, the Sopot culture in Hungary, the Dudesticulture in Romania, the Butmir culture in Bosnia-Herzegovina and an Early Neolithic sitein Bulgaria (Table 2). With the exception of the Fajsz 18 site in Hungary, all of these siterecords have been published, and some cited by Hunt et al. (2008) reportedly date to before5000 BC. The details of each record are summarised in Table 1.

Three broomcorn millet samples from the German sites of Weterau, Fechenheimand Goddelau are associated with LBK pottery attributed to the second half of thesixth millennium BC (Kreuz et al. 2005; Kreuz & Schafer 2011). The grains wererecovered from sealed pits. Together with the solitary broomcorn millet grains, a large

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

1075

The

earlychronology

ofbroomcorn

millet(Panicum

miliaceum

)in

Europe

Table 1. Sites in Europe (including the Caucasus) with archaeobotanical evidence for Panicum miliaceum prior to 5000 BC (modified after Huntet al. 2008). Dating rationale: a) grains with material culture association; b) grains with associated 14C date; c) impressions in ceramics.

Country Dating information Nature of millet find Dating(region/province) Period Culture Site name cal BC (number of grains) rationale

Azerbaijan Late Neolithic Shulaveri-Shomutepe

Kjultepe fifth–fourthmillennia

Bulgaria (south-west) Late Neolithic Drenkovo-Ploshteko late sixth–early fifthmillennia

grain (4) a

Czech Republic(northernBohemia)

Early Neolithic LBK (Rubane) Brezno u Louny second half of sixthmillennium

grain (13) a

Czech Republic(central Bohemia)

Early Neolithic LBK/Stichbandkeramik/Lengyel?

Bylany 5400–4300 (9 dates) grain b

Czech Republic(northern Moravia)

Early Neolithic LBK/MoravianPainted Pottery?

Mohelnice 5600–5000 (6 dates) grain b

Germany(south-west,Hessen)

Early Neolithic LBK Bruchenbrucken 5200–4800 (1 date) grain (1) b

Germany(north-central,Harz mountains)

Early Neolithic LBK Eitzum-II 5500–4700 (3 dates) grain (2) b

Germany(south-west,Hessen)

Early Neolithic LBK Goddelau 5700–5100 (5 dates) grain (1) b

Germany (south,Bayern)

Early Neolithic LBK Mintraching second half of sixthmillennium

grain (1) a

Georgia Late Neolithic Shulaveri-Shomutepe

Arukhlo 1 fifth–fourthmillennia

– –


Dikhi-Gudzuba fifth–fourthmillennia

– –


Imiris-gora fifth–fourthmillennia

– –

C©A

ntiquityPublications

Ltd.

1076

Research

Giedre

Motuzaite-M

atuzeviciuteetal.

Table 1. Continued.

Greece (Thessaly) Early Neolithic Protosesklo Argissa Magoula 6500–6200 (1date) grain (1) bGreece (Thessaly) Middle Neolithic Sesklo Otzaki Magoula first half of sixth

millenniumgrain a

Moldova (Prut river) Early Neolithic LBK Denchen-I second half of sixthmillennium

60 imprints in pottery c

Moldova (central) Neolithic LBK Durlesht-I second half of sixthmillennium

1 imprint in pottery c

Moldova (north) Early Neolithic LBK/Cris Sakarovka-I second half of sixthmillennium

97 imprints in pottery c

Moldova(east-central)

Early Neolithic LBK Braneshty-I 5400–5000 1 imprint c

Moldova (north-east) Early Neolithic Bug-Dniester/Cris Ruptura 5976–5560 1 imprint cMoldova (north-east) Early Neolithic Bug-Dniester Soroki-I 6000–4800/4700 1 imprint cPoland (south-east) Early Neolithic LBK Olszanica 7000–4200 (8 dates) grain (5) cRomania Neolithic Vinca Liubcova second half of sixth

millenniumgrain –

Slovakia (south-east) Early Neolithic (eastern) LBK(Bukk)

Domica Cave 5200–4800 (1 date) grain b

Slovakia (east) Early Neolithic (eastern) LBK(Bukk)

Sarisske Michal’any II second half of sixthmillennium

grain (4) a

Slovakia (south-west) Early Neolithic LBK Sturovo 5500–4800 (2 dates) grain (1) bUkraine

(west-central)Early Neolithic LBK Rovno 5629–5306 (2 dates) 2 impressions in pottery c

Ukraine(west-central)

Early Neolithic Bugo-Dniestr Sokoltsy II 6438–6101 (2 dates) 1 impression in pottery c

Ukraine (central) Middle Neolithic Kievo-Cherkasskaya Grini 5200–4250 3 impressions in pottery cUkraine (north-west) Middle Neolithic Volynskaya Krushniki 5100–3850 2 impressions in pottery cUkraine (north-west) Early Neolithic Volynskaya Mala Osnitsa 5450–5100 1 impression in pottery cUkraine (north-west) Early Neolithic Volynskaya Obolon 5450–5100 1 impression in pottery c

C©A


Ltd.

1077

The

earlychronology

ofbroomcorn

millet(Panicum

miliaceum

)in

Europe

Table 2. Archaeological contexts of the 10 broomcorn millet samples, along with their 14C (uncalibrated and calibrated) and δ13C’s measurements.Sample weights (initial starting weight and combustion yield following chemical pre-treatment) are given to emphasise radiocarbon’s ability to dateever smaller 14C samples (see online supplementary Table S1 for additional sample data).

Starting Combustion Conventional Calibrated ageExpected culture weight yield 14C age BP (cal BC/AD,

Site Country and period ORAU lab. code (mg) (mg C) δ13C (‰) (+−1σ ) 95.4% hpd range)

Bruchenbrucken/Friedberg

Germany Bandkeramik(Neolithic5500–4500 BC)

OxA-26700 1.36 0.429 –10.05 3163+−33 1505–1386 BC

Fechenheim/Frankfurt


OxA-26701 2.65 0.581 –10.63 2815+−32 1055–851 BC

Goddelau/Riedstadt


OxA-26702 0.92 0.464 –9.59 2484+−34 772–417 BC

Fajsz 18 Hungary Sopot (Late Neolithic5500–4500 BC)

OxA-26703 1.03 0.361 –11.16 3075+−36 1428–1262 BC

Fajsz 18 Hungary Sopot (Late Neolithic5500–4500 BC)

OxA-26704 1.21 0.413 –9.87 3214+−36 1606–1414 BC

Okoliste Bosnia-Herzegovina

Butmir (5500–4800BC)

OxA-X-2479-22 1.62 0.528 –11.04 1740+−130∗ AD 4–576

Yabalkovo Bulgaria Early Neolithic OxA-26705 1.42 0.311 –9.57 1128+−35 AD 781–991Yabalkovo Bulgaria Early Neolithic OxA-26477 2.09 1.106 –9.75 1176+−28 AD 774–953Magura-

BuduiascaRomania Dudesti (Neolithic

sixth mill. BC)OxA-26706 1.57 0.441 –9.66 3093+−35 1434–1268 BC

Magura-Buduiasca

Romania Dudesti (Neolithicsixth mill. BC)

OxA-26707 1.23 0.592 –10.41 398+−26 AD 1438–1620

Note: δ13C (‰) data are relative to the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite standard. The conventional 14C age BP (+−1σ ) data and a fractionation correction was calculated as per Stuiver &Polach 1977. With reference to the calculated age, ‘hpd’ is highest probability density.∗This sample has a higher than usual uncertainty owing to its low AMS target current. See online supplementary information (footnote †) for further details.

C©A


Ltd.

1078

Res

earc

h


quantity of wheat and barley grains, including a range of weeds, has been found.Consequently, the broomcorn millet grains were themselves interpreted as weeds (Kreuz et al.2005).

Further broomcorn millet grains were available from the Fajsz 18 site in Hungary, inassociation with artefacts of the Late Neolithic Sopot culture (5000–4700/4600 BC). Thesegrains too were found in a secure archaeological context, together with the Neolithicpottery and tools. The Fajsz 18 site also contains Bronze Age levels above the Neolithiclevels.

Two broomcorn millet grains were chosen for dating from the Magura-Buduiasca sitein southern Romania. The occupation levels bearing the broomcorn millet samples belongto the Dudesti culture of the sixth millennium BC. Previous AMS-dating of three barleygrains and one einkorn grain from pit 13A (Starcevo-Cris) yielded dates in the early sixthmillennium cal BC, while a fourth barley grain dated to the later sixth millennium calBC. No dates, however, were obtained from the context containing the broomcorn milletremains. In total, seven grains of broomcorn millet were found in Early and Late Dudesticulture pits from the site (Bogaard & Walker 2011).

Twelve broomcorn millet grains, among thousands of wheat grains, were recovered froma tell site at Okoliste in the hilly region of central Bosnia-Herzegovina. They were foundin association with material of the Late Neolithic Butmir culture, which corresponds to theperiod between 5200 and 4500 cal BC (Muller-Scheeßel et al. 2010).

The final series of dated broomcorn millet grains came from the Yabalkovo Early Neolithicsite in Bulgaria (beginning of the sixth millennium BC), which also contains some scatteredoccupation from the Bronze Age. The age of the site was previously determined by 14Cdating of charred cereal grains from the same archaeological context as the broomcornmillet grains which are dated and presented in Table 2 (T. Popova pers. comm.). The milletgrains (over 20 in total) were found in a pit together with other crops, principally wheatand barley (Leshtakov et al. 2007; Popova 2010).

Material and methodsOwing to the low starting weights of the individual broomcorn millet grains submitted tothe Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) for radiocarbon dating, a less rigorouschemical pre-treatment methodology was applied than usual. This involved ultrasonicationof samples in 1 M HCl and ultrapure water only, rather than the more robust acid-base-acid(ABA) method more routinely applied to plant macrofossil samples (Brock et al. 2010).The fact that the millet grains presented in this paper appeared to be in a good state ofpreservation, and physically ‘clean’, gives us confidence that, despite the less rigorous pre-treatment, the 14C measurements obtained remain reliable. After subsequent freeze-dryingand combustion, graphitisation took place with the addition of the desiccant magnesiumperchlorate in the water trap of the reactor rigs, to optimise the conversion of CO2 tographite. The resulting graphite was pressed into aluminium targets for accelerator massspectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating (see online supplementary information for furtherdetails).


1079


Results of direct datingPanicum miliaceum, like other millets, photosynthesises using the Hatch-Slack (‘C4’)pathway. During photosynthesis, C4 plants discriminate against 13C less than ‘C3’ plants(plants utilising the most common photosynthetic pathway), and hence have higher δ13Cvalues than C3 plants (approximately –12.5‰ in C4 plants, compared with approximately–26.5‰ in C3 plants) (van der Merwe 1982; Tieszen 1991). From the δ13C values obtainedhere (between –11.16‰ and –9.57‰), we can be confident that all of the dated samplesutilise the C4 pathway (Table 2). Vegetation in temperate Eurasia is predominantly C3,as are the majority of cultivated plants. Before the post-Columbian introduction of maizefrom the Americas, the millets were the C4 species most heavily used in Eurasia. Althoughnot conclusive of species identification, the δ13C values obtained therefore corroborate theidentification of the samples as millet.

All 10 seeds submitted for AMS 14C dating provided radiocarbon measurements, evenwhere the weight prior to pre-treatment was as small as 0.92mg (Table 2; Figure 2). None ofthe dates obtained is older than 5000 BC; most of the dates are from the middle of the secondmillennium BC, ranging from 1606 to 417 cal BC and later, and some, such as from theMagura-Buduiasca site in Romania, are just a few centuries old. The group of radiocarbondates from the LBK sites in Germany correspond to the Middle Bronze Age and the EarlyIron Age of Central Europe: sample OxA-26700 (from Bruchenbrucken/Friedberg) datesto 1505–1386 cal BC (all calibrated 14C ages are given at 95.4%, i.e. 2σ probability).OxA-26701 (from Fechenheim/Frankfurt) dates to 1055–851 cal BC, and OxA-26702(from Goddelau/Riedstadt) dates to 772–417 cal BC. The dates from Hungary (Fajsz 18)are the next oldest, and correspond to the Late Bronze Age (OxA-26703: 1428–1262 calBC, and OxA-26704: 1606–1414 cal BC). One date from Romanian (Magura-Buduiasca)broomcorn millet is similar to the Hungarian data and is attributed to the Late BronzeAge (OxA-26706: 1434–1268 cal BC). The remainder of the samples, those from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria and one from Romania, are attributed to the centuries AD of medievaland post-medieval Europe.

DiscussionThe new data obtained by using the methodological refinements for small mass samplesresulted in direct 14C dating of 10 broomcorn millet grains. The dates indicate that thechronology previously proposed for the substantial number of Central and Eastern Europeanbroomcorn millet macrofossils was too early by at least 3500 years.

A possible explanation of the dates recorded in Table 2 is that the small broomcornmillet grains have repeatedly moved downwards through stratigraphic sequences, giving thespurious impression of an early date. The site of Fajsz 18 provides a plausible example, withBronze Age levels deposited directly above Neolithic levels. Most sites also contain lateroccupations not directly above the Neolithic one but in a neighbouring area, and thus theland surface above the Neolithic levels could have been part of the field system in these laterperiods.C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

1080

Res

earc

h


Figure 2. Calibrated radiocarbon age distributions for the 10 broomcorn millet samples, grouped by site. Horizontal barsbelow each distribution represent the 68.2% and 95.4% highest probability density (hpd) ranges respectively. Radiocarbondata calibrated against the IntCal09 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2009).

That explanation is more difficult to apply, however, where later stratigraphic levels areabsent. The Yabalkovo site, where a pit contained cereal grains of a range of species, isparticularly enigmatic; our first millennium AD dates on millet grains place them someseven millennia later than the early sixth millennium BC dates for the wheat and barley.

This substantial revision of the macrofossil chronology raises the question of the reliabilityof the other source of pre-5000 BC broomcorn millet evidence: that from grain impressionsin pottery. In these cases, the dating of the impressions is as secure as the dating of theceramic typologies, and it seems unlikely that the age of such well-studied ceramic groupsas the LBK will be shifted by millennia. However, the question in the case of impressions iswhether the identification of the small voids as casts of broomcorn millet is secure. We havenot had the opportunity of re-examining the impression-bearing ceramic fragments, so weoffer the following observations in relation to future scrutiny of small grain impressions.


1081


Yanushevich, who identified a sizeable proportion of the broomcorn millet impressionsfrom Moldova and Ukraine, notes that the impressions in pottery and daub at the Neolithicand Early Chalcolithic sites in Moldova are not very clear, and that “possibly some of thembelong to Setaria glauca, Setaria viridis or Echinochloa crus-galli species” (Yanushevich 1976:153). In Moldova, Yanushevich seems to have taken the shape and size of broomcorn milletspikelet imprints with glumes and lemmas as the main criteria for identification. It hasbeen suggested, however, that the scutellum, grain dimensions and shape offer more reliablecriteria for identification (Fuller 2006; Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute et al. 2012). It wouldtherefore be useful to re-examine the early impressions identified as broomcorn millet toestablish whether any of these key criteria are discernible, which will depend amongst otherthings on the presence/absence of glumes potentially obscuring these features.

The increase in quantity and frequency of broomcorn millet in the west Eurasianarchaeological record

By the Late Bronze Age in Europe, stable isotope analysis on human bone collagen at somesites in southern Lithuania and northern Italy has indicated significant C4 plant input intothe human diet (Antanaitis & Ogrinc 2000; Tafuri et al. 2009). During the same period,the quantity and frequency of broomcorn millet increase across Europe (e.g. Marinval 1992;Pashkevich 2003; Jacomet 2004; Tafuri et al. 2009).

Records of broomcorn millet become more frequent and the grains are found in higherquantities at sites in Eastern and Central Europe by around 3000 BC. Lumps of charredbroomcorn millet were found in a Polish Funnel Beaker site (Wasylikowa et al. 1991).Eighty-three millet grains were reported from six contexts within the burned house at theKleiner Anzingerberg site of the Jevisovice culture in Austria and have been dated to 3200–2800 BC (Kohler-Schneider & Caneppele 2009). Charred broomcorn millet macrofossilshave been frequently reported from the Baden culture in Slovakia and dated to 3600–2900BC (Hajnalova 1989). Clay temper in 70 cult statuettes from Usatovo culture sites, datedto 3600–3000 BC, as well as pottery vessels and daub, contained many impressions ofbroomcorn millet grains (Kuzminova & Petrenko 1989).

The Eurasian patternThe direct dating of broomcorn millet grains from west Eurasian Neolithic contexts hasproduced estimates considerably younger than dates associated with the contexts in whichthey were found. The most parsimonious explanation is that the vertical movement of smallgrains through the stratigraphic profile has led to a spurious impression of greater antiquity.This certainly calls into question half of the site records reviewed by Hunt et al. (2008),though without resolving how younger grains might enter older archaeological contexts inevery case. We have, in addition, suggested how the other set of early broomcorn milletrecords, those of impressions in ceramics, might be further scrutinised.

Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, we cannot exclude the possibility thatsome of the reported pre-5000 BC broomcorn millet records in Europe are correct.Nonetheless, our direct dating of a small but substantial set of charred macrofossils indirectlyC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

1082

Res

earc

h


questions the Early Neolithic attributions of the remaining broomcorn millet records acrossEurope.

As mentioned above, there is considerably more evidence for the presence of broomcornmillet in western Eurasia from the second half of the fourth millennium BC onwards,especially in the Carpathian region and southern Ukraine, where records start to becomemore ubiquitous and grains present in higher quantities (Hajnalova 1989; Kuzminova &Petrenko 1989; Pashkevich 2003; Kohler-Schneider & Caneppele 2009). Nevertheless, thisevidence too would also benefit from confirmation by direct 14C dating, and that will bethe subject of future work.

In summary, the new dating results have cast significant doubt upon the earliest records ofPanicum miliaceum in the west. The apparent association of small numbers of millet grainswith archaeological contexts associated with a pre-5000 BC date has repeatedly been calledinto question. The direct dates of these particular grains brings them much closer into linewith the earliest evidence for shared metallurgical techniques across Eurasia (e.g. Sherratt1996; Mei 2003). There remains, however, a significant body of published evidence for apresence by the third millennium BC of Panicum miliaceum in the archaeobotanical record,and of C4 plants in some western diets. These records may prove to be more robust thanthe very earliest millet records re-examined in this paper. Subject to scrutiny of these laterrecords, the re-dating reported in this paper greatly reduces the chronological gap betweenthe earliest dates for crop contact and metallurgical contact across Eurasia, but that gap asyet remains.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to acknowledge the Leverhulme Trust for funding the ‘Pioneers of Pan-Asian Contact’ project,the European Research Council for funding the ‘Food Globalisation in Prehistory’ project, and the ResearchCouncil of Lithuania for funding postdoctoral research. We would like to thank all of the archaeobotanistswho kindly provided their broomcorn millet samples for dating: Angela Kreuz, Helmut Kroll, Amy Bogaard,Tzvetana Popova and Peter Pomazi; thanks also to all the staff at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit fortheir team efforts in dating the material.

ReferencesANTANAITIS, I. & N. OGRINC. 2000. Chemical analysis

of bone: stable isotope evidence of the diet ofNeolithic and Bronze Age people in Lithuania.Istorija 45: 3–12.

BALTENSPERGER, D.D. 2002. Progress with proso, pearland other millets, in J. Janick & A. Whipkey (ed.)Trends in new crops and new uses: 1–9. Alexandria(VA): American Society for Horticultural SciencePress.

BARTON, L., S.D. NEWSOME, F.H. CHEN, H. WANG,T.P. GUILDERSON & R.L. BETTINGER. 2009.Agricultural origins and the isotopic identity ofdomestication in northern China. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the USA 106:5523–28.

BOGAARD, A. & A. WALKER. 2011. Plant use andmanagement at Magura-Buduiasca (Teleor 003),southern Romania: preliminary report on thearchaeobotanical analysis. Report prepared for theEuropean Union, Brussels.

BOIVIN, N., D.Q. FULLER & A. CROWTHER. 2012. OldWorld globalization and the Columbian exchange:comparison and contrast. World Archaeology 44:452–69.

BROCK, F., T. HIGHAM, P. DITCHFIELD & C. BRONK

RAMSEY. 2010. Current pre-treatment methods forAMS radiocarbon dating at the OxfordRadiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU).Radiocarbon 52: 103–12.

COHEN, D.J. 1998. The origins of domesticated cerealsand the Pleistocene–Holocene transition in EastAsia. The Review of Archaeology 19: 22–29.


1083


– 2002. New perspectives on the transition toagriculture in China, in Y. Yasuda (ed.) The originsof pottery and agriculture: 217–27. New Delhi:Lustre & Roli.

CRAWFORD, G. 2006. East Asian plant domestication,in S.T. Stark (ed.) Archaeology of Asia: 77–95.Oxford: Blackwell.

DE WET, J.M.J. & J.R. HARLAN. 1975. Weeds anddomesticates: evolution in the man-made habitat.Economic Botany 29: 99–108.

FRACHETTI, M.D. 2012. Multiregional emergence ofmobile pastoralism and nonuniform institutionalcomplexity across Eurasia. Current Anthropology 53:2–38.

FULLER, D.Q. 2006. A millet atlas: some identificationguidance. Report prepared for University CollegeLondon. Available at: http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/∼tcrndfu/Abot/Millet%20Handout06.pdf(accessed 30 August 2013).

GRAYBOSCH, R.A. & D.D. BALTENSPERGER. 2009.Evaluation of the waxy endosperm trait in prosomillet (Panicum miliaceum). Plant Breeding 128:70–73.

HAJNALOVA, E. 1989. Katalog zvyskov semien a plodovv archeologickych nalezoch na Slovensku. ActaInterdisciplinaria Archeologica 6: 3–192.

HARLAN, J.R. 1975. Crops and man. Madison (WI):American Society of Agronomy.

HUNT, H.V., M. VANDER LINDEN, X. LIU, G.MOTUZAITE-MATUZEVICIUTE, S. COLLEDGE &M.K. JONES. 2008. Millets across Eurasia:chronology and context of early records of thegenera Panicum and Setaria from archaeologicalsites in the Old World. Vegetation History andArchaeobotany 17: 5–18.

HUNT, H.V., M.G. CAMPANA, M.C. LAWES, Y.J.I.N.PARK, M.A. BOWER, C.J. HOWE & M.K. JONES.2011. Genetic diversity and phylogeography ofbroomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) acrossEurasia. Molecular Ecology 20: 4756–71.

JACOMET, S. 2004. Archaeobotany. A vital tool in theinvestigation of lake-dwellings, in F. Menotti (ed.)Living on the lake in prehistoric Europe. 150 years oflake dwelling research: 162–77. London: Routledge.

JONES, M.K. 2004. Between Fertile Crescents: minorgrain crops and agricultural origins, in M.K. Jones(ed.) Traces of ancestry: studies in honour of ColinRenfrew: 127–35. Cambridge: McDonald Institutefor Archaeological Research.

KOHL, P.L. 2007. The making of Bronze Age Eurasia.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

KOHLER-SCHNEIDER, M. & A. CANEPPELE. 2009. LateNeolithic agriculture in eastern Austria:archaeobotanical results from sites of the Baden andJevisovice cultures (3600–2800 BC). VegetationHistory and Archaeobotany 18: 61–74.

KREUZ, A. & E. SCHAFER. 2011. Weed finds asindicators for the cultivation regime of the earlyNeolithic Bandkeramik culture? Vegetation Historyand Archaeobotany 20: 333–48.

KREUZ, A., E. MARINOVA, E. SCHAFER & J. WIETHOLD.2005. A comparison of early Neolithic crop andweed assemblages from the Linearbandkeramik andthe Bulgarian Neolithic cultures: differences andsimilarities. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany14: 237–58.

KUZMINOVA, N.N. & V.G. PETRENKO. 1989. Kulturnyerasteniya na zapade Stepnogo Prichernomorya vseredine 3–2 tis. do n. e. (po dannympaleobotaniki), in P.P. Tolochko (ed.) ProblemuDrevnei Istorii i Arkheologii Ukrainskoi SSR:119–20. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.

LAWLER, A. 2009. Millet on the move. Science 325:942–43.

LESHTAKOV, K., N. TODOROVA, V. PETROVA, R.ZLATEVA-UZUNOVA, O. OZBEK, T. POPOVA, N.SPASSOV & N. ILIEV. 2007. Preliminary report onthe salvage archaeological excavations at the EarlyNeolithic site Yabalkovo in the Maritsa Valley.Anatolica 33: 185–234.

LIU, X., M.K. JONES, Z. ZHAO, G. LIU & T.C.O’CONNELL. 2012. The earliest evidence of milletas a staple crop: new light on Neolithic foodways innorth China. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology 149: 283–90.

LU, H., J. ZHANG, K. LIU, N. WU, Y. LI, K. ZHOU, M.YE, T. ZHANG, H. ZHANG & X. YANG. 2009.Earliest domestication of common millet (Panicummiliaceum) in East Asia extended to 10,000 yearsago. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesof the USA 106: 1–6.

MARINVAL, P. 1992. Archaeobotanical data on millet(Panicum miliaceum and Setaria italica) in France.Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73: 259–70.

MEI, J. 2003. Qijia and Seima-Turbino: the question ofearly contacts between northwest China and theEurasian steppe. Bulletin of the Museum of FarEastern Antiquities 75: 31–54.

MOTUZAITE-MATUZEVICIUTE, G., H.V. HUNT & M.K.JONES. 2012. Experimental approaches tounderstanding variation in grain size in Panicummiliaceum (broomcorn millet) and its relevance forinterpreting archaeobotanical assemblages.Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 21: 69–77.

MULLER-SCHEEßEL, N., R. HOFMANN, J. MULLER & K.RASSMANN. 2010. The socio-political developmentof the Late Neolithic settlement ofOkoliste/Bosnia-Hercegowina: devolution bytranshumance?, in Kiel Graduate School (ed.)Landscapes and human development: the contributionof European archaeology: 181–91. Bonn: RudolfHabelt.


1084

Res

earc

h


NESBITT, M. & G.D. SUMMERS. 1988. Some recentdiscoveries of millet (Panicum miliaceum L. andSetaria italica (L.) P. Beauv.) at excavations inTurkey and Iran. Anatolian Studies 38: 85–97.

PASHKEVICH, G.A. 2003. Palaeoethnobotanical evidenceof agriculture in steppe and forest-steppe of EastEurope in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age, in M.Levine, C. Renfrew & K. Boyle (ed.) Prehistoricsteppe adaptation and the horse: 287–97. Cambridge:McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

POPOVA, T. 2010. Plant environment of man between6000 and 2000 BC in Bulgaria (BritishArchaeological Reports international series 2064).Oxford: Archaeopress.

RACHIE, K.O. 1975. Millets. Importance, utilization andoutlook. Hyderabad: International Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT).

REIMER, P.J., M.G. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W.BECK, P.G. BLACKWELL, C. BRONK RAMSEY, C.E.BUCK, G.S. BURR, R.L. EDWARDS, M. FRIEDRICH,P.M. GROOTES, T.P. GUILDERSON, I. HAJDAS, T.J.HEATON, A.G. HOGG, K.A. HUGHEN, K.F. KAISER,B. KROMER, F.G. MCCORMAC, S.W. MANNING,R.W. REIMER, D.A. RICHARDS, J.R. SOUTHON, S.TALAMO, C.S.M. TURNEY, J. VAN DER PLICHT & C.WEYHENMEYER. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 yearscal BP. Radiocarbon 51: 1111–50.

SANTOS, G.M., J.R. SOUTHON, S. GRIFFIN, S.R.BEAUPRE & E.R.M. DRUFFEL. 2007. Ultrasmall-mass AMS 14C sample preparation andanalyses at KCCAMS/UCI Facility. NuclearInstruments and Methods in Physics Research SectionB: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 259:293–302.

SHERRATT, A. 1996. Plate tectonics and imaginaryprehistories: structure and contingency inagricultural origins, in D.R. Harris (ed.) The originsand spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia:130–41. Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution.

STUIVER, M. & H.A. POLACH. 1977. Discussion:reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19: 355–63.

TAFURI, M.A., O.E. CRAIG & A. CANCI. 2009. Stableisotope evidence for the consumption of millet andother plants in Bronze Age Italy. American Journalof Physical Anthropology 139: 146–53.

TIESZEN, L.L. 1991. Natural variations in the carbonisotope values of plants: implications forarchaeology, ecology and paleoecology. Journal ofArchaeological Science 18: 227–48.

VAN DER MERWE, N.J. 1982. Carbon isotopes,photosynthesis, and archaeology: different pathwaysof photosynthesis cause characteristic changes incarbon isotope ratios that make possible the studyof prehistoric human diets. American Scientist 70:596–606.

VERLOOVE, F. 2002. A revision of the genus Panicum(Poaceae, Paniceae) in Belgium. Systematics andGeography of Plants 71: 53–72.

WASYLIKOWA, K., M. CARCIUMARU, E. HAJNALOVA, B.P.HARTYANYI, G.A. PASHKEVICH & Z.V.YANUSHEVICH. 1991. East-central Europe, in W.Van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa & B. Karl-Ernst (ed.)Progress in Old World palaeoethnobotany. Aretrospective view on the occasion of 20 years of theInternational Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany:207–39. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.

WEBER, S.A. & D.Q. FULLER. 2007. Millets and theirrole in early agriculture. Paper presented at the FirstFarmers in Global Perspectives conference,Lucknow, India, 18–20 January 2006.

YANUSHEVICH, Z.V. 1976. Kulturnye rasteniyayugo-zapada SSSR po paleobotanicheskimissledovaniyam. Kishinev: Shtiintsa.

ZHAO, Z. 2005. Zhiwu kaoguxue jiqi xin jinzhan.Kaogu 7: 42–49.

– 2011. New archaeobotanic data for the study of theorigins of agriculture in China. CurrentAnthropology 52: 295–306.

ZOHARY, D., M. HOPF & E. WEISS. 2012.Domestication of plants in the Old World: the originand spread of domesticated plants in southwest Asia,Europe, and the Mediterranean basin. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Received: 5 February 2013; Accepted: 1 May 2013; Revised: 3 June 2013


1085

Experimental approaches to understanding variation in grain size in Panicum miliaceum (broomcorn...

Documents

Transcript of Experimental approaches to understanding variation in grain size in Panicum miliaceum (broomcorn...