4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Records of new'' glume wheat in France: a review

Journal

VEGETATION HISTORY AND ARCHAEOBOTANY
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 197-206

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00334-014-0479-6

Keywords

Archaeobotany; New glume wheat; Neolithic; Bronze age; France

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Following the first identification in 2000 of a new type of hulled wheat from three Neolithic settlements and a Bronze Age one in Greece, many finds of this new'' glume wheat have been reported from all over Europe and the Near East. In France, a first identification in 2009 also triggered several discoveries. Up to now, twelve sites have delivered remains of this new type, from different phases of occupation, located in the eastern half of France. Their chronology ranges from Neolithic Linearbandkeramik to late Bronze Age/early Iron Age transition (5300-800/700 BC). At most of the sites, the new'' glume wheat appears as a minor contaminant of other cereal crops. However, at the early Bronze Age settlement of Clermont-Ferrand, central France, the recovery of large quantities of caryopses and spikelet bases has demonstrated that the new'' glume wheat was a crop by itself, maybe mixed with emmer and other cereals. For the late Bronze Age, numerous records of the new type come from the upper Seine valley, northeastern France. At four settlements with early phases of the late Bronze Age, the new'' glume wheat was also a crop in its own right, within a much diversified agricultural system. In the light of the numerous archaeobotanical analyses carried out on Bronze Age sites in France, and despite the fact that its presence is surely underestimated, cultivation of the new'' glume wheat appears to have been a speciality, restricted to a few places. It may have come from a local agricultural choice, but it could also have resulted from eastern influences and exchanges that were very active during the Bronze Age.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available