Triticum timopheevii s.l. (‘new glume wheat’) finds in regions of southern and eastern Europe across space and time

Vegetation History and Archaeobotany https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-023-00954-w REVIEW Triticum timopheevii s.l. (‘new glume wheat’) finds in regions of southern and eastern Europe across space and time Dragana Filipović1 · Glynis Jones2 · Wiebke Kirleis1 · Amy Bogaard3 · Rachel Ballantyne3 · Michael Charles3 · Anne de Vareilles4 · Müge Ergun3 · Eugenia Gkatzogia5 · Amy Holguin3 · Ivanka Hristova6 · Angeliki Karathanou5 · Magda Kapcia7 · Dolores Knežić8 · Georgia Kotzamani9 · Pavlos Lathiras5 · Alexandra Livarda10 · Elena Marinova11 · Stavroula Michou5 · Marine Mosulishvili12,13 · Aldona Mueller‑Bieniek14 · Djurdja Obradović15 · Matthew Padgett16 · Pelagia Paraskevopoulou5 · Chryssi Petridou5 · Haroula Stylianakou5 · Tanja Zerl17 · Doris Vidas3 · Soultana Maria Valamoti5 Received: 28 February 2023 / Accepted: 7 August 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Triticum timopheevii sensu lato (‘new glume wheat’, NGW) was first recognised as a distinct prehistoric cereal crop through work on archaeobotanical finds from Neolithic and Bronze Age sites in northern Greece. This was later followed by its identification in archaeobotanical assemblages from other parts of Europe. This paper provides an overview of the currently known archaeobotanical finds of Timopheev’s wheat in southeastern and eastern Europe and observes their temporal span and spatial distribution. To date, there are 89 prehistoric sites with these finds, located in different parts of the study region and dated from the Neolithic to the very late Iron Age. Their latest recorded presence in the region is in the last centuries bce. For assemblages from the site as a whole containing at least 30 grain and/or chaff remains of Timopheev’s wheat, we take a brief look at the overall relative proportions of Triticum monococcum (einkorn), T. dicoccum (emmer) and T. timopheevii s.l. (Timopheev’s wheat), the three most common glume wheats in our study region in prehistory. We highlight several sites where the overall proportions of Timopheev’s wheat might be taken to suggest it was a minor component of a mixed crop (maslin), or an unmonitored inclusion in einkorn or emmer fields. At the same sites, however, there are also discrete contexts where this wheat is strongly predominant, pointing to its cultivation as a pure crop. We therefore emphasise the need to evaluate the relative representation of Timopheev’s wheat at the level of individual samples or contexts before making inferences on its cultivation status. We also encourage re-examination of prehistoric and historic cereal assemblages for its remains. Keywords Prehistory · Europe · Cereals · Triticum timopheevii · Maslin crop Introduction The first recognition of ‘new glume wheat’ (NGW) as a distinct prehistoric crop was made based on the archaeobotanical finds from Neolithic and Bronze Age sites in northern Greece (Jones et al. 2000). This was soon followed by the identification of this cereal at Bronze Age Stillfried, Austria (Kohler-Schneider 2003). Subsequently, through new discoveries or revision of previously ambiguous identifications of wheat remains, its presence has been confirmed at a series Communicated by M. Ptáková. Extended author information available on the last page of the article of prehistoric sites across Europe. However, the taxonomic identity of this wheat remained unresolved. Several recent publications placed the ‘new glume wheat’ under a new spotlight as they applied advanced methods such as detailed morphological, geometric morphometric and ancient DNA analyses of archaeological specimens, to determine its taxonomic identity and its domestication location and status (Czajkowska et al. 2020; Charles et al. 2021; Badaeva et al. 2022; Roushannafas et al. 2022). They demonstrated that NGW was a tetraploid member of the Triticum timopheevii group, which entered domestication in southwest Asia from the mid/late 9th millennium bce. In comparison to T. timopheevii sensu stricto, the wheat traditionally grown in western Georgia as a component of the Zanduri landrace mixture which is geographically restricted 13 Vol.:(0123456789) Vegetation History and Archaeobotany to this region (Jones et al. 2000; Bedoshvili et al. 2021), the ancient T. timopheevii sensu lato (Timopheev’s wheat) had a much wider distribution. This is indicated by recent evidence from western Asia (Bogaard et al. 2017, 2021; Ergun et al. 2018; Ulaş and Fiorentino 2021) and reviews for Europe (Kenéz et al. 2014; Toulemonde et al. 2015). Now that the identity of Timopheev’s wheat has been resolved, it is necessary to examine its geographical and temporal spread in greater detail, as a means to understand its biogeography, cultivation and uses. The (marked) presence of T. timopheevii s.l. at Neolithic sites in western Asia, together with T. monococcum (einkorn) and T. dicoccum (emmer), demonstrates its status as one of the ‘founder crops’. It was shown that during its long cultivation history at Çatalhöyük, central Anatolia, Timopheev’s wheat was undergoing domestication (Charles et al. 2021; Roushannafas et al. 2022). Ulaş and Fiorentino (2021) suggest that, in parts of western Asia and Thrace, it was becoming adapted to local growing conditions and that, thanks to its ability to withstand cold conditions, it successfully spread across prehistoric Europe. This paper assembles the existing data on the presence of this crop in selected parts of southern and eastern Europe, in the territories of the modern states of Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, North Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo (European Commission 2023), Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Hungary. Much of this region was less known archaeobotanically up to about a decade ago, and some parts of it even until recently. New archaeological investigations have benefited from archaeobotanical field and laboratory work, most of which was carried out by the present authors and has offered a wealth of new data on crop growing and consumption in prehistory. We have taken advantage of our direct access to the recently retrieved study materials, as well as some of those which were previously analysed (and published) and which we have now been (re-)examining for the presence of Timopheev’s wheat. This paper provides a list of sites with published and unpublished records of Timopheev’s wheat along with, where possible, absolute counts or estimates of the quantity of finds of this wheat per site. In some cases, the analysis is still in progress. As far as the current data allow, we explore spatial, temporal and quantitative patterns in the occurrence of T. timopheevii s.l. and compare them with those of einkorn and emmer. The AMS 14C dates obtained on a selection of the finds have confirmed their expected ages according to the archaeological chronologies of the sites and show that the early finds are indeed early and not intrusions from later occupation layers. They also allow us to estimate the time of the (...truncated)