Crop diversity has long been recognized as key to sustainable agriculture and global food security, encompassing genetic resources for agricultural crop improvement geared at improving yields, pest resistance, climate change resilience, and the promotion of cultural heritage. The current global genetic diversity of agricultural crops is a product of their dispersal from multiple regions and much research has attempted to reconstruct these trajectories (Vavilov, 2009; Diamond, 2002; Zohary et al., 2012). As part of this effort, archaeobotanical research on plant migrations across the Eurasian continent has been a central theme in recent decades, especially with reference to ‘food globalization’ and the ‘Trans-Eurasian exchange’ (Jones et al., 2011; Boivin et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2019; Sherratt, 2006; Zhou et al., 2020). Yet, as is true for archaeology-based domestication research in general, most studies of crop dispersal and exchange have focused on prehistoric origins and developments (Zohary and Hopf, 1973; Smith, 1989; Denham et al., 2003; Tanno and Willcox, 2006; Weiss et al., 2006; Purugganan and Fuller, 2009; Riehl et al., 2013), to the near exclusion of more recent crop histories directly affecting today’s agricultural diversity. One of the most influential, and contested, chapters in the later history of crop diffusion is the 'Islamic Green Revolution' (IGR) (Watson, 1983; Decker, 2009a; Squatriti, 2014). According to Andrew Watson, the IGR involved a package of sub-/tropical, mostly East- and South Asian domesticates which, as a result of Islamicate territorial expansion, spread into Mediterranean lands along with requisite irrigation technologies ca. 700–1100 CE. This allegedly involved some 17 domesticated plant taxa (Table 1), including such economically significant crops as sugar cane, orange, and banana (Watson, 1983). However, critics have argued that many of the proposed IGR crops were, and still are, of minor economic significance, while others were previously cultivated in the Mediterranean region, particularly under Roman rule, or else arrived much later (Decker, 2009a; Johns, 1984; Ashtor, 1985). Indeed, there is considerable evidence for crop diffusion immediately preceding and during the Roman period in the Eastern Mediterranean, 1^st c. BCE–4^th c. CE. During this time, several East- and Central Asian crops, including some of those on Watson’s IGR list (e.g. lemon, rice), appear to have been first introduced to the Mediterranean region, along with agricultural technologies (Decker, 2009a; Johns, 1984; Ashtor, 1985; Decker, 2009b; Kamash, 2012). From this period on, a growing fruit basket is evident in sites and texts of the Eastern Mediterranean region (Amar, 2000; Kislev and Simchoni, 2006; Aubaile, 2012; Amichay et al., 2019). These include several tree fruits such as peach, pear, plum, hazel, and others (Table 2) apparently reflecting the Greco-Roman passion for grafting and its pivotal role in the dispersal of mostly temperate fruit crops from Central Asia to the Mediterranean and Europe (Zohary et al., 2012; Mudge et al., 2009). Yet Roman arboricultural diffusion is but a subset of Roman agricultural diffusion (hereafter, RAD), which also includes non-arboreal crops (including hemp, muskmelon, white lupine, rice, sorghum) and various agricultural techniques diffused by the Romans into the Eastern Mediterranean (Kamash, 2012; Mercuri et al., 2002; Pelling, 2005; Cappers, 2006; Van der Veen, 2011; Wilson, 2002; Kron, 2012; Avital, 2014; Van der Veen et al., 2008; Butzer et al., 1985). Not all crops in motion during this period took hold in local agriculture. In some cases, as has been claimed for rice in Egypt, Roman-period importation of the new crops was followed by local cultivation in the Islamic period (Van der Veen et al., 2018). In other cases, Roman introductions were subsequently abandoned (Livarda, 2011), or failed to diffuse beyond elite gardens until much later (Langgut, 2017). Limited adoption in local agriculture is also a feature of some proposed IGR crops, as Watson admitted regarding coconut and mango (Watson, 1983). Thus, a cursory consideration of proposed IGR and RAD crops in the Eastern Mediterranean reveals that the balance between the two is about even and perhaps weighted toward RAD (Tables 1–2). This sort of comparison is useful for evaluating the IGR thesis and attaining improved understandings of crop dispersal in the first millennium CE, but a higher-resolution micro-regional approach is needed to rigorously gauge these developments. Systematic evaluation of respective Islamic and Roman contributions to agricultural dispersal has been attempted for Iberia (Butzer et al., 1985; Peña-Chocarro et al., 2019). In the Eastern Mediterranean, archaeobotanical studies in Egypt (Van der Veen et al., 2018), northern Syria (Samuel, 2001), and Jerusalem (Amichay et al., 2019; Fuks et al., 2020a) have also yielded evidence for IGR introductions framed against Roman agricultural diffusion, but these have not yet been considered holistically.

The exceedingly rich plant remains from relatively undisturbed Negev Highland middens (Figures 1–2; Bar-Oz et al., 2019; Tepper et al., 2018a; Tepper et al., 2020a) provide a significant new addition to the evidence for Levantine and Mediterranean crop diffusion, informing upon changes in the local economic plant basket over the first millennium CE. The Negev Highlands offer an ideal test case for the geographical extent of crop dispersal, as a desert region on the margins of the settled zone, which practiced vibrant runoff farming and engaged in Mediterranean–Red Sea trade (Kedar, 1957; Evenari et al., 1982; Tepper et al., 2020b; Bruins et al., 2019; Fuks et al., 2021a). Archaeobotanical finds from the Negev Highlands, mainly from Byzantine sites (4^th–7^th centuries CE), have been reported in previous studies (Bar-Oz et al., 2019; Tepper et al., 2018a; Mayerson, 1962; Liphschitz, 2004; Ramsay et al., 2016; Fuks et al., 2020b; Tepper et al., 2018b; Fuks et al., 2016; Dunseth et al., 2019; Fuks and Dunseth, 2021b; Langgut et al., 2021), including those deriving from organically rich middens at Elusa, Shivta, and Nessana, excavated as part of the recent NEGEVBYZ project (Fuks et al., 2020b; Tepper et al., 2018b; Fuks et al., 2016; Dunseth et al., 2019; Fuks and Dunseth, 2021b; Langgut et al., 2021). We present below the first complete dataset of identified plant remains from the Late Antique Negev Highland middens dated to the local Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic periods (2^nd–8^th centuries CE). We then analyze this data to assess the evidence for Roman and Early Islamic crop diffusion in the Southern Levant, comparing with earlier introductions. These include the Southwest Asian Neolithic ‘founder crops,’ Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age fruit tree domesticates, and Bronze-Iron Age introductions (Tables 1–3). This analysis offers Holocene-scale insights into the dynamics of crop diffusion.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Roughly 50,000 quantifiable macroscopic plant parts were retrieved from fine-sifted flotation and dry-sieved sediment samples of the middens of Elusa, Shivta, and Nessana, excluding charcoal and in addition to a roughly equal number retrieved from wet-sieving. These mostly seed and fruit (carpological) remains were identified to a total of 144 distinct plant taxa (Supplementary file 1). Nearly half of the identified specimens were derived from six Shivta middens, one quarter from three Elusa middens, and one quarter from two Nessana middens. Preservation quality varied somewhat within and between middens and samples, the richest of which were the Early Islamic middens from Shivta and Nessana, which also displayed a higher diversity of finds (Supplementary file 2). However, all middens yielded rich concentrations of charred seeds and other organic remains, including many exceptionally preserved specimens. Identified species were classified as either domesticated or wild and the former were grouped by functional category (Supplementary file 1). Most of the 120 wild taxa have ethnographically documented uses, whether for forage or fodder, crafts or fuel, food or spice, medicine or recreation. Nearly all of them grow wild in the Negev Highlands today and we cannot determine for certain which were deliberately used on site. Twenty-three domesticated food plant taxa were identified by carpological remains, including cereals, legumes, fruits, nuts, and one vegetable. We focus on these plants as indicators of local foodways and global crop diffusion. Their orders of magnitude by midden context appear in Table 2, for specimens retrieved from fine-sifted samples (see Materials and methods for sampling strategy). This data enables categorization of Late Antique Negev Highland domesticates as staples, cash crops, and luxury/supplementary foods, setting the stage for analysis of the local manifestation of long-term crop diffusion.

Identified charcoal and pollen previously reported by Langgut et al., 2021 (Supplementary files 3–5) raise the number of distinct plant taxa identified in the NEGEVBYZ project to over 180. Among them, pollen of the exotic hazel (Corylus sp.)—apparently grown locally for its nuts—is included in the discussion of domesticated food plants. Doum palm (Hyphaene thebaica [L.] Mart.), which grows wild today in the southern Aravah valley, is attested by charcoal (Supplementary files 3–5) but this likely represents wild rather than domesticated specimens. Similarly, sycomore fig (Ficus sycomorus L.), which produces tasty fruits, was grown primarily for wood in ancient times (Feliks, 1968). Therefore, we exclude doum palm and sycomore fig from the discussion of domesticated food plants’ status and longer-term trajectories, but include them among the fruit trees in Supplementary file 5.

Seed quantities and ubiquity point to barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), wheat (Triticum turgidum/aestivum), and grape (Vitis vinifera L.) as the main cultivated crops, which were clearly calorific staples. Their local cultivation is attested to by cereal processing waste (rachis fragments, awn and glume fragments, culm nodes, and rhizomes) and wine-pressing waste (grape pips, skins, and pedicels). In addition, lentils (Lens culinaris Medik. syn. Vicia lens [L.] Coss. & Germ.), bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia [L.] Willd.), fig (Ficus carica L.), date (Phoenix dactylifera L.), and olive (Olea europaea L.) should also be counted as staples based on seed quantities and ubiquity (Table 4; Supplementary file 5). They too were likely cultivated locally. Significantly, all identified staples were among the Southwest Asian Neolithic founder crops and early fruit domesticates which formed a stable part of Levantine diets by the end of the Chalcolithic (c. 4500–3300 BCE).

Grapes were previously shown to be the primary cash crop of the Byzantine Negev Highlands, particularly in the mid-5^th to mid-6^th c. CE, based on their changing relative frequencies (Fuks et al., 2020b). Interestingly, free-threshing hexaploid bread wheat (Triticum aestivum s.l.)—a more market-oriented wheat species identifiable archaeologically by indicative rachis segments—appears in the Negev Highlands only after the mid-6^th c. (Table 4). This corresponds with the period of decline in viticulture (Fuks et al., 2020b).

In the ‘luxuries and supplements’ category, we include potentially important and desirable dietary components which were minor and apparently nonessential in local consumption or agriculture. These include several food crops poorly represented in the local assemblages: broad bean (Vicia faba L.), fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.), Spanish vetchling (Lathyrus clymenum L.), and white lupine (Lupinus albus L.) among the legumes; peach (Prunus persica [L.] Batsch), plum/cherry (Prunus subgen. Cerasus/Prunus), carob (Ceratonia siliqua L.), and jujube (Ziziphus jujuba/mauritiana) among the tree-fruits; almond (Prunus amygdalus Batsch), walnut (Juglans regia L.), stone pine (Pinus pinea L.), pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) and hazel (Corylus sp.) among the nuts; aubergine (Solanum melongena L.) as a unique summer vegetable (Figures 2 and 3); and supplementary wild edibles such as beet (Beta vulgaris L.), coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.), and European bishop (Bifora testiculata [L.] Spreng.) (Supplementary file 1). The latter three grow wild in Israel today mostly north of the Negev Highlands; we count them as wild considering their small quantities and nearby distribution. Any of the above could have been cultivated in Negev Highland runoff farming or on site (Evenari et al., 1982; Langgut et al., 2021; Tepper et al., 2022).

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Complementing the seed/fruit remains presented above, palynological and anthracological analyses support local cultivation of grapevine, fig, olive, date, pomegranate, carob, and the Prunus genus, which includes almond, peach, and/or plum/cherry (Langgut et al., 2021). Based on stone pine seed coats (Figure 3d), and the identification of Pinaceae pollen indicative of a pine other than the local Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis Mill.), it is plausible that stone pine was cultivated locally, albeit on a small scale (Supplementary file 5). Pollen evidence also suggests small-scale local cultivation of hazel—an additional domesticate unattested in the Southern Levant before the Roman period (Supplementary files 4 and 5).

Another important ancient economic plant found in the assemblages is the Nile acacia (Vachellia nilotica (L.) P.J.H.Hurter & Mabb.), which does not grow today in the Negev. Previous archaeobotanical finds of Nile acacia in the Levant all come from Roman-period sites in the Dead Sea rift valley, which Kislev, 1990 interpreted as a component of the ancient flora in this area marked by pockets of Sudanian vegetation. However, this was also an important region for desert-crossing camel caravan commerce, connecting Arabia, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean. Nile acacia seed finds from Elusa (Figure 3) are the first of their kind from outside the phytogeographic region of Sudanian vegetation, but they remain within the ancient caravan trade routes connecting the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. Therefore, we consider Nile acacia seeds to represent a Roman-period introduction to the Levant, whether as objects of cultivation or of trade at the Negev desert route sites. Other exotic trees commonly used for quality wood and craft were identified by pollen and/or charcoal, including: cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani A.Rich.), European ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.), and boxwood (Buxus sempervirens L.). Cedar was identified by both charcoal and pollen, suggesting local garden cultivation (see Langgut et al., 2021 and Supplementary files 3 and 4).

The Early Islamic period middens were more concentrated in plant remains, and it is in them that most of the rare domesticated species, RAD crops included, were found (Supplementary file 2). Samples containing the unique finds of white lupine and non-indigenous jujube—which are unprecedented in Southern Levantine archaeobotany—were dated to the Umayyad or early Abbasid period (mid-7^th – late 8^th c. cal. CE at 2σ; see Figure 1 and Supplementary file 6). However, historical studies have identified these species in Roman-period texts of the Southern Levant (Amar, 2000). All other RAD species found in the Negev Highlands are attested to in the Southern Levantine archaeobotanical record of the 1^st c. BCE–4^th c. CE (Supplementary file 7). The near absence of these crop species in the Negev Highland Byzantine middens compared with the Early Islamic middens is likely the result of conditions favoring deposition and preservation of archaeobotanical remains in the latter, such as a much higher concentration of apparently hearth-derived domestic waste. Therefore, we do not consider the paucity of RAD crops in the Byzantine middens to be evidence of their absence. However, one crop for which there is no pre-Islamic evidence in the Southern Levant is the aubergine. The sediment sample from Shivta containing aubergine seeds was dated to the Abbasid period (772–974 cal CE at 2σ), supporting previous finds from Abbasid Jerusalem (Amichay et al., 2019; Amichay and Weiss, 2020; Samuel, 2001).

Considering together the domestic plants evident in the Negev Highlands according to their period of first attestation in the Southern Levant, archaeobotanically and historically, offers a window onto processes of long-term crop diffusion (Supplementary file 7). While their quantities and ubiquities indicate that RAD and IGR crops were initially of minor significance, they make up over a third of the domesticated species found in the Negev Highland middens (Figure 4, Supplementary file 7). All the more surprising considering the Negev Highlands’ desert and present-day peripheral status, this new data reveals for the first time the extent of western influence on local agriculture and trade (Figure 5).

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

The critical mass afforded by the new, systematically retrieved and identified plant remains from Late Antique Negev Highland trash mounds allows not only reconstructions of the local plant economy, but also insights into the long-term dispersal of crop plants. Of the Negev Highland plant remains, only aubergine is an IGR crop (Figures 4–5; Supplementary file 7). Together with seeds from Abbasid Jerusalem, seeds from the Negev Highland middens are among the earliest archaeobotanical finds of this plant in the Levant and are roughly contemporaneous with the earliest textual references to aubergine in the region (Watson, 1983; Amar, 2000). Significantly, aubergine is the only summer crop in the Negev Highlands plant assemblage. In other regions of the Southern Levant, summer crops were certainly cultivated in the Roman period (Decker, 2009b; Feliks, 2008), but the Early Islamic introduction of aubergine is consistent with Watson’s claim that summer cultivation expanded in this later period (Watson, 1983; Samuel, 2001; Van der Veen and Morales, 2011). Ultimately, widespread adoption of summer-winter crop rotation in the Mediterranean region effected changes in people’s diets and work routines. Yet these changes clearly did not occur rapidly. To be fair, the Early Islamic assemblages from the Negev Highlands do not offer enough of a time perspective to fully gauge the effects of Early Islamic crop introduction on their own as they span only the first 200–300 years of Islam. Yet it is also possible that finds from the 7^th–8^th century middens reflect carryovers from Byzantine agronomic traditions and techniques. Had crop introductions been inundating and pervasive during the Early Islamic period, we expect they would have been more apparent in Negev Highland crop diversity.

By contrast, the Negev Highlands crop basket highlights the influence of RAD, particularly on arboriculture. Roughly one-third of the domesticated food plants found in the Negev Highlands were evidently introduced to the Southern Levant between the 1^st c. BCE and the 4^th c. CE. Among those identified by carpological remains are pistachio, stone pine, peach, plum/cherry, jujube, and white lupine, plus carob which is a local wild species but was apparently not fully domesticated until the Hellenistic-Roman period (Van der Veen and Hamilton-Dyer, 1998; Vermeeren and Cappers, 2002; Bouby and Marinval, 2004; Bosi et al., 2020; Figure 4; Supplementary file 7). Considering pollen remains, hazel is an additional RAD species identified in the Negev Highlands by pollen remains; its pollen was also found in Herod’s garden at Caesarea, probably as an imported ornamental (Langgut, 2022), and endocarp remains were retrieved from the Nahal Arugot cave inhabited by Bar Kokhba rebels in 135 CE (Kislev and Simchoni, 2006). The different RAD species were originally domesticated in various parts of the Eastern Mediterranean and Asia; a schematic sketch of the directions of first millennium CE diffusion of these crops is portrayed in Figure 5. Although not a food plant, we also consider Nile acacia to be a RAD crop introduced from Egypt, as noted above.

The fact that the RAD plant remains are more prevalent in the Early Islamic phase (Supplementary file 2) is likely the result of overall better preservation and plant richness in this phase. Therefore, we understand them to be part of the general Late Antique Negev Highlands domesticated plant assemblage, noting that their earliest secure archaeobotanical records in the Southern Levant as a whole derive mostly from the 1^st c. BCE to the 2^nd c. CE (Supplementary file 7). We acknowledge that some RAD species are first attested to at the end of the Hellenistic period of the Southern Levant in the 1^st c. BCE. We nonetheless consider them RAD crops in view of chronological proximity as well as their entrenchment in local agriculture and culture during the Roman period. Allowing for gaps in the archaeobotanical record, partially compensated by textual references, it is still fair to say that the RAD plants—which comprise a significant proportion of species diversity in the Late Antique Negev Highland basket of domestic plants—were introduced to the Southern Levant over a relatively short period in Holocene history (Figure 4).

The snapshot presented here of the Negev Highlands’ microregional crop basket supports and significantly enhances previous evidence for first millennium CE crop diffusion. Together with the archaeobotany of sites from southern Jordan (Bouchaud et al., 2017) and Jerusalem (Amichay and Weiss, 2020; Amichay et al., 2019), the Negev Highland plant remains attest to Roman and Byzantine dispersal in the Southern Levant of fruit crops such as peach, pear, plum, jujube, apricot, cherry, pistachio, pine nut, and hazel, among others, and to Abbasid introduction of aubergines. Altogether, this evidence suggests that RAD was a greater force in the agricultural history of the first millennium CE than the IGR, which is also the current consensus from Iberia (Peña-Chocarro et al., 2019). The significance of RAD is evident in the archaeobotany of additional regions, such as Italy, Northwest Europe, and Britain (Van der Veen et al., 2008; Langgut, 2017; Bosi et al., 2020). However, we should not dismiss the IGR on these grounds alone, since several of the proposed IGR crops are less likely to leave identifiable macroscopic traces (e.g. sugar cane, taro), and there is textual evidence for Early Islamic crop diffusion and agricultural innovation (Amar, 2000). Hence it may be appropriate and productive to consider RAD and IGR part of the same process of first millennium CE agricultural development, as indicated by Early Islamic expansion of Roman and Byzantine crop introductions. Clearly, the first millennium CE was an unprecedented period of change for local crop-plant species diversity in the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond. The multi-regional evidence suggests that the multi-empire combination of Roman-Byzantine and Umayyad-Abassid regimes was a major force for crop diffusion, while a likely role for developments in the Sassanid empire is underrepresented in current research. Yet the evidence presented here demonstrates that even the combined forces underlying first millennium CE crop diffusion affected, but did not immediately transform, people’s diets. At least until the end of that millennium, inhabitants of the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean region continued to rely primarily on long-tried and tested Neolithic founder crops and early fruit domesticates. Indeed, this situation widely persisted until the latter second millennium CE.

In conclusion, the new microregional data presented above supports an emerging multi-regional picture of both an unprecedented period for plant migrations and food diversity in the first millennium CE as well as gradual and incomplete local adoption. This is evident from Late Antique Negev Highland archaeobotanical assemblages within which plants first attested to in the Southern Levant during this period account for one-third of the domesticated plant species diversity—more than any other period represented in the assemblage (Figure 4). Among these crops, only the aubergine was an Early Islamic introduction, suggesting that Roman Agricultural Diffusion (RAD) was a greater force for the intercontinental movement of crop plants than the proposed Islamic Green Revolution (IGR). However, specimen counts and ubiquity of both RAD and IGR plant species are very low in the Negev Highland assemblages, indicating slow incorporation into local foodways and agriculture. These findings present a window onto a wider perspective on the last 10+ millennia of Southwest Asian crop diffusion, in which the first millennium CE is unprecedented for the diversity of plant species in motion yet consistent with a long-term pattern of gradual local adoption.

Only identified plant taxa are reported in the results of this study and all relevant data are included in the manuscript and supplementary materials. Source data may be found in Table 4—source data 1, Table 4—source data 2 and Table 4—source data 3.

1. 1. Al-Gohary IH
   2. Mohamed AH

   (2007)

   Seed morphology of Acacia in Egypt and its taxonomic significance

   International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 9:435–438.

   • Google Scholar
2. Book

   1. Amar Z

   (2000)

   Agricultural Produce in the Land of Israel in the Middle Ages (Hebrew).

   Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi.

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Amichay O
   2. Ben-Ami D
   3. Tchekhanovets Y
   4. Shahack-Gross R
   5. Fuks D
   6. Weiss E

   (2019) A bazaar assemblage: reconstructing consumption, production and trade from mineralised seeds in Abbasid Jerusalem

   Antiquity 93:199–217.

   https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.180

   • Google Scholar
4. Book

   1. Amichay O
   2. Weiss E

   (2020) Chapter 18: the Archaeobotanical remains

   In: Ben-Ami D, Tchekhanovets Y, editors. Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givati Parking Lot) Jerusalem, Volume II—the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods, Part 2—Strata IV–I: The Early Islamic Period.. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. pp. 645–701.

   https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1fkgc67

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Ashtor E

   (1985)

   Review of: A.M. Watson, 'Agricultural innovation in the Early Islamic world'

   Bibliotheca Orientalis 42:421–431.

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Aubaile F

   (2012) Pathways of diffusion of some plants and animals between Asia and the Mediterranean region

   Revue d’ethnoécologie 1:.

   https://doi.org/10.4000/ethnoecologie.714

   • Google Scholar
7. Book

   1. Avital A

   (2014)

   Representation of Crops and Agricultural Tools in Late Roman and Byzantine Mosaics of the Land of Israel (Hebrew).

   PhD dissertation. Bar-Ilan University.

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bar-Oz G
   2. Weissbrod L
   3. Erickson-Gini T
   4. Tepper Y
   5. Malkinson D
   6. Benzaquen M
   7. Langgut D
   8. Dunseth ZC
   9. Butler DH
   10. Shahack-Gross R
   11. Roskin J
   12. Fuks D
   13. Weiss E
   14. Marom N
   15. Ktalav I
   16. Blevis R
   17. Zohar I
   18. Farhi Y
   19. Filatova A
   20. Gorin-Rosen Y
   21. Yan X
   22. Boaretto E

   (2019) Ancient trash mounds unravel urban collapse a century before the end of Byzantine hegemony in the southern Levant

   PNAS 116:8239–8248.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900233116

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Boivin N
   2. Fuller DQ
   3. Crowther A

   (2012) Old World globalization and the Columbian exchange: comparison and contrast

   World Archaeology 44:452–469.

   https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.729404

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Bosi G
    2. Castiglioni E
    3. Rinaldi R
    4. Mazzanti M
    5. Marchesini M
    6. Rottoli M

    (2020) Archaeobotanical evidence of food plants in Northern Italy during the Roman period

    Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 29:681–697.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-020-00772-4

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bouby L
    2. Marinval P

    (2004) Fruits and seeds from Roman cremations in Limagne (Massif Central) and the spatial variability of plant offerings in France

    Journal of Archaeological Science 31:77–86.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2003.07.006

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Bouchaud C
    2. Jacquat C
    3. Martinoli D

    (2017) Landscape use and fruit cultivation in Petra (Jordan) from Early Nabataean to Byzantine times (2nd century BC–5th century AD)

    Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 26:223–244.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-016-0582-y

    • Google Scholar
13. Book

    1. Boulos L

    (1999)

    Flora of Egypt.

    Cairo: Al Hadara.

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Bruins HJ
    2. Bithan-Guedj H
    3. Svoray T

    (2019) GIS-based hydrological modelling to assess runoff yields in ancient-agricultural terraced wadi fields (central Negev desert)

    Journal of Arid Environments 166:91–107.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2019.02.010

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Butzer KW
    2. Mateu JF
    3. Butzer EK
    4. Kraus P

    (1985) Irrigation agrosystems in eastern Spain: Roman or Islamic origins?

    Annals of the Association of American Geographers 75:479–509.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1985.tb00089.x

    • Google Scholar
16. Book

    1. Cappers RTJ

    (2006) Roman Food Prints at Berenike: Archaeobotanical Evidence of Subsistence and Trade in the Eastern Desert of Egypt.

    Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdjrqwh

    • Google Scholar
17. Book

    1. Danin A

    (2004)

    Distribution Atlas of Plants in the Flora Palaestina Area.

    Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

    • Google Scholar
18. Book

    1. Davis PH

    (1966)

    Flora of Turkey.

    Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Decker M

    (2009a) Plants and Progress: Rethinking the Islamic Agricultural Revolution

    Journal of World History 20:187–206.

    https://doi.org/10.1353/jwh.0.0058

    • Google Scholar
20. Book

    1. Decker M

    (2009b) Tilling the Hateful Earth

    Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565283.001.0001

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Denham TP
    2. Haberle SG
    3. Lentfer C
    4. Fullagar R
    5. Field J
    6. Therin M
    7. Porch N
    8. Winsborough B

    (2003) Origins of agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the highlands of New Guinea

    Science 301:189–193.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1085255

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Depypere L
    2. Chaerle P
    3. Mijnsbrugge KV
    4. Goetghebeur P

    (2007) Stony endocarp dimension and shape variation in Prunus section Prunus

    Annals of Botany 100:1585–1597.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm260

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Diamond J

    (2002) Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication

    Nature 418:700–707.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Dunseth ZC
    2. Fuks D
    3. Langgut D
    4. Weiss E
    5. Melamed Y
    6. Butler DH
    7. Yan X
    8. Boaretto E
    9. Tepper Y
    10. Bar-Oz G
    11. Shahack-Gross R

    (2019) Archaeobotanical proxies and archaeological interpretation: A comparative study of phytoliths, pollen and seeds in dung pellets and refuse deposits at Early Islamic Shivta, Negev, Israel

    Quaternary Science Reviews 211:166–185.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.03.010

    • Google Scholar
25. Book

    1. Evenari M
    2. Shanan L
    3. Tadmor N

    (1982) The Negev: The Challenge of a Desert.

    Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674419254

    • Google Scholar
26. Book

    1. Feinbrun-Dothan N
    2. Danin A

    (1991)

    Analytical Flora of Eretz Israel (Hebrew).

    Jerusalem: CANA Publishing House Ltd.

    • Google Scholar
27. Book

    1. Feliks Y

    (1968)

    Plant World of the Bible (Hebrew).

    Ramat-Gan: Massada Ltd.

    • Google Scholar
28. Website

    1. Feliks Y

    (2008) 'Rice’. In: Encyclopedia Judaica

    Accessed January 20, 2021.

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/rice
29. 1. Fuks D
    2. Weiss E
    3. Tepper Y
    4. Bar-Oz G

    (2016) Seeds of collapse? Reconstructing the ancient agricultural economy at Shivta in the Negev

    Antiquity 90:353.

    https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.167

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Fuks D
    2. Amichay O
    3. Weiss E

    (2020a) Innovation or preservation? Abbasid aubergines, archaeobotany, and the Islamic Green Revolution

    Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12:50.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00959-5

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Fuks D
    2. Bar-Oz G
    3. Tepper Y
    4. Erickson-Gini T
    5. Langgut D
    6. Weissbrod L
    7. Weiss E

    (2020b) The rise and fall of viticulture in the Late Antique Negev Highlands reconstructed from archaeobotanical and ceramic data

    PNAS 117:19780–19791.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922200117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Fuks D
    2. Avni G
    3. Bar-Oz G

    (2021a) The Debate on Negev Viticulture and Gaza Wine in Late Antiquity

    Tel Aviv 48:143–170.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2021.1968626

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Fuks D
    2. Dunseth ZC

    (2021b) Dung in the dumps: what we can learn from multi-proxy studies of archaeological dung pellets

    Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 30:137–153.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-020-00806-x

    • Google Scholar
34. Book

    1. Gunn CR

    (1984)

    Fruits and Seeds of Genera in the Subfamily Mimosoideae (Fabaceae).

    United States Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 1681.

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Jiang H
    2. Yang J
    3. Ferguson DK
    4. Li Y
    5. Wang C
    6. Li CS
    7. Liu C

    (2013) Fruit stones from Tiao Lei’s tomb of Jiangxi in China, and their palaeoethnobotanical significance

    Journal of Archaeological Science 40:1911–1917.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.11.009

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Johns J

    (1984) A Green Revolution? - Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World. The Diffusion of Crops and Farming Techniques, 700–1100. By Andrew M. Watson. Cambridge University Press, 1983. Pp. xii + 260. £25

    The Journal of African History 25:343–344.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021853700028218

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Jones M
    2. Hunt H
    3. Lightfoot E
    4. Lister D
    5. Liu X
    6. Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute G

    (2011) Food globalization in prehistory

    World Archaeology 43:665–675.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2011.624764

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Kamash Z

    (2012) Irrigation technology, society and environment in the Roman Near East

    Journal of Arid Environments 86:65–74.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.02.002

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Kedar Y

    (1957) Water and soil from the desert: Some ancient agricultural achievements in the central Negev

    The Geographical Journal 123:179.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/1791318

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Kislev ME

    (1990)

    Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Impact of Ancient Man on the Landscape of the E Med Region & the Near East, Groningen, March 1989.

    Extinction of Acacia nilotica in Israel: A methodological approach, Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape: Proceedings of the Symposium on the Impact of Ancient Man on the Landscape of the E Med Region & the Near East, Groningen, March 1989., Groningen, CRC Press.

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Kislev ME
    2. Artzy M
    3. Marcus E

    (1993) Import of an Aegean food plant to a Middle Bronze IIA coastal site in Israel

    Levant 25:145–154.

    https://doi.org/10.1179/lev.1993.25.1.145

    • Google Scholar
42. Conference

    1. Kislev ME
    2. Simchoni O
    3. Melamed Y
    4. Marmorstein M

    (1995)

    Computerized key for grass grains of Israel and its adjacent regions

    Res Archaeobotanicae: International Workgroup for Palaeoethnobotany – Proceedings of the 9th Symposium, Kiel 1992. pp. 69–79.

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Kislev ME
    2. Melamed Y
    3. Simchoni O
    4. Marmorstein M

    (1997)

    Computerized key of grass grains of the Mediterranean basin

    Lagascalia 19:289–294.

    • Google Scholar
44. Book

    1. Kislev ME
    2. Melamed Y
    3. Simchoni O
    4. Marmorstein M

    (1999)

    Computerized keys for archaeological grains: first steps

    In: Pike S, Gitin S, editors. The Practical Impact of Science on Near Eastern and Aegean Archaeology.. Athens: Archetype. pp. 29–31.

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Kislev ME
    2. Simchoni O

    (2006)

    Botanical evidence for the arrival of refugees from Judea to refuge cave in Nahal Arugot in the fall of 135 CE (Hebrew)

    Judea & Samaria Research Studies 15:141–150.

    • Google Scholar
46. Website

    1. Kroll H

    (2005) Literature on Archaeological Remains of Cultivated Plants 1981–2004

    Accessed March 29, 2020.

    http://www.archaeobotany.de/database.html
47. Book

    1. Kron G

    (2012) Chapter 8: Food production

    In: Scheidel W, editors. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 156–174.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/CCO9781139030199.011

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Langgut D

    (2017) The citrus route revealed: From Southeast Asia into the Mediterranean

    HortScience 52:814–822.

    https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI11023-16

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Langgut D
    2. Tepper Y
    3. Benzaquen M
    4. Erickson-Gini T
    5. Bar-Oz G

    (2021) Environment and horticulture in the Byzantine Negev Desert, Israel: sustainability, prosperity and enigmatic decline

    Quaternary International 593–594:160–177.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.08.056

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Langgut D

    (2022) Prestigious early Roman gardens across the Empire: the significance of gardens and horticultural trends evidenced by pollen

    Palynology 46:1–17.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/01916122.2022.2089928

    • Google Scholar
51. Book

    1. Liphschitz N

    (2004)

    The Flora of the Nessana region, past and present (Hebrew)

    In: Urman D, editors. Nessana: Excavations and Studies. Ben Gurion University in the Negev Press. pp. 112–114.

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Liu X
    2. Jones PJ
    3. Motuzaite Matuzeviciute G
    4. Hunt HV
    5. Lister DL
    6. An T
    7. Przelomska N
    8. Kneale CJ
    9. Zhao Z
    10. Jones MK

    (2019) From ecological opportunism to multi-cropping: Mapping food globalisation in prehistory

    Quaternary Science Reviews 206:21–28.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.12.017

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Livarda A

    (2011) Spicing up life in northwestern Europe: exotic food plant imports in the Roman and medieval world

    Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20:143–164.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-010-0273-z

    • Google Scholar
54. Book

    1. Mayerson P

    (1962)

    The ancient agricultural regime of Nessana and the central Negeb

    In: Colt D, editors. Excavations at Nessana.. London: William Clowes and Sons. pp. 211–269.

    • Google Scholar
55. Book

    1. Meikle RD

    (1977)

    Flora of Cyprus.

    London: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Melamed Y
    2. Kislev M

    (2005)

    Remains of seeds, fruits and insects from the excavations in the village of ʻEn Gedi (Hebrew with English summary)

    ʻAtiqot 49:139–140.

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Mercuri AM
    2. Accorsi CA
    3. Bandini Mazzanti M

    (2002) The long history of Cannabis and its cultivation by the Romans in central Italy, shown by pollen records from Lago Albano and Lago di Nemi

    Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11:263–276.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s003340200039

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Mudge K
    2. Janick J
    3. Scofield S
    4. Goldschmidt EE

    (2009) A history of grafting

    Hoticultural Reviews 35:437–493.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470593776

    • Google Scholar
59. Book

    1. Núñez DR
    2. Séiquer GM
    3. de Castro CO
    4. Ariza FA

    (2011)

    Plants and Humans in the Near East and the Caucasus: Ancient and Traditional Uses of Plants as Food and Medicine, a Diachronic Ethnobotanical Review (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey).

    Murcia: Editum.

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Pelling R

    (2005) Garamantian agriculture and its significance in a wider North African context: The evidence of the plant remains from the Fazzan project

    The Journal of North African Studies 10:397–412.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/13629380500336763

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Peña-Chocarro L
    2. Pérez- Jordà G
    3. Alonso N
    4. Antolín F
    5. Teira-Brión A
    6. Tereso JP
    7. Montes Moya EM
    8. López Reyes D

    (2019) Roman and medieval crops in the Iberian Peninsula: A first overview of seeds and fruits from archaeological sites

    Quaternary International 499:49–66.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.09.037

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Purugganan MD
    2. Fuller DQ

    (2009) The nature of selection during plant domestication

    Nature 457:843–848.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07895

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Ramsay J
    2. Tepper Y
    3. Weinstein-Evron M
    4. Aharonovich S
    5. Liphschitz N
    6. Marom N
    7. Bar-Oz G

    (2016) For the birds — An environmental archaeological analysis of Byzantine pigeon towers at Shivta (Negev Desert, Israel)

    Journal of Archaeological Science 9:718–727.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.08.009

    • Google Scholar
64. Website

    1. Riehl S
    2. Kümmel C

    (2005) Archaeobotanical Database of Eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern Sites (ADEMNES)

    Accessed March 29, 2020.

    http://www.cuminum.de/archaeobotany/
65. 1. Riehl S
    2. Zeidi M
    3. Conard NJ

    (2013) Emergence of agriculture in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains of Iran

    Science 341:65–67.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236743

    • Google Scholar
66. Book

    1. Samuel D

    (2001)

    Archaeobotanical evidence and analysis

    In: Berthier S, Chaix L, Studer J, D’hont O, Gyselend R, Samuel D, editors. Peuplement Rural et Amenagements Hydroagricoles Dans La Moyenne Vallee de l’Euphrate Fin VIIe–XIXe Siècle.. Damascus: Institut français d’études arabes de Damas. pp. 343–481.

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Sarpaki A
    2. Jones G

    (1990) Ancient and modern cultivation of Lathyrus Clymenum L. in the Greek Islands

    The Annual of the British School at Athens 85:363–368.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245400015720

    • Google Scholar
68. Book

    1. Sherratt A

    (2006) The Trans-Eurasian exchange: the Prehistory of Chinese relations with the West

    In: Mair V, editors. Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World.. Honolulu: Hawaii University Press. pp. 30–61.

    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824841676

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Smith BD

    (1989) Origins of agriculture in Eastern North America

    Science 246:1566–1571.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.246.4937.1566

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Squatriti P

    (2014) Of seeds, seasons, and seas: Andrew Watson’s medieval agrarian revolution forty years later

    The Journal of Economic History 74:1205–1220.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050714000904

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Tanno KI
    2. Willcox G

    (2006) How fast was wild wheat domesticated?

    Science 311:1886.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1124635

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Tepper Y
    2. Erickson-Gini T
    3. Farhi Y
    4. Bar-Oz G

    (2018a) Probing the Byzantine/Early Islamic transition in the Negev: The renewed Shivta Excavations, 2015–2016

    Tel Aviv 45:120–152.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2018.1412058

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Tepper Y
    2. Weissbrod L
    3. Fried T
    4. Marom N
    5. Ramsay J
    6. Weinstein-Evron M
    7. Aharonovich S
    8. Liphschitz N
    9. Farhi Y
    10. Yan X
    11. Boaretto E
    12. Bar-Oz G

    (2018b) Pigeon-raising and sustainable agriculture at the fringe of the desert: a view from the Byzantine village of Sa‘adon, Negev, Israel

    Levant 50:91–113.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2018.1528532

    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Tepper Y
    2. Weissbrod L
    3. Erickson-Gini T
    4. Bar-Oz G

    (2020a)

    Nizzana – 2017: Preliminary Report

    Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 132:.

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Tepper Y
    2. Porat N
    3. Bar-Oz G

    (2020b) Sustainable farming in the Roman-Byzantine period: Dating an advanced agriculture system near the site of Shivta, Negev Desert, Israel

    Journal of Arid Environments 177:104134.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2020.104134

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Tepper Y
    2. Porat N
    3. Langgut D
    4. Barazani O
    5. Bajpai PK
    6. Dag A
    7. Ehrlich Y
    8. Boaretto E
    9. Bar-Oz G

    (2022) Relict olive trees at runoff agriculture remains in Wadi Zetan, Negev Desert, Israel

    Journal of Archaeological Science 41:103302.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103302

    • Google Scholar
77. Book

    1. Townsend CC
    2. Guest E

    (1966)

    Flora of Iraq.

    Baghdad: Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Iraq.

    • Google Scholar
78. Book

    1. Turland NJ
    2. Chilton L
    3. Press JR

    (1995)

    Flora of the Cretan Area: Annotated Checklist and Atlas.

    London: Natural History Museum.

    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Van der Veen M
    2. Hamilton-Dyer S

    (1998) A life of luxury in the desert? The food and fodder supply to Mons Claudianus

    Journal of Roman Archaeology 11:101–116.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759400017219

    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Van der Veen M
    2. Livarda A
    3. Hill A

    (2008) New plant foods in Roman Britain — Dispersal and social access

    Environmental Archaeology 13:11–36.

    https://doi.org/10.1179/174963108X279193

    • Google Scholar
81. Book

    1. Van der Veen M

    (2011)

    Consumption, Trade and Innovation: Exploring the Botanical Remains from the Roman and Islamic Ports at Quseir al-Qadim.

    Frankfurt: Africa Magna Verlag.

    • Google Scholar
82. Book

    1. Van der Veen M
    2. Morales J

    (2011)

    Chapter 3: Summer crops — from trade to innovation

    In: Van der Veen M, editors. Consumption, Trade and Innovation: Exploring the Botanical Remains from the Roman and Islamic Ports at Quseir al-Qadim, Egypt.. Frankfurt: Africa Magna Verlag. pp. 75–119.

    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Van der Veen M
    2. Bouchaud C
    3. Cappers R
    4. Newton C

    (2018)

    The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports.

    Roman life in the Eastern desert of Egypt: Food, imperial power and geopolitics, The Eastern Desert of Egypt during the Greco-Roman Period: Archaeological Reports., Paris, Collège de France, 10.4000/books.cdf.5230.

    • Google Scholar
84. Book

    1. Vavilov NI

    (2009)

    Origin and Geography of Cultivated Plants

    Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Google Scholar
85. Book

    1. Vermeeren C
    2. Cappers RTJ

    (2002)

    Ethnographic and Archaeobotanical Evidence of Local Cultivation of Plants in Roman Berenike and Shenshef.

    Zaandam: BIAX Consult.

    • Google Scholar
86. Book

    1. Watson AM

    (1983)

    Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World: The Diffusion of Crops and Farming Techniques, 700–1100.

    Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Weiss E
    2. Kislev ME
    3. Hartmann A

    (2006) Autonomous cultivation before domestication

    Science 312:1608–1610.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127235

    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Wilson A

    (2002) Machines, power and the ancient economy

    Journal of Roman Studies 92:1–32.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0075435800032135

    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Zhou X
    2. Yu J
    3. Spengler RN
    4. Shen H
    5. Zhao K
    6. Ge J
    7. Bao Y
    8. Liu J
    9. Yang Q
    10. Chen G
    11. Weiming Jia P
    12. Li X

    (2020) 5,200-year-old cereal grains from the eastern Altai Mountains redate the trans-Eurasian crop exchange

    Nature Plants 6:78–87.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0581-y

    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Zohary D
    2. Hopf M

    (1973) Domestication of pulses in the Old World

    Science 182:887–894.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.182.4115.887

    • Google Scholar
91. Book

    1. Zohary M
    2. Heyn CC
    3. Heller D

    (1980)

    Conspectus Florae Orientalis: An Annotated Catalogue of the Flora of the Middle East.

    Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

    • Google Scholar
92. Book

    1. Zohary M
    2. Feinbrun-Dotan N

    (1986)

    Flora Palaestina

    Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

    • Google Scholar
93. Book

    1. Zohary D
    2. Hopf M
    3. Weiss E

    (2012)

    Domestication of Plants in the Old World. 4th Edn

    Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Daniel Fuks

   1. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
   2. Department of Archaeology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   1. df427@cam.ac.uk
   2. dfuks@bgu.ac.il

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4686-6128

2. Yoel Melamed

   Archaeobotany Lab, Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

   Contribution

   Supervision, Validation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0952-708X

3. Dafna Langgut

   Laboratory of Archaeobotany and Ancient Environments, Institute of Archaeology & The Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

   Contribution

   Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4824-1044

4. Tali Erickson-Gini

   Southern Region, Israel Antiquities Authority, Omer Industrial Park, Omer, Israel

   Contribution

   Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2902-3831

5. Yotam Tepper

   1. Central Region, Israel Antiquities Authority, HiPort, Shoham, Israel
   2. School of Archaeology and Maritime Cultures, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

   Contribution

   Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Guy Bar-Oz

   School of Archaeology and Maritime Cultures, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

   Contribution

   Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1009-5619

7. Ehud Weiss

   Archaeobotany Lab, Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

   Contribution

   Resources, Supervision, Validation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9730-4726

• 378

  views

• 69

  downloads

• 2

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.