326 Documenta Praehistorica XLIV (2017) Introduction Agriculture is intrinsically linked with Neolithic so- ciety, as this was the period when domesticated plants and animals were first introduced, gradual- ly changing the way people lived throughout Eu- rope (see Özdogan 2014 for recent summary). By living in permanent settlements new ways of social organisation would have emerged and developed, including activities linked with crop agriculture, sto- rage and food preparation. Tells first appeared in the Balkans by the late Neolithic (c. 5200–4000 cal BC) alongside typical horizontal settlements common in the early Neolithic (c. 6000–5300 cal BC). Since the 1950s, tell sites in northern Serbia such as Seleva≠ (Tringham, Krsti≤ 1990; McLaren, Hubbard 1990), Divostin (McPherron, Srejovi≤ 1988), Gomolava (Jovanovi≤ 1988; Van Zeist 2003), Vin≠a (Chapman 1981; Filipovi≤, Tasi≤ 2012) and Diet and subsistence at the late Neolithic tell sites of Sopot, Slav;a and Ravnja[, eastern Croatia Kelly Reed 1 , Maja Krznaric ´ {krivanko 2 and Marija Mihaljevic ´ 3 1 University of Warwick, Coventry, UK kellyreed@hotmail.co.uk 2 Gradski Muzej Vinkovci, Vinkovci, HR 3 Gradski Muzej Nova Gradi[ka, Nova Gradi[ka, HR ABSTRACT – This paper presents archaeobotanical data from three late Neolithic Sopot Culture (c. 5200–4000 cal BC) tell sites, Sopot, Slav≠a and Ravnja∏, located in eastern Croatia. Tell settlements are well suited for exploring aspects of diet and subsistence, as they present a concentrated area with successive generations building upon previous occupation levels. The plant remains from the three study sites suggest a crop-based diet of mainly einkorn, emmer, barley, lentil and pea, as well as evi- dence of crop-processing activities. This diet was also probably supplemented by wild fruit from the local environment, such as cornelian cherry, chinese lantern and blackberry. IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku predstavljamo arheobotani≠ne podatke iz treh poznoneolitskih najdi∏≠ sopot- ske kulture (ok. 5200 do 4000 pr. n. ∏t.), in sicer na najdi∏≠ih Sopot, Slav≠a in Ravnja∏, ki so naselbi- ne tipa tell na vzhodu Hrva∏ke. Naselbine tipa tell so primerne za preu≠evanje razli≠nih aspektov prehrane in sredstev za pre∫ivetje, saj predstavljajo zgo∏≠ena obmo≠ja, kjer so naslednje generacije gradile neposredno na predhodne poselitvene plasti. Rastlinski ostanki in dokazi o aktivnostih, po- vezanih s predelavo polj∏≠in, ka∫ejo na vseh treh najdi∏≠ih na prehrano, ki je temeljila na polj∏≠inah kot so enozrnica, dvozrnica, je≠men, le≠a in grah. Prehrano so verjetno dopolnjevale ∏e divje rastli- ne iz lokalnega okolja kot so rumeni dren, navadno vol≠je jabolko in navadna robida. KEY WORDS – crop agriculture; archaeobotany; crop processing; charred macro-remains KLJU∞NE BESEDE – poljedeljstvo; arheobotanika; predelava polj∏≠in; zogleneli makro ostanki rastlin Prehrana in pre/ivetje na poznoneolitskih najdi[;ih Sopot, Slav;a in Ravnja[ na vzhodu Hrva[ke DOI> 10.4312\dp.44.19 Diet and subsistence at the late Neolithic tell sites of Sopot, Slav;a and Ravnja[, eastern Croatia 327 cum) have been identified. From the remaining sites, the plant remains suggest that glume wheats, emmer and einkorn, barley (Hordeum vulgare), len- til (Lens culinaris), pea (Pisum sativum) and flax (Linum usitatissimum) were all commonly grown (Reed 2015). This paper presents the archaeobota- nical results from the late Neolithic tell sites at Sopot, Slav≠a and Ravnja∏, exploring activities linked with crop agriculture, storage and food preparation at the settlements. The Late Neolithic in eastern Croatia The Sopot Culture developed on the foundations of the late Star≠evo Culture. It has been suggested that the central area of the classic Sopot Culture is locat- ed in the region of eastern Slavonia, between the Drava, Sava and Danube rivers (Markovi≤ 1994.82). Settlements were often raised on natural elevations on the banks of rivers and streams, such as Sopot, Vinkovci, Privlaka, Orolik, Gabo∏, Marinci, or on swampy, flood plains, close to extinct streams, such as at Stari Mikanovci, Otok, Komletinci, Retkovci (Krznari≤ πkrivanko 2012.37). The Sopot culture also expanded into Hungarian Transdanubia (Bánffy et al. 2016.290) and northern Bosnia between the Vrbas and Tinja rivers (Dimitrijevi≤ 1979.334). A characteristic feature of this culture is black polished biconical and S-profiled vessels, but ceramics were generally undecorated, with only a small percentage being decorated with shallow carvings and tally ornamenta- tion. Archaeologists divide the Sopot culture into three phases; early (I), middle (II) and late (III). Al- though, Dimitrijevi≤ (1968) sub- divided the oldest phase into 2 stages (I-A, I-B), while newer investigations at the epony- mous site of Sopot distinguish II-A and II-B stages (Krznari≤ πkrivanko 2002), as well as a final horizon of the early Eneo- lithic (phase IV – the Se≠e type of the Sopot Culture) (Mihalje- vi≤ 2013), parallel with the Len- gyel III and Tiszapolgar cul- tures (Markovi≤ 1985). Recent carbon-14 dating of Sopot Cul- ture sites date Phase I-B to a pe- riod between 5480 and 5070 Opovo (Tringham et al. 1985; 1992; Borojevi≤ 2006), and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, such as Oko- li∏te (Müller et al. 2013), have provided archaeobo- tanical datasets that can be used to examine agricul- tural practices in the region. This is crucial if we are to understand the development of societies during the Neolithic. Unfortunately, the preservation and the absence of sufficient numbers of weed seeds and chaff remains has posed many problems in the inter- pretation of past human activities at these sites, e.g., crop processing and crop husbandry regimes (see Hillman 1981; Jones 1984; Van der Veen 1992; Bo- gaard 2004), and so many questions remain. Tell settlements are very useful for exploring aspects of diet and subsistence, as they present a concen- trated area with successive generations building on previous occupation levels. However, in Croatia, few tell sites have been excavated and even fewer have conducted archaeobotanical recovery programmes. To date, only five other late Neolithic settlements have yielded archaeobotanical remains from eastern Croatia: Bapska-Gradac (Buri≤ 2007.45–46), Otok (Obeli≤ et al. 2002), Ivandvor-Gaj, Toma∏anci-Pala≠a and Brezovljani (Reed 2015). Both Otok and Bapska- Gradac are tell sites; however, the only published re- mains from Otok consisted of a single grain of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) 14 C dated to 4620–4350 cal BC; while the archaeobotanical results from Bap- ska are not yet forthcoming, both emmer (Triti- cum dicoccum) and einkorn (Triticum monococ- Fig. 1. The Late Neolithic tell sites of Sopot, Ravnja∏ and Slav≠a. Kelly Reed, Maja Krznaric ´ {krivanko and Marija Mihaljevic ´ 328 cal BC, Phase II-A between 5030 and 4770 cal BC and Phase II-B between 4800 and 4250 cal BC (Obe- li≤ et al. 2004.Tab. 3). The earliest series of dates for Phase IV is between 4340 and 3790 cal BC (Krzna- ri≤ πkrivanko 2009; Mihaljevi≤ 2013). Site descriptions Sopot Sopot is situated 3km south-west of Vinkovci, on the right bank of the River Bosut (Fig. 1). The tell site is elliptical, measuring 113 x 98m, and is 3m deep. Sopot was first identified by J. Brun∏mid in 1902 (Brun∏mid 1902.121) and later excavated by M. Klajn in the late 1930s (Klajn 1961.22). In 1967, Stojan Dimitrijevi≤ led archaeological test-pit exca- vations at Sopot and took the site of Sopot as the eponym for this cultural phenomenon (Dimitrijevi≤ 1979.264). The most recent systematic excavations at Sopot were conducted between 1996 and 2008 by Vinkovci Municipal Museum. A total of 376m 2 was excavated from a section 37m long transecting the settlement, beginning in the south-west corner (Krznari≤ πkrivanko 2000; 2003; 2011). Three phases of Late Neolithic Sopot culture have been identified at the site, as well as an early Neo- lithic Star≠evo settlement 14 C dated to 6060–5890 cal BC (Krznari≤ πkrivanko 2011). Two fortified di- tches are evident (Fig. 2); an older one of 100 x 80m dates to the early Sopot settlement, which was later filled and replaced by a ditch surrounding an area of 120 x 100m (Krznari≤ πkrivanko 2003; Mu∏i≠ et al. 2011.85). The oldest house, excavated above the first ditch and dating to 5050–4780 cal BC (Obeli≤ et al. 2004.252–253), was rectangular, with an area of 6.70 x 4m, and had evidence of internal room di- visions (Krznari≤ πkrivanko 2003; 2006). The young- est house, 14 C dated to 4340 and 3997 cal BC (Obe- li≤ et al. 2004.249) is a typical Neolithic rectangular house, measuring 6 x 4m (Krznari≤ πkrivanko 1998. 31). Pottery analyses date this phase to the Copper Age, Sopot IV (Balen 2005; Krznari≤ πkrivanko, Balen 2006), and at this time numerous canals ap- peared (c. 4250 and 4030 cal BC), which destroyed some of the earlier house floors (Krznari≤ πkrivan- ko 2009). Building cycles at the site were often cha- racterised by the burning of an old house, which was then covered with a layer of soil before a new house was constructed. Excavations have shown that most houses were built in the same place as older ones, with small horizontal shifts. Slav≠a The prehistoric site of Slav≠a is located approx. 1.5km north of the centre of Nova Gradi∏ka. The site is a fort type, on a flat plateau at the point where the southern slopes of Psunj exceed the Posavina Plain. At an elevation of 240.61m, it offers a strate- gic position commanding the surrounding area (Fig. 3). The site was first identified in 1907 by the con- servator ∑uro Szabo. Systematic archaeological ex- cavations by the Department of Archeology, Filozof- ski fakultet Zagreb (Vrdoljak, Mihaljevi≤ 1999) start- ed in 1997, and were taken over in 1999 by the Mu- nicipal Museum of Nova Gradi∏ka until 2013 (Miha- ljevi≤ 2000; 2004; 2005; 2006; 2007; 2008; 2009). The site is a multilayered prehistoric settlement with Sopot and Brezov- ljani type Sopot culture occupation, illustrating the transition from the late Neolithic to the early Eneolithic (Sopot IV), Lasinja, Kostolac and Vu- ≠edol culture (Skelec 1997). Surveys have revealed segments of the set- tlement with sectional pit objects, some of which are living, working, storage and waste pits and defensive ditches. Finds include pottery, loom weights, whorls for fishing nets, and stone and chipped artefacts (πo∏i≤, Karavani≤ 2004). Zooarchaeological analyses showed a predominance of cow, sheep/goat and pig remains, with little evidence of hunting (Mi- Fig. 2. Detailed magnetic survey of Sopot, including the position of the 1996–2008 excavation trenches in the bottom left of the set- tlement. Courtesy of Vinkovci Municipal Museum. Diet and subsistence at the late Neolithic tell sites of Sopot, Slav;a and Ravnja[, eastern Croatia 329 culini≤, Mihaljevi≤ 2003). Recent 14 C dates of the Sopot levels include 5210–4950 cal BC, from a pit with no ceramics, and 4960–4340 cal BC, as well as 4250–4030 cal BC associated with Sopot IV (Miha- ljevi≤ 2013). Ravnja∏ Ravnja∏ is located on the upper slopes of the Po∫e- ga hill, north-west of the village of Nova Kapela. Ex- cavations by Nova Gradi∏ka Municipal Museum were carried out between 2006 and 2008, revealing a phase II Sopot Culture tell settlement (Mihaljevi≤ 2006; 2007; 2008). A series of pit objects and a house (SJ022) were discovered. The rectangular house was oriented north-south, consisting of two rooms con- taining a large amount of burnt material and large quantities of household items, including millstones, pottery and lithics. In addition, a fireplace of baked clay was discovered at the entrance to the house. Recent 14 C dates indicate a range of 4970 to 4690 cal BC (Mihaljevi≤ 2013). Material and methods Sampling and recovery Between 2006 and 2008, 71 samples were collected from a range of contexts from Sopot culture occupa- tion levels at Ravnja∏. At Slav≠a, 63 samples were collected from contexts associated with a Sopot cul- ture settlement, although seven of the samples were identified as mixed with Lasinja and Kostolac culture material. Sample sizes were not recorded, but a mi- nimum of one bucket (approx. 11 litres) of sediment was collected where possible for each sample. The samples were later processed by bucket flotation using 1mm and 300μm mesh sizes. At Sopot, 144 samples were collected between 1999 and 2008 from a range of contexts, including house floors, pits, a ditch and hearths. The samples were processed by machine flotation, using 1mm and 250μm mesh sizes. Volumes were only partially recorded, but 1–2 buckets (up to approx. 20 litres) per sample were collected where possible. Sorting and species identification The flot remains were 100% sorted, except for two at Slav≠a (Tab. 1 is available online at http://dx. doi.org/10.4312/dp.44.19), and their charcoal vol- umes were recorded. Carbonised plant taxa were identified with a low power (7–40x) binocular mi- croscope and comparisons made from modern refe- rence collections at the Institute of Archaeology, UCL and the School of Archaeology & Ancient History, University of Leicester. Identifying the cereal remains at the sites was par- ticularly difficult in some instances due to poor pre- servation and overlaps in morphology. A few pos- sible rye grains (cf. Secale cereale) and spelt glume bases (Triticum spelta) had already been identified at Sopot, but they were fragmentary and inconclu- sive, so they have now been reclassified as cereal in- det and Triticum sp. In addition, grains of broom- corn millet (Panicum miliaceum) and foxtail mil- let (Setaria italica), were also misidentified at all three sites, mainly due to poor preservation and si- milarities in morphology between foxtail millet and barnyard millet (Echinochloa crus-galli), which both have a scutellum extending over approx. two thirds of the grain length. Here the grains had a wider em- bryo, a flatter apex and an ovoid hilum more com- monly seen in barnyard millet (Fig. 4i). Of particular note in the assemblages was the iden- tification of two-grained einkorn at Sopot, and both the grain and chaff of the ‘new type’ glume wheat at all three sites (Jones et al. 2000; Kohler-Schneider 2003; Kenéz et al. 2014). Two-grained einkorn was identified based on the observations of Helmut Kroll (1992) and Angela Kreuz and Nicole Boenke (2002). The one grain was slightly smaller and narrower in shape compared to emmer, with a flat ventral surface and a distinctive ventral compres- sion near the pointed apex (Fig. 4c). The identification of the ‘new type’ of glume wheat grains and glume bases was based on observations made by Glynis Jones et al. (2000) and Marianne Kohler-Schneider (2003). The grains were distinctly more slender than the emmer grains, and in the lateral view were distinct- ly ‘flat’, with a more rounded apex and narrower embryo. The dorsal Fig. 3. The prehistoric site of Slav≠a (photo by Marija Mihaljevi≤). Kelly Reed, Maja Krznaric ´ {krivanko and Marija Mihaljevic ´ 330 view was also generally more straight and parallel compared to the emmer grains, which were wider above the embryo (Fig. 4a). Identification of the glume bases were seen from a narrower and deep attachment scar, with a prominent primary keel pro- jecting vertically when viewed from the abaxial face, like einkorn. The secondary keel was also prominent, as in einkorn, but sharply angled, unlike einkorn, in which it is rounded, with a clearly defined vein run- ning along the keel, unlike either emmer or einkorn. These glume bases were also particularly distinct from those of emmer and einkorn, as they seemed more robust (Fig. 4f, g). Many of the samples were collected from the same context, so the samples from the same trench, stra- tigraphic unit (SJ) and square were combined (Tabs. 1–3 are available online at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4312/dp.44.19). All grains were counted as one, even if only a fragment was present. Glume base fragments were counted as one unless clearly rep- resenting part of another glume base, while whole spikelet forks were counted as two glume bases. The fruit and weed seeds were counted as one, even when only a fragment was found, except where large seeds were broken and clearly represented the same parts of the same seed (e.g., Cornus mas). Site formation and the interpretation of the plant remains In order to understand the archaeobotanical results, it is important to explore the formation processes at the site, so as to identify any possible bias in the sam- ples that may influence interpretations. The plant remains at Sopot, Slav≠a and Ravnja∏ were preserv- ed through carbonisation or charring, which results from organic material being exposed to heat either accidentally or deliberately, such as cooking, burn- ing rubbish or fuel (Hillman 1984; Miller, Smart 1984; Charles 1998; Valamoti, Charles 2005; Van der Veen 2007). Thus, the charred remains repre- sent only a small and biased sample of the edible plants probably utilised by the late Neolithic settle- ments. These ‘missing foods’ mean that our ability to establish the composition and overall contribu- tion of plants to the diet is inherently biased towards charred remains that come into contact with fire more frequently and survive the charring process (Dennell 1972; Hillman 1981; Jones 1981; Board- man, Jones 1990; Van der Veen 2007). The deposition of these remains within the archaeo- logical record also needs to be considered, and the groups proposed by Richard N. L. B. Hubbard and Alan J. Clapham (1992) provide a simple way to classify samples: Class A, where remains have been burnt and recovered in-situ; Class B, where remains derive from a single burning event, but were moved (secondary deposition); and Class C, where the as- semblage derives from different charring events that were subsequently deposited within the same con- text. In addition, seed density can be used to reflect the rate of deposition. For example, a low density of plant remains could indicate the slow accumulation of charred items that originated from different burn- ing events, unassociated with the feature in which they are finally deposited (Miksicek 1987; Jones 1991). Charred plant remains can also survive for long periods, and archaeobotanical evidence has shown cases of older plant remains being redeposit- ed within younger contexts (e.g., Pelling et al. 2015). Preservation was generally poor at the study sites, with many of the plant remains being identified through gross morphology only. In total, the three sites contained over 9000 unidentifiable plant frag- ments and over 1100 unidentifiable cereal frag- ments. Charcoal density per litre was also generally low, with a mean density of 0.20cm 3 at Sopot, 0.24cm 3 at Ravnja∏ and 1cm 3 at Slav≠a. The mean seed density per litre was also generally low at So- pot and Ravnja∏, 1.1 and 2.8 seeds per litre. How- ever, at Slav≠a the mean seed density was 15 seeds per litre. This was due to extremely high numbers of glume wheat glume bases in a number of the sam- ples (see below for further details). The low densi- ty of plant remains within the contexts suggest a slow accumulation deriving from different charring events, while the high densities seen at Slav≠a may suggest plant remains deposited from a single burn- ing event (e.g., SJ123 and SJ7). Only the hearths showed evidence of in-situ burning; however, mul- tiple burning episodes would have occurred within these contexts. Thus, the samples from all three sites probably result from Class C remains, where the as- semblages derived from different charring events were later deposited within the same context. In addition, the overall assemblage from the three sites shows that samples from house floors or occu- pational levels have a higher percentage of grain and fruit remains, while those samples recovered from pit, ditch or other external settlement features are more likely to contain chaff remains (Fig. 5). Thus, the high percentage of cereal grains and fruits within house and hearth features may suggest the preparation of food for human consumption. While, Diet and subsistence at the late Neolithic tell sites of Sopot, Slav;a and Ravnja[, eastern Croatia 331 Fig. 4. Carbonised seeds from the study sites: a1–a2 ‘New type’ glume wheat; b naked wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum); c Two-grained einkorn (Triticum monococcum); d Lentil (Lens culinaris); e Barley ra- chis (Hordeum vulgare); f ‘New type’ glume wheat glume base; g Emmer glume base (Triticum dicoccum); h Chinese lantern (Physalis alkekengi); i Barnyard millet (Echinochloa crus-galli); j Hedge bedstraw (Ga- lium sp. mollugo). Scale bar: 1mm. the high chaff content (mainly glume wheat glume bases) within pits and ditches may result from the deposition of crop processing waste (see below for more details). Crop husbandry: Which crops were grown Only five types of cereal grain and chaff were identi- fied from the three sites: barley, emmer, einkorn, ‘new type’ glume wheat and naked wheat. Of these five, emmer and einkorn dominate the samples both in quantity (Fig. 6) and the frequency with which they are found in the different contexts. This is similar to remains found at Neolithic sites in Albania (Xhuveli, Schultze-Motel 1995), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Ren- frew 1979; Ku≠an 2009), northern Italy (Rottoli, Ca- stiglioni 2009), Serbia (Filipovi≤, Obradovi≤ 2013 for summary) and Slovenia (Tolar et al. 2011). It is particularly interesting to note the large quan- tities of glume bases recovered, amounting to nearly 6000 from the three sites, compared to only around 1200 grains, and what this may say about subsis- tence practices at the sites. For example, since the 1970s, researchers have determined that carbonised plant remains are more likely to result from food production and crop processing rather than from food consumption, and therefore provide a record of the crop husbandry and processing methods em- ployed (Knörzer1971; Dennell 1972; 1974; 1976; Hillman 1984; Jones 1984). Predictive models have since been created to identi- fy which stage of the crop processing sequence an archaeobotanical assemblage represents. This is based on the assumption that each stage produces a char- acteristically different ratio of cereal, chaff and weeds within the sample (Hillman 1984; Jones 1984; Van der Veen 1992; Van der Veen, Jones 2006). Each stage produces two assemblages: a crop product, which continues through each stage, and a crop by- product or residue, which is removed from the re- maining processes. Simplified, the stages for proces- sing free-threshing cereals (e.g., naked wheat and barley) are as follows (after Hillman 1984; Van der Veen 1992): ● harvesting: to gather the mature crop from the field, possibly by uprooting or cutting the grain- bearing part of the plant; ● threshing: to release the grain from the chaff, pos- sibly by beating with a stick or trampling by cat- tle; ● winnowing: to remove the light chaff and weeds from the grain, possibly by wind or by shaking in a winnowing basket; ● coarse sieving: to remove larger items such as weed heads, seeds, un-threshed ears and straw with large meshes; ● fine sieving: to remove the small weed seeds from the grain with narrower meshed sieves. Glume wheats (e.g., einkorn, emmer and ‘new type’ glume wheat) on the other hand require further pro- cessing stages to release the grain from the tight glumes. The additional processes involved in the de- husking of glume wheats are as follows (after Hil- lman 1984; Van der Veen 1992): Kelly Reed, Maja Krznaric ´ {krivanko and Marija Mihaljevic ´ 332 ● processing stage Rationale; ● parching to dry the grain and render the glumes brittle; ● pounding to release the grain from the glumes, possibly in a wooden mortar or quern; ● second winnowing to remove light chaff and weeds from the grain; ● second coarse sieving to remove the remaining large items, such as unthreshed ears or chaff and remaining culm nodes and large weeds in heads; ● second fine sieving to remove glume bases and re- maining small weed seeds. Put simply, this suggests that a sample with high num- bers of cereal grains and not much else, which result- ed from one burning and depositional event, would represent the end of the crop processing stages when the grain is ready for consumption. On the other hand, a sample with a high number of glume bases, also resulting from one burning and depositional event, probably represents crop processing waste (i.e. where the chaff is removed from the grain). Examining the study sites, it is clear that many of the samples with low densities resulted from a range of different charring events. However, the high den- sities seen at Slav≠a in stratigraphic units 123 and 7 and the fact that over 75% of the samples were made up of glume wheat glume bases may suggest evidence of crop processing waste (see also Reed 2015) dumped after being carbonised elsewhere. Some suggest that the daily processing of stored glume wheats occurred within the household, where the waste (cereal chaff) was then swept into fires and carbonised (cf. Hillman 1984; Gregg 1989; Meu- rers-Balke, Lüning 1992; Bogaard 2004.68; Kreuz 2012). The waste from these fires could have then been deposited outside the houses in pits or ditches around the settlement, so SJ123 and SJ7 may indi- cate the secondary or tertiary deposition of discard- ed wheat chaff. If this is the case, then it is likely that the recovery of both einkorn and emmer in the sam- ples represent individual crop remains, rather than crops being grown together (Jones, Halstead 1995), especially as recent research suggests that emmer and einkorn ripen at different times if sown simulta- neously (Kreuz, Schäfer 2011). Furthermore, archa- eological finds of querns and flint sickle blades also attest to crop processing activities at the sites. The recovery of less than ten barley rachis at Slav≠a and Sopot and the absence of barley at Ravnja∏ may suggest that barley was mainly processed away from the settlement, or was only a minor crop at the sites. However, cereal rachis is more fragile than glume bases and may simply have not survived the carbo- nisation process, resulting in its under-representation at the sites (cf. Dennell 1976; Hillman 1981; Board- man, Jones 1990). The possible cultivation methods (i.e. manuring, weeding or irrigating) of the crops was not examin- ed, due to the low numbers of weed seeds recovered from the study sites, as well as the limited identifica- tion of seeds to species level (see Bogaard 2004; Kreuz, Schäfer 2011 for examples of examining cul- tivation methods of crops at Neolithic sites in cen- tral Europe). Other crops Lentil (Lens culinaris) was the most common pulse crop present at Sopot, Slav≠a and Ravnja∏. Pea (Pi- sum sativum) was also recovered from Ravnja∏ and Sopot, as well as small quantities of grass pea (Lathy- rus sativus) from Sopot, and bitter vetch (Vicia er- vilia) from Ravnja∏. Pulse preservation through car- bonisation can be under-represented in the archaeo- logical record, but these four species are found con- Fig. 5. Percentage of seeds in each plant category per context group for all three sites. Fig. 6. Number of grain and glume bases per spe- cies at each site (where 1:1 barley rachis/grain; 2:1 einkorn glume base/grain; 1:1 emmer and ‘new type’ glume wheat:grain). Diet and subsistence at the late Neolithic tell sites of Sopot, Slav;a and Ravnja[, eastern Croatia 333 tinuously from the early Neolithic onwards in Cen- tral and Southeast Europe (Zohary et al. 2012.75). Therefore, it is likely that lentil was commonly grown at the study sites, with the addition of pea at Ravnja∏ and Sopot. Small quantities of flax seeds were identified from Sopot and Slav≠a. As one of the founder crops, flax is found throughout Southeast and Central Europe from the Early Neolithic onwards and is tradition- ally used for its oil (linseed) and/or fibres (Zohary et al. 2012.101). The high oil content in flax seeds can make them more susceptible to burning and less likely to be preserved compared to other seeds (Wil- son 1984) and so their presence even in small num- bers could suggest flax cultivation for oil and/or fibre. This is further supported by the recovery of flax textile fragments from the contemporary late Neolithic site at Opovo in Serbia (4700–4500 cal BC) (Borojevi≤ 2006; Tringham et al. 1992). Crop storage at the tell sites Year-round occupation of a site almost certainly re- quired some kind of storage facilities for food and fodder. Storage is therefore a mechanism to buffer against seasonal and/or long-term variability in the food supply (Halstead, O’Shea 1989). Similarly, the larger the settlement, the more reliance would be placed on stored cereals and pulse crops (Halstead 1996.304). The location and size of storage facilities can reveal household behaviours, e.g., domestic storage for domestic use, external storage for com- munal use or excess goods for exchange. Therefore, the location of storage inside or outside the house or choosing communal storage is also related to the social and economic organisation of the site as a whole (Halstead 1999). However, direct evidence for storage practices by prehistoric farmers is ra- rely seen, due to the poor preservation of organic material and the fact that stored food, unless acci- dentally burnt in a catastrophic event, would have been consumed. Further problems arise when stor- age facilities are re-used for other purposes, such as repositories for domestic refuse or human burials. Therefore, the identification of prehistoric storage facilities is usually based on indirect evidence from architectural remains. From the study sites in Croatia, few houses show evidence of internal storage pits; however, at late Neolithic Sopot, the well-preserved remains of house 23 revealed large vessels (‘buda’ type), that could have been used for crop storage (Krznari≤ πkrivan- ko 2003). This is comparable to the neighbouring Vin≠a culture settlements which also contained large immobile and slightly smaller mobile storage ves- sels within many of the houses (Stevanovi≤ 1997). External pits close to the houses at the study sites have also been excavated, and many contained low quantities of plant remains, although the remains do not necessarily indicate storage, as they may have been deposited as waste. Nevertheless, it is probable that both internal and external crop storage was practiced at the Neolithic sites to support the year- round occupation of them. Other sources of food In addition to cultivated crops, a number of other edi- ble species were recovered, which would indicate the continued exploitation of the local environment. This includes cornelian cherry (Cornus mas) and Chinese lantern (Physalis alkekengi) at Slav≠a and Sopot, and blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) at Ravnja∏ and Slav≠a. Of particular note at Sopot was a relatively large deposit of over 100 seeds of Chinese lantern found in the floor of one of the houses, which may suggest its deliberate collection by the household. It is difficult to assess the role of wild plants in pre- historic farming communities, but it is likely that they played an important role in subsistence (Col- lege, Conolly 2014), complementing not only human diet, but also contributing to many other aspects of human life, being used as building materials, medi- cines, dyes, fuel, animal fodder, crafts or rituals. Edi- ble species found at the study sites may have includ- ed the seeds of fat hen (Chenopodium album) and the leaves of nettles (Urtica dioca). However, the small number of seeds found makes any further in- terpretation difficult. In addition, many of the weeds recovered from the study sites are commonly found as weeds in cultivated crops. For example, Bandke- ramik weed species found regularly in samples asso- ciated with manured crops include Bromus secali- nus, Chenopodium album, Galium aparine, Gali- um Spurium, and Polygonum convolvulus (Kruez, Schäfer 2011). A number of these genus and species are also found at the study sites, making it likely that many of the wild species are in fact weeds from the crops rather than collected wild foods. Conclusion Archaeobotanical remains collected from the late Neolithic tell sites at Slav≠a, Ravnja∏ and Sopot in- dicate a crop-based diet of mainly einkorn, emmer, barley, lentil and pea. The plant- based diet of the Kelly Reed, Maja Krznaric ´ {krivanko and Marija Mihaljevic ´ 334 settlements also included wild fruits such as corne- lian cherry, Chinese lantern and blackberry. How- ever, the charred remains represent only a small and biased sample of the edible plants probably exploit- ed by the late Neolithic settlements. An examination of crop-processing activities at the sites suggest that emmer and einkorn grains were semi-cleaned before reaching the site and then pro- cessed further on a daily basis to remove the chaff and any remaining weed seeds. The early removal of weeds offsite would also have allowed seed corn to be stored relatively clean, which when sown would reduce weed growth and maintain economic crop yields (Dennell 1974). The charring of emmer and einkorn chaff may also indicate the parching of spi- kelets before processing, but could also result from the occasional use of processing residue as fuel (Hil- lman 1981; Van der Veen 2007). The low seed densities at the sites had a distinct impact on the level of analysis that could be conduct- ed. Thus, further research is needed to build on these results and to improve our understanding of agricul- ture and the role agriculture played in underpinning social, cultural and economic changes in the late Neo- lithic in eastern Croatia. This research was partially funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council in connection with Kelly Reeds PhD. In addition, many thanks to Sue College and Marijke van der Veen for their helpful advice while undertaking the PhD and the Depart- ments of Archaeology at University College London and the University of Leicester for allowing the use of their reference collections. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS References Balen J. 2005. Sopot. Hrvatski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak 1: 26–30. Bánffy E., Osztás A., Oross K., Zalai-Gaál I., Marton T., Nyerges É. Á., Köhler K., Bayliss A., Hamilton D. and Whit- tle A. 2016. The Alsónyék story: towards the history of a persistent place. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 94: 283–318. Boardman S., Jones G. 1990. Experiments on the effects of charring on cereal plant components. Journal of Archa- eological Science 17(1): 1–11. Bogaard A. 2004. Neolithic Farming in Central Europe: An Archaeobotanical Study of Crop Husbandry Prac- tices. Routledge. London. Borojevi≤ K. 2006. Terra and Silva in the Pannonian plain: Opovo agro-gathering in the Late Neolithic. Bri- tish Archaeological Reports IS 1563. Archeopress. Oxford. Brun∏mid J. 1902. Colonia Aurelia Cibalae, Vinkovci u staro doba. Vjestnik Hrvatskog arheolo∏kog dru∏tva 6: 117– 166. Buri≤ M. 2007. Bapska-Gradac. In A. Blanda (ed.), Hrvat- ski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak, vol. 4. Ministarstvo kulture. Zag- reb: 45–46. Chapman J. 1981. The Vin≠a Culture of South-East Eu- rope: Studies in Chronology, Economy and Society. Bri- tish Archaeological Reports IS 117. Archeopress. Oxford. Charles M. 1998. Fodder from dung: the recognition and interpretation of dung derived plant material from archa- eological sites. Environmental Archaeology 1: 111–122. Colledge S., Conolly J. 2014. Wild plant use in European Neolithic subsistence economies: a formal assessment of preservation bias in archaeobotanical assemblages and the implications for under- standing changes in plant diet breadth. Quaternary Science Reviews 101: 193–206. Dennell R. W. 1972. The interpretation of plant remains: Bulgaria. In E. S. Higgs (ed.), Papers in Economic Prehi- story. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 149–159. 1974. The purity of prehistoric crops. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 40: 132–135. 1976. The economic importance of plant resources re- presented on archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeo- logical Science 3: 229–247. Dimitrijevi≤ S. 1968. Sopotsko-Len∂elska Kultura. Mono- graphiae Archaeologicae I. Zagreb. ∴ ∴ Diet and subsistence at the late Neolithic tell sites of Sopot, Slav;a and Ravnja[, eastern Croatia 335 1979. Sjeverna zona [Northern zone]. In A. Benac (ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja II. Neolitsko doba. Akademija nauke i umetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Sara- jevo: 229–362. Filipovi≤ D., Obradovi≤ ∑. 2013. Archaeobotany at Neoli- thic Sites in Serbia: A Critical Overview of the Methods and Results. In N. Miladinovi≤-Radmilovi≤., S. Vitezovi≤ (eds.), Bioarheologija na Balkanu: bilans i perspektive. Srpsko arheolo∏ko dru∏tvo. Beograd: 25–55. Filipovi≤ D., Tasi≤ N. N. 2012. Vin≠a-Belo Brdo, a late Neoli- thic site in Serbia: consideration of macro-botanical remains as indicators of dietary habits. Balcanica XLIII: 7–27. Gregg S. 1989. Paleo-ethnobotany of the Bandkeramik phases. In C. Kind (ed.), Ulm-Eggingen: Die Ausgrabun- gen 1982 bis 1985 in der bandkeramischen Siedlung und der mittelalterlichen Wüstung. Theiss. Stuttgart: 367–399. Halstead P. 1996. The development of agriculture and pastoralism in Greece: when, how, who and what. In D. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. Routledge. London: 296–309. Halstead P. 1999. Neighbours from Hell? The household in Neolithic Greece. In P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece. Sheffield Academic Press. Sheffield: 77–95. Halstead P., O’Shea J. 1989. Introduction: cultural respon- ses to risk and uncertainty. In P. Halstead., J. O’Shea (eds.), Bad Year Economics: cultural responses to risk and un- certainty. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 1–10. Hillman G. 1981. Reconstructing crop husbandry prac- tices from charred remains of crops. In R. Mercer (ed.), Farming practice in British prehistory. Edinburgh Uni- versity Press. Edinburgh: 123–162. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains. The application of ethnographic models from Turkey. In W. Van Zeist., W. A. Casparie (eds.), Plants and an- cient man. Balkema. Rotterdam: 1–41. Hubbard R. N. L. B., Clapham A. 1992. Quantifying macro- scopic plant remains. Review of Palaeobotany and Paly- nology 73(1–4): 117–132. Jones G. 1981. Crop processing at Assiros Toumba: a ta- phonomic study. Zeitschrift für Archäologie 15: 105–111. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: ethnographic models from Greece. In W. Van Zeist., W. A. Casparie (eds.), Plants and ancient man. Balkema. Rotterdam: 43–61. 1991. Numerical analysis in archaeobotany. In W. Van Zeist., K. Wasylikowa and K-E. Behre (eds.), Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany. Balkema. Rotterdam: 63–80. Jones G., Halstead P. 1995. Maslins, mixtures and mono- crops: on the interpretation of archaeobotanical crop sam- ples of heterogeneous composition. Journal of Archaeo- logical Science 22: 103–114. Jones G., Valamoti S. and Charles M. 2000. Early crop di- versity: a ‘‘new’’ glume wheat from northern Greece. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 9: 133–146. Jovanovi≤ B. 1988. Gomolava: Naselje Mla∂eg Govozde- nog Doba. Vojvo∂anski muzej. Beograd. Kenéz A., Pető A. and Gyulai F. 2014. Evidence of ‘new glume wheat’ from the Late Neolithic (Copper Age) of south-eastern Hungary (4 th millennium cal BC). Vegeta- tion History and Archaeobotany 23: 551–566. Klajn M. 1961. Moj amatersko-muzejski rad. Vinkovci. Knörzer K. H. 1971. Urgeschichtliche Unkräuter im Rhein- land ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte der segetal Gesellschaften. Vegetatio 23(1–2): 89–111. Kohler-Schneider M. 2003. Contents of a storage pit from Late Bronze Age Stillfried, Austria: another record of the “new” glume wheat. Vegetation History and Archaeobo- tany 12(2): 105–111. Kreuz A. 2012. Die Vertreibung aus dem Paradies? Archä- obiologische Ergebnisse zum Frühneolithikum im westli- chen Mitteleuropa. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 91: 23–196. Kreuz A., Boenke N. 2002. The presence of two-grained einkorn at the time of the Bandkeramik culture. Vegeta- tion History and Archaeobotany 11(3): 233–240. Kreuz A., Schäfer E. 2011. Weed finds as indicators for the cultivation regime of the Early Neolithic Bandkeramik culture? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20(5): 333–348. Kroll H. 1992. Einkorn from Feudvar, Vojvodina, II. What is the difference between emmer-like two-seeded einkorn and emmer? Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73(1–4): 181–185. Krznari≤ πkrivanko M. 1998. Druga etapa sustavnog ar- heolo∏kog iskopavanja gradine Sopot. Obavijesti Hrvat- skog arheolo∏kog dru∏tva 30(1): 30–34. 2000. ∞etvrta sezona sustavnog istra∫ivanja gradine So- pot. Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheolo∏kog dru∏tva 32(2): 49–53. Kelly Reed, Maja Krznaric ´ {krivanko and Marija Mihaljevic ´ 336 2002. Peta i ∏esta sezona sustavnog istra∫ivanja gradine Sopot (godina 2000. i 2001.). Obavijesti Hrvatskog ar- heolo∏kog dru∏tva 34(2): 36–45. 2003. Neki naseobinski pokazatelji na eponimnom lo- kalitetu sopotske kulture. Opvscvla Archaeologica 27: 63–69. 2006. Sopot. Hrvatski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak 2: 30–33. 2009. Sopot. Hrvatski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak 5: 89–92. 2011. Radiokarbonski datumi uzoraka sa Sopota. In K. Boti≤, S. Kova≠evi≤ and D. Dizdar (eds.), Panonski pra- povijesni osviti: Zbornik radova posve≤enih Korneli- ji Minichreiter uz 65. obljetnicu ∫ivota. Institut za ar- heologiju. Zagreb: 209–226. 2012. Nalazi∏ta sopotske kulture na Vinkova≠kom po- dru≠ju. Acta Musei Cibalensis 5: 11–46. Krznari≤ πkrivanko M., Balen J. 2006. Osma, deveta I de- seta sezona sustavnog istra∫ivanja gradine Sopot (godina 2003., 2004., 2005.). Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheolo∏kog dru∏tva 38(1): 51–60. Ku≠an D. 2009. Preliminarni izvje∏taj o ispitivanjima ug- ljenisanih biljnih ostataka na kasnoneolitskom naselju okoli∏te. In R. Hofmann, Z. Kujund∫ic-Vejzagic, J. Müller, K. Rassmann and N. Müller-Scheeßel (eds.), Rekonstruk- cija procesa naseljavanja u kasnom neolitu na prostoru centralne Bosne. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Her- cegovine u Sarajevu 50/51. Sarajevo: 127–131. Markovi≤ Z. 1985. Problem ranog eneolita u sjeverozapad- noj Hrvatskoj. Vjesnik Arheolo∏kog muzeja u Zagrebu 18: 1–34. 1994. Sjeverna Hrvatska od neolita do bron≠anog doba. Muzej grada Koprivnice. Koprivnica. McLaren F. S., Hubbard R. N. L. B. 1990. The archaeobo- tanical remains. In R. Tringham., D. Krsti≤ (eds.), Selevac: a Neolithic village in Yugoslavia. University of Califor- nia. Los Angeles: 247–254. McPherron A., Srejovi≤ A. (eds.) 1988. Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia. University of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh. Meurers-Balke J., Lüning J. 1992. Some aspects and expe- riments concerning the processing of glume wheats. In P. C. Anderson (ed.), Prehistoire de l’Agriculture: Nou- velles Approches Experimentales et Ethnographiques. Monographie du CRA 6. Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Paris: 341–362. Miculini≤ K., Mihaljevi≤ M. 2003. Analiza faune prapovijes- nog nalazi∏ta Slav≠a-Nova Gradi∏ka. Opuscula Archaeo- logica 27: 71–80. Mihaljevi≤ M. 2000. Istra∫ivanje nalazi∏ta Slav≠a (Nova Gradi∏ka, 1999). Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheolo∏kog dru∏t- va 3: 63–71. 2004. Slav≠a. In J. Mesi≤ (ed.) Hrvatski arheolo∏ki go- di∏njak. 1. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb: 39–40. 2005. Slav≠a. In J. Mesi≤ (ed.) Hrvatski arheolo∏ki go- di∏njak. 2. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb: 53–55. 2006. Ravnja∏ and Slav≠a. In J. Mesi≤ (ed.) Hrvatski ar- heolo∏ki godi∏njak. 3. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb: 72–73, 75–76. 2007. Ravnja∏ and Slav≠a. In M. Blanda (ed.), Hrvatski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak. 4. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb: 94–95. 2008. Ravnja∏ and Slav≠a. In J. Mesi≤ (ed.), Hrvatski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak. 5. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb: 124–127. 2009. Slav≠a. In Z. Wiewegh (ed.), Hrvatski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak. 6. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb: 88–89. 2013. Sopotska kultura u zapadnoj Slavoniji s poseb- nim osvrtom na nalazi∏te Slav≠a Nova Gradi∏ka. PhD thesis. University of Zagreb. Zagreb. Miksicek C. H. 1987. Formation processes of the archaeo- botanical record. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 10: 211–247. Miller N., Smart T. 1984. Intentional burning of dung as fuel: a mechanism for the incorporation of charred seeds into the archaeological record. Journal of Ethnobiology 4(1): 15–28. Müller J., Rassmann K. and Hofmann R. (eds.) 2013. Oko- liste 1 – Untersuchungen einer spätneolithischen Sied- lungskammer in Zentralbosnien. Neolithikum und Chal- kolithikum in Zentralbosnien Vol. 1. Universitätsfor- schungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 228. Bonn. Mu∏i≠ B., Krznari≤ πkrivanko M. and Medari≠ I. 2011. So- pot-geofizi≠ko istra∫ivanje. In Z. Wiewegh (ed.) Hrvatski arheolo∏ki godi∏njak. 7. Ministarstvo kulture. Zagreb: 84–87. Obeli≤ B., Horvatin≤i≤ N. and Krajcar Broni≤ I. 2002. Ru- djer Bo∏kovic Institute Radiocarbon Measurements XV. Radiocarbon 44(2): 601–630. Diet and subsistence at the late Neolithic tell sites of Sopot, Slav;a and Ravnja[, eastern Croatia 337 Obeli≤ B., Krznari≠ πkrivanko M., Marijan B. and Krajcar Broni≤ I. 2004. Radiocarbon dating of Sopot culture sites (Late Neolithic) in Eastern Croatia. Radiocarbon 46(1): 245–258. Özdogan M. 2014. A new look at the introduction of the Neolithic way of life in Southeastern Europe. Changing paradigms of the expansion of the Neolithic way of life. Documenta Praehistorica 41: 33–49. Pelling R., Campbell G., Carruthers W., Hunter K. and Mar- shall P. 2015. Exploring contamination (intrusion and re- siduality) in the archaeobotanical record: case studies from central and southern England. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 24: 85–99. Reed K. 2015. From the field to the hearth: plant remains from Neolithic Croatia (ca. 6000–4000 cal BC). Vegeta- tion History and Archaeobotany 24(5): 601–619. Renfrew J. 1979. The first farmers of south east Europe. Archaeo-Physika 8: 243–265. Rottoli M., Castiglioni E. 2009. Prehistory of plant grow- ing and collecting in northern Italy, based on seed remains from early Neolithic to the Chalcolithic (c. 5600–2100 cal B.C.). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 18: 91– 103. Skelec G. 1997. Prapovijesno nalazi∏te Slav≠a. Opvscvla Archaeologica 21: 217– 233. Stevanovi≤ M. 1997. The age of clay: the social dynamics of house destruction. Journal of Anthropological Archa- eology 16(4): 334–395. πo∏i≤ R., Karavani≤ I. 2004. Cijepani liti≠ki materijal sa prapovijesnog nalazi∏ta Slav≠a, Nova Gradi∏ka. Vjesnik Arheolo∏kog muzeja u Zagrebu 36: 17–41. Tolar T., Jacomet S., Velu∏≠ek A. and ∞ufar K. 2011. Plant economy at a late Neolithic lake dwelling site in Slovenia at the time of the Alpine Iceman. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20(3): 207–222. Tringham R., Krsti≤ D. 1990. Selevac: A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica. University of California. Los Angeles. Tringham R., Brukner B. and Voytek B. 1985. The Opovo Project: a study of socioeconomic change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 12(4): 425–444. Tringham R., Brukner B., Kaiser T., Borojevi≤ K., Bukvi≤ L., Steli P., Russell N., Stevanovi≤ M. and Voytek B. 1992. Excavations at Opovo, 1985–1987: Socioeconomic Change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 351–386. Valamoti S. M., Charles M. 2005. Distinguishing food from fodder through the study of charred plant remains: an ex- perimental approach to dung-derived chaff. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14(4): 528–533. Van der Veen M. 1992. Crop Husbandry Regimes: An Archaeobotanical Study of Farming in northern Eng- land 1000 BC-AD 500. J. R. Collis Publications. Sheffield. 2007. Formation processes of desiccated and carbonized plant remains – the identification of routine practice. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(6): 968–990. Van der Veen M., Jones G. 2006. A re-analysis of agricul- tural production and consumption: Implications for un- derstanding the British Iron Age. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 15(3): 217–228. Van Zeist W. 2003. Plant husbandry and vegetation of tell Gomolava, Vojvodina, Yugoslavia. Palaeohistoria 43/44: 87–115. Vrdoljak S., Mihaljevi≤ M. 1999. Istra∫ivanje nalazi∏ta Slav- ≠a (Nova Gradi∏ka, 1998.). Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheo- lo∏kog dru∏tva 1: 34–48. Wilson D. G. 1984. The carbonisation of weed seeds and their representation in marcofossil assemblages. In W. Van Zeist., W. Casparie (eds.), Plant and Ancient Man. Balkema. Groningen: 201–206. Xhuveli L., Schultze-Motel J. 1995. Neolithic cultivated plants from Albania. Vegetation History and Archaeobo- tany 4: 245–248. Zohary D., Hopf M. and Weiss E. 2012. Domestication of plants in the Old World: the origin and spread of do- mesticated plants in south-west Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin. Oxford University Press. Oxford.