Wild cereal grain consumption among Early Holocene foragers of the Balkans predates the arrival of agriculture

  1. Emanuela Cristiani  Is a corresponding author
  2. Anita Radini
  3. Andrea Zupancich
  4. Angelo Gismondi
  5. Alessia D'Agostino
  6. Claudio Ottoni
  7. Marialetizia Carra
  8. Snežana Vukojičić
  9. Mihai Constantinescu
  10. Dragana Antonović
  11. T Douglas Price
  12. Dušan Borić  Is a corresponding author
  1. Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
  2. University of York, United Kingdom
  3. University of Rome Tor Vergata"", Italy
  4. University of Belgrade, Serbia
  5. Institute for Anthropological Research, Romania
  6. Institute of Archaeology, Serbia
  7. University of Wisconsin, United States

Abstract

Forager focus on wild cereal plants has been documented in the core zone of domestication in southwestern Asia, while evidence for forager use of wild grass grains remains sporadic elsewhere. In this paper, we present starch grain and phytolith analyses of dental calculus from 60 Mesolithic and Early Neolithic individuals from five sites in the Danube Gorges of the central Balkans. This zone was inhabited by likely complex Holocene foragers for several millennia before the appearance of the first farmers ~6200 cal BC. We also analyzed forager ground stone tools for evidence of plant processing. Our results based on the study of dental calculus show that certain species of Poaceae (species of the genus Aegilops) were used since the Early Mesolithic, while ground stone tools exhibit traces of a developed grass grain processing technology. The adoption of domesticated plants in this region after ~6500 cal BC might have been eased by the existing familiarity with wild cereals.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting file

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Emanuela Cristiani

    DANTE - Diet and Ancient Technology Laboratory, Department of Oral and Maxilla-Facial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
    For correspondence
    emanuela.cristiani@uniroma1.it
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2748-9171
  2. Anita Radini

    Department of Archaeology, University of York, York, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Andrea Zupancich

    DANTE - Diet and Ancient Technology Laboratory, Department of Oral and Maxilla-Facial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Angelo Gismondi

    Laboratory of General Botany, Department of Biology, University of Rome Tor Vergata"", Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Alessia D'Agostino

    Laboratory of General Botany, Department of Biology, University of Rome Tor Vergata"", Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Claudio Ottoni

    DANTE - Diet and Ancient Technology Laboratory, Department of Oral and Maxilla-Facial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Marialetizia Carra

    DANTE - Diet and Ancient Technology Laboratory, Department of Oral and Maxilla-Facial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Snežana Vukojičić

    Faculty of Biology, Institute of Botany and Botanical Garden 'Jevremovac', University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Mihai Constantinescu

    Institute for Anthropological Research, Bucharest, Romania
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Dragana Antonović

    Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. T Douglas Price

    Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Dušan Borić

    Department of Environmental Biology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
    For correspondence
    dusan.boric@uniroma1.it
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

H2020 European Research Council (639286)

  • Emanuela Cristiani

National Science Foundation (BCS-0235465)

  • T Douglas Price
  • Dušan Borić

NOMIS Stiftung

  • Dušan Borić

Wellcome Trust (209869_Z_17_Z)

  • Anita Radini

British Academy (SG-42170 and LRG-45589)

  • Dušan Borić

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2021, Cristiani et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,244
    views
  • 309
    downloads
  • 15
    citations

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

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Emanuela Cristiani
  2. Anita Radini
  3. Andrea Zupancich
  4. Angelo Gismondi
  5. Alessia D'Agostino
  6. Claudio Ottoni
  7. Marialetizia Carra
  8. Snežana Vukojičić
  9. Mihai Constantinescu
  10. Dragana Antonović
  11. T Douglas Price
  12. Dušan Borić
(2021)
Wild cereal grain consumption among Early Holocene foragers of the Balkans predates the arrival of agriculture
eLife 10:e72976.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72976

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72976

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Neuroscience
    Kathleen T Quach, Gillian A Hughes, Sreekanth H Chalasani
    Research Article

    Prey must balance predator avoidance with feeding, a central dilemma in prey refuge theory. Additionally, prey must assess predatory imminence—how close threats are in space and time. Predatory imminence theory classifies defensive behaviors into three defense modes: pre-encounter, post-encounter, and circa-strike, corresponding to increasing levels of threat—–suspecting, detecting, and contacting a predator. Although predatory risk often varies in spatial distribution and imminence, how these factors intersect to influence defensive behaviors is poorly understood. Integrating these factors into a naturalistic environment enables comprehensive analysis of multiple defense modes in consistent conditions. Here, we combine prey refuge and predatory imminence theories to develop a model system of nematode defensive behaviors, with Caenorhabditis elegans as prey and Pristionchus pacificus as predator. In a foraging environment comprised of a food-rich, high-risk patch and a food-poor, low-risk refuge, C. elegans innately exhibits circa-strike behaviors. With experience, it learns post- and pre-encounter behaviors that proactively anticipate threats. These defense modes intensify with predator lethality, with only life-threatening predators capable of eliciting all three modes. SEB-3 receptors and NLP-49 peptides, key stress regulators, vary in their impact and interdependence across defense modes. Overall, our model system reveals fine-grained insights into how stress-related signaling regulates defensive behaviors.

    1. Ecology
    Laura Fargeot, Camille Poesy ... Blanchet Simon
    Research Article

    Understanding the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning stands as a cornerstone in ecological research. Extensive evidence now underscores the profound impact of species loss on the stability and dynamics of ecosystem functions. However, it remains unclear whether the loss of genetic diversity within key species yields similar consequences. Here, we delve into the intricate relationship between species diversity, genetic diversity, and ecosystem functions across three trophic levels – primary producers, primary consumers, and secondary consumers – in natural aquatic ecosystems. Our investigation involves estimating species diversity and genome-wide diversity – gauged within three pivotal species – within each trophic level, evaluating seven key ecosystem functions, and analyzing the magnitude of the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functions (BEFs). We found that, overall, the absolute effect size of genetic diversity on ecosystem functions mirrors that of species diversity in natural ecosystems. We nonetheless unveil a striking dichotomy: while genetic diversity was positively correlated with various ecosystem functions, species diversity displays a negative correlation with these functions. These intriguing antagonist effects of species and genetic diversity persist across the three trophic levels (underscoring its systemic nature), but were apparent only when BEFs were assessed within trophic levels rather than across them. This study reveals the complexity of predicting the consequences of genetic and species diversity loss under natural conditions, and emphasizes the need for further mechanistic models integrating these two facets of biodiversity.