Millets and Mistakes

In Last week's Science the journalist Andrew Lawler, published an extended series of News Focus articles on Chinese civilization. The central piece focuses on the origins of civilization, highlighting for example the impressive urban settlement of Liangzhu (a kind of walled Neolithic Venice, many centuries before the Shang Dynasty) which ought to be better known to world archaeology than it is. (I had my own tour of some of the mutliple sites that compose it, and its multimedia museum, with site director Liu Bin in July). Also of note is his one page sidebar entitled "Go East, Young Archaeologist" on the specialists trained outside China, which features Jimmy Zhao, who has been instrumental in getting serious archaeobotany established in the minds and manners of Chinese archaeologists, and has been promoting flotation in China for the past decade.

What I would like to pursue here, however, are some observations on archaeobotany, and pick out some mistakes or misleading statements, with reference to the origins of millet agriculture which features in another sidebar, "Millets on the Move." Lawler begins which a point that seems to look increasingly true, that millet(s) were cultivated and presumably domesticated before rice, and were the staple foods of the northern China region where the classic Chinese civilization later emerged (focused on Erlitou rather than Liangzhu). He makes reference to the recent early dates (ca. 8000 BC) associated with Panicum miliaceum husk (lemma/palea) phytoliths reported from storage pits at Cishan (blogged previously). However, I must disagree the there is any hard evidence that the Panicum miliaceum at Cishan was morpholoigcally domesticated (i.e. non-shattering, with marked increased grain size, etc.), nor is there even clear evidence for cultivation, unless one assumes that large stores could only be ontained from cultivation, which in turn implies that we know the Early Holocene wild ecology of this species (which we don't) and that it did not form extensive collectible stands, as wild wheat, barley or rice or teosinte do (see discussion on my earlier Dadiwan blog and comment from L. Barton). I also must reiterate that there is much about the archaeology of the Cishan find (stratigraphiy, cultural context, and dating that require further work.

A lack of scientific clarity in Lawler's piece, however, is indicated in that millet is always used in the singular and the species (there are two major domesticates in ancient China) is never specified. And things get worse... as Lawler explored the hypothesis (favoured by Martin Jones and Cambridge millet group) that Panicum miliaceum (but NOT Setaria italica) spread before 5000 BC acroos temperate Eurasia from China to India. This hypothesis is plausible, but there is not yet any good clear data for this, only hints that it might yet emerge from ongoing and unpublished genetic work. Lawler acknowledges an alternative, which I would favour, that Panicum may have had a seperate domestication in the west somewhere near the Caspian and Black Seas. Well-dated, clearly-identified and numerically large assemblages of Panicum miliaceum outside China are mostly millenia later. To illustrate his case, Lawler produces a map which shows a major lapse in scientific clarity:

This map, although redrawn from that in Hunt et al (2008), is extremely mis-leading, especially when coupled with the text that hook-line-and-sinker swallows the notion that "millet" spread in the early Neolithic to Europe, without apparently realzing what "millet" is (or millets are). Millet is more than one species anyways despite the English misnomer-- in modern India one can find 12 domesticated species of "millet" in cultivation, with several more restrcted to Africa). The early dispersal of "millet" that Martin Jones favours, applies to broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum), as does the recent early find at Cishan, although Neolithic North China also boasts foxtail millet (Setaria italica), by about 6000 BC or so. For the map of Lawler, however, the "millet" in the caption actually means the genus Panicum or the genus Setaria, and does not require that these be cultivated or domesticated finds. What is most grevious in this map are the dots in Western Asia and Egypt. This map in its original, illustrated all reports identified to genus level of Setaria or Panicum-- both of which are major genera of grasses with multiple wild species-- in which the error margins of calibrated radiocarbon dates may place them as early as 5000 cal.BC (although often the dates are likely to be later). The dots in Western Asia, include sites such as Abu Hureyra in Syria, which is a well-known site to students of early wheat and barley agriculture. At this site it is argued (by Hillman et al. 2001) that wild rye and perhaps two-grained einkorn were brought into cultivation in the Late Pleistocene during the Younger Dryas, while later PPNB levels have evidence for domesticated wheats, barley and other Near Eastern crops. "Millet" is represented at this site by small number of wild Setaria, of either S. pumila or S. verticillata, and certainly not Setaria italica nor Panicum miliaceum. Other dots in Syria and Cyprus include Tell Mureybit, El Kowm, Bouqras, and Khirokhitia, which Lawler has now awarded domesticated Chinese millet in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Meanwhile, three dots occur in Egypt, representing Early Holocene "Neolithic" sites like Nabta Playa. These sites are Neolithic in the sense of having pottery but not in having agriculture. Archaeobotanical evidence from these sites shows wild savannah grass gathering, including wild sorghum and a range of other species, including wild Panicum sp. and wild Setaria sp., but there is certainly no suggestion that these were cultivars or related to S. italica or P. miliaceum. While Hunt et al (2008: S6) were explicit in trying avoid the pitfall of "over representing.... securely identified domesticated finds", Lawler appears to have jumped headfirst into this pit!

The dot in Iran (representing Daulatabad R37) is also problematic as early millet finds there are more likely local wild species, while evidence for domesticated Panicum miliaceum is probably later form the latter Third Millennium BC at Tepe Yahya (a time period which fits with the reports of broomcorn millet appearing in Yemen before 2000 BC-- see the recent Boivin/Fuller review dealing with the prehistory of Arabia). A more detailed and critical look at the sites in Europe would show that these also include numerous Setaria sp. and some Panicum sp. reports that are of local wild species. In addition, quantities of reported Panicum miliaceum are extremely low and it remains entirely plausible that these represent wild, weedy Panicum miliaceum subsp. ruderale as a weed rather than domesticated broomcorn as a crop-- a point admitted in the Hunt, Jones, et al. paper from which the map derives (see page S14). Of course there is a bias towards focuing of wheats and barley in European archaeobotany, and careful documentation of the early Panicum has been less thorough. More archaeobotanical efforts are needed in this direction, like that being pursued by the Cambridge millet group, but dumbing-down for, and misleading, the educated readers of Science is not.

Where from the earliest Old World cotton?

I have received a recent query about early cotton in Nubia and South Asia, vis-a-vis the early occurrence of apparent cotton fibres in plaster from Dhuweila in Jordan (published by Betts et al 1994, J. Archaeological Science). This came in response to discussion of the find in the recent review I co-wrote with Nicole Boivin on the Holocene prehistory of Arabia (including several discussions of crops). I reproduce here my emailed reply as to why I have not committed on the possibility suggested by Betts (et al.) of a Nubia OR South Asian source. I have added links to references cited.

The Nubian source is based on reported cotton from Chalcolithic (A-Group) Nubia, first reported by Chowdhury & Buth in 1970 in Nature. The Indian Expedition to Nubia has preliminary reports on the archaeology in Indian Archaeology: A Review 1961-62 (which can be downloaded), and more extensively in Fouilles en Nubie (1961-1963). The A-Group Nubian cotton is problematic, with criticism published previously be me and by Zohary & Hopf. First it comes from goat dung, which does not necessarily indicate textile processing (admitted in the original Chowdhury publication). Second it comes from an undated excavation where it is alleged to be associated with A-Group ceramics (i.e. 3300-3100 BC-- mid-Third M. BC as cited by Betts [1994] is simply a mis-dating by the Indian archaeologists of 1962 who never got to grips with the Nubian sequence-- the dating of which was sorted out later, e.g. Trigger 1965; but especially Nordstrom 1972, Williams 1986; the region is largely depopulated at 2600 BC except for the Old Kingdom outpost at Buhen), but I am very worried that goat dung containing cotton seeds in Lower Nubia is more likely intrusive from later (Late Meroitic/Post-Meroitic) when cotton was known to be widely cultivated in the region. Stratigraphy in Nubia is always problematic. (I speak from experience in the 4th cataract), due to heavy deflation and reburial with windblown sand. For a published case-in-point consider Wadi Kubbaniya: Late Palaeolithic with charred wild plant remains AMS-dated to 16,000 bp and un-carbonized barley AMS'd at 500 bp [although not from the same excavation season] ! Things get mixed and the depth of deposit at Afyeh where it was found (the Indian Expedition to Nubia) was not very far beneath the surface. If it were from Nubia, how come there are no further cotton finds for 3000 years in the region? (Nevertheless, it would be nice to have more details about the Afyeh excavations, which remain largely unpublished and somewhere in the ASI archives in Delhi). I would note that Chowdhury also identified the Afyeh cotton as G. herbaceum based on a cross section of the seed coat. Perhaps this method works, but I have been unable to replicate it on the SEM (in modern material), which is a pity as it would be great to be able to track the two cotton species from archaeobotanical finds.

In addition, Naive African cotton, Gossypium herbaceum, is reported wild only much further south in Africa. It is of course possible it has gone extinct in Nubia, but if it were in 4th M. BC Nubia then it should on biogeographic grounds have been in Egypt too-- there is nothing in the Lower Nubian flora which is not in Egypt. (Is it likely the Egyptians would have overlooked using a species like this?). But, if one does postulate extinct wild Gossypium herbaceum as far north as Nubia then why not in mid-Holocene (wetter) Arabia as well?

Mehrgarh Period II has cotton seeds and fibres preserved in the earliest copper beads (Moulherat et al. 2004). On present evidence it seems the best, and only reasonable candidate. There can be presumed (but not proven) to come from Gossypium arboreum.

I must admit to remaining perplexed about the Dhuweila find. If textiles were traded long-distance one would not expect them to be valued, not used in tempering plaster. But perhaps this was not a common temper but a rare inclusion where someone tore a frayed tunic or something; the Dhuweila team got lucky-- one would need some systematic and quantitive approach to plaster temper to establish this.

My (obscure) article on Indian cotton and flax archaeology may be of some interest, as it reviews the archaeobotanical finds of these two species in India and Pakistan, with some notes on elsewhere [pdf]. For an updated review of cotton in Nubia see the chapter by Clapham and Rowley-Conwy in the recently published Hillman Feitschrit.