Showing posts with label millets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label millets. Show all posts

Thursday, 12 February 2026

Post-Domestication regional evolution

UCL Archaeobotany
Setaria italica grain variation:
above, from Gansu;
below, from Karnataka

It is true that evolution never stops--a suitable point to reflect upon on Darwin's birthday (12 Feb 1809) Some authors, would therefore insist, that domestication processes never cease and are always unfolding (a key argument in the recent book by Robert Spengler, Nature's Greatest Success), but I think there are grounds for differentiating the initial domestication episode that separates cultivars from the their wild population and later diversification and regional adaptation that took place within geographical subsets of a crop. In a paper in 2009, "The nature of selection during plant domestication", we drew attention to some differences and different expectations between domestication and diversification [incidentally that paper was also published in February 12, the 200th birthday or Charles Darwin]. The expectations are that diversification may occur over shorter timescales, differ between regions, and may (but may not) involve some conscious selection, based on farmer preferences. As archaeobotanical datasets have become larger and from more regions it offers the potential to compare and contrast how crops were evolving and differentiating across regions-- at least in those traits we can observe on archaeobotanical material. As noted in a recent blog (Bigger Beans...) there is clear evidence for selection for larger seeded legume crops around the greater Mediterranean some time after the classical period. While Grasso et al. (2025) argue for intentional selection in southern Italian farmers of the Middle Ages for larger broadbeans, I suggested in a previous blog that this might not be so because of the striking parallels across lentil, chickpea, grasspea and broadbean for macro-seeded forms around a wider Mediterranean world. This coincidence suggests to me an unconscious process of parallel evolution/adaptation to something in the ecology of bean farming in Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages (perhaps heavier tillage and also less incidence of water stress).


Aspects of grain size and grain shape are easily measured, and indeed have been measured for many years. Last year, in a large compilation of grain metrical data from archaeological assemblages acorss Eurasia, together with Rita Dal Martello, Robert Spengler and other colleagues from the Max Planck archaeobotany lab, we considered Contrasting diachronic regional trends in cereal grain evolution across Eurasia: a metadata analysis of linear morphometrics from the ninth millennium BCE to today. This study considered barley, free-threshing wheat (presumablty predominantly hexaploid bread wheat), and the millets of Chinese origin, Panicum miliaceum and Setaria italica. All four of these crops have pan Eurasain distributions, with dispersals beyond their regions of origin beginning in the Neolithic and having largely reached their maximum distributions by the end of the Bronze Age. As these crops came into a region one can expect them to adapt to local conditions, both ecological and cultural. What we found that is most striking, however,  is parallel trends in size/shape change in different crops in the same region, and often contrasting directions of change in different regions. While one might expect this with wheat and barley, that might be grown together in the same season, to find this across these cereals and millets is striking. The image above compares regional trends in grain length and width in free-threshing wheat, while the image below compares trends in the millets. Over the past 3000 years wheat and both millets tend to get longer in Central Asia; this is also true of both millets in East Asia. By contrast in northern Europe grains of all three species are becoming shorter over the same period. In Europe, wheats on average become shorter and fatter in north, but longer and skinner around the Mediterranean. In Central Asia wheat behaves more like southern Europe and the Near East. 


This all points to different selective environments in different regions. Sometimes shared across crops. Previously smaller scale, and shorter timeline studies have suggested that as wheat moved east to China grains became shorter and plumper (Liu Xinyi's "virtue of small grain size"), perhaps to make them more millet-like for cooking in East Asian boiling traditions. It is not clear such patterns hold up. Would such an explanation also be suitable for the trends in post-Roman northern European wheat? More problematic still is that the large dataset in Dal MArtello et al. (2025) is that decreasing grain length is seen in wheat starting in central Asia around the same time as its arrival in East Asia. These regions we might expect to have different cooking traditions and different cultural selection environments? The trend reverses around 2000 years ago with grains again getting larger.

An unambiguous explanation for this is elusive. It could be that there were some environmental factors in each region acting across crops. These need not be directly on grain size either, as grain size may scale allometrically with selection on other aspects of size, like plant height. Shorter and smaller plants might be more resistent to lodging in some kinds of weather or more drought tolerant. For example the Indian shot wheat, Triticum sphaeroccum,  has particularly short grains, as well as shorter plants, which seems to evolved twice in South Asia as adaptations to extremely high temperatures and evapotranspiration, even though sphaerococcoid grains reduce grain weight and overall yield (see Cheng et al. 2020).

The more general point is that crops have always been evolving and differ across regions. The foxtail millet (Setaria italica) grains at the head of this post contrast short plump grains from China (Lixian, Gansu) and skinner grains from India (Sanganakallu, Karnataka) both from the UCL archaeobotany reference collections. Explaining these differences may be hard, but what is clear that archaeobotany and systematic measurement of more assemblages can provide a window on tracking how regional populations varied across time.


Friday, 17 January 2020

In Memoriam Steven A. Weber

It is with profound sadness that I record the passing away earlier this week of Steve Weber (1954-2020), an archaeobotanist, a friend, a sometimes sparring partner (on issues archaeobotanical), a sometimes co-author, whose ideas and work greatly enriched my own. For most archaeobotanists, he is probably best known for his work on Harappan plant remains, from his book Plants and Harappan Subsistence, to his co-edited volume on Indus Ethnobiology. Although his PhD (Univ. Pennsylvania, 1989) was on the Harappan site of Rojdi in Gujarat, India, he had previously worked in the American Southwest, especially in the Hopi region. After degrees at Northern Arizona State University and attending the first Ethnobiology meeting held in 1978 in Prescott Arizona, he helped to found the Society of Ethnobiology, with Steven Emslie, and edit its Journal of Ethnobiology that launched in 1981 (recounted in his article of 1986). The first issue of that journal partly celebrated the ethnobiological work of the late Al Whiting, which Steve Weber helped to bring to publication as Hasasupai Habitat, which looked in detail on resource use and settlment system of a native group in part of the Grand Canyon region. Steve departed Arizona to take up his PhD work at Pennsylvania and to establiosh the first really large scale machine flotation program of archaeobotany in the Indus valley region at the site of Rojdi with Prof. Gregory Possehl. He later took over the archaeobotany at the excavations at Harappa throughout the 1990s.

He was professor in the Anthropology Department at Washington State University, where he taught from 1994 onwards. On his webpage there, he describes himself as an "archaeologist and archaeobotanist working throughout the world" and working on the themes of "how and why people adopt new subsistence strategies, and how change in subsistence systems relates to change in material culture and settlement systems." He was always quick to point out that he was a field archaeologist first, but he was also a knowledgable and enthusiastic botanist. He certainly did get around-- we had meetings and encounters in France, in London and Cambridge, in the Delhi airport, n Lucknow, in Zhejiang and Kyoto, in San Francisco and Vancouver, Canada, and no doubt others I have forgotten. He was also intently engaging in conversations, full of ideas for further analysis, and extremely generous with his ideas. Sometimes they were quite accidental. We met once in the Delhi airport, both transiting and tired from long flights from abroad, but over coffee we had a conversation about potentially fundamental differences between wheat and barley on the one hand and millets on the other, and whether or not there was something inherent in the productivity of the big-grained cereals that meant they were more likely to support urbanism. Ideas he later developed in his paper "Does size matter?". In this article he suggests that large-seeded crops have larger and deeper root systems, making them much more productive when soils are well-watered in contrast to the more conservative small-grained crops like millets. While one can find exceptions, like northern Chinese urbanism based on millets, there does tend to be higher productivity in the larger grains cereals, allowing for the support of denser populations.

One time we arrived in Lucknow together, and Steve's luggage has been lost, so we spent the afternoon shopping for clothes for him. (He bought quite sensible clothes, while I opted for a rather louder shorts-- see below). Although we were both there for a conference on Lahuradewa and the origins of agriculture, and especially rice agriculture, our conversation strayed, as it often did, the small millets that constitute so much agricultural diversity, not just in India, but around the world. Steve's take was that the great potential of small-scale sustainable millet agriculture was largely overlooked by modern scholarship, in part because of bias towards interest in those large-grained cereals, that were both more easy to find archaeologically and more likely to support urban elites. This resulted in our joint attempt to call attention to millets in worldwide agricultural and archaeobotanical studies, published in Pragdhara 2008.
KS Saraswat, Steve Weber, Dorian Fuller, Mukund Kajale visiting Lahuradewa excavations, Uttar Pradesh, Jan. 2006













Steve Weber and Prof-Yo-Ichiro Sato (Kyoto, summer 2007).
Some of my most lengthy and enjoyable discussions with him took place in Kyoto, where we both had stints as visiting scholars at the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, and where we were meant to bring order to nearly global archaeobotanical questions of origins and spread of crops being posed by Professor Sato.

Tragically over the pat couple of years he suffered from a degenerative illness. Despite this he was still intent on numerous research issues and ongoing projects when I saw him at a party and conference session in his honor at the SAAs in Vancouver, marked in part by the retrospective on Steve Weber the visionary written with Jade Guedes for the Journal of Ethnobiology. Steven generously passed on his many archaeobotanical samples to Jade, who had joined his department, and so the legacy of his research can be expected to continue to yield results for years to come. 

One of my earlier interactions with Steve was when I had first started teaching in London and I had offered something of a critique to an article on "seeds of urbanism" that he published in Antiquity. And while our published debate might have read somewhat acrominously, he was nothing but supportive and even enthusiastic about discussions with a younger scholar about the finer points of interpretaing patterning in archaeobotanictal data. He insisted that we should distribution together both his original article, my critique and his reply at the South Asia Archaeological conference in Paris in the summer of 2001. He was so focused on moving the field in the positive direction that he took criticism as a positive.  The discussions we began then lead on to many conversations on the value of different archaeobotanical samples based on inferences about how they formed. And he invited me to work with him on our first joint publication  on "formation processes and Palaeoethnobotanical interpretation," perhaps super-ceded by his later critical review on Palaeoethnobotany.  He was humble in his knowledge and a gentleman scholar. His example of putting the pursuit of archaeological knowledge first, before his ego, is an example I will continue to strive for.

He will be sorely missed. Below are some photos I could locate of him. Please do add your own comments thought and memories. I can add more photos if they are emailed to me. 


..
Steve Weber, Dr. Qashid Mullah, Dorian Fuller, above Kyoto (2007)

... 

Steve Weber at the 2009 conference "Origin of Rice Agriculture and its diffusion to SOutheast and East Asia", Kyoto, August 2009. [from which his publication on rice and millets in Thailand]
Dorian Fuller, Steve Weber, Gao Yu, visiting historic Hangzhou (June 2011)

Steve Weber with Dr Jin Guiyin touring Tianluoshan site, Zhejiang


Visiting Tianluoshan Neolithic site, Zhejiang (Steve Weber at far right). 
.
.
Early rice workshop at Peking University, June 2011


Steve with Jade D'Alpoim Guedes at the SAA conference, Vancouver, Canada, 2018