Documenting plant domestication: The consilience of biological and archaeological approaches

Smith, Bruce D.

doi:10.1073/pnas.98.4.1324

Cited by 189 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We agree that no single cause explains all instances of transition from foraging to food production (25)(26)(27); this observation is true but trivial. An explanation that claims universal validity loses its universality when exceptions are found to exist.…”

Section: Limitations Of Particularism In Oa Research and The Need Formentioning

confidence: 74%

Particularism and the retreat from theory in the archaeology of agricultural origins

Gremillion

Barton

Piperno

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

130

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction of new analytic methods and expansion of research into previously untapped regions have greatly increased the scale and resolution of data relevant to the origins of agriculture (OA). As a result, the recognition of varied historical pathways to agriculture and the continuum of management strategies have complicated the search for general explanations for the transition to food production. In this environment, higher-level theoretical frameworks are sometimes rejected on the grounds that they force conclusions that are incompatible with real-world variability. Some of those who take this position argue instead that OA should be explained in terms of local and historically contingent factors. This retreat from theory in favor of particularism is based on the faulty beliefs that complex phenomena such as agricultural origins demand equally complex explanations and that explanation is possible in the absence of theoretically based assumptions. The same scholars who are suspicious of generalization are reluctant to embrace evolutionary approaches to human behavior on the grounds that they are ahistorical, overly simplistic, and dismissive of agency and intent. We argue that these criticisms are misplaced and explain why a coherent theory of human behavior that acknowledges its evolutionary history is essential to advancing understanding of OA. Continued progress depends on the integration of human behavior and culture into the emerging synthesis of evolutionary developmental biology that informs contemporary research into plant and animal domestication. evolutionary theory | behavioral ecologyOver the last decade there has been a major expansion of knowledge regarding the timing and socioecological context of plant domestication and emerging agricultural systems. This wealth of data is due in large part to methodological innovations (e.g., in genetics and paleogenomics, in the analysis of plant micro-and macroremains and biological residues, and in the physical and biogeochemical analyses of anthropogenic sediments), reexcavations of some important archaeological sites, and the expansion of archaeological research into regions whose record of agricultural origins has been until recently poorly known [such as New Guinea (1, 2), lowland areas of Mesoamerica and northern South America (3-7), and northern and southern China (8-13)]. These research activities have enriched both the scale and resolution of the data relevant to agricultural origins worldwide. One result of this welcome enhancement of the empirical record is wider acknowledgment of the variability in the historical pathways taken by emerging food production systems across space and time. The dichotomy between foraging and food production has been discarded in favor of a continuum of landscape, plant, and animal management strategies that sometimes resist classification. However, for some scholars (2, 14), the richly detailed records of change seem to have dampened the appeal of general explanations for the transition to agriculture. This tr...

show abstract

Section: Limitations Of Particularism In Oa Research and The Need Formentioning

confidence: 74%

Particularism and the retreat from theory in the archaeology of agricultural origins

Gremillion

Barton

Piperno

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

130

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Resolving the origins and spread of domesticated crops is a fascinating and challenging endeavor that requires the integration of botanical, archeological, and genetic evidence (26,27,28). Maize provides an exceptional opportunity for studying the processes of domestication and subsequent diffusion because of the wealth of existing archaeobotanical data, germplasm accessions, and molecular markers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic signals of origin, spread, and introgression in a large sample of maize landraces

Heerwaarden

Doebley

Briggs

et al. 2010

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

366

354

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last two decades have seen important advances in our knowledge of maize domestication, thanks in part to the contributions of genetic data. Genetic studies have provided firm evidence that maize was domesticated from Balsas teosinte (Zea mays subspecies parviglumis), a wild relative that is endemic to the mid-to lowland regions of southwestern Mexico. An interesting paradox remains, however: Maize cultivars that are most closely related to Balsas teosinte are found mainly in the Mexican highlands where subspecies parviglumis does not grow. Genetic data thus point to primary diffusion of domesticated maize from the highlands rather than from the region of initial domestication. Recent archeological evidence for early lowland cultivation has been consistent with the genetics of domestication, leaving the issue of the ancestral position of highland maize unresolved. We used a new SNP dataset scored in a large number of accessions of both teosinte and maize to take a second look at the geography of the earliest cultivated maize. We found that gene flow between maize and its wild relatives meaningfully impacts our inference of geographic origins. By analyzing differentiation from inferred ancestral gene frequencies, we obtained results that are fully consistent with current ecological, archeological, and genetic data concerning the geography of early maize cultivation.T he geography of origins and diversification of agricultural species has important implications for unraveling the ecological context of Neolithic societies and for understanding current patterns of diversity in domesticated plants and animals. Traditionally the realm of archeology and botany (1, 2), the study of plant domestication has seen important contributions from genetics during the last two decades (3). Genetic data often provide evidence that is hard to obtain by other means, making it an invaluable complement to other lines of inquiry.As a case in point, molecular markers were instrumental in establishing the single domestication of maize (Zea mays subspecies mays) from an extant wild relative (4, 5). Maize was shown to originate from annual teosinte (Zea mays subspecies parviglumis, hereafter parviglumis) around 9,000 y B.P., placing domestication in the mid-to lowland regions of southwest Mexico where parviglumis grows endemically. As predicted by this result (6), excavations in the heart of parviglumis' distribution have produced the earliest (8,700 y B.P.) phytolith evidence for maize cultivation (7). Other finds from Tabasco (7,300 y B.P.) (8) and Panama (7,400 y B.P.) (9) also support an early presence of maize throughout the Meso-American lowlands.Although different types of evidence seemingly concur, questions nonetheless remain about the interpretation of the genetic data. While unequivocal with respect to maize's wild ancestor, marker evidence suggests that maize from the Mexican highlands, rather than from the lowlands, is most closely related to parviglumis and appears to have given rise to all cultivars currently grown throug...

show abstract

“…In a growing number of cases, the earliest directly dated archeological evidence for domestication of different species has been recovered from sites located relatively close to where the modern best-match wild progenitor populations still exist, providing additional evidence of both the spatial and temporal context of initial domestication. 15 Not all domesticates, of course, are developed from single progenitor populations. Efforts to unravel the complex hybridiztion histories for a range of domesticated taxa constitute a rapidly expanding area of inquiry.…”

Section: Documenting the What When And Where Of Domestication At Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Niche construction and the behavioral context of plant and animal domestication

Smith¹

2007

Evolutionary Anthropology

Self Cite

216

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many animal species attempt to enhance their environments through niche construction or environmental engineering. Such efforts at environmental modification are proposed to play an important and underappreciated role in shaping biotic communities and evolutionary processes.1, 2 Homo sapiens is acknowledged as the ultimate niche constructing species in terms of our rich repertoire of ecosystem engineering skills and the magnitude of their impact. We have been trying to make the world a better place—for ourselves—for tens of thousands of years. I argue here that it is within this general context of niche‐construction behavior that our distant ancestors initially domesticated plants and animals and, in the process, first gained the ability to significantly alter the world's environments.The general concept of niche construction also provides the logical link between current efforts to understand domestication being conducted at two disconnected scales of analysis. At the level of individual plant and animal species, on one hand, there recently have been significant advances in our knowledge of the what, when, and where of domestication of an ever‐increasing number of species worldwide.3 At the same time, large‐scale regional or universal developmental models of the transition to food production continue to be formulated. These incorporate a variety of “macro‐evolutionary” causal variables that may account for why human societies first domesticated plants and animals.4, 5 This essay employs the general concept of niche construction to address the intervening question of how, and to connect these two scales of analysis by identifying the general behavioral context within which human societies responded to “macroevolutionary” causal variables and forged new human plant or animal relationships of domestication.

show abstract

Documenting plant domestication: The consilience of biological and archaeological approaches

Cited by 189 publications

References 15 publications

Particularism and the retreat from theory in the archaeology of agricultural origins

Particularism and the retreat from theory in the archaeology of agricultural origins

Genetic signals of origin, spread, and introgression in a large sample of maize landraces

Niche construction and the behavioral context of plant and animal domestication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About