2014
DOI: 10.1007/s10722-014-0102-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Integrating archaeobotany, paleogenetics and historical linguistics may cast more light onto crop domestication: the case of pea (Pisum sativum)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The archaeological evidence further suggests that the cultivation of pea spread from the Fertile Crescent westwards through the Danube valley, ancient Greece and Rome into Europe. Linguistic evidence additionally backs this suggestion [ 42 ]. During this same period, pea also moved eastward to Persia (now Iran and Afghanistan), India and China [ 27 , 43 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…The archaeological evidence further suggests that the cultivation of pea spread from the Fertile Crescent westwards through the Danube valley, ancient Greece and Rome into Europe. Linguistic evidence additionally backs this suggestion [ 42 ]. During this same period, pea also moved eastward to Persia (now Iran and Afghanistan), India and China [ 27 , 43 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…Integrating the efforts made by archaeobotany, paleogenetics and historical linguistics, relied upon more basic research by archaeology, genomics and comparative linguistics, surely may bring the answers to at least some of the issues presented in this model (Mikić et al 2014a). It may also contribute to answering how human cultures and crop cultures are interrelated and demonstrate that, unlike today and in the beginning, there was no conflict between the evolution of humans and cultivated crops (Szabó 2013).…”
Section: Beginningsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…This is most evident if the plant aDNA studies are integrated with the research on ancient human populations, archaeobotany of cultivated plants and historical linguistics assessing the origin and derivation of the ‘agricultural’ vocabulary. Such joint efforts may produce verily seminal discoveries ( Mikić et al, 2014 ), such as casting much more light onto the language spoken by the first farmers in the world ( Diamond and Bellwood, 2003 ), confirming that the bearers of the ‘agricultural revolution’ in Europe were immigrants from Near East ( Haak et al, 2010 ) or making possible to concurrently follow the human migrations and language development ( Balter and Gibbons, 2015 ) and assessing the connections among the well-established ethnolinguistic families at a significantly earlier time than conventionally considered ( Gell-Mann et al, 2009 ; Mikić, 2012 , 2015 ).…”
Section: Plant Adnamentioning
confidence: 99%