Abstract A protracted domestication time-frame for cereals in the Near East is widely endorsed by the plant domestication research community. This occurs in tandem with the pre-domestication cultivation concept, which rests on the assumption that human husbandry operations (namely cultivation) exerted selection pressures in favor of domesticated phenotypes (e.g., non-shattering spikes) at the expense of the wild type (WT) shattering phenotype. The protracted domestication model rests on a long series of assumptions of which we address only two: (1) that the archeobotanical assemblages found in Neolithic occupation sites are representative of the managed plant populations from the cultivated fields; (2) that WT (shattering, brittle spikes) and domesticated (non-shattering, non-brittle spikes) stocks were grown for millennia as admixed populations across the Near East before the domesticated (non-shattering) morphotype slowly came to dominate the managed cereal populations. Scrutinizing these assumptions, and their derivatives, we suggest that the proportion of wild vs. domesticated cereal remains in archeobotanical assemblages cannot possibly represent the presumed cultivated plant populations. Moreover, agronomic considerations expose severe methodological and theoretical drawbacks in the protracted domestication reconstruction vis-a-vis the proportions of shattering vs. non-shattering spikelets in archeobotanical assemblages.

中文翻译：

---

古植物组合中破碎与非破碎谷物残骸的比例是否反映了东部新石器时代耕地附近？

摘要 近东谷物的长期驯化时间框架得到了植物驯化研究界的广泛认可。这与驯化前的栽培概念同时发生，该概念基于这样一个假设，即人类畜牧业操作（即栽培）施加了有利于驯化表型（例如，非破碎穗）的选择压力，而牺牲了野生型（WT ) 令人震惊的表型。长期驯化模型基于一长串假设，其中我们只涉及两个假设：（1）在新石器时代占领地发现的古植物组合代表来自耕地的受管理植物种群；(2) WT（破碎的、易碎的尖刺）和驯化的（非破碎的，非脆性穗）种群在近东地区作为混合种群种植了数千年，然后驯化（非破碎）形态型慢慢开始主导管理的谷物种群。仔细研究这些假设及其衍生品，我们认为原始植物组合中野生谷物与驯化谷物的比例不可能代表假定的栽培植物种群。此外，农学方面的考虑暴露了长期驯化重建中的严重方法学和理论缺陷，相对于古植物组合中破碎与非破碎小穗的比例。我们认为，原始植物组合中野生谷物与驯化谷物的比例不可能代表假定的栽培植物种群。此外，农学方面的考虑暴露了长期驯化重建中的严重方法学和理论缺陷，相对于古植物组合中破碎与非破碎小穗的比例。我们认为，原始植物组合中野生谷物与驯化谷物的比例不可能代表假定的栽培植物种群。此外，农学方面的考虑暴露了长期驯化重建中的严重方法学和理论缺陷，相对于古植物组合中破碎与非破碎小穗的比例。