Early fig domestication, or gathering of wild parthenocarpic figs?

Abstract

Kislev et al.'s (2006a) recent claims of fig cultivation and domestication dated to the second half of the twelfth millennium BP in the Lower Jordan valley are sensational. For some, these finds are extremely significant and represent 'the oldest evidence for deliberate planting of a food-producing plant, as opposed to just gathering food in the wild' (Peter Bellwood in Gibbons 2006). There are, however, good reasons why these claims should not be taken at face value. Kislev et al. (2006a) present evidence of human use of parthenocarpic female figs (Ficus carica var. domestica) from two archaeological sites, Gilgal I and Netiv Hagdud, occupied during the second half of the twelfth millennium BP. The archaeobotanical evidence from these sites is interpreted to represent incipient horticulture and fig domestication based on vegetative propagation, which, in turn, is inferred to have been a common and widespread practice throughout the Fertile Crescent at this time. In this short comment, inaccuracies with Kislev et al.'s understanding of fig reproduction are presented and shown to undermine their proffered interpretations. An alternative, more parsimonious scenario is offered to explain the disproportionate presence of apparently parthenocarpic fig syconia and drupelets at these two sites.

Early Holocene woodland vegetation and human impacts in the arid zone of the southern Levant

“…These datasets testify to the significant contribution of tree crops to the south Levantine PPNA–EPPNB subsistence economies. While making a case for the ‘domestication’ of Pistacia and Ficus in the PPNA is doubtful (see especially the arguments for and against fig domestication by Kislev et al (2006) and Denham (2007), respectively), the integrated anthracological and seed botanical evidence suggests that Pistacia nuts were not simply collected from the wild as part of opportunistic strategies procuring occasional delicacies or dietary supplements. Instead, both Pistacia nut and fuel/timber wood production appear to have formed an integral part of the south Levantine PPN subsistence economies.…”

The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East

“…11,200 cal BP) has been interpreted as a clear indication of human selection for this mutant infertile fig variety that remains on the tree longer and develops sweeter, softer fruit. Other researchers have noted, however, that parthenocarpy is known among wild female fig trees (Denham 2007; and therefore, as with the presence of tough-rachis varieties or larger cereal grains in low quantities, their occurrence in an archaeobotanical assemblage cannot be considered definitive proof of domestication. Kislev, Hartmann, and Bar-Yosef (2006b) have responded that if, as their critics contend, these figs represent the selective harvest of mutant figs from wild fig trees, at least some seeded varieties would be expected to have been collected along with these rare, naturally occurring parthenocarpic figs.…”

The Neolithic Macro-(R)evolution: Macroevolutionary Theory and the Study of Culture Change

“…Instead, this shrubby pioneer plant can be easily grown simply by replanting cut branches, a type of vegetative cloning that Kislev et al (2006a, b) contend is a form of domestication. Lev-Yadun et al (2006a) have subsequently argued, however, that since parthenocarpy is also found in wild female fig trees, which produce both seeded and unseeded figs, the seedless figs found at Gigal may well represent selective harvesting of these sweeter fruits from wild trees (see also Denham 2007). Kislev et al (2006b) discount this possibility, pointing out that all nine carbonized figs from Gigal and 313 single drupelets (small parts of aggregate fruit) represent parthenocarpic figs.…”