Modelling the origins of legume domestication and cultivation

Experimental harvesting of wild peas in Israel: implications for the origins of Near East farming

“…The debate regarding the role of seed dormancy in the process leading to legume domestication is a rare example (Blumler, 1991;Ladizinsky, 1987Ladizinsky, , 1989bLadizinsky, , 1993Zohary, 1989). Even the provocative claim by Ladizinsky, 1987, (of ''pulse domestication before cultivation'') that free germinating lentil mutants had to establish themselves in pre-agricultural times to attract the attention of ancient food gatherers, even before being considered as candidates for domestication (Ladizinsky, 1987), did not trigger studies of the yield potential of wild legume populations.…”

Origin of Near Eastern plant domestication: homage to Claude Levi-Strauss and “La Pensée Sauvage”

“…Therefore, the domestication of pea, lentil, and chickpea simply cannot be explained in terms of automatic selection dynamics (Kerem et al 2007;Abbo et al 2008aAbbo et al , b, 2009. Although Ladizinsky's (1987) model was severely criticised (Zohary 1989, Blumler 1991 and never gained popularity, biological evidence of Near Eastern wild and domesticated legumes, renders the model not only relevant but also more valid than ever (see Abbo et al 2009 for a review on the profound differences between legumes and cereals domestication). In fact, the notion of ''domestication before cultivation'' can be applied to cereals as well, based on the adoption of naturally occurring non-brittle rachis mutants in wild emmer populations in Israel as reported by Kamm (1974).…”

On the Origin of Near Eastern Founder Crops and the ‘Dump-heap Hypothesis’

“…Indeed, in recent attempts to reconstruct agricultural origins, the dump-heap model no longer occupies a central position or is even dismissed (e.g., Harlan 1995;Hillman and Davies 1999). However, the occasional resurrection of the hypothesis e.g., in the debate on lentil domestication (Blumler 1991;Ladizinsky 1993), calls for a critical review of the subject.…”