 I would like to present Professor Abby Gopher, who is a professor of archaeology at the Tel Aviv University. I would like to present Professor Abby Gopher, who is a professor of archaeology at the Tel Aviv University. I would like to present Professor Abby Gopher, who is a professor of archaeology at the Tel Aviv University. I would like to present Professor Abby Gopher, who is a professor of archaeology at the Tel Aviv University. She is a colleague of Shuhal Abou, who is an iconologist at the Levi School of Agriculture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. So they are both experts at this point. They've been publishing for two decades. I think we just disordered over coffee that we've published publication together since 2000. So they've been working together for a number of years, tackling the ever popular and much debated issue of plant domestication in the East, which I know many of you guys aren't well aware of, especially those many of you who I've forced to meet and we've gotten articles including those published by our esteemed speakers for today. And they're gonna be talking today about some revolutionary ideas on the Neolithic Revolution, a different perspective on traditional approaches to understanding plant domestication, which I noted in a recent press coverage we described as a process, not a traffic accident. So they're talking about research they've been doing together for many years and was recently published in a book called Plant Domestication and the Origins of Agriculture in the Nearest. That was published by Resley in the early press. And so without further ado, I could go on and on with the publications but they are both literally more than my arms like. So I will let them speak on their topic, Plant Domestication in the Nearest. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is this too dark? Yeah, that's good. Yeah. Yes. Okay. All right. So now we're ready. I'd like to thank Lisa for, Lisa from my partner, Professor Chateau Albon, for the opportunity to be here. And our topic today is Plant Domestication in the Nearest. Plant domestication is part of the transformation as it's known as the agricultural revolution which is an overarching change in human perception and socially common major culture of turning point in human history. We would like to present some aspects of plant domestication and plant domestication research in the Nearest. And if time permits, contemplate on their significance in shaking our here and now. We present two perspectives of plant domestication in the Nearest. One, a culture of one, that is changes in culture as seen through the ecological record. And second, we'll be presented by Sean Hyde and relate biological aspects. They are relevant to the species that we talk about. In our case, we have a package of egg species that were domesticated including deodorants and cereals. These two things vary in each other so it's not a whole new division. Our goal here at the same time is to try and convince you that the model of plant domestication in the Nearest that we support is of higher perceivity when compared to other models which are to present in the Nearest. For those of you that do not closely follow plant domestication research in the Nearest, let me just present two or three points as a short background. First point, it's the protagonist in this vein of plant domestication in the Nearest. It includes archaeologists investigating culture, archaeobotanists who investigate plant remains recovered in archaeological sites, biologists and geneticists investigating crop plant genetics, agronomists studying crop adaptation and husbandry, and geobotanists studying the environment and ecology of the relevant plants. A good script for this play would be in my view based on creating a trustful interrelationship between three major actors. That is the biology, the environment of plants and man and man's culture so that a synergistic interplay will take place between these actors creating a trust that is often bigger than the sound of sparks. The second point I want to talk about is the two models that are on stage now. The first one which we call the protracted autonomous or non-centered model is the one traveling in Nearest and Neolithic studies in the past decade. This model emphasizes a long protracted process that was being geographically autonomous that is non-centered and characterized by sea and unconscious nature. On the other hand, it is the corollary of one-minute model that views Nearest and Neolithic plant domestication as a knowledge-based and conscious event or carrying a geographically limited core area and you're in a very short, single event. Although we think the second model is in our view corroborated by multiple lines of evidence including archeological evidence, archeobotanical and genetic evidence, it currently represents a minority view and we should know that. And the third point that I want to introduce as part of this introduction is that you may have noticed that these models, as they stand, present a set of dichotomies, as their names indicate. And when looked at in more detail, these include amongst others some bare issues that we should at least mention. There's a question of locality. Did plant domestication take place in a specific, well-defined core area within the model, which means it was highly localized or did it occur independently or autonomously in different places and it was a diffused model? And had it been centered where was the area where it took place? The second point is the process itself in domestication occurred in an exclusive single episode for each species, I would say is a model, is a part of a single timing or where were multiple domestication for a species and thus by definition for the packages of all? This raises a question concerning the issue of how did new method occur this? Then there is an issue of intent, was the process incidental or circumstantial or a result of evolutionary mutualism or was it a designated knowledge-based human initiative? Then there is a point of selection where the choices of plant species to be domesticated and the selection of family types or specific types to be domestication, to be domesticated conscious or unconscious. And the last is length of the process, was it a fast process or an event, episode if you want, which is possibly not easily recognized by the resolution we have, so archeology by the way, or was it a millennial or protracted process? And it is difficult to separate answer to these distinct but yet interrelated questions. We would argue that making a decision in favor of a localized core area option, as we did in the past, looking like this green serpent, can this, this choice can take the balance concerning undecided third topics and help in creating a coherent, cultural and biological scenario of plant domestication at the nearest. This scenario would accord well with the common variable data. On the other hand, obtained for the alternative geographically diffused or the autonomous model of independent domestication processes for each plant and a different location within the nearest raises difficulties and leaves many unresolved questions. Just another last note, we know that the researchers in recent years tend to view cultural processes, domestication of plants and animals included in the course within a macroevolutionary historical perspective. And as a continuous process comprising individual fluid sequences of social culture and environment, as it was decoded by, for example, the name of Zedil or Elenius Soutia or others. Or in other words, the interaction between man and plants, again domestication included, is viewed basically as a continuum of transitional situation. These researchers oppose either or doing this type of traditions. We will nevertheless introduce views of such a shared by hook-a-means with respect to plant domestication as they are a comfortable device. It's easy to use. I decided to focus on the where question, is there a center of domestication and if so, where is the center of the nearest? I will, of course, try to convince you that there is a center, there is a core network, and that it is in the northern parts of the devan and so is in Turkey and northern Syria. And we can see in the map it's still on. I will focus on the cultural background of plant domestication and try to provide a picture of how the archaeological, cultural landscapes of these immense historical courses look like in the Near East in the relevant time period. It is a telegraphic view, somewhat simplified, a bit jumpy, and it is based on visible material culture. But I suppose that these material culture tenements reflect changes and perceptions and ideologies with these changes transforming man or man-world or nature-culture relationships from a hunter-gatherer state of affairs described years ago by Tim Dingelord as a state of trust, to a food-producing state described by him as a state of domination. I think it was in the year 2000 that this picture was published. So, here we go. Let's first have a very brief look at major aspects that differentiate hunter-gatherers from food-producing farmers. This is, of course, a generalization. Hunter-gatherers differ from food-producing farmers. And sediment patterns and liquidity differ in social structure. They differ in economy. They differ in tomography. And they differ in perception. They differ in perception of man-world relationship, if you want to call it that way. All of these represent a deep divide, a major perceptual and structural difference. And it is expressed in the low in terms of what we are looking for on the very low ecological footprint of hunter-gatherers. They leave very little of this in the world while the footprint of food producers, that is, us, keeps growing, maybe to the point of no return. Now, how do these aspects look like in the archaeological landscape? Let's have a brief look at man's footprint in the landscape from above as the evening flies. Let's avoid the short and fast. If we take a look at the present Moshenen camp, or 20th century Moshenen camp, and look at one heart, and the candle is a hole, this is what we see. Then we take our first flight some 23,000 years ago above Israel, looking at the sign of Pohello, near the Sea of Ben Ali. We look at the heart, this is what we make of it, this is how it was reconstructed, and we see a sign, or a camp as a whole, and I think you may notice the similarities in these two situations. Now we take another flight around 15,000 years ago, looking at the Latuffian culture of northern Israel, and we can see these stone houses, white-haired houses, and dense sites with a lot of architecture. We can see heavy facilities in these houses, and between them we can see on-site burials, this is another site, and we can see a range of interior items, or art, if you want to call it art, that wasn't there before, or was that so intense. Now we take another flight around 11,500 years ago, when the pre-Pohterian unity came here, it starts, that's the very beginning of the new period, and we see intense settlements with mud brick and stone houses, in large sites like Jericho, which is 10 acres, 10 acres, it's 42 miles. It's a big site, a large site like this, and you can see these houses in different PTA sites, like the people of Gdun, like the people of Oren, like the people of Ahmad and Syria, and many more. There are many towns, like Jericho, with massive walls with a ditch around the site, and with these rounded large towers. We take another flight above Gebetli, a site in Turkey in the northern Levant, around 11,000 to 10,500 years ago, just a minute before the investigation, and what we see there is an overwhelming growth, an abnormal condition, if you want to call it like this, for Hunters-Gamers, a manifestation of changing men-world relations. It's an immense site of 15 acres. There is a very large invested stone-built enclosures that look like this. Some can reach a diameter of 20 or over 20 meters, as another one. The big stone masses we see in there are monumental tinnagerie items, very big sculptures, made of stone. These we call them T-shaped stone pillars. These include, this is monumental sculpting and includes many images of animal representations. That's the animal. Some of them are predilectionally. Okay. All right. This, I'd say abnormal, but I'm not sure about that. This growth in scale represents a climate of sorts, together with societies in this region. But it was not accompanied by a change in economy. There's no evidence for domestication. This may have inevitable questions, which may at least partly explain why Hunters-Gamers have changed the world for years. Let us then take our last flight after the PPLA, after the beginning of the Neolithic, and after looking at this outstanding site. We take another flight around 10,600 years ago, 10,000 years ago. We look at the landscapes of Pintu, who domesticate plants and trees. In the period, let me go an early PPLB. We can observe a re-turning point here This is expressed in many areas of culture and in the archaeological arena as well. We can see a new site nature, very large farming societies that look like this when re-constructed. This is a traditional village life, so we'll know in western images as we think about it. We can see a re-changed architecture. There's no architecture. It's not grounded as it used to be for millennia, but now it's rectangular architecture. It includes domestic buildings. This one, in 30, it includes also public architecture. This one too, it's called a house, and it has many, many skeletons in one of its parks. Overnight, it was interpreted as a temple, like a liberatory on the Euphrates. And this appears in many more sites. There's also a new economy here, what PPLB can be at its base on domesticates. These are the first domesticates found in the archaeological record. There are also new technologies such as light blaster. This is a building plastered from Israel a bit later. This is the earliest part of technology we know in the Neolithic period. There are new technologies for making blades. These blades are used for making signal blades and arrowheads. New types of driving stones, new storage facilities, some aspects of water control, and many more technological innovations. There are also new bearing practices that can be observed with new treatments of the day. And there is a new imagery of art, if you want to put it in art, with more local morphos, than the morphos and representations that it was before. And this example is for leveling children on the Euphrates. The early PPM being eaten, and the predecessors of the Preparatory Neolithic period materialized to change, establishing fully agricultural systems that spread throughout the Neolithic and beyond. Although a very great survey it is clear that something significant was taking place just after the PPM had finished the early PPM started around 10,600 10,500 years. By 10,000 years ago life was back on the domestic camps and farming villages were fully established in the Near East of the region almost everywhere. Just a brief run later in the Neolithic further methodologies appear accompanied by new burial customs sometimes looking like this especially in the southern western Scots and then new perceptions regarding social ranking that starts appearing in gender systems and religion. Later on some new paraphernalia some still must from the PPMP. Later on pottery appears and somewhat later mythology and then road then urbanization and cities with chiefs of kings and taxes priests and temples with generals and armies and so on to our modern conditions if you want to go that way life series of revolutions. If we try to touch these changes and biological and archaeological finds and results of biological genetic analysis to the question of plant domestication of the Near East and if we compile all these evidence that supports plant domestication in the northern and northern poor area at the beginning of the early PPMP if the list would look like this there will be geobotanical evidence to show that this is the only region where all the white progenitors of the egg packaged species appear at this one that I mentioned earlier if we look at the archaeology the suggested poor area in southeastern Turkey and northern Syria was a major active cultural center for limited innovations and materials that spread to other parts of the Revan and beyond this is supported by Carmel 14 dates recording the flow of pre-operative cultural elements from the northern Revan to the south and west this area has also exhibited a shift in psych character as I shown before architecture there has to be farming and many material aspects as well as an imagery item of symbolism climaxing in the early PPMP with a clear, direct and well dated evidence of plant and animal domestication to make this statement one has to use the proper environmental resolution which I will deal with or say more about later on before we finish also there is archaeobotanical evidence and the archaeobotanical evidence is very clear it is found from all package species in their wild form in the core area in the region in the late Matusia and in the PPMP so their wife up until around 10,000, 6 or 10,500 years ago and then we get the earliest evidence for domestication for domesticated plants in this area around 10,500 years ago and this is the earliest evidence we have for domestication there is also genetic evidence that the genetic stocks of the progenitors of several package species that bear the rise to the domesticated populations forms are present in only a limited area of their broad distribution in the suggested core area this is the case for hammerweight the anchorweight the chickpea and some lentil and as recently shown it's true for pea and barley as well although barley is a more complicated story with other possible domestications you don't have good evidence of flux which is part of the package and for bitter veg this is the area of faba bean that appears in the very beginning but we don't know its progenitors there is one additional point I want to show in favor of the core area model it is the pattern of the spread of domestication and farming as seen by archeological archeobutanical and carboxerian dating this is very relevant to the choice between the two models I presented before since the core area of my event model predicts when clearly the spread of domesticated plant populations from a central domestication i.e. southern Turkey and northern Syria south-eastern Turkey that can be detected by temporal and spatial patterns found within the archeological and archeobutanical assembly that can also be followed by the genetic footprints of integration that can be detected by the pattern of DNA polymorphism among respective populations so the protracted autonomous model is expected to leave no such spatial patterns neither among archeological or archeobutanical record nor among DNA polymorphism data for wheat and chickpea and the molecular genetic data as well as our archeobutanical remains this may be described as a written and well-advanced pattern radiating out of the foreclosure these written are also notable in the works of other researchers notwithstanding the domestication model they impose and indeed the spread of domesticated plants within the revanque within the Greeks is in line with the spread of other cultural elements interestingly this seems to be the case for animals too this is taken from a paper about an imposition about a decade ago the instrument for animals the progenitors are all for animals domesticated sheep, goat, cattle and pig overlap in the area that is quite similar and quite close to the core area we suggest and so it's a true for some linguistics especially concerning the source of European languages it's also true for human genetics that is in the last two or three years that indicate populations of agriculture that spread from the core area to the west and into Europe in conclusion my answer to the question where is that there was a core area on the Middle Freighties where farming has started and there is evidence for it fast spread within the Near East and beyond also within the next 2,500 years major parts of Europe Asia and North Africa will become agricultural one of the reasons why this model with these multiple lines of evidence is still a minority view relates to the fact that many of the actors in the play of plant domestication in the Near East are not a major distinction that is the distinction between plant domestication plant evolution and domestication it follows domestication which Lachan will be talking about that and stabilize so this will be my part of the talk and what is the difference between plant domestication and plant evolution and how is it possible to distinguish between the two and I will briefly talk about these three topics the domestication single try to distinguish between these two concepts and we have time if you are interested also in the harmonic aspects if we can also discuss implications for modern Europe the domestication single is a concept that was coined by Karl Hammer in 1948 and 1984 one of the possible one of the is possible to define it as a sweep of traits that are essential for the survival of the plant in the wild in which a genetic change can be seen in domesticated forms and it is interesting that probably the conceptual infrastructure for this definition for coining this concept was made a decade earlier in 1973 by Jack Harman in a classical paper the comparative evolution of cells and these are basically the traits and he called it an adaptation single because it means that the plants were made like, adapted like many environments that is the cultivated field and the most important and most highly discussed traits in that long list are the non-shattering of reproduced and disabling of the dispensable mode of seeds seed size larger organisms domesticated plants and a loss of germination so let's go into it how does it look like this is the this is how shattering of wild wheat spikes look like these are the the spike lens this is a wild pig the pods shatter and most of the seeds are shot out of it so you can just see they come around and they catch one or two so these these two phenotypes look similar actually they are parallel okay but this in mind however looking at the domestic phenotype of legume seeds and genome additions so in 87 suggested a sort of turned it upside down and said plants domestication before cultivation and that is making the claim that free germinating stock is essential actually imperative for cultivating legumes because those plants have seed germination at the rate of 90% that would be only 10% of them after maturing by the end of the summer only 10% of them would germinate with the autumn coming autumn autumn rain he was going and visiting wild populations and he noted and tried to foil this single explanation an average length of plant in Israel and Jordan and Lebanon makes about 10 seeds if you plant 106 in your cultivation only 10 will germinate each will reproduce by a factor of 10 you end up with 110 so you end up with what you invest under such circumstances there is no incentive for cultivation so if one identify is open a party that were able to do it free germinating stock that is domesticated phenotype in the wild what people call standing genetic variation you adopt it only then you can start talking about cultivation but this this concept was rejected the people maintained they were looking the parallelism or the so called parallel between the domestication of legumes and seeders so 3 years ago more than 10 years ago we decided to look into this question of so called parallelism between legumes and seeders and this is actually helped us to try and distinguish between this pair the family has mentioned between the two opposing views concerning the model or the mechanism the biological mechanism of domestication now we were discussing the cultural aspects let us look at the biological aspects so if you try to compare the features of these two grand books that make the founder called Peckett the Sears and the Legumes and again as I mentioned earlier the central dogma if I may use it was domestication went parallel in these two books if you look at the population structure it is here in his patchy and thin these are massive we don't have time to look at all of these it was all published the plant structure these are short caping plants serials and tall plants they can be 2 meters high in terms of growth I mean these are determinant growth for those of you who are not biologists serial plants the growth ends with a spike the inflorescence on a deep plant or elliptical and leaves oxides so there is a continuum of growth and of vegetative and reproductive growth at the same time in terms of the dispersion rate you saw the difference these are cornflakes seeds that cannot be gathered from the ground these are home spike plants sometimes including the homes 15 centimeters even after shutter you can harvest or you can collect some here it is in the range of 90 percent and it's only 50 percent in the from our biology Christogamos means that fertilization takes place within the flowers the hunters shed their in the in those leg leaves because they are not cross-pollinated in leg leaves but I'm talking about those new eastern plants before the petals open so there is hardly any chance for cross-pollination the hunters have special designated organs that actually open the florets and enable if there is any airborne pollen some degree of cross-pollination and the result the end result again in agronomic terms when you combine all those all those traits the overall effect on the phenotype and the performance of the plant is that the cellulite have aggressive growth and leg leaves are very poor competitors in terms of their ability to grow so you see these are dramatically different words and there is no possibility that the same attitude same agronomic attitude that was applied for cellulite's domestication it wouldn't have wound in the leg leaves our conclusion from this is that the biology was entirely different let's just look at at dormancy we conducted field experiments with three species and we had two treatments scarified seeds that is taking a piece of the seed cone this is a leases that actually allows the seeds to invite water and therefore full establishment but nearly 100% germination we did it during three years in pre-sites in Israel and this is not the next series during the harvest and just to summarize you know you end up with a field that looks like a chicken plate each such square was sewn with wild seeds that were not scarified like this is the natural situation and these green plots are either wild that were scarified or domesticated cheques so if you look at it the main green field of course with the domesticated cheques is pretty high wild peed even suffering considerable loss because of shuttering because they have shuttering poles okay these are the yield numbers between 280 and 170 and these are the intact wild namely the doma in most of the cases the yield is we had to invest for the ground the yield is very close to what you invest just like the theoretical considerations like Dijinski he never made any experiment he was satisfied with making the calculation but we did we did that so if you look at it we can actually declare or make the claim that free germination or loss of dormancy is a crucial or a critical trait from domestication okay because again we don't have the time to talk about it this renders the concept of domestication totally irrelevant actually removes it from the scene of the play without the strategy and put this straight okay but still in the plant domestication literature concerning the release it is a major thing so because because some some of the traits that are bunched under the umbrella of the domestication syndrome some of them can be seen as crucial critical and some of them can be seen as useful but not critical we thought that it is useful to try and develop a reliable distinction between such traits and also you have to bear in mind that some of the traits that are visible for us today with living plants are actually irrelevant of basically transparent when you look at them through archaeological for instance all those phenotypes okay the immunization response in Chippi or 3D or germination or in legumes or in syrups and they don't have it this cannot be confirmed from charm scenes from other archaeological plants so and and also to make to emphasize this point that if you accept if you give me this credit and if you accept the concept of genuine domestication traits or push-up domestication traits push-up in terms of of the economic value okay to enable a profitable cultivation then it will immediately follow that all the other traits like these ones for example are post domestication changes and therefore should be regarded as group evolution okay rather than domestication so and and again our observation and this is not this is not this is not universal it may not be each and every plant for each and every domestication center may well be applied to many of the domesticated plants and we think it is useful in most of the cases the genetic basis of those quotient or what we call genuine domestication traits is monogenic these are medial changes that are controlled by genes of major effect and usually the plant material like the archaeobotanical material can be classified very easily into two categories with hardly any intermediates okay like mender bees either pink or white and archaeobotanical reminds of the serial spikelets either a rough scar or a smooth scar okay and when you look at living weed plants either chateau or non-chateau with hardly any intermediates and again this is the action of a major gene and when the other other traits that are often used to document domestication or changes in domestication like reports of seed sizing weed and the changes of seed sizes in body those are polygenic traits these are not those are not monogenic traits okay so and they cannot be classified into categories and of course need a different set of statistical tools to so if you look for example in a and a weed the list an overlap when you look at the schematics of wild weed and domestic and the weed the list an overlap so if you have a seed remain of thirty five lily loss is it wild or domestic weed how can you tell and if you look so people may have well selected for larger seed sizes we are not excluding this option but when you are given a specimen you can't say anything about this domestication status no matter where it falls on those categories and the same goes the chickpea okay there are chickpea cultivars and they have seeds that are smaller than the white project so we cannot use seed size in chickpea to document domestication so it can be formulated in this manner that genuine domestication traits are mostly monomorphic both within the domesticated gene pool and the wild gene pool with alternative ideas to each gene pool and while traits that are polymorphic in both gene pools okay we will exclude them from the domestication episode we suggested if they had any role they had a minor a minor role and they cannot be used to they shouldn't be associated with the domestication episode however a trait like seed size is a very useful descriptor of crop evolution because breeders today in syngenic style keep on priming and improve those traits increase the seed size, increase the yield and improve the female parts so it's a different concept rather than documenting domestication metric traits like seed size and in other field types are powerful and useful descriptors of crop evolution under domestication which is by definition an ever ending process that goes on even today and actually you can make predictions and put it in such an orthogonal data in terms of the polymorphism pattern we need the wild gene pool the domesticated gene pool domestication traits and crop evolution traits and here you expect them both to be monomorphic but with the alternative eyelid here the non-shattering, here of course Spaniard, Tanya's seed disperser here polymorphic for instance a range of calypsoids and plastos like what you see in wild lentils but monomorphic single calypsoid here the plaston, that's the cloplast genus and when we talk about so here it would be polymorphic here it would be monomorphic in terms of crop evolution you expect certain traits to be polymorphic again a range of seed sizes and here again as I demonstrate a range of seed sizes and also the opposite look at this there is of course the possibility that the wild would be monomorphic and the domesticated would be polymorphic think about the cabbages all wild cabbages look the same and they don't have a cabbage head but with the same botanical species, we have blossoms plants, kale, kohlrabi cauliflower and cabbage they are all the same species you can cross one with us all of them in fact I they do not have the same species this is the situation here they are monomorphic in the wild but highly polymorphic within the domesticated gene pool so in many many cases this distinction works well and as I said it is not it will not work for mangoes and may not work for for a date plant but it works for very many crop plants from other other centers so we propose to conceptualize this issue in such a manner that there was an episodic episodic stage of domestication in which those guys from the from the middle had to deal with the crucial traits and later on this is probably what we still do today and it is ongoing some people call it improvement Jeff O. Sibara from Davis called those traits improvement traits so that's this is what and just to add what I've mentioned if you want to choose the protracted the most diffused alternative of those two models just bear in mind that it is founded on those assumptions the assumption of the necessity of protracted domestication it doesn't work with vacuums simple argument argumentation concerning rates of cultivation we don't have time only if you insist on the series going on there there are only assumptions about the workload involved in post-hunger processing of the series those linear regression changes of sea size of the time which again are meaningless as I showed earlier the fact that there is no logical option for pre-domestication of trained agents and knowing evidence of protracted domestication based on the sea shape that are around it from then and again which is so all in all that protracted alternative actually confuses between protracted domestication and thought evolution so and the use for the use that we can make out of this ground-reader so one more thing is that because we you know domestication involved actually something from the violence I think a quote about the domestication both in the programs are best reversed genetically not depending on this coverage so we need to resort to wild germ plants to improve disease resistance or pest resistance but if you think about a crucial rate and a non-crucial rate when you think about genetic erosion along or across the chromosomal regions if you look at the chromosomal region where a domestication a genuine domestication resides the locus genetic locus the potential value of this chromosomal segment would be high for breeding but if you look at an improvement the potential value of the chromosomal segment would be rather low so there is actually a practical use for this concept in terms of this word we should do two rounds so just to finish up I'd like a summary about resolution because what you were listening to in the last 15 or 20 minutes was all about resolution we may say that not a few biologists geneticists, agronomists investigating any domestication ascribing for increased resolution they do it by refining their knowledge and understanding of for example what Czachan was talking about before the domestication syndrome was serious in decades worldwide distinguishing domestication from proper resolution the funny or sad story is that and not a few archaeologists and archaeobotanists the David Plant investigation and the Ericson analysis they're surprisingly built the other way and still increasing their resolution they lower it by way of nothing large units of timing and by balancing their larger picture and building an interruption and and plants including domestication they will fluid in this continuum of transitional situation thereby they are individually losing the reference to the archaeological data and they are wasting the efforts of the generation of archaeologists to provide a higher resolution the archaeological control blocks used for the protracted, non-centered unconscious plant domestication model were too big or another world based on too low a resolution to withstand any scientific scrutiny so for us we are slickers we believe in using high resolution possible now since the archaeological war in the eastern New England archaeology provides a plus or minus 25 plus or minus 50 a large plus or minus 900 years of cultural resolution of these theories we reject any lumping as is common in plant domestication research of the nearest nowadays a conspicuous example that I can give you for this lumping together of the PPNA that I presented before and the PPNB this way we actually subdivide the new myth part relevant to plant domestication into two blocks of 11 to 1400 years each which means we are way way way beyond the resolution we can use no resolution hinders the opportunity to put under any scrutiny the details of this cultural these cultural histories that we are discussing that came in subdivision between the PPNA and the early PPNB they know the respective uniqueness of the cultural units they both and the most significant cultural and economic border is being actually we are we are losing moreover this practice of lumping exposes any discussion of the cultural viewpoint to statements such as this one that we see on the slide which in my view represent a loss of resolution that renders much of the good work of archeologists irrelevant or redundant altogether but the protractive autonomous model of plant domestication flourishes at this no resolution it's a good environment to talk about processes and you don't need to go into details of any sort of resolution available this way of doing things is divorced from some of the archeological and biological data as well as from the agronomy of the package and the other hand the core area of an event model cannot a definition of high resolution or and phrase learning of the picture but we should rather have to look at things very carefully and look for the exact cultural context in which things are happening and point out the point between the impervious evidence of domestication and its peers most of the evidence we have now over the years happened around 10,500 years ago and the government of Salista, New York and New York City thank you very much talk about any questions for our speakers as your guest we started by finding something known about climate change the holy argument and democracy that's the underhold we learned that democracy did not take high growth right at the time we domesticated nothing it has a retaliation effect it starts later it was shown to be through different content as for a climate many of the people that used to argue that climate is a reason for the change in the economy realized now in the theories the measure that you can talk about is the younger drivers younger drivers start around 30,000 years ago and around 200,000 years ago it has no relevance to climate domestication whatsoever and there is one clearing by Colonel Heman one clearing about Lake Natokia and 13,000 years old domestication of crime one of the exceptions it was working very well with the younger drivers but it was pushed too far so actually we don't have any articulation between what happened in the geological record and animal domestication so what happened in the last five years is that people start going back but the same is this ok we can see the younger drivers and the record we are not sure that it was so dramatic in the summer in Lebanon it's very local maybe because of the average temperature and you decrease the amount of precipitation you have two compensating things because you have less precipitation you have a lower temperature the major problem with water availability in the nearest is evaporation so if you lower the temperature and you lower the precipitation nothing special happens to the environment and we know it from the paleological record from the paleological record from the photo remains we know I'm not saying there are no younger drivers there is a clear younger drivers in the record there is no relevancy to plant or animal domestication earlier it's much earlier and so people start talking about the kind of planking domesticating whether it was ok so in your opinion what is the cause if I have to be bold then answer your one more the cause is perception it's in people's minds you cannot domesticate clearly animals but I think plants as well if your mind is working like a hunter-gatherer it's impossible the whole ethos of existence will not let you do it so you have to first like Jacques Kovan said many years ago in his nice book about the work of the gods and the neolithic of the country of revolution he said you have to have a change in your psychology a change in your perception before you start domesticating because you cannot do it as a hunter-gatherer it's against your ethos of existence so the reason why this is the reason why now I've shown in the interview it's crazy to see something like this and the deer race around 11,000 years old really a little later and there's no domesticates maybe they will find some they're continuing working they know excavator of originals as for now there's no evidence of domestication you don't have any evidence before you get into it so something must have happened to people that drove them into a perceptual change and chemically is a very good example of that because this is not typical hunter-gatherer scales it's abnormal not logical to see that and so a lot of people were talking at the beginning saying how it's aggregations are and farmers are running but there's no evidence some are chemically studied but some are studied there's no evidence for domestication whatsoever so it must be here and this is why we think it's knowledge-based it's intentional but it's conscious but I wanted to talk if you would about legumes that was specific the plastics that you used that people use is the brittle rate beads and that's really clear and it's one trait it's kind of you can get your hands in your mind around it but the legumes are a little bit different so when you talk about seed dormancy if I'm not mistaken a few slides ago you were summarizing and you were making your single there's not polymorphic but I don't know how many genes are involved but you focused on seed dormancy now in my mind seed dormancy is test-effectiveness are you using something different about it and what are your monogenetics for seed dormancy? in many grain legumes dormancy is mediated by a thick seed coat a thick pesta that's correct and there are examples of some species for lunging there are examples of these do you like them? no not sorry not for test-effectiveness for the ability of the seeds to imbibe water in Germany to measure actually what matters for the cultivator is whether you get a good standard so they put them on moist and come the seeds this is what they measure okay so there are examples as a set of monogenic b-genic in Vizio I think there are and again you know what you measure the numbers that you get sometimes depend on the methodology that you are using so for instance when people do a Mendelian genetics and try to classify the plants like if you take a dormant a genotype a non-domo genotype and this is the way you do it if you apply the QTM approach it is possible to identify sometimes even 7 or 8 genetic loci that have some effect on dormant seeds that may be used to explain let's say 2%, 5%, 17% or 40% of the variation this is according to the percentage of explained variation in the project but again I don't make the claim that in order to enable profitable cultivation all I need is to bring the rate of germination from the natural 10% to about 30% or 40% all the rest can follow soon so you need one critical change you are just saying one one critical change but there are several that could be interesting by definition almost every biological genotype is affected by the multitude of genes you are making a case for this one critical gene that changes and that is what I am working on with my leggings I can see but you are saying that there are multiple genes and all you need is one of those to change it is going to shift the genetics one critical trait why do you have this necessarily wondering what could be a change from multiple genes that may represent it may well be that the critical change would be just one change one mutation in one of those genes for instance in Babylon we know that there are two and they are linked to the other side but you need only one change either we are one or we are two and you get the domesticated gene you don't need the two of them I want to add something that Shafan said that relates to your question it is a vector of what you think about people when you talk about dormancy and say it is critical what it means in my case among biologists is if you say that there is protracted processes that take thousands of years of people trying to or having a process of domestication what you say is that in all these sites all of them have been linked there were stupid people that were working all day all season, all year and making no profit if everything was ok they put in 100 and they get back 100 if it's not ok they get back 50 this is not logical for people who made all these things I mean you can lose a crop one year, two years how long can you work without a profit? you move on you move on when? physically but there are lentils all over the place everywhere in the domesticated package all sites have lentils now you say maybe they collected them in the wild yeah, but if they if they say that they were cultivating for thousands of years then you get lentil everywhere so what did they go they all just to collect lentil? they collected lentils you have to be on your knees to find a small plant to eternity you have to work all day you have to work all day for a couple of so it's not unless you do that in the wild this is not acceptable for under-scapitors in terms of what people were doing when they were domesticating it's impossible that it's a long process because it doesn't work for lentils unless you think that there's still enough to do it for thousands of years but no profit and suddenly domesticated itself yeah, what happened? it was a very strange situation the line was very exactly very dialogical I actually agree with you that I think it's a cultural person it's a cultural there's nothing else there's a square that's been really awkward in the current literature I was wondering if you could discuss a little bit but I was wondering if you could go into your research and if there's any distinct variations within the architecture that relates to these changes in the world so oh yeah so when you started doing tours for me I was curious looking at architecture are you seeing any major differences within this core area of house construction and type versus outside contemporary science generally no generally everything concerns architecture although it's quite sophisticated and I had a few students were working out about architecture until the early ppnb is wrong any architecture after the early ppnb that is in the major Mediterranean ridge is rectangular and usually it comes with flowing in line past here in the local in the desert areas they come together or it remains rounded for a little more for a while and then our architecture rectangular why almost mainly there is a lot of literature in the 1960s and a lot of demographic war and basically we can talk about one or two things either it's easier in terms of technology and this is why this is the early architecture and even when people already have rectangular architecture and for example they leave the mainland Turkey around those sectors at the beginning they may be rounded houses and then they know what the particular houses they come from and all of that was rectangular architecture so that's the natural way of doing things and some people say that this architecture and the location and those areas but this is all technological if you ask me it's not a lot of technology because these people were doing these sculptures 5 meters and 5 tons in weight and they were bringing them in one piece we will talk about Easter Island these are Easter Island sculptures they were 10,000 years earlier and they were moved in 40 sides it's not about technology they know all they needed about technology and if they would like to have a rectangular architecture and if they look at typically the clay or another side you will see rectangular features of many sorts they are not the whole structure but they could do it and 90 degrees side division they could do it it's not a lot of technology so if you ask me it's one of two things it's something to do with the structure of this piece Roque Square organized and the other thing is here what's your show because I was thinking about this actually about the changing of views and how my group would have to change this the investigation to actually start investigating so it's when you are making a kind of correlation between the changing views and structure this is contemptually tight because there's a moment I'm saying it's a matter of resolution we don't have this moment because our resolution is personal and I want to be large it's personal and strict even if you have very good days you can have a big number of days statistics it will remain there plus or minus 35 whatever you want but there is point in time within our resolution we cannot see within our resolution when all these things are happening if you put together everything that happened a thousand years later and earlier you lose this you lose it so people change their architecture change their register change their economy and domesticated and moved into a different ideology or if I want to put it into mind a different symbolism you lose many of these analog representations and you move into a world of analog representation there it's not so simple as I presented here because these big sculptures and chemically today if you look at them nicely they are some kind of generic young representations but if you go into a ppnb somewhere just every ppnb just after this in the same site in the same chemically or you never return you got these t-shirts they are smaller than in the ppnb but they have hands here human hands they are carved here and then you see a person but this also happens in the early ppnb all these things are happening I mean you can say it's only cohesiveness there's too much for me to say real quick thank you guys I have heard that I have an idea but before we and some of the other domestic kids we spoke about what do you think about that idea and it happens very clear for your reason the fruit the fig the fig was so easy to represent so that idea let's go to this way the identification made of paratomic apric figs on the site of Gilgar it's a perfect identification okay so this is a fine example of alkyrbotanical identification the find is there everything is there we come to the interpretation okay they made a claim that since these are paratomic apric fruits they cannot regenerate themselves so they had to rely on humans to propagate them okay and go one stage forward and say aha that's a testimony so systematic fig growing predating in the week in the beginning but apparently we published a comment on that Tim Tener also made a comment in a different journal on that you have to know something about the biology of fig trees a fig a female fig tree those fruitful ones they produce several crops of several kinds of figs and those that come very very early in the season or those that mature very very late in the seasons often are seedlings okay and then do not need they do not need pollination by those wasps and also there is a possibility for a parthenocarpic stonk to to be in the wild okay to be part of the natural genetic variation as long as there are males around and it can be it can be pollinating by visiting wasps so there is a biological option that those guys knew three trees around near a nearby spring or something like that visited that tree to harvest those foods and this would be an easier explanation to define in the science if again if the science presents a cultural context of hunter-gatherers so other science of domestication etc this could be the explanation and you cannot live by figs so it's nice it's good to have but it cannot be made a statement it's very difficult to think about an agronomic system that relies on figs and lacks all the other components of statements and this is something that we wrote about it and we did not have time to discuss in this in this meeting in this seminar there is a logic to have a package of crops and again some of those advocates of the the autonomous mother say as certain community in the southern environment they have domesticated figs they have domesticated barrel another community in the northern they have domesticated encore another community in somewhere else they have domesticated maybe pea and lettuce now if you think about agronomy for instance what is the any logic, why would you need 3 series why would you need barrel hand cover and hammer why would you need chickpea and lentil and tea why not I mean the Chinese they have rice and soy bean they have others but this is what most people know why do you need 3 of each if you leave a sign the flags and you leave a sign the bitter words which is not very powerful barrel hammer and lentil lentil is a small station it doesn't require high precipitation tea is very mature rice high rainfall and chickpea has started in the end of the spring it's a different story we did not have any insurance against that this is the best that you can get close to so just one fruit tree it doesn't make any sense it is in terms of agronomy and in terms of supply for your household and not only this when you have both series and legumes again we didn't have time to show it they have alternating response of different response to the to rainfall fluctuations where series yield are high legumes yield are very higher than the average legumes yield are lower than the average and the other way around so what you get is you get certain years you get certain years from this you get certain years from those this enables you to reach over over lean years so there is a logic this is also why it was making those plans about knowledge based it was not an ecological accident this jargon and that so it's a biblical I don't know how to say it in English I can say it in Hebrew you don't live by bread alone you can't live by food alone in the whole story as and other people in our society our kilometers from each other and the difficulty of the other side have archipelagic reminds none of them shows domestication it's the thick only that's one thing second thing what Shahbub said about not having one the story about having individual domestication of a certain station it's a very nice story but there is no heretic side that has botanical reminds that shows domestication they also package sometimes four of them, five of them six of them, seven of them in many cases often from the very early beginning we got to try to know the earliest evidence of domestication and they are nothing normal there is no side that shows one species domesticated and then two thousand years later another side with another species domesticated it just doesn't work why not only with domestication why not only with domesticated no, but they say it's thousands of years it might be different to them it's not the case the archaeological evidence doesn't show it and not only this they argue for independent domestications and then in a digital paper they argue taking six examples on different sides and say that they were a meta-population if you argue for independent cultural context how can you talk about gene flow and biological flow of material from one side to the other so it's too many contradictions we didn't think I know it's difficult to have a nice population when you study it reminds us humans so you take the population from the south to the center you put them all together you have a population because you have you want to do some statistics but if you talk about autonomous domestication and then you take other populations and put them together to have a good statistics all you're talking about is there's no reason there's no logic in terms of your own logic not in terms of mine but in terms of your own logic you can't do it it's just impossible and it's possible but it's wrong I have a lot of questions but I just wanted to say thank you for being very, very interested in talking thank you all I love very much the idea of intentionality separating out the problem we managed to convince every one person sitting here we made our profit we don't grow weapons the way we did concerning the other world we need profit well thank you very much