I see the point, but we must also realise that we have no scientific interest only for our archaeobotanical community. Scientists working on crop history in agricultural universities must also know what we are talking about. Is bandkeramik emmer wheat less different from present-day emmer than Bronze Age new-glume wheat from T. thimopheevii?? Aren't we too cautious because this is a relatively new discovery to which we are not fully familiar with yet?

oTTo 

Op 26 okt. 2016 om 09:59 heeft Stefanie Jacomet <[log in to unmask]> het volgende geschreven:

 to my knowledge it is not yet decided, although it looks very similar - giving modern species names to old cereals I find more and more problematic! 

Am 26.10.2016 um 09:54 schrieb Brinkkemper, Otto <[log in to unmask]>:

Dear Stefi and colleagues,
 
Is it not decided yet that the “new glume wheat” is actually Triticum timopheevii?? We don’t call Triticum dicoccon “old glume wheat” either, do we??
 
oTTo
 
Van: The archaeobotany mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Namens Stefanie Jacomet
Verzonden: woensdag 26 oktober 2016 9:40
Aan: [log in to unmask]
Onderwerp: Re: Triticum dicoccum?
 
Dear Daniele, 
this glume base is extremely massif, I would say, too massif for dicoccum. It it seems to have a massif and distinct keel (right foto, probably the back side, where the scar was) what is also not so typical for emmer, at least for the emmers I know. For einkorn its too large.
So, I probably would go in direction „new glume wheat“… but to decide this based on one find is probably not possible. Do you have more material in these samples? sounds extremely interesting….!
Best regards, Stefanie
 
Prof. Dr. Stefanie Jacomet
Basel University
Dept. of Environmental Sciences
Integrative Prehistory and Archaeological Science
IPNA / IPAS
Spalenring 145
CH-4055 Basel
[log in to unmask]
Tel. +41 61 207 42 11

private:
Dorfstrasse 50
CH-4452 Itingen
mobile: +41 79 322 39 17
 
Am 25.10.2016 um 17:47 schrieb Daniele Arobba <[log in to unmask]>:
 
<Triticum sp. glume base BH1_30_01.jpg>