Fig 1.
Map of all archaeological sites whose archaeobotanical assemblages were evaluated in this manuscript grouped into their respective spatial definitions used in this manuscript.
Background SRTM DEM courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Table 1.
Seed and charcoal fragment counts, weights and volumes per time slice and region.
For a few sites charcoal numbers are approximations.
Fig 2.
Presence of olive charcoal and seeds in archaeological sites represented by dots divided into site locations within or outside the current zone of wild olives as defined by [46].
Fig 3.
Presence of grape charcoal and seeds in archaeological sites represented by dots, divided into site locations outside or within the current zone of wild grape as defined by [46].
Fig 4.
Maps of archaeological sites with Olea finds, seeds or charcoal, indicating whether they fall within Zohary and Hopf’s wild distribution [46].
The isohyets were calculated by the averaging of rainfall values hindcasted from Soreq Cave data within each respective period [50].
Fig 5.
Maps, with a particular focus on the Levant, of archaeological sites with Olea finds, seeds or charcoal, indicating whether they fall within Zohary and Hopf’s wild distribution [46].
The isohyets were calculated by the averaging of rainfall values hindcasted from Soreq Cave data within each respective period [50].
Fig 6.
Maps of archaeological sites with Vitis finds, seeds or charcoal, with an indication as to whether within the wild distribution as mapped by in Zohary and Hopf [46].
The isohyets are based on average values for the period under consideration obtained by the hindcasting of Soreq Cave data [50].
Fig 7.
Maps, with a particular focus on the Levant, of archaeological sites with Vitis finds, seeds or charcoal, indicating whether they fall within Zohary and Hopf’s wild distribution [46].
The isohyets were calculated by the averaging of rainfall values hindcasted from Soreq Cave data within each respective period [50].
Fig 8.
Boxplot diagrams for Olea stone proportions (left/grey boxes) and ubiquity percentages (right/black boxes) (a) and charcoal (b) percentages per region and period.
See Table 1 for the number of sites/period and region.
Table 2.
Results of the Dunn’s test on the olive and grape proportions.
Data as in S1 with “Region” and “Period BC” merged. Only group comparisons that delivered significant differences are provided with their mean score difference, standard error difference, Z- and p-value.
Fig 9.
Boxplot diagrams for Vitis seed proportions and ubiquity percentages (a) and Vitis charcoal (b) percentages per region and period.
See Table 1 for the number of sites/period and region. Note that the scale of 7a is exaggerated compared to Fig 7b.
Fig 10.
Summary boxplots for the percentages of Vitis and Olea seed and charcoal remains in the Levant (N sites with grape seed % of crop = 175, N sites with olive seed % of crops = 162, N sites with grape seed ubiquity % = 163, N sites with olive ubiquity % = 157, N sites with olive charcoal % = 69, N sites with grape charcoal % = 65).
Fig 11.
Diagrams that show the relation between olive proportions (a), olive ubiquity (b) and olive charcoal (c) percentages and rainfall.
The linear regression line is indicated in red. Raised X-axis for visual understanding. Dotted vertical line indicates 250 mm rainfall.
Fig 12.
Sites with olive, seed or charcoal, that may have needed irrigation in case of local cultivation, i.e., sites with a hindcasted rainfall less than 400mm.
All sites are labeled with numbers, the corresponding numbers follow: 1) Tell Taya, 2) Tell Bderi, 3) Tell Munbāqa, 4) Emar, 5) Tell Afis, 6) Tell Mardikh/Ebla, 7) Tell al-Rawda, 8) Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna, 9) Arad, 10) Tell ‘Ira Khirbet el-Garra, 11) Hirbet el-Msas/Tel Masos, 12) Beer-Sheba/Tell es-Seba’, 13) Tell Sera, 14) Qubur al-Walaydah, 15) Tel Farah South, 16) Bab’edh Dhra, 17) Numeira, 18) Ras an-Numayra, 19) Feinan, 20) Kuntillet Ajrud. Depicted is the modern rainfall as in Hewett et al. [50].
Fig 13.
Grape seed (a) Grape ubiquity (b), and grape vine charcoal (c) percentages over (reconstructed) rainfall for the different sites.
Raised X-axis for visual understanding. Dotted vertical line indicates 250 mm rainfall.
Fig 14.
Depiction of reconstructed average and minimal rainfall (respectively black and grey) over time for sites with olive finds (seeds and/or charcoal), with smoothed curves over the dataset using cubic spline with lambda set to 0.05 and standardized X values.
Fig 15.
a. Elevational distribution of sites with olive presence (seed and/or charcoal) for the different periods of Southwest Asia, though mainly Levant), b. elevation distribution of sites with grape seed and/or charcoal for different periods in the Levant.
Fig 16.
a) Olive stone %, b) olive stone ubiquity % and c) olive charcoal %; d) grape seed %; e) grape seed ubiquity %; f) grape vine charcoal % reflected as circle size at sites, with indication of elevation (y-axis), over reconstructed rainfall (x-axis) and period of the site (colour).
Note that the dataset is somewhat different than for Fig 15 since all regions are included and no sites with lack of numeric data were depicted here.
Fig 17.
Canonical correspondence analysis on major crops (n = 242 sites) with chronology as functional trait, with LN_C (6500–3600 BC), EBA1 (3600–3000 BC), EBA2 (3000–2500 BC), EBA3 (2500–2100 BC), MBA (2100–1650 BC), LBA (1650-1200BC), IA1 (1200-900BC), IA2 (900-600BC).
Fig 18.
Summed probability density (SPD) distribution of 2468 radiocarbon dates from 246 sites in the Levant, with a 95% confidence envelope created through Monte-Carlo methods (here the MC envelope).
The olive and grape % lines depict smoothed curves using loess (Locally estimated/weighted Scatterplot Smoothing), with a span of 0.3 and a confidence level of 0.95. for grape/olive seed %, grape/olive ubiquity %, grape vine/olive charcoal % for all available sites from the Levant (see data S1 Table). Y axes scales have been optimized to show curves. The archaeobotanical results are depicted on the chronological axis (X-axis) as a point in the middle of the occupation span.
Fig 19.
Comparison of palace Olea/Vitis seed/charcoal percentages with those from mostly domestic contexts in this period and region.
Note that for Lachish different values were used compared to S1 Table, because here only palace seeds and charcoals, are depicted [58, 59]. Note that the X-axes for Vitis charcoal % was raised and that Y-axes scales differ.