Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:46:46.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ancient Egyptian Wheats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

Hans Helbaek
Affiliation:
National Museum, Copenhagen

Extract

Correct identification of remains of cultivated plants is prerequisite to a reasonable concept of the early history of these plants and of agriculture in general. Sooner or later faulty or incomplete identification may lead to wrong conclusions and thus, on the one hand, obscure connections between places and peoples which might otherwise be indicated by contemporary cultivated plants, or on the other, suggest interrelations which did not exist.

Perhaps of all countries in the world Egypt is the one which has yielded the most material for the study of ancient plant husbandry, and yet the introduction of the plants into that country and the species grown is not yet fully elucidated.

Until quite recently Emmer (Triticum dicoccum Schübl.) was the only species of wheat reported in deposits of prehistoric and dynastic Egypt up to the Ptolemaean period. Then Eincorn (Triticum monococcum L.) was added to the list, in that its presence in the Late Neolithic find at el Omari near Helouan, and in the third dynasty tomb of Pharaoh Zoser at Saqqara was claimed by various authors. These identifications were disputed on the basis of reasonable doubt, but no documentation has hitherto been offered to prove the claim or the validity of the protest.

Type
Neolithic
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 93 note 1 Helbaek, H., 1953, ‘Queen Icheti's Wheat. A contribution to the study of early dynastic Emmer of Egypt’, Dan. Biol. Medd., 21, no. 8Google Scholar.

page 93 note 2 I am grateful to the Danish Carlsbergfondet for its generosity in granting the expenses for my stay in Egypt, as also to Professor Vivi Täckholm, the Egyptian University, Giza, for organizing my work and helping me in every conceivable way.

page 94 note 1 Junker, H., Preliminary Reports in Anz. Akad. Wissenschaft, Wien, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 1929Google Scholar and subsequent years.

page 94 note 2 Debono, F., 1948, ‘El Omari (prés Helouan’), Ann. Serv. Ant. Egypte. CairoGoogle Scholar.

page 94 note 3 Heer, O., 1865, ‘Die Pflanzen der Pfahlbauten’, Mitth. antiq. Gesell. ZürichGoogle Scholar.

Guyan, W., 1954, ‘Das jungsteinzeitliche Moordorf von Thayngen-Weier,’ Das Pfahlbauproblem. Schaffhausen. (Identf. by Helbaek)Google Scholar.

page 94 note 4 Helbaek, H., in press, ‘Plant Economy in Ancient Lachish’, in Tufhell, O., Lachish, IV. LondonGoogle Scholar. Further, may be referred to unpublished investigation by Helbaek, from Early Iron Age Hama in Syria, and Late Bronze Age Beucesultan in Turkey; both finds yielded Club wheat.

page 94 note 5 F. Debono, 1948, op. cit The identification was made by Schiemann, E., Kihara, H., Täckholm, V.. Täckholm, Vivi, 1952, Faraos Blomster. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar.

Childe, V. G., 1952, New Light on the Most Ancient East. 4th Ed. LondonGoogle Scholar. (Childe later withdrew the statement concerning Eincorn)

page 94 note 6 H. Helbaek, 1953, op. cit. On p. 11 it is wrongly stated that the spike is carbonized.

page 95 note 1 H. Helbaek, 1953, op. cit., cf. table on p. 15 For comparison with the dimensions given in the table the following measurements of the Omari spike may be quoted (mm.) internode L. 2.20, spikelet, L. 10.55, glume, L. 7.22–8.42. Dimension A. 2.32, Dimension B. 0.99.

page 95 note 2 Lauer, J.-P., Täckholm, V., Åberg, E., 1950, ‘Les plantes découvertes dans les souterrains de l'enciente du Roi Zoser à Saqqarah (IIIe Dynastie)’, Bull. Inst. Egypte.Google Scholar (Cereal identifications by E. Åberg).

page 95 note 3 H. Helbaek, 1953, op. cit., cf. p. 7 and pl. IV, B.