Supporting Information Arranz-Otaegui et al. 10.1073/pnas.1612797113 SI Text: Summary of the Archaeobotanical Analyses at TQN To avoid confusion between two completely different, although At TQN a total of 58 flotation samples were recovered from interrelated, processes (i.e., plant cultivation and plant domestica- “ ” excavation area XYZ-67/68/69 and 1,590.5 L were processed (see tion) (1), terms such as domesticated-type, which are commonly ref. 72 for further details). Flotation was carried out with a 100-L used to describe cultivated-type grains but not necessarily domes- ticated species, have been avoided when describing grain charac- Siraf-type machine, following standard procedures. The sorting of “ the flotation samples was conducted in the Department of Ge- teristics. Instead of these terms, we decided to refer to wild uncultivated-type” (i.e., unmanaged) and “cultivated-type” grains, ography, Prehistory and Archaeology, University of the Basque the latter comprising both wild and domesticated species. The Country (UPV-EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. criteria used in the distinction of these types rely on morphological Wild cereal species that have been cultivated are similar to characteristics as well as on metrical analyses of both modern and domesticated species in grain size and shape (e.g., note early ancient material (Fig. S2) (89). For the ancient material, the claims for cereal domestication at PPNA sites on the basis of breadth (width) and thickness (height) of emmer, einkorn, and grain size/shape). We consider that the identification to the barley were considered. Grains were measured using a Nikon species level (i.e., wild/domesticated) of cereal grains is not binocular SMZ 800 stereomicroscope and NIS Elements Docu- possible at early Neolithic sites. Therefore we refer to both wild ments 3.0 software (Nikon) at different magnifications. Seeds with and domesticated species in the identifications of cereal grains obvious swelling or protrusion or those in a poor state of preser- from TQN. vation (i.e., with the testa removed) were not included in the study. Arranz-Otaegui et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1612797113 1of7 Fig. S1. Cereal grains from TQN: emmer (A), two-grained einkorn (B), one-grained einkorn (C), and barley (D). The first two grains in the left represent wild uncultivated-type and cultivated-type grains, respectively, in lateral view (e.g., A, 1–2). The rest of the grains are in ventral (e.g., A, 3), dorsal (e.g., A, 4), and transverse (e.g., A, 5) sections. The main difficulty in identification was the separation of two-grained einkorn and emmer. In the ventral/dorsal view, the caryopses of two-grained einkorn were more slender than those of emmer and commonly showed attenuated apical and embryo ends, unlike the blunt ends found in emmer grains (96). In two-grained einkorn the lateral view of the caryopsis was parallel to slightly curved, whereas in emmer the dorsal surface was convex and humpbacked in some specimens, and the ventral face was flat to slightly convex. A key character of two-grained einkorn was the apical com- pression or indentation in lateral view (marked with an arrow in B, 1–2) (97). In the transverse section, two-grained einkorn was often asymmetric and was commonly rectangular to square in shape, whereas emmer grains were evenly rounded to somewhat angular and were commonly symmetric. Arranz-Otaegui et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1612797113 2of7 Fig. S2. Wild and domesticated-type cereal chaff from TQN: emmer (A), einkorn (B), barley (C), indeterminate wheat (D), and indeterminate wheat/barley (E). For emmer (A) and einkorn (B), examples of spikelet forks with domesticated-type (A, 1 and B, 1) and wild-type (A, 2 and B, 2) upper or lower scars, transverse view of the spikelet fork (A, 3 and B, 3), transverse view of a glume base (A, 4 and B, 4), and lateral view of a glume base (A, 5 and B, 5) are given. The arrow in A, 1 and D, 2 shows a domesticated-type emmer scar clearly lifted from the internode surface. For barley (C), indeterminate wheat (D), and indeterminate wheat/barley (E) examples include basal spikelet forks/rachis remains with domesticated-type scar (C, 1; D, 1;andE, 1), nonbasal spikelet forks/rachis remains with domesticated-type scar (C, 2; D, 2; and E, 2), and nonbasal spikelet forks/rachis remains with wild-type scar (C, 3; D, 3; and E, 3). Arranz-Otaegui et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1612797113 3of7 Table S1. Summary of the PPNA sites in southwest Asia in which wild cereal cultivation has been discussed, along with the archaeobotanical evidence found Area Site Date, ka Cal BP Taxa Main arguments given Ref(s). Southern Levant Dhrá 11.7–11.4 Barley (based on Storage structure 92 phytolith evidence) Gilgal I 11.5–11.1 Barley and oat Cultivated-type seed size, arable flora, 9, 93 seed abundance, storage evidence Iraq ed-Dubb 11.7–10.8 Barley Cultivated-type seed size, arable flora 8 Netiv Hagdug 11.3–10.8 Barley Arable flora 9, 63 ZAD 2 11.2–10.8 Barley Cultivated-type seed size, arable flora 64 el-Hemmeh 11.1–10.7 Barley Cultivated-type seed size, arable flora 65 Jericho I 11.1–10.3 Barley and emmer Cultivated-type seed size 94 Euphrates area Mureybet (I-III) 11.7–10.5 Rye/2-grained Location of the site beyond natural 56, 76, 77 einkorn, barley cereal habitat, arable flora Tell Ábr 3 11.5–11.2 Rye/2-grained einkorn Location of the site beyond natural 10 cereal habitat Jerf el Ahmar 11.4–10.7 Barley, rye/2-grained Cultivated-type seed size, arable flora, 10, 58, 61 einkorn reduction in small gathered seeds of nonfounder plants, location of the site beyond natural cereal habitat, gradual adoption of founder crops Iran Chogha Golan (XI–X) 11.5–10.7 Barley Arable flora 23, 95 At a number of sites cereal cultivation is not conclusive, e.g., Tell Ábr 3, Mureybet, and Netiv Hagdug (10, 63, 76, 77). At others, information regarding grain size is lacking (e.g., Dhrá, emmer grains from Jericho I). At Chogha Golan, increased barley grain size is attested in phase IX (contemporary with the EPPNB in the Levant) (95). Arranz-Otaegui et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1612797113 4of7 Table S2. Summary of PPNA and EPPNB sites in southwest Asia and the proportions (%) for different plant categories: cereals (wheat, barley, oat, and rye), legumes, wild plants (including grasses), and fruits and nuts Chronology, Wild Fruits and Total remains Area Site ka Cal BP Cereals, % Legumes, % plants, % nuts, % analyzed Ref(s). Southern-central Gilgal I 11.5–11.1 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 380,343 93 Levant Iraq ed-Dubb 11.7–10.8 14.9 4.9 19.4 60.8 794 8 Without fig 28.3 9.4 36.9 25.4 417 8 Netiv Hagdug 11.3–10.8 45.7 10.7 11.2 32.4 15,395 63 ZAD 2 11.2–10.8 5.6 3.4 3.0 88.0 39,083 64 Without Pistacia 34.7 21.0 19.0 25.2 6,248 64 fragment el-Hemmeh 11.1–10.7 52.8 8.5 9.1 29.5 3,767 65 Jericho PPNA (I) c. 11.1–10.3 54.5 21.2 — 24.2 ∼33 94 Jericho PPNB (II) c. 9.9–9.5 93.8 6.2 Present — ∼6,891 94 Tell Aswad I* 10.7–10.3 54.0 15.0 15.0 9.0 10,645 96 TQN 10.7–10.2 61.9 4.5 24.2 9.4 8,673 72 Northwest Syria Qaramel 12.3–10.8 24.1 16.7 21.3 37.9 11,596 12 Tell el-Kerkh 10.7–10.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 1,150 80 Euphrates area Tell Ábr 3 11.5–11.2 73.3 6.1 20.6 0.0 4,472 12 Jerf el Ahmar 11.4–10.6 50.1 9.7 25.6 14.8 31,426 12 Mureybet (II–III) 11.3–10.5 47.7 6.2 42.7 3.5 4,577 76, 77 Euphrates area Mureybet (IV) 10.7–9.9 10.9 43.5 41.3 4.3 92 76, 77 Djáde 10.7–10.3 18.8 31.9 45.4 3.9 29,555 12 Southeast Turkey Körtik Tepe 11.7–11.3 3.6 11.3 85.0 0.0 ∼778 66 Hallan Çemi >11.7–11.3 1.5 9.4 87.6 1.5 13,177 97 Demirköy 11.4–11.3 1.3 9.9 88.1 0.7 901 97 Çayönü (Round H.) 12.2–10.7 32.5 14.5 24.8 28.2 59 74 Çayönü (Grill phase) 10.6–10.2 58.0 28.5 5.8 7.7 676 74 Çayönü (Basal pits) 10.6–10.3 33.3 42.8 13.3 10.6 578 74 Çayönü (Ch) 10.6–10.2 48.1 10.2 38.5 3.1 4,353 74 Totals (all phases) 12.2–10.2 3.2 29.2 59.0 8.6 3,066 74 without wheat chaff Nevali Çory 10.6–9.9 82.4 4.9 11.0 1.7 35,787 75 Without wheat chaff 10.6–9.9 23.6 21.1 47.8 7.5 8,257 75 Iran Chogha Golan (X–XI) c.