The archaeobotany of Indian pulses: identification, processing and evidence for cultivation

245 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Archaeogenetic study of prehistoric rice remains from Thailand and India: evidence of early japonica in South and Southeast Asia (2016, background): “(Sources: Castillo 2013; Fuller and Harvey 2006; Thompson 1996)”
Finding Plant Domestication in the Indian Subcontinent (2011, methodology): “The mungbeans that have been found from Southern Neolithic sites, however, are decidedly small seeded, like modern wild populations, indicating that the seed enlargement associated with modern domesticates had not yet evolved (Fuller 2007a; Fuller and Harvey 2006).”
Contrasting Patterns in Crop Domestication and Domestication Rates: Recent Archaeobotanical Insights from the Old World (2007, background): “I would suggest that changes in agricultural techniques, such as deeper tillage (with ards), created a selective advantage for larger seeded genotypes (Fuller and Harvey, 2006: 257).”
Early agriculture at the crossroads of China and Southeast Asia: Archaeobotanical evidence and radiocarbon dates from Baiyangcun, Yunnan (2018, background): “The presence of wild rice is comparatively low, with between 10%–20% wild types recorded in central China Longshan and Yangshao sites (Fuller et al., 2010) and 6%–12% recorded at Iron Age sites in India and southern Thailand (Castillo et al., 2016a, Castillo et al., 2016b).”