The Egyptian olive (Olea europaea subsp ... - ResearchGate

Claire Newton, Jean-Frédéric Terral & Sarah Ivorra
Discussion
The olive stones found on both the archaeological sites, in both the Persian and the Roman
periods, are related to two distinct modern groups (Table 1). One group is represented by
the modern Egyptian cultivars, which themselves form a distinct group from the rest of the
reference material (Figure 2). This shows that there has been continuity in the cultivation
of this group of cultivars from at least the middle of the last millennium BC. In the present
state of research, this could mean that these cultivars evolved and were selected in Egypt,
or that the cultivar that was first introduced in Egypt has not yet entered the reference
data base. Genetic data from Toffahi has shown the presence of a specific marker (ME2
mitotype) (Besnard & Bervillé 2000; Besnard et al. 2002) common in some cultivars such
as Amygdalolia (Greece), Zaity (Syria), probably originated from an ancestral domestication
centre located in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin. However, the origin of this group
currently remains unknown.
The second group is related to wild types and cultivars that could have originated in the
Levant region (Syro-Palestine), the region where the oldest traces of intensive olive use and
perhaps cultivation have so far been found (Liphschitz et al. 1991). This implies that olives
of this variety were perhaps first imported as fruit or oil into Egypt and later introduced as
cultivars. Trade relations between the two regions are older than the Pharaonic period, and
they have been under common rule several times during their history.
The presence of olives from both areas of origin during the Persian period raises the
question of whether they were introduced at that time. Briant (1997: 89) suggests that the
Persian authorities could have given fiscal incentive to Egyptian farmers to settle and dig
qanâts (underground water-collecting galleries) in the region, leaving them free to arrange
the details of the irrigation regulations. That could also have been the case for the selection
of crops to grow on the irrigated land. The choices would thus be in accordance with local
constraints rather than with a distant central power. However, olive remains are still scarce
for this period at ’Ayn-Manâwir (fragments, 3 complete stones), although that may be due
to the mode of preservation, i.e. exclusively charred. No mention is made of any olive
product or of olive cultivation on the Persian period ostraca (M. Chauveau pers. comm.),
and up to now no olive charcoal has been identified.
Between the Persian and Roman periods, there is evidence of occupation during the
Ptolemaic period, but no olive remains were found in the few samples collected (Newton
2002). However, it is possible that the trees introduced presumably under Persian rule were
cultivated until the Roman time of expansion of the local settlements. Grafts and/or fruit
from elsewhere could also have re-introduced oleiculture in the oasis. In the Roman period
there is textual evidence for the presence of olive groves and olive oil in the area of the two
sites examined (P. Jand. 142; Wagner 1987: 296). The cultivation of olive trees is described
on field borders, and in association with barley, grapevine, and date palms (P. Jand. 142;
Bousquet & Reddé 1994: 87-8).
Although Persian-period olive stones are scarce, the results show that two different varieties
were grown at that time, and that the same two were still grown five centuries later, during
the Roman period. The more abundant Roman material also shows that one or several more
varieties were produced at that time, but it cannot yet be demonstrated whether they were
Method
411