Triticum timopheevii s.l. (‘new glume wheat’) finds in regions of southern and eastern Europe across space and time

Triticum timopheevii sensu lato (‘new glume wheat’, NGW) was first recognised as a distinct prehistoric cereal crop through work on archaeobotanical finds from Neolithic and Bronze Age sites in northern Greece. This was later followed by its identification in archaeobotanical assemblages from other parts of Europe. This paper provides an overview of the currently known archaeobotanical finds of Timopheev’s wheat in southeastern and eastern Europe and observes their temporal span and spatial distribution. To date, there are 89 prehistoric sites with these finds, located in different parts of the study region and dated from the Neolithic to the very late Iron Age. Their latest recorded presence in the region is in the last centuries BCE. For assemblages from the site as a whole containing at least 30 grain and/or chaff remains of Timopheev’s wheat, we take a brief look at the overall relative proportions of Triticum monococcum (einkorn), T. dicoccum (emmer) and T. timopheevii s.l. (Timopheev’s wheat), the three most common glume wheats in our study region in prehistory. We highlight several sites where the overall proportions of Timopheev’s wheat might be taken to suggest it was a minor component of a mixed crop (maslin), or an unmonitored inclusion in einkorn or emmer fields. At the same sites, however, there are also discrete contexts where this wheat is strongly predominant, pointing to its cultivation as a pure crop. We therefore emphasise the need to evaluate the relative representation of Timopheev’s wheat at the level of individual samples or contexts before making inferences on its cultivation status. We also encourage re-examination of prehistoric and historic cereal assemblages for its remains

Different Methods of Scan Alignment in Erosive Tooth Wear Measurements: An In Vitro Study

Background: Model alignment in cases of erosive tooth wear can be challenging, and no method has been reported to outweigh the others. Methods: Extracted human teeth were mounted on two models and scanned at different times, from 1 h to 2 weeks, with an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 4) before and after immersion in Monster® energy drink and tap water. The scans were superimposed (3Shape TRIOS Patient Monitoring, Version 2.2.3.3, 3Shape A/S, Copengagen, Denmark). Best fit, best-fit tooth comparison, reference best fit using fillings, and palatal rugae as reference points were used for alignment. Surface profile differences were calculated in a cross-section view. The nonparametric Bland–Altman and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used. Results: First, statistically significant differences were marked after 4 days of immersion. The measurements obtained after 2 weeks of immersion were statistically significantly different from the measurements obtained at the different time points until 1 week. No statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed among the alignment methods at any time. Conclusion: In comparison to the best-fit model, both palatal rugae and fillings can be used. The best-fit tooth comparison method is a reliable option; however, it should be used with caution in cases of major surface loss