Crabtree P 1993 Early Animal Domestication in The Middle East and Europe

Early Animal Domestication in the Middle East and Europe Author(s): Pam J.
Crabtree Reviewed work(s): Source: Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 5 (1993), pp. 201-245 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20170232 . Accessed: 22/01/2013 13:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Archaeological Method and Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication Middle East and Europe

PAM J. CRABTREE
in the
Plant-cultivation ? production
and constituted
? stock-breeding an epoch-making
in a word,
food It
innovation.
is rightly taken tomark in archaeology the beginning a new age ? the Neolithic or New Stone Age. (Childe
of
1958:34)
The
transition in human The
turning point lithic Revolution." production sition was
from foraging to farming which Childe prehistory, shift a change
amajor represents termed the "Neo
is not merely
accompanied raphy, social organization, it has been suggested that the shift more than revolutionary evolutionary
to food from hunting and gathering in subsistence strategies. This tran in settlement patterns, by changes demog and other aspects of technology. Although to farming was foraging and (see, for example, Higgs of agriculture has been a domi from
Jarman 1969), the study of the origins nant issue in economic since the end of World War II. archaeology A significant and later farming societies feature of early Neolithic of Europe and the Middle East is the importance of domesticated animals, including
five cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and dogs. These in Europe and the the primary domestic animals represent species East.1 All five species were domesticated Middle by 6000 b.c. (see, for in early 1990:78, Fig. 3.49), and all are common example, Hemmer faunal assemblages Eastern Neolithic recovered from Middle and European for these focus on review the archaeological evidence paper will in the Old World. In choosing animals to early domestic secon the primary domesticates, important economically sites. This
the horse, the camel, and the cat, must dary domesticates, including be omitted. Domestic necessarily birds, which played particularly 201
202
Pam
f. Crabtree
are also left out roles in classical and medieval societies, important because domesticated they were not initially during the early Neo lithic period.
Defining
"What
Animal
is the purpose definition
Domestication
of defining of animal [animal] domestication?" is a practi domestication is defined will
domestication in the archaeological record. What then do we mean by animal do was the first to mestication animal? Dyson and a domesticated (1953) note that the concept of animal domestication has been used in two different between cultural tivity in the archaeological ways and osteological cultural definition of a domestic literature. definitions animal Dyson distinguished of domestication. A breeds in cap (Dyson 1953: distinctions
(Ducos 1989:28). in which cal matter. The way animal domestication are used to identify animal condition the criteria that
The
is "one which
and is of some
that 661). An animal from its wild ancestors
use to a community" significant shows significant morphological can be defined as domesticated a number have been of other
Since Dyson's publication, definitions of domestication Ducos sence with natural (1989:28) of domestication particular has termed
essentially
osteologically. cultural
B?k?nyi's is the capture and taming their behavioral characteristics,
what proposed, including "classic definition": "The es by man removal of a species from their
and their maintenance community, living areas and breeding for profit" conditions under controlled breeding (B?k?nyi 1969:219; see also B?k?nyi 1989). Hecker mestication defines on some has taken a broader view. and prefers instead array of human rejects the term animal the term cultural control, which He do he
as "that aspect
behaviors
of the exploited animal its movements, and dramatically interferes with or population structure in such a way as to make to humans" accessible' 1982:219). The (Hecker tures of cultural 1. The active control are interference with
effect that has a profound natural behavior population's schedule, breeding the animals more four essential fea
and deliberate breeding
an animal or population
population's structure
schedule,
movement,
Early Animal
Domestication
203
2. The 3. The
or the construction care and provisioning of animals or barriers to contain structures them
of
control of a group or herd of animals (i.e., a population) as opposed to individual animals to humans. 4. The increased accessibility of these animals A different of the has been adopted by several members position British Academy Major Research of Agri Project on the Early History Eric Higgs "the Higglets" culture. and his students, (Wailes 1990: a strictly paleoeconomic to the study of advocated 213), approach animal domestication. mestication and Jarman (1969:38) argued Higgs a symbiotic between represents relationship a viewpoint that has been shared by others and Perkins similar close 1984:4; cf. Rindos human/animal Paleolithic 1984). They that do humans (see, for contend, can be
and animals, Reed example,
however, traced as far back
that
as the Middle
may have occurred "symbiotic relationships it is certainly the Pleistocene" (Higgs and Jarman 1969:39). While a range of types of interactions to examine between humans possible and animals this position the Pleistocene, tion between and herding. hunting differences between There are several important during definitions of domestication. human Cultural behavior emphasize blurs the distinc
relationships and further suggest that even at an early stage of
the cultural definitions
and of ani
osteological mal domestication
in the domestication
process itself, while morphological on the product, the domesticated the domestication and process The choice of definition
or osteological definitions focus animal. distinction between (The the domesticated animal has also
been stressed by B?k?nyi [1969] andMeadow

entails implicit
[1989a].)
as (and often explicit) a domesti to produce
about the length of time required sumptions must cated animal. As Dyson cultural domestication (1953) noted, But how long is the interval necessarily precede osteological change. between
control and the appearance the onset of cultural of demon from the wild prototype? strable morphological Those who changes of domestication often assume that there employ cultural definitions
may
have been a substantial control before the period of cultural of amorphologically domesticated animal. Thus, Perkins appearance and Daly (1974:77) assert that in the earliest stages of the domestica tion process, morphological "changes may not have taken place or have been so slight as to be undetectable." Those who choose
may
204
Pam
f. Crabtree
an osteological logical changes the domestication morphologically cally invisible
definition occur
of domestication
often
so rapidly and process from
that the period the appearance their wild
argue between
that morpho the onset of that are
of animals
distinct
(given the time scales of archaeological the problems and the statistical with, stratigraphy, errors in radiocarbon age determination). Uerpmann (1979:94-96), that morphological for example, contends have ap changes may in sheep and goats peared less than 100 years. Recent tication appears to support in approximately experimental the short chronology 10-20 research or generations, on animal domes
is archaeologi progenitors must that archaeologists deal
for the appearance
of morphological
changes
(B?k?nyi 1976:21; Hemmer
1990:177).
does not mean that the search for the earliest This, however, stages in the domestication should be abandoned. The study of the process of animal domestication earliest presents phases methodological to develop methods for excavators of close stratigraphie challenges control lenge maximize The strategies is to define the and units and to chronological the recovery of animal bones from each phase. will also condi of animal domestication choice of definitions that can be used who in animal domestication an osteological defini employ evidence for morphological change those who view animal domestica to identify for the recovery shortest possible of animal bones. The chal
tion the criteria
the archaeological record. Those tion will expect to see significant in faunal remains. By contrast, tion as cultural control of animal
may be more willing populations to accept a wider criteria range of archaeological (see, for example, criteria that have been used to identify Hecker The various 1982). in the archaeological in record are discussed animal domestication detail The nate below. dichotomy of definitions of domestication has had unfortu domesti archaeol for zooarchaeology. on both the process Any study of animal and the product. As
consequences cation must focus
ogists who to examine domestication
are interested was
the circumstances
in the processes of cultural change, we need and conditions under which animal animals, people domesticate take place? Domesticated animals, just as pottery and stone tools are. As animals valuable become in a way to objects." socially, different They also would
and how does on the other hand, Kent
initiated. Why this domestication
are artifacts, "Domesticated has noted, (1989:15) and economically ritually, politically, from wild animals ?they become
analogous
Early Animal
Domestication
205
a form of property since animal represent (Engels [1890] 1972:118), "a change of focus on the part of humans involves domestication from the from the dead to the living animal and, more particularly, to the principal of the living animal ? its prog dead animal product introduction of domestic animals, 1989a:81). The eny" (Meadow whether will through autochthonous therefore affect systems rights, and the like. It is also domestication of inheritance, land or through diffusion, tenure and use
as well
to recognize is a biological, that domestication important as a cultural, process Domestication (Clutton-Brock 1981:21). is, in effect, incipient or partial speciation taking place under human control. Beginning with Darwin who have ([1859] 1959), biologists studied ation in both the speci the origins of species have been interested new species. The of that process, and the products process i.e., initiation of the process of speciation requires environmental change.
control over an animal population's repro by maintaining food supply, and movement, have radically altered that ani duction, see also environment mal 1981:21; (Clutton-Brock population's Humans, Gautier change nated. Moreover, represent has been over reproduction, inter control genetic 1990). Through with wild populations has been severely reduced or elimi the areas environmental as a result around unique altered permanent niches where human settlements
the natural vegetation activities of agricultural and land clear ance and where from other animals has been decreased competition as a result of hunting such as size activities. Morphological changes, reduction, will begin to take place as the animal to its new, human-controlled environment. Animal domestication or mutualistic population adapts
and early do tionary In this type of relationship mesticates. the costs to animal popula to human tions of providing subsistence groups are balanced by the actions of humans that increase the opportunities for the survival and dispersal of the early domesticates (Rindos 1984:260). As Price over much "control of the biological and (1984:13) has noted, human environments of captive animals often improves physical viability success to their free-living and reproductive relative counterparts." Gautier cess more cultural (1990:10) has through which wild control, easily. The domestic term defined animals traits domesticated animal domestication acquired, through that helped humans animal may as "the pro certain forms of them to all
thus represents the formation humans between relationship
of a coevolu
exploit be applied
206
Pam
f. Crabtree
those
animals
derived
from wild
ancestors
that have traits
the effect exploitation
of cultural
tinguishes mal domesticate.
and the resulting ani as an it identifies cultural control Furthermore, essential part of the process through which wild animal populations to change morphologically, traits. In i.e., to acquire domestic begin
control, by our species."2 This definition the domestication between process
domestic
acquired, under their easy that permit is useful because it dis
the definition that these newly acquired traits addition, emphasizes to humans animals more make accessible (Hecker 1982). Finally, as en Hecker has pointed animal domestication deals with out, (1982) or herds of animals tire populations In this rather than individuals. can be distinguished from the keeping of pets way, domestication as hunting It is Gautier's and the use of animals definition of decoys. animal domestication that I shall adopt throughout this review.
Criteria
A wide
for Animal
Domestication
domestic
variety of criteria have been used to identify early in the archaeological record. These include morpho in kill-patterns and age profiles, differences changes logical changes, in bone microstructure, and shifts in taxonomic In this abundance. animals Iwill examine the criteria record used to identify animal domestica and then address the more general
section tion
in the archaeological of early animal problems
domestication.
Morphological Any discussion a consideration acceptable cept a strict who
Changes of criteria for animal domestication must begin with are changes who ac to those
criteria
of morphological for domestication definition definition been used
since such changes, both to those scholars of domestication of cultural control.
advocate criteria
osteological a broader that have
and
logical record include archaeological of pathologies, tion, evidence horn cores of sheep and goats. Size Decrease. commonly Evidence
to identify domestication as size such characteristics in the shape
The morpho in the diminu and size of
and changes
in size is the most for significant decrease criterion for animal domestication. used morphological
Early Animal
Domestication
207
As Tchernov diminution true for most elements tion
"The tendency for a (1991:55) have noted, to hold in body size following domestication appears As a result, reduction in the size of skeletal mammals. and Horwitz considered good evidence for animal domestica
has been
in zooarchaeological assemblages." A number of explanations have been
diminution human
for this apparent suggested in body size, including nutritional intentional changes, and the relaxation of selection pressures selection, favoring and a re
Most (Meadow 1984:312-13). larger males recently, Tchernov Horwitz have suggested that this size diminution is not (1991) sult of conscious animals, but selection by humans for smaller and more instead
docile
genic environments in body The changes ductive strategies of these
an adaptive to the unique response anthropo that surrounded communities. early farming size are seen as a function in repro of changes
Tchernov and Horwitz early domesticates. is r-selected argue that a shift toward a more strategy reproductive with high fecundity, and small body associated rapid development, size
(Tchernov and Horwitz 1991:59). can result from causes other than animal size decrease Of course, size decreases domestication (Jarman and Wilkinson 1972). The are well at the end of the Pleistocene caused by climatic changes documented the aurochs for both and wild domesticable animals, potentially including and those animals that were never domes goat,
such as the fox (Davis 1981). In addition, size diminution ticated, to remain allow an animal constant in numbers may population resources decrease. when the available For example, there is a signifi cant decrease in the size of red deer in Greece in the later prehistoric and classical sively Meadow from a wild mann which more into progres by the deer being pushed areas and restricted in (Jordan 1975, cited marginal that resulted 1989a; Gautier 1990:102). The size decreases periods changes and habitat caused
climatic
these animal
reduction affected all parts of In early animal domestication, populations. only part of came under human one time. As Uerp control at population is not a simple alteration size of animal notes, (1978:42) "[I]t indicates but rather the split of a population domestication,
into an unaltered, wild part and an altered presumably presumably as a criterion domestic for ani part." Ifwe are to use size diminution mal we should therefore look for not simply across domestication, size decrease, the-board but rather increasing combined variability with size decrease in a portion of the population.
208
Pam
f. Crabtree
A final cal data in wild
factor
that must
be considered
is sexual dimorphism. Strong and domestic 1969; cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs (Grigson Lawrence K?hler-Rollefson 1989: 1989; see also Bogucki 1982:179; call for the measure 121). Standard techniques zooarchaeological ment 1976:4; cf. Hesse specimens only (von den Driesch of immature herders may have culled a large proportion 1984). Early were not required for breeding If males that purposes (see below). in the sample measured the zoo these bones are not included by sample may be based largely on female an apparent can produce in median size This decrease specimens. in the size of the female animals decrease without any necessary archaeologist, the metrical of the coefficient of variation 1989). Examination (K?hler-Rollefson Lawrence for these measurements for example, 1982:180) may (see, to distinguish the effects of sexual dimorphism the analyst allow from those of size diminution. Evidence Pathology. that has been used archaeological that an Upper mandible Isturitz with is a second morphological of pathology to identify possible animal domestication criterion in the of mature
in the use of morphometri is present sexual dimorphism
Bahn record. For example, reindeer with Paleolithic Fr?res
are un fracture of the forelimb some form of human protection, likely some degree of possible in of reindeer control cultural suggesting a detailed 1989 for the European Paleolithic (see White Upper to have survived without critique reasons. dences knowledge of pathologies among wild animals (Gautier 1990:105). Wild indicates in Britain, however, that deer in the wild can life research severe fractures and even the loss of limbs survive (Rowley-Conwy have been used as these crippled animals might 1990). Alternatively, (Littauer 1980:140), which would control over the reindeer or horse avenue of research not herds. imply any de This of this hypothesis). we have limited First, approach is problematic for several of the forms and inci
des Trois from Grotte an infected multiple
(1978:188, 1984) has argued an infected and fractured (see Fig. 5.1) and one from
decoys hunting gree of cultural A more might tion, ditions
promising result directly "the appearance
is to identify pathologies that of early animal domestica from the conditions con of pathological of skeletal manifestations
animals confined" (Meadow 1989a:85) brought on by keeping notes or controlled. of For example, the presence (1977:38) B?k?nyi in early domestic from the chronic arthritis and goats periodontitis
Zawi Nabta 33 Jarmo 26 Dereivka 19 Asiab 5 12 Chemi Shanidar
3Ali 10 Kosh CatalH?y?kFr?res 17 Trois Grotte des
24 Mehrgarh 31 StarCarr
Figure of discussed the Map this Near Europe location paper. showing East 5.1. in and of sites
30 ShanidarCave 23 Gritille Malyan 16 2 9 AinGhazal Bouqras Ganj Mallaha Bonn-Oberkassel 29 Hureyra 22 15 8 Abu Pont 1 D'Ambron Dareh 4Argissa 11 Magu?a Isturitz 32 Sarab Cay?n? 25 18 Mezin Tepe 7BirKiseibaQuina 28 14 La Erbaba Palegawra 21
6Beidha 13 Jericho 27 Nikomedeia 20 Nea D?britz-Kniegrotte
210
Pam
f. Crabtree
site of Tepe Sarab in Iran. Similarly, Anthony early ceramic Neolithic and Brown for bit wear, 1991) have used evidence i.e., macro (1989, to the premolars and microscopic that results from scopic damage a bit, to identify contact with at the sites of domestic horses early in Iran and Dereivka in the Ukraine. Malyan to identify The main with the use of pathologies problem early is one of equifinality. animal domestication bit wear al Although most dence problematical. (1978:189) has to the incisor teeth of several horses the damage from argued or site of La Quina the Middle Paleolithic resulted from crib-biting, or stable, thus implying of a manger the teeth into the wood fixing that to the incisors, restraint. Similar damage degree of prolonged can result from bark-biting however, (Littauer 1980; Rowley-Conwy Bahn 1990), which need not imply any degree of restraint whatsoever. as crib-biting, the damage has recog interpreting of equifinality "There remains the prob by noting: lem of whether similar wear could arise in free horses through other or bark-biting, or through dif means: e.g. through tooth sharpening, (1980:214), while nized the problem wear in the tooth caused structure, by variance eating or the abrasive properties It is also possible of phytoliths." habits that this type of wear might have been produced by the use of the horse jaw as a tool (Bahn 1984:32). Recently Rogers and Rogers (1988) and anterior beveling have shown that notching appear in low fre on early and middle Pleistocene horse teeth from North quencies ferential and Rogers that "these traits (1988:74) concluded Rogers wild from human-controlled reliable in distinguishing horse is clearly a need for more actualistic There and experi populations." on bone pathologies to resolve and their causes mental research are not some of these problems of equifinality. Changes. In addition to overall size di America. some results certainly for "crib-biting" from the human control of horses, Bahn the evi is more
Other
Gross Morphological
from domesti minution, changes specific morphological In canids, cation. include the foreshortening of the earliest changes and the consequent the rostrum or muzzle (Olsen 1985:19) crowding Beneke of the teeth, especially the premolars 1967:48-50; (Lawrence can vary in both the degree of dental crowding 1987:33). Because wild wolves and domestic dogs, Olsen 1979) has cautioned ter to separate wild against using from domestic see also Olsen (1985:92-93, or charac measurement any single He advocates the use specimens.
can result
Early Animal
Domestication
211
of multivariate skull, maxilla, discriminant
similar approach, based on a has been used by Beneke (1987) in the analysis, canid remains. Since these approaches of northern European study on a single skull or require the analyst to take several measurements mandible, specimens. they can be used only with relatively complete teeth. A function from their wild counterparts pigs are often distinguished a reduction in the length of the cheek tooth row and, of in the length of the mandibular in particular, third by a reduction a lower third molar molar While of ap 1969:309). (Flannery length 40 mm has often been used as a dividing line between proximately Domestic on the basis domestic and wild swine (Dexter Perkins 1974, personal in practice there is often awide range of variation tion), of both domestic and wild pigs. of the third molars communica in the lengths For example,
based analyses and maxillary
on a series of 13measurements
of the
Flannery (1969:309)measured
from This southwestern variation needs Asia and to be taken
thirdmolar lengths on 21 wild pigs

found
identify early domestic pigs tification must be based on a range of specimens and not a single can be strengthened individual. The case for domestication when one encounters an increasingly variable both population including longer molars. account nine, pig (presumably The effects
a range from 38.8 to 49.3 mm. one attempts to into account when in the archaeological record. The iden
(Bogucki teeth are
and shorter third wild) (presumably domestic) must of sexual dimorphism also be taken into the exception of the ca 1989:129); however, with less dimorphic than limb bones are (Flannery
1983:168).
The in other changes in the pig skull as well. results to the facial portion of the skull tends to be shortened relative cranium. This is especially in pigs (Zeuner shortening pronounced in the length of the 1963:67) and can be seen clearly in the decrease Domestication lacrimal The bone in relation 21 and 22). to its height (von den Driesch 1976:38,
measurements
other morphological that have been used to identify changes in the archaeological animal domestication record include changes in the shape of the horn cores of sheep and goats. Domestic goats that are lozenge- or almond-shaped in cross section of the horns of wild goats (see Fig. 5.2). The cross-sections tend to be roughly quadrilateral in shape, and the {Capra aegagrus) In the early stages of the domestication horn core itself is straighter. there is a medial of the horn core and later the process flattening have twisted horn cores
212
Pam
f. Crabtree goat horn
of wild (A) and domesticated Figure 5.2. Cross-sections cores, redrawn after Zeuner (1955:Plate 8).
(B)male
development clearly seen It has been
of the distinctive in the series
corkscrew cores
twist. These from
of goat horn that hornlessness
are changes the site of Ali Kosh sheep was in the wild a sign
in Iran (Flannery 1969:270-72).

suggested since of domestication, nery male in female (Flan polled sheep It is now clear that hornless fe 1969:280; B?k?nyi 1971:650). so this criter occur in wild populations, do occasionally sheep to identify domestication in the ion alone cannot be used reliably are no clear criteria in the literature for determin that did not occur
archaeological record (Uerpmann 1979:94). As Stampfli (1983:443)

has noted, "There ing domestication appear in male in sheep, apart from the strongly domestic sheep of later periods." curled horns
Micromorphological (Drew et al. Daly tion produced research has been ers mains
In the early 1970s Drew, Perkins, and Changes. that domestica 1971; Daly et al. 1973) suggested in the structure itself. This of bone tissue changes reviewed in detail (1989). The research by Gilbert of faunal re thin-sections p?trographie sites polarized in the Near East. When these the wild and domes
light, Drew and her optical properties. in optical et al. 1971) attributed the variation (Drew to differences in orientation of the hydroxyapatite crystals properties re in the bones of these wild and domestic Subsequent specimens. tic specimens co-researchers exhibited different
(Drew et al. 1971) made from several archaeological were examined under specimens
Early Animal
Domestication
213
search that than
(Watson the optical
1975; Gilbert differences
resulted
primarily the orientation
1989; see also Zeder 1978) has revealed that Drew, and Daly observed Perkins, from the degree of collagen rather preservation This procedure, the hydroxyapatite of crystals.
cannot be used to distinguish between wild and domestic therefore, it can provide useful in the archaeological animals record; however, on the postdepositional of a faunal assemblage. information history
Demographic Changes
Changes of
ungulate even in the absence 1982). The domestication use
in the age and sex distribution of the harvest profiles have often been used to infer animal domestication, species of morphological data
of demographic has been a subject in the age and sex composition logical literature. Changes vest profile are acceptable criteria for those who espouse cultural indicate structure The definition control (Hecker of animal domestication, over an animal's breeding 1982:219). since schedule those
(Perkins 1964; Hecker changes to identify animal incipient of heated debate in the zooarchaeo of the har a broader, criteria may
or demographic
demographic animal domestication It is often suggested
for early often cited as evidence change most is an increased of young animals. proportion a nonselective or that human hunters practiced
faunal assemblages strategy, prime-dominated producing hunting a high proportion of adult animals with (Perkins and Daly 1974:80). ani immature By contrast, early herders may have selected more mals for slaughter, (Perkins and Daly thus maintaining 1974:80; Hecker one breeding population here is 1982:232). The argument that balances the cost of feeding and the adult
essentially
an economic
an animal against the increased meat yields that result maintaining an animal from this care. Juvenile animals Once grow rapidly. ap in late adolescence, to feed that proaches bodily maturity continuing animal therefore will not expect in greatly increased meat yields. One would a large proportion to of the stock, especially males, in late adolescence. A smaller number of adults, pri result
be slaughtered
the breeding population. Ad females, will be kept to maintain marily as soon as they are weaned ditional male animals may be slaughtered to minimize their impact on available pasturage (Hesse 1984:250). The ological use of harvest to infer domestication from the archae profiles on several grounds record has been criticized (but see Hesse
214
Pam
f. Crabtree
studies have shown that the age and sex com 1982). First, ethological can vary considerably of wild ungulate from position populations season to season and from year to year (Collier and White 1976; see Simmons and Ilany 1975 1972:92-94; Jarman and Wilkinson for herded also vary, depending species may 1977). Harvest profiles a flock is raised primarily on whether or wool for meat, milk, (Payne In addition, most of the demographic models for animal do 1973). also are based on sheep and goats. These models may be less can take up to four years to reach bodily for cattle, which appropriate and pigs, which mature maturity, rapidly and produce large litters. is the assumption More problematic that human hunting will pro mestication duce prime-dominated harvest profiles that include high proportions for hunted reflect both the tech of adults. Harvest species profiles used by hunters and methods 1991) and niques (Pike-Tay and Knecht of the species being hunted. This prob the behavioral characteristics harvest of the interpretations of clearly in the history recovered for gazelles from Natufian (ca. 10,300 profiles In 1972 Legge noted the high frequencies 8500 b.c.) sites in Palestine. sites and from these Levantine of immature gazelle bones recovered suggested that lem can be seen most
at this time. Ga have been herded gazelles might are not suitable animals since they can for herding, zelles, however, or herded not be driven in groups as can sheep and long distances recent analyses goats (Clutton-Brock 1981:171). More (Henry 1975; and Crabtree and Rowley-Conwy 1987; Campana 1990) have Legge profiles, including high proportions from the use of commu may have resulted a high proportion In summary, of juvenile nal hunting techniques. of early animal domesti animals alone is not a distinctive signature of immature individuals, hunting will produce a pattern (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:56) that mortality catastrophic of juvenile individuals. also include a high proportion may data cannot be used to study that demographic This does not mean cation. Hunting methods such as communal early animal domestication. is the differential tication 1984), which living animal or herd results from feature of animal significant treatment of males and females The the shift in focus from the dead domes (Hesse to the shown that the observed harvest
only In a meat-producing purposes. to see more males slaughtered more females will be
flock and its progeny (Meadow 1989a:81). In a domestic a small number is needed of males for reproductive one would economy as juveniles, while until their therefore expect proportionately capacities
retained
reproductive
Early Animal
Domestication
215
begin
to diminish
(Payne
early animal domestication, should be constructed females pelves female are the most animals. useful
1973). To use demographic separate harvest profiles
to study for males and data
on the basis
90). Large numbers from guish males must
1967:89 (see, for example, Higham animal bones are required to distin females and to construct separate harvest profiles the size differences for each sex. Moreover, due to sexual dimorphism of measurable
Otherwise, of size differences
cores and (Hesse 1984:251). Horn elements for distinguishing male from the sexes can be distinguished primarily
in be distinguished from those that reflect size diminution K?hler-Rollefson Given the difficulties domesticates 1989). (cf. early in constructing in harvest for each sex and the variability profiles profiles inadvisable seen to use in both hunted and herded data alone demographic in the archaeological record. However, demographic with morphological and other combined lines of evi to strengthen the case for early animal 1989a; Gautier 1990:108). domestica it may populations, to identify incipient
harvest be
domestication
data, when dence, can be used tion (Meadow
Biogeographical The appearance as an indication 1987:133). This tural definition animal
Considerations of an animal of animal criterion outside its natural range has been used Davis (see, for example, a cul scholars who advocate
domestication those since
satisfies
of domestication, movements. population's
over an it implies control Braid wood (Braidwood and Howe
data in the study 1960:13) was among the first to use biogeographic must of early food production. He argued that domestication have taken place in areas where the wild ancestors of sheep, goats, emmer and barley were found. Conversely, the sudden appearance of wheat, an animal outside its natural the introduction of range would imply a domesticate in using this criterion from elsewhere. The problem is that the late Pleistocene distributions of the wild progenitors of many known. domesticates are, in some cases, still poorly for example, was forced to rely on the modern Braidwood, of the wild ancestors of the early Near Eastern domesti distributions cates in his pioneering study of plant and animal domestication. of the most common
The problem of the distribution of the wild ancestors of the domes tic sheep is a case in point.3 Cytogenetic evidence indicates that the ancestor wild of the domestic mouflon sheep is the West Asiatic
216
Pam
f. Crabtree
[Ovis orientalis). of Ovis orientalis remains was somewhat
As Uerpmann (1981:102) the colder parts during
enigmatic in the northern present from the Late Pleistocene onwards." the late Pleistocene
"The distribution notes, of the Upper Pleistocene but there is no doubt that this species and eastern arc of the Fertile Crescent
extended remains
It is unclear, however, whether and early Holocene distribution of this species as far east as Baluchistan (Meadow 1989b:34). The sheep site from the aceramic Neolithic (Phase I) at the Mehrgarh
size decrease show evidence for progressive (Meadow of the domestic of the wild ancestors 1984: Fig. 3). If the distribution as far as Baluchistan, then the measurement evidence sheep extended in Baluchistan from Mehrgarh indicate the local, indigenous would domestication is outside if Baluchistan the range of of wild sheep. Alternatively, ancestors the Mehrgarh the domestic wild of evidence may sheep, of nonlocal domestic indicate an increasing importation sheep and a decrease (Meadow in the hunting 1989b:33-34). of the local urial [Ovis vignei) through time
Changing
Species
Spectrum
is to make If an aim of animal domestication domestica potentially to humans ble animals more accessible (Hecker 1982), then it is rea would lead to an sonable to assume that early animal domestication increase example, in the Davis relative importance of has the domestic (1982, 1987:140-42) the Levant ranging surveyed in date from species. archaeofaunal For as Paleo
shift Age. He has shown that there is a marked of the ungulate between in the relative proportions species approxi dominated 8000 and 6000 b.c. At this time, assemblages by mately composed gazelle and fallow deer are replaced by faunal collections numbers of goats, sheep, and pigs. Davis of increasing argues that of animal domestication this shift reflects the beginnings during the ca. 7300-6000 PPNB (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, b.c.). in shifts and early Holocene Of course, not all late Pleistocene can be attributed to the beginnings of animal hus spectra species and anthropogenic range of other environmental bandry. A wide causes can lead to changes in species frequencies, climatic including In temperate Europe at the end of the Pleis and overhunting. changes reindeer were for example, tocene, as wild pigs, wild mals such cattle, replaced by forest-dwelling and red and roe deer. This ani shift
from semblages lithic to the Bronze
the Middle
Early Animal
Domestication
217
and environmental and was from major climatic changes in temperate to the beginnings of animal domestication unrelated was based even though later European animal husbandry Europe, causes on domestic the many possible cattle and pigs. Given largely resulted in the species spectrum, for changes is best used in conjunction profiles, domestication. this criterion, like age and sex for animal with other evidence
Conclusions: Identifying Animal in the Archaeological Record

The domestication zooarchaeological domestication.
Domestication
for identifying animal above review of the criteria in the archaeological record has shown that no single can unequivocally criterion identify early animal in age profiles, species ratios, and morphol Changes
to animal domestication. This ogy can result from causes unrelated seen as a series of cautionary review should not, however, simply be a case for animal domestication to make at a site tales. It is possible of sites, but such a case must be made on the basis of multi 1987:278-79; 1989a; see also Lyman (Meadow ple lines of evidence build a case for animal domestication Schiffer 1988:477). One must or series the same way a lawyer builds a case for his or her client, that is, by in favor of a particular the evidence and evaluating posi amassing tion. The more lines of evidence ? including demographic, morpho ? that can be employed, the and other data logical, biogeographic, in favor of animal domestication. the case that can be made stronger As Gifford-Gonzalez (1991:243) has suggested in a recent article on lines of evidence, de interpretation, "Independent zooarchaeological can be mobilized to chal rived from distinct of causation, systems lenge and/or support one another, leading tomore strongly warranted inferences the past life relations that produced certain con regarding in our sites." of material figurations In addition, since animal domestication is a process rather than a one must momentous in the archaeo look for patterns event, single logical record. It is no longer adequate simply to identify the earliest domesticated for domes sheep in the Near East or the first evidence tic pigs clearly phology in Europe. The case we strengthened and demography when for incipient see similar animal domestication in animal sites. mor It is is changes of closely related
at a number
218
Pam
f. Crabtree
of the patterns of early animal domes only through the examination tication that one can study the processes animal domesti by which cation arose and spread through the Old World.
The Archaeological Evidence for Animal Domestication

in the Near East and Europe has been based on a Farming of domestic small number animals since early Neolithic relatively times, including sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, and dogs. Biogeographic considerations tion of these entalis) to parts play a role in the study of the early domestica While the distributions of wild sheep (Ovis ori species. and wild goats [Copra aegagrus) appear to have been limited must of the Near ancestors East during the late Pleistocene and early Holo of cattle and pigs (Sus (Bos primigenius) that were broadly distributed species through
cene, ser of a) are Palearctic out Eurasia
the wild
and the most parts of Africa. Although northerly sheep in the Middle and goats must have been domesticated East, initially a have been domesticated within cattle and pigs might anywhere across Eurasia. The possibility were broad band that cattle and swine as well. in Europe must domesticated be considered independently
Sheep (Ovis ariesj

Any discussion ical assessment Chemi Shanidar of the domestication of the evidence of sheep must begin with a crit from Zawi Chemi Shanidar. Zawi is a Protoneolithic site in northern
(Solecki 1980) to approximately 8900 b.c. Iraq that has been dated by radiocarbon In 1964 Perkins argued that the sheep from Zawi Chemi were domes ticated from indistinguishable although they were morphologically on two criteria He based his assessment 1964: (Perkins sheep. of immature sheep at Zawi 1565). First, there was a higher proportion
wild
levels at Shanidar than in the Zarzian (late Upper Paleolithic) there was an increase the nearby site of Shanidar Cave,- and second, in the relative proportions of sheep in the Zawi Chemi assemblage to the Zarzian levels at Shanidar Cave. when compared Chemi Perkins's on several faunal analysis of the Zawi Perkins Chemi his fauna has grounds. and did not use samples based analysis statistical challenged small relatively tests in the original on been
any
Early Animal
Domestication
219
1984:13-14; (see Reed and Perkins comparisons study. Statistical in the increase that there is a significant Reed indicate 1983:523) the Zarzian of immature between levels at Shani proportion sheep dar Cave Mousterian proportion and the Protoneolithic level at Shanidar of immature levels Cave, at Zawi however, Chemi Shanidar. The a high also produced the overall Mousterian
is quite sample the Mousterian and
specimens, although of immature small. The proportion from specimens levels at Shanidar Cave is not significantly different from Zawi during Chemi, the Middle
from the proportion of immature sheep recovered it is unlikely that sheep were domesticated Paleolithic. Perkins ing numbers did not consider alternative of juvenile
hunt sheep and a change in hunting could also strategy (Elder 1965) ing pressure a higher of juvenile individuals without any proportion produce For example, of animal domestication. from a necessity changing prime-dominated ing techniques of archaeological cuses on mature hunting can produce hunt strategy to one based on communal a corresponding change in the age profiles a prime-dominated While strategy fo assemblages.
explanations seen at Zawi Chemi.
for the increas Increased
communal such as specimens, hunting techniques can produce a catastrophic game drives (Klein and mortality profile Cruz-Uribe both juvenile and adult specimens. 1984:56) including could also increase the proportion of Changing hunting techniques wild to other species. sheep in relation case for early sheep domestication at Zawi Chemi is certainly The not proved, and the problem an increased is one of equifinality. While in the species of juveniles and a change could proportion spectrum result
from early animal domestication, the same pattern could re in hunting to increas sult from changes that are unrelated practices control over sheep herds. What is clear is that the Zawi ing cultural Chemi do not form part of a pattern of early sheep domestica sheep tion in the Middle until East. There is no other Neolithic evidence domestication b.c.). If this was an unsuccessful
record.
the aceramic
for early sheep (seventh millennium
an experiment in early animal domestication, it was one that left no further traces in the archaeological
Lawrence that domestic in (1982) has suggested sheep were present the upper levels of the aceramic Neolithic site of Cay?n?. She bases on several lines of evidence. her determination First, there is an in crease in the relative importance of sheep between the lower and the
220
Pam
f. Crabtree
In addition, there is evidence for a decrease upper levels at Cay?n?. in the size of sheep between the lower and the upper levels. As Law rence (1982:180) notes, in size, although not suffi "The difference cient bility Harvest by itself to prove of its occurrence." domestication, strongly reinforces the possi
on epiphyseal fusion of the limb bones, were These data goats and sheep from Cay?n?. indicate that the mortality for both sheep and goats were patterns similar until about two-and-one-half years of age. Surprisingly, more based profiles, for both constructed of the presumably of the purportedly goats were killed in the third year, while more to adulthood. A number domestic sheep survived this unexpected result. We need more infor explain wild the causes
of factors might mation about the harvest to assess
and females of each for the males profiles and significance of this result. species is not entirely the evidence the Cay?n? unequivocal, Although a pattern of sheep domestication in the later ace sheep form part of area. Domes ramic and early ceramic Neolithic of the Mediterranean from the later seventh-millennium vil sheep were recovered eastern Syria the Euphrates River in overlooks lage of Bouqras, which et al. 1983). Sheep are the predominant (Clason in Akkermans species ticated the occupation throughout than Protoneolithic sheep at Bouqras, are smaller and the animals from the region (see also Uerpmann 1979). for size diminution combined with the high proportion assemblage at Bouqras. to suggest that domes led Clason At Abu Hureyra in Syria, the later Neolithic levels also produced high num
The
evidence
of sheep in the faunal tic sheep were present aceramic bers of sheep tailed studies
and early ceramic et al. 1975); however, more de bones (Legge in Moore status of these sheep must of the domestication await on this site. By the later seventh of the final volume the publication
sites of Nea Niko millennium, sheep were also present at the Greek medeia (Boessneck 1962). Greece (Higgs 1962) and Argissa Magu?a to be well the late Pleistocene and early Holocene outside appears
distribution of wild sheep (B?k?nyi 1978). Moreover, Geddes

has
(1985)
argued that domestic sheep of Near Eastern origin were adopted in western in the Aude Valley by late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in France during b.c. The wide the sixth millennium Languedoc of domestic sheep spread appearance in the Mediterranean sixth millennia the singular finds from Zawi Chemi in the later areas Shanidar. seventh contrasts and early sharply with
By the later seventh
Early Animal
Domestication
221
millennium
there
is a clear
pattern
of sheep
domestication
in the
eastern Mediterranean.
Goats The
fCapra hircusj earliest evidence
centers on the Zagros for goat domestication Iran. B?k?nyi margins (1976, 1977) has suggested at the site of Asiab in the Ker be present that domestic goats may to approximately 8000 b.c. has been dated manshah Valley, which in southwestern there is little evidence Although Asiab goats, three goat horn cores medial sufficient blage made B?k?nyi flattening. to demonstrate a high almost in the for morphological change show a slight degree of torsion and alone are not argues that these changes The Asiab domestication. faunal assem
of mature animals (82%) and is proportion of males. up B?k?nyi (1976:21) has sug exclusively of adult males, which controlled hunting gested that this represents He with the beginnings of animal domestication. may be connected includes argues that kill mature males ferred to kill Alternative in the initial individuals were the males tried to humans stages of domestication, more to capture Since their young. fe and to maintain the herds, humans needed pre to obtain meat.
than males
Hesse of the Asiab data are possible. explanations for example, has argued that the Asiab faunal assemblage (1984:259), of male goat bands have resulted from the seasonal exploitation may Ducos and Helmer that the hunters. (1981) contend by Similarly, or a kind of "proto?l?vage" of adult males suggests high proportion predomestication selective hunting. The eighth demographic millennium characterized by well-developed techniques of
very different lection of over
for the goats recovered from the mid profile a b.c. site of Ganj Dareh (Hesse 1984) presents an extensive faunal col picture. Ganj Dareh produced
identified 50,000 fragments. As noted above, Hesse maintains is that a fundamental feature of early herding (1984:250) treatment To the separate and unequal of male and female animals. whether Hesse male and female sought a detailed series at goats were treated differently to reconstruct the harvest profile for each of limb bone measurements to distin
determine
Ganj Dareh, sex. He used
from female goats, and then he developed sex-based har guish male vest profiles based on epiphyseal fusion of the limb bones and dental
222
Pam
f. Crabtree
and wear. He found that the basal (nonarchitectural) levels eruption of Ganj Dareh, which have been dated to about 8000 b.c., contained 1 year of age, including the bones of adult females and males under a large number of very young animals. Hesse (1984:258) argued that this the b.c.), the selective of wild goat nursery herds. represents hunting levels of the site (mid eighth millennium architectural later, there is an increased that of males slaughter reduced survivorship this harvest in the of adult In
range and a somewhat
1- to 2-year age females. Hesse
the herding suggests represents (1984:258) profile contends of goats for meat. Hesse, that her Payne following (1973), on meat will in ders focusing animals production slaughter most and retain a small number of mostly late adolescence female animals for incipient goat herding at Ganj Dareh is supported evidence for a few medially flattened by morphological notes that "we horn cores, although Hesse goat (1984:247) cautiously in wild goat morphology do not yet know enough about the variation to be certain that the slight degree of divergence from the expected were also found in some is significant." pattern Caprine footprints of the mud near at the site, suggesting that tamed animals were Since the nearest wild have been the brickyard. goats would in the mountains located well of away from the site, the presence bricks footprints implies evidence the presence has been of captive, if not fully domes
animals.
for reproductive purposes. The demographic evidence
these
tic,
Iran (Flannery 1969). At Ali Kosh, goats are the pre as they are at Ganj Dareh. The horn dominant species, ungulate cores from the Bus Mordeh if show little, (7500-6750 b.c.) phase a few are lozenge from wild goat horn cores, although any, deviation flattened rather than quadrilateral. Medially shaped in cross-section horn cores first appear in the Ali Kosh phase b.c.) (Flan (6750-6000 for a combined constructed nery 1969:277). Age profiles sheep and goat sample maturity indicated that less than one-third phase, during to adulthood caprines of the Ali Kosh phase survived (Flannery 1969: of Bus Mordeh the high proportion 286). While phase caprines killed the case of incipient herding, during their second year is suggestive for domestication profiles sheep. could This have would would been have have been constructed necessitated the Bus Mordeh of the caprines reached about 40% of the although
Comparable in southwestern
recovered
from the site of Ali Kosh
if separate harvest strengthened for male and female goats and a much larger faunal sample
Early Animal
Domestication
223
than was stantial combined ratios
available case
from
the Ali
Kosh
for goat domestication evidence from the harvest Kosh
a circum site. Nevertheless, can be made on the basis of the profiles, horn cores, and species
(Flannery 1969:277). evidence that Levant, zooarchaeological suggests first appears during the ppnb phase, that is, dur domestication goat b.c. As Davis ing the later eighth and seventh millennia (1982) has a major there is shift in the composition of faunal assem shown, In the southern Levant blages in the southern this period show a significant a corresponding decrease zella gazella) and fallow possible Faunal assemblages from in the proportion of goats and in the relative of gazelle importance (Ga deer (Dama mesopotamica). Evidence for increase at this time.
seen at Ali
can be seen at sites such as Jericho early goat domestication Zeuner 1971, 1979; (Clutton-Brock 1955), Beidha (Hecker 1982), and Ain Ghazal et al. 1988). 1989; K?hler-Rollefson (K?hler-Rollefson at each site for early goat domestication The nature of the evidence is somewhat different. In an early paper, Zeuner that the male goat horn (1955) noted cores from the pre-pottery Neolithic levels at Jericho differed from those of wild goats. He argued that the cross-sections of the Jericho horn and loss of angularity that is flattening a more recent analysis, Clutton of domestic characteristic goats. In Brock (1971:50) has suggested that there is evidence for goat domesti cation during the ppnb only. She argued that the goat remains from the PPNA levels cannot be distinguished from wild morphologically goats cores showed a medial
and Uerpmann (Clutton-Brock 1974). Clutton-Brock (1971:50), a small number of twisted goat horn cores from identified however, the ppnb levels that must have come from domestic animals. Clut ton-Brock ment horn of wild The goats (1979:151) cites of straight-horned core cross-sections for the progressive replace in goats and the changes by twisted-horned as "good evidence for local domestication the evidence
goats at Jericho." or cultural for incipient evidence domestication control of at Beidha In a preliminary is quite different. report Perkins
have been domesticated, (1966) argued that the Beidha goats might the high proportion of immature animals recovered from the given a more site. On the basis of detailed analysis, Hecker (1982) used aging data been under goats to suggest that the ppnb goats from Beidha might have cultural control. Hecker that although the Beidha argued showed no evidence for morphological the harvest change,
224
Pam
f. Crabtree
a higher proportion included of juvenile animals than did profiles case for cultural control or incipient the age profiles for gazelles. The based on this aging evidence alone is not a strong one, domestication as goats, were present since ibex, as well at Beidha. Reed especially are hesitant to accept Hecker's and Perkins conclusions (1984:16) "until we learn more about the age clusters of the two sexes of differ ent population-groups of wild goats a stronger to make dence are needed cation at Beidha. The both nium faunal ppnb remains from the and and case ibexes." More lines of evi for incipient site were goat domesti recovered from
'Ain Ghazal
(7250-6000 b.c.) and her coauthors b.c.) levels. As K?hler-Rollefson (1988:423) is dominated note, "The faunal assemblage by the remains of goats 53% (ppnb) and 70% (Yarmou between compose (Capra sp.), which of the number of identified specimens (nisp)." Based on epiphy kian) seal before thirds fusion, a majority of the ppnb goats reaching maturity of the surviving Rollefson 1989). In addition, Ain her Ghazal show arthritis appear to have been killed et al. 1988:425), and two (K?hler-Rollefson adults appear to have been female (K?hler
"ppNc'VYarmoukian
(sixth millen
the goat first and second phalanges from a high frequency of pathology ranging from mild to complete fusion between and bones. K?hler-Rollefson (1988:425) attribute the high as well of pathology frequency as to human protection for changes in horn evidence the other lines of for incipient goat from Ain Ghazal,
coauthors
conditions, husbandry from predators. While there is no clear core form among the ppnb goats from Ain Ghazal, case can be used to build a circumstantial evidence domestication at the site. Moreover, and Beidha strongly suggests the evidence a pattern Levant.
to unsuitable
Jericho, cation in the ppnb of the southern
of early goat domesti
Pigs
(Sus scrofaj in pigs leads to a shortening of the jaws and a reduc are shortened in the size of the diastema. and The premolars the heels closer of the maxillary and mandibular together;
Domestication tion move
are reduced; and there is an overall of the shortening in the size of the snout in domestic reduction pigs may be an example of pedomorphism, the persistence of juvenile characteris tics into adulthood (Flannery 1983:165-67). third molars skull. The
Early Animal
Domestication
225
mestic
has produced the earliest do from the Zagros (Flan region levels at lower aceramic nery 1983; see also Stampfli 1983). The of pigs that, on morphological the remains Jarmo have produced to be wild. There is no evidence for pig domestica appear grounds, tion of occupation of pigs present at Jarmo. There is a at Jarmo in the upper 1983: 1983:173; Stampfli
The
site of Jarmo in Iraqi Kurdistan pigs that have been identified
the earlier phases during increase in the number marked levels, dated to about
6000 b.c. (Flannery not all, of the pigs recovered from the upper levels of 447). Many, but and mandibular third molars. These Jarmo show reduced maxillary molars swine are significantly smaller than those from Near Eastern to assume wild that (Flannery 1983:173). was established pig domestication that remains unanswered question domesticated elsewhere There or whether along with is also some other It is therefore reasonable
pig innovations
at Jarmo at about 6000 b.c. The is whether the pigs were locally was introduced domestication from such as pottery technology
(Flannery 1983:175).
in southeastern for pig domestication in the late seventh millennium b.c. (Higgs 1962). The ace Europe site at Nea Nikomedeia ramic levels of the early Neolithic in Mace evidence donia have a small assemblage of pig bones in which more produced come from juvenile animals. On the basis of epiphyseal than 90% 12months of these appear to be approximately of age. fusion, most the assemblage did not produce enough pig bones for a detailed third molar the maxillary analysis, lengths of 32-34 mm cau the range for domestic within pigs. Higgs (1962:273) notes that these dental measurements provide "some further to suggest that [the Nea Nikomedeia] the assemblage of pig bones recovered is small, that the pigs were the inference pigs are domes from Nea Niko domesticated is
While metrical are well tiously
slight evidence " tic. Although medeia
faunal evidence recovered from the prece by similar strengthened ramic site of Argissa Magu?a in Thessaly (Boessneck 1962). The pre are dated to approximately ceramic levels of Argissa Magu?a 6500 most of the identified (Watson 1965:83). As at Nea Nikomedeia, are those of sheep and goats. faunal remains from Argissa Magu?a Measurement evidence that the pigs from the preceramic suggests are within levels at Argissa Magu?a the domestic range, and half the b.c. pigs are immature. from It should semblage the aceramic be noted, Neolithic that the faunal as however, at Argissa Magu?a is small
226
Pam
f. Crabtree
of which and relatively 1,312 were unidentified) (3,507 fragments, few measurable pig bones were recovered. is also some limited There evidence for early pig domestication the seventh millennium during of maxillary second small number aceramic Neolithic site in Turkey, wild in Anatolia. Measurements that both from Gritille, domestic on a an and and third molars
suggest pigs may have been present. Pigs are the most other than sheep and goats in the Gritille faunal Lawrence (1980:299) present at initially the aceramic
common
animals
1989:91-92). have been pigs might in southeastern Cay?n? that indicated that
(Stein assemblage that domestic suggested Neolithic on metrical site of based data
pigs were significantly swine.4 Lawrence wild smaller than European subse (1982:185) that interpretation, that the proportion of noting rejected quently time and that compari decreases pigs at Cay?n? actually through sons between swine may the Cay?n? be pigs and European wild inappropriate. Clearly, more keeping the evidence the Zagros ple centers nery would research is needed to determine Neolithic. the extent of pig
a suggestion Turkey, some of these Anatolian
in Anatolia
Nevertheless, during for domestic pigs from both southeastern Europe and the possibility of multi region at about 6000 b.c. suggests in the Near East and Europe. Flan of pig domestication
the aceramic
state of our knowledge "At the present it (1983:182) concludes: as a single to see the origins of pig domestication be amistake event occurring in one part of the world and spreading from there to there appear to have been several regions. Rather, there was early pig domestication, separated by areas
was none."
other which
there
areas in which
in
Cattle At least
(Bos taurusj
centers of early cattle domestication two possible have been and North Africa. The evidence identified: the eastern Mediterranean
in North Africa is derived for possible early cattle domestication at F. Wendorf and his colleagues conducted from the excavations by in the Western Bir Kiseiba Desert and of Egypt. the sites of Nabta domesticated cattle are dated to be The earliest of these putative tween bovids 6800 from these and 7500 b.c. (Gautier 1987:177). The faunal remains of these large sites are fragmentary, and the identification as domestic cattle has been challenged (Smith 1986; see also
Early Animal
Domestication
227
Clutton-Brock
(1987:177) has argued that these bovids 1989). Gautier can be distinguished buffalo from African (Syncerus cafer), giant buf wild cattle and "normal-sized" falo (Pelorovis antiquus), (Bosprimi on the basis (1986:199) notes, those that can be measured from both the Nile of size and other morphological criteria. Smith that few of the bones are measurable and however, fall within
genius)
the size range of Bos primi and Europe. Moreover, these speci genius Valley are outside mens the size range of later Neolithic cattle from the in the for early cattle domestication Sahara. The other argument eastern cattle human Sahara could not is biogeographical. have survived Smith interval Gautier in this (1987:177) has argued that arid environment without
intervention. moist
relatively have supported wild More faunal evidence tication very in North
that during the (1986:199) has countered between 7500 and 5000 b.c. this area could
at least at certain seasons of the year. bovines, to make a case for early cattle domes is needed Even Gautier of cattle "As to the (1987:179) admits, in the Eastern Sahara, this remains
Africa.
early
appearance
hypothetical." A much for early cattle domestication stronger case can be made in the eastern Mediterranean. In a short report on the fauna from Perkins that the cattle from Layer VI (1968) noted ?atal H?y?k, (5800 b.c.) were domestic cattle smaller from than wild cattle later sites in Anatolia. in size to and comparable In Layer VI, cattle made and would (1973:281) have also
of the large mammal bones identified up two-thirds over 90% of the available meat. Perkins provided that domestic cattle were
site present at the contemporary suggested of Erbaba in Turkey, but unfortunately the results of faunal analyses from this site have never been fully published. Domestic that the cattle were cattle have also been identified from sites of the late seventh millennium remains in Greece. For example, Higgs (1962:272) argued in Thessaly from the site of Nea Nikomedeia
smaller cattle and therefore probably than wild significantly domestic cattle. He also noted that approximately 50% represented bones were a final based on epiphysial fusion. immature, on the Nea Nikomedeia excavations report Un has
of the cattle fortunately, never been Cattle economies domestication suggested
published. played a particularly of central Europe, of the aurochs
role in the early Neolithic significant and the possibility of the indigenous in Europe has been (Bos primigenius) 1971). The problem has recently
(see, for example,
B?k?nyi
228
Pam
f. Crabtree
been
reviewed by Bogucki critically case for local domestication of cattle
of specimens that are transitional to if domestic mestic" cattle were cattle. In other words, introduced to see a discontinuous size distribution Europe, we should expect between cat wild cattle and the imported the indigenous domestic tle. By contrast, if cattle were there should be locally domesticated, a continuous in measurements. As Bogucki range of variation (1989: continuous distribution of sizes can be cautions, however, 121) "[a] attributable populations Sample The very size, to the variation found and the overlap of size can affect in particular, cattle [wild and domestic] to crossing." ranges, rather than the shape of the distribution. in
that the (1989:121), who notes has been based on the presence in size between "wild" and "do
analyzed by B?k?nyi may appear to be more large samples the smaller samples from other parts distributed than continuously to conclude it is prudent that the case for local of Europe. At present, of cattle cattle based in central sexual dimorphism local stock in both wild Given the Europe is inconclusive. to it is difficult and domestic cattle, from the importation of do domestication data alone.
domestication
distinguish mesticated
on measurement
Dogs fCanis familiarisj

noted, (1987:31) has recently animal has been dealt of domestic species as that of the dog." Unlike many experts by dog appears to have been domesticated Beneke As origin of no other so often and by so the social ungulates, the "The with
in both hunter-gatherers and early Holo Europe and the Near East during the late Pleistocene cene. In Europe, dog remains have been known of from a number seventh and sixth millennia b.c.) (early Mesolithic, Maglemosian sites in Denmark to wolves, since these pared and a foreshortened animals com the beginning of this century. When in overall body size show a reduction and some degree A possible (ca. 7700 b.c.) and Delpeche of the of overlapping domestic dog has also site of Pont d'Ambon of
muzzle
premolars (Degerbol been recovered from
1961:39-42). the Azilian
in the Dordogne region (C?l?rier of this canid that the metatarsals indicate Pleistocene dibular The wolves were
1978). Measurements are smaller than those only two small man
fragments studies tailed metrical presence
from Europe. Unfortunately, from this recovered of the skull or mandible dog remains
and no de individual, were possible. sites
of domestic
from Late Paleolithic
Early Animal
Domestication
229
provides
strong
evidence
for the
independent
domestication
of the
dog by European populations hunting record of a domesticated earliest dog Magdalenian
(ca. 12,000 b.c.) was recovered from a double (Beneke 1987). This single mandible at the beginning human grave that was excavated of the century. The an early domestic determination that this mandible represents dog is based on a discriminant function of analysis using measurements the mandible and mandibular to those teeth.5 When of Mesolithic the Bonn-Oberkassel was
the Pleistocene. The during from Europe comes from the in Germany site of Bonn-Oberkassel
dogs and Late Paleo compared was classified lithic wolves, the Magdalenian with the specimen that the morphological Mesolithic suggests dog group. This analysis with early dog domestication, associated the foreshortening changes of the muzzle present Other and the consequent of the teeth, are already crowding in the Late Paleolithic from Bonn-Oberkassel. specimen Late Paleolithic canid specimens, (Musil including remains from
mandible
Mezin
in the former Soviet Union

in Germany
(Pidoplicko 1969:162) and from

1970, 1984), appear on the 1987) to be closer to first- and
D?britz-Kniegrotte basis of discriminant
(Beneke analysis or wolves second-generation kept in zoos than to either wild wolves domestic The early Maglemosian 7500 b.c.) canid early (ca. dogs. from Star Carr in England has also been placed in the (Degerbol 1961 ) captive wolf category this is an immature (Beneke 1987). Olsen but suggests that (1985:71) cautions that "it may be more a tamed wolf pup." in the domestication
specimen to Canis properly assigned lupus familiahs, These animals may represent the initial stages of the wolf. Some of the earliest evidence wolf in the Near East
for the possible domestication of the is provided the canid remains from Pale by is a canid specimen gawra Cave in northeastern Iraq. The Palegawra of the left mandible that has been dated to approximately fragment 10,000 b.c. dog rather (Turnbull and Reed than wolf because 1974). The specimen was classified of the overall small size of the as
when
jaw root of the ca the shallow wolves, between the canine and the first premolar, nine, row (Turnbull and Reed 1974: and the short length of the premolar indicate a foreshortening characteristics of the muz 100-102). These a strong case can be made on morphological zle. While that grounds to Near compared the short diastema Eastern an early domestic the Palegawra canid represents an aberrant wild that this jaw represents canid dog, (Olsen it is possible 1985:73). In
230
Pam
f. Crabtree
addition, provenience
Uerpmann of this
(1982) has specimen, have been would
raised doubts suggesting contaminated
Palegawra Cave may case for domestication ery of additional An even more from the Natufian
certainly
the stratigraphie the upper layers of later materials. The by recov be strengthened by the that
about
to approximately ton of a puppy, which is either a dog or a wolf, was found buried with an adult human. Davis and Valla (1978:609) have argued that the of this puppy "offers proof that an affectionate rather than presence it and the buried person." existed between gastronomic relationship This evidence the domestication alone cannot establish of the dog in to the puppy, In addition site has also the Natufian. the Mallaha a fragmentary canid mandible, and the contemporary site produced a single lower carnassial Terrace has yielded Davis of Hayonim (MJ. of these and Valla (1978:609) argue that the lengths of the first molars more resemble those of dogs than of Natufian specimens closely small could cene wolves. strengthen of the Near Here more again, additional, the case for dog domestication East. specimens complete in the late Pleisto
(Olsen 1985:73). specimens controversial canid specimen has been recovered site of Mallaha in the Jordan Valley, dating (Eynan) b.c. (Davis and Valla 1978). The skele 8000-10,000
Conclusions
What have we learned from 30 years of intensive investiga im the most into the process of animal domestication? Perhaps the chronology of the early result of recent research concerns portant of the dog, It is now clear that, with the notable Neolithic. exception tion plant animal domestication domestication preceded for example, Uerpmann 1989). As Bar-Yosef (see, evidence have noted, sites that have produced 632) are located in the Near and Kislev East (1989: for early domestic the Middle Euphrates
plants region These
period ton and Hole cated
in a strip that extends from in the south. Basin to the Jordan Valley the Damascus through 8300 and 7300 b.c., the sites date from the period between termed the ppna of the southern Levant. Similarly, McCorres
domesti initially (1991) have argued that cereals were in the areas surrounding in the southern Levant, specifically is no clear the Jordan Valley, 10,000 years ago. There approximately for animal domestication at this early date. Domestic ani
evidence
Early Animal
Domestication
231
mais
first
and gatherers 20 years ago archaeologists asked why hunters some 10,000 years ago. This to domesticate and animals plants began can now be refined and modified. Rather than asking gen question we must now ask about the origins of mixed eral questions farming, why Were animals. early horticulturalists/hunters began to domesticate areas around early farming out" by the settlements "hunted Here a model and Scott developed by Speth early agriculturalists? be applied to the Southwest (1989) for the American might usefully Near Eastern data. Speth and Scott have argued that increasing selec west in the prehistoric American tive hunting of large mammals South was associated with sta residential size, community increasing to horticulture. commitment and an increased suggest bility, They that these larger communities 1989:79) (Speth and Scott local game resources. the local environments by depleting to focus increasingly the inhabitants of these communities prey and to adopt communal risk, high-yield, large mammal degraded This led on high
eighth Even
appear and seventh
in the Levant millennia b.c.
(and elsewhere)
during
the
later
hunting once a threshold was of resource However, techniques. depletion there was a shift to other subsistence crossed, strategies, including an increased reliance on domestic animal resources. fian Levant from the Natu record for the southern archaeological to the ppnb periods in reveals a similar of changes sequence is characterized and settlement. The Natufian subsistence period by reliance on the and an increased increased settlement permanence The
of wild cereals 1989; Belfer Henry (see, for example, harvesting Cohen Natufian reveal a strong emphasis faunal assemblages 1991). on the hunting of gazelles (Byrd 1989:176) that may have been hunted with such as game drives (Henry 1975; Cam techniques pana and Crabtree 1990; see also Legge and Rowley-Conwy 1987). As a number noted of ppna sites have provided evidence for above, communal domesticated established from this period con assemblages tinue to be dominated (see, for example, Davis 1985). Set by gazelles size increased during the ppnb. It could reasonably tlement be argued ppnb a threshold was that sometime of game depletion during the of animal domestication. the beginnings reached that encouraged Other cereals, indicating by this time. Faunal that plant domestication was well
reasons for the initial domestication of the social ungulates be suggested. domestic stock may have served as "walk Early might ing larders" (Clutton-Brock [ed.] 1989) that could absorb agricultural
232
Pam
f. Crabtree
surpluses may have a recent
in times of shortage. Manuring be slaughtered an important role in maintaining soil fertility. In played models derived from behavioral study using optimization and could that early provides on optimal data, which animal domestication a rate of return second lands. This model is
(1988) has argued ecology, Russell and milk-production based on meatof cereals only to the cultivation consistent with agricultural efforts, while 1988:157).6 The pattern were
the archaeological areas were indeed the focus pastoral strategies evolved
suggest that "optimal on human food producing thereafter" (Russell
shortly
of dog domestication, by contrast, was quite different. domesticated late Pleistocene and early Holocene Dogs by in both Europe and the Near East. Although there hunter-gatherers is an increasing of evidence for the domestication of the wolf in body both the late Pleistocene, Europe and the Near East during the process of dog domestication remain about questions swered. How and why were domestic early dogs integrated foraging way of life? Did serve as a kind of walking (Crabtree many unan into a for
hunting peoples were they used
they and Campana 1987; Degerbol 1961:53), or as hunting and guard dogs? What is the primarily if any, between the domestication of the wolf in the relationship, late Pleistocene and the subsequent of the social un domestication the early Holocene? of early animal domestication
larder
is clearly a complex centers of domestication both multiple and diffusion. one, involving comes from Iran, while for goat domestication The earliest evidence sheep Syria cated appear to have been initially Goats may have and Anatolia. in both domesticated domesticated been farther west in domesti independently also have been sheep may of the hilly flanks in also early domesticates
gulates during The pattern
locally Baluchistan diffused
Iran and the Levant, while on the eastern margins
(seeMeadow
rapidly beyond and goats had spread to Greece and domesticated sheep had
1984, 1989b). These their initial centers of domestication.
Sheep by the late seventh millennium b.c., to Mediterranean been introduced
b.c. by the sixth millennium in the study of early ani the progress that has been made Despite in the last 30 years, our knowledge mal domestication of early ani To fill in the outline remains mal domestication that incomplete. France has been sketched here, we need more studies that are based on large,
Early Animal
Domestication
233
These collec faunal assemblages. collected, well-identified carefully to allow extensive tions must and be large enough morphological the construction of detailed harvest metrical studies and to permit For example, we simply need more criti data to evaluate profiles. that cattle were in the hypothesis domesticated cally independently center on sites where the eastern Sahara by 7500 b.c. Research must faunal until the remains are well preserved, and excavations must continue the in also East an adequate is recovered. We faunal assemblage of final reports on excavations that were publication 1960s and 1970s. The add to our knowledge and Europe. More data alone, reports of early animal domestication faunal from these still await conducted sites will in the Near
are not enough. As Rindos however, (1989:31) has a Darwinian a reorienta involves perspective suggested, "Adopting tion of our thought processes. Rather than concentrating upon the of a particular variant trait that was to form the basis for future origin developments, the effect the possession of this trait, in its In the and their cultures." incipient form, was to have upon humans we need to consider of early animal domestication, the effects study that incipient animal domesticates had on early cereal cultivators. we stress
How
did the possession of domestic animals affect systems of inheri tance and land tenure? How did the adoption of these early domestic animals affect the division of labor by sex and age and the scheduling subsistence record be used work activities? from Most archaeological such importantly, sites as Jericho, these how can the rich and 'Ain Ghazal,
of other
?atal
progress
H?y?k has been made much
tication,
questions? Although in the documentation of early animal to be done. remains
to address
great domes
Acknowledgments
Smale provided valuable research Sally Casey and Maura to Randy White, for this paper. I am grateful Doug Cam Rita Wright, Peter Bogucki, Bernard Wailes, Richard pana, Sally Casey, and several anonymous reviewers for read Meadow, Stanley Olsen, assistance on earlier drafts. comments useful and provocative ing and providing of course, am responsible for all errors of fact or interpretation. I,
234
Pam
f. Crabtree
NOTES
1. I am using the term Middle East in the broadest sense to include both North Africa and the eastern margins of the Middle East as far as the Indus are excluded from River. Sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent
this review. Uncorrected radiocarbon dates are used throughout this article.
2. This
domestication
is my
translation
of the following:
pendent
"Nous
lequel des
d?finissons
animaux
donc
sauvages
la
comme
le processus
acqui?rent, qui aident

animaux
par certaines formes de contr?le culturel, l'homme ? les exploiter plus facilement.
domestiques tous ceux qui, d?riv?s des
des traits domestiques Sont d?s lors appel?s

anc?tres sauvages, ont
acquis,
sous l'effet du contr?le

facile par notre
culturel,
esp?ce."
des traits domestiques
permittent sheep are 1989b and
l'exploitation
and zoogeography of the Old World wild systematics issues. The interested reader should consult Meadow complicated 3. The
the 4. references The cited therein. analysis was carried out by H. Stampfli. measurement
of the dog man 5. The analysis was based on the following measurements measurements dible as defined by von den Driesch 7, 8, 10, 11, (1976:60-61): 13, 17, 19, and 20. 6. Bogucki (1984) has also argued that dairying may have played a signifi cant role in the initial agricultural settlement of central Europe.
REFERENCES
Akkermans,
P. A.,
J.A.
K. Boerma,
A.
T. Clason,
S. G. Hill,
E. Lohof,
C.
Meiklejohn,
van Rooyen,
M.
W.
leMi?re, G. M. F. Molgat,
van Zeist
J. J.Roodenberg, W. Waterbolk
1983 Anthony, 1989
Bouqras Revisited: Preliminary Report on a Project in Eastern Syria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49:335-72. David, and Dorcas Brown Identification of the Earliest Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth: Bitted Equids and Microscopic Analysis ofWear. In Early Animal Its Cultural Context, edited by P. Crabtree, Domestication and D. Campana, and K. Ryan, pp. 98-116. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Special Supplement to Volume 6. Philadelphia: MASCA, The University Museum.
1991
Bahn, Paul
The Origins
G.
of Horseback
Riding. Antiquity
65:22-38.
1978
The "Unacceptable Face" of theWestern 52:183-92. Paleolithic. Antiquity
European Upper
Early Animal
Domestication
235
1980 1984
Crib-biting:
Tethered Horses
in the Paleolithic?
World
12(2):212-17. Archaeology inWestern Europe: The Faunal Pre-Neolithic Control of Animals in Europe, vol. 4 o?Animals in Evidence. InHusbandry and C. Grigson, pp. 27 edited by J.Clutton-Brock Archaeology Series 227. Oxford: British Archaeological 34. International
Reports.
Bar-Yosef, Of er, and Mordechai E. Kislev in the Jordan Valley. In Foraging 1989 Early Farming Communities and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Domestication, edited by
D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman, pp. 632-42. London: Unwin Hyman. Belfer-Cohen, Anna
1991
The Natufian 20:167-86.
in the Levant. Annual
Review
of Anthropology
Beneke, Norbert 1987 Studies on Early Dog Remains from Northern Science 14:31-49. Archaeological Boessneck, Jochim Die Tierreste 1962 Neolithikum
Europe. Journal of
vom pr?keramischen aus der Argissa-Magula bis zur mittleren Bronzezeit. InDie Deutschen in Thessalien, I, by V auf der Argissa-Magula Ausgrabungen and M. Hopf, pp. 37-99. Bonn: Beitr?ge J.Boessneck, Milojcic, zur ur- und fr?hgeschichtlichen Arch?ologie des Mittelmeer
Kulturraumes, 2.
Bogucki, Peter Linear Pottery Ceramic 1984 1989
Sieves and Their Economic Implications. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3( 1 ):15-30. inNeolithic The Exploitation of Domestic Animals Central In Early Animal Domestication and Its Cultural Europe.
Context, edited by P. Crabtree, D. Campana, and K. Ryan, pp.
Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Special Supplement to Volume 6. Philadelphia: MASCA, The 118-34. MASCA
University Museum.
B?k?nyi, 1969
Sandor Archaeological Domestication.

219-29. London:
Problems and Methods In The Domestication

Duckworth.
Plants and Animals, 1971
of Recognizing Animal and Exploitation of edited by P.Ucko and G. Dimbleby, pp.
The Development and History of Domestic Animals in Hungary: The Neolithic Through the Middle Ages. American Anthropologist 73:640-74.
236
Pam
J. Crabtree
1976 1977
Development 264:19-23. Animal Iran: Asiab,
of Early Stock Rearing
in the Near East. Nature
1978 1989
from Four Sites in the Kermanshah Valley, Sarab, Dehsavar and Siahbid: The Faunal Evolution, Environmental Changes and Development of Animal Series 34. VIII-IIIMillennia B.C. Supplementary Husbandry, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. The Introduction of Sheep Breeding to Europe. Ethnozootechnie Remains
21:65-70.
In The Walking Larder: and Pr?dation, edited Pastoralism, of Domestication, 22-27. London: Unwin Hyman. pp. by J.Clutton-Brock, Braidwood, Robert J., and Bruce Howe in Iraqi Kurdistan. Studies in Ancient Prehistoric Investigations 1960 of Chicago Oriental Civilization, No. 31. Chicago: University Definitions Patterns of Animal Domestication.
Press. Byrd, B. F.
1989
The Natufian: Settlement Variability and Economic Adaptations in the Levant at the End of the Pleistocene. Journal of World
Prehistory 3:159-97'.
Campana, Douglas V, and Pam J.Crabtree in the Natufian of the Southern Levant: 1990 Communal Hunting The Social and Economic Implications. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3(2):223-43. C?l?rier, Guy, and Fran?oise Delpech Un chien dans TAzilien de "Pont dAmbon" 1978 (Dordogne)? Bulletin de la Soci?t? Fran?aise 75:212-15. Childe, V. Gordon 1958 Prehistory
Books.
of European
Society. Harmondsworth,
U.K.: Penguin
Clutton-Brock, Juliet 1971 The Primary Food Animals of the Jericho Tell from the Proto to the Byzantine Period. Levant 3:41-55. Neolithic Remains from the Jericho Tell. Proceedings 1979 The Mammalian of the Prehistoric Society 45:135-57. 1981 1989 Domesticated
Texas Press.
Animals
from Early Times. Austin: University In The Walking and Pr?dation,

London: Unwin
of
Cattle
in Ancient
North Africa. Pastoralism,

pp. 200-206.
Larder: Patterns edited by

Hyman.
of Domestication,
J. Clutton-Brock,
Clutton-Brock, Juliet (ed.) The Walking Larder: Patterns 1989

and Pr?dation. London: Unwin
of Domestication,
Hyman.
Pastoralism,
Early Animal
Domestication
237
Clutton-Brock,
Juliet,
and H.-P.
Uerpmann
1974
The Sheep of Early Jericho. Journal of Archaeological

1:261-74.
Science
Collier, Stephen, and J.Peter White Get Them Young? Age and Sex Inferences on Animal 1976 in Archaeology. American Antiquity Domestication 102.
Crabtree, P. J., and D. V. Campana
41:96
1987
A New Model
for the Domestication
of the Dog. MASCA
Journal
4(3):98-102. Daly, Patricia, Dexter Perkins, Jr., and Isabella M. Drew in the Structure of Animal The Effects of Domestication 1973 InDomestikationsforschung Darwin, 1959 edited by J. Matolsci, Charles The Origin of Species, edited by M. Peckham. of Pennsylvania Press. [1859] University
S. J. M.
Bones.
und Geschichte der Haustiere, 157-61. Budapest: Akad?miai Kiad?. pp. Philadelphia:
Davis,
1981
The Effects of Temperature Body Size of Late Pleistocene 7(2): 101-14. Paleobiology
on the Change and Domestication to Holocene Mammals of Israel.
1982
The Climatic Change and the Advent of Domestication: in the Late Pleistocene Succession of Ruminant Artiodactyls in the Israel Region. Pal?orient 8:5-15. Holocene Preliminary Report of the Fauna from Hatoula, Natufian-PPNA Site Near Latroun, Israel. In Le Site Natouflen-Khiamien de
Hatoula, edited by M. Lechevallier and A. Ronen, pp. 71-98.
1985
1987
Davis,
Jerusalem: Centre du Recherche Fran?ais. The Archaeology of Animals. New Haven: Yale University
S. J.M., and Fran?ois Valla
Press. in the
1978
Evidence Natufian
of the Dog forDomestication of Israel. Nature 276: 608-10.
12,000 Years Ago
Degerbol, Magnus On the Find of a Preboreal Domestic Dog (Canis familiaris L.) 1961 from Star Carr, Yorkshire, with Remarks on Other Mesolithic Dogs. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 27:35-55. Drew, Isabella M., Dexter Perkins, Jr., and Patricia Daly of Animals: Effects on Bone 1971 Prehistoric Domestication
Structure. Science 171:280-82.
Driesch, Angela von den 1976 A Guide to the Measurement
of Animal Bones from Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin No. 1. Archaeological Cambridge: Harvard University.
238
Pam
f. Crabtree
Ducos,
Pierre
In The Walking Larder: and Pr?dation, edited Pastoralism, pp. 28-30. London: Unwin Hyman. by J.Clutton-Brock, Ducos, Pierre, and Daniel Helmer 1981 Le point actuel sur l'apparition de la domestication dans le Levant. In Pr?histoire du Levant, edited by J.Cauvin and Defining Patterns of Domestication, Dyson, 1953 P. Sanlaville, Robert H., Jr. pp. 523-28. Paris: ?ditions du CNRS.
1989
Domestication:
A Clarification.
and the Domestication of Animals in the Old Archaeology World. American Anthropologist 55:661-73. Elder, W H. 1965 Primaeval Deer Hunting Pressures Revealed by Remains from American Indian Middens. Journal ofWildlife Management
29:366-70. Engels, Frederick 1972 The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State in the [1890] Light of the Researches of Lewis H. Morgan, with an introduction and notes by E. B. Leacock. New York: International
Flannery, Kent
Publishers.
1969
The Animal
F. Hole,
Bones. In Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain: An Early Village Sequence from Khuzistan Iran, by
K. V Flannery, and J.A. Neely, pp. 262-330. Ann Arbor:
Memoirs
Michigan,
of the Museum
No. 1.
of Anthropology,
University
of
1983
in the Fertile Crescent: a Retrospective Early Pig Domestication Look. In The Hilly Flanks and Beyond: Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia Presented to Robert J. Braidwood, November 15, 1982, edited by T. C. Young, Jr.,P. E. L. Smith, and P.Mortensen, pp. 163-88. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, University No. 36. Chicago: Oriental of Chicago. Institute of the
Gautier,
A.
1987
Prehistoric Men and Cattle in North Africa: A Dearth of Data In Prehistory of Arid North Africa, and a Surfeit ofModels. edited by A. E. Close, pp. 163-87. Dallas: Southern Methodist
University Press. Et l'Homme Cr?a ses Animaux. . . . Paris: La Domestication. Editions Errance.
1990
Geddes, David 1985 Mesolithic
Sheep inWest Mediterranean Science 12:25-48. Journal of Archaeological Domestic
Europe.
Early Animal
Domestication
239
Gifford-Gonzalez,
Diane
1991
Bones Are Not Enough: Analogies, Knowledge, and Interpretive Journal of Anthropological Strategies in Zooarchaeology. 10:215-54. Bone Structure In Early Animal
by P. Crabtree,
Archaeology Gilbert, Allan S. 1989 Microscopic Reappraisal.

Context,
in Wild
D.
and Domestic Animals: A Domestication and Its Cultural

Campana, and K. Ryan, pp.
edited
46-86. MASCA
Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Special Supplement to Volume 6. Philadelphia: MASCA, The
Museum.
University Grigson, C.
1969
inAbsolute Size in the of Differences Bones of Aurochs Distinction between the and (Bos primigenius) Domestic Cattle (Bos taurus). In The Domestication and The Uses and Limitations Exploitation
G. W. Dimbleby,
of Plants
pp.
and Animals,
London:
edited by P. J. Ucko
Duckworth.
and
277-94.
Hecker,
Howard
M.
1982
Domestication
Helmut
Revisited:
Journal of Field Archaeology

Hemmer,
Its Implications 9:217-36.
for Faunal Analysis.
1990
Domestication:
Press.
The Decline Beckhaus.
of Environmental Cambridge:
Appreciation,
translated by Neil
Henry, D. O.
Cambridge University
1975
In Problems in Fauna inNear Eastern Archaeological Deposits. North Africa and the Levant, edited by F. Wendorf Prehistory:
and A. University E. Marks, Press. pp. 379-85. Dallas: Southern Methodist
1989
Hesse,
From Foraging toAgriculture: Age. Philadelphia: University

Brian
The Levant at the End of the Ice of Pennsylvania Press. The Beginnings
17(3):403-17.
1982 1984
Slaughter Patterns
Pastoralism
and Domestication:
Iran. Man (n.s.)
of
inWestern
These Are Our Goats: The Origins of Herding inWest Central Iran. In Early Herders and Their Flocks, vol. 3 o?Animals and edited by J.Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 243 Archaeology, 64. International Series 202. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports. E. S.
Higgs,
1962
Fauna. In Excavations Nikomedeia, Proceedings
at the Early Neolithic Site at Nea Greek Macedonia (1961 Season), by R. J.Rodden. the Prehistoric Society 28:271-74. of
240
Pam
J. Crabtree
Higgs,
E. S., and M.
R.
Jarman
1969
The Origins
43:31-41. C. F.W.
of Agriculture:
A Reconsideration.
Antiquity
Higham,
1967
M.
Stock Rearing as a Cultural Factor in Prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33:84-106.
R., and P. F.Wilkinson
Jarman,
1972
Criteria
of Animal
Domestication.
In Papers in Economic pp. 83-96. Cambridge:
Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, Press. Cambridge University

Jordan, B.
1975
Tierknockenfunde
Inaugural Dissertation.
aus der Magu?a

Munich:
Pevkakia
Institut
in Thessalien. der Tiermedizin der
f?r Palaeoanatomie,
Domestikationsforschung Universit?t M?nchen.

Kent, Susan
und Geschichte
1989
Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Farmers as Hunters of Meat. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications edited by S. Kent, pp. 1-17. Cambridge:
Press.
and the Value of Sedentism, University
Cambridge
Klein, Richard G., and Kathryn Cruz-Uribe 1984 The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological of Chicago Press. Chicago: University
K?hler-Rollefson, Ilse
Sites.
at Ain Ghazal Between the Early 15(1): 141-46. Analysis. Pal?orient and Mary Metzger K?hler-Rollefson, Ilse,William Gillespie, 1988 The Fauna from Neolithic Ain Ghazal. In The Prehistory of Jordan: The State of Research in 1986, edited by A. N. Garrard International Series 396 (i).Oxford: and H. G. Gebel, pp. 423-30. British Archaeological Reports. 1989 Changes in Goat Exploitation and Late Neolithic: A Metrical
Lawrence, Barbara
1967 1980
f?r S?ugetier k?nde 32:44-59. Early Domestic Dogs. Zeitschrift at Cay?n?. In The Joint Evidence of Animal Domestication Universities' Prehistoric Research in Istanbul-Chicago edited by H. ?ambel and R. J.Braidwood, Southeastern Anatolia, Istanbul: Edebiyat Fak?ltesi Basimevi. pp. 285-308. Food Animals at Cay?n?. In Prehistoric Village Principal in Southeastern Anatolia, edited by L. Braidwood Archaeology and R. Braidwood, pp. 175-99. International Series 138. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. of the Gazelle in Palestine. In Papers in
J.
1982
Legge,
A.
1972
Prehistoric
Exploitation
Early Animal
Domestication
241
Economie
Prehistory,
edited
by E. S. Higgs,
pp.
119-24.
Cambridge:
Legge, A. J., and P. A.
Cambridge University
Rowley-Conwy
Press.
1987
Gazelle
Killing
in Stone Age Syria. Scientific American
257(2):88-95.
Littauer, Mary
1980
Lyman, R.
Horse
Lee
Sense, or Nonsense?
Antiquity
54:139-40.
1987
Archaeofaunas
and Butchery Studies: A Taphonomic InAdvances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Perspective. vol. 10, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 249-337. New York:
Press.
Academic
McCorriston, The Ecology of Seasonal Stress and the Origins of Agriculture 1991 93:46-69. the Near East. American Anthropologist Richard H. Meadow, 1984
Joy, and Frank Hole
in
in the Middle East: A View from the Animal Domestication Eastern Margin. In Early Herders and Their Flocks, vol. 3 of edited by J.Clutton-Brock and Animals and Archaeology, International Series 202. Oxford: British C. Grigson, pp. 309-37. Reports. Archaeological Evidence for the Process of Animal Domestication. Osteological In The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Pr?dation, edited by J.Clutton-Brock, pp. 80-89. London:
Unwin Hyman.
1989a
1989b
Prehistoric Wild
Margins Its Cultural of
Sheep and Sheep Domestication

East. edited In Early Animal D. by P. Crabtree,
on the Eastern
and and Campana,
the Middle Context,
Domestication
K. Ryan, pp. 24-36. MASCA Research Papers in Science and to Volume 6. Philadelphia: Archaeology, Special Supplement MASCA, The University Museum.
Moore, A. M. T., G. C. Hillman, and A. J. Legge
1975
The Excavation
of Tell Abu Hureyra in Syria: A Preliminary Report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41:50-77. of the Dog Already in the Magdalenian?
Musil, Rudolph Domestication 1970 1984
8:87-88. Anthropologie The First Known Domestication ofWolves in Central Europe. In in Europe, vol. 4 of Animals in Archaeology, edited Husbandry
and C. Grigson, pp. 23-25. International by J.Clutton-Brock Series 227. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Olsen, Stanley J. an Early Domestic Animal? 1979 Archaeologically, What Constitutes
242
Pam
J. Crabtree
in Archaeological InAdvances Method and Theory, vol. 2, edited M. B. Schiffer, pp. 175-97. New York: Academic Press. by 1985 Origins
University Payne, Sebastian
of the Domestic
of Arizona
Dog: The Fossil Record. Tucson:

Press.
1973
Kill-off Patterns Kale. Anatolian
in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles Studies 23:281-303.
from A?van
Perkins,
Dexter,
Jr.
1964 1966 1968 1973
Fauna from Shanidar, Iraq. Science 144:1565-66. and Beidha. Palestine Exploration The Fauna from Madamagh Quarterly (1966):66-67. Fauna of ?atal H?y?k: Evidence for Early Cattle Domestication in Anatolia. Science 164:177-79. in the Near East. The Beginnings of Animal Domestication Prehistoric American Journal of Archaeology
Patricia Daly
77:279-82.
Perkins,
Dexter,
Jr., and
1974
The Beginning of Food Production in the Near East. In The Old edited by World: Early Man to the Development of Agriculture,
R. Stigler, pp. 71-97. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Pidoplicko, I.G. zilisca iz kostej manonta na Ukraine 1969 Pozdenepaleoliticeskie Bones in the Ukraine). ofMammoth (Late Paleolithic Dwellings Kiev: Institute of Zoology of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. Pike-Tay, Anne, and Heidi Knecht and Seasonal 1991 Organizational, Uncovering Technological, Strategies of Paleolithic Hunting: Experimental Contributions.
Paper visiting Carbondale. Price, Edward O. presented scholar's at "From Bones to Behavior," Illinois the eighth annual conference, Southern University,
The Quarterly Behavioral Aspects of Animal Domestication. Review of Biology 59:1 -32. Reed, Charles A. Studies in the Near East: A Short History 1983 Archaeozoological 1984 (1960-1980). In Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks, edited by L. S. Braidwood, R. J.Braidwood, B. Howe,
C. A. Reed, and P. J. Watson, pp. 511-36. Oriental Institute
Publications, University
Reed, Charles A.,
No.
105. Chicago: Oriental

Perkins, Jr.
Institute of the
of Chicago.
and Dexter
1984
in Southwestern Asia. In of Animals Prehistoric Domestication " in der "Alten Welt, edited by Der Beginn der Haustierhaltung G. Nobis, pp. 3-23. K?ln andWien: B?hlau Verlag.
Early Animal
Domestication
243
Rindos, David 1984 The Origins

Orlando:
of Agriculture:
Press.
An Evolutionary
Perspective. In
Academic
1989
Darwinism
and Its Role in the Explanation of Domestication. Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation, edited by D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman, pp. 27-41. London:
Hyman.
Unwin
Rogers, Richard A., and Laurine A. Rogers 1988 and Anterior Beveling on Fossil Horse Incisors: Notching Indicators of Domestication. Quaternary Research 29:72-74.
Rowley-Conwy, Peter
On the Osteological Evidence for Paleolithic Domestication: theWrong Tree. Current Anthropology Barking up 31(5):543-47. Russell, Kenneth W 1988 After Eden: The Behavioral Ecology of Early Food Production in the Near East and North Africa. International Series 391. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Schiffer, Michael B. 1988 The Structure of Archaeological 53:461-85.
A. H., and G. Ilany
1990
Theory. American
Antiquity
Simmons,
What Mean These Bones? Behavioral Implications of Gazelles' 77 Remains from Archaeological Sites. Pal?orient 3:269-74. Smith, Andrew B. 1986 Review Article: Cattle Domestication in North Africa. The Review 4:197-203. African Archaeological
Solecki, R. L.
1975-
1980
An Early Village
Mesopotamica, J.D., and Susan
Site at Zawi Chemi

vol. 13. Malibu, Calif.:
Shanidar. Biblioteca
Undena Publications.
Speth,
L. Scott
and Large Mammal Hunting: The Role of Resource Horticulture and Constraints of Time and Labor. In Farmers as Depletion Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, edited by S. Kent, pp. 71-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stampfli, Hans R. 1983 The Fauna of Jarmo with Notes on Animal Bones from Matarrah, the Amuq, and Karim Shahir. In Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks, edited by L. S. Braidwood, R. J.Braidwood,
B. Howe, C. A. Reed, and P. J. Watson, pp. 431-83. Oriental
1989
Institute Publications, No. the Institute of Chicago. Stein, Gil 1989 Strategies of Risk Reduction
105. Chicago: Oriental
Institute of
in Herding
and Hunting
Systems
of
244
Pam
J. Crabtree
Neolithic
Southeast
Anatolia.
In Early
Animal
Domestication
and Its Cultural Context, edited by P. Crabtree, D. Campana, and K. Ryan, pp. 87-97. MASCA Research Papers in Science and to Volume 6. Philadelphia: Special Supplement Archaeology, MASCA,
Tchernov, Eitan, and
The University
L. K. Horwitz
Museum.
1991
Turnbull, 1974
Under Domestication: Unconscious Body Size Diminution Selection in Primeval Domesticates. Journal of Anthropological 10:54-75. Archaeology Priscilla E, and Charles A. Reed The Fauna from the Terminal
a Zarzian Occupation
Pleistocene
of Palegawra Cave,
Fieldiana
in Northeastern
Iraq.
Anthropology
Uerpmann, Hans-Peter
63(3):81-146.
1978
Metrical
Analysis of Faunal Remains from the Middle East. In to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, edited by Approaches
R. H. Meadow and M. A. Zeder, pp. 41-45. Peabody Museum
1979
2. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Harvard University. Ethnology, Probleme der Neolithisierung des Mittelmeerraums. T?binger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr. 28. Wiesbaden: Dr. Bulletin No. Ludwig Reichert. The Major Faunal Areas of the Middle
Pleistocene and Early Holocene.
1981
East During
du
the Late
Levant, edited
In Pr?histoire
1982 1989
by J.Cauvin and H. Sanlaville, pp. 99-106. Paris: ?ditions du CNRS. Faunal Remains from Shams ed-din Tannira, a Halafian Site in
Northern Syria. Berytus 30:3-52.
Animal Exploitation and the Phasing of the Transition from the to the Neolithic. In The Walking Larder: Patterns of Paleolithic
Domestication, Clutton-Brock, Pastoralism, pp. 91-96. and London: Pr?dation, Unwin edited Hyman. by J.
Wailes,
Bernard
1990
Watson,
Early Farming
J. P. N.
in Europe. Reviews
in Anthropology
15:211-24. Journal
1975
Domestication
P. J.
and Bone Structure in Sheep and Goats. Science 2:375-83. of Archaeological
Watson,
1965
The Chronology of North Syria and North Mesopotamia from in Old World 10,000 B.C. to 2000 B.C. In Chronologies edited by R. W. Ehrich, pp. 61-100. Chicago: Archaeology,
University of Chicago Press.
Early Animal
Domestication
245
White, Randall 1989 Husbandry Review

Zeder, M. A.
and Herd Control
of the Evidence.
in the Upper Paleolithic: A Critical Current Anthropology 30(5):609-32.
1978
Between the Bones of Caprines from Different in Iran by the Analysis of Osteological Ecosystems Microstructure InApproaches and Chemical Composition. to in the Middle East, edited by R. H. Meadow and Faunal Analysis M. A. Zeder, pp. 69-84. Peabody Museum Bulletin No. 2. Differentiation Cambridge:
Harvard
Peabody Museum
of Archaeology
and Ethnology,
University.
Zeuner,
F. E.
1955 1963
The Goats
of Early Jericho. Palestine Animals.
Exploration
Quarterly
(April 1955): 70-86. A History of Domesticated

Row.
New York: Harper and

Crabtree P 1993 Early Animal Domestication in The Middle East and Europe

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Crabtree P 1993 Early Animal Domestication in The Middle East and Europe

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Early Animal Domestication in the Middle East and Europe Author(s): Pam J.

Early Animal Domestication Middle East and Europe

transition in human The

turning point lithic Revolution." production sition was

from foraging to farming which Childe prehistory, shift a change

amajor represents termed the "Neo

that 661). An animal from its wild ancestors

B?k?nyi's is the capture and taming their behavioral characteristics,

and deliberate breeding

and animals, Reed example,

however, traced as far back

relationships and further suggest that even at an early stage of

the cultural definitions

osteological mal domestication

been stressed by B?k?nyi [1969] andMeadow

an osteological logical changes the domestication morphologically cally invisible

so rapidly and process from

that the period the appearance their wild

that morpho the onset of that are

is archaeologi progenitors must that archaeologists deal

for the appearance

(B?k?nyi 1976:21; Hemmer

tion the criteria

consequences cation must focus

ogists who to examine domestication

are interested was

and how does on the other hand, Kent

initiated. Why this domestication

thus represents the formation humans between relationship

that have traits

the effect exploitation

tinguishes mal domesticate.

control, by our species."2 This definition the domestication between process

acquired, under their easy that permit is useful because it dis

in the archaeological of early animal problems

Morphological Any discussion a consideration acceptable cept a strict who

of morphological for domestication definition definition been used

since such changes, both to those scholars of domestication of cultural control.

osteological a broader that have

to identify domestication as size such characteristics in the shape

The morpho in the diminu and size of

As Tchernov diminution true for most elements tion

in zooarchaeological assemblages." A number of explanations have been

genic environments in body The changes ductive strategies of these

A final cal data in wild

in the use of morphometri is present sexual dimorphism

Bahn record. For example, reindeer with Paleolithic Fr?res

des Trois from Grotte an infected multiple

decoys hunting gree of cultural A more might tion, ditions

promising result directly "the appearance

Zawi Nabta 33 Jarmo 26 Dereivka 19 Asiab 5 12 Chemi Shanidar

3Ali 10 Kosh CatalH?y?kFr?res 17 Trois Grotte des

6Beidha 13 Jericho 27 Nikomedeia 20 Nea D?britz-Kniegrotte

of multivariate skull, maxilla, discriminant

based analyses and maxillary

thirdmolar lengths on 21 wild pigs

(Bogucki teeth are

f. Crabtree goat horn

development clearly seen It has been

of the distinctive in the series

twist. These from

of goat horn that hornlessness

in Iran (Flannery 1969:270-72).