crabtree p 1993 early animal domestication in the middle east and europe

Early Animal Domestication in the Middle East and EuropeAuthor(s): Pam J. CrabtreeReviewed work(s):Source: Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 5 (1993), pp. 201-245Published by: SpringerStable 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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Archaeological Method andTheory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20170232?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


5 Early Animal Domestication in the

Middle East and Europe PAM J. CRABTREE

Plant-cultivation and stock-breeding ? in a word, food

production ?

constituted an epoch-making innovation. It

is rightly taken to mark in archaeology the beginning of a new age

? the Neolithic or New Stone Age. (Childe 1958:34)

The transition from foraging to farming represents a major

turning point in human prehistory, which Childe termed the "Neo

lithic Revolution." The shift from hunting and gathering to food

production is not merely a change in subsistence strategies. This tran

sition was accompanied by changes in settlement patterns, demog

raphy, social organization, and other aspects of technology. Although it has been suggested that the shift from foraging to farming was

more evolutionary than revolutionary (see, for example, Higgs and

Jarman 1969), the study of the origins of agriculture has been a domi

nant issue in economic archaeology since the end of World War II.

A significant feature of early Neolithic and later farming societies

of Europe and the Middle East is the importance of domesticated

animals, including cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and dogs. These five

species represent the primary domestic animals in Europe and the

Middle East.1 All five species were domesticated by 6000 b.c. (see, for

example, Hemmer 1990:78, Fig. 3.49), and all are common in early Neolithic faunal assemblages recovered from Middle Eastern and

European sites. This paper will review the archaeological evidence

for these early domestic animals in the Old World. In choosing to

focus on the primary domesticates, economically important secon

dary domesticates, including the horse, the camel, and the cat, must

necessarily be omitted. Domestic birds, which played particularly

201



202 Pam f. Crabtree

important roles in classical and medieval societies, are also left out

because they were not initially domesticated during the early Neo

lithic period.

Defining Animal Domestication

"What is the purpose of defining [animal] domestication?"

(Ducos 1989:28). The definition of animal domestication is a practi cal matter. The way in which animal domestication is defined will

condition the criteria that are used to identify animal domestication

in the archaeological record. What then do we mean by animal do

mestication and a domesticated animal? Dyson ( 1953) was the first to

note that the concept of animal domestication has been used in two

different ways in the archaeological literature. Dyson distinguished between cultural and osteological definitions of domestication. A

cultural definition of a domestic animal is "one which breeds in cap

tivity and is of some significant use to a community" (Dyson 1953:

661). An animal that shows significant morphological distinctions

from its wild ancestors can be defined as domesticated osteologically. Since Dyson's publication, a number of other essentially cultural

definitions of domestication have been proposed, including what

Ducos (1989:28) has termed B?k?nyi's "classic definition": "The es

sence of domestication is the capture and taming by man of a species with particular behavioral characteristics, their removal from their

natural living areas and breeding community, and their maintenance

under controlled breeding conditions for profit" (B?k?nyi 1969:219; see also B?k?nyi 1989).

Hecker has taken a broader view. He rejects the term animal do

mestication and prefers instead the term cultural control, which he

defines as "that array of human behaviors that has a profound effect

on some aspect of the exploited animal population's natural behavior

and dramatically interferes with its movements, breeding schedule, or population structure in such a way as to make the animals more

accessible' to humans" (Hecker 1982:219). The four essential fea

tures of cultural control are

1. The active and deliberate interference with an animal

population's breeding schedule, movement, or population structure



Early Animal Domestication 203

2. The care and provisioning of animals or the construction of

structures or barriers to contain them

3. The control of a group or herd of animals (i.e., a population) as opposed to individual animals

4. The increased accessibility of these animals to humans.

A different position has been adopted by several members of the

British Academy Major Research Project on the Early History of Agri culture. Eric Higgs and his students, "the Higglets" (Wailes 1990:

213), advocated a strictly paleoeconomic approach to the study of

animal domestication. Higgs and Jarman (1969:38) argued that do

mestication represents a symbiotic relationship between humans

and animals, a viewpoint that has been shared by others (see, for

example, Reed and Perkins 1984:4; cf. Rindos 1984). They contend,

however, that similar close human/animal relationships can be

traced as far back as the Middle Paleolithic and further suggest that

"symbiotic relationships may have occurred even at an early stage of

the Pleistocene" (Higgs and Jarman 1969:39). While it is certainly

possible to examine a range of types of interactions between humans

and animals during the Pleistocene, this position blurs the distinc

tion between hunting and herding. There are several important differences between the cultural and

osteological definitions of domestication. Cultural definitions of ani

mal domestication emphasize human behavior in the domestication

process itself, while morphological or osteological definitions focus

on the product, the domesticated animal. (The distinction between

the domestication process and the domesticated animal has also

been stressed by B?k?nyi [1969] and Meadow [1989a].) The choice of definition entails implicit (and often explicit) as

sumptions about the length of time required to produce a domesti

cated animal. As Dyson (1953) noted, cultural domestication must

necessarily precede osteological change. But how long is the interval

between the onset of cultural control and the appearance of demon

strable morphological changes from the wild prototype? Those who

employ cultural definitions of domestication often assume that there

may have been a substantial period of cultural control before the

appearance of a morphologically domesticated animal. Thus, Perkins

and Daly (1974:77) assert that in the earliest stages of the domestica

tion process, morphological "changes may not have taken place or

may have been so slight as to be undetectable." Those who choose



204 Pam f. Crabtree

an osteological definition of domestication often argue that morpho

logical changes occur so rapidly that the period between the onset of

the domestication process and the appearance of animals that are

morphologically distinct from their wild progenitors is archaeologi

cally invisible (given the time scales that archaeologists must deal

with, the problems of archaeological stratigraphy, and the statistical

errors in radiocarbon age determination). Uerpmann (1979:94-96), for example, contends that morphological changes may have ap

peared in sheep and goats in approximately 10-20 generations, or

less than 100 years. Recent experimental research on animal domes

tication appears to support the short chronology for the appearance of morphological changes (B?k?nyi 1976:21; Hemmer 1990:177). This, however, does not mean that the search for the earliest stages in the domestication process should be abandoned. The study of the

earliest phases of animal domestication presents methodological

challenges for excavators to develop methods of close stratigraphie control and strategies for the recovery of animal bones. The chal

lenge is to define the shortest possible chronological units and to

maximize the recovery of animal bones from each phase. The choice of definitions of animal domestication will also condi

tion the criteria that can be used to identify animal domestication in

the archaeological record. Those who employ an osteological defini

tion will expect to see significant evidence for morphological change in faunal remains. By contrast, those who view animal domestica

tion as cultural control of animal populations may be more willing to accept a wider range of archaeological criteria (see, for example,

Hecker 1982). The various criteria that have been used to identify animal domestication in the archaeological record are discussed in

detail below.

The dichotomy of definitions of domestication has had unfortu

nate consequences for zooarchaeology. Any study of animal domesti

cation must focus on both the process and the product. As archaeol

ogists who are interested in the processes of cultural change, we need

to examine the circumstances and conditions under which animal

domestication was initiated. Why would people domesticate animals, and how does this domestication take place? Domesticated animals, on the other hand, are artifacts, just as pottery and stone tools are. As

Kent (1989:15) has noted, "Domesticated animals become socially,

ritually, politically, and economically valuable in a way different

from wild animals ?they become analogous to objects." They also




represent a form of property (Engels [1890] 1972:118), since animal

domestication involves "a change of focus on the part of humans

from the dead to the living animal and, more particularly, from the

dead animal to the principal product of the living animal ? its prog

eny" (Meadow 1989a:81). The introduction of domestic animals, whether through autochthonous domestication or through diffusion, will therefore affect systems of inheritance, land tenure and use

rights, and the like.

It is also important to recognize that domestication is a biological, as well as a cultural, process (Clutton-Brock 1981:21). Domestication

is, in effect, incipient or partial speciation taking place under human

control. Beginning with Darwin ([1859] 1959), biologists who have

studied the origins of species have been interested in both the speci ation process and the products of that process, i.e., new species. The

initiation of the process of speciation requires environmental change.

Humans, by maintaining control over an animal population's repro

duction, food supply, and movement, have radically altered that ani

mal population's environment (Clutton-Brock 1981:21; see also

Gautier 1990). Through control over reproduction, genetic inter

change with wild populations has been severely reduced or elimi

nated. Moreover, the areas around permanent human settlements

represent unique environmental niches where the natural vegetation has been altered as a result of agricultural activities and land clear

ance and where competition from other animals has been decreased

as a result of hunting activities. Morphological changes, such as size

reduction, will begin to take place as the animal population adapts to its new, human-controlled environment.

Animal domestication thus represents the formation of a coevolu

tionary or mutualistic relationship between humans and early do

mesticates. In this type of relationship the costs to animal popula tions of providing subsistence to human 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

(1984:13) has noted, human "control over much of the biological and

physical environments of captive animals often improves viability and reproductive success relative to their free-living counterparts."

Gautier (1990:10) has defined animal domestication as "the pro cess through which wild animals acquired, through certain forms of

cultural control, domestic traits that helped humans exploit them more easily. The term domesticated animal may be applied to all



206 Pam f. Crabtree

those animals derived from wild ancestors that have acquired, under

the effect of cultural control, domestic traits that permit their easy

exploitation by our species."2 This definition is useful because it dis

tinguishes between the domestication process and the resulting ani

mal domesticate. Furthermore, it identifies cultural control as an

essential part of the process through which wild animal populations

begin to change morphologically, i.e., to acquire domestic traits. In

addition, the definition emphasizes that these newly acquired traits

make animals more accessible to humans (Hecker 1982). Finally, as

Hecker (1982) has pointed out, animal domestication deals with en

tire populations or herds of animals rather than individuals. In this

way, domestication can be distinguished from the keeping of pets and the use of animals as hunting decoys. It is Gautier's definition of

animal domestication that I shall adopt throughout this review.

Criteria for Animal Domestication

A wide variety of criteria have been used to identify early domestic animals in the archaeological record. These include morpho

logical changes, differences in kill-patterns and age profiles, changes in bone microstructure, and shifts in taxonomic abundance. In this

section I will examine the criteria used to identify animal domestica

tion in the archaeological record and then address the more general

problems of early animal domestication.

Morphological Changes

Any discussion of criteria for animal domestication must begin with

a consideration of morphological changes, since such changes are

acceptable criteria for domestication both to those scholars who ac

cept a strict osteological definition of domestication and to those

who advocate a broader definition of cultural control. The morpho

logical criteria that have been used to identify domestication in the

archaeological record include such characteristics as size diminu

tion, evidence of pathologies, and changes in the shape and size of

horn cores of sheep and goats.

Size Decrease. Evidence for significant decrease in size is the most

commonly used morphological criterion for animal domestication.




As Tchernov and Horwitz (1991:55) have noted, "The tendency for a

diminution in body size following domestication appears to hold

true for most mammals. As a result, reduction in the size of skeletal

elements has been considered good evidence for animal domestica

tion in zooarchaeological assemblages." A number of explanations have been suggested for this apparent

diminution in body size, including nutritional changes, intentional

human selection, and the relaxation of selection pressures favoring

larger males (Meadow 1984:312-13). Most recently, Tchernov and

Horwitz (1991) have suggested that this size diminution is not a re

sult of conscious selection by humans for smaller and more docile

animals, but instead an adaptive response to the unique anthropo

genic environments that surrounded early farming communities.

The changes in body size are seen as a function of changes in repro ductive strategies of these early domesticates. Tchernov and Horwitz

argue that a shift toward a more r-selected reproductive strategy is

associated with high fecundity, rapid development, and small body size (Tchernov and Horwitz 1991:59).

Of course, size decrease can result from causes other than animal

domestication (Jarman and Wilkinson 1972). The size decreases

caused by climatic changes at the end of the Pleistocene are well

documented for both potentially domesticable animals, including the aurochs and wild goat, and those animals that were never domes

ticated, such as the fox (Davis 1981). In addition, size diminution

may allow an animal population to remain constant in numbers

when the available resources decrease. For example, there is a signifi cant decrease in the size of red deer in Greece in the later prehistoric and classical periods caused by the deer being pushed into progres

sively more marginal and restricted areas (Jordan 1975, cited in

Meadow 1989a; Gautier 1990:102). The size decreases that resulted

from climatic changes and habitat reduction affected all parts of

these animal populations. In early animal domestication, only part of

a wild population came under human control at one time. As Uerp mann (1978:42) notes, "[I]t is not a simple alteration of animal size

which indicates domestication, but rather the split of a population into an unaltered, presumably wild part and an altered presumably domestic part." If we are to use size diminution as a criterion for ani

mal domestication, we should therefore look for not simply across

the-board size decrease, but rather increasing variability combined

with size decrease in a portion of the population.



208 Pam f. Crabtree

A final factor that must be considered in the use of morphometri cal data is sexual dimorphism. Strong sexual dimorphism is present in wild and domestic cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs (Grigson 1969; Lawrence 1982:179; K?hler-Rollefson 1989; see also Bogucki 1989:

121). Standard zooarchaeological techniques call for the measure

ment of mature specimens only (von den Driesch 1976:4; cf. Hesse

1984). Early herders may have culled a large proportion of immature

males that were not required for breeding purposes (see below). If

these bones are not included in the sample measured by the zoo

archaeologist, the metrical sample may be based largely on female

specimens. This can produce an apparent decrease in median size

without any necessary decrease in the size of the female animals

(K?hler-Rollefson 1989). Examination of the coefficient of variation

for these measurements (see, for example, Lawrence 1982:180) may

allow the analyst to distinguish the effects of sexual dimorphism from those of size diminution.

Pathology. Evidence of pathology is a second morphological criterion

that has been used to identify possible animal domestication in the

archaeological record. For example, Bahn (1978:188, 1984) has argued that an Upper Paleolithic reindeer with an infected and fractured

mandible from Grotte des Trois Fr?res (see Fig. 5.1) and one from

Isturitz with an infected multiple fracture of the forelimb are un

likely to have survived without some form of human protection,

suggesting some degree of possible cultural control of reindeer in

the European Upper Paleolithic (see White 1989 for a detailed

critique of this hypothesis). This approach is problematic for several

reasons. First, we have limited knowledge of the forms and inci

dences of pathologies among wild animals (Gautier 1990:105). Wild

life research in Britain, however, indicates that deer in the wild can

survive severe fractures and even the loss of limbs (Rowley-Conwy

1990). Alternatively, these crippled animals might have been used as

hunting decoys (Littauer 1980:140), which would not imply any de

gree of cultural control over the reindeer or horse herds.

A more promising avenue of research is to identify pathologies that

might result directly from the conditions of early animal domestica

tion, "the appearance of skeletal manifestations of pathological con

ditions brought on by keeping animals confined" (Meadow 1989a:85) or controlled. For example, B?k?nyi (1977:38) notes the presence of

periodontitis and chronic arthritis in early domestic goats from the



Figure 5.1. Map of Europe and the Near East showing the location of sites discussed in this paper.

1 Abu Hureyra 8 Bonn-Oberkassel 15 Ganj Dareh 22 Mallaha 29 Pont D'Ambron 2 AinGhazal 9 Bouqras 16 Gritille 23 Malyan 30 ShanidarCave

3 Ali Kosh 10 CatalH?y?k 17 Grotte des Trois Fr?res 24 Mehrgarh 31 StarCarr

4 Argissa Magu?a 11 Cay?n? 18 Isturitz 25 Mezin 32 Tepe Sarab

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

6 Beidha 13 D?britz-Kniegrotte

20 Jericho 27 Nea Nikomedeia

7 BirKiseiba 14 Erbaba 21 La Quina 28 Palegawra



210 Pam f. Crabtree

early ceramic Neolithic site of Tepe Sarab in Iran. Similarly, Anthony and Brown (1989, 1991) have used evidence for bit wear, i.e., macro

scopic and microscopic damage to the premolars that results from

contact with a bit, to identify early domestic horses at the sites of

Malyan in Iran and Dereivka in the Ukraine.

The main problem with the use of pathologies to identify early animal domestication is one of equifinality. Although bit wear al

most certainly results from the human control of horses, the evi

dence for "crib-biting" is more problematical. Bahn (1978:189) has

argued that the damage to the incisor teeth of several horses from

the Middle Paleolithic site of La Quina resulted from crib-biting, or

fixing the teeth into the wood of a manger or stable, thus implying some degree of prolonged restraint. Similar damage to the incisors,

however, can result from bark-biting (Littauer 1980; Rowley-Conwy

1990), which need not imply any degree of restraint whatsoever. Bahn

(1980:214), while interpreting the damage as crib-biting, has recog nized the problem of equifinality by noting: "There remains the prob lem of whether similar wear could arise in free horses through other

means: e.g. through tooth sharpening, or bark-biting, or through dif

ferential wear caused by variance in the tooth structure, eating habits or the abrasive properties of phytoliths." It is also possible 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) have shown that notching and anterior beveling appear in low fre

quencies on early and middle Pleistocene horse teeth from North

America. Rogers and Rogers (1988:74) concluded that "these traits

are not reliable in distinguishing wild from human-controlled horse

populations." There is clearly a need for more actualistic and experi mental research on bone pathologies and their causes to resolve

some of these problems of equifinality.

Other Gross Morphological Changes. In addition to overall size di

minution, specific morphological changes can result from domesti

cation. In canids, the earliest changes include the foreshortening of

the rostrum or muzzle (Olsen 1985:19) and the consequent crowding of the teeth, especially the premolars (Lawrence 1967:48-50; Beneke

1987:33). Because the degree of dental crowding can vary in both

wild wolves and domestic dogs, Olsen (1985:92-93, see also Olsen

1979) has cautioned against using any single measurement or charac

ter to separate wild from domestic specimens. He advocates the use




of multivariate analyses based on a series of 13 measurements of the

skull, maxilla, and maxillary teeth. A similar approach, based on a

discriminant function analysis, has been used by Beneke ( 1987) in the

study of northern European canid remains. Since these approaches

require the analyst to take several measurements on a single skull or

mandible, they can be used only with relatively complete specimens. Domestic pigs are often distinguished from their wild counterparts

on the basis of a reduction in the length of the cheek tooth row and, in particular, by a reduction in the length of the mandibular third

molar (Flannery 1969:309). While a lower third molar length of ap

proximately 40 mm has often been used as a dividing line between

domestic and wild swine (Dexter Perkins 1974, personal communica

tion), in practice there is often a wide range of variation in the lengths of the third molars of both domestic and wild pigs. For example,

Flannery (1969:309) measured third molar lengths on 21 wild pigs from southwestern Asia and found a range from 38.8 to 49.3 mm.

This variation needs to be taken into account when one attempts to

identify early domestic pigs in the archaeological record. The iden

tification must be based on a range of specimens and not a single individual. The case for domestication can be strengthened when

one encounters an increasingly variable population including both

longer (presumably wild) and shorter (presumably domestic) third

molars. The effects of sexual dimorphism must also be taken into

account (Bogucki 1989:129); however, with the exception of the ca

nine, pig teeth are less dimorphic than limb bones are (Flannery

1983:168). Domestication results in other changes in the pig skull as well.

The facial portion of the skull tends to be shortened relative to the

cranium. This shortening is especially pronounced in pigs (Zeuner

1963:67) and can be seen clearly in the decrease in the length of the

lacrimal bone in relation to its height (von den Driesch 1976:38, measurements 21 and 22).

The other morphological changes that have been used to identify animal domestication in the archaeological record include changes in the shape of the horn cores of sheep and goats. Domestic goats

have twisted horn cores that are lozenge- or almond-shaped in cross

section (see Fig. 5.2). The cross-sections of the horns of wild goats

{Capra aegagrus) tend to be roughly quadrilateral in shape, and the

horn core itself is straighter. In the early stages of the domestication

process there is a medial flattening of the horn core and later the



212 Pam f. Crabtree

Figure 5.2. Cross-sections of wild (A) and domesticated (B) male goat horn

cores, redrawn after Zeuner (1955:Plate 8).

development of the distinctive corkscrew twist. These changes are

clearly seen in the series of goat horn cores from the site of Ali Kosh

in Iran (Flannery 1969:270-72). It has been suggested that hornlessness in female sheep was a sign

of domestication, since polled sheep did not occur in the wild (Flan

nery 1969:280; B?k?nyi 1971:650). It is now clear that hornless fe

male sheep do occasionally occur in wild populations, so this criter

ion alone cannot be used reliably to identify domestication in the

archaeological record (Uerpmann 1979:94). As Stampfli (1983:443) has noted, "There are no clear criteria in the literature for determin

ing domestication in sheep, apart from the strongly curled horns that

appear in male domestic sheep of later periods."

Micromorphological Changes. In the early 1970s Drew, Perkins, and

Daly (Drew et al. 1971; Daly et al. 1973) suggested that domestica

tion produced changes in the structure of bone tissue itself. This

research has been reviewed in detail by Gilbert (1989). The research

ers (Drew et al. 1971) made p?trographie thin-sections of faunal re

mains from several archaeological sites in the Near East. When these

specimens were examined under polarized light, the wild and domes

tic specimens exhibited different optical properties. Drew and her

co-researchers (Drew et al. 1971) attributed the variation in optical

properties to differences in orientation of the hydroxyapatite crystals in the bones of these wild and domestic specimens. Subsequent re




search (Watson 1975; Gilbert 1989; see also Zeder 1978) has revealed

that the optical differences that Drew, Perkins, and Daly observed

resulted primarily from the degree of collagen preservation rather

than the orientation of the hydroxyapatite crystals. This procedure,

therefore, cannot be used to distinguish between wild and domestic

animals in the archaeological record; however, it can provide useful

information on the postdepositional history of a faunal assemblage.

Demographic Changes

Changes in the age and sex distribution of the harvest profiles of

ungulate species have often been used to infer animal domestication, even in the absence of morphological changes (Perkins 1964; Hecker

1982). The use of demographic data to identify incipient animal

domestication has been a subject of heated debate in the zooarchaeo

logical literature. Changes in the age and sex composition of the har

vest profile are acceptable criteria for those who espouse a broader, cultural definition of animal domestication, since those criteria may indicate control over an animal's breeding schedule or demographic structure (Hecker 1982:219).

The demographic change most often cited as evidence for early animal domestication is an increased proportion of young animals.

It is often suggested that human hunters practiced a nonselective or

prime-dominated hunting strategy, producing faunal assemblages with a high proportion of adult animals (Perkins and Daly 1974:80).

By contrast, early herders may have selected more immature ani

mals for slaughter, thus maintaining the adult breeding population

(Perkins and Daly 1974:80; Hecker 1982:232). The argument here is

essentially an economic one that balances the cost of feeding and

maintaining an animal against the increased meat yields that result

from this care. Juvenile animals grow rapidly. Once an animal ap

proaches bodily maturity in late adolescence, continuing to feed that

animal will not result in greatly increased meat yields. One would

therefore expect a large proportion of the stock, especially males, to

be slaughtered in late adolescence. A smaller number of adults, pri

marily females, will be kept to maintain the breeding population. Ad

ditional male animals may be slaughtered as soon as they are weaned

to minimize their impact on available pasturage (Hesse 1984:250). The use of harvest profiles to infer domestication from the archae

ological record has been criticized on several grounds (but see Hesse



214 Pam f. Crabtree

1982). First, ethological studies have shown that the age and sex com

position of wild ungulate populations can vary considerably from

season to season and from year to year (Collier and White 1976; see

also Jarman and Wilkinson 1972:92-94; Simmons and Ilany 1975

1977). Harvest profiles for herded species may also vary, depending on whether a flock is raised primarily for meat, milk, or wool (Payne

1973). In addition, most of the demographic models for animal do

mestication are based on sheep and goats. These models may be less

appropriate for cattle, which can take up to four years to reach bodily

maturity, and pigs, which mature rapidly and produce large litters.

More problematic is the assumption that human hunting will pro duce prime-dominated harvest profiles that include high proportions of adults. Harvest profiles for hunted species reflect both the tech

niques and methods used by hunters (Pike-Tay and Knecht 1991) and

the behavioral characteristics of the species being hunted. This prob lem can be seen most clearly in the history of the interpretations of

harvest profiles for gazelles recovered from Natufian (ca. 10,300 8500 b.c.) sites in Palestine. In 1972 Legge noted the high frequencies of immature gazelle bones recovered from these Levantine sites and

suggested that gazelles might have been herded at this time. Ga

zelles, however, are not suitable animals for herding, since they can

not be driven long distances or herded in groups as can sheep and

goats (Clutton-Brock 1981:171). More recent analyses (Henry 1975;

Legge and Rowley-Conwy 1987; Campana and Crabtree 1990) have

shown that the observed harvest profiles, including high proportions of immature individuals, may have resulted from the use of commu

nal hunting techniques. In summary, a high proportion of juvenile animals alone is not a distinctive signature of early animal domesti

cation. Hunting methods such as communal hunting will produce a

catastrophic mortality pattern (Klein and Cruz-Uribe 1984:56) that

may also include a high proportion of juvenile individuals.

This does not mean that demographic data cannot be used to study

early animal domestication. The significant feature of animal domes

tication is the differential treatment of males and females (Hesse

1984), which results from the shift in focus from the dead to the

living animal and its progeny (Meadow 1989a:81). In a domestic flock

or herd only a small number of males is needed for reproductive

purposes. In a meat-producing economy one would therefore expect to see more males slaughtered as juveniles, while proportionately

more females will be retained until their reproductive capacities




begin to diminish (Payne 1973). To use demographic data to study

early animal domestication, separate harvest profiles for males and

females should be constructed (Hesse 1984:251). Horn cores and

pelves are the most useful elements for distinguishing male from

female animals. Otherwise, the sexes can be distinguished primarily on the basis of size differences (see, for example, Higham 1967:89

90). Large numbers of measurable animal bones are required to distin

guish males from females and to construct separate harvest profiles for each sex. Moreover, the size differences due to sexual dimorphism

must be distinguished from those that reflect size diminution in

early domesticates (cf. K?hler-Rollefson 1989). Given the difficulties

in constructing harvest profiles for each sex and the variability in

harvest profiles seen in both hunted and herded populations, it may be inadvisable to use demographic data alone to identify incipient domestication in the archaeological record. However, demographic

data, when combined with morphological and other lines of evi

dence, can be used to strengthen the case for early animal domestica

tion (Meadow 1989a; Gautier 1990:108).

Biogeographical Considerations

The appearance of an animal outside its natural range has been used

as an indication of animal domestication (see, for example, Davis

1987:133). This criterion satisfies those scholars who advocate a cul

tural definition of domestication, since it implies control over an

animal population's movements. Braid wood (Braidwood and Howe

1960:13) was among the first to use biogeographic data in the study of early food production. He argued that domestication must have

taken place in areas where the wild ancestors of sheep, goats, emmer

wheat, and barley were found. Conversely, the sudden appearance of

an animal outside its natural range would imply the introduction of

a domesticate from elsewhere. The problem in using this criterion is

that the late Pleistocene distributions of the wild progenitors of many of the most common domesticates are, in some cases, still poorly known. Braidwood, for example, was forced to rely on the modern

distributions of the wild ancestors of the early Near Eastern domesti

cates in his pioneering study of plant and animal domestication.

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

wild ancestor of the domestic sheep is the West Asiatic mouflon



216 Pam f. Crabtree

[Ovis orientalis). As Uerpmann (1981:102) notes, "The distribution

of Ovis orientalis during the colder parts of the Upper Pleistocene

remains somewhat enigmatic but there is no doubt that this species was present in the northern and eastern arc of the Fertile Crescent

from the Late Pleistocene onwards." It is unclear, however, whether

the late Pleistocene and early Holocene distribution of this species extended as far east as Baluchistan (Meadow 1989b:34). The sheep remains from the aceramic Neolithic (Phase I) at the Mehrgarh site

in Baluchistan show evidence for progressive size decrease (Meadow 1984: Fig. 3). If the distribution of the wild ancestors of the domestic

sheep extended as far as Baluchistan, then the measurement evidence

from Mehrgarh would indicate the local, indigenous domestication

of wild sheep. Alternatively, if Baluchistan is outside the range of

wild ancestors of the domestic sheep, the Mehrgarh evidence may indicate an increasing importation of nonlocal domestic sheep and a

decrease in the hunting of the local urial [Ovis vignei) through time

(Meadow 1989b:33-34).

Changing Species Spectrum

If an aim of animal domestication is to make potentially domestica

ble animals more accessible to humans (Hecker 1982), then it is rea

sonable to assume that early animal domestication would lead to an

increase in the relative importance of the domestic species. For

example, Davis (1982, 1987:140-42) has surveyed archaeofaunal as

semblages from the Levant ranging in date from the Middle Paleo

lithic to the Bronze Age. He has shown that there is a marked shift

in the relative proportions of the ungulate species between approxi

mately 8000 and 6000 b.c. At this time, assemblages dominated by

gazelle and fallow deer are replaced by faunal collections composed of increasing numbers of goats, sheep, and pigs. Davis argues that

this shift reflects the beginnings of animal domestication during the

PPNB (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, ca. 7300-6000 b.c.). Of course, not all late Pleistocene and early Holocene shifts in

species spectra can be attributed to the beginnings of animal hus

bandry. A wide range of other environmental and anthropogenic causes can lead to changes in species frequencies, including climatic

changes and overhunting. In temperate Europe at the end of the Pleis

tocene, for example, reindeer were replaced by forest-dwelling ani

mals such as wild pigs, wild cattle, and red and roe deer. This shift




resulted from major climatic and environmental changes and was

unrelated to the beginnings of animal domestication in temperate

Europe, even though later European animal husbandry was based

largely on domestic cattle and pigs. Given the many possible causes

for changes in the species spectrum, this criterion, like age and sex

profiles, is best used in conjunction with other evidence for animal

domestication.

Conclusions: Identifying Animal Domestication

in the Archaeological Record

The above review of the criteria for identifying animal

domestication in the archaeological record has shown that no single

zooarchaeological criterion can unequivocally identify early animal

domestication. Changes in age profiles, species ratios, and morphol

ogy can result from causes unrelated to animal domestication. This

review should not, however, simply be seen as a series of cautionary tales. It is possible to make a case for animal domestication at a site

or series of sites, but such a case must be made on the basis of multi

ple lines of evidence (Meadow 1989a; see also Lyman 1987:278-79; Schiffer 1988:477). One must build a case for animal domestication

the same way a lawyer builds a case for his or her client, that is, by

amassing and evaluating the evidence in favor of a particular posi tion. The more lines of evidence ?

including demographic, morpho

logical, biogeographic, and other data ? that can be employed, the

stronger the case that can be made in favor of animal domestication.

As Gifford-Gonzalez (1991:243) has suggested in a recent article on

zooarchaeological interpretation, "Independent lines of evidence, de

rived from distinct systems of causation, can be mobilized to chal

lenge and/or support one another, leading to more strongly warranted

inferences regarding the past life relations that produced certain con

figurations of material in our sites."

In addition, since animal domestication is a process rather than a

single momentous event, one must look for patterns in the archaeo

logical record. It is no longer adequate simply to identify the earliest

domesticated sheep in the Near East or the first evidence for domes

tic pigs in Europe. The case for incipient animal domestication is

clearly strengthened when we see similar changes in animal mor

phology and demography at a number of closely related sites. It is



218 Pam f. Crabtree

only through the examination of the patterns of early animal domes

tication that one can study the processes by which animal domesti

cation arose and spread through the Old World.

The Archaeological Evidence

for Animal Domestication

Farming in the Near East and Europe has been based on a

relatively small number of domestic animals since early Neolithic

times, including sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, and dogs. Biogeographic considerations must play a role in the study of the early domestica

tion of these species. While the distributions of wild sheep (Ovis ori

entalis) and wild goats [Copra aegagrus) appear to have been limited

to parts of the Near East during the late Pleistocene and early Holo

cene, the wild ancestors of cattle (Bos primigenius) and pigs (Sus ser of a) are Palearctic species that were broadly distributed through out Eurasia and the most northerly parts of Africa. Although sheep and goats must have been domesticated initially in the Middle East, cattle and pigs might have been domesticated anywhere within a

broad band across Eurasia. The possibility that cattle and swine were

independently domesticated in Europe must be considered as well.

Sheep (Ovis ariesj

Any discussion of the domestication of sheep must begin with a crit

ical assessment of the evidence from Zawi Chemi Shanidar. Zawi

Chemi Shanidar (Solecki 1980) is a Protoneolithic site in northern

Iraq that has been dated by radiocarbon to approximately 8900 b.c.

In 1964 Perkins argued that the sheep from Zawi Chemi were domes

ticated although they were morphologically indistinguishable from

wild sheep. He based his assessment on two criteria (Perkins 1964:

1565). First, there was a higher proportion of immature sheep at Zawi

Chemi Shanidar than in the Zarzian (late Upper Paleolithic) levels at

the nearby site of Shanidar Cave,- and second, there was an increase

in the relative proportions of sheep in the Zawi Chemi assemblage when compared to the Zarzian levels at Shanidar Cave.

Perkins's analysis of the Zawi Chemi fauna has been challenged on several grounds. Perkins based his analysis on relatively small

faunal samples and did not use any statistical tests in the original




study. Statistical comparisons (see Reed and Perkins 1984:13-14; Reed 1983:523) indicate that there is a significant increase in the

proportion of immature sheep between the Zarzian levels at Shani

dar Cave and the Protoneolithic levels at Zawi Chemi Shanidar. The

Mousterian level at Shanidar Cave, however, also produced a high

proportion of immature specimens, although the overall Mousterian

sample is quite small. The proportion of immature specimens from

the Mousterian levels at Shanidar Cave is not significantly different

from the proportion of immature sheep recovered from Zawi Chemi, and it is unlikely that sheep were domesticated during the Middle

Paleolithic.

Perkins did not consider alternative explanations for the increas

ing numbers of juvenile sheep seen at Zawi Chemi. Increased hunt

ing pressure (Elder 1965) and a change in hunting strategy could also

produce a higher proportion of juvenile individuals without any

necessity of animal domestication. For example, changing from a

prime-dominated hunting strategy to one based on communal hunt

ing techniques can produce a corresponding change in the age profiles of archaeological assemblages. While a prime-dominated strategy fo

cuses on mature specimens, communal hunting techniques such as

game drives can produce a catastrophic mortality profile (Klein and

Cruz-Uribe 1984:56) including both juvenile and adult specimens.

Changing hunting techniques could also increase the proportion of

wild sheep in relation to other species. The case for early sheep domestication at Zawi Chemi is certainly

not proved, and the problem is one of equifinality. While an increased

proportion of juveniles and a change in the species spectrum could

result from early animal domestication, the same pattern could re

sult from changes in hunting practices that are unrelated to increas

ing cultural control over sheep herds. What is clear is that the Zawi

Chemi sheep do not form part of a pattern of early sheep domestica

tion in the Middle East. There is no other evidence for early sheep domestication until the aceramic Neolithic (seventh millennium

b.c.). If this was an experiment in early animal domestication, it was

an unsuccessful one that left no further traces in the archaeological record.

Lawrence ( 1982) has suggested that domestic sheep were present in

the upper levels of the aceramic Neolithic site of Cay?n?. She bases

her determination on several lines of evidence. First, there is an in

crease in the relative importance of sheep between the lower and the



220 Pam f. Crabtree

upper levels at Cay?n?. In addition, there is evidence for a decrease

in the size of sheep between the lower and the upper levels. As Law

rence (1982:180) notes, "The difference in size, although not suffi

cient by itself to prove domestication, strongly reinforces the possi

bility of its occurrence."

Harvest profiles, based on epiphyseal fusion of the limb bones, were constructed for both goats and sheep from Cay?n?. These data

indicate that the mortality patterns for both sheep and goats were

similar until about two-and-one-half years of age. Surprisingly, more

of the presumably wild goats were killed in the third year, while more

of the purportedly domestic sheep survived to adulthood. A number

of factors might explain this unexpected result. We need more infor

mation about the harvest profiles for the males and females of each

species to assess the causes and significance of this result.

Although the evidence is not entirely unequivocal, the Cay?n?

sheep form part of a pattern of sheep domestication in the later ace

ramic and early ceramic Neolithic of the Mediterranean area. Domes

ticated sheep were recovered from the later seventh-millennium vil

lage of Bouqras, which overlooks the Euphrates River in eastern Syria

(Clason in Akkermans et al. 1983). Sheep are the predominant species

throughout the occupation at Bouqras, and the animals are smaller

than Protoneolithic sheep from the region (see also Uerpmann 1979). The evidence for size diminution combined with the high proportion of sheep in the faunal assemblage led Clason to suggest that domes

tic sheep were present at Bouqras. At Abu Hureyra in Syria, the later

aceramic and early ceramic Neolithic levels also produced high num

bers of sheep bones (Legge in Moore et al. 1975); however, more de

tailed studies of the domestication status of these sheep must await

the publication of the final volume on this site. By the later seventh

millennium, sheep were also present at the Greek sites of Nea Niko

medeia (Higgs 1962) and Argissa Magu?a (Boessneck 1962). Greece

appears to be well outside the late Pleistocene and early Holocene

distribution of wild sheep (B?k?nyi 1978). Moreover, Geddes (1985) has argued that domestic sheep of Near Eastern origin were adopted

by late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in the Aude Valley in western

Languedoc in France during the sixth millennium b.c. The wide

spread appearance of domestic sheep in the later seventh and early sixth millennia in the Mediterranean areas contrasts sharply with

the singular finds from Zawi Chemi Shanidar. By the later seventh




millennium there is a clear pattern of sheep domestication in the

eastern Mediterranean.

Goats fCapra hircusj

The earliest evidence for goat domestication centers on the Zagros

margins in southwestern Iran. B?k?nyi (1976, 1977) has suggested that domestic goats may be present at the site of Asiab in the Ker

manshah Valley, which has been dated to approximately 8000 b.c.

Although there is little evidence for morphological change in the

Asiab goats, three goat horn cores show a slight degree of torsion and

medial flattening. B?k?nyi argues that these changes alone are not

sufficient to demonstrate domestication. The Asiab faunal assem

blage includes a high proportion of mature animals (82%) and is

made up almost exclusively of males. B?k?nyi (1976:21) has sug

gested that this represents controlled hunting of adult males, which

may be connected with the beginnings of animal domestication. He

argues that in the initial stages of domestication, humans tried to

kill mature individuals and to capture their young. Since more fe

males than males were needed to maintain the herds, humans pre ferred to kill the males to obtain meat.

Alternative explanations of the Asiab data are possible. Hesse

(1984:259), for example, has argued that the Asiab faunal assemblage

may have resulted from the seasonal exploitation of male goat bands

by hunters. Similarly, Ducos and Helmer (1981) contend that the

high proportion of adult males suggests a kind of "proto?l?vage" or

predomestication characterized by well-developed techniques of

selective hunting. The demographic profile for the goats recovered from the mid

eighth millennium b.c. site of Ganj Dareh (Hesse 1984) presents a

very different picture. Ganj Dareh produced an extensive faunal col

lection of over 50,000 identified fragments. As noted above, Hesse

(1984:250) maintains that a fundamental feature of early herding is

the separate and unequal treatment of male and female animals. To

determine whether male and female goats were treated differently at

Ganj Dareh, Hesse sought to reconstruct the harvest profile for each

sex. He used a detailed series of limb bone measurements to distin

guish male from female goats, and then he developed sex-based har

vest profiles based on epiphyseal fusion of the limb bones and dental



222 Pam f. Crabtree

eruption and wear. He found that the basal (nonarchitectural) levels

of Ganj Dareh, which have been dated to about 8000 b.c., contained

the bones of adult females and males under 1 year of age, including a large number of very young animals. Hesse (1984:258) argued that

this represents the selective hunting of wild goat nursery herds. In

the later, architectural levels of the site (mid eighth millennium

b.c.), there is an increased slaughter of males in the 1- to 2-year age

range and a somewhat reduced survivorship of adult females. Hesse

(1984:258) suggests that this harvest profile represents the herding of goats for meat. Hesse, following Payne (1973), contends that her

ders focusing on meat production will slaughter most animals in

late adolescence and retain a small number of mostly female animals

for reproductive purposes. The demographic evidence for incipient goat herding at Ganj Dareh

is supported by morphological evidence for a few medially flattened

goat horn cores, although Hesse ( 1984:247) cautiously notes that "we

do not yet know enough about the variation in wild goat morphology to be certain that the slight degree of divergence from the expected

pattern is significant." Caprine footprints were also found in some

of the mud bricks at the site, suggesting that tamed animals were

near the brickyard. Since the nearest wild goats would have been

located in the mountains well away from the site, the presence of

these footprints implies the presence of captive, if not fully domes

tic, animals.

Comparable evidence has been recovered from the site of Ali Kosh

in southwestern Iran (Flannery 1969). At Ali Kosh, goats are the pre dominant ungulate species, as they are at Ganj Dareh. The horn

cores from the Bus Mordeh (7500-6750 b.c.) phase show little, if

any, deviation from wild goat horn cores, although a few are lozenge

shaped in cross-section rather than quadrilateral. Medially flattened

horn cores first appear in the Ali Kosh phase (6750-6000 b.c.) (Flan

nery 1969:277). Age profiles constructed for a combined sheep and

goat sample indicated that less than one-third of the caprines reached

maturity during the Bus Mordeh phase, although about 40% of the

caprines of the Ali Kosh phase survived to adulthood (Flannery 1969:

286). While the high proportion of Bus Mordeh phase caprines killed

during their second year is suggestive of incipient herding, the case

for domestication would have been strengthened if separate harvest

profiles could have been constructed for male and female goats and

sheep. This would have necessitated a much larger faunal sample




than was available from the Ali Kosh site. Nevertheless, a circum

stantial case for goat domestication can be made on the basis of the

combined evidence from the harvest profiles, horn cores, and species ratios seen at Ali Kosh (Flannery 1969:277).

In the southern Levant, zooarchaeological evidence suggests that

goat domestication first appears during the ppnb phase, that is, dur

ing the later eighth and seventh millennia b.c. As Davis (1982) has

shown, there is a major shift in the composition of faunal assem

blages in the southern Levant at this time. Faunal assemblages from

this period show a significant increase in the proportion of goats and

a corresponding decrease in the relative importance of gazelle (Ga zella gazella) and fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica). Evidence for

possible early goat domestication can be seen at sites such as Jericho

(Clutton-Brock 1971, 1979; Zeuner 1955), Beidha (Hecker 1982), and

Ain Ghazal (K?hler-Rollefson 1989; K?hler-Rollefson et al. 1988). The nature of the evidence for early goat domestication at each site

is somewhat different.

In an early paper, Zeuner (1955) noted that the male goat horn

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 cores showed a medial flattening and loss of angularity that is

characteristic of domestic goats. In a more recent analysis, Clutton

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 morphologically from wild

goats (Clutton-Brock and Uerpmann 1974). Clutton-Brock (1971:50),

however, identified a small number of twisted goat horn cores from

the ppnb levels that must have come from domestic animals. Clut

ton-Brock (1979:151) cites the evidence for the progressive replace ment of straight-horned by twisted-horned goats and the changes in

horn core cross-sections as "good evidence for local domestication

of wild goats at Jericho." The evidence for incipient domestication or cultural control of

goats at Beidha is quite different. In a preliminary report Perkins

(1966) argued that the Beidha goats might have been domesticated,

given the high proportion of immature animals recovered from the

site. On the basis of a more detailed analysis, Hecker (1982) used

aging data to suggest that the ppnb goats from Beidha might have

been under cultural control. Hecker argued that although the Beidha

goats showed no evidence for morphological change, the harvest



224 Pam f. Crabtree

profiles included a higher proportion of juvenile animals than did

the age profiles for gazelles. The case for cultural control or incipient domestication based on this aging evidence alone is not a strong one,

especially since ibex, as well as goats, were present at Beidha. Reed

and Perkins (1984:16) are hesitant to accept Hecker's conclusions

"until we learn more about the age clusters of the two sexes of differ

ent population-groups of wild goats and ibexes." More lines of evi

dence are needed to make a stronger case for incipient goat domesti

cation at Beidha.

The faunal remains from the 'Ain Ghazal site were recovered from

both ppnb (7250-6000 b.c.) and "ppNc'VYarmoukian (sixth millen

nium b.c.) levels. As K?hler-Rollefson and her coauthors (1988:423)

note, "The faunal assemblage is dominated by the remains of goats

(Capra sp.), which compose between 53% (ppnb) and 70% (Yarmou

kian) of the number of identified specimens (nisp)." Based on epiphy seal fusion, a majority of the ppnb goats appear to have been killed

before reaching maturity (K?hler-Rollefson et al. 1988:425), and two

thirds of the surviving adults appear to have been female (K?hler Rollefson 1989). In addition, the goat first and second phalanges from

Ain Ghazal show a high frequency of pathology ranging from mild

arthritis to complete fusion between bones. K?hler-Rollefson and

her coauthors (1988:425) attribute the high frequency of pathology to unsuitable husbandry conditions, as well as to human protection from predators. While there is no clear evidence for changes in horn

core form among the ppnb goats from Ain Ghazal, the other lines of

evidence can be used to build a circumstantial case for incipient goat domestication at the site. Moreover, the evidence from Ain Ghazal,

Jericho, and Beidha strongly suggests a pattern of early goat domesti

cation in the ppnb of the southern Levant.

Pigs (Sus scrofaj

Domestication in pigs leads to a shortening of the jaws and a reduc

tion in the size of the diastema. The premolars are shortened and

move closer together; the heels of the maxillary and mandibular

third molars are reduced; and there is an overall shortening of the

skull. The reduction in the size of the snout in domestic pigs may be

an example of pedomorphism, the persistence of juvenile characteris

tics into adulthood (Flannery 1983:165-67).




The site of Jarmo in Iraqi Kurdistan has produced the earliest do

mestic pigs that have been identified from the Zagros region (Flan

nery 1983; see also Stampfli 1983). The lower aceramic levels at

Jarmo have produced the remains of pigs that, on morphological

grounds, appear to be wild. There is no evidence for pig domestica

tion during the earlier phases of occupation at Jarmo. There is a

marked increase in the number of pigs present at Jarmo in the upper

levels, dated to about 6000 b.c. (Flannery 1983:173; Stampfli 1983:

447). Many, but not all, of the pigs recovered from the upper levels of

Jarmo show reduced maxillary and mandibular third molars. These

molars are significantly smaller than those from Near Eastern wild

swine (Flannery 1983:173). It is therefore reasonable to assume that

pig domestication was established at Jarmo at about 6000 b.c. The

question that remains unanswered is whether the pigs were locally domesticated or whether pig domestication was introduced from

elsewhere along with other innovations such as pottery technology

(Flannery 1983:175). There is also some evidence for pig domestication in southeastern

Europe in the late seventh millennium b.c. (Higgs 1962). The ace

ramic levels of the early Neolithic site at Nea Nikomedeia in Mace

donia have produced a small assemblage of pig bones in which more

than 90% come from juvenile animals. On the basis of epiphyseal

fusion, most of these appear to be approximately 12 months of age. While the assemblage did not produce enough pig bones for a detailed

metrical analysis, the maxillary third molar lengths of 32-34 mm

are well within the range for domestic pigs. Higgs (1962:273) cau

tiously notes that these dental measurements provide "some further

slight evidence to suggest that [the Nea Nikomedeia] pigs are domes

tic. " Although the assemblage of pig bones recovered from Nea Niko

medeia is small, the inference that the pigs were domesticated is

strengthened by similar faunal evidence recovered from the prece ramic site of Argissa Magu?a in Thessaly (Boessneck 1962). The pre ceramic levels of Argissa Magu?a are dated to approximately 6500

b.c. (Watson 1965:83). As at Nea Nikomedeia, most of the identified

faunal remains from Argissa Magu?a are those of sheep and goats. Measurement evidence suggests that the pigs from the preceramic

levels at Argissa Magu?a are within the domestic range, and half the

pigs are immature. It should be noted, however, that the faunal as

semblage from the aceramic Neolithic at Argissa Magu?a is small



226 Pam f. Crabtree

(3,507 fragments, of which 1,312 were unidentified) and relatively few measurable pig bones were recovered.

There is also some limited evidence for early pig domestication

during the seventh millennium in Anatolia. Measurements on a

small number of maxillary second and third molars from Gritille, an

aceramic Neolithic site in Turkey, suggest that both domestic and

wild pigs may have been present. Pigs are the most common animals

other than sheep and goats in the Gritille faunal assemblage (Stein

1989:91-92). Lawrence (1980:299) initially suggested that domestic

pigs might have been present at the aceramic Neolithic site of

Cay?n? in southeastern Turkey, a suggestion based on metrical data

that indicated that some of these Anatolian pigs were significantly smaller than European wild swine.4 Lawrence (1982:185) subse

quently rejected that interpretation, noting that the proportion of

pigs at Cay?n? actually decreases through time and that compari sons between the Cay?n? pigs and European wild swine may be

inappropriate.

Clearly, more research is needed to determine the extent of pig

keeping in Anatolia during the aceramic Neolithic. Nevertheless, the evidence for domestic pigs from both southeastern Europe and

the Zagros region at about 6000 b.c. suggests the possibility of multi

ple centers of pig domestication in the Near East and Europe. Flan

nery (1983:182) concludes: "At the present state of our knowledge it

would be a mistake to see the origins of pig domestication as a single event occurring in one part of the world and spreading from there to

other regions. Rather, there appear to have been several areas in

which there was early pig domestication, separated by areas in which

there was none."

Cattle (Bos taurusj

At least two possible centers of early cattle domestication have been

identified: the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa. The evidence

for possible early cattle domestication in North Africa is derived

from the excavations conducted by F. Wendorf and his colleagues at

the sites of Nabta and Bir Kiseiba in the Western Desert of Egypt. The earliest of these putative domesticated cattle are dated to be

tween 6800 and 7500 b.c. (Gautier 1987:177). The faunal remains

from these sites are fragmentary, and the identification of these large bovids as domestic cattle has been challenged (Smith 1986; see also




Clutton-Brock 1989). Gautier ( 1987:177) has argued that these bovids

can be distinguished from African buffalo (Syncerus cafer), giant buf

falo (Pelorovis antiquus), and "normal-sized" wild cattle (Bosprimi

genius) on the basis of size and other morphological criteria. Smith

(1986:199) notes, however, that few of the bones are measurable and

those that can be measured fall within the size range of Bos primi

genius from both the Nile Valley and Europe. Moreover, these speci mens are outside the size range of later Neolithic cattle from the

Sahara. The other argument for early cattle domestication in the

eastern Sahara is biogeographical. Gautier (1987:177) has argued that

cattle could not have survived in this arid environment without

human intervention. Smith ( 1986:199) has countered that during the

relatively moist interval between 7500 and 5000 b.c. this area could

have supported wild bovines, at least at certain seasons of the year. More faunal evidence is needed to make a case for early cattle domes

tication in North Africa. Even Gautier (1987:179) admits, "As to the

very early appearance of cattle in the Eastern Sahara, this remains

hypothetical." A much stronger case can be made for early cattle domestication

in the eastern Mediterranean. In a short report on the fauna from

?atal H?y?k, Perkins (1968) noted that the cattle from Layer VI

(5800 b.c.) were smaller than wild cattle and comparable in size to

domestic cattle from later sites in Anatolia. In Layer VI, cattle made

up two-thirds of the large mammal bones identified and would have

provided over 90% of the available meat. Perkins (1973:281) also

suggested that domestic cattle were present at the contemporary site

of Erbaba in Turkey, but unfortunately the results of faunal analyses from this site have never been fully published.

Domestic cattle have also been identified from sites of the late

seventh millennium in Greece. For example, Higgs ( 1962:272) argued that the cattle remains from the site of Nea Nikomedeia in Thessaly

were significantly smaller than wild cattle and therefore probably

represented domestic cattle. He also noted that approximately 50%

of the cattle bones were immature, based on epiphysial fusion. Un

fortunately, a final report on the Nea Nikomedeia excavations has

never been published. Cattle played a particularly significant role in the early Neolithic

economies of central Europe, and the possibility of the indigenous domestication of the aurochs (Bos primigenius) in Europe has been

suggested (see, for example, B?k?nyi 1971). The problem has recently



228 Pam f. Crabtree

been critically reviewed by Bogucki (1989:121), who notes that the

case for local domestication of cattle has been based on the presence of specimens that are transitional in size between "wild" and "do

mestic" cattle. In other words, if domestic cattle were introduced to

Europe, we should expect to see a discontinuous size distribution

between the indigenous wild cattle and the imported domestic cat

tle. By contrast, if cattle were locally domesticated, there should be

a continuous range of variation in measurements. As Bogucki (1989:

121) cautions, however, "[a] continuous distribution of sizes can be

attributable to the variation found in [wild and domestic] cattle

populations and the overlap of size ranges, rather than to crossing."

Sample size, in particular, can affect the shape of the distribution.

The very large samples analyzed by B?k?nyi may appear to be more

continuously distributed than the smaller samples from other parts of Europe. At present, it is prudent to conclude that the case for local

domestication of cattle in central Europe is inconclusive. Given the

sexual dimorphism in both wild and domestic cattle, it is difficult to

distinguish local cattle domestication from the importation of do

mesticated stock based on measurement data alone.

Dogs fCanis familiarisj

As Beneke (1987:31) has recently noted, "The origin of no other

species of domestic animal has been dealt with so often and by so

many experts as that of the dog." Unlike the social ungulates, the

dog appears to have been domesticated by hunter-gatherers in both

Europe and the Near East during the late Pleistocene and early Holo

cene. In Europe, dog remains have been known from a number of

Maglemosian (early Mesolithic, seventh and sixth millennia b.c.) sites in Denmark since the beginning of this century. When com

pared to wolves, these animals show a reduction in overall body size

and a foreshortened muzzle and some degree of overlapping of the

premolars (Degerbol 1961:39-42). A possible domestic dog has also

been recovered from the Azilian (ca. 7700 b.c.) site of Pont d'Ambon

in the Dordogne region (C?l?rier and Delpeche 1978). Measurements

indicate that the metatarsals of this canid are smaller than those of

Pleistocene wolves from Europe. Unfortunately, only two small man

dibular fragments were recovered from this individual, and no de

tailed metrical studies of the skull or mandible were possible. The presence of domestic dog remains from Late Paleolithic sites




provides strong evidence for the independent domestication of the

dog by European hunting populations during the Pleistocene. The

earliest record of a domesticated dog from Europe comes from the

Magdalenian (ca. 12,000 b.c.) site of Bonn-Oberkassel in Germany

(Beneke 1987). This single mandible was recovered from a double

human grave that was excavated at the beginning of the century. The

determination that this mandible represents an early domestic dog is based on a discriminant function analysis using measurements of

the mandible and mandibular teeth.5 When the Bonn-Oberkassel

mandible was compared to those of Mesolithic dogs and Late Paleo

lithic wolves, the Magdalenian specimen was classified with the

Mesolithic dog group. This analysis suggests that the morphological

changes associated with early dog domestication, the foreshortening of the muzzle and the consequent crowding of the teeth, are already

present in the Late Paleolithic specimen from Bonn-Oberkassel.

Other Late Paleolithic canid specimens, including remains from

Mezin in the former Soviet Union (Pidoplicko 1969:162) and from

D?britz-Kniegrotte in Germany (Musil 1970, 1984), appear on the

basis of discriminant analysis (Beneke 1987) to be closer to first- and

second-generation wolves kept in zoos than to either wild wolves or

early domestic dogs. The early Maglemosian (ca. 7500 b.c.) canid

from Star Carr in England (Degerbol 1961 ) has also been placed in the

captive wolf category (Beneke 1987). Olsen (1985:71) cautions that

this is an immature specimen but suggests that "it may be more

properly assigned to Canis lupus familiahs, a tamed wolf pup." These animals may represent the initial stages in the domestication

of the wolf.

Some of the earliest evidence for the possible domestication of the

wolf in the Near East is provided by the canid remains from Pale

gawra Cave in northeastern Iraq. The Palegawra canid specimen is a

fragment of the left mandible that has been dated to approximately

10,000 b.c. (Turnbull and Reed 1974). The specimen was classified as

dog rather than wolf because of the overall small size of the jaw when compared to Near Eastern wolves, the shallow root of the ca

nine, the short diastema between the canine and the first premolar, and the short length of the premolar row (Turnbull and Reed 1974:

100-102). These characteristics indicate a foreshortening of the muz

zle. While a strong case can be made on morphological grounds that

the Palegawra canid represents an early domestic dog, it is possible that this jaw represents an aberrant wild canid (Olsen 1985:73). In



230 Pam f. Crabtree

addition, Uerpmann (1982) has raised doubts about the stratigraphie

provenience of this specimen, suggesting that the upper layers of

Palegawra Cave may have been contaminated by later materials. The

case for domestication would certainly be strengthened by the recov

ery of additional specimens (Olsen 1985:73). An even more controversial canid specimen has been recovered

from the Natufian site of Mallaha (Eynan) in the Jordan Valley, dating to approximately 8000-10,000 b.c. (Davis and Valla 1978). The skele

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

presence of this puppy "offers proof that an affectionate rather than

gastronomic relationship existed between it and the buried person." This evidence alone cannot establish the domestication of the dog in

the Natufian. In addition to the puppy, the Mallaha site has also

produced a fragmentary canid mandible, and the contemporary site

of Hayonim Terrace has yielded a single lower carnassial (MJ. Davis

and Valla ( 1978:609) argue that the lengths of the first molars of these

Natufian specimens more closely resemble those of dogs than of

small wolves. Here again, additional, more complete specimens could strengthen the case for dog domestication in the late Pleisto

cene of the Near East.

Conclusions

What have we learned from 30 years of intensive investiga tion into the process of animal domestication? Perhaps the most im

portant result of recent research concerns the chronology of the early Neolithic. It is now clear that, with the notable exception of the dog,

plant domestication preceded animal domestication in the Near East

(see, for example, Uerpmann 1989). As Bar-Yosef and Kislev (1989:

632) have noted, sites that have produced evidence for early domestic

plants are located in a strip that extends from the Middle Euphrates

region through the Damascus Basin to the Jordan Valley in the south.

These sites date from the period between 8300 and 7300 b.c., the

period termed the ppna of the southern Levant. Similarly, McCorres

ton and Hole (1991) have argued that cereals were initially domesti

cated in the southern Levant, specifically in the areas surrounding the Jordan Valley, approximately 10,000 years ago. There is no clear

evidence for animal domestication at this early date. Domestic ani




mais first appear in the Levant (and elsewhere) during the later

eighth and seventh millennia b.c.

Even 20 years ago archaeologists asked why hunters and gatherers

began to domesticate plants and animals some 10,000 years ago. This

question can now be refined and modified. Rather than asking gen

eral questions about the origins of mixed farming, we must now ask

why early horticulturalists/hunters began to domesticate animals.

Were the areas around early farming settlements "hunted out" by

early agriculturalists? Here a model developed by Speth and Scott

(1989) for the American Southwest might usefully be applied to the

Near Eastern data. Speth and Scott have argued that increasing selec

tive hunting of large mammals in the prehistoric American South

west was associated with increasing community size, residential sta

bility, and an increased commitment to horticulture. They suggest

(Speth and Scott 1989:79) that these larger communities degraded the local environments by depleting local game resources. This led

the inhabitants of these communities to focus increasingly on high

risk, high-yield, large mammal prey and to adopt communal hunting

techniques. However, once a threshold of resource depletion was

crossed, there was a shift to other subsistence strategies, including an increased reliance on domestic animal resources.

The archaeological record for the southern Levant from the Natu

fian to the ppnb periods reveals a similar sequence of changes in

subsistence and settlement. The Natufian period is characterized by increased settlement permanence and an increased reliance on the

harvesting of wild cereals (see, for example, Henry 1989; Belfer

Cohen 1991). Natufian faunal assemblages reveal a strong emphasis on the hunting of gazelles (Byrd 1989:176) that may have been hunted

with communal techniques such as game drives (Henry 1975; Cam

pana and Crabtree 1990; see also Legge and Rowley-Conwy 1987). As

noted above, a number of ppna sites have provided evidence for

domesticated cereals, indicating that plant domestication was well

established by this time. Faunal assemblages from this period con

tinue to be dominated by gazelles (see, for example, Davis 1985). Set

tlement size increased during the ppnb. It could reasonably be argued that sometime during the ppnb a threshold of game depletion was

reached that encouraged the beginnings of animal domestication.

Other reasons for the initial domestication of the social ungulates

might be suggested. Early domestic stock may have served as "walk

ing larders" (Clutton-Brock [ed.] 1989) that could absorb agricultural



232 Pam f. Crabtree

surpluses and could be slaughtered in times of shortage. Manuring

may have played an important role in maintaining soil fertility. In

a recent study using optimization models derived from behavioral

ecology, Russell (1988) has argued that early animal domestication

based on meat- and milk-production provides a rate of return second

only to the cultivation of cereals on optimal lands. This model is

consistent with the archaeological data, which suggest that "optimal

agricultural areas were indeed the focus on human food producing

efforts, while pastoral strategies evolved shortly thereafter" (Russell

1988:157).6 The pattern of dog domestication, by contrast, was quite different.

Dogs were domesticated by late Pleistocene and early Holocene

hunter-gatherers in both Europe and the Near East. Although there

is an increasing body of evidence for the domestication of the wolf in

both Europe and the Near East during the late Pleistocene, many

questions about the process of dog domestication remain unan

swered. How and why were early domestic dogs integrated into a

foraging way of life? Did they serve as a kind of walking larder for

hunting peoples (Crabtree and Campana 1987; Degerbol 1961:53), or

were they used primarily as hunting and guard dogs? What is the

relationship, if any, between the domestication of the wolf in the

late Pleistocene and the subsequent domestication of the social un

gulates during the early Holocene?

The pattern of early animal domestication is clearly a complex

one, involving both multiple centers of domestication and diffusion.

The earliest evidence for goat domestication comes from Iran, while

sheep appear to have been initially domesticated farther west in

Syria and Anatolia. Goats may have been independently domesti

cated in both Iran and the Levant, while sheep may also have been

locally domesticated on the eastern margins of the hilly flanks in

Baluchistan (see Meadow 1984, 1989b). These early domesticates also

diffused rapidly beyond their initial centers of domestication. Sheep and goats had spread to Greece by the late seventh millennium b.c., and domesticated sheep had been introduced to Mediterranean

France by the sixth millennium b.c.

Despite the progress that has been made in the study of early ani

mal domestication in the last 30 years, our knowledge of early ani

mal domestication remains incomplete. To fill in the outline that

has been sketched here, we need more studies that are based on large,




carefully collected, well-identified faunal assemblages. These collec

tions must be large enough to allow extensive morphological and

metrical studies and to permit the construction of detailed harvest

profiles. For example, we simply need more data to evaluate criti

cally the hypothesis that cattle were independently domesticated in

the eastern Sahara by 7500 b.c. Research must center on sites where

faunal remains are well preserved, and excavations must continue

until an adequate faunal assemblage is recovered. We still await the

publication of final reports on excavations that were conducted in

the 1960s and 1970s. The faunal reports from these sites will also

add to our knowledge of early animal domestication in the Near East

and Europe. More data alone, however, are not enough. As Rindos (1989:31) has

suggested, "Adopting a Darwinian perspective involves a reorienta

tion of our thought processes. Rather than concentrating upon the

origin of a particular variant trait that was to form the basis for future

developments, we stress the effect the possession of this trait, in its

incipient form, was to have upon humans and their cultures." In the

study of early animal domestication, we need to consider the effects

that incipient animal domesticates had on early cereal cultivators.

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 of other subsistence activities? Most importantly, how can the rich

archaeological record from such sites as Jericho, 'Ain Ghazal, and

?atal H?y?k be used to address these questions? Although great

progress has been made in the documentation of early animal domes

tication, much work remains to be done.

Acknowledgments

Sally Casey and Maura Smale provided valuable research

assistance for this paper. I am grateful to Randy White, Doug Cam

pana, Rita Wright, Sally Casey, Peter Bogucki, Bernard Wailes, Richard

Meadow, Stanley Olsen, and several anonymous reviewers for read

ing and providing useful and provocative comments on earlier drafts.

I, of course, am responsible for all errors of fact or interpretation.



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

River. Sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent are excluded from

this review. Uncorrected radiocarbon dates are used throughout this article.

2. This is my translation of the following: "Nous d?finissons donc la

domestication comme le processus pendent lequel des animaux sauvages

acqui?rent, par certaines formes de contr?le culturel, des traits domestiques

qui aident l'homme ? les exploiter plus facilement. Sont d?s lors appel?s animaux domestiques tous ceux qui, d?riv?s des anc?tres sauvages, ont

acquis, sous l'effet du contr?le culturel, des traits domestiques permittent

l'exploitation facile par notre esp?ce."

3. The systematics and zoogeography of the Old World wild sheep are

complicated issues. The interested reader should consult Meadow 1989b and

the references cited therein.

4. The measurement analysis was carried out by H. Stampfli.

5. The analysis was based on the following measurements of the dog man

dible as defined by von den Driesch (1976:60-61): measurements 7, 8, 10, 11,

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, M. le Mi?re, G. M. F. Molgat, J. J. Roodenberg, W. Waterbolk van Rooyen, W. van Zeist

1983 Bouqras Revisited: Preliminary Report on a Project in Eastern

Syria. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49:335-72.

Anthony, David, and Dorcas Brown

1989 Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth: Identification of the Earliest

Bitted Equids and Microscopic Analysis of Wear. In Early Animal

Domestication and Its Cultural Context, edited by P. Crabtree, 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 The Origins of Horseback Riding. Antiquity 65:22-38.

Bahn, Paul G.

1978 The "Unacceptable Face" of the Western European Upper Paleolithic. Antiquity 52:183-92.




1980 Crib-biting: Tethered Horses in the Paleolithic? World

Archaeology 12(2):212-17. 1984 Pre-Neolithic Control of Animals in Western Europe: The Faunal

Evidence. In Husbandry in Europe, vol. 4 o? Animals in

Archaeology edited by J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 27

34. International Series 227. Oxford: British Archaeological

Reports.

Bar-Yosef, Of er, and Mordechai E. Kislev

1989 Early Farming Communities in the Jordan Valley. In Foraging 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 in the Levant. Annual Review of Anthropology 20:167-86.

Beneke, Norbert

1987 Studies on Early Dog Remains from Northern Europe. Journal of

Archaeological Science 14:31-49.

Boessneck, Jochim 1962 Die Tierreste aus der Argissa-Magula vom pr?keramischen

Neolithikum bis zur mittleren Bronzezeit. In Die Deutschen

Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien, I, by V

Milojcic, J. Boessneck, and M. Hopf, pp. 37-99. Bonn: Beitr?ge zur ur- und fr?hgeschichtlichen Arch?ologie des Mittelmeer

Kulturraumes, 2.

Bogucki, Peter

1984 Linear Pottery Ceramic Sieves and Their Economic Implications.

Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3( 1 ): 15-30.

1989 The Exploitation of Domestic Animals in Neolithic Central

Europe. In Early Animal Domestication and Its Cultural

Context, edited by P. Crabtree, D. Campana, and K. Ryan, pp.

118-34. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Special Supplement to Volume 6. Philadelphia: MASCA, The

University Museum.

B?k?nyi, Sandor

1969 Archaeological Problems and Methods of Recognizing Animal Domestication. In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edited by P. Ucko and G. Dimbleby, pp. 219-29. London: Duckworth.

1971 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 Development of Early Stock Rearing in the Near East. Nature

264:19-23.

1977 Animal Remains from Four Sites in the Kermanshah Valley, Iran: Asiab, Sarab, Dehsavar and Siahbid: The Faunal

Evolution, Environmental Changes and Development of Animal

Husbandry, VIII-IIIMillennia B.C. Supplementary Series 34.

Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1978 The Introduction of Sheep Breeding to Europe. Ethnozootechnie

21:65-70.

1989 Definitions of Animal Domestication. In The Walking Larder:

Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Pr?dation, edited

by J. Clutton-Brock, pp. 22-27. London: Unwin Hyman.

Braidwood, Robert J., and Bruce Howe

1960 Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Studies in Ancient

Oriental Civilization, No. 31. Chicago: University of Chicago 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

1990 Communal Hunting in the Natufian of the Southern Levant:

The Social and Economic Implications. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3(2):223-43.

C?l?rier, Guy, and Fran?oise Delpech 1978 Un chien dans TAzilien de "Pont dAmbon" (Dordogne)? Bulletin

de la Soci?t? Fran?aise 75:212-15.

Childe, V. Gordon

1958 Prehistory of European Society. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books.

Clutton-Brock, Juliet 1971 The Primary Food Animals of the Jericho Tell from the Proto

Neolithic to the Byzantine Period. Levant 3:41-55.

1979 The Mammalian Remains from the Jericho Tell. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45:135-57.

1981 Domesticated Animals from Early Times. Austin: University of

Texas Press.

1989 Cattle in Ancient North Africa. In The Walking Larder: Patterns

of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Pr?dation, edited by

J. Clutton-Brock, pp. 200-206. London: Unwin Hyman.

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

and Pr?dation. London: Unwin Hyman.




Clutton-Brock, Juliet, and H.-P. Uerpmann

1974 The Sheep of Early Jericho. Journal of Archaeological Science

1:261-74.

Collier, Stephen, and J. Peter White

1976 Get Them Young? Age and Sex Inferences on Animal

Domestication in Archaeology. American Antiquity 41:96

102.

Crabtree, P. J., and D. V. Campana

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

1973 The Effects of Domestication in the Structure of Animal Bones.

In Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Haustiere, edited by J. Matolsci, pp. 157-61. Budapest: Akad?miai Kiad?.

Darwin, Charles

1959 The Origin of Species, edited by M. Peckham. Philadelphia:

[1859] University of Pennsylvania Press.

Davis, S. J. M.

1981 The Effects of Temperature Change and Domestication on the

Body Size of Late Pleistocene to Holocene Mammals of Israel.

Paleobiology 7(2): 101-14.

1982 Climatic Change and the Advent of Domestication: The

Succession of Ruminant Artiodactyls in the Late Pleistocene

Holocene in the Israel Region. Pal?orient 8:5-15.

1985 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.

Jerusalem: Centre du Recherche Fran?ais. 1987 The Archaeology of Animals. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Davis, S. J. M., and Fran?ois Valla

1978 Evidence for Domestication of the Dog 12,000 Years Ago in the

Natufian of Israel. Nature 276: 608-10.

Degerbol, Magnus 1961 On the Find of a Preboreal Domestic Dog (Canis familiaris L.)

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 1971 Prehistoric Domestication of Animals: Effects on Bone

Structure. Science 171:280-82.

Driesch, Angela von den

1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from

Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin No. 1.

Cambridge: Harvard University.



238 Pam f. Crabtree

Ducos, Pierre

1989 Defining Domestication: A Clarification. In The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Pr?dation, edited

by J. Clutton-Brock, pp. 28-30. London: Unwin Hyman. 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

P. Sanlaville, pp. 523-28. Paris: ?ditions du CNRS.

Dyson, Robert H., Jr. 1953 Archaeology and the Domestication of Animals in the Old

World. American Anthropologist 55:661-73.

Elder, W H.

1965 Primaeval Deer Hunting Pressures Revealed by Remains from

American Indian Middens. Journal of Wildlife 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 Publishers.

Flannery, Kent

1969 The Animal Bones. In Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh

Luran Plain: An Early Village Sequence from Khuzistan Iran, by F. Hole, K. V Flannery, and J. A. Neely, pp. 262-330. Ann Arbor:

Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of

Michigan, No. 1.

1983 Early Pig Domestication in the Fertile Crescent: a Retrospective 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, No. 36. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the

University of Chicago.

Gautier, A.

1987 Prehistoric Men and Cattle in North Africa: A Dearth of Data

and a Surfeit of Models. In Prehistory of Arid North Africa, edited by A. E. Close, pp. 163-87. Dallas: Southern Methodist

University Press.

1990 La Domestication. Et l'Homme Cr?a ses Animaux. . . . Paris:

Editions Errance.

Geddes, David

1985 Mesolithic Domestic Sheep in West Mediterranean Europe.

Journal of Archaeological Science 12:25-48.




Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane

1991 Bones Are Not Enough: Analogies, Knowledge, and Interpretive

Strategies in Zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 10:215-54.

Gilbert, Allan S.

1989 Microscopic Bone Structure in Wild and Domestic Animals: A

Reappraisal. In Early Animal Domestication and Its Cultural

Context, edited by P. Crabtree, D. Campana, and K. Ryan, pp.

46-86. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology,

Special Supplement to Volume 6. Philadelphia: MASCA, The

University Museum.

Grigson, C.

1969 The Uses and Limitations of Differences in Absolute Size in the

Distinction between the Bones of Aurochs (Bos primigenius) and

Domestic Cattle (Bos taurus). In The Domestication and

Exploitation of Plants and Animals, edited by P. J. Ucko and

G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 277-94. London: Duckworth.

Hecker, Howard M.

1982 Domestication Revisited: Its Implications for Faunal Analysis.

Journal of Field Archaeology 9:217-36.

Hemmer, Helmut

1990 Domestication: The Decline of Environmental Appreciation, translated by Neil Beckhaus. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Henry, D. O.

1975 Fauna in Near Eastern Archaeological Deposits. In Problems in

Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant, edited by F. Wendorf and A. E. Marks, pp. 379-85. Dallas: Southern Methodist

University Press.

1989 From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant at the End of the Ice

Age. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hesse, Brian

1982 Slaughter Patterns and Domestication: The Beginnings of

Pastoralism in Western Iran. Man (n.s.) 17(3):403-17.

1984 These Are Our Goats: The Origins of Herding in West Central

Iran. In Early Herders and Their Flocks, vol. 3 o? Animals and

Archaeology, edited by J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 243

64. International Series 202. Oxford: British Archaeological

Reports.

Higgs, E. S.

1962 Fauna. In Excavations at the Early Neolithic Site at Nea

Nikomedeia, Greek Macedonia (1961 Season), by R. J. Rodden.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28:271-74.



240 Pam J. Crabtree

Higgs, E. S., and M. R. Jarman

1969 The Origins of Agriculture: A Reconsideration. Antiquity 43:31-41.

Higham, C. F. W.

1967 Stock Rearing as a Cultural Factor in Prehistoric Europe.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33:84-106.

Jarman, M. R., and P. F. Wilkinson

1972 Criteria of Animal Domestication. In Papers in Economic

Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 83-96. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Jordan, B.

1975 Tierknockenfunde aus der Magu?a Pevkakia in Thessalien.

Inaugural Dissertation. Munich: Institut f?r Palaeoanatomie,

Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Tiermedizin der

Universit?t M?nchen.

Kent, Susan

1989 Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Farmers as Hunters and the Value

of Meat. In Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, edited by S. Kent, pp. 1-17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klein, Richard G., and Kathryn Cruz-Uribe

1984 The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

K?hler-Rollefson, Ilse

1989 Changes in Goat Exploitation at Ain Ghazal Between the Early and Late Neolithic: A Metrical Analysis. Pal?orient 15(1): 141-46.

K?hler-Rollefson, Ilse, William Gillespie, and Mary Metzger 1988 The Fauna from Neolithic Ain Ghazal. In The Prehistory of

Jordan: The State of Research in 1986, edited by A. N. Garrard

and H. G. Gebel, pp. 423-30. International Series 396 (i). Oxford:

British Archaeological Reports.

Lawrence, Barbara

1967 Early Domestic Dogs. Zeitschrift f?r S?ugetier k?nde 32:44-59.

1980 Evidence of Animal Domestication at Cay?n?. In The Joint

Istanbul-Chicago Universities' Prehistoric Research in

Southeastern Anatolia, edited by H. ?ambel and R. J. Braidwood,

pp. 285-308. Istanbul: Edebiyat Fak?ltesi Basimevi.

1982 Principal Food Animals at Cay?n?. In Prehistoric Village

Archaeology in Southeastern Anatolia, edited by L. Braidwood

and R. Braidwood, pp. 175-99. International Series 138. Oxford:


Legge, A. J.

1972 Prehistoric Exploitation of the Gazelle in Palestine. In Papers in




Economie Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 119-24.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Legge, A. J., and P. A. Rowley-Conwy

1987 Gazelle Killing in Stone Age Syria. Scientific American

257(2):88-95.

Littauer, Mary

1980 Horse Sense, or Nonsense? Antiquity 54:139-40.

Lyman, R. Lee

1987 Archaeofaunas and Butchery Studies: A Taphonomic

Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 10, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 249-337. New York:

Academic Press.

McCorriston, Joy, and Frank Hole

1991 The Ecology of Seasonal Stress and the Origins of Agriculture in

the Near East. American Anthropologist 93:46-69.

Meadow, Richard H.

1984 Animal Domestication in the Middle East: A View from the

Eastern Margin. In Early Herders and Their Flocks, vol. 3 of

Animals and Archaeology, edited by J. Clutton-Brock and

C. Grigson, pp. 309-37. International Series 202. Oxford: British

Archaeological Reports. 1989a Osteological Evidence for the Process of Animal Domestication.

In The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Pr?dation, edited by J. Clutton-Brock, pp. 80-89. London:

Unwin Hyman.

1989b Prehistoric Wild Sheep and Sheep Domestication on the Eastern

Margins of the Middle East. In Early Animal Domestication and

Its Cultural Context, edited by P. Crabtree, D. Campana, and

K. Ryan, pp. 24-36. MASCA Research Papers in Science and

Archaeology, Special Supplement to Volume 6. Philadelphia:

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.

Musil, Rudolph 1970 Domestication of the Dog Already in the Magdalenian?

Anthropologie 8:87-88.

1984 The First Known Domestication of Wolves in Central Europe. In

Husbandry in Europe, vol. 4 of Animals in Archaeology, edited

by J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, pp. 23-25. International

Series 227. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Olsen, Stanley J. 1979 Archaeologically, What Constitutes an Early Domestic Animal?



242 Pam J. Crabtree

In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 2, edited

by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 175-97. New York: Academic Press.

1985 Origins of the Domestic Dog: The Fossil Record. Tucson:

University of Arizona Press.

Payne, Sebastian

1973 Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from A?van Kale. Anatolian Studies 23:281-303.

Perkins, Dexter, Jr.

1964 Prehistoric Fauna from Shanidar, Iraq. Science 144:1565-66.

1966 The Fauna from Madamagh and Beidha. Palestine Exploration

Quarterly (1966):66-67. 1968 Fauna of ?atal H?y?k: Evidence for Early Cattle Domestication

in Anatolia. Science 164:177-79.

1973 The Beginnings of Animal Domestication in the Near East.

American Journal of Archaeology 77:279-82.

Perkins, Dexter, Jr., and Patricia Daly

1974 The Beginning of Food Production in the Near East. In The Old

World: Early Man to the Development of Agriculture, edited by R. Stigler, pp. 71-97. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Pidoplicko, I. G.

1969 Pozdenepaleoliticeskie zilisca iz kostej manonta na Ukraine

(Late Paleolithic Dwellings of Mammoth Bones in the Ukraine). Kiev: Institute of Zoology of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences.

Pike-Tay, Anne, and Heidi Knecht

1991 Uncovering Technological, Organizational, and Seasonal

Strategies of Paleolithic Hunting: Experimental Contributions.

Paper presented at "From Bones to Behavior," the eighth annual

visiting scholar's conference, Southern Illinois University,

Carbondale.

Price, Edward O.

1984 Behavioral Aspects of Animal Domestication. The Quarterly Review of Biology 59:1 -32.

Reed, Charles A.

1983 Archaeozoological Studies in the Near East: A Short History

(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, No. 105. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the

University of Chicago.

Reed, Charles A., and Dexter Perkins, Jr.

1984 Prehistoric Domestication of Animals in Southwestern Asia. In

Der Beginn der Haustierhaltung in der "Alten Welt, "

edited by G. Nobis, pp. 3-23. K?ln and Wien: B?hlau Verlag.




Rindos, David

1984 The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective. Orlando: Academic Press.

1989 Darwinism and Its Role in the Explanation of Domestication. In

Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation, edited by D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman, pp. 27-41. London:

Unwin Hyman.

Rogers, Richard A., and Laurine A. Rogers 1988 Notching and Anterior Beveling on Fossil Horse Incisors:

Indicators of Domestication. Quaternary Research 29:72-74.

Rowley-Conwy, Peter

1990 On the Osteological Evidence for Paleolithic Domestication:

Barking up the Wrong Tree. Current Anthropology 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:


Schiffer, Michael B.

1988 The Structure of Archaeological Theory. American Antiquity 53:461-85.

Simmons, A. H., and G. Ilany

1975- 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

African Archaeological Review 4:197-203.

Solecki, R. L.

1980 An Early Village Site at Zawi Chemi Shanidar. Biblioteca

Mesopotamica, vol. 13. Malibu, Calif.: Undena Publications.

Speth, J. D., and Susan L. Scott

1989 Horticulture and Large Mammal Hunting: The Role of Resource

Depletion and Constraints of Time and Labor. In Farmers as 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

Institute Publications, No. 105. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the Institute of Chicago.

Stein, Gil

1989 Strategies of Risk Reduction 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

Archaeology, Special Supplement to Volume 6. Philadelphia: MASCA, The University Museum.

Tchernov, Eitan, and L. K. Horwitz

1991 Body Size Diminution Under Domestication: Unconscious

Selection in Primeval Domesticates. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 10:54-75.

Turnbull, Priscilla E, and Charles A. Reed

1974 The Fauna from the Terminal Pleistocene of Palegawra Cave, a Zarzian Occupation in Northeastern Iraq. Fieldiana

Anthropology 63(3):81-146.

Uerpmann, Hans-Peter

1978 Metrical Analysis of Faunal Remains from the Middle East. In

Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, edited by R. H. Meadow and M. A. Zeder, pp. 41-45. Peabody Museum

Bulletin No. 2. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and

Ethnology, Harvard University. 1979 Probleme der Neolithisierung des Mittelmeerraums. T?binger

Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr. 28. Wiesbaden: Dr.

Ludwig Reichert.

1981 The Major Faunal Areas of the Middle East During the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. In Pr?histoire du Levant, edited

by J. Cauvin and H. Sanlaville, pp. 99-106. Paris: ?ditions du

CNRS.

1982 Faunal Remains from Shams ed-din Tannira, a Halafian Site in

Northern Syria. Berytus 30:3-52.

1989 Animal Exploitation and the Phasing of the Transition from the

Paleolithic to the Neolithic. In The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Pr?dation, edited by J.

Clutton-Brock, pp. 91-96. London: Unwin Hyman.

Wailes, Bernard

1990 Early Farming in Europe. Reviews in Anthropology 15:211-24.

Watson, J. P. N.

1975 Domestication and Bone Structure in Sheep and Goats. Journal

of Archaeological Science 2:375-83.

Watson, P. J.

1965 The Chronology of North Syria and North Mesopotamia from

10,000 B.C. to 2000 B.C. In Chronologies in Old World

Archaeology, edited by R. W. Ehrich, pp. 61-100. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.




White, Randall

1989 Husbandry and Herd Control in the Upper Paleolithic: A Critical

Review of the Evidence. Current Anthropology 30(5):609-32. Zeder, M. A.

1978 Differentiation Between the Bones of Caprines from Different

Ecosystems in Iran by the Analysis of Osteological Microstructure and Chemical Composition. In Approaches to

Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, edited by R. H. Meadow and M. A. Zeder, pp. 69-84. Peabody Museum Bulletin No. 2.

Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Zeuner, F. E.

1955 The Goats of Early Jericho. Palestine Exploration Quarterly

(April 1955): 70-86.

1963 A History of Domesticated Animals. New York: Harper and Row.



crabtree p 1993 early animal domestication in the middle east and europe

Documents