Upload
stivanoff
View
81
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Crabtree P 1993 Early Animal Domestication in the Middle East and Europe
Citation preview
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
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 205
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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.
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 207
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.
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 211
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 213
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 215
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 217
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 219
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 221
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 223
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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).
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 225
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 227
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 229
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 231
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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,
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 233
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.
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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.
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 235
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.
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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.
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 237
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.
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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.
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 239
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.
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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:
British Archaeological Reports.
Legge, A. J.
1972 Prehistoric Exploitation of the Gazelle in Palestine. In Papers in
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 241
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?
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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.
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 243
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:
British Archaeological Reports.
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
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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.
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Early Animal Domestication 245
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.
This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:04:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions