The Beginnings of Animal Domestication in the near East Author(s): Dexter Perkins, Jr.

Reviewed work(s): Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 77, No. 3 (Jul., 1973), pp. 279-282 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/503441 . Accessed: 01/07/2012 00:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

in Chronologies Old

World

Archaeology
University*

at Columbia Seminar Archaeological 1971-1972

The Beginnings of Animal Domestication in the Near East, by Dexter Perkins, Jr.: Summary Recent Developments in the Stone Age Chronology of Lebanon and the Levant,' by Ralph S. Solecki Current Research in the Neolithic of South Central Turkey: Suberde, Erbaba and Their Chronological Implications, by Jacques Bordaz: Summary

Tall-i-Malyan and the Chronology of the Kur River Basin, Iran, by William M. Sumner: Summary Excavations at Tepe Yahya, 1971,2by C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria, by Hayim Tadmor: Summary

The Beginnings of Animal Domestication in the Near East

DEXTER PERKINS, JR.: Summary The speaker treated three topics: the beginning of animal domestication in the ancient Near East, a new technique for distinguishing the bones of wild and domestic animals, and advice on faunal analyses. In dealing with the beginnings of domestication, Perkins limited his discussion to the period between 9ooo and 6000 B.c.,noting the extraordinarily small amount of information available for the period between 6ooo and 4000. He also limited discussion to the sheep, goat, cattle, and pig, the four animals which, with the development of agriculture, were the basis for the development of urbanism in the following period. Sheep. The range of the wild ancestor of the domesticated sheep extended from the Himalayan highland to Anatolia. Note that sheep were not found in the mountains of the Levant (Mt. Carmel). The evidence for animal domestication at Zawi Chemi Shanidar rests in part on the role of man as predator. Man as predator or hunter tends to kill about 25 percent of juvenile animals, i.e., animals of less than i /2 years of age. This percentage
* "Chronologies,"as before, is edited by Edith Porada.
1 The contents of this paper were published in "Summary

of juveniles is approximatelythe same as that found in the wild population, and this same percentage of juveniles is found as the result of man's hunting activities in the lower Paleolithic levels at Shanidar Cave. In the upper levels at Zawi Chemi Shanidar, however, the percentage of remains of juvenile sheep increases to approximately 50 percent, implying a selection not possible to hunters. This, combined with the sudden increase in the sheep population found there and the fact that Shanidar is not located within the broad upper flatlands which are the natural habitat of sheep, implies that the sheep at Zawi Chemi Shanidar (ca. 9000 B.c.) were domesticated. At 9ayonii (ca. 7000 B.c.) in southeastern Turkey, the evidence parallels that at Shanidar: a high percentage of remains of juvenile sheep compared to juvenile goat implies that sheep were domesticated by that date. And at Bouqras on the northern Euphrates remains of sheep have been found which seem, upon examination by zoologists, to be identical with those of wild sheep, but are thought to be those of domestic animals because of their occurrence outside the natural habitat of
2 The contents of this paper are being published in a report written jointly with Maurizio Tosi, "Shahr-i-Sokhtaand Tepe Yahya: Tracks on the Earliest History of the Iranian Plateau," to appear in East and West (1973)-

Report of the Columbia University Prehistoric Investigations in Lebanon, Season 1969," BullMusBeyrouth23, pp. 75-128.

280

EDITH PORADA et al.

[AJA 77

the wild sheep. These remains are dated from about 6500 B.c. At Ramad at about 6200, remains which are again morphologically identical to those of wild sheep are thought to be domestic for the same reason. Goat. Capra hircus aegagrus, the Asian wild goat, prefers rocky and precipitous ground. Its natural habitat extends from Anatolia to the Hindu Kush (including the Levant), usually at higher altitudes than that of sheep. At Ganj Dareh, P.E.L. Smith found tracks in mud bricks in a level dated to ca. 7500 B.c. (Since 90opercent of the sample is goat, we suppose these tracks are in fact goat.) One would suppose that wild goats would not have come as close to a settlement. This and the high percentage of remains of juvenile goats as opposed to juvenile sheep imply that goats rather than sheep were selected for domestication. At Ali Kosh in the Bus Mordeh Phase (ca. 7000), a high percentage of remains of juvenile goats also speaks for the domestication of goats. From Jarmo (ca. 6750) and Jericho (ca. 6500) comes morphological evidence, i.e., a change in horn cores, to indicate domestication of goats very certainly. Judgment must be reserved on the evidence from Beidha (ca. 6800) because of the relatively small sample available. It is possible that there were domestic goats in the Natufian levels of the tenth and ninth millennia, and it is even more likely that goats had been domesticated by the seventh millennium, but we cannot be certain as yet. Cattle. Bos primigenius, the wild ancestor of domestic cattle, is found in a range extending from Europe to Asia in an apparently quite variable habitat. Aceramic Hacilar (ca. 7000) has specimens of cattle which appear to be smaller than B. primigenius; it thus may be the site with the earliest evidence for domestic cattle, but this is by no means certain owing to the small size of the sample. 9atal Hiiyiik-VI (ca. 5800) presents unequivocal morphological evidence for domestic cattle. Measurements of the distal humerus of cattle from this site compare closely with those of specimens from other Anatolian sites where the cattle are known to be domestic. Domestic cattle may have been present in Levels XII-X (ca. 6400) at this site, but an unfortunate mixing of the samples from those levels makes this conclusion uncertain. At Suberde none of the long bones was found

in the settlement, implying that the animals were killed some distance away, and only the meat was brought back (Schlepp effect). Thus finding all elements of the skeleton suggests domestic cattle staying in or near the settlement. All skeletal elements were found in Catal Hiiyiik Levels XII-X. Domestic cattle are reported at Nea Nikomedeia by about 6500.The claim for domestication is based on the comparison of ancient specimens to bones in the British Museum and to modern British cattle, surely not a reliable method. Pig. Wild pig, Sus scrofa, is found from Europe through the Near East as far as western India, in marshy areas and near streams. The European varieties are considerably larger than the Near Eastern ones, particularly those in Turkey. The earliest occurrenceof domestic pig is claimed for ;ay6nii (ca. 7000), but this is based on questionable evidence: a comparison with European pigs. As was noted above, European pigs are significantly larger than Turkish pigs today, and we can probably assume that this was also true in antiquity. Jarmo is the site which offers the earliest (ca. 63oo) unmistakable evidence for domestication of the pig. Besides a slight reduction in size compared to present-day wild pigs in the Near East, a change in the teeth indicates domestic pig. The evidence for the earliest domestication of animals in the Near East raises three questions: was there a pattern in the development of domestic animals? What led to multiple domestication? Why were these particular animals domesticated? In answer to the first question, Perkins noted that domestic sheep appear in the northern Zagros, domestic goats in the southern Zagros, and domestic cattle in Anatolia, with domestic pigs appearing later in the southern Zagros (Jarmo). From this distribution, we can see that the earliest domestic animals appear singly in each locality and are first and foremost food producers. With the addition of other domesticated animals at about 6oo000 B.., it seems that secondaryproducts-milk, hides, wool from sheep--were the deciding, important factor. The pig presents a problem in that at first it was a competitor with man for food. With the beginning of agriculture, the pig, the most efficient meat producer, became an obvious choice for domestication. Why these particular animals came to be domesticated first is sometimes explained as a result of their preadaptation to domestication. For instance,

1973]

CHRONOLOGIES IN OLD WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY

DOMESTIC PLANTS AND ANIMALSFROM NEAR EASTERN SITES DATEDFROM

281

9000-6000B.C. DOMESTIC ANIMALS PRESENT Sheep Sheep, ?cattle Goat Goat Goat Goat Goat, pig DOMESTIC PLANTS PRESENT None Trace Trace Emmer, barley Emmer, barley Einkorn, emmer, barley Einkorn, emmer, barley None Emmer Einkorn, emmer, barley Einkorn, emmer, barley Einkorn, emmer, barley None Einkorn, emmer, barley Trace

DATE

Northern Zagros Zawi Chemi Shanidar gayinii Southern Zagros Ganj Dareh Ali Kosh Bus Mordeh Phase Ali Kosh Phase Jarmo Preceramic Ceramic Syria/Palestine Mureybit Beidha Bouqras Ramad Anatolia Aceramic Hacilar Suberde gatal Hiiyiik Erbaba

9000 7000 7500 7000 6750 6750 6300

8ooo 68oo 6500 6200

None Goat Sheep Sheep, ?goat, ?cattle ?Cattle None Cattle Sheep, goat, cattle

7000 66oo 6400 60oo

of animal bones of wild goats and sheep from Suberde and sheep and goats from Erbaba known to be domestic. Under polarized light, the bone mineral crystallites show blue or yellow interference colors. If a relatively enormous number of these submicroscopic particles are aligned in the same direction, the color becomes visible, while a random orientation produces no significant color Perkins next showed slides in order to explain changes. The high degree of orientation in the less a new technique, developed by Dr. Isabella Drew dense bones of domestic animals suggests that more of the Sackler Laboratory at Columbia, for dis- organization is necessary for the relatively frail tinguishing the bones of wild and domestic ani- bone to resist stress, while the denser bone of the mals. He compared photographs of thin sections wild animal is not so precisely structured.

deer do not seem to be so readily amenable to domestication as sheep, but the Egyptians did successfully domesticate antelopes, hyenas, and gazelles. A more likely explanation seems to be that sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs are simply economically more productive animals than gazelles or hyenas.

282

EDITH PORADA et al.

[AJA 77

Faunal remains from Ganj Dareh, however, present a problem: thin sections of goat bones, thought to be from a domesticated animal, appear red when given the same polarized light treatment as the Erbaba, Suberde, and Shanidar samples. The variation was probably caused by penetration of the calcium in the bones by iron salts. Perkins concluded with some remarks about faunal analysis in general. Most archaeologists are ignorant of natural history; they should, however, have a basic knowledge of animal identification, since it is usually not possible to include a zoologist in field teams. Graphic and plastic representations of animals are of virtually no value in interpretation of climatic changes or local economies. The wall paintings of Qatal Hiiyiik, for instance, depict a variety of hunting scenes in which the prey consists of deer, pigs, half-asses, and apparently wild cattle. Yet these people were not hunters but

cattle raisers, as shown by the remains of cattle found at the site. Leopards and leopard skins are also frequently seen in these paintings, but not a single leopard bone has been discovered at Qatal Hiiyiik, nor are zoologists sure that leopards were ever found in that area. Faunal remains should in fact be studied like any other collection of artifacts; they are just as much cultural debris as lithic or ceramic material.

An astonishingly of high percentage bone material

is quite literally artifactual in the conventional

sense: "use retouched," bones used for scrape.g.,

ing, slicing, etc. (initially recognized by Patricia

Daly and BrianHesse), are examplesof such artifacts. That they would have been recognized by neither the zoologist nor the archaeologist unac-

between two specialists. the

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

the necessity for continued and close cooperation

customed working bonematerial to with out points

Current Research in the Neolithic of South CentralTurkey: Suberde, Erbaba and their Chronological Implications
JACQUESBORDAZ:Summary
I. INTRODUCTION

It was first proposed to review briefly the objectives and results of the prehistoric research undertaken in the basin of the Beysehir and Suwla Lakes in sw Turkey between 1964 and 1971, since the preliminary reports have not had sufficiently wide circulation. The main objective was to contribute to the understanding of the fundamental sociocultural changes which accompanied early sedentism, agriculture, and herding in sw Asia between the Ioth and 5th millennium B.c. The program has, to date, included the excavation of two sites, Suberde and Erbaba, several field surveys complementing those of J. Mellaart' and R. S. Solecki,2 and the recording of traditional crafts of archaeological interest. The interrelated factors which can be considered to have been determinant in the Neolithic cultural transformationand for which data are sought
1 J. Mellaart, "Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau," AnatSt ii (1961) 159-184 and 13 (1963) 199-236. 2R. S. Solecki, "An Archaeological Reconnaissance in the

includeclimatic conditions changes, and populationdensity, and resources and vegetational faunal theiruse,technological and progress, socioeconomic as fromthe exdevelopments theycanbe inferred cavated evidence fromsettlement and in patterns theBeysehir-SuWla Thesegoalsarestillquite basin. distantbut it is expected that a long-range concentrated well-defined studyin one geographically basin regionsuchas the Beysehir-Sugla will evenand archaeological tually providethe ecological datato allowa coherent detailed and reconstruction of theNeolithic transformation its processes and in this area.Such a program wouldalso provide a usefulframework the integration datafrom for of two important in neighboring sites areas, Hacilar, km. to the w, and QatalHiiyiik,1ookm. to 15o the Ei,and allowcomparisons analogous with rein gionalcultural developments otherpartsof sw Asia.
Beysehir-SuklaArea of South Western Turkey," TurkArkDerg
13-I (1965) 129-148.