Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Figures
Introduction
Conclusions
References
FAQs

First Steps of Animal Domestication

Profile image of Daniel HelmerDaniel HelmerProfile image of Melinda ZederMelinda Zeder

2005

visibility

…

description

25 pages

Abstract
sparkles

AI

The paper examines the methodologies employed in studying animal domestication in the Near East, highlighting the limitations of traditional markers like morphological changes and body size reduction in indicating domestication. It emphasizes the need for standardized proof and validation of these methodologies, drawing on archaeological evidence from the Zagros region. The findings suggest a reconsideration of the conceptual framework surrounding domestication, advocating for a revised geographic and temporal focus in research to better understand the complexities of domestication processes.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. Demographic profiling indicates goat management predates morphological changes by 500-1000 years.
  2. Morphological changes in goats show delayed response to domestication, complicating traditional markers.
  3. Body size reduction lacks clear cause-effect relationship with domestication, influenced by multiple factors.
  4. Reanalysis of ancient collections reveals new insights into goat domestication in the Zagros region.
  5. Research methods must evolve to accurately document initial stages of animal domestication.
Figures (14)
Figure 1. Map of Iran and Iraq showing locations of modern and archaeological samples.
Figure 1. Map of Iran and Iraq showing locations of modern and archaeological samples.
Figure 2. Modern goat breadth and depth measurements of selected long bones. X axis shows dimension in mm. Y axis shows number of specimens. Dark gray shaded bars are males older than one year of age. Stippled bars are males one year of age or younger. Light gray shaded bars are females older than one year of age. White bars are females one year of age. Diagonal hatches mark fusing bones. Crosshatches mark unfused bones. D marks bones of domestic specimens. a. Radius Bd (n=48); b. Metatarsal Bd (n=52); c. Tibia Bd (n= 48); d. Humerus Dd (n=50).
Figure 2. Modern goat breadth and depth measurements of selected long bones. X axis shows dimension in mm. Y axis shows number of specimens. Dark gray shaded bars are males older than one year of age. Stippled bars are males one year of age or younger. Light gray shaded bars are females older than one year of age. White bars are females one year of age. Diagonal hatches mark fusing bones. Crosshatches mark unfused bones. D marks bones of domestic specimens. a. Radius Bd (n=48); b. Metatarsal Bd (n=52); c. Tibia Bd (n= 48); d. Humerus Dd (n=50).
'_ Age in months, ? — Bones in early fusion, _ Bones in late fusion or fully fused Table 1. Revised Fusion Sequence and Ages for Goats from Zeder in press b.
'_ Age in months, ? — Bones in early fusion, _ Bones in late fusion or fully fused Table 1. Revised Fusion Sequence and Ages for Goats from Zeder in press b.
Figure 3. Modern goat length measurements of selected long bones. X axis shows dimension in mm. Y axis show: number of specimens. Dark gray shaded bars are males older than one year of age. Light gray shaded bars are female: older than one year of age. D marks bones of domestic specimens. a. Radius GL (n=32); b. Metatarsal GL (n=28); c Humerus GL (n=26).
Figure 3. Modern goat length measurements of selected long bones. X axis shows dimension in mm. Y axis show: number of specimens. Dark gray shaded bars are males older than one year of age. Light gray shaded bars are female: older than one year of age. D marks bones of domestic specimens. a. Radius GL (n=32); b. Metatarsal GL (n=28); c Humerus GL (n=26).
Table 2. continued.
Table 2. continued.
Figure 6. Breadth and depth measurements of goat long bones from Ganj Dareh arranged by age at fusion. X axis shows dimension in mm. Y axis shows number of specimens. Dark gray bars are fused specimens. Light gray bars are fusing specimens. White bars are unfused specimens. a. Radius Bd — fusion at 36 months, (n= 187); b. Metacarpal Bd — fusion at 24 months, (n=158); c. First Phalanx GL — fusion at 16 months, (n=73); d. Humerus Dd — fusion at 10 months, (n=263); e. Astragalus Dd — fused at birth, (n= 313).
Figure 6. Breadth and depth measurements of goat long bones from Ganj Dareh arranged by age at fusion. X axis shows dimension in mm. Y axis shows number of specimens. Dark gray bars are fused specimens. Light gray bars are fusing specimens. White bars are unfused specimens. a. Radius Bd — fusion at 36 months, (n= 187); b. Metacarpal Bd — fusion at 24 months, (n=158); c. First Phalanx GL — fusion at 16 months, (n=73); d. Humerus Dd — fusion at 10 months, (n=263); e. Astragalus Dd — fused at birth, (n= 313).
Figure 7. Breadth and depth measurements of goat long bones from Ali Kosh arranged by age at fusion. X axis shows dimension in mm. Y axis shows number of specimens. Dark gray bars are fused specimens. Light gray bars are fusing specimens. White bars are unfused specimens. a. Radius Bd — fusion at 36 months, (n=183); b. Metacarpal Bd — fusion at 24 months, (n=158); c. First Phalanx GL — fusion at 16 months, (n=73); d. Humerus Dd — fusion at 10 months, (n=264); e. Astragalus Dd — fused at birth, (n=314).
Figure 7. Breadth and depth measurements of goat long bones from Ali Kosh arranged by age at fusion. X axis shows dimension in mm. Y axis shows number of specimens. Dark gray bars are fused specimens. Light gray bars are fusing specimens. White bars are unfused specimens. a. Radius Bd — fusion at 36 months, (n=183); b. Metacarpal Bd — fusion at 24 months, (n=158); c. First Phalanx GL — fusion at 16 months, (n=73); d. Humerus Dd — fusion at 10 months, (n=264); e. Astragalus Dd — fused at birth, (n=314).
Table 3. Proportions of male and female goats in sites from the Zagros. species, or measured. Thus when a herded population, like Ganj Dareh, is compared to a hunted one, like Asiab, this demographic difference will make it seem, at a low level of resolution, as if the herded population is composed of smaller animals, lending weight to the erroneous conclusion that size reduction has occurred as a result of domestication.
Table 3. Proportions of male and female goats in sites from the Zagros. species, or measured. Thus when a herded population, like Ganj Dareh, is compared to a hunted one, like Asiab, this demographic difference will make it seem, at a low level of resolution, as if the herded population is composed of smaller animals, lending weight to the erroneous conclusion that size reduction has occurred as a result of domestication.
* dates in uncalibrated years B.P. Table 4. Representation of Sheep and Gazelle in assemblages from the Iranian Zagros based on the reanalysis of caprine and gazelle bones included in this study.
* dates in uncalibrated years B.P. Table 4. Representation of Sheep and Gazelle in assemblages from the Iranian Zagros based on the reanalysis of caprine and gazelle bones included in this study.

Related papers

Review of: Sue Colledge, James Conolly, Keith Dobney, Katie Manning and Stephen Shennan, eds. The Origins and Spread of Domestic Animals in Southwest Asia and Europe (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London 59. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 2013).
António Faustino Carvalho
View PDFchevron_right
Final results of an analysis of the sheep and goat bones from Ain Ghazal, Jordan
Alexander Wasse

Levant, 2002

GhazaZ~Jordan. It proposes that domestic goats were present at Ain Ghazal from the time of the settlement's establishment at c. 9250 BP, that Persian wild goats were hunted in the vicinity of Ain Ghazal until c. 8500 BP, that domestic sheep were introduced to Ain Ghazal in small numbers some time before c. 8500 BP and that their numbers subsequently increased rapidly. During all periods the Ain Ghazal caprines seem to have been managed with an emphasis on subsistence-orientated meat production and maintenance of herd security. No evidence for the exploitation of secondary products was found. It is concluded that the appearance of domestic sheep at Ain Ghazal may have been linked more to a general decline in the importance of hunting than to the emergence of specialised pastoral economies.

View PDFchevron_right
Streit, K., and Y. Garfinkel. 2015. “Horned Figurines Made of Stone from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods and the Domestication of Sheep and Goat.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147(1):39–48.
Katharina Streit

At the time of writing, fourteen horned figurines made of stone have been uncovered in eight archaeological sites of the Levant and southern Anatolia dating to the Pottery Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (6th and 5th millennium cal BC). Their striking stylistic similarity, together with their low frequency, requires a detailed analysis. The figurines, produced of locally accessible stone, feature the head of a horned animal with characteristic spiralling horns. No comparable figurines manufactured of a different raw material like clay or ivory have been uncovered. Three typological groups can be distinguished based on the shape of the horns, possibly identified as Capra falconeri (Group 1) and Ovis aries orientalis (Groups 2 and 3) in different degrees of stylization. Recent genetic studies demonstrate that these species were progenitors of the domestic sheep and goat, respectively. Figurines of the second and third typological groups are pierced, which suggests that they were worn as personal ornaments. This paper draws attention to these figurines as a coherent group and suggests some possible meanings in proto-historic society. Their stylistic homogeneity

View PDFchevron_right
Management and domestication of cattle (Bos taurus) in Neolithic Southwest Asia
Benjamin Arbuckle

Animal Frontiers, 2021

View PDFchevron_right
Milevski I. and Horwitz L.K. Domestication of the donkey (Equus asinus) in the southern Levant: Archaeozoology, iconography and economy. In: R. Kowner et al. (eds), Animals and Human Society in Asia: Historical, Cultural and Ethical Perspectives. (2019)
Ianir Milevski, Liora Kolska Horwitz

2019

View PDFchevron_right
Horned Figurines Made of Stone from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods and the Domestication of Sheep and Goat
Yosef Garfinkel

Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 2015

At the time of writing, fourteen horned figurines made of stone have been uncovered in eight archaeological sites of the Levant and southern Anatolia dating to the Pottery Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (6th and 5th millennium cal BC). Their striking stylistic similarity, together with their low frequency, requires a detailed analysis. The figurines, produced of locally accessible stone, feature the head of a horned animal with characteristic spiralling horns. No comparable figurines manufactured of a different raw material like clay or ivory have been uncovered. Three typological groups can be distinguished based on the shape of the horns, possibly identified as Capra falconeri (Group 1) and Ovis aries orientalis (Groups 2 and 3) in different degrees of stylization. Recent genetic studies demonstrate that these species were progenitors of the domestic sheep and goat, respectively. Figurines of the second and third typological groups are pierced, which suggests that they were worn as personal ornaments. This paper draws attention to these figurines as a coherent group and suggests some possible meanings in proto-historic society. Their stylistic homogeneity is tentatively ascribed to a shared iconographic language across the Levant at the onset of agriculture.

View PDFchevron_right
The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period
Laura Harris

Animals in Religion, Economy and Daily Life of Ancient Egypt and beyond, 2023

Cattle were important agriculturally, economically and religiously to the ancient Egyptians, and as a result they are depicted frequently in art. In some of these representations, cattle are shown with or undergoing a physical modification of their bodies. This paper will examine one of these practices, horn deformation. The artificial deformation of cattle horns is represented in two-dimensional art scenes from elite tombs throughout the Pharaonic period, and this paper will focus on examples from the New Kingdom (c.1550-1069 BC). Drawing on ethnographic comparisons, the process, purpose, and welfare implications of Egyptian modification will be discussed. Evaluation of the practice has revealed that, on balance, the Egyptians were not concerned with animal welfare when modifying the appearance of their cattle.

View PDFchevron_right
Domestication and Breeding of Livestock: Horses, Mules, Asses, Cattle, Sheep, Goats and Swine
Tim Howe

The Oxford Handbook of Animals in Classical Thought and Life, 2014

View PDFchevron_right
The Initial Domestication of Goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 Years Ago
Melinda Zeder

2001

View PDFchevron_right
The Deformation of Cattle Horn in Past and Present Societies
Jérôme Dubosson

2018

View PDFchevron_right

References (53)

  1. Bar-Yosef, O. and Meadow, R. (1995) The origins of agriculture in the Near East. In D. Price and A.-B. Gebauer (eds) Last Hunters, First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Transition to Agri- culture, 39-94. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe, SAR Press.
  2. Binford (1971) Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In S. Struever (ed.) Prehistoric Agriculture, 22-49. American Museum Sourcebooks in Anthropology. New York, The Natural History Press.
  3. Bradley, D. and Magee, D. (in press) Genetics and the origins of domestic cattle. In M. A. Zeder, D. Bradley, E. Emshwiller and B. D. Smith (eds) Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  4. Bradley, D. and Magee, D. (in press) Cattle. In M.A. Zeder, E. Emshwiller, B.D. Bradley, Smith and D. Decker-Walters (eds) Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Press.
  5. Braidwood (1960) The Agricultural Revolution. Scientific American 203, 130-48.
  6. Braidwood, R. J. and Howe, B. (1960) Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, N°31. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  7. Bökönyi, S. (1969) Archaeological problems and methods of recognizing animal domestication. In P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby (eds) Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, 219-29. London, Duckworth.
  8. Bökönyi, S. (1977) Animal Remains from the Kermanshah Valley, Iran. BAR Supplementary Series, N°34. Oxford, BAR.
  9. Driesch, A. von den (1978) A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeolgical Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin, N°1. Cambridge, Peabody Museum.
  10. Evins, M. (1982) The fauna from Shanidar Cave: Mousterian wild goat exploitation in northeastern Iraq. Paléorient 8, 47-73.
  11. Ervynck, A., Dobney, K., Hongo, H., and Meadow, R. (2001) Born free? New evidence for the status of Sus scrofa at Neolithic Çayönü. Paléorient 27, 47-73.
  12. Helmer, D. (1989) Le development de la domestication au Proche- Orient de 9 500 à 7 500 BP: les nouvelles données d'el Kowm et de Ras Shamra. Paléorient 15, 111-21.
  13. Helmer, D. (1992) La Domestication des animaux par les hommes préhistoriques. Paris, Masson.
  14. Hemmer, H. (1990) Domestication: The Decline of Environmental Appreciation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  15. Hesse, B. (1978) Evidence for Husbandry from the Early Neolithic Sites of Ganj Dareh in Western Iran. PhD Dissertation, Columbia University, Ann Arbor, University Microfilms.
  16. Hesse, B. (1982) Slaughter patterns and domestication: the beginnings of pastoralism in western Iran. Man 17, 403-17.
  17. Hesse, B. (1984) These are our goats: the origins of herding in West Central Iran. In J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson (eds) Animals and Archaeology: 3. Early Herders and their Flocks, 243-64. BAR International Series 202. Oxford, BAR.
  18. Hillman, G. C. (1996) Late Pleistocene changes in wild plant-food available to hunter-gatherers of the northern Fertile Crescent: possible preludes to cereal cultivation. In D.R. Harris (ed.) The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, 159-203. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press.
  19. Hole, F. (1987) Chronologies in the Iranian Neolithic. In O. Aurenche, J. Evin, and F. Hours (eds) Chronologies in the Near East, 353-79. BAR International Series 379. Oxford, BAR.
  20. Hole, F. and Flannery, K.V. (1967) The Prehistory of Southwestern Iran: A Preliminary Report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33, 147-206.
  21. Hole, F, Flannery, K.V. and Neely, J.A. (1969) Prehistory and Human Ecology on the Deh Luran Plain. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, N°1. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press.
  22. Hongo, H. and Meadow, R. (1998) Pig exploitation at Neolithic Çayönü Tepesi (southeastern Anatolia). In S. Nelson (ed.) Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in Prehistory, 77-98. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, vol. 15. Philadelphia, Museum Applied Science Center in Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
  23. Hongo, H. and Meadow, R. (2000) Faunal remains from prepottery Neolithic levels at Çayönü, Southeastern Turkey: a preliminary report focusing on pigs (Sus sp.). in M. Mashkour, A.M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis and F. Poplin (eds) Archaeozoology of the Near East, IVA., 121-40. ARC Publication N°32. Groningen, ARC.
  24. Horwitz, L. (2003) Temporal and spatial variation in Neolithic caprine exploitation strategies: a case study of fauna from the site of Yiftah'el (Israel). Palèorient 29, 19-58.
  25. Horwitz, L. K. and Ducos, P. (1998) An investigation into the origins of domestic sheep in the southern Levant. In H. Buitenhuis, L. Bartosiewicz, and A.M. Choyke (eds) Archaeozoology of the Near East, III., 80-95. ARC Publications N°18. Groningen, ARC. Horwitz, L. K., Tchernov, E., Ducos, P., Becker, C., von den Driesch, A., Martin, L., and Garrard, A. (1999) Animal domestication in the southern Levant. Paléorient 25, 63-80.
  26. Jarman M. R. and P. F. Wilkinson. (1972) Criteria for animal domestication. In E.S. Higgs (ed.) Papers in Economic Pre- history, 83-93. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  27. Kuijt, I. (2000) Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
  28. Lawrence, B. (1982) The principal food animals at Çayönü. In L.S. Braidwood and R.J. Braidwood (eds) Prehistoric Village Archae- ology in South-Eastern Turkey, 175-99. BAR International Series N°138. Oxford, BAR.
  29. Legge, A. (1996) The beginning of caprine domestication in south- west Asia. In Harris, D. R. (ed.) The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, 238-63. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press.
  30. Legge, A. J. and Rowley-Conwy, P. A. (2000) The exploitation of animals. In A. M. T. Moore, G. C. Hillman and A. J. Legge (eds) Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu, 423-74. Hureyra. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  31. Luikart, G., Ludovic, G., Excoffier, L., Vigne, J.-D., Bouvet, J., and Taberlet, P. (2001) Multiple maternal origins and weak phylo- geographic structure in domestic goats. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98, 5927-5932.
  32. Luikart, G., Fernandez, H., Mashkour, M., England, P. R. and Taberlet, P. (in press) Origins and diffusion of domestic goats inferred from DNA markers: example analyses of mtDNA, Y- chromosome and microsatellites. In M. A. Zeder, D. Bradley, E. Emshwiller and B. D. Smith (eds) Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  33. Martin, L. and Russell, N. (in press) The Çatalhöyük faunal remains. In I. Hodder (ed.) Çatalhöyük 1995-1999: Subsistence and Ecology. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
  34. Meadow, R. (1989) Osteological evidence for the process of animal domestication. In J. Clutton-Brock (ed.) The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Predation, 80-90. London, Unwin Hyman.
  35. Meadow, R. (1999) The use of size index scaling techniques for research on archaeozoological collections from the Middle East. In C. Becker, H. Manhart, J. Peters and J. Schibler (eds.) Historia Animalium ex Ossibus, Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch. Beiträge zur Paläoanatomie, Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Ethn- ologie und Geschichte der Tiermedizin, 285-300. Rahden/ Westf, Verlag Maire leidorf GmbH.
  36. Mellart, J. (1975) The Neolithic of the Near East. New York, Charles Scribnerr's and Sons.
  37. Perkins, D. (1964) Prehistoric fauna from Shanidar, Iraq. Science 144,1565-66.
  38. Perkins, D. J. (1969) Fauna of Çatal Hüyük: Evidence for early cattle domestication in Anatolia. Science 164, 177-8.
  39. Peters, J., Helmer, D., von den Driesch, A., and Segui, S. (1999) Animal husbandry in the northern Levant. Paléorient 25, 27- 48.
  40. Redding, R.W. and Rosenberg, M. (1998) Ancestral pigs: a New (Guinea) model for pig domestication in the Middle East. In S. Nelson (ed.) Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in Prehistory, 65-76. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, vol. 15. Philadelphia, Museum Applied Science Center in Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
  41. Reed, C. A. (1959) Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East. Science 130, 1629-1639.
  42. Reed, C. A. (1960) A Review of the osteological evidence on animal domestication in the prehistoric Near East. In R.J. Braidwood and B. Howe (eds) Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan, 119-145. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, N°31. Chicago, Uni- versity of Chicago Press.
  43. Reed, C. A. (1983) Archaeozoological studies in the Near East: a short history (1960-1980). In L. Braidwood, R.J., Braidwood, B. Howe, C. A. Reed and P. J. Watson (eds) Prehistoric Archae- Vigne, J.-D., Carrére, I., Saliége, J.-F., Person, A., Bocherens, H., Guilaine, J., and Briois, F. (2000) Predomestic cattle, sheep, goat, and pig during the late 9th and the 8th millennium cal. BC on Cyprus: preliminary results of Shillourokambos (Parekklisha, Limassol). In M. Mashkour, A.M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis, and F. Poplin (eds) Archaeozoology of the Near East, IVA., 83-106. ARC Publication N°32. Groningen, ARC.
  44. Zeder M. A. (1999) Animal domestication in the Zagros: a review of past and current research. Paléorient 25,11-25.
  45. Zeder M. A. (2001) A metrical analysis of a collection of modern goats (Capra hircus aegargus and Capra hircus hircus) from Iran and Iraq: implications for the study of caprine domestication. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 61-79.
  46. Zeder M. A. (2003) Hiding in plain sight: the value of museum collections in the study of the origins of animal domestication. In G. Grupe and J. Peters (eds), Documenta Archaeobiologiaw 1: Deciphering Ancient Bones. The Research Potential of Bio- archaeological Collections, Yearbook of the State Collection of Palaeoanatomy. München, Germany, 125-138. Rahden/ Westf: Verlag M. Leidorf GmbH.
  47. Zeder M. A. (in press a.) A critical examination of markers of initial domestication in goats (Capra hircus). In M. A. Zeder, D. Bradley, E. Emshwiller and B. D. Smith (eds) Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  48. Zeder M. A. (in press b.) Reconciling rates of long bone fusion and tooth eruption and wear in sheep (Ovis) and goat (Capra). In D. Ruscillo (ed.), Ageing and Sexing Animals from Archaeological Sites. Oxford, Oxbow Press.
  49. Zeder M. A. and Hesse B. (2000) The Initial Domestication of Goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 Years Ago. Science 287, 2254-2257
  50. Zeder, M. A. (in press c) Archaeological Approaches to Documenting Animal Domestication. In M. A. Zeder, D. Bradley, E. Emshwiller and B. D. Smith (eds) Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  51. Zeder, M. A., Bradley, D., Emshwiller, E. and Smith, B. D. (in press) Documenting domestication: bringing together plants, animals, archaeology and genetics. In M. A. Zeder, D> Bradley, Emshwiller and B. D. Smith (eds) Documenting Domeestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  52. Zeder, M. A. and Lapham, H. A. (in prep.) Morphological criteria for distinguishing between the bones of sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hircus).
  53. Zohary, D., Tchernov, E., and Horwitz, L. K. (1998) The role of unconscious selection in the domestication of sheep and goats. Journal of Zoology 245, 129-135.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What evidence supports the timeline for initial goat domestication in the Zagros region?add

AMS radiocarbon dating indicates goat management began at Ganj Dareh around 8900-8700 BP uncalibrated, predating morphological changes by up to 1000 years.

How does the demographic profiling method improve our understanding of domestication?add

Demographic profiling reveals evidence of herd management in goats at Ganj Dareh, while morphological changes appear much later, indicating management occurred before physical changes.

What role does environmental variation play in goat size in the Zagros?add

Geography significantly influences goat size; northern goats are larger, while southern populations are consistently smaller, regardless of domestication status.

Why are traditional markers like size reduction insufficient for assessing domestication?add

Size changes often result from multiple factors—including environmental conditions—rather than solely from domestication processes, complicating their use as reliable markers.

What implications do the findings have for the understanding of early livestock management?add

The findings suggest that initial management of livestock focused on demographic control rather than immediate morphological changes, necessitating new approaches to studying domestication.

Last updated
About the authors
Daniel Helmer
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / French National Centre for Scientific Research, Alumnus
Melinda Zeder
Smithsonian Institution, Department Member

Related papers

Series Editors: Keith Dobney, Peter Rowley-Conwy and Umberto Albarella First Steps of Animal Domestication
Daniel Helmer
View PDFchevron_right
Local adoption of animal husbandry in the southern Levant: An isotopic perspective from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B funerary site of Kfar HaHoresh
Cheryl Makarewicz, Nigel Goring-Morris, Liora Kolska Horwitz

Animal husbandry emerged as an important subsistence strategy at various tempos and trajectories across the southern Levant during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (ca. 8500–6500 cal BC). Here, we explore temporal variation in the emergence of animal management strategies, in particular those that alter the composition of the animal diet, west of the Jordan Valley, through carbon (δ 13 C) and nitrogen (δ 15 N) isotopic analyses of mountain gazelle, bezoar goat and aurochsen bone collagen from the funerary complex of Kfar HaHoresh. Analyses presented here show an extended range of carbon isotope values in the collagens of Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) goats relative to Middle PPNB goats, which are also enriched in 13 C relative to contemporaneous gazelle. This shift may reflect a greater catchment from which morphologically wild goats derived or that some of the goats at Kfar HaHoresh were provided with some fodder. If the latter is the case, then the use of fodder by 7500 cal BC at Kfar HaHoresh is a relatively late development, emerging several hundred years after goat husbandry strategies emphasising a juvenile harvest and fodder provisioning that first came into use in the Mediterranean region of the southern Levant. There is a pronounced enrichment of nitrogen isotopes in Early PPNB aurochsen, ritually important animals derived from a unique feasting deposit, relative to that of gazelle and goats. Though this may reflect more specialised feeding behaviour in aurochsen compared to the other two bovid groups, an alternative interpretation is that the aurochsen ingested enriched 15 N from manured pasture, following restriction of their movement by people. These isotopic data support the documented pattern of a delayed adoption of goat husbandry in the lower Galilee region and may point to differential developmental trajectories where some forms of animal management emerged out of ritual rather than subsistence needs.

View PDFchevron_right
Identifying early domestic cattle from Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites on the Middle Euphrates using sexual dimorphism
Hervé Monchot

… (eds J.-D. Vigne, D. Helmer …, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
A Journey Begins with a Single Step: How Early Holocene Humans and Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) Embarked on the Pathway to Domestication in the Eastern Fertile Crescent
Melinda Zeder

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2022

Analysis of a large assemblage of Sus scrofa remains from Hallan Çemi, an Early Holocene (c. 11,700 BP) site in southeastern Turkey, provides new insights into pre-domestication patterns of human harvesting and management of this important species. Harvest profiles resulting from a range of documented hunting and herding strategies, when combined with new methods for demographic profiling, reveal emergent mutualisms between humans and wild boar that set the stage for active management. As local wild boar populations began taking advantage of increasingly anthropogenically altered environments around Hallan Çemi, humans developed procurement strategies that both increased harvest yields and helped sustain population levels of S. scrofa. The evolution of these strategies into more active management at later sites in the region is also traced. New methods for detecting morphological change in S. scrofa over the c. 300 year occupation of Hallan Çemi show that lower molars underwent size change. Metric data from 18 contemporary and later sites reveals the differential impacts of emergent domestication on different S. scrofa skeletal elements over a 4000-year period. Taxonomic and part distributional data highlight the increasing importance of S. scrofa in feasting activities at Hallan Çemi over time. We conclude that feasting and other community-enhancing activities at Hallan Çemi worked together with increasing engagement in niche modification to promote the level of cohesion and material support needed to sustain a sedentary community over the longue durée and to create the sustained interactions needed for domestication.

View PDFchevron_right
Sheep and goat management in the Early Neolithic in the Zagros region (8000-5000 BC): New zooarchaeological and isotopic evidence from Ganj Dareh, Bestansur and Jarmo
Donna de Groene, Alex Coogan, Roger Matthews

The transition from hunter gathering to farming is one of the most important episodes in the history of humankind. Considerable evidence indicates that this shift was a slow, complex, highly localized process, which took place in multiple places in Southwest Asia independently, from around 9500 BC. Caprines were arguably the first domesticated livestock, brought under human control during a process that began in the 9th millennium BC in a region extending from southeastern Turkey to northwestern Iran. In this research we integrate zooarchaeological analysis with stable isotopic data of faunal remains from three key Early Neolithic sites in the Eastern Fertile Crescent: Ganj Dareh (ca. 8000 BC), Bestansur (ca. 7800-7000 BC) and Jarmo (ca. 7000-5000 BC).While some form of goat management seemed to have been practiced at Bestansur, based on spherulites, dung and shed deciduous teeth, no evidence has been found for winter foddering or transhumance practices. At Ganj Dareh goat were managed, and might have been foddered during the winter or vertical transhumance might have taken place. At Pottery Neolithic Jarmo both sheep and goat were managed and they were possibly brought to higher elevations during the summer months or foddered during winter. This research has supported the idea that already during early stages of goat management, humans kept a high degree of control over the population.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2026 Academia. All rights reserved
Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.