Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Cattle Domestication at Çatalhöyük Revisited

2005; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 46; Issue: S5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1086/497664

1537-5382

Nerissa Russell, Louise Martin, Hijlke Buitenhuis,

Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies

Previous articleNext article FreeReportsCattle Domestication at Çatalhöyük Revisited1NerissaRussell, LouiseMartin, and HijlkeBuitenhuisNerissaRussellDepartment of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, U.S.A. ([email protected]) (Russell), Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London, U.K. (Martin), Center for Archaeological Research and Consultancy, Groningen, The Netherlands. (Buitenhuis). 21 iii 05, LouiseMartinDepartment of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, U.S.A. ([email protected]) (Russell), Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London, U.K. (Martin), Center for Archaeological Research and Consultancy, Groningen, The Netherlands. (Buitenhuis). 21 iii 05, and HijlkeBuitenhuisDepartment of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, U.S.A. ([email protected]) (Russell), Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London, U.K. (Martin), Center for Archaeological Research and Consultancy, Groningen, The Netherlands. (Buitenhuis). 21 iii 05Department of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, U.S.A. ([email protected]) (Russell), Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London, U.K. (Martin), Center for Archaeological Research and Consultancy, Groningen, The Netherlands. (Buitenhuis). 21 iii 05PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThirtyfive years ago, Dexter Perkins (1969) published a brief preliminary analysis of the animal bones from atalhyk, focusing on the question of cattle domestication. It was the only report he ever published on this assemblage. This paper has been widely cited ever since because he argued that cattle domestication occurred during the 1,000year occupation of the site, then the earliest evidence for cattle domestication in Asia. Perkinss conclusion was based on a small sample, however, and his report included only limited data. Pierre Ducos (1988) later published a more thorough report based on material from the later periods. He argued for a more nuanced position in which cattle were not fully domesticated but managed. The bones themselves have since been lost, and this has inhibited comparisons and further analyses. Meanwhile, further work in central Anatolia and beyond has contributed to a better understanding of the process of animal domestication than that available when Perkins wrote.atalhyk is a Neolithic tell site in central Anatolia (fig. 1) dating to 74006200 cal BC (Cessford 2001). It was first excavated in the 1960s by James Mellaart (1967), who defined 12 architectural levels (with level VI later subdivided into VIA and VIB). The site quickly gained renown for its size (13 hectares, at the time the largest known Neolithic site in the Near East), its wellpreserved mudbrick architecture, and especially its dramatic wall paintings and reliefs, some of them incorporating horns and other animal parts, in which cattle and other animals feature prominently. Since 1995, Ian Hodder has directed renewed excavations at atalhyk (Hodder 1999). While the new project has so far excavated considerably less volume than Mellaarts work, recovery of animal bone and other materials has been much enhanced by the use of flotation for large samples of the sediment and 4mm screens for the remainder. The new project has also reached the lowest levels of the site in one area. This has resulted in the addition of levels preXII.AE below Mellaarts level XII.Fig. 1. Location of sites mentioned in the text.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointWe base our discussion here on a sample of the animal bone excavated by the new project as of 2001. This sample consists of 192,143 specimens, of which 24,190 (13%) have been identified to taxon (generally at least to family level, usually to genus or species), including 4,321 cattle specimens. These span levels preXII.DIV, but most derive from Level VI and below. This new sample permits us to revisit the question of cattle domestication. We focus here specifically on this issue and the relation between Perkinss work and that of the new project at atalhyk in its regional context. A fuller account of the cattle remains from atalhyk may be found in a recently published report (Russell and Martin 2005).While there are many possible lines of evidence that can be brought to bear on the detection of animal domestication (e.g., Meadow 1989), the two main criteria applicable to archaeological animal bone assemblages derived from within the range of the wild ancestor (as is the case for cattle in Anatolia) are size reduction and changes in age and sex mortality profiles. The reasons for size reduction under a herding regime are debated (e.g., Zohary, Tchernov, and Horwitz 1998), but it has been observed in several species, including cattle. Decisions by hunters and herders shape the age and sex composition of the animals killed. Hunting and herding strategies vary, but generally human hunters will focus on prime prey (adults, if anything skewed somewhat toward males), while herders will kill off more immature animals and especially young males to preserve the breeding stock and avoid feeding excess animals that will gain little more weight (Ducos 1978, Stiner 1991). It is difficult to determine the sex of immature specimens, so normally we can examine only the adult sex ratio in archaeological assemblages. Thus a typical assemblage resulting from hunting is dominated by the remains of adult animals, with the sexes evenly represented or tilted toward males. A typical assemblage resulting from herding is dominated by the remains of immature animals, with the adult sex ratio heavily skewed toward females.Although Perkins (1964) pioneered the use of demographic evidence to detect herding, he did not apply this technique to the atalhyk cattle. Rather, he based his argument on size reduction, as reflected in measurements of the bones. Perkins (1969) used the measurement for which he had the largest sample size, the distal breadth of the humerus, to assess size change. Even for this measurement, the sample was relatively small (45), so he lumped the measurements into two sets for the levels with adequate sample sizes: level VI (later) and levels XXII (earlier). The mean distal breadth of the humerus in level VI was 86.3 mm while that in levels XXII was 102.0 mm, and Perkins interpreted this as the result of size reduction, indicating that cattle domestication occurred during the occupation.Perkins also saw the dominance of cattle bones in the assemblage (70% in level VI, 79% in levels XXII) as showing heavy reliance on this species which might lead to domestication. However, the renewed excavations have shown that the apparent preponderance of cattle (as well as the scarcity of animal bone that Perkins remarks upon) is the result of poor recovery. Without screens, larger bones and hence the bones of larger animals are more likely to be collected. In fact, sheep and goat form about 70% of the mammal remains from the new excavations, with cattle varying from 20 to 25% in the various levels (Russell and Martin 2000). A preliminary stableisotope study of the human and animal bone indicates that cattle made a negligible contribution to the diet (Richards et al. 2003). Perkins in fact argued that cattle were already being herded in the earlier levels on the basis of the presence of all body parts; hunters often bring back only the meaty parts of their prey to ease transport. This pattern of relatively even bodypart distribution is still evident in the assemblage from the renewed excavations, but there is a general lack of differential transport of meaty portions among all taxa, including others believed to be wild (e.g., deer, boar, equids). This leaves the size reduction as the critical piece of Perkinss argument for domestication.Because of the high degree of fragmentation of the atalhyk animal bones, we faced the same difficulties with respect to sample size of measurements (normally a relatively complete articular end is required to take standard measurements); only 415 of the 4,321 specimens were measurable. Therefore, we have been unable to examine the cattle measurements level by level but have lumped them into three phases, defined to break at roughly the same point as Perkinss analytical units. Phase 1 includes the remains from levels preXII.AD (roughly 74007000 cal BC) and the KOPAL area. The KOPAL area is located just off the tell, and while the deposits there seem to correspond roughly to levels XIpreXII.B, most of the animal bone we have recorded is from the earlier portions. Phase 2 includes levels VIIXII (roughly 70006500 cal BC) and phase 3 levels VIIV (mostly VI; roughly 65006300 cal BC)). Thus, while we have material from a wider range of levels, our phase 3 would roughly correspond to Perkinss later block and our phase 2 to his earlier block, and our phase 1 contains material earlier than that studied by Perkins.We also use another device to increase effective sample sizes: the standard animal differenceoflogs technique (Meadow 1981, Uerpmann 1979). This allows us to put measurements from throughout the body onto a single scale by comparing them with the corresponding measurements of a complete skeleton, the standard animal. The base10 logarithm of the measurement in the standard animal is subtracted from the log of the measurement of the archaeological specimen. These log differences can then be graphed on a single axis, with measurements larger than the standard animal falling above 0 and smaller measurements below. For our standard animal we have used the most complete extant aurochs (wild cattle, Bos primigenius) skeleton, the Ullerslev cow from Denmark (Degerbl and Fredskild 1970). This is a large female animal, likely to fall near the middle of the wild size range.This technique has been criticized on various grounds, summarized by Meadow (1999), who also makes recommendations for good practice. The main difficulty is that it assumes that body parts vary proportionally to the size of the animal. In fact proportions vary by sex, breed, region, etc. Nevertheless, it works well enough to provide a useful basis for comparison. We have followed Meadows recommendations as far as possible, for instance, using only postcranial measurements and only breadths and depths (which respond more directly to the weight of the animal) rather than lengths and averaging multiple measurements from a single specimen or set of articulated specimens. This leaves us with a total set of 156 values for analysis. We have not separated internal and external phalanges as Meadow suggests because, while we were often able to separate them, Degerbl did not do so for the Ullerslev cow. In our data, the variation between the log differences of the same measurement in internal and external phalanges from articulated sets is no greater than that among different measurements of a single phalanx. Therefore we do not feel that this introduces excessive error. We group the differences of logs for graphing into intervals defined such that .11 includes values from .110 to .119, .11 includes values from .100 to .109, and so on.To evaluate the effects of allometry, we first combined the data from the three phases and graphed them together with the values for each dimension (see fig. 2). While the slight offsets observable among the ranges of the various dimensions in the lower part of figure 2 show that there are some allometric differences in proportion between the Ullerslev cow and the atalhyk cattle, these are minor and should not greatly affect the overall distribution. The distribution is not very skewed, with a mean of .020 and median of .021, but it does appear bimodal. The two modes are likely to represent either larger wild and smaller domestic cattle or larger males and smaller females within a single population (wild or domestic).Fig. 2. Standard animal values for cattle from all phases (N = 156) at atalhyk. The values for individual dimensions do not completely correspond to those graphed in the combined bar plot because multiple dimensions from single bones have been averaged for the combined plot. Abbreviations for measurements follow von den Driesch (1976).View Large ImageDownload PowerPointAnalysis of measurements of single elements suggests that this difference is more likely to be caused by sexual dimorphism. Previous work has shown that the breadth and depth of cattle metapodials, especially metacarpals, tend to reflect sexual dimorphism more clearly than other skeletal elements (Bartosiewicz 1987, Thomas 1988). While sample sizes are small, proximal and distal metacarpals do fall into two groups on the basis of these dimensions; distal metatarsals separate somewhat less clearly and scapulae not at all (Russell and Martin 2005: fig. 2.9). This more distinct separation in those dimensions most sensitive to sexual dimorphism indicates that the groupings are likely to be males and females rather than wild and domestic. Moreover, the atalhyk distribution closely resembles that published by Grigson (1989) for Near Eastern wild cattle in both shape and range (although the atalhyk cattle are slightly larger overall). Grigson establishes this bimodality as sexual dimorphism on the basis of comparison with knownsex Danish aurochsen.In addition to Grigsons data, mostly from east of atalhyk, which are also presented as standard animal diagrams based on the Ullerslev cow, comparison of single dimensions with published measurements from Europe (Boessneck, Jquier, and Stampfli 1963, Bknyi 1962, Degerbl and Fredskild 1970) and the Levant (Davis 1981, 1985; Jarman 1969; Peters et al. 1999; Saxon 1974) shows that the atalhyk cattle fall entirely in the wild range. [Raw measurement data are contained in a supplement to the electronic version of this article on the journals web page.]We lack metrical data from a known wild population of cattle in central Anatolia, but a nearby archaeological assemblage that predates atalhyk is now available. Akl Hyk is located about 130 km to the northeast of atalhyk, with a 1,000year sequence (84007400 cal BC) that ends just before the earliest levels of atalhyk (Esin and Harmankaya 1999). We include the cattle remains from Musular, a site 400 m from the tell of Akl Hyk that seems to have had a ritual rather than a residential function (zbaaran 2000). Chronologically, Musular overlaps with the latest levels of Akl Hyk (ca. 76007200 cal BC). The domestication status of the Akl Hyk cattle has not yet been established (Buitenhuis 1997, Martin, Russell, and Carruthers 2002), but whether they are wild or earlier domesticates they would have been larger than the atalhyk cattle if the latter were domesticated. We therefore applied the same standard animal technique to the Akl Hyk cattle measurements (fig. 3). The pattern is similar (although less bimodal when all periods are combined), but in fact the Akl Hyk cattle are slightly smaller overall than those at atalhyk. While atalhyk lies in the Konya Plain, Akl Hyk is situated in the foothills of Cappadocia, probably less prime habitat for cattle. In any case, the lack of diminution does not indicate domestication at atalhyk. Finally, neither at atalhyk nor at Akl Hyk does the size range change through time (figs. 4 and 5).Fig. 3. Standard animal values for cattle from all phases (N = 495) at Akl Hyk and Musular.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointFig. 4. Standard animal values for cattle from atalhyk by phase, arranged chronologically, oldest phase on the bottom.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointFig. 5. Standard animal values for cattle from Akl Hyk and Musular by phase, arranged chronologically, oldest phase on the bottom.View Large ImageDownload PowerPointWhile the range does not change, the shapes of the distributions do. In comparison with Akl Hyk, the distribution at Musular tilts toward larger animals (probably males). This selection for large (male) cattle is also seen in the offtell KOPAL area at atalhyk and in feasting and special deposits ontell (Russell and Martin 2005). At atalhyk, phase 3 shows a shift toward smaller (female) cattle. This is partly explained by the lower proportion of feasting and special deposits in the units analyzed for this phase but extends to all deposits for reasons that are as yet unclear. Ducoss (1988) study of cattle astragali mainly from levels II and III of the Mellaart excavations suggests that an increase in females may persist in the later levels of the site. The age distributions for all three phases have large proportions of adults (four years and older), however, so it does not appear that this marks the beginning of herding, which should see a shift toward younger agegroups (Russell and Martin 2005:fig. 2.10).2 Possibly the increase in females reflects a change in hunting strategy involving greater targeting of femaledominated herds. It is believed that aurochsen formed herds of largely females and immature animals with a small number of mature males for most of the year (outside of the mating period) while most males were solitary or formed small bachelor herds (Bouissou et al. 2001).In any case, the shift to more females in phase 3 helps to explain Perkinss results. Although the size range does not change, the greater proportion of adult females (since usually only mature bones are measured) will produce lower mean values. In our analysis, the means of the log differences for phases 13 are .017, .026, and .003 and the medians .024, .029, and .005. Thus it is not surprising that Perkins found a lower mean value in the later levels, now best explained not as overall size diminution but as a shift in mortality profile to the killing of more adult females. This shows that it is important to examine the range and shape of the distribution as well as the mean. A similar point has been made recently with respect to early domestic goats (Zeder 2001, Zeder and Hesse 2000). In this case, Zeder and Hesse show that the beginning of herding is marked not by actual size diminution in the goats but by a change in culling practices that results in more females among the adults. In fact, the ranges of Perkinss two data sets show little difference at the upper end but a substantial drop at the lower end in the later set. His low end is implausibly small even for early domestic cattle and most likely results from misidentification of red deer humeri as cattle, a mistake he had made elsewhere (Grigson 1989).In conclusion, we wish to stress two points. One is that atalhyk should no longer be viewed as a center of cattle domestication, at least not through level VI. Neither sizechange nor mortalityprofile data support herding. Since cattle remains are in the minority in most Near Eastern Neolithic assemblages, sample size problems have complicated the study of the process of cattle domestication. Present evidence suggests that morphological domestication occurred first in the northern Levant shortly before the beginning of occupation at atalhyk (Peters et al. 1999) and spread west through Anatolia, reaching Hycek (to the west of atalhyk and Akl Hyk) by the end of the occupation at atalhyk (de Cupere and Duru 2003, Hongo et al. 2002). The cattle remains from the later periods at atalhyk currently under excavation will therefore be of great interest, but at the moment there is no indication of local domestication at the site. The other key point is to confirm Zeder and Hesses finding that changes in adult sex ratios can mimic changes in size when only means are compared. It is crucially important to evaluate the ranges and shapes of distributions as well in considerations of animal domestication and to consider alternative explanations for size differences.2Adults account for 45% of the 112 specimens assignable to age categories in phase 1, 39% of 321 specimens in phase 2, and 36% of 96 specimens in phase 3. By way of comparison, the mainly domestic sheep and goats have only 18% adults based on 3,157 specimens (all phases lumped).References CitedBartosiewicz, L. 1987. Cattle metapodials revisited: A brief review. ArchaeoZoologia 1:4751.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarBoessneck, J., J.P. Jquier, and H. R. Stampfli. 1963. Seeberg BurgschiseeSd: Die Tierreste. (Acta Bernensia 2[3].) Bern: Stampfli.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarBknyi, S. 1962. Zur Naturgeschichte des Ures in Ungarn und das Problem der Domestikation des Hausrindes. Acta Archaeologica 14:175214.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarBouissou, M.F., A. Boissy, P. Le neindre, and I. Veissier. 2001. The social behaviour of cattle, in Social behaviour in farm animals. Edited by K. L. Keeling and H. W. Gonyou, pp. 11345. New York: CAB International.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarBuitenhuis, H. 1997. Akl Hyk: A protodomestication site. Anthropozoologica 25/26:65562.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarCessford, C. 2001. A new dating sequence for atalhyk. Antiquity 75:71725.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarDavis, S. J. M. 1981. The effects of temperature change and domestication on the body size of Late Pleistocene to Holocene mammals of Israel. Paleobiology 7:10114.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar. 1985. A preliminary report of the fauna from Hatoula: A NatufianKhiamian (PPNA) site near Latroun, Israel, in Le site NatoufienKhiamien de Hatoula, prs de Latroun, Isral: Fouilles 19801982 rapport prliminaire. Edited by M. Lechevallier and A. Ronen, pp. 7198. Jerusalem: Centre de Recherche Franais de Jrusalem.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarDe Cupere, B., and R. Duru. 2003. Faunal remains from Neolithic Hycek (SWTurkey) and the presence of early domestic cattle in Anatolia. Palorient 29:10720.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarDegerbl, M., and B. Fredskild. 1970. The urus (Bos primigenius Bojanus) Neolithic domesticated cattle (Bos taurus domesticus Linn) in Denmark. (Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Biologiske Skrifter 17[1].) Copenhagen: Munksgaard.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarDriesch, A. von den. 1976. A guide to the measurement of animal bones from archaeological sites. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Bulletin 1.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarDucos, P. 1978. Domestication defined and methodological approaches to its recognition in faunal assemblages, in Approaches to faunal analysis in the Middle East. Edited by R. H. Meadow and M. A. Zeder, pp. 5356. Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Bulletin 2.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar. 1988. Archaeozoologie quantitative: Les valeurs numriques immediates atal Hyk. (Cahiers du Quaternaire 12.) Paris: ditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarEsin, U., and S. Harmankaya. 1999. Akl, in Neolithic in Turkey: The cradle of civilizationnew discoveries. Edited by N. Bagelen and M. zdoan, pp. 11532. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynlar.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarGrigson, C. 1989. Size and sex: Evidence for the domestication of cattle in the Near East, in The beginnings of agriculture. Edited by A. Milles, D. Williams, and N. Gardner, pp. 77109. British Archaeological Reports International Series 496.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHodder, I. 1999. Renewed work at atalhyk, in Neolithic in Turkey, the cradle of civilization: New discoveries. Edited by N. Bagelen and M. zdoan, pp. 15764. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynlar.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHongo, H., R. H. Meadow, B. ksz, and G. lgezdi. 2002. The process of ungulate domestication in Prepottery Neolithic ayn, southeastern Turkey, in Archaeozoology of the Near East V: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas. Edited by H. Buitenhuis, A. M. Choyke, M. Mashkour, and A. H. AlShiyab, pp. 15365. Groningen: Center for Archeological Research and Consultancy.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarJarman, M. R. 1969. The prehistory of Upper Pleistocene and Recent cattle. Part 1. East Mediterranean, with reference to northwest Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35:23666.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarMartin, L., N. Russell, and D. Carruthers. 2002. Animal remains from the central Anatolian Neolithic, in The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal developments and external relations during the 9th6th millennia cal BC. Edited by F. Grard and L. Thissen, pp. 193206. Istanbul: Ege Yaynlar.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarMeadow, R. H. 1981. Early animal domestication in South Asia: A first report of the faunal remains from Mehrgarh, Pakistan, in South Asian archaeology, 1979. Edited by H. Hrtel, pp. 14379. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar. 1989. Osteological evidence for the process of animal domestication, in The walking larder: Patterns of domestication, pastoralism, and predation. Edited by J. CluttonBrock, pp. 8090. London: Unwin Hyman.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar.1999. The use of size index scaling techniques for research on archaeozoological collections from the Middle East, in Historia animalium ex ossibus: Beitrge zur Paloanatomie, Archologie, gyptologie, Ethnologie und Geschichte der Tiermedizin. Edited by C. Becker, H. Manhart, J. Peters, and J. Schibler, pp. 285300. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarMellaart, J. 1967. atal Hyk, a Neolithic town in Anatolia: New aspects of antiquity. London: Thames and Hudson.First citation in articleGoogle Scholarzbaaran, M. 2000. The Neolithic site of MusularCentral Anatolia. Anatolica 26:12951.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarPerkins, D., Jr. 1964. Prehistoric fauna from Shanidar, Iraq. Science 144:156566.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar.1969. Fauna of atal Hyk: Evidence for early cattle domestication in Anatolia. Science 164:17779.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarPeters, J., D. Helmer, A. Von den driesch, and M. Saa segu. 1999. Early animal husbandry in the northern Levant. Palorient 25:2747.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarRichards, M. P., J. A. Pearson, T. I. Molleson, N. Russell, and L. Martin. 2003. Stable isotope evidence of diet at Neolithic atalhyk, Turkey. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:6776.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarRussell, N., and L. Martin. 2000. Neolithic atalhyk: Preliminary zooarchaeological results from the renewed excavations, in Archaeozoology of the Near East IVA: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas. Edited by M. Mashkour, A. M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis, and F. Poplin, pp. 16470. Groningen: Center for Archeological Research and Consultancy.First citation in articleGoogle Scholar.2005. The atalhyk mammal remains, in Inhabiting atalhyk: Reports from the 19951999 seasons. Edited by I. Hodder, pp. 3595. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarSaxon, E. C. 1974. The mobile herding economy of Kebarah Cave, Mt. Carmel: An economic analysis of the faunal remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 1:2745.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarStiner, M. C. 1991. An interspecific perspective on the emergence of the modern human predatory niche, in Human predators and prey mortality. Edited by M. C. Stiner, pp. 14985. Boulder: Westview Press.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarThomas, R. N. W. 1988. A statistical evaluation of criteria used in sexing cattle metapodials. ArchaeoZoologia 2:8392.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarUerpmann, H.P. 1979. Probleme der Neolithisierung des Mittelmeerraums. (Beihefte zum Tbinger Atlas des vorderen Oriente, B 28.) Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarZeder, M. A. 2001. A metrical analysis of a collection of modern goats (Capra hircus aegagrus and C. h. hircus) from Iran and Iraq: Implications for the study of caprine domestication. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:6179.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarZeder, M. A., and B. C. Hesse. 2000. The initial domestication of goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 years ago. Science 287:225457.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarZohary, D., E. Tchernov, and L. R. K. Horwitz. 1998. The role of unconscious selection in the domestication of sheep and goats. Journal of Zoology 245:12935.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Current Anthropology Volume 46, Number S5December 2005 Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/497664 Views: 1981Total views on this site Citations: 36Citations are reported from Crossref 2005 by The WennerGren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reservedPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Mary C. Stiner, Mihriban Özbaşaran, Güneş Duru Aşıklı Höyük: The Generative Evolution of a Central Anatolian PPN Settlement in Regional Context, Journal of Archaeological Research 30, no.44 (Oct 2021): 497–543.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-021-09167-zSafoora Kamjan, Pınar Erdil, Esmee Hummel, Çiler Çilingiroğlu, Canan Çakırlar Traction in Neolithic Çatalhöyük? Palaeopathological analysis of cattle and aurochs remains from the East and West Mounds, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 66 (Jun 2022): 101412.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2022.101412Minghao Lin Introduction, (Sep 2022): 1–22.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15535-2_1Benjamin S Arbuckle, Theo M Kassebaum Management and domestication of cattle ( Bos taurus ) in Neolithic Southwest Asia, Animal Frontiers 11, no.33 (Jun 2021): 10–19.https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfab015Jesse Wolfhagen Re-exam