OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia: WhatBonesand Genescantell us about the Originsand SpreadofPastoralism
AjitaK.PATEL PeabodyMuseum,HarvardUniversity 11 Divinity Avenue,Cambridge,MA02138(U.S.A.) [email protected]
Patel A.K.2009. –OccupationalHistories,Settlements,and SubsistenceinWesternIndia: WhatBonesand Genescantell us about the Originsand SpreadofPastoralism. Anthropo- zoologica 44(1):173-188.
ABSTRACT Byatleast 7000 calBC,hunter-gatherers wereencamped upon stabilized sand dunesin steppicandsemi-aridareasofnorthwesternSouthAsia.Within 4500 years,pastoralcamps,agriculturalsettlements,andeventheoccasional urbancomplexcouldbefoundoverpartsofthissamelandscape.Investigation ofanimalboneremainsfrom afewofthesesites,togetherwithconsideration ofrecentstudiesofanimalgenetics,provide abasisforunderstanding some oftheprocessesinvolved in thisprehistorictransformation. Discussion in thispaperfocuseson thedune-top siteofLoteshwarin NorthGujarat, forwhichastrategicdating programhasgenerated aseriesofAMS C14 determinationsspanning fivemillenniaoffirst hunter-gathererandthen pastoraloccupations.Archaeofaunalremainsdemonstrateachangein animal usefrom anexclusivefocus on wildanimalstotheexploitationofdomestic KEYWORDS cattle.Theevidence forbothwildanddomesticcattleatLoteshwarindicates South Asia, North Gujarat, thatNorthGujaratisanimportantarea toinvestigateasoneofthemultiple Loteshwar, centers forzebu( Bos indicus )domestication thataresuggested bygenetic site formation processes, Bosindicus, researchonmodernforms.Incontrast,becauseoftheabsence ofanyevidence cattle domestication, fortheirwildrelativeshaving beenintheregion,itisclearthatdomestic pastoralism, sheepandgoatwerebroughtintotheNorthGujaratregion,probablyfrom Microlithic, Chalcolithic, animal genetics. areastotheNorthwest.
RÉSUMÉ Occupations,peuplementsetsubsistance enInde occidentale:apportsde l’ostéologie etde lagénétiqueàlarecherchesurlesoriginesetladiffusion dupastoralisme Dès7000 av.J.-C.aumoins,deschasseurs-cueilleurs campaientsur des dunesde sablestabilisées,danslesrégionssteppiquesetsemi-aridesdunord- ouest de l’AsieduSud.En4500 ans,sesuccèdent,sur certainespartiesde cesmêmespaysages,descampements de pasteurs,desoccupationsagricoles
ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) ©PublicationsScientifiquesduMuséumnationald’Histoirenaturelle,Paris. 173 PatelA.K.
etmêmeoccasionnellementuncomplexeurbain. L’examende vestiges osseux animaux provenantde quelques-unsde cessites,associéàlapriseen comptederécentesétudessur lagénétiqueanimale, fournissentunebase pour lacompréhension de quelques-unsdesprocessus impliquésdanscette transformation préhistorique.Cetarticleest centrésur lesitedeLoteshwar, quisetrouveausommetd’unedune, danslenordduGujaratetpour lequel unprogrammestratégiquededatation afourni unesériededéterminations enAMS 14C,s’étendantsur cinqmillénaires,d’occupationsd’abordde chasseurs-cueilleurs puisde pasteurs.Lesvestigesde faunedémontrentun changementdansl’utilisation desanimaux,quipassed’unintérêtexclusif MOTS CLÉS pour lafaunesauvageàl’exploitation de bétail domestique.Laprésence de AsieduSud, nordduGujarat, bovinssauvagesaussibienquedomestiquesàLoteshwarindiquequelenord Loteshwar, duGujaratest unezoneimportanteàexplorer,entantquel’undesmultiples processus de formation dessites, Bos indicus , centrespour ladomestication duzébu( Bos indicus ),cequesuggèrentles domestication dubétail, recherchesgénétiquessur lesformesmodernes.Enrevanche, enraison de pastoralisme, l’absence de formessauvagesde moutonsetchèvresdanslarégion,il est Microlithique, Chalcolithique, clairquelesformesdomestiquesontétéimportéesdanslenordduGujarat, génétiqueanimale. probablementdeszonesdunord-ouest.
INTRODUCTION domesticcattle(bulls,cows,bullocks),goats,sheep, waterbuffalo,camels,and/orequidsisconsidered Throughout most regionsoftheOldWorldanimal apastoralist,whateverthenumberofanimalshus- exploitationhaschanged from themoreimmediate banded andwhereveron thecontinuumofsedentary returnsofhunting andscavenging tothemore tomobilethelifestylefalls.Pastoralpracticescanbe delayed returnsofanimalhusbandry andpastoralism. combined withoneormoreofhunting,gathering, Howdidthischangetakeplace?Whathappened cultivation,andplantagriculture, thedegree towhich tothehunter-gatherers? Didpastoralismspread eachoftheseactivitiescontributestothelivelihood through interaction betweenpeoples,orthrough ofapopulation being subjecttoinvestigation. population replacementresulting from immigra- Some9000 calendaryears ago,populationsof tion,orthrough societaltransformation?Orwas hunter-gatherers occupied thetopsofstabilized thesituation morecomplex,involving various mixes sanddunesin steppicandsemi-aridareasofnorth- ofthethree during thedevelopmentofherding westernSouthAsia.Within 4500 years,agricultural andfarmingandthecoming ofurbanism?This settlements andpastoralcampswerespread over paperrepresents part oftheprocess ofaddressing thissamelandscape, andscattered urbancomplexes theseissuesfornorthwesternSouthAsiawhere, in covered areasofuptoasquarekilometereach. landscapesthatareless disturbed bymodernactivi- Zooarchaeologicalinvestigationsofafewsitesin ties,archaeologicalinvestigationshaverevealed the NorthGujaratandKutch(Fig. 1),combined with remainsofhunter-gathererandpastoralactivities, consideration oftheimplicationsofgeneticstudies sometimesbothonthesamesite(Sankalia1946, ofanimals,provideaframeworkforunderstanding 1965,1974;Allchin &Allchin1982,Possehl & someoftheprocessesinvolved in thismajorchange Rissman1992,Ajithprasad &Sonawane1993). ofhuman-animalrelationshipsin thepast.This “Pastoralism”asused in thispaperrefers tothe paperparticularlyfocuseson thedune-top site breeding,raising,andmanaging ofdomesticated ofLoteshwarin NorthGujaratwhereastrategic, ungulatesbymembers ofahumansociety ( e.g. , site-formation-specificdating programgenerated Meadow1992,Patel1997,Meadow&Patel2003). aseriesofAMS C14 dates.Whilethesedatesshow IntheSouthAsiancontext,anyperson who keeps along occupationalhistory forthesitespanning
174 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) OccupationalHistories,Settlements,andSubsistence in WesternIndia
ofanyevidence forwildrelativesin theregion,itis evidentthatdomesticsheepandgoatwerebrought intoNorthGujaratregion,probablyfrom areasto theNorthwest (Meadow&Patel2003; Patel2008).
ARCHAEOLOGICALBACKGROUND AND TERMINOLOGY
ThearchaeologicallandscapeofnorthwesternSouth Asiaisrepresented byaculturalmosaic, which includessitescharacterized byMicrolithic, Chalco- lithic, and/orHarappancomponents.Microlithic settlements arethoseoftencalled “Mesolithic”in theliteratureandcandateanywherefrom theearly Holocenetothehistoricperiod( e.g. ,Sankalia1946, 1965,1987; Misra1985,1996). Deposits atsome ofthesesiteshaveonlymicrolithictoolsandbones, whiledeposits atothersiteshaveyielded ceramics andevenmetalstogetherwiththemicrolithics. Atsiteswithevidence formultipleoccupations, aso-called “Mesolithic”maybe defined belowa Chalcolithic, in turnbelowanIron Age, andso on. Considering thelong timespanandvaried natureofsuchdeposits,Iprefertousetheterm “Microlithic”onlyasaneutraldescriptorreferring tothestonetool industryin ordertoavoidany chronological,cultural,andeconomicovertones (Patel2008: footnote4). Chalcolithicsettlements aredominated byceramics togetherwithsomemetalandstoneobjects.These havevarying degreesofHarappanaffiliation that isjudged on thebasisofthequantity andqua- F IG.1.—Mapshowing locationsof archaeologicalsitesin lity ofclassicHarappanparaphernalia, including northwesternSouthAsia. ceramics,whichhavebecomethehallmarksofthe Indus civilization (ca.2600–1800 calBC). These fivemillennia, theyalsohelp us tounderstandthe sitesalsovary in size, natureoftheremains,and uniquenatureofthehunter-gathererandpastoral sitefunction.Siteslocated on thefossil sanddunes settlements in theregion. Inaddition,theyserve ofNorthGujaratthatweresurveyed andexcavated tohighlightnotablechangesin animalusefrom an in the1980s and1990s belong tothiscategory exclusivefocus on wildfaunatotheincorporation of (Hegde &Sonawane1986; Hegde etal. 1988, domesticanimalsparticularlycattle.Theevidence for IndianArchaeology –AReview(hereafter“IAR ”) bothwildanddomesticcattleatLoteshwarsuggests 1982to1995) (Fig. 1). thatNorthGujaratisanimportantarea toinvesti- Thedevelopmentandexpression oftheHarappan gateasapossiblelocalcenterofzebu( Bos indicus ) phenomenonandoftheChalcolithicin thediffe- domestication,apossibility thathasrecentlybeen rentpartsofnorthwesternSouthAsiaarevariable. supported bygeneticresearch(Magee, Mannen& Thisvariabilityisclearlyreflectedin thedifferent Bradley2007). Incontrast,becauseoftheabsence ceramictraditionsfoundthroughout theregion.
ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) 175 PatelA.K.
F IG.2.—Drawing of stratigraphicsection atLoteshwar:Northsection of TrenchI.
Theceramicsfrom theChalcolithicdeposits at oneconventionalradiocarbon daterunonchar- manysitesin NorthGujarathavebeendefined as red bonefrom PeriodIatLoteshwar(PRL-1567). belonging toadistinctregionalpottery tradition, Thiscalibratestoamedianprobability of4703 BC called “Anarta”(Ajithprasad &Sonawane1993). andisdiscussed in moredetail below.(Notethat Thebeginning ofthistradition isdated asearlyas medianprobability calibrated BC datesarecited thefourthmillenniumBC,whichisamillennium in thetext; uncalibrated determinations,both1- beforethedevelopmentoftheHarappanpheno- and2-sigmacalibrated rangesBC,andthemedian menon in theregion. Anartaceramicscontinue probability calBC arepresented in Table1and through thethirdandintothesecondmillennium displayed in Fig. 3). BC atmanysiteswithsomeassociated changes TheChalcolithicdeposits arebetween10and80cm includingtheincorporationofHarappanvessel thicklocated immediatelybelowthesurface.Inaddi- shapes(Sonawane&Ajithprasad 1994). tion therearealsomanyChalcolithicpits thatpene- tratetheAceramicMicrolithicdeposits sometimes tonaturalsediment.Thesepits vary in dimensions, LOTESHWAR ranging between50to200 cmindiameterand50 to200 cmindepth(Fig. 2). Theycontain Anarta Loteshwar,located on themargin ofasalty waste ceramics,animalbones,steatitemicro-beads,shell depression east oftheLittleRann ofKutch,isone banglesandbeads,stonebeads,terra-cottaobjects, ofanumberofsitesin NorthGujaratwithMicro- andburntclaylumpswithreed impressions.Micro- lithicandChalcolithicdeposits.TheMicrolithic lithictoolsarealsofoundin thesepits.Giventhat component,called PeriodI,isstratified below theChalcolithicpits weredugintoandsometimes ChalcolithicPeriodII withnosterilelayerbetween through theAceramicMicrolithicdeposits,many thetwo. Neitherofthecomponents hasyielded any ofthesetoolsandanimalbonesfrom thepits could evidence ofsignificantarchitecture( IAR 1990-91: havecomefrom theearlierAceramicMicrolithic 12-16). TheMicrolithicdeposits are50to100 cm component.Thisaspectofsiteformation processes in thickness andarerepresented byanearlierLayer atLoteshwarissignificantforinterpreting all ofthe 3andalaterLayer2(Fig. 2). Theyarerichinboth archaeologicalremainsfrom thesite.Twocarbon geometricandnon-geometricmicroliths,lithic samplesfrom twodifferentpits haveyielded conven- debitage, “pallettestones”,andfaunalremains. tionalradiocarbon dateswithmedianprobabilitiesof Thesedeposits aredevoidofanyceramicsand 3706 and2993calBC (PRL-1565andPRL-1564, arereferred toas“AceramicMicrolithic”.Thereis respectively:Table1andFig. 3).
176 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) OccupationalHistories,Settlements,andSubsistence in WesternIndia
T ABLE 1. —Radiocarbon determinationsfrom Loteshwarin approximatestratigraphicorder(latest on top). Calibrationscalculated using CALIB 5.0.2. See Stuiverand Reimer(1993)forthe computerprogramand Reimeretal. (2004) forthe calibration datasets.Medianprob.=Median probability.Conventionaldeterminations:forPRL-1564,PRL-1565,PRL-1567,see IAR (1993-94:140). AMS determinations:CAMS sampleswerepretreated byStaffordResearchLaboratories,Inc.and weredated bythe LawrenceLivermoreNationalLaboratory’s CenterforAcceleratorMass Spectrometry (CAMS);forsamplepreparation protocol,see Patel (2008). C on t e xt igm a igm a s igm a s igm a a nd – 2s + 2s +1 M edi a n –1 no. life ca l BC ca l BC p r o b . ca l BC Ma t e r i a l D e t r m. : 55 6 8 h a lf ca l BC ca l BC Lab S i t e P e r iod CAMS-55905LoteshwarChalcolithic charred bone 3800±502458 2333 22432141 2049 TrenchI, Pit3 Bone# LTS IP3AC29#145 CAMS-55904LoteshwarChalcolithic charred bone 4850±503760 3698 3645 3537 3521 TrenchI, Pit2 Bone# LTS IP2AC25#14 CAMS-55903 LoteshwarChalcolithic charred bone 4890±50378737093681 36393536 TrenchI, Pit1 Bone# LTS IP1AC22#5 PRL-1564LoteshwarChalcolithic charcoal4334±1103349 3316299327792639 TrenchI, Pit2 PRL-1565LoteshwarChalcolithic charcoal4907±110395739093706 35343382 TrenchI, Pit4 CAMS-55898 LoteshwarMicrolithic charred bone 7210±4062106098 6067 6014 6005 TrenchI, Layer2 (top) 20-60 cm Bone# LTS IA'AC10#171 CAMS-35362 LoteshwarMicrolithic charred bone 6630±60 56425620 5567 5527 5479 TrenchI, Layer2 60-70 cm Bone# LTS IA'AC18#8 CAMS-55902 LoteshwarMicrolithic charred bone 8170±507319 728771687073 7061 TrenchI, Layer3 (lower)96-100 cm Bone# LTS IA'AC2#102 PRL-1567 LoteshwarMicrolithic charred bone 5840±115 49904830 4703 4549 4453 TrenchI, Layer3 (base) 143-155 cm
LOTESHWARFAUNALREMAINS TrenchIwasselected fortheanalysisbecauseof its deepstratification andwell recorded contextual Theanalysisoffaunalremainsfrom Loteshwarfocused information. Inaddition,thesamplesthatproduced on materialexcavated from TrenchIlocated on the thethree conventionaldatesmentioned abovecome westernside ofthehighest portion ofthemound. from thisexcavation unit.Boneswerehandpicked
ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) 177 PatelA.K.
Faunalmaterialfrom theAceramicMicrolithic deposits comesfrom Layers 2and3andthatofthe Chalcolithicdeposits from Layer1andfrom Pits 1,2,3,and4. Materialfrom eachoftheseseven contextualunits wasanalyzed separately.Asthere wereno obvious differencesin faunalprofileswithin theChalcolithicdeposits,however,theanalytical results forthatcomponentwerecombined toproduce anassemblagecloserin size(2,201specimens)to thosefrom AceramicMicrolithicLayers 2(15,412 specimen) and3(7,150specimens). Theresults ofthefaunalanalysisshowthatremains from onlywildanimalsarefoundin thetwoAce- ramicMicrolithiclayers.Thefaunalprofilesfor bothLayers 2and3aresimilar,withbonesfrom blackbuck(Antilopecervicapra )dominating the assemblages(Fig. 4). Muchless well-represented animalsinclude gazelle, boar,wildcattle, wildwater buffalo,nilgai,hemione, andatleast twoformsof deer(see Table2)(Patel&Meadow1998a;Patel 2008). TheChalcolithicdeposits arealsodomi- nated bytheremainsofblackbuck,but withthe significantadditionofthebonesofdomesticcattle (see below). Excluding cattlefrom thefaunalprofile fortheChalcolithicproducesaresultsimilartothat F IG.3.—Radiocarbon datesfrom Microlithicsitesin north- from theAceramicMicrolithic, raising thepossibi- westernSouthAsia: Loteshwar,Nagwada, and Langhnaj(North Gujarat)and Bagor(southernRajasthan). Laboratory sam- lity thatmost,ifnotall,ofthesmallerwildbovid ple identifiers and numbers arepresented on the x-axis:A= bonesfoundin theChalcolithicdeposits actually University of Arizona;CAMS =LawrenceLivermoreNational Laboratory’sCenterforAcceleratorMass Spectrometry,PRL = derived from theearlierMicrolithiccomponent. PhysicalResearchLaboratory,Ahmedabad,Gujarat,India;TF Thatthispossibility iswell worthconsidering is =TataInstituteofFundamentalResearch,Bombay,India.All determinationsexceptCAMS areconventionalradiocarbon strengthened byevaluation ofkill-off patternsand dates.Bar-and-whiskerplots show1-sigmaand 2-sigmaranges bonecondition. and intercepts of calibrated BC dates.See Table 1fordetailsof Looking atkill-off patternsbased on epiphyseal Loteshwardatesand Patel (2008) fordetailsof the datesfrom Nagwada, Langhnaj,and Bagor. union forthesmall wildbovids(blackbuckand gazelle)(Fig. 5),thosefrom all three analytical units aresimilar,withtheexception ofthevalues from eachexcavated lotaswell asrecovered through forthelatest fusing (lowbonedensity)long-bone dry sieving using aca.2mm mesh,whichensured articularends,whicharealsotheleast well represen- therecovery ofsmallerskeletalelements suchassmall ted, probablyfortaphonomicreasons.Asforbone animalcarpalsandtarsals.Therecovered materialwas condition,most ofthesmall wildbovidbonesfrom generallyin agoodstateofpreservation,although theChalcolithicwerefoundcovered withcalcium most specimens,especiallyfrom theearlierlayers,were carbonateencrustationsin amannersimilartothose encrusted withcalciumcarbonate, whichprecluded from theAceramicMicrolithiclayers,in contrast detailed studyofbonesurfacesforcut marksandfor tothesituation withthebonesofsmall (domestic) agencyofbreakage.However,thiscondition didhelp cattle, whichwerenotsocovered.Ifonedoesnot topreserveanumberofarticulated joints,particularly takeintoaccountthedifferencesin bonecondition, ofthecarpals,tarsals,andlowerlimbs,thus providing thenonecaninterpretthefaunalprofiles(Fig. 4) information on carcass-processing practices. andsmall wildbovidkill-off patterns(Fig. 5) forthe
178 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) OccupationalHistories,Settlements,andSubsistence in WesternIndia
F IG.4.—Relativefrequenciesof occurrenceofdifferent mammaliantaxafrom the Microlithicand Chalcolithiccompo- nents atLoteshwar.Percentagesarebased on numbers of iden- tified specimens.“Chalcolithicw/oBos”iscalculated from the same assemblage as“Chalcolithic”but doesnotinclude “Bos” specimens.“LowerMicrolithic”ismaterialfrom MicrolithicLayer 3; “UpperMicrolithic”ismaterialfrom MicrolithicLayer2.“Chal- colithic”includesmaterialfrom bothChalcolithicLayer1and the Chalcolithicpits (see Fig. 2).
ChalcolithicatLoteshwartosuggest theadoption ofcattlepastoralismbyhunter-gatherers.However, thesimilarity betweentheAceramicMicrolithicand Chalcolithiccomponents asfarassmall wildbovid dataareconcerned, aswell asconsideration ofbone condition andofthepresence ofChalcolithicpits dugintotheMicrolithicdeposits,meanthatone must considerthelikelihoodthattherewasmixing ofearlierAceramicMicrolithicremainswithlater Chalcolithicones.Undersuchcircumstances,only typesofremainsnotfoundin earlierdeposits can be securelyattributed tothelaterdeposits.
T ABLE 2.—Mammaliantaxaidentified from Loteshwar. Wild forms: Equidae Equus hemionus khur Cervidae Small cervid Axisaxis chitaldeer Axisporcinus hog deer Large cervid Bovidae Small bovid Antilope cervicapra blackbuck Gazellabennetti chinkhara, gazelle Large bovid Boselaphus tragocamelus nilgai,bluebull Bosprimigenius wild cattle Bubalus arnee wild waterbuffalo Leporidae Lepus sp. hare Felidae Small felid Mediumfelid
Domesticforms: Bovidae Small bovid Ovisaries domesticsheep Large bovid Bosindicus zebu
ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) 179 PatelA.K.
larcomponent.Bydating bonesofwildanimals from theAceramicMicrolithiclevelsandthoseof domesticanimalsfrom theChalcolithicpits,we aredirectlydatingmaterialsofculturalsignificance andnotdepending on associated datesprovided by charcoalpieces. Sixcharred bonefragments wereselected fordating, three from eachcomponent.Thosefrom theAcera- micMicrolithiclevelsarefrom wildanimals.They include onehumerusfragmentfrom blackbuck andtwolong boneshaftfragments alsoprobably from blackbuck. Thosefrom theChalcolithicare all from domesticcattle.Theyinclude afemur,a humerus,andafirst phalanx.Burned boneswere selected becauseprevious collagenextraction attempts on uncharred bonesfrom Loteshwarshowed that F IG.5.—Small bovid (blackbuckand gazelle) kill-offpatterns from Loteshwarbased on stateofepiphysealfusion of appen- thereisno boneprotein surviving. Incontrast, dicularskeletalparts arrayed along the x-axisfrom youngest (left)tooldest (right). Inthe absenceofpublished dataforblack- charred boneprotein ismoreresistanttoleaching buck(Antilope cervicapra),the fusion sequenceisbased on that andthus standsabetterchance ofproviding suf- publishedforWest AsiaticGazella(Davis1980),supplemented ficientoriginalcarbon foradate.Theboneswere byobservation of modernblackbuckspecimensin zoological collections. submitted toStaffordResearchLaboratoriesfor pretreatmentanddating. Theresulting determi- nationsareatotal-organic-carbon bonedateand LOTESHWARAMS assuchprovide minimumagesforthespecimens RADIOCARBON DATES dated (Patel2008: 128-129). Thethree AceramicMicrolithicAMS dates(Table Inordertoevaluatetheseinterpretations,aswell 1andFig. 3)calibratetotheendoftheeighth astodeterminethechronologyofthesiteandhow millennium(CAMS-55902:median7168calBC), earlyitwasthatdomesticcattlewerebeing exploi- totheendoftheseventhmillennium(CAMS- ted, aprogramofdirectAMS dating ofanimal 55898: median6067 calBC),andtothemiddle boneswasdeveloped, building on thepreviously ofthesixthmillennium(CAMS-35362:median availableconventionalcharcoalandbonedatesfrom 5567 calBC). Theyareall earlierthantheconven- thesite(fordetails,see Patel2008: 128-129). As tionalbonedatethatcomesfrom thebaseofthe noted above, theseconventionaldatesinclude one AceramicMicrolithicdeposits (median4703 calBC). on charred bonefrom theAceramicMicrolithic Asstated abovewehaveno information on how andtwooncharcoalfrom theChalcolithic.As theconventionallydated specimenwaspretreated noted previously,theAceramicMicrolithicdate andthus cannotevaluateits reliability. hasamedianprobability ofca.4703 calBC,and AsfortheChalcolithicdeterminationsfrom bovine theChalcolithicdateshavemedianprobabilitiesof bones(Table1andFig. 3),twoofthethree dates 3706 and2993calBC (Table1andFig. 3). calibratetothefirst halfofthefourthmillennium AproblemwiththeAceramicMicrolithicdeter- (CAMS-55903:median3681calBC andCAMS- mination isthatthedateisfrom anunidentified 55904:median3645 calBC)andthethirdtothe specimen,thepretreatmentofwhichisnotspecified. secondhalfofthethirdmillennium(CAMS-55905: AproblemwiththeChalcolithicdeterminationsis median2243calBC). ThetwoearlyAMS datesfall thatthecharcoalpiecescouldhavecomeoriginally in thesamerangeastheearlieroftheconventional from theAceramicMicrolithiccomponent.Insuch charcoaldates(PRL-1565:median3706 calBC), asituation whatneedstobe dated ismaterialthat suggesting thatthelatterisreliable.All fiveofthe hasahigh probability ofbelonging toaparticu- Chalcolithicdatestakentogetherconfirmanearly
180 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) OccupationalHistories,Settlements,andSubsistence in WesternIndia
fourthmillenniumbeginning forthatcomponentat garh(see below)andfrom thethirdmillennium LoteshwarandindicatealaterChalcolithicpresence urbansiteofDholavirain Kutch(Patel1997). On orcontinuation through thethirdmillenniumcalBC. thatbasisitisvery likelythattheChalcolithiccattle bonesfrom Loteshwarcomefrom domesticanimals. Fifth,asthedatesclearlyshow,domesticcattlewere IMPLICATIONS:CHRONOLOGICAL part oftheeconomyofNorthGujaratasearlyasthe AND SETTLEMENT TYPE beginning ofthefourthmillenniumcalBC.This determination itselfraisesanimportantquestion. Thereareanumberofimplicationsofthesedates Weretheseanimalsbroughtfrom anotherarea of from Loteshwar.First,theysituatetheAceramic SouthAsiaorweretheydomesticated locally? Microlithichabitation earlyin theHolocene, making Cattledomestication bythesixthmillenniumcalBC itamong theearliest dated sitesforthemicrolithicin hasbeenestablished forthesiteofMehrgarhin northwesternSouthAsia(Misra1996; Lechevallier easternPakistani Balochistan,fartothenorthwest 2003). Second, thereisagapofnearly1500 years ofLoteshwar(Meadow1981,1993,1996). During betweentheMicrolithicandtheChalcolithiccom- theearliest periodatMehrgarh,thatoftheAce- ponents.Third, eachofthetwocomponents covers ramicNeolithic, thereweresignificantchangesin asignificantperiodoftime—morethanathousand theexploitation ofcattle.Theseareindicated bya years.Thissuggeststhatthereareactuallytheremains marked increasein theirrepresentation in thefaunal ofmultipleoccupationswithin eachofthecomponents. assemblagethrough timeandanoverall decrease Giventheapparentabsence ofstructuralactivity at in thesizeoftheanimalsrepresented.Thiscombi- Loteshwar,theseoccupationsarelikelytohavebeen nation ofquantitativeandmorphometricevidence short-lived.Theymayrepresentepisodicyear-round led toasuggestion oflocalcattledomestication or,morelikely(becauseoftheseasonality ofmoisture thatsubsequentlyhasbeensupported bygenetic availability in theregion),single-season settlements or evidence (see below). camps.Likemanysitesin NorthGujarat,Loteshwaris However,thebroad distribution ofwildcattlethrough located on top ofastabilized sanddune.Depressions muchofnorthwesternSouthAsialeavesopenthe betweenthedunescollectwaterduring themonsoons possibility thattheremayhavebeenmultiplelocal andcontinuetobe reservoirs ofmoistureandof centers ofdomestication oftheseanimals.Asnoted, vegetation during thedry season. Theythus serveas therearetheremainsoflargewildcattlein theAce- primefeeding andwatering zonesforanimalsandan ramicMicrolithicdeposits atLoteshwar,indicating attraction tohunters andpastoralists especiallywhen thatsuchanimalswereavailablelocally.This,together otherareashavedried up. withthepresence ofmorphometricallysmall-sized cattleatLoteshwarbythefirst halfofthefourth millenniumcalBC,suggest thatNorthGujaratis IMPLICATIONS: animportantarea toinvestigateforthepossibility DOMESTICATION AND PASTORALISM oflocaldomestication (Meadow&Patel2003; Patel 2008). Inaddition,todatethereisno evidence of Afourthimplication ofthedatesrelatestoanimal directculturalinteraction betweentheMehrgarh exploitation. Thereisno zooarchaeologicalevidence region andNorthGujarat,although theintervening foranykindofpastoralismduring theAceramic area isarchaeologicallypoorlyknownforthisperiod. MicrolithicatLoteshwar.Thiscontrasts withwhat hasbeenclaimed forotherMicrolithicsitesin southernRajasthanandGujarat(see below). Inthe GENES:CATTLE Chalcolithicdeposits,however,thereisarelatively high proportion ofcattlebones.Theseareall smal- Thatmultipledomesticationsofcattletook place lerin sizethanthecattlebonesfrom theAceramic in SouthAsiaissupported bygeneticstudies.Over Microlithicandcomparablein sizetocattlebones thecourseofthe1990s,theworkofgeneticists from thelateNeolithicandChalcolithicatMehr- from Trinity College, Dublin,established thatthe
ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) 181 PatelA.K.
majorgeneticdivide in cattleisbetweenhumped groupAisbyfarthemost commonlyrepresented zebuforms( Bos indicus )andEuropeannon-hum- among themodernanimalstested from almost all ped forms( Bos taurus ),bothofwhichweremost areasofEurasia.Oftheotherfivegroups,B,C,and likelytohavebeendomesticated separately(Loftus Darefoundin higherfrequenciesin differentparts etal .1994;Bradley etal .1996). Worksince that ofAsiaoutside ofWest Asia.Thesemayrepresent timehasprimarilyfocused on documenting genetic recruitmentofdoes(femalegoats)intoanoriginal diversity within Bos taurus ( e.g. ,Troy etal .2001; domesticstockfrom otherwildpopulationsof Capra Bruford etal .2003 formtDNA). Somestudiesfor aegagrus .Inaddition oralternatively,theymayreflect Bos indicus havetakenplace, however,andthese separatedomestication events based on localwild suggest theexistence oftwomajormitochondrial formsin far-flung areasoftheoriginalzoneofdis- DNAhaplogroups(orhaplotypeclusters),namely, tribution of Capraaegagrus in West Asia(including Z1andZ2(Baig etal .2005;Magee, Mannen& theIranianPlateauandBalochistanhighlandswest Bradley2007). Based on thedistribution ofthe oftheIndus Valley:Uerpmann 1987). Analysis modernsampled populations,theZ1typesequence ofmtDNAsampled from modernpopulationsof appears morefrequentlyin thewesternportion of Capraaegagrus across theMiddleEast,however,has thesubcontinentandZ2moretotheeast.The led Naderi etal .(2008)tosuggest thattherewere existence ofthesetwophylogeographicallydif- onlytwosignificantcenters ofgoatdomestication – ferentiated haplogroupssuggests thattherewere onein southeasternAnatolia/northwesternZagros twoormoreseparatelociofdomestication for Bos (haplogroupA)andthesecondin southeasternIran indicus in SouthAsia.Indeed, themitochondrial (haplogroupC). Theystatethat“our results confirm datawouldseemtosupport multiplematernal thatgoats werenotdomesticated in thearea ofthe contributionstothegeneticmake-upofmodern Indus Valleyandsuggest thattheearlyNeolithic domesticzebu,giventheamountofphylogenetic domesticgoats in thisarea camefrom (greaterthan) distinctiveness evidentin the Bos indicus portion 1,000 km tothewest:thatis,muchfurtherthan ofthemitochondrialDNAtree. previouslysuspected”(Naderi etal .2008: 17663). Insum,thegeneticevidence supportsthelikelihood Asfordomesticsheep,uptofivemtDNAhaplo- thatthemoderndistribution ofzebucattleresulted groupshavebeenidentified (Meadows etal .2007, bothfrom multipledomestication events in diffe- following previous workpublished byHiendleder et rentpartsofSouthAsiaandfrom thespread ofthe al .2002 andbyPedrosa etal .2005,among others). resulting domesticanimalstonewareaswithin and Ofthese, themost frequentlyrepresented in modern outside ofsubcontinent.Incontrast,thesituation populationstested sofararehaplogroupsAandB, withsheepandgoatisdifferentbothgenetically thelatterdominated bydomesticindividualsfrom andarchaeologically. Europe, theformerincluding animalsfrom across Eurasia.GroupCcomprisesmostlydomesticsheep from theMiddleEast andAsia, whileDandEhave GENES:GOATAND SHEEP recentlybeenidentified on thebasisofstudyofa very fewindividualsfrom thenorthernCaucasus Taking thephylogeographicsituation forgoats first,at (groupD:Tapio etal .2006)andfrom Israeland presentsixdistinctivemitochondrialDNA(mtDNA) Turkey(groupE:Meadows etal .2007). However, haplogroupshavebeendefined in moderndomestic no mtDNAfrom anystudied extantwildsheep animals(Naderi etal .2007,following previous stu- seemstoclustercloselywiththemtDNAfrom any diesbyLuikart etal .2001andbyJoshi etal .2004, ofthefivedomestichaplogroups.Thisleavesopen among others). Eachrepresents acontribution tothe thepossibility thatnow-extinctpopulationsofwild goatgenepool from adifferentancestralpopulation sheep,possiblymost closelyrelated tomodern Ovis probablyfrom within thespecies Capraaegagrus (but orientalis (mouflon),provided thedomesticfounder see Pidancier etal .2006 forthepossibility ofboth stock. Aswithgoats,however,thereseemstohave paternalandmaternalgeneticcontributionsfrom beenmorethanonesheepdomesticationevent(or atleast oneotherspecies). MitochondrialDNA possiblyrecruitments)within thearea ofdistribu-
182 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) OccupationalHistories,Settlements,andSubsistence in WesternIndia
tion ofthewildformsbetweentheMediterranean least someanimalshaving beendomesticated from andtheIndus Valley. thebeginning ofoccupation atthesite.Notonly Based on theorigin anddistribution ofdomes- weresmall adultindividualsrepresented early,but ticindividualstested atthattime, Hiendleder humanburialsweresometimesaccompanied by etal .(2002)suggested thatsheephaplogroupB uptofiveyoung goats all underthree monthsof reflects anancestral Ovis orientalis population in age, suggesting readyaccess toherded populations West Asia, andgroupAderivesfrom afounding (Lechevallier,Meadow&Quivron 1982). mouflon population fartherEast.Suchascenario Mehgarhlieson theeasternmargin oftheMiddle issupported bytheworkofCai etal .(2007),who East,whichisalsotodaytheeasternmargin ofthe analyzed ancientmtDNAfrom eightspecimens distribution ofWest Asianwildsheep(Ovis orientalis) from thesiteofErlitou(HenanProvince, China, andwildgoats ( Capraaegagrus )aswell ashometo ca.2100-1800 calBC). Theresults from all speci- localformsofwildsheep(Ovis vignei )andwildgoat menswerefoundtoclusterwithgroupA,which ( Caprafalconeri)(Uerpmann 1987,Roberts1997). wouldseemtosupport amoreeasternorigin in Thus theseanimalscouldhavebeendomesticated prehistory forthisgroup. Ashasalsobeenshown locallyin SouthAsia, albeitin anarea restricted to bygeneticanalysesofancientcattle( Bos sp.)and thenorthwesternmargin ofthesubcontinent.Well pig ( Sus sp.)specimens,thisapproachtothestudy before3000 calBC,however,domesticsheepand oftheoriginsandspread ofdomesticanimalscan goathad spread intotheIndus Valley,tojudgefrom provide particularlyvaluableinsights intochanging theirremainsidentified from Period1adeposits patternsofanimaldistribution through time( e.g. , atHarappa(Punjab,Pakistan,3700-3000 calBC: Edwards etal .2007,Larson etal .2007a, 2007b). R.H.Meadow,personalcommunication). Bythe middleofthethirdmillennium,theseanimals werewidespread throughout northwesternSouth BONES AND ARCHAEOLOGY Asia, within thesphereoftheIndus Civilization andbeyond.Theprocessesandmechanismsof Asearlyas1981,Meadow(1981,1984,1993,1996) thisspread remain poorlyknown,becausethereis proposed thatthefaunalremainsfrom Mehrgarh littleinformation availableabout thearchaeology provided evidence forthelocaldomestication of ofareaseast andsoutheast ofBalochistanforthe atleast cattleandsheepineasternBalochistan fourthandearlythirdmillenniacalBC.Thismakes (Pakistan),withwildgoats being exploited together thefindingsfrom Loteshwar,thatcoverthistime withsomealreadydomesticones.Theseargu- period, thatmuchmoresignificant. ments werebased, in part,on theoverall reduction AtLoteshwar,therehavebeenonlythree elements in thesizeofthebonesfrom eachofthesetaxa ofsheeprecorded.Thesehavebeensecurelyiden- through timeasrepresented in thearchaeological tified andcomefrom acontext thatcouldbelate recordbetweenca.7000 and4500 calBC.Such ChalcolithicorcouldincorporateMedievalmate- sizereduction couldnotbe explained merelybya rialfrom asquattersettlementon top ofthedune. demographicshifttoadecreased numberofadult Unfortunately,ithasnotbeenpossibletodate malesrelativetoadultfemales.Thisisbecause thespecimensdirectly,andthereareno sheepor thesmallest animalsrepresented bytheirbonesin goatbonesfrom theAceramicMicrolithic.This eachculturalperiodfrom theAceramicNeolithic standsin contrast tothesituation atthedunetop intotheChalcolithicalsobecamesmallerthrough siteofBagorin nearbysouthernRajasthan(Misra time, andevidence forlargeanimalsdisappeared 1973),wherethepresence ofsheepandgoathas almost entirely.Concomitantwithsizediminution beenpublished forthemicrolithiclevelsatthesite wasincreasing representation particularlyofcattle (Fig. 3). Theseidentifications,however,havebeen andsheepinthearchaeologicalrecordrelativeto questioned (Meadow&Patel2002,2003). suchwildtaxaasgazelle, blackbuck,nilgai,water Forall three phasesoftheso-called “Mesolithic” buffalo,anddeer,aswell asrelativetogoat.Ofthe ofBagor,domesticsheep,goat,andcattlehave domesticforms,onlygoatprovided evidence ofat beenidentified bytwoofthethree analysts who
ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) 183 PatelA.K.
havereviewed thefaunalremains,namely,K.R. earlierthantheinitialsettlementofNagwada or Alur (1971) andP.K.Thomas(1975,1977). Asa ofothervillagesin thearea asknowntodate.The result,theseanalysts andotherarchaeologists have chronologicalpriority oftheLoteshwarChalcoli- perpetuated theidea thatBagorrepresents acase thic, togetherwithits focus on domesticcattleto oftheadoption ofpastoralpracticesbymicroli- theexclusion ofgoatandsheep,raisestheissueof thic-using populationsofthelatesixthandfifth whatrolesuchcattlepastoralists mayhaveplayed millenniacalBC ( e.g. ,Possehl 1999;Shinde etal . in communication andtrade throughout theregion 2004). Incontrast,D.R.Shah(1971),thefirst to aswell asin opening upthearea formoreperma- analyzematerialfrom Bagor,identified onlythe nentsettlement.Thelong spanoftheChalcolithic remainsofwildanimals.Reviewoftheavailable atLoteshwar,asattested bytheradiocarbon dates, published materialsuggests thatthebonesidenti- combined withtheapparentlyephemeralnatureof fied asgoatandsheepfrom atleast BagorPhaseI thesettlements,canbe interpreted asrepresenting areactuallyfrom blackbuckandgazelle(Meadow periodicvisits bymobilepastoralists who traveled &Patel2002,2003). tothearea seasonallyandwho mayhavecovered Distinguishing sheepandgoatbonesfrom thoseof largeterritorieson theiryearlyrounds. blackbuck,gazelle, andevensmall deerisdifficultin theabsence ofanadequatecomparativecollection ofmodernanimalsandofdetailed comparative BONES,GENES,AND ARCHAEOLOGY osteologicalstudiesofthesemorphologicallysimi- larforms.Andsince archaeologicalspecimensare Intheintroduction,anumberofquestionswere rarelycomplete, itisessentialthatzooarchaeologists posited about thedevelopmentofanimalhusbandry usefeaturesthatworkconsistentlyon fragmentary withparticularreference tonorthwesternSouthAsia. material. Additionalvariablesthathavetobe consi- Todate, ithasbeenpossibleatonlyonesitein the dered aresex,age, size, andbreeding population. region,namely,MehrgarhineasternPakistani Balo- Furthermore, giventhenatureandearlydating of chistan,todocumentsomething ofhowhusbandry asitelikeBagor(Fig. 3)andthekindsoflocally developed betweentheseventhandsixthmillennia availablewildanimals,identification ofnon-local calBC andhowhunter-gatherereconomiesbecame formssuchassheepandgoatwarrantgreaterthan transformed intoagro-pastoralones.Elsewherein normalcaution on thepart ofanalysts andskep- SouthAsiathenatureofthistransformation remains ticismonthepart ofsubsequentusers ofthedata. unclear,becausetherehasbeenlittleproblem-orien- Returning toNorthGujarat,thereissecurelydocu- ted archaeologicalinvestigation ofthisphenomenon. mented faunalevidence fortheexploitation of Sheepcouldhavebeendomesticated from local domesticsheepandgoataswell ascattleatthe wildstockinthehighlandson northwesternmargin Harappan-affiliated thirdmillenniumvillagesiteof ofSouthAsia–aproposalofthe1980s based on Nagwada located on thevery easternmargin ofthe zooarchaeologicalevidence thathasbeenprovided LittleRann ofKutch,southofLoteshwar(Fig. 1; support bygeneticresearchmorethan20 years later. Patel1989). UnlikemanyotherNorthGujaratsites Morphologicallywildgoats too,wereexploited in ofthisperiod, Nagwada hassubstantialarchitecture thatregion,although thedegree oftheirpossible made ofmud-bricksandstonerubble.Itisalso contribution towhatnowseemstohavebeenan characterized bysignificantquantitiesofceramics imported domesticgenepool remainsunknown. andotherparaphernaliathatareknownhallmarks Thespread ofbothofthesesmall domesticbovids oftheIndus Civilization,andthereisevidence for across thesubcontinentoutside ofthearea ofdis- craftactivitiesincluding stone-bead andshell object tribution oftheirwildrelativeshad tohavetaken manufacturing (Hegde etal .1988). place through themovementofpeoplewiththeir WhiletheoccupationsofNagwada andLoteshwar animalsorthrough thetrade ofanimalsbetween werecontemporary during thecourseofthemid humangroupsorboth. Thesituation isdifferent tolatethirdmillenniumcalBC (Fig. 3),thefirst forcattle.Thezebu( Bos indicus )couldhavebeen useofLoteshwarbycattlepastoralists ismuch domesticated anywherewithin therangeofits wild
184 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) OccupationalHistories,Settlements,andSubsistence in WesternIndia
ancestor,whichincluded muchofatleast northern newissuesabout thedomestication ofanimals. SouthAsia, andgeneticevidence suggests thatthis Inparticular,itisnowpossibletorejectthesingle likelyoccurred morethanonce. centerofdomestication scenario foranumberspe- Assuggested above, onelocality wherelocalwild cies,including especiallycattle, but alsosheepand cattlestockscouldhavebeendomesticated isNorth goatamong others.Investigating multiplelocalities Gujarat,aproposalmade in thelate1990s thathas ofanimaldomestication and/orrecruitmentfrom since received support from theresults ofgenetic thewildisnowbecoming animportantandaccep- research. Asnoted, bonesofwildcattlehavebeen ted archaeologicalandzooarchaeologicalendeavor. identified on thebasisoftheirlargesizefrom Ace- NorthwesternSouthAsiaisonesucharea where ramicMicrolithicLoteshwarin deposits thatthat thestudyofgeneticsespeciallyofcattlebut alsoof aresecurelydated from thelateeighthuptothe waterbuffalo (notdiscussed here, but see Patel& sixthmillenniumcalBC.InthesubsequentChalco- Meadow1998b;Kumar etal .2007; Yang etal .2008), lithicperiodatthesite, bonesfrom domesticcattle in conjunction withnewexcavationsemploying a havebeendirectlydated totheperiodbetween wide rangeofarchaeologicaltechniques,wouldlikely theearlyfourthandlatethirdmillenniumcalBC. provide importantinsights intodevelopmentand ThepeopleofLoteshwar,in contrast tothosefrom spread ofamosaicofpastoralpractices.Thestudy Mehrgarh,however,didnotherdgoatorsheep. ofancientDNAhasprovided someinsights into Combined withthenatureoftheoccupation of changing patternsofanimaldistribution through thesite, thisfocus on cattlepoints toaformof time( e.g. ,Larson etal .2007a, 2007b;Edwards et dedicated, possiblymobilepastoralismthatcould al .2007). Whilesuchanalyseshavethepotential havebeenbased on localdomestication ofcattle tomakevaluablecontributionsin theSouthAsian in thefifthmillenniumcalBC orearlier.Thetem- context,giventhehothumidclimaticconditions poralgapbetweentheAceramicMicrolithicand andpoororganicpreservation,thereisalsoconsi- Chalcolithiccomponents atLoteshwar,however, derablequestion about thefeasibility ofobtaining doesnotpermitdirectdocumentation ofsucha useableresults from suchanalysesin thesub-tropical possibility atthatsite. andtropicalpartsoftheregion. Perhapsnewand WorkatLoteshwarhasraised significantissuesabout improved scientifictechniquesandapplications chronology,siteformation,seasonalilty,pastoralism, couldhelp overcomesomeofthesedisadvantages domestication,andtheinterpretation ofarchaeo- in thefuture.Notwithstanding thisdrawback,itis logicalevidence.Dune-top settlements in North clearthatgeneticresearchisanextremelyvaluable GujaratandsouthernRajasthanhavecomplicated investigativeapproachinthestudyoftheorigins depositionalhistoriesthatcanbe disentangled only ofdomesticanimalsandtheirpast spread across through theuseofacombination oftechniquesthat andbetweenregions.Itisimportant,however,that include well-designed dating protocolstogether investigators —geneticists andarchaeologists alike— withmicro-depositionalstudieswithafocus on evaluateandunderstandthesignificance ofmodern individualactivity areasandepisodesofoccupation. andancientDNAresults within thecontexts ofthe Asnoted, thedatesfrom Loteshwarhaveshown archaeological,zooarchaeological,andgeneticrecords. thatthereisaconsiderabletemporalgapbetween theAceramicMicrolithicandtheChalcolithic, at least atthatsite.Additionalresearchisunderway Acknowledgements toexplorethepossibilitiesofcontinuing occupa- Iwouldliketodedicatethispapertothememory tionsatsingleormultiplenearbysitesvis-à-vis ofStineRossel,who hasleftavoidbothasafriend theappearance ofspecificculturalpracticesand andin herpotentialcontributionstothefieldof changing subsistence economies. Zooarchaeology. Animportantaspectofresearchontracing ancient Inits initialformas“OccupationalHistories, pastoralismduring thelast decade isthatgenetic Settlement,andSubsistence Systemsin Western researchhasprovided anotherkindofevidence that India: WhattheBonesCanTell Us,”thispaper canbe employed toevaluatehypothesesandraise waspresented in asession atthe2006 Society for
ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) 185 PatelA.K.
AmericanArchaeologyannualmeeting heldin San EWzlxW#C.J.,B0pp0}Dc}0R.,S7UkgA.,CUlw- Juan,PuertoRico. Iespeciallywouldliketothank $kxplc} A.,Txk##kGA.,VcD}kJ-D.,BlcxWJ.F., Llx#0}G.,H0S.Y.W.,HkgMc}l T.H.,SUlMcx0 Benjamin S.Arbucklefortaking theinitiativeto B.,Fxkkwl}A.R.,TU0wl#M.G.,Ax$0Dl#G R.M., successfullyorganizethesession andtoinviteme Ax}WGB.,BlxG0#ckzc7#L.,Bk}k7lkN.,BgWkl toparticipatein it.Ben’s perseverance, patience, M.,CUlc{L.,CU0|lkA.M.,C0ggkgD}c0GE., andsupport throughout thepublication process D5UpkH.J.,G5pW}kxH.,HlxG#S.,HkpwkxD., Hkx#cD B.,H0}D0H.,Ml#Ul0gxM.,O#W0- havebeenessentialtothecompletion ofthispaper. Dl}M.,Pg7UkxE.,R0GUG.,S7UlWk-Lc}WcD IwouldliketoacknowledgetheAmericanSchool S.,S7Uw5p7lkU.,S7UgpGc}D R.J.,SkMUl}E., ofPrehistoricResearchandtheZooarchaeology UkxMwl}} H-P.,V5x5#I.,V0|GklB.,BxlWpk| Laboratory,PeabodyMuseum,HarvardUniver- D.G.&BgxDkxJ.2007.–MitochondrialDNA sity,forfunding tocarryout theresearchupon analysisshows aNearEasternNeolithicorigin for domesticcattleandno indication ofdomestication whichthispaperisbased.Anonymous reviewer(s) ofEuropeanaurochs. ProceedingsoftheRoyalSociety provided usefulcomments andsuggestions.Jade B274:1616-1377. D’alpoim GuedesandMarielleSantoni assisted HkDWk K.T.M.{S0}lzl}kV.H.1986—Landscape withtranslation intoFrenchofthetitle, abstract, andsettlementpatternofHarappaculturevillages in RupanEstuary.ManandEnvironment. Journal andkeywords.Finally,IamgratefultoRichard oftheIndianSociety for PrehistoricandQuaternary H.Meadowforhisunfailing support through the Studies 10:23-31. courseofthisresearch. Hisinsightfulcomments HkDWk K.T.M.,S0}lzl}kV.H.,SUlUD.R.,BUl} andvaluablehelp in all aspects ofthispaperhave K.K.,AkcGUMxl#lWP.,Kxc#U}l}P.&CUl}Wxl} beenvitaltoits finalform. S.P.1988.—Excavation atNagwada, 1986and 1987:apreliminary report.ManandEnviron- ment. JournaloftheIndianSociety for Prehistoricand QuaternaryStudies 12:55-65. REFERENCES Hck}WpkWkxS.,KlgMkB.,Wl##wgGUR.&Jl}lkA. 2002.—Molecularanalysisofwildanddomestic App7Uc},B.&App7Uc} R.1982.— TheRiseof sheepquestionscurrentnomenclatureandprovides Civilization in IndiaandPakistan .Cambridge evidence fordomestication from twodifferentsubs- University Press,Cambridge, UK. pecies. ProceedingsoftheRoyalSociety B269:893-904. AkcGUMxl#lWP.&S0}lzl}kV.H.1993.— The IndianArchaeology:aReview O IAR U.—Archaeological HarappaCulturein NorthGujarat:aregionalpara- SurveyofIndia: NewDelhi. 1982-83:28;1985-86: digm. SymposiumonHarappaCulturein Guja- 20-22,24;1986-87:30-31;1987-88: 19-20; 1988- rat:Problems andProspects,Pune .Departmentof 89:12-17; 1989-90:25-26; 1990-91:12-18;1991- ArchaeologyandAncientHistory;MaharajaSayaji- 92:19-20; 1992-93:19,22-26; 1993-94:31-33 & rao,University ofBaroda. 140; 1994-95:11-18. ApgxK.R.1971. — AnimalRemains fromBagor. J0#Uc M.B.,R0gG P.K.,Ml}WlpA.K.,T|pkx-SwcGU DeccanCollege, Pune. C.,Sc}DU L.&TUl}DlxlkK.2004. —Phylogeo- BlcD M.,Bkkl-PkxkclA.,M0UlwwlWR.,Kglllx}c graphyandorigin ofIndiandomesticgoats. Mole- K.,FlxlUS.&LgcllxGG.2005. —Phylogeogra- cularBiologyandEvolution 12(3):454-462. phyandorigin ofIndiandomesticcattle. Current KgwlxS.,NlDlxlkl}M.,Sl}WUgJ.S.,KgwlxN. Science 89:38-40. &BkUp V.—2007.Phylogeographyanddomesti- BxlWpk|D.G.,Ml7UgDU D.E.,Cg}}c}DUlwP.& cation ofIndianriverbuffalo. EvolutionaryBiology L0+Gg# R.T.1996.—Mitochondrialdiversity and 7(186):1-8. theoriginsofAfricanandEuropeancattle. Pro- Llx#0}G.,Ap$lxkpplU.,D0$}k|K.,R0zpk|- ceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofScience ofUSA C0}z| P.,S7Uc$pkxJ.,Txk##kGA.,VcD}k ( PNAS )93:5131-5135. J.-D.,EWzlxW#C.J.,S7pgw$lgwA.,Dc}gA., Bxg+0xWM.W.,BxlWkp|D.G.&LgcllxGG.2003. Bqpq?#k#7gA.,D0pwl}G.,TlDpcl70##0A., —DNAmarkers revealthecomplexity oflivestock Ml}l#kx|l}N.,Mcxl7pkP.,Vl}Wck}DllxWk}- domestication. NatureReviewsGenetics 4:900-910. BlllkxL.,Ml##kGcM.,BxlWkp|D.G.&C00Mkx ClcD.-W.,Hl}L.,ZUl}D X-L.,ZU0gH.& A.2007a—AncientDNA,pig domestication, ZUgH.2007.–DNAanalysisofarchaeological andthespread oftheNeolithicintoEurope. PNAS sheepremainsfrom China. JournalofArchaeological 104(39):15276-15281. Science 34:1347-1355. Llx#0}G.,Cg77Uc T.,Ml#lllG#gF.,MlGc#00- Dlyc#S.J.M.1980.—Anoteon thedentalandske- SwcGUE.,R0$c}#J.,A}Wkx#0}A.,R0pkGG B., letalontogenyof Gazella ,Israel. JournalofZoology SMxcDD#M.,D0pwl}G.,Kcw T-H.,TUg| N.T.D., 29:129-134. Rl}WcE.,D0UkxG| M.,DgkR.A.W.,B0pGB.,
186 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) OccupationalHistories,Settlements,andSubsistence in WesternIndia
Dkg$cl}G0}0T.,Gxc++c} B.,I}G0UM.,Kkl}k MklW0zR.H.&PlGkpA.K.2002.–From Mehr- E.,Kcx7UP.,LcK-T.,M0xz00WM.,PkWxc}l garhtoHarappaandDholavira: prehistoricpasto- L.M.,PcMkxP.J.,Rl$kGG R.J.,SU00GkxP.,Vl} ralisminNorth-WesternSouthAsiathrough the Dk}BkxDU G.,Wk#G E.,Wc7lpkxS.,Ygl}J., HarappanPeriod, in SkGGlxS.&K0xc#kGGlxRlyc C00MkxA.&D0$}k|K.2007b—Phylogenyand (eds), IndianArchaeologyin Retrospect .VolumeII. ancientDNAof Sus providesinsights intoNeolithic Protohistory:ArchaeologyoftheHarappanCiviliza- expansion in IslandSoutheast AsiaandOceania. tion.IndianCouncil ofHistoricResearch,Mano- PNAS 104(12):4834-4839. har,NewDelhi:391-408. Lk7UkylppckxM.2003.— L’Industrielithiquede MklW0zR.H.&PlGkpA.K.2003.—Prehisto- Mehrgarh:Fouilles1974-1985.ÉditionsRecherche ricpastoralisminNorthwesternSouthAsiafrom sur lesCivilisations,Paris. theNeolithicthrough theHarappanPeriod, in Lk7UkylppckxM.,MklW0zR.H.&Qgcyx0}G. Wk$kxS.&Bkp7UkxW.(eds), IndusEthnobiology: 1982.—Dépôts d’animaux danslessépultures NewPerspectivesfromtheField .Lexington Books, néolithiquesde Mehrgarh,Pakistan. Paléorient Lanham,MD:65-93. 8(1) :99-106. MklW0z# J.R.S.,CkwlpI.,Klxl7lO.,G00Gzc}k L0+Gg# R.T.,Ml7UgDU D.E.,BxlWpk|D.G.,SUlxM E.&Kckl#J.W.–2007.FiveOvinemitochrondrial P.M.&Cg}}c}DUlwP.1994. —Evidence fortwo lineagesidentified from sheepbreed oftheNear independentdomesticationsofcattle. PNAS 91: East. Genetics 175:1371-1379. 2757-2761. Mc#xlV.N.1973.—Bagor-aLateMesolithicsett- LgcllxGG.,Gckpp|L.,E{70++ckxL.,VcD}k,J.-D., lementin North-West India. WorldArchaeology 5: B0gykGJ.&Tl$kxpkGP.2001. —Multiplemater- 92-110. naloriginsandweakphylogeographicstructurein Mc#xlV.N.1985. —Microlithicindustriesin India, domesticgoats. PNAS 98: 5927-5932. in Mc#xlV.N.&Bkppz00WP.(eds), Recent advancesinIndo-Pacificprehistory .Oxford&IBH, MlDkk D.A.,Ml}}k}H.&BxlWkp|D.E.2007. NewDelhi:111-122. —Duality in Bos indicus mtDNAdiversity:Sup- Mc#xlV.N.1996.—MesolithicIndia: history and port forgeographiccomplexity in zebudomesti- currentstatus ofresearch,in A+l}l#’kyG.E.,Cpkg- cation,in PkGxlDpclM.D.&App7Uc} B.(eds), #c0gS.,Lgll7#J.R.&T0#cM.(eds), Theprehis- TheEvolution andHistoryofHumanPopulations: toryofAsiaandOceania .ColloquiumXXXII.Series Inter-disciplinaryStudiesinArchaeology,Biological Colloquia, TheColloquiaoftheXIII International Anthropology,LinguisticsandGenetics .Springer, Union ofPrehistoricandProtohistoricSciences16. Dordrecht:385-391. ABACO,Forli:245-250. MklW0zR.H.1981. —Earlyanimaldomestication NlWkxcS.,Rk#lcH-Z.,Tl$kxpkGP.,Zg}WkpS., in SouthAsia: afirst report ofthefaunalremains Rl+lGS-A.,NlDl#UH-R.,Ep-Blx0W|M.A.A., from Mehrgarh,Pakistan,in HvxGkpH.(ed.), ExGgDxgpO.&P0wMl}0}F.2007.—Large-scale SouthAsianArchaeology1979 .DietrichReimer mitochondrialDNAanalysisofdomesticgoats Verlag,Berlin:143-179. revealssixhaplogroupswithhigh diversity. PLoS MklW0zR.H.1984. —Animaldomestication in ONE 10(e1012):1-12. theMiddleEast:aviewfrom theeasternmargin,in NlWkxc,S.,Rk#lcH-Z.,P0wMl}0}F.,Bpgw CpgGG0}-Bx07lJ.&GxcD#0}C.(eds), Animals and M.G.B.,NkDxc}ckR.,NlDl#UH-R.,Blplc#Ö., Archaeology3.EarlyHerders andtheir Flocks.BAR Ml#Ul0gxM.,GlDDc0GGclO.E.,Akw0}k-Mlx- InternationalSeries202.Archaeopress,Oxford: #l}P.,Kk}7k+A.,VcD}kJ.-D.{Tl$kxpkGP. 309-337. 2008.—Thegoatdomestication process inferred MklW0zR.H.1992.—In-conclusiveremarkson from large-scalemitochondrialDNAanalysisof pastoralism,nomadism,andotheranimalrelated wildanddomesticindividuals. PNAS 105(46): matters,in Blx-Y0#k+O.&KUl#l}0yA.(eds), 17659-17664. Pastoralism in theLevant:ArchaeologicalMaterials PlGkpA.K.1989. — VertebrateArchaeofaunafrom in AnthropologicalPerspectivesMadison.Prehistory Nagwada:aPreliminaryStudy .M.A.Dissertation. Press,Madison (WI):261-269. DepartmentofArchaeologyandAncientHistory, MklW0zR.H.1993.—Animaldomestication in the Faculty ofArts,M.S.University ofBaroda, Baroda. MiddleEast:arevised viewfrom theeasternmar- PlGkpA.K.1997.—ThepastoraleconomyofDho- gin,in P0##kUp G.L.(ed.), HarappanCivilization. lavira: afirst look atanimalsandurbanlife in third Secondrevised edition. Oxford&IBH,NewDelhi: millenniumKutch,in App7Uc} R.&App7Uc} B. 295-320. (eds), SouthAsianArchaeology1995 .Oxford& MklW0zR.H.1996.—Theoriginsandspread of IBH,NewDelhi:101-113. agricultureandpastoralisminnorthwesternSouth PlGkpA.K.2008.—Newradiocarbon determinations Asia, in Hlxxc#D.R.(ed.), Theoriginsandspread from Loteshwarandtheirimplicationsforunders- ofagricultureandpastoralism in Eurasia .UCLPress, tanding Holocenesettlementandsubsistence in London:390-412. NorthGujaratandadjoining areas,in Rlyk}E.M.
ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1) 187 PatelA.K.
(ed.), SouthAsianArchaeology1999.Egbert Forsten, Sl}llpclH.D.1965. — Excavations atLanghnaj: Leiden:123-134. 1944-63.Part I: Archaeology .DeccanCollege PlGkpA.K.&MklW0zR.H.1998a.— Theproblem PostgraduateandResearchInstitute, Poona. ofblackbuck(Antilopecervicapra)andgazelle Sl}llpclH.D.1974. — ThePrehistoryandProtohis- (Gazellabennetti) in theidentification offaunal toryofIndiaandPakistan .DeccanCollegePostgra- remains fromnorthwestern SouthAsia .Paperpresen- duateandResearchInstitute, Poona. ted attheFourthInternationalConference on the Sl}llpclH.D.1987.— Prehistoricandhistoric ArchaeozoologyofSouthwest Asia(andAdjacent archaeologyofGujarat .MunshiramManoharlal, Areas). Muséumnationald’Histoirenaturelle, Paris, NewDelhi. 29June1998.S.e.S.v. SUlUD.R.1971. —Anoteon unmodified animal PlGkpA.K.&MklW0zR.H.1998b.—Theexploi- remainsfrom Bagor. Eastern Anthropologist 24(3): tation ofwildanddomesticwaterbuffalo in prehis- 319-320. toricnorthwesternSouthAsia, in BgcGk}Ugc#H., SUc}Wk V.,Dk#UMl}Wk S.S.&Yl#gWlY.2004. — BlxG0#ckzc7#L.&CU0|lkA.M.(eds), Archaeo- HumanresponsetoHoloceneclimaticchange: A zoologyoftheNearEastIII.CentreforArchaeolo- casestudyofwesternIndiabetween5th and3 rd gicalResearchandConsultancy,Rijksuniversiteit, millenniaBC,in Yl#gWlY.&SUc}Wk V.(eds), Groningen:180-199. Monsoon andCivilization.InternationalResearch PkWx0#lS.,U#g}M.,Axxl}#J.-J.,GgcGcnxxk#-Gcp CenterforJapaneseStudies.LustrePress; Roli B.,PxcwcGcy0F.S.&Bl|2}Y.2005—Evidence Books,NewDelhi :383-406. ofthree maternallineagesin neareasternsheep S0}lzl}kV.H.&AkcGUMxl#lWP.1994. —Harrappa supporting multipledomestication events. PNAS B CultureandGujarat.ManandEnvironment. Jour- 272:2211-2217. naloftheIndianSociety ofPrehistoricandQuater- PcWl}7ckxN.,J0xWl}S.,LgcllxGG.&Tl$kxpkG naryStudies 19(1-2):129-139. P.2006.—Evolutionary history ofthegenus capra SGgcykxM.&RkcwkxP.J.1993.—Extended (super (Mammalia, Artiodactyla):Discordance between 14) Cdatabaseandrevised CALIB3.0(super14) mitochondrialDNAandY-chromosome. Molecular Cagecalibration program. Radiocarbon 35(1): PhylogeneticsandEvolution 40:739-749. 215-230. P0##kUp G.L.1999. — IndusAge: TheBeginnings . TlMc0M.,Mlx#l}0yN.,O#kx0yM.,Ćc}lgp0y University ofPennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia. M.,G0}#lxk}l0G.,Kc#kp|0ylT.,Mgxlz#lc P0##kUp G.H.,&Rc##wl}P.C.—1992.Thechro- M.,Vcc}lpl## H.&Kl}Gl}k}J.2006.—Sheep nologyofPrehistoricIndia: from earliest timesto mitochondrialDNAvariation in European,Cauca- Iron Age, in EUxc7UR.W.(ed.), Chronologiesin sian,andCentralAsianareas. MolecularBiologyand OldWorldArchaeology .3 rd edition. University of Evolution 23(9):1776-1783. Chicago Press,Chicago:vol. 1:465-490; vol. 2: TU0wl#P.K.1975. —Roleofanimalsin thefood 447-474. economyoftheMesolithiccultureofwesternand RkcwkxP.J.,BlcppckM.G.L.,BlxWE.,Bl|pc## A., centralIndia, in Cpl#0}A.T.(ed.), Archaeozoologi- Bk7lJ.W.,BkxGxl}WC.,Bpl7lzkpp J.H.,Plgp calStudies .NorthHollandPublishing,Amsterdam: G.,Bg7lC.E.,Bgxx G.S.,CgGpkxK.B.,Dlw0} 322-328. P.E.,EWzlxW#R.L.,Flcx$l}l#R.G.,FxckWxc7U TU0wl#P.K.1977.— ArchaeozoologicalAspectsofthe M.,GgcpWkx#0}T.P.,H0DD A.G,HgDUk}K.A., PrehistoricCulturesofWestern India .Ph.D.Disserta- Kx0wkxB.,M7C0xwl7G.,Ml}}c}D S.,Bx0}l tion. University ofPoona, Pune. R.C.,RkcwkxR.W.,RkwwkpkS.,S0gGU0}J.R., Tx0|C.S.,Ml7UgDU D.E.,Blcpk|J.F.,MlDkk D.A., SGgcykxM.,Tlplw0S.,Tl|p0x F.W.,Vl}Dkx L0+Gg# R.T.,Cg}}cDUlwP.,CUlw$kxplc} A.T., Ppc7UGJ.&Wk|Uk}wk|kxC.E.(2004). –Int- S|lk#B.C.&BxlWkp|B.C.2001—Geneticevi- Cal04terrestrialradiocarbon agecalibration,0-26 dence forNear-EasternoriginsofEuropeancattle. calkyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3):1029-1058. Nature 410:1088-1091. R0$kxG# T.J.1997.— TheMammals ofPakistan . UkxMwl}} H.-P.1987.— TheAncientDistribution of OxfordUniversity Press,Oxford;NewYork; UngulateMammals in theMiddleEastandNortheast Karachi;Delhi. Africa .Ludwig Reichert Verlag,Wiesbaden. Sl}llpclH.D.1946.— Investigations intoprehistoric Yl}D D.Y.,LcgL.,CUk}X.&SMkppkxC.F.2008. archaeologyofGujarat.(Sri PratapsimhaMaharaja —Wildordomesticated: DNAanalysisofancient RajyabhishekaGrantha-mala) .Memoire4. Baroda waterbuffalo remainsfrom NorthChina. Journalof StatePress,Baroda. ArchaeologicalScience 35(10):2778-2785.
Submitted on 1 st May2008; accepted on 24April2009.
188 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA •2009•44 (1)