Reprinted From

Reprinted from Citation: Bogucki, Peter (2008) “Animal Exploitation by the Brze Kujawski Group in the Brze Kujawski and Osonki Region“ in Grygiel, Ryszard, Neolit i Pocztki Epoki Brzu w Rejonie Brzecia Kujawskiego and Osonek (The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Brze Kujawski and Osonki Region), volume II/3, pp. 1581-1704. ód: Konrad Jadewski Foundation for Archaeological Research/Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography. ¦ê hêlê êêiN9ê rênêêêiN9êrê êv êyÊ Fig. 1288. Skull of an elderly sheep from Osłonki, Pit 10. Ryc. 1288. Czaszka starszej owcy z jamy 10 w Osłonkach, st. 1. h Peter Bogucki wishes to acknowledge the tional Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), large contribution that Daniel Makowiecki made and the American Philosophical Society. Rich- to this report in allowing his unpublished anal- ard Meadow generously allowed Bogucki to use yses of faunal remains from Konary, Miecho- his BONECODE faunal database system for wice 4, Miechowice 4a, Pikutkowo, Smólsk, Za- the analysis of the bones from Brześć Kujawski. gajewice, and the small sample from Osłonki Pam J. Crabtree and Doug Campana generously to be included here. Any errors of presenta- permitted Bogucki to use their ANIMALS pro- tion and interpretation are solely the responsi- gram for the initial recording of the Osłonki fau- bility of Peter Bogucki. Bogucki’s participation nal assemblage, and Pam Crabtree’s advice over in the research at Brześć Kujawski was support- many years and especially during the prepara- ed by Harvard University Department of An- tion of this report is warmly appreciated. Lisan- thropology graduate student fieldwork funds. dre Bedault graciously shared with me the text His participation in the research at Osłonki was of a forthcoming paper on Neolithic animal use made possible by grants from the National Geo- in the Paris Basin (Bedault and Hachem 2008) graphic Society, the Wenner–Gren Foundation Lucas Giron assisted in the verification of the for Anthropological Research, Inc., the Interna- bibliography. * Dr Peter Bogucki, Princeton University, USA (with contributions by Daniel Makowiecki). 1581 ¦¡ê pendent European domestication of cattle (e.g. Nobis 1975) have been shown by recent DNA p analyses to be unsubstantiated (Bollongino et al. 2006), although there is some evidence for in- ¦¡¡ê gression of local male aurochs DNA into the do- wylhtisl®êhupthsê mestic cattle lineages (Götherström et al. 2005). ljvuvtplzêpuêulvsp{opjê DNA analysis has revealed a complicated sit- jlu{yhsêl|yvwl uation with pigs, however (Larson et al. 2007, Dobney and Larson 2006). Although the earli- Neolithic sites of the “Danubian” tradition est European pigs do appear to stem from Near in riverine interior central Europe (Bogucki Eastern progenitors domesticated around 7000 2003), beginning with the Linear Pottery culture B.C., there is fairly clear evidence of interbreed- around 5600 cal B.C. and ending about 4000 cal ing between domestic and wild pigs over the B.C. with regional groups such as Brześć Ku- subsequent millennia. Around 4000–3500 B.C., jawski in Kuyavia, Jordanów/Jordansmühl in European pig populations came to be dominat- Silesia and Bohemia, and Villeneuve–Saint– ed by indigenous DNA derived from wild pop- Germain in France, often do not yield large as- ulations, and wild boar is probably the principal semblages of animal bones. A very large collec- progenitor of all modern European domestic tion of animal bones from a single site would pigs (Larson et al. 2007). number several thousand identified specimens, Bogucki (1989) summarized the gener- whereas the average sample from any one site al state of knowledge about early Neolithic an- is usually in the hundreds. Preservation factors imal economies in central Europe, and except and recovery methods determine the relative- for the addition of the important recent DNA ly small size of these samples. Across much of studies, this picture has not changed significant- riverine interior Europe, decalcified loess soils ly in its broadest outline over the past two de- cause bone to disappear, and thus from many cades. Although the principal domestic taxa ap- sites only teeth are preserved. Sites with good pear at almost every site, Linear Pottery faunal bone preservation are usually found off the assemblages of over a hundred identified speci- loess in areas where settlement was on clay (as mens are generally dominated by domestic cat- in the Polish lowlands) or gravel (as in the Par- tle bones, with relatively fewer sheep and goat is Basin). Hand recovery of animal bones dur- bones, and a very small proportion of pig bones ing coarse excavation methods has also resulted if present at all. Bones of wild animals are very in the destruction of specimens that managed to scarce in Linear Pottery assemblages. Both the survive over six millennia. low proportion of pigs and the low number of The Danubian animal economies were based wild animal bones are surprising in light of the on the major domestic taxa that came to Europe forested valley–bottom environment of the Lin- from the Near East: cattle, sheep, goat, and pig. ear Pottery sites and must be attributable to hu- Hunted wild animals played a relatively small but man choices. After about 5000 cal B.C., there is significant role, as did birds, reptiles, and fish. greater variability among Neolithic faunal as- The domestic livestock have been shown con- semblages in riverine interior central Europe. clusively to have originated from populations Some assemblages contain more sheep and goat, in the Near East and Anatolia. Sheep and goat while pig bones come to be represented in great- have no native counterparts in Europe, so trac- er quantities, often comprising 25% or more of ing them back to the Near East is fairly straight- an assemblage. In some instances, the number forward. Goats were domesticated first in the of wild animal bones also increases during the Zagros Mountains around 8000 B.C. (Zeder and fifth millennium B.C. Hesse 2000), with sheep shortly thereafter. Cat- Yet there is still quite a bit to be learned tle were domesticated in Anatolia between 7000 from Neolithic animal bones in riverine interior and 6000 B.C. (Edwards et al. 2007). Claims central Europe. The fundamental questions for made over many decades for indigenous inde- 1582 archaeozoologists working in Neolithic central danger, as Midgley (1985) has noted, in making Europe are the following: broad generalizations from the sample of an in- 1. Does the faunal assemblage reflect con- dividual site cannot be overstated. When a re- sumption refuse? Is there evidence of other gion lacks many faunal samples, this is tempt- cultural practices that resulted in bone de- ing to do, but an increased number of samples position? brings increased variability, so it is then impor- 2. Does the fundamental ratio of domestic to tant to identify the broad similarities and the el- wild taxa conform to the overall pattern of ements that show the greatest variation. majority domestic/minority wild and can The evidence from animal bones cannot metrical data assist in the differentiation be- be considered in isolation, and it is crucial that tween wild and domestic cattle and pig? their study be complemented by knowledge 3. What were the relative proportions of the about the plant economies and the prehistoric different domestic taxa present in the faunal environments of Neolithic sites. Unfortunately, assemblage of a given site? comprehensive research programs that integrate 4. Do these proportions vary from feature to archaeozoological, archaeobotanical, and palae- feature on a single site and what can this tell oenvironmental data are rare in riverine inte- us about taphonomic processes and human rior central Europe. In contrast to the relative- cultural practices? ly thin archaeozoological data across Neolithic 5. Do the proportions of anatomical elements central Europe, the corpus of archaeobotanical differ from feature to feature and what can data is much richer (Bogaard 2004) and has per- this tell us about taphonomic processes and mitted the reconstruction of the Neolithic plant human cultural practices? economy in some detail. Palaeoenvironmen- 6. If multiple assemblages are available with- tal reconstruction has been confined to specific in a region, how do the proportions of taxa localities (e.g. Bakels 1978; Kalis and Meurers– and of anatomical elements differ from one Balke 1997; Kalis, Merkt, and Wunderlich 2003; site to another and how might this inform Nalepka 2005) but holds tremendous promise us about human cultural practices? for understanding Neolithic land use. 7. What can the epiphyseal fusion data, tooth The analysis below is framed as a traditional eruption data, and metrical data tell us about zooarchaeological investigation, with the focus kill–off patterns and population structures? on the role of animals in the Neolithic economy. 8. Is there evidence for butchery techniques It does not directly confront the social and sym- and pathology? bolic issues regarding Neolithic animal use such 9. Is there evidence for bone working, partic- as those raised by Russell (1999) and Marciniak ularly in the selection of specific anatomi- (1999, 2005). While it does not deliberately ig- cal elements from particular taxa that might nore the fact that relationship between animals skew the proportions in the consumption extended into spheres beyond their use as a re- refuse? source for food and raw materials, this study re- 10. Are any unusual wild mammals present and flects the main

Load more