The Early Management of Cattle (Bos Taurus) in Neolithic Central Anatolia

Home , Anatolia

2 1 utpeNoihcstslctdi h ein npriua h rhefua rmErbaba from from archaeofaunas recovered the particular data in faunal region, C the these part and in of skeletal located sites analyses and Neolithic various comparative demographic multiple through Through biometric, documented including data. be representation evidence, may zooarchaeological Anatolia of central lines in economies subsistence pastoral animal of packages large managed the by offered of traction, and advantage herds. milk cattle took renewable and that skin, blood, systems meat, development including social the products, facilitated and caprines, economic of new management successful of ﬁrst the after millennium a ateepotto tErbaba at exploitation Cattle elsewhere. domesticated previously cattle of importation the includes that of addition an The goats. was and ago sheep domestic years of 000 herds 10 ( on cattle approximately domestic largely relied East had societies Near previously, agro-pastoral of that, systems the subsistence the transform in helped that innovation cattle important of domestication The Introduction animal. stud distribution a parts and quarry hunted a as Keywords: charisma millennium its retains mid-seventh aurochs and the the meanwhile, wild until Anatolia, and In noted large elsewhere. domesticated remains not stock imported are from cattle were derive cattle, and domesticated wild BC, aurochs, earliest while in The BC, millennium assemblages hunted. eighth economies. bone long the subsistence in Neolithic animal domesticated early were of into goats analyses and incorporated Sheep were part cattle body how demonstrate and to demographic Anatolia metrical, use authors The Arbuckle S. Benjamin ( taurus cattle of management early The hogotteNa atadbyn eg owt uo 05 ee 08.Although 2008). Zeder 2005; Ducos & Horwitz of management (e.g. cattle nature beyond of the and expansion addressing the East in Near for time the data critical throughout a of at source Anatolia central valuable in a exploitation provides cattle Erbaba of site Neolithic The eevd 4Otbr20;Acpe:2 oebr20;Rvsd 1Jnay2009 January 21 Revised: 2008; November 27 Accepted: 2008; October 14 Received: ANTIQUITY h rcse ywihdmsi arn atewr noprtdit elti agro- Neolithic into incorporated were cattle taurine domestic which by processes The X 69-13 S Eal benjamin (Email: USA 76798-7173, TX, tnodAcaooyCne,Safr nvriy 8 sodd al tnodC,935 USA 94305, CA, Stanford Mall, Escondido 488 University, Waco Stanford 97173, Center, Place Archaeology Bear Stanford One University, Baylor Archaeology, and Science Forensic Anthropology, of Department atalh ¸ 3(09:669–686 (2009): 83 ntla elti,fua nlss uoh,ctl,LI uvvrhp skeletal survivorship, LSI, cattle, aurochs, analysis, faunal Neolithic, Anatolia, oy ¨ k(iue1 al ) eagefranwdt n rcs fdomestication of process and date new a for argue we 1), Table 1, (Figure uk ¨ nNoihccnrlAnatolia central Neolithic in ) o taurus Bos oteNoihcsbitnecmlx rcs htwsinitiated was that process a complex, subsistence Neolithic the to ) 1 hrlA Makarewicz A. Cheryl & [email protected]) 669 2 Bos

Research The early management of cattle (Bos taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia

Table 1. Approximate dates for central Anatolian Neolithic sites mentioned in the text (Cessford 2001; Thissen 2002; De Cupere & Duru 2003). Central Anatolian Neolithic sites Approximate dates (cal BC)

As¸ıklı Hoy¨ uk¨ 8400-7400 Musular 7500-7000 Suberde 7400-7000 C¸ atalhoy¨ uk¨ pre-XII to I 7400-6000 Erbaba Hoy¨ uk¨ 6600-6100 Hoy¨ ucek¨ 6400/6200-6000

Figure 1. Map showing the location of sites mentioned in the text. the site was excavated more than four decades ago, this important faunal assemblage has never been published in detail (although see Bordaz & Alper-Bordaz 1976, 1979; Makarewicz 1999). Three major stratigraphic phases have been identified. Each layer dates to the Pottery Neolithic period and is roughly contemporary with the latest levels of Ç atalhoy¨ uk¨ (VI-I) (Bordaz & Alper-Bordaz 1979). Radiocarbon dates obtained by Bordaz and Alper-Bordaz (1982) are problematic, with most determinations from wood charcoals yielding extremely large standard deviations, but recent efforts to re-date Erbaba on the basis of animal bone collagens have provided several dates confirming a Pottery Neolithic occupation of the site c. 6600-6100 cal BC (Table 2). The animal economy at Erbaba was dominated by the herding of domestic caprines, although this was supplemented through the hunting of wild sheep and goats, as well as other wild ungulate taxa (Arbuckle 2006, 2008). Cattle are the third most abundant

670 aooi ru nteasmlg fe arnsadpg,representing pigs, and caprines after assemblage the in group taxonomic fteasmlg ae nbn egt(als3ad4.Tu,atog h ubrof at number system the subsistence although the of Thus, cent component 4). per central and 23.8 a Erbaba. represent 3 and (Tables cattle level, small, weight relatively genus bone is the on remains to based identiﬁed assemblage specimens the of of counts on based assemblage A63 ee I oeclae 7275 collagen bone III level AA66738 Alper-Bordaz and Bordaz from are charcoal on Dates Erbaba. from (1982). dates Radiocarbon 2. Table -11lvlIIcaca 7730 7550 6925 charcoal charcoal 7530 II-I III level level charcoal 7677 GX-2543 charcoal III collagen I-5151 level bone 7504 III GX-2544 level collagen bone I GX-2545 level III AA66741 level AA66739 ape#CnetMaterial Context # Sample e er8 . 5412 . 2 3.2 8.8 2.1 5.5 126 347 83 216 2.7 5.1 4.0 1.1 76.8 23 44 34 9 4.1 3012 9.6 8.9 83.9 3.3 15 35 717 32 3.7 4 12 71.7 10.6 5.6 2.7 261 232 82 73.3 122 58 1606 equid deer roe and fallow deer red pig cattle caprines ‘Other’ counts. specimen on based Erbaba rodents. at and taxa hare mammalian carnivores, of includes frequency Relative 3. Table te 7408222 . 3 3.3 130 3.2 100.0 3921 27 100.0 2.2 854 100.0 8 364 4.0 100.0 2191 87 Total other qi 132.0 equid e er20. . 4. . 5. . 96010.2 11.5 4926.0 5593.3 23.8 8.8 7.0 71.1 11525.0 758.8 50.9 604.7 20.1 2.5 9.8 14.0 24,670.0 1737.1 62.2 140.7 33.6 776.2 542.2 5380.3 1.7 13.4 9.7 1864.8 39.2 24.5 485.0 3889.4 2800.2 2174.2 7078.7 and 48.8 fallow deer red pig 14,099.9 cattle caprines includes ‘Other’ weight. bone on based Erbaba at rodents. taxa and mammalian hare of carnivores, frequency Relative 4. Table te 1. . 31.9 1.4 410.0 other oa 885210055. 0. 6801004,3. 100.0 48,438.1 100.0 8648.0 100.0 5550.2 100.0 28,895.2 Total o deer roe egt()%wih g egt()%wih g % (g) weight % (g) weight % (g) weight % (g) weight IIIAllevels All III II I N%N%N%N% ejmnS ruke&Cey .Makarewicz A. Cheryl & Arbuckle S. Benjamin < . 20.2 1.0 IIIAllevels All III II I < . 1 1.0 14 aeb er CclB a BC cal BC cal BC years bp Date C − + − + − + − + − + − + − + 26143 42 7 6606 570 6615 120 5906 550 6518 6533 430 6354 86 85 671 < < . 60115891.2 598.9 1.1 96.0 1.0 . . . 230.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 airtd1Sgarne2Sgarange Sigma 2 range Sigma 1 Calibrated < 1.000.0 7 − + − + − + − + − + − + − + 961-096226-6059 6211-6079 49 4 1055 7962-5383 7029-6389 7170-4715 7140-5850 7485-5661 6687-6444 642 6686-6392 6432-5318 151 6560-6118 7025-5998 595 6596-6453 478 6441-6257 79 83 < . 9. 1.8 894.1 1.0 c e eto the of cent per 5 . < < 1.0 1.0

Research The early management of cattle (Bos taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia

The relative frequency of cattle remains changes little through the stratigraphic sequence at Erbaba, but the ratio of caprines and cattle, the two most important taxonomic groups based on bone weight, shifts markedly over time. The ratio of caprines to cattle in level III, the oldest level at Erbaba, is 21:1 but decreases to 8:1 and 13:1 in levels II and I, respectively, indicating that cattle became an increasingly important part of a more diverse economy in the uppermost levels of the site.

LSI analysis It has long been recognised that domestic ungulates, including cattle, exhibit a reduced body size compared to their wild counterparts (Rutimeyer¨ 1862; Rohrs¨ & Herre 1961; Ducos 1968; Grigson 1989). Reduced size may be recognised in archaeofaunal assemblages from measurements of individual skeletal elements and LSI values. In the log size index (LSI) method, log transformed measurements taken from archaeological specimens representing multiple skeletal elements are compared with those from a standard animal; in this case a large female aurochs from Mesolithic Denmark (following Grigson 1989; de Cupere & Duru 2003; Russell & Martin 2005). Although there are some potential problems with using an animal from a different region as the standard, including the potential for non-allometric variation in skeletal dimensions between the standard and the archaeological population (Meadow 1999; Zeder 2001; Russell et al. 2005), recent work in the region has shown these problems to be relatively minor (Russell & Martin 2005). LSI values for Erbaba cattle are much smaller than those from morphologically wild populations from PPNA Gobekli¨ Tepe, EPPNB Nevalı Ç ori, aceramic As¸ıklı and Suberde, and the early levels (pre-XII to IV) of Ç atalhoy¨ uk,¨ indicating the presence of morphological domesticates. Comparison of LSI values within the Erbaba assemblage indicates that although median values are largest in level III (LSImedianIII = 0.006; n = 9) and decrease through time in levels II and I (LSImedianII =−0.071, n = 15; LSImedianI =−0.037, n = 32), Mann-Whitney U tests, and a one-way ANOVA test indicate that these differences within the assemblage are not significant (p > 0.05). Summaries of LSI values presented in Figure 2 compare the size of cattle from Erbaba with other Neolithic sites in central Turkey and the middle Euphrates region. Figure 3 provides a more detailed look at the distributions of LSI values for Neolithic sites specific to central Anatolia. The village site of As¸ıklı and the nearby special purpose site of Musular represent an early phase in the Neolithic occupation of central Anatolia (c. 8400- 7200 cal BC) and cattle remains recovered from these settlements represent morphologically wild populations (Russell et al. 2005). Cattle LSI values from the early levels of Ç atalhoy¨ uk,¨ including pre-XII (c. 7400-7000 cal BC), XII-VII (c. 7000-6500 cal BC), and VI-IV (c. 6500-6300 cal BC), show no evidence for a decrease in size relative to the As¸ıklı/Musular populations, although a shift in the sex ratio is visible in levels VI-IV, with an increase in the representation of smaller, presumably female, animals relative to the earlier levels at Ç atalhoy¨ uk¨ (Russell et al. 2005: 104). LSI data generated from the Mellaart excavations representing the upper levels VII-I at Ç atalhoy¨ uk,¨ but primarily representing levels III and II (Russell et al. 2005: 104) (c. 6500- 6000 cal BC) indicate the first appearance of small-sized specimens that fall significantly

672 (n iue2 lt hwn ein ne-urierne n aiu n iiu S ausfrctl including. cattle for values LSI minimum and maximum and range, inter-quartile median, showing G Plots 2. Figure ateaeas rsn tEbb ( small-sized Erbaba Equally 5). at Table (see present site also the at are levels earlier cattle in documented range size the below uee&Dr 03;Sabi 2003); Duru & Cupere atn20) C 2005); Martin ntelt eet ilnimB.Tewd ag fLIvle rsn tEbb n in and Erbaba at present values H LSI At assemblages. of C region range of the wide levels throughout The size uppermost BC. cattle the millennium in seventh decline late signiﬁcant the a in indicating 3) (Figure BC) cal 6000 ob ¨ = = )(an 95;Sub 1985); (Payne 7) G bkiTp (n Tepe obekli ¨ Erbaba in listed are C tests differences type. U Signiﬁcant bold Mann-Whitney assemblages. two-tailed between of values results LSI the comparing showing Matrix 5. Table eesVII-I. levels C ¸atal1 ¸at2 = = C oy ¸atalh ¨ tl1rpeet eespeXItruhI,wieC while IV, through pre-XII levels represents 1 atal ¸ 1 (Peters 51) ck oee,amjrt fseiesfl eo h oe n fthe of end lower the below fall specimens of majority a however, ucek, ¨ = = 7652. 367441 3376 5626.5 4756 U 03519 4014.5 1999 4063.5 – U ued (n Suberde p p– z7.67 .689 8.87 8.94 7.06 – z oy ¨ aiAyd(n Abyad Sabi ejmnS ruke&Cey .Makarewicz A. Cheryl & Arbuckle S. Benjamin atalh ¸ kVII(n VII-I uk ¨ tal. et < oy C ¨ a a 1C ¸atal1 = 0.0001 99;NC 1999); ksget h otne rsneo idctl nthose in cattle wild of presence continued the suggests uk )(ekn 99;C 1969); (Perkins 2) ¨ = c = 6060 a C,ada H at and BC), cal 6600-6100 . 4 Dcs18) Erb 1988); (Ducos 94) 1)(aal 2000). (Cavallo 115) ¸ = 673 < eaıC Nevalı a a 2H ¸atal2 0.0001 0.4654 − .32.49 0.73 a 1 ¸at ¸ori (n = = C raa(n Erbaba ¸atalh = 3 (Peters 13) < 0.0128 0.0001 oy ¨ oy ¨ kpeXIt V(n IV to pre-XII uk ¨ ckSb Abyad Sabi ucek ¨ = 1) H 113); tl2represents 2 atal ¸ tal. et oy ¨ ck( ucek ¨ 99;Ası 1999); oy ¨ < = 0.0001 0.0588 − H 1.89 c oy ¨ = 6400/6200- . ck(n ucek ¨ 7)(usl & (Russell 179) = As ıl H ¸ıklı = 6 (de 76) oy ¨ uk ¨

Research The early management of cattle (Bos taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia

Figure 3. Distributions of LSI values for cattle from central Anatolian sites. Black triangles indicate location of median value (not available for As¸ıklı/Musular).

674 eylreseies h aafo h pe eeso C of levels upper the from data the specimens, large very H niomna nusslcigfrsalrbd iei idpopulations. than wild rather central in management in size human body seen to smaller size due for cattle largely selecting inputs in is long environmental millennium decrease a over seventh the deer the that red during in conclusion Anatolia diminution the size of supports absence sequence The temporal populations. these for values LSI the representing those to similar H are Neolithic and Late sites from earlier cattle from domestic those than values mean smaller much Russell 1988; Ducos 1985; (Payne populations wild (n IV to PAtruhtePteyNoihc(e iue5.Mn-hte et swl sa as well as tests U the Mann-Whitney from Turkey 5). south-eastern Figure and (see central (F ANOVA Neolithic in one-way sites Pottery from the deer for through red evidence of PPNA no size is body There the differences. in geographical change or time over conditions environmental in from obtained those 4). than (Figure smaller assemblage considerably the in are As measurement cattle single Mureybet, Erbaba abundant from most the Measurements astragalus, the of rare. are ( aurochsen cattle wild of range size measurements length astragalus for values minimum and maximum and range, Mur deviation cattle. standard for one Mean, 4. Figure oy ¨ ti nieyta h iedmnto bevdi eta ntla atei u oshifts to due is cattle Anatolian central in observed diminution size the that unlikely is It length the of measurements by supported are values LSI on based results Biometric = H = oy ¨ ck(n ucek ¨ 1 Rsel&Mri 05;C 2005); Martin & (Russell 11) = ıl,adteerylvl fC of levels early the and ¸ıklı, uebt(n Mureybet = 3 d uee&Dr 03;Sabi 2003); Duru & Cupere (de 13) = .1 df 0.51, = ejmnS ruke&Cey .Makarewicz A. Cheryl & Arbuckle S. Benjamin c 4 Hle 94;Ası 1994); (Helmer 14) . − .6o h S cl)adseiesi h ierneo bull of range size the in specimens and scale) LSI the on 0.06 = a 2 ¸at 3,p 132, = oy ¨ C ¸atalh = ckadSb Abyad. Sabi and ucek ¨ .3 niaen inﬁatdfeecsbetween differences signiﬁcant no indicate 0.73) atalh ¸ 675 = = oy ¨ aiAyd(n Abyad Sabi kVII(n VII-I uk As ¨ ıl (n ¸ıklı oy ¨ tal et k sebae huh orepresent to thought assemblages uk, ¨ = )(an 95;C 1985); (Payne 1) = 05.Wiesilicuigsome including still While 2005). . = 3 Dcs18) Erb 1988); (Ducos 63) 5 Cvlo2000). (Cavallo 15) ¸atalh oy ¨ kadEbb exhibit Erbaba and uk ¨ a 1 ¸at = = C ¸atalh raa(n Erbaba oy ¨ kpre-XII uk ¨ = 21);

Research The early management of cattle (Bos taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia

Figure 5. Plots showing median, inter-quartile range, and maximum and minimum LSI values for red deer from Kortik¨ Tepe (Arbuckle & Ozkaya 2006), C¸ayon¨ u¨ (Ilgezdi 2000), C¸atalhoy¨ uk¨ (Russell & Martin 2005), Erbaba and Hoy¨ ucek¨ (de Cupere & Duru 2003).

Survivorship analysis Demographic data are presented in Figure 6 in the form of survivorship curves generated from the state of fusion of long bone epiphyses. Demographic profiles are useful tools for documenting the origins of cattle herding (Hesse 1982; Horwitz et al. 1999). In many cases, the management of domestic animals produces survivorship curves dominated by the remains of immature individuals, usually young males, while hunting often (but not always) produces demographic patterns with higher frequencies of mature individuals often with an over-representation of large males. Although these patterns can be broadly useful in differentiating strategies of hunting and herding, variables such as the intensity and seasonality of hunting, management for milk and traction, as well as exploitation strategies that include components of both herding and hunting often make the interpretation of demographic patterns difficult (Meadow 1989; Arbuckle 2008). Survivorship data indicate a significant focus on the slaughter of immature cattle at Erbaba, with only 55 per cent of the sample surviving past the age of fusion of the metapodials (c. 24 months) and calcaneus (c.36months),andc. 45 per cent surviving past the age of fusion of the latest fusing skeletal parts (c. 48 months) (Silver 1969). In addition, the ratio of deciduous, mandibular fourth premolars to third molars (6:8) confirms the results of long bone fusion suggesting that a relatively high proportion of cattle at Erbaba were slaughtered as juveniles. In contrast, a survivorship curve constructed for red deer indicates that most of

676 G nml r luhee n ucee wyfo h ieadol h otueu parts Vigne useful 1968; which most Daly in & the (Perkins practices only itself and hunting site site with the the to associated from back been away transported butchered has are utility and lower heads) slaughtered of and are under-representation feet animals and (e.g. etc.) useful parts grease, of high bone concentrations skeletal so-called marrow, representing mammal limbs) meat, of of large (e.g. frequencies available portions resources high a proximal readily Conversely, (e.g. are of parts onsite. animals portions skeletal butchered which utility all and in of slaughtered domesticates on are presence based and The economy transport 2002). to an exploitation laborious Becker suggests are animal carcass 1968; carcasses of whose Daly mammals, mode & large the for (Perkins interpreting especially site, for a useful at employed are representations part Skeletal distribution part Skeletal ( Erbaba at remains C infantile at than of lower frequency considerably the However, & Russell 2005). 1988; (Ducos Martin sequence stratigraphic entire the throughout infants and/or juveniles C at seen pattern the ( to parts skeletal past fusing surviving latest cent the per of 80 fusion almost of with age adults, the prime-aged as slaughtered were animals these A stage Fusion Erbaba. from line) (dotted deer red and line) (solid cattle for curves Survivorship 6. Figure ea riato h oeefciercvr fsal nue pcmn ttelte site. latter the at specimens unfused small, of recovery effective more the of artifact an be B = = nesv uln fjvnl atei hi rtadscn er flf tEbb ssimilar is Erbaba at life of years second and first their in cattle juvenile of culling Intensive rxmlrdu;C radius; proximal itlmtpdas H metapodials; distal = = itlhmrs D humerus; distal atalh ¸ acnu;I calcaneus; ejmnS ruke&Cey .Makarewicz A. Cheryl & Arbuckle S. Benjamin atalh ¸ oy ¨ k where uk, ¨ = itlrdu,poia ii,poia eu,dsa femur. distal femur, proximal tibia, proximal radius, distal oy ¨ = k(13 e et,atog hsmya es partially least at may this although cent), per (21-33 uk ¨ rxmlfis hln;E phalanx; first proximal c 05 e eto niiul eesagtrdas slaughtered were individuals of cent per 40-50 . 677 > 6months). 36 = rxmlscn hln;F phalanx; second proximal tal et 99.Bsdon Based 1999). . c 5prcn)is cent) per 15 . = = itlscapula; distal itltibia; distal

Research The early management of cattle (Bos taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia

Figure 7. Deviations from the expected frequencies of skeletal elements in a complete ungulate skeleton for cattle (n = 415) and red deer (n = 284) from Erbaba. this model, the presence of lower utility skeletal parts, especially head and foot remains, indicating onsite butchery and slaughter of cattle, may serve as a proxy for identifying systems of cattle management. A summary of the representation of skeletal parts is presented in Figure 7 for both cattle and red deer. This graph presents deviations from the expected frequencies of skeletal parts in a complete ungulate skeleton for five anatomical regions including the head, axial skeleton, forelimb, hindlimb and extremities. These values are produced by calculating the minimum number of skeletal elements (MNE) and standardising first in reference to the number of elements present in a skeleton (Binford’s [1984] MAU) and then for each anatomical region (Stiner 1994: 240; Arbuckle 2006). A value above zero on this graph indicates that the elements of a given anatomical region are over-represented in proportion to their frequency in a complete carcass, while negative values indicate under-representation. Comparison of the representation of anatomical regions shows that patterns for cattle and red deer at Erbaba differ significantly both from the expected values and from each other. For cattle, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov one sample test indicates that the representation of anatomical regions differs significantly from that expected in a complete carcass (D = 0.154, n = 93, p<0.05). Elements of the head and hindlimb are slightly under-represented, whereas elements of the forelimb are slightly over-represented. The most dramatic deviations from expected skeletal proportions for cattle are observed in the axial skeleton, the elements of which are highly under-represented, and the distal extremities (i.e. feet), which are highly over-represented. The under-representation of axial elements is likely due to the low density

678 4060 a C(eespeXItruhI)(usl atn20) nadto,at addition, In 2005). C both Martin from 100km & than (Russell less located IV) settlement through a Suberde, pre-XII aceramic (levels C BC at herded, the cal not by hunted, slaughtered 7400-6300 were were cattle males that suggesting large site, and the adults of prime-aged inhabitants of proportion high a that indicate ateepotto ncnrlAaoi a enlreylmtdt h anlassemblage faunal early the to for limited evidence largely zooarchaeological been Erbaba, had from C Anatolia from data recovered central new in of exploitation availability cattle the to Prior C at to Cattle back brought being skeleton from the distance of some portions at processing. further processed useful for field most site and the the hunted only were suggests with deer evidence settlement, red This the cattle, hunters. to Erbaba meat contrast by in of likely employed that, concentrations feet strategies and high heads processing the poor nutrient carcasses while of reflect under-representation attrition the axial and mediated hindlimbs, deer density are and red fore- to skeleton rich the due axial of be under-representation and the hindlimb may extremities, cattle, and skeleton distal with forelimb head, As the 7). the in of (Figure taphonomic of elements differences under-represented deer, of elements represent red while instead result For over-represented but cattle. the are versus mammals, simply deer large of not all exploitation of are the remains frequencies the part affecting skeletal processes that indicating ways, Daly & Perkins see (although with fits population that domestic conclusion 2005). a indicates a Marciniak as likely site, 1968; cattle the elements Erbaba near foot of place to took of interpretation carcasses the abundance related cattle The of not butchery remains. the is primary cattle with however, that of associated assemblage elements, behaviors disposal human faunal foot and reflects Erbaba of butchery probably the thus abundance and in great attrition abundant The density-mediated cooking is 2006). as which such Arbuckle of processes (see taphonomic evidence survive gnawing, to not carnivore tend and which elements, skeletal axial of rsihl agri oysz hnctl rmtoeerirsts(Russell sites earlier those from cattle than size body in larger slightly or niaeta atefo h oe ees(r-I hog V tC at IV) through (pre-XII levels lower the from cattle that indicate ouain rmtoeriraeai ie ncnrlAaoi,As Anatolia, central Moreover, in levels. sites lower 1989; aceramic the earlier (Grigson in two remains errors from C cattle populations methodological from the data on in metrical evident based of not comparison been is 2005), have Martin to & Russell seems which for evidence only constituting processes and status the of re-evaluation C a at forced domestication cattle has however, of research, New date. early diminution an size and skeleton, ( ( cattle VI the assemblage level of faunal in portions all the of in representation remains fauna), collected cattle the of frequency high a documented eorpi aagnrtdfrctl eoee rmtelwrlvl tC at levels lower the from recovered cattle for generated data Demographic h ersnaino kltleeet o e erdfesfo htfrctl nimportant in cattle for that from differs deer red for elements skeletal of representation The otayt ekn’iiilrsls ateaentuuulyaudn tC at abundant unusually not are cattle results, initial Perkins’ to Contrary c ¸atalh 50clB) ugsigta oetctdctl eepeeta h iefrom site the at present were cattle domesticated that suggesting BC), cal 6500 . ¸atalh c 5prcn ftettlfua ean,adsz iiuin the diminution, size and remains, faunal total the of cent per 15 . oy ¨ oy ¨ uk ¨ ejmnS ruke&Cey .Makarewicz A. Cheryl & Arbuckle S. Benjamin k nlsso h C the of Analyses uk. ¨ atalh ¸ oy ¨ atalh ¸ kadi eta ntlai general. in Anatolia central in and uk ¨ oy ¨ kwt hs rmmrhlgclywl cattle wild morphologically from those with uk 679 ¨ atalh ¸ oy ¨ kfuacnutdb ekn (1969) Perkins by conducted fauna uk ¨ ıl H ¸ıklı ¸atalh atalh ¸ ¸atalh oy ¨ oy ¨ tal et oy ¨ kaesmlrto, similar are uk c ¨ kadMusular, and uk ¨ atalh ¸ 5prcn of cent per 75 . kadErbaba, and uk ¨ 2005). . oy ¨ atalh ¸ kbetween uk ¨ oy ¨ kalso uk ¨ oy ¨ uk, ¨

Research The early management of cattle (Bos taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia demographic data indicating a focus on slaughtering prime-aged adults and metrical data falling within the size range of Near Eastern aurochsen suggest that wild cattle were also exploited in the Beys¸ehir region of central Anatolia throughout the early Neolithic (c. 7500-7000 cal BC) (Perkins & Daly 1968; Perkins 1969). Analyses of fauna representing the latest phases of the Neolithic settlement at Ç atalhoy¨ uk¨ (Levels VII-I; 6500-6000 cal BC), recovered from the earlier Mellaart excavations, further reveals important diachronic shifts in cattle exploitation at the site (Ducos 1988). Tooth eruption and wear data indicate an increase in juvenile kill-off compared to the lower levels, with 40 per cent of cattle slaughtered between 0-2 years of age in the latest levels (Ducos 1988: 87). Cattle remains recovered from the upper levels of Çatalhoy¨ uk¨ are also considerably smaller than those from the earlier levels, with individuals falling well below the size range of Near Eastern aurochsen appearing for the first time. Since morphological domesticates have not been identified in recent work at the site through level IV, these data suggest that morphologically domestic cattle make their first appearance at Ç atalhoy¨ uk¨ some time in the latest levels, between 6300-6000 cal BC.

Autochthonous and diffusionary domestication processes Distinguishing between autochthonous domestication processes and the diffusion of domestic animals into a region from an outside source assumes that these processes are each characterised by distinctive trends observable in the biometrical and demographic data produced by each process. Although it is recognised that there is the potential for variation extending outside of this binary framework, it is argued that these models provide useful points of departure for more detailed discussions of the complex processes responsible for the emergence of cattle management in Anatolia. For those faunal assemblages produced by bringing local, wild populations under human control, the expectation is that these samples will be characterised by a gradual shift in skeletal morphology and biometrics, a process which may extend over a millennium or more as the introduction of management practices and anthropogenic selective pressures slowly transform wild populations into phenotypically domestic ones. Zooarchaeological evidence derived from several sites across the Near East, each exhibiting great temporal depth, supports this model, linking together gradual morphological change in animal populations and in situ domestication processes. At Merhgarh, a large Neolithic settlement located on the eastern margin of the Near East in Pakistani Balochistan, biometric data document a gradual process of size diminution in cattle recovered from deposits spanning the Neolithic period (c. 7000-4000 cal BC). By the end of the Neolithic, Mehrgarh cattle exhibit skeletal dimensions that fall well below those of wild aurochs suggesting local domestication processes (Meadow 1981, 1984, 1993). Similarly, a pattern of gradual reduction in body size is seen in cattle at C¸ayon¨ u¨ Tepesi, south-eastern Turkey, with the proportion of small, domestic-sized animals increasing slowly over time from the Channeled Building sub-phase (Middle PPNB, c. 8300-7500 cal BC) through the Pottery Neolithic levels (c. 6000 cal BC) (Hongo et al. 2002, 2004). In contrast, diffusion models describing the appearance of domesticated animals predict that morphologically domestic individuals will appear abruptly in assemblages

680 xrsino n opooia hne,a a aebe h aei h al Neolithic early the in the case to the prior been have place may (Vigne domestic took with Cyprus as and animals of changes, individuals wild husbanded morphological between any of many overlap of radiation expression of of the area presence if the Alternatively, continued within populations. ‘primitive’ fall the that phenotypically appearance morphologies but rapid of transitional the domesticates diffusion including models, morphological animals The both of managed of lacking. characteristics of present completely may dispersal cattle or managed the divergence expressed phenotypic if when weakly process particularly domestication is the of difficult, stages earliest be the during to local occurred and likely diffusion the of is processes for the domestication between models differentiating diffusionist zooarchaeologists, by of employed ( support PPNB in Late the used during cattle been domestic of similarly appearance have contexts Levantine Deschler- 2001; al (Hachem trade et and Marti-Gr migration these & human that Erb via suggests populations, introduced these were linking domesticates morphologies skeletal transitional of absence Linearbandkeramik aaeeti h einaecmlxpolm.Gvntepoietrl fctl at cattle C the of in role exploitation cattle cattle prominent in of changes the (Russell diachronic region beginnings Given the for in the problems. sites Neolithic represents complex Pottery early it are and aceramic whether region domestic the establishing morphologically in and of management Anatolia appearance central initial the in for cattle responsible processes the Isolating Discussion 2008). 2006, Zeder 1978; Hesse 1968; domesti- Daly local & Perkins between (e.g. distinguish processes to diffusionist order and in cation assessed be must representations, part skeletal Albarella tail’ and 2002; and wild Becker ‘peak distinctive 2001; biometrically or (Hachem of bimodal morphologies. populations presence of the domestic transitional form indicating for the data biometric in evidence in evident distributions little be with may process forms, this Zooarchaeologically, wild by dominated previously aae ncnrlAaoi ro oteapaac fmrhlgcldmsiae tErbaba at domesticates morphological of intensivelyat appearance were the cattle to that prior suggest Anatolia not central in do managed available currently are that data the Neolithic, early well. as As development as late such a in sites was cattle husbandry domestic cattle that morphologically mean of necessarily appearance period not late are does considerable of relatively region management some the the appearance by herd 2006), changes the of (Zeder morphological origins time for of of the appearance explanation the since possible Moreover, predate to Anatolia. a thought central as in considered cattle seriously domestic be must processes ee 08.I spsil httecagsi ateepotto ouetdi eesVI-IV levels in documented exploitation cattle in changes the that possible is It 2008). Zeder lhuhteatctoosaddfuins oesdsrbdaoeaecommonly are above described models diffusionist and autochthonous the Although the as such cultures Neolithic European in cattle small-sized of appearance abrupt The lhuhtelc fdtie nomto eciigtefua eoee rmaceramic from recovered faunas the describing information detailed of lack the Although c 60clB Pris&Dl 98 eCpr uu20;Russell 2003; Duru & Cupere de 1968; Daly & (Perkins BC cal 6600 . 08.Cmaal imtia rnsietfidi atermisfo southern from remains cattle in identified trends biometrical Comparable 2008). . ıl n uua niisoraiiyt nepe atemngmn nthe in management cattle interpret to ability our inhibits Musular and ¸ıklı dl20;Dbe asn20;Ewrs&Blogn 07 Scheu 2007; Bollongino & Edwards 2006; Larson & Dobney 2004; adel ¨ tal et LK,cmie ihtecniudpeec frbs uohe and aurochsen robust of presence continued the with combined (LBK), 03,te te ie feiec,icuigdmgahcdt and data demographic including evidence, of lines other then 2003), . ejmnS ruke&Cey .Makarewicz A. Cheryl & Arbuckle S. Benjamin 681 atalh ¸ c 50clB)(ekr2002). (Becker BC) cal 6500 . oy ¨ ksrtgahcsqec,local sequence, stratigraphic uk ¨ tal et tal et 05,adteevidence the and 2005), . 2006). . tal et 2005; .

Research The early management of cattle (Bos taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia at Ç atalhoy¨ uk,¨ just prior to the appearance of domestic cattle, may reflect the early stages of a process of intensified management of wild cattle populations that, if left to develop uninterrupted, may have eventually led to the emergence of local domesticates (but see Russell & Martin 2005). If so, this local process seems to have been truncated by the abrupt appearance of domesticates on the Konya Plain and in other parts of central Anatolia in the mid-seventh millennium. Unlike the situation at Merhgarh or Çayon¨ u,¨ where biometric data indicate a gradual decrease in cattle size over a period of several millennia, suggesting local domestication processes, the abrupt appearance of small-sized cattle at Erbaba, in the upper levels of Ç atalhoy¨ uk,¨ and at Hoy¨ ucek¨ in south-west Anatolia within the same narrow time horizon provides little time depth for a process of local domestication. This strongly suggests that the earliest morphologically domestic cattle in central Anatolia derive from previously domesticated populations from neighbouring regions. In addition, the identification of morphologically domestic cattle populations predating those in central Anatolia from sites such as Yumuktepe on the southern coast of Anatolia and Gurc¨ utepe¨ and Halula in the northern Levant provide plausible sources for imported domesticated animals (Buitenhuis & Caneva 1998; Peters et al. 1999; von den Driesch & Peters 1999). The presence of well- worn trade networks involved in the movement of obsidian, Mediterranean shells, and other commodities confirms that central Anatolians were regularly engaged with other human populations throughout the Near East (Bar-Yosef 2001; Asouti 2006). Indeed, trade networks may have served as important conduits through which domestic cattle were transported and exchanged. Although the rapid appearance of morphological domesticates in central Anatolia fits the predictions outlined by diffusion models, the persistence of a high degree of variation in body size and the presence of both very large and small cattle at Erbaba and Ç atahoy¨ uk¨ VII-I differs from examples of secondary diffusion of domesticates in regions such as Europe. This may be the result of several factors. First, the presence of specimens exhibiting a wide range of sizes in the Erbaba and Ç atalhoy¨ uk¨ VII-I assemblages may be indicative of the diffusion of phenotypically ‘primitive’ domesticates, which do not exhibit as great a degree of phenotypic divergence from wild populations as do domesticates in later periods (e.g. Grigson 1989). However, given the small size and relatively low range of variation in biometric data evident among domestic cattle at the contemporary site of Hoy¨ ucek,¨ the arrival of primitive domestic cattle in central Anatolia does not explain the full range of metrical variability visible in the Erbaba and Ç atalhoy¨ uk¨ assemblages. Instead, the continued presence of many large-sized cattle at these sites likely indicates a continued exploitation of aurochsen, animals which may have not only served as supplements to the subsistence economies at these settlements, particularly during the early stages of incorporating domestic cattle into local subsistence systems, but also may have played an important role in social practices as well. At Ç atalhoy¨ uk,¨ the hunting of aurochs featured in various socio-cultural practices for a millennium prior to the appearance of cattle herding (Mellaart 1967; Meskell 2008), and evidently continued alongside herding as an important part of the maintenance and management of social and political relationships within this community. The apparent delay of several centuries between the appearance of domestic cattle at Erbaba and their adoption at Ç atalhoy¨ uk¨ may be related to the central role of

682 frgoa n nr-einlvrainwe drsigtedvlpetadsra of spread and development the addressing when variation technologies. C Neolithic intra-regional at and cattle increasingly regional of wild of process autochthonous of an management central of in development intensive cattle the in domestic truncated of practiced have appearance than may the scale Anatolia that smaller possibility a the on Moreover, although periods. Anatolia, previous central introducing in by complex persisted on centered hunting domesticates traditions a local aurochs initially assimilation of engrained deeply animals, Significantly, maintenance entailed herds. The managed husbanded regular into likely aurochs and of Anatolia. local sources, economies use central extra-local simultaneous Neolithic via the in local obtained involved cattle into that strategy husbanded cattle management domestic of primitive use of earliest the represents perneo opooial oetcctl tEbb,adsihl ae tC at later slightly and Erbaba, the at that cattle argue we domestic populations, morphologically managed of in appearance 6300- phenotypes domestic of between expression the preceded Plain Anatolian Konya central the into cattle on goat 2008). and (Martin domestic 2006, millennium east sheep a large-scale of than by the more incorporation characterised for previously herding to rapid been had a and that economies suggests subsistence 2003), BC Duru cal BC 6000 & cal 6400/6200 by Cupere Anatolia south-western in (de Erbaba cattle domestic at by morphologically Anatolia cattle of central of use in which appearance The butchering first by their on-site make of mechanisms and cattle domestic combination animals, and that The suggest juvenile modes economies. of the Neolithic harvesting local diminution, assessing into size for outside incorporated and cattle became managed region cattle of domestic Euphrates spread middle initial the the documenting of for Anatolia region central domestication, important cattle for an centre remains early an be to considered longer no Although Conclusion as well sphere. as domestic ideological the into the cattle resisted incorporating actively with the associated have within C changes embedded may of economic deeply hunting, and inhabitants by cattle the maintained surrounding been of practices have Some may identity settlement. and latter position social the at hunting aurochs ie ti osbeta ididvdas seilybls eealwdo norgdto encouraged or allowed phenotypic of were pace populations. the bulls, domestic reduce those effectively especially would within that divergence individuals, practice a wild females, domestic that the with at breed possible cattle domestic is of it importation the site, following presumably and continued risky behaviour highly rewarding this If and socially events. value cultural high provide specific to for order animals in powerful control symbolically may under hunters aurochsen Neolithic brought that occasionally suggests least 15), at Plate have 2006: Hodder 64; Plate 1967: (Mellaart cattle fe h dpino atehrigmyb u obedn rcie hticue the included that practices breeding to (G due herds managed be into may aurochsen herding local cattle of recruitment of adoption the after tal et lhuhw cnweg htteiiito faia aaeetpatcslikely practices management animal of initiation the that acknowledge we Although C and Erbaba at cattle wild morphologically of presence continued the Finally, 06.Tepeec tC at presence The 2006). . ejmnS ruke&Cey .Makarewicz A. Cheryl & Arbuckle S. Benjamin atalh ¸ oy ¨ ko alpitnsta a eitcpue wild captured depict may that wall-paintings of uk ¨ atalh ¸ 683 tal et oy ¨ 02 usl atn20;Arbuckle 2005; Martin & Russell 2002; . kfrhrepaie h importance the emphasises further uk ¨ otherstrom ¨ tal et 05 Beja-Pereira 2005; . atalh ¸ c 50clBC. cal 6500 . oy ¨ ¸atalh atalh ¸ k whose uk, ¨ oy ¨ oy ¨ uk, ¨ uk ¨

Research The early management of cattle (Bos taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia

Acknowledgements Analysis of the Erbaba faunal assemblage was supported by the Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Harvard University as well as the Peabody Museum of Ethnology and Archaeology. Richard Meadow, Stine Rossel, Levent Atici, Peter Burns and Tonya Largy provided help in all stages of this research and this is gratefully acknowledged. Financial support for this research was provided by grants from the American Research Institute in Turkey, the University Research Committee and the Vice Provost for Research at Baylor University, and NSF Grant BCS-0530699. Biometric data for the Erbaba cattle are available by request (please contact Arbuckle).

References BINFORD, L.R. 1984. Faunal remains from Klasies River mouth. New York: Academic Press. ALBARELLA,U.,K.DOBNEY & P.A. ROWLEY-CONWY. 2006. The domestication of the pig (Sus scrofa): BORDAZ,J.&L.ALPER-BORDAZ. 1976. Erbaba new challenges and approaches, in M. Zeder, D.G. excavations: activities through the 1974 field Bradley, E. Emschwiller & B.D. Smith (ed.) season. Turk¨ Arkeoloji Dergisi 23: 39-43. Documenting domestication: new genetic and – 1982. Erbaba: the 1977 and 1978 seasons in archaeological paradigms: 209-27. Berkeley (CA): perspective. Turk¨ Arkeoloji Dergisi 26: 85-93. University of California Press. BUITENHUIS, H. & I. CANEVA. 1998. Early animal ARBUCKLE, B.S. 2006. The evolution of sheep and goat breeding in south-eastern Anatolia: pastoralism and social complexity in Central Anatolia. Mersin-Yumuktepe, in P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, PhD dissertation. Ann Arbor (MI): University E. Jerem & W. Meids (ed.) Man and the animal Microfilms International. world: 122-30. Budapest: Archaeolingua. – 2008. Caprine exploitation at Erbaba Hoy¨ uk:¨ a CAVALLO, C. 2000. Animals in the steppe: a Pottery Neolithic village in Central Anatolia, in L. zooarchaeological analysis of the Later Neolithic Tell Gourichon & E. Vila (ed.) Archaeozoology of Sabi Abyad, Syria (British Archaeological Reports southwestern Asia and adjacent areas VIII: 345-65. International Series 891). Oxford: John & Erica Paris: Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient. Hedges. ARBUCKLE, B.S. & V. O¨ ZKAYA. 2006. Animal CESSFORD, C. 2001. A new dating sequence for exploitation at Kortik Tepe: an early Aceramic Çatalhoy¨ uk.¨ Antiquity 75: 717-25. Neolithic site in southeastern Turkey. Paléorient DE CUPERE,B.&R.DURU. 2003. Faunal remains from 32(2): 113-36. Neolithic Hoyucek (SW Turkey) and the presence ASOUTI, E. 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of early domestic cattle in Anatolia. Paléorient 29: interaction sphere. Journal of World Prehistory 20: 107-20. 87-126. DESCHLER-ERB,S.&E.MARTI-GRADEL¨ . 2004. BAR-YOSEF, O. 2001. The world around Cyprus: from Viehaltung und Jagd. Ergebnisse der Untersuchung Epi-Paleolithic foragers to the collapse of the PPNB def handaufgelesenen Tierknochen, in S. Jacomet, civilization, in C. Swiny (ed.) Earliest prehistory of U. Leuzinger & J. Schibler (ed.) Die Cyprus: 129-64. Boston (MA): American Schools of jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon Bleiche 3. Oriental Research. Umwelt und Wirthschaft: 158-252. Thurgau: Department fur Erziehung und Kultur des Kantons BECKER, C. 2002. Nothing to do with indigenous domestication? Cattle from Late PPNB Basta, in H. Thurgau. Buitenhuis, A.M. Choyke, M. Mashkour & A.H. DOBNEY,K.&G.LARSON. 2006. Genetics and animal Al-Shiyab (ed.) Archaeozoology of the Near East V. domestication: new windows on an elusive process. Proceedings of the fifth international symposium on the Journal of Zoology 269: 261-71. archaeozoology of southwestern Asia and adjacent areas DUCOS, P. 1968. L’origine des animaux domestique en (ARC Publication 62): 112-37. Groningen: Centre Palestine (Publications de Prehistoire de l’Universite for Archaeological Research and Consultancy. de Bordeaux 6). Bordeaux: Imprimeries Delmas. BEJA-PEREIRA, A., D. CARAMELLI,C.LALUEZA-FOX,C. – 1988. Archéozoologie quantitative: Les valeurs VERNESI,N.FERRAND,A.CASOLI,F.GOYACHE,L.J. numériques immédiates a ÇatalHuy¨ uk.¨ (Cahiers du ROYO,M.LARI,A.MARTINI,L.OURAGH,A. Quaternaire 12). Paris: Centre National de la MAGID,A.ATASH,A.ZSOLNAI,P.BOSCATO,C. Recherche Scientifique Centre regional de TRIANTAPHYLIDIS,K.PLOUMI,L.SINEO,F. publication de Bordeux. MALLEGNI,P.TABERLET,G.ERHARDT,L. EDWARDS,C.J.&R.BOLLONGINO. 2007. SAMPIETRO,J.BERTRANPETIT,G.BARBUJANI,G. Mitochondrial DNA analysis shows a Near Eastern LUIKART &G.BERTORELLE. 2006. The origin of Neolithic origin for domestic cattle and no European cattle: evidence from modern and ancient indication of domestication of European aurochs. DNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274: 1377-85. Sciences 103: 8113-18.

684 H G 92 luhe atrsaddmsiain the domestication: and patterns Slaughter 1982. – H H G H H H H OTHERSTROM RIGSON ORWITZ ONGO ONGO ODDER ESSE ELMER ACHEM ¨ 41-54. recents. les fouilles d’apres donnees Nouvelles BP. millenaire VIIIe ijr umle uIemlear BP millenaire IXe et du nord milieu du du Syrie Sinjar) nord Levant le dans d’embouche einnso atrls nwsenIran. western in pastoralism of beginnings International. Microfilms University (MI): Iran Arbor western Ann in dissertation. Dareh Ganj of site Neolithic 403-17. rts rhelgclReports. Archaeological Oxford: British 77-109. 496): Series International Reports agriculture (ed.) of Gardner beginnings N. A. & in Williams East, D. Near Milles, the in cattle of domestication 7:2345-50. 272: Europe. aurochs in with bulls hydridization by followed was East Leidorf. Danubien J.C.) Ancien av. Neolithique (5500-4900 statut la et dans Role chasse ronde. la table de premiere la de novembre Actes 21 1996. et 20 Strasbourg, danubiennes recontres R.-M. in Rubane, Arbogast,C.Jeunesse&J.Schibler(ed.) du eleveurs les chez sauvage otesenAaoi.G Anatolia. southeastern C at exploitation Animal 2004. T C nH utnus .M hye .Msku & (ed.) Mashkour Al-Shiyab M. H. Choyke, A. M. A. Buitenhuis, H. in C in Neolithic domestication Prepottery ungulate of process The 2002. rnne:Cnr o rhelgclRsac and Consultancy. Research Archaeological for Centre Groningen: areas Asia adjacent southwestern and of archaeozoology the on international symposium fifth the of Proceedings V. East E 209-24. Levant. southern rnsi Neolithic in trends E Hudson. C of mysteries ¸ay LLEGREN LBURG UBA-AR .1978. B. , ¨ on ,H.,R.H.M ,H.,R.H.M ¨ .19.L oetcto e animaux des domestication La 1994. D. , .2006. I. , .20.L ocpind od animal monde du conception La 2001. L. , .18.Sz n e:eiec o the for evidence sex: and Size 1989. C. , ,L.K.&P.D eeinehyalra yararlanılması. hayvanlardan Tepesi’nde u ¨ ,C.S 05 atedmsiaini h Near the in domestication Cattle 2005. . :107-19. 7: . .A C. A., , ¸atalh vdnefrhsadyfo h early the from husbandry for Evidence MITH h epr’ ae eeln the revealing tale: leopard’s The Anthropozoologica rceig fteRylSceyB Society Royal the of Proceedings EADOW EADOW eu ePal de Revue oy ¨ ACPbiain6) 153-65. 62): Publication (ARC ,D.G.B UCOS Bos uk ¨ 111 adn Marie Rahden: 91-111. : NDERUNG ¸ay rhezooyo h Near the of Archaeozoology odn hms& Thames London: . rqece rmthe from frequencies BiihArchaeological (British 05 onigcattle: Counting 2005. . ,B. ,B. nyouAnadolu, uneydogu ¨ on ¨ ejmnS ruke&Cey .Makarewicz A. Cheryl & Arbuckle S. Benjamin RADLEY ,suhatr Turkey, southeastern u, ¨ O O ¨ ¨ ´ oilge Gen eobiologie, ¸ay ,L.H KS KSUZ UZ ¨ on ¨ 20: &H. Tepesi, u ¨ &I.G &G.I ELLBORG alafindu ` The Premieres .PhD Man ULC LGEZDI ¨ ` eve ,R. ¸ IN 10: 17: . . 685 99 selgcleiec o h rcs fanimal of process the for evidence Osteological 1989. – East: Middle the in domestication Animal 1984. – M for techniques scaling index size of use The 1999. – East: Middle the in domestication Animal 1993. – H M M M M I M LGEZDI ORWITZ ARCINIAK AKAREWICZ ESKELL ELLAART EADOW ARTIN n predation pastoralism and domestication, of patterns larder: walking (ed.) Clutton-Brock J. in domestication, Reports. Archaeological British Oxford: 309-37. 202): Series International Reports flocks Archaeological their (British and herders Early 3: Volume archaeology. (ed.) Grigson J. C. in & margin, Clutton-Brock eastern the from view a 1979 (ed.) archaeology Hertel H. in Pakistan, Merhgarh, SouthAsia:afirstreportofthefaunalremainsfrom adn ai Leidorf. Marie Rahden: tiermedizin der geschichte and ethnologie, agyptologie, archaologie, palaoanatomie, zur Beitrage & Peters J. (ed.) Manhart, Schibler H. J. Becker, C. in East, the Middle from collections archaeozoological on research Studies. Indian of Institute perspective G.L. in margin, (ed.) eastern Possehl the from view revised a rnesUniversity. Brandeis dissertation, BA Unpublished economy. herding and the domestication of processes Erbaba: Neolithic rhelgclRsac n Consultancy. and Research for Archaeological Centre Groningen: A 141-53. Part 32): areas. Publications adjacent and Asia southwestern archaeozoology of the on the symposium of international Proceedings IV. fourth East Near (ed.) the Choyke of M. Archaeozoology A. H. & in Mashkour bones, M. deer Buitenhuis, red the of assessment preliminary n xenlrltosdrn h t-t millennia BC 9th-6th cal the during relations external developments and internal Anatolia: Central of Neolithic Anatolia Archaeology nml n netr tC at ancestors and animals 99 nmldmsiaini h southern Levant. the in domestication Animal 1999. communities farming prehistoric of zooarchaeology social A. elti,i .G F. in Anatolian Neolithic, Central the from remains Animal O DEN VON .20.Zorhelg tC at Zooarchaeology 2000. G. , ,L.,N.R .20.Tentr ftebat curating beast: the of nature The 2008. L. , ..18.Eryaia oetcto in domestication animal Early 1981. R.H. , .. .T E. L.K., , .1967. J. , 9-1.Itnu:EeYayınları. Ege Istanbul: 193-216. : .2005. A. , Pal e ok McGraw-Hill. York: New . .19.Tefua ean of remains faunal The 1999. C. , 9-2.NwDli American Delhi: New 295-320. : ´ eorient 0 373-89. 40: odn C Press. UCL London: . D aapncvlzto:arecent a civilization: Harappan 09.Lno:UwnHyman. Unwin London: 80-96. : USSELL RIESCH C itraaiaime ossibus: ex animalium Historia ¸atalH 4-9 eln itihReimer. Dietrich Berlin: 143-79. : CHERNOV rr .Tisn(ed.) Thissen L. & erard ´ lcn nml nteNeolithic: the in animals Placing 5 63-80. 25: &D.C ,L.M uy ¨ ¸atalh k elti onin town Neolithic a uk: ¨ ,P.D ARTIN ARRUTHERS oy ¨ UCOS uk. ¨ ¸ay &A.G nml in Animals ,C.B World on ¨ ot Asian South 285-300. : 2002. . :a u: ¨ The ARRARD The ECKER (ARC . ,

Research The early management of cattle (Bos taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia

PAYNE, S. 1985. Animal bones from As¸ikli Huy¨ uk.¨ THISSEN, L. 2002. Appendix I. CANeW 14C databases Anatolian Studies 35: 109-22. and 14C charts, Anatolia, 10,000-5,000 cal BC, in PERKINS, D. 1969. Fauna of ÇatalHuy¨ uk:¨ evidence for F. G erard´ & L. Thissen (ed.) The Neolithic of cattle domestication in Anatolia. Science 164: Central Anatolia: internal developments and external 177-9. relations during the 9th-6th millennia cal BC: 299-337. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. PERKINS,D.P.&P.DALY. 1968. A hunters’ village in Neolithic turkey. Scientific American 219: 96-106. VIGNE,J.-D.,I.CARRERE &J.GUILAINE. 2003. Unstable status of early domestic ungulates in the PETERS,J.,D.HELMER,A.VON DEN DRIESCH &M. Near East: the example of Shillourokambos SANA SEGUI. 1999. Early animal husbandry in the northern Levant. Paléorient 25: 27-47. (Cyprus, IX-VIIIth millennia cal BC), in J. Guilaine & A. Le Brun (ed.) Le Neolithique de ROHRS¨ ,V.M.&W.HERRE. 1961. Zur Chypre. Actes du colloque international organise par le Fruhentwicklung der Haustiere. Die Tierreste der Department des Antiquites de Chypre et l’Ecole neolithischen Sieldung Fikirtepe am Française d’Athenes, Nicosie, 17-19 Mai 2001: Kleinasiatischen Gestade des Bosporus. Zeitschrift 239-51. Athens: Ecole française d’Athenes. fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungs Biologie 75: 110-27. VIGNE,J.-D.,G.DOLLFUS &J.PETERS. 1999. Les RUSSELL,N.&L.MARTIN. 2005. The Çatalhoy¨ uk¨ debuts de l’elevage au proche-orient: donnees´ mammal remains, in I. Hodder (ed.) Inhabiting nouvelles et reflexions. Paléorient 25: 5-8. Çatalhoy¨ uk:¨ reports from the 1995-1999 seasons (McDonald Institute Monographs): 33-98. VON DEN DRIESCH,A.&J.PETERS. 1999. Vorlaufiger¨ Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Bericht uber¨ die archaozoologischen¨ Research/London: British Institute of Archaeology Untersuchungen am Gobekli¨ Tepe und am at Ankara. Gurc¨ utepe¨ bei Urfa, Turkei.¨ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 49: 23-39. RUSSELL,N.,L.MARTIN &H.BUITENHUIS. 2005. Cattle domestication at Çatalhoy¨ uk¨ revisited. ZEDER, M. 2001. A metrical analysis of a collection of Current Anthropology 46: S101-08. modern goats (Capra hircus aegagrus and C. h. hircus) from Iran and Iraq: implications for the RUTIMEYER¨ , L. 1862. Die Fauna der Pfahlbauten der study of caprine domestication. Journal of Schweiz. Zurich: Druck von Zilteher und Furrer. Archaeological Science 28: 61-79. SCHEU, A., S. HARTZ,U.SCHMOLCKE,A.TRESSET,J. – 2006. A critical assessment of markers of initial BURGER &R.BOLLONGINO. 2008. Ancient DNA domestication in goats (Capra hircus), in M. Zeder, provides no evidence for independent D.G. Bradley, E. Emschwiller & B.D. Smith (ed.) domestication of cattle in Mesolithic Rosenhof, Documenting domestication: new genetic and Northern Germany. Journal of Archaeological Science archaeological paradigms: 181-208. Berkeley (CA): 35: 1257-64. University of California Press. SILVER, I.A. 1969. The aging of domestic animals, in D. – 2008. Domestication and early agriculture in the Brothwell & E. Higgs (ed.) Science in archaeology: Mediterranean Basin: origins, diffusion, and 283-99. London: Thames & Hudson. impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of STINER, M.C. 1994. Honor among thieves: a Sciences 105: 11597-604. zooarchaeological study of Neandertal ecology. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.

686