The Early Process of Mammal Domesticatiom in the Near East

18 pages

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 18
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  The Early Process of Mammal Domestication in the Near East: New Evidence from the Pre-Neolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic in CyprusAuthor(s): Jean-Denis Vigne, Isabelle Carrère, François Briois, and Jean GuilaineReviewed work(s):Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 52, No. S4, The Origins of Agriculture: New Data, NewIdeas (October 2011), pp. S255-S271Published by: The University of Chicago Press  on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for AnthropologicalResearch Stable URL: . Accessed: 23/07/2012 14:44 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at  .  . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact  . The University of Chicago Press  and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research  are collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.  Current Anthropology   Volume 52, Supplement 4, October 2011 S255   2011 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved. 0011-3204/2011/52S4-0008$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/659306 The Early Process of Mammal Domesticationin the Near East New Evidence from the Pre-Neolithic andPre-Pottery Neolithic in Cyprus by Jean-Denis Vigne, Isabelle Carre`re, Franc¸ois Briois, and Jean Guilaine Recent archaeological investigations on Cyprus have unveiled unsuspected Late Glacial and Early Holocene (twelfth–tenth millennia cal BP) pieces of the island’s human history. Based on a review of the archaeological data and of the final results of the archaeozoological analyses of Sector 1 of the prepottery site at Shillourokambos, this paper examines how Cyprus improves our understandingof the process of mammal domestication in the Near East. Early introduction of controlled wildanimals and then of early domestic lineages provides information about the modalities of the do-mestication process on the mainland. This information emphasizes the importance of technical skills,of local opportunities and adaptations, and of long-distance and increasing exchanges in the largerNear East area. Cyprus was a recipient of wild or domestic taxa from the continent through recurrentintroductions, but it was fully part of the wider area of incipient farming, as seen in local innovationssuch as the intensive hunting/control of wild deer and boar or local domestication of wild/feral goats.The transition to farming during the tenth millennium appears to follow an unstable and oppor-tunistic Early and Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B phase of low-level food production based onrapidly changing combinations of hunting, control, and breeding. Introduction During recent decades,manynewdatahavebeenaccumulatedby archaeology, archaeozoology, and genetics on the begin-nings of mammal domestication in several regions of theworld. This includes the Near East, where the study of early domestication began very early and has provided more evi-dence and models than many other regions (e.g., Davis 2005;Dobney and Larson 2006; Redding 2005; Zeder 2006, 2011;Zeder et al. 2006). However, even in the Near East, ourknowl-edge remains poor, as demonstrated by the fact that many  Jean-Denis Vigne  is a senior researcher at the Centre National dela Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Director of Unite´ Mixte deRecherche 7209, “Arche´ozoologie, Arche´obotanique: Socie´te´s,Pratiques et Environnements,” Muse´um National d’HistoireNaturelle–CNRS (75005 Paris, France []).  IsabelleCarre`re  and  Franc¸ois Briois  are researchers at Unite´ Mixte deRecherche 5608, “Travaux et Recherches Arche´ologiques sur lesCultures, les Espaces et les Socie´te´s” (TRACES), Ecole des HautesEtudes en Sciences Sociales, Universite´ Le Mirail (31000 Toulouse,France).  Jean Guilaine  is Professor Emeritus at the Colle`ge de France(75005 Paris, France). This paper was submitted 13 XI 09, accepted28 XII 10, and electronically published 26 VIII 11. recent field projects and archaeozoological studies have ledto a reconsideration of the general scenarios (cf., e.g., Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1995; Ducos 1968; Helmer 1992; Legge1996; Zeder 2005).Since the 1990s, Cyprus hasprovidedstartlingnewevidencefrom archaeological discoveries dating to the late eleventh andthe tenth millennia cal BP (Guilaine and Le Brun 2003; Pel-tenburg and Wasse 2004), 1 contemporaneous with the end of the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (EPPNB) and the MiddlePre-Pottery Neolithic B (MPPNB) and Late Pre-Pottery Neo-lithic B (LPPNB) of the mainland. Because islands are clearly defined territories, because the Mediterranean islands weremassively colonized beginning only in the Neolithic (Cherry 1990), because their endemic native fauna lacked any of thewild ancestors of domesticates (Vigne 1999), and because Cy-prus is the only large island in the Near East, it providesunique information. As Cyprus was necessarily dependent oninfluences from the continent, at least at the beginning of theNeolithic, it may be thought of as an observation post re-cording what occurred on the nearby mainland.In this paper, we present a synthesis from the Cypriot Pre- 1. All the calibrated dates are given cal BP with 1 j  , using Calib Rev 5.0 (Reimer et al. 2004).  S256  Current Anthropology   Volume 52, Supplement 4, October 2011 Pottery Neolithic (PPN) perspective on early mammal do-mestication in the Near East. This is based mainly on therecent results of the final analyses of the first sector of Pa-rekklisha, Shillourokambos (Limassol district), the largestknown Cypriot PPN site (10,400–9000 BP; Guilaine 2003;Guilaine and Briois 2007; Guilaine, Briois, and Vigne 2011).Our approach to animal domestication lies within both thetechnological (Mauss 1947 [1967]) and the structuralist con-ceptual frameworks (Le´vi-Strauss 1958): technoeconomic andsymbolic uses of animals by human societies are part of theirtechnical, social, and symbolic systems and thus a character-istic part of their cultural systems (Vigne 1998). However, aspart of the ecosystem (another structural entity), the rela-tionships between animals and humans alsoinvolveecologicalapproaches and should be considered within the structuralframework of the “anthroposystem,” that is, a metasystemthat groups together the cultural and ecological systems andtheir interactions and dynamics through time (Muxart et al.2003; Pascal, Lorvelec, and Vigne 2006; Vigne 2011).From this viewpoint, in addition to the different kinds of ecological affinities of animals to the human-made orhuman-modified ecosystems, including commensalisms, domestica-tion appears as a process of intensification of animal-humanrelationships (Pascal, Lorvelec, and Vigne 2006) boosted by human intentionality. 2 Consequently, weconsiderthatcontrolin the wild and control/protection/use of commensals areinitial stages of the domestication process, although they in-volve animal populations that are still wild from a biologicalviewpoint. Such situations can be detected mostly as an in-crease in the frequency of the targeted species, as changes inage and sex proportions in the archaeological record (Zeder2009, 2011), and/or as transport. We restrict the term “do-mestic mammals” to animal populations that show pheno-typic modifications due to human breeding/herding. As someof these cannot be archaeologically detected, sometimes thedomestic status cannot be determined. In the same way, werestrict the term “farming” to technoeconomic systems basedmostly on animal (and plant) breeding, which appears tohavestarted in the middle of the tenth millennium (transitionbetween MPPNB and LPPNB) in large villages of the NearEast (Vigne 2008, 2011). We distinguish farming from “low level food production” as defined by Smith (2001). The Early Neolithization of Cyprus:A Brief Updated Review  The island of Cyprus emerged from the bottom of the Med-iterranean Sea during the Miocene and has never been con-nected to any continent (Held 1989). As a result, the Upper 2. The conceptual frame summarized in this paragraph has beenstrengthened, clarified, and here and there modified bydiscussionsduringthe Me´rida meeting “The Beginnings of Agriculture,” mainly among thearchaeozoology working group: Fiona Marshall, Richard Meadow, PeterRowley-Conwy, and Melinda Zeder. Pleistocene terrestrial mammalian fauna was reduced to only four or five endemic species (Boekschoten and Sondaar 1972;Simmons 1999): mouse ( Mus cypriacus  ; Cucchi et al. 2006),genet ( Genetta plesictoides  ), dwarf elephant( Elephascypriotes  ),dwarf hippopotamus ( Phanourios minutus  ), and perhaps ashrew.The upper layer of the rock shelter at Akrotiri Aetokremnosprovides the earliest known evidence of visits to the islandby humans, dated to 12,776–12,461 cal BP (nine wood char-coal dates; Simmons 1999; Simmons and Mandel 2007), cor-responding to the Late Natufian in the northern Levant. Sim-mons (1988, 1999) has proposed that these human groupshunted elephants and hippos to extinction. This is, however,questioned by numerous authors (e.g., Ammerman andNoller 2005; Binford 2000; Bunimovitz and Barkai 1996; Da-vis 2003; Olsen 1999; Vigne 1999; Wasse 2007), who arguethat the two native large mammals disappeared before thattime for climatic (Bromage et al. 2002) or anthropic reasons(or both; Wasse 2007). The diet of the occupants of Aeto-kremnos shelter seems to have consisted mainly of fish, shell-fish, and birds (Simmons 1999). Ammerman et al. (2006,2008) recently found two other sites that may be more or lesscontemporaneous with Aetokremnos,butnoradiometricdatahave corroborated their interpretations until now.In addition to thousands of hippo bones, 18 suid boneswere found at Aetokremnos, mainly in the upper layer (Sim-mons 1999). They have recently been directlydatedto11,746–11,396 cal BP ( BP [AA79923; degraded bone10,045  69collagen];  d 13 C,  25.1‰; Vigne et al. 2009). These suids were9%–20% smaller than the Near Eastern Late Glacial and Ho-locene wild boars and were also significantly smaller thanthose of the PPN and Early Pottery Neolithic of the NearEast. The most probable scenario (already partly suggestedby Wasse 2007) is that wild boars were artificially introducedto Cyprus sometime at the end of the Late Glacial (Natufianon the mainland), rapidly decreased in size because of theisolation effect, and then were hunted by people who fre-quented Aetokremnos during the second quarter of thetwelfth millennium (Late Khiamian on the mainland; fig. 1).At least three recent discoveries indicate that whether per-manently or not, humans continued to frequent the islandin the twelfth millennium cal BP and during the first half of the eleventh. At Ayios Tychonas Throumbovounos, Franc¸oisBriois and collaborators (Briois, Petit-Aupert, and Pe´choux 2005; Guilaine and Briois 2007) found an eroded site withlarge flint series similar to Mureybet II (Khiamian of theMiddle Euphrates valley, late Dryas). Unfortunately, therewere no associated faunal remains (F. Briois and J.-D. Vigne“Throumbovounos (Ayios Tychoˆnas, Chypre), rapport desondage,” unpublished report for the Department of Antiq-uities, Cyprus, 2003). At Agia Varvara Asprokremnos, paintedstone vessels, pendants, a shaft-straightener, and unidirec-tional flint  de ´bitage   provide strong parallels to materials datedto the late Pre-Pottery Neolithic A [PPNA]/transitionalEPPNB in the northern Levant (McCartney 2010; McCartney   Figure 1. Evolution of large mammals on Cyprus during Neolithization,with particular focus on the data from Shillourokambos. The chrono-
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks