Pigs and the pastoral bias: The other animal economy in northern Mesopotamia (3000–2000 BCE)

Price, Max; Grossman, Kathryn; Paulette, Tate

doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2017.06.001

Cited by 29 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The types of stress are nonspecific but include dietary deficiencies, metabolic abnormalities, localized trauma, disease, and psychological stress (Goodman and Rose 1990;Guatelli-Steinberg 2001;Hillson 1996, p. 165). Although the identification of specific stressors is complicated, the frequencies of hypoplasias can indicate the initial onset of management or changing husbandry conditions (e.g., between extensive and intensive husbandry regimes) (Bertini 2016;Dobney et al 2007;Ervynck et al 2001;Price et al 2017).…”

Section: A U T H O R Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Archaeology of Pig Domestication in Eurasia

Price

Hongo

2019

J Archaeol Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The multifaceted behavioral and ecological flexibility of pigs and wild boar (Sus scrofa) makes study of their domestication both complex and of broad anthropological significance. While recognizing contextual contingency, we propose several "pathways" to pig domestication. We also highlight the diversity of pig management practices. This diversity complicates zooarchaeological detection of management techniques employed by humans in the early steps of domestication, and we stress the need for multiple lines of evidence. Drawing together the evidence, we review early Holocene human-Sus relations in Japan, Cyprus, northern Mesopotamia, and China. Independent pig domestication occurred in northern Mesopotamia by c. 7500 cal. BC and China by c. 6000 cal. BC. In northern Mesopotamia pig domestication followed a combined "commensal and prey" pathway that evolved into loose "extensive" husbandry that persisted as the dominant form of pig management for several millennia. There are not yet enough zooarchaeological data to speculate on the early stages of pig domestication in China, but once that process began, it involved more intensive management (relying on pens and fodder), leading to more rapid selection for phenotypes associated with domestication. Finally, pig domestication "failed" to take off in Japan. We suggest this was related to a number of factors including the lack of domestic crops and, potentially, cultural barriers to conceiving animals as property.

show abstract

Section: A U T H O R Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Archaeology of Pig Domestication in Eurasia

Price

Hongo

2019

J Archaeol Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These include the unattractiveness of pigs in centralized systems, physiological/behavioral complications of pig herding, and a pork taboo (Zeder 1991(Zeder , 1998Redding 1991Redding , 2015. Pigs were instead considered a more suitable food source for rural and/or remote settlements, which relied on locally and loosely organized forms of subsistence (e.g., Zeder 1991Zeder , 1998Price, Grossman, and Paulette 2017). Only recently, studies in northern Mesopotamia demonstrated that the economic importance of pigs was wider spread across early urban contexts than previously thought (Grigson 2007;Berthon 2014;Price and Evin 2017;Gaastra, Greenfield, and Greenfield in press).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pigs in Sight: Late Bronze Age Pig Husbandries in the Aegean and Anatolia

Slim¹,

Çakırlar²,

Roosevelt

2020

Journal of Field Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores pig husbandry across the Aegean and Anatolia based on zooarchaeological data and ancient texts. The western Anatolian citadel of Kaymakçı is the departure point for discussion, as it sits in the Mycenaean-Hittite interaction zone and provides a uniquely large assemblage of pig bones. NISP, mortality, and biometric data from 38 additional sites across Greece and Anatolia allows observation of intra-and interregional variation in the role of pigs in subsistence economies, pig management, and pig size characteristics. Results show that, first, pig abundance at Kaymakçı matches Mycenaean and northern Aegean sites more closely than central, southern, and southeastern Anatolian sites; second, pig mortality data and biometry suggest multiple husbandry strategies and pig populations at Kaymakçı, but other explanations cannot yet be excluded; and, third, for the Aegean and Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age more generally, pig data suggests pluriformity, which challenges the use of "pig principles" in this region.

show abstract

“…Despite this decrease in rural focus on ovicaprine management, the majority of identified urban sites continue to demonstrate an increased representation of cattle (24.4%) although without an increase in the representation of pigs overall (2.6%) or increase proportions of wild taxa (2.5%), as was seen at urban sites during the preceding EB phases (Phases 4 and 5). Three sites (Tell Jemmeh, Tel Qashish and Yoqne'am), do however continue to demonstrate an increased representation of pigs (26.2% compared), higher than that seen from urban sites in the EB and more similar to that seen at urban sites of Mesopotamia ( [127]). These sites are all located along the coastal plain, in areas with comparatively high water availability (in particular Tel Qashish and Yoqne'am).…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 83%

There and back again: A zooarchaeological perspective on Early and Middle Bronze Age urbanism in the southern Levant

Gaastra

Greenfield

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple arguments for or against the presence of 'urban' settlements in the Early Bronze Age of the southern Levant have identified the need to compare these settlements against their rural hinterlands through multiple lines of evidence. This meta-analysis of zooarchaeological data from the region compares and identifies patterns of animal production, provisioning and consumption between the supposed "urban" and rural sites of the southern Levant from the Early Bronze (EB) against the (more widely recognised urban) Middle Bronze (MB) Ages. It also identifies distinct and regionally specific patterns in animal production and consumption that can be detected between urban and rural sites of the southern Levant. The taxonomic and age profiles from EB Ia and Ib sites do not demonstrate any urban versus rural differentiation patterning, even though fortifications appear in the EB Ib. Beginning in the EB II and clearly visible in the EB III, there is differentiation between rural and urban sites in the taxonomic and age proportions. Differentiation is repeated in the MB II. The clear differentiation between "urban" and rural zooarchaeological assemblages from the EB II-III and MB suggest that rural sites are provisioning the larger fortified settlements. This pattern indicates that these sites are indeed urban in nature, and these societies are organized at the state-level. From the EB II onwards, there is a clear bias in the large centres towards the consumption of cattle and of subadult sheep and goats with a corresponding bias in smaller rural sites towards the consumption of adult sheep and goats and a reduced presence of cattle. After the emergence of this differential pattern, it disappears with the decline in social complexity at the end of the Early Bronze Age, only to come 'back again' with the re-emergence of urban settlement systems in the Middle Bronze Age.

show abstract

Pigs and the pastoral bias: The other animal economy in northern Mesopotamia (3000–2000 BCE)

Cited by 29 publications

References 43 publications

The Archaeology of Pig Domestication in Eurasia

The Archaeology of Pig Domestication in Eurasia

Pigs in Sight: Late Bronze Age Pig Husbandries in the Aegean and Anatolia

There and back again: A zooarchaeological perspective on Early and Middle Bronze Age urbanism in the southern Levant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About