The Early Process of Mammal Domestication in the Near East

Vigne, J.-D.; Carrère, Isabelle; Briois, François; Guilaine, Jean

doi:10.1086/659306

Cited by 147 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Documenting the domestication process of animals in archaeology provides insights into a major cultural and biological transition in human history and into the temporal depth of its impact over biodiversity and species evolution [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Yet, tracking the domestication process in the archaeological record is an extremely challenging task for bioarchaeologists, as it involves intertwined cultural, ecological and evolutionary components [7,8], and is entirely dependent on the species involved, its domestication pathway and the intensity of their relationship with humans [9][10][11]. To help identify this complex and elusive process in archaeology, the process of domestication and the concept of domestic animals should be separated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mark of captivity: plastic responses in the ankle bone of a wild ungulate ( Sus scrofa )

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deciphering the plastic (non-heritable) changes induced by human control over wild animals in the archaeological record is challenging. We hypothesized that changes in locomotor behaviour in a wild ungulate due to mobility control could be quantified in the bone anatomy. To test this, we experimented with the effect of mobility reduction on the skeleton of wild boar ( Sus scrofa ), using the calcaneus shape as a possible phenotypic marker. We first assessed differences in shape variation and covariation in captive-reared and wild-caught wild boars, taking into account differences in sex, body mass, available space for movement and muscle force. This plastic signal was then contrasted with the phenotypic changes induced by selective breeding in domestic pigs. We found that mobility reduction induces a plastic response beyond the shape variation of wild boars in their natural habitat, associated with a reduction in the range of locomotor behaviours and muscle loads. This plastic signal of captivity in the calcaneus shape differs from the main changes induced by selective breeding for larger muscle and earlier development that impacted the pigs' calcaneus shape in a much greater extent than the mobility reduction during the domestication process of their wild ancestors.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mark of captivity: plastic responses in the ankle bone of a wild ungulate ( Sus scrofa )

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar, though contentious, claims for human controlled pig breeding between 8,200 and 7,500 BC have been made at Cafer Höyük (Helmer 2008) and Nevali Çori (Peters et al 2005) in southeastern Anatolia. The introduction of wild boar to Cyprus by at least 9,700–9,400 BC, however, indicates that humans were actively manipulating wild boar populations for millennia before the emergence of domestic pigs (Vigne et al 2011; Vigne et al 2009). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pig Domestication and Human-Mediated Dispersal in Western Eurasia Revealed through Ancient DNA and Geometric Morphometrics

Ottoni¹,

Flink²,

Evin³

et al. 2012

Molecular Biology and Evolution

202

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zooarcheological evidence suggests that pigs were domesticated in Southwest Asia ∼8,500 BC. They then spread across the Middle and Near East and westward into Europe alongside early agriculturalists. European pigs were either domesticated independently or more likely appeared so as a result of admixture between introduced pigs and European wild boar. As a result, European wild boar mtDNA lineages replaced Near Eastern/Anatolian mtDNA signatures in Europe and subsequently replaced indigenous domestic pig lineages in Anatolia. The specific details of these processes, however, remain unknown. To address questions related to early pig domestication, dispersal, and turnover in the Near East, we analyzed ancient mitochondrial DNA and dental geometric morphometric variation in 393 ancient pig specimens representing 48 archeological sites (from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic to the Medieval period) from Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. Our results reveal the first genetic signatures of early domestic pigs in the Near Eastern Neolithic core zone. We also demonstrate that these early pigs differed genetically from those in western Anatolia that were introduced to Europe during the Neolithic expansion. In addition, we present a significantly more refined chronology for the introduction of European domestic pigs into Asia Minor that took place during the Bronze Age, at least 900 years earlier than previously detected. By the 5th century AD, European signatures completely replaced the endemic lineages possibly coinciding with the widespread demographic and societal changes that occurred during the Anatolian Bronze and Iron Ages.

show abstract

“…BP; see Arbuckle & Özkaya, 2006), but more distantly, interesting finds on Cyprus indicate that animals were sufficiently controlled by humans to have been transported to the island by boat as early as about 11,400 cal. BP (Vigne et al, 2011). This establishes that the management of animals on the mainland began earlier than the current evidence suggests, closer to the time when rituals were practiced at Göbekli Tepe.…”

Section: The Problem Of Beliefmentioning

confidence: 56%