The emergence of livestock husbandry in Early Neolithic Anatolia

Abstract

Analysis of spatio-temporal variation in patterns of animal exploitation helps our understanding of the transition from hunting to husbandry of Ovis, Capra, Sus, and Bos in Pre-Pottery Neolithic Anatolia (c.9500–7000 bce). Despite interaction with humans since the final Pleistocene, domestication of Sus in southeastern Anatolia is only evidenced after 8500 bce. This timing coincides with efforts to exert cultural control over Ovis, Capra, and Bos. Applying a broad methodological spectrum, it is shown that in southeastern Anatolia, the Neolithic ‘package’ was in place at the end of the ninth millennium bce, whereas in contemporaneous central Anatolia, livestock husbandry only included sheep and goat. Initially, animal management practices may have focused on a single species, but after 8000 bce, herding strategies comprised at least two species, likely a risk-reducing strategy. Conceivably, large-scale social gatherings, e.g. at Göbekli Tepe, promoted the spread of practices associated with ungulate management and domestication.

Diet uniformity at an early farming community in northwest Anatolia (Turkey): carbon and nitrogen isotope studies of bone collagen at Aktopraklık

“…6400-6000 cal. BC) at Aktopraklık albeit in very limited quantity and increase in frequency by the Early Chalcolithic, which is in keeping with the latest interpretive framework for the region (Peters et al 2017). …”

“…In the wider context of northwest Anatolia during the study period, it is clear from recent evidence that (i) cultivated cereals, legumes, and domestic animals were present since the very beginning of the Neolithic, (ii) pigs were not domesticated in the earliest phases of the Neolithic, and (iii) animal husbandry was of key significance to the economy for the entire region (Arbuckle et al 2014;Peters et al 2017).…”

The Pastoral Origin of Semiotically Functional Tonal Organization of Music

“…The origin of the latter can be dated by the timeline of the spread of domesticates over Europe, which is well studied. Animal icons show the approximate place and time of origin of domesticated cow, goat, sheep, and pig, based on available archeological data ( Zeder, 2008 ; Driscoll et al, 2009 ; Peters et al, 2017 ). Color-filled thick arrows show the timeline and main routs of dissemination of domesticated cattle during the Neolithic and early Bronze Age according to the archeological and genetic data ( Caramelli, 2006 ; Lõugas et al, 2007 ; Zeder, 2008 ; Rowley-Conwy, 2011 , 2013 ; Tresset and Vigne, 2011 ; Bläuer and Kantanen, 2013 ; Marciniak, 2013 ; Saña, 2013 ; Schulting, 2013 ; Sjögren and Price, 2013 ; Berthon, 2014 ; Cramp et al, 2014 ; Felius et al, 2014 ; Sørensen and Karg, 2014 ).…”

Cereal processing at Early Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey

“…At this site, from the second half of the 10 th millennium BC onwards, early Neolithic groups constructed several monumental circular limestone buildings up to 20 m in diameter and with pillars that were up to 5.5 m high and often richly decorated [64]. The buildings have been interpreted as the loci of cultic activities [52, 58, 64], and large-scale work feasts have been discussed as a model to explain the gathering of a workforce large enough for the building activities [51, 64, 72, 73]. Arguments regarding the subsistence of the builders and the likelihood of feasting have so far concentrated very much on hunting and the animal bones found at the site [58, 73–76].…”

“…The buildings have been interpreted as the loci of cultic activities [52, 58, 64], and large-scale work feasts have been discussed as a model to explain the gathering of a workforce large enough for the building activities [51, 64, 72, 73]. Arguments regarding the subsistence of the builders and the likelihood of feasting have so far concentrated very much on hunting and the animal bones found at the site [58, 73–76]. Göbekli Tepe has not played any role in discussions of early cereal use, although the late excavator of the site, Klaus Schmidt, proposed that the necessity to supply food for extensive construction activities could have contributed to a need for reliable food sources, accelerating the process of domestication [64].…”