(Bos taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia

18 Pages·2009·0.69 MB·English

The early management of cattle (Bos
taurus) in Neolithic central Anatolia
h
Benjamin S. Arbuckle1 & Cheryl A. Makarewicz2 c
r
a
e
s
e
R
The authors use metrical, demographic and body part analyses of animal bone assemblages in
AnatoliatodemonstratehowcattlewereincorporatedintoearlyNeolithicsubsistenceeconomies.
SheepandgoatsweredomesticatedintheeighthmillenniumBC,whileaurochs,wildcattle,were
long hunted. The earliest domesticated cattle are not noted until the mid-seventh millennium
BC,andderivefromimportedstockdomesticatedelsewhere.InAnatolia,meanwhile,theaurochs
remainslargeandwildandretainsitscharismaasahuntedquarryandastudanimal.
Keywords: Anatolia, Neolithic, faunal analysis, aurochs, cattle, LSI, survivorship, skeletal
partsdistribution
Introduction
The domestication of cattle in the Near East approximately 10000 years ago was an
importantinnovationthathelpedtransformthesubsistencesystemsofagro-pastoralsocieties
that, previously, had relied largely on herds of domestic sheep and goats. The addition of
domesticcattle(Bostaurus)totheNeolithicsubsistencecomplex,aprocessthatwasinitiated
amillenniumafterthefirstsuccessfulmanagementofcaprines,facilitatedthedevelopment
of new economic and social systems that took advantage of the large packages of animal
products,includingmeat,blood,skin,andrenewablemilkandtraction,offeredbymanaged
cattleherds.
The processes by which domestic taurine cattle were incorporated into Neolithic agro-
pastoral subsistence economies in central Anatolia may be documented through various
lines of zooarchaeological evidence, including biometric, demographic and skeletal part
representation data. Through comparative analyses of these faunal data recovered from
multiple Neolithic sites locatedin the region, in particular the archaeofaunas from Erbaba
andC¸atalho¨yu¨k(Figure1,Table1),weargueforanewdateandprocessofdomestication
thatincludestheimportationofcattlepreviouslydomesticatedelsewhere.
Cattle exploitation at Erbaba
TheNeolithicsiteofErbabaprovidesavaluablesourceofdataforaddressingthenatureof
cattleexploitationincentralAnatoliaatacriticaltimeintheexpansionofcattlemanagement
throughouttheNearEastandbeyond(e.g.Horwitz&Ducos2005;Zeder2008).Although
1 DepartmentofAnthropology,ForensicScienceandArchaeology,BaylorUniversity,OneBearPlace97173,Waco
TX,76798-7173,USA(Email:benjamin [email protected])
2 StanfordArchaeologyCenter,StanfordUniversity,488EscondidoMall,StanfordCA,94305,USA
Received:14October2008;Accepted:27November2008;Revised:21January2009
ANTIQUITY83(2009): 669–686
669
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098902 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Theearlymanagementofcattle(Bostaurus)inNeolithiccentralAnatolia
Table1. ApproximatedatesforcentralAnatolianNeolithicsitesmentioned
inthetext(Cessford2001;Thissen2002;DeCupere&Duru2003).
CentralAnatolianNeolithicsites Approximatedates(calBC)
A¸sıklıHo¨yu¨k 8400-7400
Musular 7500-7000
Suberde 7400-7000
C¸atalho¨yu¨kpre-XIItoI 7400-6000
ErbabaHo¨yu¨k 6600-6100
Ho¨yu¨cek 6400/6200-6000
Figure1. Mapshowingthelocationofsitesmentionedinthetext.
thesitewasexcavatedmorethanfourdecadesago,thisimportantfaunalassemblagehasnever
been published in detail (although see Bordaz & Alper-Bordaz 1976, 1979; Makarewicz
1999).Threemajorstratigraphicphaseshavebeenidentified.EachlayerdatestothePottery
Neolithic period and is roughly contemporary with the latest levels of C¸atalho¨yu¨k (VI-I)
(Bordaz & Alper-Bordaz 1979). Radiocarbon dates obtained by Bordaz and Alper-Bordaz
(1982)areproblematic,withmostdeterminationsfromwoodcharcoalsyieldingextremely
large standard deviations, but recent efforts to re-date Erbaba on the basis of animal bone
collagenshaveprovidedseveraldatesconfirmingaPotteryNeolithicoccupationofthesite
c.6600-6100calBC(Table2).
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
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098902 Published online by Cambridge University Press
BenjaminS.Arbuckle&CherylA.Makarewicz
Table2. RadiocarbondatesfromErbaba.DatesoncharcoalarefromBordazandAlper-Bordaz
(1982).
Calibrated 1Sigmarange 2Sigmarange
Sample# Context Material 14CDatebp yearsBC calBC calBC
h
c
+ + r
AA66738 levelIII bonecollagen 7275−42 6143−49 6211-6079 6226-6059 a
+ + e
AA66739 levelIII bonecollagen 7504−85 6354−83 6441-6257 6560-6118 s
e
AA66741 levelI bonecollagen 7677+−86 6533+−79 6596-6453 6686-6392 R
+ +
GX-2545 levelIII charcoal 7530−430 6518−478 7025-5998 7485-5661
+ +
GX-2544 levelIII charcoal 6925−550 5906−595 6432-5318 7170-4715
+ +
I-5151 levelIII charcoal 7730−120 6615−151 6687-6444 7029-6389
+ +
GX-2543 levelII-I charcoal 7550−570 6606−642 7140-5850 7962-5383
Table3. RelativefrequencyofmammaliantaxaatErbababasedonspecimencounts.‘Other’
includescarnivores,hareandrodents.
I II III Alllevels
N % N % N % N %
caprines 1606 73.3 261 71.7 717 83.9 3012 76.8
cattle 122 5.6 32 8.9 34 4.0 216 5.5
pig 232 10.6 35 9.6 44 5.1 347 8.8
reddeer 82 3.7 15 4.1 23 2.7 126 3.2
fallowandroedeer 58 2.7 12 3.3 9 1.1 83 2.1
equid 4 <1.0 1 <1.0 0 0.0 7 <1.0
other 87 4.0 8 2.2 27 3.2 130 3.3
Total 2191 100.0 364 100.0 854 100.0 3921 100.0
Table4. RelativefrequencyofmammaliantaxaatErbababasedonboneweight.‘Other’includes
carnivores,hareandrodents.
I II III Alllevels
weight(g) % weight(g) % weight(g) % weight(g) %
caprines 14,099.9 48.8 2174.2 39.2 5380.3 62.2 24,670.0 50.9
cattle 7078.7 24.5 1864.8 33.6 1737.1 20.1 11525.0 23.8
pig 3889.4 13.4 776.2 14.0 604.7 7.0 5593.3 11.5
reddeer 2800.2 9.7 542.2 9.8 758.8 8.8 4926.0 10.2
fallowand 485.0 1.7 140.7 2.5 71.1 <1.0 894.1 1.8
roedeer
equid 132.0 <1.0 20.2 <1.0 0.0 0.0 230.8 <1.0
other 410.0 1.4 31.9 <1.0 96.0 1.1 598.9 1.2
Total 28,895.2 100.0 5550.2 100.0 8648.0 100.0 48,438.1 100.0
taxonomicgroupintheassemblageaftercaprinesandpigs,representingc.5percentofthe
assemblage based on counts of specimens identified to the genus level, and 23.8 per cent
of the assemblage based on bone weight (Tables 3 and 4). Thus, although the number of
remainsisrelativelysmall,cattlerepresentacentralcomponentofthesubsistencesystemat
Erbaba.
671
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098902 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Theearlymanagementofcattle(Bostaurus)inNeolithiccentralAnatolia
Therelativefrequencyofcattleremainschangeslittlethroughthestratigraphicsequence
at Erbaba, but the ratio of caprines and cattle, the two most important taxonomic groups
basedonboneweight,shiftsmarkedlyovertime.TheratioofcaprinestocattleinlevelIII,
theoldestlevelatErbaba,is21:1butdecreasesto8:1and13:1inlevelsIIandI,respectively,
indicatingthatcattlebecameanincreasinglyimportantpartofamorediverseeconomyin
theuppermostlevelsofthesite.
LSI analysis
Ithaslongbeenrecognisedthatdomesticungulates,includingcattle,exhibitareducedbody
size compared to their wild counterparts (Ru¨timeyer 1862; Ro¨hrs & 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 &
Duru2003;Russell&Martin2005).Althoughtherearesomepotentialproblemswithusing
ananimalfromadifferentregionasthestandard,includingthepotentialfornon-allometric
variation in skeletal dimensions between the standard and the archaeological population
(Meadow1999;Zeder2001;Russelletal.2005),recentworkintheregionhasshownthese
problemstoberelativelyminor(Russell&Martin2005).
LSI values for Erbaba cattle are much smaller than those from morphologically wild
populationsfromPPNAGo¨bekliTepe,EPPNBNevalıC¸ori,aceramicA¸sıklıandSuberde,
andtheearlylevels(pre-XIItoIV)ofC¸atalho¨yu¨k,indicatingthepresenceofmorphological
domesticates. Comparison of LSI values within the Erbaba assemblage indicates that
although median values are largest in level III (LSI =0.006; n=9) and decrease
medianIII
throughtimeinlevelsIIandI(LSI =−0.071,n=15;LSI =−0.037,n=32),
medianII medianI
Mann-WhitneyUtests,andaone-wayANOVAtestindicatethatthesedifferenceswithin
theassemblagearenotsignificant(p>0.05).SummariesofLSIvaluespresentedinFigure
2 compare the size of cattle from Erbaba with other Neolithic sites in central Turkey and
themiddleEuphratesregion.
Figure3providesamoredetailedlookatthedistributionsofLSIvaluesforNeolithicsites
specifictocentralAnatolia.ThevillagesiteofA¸sıklıandthenearbyspecialpurposesiteof
MusularrepresentanearlyphaseintheNeolithicoccupationofcentralAnatolia(c.8400-
7200calBC)andcattleremainsrecoveredfromthesesettlementsrepresentmorphologically
wildpopulations(Russelletal.2005).CattleLSIvaluesfromtheearlylevelsofC¸atalho¨yu¨k,
including pre-XII (c. 7400-7000 cal BC), XII-VII (c. 7000-6500 cal BC), and VI-IV
(c.6500-6300calBC),shownoevidenceforadecreaseinsizerelativetotheA¸sıklı/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
C¸atalho¨yu¨k(Russelletal.2005:104).
LSI data generated from the Mellaart excavations representing the upper levels VII-I at
C¸atalho¨yu¨k,butprimarilyrepresentinglevelsIIIandII(Russelletal.2005:104)(c.6500-
6000 cal BC) indicate the first appearance of small-sized specimens that fall significantly
672
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098902 Published online by Cambridge University Press
BenjaminS.Arbuckle&CherylA.Makarewicz
Table5. Matrixshowingtheresultsoftwo-tailedMann-WhitneyUtests
comparingLSIvaluesbetweenassemblages.Significantdifferencesarelistedin
boldtype.C¸atal1representslevelspre-XIIthroughIV,whileC¸atal2represents
levelsVII-I.
h
C¸atal1 C¸atal2 Ho¨yu¨cek SabiAbyad c
r
a
e
Erbaba U 4756 5626.5 3376 7441 s
e
z 7.67 −0.73 2.49 −1.89 R
p <0.0001 0.4654 0.0128 0.0588
C¸atal1 U – 4063.5 1999 4014.5
z – 7.06 8.94 8.87
p – <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Figure 2. Plots showing median, inter-quartile range, and maximum and minimum LSI values for cattle including.
Go¨b=Go¨bekliTepe(n=51)(Petersetal.1999);NC¸=NevalıC¸ori(n=13)(Petersetal.1999);Ası=A¸sıklıHo¨yu¨k
(n=7)(Payne1985);Sub=Suberde(n=2)(Perkins1969);C¸at1=C¸atalho¨yu¨kpre-XIItoIV(n=179)(Russell&
Martin2005);C¸at2=C¸atalho¨yu¨kVII-I(n=94)(Ducos1988);Erb=Erbaba(n=113);Ho¨y=Ho¨yu¨cek(n=76)(de
Cupere&Duru2003);Sabi=SabiAbyad(n=115)(Cavallo2000).
belowthesizerangedocumentedinearlierlevelsatthesite(seeTable5).Equallysmall-sized
cattle are also present at Erbaba (c. 6600-6100 cal BC), and at Ho¨yu¨cek (c. 6400/6200-
6000calBC)(Figure3)indicatingasignificantdeclineincattlesizethroughouttheregion
inthelateseventhmillenniumBC.ThewiderangeofLSIvaluespresentatErbabaandin
theuppermostlevelsofC¸atalho¨yu¨ksuggeststhecontinuedpresenceofwildcattleinthose
assemblages.AtHo¨yu¨cek,however,amajorityofspecimensfallbelowthelowerendofthe
673
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098902 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Theearlymanagementofcattle(Bostaurus)inNeolithiccentralAnatolia
Figure3. DistributionsofLSIvaluesforcattlefromcentralAnatoliansites.Blacktrianglesindicatelocationofmedianvalue
(notavailableforA¸sıklı/Musular).
674
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098902 Published online by Cambridge University Press
BenjaminS.Arbuckle&CherylA.Makarewicz
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R
Figure4. Mean,onestandarddeviationrange,andmaximumandminimumvaluesforastragaluslengthmeasurements
for cattle. Mur=Mureybet (n=14) (Helmer 1994); Ası=A¸sıklı (n=1) (Payne 1985); C¸at 1=C¸atalho¨yu¨k pre-XII
to IV (n=11) (Russell & Martin 2005); C¸at 2=C¸atalho¨yu¨k VII-I (n=63) (Ducos 1988); Erb=Erbaba (n=21);
Ho¨y=Ho¨yu¨cek(n=13)(deCupere&Duru2003);Sabi=SabiAbyad(n=15)(Cavallo2000).
sizerangeofwildcattle(c.−0.06ontheLSIscale)andspecimensinthesizerangeofbull
aurochsenarerare.
Biometric results based on LSI values are supported by measurements of the length
of the astragalus, the most abundant single measurement in the assemblage (Figure 4).
Measurements from Erbaba cattle are considerably smaller than those obtained from
Mureybet, A¸sıklı, and the early levels of C¸atalho¨yu¨k, assemblages thought to represent
wildpopulations(Payne1985;Ducos1988;Russelletal.2005).Whilestillincludingsome
very large specimens, the data from the upper levels of C¸atalho¨yu¨k and Erbaba exhibit
muchsmallermeanvaluesthanthosefromearliersitesandaresimilartothoserepresenting
domesticcattlefromLateNeolithicHo¨yu¨cekandSabiAbyad.
ItisunlikelythatthesizediminutionobservedincentralAnatoliancattleisduetoshifts
inenvironmentalconditionsovertimeorgeographicaldifferences.Thereisnoevidencefor
changeinthebodysizeofreddeerfromsitesincentralandsouth-easternTurkeyfromthe
PPNA through the Pottery Neolithic (see Figure 5). Mann-Whitney U tests as well as a
one-wayANOVA(F=0.51,df=132,p=0.73)indicatenosignificantdifferencesbetween
theLSIvaluesforthesepopulations.Theabsenceofsizediminutioninreddeeroveralong
temporal sequence supports the conclusion that the decrease in cattle size seen in central
Anatolia during the seventh millennium is largely due to human management rather than
environmentalinputsselectingforsmallerbodysizeinwildpopulations.
675
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098902 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Theearlymanagementofcattle(Bostaurus)inNeolithiccentralAnatolia
Figure5. Plotsshowingmedian,inter-quartilerange,andmaximumandminimumLSIvaluesforreddeerfromKo¨rtik
Tepe(Arbuckle&Ozkaya2006),C¸ayo¨nu¨(Ilgezdi2000),C¸atalho¨yu¨k(Russell&Martin2005),ErbabaandHo¨yu¨cek(de
Cupere&Duru2003).
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)producesdemographicpatternswithhigherfrequenciesofmatureindividualsoften
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
seasonalityofhunting,managementformilkandtraction,aswellasexploitationstrategies
that include components of both herding and hunting often make the interpretation of
demographicpatternsdifficult(Meadow1989;Arbuckle2008).
SurvivorshipdataindicateasignificantfocusontheslaughterofimmaturecattleatErbaba,
withonly55percentofthesamplesurvivingpasttheageoffusionofthemetapodials(c.
24 months) and calcaneus (c. 36 months), and c. 45 per cent surviving past the age of
fusionofthelatestfusingskeletalparts(c.48months)(Silver1969).Inaddition,theratio
ofdeciduous,mandibularfourthpremolarstothirdmolars(6:8)confirmstheresultsoflong
bonefusionsuggestingthatarelativelyhighproportionofcattleatErbabawereslaughtered
asjuveniles.Incontrast,asurvivorshipcurveconstructedforreddeerindicatesthatmostof
676
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098902 Published online by Cambridge University Press
BenjaminS.Arbuckle&CherylA.Makarewicz
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R
Figure6. Survivorshipcurvesforcattle(solidline)andreddeer(dottedline)fromErbaba.FusionstageA=distalscapula;
B=proximal radius; C=distal humerus; D=proximal first phalanx; E=proximal second phalanx; F=distal tibia;
G=distalmetapodials;H=calcaneus;I=distalradius,proximaltibia,proximalfemur,distalfemur.
theseanimalswereslaughteredasprime-agedadults,withalmost80percentsurvivingpast
theageoffusionofthelatestfusingskeletalparts(>36months).
IntensivecullingofjuvenilecattleintheirfirstandsecondyearsoflifeatErbabaissimilar
tothepatternseenatC¸atalho¨yu¨k,wherec.40-50percentofindividualswereslaughteredas
juvenilesand/orinfantsthroughouttheentirestratigraphicsequence(Ducos1988;Russell&
Martin 2005). However, the frequency of infantile remains at Erbaba (c. 15 per cent) is
considerablylowerthanatC¸atalho¨yu¨k(21-33percent),althoughthismayatleastpartially
beanartifactofthemoreeffectiverecoveryofsmall,unfusedspecimensatthelattersite.
Skeletal part distribution
Skeletal part representations are useful for interpreting the mode of animal exploitation
employedatasite,especiallyforlargemammals,whosecarcassesarelaborioustotransport
(Perkins & Daly 1968; Becker 2002). The presence of all portions of a large mammal
carcass suggests an economy based on domesticates in which animals are readily available
and are slaughtered and butchered onsite. Conversely, high frequencies of so-called high
utilityskeletalparts(e.g.proximalportionsoflimbs)representingconcentrationsofuseful
resources (e.g. meat, marrow, bone grease, etc.) and under-representation of lower utility
skeletal parts (e.g. feet and heads) has been associated with hunting practices in which
animals are slaughtered and butchered away from the site and only the most useful parts
are transported back to the site itself (Perkins & Daly 1968; Vigne et al. 1999). Based on
677
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098902 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Theearlymanagementofcattle(Bostaurus)inNeolithiccentralAnatolia
Figure7. Deviationsfromtheexpectedfrequenciesofskeletalelementsinacompleteungulateskeletonforcattle(n=415)
andreddeer(n=284)fromErbaba.
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
systemsofcattlemanagement.
AsummaryoftherepresentationofskeletalpartsispresentedinFigure7forbothcattle
andreddeer.Thisgraphpresentsdeviationsfromtheexpectedfrequenciesofskeletalpartsin
acompleteungulateskeletonforfiveanatomicalregionsincludingthehead,axialskeleton,
forelimb,hindlimbandextremities.Thesevaluesareproducedbycalculatingtheminimum
number of skeletal elements (MNE) and standardising first in reference to the number of
elementspresentinaskeleton(Binford’s[1984]MAU)andthenforeachanatomicalregion
(Stiner 1994: 240; Arbuckle 2006). A value above zero on this graph indicates that the
elementsofagivenanatomicalregionareover-representedinproportiontotheirfrequency
inacompletecarcass,whilenegativevaluesindicateunder-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.Forcattle,aKolmogorov-Smirnovonesampletestindicatesthattherepresentationof
anatomicalregionsdifferssignificantlyfromthatexpectedinacompletecarcass(D=0.154,
n=93,p<0.05).Elementsoftheheadandhindlimbareslightlyunder-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.Theunder-representationofaxialelementsislikelyduetothelowdensity
678
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098902 Published online by Cambridge University Press