CAÑONEO CON MAXR

What follows is a brief review of the evidence for pig domestication in the Near East, and a critical assessment of the arguments and methods. The sites discussed are those which have been most prominent in the debate on the earliest pig domestication in the Near East. This discussion is not intended to be exhaustive; for a more comprehensive review see Kusatman’s thesis on pig domestication in the region, from 10,000-2,000 BC (Kusatman 1991).

A note on dating

For all the sites mentioned, dates are given in the text and in Tables 2.3-2.6. These dates are cited in a number of formats which varies between regions and authors. If the

radiocarbon determination is available this is quoted in years BP. If this has been altered to years before Christ this is quoted as be if the date has not been calibrated, if the date has been calibrated this is denoted by BC. The current convention is that capitalised means calibrated but dates be were often capitalised before the need to calibrate had been discovered which leads to confusion in reports from the late 1960,s and early 1970’s. In Europe more recent works give the date in several formats in a table or appendix and use the calibrated BC form in the text. In the Near East calibration is not common practise and dates tend to be BP or uncalibrated be. For some sites exact dates were not given; for older excavations the age might be estimated from typology of either lithics or pottery. Some Mesolithic sites may be dated using pollen. On some occasions dates

may be referred to more generally e.g. around 5000 years ago or in the middle of the third millennium be. In order to standardise this information an appendix (A) is given for all sites where a date was available. In each case the dates are given in the format of the publication (and where the format isn’t calibrated BC they are converted to this format using the calibration program Oxcal 3.3). If the laboratory sample number of the radiocarbon determination is available this is also given in Appendix A.

The earliest evidence for domestic pig which has been widely accepted is that from the site of Jarmo in Iraq 6000 BC. In the earliest preceramic levels of this site (6750 BC), pig remains which include maxillary and mandibular molars have been identified as wild through a metrical analysis (Flannery 1983:172). The upper levels of the site (6000 BC) are the first in which pottery is found, and also contain smaller pig teeth than the lower levels. These are seen as representing smaller animals, which are interpreted as domesticates (Flannery 1983:172). The main problem in this case, as with many sites from this region, is that the sample of measurable teeth is very small.

Flannery comments on this, noting that the third molar sample totals only 6-10 individual specimens (ibid.). He explains this, however, in relation to the pottery at the site, which appears suddenly, and hence seems to be an introduction from another location. He suggests that the same may be argued for the pigs, and this could explain the small samples. The later site of Banahilk in Kurdistan dating to around 5000 be produced a reasonably large sample of pig remains which are argued to be domestic on metrical grounds. The specimens here are uniform in size suggesting the presence of a single population, and are slightly smaller than those from Jarmo (Hole et al. 1969:310,

1983:176).

Sus scrofa is also represented in the faunal assemblage from the famous tell site

of Jericho in Palestine. Although their remains are present in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) levels (8000 bc-6000 be), substantial evidence for domestic pig is not seen until the Middle Bronze Age (2200 be-1900 be). The size of the pigs in the PPNB is slightly smaller than those from the PPNA level (Clutton-Brock 1979:146). However very few molars are preserved, so that metric assessment of the material is not possible. In the Middle Bronze Age assemblage, specimens have been confidently identified as domestic through metrical analysis. This sample comprises only about 8 % of the entire sample

from the level, indicating that domestic pig does not appear to have been a major agricultural resource in this area at this time {ibid.).

The site of Cayonu in eastern Turkey has produced relatively high proportions (15-45%) of Sus scrofa remains which have been suggested as evidence of domesticated pig at this location. The status of the Sus scrofa material at this site has become a matter of some debate. Flannery, in a review of evidence for early pig domestication in the Near East, is wary of the suggestion of domestic pig at Cayonu before 6500 BC (thus slightly earlier than Jarmo) as there exists some confusion about the phasing of the site (Flannery 1983:179). Kusatman (1991) tentatively classified the Sus scrofa material from Cayonu as domestic on the basis of measurements (Kusatman 1991:208).

A recent metrical re-examination of the Cayonu pig material by Kongo and Meadow, plus improved understanding of the site’s stratigraphy, now casts doubt on the claim that they were domestic: “All of the Cayonu specimens fall in the size range of modem wild pig, although there is a trend toward somewhat smaller animals in the later subphases” (Kongo and Meadow 1998:85). The plot of the dimension of the third molar given by Kongo and Meadow clearly shows a single cluster with one or two outliers, suggestive of a single (presumable wild) population. In this study, they also use the kill- off pattern approach mentioned above. The kill-off pattern constructed from the Cayonu pig age data is compared with that from a site where the pigs are known to be domestic. The two patterns differ considerably with a higher percentage of Cayonu pigs reaching maturity (55%). This suggests that the Cayonu pigs were hunted rather than husbanded, although it does not mle out a less controlled form of husbandry. As Kongo and

Meadows state, the pattern “ is not inconsistent with the exploitation of free ranging pig populations” (1998:83). As mentioned above, examination of kill-off patterns was developed for ovicaprid samples and its application to Sus scrofa is limited. Various practises which should not be described as hunting, but fall short of complete control over breeding, could have produced the kill-off pattern seen at Cayonu. Such ideas are taken further by Redding in his work at Kalian Cemi (see below).

The presence of domestic pig has also been suggested at the site of Tepe Sabz in Khuzistan dating to 3800 be where a mandible with a M3 measured 34 mm in length (Flannery 1969:311). The wild mean size used by Flannery in an earlier publication was considerably larger at 42mm the specimens from Banahilk identified as domestic are even smaller with a mean closer to 30mm (Hole et a l 1969:310). A single jaw however could not be considered to be evidence for the presence of a population of domestic pig.

Flannery again explains the very small sample size by suggesting that the jaw belonged to an individual which was introduced to the site by means of trade, from a location where domestic pigs were more numerous (Flannery 1983:177).

The claim for the earliest pig domestication is made by Redding at a date of around 10000 BP for the site of Kalian Cemi in eastern Turkey (Rosenburg et a l 1995). The small sample of mandibular third molars from the site give a measurement range of 38.4-40 mm, falling at the lower end of the wild range. An upper second molar was also measured giving a length of 21.8 mm which falls within the domestic range. The metric data are very limited, so use has been made of the kill-off pattern approach. Redding comments that “[t]he survivorship curve for pigs is in marked contrast to that for sheep- goat” (Rosenburg et a l 1995:5). This is taken to suggest that as the sheep and goats are wild, the pigs cannot be. This is a very odd statement as the reason for the difference between pigs and ovicaprines is surely a result of differences in their reproductive behaviour and demography. The kill-off pattern for hunted sheep-goat would be expected to differ from that of hunted wild boar, and such differences should not be taken as evidence for domestication. Young Sus scrofa under the age of six months are likely to remain close to the mother, and hence if the sow is killed, between 5-10 young pigs become available to capture or kill. The high proportion of young animals in relation to the 30% of the sample made up by mature individuals could result from this scenario. The lack of any individuals above 36 months could result from the fact that by this age the meat would not be particularly desirable.

In a more recent paper. Redding (Redding and Rosenburg 1998) draws on an anthropological model from Southeast Asia which describes an intermediate system of pig husbandry. In this model, all the sows are domestic to the degree that they have been tamed and return to the settlement after foraging. These females are not prevented from

mating with wild male pigs. The result of this is that the young are wild in terms of their morphology, and are bom within the human settlement and are therefore available as a meat resource. The male young are all killed, and a proportion of the female young are reared and tamed to maintain the basic group of sows. This is a very interesting

suggestion and highlights how a system of partial animal management, which allows breeding between ‘tame’ and wild populations, is not likely to produce a new population which is metrically or morphologically distinct from the wild population. Although this scenario could explain the size of the Hallan Cemi pigs, there are still serious problems with Redding’s interpretation of the kill-pattem data.

To conclude, the earliest evidence for domestic pig in the Near East is claimed from Jarmo (6000 B.C.), although the small sample size of measurable pig teeth cautions against accepting this as completely secure evidence. The evidence from Cayonu, in light of the most recent research, does not appear to indicate the presence of domestic pigs under breeding control. However, a system of semi-husbandry similar to that suggested by Redding for Hallan Cemi would leave no morphological or metric evidence.

What is very interesting is that earliest large samples of Sus remains in the Near East, which can convincingly be argued to represent domesticates (e.g. Banahilk, dating to c. 5000 be) do not predate sites outside the Near East where domestic pig is claimed to be found (e.g. Southern Central Europe and some Mediterranean islands - see next section). Thus, it is not inconceivable that the current acceptance of the Near East as the location of the earliest pig domestication could at some time be challenged or over-ruled. Larger samples of measurable pig teeth and bones, both from the Near East and Europe, will be needed before this question can be answered.

The possibility of an early domestication event in the Far East should also be considered. In contrast to the Near East where in terms of numbers pig remains are far exceeded by those of sheep and goat, in China pigs appear to be a major Neolithic resource. “Present evidence indicates that animal husbandry in prehistoric South China was based largely on the pig.” (Chow Ben-Shun 1984:366). The dates suggested for pig domestication (based radiocarbon dates calculated from pig bones) are 7000-6000 b.c, similar to those for the Near East. Southeast Asia as opposed to Southwest Asia (Near East) was once considered as a possible cradle of agriculture and proposed as the

location in which the pig was first domesticated. Sauer suggested that it was the vittatus group of Sus which gave rise to the domestic pig (Sauer 1969:31).

Other lines o f evidence

In the study of the sites mentioned above, comparison with modem wild populations has been used in an attempt to identify domestic pig in the archaeological record. Modem populations of wild boar have more to offer than bones and teeth however. The number of chromosomes in different populations of wild boar and domestic pig have been studied, in an attempt to identify the most likely point of origin for pig domestication. The results vary between studies and there is as yet no consensus. It is probably most useful to briefly review the relevant research in the order in which it was published.

The earliest study, carried out by Muramoto et al. in 1965, found that both pig/boar hybrids and wild boar had 38 chromosomes and concluded that these two were essentially identical. The wild boar used were Sus vittatus leucomystax, the Japanese wild boar, which according to Groves is Sus scrofa leucomystax (see 2.1). Following this came another study that of Me. Fee et al. (1966) which looked at European wild boar (presumably of the scrofa subspecies). Results showed that 73% o f the sample had 36 chromosomes and 27% had 37, whilst domestic pig have 38. The suggestion was made that the presence of some individuals with 37 chromosome was the result of limited crossing with domestic pigs. Feral pigs were then investigated by Popescu et al. (1980) who compared continental wild boar {Sus scrofa scrofa) with the population from the island of Corsica. The wild boar were found to have 36 chromosomes whilst the

Corsican population had 38, and it was concluded that the Corsican population were the result of the feralization of domestic pigs originally brought to the island by humans (Popescu et al. 1980:400). The results of a study by Bosma et al. (1984) contradict some of those discussed above. They found wild boar to have between 36 and 38 chromosomes and suggested that the basic number for wild boar was 38 rather than 36, the variation being the result of centric fusion, leading to the presence of 36 in some populations. In a review of the work on chromosome numbers, Davis concluded that: “Assuming the modem distribution of boar karyotypes was similar in antiquity, then the domestic pig originated somewhere between Yugoslavia in the west and the Far East” (Davis 1987:130). It is obvious that further research is necessary to clear up the ambiguity surrounding the chromosome number of pigs. However it is interesting that

this line of evidence suggests a much broader range, for the location of the initial domestication of the pig, than is suggested from the Sus scrofa material recovered from archaeological sites.

Summary

The earliest case of pig domestication that has been identified metrically in the Near East is that from Jarmo, dating to 6000 BC. Similar dates have been suggested for the

process in both Europe and China, thus the location of the earliest domestication of the pig is still open to some debate. It should be remembered, though, that various methods of hunting/husbandry could have been practised in antiquity which currently cannot be identified through metrical data. These explanations could push back the date of initial domestication further than 6000 BC. This project, however is concerned with the identification of populations through morphological and metric data. Only forms of domestication which lead to breeding control and thus a separate population are relevant to this project.