Reports

Cattle Domestication at
Çatalhöyük Revisited1

n e r i s s a ru s s e l l , l o u i s e m a r t i n , a n d h i j l k e
buitenhuis
Department of Anthropology, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853, U.S.A. (nr29@cornell.edu) (Russel),
Institute of Archaeology, University College London,
London, U.K. (Martin), Center for Archaeological
Research and Consultancy, Groningen, The
Netherlands. (Buitenhuis). 21 iii 05

[Supplementary material appears in the electronic edition of this

issue on the journal’s web page (http://www.journals.uchicago. Fig. 1. Location of sites mentioned in the text.
edu/CA/home.html).]

renown for its size (13 hectares, at the time the largest
Thirty-five years ago, Dexter Perkins (1969) published a
known Neolithic site in the Near East), its well-pre-
brief preliminary analysis of the animal bones from Ça-
served mudbrick architecture, and especially its dra-
talhöyük, focusing on the question of cattle domesti-
matic wall paintings and reliefs, some of them incor-
cation. It was the only report he ever published on this
porating horns and other animal parts, in which cattle
assemblage. This paper has been widely cited ever since
and other animals feature prominently. Since 1995, Ian
because he argued that cattle domestication occurred
Hodder has directed renewed excavations at Çatalhöyük
during the 1,000-year occupation of the site, then the
(Hodder 1999). While the new project has so far excavated
earliest evidence for cattle domestication in Asia. Per-
considerably less volume than Mellaart’s work, recovery
kins’s conclusion was based on a small sample, however,
of animal bone and other materials has been much en-
and his report included only limited data. Pierre Ducos
hanced by the use of flotation for large samples of the
(1988) later published a more thorough report based on
sediment and 4-mm screens for the remainder. The new
material from the later periods. He argued for a more
project has also reached the lowest levels of the site in
nuanced position in which cattle were not fully domes-
one area. This has resulted in the addition of levels pre-
ticated but managed. The bones themselves have since
XII.A–E below Mellaart’s level XII.
been lost, and this has inhibited comparisons and further
We base our discussion here on a sample of the animal
analyses. Meanwhile, further work in central Anatolia
bone excavated by the new project as of 2001. This sam-
and beyond has contributed to a better understanding of
ple consists of 192,143 specimens, of which 24,190 (13%)
the process of animal domestication than that available
have been identified to taxon (generally at least to family
when Perkins wrote.
level, usually to genus or species), including 4,321 cattle
Çatalhöyük is a Neolithic tell site in central Anatolia
specimens. These span levels pre-XII.D–IV, but most de-
(fig. 1) dating to 7400–6200 cal BC (Cessford 2001). It was
rive from Level VI and below. This new sample permits
first excavated in the 1960s by James Mellaart (1967),
us to revisit the question of cattle domestication. We
who defined 12 architectural levels (with level VI later
focus here specifically on this issue and the relation be-
subdivided into VIA and VIB). The site quickly gained
tween Perkins’s work and that of the new project at Ça-
talhöyük in its regional context. A fuller account of the
䉷 2005 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Re- cattle remains from Çatalhöyük may be found in a re-
search. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2005/4605S5-0006$10.00 cently published report (Russell and Martin 2005).
While there are many possible lines of evidence that
1. We thank the other members of tile Çatalhöyük zooarchaeology
team who helped to record the information used here: Banu Ay- can be brought to bear on the detection of animal do-
dınoluıl, Dusan Borić, Denise Carruthers, Amanda Erwin, Sheelagh mestication (e.g., Meadow 1989), the two main criteria
Frame, Chris Hills, Afroditi Konstantinidou, Léola LeBlanc, Ste- applicable to archaeological animal bone assemblages de-
phanie Meece, Robert Symmons, Joanna Taylor, Kathy Twiss and rived from within the range of the wild ancestor (as is
Lisa Yeomans. In addition, Lisa Yeomans performed preliminary
analyses of the Çatalhöyük and Aşılklı Höyük cattle measurements. the case for cattle in Anatolia) are size reduction and
We also thank Melinda Zeder and seven anonymous reviewers for changes in age and sex mortality profiles. The reasons
their comments, which led to a much-improved final version. for size reduction under a herding regime are debated
S101
This content downloaded from 171.007.251.237 on July 26, 2016 04:36:59 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
S102 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y
(e.g., Zohary, Tchernov, and Horwitz 1998), but it has
been observed in several species, including cattle. De-
cisions by hunters and herders shape the age and sex
composition of the animals killed. Hunting and herding
strategies vary, but generally human hunters will focus
on prime prey (adults, if anything skewed somewhat to-
ward males), while herders will kill off more immature
animals and especially young males to preserve the
breeding stock and avoid feeding excess animals that will
gain little more weight (Ducos 1978, Stiner 1991). It is
difficult to determine the sex of immature specimens,
so normally we can examine only the adult sex ratio in
archaeological assemblages. Thus a typical assemblage
resulting from hunting is dominated by the remains of
adult animals, with the sexes evenly represented or tilted
toward males. A typical assemblage resulting from herd-
ing is dominated by the remains of immature animals,
with the adult sex ratio heavily skewed toward females.
Although Perkins (1964) pioneered the use of demo-
graphic evidence to detect herding, he did not apply this
technique to the Çatalhöyük cattle. Rather, he based his
argument on size reduction, as reflected in measure-
ments of the bones. Perkins (1969) used the measure-
ment for which he had the largest sample size, the distal
breadth of the humerus, to assess size change. Even for
this measurement, the sample was relatively small (45),
so he lumped the measurements into two sets for the
levels with adequate sample sizes: level VI (later) and
levels X–XII (earlier). The mean distal breadth of the hu-
merus in level VI was 86.3 mm while that in levels X–XII
was 102.0 mm, and Perkins interpreted this as the result
of size reduction, indicating that cattle domestication
occurred during the occupation.
Perkins also saw the dominance of cattle bones in the
assemblage (70% in level VI, 79% in levels X–XII) as
showing heavy reliance on this species which might lead
to domestication. However, the renewed excavations
have shown that the apparent preponderance of cattle
(as well as the scarcity of animal bone that Perkins re-
marks upon) is the result of poor recovery. Without
screens, larger bones and hence the bones of larger ani-
mals are more likely to be collected. In fact, sheep and
goat form about 70% of the mammal remains from the
new excavations, with cattle varying from 20 to 25% in
the various levels (Russell and Martin 2000). A prelim-
inary stable-isotope study of the human and animal bone
indicates that cattle made a negligible contribution to
the diet (Richards et al. 2003). Perkins in fact argued that
cattle were already being herded in the earlier levels on
the basis of the presence of all body parts; hunters often
bring back only the meaty parts of their prey to ease
transport. This pattern of relatively even body-part dis-
tribution is still evident in the assemblage from the re-
newed excavations, but there is a general lack of differ-
ential transport of meaty portions among all taxa,
including others believed to be wild (e.g., deer, boar,
equids). This leaves the size reduction as the critical
piece of Perkins’s argument for domestication.
Because of the high degree of fragmentation of the Ça-
talhöyük animal bones, we faced the same difficulties
This content downloaded from 171.007.251.237 on July 26, 2016 04:36:59 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
with respect to sample size of measurements (normally
a relatively complete articular end is required to take
standard measurements); only 415 of the 4,321 speci-
mens were measurable. Therefore, we have been unable
to examine the cattle measurements level by level but
have lumped them into three phases, defined to break at
roughly the same point as Perkins’s analytical units.
Phase 1 includes the remains from levels pre-XII.A–D
(roughly 7400–7000 cal BC) and the KOPAL area. The
KOPAL area is located just off the tell, and while the
deposits there seem to correspond roughly to levels
XI–pre-XII.B, most of the animal bone we have recorded
is from the earlier portions. Phase 2 includes levels
VII–XII (roughly 7000–6500 cal BC) and phase 3 levels
VI–IV (mostly VI; roughly 6500–6300 cal BC)). Thus,
while we have material from a wider range of levels, our
phase 3 would roughly correspond to Perkins’s later
block and our phase 2 to his earlier block, and our phase
1 contains material earlier than that studied by Perkins.
We also use another device to increase effective sample
sizes: the standard animal difference-of-logs technique
(Meadow 1981, Uerpmann 1979). This allows us to put
measurements from throughout the body onto a single
scale by comparing them with the corresponding mea-
surements of a complete skeleton, the “standard ani-
mal.” The base-10 logarithm of the measurement in the
standard animal is subtracted from the log of the mea-
surement of the archaeological specimen. These log dif-
ferences can then be graphed on a single axis, with mea-
surements larger than the standard animal falling above
0 and smaller measurements below. For our standard an-
imal we have used the most complete extant aurochs
(wild cattle, Bos primigenius) skeleton, the Ullerslev cow
from Denmark (Degerbøl and Fredskild 1970). This is a
large female animal, likely to fall near the middle of the
wild size range.
This technique has been criticized on various grounds,
summarized by Meadow (1999), who also makes rec-
ommendations for good practice. The main difficulty is
that it assumes that body parts vary proportionally to
the size of the animal. In fact proportions vary by sex,
breed, region, etc. Nevertheless, it works well enough to
provide a useful basis for comparison. We have followed
Meadow’s recommendations as far as possible, for in-
stance, using only postcranial measurements and only
breadths and depths (which respond more directly to the
weight of the animal) rather than lengths and averaging
multiple measurements from a single specimen or set of
articulated specimens. This leaves us with a total set of
156 values for analysis. We have not separated internal
and external phalanges as Meadow suggests because,
while we were often able to separate them, Degerbøl did
not do so for the Ullerslev cow. In our data, the variation
between the log differences of the same measurement in
internal and external phalanges from articulated sets is
no greater than that among different measurements of a
single phalanx. Therefore we do not feel that this intro-
duces excessive error. We group the differences of logs
for graphing into intervals defined such that .11 includes

values from .110 to .119, ⫺.11 includes values from
⫺.100 to .109, and so on.
To evaluate the effects of allometry, we first combined
the data from the three phases and graphed them together
with the values for each dimension (see fig. 2). While the
slight offsets observable among the ranges of the various
dimensions in the lower part of figure 2 show that there
are some allometric differences in proportion between
the Ullerslev cow and the Çatalhöyük cattle, these are
minor and should not greatly affect the overall distri-
bution. The distribution is not very skewed, with a mean
of .020 and median of .021, but it does appear bimodal.
The two modes are likely to represent either larger wild
and smaller domestic cattle or larger males and smaller
females within a single population (wild or domestic).
Analysis of measurements of single elements suggests
that this difference is more likely to be caused by sexual
dimorphism. Previous work has shown that the breadth
and depth of cattle metapodials, especially metacarpals,
tend to reflect sexual dimorphism more clearly than
other skeletal elements (Bartosiewicz 1987 , Thomas
1988). While sample sizes are small, proximal and distal
metacarpals do fall into two groups on the basis of these
dimensions; distal metatarsals separate somewhat less
clearly and scapulae not at all (Russell and Martin 2005:
fig. 2.9). This more distinct separation in those dimen-
sions most sensitive to sexual dimorphism indicates that
the groupings are likely to be males and females rather
than wild and domestic. Moreover, the Çatalhöyük dis-
tribution closely resembles that published by Grigson
(1989) for Near Eastern wild cattle in both shape and
range (although the Çatalhöyük cattle are slightly larger
overall). Grigson establishes this bimodality as sexual
dimorphism on the basis of comparison with known-sex
Danish aurochsen.
In addition to Grigson’ s data, mostly from east of
Çatalhöyük, which are also presented as standard animal
diagrams based on the Ullerslev cow, comparison of sin-
gle dimensions with published measurements from Eu-
rope (Boessneck, Jéquier, and Stampfli 1963, Bökönyi
1962, Degerbøl and Fredskild 1970) and the Levant (Davis
1981, 1985; Jarman 1969; Peters et al. 1999; Saxon 1974)
shows that the Çatalhöyük cattle fall entirely in the wild
range. [Raw measurement data are contained in a sup-
plement to the electronic version of this article on the
journal’s web page.]
We lack metrical data from a known wild population
of cattle in central Anatolia, but a nearby archaeological
assemblage that predates Çatalhöyük is now available.
Aşıklı Höyük is located about 130 km to the northeast
of Çatalhöyük, with a 1,000-year sequence (8400–7400
cal BC) that ends just before the earliest levels of Çatal-
höyük (Esin and Harmankaya 1999). We include the cat-
tle remains from Musular, a site 400 m from the tell of
Aşıklı Höyük that seems to have had a ritual rather than
a residential function (Özbaşaran 2000). Chronologically,
Musular overlaps with the latest levels of Aşıklı Höyük
(ca. 7600–7200 cal BC). The domestication status of the
Aşıklı Höyük cattle has not yet been established (Bui-
tenhuis 1997, Martin, Russell, and Carruthers 2002), but
This content downloaded from 171.007.251.237 on July 26, 2016 04:36:59 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Volume 46, Supplement, December 2005 F S103
whether they are wild or earlier domesticates they would
have been larger than the Çatalhöyük cattle if the latter
were domesticated. We therefore applied the same stan-
dard animal technique to the Aşıklı Höyük cattle mea-
surements (fig. 3). The pattern is similar (although less
bimodal when all periods are combined), but in fact the
Aşıklı Höyük cattle are slightly smaller overall than
those at Çatalhöyük. While Çatalhöyük lies in the Konya
Plain, Aşıklı Höyük is situated in the foothills of Cap-
padocia, probably less prime habitat for cattle. In any
case, the lack of diminution does not indicate domes-
tication at Çatalhöyük. Finally, neither at Çatalhöyük
nor at Aşıklı Höyük does the size range change through
time (figs. 4 and 5).
While the range does not change, the shapes of the
distributions do. In comparison with Aşıklı Höyük, the
distribution at Musular tilts toward larger animals (prob-
ably males). This selection for large (male) cattle is also
seen in the off-tell KOPAL area at Çatalhöyük and in
feasting and special deposits on-tell (Russell and Martin
2005). At Çatalhöyük, phase 3 shows a shift toward
smaller (female) cattle. This is partly explained by the
lower proportion of feasting and special deposits in the
units analyzed for this phase but extends to all deposits
for reasons that are as yet unclear. Ducos’s (1988) study
of cattle astragali mainly from levels II and III of the
Mellaart excavations suggests that an increase in females
may persist in the later levels of the site. The age dis-
tributions for all three phases have large proportions of
adults (four years and older), however, so it does not ap-
pear that this marks the beginning of herding, which
should see a shift toward younger age-groups (Russell and
Martin 2005:fig. 2.10).2 Possibly the increase in females
reflects a change in hunting strategy involving greater
targeting of female-dominated herds. It is believed that
aurochs formed herds of largely females and immature
animals with a small number of mature males for most
of the year (outside of the mating period) while most
males were solitary or formed small bachelor herds
(Bouissou et al. 2001).
In any case, the shift to more females in phase 3 helps
to explain Perkins’s results. Although the size range does
not change, the greater proportion of adult females (since
usually only mature bones are measured) will produce
lower mean values. In our analysis, the means of the log
differences for phases 1–3 are .017, .026, and .003 and
the medians .024, .029, and ⫺.005. Thus it is not sur-
prising that Perkins found a lower mean value in the
later levels, now best explained not as overall size dim-
inution but as a shift in mortality profile to the killing
of more adult females. This shows that it is important
to examine the range and shape of the distribution as
well as the mean. A similar point has been made recently
with respect to early domestic goats (Zeder 2001, Zeder
2. Adults account for 45% of the 112 specimens assignable to age
categories in phase 1, 39% of 321 specimens in phase 2, and 36%
of 96 specimens in phase 3. By way of comparison, the mainly
domestic sheep and goats have only 18% adults based on 3,157
specimens (all phases lumped).
S104 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y

Fig. 2. Standard animal values for cattle from all phases (N p 156) at Çatalhöyük. The values for individual
dimensions do not completely correspond to those graphed in the combined bar plot because multiple dimen-
sions from single bones have been averaged for the combined plot. Abbreviations for measurements follow von
den Driesch (1976).

and Hesse 2000). In this case, Zeder and Hesse show that
the beginning of herding is marked not by actual size
diminution in the goats but by a change in culling prac-
tices that results in more females among the adults. In
fact, the ranges of Perkins’s two data sets show little
difference at the upper end but a substantial drop at the
lower end in the later set. His low end is implausibly
small even for early domestic cattle and most likely re-
sults from misidentification of red deer humeri as cattle,
a mistake he had made elsewhere (Grigson 1989).
In conclusion, we wish to stress two points. One is
that Çatalhöyük should no longer be viewed as a center
of cattle domestication, at least not through level VI.
Neither size-change nor mortality-profile data support

This content downloaded from 171.007.251.237 on July 26, 2016 04:36:59 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Volume 46, Supplement, December 2005 F S105

Fig. 3. Standard animal values for cattle from all phases (N p 495) at Aşıklı Höyük and Musular.

herding. Since cattle remains are in the minority in most
Near Eastern Neolithic assemblages, sample size prob-
lems have complicated the study of the process of cattle
domestication. Present evidence suggests that morpho-
logical domestication occurred first in the northern Le-
vant shortly before the beginning of occupation at Ça-
talhöyük (Peters et al. 1999) and spread west through
Anatolia, reaching Höyücek (to the west of Çatalhöyük
and Aşıklı Höyük) by the end of the occupation at Ça-
talhöyük (de Cupere and Duru 2003, Hongo et al. 2002).
The cattle remains from the later periods at Çatalhöyük
currently under excavation will therefore be of great in-
terest, but at the moment there is no indication of local
domestication at the site. The other key point is to con-
firm Zeder and Hesse’s finding that changes in adult sex
ratios can mimic changes in size when only means are
compared. It is crucially important to evaluate the ranges
and shapes of distributions as well in considerations of
animal domestication and to consider alternative expla-
nations for size differences.

This content downloaded from 171.007.251.237 on July 26, 2016 04:36:59 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
S106 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y

Fig. 4. Standard animal values for cattle from Çatalhöyük by phase, arranged chronologically, oldest phase on
the bottom.

This content downloaded from 171.007.251.237 on July 26, 2016 04:36:59 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
 Volume 46, Supplement, December 2005 F S107

Fig. 5. Standard animal values for cattle from Aşıklı Höyük and Musular by phase, arranged chronologically,
oldest phase on the bottom.

This content downloaded from 171.007.251.237 on July 26, 2016 04:36:59 AM

All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
S108 F c u r r e n t a n t h ro p o l o g y
References Cited
b a r t o s i e w i c z , l . 1987. Cattle metapodials revisited: A brief
review. ArchaeoZoologia 1:47–51.
b o e s s n e c k , j . , j . - p . j é q u i e r , a n d h . r . s t a m p fl i .
1963. Seeberg Burgäschisee-Süd: Die Tierreste. (Acta Bernensia
2[3].) Bern: Stampfli.
b ö k ö n y i , s . 1962. Zur Naturgeschichte des Ures in Ungarn
und das Problem der Domestikation des Hausrindes. Acta Ar-
chaeologica 14:175–214.
b o u i s s o u , m . - f . , a . b o i s s y, p . l e n e i n d r e , a n d i .
v e i s s i e r . 2001. “The social behaviour of cattle,” in Social
behaviour in farm animals. Edited by K. L. Keeling and H. W.
Gonyou, pp. 113–45. New York: CAB International.
b u i t e n h u i s , h . 1997. Aşıklı Höyük: A “protodomestication”
site. Anthropozoologica 25/26:655–62.
c e s s f o r d , c . 2001. A new dating sequence for Çatalhöyük.
Antiquity 75:717–25.
d a v i s , s . j . m . 1981. The effects of temperature change and
domestication on the body size of Late Pleistocene to Holo-
cene mammals of Israel. Paleobiology 7:101–14.
———. 1985. “A preliminary report of the fauna from Hatoula: A
Natufian-Khiamian (PPNA) site near Latroun, Israel,” in Le
site Natoufien-Khiamien de Hatoula, près de Latroun, Israël:
Fouilles 1980–1982 rapport préliminaire. Edited by M. Lechev-
allier and A. Ronen, pp. 71–98. Jerusalem: Centre de Recherche
Français de Jérusalem.
d e c u p e r e , b . , a n d r . d u r u . 2003. Faunal remains from
Neolithic Höyücek (SW-Turkey) and the presence of early do-
mestic cattle in Anatolia. Paléorient 29:107–20.
d e g e r b ø l , m . , a n d b . f r e d s k i l d . 1970. The urus (Bos
primigenius Bojanus) Neolithic domesticated cattle (Bos tau-
rus domesticus Linné) in Denmark. (Det Kongelige Danske Vi-
denskabernes Selskab Biologiske Skrifter 17[1].) Copenhagen:
Munksgaard.
d r i e s c h , a . v o n d e n . 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of
Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum
Bulletins, No. 1. Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard
University.
d u c o s , p . 1978. “ ‘Domestication’ defined and methodological
approaches to its recognition in faunal assemblages,” in Ap-
proaches to faunal analysis in the Middle East. Edited by R.
H. Meadow and M. A. Zeder, pp. 53–56. Cambridge: Peabody
Museum, Harvard University, Bulletin 2.
———. 1988. Archaeozoologie quantitative: Les valeurs numé-
riques immediates à Çatal Hüyük. (Cahiers du Quaternaire
12.) Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique.
e s i n , u . , a n d s . h a r m a n k a y a . 1999. “Aşıklı,” in Neo-
lithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization – New Discover-
ies. Edited by N. Başgelen and M. Özdoan, pp. 115–132. Istan-
bul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
g r i g s o n , c . 1989. “Size and sex: Evidence for the domestica-
tion of cattle in the Near East,” in The beginnings of agricul-
ture. Edited by A. Milles, D. Williams, and N. Gardner, pp.
77–109. British Archaeological Reports International Series
496.
h o d d e r , i . 1999. “Renewed work at Çatalhöyük,” in Neo-
lithic in Turkey, the cradle of civilization: New discoveries.
Edited by N. Başgelen and M. Özdoan, pp. 157–64. Istanbul:
Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınıları.
h o n g o , h . , r . h . m e a d o w, b . ö k s ü z , a n d g . İ l -
g e z d i . 2002. “The process of ungulate domestication in Pre-
pottery Neolithic Çayönü, southeastern Turkey,” in Archaeo-
zoology of the Near East V: Proceedings of the Fifth
International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of South-
western Asia and Adjacent Areas. Edited by H. Buitenhuis, A.
M. Choyke, M. Mashkour, and A. H. Al-Shiyab, pp. 153–65.
Groningen: Center for Archeological Research and
Consultancy.
j a r m a n , m . r . 1969. The prehistory of Upper Pleistocene and
Recent cattle. Part 1. East Mediterranean, with reference to
This content downloaded from 171.007.251.237 on July 26, 2016 04:36:59 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
north-west Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35:
236–66.
m a r t i n , l . , n . r u s s e l l , a n d d . c a r r u t h e r s . 2002.
“Animal remains from the central Anatolian Neolithic,” in
The Neolithic of Central Anatolia: Internal developments and
external relations during the 9th–6th millennia cal BC. Edited
by F. Gérard and L. Thissen, pp. 193–206. Istanbul: Ege
Yayınları.
m e a d o w, r . h . 1981. “Early animal domestication in South
Asia: A first report of the faunal remains from Mehrgarh, Paki-
stan,” in South Asian archaeology, 1979. Edited by H. Härtel,
pp. 143–79. Berlin: Dietrich Reiner Verlag.
———. 1989. “Osteological evidence for the process of animal
domestication,” in The walking larder: Patterns of domestica-
tion, pastoralism, and predation. Edited by J. Clutton-Brock,
pp. 80–90. London: Unwin Hyman.
———.1999. “The use of size index scaling techniques for re-
search on archaeozoological collections from the Middle East,”
in Historia animalium ex ossibus: Beiträge zur Paläoanatomie,
Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Ethnologie und Geschichte der Tier-
medizin. Edited by C. Becker, H. Manhart, J. Peters, and J.
Schibler, pp. 285–300. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
m e l l a a r t , j . 1967. Çatal Hüyük, A Neolithic town in Anato-
lia: New aspects of antiquity. London: Thames and Hudson.
Özbaşaran, M. 2000. The Neolithic site of Musular–Central Ana-
tolia. Anatolica 26:129–51.
p e r k i n s , d . , j r . 1964. Prehistoric fauna from Shanidar, Iraq.
Science 144:1565–66.
———.1969. Fauna of Çatal Hüyük: Evidence for early cattle do-
mestication in Anatolia. Science 164:177–79.
peters, j., d. helmer, a. von den driesch, and m.
s a ñ a s e g u ı́ . 1999. Early animal husbandry in the northern
Levant. Paléorient 25:27–47.
richards, m. p., j. a. pearson, t. i. molleson, n.
r u s s e l l , a n d l . m a r t i n . 2003. Stable isotope evidence of
diet at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Journal of Archaeologi-
cal Science 30:67–76.
r u s s e l l , n . , a n d l . m a r t i n . 2000. “Neolithic Çatalhöyük:
Preliminary zooarchaeological results from the renewed exca-
vations,” in Archaeozoology of the Near East IVA: Proceedings
of the Fourth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology
of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas. Edited by M. Mash-
kour, A. M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis, and F. Poplin, pp. 164–70.
Groningen: Center for Archeological Research and
Consultancy.
———.2005. “The Çatalhöyük mammal remains,” in Inhabiting
Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 seasons. Edited by I.
Hodder, pp. 35–95. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archae-
ological Research.
s a x o n , e . c . 1974. The mobile herding economy of Kebarah
Cave, Mt Carmel: An economic analysis of the faunal remains.
Journal of Archaeological Science 1:27–45.
s t i n e r , m . c . 1991. “An interspecific perspective on the emer-
gence of the modern human predatory niche,” in Human pred-
ators and prey mortality. Edited by M. C. Stiner, pp. 149–85.
Boulder: Westview Press.
t h o m a s , r . n . w. 1988. A statistical evaluation of criteria
used in sexing cattle metapodials. ArchaeoZoologia 2:83–92.
u e r p m a n n , h . - p . 1979. Probleme der Neolithisierung des
Mittelmeerraums. (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des vorderen
Oriente, B 28.) Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
z e d e r , m . a . 2001. A metrical analysis of a collection of mod-
ern goats (Capra hircus aegagrus and C. h. hircus) from Iran
and Iraq: Implications for the study of caprine domestication.
Journal of Archaeological Science 28:61–79.
z e d e r , m . a . , a n d b . c . h e s s e . 2000. The initial domesti-
cation of goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000
years ago. Science 287:2254–57.
z o h a r y, d . , e . t c h e r n o v, a n d l . r . k . h o r w i t z .
1998. The role of unconscious selection in the domestication
of sheep and goats. Journal of Zoology 245:129–35.