Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:13:00.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origins of Domestic Sheep and Goats: a Reconsideration in the Light of the Fossil Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

Sebastian Payne
Sebastian Payne
Affiliation:
Project on the Early History of Agriculture, Dept. of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent discussions of the origins and process of animal domestication (Reed, 1961, Zeuner, 1963), both authors rely on two kinds of evidence: on the one hand, the present distributions and characteristics of the different breeds of whatever animal is being discussed, together with its feral and wild relatives, and, on the other hand, the past record, given by literary and pictorial sources and the bones from archaeological and geological sites. Increased recognition of the limitations of the past record, whether in the accuracy of the information it appears to give (as in the case of pictorial sources), or in the certainty of the deductions we are at present capable of drawing from it (this applies especially to the osteological record), has led these authors to argue mainly from the present situation, using the past record to confirm or amplify the existing picture.

Arguing from the present, many hypotheses about the origins and process of domestication are available. The only test we have, when attempting to choose between these, lies in the direct evidence of the past record. The past record, it is freely admitted, is very fragmentary: the information provided by the present situation is more exact, ranges over a much wider field, and is more open to test and control. Nevertheless, the past record, however imperfect it is, is the only direct evidence we have about the process of domestication.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 34 , February 1969 , pp. 368 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arambourg, C., 1960. ‘Les faunes mammalogiques du Pléistocene circumméditerranéan’, Quaternaria, vol. 6, 97–109.Google Scholar
Arambourg, C. and Hoffstetter, R., 1963. Le gisement de Ternifine, Arch. Inst. Pal. Humaine, Mém. 32.Google Scholar
Bouchud, J., 1955. ‘Deux espèces rares au Moustérien découvertes au Pech de l'Azé’, Bull. Soc. Préhist. Frariçaise, vol. 52, 89–93.Google Scholar
Boule, M. and de Villeneuve, L., 1927. La grotte de l'Observatoire à Monaco, Arch. Inst. Pal. Humaine, Mém. 1.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. M., 1953. ‘The sheep population of Hirta, St Kilda, 1952’, Scottish Naturalist, vol. 65, 25–8.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. M., 1956. ‘The sheep population of Hirta, St Kilda, 1955’, Scottish Naturalist, vol. 68, 10–13.Google Scholar
Braidwood, R. J. and Howe, B., 1960. Prehistoric investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan, Oriental Institute Univ. of Chicago: Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, no. 31.Google Scholar
Bratanov, C. and Dikov, V., 1962. ‘Fertilization between sheep and goats and the production of interspecific hybrids’, Proc. IV Int. Congr. Anim. Reprod. (The Hague), 1961, vol. IV (Sect. A.I.). 744–51.Google Scholar
Dalimier, P., 1954. ‘Quelques observations au sujet du Mouflon à manchettes’, Mammalia, vol. 18, 331–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellerman, J. R. and Morrison-Scott, T. C. S., 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals, 1758 to 1946, London.Google Scholar
Garrod, D. A. E. and Bate, D. M. A., 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, vol. 1. Oxford.Google Scholar
Gray, A. P., 1954. A Checklist of Mammalian Hybrids. Technical Communication no. 10, Common-wealth Bureau of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Gray, A. P., 1966. Supplementary Bibliography to Mammalian Hybrids, Supplement to Technical Communication no. 10, Commonwealth Bureau of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Haltenorth, T., 1961. ‘Fertile backcrossing of a female Barbary sheep × domestic goat hybrid with an ibex’, Säugetierkunde Mitt., vol. 9, 105–9.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. L., 1964, ‘Attempted hybridization of sheep and goats’, Proc. Vth. Int. Congr. Anim. Reprod. and Art. Fert. (Trento), 1964, 445–50.Google Scholar
Harris, D. R., 1961. ‘The distribution and ancestry of the domestic goat’, Proc. Linn. Soc. Land., vol. 173, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heslop-Harrison, J., 1953. New Concepts in Flowering-Plant Taxonomy. London.Google Scholar
Hilzheimer, M., 1936. ‘Sheep’, Antiquity, vol. 10, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, B. H., 1847. ‘On the tame Sheep and Goats of the Sub-Himalayas and of Tibet’, Asiatic Soc. Bengal, vol. XVI, pt. ii, 1003–26.Google Scholar
Hooijer, D. A., 1961. The fossil vertebrates of Ksâr' Akil, a Palaeolithic rockshelter in the Lebanon, Zool. Verh. Rijksmus. Nat. Hist. Leiden, vol. 49.Google Scholar
Howe, B., 1967. The Palaeolithic of Tangier, Morocco. Excavations at Cape Ashakar, 1939–1947, American School of Prehistoric Research, Bull. no. 22.Google Scholar
Hulot, F. and Lauvergne, J. J. 1967. ‘Les Chromosomes des Ruminants’, Annales de Génétique, vol. 10, 86–97.Google ScholarPubMed
Kirkbride, D., 1966. ‘Five seasons at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic village of Beidha in Jordan’, Palestine Explor. Quart., vol. 98, 8–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, T., 1912. ‘Die Paläolithische Ansiedlung bei Tata’, Mitt. a.d. Jahrb. d. Kgl. Ungar. Geol. Reichsanst., vol. 20, 1–77.Google Scholar
Kurtén, B., 1963. ‘Notes on some Pleistocene mammal migrations from the Palaearctic to the Nearctic’, Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart, vol, 14, 96–103.Google Scholar
Lavocat, R. (Ed.). 1966. Faunes et Flores Préhistoriques de l'Europe Occidental, Atlas de Préhistoire, Tome III, Paris.Google Scholar
Leakey, L. S. B., 1965. Olduvai Gorge 1951–1961, vol. 1. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Loginov, N. V. 1960. ‘A method of crossing small domestic and wild ruminants’, Otdalen. Gibridiz. Rast. Zivotn. Moscow, Academy of Sciences of U.S.S.R., 443–7.Google Scholar
Lydekker, R., 1898. Wild oxen, sheep and goats of all lands, living and extinct, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBurney, C. B. M., 1967. The Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica) and the Stone Age of the South-East Mediterranean, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mišarev, S. S., 1966. ‘Interspecific hybridization of the goat’, Genetika, 1966 (5), 28–35, Moscow.Google Scholar
Movius, H. L., 1953. ‘The Mousterian cave of Teshik Tash, Southeastern Uzbekistan, Central Asia’, Am. School of Prehistoric Research. Bull. no. 17, 11–71.Google Scholar
Nehring, A., 1891. ‘Diluviale Reste von Cuon, Ovis, Saiga, Ibex, und Rupicapra aus Mähren’, Neues Jahrb. f. Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie, 1891, ii, 107–55.Google Scholar
Neuville, R., 1951. Le Paéolithique et le Mésolithique du Desert de Judée, Arch, de l'Tnst. de Pal. Humaine, Mém. 24.Google Scholar
Perkins, D., 1964. ‘Prehistoric fauna from Shanidar, Iraq’, Science, vol. 144, 1565–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfeffer, P., 1967. Le Mouflon de Corse (O. ammon musimon Schreber 1782). Position Systematique, Ecologie et Ethologie Comparées, Supplement to Mammalia, vol. 31.Google Scholar
Pomel, A., 1898. Les Ovidés, Paléont. Mon. Carte géol. Algérie, no. 13.Google Scholar
Reed, C. A., 1961. ‘Osteological evidences for prehistoric domestication in southwestern Asia’, Zeit. f. Tierzüchtung und Züchtungsbiologie, vol. 76, 31–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, C. A. and Palmer, H. A., 1964. ‘A late Quaternary goat (Capra) in North America?’, Z. f. Säugetierkunde, vol. 29, 372–8.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. A. F., 1968. Letter to New Scientist, vol. 37, no. 579, 11 Jan.Google Scholar
Schwarz, E., 1935. ‘On ibex and wild goat’, Annals and magazine of Natural History (London), ser. 10, vol. XVI, 433–7.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G., 1945. ‘Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals’, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 85.Google Scholar
Sylvester-Bradley, P. C. (Ed.), 1956. The Species concept in Palaeontology, London.Google Scholar
Thenius, E., 1962. ‘Capra “prisca” Sickenberg und ihre Bedeutung für die Abstammung der Hausziegen’, Z.f. Tierzüchtung und Züchtungsbiologie, vol. 76, 321–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uloth, W., 1961. ‘Successful crossing of the Mouflon (Ovis ammon musimon) with feral domestic sheep (O. a. aries) in the Mauna-Kea area of Hawaii’, Säugetierkunde Mitt., vol. 9, 162–3.Google Scholar
Vaufrey, R., 1955. Préhistoire de l'Afrique: Vol. I Maghreb, Paris.Google Scholar
Vertes, L., 1964. Tata. Eine Mittelpaläolithische Travertin-Siedlung in Ungarn, Budapest.Google Scholar
Zalkin, W., 1951. ‘Die Bergwildschafe Europas und Asiens’, Ber. der Moskauer Naturf. Ges., Moskau, N.S., Abt. Biol. 27, 1–343.Google Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1963. A History of Domesticated Animals, London.Google Scholar