Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:12:20.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pig Hunting and Husbandry in Prehistoric Italy: a Contribution to the Domestication Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Umberto Albarella ,
Antonio Tagliacozzo ,
Keith Dobney  and
Peter Rowley-Conwy
Umberto Albarella
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield S1 4ET, United Kingdom; [email protected]
Antonio Tagliacozzo
Affiliation:
Soprintendenza al Museo Nazionale Preistorico Etnografico L. Pigorini, Sezione di Paleontologia del Quaternario e Archeozoologia, Piazzale G. Marconi 14, 00144 Roma, Italy
Keith Dobney
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, United Kingdom
Peter Rowley-Conwy
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article the evidence of pig exploitation in the prehistory of the Italian peninsula and Sicily is presented. Though some differences in pig morphology seem to have existed between different parts of the country, a broadly consistent diachronic pattern of change has emerged. In the Mesolithic fairly small wild boars (with bones quite large in relation to the teeth) lived in Italy. For most of the Neolithic pigs of a similar size and shape could be found across the peninsula but signs that a few changes in systems of pig exploitation had started occurring can be found at several sites. This is interpreted as most probably indicating the beginning of a slow and gradual process of domestication of local animals. The hypothesis that early and middle Neolithic pig husbandry relied mainly on imported animals can be fairly confidently refuted. Sometime during the late Neolithic and/or the early Bronze Age, practices of pig husbandry seem to have changed throughout the country, and a much clearer separation appears between the wild and domestic populations. The average size of domestic pigs decreased, probably as a consequence of a closer confinement of domestic herds, but wild boar size seems to have increased, possibly as a consequence of climatic change or of a release in hunting pressure. Recent Italian wild boars (of the traditional Maremman type) are, however, as small as their Mesolithic counterparts, a possible indication that habitat fragmentation caused by human demographic pressure brought about a further change in wild boar size.

Résumé

On présente dans cet article la preuve de l'exploitation du porc dans la préhistoire de la péninsule italienne et en Sicile. Bien qu'il semble avoir existé certaines différences dans la morphologie des porcs entre les diverses régions du pays, on a vu apparaître un schéma d'évolution diachronique relativement consistant. Au mésolithique, d'assez petits sangliers (avec des os assez gros par rapport à leurs dents) vivaient en Italie. Pendant la plus grande partie du néolithique des porcs de taille et de forme semblables vivaient sur toute la péninsule, mais des signes de quelques changements dans les systèmes d'exploitation des porcs avaient commencé à apparaitre sur plusieurs sites. On interprète cela comme indiquant le plus probablement le début d'un procédé lent et graduel de domestication des animaux locaux. On peut réfuter, en toute confiance, l'hypothèse que l'élevage des porcs du début et du milieu du néolithique reposait surtout sur des animaux importés. A un moment quelconque, pendant la fin du néolithique et/ou au début de l'âge du bronze, les pratiques de l'élevage du porc semblent avoir changé à travers tout le pays, et une séparation beaucoup plus nette apparaît entre population sauvage et population domestique. La taille moyenne des porcs domestiques diminua, peut-être parce que les espèces domestiques étaient maintenues dans des espaces clos, mais la taille du sanglier semble avoir augmenté, peut-être à la suite d'un changement climatique ou d'une relâche de la pression des chasseurs. Les sangliers italiens actuels (de type traditionnel Maremman) sont cependant aussi petits que leurs congénères mésolithiques, une indication peut-être que la fragmentation de leur habitat, dûe à la pression démographique humaine, a apporté avec elle d'autres changements dans la taille du sanglier.

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Artikel wird der Nachweis für eine vorgeschichtliche Schweinenutzung auf der Italienischen Halbinsel und in Sizilien geliefert. Obwohl man einige Unterschiede in der Morphologie der Schweine in den verschiedenen Regionen Italiens feststellen kann, scheint ein allgemein konsistentes, diachrones Veränderungsmuster existiert zu haben. Dabei gab es während des Mesolithikums ziemlich kleine Wildschweine (sie hatten aber im Verhältnis zu ihren Hauern relativ große Knochen). Auch während des Neolithikums weisen die meisten Schweine ähnliche Ausmaße und Form auf der ganzen Italienischen Halbinsel auf, doch zeigen hier mehrere Fundstellen, dass es auch einige Veränderungen in der Schweinenutzung gegeben zu haben scheint. Diese Veränderungen stellen sehr wahrscheinlich den Beginn eines langsamen, graduellen Domestikationsprozesses lokaler Tiere dar. Die Hypothese, dass die früh- und mittelneolithische Schweinezucht sich vorwiegend auf importierte Tiere beschränkte, kann somit mit einiger Sicherheit widerlegt werden. Irgendwann scheinen sich die Praktiken der Schweinezucht im späten Neolithikum und/oder der frühen Bronzezeit landesweit verändert zu haben; dabei scheint es auch eine klarere Trennung zwischen Wild- und Haustieren gegeben zu haben. Es kann festgestellt werden, dass die Durchschnittsgröße der Hausschweine abnahm wahrscheinlich eine Folgeerscheinung einer engeren Hausherdenhaltung – wohingegen die Größe der Wildschweine zugenommen zu haben scheint – wahrscheinlich die Folge von klimatischen Veränderungen oder nachlassender Wildschweinjagd. Jedenfalls lassen sich die heutigen italienischen Wildschweine vom traditionellen Maremman Typus von ihren kleinen Ausmaßen mit ihren mesolithischen Pendants vergleichen. Dies kann wahrscheinlich als ein Indiz gewertet werden, dass durch die Zerstückelung ihres Lebensraumes, was wiederum durch Bevölkerungsdruck verursacht wurde, eine weitere Veränderung der Größe bei den Wildschweine aufgetreten ist.

Résumen

Este artículo presenta la evidencia existente para la explotación porcina durante la prehistoria de la Península italiana y de Sicilia. Aunque parecen haber existido algunas diferencias en la morfología del cerdo en distintas partes del país, se puede sin embargo distinguir un modelo generalmente consistente de cambio diacrónico. Durante el Mesolítico existió en Italia una población de jabalíes salvajes más bien pequeños (con huesos bastante grandes en relación al tamaño de los dientes). Durante la mayor parte del Neolítico el tamaño y forma del cerdo fue similar en toda la península, pero en varios yacimientos hay señales de que habían comenzado a darse algunos cambios en los sistemas de explotación porcina. Los autores interpretan esta evidencia como probablemente indicativa del comienzo de un proceso lento y gradual de domesticación de animales locales. La hipótesis de que en el Neolítico temprano y medio la cría de cerdos se basaba sobre todo en animales importados puede ser rechazada con seguridad. Las prácticas de cría de cerdo parecen haber cambiado en todo el país en algún momento del Neolítico Tardío y/o Primera Edad del Bronce, y puede verse una separación más clara entre poblaciones salvajes y domésticas. El tamaño medio del cerdo doméstico disminuye, probablemente como resultado de su mayor reclusión en piaras domésticas, mientras que el tamaño del jabalí salvaje parece haber aumentado, posiblemente como consecuencia de cambios climáticos o de la menor presión por parte de cazadores. El jabalí salvaje italiano reciente (del tradicional tipo Maremma) es, sin embargo, tan pequeño como su contraparte mesolítico, lo que indica posiblemente que la fragmentación de su hábitat a consecuencia de la presión demográfica humana ha causado un nuevo cambio en el tamaño del jabalí salvaje.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 72 , 2006 , pp. 193 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2006

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

Albarella, U. 1987–1988. Sito CL1: Fauna. In Albore Livadie, C., Fedele, F., Albarella, A., Matteis, F. de, Esposito, E. & Federico, R. Ricerche sull'insediamento tardo–neolitico di Mulino S.Antonio (Avella), 84–99. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 41, 65–103Google Scholar
Albarella, U. 1999. The animal economy after the eruption of Avellino pumice: the case of La Starza (Avellino, Southern Italy). In Livadie, C. Albore (ed.), L'eruzione vesuviana delle ‘Pomici di Avellino’ e la fades culturale di Palma Campania (bronzo antico), 317–30. Bari: EdipugliaGoogle Scholar
Albarella, U. 2002a. Size matters: how and why biometry is still important in zooarchaeology. In Dobney, K. & O'Connor, T. (eds), Bones and the Man: studies in honour of Don Brothwell, 51–62. Oxford: Oxbow BooksGoogle Scholar
Albarella, U. 2002b. S.Giovanni, Laurino. Le ossa di animali. Unpublished reportGoogle Scholar
Albarella, U. & Davis, S. 1996. Mammals and Birds from Launceston Castle, Cornwall: Decline in Status and the Rise of Agriculture. Circaea 12(1)Google Scholar
Albarella, U., Davis, S., Detry, C. & Rowley-Conwy, P. 2006. Pigs of the “Far West”: the biometry of Sus from archaeological sites in Portugal. Anthropozoologica 40(2), 27–54Google Scholar
Albarella, U., Dobney, K. & Rowley-Conwy, P. forthcoming a. Size and shape of the Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa), with a view to the reconstruction of its Holocene history. Mammal ReviewGoogle Scholar
Albarella, U., Manconi, F., Vigne, J.-D. & Rowley-Conwy, P. forthcoming b. The ethnoarchaeology of traditional pig husbandry in Sardinia and Corsica. In Albarella, U., Dobney, K.Ervynck, A. & Rowley-Conwy, P. (eds), Pigs and Humans. 10,000 Years of Interactions. Oxford: University PressGoogle Scholar
Albarella, U., Manconi, F., Rowley-Conwy, P. & Vigne, J.-D. 2006 Pigs of Sardinia and Corsica: a biometrical re-evalution of their status and history. In Tecchiati, U. & Sala, B. (eds), Archaeological Studies in Honour of Alfredo Riedel, 285–302. Bolzano: Provincia Autonoma di BolzanoGoogle Scholar
Albarella, U. & Payne, S. 2005. Neolithic pigs from Durrington Walls, Wiltshire, England: a biometrical database. Journal of Archaeological Science 32(4), 589–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammerman, A.J. & Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1973. A population model for the diffusion of early farming. In Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Explanation of Cultural Change, 343–57. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar
Ammerman, A. & Biagi, P. (eds). 2003. The Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Forward, Looking Back. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America (Colloquia and Conference Paper 6)Google Scholar
Apollonio, M., Randi, E. & Toso, S. 1988. The systematics of the wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) in Italy. Bollettino Zoologico 3, 213–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagolini, B. 1992. Il Neolitico nell'Italia settentrionale. In Guidi, A. & Piperno, M. (eds), Italia Preïstorica, 274–305. Bari: La TerzaGoogle Scholar
Bailey, J.F., Richards, M.B., Macaulay, V.A., Colson, I.B., James, I.T., Bradley, D.G., Hedges, R.E. & Sykes, B.C. 1996. Ancient DNA suggests a recent expansion of European cattle from a diverse wild progenitor species. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B263, 1467–73Google Scholar
Barfield, L.H. & Bagolini, B. 1976. The Excavations on the Rocca di Rivoli 1963–68. Verona: Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona (II serie) Sezione Scienze dell'UomoGoogle Scholar
Barker, G. 1975. Stock economy. In R.R. Holloway, Buccino: the Early Bronze Age village of Tufariello, 59–72. Journal of Field Archaeology 2, 11–81Google Scholar
Barker, G. 1981a. The animal bones, site catchment and discussion of the prehistoric economy. In Barfield, L.H., Barker, G.W.W., Chesterman, J.T., Pals, J.P. & Voorrips, A., Excavations at Monte Covolo, Villanuova sul Clisi, Brescia (1972–73), 41–73. Brescia: Annali del Museo di Gavardo, N.13 – Anni 1977–79Google Scholar
Barker, G. 1981b. Landscape and Society: prehistoric central Italy. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Barker, G. 1985. Prehistoric Farming in Europe. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Barker, G. & Stoddart, S. 1994. The Bronze Age of central Italy: c. 2000–900 BC. In Mathers, C. & Stoddart, S. (eds), Development and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, 145–65. Sheffield: J.R. CollisGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. & Walker, M.J.C. 1992. Late Quaternary Environmental Change. Physical and Human Perspectives. Harlow: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Benecke, N. 1994. Der Mensch und seine Haustiere. Die Geschichte einer jahrtausendealten Beziehung. Unpublished Thesis, University of StuttgartGoogle Scholar
Biagi, P. 2003. A review of the late Mesolithic in Italy and its implications for the Neolithic transition. In Ammerman, & Biagi, (eds) 2003, 133–56Google Scholar
Biagi, P. & Spataro, M. 2001. Plotting the evidence: some aspects of the radiocarbon chronology of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Mediterranean Basin. Atti della Societa' per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli Venezia-Giulia 12, 15–54Google Scholar
Bietti, A. 1976–1977. The excavations 1955–59 in the Upper Paleolithic deposit of Palidoro (Rome, Italy): a brief general introduction. Quaternaria 19, 149–55Google Scholar
Binder, D. & Maggi, R. 2001. Le Néolithique ancien de l'arc liguro-provençal. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 98(3), 411–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogucki, P.I. 1988. Forest Farmers and Stockherders. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Bökönyi, S. 1983. Animal bones from test excavations of early Neolithic ditched villages on the Tavoliere, South Italy. In Cassano, S. & Manfredini, A. (eds), Studi sul Neolitico del Tavoliere della Puglia, 237–49. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S160Google Scholar
Bordaz, J. 1973. Current research in the Neolithic of south central Turkey: Suberde, Erbaba and their chronological implications. American Journal of Archaeology 77(3), 282–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassoli, P.F. 1976–1977. Upper Palaeolithic fauna at Palidoro (Rome): 1955 excavations. Quaternaria 19, 187–96Google Scholar
Cassoli, P.F & Tagliacozzo, A. 1993. ‘La Marmotta’, Anguillara Sabazia (RM). Scavi 1989. Analisi preliminare delle faune. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 84, 323–37Google Scholar
Cassoli, P.F. & Tagliacozzo, A. 1994. I macromammiferi tardopleistocenici delle Arene Candide (Savona, Italia): considerazioni paleontologiche e archeozoologiche. Quaternaria Nova 4, 101–26Google Scholar
Cassoli, P.F. & Tagliacozzo, A. 1995. I reperti ossei faunistici dell'area della piroga. In Fugazzola-Delpino, M.A. & Mineo, M.. La piroga neolitica del Lago di Bracciano (‘La Marmotta I’), 267–88. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 86 ns 4, 197–288Google Scholar
Cavallo, C. 2000. Animals in the Steppe: a zooarchaeological analysis of Later Neolithic Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cazzella, A. & Moscoloni, M. (eds). 1999. Conelle di Arcevia. Un insediamento eneolitico nelle Marche. I. Lo scavo, la ceramica, i manufatti metallici, i resti organici. Roma: Gangemi EditoreGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, J. 1987. A Natural History of Domesticated Animals. London: British Museum (Natural History)Google Scholar
Costantini, L. 1989. Plant exploitation at Grotta dell'Uzzo, Sicily: new evidence for the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic subsistence in southern Europe. In Harris, D.R. & Hillman, G.C. (eds), Foraging and Farming. The Evolution of Plant Exploitation, 197–206. London: Unwin HymanGoogle Scholar
Davis, S. 1981. The effects of temperature change and domestication on the body size of late Pleistocene to Holocene mammals of Israel. Palaeobiology 7, 101–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, S. 1987. The Archaeology of Animals. London: BatsfordGoogle Scholar
Davis, S. 2006. Faunal Remains from Alcáçova de Santarém, Portugal. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Trabalhos de Arqueologia 43.Google Scholar
Dawson, A. 1998. Reflections on the interactions between people and pigs. In Nelson, (ed.) 1998, 5–10Google Scholar
De Beaux, O & Festa, E. 1927. La ricomparsa del cinghiale nell'Italia settentrionale-occidentale. Memorie della Societa' Italiana di Scienze Naturali 9(3), 266–324Google Scholar
Döhle, H.-J. 1997. Husbandry and hunting in the Neolithic of Central Germany. Anthropozoologica 25–26, 441–8Google Scholar
Driesch, A. von den. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University, Peaboby Museum Bulletin 1Google Scholar
Ducos, P. 1968. L'Origine des Animaux Domestiques en Palestine. Bordeux: DelmasGoogle Scholar
Ervynck, A., Dobney, K., Hongo, H. & Meadow, R. 2002. Born free! New evidence for the status of pigs from Çayönü Tepesi, Eastern Anatolia. Paléorient 27(2), 47–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flannery, K.V. 1983. Early pig domestication in the Fertile Crescent: A retrospective look. In Young, T.C., Smith, P.E.L. & Mortensen, P. (eds), The Hilly Flanks. Essays on the Prehistory of Southwest Asia, 163–88. Chicago: Oriental Institute, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 36, University of ChicagoGoogle Scholar
Fugazzola-Delpino, M.A. & Mineo, M. 1995. La piroga neolitica del Lago di Bracciano (‘La Marmotta I’). Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 86 ns 4, 197–288Google Scholar
Giuffra, E., Kijas, J.M.H., Amager, V., Carlborg, Ö, Jeon, J.-T. & Andersson, L. 2000. The origin of the domestic pig: independent domestication and subsequent introgression. Genetics 154, 1785–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, A. 1982. The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates. In Wilson, B., Grigson, C. & Payne, S. (eds), Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, 91–108. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 109Google Scholar
Groves, C. 1981. Ancestors for the Pigs: taxonomy and phylogeny of the genus Sus. Canberra: Technical Bulletin 3, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National UniversityGoogle Scholar
Guidi, A. & Piperno, M. (eds). 1992. Italia Preistorica. Bari: La TerzaGoogle Scholar
Halstead, P. 1996. The development of agriculture and pastoralism in Greece: when, how, who and what? In Harris, D. (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, 296–309. London: University College London PressGoogle Scholar
Hongo, H. & Meadow, R.. 1998. Pig exploitation at Neolithic Çayönü Tepesi (Southeastern Anatolia). In Nelson, (ed.) 1998, 77–98Google Scholar
Jarman, M.R. 1971. Culture and economy in the northern Italian Neolithic. World Archaeology l.2 (3), 255–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarman, M.R. 1975. The fauna and economy of Fiave'. Preistoria Alpina 11, 65–73Google Scholar
Jarman, M.R. 1976. Rivoli: the Fauna. In Barfield, L.H. & Bagolini, B., The Excavations on the Rocca di Rivoli 1963–68, 159–73. Verona: Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona (II serie) Sezione Scienze dell'UomoGoogle Scholar
Jing, Y. & Flad, R.K. 2002. Pig domestication in ancient China. Antiquity 76, 723–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusatman, B. 1991. The Origins of Pig Domestication with Particular Reference to the Near East. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of LondonGoogle Scholar
Larson, G., Dobney, K, Albarella, U., Fang, M., Matisoo-Smith, E., Robins, J., Lowden, S., Finlayson, H., Brand, T., Willerslev, E., Rowley-Conwy, P., Andersson, L. & Cooper, A. 2005. Worldwide phylogeography of wild boar reveals multiple centres of pig domestication. Science 307, 1618–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnell, O. 2004. The body size of wild boar during the Mesolithic in southern Scandinavia. Acta Theriologica 49(1), 113–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadow, R. 1999. The use of size index scaling techniques for research on archaeozoological collections from the Middle East. In Becker, C., Manhart, H., Peters, J. & Schibler, J. (eds), Historia Animalium ex Ossibus. Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch, 285–300. Rahden/Westf: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbHGoogle Scholar
Nelson, S. (ed.). 1998. Ancestors for the Pigs: pigs in prehistory. Philadelphia. Mass.: MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 15Google Scholar
Nemeth, D.J. 1998. Privy-pigs in prehistory? A Korean analog for Neolithic Chinese subsistence practices. In Nelson, (ed.) 1998, 11–25Google Scholar
Nowak, R.M. 1999. Walker's Mammals of the World. Volume II. Baltimore & London: John Hopkins University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, S. & Bull, G. 1988. Components of variation in measurements of pig bones and teeth, and the use of measurements to distinguish wild from domestic pig remains. ArchaeoZoologia 2(1.2), 27–66Google Scholar
Peters, J., Helmer, D., Driesch, A. von den & Saña Seguí, M. 1999. Early animal husbandry in the Northern Levant. Paléorient 25(2), 27–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piper, L. 2001. Born to be wild? The problem with pigs in the North Italian Neolithic: A re-analysis of the animal bone assemblage from Rocca di Rivoli. Unpublished BA dissertation, University of BirminghamGoogle Scholar
Price, T.D. 2000. The introduction of farming in northern Europe. In Price, T.D. (ed.). Europe's First Farmers, 260–300. Cambridge: University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, T.D., Gebauer, A.B. & Keeley, L.H. 1992. The spread of farming into Europe north of the Alps. In Price, T.D. & Gebauer, A.B. (eds), Last Hunters, First Farmers, 97–116. Santa Fe: School of American Research PressGoogle Scholar
Redding, R. & Rosenberg, M. 1998. Ancestral pigs: a New (Guinea) model for pig domestication in the Middle East. In Nelson, (ed.) 1998, 65–76Google Scholar
Riedel, A. 1976a. La fauna del villaggio preistorico di Ledro. Archeo-zoologia e paleo-economia. Studi Trentini di Scienze Naturali 53(5B), 1–120.Google Scholar
Riedel, A. 1976b. La fauna del villaggio preistorico di Barche di Solferino. Trieste: Atti del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale – Trieste, Vol. 29–Fasc. 4, N.12Google Scholar
Riedel, A. 1976c. La fauna del villaggio preistorico di Isolone della Prevaldesca. Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona 2, 355–414Google Scholar
Riedel, A. 1988. The Neolithic Animal Bone Deposit of Cornuda (Treviso). Ferrara; Universita' degli StudiGoogle Scholar
Riedel, A. 1992. The Bronze Age animal bone deposit of Nogarole Rocca I Camponi (Verona). Padusa 28 ns, 87–104Google Scholar
Rosman, A. & Rubel, P.G. 1989. Stalking the wild pig: hunting and horticulture in Papua New Guinea. In Kent, S. (ed.), Farmers as Hunters, 27–36. Cambridge: University PressGoogle Scholar
Rowley-Conwy, P. 1997. The animal bones from Arene Candide. Final report. In Maggi, R. (ed.), Arene Candide: functional and environmental assessment of the Holocene sequence, 153–277. Rome: Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali, Memorie dell'Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana, ns 5Google Scholar
Rowley-Conwy, P. 2003. Early domestic animals in Europe: imported or locally domesticated? In Ammerman, & Biagi, (eds) 2003, 99–117Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G., Roe, A. & Lewontin, R. C. 1960. Quantitative Zoology. New York: Harcourt BraceGoogle Scholar
Siracusano, G. 1991. Prima valutazione delle misurazioni osteometriche dei resti faunistici di Coppa Nevigata. Scienze dell'Antichita'. Storia, Archeologia, Antropologia 5, 265–89Google Scholar
Skeates, R. 1996. Towards an absolute chronology for the Copper Age in central Italy: a note based on the Conelle site and culture. Papers of the British School at Rome 64, 273–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skeates, R. 2003. Radiocarbon dating and interpretations of the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in Italy. In Ammerman, & Biagi, (eds) 2003, 157–87Google Scholar
Sorrentino, C. 1999. Faune terrestri. In Tine', S. (ed.), Il Neolitico nella Caverna delle Arene Candide (Scavi 1972–1977), 66–108. Bordighera: Istituto Internazionale Studi Liguri, Collezione di Monografie Preistoriche ed Archeologiche 10Google Scholar
Tagliacozzo, A. 1992. I mammiferi dei giacimenti pre- e protostorici italiani. Un inquadramento paleontologico e archeozoologico. In Guidi, A. & Piperno, M. (eds), Italia Preistorica, 68–102. Bari: La TerzaGoogle Scholar
Tagliacozzo, A. 1993. Archeozoologia della Grotta dell'Uzzo, Sicilia. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato vol. 84 ns 2Google Scholar
Tagliacozzo, A. 1997. Dalla caccia alia pastorizia: la domesticazione animale. Le modificazioni economiche tra il mesolitico ed il neolitico e l'introduzione degli animali domestici in Sicilia. In Prima Sicilia: alle origini della societa' siciliana, 227–47. Palermo: Regione SicilianaGoogle Scholar
Tagliacozzo, A. 2000. I dati archeozoologici, strategie di allevamento e caccia a Grotta della Madonna di Praia a Mare (CS), nel quadro del Neolitico, Eneolitico e Eta' del Bronzo dell'Italia meridionale. In La grotta del Santuario della Madonna (Praia a Mare – Cosenza). Livelli olocenici, 101–50. Roma: Memorie dell'Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia UmanaGoogle Scholar
Tagliacozzo, A. & Curci, A. 2001. I dati archeozoologici: allevamento e caccia nell'eta' del bronzo. In Trucco, F. & Vagnetti, L. (eds), Torre Mordillo 1987–1990. Le relazione egee di una comunita' preistorica nella Sibaritide, 347–418. Rorna: CNR – Istituto per gli Studi Micenei ed Egeo-AnatoliciGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, I.J. 1996. The Origins of Agriculture in Europe. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Troy, C.S., MacHugh, D.E., Balley, J.F., Magee, D.A., Loftus, R.T., Cunningham, P., Chamberlain, A.T., Sykes, B.C. & Bradley, D.G. 2001. Genetic evidence for Near-Eastern origins of European cattle. Nature 410, 1088–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trump, D.H. 1960–1961. Scavi a La Starza, Ariano Irpino. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 13, 221–31Google Scholar
Vigne, J.-D. 1988. Les Mammifères Post-glaciaires de Corse. Préhistoire. Paris: CNRS, Étude archéozoologique 2e6 Suppl. GalliaGoogle Scholar
Vigne, J.-D. 2000. Les Débuts Néolithiques de l'Élevage des Ongulés au Proche Orient et en Méditerranée: acquis récents et questions. In Guilaine, J. (ed.), Premiers Paysans du Monde: Naissances des Agricultures, 143–68. Paris: Editions ErranceGoogle Scholar
Vigne, J.-D. & Buitenhuis, H. 1999. Les premiers pas de la domestication animale à l'Ouest de l'Euphrate: Chypre et l'Anatolie centrale. Paléorient 25, 49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkens, B. 1999. I resti faunistici. In Cazzella, A. & Moscoloni, M. (eds), Conelle di Arcevia. Un insediamento eneolitico nelle Marche. I. Lo scavo, la ceramica, i manufatti metallici, i resti organici, 213–59. Roma: Gangemi EditoreGoogle Scholar
Zeder, M., Bradley, D., Emshwiller, E. & Smith, B. (eds). 2006. Documenting Domestication: new genetic and archaeological paradigms. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Zvelebil, M. 1995. Hunting, gathering, or husbandry? Management of food resources by the late Mesolithic communities of temperate Europe. In Campana, D.V. (ed.), Before Farming: hunther-gatherer society and subsistence, 79–104. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Supplement to Volume 12Google Scholar