C. R.

Biologies 334 (2011) 171–181

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Comptes Rendus Biologies

www.sciencedirect.com

Review/Revue

The origins of animal domestication and husbandry: A major

change in the history of humanity and the biosphere
Les origines de la domestication des animaux et de l’élevage : un changement
majeur dans l’histoire de l’humanité et de la biosphère
Jean-Denis Vigne
CNRS-InEE, Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, UMR 7209, archéozoologie, archéobotanique : sociétés, pratiques et environnements, CP 56, 55,
rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This article aims to summarize the present archaeo(zoo)logical knowledge and reflections
Available online 2 February 2011 on the origins of Neolithic animal domestication. It targets the main characteristics of early
Neolithic animal domestication set against a backdrop of two complementary scales,
Keywords: namely the global and macro-regional scales (the latter using the example of the Near
Neolithic East). It discusses the conceptual and methodological issues, arguing in favor of an
Domestication anthropozoological approach taking into account the intentions and the dynamics of
Domestic animals human societies and critically analyzes the reductionist neo-Darwinian concepts of co-
Archaeozoology evolution and human niche construction. It also provides a brief discussion on the birth of
Near East
ungulate domestication and its roots, as well as appropriate bibliographic references to
Co-evolution
enlighten the current status of domestication research.
Human niche construction
ß 2010 Académie des sciences. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

R É S U M É

Mots clés : Cet article résume l’état présent des connaissances et des réflexions archéo(zoo)logiques
Néolithique concernant les débuts néolithiques de l’élevage des animaux. Il cherche à dégager les
Domestication
principales caractéristiques des premières domestications animales néolithiques en
Animaux domestiques
Archéozoologie
considérant ce phénomène à deux échelles complémentaires, mondiale et macro-
Proche-Orient régionale, la seconde étant illustrée par l’exemple du Proche-Orient. Il argumente en
Co-évolution faveur d’une approche anthropozoologique de la domestication, prenant pleinement en
« Human niche construction » compte l’intentionnalité et les dynamiques propres des sociétés humaines, et critique les
concepts néo-darwiniens réductionnistes de coévolution et de construction de la niche
humaine. En conclusion, il discute brièvement les raisons de la naissance de la
domestication néolithique des ongulés. De nombreuses références bibliographiques sont
données afin de préciser l’état des recherches sur la domestication des espèces.
ß 2010 Académie des sciences. Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.

1. Introduction European and Asian hunter-gatherers. This occurred

somewhere around 17–15 kyrs BP [1–6] or perhaps earlier,
Wolves (Canis lupus) are the first species known to have around 20–30 kyrs BP [7]. However, this did not bring
been domesticated during the Late Glacial by both about major modifications in the way of life for humans,
except perhaps small changes in hunting strategies, tactics
or techniques. This suggests that at least during the
Email address: [email protected]. Upper Palaeolithic Homo sapiens were already able to

1631-0691/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Académie des sciences. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2010.12.009
172 J.-D. Vigne / C. R. Biologies 334 (2011) 171–181

domesticate, but only utilized this behavior sporadically which provide information on size and shape evolutions
for a restricted number of species in particular circum- and on age and sex at death, they constitute a large and
stances. From ca. 12 kyrs BP several other species of very informative panel of pre-mortem (or intrinsic)
animals and plants began to be domesticated in other parts biological signatures;
of the world [8–11]. Though only a tiny fraction of all  the archaeological context of discovery (food refuse
biodiversity has actually been domesticated [12], domes- deposits, human burial, cultural sites) as well as the post-
tication of new species continued throughout the next mortem marks on the bones (cut marks, cooking burns)
millennia until the present day, where it is still active give indications as to the relationship of the species with
primarily with fish. Contrary to dog domestication, these humans.
domestications were part of a major change in the way of
Conversely archaeological approaches are limited by:
life of an increasing number of human societies throughout
the world, in a process called Neolithisation. This process is
 archaeozoological discoveries coming from limited
not only characterized by a slow but drastic techno-
regions or periods, being badly documented or not yet
economic shift from hunting-gathering to food production,
studied;
based on cultivation and husbandry of domesticates, but
 the low rhythm of archaeological analyses, often five to
also by a strong demographic transition [13] combined
ten yearly excavation sessions are required before the
with deep social and spiritual change [14].
refined chronological or contextual information is
This paper aims to summarize the current state of
available, without which animal bones cannot be used;
knowledge accumulated by archaeology and archaeozool-
 the loss of most of the biological information with only
ogy during 50 years of studying Neolithic animal
the skeleton being preserved;
domestication. It will briefly present the archaeozoological
 the extreme fragmentation of the bones, due to the
methods, whilst attempting to emphasize the main trends
systematic consumption of marrow and the post-deposi-
of this phenomenon against two different scales, namely
tional attrition of the collections, which reduces the
the continental and regional (Near East) scales to discuss
quality and quantity of archaeozoological information.
the conceptual issues and the reasons behind the birth of
domestication. Many bibliographic references are provid-
ed to help readers getting a deeper insight into this Consequently, to fully analyze the preserved archaeo-
fascinating topic of domestication. logical faunal collections, including paleomolecular or
isotopic analyses, it is of utmost importance to have an in-
2. Archaeological approaches to early animal depth knowledge of both the archaeological contexts and
domestication: concepts and techniques the taphonomic processes that have degraded the infor-
mation [23]. This cannot be achieved without a tight and
Archaeological evidence of domestication, such as well-balanced collaboration between the excavator, whose
representations of scenes of husbandry or remains of scientific approach is as important and difficult as that of
objects linked with husbandry (e.g. yokes, fessels) are rare the analysts, the osteo-archaeologist, in charge of the
and often ambiguous. Thus, the best way to investigate general study of the faunal assemblages, and the specialists
early domestication consists of studying archaeological who undertake the molecular, geo-morphometric or
skeletal remains (archaeozoology [15–19]). These remains isotopic investigations.
provide substantial and important evidence that deserves Studying early Neolithic domestication naturally
attention: requires a clear theoretical view of precisely what domesti-
cation is. Archaeologists generally agree that domestication
 if they come from well-dated and characterized archae- can be defined as the process whereby the reproduction of a
ological contexts they can often be dated with relative deme (i.e. local sub-population) of animals or plants is
precision ( some decades to 2–3 centuries) and as this appropriated and controlled by human society for material,
date can normally be corroborated by direct radiocarbon social or symbolic profit. Domestication, within this
dating of the collagen from the bones themselves it is definition, is clearly differentiated from the pet-keeping
therefore possible to analyze the domestication processes of some Amazonian [24], New Guinean or Japanese Ainu
with high temporal resolution, even for early period’s ca. hunters-gatherers, which consists of capturing a young wild
12-10 kyrs BP; animal, for a particular household rather than for a whole
 contrary to paleontological or even Pleistocene collec- society, raising it (and even breast-feeding it) then later
tions they often constitute a large series allowing releasing or killing it without any offspring as a symbolic
quantitative approaches and statistical appreciation of offering to nature to guarantee their future subsistence.
the observations; As a process dependent on the animal/plant species and
 as Late Glacial and Holocene archaeological bones are not on the multiplicity of human behavior domestication takes
fossils, histological structures, associated unicellular or various forms. These can be arranged on a gradient of eco-
helminthic parasites and organic matters are often well anthropological mutualistic relationships between animal
preserved, allowing for a large panel of biological and human societies [25,26]; from anthropophily, to
analyses, including paleomolecular or isotopic commensalisms or control in the wild, the management
approaches [20]; of captive animals, expansive or intensive breeding, and
 in addition to multiscale and refined analyses of size and finally to pets (Fig. 1). As the process depends solely on the
shape (e.g. using geometric morphometrics [21,22]), dynamic equilibrium between animals and humans, it is
[()TD$FIG] J.-D. Vigne / C. R. Biologies 334 (2011) 171–181 173

Intensification of the relationship between animals and human societies

Intensification of the domestication process (ss)

Anthropophily Control in Extensive Intensive

the wild Control of breeding Breeding Pets
Commensalism captive animals

Domestic animals
(biological modifications)

Fig. 1. Domestication can be considered as an ultimate phase of intensification in the relationship between animal or plant sub-populations and human
societies. It is comprised of several grades of intensification that, by various means and over varying periods, may end with the emergence of domestic
animal as well as plant and microorganism lineages shaped by humans. The control of wild animals is a form of domestication that does not entail any
visible morphological modifications, at least from an archaeology point of view.

possible to achieve sustained stability at any level; with have appeared either fast, slow or never, according to the
further progression or the retreat back to a less intensive type of modification, the species and the intensity and
relationship being possible. This is clearly illustrated by the nature of the relationship [38,39] (Fig. 1).
diverse situations observed today (e.g. the reindeer [27]) Using this theoretical framework it appears that the
and by the frequent phenomena of feralization [28–30]. concept of (process of) domestication must be disasso-
The crucial question for archaeology, therefore, is to decide ciated from that of the domestic animal. To recognize early
from which step of this gradient domestication began. It is domestications and early domestic animals archaeozool-
clear that commensalisms and control in the wild are out of ogy has to combine the large panel of information of the
the frame of domestication, while control of captives can archaeological skeletal remains to address the two
be considered as domestication (or not) according to the connected, but mutually exclusive, questions:
degree of animal reproductive control (Fig. 1). To draw a
more precise line is unachievable, partly because of the  the description of the level of domestication (i.e.
continuity of the process but primarily because the intensity and nature of the relation);
delimitation of the concept of domestication depends  the biological modifications due to domestication.
solely on ethnocentric perception of the limits between
The former can be answered by analyzing:
nature and culture [27,31].
With this in mind and using (and giving clear definition
 the presence of animals in human burials [2,40];
of) their own cultural concepts and words, a main concern
 the presence of a species out of its natural area of
of archaeologists is to accurately describe the character-
distribution [41–43];
istics of each of the particular situations, so that observed
 the high frequency of the taxa in food refuse, which
situations can be positioned in the gradient of Fig. 1.
provides information about subsistence specialization;
Though tightly connected with this process, the biological
 the frequency of the skeletal parts, which often reveals
effects of domestication on plants/animals must be
the distance between the slaughtering and dwelling
analyzed apart. The biological consequences of domesti-
places [38,44];
cation vary according to the particular species. However,
 and ‘paleodemographic’ data (i.e. a combination of the
for vertebrates (including birds and fish) there are a
sex-ratio and frequency of ages at death).
number of constant modifications including a decrease in
aggressiveness, increased fertility, sexual dimorphism
(and often body size) decrease, shortening of the face, The latter, which is also the most powerful method for
decrease of the braincase volume, appearance of new coat addressing these questions [23,45], gives precise, though
colors, soft ears (carnivores) and voice changing (barking of not always unambiguous, information about the strategy
dogs) [12,16,32–35]. Some of these modifications result of animal acquisition by various practices of hunting or
from hormonal changes, due to environmental conditions breeding. For example, J. Peters et al. [46] convincingly
and the stress of captivity, i.e. without human intent evidenced domestication from the drastic changes in
[36,37] whereas others result from epigenetic/develop- slaughtering profiles of sheep and goats ca. 10.5 kyrs BP in
mental changes or are purely genetic mutations possibly the high Euphrates Basin. Using a different technique
selected by humans. The long held belief of archaeo(zoo)l- relying on recording ages and sexes proportions M. A.
ogists is that these biological signatures of domestication Zeder [47] also evidenced a strong intensification of the
appeared almost immediately after the breeding of captive exploitation of the bezoar goat (Capra aegagrus) in the
animals began. It is now clear, however, that they may Zagros ca. 10 kyrs BP.
174 J.-D. Vigne / C. R. Biologies 334 (2011) 171–181

For archaeozoologists, addressing the biological modi- evidence corroborating this statement. Local wild boar
fication question of early domesticates using size decrease domestications in Europe have also been evidenced based
[16,46,48] is a well-utilized domestication signal. Howev- on osteological and genetic data [62], ca. 7-5th millennia
er, as mentioned above, this modification sometimes BP. During the same period (7th mill. BP) llama (Lama
occurred well after the initial domestication, if ever, glama) and alpaca (L. pacos) were domesticated in Peru
depending on the intensity of the human/animal relation- [63], from L. guanicoe and L. vicugna, which were later
ship. For example, J. Peters et al. [46] evidenced a very hybridized [64].
rapid size decrease in wild boar ca. 10.5 kyrs BP in the high Another wave of large mammal domestications oc-
Euphrates Valley, whilst A. Ervynck et al. [49] observed a curred in the Old World during the 6-4th millennia BP.
very slow rate of decrease in the nearby high Tigris basin Thus, horse (Equus caballus) was domesticated ca. 5.5 kyrs
ca. 9 kyrs BP, the difference between these studies being BP in Kazakhstan [65] and possibly also during the 5th
probably due to different management systems. Another millennium BP in the Iberian peninsula [66]. The origins of
important issue of this technique for dimorphic ungulates ass (Equus asinus) and camels (Camelus bactrianus, Camelus
such as cattle and goats is the fact that changes in the sex dromedaries) are still debated but it seems that they had
ratio can mimic a change (decrease or increase) in the not been domesticated before the 6th and 4th millennia BP,
average size. Based on both bone measurements and the respectively. Finally the earliest evidence for the domestic
state of long bone epiphysation, M. Zeder [47] proposed a water buffalo (Bubalus bubalus) has been found in the Indus
technique that overrides this bias. Another promising and Valley, dating to the 5th millennium PB [60,67]. The
easier technique consists of a separate study of male and domestication of birds (turkey and Barbary duck in
female sizes using mixture analyses [50–52]. It allowed America, hen in South-East Asia) came later on.
detection of the earliest decrease in the sexual dimorphism Though brief, the present overview helps pointing out
of cattle, ca. 10.4 kyrs BP, in the Middle Euphrates Valley two of the major trends of early animal domestication.
[51] (i.e. the earliest evidence of cattle domestication) Firstly, it appears that very few of these domestication
though no decrease in the average size was detectable from events were contemporaneous with the main climatic
the same bone sample. crisis, ca. 12,500 BP for the last cold phase of the Younger
Dryas, ca. 11,500 BP for the increased Holocene warming
3. Early animal domestication on a global scale and ca. 8500 BP for the most important (but short)
Holocene cooling. Even though some processes of domes-
From the vast knowledge held, a brief statement about tication appear to have been initiated during the Younger
the world’s earliest mammal domestications will allow us Dryas [43], all large mammal domestication took place
to draw out the main characteristics of this event at a during the Holocene, a period that provided more
global scale. Except for the dog, see Introduction, the favorable climatic conditions and that could have, there-
earliest detected domestications are from the Near East. fore, played an important role in the overall process.
They concern the Oriental mouflon (Ovis orientalis), which Secondly, even though some of these local domestication
gave birth to sheep (O. aries), bezoar goat, which is the events could have been induced by contact with other
ancestor of the domestic goat (Capra hircus), extinct areas where domestication had already been practiced it is
aurochs (Bos primigenius), which generated domestic cattle clear that at least some domestications (e.g. pig in China,
(Bos taurus), and wild boar (Sus scrofa), the domestic form llama in America) began independently. This suggests that
of which being the pig (Sus domesticus). All these very different societies were initiating similar ideas in
domestications date approximately from the middle of completely different parts of the world, not at precisely the
the 11th millennium BP [39,45,46,48,51,52]. This includes same time, but most presumably under similar general
the cat (Felis silvestris), an incipient domestication [40] that climatic conditions, and during the same relatively short
probably coincided with the start of early agricultural period of time.
stock keeping and the subsequent development of An understanding of the potential reasons for this major
commensal mice [53]. Goats, however, were also domesti- and unique change requires examining these processes on
cated much later (ca. 10 kyrs BP) in the Zagros using a much smaller scale.
various local different lineages [47]. Cattle domestication
also started for a second time (ca. 8.5 kyrs BP) in the lower 4. Early Neolithic domestications at a regional level: the
Indus Valley (Pakistan) with a different lineage, the Near East
humped Asian subspecies of aurochs (Bos p. namadicus)
[54,55]. Current knowledge states that the Near East formed the
The existence of a third independent cradle of cattle earliest cradle of Neolithisation [8,9,11–14,26,38]. In an
domestication in the high Nile valley is still being debated area comprised of the Middle Euphrates Valley and South
[56–59]. Another independent center of pig domestication Palestine, a section of the Late Glacial population became
has been evidenced in China (ca. 8,000 BP [22,60]). sedentary (ca. 16–15 kyrs BP), a culture defined as the
Previous evidence suggested that only the pig (and Natufian [14]. These societies appear to have lived in rather
probably the dog) had been locally domesticated here. modest villages composed of semi-buried round houses
However, investigations on the modern genetic lineages of and were still hunter-gatherers exploiting a broad
wild and domestic Sus indicated several new potential spectrum of resources similar to their Paleolithic ancestors
centres of pig domestication in South East Asia [61], [68]. The introduction of the wild boar to Cyprus, before
though currently there is no reliable archaeological 11.4 kyrs BP [50], during the end of the Late Glacial (Fig. 2)
[()TD$FIG] J.-D. Vigne / C. R. Biologies 334 (2011) 171–181 175

8,500
Increase of
Neolithic
with pottery
territories for
Pastoral nomadism production
9,000

Late Animal farming

PPNB

Preceramic Neolithic B
9,500
Intentional selection Additionnal
Meat Supply
cal BP
Domestic meat >
Dates

hunting meat

PPNB
Middle
PPNB
10,000 Spread to S. Levant Increase of the
Holocene

villages' size
Stock-keeping
First acclimatizations
Early
10,500 Milk
PPNB
procurement?
First domestic ungulates

11,000
PPNA

11,500
Hunting/Control
in the wild
Glacial

Natufian
Late

12,000

Fig. 2. The different phases in the emergence of animal farming in the Near East [41].

indicates that these societies practiced a form of wild ungulates were transported far from their areas of origin
ungulate control that included a sophisticated form of toward the south, to the Damascus region [73], and even
hunting or incipient domestication. Shortly after the overseas to Cyprus where goats and cattle appeared (ca.
climatic Holocene transition (ca. 11.5 kyrs BP) these 10.4–10.3 kyrs BP) followed by sheep, pigs and the
populations began to cultivate wild cereals and legumes Mesopotamian fallow deer (a failed attempt to domesti-
[69,70] and gradually evolved toward a new culture cation) ca. 10 kyrs BP [42,48,52].
defined as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA). Thus, PPNA These transportations necessarily entailed acclimatiza-
villages were much larger and more sophisticated than the tion of the early domesticates and brought about a further
Natufian ones. In the Northern Levant, they were level of animal control [39]. Notably the earliest evidence
composed of standardized rectangular houses arranged of milk exploitation also dates to approximately this time
centrally around a large, circular and semi-buried house [39,48,74,75] (Fig. 2). Around 10 kyrs BP, further to the
probably used for common storage and for political/ east in the Zagros Mountains, people were still mobile
religious meetings [71]. A large PPNA religious site, such as hunter-gatherers (Zarzian culture [14]) but had possibly
Göbeckli in the high Euphrates basin, with its impressive controlled wild goats for some time [76], being locally and
megalithic architecture and animal rock art, testifies to this probably independently domesticated from the Anatolian
highly organized society [72]. Thus, these established and cradle [47]. During the same period, the earliest domestic
widely distributed PPN societies were responsible for the ungulates appeared further to the east in Central Anatolia
earliest ungulate domestications in the world. [77] and to the south in the Jordan valley and the Dead Sea
As previously mentioned, the earliest known evidence area [78]. From ca. 10 kyrs BP, domestic sheep, goats, cattle
for both new management strategies and morphological and pigs were being bred across an expansive area
modifications (i.e. size/sexual dimorphism decrease) of stretching from Cyprus and Central Anatolia to the Iranian
ungulates dates from ca. 10.7 to 10.5 kyrs, in the high Plateau from west to east and from the high Euphrates and
(sheep, goats, pigs [46]) and middle (cattle [51]) Euphrates Tigris valleys to the southern borders of Palestine. This area
basin on the high slopes of the Taurus Mountains. was mainly composed of high mountainous slopes (Taurus,
Approximately this coincides with the beginning of the Zagros) and included some of the largest Near Eastern
early PPNB (Fig. 2) characterized by the cultivation of valleys (high and middle Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan). It
domestic cereals and legumes and by a newly sophisticat- seems improper, therefore, to call this zone the Fertile
ed technique of producing long and rectilinear flint Crescent (i.e. the society that appeared 4000 kyrs later)
hunting weapons [14]. Shortly after, early domestic because its geographical entity was restricted to the large
[()TD$FIG]
176 J.-D. Vigne / C. R. Biologies 334 (2011) 171–181

Fig. 3. Schematic representation of the effects of anthropisation on the ecosystems of animal communities (example of the large mammals of Western
Europe). A. Apparition of new man-modified and man-made ecosystems. B. Redistribution of taxa in this modified ecological structure according to their
respective niche and apparition of a new ecological structuration of the communities into three new groups: anthropophobous, anthropophilous and
commensal. C. Proposal of an ecological interpretation of domestication as a component of animal communities anthropisation, though with intent from
humans [15].
 [()TD$FIG]
J.-D. Vigne / C. R. Biologies 334 (2011) 171–181 177

valleys that is, from the Nile to the Lower Euphrates-Tigris

(Mesopotamia) [79]. More importantly it appears increas-
ingly likely that animal (and plant) domestication did not ANTHROPOSYSTEM
occur solely in one place then diffuse outwards across a
larger area, but that this domestication appeared simulta-
neously in numerous different and geographically distant
places, evolving at different speed in each of them [80] and
spreading outwards from each of these to other commu-
nities. The distance between these probably varied greatly
and would have required a dense and complicated network
of both short and long distance relationships. This period
CULTURE
corresponding to the first half of the 10th millennium ECOSYSTEMS
(Middle PPNB, Fig. 2) is characterized by a strong SYSTEM
demographic increase in all the Levantine and Anatolian
areas as attested by the drastic widening of the tell villages
[14]. Nevertheless, during this time hunting of large game
(animals hunted for food and not normally domesticated:
hemions, gazelles, aurochs, bezoar goats, deer, ibex) still
provided most of the meat consumed [39,75]. In this
respect, the middle of the 10th millennium represents a
new important turning point (Fig. 2). This was the moment
(ca. 9.6–9.5 kyrs BP) when husbandry definitively became
the primary source of meat and when important ungulate Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the anthroposystem, a meta-system
morphological modifications (namely horns) began to constituted by the cultural system (red) with the interactions between its
proper components (red arrows), the ecosystems (green) in which the
appear, suggesting the start of intentional selection and human society lives and the biological interactions between its
crossbreeding [81,36]. This was the birth of animal components (green arrows), and the interactions between these two
husbandry in the Near East. It was followed several (groups of) systems (blue arrows).
centuries later by the start of pastoral nomadism [82],
which appeared not as a primitive form of husbandry but
as an innovative way of seasonal exploitation of the sub- their specific capacity for adaptation to these new
desert areas, which even today is visible across vast areas ecosystems and to the intentional human decision of
of the Old World. rejecting undesirable species or taking advantage of their
Nearly at the same time, the Neolithic new ways of life, material, social or spiritual properties [86] (Fig. 3). Several
including pottery and domestic plants and animals, began authors analyzed this phenomenon in terms of ‘‘human
to spread to the Eastern Asia, to North-Eastern Africa and niche’’ construction, i.e. ‘‘the process whereby organisms
South-East Europe [83,84]. The scenario in the Near East, as modify selective environments, thereby affecting evolu-
with all other centres of Neolithisation, is that they cannot tion’’ [87–89]. Others analyzed the birth of domestication
be generalized as a single event. Each must, and can, be as a phenomenon of biological co-evolution [90]. Here,
defined separately by its own unique succession of events, human niche construction would have favored biological
be they with or without pottery, agriculture or sedentism. changes in proto-domesticates as ensuring increased
However, they all followed a slow and complex process, reproduction in a ‘‘disturbed’’ environment would make
which involved small interconnected communities with them more attractive as a human resource. In turn humans
demographic growth, in a zone where lived one or several would have been selected (via cultural evolution) or
animal/plant species able to be domesticated. motivated (via rational choice) to modify their behavior so
From this examination of early animal domestication at as to favor the propagation and growth-multiplication of
the global and regional scales we discuss below the these proto-domesticates. However, as stressed by M. A.
conceptual framework for the study of the Neolithisation Zeder [10] ‘‘what makes human niche construction and the
and its possible causes. human/plant and animal mutualistic relationships in-
volved in the process of domestication different from these
5. The conceptual framework for the study of early classic biological processes is the element of human
domestication intent’’ (see also [27]). It is therefore necessary to consider
Neolithisation, and more importantly plant and animal
Neolithisation is characterized by the start of an domestication, not as a simple additional episode in the
unprecedented increase in human activity and its subse- biological evolution but as a discontinuity in the evolution
quent impact on the environment. It is marked by the birth of the biosphere. That is, one special species became able to
of new types of ecosystems including those strongly modify its environment according to long term predic-
impacted by humans (man-modified ecosystems, e.g. tions, fed by a multi-generation memory of successes and
exploited forests) and those distinctly artificial (man- failures and using socialized (i.e. flexible) techniques. In
made ecosystems, e.g. agrosystem, village, city) [85,86]. other words, the pure neo-Darwinian conceptual frame-
This new ecological organization required the redeploy- work cannot account for the anthropological and biological
ment of plants and animals into new biotopes according to complexities of the Neolithisation and/or the birth of
178 J.-D. Vigne / C. R. Biologies 334 (2011) 171–181

domestication, notably concerning the techno-economic who domesticated horses or camels several millennia later
and symbolic uses of animals by human societies as being were clearly nomadic and stayed so. The last step in the
part of their technical, social and symbolic systems (sensu birth of husbandry in the Near East is the return, by some
M. Mauss and C. Lévi-Strauss [91,92]) and subsequently sectors of the population, to a more pastoral nomadic way
being a characteristic part of their cultural system [93]. We of life. This confirms that even though it constantly
prefer, therefore, to use the structuralistic conceptual increased worldwide during the Holocene and undeniably
framework of the anthroposystem, i.e. a meta-system provoked an increase in birth rate, hence a strong
constituted by the culture system (with its own anthropo- demographic increase [13], sedentism does not appear
logical functioning), the ecological system (with its own as a compulsory component of the Neolithisation. Also the
biological functioning), and their interactions and dynam- fact that PPN people continued to obtain most of their meat
ics through time [15,85,86,94] ( Fig. 4). For the same reason diet from hunting during the thousand years after the
we keep the term ‘co-evolution’ for true biological appearance of domestic ungulates does not support the
interactive evolution and use the term ‘co-development’ hypothesis that Neolithisation was a way to increase meat
where human cultures are involved. For example, most of supply [39]. At the most, domesticates would have
plant or animal domestications are co-developments provided complementary resources during the less pro-
because they involve human intent. ductive hunting seasons [39,86]. However, recent evidence
of milk exploitation, from as early as the PPN in the Near
6. The possible causes of Neolithisation and East, suggests that the domestication of sheep, goats and
domestication cattle could have been stimulated by the quest for this new
food [75]: it was only available from captive animals and
Neolithisation was not a revolution in the sense of an its symbolic value as a figure of the maternal link should
abrupt historical phenomenon. Across the Near East, it have already been high [99,100].
lasted at least 4–5 kyrs from the earliest evidence of wild Therefore taking into account the anthropological, as
animal control (ca. 14 kyrs) to the emergence of farming well as the biological dimension, it appears that
(ca. 9.5 kyrs). Thus from a global perspective it lasted more ownership of an animal, especially if it had a high
than 10 kyrs. However, as emphasized earlier, the symbolic value (such as wild boars or bovids, among the
Neolithisation was most certainly a revolution in the most frequent animal representations during the PPNA
sense that it opened up an unprecedented era for the [72,101]) was a mark of social prestige, or even, as it is
biosphere allowing creating numerous new regimes of still the case in numerous present traditional societies, a
functioning environments not solely ruled by the physical sign of wealth. Prestige and wealth are of course hardly
and biological factors but also by socio-cultural ones due to detectable through archaeological finds but we must
the acceleration of anthroposystems development. keep in mind that there may be symbolic, as well as
Climate has long been considered the principle cause of practical, reasons that stimulated the earliest appropria-
Neolithisation, namely the cooling during the Younger tions of animals.
Dryas, as it would have forced some human societies to Aside from ‘‘pet keeping’’ [35], animal appropriation
diversify into new modes of subsistence [95–97]. However, (i.e. domination) is almost impossible in animist or totemic
as already stated, recent refinements to the chronology of societies as in their ‘‘horizontal’’, cosmogonic conception of
climatic changes, at the end of the Late Glacial and during the world they consider animals, plants and humans as
the early Holocene, disclosed the absence of strict existing within the same hierarchical level [31]. For these
correlations between them and the Neolithisation process. societies, humans have no rights above those of other
Therefore climate change cannot be considered to have beings. In sharp contrast, to start the process of animal
been the principal instigator of Neolithisation domestication implies that at some stage humans gave
[14,39,86,98], though the increasingly stable, and thus themselves permission to control nature. This suggests
more predictable, warm Holocene climate did create more that to become dominant species humans had to radically
favorable conditions for human demographic increase and change their ‘‘horizontal’’ conception of the world into a
in turn for successful Neolithisation. ‘‘vertical’’ one. In the Near East, this ‘‘verticalization’’ of the
Although the demography of Homo sapiens continued to cosmogony is confirmed and strengthened by the archae-
increase since the emergence of the species [13], it is clear ological observations of J. Cauvin [14]. This author
that Neolithisation would not have been possible before a evidenced that the Near Eastern PPN was characterized
certain demographic density and therefore could not have by the birth of divinities, with representations showing
occurred earlier in its history. Yet the fact that the them standing above human figures or with humans
demography suddenly and drastically increased just after praying toward the sky. This suggests that humans were
the beginning of agriculture in numerous regions of the beginning to see themselves within a hierarchical order
world (Europe, North America, Near East [13]) indicates dominated by divinities, placing themselves above animals
that, as with climate change, demography alone cannot and plants, which in turn allowed them to dominate or
solely explain Neolithisation. even kill them, while being pardoned of this unbearable act
Sedentism is another factor that has long been of murdering familiars ‘‘turning towards a higher entity, to
considered as the first step, or as one of its omnipresent whom [they] will [. . .] offer the victim’’ [99].
components, of Neolithisation. In the Near East it began This added dimension to Neolithisation highlights the
during the Late Glacial and preceded the earliest domes- importance of spiritual and symbolic human thought
tications by at least 4000 yrs. In central Asia the societies within the origins of animal domestication.
 J.-D. Vigne / C. R. Biologies 334 (2011) 171–181 179

What is not yet completely clear is why, during the first [7] M. Germonpré, M.V. Sablin, T.E. Stevens, R.E.M. Hedges, M. Hofreiter,
M. Stiller, V. Jaenicke-Desprese, Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeo-
half of the Holocene, so many distant human cultures lithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient
throughout the Old and New World changed their beliefs, DNA and stable isotopes, J. Archaeol. Sci. 36 (2008) 473–490.
their techno-economic practices and their social organiza- [8] D.R. Harris, The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in
Eurasia, Smithsonian Inst., Washington DC, 1996.
tion. What seems clear is that Neolithisation was not a [9] P. Bellwood, First farmers, Blackwell, Oxford, 2005.
reaction to a single but rather numerous different factors [10] M. Zeder, The Neolithic macro-(r)evolution: Macroevolutionary theo-
(e.g., climate, biogeography, environment, demography, ry and the study of culture change, J. Archaeol. Res. 17 (2009) 1–63.
[11] D. Price, O. Bar-Yosef The Beginnings of Agriculture: new Data, New
techno-economic practices, diet and health, social struc- Ideas, Current Anthropol., special issue (2011) in press.
ture and mentality) simultaneously evolving at different [12] J. Clutton-Brock, Domesticated animals, British Museum (Nat. Hist.)
degrees according to the local, regional or continental (1981).
[13] J.P. Bocquet Appel, O. Bar-Yosef, The Neolithic Demographic Transi-
environment and scales [86], furthermore interacting and
tion and its Consequences, Springer, New York, 2008.
culminating in a snowball effect [9]. One possible scenario [14] J. Cauvin, The Birth of the Gods and the Beginnings of Agriculture,
for the Near East would be that the demographic growth Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge U. K., 2000.
due to three millennia of sedentism combined with the [15] M.P. Horard-Herbin, J.D. Vigne, Animaux, environnements et sociétés,
Errance, Paris, 2005.
more predictable Holocene climate would have increased [16] S.J.M. Davis, The Archaeology of Animals, B. T. Batsford Ltd, London,
both the hierarchy and the specialization of society, which 1987.
in turn created the mental and social conditions necessary [17] R.G. Klein, K. Cruz-Uribe, The analysis of animal bones from arche-
ological sites, The Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984.
for animal appropriation and that these appropriations [18] T. O’Connor, The archaeology of animal bones, Sutton Publishing,
were then further stimulated by the social prestige of Stroud, 2000.
animal ownership, by the quest for new foods as milk, and/ [19] L. Chaix, P. Méniel, Archéozoologie, Errance, Paris, 2001.
[20] J.D. Vigne, P. Darlu, La Paléogénétique en paléontologie, archéologie et
or by the buffering effect of domestic animals for paléoanthropologie: contributions et limites – Palaeogenetics in
smoothing of the seasonal irregularities of subsistence. palaeontology, archaeology and palaeoanthropology: contributions
In turn it is possible that these boosted demographic and limits, Avant propos – Foreword, C. R. Palevol 7 (2008) 81–90.
[21] T. Cucchi, M. Fujita, K. Dobney, New Insights into pig taxonomy,
growth (e.g. at the beginning of the Middle PPNB) leading domestication and human dispersal in island South East Asia: molar
to the final adoption of husbandry as the main socio- shape analysis of Sus remains from Niah Caves, Sarawak, Int. J.
economic mode of animal resources procurement. How- Osteoarchaeol. 19 (2009) 508–530.
[22] T. Cucchi, A. Hulme-Beaman, J. Yuan, K. Dobney, Early Neolithic pig
ever, such a scenario must be stepwise tested with more
domestication at Jiahu, Henan Province, China: clues from molar
archaeological evidence. Also more research outside of the shape analyses using geometric morphometric approaches, J.
Near East should be done, in order that scenarios for other Archaeol. Sci. 38 (2011) 11–12.
parts of the world can be proposed and to stimulate [23] R.L. Lyman, Vertebrate Taphonomy, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cam-
bridge, 1994.
comparative studies and a common model. [24] P. Erikson, The social significance of pet-keeping among Amazonian
The lasts 60 years of archaeological studies showed that Indians, in: P. Podberseck, J.A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion Animals and
Neolithisation was not just another step in the history of Us: explorating the Relationships Between People and Pets, Cam-
bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge USA, 2000, pp. 9–11.
humanity and the biosphere but corresponded to a pivotal [25] T. Ingold, The appropriation of nature: essays on human ecology and
change in their historical trajectories. It is then of utmost social relations, Manchester Univ. Press, Manchester, 1986.
importance to increase the archaeological information [26] M.A. Zeder, Central questions in the domestication of plants and
animals, Evol. Anthropol. 15 (2006) 105–117.
held to better understand the factors playing major roles [27] T. Ingold, Growing plants and raising animals: an anthropological
during each step of the Neolithisation process, not only for perspective on domestication, in: D. Harris (Ed.), The Origins and
the benefit of archaeological researches, but to help Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, Smithsonian Inst.,
Washington DC, 1996, pp. 12–24.
answering the many questions facing our present society
[28] T. McKnight, Friendly vermins., in: A survey of feral livestock in
on the sustainability of its own future. .Australia, Berckeley, Univ. California Press, Los Angeles, London, 1976
[29] F. Poplin, Origine du mouflon de Corse dans une nouvelle perspective
paléontologique : par marronnage, Ann. Genet. Sel. animale 11 (1979)
Conflicts of interest statement 133–143.
[30] C.P. Groves, Feral mammals of the Mediterranean islands: documents
of early domestication, in: J. Clutton-Brock (Ed.), The Walking Larder,
The author has not declared any conflict of interest. Hyman, London: Hyman, 1989, pp. 46–58.
[31] P. Descola, Par-delà nature et culture, Gallimard, Paris, 2005.
[32] S. Bökönyi, History of domestic mammals in Central and Eastern
References Europe, Akadémiai Kiad, Budapest, 1974.
[33] H. Hemmer, Domestication – The decline of environmental
[1] N. Benecke, Studies on early dog remains from Northern Europe, J. appreciation, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge UK, 1990.
Archaeol. Sci. 14 (1987) 31–49. [34] A. Gautier, La domestication, in: Et l’homme créa ses animaux,
[2] E. Tchernov, F.R. Valla, Two new dogs, and other Natufian dogs, from Errance, Paris, 1990.
the Southern Levant, J. Archaeol. Sci. 24 (1997) 65–95. [35] N. Benecke, Der Mensch und seine Haustiere. Die Geschichte einer
[3] P. Savolainen, Y. Zhang, J. Luo, J. Lundeberg, T. Leitner, Genetic evi- jahrtausendealten Beziehung, Theiss-Verlag, Stuttgart, 1994.
dence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs, Science 298 (2002) [36] D. Zohary, E. Tchernov, L.K. Horwitz, The role of unconscious selection
1610–1613. in the domestication of sheep and goat, J. Zool. Lond. 245 (1998) 129–
[4] M.V. Sablin, G.A. Khlopachev, Die ältesten Hunde aus Eliseeviči I 135.
(Russland), Archäol. Korrespondenzbl. 33 (2003) 309–316. [37] B.S. Arbuckle, Experimental animal domestication and its application
[5] J.D. Vigne, L’humérus de chien magdalénien de Erralla (Gipuzkoa, to the study of animal exploitation in Prehistory, in: J.D. Vigne, D.
Espagne) et la domestication tardiglaciaire du loup en Europe, Munibe Helmer, J. Peters (Eds.), New methods for the first steps of the
(Antropologia-Arkeologia) 57 (2006) 279–287. domestication, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2005,, pp. 18–33[and references
[6] M. Pionnier-Capitan, C. Bemilli, P. Bodu, G. Célérier, J.G. Ferrié, P. Fosse, in this paper].
M. Garcia, J.D. Vigne, New evidence for upper Palaeolithic small [38] J.D. Vigne, D. Helmer, J. Peters J. The first steps of animal domestica-
domestic dogs in South Western Europe, J. Archaeol. Sci. (2011), under tion: new archaeozoological approaches. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2005.
revision. [see the papers by Vigne et al. and by Zeder].
180 J.-D. Vigne / C. R. Biologies 334 (2011) 171–181

[39] J.D. Vigne, Zooarchaeological aspects of the Neolithic diet transition in [62] G. Larson, U. Albarella, K. Dobney, P. Rowley-Conwy, J. Schibler, A.
the Near East and Europe, and their putative relationships with the Tresset, J.D. Vigne, C.J. Edwards, A. Schlumbaum, A. Dinu, A. Balasescu,
Neolithic demographic transition, in: J.P. Bocquet Appel, O. Bar-Yosef G. Dolman, A. Tagliacozzo, N. Manaseryan, P. Miracle, L. Van Wijn-
(Eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences, gaarden-Bakker, M. Masseti, D.G. Bradley, A. Cooper, Ancient DNA, pig
Springer, New York, 2008, pp. 179–205. domestication, and the spread of the Neolithic into Europe, Proc., Natl.
[40] J.D. Vigne, J. Guilaine, K. Debue, L. Haye, P. Gérard, Early taming of the Acad. Sci. USA 104 (2007) 15276–15281.
cat in Cyprus, Science 304 (2004) 259. [63] D. Lavallée, La domestication animale en Amérique du Sud. Le point
[41] S.J.M. Davis, Khirokitia and its mammal remains. A Neolithic Noah’s des connaissances, Bull. Inst. Fr. Etudes Andines 19 (1990) 25–44.
ark, in: A. Le Brun (Ed.), Fouilles Récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre), 1977- [64] M. Kadwell, M. Fernandez, H.F. Stanley, R. Baldi, J.C. Wheeler, R.
1981, ADPF, Édition Recherches sur les civilisations, Paris, 1984, pp. Rosadio, M.W. Bruford, Genetic analysis reveals the wild ancestors
147–162. of the llama and the alpaca, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268 (2001) 2575–
[42] J.D. Vigne, I. Carrère, J.F. Saliège, A. Person, H. Bocherens, J. Guilaine, F. 2584.
Briois, Predomestic cattle, sheep, goat and pig during the late 9th and the [65] A. Outram, N. Stear, R. Bendrey, S. Olsen, A. Kasparov, V. Zaibert, N.
8th millennium cal. BC on Cyprus: Preliminary results of Shillourokam- Thorpe, R. Evershed, The Earliest horse harnessing and milking, Sci-
bos (Perkklisha, Limassol), in: M. Mashkour, A.M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis, ence 323 (2009) 1332–1335.
F. Poplin (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East IV, Archaeological [66] J. Lira, A. Linderhilm, C. Olarias, M. Brandström Durling, M.T. Gilbert, H.
Research and Consultancy, Groningen, 2000, pp. 52–75. Ellegren, E. Willerslev, K. Lidén, J.L. Arsuuaga, A. Götherström, Ancient
[43] J.D. Vigne, A. Zazzo, J.F. Saliege, F. Poplin, J. Guilaine, A. Simmons, Pre- DNA reveals traces of Iberian Neolithic and Bronze Age lineages in
Neolithic wild boar management and introduction to Cyprus more modern Iberian horses, Mol. Ecol. 19 (2009) 64–78.
than 11,400 years ago, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106 (2009) 16131– [67] A. Patel, R. Meadow, The exploitation of wild and domestic water
16138. buffalo in prehistoric northwestern South Asia, in: H. Buitenhuis, L.
[44] L.S. Binford, Bones: Ancient men and modern myths, Academic Press, Bartosiewicz, A.M. Choyke (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East III,
London, 1981. ARC Publicaties 18, Groningen, 1998, pp. 180–198.
[45] P. Ducos, L’origine des animaux domestiques en Palestine, Institut de [68] E. Weiss, W. Wetterstrom, D. Nadel, O. Bar-Yosef, The broad spectrum
Préhistoire de l’Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, 1968. revisited: evidence from plant remains, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 101
[46] J. Peters, A. von den Driesch, D. Helmer, The upper Euphrates-Tigris (2004) 9551–9555.
basin: Cradle of agropastoralism? in: J.D. Vigne, J. Peters, D. Helmer [69] K. Tanno, G. Willcox, How fast was wild wheat domesticated? Science
(Eds.), First Steps of Animal Domestication. New Archaeozoological 311 (2005) 1886.
Approaches, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2005, pp. 96–124. [70] G. Willcox, S. Fornite, L. Herveux, Early Holocene cultivation before
[47] M.A. Zeder, A view from the Zagros: new perspectives on livestock domestication in northern Syria, Veget. Hist. Archaeobot. 17 (2008)
domestication in the Fertile Crescent, in: J.D. Vigne, J. Peters, D. Helmer 313–325.
(Eds.), First Steps of Animal Domestication. New Archaeozoological [71] D. Stordeur, M. Brenet, G. Der Aprahamian, J.C. Roux, Les bâtiments
Approaches, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2005, pp. 125–146. communautaires de Jerf el Ahmar et Mureybet. Horizon PPNA. Syrie,
[48] J.D. Vigne, I. Carrère, F. Briois, J. Guilaine, The early process of the Paléorient 26 (2000) 29–44.
mammal domestication in the Near East: new Cypriot pre-Neolithic [72] K. Schmidt, ‘‘Kraniche am See’’. Bilder und Zeichen vom frühneo-
and prepottery Neolithic evidence, Current Anthropol. (2011), in press. lithischen Göbekli Tepe (Südosttürkei), in: W. Seipel (Ed.), Der Turm-
[49] A. Ervynck, K. Dobney, H.R. Hongo, Meadow, born free? New evidence bau zu Babel. Ursprung und Vielfalt von Sprache und Schrift,
for the status of Sus scrofa at Neolithic Çayönü Tepesi (Southeastern Kunsthistorischen Museums, Wien, 2003, pp. 23–29.
Anatolia, Turkey), Paléorient. 27 (2001) 47–73. [73] D. Helmer, L. Gourichon, Premières données sur les modalités de
[50] H. Monchot, Léchelle, Statistical nonparametrics methods for the subsistance à Tell Aswad (Syrie, PPNB moyen et recent. Néolithique
study of fossil populations, Paleobiol. 28 (2002) 55–69. céramique ancient) – Fouilles 2001–-2005, in: E. Vila, L. Gourichon
[51] D. Helmer, L. Gourichon, H. Monchot, J. Peters, M. Saña Segui, Identi- (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East VIII, Maison de l’Orient Médi-
fying early domestic cattle from Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites on the terranéen, Lyon, 2008, pp. 119–151.
Middle Euphrates using sexual dimorphism, in: J.D. Vigne, J. Peters, D. [74] D. Helmer, L. Gourichon, E. Vila, The development of the exploitation
Helmer (Eds.), First Steps of Animal Domestication. New Archaeozoo- of products from Capra and Ovis (meat, milk and fleece) from the PPNB
logical Approaches, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2005, pp. 86–95. to the Early Bronze in the northern Near East (8700 to 2000 BC cal.),
[52] J.D. Vigne, I. Carrère, J. Guilaine, Instability and co-development of the Anthropozoologica 42 (2007) 41–69.
exploitation of early domestic sheep and goats: the example of [75] J.D Vigne, D. Helmer, Was milk a ‘‘secondary product’’ in the Old World
Shillourokambos (Cyprus, Pre-Pottery Neolithic, 10,400-9,000 cal Neolithisation process? Its role in the domestication of cattle, sheep
BP), in: M. Mashkour, M. Beech (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th ASWA and goats, Anthropozoologica 42 (2007) 9–40.
Conference, Al Ain, 2008, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2011, [in press]. [76] S. Naderi, H.R. Rezaei, F. Pompanon, M. Blum, R. Negrini, H.R. Naghash,
[53] T.J.D. Cucchi, J.D. Vigne, Origin and diffusion of the house mouse in the Ö. Balkız, M. Mashkour, O. Gaggiotti, P. Ajmone-Marsan, A. Kence, J.D.
Mediterranean, Human Evol. 21 (2006) 95–106. Vigne, P. Taberlet, The goat domestication process inferred from large-
[54] R.H. Meadows, The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralisms scale mitochondrial DNA analysis of wild and domestic individual,
in northwestern South Asia, in: E.D. Harris (Ed.), The Origins and Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105 (2008) 17659–17664.
Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, Smithsonian Inst. [77] J.D. Vigne, H. Buitenhuis, (with coll. S. J. M. Davis), Les premiers pas de
Press, Washington D. C., 1996, pp. 309–412. la domestication animale à l’Ouest de l’Euphrate: Chypre et l’Anatolie
[55] R.T. Loftus, D.E. MacHugh, D.G. Bradley, P.M. Sharp, P. Cunningham, centrale, Paléorient 25 (1999) 49–62.
Evidence for two independent domestications of cattle, Proc. Natl. [78] L.K. Horwitz, E. Tchernov, P. Ducos, C. Becker, A. von den Driesch, L.
Acad. Sci. U. S. A. (1994) 2757–2761. Martin, A. Garrard, Animal domestication in the Southern Levant,
[56] F. Wendorf, R. Schild, Nabta Playa and its role in Northeastern African Paléorient 25 (1999) 63–80.
Prehistory, J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 17 (1998) 97–123. [79] J.L. Huot, Une archéologie des peuples du Proche-Orient. Tome I - Des
[57] A. Gautier, Animal domestication in North Africa, in: M. Bollig, O. premiers villageois aux peuples des cités-Etats (Xe-IIIe millénaire av.
Bubenzer, R. Vogelsang, H.P. Wotzka (Eds.), Aridity, Change and J-C.), Éditions Errance, Paris, 2004.
Conflict in Africa, Heinrich-Barth-Institut, Köln, 2007, pp. 75–89. [80] J. Conolly, S. Colledge, Dobney K., J.D. Vigne, J. Peters, B. Stopp, K.
[58] O. Hanotte, D.G. Bradley, J.W. Ochieng, Y. Verjee, E.W. Hill, J.E.O. Rege, Manning, S. Shennan, Meta-analysis of zooarchaeological data from
African pastoralism: genetic imprints of origins and migrations, Sci- SW Asia and SE Europe provides insight into the origins and spread of
ence 296 (2002) 336–339. animal husbandry, J. Archaeol. Sci. (2011) in press.
[59] J. Lesur, Chasse et élevage dans la Corne de l’Afrique entre le Néo- [81] D. Helmer, La domestication des animaux par l’homme préhistorique,
lithique et les temps historiques, Bristich Archaeol. Rep. 1602, Cam- Masson, Paris, 1992.
bridge, 2007. [82] D. Stordeur, El Kown 2. Une ı̂le dans le désert, in: La fin du Néolithique
[60] R.K. Flad, Yuan Jing, Li Shuicheng, Zooarcheological evidence for précéramique dans la steppe syrienne, CNRS Éditions, Paris, 2000.
animal domestication in northwest China, in: B.D. Madsen, Chen [83] A. Tresset, J.D. Vigne, Substitution of species, techniques and symbols
Fa-Hu, Gao Xing (Eds.), Late Quaternary Climate Change and Human at the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in Western Europe, in : A.
Adaptation in Arid China, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Boston, Heidelberg, Whittle, V. Cummings (Eds.), Going Over: the Mesolithic/Neolithic
London, New-York, 2007, pp. 167–203. Transition in NW Europe, London. Proceedings of the British Academy,
[61] G. Larson, K. Dobney, U. Albarella, M. Fang, E. Matisoo-Smith, J. Robins, 144, 2007, pp. 189–210.
S. Lowden, H. Finlayson, T. Brand, E. Willerslev, P. Rowley-Conwy, A. [84] A. Tresset, J.D. Vigne, Last hunter-gatherers and first farmers in
Cooper, Worldwide phylogeography of wild boar reveals centers of pig Europe: animal and plant diffusions, population interactions and
domestication, Science 307 (2005) 1618–1621. biological adaptations, this volume.
 J.-D. Vigne / C. R. Biologies 334 (2011) 171–181 181

[85] M. Pascal, O. Lorvelec, J.D. Vigne, Invasions biologiques et extinctions. [94] T. Muxard, F.D. Vivien, B. Villarba, J. Brunouf, Des milieux et des
11 000 ans d’histoire des vertébrés en France, Belin, Paris, 2006. hommes: fragments d’histoires croisées, Elsevier, Paris, 2003.
[86] J.D. Vigne, Les débuts de l’élevage des ongulés dans l’Ancien Monde : [95] R. Braidwood, The agricultural revolution, Scientific American 203
interactions entre société et biodiversité, in: J.P. Demoule (Ed.), La (1960) 130–152.
Révolution Néolithique dans le Monde, CNRS, Paris, 2009, pp. 145– [96] V.G. Childe, Naissance de la civilisation, Gonthier, Paris, 1963.
164. [97] K.V. Flannery, The ecology of early food production in Mesopotamia,
[87] E. Tchernov, Are Late Pleistocene environmental factors, faunal Science 147 (1969) 1247.
changes, and cultural transformations causally connected? The case [98] J. Cauvin, M.C. Cauvin, D. Helmer, G. Willcox, L’homme et son envi-
of the southern Levant, Paléorient 23 (1997) 209–228. ronnement au Levant nord entre 30 000 et 7500 B.P, Paléorient 23
[88] K.N Laland, G.R. Brown, Niche construction, human behavior, and the (1998) 51–69.
adaptive-lag hypothesis, Evol. Anthropol. 15 (2006) 95–104. [99] F. Poplin, Animal vrai, sacrifice et domestication laitière/True animal,
[89] B.D. Smith, Niche construction and the behavioral context of plant and sacrifice and the domestication of dairy animals, in: E. Vila, L. Gour-
animal domestication, Evol. Anthropol. 16 (2007) 189–199. ichon, A. Choike, H. Buitenhuis (Eds.), Archaeozoology of Southwest-
[90] D. Rindos, Darwinism and its role in the explanation of domestication, ern Asia and Adjacent Areas VIII, Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen,
in: D.R. Harris, G.C. Hillman (Eds.), Foraging and Farming, Unwin Lyon, 2008, pp. 21–44.
Hyman, London, 1989, pp. 27–41. [100] J.D. Vigne, Les origines de la domestication animale, de l’élevage des
[91] M. Mauss, Manuel d’ethnographie, Payot, Lausanne, 1947 and 1967. ongulés et de la consommation de lait au Néolithique au Proche-
[92] C. Lévi-Strauss, Anthropologie structurale, Plon, Paris, 1958. Orient et en Europe, Cultures des Laits du Monde, OCHA (CNIEL), Paris,
[93] J.D. Vigne, Faciès culturels et sous-système technique de l’acquisi- in press.
tion des ressources animales. Application au Néolithique ancien [101] D. Helmer, L. Gourichon, D. Stordeur, À l’aube de la domestication
méditerranéen, in: A. D’Anna, D. Binder (Eds.), Production et Iden- animale. Imaginaire et symbolisme animal dans les premières socié-
tité Culturelle. Actualité de la recherché, APDCA, Antibes, 1998 , pp. tés néolithiques du nord du Proche-Orient, Anthropozoologica 39,1
27–45. (2004) 143–163.