Pigs and the pastoral bias: The other animal economy in northern Mesopotamia (3000–2000 BCE)

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Pigs and the pastoral bias: The other animal economy in northern Mesopotamia (3000–2000 BCE) Max Price a,b,⇑, Kathryn Grossman c, Tate Paulette d a

Harvard University, United States Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany c Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States d Brown University, United States b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 5 February 2017 Revision received 1 June 2017 Available online xxxx

a b s t r a c t Discussion of the animal economy in Mesopotamia has been subject to a persistent, pastoral bias. Most general treatments assume that the Early Bronze Age (ca. 3000–2000 BCE) animal economy was dominated by the herding of sheep and goats. An examination of the abundant written evidence would support such a contention. Zooarchaeological evidence from northern Mesopotamia, however, clearly demonstrates that pigs played a major role in the diet, despite their virtual absence in the written record. In this paper, we attempt to lay bare and correct for the pastoral bias by reviewing the relatively meager written evidence for pig husbandry and by examining the zooarchaeological evidence for pigs from two angles. First, we use relative abundance data from sites across northern Mesopotamia to demonstrate the ubiquity of pigs and to identify regional- and site-level patterning in pig consumption. Second, we use a series of proxy techniques to reconstruct pig husbandry practices at three sites: Tell ‘Atij, Tell al-Raqa’i, and Tell Leilan. Ultimately, we argue that this ‘‘other” animal economy emerged to fill a niche opened up by the twin processes of urbanization and institutional expansion. For households struggling to deal with the impacts of these wide-ranging transformations, pigs offered an alternative means of subsistence and perhaps a way of maintaining some degree of autonomy. Ó 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

‘‘The food of the north tastes too much of the fat of the pig” [D. H. Lawrence, ‘‘The Food of the North”]

1. Introduction During the Early Bronze Age (c. 3000–2000 BCE), the people of northern Mesopotamia ate a lot of pork. This basic dietary fact is amply demonstrated by the available zooarchaeological evidence, but it has been obscured by a persistent, pastoral bias – that is, by a largely unquestioned assumption that the animal economy was dominated by the herding of sheep and goats. We argue that this pastoral bias, inherited from the ancient written record and passed down in the academic literature, has produced an unbalanced and inaccurate depiction of the animal economy. In this paper, we attempt to lay bare and correct for the pastoral bias by examining the zooarchaeological evidence for pigs in ⇑ Corresponding author at: Christian Albrechts University, Johanna-Mestorf Strasse 2-6, 24118 Kiel, Germany. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Price). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2017.06.001 0278-4165/Ó 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

northern Mesopotamia from two angles: (1) we use relative abundance data to demonstrate the ubiquity of pigs and to identify regional- and site-level patterns of pig consumption; and (2) we use a series of proxy techniques to shed light on pig husbandry practices at three Early Bronze Age sites (Tell ‘Atij, Tell al-Raqa’i, and Tell Leilan). We suggest that the raising of pigs took place primarily on the household level, largely beyond institutional oversight (although, as we show, some institutions did raise pigs), and provided households with a means of adapting to and coping with the changes wrought by urbanization, institutional expansion, and a rapidly evolving political economy. 2. Northern Mesopotamia during the Early Bronze Age Northern Mesopotamia stretches from the foothills of northeastern Iraq westward across the plains of northern Syria and up into the hills of southeastern Turkey (Fig. 1). The region is crosscut by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, as well as a series of tributaries, including the Balikh, the Khabur, the Upper Zab, and the Lower Zab. In the 3rd millennium BC, park and riparian woodlands covered much of the region, with steppic grasslands persisting toward the south (Deckers and Pessin, 2010; Deckers and Riehl, 2007).

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

47

Fig. 1. Map of northern Mesopotamia.

The early settlement history of northern Mesopotamia includes two phases of urbanization, one during the Late Chalcolithic period and a second during the Early Bronze Age (see e.g., Lawrence and Wilkinson, 2015; Ur, 2010) (For chronology, see

Fig. 2). The first phase of urbanization is only partially understood, but it appears to have involved rapid settlement expansion at a select number of sites, some degree of economic specialization and centralization, and a regional-scale reshuffling of

Fig. 2. Chronology for northern Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium.

48

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

population (Al Quntar et al., 2011; Oates et al., 2007; Ur, 2010:400). Over the course of the 4th millennium BC, northern Mesopotamia became increasingly intertwined with southern Mesopotamia, especially during the Uruk Expansion (ca. 3600– 3100 BCE) (Algaze, 1993; Stein, 1999). However, this connection was severed around 3100 BCE, when northern Mesopotamia entered a phase of population dispersal and decentralization that lasted until ca. 2600 BCE. Settlements were generally small – though sometimes highly specialized – and material culture assemblages show little indication of sustained interregional interaction (Akkermans and Schwartz, 2003:210–232). The second – and much better documented – phase of urbanization in northern Mesopotamia began around 2600 BCE. Across the region, urban centers supported by hierarchies of subordinate settlements rose to prominence. Around 2300 BCE, the Akkadian state, centered in the northern part of southern Mesopotamia, expanded northward and was able to establish some degree of control in northern Mesopotamia (Foster, 2016:3–30). This brief period of Akkadian hegemony was followed in the 22nd century BC by an episode of settlement abandonment and reorganization (Ur, 2012; Weiss, 2012). During this second phase of urbanization, a series of powerful institutional organizations emerged in northern Mesopotamia and radically reshaped the social, political, and economic landscape (Stein, 2004; Ur, 2010; McMahon, 2013). Thanks to the preservation of a rich written record, we know much more about parallel developments in southern Mesopotamia, where the socalled palace and temple institutions emerged as the twin pillars of economic influence and political authority. These institutions managed huge tracts of agricultural land, extensive herds of domestic animals, and a sizeable labor force (Adams, 2006, 2008; Foster, 1982; van Driel, 2000; Van De Mieroop, 1997:142–158). Opinions differ, however, as to exactly how powerful these institutions were and as to the nature of their relationship with the broader population. Some have emphasized the stabilizing force of the institutions, that is, their ability to withstand economic shocks and to provide protection from risk (e.g., Postgate, 1992:292; Powell, 1999:18–19; Westenholz, 2002:26). Others have emphasized the exploitative and exclusionary nature of institutional control (e.g., Bernbeck, 2009; Liverani, 2006:24-25, 62–64; Pollock, 1999:1–3, 218–223). Still others have argued that the institutions served an integrative function; that is, they facilitated the coordination and management of an increasingly complex and specialized economy (e.g., Adams, 1966:47–51; Steinkeller, 1999:290–293). Finally, some argue that we should adopt an ‘‘emic” understanding of the social world, which assumes that the institutions – and, by extension, economy and society more broadly – were structured as a nested hierarchy of patrimonial ‘‘households” (e.g., Schloen, 2001; Ur, 2014:254–256). These disagreements about the nature of institutional power in Mesopotamia are bound up with a broader debate about the nature of the economy in greater Mesopotamia. One key point of contention revolves around the scope and degree of institutional control. Was the economy a unified domain, fully subsumed beneath the umbrella of the institutional system, or should we be envisioning a more fragmented, multi-sector economy? We argue that the evidence for pig husbandry in Early Bronze Age northern Mesopotamia indicates the existence of a multisector economy. Pigs offer a glimpse into an alternative economy that appears to have been conducted largely beyond institutional oversight, perhaps loosely analogous to the ‘‘informal” economies that have proliferated alongside and within modern capitalism (Hart, 1973; Hartnett and Dawdy, 2013). The fundamental role of pigs in northern Mesopotamia, however, has been obscured by a pastoral bias.

3. The pastoral bias Following Richard Meadow (1992:262), we define a pastoralist as ‘‘anyone who raises grazing or browsing domestic animals.” In the ancient Near East, that category includes all people who managed cattle, sheep, and goats – although sheep and goats were the most common. There is no doubt that all three played important roles in northern Mesopotamia by providing dependable sources of meat and secondary products in a region of abundant grassland. Wool and traction power were also particularly valued by the emerging institutions. As a result, sheep, goats, and (to a lesser extent) cattle appear in large numbers within the administrative documents produced by institutional scribes in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC (e.g., Arbuckle, 2015; Sallaberger, 2014; Waetzoldt, 1972). Cuneiform documents from Tell Beydar and Ebla offer a glimpse into the scale of the institutionally managed pastoral economy in northern Mesopotamia. At Beydar, a second-tier administrative center within the kingdom of Nagar (Tell Brak), documents recovered from the ‘‘Official Block” of the palace – dating to the EJZ IIIb period (ca. 2475–2380 BCE) – focus primarily on sheep and goat management (Lebeau, 2004:1; Van Lerberghe, 1996:112–116). The documents include just a single reference to pig fat (i-šah) used to make soaps for cleaning wool (Van Lerberghe, 1996:111). Walther Sallaberger conservatively estimates that the Beydar palace, a relatively minor player in northern Mesopotamia, controlled 3840 sheep in 18 flocks and 3550 goats in 12 flocks (Sallaberger, 2004, 2014:99–103). Contemporary documents from Ebla, capital of a major regional polity, however, reference truly enormous flocks; estimates suggest that the Ebla palace held anywhere from 670,000 to 2,000,000 sheep (Wilkinson et al., 2014:58). In southern Mesopotamia, where documentary evidence is more plentiful, institutional holdings of sheep and goats were similarly massive, often numbering in the hundreds of thousands (e.g., Sallaberger, 2014:106; Waetzoldt, 1972:14–17). The written record demonstrates quite clearly that pastoral production was a major component of the institutional economy. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that this institutional focus on pastoralism reflects the overall composition of the animal economy. Pigs were also a fundamental economic resource. In fact, abundant zooarchaeological evidence indicates that pig production and consumption played a vital role during the Early Bronze Age in some parts of northern Mesopotamia, to the extent that pigs often comprise 25–50% of the faunal remains recovered from archaeological sites. This fact has been recognized in some specialist studies (Grigson, 2007; Grossman, 2013:146, 312; Kolin´ski, 2012; Pia˛tkowska-Małecka and Smogorzewska, 2010; Vila, 2006; Zeder, 1998a, 2003), but its significance has not percolated through to the field at large. In general discussions of Early Bronze Age northern Mesopotamia, for example, it is common for authors to include a brief statement about the fundamental, overriding importance of sheep and goats within the animal economy. In some cases, pigs are not mentioned at all (Akkermans and Schwartz, 2003:272; Cooper, 2006:38; Emberling, 2015:274–275; Liverani, 2014:115; Paulette, 2012:168). In other cases, reference is made to a purported shift away from diversified husbandry regimes (that included pigs) and toward a more specialized pastoral system focusing on sheep and goats (Kolin´ski, 2012; Paulette, 2013:131; Stein, 2004:70; Ur, 2010:403–406; Wilkinson, 2000:8–9, 2003:121; Wilkinson et al., 2014:55), drawing especially on the work of Melinda Zeder (e.g., Zeder, 1995, 1998a, 2003). Increasingly, though, authors are also drawing attention to specific sites in northern Mesopotamia where pigs were being consumed in relatively large quantities and to the possibility of regional variations in the percentage of pork con-

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

sumed (McMahon, 2013:470–471; Ristvet, 2012:253; Wilkinson et al., 2014:55–56). At the same time, some general discussions of contemporary southern Mesopotamia highlight the sparse but informative written evidence for institutionally managed pig herds (see below), as well as the possibility that pigs were playing a more important role in urban contexts than previously recognized, especially on the household level (Foster, 2016:99, 104; Pollock, 1999:140–147; Postgate, 1992:166; Potts, 1997:86–89; Van De Mieroop, 1997:144; Widell et al., 2013: 94–96). What is missing in this literature (i.e., the nonzooarchaeological literature) is a recognition of the impressive quantity of zooarchaeological data available from a broad range of Early Bronze Age sites across northern Mesopotamia – data which suggest that on a regional scale pigs were playing a major role in the animal economy, on par with and in some cases exceeding the contribution of sheep and goats. We argue that the tendency to overstate the importance of sheep and goats relative to pigs is the result of a longstanding pastoral (and institutional) bias, inherited from the written record and unintentionally perpetuated in the academic literature. This pastoral bias has generated a skewed portrayal of the animal economy, one that privileges the institutional sphere, downplays alternative forms of economic activity, and relegates pigs and the people who raised them to the margins.

4. The relative abundance of pigs Table 1 shows the relative abundances of pig remains compared to other domestic taxa recovered from a broad selection of Early Bronze Age sites in northern Mesopotamia. During the Early Bronze Age, the region experienced an explosion in pork consumption (Figs. 3 and 4), with pigs making up 40%, 50%, or even 60% of the total assemblage of domesticated animal bones at many sites. Despite some significant variability at the site level, the evidence points toward a general, region-wide increase in pig relative abundances from the Late Chalcolithic period into the Early Bronze Age (Grigson, 2007; Price, 2016:293). The upsurge in pigs is amplified by the fact that pigs provide substantially more meat than sheep and goats; zooarchaeological reference data derived from modern breeds suggest that pigs provide between 20% and 200% more meat than sheep (Clark and Yi, 1983; Lyman, 1979:140). Given the small size of primitive breeds of pigs compared to modern ones, a meat weight closer to the lower estimate is probably more likely. Nevertheless, the importance of pork in the diet at many Early Bronze Age settlements cannot be ignored. The zooarchaeological data do, however, reveal significant variability in time and space. During the first half of the 3rd millennium (ca. 3000–2600 BCE), prior to urbanization, pig relative abundances were generally higher in the Upper/Middle Khabur region than in the Euphrates region to the west (Fig. 4A). The proportion of pigs in the diet also varied significantly from site to site within these regions. In the Upper Khabur, for example, pigs were abundant at Hamoukar (47%) and Tell Arbid (39– 53%), but less so at Tell Brak (11–19%). In the Middle Khabur, pigs were abundant at Tell ‘Atij (22–53%) and Tell al-Raqa’i (35%), but not at Tell Bderi (0.2%). In the Euphrates region, on the other hand, a pronounced distinction can be recognized between the Upper Euphrates, where pigs were generally abundant (e.g., 52% at Hassek Höyük), and the Euphrates Bend region to the south, where communities appear to have abstained from raising pigs. Finer scale distinctions are also visible within the Upper Euphrates region. For example, in contrast to nearby

49

Hassek Höyük, the inhabitants of Titrisß Höyük (1–4%) raised relatively few pigs. During the second half of the 3rd millennium (ca. 2600–2000 BCE), a period that was marked by the rise and eventual fall of urban systems across northern Mesopotamia, the regional polarization in pig relative abundances continued, with some modifications (Fig. 4B). In the Euphrates Bend region, the tradition of a relatively pork-free diet persisted through the end of the millennium. At the same time, pig relative abundances decreased across the Upper Euphrates, the Balikh, and the western part of the Upper Khabur. Around the middle of the 3rd millennium, pig husbandry was almost completely abandoned in the sites of the Middle Khabur, which had previously included numerous pigs. The one exception to this rule is Tell ‘Atij (22%), although the sample size is exceptionally small (N = 34 bones from domestic taxa). In sharp contrast, pig consumption increased in the eastern part of the Upper Khabur, cementing and intensifying this region’s position as the center of gravity for pig husbandry in northern Mesopotamia. Pigs were particularly abundant in the urban centers of the eastern Upper Khabur (see below). Zooarchaeological data are sparse further to the east, but pigs represent approximately 30% of the faunal remains recovered from the urban center at Tell Taya in northern Iraq. Some have argued that these patterns can be explained by the availability of water (Wilkinson et al., 2014); indeed, on the macro-regional scale, pig relative abundances do correlate well with rainfall patterns across the Near East (Grigson, 2007). On the other hand, residents of many sites in the western half of northern Mesopotamia raised a significant number of cattle (e.g., Titrisß Höyük 23.6%: Greenfield, 2002), which also have high water requirements. Moreover, environmental reconstructions for northern Mesopotamia suggest that the region was more heavily forested in the 3rd millennium and that river flows were more reliable than today (Deckers and Pessin, 2010; Deckers and Riehl, 2007). The general picture is of somewhat wetter and more lush conditions persisting through the 3rd millennium than in the region today. Thus, although arid conditions may have limited the number of pigs at some sites, especially in the Syrian steppe, the available data give no indication that a scarcity of water prevented pig husbandry at the majority of 3rd millennium settlements in northern Mesopotamia. Deforestation, however, may have played a role in limiting some types of pig husbandry (see below). There are some hints that pig relative abundances might correlate with site type or with a site’s position in the urban hierarchy. For example, in the Upper Euphrates region, the inhabitants of Titrisß Höyük, the main urban center in the Karababa Basin, appear to have eaten less pork than the inhabitants of smaller settlements in its vicinity such as Lidar Höyük, Gritille Höyük, Kurban Höyük, and Hassek Höyük (Allentuck and Greenfield, 2010). A number of other urban centers, especially so-called Kranzhügel sites, are also associated with very low proportions of pig: for example, Tell Beydar (2–4%) and Tell Chuera (0%). Kazane Höyük (0%) also lacks pig remains. At the same time, the largest cities in the eastern Khabur (e.g., Tell Leilan: 55%; Hamoukar: 62%; and Tell Brak: 44%) and their satellites (e.g., Tell Arbid: 53%) were consuming large quantities of pork. In the case of some urban sites, the consumption of pigs can also be examined at a finer spatial scale. Where available, these data suggest a possible distinction between areas associated with institutional architecture and areas associated with domestic, and especially non-elite, architecture. At Tell Leilan, for example, Zeder (2003) has shown that pigs account for almost 50% of the fauna recovered from the Lower Town South, a zone dedicated to small-scale domestic architecture and pottery workshops, perhaps

50

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

Table 1 Number of Identified Specimens (NISPs) for pigs, cattle, and sheep/goats from 3rd millennium sites in northern Mesopotamia, followed by the relative abundance of pigs among those taxa (% pigs). Site

Approx. Date

Pigs

Cattle

Sheep/ Goats

% Pig

Reference

6 6 5 97 453 14 0 26 56 18 2 7 6 117 1165

22 75 14 60 48 9 2 81 25 9 31 7 69 7 154

106 403 133 248 298 35 16 220 213 139 729 366 227 127 1276

4% 1% 3% 24% 57% 32% 0% 8% 19% 11% <1% 2% 2% 47% 45%

2600–2500 (EJZ II) 2900–2500 (Ninevite 5 and Ninevite 5-ED transition)

81 178

23 17

49 264

53% 39%

3000–2500? 2900–2500?(Secteur D, couche A-C) 3200–2600?(LC/EB combined) 2900–2700 (EB I) 2800–2600 (Level 4) 2600–2500 (Level 3) 2800–2600 (Levels XIII-X) 2600 (Level IX) 2600 (Level VIII) 2600–2500 (Levels VI-VII) 2800–2600 (EJZ I) 3000–2900 (Period VI B1) 2900–2750 (Period VI B2) 2750–2600? (Period VI C) 3000–27000 (Period VI B, General West) 3000–2700 (Period VI B, General West) 2900–2600 2900–2600 (Settlement area) 3100–2700? (Final Late Uruk to Early Ninevite 5) 3100–2800 BCE (FBZ1, Sector K) 2800–2600 (FBZ II, Sector K) 3100–2800 BCE (FBZ I, Sector A) 2800–2600 (FBZ II, Sector A) 2700–2500 BCE (Tell B Temple and Houses)

6 92 2020 6645 371 14 67 192 41 1 53 31 38 18 9 4 8 8 141 24 0 52 0 2

361 65 495 1651 51 46 92 4 19 30 4 435 404 253 372 88 33 32 56 9 111 21 11 1475

1380 195 733 4413 749 548 114 160 128 278 49 4354 2031 856 862 243 130 130 526 45 709 146 189 8329

<1% 26% 62% 52% 35% 2% 25% 53% 22% <1% 50% <1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 5% 5% 20% 31% 0% 24% 0% 0%

Trella (2010) Trella (2010) Weber (2006:151) Siracusano in Frangipane et al. (2002:82) Siracusano in Frangipane et al. (2002:82) Weber (2006:150) Weber (2006:150) Weber (2006:153) Weber in Emberling et al. (1999) Dobney et al. (2003) Becker (1988) Doll (2010) van Neer and De Cupere (2000:98–99) Grossman (2013:316) Pia˛tkowska-Małecka and Smogorzewska (2010) Kolin´ski and Pia˛tkowska-Małecka (2008:117) Pia˛tkowska-Małecka and Smogorzewska (2013:441) von den Driesch (1993) Vila (2005) Boessneck and von den Driesch (1981) Boessneck (1992) Rufolo (2011:439) Rufolo (2011:439) Rufolo (2011:353) Rufolo (2011:353) Rufolo (2011:351) Rufolo (2011:351) Rufolo (2011:493) Siracusano and Bartosiewicz (2012) Siracusano and Bartosiewicz (2012) Siracusano and Bartosiewicz (2012) Bartosiewicz (1998) Bartosiewicz (1998) Vila (2005) Vila (2005) Boessneck et al. (1993) Vila (2010) Vila (2010) Vila (2010) Vila (2010) Boessneck and von den Driesch (1989)

Late Third Millennium BC Tell Arbid 2600–2300 (ED III)

615

93

577

48%

Tell Arbid

2300–2200 (Akkadian)

52

2

72

41%

Tell Arbid

2200–2000 (Post Akkadian)

517

111

677

40%

Tell Tell Tell Tell

Arbid Arbid Arbid Arbid

2100–2000 2300–2100 2500–2300 2500–2300

(EJZ V) (EJZ IV) (EJZ III) (Level VIIB; ED III or EJZ III)

439 29 258 71

97 2 52 26

512 59 181 115

42% 32% 53% 35%

Tell Arbid

2300–2100 Akkadian) 2400–2000 2500–2300 2400–2000 2500 2600–2400 2400–2100 2300–2200 2500–2300 2300–2200 2200–2000 2500–2000 2500–2400 2400–2300 2300–2100

(VIIA/VI Akkadian and transitional post

27

5

109

19%

(EB IV) (Levels I-IV) (EB IV)

16 9 0 8 1 1 3 130 150 49 149 1311 183 742

79 1 90 33 53 191 31 63 66 24 16 601 26 147

250 24 90 725 777 1390 52 479 316 105 176 3700 325 1598

5% 26% 0% 1% <1% <1% 4% 19% 28% 28% 44% 23% 34% 30%

Early Third Millennium BC Titrisß Höyük 3000–2800 Titrisß Höyük 2800–2400 Tell es-Sweyhat 2900–2600 Zeytinli Bahçe 3000–2900 Zeytinli Bahçe 2900–2800 Tell Hajji Ibrahim 3000–2900 Tell Hajji Ibrahim 2900–2600 Umm el-Marra 2900–2600 Tell Brak 2900–2600 Tell Brak 2900–2600 Tell Bderi 2900–2600 Tell Mozan 2600–2500 Tell Beydar 2900–2500 Hamoukar 2600–2500 Tell Arbid 2900–2600 Tell Arbid Tell Arbid (2009 season) Habuba Kabira Tell Shiukh Fawqani Hassek Höyük Hassek Höyük Tell al-Raqa’i Tell al-Raqa’i Tell ’Atij Tell ’Atij Tell ’Atij Tell ’Atij Tell Ziyadeh Arslantepe Arslantepe Arslantepe Arslantepe Arslantepe Tell Knedig Tell Knedig Tell Karrana 3 Tell Chuera Tell Chuera Kharab Sayyar Kharab Sayyar Tell Halawa

Tell Afis Tell ’Atij Ali Al-Hajj Tell Bderia Tell Bderi Tell Bderi Tell Beydar Tell Brak Tell Brak Tell Brak Tell Brak Tell Mozan Tell Mozan Tell Mozan

(Phase 2) (EBIA) (EBIB) (Phase B) (Phase C) (Period VI) (Early 3rd Mill; Area TW) (Phase III) (EJZ II) (ED I-III) (3M-1) (Level VIIIC)

(EJZ II-IIIa) (EJZ IIIb-IV) (Akkadian EJZ IV) (Late ED III; Area TC) (Akkadian incl. Level 5; Areas FS and SS) (Post Akkadian; Areas FS and SS) (Later 3rd Mill; Areas HS3, HS4, HS5) (EJZ IIIa) (EJZ IIIb) (EJZ IV)

Pia˛tkowska-Małecka and Smogorzewska (2010) Pia˛tkowska-Małecka and Smogorzewska (2010) Pia˛tkowska-Małecka and Smogorzewska (2010) Kolin´ski and Pia˛tkowska-Małecka (2008:117) Kolin´ski and Pia˛tkowska-Małecka (2008:117) Kolin´ski and Pia˛tkowska-Małecka (2008:117) Pia˛tkowska-Małecka and Smogorzewska (2013:441) Pia˛tkowska-Małecka and Smogorzewska (2013:441) Wilkens (2000) Rufolo (2011:351) Arai (2014) Zeder (1998a) Omar (2017) Omar (2017) van Neer and De Cupere (2000:98–99) Weber in Emberling et al. (1999) Weber (2001) Weber (2001) Dobney et al. (2003) Doll (2010) Doll (2010) Doll (2010)

51

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62 Table 1 (continued)

a b c

Site

Approx. Date

Pigs

Cattle

Sheep/ Goats

% Pig

Reference

Tell Mozan Hamoukar Hamoukar Tell Leilan Tell Leilan Tell Leilan Tell Leilanb Tell Leilanb Titrisß Höyük Titrisß Höyük Umm el-Marra Tell es-Sweyhat Tell es-Sweyhat Tell es-Sweyhat Gritille Höyük Kurban Höyük Kurban Höyük Kurban Höyük Korucutepe Tell Gudeda Tell al-Raqa’i Tell Tuqan Ebla Ebla Tell Qarqur Tell Qarqur Tell Qarqur Tell Qarqur Tell Tayinat Tell Rad Shaqrah Tell Rad Shaqrah Tell Taya Tell Taya Arslantepe Kazane Höyük Al-Rawda Tell Chuera Tell Chuera Tell Chuera Tell Chuera Kharab Sayyar Tell Hadidi Tell Halawa Kashkashok IVa Tell Knedig Tell Knedig Selenkahiyeh Selenkahiyeh Tell Tuneinira Tell Mashnaqaa Emar/Tell Meskene Ghanem al-Ali Lidar Höyükc Ziyaret Tepec Horum Höyükc Tell Apameac Hayaz Höyükc Tell Khaznab,c

2100–2000 (EJZ V) 2500–2400 (3M-2) 2400–2200 (3M-3) 2600–2500 (IIId; Acropolis) 2500–2300 (IIa; Acropolis) 2300–2100 (IIb; Acropolis) 2300–2100 (IIb; Lower Town) 2300–2100 (IIb; Lower Town) 2600–2000? (Mid-late EBA, eastern Outer Town) 2400–2000 (Late EBA) 2000 (Period IV) 2600–2400 (Period VI) 2400–2200 (Period V) 2200–2000 (Period IV) 2600–2000 2400–2200 (Phase IV; Residential Areas) 2400–2200 (Period IVB) 2200–2000 (Period III) 2600–2300 2300–2200 (Levels II-III) 2500–2400 (Level II) 2500–2300 (EBA IIIB-IVB) 2600–2400 (EB III – late) EB IV (later third millennium BC) 2300–2200 (EB IVB, Area E) 2400–2200 (EB IV, Area D) EB IVB (Areas A and E) 2400–2300 (EB IVA, Area A) 2100 (Phase 8, EB IVB) 2500–2400 (EJZ III) 2400–2200 (EJZ IV) 2500–2300 (Level IX) 2300–2000 (Levels VIII-VI) 2600–2400 (Period VI D1-3) 2500–2300 BCE (mid-late third millennium BC) 2400–2000 (EB IV) 2500–2000 (N of Steinbau I) 2500–2000 (S of Steinbau I) 2600–2400 (FBZ III, Sector K) 2400–2200 (FBZ IVA-B, Sector H) 2600–2200 (FBZIII-IV, Sector A) 3250–2000 2300–2000 BCE (Tell A Houses and Temple) 2000 BCE 3000–2000 (Plateau, EB) 3000–2000 (Step Trench, EB) 2400–1900 2400–1900 2500–2000? 2500 2400–2200 (EBIV, temple area) 2700–2400 (EB III) 3000–2000 (EB) 3000–2000 (EBA) 3000–2000 (EBA) 3000–2000 (EBA) 3000–2000 (EB) 3000–2000 (EB)

872 269 148 315 76 188 ? ? 6 4 10 0 4 3 213 180 143 126 54 4 0 2 2 28 21 21 7 13 19 7 0 81 18 46 0 5 0 2 0 0 1 10 3 45 0 1 75 15 4 1 0 8 333 58 136 32 29 479

497 10 10 45 33 58 ? ? 170 118 64 6 71 94 143 224 74 72 190 10 2 36 36 45 39 8 36 51 21 188 67 1 27 787 27 39 113 53 3 51 1 113 258 3 18 18 1903 59 80 3 31 39 849 63 108 140 28 412

3148 153 169 210 262 179 ? ? 432 515 281 57 215 289 777 1719 560 226 481 298 29 423 179 261 760 48 292 94 76 841 278 198 12 2333 203 1280 1115 325 55 198 125 391 697 103 55 315 9584b 434 596 38 318 328 1609 286 757 23 226 459

19% 62% 45% 55% 21% 44% 47% 63% 1% 1% 8% 0% 1% 1% 19% 9% 18% 30% 7% 1% 0% <1% 1% 8% 3% 27% 2% 8% 16% 1% 0% 29% 32% 1% 0% <1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% <1% 30% 0% <1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 0% 2% 12% 14% 14% 16% 10% 35%

Doll (2010) Grossman (2013:316) Grossman (2013:316) Rufolo (2011:526) Rufolo (2011:526) Rufolo (2011:526) Weiss et al. (1993): fn. 30 Weiss et al. (1993): fn. 30 Greenfield (2002) Trella (2010) Weber (2006:154) Buitenhuis (1985) Buitenhuis (1985) Buitenhuis (1985) Stein (1988:113) Wattenmaker (1998) Wattenmaker (1987) Wattenmaker (1987) Boessneck and von den Driesch (1975) Rufolo (2011:402–403) Rufolo (2015:586–587) Minniti (2014) Minniti (2013) Minniti (2013) Grossman pers. comm. Grossman pers. comm. Arter (2003) Grossman pers. comm. Welton et al. (2011) Kolin´ski and Pia˛tkowska-Małecka (2008:117) Kolin´ski and Pia˛tkowska-Małecka (2008:117) Bökönyi in Reade (1973:185) Bökönyi in Reade (1973:185) Siracusano and Bartosiewicz (2012) Creekmore (2008:535) Vila and El Besso (2005) Vila (1995) Vila (1995) Vila (2010) Vila (2010) Vila (2010) Clason and Buitenhuis (1978) Boessneck and von den Driesch (1989) Zeder (1998a) Vila (2005) Vila (2005) Ijzereef (2001) Ducos (1973) Loyet (2003) Zeder (1998a) Gündem (2010) Omar (2010) Kussinger (1988) Jongsma-Greenfield and Greenfield (2013) Bartosiewicz (2005) Gautier (1984) Buitenhuis (1985) Antipina (2004)

NISPs calculated from total NISP and%NISP presented in articles. Not included in Fig. 3. Not included in Fig. 4.

a ‘‘workers’ neighborhood” (Weiss and Leilan, 1989:201–205; Weiss et al., 2002:3–64). In the Acropolis NW area, on the other hand, pigs account for only 34% of the domestic fauna recovered from a series of institutional structures. This distinction between domestic and institutional contexts does not, however, hold in all cases. For example, extensive excavations of domestic architecture at the urban sites of Titrisß Höyük and Tell es-Sweyhat – both located in the pork-poor Upper Euphrates region – uncovered very few pig bones.

The relative abundance data collected here provide crucial information about the importance of pig husbandry within the cities and towns of Early Bronze Age northern Mesopotamia. In aggregate, these data indicate that pigs played a fundamental role in some animal economies and were often consumed in equal, if not higher, proportion to the other domesticates. However, it is also clear that there was a high degree of variability. In the second half of the 3rd millennium, for example, pig husbandry declined in the Euphrates Bend and Middle Khabur regions. In the highly

52

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

Fig. 3. Ternary Diagrams of Relative Abundances of Major Domestic Taxa in the (A) Early and (B) Late 3rd Millennium BC, color-coded by region. Note that in the Late 3rd Millennium, the relative abundances of pigs decreases at sites in most regions with the major exception of sites in the Iraqi and Syrian Jezira, where the relative abundances increase.

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

53

Fig. 4. Map of Pig Relative Abundances (as proportion of domestic fauna) in the (A) early 3rd Millennium and (B) late 3rd Millennium BC.

urbanized Upper Khabur region, however, pig husbandry expanded, notably at cities such as Tell Brak and Tell Mozan. We explore the possible meanings of these patterns in the Discussion section below.

5. Pig husbandry practices In contrast to sheep, goats, and cattle, pigs are omnivores that reproduce rapidly. Sows produce multiple offspring, can give birth

up to three times per year, and reach sexual maturity at one to two years of age (Pond and Mersmann, 2001). Pigs are also highly adaptive to new environments. As a result, pig husbandry can take a number of different forms (see Price, 2016:73–98; Frémondeau et al., 2017). Pigs can be confined to pens of various sizes and fed fodder or organic waste, a situation sometimes referred to as intensive husbandry, which lends itself to household-level production (Diener and Robkin, 1978; Redding, 2015; Zeder, 1996). Such conditions also allow the collection of manure, which is particularly rich and suitable as fertilizer for grain farming (see e.g., Jian,

54

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

2010). Pigs can also be turned loose into forests or meadows and periodically rounded up for slaughter, a situation sometimes referred to as extensive husbandry. Because free-ranging pigs can damage crops, a swineherd sometimes accompanies them (Albarella et al., 2011; Hadjikoumis 2012). Pigs can also be allowed to forage in urban environments, where, scavenging garbage, they fatten while also acting as on-the-hoof waste management; the modern-day example of the Zabaline community in Cairo is a good example of this strategy (Haynes and El-Hakim, 1979). 5.1. Written evidence for pig husbandry Written evidence for pig husbandry practices in northern Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium BC is virtually non-existent. Pigs do, however, appear – albeit infrequently – in contemporary institutional documents from southern Mesopotamia and in documents dating to the 2nd millennium BC from northern Mesopotamia (Englund, 1995; Lion and Michel, 2006). In southern Mesopotamia, there is scattered evidence for specialist swineherds (sipa šah) in documents dating as far back as the Uruk III period (ca. 3100–3000) (Englund, 1995). These swineherds were tasked with raising pigs that belonged to institutions. Dahl (2006:33–35), for example, draws particular attention to a series of documents that record the statistics for a herd of pigs belonging to the temple of Bau in Lagash during the 24th century BC. In these texts, a male swineherd named Lugal-pa’e kept up to 200 pigs, including ‘‘grass-fed pigs” (šah-ú) of both sexes and male ‘‘wild pigs” (šah giš-gi) that were used for breeding purposes. Lugal-pa’e slaughtered approximately 80% of the males before they reached their first birthday, and the swineherd was able to get some of his sows to produce three litters per year – a feat not typically accomplished in ancient pig husbandry (Dahl, 2006:34). Documents from southern Mesopotamia also record other types of pig husbandry in institutional contexts. For example, two tablets from Ur III Garshana discuss the construction of pigsties and the provisioning of pigs with fodder in the form of dates, bran, reeds, and barley (Owen, 2006:77–78; see also Van Koppen, 2006:185). Other documents refer to ‘‘reed-thicket pigs” (šah api/šah(h)apu) or ‘‘free-ranged pigs” (šah-ú) – either wild boar/feral pigs or domestic pigs allowed to wander the countryside (Englund, 1995:128; Owen, 2006:80; Van Koppen, 2006:184). Although there are no documents detailing pig husbandry in northern Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium, they do exist for the early 2nd millennium BC. For example, documents from Tell al-Rimah attest to the feeding of pigs on brewery waste (Lion and Michel, 2006:94). The penning and foddering of pigs are also mentioned in documents from Alalakh, Shemshara, and Chagar Bazar; at one point, the palace of Chagar Bazar owned and managed 200 ‘‘grain-fed pigs” (šah-hi-a še) (Lion and Michel, 2006:91). These data suggest that by the 2nd millennium, northern Mesopotamian institutions, in contrast to many in the South, preferred to keep pigs in pens rather than herding them in forests or meadows.

(1) Biometrics: Standard measurements of bones and teeth (following Payne and Bull, 1988) provide basic information about the physiology of pigs. Here we are drawing on biometrics in two ways: (1) to determine the percentage of wild boar in an assemblage and (2) to determine the size of the animals at slaughter. Biometrics vary according to age, sex, and health status. Dental measurements are the least variable in terms of these factors and are therefore good measures of population groups (i.e., wild, domesticated, or their hybrid offspring) (Payne and Bull, 1988). Postcranial measurements are more subject to variation, making them somewhat less useful than teeth for discerning population groups but more appropriate for estimating the sizes of animals at slaughter. Both postcranial and dental metrics can be usefully combined and compared using the log-size index (LSI) technique (Meadow, 1999). The LSI technique relies on a comparison of all measurements to those of a standard animal (set at a value of 0) – in this case the Turkish wild boar mean values published by Payne and Bull (1988). (2) Dental pathologies: Dental pathologies can reflect a distinction between pigs raised under different conditions. Linear enamel hypoplasias (LEH) are caused by a disruption in the normal growth of the enamel as a result of physiological stress (Dobney and Ervynck, 2000). The stressors that give rise to LEH include disease, poor diet, and exposure to extreme temperatures (Dobney and Ervynck, 2000). These stressors can vary under different husbandry conditions; for example, free-range pigs might have access to more nutritious diets and be less susceptible to disease than those raised in crowded pens or in city streets. Although the specific stressors cannot be identified using LEH data, one can estimate their timing in the lifecycle using the known ages of eruption and wear in the molar teeth of pigs (Dobney and Ervynck, 1998). Hypoplasias on the first molar reflect stress endured during gestation and the first few weeks of life; those on the second molar reflect stress (especially during weaning) between one and seven months; those on the third molar reflect (post-weaning) stresses between three and 13 months. (3) Survivorship: An examination of the age at which pigs are slaughtered (and the age structure of a given assemblage) can provide information about the strategies employed for managing pig herds. The decision to slaughter depends on a variety of factors. For pigs, which are raised for meat and fat, slaughter typically occurs when growth begins to level off. Slaughter is often seasonal, taking place after a fattening period, usually during the autumn or early winter. Modern domesticated pigs tend to reach their target slaughter weights at around one year when penned or two-three years when kept under more extensive conditions (for review, see Price, 2016:115–120). Determining when pigs were killed can therefore provide insight into husbandry practices. Survivorship is best estimated using dental eruption and wear data, for which there exist robust analytical methods (Lemoine et al., 2014).

5.2. Zooarchaeological evidence for pig husbandry Zooarchaeological investigations of pig husbandry can shed light on the place of pigs in both household and institutional settings. Despite decades of zooarchaeological work on animal husbandry in Early Bronze Age northern Mesopotamia, however, there has been little effort to examine pig husbandry in any detail. Zooarchaeologists working in other regions, however, have devised a number of techniques for reconstructing pig husbandry practices (Albarella, 2004; Dobney and Ervynck, 2000; Drew, 2010). Drawing on this work, we have employed three types of proxy data to reconstruct pig husbandry practices in northern Mesopotamia.

One of the authors (Price) examined pig remains from Tell ‘Atij, levels 9–13 (EJZ I, ca. 2900–2600 BCE); Tell al-Raqa’i, levels 4–7 (EJZ I); and Tell Leilan, periods IIIc (EJZ I), IIId (EJZ II, ca. 2600– 2500 BCE), and IIb (EJZ IV, ca. 2300–2200 BCE). All of the raw data used in this study are freely available online through Open Context (Price, 2015) and in Price’s (2016) dissertation. In the paragraphs that follow we first discuss evidence for husbandry practices at the earlier sites (Tell ‘Atij and Tell al-Raqa’i) and then evidence from Tell Leilan, which spans both the earlier and later 3rd millennium BC and thus allows us to examine diachronic changes in husbandry practices.

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

Tell ‘Atij and Tell al-Raqa’i were small, riverside towns specializing in grain production and storage during the first half of the 3rd millennium (Fortin, 1995; Schwartz, 2015; see also Hole, 1999). Pig relative abundances were high (>25%) at both sites during the EJZ 1 but dropped to almost zero by the EJZ II (Rufolo, 2011, 2015); we did not, therefore, have enough data to analyze the later phases at both sites. Our data allow a tentative reconstruction of pig husbandry at Tell ‘Atij and Tell al-Raqa’i. The biometric data (Fig. 6) highlight the fact that pigs were quite small in the Early Bronze Age compared to their wild boar ancestors, a trend consistent across domestic animals of this period (Vila, 1998). Estimation of withers heights, based on postcranial measurements and the formulae published by Teichert (1969), suggests that pigs were approximately 55–65 cm tall at the shoulder, with a few exceeding 70 cm. To put this into perspective, modern Anatolian wild boar tend to fall in the 80–90 cm range (see Payne and Bull, 1988). Only a few specimens from Tell ‘Atij and Tell al-Raqa’i fall within the wild boar size range (Fig. 6). Wild boar can be incorporated into zooarchaeological assemblages via hunting, and their offspring can enter via interbreeding with domestic pigs. The small numbers of large-sized pig bones and teeth at all three sites indicate that neither activity was common, in contrast to the situation in southern Mesopotamia, if the Lugal-pa’e case cited above is representative. Fig. 5 shows that at both Tell ‘Atij and Tell al-Raqa’i, LEH affected roughly one third of pig teeth (30% and 27%). These rates of LEH are lower than those in neighboring regions and in earlier periods (Bertini, 2016; Ervynck et al., 2001). This suggests that pig populations enjoyed somewhat low levels of stress during the EJZ I period in the Middle Khabur. The breakdown of LEH by tooth type allows an approximation of when, in the life of the pig, stresses occurred (Table 2). At Tell ‘Atij and Tell al-Raqa’i, rates were low for the first molar (M1), which develops in the last months of pregnancy and during the first few weeks of life. This suggests relatively low rates of stress on newborn piglets. The second molars (M2) showed the highest levels of LEH, suggesting that stressors were most severe during weaning (which tends to occur at 3–4 months) and other post-neonatal phases of development. Finally, the third molar (M3) showed lower rates, suggesting that

Leilan IIb

EJZ I

EJZ II

EJZ IV

EJZ IV

2900-2600 BC

2600-2500 BC

2300-2200 BC

2300-2200 BC

60%

N = 33

N = 52 N = 71

N = 24 N = 40 N = 22

20%

40%

N = 19

Lower Town

Upper Town

Leilan IIb

Leilan IIId

Leilan IIIc

Raqai

Atij

0

%Teeth Affected by LEH

80%

Khabur 3rd Millennium

Fig. 5. Rates of linear enamel hypoplasia (LEH) on pig upper and lower molars as an indicator of stress. N values indicate number of molars with visible tooth surfaces. Gray bars represent 68% confidence intervals. Methods follow those laid out by Dobney and Ervynck (1998), but with the addition of upper molars to increase sample size (for detailed methodology, see Price, 2016:120–125).

55

the pigs at Tell ‘Atij and Tell al-Raqa’i, once they survived early life, enjoyed better diets and/or less stressful husbandry conditions. Finally, the survivorship data show that the majority of pigs at Tell ‘Atij were culled between two and three years of age, while those at Tell al-Raqa’i were culled before one year (70% of the pigs being slaughtered before their first birthday). Although, again, sample sizes are small, it seems that pigs were allowed to mature longer at Tell ‘Atij. Assuming that pigs were slaughtered as soon as they reached an optimal weight, this could suggest different fattening processes, for example, foddering 6–12 month old pigs at Tell al-Raqa’i vs. slow fattening of pigs at Tell ‘Atij. The survivorship data could also reflect different taste preferences. The data from Tell Leilan allow a comparison to Tell ‘Atij and Tell al-Raqa’i as well as insight into how pig husbandry changed over the course of the 3rd millennium. In the earliest phase for which we have data, Leilan IIIc (EJZ I), pigs seem to have experienced similar levels of stress, overall, as at contemporaneous Tell ‘Atij and Tell al-Raqa’i. LEH rates were low (c. 30%, Fig. 5), although they affected M1s more than M2s, suggesting higher levels of stress during gestation, birth, and early infancy than during weaning and maturation (Table 2). Pigs remained small (Fig. 6), while slaughter focused on pigs aged 6–18 months (Fig. 7). Tell Leilan rapidly expanded to urban proportions at around 2600 BCE (EJZ II, or Leilan IIId) (Weiss et al., 1993). At this point, pig husbandry appears to have changed. Rates of LEH increased markedly, affecting around 50% of teeth. These changes suggest an intensification of pig husbandry alongside the development of new forms of urban pig-keeping, which may have restricted pigs’ access to nutritious food. However, no significant changes were detected in metrics or survivorship. During the Leilan IIb phase (EJZ IV; 2300–2200 BCE), survivorship patterns at the site show a shift towards slaughter at a younger age, with around 50% being culled before ca. 8 months of age. It is also possible to identify some differences in patterns of pig husbandry between Tell Leilan’s Acropolis and Lower Town that indicate some degree of intra-site variability. The sample from this phase, when Tell Leilan was under Akkadian occupation, includes both institutional (Acropolis NW) and domestic (Lower Town South) assemblages. Zeder (2003) has previously shown that pigs were common in both contexts, but more so in the Lower Town (50% vs. 34%). The pig remains from the Lower Town show higher rates of LEH (i.e., higher stress) than the remains from the Acropolis, suggesting different management techniques between institutional and non-institutional settings. Table 3 shows that the greatest disparity in LEH between the two contexts was the first molar (M1) suggesting that early life stress was more acute in domestic settings. Indeed, not all piglets survived to maturity; two nearly complete neonatal pig skeletons were recovered from IIb deposits in the Lower Town and seem to represent animals that either died where they lived or were thrown out with the garbage (Weiss et al., 1993: fn 30). Survivorship, meanwhile, was practically identical between the two contexts, as were dental metrics. Postcranial metrics show that Acropolis pigs were slightly, but not significantly (T = 1.07; P = 0.291), larger than their Lower Town counterparts. To summarize, the zooarchaeological data indicate a diversity of pig husbandry strategies in the Khabur region during the 3rd millennium. Our data suggest that pig husbandry became more intensive in the second half of the 3rd millennium, when urbanism and states developed across the region. More intensive practices would have entailed pigs living more permanently in pens or roaming within human settlements. Pigs may have lost their access to oak woodlands, which came under assault in the Khabur in the middle of the 3rd millennium (Deckers and Pessin, 2010). The depletion of oak forests as well as the expansion of farm- and pastureland (all three of which can be related to population increase and

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

Postcranial LSI

8

1

Dental LSI Atij

3

4

Raqa’i

2 Leilan IIId N = 24

Leilan IIb Upper Town

2

Leilan IIId N=9

Leilan IIb Upper Town N = 26

7

N = 26

Leilan IIIc N=5

3

Wild Boar Size Range

7

Leilan IIIc N = 32

8

Raqa’i N=7

N = 20

8

Atij N=3

N = 37

Wild Boar Size Range

56

Leilan IIb Lower Town

Leilan IIb Lower Town N = 33

N = 65

Fig. 6. Dental and postcranial metrics for pig molars and select limb bones. Measurements were combined using the log-size index (LSI) method (Meadow, 1999). Metrics included those defined by Payne and Bull (1988) and determined to have low inter- and intra-observer error: molar breadths (dP4-M3 WA and WP), scapula GLP, radius BP, tibia Bd, astragalus GLl, and humerus HTC.

Table 2 Percent of teeth affected by LEH. Crown formation times indicate life stage during which stresses occurred, following Dobney and Ervynck (1998).

a

Tooth (crown formation time)

‘Atij (EJZ I)

Raqa’i (EJZ I)

Leilan IIIc (EJZ I)

Leilan IIId (EJZ II)

Leilan IIb (EJZ IV)

M1 (in utero – 1 month old) M2 (1 – 7 months) M3 (3 – 13 months) Number of Teeth (M1, M2, M3)

2% 57% 27% 15, 14, 11

10% 43% 40% 10, 7, 5

30% 27% 67%a 10, 11, 3

44% 67% 50% 16, 9, 8

38% 54% 62% 34, 24, 13

Less than five teeth.

institutional expansion) may have driven pig husbandry into settlements, where pigs found a welcome niche in the newly formed urban environments. Within these environments, pigs were managed under different conditions. At Tell Leilan, the pigs were slightly smaller and considerably less healthy in residential contexts as opposed to institutional ones. Based on the data analyzed here, we can hazard that pigs raised in the institutional sphere were either kept in sties or were herded but, in either case, were provided with better care and perhaps a more nutritious diet than their Lower Town counterparts. This diet may have relied on regular allotments of grain fodder, similar to the ‘‘grain-fed pigs” belonging to the palace at Middle Bronze Age Chagar Bazar (Lion and Michel, 2006:91). Meanwhile, pigs may have wandered the

streets of the Lower Town, feeding on scavenged scraps of waste, while serving as on-the-hoof garbage collectors. In both institutional and non-institutional settings, pigs would have provided valuable manure to be spread on the fields surrounding the cities (see, e.g., Wilkinson, 1982).

6. Discussion The relative abundance data that we have assembled indicate that pigs were a key component of the animal economy in northern Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium BC. Our proxy data for husbandry at Tell ‘Atij, Tell al-Raqa’i, and Tell Leilan, meanwhile,

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

Fig. 7. Survivorship (kill-off) patterns for pigs using lower molars. Lines show observed survivorship, using age classes A-F published by Lemoine et al. (2014). Bands around lines show 68% confidence intervals (following Price et al., 2016). N values indicate number of jaws.

Table 3 Percent of teeth affected by LEH, comparing Tell Leilan’s Acropolis and Lower Town area in the IIb phase (EJZ IV).

a

Tooth (Upper and Lower)

IIb Acropolis

IIb Lower Town

M1 M2 M3 Number of Teeth (M1, M2, M3)

20% 60% 75%a 10, 5, 4

46% 58% 56% 24, 19, 9

Less than five teeth.

shed light on the day-to-day practices involved in raising these pigs. Although far from representative of the full range of Early Bronze Age sites in northern Mesopotamia, the data suggest that pig husbandry became more intensive over time. The fundamental importance of pig husbandry within the Early Bronze Age animal economy has been obscured in the academic literature by a persistent pastoral bias – an assumption that the animal economy was dominated by the raising of sheep, goats, and cattle. While it is certainly true that these animals lay at the heart of the institutionally managed animal economy, pigs were also a

57

component of the institutional economy, as the zooarchaeological data from Tell Leilan’s acropolis make clear. As in contemporary southern Mesopotamia, the institutions in the north did raise pigs. Nevertheless, the textual data from both northern and southern Mesopotamia make it clear that the institutional raising of pigs took place on a much smaller scale than the raising of sheep, goats, and cattle. We suggest that the high pig relative abundances in northern Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium instead reflect the strength of an animal economy operating largely beyond institutional oversight. The notion that pigs might be particularly amenable to exploitation by those living beyond the grip of institutional control was posited several decades ago by Paul Diener and Eugene Robkin as an explanation for the origins of the Islamic pig taboo (1978). They argue that, because pigs are excellent converters of household waste into calories and because they reproduce rapidly, pig husbandry made ‘‘peasant villages dangerously rich and autonomous” with respect to urban elites (Diener and Robkin, 1978:501). The result, they argued, was an active discouragement of pig husbandry by urban elites and a taboo against the raising and consumption of pigs. Diener and Robkin’s suggestion that pig husbandry ran counter to elite/institutional interests – especially in the countryside – has been influential among zooarchaeologists (Redding, 1991, 2015; Zeder, 1996, 1998a, 2003). Some have extended the model to apply not just to the rural sector but also to non-elite spaces in urban environments (Mudar, 1982; Redding, 2015; Zeder, 2003). In Early Bronze Age northern Mesopotamia, this propensity for raising pigs in non-institutional urban spaces finds notable examples at Tell Arbid (Pia˛tkowska-Małecka and Smogorzewska, 2010) and Tell Leilan (Zeder, 2003). In concert with Deiner and Robkin’s (1978) hypothesis, we suggest that pig husbandry may have provided a means for urban households in northern Mesopotamia to cope with the increased degree of economic control exerted by the expanding institutions. Raised on a small scale and largely beyond institutional oversight, pigs may have served as a risk buffer and a means of maintaining or asserting some degree of economic autonomy. This vision for the role of pigs within the political economy complements Joy McCorriston’s (1997:534) suggestion that the production of linen textiles, as opposed to woolen ones, offered a way for households to resist incorporation within the expanding institutional economy. If pigs were part of an alternative animal economy, then the presence of pig bones at archaeological sites might help to reveal the limits of institutional power in the cities and towns of Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia. In some parts of northern Mesopotamia, the evidence testifies to a clear distinction between urban centers and their satellite towns and villages. In the Upper Euphrates region, for example, pigs were almost completely absent at the urban center of Titrisß Höyük, but present in significant numbers at smaller settlements such as Hassek Höyük, Kurban Höyük, and Gritille Höyük. This dichotomy in pig husbandry patterns may indicate a more pervasive institutional presence within urban centers, as compared to smaller settlements, whose inhabitants were turning to pigs as agricultural and pastoral resources were increasingly siphoned off to support the growing cities (for discussion of the pastoral provisioning of cities by villages, see e.g., Stein, 1987; Wattenmaker, 1987; Zeder, 1998b). One can hypothesize several motivations that might encourage villagers to turn to pig husbandry: a desire to avoid taxation, to avoid conflict with herders employed by the institutions, or to ensure access to meat despite institutional efforts to monopolize or restrict access to pasture. If our hypothesis is correct, the general reduction in pig husbandry in the Upper Euphrates and the Middle Khabur during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC might be tied to the expansion of the urban

58

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

institutions and their increasing ability to draw subordinate settlements into an animal economy focused on specialized pastoralism and intensive grain production. The deforestation of oak woodlands in the latter half of the 3rd millennium, possibly as a result of overgrazing by institutional herds, may also have played a role by eliminating extensive forms of pig husbandry (see Harris, 1985). The effect on pig husbandry was exactly the opposite in the Upper Khabur, the most heavily urbanized portion of northern Mesopotamia. There, pig relative abundances were high throughout the 3rd millennium and across the settlement hierarchy, but they increased in the middle part of the millennium, as cities arose in the region. This is especially the case at Tell Brak, Tell Leilan, and Hamoukar – cities that were significantly larger than their counterparts in the Upper Euphrates. Thus, in contrast to the Middle Khabur and the Euphrates region, urbanization and institutional expansion in the Upper Khabur appear to have been paralleled by a shift toward the raising of more pigs. In this context, the move to pig husbandry might reflect one or a combination of the following factors: (1) a conscious decision to avoid institutional exactions or institutional control by raising animals that were not particularly valued by the institutions (e.g. due to the lack of secondary products), especially on the part of the poorer segments of the urban population (see Zeder, 2003); (2) a subsistence strategy that was particularly well-suited to dense, urban environments populated by land-poor farmers and workers (see Redding, 1992, 2015) in which pigs would also provide manure for intensive farming and efficient waste removal; (3) a more indirect response to the declining availability of other meat sources as institutions directed their attention to expanding their pastoral holdings, even while some institutions, such as those present on the Acropolis of Tell Leilan, also raised pigs. Indeed, although much higher in the Lower Town, the abundance of pig bones in all areas of Tell Leilan suggests a cultural taste for pork that cross-cut social classes and that might have made the urban pig husbandry niche even more attractive to land-poor city residents looking for an alternative to the pastoral economy. We suggest, therefore, that patterns of pig husbandry in the 3rd millennium were closely bound up with two processes: urbanization and institutional expansion. The relatively rapid shift from a low density, dispersed settlement pattern to a multi-tier, nucleated pattern built around densely occupied cities and towns brought with it a major shift in the nature of domestic space and a major shift in the practicalities of raising animals on the household level. Because of pigs’ unique ability to live on small plots of land and thrive off settlement waste, urbanization created spaces that were better adapted to the small-scale raising of pigs than to the herding of sheep and goats. At the same time, institutional expansion in the region was closely tied to a shift in the organization of the pastoral economy. As urban institutions sought increasing control over the production of woolen textiles, they took a more direct role in the management of pastoral resources, pulling the pastoral dimension of the household economy more and more into the institutional orbit and initiating a process of ‘‘extensification” that increasingly removed sheep and goats from the day-to-day routines of household life (McCorriston, 1997). Pigs may have risen to fill the resulting void, especially in the Upper Khabur. In the Euphrates and the Middle Khabur, meanwhile, the pastoral economy held more sway. There, institutional expansion did not correspond with – or perhaps allow for – a thriving pig economy. Pigs may have also filled new roles with respect to the gendered division of labor, which was in flux during the Early Bronze Age. McCorriston (1997), for example, has argued that textile extensification in Mesopotamia led to a major a shift in the organization of female labor, on both the institutional and the household level, and to a corresponding process of alienation, whereby women were increasingly deprived of access to the means of production (agri-

cultural land and animals). Similarly, a recent study of fingerprint impressions on potsherds (Sanders, 2015) indicates a shift from household-based ceramic production under the control of women to specialized craft production dominated by male potters during the IIId period (ca. 2600 BCE) at Tell Leilan. The turn to pig husbandry – and, therefore, to the exploitation of animals that could be raised in close proximity to domestic spaces, traditionally the domain of women – may have been part of this broader shift in the gendered division of labor. Any explanation for the prevalence of pigs in Early Bronze Age northern Mesopotamia must also account for the significant geographical variability visible in the zooarchaeological data. In some cases, such as the contrast between the pig-rich Upper Euphrates and the pig-poor Euphrates Bend region during the early 3rd millennium, differences in the relative abundance of pigs might be tied to environmental conditions and, in particular, to the southward extent of oak park woodland, an ecosystem ideal for certain types of pig husbandry (for anthracological reconstructions, see Deckers and Pessin, 2010: Fig. 3). As we have mentioned, however, some of these differences – for example, between the Upper Euphrates and the Upper Khabur regions – may correlate with the degree of urbanization or the degree of institutional control within the regions in question. It is also possible that we are seeing hints of cultural distinctions. For example, at Tell Mozan pigs were not only consumed in relatively large numbers (typically 20–30%) between approximately 2500 and 2000 BCE; they also appear to have played an important role in ritual, as suggested by the presence of 60 piglets and pig figurines (along with other animals) in a massive stone-lined pit near the southern wall of the palace (Collins, 2004).

7. Conclusions In accepting and perpetuating the pastoral bias – the official account of the animal economy – archaeologists have unwittingly contributed to the erasure of an alternative and easily overlooked perspective on life in Mesopotamian cities and towns: that of pigs and the people who ate them. The presumed dominance of sheep, goats, and cattle within the animal economy of Early Bronze Age northern Mesopotamia is an artifact of a written record that privileges the institutional gaze at the expense of other viewpoints. Zooarchaeological evidence offers a different story. Sheep, goats, and cattle did occupy key positions within the animal economy, but pigs were also a fundamental resource. We have drawn particular attention to this other animal economy that, we argue, existed largely beyond institutional oversight. This is not to say that the institutions (or affiliated households) did not raise pigs. Rather, we argue that pig husbandry was neither closely monitored by the institutions, nor was it ever their primary economic focus. For that reason, pigs may have provided households – even those that were otherwise heavily dependent on institutional support or patronage – with a means of protecting themselves from risk and, perhaps, asserting some degree of autonomy in the face of institutional expansion and the resulting decrease in access to pastureland. At the same time, pigs would have provided urban residents with a particularly efficient meat source that also consumed waste and produced high-quality manure within the largest urban centers of northern Mesopotamia. Many questions remain. For example, why were pigs so prominent within the heavily urbanized Upper Khabur, yet conspicuously rare within many settlements further to the west? Are we seeing the effects of different trajectories toward urbanization, distinctive patterns in local environmental change (e.g., deforestation), variations in the extent of institutional control, or divergent responses to institutional expansion? Or are we seeing

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

hints of regional food preferences founded on ethnic/cultural distinctions? There is also the issue of intra-settlement patterning, especially with respect to husbandry practices. We have presented some evidence for distinctions in pig production and consumption between residential and institutional areas, but more evidence from a broader range of sites is needed to answer these questions and to test the hypotheses that we have laid out. We hope that this article will help to catalyze a broader effort to collect evidence for pig husbandry practices in Mesopotamia and beyond. Acknowledgments This research was funded by an NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (#1405344) and a Smithsonian Institution Short-Term Research Fellowship. We thank Melinda Zeder and Richard Meadow for helping coordinate research on the Tell ‘Atij, Tell al-Raqa’i, and Tell Leilan faunal assemblages, and we wish to acknowledge the excavators at these sites, especially their directors: Michel Fortin, Hans Curvers and Glenn Schwartz, and Harvey Weiss. Scott Rufolo was extremely generous in sharing his faunal database on these collections as well as stratigraphic information. We thank Ekaterina Antipina, Lubna Omar, Emmanuelle Vila, and Jill Weber for assistance in tracking down data. We also thank several anonymous reviewers for their detailed and helpful feedback. And, finally, thank you to Hannah Chazin, John Grossman, and Anastasia Burkovskaya for their help translating materials written in Russian. References Adams, R.McC., 1966. The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and Prehispanic Mexico. Aldine, Chicago. Adams, R.McC., 2006. Shepherds at Umma in the Third Dynasty of Ur: Interlocutors with a World Beyond the Scribal Field of Ordered Vision. J. Econ. Social History Orient 49 (2), 133–169. Adams, R.McC., 2008. An interdisciplinary overview of a Mesopotamian City and its Hinterlands. Cuneiform Digital Library J. 2008 (1), 1–23. Akkermans, P.M.M.G., Schwartz, G.M., 2003. The Archaeology of Syria. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Albarella, U., 2004. The Archaeology of Pig Domestication and Husbandry: Approaches and Case Studies. PhD Dissertation. Durham University, Durham. Albarella, U., Manconi, F., Trentacoste, A., 2011. A Week on the Plateau: Pig Husbandry, Mobility and Resource Exploitation in Central Sardinia. In: Albarella, U., Trentacoste, A. (Eds.), Ethnozooarchaeology: The Present and Past of Human-Animal Relationships. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 143–159. Algaze, G., 1993. The Uruk World System. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Allentuck, A., Greenfield, H.J., 2010. The Organization of Animal Production in an Early Urban Center: The Zooarchaeological Evidence from Early Bronze Age Titrisß Höyük, Southeast Turkey. In: Campana, D., Crabtree, P.J., deFrance, S.D., Lev-Tov, J.S., Choyke, A.M. (Eds.), Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Complexity, Colonialism, and Animal Transformations. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 12–29. Al Quntar, S., Khalidi, L., Ur, J., 2011. Proto-Urbanism in the Late 5th Millennium BC: Survey and Excavations at Khirbat al-Fakhar (Hamoukar), Northeast Syria. Paléorient 372, 151–175. Antipina, E., 2004. Archeozoologitcheskiye materialy iz Tell Hazny I. In: Munchaev, R., Merpert, N., Amirov, S. (Eds.), Tell Hazna I. A Religious and Administrative Center in North-East Syria in IV-III Mil. BC. Paleograph Press, Moscow, pp. 463– 473. Arai, S., 2014. Faunal Remains. In: Ishida, K., Tsumura, M., Tsumoto, H. (Eds.), Excavations at Tell Ali Al-Hajj, Rumeilah: A Bronze-Iron Age Settlement on Syrian Euphrates. The Ancient Orient Museum. Memoires of the Ancient Orient Museum, vol. IV., Ancient Orient Museum, Tokyo, pp. 289–295. Arbuckle, B., 2015. The rise of cattle cultures in Bronze Age Anatolia. J. Eastern Mediterranean Archaeol. Heritage Stud. 2, 277–297. Arter, S.R., 2003. Appendix: Summary report on the Phase I Analysis of Zooarchaeological Material. In: Lapp, N. (Ed.), Preliminary Reports and Other Archaeological Investigations: Tell Qarqur and Iron I Sites in the North-Central Highlands of Palestine. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 56, American Schools of Oriental Research, Boston, pp. 119–131. Bartosiewicz, L., 2005. Animal remains from the excavations of Horum Höyük, Southeast Anatolia, Turkey, In: Buitenhuis, H., Choyke, A.M., Martin, L., Bartosiewicz, L., Mashkour, M. (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East VI: Proceedings from the Sixth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas. ARC Publications 123. ARC Publications, Groningen, pp. 150–162.

59

Bartosiewicz, L., 1998. Interim report on the Bronze Age animal bones from Arslantepe (Malatya, Anatolia). In: Buitenhuis, H., Bartosiewicz, L., Choyke, A. (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East III: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwest Asia and Adjacent Areas. ARC publicaties 18. Centre for Archeological Research and Consultancy, Groningen, pp. 221–232. Becker, C., 1988. Die Tierknochenfunde vom Tell Bderi 1985. Damaszener Mitteilungen 3, 379–386. Bernbeck, R., 2009. Class conflict in Ancient Mesopotamia: between knowledge of history and historicising knowledge. Anthropol. Middle East 4, 33–64. Bertini, L., 2016. How did the Nile Water System impact Swine Husbandry Practices in Ancient Egypt? In: Østigard, T., Tveldt, T. (Eds.), A History of Water, Series 3, Water and Food: From Hunter-Gatherers to Global Production in Africa, vol. 3. I. B. Tauris, London, pp. 75–100. Boessneck, J., 1992. Landschaft, Flora und Fauna: Besprechung der Tierknochen und Molluskenreste von Hassek Höyük. In: Behm-Blanke, M.R. (Ed.), Hassek Höyuk: Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Und Lithische Industrie. Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 58–74. Boessneck, J., von den Driesch, A., 1981. Tierknochen von Hassek-Höyük. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 31, 88–90. Boessneck, J., von den Driesch, A., 1989. Die Faunenreste vom Tell Halawa am Assad-See/Nordsyrien (Drittes und Anfang zweites Jahrtausend. v. Chr.). In: Orthmann, W. (Ed.), Halawa 1980–1986. Vorläufiger Bericht über die 4.-9. Grabungskampagne. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 52. Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, pp. 113–152. Boessneck, J., von den Driesch, A., 1975. Tierknochenfunde vom Korucutepe bei Elaziǧ in Ostanatolien (Fundmaterial der Grabungen 1968 und 1969). In: Van Loon, M. (Ed.), Korucutepe. Final Report on the Universities of Chicago, California (Los Angeles) and Amsterdam in the Keban Reservoir, Eastern Anatolia, 1968–1970. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 1–220. Boessneck, J., von den Driesch, A., Ziegler, R., 1993. Die Faunareste. In: Wilhelm, G., Zaccagnini, C. (Eds.), Tell Karrana 3, Tell Jikan, and Tell Khirbet Salih. Baghdader Forschungen 15. Phillip von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein, pp. 233–236. Buitenhuis, H., 1985. Animal Remains from Tell Sweyhat, Syria. Palaeohistoria 25, 131–144. Clark, G., Yi, S., 1983. Niche-width variation in Cantabrian Archaeofaunas: a diachronic study. In: Clutton-Brock, J. and Grigson, C. (Eds.), Animals and Archaeology: 1. Hunters and Their Prey. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 163, Oxford, pp. 183–208. Clason, A., Buitenhuis, H., 1978. A preliminary report on the faunal remains of Nahr el Homr, Hadidi and Ta’as in the Tabqa Dam Region in Syria. J. Archaeol. Sci. 5, 75–83. Collins, B.J., 2004. A channel to the underworld in Syria. Near East. Archaeol. 67, 53– 56. Cooper, L., 2006. Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates. Routledge, New York. Creekmore, A., 2008. Kazane Höyük and Urban Life Histories in Third Millennium Upper Mesopotamia. PhD Dissertation. Anthropology. Northwestern University. Dahl, J., 2006. Early Swine Herding. In: Lion, B., Michel, C. (Eds.), De la domestication au tabou: le cas des suidés au proche-orient ancien. Travaux de la Maison René Ginouvès 1. De Boccard, Paris, pp. 31–38. Deckers, K., Pessin, H., 2010. Vegetation development in the Middle Euphrates and Upper Jazirah (Syria/Turkey) During the Bronze Age. Quat. Res. 74, 216–226. Deckers, K., Riehl, S., 2007. Fluvial environmental contexts for archaeological sites in the Upper Khabur Basin (Northeastern Syria). Quat. Res. 67, 337–348. Diener, P., Robkin, E.E., 1978. Ecology, evolution, and the search for cultural origins: the question of Islamic pig prohibition. Curr. Anthropol. 19, 493–540. Dobney, K., Ervynck, A., 2000. Interpreting developmental stress in archaeological pigs: the chronology of linear enamel hypoplasia. J. Archaeol. Sci. 27, 597–607. Dobney, K., Ervynck, A., 1998. A protocol for recording linear enamel hypoplasia on archaeological pig teeth. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 8, 263–273. Dobney, K., Jaques, D., Van Neer, W., 2003. Diet, economy and status: evidence from the animal bones. In: Matthews, R. (Ed.), Excavations at Tell Brak, Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian Regional Centre, 1994–1996, vol. 4. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 417–430. Doll, M., 2010. Meat, Traction, Wool: Urban Livestock in Tell Mozan. In: Deckers, K., Doll, M., Pfälzner, P., Riehl, S. (Eds.), Development of the Environment, Subsistence, and Settlement of the City of Urkeš and Its Region. Studien zur Urbanisierung Nordmesopotamiens, Serie A 3 Harrassowitz Verlag, Weisbaden, pp. 191–360. Drew, C.A., 2010. Pigs from Six Medieval Sites in Flanders: A Multiple Methodological Approach to the Study of Their Husbandry Development. PhD Dissertation. Durham University, Durham. Ducos, P., 1973. La faune de Tell Selenkahiye: Note préliminaire sur les ossements de la campagne de 1972. Ann. Archeol. Syrie. 23, 160. Emberling, G., 2015. Mesopotamian cities and urban process, 3500–1600 BCE. In: Yoffee, N. (Ed.), Early Cities in Comparative Perspective, 4000 BCE–1200 CE. The Cambridge World History, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 253–278. Emberling, G., Cheng, J., Larsen, T.E., Pittman, H., Skuldboel, T.B.B., Weber, J., Wright, H.T., 1999. Excavations at Tell Brak 1998: preliminary report. Iraq 61, 1–41. Englund, R.K., 1995. Late Uruk pigs and other herded animals. In: Finkbeiner, U., Dittmann, R., Hauptmann, H. (Eds.), Beiträge zur kulturgeschichte vorderasiens. Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz, pp. 121–133. Ervynck, A., Dobney, K., Hongo, H., Meadow, R.H., 2001. Born Free? New evidence for the status of Sus scrofa at Neolithic Çayönü Tepesi (Southeastern Anatolia, Turkey). Paléorient 27, 47–73.

60

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

Fortin, M., 1995. Rapport préliminaire sur la cinquième campagne à Tell ’Atij et la quatrième à Tell Gudeda (printemps 1993). Syria 72, 23–53. Foster, B.R., 1982. Administration and Use of Institutional Land in Sargonic Sumer. Mesopotamia 9. Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen. Foster, B.R., 2016. The Age of Agade: Inventing Empire in Ancient Mesopotamia. Routledge, New York. Frangipane, M., Alvaro, C., Balossi Restelli, F., Siracusano, G., 2002. The 2000 Campaign at Zeytinli Bahçe Hoyiik. In: Tuna, N., Oztiirk, J., Velibeyoglu, J., (Eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ihsu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs. Activities in 2000, Middle East Technical University, Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (TAÇD AM), Ankara, pp. 57–99. Frémondeau, D., De Cupere, B., Evin, A., Van Neer, W., 2017. Diversity in pig husbandry from the Classical-Hellenistic to the Byzantine periods: an integrated dental analysis of Düzen Tepe and Sagalassos assemblages (Turkey). J. Archaeol. Sci. Reports 11, 38–52. Gautier, A., 1984. La faune de quelques maisons d’Apamée, in: Balty, J.-C. (Ed.), Apamée de Syrie: bilan des recherches archéologiques 1973–1979. Fouilles d’Apamée de Syrie. Misc. Fasc. 13. Centre belge de recherches archéologiques à Apamée de Syrie, Brussels, pp. 305–360. Greenfield, H., 2002. Preliminary report on the Faunal remains from the Early Bronze Age site of Titrisß Höyük, Turkey. In: Buitenhuis, H., Choyke, A., Mashkour, M., Al-Shiyab, A.H. (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East V (Proceedings of the ICAZ-SW Conference). Rijksuniversitit, Groningen, pp. 251– 260. Grigson, C., 2007. Culture, ecology, and pigs from the 5th to the 3rd Millennium BC around the Fertile Crescent. In: Albarella, U., Dobney, K., Ervynck, A., RowleyConwy, P. (Eds.), Pigs and Humans: 10,000 Years of Interaction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 83–108. Grossman, K.M., 2013. Early Bronze Age Hamoukar: A Settlement Biography. PhD Dissertation. Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. University of Chicago, Chicago. Gündem, C., 2010. Animal based subsistence economy of Emar during the Bronze Age. In: Finkbeiner, U., Sakal, F. (Eds.), Emar after the Closure of the Tabqa Dam. The Syrian-German Excavations 1996–2002, vol. I: Late Roman and Medieval cemeteries and environmental studies. Subartu 25. Brepols: Turnhout, pp. 125– 76. Hadjikoumis, A., 2012. Traditional pig herding practices in southwest Iberia: questions of scale and zooarchaeological implications. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 31, 353–364. Harris, M., 1985. The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig: Riddles of Food and Culture. Simon and Schuster, New York. Hart, K., 1973. Informal income opportunities and urban employment in Ghana. J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 11, 61–89. Hartnett, A., Dawdy, S.L., 2013. The archaeology of illegal and illicit economies. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 42, 37–51. Haynes, K.E., El-Hakim, S.M., 1979. Appropriate technology and public policy: the urban waste management system in Cairo. Geogr. Rev. 69, 101–108. Hole, F., 1999. Economic implications of possible storage structures at Tell Ziyadeh, NE Syria. J. F. Archaeol. 26, 267–283. Ijzereef, G., 2001. Animal remains. In: van Loon, M. (Ed.), Selenkahiye: Final Report on the University of Chicago and University of Amsterdam Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir, Northern Syria, 1967–1975. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden, pp. 569–584. Jian, L., 2010. The decline of household pig farming in Rural Southwest China: socioeconomic obstacles and policy implications. Cult. Agric. 32, 61–77. Jongsma-Greenfield, T., Greenfield, H. 2013. Bronze and Iron Age subsistence changes in the Upper Tigris: zooarchaeology of Operation E at Ziyaret Tepe, south-eastern Turkey. In: De Cupere, B., Linseele, V., Hamilton-Dyer, S. (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East X: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of South-Western Asia and Adjacent Areas. Ancient Near East Studies Supplement vol. 44. Peeters, Leuven, pp 121–144. Kolin´ski, R., 2012. ‘‘The Mountain Sheep are Sweeter. . .”. In: Laneri, N., Pfälzner, P., Valentino, S. (Eds.), Looking North: The Socioeconomic Dynamics of Northern Mesopotamian and Anatolian Regions during the Late Third and Early Second Millennium BC. Studien zur Urbanisierung Nordmesopotamiens: Series D, Supplementa. Harrassowitz Verlag, Weisbaden, pp. 237–251. Kolin´ski, R., Pia˛tkowska-Małecka, J., 2008. Animals in the steppe: patterns of animal husbandry as a reflection of changing environmental conditions in the Khabur Triangle. In: Kühne, H., Czichon, R.M., Kreppner, F.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, vol. 1. Harrassowitz Verlag, Weisbaden, pp. 115–128. Kussinger, S., 1988. Tierknochenfunde vom Lidar Höyük in Sudostanatolien (grabungen 1979–86). Institüt für palaeoanatomie, domest. und geschichte der tiermedizin. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich. Lawrence, D., Wilkinson, T., 2015. Hubs and upstarts: pathways to urbanism in the Northern Fertile Crescent. Antiquity 89, 328–344. Lebeau, M., 2004. Le contexte archéologique et stratigraphique des documents épigraphiques découverts entre 1996 et 2002. In: Milano, L., Salleberger, W., Talon, P., Van Lerberghe, K. (Eds.), Third Millennium Cuneiform Texts from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1996–2002). Subartu 12. Brepols, Brussels, pp. 1–11. Lemoine, X., Zeder, M.A., Bishop, K.J., Rufolo, S.J., 2014. A new system for computing dentition-based age profiles in Sus scrofa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 47, 179–193. Lion, B., Michel, C., 2006. L’élevage des porcs en haute Mésopotamie, Syrie et Transtigrine au debut du IIe millénaire. In: Lion, B., Michel, C. (Eds.), De la

domestication au tabou: le cas des suidés au proche-orient ancien. Travaux de la Maison René Ginouvès 1. De Boccard, Paris, pp. 89–101. Liverani, M., 2014. The Ancient Near East: History, Society, and Economy. Transl. Soraia Tabatabai, Routledge, New York. Liverani, M., 2006. Uruk: The First City. Ed. and transl. by Bahrani, Z., Van De Mieroop, M. Equinox, London. Loyet, M., 2003. Sustaining Civilizations: An Examination of Pastoral Production in Three Complex Societies. PhD Dissertation. University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign. Lyman, R.L., 1979. Available meat from fauanl remains: a consideration of techniques. Am. Antiq. 44, 536–546. McCorriston, J., 1997. The fiber revolution: textile extensification, alienation, and social stratification in Ancient Mesopotamia. Curr. Anthropol. 38, 517–535. McMahon, A., 2013. North Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium BC. In: Crawford, H. (Ed.), The Sumerian World. Routledge, London, pp. 462–477. Meadow, R.H., 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: Beiträge zur Paläoanatomie, Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Ethnologie und Geschichte der Tiermedizin. Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden, pp. 285–300. Meadow, R.H., 1992. Inconclusive remarks on pastoralism, nomadism, and other animal-related matters. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Khazanov, A. (Eds.), Pastoralism in the Levant. Prehistory Press, Madison (WI), pp. 261–269. Minniti, C., 2014. Reassessing Animal Exploitation in Northern Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period: The Evidence from Tell Tuqan. In: Baffi, F., Fiorentino, R., Peyronel, L. (Eds.), Tell Tuqan: Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference, May 15th–17th, 2013. Lecce. Congedo Editore, Lecce. Minniti, C., 2013. Exploiting animals: the zooarchaeological evidence through the Early Bronze Age. In: Matthiae, P., Marchetti, N. (Eds.), Ebla and Its Landscape: Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek (CA), pp. 413–430. Mudar, K., 1982. Early Dynastic III animal utilization in Lagash: a report on the Fauna from Tell Al-Hibba. J. Near East. Stud. 41, 23–43. Oates, J., McMahon, A., Karsgaard, P., Al-Quntar, S., Ur, J.A., 2007. Early Mesopotamian Urbanism: a new view from the North. Antiquity 81, 585–600. Omar, L., 2010. Animal Economy in the Middle Euphrates Valley: Faunal Analysis at the Site of Tell Ghanem al-Ali (Syria). Al-Rafidan 31, 1–14. Omar, L., 2017. Animal exploitation at Tell Bderi (Syria) during the Early Bronze period. In: Mashkour, M., Beech, M. (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East 9: Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the ASWA (AA) Working Group: Archaeozoology of Southwest Asia and Adjacent Areas. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Owen, D.I., 2006. Pigs and Pig By-Products at Garsana in the Ur III Period. In: Lion, B., Michel, C. (Eds.), De La Domestication Au Tabou: le cas des suidés au ProcheOrient ancien. Travaux de la Maison René Ginouvès 1. De Boccard, Paris, pp. 75– 87. Paulette, T., 2012. Domination and resilience in Bronze Age Mesopotamia. In: Cooper, J., Sheets, P. (Eds.), Surviving Sudden Environmental Change: Answers from Archaeology. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 167–195. Paulette, T., 2013. Pastoral Systems and Economies of Mobility. In: Wilkinson, T.J., Gibson, McG., Widell, M. (Eds.), Models of Mesopotamian Landscapes: How Small-Scale Processes Contributed to the Growth of Early Civilizations. BAR International Series 2552. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 130–139. 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, 27–66. Pia˛tkowska-Małecka, J., Smogorzewska, A., 2010. Animal economy at Tell Arbid, north-east Syria, in the third millennium BC. Bioarchaeol. Near East 4, 25–43. Pia˛tkowska-Małecka, J., Smogorzewska, A., 2013. Animal bone remains from Tell Arbid (season 2009) – Archaeozoological analysis. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 22, 439–450. Pollock, S.M., 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia: The Eden That Never Was. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pond, W.G., Mersmann, H.J., 2001. General characteristics. In: Pond, W.G., Mersmann, H.J. (Eds.), Biology of the Domestic Pig. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 1–40. Postgate, N., 1992. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. Routledge, London. Potts, D.T., 1997. Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Powell, M.A., 1999. Wir müssen alle unsere Nische nutzen: Monies, motives, and methods in Babylonian economics. In: Dercksen, J.G. (Ed.) Trade and finance in ancient Mesopotamia. MOS Studies 1. Istanbul: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, pp. 5–23. Price, M.D., 2016. Pigs and Power: Pig Husbandry in Northern Mesopotamia during the Emergence of Social Complexity (6500–2000 BC). PhD Dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge (MA). Price, M.D., 2015. Northern Mesopotamian Pig Husbandry (Late Neolithic-EBA). Released: 2015-06-12. In: Price, M.D. (Ed.), Open Context. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.6078/M71J97N1. Price, M.D., Wolfhagen, J., Otárola-Castillo, E., 2016. Confidence intervals in the analysis of mortality and survivorship curves in zooarchaeology. Am. Antiq. 81, 157–173. Reade, J.E., 1973. Tell Taya (1972–1973): Summary Report. Iraq 35, 155–188.

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62 Redding, R. 1991. The Role of the Pig in the Subsistence System of Ancient Egypt: A Parable of Faunal Data. In: Crabtree, P.J., Ryan, K. (Eds.), Animal Use and Culture Change. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 8. Philadelphia, pp. 20–30. Redding, R., 1992. Egyptian Old Kingdom patterns of animal use and the value of faunal data in modeling socioeconomic systems. Paléorient 18, 99–107. Redding, R., 2015. The pig and the chicken in the Middle East: modeling human subsistence behavior in the archaeological record using historical and animal husbandry data. J. Archaeol. Res. 23, 325–368. Ristvet, L., 2012. The Development of Underdevelopment? Imperialism, Economic Exploitation, and Settlement Dynamics on the Khabur Plains, ca. 2300–2200 BC. In: Weiss, H. (Ed.), Seven Generations Since the Fall of Akkad. Studia Chaburensia 3. Harrassowitz Verlag: Weisbaden, pp. 241–260. Rufolo, S.J., 2011. Specialized Pastoralism and Urban Process in Third Millennium BC Northern Mesopotamia. PhD Dissertation. Near Eastern Studies. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Rufolo, S.J., 2015. The Animal Remains from Tell Al-Raqa’i. In: Schwartz, G.M. (Ed.), Rural Archaeology in Early Urban Northern Mesopotamia. Monumenta Archaeologica 36. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles, pp. 571– 626. Sallaberger, W., 2014. The Value of Wool in Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia: On the Control of Sheep and the Handling of Wool in the Presargonic to the Ur III Periods (c. 2400–2000 BC). In: Breniquet, C., Michel, C. (Eds.), Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry to Institutional Textile Industry. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 94–114. Sallaberger, W., 2004. A Note on the Sheep and Goat Flocks: Introduction to Texts 151–167. In: Milano, L., Sallaberger, W., Talon, P., Van Lerberghe, K. (Eds.), Third Millennium Cuneiform Texts from Tell Beydar (Season 1996–2002). Subartu 12. Brepols, Brussels, pp. 13–21. Sanders, A., 2015. Fingerprints, sex, state, and the organization of the Tell Leilan Ceramic Industry. J. Archaeol. Sci. 57, 233–238. Schloen, J.D., 2001. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake (IN). Schwartz, G.M., 2015. Rural Archaeology in Early Urban Northern Mesopotamia. Monumenta Archaeologica 36. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles. Siracusano, G., Bartosiewicz, L., 2012. Meat consumption and sheep/goat exploitation in centralised and non-centralised economies at Arslantepe. Anatolia. Origini XXXIV, 111–123. Stein, G.J., 2004. Structural parameters and sociocultural factors in the economic organization of North Mesopotamian Urbanism in the Third Millennium B.C. In: Feinman, G.M., Nicholas, L.M. (Eds.), Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 61–78. Stein, G.J., 1999. Rethinking World Systems: Diasporas, Colonies, and Interaction in Uruk Mespotamia. Univerity of Arizona Press, Tuscon. Stein, G.J., 1988. Pastoral Production in Complex Societies: Mid-Late Third Millennium BC and Medieval Faunal Remains from Gritille Höyük in the Karababa Basin, Southeast Turkey. Anthropology. PhD Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stein, G.J., 1987. Regional economic integration in early state societies: Third Millennium B.C. pastoral production at Gritille, Southeast Turkey. Paléorient 13, 101–111. Steinkeller, P., 1999. Land-tenure conditions in third-millennium Babylonia: The problem of regional variation. In: Hudson, M., Levine, B.A. (Eds.), Urbanization and Land Ownership in the Ancient Near East. Peabody Museum Bulletin 7. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, pp. 289–329. Teichert, M., 1969. Osteometrische Untersuchungen zur Berechnung der Widerristhöhe bei vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Schweinen. EthnographischeArchäologische Zeitschrift 10, 517–525. Trella, P.A., 2010. Evaluating Collapse: The Disintegration of Urban-Based Societies in Third Millennium B.C. Upper Mesopotamia. PhD Dissertation. Anthropology. University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Ur, J.A., 2014. Households and the emergence of cities in Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge Archaeol. J. 24, 249–268. Ur, J.A., 2012. Spatial Scale and Urban Collapse at Tell Brak and Hamoukar at the End of the Third Millennium BC. In: Laneri, N., Pfälzner, P., Valentino, S. (Eds.), Looking North: The Socioeconomic Dynamics of Northern Mesopotamian and Anatolian Regions during the Late Third and Early Second Millennium BC. Studien zur Urbanisierung Nordmesopotamiens: Series D, Supplementa. Harrassowitz Verlag, Weisbaden, pp. 25–35. Ur, J.A., 2010. Cycles of civilization in Northern Mesopotamia, 4400–2000 BC. J. Archaeol. Res. 18, 387–431. Van De Mieroop, M., 1997. The Ancient Mesopotamian City. Clarendon Press, Oxford. van Driel, G. 2000. Institutional and Non-Institutional Economy in Ancient Mesopotamia, in: Bongenaar, A.C.V.M. (Ed.), Interdependency of Institutions and Private Entrepreneurs. MOS Studies 2. Publications de l’Institut historiquearchéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 87. Nederlands HistorishArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, Istanbul, pp. 5–23. Van Koppen, F., 2006. Pigs in Lower Mesopotamia During the Old Babylonian Period (2000–1600 BC). In: Lion, B., Michel, C. (Eds.), De la domestication au tabou: le cas des suidés au proche-orient ancien. Travaux de la Maison René Ginouvès 1. De Boccard, Paris, pp. 181–194.

61

Van Lerberghe, K., 1996. The Livestock. In: Farouk, I., Sallaberger, W., Talon, P., Van Lerberghe, K. (Eds.), Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995). Subartu 2. Brepols, Brussels, pp. 107–117. Van Neer, W., De Cupere, B., 2000. Faunal Remains from Tell Beydar (Excavation Seasons 1992–1997). In: Van Lerberghe, K., Voet, G. (Eds.), Tell Beydar: Environmental and Technical Studies. Subartu 6. Turnhout (Belgium), Brepolis, pp. 69–115. Vila, E., 2010. Étude de la faune mammalienne de Tell Chuera, secteurs H et K (2000–2007) et de Kharab Sayyar, secteur A (Bronze ancien, Syrie). In: Meyer, J.W. (Ed.), Ausgrabungen Auf Dem Tell Chuera in Nordost-Syrien. Teil II. Vorbericht Zu Den Grabungsgampagnen 1998 Bis 2005. Harrassowwitz Verlag, Weisbaden, pp. 223–292. Vila, E., 2006. Données archéozoologiques sur les suidés de la periode halaf a l’âge du fer. In: Lion, B., Michel, C. (Eds.), De la domestication au tabou: le cas des suidés dans le proche-orient ancien. Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 1. De Boccard, Paris, pp. 137–153. Vila, E., 2005. Fauna. In: Klengel-Brandt, E., Kulemann-Ossen, S., Martin, L. (Eds.), Tall Kne¯dig˘: die ergebnisse der ausgrabungen des voderasiatischen museums Berlin in nordost-syrien von 1993 bis 1998. Saarländische Druckerei & Verlag, Saarwellingen, pp. 185–204. Vila, E., 1998. L’exploitation des animaux en Mésopotamie au IVème et IIIème millénaires avant J.- C. (monographie du CRA 21). CNRS Editions, Paris. Vila, E., 1995. Analyse de la faune des secteurs nord et sud du Steinbau I. In: Orthmann, W. (Ed.), Ausgrabungen in Tell Chuera in nordost Syrien I. Vorbericht über die grabungskampagnen 1986 bis 1992. Saarbrücker Druckerei, Saarbrücker, pp. 267–279. Vila, E., Al Besso, M., 2005. Résultats préliminaires de l’étude de la faune d’Al Rawda (campagnes 2002 à 2004). Akkadica 126, 111–119. von den Driesch, A., 1993. Faunal remains from Habuba Kabira in Syria. In: Buitenhuis, H., Clason, A. (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwest Asia and Adjacent Regions. Universal Book Services, Leiden, pp. 52–59. Waetzoldt, H., 1972. Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen textilindustrie. Studi economici e tecnologici 1. Centro per la antichità e la storia dell’Arte vicino oriente, Rome. Wattenmaker, P., 1998. Household and State in Upper Mesopotamia: Specialized Economy and the Social Uses of Goods in an Early Complex Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.. Wattenmaker, P., 1987. Town and village economies in an early state society. Paléorient 13, 113–122. Weber, J., 2001. A preliminary assessment of Akkadian and Post-Akkadian animal exploitation at Tell Brak. In: Oates, D., Oates, J., McDonald, H. (Eds.), Nagar in the Third Millennium BC. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, Cambridge and London, pp. 345–350. Weber, J., 2006. Economic Developments of Urban Proportions: Evolving Systems of Animal-Product Consumption and Distribution in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syro-Mesopotamia. PhD Dissertation. Anthropology. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Weiss, H., 2012. Quantifying collapse: the late third millennium Khabur Plains. In: Weiss, H. (Ed.), Seven Generations since the Fall of Akkad. Studia Chaburensia 3. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, pp. 1–24. Weiss, H., Leilan, Tell, 1989. New data for mid-third millennium urbanization and state formation. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 122 (1990), 193–218. Weiss, H., Courty, M.A., Wellerstrom, W., Guichard, F., Senior, L., Meadow, R., Currow, A., 1993. The genesis and collapse of Third Millennium north Mesopotamian Civilization. Science 291, 995–1088. Weiss, H., deLillis F., deMoulins, D., Eidem. J., Guilderson, T., Kasten, U., Larsen, T., Mori, L., Ristvet, L., Rova, E., Wetterstrom, W., 2002–3. Revising the contours of history at Tell Leilan. Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes, Cinquantenaire. vol. 45, pp. 59–74. Welton, L., Batiuk, S., Harrison, T.P., Lipovitch, D.R., Capper, M., 2011. Tell Tayinat in the Late Third Millennium: recent investigations of the Tayinat Archaeological Project, 2008–2010. Anatolica 37, 147–185. Westenholz, A., 2002. The Sumerian City-State. In: Hansen, M.H. (Ed.), A Comparative Study of Six City-State Cultures. Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen, C. A, pp. 23–42. Widell, M., Studevent-Hickman, B., 1Tenney, J., Lauinger, J., Mahoney, D., Paulette, T., 2013. Staple Production, Cultivation, and Sedentary Life: Model Input Data. In: Wilkinson, T.J., Gibson, McG., Widell, M. (Eds.), Models of Mesopotamian Landscapes: How Small-Scale Processes Contributed to the Growth of Early Civilizations. BAR International Series 2552. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 81–101. Wilkens, B., 2000. Faunal Remains from Tell Afis (Syria). In: Mashkour, M., Choyke, A.M., Buitenhuis, H., Poplin, F. (Eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East IVB. ARCPublicatie 32, Groningen, The Netherlands, pp. 29–39. Wilkinson, T.J., 2000. Settlement and Land Use in the Zone of Uncertainty in Upper Mesopotamia. In: Jas, R.M. (Ed.). Rainfall and Agriculture in Northern Mesopotamia. Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 88. MOS Studies 3. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, Istanbul, pp. 3–35. Wilkinson, T.J., 1982. The definition of ancient manured zones by means of extensive sherd-sampling techniques. J. Field Archaeol. 9, 323–333. Wilkinson, T.J., 2003. Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Wilkinson, T.J., Philip, G., Bradbury, J., Dunford, R., Donoghue, D., Galiatsatos, N., Lawrence, D., Ricci, A., Smith, S.L., 2014. Contextualizing Early Urbanization:

62

M. Price et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48 (2017) 46–62

Settlement Cores, Early States and Agro-Pastoral Strategies in the Fertile Crescent during the Fourth and Third Millennia BC. J. World Prehistory 27, 43– 109. Zeder, M.A., 1995. The Archaeobiology of the Khabur Basin. Bull. Canadian Soc. Mesopotamian Stud. 29, 21–32. Zeder, M.A., 1996. The role of pigs in Near Eastern Subsistence: a view from the Southern Levant. In: Seger, J.D. (Ed.), Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek. Cobb Institute of Archeology, Winona Lake (IN), pp. 297–312. Zeder, M.A., 1998a. Environment, economy, and subsistence on the threshhold of urban emergence in Northern Mesopotamia. Bull. Can. Soc. Mesopotamian Stud. 33, 55–67.

Zeder, M.A., 1998b. Pigs and Emergent Complexity in the Ancient Near East. In: Nelson, S. (Ed.), Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in Prehistory. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 15. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Philadelphia, pp. 109–122. Zeder, M.A., 2003. Food provisioning in urban societies: a view from Northern Mesopotamia. In: Smith, M.L. (Ed.), The Social Construction of Ancient Cities. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C., pp. 156–183.