Wild Meets Domestic in the Near Eastern Neolithic

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Many recent theorists argue that reliance on binary oppositions to structure thought is a feature of the modern West, and therefore an inappropriate model for prehistory. While the world is usually more complicated than dualistic models, I suggest their use is not limited to modern Western cultures. Rather, we should determine whether they apply in each instance, and if the terms are defined in the same way. Here, I examine whether inhabitants of the earlier Neolithic in the Near East, the time of the first livestock herding, distinguished between wild and domestic animals. Lacking written records, I analyze imagery and animal remains. Zooarchaeologists use demographic profiles, size change, and other data to assess whether ancient people hunted or herded animals. I add contextual analysis to identify special treatment of animal remains that indicates they have ritual power, and choices in animal depictions. Three case studies each present windows into how animals were valued, showing that wild and domestic animals were treated differently, and thus a wild/domestic conceptual distinction existed. Moreover, differences between wild and domestic animals, and regional differences in the roles of specific species, shaped how both wild and domestic animals spread in the early days of agriculture. ABSTRACT: The categories of wild and domestic are one of the classic ways the nature/culture dichotomy manifests itself in human interactions with the environment. Some argue that this distinction is not helpful and a projection of modern thought, and certainly the boundaries are complicated. However, we should try to determine in each case whether it was meaningful to particular people in the past. Here I explore whether wild and domestic were relevant concepts to the inhabitants of the Neolithic Near East in their relations with animals around the time when livestock herding began. Drawing on depictions of animals and the treatment of living animals and their remains, I examine three case studies (Cyprus, Upper Mesopotamia, and Çatalhöyük in central Anatolia) to evaluate whether emic distinctions between wild and domestic existed. I conclude that this was in fact a crucial distinction that shaped economic choices as well as ritual activities. Differential treatment of wild and domestic animals indicates that they were accorded different forms of personhood. The particular nature of human relations with wild animals helped shape the spread of both wild and domestic animals.