2010/01/28 by Haskel J. Greenfield · 2 citations
Earth and Planetary Sciences · Arts and Humanities · Environmental Science · #Archaeology and ancient environmental studies #Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies #Isotope Analysis in Ecology
paper · doi:10.1080/00438240903429722
Abstract Andrew Sherratt's (Citation1981) model of the Secondary Products Revolution explored the effects of changes in the scale and nature of domestic animal exploitation on Old World societies. He proposed that the earliest domestic stock animals in the Near East (sheep, goat and cattle) were initially domesticated during the Neolithic for their primary products (meat, hide and bone), but that their more intensive exploitation for secondary animal products (milk, wool and traction) appeared in the Near East much later (during the Chalcolithic) and subsequently spread to surrounding regions (Europe and Asia). While the zooarchaeological evidence largely supports the model, questions have been raised about its veracity since there is evidence for pre-Chalcolithic exploitation of secondary products (e.g. ceramic lipid analyses). This paper summarizes past efforts to test the model, presents the results of recent research on the subject (e.g. artefactual, zooarchaeological and lipid analysis) and suggests directions for future research. Some of the discrepancies that have arisen between the archaeological, ceramic lipid and zooarchaeological data will be discussed. Keywords: Milkwooltractionploughwheelsecondary productsdomesticationzooarchaeologySherratt Acknowledgement I would like gratefully to acknowledge the timely and helpful comments provided by Tina L. (Jongsma) Greenfield, Arkadiusz Marciniak, the four anonymous reviewers and Marijke van der Veen during the preparation of this paper. It is only as a result of their constant patience, encouragement (and goading) and editorial comments that it was possible to complete the manuscript. The International Research and Exchanges Board, Fulbright-Hayes Program, National Science Foundation (USA), University of Manitoba, the Social Science and Research Council of Canada, and Team Poznan at Çatal Höyük excavations provided administrative and financial support for much of the research leading to the writing of this article. The views described above reflect my own and any errors are my own responsibility. This paper is dedicated both to the memory of Andrew Sherratt (who inspired my interest in zooarchaeology and provided me with an intellectual validity for my interests in later prehistoric and early proto-historic Old World societies) and to my family (for their continued support even though they were probably often neglected). Notes There are other products that are rarely discussed in the context of Sherratt's model: blood, hair and manure (e.g. Guttmann et al. Citation2005). Blood and hair can be exploited as both primary and secondary products, depending upon the scale of usage. Manure is more clearly a secondary product. However, these are not part of Sherratt's Secondary Products Revolution model and are not discussed further. 2 While the chronological periods discussed in the paper use the traditional culture historical terminology (e.g. Neolithic), this does not mean that the same period is found at the same time everywhere or that each region went through the same evolutionary development at the same time (Fig. 1). The terms are used to signify major changes in the archaeological record characteristic of particular regions, such as the disintegration of early farming cultures and their reconfiguration into new cultural forms. For example, this takes place at the end of the Pottery (or Late) Neolithic of Anatolia (c. 6000 bc), the end of the Late Neolithic Vinča culture of the central Balkans (c. 3500 bc), the end of the Early Neolithic of Poland (LBK culture) (c. 3500 bc). All dates are based on calibrated radiocarbon dates unless otherwise noted.