Data Sharing Reveals Complexity in the Westward Spread of Domestic Animals across Neolithic Turkey

Abstract

This study presents the results of a major data integration project bringing together primary archaeozoological data for over 200,000 faunal specimens excavated from seventeen sites in Turkey spanning the Epipaleolithic through Chalcolithic periods, c. 18,000-4,000 cal BC, in order to document the initial westward spread of domestic livestock across Neolithic central and western Turkey. From these shared datasets we demonstrate that the westward expansion of Neolithic subsistence technologies combined multiple routes and pulses but did not involve a set ‘package’ comprising all four livestock species including sheep, goat, cattle and pig. Instead, Neolithic animal economies in the study regions are shown to be more diverse than deduced previously using quantitatively more limited datasets. Moreover, during the transition to agro-pastoral economies interactions between domestic stock and local wild fauna continued. Through publication of datasets with Open Context (opencontext.org), this project emphasizes the benefits of data sharing and web-based dissemination of large primary data sets for exploring major questions in archaeology (Alternative Language Abstract S1).

Diversity and homogeneity among the early farming communities of Western Anatolia

“…Likewise, it is understood that domestic pigs are encountered at the first Neolithic settlements in the Lakes District and Central-west Anatolia and that local pigs were also domesticated. It has also been suggested that the existence of domesticated pig dates to the early 6 th millennium BC in Northwest Anatolia, and the method and impetus for the domestication of pig then passed through Central-west Anatolia (Ottoni et al 2013;Arbuckle et al 2014). The appearance of domesticated pig is not the only novelty in Northwest Anatolia in the early 6 th millennium BC.…”

New Directions in South African Archaeozoology of the Last 2,000 Years

“…These methods hold tremendous interpretive advantages, yet their complications and limitations should also be acknowledged, a point which all of the authors discuss. Quantitative synthesis of available faunal datasets (Dusseldorp 2016) as well as revisiting Bold^collections from new theoretical and methodological angles (Antonites et al 2016;Ashley et al 2016;Grody 2016) will become common archaeozoological practice and serve as a reminder to present data and curate collections in ways that will enable future study (see e.g., Arbuckle et al 2014;Atici et al 2013;Jones and Gabe 2015). L i n k e d t o s t a n d a r d i s e d a n d a c c e s s i b l e archaeozoological data is the issue of methodological transparency, and the critical evaluation of data quality (Gobalet 2001;O'Connor 1996;Wolverton 2013).…”

“…Today, the field is shifting towards better integrating research designs and results with other archaeological datasets (e.g., Hamilton and Thomas 2012;Maltby 2006;VanDerwarker and Peres 2010). Computer technology now enables incorporation, comparison and quantitative analysis of large faunal datasets on a scale not possible before (e.g., Arbuckle et al 2014;Orton et al 2014). Methodological advances-such as the development of Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry or ZooMS (Buckley et al 2009) and use-wear analysis (Évora 2015)-are helping archaeozoologists to break through the confines of macroscopic examination.…”

Snapshots of Digital Scholarship in Zooarchaeology: Introduction to the Special Issue

“…This initiative has the potential to enable comparisons between a large number of existing databases without learning project-specific code. Kansa specifically discusses an example where this was successful across a large group of independent zooarchaeologists conducting research in Turkey (Arbuckle et al 2014). The study is part of the larger Open Context project 6 , which is demonstrating the benefits of designing digital systems that can reconcile a diverse range of highly specific disciplinary terminologies.…”