occupationalhistories,settlements and...

16
Occupational Histories, Settlements, and Subsistence in Western India: What Bones and Genes can tell us about the Origins and Spread of Pastoralism Ajita K. PATEL Peabody Museum, Harvard University 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138 (U.S.A.) [email protected] Patel A.K. 2009. – Occupational Histories, Settlements, and Subsistence in Western India: What Bones and Genes can tell us about the Origins and Spread of Pastoralism. Anthropo- zoologica 44(1): 173-188. ABSTRACT By at least 7000 calBC, hunter-gatherers were encamped upon stabilized sand dunes in steppic and semi-arid areas of northwestern South Asia. Within 4500 years, pastoral camps, agricultural settlements, and even the occasional urban complex could be found over parts of this same landscape. Investigation of animal bone remains from a few of these sites, together with consideration of recent studies of animal genetics, provide a basis for understanding some of the processes involved in this prehistoric transformation. Discussion in this paper focuses on the dune-top site of Loteshwar in North Gujarat, for which a strategic dating program has generated a series of AMS C14 determinations spanning five millennia of first hunter-gatherer and then pastoral occupations. Archaeofaunal remains demonstrate a change in animal use from an exclusive focus on wild animals to the exploitation of domestic cattle. The evidence for both wild and domestic cattle at Loteshwar indicates that North Gujarat is an important area to investigate as one of the multiple centers for zebu (Bos indicus) domestication that are suggested by genetic research on modern forms. In contrast, because of the absence of any evidence for their wild relatives having been in the region, it is clear that domestic sheep and goat were brought into the North Gujarat region, probably from areas to the Northwest. KEY WORDS South Asia, North Gujarat, Loteshwar, site formation processes, Bos indicus, cattle domestication, pastoralism, Microlithic, Chalcolithic, animal genetics. RÉSUMÉ Occupations, peuplements et subsistance en Inde occidentale : apports de l’ostéologie et de la génétique à la recherche sur les origines et la diffusion du pastoralisme Dès 7000 av. J.-C. au moins, des chasseurs-cueilleurs campaient sur des dunes de sable stabilisées, dans les régions steppiques et semi-arides du nord- ouest de l’Asie du Sud. En 4500 ans, se succèdent, sur certaines parties de ces mêmes paysages, des campements de pasteurs, des occupations agricoles ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1) © Publications Scientifiques du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. 173

Upload: doandieu

Post on 04-Jun-2018

240 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

Occupational Histories, Settlements,and Subsistence in Western India:What Bones and Genes can tell usabout the Origins and Spread of Pastoralism

Ajita K. PATELPeabody Museum, Harvard University

11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138 (U.S.A.)[email protected]

Patel A.K. 2009. – Occupational Histories, Settlements, and Subsistence in Western India:What Bones and Genes can tell us about the Origins and Spread of Pastoralism. Anthropo-zoologica 44(1): 173-188.

ABSTRACTBy at least 7000 calBC, hunter-gatherers were encamped upon stabilized sanddunes in steppic and semi-arid areas of northwestern South Asia. Within4500 years, pastoral camps, agricultural settlements, and even the occasionalurban complex could be found over parts of this same landscape. Investigationof animal bone remains from a few of these sites, together with considerationof recent studies of animal genetics, provide a basis for understanding someof the processes involved in this prehistoric transformation. Discussion inthis paper focuses on the dune-top site of Loteshwar in North Gujarat,for which a strategic dating program has generated a series of AMS C14determinations spanning five millennia of first hunter-gatherer and thenpastoral occupations. Archaeofaunal remains demonstrate a change in animaluse from an exclusive focus on wild animals to the exploitation of domesticcattle. The evidence for both wild and domestic cattle at Loteshwar indicatesthat North Gujarat is an important area to investigate as one of the multiplecenters for zebu (Bos indicus) domestication that are suggested by geneticresearch on modern forms. In contrast, because of the absence of any evidencefor their wild relatives having been in the region, it is clear that domesticsheep and goat were brought into the North Gujarat region, probably fromareas to the Northwest.

KEY WORDSSouth Asia,

North Gujarat,Loteshwar,

site formation processes,Bos indicus,

cattle domestication,pastoralism,

Microlithic, Chalcolithic,animal genetics.

RÉSUMÉOccupations, peuplements et subsistance en Inde occidentale : apports de l’ostéologieet de la génétique à la recherche sur les origines et la diffusion du pastoralismeDès 7000 av. J.-C. au moins, des chasseurs-cueilleurs campaient sur desdunes de sable stabilisées, dans les régions steppiques et semi-arides du nord-ouest de l’Asie du Sud. En 4500 ans, se succèdent, sur certaines parties deces mêmes paysages, des campements de pasteurs, des occupations agricoles

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1) © Publications Scientifiques du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. 173

Page 2: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1)174

Patel A.K.

et même occasionnellement un complexe urbain. L’examen de vestigesosseux animaux provenant de quelques-uns de ces sites, associé à la prise encompte de récentes études sur la génétique animale, fournissent une basepour la compréhension de quelques-uns des processus impliqués dans cettetransformation préhistorique. Cet article est centré sur le site de Loteshwar,qui se trouve au sommet d’une dune, dans le nord du Gujarat et pour lequelun programme stratégique de datation a fourni une série de déterminationsen AMS 14C, s’étendant sur cinq millénaires, d’occupations d’abord dechasseurs-cueilleurs puis de pasteurs. Les vestiges de faune démontrent unchangement dans l’utilisation des animaux, qui passe d’un intérêt exclusifpour la faune sauvage à l’exploitation de bétail domestique. La présence debovins sauvages aussi bien que domestiques à Loteshwar indique que le norddu Gujarat est une zone importante à explorer, en tant que l’un des multiplescentres pour la domestication du zébu (Bos indicus), ce que suggèrent lesrecherches génétiques sur les formes modernes. En revanche, en raison del’absence de formes sauvages de moutons et chèvres dans la région, il estclair que les formes domestiques ont été importées dans le nord du Gujarat,probablement des zones du nord-ouest.

MOTS CLÉSAsie du Sud,

nord du Gujarat,Loteshwar,

processus de formation des sites,Bos indicus,

domestication du bétail,pastoralisme,

Microlithique,Chalcolithique,

génétique animale.

INTRODUCTION

Throughoutmost regions of theOldWorld animalexploitation has changed from themore immediatereturns of hunting and scavenging to the moredelayed returns of animal husbandry andpastoralism.How did this change take place? What happenedto the hunter-gatherers? Did pastoralism spreadthrough interaction between peoples, or throughpopulation replacement resulting from immigra-tion, or through societal transformation? Or wasthe situationmore complex, involving variousmixesof the three during the development of herdingand farming and the coming of urbanism? Thispaper represents part of the process of addressingthese issues for northwestern South Asia where, inlandscapes that are less disturbed bymodern activi-ties, archaeological investigations have revealed theremains of hunter-gatherer and pastoral activities,sometimes both on the same site (Sankalia 1946,1965, 1974; Allchin & Allchin 1982, Possehl &Rissman 1992, Ajithprasad & Sonawane 1993).“Pastoralism” as used in this paper refers to thebreeding, raising, and managing of domesticatedungulates by members of a human society (e.g.,Meadow 1992, Patel 1997,Meadow& Patel 2003).In the South Asian context, any person who keeps

domestic cattle (bulls, cows, bullocks), goats, sheep,water buffalo, camels, and/or equids is considereda pastoralist, whatever the number of animals hus-banded andwherever on the continuumof sedentarytomobile the lifestyle falls. Pastoral practices can becombined with one ormore of hunting, gathering,cultivation, andplant agriculture, the degree towhicheach of these activities contributes to the livelihoodof a population being subject to investigation.Some 9000 calendar years ago, populations ofhunter-gatherers occupied the tops of stabilizedsand dunes in steppic and semi-arid areas of north-western SouthAsia.Within 4500 years, agriculturalsettlements and pastoral camps were spread overthis same landscape, and scattered urban complexescovered areas of up to a square kilometer each.Zooarchaeological investigations of a few sites inNorthGujarat andKutch (Fig. 1), combined withconsideration of the implications of genetic studiesof animals, provide a framework for understandingsome of the processes involved in thismajor changeof human-animal relationships in the past. Thispaper particularly focuses on the dune-top siteof Loteshwar in North Gujarat where a strategic,site-formation-specific dating program generateda series of AMSC14 dates.While these dates showa long occupational history for the site spanning

Page 3: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

Occupational Histories, Settlements, and Subsistence inWestern India

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1) 175

fivemillennia, they also help us to understand theunique nature of the hunter-gatherer and pastoralsettlements in the region. In addition, they serveto highlight notable changes in animal use from anexclusive focus onwild fauna to the incorporation ofdomestic animals particularly cattle.The evidence forbothwild and domestic cattle at Loteshwar suggeststhatNorthGujarat is an important area to investi-gate as a possible local center of zebu (Bos indicus)domestication, a possibility that has recently beensupported by genetic research (Magee,Mannen&Bradley 2007). In contrast, because of the absence

of any evidence for wild relatives in the region, it isevident that domestic sheep and goat were broughtintoNorthGujarat region, probably from areas totheNorthwest (Meadow& Patel 2003; Patel 2008).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUNDAND TERMINOLOGY

The archaeological landscape of northwestern SouthAsia is represented by a cultural mosaic, whichincludes sites characterized byMicrolithic,Chalco-lithic, and/or Harappan components.Microlithicsettlements are those often called “Mesolithic” inthe literature and can date anywhere from the earlyHolocene to the historic period (e.g., Sankalia 1946,1965, 1987;Misra 1985, 1996).Deposits at someof these sites have onlymicrolithic tools and bones,while deposits at other sites have yielded ceramicsand even metals together with the microlithics.At sites with evidence for multiple occupations,a so-called “Mesolithic” may be defined below aChalcolithic, in turn below an Iron Age, and soon. Considering the long time span and variednature of such deposits, I prefer to use the term“Microlithic” only as a neutral descriptor referringto the stone tool industry in order to avoid anychronological, cultural, and economic overtones(Patel 2008: footnote 4).Chalcolithic settlements are dominated by ceramicstogether with somemetal and stone objects.Thesehave varying degrees of Harappan affiliation thatis judged on the basis of the quantity and qua-lity of classic Harappan paraphernalia, includingceramics, which have become the hallmarks of theIndus civilization (ca. 2600–1800 calBC). Thesesites also vary in size, nature of the remains, andsite function. Sites located on the fossil sand dunesofNorthGujarat that were surveyed and excavatedin the 1980s and 1990s belong to this category(Hegde & Sonawane 1986; Hegde et al. 1988,Indian Archaeology – A Review (hereafter “IAR”)1982 to 1995) (Fig. 1).The development and expression of theHarappanphenomenon and of the Chalcolithic in the diffe-rent parts of northwestern South Asia are variable.This variability is clearly reflected in the differentceramic traditions found throughout the region.

FIG. 1. —FIG. 1. — Map showing locations of archaeological sites innorthwestern South Asia.

Page 4: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1)176

Patel A.K.

The ceramics from the Chalcolithic deposits atmany sites in North Gujarat have been defined asbelonging to a distinct regional pottery tradition,called “Anarta” (Ajithprasad & Sonawane 1993).The beginning of this tradition is dated as early asthe fourth millennium BC, which is amillenniumbefore the development of the Harappan pheno-menon in the region. Anarta ceramics continuethrough the third and into the secondmillenniumBC at many sites with some associated changesincluding the incorporation of Harappan vesselshapes (Sonawane & Ajithprasad 1994).

LOTESHWAR

Loteshwar, located on the margin of a salty wastedepression east of the Little Rann of Kutch, is oneof a number of sites inNorthGujarat withMicro-lithic and Chalcolithic deposits. The Microlithiccomponent, called Period I, is stratified belowChalcolithic Period IIwith no sterile layer betweenthe two.Neither of the components has yielded anyevidence of significant architecture (IAR 1990-91:12-16).TheMicrolithic deposits are 50 to 100 cmin thickness and are represented by an earlier Layer3 and a later Layer 2 (Fig. 2).They are rich in bothgeometric and non-geometric microliths, lithicdebitage, “pallette stones”, and faunal remains.These deposits are devoid of any ceramics andare referred to as “AceramicMicrolithic”. There is

one conventional radiocarbon date run on char-red bone from Period I at Loteshwar (PRL-1567).This calibrates to amedian probability of 4703 BCand is discussed in more detail below. (Note thatmedian probability calibrated BC dates are citedin the text; uncalibrated determinations, both 1-and 2-sigma calibrated ranges BC, and themedianprobability calBC are presented in Table 1 anddisplayed in Fig. 3).TheChalcolithic deposits are between 10 and 80 cmthick located immediately below the surface. In addi-tion there are alsomanyChalcolithic pits that pene-trate the AceramicMicrolithic deposits sometimesto natural sediment.These pits vary in dimensions,ranging between 50 to 200 cm in diameter and 50to 200 cm in depth (Fig. 2). They contain Anartaceramics, animal bones, steatite micro-beads, shellbangles and beads, stone beads, terra-cotta objects,and burnt clay lumps with reed impressions.Micro-lithic tools are also found in these pits. Given thatthe Chalcolithic pits were dug into and sometimesthrough the Aceramic Microlithic deposits, manyof these tools and animal bones from the pits couldhave come from the earlier Aceramic Microlithiccomponent.This aspect of site formation processesat Loteshwar is significant for interpreting all of thearchaeological remains from the site. Two carbonsamples from two different pits have yielded conven-tional radiocarbon dates withmedianprobabilities of3706 and 2993 calBC (PRL-1565 and PRL-1564,respectively:Table 1 and Fig. 3).

FIG. 2. —FIG. 2. — Drawing of stratigraphic section at Loteshwar: North section of Trench I.

Page 5: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

Occupational Histories, Settlements, and Subsistence inWestern India

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1) 177

LOTESHWAR FAUNAL REMAINS

The analysisof faunal remains fromLoteshwar focusedon material excavated fromTrench I located on thewestern side of the highest portion of the mound.

Trench I was selected for the analysis because ofits deep stratification and well recorded contextualinformation. In addition, the samples that producedthe three conventional datesmentioned above comefrom this excavation unit. Bones were hand picked

TABLE 1. — Radiocarbon determinations from Loteshwar in approximate stratigraphic order (latest on top). Calibrations calculatedusing CALIB 5.0.2.See Stuiver and Reimer (1993) for the computer program and Reimer et al. (2004) for the calibration datasets. Median prob. = Medianprobability. Conventional determinations: for PRL-1564, PRL-1565, PRL-1567, see IAR (1993-94: 140). AMS determinations: CAMSsamples were pretreated by Stafford Research Laboratories, Inc. and were dated by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’sCenter for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (CAMS); for sample preparation protocol, see Patel (2008).

Lab

no.

Sit

e

Per

iod

and

Co

ntex

t

Mat

eria

l

De

ter

m.:

55

68

half

life

calB

C+

2si

gm

a

calB

C+

1si

gm

a

calB

CM

edia

np

rob

.

calB

C–1

sig

ma

calB

C–2

sig

ma

CAMS-55905 Loteshwar ChalcolithicTrench I, Pit 3Bone# LTSIP3AC29#145

charred bone 3800±50 2458 2333 2243 2141 2049

CAMS-55904 Loteshwar ChalcolithicTrench I, Pit 2Bone# LTSIP2AC25#14

charred bone 4850±50 3760 3698 3645 3537 3521

CAMS-55903 Loteshwar ChalcolithicTrench I, Pit 1Bone# LTSIP1AC22#5

charred bone 4890±50 3787 3709 3681 3639 3536

PRL-1564 Loteshwar ChalcolithicTrench I, Pit 2

charcoal 4334±110 3349 3316 2993 2779 2639

PRL-1565 Loteshwar ChalcolithicTrench I, Pit 4

charcoal 4907±110 3957 3909 3706 3534 3382

CAMS-55898 Loteshwar MicrolithicTrench I, Layer 2(top) 20-60 cmBone# LTSIA'AC10#171

charred bone 7210±40 6210 6098 6067 6014 6005

CAMS-35362 Loteshwar MicrolithicTrench I, Layer 260-70 cmBone# LTSIA'AC18#8

charred bone 6630±60 5642 5620 5567 5527 5479

CAMS-55902 Loteshwar MicrolithicTrench I, Layer 3(lower) 96-100 cmBone# LTSIA'AC2#102

charred bone 8170±50 7319 7287 7168 7073 7061

PRL-1567 Loteshwar MicrolithicTrench I, Layer 3(base) 143-155 cm

charred bone 5840±115 4990 4830 4703 4549 4453

Page 6: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1)178

Patel A.K.

from each excavated lot as well as recovered throughdry sieving using a ca. 2mm mesh, which ensuredthe recovery of smaller skeletal elements such as smallanimal carpals and tarsals.The recoveredmaterialwasgenerally in a good state of preservation, althoughmost specimens, especially from the earlier layers,wereencrusted with calcium carbonate, which precludeddetailed study of bone surfaces for cutmarks and foragency of breakage.However, this conditiondidhelptopreserve anumberof articulated joints,particularlyof the carpals, tarsals, and lower limbs, thusprovidinginformation on carcass-processing practices.

Faunal material from the Aceramic Microlithicdeposits comes from Layers 2 and 3 and that of theChalcolithic deposits from Layer 1 and from Pits1, 2, 3, and 4. Material from each of these sevencontextual units was analyzed separately. As therewere no obvious differences in faunal profiles withinthe Chalcolithic deposits, however, the analyticalresults for that component were combined toproducean assemblage closer in size (2,201 specimens) tothose from AceramicMicrolithic Layers 2 (15,412specimen) and 3 (7,150 specimens).The results of the faunal analysis show that remainsfrom only wild animals are found in the two Ace-ramic Microlithic layers. The faunal profiles forboth Layers 2 and 3 are similar, with bones fromblackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) dominating theassemblages (Fig. 4). Much less well-representedanimals include gazelle, boar,wild cattle,wildwaterbuffalo, nilgai, hemione, and at least two forms ofdeer (see Table 2) (Patel & Meadow 1998a; Patel2008). The Chalcolithic deposits are also domi-nated by the remains of blackbuck, but with thesignificant addition of the bones of domestic cattle(see below).Excluding cattle from the faunal profilefor theChalcolithic produces a result similar to thatfrom theAceramicMicrolithic, raising the possibi-lity that most, if not all, of the smaller wild bovidbones found in the Chalcolithic deposits actuallyderived from the earlier Microlithic component.That this possibility is well worth considering isstrengthened by evaluation of kill-off patterns andbone condition.Looking at kill-off patterns based on epiphysealunion for the small wild bovids (blackbuck andgazelle) (Fig. 5), those from all three analyticalunits are similar, with the exception of the valuesfor the latest fusing (low bone density) long-bonearticular ends,which are also the least well represen-ted, probably for taphonomic reasons. As for bonecondition,most of the smallwild bovid bones fromthe Chalcolithic were found covered with calciumcarbonate encrustations in amanner similar to thosefrom the Aceramic Microlithic layers, in contrastto the situationwith the bones of small (domestic)cattle, which were not so covered. If one does nottake into account the differences in bone condition,then one can interpret the faunal profiles (Fig. 4)and smallwild bovid kill-off patterns (Fig. 5) for the

FIG. 3. —FIG. 3. — Radiocarbon dates from Microlithic sites in north-western South Asia: Loteshwar, Nagwada, and Langhnaj (NorthGujarat) and Bagor (southern Rajasthan). Laboratory sam-ple identifiers and numbers are presented on the x-axis: A =University of Arizona; CAMS = Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory’s Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, PRL =Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India; TF= Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India. Alldeterminations except CAMS are conventional radiocarbondates. Bar-and-whisker plots show 1-sigma and 2-sigma rangesand intercepts of calibrated BC dates. See Table 1 for details ofLoteshwar dates and Patel (2008) for details of the dates fromNagwada, Langhnaj, and Bagor.

Page 7: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

Occupational Histories, Settlements, and Subsistence inWestern India

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1) 179

Chalcolithic at Loteshwar to suggest the adoptionof cattle pastoralism by hunter-gatherers.However,the similarity between theAceramicMicrolithic andChalcolithic components as far as smallwild boviddata are concerned, as well as consideration of bonecondition and of the presence of Chalcolithic pitsdug into the Microlithic deposits, mean that onemust consider the likelihood that therewasmixingof earlier Aceramic Microlithic remains with laterChalcolithic ones.Under such circumstances, onlytypes of remains not found in earlier deposits canbe securely attributed to the later deposits.

FIG. 4. —FIG. 4. — Relative frequencies of occurrence of differentmammalian taxa from the Microlithic and Chalcolithic compo-nents at Loteshwar. Percentages are based on numbers of iden-tified specimens. “Chalcolithic w/o Bos” is calculated from thesame assemblage as “Chalcolithic” but does not include “Bos”specimens. “Lower Microlithic” is material from Microlithic Layer3; “Upper Microlithic” is material from Microlithic Layer 2. “Chal-colithic” includes material from both Chalcolithic Layer 1 andthe Chalcolithic pits (see Fig. 2).

TABLE 2. — Mammalian taxa identified from Loteshwar.

Wild forms:

EquidaeEquus hemionus khur

CervidaeSmall cervid

Axis axis chital deerAxis porcinus hog deer

Large cervidBovidae

Small bovidAntilope cervicapra blackbuckGazella bennetti chinkhara, gazelle

Large bovidBoselaphus tragocamelus nilgai, blue bullBos primigenius wild cattleBubalus arnee wild water buffalo

LeporidaeLepus sp. hare

FelidaeSmall felidMedium felid

Domestic forms:

BovidaeSmall bovid

Ovis aries domestic sheepLarge bovid

Bos indicus zebu

Page 8: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1)180

Patel A.K.

LOTESHWAR AMSRADIOCARBON DATES

In order to evaluate these interpretations, as wellas to determine the chronology of the site and howearly it was that domestic cattle were being exploi-ted, a program of direct AMS dating of animalbones was developed, building on the previouslyavailable conventional charcoal and bone dates fromthe site (for details, see Patel 2008: 128-129). Asnoted above, these conventional dates include oneon charred bone from the Aceramic Microlithicand two on charcoal from the Chalcolithic. Asnoted previously, the Aceramic Microlithic datehas a median probability of ca. 4703 calBC, andtheChalcolithic dates havemedian probabilities of3706 and 2993 calBC (Table 1 and Fig. 3).A problem with the Aceramic Microlithic deter-mination is that the date is from an unidentifiedspecimen, the pretreatment ofwhich is not specified.A problemwith theChalcolithic determinations isthat the charcoal pieces could have come originallyfrom theAceramicMicrolithic component. In sucha situation what needs to be dated is material thathas a high probability of belonging to a particu-

lar component. By dating bones of wild animalsfrom the AceramicMicrolithic levels and those ofdomestic animals from the Chalcolithic pits, weare directly dating materials of cultural significanceand not depending on associated dates provided bycharcoal pieces.Six charred bone fragments were selected for dating,three from each component.Those from theAcera-micMicrolithic levels are fromwild animals.Theyinclude one humerus fragment from blackbuckand two long bone shaft fragments also probablyfrom blackbuck. Those from the Chalcolithic areall from domestic cattle. They include a femur, ahumerus, and a first phalanx. Burned bones wereselected becauseprevious collagen extraction attemptson uncharred bones from Loteshwar showed thatthere is no bone protein surviving. In contrast,charred bone protein is more resistant to leachingand thus stands a better chance of providing suf-ficient original carbon for a date. The bones weresubmitted to Stafford Research Laboratories forpretreatment and dating. The resulting determi-nations are a total-organic-carbon bone date andas such provide minimum ages for the specimensdated (Patel 2008: 128-129).The three AceramicMicrolithic AMS dates (Table1 and Fig. 3) calibrate to the end of the eighthmillennium (CAMS-55902:median 7168 calBC),to the end of the seventh millennium (CAMS-55898: median 6067 calBC), and to the middleof the sixth millennium (CAMS-35362: median5567 calBC).They are all earlier than the conven-tional bone date that comes from the base of theAceramicMicrolithic deposits (median 4703 calBC).As stated above we have no information on howthe conventionally dated specimen was pretreatedand thus cannot evaluate its reliability.As for theChalcolithic determinations from bovinebones (Table 1 and Fig. 3), two of the three datescalibrate to the first half of the fourth millennium(CAMS-55903: median 3681 calBC and CAMS-55904: median 3645 calBC) and the third to thesecond half of the thirdmillennium(CAMS-55905:median 2243 calBC).The two earlyAMS dates fallin the same range as the earlier of the conventionalcharcoal dates (PRL-1565: median 3706 calBC),suggesting that the latter is reliable. All five of theChalcolithic dates taken together confirm an early

FIG. 5. —FIG. 5. — Small bovid (blackbuck and gazelle) kill-off patternsfrom Loteshwar based on state of epiphyseal fusion of appen-dicular skeletal parts arrayed along the x-axis from youngest(left) to oldest (right). In the absence of published data for black-buck (Antilope cervicapra), the fusion sequence is based on thatpublished for West Asiatic Gazella (Davis 1980), supplementedby observation of modern blackbuck specimens in zoologicalcollections.

Page 9: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

Occupational Histories, Settlements, and Subsistence inWestern India

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1) 181

fourthmillennium beginning for that component atLoteshwar and indicate a laterChalcolithic presenceor continuation through the thirdmillennium calBC.

IMPLICATIONS: CHRONOLOGICALAND SETTLEMENT TYPE

There are a number of implications of these datesfrom Loteshwar. First, they situate the AceramicMicrolithichabitation early in theHolocene,makingit among the earliest dated sites for themicrolithic innorthwestern South Asia (Misra 1996; Lechevallier2003). Second, there is a gap of nearly 1500 yearsbetween the Microlithic and the Chalcolithic com-ponents.Third, each of the two components coversa significant period of time—more than a thousandyears.This suggests that there are actually the remainsofmultipleoccupationswithineachof thecomponents.Given the apparent absence of structural activity atLoteshwar, these occupations are likely to have beenshort-lived.Theymay represent episodic year-roundor,more likely (because of the seasonality ofmoistureavailability in the region), single-season settlementsorcamps.Likemany sites inNorthGujarat,Loteshwar islocated on top of a stabilized sand dune.Depressionsbetween the dunes collectwaterduring themonsoonsand continue to be reservoirs of moisture and ofvegetation during the dry season.They thus serve asprime feeding andwatering zones for animals and anattraction to hunters and pastoralists especially whenother areas have dried up.

IMPLICATIONS:DOMESTICATION AND PASTORALISM

A fourth implication of the dates relates to animalexploitation.There is no zooarchaeological evidencefor any kind of pastoralism during the AceramicMicrolithic at Loteshwar.This contrasts withwhathas been claimed for other Microlithic sites insouthernRajasthan andGujarat (see below). In theChalcolithic deposits, however, there is a relativelyhigh proportion of cattle bones.These are all smal-ler in size than the cattle bones from the AceramicMicrolithic and comparable in size to cattle bonesfrom the lateNeolithic and Chalcolithic atMehr-

garh (see below) and from the third millenniumurban site ofDholavira in Kutch (Patel 1997).Onthat basis it is very likely that theChalcolithic cattlebones fromLoteshwar come from domestic animals.Fifth, as the dates clearly show, domestic cattlewerepart of the economy ofNorthGujarat as early as thebeginning of the fourth millennium calBC. Thisdetermination itself raises an important question.Were these animals brought from another area ofSouth Asia or were they domesticated locally?Cattle domestication by the sixthmillennium calBChas been established for the site of Mehrgarh ineastern Pakistani Balochistan, far to the northwestof Loteshwar (Meadow 1981, 1993, 1996).Duringthe earliest period at Mehrgarh, that of the Ace-ramic Neolithic, there were significant changes inthe exploitation of cattle.These are indicated by amarked increase in their representation in the faunalassemblage through time and an overall decreasein the size of the animals represented.This combi-nation of quantitative andmorphometric evidenceled to a suggestion of local cattle domesticationthat subsequently has been supported by geneticevidence (see below).However, the broaddistributionofwild cattle throughmuch of northwestern South Asia leaves open thepossibility that there may have been multiple localcenters of domestication of these animals.As noted,there are the remains of large wild cattle in the Ace-ramicMicrolithic deposits at Loteshwar, indicatingthat such animalswere available locally.This, togetherwith the presence of morphometrically small-sizedcattle at Loteshwar by the first half of the fourthmillennium calBC, suggest that North Gujarat isan important area to investigate for the possibilityof local domestication (Meadow&Patel 2003;Patel2008). In addition, to date there is no evidence ofdirect cultural interaction between the Mehrgarhregion andNorthGujarat, although the interveningarea is archaeologically poorly known for this period.

GENES: CATTLE

That multiple domestications of cattle took placein SouthAsia is supported by genetic studies.Overthe course of the 1990s, the work of geneticistsfromTrinity College,Dublin, established that the

Page 10: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1)182

Patel A.K.

major genetic divide in cattle is between humpedzebu forms (Bos indicus) and European non-hum-ped forms (Bos taurus), both of which were mostlikely to have been domesticated separately (Loftuset al. 1994; Bradley et al. 1996). Work since thattime has primarily focused on documenting geneticdiversity within Bos taurus (e.g., Troy et al. 2001;Bruford et al. 2003 formtDNA). Some studies forBos indicus have taken place, however, and thesesuggest the existence of two major mitochondrialDNA haplogroups (or haplotype clusters), namely,Z1 and Z2 (Baig et al. 2005; Magee, Mannen &Bradley 2007). Based on the distribution of themodern sampled populations, the Z1 type sequenceappearsmore frequently in the western portion ofthe subcontinent and Z2 more to the east. Theexistence of these two phylogeographically dif-ferentiated haplogroups suggests that there weretwo ormore separate loci of domestication for Bosindicus in South Asia. Indeed, the mitochondrialdata would seem to support multiple maternalcontributions to the genetic make-up of moderndomestic zebu, given the amount of phylogeneticdistinctiveness evident in the Bos indicus portionof the mitochondrial DNA tree.In sum, the genetic evidence supports the likelihoodthat themodern distribution of zebu cattle resultedboth from multiple domestication events in diffe-rent parts of South Asia and from the spread of theresulting domestic animals to new areas within andoutside of subcontinent. In contrast, the situationwith sheep and goat is different both geneticallyand archaeologically.

GENES: GOAT AND SHEEP

Taking thephylogeographic situation for goats first, atpresent sixdistinctivemitochondrialDNA (mtDNA)haplogroups have been defined inmodern domesticanimals (Naderi et al. 2007, following previous stu-dies by Luikart et al. 2001 and by Joshi et al. 2004,among others).Each represents a contribution to thegoat gene pool from a different ancestral populationprobably fromwithin the speciesCapra aegagrus (butsee Pidancier et al. 2006 for the possibility of bothpaternal and maternal genetic contributions fromat least one other species). Mitochondrial DNA

group A is by far the most commonly representedamong the modern animals tested from almost allareas ofEurasia.Of the other five groups,B,C, andD are found in higher frequencies in different partsof Asia outside of West Asia. These may representrecruitment of does (female goats) into an originaldomestic stock fromother wild populations ofCapraaegagrus. In addition or alternatively, theymay reflectseparate domestication events based on local wildforms in far-flung areas of the original zone of dis-tribution ofCapra aegagrus inWestAsia (includingthe Iranian Plateau and Balochistan highlands westof the Indus Valley: Uerpmann 1987). Analysisof mtDNA sampled from modern populations ofCapra aegagrus across theMiddleEast, however, hasled Naderi et al. (2008) to suggest that there wereonly two significant centers of goat domestication –one in southeastern Anatolia/northwestern Zagros(haplogroupA) and the second in southeastern Iran(haplogroupC).They state that “our results confirmthat goats were not domesticated in the area of theIndus Valley and suggest that the early Neolithicdomestic goats in this area came from (greater than)1,000 km to the west: that is, much further thanpreviously suspected” (Naderi et al. 2008: 17663).As for domestic sheep, up to five mtDNA haplo-groups have been identified (Meadows et al. 2007,following previous work published byHiendleder etal. 2002 and by Pedrosa et al. 2005, among others).Of these, themost frequently represented inmodernpopulations tested so far are haplogroups A and B,the latter dominated by domestic individuals fromEurope, the former including animals from acrossEurasia.GroupC comprisesmostly domestic sheepfrom theMiddle East andAsia,whileD and E haverecently been identified on the basis of study of avery few individuals from the northern Caucasus(group D: Tapio et al. 2006) and from Israel andTurkey (group E:Meadows et al. 2007).However,no mtDNA from any studied extant wild sheepseems to cluster closely with themtDNA from anyof the five domestic haplogroups.This leaves openthe possibility that now-extinct populations ofwildsheep, possiblymost closely related tomodernOvisorientalis (mouflon), provided the domestic founderstock. As with goats, however, there seems to havebeenmore than one sheep domestication event (orpossibly recruitments) within the area of distribu-

Page 11: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

Occupational Histories, Settlements, and Subsistence inWestern India

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1) 183

tion of the wild forms between theMediterraneanand the Indus Valley.Based on the origin and distribution of domes-tic individuals tested at that time, Hiendlederet al. (2002) suggested that sheep haplogroup Breflects an ancestral Ovis orientalis population inWest Asia, and group A derives from a foundingmouflon population farther East. Such a scenariois supported by the work of Cai et al. (2007), whoanalyzed ancient mtDNA from eight specimensfrom the site of Erlitou (Henan Province, China,ca. 2100-1800 calBC). The results from all speci-mens were found to cluster with group A, whichwould seem to support a more eastern origin inprehistory for this group. As has also been shownby genetic analyses of ancient cattle (Bos sp.) andpig (Sus sp.) specimens, this approach to the studyof the origins and spread of domestic animals canprovide particularly valuable insights into changingpatterns of animal distribution through time (e.g.,Edwards et al. 2007, Larson et al. 2007a, 2007b).

BONES AND ARCHAEOLOGY

As early as 1981,Meadow (1981, 1984, 1993, 1996)proposed that the faunal remains from Mehrgarhprovided evidence for the local domestication ofat least cattle and sheep in eastern Balochistan(Pakistan),withwild goats being exploited togetherwith some already domestic ones. These argu-ments were based, in part, on the overall reductionin the size of the bones from each of these taxathrough time as represented in the archaeologicalrecord between ca. 7000 and 4500 calBC. Suchsize reduction could not be explained merely by ademographic shift to a decreased number of adultmales relative to adult females. This is becausethe smallest animals represented by their bones ineach cultural period from the Aceramic Neolithicinto the Chalcolithic also became smaller throughtime, and evidence for large animals disappearedalmost entirely.Concomitant with size diminutionwas increasing representation particularly of cattleand sheep in the archaeological record relative tosuch wild taxa as gazelle, blackbuck, nilgai, waterbuffalo, and deer, as well as relative to goat.Of thedomestic forms, only goat provided evidence of at

least some animals having been domesticated fromthe beginning of occupation at the site. Not onlywere small adult individuals represented early, buthuman burials were sometimes accompanied byup to five young goats all under three months ofage, suggesting ready access to herded populations(Lechevallier,Meadow & Quivron 1982).Mehgarh lies on the eastern margin of theMiddleEast, which is also today the eastern margin of thedistribution ofWestAsianwild sheep (Ovis orientalis)and wild goats (Capra aegagrus) as well as home tolocal forms ofwild sheep (Ovis vignei) andwild goat(Capra falconeri) (Uerpmann 1987,Roberts 1997).Thus these animals could have been domesticatedlocally in South Asia, albeit in an area restricted tothe northwesternmargin of the subcontinent.Wellbefore 3000 calBC, however, domestic sheep andgoat had spread into the IndusValley, to judge fromtheir remains identified from Period 1a depositsat Harappa (Punjab, Pakistan, 3700-3000 calBC:R.H. Meadow, personal communication). By themiddle of the third millennium, these animalswere widespread throughout northwestern SouthAsia, within the sphere of the Indus Civilizationand beyond. The processes and mechanisms ofthis spread remain poorly known, because there islittle information available about the archaeologyof areas east and southeast of Balochistan for thefourth and early thirdmillennia calBC.Thismakesthe findings from Loteshwar, that cover this timeperiod, that much more significant.At Loteshwar, there have been only three elementsof sheep recorded.These have been securely iden-tified and come from a context that could be lateChalcolithic or could incorporateMedieval mate-rial from a squatter settlement on top of the dune.Unfortunately, it has not been possible to datethe specimens directly, and there are no sheep orgoat bones from the Aceramic Microlithic. Thisstands in contrast to the situation at the dune topsite of Bagor in nearby southern Rajasthan (Misra1973), where the presence of sheep and goat hasbeen published for themicrolithic levels at the site(Fig. 3).These identifications, however, have beenquestioned (Meadow & Patel 2002, 2003).For all three phases of the so-called “Mesolithic”of Bagor, domestic sheep, goat, and cattle havebeen identified by two of the three analysts who

Page 12: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1)184

Patel A.K.

have reviewed the faunal remains, namely, K.R.Alur (1971) and P.K. Thomas (1975, 1977). As aresult, these analysts and other archaeologists haveperpetuated the idea that Bagor represents a caseof the adoption of pastoral practices by microli-thic-using populations of the late sixth and fifthmillennia calBC (e.g., Possehl 1999; Shinde et al.2004). In contrast, D.R. Shah (1971), the first toanalyze material from Bagor, identified only theremains of wild animals. Review of the availablepublished material suggests that the bones identi-fied as goat and sheep from at least Bagor Phase Iare actually from blackbuck and gazelle (Meadow& Patel 2002, 2003).Distinguishing sheep and goat bones from those ofblackbuck, gazelle, and even small deer is difficult inthe absence of an adequate comparative collectionof modern animals and of detailed comparativeosteological studies of thesemorphologically simi-lar forms. And since archaeological specimens arerarely complete, it is essential that zooarchaeologistsuse features that work consistently on fragmentarymaterial.Additional variables that have to be consi-dered are sex, age, size, and breeding population.Furthermore, given the nature and early dating ofa site like Bagor (Fig. 3) and the kinds of locallyavailable wild animals, identification of non-localforms such as sheep and goat warrant greater thannormal caution on the part of analysts and skep-ticism on the part of subsequent users of the data.Returning toNorthGujarat, there is securely docu-mented faunal evidence for the exploitation ofdomestic sheep and goat as well as cattle at theHarappan-affiliated thirdmillennium village site ofNagwada located on the very easternmargin of theLittle Rann of Kutch, south of Loteshwar (Fig. 1;Patel 1989).Unlikemany otherNorthGujarat sitesof this period,Nagwada has substantial architecturemade of mud-bricks and stone rubble. It is alsocharacterized by significant quantities of ceramicsand other paraphernalia that are known hallmarksof the Indus Civilization, and there is evidence forcraft activities including stone-bead and shell objectmanufacturing (Hegde et al. 1988).While the occupations ofNagwada and Loteshwarwere contemporary during the course of the midto late third millennium calBC (Fig. 3), the firstuse of Loteshwar by cattle pastoralists is much

earlier than the initial settlement of Nagwada orof other villages in the area as known to date.Thechronological priority of the Loteshwar Chalcoli-thic, together with its focus on domestic cattle tothe exclusion of goat and sheep, raises the issue ofwhat role such cattle pastoralists may have playedin communication and trade throughout the regionas well as in opening up the area for more perma-nent settlement.The long span of theChalcolithicat Loteshwar, as attested by the radiocarbon dates,combinedwith the apparently ephemeral nature ofthe settlements, can be interpreted as representingperiodic visits by mobile pastoralists who traveledto the area seasonally and who may have coveredlarge territories on their yearly rounds.

BONES, GENES, AND ARCHAEOLOGY

In the introduction, a number of questions wereposited about the development of animal husbandrywith particular reference to northwestern SouthAsia.To date, it has been possible at only one site in theregion, namely,Mehrgarh in eastern PakistaniBalo-chistan, to document something of how husbandrydeveloped between the seventh and sixthmillenniacalBC and how hunter-gatherer economies becametransformed into agro-pastoral ones. Elsewhere inSouthAsia the nature of this transformation remainsunclear, because there has been little problem-orien-ted archaeological investigation of this phenomenon.Sheep could have been domesticated from localwild stock in the highlands on northwesternmarginof South Asia – a proposal of the 1980s based onzooarchaeological evidence that has been providedsupport by genetic researchmore than 20 years later.Morphologically wild goats too, were exploited inthat region, although the degree of their possiblecontribution to what now seems to have been animported domestic gene pool remains unknown.The spread of both of these small domestic bovidsacross the subcontinent outside of the area of dis-tribution of their wild relatives had to have takenplace through the movement of people with theiranimals or through the trade of animals betweenhuman groups or both. The situation is differentfor cattle. The zebu (Bos indicus) could have beendomesticated anywherewithin the range of its wild

Page 13: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

Occupational Histories, Settlements, and Subsistence inWestern India

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1) 185

ancestor,which includedmuch of at least northernSouth Asia, and genetic evidence suggests that thislikely occurred more than once.As suggested above, one locality where local wildcattle stocks could have been domesticated isNorthGujarat, a proposal made in the late 1990s that hassince received support from the results of geneticresearch. As noted, bones of wild cattle have beenidentified on the basis of their large size from Ace-ramic Microlithic Loteshwar in deposits that thatare securely dated from the late eighth up to thesixthmillennium calBC. In the subsequentChalco-lithic period at the site, bones from domestic cattlehave been directly dated to the period betweenthe early fourth and late third millennium calBC.The people of Loteshwar, in contrast to those fromMehrgarh, however, did not herd goat or sheep.Combined with the nature of the occupation ofthe site, this focus on cattle points to a form ofdedicated, possibly mobile pastoralism that couldhave been based on local domestication of cattlein the fifth millennium calBC or earlier.The tem-poral gap between the Aceramic Microlithic andChalcolithic components at Loteshwar, however,does not permit direct documentation of such apossibility at that site.Work atLoteshwar has raised significant issues aboutchronology, site formation, seasonalilty, pastoralism,domestication, and the interpretation of archaeo-logical evidence. Dune-top settlements in NorthGujarat and southern Rajasthan have complicateddepositional histories that can be disentangled onlythrough the use of a combination of techniques thatinclude well-designed dating protocols togetherwith micro-depositional studies with a focus onindividual activity areas and episodes of occupation.As noted, the dates from Loteshwar have shownthat there is a considerable temporal gap betweenthe Aceramic Microlithic and the Chalcolithic, atleast at that site. Additional research is underwayto explore the possibilities of continuing occupa-tions at single or multiple nearby sites vis-à-visthe appearance of specific cultural practices andchanging subsistence economies.An important aspect of research on tracing ancientpastoralism during the last decade is that geneticresearch has provided another kind of evidence thatcan be employed to evaluate hypotheses and raise

new issues about the domestication of animals.In particular, it is now possible to reject the singlecenter of domestication scenario for a number spe-cies, including especially cattle, but also sheep andgoat among others. Investigating multiple localitiesof animal domestication and/or recruitment fromthe wild is now becoming an important and accep-ted archaeological and zooarchaeological endeavor.Northwestern South Asia is one such area wherethe study of genetics especially of cattle but also ofwater buffalo (not discussed here, but see Patel &Meadow1998b;Kumar et al.2007;Yang et al.2008),in conjunction with new excavations employing awide range of archaeological techniques,would likelyprovide important insights into development andspread of a mosaic of pastoral practices. The studyof ancient DNA has provided some insights intochanging patterns of animal distribution throughtime (e.g., Larson et al. 2007a, 2007b; Edwards etal. 2007). While such analyses have the potentialto make valuable contributions in the South Asiancontext, given the hot humid climatic conditionsand poor organic preservation, there is also consi-derable question about the feasibility of obtaininguseable results from such analyses in the sub-tropicaland tropical parts of the region. Perhaps new andimproved scientific techniques and applicationscould help overcome some of these disadvantagesin the future. Notwithstanding this drawback, it isclear that genetic research is an extremely valuableinvestigative approach in the study of the originsof domestic animals and their past spread acrossand between regions. It is important, however, thatinvestigators— geneticists and archaeologists alike—evaluate and understand the significance ofmodernand ancientDNA results within the contexts of thearchaeological, zooarchaeological, and genetic records.

AcknowledgementsI would like to dedicate this paper to thememoryof Stine Rossel,who has left a void both as a friendand in her potential contributions to the field ofZooarchaeology.In its initial form as “Occupational Histories,Settlement, and Subsistence Systems in WesternIndia: What the Bones Can Tell Us,” this paperwas presented in a session at the 2006 Society for

Page 14: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1)186

Patel A.K.

AmericanArchaeology annual meeting held in SanJuan, Puerto Rico. I especially would like to thankBenjamin S. Arbuckle for taking the initiative tosuccessfully organize the session and to invite meto participate in it. Ben’s perseverance, patience,and support throughout the publication processhave been essential to the completion of this paper.I would like to acknowledge the American Schoolof Prehistoric Research and the ZooarchaeologyLaboratory, Peabody Museum, Harvard Univer-sity, for funding to carry out the research uponwhich this paper is based. Anonymous reviewer(s)provided useful comments and suggestions. JadeD’alpoim Guedes and Marielle Santoni assistedwith translation into French of the title, abstract,and key words. Finally, I am grateful to RichardH.Meadow for his unfailing support through thecourse of this research. His insightful commentsand valuable help in all aspects of this paper havebeen vital to its final form.

REFERENCES

App7Uc}, B. & App7Uc} R. 1982. — The Rise ofCivilization in India and Pakistan. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

AkcGUMxl#lW P. & S0}lzl}k V.H. 1993. — TheHarappa Culture in North Gujarat: a regional para-digm. Symposium on Harappa Culture in Guja-rat: Problems and Prospects, Pune. Department ofArchaeology and Ancient History; Maharaja Sayaji-rao, University of Baroda.

Apgx K.R. 1971. — Animal Remains from Bagor.Deccan College, Pune.

BlcD M., Bkkl-Pkxkcl A., M0UlwwlW R., Kglllx}cK., FlxlU S. & LgcllxG G. 2005. — Phylogeogra-phy and origin of Indian domestic cattle. CurrentScience 89: 38-40.

BxlWpk| D.G., Ml7UgDU D.E., Cg}}c}DUlw P. &L0+Gg# R.T. 1996. — Mitochondrial diversity andthe origins of African and European cattle. Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Science of USA(PNAS) 93: 5131-5135.

Bxg+0xW M.W., BxlWkp| D.G. & LgcllxG G. 2003.— DNA markers reveal the complexity of livestockdomestication. Nature Reviews Genetics 4: 900-910.

Clc D.-W., Hl} L., ZUl}D X-L., ZU0g H. &ZUg H. 2007. – DNA analysis of archaeologicalsheep remains from China. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 34: 1347-1355.

Dlyc# S.J.M. 1980. — A note on the dental and ske-letal ontogeny of Gazella, Israel. Journal of Zoology29: 129-134.

EWzlxW# C.J., B0pp0}Dc}0 R., S7Ukg A., CUlw-$kxplc} A., Txk##kG A., VcD}k J-D., BlcxW J.F.,Llx#0} G., H0 S.Y.W., HkgMc}l T.H., SUlMcx0B., Fxkkwl} A.R.,TU0wl#M.G., Ax$0Dl#G R.M.,Ax}WG B., BlxG0#ckzc7# L., Bk}k7lk N., BgWklM., CUlc{ L., CU0|lk A.M., C0ggkgD}c0G E.,D5Upk H.J., G5pW}kx H., HlxG# S., Hkpwkx D.,Hkx#cD B., H0}D0 H., Ml#Ul0gx M., O#W0-Dl} M., Pg7Ukx E., R0GU G., S7UlWk-Lc}WcDS., S7Uw5p7lk U., S7UgpGc}D R.J., SkMUl} E.,UkxMwl}} H-P., V5x5# I., V0|Gkl B., BxlWpk|D.G. & BgxDkx J. 2007. – Mitochondrial DNAanalysis shows a Near Eastern Neolithic origin fordomestic cattle and no indication of domesticationof European aurochs. Proceedings of the Royal SocietyB 274: 1616-1377.

HkDWk K.T.M. { S0}lzl}k V.H. 1986— Landscapeand settlement pattern of Harappa culture villagesin Rupan Estuary. Man and Environment. Journalof the Indian Society for Prehistoric and QuaternaryStudies 10: 23-31.

HkDWk K.T.M., S0}lzl}k V.H., SUlU D.R., BUl}K.K., AkcGUMxl#lW P., Kxc#U}l} P. & CUl}Wxl}S.P. 1988. — Excavation at Nagwada, 1986 and1987: a preliminary report. Man and Environ-ment. Journal of the Indian Society for Prehistoric andQuaternary Studies 12: 55-65.

Hck}WpkWkx S., KlgMk B., Wl##wgGU R. & Jl}lk A.2002. — Molecular analysis of wild and domesticsheep questions current nomenclature and providesevidence for domestication from two different subs-pecies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 269: 893-904.

Indian Archaeology: a Review OIARU. — ArchaeologicalSurvey of India: New Delhi. 1982-83: 28; 1985-86:20-22, 24; 1986-87: 30-31; 1987-88: 19-20; 1988-89: 12-17; 1989-90: 25-26; 1990-91: 12-18; 1991-92: 19-20; 1992-93: 19, 22-26; 1993-94: 31-33 &140; 1994-95: 11-18.

J0#Uc M.B., R0gG P.K., Ml}Wlp A.K., T|pkx-SwcGUC., Sc}DU L. & TUl}Dlxlk K. 2004. — Phylogeo-graphy and origin of Indian domestic goats. Mole-cular Biology and Evolution 12(3): 454-462.

Kgwlx S., NlDlxlkl} M., Sl}WUg J.S., Kgwlx N.& BkUp V. — 2007. Phylogeography and domesti-cation of Indian river buffalo. Evolutionary Biology7(186): 1-8.

Llx#0} G., Ap$lxkppl U., D0$}k| K., R0zpk|-C0}z| P., S7Uc$pkx J., Txk##kG A., VcD}kJ.-D., EWzlxW# C.J., S7pgw$lgw A., Dc}g A.,Bqpq?#k#7g A., D0pwl} G., TlDpcl70##0 A.,Ml}l#kx|l} N., Mcxl7pk P., Vl} Wck}DllxWk}-Blllkx L., Ml##kGc M., BxlWkp| D.G. & C00MkxA. 2007a — Ancient DNA, pig domestication,and the spread of the Neolithic into Europe. PNAS104(39): 15276-15281.

Llx#0} G., Cg77Uc T., Ml#lllG#g F., MlGc#00-SwcGU E., R0$c}# J., A}Wkx#0} A., R0pkGG B.,SMxcDD#M., D0pwl} G., Kcw T-H., TUg| N.T.D.,Rl}Wc E., D0UkxG| M., Dgk R.A.W., B0pG B.,

Page 15: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

Occupational Histories, Settlements, and Subsistence inWestern India

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1) 187

Dkg$cl}G0}0 T., Gxc++c} B., I}G0U M., Kkl}kE., Kcx7U P., Lc K-T., M0xz00W M., PkWxc}lL.M., PcMkx P.J., Rl$kGG R.J., SU00Gkx P., Vl}Dk} BkxDU G., Wk#G E., Wc7lpkx S., Ygl} J.,C00Mkx A.& D0$}k| K. 2007b — Phylogeny andancient DNA of Sus provides insights intoNeolithicexpansion in Island Southeast Asia and Oceania.PNAS 104(12): 4834-4839.

Lk7Ukylppckx M. 2003. — L’Industrie lithique deMehrgarh : Fouilles 1974-1985. Éditions Recherchesur les Civilisations, Paris.

Lk7Ukylppckx M., MklW0z R.H. & Qgcyx0} G.1982. — Dépôts d’animaux dans les sépulturesnéolithiques de Mehrgarh, Pakistan. Paléorient8(1) : 99-106.

L0+Gg# R.T., Ml7UgDU D.E., BxlWpk| D.G., SUlxMP.M.& Cg}}c}DUlw P. 1994.— Evidence for twoindependent domestications of cattle. PNAS 91:2757-2761.

LgcllxG G., Gckpp| L., E{70++ckx L., VcD}k, J.-D.,B0gykG J. & Tl$kxpkG P. 2001.—Multiple mater-nal origins and weak phylogeographic structure indomestic goats. PNAS 98: 5927-5932.

MlDkk D.A., Ml}}k} H. & BxlWkp| D.E. 2007.— Duality in Bos indicus mtDNA diversity: Sup-port for geographic complexity in zebu domesti-cation, in PkGxlDpcl M.D. & App7Uc} B. (eds),The Evolution and History of Human Populations:Inter-disciplinary Studies in Archaeology, BiologicalAnthropology, Linguistics and Genetics. Springer,Dordrecht: 385-391.

MklW0z R.H. 1981. — Early animal domesticationin South Asia: a first report of the faunal remainsfrom Mehrgarh, Pakistan, in HvxGkp H. (ed.),South Asian Archaeology 1979. Dietrich ReimerVerlag, Berlin: 143-179.

MklW0z R.H. 1984. — Animal domestication inthe Middle East: a view from the eastern margin, inCpgGG0}-Bx07l J.&GxcD#0}C. (eds), Animals andArchaeology 3. Early Herders and their Flocks. BARInternational Series 202. Archaeopress, Oxford:309-337.

MklW0z R.H. 1992. — In-conclusive remarks onpastoralism, nomadism, and other animal relatedmatters, in Blx-Y0#k+ O. & KUl#l}0y A. (eds),Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materialsin Anthropological Perspectives Madison. PrehistoryPress, Madison (WI): 261-269.

MklW0z R.H. 1993. — Animal domestication in theMiddle East: a revised view from the eastern mar-gin, in P0##kUp G.L. (ed.), Harappan Civilization.Second revised edition. Oxford & IBH, New Delhi:295-320.

MklW0z R.H. 1996. — The origins and spread ofagriculture and pastoralism in northwestern SouthAsia, in Hlxxc# D.R. (ed.), The origins and spreadof agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia. UCL Press,London: 390-412.

MklW0z R. H. & PlGkp A.K. 2002. – From Mehr-garh to Harappa and Dholavira: prehistoric pasto-ralism in North-Western South Asia through theHarappan Period, in SkGGlx S. & K0xc#kGGlx Rlyc(eds), Indian Archaeology in Retrospect. Volume II.Protohistory: Archaeology of the Harappan Civiliza-tion. Indian Council of Historic Research, Mano-har, New Delhi: 391-408.

MklW0z R.H. & PlGkp A.K. 2003. — Prehisto-ric pastoralism in Northwestern South Asia fromthe Neolithic through the Harappan Period, inWk$kx S. & Bkp7Ukx W. (eds), Indus Ethnobiology:New Perspectives from the Field. Lexington Books,Lanham, MD: 65-93.

MklW0z# J.R.S., Ckwlp I., Klxl7l O., G00Gzc}kE. & Kckl# J.W. – 2007. Five Ovine mitochrondriallineages identified from sheep breed of the NearEast. Genetics 175: 1371-1379.

Mc#xl V.N. 1973. — Bagor - a Late Mesolithic sett-lement in North-West India. World Archaeology 5:92-110.

Mc#xl V.N. 1985. — Microlithic industries in India,in Mc#xl V.N. & Bkppz00W P. (eds), Recentadvances in Indo-Pacific prehistory. Oxford & IBH,New Delhi: 111-122.

Mc#xl V.N. 1996. — Mesolithic India: history andcurrent status of research, in A+l}l#’ky G.E., Cpkg-#c0g S., Lgll7# J.R. & T0#c M. (eds), The prehis-tory of Asia and Oceania. Colloquium XXXII. SeriesColloquia, The Colloquia of the XIII InternationalUnion of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences 16.ABACO, Forli: 245-250.

NlWkxc S., Rk#lc H-Z., Tl$kxpkG P., Zg}Wkp S.,Rl+lG S-A., NlDl#U H-R., Ep-Blx0W| M.A.A.,ExGgDxgpO.& P0wMl}0} F. 2007.— Large-scalemitochondrial DNA analysis of domestic goatsreveals six haplogroups with high diversity. PLoSONE 10 (e1012): 1-12.

NlWkxc, S., Rk#lc H-Z., P0wMl}0} F., BpgwM.G.B., NkDxc}ck R., NlDl#U H-R., Blplc# Ö.,Ml#Ul0gx M., GlDDc0GGcl O.E., Akw0}k-Mlx-#l} P., Kk}7k+ A., VcD}k J.-D. { Tl$kxpkG P.2008. — The goat domestication process inferredfrom large-scale mitochondrial DNA analysis ofwild and domestic individuals. PNAS 105(46):17659-17664.

PlGkp A.K. 1989. — Vertebrate Archaeofauna fromNagwada: a Preliminary Study. M.A. Dissertation.Department of Archaeology and Ancient History,Faculty of Arts,M.S. University of Baroda, Baroda.

PlGkp A.K. 1997. — The pastoral economy of Dho-lavira: a first look at animals and urban life in thirdmillennium Kutch, in App7Uc} R. & App7Uc} B.(eds), South Asian Archaeology 1995. Oxford &IBH, New Delhi: 101-113.

PlGkp A.K. 2008.— New radiocarbon determinationsfrom Loteshwar and their implications for unders-tanding Holocene settlement and subsistence inNorth Gujarat and adjoining areas, in Rlyk} E.M.

Page 16: OccupationalHistories,Settlements and ...sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/az2009n1a8.pdf · OccupationalHistories,Settlements, and SubsistenceinWesternIndia:

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2009 • 44 (1)188

Patel A.K.

(ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1999. Egbert Forsten,Leiden: 123-134.

PlGkp A.K. & MklW0z R.H. 1998a. — The problemof blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) and gazelle(Gazella bennetti) in the identification of faunalremains from northwestern South Asia. Paper presen-ted at the Fourth International Conference on theArchaeozoology of Southwest Asia (and AdjacentAreas).Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris,29 June 1998. S.e. S.v.

PlGkp A.K. & MklW0z R.H. 1998b. — The exploi-tation of wild and domestic water buffalo in prehis-toric northwestern South Asia, in BgcGk}Ugc# H.,BlxG0#ckzc7# L. & CU0|lk A.M. (eds), Archaeo-zoology of the Near East III. Centre for Archaeolo-gical Research and Consultancy, Rijksuniversiteit,Groningen: 180-199.

PkWx0#l S., U#g} M., Axxl}# J.-J., GgcGcnxxk#-GcpB., PxcwcGcy0 F.S. & Bl|2} Y. 2005 — Evidenceof three maternal lineages in near eastern sheepsupporting multiple domestication events. PNAS B272: 2211-2217.

PcWl}7ckx N., J0xWl} S., LgcllxG G. & Tl$kxpkGP. 2006. — Evolutionary history of the genus capra(Mammalia, Artiodactyla): Discordance betweenmitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome. MolecularPhylogenetics and Evolution 40: 739-749.

P0##kUp G.L. 1999. — Indus Age: The Beginnings.University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

P0##kUp G.H., & Rc##wl} P.C. — 1992. The chro-nology of Prehistoric India: from earliest times toIron Age, in EUxc7U R.W. (ed.), Chronologies inOld World Archaeology. 3rd edition. University ofChicago Press, Chicago: vol. 1: 465-490; vol. 2:447-474.

Rkcwkx P.J., Blcppck M.G.L., BlxW E., Bl|pc## A.,Bk7l J.W., BkxGxl}W C., Bpl7lzkpp J.H., PlgpG., Bg7l C.E., Bgxx G.S., CgGpkx K.B., Dlw0}P.E., EWzlxW# R.L., Flcx$l}l# R.G., FxckWxc7UM., GgcpWkx#0} T.P., H0DD A.G, HgDUk} K.A.,Kx0wkx B., M7C0xwl7 G., Ml}}c}D S., Bx0}lR.C., Rkcwkx R.W., Rkwwkpk S., S0gGU0} J.R.,SGgcykx M., Tlplw0 S., Tl|p0x F.W., Vl} DkxPpc7UG J. & Wk|Uk}wk|kx C.E. (2004). – Int-Cal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3): 1029-1058.

R0$kxG# T.J. 1997. — The Mammals of Pakistan.Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York;Karachi; Delhi.

Sl}llpcl H.D. 1946. — Investigations into prehistoricarchaeology of Gujarat. (Sri Pratapsimha MaharajaRajyabhisheka Grantha-mala). Memoire 4. BarodaState Press, Baroda.

Sl}llpcl H.D. 1965. — Excavations at Langhnaj:1944-63. Part I: Archaeology. Deccan CollegePostgraduate and Research Institute, Poona.

Sl}llpcl H.D. 1974. — The Prehistory and Protohis-tory of India and Pakistan. Deccan College Postgra-duate and Research Institute, Poona.

Sl}llpcl H.D. 1987. — Prehistoric and historicarchaeology of Gujarat. Munshiram Manoharlal,New Delhi.

SUlU D.R. 1971. — A note on unmodified animalremains from Bagor. Eastern Anthropologist 24(3):319-320.

SUc}Wk V., Dk#UMl}Wk S.S. & Yl#gWl Y. 2004. —Human response to Holocene climatic change: Acase study of western India between 5th and 3rdmillennia BC, in Yl#gWl Y. & SUc}Wk V. (eds),Monsoon and Civilization. International ResearchCenter for Japanese Studies. Lustre Press; RoliBooks, New Delhi : 383-406.

S0}lzl}k V.H.& AkcGUMxl#lW P. 1994.—HarrappaCulture and Gujarat. Man and Environment. Jour-nal of the Indian Society of Prehistoric and Quater-nary Studies 19(1-2): 129-139.

SGgcykx M. & Rkcwkx P.J. 1993. — Extended (super14) C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 (super 14)C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35(1):215-230.

TlMc0 M., Mlx#l}0y N., O#kx0y M., Ćc}lgp0yM., G0}#lxk}l0 G., Kc#kp|0yl T., Mgxlz#lcM., Vcc}lpl## H. & Kl}Gl}k} J. 2006. — Sheepmitochondrial DNA variation in European, Cauca-sian, and Central Asian areas. Molecular Biology andEvolution 23(9): 1776-1783.

TU0wl# P.K. 1975. — Role of animals in the foodeconomy of the Mesolithic culture of western andcentral India, in Cpl#0} A.T. (ed.), Archaeozoologi-cal Studies. North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam:322-328.

TU0wl# P.K. 1977. — Archaeozoological Aspects of thePrehistoric Cultures ofWestern India. Ph.D. Disserta-tion. University of Poona, Pune.

Tx0| C.S., Ml7UgDU D.E., Blcpk| J.F., MlDkk D.A.,L0+Gg# R.T., Cg}}cDUlw P., CUlw$kxplc} A.T.,S|lk# B.C. & BxlWkp| B.C. 2001 — Genetic evi-dence for Near-Eastern origins of European cattle.Nature 410: 1088-1091.

UkxMwl}} H.-P. 1987. — The Ancient Distribution ofUngulate Mammals in the Middle East and NortheastAfrica. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden.

Yl}D D.Y., Lcg L., CUk} X. & SMkppkx C.F. 2008.— Wild or domesticated: DNA analysis of ancientwater buffalo remains from North China. Journal ofArchaeological Science 35(10): 2778-2785.

Submitted on 1st May 2008;accepted on 24 April2009.