Animal domestication : an archeological interpretation

Presented by

Harriet Caroline Dinegar
Class of 1977

SWEET
BRIAR

COLLEGE
LIBRARY

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2010 with funding from

Lyrasis IVIembers and Sloan Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/animaldomesticatOOdine

Sf'EET P"!ft' COLLEGE LISRARY
S¥,'EET eaiAft. VA 24595

ANIMAL DOMESTICATION:
AN ARCHEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
by
Harriet C. Dinegar

Date: v

C\p.v..6 ■'^■'-j /1 77

Approved:

'' '- '■-'- •-

.^. r>t^--

Ann I. Ottesen, Thesis Advisor

Michael/. Hoffman, Outside Reader

Robin Carter, Department of
Anthropology, Sweet Briar College

A thesis

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree with Honors

in Anthropology

Sweet Briar College
Sweet Briar, Virginia
April, 1977

n77

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I
DOMESTICATION:

DEFINITION AND ESSENTIAL
CHARACTERISTICS

1

11

1

CHAPTER II

THE RECOGNITION OF DOMESTICATION IN THE
ARCHEOLOGICAL RECORD

16

CHAPTER III

FORMS OF DOMESTICATION

predomestication

simple domestication

advanced animal management

incipient domestication

model: Molino Cassarotto

CHAPTER IV

MODEL: INCIPIENT DOMESTICATION IN THE
PARIS BASIN
Introduction

present environment

stratigraphy

paleoenvironment

reindeer ecology
Hypothesis

Criteria for testing
Testing

contemporary occupation

seasonal occupation

human dependence upon reindeer

discrepancies in age/sex ratios

slaughter patterns

CONCLUSIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY

26

26
30
33
37
43

49

49
49
52
53
55
57
57

58
69
72
82
85

87
91

173423

ABSTRACT

Animal domestication is an ongoing relationship between man and
animals characterized by the manipulation or control of the animals'
behavior by man. The relationship exists in several forms, which are
differentiated by the degree and particular manifestations of control
exercised over the animals. Each form of domestication may be recog-
nized archeologically on the basis of material manifestations of the
particular form of control by which it is characterized. No form of
domestication is unique to a given culture, economy, or period in
sociocultural evolution. The relationship has occurred in each of
its forms among vastly different cultures since ten thousand years ago,
and appears to have occurred, in a relatively non-complex form as many
as fifteen thousand years ago among Magdalenian reindeer herders in
North Central France.

INTRODUCTION

This thesis represents an investigation into the nature of a
relationship between man and his environment, and the exploration of
the possibility of that relationships having occurred in a particu-
lar form as one adaptation of a human population to its habitat. To
be investigated is the relationship in which man and animals are
engaged in the process of domestication. Once the nature of this re-
lationship and its various forms has been determined, it will be possi-
ble to outline its material manifestations, and to establish criteria
by which each form of domestication may be recognized archeologically .
Principles and criteria set forth in the first section will be applied
in the second, in order to determine the possible existence of a rudi-
mentary form of domestication in Upper Palaeolithic France.

It is not the purpose of the model to detail the economic and
subsistence activities of a prehistoric people. Neither is it to pin-
point the origin of domestication. Both are quite unrealistic goals,
and their pursuit would in any case, contribute little to this study.
The model is constructed, rather, to relate certain theoretical ideas,
in the form of a hypotl.jiis, to observable facts. The relation of
ideas to observations will be accomplished through a series of tests

ii

based on criteria previously established. Verification of the original
hypothesis through the formulation of the correct tests is the purpose
of the model.

Validation of the model will re-emphasize the nature of domesti-
cation as a symbiotic relationship and will discredit the notion that
domestication can be considered an event or invention associated with
a particular stage in cultural evolution. Moreover, it will strengthen

the suspicions of a growing number of anthropologists who imagine that

of
the occurrence^domestication, probably the single most important con-
tributing factor in the HeolilfiCo revolution, could have preceeded the
revolution by thousands of years. The very suggestion that domesti-
cation could have been significant in the economic and subsistence
patterns of human populations well before the Neolithic is a revo-
lutionary one. It reflects an understanding of the nature of domesti-
cation different from all previous impressions, and exposes potenti-
alities for research in areas yet unexplored. The realization of one
of those immense potentialities constitutes the significance of this
thesis. Archeological material, thought to have reflected a hunting
subsistence economy in the Upper Paleolithic Paris Basin will be
re-examined and tested with a different understanding. The findings
may be revolutionary.

In preparation for the model, the first chapter will consider some
existing theories of the nature and origin of domestication. The
second will introduce the establishment and employment of selected
criteria which can aid in the recognition of domestication from
archeological evidence. Description of the several forms of domesti-

iil

cation, and the means of Identifying them archeologically will be
discussed in the third chapter, and the model will be the subject of
the last.

Iv

CHAPTER ONE

DOMESTICATION: DEFINITION AND ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS

The body of literature dealing in one way or another with animal
domestication is enormous. In this chapter, a sampling of existing
theories concerning the nature and origins of domestication will be
examined and criticized, the purpose being to establish a preliminary,
workable definition, and to outline the essential characteristics of
domestication. Definitions are suitable for listing distinguishing
characteristics of objects, but must be used cautiously in the study
of processes or relationships which may be extremely varied in form
and function. They will be used here only in^so__^far as they indicate
the essential factors involved in, and characteristics associated with
domestication.

On a very general, if not somewhat abstract, level domestication
can be defined in terms of a "continuum or spectrum of symbiotic
relationships between man on the one hand, and plants and animals on
the other" (Smith 1966: 9). Domestication appears neither as a single
event nor as a condition imposed on one species by another; but rather
as an ongoing, mutually beneficial relationship between the two species.
The relationship is further qualified by Bokbnyi , who defines domesti-

cation as "man's special interference in the lives of certain animal
species" (Bokonyi 1969: 211). It is man's special, or conscious, inter-
ference which makes animal domestication more than a simple symbiotic
relationship. Watson notes that there is one factor in particular which
distinguishes domestication from predation and other symbiotic relation-
ships (Watson 1969: 69). That factor is control.

Students of domestication are in fair agreement that animal domesti-
cation is a relationship in which man has control over animals. Differ-
ences of opinion become apparent, however, when the attempt is made to
specify the extent to which an animal's behavior must be controlled
by man in order to classify the relationship as one involving domesti-
cation.

While Bokonyi is rather vague in defining domestication, he is
quite specific in explaining what he calls the essence of it: "the
capture and taming by man of animals of a species with particular be-
havioral characteristics, and their maintenance under controlled breed-
ing conditions for profit" (Bokonyi 1969: 219). The nature and degree
of control necessary to capture, tame, isolate, and selectively breed
animals is so specialized that it could hardly be essential to all forms
of domestication. As will be shown, the degree of control exercised by
man over animals varies greatly, and in some cases in which domesti-
cation has occurred the animal's behavior is not obviously restricted.
What Bokonyi outlined is not the essence of domestication, but rather
the implications of it. It is of utmost importance in this study that
the definition of dome ..Jicat ion not be confused with its implications.
While such activities as taming and breeding are often associated with

-3-

domestication, and indeed cannot be carried out in the absence of it,
they are by no means essential to its existence. They have no place,
therefore, in an objective definition. It is evident that domestication
involves two major factors: the domesticator and the domesticate. Each
must be considered not only as it interacts in a given relationship, i.e.
domestication, but also as it existed outside of that relationship. In
order to understand the animal's position in domestication, one must
consider not only the domesticated animal, but also the animal in its
wild state. Likewise, to appreciate man's role in domestication, one
must consider his role as a predator as well as a domesticator. Man's
involvement in domestication as other than a domesticator is denied
by some, and ignored by most. This is unfortunate, as it is an extreme-
ly important point in a discussion of the nature of domestication, and
is even more crucial to the archeological investigation of its simpler
forms.

The particular way in which these factors are related in domesti-
cation is described as a process. As in any process, there must be an
initial and a terminal form (although neither may be recognizable as
such), and there must be at least one intermediate form. Development
in processes is not necessarily from less to more complex, and any
form may be considered to be situated at the beginning or the end, de-
pending upon the point of reference. It is important to make the dis-
tinction here between ''process'' and "progress". "Process" describes
development of natural phenomena; ''progress" implies movement from one
situation to another, more complex one. To date, no one has proven
(although many have tried) that once domestication occurs, it steadily

evolves along a predictable path, approaching and passing successively
more complex stages until it reaches the ultimate one. Conversely, it
has been observed that within a given society, a relatively complex
form of domestication can be succeeded by a less complex form (Binford
1972).

In many instances, man/animal relationships involving domestication
do seem to have evolved from less to more complex. These relationships,
as subsistence patterns, never exist in isolation from other culture
patterns, and their development in any direction can usually be shown
to be accompanied by development of other patterns in that same di-
rection.

Domestication is, then, a process which is not characterized by
a series of progressive stages. It is a relationship which can be
realized in any of several forms. Each form is distinguished by the
extent and nature of the control which man exercises over the animals.

Just when, where, and for what reason man began to control the
behavior of animals is much debated. Of the theories which attempt
to situate the beginnings of domestication in man's cultural history,
the "stage" and "evolutionary" theories (as advanced most notably by
Morgan) have been fairly well discredited. In those schemes, the
various forms of domestication are identified with certain types of
social organization which are arranged in order of complexity - the
least complex being the earlier, and inferior form.

A similar orthogenetic theory put forth by Braldwood (1960) main-
tains that domestication occurred as the natural result of the steadily
increasing cultural differentiation which began in the Early Mesolithic.

-5-

The ethnographer Sten Paterson (1956) suggests that the earliest forms
of domestication appeared concomitantly with the sophistication of
tool technology which began in the Upper Paleolithic. The reindeer is
believed by Paterson to have been one of the first domesticates, having
become domesticated as a sort of "hunting device". According to
Lappish tradition, early reindeer hunters trapped their prey in pits
and snares. They later learned to capture young animals with which
they lured wild reindeer into traps. The young decoy animals con-
stituted the beginnings of domestic herds.

Binford (1972) also believes that domestication occurred as part
of, and in response to larger developments. Contrary to Paterson's
belief that the occurrence of domestication represents more efficient
exploitation of a particular resource, is Binford's which maintains
that domestication occurred as a survival response to situations of
stress characterized by disequilibrium between a population and avail-
able resources (Binford 1972: 436). In such situations, there would
clearly be a selective advantage to any activity such as domestication
which would increase the efficacy of subsistence technology.

Stress situations which would be likely to foster domestication
could be caused by environmental changes. Childe (1951) contends that
environmental change was indeed the probable cause of domestication.
He writes:

"The conditions of incipient desiccation
would provide the stimulus towards the adaption
of a food-producing economy. Enforced concentration
by the bank's of streams and shrinking springs would
entail an iuc.^nsive search for means of nourishment.
Animals and men would be herded together in cases
that were becoming increasingly isolated desert tracts.
Such enforced juxtaposition might promote that sort of
symbiosis between man and beast implied by the word
domestication (Childe 1951: 23-25)."

The symbiotic relationship between man and beast, once begun,
would continue to evolve. The animals would remain near man's settle-
ments, where they would find protection from predators, and food in
the stubble of harvested crops (Childe 1936: 67-68). All the while,
Childe explains, man would be familiarizing himself with the animals,
and he would eventually begin to practice selective slaughter - elimi-
nating the most untractable animals in order to create a more manage-
able herd.

Childe's theory is unusual among the earliest speculations as to
the conditions under which the domestication of animals first occurred,
in that it recognizes the symbiotic nature of the relationship. That
domestication involves a symbiotic relationship is a very important
observation, for it allows domestication to be considered a process,
rather than an event or activity invented by man. It is doubtful,
however, that Childe's impression of the development of the relation-
ship to include first feeding, then selective slaughter of the animals,
is a correct one. He is not alone in assuming that the feeding of
animals is essential to their domestication. Erich Isaac is a chief
proponent of the theory that animal domestication could only have
occurred where there were settled agricultural communities, because
of the food requirements of domestic animals.

Isaac points to the near East as the place in which the domesti-
cation of herd animals first occurred (Isaac 1970). It was in that
region that most wild herd animals lived during the Upper Paleolithic
and Mesolithic. It is Ifnown that from at least the Mesolithic, the
human inhabitants of that area were sedentary farmers or pastoral

nomads. Complexes of the nomadic peoples often bordered on areas
occupied by farmers who kept the same animal species which were known
to the nomads. Isaac points out that in areas not adjacent to farming
complexes, no form of pastoralism developed from hunting nomadism. In
fact, he claims, hunters are incapable of recognizing and fully ex-
ploiting the potential of domesticable animals. Even if a domestic
animal is given to hunting nomads, they will not become pastoral nomads.
The bison hunting Indians of North America provide Isaac with the
perfect illustration, for after the horse was introduced to them, they
did not become pastoral nomads, but simply hunting nomads on horse-
back (Isaac 1970: 47).

That they are incapable of recognizing the potential for domesti-
cation is probably just as well for hunting peoples, for their economies
and subsistence bases do not provide for the upkeep of animals. The
vast stores of grain needed to feed domestic stock are possible only
in agriculturally - based economies, and rather well developed ones, at
that. Material proof that animals were first domesticated by agricultur-
al peoples is to be found in all societies in which domestication exists.
According to Isaac's analysis (and imagination)., every style of harness
and all techniques of animal handling are obvious carry-overs from
pastoral societies (Isaac 1970).

The arguments suggesting that animal domestication began among
incipient agriculturalists in the Near East are provocative, but not
terribly convincing. Isaac and other proponents of the same idea base
their argument on the knowledge of a relatively limited geographical
area. That area is well documented in the archeological record, and it

seems fairly certain that the situation which they describe did indeed
exist. It is quite possible that pastoral and hunting nomads lived in
close association, but that only the pastoralists and hunters - turned -
pastoralists were doraesticators. Whether or not this situation existed
proves little, however, about the origin of domestication elsewhere.
The fact is that archeological evidence is mounting which suggests that
the way in which domestication may have occurred in the Near East does
not represent a pattern, and that it may have occurred in other parts
of the world under very different circumstances.

The apparent refusal of some hunters to practice domestication and
adapt a pastoral way of life when it is offered to them is not indicative
of the incompatibility of hunting and domestication. Both hunting and
domestication are means of subsistence. Domestication can also be a
means of food production, as it insures adequate and readily available
food reserves. Food production requires a certain amount of continued
effort in order for it to be successful. Human groups are not naturally
drawn to food production, and engage in it only if it offers a distinct
improvement over the existing system. As long as one system adequately
satisfies the basic needs of the group, and does not demand an amount
of effort disproportionate to the amount of benefit received, that system
is not likely to be discarded in favor of another one. Thus, although
the bison-hunting Indians may well have recognized the potential for
domestication, the prospect of changing from a successful hunting econo-
my to a pastoral one may not have been an appealing one. Being shifting
opportunists, as humans tend to be, they did employ the domestic horse
in their existing system by using it to more efficiently exploit the bison.

-9-

Domestic animals, then, do not, in every case represent a mobile
food supply. They may also be used as the plow and wheel are used - to
exploit the environment as efficiently as possible. Whether and how
they figure into a group's subsistence activities depends on two factors:
cost and benefit. No one subsistence pattern necessarily precludes the
domestication of animals.

The assumption that large stores of fodder are a necessary prere-
quisite for domestication reflects a misunderstanding of the concept of
domestication. Dependence upon man for food and protection may follow
domestication, but it is not a fundamental characteristic of it.
Reindeer are domesticated in many areas of Scandinavia and Siberia, and
yet are not dependent upon man but for occasional hand-outs. In fact,
it has not been until recent times, and only in certain societies (the
United States, for example) that large numbers of herd animals have
become dependent on man for the bulk of their food. In such instances,
the animals have been conditioned into dependency. Animals simply do
not exist where there is insufficient food. If they are found in
areas which cannot support them, then it is because man has put them
there. To move animals from their natural habitants, or into unnatural
concentrations and to keep thera there is to exercise control over them.
An animal so controlled is domesticated. It is not the way in which
the animal is made to be dependent upon man, but rather the fact that
its behavior is altered by man which makes it a domesticated animal.
Therefore, vast stores of grain are necessary only if an already do-
mesticated, that is, controlled, animal is to be kept outside of its
natural environment.

-10-

One of the reasons Isaac places the origin of domestication in
the Near East is because it is the natural territory of all domesti-
cable herd animals (with the exception of the reindeer which Isaac claims
was domesticated in imitation of other domesticates Ctfieat I'S'O")) • ^t
must be assumed that it was necessary to feed the domesticated animals
because they were either a.) kept in unnatural concentration, b.) fed
a special diet in order to develop in a certain way, or c.) forced to
remain in an area during seasons in which the natural food source
diminished. In each case, the extra food would be needed to compensate
for the animal's being forced into an unnatural situation. It is not
the fact that the animal is fed which makes it a domesticate. It must
be fed because it has been domesticated and forced to live in other than
its natural environment.

It is interesting that archeologists and ethnographers such as Isaac,
Laufer, and Hatt use the analysis of harness style as a sort of last -
ditch effort to prove the agricultural origins of animal domestication.
In essence, they hope to convince that the "striking" similarity be-
tween harnesses used by reindeer drivers and incipient farmers is ex-
plained by the diffusion of those styles from the pastoral societies in
which domestication and all associated paraphanalia originated, to the
hunting societies which imitated the practices of the pastoralists.
There is indeed similarity in harness style, but it is more logically
the result of parallel evolution than diffusion of culture traits.

If an object is to be pulled by an animal, then the animal's energy
must be transferred to it. Usually, loads pulled or carried by animals
are too heavy or cumbersome for men to handle. Were men able to handle

.11-

a load easily, they would not go to the considerable trouble of harness-
ing an animal for the task. It is to the man's advantage to harness the
animal in such a way as to allow for the most efficient transfer of
energy from the animal to the object. In all draft animals, the "pulling
power" originates in the thoracic or shoulder region. It is not sur-
prising that pulling harnesses consist of a horizontal piece of wood,
leather, or other strong material, placed across the chest or neck, and
at least one piece connecting that part of the animal with the object
pulled. All harness styles are variations of this one theme.

Likewise, similarity of milking methods and other animal handling
techniques does not necessarily indicate a common origin. There are just
so many ways in which an animal can be milked efficiently. There can
be only limited variation, too, in the ways animals are branded, cas-
trated, or hobbled. Such techniques evolved similarly within different
cultures as responses to similar demands.

Analysis of the evolution of handling techniques is only used to
illustrate or confirm the notion that the domestication of animals
first occurred in Near Eastern pastoral societies. The theory that it
must have begun in an area where agriculture was known is based on
other ideas which emphasize the importance of animal keeping. That
particular form of domestication, which is believed by some to have
been the original, could not have occurred before the Mesolithic, by
which time the economy and settlement patterns could support and profit
from the upkeep of domestic animals. On the other hand, it is hypothe-
sized that domestication occurred much earlier in some instances, as
part of the natural development of hunting economies. It could have

-12-

occurred in any area where hunting was the principal means of subsistence,
and during any time period, providing that the economy and technology
were sufficiently developed.

Both of these theories assume that the reason for domestication
wherever and whenever it first occurred was economic. Economic moti-
vation seems likely, although there are interesting arguments to the
contrary. Edward Hahn suspects that in some places where domesti-
cation has occurred, the economic motivation was not strong enough to
outweigh the difficulty in domestication of certain wild animals.
Cattle, for instance, must have been extremely difficult to domesti-
cate. Wild adults were too hard to capture, and probably wouldn't have
reproduced in captivity for some time, and the young needed large
quantities of milk which primitive man had no way of supplying. There
must, therefore, have been some reason why he would expend the effort
to domesticate cattle and forfeit the. rewards usually associated with
domestication. Hahn suggests that primitive man was motivated by
religion. Animals were domesticated, perhaps, so that they could be
bred for certain qualities (color, shape of horn, etc.) which were
of religious significance (Hahn, in Paterson 1956: 105).

Religion is a source of powerful motivation for man, it is true,
but except in certain monastic communities, it is not as strong as
the desire to protect or improve a food source. Furthermore, controlled
breeding for the reproduction of specific traits is a characteristic of
animal husbandry, which can occur only after domestication. Controlled
fertility and supervised breeding are made possible by domestication;
they are not prerequisites for its existence.

■ 13-

Paterson notes that in the study of domestication, it is as
important to understand the human psychology as it is to recognize the
dispositions of animals. He relates the Lappish belief that after
reindeer hunting groups had occupied an area for some time, they began
to regard that territory and the animals within it as their own. As
the men took an increased interest in the welfare of the herd, the
animals grew accustomed to them, and allowed themselves to be easily
approached. There is no doubt that "domestication may have been
furthered by instincts which make us cherish our own infants and are
aroused by young animals [in our care} (Paterson 1956: 104), but man's
psychological adaptability to domestication is not in itself sufficient
explanation for its appearance.

It is my contention that animal domestication is one form of
exploitation which figures more or less importantly in some subsistence
patterns. It occurs when man and groups of animals enter into a re-
lationship which is such that man has some control over the animals'
behavior. Domestication does not occur naturally at any given point
in cultural evolution; nor is its origin associated exclusively with
any particular subsistence pattern. Domestication is a process which
can begin only in the presence of certain conditions, although not all
of the conditions need be present for domestication to be imitated.

In order for domestication to occur, domesticable animals must be
present in the behavioral environment. Man, the potential domest icator,
must occupy the animal's biotope on at least a temporary or seasonal
basis; settlements being of no fewer than several weeks duration
(Bulzer 1971: 404). It should be noted that since most herd animals

-14-

are migratory; their domestication may be accomplished only by human
groups whose settlements are of no more than several months duration.
Watson and Watson support the belief that potential domesticators must
have at least a semi-permanent way of life on the grounds that"people
who are constantly on the move do not have time to experiment with do-
mestication (Watson and Watson 1969: 94)". By this it is implied that
domestication can occur only through lengthy experimentation. This is
unsubstantiated. The maintenance of domesticates requires a certain
amount of concentrated effort on the domest icator ' s part, and it re-
sults in a change in his larger subsistence pattern. Now, if the pre-
doraestlcator (meaning the potential domesticator who actually becomes
a domesticator) has the time to experiment with domestication, then
he must already enjoy a fairly successful means of subsistence. It is
unlikely then, that he would risk experimenting with another one.

Furthermore, domestication need not be so time consuming. Cor-
ralling, harnessing, and taming are time consuming activities, but
again, are not essential to domestication. In a following chapter I
will discuss the suggestion that certain man/animal relationships could
be such that domestication would occur alraost automatically, with
minimal effort and alteration of subsistence pattern. For now it is
necessary that a working description of domestication be established,
so that it m.ay be identified from archeological evidence.

From the preceding discussion, it may be concluded that:
•Animal domestication is a continuum of relationships between man and
animals in which man has some control over tha animals' behavior.
• The process of animal domestication involves elemental man as a preditor

-15-

and predomesticator, man as a domesticator, the animal in its wild state,

and the domesticator.
» The particular way in which man manipulates or controls the animals'

behavior characterizes the form which the relationship takes; the

various forms of domestication are not necessarily successive.
•Pre domesticators and pre domesticates share a biome for a significant

part of the year during which the animals figure in man's behavioral

environment.
•The nature of man's interest in his domesticates and degree of control

which he exercises over them may result in his dependence upon them,

or theirs upon him, or in morphological changes in humans or animals.

CHAPTER TWO

THE RECOGNITION OF DOMESTICATION IN THE ARCHEOLOGICAL RECORD

As (nany other major subsistence activities, the practice of animal
domestication can be recognized archeologically. Unlike fishing or
hunting however, which can be shown to have been practiced by the
existence of a single bit of incontrovertible evidence (such as a
fishook or bone point found in association with prey), domestication
can not be (justifiably) claimed except on the basis of several criteria,
and in some instances, its occurrence may not be proven beyond a reason-
able doubt. The existence of domestication is difficult to prove be-
cause domestication is not a single activity; it is a relationship
which involves many activities. Although those activities cannot be
performed in the absence of domestication, the proof of its occurrence
must not be dependent upon the evidence for related activities. As will
be shown in this chapter, activities which are part of some subsistence
patterns built around the complex forms of domestication are often
erroneously considered to be requirements for any sort of domestication.

Berry, for example, cautions that domestication should be claimed
only if there is evidence of morphological changes in the domesticates
(Berry 1969). Phenotypical characteristics may indeed be evident in the

•16.

.17-

domesticated forms of some species, and absent in wild or earlier forms.
If they are, they probably serve as a reliable indication that domesti-
cation has occurred. Two points must be remembered, however: Firstly,
although genotypic frequencies may be altered in the process of domesti-
cation, genotypes themselves are rarely affected. Certain pathological
conditions may be favored, and existing characlerisiics selected, but new
ones are not usually produced. Furthermore, those phenotypes which are
selected may exist in wild populations as well as domesticated ones,
(although in fewer number). Secondly, morphological changes which occur
rapidly in a large proportion of a population are results of, and attest
to the control and manipulation of the population by man. In other
words, any impact on the physiology of the animal must be antedated
by cultural domestication (Isaac 1970: 21).

The emphasis placed on morphological changes as criteria for do-
mestication by Bokonyi is exaggerated. Such emphasis is usually unjusti-
fied, and it tends to discourage consideration of other equally impor-
tant changes which occur in the process of domestication. The tran-
sition of man from predator to domesticator is often ignored. Evidence
of that transition is no less present in the archcological record, but
it is less obvious to some (Bokonyi, Berry) and considered too risky
to try to interpret by others (Isaac, Berry), One might expect zo-
ologists to show the greater interest in transitions in non human

1
Such changes may of course be caused in wild populations by
selection pressures originating in the environment, but tend to develop
over a much longer period of time than those exercised by man in a
controlled environment. The latter are what is being referred to here.

.18-

specles, whereas anthropologists would be expected, in their study of
domestication, to search for an understanding of changes in man and
his culture. Ironically, most anthropologists - particularly arche-
ologists - who have written on the subject have chosen to emphasize
domestication's effects on domesticates, and have taken for granted
its effects on domesticators. Doing so has resulted in a general
lack of understanding of the nature of domestication and a lack of
appreciation of its consequences.

Bokonyi's criteria for the recognition of domestication reflect
to some degree that very misunderstanding. He writes that generally,
there is evidence of domestication on a site if: a.) The proportion
of age groups of a domesticable species is not the same as found
normally in a wild population, b.) The proportion of the sexes of a
domesticable species is not the same as found normally in a wild popu-
lation, c.) Species known to have been domesticated and without wild
relatives in that region appear, d.) Morphological changes appear in
the domesticated animals, e.) There are any artistic representations
of domesticated animals, or any artifacts associated with animal hus-
bandry (Bokonyi letq: 220).

What Boko nyi does not make clear is that none of the above criteria,
used alone, is sufficient to prove the existence of domestication in
every case. Obviously domestication has occurred if there are artistic
representations of practices associated with animal husbandry, but
domestication may, and does occur in forms which do not include such
practices. Similarly, morphological changes may not accompany domesti-
cation at all or may result from other selection pressures.

Used with other evidence Bokonyi's criteria provide for the recog-

.19-

nition of domestication if morphological changes in the domesticates
are not present, which is a step in the right direction. Artistic repre-
sentations and such cultural evidence can indicate domestication pro-
vided that they are interpreted correctly. Not all drawings of animals
are of domestic ones. To indicate domestication, an artistic repre-
sentation would have to show clearly the restraint or feeding of an
animal. The representation of animals which are (or were) real but do
(or did) not normally occur in the area may indicate that the animal
was an imported domesticate. Mobilary art, it must be remembered, does
not necessarily originate where it is found, and may depict situations
which did not occur there.

Differences in the age and sex ratios of suspected domestic
populations and wild ones of the same species are good indications of
domestication, provided that they, too, are used with caution. In
general, animals killed by hunters are killed without regard to sex
or age (Ducos 1969). Hunters kill those animals which are the easiest
to kill - the very old, infirm, injured, ailing, or very young indi-
viduals. The proportions of sex and age of animals killed by hunters
should be the same as those in the herd, or wild population. One of
the characteristics of domestication is that it affords control and
makes it possible to check with some precision the animal to be killed.
It is in the domesticator ' s interest to leave in the herd those animals
most important to the preservation of a healthy herd, and to eliminate
only the less essential animals. One should, therefore, expect to find
a.) more males than females, b.) more immature than adult individuals,
and c.) more irrjnature males than any other single group represented by
the remains of slaughtered domestic animals. This has, in fact, been

• 20-

found to be the case at several sltes-among them Stellmoor (Sturdy
1975) and Molino Cassarotto (Jarman 1975).

Simple forms of domestication have been claimed on the basis age/sex
discrepancies when there is no other positive evidence. The study of
age and sex ratios has led Jarman (1975) to believe that a simple form
of reindeer domestication existed at a MolinoCassarotto, a Neolithic
site in Northern Italy. Remains of males far out number those of
females, and seventy-five percent of the total kill is comprised of
animals fewer than three years old. There is no evidence that the
animals were confined, fed, or exploited as anything other than a food
source, but the tunnel valley location of the site would certainly not
preclude more elaborate control and exploitation.

It appears likely that domestication did occur at Molino Cassarotto,
but Collier and White (1976) and Jequier (1963) point at several faults
inherent in age/sex ratio analysis. As employed by Jarman, it assumes
two things: a.) that the population structure of the animal groups is
stable within each group, and through time, and b.) that all predators
always kill a representative sample of the population. Collier and
White note in reference to the first point that the structure of un-
gulate populations is highly variable. Fluctuations in the number of
males, females, young, and old occur seasonally. Caribou (Rangifer
tarandus) populations may include seven percent juveniles during the
early spring, or as much as fifty percent after the calving season in
June (Collier and White 1975). Caribou are divided into several groups
during most of the year, forming the herd only during perods of mi-
gration. Males and females arc not equally represented in the smaller
groups, most of which are exclusively female. Males associate with

-21-

one another only during the mating season when they engage in battle,
and during migrations. Except for these periods they prefer to wander
alone. Even within the larger collective, or the herd, the ratio of
males to females can range from 9:100 to 132:100 (Collier and White
1975).

Dellmination of population structures of game animals is highly
speculative. It is particularly so with regard to migratory animals,
whose social organization varies drastically with seasonal changes.
The natural ratios of age and sex against which bone remains are com-
pared will be different for each season. Before making any comparison,
the archeologist must first establish the season during which the site
was occupied. Comparison could then be made with the speculated
structure of the species population during the same season. Still,
as Jarman points out (Jarman 1972:132) there is no way to account for
the chance exploitation of either "male" or "feraale"territories.

Jgquier (1965) questions the reliability of age/sex ratio analysis
by suggesting that the equal vulnerability of all animals in a herd is
not a valid assumption. Male red deer, for instance, are less timid
than females, and consequently fall prey to hunters more easily. It
could be argued, too, that females would be more vulnerable because
they stay in fairly close groups, and timid animals are always easier
to approach when in groups. Furthermore, females tend to be more
curious than males, a factor which might increase their vulnerability.
Individual and group personalities of the sexes vary widely, and must
be considered in the a -lysis of exploitation patterns.

Finally, Collier and White question the random nature of predation.

• 22-

There Is no law, they point out, which states that all predators must
kill without regard whatsoever to sex, size or other characteristics.
It is well known that given the choice, some hunters prefer certain
animals to others. Greenland Eskimos who use caribou hides for clothing
will kill individuals according to their size. American Plains Indians
preferred the meat and hides of female bison, and so killed more of
them than males whenever possible. Non-human predators are not believed
to have any such preferences; they kill whatever they can - the very
young, very old, or infirm animals.

Evidence that more animals of one size or sex were killed than
another indicates that the exploitation of the species was selective.
Conscious selection of animals to be killed is the most important
characteristic of specialized hunting. It is also a characteristic of
domestication. It is, however positive evidence only of specialized
hunting. The selection practiced by doraesticators is of a different
nature than that practiced by hunters. Whereas hunters select indi-
viduals which exhibit desired characteristics; doraesticators kill those
animals whose absence wouid have a desired effect on the herd. Hunters
are interested in the fulfillment of their immediate needs, and take
no special measures to condition the herd for further exploitation, as
doraesticators do. Their conditioning need not involve selective breed-
ing, diet supervision, or physical conditioning. People who practice
simple, or even incipient domestication cull superfluous males, and
avoid killing mature, healthy females. If the herd faces a harsh
winter or difficult migration, the killing which is to be done may be
done just before, to insure the survival of the herd. Evidence from
Stellmoor, a Neolithic site in Bavaria, suggests that reindeer were

.23-

slaughtered in the autumn, before the herd retreated into the forests
(Sturdy 1975).

Selective killing of animals by domesticators reflects their
interest in the welfare of the herd. If the purpose of selective
killing can be determined f rora'archeological record, domestication may
be inferred. Unless the selection was practiced in the interest of
the entire herd, it may indicate no more than specialized hunting.
The analysis of age and sex ratios, then, does not offer proof of
the existence of domestication. At best it suggests the existence
of certain aspects of man/animal relationships which can be considered
characteristic of domestication.

Another attempt to outline the criteria for domestication has
been made by Isaac (1970) who suggests that an animal be considered
fully domestic if it can be shovm that:

It is valued and there are clear purposes for which it is kept.

Its breeding is subject to human control.

Its survival depends, whether voluntarily or not, on man.

Its behavior (i.e. psychology) is changed in domestication.

Morphological characteristics have appeared in the individuals of
the domestic species which occur rarely, if ever, in the wild.

Animals which meet some, but not all of the above criteria are
described as " seraidomestic" (Isaac 1970:20)

Isaac's criteria reflect his appreciation of the complexity of

the process of domestication. He realizes that morphological changes

are not the only proof of domestication and that behavioral changes

are equal evidence of it. He is, however, unspeciflc about the nature

of the behavioral changes which accompany domestication, and even less

• 24-

clear about how those changes are supposed to be seen In archeological
evidence.

If the first point could be proven, that an animal is valued and
kept, then it would represent an "after the fact" proof of the oc-
currence of domestication. An animal must be valued in some v;ay, or
it would not be domesticated, and it must be domesticated before it
is kept. The way in which the animal is valued and kept is often diffi-
cult to determine from archeological evidence. Burials, paintings, and
mobilary art may suggest the animal's significance in ritual. Evidence
of the use of animal products is also indicative of its value and the
reason it is kept. Pueblo-dwelling Indians of the Southwest kept a
bald eagle teathered to a post as a permanent supply of feathers which
were used in rituals and awards cermonies. A single such eagle, al-
though obviously valued and kept, could hardly be proof of the domesti-
cation of eagles. Domestication involves the value and keeping of
animals in such quantities as are significant in the economic or
subsistence patterns of the societies keeping them,

Isaac's second and third criteria also are after the fact proofs
of domestication. Selective breeding is made possible with the control
and manipulation characteristic of domestication, and it is practised
only in relatively complex forms of domestication. Animal dependency
on man may also be a result of strict control and manipulation, but
it does not occur in most forms of domestication. Dependency and
husbandry may not occur unless domestication has already taken place,
and never occur at al", ^ xcept in the most complex forms of domesti-
cation. Their evidence is positive proof that domestication did occur,

■ 25-

but lack of their evidence is no proof that it did not.

Establishing both valid and justifiable criteria by which the
archeologist can determine the existence of domestication is difficult.
Most of the difficulty stems from a basic misunderstanding of the
nature of domestication and the confusion of its possible effects with
essential attributes. Domestication is a process which takes several
forms, each representing a somewhat different relationship between
several factors. Therefore, the recognition of it must be based on
different sets of criteria. No one set of criteria can identify all
forms of domestication. It is necessary for the archeologist to first
distinguish the various forms vhich the relationship can take and
characterize each form in terms of the degree and nature of control
exercised. He then must decide how the control might be manifested
and reflected in the archeological record. For instance, if a certain
form of domestication were considered to exist wherever animals are
penned in areas much smaller than their natural grazing areas, then
the archeologist would look for evidence of enclosures, which may be
suggested by natural boundries (rivers, cliffs, etc.), man-made bound-
aries (post holes, trenches) or areas of abnormally high concentration
of animal dung. If another form of domestication were characterized
by the frequent practice of castration, then it would be indicated by
the presence of castrates. The archeologist attempting to prove the
existence of the latter form need not feel his case lost if there is
no evidence that the animals were kept in enclosures.

The distinction of the different forms of domestication is, then,
an important first step, for a situation v;hich is undefined cannot
rightly be claimed to exist.

CHAPTER THREE

FORMS OF DOMESTICATION

PRE DOMESTICATION

Incipient domestication is the least complex form of domesti-

1
cation. It may be copied by one group from another who practice it,

although it is generally considered to have evolved from hunting
(Zeuner 1956, Hatt 1919, Watson and Watson 1969) and a situation I
will refer to as "pre domestication.'' Pre domestication describes a
relationship in which man interferes in the lives of certain animal
species as a predjtor. The animals must be amenable to domestication,
the human community must have at least a semi-sedentary way of life,
and they must have t socioeconomic system which would permit and profit
from the domestication of animals.

Essentially no more than advanced specialized hunting, pre
domestication describes the situation which may have occurred just
prior to the earliest form of domestication, and for that reason, can
only be recognized in the past tense. It would be impossible to (justi-
fiably) claim pre dom<; itication from a archeological evidence. Never-

1

. Laufer maintains that the Joklanokk Lapplanders domesticated
reindeer in imitation of cattle domestication which occurred further
South (Laufer 1917).

-26.

.27-

the_less, it is necessary to recognize the presence of this stage in
order to realize the significance of the transition in man's relation-
ship with the environment which occurs with domestication. Before the
transition can be seen, of course, the previous situation must be
understood.

All subsistence activities, including hunting and those associated
with domestication, exist in a dynamic relationship between man and the
environment. Identification of that relationship depends upon the
identification of the elements involved, the human group, and the environ-
ment. As Davidson (1973) notes, identification of the environment must
include consideration of not only the biological, but also the perceived
and behavioral environment. The biological environment consists of all
physical features and living organisms and contains within it the per-
ceived and behavioral environments. The perceived environment consists
of images or ideas of the biological environment which are held by human
inhabitants, and which are used in their decision-making processes.
The actual, or behavioral environment consists of those elements of the
perceived environment which elicit behavioral response by humans (Davidson
1973). Those parts of the total environment which are in regular or
cyclical articulation within the unit studied are referred to by Alee
(1949:1) as the "'effective environment".

Analysis of relationships between any elements within the environ-
ment is impossible without proper environmental reconstruction. Re-
construction of the biological environment is done through floral, faunal
and geologic analysis. Its accuracy is determined by the accuracy of
sampling and dating methods. Reconstruction of the perceived environment

-28-

is somewhat more speculative. It is generally safe to assume that it
consists of all elements which the human inhabitants^ given their sup-
posed level of technological development, are likely to see. Microscopic
particles are part of all biological environments, but exist in the
perceived environment of very few. Similarly, the way in which a part
of the biological environment is perceived depends upon the group's
technological development and experience of other environments. The
vast plains of North America were seen by the Comanches as grazing land,
whereas the white settlers saw them as potentially productive farmland.

It must not be assumed that all environments appear the same to
all human cultures, nor may it be assumed that every culture will ex-
ploit like environments in like manner. The Navaho and Pueblo Indians
are neighbors in part of the southwestern desert in New Mexico and
Arizona. Hoebel writes that:

Both tribes practice gardening and pastoralism,
and yet their utilization of the environment and
their social systems are very different. The Pueblo
Indians. .. live in compact masonry villages. Most of
their villages have remained stationary for centuries.
They garden with intensive proficiency and exhibit
more interest in religious and ceremonial control of
weather and crop fertility than they do in the mechanics
of gardening itself ...The Navahos, on the other hand,
live in widely dispersed hogans, and their main interest
is fixed upon sheep. They also garden, but in only a
minor way. They do virtually nothing about weather con-
trol or crop fertility. . .Navahos and Pueblos in personal-
ity, lifestyles, and social organization, are as unlike
as night and day, despite their identical physical environ-
ment (Hoebel 1972:249).

Given only the fact of the existence of the Navaho and Pueblo

Indians in a certain environment, one could not predict the nature of

their exploitation of available resources. More information would be

needed to reconstruct the perceived and behavioral environments of each

■ 29-

group, "It is essential that the environment and ecological setting of
cultures.. .be established as accurately as possible, for, without this
knowledge, we can hardly begin to interpret the cultural evidence (J. D.
Clark 1960: 308)." In the model which follows, we will attempt to
reconstruct (as accurately as possible) a.) the biological environment,
in order to determine which elements could possibly have been signifi-
cant in the ecology of the human inhabitants, b.) the perceived environ-
ment to know which elements were indeed important, and c.) the behavioral
environment to understand how those elements were involved in particular
relationships with man.

When man controls another living species within his behavioral
environment, he domesticates it. Domestication may be said to occur
if a minimum of control is exercised. Minimal control characterizes
"incipient domestication", which is discussed at some length in Chapters
II and IV. At this point, it would be well to deal with a slightly
more complex relationship between man and the behavioral environment:
simple domestication.

-30-

SIMPLE DOMESTICATION

Simple domestication will be considered here to be a relationship
in which man consciously exercises control over the behavior of certain
animals. Control may be exercised over one or several aspects of the
animals' behavior, including temperment, grazing and migration patterns,
or breeding activities.

The reindeer economy of the Samoyed is based on a man/animal re-
lationship involving simple domestication. The Samoyed are reindeer
followers, and to some extent herders, who occupy the marshy tundra in
western Siberia (Forde 1963). Their herds are exploited as sources of
food (meat and blood), clothing, shelter, and all manner of household
articles, tools, and utensils. In addition, the reindeer are employed
occasionally as draft or pack animals (Conner 1959). Most of the herd
is allowed to roam freely, under only light supervision, except those
males used as pack or draft animals, which are castrated and kept near
the base camp. Also kept nearby, but used neither for meat nor trans-
portation are a certain number of holy reindeer. Unfortunately, Conner

2
does not elaborate on the particular functions of these animals.

The Samoyed slaughter animals as they are needed for food, but

try to restrict most slaughtering to the autumn. Conner (1959) gives

two reasons for the restriction: conservation of the scarce v;inter food

supply for the healthiest fertile animals, and preservation (by freezing)

of butchered meat during the following months. Reindeer are killed indi-

It is interesting, although not all surprising, that a culture so
heavily dependent on one resource would include some representation of
that resource in their religion. There is no reason to doubt that pre-
historic herders could have done the same.

-31.

vidually, a practice which may seem unusual since seasonal slaughters
are more frequently carried out in a round-up fashion. The Samoyed
kill by strangulation, so as not to damage the valuable hides. This
requires that each animal be singled out, approached by men (sometimes
using decoys), and strangled until it dies - a process impossible to
repeat if other reindeer are confined in the same area. It is due to
the comparatively close association the animals have with man in this
form of domestication that the animals tend to become habituated to
man's presence - and 'Sre, therefore, more easily approached and
strangled.

The relationship which exists between the Samoyed and their rein-
deer is characterized as one involving some control over several aspects
of the animals' behavior. While the herd's movements are monitored,
their behavior as a group is little changed, except for a general habitu-
ation to man 'sconstant presence. The ■ temperment, mobility, and breeding
of some animals (those used for transportation) is noticeably altered
by simple domestication as practiced by the Samoyed. Those animals con-
stitute an economically significant number in Samoyed herds; Forde
claims, in fact, that Samoyed reindeer are pre-eminently draft animals,
and that their herding is of little direct significance in the Samoyed's
food supply (Forde 1963: 363). His opinion is not shared by others
(Laufer 1917, Hatt 1919, Conner 1959) who believe that while the rein-
deer is understandably important as a draft animal during migratory treks
it is of greatest value as a source of food. The Samoyed economy then,
is based on the availability of reindeer for food, clothing, housing,
and transportation, and their availability is assured by simple domesti-
cation.

•32-

Slmple domestication may be indicated in the archeological record

by:

a.) artistic representations of restrained animals
b.) implements or structures used to control and restrain
c.) abnormaly high percentage of castrates
d.) selective slaughter

e.) evidence of animals existing in an area or during a season
during which they do not normally occur

Artistic representations may suggest the occurence of domestication
provided that they can be shown to belong to the same culture which is
suspected to have domesticated, and to the same time period during which
domestication was supposed to have occurred. Also, to be a valid indi-
cation, the art must depict or represent an economically significant
number of animals. Otherwise, it may represent no more than a few rare,
holy, or even imaginary subjects.

Implements and structures used to con»traln or restrict would, of
course, include any sort of harness, coral, fence, or natural enclosures
such as tunnel valleys, parabolic dunes, and islands. Percentage of
castrates and evidence of selective killing are good (and frequently the
only) indications of the less complex forms of domestication, but must
be considered with caution, as discussed in the preceding chapter. Also
as discussed earlier, evidence of a particular species' existence in an
area or during a season in which it does not normally occur is suggestive
of domestication.

These criteria are suggested for the archeological recognition of
simple domestication because they reflect the various manifestations of
the control relationship which characterizes it. It is a relationship
which allows a comparatively efficient and varied exploitation of ani-
mals by man, without necessitating or result ing in the complete dependence
of one upon the other.

•33.

ADVANCED ANIMAL MANAGEMENT

Advanced animal management involves the control of animals' be-
havior through the control of food supply, living area, or breeding.
It is characterized by the increasing dependence of man and animals
upon one another for food and protection. This form of domestication
is distinct from, although may include animal husbandry, which is
characterized by the practice of selective breeding for specific quali-
ties.

By this definition, the form of domestication practiced by the
Jokkmokk Lapplanders is one which involves advanced animal management.
Seminomadic herders, the Jokkmokk Mountain Lapps practice what Paterson
terms ''intensive" and 'extensive" reindeer "breeding". Paterson makes
no mention of specific breeding activities, however, other sources
(Laufer 1917, Hatt 1919) claim that Lapps engage in selective breeding
only in a very minor way, if at all. It is Hatt's impression that the
Lapps do not breed their animals for desired qualities, but control the
fertility of some (i.e. castrate, prevent mating) to keep order in
confined groups during mating season, or to use them for other purposes.
Paterson appears, then, to be another victim of the confusion of husband-
ry with domestication. In all probability, he is using "breeding" as
a synonym for 'domestication". To avoid perpetuating this confusion,
the word "domestication" will be used here unless a specific process
of selective animal breeding is being referred to.

Intensive reindeer domestication "may be looked upon as the most
advanced form of reindeer care. It is characterized by strict guarding
of the reindeer herd throughout the year, which was a necessary as-

-34-

sumption so that the herd during the summer months might be driven
together once or twice dally in order to be milked (Paterson 1956: 28)."
Although it involves some, extensive domestication it does not depend
on careful tending and regular milking, which are prominent features
of the intensive form (Paterson 1956).

Intensive domestication characterized the Lappish subsistence
pattern until the end of the last century, when the introduction of
industrial products made the very close association with and strong
dependence upon reindeer less necessary. It still is practiced to
some degree, however, along with the extensive form.

The form of domestication practiced today by the Jokkmokk Lapps
permits exploitation of the herd for food (meat and milk), some clothing,
and various household articles. This is achieved through a close re-
lationship with the animals which are kept near the camp, sometimes
penned and fed, and supervised whenever allowed to graze further
away. Reindeer are also frequently used as pack and draft animals by
Lapps, and are castrated for this purpose.

Close association with man has resulted, in this case, in the
animals' increasing dependence upon man for food and protection from
wolves, against which reindeer are practically defenseless. While
they are by no means totally dependent on man, the animals are fully
habituated to his presence, and are content to remain near his settle-
ments. In the sense that they become hesitant to stray far from camp
(whether they would be allowed to or not), they have become dependent
upon man. Their temperment has thus been changed by the process of
domestication.

•35-

The Nuer of East Africa practice a similar form of domestication,
but theirs is one in which selective breeding plays a more important
role. Nuer are cattle tenders who practice husbandry (Evans-Pritchard
1940), During the dry season, they allow their cattle to graze with
some supervision, but they confine the animals to covered byres during
the rainy season. Cattle are not raised explicitly for meat, but the
end of every beast is, in fact, the pot (Evan-Pritchard 1940:28).
They are used primarily for milk and blood; their hide, bones, and
horns are also used, but the animals are not killed for this.

Most male cattle are castrated. The Nuer do this to keep peace
in the kraais, for uncastrated adult males cause a great deal of
commotion when there are available females nearby, and tend to fight
with each other constantly. One bull is generally kept to serve
about forty females. Only bulls born of the best milk producing cows
escape castration. By reserving as studs only offspring of the best
milk cows, the Nuer practice selective breeding; the trait selected
for being milk yield.

Both the Nuer and the Jokkmokk Lapps practice a form of domesti-
cation which involves control of the animals' food supply, living area, or
fertility, resulting in control of their behavior. The Lapps ex-
ercise control over the grazing pattern of the herd, contribute to its
food supply, and control the fertility of many individual animals.
The Nuer control the living area and fertility of cattle, and also
influence their breeding by selection of studs. The form of domesti-
cation practiced by hi-'^n groups is defined here as advanced animal
mangement .

-36-

Advanced animal management may be inferred from archeological
evidence of several sorts:

a.) presence of implements associated with animal management

techniques.
b.) evidence of confinement areas.

c.) artistic representations of animal management techniques,
d.) presence of castrates, in higher than normal percentage.
e.) morphological changes in animals over time.
f.) evidence of fodder storage

The similarity of the above list with Bokonyi's "criteria for
animal domestication" (see page 1& ) should be apparent, and it is
unnecessary to belabor the reasons for this. Now that these criteria
are associated with their correct form of domestication, a few points
should be clarified. "Implements associated with animal management
techniques" would include harnesses, shackles, twitches, and other
restrictive devices, as well as tools associated with their manufacture,
and articles used in milking and bleeding. Areas in which animals are
confined may be indicated by post hole perimeters, areaiof unusual
concentration of dung, or areas enclosed by natural boundries such as
canyons, tunnel valleys or islands. Artistic representations of
management techniques would include renditionsof milking procedure,
confinement, harnessing, etc. It should, of course, be established
that the number of animals affected is one of economic importance.
Otherwise, what is represented in the art may be of religious signifi-
cance (a caged bird, for example) and may not have been at all signifi-
cant in the subsistence system.

Castrates, if present in significant number, may also indicate
this form of domestication. Comparatively few castrates may indicate

-37.

no more than the use of certain animals as decoys, but a larger percent-
age would provide good reason to believe that fertility control was
important to maintenance of the domestic population. Fertility control
may or may not accompany selective breeding. The latter sometimes re-
sults in morphological changes, and if it can be proven that such
changes could only occur as a result of purposeful selective breeding,
then their presence would serve as an indication that husbandry, and,
therefore, advanced animal management, was practiced.

If it can be established that the store of fodder was intended to
supply the animal population with most of his nutritional requirements,
then such evidence would suggest dependence upon man, which is one of
the features of this form of domestication.

Advanced animal management as a form of domestication, provides
for highly efficient exploitation of domestic animals. Animal husband-
ry allows the maximum exploitation of- domestic animals, which includes
providing for future generations through selective breeding. Determi-
nation of the occurrence of domestication with advanced animal manage-
ment on the basis of archeological evidence must, as miBt any form of
domestication, be done carefully, and never with reference to only a
single criterion.
INCIPIENT DOMESTICATION

When early man first recognized the potential advantages in con-
trolling certain elements of the environment, specifically, when he
discovered the advantages in keeping animals near to his dwelling place.

3
The percentage of castrates in the total male (domestic) popu-
lation depends upon the reasons for which the animals are castrated,
and is, therefore, impossible to estimate in a general sense.

• 38-

he was entering into the first phase of domesticating them (Berry

1969:207). Isaac calls this transitional phase "incipient domestication"

4
and considers it restricted in time to the Mesolithic (Isaac 1970:26)

Incipient domestication will be considered here to describe a relation-
ship in which man, primarily a hunter, not only interferes in the lives
of certain animal species, but also exerts an influence on the behavior
of groups within those species i.e. herds. That influence reflects man's
Interest in the animals' welfare and maintenance of the herd. It in-
volves at least one of the following: a.) selective killing; b.) fre-
quent contact between the animals and man, resulting in the animals'
habituation to man; c.) protection of animals by man. Archeological
evidence of selective killing would be found in the age/sex ratios of
animal remains. As discussed at length in Chapter II, discrepencies
in age/sex ratios of wild and suspected domestic populations are not
necessarily proof of domestication, and their usefulness depends on a
thorough familiarity with animal ecology. Frequent contact with and
habituation to man may be reflected in slaughtering techniques, and in
artistic representations. Art which depicts unteathered animals or an
unpenned group of animals not resisting approach by man could be posi-
tive indication that the animals are domesticated.

The manner in which animals are killed by hunters generally seems
to differ from the way in which they are slaughtered by domesticators .
Individuals are killed by hunters in hiding with arrows, spears, or in
traps or snares. Large animals are often brought down by groups of

4
see page fe.

-39-

men hurling javelins, spears, stones and other projectiles at the
animal which, if they do not serve to kill the animal, weaken it so
that it may be approached and finished off by a single blow. One
would expect that the bones of an animal killed in this way would bear
traces of some of the projectile points. This is indeed what is found
to be the case at the Lehner mammoth site in Southest Arizona, where
a single mammoth, believed to have been killed by hunters using stone
pointed projectiles (Haury, E. W. and Sayles, W. W. 1959).

Individual animals are also killed by hunters using disguises.
The Manchu cake advantage of the male reindeer's instinct to battle
other stags during the mating season. "(They] take a stag's head with
the antlers, hollow it out, and place it over their own head. With a
hidden decoy whistle, they imitate the call of a stag so perfectly
that the animal is deceived. [The hunters") crouch in the thicket, and
at the sound of the whistle, the stag comes out in the open for an
attack (C. Visdelov, in Laufer 1917:134)." An animal lured thus into
close range could be quickly dispatched with one or two well-placed
spears. This technique of hunting is not distinguishable on the basis
or archeological evidence from some methods of slaughter used by do-
mesticators, except, of course, if it is Illustrated artistically.

Larger animals are often killed en masse by hunters in stampedes
and round-ups. The stampede, as practiced by bison-hunting Indians in
southwestern North America and the Acheuleans of Torralba, Spain usual-
ly resulted in a supply of meat and other products far greater than
what could be utilized within a reasonable period of time. At the
Olsen-Chobbuck site 190 bison were stampeded into an arroyo ; 40 animals

.40-

were not butchered, and their skeletons lie intact under the heap of
partially butchered animals (liHieat 1974:162). Indiscriminate and
wasteful, this sort of mass killing is practiced by only those hunters
who have no reason to concern themselves with the maintenance of a
healthy herd. The roundup practiced by hunters has the same effect on
herd populations as does the stampede. After one Cheyenne antelope
hunt, during which the animals were chased down a v-shaped path into a
circle of club-wielding hunters, a frontier trader observed that more
than six hundred animals had been killed (Grinnell 1915:288). Stampede
and round-up sites are easily identified from archeological evidence.
They can be distinguished from domesticators ' slaughter sites by the
presence of intact skeletons.

Corralling practiced by domesticators differs from the Cheyenne type
round-up. Its purpose is not to kill as many animals at once as possi-
ble, rather, to facilitate the convenient, efficient slaughter of se-
lected animals. Thus, in the autumn Samoyed round-up, only as many
selected animals as can be used are slaughtered (Conner 1959).

Similiar to the hunters' use of disguise to attract prey indi-
vidually, is the domesticator's use of decoy animals.

"Guided by a specially trained reindeer which
he holds on long line, the Tungusian hunter approaches
the pasture of wild reindeer, hides himself behind a
bush or hillock, letting the trained reindeer go for-
ward. The wild reindeer, on seeing the decoy, approach
it, led on by the herd instinct; the hunter softly pulls
the reindeer closer to himself, and the [wild! reindeer
follow until they are within easy range (Hatt 1919:101)."

The Koryak use decoys in a particularly ingeneous fashion:

"Having found the tracks of a herd of wild reindeer,
the hunter lets one stag loose, after having tied a
thong in several loops round its antlers,.., taking the

.41.

sent of wild dams, fthe decoyl runs to overtake
them. The wild stag does not allow his adversary
to approach the females, but engages in a single
fight with him, and becomes entangled in the
thong, whereupon the hunters rush in to kill him
(Jochelson).

The difference between the use of disguises and the use of decoys
is that the posession of live decoy animals makes the posessor a do-
mesticator. Hatt (1919) believes that the use of decoys must have been
characteristic of the initial stages of domestication. It is "highly
probable," he writes, "that this hunting method - a decided improve-
ment upon the hunter's older practice of disguising himself so as to
look like the deer - was the first motive which brought about the do-
mestication of the reindeer (Hatt 1919:104)," Whether or not the need
for decoys caused the domestication of entire herds, it is certainly
reason to domesticate and keep some animals. In addition to their
domestic herd, the Samoyed keep a certain number of male reindeer,
which they partially castrate, to use as decoys. It is possible that
once the advantages of taming or training decoys were realized, larger
scale domestication was undertaken.

The actual techniques of killing individual domesticated anim.als
are varied. If the animal is lured by a decoy, or especially if it
is fully habituated to man, then it may be easily approached and
strangled, or killed with a knife plunged into the heart, back of the
neck, or throat. Hatt notes that stabbing and clubbing antedate
strangling and throat cutting, which require great skill at close
range (Hatt 1919:104). It appears however, that the technique used
depends on two things: the way in which the animal is to be used, and
religious or magical beliefs surrounding the animal and its use. Thus

• 42-

the Koryak and Samoyed strangle reindeer so as not to damage the hides
which they use for clothing and shelter (Hatt 1919), and in many Jewish
communities, animals are slaughtered by having their throats slit, accord-
ing to religious prescription.

In any case, domest icators tend to use fewer weapons to kill each
animal, and the weapons they do use are less likely to be of the type,
like projectiles , which may strike bones or remain loged in parts of
the animal's body. One would expect, then, to find weapons or traces
of them less frequently in association with domesticated animals than
with hunted ones. Obviously, conditions of preservation and butchering
techniques may prevent the observation of such associations, and must
be taken into careful consideration by the archeologist .

Man's protection of animals, another characteristic of domesti-
cation, may be manifested in several ways. Removal of certain animals
from the herd in order to conserve resources for the others is one
way. Modern Lapps, for instance, cull in the autumn those reindeer
which are not likely to survive the winter so that the vital winter
grazing land may support the rest of the herd (Paterson 1956). A
similar slaughter pattern is hypothesized for pre-Neolithic reindeer
herders at S tell moor (Sturdy, 1975:93). Protection from preditors is
another way in which domesticators assure their herds maintenance. It
is not unusual for herders to allow their animals to graze freely,
interferring only if. an animal strays too far from the others, becom-
ing easy prey. Supervision of this sort is not verifiable from
archeological evidence; there is no reason to doubt, however, that it
could have occurred if herd populations were seriously affected by
predation.

.43-

It is likewise not unreasonable to suggest that herders or herd
followers could supplement the animals' food supply in case their
natural source of food were depleted. The Jokkraokk Lapps, for instance,
give salt-a necessary and craved nutrient-to their favored reindeer.
Only an agricultural economy, of course, could support large numbers
of animals during a serious food shortage.

The model which follows will illustrate how certain of the parti-
cular manifestations of control just discussed combined in the man/
animal relationship which existed at Molino Cassarotto. The model will
also serve to demonstrate how the features of that relationship might
be seen archeologically.
MOLINO CASSAROTTO

Molino Cassarotto is a pre-Neolithic, seasonally occupied site in
Northern Italy. It was occupied during the summer monthsby groups who
depended heavily upon, and perhaps domesticated red deer (C. elaphus).

Jarman (1975) believes that it is reasonable to assume that much
of Europe was occupied throughout the Postglacial by human populations
who exploited continually the same deer populations. This arrangement
must have been a mutually favorable one, as "it is not likely that so
successful and so well-balanced a relationship could survive for such
long periods if it were simply a case of a parasitic prcdicor exploiting
a prey population to the latter's detriment (jarman 1975:131).''

In assessing the significance of mortality curves as indicative
of a close man-animal relationship > Jarman notes the significance of
certain features of i J deer populations.

While more males than females are born, their mortality rate is
higher, and consequently the ratio in the herd as a whole is lov/, females

-44-

outnumbering males, by as many as 2:1 (Jarman 1975:132). Except during
the rutting season and periods of migration, adult males and females do
not associate. Hinds and immature animals form rather large, compact
groups. Adult males sometimes form loose groups, but more often wander
solitarily. Individual and group personalities of the sexes vary con-
siderably. Males are generally more aggressive, especially during the
rut, and tend to behave less predictably than females, who organize
themselves and move in relatively stable groups.

Unfortunately, the various cultural artifacts found at Molino
Cassarotto offer no clues to the nature of the man-deer relationship.
Determination of it may be made, in this case, only on the basis of
age/sex analysis, which would reveal selection in hunting. It is
hypothesized that if domestication occurred the proportions of age and
sex of deer killed by the inhabitants of the site should be different
from those in wild populations of the same species during the same
season. Recalling the discussion on pages ( 22-23 )» o"^ would expect
the bone assemblage on the site to contain a.) more males than females,
b.) more immature than adult individuals, and c.) more immature males
than anything else.

Indeed, a much greater proportion of males is represented at the
site than normally occurs, and immature animals (under 3 yrs. old)
account for 75*4 of the total kill. Domestication is not, however, a
foregone conclusion. There are at least two other possible explanations
for the discrepancies. One is that males, being bold and aggressive,
would have been more susceptible to hunters than the skittish female
(Jequier 1963). The other is that the discrepancy could be due to the

^

.45-

chance exploitation of a male territory.

In his criticism of the first alternate explanation, Jarman points
out that because females are more timid, they keep in tight groups. All
herd animals are more approachable when in groups than when grazing alone,
and so females may actually be easier to hunt than males. Furthermore,
hunting males would demand considerably more time and effort, since
they are few and far between.

With regard to the second explanation, Jarman notes that although
males and females rarely associate, their respective groups are sepa-
rated more socially than geographically. In fact, male and female terri-
tories often overlap. Chance exploitation of one area or the other
seems even less likely if one remembers that the exploitation territory
of human subsistence economics is thought to be within a 5-lOkm radius
of the site (Vita-Fin zi and Higgs 1970), and that within that distance
parts of both male and female territories could surely coexist.

The case for conscious selection at Molino Cassarotto is a good
one. Similar selection patterns are indicated at Star Carr (Clark 1954)
as well as Seeberg Burgaschisee-siJd (Boessneck, Jequieret. Stampfli 1963),
and suggest that the pattern may have been widespread among European
deer economies in the pre-Neolithic. The pattern was one which reflected
human interest in maintenance of animal herds. By exploiting most heavUv/
the non-breeding part of the herd, incipient domesticators were able
to maintain a successful economic relationship without impairing herd
viability (Jarman 1972:133).

The reindeer economy of the Chuckchi appears to be based on the
same sort of relationship - incipient domestication - which existed at

-46-

Molino Cassarotto. The Chuckchi live a nomodic life on the remote,
north-eastern peninsula of Asia. They practice reindeer herding in
a ruimentary form, following the herds and exerting only minimal and
infrequent controls on their movement (Forde 1963: 363). The herds are
of value to the Chuckchi only in providing meat. While they are ha-
bituated to, and seem to enjoy man's presence, they are not tamed
(Forde 1963: 363). They will not tolerate any sort of direct physical
contact with man, and are, therefore, quite useless as milking or
pack and draft animals. Not every herd in Chuckchi territory is do-
mesticated; some are completely wild, but interact frequently with
the domesticated ones, especially during the rut (Laufer 1917).

Wild reindeer are attracted by Chuckchi wearing disguises of hides,
and also by human urine, for which the animals have an insatiable
appetite. Odulok describes a scene which illustrates the effective-
ness of urine in attracting wild reindeer:

"CThe men) had spilled a little urine on to the

snow from a flask they had been carrying, and

had crouched out of sight, waiting for the

leader of the band of reindeer. The leader, with

a start, planted his feet firmly in the snow and

licked it greedily. The other beasts, smelling

the human urine, ran to the leader, hustling into

a solid mass, and began to lick him and the place

where the urine had been spilt. At the same

moment, the men crept stealthly up to the herd.

They dragged off a lean reindeer by the feet, seized

it by the antlers, and stabbed it (Odulok 1934: 17-l<)i) ."

It is highly probable that urine was used by hunters just as disguises

were. In fact, there are hunters today who have recognized and capital-

5
Odulok (1934) describes Chuckchi reindeer as being uninhibited
creatures, hesitant to stray too far from the herd, and not reluctant
to approach the tents, sniffing about for something to eat.

-47-

ized on the reindeers peculiar tastes. The practice of using human urine
as a means of bringing a wild animal into close range for killing may be
limited neither to hunters nor domesticators, however, it may have
suggested another use to potential domesticators, the adoption of which
may have been crucial in permitting the transition from pre to incipient
domestication. Human urine is purposely spilled around Samoyed and
Chuckchi camps to entice reindeer to graze nearby, and to encourage the
development of a close and regular association of the animals with man
(Donner 1959). Whether the herders' original purpose in spilling urine
around their camps was to foster a close association with the reindeer
or simply to make it easier to find them, close association was inevi-
table, and habituation was the natural result of it. Both the Chuckchi
and the Samoyed perpetuate the association and encourage habituation by
giving urine to favored animals as a reward or special treat. The do-
mestication, ie. habituation of some herds in Chuckchi territory to
man's presence facilitates the slaughter of individuals within them.
They can be approached fairly easily, caught in a lasso, and speared
(Odulok 1934). Slaughter of domestic reindeer is considerably simpler
for the Chuckchi than hunting wild ones. Hunting is practiced only to
conserve the domestic population(Lauf er 1917).

The point here is that animal behavior can be variously affected
by the different employment of one technique by hunters and domesti-
cators, and that the way in which both hunters and domesticators use
a given tool, method, or substance will reflect the nature of their
interest in the animals. Human urine is used by hunters and domesti-
cators, like the Chuckchi, who hunt wild animals in order to attract
the prey. It acts to temporarily influence the animals' behavior. Do-

.48-

mesticators, like the Samoyed and Chuckchi when dealing with domestic
herds, use human urine to control the animals' behavior.

In the case of the Chuckchi, the control exerted on the reindeer's
behavior is minimal. It seems to be just enough to facilitate the
exploitation of reindeer as a source of food (meat and blood) and
clothing (hides). The degree of control exercised over reindeer by the
Chuchchi does not permit, however, their exploitation as sources of
milk or transportation. Minimal control and limited exploitation are
features of incipient domestication.

There is evidence which suggests that some reindeer economies of
the Upper Paleolithic could have been based on man-animal relationships
such as the one which existed at Molino Cassarotto or the one existing
among the Chuckchi. In the model which follows, I will examine the
case for incipient domestication at three Magdalenian sites in Central
France.

CHAPTER IV

MODEL: INCIPIENT DOMESTICATION
IN THE PARIS BASIN

INTRODUCTION

Three sites, Pincevent, Etiolles, and Les Tarterets will be con-
sidered in this model. All are located in that area of North Central
France known as the Paris Basin, and are believed to have been seasonal
camp sites occupied in the Middle and Late Magdalenian periods, some
15-11 thousand years BP (before the present). Excavation at Pincevent
has been under the direction of Andre Leroi-Gourhan and Michel Brezillon
since the site was discovered during sand collecting operations in 1966.
Etiolles, discovered in 1972, is being excavated by Y. Taborin and M.
Brezillon. A twin site consisting of two separate but apparently con-
temporaneous camps, Les Tarterets has been partically excavated by
Michel Brezillon and Beatrice Schmider.
PRESENT E^WIRONM£NT

Pincevent is located about 50 kilometers south of Paris, in the
Dcpartement of Seine tt Marne (see Figure 1). The area comprises the
very furthest reaches of the suburbs, where fields of corn and alfalfa

-49-

-50-

fi<i\>re 1.
locoli'on of sites in t Fie
(Varis Basin (sFiajcd)-

just begin to out number apartment complexes. It is an area of rolling
hills, crisscrossed by two major rivers, two smaller ones, and several
riverlets. Although the terrain has been altered considerably by sand
collectors and road construction, the site appears to be situated about
25 meters above the Seine, on the left bank (see Figure 3). Winds
traveling down the river valleys from the Northeast in the autumn make
the area bitterly cold, hence the name Pincevent (pince: biting, vent:
wind).

Located on the opposite bank of the Seine, and 20 km down-river
from Pincevent is Etiolles (see Figure 2). The site is situated at the
foot of a gradual limestone rise, which meets the Senart Platea^ several
kilometers away. Toward the river, the land slopes gently, and just
opposite the site the river is forded by a series of small islands and
a shallow area nearly 1 km long. On the right bank, opposite the ford
are the twin sites Tarterets I, and II, which are both no more than 1 km
from Etiolles. The location of these sites is more aggreable than that

■51.

le^Toftergt

excavated

Tbiris Km

Figure 2
FHolUSi l-cs ToHerSts

Crcdrawn from I'lns+rtot
Geo^rophiqv)© National-
France !'}«'»)•

Fiqar« 3.
Pincftvahk

Cr«draML!n fror>^ rznstitut
Ci©09rapf>ique Motional -
Prance nsA).

Wee 3e Tinceveot

I

.52-

of Pincevent, as it is sheltered from gusty winds by the plateau.

In general, the region is one of temperate climate, characterized
by lowland plains, hills, and river valleys. The soil tends to be
sandy nearest the rivers; farther away it becomes richer and supports
cereal and other crops easily. Clay, limestone, and chalk deposits
occur throughout the Basin. Flint, of varying color and quality is
found in clay soils, or argile k silex, and is also indigenous to the
Basin. The geographical extension of flint is tied to that of the
clay-like sand deposits believed to have been formed during the Mesozoic
and Tertiary eras (Brard 1950).
STRATIGRAPHY

At Pincevent, five principal levels are represented: I-Greco-Roman
and recent historical, II-Bronze and Neolithic, III-Epipaleollthic
IV- Upper Magdalenian and V-sand and gravel possibly of the Lower and
Middle Paleolithic. Level IV is composed of finely stratified limons
or colluvlal sand deposited by successive inundations. Interspersed
in the limons are a few layers of gravel - evidently deposited by
temporary streams. Within level IV which is 1.30 m deep, four Magdalenian
levels are represented. The presence of the wooly mammoth in the earli-
est suggests a date no later than 12,000 bp., as the creature vanishes

from the fossil record of Europe at about that time (Leroi-Gourhan 1972:

14
9). C dates for the Magdalenian level at Pincevent range from

12,300 BP i 400 to 9,840 BP i" 350 (Leroi-Gourhan 1971).

Detailed stratlgrnohic information is unavailable for the other

two sites. As yet, only industry assigned to the Late Magdalenian has

been found at EtioUes. This, and what palynological evidence there is

.53-

suggests that the site was occupied during a particularly cold period,

probably the Younger Dryas (Taborin 1975). Excavations at Les Tarterets

have not been as extensive as at Etiolles, but it is assumed that both

sites were occupied by the same culture group during the same period
(Taborin 1975).
PALAEOENVIRONMENT

By ten thousand years ago, the last phase of the Late Glacial
period had ended in Central Europe. The Younger Dryas, as it is called,
had begun nearly two thousand years before, ca. 12,000 bp. It followed
a relatively short humid interstadial, and was characterized by ex-
tremely low temperatures, but only minor glacial readvance (Butzer 1972).
Palaeobotanical evidence is scarce from France; what there is, however,
indicates that during this last cold phase the polar tree-line must
have been well south of the present 46 latitude. A tundra climate
probably existed in the Paris Basin as well as throughout most of Western

and Central Europe (see Figure 4). The July mean temperature would have

o
rarely exceeded 15 c. (Butzer 1972:200). Studies reveal a very small

percentage of arboreal pollen, in this region but there is evidence of

scattered parklands of spruce, birch and pine. Most of the land was

tundra pasture, or steppe, which has a tremendous carrying capacity

for both small rodents and large grazing animals (Butzer 1972).

Among the smaller animals which abounded in North-Central France

during the Late Pleistocene is the brown hare (Lcpus europaeus) . His

main biotope was the open steppe, stretching from Ireland to the southern

parts of Russia (Kurten 1968). Although conditions of preservation make

verification difficult, there is evidence of a large hare population in

■ 54-

Figure i.
E*tenai«>n op tundra end tuno/ra forest during Igst

(redrawn froivi Sutzer lQ7i and SCoUisA deog. ^fsffgz/ne)

Srckic bundra

I Vj^gj • tundra forest ( |

the Paris Basin (Leroi-Gourhan 1972:199). The brown hare was a staple
in the diet of the wolf, also well represented in the fossil record of
North- Central France (Leroi-Gourhan 1972:198). He seems to have been
slightly smaller than the present day wolf, but the association of his
remains with those of certain other animals suspected of being his prey,
indicates that his habits have not changed. Like the wolf, the hyena
is a specialized carnivore, and as expected is found to have occupied
the same regions as the wolf (Kurten 1968).

Other tundra dwellers were the wooly mammoth and the primitive horse.
These are represented at the Basin sites in insignificant number, how-

• 55-

ever, compared with the reindeer, which seem to have been the sole ^me
of the human occupants of at least one site (Pincevent). There is some
confusion as to the identification of the species of deer which inhabited
the Paris Basin during the Younger Dryas. In his analysis of the bone
Industry of the Upper Palaeolithic, Bordes claims that the tools are
made from red deer antler (Bordes 1968:163). However, if the region
was tundra or steppe, it is unlikely that it was inhabited by red deer,
since they usually confine themselves to woodlands (Kurt&n 1968). It
is possible that some red deer remained in the Paris Basin in the very
early Younger Dryas, but there is only one species of deer which has
been able to colonize a tundra biome. That is the Rangifer arcticus.
or reindeer (Kurten 1968).
REINDEER ECOLOGY

Reindeer are gregarious and, unlike red deer, strongly migratory
animals. During the warmer months, they occupy open areas of rich
grazing, and withdraw in winter to the edge of the forest belt. Shel-
tered there, they exist on mosses and lichens which they find under
the snow (Kurten 1968, Paterson 1956). An important feature in the
ecology of the reindeer, seasonal migration prevents overgrazing and
exhaustion of winter "lichen pastures", and keeps the herds in a
healthy state by reducing the possibility of diseases reaching devas-
tating proportions.

Migrations take the herd from one niche to another, but need not
cover great distances. The distance a herd covers depends on the
availability of food resources. In Lappland, reindeer exploit wood-
land winter grazing areas from November to March, when they move West

-56-

only far enough to preceed the advancing k.arre, or frozen slush which
forms in the Spring and prevents grazing (Paterson 1956). During mi-
grations, reindeer herds are well organized and unified. The Lapps
attribute this to two phenomena. One is the reindeer "click" - an
acoustic phenomenon apparently caused by a sinew in the toes, which
at every step is pressed crosswise against an adjacent bone, thus emit-
ting a "click" sound (Paterson 1956). Should any animals become
separated from the herd, they may also be able to rejoin it by following
the scent left by special glands between the cloven hooves of the
hind legs.

The rutting season begins in the fall-October for most modern herds
(Laufer 1917), Hatt, 1919). Rutting is most ardent toward the middle
of October, and has ended by the last of November. Just before the
rut, each stag establishes a seraglio of hinds within his territory.
Leftover stags contest for access to the hinds by challenging the
established stag. Hinds line up to watch the battle; when it is over,
the defeated stag retreats, and the hinds go to the victor. Shortly
after the rut, older males lose their antlers. Younger males carry
theirs into January, and female reindeer (which are the only female
cervids to have antlers)do not lose theirs until calving season
(Paterson, 1956, Richardson 1953). Calving takes place in the early
summer, although some calves are born in the beginning of autumn.
Calves so late born, however, do not usually survive the winter. Calves
are dependent upon their mothers for milk until the end of November
when they begin foraging for themselves.

Reindeer fall to the same diseases which plague other herd animals

-57-

anthrax, foot rot, and they can become ill from too much salt, files,
and certain types of lichen (Hatt 1919, Richardson 1953). Ailing
reindeer are removed from the herd by predators such as the wolf, bear,
and wolverine. Healthy, adult animals are rarely attacked by predators.

HYPOTHESIS

To be tested in this model is the hypothesis that Pincevent,
Etiolles, and Les Tarterets were roughly contemporaneous seasonal
camp sites of reindeer followers who consciously exerted at least a
minimal influence on the behavior of the reindeer and who were, there-
fore, incipient domesticators.

CRITERIA FOR TESTING

If this hypothesis is correct, then the archeological record should

reveal

a.) evidence of contemporary occupation

b.) evidence of human dependence on reindeer

c.) evidence of seasonal occupation

d.) discrepancies in age/sex ratios

e.) evidence of animals' habituation to man

Application of the first criterion will situate the sites in time,
and establish the identity of their occupants. The second criterion will
indicate the significance of a particular element in the behavioral
environment in the human subsistence pattern. Application of the last
three criteria will characterize the nature of the relationship exist-
ing between man and that particularly significant element.

-58-

TE STING

CONTEMPORARY OCCUPATION

Absolute dates have only been obtained for Pincevent (see page 52).
Unfortunately, samples from EtioUes and Les Tarterets which were to be
dated by the C^^ method were found to have been contaminated (Taborin
1975). Faunal remains and artif actual evidence from those sites, how-
ever, suggest a time period not inconsistent with that indicated for

Pincevent.

Faunal and floral analyses do not yield absolute dates, but serve

to situate an assemblage in geologic time. Conditions of preservation

may make this sort of dating unreliable, and must be taken into con-

-Paris Basiw
sideration. In the ?S, soil conditions are not optimum for preservation.

No floral remains have been found in the humid, sandy soil, and only

teeth and denser bones of larger mammals have been found in relatively

good condition. Enough has been uncovered, nevertheless, to allow

guarded speculation about the time during which the sites were occupied.

The following table shows the faunal representation at Pincevent,

section 36.

Section 36 is the area 25m2 which has been most thoroughly ex-
cavated since 1967. Within the Magdalenian 1^^^^-^/!°"^' f ^varied
yielded at least three complete te"^ .^'^"/.^^^"r.l- Th^firlt
flint assemblage, and extensive Utn.Cand bone debris, ^he first
section to receive attention at Pincevent was Sec ion 1. J^ "^^^^"^^^
a Maedalenian level similar to, but probably earlier than that of
Sec ?on 36 The question of the anteriority of Section 1 to Section 36
is ai InJeresting'one and its investigation could contribute .uch to
our present understanding of Magdalenian settlement Patterns. ^^ is
not. however, necessary that the relation of the two sections ^e deter-
mined in order to investigate the subsistence pattern at one. The dater
l^sed in this study will pertain only to Section 36. unless otherwise
noted.

-59-

FAUNAL REPRESENTATION AT PINCEVENT

SPECIES ESTIMATED NO. OF IND.^

Wolf 2

Bird 2

Horse 1

Hare 1

Mollusk 4

Reindeer , 43

(From Lerol-Gourhan, 1972) Figure 1

Positive determination of number of individuals for each species has
not been made for the other two sites, but at both, the reindeer is
present in greatest number, followed by the wolf, horse, and hare
(Taborin 1975) (see Table 1). The presence of such a significant
number of reindeer would suggest a tundra, or forest/tundra climate.
Primitive horses, wolves, and hares are also known to have inhabited
the same environment (Kurten 1969). Unfortunately, no small mammals,
such as rodents, have been found. They are generally less tolerant
of climatic changes; their populations, therefore, reflect changes
more readily than do populations of large animals.

The presence of reindeer, which exist only in tundra-like environ-
ment within migration distance of forest places the occupation of the
sites in the last stages of the Late Pleistocene. It was during that
period that the environment of Central France was tundra and forest/
tundra (Figure 4) (Butzer 1972:292).

2

Determination of number of individuals: Wolf: two right radii;
horse: a tarsus, one left molar; bird: one egg, hares: jawbones,
reindeer: mandibles. See Leroi-Gourhan 1972: 141-203.

-60-

It Is interesting that in the lowest, and presumbably earliest levels
of both Pincevent and Etiolles, remains of wooly mammoth have been un-
covered (Leroi-Gourhan 1969). To date, it has not been found but in
that early level. It seems to vanish from the fossil record of Central
and Western Europe at the end of the last interstadial , just before the

Younger Dryas began. Whether cl imatic change was a factor in its demise

3
or not, its presence in comparable (if not contemporaneous) levels at

both sites, and its absence in later levels would seem to suggest the

contemporaneousness of cultures occupying the sites at the same time

as the mammoth.

In sum, the combined faunal inventory of all three sites suggests
an environment characterized by open steppe and forested tundra, as such
an environment almost certainly existed in that region during the last
V/urm glacial period, it can be assumed that cultures, coexisting with
that fauna existed during the same period.

Such a determination may be a step in the right direction, but it
proves no more than that the sites were all occupied at some time within
the Wurm III/IV - Wurm IV, Periods, which may have lasted several
thousand years. In order to determine more precisely whether the sites
were occupied at the same time, it will be necessary to examine cultural
artifacts. The assumption here is that cultural artifacts evolve through
time, and if the various stages of development are known then the
relative period in time at which a particular artifact appears can be

3
It has been sugprsced (by Bordes 1963 and Leroi-Gourhan 1972) that
technological developments (the invention of the bow, in particular) at
the end of the Paleolithic permitted more efficient hunting which re-
sulted in the 'overkill" of many large game animals.

-61-

determlned. The presence at sites of artifacts peculiar to a certain
period suggests that the sites were contemporaneous.

By far the most well represented class of artifacts found in the
Paris Basin are stone tools. Fireplaces, patches of ochre, and tent
perimeters are also cultural artifacts found in the region but their
relative scarcity has prevented the study of their evolution. Stone
tool industries throughout most of Europe during the last stages of
the Pleistocene are classified as belonging to the Magdalentan culture.
The culture appears during the Wiirm III/IV interstadial, and disappears
with the advent of the Postglacial period, ca. 9,500 bp (Bordes 1968).
Magdalenian tools evolve through six stages. For the most part, flint
implements do not undergo important modifications in the later half of
the Magdalenian; tool classification is based on the development of
barbed harpoons. Harpoons have yet to be found in the Paris Basin,
and so flint implements found in the area are assigned to the different
Magdalenian stages to which their type belongs in other areas where the
harpoons are found. At present, most stone implements uncovered in
the Basin have been assigned to the last four stages of the Magdalenian.
On the basis of assemblages found elsewhere in France, these last stages
are characterized by the large number of blade tools and burins, and
by curved back knives. Font Brunei points, geometric microliths, and
parrot-beak burins, which appear in the most recent assemblages (Bordes
1968).

At Pincevent blades and bladelets account for 65. 6^% of the total
assemblage. They occur in large numbers, too, at Etiolles, where they

4
Unfortunately no quantitative data are available for the lithic
assemblage at Les Tarterets. Except for the absence of extraordinarily
long blades, it appears contain the same tool types in similar proportions
as the Etiolles assemblage (Taborin: personal communication, April, 1976)

.62-

TABLE 2

RELATIVE FREQUENCIES OF STC'TE TYPES

AT PINCEVENT AND ETIOLL'' '

(after Leroi-Gourhan 197 .nd

Taborin 1975)

PINCEVENT

ETIOLLES

Tool
Designation

Number

Percent
of total
assemblage

Number

Percent
of total
assemblage

BLADES

backed

truncated

denticulated

other

Total

2
12

2
21
37

BLADELETS

backed 671

truncatec/backed 5

other 1_

Total 677

2.697,

62.93%

850

72

86.607.

7.337.

BURINS

dihedral

18

truncated

2

multiple /truncated

1

multiple/mixed

5

other

115

Total

142

BORERS

simple

69

parrotbeak

7

multiple

6

micro

56

Total

125

SCRAPERS

simple

61

double

3

scraper/burin

5

other

20

Total

89

12.147,

36

3.667,

12.537,

11

1.127,

8.077,

12

1.207,

• 63-

Figure 7, Burins: Etiolles (From Taborin 1975)
1-truncated, 2-multiple truncated.

3 cm

— I

12

Figure 5 (above) Bladelets:
Pincevent (from Leroi-Gourhan
1972) all blades exhibit fine
lateral retouch.

Figure 6. (left) Burins:
Pincevent (from Leroi-Gourhan
1972). 5 - dihedral,
6 - dihedral/scraper.

—64-

Figure 8. Borers: Pincevent (from Leroi-
Gourhan 1972)

a. - microborers on burin chips.

b, c - bilaterally retouched borers on flakes.
d - double ended borers.

Figure 9

Beak: Etiolles (from Taborin 1975)

burin/beak on blade.

3c/»i.
I

-65-

Figure 10, Scraper: Pincevent
(from Leroi-Gourhan 1972)

Simple ended scraper on blade

Figure 11.
Scraper: Etiolles

(from Taborin 1972)

Simple ended scraper on blade.

3cm.

—I

-66-

exhibit the same types of fine lateral end retouch (see figure 5)
There is a striking difference, however, in the relative length of
blades from the two sites. The average length of blades at Pincevent
varies from 13 mm. to 70 mm., and most blades known from Etiolles have
fallen within the same range (Taborin 1975). Recent excavations at that
site have yielded blades as long as 610 mm.

Burins constitute more than 12% of the Pincevent assemblage (see
Figure 6, Table 2). They are, after backed bladelets, the most common
tool. While they are common at Etiolles, they do not constitute such
a significant part of the assemblage (see Table 2). Burins from both
sites are of approximately the same style and dimensions.

Borers, made from flakes and blades (and at Pincevent, burin chips)
are known at both sites, although they are not as numerous at Etiolles
as they are at Pincevent (see Table 2). The borers and beaks at
Pincevent are generally very small tools, fewer than 50 mm. in length
(see figure 8). They exhibit both lateral and alternate retouch, and
frequently occur in multiple form.

Scrapers are more numerous and varied at Pincevent than at Etiolles
(see Table 2). The ends of simple scrapers are rounded; narrow scrapers
have semicircular ends, whereas wider scrapers have broader, less curved
ends (see Figures 10,11). Retouch on scrapers at both sites is rarely
abrupt. The size of scrapers at both sites is comparable.

As yet, no bone tools or implements of any kind have been uncovered
at Etiolles, but a few javelin points and fragments of tv;o shaft straight-
cners (all of antlers) lave been found at Pincevent (Leroi-Gourhan 1972).

Blades and bladelets are by far the most common tools at both Etiolles
andPinccvcnt . They are followed in quantity at both sites by burins and

• 67-

borers. Retouched flakes are not common at either site , although they
are more frequently found at Etiolles. Geometric microliths are all
but absent at Etiolles, but do appear at Pincevent. In other assemblages
in France, flake tools are generally more common in the early part of
the late Magdalenian, whereas, microliths are more common in the very
last stages (Bordes 1968). This might serve to antedate Etiolles in
respect to Pincevent. Before dissimilarites in the assemblages are
attributed to different stages in technological evolution, however, two
points should be considered. First is the quantity of flint cores. A
total of 111 were found at Etiolles, whereas cores are rare in the
Pincevent inventory (Taborin 1975; Leroi-Gourhan 1972). Y. Taborin and
M. Brezillon at Etiolles have demonstrated that in many cases, flakes,
chips, and blades are found near the cores from which they originated.
The reconstruction of a core in habitation A7 is an example (see Taborin
1975). Such close association of cores, unused tools (as many blades
were), and products of debitage suggests a tool-making area. Tool-
making occurred at Pincevent, to be sure, but Leroi-Gourhan (1972) feels
that it was probably carried out only to maintain the group's collection
of workable tools, and that it need not have demanded significantly
more time or collective interest than any other necessary camp activity.
There is reason to believe that tool-making was more important to the
inhabitants of Etiolles. Debitage areas at Pincevent occupy spaces of
no more than 1 meter in diameter, situated three-quarters of the way

around the main hearths. In contrast, debitage areasat Etiolles (A 17,

2
for example) may occupy areas of up to 2m (see Figure 12). It is un-
likely that such areas were necessary to maintain the inhabitant's tool

-68-

F^

ncaBMHBteM.^^

.-.jSii'

JWil*-

:-^-?.<.W?-J

l-J^>-w-5«i;

;,-.;.>3ad

Figure 12
Debitage near habitation A 17 at Etiolles

.(From Taborin 1975)

kits. The reason for the extensive debitage areas at Etiolles remains
unknown, hov/ever, the second point to consider is that the most striking
difference in the two assemblages does not concern relative frequencies
of tool types, but rather the relative size of blades. Blades from
Pincevent vary in length from 1-7 cm.; from Etiolles, 4-61 cm. (Taborin
1975). The uncommonly large blades at Etiolles bear few or no traces
of use, whereas most blades at Pincevent do (Leroi-Gourhan 1972). The
difference in blade size is probably not a functional one, but the
reason for the variation is not known.

In any case, the differences which exist between the Itthlc assem-
blages of Pincevent and Etiolles are not of the nature which would indi-

■69.

cate different stages in technological evolution. Differences in rela-
tive frequencies of tool types alone may suggest, but do not define such
evolutionary changes. The few differences in tool type frequencies
which are evident are not significant enough to indicate completely
different cultures or stages in technological development. They may
suggest, however, some degree of functional variation between the
assemblages. This suggestion will be explored more fully in the dis-
cussion of the exploitation of resources and use of tools, which follows.

At this point, it can be concluded that all tools in both assem-
blages are of the type, and exist within an acceptable range of relative
frequency to be considered vestiges of the Late Magdalenian culture.
If we exclude the unlikely (but often suggested) possibility that two
vastly different cultures could develop highly similar, if not identi-
cal, industries, and if we return to the original assumption that arti-
facts peculiar to a given period suggest contemporaneousness of sites
containing them, then we may conclude that Plncevent, Etiolles, and
Tarterets were occupied by groups of the same culture during more or
less the same period.
SEASONAL OCCUPATION

It now must be determined that the sites v.'ere seasonally occupied
and that occupation of all sites was during the same season(s). Sea-
sonal occupation is used here, as Butzer defines it: occupation of
some months duration (Butzer 1971:404). From what is known about the
Palaeo_environment of the Basin, it can be inferred that the sites were
not occupied during the winter. During the winter, tundras are swept
with winds and covered in snow. The winter tent-complex at Borncck

-70-

(Butzer 1971:480) is evidence that Magdalenians were able to cope with
such harsh environments, however, it should be noted that the inhabitants
of Borneck were subsisting on animals which could successfully occupy
that environment, whereas, the Magdalenians of the Paris Basin appear to
have been dependent upon reindeer, v/hich do not occupy open, snow-
covered tundra. During the winter, reindeer move into forested areas
where they find shelter and food. It can be assumed that a human
group highly dependent upon them would also move into, or nearer the
forest during the winter, unless they were able to exploit another food
source. There is no evidence that the occupants of the Basin exploited
any other food source to the extent that they did the reindeer (This
will be discussed in greater depth shortly). The sites, then, seem to
have been occupied sometime between the sping and winter. This is
further substantiated by antler and bone inventories.

As J. Bouchud (1966) has shown, the stage of tooth eruption and
degree of wear are indicators of an animal's age, Bouchud 's method of
age determination has been applied by Leroi-Gourhan in the analysis of
reindeer dentition at Pincevent. The representation of certain age
groups suggests a seasonal occupation. Summer occupation is indicated
by the presence of individuals in the 0-3 month age group. Most of
the calving, it will be remembered, takes place in the early summer.
Animals killed which were fewer than 4 months old would have been killed
before the end of August or so; those of more than 4, but fewer than 12
months old would also have been killed in the same season - of the year
following their birth , .While they are represented, individuals in the
4-12 month group are relatively few. Bouchud notes that not yet entirely
calcified teeth of young animals may disintegrate under the weight of

-71-

sediments which cover them, and that this could explain their relative
scarcity (Bouchud 1966:128), Leroi-Gourhan maintains however, that if
they were indeed present at one time, they must have disappeared due to
some sort of organic or chemical corrosion, since crushed teeth are
visible and have actually been found in the fine limons of the site.
(Leroi-Gourhan 1972:163). Whatever the reason for their scarcity, their
presence is positive indication that the site was occupied between June
and September.

Representation of male and/or female antlers is also indicative of
the season of occupation. Antlers of male reindeer have a main stem
35-41 mm. in diameter (Leroi-Gourhan 1972:158); those of females are
much smaller, having a stem of fewer than 25 mm. in diam. It is
possible, as Bouchud explains (1966), to determine whether an antler
was shed or removed from a killed animal, by examination of the pedicel,
or base of the antler. The presence of shed antlers of both sexes indi-
cates occupation during the months when antlers are shed - August and
October. Most male antlers, shed and butchered, show traces of use,
and many appear to have been worked, as if in the production of javelin
points or other implements (Leroi-Gourhan 1972: 158-159). This suggests
autumn occupation, since it is during that season that adult males use
their antlers in rutting battles, and in which, therefore, their antlers
are the most compact and most suitable as tool-making material. The
occupation of Pincevent seems, then to have run from the early summer
(June) through the end of autumn (November). Estival and autumnal
occupation patterns are also suggested for Etiolles and Les Tarterets
(Taborin, 1975)

.72-

HUMAN DEPENDENCE UPON REINDEER

The almost total dependence upon reindeer as sources of food,
clothing and shelter of the sites' occupants is suggested in two ways:
first, by the relative scarcity or absence of any other game which could
have provided what reindeer did not, and second, by indications that the
occupants did, in fact, take advantage of abundant supplies of meat
and reindeer by-products.

As noted earlier (Figure 1 ) , no mammals other than the reindeer
are represented in significant number at any of the three sites. There
is likewise negligible evidence of birds and marine life which are
known to have existed in the Paris Basin during the Late Pleistocene.
This may indeed suggest that reindeer were the only animals exploited
and that the Magdalenians were dependent upon them. There are, however,
other possible explanations for the reindeer's dominance of the faunal
inventory. One is that due to conditions of preservation, the fauna of
ten thousand years ago are not accurately represented (in terms of rela-
tive frequencies) in the archeological record. Poor preservation is al-
most certainly to blame for the scarce representations of small mammals
and birds, and perhaps also for the scarcity of shellfish - all of which
have been found in Upper Palaeolithic habitation sites elsewhere (Le
Moustier, for example), but it does not explain the absence of the horse,
whose bones are as resistent to corrosion as the reindeer's (Leroi-Gourhan
1972:142). Evidently, the horse was not exploited by the Magdalenians in
the Basin to the extent that the reindeer was. The reason for this could
be that reindeer were preferred for some quality, that they were easier to
capture, or that horses simply weren't around. The last is probably the most

.73.

likely explanation. Different species which occupy the same type of
environment and subsist on the same food usually do not occupy a
particular niche simultaneously. This is particularly true of herd
animals. Therefore, if the horse existed in Central France during the
Late Pleistocene, competition with the reindeer probably prevented it
from occupying the Basin in any number during the times when the
reindeer were there.

Another explanation which could be offered for the seemingly
disproportionate abundance of reindeer is that the sites were not
habitation sites at all, but job specific ones. Bone inventories from
the sites may not be reflective of the occupants' subsistence and living
activities; rather, they may indicate the practice of a single type
activity - in this case, one dealing with reindeer slaughter and prepa-
ration.

Lithic assemblages at each site contain tools associated with
butchering and hide preparation: bees, borers, end and side scrapers,
per(^oirs, and various blades. That such tools were actually employed
in butchering and hide preparation is suggested by the traces of use on
them (Leroi-Gourhan 1972:65). Traces on end scrapers from all sites
indicate that they were held by the heel and pushed away from the body,
over a relatively soft material. Traces of use on all edges of borers
at Pincevent suggest use in perforation of soft materials, such as hides
(Leroi-Gourhan 1972:41). They may also have been used to drill holes in
bone or antler, but the absence of borers with broken points makes it
unlikely that they v. Je used to perforate very hard materials, such as
stone or shell (Leroi-Gourhan 1972:41).

-74-

It is not necessary to look for a strict Interassemblage functional
variation to see that activities other than butchering took place at
the sites.

The construction and apparent duration of the habitation units is
further indication that the sites were not simply kill sites. Units

at Pincevent and Etiolles appear to have been sizeable, covering areas

2
of up to 7ra , including living space, hearth, and associated areas of

debris (Leroi-Gourhan 1972: 247-250; Taborin 1975: 5-22). The living
spaces at Pincevent were probably covered with hides supported by
wooden poles planted in an open circle, converging at the top. No
postholes remain, and the only clue to tent dimensions is the dis-
tribution of ochre, bones, and lithic debris. The three habitation
units at Pincevent appear to have been of similar construction. They
consist the area sheltered by the tent {C,B - see Figure 13), the
hearth (A) and several zones of debris (B'^, D, E, F, G, ). Ochre,
found in all Magdalenian habitation sites, is distributed evenly within
the perimeter of the tent. It occurs elsewhere about the site, but
in uneven distribution. Some spaces in the tent are free of ochre (C),
probably indicating areas where sleeping material was laid. The
hearths of the three principal domestic units are of the large basin
type (Leroi-Gourhan 1972: 219). They were dug into the ground, and
bordered with large stones forming a roughly circular hearth of 60-90 cm
in diameter (Leroi-Gourhan 1972: 221). The basins are not spherical;
one side slopes more gently than the others. The slope was evidently
created by the firetender when he drew the earth toward him in making
the fireplace, and was maintained by the periodic raking out of cinders.

.75-

T /

IV

11

B^ ^pB? D ) E ) F

\G

Figure 13

Scale=

=lm.

Distribution of ochre, bone and lithic debris about domestic units
at Pincevent (from Leroi-Gourhan 1972).

Ill Top view of the covered living area.
IV Angle view of covered living area.
V Angle view of living area, and various zones of debris.

A-hearth; B - area of most domestic activity; C area free of ochre -
probably sleeping area; D - nearby refuse; E - dispersed refuse;
F - occasional refuse; P - perimeter of tent; T - supposed placement
of hides.

€)

.76-

1

1

: i

- \ .

,

^

1

1

T

112

•* V

.

1^: •

1 -^w ,

r

V

1 i ' •■- ,in;=!V. -■•■•-' #-.^-.'; .v^i . " >•

, -- W

©.•■■

4

.- ..,1* ■-<*-'k ^ 'i ••i-,! i

^* i

*

%^

•

05 "

'l

*.- -^

O '

/

•■■■ vv^.wSc\>T ./■■;; .

^

' * 1

«

^

•''~>

f

/ •

/
>

b

"s^J

•

Figure 14.

SFjowioq jilhic and bone debrie d'S+ribuHon
abool habi-ia+ion UnUs \/lOS £ Ti(e Cieroi-^iour^on 1«\12)-

■77-

Ashes were dumped in ash piles not far to the South or West of the
hearths (M. Julien in Leroi-Gourhan 1972: 283-286). The condition of
border stones, often cracked and fallen into the basin, is an indication
of frequent, if not constant use over a considerable length of time.
A long period of use is also suggested by the burned earth in the
basins and under the border stones.

Lithic debris is in greatest concentration in a semicircular area
around the side of the hearth opposite the entrance to the shelter (see
figure 13). Habitation V105 (see figure 14) is exceptional, as lithic
and bone debris are concentrated in an area diagonal from the hearth.
Apparently the entrance to V105 opened on to the back of another tent,
T112, forcing the occupants of VJ05 to sweep their debris to the side.
Bone debris are distributed around the other hearths, and both inside
and outside the perimeters of the tents. Generally, debris nearest
the hearths consists of smaller bones (ribs, mandibles, hyoids), and
that farther away consists of larger bones (antlers, pelvic bones,
scapulae, and femurs)(Leroi-Gourhan 1972). Where broken antlers and
long bones are found near hearths, complete specimens of the same type
are not. The few bones which bear tool marks are distributed with un-
marked bones of the same type. Marks and traces on all bone material
(with the exception of bones and antlers destined to become tools)
appear to have been left by flint implements in butchering processes
(David, in Lerol-Gourhan 1972: 317-320).

Other habitation units may be suggested at Pincevent by several
other hearths. Those irths are smaller, however, and are not associ-
ated with any sort of patterned distribution of ochre, bones, or lithic

• 78-

debris. Moreover, they do not appear to have been used over an ex-
tended period of time, as there is no burned earth In them, and none
of the border stones is heat-cracked. It is unlikely that they repre-
sent important domestic units, although they may have been built for
temporary or auxiliary tents (Leroi-Gourhan 1972).

Excavations have revealed no domestic units at Les Tarterets,
but at least three have been found at Etiolles. One is suggested by
a large basin hearth, which was curiously filled in with lithic debris,
pebbles, and other material (Taborin 1975). The tent perimeter is not
visible, but several large stones and flat rocks are among the debris
scattered to the Southwest of the fireplace, and Taborin (1975) believes
they may well have served to secure hides around the bottom of the tent.

An especially well constructed tent is indicated by an open circle
of stones and an elaborate fireplace. Great care was taken in the
construction of this tent, as the stones, each weighing several kilos,
were not indigenous to the site, but had to have been carried from
Champigny, a few kilometers away (Taborin 1975). These stones were
placed directly on top of debitage flakes, suggesting that the spot
had been occupied for some time before the tent border was set up.
The entrance to the tent is indicated by a break in the circle, facing
Southwest. A third habitation is suggested by a rocky hearth, bordered
on two sides by a double row of small stones, and by the distributions
of ochre and debris (Taborin 1975).

At Etiolles, the lithic debris is remarkable in quantity and di-
versity. The assemblage contains tools associated with butchering and
hide preparation (blades, side scrapers, etc.), and traces on them

-79-

show they were actually used in that capacity (Taborin 1972). Other
tools in the Etiolles assemblage are not associated with these activi-
ties, however, the very number of tools and quantity of toolmaking
debris indicates that another activity besides butchering - toolmaking -
was important at the site.

At both sites, the size of the tents and care with which they were
constructed suggest at least the intention of a long and relatively
comfortable stay. The hearths seem quite adequate to accomodate the
needs of a cook and toolmaker, and they contain evidence that both did
indeed use the fireplaces for a considerable length of time. Further-
more if Pincevent and Etiolles were kill sites or butchering centers,
they would surely have processed more than the fifty or so animals which
they did during their extended stay. It seems fairly certain that the
sites were settlement areas, and not job-specific sites. However,
differences in relative quantity of bone and lithic debris at the two
sites may suggest specialization of activities the possibility has been
suggested by Taborin (1976 personal communication) that the occupants
of Etiolles specialized in toolmaking, and engaged in some sort of
cooperative exchange with other sites. It is improbable (although
possible) that they traded with the group at Pincevent. The lithic
assemblage and supposed bone tool assemblage reflect an industry at
Pincevent which would have supplied the occupants with every kind of
tool they could have, made use of, given their (suspected) subsistence
pattern (Leroi-Gourhan, Khulman 1976: personal communication). Further-
more, none of the extraordinary blades, which seem to have been the
specialty of Etiolles, have been uncovered at Pincevent. There are

.80-

fine blades at Pincevent and they may indeed have come from Etlolles;
however, there is no way to be sure since many of the blades are of the
same slate-gray flint. It will be interesting to see if any of the
Etiolles-type blades turn up at Les TarterSts. Perhaps the bone
Inventory will be more important at the twin sites, strongly suggesting
technological and economic cooperation. The investigation of this
possibility must await further excavation.

If we assume that the sites were settlement areas and that exchange
with other groups played if any, a negligible role in their subsistence
pattern, then we may assume that the occupants exploited the fauna which
is represented on the sites. The question follows as to whether or not
the sites' occupants could have been supported by the amount of food
represented. Leroi-Gourhan (1972: 143-164) estimates that the occupants
of Pincevent were more than adequately supported by the reindeer. Al-
lowing an average of 50 kg edible soft parts for each of the 40 animals
found, it can be calculated that each of 15 people living in 3 tents
(5 individuals per tent) for a period of 5 months could have consumed
as many as 850g of meat per day (Leroi-Gourhan 1972: 143). The condition
of bone material and state of exacavations has not permitted similar
calculations for either Les Tarterets or Etiolles. Nevertheless, prelim-
inary estimations by Taborin (1976: personal communication) suggest a
high level of meat consumption.

The daily allowance for Pincevent occupants seems rather high,
especially if one considers that not all of the people could have con-
sumed that much, and f « could have consumed more. Children would have
been able to eat considerably less, and even the heftiest adult male

-81-

could not have eaten much more. It must be remembered, too, that other
foods were almost certainly part of the diet. Unfortunately, no trace
of vegetal foods remains, and their relative importance is impossible
to estimate.

Furthermore, meat was not the only part of the reindeer which was
eaten. Long bones, uniformly broken, are found in high relative fre-
quency (to unbroken ones) at all sites near domestic units, particularly
around the hearths (Leroi-Gourhan 1972: 164, Taborin 1976, personal
communication). This strongly suggests the consumption of marrow, a
rich and nutritious food. The presence at each site, too, of heat-
cracked rocks suggests the practice of stone boiling, which could well
have provided soup (Leroi-Gourhan 1972, Taborin 1975). Considering
that meat comprised only part of the diet, the daily meat consumption
suggested for Pincevent appears unrealistically high. Miscalculation
of the human population may account for this. It is possible that the
human population is under represented by the few habitations yet un-
covered. Also underestimated could be the duration of occupation. The
period of five months used in the calculation is, however, verified by
antler and bone analysis (see pp70-71 ) and is considered to be fairly
accurate. Even if an occupation of as long as seven months were indi-
cated, the reindeer would have provided 600 g. of meat per day for each
individual (Leroi-Gourhan 1972: 143). The estimation of average daily
consumption may rise further if we consider the all too likely possi-
bility that the number of animals actually killed could be under repre-
sented due to the work of scavengers or poor preservation. A more
accurate estimation of food consumption will be possible only after

-82-

raore extensive excavation - if then.

At this point, the evidence is sufficient to permit the conclusion
that the inhabitants of Pincevent, Etiolles and Les Tarterets made
good use of the reindeer as a source of food, shelter, and probably
clothing as well. The apparently very efficient exploitation of
reindeer and absence of evidence for the exploitation of any other
food source are positive indications that the sites' inhabitants were
highly dependent upon the reindeer.

DISCREPANCIES IN AGE/SEX RATIOS

Bone remains at Etiolles and Les Tarterets are too poorly pre-
served to furnish any information about the age groups or sex ratio
within the number of reindeer killed there. Age groups are identifi-
able in the Pincevent inventory, and have been determined on the basis
of dentition (see Leroi-Gourhan 1972: 160-165, 298). From 607„ - 707,
of the individuals represented appear to be fewer than 3 years old
(see Figure 14). Fewer than 25% of that group and only 147„ of the
total population are individuals under 3 mo. old. The 4-6 year age
group is represented in slightly greater number, followed by the 7-8
year group, which constitutes about 20°/o of the total.

The data indicate that the favored prey were immature animals,
between 1 and 3 years of age. Female reindeer are able to bear calves
at about 3 years, and males mature shortly after that (Richardson 1956),
It is significant that few (10-157J older animals, except the very old,
were killed. It could be argued that mature, able animals would have
been the most difficult to bring down, and that explains their poor

-83-

Figure 14,

AGE REPRESENTATION

at Pincevent
(after Leroi-Gourhan 1972
Figure 191, p. 298).

I

H

-84-

representation, however, reindeer of just a year old are equally
capable of out_^running or outwitting hunters. Clearly, the younger
animals were selected for some other reason.

It should be emphasized that these animals were not newborns. New-
borns at Pincevent would have been all individuals fewer than about
four months old, given that reindeer calves are born in the spring
and summer, and that the site was occupied during those months. New-
borns constitute a curiously small percentage of the animals killed.
Data are unavailable for the sex ratios of present and past reindeer
populations during calving season, but one would certainly expect
mature females to make up more than 10% of a group with newborn calves.
If most mature females had one calf, the calves would surely constitute
more than the 147, of the population which is suggested by the Pincevent
data. Furthermore, if these reindeer were the prey of hunters, it
would be difficult to imagine so small a percentage of easy prey -
especially during the season when easy prey is so abundant.

Determination of the sex of reindeer killed at Pincevent has been
difficult due to the fragmentation and poor preservation of bone ma-
terial. Males and females were indeed on the site, as evidenced by the
presence of both m^le and female antlers. A renewed effort to determine
sex has been made in recent months; as yet no positive estimations are
possible, but it appears that males are represented in significant
number (David, F. 1977, personal communication).

The selective slaughter pattern so clearly indicated at Pincevent
is fully consistent with the pattern outlined earlier for incipient
domestication: The breeding members of the population are spared,
while immature and aged individuals are culled.

-85-

SLAUGHTER PATTERNS

There is no evidence that stampeding was practiced at or near any
of the sites. Neither is there evidence that reindeer were killed with
projectiles. No projectile points have been found in association with
any bones, and then only at Pincevent have any marked bones been found.
The markings on them are those expected to be made in usual butchering
processes (David, in Leroi-Gourhan 1972). This does not mean, of
course, that stampeding and hunting with projectiles did not occur.
They may have. There are, however, a few other facts which lead Leroi-
Gourhan (1972) to doubt that such hunting methods were practiced. One
is that all parts of the reindeer skeleton, except the extremely fragile
facial bones are represented at Pincevent (Leroi-Gourhan 1972: 151).
Stampedes cannot be successfully carried out near, or even short dis-
tances away from established settlement areas. The necessity of carry-
ing (presumably on foot) the meat over some distance would make it
worthwhile to take only those parts of the animal which had the highest
proportion of edible material per weight unit. Thus it is found at
most stampede sites that all flesh, some organs (tongue, brain) and
marrow containing bones were removed from the site (the Casper site,
for example: "rison 1974) leaving the heavy skulls, vertebrae, and
pelvic bones. The presence of vertebrae and pelvic bones at Pincevent,
suggests that the animals were killed at or near the camp site, and
not with stampedes.

The conspicuous absence of projectile points in the lithic and
worked bone assemblages is also indicative of a slaughter pattern

• 86.

different from that frequently employed by hunters when killing herd
animals. There have been found, at Pincevent, a few bone point bases,
but their state of preservation is such that it would be difficult to
determine if, and in what capacity they were used (Leroi-Gourhan 1972).

It appears, then, that reindeer (at Pincevent) were slaughtered
individually, on or near the camp site and probably at close range.
They could have been killed individually and at close range by hunters
using disguises or decoys, but to have been slaughtered on or near the
camp site, they would have to have been habituated to some degree to
human presence.

CONCLUSIONS

The data presented in this model are highly suggestive of a man/
animal relationship involving domestication. Suggested is a form of
domestication characterized by the minimal control and manipulation of
reindeer behavior by man. The result of this manipulation was their
habication to human proximity which facilitated selective slaughter and
which in turn assured the herd's success and maintenance as the prime
resource of the human comjnunity. The interest shown by the occupants
of the Paris Basin in the assurance of a healthy herd is evidenced by
age curves of killed animals which strongly suggest selection for
non essential, non reproductive individuals. That the reindeer had
become habituated to man's presence is suggested by slaughter patterns,
and further, (if not as positively) , by the hypothesized duration of the
sites' occupation and association between the animals and man.

Selective slaughter and habituation are features of incipient
domestication; they reflect the interest in and control of animal
behavior, which differentiate incipient domestication from specialized
hunting. The latter m^y involve a certain amount of human interference
in the lives of animals, but the element of control is absent. Since
the domestication which appears to have occurred in the Paris Basin was
almost surely preceded by specialized hunting, one might wonder what
caused the change. This is an important question, and one which deserves

-87-

more attention than is possible to give at the current stage of research.
Several points may be considered relevant to the explanation of the
hypothesized shift in subsistence activities from specialized hunting to
incipient domestication. One emphasizes the importance of site location
as a motivation for domestication. It may be going a bit far to claim
strategic site location a prerequisite to domesicat ion, as Jarman (1975)
does, however, the development of a closer relationship would certainly
be favored if the site location permitted or forced closer association
of the animals with man. The sites of Etiolles, les Tarterets, and
Pincevent are thought to have been situated somewhere along what was
a great North - South reindeer migration route during the Upper Paleolithic
(Butzer 1971, Jarman 1975). The situation of Etiolles and les Tarterets,
near a ford .vhich quite possibly existed as long ago as ten thousand years
(Brard 1950) suggests that they were located near, ' if not actually
in, the path of the reindeer (see figure 2). Pincevent may also have
been as strategically located, but there is no evidence that a ford
existed nearby. Riverbanks may have been ''used" by the sites' inhabitants
to observe movement of their herds; constant observation would have
strengthened an already intimate knowledge of the animals' behavior and
would have allowed the Magdalenians to recognize and take advantage of
any potentially profitable situation (i.e. a situation in which control
could be exercised over the animals). Childe (1951) and V/atson and
Watson (1966) place particular emphasis on the opportunity to observe
and recognize potentially advantageous situations as conditions for the
occurrence of domestication.

■ 89-

Under a certain set of circumstances, and given the opportunity
to observe animals after an extended period of time, the reasonably
Intelligent man will "invent" domestication (Watson and Watson 1966).
Whether or not this is generally true, it does not seem likely to have
been the case in the Upper Paleolithic Paris Basin. As discussed in
chapter I, domestication is not an invention and does not occur unless
it offers a clear advantage as a means of subsistence. Reindeer hunt-
ing appears to have been a highly successful subsistence pattern in
parts of Europe throughout most of the Upper Paleolithic, if not earlier
(Butzer 1971), There is no evidence of environmental changes (such as
Chllde imagined) or any other conditions which would force man to invent
another means of subsistence. Domestication probably did not occur in
the Basin as a creation of man.

It m.ay have simply evolved as a symbiotic relationship between
two species - man and reindeer - v;hlch found close association to be
mutually advantageous. The advantages for man of such an association
are obvious. For reindeer, close association with human camp sites
would afford protection from wolves, against which they are practically
defenseless. The smoky fires of the Magdalenian camps v;ould have
repelled the flies and midges which severely plague reindeer in the
summer. Protection from predators, midges, and the possibility of
finding salt, urine, or other delicacies to eat could have made associ-
ation with man extremely attractive for the reindeer.

It is not unreasonable to expect that the Magdalenians would have
recognized the animal i v;illingness to associate, and could have capital-
ized on it. It Is unlikely that the relationship ever developed to the

.90-

Lapplsh extreme, but it could well have been similar to the man/reindeer
relationship which exists among the Chuckchi. Reindeer domestication
does not, in fact, exist in much more complicated forms except among
the Lapps. It usually has an "air of incompleteness" about it (Forde),
as the domesticators must be as compliant as hunters with the reindeer's
migratory habits.

Domestication, as a means of food production^ can afford long-term
security of resources which permits population expansion and encourages
technological development and culture change. The nature of reindeer
domestication would seem to check population growth, as large numbers
of people could not afford to live the nomadic life necessitated by
the reindeer's migratory drives. The correlation is interesting, how-
ever, between the disappearance of the Magdalenian culture near the
end of the Upper Paleolithic, and the beginning of food production
through animal domestication as suggested in this thesis. It awaits
to be seen what part domestication played in the cultural revolution
of the Mesolithic.

Icxrrcef-^ Cl^i

•91-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Belgrand, E. (1881) La Seine; I Le Bassin Parisien aux Ages
Antehlstorlques. Paris: Imprimerie Nationals

Berry, R. J. (1969). The genetical implications of domestication in
animals. In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and
Animals, ed. P. J. Ucko & G. W. Dimbleby. Chicago: Aldlne pp. ^ov-ig.

Bokonyi, S. (1969). Archeological problems and methods of recognizing

animal domestication. In The Domestication and Exploitation of

Plants and Animals, ed. P. J. Ucko 6. G. W. Dimbleby. Chicago:

Aldine pp. Z19-31.

Binford, L. (1972). An Archeological Perspective. New York: Seminar
Press.

Boessneck, J., Jequier, J. -P., and Stampfli, H. (1963). Seeburg,
Burgaschisse-Sud; Die Tierreste. Acta Bernensia 2, Teil 3.

Bordes, F. (1968). The Old Stone Age. New York: McGraw-Hill.

(1972. A Tale of Two Caves. New York: Harper &. Row.

Bouchud, J. (1966). Essai sur le Renne et la Climatologie du

Paleolithique Moyen et Supdrieur. Perigueux: Imprimerie Magne

Braidwood, R. J., The Old World: Post-Paleolithic. In The Identification
of Non-artifactual Archeological Materials. Washington, D. C:
Nat. Acad. Sci - Nat. Res. Counc. Publ. 565, pp. 14-16.

Brard, R. (1950). Ecologie Rogionale du Bassin de Paris. Paris: Payot.

Braynikov, B. (1937). Recherches sur les formations dites "argiles a
silex" dans le Bassin de Paris. In Revue de Geographic Physique
et de Geolop^ie Dynamique. Vol. X, no, 1.

Brezillon, M. (1972). Les Tarterets II, site Paleolithique de plein air
k Corbeil-Essone. Gallia Prehistojre XIV Paris: C.N.R.S.

Brothwell, D. (1969) .Dietary variation and the biology of earlier
human populations. In The Domestication and Exoloitation of
Plants and Animals, ed. P. J. Ucko d. G. W. Dimbleby. Chicago:
Aldine. pp. 53>l--fl7.

Chaplin, R. (1969). The use of non-morphological criteria in the study
of animal domestication from bones found on archeological sites.
In The Domost icat ion and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, ed.
P.J. Ucko (x G. W. Dimbleby. Chicago: Aldine. pp. -231-47.

*

'Su-tcer, k. d*^?!), g.rivirDnme.nt-. OAcl Arci-i6olcg^4- cfiicago: Aldine.

• 92-

Childe, V. G. (1951). Man Makes Himself. New York: New American Library.

Clark, D. (1972). Paleolithic butchery practices. In Man, Settlement,
and Urbanism, ed. P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, & G. W. Dimbleby,
Cambridge: Schenkman.

Human ecology during the Pleistocene and later times in Africa

south of the Sahara. In Current Anthropology, Vol. 1: 307-24.

Clark, G. (1952). Prehistoric Europe, the Economic Basis. Stanford;
Stanford University Press.

(1954). Excavations at Star Carr. Addison-Wesley Mod. Pub.

(1968). Ecological zones and economic stages. In Man in Adaptations,

ed. Cohen, Y. Chicago: Aldine.

Cohen, Y. (1968). ed. Man in Adaptation: The Blosocial Background.
Chicago: Aldine.

Colliers, S. and White, P. (1976). Get them young? Age and sex

inferences on animal domestication in archeology. In American
Antiquity. Vol. 41, No. 1. Jan. 1976.

Cranstone, B. (1969). Animal husbandry: the evidence from ethnography.
In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, ed.
P. J. Ucko & G. W. Dimbleby. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 247-fc5.

David, F. (1972). Analyse des temoins osseux. In Leroi-Gourhan,
Fouilles de Pincevent. Paris: C.N.R.S. pp. 295-321

David, N. (1973). On Upper Palaeolithic society, ecology, and

technological change: the Noaillian case. In The Expl£.nation of
Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, ed. C. Renfrew. Pittsburgh:
U. Pittsburgh Press. PP« 277-305.

Davidson, D., (1973). Terrain adjustment and prehistoric communities.
In Ecology and Agricultural Settlements. Andover: Warner Mod.
Pub. pp.

Donner, K. , (1959). Among the Samoyed in Siberia. New Haven:. Hum. Relat.
Files.

Ducos, P. (1969). Methodology and results of the study of the earliest
domesticated animals in the Near East (Palestine). In The Domesti-
cation and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, ed. P. J. Ucko &
G. W. Dimbleby, London: Duck^^^orth. pp. 263-75.

Evans-Pritchard, E., (''i'^O). The Nuer. New York: Oxford U. Press.

Fagan, g. (1974). Corridors in Time. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

-93.

Forde, C. (1963). Habitat, Economy, and Society. New York: Button.

Prison, G. (1974). The Casper Site. New York: Academic Press.

Gabel, C. (1967). Analysis of Prehistoric Economic Patterns. New York:
Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.

Grinnell, G. (1915). The Fighting Cheyennes. New York.

Hatt, G. (1919). Notes on reindeer nomadism. In Memoirs of the
^Vnerican Anthropological Association. Vol. VI, no. 2.

Higgs, E. (1975). ed. Papers in Economic Prehistory; Paleoeconomy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hoebel, E. (1972). Anthropology: the Study of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Isaac, E. (1970). Geography of Domestication. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.

Jequier, J-P (1963). In Seeberg. Burgaschisee-Siid; Die Tierreste,

by J. Boessneck, J. -P. Jequier & H. R. Stampfli. Acta Bernensis 2,
Teil 3.

Jewell, P. (1969). Wild animals and their potential for new domesti-
cation. In The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and
Animals, ed. P. J. L'cko & G. W. Dimbleby. Chicago: Aldine. pp.loi-i3..

Klein, R. (1968). Man and Culture in the Late Pleistocene. San Francisco:
Chandler.

Kurten, B. (1968). Pleistocene Mammals of Europe. Chicago: Aldine

Laufer, B. (1917). The reindeer and its domestication. In Memoirs of
the American Anthropological Association. Vol. IV, No. 2.

Lee, R. (1968). What hunters do for a living, or how to make out on
scarce resources. In Man the Hunter, ed. R. Lee & I. DeVore.
Chicago: Aldine, pp. 30-49-

Lee, R. and Devore, I. (1968). Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. and Brezillon, M (1966). 1 'Habitation N°l de
Pincevent Pr^s Montreau. Paris: C.N.R.S.

(1972). Fovilles de Pincevent. Paris: C.N.R.S.

Mellars, P. A. (1973). The character of Middle-Upper Paleolithic

transition in South-West France. In The Explanation of Culture
Change; Models in Prehistory, ed. C. Renfrew. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.

-94-

Odulok, T. (1934). Snow People. London: Methuen & Co.

Paterson, S. (1956). Anthropological studies among the Jokkmokk
Mountain Lapps. In Meddelande FrSn G6teborgs Universitets
Geograptska Institution, vol. 45.

Quimby, G. (1968). Habitat, culture, and archeology. In Man in
Adaptation; The Biosocial Background, ed. Y. Cohen. Chicago:
Aldine,

Renfrew, C (1973). ed. The Explanation of Culture Change: Models
in Prehistory. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Richardson (1953). Barren-ground caribou, Rangifer arcticus. In
Lives of Game Animals, by E. Seton. Boston: C. T. Branford,
Vol III. pt. I. pp. 95-107.

Sauer, C. (1952). Agricultural Origins and Dispersals. Boston: MIT.
Press.

Seton, E. (1953). Lives of Game Animals. Boston: C. T. Branford. Vol,
III. pt. I.

Schmider, B. (1971). Les Industries du Paleolithipue Superieur en
He de France. Paris: CNRS.

Smith, P. (1966). Food Production and its Consequences. Menlo Park:
Cummings.

Struever, S. (1971). ed. Prehistoric Agriculture. Garden City:
Natural History Press.

Sturdy, D. (1972). Some reindeer economies in prehistoric Europe. In
Papers in Economic Prehistory: Paleocconomy, ed. E. Higgs.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taborin, Y. (1975). Documents des Travaux Diriees, N°000962. Paris:
U.P.I. , Centre Tolbiac.

^Note preliminaire sur le site paleolithique d'Etiolles.

Unpublished bulletin.

Tringhara, R. (1973). ed. Ecology and Agricultural Settlements.
Andover: Warner Mod. Pub.

Ucko, P. and Dimbleby, G. I. (1969). The Dom.estication and Exploitation
of Plants and Animals. Chicago: Aldine.

Vita - Finzi, C. and Higgs, E. (1970). Prehistoric economy in the Mount
Carmel area of Palestine: site catchment analysis. Proc. Prehist.
Soc. Vol. 36: 1-37.

-95-

Washburn, S. L. and Lancaster, C. S., (1968). The evolution of
hunting. In Perspectives on Human Evolution I. ed. E. J.
Washburn. New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.

Watson, R. and Watson, P. -J. (1966). Man and Nature. New York: Harcourt.

Wheat, J. (1974). A Paleo-Indian bison kill. In Corridors in Time,
ed. B. Fagan. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. pp. 154-77.

Woodall, J. (1972). An Introduction to Modern Archedogy. Cambridge:
Schenkman.

Zeuner, F. (1963). A History of Domesticated Animals. London:
Hutchinson.

969l2Yr

^5 190

♦iiji

DATE DUE

PRINTED IN U.S.A.

SWEET P>?!A»COLlEGFLI!?!?ARY

SWEET C,\i,^;i. VA 2^535