Origins of Agriculture in Southwest Asia
Southwest Asia, also known as the Near East or Middle East, is home to some of the
earliest known agriculture in the world. Much of the area, especially the region known as the
Fertile Crescent, has been extensively studied for the vast majority of the existence of the
field of archaeology. Because of this, the amount known about the origins of agriculture in
Southwest Asia is significant, with no other region of the world having been studied quite as
extensively for quite as long. Many of the agricultural products first domesticated in
Southwest Asia have grown to become staples throughout the world, spreading into Europe,
India, and North Africa after their domestication. With what is the earliest known writing in
the world from Mesopotamia, Southwest Asia also holds some of the earliest records of
agricultural society in the world, giving a glimpse into the societies that arose and their
workings with regards to their food economy.
The origins of
agriculture in Southwest
Asia are generally
focused around the
Fertile Crescent, a wide
zone of primarily hill
country covering the
area west of the Syrian
Figure 1: A Map of the Fertile Crescent and Major Sites Relevant to the Advent of
Agriculture
desert and north and
east of the Tigris and
Euphrates River valleys. This area is generally separated into three main sections: one each in
the eastern, western, and northern areas surrounding the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and
often including the river valleys themselves and the steppe and desert country in the space
between the rivers and the upland areas of the Fertile Crescent proper. The western section
covers from the southern borders of Israel and Jordan, west to the Mediterranean coast, and
following both sides of the Jordan rift valley, an area also known as the Levantine corridor, or
sometimes simply the Levant. The northern (or central) zone covers the Taurus mountains
and their foothills at the southern edge of the Anatolian plateau, following what now makes
up the Syrian-Turkish border. In the eastern zone, the crescent follows the Zagros mountains
southeast along much of the modern Iraq-Iran border and continues further south.1
Rainfall in the Fertile Crescent is greatest in the upland areas and decreases moving
into the steppe and desert environments further inland, including in much of the Tigris and
Euphrates River valleys. In the uplands, most areas get more than 200 mm of rainfall a year,
the minimum required for cereal agriculture without irrigation.2 Because the river valleys get
significantly less rainfall, they are reliant on irrigation and annual flooding from the Tigris
and Euphrates rivers, as well as the many smaller rivers that feed into them. As a result,
agriculture appears later in the river valleys, first developing in the uplands where natural
rainfall suffices for agriculture.
While there is a great deal of evidence available in the Fertile Crescent for the
development of agriculture and domestication of many significant cereals and domestic
animals, the topic of sampling must be considered. The ‘hilly flanks’ region, covering the
upland areas of the Fertile Crescent, has long been held as the center of domestication for
many of the cereal domesticates of Southwest Asia, especially as the modern wild
distribution falls within those areas.3 This area has been the focus of much of the fieldwork,
both archaeological and botanical, carried out to find the wild ancestors of Southwest Asian
1
Barker, Graeme, 2006: pp. 104
Barker, Graeme, 2006: pp. 104-105
3
Barker, Graeme, 2006: pp. 106-109
2
domesticates. As a result, a great deal of evidence for early domestication has been found in
this region, but the possibility of fieldwork bias is very present. Because much of the
fieldwork is focused on this region, it is entirely possible that other areas with less fieldwork
have just as much information. For example, the modern ranges of presumed wild ancestors
for the cereals extend significantly outside the Fertile Crescent, even though the largest wild
stands are still found within.4 When it comes to domestic animals, especially such as sheep
and goats, pinpointing the wild ancestors is even more difficult, and sampling can be
complicated by the possibility that some modern wild populations of sheep and goat could be
escaped domestic populations reverted to a wild form. 5
The timeframe of the transition to agriculture and initial domestication process in
Southwest Asia covers
around 15,000 BP to 7000
BP, a time frame that
covers several major
climate shifts that play a
significant role in the
advent of agriculture in the
Figure 2: Late Glacial and Early Holocene temperature fluctuations, compared
to Levantine archaeological sequence. (Barker, 2006: 117)
region. Exploitation of the
major wild foods that would
later develop into some of the domesticates of the area began in the Late Glacial Maximum,
up to around 15,000 BP. Many of the animal domesticates were exploited before this date;
cooler, dryer conditions were the norm and many of the plant resources were different than
what would later become the core of the Southwest Asian system.6
4
Barker, Graeme, 2006: pp. 108
Barker, Graeme, 2006: pp. 106-108
6
Barker, Graeme, 2006: pp. 109
5
Around 15,000 BP, the climate got considerably warmer and wetter during the
Bølling–Allerød interstadial period. With these new conditions, formerly sparse stands of
cereal grains increased significantly in size, allowing it to continue its growth as a primary
resource that had begun towards the end of the Late Glacial Maximum. While this period was
generally much warmer, it was marked by instability, with common fluctuations in
temperature making it unpredictable. In addition to warmer and wetter climates, the Bølling–
Allerød was also marked by greater seasonality, which was very favorable to the stands of
cereal grains such as wheat and barley in the uplands, among other environments making
seasonal movement and changes in foraging patterns much easier for the population of the
region.7 The main culture group of this time was what has been named the early Natufian. It
is to this culture that the first phase of settlement at the site of Abu Hureyra belonged; the
expanded ranges of plant foods allowed settlements to arise in areas that had previously been
scarce in resources. Natufians ate more plant food than the groups before them, as evidenced
by analysis of teeth from the period. However, the general consensus is that this was a result
of intensive collection of wild grains, and there is no strong evidence for cultivation or
domestication in this early period. It is possible that there were simply more than enough wild
resources in the warmer and wetter environment to sustain populations, and that any push for
domestication was minor or not yet occurring. However, as evidenced by sites such as Abu
Hureyra and Mureybit, there were at least semi-sedentary and possibly fully sedentary
settlements in the region, sustained off wild harvests of plant foods such as the cereals.8,9
This period of rapid fluctuations and generally warmer temperatures lasted about
2,000 years, until the Younger Dryas climatic period began around 13,000 BP. With the
Younger Dryas, the warmer and wetter climate of the Bølling–Allerød gave way to a colder,
7
Barker, Graeme, 2006: pp. 116-118
Barker, Graeme, 2006: pp. 125-128
9
Hillman, Gordon, 2000: pp. 327-338
8
dryer climate. With the changing conditions, the range of many plant resources grew smaller,
reducing the resources available to the growing Natufian settlements that had been relying on
them, leading to a shift from what is identified as the early Natufian to the Late Natufian. Of
all areas affected, perhaps the most so would have been those in the Levantine corridor,
where settlements reliant on cereal grains such as Abu Hureyra would have been faced with
decreasing returns from the wild stands they relied on. Adaptation to this took different
forms; some groups moved away, as may have been the case in the reduction of settlement in
Abu Hureyra around the 10th millennium BP10, while others intensified or diversified their
subsistence systems.11 It is possible that this could have been a factor in the development of
cereal grain agriculture in the Levant, as populations intensified control of the resources they
had relied on for some time.
Around 11,500 BP the Younger Dryas came to an end with the beginning of the
Holocene. The Holocene was marked by a sudden warming, followed by a continuous
gradual warming that would continue for about 2000 years. This period coincides with the
end of the Natufian cultures, which appear to adapt and shift into what is known as the PrePottery Neolithic. Many of the Neolithic technologies were similar to the Natufian period,
with additional tools added as time went on.12 It is in this period that the earliest signifiers of
cultivation and domestication are found, within the Levantine Corridor: that of wheat and
barley.
Of the multiple subspecies of wheat domesticated in the Southwest Asian agricultural
system, two have grown to become some of the most important modern types of wheat:
emmer and einkorn wheat. Both wheats, alongside barley, the other major grain domesticate
of the Fertile Crescent, were wild grains heavily exploited by the foraging populations of the
10
Moore, Andrew; Hillman, Gordon; Legge, Anthony, 2000: pp. 104
Barker, Graeme, 2006: pp. 128-129
12
Barker, Graeme, 2006: pp. 131, 134-135
11
region prior to the advent of agriculture. The ranges of these cereals overlap significantly,
though the core areas of domestication may be slightly different for each cereal. For emmer
wheat, the wild range was restricted to the Fertile Crescent proper. Emmer wheat (Triticum
turgidum Subsp. dioccum) appears to have been domesticated from a wild subspecies,
Triticum turgidum Subsp. dioccoides, around 10,000 to 9500 BP. With domestication around
this time period, the morphological changes appear, with larger grains and tougher rachises
(the small stem that attaches to the main plant). The earliest morphologically different emmer
grains recovered archaeologically date to roughly 9700-9500 BP, in the Levantine Corridor,
while it becomes common throughout the Levant by 9000BP. After 9000 BP, emmer wheat is
widespread throughout the region, suggesting adoption of emmer as a major agricultural
resource far from its center of cultivation.13
Einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum Subsp. monococcum) originates slightly to the
north of emmer, primarily in the Zagros Mountain range and modern-day turkey. Unlike the
other cereals domesticated in Southwest Asia, wild einkorn (Triticum monococcum Subsp.
beoticum) does not appear in the Levant.14 However, as early as 11500 BP, around the time
of the site’s founding, gathered wild einkorn grains can be found at Abu Hureyra, a site in the
northern end of the Levant, and comprise a significant proportion of the wild plant remains at
the site.15 By 9600 BP, there is evidence of cultivation at Abu Hureyra including einkorn
wheat, which suggests that it may have been domesticated at roughly the same time as emmer
wheat farther south.16 By around 9200 BP einkorn and emmer can be found together at
Jericho, in the southern Levantine corridor; by 9000 to 8500 BP, they are found together at
13
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 68-69
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 69-71
15
Hillman, Gordon, 2000: pp. 335-338
16
Hillman, Gordon, 2000: pp. 376-397
14
Çayönü, a site to the north of Abu Hureyra that falls within the modern wild extents of both
emmer and einkorn wheat.17
The third major cereal to be domesticated within the Fertile Crescent is barley. The
wild ancestor, Hordeum vulgare Subsp. spontaneum, can today be found throughout the
entirety of the Fertile Crescent, from the Levant to the Zagros mountains in the east. Wild
barley was harvested throughout its range, and can be found at sites such as Jarmo, Abu
Hureyra, Mureybit, Netiv Hagdud, and Jericho spanning the length of the Fertile Crescent.18
There are two major types of domesticated barley found in Southwest Asia: two-rowed and
six-rowed hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare Subsp. distichum and hexastichum, respectively),
differentiated by number of vertical rows of grains. Two-rowed hulled barley is closer to the
wild form, which also has two rows of grains; six-rowed barley developed soon after the
domesticated two-rowed barley due to selection pressure from the harvesting process.19
As might be expected, domesticated barley appears in the archaeological record at
around the same time as emmer and einkorn wheat. Two-rowed barley is found at Abu
Hureyra around 9600 to 9500 BP, matching the earliest domesticated wheats found at the
site; by 9200 BP, two-rowed barley is present at Jericho as well as the lake settlement of
Aswad in the Levant. Both two- and six-rowed barley are found by 8200 BP at the site of Ali
Kosh alongside einkorn and emmer; at some other eastern sites in the Zagros, barley is the
only cereal present. Both forms of barley can be found together and separate throughout the
fertile crescent, in combination with various other crops, by around 8500-8000 BP.20
17
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 69-71
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 71
19
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 71
20
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp 71-72
18
The main signifier of domestication in cereal grains are in the toughness of the rachis.
Other factors are present, but many are not so critical, and the fragility of the rachis is the
only one that is readily apparent morphologically. The rachis is the portion of a spikelet of
Figure 3: Diagrams of a morphologically wild ear of einkorn wheat.
(Hillman and Davies, 1990: pp. 162)
Figure 4: Diagrams of a morphologically domestic ear of einkorn
wheat. (Hillman and Davies, 1990: pp. 163)
wheat or barley that connects it to the ear. In a morphologically wild form, the rachis is
brittle, allowing it to break off in the wind naturally to fall to the ground and grow the
following year. The morphologically domesticated rachis is semi-tough, making it less likely
to fall off the ear without intervention. In the wild, a small proportion of plants have the semitough rachises. Those plants would then be more available for harvest by gatherers, as the
individual grains would be on the stalk and not the ground. Harvesting with stone sickles, as
the inhabitants of Southwest Asia were doing well before domestication, favors the heads
with semi-tough rachises. As a result, the presence of a significant number of cereal grains
with semi-tough rachises is a sign that domestication is occurring.21
It has been
shown that wild
wheat and barley
can be changed
into a
recognizably
domesticated form
within 20-30 years
with significant
pressure. Under
Figure 5: Geographical ranges of wild ancestors of domesticated Emmer, Einkorn, and
barley; The Levantine corridor and some of the sites that provide the best evidence for early
cereal domestication are circled in brown. (Smith, 1998: pp. 68)
the less focused
efforts of early neolithic groups, it likely would have been closer to 100-200 years. This
would have allowed a relatively quick shift from gathering wild stands of cereal grains to
cultivating domestic forms, especially in semi-sedentary villages exploiting these resources in
the same area over many years.22 This matches up to the timelines of domestication for all
three major cereals of Southwest Asia, all of which appear to have been domesticated over
the course of a few centuries.
This can allow us to infer that while all three were being domesticated at about the
same time, between about 10000 and 9500 BP, they were being domesticated in separate
locations within the confines of the wild ancestors of the plants. While the range of the
modern wild grasses are relatively well known, it is very possible that the ranges of the forms
21
22
Hillman, Gordon and Davies, M, 1990: pp. 161-164
Hillman, Gordon and Davies, M, 1990: pp. 213
that were domesticated would have had different wild ranges, as noted by the presence of
morphologically wild seeds in sites such as Mureybit and Abu Hureyra, which fall outside the
modern wild confines of all three forms of cereal, as seen in figure 3 above. Nonetheless, the
quick interchange of domesticated versions of seeds suggests that the domestication process
could have been occurring in multiple communities, and that exchange of domesticated seeds
between communities may have been occurring to spread the domesticated forms of the
cereal grains. Having different kinds of cereal grains would have also helped keep a vital
resource relatively reliable, as they were adapted to different levels of water and soil
conditions, allowing barley to succeed in situations where wheat failed, and vice versa.
In addition to the cereal grains that formed the basis of the food economy of
Southwest Asia, a few key animals formed the other half of the agricultural economy. For
Southwest Asia itself, sheep and goats were far and above the most important animals, but
pigs and cattle, coming in after the other domesticates, were still important, especially once
they spread to other regions such as Europe.
Sheep are one of the earliest animal domesticates in Southwest Asia, if not the world.
Other than dogs, domesticated at least 15,000 years ago, sheep and goats are in close
contention for the title of oldest domesticate, all initially domesticated in the Fertile Crescent.
Pigs and cattle, also domesticated in Southwest Asia, are still among the oldest domesticates
in the world, though they do not reach quite as far back as sheep and goats and were
introduced into the Southwest Asian agricultural economy later. Additional problems are
posed by the wide range of wild pigs and cattle (aurochs), which stretch across much of
Eurasia and North Africa. Sheep and goats, however, have the advantage of a much more
limited wild range, which assists in attempts to find the centers of domestication.23
23
Smith, Bruce, 1998: 53-54
Sheep and goats do pose a unique challenge when it comes to archaeological
recovery. The bones of both animals are extremely similar, and many fragmentary samples
recovered from archaeological sites can only be labeled as ‘caprines’, with no identifiable
differences to separate them from one another. Further complicating matters is that both
sheep and goats have similar wild ranges, reaching across the Fertile Crescent, with special
concentrations in the Zagros mountains to the east. When the bones can be identified
specifically, however, they provide some interesting information.24
Figure 6: Range of the wild ancestor of domesticated sheep, in brown; the area in maroon is the most likely area of initial
domestication. The percentage of sheep bones in animal bone assemblages is labeled for each site on the map. (Smith,
1998: pp. 55)
Identifiable bones of wild sheep (Ovis orientalis) can be found throughout the north
of the Fertile Crescent, in the Taurus mountains, in a supporting role; in the Zagros
mountains in the east they are an abundant and clearly important hunted species, making up a
significant portion of the animal bones recovered at several sites dating to around 10,000 BP
24
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 54-55, 57-59
or earlier.25 Wild sheep bones are rarely found in the Levant, and even after their
domestication make up a relatively small portion of the animal deposits in the area.
The clearest evidence for the domestication of sheep is found in the central Fertile
Crescent from around 8700-8200 BP. In this time frame, the number of caprine bones found
at sites across the Levant and the northern Fertile crescent increased drastically, in some
cases increasing more than 40 percent between 8700 and 8500 BP, such as at Abu Hureyra,
where it more than doubled between the later parts of phase 1 occupation and the earliest
phase 2 occupations.26 Between 8500 and 8000 BP, sheep bones account for more than 50
percent of animal bones recovered at several sites, including at Abu Hureyra and Çayönü.27
Meanwhile, another major indicator of the domestication of sheep in this time frame
is the gradual reduction of the size of sheep found at these sites. In a managed herd, where a
larger population of females than males would be kept, the herd would be on average
significantly smaller than in the wild. Evidence of this reduction in size can be found at
multiple sites throughout the Fertile Crescent in this time period, including at Çayönü, Abu
Hureyra, and Jarmo, which span the length of much of the northern and eastern portion of the
Fertile Crescent. In the central Fertile Crescent, such as at Abu Hureyra and Çayönü, sheep
increase in importance drastically, with the environment suited to herding sheep, while in the
eastern section, at such sites as Ali Kosh and Jarmo, the once important wild sheep falls by
the wayside after domestication in favor of another herd animal - goats.28
Though kept alongside sheep throughout the Fertile Crescent (thus spurring on the
caprine problem), goats find themselves significantly more important than sheep in both the
western and eastern sections of the Fertile Crescent following their domestication. Even
before domestication, significantly more goat bones are found at sites in the southern Levant
25
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 54
Legge, A and Rowley-Conwy, P, 2000: pp. 434-435
27
Legge, A and Rowley-Conwy, P, 2000: pp. 423
28
Smith, Bruce, 1998: 56-57
26
when compared to sheep. However, the southern Levant does fall within the range of both the
wild ibex (Capra nubiana), which was never domesticated, and the bezoar goat (Capra
hircus aegragus), which was domesticated. Based on the drop in caprine representation once
past the range of the ibex, it seems likely that the ibex was the more important in the Levant
before domestication.29 North of the levant, within the central section of the fertile crescent,
evidence for the consumption of goats is almost absent at some pre-domestic sites. For
example, at Abu Hureyra, no goat bones were identified in the first phase of the site.30 North
and east of Abu Hureyra and other central sites, within the mountainous favored habitats of
wild goats, the proportion of goat remains increases significantly, especially in the eastern
Zagros mountains and their foothills, where wild goats were a significant resource.31
Figure 7: Geographical range of the wild ancestor of the domesticated goat, in brown; the most likely area of initial
domestication is outlined in maroon. The northern range of the wild ibex is marked on the southern edge of the map. The
percentage of goat bones in animal bone assemblages is labeled for each site on the map. (Smith, 1998: pp. 59)
29
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 58
Legge, A and Rowley-Conwy, P, 2000: pp. 425, 432-435
31
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 58
30
The earliest evidence of goat domestication occurs in the eastern Fertile Crescent,
within the Zagros mountains. One of the clearest examples of domestication in progress
comes from the site of Ganj Dareh in the Zagros mountains. At Ganj Dareh, a large
assemblage of goat bones was recovered through the site’s occupation, with the lowest level
dating to around 9000 BP. At that site, analysis was conducted that demonstrated a significant
change in the sex ratio within the bones, establishing a population of smaller adult females
and the selective killing of subadult males. This matches modern patterns of managed herds,
especially those managed for meat, which matches the leading hypotheses on the
development of goat agriculture for meat before their uses for secondary products such as
milk.32 Though goats were almost certainly domesticated earlier, as shown by the evidence
from Ganj Dareh, the greatest portion of the evidence for their domestication comes from
between 8700 and 8200 BP, roughly matching that of sheep. While the earliest domestic goat
herds appeared in the Zagros mountains, they quickly spread through the western and central
sections of the Fertile Crescent, where they became increasingly important. For the beginning
portions of phase 2A at Abu Hureyra, goats outnumber sheep almost 5 to 1, though sheep
grow more and more numerous throughout the later parts of phase 2.33 In the Levant, faunal
assemblages underwent a massive shift in composition as the economies shifted away from
hunting economies with ibex and gazelle to herding economies almost entirely focused on
goats over sheep. This shift is perhaps most notable in the middle and northern levant, where
assemblages go from few to no goat bones to more than half the faunal assemblage present.34
32
Zeder, Melinda and Hesse, Brian, 2000: pp. 2256
Legge, A and Rowley-Conwy, P, 2000: pp. 463
34
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 62
33
Like sheep and goats, cattle were herd animals exploited throughout the Fertile
Crescent in their wild form well before their domestication. While the wild predecessor of
domestic cattle, the aurochs, ranged throughout most of Eurasia, aurochs comprise a
relatively small proportion of faunal assemblages in sites prior to 8000BP. Based on current
evidence, it appears that cattle were independently domesticated at multiple locations
throughout their range; Taurine (humpless) cattle were domesticated in Southwest Asia,
while Indicine (humped) cattle found in south Asia appear to have been independently
domesticated there. Recent DNA evidence has also shown that China may have been another
location of independent domestication.35 Some have argued that cattle may have been
independently domesticated in Africa as well, but the evidence seems to support domestic
cattle being brought in from north Africa and the Fertile Crescent instead.36
Figure 8: A map of the range of the wild aurochs (Bos Primigenius) with three proposed locations of independent
domestication. (Zhang, 2013: Figure 1)
Cattle were the last of the major animal domesticates of the Fertile Crescent, and that
which there is the least evidence on. However, a general range of dates can be estimated
based on faunal assemblages. The main marker of change for the domestication of cattle is
35
36
Zhang, Hucai, 2013
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 66, 106
reduction in the size of cattle bones, going along with the general reduction in size for most
domesticated animals. From those bones, it appears that the center of domestication for cattle
in Southwest Asia took place in the western half of the Fertile Crescent and the adjacent
Anatolia somewhere between 8000 and 7000 BP. Throughout that period there was a regional
pattern of size reduction from the size of the wild aurochs to the size profile domestic cattle.
The earliest samples that appear to match that of a domestic herd date to around 7800 BP in
Anatolia. Domestic cattle took some time to spread from their center of domestication, not
appearing over wild aurochs in the eastern Fertile Crescent until after 7000 BP.37 Even after
their domestication cattle play a distant second to sheep and goats in terms of importance as
food, and it appears their main use was not so much as a food source but as draft animals for
pulling plows and later carts once those technologies developed.
Pigs, like cattle, may have been independently domesticated in multiple locations. The
wild ancestor of the domestic pig ranged across a significant portion of Europe and Asia, and
most evidence indicates pigs were separately domesticated in the Fertile Crescent and in
China.38 Though they range throughout the entirety of that area, they favor some areas over
others. The favored habitats of wild pigs are generally well-watered, such as lakesides or near
springs and wetlands. As a result, wild pigs are almost entirely absent from many sites in the
eastern part of the Fertile Crescent, within and near the Zagros mountains. Similarly, most
sites in the Levant also largely lack wild pigs in their assemblages, outside of a few sites such
37
38
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 66-67
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 62
as Jericho, Abu Gosh, and Beisamoun, which even then have less than 20% of their faunal
assemblages composed of pig bones before 8000 BP. In the central Fertile Crescent, many
more sites utilized wild pigs as a resource, especially the further north the sites are.39
Figure 9: Most likely area for initial domestication of pigs in Southwest Asia, outlined in brown.
Pigs are well suited to human domestication, just as the other animal domesticates of
Southwest Asia, though they do have some unique traits compared to the other three major
domestic animals. Wild pigs do not naturally group in large herds with clear leaders like
sheep, goats, and cattle, though they do naturally form smaller family groups with dominant
members. Like goats, pigs are useful and easy domesticates due to their wide diet; pigs are
easy to sustain off the human settlement’s garbage. Combined with quick growth and
numerous offspring, pigs are an easy investment for turning waste into meat within the
confines of a village.40
39
40
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 63-64
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 62
The main signifier of domestication in pigs is a reduction in teeth size. Like most
domestic animals, their size decreases notably with domestication; in pigs, their teeth,
especially molars, are the easiest to see exhibit of this, due to the reduction in snout length in
domestic pigs. The earliest signs of this appear in three northern sites in the central Fertile
Crescent: Çayönü, Gritille, and Assoud, where evidence of management of domesticated pigs
based on bone analysis begins between 8500 and 8000 BP. Çayönü appears to be the earliest
of these, with evidence beginning to appear around 8500 BP. This area appears to be the
origin of pig domestication, and indeed is one of the only places with pigs playing a
significant role in the economy that early. Most other settlements and areas, relying more
heavily on the sheep and goat husbandry that they had become accustomed to, did not start
utilizing pigs in any major capacity until around 7000 BP.41
The animal domesticates of Southwest Asia all share a few key qualities: all were
naturally herd animals with clear hierarchical structures, except for pigs, which still had
structured family groups; all were exploited widely for food in their wild habitats; and most
all could be sustained off either human waste products or less desirable land for foraging.
They were also less skittish than other, non-domesticated herd animals exploited in the area
such as gazelles, which allowed them to be guided and bred more easily. Of the animals that
were domesticated, it appears that goats were the first, followed shortly after by sheep. Pigs
followed within a few centuries, with cattle making up the final addition to the system later.
All four were initially utilized primarily as a source of meat (and likely leather/hides), with
exploitation of secondary products not coming until later. By 7000-6000 BP all four had
found their places in the agricultural economy present in the area, with goats and sheep as the
primary herd animals and cattle and pigs in a secondary role.
41
Smith, Bruce, 1998: pp. 64-65
Other domesticates of Southwest Asia have been much harder to find evidence for.
Specifically, the legumes and other plant domesticates outside of the cereal grains, including
lentils, peas, chickpeas, bitter vetch, and flax, all of which played a role in the agricultural
economy of the area. All were resources exploited in their wild forms, and the earliest major
evidence for their cultivation comes from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, between 8500-6500
BC. These pulses clearly supplemented the cereals that made up much of the diet for the
foragers of the area and the later farmers, providing nutrients that could not be found
elsewhere.42 Exactly when and where they were domesticated and used, however, is more
unclear and in need of further research.
Agriculture in Southwest Asia is some of the oldest if not the oldest in the world, at
least based on the current evidence. Whether this is the result of sampling bias is still to be
determined, but the evidence is undeniable. With the available dates, it cannot be denied that
agriculture began in Southwest Asia very early, possibly as early as 10,500 BP; the question
is then less whether or when domestication developed, but rather why it developed. While
this question of why is not possible to confidently answer, a great deal of theories have been
proposed, some of which seem more likely than others. Most likely is some mixture of the
many possibilities; domestication is a complex process that spanned centuries, and too many
factors played a role to have any sort of certainty in defining the causes.
One major driving factor in Southwest Asia for the adoption of agriculture is
undeniably climate change. Warmer and wetter conditions in the early Holocene, contributing
to expanding ranges for many crops, allowed for greater exploitation of some resources. In
Southwest Asia, most notable of these are the cereal grains, the massive stands of which
allowed the development of semi-sedentary or sedentary villages reliant on the exploitation of
wild cereals without domestication. The expanded ranges of these resources allowed them to
42
Barker, Graeme, 2006: pp. 139-140
become more central to these economies, and the earliest domestications often occurred at or
soon after the shift from the younger Dryas to the Holocene.
The development of sedentism is equally intertwined with the utilization of these
resources and the development of agriculture. As evidenced by the exploitation of wild
cereals in semi-sedentary locales throughout Southwest Asia, sedentism can develop
independently of agriculture. However, in some of the sedentary villages found in the region,
year-round occupation often did not develop until well after the domestication of key
resources in the area. This makes sedentism and agriculture an interesting relationship: did
sedentism develop because of agriculture, or did agriculture develop due to the demands of
sedentism? It is very possible that early agriculture developed due to population pressure
from growth in these villages relying on wild cereals, and intensification of resources may
have been necessary to keep up with the population demands. An undeniable link between
sedentism and population growth is present, but the order of events is still in contention.
When it comes to animals especially, the development of symbiotic relationships may
play a significant role in explaining the origins of domestication. The benefits to humans are
largely obvious; food in the form of meat, and later, secondary products such as milk and
wool. For the animals there are other benefits, such as protection from predators and easy
sources of food. This mutualistic relationship may have played a significant role in
domestication, benefiting both species significantly. Domesticated plants benefited nearly as
much; spread well beyond their natural ranges by human agriculturalists, plants like wheat
and barley were able to thrive.
The exact causes and processes involved in the shift to agriculture in Southwest Asia
are much too intricate to be able to tell precisely what happened. However, the data we do
have allows us to make a relatively good guess. It seems that, following the shift to the
Holocene, the increase in available plant and animal resources, especially in wild cereals,
allowed more intensive foraging in many areas, especially the Levantine corridor and the
northern sections of the Fertile Crescent, within the natural environments of those wild
cereals. Heavy exploitation of those wild cereals allowed for sedentary or semi-sedentary
villages to develop, which could in then turn into early domestication of those cereals in a
relatively short time frame. Access to stable food sources and, eventually, good weaning food
made from those cereals would allow for increased population growth. This cycle could
continue by further exploitation of the cereals, and an increase in control exhibited over the
core food resources, developing through cultivation until it became agriculture after a few
centuries. Other plant resources such as the various pulses could be added soon after.
Additions of herd animal domesticates could then be developed out of the animals whose
wild forms were already hunted, as humans began to control and manage the herds of goats,
sheep, pigs, and cattle to both utilize waste products from the plant agriculture process and
fill a nutritional deficiency in their diet with more available sources of proteins. This
combination of cereal agriculture and herd animals would allow for expansion out of the
natural habitats following their domestication, allowing for more extensive food production.
Over the next few centuries, these domesticates could expand further and further south, into
the lower reaches of Mesopotamia outside of the Fertile Crescent, where the environment was
less conducive to cultivation. This theory could, like any, be changed with the revelation of
new information, but Southwest Asia is nonetheless one of the most understood locations of
primary domestication in the world and the consensus on the order of events is largely
consistent in the modern day.
Initial domestication in Southwest Asia was carried out with the goal of harvesting
primary products. Primary products are any product, especially for animals, that cannot be
harvested without killing the animals, such as meat, hide, and bone. The majority of evidence
supports that these primary products were the initial goal and benefit of domestication.43
However, it did not take long for the populations exploiting these newly domesticated
resources to explore how they could be used for other purposes as well.
Secondary animal resources are those that can be extracted repeatedly from an animal
throughout its lifetime, such as wool, milk, or power (as agents of traction, for example by
pulling a plow). The benefits of these resources are obvious: more consistently available
forms of animal protein, wool production for new forms of clothing, and the vitally important
labor for the pulling of plows and carts.44 This allowed for added development for multiple
kinds of societies, from mobile herders becoming even more reliant on their animals to
agricultural economies capable of increasing the size of their fields and harvests. Dates for
these animal resources can be shaky and still fall under contention in some areas due to newly
appearing evidence and differences of interpretation. While it is not only possible but likely
that these resources could have been taken from some animals very early in the domestication
process, we will focus on the point of intensification for these resources when they became
staples of the keeping of that animal rather than an outlier.
For the milking of animals, the earliest definitive artifactual evidence comes from the
Early Dynastic period of Mesopotamia, in various artistic representations of the milking of
cattle dating to around 2600 BC. More ambiguous representations appear on Uruk period
cylinder seals, dated to around 3500 BC. However, more evidence comes from animal
assemblage analysis, which can place the origins of regular milking significantly earlier. For
example, the thickness of caprine metapodials was decreased in early bronze age and later
samples in the Levant when compared to earlier Chalcolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic
samples. Lipid analysis has also supplied a solid basis of evidence for early milking, with
43
44
Greenfield, Haskel, 2010: pp. 29
Greenfield, Haskel, 2010: pp. 31
some studies suggesting that milk production was present by 6000 BC in the pottery
Neolithic. However, the nature of lipid analysis means that differentiation between sheep,
goat, or cow milk cannot be made; a relatively small proportion of ceramic sherds hold lipids
for analysis; and the nature of lipids from vessels with multiple uses. As a result, the
evidence, while good, is not certain. Based on these studies, however, it appears that milking
of caprines and/or cattle were incorporated as a small part of the overall broad economy
within a few centuries or perhaps millennia of domestication, depending on which
domesticates were being milked and when.45 46
When it comes to wool, the presence of woolly sheep is a primary indicator, as wild sheep
lack a woolly coat. As a result, woolly sheep could only have emerged after several centuries
of domestication, over which time it is likely that wool could be selected for into a form that
could be spun, though it would be much coarser than modern wool. Most archaeological
evidence supports that the major shift to woolly sheep comes around the Uruk period of
Mesopotamia, based on the significant records of textile production at temple locations. A
number of early pictographic depictions of woolly sheep date to c. 3500 BC, during the Uruk
period, and wool remnants have been found dating to the 4th millennium BC in Southwest
Asia. Zooarchaeological evidence points to a drastic shift in harvest profiles around 5000 BC
and through the Ubaid period, which could be from a shift to secondary exploitation, though
not necessarily wool. Due to the time it takes for such a significant shift to take place, wool is
one of the later secondary products to rise to prominence, only gaining a significant level of
importance after around 3000 BC.47 48
The third majorly important secondary animal product in Southwest Asia is traction,
pulling plows or wheeled vehicles. These two forms of traction appear at different times; the
45
Greenfield, Haskel, 2010: pp. 33-35
Sherratt, Andrew, 1983: pp. 98-99
47
Greenfield, Haskel, 2010: pp. 35-37
48
Sherratt, Andrew, 1983: pp. 48-49
46
earliest forms in Southwest Asia utilize cattle, as the other two major draft animals, horses
and donkeys, did not spread to the area from their centers of domestication until the Uruk
period.49 In contrast to milk or wool, the primary form of evidence for use of animals for
traction is artifactual, rather than faunal. Faunal remnants with evidence of use for traction
are rare, and there are other activities that can cause the same wear on bones, making faunal
evidence uncertain.50
The plow leaves distinctive marks in ground surface where it is used, which can be used
to identify use of a pulled plow in the archaeological record. The earliest evidence from
Southwest Asia dates to around 5000 BC in Iran, with plow marks in ground contexts dating
to that period; no other evidence appears until pictographic representations dating to the Uruk
period and developing through the early bronze age.51
Wheeled vehicles appear to have most likely been created in the Eastern steppes, then
brought into Mesopotamia later. The earliest evidence for wheeled vehicles in Mesopotamia
comes from cuneiform representations dating to the late Uruk period c. 3300-3100 BC. The
cuneiform signs show both sledges and wagons, with sledges being portrayed more often and
therefore likely being more important to the economy. The wagon appears to have then risen
in importance through the 3rd millennium BC, as portrayals and texts referencing them
become more frequent. These appear to have been drawn primarily by oxen, filling another
important secondary role that would increase the importance of cattle compared to earlier
pre-pottery agricultural groups. It is likely that cattle were used for similar purposes as beasts
of burden prior to the introduction of the wagon, and sledges may have been used for much
longer, but evidence of these is more difficult to come by in the archaeological record.52
49
Greenfield, Haskel, 2010: pp. 39
Greenfield, Haskel, 2010: pp. 40-42
51
Greenfield, Haskel, 2010: pp. 39
52
Greenfield, Haskel, 2010: pp. 40
50
Secondary products of plants are no less important than that of animals, and in many
cases far more desirable. Alcohols, like beer and wine, were the main liquids drunk by
Mesopotamian society, and olive oil was another extremely valued secondary product. The
fruit trees and olive trees needed to make these items were mostly domesticated by the 4th
millennium BC, where the earliest development of wine and olive oil could begin. These
items were prestige goods, introduced into the agricultural environment of Southwest Asia
that had been established for several millennia. This allowed wine and especially olive oil to
become important trade goods between the Levant, where the trees grew best, and other
regions, including central Mesopotamia and Egypt.53
The development of Southwest Asia into an agricultural economy follows alongside the
growth of its population and settlements into the urban populations found in historic
Mesopotamia. Taking place over several millennia between the sedentary agricultural
villages of neolithic Mesopotamia and the urban cultures of historic Mesopotamia, this shift
would have been helped along by the advantages of agriculture, though the evidence does not
point towards it being a gradual process of population increase between the widespread
adoption of agriculture and the development of wider Mesopotamian cultural and political
practices. Among the advantages provided by agriculture, however, most key to the
development of larger cities and states would be the ability of agricultural economies to
develop large surpluses of stored food.54 However, simply producing a surplus is not enough
on its own; the accumulation of surplus food resources must be connected to several other
developments as well in order to take it from the production of food to the production of a
form of wealth seen in its uses in later Mesopotamian historic periods. As seen in Southwest
Asia, the development of larger storage systems, transport methods such as carts and boats,
53
54
Fall, Patricia, 2002: pp. 472-472
Adams, Robert, 1966: pp. 45-46
and political and urban centers grow more and more important the larger societies grow.
These technological and cultural developments follow the increases in available surpluses,
allowing for larger populations and specialization within those populations.55
This specialization allowed other major occupations to come to the fore in subsistence in
Mesopotamia. For example, in the records of Early Dynastic Lagash, around 100 members of
the population of the city of Bau are listed as fisherman out of around 1200 community
members total; another 125 community members are involved with some other variety of
aquatic activities as well. It is possible that fish would have therefore been an additional
major source of protein, just as they would have been with earlier river communities prior to
widespread agricultural development.56 The number of fishermen is roughly equal to that of
the number of herdsmen also listed in the Bau texts; the importance of herdsmen and their
goats, sheep, and cattle should likely not be underplayed. The secondary products produced
by herd animals grew to be especially important for trade, and products such as wool and
milk were noted to be traded commonly for fish.57
Based off both written records and the archaeological evidence, it appears that the seeding
rate was roughly the same in the Early Dynastic period as contemporary practice in the area,
falling to around a sixth or seventh of western seeding practice.58 This, combined with a
system of fallow rotation, would likely have worked as a system of extensification rather than
intensification with regards to field agriculture. This is supported further by records of land
prices, which were generally low. Fields rarely went for more than the amount of grain that
could be harvested from them in a two- or three-year period, in some cases costing so little
that they could be paid for with less than a season’s harvest. This would support a relatively
55
Adams, Robert, 1966: pp. 46-47
Adams, Robert, 1966: pp. 48
57
Adams, Robert, 1966: pp. 49-50
58
Adams, Robert, 1966: pp. 55
56
non-intensive system of agriculture. The cause of this may be relatively obvious; it is possible
that the volume of arable land was so great that the valuable element was not the land itself
but rather proximity and access to water sources.59
Control of water in central Mesopotamia would have been the key factor in the use of
agriculture in the semi-arid areas surrounding the floodplains of the Tigris and Euphrates.
Outside of the zones of domestication for many of the crops coming from the north, east, and
west, the success of agriculture would have been very unpredictable.60 However, this may not
have been done on a large scale, and government control of this process was likely minimal.
Though there are some references in Early Dynastic royal works to some large-scale canal
and irrigation construction, the vast majority of irrigation would have been small-scale local
manipulation of streams and small field canals. Even in southern Mesopotamia, where
irrigation is most necessary, contemporary village and irrigation structure show that no major
government intervention is necessary, and small-scale irrigation can be carried out
individually by settlements. This goes along with current dates of irrigation development in
Mesopotamia, sitting around 4800 BC, within the large-scale culture formation of the Ubaid
period but not within the historic period or records of specific states.61
By the development of state-level society in Mesopotamia, the government management
of food production was widespread and important, as was religious involvement in food
management. The relative lack of separation between religious and political power and
management would have played a significant role in this, where the management was for a
large part shared. Many necessary items for agriculture were often kept centrally, such as in
the city of Shuruppak, where records have been found recording the management of seed and
donkeys for plowing. Other texts referring to plowing officials can be found as far back as
59
Adams, Robert, 1966: pp. 55-56
Adams, Robert, 1966: pp. 58
61
Adams, Robert, 1966: pp. 68-69
60
early Protoliterate temple accounts, which could mean that this centralized management of
agricultural resources could go back to as early as 3700 BC, or likely even earlier than that.62
Records and archaeological evidence alike in Early Dynastic Lagash also point to the
use of religious centers as a ritualized form of trade. Some texts from this period include
records of extremely large “offerings” of fish being made to the temples. This, combined with
a large number of fishbones found at late Ubaid temple complexes, could point to one of two
primary explanations: either a form of trade and interchange recorded at the temples between
fishermen and herders or farmers, or an offering to the temples that may have then been
distributed to temple workers in the community.63
Other Early Dynastic and Akkadian texts have a similar but far simpler form of
interchange in the form of rations paid out to workers. Presumably, these rations were marked
as stipends or pay for adult workers, likely those whose work on public structures or in some
public capacity did not allow them to work on other activities. In addition to the allocation of
subsistence plots, especially to the more important landed people of the community, workers
would get monthly rations of barley, wool, and oil, among other resources allocated on
special occasions, such as various fruits, vegetables, and meats.64
As can be seen, Southwest Asia has a long history of domestication and agricultural
advancement. Many of the products initially domesticated in the region spread throughout the
world, becoming staples in Europe, North Africa, South and Central Asia, and even into the
Americas following European colonization. These domesticates take a center stage
throughout much of human history, marking some of the earliest domestication and
agriculture we know of now, developing into some of the earliest urban cultures and written
languages we have found. This makes Southwest Asia an incredible study in how agriculture
62
Adams, Robert, 1966: pp. 48-49
Adams, Robert, 1966: pp. 50
64
Adams, Robert, 1966: pp. 50-51
63
and human culture can interact with one another. As agriculture feeds the urban societies that
grew there, and writing systems came into existence partially to record trade, harvest, and
land rights, an incredible window into human persistence and innovation can be opened.
Though much of the basis of the research into agriculture in Southwest Asia has already been
undertaken in one of the most heavily studied regions in the world, new information and
study only continues to deepen our understanding of the development of agriculture, urban
societies, and human development.
Resources:
Adams, Robert. 1966. Evolution of Urban Society. Chicago; Aldine Publishing Company.
Barker, Graeme. 2006. Agricultural revolution in prehistory. New York; Oxford University
Press.
Fall, Patricia L., Steven E. Falconer, and Lee Lines. “Agricultural Intensification and the
Secondary Products Revolution along the Jordan Rift.” Human Ecology 30, no. 4 (2002):
445–82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4603445.
Greenfield, Haskel J. “The Secondary Products Revolution: The Past, the Present and the
Future.” World Archaeology 42, no. 1 (2010): 29–54. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25679726.
Hillman, Gordon C., and M. Stuart Davies. “Measured Domestication Rates in Wild Wheats
and Barley Under Primitive Cultivation, and Their Archaeological Implications.” Journal of
World Prehistory 4, no. 2 (1990): 157–222. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25800578.
Hillman, Gordon. 2000. ‘The Plant Food Economy of Abu Hureyra 1 and 2’ in Moore,
Andrew; Hillman, Gordon; Legge, Anthony. 2000. Village on the Euphrates. New York;
Oxford University Press, Pgs. 327-398
Legge, Anthony. and Rowley-Conwy, P. 2000. ‘The Exploitation of Animals’ in Moore,
Andrew; Hillman, Gordon; Legge, Anthony. 2000. Village on the Euphrates. New York;
Oxford University Press, Pgs. 423-474
Moore, Andrew; Hillman, Gordon; Legge, Anthony. 2000. Village on the Euphrates. New
York; Oxford University Press.
Sherratt, Andrew. “The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in the Old World.” World
Archaeology 15, no. 1 (1983): 90–104. http://www.jstor.org/stable/124640.
Smith, Bruce. 1998. The origins of Agriculture. New York; Scientific American Library.
Zeder, Melinda A., and Brian Hesse. “The Initial Domestication of Goats (Capra Hircus) in
the Zagros Mountains 10,000 Years Ago.” Science 287, no. 5461 (2000): 2254–57.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3074826.
Zhang, H., Paijmans, J., Chang, F. et al. “Morphological and genetic evidence for early
Holocene cattle management in northeastern China.” Nature Communications 4, 2755
(2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3755