Hunting and fishing in Neolithic Anatolia

Archaeopress Archaeopress Access Archaeology Chapter Title: Hunting and fishing in Neolithic Anatolia Chapter Author(s): Abu B. Siddiq and Vecihi Özkaya Book Title: Hunting and Fishing in the Neolithic and Eneolithic Book Subtitle: Weapons, Techniques and Prey Book Editor(s): Selena Vitezović, Christoforos Arampatzis Published by: Archaeopress, Archaeopress Access Archaeology. (2024) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.15136069.5 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Archaeopress, Archaeopress Access Archaeology are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hunting and Fishing in the Neolithic and Eneolithic This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Hunting and fishing in Neolithic Anatolia Abu B. Siddiq1 and Vecihi Özkaya2 1 Department of Anthropology, Mardin Artuklu University, Mardin, Turkey 2 Department of Archaeology, Dicle University, Diyarbakır, Turkey siddiq@artuklu.edu.tr Abstract The PPNA people groups in Anatolia started to live sedentary life, but still were completely dependent on hunting and gathering throughout 10,200–8800 BC. The domestication of pigs, sheep, goats and cattle occurred in the PPNB (8800–7000 BC), and later farming became widespread all across the Pottery Neolithic sites in Anatolia. Yet, almost every Neolithic group was very much involved in hunting a variety of wild taxa in their local ecosystem. A majority of these species were hunted for the procurement of meat and varieties of animal sources, while others often had symbolic use. Millions of stone tools and other hunting-related artifacts including fishhooks, nets, stone sinkers and baskets also indicated that diverse hunting methods were applied throughout all Neolithic levels. Citing the zooarchaeological reports, hunting-related artifacts and particular cultural items, we attempt to present a glimpse of hunting, trapping and fishing activities and their associated socio-cultural practices in Neolithic Anatolia, spanning from 11th millennium to 6th millennium cal BC. Keywords: Hunting; Fishing; Animal symbolism; PPN; Pottery Neolithic; Anatolia Introduction The Neolithic way of life spanned a long period of about 5000 years in Anatolia. During the earliest phase, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) people groups began to live in permanent settlements, yet they were still hunters and gatherers in their subsistence (Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006; Baird et al. 2018; Emra et al. 2022; Hongo et al. 2009; Peters and Schmidt 2004). So far, the PPNA settlements in Anatolia were largely concentrated in the Upper Tigris and Middle Euphrates Basin; but the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) and the Pottery Neolithic (PN) was spread in many other parts by the time the Anatolian farmers introduced farming into Europe (Özdoğan 2011; Siddiq 2016). Alongside the domestication of ungulates, over time, permanent villages also helped create suitable anthropogenic environments for some local species including rats, mice, crows and house sparrows; and many animals became vital for certain rituals and symbolic activities (Kansa et al. 2009; Peters and Schmidt 2004; Russell 2019b; Russell and McGowan 2003; Siddiq 2019). Hence, both humans and animals were going through significant changes in their interactions, which made Neolithic hunter-animal relationships more complex and multidimensional, unlike previous or later prehistoric periods in Anatolia. Moreover, there were notable distinctions in subsistence strategies between the early and late Neolithic traditions. For example, the 1 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA late Neolithic villagers became fulltime farmers and herders while their sedentary ancestors in the PPNA were complete hunters and gatherers. Because of the increasing demands of food for growing human populations over centuries, the late Neolithic farmers also had to engage in food production activities at a far greater rate compared to their predecessor agricultural groups in the PPNB. Yet, zooarchaeological remains indicate that hunting remained vital throughout all later Neolithic phases (Atici et al. 2017; Buitenhuis 2008; Çakırlar 2012; De Cupere and Duru 2003; Kansa et al. 2009; Özbal et al. 2004). However, because of great diversities in material culture and geographical distinctions, it is very difficult to concise the vast information of hunting, fishing and related techno-cultural activities at about 100 excavated Neolithic sites in Anatolia. Hence, the aim of this study was to present a glimpse of hunting and fishing in Neolithic Anatolia, with the help faunal and archaeological records of a group of sites — which revealed comparatively larger faunal assemblages and have their zooarchaeological studies published — occupied throughout the early to late Neolithic levels and spanning a time range between 10,400 BC and 5500 BC. Background In a few decades, over twenty PPNA (c. 10,000–8800 BC) sites in Anatolia have been brought under excavations. Most of them yielded rich assemblages of faunal remains and hunting-related artifacts (Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006; Baird et al. 2018; Emra et al. 2022; Hongo et al. 2009; Miyake et al. 2012; Özkaya 2009; Schmidt 2012; Peters and Schmidt 2004; Starkovich and Stiner 2009; Zeder and Spitzer 2016). Among them, the site of Körtiktepe (10,700–9300 cal BC) in the Upper Tigris Basin is the only securely dated Younger Dryas site in Anatolia, occupied by sedentary hunter-gathers throughout the Younger Dryas and the Early Holocene, primarily basing on wild plants, wild animals, and aquatic resource-based subsistence (Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006; Benz et al. 2015; Emra et al. 2022; Koruyucu et al. 2018). The site yielded so far the richest PPN assemblage in West Asia including over 2000 burials, about 500 circular architectural remains (Özkaya 2009; Özkaya and Coşkun 2011). Over a million identifiable animal bones were recorded from Körtiktepe (personal communication with V. Özkaya), composed of over 80 identified species of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and molluscs (Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006; Emra et al. 2022). Another PPNA site of Hallan Çemi (10,000–9300 cal BC) also yielded a large faunal assemblage, possibly more than 100,000 identifiable specimens (Starkovich and Stiner 2009: 49). Although it was a smaller site, the faunal remains indicate a rich hunting choice at Hallan Çemi (Starkovich and Stiner 2009; Zeder and Spitzer 2016). Similarly a large number of animal bones were also recorded from the PPNA site of Hasankeyf Höyük (9600–9100 cal BC), composed only of the wild species (Miyake et al. 2012: 4). With a paucity of aurochs bones, wild caprines comprised about 51%, and fish comprised about 8% of the identified species at Hasankeyf (Itahashi et al. 2017). Another important PPNA site of Göbeklitepe (9746–7795 cal BC) yielded over 38,000 specimens of faunal remains until 2004, and also composed only of wild taxa (Peters and Schmidt 2004, 183). The faunal remains from the site of Pınarbaşı A (9800–7800 cal BC) indicated hunting of wild taxa within a diverse ecological niche; however, unlike the PPNA sites in Southeast Anatolia, aurochs comprised about 65% of total identified fauna at the site (Carruthers 2003: 133). On the other hand, among the PPN sites, Çayönü (10,200–6300 cal BC) represented all Neolithic sequences from PPNA to Pottery Neolithic. Along with three other domesticates (i.e., sheep, goat and cattle), pig was the single most dominant species in all level at Çayönü — comprising more than 30% of the identified specimens (Hongo et al. 2009). Yet, remains of a wide range of wild taxa including deer, gazelle, onager, bear, leopard, fox, hare, some birds and tortoise were also found at the site (Hongo et al. 2004). About 20 PPNB sites have been brought under excavation in Anatolia until today. Most of the PPNB sites are also located in the Upper Tigris and the Middle Euphrates Basin. Among them, the site Cafer Höyük (8300–7500 cal BC) yielded over 8000 identifiable specimens (Helmer 2008, 175), Gritille (8450– 6400 cal BC) yielded approximately 80,000 fragments of animal bones (Stein 1986, 36), Akarçay Tepe 2 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA (7950–6070 cal BC) yielded over 14,000 identifiable animal bone fragments (Saña and Tornero 2008: 159), Nevali Çori (8720–7070 cal BC) yielded over 12,000 bone fragments of mammalian species (Peters et al. 2005: 102), Mezraa Teleilat (8720–6480 cal BC) yielded about 35,000 bone fragments including over 9000 identifiable specimens (Ilgezdi 2008, 82), and Gürcütepe yielded over 14,000 bone fragments including over 6000 identifiable specimens (Peters et al. 2005, 103). All of these settlements also yielded verities of wild species including aurochs, mouflon, bezoar, wild boar, red deer, fallow deer, gazelle, hare, wolf, jackal, fox, badger, wild cat, and birds. A number of PPNB sites in Central Anatolia including Aşıklı Höyük (8450–7400 cal BC), Musular (7600–6500 cal BC), Boncuklu Höyük (8300–7600 cal BC), Can Hasan III (7400–7100 cal BC) and Suberde (8th millennium BC) also yielded rich faunal assemblages, representing a total of about 60 wild taxa (Baird et al. 2018; French 1968; Özbaşaran et al. 2012; Perkins and Daly 1968; Siddiq, 2018; Stiner et al. 2014). Similar to some other parts of West Asia, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (8800–7000 BC) in Anatolia was marked by the beginning of animal domestication. Many of the PPNB sites in Southeast Anatolia gradually showed domesticated types of pig, sheep, goat and cattle (Table 1); but a few PPNB sites such as Aşıklı Höyük, Boncuklu Höyük, and Suberde in Central Anatolia only present domestic sheep and probably goat, but not pig or cattle (Baird et al. 2018; Siddiq 2018: chapter 5; Stiner et al. 2014). Yet, PPNB people still were often dependent on the wild progenitors of these domesticates (Table 1). The Pottery Neolithic or PN (7000–5500 BC) witness the increase of farming communities all across the Southeast, Central and West Anatolia (Figure 1). By far, over 70 Pottery Neolithic (PN) sites have been excavated in Anatolia. Among this large number of sites, particularly the sites of Çatalhöyük (7400– 6000 cal BC), Tepecik-Çiftlik (7500–5800 cal BC) and Köşk Höyük (6300–5600 BC) of Central Anatolia Figure 1. Map showing the location of Anatolian Neolithic sites mentioned in the text: 1. Körtiktepe; 2. Çayönü; 3. Hallan Çemi; 4. Pınarbaşı; 5. Göbeklitepe; 6. Hasankeyf Höyük; 7. Nevalı Çori; 8. Mezraa Teleilat; 9. Aşıklı Höyük; 10. Boncuklu Höyük; 11. Cafer Höyük; 12. Gritille; 13. Akarcay Tepe; 14. Köşk Höyük; 15. Musular; 16. Can Hasan III; 17. Suberde; 18. Hayaz Höyük; 19. Çatalhöyük; 20. Tepecik-Çiftlik; 21. Yumuktepe; 22. Tell Kurdu; 23. Ulucak Höyük; 24. Barcın Höyük; 25. Uğurlu Höyük; 26. Höyücek; 27. Domuztepe; 28. Ilıpınar; 29. Hacılar; 30. Kuruçay Höyük; and 31. Gusir Höyük (Photo: AB Siddiq). 3 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA (Öztan 2012; Bıçakçı et al. 2007; Bar-Yosef Mayer 2013; Pawłowska and Marciszak 2018; Russell 2012, 2019a, 2019b; Russell and Meece 2006; Russell and McGowan 2003; Van Neer et al. 2013); Tell Kurdu (6200–5700 BC) and Domuztepe (6200–5450 cal BC) of Southeast Anatolia (Kansa et al. 2009; Özbal et al. 2004); Yumuktepe (7000–5800 BC), Höyücek (6400–6000 BC) and Hacılar (c. 5700–5300 BC) of Southwest Anatolia (Caneva 2012; De Cupere and Duru 2003; Mellaart 1970; Minniti 2014); and Ulucak Höyük (7000–5600 cal BC), Barcın Höyük (6500–5800 cal BC), Ilıpınar (6000–5400 cal BC) and Uğurlu Höyük (c. 6500–5000 cal. BC) of Northwest Anatolia (Atici et al. 2017; Buitenhuis 2008; Çakırlar 2012; Würtenberger 2012) yielded rich faunal assemblages, comprised of 5000 to over a million bone fragments represented to over 50 wild taxa. The climate and ecological background of Neolithic period also supported suitable conditions for an extensive number of wild taxa. During the early phase of PPNA, the return of cold by the Younger Dryas between 10,650 BC and 9500 BC might have had negative effect on small mammals, but the large mammals were abundant (Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006; Baird et al. 2018; Emra et al. 2022; Starkovich and Stiner 2009). Between 9500 BC and 6200 BC the average temperature in Anatolia was 14.5°C to 19°C, while annual precipitation was between 675 and 950mm (Roberts et al. 2008; Turner et al. 2010). Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that, this was one of the wettest periods in Anatolia lasted about 3000 years. The Early Holocene climate condition helped cover the local environment of Anatolia with extensive grasslands, pastures, meadows and rich wooded forests (Turner et al. 2010), supporting a great number of wild taxa. With the blessing of melting waters of the snow-covered hills, large rivers such as the Tigris, the Euphrates, the Kızılırmak, the Maritsa, smaller streams such as Çarşamba and Melendiz as well as many of their sub-streams created swamp environment in lowland regions — which hosted a great diversity of aquatic birds, fish, frogs, crabs and molluscs. Zooarchaeological records show that the coastal regions were also blessed with extensive marine resources including birds, fish and molluscs (Atici et al. 2017; Buitenhuis 2008; Çakırlar 2012; Minniti 2014). Exploited wild fauna Mammals Aurochs (Bos primigenius) appeared to be the most sought after but the most dangerous animal among the hunted ungulate species in Neolithic Anatolia (Siddiq 2018: 251-254). With some exceptions, a large number of aurochs remains were recorded from most of the PPNA and PPNB sites. Aurochs comprised over 15% of the Early Holocene faunal assemblage at Körtiktepe (Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006; Emra et al. 2022), and about 23% at PPNA level of Çayönü (Hongo et al. 2004). Aurochs also comprised about 17% of the total identified mammals at Göbeklitepe (Peters and Schmidt 2004). In Central Anatolia, both the wetland-based ecological niches and open forests supported aurochs populations. Some sites including Musular and Boncuklu Höyük yielded large numbers of aurochs bones, respectively comprising about 57% and 39% of total identified species (Siddiq 2018: 208-213). In the early phases at Çatalhöyük, aurochs and cattle continued to be a major economic and symbolic focus, representing about 20% of the mammalian fauna and 60-80% of the available meat yields (Russell and Martin 2005). Aurochs bones were also high in number at late Neolithic sites including Ilipinar, Tell Kurdu, Domuztepe and Höyücek (Buitenhuis 2008; De Cupere and Duru 2003; Kansa et al. 2009; Özbal et al. 2004). It appears that caprines were the most hunted species throughout the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene sites in West Asia. Except for a few special activity sites, such as Musular in Central Anatolia (Özbaşaran et al. 2012), caprines comprised the highest ratio among the exploited ungulates in Neolithic Anatolia. At least three species of wild sheep i.e., Asiatic mouflon, Turkish mouflon and argali, were 4 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA Table 1. Four most hunted ungulates and their domestication status in Neolithic Anatolia. PPNA = Pre-Pottery Neolithic A; PPNB = Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; EPN = Early Pottery Neolithic; MPN = Middle Pottery Neolithic; LPN = Late Pottery Neolithic; W = Wild; D = Domesticated. 5 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA Table 2. Ungulates hunted in Neolithic Anatolia. PPNA – Pre-Pottery Neolithic A; PPNB – Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; PN – Pottery Neolithic found from the Neolithic sites in Anatolia (Table 2), but wild goats were hunted less compared to wild sheep. For example, the ratio of sheep to goats was 4.6% to less than 1% at the PPNA site of Körtiktepe (Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006). Similarly only a few goat bones were reported from over 1200 identified caprine bones at Göbeklitepe (Peters and Schmidt 2004).With a majority of sheep — comprising up to 70-80% of the identified species — goats comprised only about 5-16% of the total identified fauna of some PPNB sites including Nevalı Çori, Gritille, Aşıklı Höyük and Gürcütepe (Buitenhuis 1997; Ilgezdi 2008; Stein 1986). Goats were also not regularly hunted in the PPNA site of Pınarbaşı and PPNB site of Boncuklu Höyük (Baird et al. 2018). However, domestic goats later appeared in Çatalhöyük, comprising about 20% of total identified species (Russell and Martin 2005). Perhaps the overall environmental condition in Neolithic Anatolia was less favourable for wild goats, since they commonly need a dry environmental condition (Siddiq 2018: 247-250). Wild boar was also among the most hunted ungulates. In some early Neolithic sites such as Hallan Çemi (Starkovich and Stiner 2009), Çayönü (Hongo et al. 2004) and Boncuklu Höyük (Siddiq 2018: 213), wild boars respectively comprised about 40%, 50% and 37% of the total identified fauna. Yet, some predomestic PPNA and PPNB such as Körtiktepe and Aşıklı Höyük present a very low ratio of wild boar — comprising up to 3-4% of the identified specimens (Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006; Buitenhuis 1997; Emra et al. 2022; Siddiq 2018: 200). Although domestic pigs were raised in some PPNB and many of the Pottery Neolithic sites (e.g., Hongo et al. 2004; Ilgezdi 2008; Kansa et al. 2009), wild boar continued to provide a 6 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA significant amount of meat source (Table 1). On the other hand, surprisingly domestic pigs were totally absent at some of the Late Neolithic sites including Çatalhöyük (Russell and Martin 2005) and Ulucak Höyük (Çakırlar 2012). Among deer, at least four species i.e., red deer, fallow deer, Persian fallow deer and roe deer, were recorded in Neolithic Anatolia (Table 2). Red deer was the most hunted among them. In some Early PPNA sites such as Körtiktepe (Arbuckle and Özkaya 2006) and Hallan Çemi (Starkovich and Stiner 2009), red deer comprised up to 20-39% of the total identified species. Fallow deer comprised higher ratios in some later Neolithic sites including Ulucak Höyük (Çakırlar 2012: 8). Until 2006, about a thousand dear bones were also recorded in over 24,000 identified specimens from Çatalhöyük (Russell and Martin 2005: 43). However, since deer did not comprise more than 2-4% of the total identified fauna at most of the sites, it is arguable that except for some favourable ecological niches — as witnessed at the Early Holocene Körtiktepe and Hallan Çemi — deer were generally hunted as a supplementary meat source. Wild horse (Equus ferus), Asiatic wild ass (Equus hemionus), and European wild ass (Equus hydruntinus) represent the equidae in Neolithic Anatolia (Table 2). All of these three species were hunted throughout early to late Neolithic periods. Similar to deer, equidae commonly comprised less than 2% of the total identified species at most of the sites. However, a few sites including Göbeklitepe, Pınarbaşı and Boncuklu Höyük present respectively about 8%, 5% and 11% of total identified specimens composed of equidae remains (Peters and Schmidt 2004; Siddiq 2018: 187, 216, 227). Table 3. Carnivore mammals hunted in Neolithic Anatolia. PPNA – Pre-Pottery Neolithic A; PPNB – Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; PN – Pottery Neolithic 7 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA Table 4. Small mammal species identified from Neolithic sites in Anatolia. PPNA – Pre-Pottery Neolithic A; PPNB – Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; PN – Pottery Neolithic Among other ungulates, the black-tailed gazelle was recorded from all Neolithic levels whereas the mountain gazelle was mostly recorded at PPNB level (Table 2). It is worth mentioning that throughout the Neolithic period gazelles were distributed mainly in the Tigris and Euphrates Basin in the Southeastern Anatolia (Emra et al. 2022; Peters and Schmidt 2004; Sana and Tornero 2008). On the other hand, the reports of bison at Pınarbaşı (Carruthers 2003: 169) and buffalo at Neolithic level of Kuruçay Höyük (Deniz and Şentuna 1988) seemed to be very uncommon since no other Neolithic site reports even a single bison or buffalo bone. 8 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA Among the carnivore mammals the family mustelidae dominates carnivore species identified throughout the Neolithic, representing a total of six species. Among them, only beech marten and Eurasian badger were common in all Neolithic levels. The other mustelidae including polecat, weasel and otter exhibited regional and periodical variations. Among all carnivore mammals, fox was probably a significant supplementary meat source throughout all Neolithic levels (Table 3). Particularly the PPN site of Pınarbaşı in Central Anatolia, yielded a large number of juvenile red fox bones with extensive burn marks (Carruthers 2003: 159), showing that they were hunted for delicacy (Siddiq 2018: 186). Notably fox comprised respectively 21% and about 31% of the total identified species of PPN and PN occupations at Pınarbaşı (Baird et al. 2018: E3082; Siddiq 2018: 187). Gray wolf was also a common hunted carnivore in all levels. Besides the apparent procurement of supplementary meat, it was likely that Neolithic hunters regarded wolf hides as valuable support against harsh winter. Notably, meat obtained from wolf, fox, hedgehog, tortoise, and a variety of rodents is still being consumed as medicinal and supplementary food in different parts of Turkey, including South-eastern Anatolia (e.g., Siddiq and Şanlı 2020). Among the felidae, leopards and wild cats were the common carnivores hunted throughout all Neolithic levels (Table 3). Although wild cat remains were common, leopard bones were very rare in most of the sites. For instances, only a single leopard bone was recorded among over 100,000 identifiable bones at PPNA site of Hallan Çemi (Starkovich and Stiner 2009); only a few leopard bones were reported from about 200,000 identifiable bones at PPNB site of Aşıklı Höyük (Siddiq 2018: 197); and only a single leopard bone was reported from over a million identified bones at Çatalhöyük (Russell and Meece 2006). Similarly, only a single leopard bone was recorded from the Late Neolithic sites of Ulucak Höyük (Çakırlar 2012: 8), Domuztepe (Kansa et al. 2009: 907) and Ilıpınar (Buitenhuis 2008. 307). Brown bear represented the family ursidae in all Neolithic levels (Table 3). Large number of brown bear bones at a significant number of sites in all levels, including the PPNA site of Hallan Çemi (Starkovich and Stiner 2009). Providing the biomass comparison of the faunal remains, it was argued that people of Hallan Çemi had an overwhelming dependence on bear meat (Starkovich and Stiner 2009: 51). If considered the size and amount of meat, it is likely that bears also offered supplementary meat for other Neolithic hunters in Anatolia, providing the fact that an adult male brown bear could provide up to 300kg fresh meet (Siddiq, 2018: 311). Moreover, their valuable hides were likely to be a sought after good among the Neolithic groups in Anatolia. Early Holocene environment condition and ecological niches were particularly favourable for rodents; and small mammals including hares, porcupines, hedgehogs, beavers, squirrels and different species of moles, voles, mice and rats were commonly present in the faunal assemblages of almost all Neolithic sites in Anatolia. Many of these species such as moles, voles, mice and rats were pests that live in the vicinity or inside (as a commensal species) of the settlements; and therefore, their presence in the faunal assemblage could be by of chances. Yet, it is likely that as supplementary meat source small mammal species such as hares, porcupines, hedgehogs and beavers were hunted and trapped by Neolithic groups of all levels (Table 4). Moreover, despite the gradual increase in domestic ungulates, small games such as hare, porcupine, badger, hedgehogs and rodents continued to have significant parts in faunal remains throughout the PPNB (e.g., Buitenhuis 1997; Carruthers 2003: 129; Peters et al. 2005; Saña and Tornero 2008). Particularly, hares were widely available in some sites located in open field, grassland or steppe environment. For example, hare comprised about 6% of the total identified species at PPN site of Pınarbaşı in Central Anatolia (Siddiq 2018: 187), and even at a time of increasing dominance of domestic sheep, hare still comprising 2.5% of total fauna of Phase II at Aşıklı Höyük (Buitenhuis 1997; Siddiq 2018: 200). Similarly, over 50% of about 10,000 small mammal bones from Çatalhöyük were comprised of house pests and rodents (Jenkins 2009: 118). 9 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA Table 5. Most common birds identified from Neolithic sites in Anatolia. 10 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA PPNA – Pre-Pottery Neolithic A; PPNB – Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; PN – Pottery Neolithic 11 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA Birds A great variety of birds were hunted and trapped in all Neolithic levels, presenting birds as the second most hunted vertebrates after ungulates (Table 5). Particularly due to the extensive work on avifauna, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site Körtiktepe and Hallan Çemi in the Upper Tigris basin and the Pottery Neolithic site Çatalhöyük in the Konya plain presented far more identified bird species than the Neolithic sites in Anatolia (Emra et al. 2022; Russell 2019a, 2019b; Russell and McGowan 2012; Zeder and Spitzer 2016). Terrestrial birds such as great bustards, partridges and quail were a major meat source in all Neolithic levels. Anatolian steppe and highlands provided a more suitable habitat for the great bustards (Siddiq 2018: 411-14). Since an adult male great bustard (Otis tarda) could have provided about 15kg of meat, great bustards were a sought after species at particular sites including Körtiktepe, Hallan Çemi, Aşıklı Höyük, and Çatalhöyük (Emra et al. 2022; Russell 2019a; Siddiq 2018, 2019; Starkovich and Stiner 2009). Especially in both the Younger Dryas and the Early Holocene phases Körtiktepe the great bustard was the most commonly exploited bird, comprising about one third of the avifaunal remains at the site (Emra et al. 2022). Many aquatic birds including pelicans, swans, teals, mallards, ducks, geese, coots, flamingo, cranes, herons, grebes, cormorants, bitterns, egrets, spoonbills, storks, grebes, godwits, ruffs and swamp chicken were hunted mainly as sources of meat (Emra et al. 2022; Russell 2019a; Zeder and Spitzer 2016). Many of these species were irregular games but mainly ducks, herons and geese were common targets (Buitenhuis 2008; Russell 2019a). Like bustards, pelicans also could have provided a large amount of meat. Since they were slow due to their body weight and relatively direct flights, they were also common targets for Neolithic hunters. Presenting the fact that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were flowing all year round as well as locating at one of the most important routes for bird migration, Southeast Anatolia also welcomed greater number of migratory birds including raptors, geese, cranes and ducks both in spring and fall. Rich assemblage of avifauna from Körtiktepe, Hallan Çemi and Göbeklitepe can support this idea (Emra et al. 2022; Peters and Schmidt 2004; Zeder and Spitzer 2016). Besides supplying meat, many of the aquatic birds including cranes were also hunted for symbolic purposes (Russell 2019b; Russell and McGowan 2003). Birds of prey including crows, vultures, falcons, eagles, buzzards, harriers, and owls were also hunted throughout all Neolithic levels (Table 5). However, it has been argued that most of the raptors were hunted for symbolic purposes, supported by the presence of raptor imageries at Göbeklitepe and Çatalhöyük (Peters and Schmidt 2004; Russell 2019b). Reptiles and amphibians It is true that certain species of small mammals and reptiles can easily burrow into an archaeological site and die naturally; yet there is direct evidence that different types of reptiles and amphibians were hunted, trapped, consumed and exploited for funerary rituals in Neolithic Anatolia (Jenkins 2009; Özkaya and Coşkun 2011; Starkovich and Stiner 2009). Among them, spur-thighed tortoise (Testudo graeca) was perhaps the most exploited reptile throughout Neolithic. Some early Neolithic sites such as Hallan Çemi yielded large quantities of tortoise remains, comprising over 8% of the total identified species (Starkovich and Stiner 2009: 50). Especially about four percent of the tortoise remains at Hallan Çemi were burned, as compared to two percent burning for the entire assemblage. Cut marks were also recorded on tortoise bones at Hallan Çemi (Starkovich and Stiner 2009). Together with spurthighed tortoise remains both from the Younger Dryas and the Early Holocene layers, the sheltopusik (Ophisaurus apodus) and wall lizard (Lacertidae sp.) were also identified in the faunal remains of the Early Holocene occupation at Körtiktepe (Emra et al. 2022). In particular, at least 16 of the Early Holocene burials at Körtiktepe were observed with tortoise shells deliberately placed near or covering the heads 12 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA Table 6. Reptiles and amphibians identified from Neolithic sites in Anatolia. PPNA – Pre-Pottery Neolithic A; PPNB – Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; PN – Pottery Neolithic of dead (Özkaya and Coşkun 2011, 94). Pond turtles, river turtles, colubrid snakes and some other snakes were also among the common reptiles reported from all Neolithic levels (Table 6). Amphibians were also commonly found in Neolithic settlements in Anatolia. Particularly significant quantities of frog bones were recorded at the PPNA site of Pınarbaşı, comprising about 84% of the total identified microfauna of the Area A (Jenkins 2009: 105). Marsh frogs, green toads, and a significant number unidentified frog bones were also reported from other PPNB and PN sites including Aşıklı Höyük, Boncuklu Höyük and Can Hasan III (Siddiq 2018: 194, 427). Like tortoises, frogs were also apparently a vital protein supplement to the Neolithic people groups, providing the fact that isotopic data revealed about 70% of meat-diet of female individuals at PPNB site of Boncuklu Höyük was obtained from frogs and small vertebrates1, while protein source of male individuals were mostly comprised of larger games. Therefore, similar situations could be argued for other sites such as Körtiktepe, Hasankeyf Höyük, Pınarbaşı, and Çatalhöyük, which were located in ecological niches of freshwater lakes and marshlands. Fish Throughout the Neolithic southeast, central and western Anatolian regions were blessed with rich habitats for fish, with the advantages of lakes, marshes and rivers. Barbells, carps, scrapers, minnows, nases, chubs, ides, loaches and catfish were the most common identified fish in Neolithic Anatolia (Table 7). These species are still common in freshwater habitats in the region. Although fish bones were reported at most of the Neolithic sites, many of them remained unidentified. Moreover, it was possible that many of the small fish bones unintentionally might have entered at the settlements embedded in 1 Personal communication with Douglas Baird at ‘Kazı Sonuçlari Toplantisi 41’, Diyarbakır, 2019. 13 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA Table 7. Fish and crabs identified from Neolithic sites in Anatolia. PPNA – Pre-Pottery Neolithic A; PPNB – Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; PN – Pottery Neolithic the mud used for bricks. Yet, the bones of larger fish such as carp, nases and barbels (Siddiq 2019: 195231) can be the direct indications of fishing in freshwater ecosystems, including the Tigris, Euphrates and Konya basin. 14 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA Figure 2. A group of freshwater fish vertebrae from the PPNA site Hasankeyf Höyük in the Upper Tigris basin (Photo: Miyake et al. 2012: Fig. 9). Not in scale. The PPN people groups of Körtiktepe, Hallan Çemi, Gusir Höyük and Hasankeyf Höyük exploited marshier and deltaic type environment where the Tigris and Batman Creek flooded large areas, creating alluvial fans, small lakes and scattered small wetlands in the vast semi-plain region. This overall helped Neolithic groups to access notable quantities of fish, crabs, freshwater snails and oysters (Özkaya et al. 2013). The faunal assemblages from both the Younger Dryas and the Early Holocene phases at Körtiktepe indicate the exploitation of a variety of fish including Mesopotamian bream, shabout, Tigris asp, kersin barbell, Mesopotamian barbell, Menderes barbell, yellowfin barbell, mangar, longspine scraper, Euphrates spiny eel and abu mullet, of all were freshwater taxa (Emra et al. 2022). In both phases the vast majority of the fish remains belonged to the carp family with the most commonly identified species being the mangar (Luciobarbus esocinus), which can reach lengths of over 3 meters and weights of in excess of 150 kilograms. A small number of especially large vertebrae from the Early Holocene layers suggests that mangar of this size were being caught at Körtiktepe (Emra et al. 2022). A large number of fish bones were also identified in faunal assemblages of Hasankeyf Höyük (Figure 2). In addition to the rich ichthyofaunal remains, particularly isotope analysis on human skeletons also suggested that intensive fish consumption was associated with the PPNA settlements in South-eastern Anatolia, including Körtiktepe and Hasankeyf Höyük in the Upper Tigris basin (Itahashi et al. 2017; Koruyucu et al. 2018). Among the later Neolithic sites perhaps the most elaborate fish remains came from Çatalhöyük, yielding over 62,000 identified specimens (Van Neer et al. 2013: 314). A large number of fish bones also reported from the late Neolithic site of Tell Kurdu, comprising about 5% of total identified faunal assemblage (Özbal et al. 2004: 89). On the other hand, the rarity of fish source in some isotope studies (e.g., Pearson et al. 2013) may indicate that some Neolithic groups perhaps did not depend on fish for their regular diet. 15 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA Molluscs A great variety of freshwater and marine molluscs were exploited in all levels of Neolithic Anatolia, comprising about 50 different species (Table 8). Shells, tusk shells, oysters, sea snails, freshwater snails, land snails and murex were the most common among them. Some of the molluscs such as Conus mediterraneus, Columbella rustica, Nassarius gibbosulus, and Antalis spp., and Dentalium sp. were brought from distant localities and used as ornamental objects and sacred burial goods (Baird et al. 2018; BarYosef Mayer 2013; Özkaya 2009). The records of thousands freshwater snails and marine shell beads at Körtiktepe (which are the subject of detail studies) can be a potential example for this (Figure 3). However, at many sites molluscs were collected from the local environment, and mainly for consumption (Özbal et al. 2004: 68-69). For example, among a variety of freshwater shells particularly edible bivalves (Unio spp.) were preferred in all Neolithic levels (Table 8). A number of land snail species, including edible land snails and edible garden snails, were also exploited at some sites, including Çatalhöyük (Bar-Yosef Mayer 2013: 333) and Ilıpınar (Buitenhuis 2008: 307). Figure 3. Part of the hundred thousands of freshwater and marine shells exploited and used as beads in the funerary rituals at the Younger Dryas–Early Holocene site of Körtiktepe in the Upper Tigris basin (Photo: V. Özkaya). 16 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA Table 8. Most common mollusks exploited in Neolithic Anatolia. PPNA – Pre-Pottery Neolithic A; PPNB – Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; PN – Pottery Neolithic 17 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA Tools and techniques There were some regional variations in using raw materials. For example, while flint was the primary raw materials in the Tigris and the Euphrates Basins (e.g., Miyake et al. 2012; Özkaya and Coşkun 2011), obsidian was the primary source of raw materials for the manufacture of hunting tools in Central Anatolia (e.g., Bıçakçı et al. 2007; French 1968; Mellaart 1970; Özbaşaran et al. 2012; Öztan 2012). However, basic hunting techniques and the types of the tool used were more or less common throughout different levels and geographies. Besides the group hunting activities (Perkins and Daly 1968), the Neolithic people groups often chose shallow places of river basin, marshy areas and narrow passages with large concentrations of prey (Bang-Andersen 2009; Emra et al. 2022; Deraniyagala 1996; Carruthers 2003; Mannermaa et al. 2008). Regular migration routes and drinking water sources of particular ungulates were preferably chosen (Jordhoy 2008). Knowledge of annual migration, seasonal movements and hibernating places of some specific species such as bear and tortoises was also vital. Overall, direct evidence of hunting, trapping and fishing techniques are scarce. Yet, artifacts such as spears, projectile points, sling stones, fishing hooks, nets, net sinkers and baskets can provide some facts regarding possible hunting and fishing techniques. Direct and group attack was probably the most common method to hunt large mammals such as aurochs, horses or bears. It is likely that hunters used strong, deadly and fastest weapons such as longtipped spears, wooden spears and arrows. Especially hunting lesions embedded in a wild sheep cervical vertebra at Hasankeyf Höyük, a wild sheep scapula of Gusir Höyük, an aurochs humerus of Göbeklitepe, and an aurochs scapula of Ҫatalhöyük can be the significant facts regarding this (Pöllath et al. 2018). A one meter-long draft could also help the hunters to launch their spear at about 80km per hour, providing that the projectile point the hunter applied was still embedded inside the aurochs bone of Göbeklitepe when it was excavated (Figure 4). Similar to the Neolithic groups of northern Syria (Legge and RowleyConwy 1987), it was also possible that at least the Neolithic groups in Southeast Anatolia used desert Figure 4. Projectile point embedded in an aurochs humerus at Göbeklitepe in the Middle Euphrates basin (Photo: Pöllath et al. 2018: Fig. 5). 18 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA kites for hunting a larger group of ungulates such as gazelle, asses and caprines at a time. Given possible iconographic evidence for the use of nets for hunting and trapping wild sheep at Göbeklitepe (Schmidt 2007: 92), it is possible to argue that many other Neolithic groups also captured medium sized ungulates using nets and kite like structures. Sling stones were recorded from all Neolithic levels, and although often may have had some other functions such as pot stands or heating stones (Atalay 2005: 158), it is likely that sling was preferably used for hunting small and fast-moving animals such as foxes, hares and birds (e.g., Esin 1998). Hunting big games were often difficult, risky and needed greater group efforts. Therefore, hunting, trapping and capturing small mammals, reptiles, frogs and birds were likely to be more frequent activities to secure regular supply of meat. However, except for faunal remains and very specific assemblages such as nets and baskets, it is extremely difficult to trace trapping related material culture. Similar to baskets and nets, probably traps were also made from available materials such as animal fur, plant fibres, reed, and wood. Some local pastoral groups in Anatolia still make various traps using sheep wool, camel and goat fur, ropes and reed, for capturing rodents, aquatic birds and hares (Siddiq et al. 2019; Siddiq and Şanlı 2020). Many also apply smoke to capture burrow animals such as moles, voles, hares, badgers, foxes and porcupines (field observations by A. B. Siddiq). Observing the very similar types of microfaunal remains, it is arguable that similar types of trapping techniques might have been used by Neolithic hunters. A significant number of bone-made ornamental fishhooks were used as burials goods at many sites including Körtiktepe (Özkaya and Coşkun 2011; Özkaya et al. 2013), Aşıklı Höyük (Esin 1998) and Çatalhöyük (Van Neer et al. 2013), indicating that fishhooks were one of the fishing gears in Neolithic Figure 5. Part of a large assemblage of fishing weights and sinkers unearthed from both the Younger Dryas and the Early Holocene phases at Körtiktepe (Photo: V. Özkaya). 19 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA Anatolia. Baskets and nets were also among the primary equipment to catch fish, capture crabs and frogs, and collect snails. A wide variety of fishing techniques was evident by diverse types of artifacts from Körtiktepe. Depending on the size and types of fish, the Körtiktepe people manufactured bonemade fishhooks in different sizes and types (Özkaya et al. 2013: 32). The large vertebra bones of mangar — which can reach over 3 meters long and over 150 kilograms — from the Early Holocene layers at Körtiktepe confirm that the sedentary hunter-gatherer-fishers at Körtiktepe were skilled enough to catch of this size (Emra et al. 2022). A large number of stone fishing weights and sinkers from Körtiktepe also indicate manufacturing of different types of nets for different fishing techniques (Figure 5). Freshwater molluscs and most of the fishes in Çatalhöyük were also caught from nearby rivers and marshy areas by using fishing hooks, fine nets and baskets (Van Neer et al. 2013). Evidence of mackerel shark was reported at the island site of Uğurlu Höyük (Atici et al. 2017) — which could be an indication of additional techniques by the Neolithic groups in coastal regions including the Marmara and the Mediterranean. Roles of dog Domestic dogs were present in almost every Neolithic site in Anatolia. Some settlements, including Boncuklu Höyük, Çatalhöyük, Ilipinar and Ulucak Höyük yielded significant number of dog bones, often comprised up to 11% of the total NISP (Buitenhuis 2008; Çakırlar 2012; Russell and Martin 2005; Siddiq 2018: 217). Surprisingly, no cut marks have yet been observed on any dog bones, which might direct that cynophagy was not a common practice in in Neolithic Anatolia. Overall zooarchaeological observation indicates that dogs were widely used in hunting activities (Kansa et al. 2009; Perkins and Daly 1968; Peters and Schmidt 2004; Russell and Meece 2006). Unambiguous evidence of the hunting dogs can be found in many other parts of West Asia since the 10th to the 9th millennium BC (e.g., Guagnin et al. 2018). Record of dog burial was also present at Çayönü in Southeast Anatolia, where a dog was buried close to a human burial (Özdoğan 1999). Although other sites did not yield any dog burials, presence of dog bones in all Neolithic phases and some distinctive records including the dog painting at Çatalhöyük (Russell and Meece 2006) as well as posthumous treatments of dog and human remains in the Death Pit of Domuztepe (Kansa et al. 2009: 911) can also be the indicators for closer hunter-dog relationships in Neolithic Anatolia. Hunting rituals Significant number of records suggests that certain animal species were hunted for particular rituals. There are indirect indications of seasonal and ritual feasts and sacrifices throughout all Neolithic levels (e.g., Dietrich et al. 2012; Russell 2012). However, except for some records in special activity sites (e.g., PPNB Musular in Central Anatolia), direct evidence of hunting ritual and feast is very rare. The depictions and direct ritual/burial associations of mammals such as goat, dog, big cat, horse/ass, fox, weasel, fallow deer, red deer; birds such as vulture, crane, crow as well as many other species including fish, tortoise, snake and spiders may suggest that hunting many of these species were vital for the completions of particular rites and rituals (Kansa et al. 2009: 911; Miyake et al. 2012; Özkaya 2009; Özkaya and Coşkun 2011: 94; Öztan 2012; Pawłowska and Marciszak 2018; Peters and Schmidt 2004; Russell 2019b; Russell and McGowan 2003; Russell and Meece 2006; Siddiq 2019: 142-160). In particular, aurochs cult at Musular (Özbaşaran et al. 2012), and two bull paintings at Çatalhöyük (Figure 6), can be the good examples for direct evidence of hunting rituals. Aurochs comprised about 20 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA Figure 6. An extremely large bull surrounded by human groups with various weapons in their hands; this wall painting at Çatalhöyük in central Anatolia (Turkey) has often been interpreted to be associated with hunting ritual (Photo: Russell 2012: Fig. 2). 57% of total identified fauna at Musular, and the special building at the site was associated feasts and aurochs hunting ritual (Özbaşaran et al. 2012). In Çatalhöyük, aurochs were the ancestors of the house and the protectors of the dead (Russell and Meece 2006). Examples of plastered aurochs skulls and horn cores were also recorded at Çatalhöyük (Russell 2012). Besides, perhaps because of great taboo, aurochs were not domesticated in Central Anatolia, even after a thousand year of their domestication in Southeast Anatolia (Siddiq 2018: 440-441). Stylized cattle heads and horns as well as deer were depicted in a number of early to late Neolithic sites including Göbeklitepe (Peters and Schmidt 2004; Schmidt 2012), Köşk Höyük (Öztan 2012) and Domuztepe (Kansa et al. 2009: 911). Therefore, overall evidence may inspire the thought that rituals and feast were vital parts for Neolithic hunting activities in Anatolia. Yet, the factual evidence for this is still very weak. Seasonal variation in hunting and fishing Similar to present day, seasonal variations in hunting were inevitable in Neolithic Anatolia. The busy movements of mammal hunting probably decreased in mid-winter since there was a diversity of steppe, forests, wetlands and meadows. However, hunting birds were likely to be common throughout the late fall, winter and spring; since marshy areas were full of migratory birds including ducks, geese, loons, crakes, herons, cranes, flamingos and pelicans in these seasons (e.g., Carruthers 2003; Emra et al. 2022; Siddiq 2018: 170-79). Raptors such as eagles and vultures were probably flying over human habitations and nested surrounding mountains; hence, spring and summer would be the perfect seasons for hunting raptors. The dry hilly regions hosted large-scale terrestrial birds such as bustards, partridges and quails. These meat-bearing birds could be hunted anytime of the year, but like present days, they were probably hunted most during mid-spring and fall (Siddiq 2018: 170-79). Carrion birds such as crows and magpies commonly lived near the settlements, probably were actively seen and hunted throughout the year. Egg collection was also a very important seasonal activity. A large assemblage of geese and duck eggshells in Çatalhöyük may support this idea (Sidell and Scudder 2005). Busy season of egg collection was probably between February and May since this was the breeding season for most of the birds including winter migrants (Siddiq 2018: 397-414). Commonly preferred small mammals such as fox and hare could 21 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA be hunted throughout the year; but were hunted more in the spring and throughout summer because of an increase in population. Rodents such as mice and mole were breeding more in the summer and fall (Siddiq 2018: 327-335), particularly following the ripening of wild grain, and offered plenty of food for fox, owls and other large raptors. Large games were more compatible with seasonal changes than the small animals. Wild horses and wild asses preferred grazing across the meadows, steppes, hills and open grasslands; deer preferred forest areas and semi-open woodlands; aurochs and wild boars roamed in marshlands, open oaks and dense woodland areas; and caprines such as mountain goats and wild sheep were common in the valleys, hills and mountain foothill areas (Siddiq 2018: 243-281). Although the ungulates were available throughout the year, the hunting season probably would not begin until the end of grain harvest from late spring to summer (Siddiq 2018: 168-79). Particularly deer skulls at Çatalhöyük showed that the antlers had not yet been shed off the skulls while hunting, indicating the hunt between late summer and early fall (Russell and Martin 2005). Aurochs, wild goats, wild sheep and gazelles were also probably hunted in the summer and fall, but before the arrival of winter, since the animals might feed themselves to the best and becoming their fattest, in preparation of upcoming winter (Siddiq 2018: 442-443). Except the burrow animals, most of the carnivore mammals roamed in the grasslands, forests and the mountains during the winter (Siddiq 2018. 286-313). Most of the carnivores could be hunted any season of the year, but likely to prefer in the fall when the cubs were grown juvenile (e.g., Carruthers 2003: 159). On the other hand, hunting some winter-hibernating animals including bears and tortoises would be a secure and profitable activity in early winter (Siddiq 2018: 313, 423-424). Although fish were available throughout the year, fishing probably did not occur during the periods of maximum flood and extremely cold winter months. Catching fish and collecting molluscs from mid spring and throughout the fall would be a preferred activity because of abundant and larger supply (e.g., Van Neer et al. 2013). Similar seasonal conditions were also applicable for the exploitation of other aquatic species. Conclusion Hunting and fishing were the only means of meat diets in Early Neolithic Anatolia for about 1500 years, throughout the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and early phase of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. The traditions remained major means of subsistence alongside the farming in Pottery Neolithic. However, hunting in distinct ecological niches for thousands of years might have brought heavy pressure and rapid decline in particular bovid species in the local environment. This might force the early sedentary people groups to depend more on fish, molluscs and a variety of microfauna. Over time, large ungulates became more valuable, and in order to cope with this crisis, the Neolithic people gradually preferred group hunting with more effective strategies — for avoiding the dangers and securing the hunt. This also encouraged gradual increase in frequency, totemic obligations and complexities in hunting rituals and animal sacrifice, as observed in the later Neolithic sites of Musular, Çatalhöyük and Domuztepe (Kansa et al. 2009; Özbaşaran et al. 2012; Russell 2012). There was also gradual dependency on domestic ungulates following the PPNB. However, beyond the time and regional distinctions in Anatolia, there was no change in the overall number of species hunted in the PPNA and Pottery Neolithic. Moreover, faunal records of some late Neolithic sites showed an increase in the number of exploited wild taxa, including birds, small mammals, amphibians, fish and 22 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA molluscs (Buitenhuis 2008; Jenkins 2009; Özbal et al. 2004; Russell 2019a; Van Neer et al. 2013). Perhaps advances in hunting tools and techniques as well as increasing demands with growing human population were the reasons behind this. Over time, many particular taxa including cranes, vultures, aurochs and foxes also became vital for symbolism and ritual activities (Pawłowska and Marciszak 2018; Russell 2012, 2019) — hence hunting and exploiting these species was also inseparable. Natural forces including changes in weather, flood, snowfall, or appearance of green grasslands in the local ecosystems were absolutely not under human control. Yet, it is likely that people were waiting and had plans for these natural changes. Rather than automatically responding to natural resources, the reactions to expected and unexpected seasonal events were the products of relationships between individuals, families or clan groups, which generally occurred within the scopes of broader socioreligious and ritual traditions. This included the norms of how and where to hunt animals and go fishing; when to collect secondary animal products such as antlers and eggs; when to store dried meat for winter or when to produce hunting, trapping and fishing gears. Hunting was also valid for significant survival techniques in socio-cultural forms, including animal symbolism, rituals and seasonal feasts. References Arbuckle, B.S. and V. Özkaya 2006. Animal exploitation at Körtik Tepe: An early Aceramic Neolithic site in Southeastern Turkey. Paléorient 32 (2): 113–136. Atalay, S. 2005. Domesticating clay: the role of clay balls, mini balls, and geometric objects in daily life at Çatalhöyük, in I. Hodder (ed.) Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-99 Seasons: 139–168. Cambridge, London: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research & British Institute at Ankara. Atici, L., S.E.P. Birch and B. Erdoğu 2017. Spread of domestic animals across Neolithic western Anatolia: New zooarchaeological evidence from Uğurlu Höyük, the island of Gökçeada, Turkey. PLOS ONE 12 (10): e0186519. Baird, D., A. Fairbairn, E. Jenkins, L. Martin, C. Middleton, J. Pearson, E. Asouti, Y. Edwards, C. Kabukcu, G. Mustafaoğlu, N. Russell, O. Bar-Yosef, G. Jacobsen, X. Wu, A. Baker and S. Elliott 2018. Agricultural origins on the Anatolian plateau. PNAS 115 (14): E3077–E3086. Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. 2013. Mollusc exploitation at Çatalhöyük, in I. Hodder (ed.) Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons: 329–338. Los Angeles: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Benz, M., K. Deckers, C. Rössner, A. Alexandrovskiy, K. Pustovoytov, M. Scheeres, M. Fecher, A. Coşkun, S. Riehl, K.W. Alt and V. Özkaya 2015. Prelude to village life. Environmental data and building traditions of the Epipalaeolithic settlement at Körtik Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. Paléorient 41 (2): 9–30. Bıçakçı, E., A.Ç. Altınbilek, S. Balcı and M. Godon 2007. Tepecik-Çiftlik, in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (eds) Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: 237–253. Istanbul: Arkeolojive Sanat Yayınları. Buitenhuis, H. 1997. Aşıklı Höyük: A “protodomestication” site. Anthropozoologica 25–26: 655–662. Buitenhuis, H. 2008. Ilipinar: the faunal remains from the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic levels, in Archaeozoology of the Near East VIII. Actes des huitièmes Rencontres internationales d’Archéozoologie de l’Asie du Sud-Ouest et des régions adjacentes: 299–322. Lyon: Maison de l’Orientet de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux. Çakırlar, C. 2012. The evolution of animal husbandry in Neolithic central-west Anatolia: the zooarchaeological record from Ulucak Höyük (c. 7040–5660 cal. BC, Izmir, Turkey). Anatolian Studies 62: 1–33. 23 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA Caneva, I. 2012. Mersin-Yumuktepe in the seventh millennium BC: an updated view, in M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavation & New Research (Central Turkey): 1–29. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. Carruthers, D.B. 2003. Hunting and Herding in Central Anatolian Prehistory: the 9th and 7th Millennium Sites at Pınarbaşı. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh. De Cupere, B. and R. Duru 2003. Faunal remains from Neolithic Höyücek (SW-Turkey) and the presence of early domestic cattle in Anatolia. Paléorient 29 (1): 107–120. Deniz, E. and C. Şentuna 1988. Kuruçay Höyük Kazısı Arkeobiyolojik Materyalinin Tüm Değerlendirilmesi. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 4: 169–186. Dietrich, O., M. Heun, J. Notroff, K. Schmidt and M. Zarnkow 2012. The role of cult and feasting in the emergence of Neolithic communities. New evidence from Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey. Antiquity 86 (333): 674–695. Emra, S., M. Benz, A.B. Siddiq and V. Özkaya 2022. Adaptions in subsistence strategy to environment changes across the Younger Dryas – Early Holocene boundary at Körtiktepe, Southeastern Turkey. The Holocene 32 (5): 390–413. Esin, U. 1998. Hunted animals at Aşıklı and the environment. in P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem, and W. Meid (eds) Man and the Animal World: Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthropology Andpalaeolinguistics –in Memorium Sándor Bökönyi: 215–226. Budapest: Archaeolingua. French, D.H. 1968. Excavations at Can Hasan, 1967, Seventh preliminary report. Anatolian Studies 18: 45–53. Guagnin, M., A.R. Perri and M.D. Petraglia 2018. Pre-Neolithic evidence for dog-assisted hunting strategies in Arabia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 49: 225–236. Helmer, D. 2008. Révision de la faune de Cafer Höyük (Malatya, Turquie): apports des méthodes de l’analyse des mélanges et de l’analyse de Kernel à la mise en évidence de la domestication, in Archaeozoology of the Near East VIII. Actes des huitièmes Rencontres internationales d’Archéozoologie de l’Asie du Sud-Ouest et des régions adjacentes: 169–195. Lyon: Maison de l’Orientet de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux. Hongo, H., J. Pearson, B. Öksüz and G. Ilgezdi 2009. The process of ungulate domestication at Çayönü, Southeastern Turkey: A multidisciplinary approach focusing on Bos sp. and Cervus elaphus. Anthropozoologica 44 (1): 63–78. Hongo, H., R.H. Meadow, B. Öksüz and G. Ilgezdi 2004. Animal exploitation at Çayönü Tepesi, southeastern Anatolia. TÜBA-AR 7: 107–119. Ilgezdi, G. 2008. The Domestication Process in Southeastern Turkey: The Evidence of Mezraa-Teleilat. Unpublished PhD dissertation, der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen. Itahashi, Y., Y. Miyake, O. Maeda, O. Kondo, H. Hongo, W. Van Neer, Y. Chikaraishi, N. Ohkouchi and M. Yoneda 2017. Preference for fish in a Neolithic hunter-gatherer community of the Upper Tigris, elucidated by amino acid δ 15 N analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 82: 40–49. Jenkins, E.L. 2009. Unwanted Inhabitants? The Microfauna from Çatalhöyük and Pınarbaşı. Saarbrücken: VDM-Verlag. Kansa, S.W., A. Kennedy, S. Campbell and E. Carter 2009. Resource exploitation at Late Neolithic Domuztepe. Current Anthropology 50 (6): 897–914. Koruyucu, M.M., F.S. Şahin, D. Delibaş, Ö.D. Erdal, M. Benz, V. Özkaya and Y.S. Erdal 2018. Auditory exostosis: Exploring the daily life at an early sedentary population (Körtik Tepe, Turkey). International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 28 (6): 615–625. Legge, A.J. and P.A. Rowley-Conwy 1987. Gazelle killing in Stone Age Syria. Scientific American 25 7(2): 88–95. Mellaart, J. 1970. Excavations at Hacilar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 24 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA Minniti, C. 2014. The role of animals in the economy of south-eastern Anatolia: food and commensalism at Mersin-Yumuktepe (Turkey), in L. Milano (ed.) Paleonutrition and Food Practices in the Ancient Near East. Towards a Multidisciplinary Approach: 95–108. Padova: Centro Copia Stecchini. Miyake, Y., O. Maeda, K. Tanno, H. Hongo and C.Y. Gündem 2012. New excavations at Hasankeyf Höyük: A 10th millennium cal. BC site on the Upper Tigris, Southeast Anatolia. Neo-Lithics 12 (1): 3–7. Özbal, R., F. Gerritsen, B. Diebold, E. Healey, N. Aydın, M. Loyet, F. Nardulli, D. Reese, H. Ekstrom, S. Sholts, N. Mekel-Bobrov and B. Lahn 2004. Tell Kurdu Excavations 2001. Anatolica 30: 37–107. Özbaşaran, M., G. Duru, N. Kayacan, B. Erdoğu and H. Buitenhuis 2012. Musular: the 8th millennium cal. BC satellite site of Aşıklı, in M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey: New Excavation and New Research (Central Turkey): 159–180. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. Özdoğan, A. 1999. Çayönü, in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (eds) Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization. New Discoveries: 35-63. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Özdoğan, M. 2011. Archaeological evidence on the westward expansion of farming communities from Eastern Anatolia to the Aegean and the Balkans. Current Anthropology 52 (4): S415–S430. Özkaya, V. 2009. Excavations at Körtik Tepe. A new Pre-Pottery Neolithic A site in Southeastern Anatolia. Neo-Lithics 2 (9): 3–8. Özkaya, V. and A. Coşkun 2011. Körtik Tepe, in M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavations & New Research. The Tigris Basin: 89–127. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. Özkaya, V., A. Coşkun and N. Soyukaya 2013. Körtik Tepe: The First Traces of Civilization in Diyarbakır. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Öztan, A. 2012. Köşk Höyük. A Neolithic settlement in Niğde-Bor Plateau, in M. Özdoğan, N. Başgelen and P. Kuniholm (eds) The Neolithic in Turkey. New Excavation and New Research (Central Turkey): 31–70. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. Pawłowska, K. and A. Marciszak 2018. Small carnivores from a Late Neolithic burial chamber at Çatalhöyük, Turkey: pelts, rituals, and rodents. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 10 (5): 1225– 1243. Pearson, J., M. Grove, M. Özbek and H. Hongo 2013. Food and social complexity at Çayönü Tepesi, Southeastern Anatolia: stable isotope evidence of differentiation in diet according to burial practice and sex in the Early Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2): 180–189. Perkins, D. and P. Daly 1968. A hunters’ village in Neolithic Turkey. Scientific American 219 (5): 97–106. Peters J., A. von den Driesch and D. Helmer 2005. The Upper Euphrates-Tigris Basin: Cradle of agropastoralism?, in J.D. Vigne, J. Peters and D. Helmer (eds) New Methods and the First Steps of Mammal Domestication: 96-123. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Peters, J. and K. Schmidt 2004. Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment. Anthropozoologica 39 (1): 179–218. Pöllath, N., O. Dietrich, J. Notroff, L. Clare, L. Dietrich, Ç. Köksal-Schmidt, K. Schmidt and J. Peters 2018. Almost a chest hit: An aurochs humerus with hunting lesion from Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey, and its implications. Quaternary International 495: 30–48. Roberts, N., M.D. Jones, A. Benkaddour, W.J. Eastwood, M.L. Filippi, M.R. Frogley, H.F. Lamb, M.J. Leng, J.M. Reed, M. Stein, L. Stevens, B. Valero-Garcés and G. Zanchetta 2008. Stable isotope records of Late Quaternary climate and hydrology from Mediterranean lakes: the ISOMED synthesis. Quaternary Science Reviews 27 (25–26): 2426–2441. Russell, N. 2012. Hunting sacrifice at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, in A.M. Porter and G.M. Schwartz (eds) Sacred Killing. The Archaeology of Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: 79–95. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns Inc. Russell, N. 2019a. Feathers and talons: birds at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11 (12): 6393–6410. Russell, N. 2019b. Spirit Birds at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Environmental Archaeology 24 (4): 377–386. 25 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Abu b. Siddiq And Vecihi ÖzkAyA Russell, N. and K.J. McGowan 2003. Dance of the cranes: Crane symbolism at Çatalhöyük and beyond. Antiquity 77 (297): 445–455. Russell, N. and K.J. McGowan 2012. Bird remains from the BACH Area, in R.E. Tringham and M. Stevanović (eds) Last House on the Hill: BACH Area Reports from Çatalhöyük, Turkey: 243–252. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. Russell, N. and L. Martin 2005. The Çatalhöyük mammal remains, in I. Hodder (ed.) Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-1999 seasons: 33–98. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Russell, N. and S. Meece 2006. Animal representations and animal remains at Çatalhöyük, in I. Hodder (ed.) Çatalhöyük Perspectives: Reports From the 1995–1999 Seasons, by Members of the Çatalhöyük Teams: 209–230. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Saña, M. and C. Tornero 2008. Consumption of animal resources at the site of Akarçay Tepe and Tell Halula (Middle Euphrates Valley, 8th-6th millennia cal. BC), in Archaeozoology of the Near East VIII. Actes des huitièmes Rencontres internationales d’Archéozoologie de l’Asie du Sud-Ouest et des régions adjacentes: 153–168. Lyon: Maison de l’Orientet de la Mediterranee. Schmidt, K. 2007. Die Steinkreise und die Reliefs des Göbekli Tepe, in Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit: 83-96. Stuttgart: Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe. Schmidt, K. 2012. Göbekli Tepe: A Neolithic site in Southeastern Anatolia, in G. McMahon and S. Steadman (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE): 917-933. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Siddiq, A.B. 2016. Anatolian farmers in Europe: migrations and cultural transformation in Early Neolithic period, in N. Kahraman, Ç. Durust and T. Yilmaz (eds) Proceeding Book of 1st International Symposium on Migration and Culture, Vol. 2: 519–532. Amasya: Amasya University. Siddiq, A.B. 2018. Orta Anadolu Bölgesi Akeramik Neolitik Dönem Faunasi – Çevresel Özellikler Mi, Kültürel Tercihler Mi? Unpublished PhD dissertation, Istanbul University. Siddiq, A.B. 2019. Tarihöncesi Toplumlarda Insan-Hayvan Iliskisi ve Orta Anadolu Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem Faunasi. Istanbul, Ankara and Konya: Çizgi Kitabevi. Siddiq, A.B. and S. Şanlı 2020. Animals and pastoral groups in the mountainous Ömerli district of Southeast Anatolia. Anthrozoös 33 (2): 153–173. Siddiq, A.B., B. Savaş, E. Çoşar and G. Altunkaynak 2019. Some ethnoarchaeological notes on Alaybeyi Höyük in the light of present Alaybeyi Village, in G. Altunkaynak (ed.) Karaz’dan Büyük İskender’e Erzurum Ovası’nda Yeni Bir Keşif: Alaybeyi Höyük: 427–451. Ankara: Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayınları. Sidell, J. and C. Scudder 2005. The eggshell from Çatalhöyük: a pilot study, in I. Hodder (ed.) Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons: 117–121. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Starkovich, B.M. and M.C. Stiner 2009. Hallan Çemi Tepesi: High-ranked game exploitation alongside intensive seed processing at the Epipaleolithic-Neolithic transition in Southeastern Turkey. Anthropozoologica 44 (1): 41–61. Stein, G. 1986. Herding strategies at Neolithic Gritille: The use of animal bone remains to reconstruct ancient economic systems. Expedition 28 (2): 35–42. Stiner, M.C., H. Buitenhuis, G. Duru, S.L. Kuhn, S.M. Mentzer, N.D. Munro, N. Pollath, J. Quade, G. Tsartsidou and M. Özbaşaran 2014. A forager-herder trade-off, from broad-spectrum hunting to sheep management at Aşıklı Höyük, Turkey. PNAS 111 (23): 8404–8409. Turner, R., N. Roberts, W.J. Eastwood, E. Jenkins and A. Rosen 2010. Fire, climate and the origins of agriculture: micro-charcoal records of biomass burning during the last glacial-interglacial transition in Southwest Asia. Journal of Quaternary Science 25 (3): 371–386. Van Neer, W., R. Gravendeel, W. Wouters and N. Russell 2013. The exploitation of fish at Çatalhöyük, in I. Hodder (ed.) Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük. Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons: 317–327. London and Los Angeles: British Institute at Ankara. 26 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms hunting And fiShing in neolithic AnAtoliA Würtenberger, D.A. 2012. Archäozoologische Analysen am Fundmaterial des Barcın Höyüks im Vergleich mit ausgewählten Fundstellen des 7. und 6. Jt. v. Chr. in Nordwest-und Westanatolien. Unpublished MPhil dissertation, University of Vienna. Zeder, M.A. and M.D. Spitzer 2016. New insights into broad spectrum communities of the Early Holocene Near East: The birds of Hallan Çemi. Quaternary Science Reviews 151: 140–159. 27 This content downloaded from 78.160.199.229 on Fri, 24 May 2024 22:06:20 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms