The Origin of Cattle in China from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age by Chong Yu (review)

Reviewed by: The Origin of Cattle in China from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age by Chong Yu Noel Amano The Origin of Cattle in China from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Chong Yu. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 2020. 108 pp., 20 figures, 13 tables. Paperback £31.00, ISBN 9781407316871. The domestication of cattle (Bos taurus) from extinct Eurasian aurochs (Bos primigenius) around 10,500 years ago somewhere in the Upper Euphrates and Tigris basins of the Fertile Crescent marks one of the defining moments of the Neolithic Period (Helmer et al. 2005; Peters et al. 2005). Genetic evidence hints that this process started out in a restricted area, constrained by difficulty in managing and sustaining herds, with just around 80 female aurochs estimated to be initially domesticated (Bollongino et al. 2012). Valued for their meat, in addition to secondary products such as milk, hide, blood, [End Page 248] and dung, and services including use for traction, domestic cattle were soon present in Cyprus by the end of the eleventh millennium b.p. (Vigne et al. 2000) and almost all throughout the Near East by the eighth to seventh millennium b.p. (Arbuckle and Kassebaum 2021; Helmer et al. 2005; Peters et al. 2005; Vigne et al. 2011). But as with any history of animal domestication, that of cattle is complex and not straightforward. Genetic studies of early cattle outside the Fertile Crescent have revealed multiple introgressions of wild aurochs to domestic populations. Some researchers argue that pre-domestic cattle management, as well as early "morphologically" domestic cattle, originated in multiple centers in Southwest Asia, rather than in just a single center in the Upper Euphrates Valley (Arbuckle and Kassebaum 2021). In addition, a separate domestication event occurred in the Indian subcontinent with the domestication of the zebu cattle (Bos indicus) (Park et al. 2015). By around 4200 b.p., genetic evidence shows zebu cattle introgression to Southwest and Central Asia, which is hypothesized as linked to the introduction of arid-adapted zebu bulls to enhance herd survival during a widespread, multi-century drought (Verdugo et al. 2019). In the archaeological record, evidence of early cattle domestication and herding at sites in the Levant (e.g., Dja'de el-Mughara, Tell Hallula, Mureybet) and Anatolia (e.g., Çayönü Tepesi, Göbekli Tepe, Çatalhöyük) was detected by looking at a range of attributes including size diminution, reduction in sexual dimorphism, shift in age of individuals exploited as shown by kill-off patterns, and change in diet as revealed by stable isotope analyses, not to mention relative increase in the frequencies of cattle bones at the archaeological sites. In China, genetic and archaeological evidence points to cattle being introduced, presumably from West Asia, sometime between 5600 and 4000 years ago at sites such as Shantaisi and Pingliantai (Lu et al. 2017; Yuan 2010). However, based mostly on the presence of aurochs remains at some Late Pleistocene sites, Chinese scholars have also proposed the possibility of local domestication or at least management of cattle in China. Zhang and colleagues (2013) reported a conjoining mandible directly dated to 10,700 b.p. that showed hyper-attrition. This was taken as evidence for oral stereotypy, which they then interpreted as evidence for Early Holocene cattle management in northern China. Other scholars have proposed the presence of cattle in other Early Neolithic assemblages in northern China, although the evidence remains inconclusive. This complex history of human-cattle interaction is the background for Chong Yu's The Origin of Cattle in China from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age, published in 2020 by BAR Publishing as the second volume in its Archaeology of East Asia Series. In the book's abstract, Yu spelled out the publication's goal: [To] bring together biometrical information of Bos bones from Early Neolithic to early Bronze Age (10,000 to 3600 BP), in order to gain a better understanding of the morphological variation of this animal in a biological point of view—the main indicator for tracing domestication (both locally and imported elsewhere). (p. xi) This slim volume accomplished that goal in my opinion, and in the process demonstrated the utility of revisiting zooarchaeological collections...