Examining agriculture and domestication
In the Near East, key domesticates included sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, barley, emmer wheat, and einkorn wheat. Lentils, peas, chickpeas, bitter vetch, flax, broad beans, and rye were also domesticated, although they were of less importance.[409] There are many technical issues and difficulties associated with determining what, exactly, a domestic plant or animal looks like compared to its wild counterpart, and how this can influence definitions of the Neolithic.
Much recent discussion revolves around determining what exactly is meant by ‘domestication'. We know that certain morphological changes ultimately differentiated domestic species from their wild predecessors, but perhaps more important is the concept that many species were used in a domestic sense prior to these changes. Several researchers now believe that the criteria for determining domestication must be re-evaluated and that several species may have been ‘anthropologically' domesticated even if morphological changes had not yet occurred.[410]The Natufians practised an array of economic options and were complex foragers. Despite the broad spectrum nature of Natufian adaptations, however, specialized exploitation, especially of gazelle, produced the majority of protein. The situation is less clear with plant resources, although many Natufian groups appear to have harvested wild cereals on a seasonal basis. While some Natufian groups may have practised some forms of cultivation, there is no evidence that they domesticated plants or animals, with the apparent exceptions of the dog and rye cereal.
Overall, trends observed during the Natufian continued into the PPNA, and, at least at larger sites, intensive cultivation of plants and specialized hunting supported the population base. Importantly, however, there is still no clear evidence for morphological domesticates, beyond the dog and rye.
The PPNA economic (and social) pattern is emerging as much more complex than previously believed, and exhibits considerable geographic variation. For example, at northern sites, cattle and caprovines (sheep and goats) were hunted, and pig husbandry at Hallan Qemi in Anatolia has been suggested, although this has been disputed.[411] In the central and southern regions, gazelle were the dominant species exploited. And, we now know that some PPNA people had expanded to the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, introducing wild cereal cultivation and hunting wild boars.[412]Both animal husbandry and agriculture became firmly established during the PPNB, although wild resources continued to be used. Confirmed domesticates vary regionally. For animals, a major change is that caprovines replace gazelle. Most evidence points to animal domestication occurring after plant domestication and many researchers agree that initial domestication of primary animal species occurred in the northern Levant and southeastern Turkey, rather than in the southern Levant.[413] The Levantine Corridor, a link between the northern and southern portions of the Fertile Crescent, likely served as a natural route for introducing these to the south. During the PPNB, there was an increasing dependence on herding of goats and, especially, sheep, and, to the north, cattle and pigs were important. Many animals were bred for primary resources (meat) and secondary ones (milk, hair, fertilizer, traction). The domestication of some species also has implications for the development of pastoralism and it is likely that classic Near Eastern patterns of pastoral nomadism and village life - the ‘desert and the sown' - became established.
Marine resources also may have been important at coastal sites. While substantial data are lacking, Neolithic underwater sites such as Atlit-Yam in Israel provide rare glimpses into this element. The establishment of fishing economies based in coastal villages has implications not only for adding dimension to our knowledge of Neolithic economic practices, but also for exploration of the Mediterranean islands.[414]
While the PPNB witnessed a rich and diverse economic base, during the PPNC available data indicate a more restricted dietary breadth.
This pattern continues into the PN, where economic strategies were almost entirely dependent on domesticated grains and pulses and the management of either tamed or domesticated animals. Typically, domesticates are represented by fewer species than they were during the PPN. Towards the end of the PN, olive oil production may have begun in the southern Levant, and there is evidence for dairying activities. In Mesopotamia, there is limited evidence of irrigation, which had not been well documented previously.[415]There are also suggestions that beer-brewing and wine-making began during the PN, if not earlier. Although direct evidence is limited, ceramic residue analysis from the Iranian PN site of Hajji Firuz Tepe (c. 7,000 bp) suggests that the vessels contained wine (possibly both red and white), and contextual evidence at the site suggests relatively large-scale production and consumption. Even more recent research hints at beer-brewing at PPN Gobekli Tepe. The use of alcohol has tremendous implications with regard to social relations, status, leisure time, ritual, prestige, and even use as psycho- pharmacological substances.[416]
The PN economic pattern is essentially what Butzer and others have characterized as the basic Mediterranean agrosystem, consisting of grain and legume cultivation, tending of various vegetables and condiments, orchard crops, and livestock.[417] It is likely that this basic pattern became established during the PN and that an agropastoral economy existed that became more and more dependent on a smaller number of domesticated resources. Changes in processing and cooking brought about by the incorporation of ceramics undoubtedly influenced this pattern and aided in the increased use of secondary products. In addition, pastoral nomadism played an increasingly important economic and social role.