Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2019 / Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 6

Animal remains of Alaybeyi Höyük

Pages
767–783
Publication Date
2022-11-03
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Additionally, horse burials, horse cult, dog burials, and a rich number of dogbones present animals as versatile actors in various ritual and symbolic practices at the site.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper presents the zooarchaeological observations on animal remains of Alaybeyi Höyük unearthed from 2016 and 2017excavation sessions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Dated to 4721–4553 cal.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Additionally, horse burials, horse cult, dog burials, and a rich number of dogbones present animals as versatile actors in various ritual and symbolic practices at the site.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper presents the zooarchaeological observations on animal remains of Alaybeyi Höyük unearthed from 2016 and 2017excavation sessions. Dated to 4721–4553 cal. BC, Alaybeyi stands so far as the oldest archaeological settlement discovered in northeastAnatolia. Therefore, the faunal assemblage at Alaybeyi offers great opportunity to study the status of animals and their relationshipswith humans in the largely unexplored Kars-Erzurum plateau covering a period from the Chalcolithic to Late Iron Age. Taxonomic andosteometric analyses show that, like the present day, cattle were dominant over caprines, revealing extensive cattle pastoralism in theregion for at least about 7 millennia. While caprines too were significant in the subsistence strategy of local humans, there was not anysign of raising pigs. Significant numbers of wild species including carnivores, aquatic mammals, and rodents, as well as resident andmigratory birds, were also hunted by Alaybeyi people. Additionally, horse burials, horse cult, dog burials, and a rich number of dogbones present animals as versatile actors in various ritual and symbolic practices at the site.

🔖

Cite This Article

SIDDIQ, A. B. (2022). Animal remains of Alaybeyi Höyük. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 6, 767–783. https://ajindex.com/articles/614870

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Erkmen M, Altunkaynak G. Alaybeyi Höyük excavation of 2016 session. In: 26. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu. Ankara, Turkey: Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü; 2017. pp. 237-262 (in Turkish)
  2. Sari A, Arpacık A, Başkaya Ş. Bird species of Erzurum marshes in Northeastern Anatolia, Turkey. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 2018; 50 (2): 629-637. doi: 10.17582/journal. pjz/2018.50.2.629.637 3. Altunkaynak G, Işikli M, Erkmen M. In the light of new evidence from the Erzurum plain: an overview of Kura-Araxes funerary practices in Eastern Anatolia. TÜBA-AR 2018; Special Issue: 73-91
  3. Boessneck J. Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linnè) and goat (Capra hircus Linnè). In: Brothwell D, Higgs E. (eds). Science in Archaeology. A Comprehensive Survey of Progress and Research. London, UK: Thames & Hudson; 1969, pp. 311-358
  4. Salvagno L, Albarella U. A morphometric system to distinguish sheep and goat postcranial bones. PLoS ONE 2017; 12 (6): e0178543. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178543 6. von den Driesch A. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletins 1, Cambridge, MA, USA: The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology; 1976
  5. Genccelep M, Karasu A, Alpdogan O. The determination of radius-ulna closure time of growth plates in mohair goat kids by radiography. Small Ruminant Research 2012; 103 (2-3): 182-186. doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2011.09.049 8. Altınlı İE. Geology of East and Southeast Anatolia. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi 1966; 66 (66): 35-74 (in Turkish with an abstract in English)
  6. Ünal Ç. Livestock potentiality of Erzurum. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi 2004; 9 (12): 257-274 (in Turkish with an abstract in English)
  7. Caroline G. Size matters – Donkeys and horses in the prehistory of the Southernmost Levant. Paléorient 2012; 38 (1-2): 185- 201. doi: 10.3406/paleo.2012.5468 11. Siddiq AB. Pastoral societies of Mardin province in Southeast Anatolia – Some anthrozoological aspects. Mukaddime 2017; 8 (2): 253-265. doi: 10.19059/mukaddime.296314 12. Şanlı S, Siddiq AB. Anthrozoological study on the agro-pastoral societies of Kiziltepe, Southeast Anatolia. İnsan & İnsan 2018; 5 (16): 121-138. doi: 10.29224/insanveinsan.378568 13. Siddiq AB. The Aceramic Neolithic Fauna of the Central Anatolia - Environmental Effects, Or Cultural Preferences? PhD, İstanbul University, İstanbul, Turkey, 2018 (in Turkish with an abstract in English)
  8. König C, Weick F, Becking J-H. Owls: A Guide to