Goats Mythology and Mythological Caprids/Caprinae: Sheep and Goats

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

“The subfamily Caprinae, also sometimes referred to as the tribe Caprini, is part of the ruminant family Bovidae, and consists of mostly medium-sized bovids. A member of this subfamily is called a caprine. Prominent members include sheep and goats, with some other members referred to as goat antelopes. Although most goat-antelopes are gregarious and have fairly stocky builds, they diverge in many other ways – the muskox (Ovibos moschatus) is adapted to the extreme cold of the tundra; the mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) of North America is specialized for very rugged terrain; the urial (Ovis orientalis) occupies a largely infertile area from Kashmir to Iran, including much desert country. The Armenian mouflon (Ovis gmelini gmelini) is thought to be the ancestor of the modern domestic sheep (Ovis aries). The ancestors of the modern sheep and goats (both rather vague and ill-defined terms) are thought to have moved into mountainous regions – sheep becoming specialized occupants of the foothills and nearby plains, and relying on flight and flocking for defense against predators, and goats adapting to very steep terrain where predators are at a disadvantage.” ref

It appears that goats were not just domesticated once by a single community, but by several distinct communities around the Fertile Crescent. 

“Domestication did not happen suddenly, but was a slow process, starting with the hunting of wild goats. Gradually, communities started herding their prey, then managing and breeding them. Judging by early signs of domestication, such as bones from the slaughter of male young, this started around 10,500 years ago in Anatolia (Turkey) and the Zagros Mountains (Iran). Neolithic sites reveal how the practices of agriculture and pastoralism spread around the region. In fact, genetic analyses of bone samples reveal that goat populations in different areas were quite distinct, as were their human herders. Therefore, we can infer that the communities shared ideas, but recruited goats from local wild populations. Not all wild animals are suitable for domestication. Humans need animals that group together, reproduce quickly, and can adapt to living in captivity.” ref

“Genes control the ability to lose the fear of humankind enough to accept feed and husbandry. Goats with those genes are the ones that became popular among herders. Even Neolithic samples from the Balkans (circa 8100 years old) contain behavior-related genes that are present in domestic goats today. Both these genes and the tur-inherited immunity gene spread throughout the Near East population, becoming common by 6,500 years ago. Tolerance of humans and resistance to parasites benefit goats having to live in confinement in large groups. Goats with such traits must have thrived, become popular, and spread between communities. Today, almost all goats bear the tur gene for parasite resistance, with the exception of a few Asian populations. As agricultural communities developed and cereals became a common staple for people and livestock, both humans and goats developed resistance to fungal toxins present in grain.” ref

“In addition to natural selection imposed by the environment and domestic management, early signs of deliberate selection are also evident in Neolithic samples. About 8,000 years ago, people were already starting to select for size, fertility, udder conformation, and color. Different communities preferred distinct coat colors and patterns. Certain features became subject to preference. For example, ancient Egyptians selected for lop ears and polled individuals. Despite later gene exchange between different regions, modern goats in Europe, Africa, and Asia still show genetic similarities to the samples from western, southern, and eastern Neolithic sites, respectively. This indicates that goats migrated across Europe from Turkey, to Asia from Iran, and to Africa from the Levant. Migrations occurred gradually as pastoralists settled into new regions. Greece and Cyprus, in the Mediterranean, reveal settlements as early as 9,000 years ago.” ref

“Colonists scattered in groups along the coast and, little by little, locals chose to adopt their farming practices. Farming communities in Greece and Bulgaria started up by around 6,500 years ago. Goats and farming spread northwards along the Danube to reach western Europe and Scandinavia by 4,000–5,000 years ago. A Mediterranean route brought goats to Italy and Spain around 7,500 years ago. Goats from the Levant migrated to Africa, crossing the Sinai to North Africa 7,000 years ago. Mediterranean travelers also brought goats to the northern African coast. The grasslands of the Sahara allowed pastoralism to thrive before desertification drove herders south, reaching South Africa by 2,000 years ago. Goats from the eastern Fertile Crescent crossed the Khyber Pass into the Indian subcontinent, then traveled over land and by sea to southeast Asia. Migrants over the Eurasian Steppe brought goats to Mongolia and China by 4,500 years ago.” ref

“A goatherd is one who herds goats, similar to a shepherd who herds sheep. A herder or herdsman is a pastoral worker responsible for herding, i.e., the care and management of a herd or flock of domestic animals. It is particularly associated with nomadic or transhumant management of stock.” ref

“The mouflon (Ovis gmelini) or moufflon is a wild sheep native to Cyprus, two separate parts of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Iran. It also occurs in parts of Europe and is thought to be the ancestor of all modern domestic sheep breeds.” ref

“Sheep are among the first animals to have been domesticated by humans. Their history goes back to between 11,000 and 9,000 BCE, when humans domesticated the wild mouflon in ancient Mesopotamia. The first sheep were primarily raised for meat, milk, and skins. Woolly sheep began to be developed around 6,000 BCE. They were then imported to Africa and Europe via trading. Herding is used in agriculture to manage domesticated animals.” ref

“Goat evolution is the process by which domestic goats came to exist through evolution by natural selection. Wild goats — medium-sized mammals which are found in noticeably harsh environments, particularly forests and mountains, in the Middle East and Central Asia — were one of the first species domesticated by modern humans, with the date of domestication generally considered to be at least 8,000 BCE or around 10,000 years ago (with some pushing that back to 11,000 years ago). It is commonly held that the earliest domestication was of the bezoar ibex in the Zagros Mountains. These earliest domesticated goats were used to produce meat and milk for Neolithic farmers, along with providing many of the materials required to build residences and tools. Following the domestication of goats over 300 breeds have been established for a variety of purposes, including for the maximization of milk production and for meat. Domestication and the selective breeding which resulted had a significant effect on the direction of goat evolution, with goats developing behavior which is considered to have been influenced by consistent proximity to humans. Selective breeding also significantly increased the physical diversity of modern goats, producing characteristics not seen in wild goats.” ref

“The wild goat (Capra aegagrus) is a goat species, inhabiting forests, shrublands and rocky areas ranging from Turkey and the Caucasus in the west to Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in the east. It is thought to be the ancestor of the domestic goat (C. hircus).” ref

“The bezoar ibex (Capra aegagrus aegagrus) is a wild goat subspecies that is native to the montane forested areas in the Anatolia, Caucasus and the Zagros Mountains (spanning Iran, northern Iraq, and southeastern Turkey). The goat populations on some Aegean islands and in Crete were introduced during the prehistoric period and constitute relict populations of the domestic goat (Capra hircus) that are now feral. The bezoar ibex is one of the domestic goat’s progenitors.” ref

“Agriculture is the practice of cultivating the soil, planting, raising, and harvesting both food and non-food crops, as well as livestock production. While humans started gathering grains at least 105,000 years ago, nascent farmers only began planting them around 11,500 years ago. Sheep, goats, pigs, and cattle were domesticated at least by 10,000 years ago in the Middle East. Agriculture was a key factor in the rise of sedentary human civilization, whereby farming of domesticated plants and animals created food surpluses that enabled people to live in cities.” ref

Putting the Baa Back in Urbanism: Affordances, Herding, and the Social Zooarchaeology of Early Cities in Northern Mesopotamia

“A path for thinking differently about the archaeology of urbanization, one that is explicitly rooted in social zooarchaeology. The researchers argue that studies of early urbanism have failed to account for the multispecies nature of cities. To develop a framework for thinking about the role of animals in urbanization, researchers draw on the concept of affordances. Researchers argue that explicit engagement with animal affordances offers a means of developing a new methodological toolkit for social zooarchaeological research. By focusing in particular on behavioral affordances to explain how the sociality of herds underpins the world’s first cities. A case study based on zooarchaeological analysis conducted at the site of Hamoukar in northern Mesopotamia illustrates the potential of a multispecies approach to the world’s first cities. The goal is to reinvigorate archaeological studies of urbanism and urbanization by opening up space for thinking differently about the social foundations upon which cities were built.” ref

“For over a century, archaeologists have been working to understand how and why cities arise. Explanations for the origins of cities have tended to fluctuate with the theoretical winds of the discipline, but the question of urbanization has been bypassed by archaeologists interested in post-humanism, the animal turn and alternative ontologies. In this paper, I argue that a focus on the non-human world—and specifically on the behavioral affordances of herded caprines (i.e. sheep and goats)—might provide productive new avenues for thinking about urbanization. The herding of ungulates has given shape to human–animal relationships in many parts of Africa, Eurasia, and South America for millennia. As such, the goals and methods of ungulate husbandry have been the subject of intense archaeological and, particularly, zooarchaeological focus.” ref

“The usual zooarchaeological approach to explaining herding focuses on one particular end goal: the identification of an economic product (labor, milk, meat, hair) for which the animals were raised. This approach, however, radically constricts the scope of zooarchaeological analysis. The pursuit of an end-point product as explanation, as if this identification exhausts the possibilities of the evidence, has kept us from asking other kinds of questions. It is clear that the act of herding itself is important and transformative for both people and animals. However, there are many more questions that can and should be asked about herding dynamics beyond the economic value of the animals’ bodily outputs. By drawing on two bodies of work that have rarely been brought into conversation with one another: social zooarchaeology and the archaeology of urbanization. Social zooarchaeology as a theoretical approach draws on the animal turn in the social sciences, itself an outgrowth of both the ontological turn and post-humanism.” ref

“The animal turn raised new questions that encourage us to think differently about animals. Should we view animals, for example, as a source of calories, raw materials and labor for human use, or, instead, as co-producers of the worlds we inhabit? The animal turn would have us take the latter perspective seriously. While social zooarchaeology has tackled some of the big questions in archaeology, such as domestication, it has not yet been part of the broader discussion about how and why cities develop. To rectify this, researchers take up the call issued by Naomi Sykes in her Beastly Questions: Animal answers to archaeological issues for zooarchaeology to tackle more actively the big unanswered questions in the field. Researchers chart a path for thinking differently about the archaeology of early cities, one that is explicitly rooted in a social zooarchaeology and, therefore, in a multispecies explanatory framework.” ref

“Researchers argue that studies of the first cities have failed to account for the multispecies nature of cities and animals as co-creators of urban space. To develop a framework for thinking about the role of animals in urbanization, researchers draw on the concept of affordances. By arguing that explicit engagement with animal affordances offers a means of developing a new methodological toolkit for social zooarchaeological research. Researchers focus in particular on behavioral affordances to explain how the sociality of herds underpins the world’s first cities. A case study based on zooarchaeological analysis conducted at the site of Hamoukar in northern Mesopotamia illustrates the potential of a multispecies approach to the world’s first cities. Researchers’ goal is to reinvigorate studies of urbanism and urbanization by opening up space for thinking differently about who builds and inhabits cities.” ref

Here are important questions to ponder: “What if the origins of urbanism in ancient southwest Asia might be found in the new, multispecies socialities that emerged in the context of large-scale caprine pastoralism? That is, what if the unique social dynamics of sheep and goat herds helped humans create the world’s first cities?” ref

“Hunting Cult” (Cosmic Hunt) becomes “Herding Cult” Paganism in the Middle East 12,000 to 11,000 years ago

Orion from “Hunting Cult” (Cosmic Hunt) to “Herding Cult” (Pagan Myth)

Animals in the Ancient Near East

“The ancient Near East was the site of several key developments in the relationship between the animal world and the human species. These include the first animal domestication after the dog, and the first texts on the relationship, which shed further light on relationships already documented for later periods by archaeozoological remains, artifacts, and figurative representations. It is these diverse sources that make it possible to study this subject, which has been renewed in recent years by archaeological research into human/animal relations. From the 10th millennium BCE onwards, the Ancient Near East underwent a process of Neolithization, characterized by the domestication of plants and animals. The latter profoundly altered the lives of human societies, modifying their activities, resources, and relationship with nature, notably by relegating most of the animal world to the category of the “wild.” ref

“The creation of an increasingly complex society, culminating in the emergence of the state and urbanization, led to other changes, notably the development of large-scale animal husbandry distributed among several actors (royal palaces, temples, nomads). From a utilitarian point of view, humans mobilized animals to provide various services in crucial activities (agriculture, transport, warfare). They used animal products for different purposes (food, wool, leather, clothing, etc.). The relationship between humans and animals also has a constant symbolic aspect. Many animals were considered vehicles of supernatural forces and divine symbols, and could be mobilized in various major rituals (sacrifices to the gods, divination, exorcism). The many artistic representations of animals generally refer to this symbolic aspect. The literati also attempted to classify the animals they knew. They developed stereotypes about the characteristics of many of them, which can be found in various literary texts, notably those in which men are compared to animals to highlight a trait of their personality.” ref

“While some animals had a high symbolic status (lion, bull, horse, snake), others were denigrated and sometimes infamous (pig). The Neolithic was the great period of animal domestication when the four ungulates that later provided the bulk of the region’s domesticated animals were domesticated. The phenomenon took place over a few centuries and was centered on the Taurus region and the northern Levant (upper Euphrates and Tigris valleys), with rapid spread to the southern Levant and the Zagros to the east. Goats seem to have been the first to be domesticated, but recent research has highlighted the fact that the other two quickly followed. The goat appeared between 8,500 and 8,000, following the domestication of its wild species (Capra aegagrus) living in the highlands from Anatolia to Pakistan. This animal could have been domesticated in several places at the same time: the Taurus region and Syria (Abu Hureya), and in the Zagros (Ganj-i Dareh).” ref

“Sheep were domesticated at the same time from mouflon in the dry regions of eastern Anatolia and northern Iraq and Iran, again in the Taurus and northern Levant (Hallan Çemi, Nevalı Çori), and took longer to spread to sites in the southern Levant and Zagros, where they only became important two millennia later. The first cattle were domesticated a little later than sheep and goats, in the Middle Euphrates and Taurus, although recent research tends to date their domestication to a period contemporary with the other two. The auroch is the origin of the most common domestic cattle (Bos taurus: cows, oxen, bulls). The pig was domesticated from the wild boar, in the same place and at roughly the same time or a little later (Cafer Höyük, Hallan Çemi), and was soon found at sites in the southern Levant and Zagros. But unlike the previous three, its breeding was never widespread and declined from the 2nd millennium onwards.” ref

“By the beginning of the Pottery Neolithic, around the second half of the 7th millennium BCE or around 8,500 years ago, all four domesticated ungulates were present at sites throughout the Middle East. The bond formed between humans and animals led to a relationship that goes beyond mere utilitarian use, taking on a symbolic nature. Since prehistoric times, humans have turned animals into cultural objects. They became symbols of supernatural forces and means of communication with the divine world in various ritual acts. Certain taboos were also established, prohibiting specific interactions with certain animals. Intellectually, humans sought to classify the animal world and developed precise mental representations of animal characteristics. This explains the frequent presence of animals in art, typically driven by symbolic motivations.” ref

“Animals have been present in the religions of Near Eastern cultures since the Epipaleolithic and early Neolithic periods. The pillars of the Göbekli Tepe sanctuary bear depictions of wild animals (as animal domestication had not yet begun, except for dogs). In the early Neolithic period at sites like Çatal Höyük and Mureybet, buildings that likely served as sanctuaries contained bucrania—bovine skulls used for ritual purposes. According to J. Cauvin, the bull represented a male, fertile principle, complementing the mother goddess. However, there is no definitive evidence that animal deities were ever worshipped in ancient Near Eastern civilizations; only anthropomorphic gods and goddesses are historically confirmed. Nonetheless, certain animals were closely associated with deities, serving as their symbols—these are known as “symbolic animals” or “attribute animals.” These could be real animals (almost never domesticated animals, except for the dog associated with the Mesopotamian goddess Gula) or mythological creatures.” ref

“Among real animals, the bull was the attribute of the Storm God (Adad, Teshub), representing his fertilizing aspect, while the lion symbolized Ishtar’s warrior side. The stag was linked to Hittite deities that protected nature (DLAMMA). Among mythological creatures, the dragon-serpent (mušhuššu) was associated with Marduk (among others), and the Capricorn (suhurmašu) with Ea. Statues of these animals could be used in rituals just like other divine symbols. For instance, stag effigies received libations and food offerings during the Pushkurunawa mountain ritual in the major Hittite festival AN.TAH.ŠUM. It seems that some temples in late-period Syria and the Levant housed live animals, like lions symbolizing the fertility goddess, alongside other animals, not for sacrifice but for their sacred nature. Similarly, some gods were adorned with animals for display, particularly high-quality horses.” ref

“In contrast, the Hebrew Bible prohibits identifying God with animals, as exemplified by the “golden calf” in Exodus. However, God is often metaphorically compared to animals in literary expressions (e.g., a vulture watching over). A notable exception is the case of the “bronze serpents” (nehuštan) found in temples, which seemingly served to heal snake bites—a practice the Bible attributes to Moses. Bronze serpent artifacts have been unearthed in several Near Eastern sanctuaries. Later, Christian tradition adopted the dove—previously linked to goddesses of love—as a symbol of peace and a messenger, representing the Holy Spirit. Ancient Near Eastern mythologies feature numerous imaginary animals and spirits or demons with animal traits, often appearing as hybrids.” ref

“This vast mythological fauna includes scorpion-men, fish-men, griffins, winged bulls and lions, winged horses resembling Pegasus, mermaids, various types of “dragons” (serpent-dragons, lion-dragons), and the lion-headed bird Imdugud/Anzû. There is also the hybrid demon Pazuzu. The demoness Lamashtu is depicted with a dog’s face, donkey ears and teeth, and bird talons. The Bible also references some of these creatures, such as Leviathan and various types of dragons. Certain animals were used to represent constellations in the sky. Regarding Mesopotamian zodiac signs, there are the Crab (Cancer), the Lion (Leo), the Scorpion (Scorpio), and the Capricorn (Capricornus). Many animals were offered as sacrifices to gods, almost exclusively domesticated animals—primarily sheep, along with goats, and even birds in Hittite practices. Their meat (usually prepared) was presented as a meal to the deity, with portions later distributed among priests and political authorities.” ref

“In ancient Israel, animal sacrifices were also practiced, with distinctions made between offerings. For example, in closure and communion sacrifices, part of the meat was consumed by humans, while the rest (particularly the fat) was reserved for God and burned. In contrast, burnt offerings (holocausts) involved the complete incineration of the animal, symbolizing its full consumption by God. Another form of animal sacrifice for rituals was hepatoscopy—divination performed by reading the liver of lambs. Animal-based divination could also occur without sacrifice, such as interpreting the flight patterns of birds or, in Hittite regions, the movements of snakes. Animals are frequently mentioned in omen texts, especially when interpreting abnormalities found in newborns.” ref

“In this way, animals served as intermediaries through which gods could send messages to humans. Animals also played roles in rituals, notably for purification, in sealing alliances (for example, the bloody sacrifice of young donkeys often formalized diplomatic agreements during the Amorite period), or during burials, where they were interred alongside the deceased—commonly equines, but also dogs. Exorcism rituals often involved animals when a substitute was needed to carry the threat away from a human. The animal would take on the affliction and then be sacrificed, thus removing the threat (sometimes burned or buried). Alternatively, the animal could absorb the evil and then be released far away, symbolizing the human’s purification—a practice akin to the “scapegoat” ritual.” ref

“Evidence for the production of wool is ambiguous and mostly indirect. Wool-bearing sheep have been clearly attested in Uruk-period sites, and the domestication of sheep and goat started in the ninth millennium BCE, but exactly when wool-production emerged between those two fixed points is unclear. There is some evidence for emerging wool production in the fifth millennium BC, i.e. late Ubaid. Some of the earliest evidence comes in the form of an animal figurine from Iran dated to c. 5,000 BCE with incised decorations that might possibly represent wool. At Kosak Shamali, a Ubaid site in northern Syria, indirect evidence for wool production has been found in the form of spindle whorls, clay scrapers, and a clay sealing with a cord impression that might have come from rope spun from wool fibers. The animal bone assemblage at this site had a large percentage of domesticated sheep and goat, with changes in the assemblage suggesting that the production of secondary products (such as wool and milk) became more important toward the late Ubaid and the Uruk period.” ref

“The spindle whorls from Kosak Shamali, and also those from Telul eth-Thalathat II (northern Iraq), gradually decreased in weight, which could indicate that more and more finer-quality or softer fibers were spun. At Tell Surezha  (Iraqi Kurdistan), evidence from animal bones also suggests that wool production may have been important. Tell Zeidan provides a wealth of information on the animal bone assemblages, which changed considerably from the Halaf to the Ubaid period. During the Halaf, some 50% of the animal bones came from wild species (indicative of hunting), whereas during the Ubaid more than 90% represented domesticated species (indicative of herding and keeping animals). Common animals were sheep, goat, cattle, and pigs. A comparison with other Ubaid sites in northern Mesopotamia showed that, in general, pastoralism became more important and reliance on wild fauna decreased somewhat, but this pattern was not so evident at other sites as it was at Zeidan.” ref

“There was no indication at Zeidan that there was spatial differentiation across the site in how animal products were consumed, suggesting that foodstuffs were not a means to express social differentiation. The majority of Ubaid figurines represented various animals, including sheep, cattle, and dogs. Human figurines were already present in previous periods. Most of the human figures are female, but male and genderless figurines without gender emphasis also exist. Those from the early Ubaid reflect a continuation of earlier traditions. A single, painted figurine from the Ubaid 0 levels at Tell el-‘Oueili has been interpreted as an early representation of the so-called “ophidian figurines”, which became common in the later Ubaid. Both seated and standing figurines were made, with paint being used to detail body parts, clothing, or body modifications.” ref

“Ophidian figures” have been exclusively found at various southern Mesopotamian sites. They are characterized by a slender body, a long, reptilian head with incised eyes and mouth, and a three-dimensional small nose. This particular rendering of the face may be a representation of a mask or possibly headshaping. The hands are placed before the abdomen, sometimes with incised fingers. The figurines are thought to be naked. Paint is sometimes used to indicate hair or other details. In the earlier Ubaid, ophidian figures were only used in domestic contexts, whereas in Ubaid 3–4, they appear in graves as well, indicating a shift in how these figures were used. The rarity of ophidian figures as grave gifts may indicate differential treatment of the dead, possibly based on age, kinship, or social standing.” ref  

Halaf period (6100 – 5100 BCE) 

Ubaid period (maybe as early as 6500? With Southern-Lower Mesopotamia 5500–3800 BCE and Northern-Upper Mesopotamia 5300-4300 BCE) 

“Tell Zeidan is an archaeological site of the Ubaid culture in northern Syria that dates from between 6000 and 4000 BCE or around 8,000 to 7,000 years ago.” ref 

“In Mesopotamia, goats were preferred for these rituals, along with less commonly sacrificed animals such as pigs, dogs, birds, and fish. Sometimes, the substitute animal was even dressed in women’s clothing to more fully embody the person needing healing. In the common analogical magic rituals of the Hatti, where threats to a person were addressed using vivid comparisons, animals were also referenced in incantations, even if they were not physically present. These various forms of representation have been present since Neolithic societies in the ancient Near East: the bas-reliefs on the pillars of Göbekli Tepe, paintings, statues, and bull skulls (bucrania) of Çatal Höyük, and the painted ceramics of the Samarra period, for example. Thus, traditions and stereotypes in animal representations are evident across different regions, sometimes sharing common traits due to cultural exchanges.” ref

“Recurrent motifs can be observed, emphasizing specific aspects of the animals depicted—for example, the roaring lion or bovines and caprines with prominent horns. However, artistic evolution is evident: prehistoric depictions of animals are generally highly stylized, with artists not seeking realistic portrayals, likely because these representations served purely symbolic purposes. Narrative and naturalistic approaches developed only later (making it difficult at times to identify the animals depicted). Artists could choose to portray isolated animals or more complex figurative scenes with narrative purposes and more elaborate messages.  This approach reached its peak in the narrative and more naturalistic (often entirely “secular”) scenes of Neo-Assyrian bas-reliefs, though it was abandoned in other parts of the Middle East, such as Anatolia. The purposes of artistic animal representations are not always easy to determine, but it is clear that they reflect the symbolic functions animals held for both creators and viewers.” ref

“Therefore, the artists’ primary intention was not to depict animals realistically in their natural habitat or purely for aesthetic purposes. Many animal representations are linked to their role as divine symbols or representations of supernatural forces. In these cases, the choice to depict a specific animal likely aimed to imbue the object with some of that creature’s power. Symbolic animals are found in Anatolian art across various periods, in the numerous depictions of snakes in Iran—where this animal holds significant symbolic value—and on Babylonian kudurrus (boundary stones) from the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE, which systematically feature divine symbols. This symbolic representation of animals is seen throughout the ancient Middle East” ref.

“Animal figures on standards and zoomorphic vessels in Anatolia at the end of the 3rd millennium and the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE had cultic purposes, likely linked to animals’ roles as representations of gods or natural forces. Ritual texts reveal that these representations were integrated into worship and could be honored with offerings and libations. Animal depictions could also symbolize power. In the Neo-Assyrian Empire, for instance, the lion and the bull represented the king, while the scorpion symbolized the queen and the royal harem. Animal representations also served protective (apotropaic) and healing roles: talismans, amulets, guardian beasts at gates, the “bronze serpents” of ancient Israel, and dog figurines dedicated to the healing goddess Gula (of whom dogs were symbols) in Mesopotamia. These symbolic animal representations typically featured creatures most associated with divine forces: primarily lions and bulls, but also snakes and various mythical creatures (“sphinxes”, “griffins”, and “winged bulls”).” ref

“Monumental statues of winged, human-headed bulls and lions—known as šēdu and lamassu—guarded the entrances of Assyrian palace capitals and certain internal passageways. These figures were believed to possess mystical power (puluhtu) that would terrify malevolent forces and provide magical protection for the structure. In more complex scenes, animals were depicted interacting directly with humans, reflecting societal and political concepts. Numerous scenes show men (kings or mythological heroes) mastering or killing animals in combat and hunting scenarios, from the “Master of Animals” motif on prehistoric Iranian seals to Neo-Assyrian and Persian kings hunting wild animals on orthostats and cylinder seals. Other scenes, common during the Uruk period, depict rulers or warriors feeding or leading animals.” ref

“These images emphasized the sovereign figure’s ability to dominate and organize the animal world, reflecting the recurring image of the king as a “shepherd” guiding his people, likened to a flock. The animals depicted here are diverse: wild animals, sometimes mythical ones, and domestic animals (especially caprines and bovines). Additionally, animals appear in scenes where they lack a central symbolic role but serve as auxiliaries or elements enhancing human valor. For example, warriors on chariots pulled by galloping horses evoke martial symbolism. A unique type of narrative scene is common in the Elamite world, particularly on proto-Elamite cylinder seals, depicting animals performing human activities (musicians, builders, or dominating other animals).” ref

“Ultimately, a limited variety of animals dominate artistic representation, primarily wild animals: the prominent bull-lion pair most associated with sovereign functions (especially in the Syro-Anatolian world), caprines, snakes across all regions, and deer in Anatolia, where they are linked to significant deities. Equines (especially horses, though typically as human auxiliaries) also appear frequently, along with birds and fish (though these never hold a central role). Conversely, animals like sheep (despite likely being the most numerous domestic mammals) and pigs are rarely depicted.” ref

“Before becoming established worldwide, sheep and goats were domesticated in the Fertile Crescent 10,500 years ago, where their wild relatives remain. Researchers sequence the genomes of wild Asiatic mouflon and Bezoar ibex in the sheep and goat domestication center and compare their genomes with those of domestics from local, traditional, and improved breeds. Plant and animal domestication represented a major turning point in human evolution, leading to the emergence of farming during the Neolithic. Domestic species share many morphological, behavioral, and physiological traits, collectively referred to as domestication syndromes. In animals, selection for tameness, changes in development rates, and developmental pathways are hypothesized to have triggered domestication and the unintentional emergence of domestication syndrome-related characters such as piebald coat color and lop ears.” ref

“Following the attainment of tame animals, deliberate selection for improved phenotypes related to primary (e.g., meat or milk) and secondary (e.g., stamina or speed) domestication products took place. While domestication triggered positive selection for many traits in domestic species, it also led to the relaxation of selection for traits of reduced importance in domestic conditions (such as camouflage coloration, twinning, sexual selection, and predator avoidance). Their wild ancestors, the Asiatic mouflon (Ovis orientalis) and the Bezoar ibex (Capra aegagrus) diverged during the late Miocene, and were domesticated ~10,500  years ago in the same region of the Middle-East (South-eastern Anatolia and the Iranian Zagros Mountains). Since then, humans have spread domestic sheep and goats beyond their native range, and ultimately throughout the world.” ref 

“The first domestic group was from Iran, designed to survey animals found within the geographic envelope of the domestication center, sympatric with their wild counterparts. The second domestic group was from Morocco, located at the terminal end of the Southern Mediterranean colonization route. The third domestic group comprised a worldwide panel of mostly industrial breeds, which we expected to have experienced stronger selection and more complex demographic histories. Thus, our nested sampling was designed to distinguish candidates shared by all domestic groups from signatures of local adaptation in traditionally managed populations (Iran and Morocco) or in more recently intensively selected breeds (worldwide panel), in a replicated manner for both sheep and goat.” ref

An endemic pathway to sheep and goat domestication at Aşıklı Höyük (Central Anatolia, Turkey)

“Sheep and goats (caprines) were domesticated in Southwest Asia, but how and in how many places remain open questions. Our analysis of caprine age and sex structures and related data reveals a local (endemic) domestication process at Aşıklı Höyük in Central Anatolia. Beginning ca. 10,400 years ago, caprine management segued through a series of viable systems over the next 1,000 years. The earliest stage simply involved capturing wild lambs and kids and raising them on site to supplement a broad-spectrum forager diet. Soon, low-level breeding began within the settlement along with catching and raising wild infants. By the end of the archaeological sequence, large numbers of animals were produced from captive herds, which gave rise to early domesticated forms.” ref

“Sheep and goats (caprines) were domesticated in Southwest Asia in the early Holocene, but how and in how many places remain open questions. This study investigates the initial conditions and trajectory of caprine domestication at Aşıklı Höyük, which preserves an unusually high-resolution record of the first 1,000 years of Neolithic existence in Central Anatolia. Our comparative analysis of caprine age and sex structures, along with related evidence, reveals a local domestication process that began around 8400 BCE. Caprine management at Aşıklı segued through three viable systems. The earliest mode was embedded within a broad-spectrum foraging economy and focused on small-scale live meat storage. This was essentially a “catch-and-grow” strategy that involved seasonally capturing wild lambs and kids from the surrounding highlands and raising them for several months before slaughter within the settlement.” ref

“The second mode paired modest levels of caprine reproduction on site with continued recruitment of wild infants. The third mode shows the hallmarks of a large-scale herding economy based on a large, reproductively viable captive population but oddly directed to harvesting adult animals, contrary to most later Neolithic practices. Wild infant capture likely continued at a low level. The transitions were gradual but, with time, gave rise to early domesticated forms and monumental differences in human labor organization, settlement layout, and waste accumulation. Aşıklı was an independent center of caprine domestication and thus supports the multiple origins evolutionary model. Many of the domesticated ungulates that we know today evolved within the Neolithic period between about 10,000 and 5,000 years ago.” ref

“Accumulating evidence has revealed that, as with many plants, domestication of hoofed animal species occurred in multiple loci and over longer periods than previously recognized. Most of what we know about animal domestication pertains to the later outcomes of the process. We know far less about the formative conditions of domestication because the physical traits commonly studied only diverge from wild progenitors after many generations. Aşıklı Höyük is the earliest known aggregated PPN settlement in Central Anatolia. A variety of mobile and semimobile foragers resided in Cappadocia and the Konya Plain at this time, but the sites created by other groups were smaller and their occupation histories shorter. Aşıklı Höyük nonetheless was part of a regional patchwork of complex hunter-gatherers. The faunal and botanical records of Aşıklı Höyük document a socioeconomic transition from broad-spectrum foraging to food production.” ref

“The Aşıklı Höyük settlement was founded ca. 10,400 years ago along a wide stretch of the Melendiz River floodplain, where rich soils had developed from late Pleistocene marsh deposits. By the time of its abandonment, the site had expanded into a 4-ha mound roughly 16 m high. The earliest cultural deposit, Level 5, represents a small and probably semisedentary settlement with round wattle-and-daub structures set deep into the ground. Levels 4 to 3 were permanent occupations with semisubterranean oval mudbrick residential structures. Level 2 is distinguished by rectangular mudbrick structures built entirely aboveground. The settlement became increasingly dense through structural infilling as its total area expanded. Levels 5 to 4 span ca. 8,400 to 8,000 BCE, Level 3 spans 8,000 to 7,700 BCE, and Level 2 spans 7,700 to 7,300 BCE.” ref

“Gradual change was the rule at Aşıklı Höyük over the millennium of its existence, but the major facets of the archaeological record changed at very different rates. Lithic technology shifted very slowly until the final phases of occupation, whereas architecture and human–caprine interactions changed greatly throughout the sequence. Aşıklı Höyük preserves the earliest known occurrence of the new glume wheat type and free-threshing wheat (in Level 5, Triticum aestivum/durum) in Anatolia and perhaps elsewhere in the Middle East. However, the ratio of cereals and pulses to other plant foods increased only mildly from Level 5 through Level 2, and people continued to rely heavily on wild plants. Zooarchaeological and geoarchaeological data indicate that small numbers of caprines were held captive inside the settlement by 10,350 years ago, if not earlier.” ref

“Rare exotic materials such as shells from the Mediterranean Sea and nonnative cultigens such as chickpea occur in Levels 5 to 4. This situation was followed by a prolonged interval of limited or no long-distance exchanges between Aşıklı Höyük and other communities. Strangely, the Aşıklans did not participate in the obsidian exchange networks that targeted high-quality obsidian sources only 20 to 30 km east of the settlement; these sources were used heavily by the locals and nonlocal prospectors alike. The tendency for community insularity persisted until the final phases of Level 2 (2D to C), when a revival of interregional exchange is marked by the influx in exotic decorative objects. The gradual nature of change at Aşıklı Höyük and limited evidence of outside cultural influences for much of the settlement’s history help to explain many of the unique properties of this community. The early meat diet at Aşıklı Höyük included a wide range of large and small wild prey. Caprines were a minor component at the outset (27% in Level 5) but gradually became the dominant meat source (81% in Level 2J to D).” ref

“Changes in the ratio of sheep to goats with time are also of interest because the two species have somewhat different food and habitat tolerances. Sheep were the dominant caprine species in all levels, but dung phytolith evidence demonstrates that both species were held captive within the settlement from an early date. We used eight diagnostic skeletal elements that are common and similarly represented across levels—scapula, humerus, radius, tibia, astragalus, calcaneum, third phalanx, and lower third molar—to determine the relative representation of Ovis and Capra. The aggregate means show that a) goats were always fewer than sheep, but b) the proportion of goats dropped from 26 to 29% in Levels 5 and 4 to 14 to 10% in Levels 3 and 2. The ratio in AH Level 2 matches that for the later Neolithic at Çatalhöyük on the Konya Plain.” ref

“Several kinds of mortality data were cross-referenced to test for human manipulation of caprine survivorship at Aşıklı Höyük. Considered first was the relative abundance of preterm (fetal) and neonate remains from multiple ungulate species in the assemblages, followed by culling patterns for young caprines by sex as determined from the pelvis, and, finally, caprine mortality patterns over the full potential lifespan based on dental remains. The faunal samples are from the post-2009 excavations, spanning Level 5 through Level 2D, where sediments were systematically fine screened and floated to ensure complete recovery of small and immature specimens. Preferential culling of very young males is another common signature of human manipulation and not typical of predator–prey interactions between Pleistocene humans and wild artiodactyl ungulates.” ref

“Mild male biases do occur in some Paleolithic archaeofaunas, depending on the species and its social adaptations, but mainly in adult individuals. The biological logic behind culling young males in managed populations is simply that females are the limiting reproductive resource, and male behavior can be disruptive. A common solution is to harvest many (but not all) males at a young age. Evidence of sex-biased culling in the caprines at Aşıklı Höyük is based on visual observations of the morphology and fusion state of the acetabulum–pubis region of the innominate. As the acetabular region develops in young individuals, the pubis and the adjacent part of the ilium take on different shapes and thicknesses in males versus females. Culling was indeed biased to young males throughout Levels 5 to 3 at Aşıklı Höyük, with about 60% of all males killed before 7 months of age. Some females also died before 7 months, but very few. The situation changed markedly in Level 2, when the majority (ca. 80%) of both males and females were allowed to live beyond the age of 7 months.” ref

“Mortality patterns are fundamental to investigations of the ungulate management practices of the Neolithic period, but these data are seldom compared to hunted assemblages from earlier periods. Because the first PrePotteryNeolithic economies in Southwest Asia emerged from local Epipaleolithic forager systems, such a comparison can be helpful for clarifying thresholds in the transformation from hunting to management and/or domestication, and, more importantly, for gauging the scale of difference between the economic systems. We know that prey age selection continued to evolve from the Paleolithic through the Epipaleolithic and that some Epipaleolithic death assemblages contain relatively more young animals. Neolithic systems are expected to have diverged even further as management practices developed. However, there are few clear expectations for how mortality patterns generated by nascent caprine management practices would differ from ancestral Epipaleolithic ones.” ref

“Some late Epipaleolithic cultures are known to have intensified their offtake from wild prey populations enough to drive down the mean age of reproduction. This does not qualify as evidence of deliberate management, but the resulting mortality patterns could, in principle, overlap with those generated by the earliest management practices. We would expect a true herding system to optimize growth and enhance bioproduct outputs by sparing the reproductive core of the population as much as possible. Did early management of wild captives fit the latter expectation, or did other strategies exist that have since gone extinct? Other expectations may also apply to the early PPN, depending on the character of exploitation: 1) if meat was the main product to be gained from exploited captives, then a somatic (S-shaped) growth curve should predict culling decisions to a great degree, with many individuals killed before or as the upper developmental asymptote is reached; 2) if people sought (and could afford) to increase the size of the captive population to enhance future production, the culling of reproductive females should be limited; and 3) if secondary (nonmeat) products were important, whether as live units of wealth or sources of milk and/or hair, then many animals of one or both sexes should be allowed to live relatively long adult lives until biological senescence is reached.” ref 

“Researchers used simple, easily replicated criteria for age-scoring caprine teeth to construct the mortality patterns, with no adjustments to estimated age in years. Our choice of procedure limits the number of published cases suitable for comparison, but it ensures primary data comparability in a field in which dental age scoring and compilation criteria vary greatly. Dividing the maximum potential lifespan (MPL) into eight cohorts reveals bimodal mortality patterns throughout the Aşıklı Höyük sequence. The first peak corresponds to animals ca. 6 to 18 months old and is the dominant one in Levels 5 and 4. Though comprised overwhelmingly of juveniles, the Level 5 assemblage also contains just a few adults, including one old adult. These individuals may have been hunted from the wild, but this is not certain. The second peak spans the mid-adult years and becomes more dominant with time.” ref

“Many more animals survived into productive adulthood during the later occupations. By Level 2I to J, some old adults (>6 years old) are also present in the death assemblage. Small outdoor spaces in Levels 5 to 4 contain highly localized, primary dung concentrations that were trampled in place based on phytolith and micromorphology studies. These lenses testify to the presence of a small number of captive animals in Level 5 and somewhat more in Level 4. Phytolith assemblages from the dung lenses also testify to the localized presence of both grazers (sheep) and browsers (goats) within the settlement. Dung accumulations became much more massive and widespread toward the end of Level 4 and upwards, indicating that many more animals were held in communal corrals as time went on.” ref

Ancient DNA analyses bring to life the 11,000-year intertwined genomic history of sheep and humans

“The earliest sheep-herding village in the sample, Aşıklı Höyük in central Türkiye, has genomes that seem ancestral to later populations in the wider region, confirming an origin in captures of wild mouflon over 11,000 years ago in the western part of the northern Fertile Crescent. By 8,000 years ago, in the earliest European sheep populations, the team found evidence that farmers were deliberately selecting their flocks – in particular for the genes coding for coat color. Along with a similar signal in goats, this is the earliest evidence for human molding of another animal’s biology and shows that early herders, like today’s farmers, were interested in the beautiful and unusual in their animals. Specifically, the main gene the team found evidence of selection near was one known as “KIT”, which is associated with white coat color in a range of livestock.” ref

“Also by that time, the earliest domestic sheep genomes from Europe and further east in Iran and Central Asia had diverged from each other. However, this separation did not last as people translocated sheep from eastern populations to the west. First, in parallel with human cultural influences spreading out from the early cities of Mesopotamia, we see sheep genomes moving west within the Fertile Crescent around 7,000 years ago. Second, the rise of pastoralist peoples in the Eurasian steppes and their westward spread some 5,000 years ago profoundly transformed ancestral European human populations and their culture.” ref

“This process changed the makeup of human populations, for example, altering the ancestry of British peoples by around 90%, and introduced the Indo-European language ancestor of the tongues spoken across the continent today. From the dataset used in this study, it now seems that this massive migration was fueled by sheep herding and exploitation of livestock products, including milk and probably cheese, as it is around the same time that sheep ancestry also changed. Consequently, by the Bronze Age, herds had about half their ancestry from a source in the Eurasian steppe.” ref

Aşıklı Höyük (8,200-7,400 BCE or 10,200 to 9,400 years ago) 

Oldest livestock genome reveals origin of today’s goats: Bones found in western Iran capture transition from wild to domestic

“Ancient hunters and farmers living in the foothills and valleys of western Iran’s verdant highlands may have been among the first people to domesticate livestock. The oldest livestock genome yet sequenced—bolsters that notion along with archaeological evidence of a transitional stage between wild-hunted goats and their domesticated descendants. Researchers captured “the ‘ground zero’ for goat domestication, or close to it. And because the advent of livestock domestication helped pave the way for larger populations and complex societies, he says, “it is really one of the pivotal moments in prehistory.” unearthed ancient livestock bones near Iran’s Zagros Mountains, at the eastern end of the Fertile Crescent, the region considered the cradle of agriculture and several early civilizations.” ref 

“Analyzed goat bones excavated from two sites in the Zagros Mountains, Ganj Dareh and Tepe Abdul Hosein. People lived, hunted, and grew crops in these fertile valleys from about 8,200 to 7,600 BCE. The wild ancestor of today’s domestic goat, the bezoar, was their primary prey. Animal remains show signs of domestication, such as smaller bodies and shorter horns. Evidence of early pig and sheep domestication has been found in the region, as well. The pattern of male and female goat remains at these sites was the first clue that people were likely managing herds, not just hunting them. “Hunters and herders target different kinds of animals. “Hunters are after the ‘bang for your buck’ fast return, so they go for big adults.” Herders, meanwhile, care less about individual size, focusing instead on keeping females alive to sustain and grow the herd, she says. As a result, herders tend to cull most young males and keep lots of older females.” ref

“That’s exactly the pattern the researchers saw at Ganj Dareh and Tepe Abdul Hosein: relatively few males and lots of older females. Hoof impressions imprinted in mud bricks at Ganj Dareh further strengthened the case that people here were managing goats, as wild goats probably weren’t tromping through the village. Strangely, though, these seemingly herded goats looked exactly like wild bezoars, with large bodies and horns. So, the researchers turned to ancient DNA. Comparing the ancient goat DNA with that of modern wild goats from the region, the scientists found distinct genetic clusters indicating the apparently managed goats were being bred with one another, they report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This confirms the herders maintained a goat population largely separate from the region’s wild goats, Zeder says.” ref

“The earliest of the goat remains date to about 8,200 BCE, making the DNA in the study the oldest livestock genomes yet sequenced. Within these early managed goats, the researchers identified the six major mitochondrial haplotypes, or sets of genes inherited along the female line, that are present in modern domestic goat populations. Researchers found that today’s goats are direct descendants of those that lived 10,200 years ago. These ancient goats appear to represent a critical moment in domestication in which people were managing herds but hadn’t yet selected for the physical traits that you’d recognize at the petting zoo. The results suggest the earliest livestock herders tinkered with management strategies before they succeeded in domesticating their animals, she adds. “There was a lot of experimentation going on.” ref

Ganj Dareh (8,200 – 7,600 BCE, or around 10,200 to 9,600 years ago) is a “Neolithic settlement in western Iran that yielded one of the earliest pieces of evidence of goat domestication in the world.” ref

Tepe Abdul Hosein (one of the key sites of early Neolithic in Central Zagros) 

Pastoralism, hunting, and coexistence: Domesticated and wild bovids in Neolithic Sudan

“Within this context, pastoralism—rather than farming—was the earliest food production system in most of Africa except for the Nile delta. The adoption of cattle herding spread throughout the Sahara, Eastern Saharan oases, and along the Nile between 7,000 and 4,000 BCE or around 9,000 to 6,000 years ago, and Southwest Asian sheep and goats were introduced within a millennium. Although scholars have offered a variety of explanations for the initial adoption of pastoralism in the Sahara, most agree that experimentation with herding and increasing mobility provided Saharan populations with a means of buffering themselves against the consequences of climate change. By 3,500 BCE, or around 5,500 years ago, an even more dramatic decrease in rainfall caused Saharan populations to concentrate themselves into the wadis (seasonal watercourses), oases, and remaining marshes.” ref

“When these areas dried up, some Saharan populations shifted east into the Nile Valley and Eastern Saharan oases, where pasturelands and water would have been attractive for seasonal migrations. Meanwhile, Holocene peoples along the Nile had developed economies based on intensive gathering of wild plants and exploitation of wild animals, some becoming semi-sedentary. By 6,000 BCE or around 8,000 years ago, these Nile Valley subsistence strategies began to accommodate the initial influx of caprines from Southwest Asia. After 5,300 BCE, or around 7,300 years ago, the ICTZ’s maximum northward movements shifted south, and the Sahara Desert expanded. By extension, changes in the ITCZ’s location also impacted the Nile, increasing water flow and becoming more attractive for herding peoples fleeing Saharan desiccation. Although the initial spread of full-fledged, cattle-based pastoralism was irregular and sporadic in prehistoric Sudan, by 4,000 BCE or around 6,000 years ago, caprines are present at sites throughout the Nile, the wadis, and the Sahara. The Middle Nile Valley provides an ideal region to assess the spread of pastoralism during this period.” ref

VARIATION IN GAME AND DOMESTIC ANIMAL RATIOS IN THE 7TH – 5TH MILLENNIA BCE IN THE LOWER VOLGA REGION

“The results of analysis of the species composition found in sites dating between 7,000 – 5,000 BCE, or around 9,000 to 7,000 years ago. These sites are either monocultural or multicultural, where the cultural layers belonging to different periods are separated from each other by sterile layers. As a result, researchers were able to trace the variation through time in the ratios of game/domestic animals in the Neolithic – Eneolithic periods. In the Early Neolithic, the kulan was the main game animal. During the Middle and Late Neolithic, hunting diversified, and such animals as saiga, aurochs, and horse, along with kulan, became the main target species. In the Early Eneolithic, the first domestic animals, i.e., sheep and goats, appeared. Cattle appeared in the Late Eneolithic. The share of game animals during this period sharply decreased, even to the point of the complete disappearance of such species as aurochs and horse.” ref

“Throughout the course of the Neolithic period, the cultural layers of the archaeological sites yield only wild animal bones. The bones of sheep and goats first appear in the Early Eneolithic, represented by the North Caspian culture. Cattle bones appear at the Late Eneolithic Khvalynsk sites, and the number of sheep and goats also increased at that time. The hunted species are kulan, saiga, aurochs, and wild horse. All of them, with the exception of the aurochs, remained huntable throughout the period. The transformation of preferences in hunting is quite clearly represented in the diagrams.  Caprines were found in the Eneolithic sites. These were either sheep or goat bones: their species are not always possible to identify accurately, though we assume that sheep as a species predominated in this case. Among the identifiable bones, some certainly belong to sheep, while there is not a single one adequately identified as a goat. Sheep and goats have wild ancestors neither in the Volga (in Russia) nor in the Dnieper-Don region (in Ukraine).” ref

“We do not yet know where these domestic species came from. It remains unclear whether they were brought here during direct human migration or as a result of exchange. The original distribution area where small domestic bovids originated also remains to be determined. With a high degree of caution, it is possible to assume that sheep/goats came from the territory of the Iranian Highlands, moving along the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea. In this regard, it is important to draw attention to the sites located along the seashore on the Mangyshlak (or Mangghyshlaq) Peninsula, which is almost one thousand kilometers south-east away from the Lower Volga. The pottery and flint tools found in the cultural layers in these sites definitely resemble the Eneolithic finds in the Volga steppes.” ref

“During the Eneolithic, the proportion of caprines consumed in the human diet continuously increased from 12.6%/17.39% in the Oroshaemoe middle layer to 76.4%/90.39% in Kombak-Te. Over the Early Eneolithic period (the Oroshaemoe middle layer; Kurpezhe-Molla) the proportion of all game animals remains fairly large, and in the Late Eneolithic it significantly decreases.  Cattle bones were found in each of the three Late Eneolithic settlements. But even in these settlements, their share is relatively small: from 9.1% / 11.76% to 0.8%/1.92%. The bone parameters of cattle are generally not identical with those of aurochs. The cattle bones are a little smaller. This indicates that their body was more slender, which leads us to suggest that cattle were not domesticated locally, but that they were brought into the Volga region already domesticated, as well as sheep and goats.” ref

“Currently, it is unknown which region they came from. Horse bones are a rare find in the Early Neolithic cultural layers. During the Late Neolithic, a gradual increase in both bones and individual animals is recorded, with its maximum in the Varfolomeevskaya camp reaching 28.0%/28.77%. During the Eneolithic period, the horse percentage is significantly reduced, lacking entirely in the two Khvalynsk settlements (Kara-Khuduk and Kombak-Te). In general, hunting wild horses was not a priority. It is very important to emphasize that the genetic profile of the horses inhabiting the Volga region at the time is closest to the DOM-2 profile of the first domesticated horses. Domesticated horses appeared much later, in the 22nd-20th centuries BCE. Their direct progenitors were found in the cultural layers of the settlements located in the Volga steppes.” ref

“The distribution area of the earliest DOM-2 horses is located further north, that is, in the Volga-Ural forest-steppe region. The distribution areas of domesticated and wild horses did not overlap for a long time. In the Early Eneolithic, the first domestic animals (sheep and goats) appear. The share of saiga and aurochs remains apparently high. The kulan proportion varies, and the horse proportion noticeably decreases. In the Late Eneolithic, the share of ovicaprids considerably increases while the number of all game animals decreases. Cattle also appear in the same period. The horse proportion becomes extremely small, almost vanishing. Horse bones were found in only one out of the three Khvalynsk sites: Kairshak VI 7.7%/5.88%. Thus, the ratio of the number of horse bones is in inverse proportion to the increase in the size of herds of domestic animals.” ref

“This is an important fact, which contradicts the idea of horse domestication in this period. According to D. Anthony, horses could have been tamed in order to go ahead and break the snow and icy crust over the feeding ground for the herds following them. Thus, in the course of the Eneolithic period, there is an incremental increase in the size of herds of domestic animals and the role of hunting is reduced. Caprines as well as cattle laid the foundation for the development of mobile pastoralism in the Volga-Ural region. This practice becomes the blueprint for the Yamnaya people in the early Bronze Age.” ref

“The Yamnaya culture is characterized by an explicit archaeological trinity of features: kurgan burial rites, metal tools and weapons, and four-wheeled vehicles. These three features reflect the efficiency of mobile pastoralism over the course of two and a half millennia. There are burials with funerary sacrifices of animals (bones and skulls). The majority of animal deposits are sheep sacrifices, and, to a lesser extent, those of cattle. There are no horse bones in the Yamnaya burials. Neither were they found in the burials of the subsequent Catacomb and Poltavka cultures. It was only at the turn of the third/second millennia BCE that the first horse sacrifices appeared in the Volga-Ural region. All of these horses belong to the domesticated DOM-2 genetic profile.” ref 

“Early Dispersal of Neolithic Domesticated Sheep and Goats into the Heart of Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan), stretching back at least 8,000 years – making the region one of the oldest continuously inhabited pastoral landscapes in the world.” ref

“Kyrgyzstan in the eastern regions of Central Asia, lying in the Tian Shan and Pamir mountain ranges. It is bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the west, Tajikistan to the south, and China to the east and southeast. Kyrgyzstan’s history spans a variety of cultures and empires. Although geographically isolated by its highly mountainous terrain, Kyrgyzstan has been at the crossroads of several civilizations as part of the Silk Road along with other commercial routes. Inhabited by a succession of tribes and clans, Kyrgyzstan has periodically fallen under larger domination, e.g., the Turkic nomads who trace their ancestry to many Turkic states. It was first established as the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate. Later, in the 13th century, Kyrgyzstan was conquered by the Mongol Empire and under several Mongol dynasties; it regained independence, but was later invaded by the Dzungar Khanate. After the Dzungar genocide by the Qing dynasty, Kyrgyz and Kipchaks were an integral part of the Kokand Khanate. In 1876, Kyrgyzstan became part of the Russian Empire, and in 1936, the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic was formed to become a constituent republic of the Soviet Union. On 31 August 1991, Kyrgyzstan declared independence from the USSR, and a democratic government was established.” ref 

AI Overview: Depictions of sheep (argali) and goats (ibex) are the most common motifs in Kyrgyzstan’s ancient rock art, dating from the Bronze Age through the Middle Ages. Famous sites like Saimaluu-Tash and the Cholpon-Ata Open-Air Museum feature thousands of these distinct curved-horn and triangular-bodied carvings. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

“Like neighboring southern Kazakhstan, mountainous Kyrgyzstan is rich in petroglyph sites from the Bronze Age to the Turkic Age. The largest and most important site is Saimaluu Tash, a remote place in the eastern Fergana Mountain Range where the petroglyphs are exceptionally well preserved. Most of the petroglyphs at Saimaluu Tash are relatively small, but they were deeply pecked, and great attention was given to details. Pecking began at Saimaluu Tash in the earlier Bronze Age (2200–900 BCE), around 2000 BCE, and continued during the Iron Age (900 BCE–CE 450); a few belong to the Turkic period (450–900 CE).” ref

“In total, there are about 5,000 to 6,000 basaltic rocks or rock fragments, covered with a relatively thick crust of shiny dark grey varnish, which are adorned with petroglyphs, amounting to between 30,000 and 35,000 individual images. The start of petroglyph engraving occurred in the period when the climate in the alpine regions of the Kyrgyz Tian Shan was still relatively warm and moist.11 Alpine glaciers had retreated, and the tree line had advanced upwards, creating favorable conditions for an expansion of agriculture into the foothills. While crop cultivation flourished in the lower valleys, a semi-mobile pastoral economy thrived in the uplands. These pastoralists practiced seasonal vertical migration that led them all the way to the steep grass slopes of Saimaluu Tash, which in those days were free of snow for several months. Images from this period include both arable and pastoral scenes, such as plowing and simple carts being pulled by oxen.” ref

“Erotic representations and sun symbols also occur; an analysis of their distribution with the help of the interactive map revealed that they occasionally appear in the vicinity of plowing and, less frequently, of chariot-driving scenes. The clustering of these symbols would fit with the presence of a fertility cult; zoophilic illustrations showing sex between a man and a goat or a foal, or the copulation of a horse (or dog) with an ibex further suggest a fertility cult. By the middle to later Bronze Age, the climate became more arid, bringing a reduction in crop growing in favor of cattle breeding. This trend to increased cattle breeding was accelerated by the arrival of pastoralists from the north belonging to the Andronovo Cultural Complex, who had left their homelands on both sides of the Urals when the productivity of their pastures decreased. By the advent of the Iron Age (ca. 900 BCE), semi-mobile pastoralism was the dominant mode, with ball-flails and bows and arrows.” ref

“Plowing images are unusual within the wider corpus of Central Asian petroglyphs, and so too is the pairing of different harnessed draft animals, such as a bull and a horse, a bull and a donkey, or a bull and a goat. Given that combining different animals in a single harness is possible but not really practical, these petroglyphs probably had a mythological significance. At Saimaluu Tash, as is the case at many other rock art sites, the animals depicted do not necessarily constitute a proportional representation of the fauna existing at the time: in rock art, those animals predominate whose characteristics were either admired or feared, or which carried a mythological connotation. For example, sheep, domestic pigs, poultry, birds and insects are virtually excluded from Central Asian petroglyphs. Petroglyphs not only reflect the environment, but they also express beliefs and visualize rituals. This interpretation fits with some ‘bulls’, identified by their long horns, that have the body of a horse, like at Tamgaly, Kazakhstan.” ref

“A pairing of different draft animals appears in the mythologies of at least three cultures speaking Indo-European languages. First, a text from Hattusa, once the capital of the Hittite Empire, describes the ritual harnessing of a horse and a mule to a chariot. Then, in Greek mythology, Apollo pairs two lions with two boars to the chariot of Admetus who had to drive it to King Pelias, while Dionysus is represented driving a chariot pulled by a team of various beasts, such as a bull, a griffin and a lion. Finally, in the hymns of the Indian Rig Veda, the youthful twin divine horsemen known as the Ashvins harness not only winged horses to their chariot, but also a bull and a porpoise. Indeed, a scene featuring a chariot team consisting of two horses and a bull is also found on an Indian bronze libation cup from the Maurya Period, dating to 235–185 BCE.” ref 

ref

Andronovo culture “linked with Indo-Iranian language” (2000–1150 BCE)

“The Andronovo culture (agro-pastoral complex) is a collection of similar local Late Bronze Age cultures that flourished c. 2000–1150 BCE, spanning from the southern Urals to the upper Yenisei River in central Siberia and western Xinjiang in the east. In the south, the Andronovo sites reached Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Andronovo culture’s first stage may have started as early as the waning years of the 3rd millennium BCE, with a focus on cattle grazing in the vast grasslands of the region. The slightly older Sintashta culture (c. 2200–1900 BCE), formerly included within the Andronovo culture, is now thought to be distinct from Early Andronovo cultures. Genetic studies suggest that the Andronovo culture and the preceding Sintashta culture were derived from an eastern migration of the Corded Ware culture, given the higher proportion of ancestry matching the earlier farmers of Europe, similar to the admixture found in the genomes of the Corded Ware population.” ref 

Evidence of food production and domestication of animals with special reference to Mehrgarh

Mehrgarh (The earliest settlement at Mehrgarh was a small farming village dated from 7000 BCE or 5250 BCE; the main site dates to 5,200-2,600 BCE)

“Mehrgarh, located in present-day Baluchistan, Pakistan, is one of the earliest known sites in South Asia showing evidence of farming and herding. The site dates back to around 7,000 BCE and provides crucial insights into the Neolithic period and the transition from hunting-gathering to agriculture and animal domestication. Sheep and Goats: Remains of domesticated sheep and goats have been found at Mehrgarh, indicating their importance in the community’s subsistence economy. Cattle: Evidence of domesticated cattle suggests that these animals were used for both meat and milk production, as well as for labor. Mehrgarh is considered a precursor to the Indus Valley Civilization. The continuity of cultural practices and technological advancements from Mehrgarh to the Indus Valley sites underscores its importance in the region’s historical development.” https://vishnuias.com/evidences-of-food-production-animal-domestication/

Mehrgarh Period I (5,250-4,650 BCE or around 7,250 to 6,650 years ago)

“Recent radiocarbon dating on teeth done by Mutin and Zazzo has placed the dating of Mehrgarh Period I between 5,250 and 4,650 BCE, differently from Jarrige’s earlier dating pre-7,000–5,500 BCE. It was Neolithic and aceramic (without the use of pottery). The earliest farming in the area was developed by semi-nomadic people using plants such as wheat and barley and animals such as sheep, goats, and cattle. The settlement was established with unbaked mud-brick buildings, and most of them had four internal subdivisions. Numerous burials have been found, many with elaborate goods such as baskets, stone and bone tools, beads, bangles, pendants, and occasionally animal sacrifices, with more goods left with burials of males. Ornaments of seashell, limestone, turquoise, lapis lazuli, and sandstone have been found, along with simple figurines of women and animals.” ref 

“Seashells from far seashores, and lapis lazuli from as far away as present-day Badakshan, show good contact with those areas. One ground stone axe was discovered in a burial, and several more were obtained from the surface. These ground stone axes are the earliest to come from a stratified context in South Asia. Periods I, II, and III are considered contemporaneous with another site called Kili Gul Mohammad. The aceramic Neolithic phase in the region had originally been called the Kili Gul Muhammad phase. Mehrgarh Period II (4650–4000 BCE) and Period III (4000–3500 BCE) Period II is at site MR4 and Period III is at MR2. Much evidence of manufacturing activity has been found, and more advanced techniques were used. Glazed faience beads were produced, and terracotta figurines became more detailed. Figurines of females were decorated with paint and had diverse hairstyles and ornaments. Two flexed burials were found in Period II with a red ochre cover on the body.” ref 

“The number of burial goods decreased over time, becoming limited to ornaments and with more goods left with burials of females. The first button seals were produced from terracotta and bone and had geometric designs. Technologies included stone and copper drills, updraft kilns, large pit kilns, and copper melting crucibles. There is further evidence of long-distance trade in Period II: important as an indication of this is the discovery of several beads of lapis lazuli, once again from Badakshan. Mehrgarh Periods II and III are also contemporaneous with an expansion of the settled populations of the borderlands at the western edge of South Asia, including the establishment of settlements like Rana Ghundai, Sheri Khan Tarakai, Sarai Kala, Jalilpur, and Ghaligai.” ref 

Indus Valley Civilization/Harappan Civilization (3300-1300 BCE) 

“Neolithic (10,000 – 2,000 BCE or around 12,000 to 4,000 years ago) This “Neolithic package” included the introduction of farming, domestication of animals, and change from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to one of settlement.” ref 

Eneolithic (also known as the Copper Age or Chalcolithic) (6500-3000 BCE or 8,500 to 5,000 years ago) 

Bronze Age (3000-1200 BCE or 5,000 to 3,200 years ago) 

 Early integration of pastoralism and millet cultivation in Bronze Age Eurasia

“Pastoralism using sheep, goats and cattle has been a core subsistence strategy of Inner Asian societies for arguably more than 5000 years. This mobile lifeway is thought to have spread eastward across the Eurasian steppe during the Eneolithic/Early Bronze Age (Western Steppe Herders or Western Steppe Pastoralists) as part of migrations of Yamnaya culture herders (3500–2700 BCE) along a route from the Pontic-Caspian western steppe to the Altai mountains, giving rise to the Afanasievo culture (3100–2500 BCE). Human genomic data showing indistinguishable genetic variation between Early Bronze Age communities of the western steppe and the Altai Mountain region support this purported migration. However, Neolithic Altaic communities have chronological and cultural overlap with ‘Afanasievo’ groups, for which little is known about food production strategies using purported domesticated plants or animals. An alternative theory to pastoralism being translocated across the steppe is that pastoralist livestock spread to Inner Asia via limited human mobility and cultural transmissions along foothill ecozones linking the Iranian Plateau, Altai Mountains and western China, known as the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor.” ref 

“Western Steppe Herders or Western Steppe Pastoralists (start of the 5th millennium BCE, subsequently detected in several genetically similar or directly related ancient populations including the Khvalynsk, Repin, Sredny Stog, and Yamnaya cultures).” ref

Yamnaya culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya_culture

Afanasievo culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasievo_culture

History of the western steppe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_western_steppe

Altai Mountain region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_Mountains

Inner Asian Mountain Corridor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Asian_Mountain_Corridor

“SHEEP AND GOATS appear frequently in the history of religions, from prehistoric times down to the present, and across a wide geographic area. Both appear most commonly as animals of sacrifice, but the ram and especially the goat have also served as symbols of sexual virility and so are often associated with fertility cults.” ref 

Animal sacrifice

“Animal sacrifice is the ritual killing and offering of animals, usually as part of a religious ritual or to appease or maintain favor with a deity. Animal sacrifices were common throughout Europe and the Ancient Near East until the spread of Christianity in Late Antiquity, and continue in some cultures or religions today. Human sacrifice, where it existed, was always much rarer. During the Neolithic Revolution, early humans began to move from hunter-gatherer cultures toward agriculture, leading to the spread of animal domestication. In a theory presented in Homo Necans, mythologist Walter Burkert suggests that the ritual sacrifice of livestock may have developed as a continuation of ancient hunting rituals, as livestock replaced wild game in the food supply.” ref

“Ancient Egypt was at the forefront of domestication, and some of the earliest archeological evidence suggesting animal sacrifice comes from Egypt. However, animal sacrifice was not a central practice of Egyptian religion, but was rather a peripherical occurrence that happened away from worshippers. The oldest Egyptian burial sites containing animal remains originate from the Badari culture of Upper Egypt, which flourished between 4400 and 4000 BCE. Sheep and goats were found buried in their own graves at one site, while at another site gazelles were found at the feet of several human burials. At a cemetery uncovered at Hierakonpolis and dated to 3000 BCE, the remains of a much wider variety of animals were found, including non-domestic species such as baboons and hippopotami, which may have been sacrificed in honor of powerful former citizens or buried near their former owners. According to Herodotus, later Dynastic Egyptian animal sacrifice became restricted to livestock – sheep, cattle, swine and geese – with sets of rituals and rules to describe each type of sacrifice.” ref

“By the end of the Copper Age in 3000 BCE, animal sacrifice had become a common practice across many cultures, and appeared to have become more generally restricted to domestic livestock. At Gath, archaeological evidence indicates that the Canaanites imported sacrificial sheep and goats from Egypt rather than selecting from their own livestock. At the Monte d’Accoddi in Sardinia, one of the earliest known sacred centers in Europe, evidence of the sacrifice of sheep, cattle and swine has been uncovered by excavations, and it is indicated that ritual sacrifice may have been common across Italy around 3000 BCE and afterwards. At the Minoan settlement of Phaistos in ancient Crete, excavations have revealed basins for animal sacrifice dating to the period 2000 to 1700 BCE. However, remains of a young goat were found in Cueva de la Dehesilla (es), a cave in Spain, related to a funerary ritual from the Middle Neolithic period, dated to between 4800 and 4000 BCE.” ref

“Animal sacrifice was general among the ancient Near Eastern civilizations of Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt and Persia, as well as the Hebrews (covered below). Unlike the Greeks, who had worked out a justification for keeping the best edible parts of the sacrifice for the assembled humans to eat, in these cultures the whole animal was normally placed on the fire by the altar and burned, or sometimes it was buried. Animal sacrifice should generally be distinguished from the religiously prescribed methods of ritual slaughter of animals for normal consumption as food. All or only part of a sacrificial animal may be offered; some cultures, like the Ancient Greeks, ate most of the edible parts of the sacrifice in a feast, and burnt the rest as an offering. Others burnt the whole animal offering, called a holocaust. Usually, the best animal or best share of the animal is the one presented for offering.” ref

“Worship in ancient Greek religion typically consisted of sacrificing domestic animals at the altar with hymn and prayer. The altar was outside any temple building, and might not be associated with a temple at all. The animal, which should be perfect of its kind, is decorated with garlands and the like, and led in procession to the altar, a girl with a basket on her head containing the concealed knife leading the way. After various rituals, the animal is slaughtered over the altar, and as it falls, all the women present “must cry out in high, shrill tones”. Its blood is collected and poured over the altar. It is butchered on the spot, and various internal organs, bones, and other inedible parts are burnt as the deity’s portion of the offering, while the meat is removed to be prepared for the participants to eat; the leading figures tasting it on the spot. The temple usually kept the skin, to sell to tanners. The fact that the humans got more use from the sacrifice than the deity had not escaped the Greeks, and is often the subject of humor in Greek comedy.” ref

“The animals used are, in order of preference, bull or ox, cow, sheep (the most common), goat, pig (with piglet the cheapest mammal), and poultry (but rarely other birds or fish). Horses and asses are seen on some vases in the Geometric style (900–750 BCE), but are very rarely mentioned in literature; they were relatively late introductions to Greece, and it has been suggested that Greek preferences in this matter go very far back. The Greeks liked to believe that the animal was glad to be sacrificed, and interpreted various behaviors as showing this. Divination by examining parts of the sacrificed animal was much less important than in Roman or Etruscan religion, or Near Eastern religions, but was practiced, especially of the liver, and as part of the cult of Apollo.” ref

“Generally, the Greeks put more faith in observing the behavior of birds. For a smaller and simpler offering, a grain of incense could be thrown on the sacred fire, and outside the cities farmers made simple sacrificial gifts of plant produce as the “first fruits” were harvested. Although the grand form of sacrifice called the hecatomb (meaning 100 bulls) might in practice only involve a dozen or so, at large festivals the number of cattle sacrificed could run into the hundreds, and the numbers feasting on them well into the thousands. The enormous Hellenistic structures of the Altar of Hieron and Pergamon Altar were built for such occasions. The evidence of the existence of such practices is clear in some ancient Greek literature, especially in Homer‘s epics. Throughout the poems, the use of the ritual is apparent at banquets where meat is served, in times of danger, or before some important endeavor to gain the favor of the gods.” ref

“For example, in Homer’s Odyssey Eumaeus sacrifices a pig with prayer for his unrecognizable master Odysseus. However, in Homer’s Iliad, which partly reflects very early Greek civilization, not every banquet of the princes begins with a sacrifice. These sacrificial practices, described in these pre-Homeric eras, share commonalities to the 8th century forms of sacrificial rituals. Furthermore, throughout the poem, special banquets are held whenever gods indicated their presence by some sign or success in war. Before setting out for Troy, this type of animal sacrifice is offered. Odysseus offers Zeus a sacrificial ram in vain. The occasions of sacrifice in Homer’s epic poems may shed some light onto the view of the gods as members of society, rather than as external entities, indicating social ties. Sacrificial rituals played a major role in forming the relationship between humans and the divine.” ref

“It has been suggested that the Chthonic deities, distinguished from Olympic deities by typically being offered the holocaust mode of sacrifice, where the offering is wholly burnt, may be remnants of the native Pre-Hellenic religion and that many of the Olympian deities may come from the Proto-Greeks who overran the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula in the late third millennium BCE. In the Hellenistic period after the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE, several new philosophical movements began to question the ethics of animal sacrifice. The most potent offering in Ancient Roman religion was animal sacrifice, typically of domesticated animals such as cattle, sheep and pigs. Each was the best specimen of its kind, cleansed, clad in sacrificial regalia and garlanded; the horns of oxen might be gilded.” ref

“Sacrifice sought the harmonisation of the earthly and divine, so the victim must seem willing to offer its own life on behalf of the community; it must remain calm and be quickly and cleanly dispatched. During Shang and Zhou dynasties, the nobles used to practice a complicated and hierarchical sacrificial system as part of traditional Chinese religion. Theoretically, only the high king could sacrifice directly to Heaven and Earth, sacrifice at the Five Sacred Mountains including Mount Tai, or sacrifice to his ancestors with the Nine Tripod Cauldrons. The Dukes sacrificed at the altar of land and grain and to spirits of the various major parts of the landscape in their territory and at their family temples. Commoners did not have personal or communal temples but sacrificed to their father, grandfather, or other important ancestors at home. Under the Shang, members of the royalty and nobility would sacrifice people, horses, cattle (particularly oxen), goats and sheep, pigs and boars, dogs, and other livestock for different purposes and at different times of year.” ref

“By the late Zhou, nearly every school of Chinese thought opposed human sacrifice, putting more emphasis on specific or grander forms of animal sacrifice for important rituals. The Confucian classics the Rites and the Etiquette and Ceremonial—notionally recording the earliest Zhou rites in honor of Heaven but only surviving in much later editions—record how the era viewed proper ritual. The names of the offering scales from honorable to low were Tailao (太牢, “Supreme Victims”), Shaolao (少牢, “Lesser Victims”), Tesheng (特牲), Teshi (特豕), Tetun (特豚), Yu (魚, “fish”), La (臘), Dou (豆, “beans”), and other offerings. Similar to the Roman suovetaurilia, the highest Tailao class—reserved for the king—consisted of offering sets of all of the “Three Sacrificial Beasts”: an ox, a sheep, and a pig. Traditionally, the upper nobility were limited to offering only a sheep and pig during their rites, while minor officials were restricted to offering only a pig.” ref 

“Animals offered for sacrifice were required to be whole, healthy, and of uniform color. Commoners were notionally restricted to offering grains and crops. One of Confucius‘s few official posts was overseer of Lu‘s state cattle (including those used for sacrifice), and many of his specific complaints about the societal disorder of his time related to the gradual encroachments on these traditions and privileges, particularly Feng and Shan sacrifices performed at Mount Tai by the ambitious dukes of Qi and Lu. Such usurpation of established rituals was a visible manifestation of the collapse of the Zhou and the various dukes’ proclamations of their own royal status. Large-scale sacrifice also accompanied many royal and noble funerals, as with the great horse pit in Zibo, Shandong. Commoners themselves gradually began to use more animals in their worship, including chickens, fish, and pigs.” ref

“State support for Confucianism under the Han was so pronounced that it finally permitted the nobility and commoners to perform the Tailou, provided that it was offered during formal rites in Confucius‘s honor. However, the rise of Chinese Buddhism during the Han, Three Kingdoms, and Jin spread its opposition to all forms of killing. In time, Taoism also greatly restricted its use of animal sacrifice as well. Annual sacrifices at the Temple of Heaven in the capital, however, remained one of the primary signifiers of imperial status up to Yuan Shikai‘s abortive attempt to found a new dynasty after the fall of the Qing. Some animal offerings, such as fowl, pigs, goats, fish, or other livestock, are accepted in some Taoism sects and beliefs in Chinese folk religion.” ref

“The offerings would be placed at the altar or the temple after being slaughtered. The amount sacrificed is up to the worshippers, who can eat all of the offerings after the rite. In folk religion, some regions believe that high-status deities prefer vegetarian food more, while ghosts, low-status gods, and other unknown supernatural spirits prefer meat. Therefore, whole pigs, whole goats, whole chickens, and whole ducks will be sacrificed during the Ghost Festival. Some vegetarian believers make dummy pigs or dummy goats from vegetarian food like bread or rice for sacrifice. On Taiwan, Tailao is still practiced but now only in ceremonies venerating the Yellow Emperor or Confucius. In Kaohsiung, however, animal sacrifices are banned at its Taoist temples.” ref

A funerary rite involving a Goat in a 6,000-year-old burial in Spain

“The discovery of two Neolithic skulls in a cave in southern Spain has given archaeologists a rare glimpse into the funerary rites of ancient Iberians some 6,000 years ago. Dated to between 4800 and 4200 BCE, the two severed craniums – which belonged to a male and an older female – were buried alongside the remains of a young goat, numerous stone tools, pieces of pottery, and a single human thumb bone. The age of the bones is particularly important, as it places the burial in the Middle Neolithic, a period for which archaeological evidence is extremely rare in the Iberian Peninsula. In contrast, a wealth of artifacts and burials from both the Early and Late Neolithic periods have been excavated throughout what is now Spain and Portugal.” ref

“Unearthed at the Cueva de la Dehesilla in Cádiz, this latest find provides some fascinating new insights into the ritualistic behavior of the region’s ancient inhabitants. According to the researchers, the cut marks in the occipital bone of one of the skulls suggest that the head was removed from the body almost immediately after death, leading to the possibility that the act may have occurred as part of a human sacrifice. Suggestions of a ritualistic killing are reinforced by the discovery of a stone altar next to the burial site, which may well have provided a platform for ceremonial offerings. The presence of a young goat, meanwhile, indicates that the burial may have taken place in spring, leading the study authors to speculate that the entire affair could have been part of a seasonal ritual of some sort.” ref

“Burnt cereal crops were also found within the grave, indicating that the skulls belonged to members of a sedentary community of agriculturalists – all of which could be seen to reinforce the notion of a seasonal offering. The researchers expand on this point by stating that “the deposit may indicate some type of honorary recognition, related to social leaders, perhaps great figures or religious guides.” Clearly, much of the evidence recovered from the Cueva de la Dehesilla is open to interpretation, and the researchers can’t say with any certainty what this strange burial really says about Middle Neolithic Iberian life.” ref 

Late Iron Age sheep/goat ritual deposit

“This ritual deposit of a butchered adult ewe, with some bones burnt/cremated and others, including the skull, left unburnt and placed on a sandy grey ware platter, was buried in the middle of the main enclosure entrance, perhaps marking or protecting this liminal space between the interior and the outside world. Other apparently ritual/votive deposits included three animal burials (a headless sheep, a puppy and a horse/pony). One of the Late Iron Age enclosures contained apparently unparalleled sheep/goat ‘cremations’: deposits of mixed burnt/calcined and unburnt sheep/goat bones buried without any other material in purpose-dug small pits. These deposits might perhaps relate to funerary feasting or some other ritual activity, especially as unburnt animal remains, including bones of sheep/goats, were found in several of the Late Iron Age cremation burials at the site.” ref

“These presumably represented food offerings intended either for the deceased or for gods/spirits, perhaps constituting their share of a funerary feast; the sheep/goat ‘cremations’ might perhaps indicate the treatment of the remaining parts of the carcasses. However, other ritual interpretations cannot be discounted given the uncertainty over their dating, their distinct spatial location away from the Mortuary Enclosure and the majority of the burials, and the fact that the closest comparisons for such sheep/goat cremations come from Roman-period sites in London, for example, within the religious precinct at Tabard Square in Roman Southwark.” ref

Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale, and Folklore of These Cultures

“It is believed that wild animals were herded into enclosures for killing to improve on the success of hunting—images depicting this practice have been found. After a time, animals that exhibited certain characteristics that would make them predisposed to domestication became accustomed to this close contact. This close association between man and animal led to the domestication of some species (but not others). These ‘phases of domestication’ can be categorized into ‘wild’, ‘managed’ and ‘domesticated’ states.” ref

“Jared Diamond has suggested several characteristics that would predispose certain species to domestication, and these include:

• High fertility and reproductive rate and a fast growth rate

• Animals that can be herded and handled without becoming aggressive

• Animals that are adaptable to a range of environments and feedstuffs that are not directly in competition with man’s diet

• Animals with a docile nature that are not prone to flightiness or skittishness

• Animals that naturally move in herds, and submit to a pack leader” ref

“In all these characteristics above, the goat excels. According to Gilbert, wild sheep (Ovis) and goats (Capra) were the earliest livestock domesticated during the Paleolithic to Neolithic transition (9,000–7,000 BCE or around 11,000 to 9,000 years ago) in northern and eastern Mesopotamia. Pigs (Sus) and cattle (Bos) were predominantly domesticated in southern Mesopotamia. Later introductions included horses (Equus 2,500 BCE or around 4,500 years ago), and donkeys (Equus 4,000–3,000 BCE or around 6,000 to 5,000 years ago).” ref

“Recent research has placed the process of the domestication of goats in the region of south-western Asia, from the eastern Mediterranean to Turkey and from the southern Levant through south-eastern Turkey and northern Syria to the high Zagros mountain pastures and arid lowland plains of Iraq and Iran. The process of domestication spanned approximately 500 years—culminating around 8000 BCE. Zeder and Hesse identified a distinct profile of young male goat slaughter and prolonged female survivorship (or delayed slaughter of females) in herds in the upland areas of northern Iraq and north-western Iran through the analysis of goat remains. Animal production involves the practice of keeping females for breeding and slaughtering males at a younger age for meat. This is in contrast to the remains of hunted populations, which clearly show a focus on fully adult males with females and young taken only occasionally.” ref

“The ancestors of the modern goat were potentially two species, Capra falconeri, and the Bezoar goat, Capra aegagrus, being the most cited candidate (Capra hircus aegagrus is still found in its wild form in the Zagros mountains of Iran and Iraq). Most of the domesticated animals we know today originated in the Ancient Near East. These include cattle, goats, pigs, sheep, cats, dogs, ducks, chickens, geese, horses, donkeys and mules. Their use for milk, meat, fat, leather, wool, hair, draught, transportation, manure, cheese, the storage of wealth, eggs, recreational (and possibly educational) zoos, drugs and for religious use (sacrifice, extispicy and for maintenance of the religious complex) is documented.” ref

“Sheep and goats were kept in large flocks that belonged to the state, the temple or private owners, and each was branded with its owner’s mark (or that of the god for which it was intended). Clearly articulated contracts between owners and shepherds have been found. Shepherds often kept all the dairy products and some of the wool as compensation for their work. Their compensation could also include a share of the growth in the flock. Figure 1 shows terracotta tablets inscribed with the records of goatherds and cowherds. Although horses were important in battle, goats were often taken as booty (Figure 3) and inflated goat skin bags were used in warfare as flotation devices (Figure 4).” ref

Wool (from sheep) and hair (from goats) were initially plucked (pulled or combed), but shearing was practiced from the middle of the second millennium. Milk was obtained from cows, sheep and goats (camels and water buffalo were also used for this purpose). Yoghurt, cheese, butter and ghee were produced. Butter was made by churning the milk in a narrow-necked jar and rolled with the foot or rocked. Since fresh milk spoiled rapidly, it was often only used in medicines, which would be made fresh and used immediately. Figure 2 shows a cylinder seal from Mari with a typical agricultural scene. Many such seals have been found, which may indicate the economic activity in which the owner of the seal may have distinguished him (or her)self.” ref

“The role of goats in the myths and folklore of various Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures. Images in artifacts, and metaphors or direct reference to goats in texts (the primary sources in this study) from the geographic area of Mesopotamia, Sumer, Akkad, Anatolia and Ancient Iran (Elam). Research shows that aside from the important utilitarian function of goats in the ANE, their use in rituals and symbolism has provided us with several motifs related to goats that are still in use today. These include the motifs of fertility, intelligence, and craftiness. Humans are endless storytellers and thus myth-makers—using myths, folklore, fable, and legend to contextualize the society in which they live. Since goats have been a companion of man in the midst of his society since the dawn of civilization, it is only logical that goats feature in oral tradition.” ref 

“Many cultures have used goats in stories that portray various social constructs of their times. Folktales, specifically, can be compared across cultures through recurring ideas or ‘motifs’ (dominant themes), which are defined by the political, economic and religious discourse of the time. Motifs may be situations, actions, events, characters or objects. Very often, the motifs are abstractions or models, the details being secondary and differing according to the variant: thus the typical situation (motif) of the hero outwitting the stupid giant or giants is the same whether the hero is a god, a prince, a young huntsman, a retired soldier or the Three Billy Goats Gruff. The purse of gold may be a jug of oil that never empties, the bird that lays the golden eggs, a plant that provides eternal life, or the little goat that bleats, causing a table laden with food to appear to the melancholic (but always attractive), ill-treated stepsister. It can be said that once we have identified the motif behind a folktale, we can then determine whether the goat has been used as a cursory object to creatively illustrate the story or whether the goat is the actual subject of the story.” ref

“Very often, in folktales, goats are used for creative illustration (sometimes the goat could just as well have been a pig, cow, or chicken). But, other times, goats convey a specific meaning to the story and play a role in the motif that cannot be as accurately illustrated by another animal. The goat, being an animal of unique intelligence, virility and behavior, so close to man because of its usefulness and hardiness, has characteristics that have been described in the same way among different cultures. The goat is depicted as a symbol of fertility, abundance, aggression and good luck in many of these civilizations. The character of goats is a genetic rather than an environmental manifestation. ‘The goat spoke in the manner of a (wise) old woman, but acted in the manner of an unclean woman’ (Category: ironic anecdote. Possible explanation: goats are considered intelligent, but they are bawdy and eat everything including unclean things, which make them unclean. Here, the sexual nature of the goat is identified).” ref

“A lion had caught a helpless she-goat’ (and she said), ‘Let me go, and I will give you my fellow ewe in return.’ ‘If I let you go, tell me first your name!’ The she-goat answered the lion, ‘You don’t know my name? “I am cleverer than you” is my name.’ After the lion had come to the sheepfold, he roared, ‘I released you!’ She answered from the other side, ‘You released me, you are clever,… the sheep are not here!’ (Category: narrative contest. Possible explanation: again showing the intelligence of the goat. Alster suggests that this is the Sumerian fable that resembles closest to a true ‘Aesopian’ one. The Sumerian fables provide a definite answer to the much discussed question, whether or not the fable as a genre was invented by the Greeks. Although the genre is now proven to be considerably older than the Greeks, it does not necessarily mean, however, that it was first invented in Mesopotamia).” ref

“Goats are evident in the mythology of ANE as shown in various imagery. Two types of artifacts are available to the art historian: objects in the round and two-dimensional objects. Objects carved in the round include figurines, theriomorphic vessels and weights. Figurines and animal-shaped vessels were often rendered in baked clay and rhyta (singular rhyton) in metal. Many of these objects were used in the temple complexes as votive objects (being brought as tribute to a god), as apotropaic figures (buried underneath the floors of buildings to ward off evil), were used during religious ceremonies or were used to weigh the produce brought to the temple by the citizens who formed part of the distributive temple economies.” ref

“Two-dimensional objects included low-relief stelae, perforated panels in stone or ceramic, tablets and hollow carved stamps or cylinder seals. These objects had decorative use in temple architecture (stelae and panels). Tablets were used as administrative tools (to record numbers of livestock or produce), to train scribes, to capture true literature and royal inscriptions, or to write letters. Stamps and cylinder seals were personal signatures used to identify objects or show ownership. Whereas some scholars have argued that the depiction of animals in Mesopotamian art illustrates the start of religion, others have argued that animals provide merely a symbolic representation of the world as the artist saw it. However, it must be agreed that there must be multiple levels of meaning.” ref

“The goat lends itself to abstraction and decoration with its curved horns and upturned tail—this is especially the case in the use of the goat (or ibex) in the art of Ancient Anatolia. The depiction of goats in Mesopotamian art is often stereotypical, allowing one to assume that sketchbooks were used and artists trained in standard doctrines. In the artifacts of this group, the artists have attempted to depict goats in their most recognizable form (Figures 5 and 6). These include full profile; walking, or standing with their horned heads shown from the side; or lying down. Mostly, single animals are shown. Where goats are not shown entirely, they are suggested by parts of their body, such as horns in the goat-head rhyton (Figure 7).” ref

“Although the objects have been placed in the category of ‘abstraction and decorative composition’ because they are particularly striking, some inferences regarding their symbolism can be made. Firstly, these objects may have served as votive objects, as apotropaic figurines or as libation vessels (as part of a ritual in which characteristics of the animal depicted are expected to be imbibed by the drinker). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in both objects of Figures 5 and 6, the goat is shown with its right leg foremost. As Green suggests in a paper dealing with apotropaic figurines (that lead with the left foot), this may be the beginnings of the custom of entering a holy place with the right foot first.

“Generally, ancient Mesopotamian gods were human in form. But both demonic and virtuous creatures were often depicted as animal-human hybrids. Specific animals were associated with certain gods and often became their symbols. Thus, the dog was associated with Gula, the god of healing; the lion-snake-eagle with Marduk and the goat-fish with Ea (or Enki). The sea goat or goat fish is a legendary aquatic animal described as a creature that is half-goat and half-fish. The goat fish symbolized the Babylonian god Ea. According to the Babylonian star catalogues the constellation ^MUL SUḪUR.MAŠ was ‘the goat fish’. This constellation later became the Greek and Roman Capricornus.” ref, ref

“Greek mythology had two stories regarding the origins of the constellation Capricornus. One was that the constellation is Amalthea, the goat that raised Zeus. As thanks for caring for him as a child, Zeus placed her amongst the stars. The other is that Capricornus is the wilderness god Pan. Pan jumped into a river to escape the monster Typhon. He tried to turn himself into a fish, but only his lower half transformed. Zeus fought Typhon and defeated him, but Typhon pulled the muscles out of Zeus’ legs. With the help of Hermes, Pan replaced the damaged muscles. As a reward for healing him, Zeus placed Pan in the sky. The god Aegipan is also sometimes depicted in Greek art as a sea goat. Imagery found at Aphrodisias, including coins dating back to the CE 3rd century, depicts the goddess Aphrodite riding a sea goat.” ref

“Hatziminaglou and Boyazoglu, however, state that goats were sacred to Marduk and is often pictured accompanied by a goat (unfortunately, they do not reference this statement and are perhaps confusing images of Ea with Marduk). Goats were an important element of divining the future: firstly, through unsolicited omens or observations (as from the omen list ‘If a City is Situated on an Elevation’ where both domesticated and wild animals were used) and secondly, through solicited omens through extispicy (reading of entrails) or merely a ritual involving an animal that did not necessarily involve its slaughter.” ref

“Where a god had an associated animal, as is the case, for example, with Ea or Enki, worshippers could bring tribute to a god either by the live goat itself or in the form of their animal statue (these votive objects could be clay, gold, bronze and/or sliver), or in the form of a figure bringing the goat tribute. Images and figurines depicting this practice (Figure 8) are referred to by modern scholars as ‘goat bearers’. It is interesting to note the abundance of the ‘goat bearer’ imagery over several cultures (Sumerian, Anatolian, Assyrian and Elamite) and over a long expanse of time. Further examples can be found in the work of Marchesi and Marchetti, which shows more than five examples from several Early Dynastic Mesopotamian sites.” ref

“Although modern scholars refer to these images as ‘goat bearers’ (Plaque from Nippur, temple of In’anak, Early Dynastic I, 3,000–2,330 BCE), (A worshipper carrying kids from Susa, middle Elamite, thirteenth century BCE) (Citadel gate of Zincirli 900–800 BCE Plate XV) (Apotropaic protective spirit guarding entrance to private chambers, from Nimrud “ancient Kalhu,” northern Iraq, neo-Assyrian, 883–859 BCE. His curled mustache, long hair, and beard are typical of figures of this date. Carrying a goat and an ear of corn), it is not clear from, nor mentioned in, the literature whether these statues represent worshippers, priests, or the god Ea (Enki) himself. Where the goat bearers form part of a scene where other tribute is being brought, it seems clear that the goat bearer is indeed a worshipper or tribute-payer; however, where the images are solitary, the identity of the bearer is ambiguous. Comparison of these images reveals that all the goat bearers have goatees or beards and all but one (from Zincirli carrying the goat on his neck) bear the goats in his arms.” ref 

“Whole herds of animals were kept for their gods by their temples and branded with their marks. One can assume that when live animals were replaced by votive objects as tributes, then, these same herds would not have been used as sacrificial animals, but as a means to support the attendants of the temple complex and to redistribute to the community.” ref

“Animals were also used as the recipients of evil transferred from a human host, what we know today as the ‘scapegoat’ ritual. This ‘transferral’ of the evil (whether bad luck or an illness) could be achieved through the patient handling the animal, by the performance of a ritual and then letting the animal go (into a wasteland or a river), by the performance of a ritual and then slaughtering the animal and burying it (or discarding its remains in a river or wasteland, or by splitting the animal in half and passing between the two halves) or by the patient spitting on it, or eating it, or being covered with it (its blood), or by merely having the animal in proximity to the affected person. The scapegoat ritual was often used by the military and sometimes by cities to remove the scourge of a plague. Animal figurines could be used for scapegoat rituals or as apotropaic figurines that were buried under the floors of domestic dwellings, barracks, or temples to ward off evil.” ref

“Elaborate rituals describing an array of figurines to use (including the goat-fish), and the numbers of figurines that are required, have been documented. The name ‘Enki’ literally means Lord, en, of the earth or the netherworld, ki, the patron deity of the apkallus (fish-men), who lived in the underground sweetwaters, the Abzu (Sumerian) or Apsu (Akkadian). In this imagery, the god Enki/Ea was associated with the ‘Sacred tree’ (often erroneously called the ‘Tree of life’). What is important to note here is that although the goat in the tree represents a certain idea known to the community (Enki and the Sacred tree), and goat imagery is used in furniture or libation devices, the animals themselves were not worshipped. Figure 9: The lapis-lazuli goat buck in the tree from the Royal Cemetery at Ur, belonging to the Uruk period c 2,600–2,500 BCE, was probably temple furniture—possibly a stand.” ref 

Around 5,000-year-old Shared Idea of the “Tree of Life” Ritual Motif?

Tree of Life and World Tree

To me, though there may be thinking that the Tree of Life is closely related to the concept of the World Tree or cosmic tree (often seen as the axis mundi or center of the world: mythologically representing “Heaven and Earth” or “higher and lower realms,” a colossal tree, which supports the heavens, connecting the heavens with its foliage, the terrestrial world with its trunk, and, through its roots, the underworld). The Tree of Life concept (which, I speculate is as old as 12,000 years ago and as a goddess by around 8,000 years ago in the Middle East) if in some way thought to connect loosely to the World Tree concept (which, I speculate is as old as between 6,000 to 5,000 years old in Siberia) would have the Tree of Life as the tree at the beginning of creation or early creation, thus small as well as young and new. Whereas the World Tree is an old, fully developed tree, growing incredibly large, long after creation has developed more fully. The tree of life is closely related to the concept of “sacred trees” and a widespread myth or archetype in many of the world’s mythologies, religions, or traditions.  ref, ref, ref

“Various trees of life are recounted in folklore, culture, and fiction, often relating to immortality or fertility. They had their origin in religious symbolism. Trees are significant in many of the world’s mythologies, and have been given deep and sacred meanings throughout the ages. Human beings, observing the growth and death of trees, and the annual death and revival of their foliage, have often seen them as powerful symbols of growth, death, and rebirth. Evergreen trees, which largely stay green throughout these cycles, are sometimes considered symbols of the eternal, immortality, or fertility. The image of the Tree of life or world tree occurs in many mythologies. Examples include the banyan and the sacred fig (Ficus religiosa) in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil of Judaism and Christianity. In folk religion and folklore, trees are often said to be the homes of tree spirits. Germanic mythology as well as Celtic polytheism both appear to have involved cultic practice in sacred groves, especially grove of oak. The term druid itself possibly derives from the Celtic word for oak. The Egyptian Book of the Dead mentions sycamores as part of the scenery where the soul of the deceased finds blissful repose. The presence of trees in myth sometimes occurs in connection to the concept of the sacred tree and the sacred grove. Trees are an attribute of the archetypical locus amoenus.” ref, ref

“The Anzu/Apsu (Abzû or Apsû (Sumerian: ab = ‘water’ + zû = ‘deep’) was considered, a not altogether unpleasant intermediary place, between the earth and the netherworld (almost literally the place of spring water from which life springs). This idea may be suggested by the imagery of the goat in the tree (as shown in Figure 9). This was possibly a libation device, and used as temple furniture. The Sumerian god Enki (Ea in the Akkadian language) was believed to have keen eyes and appeared out of the abzû since before human beings were created. In the city of Eridu, Enki‘s temple was known as E₂-abzû (house of the deep waters) and was located at the edge of a swamp – an abzû. Certain tanks of holy water in Babylonian and Assyrian temple courtyards were also called abzû (apsû). Typical in religious washing, these tanks were similar to Judaism‘s mikvot, the washing pools of Islamic mosques, or the baptismal font in Christian churches.” ref, ref

“Abzû or Apsû is the name for fresh water from underground aquifers which was given a religious fertilizing quality in ancient Near Eastern cosmology, including Sumerian and Akkadian mythology. It was believed that all lakes, springs, rivers, fountains, rain, and even the Flood, as described in Atrahasis, originated from the Abzû. In Mesopotamian cosmogony, it is referred to as the freshwater primordial ocean below and above the earth; indeed, the Earth itself was regarded as a goddess, Ninhursag, that was conceived from the mating of male Abzu with female saltwater stream Tiamat. In this worldview, our divine Mother Earth—equipped in her upper half with a bubble of air from the breath of the most ingenious god “Lord Wind” Enli—thus is surrounded by cosmic freshwater and encircled at her edge by that saltwater river. Through the underground of her body, which also contains the Irkalla as a special compartment for the dead’s live on there as shadows, runs a tunnel drilled by the sun god Shamash himself, allowing his burning fire during night to rush dry-footed from west to east, where he begins to rise again between the peaks of the Zagros Mountains.” ref

“The myths that incorporate Ea (or Enki) are of particular significance here since the primary sources reveal him to be associated with the goat. The spouse of Ea was Damkina, and his cult center was Eridu. Marduk was Ea’s son. During the Kassite period, Marduk was elevated to the top of the Babylonian pantheon, and his cult center was Babylon. Ea plays a role in several of the Mesopotamian myths. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, where aside from being mentioned as one of the gods that have made Gilgamesh wise, he is the god that breaks rank and warns the human Ut-napishtim (whom Gilgamesh seeks to reveal the secret of eternal life since Ut-napishtim survived the flood and has been made immortal) of the impending flood sent by the gods to destroy man. This role of Enki is again shown in the myth of Atrahasis, the Flood story. Here too, Enki warns man about the flood and gives him instructions to build a boat.” ref

“Enki plays a larger role in the Epic of Creation. Here, it is explained, in the beginning, there were only two gods, Apsu (who represents the primordial waters under the earth) and Tiamat (the personification of the sea). They beget four generations of gods, who become noisy and unbearable. Apsu decides to put an end to their troublesome ways, but the plot is discovered by Ea ‘who knows everything’. He puts Apsu and his evil vizier, Mummu, to sleep and then slays them. He then assumes the belt, crown, and mantle of radiance, takes over the dwelling place of Apsu as his own, and there, with his spouse Damkina, creates Marduk. Marduk then proceeds to win all sorts of fantastic battles with the encouragement of his father, Ea, and is finally made the king of the gods. One of Marduk’s actions is to create man (to do the work of the gods so that the gods can be at leisure).” ref

“In shorter myths, again Ea plays a role. Mostly as the ‘one who knows everything’. These include the myth of Adapa (a priest of Ea in his cult temple at Eridu); the Epic of Anzu; the Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld and the myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal. The relief and apotropaic figures below (Figure 12) depict the god Enki (Sumerian) or Ea (Akkadian). Enki was the god of productivity and freshwater streams, springs and lakes, as well as the abzu (or apsu – the subterranean freshwater ocean on which the earth supposedly floated) and, in this guise, was symbolized as the (or a) fish.” ref 

“Enki was also associated with wisdom, science, craftsmanship, as well as magic, and this part of his nature was symbolized by a goat. Several stone reliefs and cylinder seal impressions were found showing goat bearers, a goat in the scene, or a goat shown below the god with water or fishes also represented. This ‘dual’ nature of the god ultimately resulted in the use of the symbol of the goat-fish (literally ‘Carp-goat’) for the god Enki or Ea (Akkadian suḫurmašû; Neo-Sumerian Selekuid). Figures of this deity are named in certain apotropaic (averting evil) rituals.” ref

Ishtar or the Mistress of the Beasts?

“In Anatolian art and folklore, a ‘mistress of the beasts’ occurs, often associated with the hunt. This mistress (and sometimes master) is associated with a feline (usually a lion) and a wild goat, ibex, or gazelle. This goddess may have been Cybele (or Dali in Armenia) and may also be related to the goddess associated with the hunt of the Caucasus (Georgians who are believed to be descendants of the Hittites) who is always associated with goats, ibex, or turs (Capra cylindricornis or Capra [ibex] caucasica). However, representations showing similar iconography (a female figure associated with goats and lions or hunting or warfare) are attributed by some scholars as Ishtar: the goddess of warfare and sexuality. Some of these artifacts are shown in Figures 10 and 11.” ref

“Mythological Caprids” Category:

“Sumerian ram-headed staff “Head” From: Iraq | Ur, found in No. 11 Church Lane, the “Ram Chapel,” Room 4, dating to around 2,000-1,595 BCE or around 4,000 to 3,595 years ago. Enki Sumerian, also known as Ea Akkadian (Symbol: ram-headed staff, goat-fish, turtle, ibex)” ref, ref

“In Akkadian period seals, Ea was depicted in various scenes, some of which likely have a mythological background. A well known example is the seal of Adda. There he is depicted with one foot on a mountain, with water streams coming out of his shoulders, and fish swimming in them. An ibex/goat or a bull is seated beneath his right foot. An eagle descends from above to the center of the scene. Enki was first worshipped in Sumer. It is uncertain when Enki was fully assimilated to Ea, a god whose name is of unknown, but possibly Semitic origin. They were already syncretized with each other in parts of Babylonia in the second half of the third millennium BCE. The cult of Enki/Ea was particularly influential in the Ur III and Old Babylonian Periods, where he became part of a triad at the top of the pantheon consisting of Anu, Enlil, and himself. In the latter period, his cult is attested in almost all of the important cities of Babylonia.” ref

“Enki/Ea was also incorporated into Hurrian religion as a major god, with identical character and functions as in Mesopotamia. His cult spread into Anatolia, possibly as early as the third millennium BCE, and he became part of the Hittite pantheon. With the rise of Babylon and its patron god Marduk, Enki/Ea’s cult lost importance, though he still remained a major god in first millennium BCE Babylonia. His cult is also attested in Assyria during this period, in the cities of Assur, Nineveh and Kalhu. His emblems include the goat-fish and the ram-headed staff. They were often depicted together, for example on kudurrus. The kudurru of Nazi-Maruttash refers to them as “the great emblems of Ea.” ref 

“The ram-headed staff is attested in art from the Old Babylonian period until the Achaemenid period. In Neo-Assyrian seals, Ea is sometimes represented carrying a crook, which Jeremy Black and Anthony Green suggest may be a symbolic representation of the staff. The goat-fish is attested in Mesopotamian art from the Neo-Sumerian period until Hellenistic times, and it was later adopted into Roman art. It is at the origin of the zodiacal constellation Capricorn. Ea could often be represented sitting or standing on it. While the goat-fish’s connection to Ea is well attested, it could also be depicted as a general apotropaic figure, not attached to any god. Clay figurines of goat-fishes could be used in apotropaic magic. Another symbol of Ea was the turtle. It was associated with him since the Old Akkadian period. On kudurrus, it could be used as his symbol instead of the goat-fish with the ram-headed staff, or it could be represented on the back of the goat-fish.” ref

“In the Mesopotamian Myth of Sheep and Grain: The (Debate between sheep and grain), it states, ‘ Upon the hill of heaven and earth, god An created the Annunaki.” (often called ḫursag or the mountain of deities an-ki symbolized cosmic marriage,) is the primeval cosmic mound where heaven and earth were once joined, (seeming to reference the Primeval Mountain: cosmic mountain, later known as Mashu, after the Separation of heaven and earth deities an-ki).” ref, ref, ref

“Mesopotamian Myth of Sheep and Grain: The “Debate between sheep and grain” or “Myth of cattle and grain” (CSL 5.3.2) is a Sumerian disputation and creation myth, written on clay tablets in the mid to late 3rd millennium BCE. The story opens with a location “the hill of heaven and earth” which is discussed by Chiera as “not a poetical name for the earth, but the dwelling place of the gods, situated at the point where the heavens rest upon the earth. It is there that mankind had their first habitat, and there the Babylonian Garden of Eden is to be placed.” The Sumerian word Edin, means “steppe” or “plain”, so modern scholarship has abandoned the use of the phrase “Babylonian Garden of Eden” as it has become clear that the “Garden of Eden” was a later concept.” ref 

“Jeremy Black suggests that this area was restricted for gods, noting that field plans from the Third Dynasty of Ur use the term hursag (“hill“) to describe the hilly parts of fields that are hard to cultivate due to the presence of prehistoric tell mounds (ruined habitations). Kramer discusses the story of the god An creating the cattle-goddess, Lahar, and the grain goddess, Ashnan, to feed and clothe the Anunnaki, who in turn made man. Lahar and Ashnan are created in the “duku” or “pure place” and the story further describes how the Anunnaki create a sheepfold with plants and herbs for Lahar and a house, plough and yoke for Ashnan, describing the introduction of animal husbandry and agriculture. The story continues with a quarrel between the two goddesses over their gifts which eventually resolves with Enki and Enlil intervening to declare Ashnan the victor.” ref  

“Bovidae in Chinese mythology include various myths and legends about a group of biologically distinct animals which form important motifs within Chinese mythology. There are many myths about the animals modernly classified as Bovidae, referring to oxen, sheep, goats, and mythological types such as “unicorns” (though perhaps not Bovidae, in the strict scientific sense).” ref

“THE MELOI KHRYSEOI (Golden Sheep) were a flock of vicious, golden-fleeced sheep with poisonous bites. Psykhe (Psyche) was commanded to fetch their wool as a penitent labor imposed upon her by the goddess Aphrodite. Apuleias’ golden sheep were a synthesis of two older myths–the tale of the Golden Fleece and that of the Golden Apples of the Hesperides. The ancient Greek word for both apple and sheep was melos, so the phrase meloi khryseoi could speak equally of golden apples or golden sheep.” ref

“In Greek mythology, Amalthea or Amaltheia (Ancient Greek: Ἀμάλθεια) is the figure most commonly identified as the nurse of Zeus during his infancy. She is described either as a nymph who raises the child on the milk of a goat or, in some accounts from the Hellenistic period (c. 323–30 BCE) onwards, as the goat itself.” ref  

“Capricornus is one of the constellations of the zodiac. Its name is Latin for “horned goat” or “goat horn” or “having horns like a goat’s”, and it is commonly represented in the form of a sea goat: a mythical creature that is half goat, half fish.” ref

“Capella is the brightest star in the northern constellation of Auriga. It has the Bayer designation α Aurigae, which is Latinised to Alpha Aurigae and abbreviated Alpha Aur or α Aur. Capella is the sixth-brightest star in the night sky, and the third-brightest in the northern celestial hemisphere after Arcturus and Vega. A prominent object in the northern sky, it is circumpolar to observers north of 44°N. Its name meaning “little goat” in Latin, Capella depicted the goat Amalthea that suckled Zeus in classical mythology.” ref

Sheep and goats in Norse paganism

“Sheep and goats are some of the most important animals in prehistoric Scandinavia. The habitus of the animals was used and transformed into cultural categories. Owing to their important and long-term utility, they were ritualized during the pre-Christian periods. The role of these animals and the attitudes towards them in and beyond Norse paganism are relevant. Sheep and goats were very important animals during prehistory, as they are today in many parts of the world. Along with cattle and pigs, sheep and goats were the most significant domestic animals ever since the Neolithic in Scandinavia. Yet, sheep and goats, or “sheepgoats”, as a consequence of the dominant classification in research, are very often categorized as utility animals. They are more rarely interpreted as symbols or metaphors in mentality or cosmology.  Sheep and goats appear in the archaeological material culture and in Old Norse texts, but in different ways. They become visible and invisible in our interpretations of Norse paganism, hidden between a strong utility and a kind of unspoken symbolic meaning.” ref