CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 139Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesLivestock and Poultry ManagementArchaeological and Geological Studies

The biocultural origins and dispersal of domestic chickens

Open access
Peters, Joris, Lebrasseur, Ophélie, Irving-Pease, Evan K., Paxinos, Ptolemaios Dimitrios, Best, Julia, Smallman, Riley, Callou, Cécile, Gardeisen, Armelle +5 more·2022·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.2121978119PMC PMC9214543
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Though chickens are the most numerous and ubiquitous domestic bird, their origins, the circumstances of their initial association with people, and the routes along which they dispersed across the world remain controversial. In order to establish a robust spatial and temporal framework for their origins and dispersal, we assessed archaeological occurrences and the domestic status of chickens from ∼600 sites in 89 countries by combining zoogeographic, morphological, osteometric, stratigraphic, contextual, iconographic, and textual data. Our results suggest that the first unambiguous domestic chicken bones are found at Neolithic Ban Non Wat in central Thailand dated to ∼1650 to 1250 BCE, and that chickens were not domesticated in the Indian Subcontinent. Chickens did not arrive in Central China, South Asia, or Mesopotamia until the late second millennium BCE, and in Ethiopia and Mediterranean Europe by ∼800 BCE. To investigate the circumstances of their initial domestication, we correlated the temporal spread of rice and millet cultivation with the first appearance of chickens within the range of red junglefowl species. Our results suggest that agricultural practices focused on the production and storage of cereal staples served to draw arboreal red junglefowl into the human niche. Thus, the arrival of rice agriculture may have first facilitated the initiation of the chicken domestication process, and then, following their integration within human communities, allowed for their dispersal across the globe.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper critically reassesses archaeological, iconographic, textual, and linguistic evidence for early chickens across >600 sites in 89 countries and argues that unambiguous domestic chickens appear only by ∼1650–1250 BCE in central Thailand, not in earlier China or Indus Valley contexts. It proposes that rice and millet cultivation created a human niche that attracted red junglefowl and catalyzed domestication, followed by rapid dispersal across Asia, Europe, and Africa.

Key findings

  • Reanalysis of >600 sites in 89 countries found the earliest unambiguous domestic chicken remains at Neolithic Ban Non Wat, central Thailand, dated ∼1650–1250 BCE; >95% of the avifauna there was ascribed to *Gallus*, with an exceedingly high proportion of juvenile bones and deposition as grave goods alongside domestic pigs, dogs, and bovines.
  • Claims for earlier chickens were not supported: northern China remains dated 11,000–8,000 y ago were pheasants, and key Indus Valley specimens from Mohenjo-daro and Harappa were misidentified, too large, or possibly intrusive; the earliest confident East Asian chickens date to the late Shang Dynasty ∼1350–1046 BCE, and South Asian poultry farming appears post-Harappan.
  • Dispersal was relatively late and rapid: chickens reached Ethiopia and Mediterranean Europe by ∼700 BCE, with the earliest directly dated southern European chickens from Italian Greek colonies dated 776–540 BCE; they arrived in Near Oceania in the early first millennium BCE, Hawaii ∼1200 CE, Australia 1788 CE, and New Zealand 1773 CE.
  • Rice and millet cultivation correlates with early chickens: sites with rice cultivation appeared within the distribution of *G. gallus spadiceus* from about 2000 BCE in southern Yunnan and northeast Thailand, suggesting cereal production and storage acted as a magnet for red junglefowl.

Methods

  • The authors critically assessed published faunal databases and publications for >600 archaeological sites in 89 countries, revisiting species identification, domestic status, stratigraphic integrity, and zooarchaeological/cultural context, and evaluating zoogeographic, morphological, osteometric, iconographic, written, and linguistic records.
  • They generated two datasets: confidently assigned domestic chicken remains (SI Appendix, Table S2) and ambiguous remains (SI Appendix, Table S3), and used 100 independent, confidently assigned, dated chicken remains for a spatial kriging interpolation of chicken arrival timing.
  • They correlated the resulting spatiotemporal pattern with human subsistence strategies, especially the appearance and spread of rice and millet agriculture.

Limitations

  • The paper states that additional archaeological investigations are necessary to test the chronology, and that new excavations may reveal earlier human–red junglefowl associations or earlier human-mediated translocations.
  • The paper states that establishing osteological criteria to separate wild junglefowl from domestic relatives, and generating simultaneous morphological, isotopic, and ancient genetic datasets, is essential to refine chicken origins and dispersal.
  • The paper notes that compiling the global dataset faced preservation, identification, recovery, and dating challenges; evident from the text, many determinations relied on published records or photographs rather than direct measurement of all bones, and geographic gaps remain, such as the lack of detailed avifaunal studies at prehistoric Yunnan sites.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.2121978119

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

47 of 143 cited sources checked · 22 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    A recent program of radiocarbon dating demonstrated that numerous early claims for the first appearance of chickens in Europe were spurious.

    “The latter can lead to invalid claims regarding their dating and cultural context, and a recent program of radiocarbon dating demonstrated that numerous early claims for the first appearance of chickens in Europe were spurious (13).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] J. Best., Redefining the timing and circumstances of the chicken’s introduction to Europe and north-west Africa. Antiquity, 10.15184/aqy.2021.90 (2022). source
  • Premisecitation

    Early Holocene bird remains from northern China initially claimed to be chickens were shown by reanalysis based on discrete osteomorphological criteria to be pheasants.

    “Although early Holocene bird remains from northern China were initially claimed to be chickens (8), a reanalysis of those bones based upon discrete osteomorphological criteria demonstrated that the specimens were derived from pheasants (1, 9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] J. Peters, O. Lebrasseur, H. Deng, G. Larson, Holocene cultural history of red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) and its domestic descendant in East Asia. Quat. Sci. Rev. 142, 102– 119 (2016). source
    • cites [9] M. Eda, Reevaluation of early Holocene chicken domestication in northern China. J. Archaeol. Sci. 67, 25– 31 (2016). source
  • Interpretationcitation

    Previous claims for chickens in the Yellow River basin 11,000 to 8,000 y ago are not supported by climatic, palynological, or archaeofaunal records, which suggest environmental conditions were not conducive to thermophilic Gallus.

    “Previous claims for the presence of chickens in the Yellow River basin 11,000 to 8,000 y ago (8) are not supported by either the climatic, palynological, or archaeofaunal records, all of which suggest the environmental conditions in the region were not conducive to the thermophilic Gallus (1, 31).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] J. Peters, O. Lebrasseur, H. Deng, G. Larson, Holocene cultural history of red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) and its domestic descendant in East Asia. Quat. Sci. Rev. 142, 102– 119 (2016). source
    • cites [31] J. Peters, Questioning new answers regarding Holocene chicken domestication in China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, E2415 (2015). 25886773 PMC4434763 source

      The main text (p. E2415) cites paleoclimatic conditions and faunal remains as reasons to doubt early chicken domestication on the North China plain, and says Cishan and Wangyin were unsuitable for thermophilic red jungle fowl. It does not discuss palynological records or establish the stated 11,000–8,000-year interval; it also leaves open the possibility that the earlier conclusions may be valid. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    Increasing numbers of chickens at Neo-Assyrian, Urartian, Phrygian, and Levantine sites indicate growing economic interest in the species' exploitation during Iron Age II (~965 to 530 BCE).

    “Their increasing numbers at Neo-Assyrian, Urartian, Phrygian (SI Appendix, Table S2), and Levantine sites (46) indicate growing economic interest in the species’ exploitation during the Iron Age II period (∼965 to 530 BCE).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [46] L. Perry-Gal, A. Erlich, A. Gilboa, G. Bar-Oz, Earliest economic exploitation of chicken outside East Asia: Evidence from the Hellenistic Southern Levant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 9849– 9854 (2015). 26195775 PMC4538678 source

      The ‘Chickens in the Southern Levant’ section reports a gradual rise in Levantine sites with chicken remains, supporting the increasing-numbers portion of the citation. It also says exploitation before the Hellenistic period was sporadic and places the conspicuous increase in that later period; it does not establish growing economic exploitation during Iron Age II. The cited paper’s survey does not substantiate the Neo-Assyrian, Urartian, or Phrygian portions of the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    The chicken domestication process began within the distribution of G. gallus spadiceus in Southeast Asia.

    “This result suggests that the chicken domestication process began within the distribution of this subspecies in Southeast Asia (Fig. 1 and SI Appendix, Fig S1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] M.-S. Wang, 863 genomes reveal the origin and domestication of chicken. Cell Res. 30, 693– 701 (2020). 32581344 PMC7395088 source
    • Rests on an assumption: The current geographic distribution of G. gallus spadiceus approximates its distribution at the time of chicken domestication.
  • May combine two claims. 43
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Chicken bones are prone to taphonomic loss through scavenger activity and stratigraphic displacement.

    “Additionally, chicken bones are prone to taphonomic loss through scavenger activity (11) and stratigraphic displacement (12).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [11] Ø. S. LaBianca, “ Ethnoarchaeological and taphonomical investigations in the village of Hesban” in Hesban13. Faunal Remains: Taphonomical and Zooarchaeological Studies of the Animal Remains from the Tell Hesban and Vicinity, Hesban, Ø. S. LaBianca, A. von den Driesch, Eds. (Andrew University Press, Berrien Springs, MI, 1995), pp. 15– 32.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [12] L. Girdland Flink, Establishing the validity of domestication genes using DNA from ancient chickens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 6184– 6189 (2014). 24753608 PMC4035994 source

      The citation is attached to stratigraphic displacement, not scavenger activity. The Archaeological specimens section (p. 14) identifies intrusive finds from later occupation phases as a problem and describes sampling choices made to avoid them. It does not say that chicken bones are prone to taphonomic loss through displacement. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In Remote Oceania, chickens arrived with people in Hawaii ~1200 CE, about 500 y prior to the earliest records of European introduction of poultry in Australia (1788 CE) and New Zealand (1773 CE).

    “In Remote Oceania, chickens arrived with people in Hawaii ∼1200 CE (36), about 500 y prior to the earliest records of the European introduction of poultry in Australia (1788 CE) (39) and New Zealand (1773 CE) (40).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [36] A. Storey, “ Scratching out a living. Chickens in ancient Pacific economies” in The Routledge Handbook of Bioarchaeology in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, M. Oxenham, H. Buckley, Eds. (Routledge, London, 2015) pp. 483– 501. source
    • cites [39] J. Cobley, Sydney Cove 1788 (Hodder and Stoughton, 1962).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [40] J. R. Wood, M. J. B. Herrera, R. P. Scofield, J. M. Wilmshurst, Origin and timing of New Zealand’s earliest domestic chickens: Polynesian commensals or European introductions? R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160258 (2016). 27853601 PMC5108951 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In Japan, chickens did not arrive until the Middle Yayoi ~100 BCE to 100 CE, consistent with their first appearance in the Korean Peninsula.

    “In Japan, chickens did not arrive until the Middle Yayoi ∼100 BCE to 100 CE, a timing consistent with their first appearance in the Korean Peninsula (1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] J. Peters, O. Lebrasseur, H. Deng, G. Larson, Holocene cultural history of red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) and its domestic descendant in East Asia. Quat. Sci. Rev. 142, 102– 119 (2016). source

      The Conclusions link the beginning of fowl husbandry in Japan to the middle Yayoi Period and say its timing fits the start of poultry farming in Korea. However, the paper dates the Japanese period to approximately 2.2–1.7 ka calBP, not the narrower ~100 BCE–100 CE range in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The Akkadian name su-la-mu describes the bird as dark-colored, which could correspond instead to black francolins or gray junglefowl.

    “The bird’s Akkadian name, su-la-mu, describes it as dark-colored (42), which could correspond instead to black francolins (Francolinus francolinus) (43). Dark plumage could also imply gray junglefowl, a species common in the Indian subcontinent generally and in the Indus region specifically (44) (SI Appendix, Fig. S1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [42] G. L. Possehl, “ India’s Relations with Western Empires, 2300-600 BC” in A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, D. T. Potts, Ed. (Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2012) pp. 758– 769. source
    • cites [43] G. Forcina, Impacts of biological globalization in the Mediterranean: Unveiling the deep history of human-mediated gamebird dispersal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 3296– 3301 (2015). 25733899 PMC4371972 source

      The Black Francolin in the Mediterranean section describes the species and its historical presence, but does not connect it to the Akkadian name su-la-mu or a dark-colored bird. Searches for the name, dark plumage, and gray junglefowl found no passage addressing that identification. The statements about the name and gray junglefowl carry separate citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [44] J. K. McGowan, “ Family Phasianidae (pheasants and partridges)” in Handbook of the Birds of the World: Vol. 2, New World Vultures to Guineafowl, J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J. Sargatal, Eds. (Lynx Editions, Bellaterra, 1994), pp. 434– 553.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The divergence range between G. gallus spadiceus and the lineage from which domestic chickens were derived cannot be equated with the initiation of a domestication process and represents an upper bound on the chicken domestication timeframe.

    “Importantly, this range cannot be equated with the initiation of a domestication process. Instead, this timeframe represents the divergence between G. gallus spadiceus and the lineage from which domestic chickens were derived (17), and thus represents an upper bound on the chicken domestication timeframe.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] E. K. Irving-Pease, L. A. F. Frantz, N. Sykes, C. Callou, G. Larson, Rabbits and the specious origins of domestication. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 149– 152 (2018). 29454669 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The chicken's name in Malagasy has no roots in western Austronesian languages; linguistic elements in neighboring Comorian indicate a connection to Bantu, hence an introduction from coastal Africa, supported by close genetic affinity of Malagasy and East African chickens.

    “The chicken’s name in Malagasy has no roots in any of the western Austronesian languages. Instead, linguistic elements in neighboring Comorian indicate a connection to Bantu, and hence an introduction from coastal Africa (62), which is supported by the close genetic affinity of Malagasy and East African chickens (63).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [62] R. Blench, The Austronesians in Madagascar and their interaction with the Bantu of the East African coast: Surveying the linguistic evidence for domestic and translocated animals. Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures 18, 18– 43 (2008).

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [63] M. B. Herrera, East African origins for Madagascan chickens as indicated by mitochondrial DNA. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 160787 (2017). 28405364 PMC5383821 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Throughout much of early medieval Europe, poultry farming likely benefited from the spread of Christianity, and chickens were also associated with early monastic contexts in Ireland.

    “Throughout much of early medieval Europe, poultry farming likely benefited from the spread of Christianity (78), and chickens were also associated with early monastic contexts in Ireland (SI Appendix, Table S2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [78] L. Loog, Inferring allele frequency trajectories from ancient DNA indicates that selection on a chicken gene coincided with changes in medieval husbandry practices. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 1981– 1990 (2017). 28444234 PMC5850110 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The chicken's first appearance in the eastern Baltic region dates to the late Pre-Roman Iron Age, where these remains may have been associated with a burial.

    “The chicken’s first appearance in the eastern Baltic region dates to the late Pre-Roman Iron Age, where these remains may have been associated with a burial (77).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [77] F. Ehrlich, In search of Estonia’s earliest chickens. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 25, 160– 181 (2021). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    By the late sixth/early fifth century BCE, chickens were present in the Upper Rhine and Danube River basins and in southeast England.

    “By the late sixth/early fifth century BCE, chickens were present in the Upper Rhine and Danube River basins (76) (Fig. 2), and in southeast England (13).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [76] A. von den Driesch, J. Boessneck, Abschlußbericht über die zooarchäologischen Untersuchungen an Tierknochenfunden von der Heuneburg [in German]. (Ausgrabungsmethodik und Stratigraphie der Heuneburg. Heuneburgstudien VI., Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 45), pp. 131– 157 (1989).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [13] J. Best., Redefining the timing and circumstances of the chicken’s introduction to Europe and north-west Africa. Antiquity, 10.15184/aqy.2021.90 (2022). source

      The paper’s discussion (section 4.1; page unavailable) says chickens were introduced into southern Britain by the sixth–fifth centuries BCE, supporting the broad timing and location. But the Results (section 3; page unavailable) place its earliest directly dated English specimen only as far back as the late fifth century BCE. The copy does not establish their presence specifically in southeast England by the late sixth or early fifth century BCE. The Upper Rhine and Danube claim is attached to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Rice and millet cultivating communities dispersed from the Yangtze valley into southern China by the mid-third millennium BCE, and from there into peninsular Southeast Asia.

    “An analysis of the material culture (including pottery decoration) associated with these agriculturalists suggests that rice and millet cultivating communities dispersed from the Yangtze valley (89–92) into southern China, where they arrived by the mid-third millennium BCE (90, 93). From there, they continued into peninsular Southeast Asia, where people following distinct dispersal pathways emph”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [89] P. Bellwood, First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies (Blackwell, 2005).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [90] F. Silva, Modelling the geographical origin of rice cultivation in Asia using the Rice Archaeological Database. PLoS One 10, e0137024 (2015). 26327225 PMC4556484 source

      The Discussion identifies the wider Yangtze valley as an origin of rice farming and models the dispersal of cultivated rice from that region. The cited paper does not establish that rice-and-millet cultivating communities followed the stated route, arrived in southern China by the mid-third millennium BCE, or continued into peninsular Southeast Asia. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [91] Z. Chi, H.-C. Hung, The emergence of agriculture in southern China. Antiquity 84, 11– 25 (2010). source
    • cites [92] F. Rispoli, The incised & impressed pottery style of mainland Southeast Asia: Following the paths of neolithization. East and West 57, 235– 304 (2007).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [93] X. Yang, New radiocarbon evidence on early rice consumption and farming in South China. Holocene 27, 1045– 1051 (2017). source

      The Conclusion dates the introduction of domesticated rice to the Pearl River Delta to 5000–4700 years ago and identifies the Yangtze region as its source. The Introduction links the southward spread of rice agriculture with expansion into mainland Southeast Asia. The paper does not establish that the dispersing communities cultivated millet or trace a specific onward route from southern China into peninsular Southeast Asia. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [94] C. F. W. Higham, The later prehistory of Southeast Asia and southern China: The impact of exchange, farming and metallurgy. Asian Archaeology 4, 63– 93 (2021). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Direct radiocarbon dating revealed that all presumed Neolithic to Bronze Age chicken remains in Bulgaria, Greece, and France were intrusive, and the earliest sample dated to only 137 to 327 CE.

    “A recent study reevaluated key specimens used to postulate early chicken husbandry, but direct radiocarbon dating of the remains revealed that all the presumed Neolithic to Bronze Age chicken remains in Bulgaria, Greece, and France were intrusive, and that of these, the earliest sample dated to only 137 to 327 CE (13).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] J. Best., Redefining the timing and circumstances of the chicken’s introduction to Europe and north-west Africa. Antiquity, 10.15184/aqy.2021.90 (2022). source

      The Materials and Methods and Results report direct dating of selected specimens from Bulgaria, Greece, and France; the specimens proved later than their proposed prehistoric contexts. But Table 2 does not give 137–327 CE for the earliest of them: the earliest dated specimen proposed to be Neolithic or Bronze Age is from Galabovo, Bulgaria, at 215–338 cal AD. The study tested selected remains, not all presumed remains in those countries. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    In more interior zones, early rainfed rice/millet cultivation likely spurred a tighter relationship between people and G. gallus spadiceus, as attested by the earliest confirmed chicken bones at Ban Non Wat and Non Nok Tha.

    “In more interior zones, early rainfed rice/millet cultivation likely spurred a tighter relationship between people and G. gallus spadiceus, as attested by the earliest confirmed chicken bones at Ban Non Wat and Non Nok Tha (SI Appendix, Table S2) (98).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [98] C. C. Castillo, Social responses to climate change in Iron Age north-east Thailand: New archaeobotanical evidence. Antiquity 92, 1274– 1291 (2018). source

      The Methods section places early rice and millet farmers at Ban Non Wat and Non Nok Tha, and the Concluding remarks identify rainfall-dependent dryland rice farming at Ban Non Wat. The paper does not report chicken bones or a relationship with G. gallus spadiceus; the Results section also says no cultivated millet was identified at Ban Non Wat. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    These ancestral affinities are the result not of a local, independent domestication process, but of admixture with introduced domestic chickens derived from G. gallus spadiceus.

    “these ancestral affinities are the result not of a local, independent domestication process, but the result of admixture with introduced domestic chickens derived from G. gallus spadiceus (16).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] M.-S. Wang, 863 genomes reveal the origin and domestication of chicken. Cell Res. 30, 693– 701 (2020). 32581344 PMC7395088 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The zooarchaeological record corroborates an increased visibility of Gallus in the iconographic record, including a depiction on the orthostat of Tell Halaf ~900 BCE and on numerous cylinder seals between ~800 to 600 BCE.

    “The zooarchaeological record corroborates an increased visibility of Gallus in the iconographic record, including a depiction on the orthostat of Tell Halaf (present day Syria) dated to ∼900 BCE (47), and on numerous cylinder seals between ∼800 to 600 BCE (41, 48).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [47] M. F. von Oppenheim, Tell Halaf. Band III: Die Bildwerke. Bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Anton Moortgat [in German] (Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1955).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [41] E. von der Osten-Sacken, Untersuchungen zur Geflügelwirtschaft im Alten Orient [in German], Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, vol. 272 (Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [48] E. W. Moore, Neo-Babylonian Documents in the University of Michigan Collection (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1939).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The earliest evidence of chickens in Central Asia consists of depictions of cockerels in Pazyryk kurgans ~500 to 300 BCE and chicken remains in the late fourth century BCE fortress of Kurgansol, Uzbekistan.

    “In Central Asia, the earliest evidence of chickens thus far consists of depictions of cockerels in the Pazyryk kurgans of the Altai Mountains dated to ∼500 to 300 BCE (32), and chicken remains have been identified in the late fourth century BCE fortress of Kurgansol (Uzbekistan) built by Alexander’s troops (33).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [32] L. Barkova, “ The cockerel design in ancient Altai art.” in Archaeological Collected Papers, No. 40, (The State Hermitage Publications, Saint Petersburg, 2015), pp. 143– 156.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [33] N. Benecke, “ Faunal remains of Kurganzol” in Krepost Aleksandra Na Juge Uzbekistana, L. M. Sverchkov, Ed. (Tashkent, 2014), pp. 170– 176.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Key specimens from Mature Harappan sites including Mohenjo-daro and Harappa have either been misidentified or are too large to be confidently categorized as prehistoric domestic birds.

    “Our analysis demonstrates that key specimens from sites belonging to this cultural phase including Mohenjo-daro (24) and Harappa (25), have either been misidentified, or are too large to be confidently categorized as prehistoric domestic birds (SI Appendix, Table S3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [24] R. B. S. Sewell, B. S. Guha, “ Zoological remains” in Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization: Being an Official Account of Archaeological Excavations at Mohenjo-Daro Carried out by the Government of India between the Years 1922 and 1927, J. H. Marshall, Ed. (A. Probsthain, London, 1931), pp. 649– 673.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] B. Prashad, Animal Remains from Harappa. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India 51 (Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, 1936).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    At Daimabad, India, Gallus is absent from earlier Savalda and Harappan levels but prominent in subsequent early Jorwe levels dating ~1500 to 1200 BCE.

    “At the site of Daimabad, India, Gallus is absent from earlier Savalda and Harappan levels, but prominent in the subsequent early Jorwe levels dating from ∼1500 to 1200 BCE (27).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] G. L. Badam, “ Preliminary report on the faunal remains from Chalcolithic Daimabad, Maharashtra” in Archaeological Studies, (Bharat Kala Bhavan, Varanasi, 1986), pp. 93– 100.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Gallus bones have been reported from several other Jorwe period sites and contemporaneous Southern Neolithic Period III sites farther south.

    “Gallus bones have been reported from several other sites of the Jorwe period (Nevasa, Inamgaon, Tuljapur Garhi, Walki), as well as contemporaneous sites farther south (Southern Neolithic Period III) (22).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22] D. Q. Fuller, Agricultural origins and frontiers in South Asia: A working synthesis. J. World Prehist. 20, 1– 86 (2006). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    South of the Horn of Africa, the earliest evidence for Gallus appears more than a millennium later and arrived alongside the black rat, rice, and mungbean that originated from the Indian subcontinent.

    “South of the Horn, however, the earliest evidence for Gallus appears more than a millennium later (59), and arrived alongside the black rat, rice and mungbean that originated from the Indian subcontinent (60, 61).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [59] N. Boivin, D. Q. Fuller, Shell middens, ships and seeds: Exploring coastal subsistence, maritime trade and the dispersal of domesticates in and around the ancient Arabian Peninsula. J. World Prehist. 22, 113– 180 (2009). source
    • cites [60] N. Boivin, A. Crowther, R. Helm, D. Q. Fuller, East Africa and Madagascar in the Indian Ocean world. J. World Prehist. 26, 213– 281 (2013). source
    • cites [61] I. Plug, Overview of iron age fauna from the Limpopo valley. Goodwin Series 8, 117– 126 (2000). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Chicken farming became firmly established in western continental Europe during the late Iron Age and under Roman cultural influence in the Low Countries.

    “Chicken farming became firmly established in western continental Europe during the late Iron Age and under Roman cultural influence in the Low Countries (SI Appendix, Table S2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Chickens arrived in coastal southwest Sweden at the onset of the first millennium CE or slightly earlier, before dispersing during the Migration period (~400 to 550 CE).

    “Chickens arrived in coastal southwest Sweden at the onset of the first millennium CE or slightly earlier, before dispersing during the Migration period (∼400 to 550 CE).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    By ~700 BCE, chickens had arrived in Ethiopia and Mediterranean Europe.

    “By ∼700 BCE, chickens had arrived in Ethiopia and Mediterranean Europe (Fig. 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The first unambiguous chicken bones in the archaeological record are present within the faunal assemblage at Neolithic Ban Non Wat in central Thailand and date to ~1650 to 1250 BCE.

    “The first unambiguous chicken bones in the archaeological record are present within the faunal assemblage at Neolithic Ban Non Wat in central Thailand, and date to ∼1650 to 1250 BCE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    One of the two Harappan bones is morphologically inconsistent with Gallus, and the other's taxonomic classification is ambiguous.

    “Our reanalysis of the two Harappan bones shows that one is morphologically inconsistent with Gallus, and the other’s taxonomic classification is ambiguous.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Under Ptolemaic rule (305 to 30 BCE), fowl husbandry intensified and spread from the Nile delta upstream to the region of the first cataract.

    “Under Ptolemaic rule (305 to 30 BCE), fowl husbandry intensified and spread from the Nile delta upstream to the region of the first cataract (56, 57).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [56] J. Boessneck, Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten [in German] (C. H. Beck, Munich, 1988).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [57] J. Sigl, Syene II. Die Tierfunde aus den Grabungen von 2000–2009: Ein Beitraag zur Umwelt—und Kulturgeschichte einer Oberägyptischen Stadt von der Pharaonischen Spät—bis in die Mameluckenzeit [in German] (PeWe-Verlag, Gladbeck, 2017).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Zooarchaeological records in Neolithic Vietnam show evidence for the hunting of wetland birds but lack remains of Gallus.

    “Although there is confirmation of early rice farming near coastal areas and in low-lying wetlands (86, 94), the zooarchaeological records in Neolithic Vietnam, for example, show evidence for the hunting of wetland birds, but lack remains of Gallus (97).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [97] M. F. Oxenham, Emergence and diversification of the neolithic in Southern Vietnam: Insights from coastal Rach Nui. J. Island Coast. Archaeol. 10, 309– 338 (2015). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The absence of chickens in Central Asia prior to the late Iron Age ~800 to 600 BCE contradicts the hypothesis that poultry farming spread west and north from the Yellow River basin during the Neolithic across Asia to Europe.

    “The absence of chickens in this region prior to the late Iron Age ∼800 to 600 BCE (34, 35) contradicts the long-standing hypothesis that poultry farming spread west and north from the Yellow River basin during the Neolithic across Asia to Europe (6).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [34] N. Benecke, Iron Age economy of the Inner Asian steppe. A bioarchaeological perspective from the Talgar Region in the Ili River Valley, southeastern Kazakhstan. Eurasia Antiqua 9, 63– 84 (2003).
    • cites [35] S. N. Bogoljubskij, Происхождение и преобразование домашних животных (Proischoždenie i preobrazovanie domašnich životnych) [in Russian]. (Sovetskaja Nauka, Moscow, 1959).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [6] B. West, B.-X. Zhou, Did chickens go north? New evidence for domestication. J. Archaeol. Sci. 15, 515– 533 (1988). source
    • Rests on an assumption: The archaeological absence of chicken remains at a site or region reflects the true absence of chickens rather than recovery, preservation, or identification bias.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Reappraisal of published chicken bone specimens in Chalcolithic and Bronze Age sites across India and Pakistan dating ~3500 to 1000 BCE undermines both the species identification and the domestication status of these remains.

    “Our reappraisal of published chicken bone specimens in Chalcolithic and Bronze Age sites across India and Pakistan dating ∼3500 to 1000 BCE undermines both the species identification (since they are located in the distribution range of gray junglefowl) (SI Appendix, Fig. S2) and the domestication status of these remains (SI Appendix, Table S3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Domestic fowl first appeared in the Indian subcontinent after the Harappan civilization, implying that translations of dar meluḫḫa as chickens may be inaccurate.

    “Our reassessment of the zooarchaeological evidence from the Indian subcontinent implies that domestic fowl first appeared after the Harappan civilization, and that these translations may therefore be inaccurate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Our analysis supports a much later arrival of chickens in northern China, consistent with first appearance in Japan in the early first millennium CE and in Mongolia during the early second millennium CE.

    “Our analysis thus supports a much later arrival in this region consistent with the first appearance of chickens in Japan in the early first millennium CE, and in Mongolia during the early second millennium CE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The presence of chickens in the eastern Baltic may represent a trade import, since chickens were clearly exploited across the Baltic States and in Finland by the late Iron Age (~600 to 800 CE).

    “The presence of this bird may represent a trade import, however, since chickens were clearly exploited across the Baltic States and in Finland by the late Iron Age (∼600 to 800 CE) (Fig. 2 and SI Appendix, Table S2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    It is likely that the natural range of gray junglefowl extended into the Indus River basin during the Mid-Holocene, and that these remains derive instead from local wild populations.

    “It is therefore likely that the natural range of gray junglefowl extended into the Indus River basin during the Mid-Holocene, and that these remains derive instead from local wild populations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [80] E. Asouti, D. Q. Fuller, Trees and Woodlands of South India: Archaeological Perspectives (Left Coast Press, 2008).

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Greek seafarers transported chickens across the northern Mediterranean, and the earliest directly dated chickens in southern Europe have been excavated in Italy from two Greek colonies dated to 776 to 540 BCE.

    “Greek seafarers transported chickens across the northern Mediterranean and the earliest directly dated chickens in southern Europe have been excavated in Italy from two Greek colonies dated to 776 to 540 BCE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Direct radiocarbon-dated chicken bones from Pre-Aksumite northern Ethiopia (~800 to 600 BCE) demonstrate that chickens had been translocated to the Horn of Africa prior to their presence in Achaemenid Egypt, likely across the Red Sea.

    “Direct radiocarbon-dated chicken bones from Pre-Aksumite northern Ethiopia (∼800 to 600 BCE) demonstrate that, prior to their presence in Achaemenid Egypt, chickens had been translocated, likely across the Red Sea, to the Horn of Africa (58).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [58] H. S. Woldekiros, A. C. D’Andrea, Early evidence for domestic chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) in the horn of Africa: Early evidence for domestic chickens. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 27, 329– 341 (2017). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    By that time, chickens had also been introduced to the coastal Black Sea region through Greek trade networks, suggesting that the chicken's initial dispersal in Europe was primarily through maritime routes.

    “By that time, chickens had also been introduced to the coastal Black Sea region through Greek trade networks, suggesting that the chicken’s initial dispersal in Europe was primarily through maritime routes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is possible that chickens were introduced from Berber-speaking Northwest Africa to West Africa primarily by maritime trade.

    “Given that fifth century BCE Phoenician seafarers (68) and Roman merchants both established trading posts on the Moroccan Atlantic coast (69) or somewhat inland (70), it is possible that chickens were introduced from Berber-speaking Northwest Africa to West Africa primarily by maritime trade.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [68] Hanno, The Voyage of Hanno: Translated, and Accompanied with the Greek Text, Explained from the Accounts of Modern Travellers, Defended Against the Objections of Mr. Dodwell and Other Writers, and Illustrated by Maps from Ptolemy, D’Anville, and Bougainville, T. Falconer (trans.) (Cadell and Davies, London, 1797).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [69] C. Becker, A. von den Driesch, H. C. Küchelmann, “ Mogador, eine Handelsstation am Westlichen Rand der Phönizischen und Römischen Welt—Die Tierreste [in German]” in Current Discoveries from Outside and Within. Field Explorations and Critical Comments from the Lab. Documenta Archaeobiologiae 10, G. Grupe, G. McGlynn, J. Peters, Eds. (Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden, 2012) pp. 11– 159.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [70] T. Oueslati, 1st century BCE occurrence of chicken, house mouse and black rat in Morocco: Socio-economic changes around the reign of Juba II on the site of Rirha. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 29, 102162 (2020). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The attractiveness of rice and millet agriculture to red junglefowl may have facilitated both the initiation of the domestication process and the subsequent dispersal of domestic chickens.

    “The attractiveness of rice and millet agriculture to red junglefowl may have facilitated both the initiation of the domestication process, and the subsequent dispersal of domestic chickens.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Archaeobotanical evidence in the Niger Basin illustrates the prominent role of cereal diversification, including more widespread rice cultivation and increasing urbanism ∼300 to 900 CE.

    “archaeobotanical evidence in the Niger Basin illustrates the prominent role of cereal diversification, including more widespread rice cultivation and increasing urbanism ∼300 to 900 CE (114)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [114] L. Champion, D. Q. Fuller, “ New evidence on the development of millet and tice economies in the Niger River Basin: Archaeobotanical results from Benin” in Plants and People in the African Past, A. Mercuri, A. D’Andrea, R. Fornaciari, A. Höhn, Eds., (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018), pp. 529– 547. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Later, more intensive rice agriculture would have provided grain surpluses to support larger populations of domestic birds.

    “whereas later, more intensive rice agriculture would have provided grain surpluses to support larger populations of domestic birds.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Land reclamation for cereal cultivation led to the replacement of primary forest by secondary vegetation, a habitat more suitable for red junglefowl.

    “Land reclamation for cereal cultivation led to the replacement of primary forest by secondary vegetation, a habitat more suitable for red junglefowl.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Chickens then rapidly spread south into Island Southeast Asia and west across South Asia and Mesopotamia to Europe and Africa.

    “and that they then rapidly spread south into Island Southeast Asia and west across South Asia and Mesopotamia to Europe and Africa.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The earliest securely identified domestic chicken remains in the dataset approximate the actual timing of chicken domestication or incorporation, rather than being limited by preservation, sampling, or detection.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The novel presence of cultivated fields, fallow fields, cereal harvest residues, remainders of human food preparation and consumption, invertebrates associated with keeping pigs and cattle, and other aspects of the human niche may have attracted red junglefowl to human settlements and their immediate catchment.

    “The novel presence of cultivated fields, fallow fields (necessary for either millet or rainfed rice), cereal harvest residues, remainders of human food preparation and consumption, invertebrates associated with keeping pigs and cattle, and other aspects of the human niche may have attracted red junglefowl to human settlements and their immediate catchment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Because rice was rainfed, it would have required more land area and fallow cycles relative to later, more productive irrigated rice, and these conditions would have created large areas of secondary thicket vegetation.

    “Because the rice was rainfed, it would have required more land area and fallow cycles relative to later, more productive irrigated rice (87), and these conditions would have created large areas of secondary thicket vegetation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [87] L. Qin, D. Q. Fuller, “ Why rice farmers don’t sail: Coastal subsistence traditions and maritime trends in early China” in Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia, C. Wu, B. V. Rollett, Eds. (Springer Singapore, 2019), pp. 159– 191. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    In the northern region of the G. gallus spadiceus distribution, similar processes were likely possible, but detailed avifaunal studies at prehistoric archaeological sites in Yunnan have not yet been carried out.

    “In the northern region of the G. gallus spadiceus distribution, similar processes were likely possible, but detailed avifaunal studies at prehistoric archaeological sites in Yunnan have not yet been carried out.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These conditions likely facilitated larger bird population densities near farming communities, followed by subsequent accommodation of birds within the village.

    “These conditions likely also facilitated larger bird population densities near farming communities, followed by subsequent “accommodation” of birds within the village.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The long-term abundance of cereals within the human niche would have led to dramatic shifts in selective pressure lasting multiple generations, including a relaxation of selection against larger clutch size and increased selection against territoriality in cocks.

    “The long-term abundance of cereals within the human niche would have led to dramatic shifts in selective pressure that lasted multiple generations, including a relaxation of selection against larger clutch size, as well as increased selection against territoriality in cocks (10).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] N. E. Collias, P. Saichuae, Ecology of the red junglefowl in Thailand and Malaya with reference to the origin of domestication. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 22, 189– 209 (1967).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Since the regular keeping of chickens for food did not take place until centuries after their arrival in Europe, this undermines the hypothesis that meat consumption drove the chicken's transition to a domestic bird.

    “Since the regular keeping of chickens for food did not take place until centuries after their arrival in Europe, this also undermines the hypothesis that meat consumption drove the chicken’s transition to a domestic bird.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Rice and millet cultivation may have facilitated chicken husbandry in subtropical regions.

    “although rice and millet cultivation may have facilitated chicken husbandry in subtropical regions”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study's assessment of early chicken remains used a conservative approach, revisiting and critiquing species identification, determination of domestic status, integrity of site stratigraphy, and overall zooarchaeological and cultural context.

    “We did so by revisiting and critiquing the species identification, the determination of domestic status, the integrity of the site’s stratigraphy, and the overall zooarchaeological and cultural context of the sites.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
49 of 49

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The current geographic distribution of G. gallus spadiceus approximates its distribution at the time of chicken domestication.

    “The first chickens were likely derived from a population of the subspecies G. gallus spadiceus, whose current range spans southwestern China, northern Thailand, and Myanmar (16) (Fig.1).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The archaeological absence of chicken remains at a site or region reflects the true absence of chickens rather than recovery, preservation, or identification bias.

    “The evidence presented here demonstrates that chickens did not appear in archaeological contexts within Central China, South Asia, or Mesopotamia until the late second millennium BCE, just before their initial presence in Melanesia.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The earliest securely identified domestic chicken remains in the dataset approximate the actual timing of chicken domestication or incorporation, rather than being limited by preservation, sampling, or detection.

    “Our conservative approach suggests that chickens were incorporated into human societies as domestic birds by 1500 BCE in peninsular Southeast Asia”
3 of 3

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Ban Non Wat is placed in two regions of Thailand

    Minor

    The paper locates Ban Non Wat in northeast Thailand in the Results but in central Thailand in the Discussion.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. N. Benecke, Der Mensch und seine Haustiere. Die Geschichte einer Jahrtausendealten Beziehung [in German]. (Theiss, Stuttgart, 1994).
  2. D. Serjeantson, Birds.( Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, 2009).
  3. N. E. Collias, P. Saichuae, Ecology of the red junglefowl in Thailand and Malaya with reference to the origin of domestication. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 22, 189–209 (1967).
  4. Ø. S. LaBianca, “Ethnoarchaeological and taphonomical investigations in the village of Hesban” in Hesban13. Faunal Remains: Taphonomical and Zooarchaeological Studies of the Animal Remains from the Tell Hesban and Vicinity, Hesban, Ø. S. LaBianca, A. von den Driesch, Eds. (Andrew University Press, Berrien Springs, MI, 1995), pp. 15–32.
  5. C. Higham, A. Kijngam, The Origins of the Civilization of Angkor. Vol. V: The Excavation of Ban Non Wat: The Bronze Age (Fine Arts Department of Thailand, Bangkok, 2012).
  6. A. Kijngam, “The mammalian fauna” in The Origins of the Civilization of Angkor. Vol. IV: The Excavation of Ban Non Wat Part Two: The Neolithic Age, C. F. W. Higham, A. Kijngam, Eds., (Fine Arts Department of Thailand, Bangkok, 2010) pp. 189–197.
  7. G. L. Possehl, Indus Age: The Beginnings (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999).
  8. B. Prashad, Animal Remains from Harappa. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India 51 (Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, 1936).
  9. L. Barkova, “The cockerel design in ancient Altai art.” in Archaeological Collected Papers, No. 40, (The State Hermitage Publications, Saint Petersburg, 2015), pp. 143–156.
  10. N. Benecke, “Faunal remains of Kurganzol” in Krepost Aleksandra Na Juge Uzbekistana, L. M. Sverchkov, Ed. (Tashkent, 2014), pp. 170–176.
  11. S. N. Bogoljubskij, Происхождение и преобразование домашних животных (Proischoždenie i preobrazovanie domašnich životnych) [in Russian]. (Sovetskaja Nauka, Moscow, 1959).
  12. P. V. Lape, Die erste Besiedlung auf den Banda-Inseln: 8000 Jahre Archäologie auf den Molukken [in German]. Antike Welt 5, 9–13 (2013).
  13. J. Cobley, Sydney Cove 1788 (Hodder and Stoughton, 1962).
  14. E. von der Osten-Sacken, Untersuchungen zur Geflügelwirtschaft im Alten Orient [in German], Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, vol. 272 (Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015).
  15. M. F. von Oppenheim, Tell Halaf. Band III: Die Bildwerke. Bearbeitet und herausgegeben von Anton Moortgat [in German] (Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1955).
  16. P. F. Houlihan, The Animal World of the Pharaohs (American University in Cairo Press, 1996).
  17. P. F. Houlihan, S. M. Goodman, The Birds of Ancient Egypt (American University in Cairo Press, 1988).
  18. A. von den Driesch, Tierreste aus Buto im Nildelta [in German]. Archaeofauna 6, 23–39 (1997).
  19. J. Boessneck, Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten [in German] (C. H. Beck, Munich, 1988).
  20. J. Sigl, Syene II. Die Tierfunde aus den Grabungen von 2000–2009: Ein Beitraag zur Umwelt—und Kulturgeschichte einer Oberägyptischen Stadt von der Pharaonischen Spät—bis in die Mameluckenzeit [in German] (PeWe-Verlag, Gladbeck, 2017).
  21. P. J. Barnwell, Visits and Dispatches: Mauritius, 1598–1948 (Standard Printing Establishment, Port Louis, Mauritius, 1948).
  22. K. Williamson “Towards Reconstructing Proto-Niger-Congo” in Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress of African Linguistics Leipzig 1997 E. W. Wolff O. D. Gensler Eds. (Köppe Köln 2000) pp. 49–70.
  23. Hanno, The Voyage of Hanno: Translated, and Accompanied with the Greek Text, Explained from the Accounts of Modern Travellers, Defended Against the Objections of Mr. Dodwell and Other Writers, and Illustrated by Maps from Ptolemy, D’Anville, and Bougainville, T. Falconer (trans.) (Cadell and Davies, London, 1797).
  24. C. Becker, A. von den Driesch, H. C. Küchelmann, “Mogador, eine Handelsstation am Westlichen Rand der Phönizischen und Römischen Welt—Die Tierreste [in German]” in Current Discoveries from Outside and Within. Field Explorations and Critical Comments from the Lab. Documenta Archaeobiologiae 10, G. Grupe, G. McGlynn, J. Peters, Eds. (Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden, 2012) pp. 11–159.
  25. Z. Boev, Avian remains from the Early Neolithic settlement near Yabalkovo Village (Haskovo Region, South-East Bulgaria). Acta Zool. Bulg. 61, 317–322 (2009).
  26. E. Kessler, E. Gál, Resturi fosile şi subfosile de păsări în siturile paleolitice şi neolitice din Cheile Turzii şi Cheile Turenilor (Judeţul Cluj). [in Romanian]. Angvistia 3, 9–12 (1998).
  27. G. Nobis, Die Tierreste von Karthago [in German]. (Ph. von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein, 1999).
  28. A. von den Driesch J. Boessneck Abschlußbericht über die zooarchäologischen Untersuchungen an Tierknochenfunden von der Heuneburg [in German]. (Ausgrabungsmethodik und Stratigraphie der Heuneburg. Heuneburgstudien VI. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 45) pp. 131–157 (1989).
  29. E. J. H. Mackay, Further Excavations at Mohenjo-daro (Government of India, New Delhi, 1938).
  30. U. C. Chattopadyaya, “Researches in archaeozoology of the Holocene period (including the Harappan tradition in India and Pakistan)” in Indian Archaeology in Retrospect. Archaeology and Interactive Disciplines, S. Settar, R. Korisettar, Eds. (Manohar, New Delhi, 2002), pp. 365–422.
  31. J. Peters, Hahn oder Kapaun? Zur Kastration von Hähnen in der Antike [in German]. Arch. Geflugelkd. 61, 1–8 (1997).
  32. F. Rispoli, The incised & impressed pottery style of mainland Southeast Asia: Following the paths of neolithization. East and West 57, 235–304 (2007).
  33. D. F. Fuller, C. A. Murphy, “Food production in India: South Asian entanglements of domestication.” in A Companion to South Asia and the Past, G. R. Schug, S. R. Walimbe, Eds. (Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2016), pp. 344–357.
  34. R. Pasternak, Übersicht über die Ergebnisse der archäobotanischen Arbeiten in Kuşaklı 1994–1997 und ein Interpretationsansatz zu den Befunden [in German]. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 130, 160–170 (1998).
  35. N. F. Miller, “The Near East” in Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany, W. A. Van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa, K.-E. Behre, Eds. (A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1991), pp. 133–160.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Peters, J., Lebrasseur, O., Irving-Pease, E. K., Paxinos, P. D., Best, J., Smallman, R., Callou, C., Gardeisen, A., Trixl, S., Frantz, L., Sykes, N., Fuller, D. Q., & Larson, G.
Affiliations
  • Bavarian Natural History Collections (DE)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • Northwest University (CN)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2022-06-06
Volume
119
Issue
24
Pages
e2121978119-e2121978119
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.2121978119
PMC
PMC9214543
OpenAlex
W4282945975
Cited by
139
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 9
FWCI
21.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Sight Research UK (NE/K003402/1, NE/N010957/1, NE/G005540/1)
  • European Commission (HORIZON2020, 895107)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-11-LABX-0032)
  • Lundbeckfonden (R302-2018-2155)
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF18SA0035006)
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/L006979/1)
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/G005540/1, NE/K003402/1, NE/N010957/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Livestock and Poultry Management
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Archaeological and Geological Studies
Keywords
chickens, chicken domestication, red junglefowl, Ban Non Wat, rice cultivation, millet cultivation, cereal storage, human-nature interaction, zooarchaeology, osteometry
MeSH terms
Millets, Domestication, Animals, Animals, Domestic, Branchial Region, Chickens, Cultural Characteristics, Thailand

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review