The biocultural origins and dispersal of domestic chickens

In the paper

“Additionally, chicken bones are prone to taphonomic loss through scavenger activity (11) and stratigraphic displacement (12).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be 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.
• Partly supported

  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)

  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 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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
• ?Not matched

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

  cites [39] J. Cobley, Sydney Cove 1788 (Hodder and Stoughton, 1962).
• Supported

  Citation (40) supports the New Zealand part of the sentence. The Conclusion states that Captain Cook introduced chickens to New Zealand in 1773; the paper’s Abstract also links the earliest known chicken remains there to Cook’s 1773–1774 voyage. The Hawaii and Australia dates are attached to other citations. (LLM, conf=0.93)

  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

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  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). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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
• ?Could not verify

  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)

  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 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not matched

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

  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.

In the paper

“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.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

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

  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 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

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

  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).Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Supported

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

  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

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Discussion links intensified medieval chicken and egg production to Christian fasting practices and says those practices became widely adopted across Europe around 1000 AD. It also notes increased chicken consumption coinciding with Christianization in parts of Scandinavia and northern Germany. The Ireland clause cites the citing paper’s own supplementary table, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  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

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results identify the Rebala bone, dated to 200 calBCE–5 calCE, as the earliest known chicken in the eastern Baltics. The Results and Discussion describe a possible but speculative connection to grave-field activity, consistent with the claim’s “may have been associated” wording; they do not establish a direct link to a burial. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites [77] F. Ehrlich, In search of Estonia’s earliest chickens. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 25, 160– 181 (2021). source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be 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).
• Partly supported

  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)

  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). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“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”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

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

  cites [89] P. Bellwood, First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies (Blackwell, 2005).
• Partly supported

  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)

  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 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [91] Z. Chi, H.-C. Hung, The emergence of agriculture in southern China. Antiquity 84, 11– 25 (2010). source
• ?Not matched

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

  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).
• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [93] X. Yang, New radiocarbon evidence on early rice consumption and farming in South China. Holocene 27, 1045– 1051 (2017). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  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). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [98] C. C. Castillo, Social responses to climate change in Iron Age north-east Thailand: New archaeobotanical evidence. Antiquity 92, 1274– 1291 (2018). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The phylogeny and admixture section concludes that domestic chickens were initially derived from G. g. spadiceus rather than independently domesticated from other red jungle fowl subspecies. The Discussion says those chickens were subsequently translocated across Southeast and South Asia and interbred with local jungle fowl, accounting for ancestry from other subspecies. The supplied passages have section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites [16] M.-S. Wang, 863 genomes reveal the origin and domestication of chicken. Cell Res. 30, 693– 701 (2020). 32581344 PMC7395088 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be 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).
• ?Not matched

  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).
• ?Not matched

  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).

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be 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.
• ?Not matched

  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.

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites [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 matched

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

  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).

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

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

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] D. Q. Fuller, Agricultural origins and frontiers in South Asia: A working synthesis. J. World Prehist. 20, 1– 86 (2006). source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [61] I. Plug, Overview of iron age fauna from the Limpopo valley. Goodwin Series 8, 117– 126 (2000). source

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

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

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

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

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

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

  cites [56] J. Boessneck, Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten [in German] (C. H. Beck, Munich, 1988).
• Not checked yetcites [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).

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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).
• ?Not matched

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

  cites [35] S. N. Bogoljubskij, Происхождение и преобразование домашних животных (Proischoždenie i preobrazovanie domašnich životnych) [in Russian]. (Sovetskaja Nauka, Moscow, 1959).
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] B. West, B.-X. Zhou, Did chickens go north? New evidence for domestication. J. Archaeol. Sci. 15, 515– 533 (1988). source

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [80] E. Asouti, D. Q. Fuller, Trees and Woodlands of South India: Archaeological Perspectives (Left Coast Press, 2008).

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be 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).
• ?Not matched

  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.
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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)”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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

In the paper

“whereas later, more intensive rice agriculture would have provided grain surpluses to support larger populations of domestic birds.”

In the paper

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

In the paper

“and that they then rapidly spread south into Island Southeast Asia and west across South Asia and Mesopotamia to Europe and Africa.”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [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

In the paper

“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 paper

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

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites [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).

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“although rice and millet cultivation may have facilitated chicken husbandry in subtropical regions”

In the paper

“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.”