作者：斯坦利J.奥尔森 欧阳志山

摘要：Zooarehaeological analyses undertaken at a time when most faunal identifications were made by zoologists or palaeontologists with little or no training in cultural interpretation have often resulted in erroneous conclusions. Conversely, faunal analysts with inadequate background in vertebrate phylogeny and diachronic morphological variation have produced what must often be considered ludicrous zoological interpretations.
    A case in point illustrating such problems of interpretation concerns attempts to trace the ancestry of the domestic pig, Sus scrofa, in China.
Abundant suid remains, interpreted as having been derived from domestic stock, are reported frown Yang-shao Neolithic sites such as the one at Ban-po Cun, nearXian (Li and Han 1963, Ho 1975). Non-osteological criteria such as the age distribution of the suid population recovered have been utilized to establish the domestic status of these 6000 year-old individuals. We believe topographic considerations, such as a relative lack of open country suitable for grazing stock (i.e. sheep, goats, cattle) contributed to the development of the pig as an early domesticate during the  Yang-shao Neolithic. Late Neolithic settlement shifts from the ravine-dissected loess uplands to the broad alluvial plains to the east may account in part for the appearance of grazing domesticates in these later faunal assemblages. 
    Palaeontological investigation of said ancestry is a fruitful field of research in China.  Pioneering work by such scholars as Pearson (1928), Colbert and Hooijer (1953)，and Epstein (1971) have all contributed to an understanding of the ancestry of the domestic pig in China.  Investigation of said ancestry has included the study of several subspecies of Sus scrofa, including S. s. vittatus, S. s. cristatus, S.s.chirodontus, S. s. moupiensis, and S. s. ussuricus.
Results reported by Colbert and Hooijer (1953:104-105) and Pearson (1928:62) on the said remains from the Yenchingkuo fauna in Si-chuan and from the fossiliferous localities at Zhou-kou-dian indicate a close morphological relationship among these fossil subspecies and the forms present in China today.
We contend that the lachrymal bone (Figure 2) is not a vilid taxonomic key in distinguishing various suids, both domestic and wild (Bökönyi, 1974, Zeuner 1963). The proportional differences once asserted to’be of value in separating the vittatus and
 scrofa groups may be found within a single species and may be the result of a variety of influences including diet, environment, age and sex of the individual.
    Finally, we refer to recent reports of pig domestication in insular Southeast Asia (Golson and Hughes 1976:89) based on secondary evidence such as depressions in the ground that have been interpreted as pig wallows. We mention this report as an illustration of what we perceive as an unfortunate trend toward the definition of domestication based upon non-osteological evidence. It is our view that in the absence of clear morphological change within a domestic population, neither artefactual nor osteological remains alone are sufficient grounds upon which to establish the domestic status of a given species in a particular cultural and temporal milieu.
    In conclusion, we feel that both palaeontological and archaeological evidence points to China as an early center of the domestication of the pig, Sus scrofa. It is hoped that continued diligent archaeological investigation, such as that being conducted at Homu-tu in Zhejiang will provide answers to many of the questions regarding the ancestry of the domestic pig in China.

卷期：18卷 02期

相关附件下载：中国猪类的驯养——对有关资料的评价