Arabian camel carvings much older than previously thought

[Duncan Head]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/life-size-camel-sculptures-in-saudi-arabia-are-older-than-stonehenge-pyramids-of-giza-180978693/

the so-called Camel Site actually dates to between 7,000 and 8,000 years ago. As Arab News reports, this timeline would likely make the sculptures the world's oldest surviving large-scale, three-dimensional animal reliefs

But it apparently doesn't change dates for the domestication of the camel, because the carvings are thought to depict wild animals.

Abstract of the original scholarly article here, but no free access to the full text.

[Jim Webster]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/life-size-camel-sculptures-in-saudi-arabia-are-older-than-stonehenge-pyramids-of-giza-180978693/

the so-called Camel Site actually dates to between 7,000 and 8,000 years ago. As Arab News reports, this timeline would likely make the sculptures the world's oldest surviving large-scale, three-dimensional animal reliefs

But it apparently doesn't change dates for the domestication of the camel, because the carvings are thought to depict wild animals.

Abstract of the original scholarly article here, but no free access to the full text.

It does beg the question, what is the evidence for the domestication of the camel.

I've skimmed
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264326536_The_Domestication_of_the_Camel_Biological_Archaeological_and_Inscriptional_Evidence_from_Mesopotamia_Egypt_Israel_and_Arabia_and_Literary_Evidence_from_the_Hebrew_Bible/link/53d8e2d10cf2631430c36f9e/download

Initially nervous when it starts talking about Abraham and Genesis, but as far as I can see the evidence for the domestication of the camel is when they start finding smaller camel bones in archaeological investigation, because the camel became smaller when it was domesticated. (I very crudely paraphrase)
Then a lot of the arguments boil down to language and do we actually know what the camel was called to spot it in literature.
I'm not really qualified to discuss linguistic arguments but I'd like to ask somebody why the camel became smaller with domestication when most other species I can think of didn't, indeed it was exactly the opposite

[Erpingham]

I'm not really qualified to discuss linguistic arguments but I'd like to ask somebody why the camel became smaller with domestication when most other species I can think of didn't, indeed it was exactly the opposite

Cattle got smaller - you wouldn't want an aurochs in your field.  So, perhaps, smaller camels are a physical manifestation of breeding for a more controllable animal.

[Jim Webster]

I'm not really qualified to discuss linguistic arguments but I'd like to ask somebody why the camel became smaller with domestication when most other species I can think of didn't, indeed it was exactly the opposite

Cattle got smaller - you wouldn't want an aurochs in your field.  So, perhaps, smaller camels are a physical manifestation of breeding for a more controllable animal.

According to this  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4445560/

Cattle domestication started in the 9th millennium BC in Southwest Asia. Domesticated cattle were then introduced into Europe during the Neolithic transition. However, the scarcity of palaeogenetic data from the first European domesticated cattle still inhibits the accurate reconstruction of their early demography. In this study, mitochondrial DNA from 193 ancient and 597 modern domesticated cattle (Bos taurus) from sites across Europe, Western Anatolia and Iran were analysed to provide insight into the Neolithic dispersal process and the role of the local European aurochs population during cattle domestication.

Results
Using descriptive summary statistics and serial coalescent simulations paired with approximate Bayesian computation we find: (i) decreasing genetic diversity in a southeast to northwest direction, (ii) strong correlation of genetic and geographical distances, iii) an estimated effective size of the Near Eastern female founder population of 81, iv) that the expansion of cattle from the Near East and Anatolia into Europe does not appear to constitute a significant bottleneck, and that v) there is evidence for gene-flow between the Near Eastern/Anatolian and European cattle populations in the early phases of the European Neolithic, but that it is restricted after 5,000 BCE.

This is somewhat different from the wiki entry on Aurochs 

Perhaps I should have said that with domestication you get get more rapid diversion of types. So the Charolais and the Jersey. Same with horses, the Shire and the Shetland

[Duncan Head]

Initially nervous when it starts talking about Abraham and Genesis, but as far as I can see the evidence for the domestication of the camel is when they start finding smaller camel bones in archaeological investigation, because the camel became smaller when it was domesticated. (I very crudely paraphrase)

Sala's 2017 article on the same subject mentions juvenile camel bones as one indicator - "The excavations of the early III millennium BC site of Umm an-Nar in Abu Dhabi recovered some 200 camel bones that, by showing an emphasis on juveniles, suggest an incipient stage of domestication".

[Jim Webster]

Initially nervous when it starts talking about Abraham and Genesis, but as far as I can see the evidence for the domestication of the camel is when they start finding smaller camel bones in archaeological investigation, because the camel became smaller when it was domesticated. (I very crudely paraphrase)

Sala's 2017 article on the same subject mentions juvenile camel bones as one indicator - "The excavations of the early III millennium BC site of Umm an-Nar in Abu Dhabi recovered some 200 camel bones that, by showing an emphasis on juveniles, suggest an incipient stage of domestication".

Juvenile makes more sense as an indicator

[aligern]

When an animal is domesticated the humans concerned breed them systematically to favour desired characteristics.  Camels are awkwaed beasts and were likelyy bred for docility.  This trait is lijely to be influenced by testisterone and the choice of less aggressive animals would involve those that produced less testosterone. That is likely to mean smaller individuals. because size also correlates with the amount of testosterone the individual produces.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

When an animal is domesticated the humans concerned breed them systematically to favour desired characteristics.  Camels are awkwaed beasts and werenlijely bred for docility.  This trait is lijely to be influenced by testisterone and the choice of less aggressive animals would involve those that produced less testosterone. That is likely to mean smaller individuals. because size also correlates with the amount of testosterone the individual oroduces.
Roy

That's where the difficulty comes in for the breeder, in that you also want, in a pack animal, a big animal capable of carrying a decent weight.
The problem with aggressiveness is that it isn't as easy as just getting smaller and less testosterone. Two classic examples are the shetland and the shire. The shetlands can be nasty little sods because nobody cared too much, but the shires are far quieter animals, because a big shire that kicked could kill. So the Shire, without being any smaller, is quieter.
With cattle, Jersey bulls are notoriously nasty little sods. Whereas Herefords, who are a fair bit bigger and heavier than them, are remarkably placid.