The “region” in question is central and eastern Anatolia. As I mentioned, I think the garden was somewhere near the source of the Tigris and Euphrates and they went east from there.
Here is the range of the dromedary camel. Here is the range of the Bactrian Camel. So it doesn’t seem to me that they were native to the area where I place the garden. Maybe you didn’t catch that I think it was near where they meet and not further south in Mesopotamia?
Same thing with the donkey really. Our domestic donkeys are all from the African Wild Donkey, obviously not native to the area of the Garden. Even the Asiatic version, which has never been domesticated, barely had a range on the SW edge of that area. And I really don’t care about the flying things. There mobility would make them poor candidates for early domestication even if they mattered. They are only minor players. Discovering a connection with them would only be the cherry on top.
For example, since you are a fan of wikipedia, the entry for Pidgeon says it was domesticated “as far back as 10,000” years ago from “Mesopotamia”. That is somewhat south of my proposed site for the garden but the species from which they sprang is native to the region and so I will take a ‘wait and see’ on them. It is close enough to where further research could put them on the list of domestic animals which got their start there as well.
The headline of my source says 12,000 years ago. My source says, “Cats were first domesticated in the Near East, and some of the study authors speculate that the process began up to 12,000 years ago.” These are not exact numbers. There are error bars on them like in all of science. “Up to 12,000” means that is the maximum. What they found physical evidence for was 8,000 or so. Therefore when I say 11,00 years I am within the time they have found physical evidence and the maximum distance back in time the experts feel it may have occurred. Does that justify your attempts to impugn even my motives Roy?
My thesis can live without including horses. Plenty of farming and animal husbandry societies got on without them just fine. Until someone got the idea to ride them, they were of less and harder to manage and contain that the big four, as well as being less desirable except as a pack animal. Therefore, as an aside I speculate that if they were domesticated > 10K ago like the rest, they were not widely adopted until much later. So then I predict that we will find earlier evidence for the domestication of the horse on the SOUTH side of the Caucuses. They just didn’t break out until people found a good use for them.
Regarding the dogs, I think what the study is saying is that modern and ancient dogs have more “eastern” dog in them than ANE dogs have. IOW, Eastern dogs contributed to modern dogs. Even if ANE dogs are the majority of genes in European dogs today, they still have significant contribution from eastern dogs. The ancient original European domestic dog is what was essentially replaced. At first there may have been mixing with the Ancient Near East dogs and European dogs, but after that third wave of dogs came, heavily Eastern dogs coming in with the Steppe Pastoralists, the ancient European dog was replaced. So modern dogs in Europe are now a mix of two original dog populations, ANE and Eastern. Consistent with what I was saying.
But the thing that really gets me is what you see in the diagram from the original Smithsonian Study. I keep saying this is within a 1,000 year period and you keep insisting that is wrong…
I am going to display the image for the third time. It doesn’t matter if at some point one of the researchers cited a study somewhere citing “some evidence” that sheep domestication may have been earlier. The map represents the conclusion they have drawn after studying all of the evidence.
Look, I could go on here but I have a very full life and it doesn’t seem like we can even look at the same simple diagram and agree with what it says. We can’t even read the same one page article on cats and you accept a simple statement I made which really does fit quite reasonably with the article’s overall claims. I can go talk to someone who is able and willing to hear what I am saying. Without ascribing blame, that isn’t you. It may not be John either but if I have time I’ll give it one more go with him. I only posted this video here because our host invited me to, but it’s become a time suck with no profit to either of us. Without animosity, I will not be responding to any further comments you might make on this thread.