Abstract One of main differences in composition of bone assem- blages retrieved at the 3 rd millennium BC sites loca- ted in North Mesopotamia and South-East Anatolia, observed in a number of archaeozoological studies is presence of pig bones. There are some sites (loca- ted mainly in the southern zone of the area) where pig bones are absent, but on other sites (mainly those located towards the North) their bones constitute as much as 50% identiied items. In consequence, two basic animal economy patters could be deined for the area: “Specialized Pattern” characterized by absence of pigs and high reliability on sheep and “Balanced Pattern”, in which pigs are present and proportion of main animal groups is more or less uniform. Typical explanation of this phenomenon is related to environ- mental conditions, assuming that more dry climate of the South precludes pig husbandry, while in more arid areas of the North pig husbandry was much easier. A scrutiny of archaeozoological reports in relation to past environmental conditions around the North Mesopotamian sites demonstrate that climatic factor seems to have no signiicant inluence on the animal husbandry pattern, and sites with abundant presence of pig bones may be found both in the Euphrates and in the Khabur valley as well. Consequently, other expla- nation of the discussed phenomenon has to be looked for. My paper attempts to explain differences of animal economy patterns in terms of food customs. Food customs are presently an easily observable way for demonstrating ethnic background, and there are reasons to assume that it was exactly the same in the past (cf. Hacınebi example). The “Balanced Pattern”, typical for settlements representing local Late Chal- colithic culture of South-East Anatolia, is present on all sites at the beginning of the 3 rd millennium BC, and was gradually replaced in the South by “Specia- lized Pattern”, which during the EB/EJ III period is present at all sites located in the southern part of the Euphrates Valley, in the Middle Khabur Valley and on some sites as Tell Chuera and Tell Beydar. Basing on assumption that animal husbandry patterns represent food preferences based on cultural tradition, this situ- ation may be explained as a relection of coming and settling down of West Semitic tribes in the North Meso- potamia. 1 From "The War-Song of Dinas Vawr" of T. L. Peacock (1785-1866). The paper has been concluded in late 2008 and was only slightly upgraded beyond this date. 1 Introduction Food customs are presently one of the most obvious markers of national or cultural background, despite the efforts of present time grand chefs to establish a “cusine internationale” fusing various traditions into a gourmet parallel of the global village. Terms like “eating Italian”, “eating Japanese” or “eating Arabic” describe very precisely what kind of products, dishes and tastes to expect, and places serving these types of food are very often located in neighbourhoods where communities of the corresponding national or cultural background live. Cultural tradition is relected not only in tastes, in typical dishes, in the choice of prod- ucts (for instance pork meat is banned by some reli- gions) and in special ways of preparing food (kosher cooking in Jewish religion) but may be relected even in the way an animal’s body is divided for consump- tion (cf. North-American vs. British, vs. Parisian cut). Could it be that the same rule holds true in relation to Antiquity and Prehistory? Archeology seems to be pretty bad at reconstructing customs and behaviour when there is no textual evidence. In the case of food customs it can only use proxy data: evidence of animal bones, charred grain remains, pottery types, and evi- dence of nutrition-caused pathologies’ traces preserved in human bones. Consequently, differences in food customs should be relected by differences observable in the groups of material listed above and coming from the same site or from a few closely located sites. Yet, differences could also be forced by other factors, not related to cultural background, such as internal strati- ication of community (in terms of status, wealth or work specialization) or spatial differentiation within a settlement, etc. Interregional variation may be as well caused by different environmental settings. As an illustration that food customs based on cul- tural diversity could be relected in archaeological remains, namely in bone assemblage I will refer to the site of Hacınebi, on the Turkish Euphrates, exca- vated by Gil Stein of the Northwestern University in Chicago. Phases A and B1 yielded remains typical for the local Late Chalcolithic culture, while in phase B2 this culture was encountered mainly in the Southern and the Western part of the site. The Northern sec- tor yielded assemblages of Uruk culture with small number of local, Anatolian artifacts. Because Uruk inds consisted not only of pottery, but of seals and seal impressions on Mesopotamia/Khuzestan clay, tools, clay cones and Mesopotamian materials (bitu- men) as well, Stein assumed that the Northern sector of Hacınebi was occupied by an enclave of Urukeans The Mountain Sheep are Sweeter…. 1 Rafał Koliński