Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
This paper examines not the process but the concept of non-
human animal domestication. Domestication involves both bio-
logical and cultural components. Creating a category of domestic
animals means constructing and crossing the boundaries between
human and animal, culture and nature. The concept of domesti-
cation thus structures the thinking both of researchers in the pre-
sent and of domesticators and herders in the past. Some have
argued for abandoning the notion of domestication in favor of a
continuum of human-nonhuman animal relationships. Although
many human-animal relationships cannot be neatly pigeonholed
as wild or domestic, this paper contends that the concept of
domestication retains its utility.There is a critical distinction between
animals as a resource and animals as property. Domestication
itself had profound consequences for the societies and world-
view of the domesticators and their descendents. In addition to
the material effects of animal wealth, domestic animals provide
both a rich source of metaphor and a model of domination that
can be extended to humans.
De nitions
It has proven remarkably difcult to formulate a satisfactory denition of
animal domestication. This results both from the wide range of human-non-
human animal relationships that do not t neatly into dichotomous wild/
domestic categories and from the hybrid nature of animal domestication
that involves both biological and social components (Clutton-Brock, 1992,
p. 79; Crabtree, 1993, p. 205; Meadow, 1989, p. 81). Although most scholars
recognize these dual aspects, they usually have stressed either the biological
or the social side in their denitions, often according to their disciplinary
background and goals. This duality maps onto the hoary nature/culture
dichotomy. As a zooarchaeologist seeking to understand the process of domes-
tication from the ancient animal bones and other material remains, I consider
it critical to consider both components. Animal domestication serves as a par-
ticularly good example of the value of approaching this in terms of nature
and culture—rather than nature or culture or nature versus culture.
Biological Denitions
Control of Breeding
Symbiosis
The focus on control of breeding arises from the desire to explain how an
animal population can be isolated from the wild genetic pool. The champi-
ons of this classic denition are interested in the biological effects of domes-
tication in the animals, but they seek the cause in the cultural sphere of
deliberate human behavior. They thus implicitly invoke a nature/culture
dichotomy, with humans outside of nature. An alternative approach denies
Those who give more weight to the social aspect of domestication empha-
size changes in human-animal and human-human relationships. These changes
are conceptualized not in terms of symbiosis but of bringing animals into the
human sphere.
Property
O’Connor (1997) prefers to treat domestication as symbiosis partly because
the relationships between humans and animals conventionally regarded as
domestic are so variable in terms of control (cattle, cats, elephants, honey-
bees). Ducos (1978, 1989) recognizes these difculties and nds classic denitions
such as Bökönyi’s (1969) inadequate.
It is not obvious, however, that there does exist a single common criterion
for all the man/animal relationships we call domestication. In fact it is pos-
sible that our intuition of what is domestication corresponds to modern sit-
uations, not to ancient ones. (Ducos, 1978, p. 53)
Ducos (1978) acknowledges that domestication has both biological and social
aspects and proposes labeling animals who are integrated into the human
sphere “domesticated” and those exhibiting morphological signs of domes-
tication “domestic.” Ingold (1980, p. 82) makes essentially the same distinc-
From both the biological and the social perspective, then, some dene domes-
tication so broadly as to render the concept of limited utility. Others have
advocated the abandonment of the concept of domestication, which they feel
obscures, rather than enlightens, in that it creates a false dichotomy. For them,
human-animal relations form a continuum along which there are only dif-
ferences of degree. In fact, we are indebted to the palaeoeconomy school for
introducing the concept of human-animal relations (or “man-animal rela-
tions,” as they put it), as an alternative to the wild/domestic dichotomy
(Higgs & Jarman, 1972; Jarman, 1972, 1977; Jarman & Wilkinson, 1972). Jarman
and his fellow palaeoeconomists felt that domestication by the standard
denition was a biological concept based on morphological change that did
not address the kinds of human-animal relationships involved in hunting or
herding. They preferred to study “animal husbandry”: the control of animals’
lives that is present to varying degrees along the continuum of human-
animal relations.
Thus, many who have rejected the concept of domestication are objecting less
to the concept than to the methods used to recognize it archaeologically in
the early years of zooarchaeology, which relied mainly on morphological
change. In contrast to the symbiotic view, they stress human agency, but their
concern is with its effect on the structure of animal populations and the orga-
Summary
In reviewing these various approaches to animal domestication, it is not my
intention to judge which ones are valid and which are not. They focus on
different aspects of a complex phenomenon and are suited to different pur-
poses, depending, in part, on whether one is more interested in the changes
in the humans or the changes in the animals. As an archaeologist, I am pri-
marily concerned with the human social context of domestication, but the
biological changes provide crucial information about herding practices.
The point at which animals become property is critical in terms of both human-
human and human-animal relations and is the point at which we should
begin to see alterations in human and animal behavior. Morphological change,
to the extent that it is genetic, can occur only when domestic populations are
isolated from wild ancestors. Unless this is a result of transport of the domes-
tic animals outside their wild range (demonstrating at least control of move-
ment) or of the extirpation of local wild populations, it indicates closer human
control of the animals. Articial selection, usually marked by the appearance
of breeds, is a further intensication of this process. Modeling the domesti-
catory process as symbiosis reminds us that it is not simply a matter of human
control but of interaction among species. The human side of this mutual adap-
tation, at least in most instances, has a larger component of intentionality
than is normally implied by symbiosis. A good case can be made that dogs
and cats initially “domesticated themselves” by entering into a commensal
Jarman (1972) and his colleagues have done us a great service by introduc-
ing the idea of a continuum of human-animal relationships. I do not agree,
however, that domestication in the social sense is simply a point of no par-
ticular signicance along this continuum. The transformation of animals from
shared resource to property is a major and critical transition that is not ade-
quately modeled as sliding along a continuum. There is a real difference
between managing wild animals through conservation measures and appro-
priating domestic animals as property. The distinction lies not so much in
the practices of animal control as in the human social relations. This is a quan-
tum shift in human-animal relations that we cannot ignore, a difference not
only of degree but also of kind. However, it is unlikely to correspond with
the appearance of morphological change in animals, so we must rely on other
lines of evidence to detect it. This is not the place for a discussion of the
methods of studying animal domestication. I will observe only that as well
as reconstructing the demographics of the animals killed, it would be useful
to examine how the meat is distributed among households and to consider
the contexts of consumption (feasting vs. daily household meals), as these
are likely to alter with changing property relations.
Implications of Domestication
We have seen that the way domestication is dened is related to the deners’
view of the relationship between nature and culture and the place of humans
with respect to nature. Casting the issue in terms of a dichotomy between
the wild and the domestic leads to many problems. However, it is the wild,
not domestication, that is problematic. When the wild is implicitly dened
as everything that is not domestic, we are left with a grab bag of different
human-animal relationships that includes pets, totems, game, animals cap-
tured and kept for some length of time before ritual sacrice, animals trans-
ported to islands and released to live and breed on their own, and animal
populations managed in various ways.
This is not to say that the Wild has everywhere the same meaning. In par-
ticular, we should avoid equating wild/domestic with nature/culture. Although
this may hold in contemporary western society, it is certainly not universally
the case (Strathern, 1980). A large body of recent scholarship has revealed the
socially constructed and historically contingent character of nature (Barry,
1999; Cartmill, 1993; Oelschlaeger, 1991; Thomas, 1983). Similarly, the Wild
in general and wild animals in particular hold rather different connotations
among and within cultures and according to context. The metaphor of the
Wild and its potential domestication is one that can be manipulated to many
ends in social negotiations.
Most often, domestic animals are regarded as inferior to their wild counter-
parts, perhaps lacking the souls possessed by wild animals (Ingold, 1987).
The relations of animal domestication are inherently unequal, and this has
provided both a metaphor and a model for domination. This metaphor has
been applied to subordinate humans at least from Sumerian times (Algaze,
2001, p. 212). Tani (1996) even argues that the practice of creating human
eunuchs may have been inspired by the gelding of bell-wethers. Such mod-
els have clearly owed the other way as well, with human domination of
other humans shaping modes of animal exploitation (Tapper, 1988).
On the other hand, Ingold (1987, p. 254) argues that animal domestication is
modeled on relations of inequality within the human household, although it
seems to me that domestic animals occupy a position more like that of chil-
dren than of wife, as he suggests. If indeed domestic animals initially enter
the household as “children,” the permanence of that position alters the rela-
tionship. This new model can then be projected onto humans, as in metaphors
of leaders (or gods) paternalistically caring for their “ocks” (Brotherston,
1989).
Conclusion
In this brief paper, I have painted with a very broad brush in an effort to con-
vey a sense of the power of the concept of animal domestication in both past
and present. A full understanding of how this has played out must derive
from careful studies of particular societies. I simply suggest that the idea of
domestication, and particularly animal domestication, provides an important
tool in power negotiations among humans as well as between humans and
animals.
Although I have not discussed it here, I do not intend to minimize the mate-
rial effects of animal domestication on human societies. Clearly, the appro-
priation of animals as property creates not only a new source of wealth and
base for power but also one with particular properties that have crucial social
implications (Ingold, 1980; Schneider, 1979; Russell, 1998). From the schol-
arly perspective, I believe that one of the difculties of studying animal domes-
tication, its simultaneously biological and social character, also is one of its
virtues. Domestication is a concept that can bridge disciplines as well as medi-
ating or even negating the nature/culture dichotomy.
References
Alvard, M. S., and Kuznar, L. A. (2001). Deferred harvests: The transition from hunt-
ing to animal husbandry. American Anthropologist, 103, 295-311.
Cartmill, M. (1993). A view to a death in the morning: Hunting and nature through his-
tory, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Crabtree, P. J. (1993). Early animal domestication in the Middle East and Europe. In
M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Archaeological method and theory: Vol. 5 (pp. 201-245). Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Digard, J.-P. (1990). L’Homme et les animaux domestiques: Anthropologie d’une passion
[Man and domestic animals: The anthropology of a passion]. Paris: Fayard.
Helmer, D. (1992). La domestication des animaux par les hommes préhistoriques [Prehistoric
animal domestication]. Paris: Masson.
Hesse, B. C. (1984). These are our goats: The origins of herding in west central Iran.
In J. Clutton-Brock, & C. Grigson (Eds.), Animals and archaeology: 3. Early herders
and their ocks (pp. 243-264). (British Archaeological Reports, International Series,
No. 202) Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Higgs, E. S., & Jarman, M. R . (1972). The origins of animal and plant husbandry. In
E. S. Higgs (Ed.), Papers in economic prehistory: Studies by members and associates of
the British Academy major research project in the early history of agriculture (pp. 3-13).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. (1990). The domestication of Europe: Structure and contingency in neolithic soci-
eties. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ingold, T. (1987). The appropriation of nature: Essays on human ecology and social relations,
Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Jarman, M. R. (1972). European deer economies and the advent of the Neolithic. In
E. S. Higgs (Ed.), Papers in economic prehistory: Studies by members and associates of
the British Academy major research project in the early history of agriculture (pp. 125-
147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meadow, R. H. (1984). Animal domestication in the Middle East: A view from the
eastern margin. In J. Clutton-Brock & C. Grigson (Eds.), Animals and archaeology: 3.
Early herders and their ocks (pp. 309-337). (British Archaeological Reports, International
Series, No. 202). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Meadow, R. H. (1993). Animal domestication in the Middle East: A revised view from
the eastern margin. In G. L. Possehl (Ed.), Harappan civilization (pp. 295-320). New
Delhi: Oxford & IBH.
Rosenberg, M., Nesbitt, R. M., Redding, R. W., & Peasnall, B. L. (1998). Hallan Çemi,
pig husbandry, and post-Pleistocene adaptations along the Taurus-Zagros arc
(Turkey). Paléorient, 24, 25-41.
Rosman, A., & Rubel, P. G. (1989). Stalking the wild pig: Hunting and horticulture in
Papua New Guinea. In S. Kent (Ed.), Farmers as hunters: The implications of seden-
tism (pp. 27-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, H. K. (1979). Livestock and equality in East Africa: The economic basis for social
structure. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Tambiah, S. J. (1969). Animals are good to think and good to prohibit. Ethnology, 8,
423-459.
Thomas, K. (1983). Man and the natural world: A history of the modern sensibility. New
York: Pantheon.
Wilson, P. J. (1988). The domestication of the human species. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Zeuner, F. E. (1963). A history of domesticated animals. New York: Harper & Row.