ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY PAPER ON DOMESTICATION OF ANIMALS

Introduction

Domestication of Animals is a particularly interesting topic to me because these animals are some of the most important companions to man. Besides that, they have also the crucial sources of food in man’s diet i.e. they provide man with sources of protein. It would therefore be important to understand how man managed to forge such a relationship with these creatures. It is also particularly interesting to see that some domestic animals have their close companions in the wild life category. For instance, cats and panthers belong to the same family and so do dogs and wolves.

These similarities create a lot of interest in the history of these animals owing to the fact that one would wonder why certain closely associated animals were domesticated while others were not. Also, it would be interesting to find out how the knowledge of domestication spread to other parts of the world or whether it was a journey of discovery for every ancient community. Consequently, the latter paper will shed some light into these puzzles by giving detailed accounts of the who, when, how and where of animal domestication.

With regard to the topic, I would expect to find that domestication of animals was done in different geographical regions and at different times. Additionally, I would also expect to find that this process was something unique to man in that different societies had to do it in their own way. I also expect to find that the domestication of animals was a process synonymous to the Neolithic era. Consequently, the focus of the paper will be on this period in history.

After the research, it was found that domestication did in fact occur at different times for different animals and in different geographical areas. Consequently, in order to understand the domestication process, one ought to place the study in geographical and historical contexts.

Research findings
Encyclopedia Britannica (1990): Domestication, 19th Edition, London, McMillan
The Encyclopedia Britannica (1990) describes domestication as the process of reorganizing wild animals and plants into cultivated and domestic forms in alignment with human being’s interests. Strictly speaking, domestication refers to some of the earliest stages of mastering wild animals and plants. The major difference between wild animals and domestic ones is that the latter were created so as to meet man’s peculiar needs. Furthermore, domestic animals are dependent on the continuous care that man created for them by adapting to this process. Domestication of animals is definitely one of the highlights of man’s development especially in relation to the issue of material culture. Agriculture was also redefined after animals’ domestication because it is now seen as a combination of the combination of both plant and animal production.

In the latter book, it is asserted that the first attempt at animal domestication occurred during the Mesolithic era. As early as 9000 BC, some hunters and gatherers had attempted to domesticate sheep, goats, dogs and possibly some pigs. However, it was only until the Neolithic era in which these animals were domesticated. At that time, agriculture was treated as form of social activity and domestication of animals became part of that process. The animals that were domesticated during this year included pigs, dogs, sheep, cattle and cats. Other domestic animals such as rabbits appeared in subsequent periods of history i.e. during the Middle Ages. Some animals such as bees were domesticated at the end of the Neolithic era. The latter animal was domesticated for the purpose of providing honey. Honey became an instrumental part of man’s nutrition for years to come. In fact, it was only two hundred years ago when this commodity ceased being the only sweetener.

Fuller, D. (2006): Agricultural Origins in South Asia; World Prehistory Journal, 20, 42
The latter book brings in some insights about the relationship between domestic animals and their wild ancestors. According to the author, the similarities between the latter categories of animals are usually done through comparisons of function and structure. Additionally, knowledge borrowed from cyto-genetical realms that compare genes and gene sets are also particularly insightful in understanding the process of domestication . Usually, the biochemical and morphological studies done are the most important in understanding these relationships.

The latter book is insightful in understanding the changes animals have undergone since the first attempt at domestication is so profound that it is often depicted through the differences between various breeds of animals. It is also imperative to note that the most fundamental change associated with domestication of animals is with regard to their reproduction. Wild animals tend to reproduce through strict seasonal means or molting rhythms. On the other hand, domestic animals tend to produce at almost any time of the year and there is very little molting that occurs amongst them. The general appearance and structure of domestic animals is fundamentally different from that of its wild ancestors.

During the commencement of domestication, elementary recessive genes are normally drawn out from the animal under consideration and these genes usually form the necessary framework for creating changes that serve breeding functions in domestic animals. Nature has a way of storing some of these recessive genes in wild animals; the genes are normally made active through the process of mutation among the groups under consideration. The latter is usually utilized by the efforts of man who exploits breeding patterns in such a manner that the characteristics being emphasized will be able to cater for man’s needs.

In other words, this is what is known as artificial selection. Artificial selection is fundamentally different from natural selection owing to the fact that in natural selection, a stabilized biological system is created in which a certain species can survive in the wild. On the other hand, artificial selection seeks to break down these stable biological systems though creation of a gene combination that will make the animal under consideration be unable to survive in the wild.

Savona-Ventura, C. & Mifsud, A. (1997): The Maltese Neolithic Domesticated mammals, London, Athlone Press
In their book, Savona –Ventura and Mifsud (1997) dwell on the process of domestication from the Maltese perspective. The latter location was chosen because it is an important archeological site and it is home to one of the richest sources of pre-historic art. This area was particularly interesting because of the fact that these drawings reflected early domestic animals such as pigs, goats, oxen and sheep. There were also a number of skeletal remains that justify these studies and some of the animal uncovered there included the horse, cat and dog. Certain peculiar animals that have also been domesticated by man include the rabbit, tortoise and even the hedgehog.

A number of depictions found within these Islands indicate that the Neolithic cattle were not brought into Maltese Islands. Instead, Neolithic man simply found them there and chose to domesticate them. The latter assertions can be supported by some ox skeletal remains that were found within pliocestocene deposits in specific sites. Pre-historic cave art also indicates that the Neolithic society at that time was a hunter – gatherer society.

The latter studies were also instrumental in highlighting the history domestication of sheep within these Islands. An art relief on one of the slabs within these sites indicates images of rams that have curved and spiral horns. This also implies the latter drawings could have been ancestors of the modern sheep. This is because the average measurement of a ram’s or ewe’s horns approximate the skeletal remains within those locations. When it comes to the goat, it has been found that the Maltese goat has striking resemblance to the Egyptian one and this is why the latter authors asserted that Egypt may have been the major origin. According to them, its bulky horns and lappets on its throat validate their claims. In other words, domestication of this animal occurred through introduction from another geographical location i.e. Egypt.

In certain Neolithic temples within the Borg In Nadur and Mnajdra regions of Malta, one can see that there is in fact a striking resemblance between the present day pig and the pig reliefs from the latter temples. This resemblance is more closely associated with the former category than the wild boar. On the other hand, the Maltese hog is probably a descendent of the wild boar as depicted by some skeletal remains. Lastly, the skeletal remains of dogs have been found in number of caves such as Xemxihja. It was asserted that these remains indicated a lean beast with a prominent vertebral column. This indicates that there maybe a similarity between the dog and the terrier. Cat skeletal remains have also been found in the latter mentioned cave. The specimens found are generally much smaller than those of modern cats but this indicates that they may have been domesticated by Neolithic man at that time.

Hber, A. & Dayan, T. (2004): Analyzing the process of domestication – Hagoshrim as a case study, Journal of Archeological science, 31, 1600
The latter journal largely focuses on the process of domestication through the use of an Israel based Neolithic site known as Hagoshrim. In this study, greater emphasis is given to cattle, pigs and caprines since the skeletal fragments in that area mostly represent these mammals. Through the utilization of the latter site, it is possible to understand the process of domestication across time and space. This is because there were three layers of skeletal remains that were found in the latter area.

Three parameters were used to study this process and they included;
• Changes in body proportions
• Size reductions
• Kill off patterns
The latter authors found that the pig remains found were reflective of the changes that had occurred during the seventh millennium. In other words, the skeletal pieces from the first layer were fundamentally different from remains in the second and third layer. This indicates that the process of domestication of pigs was associated with this time in history (7th millennium).

On the other hand, cattle remains indicated a totally different domestication process. In this regard, the post cranial sizes and proportions were found to be gradual between the three layers of skeletal remains. Consequently, it can be said that domestication of cattle took place between a series of times and the latter mammal was one of the latest events that occurred during that time. Lastly, the caprines indicated no significant skeletal changes across these three layers of historical sites thus showing that it might have been the earliest mammal to have been domesticated among all the other mammals.

All, in all, it can be said that through the latter book, one can be able to understand the life history of some of the most common domestic animals through the process of domestication. In the latter description, it can be said that certain mammals adapted to their respective environments relatively earlier than others. In others words this was the order which these mammals followed; first it was the caprine, then the pig and lastly the cow.

Kuijt, I. (2000): Life in Neolithic farming communities – identity, social organization and differentiation; Springer Publishers
The latter book is particularly important in providing a context to the domestication of animals. While this book may handle the topic of domestication only as a subtopic or a chapter, its overall theme of Neolithic man was important in placing domestication in context. The author starts by defining the actual time frame for the Neolithic era which in this case began as far back as 9500 BC within the Middle East. The latter period was also highly associated with human technology development.

At the beginning of this period, greater emphasis was given to farming and at the end of it, man began utilizing metal tools that were crucial in the copper or bronze ages. Through this book, one can be able to understand that the Neolithic period was not a pre-set chronological period; instead, one should treat it as a collection of cultural and behavioral traits in which domestication of both animals and crops was an important aspect. Climatic conditions forced man to look for other ways of surviving hence the need to plant crops and thus develop agriculture. Domestication of animals was a natural part of this process. However, most of the changes within the Neolithic era did not occur simultaneously. Instead, different cultural elements were adopted by different categories of people.

When one analyzes Neolithic occurrences in various parts of the world, it can be found that domestication of animals in certain parts of the world took place much earlier then it did in others. For instance, the earliest attempts at farming and hence domestication of animals occurred in the Near East. It is also questionable whether settled communities existed in other areas such as Britain. By 9000 BC other communities began adopting sedentary lifestyles such as the Asian Minor and eventually North Africa and Mesopotamia. However, it is particularly interesting to note that domestication attempts were done independently in certain regions of the world such as South Asia, South East Asia and Africa. Consequently, the use of the domesticated animals was a trait that was distinctive to certain regions in the world and it also formed an important part of these cultures.

All in all, the latter book was important in placing domestication of man in a historical context. Through the book, one can understand some of the factors that pushed man towards domesticating animals and living a sedentary lifestyle altogether.

Bellwood, P. (2004): First Farmers – the origins of agricultural societies; Blackwell Publishers
In the latter book, the author discusses some of the reasons behind domestication of animals and the process itself. One such reason was the fading away of the hunting and gathering lifestyle and the adoption of a sedentary way of life. In the process of carrying this out, man felt that it was important to bring those animals that he used to hunt closer to him. Some of the factors that determined these choices included lifespan, mating patterns, diet, temperament and the animal’s size.

Man was prompted to choose certain animals over others owing to the fact that some offered him more advantages. For instance, cattle and goats offered human beings milk and this would therefore serve as a renewable source of protein. Besides this, some animals were chosen because of their ability to carry out both manual labor and still be a source of food. Other animals could offer man wool, hides and even fertilizer. There are millions of animals that man had the option of domesticating, but he opted to settle on fourteen because these proved to be the most beneficial to him.

Through the latter book, one can understand some of the propellants of early domestication. Additionally, it is possible to understand why man chose to domesticate certain animals while at the same time ignoring others. This book is important in placing the topic in context.

Hayden, B. (1992): Models of Domestication, Madison, Prehistory Press
In the latter book, the author explains how man chose to move from a hunter gatherer lifestyle to a more sedentary on. Additionally, geographical explanations of where animal domestication occurred are also highlighted in the text.

The Middle Eastern region was one of the areas that started this phenomenon. The latter region began with the domestication of the camel. Climatic conditions began getting harsher in this region; consequently, there was a need to look for favorable areas to settle. The people of the Middle Eastern region then decided to move with their domesticated animals into different parts of Afro Eurasia. Consequently, the phenomenon of domestication of animals spread very fast into the rest of the world. Climatic conditions also had an important role to play in determining the distribution of these animals. This was because the crops and plants that man domesticated were better suited to certain environmental conditions.

In the book, it is asserted that animal domestication spread quickly to North Africa and Eurasia because there were similarities in climatic conditions. However, the same cannot be said of some parts of the world such as Southern Africa that would not have supported these animals or plants. Taking the example of the African Zebu – the latter animal falls in the category of cattle but it is unique from all other breeds since it is better suited to the relatively hot areas of Central Africa. Additionally, the Bovines are also separate breeds that are more suited to the Fertile Crescent. Other animals such as the Ilama could not be exported to other sections of the world because the Isthmus of Panama prevented their movement. Therefore, besides climatic conditions, the spread of domestication of certain animals was also hampered by geographical factors.

Rindos, D. (2003): The Origins of Agriculture – A revolutionary perspective; Academic Press
The latter book addresses some of the causes and effects of early agricultural forms during the Neolithic era. According to explanations made by this author, domestication of animals and plants was necessitated by religious purposes, crowding, stress and discovery. With regard to the first reason, the latter author explains that some excavations done at Catalhoyuk depict the fact that the Neolithic revolution by some of these early settlers preceded the process of agriculture development. In these explanations, it is asserted that there was revolutionary transition within man’s psychology. In other words, man’s beliefs about his world were changing and the symbols that were to be utilized to carry out these perceptions were seen in his community rituals. Examples of the symbols included
• Aurohcs horns
• Corpulent figurines
Consequently, this anthropologist believes that man opted to domesticate animals so as to fulfill this revolutionary period.

The latter author also attempts to create a scenario in which one can understand this domestication process through other explanations such as discovery and stress. He explains that domestication was brought on by a discovery which had been carried out by food gatherers. The latter groups needed to move from camp to camp and they realized that they needed support through their animals. Also, the latter category of individuals was highly responsible for the language and culture existent in the world as it is known today. Consequently, it can be said that they were the ones that spearheaded these changes.

Bahn, P (2004): The atlas of world archeology: Brown Reference Group Publishers
The latter book is particularly important in understanding some of the consequences of the domestication of animals. First of all, it should be noted that the domestication of animals reduced the need for living a hunting and gathering lifestyle. Consequently, a sedentary lifestyle led to greater increases in the population. When man was still a hunter or a gatherer, such a lifestyle influenced the number of children that one could have because the constant movement inhibited carrying more than one child. After the domestication of animals, man had a steady source of food and had no need to look for it in the wild. This led to greater birth rates and also to greater numbers of social groups in various communities.

With the birth of more children and the continual increases in populations, populations began expanding beyond what had been anticipated. This eventually led to certain forms of social organization such as governments. There were greater food surpluses, therefore society began forming a social elite that was not directly involved in production processes such as agriculture that dominated these communities in other perspectives.

It should also be noted that through the domestication of animals, it was now possible for man to carry out a number of economical and social events. For instance, through this economic empowerment, people could have more children and eventually social classes began emerging. The Neolithic revolution characterized by domestication of animals eventually led to a class based society. In fact earlier societies had class divisions founded on which individual possessed the greatest amount of wealth. In those times, wealth was judged by the number of animals that one possessed or by the amount of land that one owned. On the other hand, it can also be said that animal domestication created most of the foundations of society as we know them today. For instance, since man now had food security in that he knew where it was and when he could eat it, then more settlement began developing and villages began replacing the lifestyles that had been synonymous with pre-Neolithic lifestyles. In fact the following diagram illustrates how these changes occurred

Bands
↓
Tribes
↓
chiefdoms
↓
states
↓
empires

When human beings were still hunters and gatherers, they had no other time but to hunt or gather. However, when there was a steady source of food and people had settled down, then it was possible to specialize in labor. This was the reason why Neolithic settlements possessed pots, baskets, leather etc. Domestication of animals caused greater settlement that led to an egalitarian society.

McNamara, J. (2005): Cats, Dogs, Climate and the Neolithic Period; Oxford Publishers
According to the latter author, Dogs were some of the earliest animals to be domesticated; about one hundred thousand years ago. This notion is consistent with the fact that Native Americans had dogs but did not posses any other domestic animals that they may have brought with them from the Asian continent. This matter can be further understood by making a comparison with other kinds of Neolithic settlements in that same location. Within the Americas, other communities were agriculturally based. However, Native Americans in pre Columbian times were hunter gatherers but they only possessed dogs. Historical facts indicate that dogs may have originated from China. Dogs were instrumental to Neolithic man because they protected his crops and man from invaders.

Cats on the other hand were domesticated after several years. This could have been as a result of the vermin (rats, etc) that arose out of surpluses in food production. Cats therefore feared man the opportunity to get rid of these vermin. Archeological evidence points to Egypt as the source of these cats. The latter organisms came so much later than other domestic animals to influence the course of the Neolithic revolution.

Conclusion
Domestication of animals is a complex process that has been the subject of various studies. In certain scenarios, some authors have treated it a dichotomous process while in other texts, it has been referred to as a continuous one. Irrespective of the stance that an author chooses to take, the domestication of animals was not a one step procedure and in fact took place through certain stages. However, there are still a number of generalizations that can be made about domestication. For instance, domestication of almost all animals first began with loose ties between man and beast. This meant that the animals under consideration began breaking off from associations with wild ancestors. With time, these man-to-beast connections became so tight that they led to heightened levels of interdependence and eventually total dependence of the domestic animal on man.

Through the literature review, it has also been shown that in order for domestication to occur, then it must be accompanied by structural adaptations required to exist within the domestic environment. In other words, wild animals remained as they were because they did not undergo any form of interference from man; this can either be direct or indirect. On the other hand, domestic animals depend entirely on man for their nutrition, survival and reproduction. Without isolating an animal from the rest of its population, then en may not be able to fully domesticate it.

It is also essential to understand that the current domestic animals seen today are the end result of a series of domestication changes that have been happening across time. This is seen by the transitional skeletal remains found by a number of archeologists or anthropologists. Also, some of these transitional cases may not necessarily become fully domesticated as some of them may still be able to live in the wild. Examples here include reindeer, camels or elephants. This brings in a very important fact; that domestication should not just be treated as a reproductive phase in which animal are completely isolated from their wild ancestors; instead some flexibility should be maintained with regard to the possibility of semi-domestication.

Most of the work conducted on domestication of animals also shows that the major differences between types or stages of domestication have been brought on by the different degrees of control that man may have placed on the reproduction, survival and nutrition of these animals. In order to breed while in captivity, an animal must have pre-adapted to that environment. The mode of change or the rate upon which an animal can be domesticated will depend on these factors. Consequently, the different stages of domestication for different animal were brought on by varying physiological, behavioral, ecological characteristics and most importantly, that animal’s usefulness to man.

Domestication is therefore a process that can best be identified through a combination of factors that include the relative scarcity or availability of a certain species, the changes associated with demographic parameters such as age distribution, shape, body size and appearance of different pathologies. All these criteria are instrumental in showing exactly what stage of domestication one is considering and the relative timing that was required to reach that process. Also, the literature has shown that certain animals were domesticated first hand while others were dispersed or introduced into a certain geographical location.

Given all the latter studies about domestication of domestic animal by Neolithic man, a series of questions still remain unanswered and these could provide possible sources of future research. For instance, there is very little information that shows how different domestic animals were related to one another in different regions. Most research usually focuses on the timings or stages but not on the differences in geographies. Besides this, there is a need for a comprehensive analysis of some of these differences.


The author of this article is a holder of Masters in Business Administration (MBA) from Harvard University and currently pursing PhD Program. He is also a professional academic writer. ResearchPapers247.Com>