Animal Domestication - Achievement or disaster?

Student Number: 700015612

It can be said that domestication is a process instead of a singular event. It stars multiple
cross-species relationships at different points in time around the world. Scholars still debate
as to what point along the timeline these animals went from wild to domestic. People
commonly understand domestication as ‘the long-term control of animals for human profit’,
the key factor there being the control and intentions of the human half of the relationship.
There is a dominant sense of animals solely as property when domestication is being
discussed, but it can be argued that animals have domesticated humans, as they affect
inter-human relationships, showing they are much more than property (Sykes, 2014). A more
in depth definition of domestication could be ‘a long-term, multigenerational, and mutually
advantageous relationship whereby humans take on a significant amount of responsibility for
the reproduction and care of a plant or animal in order to ensure a more dependable supply of
a resource of interest, and by which the plant or animal is able to outperform individuals who
are not a part of
this relationship in
terms of
reproductive
success, improving
the fitness of both
humans and the
target
domesticate.’ (Sykes, 2014). There are three main proposed pathways
to this relationship, the first of which is called ‘the commensal pathway’. This is initiated by
animals who seek new opportunities in a human-dominated environment. The animals started
the journey of their own accord, when the risk-reward of interacting with humans seemed
worthwhile. The second pathway is called ‘the prey pathway’, which is when generalised
hunting strategies turned into game management strategies and then into selective harvest of
managed animals and deliberate breeding of target animals. The third pathway is called ‘the
directed domestication pathway’, and is a more sudden change, involving purposeful
selective breeding to increase supply (Zeder, 2012).
The history of animal domestication has been a complex one that is still much debated today
(figure 1). The shift from nomadic, hunter-gatherer lifestyles, to a more agricultural based
lifestyle is known as the Neolithic Revolution. This marks the point when humans started to
domesticate animals and plants,
and settling down in one place for
longer. This was also when
humans started to selectively
breed their animals, to select the
preferred behavioural traits and
body plans. This could also be
referred to as ‘The Secondary
Products Revolution’, proposed by
Andrew Sherrat, where people realised that
it was more sustainable to exploit their
animals for renewable products like milk and wool rather than killing them solely for their
meat and skin. Domesticated animals show paedomorphic behavioural, physiological, and
morphological traits that are caused by selection of less aggressive behaviour and an under
appreciation for the environment. Favourable characteristics include less wariness, more
playfulness, increased speciality, and more sociable (Figure 2)(Zeder, 2006). Recognising
domestication in archaeology is primarily done through morphological changes, such as
reduced body, tooth, and cranial size,
living in regions where their ancestors
didn’t, and changes in their kill off rates,
suggesting slaughter strategies rather than
just opportunistic hunting (Shipman,
2010).

To understand the arguments for and

against whether domestication is a good
thing, we must first look at some animal
case studies. The relationships between
humans and chickens has been a unique
one, that is characterised by intense
exploitation, and huge morphological
change to meet rising demands. Humanity has changed the earth more than any other species
in history, and this has led to a new geological epoch that we call ‘The Anthropocene’. This
epoch is characterised by rising consumption trends generating changes in the earth’s
biosphere, causing wild animal populations to drop, and populations of humans and
domesticated animals to rise rapidly (Figure 3). Since the start of the Chicken-of-Tomorrow
Programme in the early 1950s, domestic chickens have experienced astonishing alterations
that have led to up to a fivefold increase in individual biomass. The biology of broiler
chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus), who are currently being raised for meat at an
unprecedented pace, has been significantly impacted by this. Consumption of chicken meat is
increasing more quickly than that of any other form of meat and may soon surpass that of pig
as a result of increased demand in developing nations (Bennet et al., 2018). Since the middle
of the 20th century, human-directed changes to breeding, diet, and farming practices have led
to at least a doubling in the size of domesticated chickens' bodies. The genetic make-up,
skeletal morphology, diseases, bone geochemistry, and genetics of contemporary broilers are
also distinct from those of their ancestors. The Anthropocene Epoch, which saw enormous
increases in bird population numbers and growth rates, has seen the greatest morphological
and numerical alterations to chickens (Bennet
et al., 2018). Selective breeding techniques
have significantly altered the broiler
morphotype, resulting in a wide-body shape, a
low centre of gravity, and several
osteopathologies. Leg and breast muscle tissue
expands quickly, limiting the ability of other
organs like the heart and lungs to function
properly, which causes impaired locomotion
and frequent lameness (Bennet et al., 2018).
One of the most important fauna in human
history has been the horse (Equus caballus).
The relationship between us and them has been based on
interconnectedness and an equal participation in activities. This relationship needs to be
nurtured, with an open mind and receptiveness from both horse and man in order to be in
tune. Riding well demands forgetting yourself as an individual, and seeing the animal as an
extension of yourself, a type of symbiosis formed on trust (Armstrong Oma, 2010). This
shows that domestication cannot simply be referred to as rampant exploitation, and there are
more complex relationships at play. For example, the Botai culture in Kazakhstan shows us
the contemporaneous existence of riding, milking, and domestication of horses through
parallel-sided bit wear on horse premolars, meaning bridles or harnesses were frequently used
(Sykes, 2014)(Figure 4).
One cannot talk about the history of domestication without mentioning dogs (Canis lupus
familiaris). The domestication of dogs is one that is very complicated and still debated among
archaeologists. Although it is generally accepted that dogs descended from grey wolves as the
first domesticated species, problems regarding the number and location of domestication
centres remain unsolved. There is evidence that indicates dogs were domesticated for the first
time approximately 15,000 years ago, however some scholars have suggested domestication
occurred as far ago as 40,000 years ago. The geography of dog domestication is still argued
about, with some speculating that it
took place in East Asia, Europe,
Central Asia, or the Middle East
(Guagnin, Perri and Petraglia, 2018).
There is also still some debate over
how much early domestic dogs were
under human control. This is because
these activities leave almost no
evidence in the archaeological record.
Although the representation of
domestic dogs in prehistoric rock art
offers a glimpse into dog-assisted
hunting activity, it is still unclear to
what degree documented hunting
methods are applicable to prehistoric
contexts (Guagnin, Perri and Petraglia, 2018).
I do not have the space to talk about every major domesticated species, but I feel as if the
three I have talked about are a very good representation of the larger group. The chicken
example represents the rampant exploitation that many consumed animals face. Horses are a
good indicator of the deep history of symbiosis through riding and traction. Dogs having been
the longest domesticated species gives us a good idea of the history of the subject, and some
of the more mutually beneficial examples.
The achievements of domestication are very important to understand, as much of the
literature and conversation is based around the negatives, without ever giving the positives a
thought. For example, even if the quality of life of domesticated animals is worse than that of
their wild counterparts, there are benefits for both humans and animals. Domesticates have
given humans resources that we can more predictably control, move, and redistribute, which
has led to a virtual population explosion of agro-pastoralists and their spread to every corner
of the world even though a diet based on domesticates may not have the same nutritional
value as one based on wild resources (Zeder, 2012).
Another important aspect of domestication is the psychological side of it. Research shows a
wide range of positive effects on people of companion animal ownership and interaction,
including reductions in stress and improved physical health, social attention and behaviour,
interpersonal interactions, mood, and self-reported fear and anxiety. These two themes are
actually two aspects of the same topic. Outside of the setting of companion animals,
human-animal-interactions/human-animal-relationships/human-animal-bonds may also have
beneficial benefits on human wellbeing (Hosey and Melfi, 2014). It has also been shown that
animals can benefit mentally from a bond with people. For example, cats have been seen to
have reduced anxiety after being pet by a person they trust.
Another positive is the shared host of pathogens between people and domestic animals.
According to a study, the length of time since domestication of animals is directly
proportional to the rise in the number of illnesses and parasites that humans and domesticated
animals share. According to the findings, central hosts, who were domesticated a very long
time ago, shared a large number of parasites and diseases with both humans and all other
domesticated hosts (Moran, McIntyre and Baylis, 2014). This means that domestication has
led to a greater immunity to diseases in both humans and animals that could have been deadly
otherwise.

There are negatives that must be discussed around domestication. For example, there are
many physical changes that occur in domesticated animals, the most obvious being a decrease
in overall body size, alongside mutated dental features. The demographic changes are also
notable, with a larger number of young skeletons in human-made graves showing a shift
towards herding (Sykes, 2014). The research also suggests that the switch to dairying in the
Neolithic Revolution may have contributed to the decline in human life expectancy as
drinking milk increased mortality from infectious disorders like diarrhoea. Weaned children
who were lactase non-persistent would have become more vulnerable to mortality from
infectious diseases. It is well known that Neolithic children were weaned earlier than their
Mesolithic counterparts, possibly within 2 years (Sykes, 2014).
One of the most dramatic changes from domestication is the common reduction of brain size
in all higher-order vertebrate domesticates, which also impacts brain form and function. It is a
characteristic of domestication that is present in all animal taxa, including domesticated
invertebrate species as well as domesticated birds, fish, and mammals. A key characteristic of
animal domestication, which is the strong selection pressure for tameness and reduced
reactivity, is the early reaction of brain-size reduction (Zeder, 2012). This is not a uniform
change throughout the brain however, and there is significantly less reduction in the areas of
the brain that control olfactory and auditory functions than those that control visual and motor
functions (in pigs). Another example is sheep, where certain species that have been
domesticated for over 10,000 years have only shown a 24% reduction in overall brain size
(Zeder, 2012).
Dincauze (2000) thinks that humans have domesticated themselves as well as animals,
destroying the natural landscape in the process. He believes that the definition of
domestication applies to us too, with our artificial environments being necessary for our
health and safety. The early stages of domestication have been identified in humans in the
form of physiological changes, herd structures and culling patterns. Human interference with
the environment has meant that natural landscapes are rare, and ‘synanthropic’ organisms
have changed to live in the human-dominated environment.

This essay has provided a deeper insight into the history, advantages and problems brought
up by animal domestication. I feel it would be important to suggest some solutions to the
issues. Further integration of sustainable animal husbandry practices, especially in North
America, and with heavily exploited animals like chickens and fish. Public education on the
impacts of animal domestication, and its history. Government policy will also have a big part
to play in reducing the negative impacts of domestication. Laws on sustainable farming, and
selective breeding must be introduced in order to stop some of the more detrimental changes.
To answer the question posed by the title, I believe it depends on what animal we are
referring to. For example, if we look at dogs, certain species like labradors or dobermans
could be said to have been a success, providing security and companionship to their owners.
Other species like pugs or great danes are plagued by breathing problems, or their bones
being unable to support their bodies. There are some animals, like the aforementioned broiler
chicken, who have faced intense exploitation for food. However, this could be seen in a
positive light if looked at from a world hunger perspective, as it allows us to feed the ever
growing population. I believe it ultimately comes down to the species and from which
position you are observing, as there are numerous arguments for both.

References:
Armstrong Oma, K. (2010). Between Trust and domination: Social Contracts between
Humans and Animals. World Archaeology, 42(2), pp.175–187.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00438241003672724.

Bennett, C.E., Thomas, R., Williams, M., Zalasiewicz, J., Edgeworth, M., Miller, H., Coles,
B., Foster, A., Burton, E.J. and Marume, U. (2018). The Broiler Chicken as a Signal of a
Human Reconfigured Biosphere. Royal Society Open Science, 5(12), p.180325.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180325.

Dincauze, D.F. (2000). Environmental Archaeology. Cambridge University Press,

pp.468–488.

Faure, E. and Kitchener, A.C. (2009). An Archaeological and Historical Review of the
Relationships between Felids and People. Anthrozoös, 22(3), pp.221–238.
doi:https://doi.org/10.2752/175303709x457577.

Guagnin, M., Perri, A.R. and Petraglia, M.D. (2018). Pre-Neolithic Evidence for dog-assisted
Hunting Strategies in Arabia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 49(1), pp.225–236.

Harbers, H., Zanolli, C., Cazenave, M., Theil, J.-C. and Ortiz, K. (2020). Investigating the
Impact of Captivity and Domestication on Limb Bone Cortical morphology: an Experimental
Approach Using a Wild Boar Model. Scientific Reports, 10(1).

Hole, F. and Wyllie, C. (2007). The Oldest Depictions of Canines and a Possible Early Breed
of Dog in Iran. Paléorient, [online] 33(1), pp.175–185. Available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41496803.pdf [Accessed 18 Apr. 2023].

Hosey, G. and Melfi, V. (2014). Human-Animal Bonds Between Zoo Professionals and the
Animals in Their Care. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27(1), pp.117–142.
Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment : Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and
Skill. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Irving-Pease, E.K., Frantz, L.A.F., Sykes, N., Callou, C. and Larson, G. (2018). Rabbits and
the Specious Origins of Domestication. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 33(3), pp.149–152.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.12.009.

Loog, L., Thomas, M.G., Barnett, R., Allen, R., Sykes, N., Paxinos, P.D., Lebrasseur, O.,
Dobney, K., Peters, J., Manica, A., Larson, G. and Eriksson, A. (2017). Inferring Allele
Frequency Trajectories from Ancient DNA Indicates That Selection on a Chicken Gene
Coincided with Changes in Medieval Husbandry Practices. Molecular Biology and Evolution,
[online] 34(8), pp.1981–1990. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx142.

Morand, S., McIntyre, K.M. and Baylis, M. (2014). Domesticated Animals and Human
Infectious Diseases of Zoonotic origins: Domestication Time Matters. Infection, Genetics and
Evolution, 24(1), pp.76–81.

Price, M. and Hongo, H. (2020). The Archaeology of Pig Domestication in Eurasia. Journal
of Archaeological Research, [online] 28(4), pp.557–615.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-019-09142-9.

Real Archaeology (2018). The Domestication of Species and the Effect on Human Life | Real
Archaeology. [online] Vassar.edu. Available at:
https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2018/09/30/the-domestication-of-species-and-the-eff
ect-on-human-life/ [Accessed 18 Apr. 2023].

Shipman, P. (2010). The Animal Connection and Human Evolution. Current Anthropology,
[online] 51(4), pp.519–538. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/653816.

Sykes, N. (2014). Beastly Questions: Animal Answers to Archaeological Issues. London

Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Bloomsbury Academic, pp.23–50, 169–179.
Taylor, W. (2020). Humans domesticated horses – new tech could help archaeologists figure
out where and when. [online] The Conversation. Available at:
https://theconversation.com/humans-domesticated-horses-new-tech-could-help-archaeologist
s-figure-out-where-and-when-131831 [Accessed 20 Apr. 2023].

Teletchea, F. and Fontaine, P. (2014). Levels of Domestication in fish: Implications for the
Sustainable Future of Aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries, [online] 15(2), pp.181–195.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.

Zeder, M.A. (2006). Archaeological Approaches to Documenting Animal Domestication. In:

Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. University of
California Press, pp.171–180.

Zeder, M.A. (2012). The Domestication of Animals. Journal of Anthropological Research,

68(2), pp.161–190. doi:https://doi.org/10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201.