Which Animals Has The Longest History Of Domestication?
Domestic animals have played an important role in shaping human being Evolution and History. After millennia of constructing niches based on hunting, gathering, and foraging, a range of communities in diverse parts of the earth embarked on trajectories of food production which in some instances led to the emergence of circuitous societies, urbanism, and empires, sowing the seeds for our current globalization. Thanks to intensive zooarcheology and genomics research, information technology is now common cognition that, apart from domestic dog domestication within hunter–gatherers societies around 23,000 years Before Nowadays (BP) terminus postal service quem (Perri et al., 2021), the domestication of globally of import livestock animals occurred inside sedentary communities engaged in early agriculture in three independent cradles. The oldest of these is located in Southwest Asia where cereals (wheat, barley), legumes (pulse, peas, lentils), and fruits (figs) were domesticated between 12,000 and 10,000 BP, followed by sheep, goat, pigs, and cattle between 10,500 and x,000 BP (Colledge et al., 2013). The second cradle is located in Mainland china where domesticated millets and rice were cultivated in the Yellow and Yangtze River valleys by 10,000 BP. This was followed relatively rapidly by pig domestication in the Xanthous River valley (Jing and Flad, 2002; Cucchi et al., 2016). The terminal major center of ungulate domestication is located in the Andes, where agronomics based on imported maize and locally domesticated potato, beans, and squashes emerged between 9000 and 8000 BP along with South American camelids, llamas and alpacas, later on followed by Barba'due south duck and the guinea squealer around 4000 BP (Pearsall, 2008; Hardigan et al., 2017). North America, besides contributed to global fauna domestication with the turkey by 2000 BP (Speller et al., 2010). In the Old World, a later serial of creature domestications focused on the use of animal labor, with the domestic forms of ass, horse, and camel emerging between 5000 and 2000 BP (Clutton-Brock, 2014). These animals revolutionized human economies and transportation, boosting the power of states, empires and the calibration of warfare. Domestic animals have continued to sally in contempo times, including the rabbit in medieval Western Europe, rodents (including rats and hamsters) in the 19th and 20th centuries, too as the fast-growing field of fish domestication in the 21st century.
Searching for the origin of food production through plant and animal domestication has been a key preoccupation of prehistorians since the mid-20th century (Boyd, 2017), with narratives focusing on themes of technological progress, intentionality and human mastery over their environment (Childe, 1946). These perspectives are firmly anchored in a western anthropocentrism characterized by a strong nature/culture dualism and are still strongly embedded in the archeological literature (Hodder, 1990). However, since the 1980s, anthropologists have emphasized perspectives across western ontologies (Descola, 2005) providing ethnographic examples in which distinctions between wild and domestic, civilisation and nature are minor or fifty-fifty nonexistent (Ingold, 1996). The field of zooarcheology has therefore moved away from earlier narratives emphasizing animal domestication as homo domination over nonhuman animals toward a focus on the ecological, cultural, and coevolutionary relationships that have always existed between humans and nonhumans and their intensification and elaboration in the contexts of early on farming societies (Vigne, 2015).
Zooarcheology has struggled to detect an arroyo that tin take into account the vast range of human being–nonhuman interaction and the biological and social components encompassed by the concept of domestication (Russell, 2002). From the biological side, some scholars have focused on domestication as an evolutionary process, drawing inspiration from the work of Darwin (1868). This perspective focuses on the role of intentional man selection in driving the development of domestic animals (Clutton-Brock, 1994) or on the consequences (both intentional and unintentional) of human niche construction (Zeder, 2016). The biological side can as well focus on the mutualistic/symbiotic relationships between humans and nonhuman animals (Zeuner, 1963; O'Connor, 1997), emphasizing the active role of nonhuman animals in these relationships (Orton, 2010). From a social perspective, scholars emphasize the continuum of relationships betwixt man and nonhuman animals by rejecting a simple wild/domestic dichotomy and focusing instead on the role of human being intentionality in bringing animals into the cultural sphere where they become incorporated into the human social world (Jarman et al., 1976; Hecker, 1982). Recently, Zeder (2012) has used the concept of domestication pathways as a synthesis of biological and social components of domestication. In this comprehensive approach, evolutionary process, mutualism, and homo intentionality are mobilized to suggest three pathways for fauna domestication: the commensal pathway, the predation pathway, and the directed pathway. This model has provided a useful framework to explore the domestication procedure in archeology. More than recently, the powerful conceptual framework of Niche Construction Theory has been mobilized to further bridge the social and biological views on animal domestication and provide new insights into the coevolution of human and nonhuman societies (Zeder, 2016). To merge social with biological views and tackle the full complication of fauna domestication, a systemic socioecological approach of the interaction dynamics between of human and nonhuman societies has also been proposed (Vigne, 2015).
In addition to the theoretical framing of domestication, the when and why of early animal domestication continues to be debated. Dating the outset of animal and institute domestication relies on the recognition of appreciable modifications of the morphologies of seeds and animal bones from archeological sites, testifying to the occurrence of plants and animals already transformed by an ongoing domestication process. But long before this "proper" domestication, nosotros find that by 12,000 BP, in Western asia, evidence that man populations were modifying the mural to facilitate the growth of local wild plants by tilling and tending cultivated fields, several grand years before articulate prove of morphological changes were constitute in the archeological record (Hillman et al., 2000). This form of management predating morphological changes is sometimes referred to every bit "pre-domestic tillage" and emphasizes that genetic changes in target populations must predate their first appearance in the archeological tape (Willcox, 2012). Such management of the mural has been a key component of the economies of the people of the Amazonian floodplain, creating an anthropogenic forest and waterscape to secure institute and brute resource (Clement et al., 2015). For animals, hunters have long been interfering with their environment to facilitate and sustain their access to valuable animal resources (both alimentary and symbolic) by selectively hunting and fishing, managing streams to promote spawning, transplanting animals to populate islands devoid of game, and raising juveniles. In light of these practices, it is clear that close relationships including management and cohabitation between humans and animals began long earlier the advent of "domestic" forms and should be explored in the broader telescopic of the domestication of the surround (Scott, 2017). The efficient cognitive apprehension by hunters societies of their environment (Lévi-Strauss, 1962) suggest that beast domestication was not a cerebral revolution but rather a response past some assemblages of human–creature pairings to socioecological conditions conducive to intensification. The example of dog domestication, which has been dated through ancient genomics to the tardily Pleistocene, proves that this intensification could happen in a wide range of socioeconomic atmospheric condition not limited to sedentary farming.
Since the Neolithic (referred to by some as the start of the Anthropocene), fauna domestication represents a major shift in the influence of humanity over their life on earth and ultimately over humanity's time to come. 1 of the fundamental components of the "sixth extinction" of animal species which we are facing is the tremendous biomass reached past domestic animals (Barnosky, 2008). The impact of domestic animals on current ecosystems and their massive consumption of resources is more obvious when nosotros consider that ii thirds of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass on earth is fabricated of domestic animals; humans representing the other third while wild animals merely represent 3% to 5% of this terrestrial biomass, demonstrating how humans and livestock have dramatically transformed the biosphere since the advent of brute and institute domestication (Smil, 2003). About all extant megafaunal species are currently under threat and if, as seems likely, they get extinct, the largest terrestrial mammal in the coming centuries will be cattle (Smith et al., 2018). Along with the global presence of herding animals, since the 19th century the number of new small animals kept as pets and incorporated into global supply chains represents a huge threat for the biodiversity and homo wellness. These new pets include newly domesticated mammals (east.g., gold hamster, chinchilla) and birds (budgerigar, parakeet) also as species of wild mammals, fishes, reptiles, arthropods, and birds which are directly collected from their natural habitat to feed an exponentially growing global pet market place. These species can be vectors of zoonosis but can also be potentially invasive, threatening autochthonous wildlife in addition to the ecological impairment brought by the trapping and catching of pop (especially tropical) species. The future of fauna domestication is now facing a huge challenge ahead. The human population is projected to attain 10 billion in 2050 according to OECD. The ever-growing desire for animal poly peptide too fostered by globalization and the spread of flush consumer economies volition not be met by the current unsustainable agroeconomic model (Smil, 2001). Fish and insect domestication could be a part of the solution, although the challenges are numerous.
Included in this outcome of Animal Frontiers are viii review and 2 perspective articles showcasing the long-lasting history of beast domestication, the challenging task to document its origin in the archeological record and its latest development to face the challenge of food product. The first review takes us to Brazil, where Gabriela Prestes Carneiro from UFOPA in Brazil and colleagues from UFPA and from the Natural Museum of Paris in France, advise a concept of "Waterscape domestication" to capture the management and husbandry of aquatic animals by woods people and the time depth of these practices in the Amazonian floodplain (Prestes-Carneiro et al., 2021). The next four reviews provide the latest understanding on the origin of v emblematic domestic animals. Dr Benjamin Arbuckle and Theo Kassebaum from the University of North Carolina suggest a rethinking of the origins of cattle direction in Western asia, hypothesizing that intensification in human–cattle relationships may have occurred within many early on farming communities of the Fertile Crescent, long before domestic forms of cattle are evident in the archeological record (Arbuckle and Kassebaum, 2021). Dr Daniel Fuks from the University of Cambridge and Dr Nimrod Marom from the University of Haifa explore the long-term relationship between humans, sheep, and wheat which has its origins in Southwest asia just which, they fence, is reflective of a long process of globalization (Fuks and Marom, 2021). Dr Hitomi Hongo and Hiroki Kikuchi from Tokyo University and Hiroo Nasu of Okayama University describe divergent pathways of early pig management in the Yellowish River and Yangtze valleys in China, linking processes of pig management to local environmental conditions as well as agronomical systems based on millet in the north and rice in the southward (Hongo and Kikuchi, 2021). Dr Hugo Yacobaccio from the University of Buenos Aires provides a review of the archeological bear witness for the still elusive South American camelid domestication process (Yacobaccio, 2021). Finally, Dr Masaki Eda from the Hokkaido University in Japan tracks the genomic and archeological prove of chicken domestication in Southeast Asia (Eda, 2021). The next two reviews provide an insight into the many trajectories and complexity of potential pathways toward animal domestication. Dr Andrew Somerville from Iowa Land University and Dr Nawa Sugiyama from the Academy of California, Riverside provide an example of a discontinuous domestication relationship. Focusing on cottontail rabbits in the Americas, the authors describe clear show for intensive rabbit direction at the aboriginal metropolis of Teotihuacan but propose behavioral barriers inherent to the species likewise equally cultural factors to explain the ultimate failure to produce a long-term domestic leporid population (Sommerville and Sugiyama, 2021). Dr Ardern Hulme-Beaman from Liverpool Academy and colleagues from York University and the Natural History Museum of Paris provide new insights into the poorly understood history of the brown rat, proposing different steps in the domestication trajectory of this rodent, from a commensal species in Neolithic China to a laboratory model animal and a popular new pet (Hulme-Beaman et al., 2021). This special issue finishes with two perspectives on the ongoing procedure of animal domestication to face the challenges of feeding the 21st century human population with animal protein in a sustainable way. Dr Fabrice Teletchea from the University of Lorraine in France provides the latest agreement of the fast-growing process of fish domestication and proposes the application of a directed domestication pathway on local fish species to avoid future failure and foster sustainability (Teletchea, 2021). Finally, Dr Thomas Lecoq and Dr Lola Toomey from the University of Lorraine in French republic propose a plan workflow congenital on the accumulated cognition of beast domestication to develop the hereafter of insect domestication (Lecoq and Toomey, 2021). Together, the papers in this volume provide a picture of the past, present, and future of animal domestication and emphasize the immense impact of this phenomenon on both human history and global ecology.
About the Authors
Thomas Cucchi received its PhD from the Natural History Museum of Paris in 2005. He is a zooarcheologist whose research focuses on the origins, spread, and evolution of anthropogenic species over the last 15,000 years. Using an integrated approach associating zooarcheological studies with the latest evolution in morphometric and molecular studies, he has published on animal domestication, commensalism, and dispersal in South Western Asia, Cathay, Island Southward East Asia, and Europe. He is currently working on new methodological approaches of early on process of animal domestication in archeology, using functional plasticity in bone morphology and epigenetic markers.
Benjamin Arbuckle received his PhD from the Department of Anthropology at Harvard University in 2006. He is an archeologist whose research focuses on the prehistory of Western asia and the intersection and homo and nonhuman animals in human history. He has published on the early on domestication of livestock in the Neolithic of SW Asia likewise as the ascension of pastoral lifeways in after periods. He is currently working on projects exploring the history of horse hunting and husbandry in ancient Turkey besides every bit on the history of wool.
Disharmonize of interest statement.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Literature Cited
Arbuckle
,
B.
, and T. Kassebaum
2021
.
Direction and domestication of cattle (Bos taurus) in Neolithic SW Asia
.
Anim. Forepart
.
11
(
3
):10-nineteen.
Barnosky
,
A.D
.
2008
.
Megafauna biomass tradeoff as a driver of quaternary and future extinctions
.
PNAS
105
:
11543
–
11548
. doi:x.1073/pnas.0801918105
Childe
,
Chiliad
.
1946
.
What happened in history. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books
.
Clement
,
C.R.
, W.M. Denevan M.J. Heckenberger A.B. Junqueira E.G. Neves Due west.K. Teixeira W.I. Woods
2015
.
The domestication of Amazonia before European conquest
.
Proc. Biol. Sci
.
282
:
20150813
. doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.0813
Clutton-Brock
,
J
.
1994
.
The unnatural world: behavioural aspects of humans and animals in the procedure of domestication
. In:
Animals and human society: changing perspectives
. London: Routledge, p.
23
–
35
.
Clutton-Brock
,
J
.
2014
.
The walking larder: patterns of domestication, pastoralism, and predation
.
Routledge
.
Colledge
,
S.
, J. Conolly 1000. Dobney K. Manning Southward. Shennan.
2013
.
In: Colledge South., Conolly J., Dobney Yard., Manning M., and Shennan S. editors. Origins and spread of domestic animals in western asia and Europe. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Printing
.
Cucchi
,
T.
, 50. Dai M. Balasse C. Zhao J. Gao Y. Hu J. Yuan J.D. Vigne
2016
.
Social complexification and sus scrofa (Hog) husbandry in aboriginal China: a combined geometric morphometric and isotopic arroyo
.
PLoS One
xi
:
e0158523
. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158523
Darwin
,
C.
1868
. The variation of animals and plants nether domestication. London: John Murray, Albermale Street.
Descola
,
P
.
2005
.
Par-delà nature et culture
.
Paris
:
Gallimard
.
Eda
,
M
.
2021
.
Origin of the domestic fowl from modern biological and zooarchaeological approaches
.
Anim. Forepart
.
eleven
(
iii
):52-61.
Fuks
,
D.
, and N. Marom
2021
.
Sheep and wheat domestication in western asia: a meta trajectory of intensification and loss
.
Anim. Front
.
11
(
3
):twenty–29.
Hardigan
,
M.A.
, F.P.Eastward. Laimbeer Fifty. Newton Due east. Crisovan J.P. Hamilton B. Vaillancourt K. Wiegert-Rininger J.C. Wood D.S. Douches E.Thousand. Farré
2017
.
Genome diversity of tuber-bearing Solanum uncovers complex evolutionary history and targets of domestication in the cultivated potato
.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A
.
114
:
E9999
–
E10008
. doi:10.1073/pnas.1714380114
Hecker
,
H.M
.
1982
.
Domestication revisited: its implications for faunal analysis
.
J. Field Archaeol
.
9
:
217
–
236
. doi:x.1179/009346982791504733
Hillman
,
Thou.C.
, A.J. Legge A.M.T. Moore
2000
.
Hamlet on the Euphrates: from foraging to farming at Abu Hureyra
.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
Hodder
,
I
.
1990
.
The domestication of Europe: structure and contingency in neolithic societies
.
Oxford
:
Basil Blackwell
.
Hongo
,
H.
, and H. Kikuchi
2021
.
Beginning of management of pigs in Red china: comparison of domestication processes betwixt northern and southern regions
.
Anim. Front
.
eleven
(
3
):30–42.
Hulme-Beaman
,
A.
, D. Orton T. Cucchi
2021
.
The origins of the domesticate brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) and its pathways to domestication
.
Anim. Forepart
.
11
(
3
):78–86.
Ingold
,
T
.
1996
.
Growing plants and raising animals: an anthropological perspective on domestication.
In: Harris, D. R., editor
The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia. University College London, Routledge
, p.
12
–
24
.
Jarman
,
M.R.
, G. Clark C. Grigson H.-P. Uerpmann Thousand.L. Ryder
1976
.
Early animal husbandry [and discussion]
.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci
.
275
:
85
–
97
. doi:x.1098/rstb.1976.0072
Lecoq
,
T.
, and L. Toomey
2021
.
A workflow to design new directed domestication programs to movement forwards electric current and time to come insect production
.
Anim. Front
.
11
(
3
):69–77.
Lévi-Strauss
,
C
.
1962
.
La pensée sauvage
.
Paris
:
Plon
.
O'Connor
,
T
.
1997
.
Working at relationships: another look at beast domestication
.
Artifact
71
:
149
–
156
. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00084635
Orton
,
D
.
2010
.
Both subject and object: herding, inalienability and sentient holding in prehistory
.
World Archaeol
.
42
:
188
–
200
. doi:10.1080/00438241003672773
Pearsall
,
D.One thousand
.
2008
.
Constitute domestication and the shift to agriculture in the Andes
. In:
The handbook of Southward American archaeology
.
New York: Springer
; p.
105
–
120
.
Perri
,
A.R.
, T.R. Feuerborn Fifty.A. Frantz M. Larson R.S. Malhi D.J. Meltzer K.E. Witt
2021
.
Dog domestication and the dual dispersal of people and dogs into the Americas
.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A
.
118
. doi:10.1073/pnas.2010083118
Prestes-Carneiro
,
G.
, R. Sá Leitão Barboza M. Sá Leitão Barboza C. de Paula Moraes P. Bearez
2021
.
Waterscapes domestication: an alternative approach for interactions amongst humans, animals, and aquatic environments in Amazonia across time
.
Anim. Forepart
.
11
(
three
):92–103.
Scott
,
J.C
.
2017
.
Against the grain: a deep history of the primeval states
.
New Heaven and London
:
Yale University Press
.
Smil
,
V
.
2001
.
Feeding the earth: a claiming for the 20-starting time century
.
Cambridge (MA): MIT Printing
.
Smil
,
V
.
2003
.
The Earth's biosphere: evolution, dynamics, and change
.
Cambridge (MA): MIT Press
.
Smith
,
F.A.
, R.East. Elliott Smith S.K. Lyons J.L. Payne
2018
.
Body size downgrading of mammals over the late Quaternary
.
Science
360
:
310
–
313
. doi:10.1126/science.aao5987
Sommerville
,
A.
, and North. Sugiyama
2021
.
Why were new globe rabbits not domesticated?
Anim. Front
.
11
(
3
):62-68.
Speller
,
C.F.
, B.M. Kemp S.D. Wyatt C. Monroe W.D. Lipe U.1000. Arndt D.Y. Yang
2010
.
Aboriginal mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic acid analysis reveals complexity of indigenous North American turkey domestication
.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. Due south. A
.
107
:
2807
–
2812
. doi:10.1073/pnas.0909724107
Teletchea
,
F
.
2021
.
Fish domestication in aquaculture: ten unanswered questions?
Anim. Front
.
xi
(
3
):87–91.
Vigne
,
J.-D
.
2015
.
Early on domestication and farming: what should we know or do for a better agreement?
Anthropozoologica
fifty
:
123
–
150
. doi:x.5252/az2015n2a5
Willcox
,
G
.
2012
.
Pre-domestic tillage during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene in the northern Levant
. In: Gets, P., Famula, T. R., Bettinger, R. L., Castor, Due south. B., Damania, A. B., McGuire, P. E., and Qualdset, C. O., editors.
Biodiversity in agriculture: domestication, development, and sustainability
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.
92
–
109
.
Yacobaccio
,
H.D
.
2021
.
The domestication of Southward American Camelids: a review
.
Anim. Front end
.
11
(
iii
):43–51.
Zeder
,
Chiliad.A
.
2012
.
Pathways to animal domestication
. In: Gets, P., Famula, T. R., Bettinger, R. L., Brush, S. B., Damania, A. B., McGuire, P. E., and Qualdset, C. O., editors.
Biodiversity in agriculture: domestication, evolution and sustainability
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Printing, p.
227
–
259
.
Zeder
,
M.A
.
2016
.
Domestication as a model organization for niche structure theory
.
Evol. Ecol
.
30
:
325
–
348
. doi:x.1007/s10682-015-9801-8
Zeuner
,
F.East
.
1963
.
A history of domesticated animals
.
London: Harper & Row
.
© Cucchi, Arbuckle
This is an Open Admission article distributed nether the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/iv.0/), which permits non-commercial re-utilise, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original piece of work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, delight contact journals.permissions@oup.com
Source: https://academic.oup.com/af/article/11/3/6/6306445
Posted by: leveringtheigave.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Which Animals Has The Longest History Of Domestication?"
Post a Comment