Domestication: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Plant Sciences | History
Contributor:
Charles Clement
,
Alejandro Casas
Domestication, also called taming, is a phenomenon whereby a wild biological organism is habituated to survive in the company of, or by the labor of, human beings. Domesticated animals, plants, and other organisms are those whose collective behaviour, life cycle, or physiology has been altered as a result of their breeding and living conditions under careful human control for multiple generations. Humans have brought these populations under their care for a wide range of reasons: for help with various types of work, to produce food or valuable commodities (such as wool, cotton, or silk), and to enjoy as pets or ornamental plants. Plants domesticated primarily for aesthetic enjoyment in and around the home are usually called house plants or ornamentals, while those domesticated for large-scale food production are generally called crops. Likewise, animals domesticated for home companionship are usually called pets while those domesticated for food are called livestock or farm animals. In a related way the notion of domestication is used in domestication theory that describes the process of the 'taming' or appropriation of technology by its users.
  • landscape domestication
  • Mesoamerica
  • plant domestication
  • plant management

1. History of Domestication

The earliest known domestic animal seems to probably have been the dog, likely as early as 15000 BC among hunter-gatherers in several locations. There is early evidence of beekeeping, in the form of rock paintings, dating to 13,000 BC. The next three - the goat, sheep and pig - were domesticated around 10-8000 BC, independently in the Levant and Asia. Recent archaeological evidence from Cyprus indicates domestication of a type of cat by perhaps 7500 BC. The earliest secure evidence of horse domestication, bit wear on horse molars at Dereivka in Ukraine, dates ca 4000BC. The unequivocal date of domestication and use as a means of transport is at the Sintashta chariot burials in the southern Urals, ca 2000 BC. Local equivalents and smaller species were domesticated from the 2500s BC.

The processes of domestication and the distribution of domesticated species were both radically affected by the establishment of regular contact between the Eastern and Western Hemispheres following the voyages of Christopher Columbus. This sudden increase in the transmission of organisms between the Eastern and Western Hemispheres is referred to as the Columbian Exchange.

Approximate dates and locations of first domestication
SpeciesDateLocation
Dog15000 BCE  Multiple locations
Goat10000 BCEAsia and Middle East
Sheep8000 BCEAsia and Middle East
Pig8000 BCEChina
Cow8000 BCEIndia, Middle East, and Sub-sahara[1]
Guinea pig5000 BCE[2]Peru
Donkey4000 BCEEgypt
Water buffalo4000 BCEChina
Honeybee4000 BCESouthern Asia
Chicken3500 BCESoutheast Asia
Cat3500 BCE to 7500 BCEgypt or Cyprus
Llama3500 BCEPeru
Alpaca3500 BCE?Peru?
Silkworm3000 BCEChina
Bactrian camel2500 BCECentral Asia
Dromedary (Arabian camel) 2500 BCEArabia
Horse2000 BCEUkraine[3]
Ferret1500 BCE-500 BCE?Europe?
Turkey100 ADMexico
Rabbit1500 ADEurope
Fox1800sEurope
Mink1800sEurope
Hamster1930sUnited States
Deer1970sNew Zealand

Obviously, these are not dates that are set in stone. In fact, these dates are possibly far from being accurate due to scanty evidence. The earliest estimates, however, are that animals started to be domesticated approximately 10,000 years ago (8000 B.C).

2. Process of Domestication

There is debate within the scientific community over how the process of domestication works. Some researchers give credit to natural selection, wherein mutations outside of human control make some members of a species more compatible to human cultivation or companionship. Others have shown that carefully controlled selective breeding is responsible for many of the collective changes associated with domestication. These categories are not mutually exclusive and it is likely that natural selection and selective breeding have both played some role in the processes of domestication throughout history.

The domestication of wheat provides an example of how natural selection and mutation can play a key role in the process. Wild wheat falls to the ground to reseed itself when it is ripe, but domesticated wheat stays on the stem when it is ripe. There is evidence that this critical change came about as a result of a random mutation near the beginning of wheat's cultivation. Wheat with this mutation was the only wheat harvested and became the seed for the next crop. This wheat was much more useful to farmers and became the basis for the various strains of domesticated wheat that have since been developed.

The example of wheat has led some to speculate that mutations may have been the basis for other early instances of domestication. It is speculated that a mutation made some wolves less wary of humans. This allowed these wolves to start following humans to scavenge for food in their garbage dumps. Presumably something like a symbiotic relationship developed between humans and this population of wolves. The wolves benefited from human food scraps, and humans may have found that the wolves could warn them of approaching enemies, help with hunting, carry loads, provide warmth, or supplement their food supply. As this relationship evolved, humans eventually began to raise the wolves and breed the types of dogs that we have today.

Nonetheless, some researchers maintain that selective breeding rather than mutation or natural selection best explains how the process of domestication typically worked. Some of the most well-known evidence in support of selective breeding comes from an experiment by Russian scientist, Dmitri Belyaev, in the 1950s. His team spent many years breeding the Silver Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and selecting only those individuals that showed the least fear of humans. Eventually, Belyaev's team selected only those that showed the most positive response to humans. He ended up with a population of grey fox whose behavior and appearance was significantly changed. They no longer showed any fear of humans and often wagged their tails and licked their human caretakers to show affection. More importantly, these foxes had floppy ears, smaller skulls, rolled tails and other traits commonly found in dogs.

Despite the success of this experiment, some scientists believe that selective breeding cannot always achieve domestication. They point out that known attempts to domesticate several kinds of wild animals in this way have failed repeatedly. The zebra is one example. It is possible that the historical process of domestication cannot be fully explained by any one principle acting alone. Some combination of natural selection and selective breeding may have played a role in the domestication of the various species that humans have come into close contact with throughout history.

Domestication of animals

According to physiologist Jared Diamond, animal species must meet six criteria in order to be considered for domestication:

  1. Flexible diet — Creatures that are willing to consume a wide variety of food sources and can live off less cumulative food from the food pyramid (such as corn or wheat) are less expensive to keep in captivity. Most carnivores can only be fed meat, which requires the expenditure of many herbivores.
  2. Reasonably fast growth rate — Fast maturity rate compared to the human life span allows breeding intervention and makes the animal useful within an acceptable duration of caretaking. Large animals such as elephants require many years before they reach a useful size.
  3. Ability to be bred in captivity — Creatures that are reluctant to breed when kept in captivity do not produce useful offspring, and instead are limited to capture in their wild state. Creatures such as the panda and cheetah are difficult to breed in captivity.
  4. Pleasant disposition — Large creatures that are aggressive toward humans are dangerous to keep in captivity. The African buffalo has an unpredictable nature and is highly dangerous to humans. Although similar to domesticated pigs in many ways, American peccaries and Africa's warthogs and bushpigs are also dangerous in captivity.
  5. Temperament which makes it unlikely to panic — A creature with a nervous disposition is difficult to keep in captivity as they will attempt to flee whenever they are startled. The gazelle is very flighty and it has a powerful leap that allows it to escape an enclosed pen.
  6. Modifiable social hierarchy — Social creatures that recognize a hierarchy of dominance can be raised to recognize a human as its pack leader. Bighorn sheep cannot be herded because they lack a dominance hierarchy, whilst antelopes and giant forest hogs are territorial when breeding and cannot be maintained in crowded enclosures in captivity.

A herding instinct arguably aids in domesticating animals: tame one and others will follow, regardless of chiefdom.

Domestication of plants

Given agriculture's importance to humans, the domestication of plants is even more important than the domestication of animals. The earliest human attempts at plant domestication occurred in Asia by 10,000 BC and involved the bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) plant, used as a pre-ceramic technology container. The domesticated bottle gourd had reached the Americas from Asia by 8000 BC, probably with peoples migrating into the continent from Asia[1]. Cereal crops were first domesticated around 9000 BC in the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East. The first domesticated crops were generally annuals with large seeds or fruits. These included pulses such as peas and grains such as wheat.

The Middle East was especially suited to these species; the dry-summer climate was conducive to the evolution of large-seeded annual plants, and the variety of elevations led to a great variety of species. As domestication took place humans began to move from a hunter-gatherer society to a settled agricultural society. This change would eventually lead, some 4000 to 5000 years later, to the first city states and eventually the rise of civilization itself.

Domestication was gradual, a process of trial and error that occurred slowly. Over time perennials and small trees began to be domesticated including apples and olives. Some plants were not domesticated until recently such as the macadamia nut and the pecan.

In different parts of the world very different species were domesticated. In the Americas squash, maize, and beans formed the core of the diet. In East Asia rice, and soy were the most important crops. Some areas of the world such as Southern Africa, Australia and California and southern South America never saw local species domesticated.

Over the millennia many domesticated species have become utterly unlike their natural ancestors. Corn cobs are now dozens of times the size of their wild ancestors. A similar change occurred between wild strawberries and domesticated strawberries.

See also: Cultigen

3. Degrees of Domestication

The boundaries between surviving wild populations and domestic clades of elephants, for example, can become vague. This is due to their slow growth. Similar problems of definition arise when, for example, domesticated cats go feral. A classification system that can help solve this confusion might be set up on a spectrum of increasing domestication:

  • Wild: These species experience their full life cycles without deliberate human intervention.
  • Raised at zoos or botanical gardens: These species are nurtured and sometimes bred under human control, but remain as a group essentially indistinguishable in appearance or behavior from their wild counterparts. (It should be noted that zoos and botanical gardens sometimes exhibit domesticated or feral animals and plants such as camels, dingos, mustangs, and some orchids.)
  • Raised commercially: These species are ranched or farmed in large numbers for food, commodities, or the pet trade, but as a group they are not substantially altered in appearance or behavior. Examples include the elephant, ostrich, deer, alligator, cricket, pearl oyster, and ball python. (These species are sometimes referred to as partially domesticated.)
  • Domesticated: These species or varieties are bred and raised under human control for many generations and are substantially altered as a group in appearance or behavior. Examples include the Canary, Pigeons, the Budgerigar, the peach-faced Lovebird, dogs, cats, sheep, cattle, chickens, llamas, guinea pigs and laboratory mice.

This classification system does not account for several complicating factors: genetically modified organisms, feral populations, and hybridization. Many species that are farmed or ranched are now being genetically modified. This creates a unique category because it alters the organisms as a group but in ways unlike traditional domestication. Feral organisms are members of a population that was once raised under human control, but is now living and multiplying outside of human control. Examples include mustangs and probably the Australian dingo. Hybrids can be wild, domesticated, or both: a liger is a hybrid of two wild animals, a mule is a hybrid of two domesticated animals, and a beefalo is a cross between a wild and a domestic animal.

A great difference exists between a tame animal and a domesticated animal. The term "domesticated" refers to an entire species or variety while the term "tame" can refer to just one individual within a species or variety. Humans have tamed many thousands of animals that have never been truly domesticated. These include the elephant, giraffes, and bears. There is debate over whether some species have been domesticated or just tamed. Some state that the elephant has been domesticated, while others argue the cat has never been. One dividing line is whether a specimen born to wild parents would differ in behavior from one born to domesticated parents. For instance a dog is certainly domesticated because even a wolf (genetically the origin of all dogs) raised from a pup would be very different from a dog.

4. Limits of Domestication

Despite long enthusiasm about revolutionary progress in farming, few crops and probably even fewer animals ever became domesticated. While the process continues with plants (berryfruits, for example), it appears to have ceased with animals.

Domesticated species, when bred for tractability, companionship or ornamentation rather than for survival, can often fall prey to disease: several sub-species of apples or cattle, for example, face extinction; and many dogs with very respectable pedigrees appear prone to genetic problems.

One side-effect of domestication has been disease. For example, cattle have given humanity various viral poxes, measles, and tuberculosis; pigs gave influenza; and horses the rhinoviruses. Humans share over sixty diseases with dogs. Many parasites also have their origins in domestic animals.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/quat4010004

References

  1. Rindos, D. The origins of agriculture: an evolutionary perspective; Academic Press: San Diego, 1984; pp. 325.
  2. Piperno, D.R.; Pearsall, D.M. The origins of agriculture in the lowland Neotropics; Academic Press: San Diego, 1998; pp. 400.
  3. Casas, A.; Otero-Arnaiz, A.; Pérez-Negrón, E.; Valiente-Banuet, A. In situ management and domestication of plants in Mesoamerica. Ann. Bot. 2007, 100, 1101-1115, doi:10.1093/aob/mcm126.
  4. Casas, A.; Vázquez, M.d.C.; Viveros, J.L.; Caballero, J. Plant management among the Nahua and the Mixtec in the Balsas River Basin, Mexico: An ethnobotanical approach to the study of plant domestication. Hum. Ecol. 1996, 24, 455-478, doi:10.1007/BF02168862.
  5. Blancas, J.; Casas, A.; Rangel-Landa, S.; Moreno-Calles, A.; Torres, I.; Pérez-Negrón, E.; Solís, L.; Delgado-Lemus, A.; Parra, F.; Arellanes, Y., et al. Plant management in the Tehuacan-Cuicatlan Valley, Mexico. Econ. Bot. 2010, 64, 287-302, doi:10.1007/s12231-010-9133-0.
  6. Harlan, J.R. Crops & man, 2 ed.; American Society of Agronomy & Crop Science Society of America: Madison, WI, 1992.
  7. Levis, C.; Flores, B.M.; Moreira, P.A.; Luize, B.G.; Alves, R.P.; Franco-Moraes, J.; Lins, J.; Konings, E.; Peña-Claros, M.; Bongers, F., et al. How people domesticated Amazonian forests. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 5, 171, doi:10.3389/fevo.2017.00171.
  8. Parra, F.; Blancas, J.; Casas, A. Landscape management and domestication of Stenocereus pruinosus (Cactaceae) in the Tehuacán Valley: human guided selection and gene flow. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2012, 8, 32, doi:10.1186/1746-4269-8-32.
  9. Anderson, E. Plants, man and life; Courier Dover Publications: Mineola, NY, 2005; pp. 251.
  10. Hastorf, C. The cultural life of early domestic plant use. Antiquity 1998, 72, 773-782, doi:10.1017/S0003598X00087366.
  11. Lien, M.E.; Swanson, H.A.; Ween, G.B. Naming the beast--exploring the otherwise. In Domestication gone wild: politicas and practices of multispecies relations, Swanson, H.A., Lien, M.E., Ween, G.B., Eds. Duke University Press: Durham, 2018; pp. 1-30.
  12. Smith, B.D. General patterns of niche construction and the management of 'wild' plant and animal resources by small-scale pre-industrial societies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 2011, 366, 836-848, doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0253.
  13. Clement, C.R.; Cassino, M.F. Landscape domestication and archaeology. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, Smith, C., Ed. Springer: New York, 2018; 10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_817-2pp. 1-8.
  14. Clement, C.R. 1492 and the loss of Amazonian crop genetic resources. I. The relation between domestication and human population decline. Econ. Bot. 1999, 53, 188-202, doi:10.1007/BF02866498.
  15. Ford, A. The Maya forest: a domesticated landscape. In The Maya world, Hutson, S.R., Ardren, T., Eds. Routledge: New York, 2020; pp. 519-539.
  16. Gómez-Pompa, A.; Flores, J.S.; Sosa, V. The “pet kot”: a man-made tropical forest of the Maya. Interciencia 1987, 12, 10-15.
  17. Bogoni, J.A.; Muniz-Tagliari, M.; Peroni, N.; Peres, C.A. Testing the keystone plant resource role of a flagship subtropical tree species (Araucaria angustifolia) in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Ecol. Indicators 2020, 118, 106778, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106778.
  18. Denevan, W.M. Stone vs. metal axes: The ambiguity of shifting cultivation in prehistoric Amazonia. J. Steward Anthro. Soc. 1992, 20, 153-165.
  19. Denevan, W.M. Cultivated landscapes of Native Amazonia and the Andes; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2001; pp. 396.
  20. Scott, J.C. Against the grain: a deep history of the earliest states; Yale University Press: New Haven, 2017; pp. 336.
  21. Denevan, W.M.; Treacy, J.M.; Alcorn, J.B.; Padoch, C.; Denslow, J.; Paitan, S.F. Indigenous agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon: Bora Indian management of swidden fallows. Interciencia 1984, 9, 346-357.
  22. Darwin, C. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for life; John Murray: London, 1859.
  23. Meyer, R.S.; DuVal, A.E.; Jensen, H.R. Patterns and processes in crop domestication: an historical review and quantitative analysis of 203 global food crops. New Phytol. 2012, 196, 29-48, doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04253.x.
  24. Zeder, M.A. Central questions in the domestication of plants and animals. Evol. Anthro. 2006, 15, 105-117, doi:10.1002/evan.20101.
  25. Clement, C.R.; Casas, A.; Parra-Rondinel, F.A.; Levis, C.; Peroni, N.; Hanazaki, N.; Cortés-Zárraga, L.; Rangel-Landa, S.; Alves, R.P.; Ferreira, M.J., et al. Disentangling domestication from food production systems in the Neotropics. Quaternary 2021, 4, doi:10.3390/quat4010004.
  26. Leakey, R.R.; Tchoundjeu, Z.; Smith, R.I.; Munro, R.C.; Fondoun, J.-M.; Kengue, J.; Anegbeh, P.O.; Atangana, A.R.; Waruhiu, A.N.; Asaah, E. Evidence that subsistence farmers have domesticated indigenous fruits (Dacryodes edulis and Irvingia gabonensis) in Cameroon and Nigeria. Agrofor. Syst. 2004, 60, 101-111, doi:10.1023/B:AGFO.0000013259.95628.22.
  27. Fuller, D.Q.; Asouti, E.; Purugganan, M.D. Cultivation as slow evolutionary entanglement: comparative data on rate and sequence of domestication. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 2011, 21, 131-145, doi:10.1007/s00334-011-0329-8.
  28. Willcox, G. The beginnings of cereal cultivation and domestication in Southwest Asia. In A companion to the archaeology of the ancient Near East, Potts, D.T., Ed. Blackwell: Oxford, 2012; Vol. 1, pp. 163-180.
  29. Smith, B.D. Low-level food production. J. Arch. Res. 2001, 9, 1-43, doi:10.1023/A:1009436110049.
  30. Falconer, D.S.; MacKay, T.F. Introduction to quantitative genetics; Longman: Harlow, 1996; pp. 480.
  31. Allaby, R.G.; Fuller, D.Q.; Brown, T.A. The genetic expectations of a protracted model for the origins of domesticated crops. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 13982-13986, doi:10.1073/pnas.0803780105.
  32. Allaby, R.G.; Stevens, C.; Lucas, L.; Maeda, O.; Fuller, D.Q. Geographic mosaics and changing rates of cereal domestication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 2017, 372, 20160429, doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0429.
  33. Allaby, R.G.; Kitchen, J.L.; Fuller, D.Q. Surprisingly low limits of selection in plant domestication. Evolutionary Bioinformatics Online 2015, 11, 41-51, doi:10.4137/EBO.S33495.
  34. Lewontin, R.C. The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 2000; pp. 136.
  35. Cleveland, D.A.; Daniela, S.; Smith, S.E. A biological framework for understanding farmers’ plant breeding. Econ. Bot. 2000, 54, 377-394, doi:10.1007/BF02864788.
  36. Leach, H.M. The terminology of agricultural origins and food production systems—a horticultural perspective. Antiquity 1997, 71, 135-148, doi:10.1017/S0003598X00084623.
  37. Rosenswig, R.M.; VanDerwarker, A.M.; Culleton, B.J.; Kennett, D.J. Is it agriculture yet? Intensified maize-use at 1000 cal BC in the Soconusco and Mesoamerica. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2015, 40, 89-108, doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2015.06.002.
  38. Ames, O. Economic annuals and human cultures; Botanical Museum of Harvard University: Cambridge, 1939; pp. 153.
  39. Callicott, C.M. Interspecies communication in the Western Amazon: Music as a form of conversation between plants and people. European Journal of Ecopsychology 2013, 4, 32-43.
  40. Lima, A.G.M.d. A cultura da batata-doce: cultivo, parentesco e ritual entre os Krahô. Mana 2017, 23, 455-490, doi:10.1590/1678-49442017v23n2p455.
  41. Viveiros de Castro, E. The transformation of objects into subjects in Amerindian ontologies. Common Knowledge 2004, 10, 463-485.
  42. Rival, L. Seed and clone: the symbolic and social significance of bitter manioc. In Beyond the visible and the material: the Amerindianization of society in the work of Peter Rivière, Rival, L.M., Whitehead, N.L., Eds. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2001; pp. 57-80.
  43. Casas, A.; Viveros, J.L.; Caballero, J. Etnobotánica mixteca: sociedad, cultura y recursos naturales en la Montaña de Guerrero; Instituto Nacional Indigenista / Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes: Ciudad de México, 1994.
  44. Iriarte, J.; Elliott, S.; Maezumi, S.Y.; Alves, D.; Gonda, R.; Robinson, M.; Gregorio de Souza, J.; Watling, J.; Handley, J. The origins of Amazonian landscapes: plant cultivation, domestication and the spread of food production in tropical South America. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 2020, 248, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106582.
  45. Oviedo y Valdés, G.F. Historia general y natural de las Indias. [Juan Cromberger, Sevilla (1851–1855). J. A. de los Rios y Serrano (ed.)]; Imprenta de la Real Academia de la Historia: Madrid, 1535.
  46. Patiño, V.M. Historia y dispersión de los frutales nativos del Neotrópico; Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical: Cali, Colombia, 2002; pp. 655.
  47. Walker, J.H. Island, river, and field: landscape archaeology in the Llanos de Mojos; University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, 2018.
  48. Smith, M.E. The Aztecs; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, 2013; pp. 416.
  49. Heckenberger, M.J. Rethinking the Arawakan diaspora: hierarchy, regionality, and the Amazonian formative. In Comparative Arawakan histories: rethinking language family and culture area in Amazonia, Hill, J.D., Santos-Granero, F., Eds. University of Illinois Press: St. Louis, 2002; pp. 99-122.
  50. Reis, M.S.; Montagna, T.; Mattos, A.G.; Filippon, S.; Ladio, A.H.; Marques, A.d.C.; Zechini, A.A.; Peroni, N.; Mantovani, A. Domesticated landscapes in Araucaria Forests, southern Brazil: a multispecies local conservation-by-use system. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 6, 011, doi:10.3389/fevo.2018.00011.
  51. Shepard Jr., G.H.; Clement, C.R.; Lima, H.P.; Mendes dos Santos, G.; Moraes, C.d.P.; Neves, E.G. Ancient and traditional agriculture in South America: tropical lowlands. In Encyclopedia of Agriculture and the Environment, Hazlett, R., Ed. Oxford University Press: New York, 2020; 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.597p 48.
  52. Fausto, C.; Neves, E.G. Was there ever a Neolithic in the Neotropics? Plant familiarisation and biodiversity in the Amazon. Antiquity 2018, 92, 1604-1618, doi:10.15184/aqy.2018.157.
  53. Nair, P.R. Classification of agroforestry systems. Agrofor. Syst. 1985, 3, 97-128, doi:10.1007/BF00122638.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback