Elukiya Veerasingam 1

Elukiya Veerasingam

Julia Crisler

Writing 2

17 December 2019 6 November 2019

Anthropology, Genetics, and Dog Domestication

Today’s domesticated dogs came from wild wolves, the process of which has been

studied by researchers of many disciplines. For example, religious studies compares how

different religions view domesticated dogs while geography analyzes how different regions of

the world use domesticated animals. The disciplines of both genetics and anthropology try to

understand how dog domestication happened. Anthropology uses the findings of many other

disciplines that analyze human relationships and social practices to understand how

domestication occurred over a large period of time and geographical areas. Genetics focuses on

creating new information to study in detail one sub issue of the topic and to apply it to the larger

argument. Because of these differences in intention, conventions of both disciplines also differ.

Anthropology is a very broad discipline defined as the study of “understanding the many

different aspects of the human experience.”1 In anthropology, most of the author’s evidence

comes from disciplines and studies that are not always directly related to the main argument. For

example, in the chapter “Dogs in Anthropogenic Environments: Society and Family” in Dog

Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition by Ádám Miklósi, when explaining that dog domestication

likely evolved in different ways within different cultures, the author says, “The number of dog

owning households varies considerably across countries; for example, it is estimated to be

1
. “What is Anthropology”, American Anthro,
https://www.americananthro.org/AdvanceYourCareer/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2150 (accessed
October 29, 2019)
 Elukiya Veerasingam 2

around 40% in Australia… but only 14% in Austria.”2 This modern evidence might not seem

appropriate for a book on dog domestication throughout history. However, the author does not

use this information as evidence but rather a logic guiding idea. Because there is little to no

historical information on the distribution of dogs throughout the world, the author uses modern

evidence to guide the reader to the idea that if the distribution of dogs is so strikingly different

today, we can only assume that it was even more different earlier in history when areas of the

world were more disconnected and secluded. Similar to this piece of unconventional evidence,

the author also uses quotes from archeologists, modern population surveys, and information on

modern dog life spans. Because of this great variety in disciplines and evidence involved in

anthropology, we can conclude that it takes a highly interdisciplinary approach to reseach and

writing. The interdisciplinary evidence usedThe variety in evidence spans a great range of

disciplines and time periods, which, because of the lack of historical and anthropological

evidence on the subject, helps guide the reader to logical arguments and conclusions.

Unlike anthropology where authors cite multiple other studies, the authors of the genetics

article “The Genomic Signature of Dog Domestication Reveals Adaptation to a Starch Rich

Diet” mainly communicate the results of their own experimental research and use the results to

argue that there are three key genes that promoted the change to the modern dog’s starch rich

diet. They conclude their argument with, “Our results show that adaptations allowed the early

ancestors of modern dogs to thrive on a diet rich in starch.”3 The article’s focus is on explaining,

in detail, the process and results of their own research to create this conclusion. Because genetics

studies individual genes, their interactions with other genes, and their functions, research in

2
Adam Miklósi Miklosi, “Dogs in Anthropogenic Environments: Society and Family,” in Dog Behaviour,
Evolution, And Cognition (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2007), 51.
3
Erik Exelson et al., “The Genomic Signature of Dog Domestication Reveals Adaptation to a Starch-Rich Diet,”
Letter 495, no.1 (March 2013): 360
 Elukiya Veerasingam 3

genetics has to be concentrated on a single trait or characteristic, in this case a dog’s starch diet.

Genetics does have fairly concentrated arguments,arguments; however these results and

conclusions can be used to further understand the issue on a larger scale.

The structural differences between these disciplines occur because of their the different

goals and types of questions they attempt to answer. Anthropologists’ usually work to take what

knowledge already exists and to formulate solutions to historical questions. They use logic and

observations to back these conclusions rather than hard facts or evidence. In our example of dog

domestication, the anthropology passage uses information about studies such as, “Monrey

argues…suggesting that early humans had intimate bonds with their four-legged companion.”4

Miklósi Miklosi goes on to further describe the study that led him to his conclusion. Genetics on

the other hand, concentrates on creating new information to increase the understanding of a

previously misunderstood or not greatly studied topic. In this case, the authors of the genomics

article attempts to understand the genes that caused the change in diet from carnivorous wolves

to domesticated dogs with starch diets. They use their own experimental data to produce

solutions to this issue instead of using existing evidence and logic as done in most humanities

disciplines.

Because anthropology is a humanities discipline that pulls from several disciplines, it

uses language that can be understood by other disciplines and has manyno directly intended

audiences. Therefore, it uses less technical jargon and subheadings to make the information more

understandable. Also, because Miklósi ‘sMiklosi’s book discusses several different possible

explanations and conclusions based on time period, geographical location, and culture, these

subheadings make it easier for the reader to find the information they are looking for or clarify

4
Miklósi Miklosi, “Dogs in Anthropogenic Environments: Society and Family,”48.
 Elukiya Veerasingam 4

the main idea of the section before reading. These headings include “Interactions between dogs

and people in public” and “Dogs in the family” which help the reader somewhat understand what

the following passage will be about to make the reading clearer.5 Applied broadly to the

discipline of anthropology, we can assume that writings will be understandable by the average

reader. Also included are graphs and tables that further help the audience visualize the

information and how it applies to the argument.

Genetics, on the other hand, focuses on one experiment, it’s conclusions, and future

application, which means its’ audience is certainly different from that of anthropology. Because

of this, authors in genetics and biology articles will use technical jargon in phrases such as, “We

then quantified amylase activity in frozen serum (Fig. 2e) and found a 4.7-fold higher activity in

dog (9.6–18.4 mkat l21 (n 5 12)) relative to wolf (1.4–4.3 mkat l21 (n 5 13)) (P , 0.001,

Wilcoxon).”6 These words and phrases like “quantified amylase” and “mkat” are phrases that the

average reader would not understand. The authors of the article assume that the reader has

previous knowledge on the subject and is using their article to learn more about it. The purpose

of most genetics or biology articles is to create new information and then share that information.

In order for the audience to fully understand the findings of the research, they need to have a

basic understanding of the topic and its appropriate vocabulary.

Of course, the generalizations of each of these disciplines’ writing styles are not always

accurate. Anthropology has several subdisciplines including biological anthropology and

archeology. While archeology often thought of as a different field, it is actually part of the same

discipline as anthropology. However, there are differences in the way archeologists and general

5
Miklosi, Dog Behaviour, Evolution, And Cognition, (51-53)
6
Exelson et al., “The Genomic Signature of Dog Domestication Reveals Adaptation to a Starch-Rich
Diet,” (362).
 Elukiya Veerasingam 5

anthropologists such as Miklósi conduct their research. Archeologist may go to specific areas of

the world to conduct physical searches of ancient material while other anthropologist might

focus more on analyzing already existing evidence. This difference impacts the way articles are

written within certain subgenres. Archeologists, like geneticists might focus on communicating

the results of their searches or others’ research, while, again, anthropologists might synthesize

and analyze work from several disciplines. articles, for example, are not always works citing

other studies but instead a description of an experiment. For example, in the chapter

“Socialization Patterns in Hand Reared Wild and Domesticated Canids” in the book The Dog :

Its Domestication and Behavior, the author, Michael Fox, spends the entirety of the chapter

explaining the method, results, and conclusion of an experiment concerning the domestication of

modern wolves and jackals. He concludes, based on evidence found in his experiment that

“Compared to the domestic dog, the wolf seems to have a lesser capacity to form secondary

social relationships.”7 This structure is very similar to that of a genetics article. However, this

chapter still holds the traits of an anthropology paper, including having less technical jargon and

using comparative and logical thinking to create conclusions rather than using quantitative

results.

By looking at the different goals of each discipline and how they create their arguments

about dog domestication, we can adequately understand the differences between the disciplines

of anthropology and genetics. Anthropology, like most humanities disciplines, pulls from

existing studies of various disciplines to create logical conclusions. This means that it must use

language appropriate for readers of all disciplines. It does not assume that the audience has any

prior knowledge on the subject or knows any specific terminology. Genetics, on the other hand,

7
Michael W. Fox, “Socialization Patterns in Hand Reared Wild and Domesticated Canids”. In
The Dog : Its Domestication and Behavior. (New York: Garland STPM Press),1978.
 Elukiya Veerasingam 6

like other hard sciences, tries to create new knowledge through experimentation and new

findings to contribute to the academic conversations on the subject, in this case dog

domestication. Seeing as the audience needs to understand the results in detail, most articles

having to do with genetics or biology use technical jargon so that they can effectively

communicate results to the audience. The differences in the intention of both these disciplines

become apparent in the strikingly different ways they approach the same topic.
 Elukiya Veerasingam 7

Works Cited

Exelson, Erik et al.,“The Genomic Signature of Dog Domestication Reveals Adaptation to a

Starch-Rich Diet,” Letter 495, no.1 (March 2013): 360

Fox, Michael. “Socialization Patterns in Hand Reared Wild and Domesticated Canids.” In The

Dog : Its Domestication and Behavior, 141-153. New York: Garland STPM Press,1978.

Miklósi Miklosi, Adam. “Dogs in Anthropogenic Environments: Society and Family.” In Dog

Behaviour,

Evolution, And Cognition, 47-65. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2007.

“What is Anthropology,” AmericanAnthro,

https://www.americananthro.org/AdvanceYourCareer/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2150.