Human/animal

societies: examples
from the Neolithic of
the east Adriatic
Dimitrij Mlekuž,
Department of
archaeolgy, Faculty of
Arts, University of
Ljubljana
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
 Morey pointed out, inbreeding might
have been rampant during the early steps
g domestication. But it certainly cannot
in the novel traits we have observed in
oxes, for two reasons. First, we designed
mating system for our experimental fox
lation to prevent it. Through outbreeding
foxes from commercial fox farms and oth-
andard methods, we have kept the in-
ding coefficients for our fox population be-
n 0.02 and 0.07. That means that whenever
pup with a novel trait has been born into
erd, the probability that it acquired the
hrough inbreeding (that is, by inheriting
of its mutant genes from the same ances-
has varied between only 2 and 7 percent.
nd, some of the new traits are not reces-
They are controlled by dominant or in-
pletely dominant genes. Any fox with one
ose genes would have shown its effects;
could have been no “hidden carriers” in Figure 5. Foxes in Belyaev’s experimental group were selected to breed depending
on how they reacted to their human keepers. Vicious foxes (top left) were excluded
riginal population.
from the experimental population. Foxes showing slight fear and no viciousness
other, subtler possibility is that the novel- toward humans were used in cross-breeding for the next generation (top right).
n our domesticated population are classic Their offspring (photograph, bottom) were calm and showed no negative emotional
oducts of strong selection for a quantita- responses to people.
rait. In genetics, quantitative traits are
acteristics that can vary over a range of gene might upset the genetic balance in some
bilities; unlike Gregor Mendel’s peas, animals, causing them to show unusual new
h were either smooth or wrinkly with no traits, most of them harmful to the fox. Note
le ground, quantitative traits such as an that in this argument, it does not matter
Wednesday,
al’s March 2,
size, the amount of 2011
milk it produces whether the trait being selected for is tameness
 Gene-culture coevolution between a
© 2003 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/naturegenetics
cattle milk protein genes and N

human lactase genes

W E

Albano Beja-Pereira1,2, Gordon Luikart1, Phillip R England1,

Daniel G Bradley3, Oliver C Jann4, Giorgio Bertorelle5,
Andrew T Chamberlain6, Telmo P Nunes7, Stoitcho Metodiev8,
Nuno Ferrand2,9 & Georg Erhardt4

Milk from domestic cows has been a valuable food source

for over 8,000 years, especially in lactose-tolerant human
societies that exploit dairy breeds. We studied geographic
b
patterns of variation in genes encoding the six most important
milk proteins in 70 native European cattle breeds. We found
substantial geographic coincidence between high diversity
in cattle milk genes, locations of the European Neolithic
cattle farming sites (>5,000 years ago) and present-day
lactose tolerance in Europeans. This suggests a gene-culture
coevolution between cattle and humans.

Some, but not all, human populations have the genetically determined
ability to digest milk lactose in adulthood, thereby benefiting from the
rich food resources in cow’s milk1. These societies (e.g., Northern
Europe) are lactose-tolerant and highly dependent on milk products.
Lactose tolerance is an example of selection-based evolutionary
change in humans from milk-drinking cultures2. Has there also been a
detectable evolutionary change in the gene pool of domestic cattle
from these cultures? c

Figure 1 Geographic coincidence between milk gene diversity in cattle,

lactose tolerance in humans and locations of Neolithic cattle farming sites in
NCE. (a) Geographic distribution of the 70 cattle breeds (blue dots) sampled
across Europe and Turkey. (b) Synthetic map showing the first principal
component resulting from the allele frequencies at the cattle genes. The
dark orange color shows that the greatest milk gene uniqueness and allelic
diversity occurs in cattle from NCE. (c) Geographic distribution of the
lactase persistence allele in contemporary Europeans. The darker the
orange color, the higher is the frequency of the lactase persistence allele.
The dashed black line indicates the limits of the geographic distribution
of early Neolithic cattle pastoralist (Funnel Beaker Culture) inferred from
archaeological data15. 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 Km

1Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, Génomique des Populations et Biodiversité, CNRS UMR 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble, Cedex 9, France.
Wednesday, March
2Centro2,
de2011
Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos (CIBIO-UP) and Secção Autónoma de Ciências Agrárias, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do
 I am Always Thinking About the Animals
Simon Tookoome
Baker Lake, 1974

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

 Men Hunting Animals
Jessie Oonark
Baker Lake 1978

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

 Cosmic ecology of sharing ...

The Whole World by Ningeokuluk

Teevee, Inuit (Cape Dorset)
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
 Powerful and dangerous trading partners

Animal People
Janet Kigusiuq
Baker Lake, 1981
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
 domesticate ¦də mesti kāt¦
verb [ trans. ] (usu. be domesticated)
tame (an animal) and keep it as a pet or for farm produce :
mammals were first domesticated for their milk.
• cultivate (a plant) for food.
• humorous make (someone) fond of and good at home life
and the tasks that it involves : you've quite domesticated him | [as
adj. ] ( domesticated) he is thoroughly domesticated.
DERIVATIVES
domesticable ¦-kəbəl¦ ¦də mɛstəkəbəl¦ ¦-kəb(ə)l¦
adjective
domestication ¦- mesti kā sh ən¦ ¦də mɛstə ke ʃən¦ ¦-
ke ʃ(ə)n¦ noun
ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from medieval Latin domesticat-
‘domesticated,’ from the verb domesticare, from Latin
domesticus ‘belonging to the house’ (see domestic ).

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

 “Domestication”

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

“ Herders take life or death decisions concerning
“their” animals, and control every other aspect of
their welfare, acting as protectors, guardians and
executioners. They slaughter, sacrifice animals;
animals do not sacrifice themselves to them. The
relation of pastoral care is founded on the principle
of domination (Ingold 2000. 73-75).

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

 “ethics of care” (Gilligan 1982)

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

 “Feral” Children

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

 Kamala and Amala

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
 “Subjectivation” (Foucault 1989)

“ ...a confrontation with other subjects mediated

by moving in a material world (Warnier 2001)

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
 Dry stone wall
(Eneolithic?)
Dry stone wall

Dry stone wall

(Medieval)

Burnt
animal dung Stone platform
(Neolithic/Eneolithic) (Bronze Age)

2m

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
 Hybrid societies

“ The Nuer and his herd form a corporate community

with solidarity of interests, to serve which the lives of
both are adjusted, and their symbiotic relationship is
one of close physical contact. The cattle are docile and
readily respond to human care and guidance. No high
barriers of culture divide men from beast in their
common home, but their stark nakedness of Nuer
amid their cattle and their intimacy of their contact
with them present a classic picture of savagery.
(Evans-Pritchard 1940)

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

 Hybrid societies

Humans

Animals

Material Culture

Wednesday, March 2, 2011