Advertisement

First Encounters: Domestication as Steps of Becoming

  • Kristin Armstrong OmaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Animal Studies book series (CAS, volume 4)

Abstract

The anthropocene is a term that is rapidly gaining momentum. It presupposes that humans stepped up and took a leading role in driving processes of change in a hereto unprecedented scale. Domestication, both of plants, animals and environments, is bottom line vital to this development. Domestication from this perspective is a process that presupposes modification and manipulation of the behavioural dispositions, morphology and life world of other beings. Archaeology has played a role in trying to explain these processes by way of environmental archaeology. This strand of archaeology has epistemolgically been informed by a fundamentally cartesian, i.e. humanist/enlightenment paradigm, that has presupposed that humans have conquered animals, plants and landscapes and subjected these to the human will, as though these are passive, even inanimate, matter. The agency of plants and animals has rarely been considered. This perspective has led other disciplines to mistrust the ability of archaeology to respond to questions of domestication – and fundamentally – questions of which factors pushed the development of the anthropocene. This paper specifically deals with domestication of animals from the perspective of archaeology and seeks to counter the critique. Three case studies are discussed, and together they demonstrate the complexity of domestication as steps of becoming. First, recent research on domestication of sheep and its implications is. Second, a possible first meeting between domestic animals and a hunter-gatherer culture is discussed. Third, changes in architecture in a husbandry culture is interpreted as signifying changes in production which led to a greater intensification and a heightened human-animal bond. All case studies are considered from a perspective of reciprocity, commitment and co-authored life-ways as specific setups within an ethics of a duty of care.

References

  1. Argent, Gala. “Toward a Privileging of the Nonverbal: Communication, Corporeal Synchrony and Transcendence in Humans and Horses.” Experiencing Animals: Encounters between Animal and Human Minds, ed. by Julie A. Smith and Robert W. Mitchell, Columbia UP, 2012, pp. 111–128.Google Scholar
  2. Årlin, Camilla. “Under Samma Tak – Om ‘Husstallets’ Uppkomst Och Betydelse under Bronsåldern Ur Ett Sydskandinaviskt Perspektiv.” Spiralens Öga: Tjugo Artiklar Kring Aktuell Bronsåldersforskning, ed. by Michael Olausson, Riksantikvarieämbetet, 1999, pp. 291–307.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong Oma, Kristin. “Between Trust and Domination: Social Contracts between Humans and Animals.” World Archaeology, vol. 42, no. 2, 2010, pp. 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong Oma, Kristin. Human-Animal Relationships: Mutual Becomings in the Household of Scandinavia and Sicily 900–500 BC. Unipub, 2007.Google Scholar
  5. Armstrong Oma, Kristin.“Large-Scale ‘Grand Narratives’ and Small-Scale Local Studies in the Bronze Age Discourse: The Animal Perspective.” Local Societies in Bronze Age Northern Europe, ed. by Nils Anfinset and Melanie Wrigglesworth, Equinox, 2012, pp. 71–88.Google Scholar
  6. Armstrong Oma, Kristin. “Making Space from the Position of Duty of Care: Early Bronze Age Human – Sheep Entanglements in Norway.” Multispecies Archaeology, ed. by Suzanne E. Pilaar Birch, Routledge, 2018, pp. 214–229.Google Scholar
  7. Armstrong Oma, Kristin. “Past and Present Farming: Changes in Terms of Engagement.” Humans and the Environment: New Archaeological Perspectives for the 21st Century, ed. by Matthew I. Davies and Freda Nkirote, Oxford UP, 2013, pp. 181–192.Google Scholar
  8. Armstrong Oma, Kristin. The Sheep People: The Ontology of Making Lives, Building Homes and Forging Herds in Early Bronze Age Norway. Equinox Publishing, 2018.Google Scholar
  9. Bekoff, Marc. “Scientists Finally Conclude Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious Beings.” Psychology Today, 10 Aug. 2012, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201208/scientists-finally-conclude-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious-beings.
  10. Birke, Lynda, et al. “Animal Performances: An Exploration of Intersections between Feminist Science Studies and Studies of Human/Animal Relationship.” Feminist Theory, vol. 5, no. 2, 2004, pp. 167–183.Google Scholar
  11. Brittain, Marcus, and Nick Overton. “The Significance of Others: A Prehistory of Rhythm and Interspecies Participation.” Society & Animals, vol. 21, no. 2, 2013, pp. 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Budiansky, Stephen. The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication. William Morrow, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. Carlie, Lennart. “Järnålderns Mångfunktionella Långhus, Myt Eller Verklighet.” In Situ Archaeologica, vol. 4, 2002, pp. 61–72.Google Scholar
  14. Chessa, Bernardo, et al. “Revealing the History of Sheep Domestication Using Retrovirus Integrations.” Science, vol. 324, no. 5926, 2009, pp. 532–536.Google Scholar
  15. Clutton-Brock, Juliet. A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. Cambridge UP, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. Colledge, Sue, et al. “The Evolution of Early Neolithic Agriculture: From Sw Asian Origins to Nw European Limits.” European Journal of Archaeology, vol. 8, no. 2, 2005, pp. 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donovan, Josephine, and Carol J. Adams, eds. Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics: A Reader. Colombia UP, 2007.Google Scholar
  18. Ethelberg, Per, et al. Det Sønderjyske Landbrugs Historie. Vol. 1, Haderslev Museum/Historisk Samfund for Sønderjylland, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. Fijn, Natasha. Living with Herds: Human-Animal Coexistence in Mongolia. Cambridge UP, 2011.Google Scholar
  20. Fokkens, Harry. “Cattle and Martiality: Changing Relations between Man and Landscape in the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age.” Settlement and Landscape, ed. by Charlotte Fabeck and Jytte Ringtved, Jutland Archaeological Society, 1999, pp. 35–43.Google Scholar
  21. Glørstad, Håkon. Neolittiske Smuler: Små Teoretiske Og Praktiske Bidrag Til Debatten Om Neolittisk Keramikk Og Kronologi I Sør-Norge. Universitetets oldsaksamling, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. Greenfield, Haskel J. “The Secondary Products Revolution: The Past, the Present and the Future.” World Archaeology, vol. 42, no. 1, 2010, pp. 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haraway, Donna. When Species Meet. U of Minnesota P, 2008.Google Scholar
  24. Held, Virginia. “The Ethics of Care.” The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, Oxford UP, 2 Sep. 2009. Oxford Handbooks Online, www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195325911.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195325911-e-20.
  25. Hiendleder, Stefan, et al. “Molecular Analysis of Wild and Domestic Sheep Questions Current Nomenclature and Provides Evidence for Domestication from Two Different Subspecies.” Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, vol. 269, no. 1494, 2002, pp. 893–904,  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Høgestøl, Mari, and Lisbeth Prøsch-Danielsen. “Impulses of Agro-Pastoralism in the 4th and 3rd Millennia Bc on the South-Western Coastal Rim of Norway.” Environmental Archaeology, vol. 11, no. 1, 2006, pp. 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hufthammer, Anne Kari. “Tidlig Husdyrhold I Vest-Norge.” Arkeologiske Skrifter, vol. 8, 1994, pp. 203–219.Google Scholar
  28. Ingold, Tim. “From Trust to Domination: An Alternative History of Human-Animal Relations.” The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, by Ingold, Routledge, 2000, pp. 61–76.Google Scholar
  29. Johannsen, Niels. “Archaeology and the Inanimate Agency Proposition: A Critique and a Suggestion.” Excavating the Mind: Cross-Sections through Culture, Cognition and Materiality, ed. by Johannsen et al., Aarhus UP, 2012, pp. 305–347.Google Scholar
  30. Knight, John. “Introduction.” Animals in Person: Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Intimacy, ed. by Knight, Berg, 2005, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  31. Kveiborg, Jacob. Bondens Dyr – Husdyrhold I Ældre Jernalder Belyst Ved Fund Af Indebrændte Dyr: Delrapport IV. Ginderup. Moesgård Museum, 2009.Google Scholar
  32. Lagerås, Per, and Mats Regnell. “Agrar Förändring under Sydsvensk Bronsålder.” Spiralens Öga: Tjugo Artiklar Kring Aktuell Bronsåldersforskning, ed. by Michael Olausson, Riksantikvarieämbetet, 1999, pp. 263–276.Google Scholar
  33. Latimer, Joanna. The Conduct of Care: Uniderstanding Nursing Practice. Wiley Blackwell, 2000.Google Scholar
  34. Law, John, and Annemarie Mol. “The Actor-Enacted: Cumbrian Sheep in 2001.” Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach, ed. by Carl Knappett and Lambros Malafouris, Springer, 2010, pp. 57–76.Google Scholar
  35. Marciniak, Arkadiusz. Placing Animals in the Neolithic: Social Zooarchaeology of Prehistoric Farming Communities. UCL P, 2005.Google Scholar
  36. Marciniak, Arkadiusz. “The Secondary Products Revolution: Empirical Evidence and Its Current Zooarchaeological Critique.” Journal of World Prehistory, vol. 24, 2011, pp. 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McFarland, Sarah E., and Ryan Hediger. “Approaching the Agency of Other Animals.” Animals and Agency: An Interdisciplinary Exploration, ed. by McFarland and Hediger, Brill, 2009, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  38. Meadows, Jennifer R. S., et al. “Five Ovine Mitochondrial Lineages Identified from Sheep Breeds of the near East.” Genetics, vol. 175, no. 3, 2007, pp. 1371–1379,  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.106.068353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morehart, Christopher T., and Shanti Morell-Hart. “Beyond the Ecofact: Toward a Social Paleoethnobotany in Mesoamerica.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 22, no. 2, 2015, pp. 483–511,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-013-9183-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Myhre, Bjørn, and Ingvild Øye. Norges Landbrukshistorie I: 4000 F.Kr - 1350 E.Kr. Jorda Blir Levevei. Det Norske Samlaget, 2002.Google Scholar
  41. Nielsen, Jens N. “Flammernes Bytte.” Skalk, no. 6, 2002, pp. 5–10.Google Scholar
  42. Olalde, Iñigo, et al. “The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe.” bioRxiv, vol. 135962, 9 May 2017, https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1101/135962.
  43. Petersson, Maria. Djurhållning Och Betesdrift: Djur, Människor Och Landskap I Västra Östergötland under Yngre Bronsålder Och Äldre Järnålder. Dissertation, Uppsala Universitet, 2006. Riksantikvarieämbetet, 2006.Google Scholar
  44. Prescott, Christopher. “Aspects of Early Pastoralism in Sogn, Norway.” Acta Archaeologica, vol. 66, 1995, pp. 163–190.Google Scholar
  45. Prescott, Christopher. Kulturhistoriske Undersøkelser I Skrivarhelleren. Historisk museum/Universitetet i Bergen, 1991.Google Scholar
  46. Prescott, Christopher. “Was There Really a Neolithic in Norway?” Antiquity, vol. 70, no. 1, 1996, pp. 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prescott, Christopher, and Håkon Glørstad. “Expanding 3rd Millennium Transformations: Norway.” The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe: Mobility and Local Evolution During the 3rd Millennium Bc, ed. by Maria P. Prieto Martínez and Laure Salanova, Oxbow Books, 2015, pp. 77–87.Google Scholar
  48. Puig de la Bellacasa, María. Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More Than Human Worlds. U of Minnesota P, 2017.Google Scholar
  49. Rasmussen, Marianne. “Livestock without Bones: The Long House as Contributor to the Interpretation of Livestock Management in the Southern Scandinavian Early Bronze Age.” Settlement and Landscape, ed. by Charlotte Fabeck and Jytte Ringtved, Jutland Archaeological Society, 1999, pp. 281–290.Google Scholar
  50. Rasmussen, Marianne, and Christian Adamsen. “[the Bronze Age] Settlement.” Digging into the Past: 25 Years of Archaeology in Denmark, ed. by Steen Hvass and Birger Storgaard, Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries/Jutland Archaeological Society, 1993, pp. 136–141.Google Scholar
  51. Russell, Nerissa. Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory. Cambridge UP, 2012.Google Scholar
  52. Ryder, Michael L. Sheep and Man. Duckworth, 1983.Google Scholar
  53. Sherratt, Andrew. “Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of Secondary Products Revolution.” Patterns of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke, ed. by Ian Hodder et al., Cambridge UP, 1981, pp. 261–305.Google Scholar
  54. Skjølsvold, Arne. Slettabøboplassen: Et Bidrag Til Diskusjonen Om Forholdet Mellom Fangst- Og Bondesamfunnet I Yngre Steinalder Og Bronsealder. Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, 1977.Google Scholar
  55. Tesch, Sten. “House, Farm and Village in the Köpinge Area from Early Neolithic to the Early Middle Ages.” The Archaeology of the Cultural Landscape: Field Work and Research in a South Swedish Rural Region, ed. by Lars Larson, Johan Callmer, and Berta Stjernquist, Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992, pp. 283–344.Google Scholar
  56. Tesch, Sten. Houses, Farmsteads and Long Term Change: A Regional Study of Prehistoric Settlements in the Köpinge Area, in Scania, Southern Sweden. PhD, Uppsala University, 1993.Google Scholar
  57. Tsing, Anna. “Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companion Species: For Donna Haraway.” Environment and Society, vol. 1, 2012, pp. 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. UK Government. “Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare.” Animal Welfare Act 2006: Chapter 45, Section 9, The National Archives, Nov. 2006, p. 7, www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/pdfs/ukpga_20060045_en.pdf.
  59. Van der Veen, Marijke. “The Materiality of Plants: Plant-People Entanglements.” World Archaeology, vol. 46, no. 5, 2014, pp. 799–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zeder, Melinda A. “Domestication and Early Agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: Origins, Diffusion, and Impact.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 33, 2008, pp. 11597–11604,  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801317105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zeder, Melinda A., et al. “Documenting Domestication: The Intersection of Genetics and Archaeology.” TRENDS in Genetics, vol. 22, no. 3, 2006, pp. 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BryneNorway

Personalised recommendations