Abstract
Archaeology has long congratulated itself on the success it has achieved in exploring the domestication of animals. This work was largely undertaken by examining animal bone remains from archaeological sites, studies that encourage a focus on meat consumption. The emphasis on domestication and on direct exploitation leads to the prioritisation of the earlier occurrences of livestock. Thereafter livestock are not regarded as having been significant to human societies. Such perspectives encourage the idea that livestock lack agency. This paper explores three rich examples, each demonstrating the active role that livestock play in creating complex social relationships, in particular emphasising the importance of living animals. Maasai herding systems show that living animals reveal important information about their owners. In nineteenth century London, livestock, for transport as well as consumption, permeated all aspects of life within the city. Finally, the colonisation of Australia was hugely dependent on livestock and they continue to have a great impact on the physical environment and on human social relationships. Collectively, these examples indicate that livestock remain agents into the present day. Archaeology’s inability to consider such dynamics is a failing that needs to be rectified and some suggestions are provided on how this might be achieved.
Highlights
Archaeology has long congratulated itself on the success it has achieved in exploring the domestication of animals
In introductory undergraduate lectures archaeology typically celebrates the domestication of livestock as an early achievement of the human career and congratulates itself on having been able to reconstruct the major characteristics of the event, based largely on the analysis of animal bone remains
It is largely assumed that livestock existed in later periods in a normative state, a constant that was bypassed by the ever more complex array of social and political complexity in the human career. This tallies with the general perception of livestock in a country like Britain today; that domesticated animals belong in fenced-off enclosures, far away from our towns and cities where the crucial decisions and cultural transformations are made
Summary
Archaeology has long congratulated itself on the success it has achieved in exploring the domestication of animals. What is argued here is that archaeologists in general, as well as bone specialists, need to rethink how they look at livestock, focusing on living animals and their interplay with humans. Two themes will be examined to challenge this, which demonstrate the importance of considering living animals and their agency as key dynamics in relatively recent times in the human career.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
