Indigenous versus Official Knowledge, Concepts and Institutions: Raika Pastoralists and the Outside World

Köhler‐Rollefson, Ilse; Rathore, Hanwant Singh

doi:10.3167/082279404780446104

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(36,37). Ethnographic data show that herders select bulls based on factors including size, color, family milk yields, and environmental adaptations (38), but all females are bred. Culling takes place at low levels and principally affects males, therefore directed selection is low.…”

Section: Management and Gene Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and gene flow in animal domestication

Marshall

Dobney

Denham

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

111

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the last 150 y scholars have focused upon the roles of intentional breeding and genetic isolation as fundamental to understanding the process of animal domestication. This analysis of ethnoarchaeological, archaeological, and genetic data suggests that long-term gene flow between wild and domestic stocks was much more common than previously assumed, and that selective breeding of females was largely absent during the early phases of animal domestication. These findings challenge assumptions about severe genetic bottlenecks during domestication, expectations regarding monophyletic origins, and interpretations of multiple domestications. The findings also raise new questions regarding ways in which behavioral and phenotypic domestication traits were developed and maintained.reproductive isolation | selected breeding | zooarchaeology | donkey | pig Domestication resulted in diverse phenotypic and behavioral changes to wild animals, including decreased flight responses, increased sociality, earlier reproduction, and modification of endocrine and metabolic systems (1-4). Darwin's (5) seminal research, heavily influenced by European animal breeding practices during the 19th century, led subsequent scholars studying animal domestication to prioritize the central roles of human intentionality, directed or controlled breeding of individuals, and genetic isolation of captive herds from wild relatives (6). This anthropocentric legacy is evident in various widely used definitions of domestication that emphasize isolation of captive animals from wild species and total human control over breeding and animal care (6-8). However, a growing body of archaeological, genetic, and ethnohistorical evidence discussed here shows that neither reproductive isolation nor intentional breeding of individuals was as significant as traditionally thought. Our findings indicate long-term gene flow between managed and wild animal populations, and little control of breeding of domestic females. These findings challenge assumptions about severe genetic bottlenecks during domestication and interpretations of genetic variability in terms of multiple instances of domestication. The findings also raise questions about ways in which behavioral and phenotypic domestication traits were maintained.Research into dog and pig domestication over the last several decades has drawn attention to the roles of nonhuman drivers in the domestication process (9, 10)

show abstract

Section: Management and Gene Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%