| Abstract |
Humans' relationships with animals, increasingly the subject of controversy, have long been of interest to those whose primary aim has been the better understanding of humans' relationships with other humans. Since this topic was last reviewed here, human-animal relationships have undergone considerable reexamination, reflecting key trends in the history of social analysis, including concerns with connections between anthropology and colonialism and with the construction of race, class, and gender identities. There have been many attempts to integrate structuralist or symbolic approaches with those focused on environmental, political, and economic dimensions. Human-animal relationships are now much more likely to be considered in dynamic terms, and consequently, there has been much interdisciplinary exchange between anthropologists and historians. Some research directly engages moral and political concerns about animals, but it is likely that sociocultural research on human-animal relationships will continue to be as much, if not more, about humans. |
| Abstract |
INTRODUCTION Thinking about Animals For nearly as long as anything can be inferred about human cognition, paleoanthropologists and archaeologists believe humans have thought carefully about animals, about the “predominant characteristic” of each animal, and about those “contradictory elements” that make up humankind. This careful thought has had many outcomes, some scientific, others not. Among the scientific outcomes in the 19th century was evolutionary thinking about the causes and consequences of domestication, including Charles Darwin's study (32) of the mechanics of human (artificial) selection of domesticated animal and plant population characteristics. In the 20th century, theoretical refinements and the painstaking collection of empirical data have led to studies of such disparate phenomena as the physical consequences of keeping pets (12); the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria as a result of feeding antibiotics to livestock (117); and the evolutionary consequences of milkdrinking (99). Speculation about the origins of human-animal interaction is not the exclusive province of scientists: religions and storytellers alike customarily try to account for the beginnings of human-animal interaction. Genesis does so |
