Melinda A. Zeder, Daniel G. Bradley, Eve Emshwiller & Bruce D. Smith (ed.). Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms.

Melinda A. Zeder, Daniel G. Bradley, Eve Emshwiller & Bruce D. Smith (ed.). Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. MELINDA A. ZEDER, DANIEL G. BRADLEY, EVE EMSHWILLER & BRUCE D.SMITH (ed.). Documenting Domestication domesticationProcess of hereditary reorganization of wild animals and plants into forms more accommodating to the interests of people. In its strictest sense, it refers to the initial stage of human mastery of wild animals and plants. : New Genetic and ArchaeologicalParadigms. xiv+362 pages, 136 Illustrations, 56 tables. 2006. Berkeley,Los Angeles & London: University of California Press "UC Press" redirects here, but this is also an abbreviation for University of Chicago PressUniversity of California Press, also known as UC Press, is a publishing house associated with the University of California that engages in academic publishing. ; 0-520-24638-1hardback 45 [pounds sterling]. Although archaeology now gives much time to considering ancientdomestication, the early initiative was really taken by biologists.Darwin's magnificent two-volume work, The Variation of Animals andPlants Under Domestication (1868), and de Candolles' Origin ofCultivated Plants (1883) set the stage long ago. Since then, progresshas been very slow. As a student over 50 years ago, I was told aboutdeoxyribonucleic acid and its importance in biology, but of course itseventual relevance in archaeology was not then appreciated. This volumeshows just how much this situation is changing, with DNA DNA:see nucleic acid. DNAor deoxyribonucleic acidOne of two types of nucleic acid (the other is RNA); a complex organic compound found in all living cells and many viruses. It is the chemical substance of genes. and othermolecular variation becoming an important area of scientific research.There is, I think, also a shift in how domestication is viewed inarchaeology, from its place within 'economic archaeology' andthe 'early history of agriculture', to specific man-plant andman-animal evolutionary relationships. This is how it should be. Fordomestication is a fascinating biological and bioarchaeologicalphenomenon, a form of microevolution mi��cro��ev��o��lu��tionn.Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. where humans contribute to avarying degree in the changes in some plants and animals, particularlyover the past 10 000 years. The editors of this extremely important work are geneticists,bioarchaeologists and botanists, and the contributors similarly reflectthe great breadth of the subject. The four major sections of the bookare divided into two poles, the plant and animal worlds; these areconsidered in turn, first in traditional ways (morphology etc.), thenfrom a genetic point of view. As the editors say in their introduction,the interaction of humans with other species is complex: human societieshave differentially interacted with other species, not always for veryunderstandable reasons. The degree of genetic plasticity can becritically involved in determining what changes will occur as a resultof human 'selection pressures'. For although micro-evolutionin domesticates basically follows normal biological rules, it isdistinctive in being strongly influenced by its interaction with oneother species--ourselves. Of course other species can exert influence,but nothing has been as profound as that of human groups. At a basic archaeological level, studies of domestication havedemanded the recovery of plant and animal remains, so that species couldbe identified and their morphological structures compared. Humaninfluences on the indigenous geography of species could thus beassessed, and for some species their demographic changes too. The newgenetics have now given us the added dimension of detecting geneticchange, and it is to the credit of the editors that their efforts (sincea small meeting in 2001) has stimulated this current endeavour. So thefirst two sections of the book are concerned with plants, beginning ineach case with broad overviews, followed by more specific studies, forinstance on seed size in squash, starch grain analysis of manioc manioc:see cassava. , bananaphytoliths, DNA sequences in cassava cassava(kəsä`və)or manioc(măn`ēŏk), name for many species of the genus Manihot of the family Euphorbiaceae (spurge family). and molecular markers of olivephylogeography. This group of 11 papers does not intend to becomprehensive, but ideally outlines where we have got to in plantdomestication studies. As Eve Emshwiller says, this is a very excitingtime for those engaged in ancient plant studies, with previouslyinsoluble questions gradually being answered by molecularinvestigations. Three cheers indeed for the polymerase chain reaction(PCR PCRpolymerase chain reaction. PCRabbr.polymerase chain reactionPolymerase chain reaction (PCR)) which is bringing us out of a relative Dark Age. One importantpoint which Emshwiller makes, and which we all need to remember, is thatthe analysis and interpretation of molecular data is not withoutpotential pitfalls, and perhaps this is especially so for those of uswho are not battle-hardened molecular geneticists. The sections dealing with animal domestication focus on traditionalbut new evidence, followed by molecular studies. At a general level, thecomments for plants are also applicable to animal species, but there aresome small differences. The mammals selected for special morphologicalattention are large species, goats, pigs, horses and camelids. The smallto middle range mammals certainly deserve as much if not more attention,and in one or two instances we might even ask 'who domesticated do��mes��ti��cate?tr.v. do��mes��ti��cat��ed, do��mes��ti��cat��ing, do��mes��ti��cates1. To cause to feel comfortable at home; make domestic.2. To adopt or make fit for domestic use or life.3. a. whom'? Genearchaeology, sadly termed here 'archaeogenetics', isnot so fraught with danger when considering other mammals, as it is whenstudying ourselves (when contamination is a real problem). As Bradleyand others in the animal genetics section reveal, the isolation of mtDNAsequences from ancient remains have produced some interesting and attimes unexpected results. Neighbour-joining networks for horse andcattle for instance are surprisingly different, and rather confirm thevery different domestication histories for the two species. Robert Wayneand others provide a number of papers on specific species; interestinglythere are still reservations on using molecular estimates for thepossible times of divergence of species such as dog from the wild wolfancestor (and that the genetic contribution from the New World wolf toAmerindian dogs is probably not great). But the dog DNA evidence Among the many new tools that science has provided for the analysis of forensic evidence is the powerful and controversial analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, the material that makes up the genetic code of most organisms. doessupport the view that dog has a history going well back into thePalaeolithic. With the introduction, four key overviews and the specificchapters, there are 28 contributions to the book. In composition, withsubstantial papers involving molecular analyses, it is unique. This isan important contribution to the study of domestication, and deserveswide circulation, especially in university libraries. DON BROTHWELL Department of Archaeology, University of York This article is about the British university. For the Canadian university, see York University. The University of York is a campus university in York, England. , UK