Animal Genetics and African Archaeology: Why It Matters

Abstract

This article introduces the special issue of African Archaeological Review on the relevance of African livestock genetics to archaeology on the continent. It shows how modern and ancient animal genetic research in Eurasia has substantially revised archaeological scenarios for the origins and spread of food production there. It argues that, in contrast to colleagues in Europe and Asia, Africanist archaeologists have generally been slow to engage in truly collaborative research with archaeogeneticists, with some notable exceptions. It builds a case that animal introductions and domestication are as much social, cultural, and economic processes as they are ecological in nature. Through examples, it outlines some profound selective effects that animal keeping has had on humans themselves. Building on the concepts of taste and embodied practice in Stahl's (2002) discussion of artifacts and differently scaled encounters with non-local commerce, it develops suggestions for archaeologically studying genetically distinctive domestic animals as part of local and long-distance economic systems. Finally, it comments on the issue's review articles and offers suggestions for ways to encourage stronger collaboration between archaeologists and genetic researchers.Résumé Cet article montrent les façons dont les recherches génétiques animales modernes et anciennes en Eurasie ont révisé substantiellement les scénarios archéologiques des origins et de la propagation sur le continent. Il affirme que, par contraste avec ces colleagues en Europe et en Asie, les archéologues africanists ont généralement été lents à s'engager dans la recherche collaborative avec les archéogénéticiens, avec quelques exceptions notables. Il fait le cas que les introductions et les domestications sont autant des processus sociaux, culturels, et économiques qu'ils sont écologiques par nature. À travers des exemples, il résume quelques effets profonds selectifs que le gardiennage d'animaux a eu sur les être humains eux-mêmes. En prennant appui sur les concepts du goût et de la pratique Afr Archaeol Rev (2013) 30:1-20 DOI 10.1007 D. Gifford-Gonzalez (*) Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA e-mail: dianegg@ucsc.edu incarnés dans la discussion de Stahl (2002) des objets et des rencontres des échelles différentes avec le commerce non local, il avance des propositions pour l'étude des animaux domestiques génétiquement distincts comme un partie des systèmes economiques de longue-distance. Enfin, il commente les articles du numéro et offre les suggéstions d'encourager la collaboration plus étroite entre les archéologues et les chercheurs génétiques.

Tropical ancient DNA from bulk archaeological fish bone reveals the subsistence practices of a historic coastal community in southwest Madagascar

“…Ancient DNA has also proved to be a useful tool in studies of archaeological fish assemblages (Campana et al 2013), albeit in a relatively small number of studies (Teletchea 2009): in a literature search, only approximately 2.5% of articles published on archaeological aDNA relate to fish. However, the studies that have been published demonstrate the value of such an approach in garnering important information about species diversity and distribution in the past (Cannon and Yang 2006, Grier et al 2013, Speller et al 2005, 2013, Yang et al 2004, and the economic importance of different fish taxa to ancient communities (Nikulina and Schmölcke 2015). The infrequent use of aDNA techniques in the analysis of archaeological fish assemblages may be due to the fact that fish bones are often too small and numerous to warrant the high cost of individual DNA extraction and sequencing-especially in the tropics that have one of the highest biodiversities of fish in the world (Lambrides and Weisler 2015).…”

Small game forgotten: Late Pleistocene foraging strategies in eastern Africa, and remote capture at Panga ya Saidi, Kenya

“…With exceptions (Marean, 1997(Marean, , 1992a, studies usually lack more than passing mention of people's foraging choices, procurement technologies, butchery and other culinary practices, or implications for group organization and labor divisions, fundamental questions in social zooarchaeology (Gifford-Gonzalez, 2018;Russell, 2011;Sykes, 2014). By contrast, much of the scholarship on Holocene zooarchaeology attempts to tackle these issues for foragers and their neighbors, often with reference to ethnographic or ethnohistoric data (e.g., Gifford-Gonzalez, 2003Marean, 1992a;Marshall and Stewart, 1995;Mutundu, 1999;Prendergast, 2010;Prendergast and Mutundu, 2009;Quintana Morales and Prendergast, 2017;Stewart, 1989). In part, these differences may reflect relatively well-preserved Holocene faunal assemblages, the potential for herder-hunter interaction, and more diverse foodrelated material culture, such as grinding stones and pottery.…”

African Buffalo and Colonial Cattle: Is ‘Systems Change’ the Best Future for Farming and Nature in Africa?

“…Practices such as fire, bush-clearing and contact avoidance, respectively, have taken time to evolve to counter sanitary threats and allow pastoralism to colonize new landscapes (Gifford-Gonzalez, 2000). Most of Africa's livestock farmers practiced (and still do) unfenced extensive systems with indigenous breeds of cattle (historical hybrid B. indicus and B. taurus africanus).…”