236 research outputs found
Dingoes and domestication
No full textAboriginal Australians are known to have routinely taken dingo pups from wild dens to rear as companion animals, with the mature canids typically returning to the bush to mate. Available accounts emphasise the strong emotional bonds between Indigenous people and “camp dingoes”, which were essentially raised as though they were human. Yet despite the closeness of human–canine relations in Australia, it is widely contended that Aboriginal people did not domesticate dingoes. The accepted thinking is that while the dingoes lived part of their lives with humans, they were ultimately “free agents” that foraged and reproduced independently. Here, I propose that the Aboriginal practice of raising wild-caught dingo pups generated a distinct population of free-roaming adult dingoes that were socialised to interact with humans and may have remained loosely associated with them. I suggest that this hitherto unrecognised dingo ecotype, which should not be thought of as truly wild, yielded most of the pups taken from the bush by humans. Contrary to received wisdom, therefore, Aboriginal peoples’ interactions with dingoes involved management and domestication processes, but not as conventionally defined (i.e., controlled breeding, artificial selection).No Full Tex
Before Azaria: A Historical Perspective on Dingo Attacks
No full textSIMPLE SUMMARY: When nine-week-old Azaria Chamberlain disappeared from a central Australian campsite in 1980, few accepted her mother’s claim that ‘A dingo’s got my baby’. Dingoes, it was popularly believed at this time, simply did not attack humans. A recent spate of dingo attacks has repudiated this widespread narrative—but when and why did it arise? Analysis of historical Australian print media shows that, in fact, dozens of accounts of dingo attacks were published between 1804 and 1928. It is difficult to separate the empirical events from the cultural milieu in which they were reported, but some of these historical accounts are credible, resembling those of modern attacks. It is also evident that up until the early 20th century it was a commonly held perception that dingoes did occasionally prey on humans. By the 1920s, however, a popular belief had taken hold that dingoes were far too timid to attack even children and had never represented a threat to human safety. This cultural shift in the image of the dingo may be traced to the reduced frequency of human–dingo interactions in the more settled regions of eastern Australia, where a veritable war of destruction waged by pastoralists nearly eradicated the population. Intensive shooting, trapping and poisoning may also have selected for dingoes that were more wary of humans, such that the changing public attitude towards the dingo reflected the reality of rural life. ABSTRACT: This paper investigates the origin of the once popular belief in Australian society that wild dingoes do not attack humans. To address this problem, a digital repository of archived newspaper articles and other published texts written between 1788 and 1979 were searched for references to dingoes attacking non-Indigenous people. A total of 52 accounts spanning the period between 1804 and 1928 was identified. A comparison of these historical accounts with the details of modern dingo attacks suggests that at least some of the former are credible. The paper also examined commonly held attitudes towards dingoes in past Australian society based on historical print media articles and other records. Early chroniclers of Australian rural life and culture maintained that dingoes occasionally killed and ate humans out of a predatory motivation. By the early decades of the 20th century, however, an opposing view of this species had emerged: namely, that dingoes were timid animals that continued to pose a danger to livestock, but never to people. This change in the cultural image of dingoes can possibly be linked to more than a century of lethal dingo control efforts greatly reducing the frequency of human–dingo interactions in the most populous parts of the country. This intensive culling may also have expunged the wild genetic pool of dingoes that exhibited bold behaviour around people and/or created a dingo population that was largely wary of humans
Pigs as Pets: Early Human Relations with the Sulawesi Warty Pig (Sus celebensis)
No full textThe Sulawesi warty pig (S. celebensis) is a wild and still-extant suid that is endemic to the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. It has long been theorised that S. celebensis was domesticated and/or deliberately introduced to other islands in Indonesia prior to the advent of the Neolithic farming transition in the region. Thus far, however, there has been no empirical support for this idea, nor have scientists critiqued the argument that S. celebensis was a pre-Neolithic domesticate in detail. Here, it is proposed that early foragers could have formed a relationship with S. celebensis that was similar in essence to the close association between Late Pleistocene foragers in Eurasia and the wild wolf ancestors of domestic dogs. That is, a longstanding practice of hunter-gatherers intensively socialising wild-caught S. celebensis piglets for adoption into human society as companion animals (‘pets’) may have altered the predator–prey dynamic, brought aspects of wild pig behaviour and reproduction under indirect human selection and control, and caused changes that differentiated human-associated pigs from their solely wild-living counterparts
Aboriginal flood narratives and the thunder complex in Southeast Asia
No full textThe ancestors of the dingo were brought to mainland Australia around 4000 years ago by people who arrived by boat. The identity of these voyagers from the north, however, and the nature of their interactions with the Aboriginal population of Australia, are unknown. Here, we propose that Indigenous flood narratives from the Kimberley contain evidence for contact between Aboriginal people and early Asian seafarers in the form of the “thunder complex”. The latter is a very specific repertoire of taboos, rituals and stories that occurs widely among ethnographically known societies of Indonesia, the Philippines and peninsular Malaysia, but has not previously been identified in Australia. Among Southeast Asian groups, this cultural complex revolves around the idea that certain prohibited acts perpetrated against animals – especially “mocking” them by treating them as though they were human – precipitate a punitive storm and/or flooding. We show that in some oral traditions of the Kimberley region animal mockery is similarly held to be the causative agent behind disastrous flooding events that took place in the past creationary epoch. We contend that this localised Aboriginal variant of the thunder complex reflects an episode of close interaction with early Austronesian-speaking voyagers who introduced ancestral dingoes to mainland Australia, apparently via the Kimberley coast.Full Tex
- …
