I' 



 



Earlij Aiif/iropoloffiral Rt'ttearvhcH 71 



domesticated for food or transport. He cites many — but relatively few out 

 of the statements he had collected — of natives keeping animals as p<^t8 and 

 even of native women feeding the young of wild animals from their own 

 breasts, AuHtralian women pup{)ii'H, presumably young dingoes, New Guinea 

 women young pigs, and Indian women of North America bejir cuba Galton 

 considers that the value of domestication as a source of food was only found 

 out incidentally as a result of taming animals for pets'. 



"Have," ho writes, "extrivortlinary geniu.sos arisen who wvendly taught their eontcniporarifw 

 to tamo and doinesticato the dog, the ox, the sheep, the hog, the fowl, the llama, the reindeer 

 and the rcHt) Or again: Is it posflihlo that the ordinary haliit^i of rude races, comhinod with 

 the ({ualitioH of the animals in (juestion, have Mutficed to originate every inxtance of extahlikhed 

 domestication? The conclusion to which I have arrive<l is entirely in favour of the last 

 hypothesis." 



Because all savages maintain pet animals, because many tribes have 

 sacred ones, and because kings of ancient states had imparteit animals on 

 a vast scale from their Imrbanan neighbours, Galton holds that every animal 

 of any j^retension has been hekl in captivity over and over again and lijid 

 numerous chances of becoming domesticated. We have no more doujestiaited 

 animals than exist, because there are no others suited for domestication. 

 Suitability for domestication depends upon an animal (i) being hardy, 

 (ii) having an inborn likhig for man, (iii) being comfort-loving, (iv) being 

 useful to man, (v) breeding freely in captivity, (vi) being gregarious in its 

 nature. These conditions Galton illustrates and states the exceptions. He 

 gives due {)lace to continual selection after domestication. 



"To conclude. I see no reason to suppose that the first domestication of any animal, except 

 the elephant, implies a high civilisation among the people who established it. I cannot liolieve 

 it to have lH«n the result of a preconceived intt-ntion, followed hy elalx)riito trials, to administer 

 to the comfort of man. Neither can I think it arose from one successful effort made by an 

 individual, who might therefore justly claim the title of Ixjnefactor to his race; but on the 

 contrary, that a vast number of half-unconsoious attempts have be<!n made throughout the 

 course of nges, and that ultimately, by slow degrees, after many i-elapses, and continue*! st-lection, 

 our several domestic breeds l)ecame firmly established." (p. 138.) 



We know much more of the history of man now than was known in 1 863. 

 We realise the long history of man, and how he knew the elephant, the 

 reindeer and the horse as sources of food long before he tamed them. It is, 

 indeed, doubtful whether palaeolithic man ever domesticated any form of 

 animal. His art shows no trace of tiie pet, and there is only one and that a 

 very doubtful case of a possible bridle — the horse is merely 'game,' as the 

 reindeer or earlier the mammoth. 



' There was probably some correspondence between (ralton and Darwin as to savages' pets 

 I am unable to date the following letter, but it prolwibly belonged to this period. 



|)ows, Rromi.ky, Kent, July 1th. 

 Mv DEAU Galton, I return the enclosed signed with great pleasure. Many thanks for 

 information alwut Ur Earth's work, which L will rejul. I continue much interestfd aljout all 

 domestic animals of all savage nations, though I shall not take up cattle in detail. If on 

 reading I shall have anything to ask I will accept your kind offer and ask. Anything about 

 savages taking any the le^vst pains in breetling or crossing their domestic animals is of par- 

 ticular interest to me. With kind remembrances to Mrs Galton, Pray Iwlieve mc. Yours very 

 .sincerely, Ch. Darwin. 



