Animal Planet Author(s): Harriet Ritvo Reviewed work(s): Source: Environmental History, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Apr., 2004), pp.

204-220 Published by: Forest History Society and American Society for Environmental History Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3986084 . Accessed: 15/01/2012 19:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Forest History Society and American Society for Environmental History are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Environmental History.

http://www.jstor.org

HARRIET RITVO

animal

PLANET
ITIS HARD COUNT ways in which other animals figure in the stories that the TO environmental historians tell.1 They are part of our epic tales-those with the longest chronologicalreach-about the movementsof earlyhuntersand gatherers. Theyare part of the grandnarrativeof domestication and the transformationof human existence through agriculture. They often have represented nature naturehas been understood)in religious and scientific thought.Animals (however also play a large role in our novellas-that is, accounts of distinctively modern concerns (or distinctively modern variations on these age-old themes), such as species loss through habitat destruction, the simplification of ecosystems through monocultureand invasion, and the modification of organisms by means of biotechnology. Their ubiquitous presence has helped establish the city and the suburb as appropriate settings for environmental history. None of these stories-long or short-has yet come to a definitive conclusion: Certainly, least at from the perspective of the animals themselves, no happy endings are in sight. That may be one reason that animals have been appearing with increasing frequency in the work of environmental historians and of scholars in related disciplines. Anothermay be that many of the difficult issues at the intersection of academic studies of the environment (historical or otherwise) and environmentalpolitics have an animal dimension, or even an animal-triggered flashpoint:preservationof threatenedecosystems, overexploitationof resources such as fisheries, emergent diseases, and cloning, to name a few. Environmental historians are not alone in their heightened interest in animals, nor is scholarly attention to animals completely new. Livestock traditionally has attracted the attention of economic historians who focus on agriculture.Importantanimal-related institutions, fromhumanesocieties to zoos, have had their chroniclers.The history of zoology is a well-establishedbranchof

ANIMAL

PLANET

205

Figure 1. Dodo.

RichardLydekker, TheRoyalNatural 6 ed., History, vols. (London: FredenckWarne,1895), IV, 388. The dodo, one of the earliest acknowledged extinctions.

the history of science, most conspicuously in relation to the development of evolutionary ideas. People distinguished in their association with animals, whether as breeders or hunters or scientists, have had their biographers, as, indeed, have some animals distinguished in their own right-from Jumboto Seabiscuit. Historians have investigated the moral and legal rights and responsibilities of animals, as well as animal-related practices, such as
vivisection.2

Nevertheless during the last several decades, the attitude of historians in general toward the study of animals has shifted significantly: To put it briefly, animals have been edging towardthe mainstream. No longer is the mention of an animal-relatedresearch topic likely to provoke surprise and amusement, as was the case twentyyears ago. Thereis now enough new workand enough interest in reading it to supporta book series on the theme of "Animals, History,Culture," published by the Johns Hopkins University Press, and a series of annual edited volumes, the Colloquesd'histoire des connaissances zoologiques, published at the University of Liege in Belgium. There are several ways to understand this shift. Animals can be seen as the latest beneficiaries of a democratizingtendency within historical studies. As the labormovement,the civil rights movement,and the women'smovement inspired sympathetic scholars, so have, in their turn, the advocates of hunted whales, poached tigers, abandoneddogs, and overcrowded pigs. Even in fields like agricultural history, where animal topics have been routine, farmyardcreatures have become less likely to be abstracted through quantification, and more likely to appear as individuals, or at least groups of individuals.Strawsin this wind include Susan D.Jones'srecent study of veterinary treatment of livestock and horses, and the conference on "The Chicken: Its

206

ENVIRONMENTAL

HISTORY

9 (APRIL

2004)

Biological, Social, Cultural,and Industrial History,from the Neolithic Middens to McNuggets,"sponsored in 2oo2 by the Yale Programin AgrarianStudies.3In addition, of course, the vigorous growth of environmental history has helped direct the attention of other kinds of historians towardanimals. At least in the United States, environmentalhistory originallydevelopedfrom the history of the frontier. The field has moved away from these pioneer beginnings, both geographically and theoretically, as is perhaps most clearly indicated by the gradual problematization of the concept of wilderness. But concern with the relation between the sphere of human domination and what lies (orseems to lie) outside remains strong.This concernoften has been mediated through the study of the relationship between people and wild animals, a focus that links modernways of living with those of our earliest ancestors. The longest story ever told-at least the longest one with people as characters-chronicles the development of human cultures and societies. It exists in numerous variants, depending,among other things, on whetherthe story is limited to Homosapiens, or whether it includes extinct congeners like H. neanderthalensis and H. habilis, or stretches still further back to the australopithecines, or moves laterally to embraceourliving pongid cousins. Allversions agree,however,on the importance of predation.Even if, as with the chimpanzees studie'dby Jane Goodall,hunting was a relatively infrequent activity, and meat an occasional dietary supplement ratherthan a dependablesource of calories, the skill and cooperationrequiredto kill small and medium-sized game provided significant social and intellectual stimulation.4In most pre-agricultural human groups,hunting was more routine and more important. The archaeological record suggests that small nomadic groups also had to worry about becoming the objects of other creatures'hunts, which doubtless served in a complementaryway to sharpen wits and enhance cooperation.5 In addition, hunting provides the earliest example of the disproportionate human power to affect the rest of the environment. Even though prehistoric human populationswere relativelysmall, they may have had a significant impact on the large herbivores who provided the most rewarding and challenging objectives and, secondarily, on the large carnivores who also ate them. It frequently has been argued, most conspicuously by the biologist Edward 0. Wilson,that the spreadof modernhumans outside their Africanhomelandcaused the rapid decline and, in many cases, the extinction of large animal species (and even genera) along their paths of migration.6Certainlythe coincidence between the arrivalof H. sapiens in Australia,NorthAmerica,and South Americaand the subsequent impoverishmentof their indigenous megafauna is very suggestive, especially as these continents,in contrastto Eurasia-wherethe impactof modern humans appears to have been less dramatic-had not been inhabited by earlier hominid species. This accounthas alwaysbeen controversial,however,for several reasons. Inevitably, evidence is sparse and the argument relies heavily on inference. To acknowledgethat small pre-agricultural human groups could have such an overwhelming impact on large animal species is to acknowledge that there was never any periodor state of human society that existed in a completely

ANIMAL

PLANET

207

Figure 2. Wild Boar.

James Edmund Harting, British Animals Extinct within Historic Times (London: Trnbner, 1880), 77.

The wild boar was extinct in England by the end of the Middle Ages.

harmonious or static relation to the rest of the environment-literally or no metaphorically, gardenof Eden.Reluctanceto relinquish this notion accounts for some of the emotion provoked by Shepard Krech's suggestion that PaleoIndiansbore some responsibility for the Pleistocene extinctions in North America.7 There are possible alternative explanations, of which the most prominentis that the same climatic changes that encouragedhuman migration, especially into the Americas, also altered the habitats to which the enormous Pleistocene animals had adapted.Fromthis perspective,the cold-adaptedfauna ultimately was displaced by competitors better-suited to a more temperate climate.8It is probablyan indication of the enduringfascination of these animals, even to people with no opportunityor desire to hunt them, that the cause of their extinction has inspired learned and populardebate since their rediscoveryin the nineteenth century.9 In many respects, the activities of modern hunters resemble those of their earliest forebears.In an overviewof hunting from the Pleistocene to the present, Matt Cartmillhas shown how,nevertheless, those activities have altered or been contested, along with shifting understandings of nature. The hunter has figured variously as heroic provider, as protector of threatened outposts, as sensitive intermediarybetween the human and the divine prey, as gallant sportsman, as brutal butcher, and as agent of extinction."0 The last two epithets are the most

208

ENVIRONMENTAL

HISTORY

(APRIL

2004)

Figure 3. Quagga.

1 and (Lodon: Horace W.B.Tegetmeier C. L Suherland, & Horses, Asses, Zbras, Mules, MuleBredirng CoM W5),opp. 61.

Quaggas, once common in southern Afnca, vanished in the second half of the nineteenthcentury.

recent, and they have become increasingly prominent in the course of the last century or so. This is not to suggest that no animal species had been eliminated between the Pleistocene and the late nineteenth century,at least on a local basis. In Britain, for example, the wolf, the bear, the wild boar, and the beaver disappearedas a result of the activities of medievalhunters,and,with the possible exception of the beaver,they were not regretted. On the contrary,their absence was greatly appreciated. The last aurochs, the wild bovines from which domesticated cattle are descended, died in Poland in the seventeenth century, not long before the last dodos were killed on Mauritius. Their passing engaged the interest of naturalists and antiquaries,but it was not until the great imperial expansion of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that the diminution and disappearanceof animal populations began to arouse concern. Commercialinterests raised the first real alarm. Overexploitationradically reducedthe productivityof the NorthAmericanfur trade from the middle of the eighteenth century,when the annual harvest of Canadianbeaver skins was over 150,000, to the early nineteenth century, when a territory four times as large provided one-third the yield."'Naturalists and hunters (often the same people this worrisome sense that even substantial wearing different hats) corroborated animalpopulationsmight not be indefinitely resilient. Visitorsto the CapeColony at the southern tip of Africa observedthat neither naturalists nor hunters could find much to amuse them, and that one species of antelope, the blaubok, had been killed off completely;similar complaints were madewith regardto the parts of Indiamost accessible to colonial sportsmen.Extinctioneven of morenumerous species was ultimately recognized as a real possibility (a recognition that was inconsistent with some versions of creationist theology, although not so

ANIMAL

PLANET

209

Figure4. NorthAmericanBison.
.~
.

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
......
.....

*-......

Aa

. .

..:....

.. '. ...

2.

Samuel W. Baker,WildBeasts and TheirWays(London: Macmillan, 1890), iI,opp. 75. (2 vols.)

Buffalohuntingtales were still being publishedafterthe species was feared to be extinct.

troublesomelyinconsistent as evolution provedto be). As formerlyblank spaces on the map were filled in, the sparseness or complete absence of wild animals from areas where they had formerlybeen abundantno longer could be explained as their retreat to the unknown interior.Response to these dawningperceptions was mixed. LikeTheodoreRooseveltseveral generations later,many enthusiastic sportsmen accepted the diminution of game as part of the march of progress. Throughout the nineteenth century, authorities in many parts of the world subsidizedthe exterminationof wild animals perceivedas threats to or economic competitorswith farmers and their livestock.12 Thenear disappearanceof the vast NorthAmericanbison herds in the middle of the nineteenth century,followedby the actual disappearanceof the quagga, a close relative of the zebra, from southern and eastern Africa, began to convert perception into action. Still symbolic of uncivilized nature, wild game was transformed from an obstacle into a valuable resource in need of protection. YellowstoneNational Parkwas foundedin 1872to protectthe remaining animals; for several decades the success of this endeavorremainedin doubt.13 Yellowstone and the many reserves and national parks that followed it represented a novel twist on an old idea. Restricted game parks had a long history in Europeand in parts of Asia where their purpose had been at least as much to defend the exclusiveness of hunting as to preservethe animal targets. This spirit permeated the preservation laws that were enacted by many British colonies in Africa and Asia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They often specified differentialaccess, quotas,and licensing fees, clearlyprivilegingcolonialofficials and visiting dignitaries over both indigenous inhabitants and humble European
settlers. They also discriminated among animal species, so that large carnivores

210

ENVIRONMENTAL

HISTORY

(APRIL

2004)

Figure 5. Thylacine.

RichardLydekker, Handbookto the Marsupialia Monotremnata A and (London.EdwardLloyd,1896), opp. 152. The thylacine was lamented only after it was late.

were excluded from the protective umbrella; indeed their slaughter was often encouraged with bounties. This complex of motives and goals was embodied in the "Conventions the Preservationof WildAnimals,Birds, and Fish in Africa," for which was signed in London in i900 by representatives of various European governmentswith colonial holdings, although most of them subsequently failed to ratify it or to honor its provisions. The Society for the Preservationof the Wild Faunaof the Empire,founded in 1903 by a distinguished group of sportsmen and colonial administrators,provedmore durable,although (or perhaps because) its membership encompassed strongly conflicting viewpoints. By the time of the society's diamond anniversary,the authors of its official history characterized these earlymembers as "penitent butchers."14 Effortsto protectwild animalpopulationshave continuedto provokeconflict, both internal and external. Some early campaigners for wild bird preservation wore elaboratefeather hats, and so opened themselves to criticism as hypocrites (by the unconvinced) or as dilettantes (by their more rigorousely logical coadjutors).15 Poaching was an issue when game was protected only for the entertainment of elite hunters, and it continued to be an issue after the animals also became intended beneficiaries.1 Norwas the need for wild animal protection universally acknowledged. In many places, competing human interests, alternative sources of information, and inconsistent official motivations meant that protections were not enforced or even enacted until targeted populations were severelyreducedor entirely gone. Thus the last thylacine (also known as the Tasmaniantiger and the marsupial wolf) died in a zoo in 1936. Legal protection for its species in Tasmania was enacted just fifty-nine days before it expired

1S~~~~~~~~~i

(thylacines

had been hunted to extinction

any Europeans

set foot there). Subsequently

on the Australian mainland long before the thylacine has been the object of

a great deal of apparentlyheartfelt but inevitably impotent regret.'7 The fate of

ANIMAL

PLANET

211

the tiger in Indonesia and Malaysia depended on the opinions of a variety of colonized and colonizing groups, possibly in addition, Peter Boomgaardgently And suggests, to those of the tigers themselves."8 individuals alwayscould change their minds-or be of several minds. In Man-Eaters of Kumaon, Jim Corbett chronicled his triumphs over numerous lethal tigers, mostly in the classic colonialist mode: That is, claiming to protect Indian villagers who could not defend themselves. By the time of its original publication during WorldWarII, he had become an ardent conservationist (a national park in the Himalayan foothills was named in his honor after he died-in 1973,ProjectTiger,which aims to save the tiger from extinction, was founded there), yet he wrote for a public that thrilled to the chase and the kill.'9Very recent history offers many more examples of competing human claims to the resources represented by wild animals. Eating Apes by Dale Peterson explores one of the most extreme and problematiccases.20 If hunting represents the primevalrelationshipbetween humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, then domestication represents the most transformative one, fromthe perspectives of both the domesticatorsand the domesticatees.With the possible single exception of the dog, which may have been part of human social groupslong beforepeoplebegan to settle down,animals were domesticated in conjunctionwith the developmentof agriculture. periodwhen domesticated The dogs first appeared and the means by which wolves became dogs are highly controversial.RaymondCoppingerand LornaCoppingerargue strongly that dog domesticationwas an indirectproductof earlyagriculture-that is, that dogs who were inclined to scavenge in village waste sites domesticated themselves, much as cats inclined to hunt in rodent-infestedgrain stores did severalthousandyears later. Otherzoologists prefer explanations that emphasize the human penchant for adoptingwild pets and the similar hunting practices of humans and canids.21 But cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses, donkeys, camels, and llamas all were domesticated by agriculturalists or proto-agriculturalists.It is a commonplace of the most sweeping environmental histories that, although domesticated animals were not essential to the development of agriculture, they made a tremendous difference. They supplemented human labor, enhanced transportation, and provided skins and fiber, as well as meat and milk (and selective pressure in favor of the evolution of adult lactose tolerance in some human groups).22 Theyhave often been identified by contemporaryhistorians as the reason forthe competitivesuccess of societies ultimatelyderivedfromancient southwest Asia, especially in comparison with the indigenous societies of the Americas and Oceania.In the nineteenth century,racialist thinkers sometimes read this comparison in reverse, and used the absence of domesticated animals or even the failure to domesticate a particular kind of animal, as a way of denigrating human groups.Africans, for example,were criticized for not taming the elephant, which had provedso valuable in Asia. Like most aspects of what is normally celebrated as progress, the domestication of animals had a downside, although the connection was not recognizeduntil muchlater.Archaeological evidencesuggests that smallnomadic

212

ENVIRONMENTAL

HISTORY

9 (APRIL

2004)

groupswererelativelyuntroubledby the contagious diseases that repeatedlyhave decimated most settled communities. The size and the mobility of these groups had contributedto this happysituation,andboththese attributesalteredas people settled down to farm. Increased population meant larger reservoirs for disease and fixed residences meant permanentproximityto waste, whether disposed of in middens or in nearby watercourses. If people had domesticated only plants, these changes would only have exposed them more intensively to disease organisms that they alreadyharbored.But the domestication of wild ungulatesanimals which, though mobile, lived in groups large enough to incubate contagions-brought people into contact with a new set of diseases. Such human diseases as smallpox and measles-and diseases of other domestic animals, such as cat and dog distemper-resulted from contact with viruses that originally caused livestock diseases.23 Over the millennia, it has been theorized by environmentalhistorians, all but the most isolated old worldpopulationsbecame accustomed to these diseases. Their social impact was minimized through childhood exposure and their individual impact was possibly reduced through But maternally transmitted or inherited resistance.24 the human inhabitants of the Americas,who had left northeast Asia before the domestication of herds or flocks, had not enjoyed this protracted opportunity to adapt to the microbial cocktailto which Europeanadventurers began to expose them in the late fifteenth Most environmentalhistorians of the contact have concludedthat this century.25 exposure caused the dramatic drop in indigenous populations throughout the Americasin the ensuing centuries, although DavidJoneshas recently suggested that social factors should be weighted more heavily.26 Ofcourse epidemic disease was not the only effect that old worldanimals had on new worldpeople. Moredirect, or at least more obvious,was the impact of the animals themselves, many of which escaped and multiplied vigorously in favorablehabitats throughout the Americas.Elinor Melville characterizes such enthusiastic adaptationsas ungulate irruptions.Unlikethat of contagions, their impactwas mixed.As theyhad donein Europe, Asia andNorthAfrica,these animals provided food,power,andtransportation indigenouspeopleas well as to colonists, to while also subjectingsome fragileenvironmentsto unsustainablestrains.27 Althoughvaccines against most of these ancient scourges had been developed by the late twentieth century,and it had even become possible to contemplatethe absolute extinction of a few of them, human epidemiologicalvulnerabilityto our vast dense populations of meat animals is not a thing of the past. Influenza returns each year, slightly reengineeredin southeast Asia-probablya productof the mode of farming practiced there, in which people, chickens, pigs, and wild fowl live in sufficient proximity for their flu viruses to trade genetic material. Epidemiologists watched the avian flu that decimated flocks of chickens last winter with apprehensionbased only partlyon fear of its economic impact on the poultry industry and on the few cases in which it spread(lethally)to people.They realized that the virus that caused the influenza pandemic of 1918 was derived from a differentbirdvirus that developedthe ability to infect mammals;possibly its avian origins made it more difficult for people to resist. Nor do animals need

ANIMAL

PLANET

213

to be domesticated to transmit zoonotic disease, although when wild animals play this role, they usually have been incorporatedinto human economy if not human society. Thus SARS(severeacute respiratorysyndrome),which shut down travel to east Asia and to Torontoin 2003, apparentlyhas been tracedto civets, as AIDS has been traced to non-human African primates (both chimpanzees and monkeys).In each case, the attribution of responsibility has a blame-the-victim aspect. The most compelling recent episode of zoonotic transmission is mad cow disease or BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy),an affliction that clearly was producedby human practices and human politics. The disease, which spread widely among British cattle in the 1g8os-and in a limited number of cases to members of other species, including humans and cats-seems to have originated in cattle feed enriched with material from sheep carrying scrapie, a similar disease.28 Although feeding cattle with material derivedfrom fellow ungulatesa practice denounced by some excitable critics as enforced cannibalism-is not traditional, in a sense it represents an extension of a well-establishedtechnique. Since the eighteenth century,livestock farmershave attemptedto streamline the inherently inefficient diets of their animals. Cattle fed on food like oilcake, a much richer source of calories than the grass they evolvedto metabolize,matured earlier and gained weight faster, and thus became marketablemore rapidlyand more profitably.But if physical factors produced BSE, it was the Conservative British government of the 198os that turned the disease into an epizootic. A philosophy that defined government as the protector of commercial enterprise rather than of its citizens meant that official concern with beef industry profits the official concernwith publichealth.Further, British consistently overshadowed response to BSE (sharedby some members of the public as well as government officials) was shaped by such elusive factors as national pride and national passion. Of course, any significant commodity can serve as a metonym for the nation that producesor consumes it, but animals have been particularlylikely to fill such roles, and beef and beef cattle had occupied a particularly powerful emblematicposition in Britain for severalhundredyears.29 only were citizens Not urged to show their patriotism by continuing to eat British burgers, but nonBritish responses often suggested reciprocalnational feeling. Thus the stalwart commitmentproclaimedby other Europeangovernmentsto defend the health of their citizens against the British bovine menace could seem less absolute when BSE was rumored in their own herds. Although American politicians recently have taken alarm at a single detected case, rather than waiting, as was the case in Britain,for animals to succumbin their tens of thousands, they seem similarly inclined to view protection of the beef industry as their first priority,and to use the nationalborderto distinguish amongcattle suffering fromthe same affliction. The vulnerability of livestock to diseases also has affected the human environmentin various non-epidemicways.Thatis, epizootics, such as outbreaks of cattle plague or foot and mouth disease, repeatedly have wreaked economic havoc without making people sick. Since both cattle and horses are susceptible to sleeping sickness, the prevalence of the tse tse fly made it difficult for the

214

ENVIRONMENTAL

HISTORY

9 (APRIL

2004)

Figure 6. New Leicester Sheep.

j.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~X

Thomas Bewick,A GeneralHistory Quadrupeds of (Newcastle:T. Bewick,1824), 63.

RobertBakewellproduced the celebrated New Leicester improvedbreed of sheep.

Europeanbiological assemblage, which had provedso effective in expediting the colonization of.the temperate Americas and Australia,to move into large tracts of Africa. The waste produced by industrial concentrations of animals in stockyardsand factory farms continues to strain sewage facilities. Nevertheless, as greatly as domesticated animals have influenced human existence, our impact on them has been greater still. Simply in terms of numbers, these few favored species now account for a much larger proportion of the world'sbiomass than did their pre-agricultural ancestors. In several cases-the camel and the cow-the wild progenitors of domesticates have disappeared.In others, such as the wolf, their populations are dwarfedby those of their domesticated relatives. If Canis familiaris were to be reclassified as C. lupus on the basis of willingness to interbreedand ability to producefertile hybridoffspring, it would be difficult to argue for the protection of the wolf as an endangeredspecies. So domestication has given target species an enormous evolutionary advantage, if evolutionary success is measured simply in terms of quantity. In addition to exponentially increasing certain animal populations, the process of domestication has changed the very nature of its subjects. Archaeologicalevidencesuggests that the earlystages of domesticationproduced similar changes in a variety of species: reduced body size in general and brain size in particular,increased diversityin superficial characteristics like ear shape and coat color, and shortening of the face (partof a set of skeletal and behavioral changes that can be explained as the retention of juvenile characteristics into It adulthood).30 is likely that people originally selected animals for tractability and for distinctiveness-characteristics that would make it easier to manage the creatures and to tell them apart. Once domesticated populations were firmly distinguished from their wild relatives, however,people probablybegan to breed for more specialized qualities. Modernbreeders often claim that their favorite

ANIMAL

PLANET

215

variety of dog or horse or cow has ancient roots, but although it is clear that distinct strains existed in earlier times, it is difficult to make direct connections fromthem to particularmoderntypes. (Ofcourse everyliving animal has ancient forebears,just as every living human does; in both cases the problemis to figure out who they might be.)Overthe past three centuries animalbreedinghas become a highly technical, self-conscious, and institutionalized process-a form of bioengineeringbefore the fact. By the middle of the nineteenth century,breeding (or artificial selection) had become so widely understood,that Charles Darwin used it to introducehis audience to the less familiar process of natural selection in the opening pages of On the Originof Species.31 Whenmodernbreedingpractices were taking form in the eighteenth century or a little before,the aim of breederswas to enhance qualityin ways that couldbe assessed quantitatively.The first kinds of animals for which elaborate public breeding records were kept-the kind that could sustain pedigrees-were the horse andthe greyhound, both bredfor speed, which couldbe easily thoroughbred measured. The first livestock breed to receive this kind of formal attention was the shorthorn cow, the subject of a herd book published in i822. But careful breedinghad been going on long before,validatedby marketprices if not bypaper trails. On the contrary,the best-known stockbreederof the eighteenth century, RobertBakewell,made a point of obscuringthe descent of his prized bulls, rams, boars, and stallions. The quality of his animals was a matter of judgment, guaranteedby his name rather than those of his animals. His own success was calibratedby the size of the stud fees. AlthoughBakewelloften has been credited with developing the breeding techniques that he applied and marketed so brilliantly,it is likely that his fame obscuredthe earlierlaborsof modest breeders, whose unsung achievements served as the basis for his celebratedones.32 By the nineteenth century,as pet keeping became a popularpastime among membersof the middling and less-than-middlingordersof western societies, the infrastructureof breedingwas appliedto dogs, cats, rabbits,rodents, andvarious kinds of birds. It often had been difficult to decide what made a cow or pig excellent-there were heated controversies over, for example, whether morbid obesity was a prime desideratum or the reverse. With animals whose major function was to providecompanionshipand amusement,however,such decisions could approachthe impossible. Orat least, they were likely to be very arbitrary, often reflecting an appreciation simply of the human power to manipulate. Sometimes this powerwas exercised to the obvious disadvantageof established useful traits, and sometimes it was exercised capriciously enough to produce creaturesthat were perceivedas monstrosities. Forexample,when collies became popularpets in the Victorian period, they lost many of the characteristics that made them effective herd dogs. Particularly lamented was their intelligence, which was sacrificed when their skulls were reshaped to feature a long elegant nose. As information about genetics filtered into the pet-fancyingworld during the twentieth century,breeders'techniques became more focused and powerful. They even were able to achieve some goals that had long eluded them, such as a canary coloredred ratherthan yellow.33

216

ENVIRONMENTAL

HISTORY

9 (APRIL

2004)

The shift from breeding livestock to breeding pets was also ordinarily, although not inevitably, a shift from the country to the city. Animals are most frequentlyassociated with ruralsettings, but cities alwayshavebeen full of them. Before the development of modern technologies of refrigeration and Dairy transportation,towns needed to accommodateboth dairies and abattoirs.34 animals mostly stayed out of sight, while livestock bound for slaughter often marched through the streets, but both groups added significantly to the urban waste stream. Manypeople, including those living in tenements, kept their own chickens and even pigs. Before the twentieth century, all urban thoroughfares were choked with horses, which disappearedonly graduallywith the advent of the internal combustion engine. To some extent, at least in the affluent cities of the industrial world,these utilitarian animals have been replacedby burgeoning pet populations. Several zoonotic diseases typically have occurred in urban settings. Rabies is most frequentlytransmitted to people by dogs, and so is most feared where dog populations are densest, although rural dogs and various wild animals are also carriers.Theblack deathof the middleages andthe earlymodern period, whether or not it was the same as the modern contagion called bubonic plague, was focused on cities, although its traditional association with rats and But fleas recently has been questioned.35 whether or not they spread the great fourteenth-centuryplague, rats of several species would figure prominently in an animal census of most urban environments, along with other creatures similarly adaptedto scavenging or parasitism (whichis to say, semi-tame,if not includingmice,pigeons, and straydogs and cats.Alsomaking semi-domesticated), their homes in cities are many animals ordinarilycategorized as wild-monkeys in Calcutta,foxes in London,raccoons and coyotes in Boston. Of course, it is as difficult to decide what makes an animal wild as to define wildness orwildernessin anyothercontext.TheRoyalOntarioMuseumin Toronto once introducedits display of stuffed specimens with a dioramafeaturing a pair of large raccoons vigorously toppling a garbage can. The diorama (now gone, unfortunately)evokeda set of incongruities orparadoxes-not onlywhich animals arewild and which are not, but which are suitable subjects for scrutiny in cultural and educational settings. Thus most past and present zoos have preferred to collect exotic wild animals, segregating any resident domesticates into petting zoos for children; one of the things that distinguishes the Walter Rothschild Zoological Museum at Tring (now a branch of the Natural History Museum in London) is its large collection of stuffed dogs. And animals, especially domesticated ones, breach other boundaries as well. Or,to put it another way, they help expose some of the assumptions that underlie the stories that we tell, in particular stories about the extent to which we are part of or separate from our environmentalsubject. With animals the question of us and them is always close to the surface. Not only have they often functioned-even the most ingratiating of them-as representativesof the naturalworld,but they often have been selected as obvious representativesof human groups,whether as totems or national emblems or team mascots.36

ANIMAL

PLANET

217

This liminality is most obvious-and most problematic- with regard to the animals who resemble us most closely. From its Enlightenment beginnings, formal taxonomy has recognized not only the general correspondencebetween people and what were then known as quadrupeds(that is, mammals),but also the particularsimilarities that human beings shared with apes and monkeys. It was the non-functionaldetails that provedmost compelling:the shape of the external ear, for example, or the flatness of fingernails and toenails. On this basis, the celebrated eighteenth-century systematizer Carolus Linnaeus located people firmly within the animal kingdom: He constructed the primate order to Humansalso were accommodatehumans, apes, monkeys,prosimians, and bats.37 claimed to demonstrate their animal affinities in ways that were less abstract and more sensational. In an age fascinated by hybrids,humans were sometimes alleged to be the objects or the originators of potentially fruitful relationships with orangutansand chimpanzees,although scientific accounts of such episodes tended to be carefully distanced by skepticism or censure.38 Outside the communityof experts, claims could be less restrained;in the nineteenth century who wereunusuallyhairy or adeptwith their toes wereballyhooed non-Europeans as products of an ape-humancross. Physical and mental similarities between people and other primates often were foregroundedin zoo displays that featured chimpanzeeswho not only woreclothes, but ate with silverware,drankfromcups, and turned the pages of books. Such displays were not universally appealing, however,and as evolutionary theory suggested a more concrete and ineluctable connection, it provoked increasinglyarticulateresistance.As Darwinsadlynoted at the end of The Descent of Man, written a decade after the appearanceof the Origin in 1859, "Themain conclusion arrivedat in this work,namelythat man is descendedfromsome lowlyorganized form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many persons."39 In the century and more since Darwinwrote, his evolutionarytheory has been enshrined as biological orthodoxy.But some of the questions that troubledhis Victorian critics continue to complicate modern narratives, whether told for a scientific or scholarly audience or for a less specialized one. Remote from the reflections of historians, animals clog the airwaves. A majority of the featured animal extravagantly produced commercials for SuperbowlXXXVIII actors, although this was not their most frequentlyremarkedattribute.An entire cable channel is devoted to animals, and zoological documentaries appear frequentlyon other networks.Manyof these programspresent an environmental context and an elegiac environmentalist message, at the same time that they celebrate the physical triumph of fit, canny trappers or photographers(hunters transformedto suit modernsensibilities) over dangerousbeasts. It is often hard to know who is the hero of the story, let alone what the moral is meant to be.
Harriet Ritvo is ArthurJ. Conner Professor of History at MIT. She is the author of TheAnimal Estate:The English and OtherCreaturesin the VictorianAge and

The Platypus and the Mermaid, and Other Figments of the Classifying Imagination. She currentlyis workingon a book about the Victorian environment.

218

ENVIRONMENTAL

HISTORY

9 (APRIL

2004)

NOTES
1.
2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

I will continue to assume that we are animals too, but for the sake of euphony,I will for refer to nonhuman animals just as "animals" the rest of this essay. The literature on animal rights and responsibilities is relatively sparse and eccentric: See, for example, E. P. Evans, The CriminalProsecution and CapitalPunishiment of Animals: The Lost History of Europe'sAnimal Trials (1906; reprint, London:Faber, HarperCollins, 1987); andVicki Hearne,Bandit:Dossierof a DangerousDog(NewYork: 1991).The literatureon vivisection is denser and more conventional:See, for example, NicolaasA. Rupke,ed., Vivisectionin HistoricalPerspective(London: Routledge,1987); and Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1975). Susan D.Jones, ValuingAnimals:Veterinarians and TheirPatients in ModernAmerica (Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress, 2003). Forfurtherreflections on this topic see HarrietRitvo, "Historyand Animal Studies,"Society and Animals 10 (2002): 4036. This issue of Society and Animals also includes essays on the relation of animal studies to other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. JaneGoodall,The Chimpanzeesof Gombe: Patterns of Behavior(Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 1986), ch. 11. See, for example, C.K. Brain, TheHunters or the Hunted?AnIntroductionto African CaveTaphonomy (Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress, 1981). Edward0. Wilson, TheDiversity of Life (Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress, 1992), ch. 12. ShepardKrechIII, The EcologicalIndian:Myth and History (NewYork:W.W. Norton,
1999), ch. 1.

8. Discussions of the evidence for alternativepoints of view can be found in E. C.Pielou, After the Ice Age: TheReturnof Life to GlaciatedNorthAmerica(Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1991), ch. 12; and Tim Flannery,TheEternalFrontier: Ecological An History of NorthAmerica and Its Peoples (NewYork:GrovePress, 2001), chs. 14-17. 9. ClaudineCohen,TheFateof the Mammoth:Fossils, Myth,and History,trans. William Rodarmor(1994; Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 2002), especially chapter 12. See also A. BowdoinVanRiper,Men among the Mammoths:VictorianScience and the Discovery of Human Prehistory(Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress, 1993). 10. Matt Cartmill,A Viewto a Death in the Morning:Hunting and Nature throughHistory
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993).

For statistical analysis of the consequences of the fur trade, see Arthur Radclyffe Dugmore,TheRomanceof the Beaver;being the History of the Beaverin the Western WilliamHeinemann,1914),ch. 4; and Briton CooperBusch, The Hemisphere(London: Waragainst the Seals: A History of the North American Seal Fishery (Kingston and Montreal:McGill-Queen's UniversityPress, 1985). 12. Harriet Ritvo, TheAnimal Estate: The English and Other Creaturesin the Victorian Age (Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress, 1987), chs. 5-6. 13. Foran elaborateaccount of the decimation and partialrecoveryof the NorthAmerican bison herd, see Andrew C. Isenberg, The Destruction of the Bison (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2000). 14. John M. MacKenzie, The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation and British Imperialism(Manchester:Universityof ManchesterPress, 1988); and RichardFitter and Peter Scott, ThePenitent Butchers:75 Yearsof WildlifeConservation:TheFauna
il. Preservation Society 1903-1978 (London: Fauna Preservation Society, 1978).

ANIMAL

PLANET

219

15. For an extensive discussion of this campaign in the United States and Britain, see

Robin W. Doughty, Feather Fashions and Bird Preservation: A Study in Nature Protection (Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress, 1975). 16. Karl Jacoby,Crimes against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation (Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress, 2001); and Louis S. Warren,TheHunter'sGame:Poachersand Conservationistsin TwentiethCenturyAmerica(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress, 1997). Cambridge 17. RobertPaddle, TheHistory and Extinction of the Thylacine(Cambridge: UniversityPress, 2000). i8. Peter Boomgaard broaches the possibility of writing history, environmental or otherwise,that incorporatesthe perspectiveof animals,but regretfullydecides to keep to the conventional path. Both his decision and his regret are understandable.Peter (New Boomgaard,Frontiersof Fear:Tigersand People in the Malay World1600-1950 Haven:YaleUniversityPress, 2001). 19. Jim Corbett,Man-Eatersof Kumaon(1944;reprint, Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,
1993).

2o. Dale Peterson, EatingApes (Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 2003). 21. Raymond Coppinger and Lorna Coppinger,Dogs: A New Understanding of Canine Origin,Behavior,and Evolution (Chicago:University of ChicagoPress, 2001). For an A alternativeview, see JulietClutton-Brock, NaturalHistoryof DomesticatedMammals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), ch. 3. View Bird's-Eye 22. Forexample,WilliamMcNeilland JohnR. McNeill, TheHuman Web:A of World History (New York: W.W.Norton, 2003); Alfred W. Crosby, Ecological Cambridge Imperialism:TheBiological Expansion of Europe,goo-1goo (Cambridge: University Press, 1986); and JaredDiamond, Guns, Germs,and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (NewYork:W.W. Norton,1997). 23. For overviews of the relation between humans and other animals as mediated by disease, see Lise Wilkinson, Animals and Disease: An Introduction to the History of CambridgeUniversity Press, 1992); and Joanna ComparativeMedicine (Cambridge: Relations and the Rise Swabe,Animals, Disease and Human Society:Human-Animal of Veterinary Medicine (London: Routledge,1999). Anchor,1976). 24. Classically,in William McNeill, Plagues and Peoples (NewYork: 25. The process that began in 1492 or thereabouts arguably continued until the flu pandemic of 1918. For description of that event, see Alfred W. Crosby,America's Cambridge UniversityPress, ForgottenPandemic:TheInfluenza or 1918 (Cambridge: 1990); and Gina Kolata,Flu: The Story of the GreatInfluenza Pandemic of 198 and the Search for the Virusthat CausedIt (NewYork:Farrar,Strauss and Giroux,1999). 26. David S. Jones, Rationalizing Epidemics: Meanings and Uses of American Indian HarvardUniversity Press, 2004), chs. 1-2. For the Mortality since i6oo (Cambridge: standardexplanation,see AlfredW.Crosby,TheColumbianExchange:Biological and CulturalConsequencesof 1492 (1973; reprint,Westport,Conn.:Praeger,2003). While the fact of population decline is uncontested, the extent of the demographicdisaster is highly controversial, on historical, scientific, and political grounds, as Krech explains in EcologicalIndian, ch 3. 27. ElinorG.K.Melville,A Plague of Sheep:EnvironmentalConsequencesof the Conquest of Mexico (Cambridge: University Press, 1994). Cambridge 28. For a scientific discussion of BSE, see Pierre-MarieLledo,Histoire de la vache folle (Paris:Presses Universitairesde France,2001). American 29. Foran account of BSE in Britain, see HarrietRitvo, "MadCowMysteries,"
Scholar (Spring 1998): 113-22. NaturalHistory of DomesticatedMammals,ch. 1. 30. Clutton-Brock,

2200

ENVIRONMENTAL

HISTORY

9 (APRIL

2004)

Harvard University 31. CharlesDarwin,Onthe Originof Species (1859; reprint,Cambridge: Press, 1964), ch. i. Darwin later wrote a very long book dealing exclusively with this subject: The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, 2 vols. (1868; reprint,Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1998). 32. Foraccounts of early breeding, see Nicholas Russell, Like Engend'ringLike:Heredity and Animal Breeding in Early Modern England (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1986); Harriet Ritvo, "Possessing Mother Nature: Genetic Capital in i8thin CenturyBritain," EarlyModernConceptionsof Property,ed. Susan Staves and John Brewer(London: Routledge,1994), 413-26; and Ritvo,Animal Estate, ch. 2. 33. Modern breeding efforts are discussed in Margaret E. Derry, Bred for Perfection: Shorthorn Cattle, Collies, and ArabianHorses since i8oo (Baltimore:JohnsHopkins University Press, 2003); and Tim Birkhead, A Brand-NewBird: How TwoAmateur Scientists Createdthe First GeneticallyEngineeredAnimal (NewYork:Basic Books,
2003).

34. Onthe developmentof modernabbatoirs,see Noelie Vialles, Animal to Edible,trans. J. A. Underwood(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). of 35. See DavidHerlihy,TheBlack Death and the Transformation the West (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1997), introduction and ch. 1.

36. KeithThomashas discussed the developmentof the association between animals and nature in Man and the Natural World: History of the ModernSensibility (NewYork: A Pantheon,1983), especially in chs. 3, 4, and 6. 37. CarolusLinnaeus, Systema Naturae:RegnumAnimale(1758;reprint,London:British Museum [NaturalHistory],1956). 38. Foran extended discussion of eighteenth and nineteenth century hybrids and crossbreeds, see HarrietRitvo, ThePlatypus and the Mermaid,and OtherFigments of the Classifying Imagination (Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress, 1997), ch. 3. 39. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871; reprint, New York: Modern Library, 1950),
919.