why couldn't humans tame zebras ??

[Zyada]

Let’s start with the canids:

Domesticated canid(s):
Dog: Canis lupus familiaris

Undomesticated canids:
Gray Wolf: Canis lupus
Coyote: Canis latrans
Dingo: Canis lupus dingo*
Golden Jackal: Canis aureus
Side striped Jackal: Canis adustus
Black Backed Jackal: Canis mesomelas
Red wolf: Canis Ru
Ethiopian Wolf: Canis simensis
If there is any Genus that does fit the “nobody bothered to domesticate the rest because we have one already”, I think the canids would fit. Dogs are different than other domesticated animals in that we don’t have to pen them in to keep them near, our relationship with them is more cooperative than captured, and they have been domesticated far longer than any other animal except possibly cats.

[Zyada]

@brazil84

It seems to me that the burden of proof is firmly on Diamond and his supporters to come forth with evidence showing that zebras and the like are particularly non-domesticable.

What sort of proof are you going to accept?

Of course, and I’ve never claimed otherwise. In fact, I referred to dogs as “domesticated wolves” in order to emphasize that they are the same species.

And you don’t see how this weakens your argument, right?

[brazil84]

@Zyada

What sort of proof are you going to accept?

Among other things, if you show me historical evidence demonstrating that horses in general were not particularly aggressive – even before they were domesticated – that would be helpful. Also persuasive would be evidence that as a general rule, the non-domesticated versions of other domesticated animals are significantly less aggressive than zebras.

And you don’t see how this weakens your argument, right?

Correct.

If there is any Genus that does fit the “nobody bothered to domesticate the rest because we have one already”, I think the canids would fit.

I’m not sure what your point is here.

[Zyada]

Equids: Genus Equus
Domesticated:
E. asinus - Donkey (aka Ass)
E. caballus - Domestic Horse

Wild:
E. africanus - African Wild Ass
E. ferus - Wild Horse
E. hemionus - Onager
E. kiang - Kiang
E. grevyi - Grevy’s Zebra
E. quagga - Plains Zebra
E. zebra - Cape Mountain Zebra
E. hartmannae - Hartmann’s Mountain Zebra

It’s believed that the African Wild Ass is the wild ancestor to the Donkey. Wikipedia states that “African wild asses have been captured for domestication for centuries and this, together with interbreeding between wild and domestic animals, has caused a distinct decline in population numbers.”

How I read this is that donkeys were not just domesticated once a few thousand years ago, but have been domesticated and re-domesticated from wild asses many, many times. IMO, if zebras were just stripey wild horses, we would have seen the same activity. But let’s not stop there.
Wild horses are extinct (Tarpan) or nearly so (Przewalski’s horse ). There is no mention of temperament for the latter, except one site that calls it “shy”. American “Tarpans” were bred from Tarpan hybrids, and the American Tarpan Society “can be gentle enough for small children”. Like the wild african asses, we get the comment on the original Tarpans that “Peasants who tamed and crossbred them with their local domestic horses captured the Tarpans”

Kiang are the largest of the wild asses. I can find no information about their temperament.

Onagers are animals very similar to donkeys, and easily confused. However, there is no evidence that they were ever domesticated, probably because “all writers since Roman times have told of its bad temper and irascible nature” (From A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals by Juliet Clutton-Brock) It’s known that onagers are not closely related to donkeys because donkey/onager offspring are not fertile.
This leaves the zebras, of which a number of sites mention their bad temper and tendency to bite without warning. One site says

The zebra’s temperament is also very different from the other members of the horse family. Zebras are difficult to tame and train, and are savage fighters. In zoos, the zebra is considered a vicious animal, and its keepers always are on guard against a crippling kick or bite.

This doesn’t look to be the most reliable site, though.

Another site, that looks a bit more reliable states that herdsmen have attempted for centuries to domesticate zebras.

Other references I have found on zebra temperament point out that zebras tend to attack when there is a threat, where horses and asses tend to run.
One final note here: while doing this research, one page said the Somali Wild ass was “Arguably the most beautiful of all asses”

[Gorsnak]

@brazil84

Among other things, if you show me historical evidence demonstrating that horses in general were not particularly aggressive – even before they were domesticated – that would be helpful. Also persuasive would be evidence that as a general rule, the non-domesticated versions of other domesticated animals are significantly less aggressive than zebras.

You’re focusing way too much on aggressiveness here. There’s more than one factor at play. Wolves might be aggressive towards humans, but they’re also extremely social, and the pack hierarchy has a huge impact on wolf behaviour. A huge part in training dogs is to teach them that they rank lower in the pack than any of “their people” do. A large part of the reason that a dog can be perfectly safe around children and yet turn around and rip a stranger to pieces is due to its ingrained pack behaviour. There’s absolutely no doubt that the social nature of wolves is one of the factors in their domestication.

Or take breeding behaviour. You might have a species that’s otherwise a prime domestication candidate, but if it won’t breed in captivity, you’re not going to domesticate it - well, you might, in an extremely roundabout way, by keeping them in large fenced areas and manipulating which breeding animals are on which side of the fence, eventually modifying behaviour through artificial selection - but that’s not how any primitive domestication projects could have gone.

I don’t know anywhere near enough about zebra behaviour to really comment on their domesticability, but how aggressive they are is only one piece of the puzzle.

[brazil84]

@Zyada

It’s believed that the African Wild Ass is the wild ancestor to the Donkey. Wikipedia states that “African wild asses have been captured for domestication for centuries and this, together with interbreeding between wild and domestic animals, has caused a distinct decline in population numbers.”

How I read this is that donkeys were not just domesticated once a few thousand years ago, but have been domesticated and re-domesticated from wild asses many, many times. IMO, if zebras were just stripey wild horses, we would have seen the same activity.

I don’t see why. Anyway, I did a google search on wild, ass, and temperament. The following source seems to be somewhat authoritative and says:

African wild ass . . . wild progenitor distinguished from descendant domestic donkey by larger size, uniform markings and wild temperament.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:QWQJlf2r0CAJ:www.cites.org/eng/resources/ID/fauna/Volume1/A-118.001.001.001%2520Equus%2520africanus_E.pdf+wild+ass+temperament&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Onagers are animals very similar to donkeys, and easily confused. However, there is no evidence that they were ever domesticated, probably because “all writers since Roman times have told of its bad temper and irascible nature” (From A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals by Juliet Clutton-Brock)

It seems likely to me that the progenitors of horses were difficult too. By Roman times, horses would have been well on the road to domestication. No?

herdsmen have attempted for centuries to domesticate zebras.

It’s interesting you should say that, because earlier when you asked me what proof I would accept, I considered whether failed attempts to domesticate zebras would persuade me. Logically, a failed attempt to domesticate zebras supports the argument that zebras are not domesticable. The problem is that it seems really hard to guage just how good any attempt or series of attempts is. When somebody tells me “I tried to do X,” I always wonder just how serious and competent the attempt was. More often than not, the person didn’t really make a serious attempt.

But if somebody were to show me the specific details of a very concerted effort, it would be interesting.

[brazil84]

@Gorsnak

You’re focusing way too much on aggressiveness here.

Just because other posters seemed to be emphasizing aggressiveness (or difficulty of handling in general) as the reason zebras are allegedly not domesticable.

There’s more than one factor at play.

I am happy to consider other explanations.

I don’t know anywhere near enough about zebra behaviour to really comment on their domesticability, but how aggressive they are is only one piece of the puzzle.

That may be, but as more factors get thrown in to the explanation, it can potentially become more of an ad hoc “just so story” and therefore less credible.

[Gorsnak]

@brazil84

That may be, but as more factors get thrown in to the explanation, it can potentially become more of an ad hoc “just so story” and therefore less credible.

Well gosh, I apologize for reality being complicated and difficult to measure. Perhaps you should register a complaint?

[brazil84]

@Gorsnak

Well gosh, I apologize for reality being complicated and difficult to measure. Perhaps you should register a complaint?

No need, I just prefer to use Occam’s razor. lemur’s hypothesis is simple, logical, and seems to fit with the available evidence quite nicely without much in the way of ad hoc explanation.

[Zyada]

Ok, now you’re just being mulish. Do you think Diamond and these historians are just pulling information out of their ass?

I’m quite willing to accept secondary and tertiary sources, because it’s not my discipline, but it is the discipline of historians and they always look for primary sources, and do not accept secondary sources except as hearsay. If I read that a historian says that there have been historical attempts to domesticate zebras, I believe them. (Any historians want to defend their discipline here?)

Furthermore, someone isn’t going to make it into historical references if they just do a half-assed job of trying to domesticate an animal. In most of our world nowadays, wealth is a function of how much money we can make and how comfortable we make ourselves with that money, but back then animals were wealth. In biblical times, only the wealthiest of the wealthy had horses.

Yes, I have met the people that said something was “too hard” when they really meant that they couldn’t or didn’t want to make the effort to figure it out. But those people didn’t even have their jobs on the line - either it wasn’t their livelihood they were talking about, or their giving up didn’t effect their job.

But domesticating any animal was a major improvement in a person’s wealth. We’re talking getting a free car type of improvement in circumstances. And that is just for food animals, which were quite common. But only the wealthiest had horses, and here was an animal that looked like a horse? If you could domesticate that animal, you would probably get something equivalent in modern terms to a big house for free, and a job for life. And probably a concubine or three, given the way things were in that time period. Now add in what is probably the underlying reason why we are discussing zebras and not rhinos or alligators - zebras look cool. That adds even more value. So with just some effort (not even money, just work and time) that one person could go from one of the poorer people in the area to absurdly wealthy and people aren’t going to be trying six ways from Sunday? Given the competitive nature of men, do you think that if one guy fails, no one else is going to say “He must not have tried hard enough” and make the attempt themselves?

That’s a load of horse manure.

You think our present day knowledge is greater than what they knew? Sure we have scientists and behaviorists and all sorts of ists studying animals. But back then, people lived and breathed animals. They shared their houses with animals - not just dogs and cats, but pigs, sheep, and donkeys. And horses, if they were the King’s keeper of the horses. Yes, we know more nowadays in general than they knew then, things like how to read, how to program a computer, what Avogadro’s number is. That doesn’t mean that they were stupid - it means that what they did know, they most likely knew far more comprehensively than people today because they didn’t have a choice.

We could also go into how horses didn’t do well in the sub-tropical climates in North Africa where zebras live. How horses didn’t have the immunity to the local diseases or the tolerance for the climate. Horses were first domesticated in the cool Russian steppes. It’s almost as hard to move animals that evolved to one climate into a different climate as it is to move plants.
When a historian tells me that attempts to domesticate zebras failed because of their aggressiveness, that tells me that many expert animal handlers throughout history used their best techniques and failed, and the reason that they failed was due to the aggressiveness of the animal. I’m pretty much confident that zebras are probably undomesticable, even with several generations of selective breeding. Especially since people have been more successful with animals such as elephants, bears and cheetahs.

Do you really think you know mare about animals and history than the people who devote their entire life to it? I think you need to get off of your high horse and learn how to accept that other people may actually know more than you do.

May the gods of the SDMB forgive me.

[brazil84]

@Zyada

Do you think Diamond and these historians are just pulling information out of their ass?

I don’t know what historians you are talking about, but as I indicated earlier, I don’t have a lot of respect for Diamond.

If I read that a historian says that there have been historical attempts to domesticate zebras, I believe them. (Any historians want to defend their discipline here?)

Furthermore, someone isn’t going to make it into historical references if they just do a half-assed job of trying to domesticate an animal.

Untill 1500, many people had tried to construct flying machines and I’m think it’s pretty likely that many of these attempts made it into historical records. The fact that as of 1500 nobody had succeeded doesn’t mean it was impossible. People just weren’t trying in the right way.

At the same time, the records regarding attempts to domesticate animals like horses and dogs are apparently pretty sparse. It’s possible that the ancients made an enormous effort to domesticate horses and dogs – failing many many times – until they finally succeeded.

The bottom line is that without the specific details of domestication attempts, it’s impossible to say that people tried just as hard to domesticate the zebra as they did with the horse.

Do you really think you know mare about animals and history than the people who devote their entire life to it?

Exactly which historians are you referring to?

[Acsenray]

@brazil84

That may be, but as more factors get thrown in to the explanation, it can potentially become more of an ad hoc “just so story” and therefore less credible.

Isn’t it the other way around? That one, single “magic” explanation is hard to find when investigating the whys of human societal development. These things aren’t like chemical reactions that are susceptible to a single, neat explanation. To me, the answer "zebras were not domesticated for several different reasons, including possibly … " seems a lot more believable than “zebras were not domesticated because they’re too aggressive” when your main reason for sticking with that answer is that it’s the simplest and no one has definitively falsified it.

[Zyada]

@acsenray

Isn’t it the other way around? That one, single “magic” explanation is hard to find when investigating the whys of human societal development. These things aren’t like chemical reactions that are susceptible to a single, neat explanation. To me, the answer "zebras were not domesticated for several different reasons, including possibly … " seems a lot more believable than “zebras were not domesticated because they’re too aggressive” when your main reason for sticking with that answer is that it’s the simplest and no one has definitively falsified it.

My reason for “sticking with that answer” isn’t that it’s the simplest - it is because that is the reason why every attempt to domesticate zebras has failed, throughout the historical record. There may be other reasons why zebras don’t domesticate well, but “it’s possible that no one ever tried hard enough” is not one - this “reasoning” is completely contrary to everything we know about human nature. If this were a true factor, we would still be wearing skins and hunting with rocks.

Domestication was a human invention. History shows that when people get a particular invention down, we play with it, we find different ways to use it, we take it to its limits. The internet wasn’t invented to allow people in different parts of the world to argue why there are no domesticated zebras, but look at where we are. In about 100 years after the first manned flight, we had made it to the moon and broken the sound barrier.

Frankly, I’m not arguing with brazil84 in any hope of actually changing his mind. I’m arguing in hopes that the peanut gallery will leave this thread with a little better knowledge and maybe a better ability to reason.

[Shalmanese]

@brazil84

I don’t know what historians you are talking about, but as I indicated earlier, I don’t have a lot of respect for Diamond.

Have you actually read Diamond rather than just people quoting Diamond? Because he addresses a lot of your specific concerns and raises a whole bunch of points which haven’t been presented here.

If Diamond was so stunningly wrong, it should be easy to find articles from experts detailing how he was wrong and bringing empirical evidence to bear. As of yet, I’m not aware of anyone doing so which leads me to believe that he was pretty much reflecting the consensus view of the field.

[brazil84]

@acsenray

That one, single “magic” explanation is hard to find when investigating the whys of human societal development. These things aren’t like chemical reactions that are susceptible to a single, neat explanation.

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. One could ask why the use of the horse in the United States for transportation has dropped in the last 100 years. Well, there’s a simple answer: newer technologies have come out, such as cars.

To me, the answer "zebras were not domesticated for several different reasons, including possibly … " seems a lot more believable than “zebras were not domesticated because they’re too aggressive” when your main reason for sticking with that answer is that it’s the simplest and no one has definitively falsified it.

Suppose that there was a genetic test one could do to determine the aggressiveness of an animal, and that there was some way to get this information for the non-domesticated form of the animal. Suppose further that the non-domesticated versions of domesticated animals all had aggresiveness scores of less than 80; the Zebra had a score of 100; and the rhinocerous had a score of 105. In that case, the hypothesis would be very simple, powerful and believable.

[brazil84]

@Shalmanese

Have you actually read Diamond rather than just people quoting Diamond?

Yes. And I said as much earlier in the thread.

Because he addresses a lot of your specific concerns and raises a whole bunch of points which haven’t been presented here.

So feel free to quote or paraphrase him and I will respond.

If Diamond was so stunningly wrong, it should be easy to find articles from experts detailing how he was wrong and bringing empirical evidence to bear.

What do you mean by “expert”? There were plenty of negative reviews, despite the extreme PCness of the book.

[Lightray]

@Zyada

My reason for “sticking with that answer” isn’t that it’s the simplest - it is because that is the reason why every attempt to domesticate zebras has failed, throughout the historical record. There may be other reasons why zebras don’t domesticate well, but “it’s possible that no one ever tried hard enough” is not one - this “reasoning” is completely contrary to everything we know about human nature. If this were a true factor, we would still be wearing skins and hunting with rocks.

Hold on, here. What other historians or “historical records” support Diamond’s hypothesis? Because I haven’t seen any others mentioned in this thread, and Diamond himself actually does not talk about zebra domestication all that much in his chapter on why the zebra (and other animals) were not domesticated. When I re-read that this weekend, I was surprised at how little of the chapter was devoted to that.

And Diamond – as he points out himself – is not a historian. His books are very good demonstrations of what laypeople and logic can reveal, but not the same as actual historical research.

Most of what I’ve seen on zebras (not much, BTW) is reports of attempts at zebra domestication after the colonization of Africa was underway. And that really tells us nothing of why the zebra did not get natively domesticated before then. If there are studies which explore that, it would be interesting to know what they concluded. But I, too, would say that Diamond alone is flimsy support for the “zebra aggression prevents domestication” hypothesis.

[Zyada]

@brazil84

What do you mean by “expert”? There were plenty of negative reviews, despite the extreme PCness of the book.

How is the book “PC”? :dubious:

[Zyada]

@Lightray

Hold on, here. What other historians or “historical records” support Diamond’s hypothesis? Because I haven’t seen any others mentioned in this thread, and Diamond himself actually does not talk about zebra domestication all that much in his chapter on why the zebra (and other animals) were not domesticated. When I re-read that this weekend, I was surprised at how little of the chapter was devoted to that.

And Diamond – as he points out himself – is not a historian. His books are very good demonstrations of what laypeople and logic can reveal, but not the same as actual historical research.

Maybe you should check out the nearly thirty pages of suggested readings in the back of the book for further information.

Diamond may not be a historian, but he is a researcher and he is certainly not a “layperson”. You’re not going to find such items as “Equids in the ancient world”
(by Richard H Meadow; Hans-Peter Uerpmann; Universität Tübingen. Institut für Urgeschichte) on the average person’s reading list or even in the average city library. I am being somewhat lazy in not very many other sources (although I quote another author above) but while I can see many criticisms of Diamond’s works, I don’t think shabby research and unprovable facts to be among them.

Diamond treats the subject of zebra aggressiveness fairly lightly because that is not what the chapter is about. If you’re going to pick apart every technical detail he presents to support his thesis, you might as well throw the book out.

[Shalmanese]

@brazil84

Yes. And I said as much earlier in the thread.

Given that you’ve read him, it’s odd that you’re raising points which he specifically counters in the book like the difference between “tame” and “domesticated” and how critics often conflate the two.

So feel free to quote or paraphrase him and I will respond.

I don’t have the book on hand but I recall his argument is quite different from what’s been set out here. For one, he defines several criteria for an animal to be domesticable including lack of aggression, social order, ability to be penned and so forth. Furthermore, the lack of just one characteristic is enough to make an animal undomesticated. So the “zebras are aggressive” argument may be a complete red herring, there might be some other factor that hinders domestication.

Edit: thanks to google books, you can read the chapter here: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/searchPageBuilder.jsp?z=1199824057453&grpID=7600

the 6 traits are diet, growth rate, ability to breed in captivity, disposition, tendancy to panic and social structure. It also specifically addresses the zebra aggression issue by stating that zebras injure more US zookeepers than tigers and are virtually impossible to lasso.

What do you mean by “expert”? There were plenty of negative reviews, despite the extreme PCness of the book.

I’m not talking about reviews, I’m talking about academic arguments. For example, Diamond has taken a fairly hard line that the Clovis people were the first to inhabit North America and I’ve seen numerous scholars specifically address his assertions and debate him on this point. I’ve not yet seen anybody with expertise in this field specifically disagree with him on the animal domestication issue.