Mendeley  

Zotero  

Rahimi Sorkhani R. (2023). A Critical Approach to the Terminology of Domestication An Evolutionary Model for Terminology. Parseh J Archaeol Stud. 7(25), 7-28. doi:10.30699/PJAS.7.25.7
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-684-en.html

Abstract
Terminology is a group of specialized words and respective implications in a specific field, additionally, the consideration of such terms and their utilization. Terminology is one of the most essential aspects of any field of study. This gives an understanding of the concepts and contextual information to how you will be using those concepts. In archaeology, like all other sciences, we need to create and revise some concepts. This article proposes to establish a universal definition of the phenomenon of Domestication. Domestication is the adaptation of a plant or animal from a wild or natural state to life in close association with humans. In this research, the etymology and definitions of the phenomenon of Domestication are considered, followed by its evolution across the literature. This article defines some specialized terms of the Neolithic process in domestication, which is the driving force behind the dynamics of archaeological patterns and the transition from historical-cultural archeology to processual archaeology following the change from threshold to process and long-term formations. However, Iranian archeology has not yet kept pace with this dynamic. The picture provided for the users of archeology is a static image of science, and it is implied that science is a fixed and unchanging reality. This essay aims to demonstrate the difficulties and flaws in archaeological information transmission when scientific language is not prepared. The need to disseminate new knowledge and technology is one motivation for solving this problem. Archaeological research in Iran is now undergoing a crucial shift from traditional to processual methods. Studies of the Neolithic process are only starting in many locations, and terminology-related issues must be addressed. The result of this research is the ascertainment that adopting a universal definition of the phenomenon of Domestication is absolutely paramount in order to progress on all animal and plant-related matters.
Keywords: Terminology, Neolithic, Domestication, Evolutionary, Process.

Introduction
Terminology is the foundation of science; the words we use to describe the world around us substantially impact how we conceptualize study issues.
Neolithic and, subsequently, domestication is one of the most contentious among prehistorians. The term Neolithic, according to researchers, is insufficient. They now attempt to argue that Neolithic technology and economic growth are social constructs and that what matters more than what was created during the Neolithic era is how and in what method it was produced (Çilingiroğlu, 2005: 1). Terms like the Neolithic Package and Neolithization were created to comprehend the challenges during the Neolithic era. Neolithization refers to the process rather than the cultural phenomenon’s cross-sectional character. 
The Neolithic was a process of transition from a nomadic lifestyle of hunter-gatherer communities to one of agriculture and pastoralism. The crucial factor which contributed to the advent of the Neolithic process was the invention of domestication.
This process takes place between the two poles designated by ‘wild’ and ‘domestic’. Consequently, one can talk about various stages or levels of domestication. These factors can have either a rapid or a gradual impact on living organisms. Domestication consists of a number of clearly discernible intermediate stages.
 As a result, we now know that terminology like agriculture, farming, and cultivation originated behind the dynamics of archaeological patterns and the shift from historical-cultural archeology with a threshold perspective to process archeology with a processual perspective. In other words, the agricultural event has assumed numerous forms throughout several thousand years, for which we have a name, or in the domestication of animals, we have the terms Husbandry, Pastoralism, Taming, and Herding Domestic, signifying changes in time and development in a phenomenon. This is a long-lasting trend.
The historical-cultural threshold approach is still present in Iranian archeology, and we continue to refer to all kinds of agriculture, animal husbandry, and settlement patterns as agricultural or animal husbandry for thousands of years.
The article aims to define the language of many forms of agriculture and animal husbandry that have particular identities and have evolved into full-fledged agriculture and animal husbandry via an evolutionary process.
In the published literature on early agriculture, there is a tendency for the word agriculture and many of its subsidiary terms to be used vaguely without precise definitions, and sometimes their connotations overlap, for example, proto/incipient and shifting/extensive. There is a need to clarify much agricultural terminology to avoid confusion.

Discussion
As a result of various ponders, researchers have displayed a number of terms with the see of clarifying the root of agriculture. At the initial, ‘wild’ stage of domestication, a given population of organisms generally has no experience of any direct or indirect impact on the part of man. Domestication ends at the ‘domestic’ arrangement when a given populace is completely subordinate to people with respect to such issues as survival, reproduction, and nutrition. The most famous terms among those include the following: 

Domestication of Plant
There is an evolutionary process of terminology on the way of plant domestication.
Management: Management is the control of wild species (plants or animals) without cultivation or morphological alterations (Price & Yosef, 2011: 165).
Cultivation: Cultivation is the deliberate preparation of the land, planting, reaping, and storing seeds or other plant components.
Farming: Farming is the practice of using plants and domestic animals as food or other resources (Price & Yosef, 2011: 165).
Agriculture: The phrase is occasionally confined to crop cultıvation and excludes livestock farming; however, it is often used to refer to both (Harris, 2007: 22).

Domestication of Animals
There is an evolutionary process of terminology on the way of animal domestication. It provides a number of clearly discernible intermediate stages.
Domestic: The animal maintained in the home is referred to as domestic. Domesticated animals may be wild, tamed, or feral (Décory, 2019: 47). A domestic animal is kept in captivity by humans, regardless if it is a wild, tame, domesticated, or feral animal.
Taming: The domesticated animal might be a wild animal acquired from the wild, i.e., the first or second generation of wild animals maintained in captivity (Décory, 2019: 47).
Herding: This term should be evaluated from a biological standpoint. The herd/pasture interaction is connected to herding. Herding entails controlling and caring for the animals on the ground. (Paine, 1972: 78).
Breeding: This phrase refers to a technical notion. Animals with predefined traits may be altered through selective breeding (Ingold, 1980: 82).
Husbandry: Owners’ attempts to capitalize and make profits are referred to as husbandry (Paine, 1972: 79). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, husbandry is the “business or occupation “of a husbandman or farmer, tillage or cultivation of the soil (including also the rearing of livestock)’ 
Pastoralism: Pastoralists rely on their livestock herds for most of their income (Ingold, 1980: 82).

Conclusion
The Neolithic was a process of transition from hunter-gatherer communities to one of agriculture and pastoralism. The crucial factor which contributed to the advent of the Neolithic process was the invention of domestication. The domestication of plants and animals marks a major evolutionary transition in human history. The pathways that humans and target species follow from initial management into domestication are shaped by a number of contingencies affecting both partners and can be broadly classified into several types. There is a continuum between these types, although these terms have overlapping elements, they are nonetheless distinct phenomena. Agriculture is used to define many forms of subsistence in this process but they have their own descriptive terms, such as cultivation, domestication, as well as forms of livestock. 
In this article an evolutionary model from foraging to agriculture, in which the transitions to cultivation, domestication, and agriculture are separated and potential archaeological indicators are suggested. And from Taming to husbandry, in which the transitions to, domestication, and husbandry are separated and potential archaeological indicators are suggested. 
The historical-cultural threshold perspective is still present in Iranian archeology, and we still refer to all types of agriculture, animal husbandry, and settlement patterns that occurred throughout thousands of years as agriculture or animal husbandry. To define the distance between pre-domestic, and agriculture, detailed scientific research, including time-consuming and costly experiments, is required by precise chronologies. A practice that is still uncommon in Iranian archeology. In Iranian archeology, only sites containing the latter stage of the Neolithic are excavated, and other kinds of agriculture (e.g., gathering wild plants) or animal husbandry (e.g., taming) are not recognized, or researchers are still looking for spectacular Neolithic evidence from the period’s end. They are now investigating what is being created, not its significance and no label can be developed to describe them. Alternatively, if they are studying the Neolithic transition and, in fact, the Neolithic process, they approach the data using threshold and cultural-historical thinking. At the outset of Neolithic studies, it is necessary to provide the theoretical and terminological groundwork because they are process-oriented and long-term. If this does not occur, the picture formed for the users of archeology is a static image of science, leading to the belief that science is a phenomenon that does not change. As a result, efforts should be undertaken to investigate and clarify words connected to domestication research in an evolutionary framework.

Acknowledgments
I thank Dr. Mozhgan Jayez and Dr. Hojjat Darabi for their helpful comments on this paper.

Conflict of Interest
The Author, while observing the publishing ethics, declares that there is no conflict of interest and no financial support from any government center.