Page 143 - THE SLOUGHI REVIEW - ISSUE 13

T H E S L O U G H I R E V I E W 1 4 3

CHAPTER 12 - “DOMESTICATION”, THE TERM

“Domestication” is a modern term which, in relation to animals and plants, goes back at
its core to Charles Darwin:

Domestik, Domestike m. disparaging term for 'domestic servant, servant', a borrowing
(late 17th century) from French domestique 'domestic servant, maid, servant, servant', a
substantivised adjective that goes back to Latin domesticus 'belonging to the house' (also
of domestic animals). Until the 2nd half of the 18th century in French spelling domestique.
- domesticate Vb. 'to make a domestic animal or cultivated plant' (19th century),
borrowed (with Darwin's translation) from English to domesticate 'to tame a wild species'
(mlat. domesticare); domestication f. biological term, 'gradual cultivation of wild

organisms' (19th century), English domestication [91].

This term remains fuzzy on the whole, because in the literature everyone bases their
theories on a different definition. The scientific discourse does not seem to take
sufficient account of the realities as they are still found in Africa, for example. Therefore,
these definitions cannot be used for the types of dogs found in Africa.

Using Erik Zimen's very clear definition of domestication (“The deliberate mating of two
individuals by man in genetic isolation”), all dogs bred outside the FCI and other Kennel
Clubs will not be considered domesticated.

As we can see with the Africanis, Azawakh and also still with the Sloughi in the areas of

origin, they mate with little or no human influence. Or, as is the case with the Sloughi, a
breeding pairing between similar dog types is initiated, but the “breeding lines” and a
more or less strong inbreeding based “breed breeding” common in the western world are
dispensed with.

It is possible that the nomads of North Africa will have a similar type of reproduction of

the Sloughi as the Azawakh. In the case of nomads and semi-nomads in their natural
environment, type-matched reproduction may be a natural thing, but it is in any case not
a “purebred” in the sense of eugenics or according to Mendelian rules.