domestication and biological control’ (Cansdale,
1950; 1951a; 1951b; 1951c; 1951d; see also
Cansdale, 1952). Even earlier, Eagle Clark
(1896) had recited human influences on bird
migration, including the frequent deaths of migrat-
ing birds dashing themselves against the lanterns
of light stations in foggy weather, while Moebius
(1894) despaired about the ‘violent encroachment’
of humans chasing the whale. The pioneering
work of Fitter on London’s Natural History
(1945) noted that human–animal interactions
often intensified around the city, and that many
animals were adapting to the environs of the
metropolis (Matless, 1998). Nonetheless, attention
to society–animal relations was patchy and unthe-
orized. Animals were regarded with a detached
scientific eye as natural objects to be tracked,
trapped, counted, mapped and modelled – and
devoid of any ‘inner life’, consciousness or
agency.
Linkages between zoögeography and the
cognate scientific disciplines of zoology, ecology
and biology were strong (Clark, 1927: 102),
owing to the scientific training of many
zoögeographers. Over time, these fields came to
dominate the study of animal distributions; geo-
graphers increasingly focused on plant distribu-
tions instead. By mid-century, Davies would
claim that scientific ‘animal geography is per-
haps the branch of geography least practised by
geographers, and the one they most cheerfully
abandon to the systematic sciences’ (1961: 412).
At just this time, Bennett proposed a cultural
animal geography, to return animal geography
‘into the geographical fold’ from which he
thought it had become disengaged (1960: 13–14;
see also Bennett, 1961). He called for research on
human–animal interactions, involving studies of
how humans influence animal ‘numbers and dis-
tributions’, echoing zoögeography’s emphasis on
space and spatial distributions. Bennett also urged
examinations of animals’ response to domestica-
tion, subsistence hunting and fishing, and more
indirect human impacts such as fire, war and
travel, and further suggested studies of animal
influences on human life (through destroying
crops or carrying and causing disease). Here,
animals were a key element of the natural envi-
ronment that ‘determined’ the human geography
(of settlement, agriculture and industry) in places
and world regions (see also Anderson, 1951).
Bennett’s proposals dovetailed with cultural
ecology, already emerging in both North America
and Europe, which focused on the origins of
animal domestication, and while concerned with
distributions and diffusions of domesticates, was
characterized by attention to place, regionand
above all landscape. These emphases grew out ofhistorical approaches to biogeography as
influenced by humans, as well as anthropology
and archaeology, in which animals featured in
discussions about origins of agriculture.^2 Perhaps
the central figure in the US studies of animal
domestication was Carl Sauer. Reacting against a
crude environmental determinism characteristic
of turn-of-the-century geography, Sauer was
influenced by German geographers such as
Hahn, Ritter and Hettner (Dickinson, 1976: 319;
Livingstone, 1992: 297). His method was to
analyse ‘sequential landscape cross sections’ to
reveal the coevolution of environments and
culture in places and regions and understand the
‘morphology’ of what he termed ‘the cultural
landscape’. Presaging later environmentalists,
the politico-moral concerns of Sauer and the
Berkeley School revolved around environmental
degradation (Sauer, 1925; 1956; Price and
Lewis, 1993).^3
Animals were not primary subjects in Sauerian
geographies. However, studies of domestication
and diffusion of animal husbandry, cultural and
economic roles of animals in agrarian societies,
and environmental changes attendant upon
agriculture- and livestock-based lifeways,
revealed the importance of certain animals to
cultural practices and environmental conditions.
Sauer’s pioneering text Seeds Spades, Hearths
and Herds (1952) documented the role of animal
domestication in the conversion of ‘natural land-
scapes’ into ‘cultural landscapes’. Notably
Sauer’s approach resisted simplistic economic
explanations of society–animal relations, and
refused to regard domestication as simply an
adaptive response to human needs for animal
products. Donkin, a British geographer emulat-
ing Sauer’s example, argued that economic
benefits of domestication accrued only after the
fact; domestication was motivated more by reli-
gious and ceremonial reasons. Moreover, other
practices such as pet keeping depended partly
‘on the physical and behavioural characteristics
of particular species’ (Donkin, 1991: ix; see also
Donkin, 1985; 1989).
British and continental developments in this
area were shaped by Sauerian traditions as well as
their common European intellectual heritage. In
the UK animals appeared in the more anthropo-
logically oriented writings of H.J. Fleure^4 (1919;
1937) and C. Daryll Forde.^5 Both made significant
contributions to anthropology and archaeology
and cross-fertilization between all three disci-
plines continued to enrich the cultural-ecology
approach. Linkages were reinforced by the shared
reliance upon archaeological evidence on domes-
tication, common methodologies (Renfrew, 1983;
Wagstaff, 1983), use of ecological concepts186 CULTURENATURES3029-ch09.qxd 03-10-02 10:48 AM Page 186