Humans have domesticated themselves

Humans share many key traits with domesticated animals, suggesting we have also undergone some domestication in our evolution.

Over the past few thousand years, humans have influenced the evolution of dozens of species. The biggest changes have happened in the animals we domesticated. But have humans ever been on the receiving end of this process?

It may sound like a silly question. After all, domestication is something we “do” to other species. However, in certain conditions animals can self-domesticate. They naturally evolve to fit into new niches created by humans. Have we also been self-domesticating?

Comparisons between humans and other domesticated species reveal some surprising similarities. For instance, domesticated animals often have a flatter face than their wild counterparts. This just happens to be one of the defining features of our species.

These similarities even extend into our genetics, with many genes showing similar changes in these species. As such, some have argued that the same social and environmental pressures which influenced the evolution of, for instance, dogs, may have also influenced us.

Spotting the domesticated

Over the years many different species have been domesticated, spanning the gambit from horses to guinea pigs. The sheer variety can make it hard to identify the anatomical features that define a domestic animal. Nevertheless, comparing many domestic species to their wild counterparts reveals some interesting, consistent changes in these species.

As mentioned above, many of the key changes can be seen in the skull. These include things like changes to muzzle size, tooth size, jaw thickness, and more. What makes this most interesting is that these aren’t really the features people domesticating animals are looking for.

When domesticating a species, the key feature people seek out is tameness. No use having an animal that looks nice or can produce a lot of food if it will constantly try to eat you. But for some reason, breeding tame animals causes these anatomical changes.

The result of the Russian experiment, a domesticated fox

This was demonstrated in a great Russian experiment from the height of the cold war. An undercover geneticist (as the science had been banned in 1948) was trying to domesticate foxes. Although he was breeding animals for tameness, he couldn’t help but note how their anatomy changed too. In a way quite similar to domestic dogs, complete with floppy ears. 

Some speculate this may be because most of these traits – both behavioural and anatomical – develop from the same line of cells, called neural crest cells. Thus, domesticators driving the evolution of one trait might alter these neural crest cells with unintended consequences.

By now you’ve probably seen where this is going. Many of these domestic traits are also seen in humans when compared to other members of our family, as Theofanopoulou et al. show in this excellent chart.

Domesticated genes

As nice I was about that chart, it is worth noting it’s a bit cherry picked. Not every anatomical feature that separates us from other hominins lines up with this “domestication syndrome”. And likewise, not every feature of that syndrome is present in us. Going back to the Russian foxes, we don’t have their floppy ears.

So is the claim humans have undergone domestication based on shaky data? To explore this, researchers dived into our genetics. Like the similar anatomical features, many domestic animals have undergone similar genetic changes. Have humans also undergone these changes?

Sort of.

In humans, they found 742 genes that have been under natural selection since we split from Neanderthals and other hominin species. Of these, 41 were had also been under recent natural selection in at a domesticated species. In short, about 5% of human genes under recent natural selection could be causing self-domestication.

Domestic genes on the right, with lines leading to the species they’re found in. Humans are red

Now, 5% doesn’t sound that impressive. But remember, domestication may be driving changes in neural crest cells. These occur early in development, and many different cells grow from them.  Thus, even a small number of mutations could cause some dramatic changes. In this case, many of these genes are linked to those neural crest cells and/or (or via them) learning and cognitive development (and by extension, issues with those features, like autism).

Could being the operative word there. The impact of many of these genes has not been fully explored, so the significance of these findings is still in the air.

What happened to humans?

Many of these domesticated species were deliberately bred by humans. In other cases, a niche created by humans drove natural selection to tame them. What about humans? If we really domesticated ourselves, how did it happen?

Well – with a few rather horrific exceptions – humans haven’t really been specifically bred for anything. Thus, the latter is likely what’s at work. At some point in our recent evolution, we created a unique niche. Like any other niche, over time evolution ensured we became better suited to it. Although that might normally result in longer legs or stronger muscles, this niche actually drove the development of domestic features.

I speculate that, like most domestic animals, tameness really was the issue. This niche required our species to get along better, resulting in the appearance of domestic-like features. Perhaps it was our shift to living in larger, denser groups that forced us to domesticate ourselves to get along.

And if society today is what humans look like when they’re “tame”, I certainly wouldn’t have want to meet our ancestors from before then in a dark alley.


Theofanopoulou, C., Gastaldon, S., O’Rourke, T., Samuels, B.D., Messner, A., Martins, P.T., Delogu, F., Alamri, S. and Boeckx, C., 2017. Self-domestication in Homo sapiens: Insights from comparative genomics. PloS one12(10), p.e0185306.

Wilkins, A.S., Wrangham, R.W. and Fitch, W.T., 2014. The “domestication syndrome” in mammals: a unified explanation based on neural crest cell behavior and genetics. Genetics197(3), pp.795-808.

Related Articles

12 thoughts on “Humans have domesticated themselves”

  1. harikrv says:

    Observing carefully I find that the word domestication is an euphemism for slavery. Intra species slavery is rampant in humans and was practised openly till the recent past. Domesticating animals is a form of slavery that, I speculate, took off from enslaving our own that began even before our species evolved distinctly from our hominid cousins. In fact enslaving youth and getting them to fight together the leaders’ battles could have been the one factor that helped our direct ancestors get rid of all the competing hominids. Of course rape was very much a part of this process as it is in modern battlefields. No wonder we have no other competing hominid species alive today despite our explosive growth and spread to all corners of the earth. I am unaware of another example of a single species becoming so successful for so long.

    1. Adam Benton says:

      This idea does raise the question as to why only humans did this. Humans and Neanderthals, for instance, both made hafted tools, used fire, manufactured clothes, and had many more similarities. Yet only one developed this winning strategy? It seems somewhat implausible.

  2. Richard Wilson says:

    Hmmm…. R. G. Bednarik proposed ‘self-domestication’ theory back in 2011, finally others are starting to catch on.

    1. Adam Benton says:

      If you really want to fight about whose first, the idea was alluded to by Darwin. Crucially though, this isn’t necessarily about people being convinced by existing arguments (although they are), but providing new evidence for this idea.

  3. Robert G. Bednarik says:

    Thank you, Richard, for pointing this out. Actually the human autodomestication hypothesis, which decisively replaces the replacement hypothesis (African Eve hoax) was first published in full in 2008: The Domesticetion of Humans. Anthropologie 46(1): 1-17.
    My 2011 book “The Human Condition” (Springer) lays out all relevant details, and anything on the subject said subsequently is like a re-invention of the wheel.

    1. Adam Benton says:

      The research in question contained some rather interesting new genetic analysis, so to dismiss it as re-inventing the wheel I think is rather unfair.

  4. szopeno says:

    Cochran and Harpending, anyone? Not to mention all other papers on self-domestication…

    1. Adam Benton says:

      There’s certainly been a lot of interesting discussion on this topic. I dare so this won’t be the last time I write about it.

  5. jimb2 says:

    It appears that cooperation is more adaptive than biting things. 🙂

    1. Adam Benton says:

      Depends on what the things are. If they’re interfering with your co-operation then a good chomp might help.

    1. Adam Benton says:

      We’re both commenting on the same research, so I can’t fault them too much. If anything, I’d be slightly flattered if that ever happened.

Leave your filthy monkey comments here.

More in Evolution of our body
Human height decreasing in recent evolution

By around 100,000 years ago human height was the tallest it had ever been. However, it has since begun to decrease. What's up with that?