{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02598314606741573, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.447963800904978, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Oomingmak: A Model for Man-Animal Relationships in Prehistory

Oomingmak, the Eskimo term for "musk ox," is also the name of the Musk Ox Domestication Project of the Institute of Northern Agricultural Research. The musk ox has been domesticated so that its fine underwool (qiviut), which is shed annually, can be used to develop a uniquely artic textile industry, thus helping to alleviate the widespread poverty of the Arctic peoples without conflicting with their cultural heritage. This paper considers the archaeological implications of the Project. The incentive to domestication is shown to be a combination of economic, social, ecological, and technological pressures, and similar complexity may have characterised prehistoric domestication. The process of capturing and taming the animals, their breeding, the importance of climate, and the economic advantages of domestication are discussed and their relevance to prehistoric studies assessed. An attempt is made to define "domestication," and it is concluded that man-animal relationships are too varied to be classed under two headings, hunter-prey and pastoralist-domesticate. Finally, the hypothesis that prehistoric man used his environment efficiently, if not completely, is discussed, and evidence is cited which is consistent with the hypothesis that the musk ox may have been domesticated in parts of Western Europe in the final glaciation, if not earlier.