Domestication of dogs

[STYRBJORN]

A good article in the Online Independent today 28/09. "Taming the Wolf: Domesticating the Dog.

Ric

[tcvarlh]

Interesting article indeed. However it assumes (or so I read it) that the western world domesticated and adapted the wolf into dog. I am not sure I can run with that idea. The Dingo, for example, (Canis lupus dingo) is a Dog (Canis lupus familiaris), albeit a primitive one, a sort of half-way house betwixt Wolf (Canis lupus) and Dog. Accepting that the Torres Strait Islanders or Aborigines settled into the Antipodes anywhere between 125000 and 40000 (dependant on whichever theory prevails at the time) years ago and averaging that at 82000 years previous, then some form of dog was extant and employed in some function by those people. Ergo, it is a given that elsewhere on the planet others were domesticating proto-dogs into modern dogs. I would assume somewhere around East Asia as there is a prepondance of "primitive" dog breeds within this area.
There is of course, some genetic/mitochondiral evidence that dogs and wolves parted ways 100,000 years ago; way before the earliest possible evidence of domestication.
Perhaps the dog became 'Man's best friend' due to an innate ability to read our signals and realise that OK, there is no such thing as a free lunch but free tit-bits, now there's a chance!
h

[Cowgirl]

Taming the wolf: domesticating the dog - News, Archaeology - The Independent

Probably saw the fire & thought hmmm I could soak up all that heat for myself

[RKB]

Originally Posted by tcvarlh

Interesting article indeed. However it assumes (or so I read it) that the western world domesticated and adapted the wolf into dog. I am not sure I can run with that idea. The Dingo, for example, (Canis lupus dingo) is a Dog (Canis lupus familiaris), albeit a primitive one, a sort of half-way house betwixt Wolf (Canis lupus) and Dog. Accepting that the Torres Strait Islanders or Aborigines settled into the Antipodes anywhere between 125000 and 40000 (dependant on whichever theory prevails at the time) years ago and averaging that at 82000 years previous, then some form of dog was extant and employed in some function by those people. Ergo, it is a given that elsewhere on the planet others were domesticating proto-dogs into modern dogs. I would assume somewhere around East Asia as there is a prepondance of "primitive" dog breeds within this area.
There is of course, some genetic/mitochondiral evidence that dogs and wolves parted ways 100,000 years ago; way before the earliest possible evidence of domestication.
Perhaps the dog became 'Man's best friend' due to an innate ability to read our signals and realise that OK, there is no such thing as a free lunch but free tit-bits, now there's a chance!
h

You're assuming that the first wave of immigration took the dingo, which isn't necessarily the case. It could have arrived much later.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by RKB

You're assuming that the first wave of immigration took the dingo, which isn't necessarily the case. It could have arrived much later.

It could indeed. There have been major glaciations since the arrival of H.Sap in Australasia, which may well have formed land bridges by which "dogs" arrived.
I share Tovarisch's (Sorry about the spelling . . .) qualms about our casual assumption of hemisperic hegemony. But there is one damn good reason to assume that domestication of wolves first occurred in Northern Europe, Canada, or Siberia. That's where wolves live!

Ric

[tcvarlh]

No, no, I am not assuming the Torres Strait folk took Dingos across at that time I was merely making the point that there have been thousands of separate 'tamings' of dogs throughout history. The possibility does exist that the Straits people carried a form of primitive dog with them however. Certainly the Dingo could have arrived in the Antipodes at a later date. I simply think the setting of 14000-14600 BP in Europe as a 'fixed' date is a tad partisan.

The Kessel Loch was found to have butchered Mammoth, Reindeer, Woolly Rhino, Chamois and Ibex bones within it. Tools made from Ivory, Antler and Bone were also found, but no human remains. It seems as tho' the cave was a work station and not a residence. The single tooth used in the dating of the age of this dog was discovered in 1980.

There are 39 recognized (2005 fig.) subspecies of Wolf, once found from the Arctic to the Arabian coastline and from Northern Africa to the India Peninsula, from Alaska to Mexico. Therefore, assuming the domestication of the wolf is a northern phenomena is illogical. The Southern Wolf clade rarely howls and communicates readily by short yapping barks, whilst the Northern Wolf, a larger subspecies, leaves off barking at the end of puppy-hood and prefers howling. It is possible that the Southern Wolf is the progenitor of the dog. It is also possible that the 'domestic' dog was a separate species according to DNA research and that early hunter gatherers adopted these as opposed to the larger and less tractable Canis Lupus. Domestication could have happened anywhere within the Wolf's range. It obviously happened in more places and often given that we have many breeds of primitive dogs all over the world.

Knowing Dogs, Cowgirl's post about fire may well be the truth.
h

[RKB]

Originally Posted by tcvarlh

Domestication could have happened anywhere within the Wolf's range.

Exactly, so why not in the northern/western part of the range? You seem to be saying "this is western centric", but just offering supposition as to where else it might have happened, instead of any better evidence. Until we have other data, then we have to go with what we've got. And it might just be right. Lots of other technological advances happened in the west, and it was clearly an area of rapid human development. So domestication of dogs isn't a bad punt. Once they had a good strain then it was probably traded just like axe-heads or gold trinkets. An analogy could be the bow and arrow - was that developed multiple times or just once and then the technology traded/taken worldwide?

It's possible that domestication happened in lots of places, but perhaps these were subsumed into the northern/western domesticated strain.

Canis lupus isn't that large everywhere - the southern European subspecies are quite small, and many of the island races are extinct.

I think it's perfectly plausible that one domestication could result in the many primitive breeds that we see. If we look at the numerous strains that have been developed from the Canary in just a few hundred years, then it's clear that selective breeding over the timescale of the dog could have easily produced those traits from a single common ancestor. And there has only been one domestication of the Canary in one place, from a very small gene pool. The ancestral genetic diversity and timescale is much greater for dogs.

[tcvarlh]

One thing is certain the date of domestication of dogs is a debatable subject. Intensely so. Yes, I am saying 'this is western centric', I don't deny that the domestication may have happened in this part of the world. I am saying we don't know. A blunt 'this is when it happened' attitude is blinkered. I find such an idea similar to the Chinese dogmatic theory of Prof Wu that the Chin are descended from an earlier form of humanoid rather than the DNA positive proof we humans are all the children of one type. Research has provided me with some new ideas on the matter, UCLA has performed DNA testing and come up with conclusions that dog's domestication took place over 100,000 years ago, which rather makes Kassel Loch a tad defunct. My original comment of the divergence of Dogs from Wolves at this time is therefore also defunct given this new data.
UCLA also stated athough there is evidence to support the theory that domestic dogs originated from multiple wolf populations over a wide geographic area, this has not yet been proven conclusively one way or another.
But yes, I do think the bow and arrow were developed in different areas at different times. Necessity is the mother of invention. There are still cultures that never developed that weapon.
The 'Southern' wolf was a smaller breed and, where it is still extant, remains smaller. Many of the island races are extinct -now- there were extant once.
h

[STYRBJORN]

I recently saw one of the most magnificent dogs I have ever encountered. It was a pure white Alaskan Husky. Flopped on the floor, head on front paws, he was 5 feet from nose to base of tail, and weighed over 7 stone .(Only Imperial measure befits such an imperious beast). He had a beautiful ruff and looked like an Arctic wolf. I find it tempting to believe that Huskies and Malamutes were among the earliest examples of domestication. It just makes so much sense! Draft animals, hunters, defensive weapons . . .

That is, of course merely my subjective impression. Things get interesting when we look at the history of human settlement. Most or all of the current theories about domestication of dogs agree that it occurred when humans formed permanent villages.(Hunter-gatherer tribes may have had short-lived settlements.) Permanent villages only became viable at the start of the present Interglacial period, C12,000BP, with the development of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent along the Tigris and Euphrates basins. That supports TC's claim for a Middle Eastern origin. On the other hand, why bother? Camels, horses and oxen were all available as draft and riding animals, bows and copper weapons made dogs of war redundant. Dogs may, as said, have "domesticated" themselves, but as parasites or scavengers, tolerated but not encouraged. Dogs had a real value to sub-Arctic peoples, and a good term for H. sap would be Man the Exploiter.

I read recently about work that has been carried out into flight times. A wild animal that has a very short flight time will flee at the first glimpse of, eg, a human being. Such a beast, tempted to a settlement by the yummy smell of rotting food, would get poor pickings. Her sister, who has a different suite of genes, happens to have a longer flight time. Better fed, she has greater reproductive fitness, and her long flight time genes spread through the population. Genes that promote boldness towards man will also spread. The time spans entailed are far too short too permit human physical evolution, but behavioural or social evolution can occur much faster, and a form of co-evolution seems to have occurred.

Of course, some Eastern peoples have bred dogs for food, something which is a powerful tabu in the West . . .

Ric

Edited to add, posted before I read TC's latest post

[tcvarlh]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

... Dogs may, as said, have "domesticated" themselves, but as parasites or scavengers, tolerated but not encouraged. Dogs had a real value to sub-Arctic peoples, and a good term for H. sap would be Man the Exploiter.

I read recently about work that has been carried out into flight times. A wild animal that has a very short flight time will flee at the first glimpse of, eg, a human being. Such a beast, tempted to a settlement by the yummy smell of rotting food, would get poor pickings. Her sister, who has a different suite of genes, happens to have a longer flight time. Better fed, she has greater reproductive fitness, and her long flight time genes spread through the population. Genes that promote boldness towards man will also spread. The time spans entailed are far too short too permit human physical evolution, but behavioural or social evolution can occur much faster, and a form of co-evolution seems to have occurred.

Of course, some Eastern peoples have bred dogs for food, something which is a powerful tabu in the West . . .

I have a friend in the Tatras who is owned by a pack of wolves. They are frightening things to be amongst. But, when a wolf parks itself on its haunches, and riffs behind its ear to shift a flea then the picture changes. The wolf becomes a caricature in some way. Comical and strangely human. The wolf exposes its chest, belly and genitals and thereby dispels any inherent threat. Crouching humans seem to worry dogs, they relax when a human stands fully upright. Primitive dogs may have seen us in the same way, we looked terrifying, large, threatening, postured for battle or attack and then upon relaxing into an upright stance removing the threat.

A scenario I would like to imagine is a group of early humans scavenging, opportunistic hunting and grabbing all the edibles in the area, happening upon a wolf kill and driving the wolves off. Maybe one of the younger members of the band slings a bloody bone out across at the circling indignant wolves... This happens often, the wolves squabble for the bone and the humans make off with a goodly supply of meat. Perhaps it dawns on the humans that while the animals are scrapping they are not attacking, perhaps it dawns on the animals that the humans are not all bad. Merely a idée folle and probably only once true, but it is no more or less possible than any other theory.

Perhaps as you say co-evolution or maybe even mutual domestication.

No-one will ever convince me Dogs do not laugh at us.

Most societies have at some time used Dogs as food, the 'Inuit' do so to this day. I believe certain Mexican ethnic groups do too. (Uncertain of this) During the siege of Paris the dogs vanished from the streets and ended up on the menu cards of noble restaurants. The western taboo holds fast only until we get hungry. (I wonder where the idea of a Hot Dog came from???)

Thoroughly in agreement with Homo εκμεταλευτής. A rather nasty species.
h