 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Ancient History / June 2004When were dogs domesticated?
I was wondering if there is any documentation of when dogs were first domesticated. I once read that dogs may have been the first animals domesticated by man. Roger L. Bagula When humans give-up trying to stop them from hanging around their camp fires :) > I was wondering if there is any documentation of when > dogs were first domesticated. > I once read that dogs may have been the first animals domesticated by man. > Roger L. Bagula > I was wondering if there is any documentation of when > dogs were first domesticated. > I once read that dogs may have been the first animals domesticated by man. There evidence is mixed. There is good evidence of close proximity of dogs and men going back 30,000 years if I remember correctly. But close proximity does not mean fido fetched sticks. And that is about all that is known. We haven't found butchered dog bones nor a man and his dog buried together.  SignatureWere the US to cease support, Israel would become a tail in search of a dog. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3201 Suppose that you have an intense competition between three species: 1) Humans AMH 2) Wolves 3) Neanderthals And two of the species begin to cooperate with one species as dominant: Cooperation in hunting between men and dogs is much more effective than men hunting alone. It is a new technology and led to domestication as a technology much later in time. but it would have given men an advantage over Neanderthals. The idea of dogs as just camp followers is completely out of character, but "joining" a pack and being "submissive" to a leader isn't. I asked a question here about social habits of wolves... Nobody paid much attention except a guy in my yahoo egroup. His question brought on this line of thought, for which i'm very grateful. Is there any evidence of Neanderthals associating with wolves/ dogs? >> I was wondering if there is any documentation of when >> dogs were first domesticated. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that is known. We haven't found butchered dog bones nor a man and his > dog buried together. > Suppose that you have an intense competition between three species: > 1) Humans AMH [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > paid much attention except a guy in my yahoo egroup. > His question brought on this line of thought, for which i'm very grateful. > Is there any evidence of Neanderthals associating with wolves/ dogs? You are way ahead of the evidence with this speculation. There is very little evidence of human remains from that long ago. There might have been a lot at one time but until relatively recently anything found was likely to have been given a decent burial. Dogs are used in hunting only a very animals today. I presume there were more in the past but taking the dog along hunting isn't much in the literature. The wolf method of hunting is getting close and then running down the prey which isn't suited for working with men. Sure they can smell a deer but so can the deer who will bolt long before you get in spear range, rifle range for that matter. I don't know of anything found which is a basis for making any speculation at all. The only clean connection we know from experience is dogs like to chew on bones and people don't. It could be as simple as wolves showing up for the bones that accounts for what has been found. One thing I have not come across is an assessment of how many words wolves and other non-domesticated varieties can understand, if any. If none at all then they are like cats which showed up in historic times in Egypt and would indicate dogs have been around people in a social setting much longer. >>> I was wondering if there is any documentation of when >>> dogs were first domesticated. >>> I once read that dogs may have been the first animals domesticated by >>> man. >> There evidence is mixed. There is good evidence of close proximity >> of dogs and men going back 30,000 years if I remember correctly. But >> close proximity does not mean fido fetched sticks. And that is about >> all that is known. We haven't found butchered dog bones nor a man and >> his dog buried together. SignatureIf Bush and Buddies had spoken about Iraq under oath they would charged with perjury. So they only told lies which people will forgive as with Clinton. They lied. People died. That is felony murder. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3184 The use of dogs in hunting to the earliest time is well documented historically. "The Wild Hunt" in which dogs and men dressed in hunting costumes ride down a stag is a documented myth that dates back to bronze age Celtic and pre-Celtic times. In the times before horses the men ran more slowly behind the dogs letting the dogs either get the prey at bay ( surrounding it or cornering it or treeing it or causing it to "go to ground"). The kill was then made by a man with a weapon of some type. With boars it was a pike or spear , with deer a bow and arrow was used a lot ( after they were invented!?), but you can picture a caveman bashing in the head of a weakened and tired deer surrounded by a batch of hunting dogs/ wolves. No, it really makes too much sense to be coincidence. Dogs were partners who found that men could "finish off" what they started better than they could themselves. It was better for both to eat more regularly than just one group/ pack or tribe and less often... > You are way ahead of the evidence with this speculation. There is > very little evidence of human remains from that long ago. There might [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Egypt and would indicate dogs have been around people in a social > setting much longer. FWIW: Top quoting is bad form. > The use of dogs in hunting to the earliest time > is well documented historically. "The Wild Hunt" in which dogs and men > dressed in hunting costumes ride down a stag is a > documented myth that dates back to bronze age Celtic > and pre-Celtic times. That is what we call ancient history, not prehistoric. We know domesticated dogs are around at the beginning of recorded history. But "documented myth" doesn't go very far in the real world. > In the times before horses the men ran more slowly behind the dogs > letting the dogs either get the prey at bay ( surrounding it or > cornering it or treeing it or causing it to "go to ground"). Some ideas sound good but don't work out in practice. A man can not run as fast as a horse or dog but if the race is long enough will win because he can jog continuously. Taking a dog on a long jog can kill him. Hunting animals that will "tree" is a good use for dogs not for deer. Of course living off of small game was likely the normal style leaving the big game for manhood rites and special occasions. Keep in mind that in the beginning there is no advantage for the dog/wolf to associate with men if it has to share food. So there is a question of will wolf pups domesticate as easily as feral cats? Another thing we don't know is if domestication was of wolves. Or was is a smaller type of dog that may not be around in the wild these days. I read once the dogs brought by Spain to the New World quickly replaced the native domesticated dog as having a better temprement. So there are other factors we don't know much about. > The kill was then made by a man with a weapon of some type. > With boars it was a pike or spear , with deer a bow and arrow > was used a lot ( after they were invented!?), but you can picture a > caveman bashing in the head of a weakened and tired deer surrounded > by a batch of hunting dogs/ wolves. That is the problem. If a pack of dogs has a deer cornered why would they wait for the man instead of eating it themselves. That is why treeing works because they can't get at it but the spear or rock can. You have to find a way this started and the dogs would eat the deer so man has no advantage for those dogs. > No, it really makes too much sense to be coincidence. There are usually ungodly simple reasons for things that look like coincidence. We do not look at things as they were rather as they are. It is like now, you go and get a pack of coyotes to help you hunt. Rotsa ruck. How do you start? With coyotes you have a chance of trying something before becoming lunch. > Dogs were partners who found that men could "finish off" what they > started better than they could themselves. It was better for both to > eat more regularly than just one group/ pack or tribe and less often... I have heard of people raising wolves from pups and at some age they either leave or have to be destroyed. They eventually challenge for leadership. If a dog comes back pregnant the chances are better it won't happen. You appear to be treating wild canines like domesticated dogs. They do not behave the same. Dog breeders cycle pups through their homes so they get used to people before they are sold. They are not as desirable if they don't learn personal interaction with humans early. And even if you make the best case in the world you only have "how it might have happened" and that may make science fiction story but it is of little interest beyond fiction. Mainly what we need is an anthro dig with clear evidence of domestication and hope there is a lot of evidence. >> You are way ahead of the evidence with this speculation. There is >> very little evidence of human remains from that long ago. There might >> have been a lot at one time but until relatively recently anything >> found was likely to have been given a decent burial. >> Dogs are used in hunting only a very animals today. I presume >> there were more in the past but taking the dog along hunting isn't >> much in the literature. The wolf method of hunting is getting close >> and then running down the prey which isn't suited for working with >> men. Sure they can smell a deer but so can the deer who will bolt long >> before you get in spear range, rifle range for that matter. >> I don't know of anything found which is a basis for making any >> speculation at all. The only clean connection we know from experience >> is dogs like to chew on bones and people don't. It could be as simple >> as wolves showing up for the bones that accounts for what has been found. >> One thing I have not come across is an assessment of how many >> words wolves and other non-domesticated varieties can understand, if >> any. If none at all then they are like cats which showed up in >> historic times in Egypt and would indicate dogs have been around >> people in a social setting much longer. SignatureFor Iraqis, Americans have turned out to be everything Hussein said they were and sometime even worse. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3189 Dear Matt Giwer, Try looking up the definition of symbiosis. Dogs and humans had a symbiotic hunting relationship and it was formed prehistorically... it was there when history began to be recorded. > FWIW: Top quoting is bad form. Quoting from form instead of substance is always a way to throw a guy off? Have you ever done any hunting? Have you ever observed a dog kill or try to kill an animal? It appears you argue well from no practical experience like the fellow who is an expert on Lithic/caveman tools but has never tried to make an arrowhead himself! I've read about domestication and the bloodlines and even the worst scholar in the area admits that some of the blood lines are as much as 10000 years old in their development... It's like maize/ corn...genetically the estimate is that it took n number of generations for selection to form the current type. I think the approximation was in the 20000 year range. It was one reason that the Colvis arguments were reconsidered. The genetic selection process is a generational one: it takes time to get things like the three color horses the western Indians loved and directed breeding. > FWIW: Top quoting is bad form. > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] >>> historic times in Egypt and would indicate dogs have been around >>> people in a social setting much longer. > Dear Matt Giwer, > Try looking up the definition of symbiosis. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Have you ever done any hunting? Have you ever hunted with wild dogs? wolves? > Have you ever observed a dog kill or try to kill an animal? With trained, domesticated dogs, no. > It appears you argue well from no practical experience like the fellow > who is an expert on Lithic/caveman tools but has never tried to make an > arrowhead himself! The problem is you can't start with either a domesticated dog or with men knowing how to train them or even if they would be any good on a hunt. > I've read about domestication and the bloodlines and even the worst > scholar in the area admits that some of the blood lines are as much as > 10000 years old in their development... That just puts the unexplained start of the whole thing back further. We still don't have any idea how it started. > It's like maize/ corn...genetically the estimate is that it took n > number of generations for selection to form [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it takes time to get things like the three color horses the western > Indians loved and directed breeding. >> FWIW: Top quoting is bad form. >> [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] >>>> historic times in Egypt and would indicate dogs have been around >>>> people in a social setting much longer. SignatureBush says Freedom is God's gift. Jesus wasn't smart enough to know that but Bush is. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3180 Dear Matt Giwer, If you'll look at the sources: physical evidence that I have found by searching online, you will see that they back my line of thought and not yours. The genetic evidence as I had supposed show that they have been domesticated for an incrediable amount of time.( since 60000 bp to 100000 bp) They hunted with the Cro-Magnon/ AMH's when they came to Europe in 40000bp and drove out the Neanderthals. I would put this as one of those breakthrough technologies in hunting that made humans more adaptable than Neanderthals. And it started on the Plains of Eurasia outside the Neanderthal habitat. Dogs had their origins in Asian Wolves. A population dynamics of Humans, Neanderthals and Wolves/dogs would be necessary for the picture to be complete. This result is a Sugihara type popoulation dynamics if I've ever seen one! Roger L. Bagula > Dear Matt Giwer, > If you'll look at the sources: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I would put this as one of those breakthrough technologies > in hunting that made humans more adaptable than Neanderthals. As you found it on the internet would you kindly provide the URL or the search terms which resulted in the claim of driving out the Neanderthal? Thank you. Quite interesting that someone has found evidence of the reason for neanderthal extinction. > And it started on the Plains of Eurasia outside the Neanderthal > habitat. Dogs had their origins in Asian Wolves. > A population dynamics of Humans, Neanderthals and Wolves/dogs > would be necessary for the picture to be complete. > This result is a Sugihara type popoulation dynamics if I've ever seen one! > > Roger L. Bagula SignatureAll Israel is accomplishing is increasing the exchange ratio without reducing its own losses. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3202 Matt, Roger, and all: I don't think *anybody* has yet found a "definitive" answer to the problem of Neandertal extinction, disappearance, or whatever you want to call it. Anne G "> As you found it on the internet would you kindly provide the URL or > the search terms which resulted in the claim of driving out the > Neanderthal? Thank you. Quite interesting that someone has found > evidence of the reason for neanderthal extinction. > Matt, Roger, and all: > > I don't think *anybody* has yet found a "definitive" answer to the problem > of Neandertal extinction, disappearance, or whatever you want to call it. > Anne G Agreed. However his first post was trying to make a connection between HSS domesticating dogs and driving HSN to extinction. The thread got sideways along the way but that is the case he was trying to make. This whole thing with dogs being so different the lineage "has to be older than" assumes a single domestication event. Different varieties in different locations thousands of years apart is an equally likely explanation and does not require domestication that long ago. And this all ignores an equally interesting extinction of archaic HSS by modern HSS. > "> As you found it on the internet would you kindly provide the URL or >>the search terms which resulted in the claim of driving out the >>Neanderthal? Thank you. Quite interesting that someone has found >>evidence of the reason for neanderthal extinction. SignatureThe question for the Patriot Act is not what it permits. The question is, is there anything left which is prohibited. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3183 > Matt, Roger, and all: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Neanderthal? Thank you. Quite interesting that someone has found > > evidence of the reason for neanderthal extinction. In a way I think they have. They just don't see it. The advance of tech made it possible for less robust and climate adapted populations to thrive in the regions they called home. At that point in time they were either going to evolve into less robust and climate adapted types, be replaced by those that were, or the robust HSN genes would be weeded out of the mixed population if the populations mixed. The entire trend in human evolution has been toward a less robust and more fuel efficant model. That as much as anything defines HS from its fore fathers and it continues today in how HSS differs from HS. deowll Well, this is pretty much what C.L. Brace claims. Anne G > In a way I think they have. They just don't see it. The advance of tech made > it possible for less robust and climate adapted populations to thrive in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > fuel efficant model. That as much as anything defines HS from its fore > fathers and it continues today in how HSS differs from HS. > deowll > > Well, this is pretty much what C.L. Brace claims. > Anne G So there are at least two of us? I guess I need to learn more about C.L. Brace. > > In a way I think they have. They just don't see it. The advance of tech > made [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > fuel efficant model. That as much as anything defines HS from its fore > > fathers and it continues today in how HSS differs from HS. >>> deowll >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> So there are at least two of us? I guess I need to learn more about >> C.L. Brace. Yikes! C. Loring Brace is findable on the web as are several (IIRC) of his articles and is a pleasure to read. Don't postpone learning moe about him. Jois >>Matt, Roger, and all: >> >>I don't think *anybody* has yet found a "definitive" answer to the problem >>of Neandertal extinction, disappearance, or whatever you want to call it. >>Anne G >>"> As you found it on the internet would you kindly provide the URL or >>>the search terms which resulted in the claim of driving out the >>>Neanderthal? Thank you. Quite interesting that someone has found >>>evidence of the reason for neanderthal extinction. > In a way I think they have. They just don't see it. The advance of tech made > it possible for less robust and climate adapted populations to thrive in the > regions they called home. At that point in time they were either going to > evolve into less robust and climate adapted types, be replaced by those that > were, or the robust HSN genes would be weeded out of the mixed population if > the populations mixed. Or they are going to move north and Laplanders and Eskimos would Neanderthals and they are not. Further, Neanderthals are much less common but are found in what were reasonably temperate climates during the ice age such as in Palestine. Because of those finds they were not bound to a particular climate. As for mixed population, at this point genetic evidence is to the contrary. > The entire trend in human evolution has been toward a less robust and more > fuel efficant model. That as much as anything defines HS from its fore > fathers and it continues today in how HSS differs from HS. Actually we have climate dependent models. Do take a look at the higher volume to surface ratio of eskimos when not living in modern housing. They quickly get fat without being morbidly obese. SignatureIt is possible to both support the troops and piss on the bush. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3179 > Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That is the problem. If a pack of dogs has a deer cornered why > would they wait for the man instead of eating it themselves. This probably makes more sense then trying to domesticate wolves right off the bat, perhaps early humans started with jackals/coyotes or some kind of similar smaller canine and used them for hunting small game and flushing birds from cover? I know that at least when hunting rabbits with a dog, the rabbit will eventually be chased in a circle back to where it started where the hunter is waiting for it and can get a shot. I suspect that a deer would do the same thing eventually but as their territory is much larger, by the time the humans caught up to their semi-domesticated wolf pack, there wouldn't be any deer left. This also makes me think it might have been a case of humans following wolfs to pick up scraps instead of the other way around. Even the largest wolf isn't going to able to drag a deer carcass very far, so if humans manage to chase a pack away in time they can scavenge a free meal. Humans might have also decide to domesticate canines not for hunting but for security. A canine is more likely to smell/hear intruders before a man and could thus warn the tribe before they are ambushed or enemies sneak up on their camp. And perhaps the first domestication of canines was accidental? I remember a kids book I read back in elementary school where a cave man (actually a cave teen) kill a wolf bitch and instead of immediately killing her pups for food, his cave teen girl friend convinces him to keep them for a while until they get bigger and provide more meat. (she actually thinks they're cute and doesn't want to kill them... hay, I said it was a kids book) By the time the pups grow, they have become pets/guard dogs/hunting companions and he of course doesn't kill them. >>Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > if humans manage to chase a pack away in time they can scavenge a free > meal. I have a problem right here. > Humans might have also decide to domesticate canines not for hunting > but for security. Decide to? They have been around longer than any other animal considered domesticated maybe. (It isn't like there much artifact difference between domesticated sheep and hunting wild sheep.) Where would they get the idea? How would they know it could be done? How did they do it? Why would they think it a good idea? worth the effort? If I were speculating I would consider the old religions are animistic and a wolf is a common totem when they are in the region. Killing a wolf for its power could lead to controlling a wolf so catching a pup and raising it. And men don't chew on bones but dogs do so they would learn to scavenge around men's camps for free bones and the occasional hundred plus pounds of discarded meat available for a little digging. As for hunting, it really is most likely men ran down their prey because we can jog forever but few prey animals can and also dogs cannot. So as long as we were in the hand axe phase dogs would be useless for a hunt. That would have to wait until the thrown projectile phase of slings and spears to generally use dogs in hunting. As mentioned they would always be good for hunting animals that climbed trees to get away as they could be brought down with thrown stones. As long as dogs get their share they would stick around. I recently read of a Russian experiment in "domesticating" foxes. They selected the friendliest for breeding and in 13 generations the adults had juvenile proportions of head and jaws and retained some juvenile behaviors like tail-wagging. Presuming dogs are like that 13 generations is 13 years so progress would be rapid once started. There could have been lots of false starts and independent starts. And dogs of all sorts from all over the world are interfertile so migrating tribes have many possibilities of breeding between different tribes and still with a wild component. > A canine is more likely to smell/hear intruders > before a man and could thus warn the tribe before they are ambushed > or enemies sneak up on their camp. Again, you have to domesticate them before learning that. > And perhaps the first domestication of canines was accidental? > I remember a kids book I read back in elementary school where a cave > man (actually a cave teen) kill a wolf bitch and instead of immediately > killing her pups for food, his cave teen girl friend convinces him to > keep them for a while until they get bigger and provide more meat. > (she actually thinks they're cute and doesn't want to kill them... hay, > I said it was a kids book) Which is why it didn't mention she had to breast feed them. ;) > By the time the pups grow, they have become pets/guard dogs/hunting > companions and he of course doesn't kill them. SignatureWere the US to cease support, Israel would become a tail in search of a dog. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3201 [snip] >> I recently read of a Russian experiment in "domesticating" foxes. >> They selected the friendliest for breeding and in 13 generations the >> adults had juvenile proportions of head and jaws and retained some >> juvenile behaviors like tail-wagging. [snip] I remember reading this but haven't seen any kind of update. Remember where you first read it? Seen any follow-up? TIA, Jois > [snip] >>>I recently read of a Russian experiment in "domesticating" foxes. >>>They selected the friendliest for breeding and in 13 generations the >>>adults had juvenile proportions of head and jaws and retained some >>>juvenile behaviors like tail-wagging. > I remember reading this but haven't seen any kind of update. Remember > where you first read it? Seen any follow-up? Not sure where I read it and only one mention of it. I'd like to see more too. SignatureThe internet proved its worth when amateurs could debunk Iraq weapons claims in hours while professionals with billions of dollars could not. That is what you have to believe to believe Bush. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3200 In some ways I hate to ask this question but I'm trying to get a half way decent guess. I have read that a 4 or five year old chimp is 4 times as strong as a man. I have read some interesting stories of a great Big G male that held a rope in one hand and pulled it away from twenty men. I saw a post here that claimed an HSN was 1.5 times as strong as a modern. I have also read in the lit that the markings on the bones suggest that pound for pound they were at least as strong as the strongest Big G. To be exact the author said the markings on the bones were the normally more extreme than in the exisiting great apes. There is nothing to suggest that HE or anything before was less strong than a great ape their size and build would be. The text say a human male in good shape can put their weight over their head and a few can do a one handed pull up but at least one female did I think over 90. The same applies to one handed push ups. Conditioning of course is a huge factor. My problem is that what numbers numbers and examples I've found vary wildly. They are no where near each other. Yes I can do a goole search but for some things I've found that you get way to many bad hits or nothing which is what I got when I tried to find some size weight charts for adult humans. > In some ways I hate to ask this question but I'm trying to get a half way > decent guess. I have read that a 4 or five year old chimp is 4 times as > strong as a man. The age refers to adult. An adult is much stronger. Don't go for numbers, they aren't kind enough to engage in weight lifting tests for us. You don't want to wrestle one but strength per body weight, leverage of muscles to bone length does not make for simple statements. > I have read some interesting stories of a great Big G male > that held a rope in one hand and pulled it away from twenty men. Sounds like a circus stunt. Adult chimps are _not_ cute and cuddly like the child ones we see on TV. Adults are not brought on stage to mug the camera. But if the teeth were muzzled I would expect a decent pro-wrestler type (big muscles and endurance) to slam the chimp every time. > I saw a > post here that claimed an HSN was 1.5 times as strong as a modern. There is no way to know. Artifacts are way to few and far between even to guess. > I have > also read in the lit that the markings on the bones suggest that pound for > pound they were at least as strong as the strongest Big G. To be exact the > author said the markings on the bones were the normally more extreme than in > the exisiting great apes. There is nothing to suggest that HE or anything > before was less strong than a great ape their size and build would be. > The text say a human male in good shape can put their weight over their > head and a few can do a one handed pull up but at least one female did I > think over 90. The same applies to one handed push ups. Conditioning of > course is a huge factor. There is an issue of domestication which is little explored. People can move faster and are stronger than they are in daily life. A house cat will swipe at something at reasonable human speed but if you see them in a fight with another cat they swipe faster than the eye can follow. So can humans but are usually too inhibited. Chimps do not domesticate. Lots of people have tried raising chimps. They have all had to be sent to zoos before becoming adults. > My problem is that what numbers numbers and examples I've found vary wildly. > They are no where near each other. > Yes I can do a goole search but for some things I've found that you get way > to many bad hits or nothing which is what I got when I tried to find some > size weight charts for adult humans. Google is a start. It will be much better when journal publications are put on all net. But then there will be a learning curve to learn the language but it will be worth it. Until then the best approach is to consider anything that sounds impressive as tentative and expect it is all in the science writer's attempt to gain a readership and a raise. SignatureIraq embrace western values? We can't even get our fundies to embrace the American value of freedom from religion in our government. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3192 You will get a better responce from a kerean group, :) >I was wondering if there is any documentation of when > dogs were first domesticated. > I once read that dogs may have been the first animals domesticated by man. > Roger L. Bagula >You will get a better responce from a kerean group, :) And where might one see better spelling? ******Martin Edwards.****** Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel. Eddy Valiant. www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/ > I was wondering if there is any documentation of when > dogs were first domesticated. > I once read that dogs may have been the first animals domesticated by man. > Roger L. Bagula I believe that the first solid evidence of dogs being domesticated (probably as retrievers to aid in hunting) is found among the Natufian culture of the Levant around 12000 BP. In at least one case, a puppy was found buried with a human, possibly suggesting that they had assumed the role of 'pet' very early. If you do some Google searches using the keywords Natufian, dog, and domestication, you will find many sites with a great deal of information. Stephen Chrisomalis Dear Stephen Chrisomalis, You reply has been very useful, thank you. There does seem to be evidence prior to the Natufian. I think it has depended much on what bones the people were looking for or could identify with prey. Some researcher are "narrow windowed" and resist anything outside of that. It appears by the Natufian period, they were no longer wolves , but "household" dogs. >> I was wondering if there is any documentation of when >> dogs were first domesticated. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Stephen Chrisomalis > I was wondering if there is any documentation of when > dogs were first domesticated. > I once read that dogs may have been the first animals domesticated by man. > Roger L. Bagula The earliest date I have heard is c. 100,000 years ago. It was on a documentary, so take it with a grain of salt. The argument was that modern dogs have far too much diversity to have been domesticated only a short time (say 10,000 years). There may be something to this: look at an Irish wolfhound and a pug, yet they are from the same species! On the same show, I heard that dogs may have "domesticated" themselves. Their wild ancestors who were less afraid of humans would have gotten more scraps by raiding, and has a better chance of survival. So when humans took "wild" dogs or wolves in, they may already have been halfway to being tame. Katherine Tredwell |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.