Humans gave dogs treats 12,000 years ago, new archeological evidence suggests

[Claira]

The human bond with dogs may have begun in the Americas as early as 12,000 years ago. Archaeological remains uncovered in Alaska push the timeline of our canine companionship back about 2,000 years earlier than previously recorded in North or South America. The findings are detailed in a study published December 4 in the journal Science Advances.

https://www.popsci.com/science/human-dog-friendship-history/

[Abramelin]

16 minutes ago, Claira said:

The human bond with dogs may have begun in the Americas as early as 12,000 years ago.

The archaeological record and genetic analysis show the remains of the Bonn-Oberkassel dog buried beside humans 14,200 years ago to be the first undisputed dog, with disputed remains occurring 36,000 years ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_dog

---

The dog was the first species to be domesticated by humans, over 14,000 years ago and before the development of agriculture. Experts estimate that due to their long association with humans, dogs have gained the ability to thrive on a starch-rich diet that would be inadequate for other canids.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog

[eight bits]

I am skeptical. Fine, wolves don't fish for salmon. Once humans do, however. there are salmon available for scavenging without domestication. Also wild wolves are known to make "pacts" with other species (e.g. crows). Humans are eligible for participation in such pacts since we are lousy food ourselves (we taste bad and smell worse), we can run for long distances, have better daylight visual acuity than wolves, control fire, occasionally exhibit intelligence, and yeah we fish.

Not that giving dogs treats so long ago isn't a cool idea.

[Abramelin]

I wonder.... if dogs could time-travel, and see one of their descendents...

 

....would they still stick around us?

[pellinore]

1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

I wonder.... if dogs could time-travel, and see one of their descendents...

 

....would they still stick around us?

Absolutely! Life in a warm home, plump bed to sleep on, plenty of nice food, free medical care- beats living in a muddy hole in the winter and having to struggle to eat everyday. I know some domestic dogs have very hard lives (esp. in Asia) but the majority of lucky ones live like doggy millionaires.

Edited December 7, 2024 by pellinore

[Abramelin]

19 hours ago, pellinore said:

Absolutely! Life in a warm home, plump bed to sleep on, plenty of nice food, free medical care- beats living in a muddy hole in the winter and having to struggle to eat everyday. I know some domestic dogs have very hard lives (esp. in Asia) but the majority of lucky ones live like doggy millionaires.

I think the domestic dog's ancestors were the ones at the bottom of the canine hierarchy, the cast-outs, the weak ones.

[jmccr8]

12 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I think the domestic dog's ancestors were the ones at the bottom of the canine hierarchy, the cast-outs, the weak ones.

Hi Rob

Yes to some extent that may be true and yet humans recognized that they could breed qualities into a breed through selective mating, Rotties and Danes were bred to dismount knights and herd their horse as most kept their sword to their saddle so when dismounted were defenceless

[eight bits]

12 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I think the domestic dog's ancestors were the ones at the bottom of the canine hierarchy, the cast-outs, the weak ones.

I dunno. What @pellinore describes is a niche that cannot exist until after domestication is already far along: the true "pet" kept by a species that "hunts" by having their groceries delivered to their door.

The ancestral dogs were probably working dogs (and as @jmccr8 suggests, warrior dogs. too).  Although some of our modern working dogs are highly specialized workers (bomb sniffing beagles, for example), the ancestral dogs might well have been valued for their versatility, and verstility correlates with intelligence.

Not that you can't breed for docile and stupid, but that isn't necessarily the top priority.

 

[jmccr8]

5 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I dunno. What @pellinore describes is a niche that cannot exist until after domestication is already far along: the true "pet" kept by a species that "hunts" by having their groceries delivered to their door.

The ancestral dogs were probably working dogs (and as @jmccr8 suggests, warrior dogs. too).  Although some of our modern working dogs are highly specialized workers (bomb sniffing beagles, for example), the ancestral dogs might well have been valued for their versatility, and verstility correlates with intelligence.

Not that you can't breed for docile and stupid, but that isn't necessarily the top priority.

 

Hi Eight Bits

Yes of course and hunting and herding would have been some of the early breeding practices employed. I just used the Rotties and Danes to illustrate a point.

[Tatetopa]

You might find this interesting.  Its sorta a sweet picture to imagine

https://www.hannegrice.com/walk-the-dog/oldest-evidence-of-the-human-canine-relationship/

However, recent exploration of the Chauvet Cave near Vallon-Pont-d’Arc in southern France has led to the discovery of a small child’s foot prints alongside those of a wolf.  The cave is the renowned site of some of the world’s oldest paintings with over 400 images of animals created around 32,000 years ago.  Analysis of the foot and paw prints suggests these date back 26,000 to 30,000 years, making this the earliest evidence of the human-dog relationship.

Scientists suggest the foot prints are from a barefooted child aged between eight and ten years old, standing around 1.4 metres tall.  The foot prints indicate the child was walking alongside a wolf whilst carrying a torch, as a stain of charcoal was left behind, suggesting at some point the child stopped to clean the torch.

[Portre]

If a Fox can catch fish, why not a wolf/dog?

[Guyver]

30 minutes ago, Portre said:

If a Fox can catch fish, why not a wolf/dog?

Point proven.  Well done Portre.

[Abramelin]

14 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Rob

Yes to some extent that may be true and yet humans recognized that they could breed qualities into a breed through selective mating, Rotties and Danes were bred to dismount knights and herd their horse as most kept their sword to their saddle so when dismounted were defenceless

It's the canine (wolf) outcasts that were sent to inspect human habitations. You know, those individuals that could be missed when things went 'wrong'.

But that doesn't mean these outcasts were lovely and sweet puppies. It's just that they somehow didn't fit that well in the pack.

They were still strong as a wolf, though. And so were there domesticated offspring.

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Abramelin said:

It's the canine (wolf) outcasts that were sent to inspect human habitations. You know, those individuals that could be missed when things went 'wrong'.

Source?

[Abramelin]

12 hours ago, eight bits said:

Source?

Me.

[Abramelin]

7 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Me.

You laugh, @eight bits

but I have read about so many bs reasons why Neanderthals died out - by socalled 'scientists' - that my theory about how we domesticated canines is not that bad in comparison.