Burying key evidence: the social bond between dogs and people

Morey, Darcy F.

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2005.07.009

Cited by 150 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the absence of archeological excavations in many parts of the world biases our interpretation of domestication history. The universal human propensity to bury dogs either on their own or within human burials (32), however, has significantly enhanced the archeological visibility of dogs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography

Larson

Karlsson

Perri

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

455

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dog was the first domesticated animal but it remains uncertain when the domestication process began and whether it occurred just once or multiple times across the Northern Hemisphere. To ascertain the value of modern genetic data to elucidate the origins of dog domestication, we analyzed 49,024 autosomal SNPs in 1,375 dogs (representing 35 breeds) and 19 wolves. After combining our data with previously published data, we contrasted the genetic signatures of 121 breeds with a worldwide archeological assessment of the earliest dog remains. Correlating the earliest archeological dogs with the geographic locations of 14 so-called "ancient" breeds (defined by their genetic differentiation) resulted in a counterintuitive pattern. First, none of the ancient breeds derive from regions where the oldest archeological remains have been found. Second, three of the ancient breeds (Basenjis, Dingoes, and New Guinea Singing Dogs) come from regions outside the natural range of Canis lupus (the dog's wild ancestor) and where dogs were introduced more than 10,000 y after domestication. These results demonstrate that the unifying characteristic among all genetically distinct so-called ancient breeds is a lack of recent admixture with other breeds likely facilitated by geographic and cultural isolation. Furthermore, these genetically distinct ancient breeds only appear so because of their relative isolation, suggesting that studies of modern breeds have yet to shed light on dog origins. We conclude by assessing the limitations of past studies and how next-generation sequencing of modern and ancient individuals may unravel the history of dog domestication.genomics | phylogeography D arwin speculated about the origins of several domestic animals and suggested that, given the vast morphological variation across numerous breeds, dogs must have had more than one wild ancestor (1). Recent genetic studies, however, support the notion that dogs are descended exclusively from the gray wolf (Canis lupus) (2).Beyond questions regarding wild ancestry, geneticists and generations of archeologists have investigated not only how and why dogs were domesticated, but also when, where, and how many times it may have occurred. Unique among all domestic animals, the first unambiguous domestic dogs precede the appearance of settled agriculture in the archeological record by several thousand years. Identifying the earliest dogs is difficult, however, because key morphological characters established by zooarcheologists to differentiate domestic animals from their wild wolf ancestors (e.g., size and position of teeth, dental pathologies, and size and proportion of cranial and postcranial elements) were not yet fixed during the initial phases of the domestication process. Furthermore, the range of natural variation among these characters in ancient wolf populations and the time it took for these traits to appear in dogs are unknown. Free-ranging wolves attracted to the refuse generated by human camps most likely followed a commensal pathway to domestica...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography

Larson

Karlsson

Perri

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

455

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the long coassociation between humans and dogs in northern Eurasia (43), dogs were likely essential to the hunting system of these early millet farmers, and their experiments with quick-growing, storable plants were probably motivated by the need to provision their dogs as much as themselves whenever more traditional resources were scarce. Because Panicum grows faster and is more cold-and drought-tolerant than other candidate crops (44), it is an ideal crop for mobile hunter-gatherers attracted to flexible resources requiring minimal investments, and limited delays.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural origins and the isotopic identity of domestication in northern China

Barton

Newsome²,

Chen³

et al. 2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

436

320

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stable isotope biochemistry (␦ 13 C and ␦ 15 N) and radiocarbon dating of ancient human and animal bone document 2 distinct phases of plant and animal domestication at the Dadiwan site in northwest China. The first was brief and nonintensive: at various times between 7900 and 7200 calendar years before present (calBP) people harvested and stored enough broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) to provision themselves and their hunting dogs (Canis sp.) throughout the year. The second, much more intensive phase was in place by 5900 calBP: during this time both broomcorn and foxtail (Setaria viridis spp. italica) millets were cultivated and made significant contributions to the diets of people, dogs, and pigs (Sus sp.). The systems represented in both phases developed elsewhere: the earlier, low-intensity domestic relationship emerged with hunter-gatherers in the arid north, while the more intensive, later one evolved further east and arrived at Dadiwan with the Yangshao Neolithic. The stable isotope methodology used here is probably the best means of detecting the symbiotic human-plantanimal linkages that develop during the very earliest phases of domestication and is thus applicable to the areas where these connections first emerged and are critical to explaining how and why agriculture began in East Asia.East Asia ͉ millet ͉ Neolithic ͉ origins of agriculture ͉ stable isotope biochemistry

show abstract

“…Archaeological findings (Nobis 1979, Clutton-Brock 1995 provide evidence, as recently summarised by Morey (2006), that dogs used to be ritually buried 12 to 14 thousand years ago and that their craniometric data have already shown changes in the size, paedomorphosis, and juvenile morphology (Morey 1992). These changes thus cannot be ascribed to the later selection pressures dictated by practical needs of shepherds and farmers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Body Size and Behaviour Traits of Dogs in Czech Households

Baranyiová

Holub²,

Tyrlík

2009

Acta Vet. Brno

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to analyse the effect of body size of dogs on their coexistence with humans in Czech households. For this purpose we used questionnaire data on 246 dogs indicating the breed. The dogs were divided into five body size groups, i.e. toy (T, up to 5 kg body mass, n = 32), small (S, 5 -10 kg body mass, n = 52), medium size (M, 10 -17 kg body mass, n = 39), large (L, 17 -33 kg body mass, n = 70), giant (G, over 33 kg body mass, n = 53). The largest dogs surpassed the body mass of the smallest dogs at least seven times, and giant dogs weighed at least one half and toy dogs less than one tenth of the average body mass of people in the Czech human population. Despite this the majority of the studied traits regardless of body mass of the dogs showed no significant differences. In the vast majority of Czech households all dogs were considered household members, taken on travels or vacations, photographed and their birthdays were celebrated. Aggressiveness of the dogs did not correlate with their body size.Among the 84 traits of the behaviour of dogs and their owners, which were analysed, only 23, i.e. 27.4% traits were significantly related to their body mass. Larger and heavier dogs were more frequently kept in houses with yards and gardens, in rural environments. Toy and small dogs prevailed in urbanised environments, in apartments. They were allowed to use furniture, sleep in beds of household members. Moreover, toy dogs predominated in one-person households.Large dogs were more often trained, sometimes by professional trainers, obeyed commands better and were more often described as obedient. They were considered not only as companions but also as working dogs. Giant size dogs were also more often trained to be protective.These data show that the differences in the body size of dogs modified their co-existence with humans only to a limited extent.

show abstract

Burying key evidence: the social bond between dogs and people

Cited by 150 publications

References 44 publications

Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography

Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography

Agricultural origins and the isotopic identity of domestication in northern China

Body Size and Behaviour Traits of Dogs in Czech Households

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About