Paleolithic dogs: Why sustained domestication then?

Morey, Darcy F.; Jeger, Rujana

doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.06.031

Cited by 29 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar reductions in prognathism are a feature of most domesticated lineages (Leach, 2003;Morey & Jeger, 2015;Zeuner, 1963), although whether this has consistently affected males more than females is unknown.…”

Section: Fig2mentioning

confidence: 90%

Masculinity and the mechanisms of human self-domestication

Gleeson

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:Pre-historic decline in human craniofacial masculinity has been proposed as evidence of selection for elevated sociability and a process of 'human self-domestication' thought to have promoted complex capacities including language, culture, and cumulative technological development. This follows experimental observation of similar changes in non-human animals under selection for reduced aggression. Two distinct domestication hypotheses posit developmental explanations, involving hypoplasia of embryonic neural crest cells (NCCs), and declining androgen influence, respectively. Here, I assess the operation and potential interactions between these two mechanisms and consider their role in enhanced human adaptation to a cooperative sociocultural niche. Methods: I provide a review and synthesis of related literature with a focus on physiological mechanisms effecting domesticated reductions in masculinity and sexual dimorphism.Further, I examine pre-historic modes of socio-sexual selection likely to drive human selfdomestication via reduced aggression and masculinity. Results:I find pluripotent NCCs provide progenitors for a wide range of vertebrate masculine features, acting as regular targets for sexually driven evolutionary change; suggesting domesticated hypoplasia of NCC-derived tissues would be sufficient to explain declines in masculine traits and features. However, lineage specific androgen receptor variability likely moderates these NCC-based effects. Conclusions:These findings extend theorised mechanisms driving noted physiological, morphological, and behavioural changes thought to indicate enhanced sociability and human and selfdomestication. Multiple current explanations for human sociability are consistent with physiological domestication under socio-sexual selection favouring dampened masculine physiology and behaviour as adaptations to an enhanced sociocultural niche. The analysis highlights multiple avenues for further investigation.Masculinity and the mechanisms of human self-domestication-Ben Gleeson 3

show abstract

Section: Fig2mentioning

confidence: 90%

Masculinity and the mechanisms of human self-domestication

Gleeson

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on present knowledge, the most probable dog progenitors were European (Thalmann et al, 2013) or Asian (Savolainen et al, 2002;Duleba et al, 2015) wolves whose DNA lineage has not been found in recent wolf populations, and thus this ancestor is either extinct (Morey and Jeger, 2015) or still undiscovered (Morey and Jeger, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Ancient gray wolves are the likely ancestors of the domestic dog. The domestic dog first was described with reasonable certainty from the Magdalenian (Botigu e et al, 2016;Boudadi-Maligne et al, 2012;Boudadi-Maligne and Escarguel, 2014;C el erier, 1994;Crockford, 2006;Druzhkova et al, 2013;Horard-Herbin et al, 2014;Larson et al, 2012;Morey, 2010;Morey and Jeger, 2015;Müller, 2005;Napierala and Uerpmann, 2012;Perri, 2016;Pionnier-Capitan, 2010;Pionnier-Capitan et al, 2011;Thalmann et al, 2013). Earlier Pleistocene dogs have been reported from the Aurignacian (Camar os et al, 2016;Germonpr e et al, 2009Germonpr e et al, , 2012Germonpr e et al, , 2015Germonpr e et al, , 2017Ovodov et al, 2011;Pidoplichko, 1969;Sablin and Khlopachev, 2002) but their classification is contentious (e.g., Crockford and Kuzmin, 2012;Boudadi-Maligne and Escarguel, 2014;Drake et al, 2015;Frantz et al, 2016;Morey and Jeger, 2015;Napierala and Uerpmann, 2012;Perri, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new look at an old dog: Bonn-Oberkassel reconsidered

Janssens

Giemsch²,

Schmitz

et al. 2018

Journal of Archaeological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Bonn-Oberkassel dog remains (Upper Pleistocene and 14223 þ-58 years old) have been reported more than 100 years ago. Recent re-examination revealed the tooth of another older and smaller dog, making this domestic dog burial not only the oldest known, but also the only one with remains of two dogs. This observation brings the total known Magdalenian dogs to nine. Domestication of dogs during the final Palaeolithic has important implications for understanding pre-Holocene hunter-gatherers. Most proposed hunter-gatherer motivations for domesticating dogs have been utilitarian. However, remains of the Bonn-Oberkassel dogs may offer another view. The Bonn-Oberkassel dog was a late juvenile when it was buried at approximately age 27e28 weeks, with two adult humans and grave goods. Oral cavity lesions indicate a gravely ill dog that likely suffered a morbillivirus (canine distemper) infection. A dental line of suggestive enamel hypoplasia appears at the 19-week developmental stage. Two additional enamel hypoplasia lines, on the canine only, document further disease episodes at weeks 21 and 23. Pathological changes also include severe periodontal disease that may have been facilitated by immunodeficiency. Since canine distemper has a three-week disease course with very high mortality, the dog must have been perniciously ill during the three disease bouts and between ages 19 and 23 weeks. Survival without intensive human assistance would have been unlikely. Before and during this period, the dog cannot have held any utilitarian use to humans. We suggest that at least some Late Pleistocene humans regarded dogs not just materialistically, but may have developed emotional and caring bonds for their dogs, as reflected by the survival of this dog, quite possibly through human care.

show abstract

“…The dog's domestication and earliest uses have been topics of much debate in the archaeological and genomic literature, especially over the last decade (Germonpré et al 2009;von Holdt et al 2010;Larson et al 2012;Germonpré et al 2013;Thalmann et al 2013;Freedman et al 2014;Drake et al 2015;Morey and Jeger 2015;Perri et al 2015;Shipman 2015;Frantz et al 2016;Perri 2016a;Morey and Jeger 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though it is now widely accepted that all dogs were domesticated from ancient gray wolf ancestors (Vila et al 1997;Freedman et al 2014), findings diverge on the timing, location, and number of domestication sites. The tentative identification of a number of proposed Paleolithic dogs dating from prior to the Last Glacial Maximum (Sablin and Khlopachev 2002;Germonpré et al 2009;Ovodov et al 2011;Germonpré et al 2015aGermonpré et al , 2015bGermonpré et al 2017), some up to 40,000 years ago (Camaros et al 2016), has led to debate regarding the origins of the humandog relationship (Crockford and Kuzmin 2012;Boudadi-Maligne and Escarguel 2014;Drake et al 2015;Morey and Jeger 2015;Perri 2016a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

New Evidence of the Earliest Domestic Dogs in the Americas

Perri

Widga

Lawler

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The domestication of dogs probably occurred in Eurasia by 16,000 years ago, with the initial peopling of the Americas potentially happening around the same time. Dogs were long thought to have accompanied the first migrations into the Americas, but conclusive evidence for Paleoindian dogs is lacking. The direct dating of two dogs from the Koster site (Greene Co., Illinois) and a newly-described dog from the Stilwell II site (Pike Co., Illinois) to between 10,190-9,630 cal BP represents the earliest evidence of domestic dogs in the Americas and individual dog burials in worldwide archaeological record. The over 4,500 year discrepancy between the timing of initial human migration into the Americas and the earliest evidence for domesticated dogs suggests either earlier dogs are going unseen or unidentified or dogs arrived later with a subsequent human migration.

show abstract

Paleolithic dogs: Why sustained domestication then?

Cited by 29 publications

References 44 publications

Masculinity and the mechanisms of human self-domestication

Masculinity and the mechanisms of human self-domestication

A new look at an old dog: Bonn-Oberkassel reconsidered

New Evidence of the Earliest Domestic Dogs in the Americas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About