Canis L Upis
Herding Dogs Terriers . European Toy Dogs
Indian Wolf
Herding Dogs Terriers . European Toy Dogs
Scent Hounds | I Sight Hounds |
Mastiffs
Great Dane St. Bernard Newfoundland Bulldog
'Pug
Gun Dogs I Spaniels
Scent Hounds | I Sight Hounds |
Borzoi — Saluki — Afghan Deer — Hounds Dingo Pariah Dogs
Fig. 1.3. Various subspecies of the wolf are believed to have contributed to the genome of the domestic dog. According to one theory, the dog was independently domesticated in various parts of the world, with no single site of origin. Although grouped as though from discrete origins, the breeds included here have probably undergone considerable crossbreeding over their long history of development. After Clutton-Brock and Jewell
wolf population may have been confident enough to follow closely behind these migrant hunting and gathering groups. By staying nearby, the ever-opportunistic wolves could have easily tracked animals wounded by hunters, thus securing an easy meal for themselves at least until the advancing hunting party arrived at the scene. Also, by retreating and lingering at a safe distance, wolves could scavenge on the slaughtered remains left behind (Zeuner, 1963). Juliet Clutton-Brock (1984, 1996) has speculated that such a hunting partnership may have played an important role in the development and spread of the bow and arrow as a hunting tool during the Mesolithic period, arguing that wolves or protodogs may have provided a significant advantage to early hunters by tracking and subduing large animals wounded by arrows fitted with sharp stone heads called microliths. Besides forming an effective hunting partnership, wolf-pack territories may have formed around human camps, thus providing a natural protective shield against the threat of predation by other less friendly wolves and competing human groups. Possibly, from this mutually beneficial situation, an ecological niche was formed from which the protodog underwent novel morphological and genetic changes gradually leading to domestic dogs.
Close social contact of this kind requires that the animal in question possess a high fear threshold and a reduced tendency to flee, essential behavioral characteristics of domestication (Hediger, 1955/1968). Scientific evidence for a genetically divergent distribution of temperament traits based on relative tame-ness and confidence among canids has been demonstrated in the fox (Belyaev, 1979). Among farm-bred foxes, a small percentage exhibit a reduced tendency to act fearfully or aggressively in the presence of people. By breeding these less fearful individuals together over several generations, Belyaev has developed a strain of tame, human-friendly foxes (see below). Although a similar genetic basis for social tolerance has not been demonstrated in wolves, it is reasonable to assume that a certain percentage of the Pleis tocene wolf population was probably less fearful and aggressive toward humans than average wolves. The adaptive value of behavioral polymorphism in wolves and its relevance to domestication have been discussed in detail by Fox (1971) and by Scott, the latter writing,
As a dominant predator the wolf is protected from certain kinds of selection pressure, thus permitting the survival of individuals with a considerable variation from the mean. As a highly social species, wolves should be subject to selection favoring variation useful in cooperative enterprises, as a greater degree of variation permits a greater degree of division of labor. For example, a wolf pack might benefit both by the presence of individuals that were highly timid and reacted to danger quickly and effectively, and also by the presence of other more stolid individuals who did not run away but stayed to investigate the perhaps nonexistent danger. (1967:257)
Similarly, Young and Goldman reported that "wolves held in captivity have shown that in each litter there are two or three whelps that show tameness early; the remainder are absolutely intractable and often die if one attempts to train them" (1944/1964:208-209). This prosocial population would have displayed a greater tolerance for human contact or may have even been "preadapted" for do-mestication—especially if they were not being actively hunted or persecuted.
Mutual tolerance offered many benefits for both species. Early people who tolerated scavenging and the proximate presence of dogs enjoyed a hygienic benefit (resulting in the control of garbage and pestilence) and a protected perimeter of barking dogs, providing valuable early warning of approaching enemies. After a propitious length of time, perhaps hundreds or thousands of years, such loose symbiotic contact may have resulted in the development of a specialized ecological niche in which the most tame individual wolves began to breed in close association with people. This transitional step would have taken place gradually, requiring little or no purposeful intervention on the part of early humans. Such a pattern of scavenging around human encampments by feral and semiferal dogs is evident in many parts of the world today (Fiennes and Fiennes, 1968). Even in large American cities, semiferal dogs satisfy the majority of their nutritional needs by scavenging (Fox, 1971; Beck, 1973). Alan Beck (1973) has observed that stray dogs satisfy most of their nutritional needs by raiding garbage cans and relying on handouts when garbage is not available. Handouts may have been an important source of food for early dogs as well. Domestic dogs exhibit a unique proclivity and skill for food begging—a behavioral attribute that would have been very useful for underfed primitive canines depending on human generosity for their survival. As the result of a growing familiarity between genetically "tame" scavengers and begging dogs, early people had many opportunities for close interaction, thereby making other social exchanges possible, including the adoption of pups.
John P. Scott (1968) has imagined that a primitive mother, having lost her own child and enduring the discomfort of lactation, may have saved a wolf puppy from the camp soup pot by adopting and nursing it as her own. If, in addition, the wolf happened to be a female, it might have chosen the camp as a suitable place to give birth, resulting in a new generation of even closer interaction and social affiliation. Although such a scenario cannot be proven, it is statistically possible, even plausible. Many examples of the suckling of domestic animals by women have been found among existing tribal cultures (e.g., the Papuan of New Guinea).
Although primitive humans' intentions and purposes for keeping dogs in close proximity are not known, a certain degree of social tolerance and mutual acceptance was clearly present in both species. In addition to various utilitarian or symbiotic benefits, early interaction between humans and dogs surely depended on a high degree of respectful deference shown by early canids toward humans. Dogs exhibiting threatening tendencies would have been quickly expelled or killed, and eliminated from the gene pool early in the domestication process. Those animals exhibiting submission behaviors and social sub-ordination—that is, a readiness to respond to human directives—would have been more likely to survive and to reproduce under the protection of domestic conditions. Early domestic dogs that also exhibited a high degree of affection toward their captors would have been brought into even closer intimacy, enjoying added protection, better food, and other survival advantages not extended to less affectionate counterparts. As time went on, various specialized functions could have been elaborated out of this basic foundation, including all the familiar roles served by the dog today—for example, alarm barking and protection, hunting activities, herding, draft work, and companionship. Undoubtedly, at some point in the natural history of humans and dogs, interspecies tolerance and cooperative interaction became mutually advantageous, thus forging the foundation for a lasting relationship.
Post a comment