Give the dog a bone

slowburner

Interesting new information on the relationship between dog and man.
Dogs may have developed an ability to digest starch to allow them to exploit the leftovers of ancient man.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21142870

Wibbs

I'm not so sure this pins down the dog origin to the agricultural revolution. Maybe these changes came about when dogs already with us before agriculture adapted to the novel diets just like we did? There might be a way of looking deeper at this. Look at the Dingo and it's DNA. Dingos are domesticated dogs, but primitive ones and associated with hunter gatherers not farmers. See if they have the adaptations for starch.

I'd also be looking not at starch but adaptations to gluten. The article says "It backs an idea that some dogs emerged from wolves that were able to scavenge and digest the food waste of early farmers, the team tells Nature journal". Starch tells you feck all about whether they're early famers or not. Common error and one Im surprised they make. Humans have been exploiting starches for a very very long time. Homo erectus stone tools show extensive wear associated with digging for tubers and the like. Modern humans(and before) would dig for water lilly root systems and process various nuts and large seeds releasing lots of starch. If you want to get closer to agriculture look instead at genes implicated in gluten tolerance in dogs, with a side order of lactose tolerance in some populations. They're more recent adaptations and connected almost exclusively with agriculture

slowburner

Can argue with that.

dr gonzo

Wibbs wrote: »

The article says "It backs an idea that some dogs emerged from wolves that were able to scavenge and digest the food waste of early farmers, the team tells Nature journal". Starch tells you feck all about whether they're early famers or not. Common error and one Im surprised they make. Humans have been exploiting starches for a very very long time. Homo erectus stone tools show extensive wear associated with digging for tubers and the like. Modern humans(and before) would dig for water lilly root systems and process various nuts and large seeds releasing lots of starch.

Youre spot on Wibbs, because the reality is that the domesticated dog has roots (excuse the pun) going back way beyond the Neolithic. In fact it remains one of the few (only?) pre-neolithic domesticated animal. So I agree with your point here, and I'm also a little confused by the attempts to connect the dog and the Neolithic when there is ample archaeological evidence proving human-canine relationship in the Meso (see Skateholm in Sweden).

Wibbs

dr gonzo wrote: »

I'm also a little confused by the attempts to connect the dog and the Neolithic when there is ample archaeological evidence proving human-canine relationship in the Meso (see Skateholm in Sweden).

*hops up and down like a toddler* Yes! exactly Dr G. Even further back we have a site whose name remains clouded in what passes for my brain in Poland(I think *) that dates back to 30,000 years ago, where a possible dog was found. Actually that's a major problem in this. namely how can you tell dog from wolf in the archaeological record? Sure it's relatively easy when a primitive breed shows up, but beforehand? Indeed the Polish dog is clearly a dog, not a wolf and the experiments on arctic fox domestication in the former USSR too many generations before they got domesticated(and soooo cute). That was under intense selective pressures and along with their behavioural changes some physical changes occurred too. Namely their tails got curly and their coats expressed non native coloration. However on the skeletal front not a lot changed. Small reductions in dentition and snout length, but this was neither obvious nor consistent. The earliest dogs we have have quite obvious changes in the skull, so how long would that have take back in the day? I reckon quite the number of "wolf" associated with human habitation may actually be early part domesticated "wolfdog".

Looking at some 19th century sources from the US which talk about the locals and their dogs, you note that their domesticated dogs were interbreeding with local wolves. Find one of them in the record and you'd likely label them "wolf" not dog. The line between them in the skeletal sense, especially in the early days is going to be a very fine one. While a pure wolf is so not a suburban lapdog today, a pure wolf with submissive tendencies brought into a roving hunter gatherer group of 30,000 years ago would find a far easier home, at least until maturity.

My personal take is that's how it went down originally. Wolf cubs were brought in to a "tribe" as fancies, much like South American Indians will have monkeys as "pets". All good until they mature and as wolves they'll want to leave the family and create their own. In wolf packs however, some juveniles stay on as helpers and babysitters and IMHO that's where our fido came from. Rather than a concerted effort on our part, it went more "naturally" and this likely happened many times in many places until the emergent event happened where we got more "dog" than "wolf" and their offspring kept this "babysitter/juvenile" behaviour as a given.

What helped was that wolves and hunter gatherer humans are quite similar, (compared to say cats who needed the agricultural revolution to "fit in"). Wolves and HG humans operate as small familial groups/packs, have a hierarchy(no "Alpha" nonsense mind you), are mobile, are vocal, have a territory, are both hunters and scavengers and regularly take down prey larger than themselves. It seems the most obvious tie up in history. What really surprises me is that other humans before us didn't make the connection. As far as we know anyway. You'd think Neandertals and wolves would have been an equally mutually beneficial pairing. Some have even described them as "wolves with knives", they even have similar bone isotope profiles. Competition sure, but... Actually that may have been our "killer app". They saw competition and we saw mutual opportunity?







*I so need the smiley on Boards. It would make most of my posts far more explainable.

slowburner

I think you need to keep an open mind on the association of canine/lupine bones with pre-neolithic communities.
The association doesn't necessarily imply codependence.

Think of some menus in the far east today.

Wibbs

Oh sure SB and proximity may be down to them following moving bands of humans but not actually interacting, or even in some cases preying on humans.

Eating dog/wolf? I'm less sure. Predators really tend to avoid eating other predators. They may well kill them, but usually leave the carcass. I'd suspect the Asian menu choices came about 1) after domestication and 2) after the population rose to the degree where famine was an ever present danger. Then again one of the earliest pathologies we have for our species is a case of vitamin A poisoning of a young Erectus female and the most likely cause of that is eating the liver of a predator. Still if this had been a consistent strategy we'd have built adaptations to allow for it and we haven't.

Actually one of the main issues I have with the "dogs ate our leftovers" theory is unlike in the modern world, humans were about the worst predator to follow if you're looking for good scavenging. We're scavengers who became hunters so we're really good at exploiting a carcass. A lion say will leave the skin and sinew and other bits, we'll take even them and make leather and string and even tools from the bones after we stripped the marrow. We'll eat the eyeballs outa the skull(V good for Vit C) and the brains within. Plus we'll usually move the prey/food away from the primary kill site to render it down further, which would increase the risk for a following scavenger. In general there would not be rich pickings after a human hunt.