The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions With People 2nddownload
The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions With People 2nddownload
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-domestic-dog-its-evolution-
behavior-and-interactions-with-people-2nd/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-dog-its-behavior-nutrition-and-
health-2nd-edition-ebook-pdf/
https://ebookmass.com/product/difficult-people-dealing-with-the-bad-
behavior-of-difficult-people-rebecca-ray/
https://ebookmass.com/product/assistive-technology-for-people-with-
disabilities-2nd-edition/
https://ebookmass.com/product/organizational-behavior-managing-people-
and-organizations-12th-edition/
Home-Prepared Dog and Cat Diets, Second Edition 2nd
https://ebookmass.com/product/home-prepared-dog-and-cat-diets-second-
edition-2nd/
https://ebookmass.com/product/dog-days-andrew-cotter/
https://ebookmass.com/product/evolution-of-a-taboo-pigs-and-people-in-
the-ancient-near-east-max-d-price/
https://ebookmass.com/product/evolution-2nd-edition-ebook-pdf/
https://ebookmass.com/product/genetics-and-evolution-of-infectious-
diseases-2nd-edition-michel-tibayrenc-editor/
Cambridge University Press
978-1-107-02414-4 — The Domestic Dog
2nd Edition
Frontmatter
VetBooks.ir
More Information
Why do dogs behave the way they do? Why did our ancestors tame wolves? How have we ended up
with so many breeds of dog, and how can we understand their role in contemporary human society?
Explore the answers to these questions and many more in this study of the domestic dog.
Building on the strengths of the irst edition, this much-anticipated update incorporates two
decades of new evidence and discoveries on dog evolution, behavior, training, and human
interaction. It includes seven entirely new chapters covering topics such as behavioral modiication
and training, dog population management, the molecular evidence for dog domestication, canine
behavioral genetics, cognition, and the impact of free-roaming dogs on wildlife conservation. It is
an ideal volume for anyone interested in dogs and their evolution, behavior, and ever-changing roles
in society.
James Serpell is Professor of Animal Ethics and Welfare at the School of Veterinary Medicine,
University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on the behavior and welfare of companion ani-
mals, the development of human attitudes to animals, and the history and impact of human–animal
relationships.
More Information
x List of contributors
James Serpell, PhD, Department of Clinical Bridgett M. vonHoldt, PhD, Department of Ecology
Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, NJ, USA
USA
Stephen Wickens, PhD, Universities Federation for
Linda van den Berg, PhD, Rotterdam, the Animal Welfare (UFAW), Herts, UK
Netherlands
Mariko Yamamoto, PhD, Ibaraki, Japan
Zsófia Virányi, PhD, Messerli Research Institute,
Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien Stephen Zawistowski, PhD, Gouldsboro,
(Vetmeduni Vienna), Wien, Austria PA, USA
JAMES SERPELL
In the Introduction to the first edition of this book – published some 20 years ago – I bemoaned the
VetBooks.ir
general lack of objective and reliable scientific information about the domestic dog, and attributed
this dearth of knowledge to scientific chauvinism. “Most modern biologists and behavioral scien-
tists,” I wrote:
seem to regard domestic animals as “unnatural” and therefore unworthy or unsuitable as subjects for serious sci-
entific investigation. According to this stereotype, the domestic dog is essentially a debased and corrupted wolf,
an abnormal and therefore uninteresting artifact of human design, rather than a unique biological species (or
superspecies) in its own right, with its own complex and fascinating evolutionary history. (Serpell, 1995, p. 2)
I am happy to report that this statement no longer rings true. Indeed, the domestic dog has become
something of a scientific celebrity in recent years, and I would like to believe that the material
presented in the first edition contributed to this change of heart. Numerous, highly respected, “high
impact” scientific journals now regularly publish scholarly articles on the evolutionary origins of the
dog, its molecular genetics, its social behavior and cognitive capacities, and its complex interactions
with human society. Major international conferences are devoted exclusively to “canine science,”
while innumerable TV documentaries, books and blogs have done a remarkable job of conveying all
of this new dog science to a seemingly insatiable popular audience. At the same time, the dog’s suc-
cess as a social companion and working partner has continued to grow, not only among developed
nations but also in many developing countries. In 1995, for example, when the first edition came out,
an estimated 55 million dogs lived in the USA. Now the figure is closer to 80 million. And, as peo-
ple’s attachments for dogs as family members and valued assistants have grown, so too has concern
for the health and welfare of these animals.
Celebrity, however, comes at a price. More people may know more about dogs than ever before, but it
is often a shallow sort of knowledge that is easily exploited by self-styled dog experts for personal gain.
The carefully edited antics of these charismatic but frequently ill-informed dog gurus and “whisperers”
may be entertaining to watch on TV but, ultimately, it is the dogs who suffer when their owners imbibe
too much of this quasi-scientific “snake oil.” A major goal of this book is to serve as an antidote to these
popular depictions by providing a state-of-the-art scientific assessment of what we truly know – and
what we don’t know – about the evolution, natural history, and behavior of Canis familiaris. The field of
canine science has come a long way since 1995 but, as readers of this book will discover, many aspects
of the biology and behavior of dogs and their relations with people still remain mysterious.
The remarkable scientific progress in our understanding of dogs in the last 20 years means inev-
itably that some of the material presented in the original edition of The Domestic Dog is no longer
current or correct. Scientific advances have also identified some important gaps in the previous
volume, notably in areas where research has developed most rapidly in the last two decades. In the
process of bringing their chapters up to date, and incorporating so much new information, many of
the original contributors to the book have accomplished extraordinary feats of revision and synthesis
in their revised chapters. The addition of seven entirely new chapters, addressing research topics
that barely existed 20 years ago, has also successfully filled the more obvious holes in the original
structure of the book.
For convenience, this new edition is divided into four parts. Part I (Origins and evolution)
addresses two fundamental questions: Where did the domestic dog come from? And how, in evolu-
tionary terms, did it get to where it is today? Chapter 2 explores the latest archaeological evidence
for dog origins and domestication, and Chapter 3 examines the growing body of molecular evidence
of where the dog came from and when. Chapter 4 reassesses the evolutionary mechanisms underly-
ing the transformation of the earliest dogs into some of the working breeds we see today, each with
its own distinctive behavior and morphology.
Part II (Behavior, cognition and training) is devoted to the topic of domestic dog cognition and
VetBooks.ir
behavior, as well as addressing so-called “behavior problems” and their treatment. Chapter 5 looks
at the complex world of canine behavioral genetics and what is known about the inheritance of
behavioral traits in different breeds, and Chapter 6 reviews the extensive literature on behavioral
development in dogs, particularly with regard to the long-term effects of early experience. Chapter
7 explores methods of identifying and quantifying breed and gender differences in behavior, while
Chapter 8 addresses the topic of canine social and communicatory behavior as well as exploring
differences in social behavior between wolves and dogs. Chapter 9 presents a timely review of the
literature on canine aggression, including the contentious issue of breed-specific legislation, and
Chapter 10 discusses the extensive new literature on the domestic dog’s cognitive and emotional
capacities. Chapters 11 and 12 both address the topic of dog training and behavior modification;
first from the viewpoint of veterinary behavior, and second, from an applied ethology perspective.
Part III (Dog–human relationships) focuses on the dog’s roles, welfare, and status in human soci-
ety. Chapter 13 considers the remarkable physical and psychosocial benefits that humans appear to
derive from canine companionship. In contrast, Chapter 14 summarizes the many welfare problems
confronting dogs in their various relationships with humans. Chapter 15 addresses cultural diversity
in human attitudes towards the domestic dog, and the surprising degree of ambivalence that dogs
excite despite their extraordinary contribution to human lives and livelihoods.
Part IV (Life on the margins) examines the lives of dogs living on the fringes of human society,
the various problems they face and cause, and the possible solutions to those problems. The ecology
and social life of free-roaming and feral dogs is described in Chapters 16 and 17, while Chapter 18
is devoted to the various impacts of free-roaming dogs on wildlife populations. Chapter 19 discusses
the contentious issue of how to accomplish dog population management in ways that are both cultur-
ally sensitive and humane. Finally, Chapter 20 provides a brief overview of some of the key issues
and remaining gaps in our knowledge of the domestic dog and its relations with people.
Each of the new chapters contributed to this edition of The Domestic Dog has been subjected to
critical peer review prior to publication. I am extremely grateful to Cristian Bonacic, Crista Coppola,
Katinka DeBalogh, Göran Ericsson, Elena Garde, Suzanne Hetts, Alexandra Horowitz, Greger
Larson, Evan MacLean, Ann McBride, Guillermo Perez, Peter Savolainen and Stephen Zawistowski
for volunteering their valuable time and expertise to this effort. I am also hugely indebted to Priscilla
Barrett for once again enhancing the text with her elegant chapter illustrations. I wish to thank all of
the eminent contributors to this book, and the staff at Cambridge University Press, for their patience
and forbearance during this volume’s somewhat lengthy production. Lastly, I am profoundly grate-
ful to Jacqui, Oscar and Ella for all of their love, support and forbearance.
References
Serpell, J. A. (1995). The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Part I
Origins and evolution
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 27 May 2017 at 20:49:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, t
VetBooks.ir
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 27 May 2017 at 20:49:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, t
2
5 Origins of the dog: The archaeological evidence
VetBooks.ir
JULIET CLUTTON-BROCK
2.1 Introduction
VetBooks.ir
After more than a century of argument and discussion, it is now generally agreed that the single
progenitor of all domestic dogs, ancient and modern, was the grey wolf, Canis lupus, but when and
where domestication first took place is still much argued about. Was the wolf domesticated in one
part of the world or in many regions over its huge range covering the Northern Hemisphere, and
what exactly constitutes a domestic dog? The word “domestic” means simply “of the home,” so any
tamed animal may be said to be domestic, but if the term is to be used as a scientific descriptive it
must have a biological definition, and there must be a clear separation between a wild species and its
domestic derivative. A domestic dog is not a tamed wolf but is it a separate species?
To paraphrase the most frequently used definition (see e.g. Lawrence, 1995, p. 551): a species
is a population of animals that breeds freely and produces fertile offspring. If the hybrid off-
spring are infertile then the parents are separate species, for example the horse and the donkey.
However, many animals that are normally considered to be separate species will interbreed with
fertile offspring, as will all the wild species of the genus Canis, these being the wolf, coyote, and
the several species of jackal. A more useful definition is the biological species concept which states
that, “species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from
other such groups” (Mayr, 1966, p. 19). Using this definition, all fully domesticated animals can
be classified as separate species from their wild progenitors, from which they are reproductively
isolated. The dog is no longer a tamed wolf but, as a result of selective breeding under human
control, it has evolved into a new species, named by Linnaeus, Canis familiaris, which by further
reproductive isolation and under the influence of both natural and artificial selection produces new
breeds (Clutton-Brock, 2012).
With the increasing care and advanced technology used in the excavation of archaeological sites
during the second half of the twentieth century, the bones of wolves have been found in association
with those of early hominins1 from as early as the Middle Pleistocene period. Examples include the
cave of Lazeret near Nice in the south of France, dated at 150 000 years bp2 (de Lumley, 1969),
Zhoukoudian in North China, dated at 300 000 years bp (Olsen, 1985), and the 400 000-year-old site
of Boxgrove in Kent, England (Robert & Parfitt, 1999). As these associations demonstrate, the sites
of occupation and hunting activities of humans and wolves must often have overlapped, but these
finds are dated to before the appearance of anatomically modern humans (Homo s. sapiens), and there
is no physical evidence of social interaction between the two species of hunters. During the 1990s,
however, molecular studies were beginning to be applied to archaeozoology and, in 1997, Carles
Vilà and his colleagues published their dramatic thesis suggesting that the wolf and the dog became
separate breeding populations at least 135 000 years ago (Vilà et al., 1997). This conclusion was
1
Hominin is the taxonomic term encompassing modern humans, extinct human species and all immediate ancestors, e.g.
Australopithecus. The term hominid is now given a wider use and includes all modern and extinct great apes as well as
modern humans and chimpanzees etc.
2
bp denotes the radiocarbon date expressed as radiocarbon years before present (taken as AD 1950). When written in
capitals, BP denotes that the radiocarbon date has been calibrated to provide the true or calendar age of the sample.
arrived at by comparing the number of genetic changes or substitutions in the control region of
VetBooks.ir
mitochondrial D NA derived from samples of wolves, dogs and coyotes. I t was found that dog and
wolf mtD NA differed by a maximum of 1 2 substitutions and an average of 5 . 3 , whereas the D NA
of wolves and coyotes ( Canis latrans) differed by at least 2 0 substitutions. W olves and coyotes are
believed, on fossil evidence, to have diverged about one million years ago, so the scientists used this
figure to calculate the rate of gene substitution assuming that such mutations occur at a steady rate
over time. This led them to conclude that dogs and wolves could have diverged more than 1 0 0 0 0 0
years ago.
The assumptions from this molecular evidence are no longer considered to be valid and this
extraordinarily early date for the emergence of the first “dogs” must be discounted (see vonHoldt &
D riscoll, C hapter 3 ) . B ut dating from about 1 0 0 0 0 0 years after this period, but before the peak
of the L ast G lacial M aximum ( hereafter L G M ) , around 2 6 0 0 0 to 2 0 0 0 0 years ago, a tranche of
canid remains has been identified from cave sites in Europe, the Ukraine and Siberia in which the
skulls and teeth appear to show what are assumed to be the characteristics of incipient domestica-
tion. These characters include a reduction in overall siz e, a shortening of the j aws and widening
of the snout, often without reduction in siz e of the teeth so that the cheek teeth are compacted.
W hen a wild canid is found with these abnormalities it is sometimes an animal that has been
k ept in captivity under stress and fed on an improper diet. B ased on the presence of these k nown
characters, Mietje Germonpré and her colleagues have identified more than six skulls which they
claim as P alaeolithic dogs from faunal assemblages that include large numbers of wolf remains
together with the bones of their prey, particularly mammoth. The sites are the caves of G oyet in
Belgium, Předmostí in the Czech Republic, and two sites in the Ukraine dating from before the
L G M ( G ermonpré et al. , 2 0 0 9 , 2 0 1 2 ) ,
F rom the I ce Age cave of R az boinichya in the Altai M ountains, Nik olai O vodov and colleagues
(2011) have identified another “incipient dog,” which they suggest represents, “an early Holocene
lineage of wolf domestication.” All these canid remains that have been identified as “dog” have
been dated to before the L G M ; that is, to around 3 0 0 0 0 years ago. I nterestingly, however, although
more than 190 skulls of cave bears have been recorded from the 30 000 year-old cave of Chauvet
in the Ardèche, and the walls are covered with a great many depictions of lions, there is not a
single authentic record of a wolf, either as a skull or in the rock art. At this time, there is no pub-
lished verification for the statement of Garcia (2005) and Germonpré et al. (2009, p. 481) that, “in
the deepest part of the cave, a track of footprints from a large canid is associated with those of a
child,” or that torch wipes made by this child were dated at c. 26 000 bp, nor that, “based on the
short length of medial fingers in the footprints the canid track was interpreted as being made by
a large dog. ”
The early hypothesis that domestication originated from the practice of capturing and taming
young wild individual animals was generally replaced in the second half of the twentieth cen-
tury by the theory that wild animals became associated with human groups and were thereby
habituated and tamed from their own volition ( see e. g. B udiansk y, 1 9 9 2 ) . W olves would have
scavenged around human settlements and would slowly have become enfolded into human soci-
eties; a process that could have occurred in any area where both wolves and humans lived, and
in any period from the M iddle P leistocene up to the present ( for a map see L arson et al. , 2 0 1 2 ) .
I t is further predicted that young wolves, which no longer hunted megafauna but scavenged for
food around human camps, would fail to develop the sk ulls and j aws of hunters and would exhibit
the less powerful musculature and skull structure of domestic dogs, as was shown with measure-
ments of the sk ulls of captive wolves as long ago as 1 8 9 4 ( W olfgramm, 1 8 9 4 ) . This is the basis
for the assumption by Germonpré and her colleagues that the canid skulls they identified from
Pleistocene caves were incipient dogs (see Figure 2.1). However, these “dog-like” characters do
occur in wild canids as a result of ecological stress and inbreeding, as shown in the sk ulls of Arctic
wolves (Clutton-Brock et al., 1994; Federoff, 1996) and sporadically in other wild canids as fig-
ured by M iles & G rigson ( 2 0 0 3 ) . I t is quite unk nown how often abnormalities of this type occur in
the sk ulls of modern wolves, let alone their relative numbers in wolves of P leistocene date. There
is also the crucial point, noted by C rock ford & K uz min ( 2 0 1 2 ) , that the caves in which G ermonpré
and colleagues’ six putative dog sk ulls were found range over thousands of k ilometres and at least
1 9 0 0 0 years in age.
I t could well be that, from time to time, P alaeolithic hunters reared tame wolf cubs in their
communities and it is possible that the skulls of these canids can be and have been identified as
incipient “dogs.” However, there is no evidence at present that these tamed wolves would have
bred in reproductive isolation from the rest of their species and thereby produced future genera-
tions of domestic dogs ( C rock ford & K uz min, 2 0 1 2 ; L arson et al. , 2 0 1 2 ) . The latest potentially
tamed wolf to be identified from the Pleistocene period, at present, is from the site of Avdeevo,
an open air site on the R ussian P lain near the city of K ursk , and dated between 2 0 0 0 0 and 2 1 0 0 0
years ago ( G ermonpré et al. , 2 0 1 2 , p. 1 8 5 ) . After this time the extreme climate of the L ast G lacial
M aximum may well have driven away all hunters and their prey from northern E urope and Asia
for around 5 0 0 0 years.
After a few generations, the puppies of wolves living by scavenging as commensals in a human
community would exhibit a general reduction in the siz e of the body and head, and this trend is
mark ed in the remains of the earliest domestic dogs. R eduction in siz e is a characteristic feature
of the early stages of domestication not only in canids but in many different species of mammal
(Tchernov & Horwitz, 1991; Clutton-Brock, 1999). The small overall size of early domestic mam-
mals would have been partly a result of progressive stunting caused by malnutrition from the time
of conception. S tunted growth has been demonstrated in young animals k ept on an inadequate
diet, as in the experiments on pigs by M cM eek an in the 1 9 3 0 s ( see Hammond, 1 9 4 0 ) . There
would also have been strong natural selection for diminution, since small animals would have
survived better on little food. Tchernov & Horwitz ( 1 9 9 1 , p. 6 9 ) argued that diminution of siz e
in the early dogs was also a response to the changed ecological regime of the domestic state and
they suggested that:
The relief of selective pressures associated with domestication set in motion a cyclical reaction of accelerated
maturation, increased reproductive capacity with a tendency for litter sizes to be larger, and shortened genera-
tion time. This resulted in smaller siz ed, younger parents with smaller siz ed offspring.
D uring the process of domestication in the dog, the facial region ( muz z le and snout) became
shorter and wider with consequent crowding and displacement of the cheek teeth. 3 Tooth crowd-
ing occurred in the early stages because evolutionary reduction in the siz e of the teeth took place
at a slower rate than the shortening of the maxillary and mandibular bones. However, the teeth
did become smaller in time, and modern dogs have teeth that are very much smaller than those
of wolves, even in giant breeds such as the G reat D ane. The teeth may also be misplaced, or even
increased in number over the normal for the canid dental formula ( see M iles & G rigson, 203,
pp. 84 –8) . The shape of the mandible became more curved, and an angle developed between the
facial region and the cranium, called the “stop” in modern breeds. The eyes became rounded and
more forward-looking and the frontal sinuses became swollen, while the bones of the skull became
thinner. The tympanic bullae were reduced in size and flattened.
I t is probable that the colour of the coat would have changed from the tawny grey of the wolf to
the yellow of the dingo quite early on in the first dogs, and maybe, before long, this will be estab-
lished by molecular research, as it has been by L udwig et al. (2009) for the first domestic horses.
All these morphological changes are unlike ly to have had much to do with intentional selection but
occurred slowly as the result of physiological and hormonal changes associated with the transition
to domestic existence ( C rockf ord, 206 ; M orey, 192 ; L ord et al., C hapter 4 ) .
In the well-known experiments on the domestication of silver foxes in Russia that were begun
by D . K . B elyaev in the 1950s and continue to the present day, all the above changes occurred in a
short time without a change of diet, but simply as a result of fox cubs being strictly selected for the
physical and behavioral features of domestication. However, these remarka ble results were achieved
by intense artificial selection on animals that were the progeny of foxes that had been reared in small
cages for the fur trade for about 5 0 years ( S tatham et al., 201 1 ) . W hereas, as recogniz ed by Trut et al.
( 204 , p. 64) , the domestication of wolves would have been determined by natural selection for
3
Almost no whole skul ls of the earliest domestic dogs have survived, so it is not possible to investigate relative changes in
the different parts of the skul l. The work of W ayne ( 1986 ) suggests that, while the muz z le may have widened, the length of
the facial region, although shortened, would have remained in proportion to the reduced cranial length.
coexistence with human hunters who, “were only one factor that shifted the direction of selection to
VetBooks.ir
Apart from the possible precursors to the dog, dating from before the L G M , archaeological evidence
indicates that the dog was the first species of animal to be domesticated with certainty. This occurred
towards the end of the last Ice Age when all human subsistence still depended on hunting, gather-
ing and foraging. The record for the earliest directly dated canid remains that can be identified as
definite domestic dog, goes to a right maxillary fragment with cheek teeth from Kesslerloch Cave in
S witz erland ( F igure 2. ) . This cave is one of the maj or M agdalenian sites in C entral E urope and was
first excavated in 1898/9. Recently, a reappraisal of the faunal remains from the cave was carried out
by archaeozoologists, and a fragment of canid upper jaw was identified as dog and not wolf. This
was confirmed from its small size and from the morphology of the upper carnassial and first molar.
A sample of the dog maxilla was directly dated to 12 225 ± 45 bp (KIA-33350) or c.14 100–14 600
B P ( Napierala & U erpmann, 201 2 ).
Until the identification of the maxilla from Kesserloch the earliest find of a dog was of a mandible
from the late Palaeolithic grave of an old man and a young woman at Bonn-Oberkassel in Germany
( Nobis, 198 ) . This dog is dated through closely associated material to around the same date as the
Kesserloch maxilla, that is c.12 100 bp. After this period, the identification of the bones and teeth of
dogs on prehistoric sites and their separation from those of wolves has become relatively straight-
forward, as it was, for example, with the skul ls of a dog and a wolf from the E arly M esolithic site of
S tar C arr in Y orks hire, E ngland.
The well-known site of Star Carr is the most important Mesolithic site in Britain. The site was
occupied around a waterlogged lake side for around 350 years from c.10 70–1 350 B P during
the preboreal and boreal climatic periods. The I ce Age had ended and temperatures were close to
those of recent times, although the sea levels had not yet risen enough to separate B ritain from the
C ontinent. A huge number of organic artifacts were preserved in the peat, including nearly 20
VetBooks.ir
harpoon points made of red deer antler. The site was first excavated by J. G. D. Clark in 1949–51,
the faunal remains were studied by F raser & K ing ( 1954 ) , and the dog was described in detail by
M agnus D egerbøl ( 196 ) , but work has continued on the site and on the artifacts and faunal remains
ever since.
I n 1 985, during excavations at the nearby M esolithic site of S eamer C arr, the neck vertebrae of a
dog were retrieved that match in age and size the skull of the Star Carr dog (Clutton-Brock & Noe-
Nygaard, 190 ) . A fragment of one of these vertebrae has provided a radiocarbon accelerator date
of 9940 ± 110 bp [Oxa-1030]. It is conceivable that the skull and neck came from one individual
dog, but they could also be from two dogs from the same litter or from unrelated dogs of the same
size and age. These are the only remains of dogs that have so far been identified from Mesolithic
B ritain ( of which there are a large number of sites) , so it is probable that the number of dogs during
this very early period was quite small. They were probably inbred and displayed little variation in
siz e amongst individuals.
Another remark able feature of the dog vertebrae from S eamer C arr is that two samples of bone
yielded stable carbon isotope ratios of – 1 4 . 6 7 % and – 1 6 . 9 7 % . These ratios reveal that the dog
obtained a significant part of its food from marine fish. Clutton-Brock & Noe-Nygaard (1990)
have therefore postulated that the sites of S tar C arr and S eamer C arr were hunting camps that were
visited by people who lived for much of the year nearer to the coast and obtained most of their food
by fishing.
The skul l of a fully adult dog very similar in siz e and proportions to the S tar C arr skul l has
been excavated from another Mesolithic wetland site at Bedburg-Köningshoven in Germany (Street,
198 ) . S imilar remains of dogs have also been found from the numerous waterlogged M esolithic
sites in Denmark where the period is known as the Maglemosian. The similarity in size and oste-
ological characteristics of the remains of these first domestic dogs found on prehistoric sites in
northern E urope may indicate that all these early dogs were the result of dispersal from a single
founder population. The skull of the dog from Bedburg-Köningshoven, for example, is closer in size
and morphology to the remains of the earliest dogs from western Asia than it is to the very large
European wolves, as exemplified by the Mesolithic wolf skull from Star Carr. However, wolves
must have lived close to human settlements in many parts of the world, and a single litter of puppies
from any one of these could have provided the founders for an independent domestication event that
subsequently became very widespread.
The dogs that have been identified from these Mesolithic sites in northern Europe come from
a similar time period to the sites in western Asia from where a cluster of canid remains has been
identified as belonging to Canis familiaris. These sites belong to the cultural period know n as
the Epipaleolithic or Natufian and they are associated with a dramatic change in human hunting
strategies. D uring the P aleolithic period, animals were ki lled by direct impact from heavy stone axes
and spears. During the Natufian, and the corresponding Mesolithic period of Europe, arrows armed
with tiny stone blades called microliths came into widespread use ( M ithen, 203 ) . The success of
these long-distance projectiles would have been enhanced by the new partnership with dogs that
could help to track down and bring to bay wounded animals. This cooperative hunting technique
would thus have resulted in greater hunting efficiency, as it does among some contemporary hunting
societies ( K oster, 208 ; L ee, 197 ).
During the 1930s, a small number of canid skulls from Natufian sites in Palestine were identi-
fied as those of dogs by Dorothea Bate; the most notable of these being a nearly complete skull
from the cave of Wady el-Mughara at Mount Carmel (Bate, 1937). Thirty years later, in the 1960s,
I re-examined the skulls from Mount Carmel, Shukbah, Zuttiyeh, and Kebarah that are held in the
Natural History M useum, L ondon, and questioned their domestic status. M easurements showed that
VetBooks.ir
they were very similar to the sku lls of living Arabian wolves, except that they were slightly smaller
and rather wider in the palate (Clutton-Brock, 1962). In western Asia the wild wolf, Canis lupus
arabs, is, at the present day, the smallest of the subspecies that range over the northern hemisphere.
This makes the identification of fragments of canid bone from later archaeological sites difficult
because there is very little reduction in siz e from the wolf to the dog ( Harrison, 1973 ) . However, as
described by Dayan (1994) and Tchernov & Valla (1997), the fossil remains of wolf from Natufian
and earlier sites are from very large individuals, while the canids that have been identified from sites
of this period as dogs are as small as the M esolithic dogs from E urope. The realiz ation that the early
Holocene wolves of western Asia were as large as those in E urope has made a crucial difference
to the acceptance of the small canids from sites of equivalent date as dogs, and it is now generally
agreed that Bate’s identification of the canids from her early sites as dogs was correct. But were
they descended from the large wolves that inhabited the region at that time or had these dogs been
imported from somewhere else?
In the 1970s the discovery of a Natufian site with the burial of a human skeleton with its hand on
the remains of a puppy became the best-known early evidence for the domestication of the dog in
the Near E ast ( D avis & Valla, 1978 ) . The site is near the Huleh L ake in the upper J ordan valley in
Israel, and is dated at 12 000 years ago. Its inhabitants were hunter-gatherers who were on the verge
of becoming agriculturalists. They lived in round stone dwellings, used basalt pestles and mortars
for grinding cereals, and buried their dead in stone-covered tombs. In one of these, at the entrance
to a dwelling, the ske leton of an elderly human was found together with that of a puppy of between
four and five months of age. The human skeleton lay on its right side, in a flexed position, with its
hand on the thorax of the puppy (Figure 2.3). Since the finding of this human and canid burial at
Ein Mallaha, another Natufian burial with canid skeletons was excavated at the cave of Hayonim
Terrace, Israel. This burial is late Natufian in date and held the remains of three humans and two
dogs ( Tchernov & Valla, 197 ).
The canid remains in these graves have been widely accepted as those of the earliest dogs on cul-
tural grounds, that is, their close association with the human ske letons must imply that in life they
were highly valued animal companions and that therefore they must be domestic dogs. However, the
remarkable discovery of a fox skeleton buried with a human in a pre-Natufian grave throws the iden-
tification of these “dogs” based on the cultural evidence alone in doubt and reopens the question of
whether these canid ske letons are really those of domestic dogs. The skul ls are not morphologically
similar to those of j acka ls ( Canis aureus) but what else could they be?
’Uyun al-Hammam is a pre-Natufian site in northern Jordan, with elaborate human burials asso-
ciated with animal remains. E leven human ske letons had been buried in at least eight graves, as
described in the excavation report by L isa M aher and her colleagues ( 201 1 ) . I t is clear from the
careful interpretation of the burials that one of these humans had been buried with the body of a
fox ( Vulpes vulpes) , and later when this grave was opened again and the partly decomposed human
ske leton was moved to a bed of red ochre in another area nearby, the head of the fox was moved with
it. M aher et al. de scribe the association thus:
I t is possible that the link between fox and human was such that when the human died the fox was ki lled and
buried alongside. Later, when the graves were re-opened, these links were remembered and bones moved so
that the dead person would continue to have the fox with him or her in the afterlife.
The burial of the fox in close association with a human, as well as the burials of “dogs” in Natufian
graves in I srael, supports the view that, throughout their evolution, humans have possessed a unique
instinct for nurturing members other species of animals, irrespective of their potential “uses.” Thus,
the biological and semantic divisions between the wild and the domestic, as we view them today,
may have take n thousands of years to become established.
C ontemporary and later sites in other countries of western Asia have also yielded canid remains
that have been identified as dogs (see, for example, Clutton-Brock, 1969 and Stanley Olsen’s Origins
of the Domestic Dog, 1985 , pp. 71–9) . Notable amongst these is a small mandible with compacted
teeth from the site of P alegawra in I raq, dated at around 12 0 years ago ( Turnbull & R eed, 1974 ).
F rom the following Neolithic period, between 90 and 70 years ago, remains of dogs become
ubiquitous in archaeological sites from many parts of the world, and in these, the dog-like features
of the skul l and teeth are fully developed. O ne hundred and thirteen fragments of skul ls, teeth and
skeletal bones have been identified as those of large domestic dogs from the early Neolithic site of
J armo in I raq ( 9250–7 bp) by L awrence & R eed ( 1983 ) . I n C hina there are Neolithic dogs from
70 ye ars ago ( O lsen, 1985 ).
R emains of dogs have been found with those of the extinct J apanese wolf, Canis lupus hodo-
philax, from the rock shelter site of Tocibara in J apan, dating at around 80 bp ( M iyao et al.,
1984 ) . O lsen ( 197 , 1985 ) considered that the small C hinese wolf, Canis lupus chanco, was the
ancestor, not only of early Chinese dogs, but also of those that moved with the early human immi-
grants across the B ering S traits into North America. However, molecular analysis has now provided
two conflicting theses for the origin of all dogs, worldwide: first, that of Leonard et al. ( 20) and
vonHoldt et al. ( 201 ) who claim that all past and present domestic dogs in the world, including all
VetBooks.ir
those from the Americas, ultimately descended from the grey wolf of the Middle East, although out-
breeding with local wolves ( including the North American wolf) also occurred in the early history
of specific lineages. This claim supports the evidence from archaeozoology of the past 50 years. The
second claim of Jun-Feng Pang and colleagues (2009) argues for a single origin of all dogs worldwide
from wolves that lived in C hina, south of the Y angtz e R iver ( see vonHoldt & D riscoll, C hapter 3 ,
for discussion) .
The first authentic description of the great variety of American aboriginal dogs was published
by G lover Allen ( 1920 ) , who divided the ki nds of North and S outh American native dogs into
17 groups: Eskimo, Plains Indian, Sioux, long-haired Pueblo, larger or common Indian, Klamath
Indian, short-legged Indian, Klallam Indian, Inca, long-haired Inca, Patagonian, Mexican hairless,
small Indian or Techichi, Hare Indian, Fuegian, short-nosed Indian, and Peruvian pug-nosed. The
earliest reliably dated remains of dog in North America come from the burial of the complete skel-
etons of four dogs in the K oster site in I llinois dated to around 850 years ago. I n S outh America,
the earliest presumed dog remains are from F ell’ s C ave in the southernmost tip of C hile. However,
the very early date of 10 700–6500 years ago has led to their identification being questioned, for
there are several extinct and living, wild species of indigenous canid that are possible candidates for
these remains. However, since flake tools and quantities of other animal remains have been exca-
vated from the earliest levels at F ell’ s C ave, there is no reason why these early American hunters
would not also have had dogs (Clutton-Brock, 1988).
As well as being valuable haulage animals, it is clear from archaeoz oological reports that dogs
in North America were important providers of meat. This has been evaluated from the early levels
of the P reclassic ( 120 B C –A D 250) site of C uello in B eliz e where the faunal remains showed that
dogs had been bred for food and killed at the end of their first year of life. The dogs were small,
falling within the size range of the “small Indian dog or Techichi” of Allen’s groups. They did not
belong to the hairless, xoloitz cuintli, since none of the mandibles showed the congenital lack of
anterior teeth, which is genetically linked with hairlessness (Clutton-Brock & Hammond, 1994).
Apart from the xoloitz cuintli, which is know n to have been ke pt purebred since ancient times,
there are no know n living breeds of indigenous native American dogs, for all have interbred, either
accidentally or by design, with immigrant E uropean dogs. This includes the E ski mo dog and the
modern breed know n as the Native American I ndian D og ( S chwartz , 197 ) . However, the many
different breeds that were owned by the F irst Nations are well know n from historical images and
written accounts, as well as from their buried remains and from artifacts and clothing made from
dog ski ns and hair.
An unusual and distinct breed, know n as the S alish wool dog, has been described from the south
west coast of British Columbia by European accounts in the late 1700s. They were small, long-
haired, white dogs that were bred exclusively for their thick soft fur. The wool dogs were ke pt
reproductively isolated from all other dogs in houses for most of the year but taken to off-shore
islands, with buried dried fish for food, during the summer salmon fishing season. They were owned
by women, and the thick fleeces of the dogs were sheared several times a year. The wool was woven
into S alish blanke ts. F ollowing the arrival of sheep with E uropean colonists, the wool dogs became
extinct ( S chulting, 1 94 ).
B ecause dogs overlap in siz e with the endemic African j acka ls ( C. aureus, C. adustus and C. mesome-
las) it is not easy to distinguish their ske letal remains on archaeological sites. However, the spread of
dogs southward with livestock herders can be shown by the few authenticated finds of their remains
from the north to south sequence of archaeological sites: E sh S haheinab and K erma in S udan, c.
30–2 B C ; Ntusi in U ganda, AD 895–102; I ron Age K alomo in Z ambia, AD 950–1; south
of the Limpopo River in southern Africa after AD 600 (Clutton-Brock, 1993, p. 64).
I n S outh Africa there were two main groups of inhabitants before the southward expansion of
Bantu-speaking peoples. They were the indigenous Khoi people who belonged to a single linguistic
group but were divided into the Khoisan (Bushmen) who were hunter-gatherers and who survive
today in very small numbers, and the K hoikhoi ( Hottentots) who were pastoralists who herded cattle
and sheep, but who were almost all exterminated by E uropean colonists in the nineteenth century.
It is not known whether dogs first travelled south with Bantu-speaking herders from Central
Africa in the early Iron Age, or whether they arrived earlier in the South with the Khoikhoi pasto-
ralists who are believed to have originated further north in E ast Africa. The K hoikhoi would have
met the Khoisan who were hunter-gatherers, and who were the indigenous people living in South
Africa, and who survive today in small communities in arid areas of southern Africa, notably in the
K alahari ( B otswana) . They ke ep dogs that may be direct descendants of the ancestral stock and are
still a very important element in the social and economic life of these hunter-gatherers. In his now
classic work on the ! K ung S an of the K alahari D esert, R ichard L ee ( 197 ) recorded the use of dogs
for hunting and found that between a third and three-quarters of the animals killed during his study
period were obtained with the help of dogs that were often highly trained. L ee described the typical
!Kung dog as, “a small animal (50 cm tall at the shoulder) of undistinguished appearance. It is a
short-haired breed varying in colour from all black to all buff with many piebald forms” (Lee, 1979,
p. 143 ) . However, before the arrival of the colonists, dogs appear to have been more popular with
the K hoi pastoralists than with the hunters. I n the ancient rock art of southern Africa, there are rather
few images of dogs and these are usually shown following people, rather than in a hunt.
I ndigenous village dogs are everywhere in Africa today and when not interbred with imported
greyhounds and other breeds of European dogs they are remarkably similar in conformation through-
out their range. Towards the end of the twentieth century, a few dog-owners and biologists realized
that these dogs represent an ancient genetic lineage that should be preserved ( see L arson et al.,
201 ) . I n 198 a meeting was held to discuss the conservation of traditional African dogs. They were
given the name Africanis, and the Africanis S ociety of S outhern Africa was founded ( G allant, 20 ).
Archaeological evidence indicates that humans first reached Australia more than 40 000 years ago.
The earliest dingoes arrived less than 12 0 years ago; a deduction based on the fact that there are
no remains of dogs from Tasmania, which became geographically isolated from mainland Australia
by the formation of the Bass Strait at about this time. Significantly, the Indigenous Australians never
acquired domestic pigs, and this would suggest that the dog was take n to the continent before the
earliest domestication of the pig. New archaeological and dating evidence indicates that pigs were
not take n to New G uinea and M elanesia before 30 B P ( O ’ C onnor et al., 201 1 ) .
I n ske letal anatomy, the dingo closely resembles the small wolf of I ndia, Canis lupus pallipes, and
VetBooks.ir
the pariah dogs of S outheast Asia. B ased on mitochondrial D NA sequences analyz ed by S avolainen
and colleagues (2004), the dingo is now considered a direct descendant of a small founder popula-
tion of domesticated dogs that were introduced to Australia, possibly on a single occasion, around
50 years ago. The earliest radiocarbon date obtained for dog remains from Australia is 3450 ± 95
bp ( M ilham & Thompson, 1976 ) . Although the dog was never used for traction in Australia, as it was
by the Native Americans, it was greatly valued by the Aborigines as a hunting partner, companion,
bed-warmer and occasional item of food. After arriving in Australia, the dogs became feral, spread
rapidly, and have lived as part of the wild mammal fauna ever since.
E arly accounts by E uropeans of the I ndigenous Australians and the dingo describe a relationship
that was probably not dissimilar to that of hunter-gatherers and wolves all over Eurasia some 12 000
years ago, in the pre-agricultural period. The great majority of dingoes in the nineteenth century lived
and hunted as wild carnivores and may have been as widespread as wolves in the early Holocene of
E urasia and North America. Aboriginal families k ept some dingoes as pets, used some as hunting
partners, ate them when meat was scarce, and also showered them with affection. M eggitt ( 1 9 6 5 ) has
described the associations between the Aborigines and the dingo. These varied from hunting the adult
dogs for their tails, which were worn as headdresses, to capturing young pups which, if strong, were
reared as hunting partners, or, if weak , were eaten. M eggitt quoted a comment from L umholtz ( 1 8 8 9 ,
p. 179), writing about the dingo in northern Queensland: “its master never strikes, but merely threat-
ens it. He caresses it like a child, eats the fleas off it, and then kisses it on the snout.” These tamed
dingoes were, however, very poorly fed. Apart from being given bones, they were left to scavenge for
themselves, so that in the past a tame dingo could always be distinguished from a wild one by its poor
condition ( M eggitt, 1 9 6 5 ) . M ore recent relationships between the I ndigenous Australians, dingoes
and introduced domestic dogs have been reviewed by Smith & Litchfield (2009).
F or the last hundred years the dingo has been regarded as vermin and persecuted because it ki lls
sheep. Those that remain in the wild are in great danger of losing their purebred status through
interbreeding with free-roaming European dogs (Ginsberg & Macdonald, 1990, pp. 52–4). The
extermination of the purebred dingo would be a great loss because it is part of the living heritage of
hunter-gatherer culture, as well as being part of Australian history.
D ogs may have been take n to New G uinea at around the same time as to Australia to provide
meat and hides and fur in a land that was dominated by wild birds. I t may be assumed that the dogs
became feral here also and spread rapidly into the forests and high altitude mountains. Here they
bred under natural selection and evolved into a distinct ecomorph with the tawny-yellow coat of the
dingo and the unique singing howl, which carries over great distances.
2.8 Conclusions
To every part of the world where people have travelled for perhaps 10 0 years, they have take n
their dogs with them, as they still continue to do. Today, genetics and archaeology have come
together to open an entirely new window on the history of the interactions between humans and ani-
mals. I t is now possible not only to discover when and where domestication of each species occurred
but also from which particular genetic race of progenitor species they were first descended, and how
and when they were moved around the world. However, none of these amaz ingly detailed facts can
be deduced without the expertise of the archaeologist who excavates the animal remains, and the
archaeozoologist who identifies and interprets the species.
ebookmasss.com