Betteridge's law of headlines (if it's a question the answer's no) needs an extension for science journalism: if something 'could' do something, it won't.
Always seems like 'predicting 17 of the last 3 recessions' - on the off-chance X thing is ever achieved/understood in some way using Y, get your claim in early that 'Y could be key for X'. If it's done via Z instead, no harm.
Quite a bold claim I think to say that wolves were domesticated for spiritual reasons rather than as hunting companions, the latter being much more a much more intuitive and immediate benefit.
It is quite a mystery to wonder how domestication happened at all, though seeing how modern wolves can be made (relatively) tame and biddable if you get them as pups, maybe it just took one person to have the idea. I imagine you would have been quite the badass in early human society with a tamed wolf at your side.
So maybe rather than some semi-spooky pan-human thousand year plus directed domestication effort it grew organically with people inter-breeding their captive tamed wolves?
The famous fox domestication experiment that was carried out successfully in Russia over 40 years [1], shows how many generations it takes (40) and what genetic changes occur during domestication.
What I also want to add is that some dog breeders in the late 19th century thought that introducing wolf genes into dog breeds would make better dogs. They ended up creating horrible dog breeds (that still exist) that have the shyness, anxiety, and distrust of wolves.
The goal here was to recreate a fictional original German Aryan dog, untainted by modern degeneracy. The breeder thought to recreate the original heroic character by introducing the wolf into the breed, resulting in unbalanced, untrainable hybrids.
This was supposed to be another version of a better German Shepherd, better suited to the mountains. The result was the same as above.
The takeaway message is that every dog breed has its purpose, and that its character is inherited. There are dangerous dog breeds just bred to kill dogs or bulls (pit bull terrier). Some dog breeds were created without regard for the dog’s physiology (pug). Others were created without taking into account the temperament.
"wolf crossbreeds" are still a thing. Most of the time people have a "part wolf" husky they're breeding from and what they're selling is huskies with slightly more varied coats; but there's still 50% crosbreeds being raised by some folks.
Neighbor of mine brings his out to the flea market sometimes for socialization; when he hits the lot every real dog there knows it, and is upset about it. The wolfdog is very polite, and on a chain, the domestic dogs don't like his smell.
Indeed, I had heard of that fascinating experiment. But I assume they were working from the prior example of domesticating wolves - I was wondering how you would get the idea of doing it with no prior example. From my research (*cough* YouTube *cough*) I can see that even a wild wolf pup can be tamed to a fair degree, and one person trying this experiment - maybe he killed the mother and raised the pup for amusement say - this singular experiment could have kickstarted the whole domestication arc.
Seems more likely to me than someone having a long term plan to domesticate, or wolves accidentally slowly domesticating themselves by scavenging food from human settlements. I am no expert in this matter though.
>a bold claim I think to say that wolves were domesticated for spiritual reasons rather than as hunting companions
I wouldn't be too dismissive of this - I'll use another domestication example to highlight why.
Given how modern chickens are so useful for cheap and easy-to-raise meat, you'd think that's why they were domesticated, but no. Chickens were domesticated for reasons much less utilitarian - they were domesticated for entertainment! Cockfighting.
Why not both? It would be useful to have a tame wolf for hunting/protection/status, but what kind of person would seek out to do that in a society that would not have had the previous cultural knowledge of that being "something we do"? The idea of taking an animal and taming it might very well have had spiritual connotations to them given the amount of dog symbolism found in general. It does to an extent nowadays too.
> Quite a bold claim I think to say that wolves were domesticated for spiritual reasons rather than as hunting companions, the latter being much more a much more intuitive and immediate benefit.
And it's much more probable that the dogs got their reputation guiding the souls after they were used to guide living people than before
It's anachronistic to draw a hard distinction between "hunting" and "spiritual reasons." Ancient people wouldn't have differentiated ritual and how they did daily things from how they expressed their spirituality. These rituals were one and the same.
Of course, it would be unjust to judge academic research from a one-line summary that a journalist wrote. But at least on the surface, this is unconvincing:
> D’Huy is applying these methods to study how ancient myths can inform what we know about our connection with other animals such as sheep — their mythological link with the sun could have led to domestication. Symbolic, rather than utilitarian, reasons for domestication could explain a lot of data, he says.
Why would hunter-gatherers in a resource-constrained environment keep food around and not eat it? I would rather bet that my ancestors had exactly the same mythological connection with their flock of sheep that I have with my freezer.
It is probably a mistake to discount d'Huy. He is not certain to be right, but if wrong he is certain to be interestingly wrong.
Association of dogs with Sirius far enough back to precede populating the Americas is pretty astounding.
Apparently the river and ferryman elements associated with dying do, too.
The association of sisters with the Pleiades apparently goes back much farther, maybe to before we left Africa.
Reputation based argumentation is pretty weak though. His reasoning may be sound but it is still highly speculative.
Speculating some myself, it's easy to see how a domesticated wolf could be useful for hunting, guard duty, or even offensive use. The nature of wolfs is that they are pack animals so they'd submit to a strong master. Probably, early hunter gatherers, would have encountered and occasionally killed wolfs in the wild. The chances of encountering a wolf with some pubs would have been non zero and it raises the question what a hunter would do with some pups after disposing of the mother.
Just speculating here but it seems that that's a story that just writes itself. From there to breeding animals is a small leap.
Apparently the way this kind of research is pursued today, one starts with one or more respectable worldwide databases of oral traditions, and identifies a collection of apparently similar myths by noting various sometimes-shared features, or motifs. These are entered into a phylogenetic tree analysis.
This is the same thing biologists use in teasing out genetic lineages of more or less related animal, plant, or fungus species. The output is a proposed "this one came first, and spawned this or these others", all down the line. Biologists cross-check this against a timeline and geography. It is easy for such an analysis to go wrong: garbage in, garbage out. Its results are always, "assuming (the input), (the output) is the best fit for paths of descent."
Different people invariably produce different input and get more or less different output. But often certain aspects of the analyses are robust across unrelated analyses: birds always show up in Dinosauria, mammals never.
For oral traditions, you generally expect to see a geographical progression from a central point of origin, with progressively different versions in oral traditions taken farther away. For something like the Pleiades, where once seven stars were discernable and later six, you may see details appear to account for the change. Such observationally shared details need not trace to a single parent myth, and so may introduce noise to the analysis. But where similar accountings appear, they might each be traced to an origin.
All this is very difficult to make rigorous, but often curious relationships emerge that no one had noticed before. These may then be checked against other data. One such is connections between stories told in Oceania and in South America, which need to be accounted for. Waves of migration may appear, as later arrivals may displace earlier versions except in less favored environments.
The same process is used in tracing language evolution, where instead of oral-tradition motifs, cognate words and pronunciation shifts are tracked. And, it is used to trace genetic relationships among groups of people who have migrated and settled the globe. Comparing genetic, language, and oral tradition analyses helps to strengthen all three.
Genetic similarities between people in Tierra del Fuego, at the southern tip of South America, and Australian aboriginals may be accounted for by these migration waves. Peculiarities in languages in western Europe and central Asia, likewise. In each case the details are presumed to have once matched throughout the range, but have been displaced by later forms except at the ends.
Anyway that is how I understand it. I have not performed any phylogenetic analyses, myself.
This seems like overthinking things. I'm just a layman but wild packs of monkeys have been observed to attract street dogs because they litter food all around them. I think that's a much more likely explanation, that human nomadic settlements dropped food around them during surplus times and wolves picked up on this and gradually became domesticated.
It might have started as a symbiosis between wolves and a species of particulary greedy and dumb monkeys which thought it would be a good idea to fleece the wolves for fur parasites.
Still humans love to pet dogs, and dogs enjoy it. ;)
I'm not sure we can properly say these monkey troops are domesticating dogs. Mainly because dogs, even feral ones, exist as a product of past domestication by humans. They are already much more docile and ready to accept other species inside of their social hierarchy. I have a feeling that if these monkeys were around wolves there would not be any interaction resembling domestication.
In the Mahabharata, the dog is seen as a personification of dharma (a term with a meaning that lies at the intersection of righteousness, duty, and truth).
Yudhishtira, known for never straying from the dharmic path, refuses to leave a dog behind (that has been with them on their long journey) and get entrance to heaven - with the connotation that he refuses to leave the path of righteousness even for heaven.
There is also a verse in the Mahabharata: dharmo rakṣati rakṣitaḥ - meaning, protect dharma, and dharma will protect you - which is interesting if you apply it to the mutual relationship between a man and his pet.
I don't see how this sheds light in demystifying domestication though, apart from that they were regarded as loyal and good companions whose feelings were reciprocated.
> Yudhishtira, known for never straying from the dharmic path, refuses to leave a dog behind (that has been with them on their long journey) and get entrance to heaven - with the connotation that he refuses to leave the path of righteousness even for heaven.
He also pretty explicitly analogizes the obligation a man has towards his dog as that which the Devas ought to have towards men. The well-being of the dog becomes his duty because it is utterly devoted to him and this obliges him to repay its devotion. In a way you can also read this as Yudhistira is also calling out the Devas, and Indra in particular, for being callous and falling down on holding up their end of the reciprocal bargain.
I think this is it. Wolves have a similar society to humans, living in multifamily packs with specialization and stratification. Racoon troops are generally just a single, multigenerational family.
33 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 89.2 ms ] threadAlways seems like 'predicting 17 of the last 3 recessions' - on the off-chance X thing is ever achieved/understood in some way using Y, get your claim in early that 'Y could be key for X'. If it's done via Z instead, no harm.
It is quite a mystery to wonder how domestication happened at all, though seeing how modern wolves can be made (relatively) tame and biddable if you get them as pups, maybe it just took one person to have the idea. I imagine you would have been quite the badass in early human society with a tamed wolf at your side.
So maybe rather than some semi-spooky pan-human thousand year plus directed domestication effort it grew organically with people inter-breeding their captive tamed wolves?
What I also want to add is that some dog breeders in the late 19th century thought that introducing wolf genes into dog breeds would make better dogs. They ended up creating horrible dog breeds (that still exist) that have the shyness, anxiety, and distrust of wolves.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saarloos_wolfdog
The goal here was to recreate a fictional original German Aryan dog, untainted by modern degeneracy. The breeder thought to recreate the original heroic character by introducing the wolf into the breed, resulting in unbalanced, untrainable hybrids.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakian_Wolfdog
This was supposed to be another version of a better German Shepherd, better suited to the mountains. The result was the same as above.
The takeaway message is that every dog breed has its purpose, and that its character is inherited. There are dangerous dog breeds just bred to kill dogs or bulls (pit bull terrier). Some dog breeds were created without regard for the dog’s physiology (pug). Others were created without taking into account the temperament.
Neighbor of mine brings his out to the flea market sometimes for socialization; when he hits the lot every real dog there knows it, and is upset about it. The wolfdog is very polite, and on a chain, the domestic dogs don't like his smell.
Seems more likely to me than someone having a long term plan to domesticate, or wolves accidentally slowly domesticating themselves by scavenging food from human settlements. I am no expert in this matter though.
I wouldn't be too dismissive of this - I'll use another domestication example to highlight why.
Given how modern chickens are so useful for cheap and easy-to-raise meat, you'd think that's why they were domesticated, but no. Chickens were domesticated for reasons much less utilitarian - they were domesticated for entertainment! Cockfighting.
I'd need to read more to understand properly, but from a glance it appears interesting and possible.
And it's much more probable that the dogs got their reputation guiding the souls after they were used to guide living people than before
> D’Huy is applying these methods to study how ancient myths can inform what we know about our connection with other animals such as sheep — their mythological link with the sun could have led to domestication. Symbolic, rather than utilitarian, reasons for domestication could explain a lot of data, he says.
Why would hunter-gatherers in a resource-constrained environment keep food around and not eat it? I would rather bet that my ancestors had exactly the same mythological connection with their flock of sheep that I have with my freezer.
Association of dogs with Sirius far enough back to precede populating the Americas is pretty astounding. Apparently the river and ferryman elements associated with dying do, too.
The association of sisters with the Pleiades apparently goes back much farther, maybe to before we left Africa.
Speculating some myself, it's easy to see how a domesticated wolf could be useful for hunting, guard duty, or even offensive use. The nature of wolfs is that they are pack animals so they'd submit to a strong master. Probably, early hunter gatherers, would have encountered and occasionally killed wolfs in the wild. The chances of encountering a wolf with some pubs would have been non zero and it raises the question what a hunter would do with some pups after disposing of the mother.
Just speculating here but it seems that that's a story that just writes itself. From there to breeding animals is a small leap.
This is the same thing biologists use in teasing out genetic lineages of more or less related animal, plant, or fungus species. The output is a proposed "this one came first, and spawned this or these others", all down the line. Biologists cross-check this against a timeline and geography. It is easy for such an analysis to go wrong: garbage in, garbage out. Its results are always, "assuming (the input), (the output) is the best fit for paths of descent."
Different people invariably produce different input and get more or less different output. But often certain aspects of the analyses are robust across unrelated analyses: birds always show up in Dinosauria, mammals never.
For oral traditions, you generally expect to see a geographical progression from a central point of origin, with progressively different versions in oral traditions taken farther away. For something like the Pleiades, where once seven stars were discernable and later six, you may see details appear to account for the change. Such observationally shared details need not trace to a single parent myth, and so may introduce noise to the analysis. But where similar accountings appear, they might each be traced to an origin.
All this is very difficult to make rigorous, but often curious relationships emerge that no one had noticed before. These may then be checked against other data. One such is connections between stories told in Oceania and in South America, which need to be accounted for. Waves of migration may appear, as later arrivals may displace earlier versions except in less favored environments.
The same process is used in tracing language evolution, where instead of oral-tradition motifs, cognate words and pronunciation shifts are tracked. And, it is used to trace genetic relationships among groups of people who have migrated and settled the globe. Comparing genetic, language, and oral tradition analyses helps to strengthen all three.
Genetic similarities between people in Tierra del Fuego, at the southern tip of South America, and Australian aboriginals may be accounted for by these migration waves. Peculiarities in languages in western Europe and central Asia, likewise. In each case the details are presumed to have once matched throughout the range, but have been displaced by later forms except at the ends.
Anyway that is how I understand it. I have not performed any phylogenetic analyses, myself.
Still humans love to pet dogs, and dogs enjoy it. ;)
It stands to firm reason that this symbiotic living was reached by humans at a similar point in our development.
Yudhishtira, known for never straying from the dharmic path, refuses to leave a dog behind (that has been with them on their long journey) and get entrance to heaven - with the connotation that he refuses to leave the path of righteousness even for heaven.
There is also a verse in the Mahabharata: dharmo rakṣati rakṣitaḥ - meaning, protect dharma, and dharma will protect you - which is interesting if you apply it to the mutual relationship between a man and his pet.
I don't see how this sheds light in demystifying domestication though, apart from that they were regarded as loyal and good companions whose feelings were reciprocated.
He also pretty explicitly analogizes the obligation a man has towards his dog as that which the Devas ought to have towards men. The well-being of the dog becomes his duty because it is utterly devoted to him and this obliges him to repay its devotion. In a way you can also read this as Yudhistira is also calling out the Devas, and Indra in particular, for being callous and falling down on holding up their end of the reciprocal bargain.