MAN AND DOG A 23,000 YEAR PARTNERSHIP
A recent study by scientists from the University of Buffalo reveal evidence of the oldest domestic dog remains in North America. In a cave along the coast of southwestern Alaska, near Wrangell (@ 100 miles north of Ketchikan) scientists found remains of both human and animals bones. DNA testing revealed that one of these ancient bone fragments was that of a domestic dog more than ten thousand years old!
Near the close of the last glacial epoch (the Pleistocene Epoch) modern humans from Eurasia are thought to have migrated across what is now the Bering Straight— between Russia and Alaska—by means of a “land bridge”. This land bridge (sometimes referred to as “Beringia”) was simply the dry land formed as a result of the low stand of sea level during the ice age. The cave explored in this study is thought to be located along a coastal route speculated as a likely course taken by the first immigrants to populate North America probably sometime before 16000 BP.(before present).
Analyzing the bone fragments, dated at about 10,150 years BP, revealed the DNA of a dog, perhaps the first dog to arrive in North America. Further analysis of the bone ( I assume by isotope analysis) suggested that the dog may have fed on marine food sources ( probably fish). This may indicate that humans were likely feeding the dog, and if so, helps to support the idea that humans followed a coastal route to the New World. (Curry, Andrew, Science, “Remains of oldest American dog...Feb 23, 2021, sciencemag.org. )
So the human-dog relationship is indeed a very, very old one, dating to at least about 10,200 BP, in North America. But it dates back much earlier, in Siberia, where it is thought that dogs were domesticated from a now-extinct close relative of the gray wolf as far back as 23,000 years ago (23,000BP). Though genetic analysis of modern-day dogs suggest that there may have been more than one wolf “domestication” episode perhaps further west in Europe.
WHY DOMESTICATE A WOLF?
What motivated early humans to domesticate wolves, long before other domestic animals? Some early hypotheses suggested that wolves may have simply found human waste dumps as a low effort, low risk place to scavenge food. And in this way became inured to human presence and dependent upon human generated scraps as a secure food source. I call this the “camp scavenger” hypothesis.
There are weaknesses in that hypothesis. Early immigrants over the Bering Land Bridge were big-game hunters. Their survival strategy was essentially to follow and exploit herds of large game animals and live off the meat and skins these beasts provided. They did not occupy one site over the long periods of time necessary to accumulate substantial waste or midden heaps. Much like the Native American buffalo hunters of the Great Plains of a later date in history these hunters moved regularly in search of game. Thus they probably did not generate large waste piles that could be exploited by wolves. Furthermore, wolf packs have well determined home ranges, determined by the ranges of other packs. Thus, human and wolf pack ranges would be in regular flux not in a static relationship necessary to attract wolves to accumulated waste. The early immigrants to North America followed the big game herds which probably wandered widely, perhaps in and out of the ranges of several different wolf packs, as they do today. So on that basis alone the camp scavenger hypothesis seems less likely.
These early immigrants arriving over the Beringia land bridge some 16,000 +/- years ago survived almost exclusively on meat from game animals. Their food, nutrition, clothing, bedding and even aspects of their shelter depended on exploiting big game as prey.
Wolves were social animals who were pre-disposed to human domestication. The wolves of that early time (probably a now extinct late Pleistocene wolf species) were exclusive carnivores. They ranged like early human hunters after large animals. Wolves are social animals which cooperate to hunt, raise their young and even “share” food. They live in closely interrelated socially stratified packs. They communicate by tail movements, ear positions, eye contact, and vocalizations. Pack social behavior is structured and ordered by subservience and obedience to the pack alpha male.
It is easy to imagine how a group of hunter-gatherers, might steal pups from a wolf den to raise as pets. We are familiar with many recurring ancient myths from several nations supporting such behavior. The wolf pup would be fed by its adopted humans. As a pet, the young wolf was likely to be handled, coddled and cuddled, perhaps as it would have by its wolf mother. In time it would accept its human hunting “pack” as its own. Eventually, it would bond with humans as it would with other wolves in its own wolf pack. Continued selection and breeding by hunters of less aggressive, more trainable and more human-friendly wolf pups would eventually lead to full domestication in perhaps only a modest number of generations.
WHAT WAS THE HUMAN ADVANTAGE?
What was the advantage to humans in domesticating wolves? Domestication of the wolf provided early big game hunter bands, whose very survival depended so heavily on hunting success, several distinct advantages in securing game and in protection from danger. The wolf/ dog could join and follow the hunt with humans with whom they had bonded. They would “see” themselves as “members” of a “human pack”. They would act in their instinctive supportive roles and behaviors as they would in a wild wolf pack. They would add significantly to the efficiency of the human hunters with their swiftness in pursuit of game, their excellent sense of hearing and excellent sense of smell.
These “dog characteristics” would profit the hunting band with more frequent successful hunts and a greater abundance of meat, skins, sinews, bones for tools, and other materials essential for survival. The dog’s excellent sense of smell would help hunters initially locate game, and after an encounter, dogs were an essential aid in finding wounded or escaping animals. Dogs could pursue or run down game animals to permit slower human hunters better opportunities for a kill. They could worry and slow the escape of other game animals so as to increase the effectiveness and to facilitate the human use of the hunter’s short range, but highly lethal, fluted stone pointed, weapons.
Hunters who sallied forth with dogs could provide more game and more nutrition for their family groups than those who had no dogs. Domestication of wolves and their use in hunting likely generated a survival advantage for human hunting groups who used dogs.
In the human camp, a dog’s excellent sight, hearing and sense of smell as well as their vocalizations would help protect their human pack from approaching enemies, predators or other dangers. Again dogs were an aide to human survival.
NO COMPETITION FOR FOOD
Human hunters with only simple means of food preparation, could not process all parts of harvested large game into edible food. Humans consumed the most edible, most nutritious, often the most fatty parts of a kill. Besides using most muscle meat, they ate all organ meats, brains, much of the digestive tract as well as the highly nutritious abdominal and subcutaneous stored fat masses, as well as long bone marrow., The skins and sinews might be used for clothing and for bedding. But much remained unused.
These nomadic hunters carried no big boiling pots or had other technology to process the less edible parts of a kill for consumption. As a consequence, they were unable to effectively convert all parts of the kill into consumable food.
“Waste” such as blood, soft bone, meat tightly associated with bones (spinal column), large ganglia, gristle, cartilage, meat adhering to long bones, massive bone joints, etc., all of these could not be easily processed as human food.
In addition very lean meat (from late winter kills and animals killed in poor condition) was less desirable for humans who need fat to help digest protein. This human need for animal fat, was especially important in winter. But dogs (or wolves) are not restricted by this physiological limitation of humans, and could profitably consume such low fat meat.
These relatively abundant kill “wastes” however, instead of waste could be effectively utilized by a human hunter as food for their dogs. Dogs and other canids were in nature well adapted to survive on the kills of other higher carnivores. They have evolved morphological and physiological adaptations to survive on such kill waste. They have powerful digestion processes,massive dentition and enormous jaw strength well adapted to take maximum nutrition from such “waste” foods. They are well adapted to exploit such less desirable food sources. Thus keeping dogs was an efficient use of animal kill waste.
Therefore there would be no competition for food between dog and man and much to be gained by the symbiotic association. The sharing of the kill with domesticated dogs would be an efficient use of kill “by-products” which were of little nutritional value to humans.
In this relationship humans gained from the dog-human symbiosis with a higher kill rate and more food, better nutrition, and perhaps a higher birth rate, as well as more secure rate of survival. Hunters who kept and used dogs may have been more likely to survive.
In this dog-human relationship humans profited by the arrangement and the dogs profited by being part of a more successful combined human-canine team which generated more kills. I suggest here that a human-dog hunting team was more successful than either one was by themselves.
In general, dogs provided early hunters with a survival advantage over those human groups who did not keep dogs. The dog-man symbiotic relationship was successful and advantageous for both dog and man.
Fido, Rex, Goliath, Max, Blackie, Queenie, Molly, Martha, Kim, and all those other lovable and faithful dogs of ours all over the world have come down to us from their ancient wild wolf ancestors originating in Siberia. These early canids helped insure and advance the survival of our own human race. They are still with us, greeting us each night with wagging tails, protecting us, serving us, making life more pleasant, helping us remember our ancient ties to nature, more than twenty three millennia since we domesticated them and they willingly took up with us. They deserve our respect and our love too.
.
I
No comments:
Post a Comment