tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post5690179110317241817..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Did dogs contribute decisively to our success vs. Neanderthals?Majuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-72870957571859420202012-05-25T22:12:45.966+02:002012-05-25T22:12:45.966+02:00Have you read it? I find it annoyingly pointless:
...Have you read it? I find it annoyingly pointless:<br /><br />1. Denies that Aurignacian dogs are dogs and does so without methodical study, it's just his opinion (or their opinion, assuming that all the authors back all the paper in all aspects). <br /><br />2. The genetic aspects of the paper are not optimal in many senses:<br /><br />2.a. autosomal (the less clarifying aspect of the genetic pool triad, at least for phylogenetic purposes).<br /><br />2.b. uses only pedigree breeds and not village dogs, when repeated studies of village dogs have produced much more interesting results in Africa, East Asia and West Asia (as discussed in this thread). <br /><br />The paper may have <b>some</b> interest for the study of dog <b>breeds</b> (some of them because I fail to see interesting dogs like the Basque Sepherd Dog and instead they insist with modern hybrids like Chihuahua, Bulldog or Dobermann, a breed that has just a few decades of existence) but that's about it. <br /><br />Feel free to show I'm wrong in this judgment but I fail to see in this study any particular merit and I'm dumping it in my "to do" list, so it will end as a link in a generic "Echoes of the Past" list that is already long overdue (my laziness).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-64039152267511976672012-05-25T19:40:28.361+02:002012-05-25T19:40:28.361+02:00I still see the PNAS paper of Larson et al. (there...I still see the PNAS paper of Larson et al. (there's quite an "et al." there btw!) as Open Access. I just opened it at home. <br />http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/15/1203005109Millán Mozotahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15399161559707492719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-32329674505682849432012-05-25T17:44:40.390+02:002012-05-25T17:44:40.390+02:00The article, which I could read earlier somehow (i...The article, which I could read earlier somehow (it seems we both read the referencing entry at Hawks' blog), has become pay per view. Still, if I recall correctly the main arguments were:<br /><br />1. Speculation is good and necessary - but not necessarily correct and should be done properly, clearly discerning facts from interpretation.<br /><br />2. The several dog heads found are not dogs, in opinion of the author, but wolves displaying some biometric characteristics of dogs (shorter heads and smaller fangs essentially). <br /><br />As for #1, we all can't but agree - too generic to really matter. <br /><br />But in regards to #2 I find the following problems: <br /><br />a. The Aurignacoid dogs are buried and wolves do not do that (unless they would do it for food). The burials, if these can be confirmed, must have been made by humans.<br /><br />b. The mammoth bone in the mouth is a most clear indicator of dog burial. Wolves do not just not bury their own but also would never share their food except with the cubs. <br /><br />c. The biological domestication traits of the skulls rather indicate early dogs than anomalous wolves, everything else equal (and everything else is not equal but supports the dog theory in several different sites in the same time-frame).<br /><br />Does that mean that dogs were a key element favoring the expansion of H. sapiens in the "Neanderlands" (from Altai to Palestine and the Atlantic shores)? That's the speculative part and here each one can believe whatever thinks best (or nothing at all). <br /><br />I do recommend healthy skepticism but also to allow the logic of things to reveal itself beyond the micro-detail. Let's not the tree (the obsession with details) hide the forest (the much necessary general interpretation).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-67990026355087924632012-05-25T14:32:30.688+02:002012-05-25T14:32:30.688+02:00I agree about Maju's comments on Hue & Bou...I agree about Maju's comments on Hue & Boudin papers. It was not my point to say that there are REAL Mousterian Dogs, but to show that we're talking about a huge and complex historical&paleoanthropological question that cannot be solved by plain, pure speculation, qhich is what we find (my opinion)at shipman's paper. <br />BTW, via John Hawks, i just found an interesting article about the very question we've been discussing:<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/science/dogs-and-humans-speculation-and-science.html?_r=1<br /><br />It's interesting that some of the main researchers on wolf's domestication dont really believe that Upper Pleistocene canids (the aurignacian and gravetian ones) are dogs, or domesticated animals at all.Millánhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02508752533122089334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-74081846343877054182012-05-23T16:22:47.948+02:002012-05-23T16:22:47.948+02:00Like you said the alphanumeric designations are st...Like you said the alphanumeric designations are still quite long anyway, especially the further downstream you go, so for the case I proposed above, Where R will be K2c2, you will only be adding 3 letters, any remaining clades down stream will be offset by 3 letters only, so R1->K2c2a , R1a->K2c2a1, R1b->K2c2a2 and so forth, so a terminal clade of R1b that already has a really long name, say for instance the clade defined by the Z343 mutation, or R1b1a2a1a1a5b2b1a1b2a will have only 3 more letters appended to it. <br /><br />one problem I see could be if unifying SNPs upstream of K are found, for instance if an SNP unifying IJK with G and H but is still below F is found then that may alter the K designation...Etyopishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311733086301215105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-6167540732933648672012-05-23T05:43:18.593+02:002012-05-23T05:43:18.593+02:00"So what is the problem? K1, K2, K3, K4, M, N..."So what is the problem? K1, K2, K3, K4, M, NO, P and S are all members of the paragroup K(xLT). Simple". <br /><br />The problem is that it's not any paragroup (and I should not need to explain this to you): they are a monophyletic haplogroup.<br /><br />So it's a misnomer, a very confusing one. <br /><br />"Calling it MNOPS would exclude K1, K2, K3 and K4 from the clade". <br /><br />It does not. Much less if they are adequately renamed as MNOPS1, etc. <br /><br />Or better as K1a, K1b, etc. where K1 would be MNOPS aka K(xLT).<br /><br />"Your proposed nomenclature would confuse the issue".<br /><br />Not really I'd keep all the single letter names: M, N, O, P, Q, R and S as they are now. The "little Ks" have already undergone renaming in the past, when K2 became T and K4 (?) became S (for instance). <br /><br />The "problem" surely is that they do not want these capital letter clades hanging from a letter-number node. A very formalist obstacle whose "solution" is even worse. <br /><br />"So what's the problem?"<br /><br />Monophyletic vs paraphyletic, that is the problem: they are misusing paraphyletic nomenclature to describe a monophyletic clade. <br /><br />Incidentally there is enough K(xK1,K2,K3,K4,M,NO,P,S) to create much confusion with that name. Even if some K* would in the end be part of MNOPS, it's likely that some will not. <br /><br />K* (excluding all named subhaplogroups) is found apparently in:<br /><br /><i>K* Important in Indigenous Australians from Arnhem Land=30%, Great Sandy Desert=17%[4] and other parts of Australia=42%.[5] High frequency in Micronesians from Kapingamarangi=67% and Majuro=64%.[6] In Melanesia 21%,[7] specially in Vanuatu=58%. In Filipinos=45%.[8] In Northeast India=8.3%.[9] In Europe found in Macedonians=1.3% ; Serbians=7.1 , Croatians=0.9 and Herzegovinians=2.8[10]</i>.<br /><br />What is anything but residual. These are also K(xLT), i.e. K-M9(xP326), but they are likely to be also K-M9(xM526) [K(xMNOPS)]. So they are K(xLT) but surely not part of M526, not of MNOPS and not of what ISOGG now confusingly calls K(xLT). <br /><br />You can't write K(xK(xLT)) and make any sense but that's what ISOGG is forcing us to do with this nomenclature abhorrence. <br /><br />Please petition ISOGG to correct this anomaly and meanwhile use MNOPS instead.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-89944982014315766062012-05-23T05:26:46.617+02:002012-05-23T05:26:46.617+02:00It's not the first time they do that in fact b...It's not the first time they do that in fact because, while the original A-R concept was alright for what was known in 2001, in 11 years it has been bent and reformed quite a number of times: the discovery of DE and CF and of CDEF (whatever name they use - CT but it's a mess), later the superstructure and substructure of K, more recently the chaos found inside A...<br /><br />In the past they did use Y(xA) to refer to what they call now BT and I call sometimes B'CDEF. Really the whole tree is needing a radical nomenclature review but I imagine that they are stretching the validity of the current nomenclature as much as they can. <br /><br />"his would eliminate a lot of the old and relied upon names that were and still are used in published material"<br /><br />That can be solved or at least patched with a nomenclature like the one already styled in the mtDNA tree, approach that sometimes is messy but that has provided some good results overall: the names usually imply what they actually mean without too much renaming. <br /><br />Anyhow, if they would adopt your raw proposal, not only a large list of major haplogroups (notably O, R and Q) would suffer in terms of confusion re. the published literature but also the names of many common haplogroups would be insufferably large, for example...<br /><br />... R1b1a2a1a1a5b2b1a1a1a (which is already hyper-long and impossible to remember) would become something like K1g2a2a1b1a1a1e2b2a1a1a1. <br /><br />I'm rather for scrapping S and T (rename them as Kx and Ky, as they used to be - they are not so common after all) and splitting R into S (R2) and T (R1), and then T into U (R1a) and V (R1b). That way the example of R1b1a2a1a1a5b2b1a1a1a would be V1a2a1a1a5b2b1a1a1a, slightly shorter, not longer. <br /><br />But then again it's just a patch. An option might be to name them after iconic animals (totem-style) of the area where they are most common and/or may have originated. But then the phylogeny would not be very clear and there would be subjective choices to make. <br /><br />No good solution on sight.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-75957201458096954902012-05-23T05:22:46.565+02:002012-05-23T05:22:46.565+02:00"F(xG) is not a haplogroup, C(xC3) is not a h..."F(xG) is not a haplogroup, C(xC3) is not a haplogroup, DE(xD) is not a haplogroup..." <br /><br />Where have I claimed they were? G is a haplogroup within F, C3 is a haplogroup within C, D is a haplogroup within DE, K1 is a haplogroup within K(xLT). Surely that is simple to understand. <br /><br />"You know then that that K(xK1) is also a paragroup, that K(xL) is also a paragroup and that K(xLT) is logically also a paragroup, including at least potentially some K(xM526), K* in the ISOGG tree". <br /><br />So what is the problem? K1, K2, K3, K4, M, NO, P and S are all members of the paragroup K(xLT). Simple. <br /><br />"It would be alright if they called that clade K0, K1, U or... MNOPS" <br /><br />Calling it MNOPS would exclude K1, K2, K3 and K4 from the clade. Why do you demand that should be so? <br /><br />"the negative name is extremely confusing and self-contradictory". <br /><br />In what way is it confusing and self-contradictory? The only confusion arises as to specifically 'K', but surely the situation is easily understood in fact. <br /><br />"These are under the MNOPS node, under M256. You better consider them as MNOPS1, MNOPS2, MNOPS3 and MNOPS4 in all but name". <br /><br />That is far more cumbersome though. And surely you understand exactly what the situation is within the haplogroup as the nomenclature stands. <br /><br />"If ISOGG would chose to call the clade K1 (and K2 to LT), then:<br />K1 > K1a<br />K2 > K1b<br />K3 > K1c<br />K4 > K1d<br />NO > K1e but hanging from it: N and O<br />M, P and S would keep their names as such but would hang under the K1 node". <br /><br />I understand that ISOGG prefers to maintain the names as at present understood as far as possible. Your proposed nomenclature would confuse the issue. As Etyopis said: <br /><br />"this would eliminate a lot of the old and relied upon names that were and still are used in published material, like Haplogroup O, N ,etc.... maybe that is why they opted out for this weird designation?" <br /><br />Presumably the case. <br /><br />"it's just a name". <br /><br />Exactly. So what's the problem? Surely everyone understands exactly what ISOGG mean by K(xLT). Is it simply that including K1, K2, K3 and K4 as single haplogroups along with M, NO, P and S within a single paragroup K(xLT) means the diversity within the clade conflicts with what you wish to believe?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-22770817511939740032012-05-23T03:31:59.209+02:002012-05-23T03:31:59.209+02:00This new K(xLT) naming is confusing, I agree, the ...This new K(xLT) naming is confusing, I agree, the simplest would be:<br />K<br />....K1<br />.......K1a<br />.......K1b<br />....K2<br />.......K2a<br />.......K2b<br />...........K2b1<br />...........K2b2<br />.......K2c<br />...........K2c1<br />...........K2c2<br />.......K2d<br /><br />but I think this would eliminate a lot of the old and relied upon names that were and still are used in published material, like Haplogroup O, N ,etc.... maybe that is why they opted out for this weird designation?Etyopishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17311733086301215105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-70814359282200943772012-05-22T06:28:14.173+02:002012-05-22T06:28:14.173+02:00F(xG) is not a haplogroup, C(xC3) is not a haplogr...F(xG) is not a haplogroup, C(xC3) is not a haplogroup, DE(xD) is not a haplogroup...<br /><br />They are paraphyletic groups, "paragroups" for short. You know what this means, right?<br /><br />You know then that that K(xK1) is also a paragroup, that K(xL) is also a paragroup and that K(xLT) is logically also a paragroup, including at least potentially some K(xM526), K* in the ISOGG tree. <br /><br />It would be alright if they called that clade K0, K1, U or... MNOPS: a positive name, but the negative name is extremely confusing and self-contradictory. So for me it's MNOPS until the people at ISOGG comes with a better name (not a worse one). <br /><br />"There are several surviving K(xMNOPS) haplogroups: K1, K2, K3 and K4".<br /><br />These are under the MNOPS node, under M256. You better consider them as MNOPS1, MNOPS2, MNOPS3 and MNOPS4 in all but name. <br /><br />If ISOGG would chose to call the clade K1 (and K2 to LT), then:<br />K1 > K1a<br />K2 > K1b<br />K3 > K1c<br />K4 > K1d<br />NO > K1e but hanging from it: N and O<br />M, P and S would keep their names as such but would hang under the K1 node. <br /><br />Too complicated for your mind? Make it K0 or U or Z, it's just a name. But it must be a positive name, not a negative one corresponding to a paragroup.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-57802746593958474672012-05-22T05:37:41.516+02:002012-05-22T05:37:41.516+02:00"we can't be 100% sure that there is not ..."we can't be 100% sure that there is not any surviving K(xMNOPS,LT)' <br /><br />There are several surviving K(xMNOPS) haplogroups: K1, K2, K3 and K4. Surely these last are K-M526 but 'do not have any of the SNPs defining the major groups'. But perhaps no K(xMNOPS,LT). <br /><br />"the nomenclature choice is horrible in any case". <br /><br />What makes it so 'horrible'? It makes perfect sense to me. Easy to understand.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-35780666350345246372012-05-21T18:45:41.812+02:002012-05-21T18:45:41.812+02:00I must correct myself: the dog (C. lupus familiari...I must correct myself: the dog (C. lupus familiaris) is closest (by far) to the gray wolf (C. lupus lupus). <br /><br />The Indian and Hymalayan wolf (and a bit less also the Golden Jackal) are closely related to the grey wolf (but not at all so much). <br /><br />Cf. <a href="http://www.ccmb.res.in/newccmb/publications/webres/pdf/rka/1.pdf" rel="nofollow">Aggarwal 2007</a> and <a href="http://nationalzoo.si.edu/SCBI/SpotlightOnScience/fleischer2003108.cfm" rel="nofollow">this Smithsonian Institute page</a>.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-30704007548982137592012-05-21T18:10:50.318+02:002012-05-21T18:10:50.318+02:00"... that means that the early coevolution of..."... that means that the early coevolution of humans and dogs happened before the Dordogne Aurignacian sites that Shipman mentions".<br /><br />I don't see why. The main extra advantage induced by dogs, as I see it, is improved hunt (and secondarily defense). Dogs would not be in any case the only advantage of H. sapiens (others that have been suggested are: greater mobility because of longer legs, ranged weapons, optimized metabolic ratios for being much lighter, what compensated after multi-layered clothing and ranged weapons were invented, greater exploitation of diverse food-sources like hares or fish, etc.) <br /><br />So, assuming Mellars and French are right in the estimated population figures (what is always a bit risky), the factors behind those much greater densities of our species would be diverse and not just one. And in any case the dog carrying capacity doesn't seem very important in any case, much less when a characteristic of SW European UP is semi-sedentarism (mostly seasonal or temporary changes of home within a well defined territory that includes very diverse resources). <br /><br />"This subject has been intensively investigated by the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the USGS, and the International Wolf Center".<br /><br />Have they studied <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_pallipes#Ecology_and_behaviour" rel="nofollow">Canis lupus pallipes</a> (or arguably C. pallipes), the Indian Wolf which is the most likely direct main ancestor of dogs?<br /><br />Indian wolves form smaller family packs (you also see that in Iberian wolves, more closely related to the "lupus" subspecies), having a social structure that "is similar to that of dingoes and coyotes [rather] than northern wolves". They prey mostly on antelopes, rodents and hares. When hunting antelopes (or sheep) they often work in couples but can also work in packs, using distraction and ambush tactics.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-77874354488887487192012-05-21T16:37:37.674+02:002012-05-21T16:37:37.674+02:00"innovative jobs like load carrying happened ..."innovative jobs like load carrying happened later"<br /><br />Agree. But that means that the early coevolution of humans and dogs happened before the Dordogne Aurignacian sites that Shipman mentions.<br /><br />Wolves "do not just hunt large game"<br /><br />This subject has been intensively investigated by the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the USGS, and the International Wolf Center. While wolves will hunt smaller game, even including hares and mice, research done at Ellesmere Island, Baffin Island, and Denali indicates that coordinated pack attacks on large game such as muskoxen, caribou and elk are common.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-46883462679153189572012-05-21T14:05:08.357+02:002012-05-21T14:05:08.357+02:00Obviously "wolfdogs" are more adaptive t...Obviously "wolfdogs" are more adaptive than their normal behavior in the wild may suggest, even if this is also very diverse. But I can only imagine that early dog owners did not expect them to behave other than like friendly wolves: these expectations, the lack of experience with domestication in general, make me think that the innovative jobs like carrying loads or even bringing the bird to the hunter (not wild behavior for sure) were developed some time after the initial domestication. <br /><br />But, on the other hand, once dogs became a common sight in human camps these kind of innovations just happened because the relation between humans and dogs was already established and intimate enough to allow for the weirdest ideas to be experimented with, including "fetch". <br /><br />Also wolves, specially smaller wolves and relatives like coyote, do not just hunt large game but more like middle sized (deer, boar) and small one (rats, rabbits, low flying birds). I would not necessarily focus on the big hunt and would instead consider also other hunt scenarios.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-13147944810984078632012-05-21T13:44:16.705+02:002012-05-21T13:44:16.705+02:00I'm still going to call it MNOPS because K(xLT...I'm still going to call it MNOPS because K(xLT) is the name of a paragroup (we can't be 100% sure that there is not any surviving K(xMNOPS,LT) and the nomenclature choice is horrible in any case).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-25164386380125796372012-05-21T09:18:17.984+02:002012-05-21T09:18:17.984+02:00Agree that dogs and human hunters were both "...Agree that dogs and human hunters were both "pack" hunters of large game. The tracking and game finding abilities of wolfdogs would seem an easy transition for them, especially since they probably quickly understood that the very dangerous moment of kill was now going to be the job of humans. (Wolves are often killed by kicks during attacks on large game.)<br /><br />I was interested in Shipman's comments that researchers think that the dogs at Aurignacian sites were used for the transportation of meat. The ability to wear a harness and pull was no longer in the range of normal wolf behavior, yet it happened. There had to be some willingness, understanding and cooperation on the part of wolfdogs for that to happen.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-62549481182261784792012-05-21T08:01:40.746+02:002012-05-21T08:01:40.746+02:00Sorry. As far as I know there are no gogs in New ...Sorry. As far as I know there are no gogs in New Guinea. Dogs.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-86515407266139001362012-05-21T08:00:21.639+02:002012-05-21T08:00:21.639+02:00"I'd say that the lack of data does not p..."I'd say that the lack of data does not preclude a possible very early arrival of dogs to New Guinea" <br /><br />Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if you can provide evidence for gogs in New Guinea before 6000 years ago I'd be very surprised. <br /><br />"My hypothesis of dogs (domestic wolves) spreading with the (y)MNOPS-(mt)R people does not require dogs in Australia at all but would suggest that they could have reached New Guinea" <br /><br />I notice that ISOGG has done away with MNOPS and now calls the haplogroup K(xLT). That means that K(xLT) formed K1, K2, K3, K4, M, S, NO and P. And that makes K(xLT)'s greatest diversity in ... guess where.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-90655732799135678202012-05-21T02:02:08.795+02:002012-05-21T02:02:08.795+02:00I probably explained badly. I meant hunter-warrior...I probably explained badly. I meant hunter-warrior - obviously the role of dogs in hunting is the most important one, at least if we follow Shipman's article - and I totally agree in that aspect: "dogs are [primarily] for hunting", then for defense (alert and combat), then for company and then for everything else (secondary roles like carrying weights or Neolithic occupations like shepherding). <br /><br />It's also not defense so much against other people (incl. Neanderthals) but mostly against wild animals. The advantage is primarily an increase of efficiency of human societies in their interaction with Nature: greater productivity in hunt and much lower risks in general. All that at almost no cost.<br /><br />Indirectly this (possibly) paid off in the long term competition with Neanderthals (and maybe also other Homo sapiens).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-77873690591517059642012-05-20T23:36:19.839+02:002012-05-20T23:36:19.839+02:00Relegating the work of survival to the narrow defi...Relegating the work of survival to the narrow definition of warrior, or not, is not relevant to the understanding of dog-human coevolution.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-17646634907729254642012-05-20T21:59:03.398+02:002012-05-20T21:59:03.398+02:00Wolves are instinctively members of a hierarchical...Wolves are instinctively members of a hierarchical pack, what we do is to replace that pack by human social cells and that hierarchy by human leadership. <br /><br />However I do not think that getting the dogs to carry loads as Native Americans did is automatic: wolves do not carry any loads naturally but they are instinctively ready for hunt, guard and fight. <br /><br />Essentially a dog is a multi-purpose intelligent weapon. But essentially a weapon (or warrior), not a worker.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-42269099958902603592012-05-20T20:52:46.875+02:002012-05-20T20:52:46.875+02:00Many dogs are very altruistic and will try to intu...Many dogs are very altruistic and will try to intuit what other dogs and humans want. They will look at you and try to understand your mood, even try to cheer you up. They will try to help. I don't think the transition from wolf to work dog would have been an extremely difficult one. It would have been a natural outcome of wolf/dog's willingness and intelligence.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-31982007841823951072012-05-20T19:26:12.494+02:002012-05-20T19:26:12.494+02:00On this aspect of the criticism I may agree more. ...On this aspect of the criticism I may agree more. The advantage argument can be deconstructed as an ex-post-facto rationalization and not truly real. <br /><br />To change the focus to a better known issue: why Western Europe suddenly set itself to overseas colonial enterprises. The Marxist school of History (very influential and interesting) would say that several issues and planes of the socio-economic reality acted but that two are maybe critical: (1) the economic conditions of East Indies spice trade (and earlier the West Sudan gold trade) and (2) the technological conditions of a sufficiently developed navigation. <br /><br />Conservative historians instead would emphasize the individual personalities of Henry the Sailor and Columbus for example but they can't really never get out of the Materialist frame for good and usually bow silently to those Marxist Historiography arguments when exposed and then go back to their princesses' and knights' stories for children, whose connection to reality is rather accidental, even if real. <br /><br />Similarly, in our Neanderthal demise problem, we can argument for individual decisions. No doubt, in a population of only a few thousands, individual histories were even more important... but can we absolutely reject that there were material conditions like overall area occupied, important phenotype differences affecting metabolism, speed, strength and who knows what, generally different techno-cultural traditions, effective low interbreeding rate, etc? <br /><br />No, we cannot.<br /><br />And maybe others like hurling and dogs... These are part of the evidence, maybe in the end we have to discard them but so far I see no reason to do so, rather the opposite. <br /><br />But you do have a point in advising caution about deceiving ourselves with ex-post-facto rationalizations that may fit our mentality but not the reality of the age. I just do not see it being the case here...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-33080415431875723712012-05-20T19:10:41.828+02:002012-05-20T19:10:41.828+02:00I for one have always rather believed in domestica...I for one have always rather believed in domestication not of packs but of individuals and that happens when you capture them young, usually as puppies, and feed them (maybe even breastfeed them), becoming their effective parent and master. <br /><br />I also don't think that your distinction between "working animal" and just a basic "domestic wolf" is clear cut at all. Those are just mental barriers that some people put in their heads for reasons I can't understand well but that surely come from the religious fantasy of humans being over animals by divine decree complemented by the industrial fantasy of animals being mere machines of sorts without emotions or intelligence of any kind (complementary false unscientific beliefs promoted for the irrational extremist careless exploitation of Nature which is a leit motiv of our age, sadly enough and catastrophically as well). <br /><br />"Dog as a fully developed working animal"....<br /><br />... does not exist. It's a mental construct.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com