I found this wonderful documentary about the domestication of animals. However, this particular documentary focuses very closely on how the wolf became domesticated. Like good films of this type, this particular documentary tells the story of a bitch wolf that joins up with a band of European hunter-gatherers. When she is killed defending her pups, the hunter-gatherers raise them.
This documentary sides with the “captured cub” theory, which contends that hunter-gatherers were very interested in taming all sorts of wild animals, even nursing them with human milk. Of course, it is usually said that wolves cannot be raised on human milk. This is true, but our diets are very different from hunter-gatherers. Perhaps they produced a different kind of milk that was more palatable to young carnivores.
Also, note how the bitch wolf joins the human clan very easily. This would almost never happen among modern wolves, which have been selected through our persecution to be quite nervous and reactive animals. It is very likely that ancient wolves were very curious about people. After all, virtually all other wild dogs that exist without humans hunting them are interested in us.
As I’ve said before, domesticating the wolf had to have been so easy that a cave man could do it.
My only complaints about this film is that I would be very careful about setting a date for when wolves began to live with people. Currently, the date and place of that domestication is quite contentious, especially with the finding of the Goyet “dog” skull, which dated to over 30,000 years ago. I would also point out that even in the later form of domestication, dogs were useful hunters– and they still are. There are people who rely upon their dogs to feed them, although the numbers of these people in the modern era are quite low.
Also, if you go through this video, I have some commentary about whether more than one wolf bitch in a pack will have a litter and which animal was the most likely ancestor of the domestic horse (it wasn’t the takhi or Przewalski’s horse.)
Having seen the clips of Koko-gorilla, who had a kitten as a pet, and griefed after it when it died, I think the given times for domestication is far too uncertain. Once when our ancestors were rare, other species didn’t experienced the stress and they were curious, looking for new ways to survive.
So you’d be saying, the domestication was so easy that a neanerthal could have done it.
I don’t know if neanderthals had a relationship with wolves like this.
Fully modern humans clearly did.
So, Bridget, what are you, a Guico employee or something? :) Actually, there is a very intrigueing theory out there that it was the domestication(or perhaps at that time still just the keeping of wolves–not fully domestic dogs yet) of dogs that gave Cro-Magnon a competitive advantage which allowed them to drive off and/or exterminate the Neanderthals. I think it is at least plausible. The postulations of those who think wolves were “too difficult” for Ice Age hunter-gatherers to tame haven’t done much research–plenty of literature on native peoples taming wolves exist. A tame wolf IS difficult in modern society, or agricultural or pastoral societies. All the more evidence that they began domestication during our hunter-gatherer days. But tame wolves can do very well in hunter cultures, and is where, I believe, our dogs originated. I have hunted and roamed myself with a pack of wolf hybrids–the only difficulties I ever had with them was in our encounters with modern society and modern human prejudice! No way do I swallow the unfortunate and very inaccurate theory that is so popular now that wolves “domesticated themselves” as early village scavengers–enough holes in that theory to make Swiss Cheese!….L.B.
That theory is interesting, but it’s very speculative.
A lot of the deficits we have assumed Neanderthals would have had have been found to be false.
And no, I don’t work for Geico.
But I did steal their line!
Oxpecker birds, living in Africa, pluck insects from big mammals skin, also in its mouth. This is also a very special relationship that benefits the both animals. The birds don’t only eat on a rhino or on a buffalo, they may also mate on it. Just like the wolf-human relationship, it was found early in the pre-historical times.
Well, you may have missed my point.
Following that line of yours, the needle is thought to be another benefit the Cro-Magnon had.
LB, I had to goo that! No I don’t work there either.
But there are many who think domestication was started by the neanderthals. Like a famous Finnish wolf-scientist, professor Erkki Pulliainen. He reasons, that when the mtDNA – studies have placed the domestication started out 135 000 years ago, who else could’ve done it but the neanderthals?
Also, the Goyet’s cave dog (a piece of fossile of 31 700 years old) seems to have eaten the same food as the neanderthals were specialized on – mysk-oxen, horse and deer. Tho the Goyet’s cave has known to have been a place for Cro-Magnon folks, but no-one can say that it’s been a home for the neanderthals also.
Due to all that, professor Pulliainen thinks that Cro-Magnon inherited the keeping of dogs from our ape-looking cousin.
I’m sure you’ll find references about the item in the english speaking net-world too.
Yet we don’t know, if there were loveaffairs between Cro-magnon and Neanderthals – I’m looking forward to the newest info and bet they had.
Also, critizing the documentary, which in many ways is good and educating, women didn’t give birth to a baby lying down, but rather in a vertical position.
(T)he wolf has a fear response like any other canine, but that is only part of the danger. The other factor is wolves are apex predators, they prey on large game, and their survival strategy is based on this. Here’s the complication: because wolves form large packs in a single territory; unlike other smaller canids (like coyotes) who most often hunt alone and whose survival isn’t dependant on the pack, wolves have evolved a system where the strongest most dominant and aggressive animal reproduces. Given that it’s the most aggressive animal reproducing, wouldn’t this mean that the population is selecting for that trait? This system is much more competitive than the survival strategy of smaller canids, and has evolved because of their position in the food chain and how it relates to pack hunting behaviors. This is why a wild coyote is rarely a danger to a human,
Its just not possible that it was us who created the temperament of the modern wolf ; after all wolves are persecuted throughout all of their ranges, and it’s certain that middle eastern wolves are not nearly as aggressive as the wolves who operate as apex predators acting in cooperative packs. Howeverthis is just a hypothesis.
I always seem to found many of the aggression-thesis very capitalistic..
The wolf-scientist don’t subcribe to the claim that the wolves in North-Europe and Eastern-Karelia were generally more aggressive than mooses, bears or lynxes. How about your wolves generally in the US ;)
Also, if more domination in behaviour (you might say, aggression) helps an animal to survive is not a simple thought.
Etologistists know many “too brave” youngsters die in the fights and during hunting, before they can generate.
It is the alphapair who generates in the wolfpack. But it’s no way the question of who’s the most aggressive but rather the age-hierarchy, because the pack consists of the couple and their kids.
According to caged and lab animal reports, aggressive behaviour also cruicially depends on the environment: the more room to roam and food supplies – the more peacefully the animals seem to live.
you have instances of lions “adopting” gazelle — all it takes is ONE success. Some “just so” ideas: 1. most kids (and even cavemen had kids, even if they grew up faster than modern kids), who can and will go into areas they aren’t supposed to. I can just see a “mom, it followed me home, can I keep it?” — likely it might have been kept with a view for eating it, but the first time that “tame wolf” drove off or even alerted to a threat, it might have been kept for that value alone.
2. even wolf pups often have no real fear– at 4 weeks, a pup can be raised without milk, even if that’s not the best for it (more than one orphan dog has been weaned at 4 weeks). A taken pup at that age might well be tamed fairly easily. Would it be like a Golden retriever? no. But again, we’ve seen people “taming” bears and hippos. A wolf or two that managed to live long enough to have offspring would be the forerunner of dogs.
and 3; it might have been the other way around. Many children who are unwanted or disturbed or physically imperfect get abandoned. It’s very possible that one such managed to find shelter in a cave where a wolf “adopted” it (again, we have the documented lion adopting a gazelle as an indicator it is possible) — such a child, if it was old enough and survived might well become a shaman (those with defects often did) and have that wolf as their totem. The wolf might well not be expected to “do” anything but to possibly lead them to better hunting areas, be a spirit guide. But again, offspring would be more innured to people, and one step further into being dogs.
In most cases, attempts to tame wolves in the wild have been hampered by, as you indicate, generations of past persecution plus the limitations of having sufficent time and space to make an honest attempt. I don’t see the federal government allowing someone to try taming any of the Yellowstone wolves –they would see the idea as dangerous to both parties — the humans who might get injured (like that never happened with “cavemen”) and also to the wolves, who might then be tempted to prey on livestock.
We are disappointed when wild wolves don’t accept our dominance — they dont transform instantly into dogs when “tamed” in a single generation. But I expect that if one did the same with wolves as was done with the Fox experiment, one WOULD see success.
But then I’m speaking as an owner of dogs that belong to Clade IV (W6/D6 MTDNA).
Vr, Peggy Richter.
In general, modern wolf pups cannot be socialized to people once they are 19 days old. I say in general, because Ellesmere wolf pups have been socialized to people while still nursing off their mothers.
The lion in question took in oryx calves. She kept one alive for a rather long period of time, even allowing its mother to come and nurse it.
Jeremy–I think wolves and other predators persecuted by humans have DEFINETELY had to become shyer and more retiring to survive. What you are saying certainly holds within the pack structure to a degree(although severe aggression and overly tyrannical behaviour is also not tolerated in a wolf pack–alphas that get too domineering have been known to be killed or driven out by the other members) but wolves are certainly capable of showing different responses to other wolves that has no relation to their behavioural responses to other species. Overly aggressive wolves would suffer equally in an encounter with a moose or a bear as they would with dangerous humans, if they did not show some ability at discretion….. And Peggy Richter–yes, ALL your various theories make much more sense than the new-fangled Ray Coppinger one. Our expectations of our modern dogs is what makes wolves seem so “intractable” to people nowadays–cavemen certainly had no such expectations! If a somewhat tame wolf hung around and helped out on the hunt(and I GUARANTEE you they would have automatically done that! Anyone who thinks otherwise has never been in the woods with a wolf!), and/or helped give warning in camp of danger(as they also automatically, instinctively would do), the cavemen would have had to be imbeciles to not IMMEDIATELY see the advantages of encouraging such a relationship! And if a wolf only hung around a couple of years till sexual maturity, this may have been fine and dandy for the early hunters who had little thought of controlling a wolf further. Such a symbiotic relationship could have gone on for many generations before any real signs of domestication appeared…..And Retrieverman, where did you see that human milk could not be used to raise wolf cubs?????? I have read I don’t know how many accounts of Native peoples all over the world raising all manner of critters this way. Lots of accounts of orphaned dog puppies too. Perhaps it is not an IDEAL formula for them, but everything I have read certainly indicates it has been done…..L.B.
I had a correspondence with a wolf expert who told me that human milk couldn’t work because wolf pups require a very special kind of milk. If you feed wolf pups on normal puppy milk replacer, I’ve read that you can increase the chances of a puppy developing cataracts.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19751014&id=Ry8PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hIUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7164,2545927
I found the amino-acid in which wolf milk has more than dog milk replacers. It is arginine.
If a wolf pup doesn’t get enough arginine, it could develop cataracts.
My comments were only in regards to retrieverman’s hypothesis that modern wolves character was shaped by persecution, specifically that they have become more aggressive as a result, the reactive character is almost entirely seperate from nervousness. In order to create a reactive character you are selecting for aggression, in order to create nervousness you select for an animal who would rather flee. I understand that their shyness is a result of persecution. nervouness is one trait that is common in all wolf populations which have experienced prolonged contact with humans. However aggression isn’t common to all wolf populations, even if they have been severely persecuted. Aggression is only present in populations where the animals hunt large prey. It is my hypothesis that they got that way as a result of their own culture and not through negative interaction with humans. My evidence for this is in the fact that pacific coastal wolves which have had very little interaction with humans still behave in an agressive manner but are not shy. I dont think its the agression which makes wolves difficult to tame (aggression makes them dangerous), its the shyness that makes them unpredictable. Even in domestic dogs shyness is a problem which is more difficult to deal with than aggression. I myself have owned aggressive dogs and they fit in perfectly well within my family, but a shy one could not.
In an effort to be more clear, it is not my belief that wolves became aggressive as a result of their hunting behavior; but rather their hunting behavior neccesitated their operating as a pack. Subsequently reproduction as a pack selected for the most dominant and aggressive idividuals – because it is the most dominant members who reproduce. Hunting large animals didn’t select for more aggressive individuals to reproduce (such a variable is far too random to have any effect on a population). An overly agressive wolf is likely to be fairly useless as a hunter (charging in too early, lack of cooperation, and as you mentioned killed as a result) thereby balancing out the tendency for extreme individuals. It is not age hierarchy which determines reproductive success it is dominance. Neither do subordinate members of a pack chase away a tyrannicle alpha, they merely abandon them; which by the way, leads to the creation of packs that are not made up of parents and their offspring.
Aggression and shyness are two seperate issues, and must be looked at seperatly in regards to wolf domestication . All I am saying is that it is assuming too much to say that modern wolves are difficult to domesticate as a result of our persecution.
I dont think early wolves would have been much assistence in a hunt, just because they are willing to intervene and (yes they certainly would get involved) does not mean they would be any more than a hinderance possibly causing more losses than gains, most likely dog’s earliest role was as a watch or protector. In experiments with captive wolves they were unable to hunt even when lead within signt of their intended prey because they hadn’t been taught to do so. A wolf running around willy nillychasing everything is sight is no help at all. I guess it’s possible there were situations where they could be of some assistance, but in hunting large ungulates I dont think so.
Ps. Im sorry Bridget I dont really understand your comment about capitalism, and I am writing from Canada not the US. I hope I’m not sounding argumentative I’m merely clarifying and defending my position.
I have to say I disagree. In dogs nervousness and fear very often lead to severe aggression. A lot of aggression is actually fear based. If you are extremely nervous, you’ll avoid traps, but you’ll also be suspicious of strangers, enough to kill them. I think this is a mistake to separate aggression and nervousness/fear and emotional reactivity. My experience is the most dangerous dogs are those that are nervous and fearful and very emotionally reactive.
I don’t think anyone with neoliithic technology could domesticate the wolf if wolves acted as they do now and had the same critical periods for domestication.
The wolves of Ellesmere are not as nervous, and although they do kill each other over territory, they apparently have different critical periods for socialization. Wolves from this population have been socialized to humans while suckling from their parents. This population has experienced the least persecution (Mech says no persecution).
The wolves of Ellesmere have not been persecuted (at least to the extent of the other populations), and their behavior is different. Further, I have too many historical accounts of dogs and wolves having close relationships, which you can find on this blog. Modern wolves and dogs don’t normally have these relationships at all. The ones on the Pacific Coast of Canada have long been trapped for their fur and killed for other reasons from killing dogs, to possibly killing people, to raiding traplines (which is their real sin) or (now) to increase game species. Just because they don’t have regular contact with people now doesn’t mean that their ancestors weren’t in regular contact trappers and mountain men. Most successful trappers operating out of Canada in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were lacing carcasses with various poisons (Strychnine was the favorite). The wolves that survived that were the ones that were more nervous and reactive than others
I think dog-like wolves would be very useful on the hunt, and there is too much anthropological data of hunter-gatherers using dogs of this type to increase their hunting success. Wolves have a better sense of smell than people, and if you are doing a long distance hunt, they can wear out the animals before you get there. I think they hunted with wolves in much the same way that hog hunters use pit bulls and “old fashioned” bulldogs. The wolves would catch the prey and the humans would diispatch the animal. Just in this case, we’re talking much larger prey than hogs. Man and wolf working together could bring down prey much larger than they could otherwise, Again, I’m assuming that the wolves they were using behaved very differently from the emotionally reactive modern animal.
Persecutiing wolves has been a Belyaev experiment in reverse. I don’t think you understand the magnitude of what European and Asian man has done to the wolf. There is no way that it didn’t fundamentally change the animal. Nervousness and emotional reactivity are what was selected for when you come up with a bunch of bizarre ways to kill an intelligent mammal, just as tameness and docility is what you get when you select for animals that aren’t afraid of people.
BTW, the reason why the wolves on Ellesmere kill each other over territory is pretty simply. Ellsmere is marginal wolf habitat. When North American and Eurasia were full of prey, it is likely that these relations were different. If you read Lewis and Clark’s diaries, the vast herds of bison were very good for wolves. They often just lazed about, often sharing their kills with dogs and coyotes. The animals weren’t in packs as we know them either. They were just wandering around together, eating bison. Lewis and Clark’s Newfoundland wandered freely through wolf territory, and no wolves tried to eat him (although a wolf or a Native American dog did bite one of the men on an expedition. It happened at night, so we really don’t know which did it). Turn a Newfoundland loose in wolf country today and see what happens.
I just don’t think the original wolves were like wolves are today. Neolithic people would have been unable to domesticate them, and if we take Coppinger’s theory, we actuallly have a problem. If wolves always acted this way, then Coppinger’s theory doesn’t fit. Habituated modern wolves are very dangerous animals. I don’t think Neolithic people would have put up with this at all.
Coppinger’s theory is that wolves domesticated themselves as they developed a niche based on flight distance. However, his dates are all wrong for the molecular evolution of domestic dogs, and the only way that wolves could have been domesticated is 1. they were domesticated when we were still hunter-gatherers and 2. wolves behaved differently from the way they behave today. There is no way to get around this. Despite our technology, we have domesticated only this species of large carnivore. There is something strange about this.
OK!
Thank u for your long clarifying. If the wolf has changed, so has the friend of the wolf.
See, I rely on the theory, in which the neanderthals were the first to see the advantages of the wolves. Those people hunted exactly the same pray as the canis – large pray like oxen and horse. And because the neanderthals were not a thred to the wolves in any sense, and via versa, these two strangly same type of species started to go together.
Then later, Cro Magnon Man continued that relationship in his way.
[…] at all. You have to stay in your registry and your studbook. .-= retrieverman´s last blog ..And Man Invented Animals […]