Domestic Dogs May Have Origins In Asia And Europe

[samoyedman]

Humans may have domesticated dogs two separate times, taming wolves both in Europe and Asia thousands of years ago, according to new research.

A major international research project may have cleared some of the controversy surrounding the origins of man's best friend, which has until now remained a mystery with two primary hypotheses.

The first holds that humans domesticated dogs for the first time in Europe more than 15,000 years ago.

Opposing researchers believe the domestication happened approximately 12,500 years ago in Central Asia or China.

The new study, published in the American journal Science, suggests both claims might carry weight.

"Maybe the reason there hasn't been a consensus about where dogs were domesticated is because everyone has been a little bit right," Oxford University Greg Larson said.

Researchers used ancient DNA evidence and the archaeological record of early dog species in their research.

The project involved sequencing for the first time the genome of a 4,800-year-old dog at Trinity College in Dublin.

That dog's bones came from the Neolithic Passage Tomb of Newgrange, Ireland, a contemporary of Stonehenge in England.

The team also used mitochondrial DNA from 59 ancient dogs who lived between 14,000 and 3,000 years ago, comparing the samples to genetic traits of more than 2,500 modern dogs.

Theory could prove domesticating animals 'easier than thought'

Their findings suggested dogs were separately domesticated both in Europe and in Asia, and later mixed as humans migrated across the continent, meaning most dogs today were a genetic mix of their Asian and European ancestors.

The new hypothesis would explain in part why scientists have had a hard time interpreting previous genetic studies.

The double-origin theory could also suggest that cats and pigs were domesticated multiple times, said Peter Savolainen, a geneticist at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

"If domestication only happened in one place, it was probably a very hard thing to do," he said.

"But if it happened twice, maybe it wasn't as hard as we thought."

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

The first holds that humans domesticated dogs for the first time in Europe more than 15,000 years ago.

Opposing researchers believe the domestication happened approximately 12,500 years ago in Central Asia or China.

So what happened in Australia? We know Aboriginies arrived between 45,000 and 60,000 years ago (depending which group you look at eg Tasmanians have probably been here the longest).

And some of them brought dogs? Or were the puppies gifted to them much later by Indonesian traders? Because we know the dogs came with the humans. But when?

Tho the relationship between aboriginals and dogs is not like owner and pet. It's more like flat mates.

[Redsonic]

The first holds that humans domesticated dogs for the first time in Europe more than 15,000 years ago.

Opposing researchers believe the domestication happened approximately 12,500 years ago in Central Asia or China.

So what happened in Australia? We know Aboriginies arrived between 45,000 and 60,000 years ago (depending which group you look at eg Tasmanians have probably been here the longest).

And some of them brought dogs? Or were the puppies gifted to them much later by Indonesian traders? Because we know the dogs came with the humans. But when?

Tho the relationship between aboriginals and dogs is not like owner and pet. It's more like flat mates.

It is thought that the Dingo arrived about 5000 years ago via traders from Asia. Never made it to Tasmania, hence the Thylacine survived there until the arrival of Europeans. The Dingo likely contributed to the extinction of Thylacines on the mainland about 2500 years ago.

Most people imagine early domestic dogs were valued as hunting companions, but it is more likely to be the "flat mate" arrangement you mention. Camp dogs provide an early warning system of the arrival of hostile neighbours, they scavenge up the garbage, and would even be a source of food when resources are scarce.

[moosmum]

Other research/discoveries put domestication down as even earlier, about 30,000 years or more. About the time Modern Man separated from Neanderthal Man, possibly allowing for the split.

I don't think it would have been difficult, Once wolves started to hang around human settlements. There would have been individuals that distinguished themselves for being less fearful more curious and eventualy willing to co-operate for mutualy beneficial purposes.

Even now, after centuries of being persecuted and effectively culled for the trait, once in a while an individual will come to attention for its willingness to interact with humans.

Edited June 4, 2016 by moosmum

[Redsonic]

Other research/discoveries put domestication down as even earlier, about 30,000 years or more. About the time Modern Man separated from Neanderthal Man, possibly allowing for the split.

There are some intriguing 30 000 year old footprints preserved in a cave in Europe which seem to suggest that a boy and a dog were walking together.

Modern man and Neanderthal man actually separated about 180 000 years ago. Neanderthal man was adapted to European conditions (pale skin, large nose to warm cold air, stocky body to help preserve heat) but went extinct approx 30 000 years ago, about the time modern man made it to Western Europe. Like the Dingo and the Thylacine, the new arrivals probably contributed to the extinction of Neanderthal man, although there was some intermixing, and non African people today carry about 2-5% Neanderthal genes.

Even now, after centuries of being persecuted and effectively culled for the trait, once in a while an individual will come to attention for its willingness to interact with humans.

This is very true. Wolves alive today are likely to be far, far more cautious of humans than their predecessors due to generations of persecution and inadvertent selection for wariness.

[moosmum]

Ahhh!

That makes more sense! :)

[sandgrubber]

I was surprised by this study. IMO multiple origin is more likely than single origin. If you travel in Amazonia, you find people adopting and semi-domesticating parrots all over the place. I'm sure the same is true for other domestications (Cormorants in China, hawks all over Europe, . . . .) plus that Belyaev's fox domestication showed that many individual foxes were predisposed to being friendly to humans.

Dual origin seems as unlikely as single origin.

The genetic work shows a bifurcation between European and Asian breeds. But I don't think anyone can exclude multiple origins in both Europe and Asia.

[Akayla]

Yes I was surprised by this study as I thought the evidence suggested much earlier domestication. That if anything we have evolved pretty much together, the dog coming from a common ancestor of the grey wolf (not actually the grey wolf).

http://www.livescience.com/50928-wolf-genome-dog-ancient-ancestor.html

and this one sums it up pretty nicely suggesting even earlier dates.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203554104577001843790269560

[Redsonic]

Yes I was surprised by this study as I thought the evidence suggested much earlier domestication. That if anything we have evolved pretty much together, the dog coming from a common ancestor of the grey wolf (not actually the grey wolf).

http://www.livescience.com/50928-wolf-genome-dog-ancient-ancestor.html

and this one sums it up pretty nicely suggesting even earlier dates.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203554104577001843790269560

Thanks for the links. The first one was really interesting. People have long tried to argue that domestication occurred much earlier than the fossil evidence suggests, and DNA research will, I think, finally provide the answer.

The Wall St Journal article was written by Mark Derr. I tried to read his book: How the Dog Became the Dog: From Wolves to Our Best Friends, but I couldn't finish it. He is a journalist and the book seemed to me to be about conjecture and opinion rather than science and fact. He made lots of statements about the antiquity of the dog and how humans and wolves connected without revealing any convincing sources. If read as a hypothesis, I suppose the book would be OK, and the Wall St Journal article you linked to was well worth reading.