Ancient sighthounds

[sandymere 8,263]

Hunting for sport is the link between man and dog, survival comes a long way before sport. Until humans were in excess of their needs sport hunting would have been unlikely. When your sitting on a big pile of grain or owning a big herd of sheep etc then you might decide to have a bit of sport. Dogs can only be in excess of their needs with humans as they don’t store. See the link to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, you need to fulfil the base before you can move up, the same for any animal.

Dogs, cats etc hunt instinctively as part of their survival traits, ie cat playing with a mouse, so enjoying hunting is a survival trait.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

[rob284 1,682]

the problem with any of this is that we're all coming at it from different angles, Coming from a hunting point of view, i know my dog doesn't hunt with eating in mind, food as such is not his intention, he just wants to hunt , because he is driven to do it,,

when you take the food issue out of it, which i believe there was plenty for everyone, the only thing left is the hunt

i just cant believe the wolf was attracted to man just to eat his shite,,

true, man wanted dogs as a tool, and domestication allowed that. wolfs hunted fine without us. probably better. domestication has made them less of a hunter and more of a companion that can hunt.

[juckler123 707]

A lot of breeds of dog are useless and quite a few breeds far apart from what they were origanily bred for.

Some of the old line lurchers still have a lot of wild ways about them having pups in holes regurgitating food etc one of the things that endeared me to the old traveller bred stock was the feral ways it had and craftyness in abundance.

[Casso 1,261]

interesting reading there sandy,thanks for that,,and hunting is the link between man and wolf,

sport is such a recent term the concept of which has a completely different meaning, a lot of which is to do with competition,

hunting for me has almost a primal aspect to it, i cant explain the attraction in words instinctual you could say and its the same in the dog,

is it a basic need in mankind like it seems to be in the dog,

society today allows humans to express certain primitive traits through sport and other activities, and as humans have become urbanized get further away from their natural roots but i feel the primal motivation of our activities is based on an urge to achieve a goal by overcoming resistance in whatever shape that takes , be it taking down a bison or putting a goal in the back of the net,,

so what i saying is hunting is such a deep rooted drive in both man and wolf is was only a matter of time before it clicked in place ,no other animal could have achieved such a union because no other animal can feel what we feel like the canine

if ive read your posting wrong my mistake, interesting thoughts,

Edited March 14, 2012 by Casso

[Tsayad 88]

http://www.nytimes.c...r=2&ref=science

 

found this ,thought it was interesting how the wolf was viewed by the native American, a symbiotic relationship in it's true form

 

Given the distance and variation between tribes, it is not reasonable to speak of "Native American Culture" as a single, consistent entity. There is historical evidence of some tribes considering the wolf to be a competitor, to be killed in order to preserve sometimes scarce resources.

 

Let's not romanticise either wolves or hunter-gatherer lifestyles, either. Most canines will scavenge if the opportunity presents itself, and most hunter-gatherers experienced periods of shortage as well as periods of plenty. Inclement weather was just as common then as now, and they were far less well-equipped to deal with it.

 

Some ate canines. Maybe the first domesticated canine was a pup/cub that was surplus to immediate dietary needs and was kept "in case of need" until it proved more useful as a hunting assett than as potential food. Just because we think of dogs in a certain way doesn't mean that people always have,

[Sherlock 42]

Taking an animal from the wild and taming it does not count as domestication, there are six criteria that must be adhered to before any animal is classed as domesticated, they are as below pasted from wiki. Flexible diet — Creatures that are willing to consume a wide variety of food sources and can live off less cumulative food from the food pyramid (such as corn or wheat), particularly food that is not utilized by humans (such as grass and forage) are less expensive to keep in captivity. Carnivores by definition feed primarily or only on animal tissue, which requires the expenditure of many animals, though they may exploit sources of meat not utilized by humans, such as scraps and vermin.

Reasonably fast growth rate — Fast maturity rate compared to the human life span allows breeding intervention and makes the animal useful within an acceptable duration of caretaking. Large animals such as elephants require many years before they reach a useful size.

Ability to be bred in captivity — Creatures that are reluctant to breed when kept in captivity do not produce useful offspring, and instead are limited to capture in their wild state. Creatures such as the panda, antelope and giant forest hog are territorial when breeding and cannot be maintained in crowded enclosures in captivity.

Pleasant disposition — Large creatures that are aggressive toward humans are dangerous to keep in captivity. The African buffalo has an unpredictable nature and is highly dangerous to humans; similarly, although the American bison is raised in enclosed ranges in the US West, it is much too dangerous to be regarded as truly domesticated. Although similar to the domesticated pig in many ways, the American peccary and Africa's warthog and bushpig are also dangerous in captivity. However one must keep in mind that most(if not all) modern large domestic animals were descendants of extremely aggressive ancestors, the wild boar is certainly renowned for its ferocity, other examples include the aurochs, horse, Bactrian camels and yaks, etc.; all of which are extremely dangerous in their wild state(or at least no less dangerous than their undomesticated wild relatives such as zebras and buffalos). On the other hand for thousands of years humans have managed to tame dangerous species like the elephants, bears and cheetahs whose failed domestications had little to do with their aggressiveness.

Temperament which makes it unlikely to panic — A creature with a nervous disposition is difficult to keep in captivity as it may attempt to flee whenever startled. The gazelle is very flighty and it has a powerful leap that allows it to escape an enclosed pen. Some animals, such as the domestic sheep, still have a strong tendency to panic when their flight zone is encroached upon. However, most sheep also show a flocking instinct, whereby they stay close together when pressed. Livestock with such an instinct may be herded by people and dogs.

Modifiable social hierarchy — Social creatures that recognize a hierarchy of dominance can be raised to recognize a human as the pack leader.

[tinytiger 822]

Thanks people, for your open minds! For your information Cuvier was undeniably one of the greatest minds in Science. Darwin was an amateur! And No, I am not religeous or a cult member, or taking drugs, prescribed or otherwise. I'm impressed by Born Hunter, who took the trouble to google Cuvier.... Good Man! So we have at least one person not completely sleep walking! Out of interest Skycat (I loved your book by the way!), how do you propose primitive man picked their original 'docile' wolf cubs and then found other 'docile' types to mate them with? And during their breeding programmes, how did they keep the masses of other wild wolves away from their she wolves/ bitches in season? Quite a trick! Its a fact that tetraploid grain crops appeared out of nowhere around 5000 years ago and have no near wild cousins. Farm livestock breeds abound that have no obvious wild origin, especially the domestic pig. It's been suggested that these have human DNA in there makeup, which is why we can use pig heart valves as replacements in humans...FACT! Just because TPTB don't teach these things in school, doesn't mean they aren't true. Wake up! Try googling 'Helicopter of Abydos'. From the same region that produced your Ancient Sighthounds, and just one example of many that technology greater than ours was available to Mankind thousands of years ago!

possibly the ancient people and their dogs lived in places that are under the sea now as the sea rose after the ice age covering evidence of them..Perhaps the people with wheat,domesticated animals,towns etc were gone someplace else and spread out again 5000 years ago.

[Casso 1,261]

http://www.nytimes.c...r=2&ref=science

 

found this ,thought it was interesting how the wolf was viewed by the native American, a symbiotic relationship in it's true form

 

Given the distance and variation between tribes, it is not reasonable to speak of "Native American Culture" as a single, consistent entity. There is historical evidence of some tribes considering the wolf to be a competitor, to be killed in order to preserve sometimes scarce resources.

 

Let's not romanticise either wolves or hunter-gatherer lifestyles, either. Most canines will scavenge if the opportunity presents itself, and most hunter-gatherers experienced periods of shortage as well as periods of plenty. Inclement weather was just as common then as now, and they were far less well-equipped to deal with it.

 

Some ate canines. Maybe the first domesticated canine was a pup/cub that was surplus to immediate dietary needs and was kept "in case of need" until it proved more useful as a hunting assett than as potential food. Just because we think of dogs in a certain way doesn't mean that people always have,

well thats a different twist on it, we kept wolves as food , tasty im sure, but to dismiss the link between what we both have in common , the drive to hunt with the ability to work in groups to defeat large animals,

 

is it just a coincidence that we have canines bred to hunt virtually any animal possible ,from luring ducks into traps to herding sheep to sniffing out truffles for man, its all the hunting instinct manipulated by man,, its because of the hunt we have so many breeds and also why we have the dog in the first place ,

[sandymere 8,263]

I'd agree with casso that humans also have an innate hunting instinct. For predators there is pleasure in the hunt itself and so the cat plays with the mouse to continue the pleasure of the hunt, if it was just hunting to eat it would kill and eat straight away. The ancestors of cats, dogs and man along with all predators who did not enjoy hunting would have died out so over time those that found pleasure in the act of hunting bred and enforced/passed on this genetic predisposition.

[Casso 1,261]

I'd agree with casso that humans also have an innate hunting instinct. For predators there is pleasure in the hunt itself and so the cat plays with the mouse to continue the pleasure of the hunt, if it was just hunting to eat it would kill and eat straight away. The ancestors of cats, dogs and man along with all predators who did not enjoy hunting would have died out so over time those that found pleasure in the act of hunting bred and enforced/passed on this genetic predisposition.

thats a really interesting point sandymere,

[Tsayad 88]

well thats a different twist on it, we kept wolves as food , tasty im sure so many breeds and also why we have the dog in the first place ,

 

Roald Amundsen thought so...

"...there is the obvious advantage that dog can be fed on dog. One can reduce one's pack little by little, slaughtering the feebler ones and feeding the chosen with them. In this way they get fresh meat. Our dogs lived on dog's flesh and pemmican the whole way, and this enabled them to do splendid work. And if we ourselves wanted a piece of fresh meat we could cut off a delicate little fillet; it tasted to us as good as the best beef. The dogs do not object at all; as long as they get their share they do not mind what part of their comrade's carcass it comes from. All that was left after one of these canine meals was the teeth of the victim - and if it had been a really hard day, these also disappeared."^[14]

 

I do not dismiss the shared instinct to hunt. It's one of the keenest delights that I find in hunting with dogs... their obvious enthusiasm. However when it comes down to primitive hunter-gatherers, I find utility a more credible motivation than entertainment.

[sandymere 8,263]

well thats a different twist on it, we kept wolves as food , tasty im sure so many breeds and also why we have the dog in the first place ,

 

Roald Amundsen thought so...

"...there is the obvious advantage that dog can be fed on dog. One can reduce one's pack little by little, slaughtering the feebler ones and feeding the chosen with them. In this way they get fresh meat. Our dogs lived on dog's flesh and pemmican the whole way, and this enabled them to do splendid work. And if we ourselves wanted a piece of fresh meat we could cut off a delicate little fillet; it tasted to us as good as the best beef. The dogs do not object at all; as long as they get their share they do not mind what part of their comrade's carcass it comes from. All that was left after one of these canine meals was the teeth of the victim - and if it had been a really hard day, these also disappeared."^[14]

 

I do not dismiss the shared instinct to hunt. It's one of the keenest delights that I find in hunting with dogs... their obvious enthusiasm. However when it comes down to primitive hunter-gatherers, I find utility a more credible motivation than entertainment.

 

Indeed utility would be key to a hunter gatherer which is why I consider it unlikely that true hunter gathers had dogs, rather it was the pastoralist etc who did the domestication. Whether dogs had already evolved prior to this is unknown but worth conjecture.

[greg64 2,794]

Formidable Skycat! Have you ever asked yourself why anyone would want to live in a cave? Cold, damp, dark holes that they are! Light a fire and smoke yourself out! Yet everyone accepts we had 'Caveman' ancestors. Also, cave art is hardly George Stubbs or Charles Tunnicliffe is it? I wouldn't like to try and draw too many conclusions from it. However, I like your logic. I don't think my bitches would stand still to have their vulva stapled, by the way! But I digress! Have you ever considered that the Classification of Canines might be incomplete! At the moment it stops at 'Species'. If you look a little closer to home eg Man, you can see that we are a species sub-divided into obvious RACES ie Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongaloid. Other animals have similar relationships eg you can cross a domestic cat with a Bengal cat , or a Scottish Wildcat and still get fertile off-spring. Is it possible that the Dolichocephalic type of dog was a seperate Race of canine, possibly originating in the Middle East? As I mentioned, the Egyptians hunted with both Greyhounds and Cheetahs. Do you suggest that the Cheetah evolved from another type of cat by selective breeding? Or might it be an 'Original' type?

i dont think the caveman gave a flying f.. were the dogs came from origionally or the egyptians as long as they filled the pot he was happy ......wonder if they had bull x,s or beddy whippets ,, then ?or did they just drop out of the sky?

I don't pretend to have all the answers but I'm just amazed that no one seems to question the official line. Mad I might be but if the rest of the population are 'sane' that's ok with me! Google is a 'for profit' corporation. When you google something, the first sites offered to you are sponsored ie someone is PAYING so that you read them first! FACT! Ask yourself, who would be paying so that if you google 'Helicopter at Abydos' you get a page full of conspiracy DEBUNKING sites? TPTB don't want you looking at this stuff and unfortunately most of the population don't look any further than a site or 2 full of ridicule! Antis aren't the only brain-washed ones! Try looking at page 4 or 5 of stuff you google if you want to get past the Government Disinformation stuff. I dare you..... stop being so smug and try it!

Whos paying for this? And why would the powers that be want people to think its a conspiracy? To save money on re-writing a few textbooks? Its you that's seeing conspiracy everywhere. I dont see what covering up ancient history would gain... atb

Good question! Someone is paying for sure, look for yourself! Most people wouldn't even bother looking, coz the media have done such a good job of making the idea ridiculous. It's a fact that gold plated artifacts were discovered in the pyramids...... you need ELECTRICITY to gold plate things! Up until 100 years ago we had gas or oil lighting in Britain! Where did that knowledge go for 4000 years? By the way, no human remains have every been found in a pyramid but we are told they were built as tombs!

they actualy electroplated useing lemon juice,you can get 0 .5 volts which is just enough to gold plate things,

[Casso 1,261]

well thats a different twist on it, we kept wolves as food , tasty im sure so many breeds and also why we have the dog in the first place ,

 

Roald Amundsen thought so...

"...there is the obvious advantage that dog can be fed on dog. One can reduce one's pack little by little, slaughtering the feebler ones and feeding the chosen with them. In this way they get fresh meat. Our dogs lived on dog's flesh and pemmican the whole way, and this enabled them to do splendid work. And if we ourselves wanted a piece of fresh meat we could cut off a delicate little fillet; it tasted to us as good as the best beef. The dogs do not object at all; as long as they get their share they do not mind what part of their comrade's carcass it comes from. All that was left after one of these canine meals was the teeth of the victim - and if it had been a really hard day, these also disappeared."^[14]

 

I do not dismiss the shared instinct to hunt. It's one of the keenest delights that I find in hunting with dogs... their obvious enthusiasm. However when it comes down to primitive hunter-gatherers, I find utility a more credible motivation than entertainment.

 

Indeed utility would be key to a hunter gatherer which is why I consider it unlikely that true hunter gathers had dogs, rather it was the pastoralist etc who did the domestication. Whether dogs had already evolved prior to this is unknown but worth conjecture.

interesting stuff , i have no problem with dogs been eaten by early man , it is highly likely and still goes on today, but what im getting at is, that through the hunt both man and wolf following the large game herds over gods know how long, a trust and understanding developed between the two species which allowed the development of the dog,

 

i dont believe the normally trotted out story where a wolf cub was taken from a den and through rearing became tame and went to work for man, it just dont work like that ,

 

what i believe could have happened is that the ground work was already there through previous generations of man and wolf , a trust formed through the act of hunting which allowed a familiarity to develop through genetic association, meaning that fear which is the blocking effect of social became diluted allowing integration between the two species,which it turn caused mutations in certain wolves not unlike the Russian fox experiment,

 

so what im trying to say is the wolf domesticated himself into the dog through association with man, not this half assed line about taking wild cubs and domesticating them, if that was to happen in some cases i believe the ground work would have already been put in place through previous generations of integration where a trust had already been generated,,

Edited March 16, 2012 by Casso

[Tsayad 88]

Casso...

 

Problem with the idea that trust developed gradually and mutually is that canines do not develop a collective memory and learn by revelation, as humans do..

 

My thinking on this is influenced by behaviour demonstrated by the local canines. Canis Lupus Dingo, a subspecies of the Grey wolf.

These wild canines hunt coooperatively, and they also hunt utilising natural and man-made features. If a canine can learn that chasing prey into a wire fence makes for an easier kill, I see no reason why they cannot learn that chasing prey to humans does the same thing. Likewise, having spent my whole life with dogs, I can easily imagine that a young dog socialised with people would prove useful in doing no more than what comes naturally, finding prey.

 

What is more, they exist in parallel both as a wild population and as "tame" occupiers of aboriginal encampments. By all accounts, this situation existed well before white settlement on this continent, and had nothing to do with close settlement, herd or agriculture. Only in a nomad, hunter-gatherer context.

 

Incidentally, if you have ever spent a cold night without adequate insulation, you will know how much warmth a dog can provide. Two JRTs can have me opening the cover of the swag, even when there is frost on the canvas.