Domesticated Animals/Mentally Defective

[Milktoast]

By this I mean the earliest semi domesticated animals, from perhaps 10,000 years BP, specifically sheep. Sheep are potentially dangerous enough as moderately large animals, so a middle ground might have been a stepping stone. In speculation, a mentally defective animal could provide a symbiosis: Humans (and their dogs) protect the animal which would otherwise have a short life span, and in return get wool, meat (and later on milk). It could have been a physically handicapped one, too, or both physically and mentally handicapped. We have all probably seen very docile, kind, and happy low IQ people. I guess the same applies to animals.


Dogs were maybe 100,000 years ago. Naturally going to be attracted and repelled by campfire dwelling humans at night, it is a special early circumstance due to scraps of food left around. An outcast dog is often going to be one that can not hunt well with the pack, a physically or mentally handicapped one being a primary candidate. These would both over come their fear of fire/humans plus not be viewed as much of a threat by humans, enough to toss a food scrap in amusement. Understandably, some of these dogs would follow humans from camp to camp, setting a stage for the next step.

Physical and mental handicaps come in two main types: from birth and that developing later. From birth would strongly limit chances of survival to adulthood. Later development indicates lack of ability to develop the kind, happy, docile attitudes necessary in domesticated animals, as humans set most of these attitudes in early childhood. Perhaps a middle ground is most likely, one of moderately low IQ getting into some sort of issue later on in life, especially mid adolescence. Also, humans who have some disability might latch onto an animal having similar infirmities. Hunters have been known to do this, Jim Corbett for example.

Comments?

 

[Inferno]

I don't think that's very likely at all.

I can't find anything about the domestication of sheep that would answer the question, I guess they were caught and domesticated the same way Daniel Defoe described it in "Robinson Crusoe": Either you kill the mother/father and raise the young, or you trap the mother/father and then raise their offspring by separating them. Either way, I seriously doubt they actually tried to tame wild adult sheep.

As for dogs, you're about 70,000 years off. They were domesticated between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago. No hypothesis I've ever seen suggests mental deficiency as a cause for domestication, most suggest either the raising of orphaned wolf-cubs or the promise of food and shelter for individuals.

I think your hypothesis very unlikely.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, Milktoast!

A simpler explanation - and one more likely given the empiric evidence - is that sheep (and other wild animals) were domesticated like bison in the US for their meat: by corralling them.

In this way, they became dependent on food supplied by humans, the new-born/young become used to humans through socialisation. In other words, like puppies and kittens of breeders, the young "think" that humans are bison, sheep, goats, etc, depending on the species.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Milktoast]

As for dogs, you're about 70,000 years off. They were domesticated between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago.

I am well aware of the figure 15k to 30k, but that is established sites found. Only .5 percent or less archeology sites been found so far from the dawn of civilization, a figure seen a few days ago in a science magazine, but also the earliest sites are the most difficult. So what you are seeing is wikipedia type established records? In fact, most sites are believed to be underwater since the Ice Age flooding of seacoasts. But this is for speculation, a whole different kettle of fish than established records.

Raising the cubs/etc is one way, but not necessarily practical for a tribe on the move. Could be, as pups old enough are used as warmers (the music group Three Dog Night is a reference to sleeping in cold so bad you need three small dogs. People still do it, a hobo on a -30 below night lamenting his friends having dogs in their sleeping bags a few years ago or Aborigines in the Outback for instances. Afterwards, they are normally eaten.

Even the DNA record is not necessarily a good judge. DNA records I have seen have been about 80,000 years ago, and semi domestication or outright domestication could easily long predate that. You see, during lean times, the dogs get eaten.

Sometimes people too. I recall a fiction or nonfiction book (my mother told several times illustrating the lesser gender equality issues in the area) of an Iranian tribe having the habit of cutting off the bum of one of the women during slack time calorie wise. Peter Freuchen's wife and brother in law, Eskimos, as children barely escaped from ravenous cannibal fellow tribe women little more than a century ago. Soviet Gulag escapees often brought a long a third for 'portable lunch'.)

Once the tribes know how to tame, lots of different methods might be used, probably including my method. Unlike the other more direct methods or sub variations you mention, mine is little or never mentioned, perhaps unique. That is why I posted. I agree that straight taking a defective animal is unlikely from the field in a given year. Surely it happened over the millennia, but not as the norm. People have captured and tamed large,older animals with crude methods in our times, especially injured ones. One Here lions have improbably focused upon giraffes which have diseases, but not to tame:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0fa6ar1Uq8

Taking cubs through hunting was undoubtedly very common method, Smokey the bear or the first Pandas to hit the zoos for example. But finding a cub/calf is only half the battle. The natural tendency is to leave, Call of the Wild so to speak (Jack London's dog joins the wolves, and some dogs have intermixed with pack genes). Same goes for the second (or so) domesticated animal, that of sheep/lambs. A deficient animal, black sheep if you will, it a good prospect to stay, whether captured young, older, or especially raised from birth. Also, a female that allows in heat a pack/herd member can have

No hypothesis I've ever seen suggests mental deficiency as a cause for domestication, most suggest either the raising of orphaned wolf-cubs or the promise of food and shelter for individuals.

Which explains why really obvious things are often have development on a timely basis. One zoologist told me of a Koala researcher who had some radical theories on how they gestate. Totally savaged her reputation for decades until proof and complete acceptance, without a peep of apology or recognition forever afterwards. The process is by no means absolute -- and actually kind of an appeal to an authority, the fallacy argumentum ab auctoritate?

You state 'promise of food or shelter for individuals', in itself a potentially strong link to mentally/physically deficient animals. True, the natural instinct would be to avoid. But like Bears eating people, this instinct can be over come with the impulse of hunger & clear threat subsequent death. For example, anthropologists have speculated, with some evidence, that homo hablis to present had an advantage of breaking apart bones to get the marrow, after roasting in fire to kill germs. Few animals are able. (Hyenas jaws are able, but maybe only humans did for mastodon/wooly mammoth). In short, they could salvage a carcass many months after death, in freezing regions, and days afterwards in warm ones.

The more contaminated areas are perfect scraps to give favored animals. What better animals than ones you feel sorry for, attacked by others in the group? As a child I remember throwing food to animals (a skunk for example) from the campfire. It would hardly be any different. And in times of scarcity, this handout is an invaluable link, plus a protection against outside wolves.

Anyway, I really appreciate adding to the discussion and at least thinking of the hypothesis.

 

[Milktoast]

A simpler explanation - and one more likely given the empiric evidence - is that sheep (and other wild animals) were domesticated like bison in the US for their meat: by corralling them.

Thank you. You are very correct in the origination of sheep in mountains or canyons of Central Asia, where I guess you mean to corral them, for sheep/caprid. The human link is less clear than dog/wolves. None of them edge closer to the campfire, on average, even if the occupants have been eating plants! Wolves often do.

And unlike dogs, admittedly sheep were very possibly a one shot deal, coming well after relatively small numbers of dogs (compared to the size of a herd a small tribe can manage). In many polar areas, meat was a rarity, usually the combed fur, milk, and antlers were a more renewable source. The Masai cut a vein and drank the blood to this day to quench hunger/thirst, IIRC. In short, get rid of your herd and court death. Dogs are not as indispensable, especially the half wild dingo types believed the norm back in the day.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Only .5 percent or less archeology sites been found so far from the dawn of civilization

Didn't read past this. I have a really hard time swollowing that pill.

Without knowing the number of possible arheological sites, we can not say with any confidence that we've found any percentage of them.

Lets take the project I'm working on right now for an example. I just gave you 50 class files. What percentage of the class files did I just give you?

 

[thenexttodie]

Dogs were maybe 100,000 years ago. Naturally going to be attracted and repelled by campfire dwelling humans at night, it is a special early circumstance due to scraps of food left around. An outcast dog is often going to be one that can not hunt well with the pack, a physically or mentally handicapped one being a primary candidate. These would both over come their fear of fire/humans plus not be viewed as much of a threat by humans, enough to toss a food scrap in amusement. Understandably, some of these dogs would follow humans from camp to camp, setting a stage for the next step.

Physical and mental handicaps come in two main types: from birth and that developing later. From birth would strongly limit chances of survival to adulthood. Later development indicates lack of ability to develop the kind, happy, docile attitudes necessary in domesticated animals, as humans set most of these attitudes in early childhood. Perhaps a middle ground is most likely, one of moderately low IQ getting into some sort of issue later on in life, especially mid adolescence. Also, humans who have some disability might latch onto an animal having similar infirmities. Hunters have been known to do this, Jim Corbett for example.

Comments?

I raised a wolf pup who, even when full grown, would sneak out of my yard and scratch on the door of other peoples houses and they would let him in and he would play with their kids or other dogs or wolves that they had.

He was far easier for me to "domesticate" than any other dog I have ever owned. Especially compared to my Dalmation.

 

[Sparhafoc]

By this I mean the earliest semi domesticated animals, from perhaps 10,000 years BP, specifically sheep. Sheep are potentially dangerous enough as moderately large animals, so a middle ground might have been a stepping stone. In speculation, a mentally defective animal could provide a symbiosis: Humans (and their dogs) protect the animal which would otherwise have a short life span, and in return get wool, meat (and later on milk). It could have been a physically handicapped one, too, or both physically and mentally handicapped. We have all probably seen very docile, kind, and happy low IQ people. I guess the same applies to animals.


Dogs were maybe 100,000 years ago. Naturally going to be attracted and repelled by campfire dwelling humans at night, it is a special early circumstance due to scraps of food left around. An outcast dog is often going to be one that can not hunt well with the pack, a physically or mentally handicapped one being a primary candidate. These would both over come their fear of fire/humans plus not be viewed as much of a threat by humans, enough to toss a food scrap in amusement. Understandably, some of these dogs would follow humans from camp to camp, setting a stage for the next step.

Physical and mental handicaps come in two main types: from birth and that developing later. From birth would strongly limit chances of survival to adulthood. Later development indicates lack of ability to develop the kind, happy, docile attitudes necessary in domesticated animals, as humans set most of these attitudes in early childhood. Perhaps a middle ground is most likely, one of moderately low IQ getting into some sort of issue later on in life, especially mid adolescence. Also, humans who have some disability might latch onto an animal having similar infirmities. Hunters have been known to do this, Jim Corbett for example.

Comments?

No, seems silly and unneccessary.

Instead, you are talking about animals which live in a herd and which respond to threats by running away in that herd.

As a human, you can thereby steer them where you want them in a way very similar to hunting.

Interesting to note the etymology of the word 'steer' - it's probably Proto-IndoEuropean steu-ro-, denoting "larger domestic animal"

In terms of intelligence, a perfectly normal animal would respond this way, whereas a mentally deficient one wouldn't, and would simply be killed and eaten, taken from the gene pool.

The whole flight response is a core component of animal domestication with other species like dogs and cats. In a population of wild dogs, some are braver, some are more timid. The timid ones tend to survive more often than the brave ones because they run sooner and run longer.

However, unique opportunities may arise for the braver ones.

For example, there's some rubbish sitting just outside a human encampment. The pack can smell the wasted edible components, but they can also smell the humans, the fire, and hear the noises coming from therein.

You can watch this happen in nature. The pack will stop at an invisible line out from the target, and seem unable to move forward. This is their flight response, if they pushed further, they'd actually make themselves run away!

However, with variation in that pack, some braver animals would step further forward. All it takes is for nature to reward that behavior to create positive feedback loops. The braver dogs have a new niche only they can exploit.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I raised a wolf pup who, even when full grown, would sneak out of my yard and scratch on the door of other peoples houses and they would let him in and he would play with their kids or other dogs or wolves that they had.

He was far easier for me to "domesticate" than any other dog I have ever owned. Especially compared to my Dalmation.

:shock:

WANT!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Study throws dog domestication theories to the wolves

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

]

Greetings,

Study throws dog domestication theories to the wolves

Kindest regards,

James

Well, the article you link to suggests wolf domestication was a passive thing. It was probably both and active and passive thing. As I think I said before, wolf pups are actually more easier to raise than dog pups. Baby wolves will not piss and shit inside your house. Baby dogs will. Dogs are dumb.

I used to hang a little piece of cheese out of my mouth. My wolf would stare at me right in the fucking eye while he curled his lips back and gingerly sniped off the closest bit of cheese. A dog will not do this. Grown wolves love it when there master rests his head in the space between their shoulders and belly. And they also seem to to completely ignore young (small)kids. You have to be careful if a tall person comes inside your house when your wolf is also inside, though. Wolves seem to not like tall strangers. Also you can not train a wolf to not steal unattended food .

Wolves also have a great amount of upper body strength and will use this to solve problems differnently than normal dogs. A full grown wolf can dig a massive hole in 1 minute.

Wolves are loyal. Live much longer, and are more resistant to arthritis than dogs are. Overall despite a couple "pain in the ass" things about them, I would say wolves are actually born more domesticated than dogs are.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It was probably both and active and passive thing.

Genetic, and learned on the wolf's side. Natural variation in flight response. Or even just a few lucky incidences where a young wolf was found by a human hunter and tamed through interaction, all it would need to be is female then wild male wolves are going to sneakily do the dirty when the humans are sleeping and make more readily tamed baby wolves. The pack nature of the wolf seems to ensure they're more amenable to such a taming process.

Bit harder to explain the human action, actually. I can't imagine anyone thought 'if I raise this wolf as a pet, then it might provide useful for me". My guess is that wolf pups were considered cute.... or maybe sacred, eventually perhaps becoming a symbol of status. I expect it was quite abstract at the beginning, no more guided by the human than by the wolf - just opportunity and life doing what they do.

 

[thenexttodie]

It was probably both and active and passive thing.

Genetic, and learned on the wolf's side. Natural variation in flight response. Or even just a few lucky incidences where a young wolf was found by a human hunter and tamed through interaction, all it would need to be is female then wild male wolves are going to sneakily do the dirty when the humans are sleeping and make more readily tamed baby wolves. The pack nature of the wolf seems to ensure they're more amenable to such a taming process.

Yeah. I think your you reasoning is pretty sound here.

Bit harder to explain the human action, actually. I can't imagine anyone thought 'if I raise this wolf as a pet, then it might provide useful for me". My guess is that wolf pups were considered cute.... or maybe sacred, eventually perhaps becoming a symbol of status. I expect it was quite abstract at the beginning, no more guided by the human than by the wolf - just opportunity and life doing what they do.

I was just wondering the same thing! What would be the point of it all? All you get is a basically worthless animal that eats a ton of food! Maybe it was a social status thing like you say. Or maybe it was just...something to do? Kind of interesting, really.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I was just wondering the same thing! What would be the point of it all? All you get is a basically worthless animal that eats a ton of food! Maybe it was a social status thing like you say. Or maybe it was just...something to do? Kind of interesting, really.

I think there's a tendency to put agency onto human actions in the past that we wouldn't necessarily impute today. It's one of those problems with history. Sometimes, shit just happens.