Lara 1

Samantha Paula Ramos Lara

Professor Lynda Haas
Writing 39C
19 July 2015
HCP Draft 1: The Origin of Dog Domestication
Although the dog is the oldest domesticated animal, scientists today are still unable to
agree on how dogs were domesticated. One of the earliest theories to account for the origin of the
dog was based in Charles Darwins The Origin of the Species, which suggested that artificial
selection was the reason. With the topic of canine domestication, I will review the different
theoretical narratives written by various scholars based on the idea that wolves are the ancestors
of dogs. This distinction is important because there has been research that suggests dogs and
wolves share a common ancestor; if so, there may be discrepancies within the theories. I will
review the theories based on different points of emphasis: humans, wolves, and both. In other
words, I will look at theories where humans are the center of domestication, wolves are the
center of domestication, and both humans and wolves are the center of domestication. I will
begin with archeological evidence of interactions between wolves and humans as a foundation
for the human domestication theory, which agrees with human selection. Then, I will address the
self-domestication theory in which the Coppingers argue that the wolf, or rather the incipient
dog, was a scavenger. A similar, but alternative theory to that of the Coppingers, proposed by
Marshall-Pescini and Kaminski, will be next. Finally, I will discuss the theory of human-dog coevolution offered by Schleidt and Shalter.
It would be strange to attribute the domestication of dogs to precisely one method. This
review is intended to explore the domestication of the dog by examining the different theories
that appear to be viable given different kinds of evidence. Each theory varies on the role that

Lara 2
humans play, from a high emphasis on human interference to a co-dependence. Nonetheless, the
rich history between humans and dogs makes one question the sometimes controlling
relationship we have with them. By the end of the review, I return to address the extent of human
interference on dog characteristics and question the ethics certain practices such as puppy mills
or selective breeding for traits.
Even more ambiguous than how the dog was domesticated was when the dog was
domesticated. Based on recent archaeological findings of Palaeolithic dog skulls altered by
humans, the domestication of the dog may have started in the Upper Paleolithic period.
Excavated by Mietje Germonpr, a paleontologist at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural
Sciences, and her team, the skulls were characterized by short skull lengths, short snouts, and
wide palates and braincases relative to wolves. During the Paleolithic period, hunter-gatherers
characterized human society. However, wolf and early hominid remains have been found buried
together from as far back as the Middle Pleistocene period. Such an early interaction, about
300,000 years ago, could suggest the beginning of the human and wolf relationship (Serpell 8).
James Serpell, the director of the Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society at the
University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine with research interests that include
the history and impact of human-animal relationships, argues that domestication process began
through caring for wolf pups. Although hunter-gatherers killed wolves and used their fur as a
source of clothing they would occasionally take wolf pups back to become habituated to the
family group and be tamed (10). As a result, the group of tamed wolf pups in the human village
are reproductively isolated from the wild population; successive breeding would eventually
produce a domestic species that would multiply in numbers and be genetically changed by
natural selection in response to the factors in the new, human environment (15). Specifically,
what was observed was a reduction in head and body size, quicker maturation, larger litter sizes,

Lara 3
and increased fecundity (16). Serpell also notes the later stage of artificial selection for certain
traits fur color, coat length, leg length, tail structure, and ear structure eventually led to the
different breeds of dogs seen today. (archaeology sets the stage)
However, Raymond Coppinger, professor emeritus of biology, and Lorna Coppinger, dog
trainer, question the genetic process of the human-centered theory of domestication. Instead, they
refer to the human-domestication theory as the Pinocchio Hypothesis (Coppinger & Coppinger
41). The Coppingers make the distinction that wolves can be taught to exhibit tame behavior, but
that dogs are genetically tame and trainable. To support their claim, the Coppingers cite the
studies of Swedish wolf biologist Erik Zimen. In the first study, Zimen raised wolf pups in an
attempt to socialize them, but was unable to succeed. In another study, Zimen attempted to train
a group of wolves how to pull a sled; the wolves eventually accepted the harness but were
ineffective and unreliable as sled pullers (48). Instead, the Coppingers argue that the
characteristic of flight distance, the ability to eat in proximity to people (60) was the onset of
domestication. To be successful scavengers, wolves subsequently acquired a smaller size, teeth,
head, and brain that looked similar to dogs. In addition, the reduction in size was less energy
intensive. The wolves were adapting to a certain niche and the incipient dog was introduced.
Sarah Marshall-Pescini and Juliane Kaminski, animal cognition researcher and
psychology lecturer at the University of Portsmouth who does research on cooperation among
individuals, respectively, propose a variation to the self-domestication theory. The main
argument behind this self-domestication hypothesis is that the domestication of wolves was
based on selection against aggressive behavior and fear during human encounters. In contrast to
the human selection theory, which argues that humans select for favorable traits, the selfdomestication theory explains that selection pressure was exerted on wolves that were less
aggressive or fearful. The wolves may have had selection advantage because being less

Lara 4
aggressive and less fearful towards humans have them the opportunity to live in closer proximity
to them, hence the opportunity to exploit new and potentially more reliable food sources. In
other words, wolves that were approachable to humans had new opportunities to survive. It is
hypothesized that wolves and humans had a relationship in which both groups used the skills of
the other group to ensure a higher success rate in hunting. More specifically, the relationship
between human and wolf was based on reciprocal scavenging of each others prey. Unlike the
human domestication hypothesis, the humans did not attempt to control the behavior of the
wolves. But because the presence of wolves made hunting more efficient, it is probable that
humans were inclined to share food with their partners. Rather, the food that was shared could
have been parts that humans had trouble handling, such as bones. Humans had the tools to
successfully kill larger prey; wolves were faster and were more skilled at tracking and
immobilizing prey (Marshall-Pescini & Kaminski 14).
Both theories by the Coppingers and Marshall-Pescini and Kaminski cite the he famous
silver fox farm experiments, initiated by evolutionary biologist Dmitri Belyaev to illustrate how
selective pressure for certain traits less aggression and fear affected the morphology and
behavior of a species. Over a span of 50 years, researchers simulated selection pressure in which
the foxes were selected for tameness; these foxes exhibited behaviors where they would be
eager to establish human contact, whimper to attract attention, and sniff and lick
experimenters like dogs. (Trut 163). Despite the initial premise of selecting foxes based on one
trait, tameness, the researchers received foxes that were not only tame, but also different in
morphology. After about 30 generations of breeding, the morphological changes became obvious
(WHAT ARE THESE CHANGES). The characteristics seen in the foxes reflect what is seen in
most domesticated dogs today. According to the Coppingers, the findings from the experiment

Lara 5
are evidence that the evolution from wolf to dog was due to natural selection that started with a
tame scavenger that is adapted to feeding within close proximity to humans.
In contrast, Wolfgang Schleidt and Michael D.
Shalter, who are evolutionary professors at the University
of Vienna, argue that early humans and wolves evolved
together though co-evolution. Based on fossil evidence and
genetic evidence, it appears that the first dogs separated
from wolves in an area and at a time when Neanderthals
were the only hominids within the distribution range of
wolves (66). Neanderthals slowly formed a
companionship with pastoralist wolves, illustrated in Figure

Fig 1. A graphic summary of Schleidt and Shalters

theory of human and wolf co-evolution.

1; it was a gradual integration that allowed the process of

co-evolution to take place due to the mutualism between both groups. The wolves frequently
hunted reindeer, controlling the population size. The companionship thrived for reasons similar
to the theory proposed by Marshall-Pescini and Kaminski. In an act of mutual teamwork, wolves
would chase the large herds to evoke a mobbing response while Neanderthals would gather and
finish off the prey. As both groups underwent co-evolution, humans were able to live in many
different ways as hunters, gatherers, gardeners, fishers, and eventually agriculturists. Similarly,
dogs adopted a different lifestyle compared to their ancestors in ways that complemented
human skills and satisfied human needs in many ways beyond herding and hunting (Schleidt &
Shalter 70).
In conclusion, it is clear to see that there are many ways of viewing and interpreting the
theory of dog domestication. Nonetheless, it is just as obvious that we share a rich history with
dogs; our relationship with them has been interconnected for a very long time. Based on this

Lara 6
information, questions about our treatment towards dogs today come to the surface. How can we
let our deep-seated companions undergo the neglect and abuse seen in puppy mills? Faced with
overcrowded, unsanitary conditions every individual dog involved in the process suffers.
According to the ASPCA, many puppies inherit diseases because owners often fail to apply
proper breeding practices. Even worse, female dogs are bred as much as possible in order to
maximize profits. Despite the fact that dogs have diversified into hundreds of breeds, why do we
not think twice about the negative health effects of some of the traits that certain breeds inherit?
Some characteristics that breeders knowingly breed for are a direct health issue to the dog. As a
result, dogs can inherit skin problems, blood disorders, orthopedic disorders, and cancer. We
must look beyond our own selfish desires, such as money and aesthetics, and into the well being
of the dogs themselves. In order to respect the relationship we have with dogs and their
unconditional love for us, it is imperative that we address these issues and make an effort to
resolve them.

Lara 7
Works Cited
Coppinger, Raymond, and Lorna Coppinger. "Wolves Evolve Into Dogs." Dogs: A New
Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 2002. 38-67. Print.
Germonpr, Mietje, Martina Lznikov-Galetov, and Mikhail V. Sablin. "Palaeolithic Dog
Skulls at the Gravettian Pedmost Site, the Czech Republic." Journal of Archaeological
Science 39.1 (2012): 184-202. Web.
Kaminski, Juliane, and Sarah Marshall-Pescini. The Social Dog: Behaviour and Cognition. San
Diego: Academic Press, 2014. Print.
Schleidt, Wolfgang M., and Michael D. Shalter. "Co-evolution of Humans and Canids."
Evolution and Cognition 9.1 (2003): 57-72. Print.
Serpell, James. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with People.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995. Print.
Trut, Lyudmila. "Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment." American Scientist
87.2 (1999): 160-69. Web.