A Dog's History of the World: Canines and the Domestication of Humans

by Laura Hobgood-Oster

Canines and humans have depended upon one another for tens of thousands of years. Humans took the initial steps of domesticating canines, but somewhere through the millennia, dogs began dramatically to affect the future of their masters. In A Dog's History of the World , Laura Hobgood-Oster chronicles the canine-human story. From the earliest cave paintings depicting the primitive canine-human relationship to the modern model of dogs as family members, Hobgood-Oster reveals how the relationship has been marked by both love and exploitation.
Canines have aided and been heir to humankind's ever-increasing thirst for scientific advancements, empire building, and personal satisfaction. They have tested equipment for space exploration, fought beside us in war, and advanced countless industries. But Hobgood-Oster reminds us that, just as canines would not have flourished without humans, humans would not have flourished without canines.
They have been our healers, licking wounds and providing therapy to the sick and troubled for countless years. Weaving together archaeology, history, and literature, Laura Hobgood-Oster conclusively shows that humans would not be what they are without the presence and influence of canines, that the human-canine relationship has never been one sided, and that humanity's temptation to exploit canines is never far away.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Dogs, Science, Animals

200 pages, Hardcover

First published April 1, 2014

Reviews

[Peacegal · Rating 2 out of 5]

I received a free copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for my honest review.

Dogs are the first animals humans domesticated, and have been at our sides since long before recorded history. This book seeks to trace the foot- and paw prints made side-by-side as our two very different, yet uniquely bonded, species have made our way together. Indeed, the author writes that dogs in human society are

Not fully animals, but not fully human, they both bridge the gap and exist within it.

And this certainly seems to be the case. We all know people who are indifferent to, or actively engage in, harming many other types of animals yet dote over a beloved dog.

In tracing the routes by which the dog may have been domesticated, the author cites famous Russian study on silver foxes. Researchers found that they could, through careful and controlled breeding, influence the personalities and behavior of this wild canid:

After six generations of aggressively selecting and breeding the most tamable…these foxes eagerly sought human companionship, even licking the hands of the experimenters and whining to get their attention. … It is important to note that the farm-fox experiment was obviously very intentional and forceful with only the most elite foxes selected.

Interestingly, in an example of form following function, the tame foxes began to look less like wild foxes and more like dogs.

Over hundreds of years, dogs have been shaped both physically and behaviorally to do specific tasks asked of them by humans. As the author writes:

Some are made to dig, others to swim, others to run at amazing speeds, others to sit on laps.

And some are made to fight, though Hobgood-Oster is loath to acknowledge it.

In a previous book, The Friends We Keep: Unleashing Christianity's Compassion for Animals, the author showed signs of being swayed by the considerable power of the pit bull ownership/breeding lobby, but she was at least up-front and serious about the reason these dogs were originally bred and why many of them continue to be bred. Unfortunately, in the time period between these books, she seems to have fallen completely down the pit advocacy rabbit hole. The author repeats uncritically many of the talking points made by these advocates, even when they directly contradict statements she made just a chapter or two earlier.

Pit bulls are controversial because of the inconvenient truth that they inflict the majority of fatal attacks and disfiguring maulings upon both adults and children , and have done so for years. They also attack other pets, particularly other dogs, at a disproportionate rate, which should be of great concern to those who identify as animal lovers.

However, pit bulls are also a big business. They are bred primarily by “backyard breeders” looking for a quick buck. The bloodsport of dog fighting, though illegal, makes tremendous sums of money for those willing to risk becoming involved. Breed registries and animal “owners’” groups fight for the “right” to own whatever canine property an individual wishes. Meanwhile, shelters and animal advocates have found themselves swept up in this mess because they don’t want to see the never-ending tide of unwanted and “surplus” pit bulls euthanized. Throw into this mix a kennel full of celebrity dog trainers, wannabes, and assorted grifters and hangers-on who center their businesses on the fighting breeds. The pit bull advocacy sector is surprisingly large, and it is believed that more groups work for pit bulls than any other specific type of dog.

One seemingly self-defeating argument frequently made by pit bull advocates, and repeated numerous times by this author, is that there is “no such thing as a pit bull.” Even though you can register your American Pit Bull Terrier with the United Kennel Club and even dual-register him as an American Staffordshire Terrier with the American Kennel Club, it is true that “pit bull” is a category that includes various similar breeds—muscular, tenacious “gripping dogs” created to battle other animals to the death if need be. In the same way, the generic term “collie” includes a handful of similar dogs bred primarily for herding farm animals, yet notice no one ever argues that there is no such thing as a collie.

When speaking of a specific dog, the author writes, “he is a pit bull, whatever that might mean,” engaging in a sort of willful ignorance that is so specific to the bizarre world of pit bull advocacy. Put another breed in place and the ludicrousness of this argument comes to light: “She is a beagle, whatever that is.” The author keeps returning to this argument, what she calls “that elusive category of pit bulls…Since this group of dogs is not even an official breed, how does one decide if a dog is a pit bull?” The author takes this notion off the deep end, even claiming that Golden retriever mixes are frequently mistook for pit bulls.

Even though pit bulls are supposedly extremely difficult to identify, this doesn’t stop her from pronouncing “Stubby,” a dog used as a mascot during WWI, as a pit bull mix. In actuality, the dog was quite small and most closely resembles a Boston terrier. Indeed, pit bull advocates are willing to pronounce any grainy old photograph of a mildly terrier-like canine a pit bull, and pour millions into creating TV shows, documentaries, coffee table books and the like promoting pit bulls as pets, yet at the same time claiming these dogs don’t even exist! The reason, of course, is when a pit bull kills or disfigures a person or other pet, these same advocates are desperate to claim the animal is not what it so obviously is. Once again, please contrast their behavior with fanciers of other breeds—the pit bull devotees stand alone.

Pit bulls reflect a unique risk thanks to their human-created heritage. They were created to battle other animals—first bears and bulls, then each other—in a fighting pit for the bloody amusement of some truly sick human beings. Unlike non-fighting breeds of dogs, whose battles are primarily noise and posturing, and who usually exert only enough force to get the opponent—animal or human—to submit or run away, fighting breeds have a signature “grip and shake” bite style that, when applied to soft tissue, creates horrific, deep injuries that can be life threatening. Fighting breeds, in addition to being incredibly strong, are also famously tenacious—victims frequently speak of the dog refusing to let go despite being beaten or kicked—once again, a desirable trait in the fighting pit—not so much in everyday life.

The author repeatedly relies upon the National Canine Research Council, a pit bull owner lobbying group, for facts about pit bull attacks, which makes about as much sense as asking the National Trappers Association for unbiased information on the welfare of animals caught in leghold traps.

Perhaps the worst behavior of some pit bull fans is that of blaming or even threatening the victims of dog attacks—even when the victim is a toy breed dog or a toddler. This behavior can be found in the comments section of nearly every news story about a dog mauling. While the author doesn’t go this far, she does use some more genteel “blame the victim” rhetoric in this book:

In the long run, dynamics other than breed are better indicators of whether or not a dog is more likely to bite. If dogs are chained or tethered, or if they are unaltered (not neutered), the bite rate is much higher. … Attempting to isolate these dog-specific factors without taking into account the entire situation, particularly the actions of the humans involved, leads to inaccurate and even dangerously unsubstantiated conclusions.

Once again, all dogs can bite, but only a select few regularly put their victims on LifeFlight helicopters. And while pit bull owners are famously resistant to voluntary spay/neuter—only about a quarter of pit bulls are altered—there are even those owners who have seemingly done everything right and yet have suffered unimaginable tragedy. The most extreme elements of the pit bull advocacy sector are seemingly telling us so, but the penalty for making a single mistake with a dog’s training should not be death. As the author herself writes:

When dogs—who for over 15,000 years have befriended and lived with humans on every continent, to their mutual benefit—are turned from friend into foe, the resulting horror is particularly appalling.

I couldn’t agree more.

The author claims “for the first half of the twentieth century, pit bulls were media darlings. … [they] were viewed as symbols of loyalty, bravery, and safety.” Once again, this is wishful thinking rather than verifiable truth. As newspaper archive searches indicate, pit bulls were barely a blip on the radar in terms of household pets, and many stories from this era can be found either about their prowess as fighting dogs, or attacks on people. Interestingly the author cites Buster Brown’s “Tige” as a beloved pit bull of an earlier era, but as Animal People News recounts,

Yes, the “bad boy” comic strip and silent film character Buster Brown kept a pit bull named Tige. But the whole story is that Tige appeared in four films. His roles included attacking two humans and one other dog.

Like every pit bull advocate, the author categorizes breed-specific legislation (BSL) as a bad thing. BSL normally puts restrictions on pit bull ownership, and varies widely. The author notes that “the most widely publicized breed specific bans in the US are in Denver, Colorado, and Miami-Dade County, Florida.” Yet there’s a very important addition to this story that she left out:

The net result is that Denver is among the few major U.S. cities which have had no fatal dog attacks in the past 20 years, while killing fewer impounded dogs of all breeds per 1,000 residents than any other major city between the coasts, and killing less than half as many pit bulls per thousand human residents (.14) as Miami/Dade County, the animal control jurisdiction killing the next fewest pit bulls (.33). Miami/Dade also has breed-specific legislation prohibiting possession of pit bulls.

Suddenly, the issue becomes less cut-and-dry for people who care about all animals.

The author admits that “animal shelters are frequently busting at the seams with pit bull type dogs; over one third of all dogs at shelters are pit bulls,” yet, conversely, blames this on breed bans. Instead, she and all other animal welfare-driven pit bull advocates should be calling for every city to emulate the style of BSL practiced in San Francisco– mandatory spaying and neutering of all pit bulls. Yet she ignores this and continues:

Even with advocacy groups working to educate the public on pit bulls, the euthanasia rates for these homeless dogs remain astonishingly high, with over 1 million pit bulls killed in the US every year.

And that advocacy, when practiced by shelters, has come back to bite. Now, shelters are facing lawsuits when adopted pit bulls maul their new owners. Once again, this an argument that something must be done—not just to help people and other pets, but the pit bulls themselves—rather than just allowing a free-for-all in which anyone under any circumstances may own fighting breeds. The author writes:

But pit bulls still bear the bite of the dog-bite mania that, all too often, leads to a monster hunt.

The legions of angry mobs supposedly conspiring against pit bulls are primarily a fantasy. While there is a small network of blogs tracking dog attacks, and occasionally individuals— usually parents who have lost a child—may speak to the media or attempt to pass legislation putting restrictions on these dogs, to any impartial observer the pro-pit bull voice wields greater power. Relatively few people have heard of Dogsbite.org, the primary voice for dog attack victims, but everyone has heard of the AKC and the ASPCA—two groups that, among other projects, fight for the “right” to own pit bulls. Animal Planet in particular has run several TV series that focus upon “improving the image” of the dogs. Meanwhile, the second fundraising walk for victims of dog attacks was cancelled because of threats made to the organizers.

If anyone is giving pit bulls a bad image, it is the dogs themselves—as they become more popular pets in the US they are involved in proportionally more attack incidents. Thirty-two Americans were killed by dogs in 2013, with 25 of these attacks perpetuated by pit bulls.

The author writes about a specific dog, “like many of his maligned pit bull compatriots, Stevie defies expectations and changes lives in amazing, beautiful ways.” I have no doubt that there are pit bulls who have indeed had a positive impact upon their owners, and who bring them joy. At the same time, there are others have also had their lives changed by these dogs—but it has involved something far from amazing or beautiful.

In writing about the human creation of dog breeds, the author has some words that I think perfectly encapsulate the pit bull conundrum:

Over the course of thousands of years, niche dogs were selected for and by niche humans. … [O]ver the last two hundred years, as humans have intentionally bred many dogs for either aesthetic or behavioral traits, or sometimes both, resulting in dogs who are ill-equipped to live healthy and happy lives.

Pit bulls are the ultimate product of “niche” humans—those who wished to see animals battle to the death in a fighting pit. They created an incredibly strong, tenacious animal with a devastating bite style—an animal willing to ignore his own suffering to finish the “job” or die trying. Today, the “job” these dogs were created to do is thankfully illegal in many parts of the world. However, we still have the animal and expecting him never to express the genes that were diligently bred into him for hundreds of years?

It may surprise some people to hear this, but I don’t hate pit bulls. To hate a pit bull for fighting is like hating a pointer for pointing. These animals are not malicious or evil, they are simply doing what their genes are telling them to do. They are stuck in a situation not of their creation, and everyone—including the pits themselves—is paying the price.

There once was a time when I would have repeated all of the arguments Hobgood-Oster makes. I accepted the pit advocacy line without question. However, now I believe that everyone who cares about dogs including pit bulls should agitate for the mandatory spay/neuter of all pit bulls, to be done at low or no cost to the owner. It’s the only way to see a light at the end of the tunnel.

[Tim Ballard · Rating 3 out of 5]

It has some interesting tidbits but I have to admit it is a bit light. Kind of a long internet article or Wikipedia entry.

[Gilda Felt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was both an easy and a hard book to read. Easy because it presents the information in an organized manner; each chapter covers a distinct part of the human/canine relationship.

But also hard, because much of that information doesn’t present humans in a very good light. Too often, dogs have gotten, and still get, the short end of the stick. We use them for so many things, many of which put them in danger. At the same time, too often we discard them as if they were little more than trash.

My only disagreement with the author’s information is when they hypothesize about how the dog became the dog. Or, more to the point, how wolves did. They describe the pack as having an alpha male and female, without making it clear that that pair is the mother and father of the rest of the pack; even the lowest of the pack is treated well. If a wolf is killed, it’s by a wolf from another pack. It’s hard to imagine that any wolf would leave its pack in order to be even lower on the totem pole with humans.

[Sally Monaghan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really, really interesting, but not what I expected. A very scholarly, well-researched book. Not the sort of warmhearted book about love between humans and dogs. But, the history is very interesting.

[Bruce Gentry · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read most of this while visiting over the Christmas break. I have often wondered about many of the questions that Hobgood-Oster addresses in this book, like the origin of canine domestication. The author does a great job in organizing the secondary research on canine archeology and the anthropology of canine domestication. She argues that the history of the dog is also the history of humanity, which covers the positive, such as the child dog relationships from antiquity, and the use of dogs as instruments of death, as trained by the Romans and slave trackers. The author appeals to the metaphor of Frankenstein for describing some of the negative aspects of the human-canine relationship. Hobgood-Oster argues that the dog is unique of all domesticated animals because dogs were the first, dating back even before the Ice Age. The only negative I have from this book is that I would have loved a more detailed in-depth description or summary of the development of modern breeds. This is really too much to ask because it is a very complicated story. Her book is well researched and the footnotes are as enjoyable as the main text. If you are a dog person, I would highly recommend this read.

[Baylor University Press]

“Filled with fascinating information and thoughtful reflection, this book should be read by anyone who loves dogs or wants to understand people.”
—ROGER S. GOTTLIEB, author of Engaging Voices: Tales of Morality and Meaning in an Age of Global Warming (Baylor University Press, 2011)
and Spirituality: What It Is and Why It Matters

“A surpassingly beautiful reflection replete with graceful stories and moving realities, this elegant book will open up every reader to the history, breadth, and depth of a profoundly interesting cross-species communion.”
—PAUL WALDAU, Associate Professor of Anthrozoology, Canisius College

“What makes this book special is not so much the topics addressed but the smart, balanced, and humane way in which Hobgood-Oster engages the conversation. The book gives even those familiar with the great dog debates new perspectives to think about, and for those who are not already immersed in the field, this is an excellent place to start.”
—ANNA PETERSON, Professor, University of Florida

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm a dog lover, a dog rescuer, a detail person and a fact collector. Thus, this book hit all of the right notes for me. There were some topics I wished the author had further elaborated on and others I felt could have been abbreviated, but that's a minor quibble. Of greater consequence to me were the photos and illustrations chosen to augment the text. The author did a fine job of describing the canid and child footprints in the Chauvet cave, but a photo of this --the earliest evidence to date of canid/human partnership--would have been especially compelling. Many of the photos that were chosen lacked impact and often were too small to be interesting, so they were distracting rather than enhancing the text. Overall, I really enjoyed the book.

[Kathleen O'Neal · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a beautiful book that explored the canine-human bond in the context of world history. I loved and found it fitting that the author was religion professor because animals connect us to our spirituality in so many ways and this is certainly evidenced throughout the history of human religious culture. This book really gives a bird's eye view of the relationship between humans and dogs going back to our evolutionary history alongside one another.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short book that is a slow read but contains lots of interesting info and musings. It's Dog Anthropology meets Dog Archaeology meets Dog Sociology. Interesting chapters on war dogs, pit bulls,and Franken-dogs. The author teaches and resides in Texas where naturally they have the most dogs in the United States. Dogs are our link to the natural world and this is a must read for all dog lovers.

[James Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

An informative survey of what might be called the mutual domestication of dogs and humans, a 30,000 year history of companionship. Fascinating story. Writing a bit pedestrian--a subject begging for a more literary treatment.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great background on mans best friend. The writing was well done, I rarely cry reading but this one got me a couple of times.

[Mills College Library]

636.7 H6829 2014