The First Domestication: How Wolves and Humans Coevolved

by Raymond Pierotti, Brandy R. Fogg

A riveting look at how dog and humans became best friends, and the first history of dog domestication to include insights from indigenous peoples

In this fascinating book, Raymond Pierotti and Brandy Fogg change the narrative about how wolves became dogs and in turn, humanity’s best friend. Rather than describe how people mastered and tamed an aggressive, dangerous species, the authors describe coevolution and mutualism. Wolves, particularly ones shunned by their packs, most likely initiated the relationship with Paleolithic humans, forming bonds built on mutually recognized skills and emotional capacity.
 
This interdisciplinary study draws on sources from evolutionary biology as well as tribal and indigenous histories to produce an intelligent, insightful, and often unexpected story of cooperative hunting, wolves protecting camps, and wolf-human companionship. This fascinating assessment is a must-read for anyone interested in human evolution, ecology, animal behavior, anthropology, and the history of canine domestication.

Genres: Dogs, Nonfiction, Biology, Animals, History

344 pages, Hardcover

Published November 28, 2017

About the author

Raymond Pierotti is Associate Professor at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (Indigenous Nations Studies), University of Kansas. Dr. Ray Pierotti's research investigates the evolutionary biology of vertebrates with male parental care and socially monogamous breeding systems. He collects data on individual variation in behavioral and ecological aspects of parental care. His primary research question is how an individual organism becomes successful at reproduction and contributes to future generations.

Reviews

[Mark Buell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Another entry in the "dogs are wolves" category, this book suffers from extreme bias and mischaracterization of other scientists' recent work. In particular the authors represent the Coppinger's views as 180 degrees opposite of what the Coppingers said. For instance, on page 21, they represent the Coppingers views as "the process of domestication began with wolves being dominated by humans", when the Coppingers view was precisely the opposite - wolves self-domesticated into an opportunistic commensalism with humans, i.e. taking advantage of leftover human resources. At a couple of points, they represent the Coppingers as arguing for the scientific reclassification of dogs as wolves, when Ray Coppinger was precisely opposed to that move. It makes me wonder if the authors have treated others of their sources, with whom I am less familiar, as cavalierly.

They also oversimplify and generalize both "Eurocentric" or "western" influence and conquest, and indigenous peoples. None of those categories were culturally monolithic, but the authors would like you to believe they are.

However, one of their ultimate points is that the domestication of dogs began prior to the advent of agriculture and permanent communities, and in this regard, there is science that backs them up. This is pretty much the same thesis that Mark Derr proposes in his books and articles on the topic. And, while they are both dismissive of Coppinger, they both propose a similar conclusion - it was not man who domesticated wolf, but wolf who domesticated himself into dog.

Pierotti and Fogg, and Derr all suffer from ignoring, or attempting to ignore, the elephant in the room: the village dog. Whether the process of domestication began 250,000 years ago, or 10,000 does not change the fact that the physiology of dogs changed markedly at about the same time that mankind began inhabiting permanent villages. And our dogs of today, even if they still occasionally crossbreed with wolves, are not wolves, but dogs, and they come to us through the filter of the village dog. Every dog that we call dog today exists primarily because of village dogs. The occasional interbreeding that Derr, Pierotti, and Fogg would like us to believe is of primary concern are minor eddies on the banks of a great and massive river.

My conclusion and recommendation: take a pass on this one. It adds little to the conversation, although in some ways Pierotti and Fogg do a better job of persuading the reader than Derr. If you are determined to learn more, it can be worth reading, so that you have some idea of the breadth of viewpoints that are currently out there, but be mindful that this is only one. If we revisit this topic in ten years time, I believe there will be other books, with better science on the topic. Just as an example, Science magazine published and article in 2015 on how dogs utilize the oxytocin feedback loop (and wolves don't). There is serious and major science going on in this field right now.

[K.L.3 · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I have read about wolves and dogs.

[Clara Mun · Rating 3 out of 5]

El argumento que los autores intentan sostener, con muchos datos y estudios, es que nos vincula la cooperación y que nos equivocamos cuando presentamos la competencia como el sistema de evolución dominante. Y le doy tres estrellas porque aburre con tanto dato para hacer algo que, personalmente, me parece una obviedad.
Aportes interesantes: que en el vínculo de los humanos con los lobos, pudo se que el primer paso lo hayan dado los lobos. Y otro: que coevolucionamos; nosotros "humanizamos" (domesticamos) a los lobos y otros animales y al mismo tiempo, ellos nos "lobifican" (snimalizan, pos).

[The Inquisitive Biologist · Rating 4 out of 5]

A persuasive book highlighting what traditional indigenous knowledge can teach us about the evolution of domestic dogs. See my full review at https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2018...

[Mayaisfiya · Rating 3 out of 5]

So much to say about this book. While the authors present a convincing argument regarding domestication resulting from a cooperative hunting relationship rather than the coppinger scavenging theory, they draw a couple wild secondary conclusions from their ideas.

Firstly, they argue that dogs are polyphyletic, which was compelling. However, they ignore any analysis of whether coppinger theory is at all probable in a European setting. They simply claim that Europeans dislike wolves due to the catholic church, which sure fine whatever, but everyone, including the author, place domestication pre-church. Are they arguing that Europeans are ontologically opposed to wolves? This is my smallest issue with the book, and maybe i simply missed something, but it does feel like a big gap to leave in your theoretical framework.

Second, they spend the entirety of the book arguing that wolf-human relationships in indigenous society are voluntary and mutually beneficial relationships. This makes sense to me. I really don’t understand how they leapt from this to a defense of “alpha theory” dog training methodology. While theoretically one could defend behaving this way to a wild or free-ranging wolf, captive (pet) wolves and dogs are not voluntary participants in the relationship. Therefore, assigning higher cognitive traits in order to justify more aversive treatment with no evidence gives me a lot of pause regarding the ethical considerations of these authors.

Despite these issues, I do think this book makes a significant contribution to the field by focusing on the domestication of dogs in non-agrarian societies and in particular highlighting the knowledges of indigenous communities, and trusting their accounts of their own relationships with wolves.

[Renate Kinscheck · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best books I've found found the evolution of the dog from the wolf. Unlike other sources, this draws on indigenous knowledge, which is arrogantly ignored by most Europeans.