Search Results

This chapter discusses the interpretations of the meanings of the concepts of “wolf,” “dog,” and “wolf-dog” from an evolutionary perspective. Much literature on dogs shows similar simplistic, often mistaken, assumptions concerning the processes by which dogs evolved from wolves. Most people expect that there is some clear line that exists between the taxonomic categories “wolf” and “dog,” a problem that began when Linnaeus classified domestic dogs and gray wolves as distinct species in the eighteenth century. The chapter then shows that each human cultural tradition developed with specific images of the canid that was able to share their particular way of life. This is why it is so hard to define the term dog—different cultural traditions, and even individuals within these traditions, have very different images of what type of canid is best suited for relationships with humans.

This chapter discusses the history of the process of domestication conceptually and considers the meaning of the terms domestic, wild, and tame and how the concept of feral fits within this framework. It explores differences among traits in generating phenotypes, including the classic Russian studies on fox behavior and morphology. Domestic dogs are not a natural grouping because they involve multiple lineages (polyphyly) that have undergone extensive interbreeding among lines (reticulate evolution), which reduces clarity concerning traits that might be used to identify dogs as a species. Evidence of polyphyletic origins is also found in other domesticated animals, especially cats, cattle, and pigs. Differences between what it means for an animal to be tame versus domesticated reveals that these concepts are regularly confused and conflated in the popular literature, even by scientists.

This introductory chapter situates the succeeding chapters in the current study of human-canine relationships. The authors discuss the fundamental ideas about relationships between humans and dogs through an archaeological lens. The volume editors recognize that assessing the physical ways humans have altered domestic dogs may be straightforward, but it takes several theoretical and methodological avenues to understand the connection between the ever-present dog and human communities’ needs, belief systems, and environments. This chapter overviews an extensive exploration into the way these discussions add to our understanding of how the human-canine bond shaped and was shaped by the practical and ontological realities of human caregivers.

This chapter discusses the bonds and relationships that exist between humans and different types of canids. A crucial point is that the social bond between humans and wolves that changed into domestic dogs is the source of both major pleasures and major conflicts between humans and their canid companions. Large domestic dogs have the anatomy of serious predators combined with a confidence in their interactions with humans that can lead to aggression and grave conflict. In contrast, wolves and high-percentage crosses between wolves and dogs tend to be timid, retreating when faced with unfamiliar humans. The chapter then addresses the “danger” presented by various breeds, including wolves and wolf-dogs, and challenges a number of points of received thinking, including the notion of the equivalency of “wild” and “dangerous.” A major aspect of the “danger” from a canid is associated with size above all else, which is to be expected in dealing with large predatory animals.

This chapter discusses the effects of hybridization with domestic dogs on the conservation of wild canids. Hybridization between gray wolves and dogs are the majority of the documented hybridization between wild and domestic canids, and it does not usually threaten breeding opportunities. The chapter states that hybridization between dogs and rarer wild species can reduce its effective number of breeders, contributing to its genetic diversity erosion.