Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Warpy

(114,547 posts)
11. I like my theory better
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 12:35 AM
Mar 2013

and that is that juvenile proto-dogs and house cats gravitated to humans because humans are generally messy eaters and would drop the sort of food that would attract rodents, prey for both critters. In that scenario, we likely domesticated ourselves along with each other.

Juveniles are more trusting and poorer hunters and this would have given them a survival advantage.

My theory is borne out by the piles of debris at ancient human dwelling sites, usually small animal bones, nut husks, and other inedible (by humans) material.

I don't know why paleontologists are so stuck on that "man-as-intrepid-hunter-using-wolves" idiocy. It just doesn't make sense, especially since we know know that >90% of the calories in a hunter-gatherer diet came from plants. Hunting for anything bigger than rabbits was a high risk occupation and undoubtedly reserved for when small prey was scarce or when manhood had to be proven.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»We Didn’t Domesticate Dog...»Reply #11