It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Dogs (Canis familiaris) are the first animals to be domesticated by humans and the only ones domesticated by mobile hunter-gatherers. Wolves and humans were both persistent, pack hunters of large prey. They were species competing over resources in partially overlapping ecological niches and capable of killing each other. How could humans possibly have domesticated a competitive species? Here we present a new hypothesis based on food/resource partitioning between humans and incipient domesticated wolves/dogs. Humans are not fully adapted to a carnivorous diet; human consumption of meat is limited by the liver’s capacity to metabolize protein. Contrary to humans, wolves can thrive on lean meat for months. We present here data showing that all the Pleistocene archeological sites with dog or incipient dog remains are from areas that were analogous to subarctic and arctic environments. Our calculations show that during harsh winters, when game is lean and devoid of fat, Late Pleistocene hunters-gatherers in Eurasia would have a surplus of animal derived protein that could have been shared with incipient dogs. Our partitioning theory explains how competition may have been ameliorated during the initial phase of dog domestication. Following this initial period, incipient dogs would have become docile, being utilized in a multitude of ways such as hunting companions, beasts of burden and guards as well as going through many similar evolutionary changes as humans.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Finnish Food Authority, Helsinki, Finland (GRID:grid.425556.5) (ISNI:0000 0000 9987 9641); University of Helsinki, Laboratory of Chronology, Finnish Museum of Natural History, Helsinki, Finland (GRID:grid.7737.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0410 2071)
2 University of Durham, Department of Archaeology, Durham, UK (GRID:grid.8250.f) (ISNI:0000 0000 8700 0572); Saint Mary’s College of California, Department of Biology, Moraga, USA (GRID:grid.421780.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 0561 0551)
3 University of Helsinki, Department of Cultures, Archaeology, Helsinki, Finland (GRID:grid.7737.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0410 2071); University of Tartu, Archaeology Department, Institute of History and Archaeology, Tartu, Estonia (GRID:grid.10939.32) (ISNI:0000 0001 0943 7661)
4 University of Helsinki, Department of Geosciences and Geography, Helsinki, Finland (GRID:grid.7737.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0410 2071); University of Bordeaux, EPOC, UMR 5805, Pessac, France (GRID:grid.412041.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2106 639X)
5 University of Helsinki, Faculty of Medicine, Helsinki, Finland (GRID:grid.7737.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0410 2071)