I really enjoyed the article about our collective Paleofantasies. I think it is a rather common idea that at one point in our evolutionary history, humans were perfectly adapted to our environment. I have probably thought that myself. The article does a good job of pointing out the obvious flaws in that line of thinking.
I found the reading about dogs and wolves to be more interesting. The story of wolves becoming dogs was very interesting and, as the author showed, very relevant in our dog centered world. I found two points to be most interesting. The first was the author’s discussion of early interactions between wolves and dogs. At that point, humans did not have the means to restrain wolves in any way. Their ability to physically control what wolves did was very limited. Humans did not have metal for cages or strong collars or anything like that and wolves could easily chew through any restraining device that humans could create.
This lack of control meant wolves could come and go from groups of humans as they pleased. The author put it in terms of wolves knowing when humans were beneficial and when they were not. If associating with humans stopped being mutually beneficial, the wolves could leave and return to hunting by themselves. As long as the humans kept being beneficial, the wolves would stay. The fact that wolves stayed with humans long enough to become dogs is interesting to me because it ascribes a great deal of agency to wolves. Wolves chose to remain with humans long enough to become dogs because it was beneficial to them.
We have mentioned this idea of animals deciding to become domesticates because it is beneficial for them, but I think this is the first time an author has so explicitly put so much emphasis on the animal making a conscious choice. I am so interested in this idea because it ascribes so much agency to animals, which is something very new to me. As a historian, I am so used to reading about humans doing this or that, reading about an animal made such a momentous choice is very interesting.
The second point I found interesting was something Derr only briefly mentioned. During his discussion of feral animals and stray dogs, Derr mentioned wolf “culture.” This piqued my curiosity because, for me, culture has always been the sole domain of humans. Animals don’t have culture because they are animals. This notion is becoming increasingly problematic as I consider it more. Culture as a shared legacy of practices and behaviors is obviously not limited to humans. What does everyone else think? Is culture limited to humans, or do animals have culture too? As of now, I’m leaning towards animals do have culture, but I’m curious as to what everyone else thinks.