5 ms·

No. Recent evidence shows dingoes came with an Indian immigration wave quite early on. In short, they were introduced to Australia pre-domesticated, by another

No. Recent evidence shows dingoes came with an Indian immigration wave quite early on. In short, they were introduced to Australia pre-domesticated, by another population, when Australia was already populated by the aborigines. Then they were kept domesticated by aborigines, and now plenty of people still keep them as pets. Re-domestication? More like fourth-wave popularity.

NL807 9y ago
Also, pure bred dingos are starting to diminish in number, as they are interbreeding with feral dogs. So their temperament changes, too.
- askvictor 9y ago
  This could be tested; there is a pure bred population on Fraser island, that has plenty of exposure to humans, namely eating their garbage and unsecured food.
emmelaich 9y ago
So, "redomesticated" is not wrong; it's merely potentially misleading.
z2210558 9y ago
Do you have references for the multiple migrations, especially from India? I know there was this paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/5/1803 http://www.pnas.org/content/110/5/1803, but I had the impression that hadn't been replicated.
- contingencies 9y ago
  That's the paper, it has its own references. We also detect a signal indicative of substantial gene flow between the Indian populations and Australia well before European contact, contrary to the prevailing view that there was no contact between Australia and the rest of the world. We estimate this gene flow to have occurred during the Holocene, 4,230 y ago. This is also approximately when changes in tool technology, food processing, and the dingo appear in the Australian archaeological record, suggesting that these may be related to the migration from India. ... There is a sudden change in stone tool technologies, with microliths appearing for the first time (43), and people start processing plants differently (14, 44). It has been a matter of controversy as to whether these changes occurred in situ (45) or reflect contact with people from outside Australia or some combination of both factors. However, the dingo also first appears in the fossil record at this time and must have come from outside Australia (46). Although dingo mtDNA appears to have a SE Asian origin (47), morphologically, the dingo most closely resembles Indian dogs (46). The fact that we detect a substantial inflow of genes from India into Australia at about this same time does suggest that all of these changes in Australia may be related to this migration. In summary we now have at least four roughly supportive lines of evidence: the stone archaeological record, the dingo bone archaeological record, the genetic record, and comparative morphological characteristics. There is no technical reason why ocean travel could not have been made between Australia and islands to the north, indeed it would be stranger for it not to have happened since those islands almost all had native oceangoing traditions and birds would have been visible migrating to and from Australia so the fact there was land there would have been blindingly obvious.
thret 9y ago
Why would Indians bring them to Australia if they weren't already domesticated? It's a long trip for a wild animal to be kept on a boat.
- Gustomaximus 9y ago
  This is a guess, food? Sailors take live animals for food reserves. Perhaps dogs are easier to maintain than pigs/chickens etc on sailing voyages?
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  I think you mis-read 'pre-domesticated' (already domesticated) as 'pre-domestication' (not yet domesticated).

NL807 9y ago

Also, pure bred dingos are starting to diminish in number, as they are interbreeding with feral dogs. So their temperament changes, too.

askvictor 9y ago
This could be tested; there is a pure bred population on Fraser island, that has plenty of exposure to humans, namely eating their garbage and unsecured food.

emmelaich 9y ago

So, "redomesticated" is not wrong; it's merely potentially misleading.

z2210558 9y ago

Do you have references for the multiple migrations, especially from India? I know there was this paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/5/1803 http://www.pnas.org/content/110/5/1803, but I had the impression that hadn't been replicated.

contingencies 9y ago
That's the paper, it has its own references. We also detect a signal indicative of substantial gene flow between the Indian populations and Australia well before European contact, contrary to the prevailing view that there was no contact between Australia and the rest of the world. We estimate this gene flow to have occurred during the Holocene, 4,230 y ago. This is also approximately when changes in tool technology, food processing, and the dingo appear in the Australian archaeological record, suggesting that these may be related to the migration from India. ... There is a sudden change in stone tool technologies, with microliths appearing for the first time (43), and people start processing plants differently (14, 44). It has been a matter of controversy as to whether these changes occurred in situ (45) or reflect contact with people from outside Australia or some combination of both factors. However, the dingo also first appears in the fossil record at this time and must have come from outside Australia (46). Although dingo mtDNA appears to have a SE Asian origin (47), morphologically, the dingo most closely resembles Indian dogs (46). The fact that we detect a substantial inflow of genes from India into Australia at about this same time does suggest that all of these changes in Australia may be related to this migration. In summary we now have at least four roughly supportive lines of evidence: the stone archaeological record, the dingo bone archaeological record, the genetic record, and comparative morphological characteristics. There is no technical reason why ocean travel could not have been made between Australia and islands to the north, indeed it would be stranger for it not to have happened since those islands almost all had native oceangoing traditions and birds would have been visible migrating to and from Australia so the fact there was land there would have been blindingly obvious.

thret 9y ago

Why would Indians bring them to Australia if they weren't already domesticated? It's a long trip for a wild animal to be kept on a boat.

Gustomaximus 9y ago
This is a guess, food? Sailors take live animals for food reserves. Perhaps dogs are easier to maintain than pigs/chickens etc on sailing voyages?
robotresearcher 9y ago
I think you mis-read 'pre-domesticated' (already domesticated) as 'pre-domestication' (not yet domesticated).