----- Original Message -----From: alexandru_mg3Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:50 PMSubject: [tied] Dog domestication -> 100,000 years ago & South Khoisan *#khɔ-in
"DNA Evidence
Prior to the use of DNA researchers were divided into two schools of
thought:
most supposed that these early dogs were descendants of tamed wolves,
which interbred and evolved into a domesticated species.
other scientists, whilst believing wolves were the chief contributor,
suspected that jackals or coyotes contributed to the dog's ancestry.
Carles Vilà of UCLA,[1], who has conducted the most extensive study
to date, has shown that DNA evidence has ruled out any ancestor
canine species except the wolf. Vila's team analyzed 162 different
examples of wolf DNA from 27 populations in Europe, Asia, and North
America. These results were compared with DNA from 140 individual
dogs from 67 breeds gathered from around the world. Using blood or
hair samples, DNA was extracted and genetic distance for
mitochondrial DNA was estimated between individuals.
Based on this DNA evidence, most of the domesticated dogs were found
to be members of one of four groups. The largest and most diverse
group contains sequences found in the most ancient dog breeds,
including the dingo of Australia, the New Guinea singing dog, and
many modern breeds, like the collie and retriever. Other groups such
as the German shepherd showed a closer relation to wolf sequences
than to those of the main dog group, suggesting that such breeds had
been produced by crossing dogs with wild wolves. It is also possible
that this is evidence that dogs may have been domesticated from
wolves on different occasions at different places. Vilà is still
uncertain whether domestication happened once, after which
domesticated dogs bred with wolves from time to time, or whether it
happened more than once.
The most puzzling fact of the DNA evidence is that the variability in
molecular distance between dogs and wolves seems greater than the 10-
20,000 years assigned to domestication. Based upon the molecular
clock studies conducted, it would seem that dogs separated from the
wolf lineage up to 100,000 years ago. At such an early time span,
according to the Out-of-Africa hypothesis Homo sapiens was confined
to Africa, and it would be estimated that at this time a sub-species
of extinct African Saharan wolf would have been the original dog
ancestor. Although clear evidence for fossil dogs becomes obscure
beyond about 14,000 years ago, there are fossils of wolf bones in
association with early humans from well beyond 100,000 years ago.
Tamed wolves might have taken up with hunter-gatherers without
changing in ways that the fossil record would capture. The dogs-in-
process probably would have dallied with wolves as packs of humans
and canines traveled out of Africa and around the world. Since
evidence of dogs is not found elsewhere before 14,000 years ago, it
may be that the "Sahara pump" associated with the Glacial Maximum was
responsible for the spread of the dogs out of Africa. Such a thesis
is compatible with the spread of languages associated with the
Nostratic hypothesis.
The influx of new genes from those crossings could very well explain
the extraordinarily high number of dog breeds that exists today, the
researchers suggest. Dogs have much greater genetic variability than
other domesticated animals, such as cats, says Vilà. Once farming
started dogs would have been selected for different tasks, their wolf-
like nature being a handicap as dogs became herders, guards, and used
for other different tasks. Ostrander is of the view that "When we
became an agricultural society, what we needed dogs for changed
enormously, and a further and irrevocable division occurred at that
point." That may be the point -- at which dogs and wolves were
noticeably different physically -- that stands out in the fossil
record.
"
source: http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Origin_of_ the_domestic_ dog
//---------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------
So the DOG-word is a good candidate to be a COMMON WORD
//---------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------
and seems to be the case:
"Proto-!Wi : *#khɔ-in
Meaning : dog
Bushman etymology :
|Xam : !kwín& #775; (B.); !kŭ̥ iṅ, !kŭ́ iṅ, !khu̥in& #775; (Ll.)
//Ng : !kwiŋ
|Nu : #khon, #khuin (C1), #un, *#uń (C2)
#Khomani : #ʔʌ n "dog" (Dk.)
//Kxau : #huni
//Ku//e : !wiŋ, !inji
Seroa : kuenia
//Xegwi (Batwa) : //kwi, !xeŋ
|Auni : #kɔŋ ɔŋ
|Haasi : #haŋ
References : Bleek 104, 400, 405, 433, 467, 495, 496, 499, 500, 600,
646, 661, 662, 663, 677, 678, 680; Crawhall 275, 284; Story 21.
"
<snip>
***
One of the most intriguing things I believe I unearthed in my efforts to find the earliest meanings of monosyllables was that there was a differentiation of terms for 'dog' (*ke) and 'wolf' (*fa:).
Patrick
***