These may be the first images of dogs, and they’re wearing leashes (2017) | Hacker News Reader

These may be the first images of dogs, and they’re wearing leashes (2017)

sciencemag.org

and the owner is carrying a plastic bag

Good catch, I was wondering why they all had erections.

It's possible that it's merely a signifier of gender.

Some comic artist was depicting realistic women -- instead of your stereotypical comic book women with giant knockers -- and got complaints that people couldn't tell who the women were. I think they began upsizing the bosom as a gender signal.

From what I have read, tribal peoples who wore little clothing routinely depicted genitals in their art as a matter of course. They weren't trying to comply with some board that would censor it. They were just depicting the world around them.

Yes, but the penis are erect not flaccid.

So?

Symbolic signifiers are often stylized.

Edit: I will add the leashes are the big headline grabbing detail. I'm not seeing anyone harp on "Those can't be leashes! They are just simplified lines! Where are the dog collars? Where are the knots?"

It's a simplified figure.

It might be more interesting or pertinent to wonder why gender was signified at all. Does this imply some hunters were female? In a culture where hunter = man, would you bother to expend the energy to carve a penis as part of your petroglyph?

Or it was just part of the tied bit of the leash if they were putting it around their waist

This seems really strange, I mean Native Americans had domesticated dogs, and as far as I'm aware the earliest migratory groups had dogs too, and that was at least 15000 years ago.

Surely dogs that they possessed were trained and controllable? seems a strange claim that it only dates back 8000 years.

Not the earliest evidence of domesticated dogs (eg dog bones with human bones in close proximity), but the earliest known depictions of dogs (that is generally not as durable). They're some of the earliest art of dogs and they happen to be depicted as domesticated. As opposed to an animal that was the subject of a hunt.

This is great material for AA on history channel.

As in the title of the article, the title of the submission should use "may be," not "maybe."

Fixed now.

On exposed sandstone in a region with torrential rains for 8000 years? That doesn't seem likely to me. Am I missing something?

I can't tell if they're on exposed stone or not from the pictures and video, except for the fact that all images seem very well lit. And sometimes seem to feature natural shadows.

Not much rain in some deserts. In Utah you can see lots of similar carvings that are 1000 + years old. Those do look pretty clean though.

My bad the article said seasonal rains, not torrential. We have stone carvings in scandinavia too but I assumed sandstone was much more susceptible to weather. If not the rain then wind and sand alone over 8000 years would wear it out.

Ancient humans probably knew this too because many examples of carvings and paintings were made in places protected from the elements, like caves and overhangs. They probably also decorated more exposed areas that haven't survived as well, as you note.

Mesa Verde as one example includes such cultural works dating back to 600CE. https://www.nps.gov/meve/index.htm

>many examples of carvings and paintings were made in places protected from the elements, like caves and overhangs

But how can we know if that was deliberate or a result of natural erosion weeding out the covered carvings from the uncovered?

The hunter appears to have an erection, which is common in ancient petroglyphs. But it would seem to be a strange reflex to be triggered when out bow hunting with your hounds.

Could it be an artistic liberty to emphasise how manly he is or something?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com