Science

13017 readers

72 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Space

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Our ancestors may have kept foxes as pets long before domestic dogs came on the scene (www.bbc.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archaeological evidence suggests ancient human societies in South America revered foxes to such an extent that they were buried next to them.

Scientists were surprised to find a fox buried in a human grave dating back 1,500 years in Patagonia, Argentina.

They think the most likely explanation is that the fox was a highly valued companion or pet.

DNA analysis shows the animal dined with prehistoric hunter gatherers and was part of the inner circle of the camp.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (6 children)

1500 years ago was long after dogs were domesticated…

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

A fox of the same species was found in a much older grave in another part of Argentina nearly a decade ago. It may also have been a pet but its diet was not analysed.

As usual, it's more the article (and especially the headline) than the science. Here is the Abstract of the study.

It's much more about the specific burial and the inferences that can be reasonably drawn about South America before the introduction of dogs from the north 5k years ago. It references multiple burials with non-dog canids from across time periods in S.A., including at least one from about 4k years ago, as well as many other remains scattered in with human burials. It seems to build on existing theorizing that pre-Columbian practices might have changed more slowly than post. Then there are the statistical arguments. If you occasionally find a fox in human burials, based on the number of human burials you didn't find, you can feel pretty confident that there were more foxes buried with humans.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yeah I figured the original article might have more meat but this one is written in a misleading way…

But I didn’t find that statement in the original paper either. It seems to be all about this more recent grave.

load more comments (4 replies)