[HN Gopher] Remains of Chihuahua-Sized Dog Unearthed at Roman Br...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Remains of Chihuahua-Sized Dog Unearthed at Roman Britain Villa
        
       Author : diodorus
       Score  : 57 points
       Date   : 2023-08-02 04:52 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
        
       | tokai wrote:
       | I don't get saying that is has legs and body like a dachshund and
       | then conclude that its not the body of a hunting dog. Dachhunds
       | whole layout is how it is to facilitate hunting.
        
         | dabluecaboose wrote:
         | I don't get saying it has the legs and body like a dachshund
         | and then saying it's "Chihuahua-sized"
         | 
         | Why not just say "Dachshund-like"?
        
           | bch wrote:
           | A large boulder the size of a small boulder...
        
           | joker_minmax wrote:
           | The picture absolutely looks Dachsund-like. Why it would be
           | compared to a Chihuahua is beyond me. Maybe Chihuahua in Rome
           | is better clickbait because everyone knows Dachshunds are
           | from Europe already.
        
         | PNewling wrote:
         | Huh, I had no idea they were originally a hunting dog.
         | 
         | From this very bias source, but has a decent amount of
         | information: https://www.dachshundstation.com/hunting-
         | dachshunds/
        
           | dnstalk wrote:
           | > Dachshunds are extremely intelligent dogs who are brave and
           | tough in the face of danger. They had to be, in order to win
           | a battle with a fierce badger.
           | 
           | You need a several Dachshunds to take out a badger. Some will
           | probably die during the hunt. Badgers are larger and have
           | much bigger teeth and huge claws. What is that tiny dog's
           | face going to be able to do?
           | 
           | They also used to arrange fights to bet on called Badger
           | Baiting...
        
           | timbit42 wrote:
           | Many of the small dog breeds were bred for killing rodents
           | and other small critters around homes, castles, factories,
           | etc.
        
         | Morizero wrote:
         | Yeah, have these people never heard of ratting? Perfect size
         | dog for that.
        
       | optimalsolver wrote:
       | So a puppy?
       | 
       | >This, along with the fact that she might have even been buried
       | with her owner, makes it far more likely that she was kept as a
       | house dog
       | 
       | Based on certain details we're lacking, this is either
       | heartwarming or disturbing.
        
         | huthuthike wrote:
         | I would have liked to see the article address this. I think it
         | is pretty easy for an osteologist to tell if a mammal is mature
         | based on the fusion of the long bones, but I'd be interested to
         | hear more.
        
       | WaitWaitWha wrote:
       | > Breeding tiny dogs as pets "seems to be a Roman phenomenon that
       | I suspect ties in with conspicuous consumption by the elite and
       | other attempts at wealth and showiness," ...
       | 
       | I am not sure this is the only path for dogs to be "tiny". In
       | nature, animal divergence based on environment can and does occur
       | quite frequently. I can easily see dogs specialize in hunting for
       | specific food sources and over generations adjust to be better
       | hunters.
        
         | mcpackieh wrote:
         | Yeah that seems like a politically motivated conclusion. Most
         | of the modern small dog breeds were originally bred to do
         | things like hunt badgers in small burrows. It was probably so
         | in the past as well, even if those reasons have been lost to
         | time.
        
           | rsynnott wrote:
           | > politically motivated conclusion
           | 
           | I... think the relevant politics are a bit obsolete.
        
             | [deleted]
        
       | kragen wrote:
       | smithsonian on this discovery:
       | 
       | > _The tiny pup was likely a beloved pet, not an animal bred for
       | hunting or herding_
       | 
       | uhh those aren't the only three possibilities tho
       | 
       | wikipedia on the history of actual chihuahuas:
       | 
       | > _In a letter written in 1520, Hernan Cortes wrote that the
       | Aztecs raised and sold little dogs as food._
       | 
       | and in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xoloitzcuintle:
       | 
       | > _Sixteenth-century Spanish accounts tell of large numbers of
       | dogs being served at banquets.[5] Aztec merchant feasts could
       | have 80-100 turkeys and 20-40 dogs served as food.[6]_
       | 
       | how would you distinguish beloved pets from food animals? well,
       | plausibly by quantity, or by the form of burial. perhaps the
       | villa only had one or two lap dogs?
       | 
       | > _The pint-sized pup is one of 15 small- to medium-sized dogs
       | discovered at the villa._
       | 
       | uhh eww
        
         | civilitty wrote:
         | _> how would you distinguish beloved pets from food animals?
         | well, plausibly by quantity, or by the form of burial. perhaps
         | the villa only had one or two lap dogs?_
         | 
         | The context of the burial is always important. The bones from
         | cooked animals would most often end up in huge quantities in a
         | midden rather than buried alone or with their owners. Any
         | objects found with the remains like a collar or harness are
         | also useful details.
         | 
         | The condition of the skeleton itself usually tells the story:
         | pets are generally in the best shape. Beasts of burden have
         | signs of repetitive stress while animals that were eaten most
         | often have cut marks on their bones where tools were used to
         | clean the carcass and prepare the meat. An animal like a dog
         | might be prepared bone-in so the chemistry of the bones
         | themselves can also indicate whether they were cooked or not.
        
           | kragen wrote:
           | yeah, presumably the animal found wasn't cooked, but you
           | don't eat livestock that died from illness unless you're
           | starving
        
             | KeplerBoy wrote:
             | Romans simply didn't eat dogs if there were other sources
             | of food around.
             | 
             | If they would have, chances are we still would do it today.
        
         | whythre wrote:
         | Eww? Lots of nobles kept kennels.
        
           | tokai wrote:
           | I think kragen is joking that with amount of dogs found one
           | could just as well argue that the dogs were livestock and not
           | pets.
        
             | tekla wrote:
             | They can be both
        
             | kragen wrote:
             | right, and typically nobles kept kennels of hunting dogs
             | 
             | (as the article points out, though, conspicuous consumption
             | with show dogs is also a possibility)
             | 
             | in any case once you have a kennel full of dogs, they
             | mostly aren't beloved pets anymore
        
         | notjulianjaynes wrote:
         | The illustration in the article looks a bit like a turnspit dog
         | too.
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnspit_dog
        
           | TylerE wrote:
           | That's fascinating, especially this bit at the end:
           | 
           | The gene for chondrodysplasia in various short-legged breeds
           | has been confirmed to trace back to a single ancestral
           | mutation [presumably from Egypt, as the Egyptians since short
           | legged dogs had been found in Egyptian households dating back
           | thousands of years.
           | 
           | Egypt was also thousands of years in advance of modern pet
           | keeping by quasi-domesticating Ball Pythons.
        
       | zgluck wrote:
       | Seems like this is a rewrite of
       | https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/22/oxfordshire-roma...
       | (which, to be fair was linked to towards the end, although not as
       | prominently as it should have been) with some added color and
       | removed details.
       | 
       | It was not a puppy according to this quote from the Telegraph
       | article:
       | 
       |  _Maiya Pina-Dacier, an archaeologist with DigVentures, said that
       | this dog was fully grown when it died and so tiny, it must have
       | been "adorable": "In previous periods, you don't get evidence of
       | pets like this. But, when the Romans arrive, you start finding
       | signs of smaller dogs."_
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-08-03 23:02 UTC)