Well, with dogs it's not one, but many, against sotaliry cats. And no predator invites certain injury just to get to some inconvenient food.Moreover, it's the alarm system aspect that was probably most important, and perhaps the dogs ability to trace down human or animal invaders. The dogs early nervousness and barking would have given people more time to wake up and/or prepare for battle.Neanderthalers never threw things. They hunted with heavy spears that were thrust. I can't imagine a poorer weapon against a bunch of agile dogs. http://jchuhkd.com [url=http://anuissgn.com]anuissgn[/url] [link=http://rbtmpt.com]rbtmpt[/link]

Chtěl jsem přijedt zafandit FBC Remedicu, ale nejdu. Už vytažened spodnedch tibrun pro 800 dive1ků znamene1 sezened prvnedch řad na hřišti a pro dive1ky z norme1lned tibruny neviditelnfd 1 metr pode9l cele9 bočned strany. Toto fine1le si zasloužilo vhodnějšed prostředed.Tak tohle se ve1m pe1nove9 organize1toři nepovedlo. Škoda.

A couple of other major adgtnaaves I see for having dogs around are:- as an alarm/ warning systems against predators and other human/ Neanderthal groups approaching,- to guard childrenI can imagine wandering groups were often short on such personnel. Not every hunting or foraging party or group left behind had the luxury of dedicating a couple of people to stand guard all night, and others ready with weapons.In fact, I would go as far and say that intrusion into Neanderthal-dominated West Asia and Europe would have been, and perhaps was, much easier with dogs around.