See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/286095778

Dogs, jaws, and other stories: Two symbolic

objects made of dog mandibles from
southeastern Europe

Article in Journal of Field Archaeology · December 2015

DOI: 10.1080/00934690.2015.1114850

READS

477

3 authors:

Catalin Lazar Monica Margarit

Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României Valahia University of Târgoviste
75 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 40 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Adrian Balasescu
Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României
97 PUBLICATIONS 327 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Catalin Lazar
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 13 May 2016
Dogs, jaws, and other stories: Two symbolic
objects made of dog mandibles from
southeastern Europe
Că tă lin Lază r1, Monica Mă rgă rit2 , Adrian Bă lă ş escu 1
1
National History Museum of Romania, Bucharest, Romania, 2Valahia University of Târgoviş te, Târgoviș te,
Dâmboviț a County, Romania

The relationship between people and dogs has its beginnings in the Palaeolithic and extends to
contemporary times. This paper explores the role of dogs in Eneolithic communities from the Balkans, with
a particular focus on two dog mandibles which were discovered in House No. 14 at Sultana-Malu Roşu
(ca. 4600 – 3950 B.C.) in Romania. The two artifacts belong to different excavation levels. The first
mandible was identified in the foundation trench which marks the beginning of the house’s lifecycle; the
second was found in the abandonment level of the house, marking the end of its lifecycle.
Archaeozoological, technological and functional analyses demonstrate the unique character of these
prehistoric artifacts, telling the stories of those who used, sacrificed and abandoned them.
Keywords: Eneolithic, southeastern Europe, dog mandible, synecdoche, Gumelniţa

Introduction comme le chien est proche de l’homme selon la culture,

There is a long history of interaction between people par contiguïté sociale. In this context, here we present
and dogs. The dog played the role of man’s best two unusual artifacts with unique characteristics,
friend, protector of the domestic space, hunting com- made of dog mandibles and discovered at Sultana-
panion, traction or pack animal, but sometimes it Malu Roşu in southeastern Romania.
was also used as a source of raw materials, medicinal
and aphrodisiac products, or even as a nutritional The setting of the site
source (Wissler 1915; Choyke 2010; Morey 2010; The site of Sultana-Malu Roşu is in the northern
Russell 2012). It had the function of totem, trophy, Balkans, on the western high terrace of the old
taboo, and pariah, or as a symbol for kinship and Mostiştea River (which was converted into several
origins; it was an essential element in various rituals, artificial lakes) about 7 km from the Danube River,
ceremonies, funeral practices, sacrifices, or in con- near the border with Bulgaria (FIG. 1). It is located
structing spiritual systems (Copet-Rougier 1988; ca. 300 m northeast of Sultana village, Călăraș i
Aujollet 1997; Choyke 2010; Russell 2012). Canids County, Romania (Lazăr 2014). The scientific study
are still used in modern times as pets, working of Sultana-Malu Roşu began in 1923 and continues
animals (guarding, tracking, searching, detection, to the present (Andrieşescu 1924; Isăcescu 1984a,
rescue, herding, guiding, therapy, service, hunting, 1984b; Andreescu and Lazăr 2008). The site consists
war and policing) and even for entertainment (in of a multi-component settlement (tell) and its necro-
social and sporting events, circuses, music events, polis (Lazăr 2014). Unfortunately, since 1923 most
movies and TV shows) (Hart 1995; Coppinger and of the settlement has eroded into Lake Mostiştea.
Coppinger 2001; Morey 2010; Hare and Woods 2013). Today only a part of the 1544 sq m area is preserved.
All this illustrates the dog’s special symbolism in The shape of the settlement was oval, oriented north-
different communities in time and space, a situation east–southwest (FIG. 2). The corresponding absolute
easier to understand if we start with the assertion of altitude is between 42.005 and 46.280 masl.
Claude Lévi-Strauss (1971: 139): le singe est proche
de l’homme selon la nature, par ressemblance physique, Chronological and cultural framework
The site belongs to the Gumelniț a culture (ca. 4600 –
Correspondence to: Monica Mărgărit, Valahia University of Târgovişte, Bd. 3950 B.C.), part of the larger Eneolithic Kodjadermen-
Carol I, no. 2, 130024, Târgovişte, Romania. Email: monicamargarit@ Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI complex occupying southeast-
[Link]; Cătălin Lazăr, National History Museum of Romania, Calea
Victoriei, no. 12, 030026, Bucharest, Romania. Email: lazarc@[Link] ern Romania, the southern part of the Republic of

© Trustees of Boston University 2015

DOI 10.1080/00934690.2015.1114850 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0 1
Lază r et al Dogs, jaws, and other stories.

excavations used microstratigraphic methods to

record the stratigraphic data, coupled with a series of
non-intrusive techniques (geomagnetic and electrical),
and GIS support. All of these were combined with
aerial research (to investigate landscape transform-
ations), paleoecological studies ( palynology,
carpology, sedimentology, malacology, archaeozool-
ogy), radiocarbon, aDNA, paleodietary, and paleo-
parasitology sampling and the sieving of feature
sediments.
Both dog mandibles were discovered in House No.
14 (H14) from the settlement (FIG. 3). The building
was burnt and abandoned, a common phenomenon
in multi-component settlements from the Balkans in
the 5th millennium B.C. (Stevanović 1997; Chapman
Figure 1 Map of Romania and the location of the Sultana- 1999; Popovici 2010). The building belongs to the
Malu Roşu site. Gumelniţa A2 phase and is located between ca.
2.10 m and 3.30 m below the datum point of the site
Moldova and the Ukraine, the eastern half of Bulgaria
(at 46.292 masl). No major stratigraphic disturbances
(on both sides of the Balkan mountains) and extending
were recorded that would affect the context of the
south to the Aegean Sea (Todorova 1978, 1986;
building (FIG. 4A).
Dumitrescu et al. 1983; Petrescu-Dîmboviț a 2001;
H14 was at the eastern limit of the settlement
Popovici 2010). The AMS radiocarbon dates obtained
(FIG. 2) and had characteristics similar to those of
for Sultana-Malu Roşu (n = 8) span 4539 to 3961 CAL
other buildings investigated there. Thus, the building
B.C. (95.4% probability) (TABLE 1). Thus, the settlement
had a flat rectangular shape (ca. 6 × 8 m), oriented
was likely occupied and activities took place during
north-south (FIG. 3), and it was a typical wattle and
Gumelniţa phases A1, A2, and B1, a fact that confirms
daub building with a single room. It is very interesting
previous stratigraphic observations.
that on the northern and the western sides, the house
had foundation trenches (C1/2010 and C6/2010),
Materials and Methods but on the other two sides, the walls were built directly
The archaeological context on the soil. The floor of the building was made of clay,
Archaeological research at Sultana-Malu Roşu and several successive reworked layers have been
involved an interdisciplinary approach. The identified. The artifacts recovered from this building
were discovered in situ and are modest in terms of
quality and not numerous. They are typical of
Gumelniț a communities: flint tools, ceramic sherds,
ground stone tools, and ornaments. Based on this evi-
dence the building could be considered to be a simple
house with no special function (e.g., workshop, sanc-
tuary, annex, or something else). The small quantity
of artifacts found inside H14 indicates that the inhabi-
tants recovered all important and necessary items
before leaving and deliberately burning it.
H14 has two key moments (archaeologically
recorded) marked by the dog mandibles (FIG. 4B).
The first dog mandible (MD1) was discovered in the
northern foundation trench of H14 (C6/2010). This
trench had an elongated oval shape with a length of
5.30 m and a width between 0.45 and 0.50 m; on the
bottom were found five circular post holes (FIG. 3B).
Its maximum depth was 0.40 m. The trench fill (s.u.
1250) consisted of compact, heterogeneous and
reddish colored sediment that contained pottery frag-
ments, animal bones, shells, stones, and pieces of
Figure 2 The multi-component settlement of Sultana-Malu flint and daub. These materials comprised not more
Roşu and the houses of the Gumelniţa culture. than 20% of the fill and had a stabilizing function.

2 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0

 Lază r et al. Dogs, jaws, and other stories

Table 1 AMS radiocarbon dates obtained for the site of Sultana-Malu Roşu. The calibration of the radiocarbon dates was made
with OxCal v4.1.5 (Bronk Ramsey 2009). Calibration with 2σ confidence is based on the IntCal09 dataset (Reimer et al. 2009).

95.4% range
14
Sample no. Context Sample material Lab no. C years (B.P.) (CAL B.C.)

[Link]-TELL-L5 House No.5 Animal bone Poz-52547 5630 ± 40 4539–4365

025-SMR-L5-1003 House No.5 Animal bone Poz-47215 5630 ± 40 4539–4365
[Link]-C6/2010 House No.14 Animal tooth Poz-52983 5570 ± 40 4488–4342
022-SMR-TELL-L2 House No.2 Charcoal Poz-52444 5490 ± 50 4451–4253
026-SMR-L1 House No.1 Animal bone Poz-47216 5460 ± 40 4368–4236
014-SMR-L5-1000 House No.5 Animal bone Poz-47209 5360 ± 50 4329–4051
[Link]-TELL-L2 House No.2 Animal bone Poz-52550 5250 ± 40 4230–3973
023-SMR-TELL-L1 House No.1 Animal bone Poz-52542 5230 ± 50 4174–3961

MD1 was in the eastern part of the fill, at its base (at footpaths, trenches, waste areas, pits or burials). No dog
3.14 m below the datum point of the site (FIG. 3B). bones have been documented in the cemeteries.
The second dog mandible (MD2) was found in H14 in The frequency of dog bones is very low compared
the abandonment level (s.u. 1318) near its western limit, with the frequencies of other domestic species
at 2.56 m in depth (FIG. 3A). In the same level, in associ- (FIG. 5). The percentages of Canis familiaris at most
ation with MD2 were found some pottery fragments, Gumelniț a sites does not exceed 5% (TABLE 2)
flint tools, limestones and a human femur diaphysis. (FIG. 5). At three settlements (Căscioarele, Năvodari,
None of this material (including MD2) had traces of Taraschina) percentages range between 5% and 7%
burning. This abandonment level was formed a very and only in the case of the multi-component sites of
short time after the burning of H14 (FIG. 4B). Borduşani, Coș ereni and Hârș ova (TABLE 2) (FIG. 5),
A tooth from MD1 (P4) was 14C dated to 5570 ± 40 do dog bone percentages range between 12.5% and
B.P. (Poz-52983). The calibrated date is 4488 – 4342 16.9% (Bălăș escu et al. 2005b; Ș tefan et al. 2012).
CAL B.C. (95.4% probability) (TABLE 1). This proves Based on the available data, dogs were bred by
that the dog mandibles are contemporary with H14 Gumelniț a communities for different domestic activi-
and belong to Gumelniţa phase A2. ties (hunting, guarding the herd and probably the
Considering the dating and the context of the dog houses, and acting as man’s best friend). It is very dif-
mandibles, it is clear that they are not just ordinary ficult to outline a mortality pattern for these prehisto-
scattered pieces. The presence of two dog mandibles ric dogs, because no one knows the lifespan of a dog in
can be associated with the individual histories of this that period. Nowadays the lifespan of a dog is around
building, from its initial construction through to its 10 years, but there are cases where dogs have reached
abandonment. the age of 17–22 years, depending on variety and
size (Huidekoper 1891: 194). Unfortunately, age esti-
Archaeozoological background mations cannot be made of bones discovered in exca-
The dog is documented in settlements of the Gumelniț a vations; epiphyseal closure can be assigned only in
culture in different archaeological contexts (e.g., houses, general (higher or lower than 2 years). We also know

Figure 3 A) House No. 14; B) Foundation trench C6/2010. The triangles mark the locations where the dog mandibles were
discovered.

Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0 3

Lază r et al Dogs, jaws, and other stories.

Figure 4 A) Stratigraphic diagram of House No. 14: (1318)—the abandonment level; (1244) —the destruction level; (1240–1243,
1252–1253, 1257–1258, 1260–1269, 1275–1280)—the post holes; (1238–1239, 1250–1251) – the foundation trenches; (1254) —the
house floor; (1249) —the exterior level of the house; B) Events in the lifecycle of House No. 14.

that dentition changes and becomes permanent The measurements of the two dog mandibles were
around the age of 6 months. Studies made on dog den- made according to the international standards estab-
tition (Horard-Herbin 1997), based only on lower car- lished by Angela von den Driesch (1976), using a
nassial wear (M1), allow the assignment of teeth to 5 caliper with an instrumental accuracy of 1/10 mm.
categories: A and B (young individuals), C (subadult), Age estimation was based on the existing dentition
D (adult) and E (old adult). In most of the Gumelniț a (erupted in mandibular alveoli) according to Elisabeth
sites where dog percentages are below 5% (TABLE 2) Schmid (1972), while to assess tooth wear patterns the
(FIG. 5), the majority of individuals may be placed in method of Marie-Pierre Horard-Herbin (1997) was
the subadult and adult classes (over 95%). The used. Also, to establish the size of these dogs in com-
young individuals represent around 5%, while older parison with other specimens from the same species in
adults are very rarely documented. After death, the Gumelniț a culture, we made some estimates of the
besides their secondary products (skin and fur), dog cranial base lengths using Dahr and Brinkmann
bones were used as raw materials for manufacturing indices (von den Driesch 1976: 61).
various artifacts (TABLE 3). Also, in some cases (e.g.,
at Hârşova, Borduşani, Vităneşti, Taraschina) canids Animal bone industry
represented an important food resource (TABLE 2) A review of the literature reveals a certain lack of tech-
(Bălăș escu et al. 2005b; Bălăș escu and Radu 2011). nological and functional analyses of the animal bones

4 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0

 Lază r et al. Dogs, jaws, and other stories

Figure 5 The percentages of wild and domestic species at sites comprising the Gumelniţa culture.

in the Gumelniț a cultural asssemblages in both is between 1% and 1.5%. In three settlements
Romania and Bulgaria. Generally, the excavation (Coș ereni, Cuneș ti and Seciu) the artifacts made of
reports, even recent ones, offer only general infor- dog bones represent between 4% and 8%, but many
mation in the form of standard phrases, e.g., “the of these artifacts are small in size. Typologically, one
inventory is completed by tools made of flint, bone can distinguish the following: beveled objects (n =
and antler.” In the best of cases, they provide only 11), awls (n = 19), pendants (n = 2) and a spatula
an enumeration of the principal types, with almost (n = 1) (TABLE 3).
no functional or technological considerations, and Based on such a limited sample, however, it is diffi-
even fewer archaeozoological determinations. cult to identify use patterns of Canis familiaris bones.
Based on available techno-functional studies of In our opinion, the types (above) are strictly of a tech-
animal bones identified in Gumelniţa settlements nological nature (the shapes of the bones are the same
(Frînculeasa et al. 2010; Ș tefan et al. 2012; Mărgărit as the shapes of the tools). Very different seems to be
et al. 2013; Mărgărit et al. 2014), it can be observed the significance of Canis familiaris mandibles at
that these communities had a particular strategy of Sultana-Malu Roşu, where their transformation into
domestic and wild animal utilization (TABLE 2). From amulets seems to have been determined not by techno-
the published data, it is impossible to understand the logical, but by other (cultural) requirements.
importance of artifacts made of Canis familiaris In order to extract technological and functional
bones in Gumelniţa communities, however. information, which might help in the decoding of the
The only good information is from archaeological mandibles’ history, both of them were studied with a
features from 11 Gumelniţa sites (TABLE 3), where we Keyence VHX-600 digital microscope. Thus, they
have carried out direct observations. The frequency were observed at magnifications between 30× and
of artifacts made from dog bones is very low compared 150×, and the images were captured with the aid of a
to that of other species. In most sites, their percentage camera in the microscope.

Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0 5

Lază r et al Dogs, jaws, and other stories.

Table 2 Percentages of domestic and wild fauna and the uses of the dog in the settlements of the Gumelniţa culture (for which
archaeozoological analyses are available).

Mammal bone Domestic fauna Wild fauna Dog Dog eaten or

Site (no.) (%) (%) (%) skinned* Reference

Borduș ani 9317 78.0 22.0 14.4 ● Bălăș escu et al. 2005b
Bucș ani 808 64.2 35.8 1.9 Bălăș escu 1998
Carcaliu 481 42.8 57.2 2.7 Haimovici 1996
Căscioarele 2829 15.9 84.1 5.9 Bălăș escu et al. 2005b
Chitila 481 67.6 32.4 1.7 Bălăș escu et al. 2003
Coș ereni 127 89.8 10.2 12.5 Ș tefan et al. 2012
Drama 6626 92.7 7.3 1.8 Manhart 1998
Drăgăneș ti-Olt 2234 62.6 37.4 2.2 El Susi 2002
Ezero 979 85.3 14.7 3.1 Manhart 1998
Goljamo 13143 52.1 47.9 1.8 Manhart 1998
Delcevo
Gumelniț a 2362 86.1 13.9 3.2 Necrasov and Haimovici
1966
Hârș ova 5310 76.0 24.0 16.9 ● Bălăș escu et al. 2005b
Însurăț ei 581 51.6 48.4 3.4 Moise 1999
Luncaviț a 924 47.2 52.8 2.3 Bălăș escu et al. 2005b
Ovcarovo 8910 66.6 33.4 3.2 Manhart 1998
Măriuț a 526 86.5 13.5 2.5 ■ Bălăș escu et al. 2005b
Năvodari 425 77.4 22.6 6.4 Moise 2001
Pietrele 10804 47.5 52.5 4.6 Hansen et al. 2006
Seciu 259 62.5 37.5 1.5 Popa et al. 2011
Sultana 369 94.3 5.7 3.5 ● Bréhard and Bălăș escu
2012
Tangâru 256 97.3 2.7 1.6 Necrasov and Haimovici
1966
Taraschina 965 91.0 9.0 6.7 ■ Bălăș escu and Radu
2011
Targoviste 15477 91.7 8.3 1.7 Manhart 1998
Vităneș ti 7180 42.0 58.0 2.6 ■ Bălăș escu et al. 2005b
Vlădiceasca 10577 90.2 9.8 3.5 Bălăș escu et al. 2005b

* ■ = eaten; ● = eaten and skinned.

Results much better preserved, being less affected by tapho-

Archaeozoological analysis nomic processes. According to the system proposed
The MD1 and MD2 mandibles were found in two by Hoarard-Herbin (1997), the animal was of inter-
different archaeological levels, but were parts of the mediary age (subadult) based on M1 wear. The coro-
same archaeological sequence. MD1 is a right mand- noid process has an artificial perforation.
ible and has the following teeth: P4 ( premolar), M1 MD2 is a left mandible, and it is quite whole and
and M2 (molars); it weighs 25 g (FIG. 6). The lingual weights 28 g (FIG. 7). The mandible does not have
(internal) part shows traces of radicels, a fact that any teeth and it is broken at the level of the angular
might suggest that this part was found near the soil process. Due to this fact it was not possible to obtain
surface. The lateral (external) part of the mandible is all measurements (TABLE 4). The piece is less affected

Table 3 Quantity and percentages of artifacts made of animal bones in the settlements of the Gumelniţa culture.

Artifacts Artifacts Type of Dog bones

Quantity of made of dog made of dog artifacts made used to make
Site bone artifacts (no.) bones (no.) bones (%) of dog bones * artifacts ** Reference

Borduşani 351 8 2.2 ■● □▽○◇ unpublished

Carcaliu 59 2 3.4 ■ ◇ unpublished
Coşereni 24 2 8.3 ●▲ ○ Ș tefan et al. 2012
Cuneşti 40 2 5 ■● □◇ Mărgărit et al. 2013
Hârşova 412 10 2.4 ■● □ ▽○◇ unpublished
Luncaviț a 278 1 0.3 ■ ◇ unpublished
Măriuţa 122 2 1.6 ● ○ Mărgărit et al. 2014
Seciu 16 1 6.2 ● ○ Frînculeasa et al. 2010
Sultana 170 2 1.1 △ unpublished
Taraschina 30 1 3.3 ■ ◇ unpublished
Vităneşti 237 3 1.2 ●◆ □△○ unpublished

* ■ = awl; ● = beveled object; ▲ = indeterminate object; = pendant; ◆ = spatula.

** □ = femur; =humerus; △ = mandible; ▽ = radius; ○ = tibia; ◇ = ulna.

6 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0

 Lază r et al. Dogs, jaws, and other stories

Table 4 Sultana-Malu Roşu dog mandible measurements.

Code (von den Driesch 1976) MD1 (mm) right MD2 (mm) left

1 121.7 121.4
2 120.1
3 115.7 114.9
4 105.4 106.1
5 99.7 100.1
6 104.1
7 68.7 73.3
8 65 67.7
9 60.9 63.8
10 32.1 35
11 33.9 35.1
12 29.8 31.1
13 L 20.8
13 l 8.1
14 19.8 20.8
15 L 7.9
15 l 5.7
18 48.7 43.8
19 20.5 18.4
20 17 17.3
Figure 6 Dog mandible MD1 lateral side (top) and lingual 22 145.3
side (bottom). 23 144.4 145.4
24 145.6 146.1
25 145.1 145.8
26 144.5 152.3
by roots, but has a series of fine cracks in the cortical
bone. The absence of teeth makes a precise estimation
of the age impossible, but the fact that all the definitive
killed. Because of this, it is difficult to determine pre-
teeth were erupted suggests an age of over 6 months
cisely if the meat of these dogs was consumed or not.
(Schmid 1972). On the lingual (internal) side to the
The other data for this site do not suggest that dog
right of M2 and M3 were observed two fine oblique
was included in the diet of the people, in contrast
cutting traces: one (near M2) of 13.2 mm in length
with the situation documented at other contemporary
and another of 9.9 mm (near M3) suggesting the
settlements (e.g., at Hârș ova, Taraschina or Vităneș ti).
detachment of the adjacent tissues from the bone.
Morphologically and biometrically, the two pieces
Based on the taphonomic data it can be concluded
are different and derive from different individuals
that both dogs from Sultana-Malu Roș u were
(FIGS. 6, 7). The biometrical data are within the
skinned after they died and perhaps fur was recovered
known values for the Gumelniţa culture (Bălăşescu
for use as a raw material. The lack of other skeletal
et al. 2005b). Thus, an estimation of the basal length
elements does not allow us to know if these dogs
of the skull, based on the Dahr parameters (von den
died naturally, accidentally or if they were deliberated
Driesch 1976: 61), allowed us to obtain some close
values in the case of the two analyzed mandibles:
MD1 = 145.1 mm and MD2 = 145.8 mm. Based on
the Brinkmann parameters (von den Driesch 1976:
61) we observed a considerable difference between
the two pieces: MD1 = 144.5 mm and MD2 =
152.3 mm. These values are higher than the averages
for the Gumelniț a culture in Romania with respect
to the Dahr parameters (average = 131.9 mm, n =
92, limits 98.0 – 179.0 mm) and the Brinkmann par-
ameters (average = 131.4 mm, n = 57, limits
110.1–155.0 mm) but are within the observed limits.

Technical and functional analysis

The surface of MD1, on the lingual side (FIG. 6), was
strongly affected by radicels which destroyed part of
the technological and functional marks that could
have been indicators of processing and utilization.
Still, despite the degradation of the surface, it was
Figure 7 Dog mandible MD2 lateral side (top) and lingual possible to establish that the perforation technique
side (bottom). was rotation, proven by a small area of circular

Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0 7

Lază r et al Dogs, jaws, and other stories.

Figure 8 The MD1 circular perforation. A) (50× magnification) lingual side; B) Lateral side; C, D) Traces of usage (50× and 150×
magnification) on the coronoid process; E, F) Details of the perforation (200× and 100× magnification) and the technological
marks.

scratches (FIG. 8A–B). It seems that on the lateral side, good indicator of the method (FIG. 9A–B). Moreover,
in order to enlarge the perforation, percussion was on the superior side of the perforation, more visible
applied, the perforation base being characterized by on the lateral side, is a strip of macroscopic polishing
“shivering” with visible impact points. On the same that indicates the passage area for the thread used
side, towards the extremity, on the coronoid process, for suspension (FIG. 9C–D). In this area, the perforation
are traces of usage (FIG. 8C–D). Around the perforation walls are smoothed, partially eliminating the rotation
is an area which is characterized by the partial elimin- scratches (FIG. 9C). Furthermore, it can be assumed
ation of the manufacturing marks and the smoothing that the small fracture that appears on the coronoid
of the walls (FIG. 8E–F). This area seems to have been process is a consequence of thread pressure, because
the passage area for the thread used for hanging up polishing is sumperimposed over the fracture
the piece. (FIG. 9D). On the whole surface of the lingual side,
For MD2, the proper preservation of the surface macroscopic polishing was observed and this fact
allows for more detailed technological observations might signify that there was contact with some
(FIG. 7). The preforation technique was rotated alter- material. Microscopically an area of scratches which
nately from both sides, the specific scratches being a are longitudinal to the axis (FIG. 9F) illustrates

8 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0

 Lază r et al. Dogs, jaws, and other stories

Figure 9 The MD2 circular perforation. A) (30× magnification) lateral side; B) lingual side; C, D) Traces of usage around the
perforation (100× magnification) and on the coronoid process (150× magnification); E) Cutting traces on the lingual side; F)
Macroscopic usage traces on the lateral side (150× magnification).

prolonged contact so that the structure of the material Morin rockshelter (France) (Sablin and Khlopachev
was imprinted. 2002; Maud et al. 2011; Boudadi-Maligne et al.
2012; Germonpré et al. 2012).
Discussion The origins of dog domestication has given rise to
The interaction of people and dogs began in the different theories and controversies (Davis and Vala
Palaeolithic, the oldest findings being those from 1978; Vilá et al. 1997; Morey 2006, 2010; Wayne
Goyet (Belgium) dated at ca. 36,000 CAL B.P., and et al. 2006; Lupo 2011; Russell 2012). Beyond these
those from Razboinichya Cave (Russia) dated at ca. theories, one sees an increased wild/domestic dichot-
33,000 CAL B.P. (Ovodov et al. 2011). Most of the omy through time and the accentuation of the nature
well-documented remains of early domestic dog vs. culture relationship (Russell 2002). That had sig-
come from the late Glacial and early Holocene nificant consequences for human thought, socioeco-
periods (ca. 14,000–9000 CAL B.P.) as demonstrated nomic structures and perceptions about the world.
by finds from Předmosti (Czech Republic), Eliseevici Thus, in the Mesolithic, in different parts of the world
(Russia), Mezin and Mezirich (Ukraine), and (e.g., at Ain Mallaha and Hayonim Terrace, Lepenski
Montespan, Le Closeau, Pont d’Ambon and Le Vir, Vlasac, Lokomotiv-Raisovet, Skateholm I and II)

Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0 9

10

Lază r et al Dogs, jaws, and other stories.

Journal of Field Archaeology

Table 5 Archaeological sites containing dog bones from the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods in Europe. Sites are arranged by date.

Dog use
Complete bodies Body parts
Deposited Inventory Raw
Approximate Separate in human Offerings Food material
Region Culture/group* Dates (B.C.) Site burials graves Deposits source source References

Serbia Starčevo-Criş ca. 6200–5300 Padina – – – ● – Clason 1980

Starčevo – – – ● –
Vojvodina Perlez – – ● – – Borić 1999
2015

Italy Cardial ca. 6000–5500 Grotta Continenza – – ● – – Malone 2003

Catignano ca. 5600–4800 Catignano – – ● – – Russell 2012
Romania Dudeşti ca. 5500–5000 Măgura Buduiasca – – – ● – Bălăşescu et al. 2005b
VOL.

Beciu – – – ● –
Serbia Vinča ca. 5500–4500 Divostin – – – ● – Bökönyi 1988
0

Gomolava – ● – – – Lichter 2001

Opovo – – ● – ● Russell 2012
NO.

Romania Liubcova-Orniţa – – – ● – Bălăşescu et al. 2005b

0

Slovakia LBK ca. 5500–4500 Nitra – – – – ● Jeunesse 1997

Hurbanovo-Bacherov ● – – – – Bistáková and Pažinová 2010
majer
Blatné – ● – – –
Germany Aiterhofen – – ● – – Jeunesse 1997
Romania Boian ca. 5500–4500 Isaccea – – – ● – Bălăşescu et al. 2005b
Hârşova – – – ● –
Izvoarele – – – ● –
Bulgaria Hamangia ca. 5200–4500 Durankulak – – ● – – Spassov and Iliev 2002
Hungary Tisza ca. 5000–4500 Hódmezóvásárhely- – ● – – – Lichter 2001
Gorzsa II
Slovakia Csőszhalom ca. 5000–4500 Čičarovce – – ● – –
Hungary Oborin – – ● – –
Italy SMP ca. 4950–4050 Chiozza ● – – – – Brea et al. 2010
Bagnolo San Vito ● ● – – –
Ponte Ghiara – – ● – ●
Arene Candide – – – – ●
Parma-via Guidorossi ● – – – ●
Collecchio-Ca’Lunga – – ● – –
Collecchio-Tangenziale – – – – ●
Pontetaro – ● – – –
Hungary Lengyel ca. 4900–3950 Zengővárkony – ● – – – Lichter 2001
Mórágy-Tüzkődomb – ● – – –
Slovakia Lengyel ca. 4900–3950 Svodín – ● – – – Bistáková and Pažinová 2010
Romania Foieni ca. 4800–4500 Lumea Nouă ● – – – – Gligor 2011
Italy Ripoli ca. 4700–3300 Ripoli – ● – – – Brea et al. 2010
Bulgaria KGK VI ca. 4500–3800 Rousse – – ● – – Chernakov 2010
Romania Borduș ani-Popina – – – ● ● Bălăşescu et al. 2005b
Harș ova-tell – – – ● ●
Mariuț a – – – ● ●
 Vităneș ti – – – ● –
Taraschina – – – ● – Bălăşescu and Radu 2011
Hungary Tiszapolgár ca. 4500–4000 Tiszapolgár- – ● ● – – Lichter 2001
Basatanya
Tápé-Lebő – – ● – –
Tiszaföldvár ● – – – –
Hódmezóvásárhely- – – ● – –
Szakálhát
Vojvodina Srpski-Krstur ● – – – –
France Chasseen ca. 4500–3500 Saint-Paul-Trois- – ● – – – Beeching and Crubezy 1998
Châteaux
Plots a Berriac-Aude ● – – – – Vaquer 1998
Martins a Roussillon- – ● – – –
Vaucluse
Ukraine Sredny Stog ca.4500–3500 Dereivka ● – – – – Telegin 1986
Italy Serra d’Alto ca.4500–3500 Cala Colombo – ● ● – – Brea et al. 2010
France Michelsberg ca.4400–3500 Bretteville-le Rabert ● – ● – – Arbogast et al. 1989, Arbogast et al.
2005
France Arnaville-Le – ● ● – –
Rudemont
Journal of Field Archaeology

Germany Heilbronn- ● – ● – – Seidel 2010

Klingenberg
Denmark TRB ca. 4100–2800 Gammellung – – ● – – Tilley 1996
U.K. Windmill Hill ca. 3600–3300 Windmill Hill ● – – ● – Harcourt 1974
Peterborough ca. 3400–2500 Staines Road Farm – – ● – – Clark 1996b
Ware
France Véraza ca. 3000–2300 Can-Pey – – ● – – Vigne 1982
Ireland Beaker ca. 2500–1800 Newgrange ● – ● – – van Winjgaarden-Bakker 1986

Lază r et al. Dogs, jaws, and other stories

● KGK VI = Kodjadermen-Gumelniț a-Karanovo VI; LBK = Linearbandkeramik; SMP = Square Mouthed Pottery; TRB = Funnel (-neck) beaker culture.
2015
0
0VOL.
NO.
11
Lază r et al Dogs, jaws, and other stories.

human burials are associated with dog remains or dog of the dog’s integration into human society and an
burials are found in settlements or cemeteries assertion of its special position in relation to people.
(Davis and Vala 1978; Tchernov and Valla 1997; Because of the existence of perforations (MD1 =
Radovanović 1999; Zvelebil 2008; Morey 2010; Losey 0.5 mm, MD2 = 4 mm), we might presume that the
et al. 2011). Similar associations between people and mandibles were pendants worn around the neck or
canids are known also for the Neolithic and Eneolithic waist, so that they functioned as ornaments or
as shown by numerous discoveries in Europe (TABLE 5) amulets. They might have been parts of costumes.
or on other continents (e.g., Shamanka II, Catalhöyük, Even so, they could also have hung in the house or
Çayönü, Domuztepe, Botai, Krasnyi Yar) (Hill 2000; outside it and had apotropaic properties. The forms
Olsen 2000; Morey 2010; Losey et al. 2011; Croucher of these artifacts recall their sources because they pre-
2012; Russell 2012). In the case of dog burials, they, serve the anatomical shapes of the jaws and their pro-
without a doubt, reflect a particular attitude and cessing/working was minor. So, the visual aspect of
respect by the people for their companions, which bene- these artifacts was designed to be identifiable to
fitted from the same burial processes as humans. This those who saw them; perforating them meant they
kind of treatment suggests that the role of the dog was were to be seen. It is evident that the dog mandibles
expanded by humans into the perceived world of the were designed to be identifiable, exposed, viewed and
dead (White 1991; Morey 2010). As Darcy F. Morey admired. Thus, they had a public value, both for the
(2006: 159) suggested, “nothing signifies the social people wearing or otherwise using them, but also for
importance that people have attached to dogs more con- those who saw them, being fundamental to the con-
spicuously than their deliberate interment upon death.” struction and maintenance of personal identity (see
On the other hand, inclusion of dog parts in human below).
burials can be metaphors for the beliefs of people prob- The unique character of these two artifacts made of
ably connected to hunting (Morey 2010). The dismem- the mandibles from two dogs is demonstrated by the
bered remains of dogs may suggest that they were fact that in almost 90 years of archaeological research
sacrificed in a ritual, after which they were buried (Byrd at Sultana-Malu Roşu (that led to the digging of
et al. 2013). In other situations, after the sacrifice, dogs approximately 80% of the settlement area) no similar
are consumed in honor of the guests, as a symbol of the artifacts have been found. Moreover, in the other
importance of their friendship (Snyder 1991). Other settlements of the Gumelniț a culture there are no
cases could indicate food gifts for the dead, as part of other pendants made of dog mandibles. This demon-
the annual mourning rituals or, according to various eth- strates that the phenomenon was not general.
nographic accounts, could have marked different MD1 was identified in the foundation trench of H14
moments in initiation rituals or special feasts (Byrd and that allows us to interpret this item as resulting
et al. 2013). Nevertheless, these cases demonstrate “a from a foundation ritual/sacrifice (a foundation
close prehistoric human-animal relationship” (Clark deposit), which marked the beginning of the lifecycle
1996a: 34) and the significant role played by dogs in of the building. In this way, construction practices
human lives. became crucial social and ritual mechanisms to
Since the European Mesolithic (e.g., at Lepenski manage the complexities of living in large permanent
Vir, Padina and Vlasac) the dog was part of the communities, but also the means to strengthen collec-
human diet as well (Clason 1980; Borić et al. 2004; tive family identity.
Dimitrijević 2008). In the Neolithic and Eneolithic These kinds of ritual practices are also attested in
there is much evidence of dog consumption most prehistoric communities from different parts of
(TABLES 2, 5). It should not be forgotten that ritual con- the world, especially in the Balkans (Makkay 1983;
sumption and/or feasting could reinforce the special Gallis 1985; Halstead 1995; Bradley 2005; Hodder
position of dogs (above). Maybe the use of dogs as 2005, 2013; Chapman and Gaydarska 2007; Schier
food reflects the strengthening of the social relation- 2008; Bălăș escu 2009; Russell 2012; Amkreutz 2013;
ship between people and dogs inside prehistoric Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2013) and consist
communities. of the “sacrifice” of items with economical or symbolic
Related to the dog’s “ordinary” position (as food) in value to ensure the durability of something (e.g., build-
relation to humans, is the use of its bones ( probably ings, ovens, hearths). Another example at Sultana-
also skin and fur) to manufacture different objects. Malu Roşu, is found in the hearth from House No. 2
In the Neolithic there are several examples of the use (contemporary with the H14), where a gold pendant
of dog bones as a raw material source (TABLES 3, 5). was deposited (Andreescu and Lazăr 2008). Thus,
This category could include the two mandibles from based on numerous cases documented in this region
Sultana-Malu Roşu. However, the use of skeletal it can be said that such ritual practices were common
remains for making artifacts is also a symbolic form in these communities.

12 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0

 Lază r et al. Dogs, jaws, and other stories

MD2 was found in the abandonment level of H14, settlements for which archaeozoological data are avail-
which marks the end of the lifecycle of the building. able (TABLE 2). Unfortunately, it was impossible to
The presence of this item in this level that marks the identify any pattern.
end of that building, is symbolic of intentional These data do demonstrate the importance of dogs in
“closure.” The deposition of MD2 at the end of H14 Gumelniţa communities, however, and their close
and MD1 at the beginning demonstrates indubitably relationship with humans. Dogs are in all settlements
the similarity of sacrificial practices used by the as reflected in the archaeological remains. Also, the
house inhabitants to highlight two key events. dog perfectly reflects what Carl O. Sauer (1969) called
These sacrificial practices also highlight the exist- a “household animal,” being a species that forages
ence of complex behaviors of the people from this pre- alone within prehistoric settlements and can survive in
historic community. This praxis was a significant way small numbers with little human intervention (Russell
to express personal and collective identities through 2012). The closeness of dogs and people is the result
material culture, and it became a mechanism for of their companionship in everyday life, based on
enhancing social interactions and integrating peoples, both mutual benefits of cohabitation, and their simi-
animals, buildings and objects. All of this confirms larities in diet. Human attitudes towards dogs were
that house rituals reinforced crucial social and sym- based on their similar experiences but also on the par-
bolic elements of the community. It also demonstrates ticular necessities of each community or individual.
the role of the dogs in the construction and mainten- In contrast to these generalities, the two items from
ance of distinct historical memories. Sultana-Malu Roș u can be related only to the lifecycle
Moreover, the fact that the mandibles were heavily of H14 (FIG. 4B) and the symbolic role of the dog as its
worn, as demonstrated by microscopic analyses, protector. We cannot say whether people who wore or
allows us to assume that the artifacts belonged to otherwise used the jaw pendants were the same as
someone before being sacrificed and deposited. those who founded the house and deposited them
Based on the data recorded in the field, it is clear there. It is difficult to establish a relationship between
that these dog mandibles were not simply thrown those who manufactured the dog pendants, those who
away at the end of their use-lives. This situation is used them, and the inhabitants of H14. It can be
not an accidental circumstance, but reflects complex stated with certainty only that dog mandibles had
behavior and the deliberate deposition of dog mand- different meanings and functions, both before and
ibles, at key moments for the inhabitants of the after deposition. There is a clear intersection between
house/community (FIG. 4B). these artifacts, the craftsmen who made them, the
Why are dog jaw pendants appropriate for foun- people who wore or otherwise used them, the inhabi-
dation and closing deposits here but not elsewhere? tants of H14 and the lifecycle of the house.
Undoubtedly, this case reflects the particular biography The case of two dog artifacts from the site of
of the house and its inhabitants, but, perhaps also indi- Sultana-Malu Roşu is a classic example of a “synec-
cates its exceptional position (or that of its inhabitants) doche” ( pars pro toto) (Chapman 2000). Each frag-
at Sultana-Malu Roș u. The dog mandibles from ment ( jaw bone) was simultaneously an object in its
Sultana-Malu Roşu can be linked hypothetically to own right and a symbol of the once complete body
the rise in megafauna hunting in Gumelniț a commu- and that fragmentation signifies the attachment to
nities (Bălăș escu et al. 2005a, 2005b; El Susi 2002; one of the principal forms of personhood—“fractal”
Moise 1999; Brehard and Bălăș escu 2012). This idea or “dividual” (Chapman and Gaydarska 2007: 9).
reminds us of the important role of the dogs in the The fragments interpenetrated other objects, humans,
hunting of large mammals. However, in the settlements animals and places. The object could evoke the collec-
for which archaeozoological data are available, there is tive memories of the space where the fragmentation
no distinct pattern linking hunting activities to dogs. process of the whole body occurred (Chapman 2000;
Thus, at the sites for which wild species are present at Chapman and Gaydarska 2007). In Balkan prehistory
a higher rate than domestic animals (FIG. 5), the percen- we have numerous examples of synecdoches for almost
tage of dogs is still below 5%. Instead, at the sites where all known categories of archaeological discoveries
dogs have a higher rate (e.g., at Hârș ova and (e.g., tools, weapons, pots, ornaments, figurines,
Borduș ani), animal husbandry is the dominant activity. food, human and animal bodies, buildings, places)
Also, the faunal data for Sultana-Malu Roș u indicate a (Chapman 2000; Chapman and Gaydarska 2007)
preponderance of domestic species (FIG. 5), which that demonstrate a general social practice. In the
proves that hunting activity had a secondary role. So, case of Sultana-Malu Roș u, the purpose of the two
this hypothesis cannot be supported. We also tried to dog mandible artifacts was, symbolically and function-
determine whether there is a link between some econ- ally, closely related to the dog’s role as guardian and
omic activities (hunting and animal husbandry) and protector of the home. Thus, the inhabitants of H14
consumption of dogs as food in different Gumelniț a used these items in the same way that a living dog

Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0 13

Lază r et al Dogs, jaws, and other stories.

would have been used, for spiritual and physical 1600s A.D. to about 1880 A.D. (Morey 2010:
protection. fig. 6.15). Pairs of those modern dog mandibles were
Manufactured goods from dog mandibles are very used by children to make play sledges (Morey 2010:
rare in sites of the Gumelniţa culture. Only at the 143–144). Despite the fact that mandibles from
multi-component site of Vităneşti, is there documented Greenland are almost identical to those from
a spatula that was cut out of a mandible and modified Sultana-Malu Roşu, they are not the same in terms
through bifacial abrasion on the articular side which of meaning or use. Our technical, functional and
created a narrow active front. Also, Burial No. 53 archaeozoological analyses demonstrate that the dog
from the multi-component site of Rousse (Bulgaria) mandibles from the Sultana-Malu Roşu site were
has a dog mandible mentioned in the inventory, but it used for other purposes, in any case not as toys.
shows no signs of processing (Chernakov 2010). Beyond the technologically and typologically
Dog mandible use has a long history in the region. unique character of these prehistoric artifacts, they
A similar situation is attested in the Iron Gates broaden the repertoire of artifacts made of animal
Mesolithic at Lepenski Vir (Serbia), where dog mand- bones from the Eneolithic period in the Balkans.
ibles seem to have had a particular significance They also tell us about the people who manufactured,
because they were placed exclusively in men’s tombs, used, sacrificed and abandoned them. Moreover, these
a fact that made Ivana Radovanović (1999) consider objects mark the lifecycles of H14 and the various
the practice as representative of a belief system con- people who used that space. Lastly, they reflect the
nected probably to hunting. Because Vităneşti, mechanisms used to construct and transmit specific
Rousse, and Lepenski Vir are in the Lower Danube historical memories. Thus, these dog mandibles can
Basin, we should not exclude the possibility of trans- be considered as active agents of social structures,
mission of some Mesolithic hunting traditions over mentalities, ideologies, ideas, beliefs, and the organiz-
time and into the Eneolithic period. We should ing principles of the peoples who used them. They
mention that other Mesolithic traditions, like technol- inform us about different types of identities: individual
ogy (e.g., microliths), were transmitted from gener- ( persons to whom they belonged); familiar (the inhabi-
ation to generation. In support of this observation is tants of that house); and collective (local community),
the principle of synecdoche confirmed in many and illustrate the shared experiences of dogs and
Neolithic and Eneolithic settlements. According to humans. Furthermore, these unique artifacts represent
John Chapman (2000: 223) it was a social practice a starting point for new discussions about the ancestral
deeply rooted in hunter-gatherer traditions which relationship between people and dogs.
were maintained well into the farming period.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Ciprian Astaloș for improving the
Conclusions
English translation of this paper and Florian Mihail
This paper advances the current knowledge on dogs
who has offered us the unpublished data about the
and their place in Eneolithic communities from the
hard animal material industry from the Carcaliu,
Balkans through the two items made of dog mandibles
Luncaviț a and Taraschina sites. The manuscript bene-
from Sultana-Malu Roşu. These particular artifacts
fitted from the valuable comments of three anon-
have the potential to redefine the role of dogs in the
ymous reviewers. This work was supported by two
Gumelniţa culture and to prove that this species did
grants from the Romanian National Authority for
not have a single function or meaning. Thus, the dog
Scientific Research, CNCS–UEFISCDI, project
was a best friend, an everyday companion, a house-
numbers PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-1015 and PN-II-RU-
hold guard, a hunting aide; it controlled the herds,
TE-2011-3-0133.
aided sanitation, and was even the source of raw
materials and food. It also had a symbolic position References
within the community, being an active factor in Amkreutz, L. 2013. “Home is When you Build it. Characteristics of
various social practices and rituals. These various Building and Occupation in the Lower Rhine Area Wetlands
(5500–2500 CAL B.C.),” in D. Hofmann and J. Smyth, eds.,
aspects of dog use by people within the settlements Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe: Sedentism,
indicate a certain degree of specialization. The mul- Architecture and Practice. New York: Springer, 229–259.
tiple roles of the dogs assigned by humans enabled a Andreescu, R.A., and C. Lazăr. 2008. “Valea Mostiştei. Aşezarea
gumelniț eană de la Sultana-Malu Roşu,” Cercetări
wide range of dog symbolism in prehistoric commu- Arheologice 14–15: 55–76.
nities (Russell 2012: 293). Andrieşescu, I. 1924. “Les fouilles de Sultana,” Dacia 1: 51–107.
Arbogast, R. M., V. Blouet, J. Desloges, and C. Guillaume. 1989.
The two dog mandibles from Sultana-Malu Roşu “Le cerf et le chien dans les pratiques funéraires de la seconde
are unique in European prehistory. The only known moitié du Néolithique du Nord de la France,”
Anthropozoologica 3: 37–42.
similar artifacts are the drilled dog mandibles from Arbogast, R. M., S. Deschler-Erb, E. Marti-Grädel, P. Plüss, H.
the Misigtoq site (Greenland), dating from the late Hüster-Plogmann, and J. Schibler. 2005. “Du loup au ‘chien

14 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0

 Lază r et al. Dogs, jaws, and other stories

de tourbières,’ les restes de canidés sur les sites lacustres entre Choyke, A. 2010. “The Bone is the Beast: Animal Amulets and
Alpes et Jura,” Revue de Paléobiologie 10: 171–183. Ornaments in Power and Magic,” in D. Campana, P.
Aujollet, D. 1997. “Confréries guerrières et confréries de rêveurs Crabtree, S. D. Defrance, J. Lev-To and A. Choyke, eds.,
chez les Sioux Lakota,” Journal de la Société des Anthropological Aproaches to Zooarchaeology. Complexity,
Américanistes 83: 283–293. Colonialism, and Animal Transformations. Oxford and
Bălăşescu, A. 1998. “Consideraţii preliminare asupra faunei neoli- Oakville: Oxbow Books, 197–209.
tice,” in S. Marinescu-Bîlcu, R. Andreescu, C. Bem, T. Popa Clark, G. 1996a. “Animal Burials from Polynesia,” Archaeology in
and M. Tănase, eds., Şantierul arheologic Bucşani (Jud. New Zealand 39 (1): 30–38.
Giurgiu). Raport preliminar. Campania 1998. Buletinul Clark, K. M. 1996b. “Neolithic Dogs: A Reappraisal Based on
Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu”, 2–4, 99–102. Evidence from the Remains of a Large Canid Deposited in a
Bălăș escu, A. 2009. “Ritual Depositions of Sus domesticus from Ritual Feature,” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 6:
Poduri–Dealul Ghindaru (Cucuteni culture, Bacău County, 211–219.
Romania),” Annales d’Université “Valahia” Târgoviste. Clason, A. T. 1980. “Padina and Starčevo: Game, Fish and Cattle,”
Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 11(1): 69–78. Palaeohistoria 22: 141–173.
Bălăşescu, A., D. Moise, and V. Radu. 2005a. “The Paleoeconomy Copet-Rougier, E. 1988. “Le Jeu de l’entre-deux. Le chien chez les
of Gumelniț a Communities on the Territory of Romania,” Mkako (Est-Cameroun),” L’Homme 28: 108–121.
Culturăș i Civilizaț ie la Dunărea de Jos 22: 167–206. Coppinger, R., and L. Coppinger. 2001. Dogs: A New Understanding
Bălăşescu, A., and V. Radu. 2011. “Paléo-économie animalière et of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. Chicago: The
reconstitution de l’environnement,” in L. Carozza, C. Bem University of Chicago Press.
and C. Micu, eds., Société et environnement dans la zone du Croucher, K. 2012. Death and Dying in the Neolithic Near East.
Bas Danube durant le 5ème millénaire avant notre ère. Iaș i: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Editura Universităţii Al. I. Cuza, 385–407. Davis, S. J. M., and F. Valla. 1978. “Evidence for the Domestication
Bălăşescu, A., V. Radu, and D. Moise. 2005b. Omul şi mediul animal of the Dog 12,000 Years Ago in the Natufian of Israel,” Nature
între mileniile VII-IV î.e.n. la Dunărea de Jos. Târgoviș te: 276: 608–610.
Cetatea de Scaun. Dimitrijević, V. 2008. “Lepenski Vir Animal Bones: What Was Left
Bălăşescu, A., V. Radu, and C. Nicolae. 2003. “Fauna de la Chitila- in the Houses,” in C. Bonsall, V. Boroneanţ and I.
Fermă. Studiu Arheozoologic Preliminar,” Materiale de Istorie Radovanović, eds., The Iron Gates in Prehistory. New
şi Muzeografie 17: 3–10. Perspectives. BAR International Series 1893. Oxford:
Beeching, A., and E. Crubezy. 1998. “Les sépultures chasséennes,” Archaeopress, 117–130.
in J. Guilaine, ed., Sépultures d’Occident et genèses des Dumitrescu, V., A. Bolomey, and F. Mogoşanu. 1983. Esquisse d’une
mégalithismes. Paris: Errance, 145–164. préhistoire de la Roumanie jusqu’á la fin de l’âge du bronze.
Bistáková, A., and N. Pažinová. 2010. “(Un)usual Neolithic and Bucureș ti: Editura Ştiinț ifică şi Enciclopedică.
Early Eneolithic Mortuary Practices in the Area of the North El Susi, G. 2002. “Archaeozoological Researches in the Eneolithical
Carpathian Basin,” Documenta Praehistorica 37: 147–159. Site from Drăgăneşti-Olt (Slatina Olt County),” Cultură şi
Bökönyi, S. 1988. “The Neolithic Fauna of Divostin,” in A. Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos 19: 154–158.
McPherron and D. Srejović, eds., Divostin and the Neolithic Frînculeasa, A., M. Mărgărit, and I. Elek Popa. 2010. “About the
of Central Serbia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Organic Material Industry from the Gumelniț a Settlement
419–445. Seciu—Prahova District,” Annales d’Université “Valahia”
Borić, D. 1999. “Places That Created Time in the Danube Gorges Târgoviste. Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 12: 123–138.
and Beyond, c. 9000–5500 BC,” Documenta Praehistorica 26: Gallis, K. 1985. “A Late Neolithic Foundation Offering from
41–70. Thessaly,” Antiquity 59: 20–24.
Borić, D., G. Grupe, J. Peters, and Ž. Mikić. 2004. “Is the Germonpré, M., M. Láznicková-Galetová, and M. V. Sablin. 2012.
Mesolithic–Neolithic Subsistence Dichotomy Real? New “Palaeolithic Dog Skulls at the Gravettian Predmostí Site, the
Stable Isotope Evidence from the Danube Gorges,” European Czech Republic,” Journal of Archaeological Science 39:
Journal of Archaeology 7: 221–248. 184–202.
Boudadi-Maligne, M., J.-B. Mallye, M. Langlais, and C. Barshay- Gligor, M. 2011. “Relaţia om-câine în preistorie: resturi scheletice
Szmidt. 2012. “Des restes de chiens magdaléniens à l’abri du umane ș i de canide. Practici mortuare, dovezi arheologice ș i
Morin (Gironde, France): Implications socio-économiques posibile semnificaţii,” Analele Banatului 19: 51–66.
d’une innovation zootechnique,” PALEO 23: 39–54. Goring-Morris, A. N., and A. Belfer-Cohen. 2013. “Houses and
Bradley, R. 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe. Households: A Near Eastern Perspective,” in D. Hofmann and
London: Routledge. J. Smyth, eds., Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe:
Brea, M. B., P. Mazzieri, and R. Micheli. 2010. “People, Dogs and Sedentism, Architecture and Practice. New York: Springer, 29–44.
Wild Game: Evidence of Human-Animal Relations from Haimovici, S. 1996. “Studiul arheozoologic al materialului provenit
Middle Neolithic Burials and Personal Ornaments in din staţiunea gumelniţeană de la Carcaliu,” Peuce 12: 377–392.
Northern Italy,” Documenta Praehistorica 37: 125–145. Halstead, P. 1995. “From Sharing to Hoarding: The Neolithic
Bréhard, S., and A. Bălăș escu. 2012. “What’s Behind the Tell Foundations of Aegean Bronze Age Society?” in R. Laffineur
Phenomenon? An Archaeozoological Approach to Eneolithic and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., Politeia: Society and State in the
Sites in Romania,” Journal of Archaeological Science 39: Aegean Bronze Age. Liège: University of Liège, 11–20.
3167–3183. Hansen, S., A. Dragoman, A. Reingruber, N. Benecke, I. Gatsov, T.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. “Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Hoppe, F. Kimscha, P. Nedelcheva, B. Song, J. Wahl, and J.
Dates,” Radiocarbon 51: 337–360. Wunderlich. 2006. “Pietrele—eine kupferzeitliche Sidelung an
Byrd, B. F., A. Cornellas, J. W. Eerkens, J. S. Rosenthal, T. R. der Unteren Donau. Bericht uber die Ausgrabung im
Carpenter, A. Leventhal, and J. A. Leonard. 2013. “The Role Sommer 2005,” Eurasia Antiqua 12: 2–62.
of Canids in Ritual and Domestic Contexts: New Ancient Harcourt, R. A. 1974. “The Dog in Prehistoric and Early Historic
DNA Insights From Complex Hunter-Gatherer Sites in Britain,” Journal of Archaeological Science 1: 151–175.
Prehistoric Central California,” Journal of Archaeological Hare, B., and V. Woods. 2013. The Genius of Dogs: How Dogs Are
Science 40: 2176–2189. Smarter Than You Think. New York: Dutton Adult.
Chapman, J. 1999. “Deliberate House-Burning in the Prehistory Hart, L. A. 1995. “Dogs as Human Companions: A Review of the
of Central and Eastern Europe,” in A. Gustafsnon and Relationship,” in J. Serpell, ed., The Domestic Dog: Its
H. Karlsson, eds., Glyfer och arkeologiska rum: En vänbok till Evolution, Behavior, and Interactions with People. Cambridge:
Jarl Nordbladh. Gotare Series A. Göteborg: University of Cambridge University Press, 162–178.
Göteborg Press, 113–126. Hill, E. 2000. “The Contextual Analysis of Animal Interments and
Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places Ritual Practice in Southwestern North America,” Kiva 65:
and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South Eastern Europe. 361–398.
New York: Routledge. Hodder, I. 2005. “The Spatio-Temporal Organization of the Early
Chapman, J., and B. Gaydarska. 2007. Parts and Wholes: ‘Town’ at Catalhöyük,” in D. Bailey, A. Whittle and V.
Fragmentation in Prehistoric Contexts. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Cummings, eds., (Un)settling the Neolithic. Oxford: Oxbow
Chernakov, D. 2010. “Some Observations about the Discovered Books, 126–139.
Human Skeletons at Rousse Tell,” Studii de Preistorie 7: Hodder, I. 2013. “From Diffusion to Structural Transformation:
145–183. The Changing Roles of the Neolithic House in the Middle

Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0 15

Lază r et al Dogs, jaws, and other stories.

East, Turkey and Europe,” in D. Hofmann and J. Smyth, eds., Time: An Archaeological Perspective. BAR International
Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe: Sedentism, Architecture Series 889. Oxford: Archaeopress, 71–92.
and Practice. New York: Springer, 349–362. Ovodov, N. D., S. J. Crockford, Y. V. Kuzmin, T. F. G. Higham,
Horard-Herbin, M.-P. 1997. Le village celtique des Arènes à G. W. L. Hodgins, and J. van der Plicht. 2011. “A 33,000-
Levroux. L’élevage et les productions animales dans l’économie Year-Old Incipient Dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia:
de la fin du second Age du Fer. 12ème supplément à la Revue Evidence of the Earliest Domestication Disrupted by the Last
du Centre de la France. Levroux: RACF–ADEL. Glacial Maximum,” PLoS ONE 6(7): e22821. doi:10.1371/
Huidekoper, R. S. 1891. Age of the Domestic Animals. Philadelphia [Link].0022821.
and London: F. A. Davis. Petrescu-Dîmboviț a, M. 2001. “Eneoliticul dezvoltat,” in M.
Isăcescu, C. 1984a. “Săpăturile de salvare de la Sultana, com. Petrescu-Dîmboviț a and A. Vulpe, eds., Istoria românilor,
Mânăstirea, jud. Călăraşi,” Cercetări Arheologice 7: 27–42. Vol. I. Moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate. Bucharest: Editura
Isăcescu, C. 1984b. “Staţiunea eneolitică de la Sultana-com. Enciclopedică, 154–168.
Mânăstirea,” in Documente recent descoperite şi informaţii arheo- Popa, E. I., V. Radu, and A. Bălăşescu. 2011. “Studiul materialului
logice. Bucharest: Academia de Ştiinţe Sociale şi Politice, 11–20. faunistic eneolitic,” in A. Frînculeasa, ed., Seciu–Judeţul
Jeunesse, C. 1997. Pratiques funéraires au néolithique ancien. Prahova. Un sit din epoca neo-eneolitică in nordul Munteniei.
Sépultures et nécropoles danubiennes 5500–4900 av. J.C. Paris: Bucharest: Editura Oscar Print, 73–84.
Errance. Popovici, D. N. 2010. “Copper Age Traditions North of the Danube
Lazăr, C. 2014. “The Eneolithic Necropolis from Sultana-Malu River,” in D. W. Anthony and J. Chi, eds., The Lost World of
Roș u (Romania)—A Case Study,” in L. Oosterbeek and C. Old Europe. The Danube Valley, 5000–3500 B.C.. New York:
Fidalgo, eds., Mobility and Transitions in the Holocene. Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, 112–127.
Proceedings of the XVI World Congress of the International Radovanović, I. 1999. “Neither Person nor Beast:” Dogs in the
Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. BAR Burial Practice of the Iron Gates Mesolithic,” Documenta
International Series 2658. Oxford: Archaeopress, 67–74. Praehistorica 26: 71–87.
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1971. L’Homme nu. Mythologiques IV. Paris: Plon. Reimer, P. J., M. G. L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G.
Lichter, C. 2001. Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten des Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, C. E. Buck, G. S. Burr, R. L.
südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, I.
Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Internationale Hajdas, T. J. Heaton, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, K. F.
Interakademische Kommission für die Erforschung der Kaiser, B. Kromer, F. G. McCormac, S. W. Manning, R. W.
Vorgeschichte des Balkans Bd. V. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Reimer, D. A. Richards, J. R. Southon, S. Talamo, C. S. M.
Philipp von Zabern. Turney, J. van der Plicht, and C. E. Weyhenmeyer. 2009.
Losey, R. J., V. I. Bazaliiskii, S. Garvie-Lok, M. Germonpré, J. A. “Intcal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration
Leonard, A. L. Allen, M. A. Katzenberg, and M. V. Sablin. Curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP,” Radiocarbon 51: 1111–1150.
2011. “Canids as Persons: Early Neolithic Dog and Wolf Russell, N. 2002. “The Wild Side of Animal Domestication,”
Burials, Cis-Baikal, Siberia,” Journal of Anthropological Society and Animals 10: 285–302.
Archaeology 30: 174–189. Russell, N. 2012. Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in
Lupo, K. 2011. “A Dog is for Hunting,” in U. Albarella and A. Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trentacoste, eds., Ethnozooarchaeology: The Present and Past Sablin, M. V., and G. A. Khlopachev. 2002. “The Earliest Ice Age
of Human-Animal Relationships. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 4–12. Dogs: Evidence from Eliseevichi,” Current Anthropology 43:
Makkay, J. 1983. “Foundation Sacrifices in Neolithic Houses of the 795–799.
Carpathian Basin,” in E. Anati, ed., Proceedings of the III Sauer, C. O. 1969. Agriculture Origins and Dispersals. The
Valcamonica Symposium on the Intellectual Expressions of Domestication of Animals and Foodstuffs. 2nd edn. London:
Prehistoric Man: Art and Religion, Capo di Ponte (Brescia), M.I.T. Press.
28 July–3 August 1979. Capo di Ponte (Brescia): Centro Schier, W. 2008. “Uivar. A Late Neolithic–Early Eneolithic
Camuno di Studi Preistorici, 157–167. Fortified Tell Site in Western Romania,” in D. W. Bailey, A.
Malone, C. 2003. “The Italian Neolithic: A Synthesis of Research,” Whittle and D. Hofmann, eds., Living Well Together?
Journal of World Prehistory 17: 235–312. Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and
Manhart, H. 1998. Die vorgeschichtliche Tierwelt von Koprivec und Central Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 54–67.
Durankulak und anderen prähistorichen Fundplatzen in Schmid, E. 1972. Atlas of Animal Bones: For Prehistorians,
Bulgarien aufgrund von Knochenfunden aus archäologischen Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. New York: Elsevier
Ausgrabungen. Munich: Documenta naturae. Publishing Company.
Maud, P.-C., B. Céline, B. Pierre, C. Guy, F. Jean-Georges, F. Seidel, U. 2010. “Satelliten der Erdwerke? Die unbefestigten
Philippe, G. Michel, and V. Jean-Denis. 2011. “New Evidence Siedlungen der Michelsberger Kultur,” in C. Lichter, ed.,
for Upper Palaeolithic Small Domestic Dogs in South Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch. Die “Michelsberger Kultur” und
Western Europe,” Journal of Archaeological Science 38: Mitteleuropa vor 6.000 Jahren. Karlsruhe: Primus Verlag,
2123–2140. 82–87.
Mărgărit, M., V. Parnic, and A. Bălăș escu. 2014. “Aspects de l’inter- Snyder, L. M. 1991. “Barking Mutton: Ethnohistoric and
action homme-animal en Préhistoire: l’industrie en matières Ethnographic, Archaeological and Nutritional Evidence
dures animales de l’habitat Gumelniţa de Măriuţa Pertaining to Dogs as a Native American Food Resource on
(département de Călăraşi),” Dacia N.S. LVIII: 29–64. the Plains,” in J. R. Purdue, W. E. Klippel and B. W. Styles,
Mărgărit, M., C. E. Ș tefan, and V. Dumitraș cu. 2013. “Industria eds., Beamers, Bobwhites, and Blue-points: Tributes to the
materiilor dure animale în aș ezarea eneolitică de la Cuneș ti— Career of Paul W. Parmalee. Scientific Papers 23, Illinois
‘Măgura Cuneș tilor’ ( jud. Călăraşi),” in G. Bodi, M. Danu, State Museum and Report of Investigations 22, Department of
and R. Pîrnău, eds., De Hominum Primordiis. Studia in Anthropology, University of Tennessee. Springfield, IL: Illinois
Honorem Professoris Vasile Chirica. Iaș i: Editura Universităț ii State Museum, 359–378.
Al. I. Cuza, 141–167. Spassov, N., and N. Iliev. 2002. “The Animal Bones from the
Moise, D. 1999. “Studiul materialului faunistic aparţinând mamifer- Prehistoric Necropolis Near Durankulak (NE Bulgaria) and
elor, descoperit în locuinţele gumelniţene de la Însurăţei-Popina the Latest Record of Equus hydruntinus Regalia,” in H.
I (Jud. Brăila),” Istros 9: 171–190. Todorova, ed., Durankulak, Band II. Die Prähistorischen
Moise, D. 2001. “Studiul materialului osteologic de mamifere,” Gräberfelder, Teil 1. Berlin and Sofia: Deutsches
Pontica 33–34: 156–164. Archäologisches Institut, 313–324.
Morey, D. F. 2006. “Burying Key Evidence: The Social Bond Stevanović, M. 1997. “The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of
Between Dogs and People,” Journal of Archaeological Science House Destruction,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
33: 158–175. 16: 334–395.
Morey, D. F. 2010. Dogs: Domestication and the Development of a Ştefan, C. E., V. Dumitraș cu, and M. Mărgărit. 2012. “Restitutiones
Social Bond. New York: Cambridge University Press. Archaeologicae: aşezarea de tip tell de la Coşereni ‘Măgura de
Necrasov O., and S. Haimovici. 1966. “Studiul resturilor de faună la Comana’ jud. Ialomiţa,” Buletinul Muzeului Județ ean
neolitică descoperite în staţiunea Gumelniţa,” Studii şi Teleorman. Seria Arheologie 4: 71–100.
Cercetări de Istorie Veche 17 (1): 101–108. Tchernov, E., and F. Valla. 1997. “Two New Dogs and Other
Olsen, S. 2000. “The Sacred and Secular Roles of Dogs at Botai, Natufian Dogs from the Southern Levant,” Journal of
North Kazakhstan,” in S. J. Crockford, ed., Dogs Through Archaeological Science 24: 65–95.

16 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0

 Lază r et al. Dogs, jaws, and other stories

Telegin, D. 1986. Dereivka: A Settlement and Cemetery of Copper Vilá, C., P. Savolainen, J. E. Maldonado, I. R. Amorim, J. E. Rice,
Age Horse Keepers on the Middle Dnieper. BAR International R. L. Honeycutt, K. A. Crandall, J. Lundeberg, and R. K.
Series 287. Oxford: B.A.R. Wayne. 1997. “Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic
Tilley, C. 1996. An Ethnography of the Neolithic, Early Prehistoric Dog,” Science 276: 1687–1689.
Societies in Southern Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge von den Driesch, A. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of
University Press. Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Cambridge, MA:
Todorova, H. 1978. The Eneolithic Period in Bulgaria in the Fifth Harvard University: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Millennium BC. BAR International Series 49. Oxford: B.A.R. Ethnology.
Todorova, H. 1986. Kamenno-mednata Epokha v Bulgariya. Peto Wayne, R. K., J. A. Leonard, and C. Vilá. 2006. “Genetic Analysis
Khilyadoletie predi Novata Era. Sofia: Izdatepstvo Nauka i of Dog Domestication,” in M. A. Zeder, D. G. Bradley, E.
Izkustvo. Emshwiller and B. D. Smith, eds., Documenting
Vaquer, J. 1998. “Les sépultures du Néolithique moyen en France Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms.
méditerranéenne,” in J. Guilaine, ed., Sépultures d’occident et Los Angeles: University of California Press, 279–293.
genèses des mégalithismes. Paris: Errance, 165–186. White, D. 1991. Myths of the Dog-Man. Chicago: The University
Vigne, J.-D. 1982. “Les ossements animaux dans les sépultures,” Les Chicago Press.
Dossiers Histoire et Archéologie 66: 78–83. Wissler, C. 1915. “Material Cultures of the North American
van Winjgaarden-Bakker, L. H. 1986. “The Animal Remains from Indians,” in Anthropology in North America. New York: G.E.
the Beaker Settlement at Newgrange, Co. Meath: Final Stechert and CO., 76–134.
Report.” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Zvelebil, M. 2008. “Innovating Hunter-Gatherers: The Mesolithic in
Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature the Baltic,” in G. Bailey and P. Spikins, eds., Mesolithic Europe.
86C: 17–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 18–59.

Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0 NO. 0 17