Content uploaded by Catalin Lazar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Catalin Lazar on Dec 08, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Dogs, jaws, and other stories: Two symbolic
objects made of dog mandibles from
southeastern Europe
Ca
̆ta
̆lin Laza
̆r1, Monica Ma
̆rga
̆rit2, Adrian Ba
̆la
̆s
̧escu1
1
National History Museum of Romania, Bucharest, Romania,
2
Valahia University of Târgovis
̧te, Târgovis
̦te,
Dâmbovit
̦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 Ros¸u
(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, Gumelnit¸a
Introduction
There is a long history of interaction between people
and dogs. The dog played the role of man’s best
friend, protector of the domestic space, hunting com-
panion, traction or pack animal, but sometimes it
was also used as a source of raw materials, medicinal
and aphrodisiac products, or even as a nutritional
source (Wissler 1915;Choyke 2010;Morey 2010;
Russell 2012). It had the function of totem, trophy,
taboo, and pariah, or as a symbol for kinship and
origins; it was an essential element in various rituals,
ceremonies, funeral practices, sacrifices, or in con-
structing spiritual systems (Copet-Rougier 1988;
Aujollet 1997;Choyke 2010;Russell 2012). Canids
are still used in modern times as pets, working
animals (guarding, tracking, searching, detection,
rescue, herding, guiding, therapy, service, hunting,
war and policing) and even for entertainment (in
social and sporting events, circuses, music events,
movies and TV shows) (Hart 1995;Coppinger and
Coppinger 2001;Morey 2010;Hare and Woods 2013).
All this illustrates the dog’s special symbolism in
different communities in time and space, a situation
easier to understand if we start with the assertion of
Claude Lévi-Strauss (1971: 139): le singe est proche
de l’homme selon la nature, par ressemblance physique,
comme le chien est proche de l’homme selon la culture,
par contiguïté sociale. In this context, here we present
two unusual artifacts with unique characteristics,
made of dog mandibles and discovered at Sultana-
Malu Ros¸u in southeastern Romania.
The setting of the site
The site of Sultana-Malu Ros¸u is in the northern
Balkans, on the western high terrace of the old
Mostis¸tea River (which was converted into several
artificial lakes) about 7 km from the Danube River,
near the border with Bulgaria (FIG.1). It is located
ca. 300 m northeast of Sultana village, Ca
˘la
˘ras
̦i
County, Romania (Laza
˘r 2014). The scientific study
of Sultana-Malu Ros¸u began in 1923 and continues
to the present (Andries¸escu 1924;Isa
˘cescu 1984a,
1984b;Andreescu and Laza
˘r 2008). The site consists
of a multi-component settlement (tell) and its necro-
polis (Laza
˘r 2014). Unfortunately, since 1923 most
of the settlement has eroded into Lake Mostis¸tea.
Today only a part of the 1544 sq m area is preserved.
The shape of the settlement was oval, oriented north-
east–southwest (FIG.2). The corresponding absolute
altitude is between 42.005 and 46.280 masl.
Chronological and cultural framework
The site belongs to the Gumelnit
̦a culture (ca. 4600 –
3950 B.C.), part of the larger Eneolithic Kodjadermen-
Gumelnit¸a-Karanovo VI complex occupying southeast-
ern Romania, the southern part of the Republic of
Correspondence to: Monica Ma
˘rga
˘rit, Valahia University of Târgovis¸ te, Bd.
Carol I, no. 2, 130024, Târgovis¸ te, Romania. Email: monicamargarit@
yahoo.com;Ca
˘ta
˘lin Laza
˘r, National History Museum of Romania, Calea
Victoriei, no. 12, 030026, Bucharest, Romania. Email: lazarc@arheologie.ro
© Trustees of Boston University 2015
DOI 10.1080/00934690.2015.1114850 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 01
Moldova and the Ukraine, the eastern half of Bulgaria
(on both sides of the Balkan mountains) and extending
south to the Aegean Sea (Todorova 1978,1986;
Dumitrescu et al. 1983;Petrescu-Dîmbovit
̦a2001;
Popovici 2010). The AMS radiocarbon dates obtained
for Sultana-Malu Ros¸u (n =8) span 4539 to 3961 CAL
B.C. (95.4% probability) (TABLE 1). Thus, the settlement
was likely occupied and activities took place during
Gumelnit¸a phases A1, A2, and B1, a fact that confirms
previous stratigraphic observations.
Materials and Methods
The archaeological context
Archaeological research at Sultana-Malu Ros¸u
involved an interdisciplinary approach. The
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.(Stevanovic
´1997;Chapman
1999;Popovici 2010). The building belongs to the
Gumelnit¸a A2 phase and is located between ca.
2.10 m and 3.30 m below the datum point of the site
(at 46.292 masl). No major stratigraphic disturbances
were recorded that would affect the context of the
building (FIG.4A).
H14 was at the eastern limit of the settlement
(FIG.2) and had characteristics similar to those of
other buildings investigated there. Thus, the building
had a flat rectangular shape (ca. 6 ×8 m), oriented
north-south (FIG.3), and it was a typical wattle and
daub building with a single room. It is very interesting
that on the northern and the western sides, the house
had foundation trenches (C1/2010 and C6/2010),
but on the other two sides, the walls were built directly
on the soil. The floor of the building was made of clay,
and several successive reworked layers have been
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
Gumelnit
̦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
flint and daub. These materials comprised not more
than 20% of the fill and had a stabilizing function.
Figure 1 Map of Romania and the location of the Sultana-
Malu Ros¸ u site.
Figure 2 The multi-component settlement of Sultana-Malu
Ros¸ u and the houses of the Gumelnit¸a culture.
Laza
̆retalDogs, jaws, and other stories.
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 02
MD1 was in the eastern part of the fill, at its base (at
3.14 m below the datum point of the site (FIG.3B).
The second dog mandible (MD2) was found in H14 in
the abandonment level (s.u. 1318) near its western limit,
at 2.56 m in depth (FIG.3A). In the same level, in associ-
ation with MD2 were found some pottery fragments,
flint tools, limestones and a human femur diaphysis.
None of this material (including MD2) had traces of
burning. This abandonment level was formed a very
short time after the burning of H14 (FIG.4B).
A tooth from MD1 (P4) was
14
C dated to 5570 ±40
B.P. (Poz-52983). The calibrated date is 4488 –4342
CAL B.C. (95.4% probability) (TABLE 1). This proves
that the dog mandibles are contemporary with H14
and belong to Gumelnit¸a phase A2.
Considering the dating and the context of the dog
mandibles, it is clear that they are not just ordinary
scattered pieces. The presence of two dog mandibles
can be associated with the individual histories of this
building, from its initial construction through to its
abandonment.
Archaeozoological background
The dog is documented in settlements of the Gumelnit
̦a
culture in different archaeological contexts (e.g., houses,
footpaths, trenches,wasteareas, pits or burials). No dog
bones have been documented in the cemeteries.
The frequency of dog bones is very low compared
with the frequencies of other domestic species
(FIG.5). The percentages of Canis familiaris at most
Gumelnit
̦a sites does not exceed 5% (TABLE 2)
(FIG.5). At three settlements (Ca
˘scioarele, Na
˘vodari,
Taraschina) percentages range between 5% and 7%
and only in the case of the multi-component sites of
Bordus¸ani, Cos
̦ereni and Hârs
̦ova (TABLE 2)(FIG.5),
do dog bone percentages range between 12.5% and
16.9% (Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu et al. 2005b;S
̦tefan et al. 2012).
Based on the available data, dogs were bred by
Gumelnit
̦a communities for different domestic activi-
ties (hunting, guarding the herd and probably the
houses, and acting as man’s best friend). It is very dif-
ficult to outline a mortality pattern for these prehisto-
ric dogs, because no one knows the lifespan of a dog in
that period. Nowadays the lifespan of a dog is around
10 years, but there are cases where dogs have reached
the age of 17–22 years, depending on variety and
size (Huidekoper 1891: 194). Unfortunately, age esti-
mations cannot be made of bones discovered in exca-
vations; epiphyseal closure can be assigned only in
general (higher or lower than 2 years). We also know
Table 1 AMS radiocarbon dates obtained for the site of Sultana-Malu Ros¸ u. The calibration of the radiocarbon dates was made
with OxCal v4.1.5 (Bronk Ramsey 2009). Calibration with 2σconfidence is based on the IntCal09 dataset (Reimer et al. 2009).
Sample no. Context Sample material Lab no.
14
C years (B.P.)
95.4% range
(CAL B.C.)
028.SMR-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
112.SMR-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
032.SMR-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
Figure 3 A) House No. 14; B) Foundation trench C6/2010. The triangles mark the locations where the dog mandibles were
discovered.
Laza
̆retal.Dogs,jaws,andotherstories
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 03
that dentition changes and becomes permanent
around the age of 6 months. Studies made on dog den-
tition (Horard-Herbin 1997), based only on lower car-
nassial wear (M1), allow the assignment of teeth to 5
categories: A and B (young individuals), C (subadult),
D (adult) and E (old adult). In most of the Gumelnit
̦a
sites where dog percentages are below 5% (TABLE 2)
(FIG. 5), the majority of individuals may be placed in
the subadult and adult classes (over 95%). The
young individuals represent around 5%, while older
adults are very rarely documented. After death,
besides their secondary products (skin and fur), dog
bones were used as raw materials for manufacturing
various artifacts (TABLE 3). Also, in some cases (e.g.,
at Hârs¸ova, Bordus¸ani, Vita
˘nes¸ti, Taraschina) canids
represented an important food resource (TABLE 2)
(Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu et al. 2005b;Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu and Radu 2011).
The measurements of the two dog mandibles were
made according to the international standards estab-
lished by Angela von den Driesch (1976),usinga
caliper with an instrumental accuracy of 1/10 mm.
Age estimation was based on the existing dentition
(erupted in mandibular alveoli) according to Elisabeth
Schmid (1972), while to assess tooth wear patterns the
method of Marie-Pierre Horard-Herbin (1997) was
used. Also, to establish the size of these dogs in com-
parison with other specimens from the same species in
the Gumelnit
̦a culture, we made some estimates of the
cranial base lengths using Dahr and Brinkmann
indices (von den Driesch 1976: 61).
Animal bone industry
A review of the literature reveals a certain lack of tech-
nological and functional analyses of the animal bones
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.
Laza
̆retalDogs, jaws, and other stories.
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 04
in the Gumelnit
̦a cultural asssemblages in both
Romania and Bulgaria. Generally, the excavation
reports, even recent ones, offer only general infor-
mation in the form of standard phrases, e.g., “the
inventory is completed by tools made of flint, bone
and antler.”In the best of cases, they provide only
an enumeration of the principal types, with almost
no functional or technological considerations, and
even fewer archaeozoological determinations.
Based on available techno-functional studies of
animal bones identified in Gumelnit¸a settlements
(Frînculeasa et al. 2010;S
̦tefan et al. 2012;Ma
˘rga
˘rit
et al. 2013;Ma
˘rga
˘rit et al. 2014), it can be observed
that these communities had a particular strategy of
domestic and wild animal utilization (TABLE 2). From
the published data, it is impossible to understand the
importance of artifacts made of Canis familiaris
bones in Gumelnit¸a communities, however.
The only good information is from archaeological
features from 11 Gumelnit¸a sites (TABLE 3), where we
have carried out direct observations. The frequency
of artifacts made from dog bones is very low compared
to that of other species. In most sites, their percentage
is between 1% and 1.5%. In three settlements
(Cos
̦ereni, Cunes
̦ti and Seciu) the artifacts made of
dog bones represent between 4% and 8%, but many
of these artifacts are small in size. Typologically, one
can distinguish the following: beveled objects (n =
11), awls (n =19), pendants (n =2) and a spatula
(n =1) (TABLE 3).
Based on such a limited sample, however, it is diffi-
cult to identify use patterns of Canis familiaris bones.
In our opinion, the types (above) are strictly of a tech-
nological nature (the shapes of the bones are the same
as the shapes of the tools). Very different seems to be
the significance of Canis familiaris mandibles at
Sultana-Malu Ros¸u, where their transformation into
amulets seems to have been determined not by techno-
logical, but by other (cultural) requirements.
In order to extract technological and functional
information, which might help in the decoding of the
mandibles’history, both of them were studied with a
Keyence VHX-600 digital microscope. Thus, they
were observed at magnifications between 30×and
150×, and the images were captured with the aid of a
camera in the microscope.
Figure 5 The percentages of wild and domestic species at sites comprising the Gumelnit¸a culture.
Laza
̆retal.Dogs,jaws,andotherstories
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 05
Results
Archaeozoological analysis
The MD1 and MD2 mandibles were found in two
different archaeological levels, but were parts of the
same archaeological sequence. MD1 is a right mand-
ible and has the following teeth: P4 ( premolar), M1
and M2 (molars); it weighs 25 g (FIG.6). The lingual
(internal) part shows traces of radicels, a fact that
might suggest that this part was found near the soil
surface. The lateral (external) part of the mandible is
much better preserved, being less affected by tapho-
nomic processes. According to the system proposed
by Hoarard-Herbin (1997), the animal was of inter-
mediary age (subadult) based on M1 wear. The coro-
noid process has an artificial perforation.
MD2 is a left mandible, and it is quite whole and
weights 28 g (FIG.7). The mandible does not have
any teeth and it is broken at the level of the angular
process. Due to this fact it was not possible to obtain
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 Gumelnit¸a culture.
Site
Quantity of
bone artifacts (no.)
Artifacts
made of dog
bones (no.)
Artifacts
made of dog
bones (%)
Type of
artifacts made
of dog bones *
Dog bones
used to make
artifacts ** Reference
Bordus¸ ani 351 8 2.2 ■● □▽○◇unpublished
Carcaliu 59 2 3.4 ■◇unpublished
Cos¸ ereni 24 2 8.3 ●▲ ○S
̦tefan et al. 2012
Cunes¸ti 40 2 5 ■● □◇Ma
˘rga
˘rit et al. 2013
Hârs¸ ova 412 10 2.4 ■● □▽○◇unpublished
Luncavița 278 1 0.3 ■◇unpublished
Ma
˘riut¸a 122 2 1.6 ●○Ma
˘rga
˘rit et al. 2014
Seciu 16 1 6.2 ●○Frînculeasa et al. 2010
Sultana 170 2 1.1 △unpublished
Taraschina 30 1 3.3 ■◇unpublished
Vita
˘nes¸ti 237 3 1.2 ●◆ □△○unpublished
*■=awl; ●=beveled object; ▲=indeterminate object; =pendant; ◆=spatula.
** □=femur; =humerus; △=mandible; ▽=radius; ○=tibia; ◇=ulna.
Table 2 Percentages of domestic and wild fauna and the uses of the dog in the settlements of the Gumelnit¸a culture (for which
archaeozoological analyses are available).
Site
Mammal bone
(no.)
Domestic fauna
(%)
Wild fauna
(%)
Dog
(%)
Dog eaten or
skinned* Reference
Bordus
̦ani 9317 78.0 22.0 14.4 ●Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu et al. 2005b
Bucs
̦ani 808 64.2 35.8 1.9 Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu 1998
Carcaliu 481 42.8 57.2 2.7 Haimovici 1996
Ca
˘scioarele 2829 15.9 84.1 5.9 Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu et al. 2005b
Chitila 481 67.6 32.4 1.7 Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu et al. 2003
Cos
̦ereni 127 89.8 10.2 12.5 S
̦tefan et al. 2012
Drama 6626 92.7 7.3 1.8 Manhart 1998
Dra
˘ga
˘nes
̦ti-Olt 2234 62.6 37.4 2.2 El Susi 2002
Ezero 979 85.3 14.7 3.1 Manhart 1998
Goljamo
Delcevo
13143 52.1 47.9 1.8 Manhart 1998
Gumelnit
̦a 2362 86.1 13.9 3.2 Necrasov and Haimovici
1966
Hârs
̦ova 5310 76.0 24.0 16.9 ●Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu et al. 2005b
Însura
˘ței 581 51.6 48.4 3.4 Moise 1999
Luncavița 924 47.2 52.8 2.3 Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu et al. 2005b
Ovcarovo 8910 66.6 33.4 3.2 Manhart 1998
Ma
˘riuța 526 86.5 13.5 2.5 ■Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu et al. 2005b
Na
˘vodari 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 Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu
2012
Tangâru 256 97.3 2.7 1.6 Necrasov and Haimovici
1966
Taraschina 965 91.0 9.0 6.7 ■Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu and Radu
2011
Targoviste 15477 91.7 8.3 1.7 Manhart 1998
Vita
˘nes
̦ti 7180 42.0 58.0 2.6 ■Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu et al. 2005b
Vla
˘diceasca 10577 90.2 9.8 3.5 Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu et al. 2005b
*■=eaten; ●=eaten and skinned.
Laza
̆retalDogs, jaws, and other stories.
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 06
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
teeth were erupted suggests an age of over 6 months
(Schmid 1972). On the lingual (internal) side to the
right of M2 and M3 were observed two fine oblique
cutting traces: one (near M2) of 13.2 mm in length
and another of 9.9 mm (near M3) suggesting the
detachment of the adjacent tissues from the bone.
Based on the taphonomic data it can be concluded
that both dogs from Sultana-Malu Ros
̦u were
skinned after they died and perhaps fur was recovered
for use as a raw material. The lack of other skeletal
elements does not allow us to know if these dogs
died naturally, accidentally or if they were deliberated
killed. Because of this, it is difficult to determine pre-
cisely if the meat of these dogs was consumed or not.
The other data for this site do not suggest that dog
was included in the diet of the people, in contrast
with the situation documented at other contemporary
settlements (e.g., at Hârs
̦ova, Taraschina or Vita
˘nes
̦ti).
Morphologically and biometrically, the two pieces
are different and derive from different individuals
(FIGS.6,7). The biometrical data are within the
known values for the Gumelnit¸a culture (Ba
˘la
˘s¸escu
et al. 2005b). Thus, an estimation of the basal length
of the skull, based on the Dahr parameters (von den
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 Gumelnit
̦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
possible to establish that the perforation technique
was rotation, proven by a small area of circular
Table 4 Sultana-Malu Ros¸ u 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
22 145.3
23 144.4 145.4
24 145.6 146.1
25 145.1 145.8
26 144.5 152.3
Figure 7 Dog mandible MD2 lateral side (top) and lingual
side (bottom).
Figure 6 Dog mandible MD1 lateral side (top) and lingual
side (bottom).
Laza
̆retal.Dogs,jaws,andotherstories
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 07
scratches (FIG.8A–B). It seems that on the lateral side,
in order to enlarge the perforation, percussion was
applied, the perforation base being characterized by
“shivering”with visible impact points. On the same
side, towards the extremity, on the coronoid process,
are traces of usage (FIG.8C–D). Around the perforation
is an area which is characterized by the partial elimin-
ation of the manufacturing marks and the smoothing
of the walls (FIG.8E–F). This area seems to have been
the passage area for the thread used for hanging up
the piece.
For MD2, the proper preservation of the surface
allows for more detailed technological observations
(FIG.7). The preforation technique was rotated alter-
nately from both sides, the specific scratches being a
good indicator of the method (FIG.9A–B). Moreover,
on the superior side of the perforation, more visible
on the lateral side, is a strip of macroscopic polishing
that indicates the passage area for the thread used
for suspension (FIG.9C–D). In this area, the perforation
walls are smoothed, partially eliminating the rotation
scratches (FIG.9C). Furthermore, it can be assumed
that the small fracture that appears on the coronoid
process is a consequence of thread pressure, because
polishing is sumperimposed over the fracture
(FIG.9D). On the whole surface of the lingual side,
macroscopic polishing was observed and this fact
might signify that there was contact with some
material. Microscopically an area of scratches which
are longitudinal to the axis (FIG.9F) illustrates
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.
Laza
̆retalDogs, jaws, and other stories.
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 08
prolonged contact so that the structure of the material
was imprinted.
Discussion
The interaction of people and dogs began in the
Palaeolithic, the oldest findings being those from
Goyet (Belgium) dated at ca. 36,000 CAL B.P., and
those from Razboinichya Cave (Russia) dated at ca.
33,000 CAL B.P.(Ovodov et al. 2011). Most of the
well-documented remains of early domestic dog
come from the late Glacial and early Holocene
periods (ca. 14,000–9000 CAL B.P.) as demonstrated
by finds from Pr
ˇedmosti (Czech Republic), Eliseevici
(Russia), Mezin and Mezirich (Ukraine), and
Montespan, Le Closeau, Pont d’Ambon and Le
Morin rockshelter (France) (Sablin and Khlopachev
2002;Maud et al. 2011;Boudadi-Maligne et al.
2012;Germonpré et al. 2012).
The origins of dog domestication has given rise to
different theories and controversies (Davis and Vala
1978;Vilá et al. 1997;Morey 2006, 2010; Wayne
et al. 2006;Lupo 2011;Russell 2012). Beyond these
theories, one sees an increased wild/domestic dichot-
omy through time and the accentuation of the nature
vs. culture relationship (Russell 2002). That had sig-
nificant consequences for human thought, socioeco-
nomic structures and perceptions about the world.
Thus, in the Mesolithic, in different parts of the world
(e.g., at Ain Mallaha and Hayonim Terrace, Lepenski
Vir, Vlasac, Lokomotiv-Raisovet, Skateholm I and II)
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).
Laza
̆retal.Dogs,jaws,andotherstories
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 09
Table 5 Archaeological sites containing dog bones from the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods in Europe. Sites are arranged by date.
Region Culture/group*
Approximate
Dates (B.C.) Site
Dog use
Complete bodies Body parts
Separate
burials
Deposited
in human
graves
Inventory
Offerings
Deposits
Food
source
Raw
material
source References
Serbia Starc
ˇevo-Cris¸ ca. 6200–5300 Padina –––●–Clason 1980
Starc
ˇevo –––●–
Vojvodina Perlez ––●–– Boric
´1999
Italy Cardial ca. 6000–5500 Grotta Continenza ––●–– Malone 2003
Catignano ca. 5600–4800 Catignano ––●–– Russell 2012
Romania Dudes¸ ti ca. 5500–5000 Ma
˘gura Buduiasca –– –●–Ba
˘la
˘s¸escu et al. 2005b
Beciu –––●–
Serbia Vinc
ˇa ca. 5500–4500 Divostin –– –●–Bökönyi 1988
Gomolava –●––– Lichter 2001
Opovo ––●–●Russell 2012
Romania Liubcova-Ornit¸a –– –●–Ba
˘la
˘s¸escu et al. 2005b
Slovakia LBK ca. 5500–4500 Nitra ––––●Jeunesse 1997
Hurbanovo-Bacherov
majer
●––––Bistáková and Paz
ˇinová 2010
Blatné –●–––
Germany Aiterhofen ––●–– Jeunesse 1997
Romania Boian ca. 5500–4500 Isaccea –––●–Ba
˘la
˘s¸escu et al. 2005b
Hârs¸ova –––●–
Izvoarele –––●–
Bulgaria Hamangia ca. 5200–4500 Durankulak ––●–– Spassov and Iliev 2002
Hungary Tisza ca. 5000–4500 Hódmezóvásárhely-
Gorzsa II
–●––– Lichter 2001
Slovakia Cso
˝szhalom ca. 5000–4500 C
ˇic
ˇarovce ––●––
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 Zengo
˝várkony –●––– Lichter 2001
Mórágy-Tüzko
˝domb –●–––
Slovakia Lengyel ca. 4900–3950 Svodín –●––– Bistáková and Paz
ˇinová 2010
Romania Foieni ca. 4800–4500 Lumea Noua
˘●–––– Gligor 2011
Italy Ripoli ca. 4700–3300 Ripoli –●––– Brea et al. 2010
Bulgaria KGK VI ca. 4500–3800 Rousse ––●–– Chernakov 2010
Romania Bordus
̦ani-Popina –––●● Ba
˘la
˘s¸escu et al. 2005b
Hars
̦ova-tell –––●●
Mariuța–––●●
Laza
̆retalDogs, jaws, and other stories.
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 010
Vita
˘nes
̦ti –––●–
Taraschina –––●–Ba
˘la
˘s¸escu and Radu 2011
Hungary Tiszapolgár ca. 4500–4000 Tiszapolgár-
Basatanya
–●●–– Lichter 2001
Tápé-Lebo
˝––●––
Tiszaföldvár ●––––
Hódmezóvásárhely-
Szakálhát
––●––
Vojvodina Srpski-Krstur ●––––
France Chasseen ca. 4500–3500 Saint-Paul-Trois-
Châteaux
–●––– Beeching and Crubezy 1998
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
–●●––
Germany Heilbronn-
Klingenberg
●–●–– Seidel 2010
Denmark TRB ca. 4100–2800 Gammellung ––●–– Tilley 1996
U.K. Windmill Hill ca. 3600–3300 Windmill Hill ●––●–Harcourt 1974
Peterborough
Ware
ca. 3400–2500 Staines Road Farm ––●–– Clark 1996b
France Véraza ca. 3000–2300 Can-Pey ––●–– Vigne 1982
Ireland Beaker ca. 2500–1800 Newgrange ●–●–– van Winjgaarden-Bakker 1986
●KGK VI =Kodjadermen-Gumelnița-Karanovo VI; LBK =Linearbandkeramik; SMP =Square Mouthed Pottery; TRB =Funnel (-neck) beaker culture.
Laza
̆retal.Dogs,jaws,andotherstories
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 011
human burials are associated with dog remains or dog
burials are found in settlements or cemeteries
(Davis and Vala 1978;Tchernov and Valla 1997;
Radovanovic
´1999;Zvelebil 2008;Morey 2010;Losey
et al. 2011). Similar associations between people and
canids are known also for the Neolithic and Eneolithic
as shown by numerous discoveries in Europe (TABLE 5)
or on other continents (e.g., Shamanka II, Catalhöyük,
Çayönü, Domuztepe, Botai, Krasnyi Yar) (Hill 2000;
Olsen 2000;Morey 2010;Losey et al. 2011;Croucher
2012;Russell 2012). In the case of dog burials, they,
without a doubt, reflect a particular attitude and
respect by the people for their companions, which bene-
fitted from the same burial processes as humans. This
kind of treatment suggests that the role of the dog was
expanded by humans into the perceived world of the
dead (White 1991;Morey 2010). As Darcy F. Morey
(2006: 159) suggested, “nothing signifies the social
importance that people have attached to dogs more con-
spicuously than their deliberate interment upon death.”
On the other hand, inclusion of dog parts in human
burials can be metaphors for the beliefs of people prob-
ably connected to hunting (Morey 2010). The dismem-
bered remains of dogs may suggest that they were
sacrificed in a ritual, after which they were buried (Byrd
et al. 2013). In other situations, after the sacrifice, dogs
are consumed in honor of the guests, as a symbol of the
importance of their friendship (Snyder 1991). Other
casescouldindicatefoodgiftsforthedead,aspartof
the annual mourning rituals or, according to various eth-
nographic accounts, could have marked different
moments in initiation rituals or special feasts (Byrd
et al. 2013). Nevertheless, these cases demonstrate “a
close prehistoric human-animal relationship”(Clark
1996a: 34) and the significant role played by dogs in
human lives.
Since the European Mesolithic (e.g., at Lepenski
Vir, Padina and Vlasac) the dog was part of the
human diet as well (Clason 1980;Boric
´et al. 2004;
Dimitrijevic
´2008). In the Neolithic and Eneolithic
there is much evidence of dog consumption
(TABLES 2,5). It should not be forgotten that ritual con-
sumption and/or feasting could reinforce the special
position of dogs (above). Maybe the use of dogs as
food reflects the strengthening of the social relation-
ship between people and dogs inside prehistoric
communities.
Related to the dog’s“ordinary”position (as food) in
relation to humans, is the use of its bones (probably
also skin and fur) to manufacture different objects.
In the Neolithic there are several examples of the use
of dog bones as a raw material source (TABLES 3,5).
This category could include the two mandibles from
Sultana-Malu Ros¸u. However, the use of skeletal
remains for making artifacts is also a symbolic form
of the dog’s integration into human society and an
assertion of its special position in relation to people.
Because of the existence of perforations (MD1 =
0.5 mm, MD2 =4 mm), we might presume that the
mandibles were pendants worn around the neck or
waist, so that they functioned as ornaments or
amulets. They might have been parts of costumes.
Even so, they could also have hung in the house or
outside it and had apotropaic properties. The forms
of these artifacts recall their sources because they pre-
serve the anatomical shapes of the jaws and their pro-
cessing/working was minor. So, the visual aspect of
these artifacts was designed to be identifiable to
those who saw them; perforating them meant they
were to be seen. It is evident that the dog mandibles
were designed to be identifiable, exposed, viewed and
admired. Thus, they had a public value, both for the
people wearing or otherwise using them, but also for
those who saw them, being fundamental to the con-
struction and maintenance of personal identity (see
below).
The unique character of these two artifacts made of
the mandibles from two dogs is demonstrated by the
fact that in almost 90 years of archaeological research
at Sultana-Malu Ros¸u (that led to the digging of
approximately 80% of the settlement area) no similar
artifacts have been found. Moreover, in the other
settlements of the Gumelnit
̦a culture there are no
other pendants made of dog mandibles. This demon-
strates that the phenomenon was not general.
MD1 was identified in the foundation trench of H14
and that allows us to interpret this item as resulting
from a foundation ritual/sacrifice (a foundation
deposit), which marked the beginning of the lifecycle
of the building. In this way, construction practices
became crucial social and ritual mechanisms to
manage the complexities of living in large permanent
communities, but also the means to strengthen collec-
tive family identity.
These kinds of ritual practices are also attested in
most prehistoric communities from different parts of
the world, especially in the Balkans (Makkay 1983;
Gallis 1985;Halstead 1995;Bradley 2005;Hodder
2005,2013;Chapman and Gaydarska 2007;Schier
2008;Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu 2009;Russell 2012;Amkreutz 2013;
Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2013) and consist
of the “sacrifice”of items with economical or symbolic
value to ensure the durabilityof something (e.g., build-
ings, ovens, hearths). Another example at Sultana-
Malu Ros¸u, is found in the hearth from House No. 2
(contemporary with the H14), where a gold pendant
was deposited (Andreescu and Laza
˘r 2008). Thus,
based on numerous cases documented in this region
it can be said that such ritual practices were common
in these communities.
Laza
̆retalDogs, jaws, and other stories.
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 012
MD2 was found in the abandonment level of H14,
which marks the end of the lifecycle of the building.
The presence of this item in this level that marks the
end of that building, is symbolic of intentional
“closure.”The deposition of MD2 at the end of H14
and MD1 at the beginning demonstrates indubitably
the similarity of sacrificial practices used by the
house inhabitants to highlight two key events.
These sacrificial practices also highlight the exist-
ence of complex behaviors of the people from this pre-
historic community. This praxis was a significant way
to express personal and collective identities through
material culture, and it became a mechanism for
enhancing social interactions and integrating peoples,
animals, buildings and objects. All of this confirms
that house rituals reinforced crucial social and sym-
bolic elements of the community. It also demonstrates
the role of the dogs in the construction and mainten-
ance of distinct historical memories.
Moreover, the fact that the mandibles were heavily
worn, as demonstrated by microscopic analyses,
allows us to assume that the artifacts belonged to
someone before being sacrificed and deposited.
Based on the data recorded in the field, it is clear
that these dog mandibles were not simply thrown
away at the end of their use-lives. This situation is
not an accidental circumstance, but reflects complex
behavior and the deliberate deposition of dog mand-
ibles, at key moments for the inhabitants of the
house/community (FIG.4B).
Why are dog jaw pendants appropriate for foun-
dation and closing deposits here but not elsewhere?
Undoubtedly, this case reflects the particular biography
of the house and its inhabitants, but, perhaps also indi-
cates its exceptional position (or that of its inhabitants)
at Sultana-Malu Ros
̦u. The dog mandibles from
Sultana-Malu Ros¸u can be linked hypothetically to
the rise in megafauna hunting in Gumelnit
̦a commu-
nities (Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu et al. 2005a, 2005b;El Susi 2002;
Moise 1999;Brehard and Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu 2012). This idea
reminds us of the important role of the dogs in the
hunting of large mammals. However, in the settlements
for which archaeozoological data are available, there is
no distinct pattern linking hunting activities to dogs.
Thus, at the sites for which wild species are present at
a higher rate than domestic animals (FIG.5), the percen-
tage of dogs is still below 5%. Instead, at the sites where
dogs have a higher rate (e.g., at Hârs
̦ova and
Bordus
̦ani), animal husbandry is the dominant activity.
Also, the faunal data for Sultana-Malu Ros
̦u indicate a
preponderance of domestic species (FIG.5), which
proves that hunting activity had a secondary role. So,
this hypothesis cannot be supported. We also tried to
determine whether there is a link between some econ-
omic activities (hunting and animal husbandry) and
consumption of dogs as food in different Gumelnit
̦a
settlements for which archaeozoological data are avail-
able (TABLE 2). Unfortunately, it was impossible to
identify any pattern.
These data do demonstrate the importance of dogs in
Gumelnit¸a communities, however, and their close
relationship with humans. Dogs are in all settlements
as reflected in the archaeological remains. Also, the
dog perfectly reflects what Carl O. Sauer (1969) called
a“household animal,”being a species that forages
alone within prehistoric settlements and can survive in
small numbers with little human intervention (Russell
2012). The closeness of dogs and people is the result
of their companionship in everyday life, based on
both mutual benefits of cohabitation, and their simi-
larities in diet. Human attitudes towards dogs were
based on their similar experiences but also on the par-
ticular necessities of each community or individual.
In contrast to these generalities, the two items from
Sultana-Malu Ros
̦u can be related only to the lifecycle
of H14 (FIG.4B) and the symbolic role of the dog as its
protector. We cannot say whether people who wore or
otherwise used the jaw pendants were the same as
those who founded the house and deposited them
there. It is difficult to establish a relationship between
those who manufactured the dog pendants, those who
used them, and the inhabitants of H14. It can be
stated with certainty only that dog mandibles had
different meanings and functions, both before and
after deposition. There is a clear intersection between
these artifacts, the craftsmen who made them, the
people who wore or otherwise used them, the inhabi-
tants of H14 and the lifecycle of the house.
The case of two dog artifacts from the site of
Sultana-Malu Ros¸u is a classic example of a “synec-
doche”(pars pro toto) (Chapman 2000). Each frag-
ment ( jaw bone) was simultaneously an object in its
own right and a symbol of the once complete body
and that fragmentation signifies the attachment to
one of the principal forms of personhood—“fractal”
or “dividual”(Chapman and Gaydarska 2007: 9).
The fragments interpenetrated other objects, humans,
animals and places. The object could evoke the collec-
tive memories of the space where the fragmentation
process of the whole body occurred (Chapman 2000;
Chapman and Gaydarska 2007). In Balkan prehistory
we have numerous examples of synecdoches for almost
all known categories of archaeological discoveries
(e.g., tools, weapons, pots, ornaments, figurines,
food, human and animal bodies, buildings, places)
(Chapman 2000;Chapman and Gaydarska 2007)
that demonstrate a general social practice. In the
case of Sultana-Malu Ros
̦u, the purpose of the two
dog mandible artifacts was, symbolically and function-
ally, closely related to the dog’s role as guardian and
protector of the home. Thus, the inhabitants of H14
used these items in the same way that a living dog
Laza
̆retal.Dogs,jaws,andotherstories
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 013
would have been used, for spiritual and physical
protection.
Manufactured goods from dog mandibles are very
rare in sites of the Gumelnit¸a culture. Only at the
multi-component site of Vita
˘nes¸ti, is there documented
a spatula that was cut out of a mandible and modified
through bifacial abrasion on the articular side which
created a narrow active front. Also, Burial No. 53
from the multi-component site of Rousse (Bulgaria)
has a dog mandible mentioned in the inventory, but it
shows no signs of processing (Chernakov 2010).
Dog mandible use has a long history in the region.
A similar situation is attested in the Iron Gates
Mesolithic at Lepenski Vir (Serbia), where dog mand-
ibles seem to have had a particular significance
because they were placed exclusively in men’s tombs,
a fact that made Ivana Radovanovic
´(1999) consider
the practice as representative of a belief system con-
nected probably to hunting. Because Vita
˘nes¸ti,
Rousse, and Lepenski Vir are in the Lower Danube
Basin, we should not exclude the possibility of trans-
mission of some Mesolithic hunting traditions over
time and into the Eneolithic period. We should
mention that other Mesolithic traditions, like technol-
ogy (e.g., microliths), were transmitted from gener-
ation to generation. In support of this observation is
the principle of synecdoche confirmed in many
Neolithic and Eneolithic settlements. According to
John Chapman (2000: 223) it was a social practice
deeply rooted in hunter-gatherer traditions which
were maintained well into the farming period.
Conclusions
This paper advances the current knowledge on dogs
and their place in Eneolithic communities from the
Balkans through the two items made of dog mandibles
from Sultana-Malu Ros¸u. These particular artifacts
have the potential to redefine the role of dogs in the
Gumelnit¸a culture and to prove that this species did
not have a single function or meaning. Thus, the dog
was a best friend, an everyday companion, a house-
hold guard, a hunting aide; it controlled the herds,
aided sanitation, and was even the source of raw
materials and food. It also had a symbolic position
within the community, being an active factor in
various social practices and rituals. These various
aspects of dog use by people within the settlements
indicate a certain degree of specialization. The mul-
tiple roles of the dogs assigned by humans enabled a
wide range of dog symbolism in prehistoric commu-
nities (Russell 2012: 293).
The two dog mandibles from Sultana-Malu Ros¸u
are unique in European prehistory. The only known
similar artifacts are the drilled dog mandibles from
the Misigtoq site (Greenland), dating from the late
1600s A.D. to about 1880 A.D.(Morey 2010:
fig. 6.15). Pairs of those modern dog mandibles were
used by children to make play sledges (Morey 2010:
143–144). Despite the fact that mandibles from
Greenland are almost identical to those from
Sultana-Malu Ros¸u, they are not the same in terms
of meaning or use. Our technical, functional and
archaeozoological analyses demonstrate that the dog
mandibles from the Sultana-Malu Ros¸u site were
used for other purposes, in any case not as toys.
Beyond the technologically and typologically
unique character of these prehistoric artifacts, they
broaden the repertoire of artifacts made of animal
bones from the Eneolithic period in the Balkans.
They also tell us about the people who manufactured,
used, sacrificed and abandoned them. Moreover, these
objects mark the lifecycles of H14 and the various
people who used that space. Lastly, they reflect the
mechanisms used to construct and transmit specific
historical memories. Thus, these dog mandibles can
be considered as active agents of social structures,
mentalities, ideologies, ideas, beliefs, and the organiz-
ing principles of the peoples who used them. They
inform us about different types of identities: individual
(persons to whom they belonged); familiar (the inhabi-
tants of that house); and collective (local community),
and illustrate the shared experiences of dogs and
humans. Furthermore, these unique artifacts represent
a starting point for new discussions about the ancestral
relationship between people and dogs.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Ciprian Astalos
̦for improving the
English translation of this paper and Florian Mihail
who has offered us the unpublished data about the
hard animal material industry from the Carcaliu,
Luncavit
̦a and Taraschina sites. The manuscript bene-
fitted from the valuable comments of three anon-
ymous reviewers. This work was supported by two
grants from the Romanian National Authority for
Scientific Research, CNCS–UEFISCDI, project
numbers PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-1015 and PN-II-RU-
TE-2011-3-0133.
References
Amkreutz, L. 2013.“Home is When you Build it. Characteristics of
Building and Occupation in the Lower Rhine Area Wetlands
(5500–2500 CAL B.C.),”in D. Hofmann and J. Smyth, eds.,
Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe: Sedentism,
Architecture and Practice. New York: Springer, 229–259.
Andreescu, R.A., and C. Laza
˘r. 2008.“Valea Mostis¸tei. As¸ezarea
gumelnit
̦eana
˘de la Sultana-Malu Ros¸u,”Cerceta
˘ri
Arheologice 14–15: 55–76.
Andries¸escu, I. 1924.“Les fouilles de Sultana,”Dacia 1: 51–107.
Arbogast, R. M., V. Blouet, J. Desloges, and C. Guillaume. 1989.
“Le cerf et le chien dans les pratiques funéraires de la seconde
moitié du Néolithique du Nord de la France,”
Anthropozoologica 3: 37–42.
Arbogast, R. M., S. Deschler-Erb, E. Marti-Grädel, P. Plüss, H.
Hüster-Plogmann, and J. Schibler. 2005.“Du loup au ‘chien
Laza
̆retalDogs, jaws, and other stories.
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 014
de tourbières,’les restes de canidés sur les sites lacustres entre
Alpes et Jura,”Revue de Paléobiologie 10: 171–183.
Aujollet, D. 1997.“Confréries guerrières et confréries de rêveurs
chez les Sioux Lakota,”Journal de la Société des
Américanistes 83: 283–293.
Ba
˘la
˘s¸escu, A. 1998.“Considerat¸ii preliminare asupra faunei neoli-
tice,”in S. Marinescu-Bîlcu, R. Andreescu, C. Bem, T. Popa
and M. Ta
˘nase, eds., S¸ antierul arheologic Bucs¸ ani (Jud.
Giurgiu). Raport preliminar. Campania 1998. Buletinul
Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu”,2–4, 99–102.
Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu, A. 2009.“Ritual Depositions of Sus domesticus from
Poduri–Dealul Ghindaru (Cucuteni culture, Baca
˘u County,
Romania),”Annales d’Université “Valahia”Târgoviste.
Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 11(1): 69–78.
Ba
˘la
˘s¸escu, A., D. Moise, and V. Radu. 2005a.“The Paleoeconomy
of Gumelnit
̦a Communities on the Territory of Romania,”
Cultura
˘și Civilizație la Duna
˘readeJos22: 167–206.
Ba
˘la
˘s¸escu, A., and V. Radu. 2011.“Paléo-économie animalière et
reconstitution de l’environnement,”in L. Carozza, C. Bem
and C. Micu, eds., Société et environnement dans la zone du
Bas Danube durant le 5ème millénaire avant notre ère. Ias
̦i:
Editura Universita
˘t¸ii Al. I. Cuza, 385–407.
Ba
˘la
˘s¸escu, A., V. Radu, andD. Moise. 2005b.Omul s¸i mediul animal
între mileniile VII-IV î.e.n. la Duna
˘readeJos. Târgovis
̦te:
Cetatea de Scaun.
Ba
˘la
˘s¸escu, A., V. Radu, and C. Nicolae. 2003.“Fauna de la Chitila-
Ferma
˘. Studiu Arheozoologic Preliminar,”Materiale de Istorie
s¸i Muzeografie 17: 3–10.
Beeching, A., and E. Crubezy. 1998.“Les sépultures chasséennes,”
in J. Guilaine, ed., Sépultures d’Occident et genèses des
mégalithismes. Paris: Errance, 145–164.
Bistáková, A., and N. Pažinová. 2010.“(Un)usual Neolithic and
Early Eneolithic Mortuary Practices in the Area of the North
Carpathian Basin,”Documenta Praehistorica 37: 147–159.
Bökönyi, S. 1988.“The Neolithic Fauna of Divostin,”in A.
McPherron and D. Srejovic
´, eds., Divostin and the Neolithic
of Central Serbia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh,
419–445.
Boric
´,D.1999.“Places That Created Time in the Danube Gorges
and Beyond, c. 9000–5500 BC,”Documenta Praehistorica 26:
41–70.
Boric
´, D., G. Grupe, J. Peters, and Ž. Mikic
´.2004.“Is the
Mesolithic–Neolithic Subsistence Dichotomy Real? New
Stable Isotope Evidence from the Danube Gorges,”European
Journal of Archaeology 7: 221–248.
Boudadi-Maligne, M., J.-B. Mallye, M. Langlais, and C. Barshay-
Szmidt. 2012.“Des restes de chiens magdaléniens à l’abri du
Morin (Gironde, France): Implications socio-économiques
d’une innovation zootechnique,”PALEO 23: 39–54.
Bradley, R. 2005.Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe.
London: Routledge.
Brea, M. B., P. Mazzieri, and R. Micheli. 2010.“People, Dogs and
Wild Game: Evidence of Human-Animal Relations from
Middle Neolithic Burials and Personal Ornaments in
Northern Italy,”Documenta Praehistorica 37: 125–145.
Bréhard, S., and A. Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu. 2012.“What’s Behind the Tell
Phenomenon? An Archaeozoological Approach to Eneolithic
Sites in Romania,”Journal of Archaeological Science 39:
3167–3183.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009.“Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon
Dates,”Radiocarbon 51: 337–360.
Byrd, B. F., A. Cornellas, J. W. Eerkens, J. S. Rosenthal, T. R.
Carpenter, A. Leventhal, and J. A. Leonard. 2013.“The Role
of Canids in Ritual and Domestic Contexts: New Ancient
DNA Insights From Complex Hunter-Gatherer Sites in
Prehistoric Central California,”Journal of Archaeological
Science 40: 2176–2189.
Chapman, J. 1999.“Deliberate House-Burning in the Prehistory
of Central and Eastern Europe,”in A. Gustafsnon and
H. Karlsson, eds., Glyfer och arkeologiska rum: En vänbok till
Jarl Nordbladh. Gotare Series A. Göteborg: University of
Göteborg Press, 113–126.
Chapman, J. 2000.Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places
and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South Eastern Europe.
New York: Routledge.
Chapman, J., and B. Gaydarska. 2007.Parts and Wholes:
Fragmentation in Prehistoric Contexts. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Chernakov, D. 2010.“Some Observations about the Discovered
Human Skeletons at Rousse Tell,”Studii de Preistorie 7:
145–183.
Choyke, A. 2010.“The Bone is the Beast: Animal Amulets and
Ornaments in Power and Magic,”in D. Campana, P.
Crabtree, S. D. Defrance, J. Lev-To and A. Choyke, eds.,
Anthropological Aproaches to Zooarchaeology. Complexity,
Colonialism, and Animal Transformations. Oxford and
Oakville: Oxbow Books, 197–209.
Clark, G. 1996a.“Animal Burials from Polynesia,”Archaeology in
New Zealand 39 (1): 30–38.
Clark, K. M. 1996b.“Neolithic Dogs: A Reappraisal Based on
Evidence from the Remains of a Large Canid Deposited in a
Ritual Feature,”International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 6:
211–219.
Clason, A. T. 1980.“Padina and Starc
ˇevo: Game, Fish and Cattle,”
Palaeohistoria 22: 141–173.
Copet-Rougier, E. 1988.“Le Jeu de l’entre-deux. Le chien chez les
Mkako (Est-Cameroun),”L’Homme 28: 108–121.
Coppinger, R., and L. Coppinger. 2001.Dogs: A New Understanding
of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Croucher, K. 2012.Death and Dying in the Neolithic Near East.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davis, S. J. M., and F. Valla. 1978.“Evidence for the Domestication
of the Dog 12,000 Years Ago in the Natufian of Israel,”Nature
276: 608–610.
Dimitrijevic
´,V.2008.“Lepenski Vir Animal Bones: What Was Left
in the Houses,”in C. Bonsall, V. Boroneant¸ and I.
Radovanovic
´, eds., The Iron Gates in Prehistory.New
Perspectives. BAR International Series 1893. Oxford:
Archaeopress, 117–130.
Dumitrescu, V., A. Bolomey, and F. Mogos¸anu. 1983.Esquisse d’une
préhistoire de la Roumanie jusqu’á la fin de l’âge du bronze.
Bucures
̦ti: Editura S¸ tiint
̦ifica
˘s¸i Enciclopedica
˘.
El Susi, G. 2002.“Archaeozoological Researches in the Eneolithical
Site from Dra
˘ga
˘nes¸ti-Olt (Slatina Olt County),”Cultura
˘s¸i
Civilizat¸ie la Duna
˘rea de Jos 19: 154–158.
Frînculeasa, A., M. Ma
˘rga
˘rit, and I. Elek Popa. 2010.“About the
Organic Material Industry from the Gumelnit
̦a Settlement
Seciu—Prahova District,”Annales d’Université “Valahia”
Târgoviste. Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 12: 123–138.
Gallis, K. 1985.“A Late Neolithic Foundation Offering from
Thessaly,”Antiquity 59: 20–24.
Germonpré, M., M. Láznicková-Galetová, and M. V. Sablin. 2012.
“Palaeolithic Dog Skulls at the Gravettian Predmostí Site, the
Czech Republic,”Journal of Archaeological Science 39:
184–202.
Gligor, M. 2011.“Relat¸ia om-câine în preistorie: resturi scheletice
umane s
̦i de canide. Practici mortuare, dovezi arheologice s
̦i
posibile semnificat¸ii,”Analele Banatului 19: 51–66.
Goring-Morris, A. N., and A. Belfer-Cohen. 2013.“Houses and
Households: A Near Eastern Perspective,”in D. Hofmann and
J. Smyth, eds., Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe:
Sedentism, Architecture and Practice.NewYork:Springer,29–44.
Haimovici, S. 1996.“Studiul arheozoologic al materialului provenit
din stat¸iunea gumelnit¸eana
˘de la Carcaliu,”Peuce 12: 377–392.
Halstead, P. 1995.“From Sharing to Hoarding: The Neolithic
Foundations of Aegean Bronze Age Society?”in R. Laffineur
and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., Politeia:Society and State in the
Aegean Bronze Age. Liège: University of Liège, 11–20.
Hansen, S., A. Dragoman, A. Reingruber, N. Benecke, I. Gatsov, T.
Hoppe, F. Kimscha, P. Nedelcheva, B. Song, J. Wahl, and J.
Wunderlich. 2006.“Pietrele—eine kupferzeitliche Sidelung an
der Unteren Donau. Bericht uber die Ausgrabung im
Sommer 2005,”Eurasia Antiqua 12: 2–62.
Harcourt, R. A. 1974.“The Dog in Prehistoric and Early Historic
Britain,”Journal of Archaeological Science 1: 151–175.
Hare, B., and V. Woods. 2013.The Genius of Dogs: How Dogs Are
Smarter Than You Think. New York: Dutton Adult.
Hart, L. A. 1995.“Dogs as Human Companions: A Review of the
Relationship,”in J. Serpell, ed., The Domestic Dog: Its
Evolution, Behavior, and Interactions with People. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 162–178.
Hill, E. 2000.“The Contextual Analysis of Animal Interments and
Ritual Practice in Southwestern North America,”Kiva 65:
361–398.
Hodder, I. 2005.“The Spatio-Temporal Organization of the Early
‘Town’at Catalhöyük,”in D. Bailey, A. Whittle and V.
Cummings, eds., (Un)settling the Neolithic. Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 126–139.
Hodder, I. 2013.“From Diffusion to Structural Transformation:
The Changing Roles of the Neolithic House in the Middle
Laza
̆retal.Dogs,jaws,andotherstories
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 015
East, Turkey and Europe,”in D. Hofmann and J. Smyth, eds.,
Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe: Sedentism, Architecture
and Practice. New York: Springer, 349–362.
Horard-Herbin, M.-P. 1997.Le village celtique des Arènes à
Levroux. L’élevage et les productions animales dans l’économie
de la fin du second Age du Fer. 12ème supplément à la Revue
du Centre de la France. Levroux: RACF–ADEL.
Huidekoper, R. S. 1891.Age of the Domestic Animals. Philadelphia
and London: F. A. Davis.
Isa
˘cescu, C. 1984a.“Sa
˘pa
˘turile de salvare de la Sultana, com.
Mâna
˘stirea, jud. Ca
˘la
˘ras¸i,”Cerceta
˘ri Arheologice 7: 27–42.
Isa
˘cescu, C. 1984b.“Stat¸iunea eneolitica
˘de la Sultana-com.
Mâna
˘stirea,”in Documente recent descoperite s¸i informat¸ii arheo-
logice. Bucharest: Academia de S¸tiint¸e Sociale s¸i Politice, 11–20.
Jeunesse, C. 1997.Pratiques funéraires au néolithique ancien.
Sépultures et nécropoles danubiennes 5500–4900 av. J.C. Paris:
Errance.
Laza
˘r, C. 2014.“The Eneolithic Necropolis from Sultana-Malu
Roșu (Romania)—A Case Study,”in L. Oosterbeek and C.
Fidalgo, eds., Mobility and Transitions in the Holocene.
Proceedings of the XVI World Congress of the International
Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. BAR
International Series 2658. Oxford: Archaeopress, 67–74.
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1971.L’Homme nu.Mythologiques IV. Paris: Plon.
Lichter, C. 2001.Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten des
südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums.
Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Internationale
Interakademische Kommission für die Erforschung der
Vorgeschichte des Balkans Bd. V. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag
Philipp von Zabern.
Losey, R. J., V. I. Bazaliiskii, S. Garvie-Lok, M. Germonpré, J. A.
Leonard, A. L. Allen, M. A. Katzenberg, and M. V. Sablin.
2011.“Canids as Persons: Early Neolithic Dog and Wolf
Burials, Cis-Baikal, Siberia,”Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 30: 174–189.
Lupo, K. 2011.“A Dog is for Hunting,”in U. Albarella and A.
Trentacoste, eds., Ethnozooarchaeology: The Present and Past
of Human-Animal Relationships. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 4–12.
Makkay, J. 1983.“Foundation Sacrifices in Neolithic Houses of the
Carpathian Basin,”in E. Anati, ed., Proceedings of the III
Valcamonica Symposium on the Intellectual Expressions of
Prehistoric Man: Art and Religion, Capo di Ponte (Brescia),
28 July–3 August 1979. Capo di Ponte (Brescia): Centro
Camuno di Studi Preistorici, 157–167.
Malone, C. 2003.“The Italian Neolithic: A Synthesis of Research,”
Journal of World Prehistory 17: 235–312.
Manhart, H. 1998.Die vorgeschichtliche Tierwelt von Koprivec und
Durankulak und anderen prähistorichen Fundplatzen in
Bulgarien aufgrund von Knochenfunden aus archäologischen
Ausgrabungen. Munich: Documenta naturae.
Maud, P.-C., B. Céline, B. Pierre, C. Guy, F. Jean-Georges, F.
Philippe, G. Michel, and V. Jean-Denis. 2011.“New Evidence
for Upper Palaeolithic Small Domestic Dogs in South
Western Europe,”Journal of Archaeological Science 38:
2123–2140.
Ma
˘rga
˘rit, M., V. Parnic, and A. Ba
˘la
˘s
̦escu. 2014.“Aspects de l’inter-
action homme-animal en Préhistoire: l’industrie en matières
dures animales de l’habitat Gumelnit¸a de Ma
˘riut¸a
(département de Ca
˘la
˘ras¸i),”Dacia N.S. LVIII: 29–64.
Ma
˘rga
˘rit, M., C. E. S
̦tefan, and V. Dumitras
̦cu. 2013.“Industria
materiilor dure animale în as
̦ezarea eneolitica
˘de la Cunes
̦ti—
‘Ma
˘gura Cunes
̦tilor’( jud. Ca
˘la
˘ras¸i),”in G. Bodi, M. Danu,
and R. Pîrna
˘u, eds., De Hominum Primordiis. Studia in
Honorem Professoris Vasile Chirica. Ias
̦i: Editura Universita
˘t
̦ii
Al. I. Cuza, 141–167.
Moise, D. 1999.“Studiul materialului faunistic apart¸inând mamifer-
elor, descoperit în locuint¸ele gumelnit¸ene de la Însura
˘t¸ei-Popina
I (Jud. Bra
˘ila),”Istros 9: 171–190.
Moise, D. 2001.“Studiul materialului osteologic de mamifere,”
Pontica 33–34: 156–164.
Morey,D.F.2006.“Burying Key Evidence: The Social Bond
Between Dogs and People,”Journal of Archaeological Science
33: 158–175.
Morey,D.F.2010.Dogs: Domestication and the Development of a
Social Bond. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Necrasov O., and S. Haimovici. 1966.“Studiul resturilor de fauna
˘
neolitica
˘descoperite în stat¸iunea Gumelnit¸a,”Studii s¸i
Cerceta
˘ri de Istorie Veche 17 (1): 101–108.
Olsen, S. 2000.“The Sacred and Secular Roles of Dogs at Botai,
North Kazakhstan,”in S. J. Crockford, ed., Dogs Through
Time: An Archaeological Perspective.BAR International
Series 889. Oxford: Archaeopress, 71–92.
Ovodov, N. D., S. J. Crockford, Y. V. Kuzmin, T. F. G. Higham,
G. W. L. Hodgins, and J. van der Plicht. 2011.“A 33,000-
Year-Old Incipient Dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia:
Evidence of the Earliest Domestication Disrupted by the Last
Glacial Maximum,”PLoS ONE 6(7): e22821. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0022821.
Petrescu-Dîmbovit
̦a, M. 2001.“Eneoliticul dezvoltat,”in M.
Petrescu-Dîmbovit
̦a and A. Vulpe, eds., Istoria românilor,
Vol. I. Mos¸tenirea timpurilor îndepa
˘rtate. Bucharest: Editura
Enciclopedica
˘, 154–168.
Popa, E. I., V. Radu, and A. Ba
˘la
˘s¸escu. 2011.“Studiul materialului
faunistic eneolitic,”in A. Frînculeasa, ed., Seciu–Judet¸ul
Prahova. Un sit din epoca neo-eneolitica
˘in nordul Munteniei.
Bucharest: Editura Oscar Print, 73–84.
Popovici, D. N. 2010.“Copper Age Traditions North of the Danube
River,”in D. W. Anthony and J. Chi, eds., The Lost World of
Old Europe.The Danube Valley, 5000–3500 B.C.. New York:
Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, 112–127.
Radovanovic
´,I.1999.“Neither Person nor Beast:”Dogs in the
Burial Practice of the Iron Gates Mesolithic,”Documenta
Praehistorica 26: 71–87.
Reimer, P. J., M. G. L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G.
Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, C. E. Buck, G. S. Burr, R. L.
Edwards, M. Friedrich, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, I.
Hajdas, T. J. Heaton, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, K. F.
Kaiser, B. Kromer, F. G. McCormac, S. W. Manning, R. W.
Reimer, D. A. Richards, J. R. Southon, S. Talamo, C. S. M.
Turney, J. van der Plicht, and C. E. Weyhenmeyer. 2009.
“Intcal09 and Marine09 Radiocarbon Age Calibration
Curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP,”Radiocarbon 51: 1111–1150.
Russell, N. 2002.“The Wild Side of Animal Domestication,”
Society and Animals 10: 285–302.
Russell, N. 2012.Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in
Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sablin, M. V., and G. A. Khlopachev. 2002.“The Earliest Ice Age
Dogs: Evidence from Eliseevichi,”Current Anthropology 43:
795–799.
Sauer, C. O. 1969.Agriculture Origins and Dispersals. The
Domestication of Animals and Foodstuffs. 2nd edn. London:
M.I.T. Press.
Schier, W. 2008.“Uivar. A Late Neolithic–Early Eneolithic
Fortified Tell Site in Western Romania,”in D. W. Bailey, A.
Whittle and D. Hofmann, eds., Living Well Together?
Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and
Central Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 54–67.
Schmid, E. 1972.Atlas of Animal Bones: For Prehistorians,
Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. New York: Elsevier
Publishing Company.
Seidel, U. 2010.“Satelliten der Erdwerke? Die unbefestigten
Siedlungen der Michelsberger Kultur,”in C. Lichter, ed.,
Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch. Die “Michelsberger Kultur”und
Mitteleuropa vor 6.000 Jahren. Karlsruhe: Primus Verlag,
82–87.
Snyder, L. M. 1991.“Barking Mutton: Ethnohistoric and
Ethnographic, Archaeological and Nutritional Evidence
Pertaining to Dogs as a Native American Food Resource on
the Plains,”in J. R. Purdue, W. E. Klippel and B. W. Styles,
eds., Beamers, Bobwhites, and Blue-points: Tributes to the
Career of Paul W.Parmalee. Scientific Papers 23, Illinois
State Museum and Report of Investigations 22, Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee. Springfield, IL: Illinois
State Museum, 359–378.
Spassov, N., and N. Iliev. 2002.“The Animal Bones from the
Prehistoric Necropolis Near Durankulak (NE Bulgaria) and
the Latest Record of Equus hydruntinus Regalia,”in H.
Todorova, ed., Durankulak, Band II. Die Prähistorischen
Gräberfelder, Teil 1. Berlin and Sofia: Deutsches
Archäologisches Institut, 313–324.
Stevanovic
´,M.1997.“The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of
House Destruction,”Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
16: 334–395.
S¸ tefan, C. E., V. Dumitras
̦cu, and M. Ma
˘rga
˘rit. 2012.“Restitutiones
Archaeologicae: as¸ezarea de tip tell de la Cos¸ereni ‘Ma
˘gura de
la Comana’jud. Ialomit¸a,”Buletinul Muzeului Județean
Teleorman. Seria Arheologie 4: 71–100.
Tchernov, E., and F. Valla. 1997.“Two New Dogs and Other
Natufian Dogs from the Southern Levant,”Journal of
Archaeological Science 24: 65–95.
Laza
̆retalDogs, jaws, and other stories.
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 016
Telegin, D. 1986.Dereivka: A Settlement and Cemetery of Copper
Age Horse Keepers on the Middle Dnieper. BAR International
Series 287. Oxford: B.A.R.
Tilley, C. 1996.An Ethnography of the Neolithic, Early Prehistoric
Societies in Southern Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Todorova, H. 1978.The Eneolithic Period in Bulgaria in the Fifth
Millennium BC. BAR International Series 49. Oxford: B.A.R.
Todorova, H. 1986.Kamenno-mednata Epokha v Bulgariya.Peto
Khilyadoletie predi Novata Era. Sofia: Izdatepstvo Nauka i
Izkustvo.
Vaquer, J. 1998.“Les sépultures du Néolithique moyen en France
méditerranéenne,”in J. Guilaine, ed., Sépultures d’occident et
genèses des mégalithismes. Paris: Errance, 165–186.
Vigne, J.-D. 1982.“Les ossements animaux dans les sépultures,”Les
Dossiers Histoire et Archéologie 66: 78–83.
van Winjgaarden-Bakker, L. H. 1986.“The Animal Remains from
the Beaker Settlement at Newgrange, Co. Meath: Final
Report.”Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C:
Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature
86C: 17–111.
Vilá, C., P. Savolainen, J. E. Maldonado, I. R. Amorim, J. E. Rice,
R. L. Honeycutt, K. A. Crandall, J. Lundeberg, and R. K.
Wayne. 1997.“Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic
Dog,”Science 276: 1687–1689.
von den Driesch, A. 1976.A Guide to the Measurement of
Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology.
Wayne, R. K., J. A. Leonard, and C. Vilá. 2006.“Genetic Analysis
of Dog Domestication,”in M. A. Zeder, D. G. Bradley, E.
Emshwiller and B. D. Smith, eds., Documenting
Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms.
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 279–293.
White, D. 1991.Myths of the Dog-Man. Chicago: The University
Chicago Press.
Wissler, C. 1915.“Material Cultures of the North American
Indians,”in Anthropology in North America. New York: G.E.
Stechert and CO., 76–134.
Zvelebil, M. 2008.“Innovating Hunter-Gatherers: The Mesolithic in
the Baltic,”in G. Baileyand P. Spikins, eds., Mesolithic Europe.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 18–59.
Laza
̆retal.Dogs,jaws,andotherstories
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 0NO. 017
