Canine Economies of the Ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean

Abstract

Archaeological assemblages, texts, and iconography indicate a multifaceted, yet often ignored, canine economy in the ancient eastern Mediterranean and Near East. This economy included not only dogs’ celebrated roles as hunting aids, guards, village scavengers, and companions, but also the regular processing, use, and consumption of dogs for foods, hides, and medicinal/ritual purposes. Drawing on ethnohistorical information and zooarchaeological data from three Chalcolithic/Bronze Age sites—Tell Surezha (Iraq), Mycenae (Greece), and Acemhöyük (Turkey)—we emphasize evidence for the processing of dog carcasses, which reflect a range of post-mortem treatments of dog bodies. We suggest the widespread use of primary products from dogs, features of an ancient canine economy that are rarely reported on in depth and often explained away as aberrations by modern scholars of the region. We speculate that this neglect stems in part from analysts’ taboos on cynophagy (unconsciously) influencing archaeological reconstructions of dog use in the past.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjfa20
Journal of Field Archaeology
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjfa20
Canine Economies of the Ancient Near East and
Eastern Mediterranean
Max Price , Jacqueline Meier & Benjamin Arbuckle
To cite this article: Max Price , Jacqueline Meier & Benjamin Arbuckle (2020): Canine Economies
of the Ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean, Journal of Field Archaeology, DOI:
10.1080/00934690.2020.1848322
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2020.1848322
Published online: 22 Nov 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Canine Economies of the Ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean
Max Price
a
, Jacqueline Meier
b
, and Benjamin Arbuckle
c
a
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA;
b
University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL;
c
University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, NC, USA
ABSTRACT
Archaeological assemblages, texts, and iconography indicate a multifaceted, yet often ignored,
canine economy in the ancient eastern Mediterranean and Near East. This economy included not
only dogs’celebrated roles as hunting aids, guards, village scavengers, and companions, but also
the regular processing, use, and consumption of dogs for foods, hides, and medicinal/ritual
purposes. Drawing on ethnohistorical information and zooarchaeological data from three
Chalcolithic/Bronze Age sites—Tell Surezha (Iraq), Mycenae (Greece), and Acemhöyük (Turkey)—
we emphasize evidence for the processing of dog carcasses, which reflect a range of post-mortem
treatments of dog bodies. We suggest the widespread use of primary products from dogs,
features of an ancient canine economy that are rarely reported on in depth and often explained
away as aberrations by modern scholars of the region. We speculate that this neglect stems in
part from analysts’taboos on cynophagy (unconsciously) influencing archaeological
reconstructions of dog use in the past.
KEYWORDS
dogs; cynophagy;
Mesopotamia; Anatolia;
Aegean; zooarchaeology
Introduction
The significance of canine remains excavated from archaeo-
logical sites in the Near East and Mediterranean has been
under-appreciated. This conclusion, which we substantiate
below, is curious given the cultural and economic signifi-
cance of dogs in human societies today. Ethnographic studies
reveal the presence of complex and variable canine econom-
ies, which we define as systems that exploit dogs or use them
in the production/acquisition, consumption, and distri-
bution of goods and services. These economies include the
more familiar forms (to Western readers) of work-related
human-canine interactions, such as the use of dogs as hunt-
ing companions and guard animals, but they also include
raising and slaughtering dogs for meat, skins, or other pri-
mary products. Dog consumption (cynophagy) is common
today in parts of East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. At the
same time, many cultures harbor powerful taboos against
eating dogs; these taboos articulate with culturally prescribed
notions of cleanliness, status, and/or the perception of a
special emotional relationship between humans and canines
(Simoons 1961; Linseele 2003; Hadjikoumis 2016).
In fact, we posit that these taboos have influenced archae-
ological approaches to dogs in the ancient world. Archaeol-
ogists working in the Near East and Mediterranean region,
who predominantly come from European, American, and
Middle Eastern cultures (all of which harbor taboos on cyno-
phagy and often the use of canine skins), have little difficulty
imagining ancient living dogs inhabiting roles as pets, hunt-
ing companions, faithful guardians, or even semi-feral pariah
animals. Although there has been considerable treatment of
cases of dog sacrifice (e.g., Clutton-Brock 1989; Blau and
Beech 1999; Lev-Tov et al. 2018), sometimes in ways that
feed into existing Western narratives about the special
emotional bond between humans and canines, there exists
a tendency to downplay the ample faunal evidence that, in
death, canines and their primary products played important
roles in ancient economies in the region.
In this paper, we explore canine economies at three sites
dating to the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age (ca. 4500–1200
B.C.). Comparing our data to regional trends more broadly,
we argue for a reconsideration of the widely held, if implicit,
zooarchaeological assumptions about dog remains. We argue
that dogs should be considered in discussions of animal
economies often reserved for sheep, goats, cattle, pig, equids,
and other traditional livestock, even if they typically make up
only a small percentage of animals consumed at archaeologi-
cal sites. We also recognize the multifaceted and often ritual
roles played by dogs in the ancient world. However, rather
than separating “ritual”and “mundane”uses of dogs, we
consider dog sacrifice and other ceremonial uses of dog
bodies to be part of the materialization of ritual (cf. DeMar-
rais, Castillo, and Earle 1996) and thus, from a substantivist
perspective, important components of canine economies.
The Roles of Dogs in the Ancient Near East and
Mediterranean
Dogs and humans have had a long history together in the
Near East and Mediterranean (Figure 1). As the oldest dom-
esticated animal in the region, dogs are first identified in the
Late Epipaleolithic (ca. 14,000 years ago) in the context of
human burials associated with the Natufian culture of the
southern Levant (Davis and Valla 1978). However, dog
remains are relatively infrequent in faunal assemblages,
which tend to be dominated by the remains of ungulates
(for recent review, see Russell 2020). A recent survey of
zooarchaeological work in the region spanning the Holocene
up to ca. 5000 B.C. indicates that dogs typically represent less
than 2% of faunal assemblages calculated by number of
identified specimens (NISP); rarely do they compose more
© Trustees of Boston University 2020
CONTACT Max Price maxprice@mit.edu Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139.
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2020.1848322

than 5% (Russell 2020). Despite these low frequencies, they
are a consistent and predictable component of faunal assem-
blages (dog remains are identified in 84% of 286 Near East-
ern Bronze and Iron Age assemblages with a total NISP >
500; dataset in possession of author B. A.). Additionally,
the near ubiquitous occurrence of gnaw marks on faunal
remains also indicates the presence of canines as active
agents of bone modification and residents in ancient settle-
ments (e.g., Atici 2006; Yeomans, Martin, and Richter 2019).
Archaeological, textual, and ethnographic data indicate
dogs played a variety of roles in the ancient world. Many
studies of texts and iconographic evidence have emphasized
the roles of living dogs and their unique abilities to work with
humans. These include the uses of dogs in hunting (e.g., Eng-
lund 1995, 122) and warfare (e.g., Tsouparopoulou 2012).
While the earliest images of dogs as hunting companions
date to the 8th millennium B.C. or earlier (Rosenberg and
Davis 1992; Guagnin, Perri, and Petraglia 2018), by the
Uruk period (4th millennium B.C.), they were associated
with high-status males engaging in royal hunts (Englund
1995). Thus, the elite male-hunt-dog triad celebrated in Clas-
sical works such as Xenophon’sCynegeticus (ca. 400 B.C.),
was present at the very first urban complex societies in
Mesopotamia.
In fact, texts from Mesopotamia reveal a long tradition of
dog use by state institutions. At the Ur III (ca. 2100 B.C.) site
of Drehem, ancient Puzrish-Dagan, texts document special-
ized kennels and kennel masters, as well as disbursements of
livestock for feeding dogs (Jones and Snyder 1961, 127; Tsou-
paropoulou 2012). Dogs associated with the military were
provisioned with carcass parts of cattle and equids, while
those associated with the Temple of Gula/Ninisina, the
patron deity of the city of Isin, were provided with sheep.
This suggests ancient Mesopotamian elites set aside a sector
of institutional economies for the raising and training of
dogs in the Bronze Age for warfare (although the details of
these roles are unknown) and for religious rituals (Tsoupar-
opoulou 2012).
Dogs were social agents whose associations with magic
facilitated their uses in ritual. Textual sources indicate that
dogs possessed powerful toxic/medicinal properties. For
example, a variety of Babylonian incantations were recited
to protect the performer from stray dogs, whose bites were
considered toxic, like those of snakes (e.g., Veldhuis 1993;
Veenhof 1996). These spells are perhaps an indication that
rabies was endemic in the ancient world; incantations fre-
quently describe dogs’aggressive or “furious”behavior (Veld-
huis 1993, 161), and one appears to note the transmission of
rabies through bites: “from his [the dog’s] teeth / hangs his
semen / wherever he bit, / his child / he left behind”(Whiting
1985, 182). On the other hand, by emphasizing the particular
magical effects that dogs could have on human bodies, these
texts also serve to underscore the connection ancient peoples
drew between dogs and healing magic.
One important feature of the canine economy was the use
of dogs in rituals designed to cure illness. Mesopotamian
and Anatolian texts frequently associate dogs with healing. A
prime example is the goddess Gula/Ninsina, whose main tem-
ple in the city of Isin was known as the é-ur-gi-ra or Dog Tem-
ple (Ornan 2004). Excavation of this temple revealed dog
burials and dog figurines dating to the middle and end of the
2nd millennium B.C. (Ornan 2004). Apparent dog sacrifices
and dog figurines in association with the cult of Gula have
been found at other sites in Mesopotamia dating to the 2nd
millennium B.C., such as Sakhariyah and Nippur (Twiss
2017). Dogs also served as substitutes for humans in healing
rituals. The canine participant was used to absorb a human
curse or sickness and then sacrificed to absolve an afflicted per-
son (e.g., Moses 2020). Hurro-Hittite texts from Anatolia simi-
larly link dogs to rituals related to healing. Collins (1990)has
Figure 1. Map of zooarchaeological assemblages containing evidence of butchery or burning of canine remains. Number in parentheses after site name indicates
millennium B.C. of occupation (e.g., T. Surezha 5–4 indicates 5th and 4th millennium B.C.). For site list and references, see Supplemental Material 1.
2M. PRICE ET AL.

argued that puppies were among the most common animals
utilized in Hittite ritual. These frequently involved cutting
puppies in half and sometimes included burning or using
puppy flesh, bones, fat, and feces in healing rituals. Consump-
tion of puppy flesh in this context is mentioned, although
indirectly, in one Hittite ritual text (Collins 1990).
In the Near East, Mediterranean, and Africa, consuming
dogs was (and, in some contexts, still is) connected to healing
rituals. In Nigeria, where dog meat remains both a mundane
form of meat that is produced and sold on the market and a
powerful medium for magic (Ojoade 1990, 206–208; Blench
2000), eating dog flesh figures in a number of rituals, includ-
ing those intended to improve fertility, protect against harm-
ful magic, and ward offdisease (Ojoade 1990, 207). Similarly,
in the ancient Mediterranean world, dogs were often associ-
ated with healing deities, such as the Greek god Asklepios
(Edrey 2008). This association offers parallels to the Mesopo-
tamian goddess of healing, Gula, mentioned above. Sacrifi-
cing dogs in healing rituals was also at least sometimes
accompanied by cynophagy (Collins 1990, 214). For
example, according to Pliny, dog meat was reportedly used
by the ancient Romans to treat victims of poisoning (Pliny,
Natural History XXIX.14). The similarity to Mesopotamian
magico-medicinal uses of canines is striking.
Canines were not only associated with healing, but also
with the death-fertility dyad. Perhaps the most well-known
example for Western readers is the dog Cerberus, who was
said to guard the Underworld in Greek mythology, a concept
that finds parallels throughout Indo-European traditions (De
Grossi Mazzorin and Minniti 2006; Anthony and Brown
2017). Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean people
mobilized these symbolic characteristics of dogs in the
canine economies in a number of ways, but often through
sacrifice. The recovery of 60 puppies and other animals at
the bottom of an alleged abi, or channel to the underworld,
in Hurrian religious traditions, at 3rd millennium B.C. Tell
Mozan suggests ancient roots of the chthonic-dog connec-
tion and that it was widespread. On the other side of the
death-fertility dyad, dogs were sacrificed to Genita Mana, a
local Italian goddess associated with menstruation and ferti-
lity (De Grossi Mazzorin and Minniti 2006,62–63). During
the ancient Roman Lupercalia festival, young men (luperci,
deriving from lupus,or“wolf”) sacrificed a dog and ran
through the streets whipping young women to purify the
city and ensure fertility (Plutarch, The Roman Questions 68).
Another metonymic attribute of dogs, sometimes mobi-
lized in ritualized cynophagy, is their association with war-
fare. Anthony and Brown (2017) connect the consumption
of dogs and wolves within a non-domestic structure at the
2nd millennium B.C. site of Krasnosamarskoe, located in
southern Russia, to Indo-European traditions concerning
young male warriors, who were often likened to canines
(Anthony and Brown 2017, 135). They argue that wearing
skins of and eating both dogs (symbolic of death and war)
and wolves (symbolic of “anti-culture”) took place at
initiation rituals in which “normal dietary behavior towards
canids was suspended and inverted”in order to forge the
liminal identity of young male warriors (Anthony and
Brown 2017, 138). An interesting parallel to this ritual was
found among 19th century A.D. Oglala and other Native
American peoples of the Great Plains tribes. In this context,
too, eating dog flesh signified the archetype of the wild, fer-
ocious warrior (Comba 1991,46–47).
In addition to being an element of ritual/magical activity,
food is also one of the primary means by which social groups
distinguish themselves from one another. The consumption
of dogmeat may have served as a powerful signifier of group
identity, through a mutually reinforcing dialectic between
one group’s culturally significant cynophagy and a sense of
disgust by the “other.”Such a dynamic may have existed in
the Iron Age Levant between Philistine and Israelite/Canaa-
nite peoples (Maher 2017). In modern times, Avieli (2011)
has examined the intersection of identity and cynophagy in
Vietnam. He argues that eating dog at semi-clandestine res-
taurants is associated with the performance of a distinct type
of middle class masculinity, one that simultaneously high-
lights masculine carnivory, rejects Buddhism, and fashions
a sense of a distinction and, thus, status. Similarly, cyno-
phagy has emerged as a medium for self-fashioning identities
in opposition to global or Westernized identities. In part, this
is a response to Euro-American efforts to stamp out cyno-
phagy, which have successfully influenced anti-cynophagy
legislation in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Philippines (Oh
and Jackson 2011). In South Korea, a nation where an esti-
mated two million dogs are slaughtered annually for food,
cynophagy has become emblematic of the tension between
traditional culture and the globalized cosmopolitanism that
has developed since the 1950s (Podberscek 2009).
While food is inherently social, often imbued with cultural
and religious significance, we should be wary of sensationaliz-
ing cynophagy. Numerous examples document quotidian
consumption of dog meat. In these cases, in North and
Mesoamerica, western Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and
the Pacific Islands, dogs’primary products offer no greater
significance than other forms of meat (Simoons 1994; Calla-
han 1997; Valadez Azúa et al. 2013). That dogs may have been
eaten simply because they represented a culturally acceptable
source of meat and fat is a reality that researchers’own biases
may dissemble (Linseele 2003). This warning applies as
equally to archaeology as it does to ethnography. In ethnogra-
phy, cultural biases can even influence the ways in which
informants themselves discuss their food. Cynophagists
might feel pressure to explain their diet in terms of culture,
religion, or medicine—rather than taste—because they
perceive those to be more acceptable to their interviewer
(Linseele 2003, 324).
While over-interpretation of dog consumption represents
one pitfall, under-interpretation is perhaps of greater concern
in archaeology. Zooarchaeologists work under the implicit
assumption that, unless proven otherwise by unambiguous
evidence (e.g., cutmarks), cynophagy was rare or non-existent
in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Despite a grow-
ing awareness of past dog consumption, especially in the
Aegean and Iron Age Levant (Snyder and Klippel 2003;
Maher 2017; Lev-Tov et al. 2018)—and even though, as a gen-
eral rule, zooarchaeologists are not surprised to find evidence
of cynophagy or dog skinning—dog bones are typically not
tallied among lists of livestock species in zooarchaeological
reports. Even when zooarchaeologists find clear indications
of dog butchery, dogs are generally excluded from synthetic
treatments of ancient foodways and are often lumped
together among “other”taxa in reports and regional sum-
maries, a trend noted by Russell (2020). The result is a sort
of cognitive dissonance, whereby researchers recognize the
importance of dogs in special contexts but generally exclude
dogs from general discussions of the animal economy.
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 3

Approaching Dead Dogs: Between Taphonomy
and Bias
To develop a better understanding of the significance of dead
dogs, zooarchaeologists can combine their interpretations of
taphonomic data, including skeletal part representation and
anthropogenic marks, with the excavators’interpretations
of archaeological contexts (e.g., midden deposits, associations
with special buildings). Broadly speaking, one can distinguish
two main types of canine deposits. Articulated dog remains,
consisting of several elements found in anatomical associ-
ation, can reflect intentional placement of dog carcasses by
humans, often associated with funerary rituals (e.g., Safar,
Mustafa, and Lloyd 1981, 121; Boessneck and von den
Driesch 1984; Wapnish and Hesse 1993; Blau and Beech
1999; Edrey 2008; Çakırlar et al. 2013; Dixon 2018), or undis-
turbed remains of dogs that died of natural causes (e.g., Hor-
witz 2013). Disarticulated remains are those found isolated or
mixed together with other animal bones and settlement deb-
ris. Skeletons become disarticulated through either human
action (e.g., butchery, dismemberment, or postpositional dis-
turbance) or non-anthropogenic taphonomic processes, the
latter of which includes carcass ravaging by dogs.
While presenting a window into past human-canine
relationships, articulated remains can reinforce researchers’
prior beliefs about these relationships. This may seem para-
doxical, but the ritual treatment of canines can strike a chord
with Euro-American sentiments of dogs as animals with
special emotional significance to humans. Article titles
such as “Pampered Pooches”(Wapnish and Hesse 1993)or
“One Woman and her Dog”(Blau and Beech 1999) can unin-
tentionally feed into such narratives, as do the celebrations
(and pathos-laden depictions) of archaeological finds of
dog interments in the popular press (e.g., Friedman 1987;
Fessenden 2019). Yet, cursory or uncritical readings of
them can reinforce the notion that the Euro-American
upper/middle class ideal of loving companionship between
humans and dogs is timeless and ubiquitous. And even
though it is widely recognized that dogs were sacrificed to
accompany humans in burial or for use in chthonic and heal-
ing rituals, it is easy to appeal to an ostensibly universal
emotional connection between humans and dogs as the
defining feature that underwrites their sacred status. For
example, Safar, Mustafa, and Lloyd described burial 185 at
Ubaid period Eridu (6th–5th millennium B.C.), indexed as
“a young man and his dog”(Safar, Mustafa, and Lloyd
1981, 121), in the following terms: “A dog was laid across
[the human’s] middle, a few centimeters above …Beside
the [dog’s] lower jaw lay a meat-bone which had no doubt
been placed there intentionally at the time of burial. The
inclusion in this way, of a favorite domestic animal’s body
was perhaps not an unusual procedure.”Even in the context
of funerary sacrifice, archaeologists can insert their own nar-
ratives about the emotional bond between humans and
canines, universalizing the “dogs as pets”ideal. While
archaeologists must admit that people killed dogs, they are
still free to imagine that they did so only under exception
and emotionally charged circumstances.
Disarticulated dog remains, however, can challenge
archaeologists to consider the uses of dead dogs and their
primary products. After all, these remains are analogous to
those of livestock found in the same contexts. Yet, disarticu-
lated dog remains are often ignored as dietary or economic
data. While zooarchaeologists working in Bronze and Iron
Age contexts typically deploy the a priori assumption that
the majority of disarticulated animal remains in anthropo-
genic contexts reflect past human butchery and carcass pro-
cessing, they (and we admit our guilt as well) frequently
exclude dogs from tallies of taxa contributing to the subsis-
tence economy. Reflecting on our work and those of our col-
leagues, we suspect the root cause of this a priori rejection is
zooarchaeologists’own cultural biases that mask the possi-
bility of dogs being used as a source of food, hides, or
other primary products—unless directly and unequivocally
indicated by marks on bones.
In this way, burning and cutmarks on dog bones provide
the most robust challenge to the prevailing bias against the
canine economy. They provide the most direct evidence for
processing dog carcasses. It is important, however, to recog-
nize a few limitations of these data. First, thermal alterations
that change the color of bones are neither a necessary out-
come of food preparation nor a clear indication of it.
Many cooking practices do not leave burning marks on
bones (Stiner et al. 1995), and non-cooking behaviors invol-
ving fire, such as waste disposal, accidental fires, or ritual
immolation, can carbonize/calcine bones. Second, while cut-
marks are clear indicators of human processing (especially
butchery and skinning), only a small proportion of elements
will bear evidence of these activities. This proportion varies
depending on the butchery tools, skill, and desired products.
In Binford’s well-known experimental Nunamuit assem-
blages, for example, only 11% of the processed carcass
elements bore cutmarks (Binford 1981, 97). In archaeological
assemblages, frequencies of cutmarks are often obscured by
weathering, gnawing, root etching, or calcium carbonate
accretions. This fact has important implications for the
three case studies examined below, which show direct evi-
dence for cynophagy on only a handful of bones.
Canine Economies in the Ancient Near East and
Mediterranean: Three Examples
Tell Surezha (Iraq)
The University of Chicago’s excavations of Tell Surezha,
directed by Gil Stein, Abbas Alizadeh, and Michael Fisher,
have uncovered a multi-period site covering 22 ha about
20 km southwest of Erbil. Surezha is remarkable for its intact
domestic and potentially ritual architecture dating to the
Ubaid through Late Chalcolithic (LC) 2 (ca. 5500–3800
B.C.). This period corresponds to the development of social
inequality in northern Mesopotamia (Stein 2012; Stein and
Fisher 2019). Since 2016, the excavations have focused on
the southern edge of the mound (Area B). This area included
at least two houses, continuously occupied from the Ubaid
through LC 1–2, along with an abutting courtyard contain-
ing pits and ovens. Household refuse in rooms, pits, and
courtyard contexts included animal bones. Immediately to
the west of these domestic structures, in Operations 9 and
10, excavators uncovered a large, free-standing, and appar-
ently non-domestic building dating to the LC 1 period.
The structure included several rooms, as well as a large
enclosing wall. It contained animal bones and other debris,
including stamp seals, seal impressions, a mortar and pestle,
and an almost complete painted lenticular spouted vessel
(Stein and Fisher 2019).
4M. PRICE ET AL.

Faunal analysis of remains recovered from the 2013–2019
excavation seasons indicate that canine remains represent
around 1% of the entire assemblage from Tell Surezha. How-
ever, canines represent 8% of the LC 1 deposits (Table 1),
where biometric evidence indicates the presence of both
dogs and wolves (Table 2). All canines appear to have been
adults—no deciduous teeth were recovered, and all long
bones exhibited fused epiphyses (Table 3). One mandible
(identified as a wolf, based on size) had antemortem loss of
a second molar, whose alveolar socket had ossified over,
suggesting advanced age.
At least four individual canines were represented, most
deriving from Operations 9 and 10 (Figure 2). The remains
were not excavated in articulation, but rather were found
mixed together with the bones of sheep, goats, cattle, and
pigs. However, the recovery of elements from across the
body, with limited evidence of post-depositional breakage,
suggests entire dogs/wolves were butchered and consumed
nearby and their remains deposited with other refuse. Evi-
dence for canine consumption includes two burnt bones
and cutmarks on four elements. While canine elements
were, in general, more complete than those of other animals,
the rates of bone modification (butchery and burning) on
canines were similar to those of caprines (Figure 3; see
Table 1). The placement of the cuts is consistent with
marks produced during either the initial dismemberment
or later fileting of the carcass (Binford 1981, 125–136).
The context of the finds at Surezha offers further clues
about cynophagy at the LC 1 settlement. The finds derive
from within and around the unusual, non-domestic structure
in Operations 9 and 10. The fauna from this part of the site
also contained higher proportions of wild animals and cattle,
potentially indicative of ritual feasts or other ceremonial
activities. Tentatively, then, canine consumption may have
played a symbolic role in these practices at LC 1 Surezha.
While the nature of these rituals remains opaque, the LC 1
period is thought to have witnessed the development of heri-
table inequality (Stein 2012). It is tempting, then, to explain
the cynophagy in the special building at Tell Surezha as part
of “diacritical feasting”(Dietler 1999, 145), in which kin
groups or ambitious individuals sought new forms of pres-
tige to distinguish themselves from other members of society
and to reify their social positions (see also Brereton 2013). If
so, the consumption of dogs and wolves may have helped
facilitate this process of differentiation by drawing upon
magical powers associated with canines, conferring them
upon special members of the community, or employing
them to address community-wide concerns such as healing,
fertility, or mediating relationships with deities.
An alternative explanation borrows from Anthony and
Brown (2017), who described a similar find (cynophagy of
dogs and wolves in a non-domestic building) at the 2nd mil-
lennium B.C. site of Krasnosamarskoe in Russia. As men-
tioned above, the authors interpret the finds as evidence of
young male warrior initiation rituals. Although the cultural
and geographic context of Krasnosamarskoe is admittedly
quite different from that of Tell Surezha, it is possible that in
both contexts people associated dogs with warfare and that the
unique buildings at each site were analogous to the “men’s
houses”found historically in small-scale societies around
the globe (e.g., Flannery and Marcus 2012). In fact, the Late
Chalcolithic in northern Mesopotamia did see a rise in war-
fare, with notable examples including the violent destructions
of Tepe Gawra XII (LC 1) and XI (LC 2) and Hamoukar (LC
3), not to mention the mass grave of young adults (males and
females) at Tell Majnuna (LC 3) (Rothman 2009; McMahon,
Soltysiak, and Weber 2011; McMahon in press). Canines
and their primary products may have helped motivate and
inspire Chalcolithic youth to take on new roles as members
of raiding parties, engaging in “dog-like”acts of violence.
Table 1. Canis spp. NISP and proportion of bones modified over time from Tell Surezha and Acemhöyük. Proportion of caprine bones modified included for
comparison. *Much of the burning in Level III is not related to cooking practices.
Phase NISP %NISP %Cutmarks (Canines) %Burned (Canines) %Cutmarks (Caprines) %Burned (Caprines)
Surezha
Ubaid 1 < 1% 0% 0% 0% 3%
LC 1 95 8% 4% 2% 2% 5%
LC 1–2 6 1% 0% 0% 2% 1%
LC 2 0 0% NA NA 0% 2%
Acemhöyük
EBA 83 2% 14% 12% 8% 15%
MBA Level III 186 3% 7% 12%* 3% 30%*
MBA Level II 161 3% 17% 6% 5% 10%
Mycenae
Mycenae LBA 918 8% < 1% < 1% 4% 2%
Table 2. Canis lower first molar measurements from Tell Surezha and
Acemhöyük compared to a domestic dog recovered from Akkadian period
levels (late 3rd millennium B.C.) at Tell Brak in northeastern Syria (Clutton-
Brock 1989) and modern wolves from the Zagros region (Davis and Valla
1978). *Indicates probable wolf, based on metrics.
Site Op/Loc
Dog/
Wolf
Length
(mm)
Breadth
(mm)
Surezha 2/144 dog 22.5 9.2
Surezha 9/14 dog 22.6 8.8
Surezha 10/218 dog 22.7 9.0
Surezha 10/225 wolf 27.1* 10.4*
Surezha 10/233 wolf? –10.5*
Acemhöyük AC2010 EB48katIV dog 21.3
Acemhöyük AC2010 EB48katIV dog 19.5
Acemhöyük AC2008TA33katII dog 20
Acemhöyük AC2009Tektas
SondajKatIII
dog 21.3
Acemhöyük AC2003SA35katIII dog 21.4 7.8
Acemhöyük AC2009DB49katV dog 23.5
Acemhöyük AC2013YA50katII dog 22.3 9.1
Acemhöyük AC2012CB51kat XI dog 22.5 8.9
Acemhöyük AC2009TA38katIII dog 21.5 8.1
Tell Brak Akkadian dog 22.5 –
Modern Zagros Wolves (n = 6) wolves 26.6 ± 1.7 –
Table 3. Simplified epiphyseal fusion data from Tell Surezha, Acemhöyük, and
Mycenae. Elements included in fusion stages: Stage 1 (Pelvis, Scapula, Ph. 1 &
2); Stage 2 (Ds. Humerus, Px. Ulna, Metapodials); Stage 3 (Px. & Ds. Radius);
Stage 4 (Px. Humerus, Calcaneus, Px. & Ds. Femur, Px. & Ds. Tibia). For raw
data, see Supplemental Material 2.
Surezha Acem. EBA Acem. III Acem. II Mycenae
Fusion stage %Fused %Fused %Fused %Fused %Fused
1 (6 mos.) 100 100 100 100 98
2 (10 mos.) 100 95.8 87.5 100 98.5
3 (12 mos.) 100 87.5 71.4 100 95.8
4 (18 mos.) 100 88.8 88.9 100 83.9
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 5

Acemhöyük (Turkey)
Acemhöyuk was a major Early and Middle Bronze Age urban
center (ca. 2800–1700 B.C.) located on the Konya Plain in
central Turkey. The Early Bronze Age settlement (EBA;
3rd millennium B.C.), which has been explored by Aliye
Öztan of Ankara University since 1989, included elite resi-
dential and administrative buildings surrounded by a monu-
mental city wall (Öztan 1994). The better-explored Middle
Bronze Age levels (III and II) dating to the early 2nd millen-
nium B.C. include the remains of several palatial structures
and administrative complexes, as well as an extensive lower
Figure 2. Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) at Tell Surezha, Acemhöyük, and Mycenae.
6M. PRICE ET AL.

town (Özgüç 1966; Öztan 1998). The monumental structures
of the central mound, which belong to level III and contained
sealings indicating communication with contemporary
rulers in Mesopotamia and northern Syria, were destroyed
in a massive fire in the 18th century B.C. (Özgüç 1980;
Manning et al. 2016). A short reoccupation in level II con-
sisted of smaller and poorly built structures directly on top
of the destruction layer. There is no evidence for reuse of
palatial structures, and the lower town appears to have
been abandoned at this time (Özgüç 1966).
Most of the fauna derives from midden and fill deposits
within administrative contexts in the city center. A total of
461 specimens identified as Canis sp., representing 2.8% of
the total NISP from the site, were found, typically depos-
ited within mixed midden deposits that also contained
the remains of other butchered animals. Canis remains
range from 0–3.2% of the NISP between the 11 strati-
graphic levels dating to the Early and Middle Bronze
Ages. Metrical data (see Table 2) suggest all of these ani-
mals were domestic dogs.
In the EBA (levels XII–IV), 83 Canis specimens were
identified, accounting for 2.2% of the total EBA NISP. Con-
texts include areas around the city wall and trash pits. All
Canis specimens represent disarticulated remains, with the
exception of those from Area FB50-51, where two disturbed
partial dog burials, including some articulated and paired
elements, were uncovered. The vast majority of the dog
remains from the EBA levels derive from adult animals exhi-
biting fully fused epiphyses and permanent dentition. Three
unfused specimens indicate the presence of some juveniles
(less than one year), including the tibia of a very young
puppy. A relatively high frequency of the dog specimens
exhibit cutmarks (14%) and evidence for burning (12%),
the former higher than the proportion of cutmarked caprine
bones (see Table 1,Figure 3).
The majority of dog remains derive from the Middle
Bronze Age (levels III and II). In level III, 169 Canis speci-
mens were recorded, with another 17 likely assigned to this
level. This represents 3% of the total assemblage. Specimens
were found disarticulated, and most derive from deposits
associated with public architectural features in the city cen-
ter. Additionally, several specimens were recovered from a
sounding in the lower town, and two specimens (a mandible
and third metacarpal) were found associated with a human
burial in the Arıbas cemetery in the lower town. Most of
the canines from level III represent adult dogs. One tibia
reflects a very young puppy, while an unfused ulna and prox-
imal radius also indicate juveniles (less than 10 months), as
does a single mandible belonging to a puppy less than five
months of age. About 7% of the dog specimens bear cut-
marks (more than twice the rate for caprines), and 12%
show evidence for burning, which is much lower than the
rate for caprines, although much of the burning in Level
III is not related to cooking practices (see Table 1).
The dog remains from level II comprise 161 specimens,
representing 3.2% of the assemblage. These remains derive
from residential areas hastily rebuilt on top of the destroyed
city center. One complete dog burial—an adult male, based
on the presence of a baculum—was recorded, but all other
remains are disarticulated. As with the earlier occupations,
the vast majority of the dog remains represent adult individ-
uals. One unfused distal metapodial indicates a juvenile less
than eight months old, while two puppy mandibles, probably
from the same individual, were also recorded. Burning is evi-
dent on 6% of the dog remains in level II, the lowest at the
site, whereas the frequency of cutmarks increased dramati-
cally to 17% of the dog assemblage from this period, more
than three times the rate observed on caprines (see Table 1).
Location of cutmarks and the skeletal parts are similar in
all periods (see Figure 3). Specimens with cuts across the
Figure 3. General locations of cutmarks on canine remains from Tell Surezha, Acemhöyük, and Mycenae.
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 7

ventral portion of the atlas suggest removal of the head, as
well as, perhaps, cutting of the throat. Cuts on the metapo-
dials and tarsals likely reflect skinning, whereas cuts across
the distal trochlea of the humerus and the head of the
femur likely reflect dismemberment. Thus, multiple stages
of the butchery process are reflected in the cutmarks on
the dog assemblage.
Overall, the dog assemblage at Acemhöyük does not fit
the iconographic or textual evidence (reviewed above) for
an assemblage resulting from the special ritual use of dogs:
it is not dominated by complete or partially complete skel-
etons that are often indicative of dog burials or sacrifices.
Contextual data and the general lack of puppies, the com-
mon victims of Anatolian dog sacrifices reported in texts
(e.g., Collins 1990), also argue against ritual use. Meanwhile,
the high prevalence of cut marks and burning does not fit
expectations for ad hoc disposal of the carcasses of semi-
feral or free-ranging dogs.
The dogs at Acemhöyük instead match expectations for a
tradition of cynophagy. Dog consumption appears to have
taken place across the urban center and in the lower town
and occurred irrespective of social status both as a prosaic
practice within the walls of the city, as well as associated
with at least some funerary contexts. Dog bodies were regu-
larly skinned, butchered, and cooked within the EBA and
MBA settlement, and these behaviors continued and perhaps
increased in the less opulent occupation (level II) following
the destruction of the administrative center. The consump-
tion of dogs at Acemhöyük focused primarily on adults,
although in the EBA and level III periods, 11% of the popu-
lation were culled as juveniles (see Table 3). While skinning,
butchery, and consumption are indicated by the high fre-
quencies of cutmarks and burnt bones, as at Tell Surezha,
dog skeletal elements were relatively more complete than
those of sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs. This suggests dog car-
casses were subject to lesser degrees of processing for mar-
row and grease than those of ruminant and suid livestock.
While it is unclear exactly what social significance dog pri-
mary products held, the canine economy at Acemhöyük
was a persistent characteristic of local foodways for a millen-
nium. The Acemhöyük data thus reveal that dog consump-
tion was a long lasting and widespread aspect of everyday
life in this Bronze Age community, taking place in a wide
variety of social contexts, including public and private,
sacred and profane.
Mycenae (Greece)
Our final case study features dog remains recovered from the
site of Mycenae, Greece. Dog carcass parts were recovered
from Petsas House—a domestic-industrial complex involved
in wider local and regional systems of craft production (cer-
amics) and the provisioning of diverse resources, including
animals, during the Late Helladic IIA2 period (1375–1300
B.C.) (Shelton 2010; Price, Krigbaum, and Shelton 2017; Kva-
pil et al. 2019). Petsas House was recently excavated by the
Archaeological Society of Athens and the University of Cali-
fornia Berkeley under the field direction of Kim Shelton
(Shelton 2010,2015). In Room Πof the structure, dog speci-
mens were found with a diverse assemblage of well-preserved
faunal remains and other debris packed into a ca. 12 m deep
well. Subsequent analysis has detected several ceramic joins
between, on the one hand, sherds deriving from the rooms
of the building and, on the other, fragments found in the
well deposit. This suggests waste from the rooms, and per-
haps other parts of the site, were deposited in the well, prob-
ably following a destructive event (Shelton 2009,2015; Price,
Krigbaum, and Shelton 2017; Kvapil et al. 2019). Thus, the
dog remains were likely deposited in the well by several
cleaning events that occurred shortly before and after the
destruction of the house.
The dog remains within Room Πappear to derive from
both disarticulated and more complete skeletal parts. Analy-
sis of a vertical sample of faunal remains from the northwes-
tern quadrant of the well revealed a high proportion of dogs
(n = 918, 8.1% of NISP) (Meier, Price, and Shelton forthcom-
ing). In the deepest layers of the well, dog abundance was
higher, and many elements were found in anatomical associ-
ation, suggesting the deposition of more complete animals.
More isolated, disarticulated elements were mixed through-
out the upper layers.
Taken as a whole, body-part representation is diverse
throughout the vertical sample (see Figure 2). Elements
included many vertebral bones, as well as the bacula of
three male individuals (Meier and Price forthcoming).
Although a majority of the dog remains represent adults,
16% of the individuals died prior to epiphyseal closure,
and both puppies and juveniles were represented in the
assemblage (see Table 3).
Cutmarks were found on 14 specimens throughout the
well deposit; four from the intensively studied vertical
sample (0.4% of canine NISP), and an additional ten speci-
mens were observed in an ongoing study of the other parts
of the well deposit (see Figure 3). Cutmarks consistent
with skinning are present on elements of the autopodia,
while disarticulation marks were detected on the articular
ends of long bones and vertebra. One cut atlas bone was pre-
sent that may reflect butchery to remove the head or kill the
animal. In addition, calcined fragments of a distal scapula
and ulna were found (0.3% NISP). This exposure of dog
limb parts to high temperatures may reflect roasting or dis-
posal of dog carcass parts in or near hearths.
Taphonomic assessment of fauna from the well in Room
Πreveals that dog bodies were subject to different treat-
ments. In the lower layers, whole or partially complete skel-
etal parts were deposited, suggesting minimal carcass
processing and, perhaps, the use of the feature as a con-
venient or socially meaningful location to inter the remains
of canines in the early stages of filling the well. The disarticu-
lated remains in the upper layers more closely match expec-
tations for household consumption refuse, which was
deposited into the well during the post-destruction cleaning
activities. These butchered dog remains were also deposited
with other types of debris, including faunal and ceramic
waste from household meal preparation and consumption.
While the upper layers clearly indicate that dogs were
periodically included in household meals, the recovery of
whole or partially complete skeletons in the lower layers of
the well reflects more primary deposition. The treatment of
these remains offers parallels to other finds, such as the
numerous examples of articulated dogs found within
human burials in prehistoric Greek contexts (Hamilakis
1996). The evidence of rapid deposition and butchery, per-
haps reflecting sacrificial activities, also resonates with
deposits in the Near East (e.g., Schwartz 2013) and in later
periods of the Aegean (e.g., Liston et al. 2018). Additional
8M. PRICE ET AL.

parallels come from Eretria in Greece, where there is poten-
tial evidence for dog consumption and symbolic activities
during the Helladic–Hellenistic periods (Chenal-Velarde
2006).
Discussion: The Value of Dogs and Their Products
in the Past
The cases we have explored highlight three different uses of
dead dogs and, presumably, cynophagic activity. The results
indicate that Acemhöyük has more cut and burned dog
remains than Tell Surezha and Mycenae. Interestingly,
some of the assemblages from Acemhöyük and Tell Surezha
contain higher percentages of cut-marked remains of dogs
than of caprines. While there are only adult dogs and wolves
at Surezha, Acemhöyük and Mycenae have some younger
dog remains, and no specimens that fall within the size
range of wolves. All have some evidence of processing for
consumption and, potentially, skinning. There does not
appear to be any temporal patterning in the results, but
rather they reflect dog use that is specific to each context.
The LC 1 deposits at Tell Surezha are perhaps the most
cryptic, in that there are few comparative cases at nearby
sites. Combining the faunal data and contextual evidence,
the deposits might indicate ritual uses of dog and wolf
flesh and possibly skins during the prehistoric period, rituals
potentially connected to incipient inequality, or the organiz-
ation of war bands. Data from Early and Middle Bronze Age
Acemhöyük, on the other hand, indicate a long-term (over a
millennium) tradition of quotidian consumption of dogs.
This tradition does not appear ritual in nature, nor does it
appear to have been associated with a particular status
group, but instead reflects a conservative aspect of the local
urban economy involving the regular use of dog flesh and
skins. Meanwhile, the data from Mycenae reflect a case
that does not fit neatly within such a sacred/profane dichot-
omy. Rather, it likely represents a combination of symbolic
and quotidian activities reflecting different uses of dogs in
relation to the local norms of refuse management and house-
hold responses to a natural disaster. The deposition of whole
or partially complete dogs at the bottom of the well of Room
Πmay fit models of offerings or convenient disposals. Later
deposits of more disarticulated remains in the well likely
reflect more mundane consumption within an industrial
household setting.
The examples from Surezha, Acemhöyük, and Mycenae
join dozens of other cases of cynophagy reported by zooarch-
aeologists. We have compiled a selection of these examples in
Figure 1. As with the case studies taken from our own data-
sets, canine economies were generally a small component of
animal exploitation systems, never making up more than
about 5–10% of archaeofaunal assemblages. Nevertheless,
the recurring evidence for cutmarks and burning on dog
remains indicate that dogs were consumed in a variety of
contexts in many Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies.
Figure 1 indicates that, in certain spatiotemporal contexts,
dead dogs played more prominent roles in animal economies
—especially the Neolithic and Bronze Age in the Gulf, the
Neolithic–Classical Aegean, and the Iron Age Levant.
Indeed, various researchers have commented on these canine
economies. The tradition of cynophagy at sites dating to the
Neolithic and Bronze Age in the Persian Gulf region has
been interpreted within a broad spectrum animal economy
dominated by fish, marine mammals, and sheep/goats
(Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1994; Maini and Curci 2013).
People consumed dogs, a small percentage of the total
NISP, in domestic settings as a part of mundane meals.
Maini and Curci (2013) suggest that dogs were raised as a
convenient cost-effective alternative to caprines and to sup-
plement the diet during seasonal lulls in fishing.
Quotidian cynophagy was a long-standing tradition, last-
ing from the Neolithic–Hellenistic period, in Greece, Italy,
and western Anatolia, as well as in Greek colonies through-
out the Mediterranean (Peters 1993;Snyder and Klippel
2003; De Grossi Mazzorin and Minniti 2006; Gündem
2010; Hadjikoumis 2016). Justin’sHistoriae Philippicae
(3rd century A.D.) and Pliny’sNaturalis Historia (1st century
A.D.) suggest that cynophagy was also present in the Classical
and perhaps Persian periods in North Africa (Simoons
1981). While a source of everyday meat, the significance of
dog flesh went beyond that of calories in these contexts. Clas-
sical period texts provide some passing references to quoti-
dian dog consumption in Greece, but they more frequently
reference the use of dog and puppy flesh in magico-medical
rituals and other ceremonies (Simoons 1961). In Italy, Pliny
the Elder (ca. A.D.23–79) opined that his Roman ancestors
“considered the flesh of sucking whelps to be so pure a
meat, that they were in the habit of using them as victims
even in their expiatory sacrifices. A young whelp, too, is
sacrificed to Genita Mana; and, at the repasts celebrated in
honour of the gods, it is still the usage to set whelps’flesh
on table”(Natural History XXIX.14, trans. by Bostock and
Riley 1855). Pliny’s description vaguely parallels archaeologi-
cal finds at 6th century B.C. Sardis. There, excavators recov-
ered, within domestic contexts, over two dozen intentionally
buried meals consisting of puppy skeletons, clusters of pots,
and iron knives—food intended for deities in order to bless
and protect houses (Robertson 1982). Both examples remind
us that butchered canines may not be exclusively for human
consumption.
In northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia, there is
occasional zooarchaeological evidence for the use of dog pri-
mary products, although detailed taphonomic data are often
not reported. Cutmarks on distal tibiae were also recorded in
LC 1–2 phases at Tell Hamoukar in northern Syria (J. Doe,
personal communication 2010). The canine remains were
found within Hamoukar’s southern extension (Khirbat al-
Fakhar), a part of the site associated with craft production
and domestic refuse (Al Quntar, Khalidi, and Ur 2011). Cut-
marks were also observed on dog skeletal remains at Çadır
Höyük in occupation levels dating from the Late Chalcolithic
to the Byzantine period (Arbuckle 2009). Cutmarks found on
a single distal tibia at Tell Shiukh Fawqani (Chantier E) led
Vila (2005) to speculate about the use of dog skins; she
also cites unpublished evidence for skinning/butchery at
Tell Sheikh Hassan, Tell Chuera, and Gindaris (Vila 2005).
The Acemhöyük data presented above corroborate a long
tradition of quotidian use of dog primary products in north-
ern Mesopotamia and central Anatolia, two regions strongly
connected by trade and diplomacy in the Bronze Age (Özgüç
1966).
A burgeoning body of literature has recently focused on
cynophagy in the Levant and its significance for understand-
ing social identity in the Iron Age (e.g., Maher 2017; Lev-Tov
et al. 2018). Cynophagy, the argument goes, was not an indi-
genous practice in the region, but was introduced by
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 9

Philistines and other “Sea Peoples”from the Aegean/Cyprus
region. Supporting this argument are diachronic trends in
NISP data from the southern Levant. Cutmarked canine
bones are rare in the prehistoric period; they include a single
element from Pre-Pottery Neolithic Tell es-Sultan (Jericho)
(Clutton-Brock 1979) and a nasal bone at the Pre-Pottery
Neolithic C and Pottery Neolithic site of Tell Hreiz (Horwitz,
Lernau, and Galili 2006). However, in the Iron Age, cut-
marks have been found repeatedly, though in small numbers,
at Philistine-related settlements (Maher 2017; Lev-Tov et al.
2018). Some (e.g., Maher 2017) have suggested that, in the
context of emerging and competitive ethnic groups in the
Iron Age Levant, eating dogs may have developed into a tra-
dition that reinforced group belonging and affirmed an iden-
tity as separate from (and against) ones’neighbors. This
situation perhaps finds some parallels in the nationalist
rhetoric that surrounds the dialogue about cynophagy in
South Korea today (Podberscek 2009).
Zooarchaeological data thus sheds light on cynophagy in
multiple locations and time periods in the Near East and
Eastern Mediterranean region. This information derives
from cutmarks on bones, unambiguous evidence of carcass
processing, in addition to more ambiguous cases of burnt
canine bones. Some of the cutmark evidence might indicate
skinning for dog hides, an activity that may be part of the
process of butchery for meat. However, the location of cut-
marks at most of the sites considered here indicates butchery
for food, although the consumers of canine flesh may have
included supernatural beings in addition to, or instead of,
humans. Added to these direct data are the countless disarti-
culated dog bones found at archaeological sites across the
region on which cutmarks were not initially identified or
recorded. The true extent of cynophagy is thus likely greater
than Figure 1 suggests. Yet, as this article has pointed out,
these aspects of the canine economy have generally been
left out of reconstructions of the ancient Near East and
Mediterranean.
Conclusion
Archaeologists have long recognized that dogs were a ubiqui-
tous feature of life in the ancient Near East and eastern Med-
iterranean, functioning as companion animals, hunting aids,
village pariahs, and even sacrificial victims. The recovery and
occasional publication of articulated dog remains, often
highly celebrated, can feed into narratives that canine econ-
omies of the ancient past were similar to those observed
today, or, at the very least, that a special and near-universal
emotional bond exists between humans and canines. But
the uses of dead dogs for their primary products, while
recognized in a number of zooarchaeological reports, have
been less frequently discussed. When dog-skinning or cyno-
phagy are discussed, there is a tendency to sensationalize
these discoveries and treat them as aberrations from “nor-
mal”human behavior in the ancient Near East and Mediter-
ranean. As a result, dogs have generally been left out of
discussions of subsistence economies.
We hypothesize that the neglect of these aspects of canine
economies stems from an implicit bias against the use of
dogs for meat and skins, one derived from modern taboos
against cynophagy in contemporary Euro-American and
Middle Eastern cultures. We suggest reintegrating dogs
into zooarchaeological discussions of ancient economy and
social life more broadly. By applying methods generally
associated with describing the production, processing, and
consumption of livestock to dogs, we predict that evidence
for a wide range of practices constituting ancient canine
economies will become evident and that a part of the ancient
world, previously hidden, will begin to emerge.
We have used the examples from Late Chalcolithic Tell
Surezha, Early and Middle Bronze Age Acemhöyük, and
Late Bronze Age Mycenae to highlight the varied uses of
dead dogs. These examples represent the tip of the iceberg,
suggesting to us that many communities in the ancient
world deployed practices that regularly involved the killing,
skinning, processing, cooking, and consumption of dogs.
Consideration of all aspects of the canine economy, and its
social and cultural significance, will provide a rich topic for
zooarchaeology to engage with. It will lead to a productive
reimaging of life in the ancient world and the history of
our species’relationship with dogs.
Acknowledgments
This article greatly benefited from the helpful suggestions and construc-
tive comments by Kim Shelton, as well as three anonymous reviewers.
We wish to thank the excavators of Acemhöyük, Tell Surezha, and
Mycenae—Aliye Öztan, Gil Stein, Abbas Alizadeh, Mike Fisher, and
Kim Shelton. We also extend our thanks to the local museum and
state representatives for facilitating research on these sites. Thanks to
Kate Grossman for sharing her unpublished data from Hamoukar.
Financial support for zooarchaeological work at Acemhöyük was pro-
vided to author B. A. by the National Science Foundation (BCS-
0530699; BCS-1311551), National Geographic Society, the American
Research Institute in Turkey, the University of North Carolina-Chapel
Hill, and Baylor University. Zooarchaeological work at Tell Surezha by
author M. P. was supported by the National Geographic Society (YEG
9352-13), the National Science Foundation (DDIG #1405344), and the
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Permission to study the
fauna from Petsas House at Mycenae was granted to author J. M. by
Kim Shelton, director of the excavations. The excavation and study
were made possible by the Archaeological Society of Athens and the
Division of Research Implementation of the Ministry of Culture and
Tourism General Directorship of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage of
Greece. This research was supported by grants from the Institute for
Aegean Prehistory, the Witherill Foundation, and the University of
California Berkeley. Travel for the faunal study was made possible
through support from an American School of Classical Studies at
Athens Wiener Lab Short-Term Research Grant and University of Con-
necticut Department of Anthropology Fellowships to author J. M.
Notes on Contributors
Max Price (Ph.D. 2016, Harvard University) is currently a Lecturer in
Archaeology in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering
at MIT. He is a zooarchaeologist who studies the roles of animals in
the development of complex societies in the ancient Near East.
Jacqueline Meier (Ph.D. 2017, University of Connecticut) is Assistant
Professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social
Work at the University of North Florida. She is a zooarchaeologist
who studies human-animal relations in prehistoric and ancient societies
in the Mediterranean.
Benjamin Arbuckle (Ph.D. 2006, Harvard University) is Associate Pro-
fessor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of North
Carolina-Chapel Hill. He is a zooarchaeologist whose research focuses
on human-animal interactions in ancient Anatolia.
References
Al Quntar, S., L. Khalidi, and J. A. Ur. 2011.“Proto-Urbanism in the
Late 5th Millennium BC: Survey and Excavations at Khirbat al-
Fakhar/Hamoukar, Northeast Syria.”Paléorient 37: 151–175.
10 M. PRICE ET AL.

Anthony, D. W., and D. R. Brown. 2017.“The Dogs of War: A Bronze
Age Initiation Ritual in the Russian Steppes.”Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 48: 134–148.
Arbuckle, B. S. 2009.“Chalcolithic Caprines, Dark Age Dairy, and
Byzantine Beef: A First Look at Animal Exploitation at Middle and
Late Holocene Çadir Höyük, North Central Turkey.”Anatolica 35:
180–224.
Atici, L. 2006.“Who Let the Dogs Out? Bone Destruction and Its
Broader Implications in Interpreting the Bronze Age Pastoral
Economies at Kaman-Kalehöyük.”Anatolian Archaeological
Studies 15: 121–131.
Avieli, N. 2011.“Dog Meat Politics in a Vietnamese Town.”Ethnology
50: 59–78.
Binford, L. 1981.Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York:
Academic Press.
Blau, S., and M. Beech. 1999.“One Woman and Her Dog: An Umm an-
Nar Example from the United Arab Emirates.”Arabian
Archaeological and Epigraphy 10: 34–42.
Blench, R. M. 2000.“African Minor Livestock Species.”In The Origins
and Development of African Livestock: Archaeology, Genetics,
Linguistics, and Ethnology, edited by R. M. Blench and K. C.
MacDonald, 314–338. London: UCL Press.
Boessneck, J., and A. von den Driesch. 1984.“Die Zoologische
Dokumentation der Reste von Vier Pferden und Einem Hund aus
Einem Mykenischen Schachtgrab in Kokla Bei Argos
(Peloponnes).”Spixiana 7: 327–333.
Bostock, J., and H. T. Riley. 1855.The Natural History of Pliny. London:
Henry Bohn.
Brereton, G. 2013.“Cultures of Infancy and Capital Accumulation in
Pre-Urban Mesopotamia.”World Archaeology 45: 232–251.
Callahan, R. 1997.“Domestication of Dogs and Their Use on the Great
Plains.”Nebraska Anthropologist 14: 1–11.
Chenal-Velarde, I. 2006.“Food, Rituals? The Exploitation of Dog from
Eretria (Greece) During Helladic and Hellenistic Periods.”In Dogs
and People in Social, Working, Economic or Symbolic Interaction, edi-
ted by L. M. Snyder, and E. A. Moore, 24–31. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Clutton-Brock, J. 1979.“The Mammalian Remains for the Jericho Tell.”
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45: 135–157.
Clutton-Brock, J. 1989.“A Dog and a Donkey Excavated at Tell Brak.”
Iraq 51: 217–224.
Collins, B. J. 1990.“The Puppy in Hittite Ritual.”Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 42: 211–226.
Comba, E. 1991.“Wolf Warriors and Dog Feasts: Animal Metaphors in
Plains Military Societies.”European Review of Native American
Studies 5: 41–48.
Çakırlar, C., V. Amer, J. Kamlah, and H. Sader. 2013.“Persian Period
Dog Burials in the Levant: New Evidence from Tell el-Burak
(Lebanon) and a Reconsideration of the Phenomenon.”In
Archaeozoology of the Near East X, edited by B. D. Cupere, V.
Linseele, and S. Hamilton-Dyer, 243–264. Leuven: Ancient Near
Eastern Studies Supplement 44. Peeters.
Davis, S. J. M., and F. F. Valla. 1978.“Evidence for Domestication of the
Dog 12,000 Years Ago in the Natufian of Israel.”Nature 276: 608–
610.
De Grossi Mazzorin, J., and C. Minniti. 2006.“Dog Sacrifice in the
Ancient World: A Ritual Passage?”In Dogs and People in Social,
Working, Economic or Symbolic Interaction, edited by L. M. Snyder
and E. A. Moore, 62–66. Oxbow: Oxbow Books.
DeMarrais, E., L. J. Castillo, and T. Earle. 1996.“Ideology,
Materialization, and Power Strategies.”Current Anthropology 37:
15–31.
Dietler, M. 1999.“Rituals of Commensality and the Politics of State
Formation in the “Princely”Societies of Early Iron Age Europe.”
In Les Princes de la Protohistoire et L’Émergence de L’État.
Publications de L’École FRançaise de Rome, edited by P. Ruby,
135–152. Rome: École Française de Rome.
Dixon, H. 2018.“Late 1st-Millennium B.C.E. Levantine Dog Burials as
an Extension of Human Mortuary Behavior.”Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 379: 19–41.
Edrey, M. 2008.“The Dog Burials at Achaemenid Ashkelon Revisited.”
Tel Aviv 35: 267–282.
Englund, R. K. 1995.“Late Uruk Pigs and Other Herded Animals.”In
Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens, edited by U.
Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann, and H. Hauptmann, 121–133. Philipp
von Zabern: Mainz.
Fessenden, M. 2019.“New Study Looks at Why Neolithic Humans
Buried Their Dogs With Them 4,000 Years Ago.”Smithsonian
Magazine 14 February.
Flannery, K. V., and J. Marcus. 2012.The Creation of Inequality: How
Our Prehistoric Ancestors Set the Stage for Monarchy, Slavery, and
Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Friedman, T. 1987.“Ashkelon Journal; When Dogs Become an
Archeologist’s Best Find.”The New York Times. New York. 14
August.
Guagnin, M., A. R. Perri, and M. D. Petraglia. 2018.“Pre-Neolithic
Evidence for Dog-Assisted Hunting Strategies in Arabia.”Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 49: 225–236.
Gündem, C. 2010.“Animal Based Subsistence Economy of Emar
During the Bronze Age.”In Emar After the Closure of the Tabqa
Dam. The Syrian-German Excavations 1996-2002, edited by U.
Finkbeiner and F. Sakal, 125–176. Turnhout: Brepols.
Hadjikoumis, A. 2016.“Every Dog Has Its Day: Cynophagy, Identity
and Emerging Complexity in Early Bronze Age Attica, Greece.”In
Bones and Identity, edited by N. Marom, R. Yeshurun, L.
Weissbrod, and G. Bar-Oz, 225–245. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Hamilakis, Y. 1996.“A Footnote on the Archaeology of Power: Animal
Bones from a Mycenaean Chamber Tomb at Galatas, NE
Peloponnese.”The Annual of the British School at Athens 91: 153–166.
Horwitz, L. 2013.“The Faunal Remains.”In Excavations at Tel Zahara
(2006–2009): Final Report, The Hellenistic and Roman Strata, edited
by S. L. Cohen, 75–96. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports
International Series 2554.
Horwitz, L. K., O. Lernau, and E. Galili. 2006.“Fauna from the
Submerged Pottery Neolithic Site of Newe Yam, Northern Israel.”
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 36: 139–171.
Jones, T. B., and J. W. Snyder. 1961.Sumerian Economic Texts from the
Third Ur Dynasty.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kvapil, L. A., J. Meier, G. C. Price, and K. S. Shelton. 2019.“Beyond City
and Country at Mycenae: Urban and Rural Practices in a Subsistence
Landscape.”In Country in the City. Agricultural Functions in
Protohistoric Urban Settlements (Aegean and Western
Mediterranean), edited by D. Garcia, R. l. Orgeolet, M. Pomadère,
and J. Zurbach. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Lev-Tov, J., A. Killebrew, H. Greenfield, and A. Brown. 2018.“Puppy
Sacrifice and Cynophagy from Early Philistine Tel Miqne-Ekron
Contextualized.”Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology &
Heritage Studies 6: 1–30.
Linseele, V. 2003.“Cultural Identity and the Consumption of Dogs in
Western Africa.”In Behaviour Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology
of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, edited by S. J. O’Day, W.
Van Neer, and A. Ervynck, 318–326. Oxford: Oxbow.
Liston, M. A., S. I. Rotroff, L. M. Snyder, and A. Stewart. 2018.“The
Agora Bone Well.”Hesperia Supplements 50: iii–186.
Maher, E. 2017.“Flair of the Dog: The Philistine Consumption of
Canines.”In The Wide Lens in Archaeology: Honoring Brian Hesse’s
Contributions to Anthropological Archaeology, edited by J. Lev-Tov,
P. Hesse, and A. Gilbert, 117–148. Atlanta: Lockwood Press.
Maini, E., and A. Curci. 2013.“New Evidence for Dog Butchering from
Prehistoric Coastal Sites in the Sultanate of Oman.”In
Archaeozoology of the Near East X, edited by B. De Cupere, V.
Linseele, and S. Hamilton-Dyer, 403–417. Leuven: Peeters.
Manning, S. W., C. B. Griggs, B. Lorentzen, G. Barjamovic, C. B.
Ramsey, B. Kromer, and E. M. Wild. 2016.“Integrated Tree-Ring-
Radiocarbon High-Resolution Timeframe to Resolve Earlier
Second Millennium BCE Mesopotamian Chronology.”PLoS ONE
11: e0157144.
McMahon, A. In Press.“Early Urbanism in Northern Mesopotamia.”
Journal of Archaeological Research.
McMahon, A., A. Soltysiak, and J. Weber. 2011.“Late Chalcolithic Mass
Graves at Tell Brak, Syria, and Violent Conflict During the Growth
of Early City-States.”Journal of Field Archaeology 36 (3): 201–220.
Meier, J. S., and G. C. Price. Forthcoming.“The Animal Remains from
the Room ΠWell.”In Petsas House, Mycenae. The Excavation of a
14
th
Century BCE Residential and Industrial Complex. Athens:
Archaeological Society of Athens (in progress).
Meier, J. S., G. C. Price, and K. Shelton. Forthcoming.“Distinguishing
Palatial from Autonomous Subsistence Provisioning With
Zooarchaeological and Isotopic Analyses at Petsas House, Mycenae
(Late Helladic IIIA2).”InFood Provisioningin Complex Societies,edited
by L. Atici and B. S. Arbuckle. Denver: University of Colorado Press.
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 11

Moses, V. 2020.“Powerful Pups: A Case Study for Dog Sacrifice in
Archaic Rome from the Area Sacra di Sant’Omobono.”In Dogs:
Archaeology Beyond Domestication, edited by B. Bethke and A.
Burtt, 232–252. Tallahassee: University Press of Florida.
Oh, M., and J. Jackson. 2011.“Animal Rights vs. Cultural Rights:
Exploring the Dog Meat Debate in South Korea from a World
Polity Perspective.”Journal of Intercultural Studies 32: 31–56.
Ojoade, J. O. 1990.“Nigerian Cultural Attitudes to the Dog.”In
Signifying Animals: Human Meaning in the Natural World, edited
by R. Willis, 204–210. London: Unwin Hyman.
Ornan, T. 2004.“The Goddess Gula and Her Dog.”Israel Museum
Studies in Archaeology: 13-30.
Özgüç, N. 1966.“Acemhöyük Kazilari. Excavations at Acemhöyük.”
Anadolu 10: 29–52.
Özgüç, N. 1980.“Seal Impressions from the Palaces at Acemhöyük.”In
Ancient Art in Seals, edited by E. Porada, 61–99. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Öztan, A. 1994.“1992 YılıAcemhöyük Kazıları.”KazıSonuçları
Toplantısı15: 245–255.
Öztan, A. 1998.“Preliminary Report on the Aribas Cemetary at
Acemhöyük.”In Essays on Ancient Anatolia in the Second
Millennium BC, edited by T. Mikasa, 167–175. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Peters, J. 1993.“Archaic Millet: Daily Life and Religious Customs from
an Archaeozoological Perspective.”In Archaeozoology of the Near
East, edited by H. Buitenhuis and A. T. Clason, 88–96. Universal
Book Services: Leiden.
Podberscek, A. L. 2009.“Good to Pet and Eat: The Keeping and
Consuming of Dogs and Cats in South Korea.”Journal of Social
Issues 65: 615–632.
Price, G. C., J. Krigbaum, and K. Shelton. 2017.“Stable Isotopes and
Discriminating Tastes: Faunal Management Practices at the Late
Bronze Age Settlement of Mycenae, Greece.”Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 14: 116–126.
Robertson, N. 1982.“Hittite Ritual at Sardis.”Classical Antiquity 1:
122–140.
Rosenberg, M., and M. Davis. 1992.“Hallan Cemi Tepesi, an Early
Aceramic Neolithic Site in Eastern Anatolia: Some Preliminary
Observations Concerning Material Culture.”Anatolica 18: 1–18.
Rothman, M. S. 2009.“Religion, Function, and Social Networks: Tepe
Gawra in the Late Fifth and Early Fourth Millennia BC.”In A
Propos de Tepe Gawra, Le Monde Proto-Urbain de Mésopotamie, edi-
ted by P. Butterlin, 15–39. Turnhout: Brepols (Subartu XXIII).
Russell, N. 2020.“Scavenger and Sentry: The Roles of Dogs at
Çatalhöyük, Turkey, in the Context of the Near Eastern Neolithic.”
In Dogs: Archaeology Beyond Domestication, edited by B. Bethke,
and A. Burtt, 132–162. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Safar, F., M. A. Mustafa, and S. Lloyd. 1981.Eridu.Baghdad, Republic of
Iraq, Ministry of Culture and Information, State Organization of
Antiquites and Heritage.
Schwartz, G. 2013.“Memory and Its Demolition: Ancestors, Animals
and Sacrice at Umm el-Marra, Syria.”Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 23: 495–522.
Shelton, K. 2009.“Bringing Down the House: Changing Construction
Techniques in LH IIIA2 and IIIB Mycenae.”In Δώρον.Τιμητικός
Τόμος για τον καθηγητή Σπύρο Ιακωβίδη, edited by D. Danielidou,
635–646. Athens: Academy of Athens.
Shelton, K. 2010.“Citadel and Settlement: A Developing Economy at
Mycenae, the Case of Petsas House.”In Political Economies of the
Aegean Bronze Age, edited by D. J. Pullen, 184–204. Oxford: Oxbow.
Shelton, K. 2015.“Pottery and Petsas House: Recent Research on LH
IIIA 2 Mycenae.”In Mycenaeans up to Date: The Archaeology of
the NE Peloponnese –Current Concepts and New Directions, edited
by A.-L. Schallin and I. Tournavitou, 27–36. Stockholm: Acta of
the Swedish Institute at Athens.
Simoons, F. J. 1961.Eat Not This Flesh: Food Avoidances in the Old
World. Madison (WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Simoons, F. J. 1981.“Dogs as Human Food in Northwest Africa.”
Appetite: Journal for Intake Research 2: 253–266.
Simoons, F. J. 1994.Eat Not This Flesh: Food Avoidances in the Old
World, Second Edition. Madison (WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Snyder, L. M., and W. E. Klippel. 2003.“From Lerna to Kastro: Further
Thoughts on Dogs as Food in Ancient Greece: Perceptions,
Prejudices and Reinvestigations.”In Zooarchaeology in Greece:
Recent Advances, edited by E. Kotjabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis, P.
Halstead, C. Gamble, and P. Elefanti, 221–231. Athens: The British
School at Athens.
Stein, G. J. 2012.“The Development of Indigenous Social Complexity in
Late Chalcolithic Upper Mesopotamia in the 5th-4th Millennia BC –
An Initial Assessment.”Origini 34: 125–151.
Stein, G. J., and M. T. Fisher. 2019.“Surezha Excavations: Erbil Plain,
Kurdistan Region, Iraq.”Oriental Institute 2018-19 Annual Report:
125-138.
Stiner, M. C., S. L. Kuhn, S. Weiner, and O. Bar-Yosef. 1995.
“Differential Burning, Recrystallization, and Fragmentation of
Archaeological Bone.”Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 223–237.
Tsouparopoulou, C. 2012.“The “K-9 Corps”of the Third Dynasty of
Ur: The Dog Handlers at Drehem and the Army.”Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 102: 1–16.
Twiss, K. C. 2017.“Animals of the Sealands: Ceremonial Activities in
the Southern Mesopotamian “Dark Age”.”Iraq 79: 257–267.
Uerpmann, H.-P., and M. Uerpmann. 1994.“Animal Bone Finds
from Excavation 520 at Qala’at al-Bahrain. Volume I: The
Northern City Wall and the Islamic Fortress.”In Qala’at al-
Bahrain, edited by F. Højlund, H. H. Hellmuth, and O. Callot,
417–444. Moesgaard: Aarhus (Jutland Archaeological Society
Publications XXV, 1).
Valadez Azúa, R., A. Blanco Padilla, B. Rodríguez Galicia, and G. Pérez
Roldán. 2013.“The Dog in the Mexican Archaeozoological Record.”
In The Archaeology of Mesoamerican Animals, edited by C. M. Götz,
and K. F. Emery, 557–582. Atlanta: Lockwood Press.
Veenhof, K. R. 1996.“An Old Assyrian Incantation Against a Black Dog
(kt a/k 611).”Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 86:
425–433.
Veldhuis, N. 1993.“An Ur IIΙIncantation Against the Bite of a Snake, a
Scorpion, Or a Dog.”Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Archäologie 83: 161–169.
Vila, E. 2005.“Analyse Archaéozoologique de la Faune de Tell Shiukh
Fawqani.”In Tell Shiukh Fawqani: 1994-1998, Vol. II, edited by L.
Bachelot and F. M. Fales, 1081–1108. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N.
Editrice e Libreria.
Wapnish, P., and B. Hesse. 1993.“Pampered Pooches or Plain Pariahs?
The Ashkelon Dog Burials.”Biblical Archaeologist 56: 55–80.
Whiting, R. M. 1985.“An Old Babylonian Incantation from Tell
Asmar.”Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Archäologie 75: 179–187.
Yeomans, L., L. Martin, and T. Richter. 2019.“Close Companions: Early
Evidence for Dogs in Northeast Jordan and The Potential Impact of
New Hunting Methods.”Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53:
161–173.
12 M. PRICE ET AL.