Identifying habitual sled-pulling in dogs through the study of entheseal changes

A B S T R A C T Excavations on the Zhokhov Island yielded a small but meaningful collection of Early Holocene canine faunal remains (MNI = 13). To clarify the morphological characteristics of the Zhokhov dogs' skulls, they were compared to the modern skulls of the Eastern Siberian wolves. This analysis shows, that around 9000 years ago a fully formed, as a species, domesticated dog was present at the Zhokhov site and used by the inhabitants of the area while hunting and as a draft animal. Presence of a developed form of dog sledding has been securely established for this culture. The Zhokhov site osteological dog remains analysis showed that the comparison of two proportional ratios (the ratio of skull height in the cranial region to total skull length and the ratio of snout height at Рm1 – Рm2 to total skull length) is a universal and reliable criterion for distinguishing wolf skulls from wolf-like dog skulls. This method prevents the influence of any single measurement on the identification of any individual as a dog or a wolf. We propose to name them indices DD1 and DD2, accordingly (for Dog Domestication). We also show that a sled dog and hunting dog standard existed, which significantly changes the current ideas about the timing of specialized dog breed formation via directed selection. Full completion of this process marks the third stage of domestication. Two earlier stages precede it in time and space (natural selection via the feeding behavior within specific ecological niche, formed by the human activity, followed by artificial selection based on the animal's ability to be tamed). We suggest that sled dogs could have been used in Siberia around 15,000 years ago.

COMPASS

Pathologies are rarely studied in sled dogs of the circumpolar North, even though lesions on their remains can give many insights to the relationship between Indigenous peoples and domestic dogs such as subsistence and mobility patterns. Some of the more commonly discussed conditions include spondylosis deformans, fractures, and dental trauma. However, it should be noted that these conditions are still fairly uncommon in the general literature. In sled dogs, spondylosis deformans stems from osteophyte formation on the vertebrae due to the degradation of the annulus fibrosus in the intervertebral disk. Fractures develop from human disciplinary action, bite wounds, or kicks from draught animals. Finally, dental trauma typically presents as intentional tooth removal or enamel hypoplasia. Pathology studies in dogs are uncommon due to a lack of comparative modern pathological collections, and due to a lack of recording in assemblages. Future research could develop the literature by exami...

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2019

Morphological and morphometric bone variation between archaeological wolves and the oldest domestic dogs commonly are used to define species differences. However, reference data often have been based on small numbers, without robust statistical support. We consulted the literature on these matters in all possible languages and tested many of the proposed species differences by examining wolf and dog skeletons from several collections, accompanied by an extensive synthesis of existing literature. We thus created large reference groups, assessing data distributions and variability. We examined mandible height, width, length, and convexity; contact points of the skull on a horizontal plane; caudal shifting of the border of the hard palate; skull size; carnassials tooth size reduction; micro-anatomical differences in teeth, snout, and skull height; and snout length and width. Our results show that skull length and related size; skull height; snout width; orbital angle; P4 and M1 mesio-distal diameter can help (albeit to a limited extent) to distinguish the oldest archaeological dogs from wolves. Based on our observations, we re-evaluated recent large Pleistocene canids reported as Paleolithic dogs and concluded instead that they fit well within the morphomentric distributions seen with Pleistocene wolves. The research presented here reflects the recent trend to critically re-evaluate axiomatic assumptions about wolf-dog differences, and to rephrase the morphological and morphometric definition of an early archaeological dog in a more suitable manner. These results are important to the international archaeological community because they place historical reports in a newer context, and create a robust (although narrow) framework for further evaluation of archaeological dogs and wolves.

The study of early dog domestication has been the focus of considerable scholarly interest in recent years, prompting extensive research aimed at pinpointing the precise temporal and geographic origins of this process. However, a consensus among studies remains elusive, with various research efforts proposing differing timelines and locations for domestication. To address the questions related to the domestication process, researchers have employed a wide range of methodologies, including genetic, biomolecular, morphometric, paleontological, biometric, and isotopic analyses, as well as dental wear analysis to reconstruct paleodiets. Each of these approaches requires access to fossil canid specimens, given that they work directly with the skeletal remains of dogs or wolves. Alternatively, some methods can yield insights into the domestication process without necessitating the physical remains of these canids. Taphonomy, for instance, enables the study of bone surfaces for tooth marks, which may serve as indirect indicators of carnivore activity, potentially attributable to dogs or wolves. This study applies a high-resolution taphonomic analysis to bones modified by carnivores at the prehistoric site of Peña Moñuz. Our aim is to identify the specific carnivores responsible for the observed bone modifications. The findings demonstrate the efficacy of this technique in identifying the agents of bite marks, suggesting that taphonomy may complement the paleogenetic, paleontological, and isotopic methodologies traditionally used to explore the origins of dog domestication

In: O. Grimm, U. Schmölcke (eds.), Hunting in Northern Europe until 1500 AD – Old Traditions and Regional Developments, Continental Sources and Continental Influences. Neumünster, pp. 175-183.

The natural behaviour of wolves and their domesticated form, dogs, make them ideally suited for a life with hunter-gatherers. The period when the first dogs were used as hunting assistance is difficult to establish, even with natural scientific methods, since body size and proportion are not reliable guides to the reconstruction of a dog’s function. Nevertheless, there are several reasons to assume that in Scandinavia and northern Central Europe hunting with dogs had already been established during Mesolithic times. The first clear evidence for hunting with dogs can be found in depictions of the 4th millennium BC in the Mesopotamian region. Later, Scandinavian rock carvings from the Bronze Age also show scenes with hunters and dogs. In ancient Europe, hunting with dogs was highly developed and written sources mention many different types of hunting dogs. This breeding success was achieved without any knowledge of heredity, it was based solely on experience and testing. Although it is nearly impossible to identify dogs for hunting osteologically, archaeozoological methods can be used to prove that the Germanic dogs buried in graves next to men were significantly larger than both the contemporaneous “normal” Germanic dogs and the possible hunting dogs that lived at the Roman Villae rusticae. However, only a combination of archaeozoological methods, along with the interpretation of archaeological features such as grave goods associated with hunting, bequeathed laws and depictions supply evidence for the use of hunting dogs during the 1st millennium AD in both Central and northern Europe.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

Domestication has particular salience in archaeology, and numerous recent theoretical papers describe this process as a set of evolutionary, ongoing, social, and material relationships between humans and select other species. In contrast, analytical papers on the domestication of dogs nearly always involve a search for their origins as marked by changes in genes and morphologies. This article explores this contrast through the examination of dog remains from the Iron Age Ust'-Polui site in the western Siberian Arctic. Many of the numerous dogs represented at this site were killed and probably consumed when young, likely as part of sacrifices. Others at the site were intentionally buried. Ust'-Polui also contains abundant evidence of advanced dog sledding, including probable harness parts and portions of several complex sleds. Sacrificing and otherwise killing dogs is a domestication practice, as these activities are a form of selective breeding. Domestication of dogs at Ust'-Polui and elsewhere is more than selective breeding, as it is enabled and dependent upon specific landscapes, built things, and other species. At Ust'-Polui these at a minimum included a rich local environment, sleds and harness swivels, and freshwater fish, all of which intertwined in making the particular domestic relationships at the site possible.

The process and timing of initial dog domestication is an important topic in human evolution and one which has inspired much recent debate. Findings of putative domesticated dogs have recently been reported from two Gravettian sites by Germonpre et al. (2015a), joining a handful of other reputed " Paleolithic dogs " dating to before the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Though these findings have been challenged previously, this paper draws attention to the most significant shortcoming in claims of early domesticated dogs e a lack of data on Pleistocene wolf variation. Without comprehensive data on the range of variation within Pleistocene wolf populations, the identification of domesticated dogs from prior to the Late Upper Paleolithic cannot be conclusively accepted or rejected.

PLOS One, 2019

Over the past several decades archaeologists have used the spinal pathology spondylosis deformans as an indicator that archaeological dogs were used to pull or carry loads. This interpretive approach is largely based upon observations of prehistoric dog remains and archaeologist's interpretations of veterinary literature on recent sled dogs and other draft animals. However, no comparative large-scale studies of the occurrence of spondylosis deformans in wild canids, transport dogs, and dogs never involved in pulling or carrying loads have been published. To evaluate the reliability of spondylosis deformans in archaeological dogs as an indicator of participation in transport activities, 136 modern non-transport dogs, 19 sled dogs, and 241 wolves were systematically analyzed for the occurrence of spondylosis deformans. Our results indicate this pathology is not a reliable skeletal indicator of dog transport because the disease is prevalent in both dogs and wolves, regardless of their occupational histories. Numerous factors correlate with the occurrence and manifestation of this disease in canids, including age, body size, sex, and inbreeding. As such, it remains extremely challenging to identify specific etiologies for spondylosis deformans in archaeological specimens.

SOCIAL INEQUALITY BEFORE FARMING

The dog is the oldest domesticated species and the only animal that was domesticated during the Pleistocene - before the emergence of agriculture - when human populations were living as hunter-gatherers. Today, owned dogs can assist their owners in various ways. They can function as watchdog, facilitate transport as beasts of burden, aid in hunting, play a ritual role or provide company. In some cultures, they are consumed and their skin or hair can be used for the tailoring of cloths. We have shown previously that in several Upper Palaeolithic sites two morphotypes of fossil large canids can be distinguished: Palaeolithic dogs and Pleistocene wolves. The remains of Palaeolithic dogs occur in certain early and mid Upper Palaeolithic sites located above 45° latitude; their geographic distribution in post-Last Glacial Maximum sites is more widespread. We adapt here a table proposed by Sigaut (1980) and compare canid products and roles, from living and dead animals, that could have been of possible use in Upper Palaeolithic societies. These roles and products are based on data from the ethnographic literature and confronted with the possible registration of uses in the archaeological record. It is in a framework of an animated worldview of Upper Palaeolithic peoples drawn upon a range of archaeozoological, archaeological, and ethnographic data that we review whether some of these uses and products could have led to differential access to resources and could possibly have enhanced inequality among Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers.

Journal of Archaeological Science, 2012

Issues related to the identification of Late Pleistocene dogs from different sites in Eurasia, triggered by recent publications (see Germonpré et al., 2009, 2012; Ovodov et al., 2011), are discussed. The main focus is the problem of how to distinguish wolves from early dogs on the basis of skull and teeth morphology. The studies by Germonpré et al. (2009, 2012), reporting so-called 'Palaeolithic dogs' from P redmostí, Goyet, and other sites in Eastern and Central Europe, have some serious deficiencies. In our opinion, more work needs to be done to understand the biological mechanisms involved in wolf domestication and until then, it is premature to classify these Palaeolithic canids as fully domesticated dogs or even incipient dogs.