When dogs and people were buried together

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 67 (2022) 101434 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Anthropological Archaeology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa Review When dogs and people were buried together Darcy F. Morey a, Rujana Jeger b a b Department of Anthropological Sciences, Forensic Science Institute, Radford University, Radford, VA 24141, USA Independent Scholar, Nova ves 88, Zagreb, Croatia A B S T R A C T Dogs were commonly buried individually upon death but sometimes jointly interred with people. The oldest known example of the latter, from Bonn-Oberkassel in Germany, serves as a window for viewing this phenomenon. The common practice of regarding dogs as much like people underlies these occurrences. Joint doghuman interment took place in many regions over thousands of years. This widespread practice prompts the evaluation of specific examples. Recent information from Bonn-Oberkassel allows for a more comprehensive assessment of what took place there, though the circumstances surrounding the deaths at issue remain elusive. Collectively, this widespread practice illustrates how people not only incorporated dogs into their lives but into their own deaths as well. 1. Introduction 2. What is (and is not) a dog burial? Why were deceased dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and people some­ times buried together? In addressing that question, it seems useful to begin with a more basic one: Why were dogs buried at all, a frequent occurrence in the past (Morey, 2006)? It is probably best to envision a spectrum of answers to that question. At one extreme, people sometimes have regarded dogs much like nuclear family, a well-known phenome­ non in modern times (Cohen, 2002). At another extreme, little more than hygienic corpse disposal need be implied by a dog burial. Between those extremes lies a range of circumstances, including burial after being dispatched as sacrificial victims. Hygienic corpse disposal is a common denominator underlying the entire range, though surely more than simple corpse disposal was usually in play when dogs and people were buried together. We maintain that dogs were generally regarded much like people, leading to comparable practices for both, spanning the extremes in how people have dealt with each other. A point of departure here is the earliest securely dated example of joint dog-human interment, from Bonn-Oberkassel in Germany, approximately 14,000 years ago. Broadly known for several decades (e.g., Nobis, 1979; Benecke, 1987), longestablished studies of this dog, along with recent information, guide the coverage of this important case. After Bonn-Oberkassel, we cover later European examples before branching out to other continents. The objective is to impart a sense of the scope of this practice, through time and across space, while exploring the different circumstances in play with different cases. Initially, however, we consider an important con­ ceptual issue regarding the very idea of a dog burial. Perri (2017) developed a typology for characterizing the ways in which deceased dogs were deposited in the past. The use of the term ‘burial’ above reflects a common supposition that burial signifies a symbolically important act, just as it usually does with a person. How­ ever, because little more than hygienic corpse disposal could be in play, it is important to specify the circumstances that obtain in each case. Perri notes that the term dog burial is actually rather problematic due to the diversity of remains sometimes labeled as a dog burial (Perri, 2017: 89). Accordingly, she identifies five principal modes of dog deposition (Table 1). Of these, “An isolated deposition is what I propose should be termed a true ‘dog burial’” (Perri, 2017: 94). Such cases consist of the complete or mostly complete articulated skeleton of a dog, deliberately positioned in a prepared facility: “This depositional type involves the level of care and attention generally afforded to human burials” (Perri, 2017: 94). In keeping with Perri’s (2017) typology (Table 1), it is important to specify that not all co-occurrences of dog and human skeletal remains qualify for inclusion here. As one example, Radovanović (1999) has focused explicitly on several examples of doghuman burial associations from several thousand years ago in the Iron Gates region of Europe. There are evidently some genuine dog burials there (sensu Perri, 2017) but dogs in human association consist, with one possible exception, of isolated skeletal elements in human graves and are not considered dog burials here. Rather, to follow Perri’s (2017) typology, they are elemental dog depositions. The possible exception just noted is a headless dog that may be associated with the burial of a young woman (Radovanović, 1999: 74). Because the association is un­ certain, we include that in our own compilation, introduced below, with E-mail addresses: dmorey@radford.edu (D.F. Morey), rujanajeger@me.com (R. Jeger). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2022.101434 Received 30 September 2021; Received in revised form 2 June 2022; 0278-4165/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. D.F. Morey and R. Jeger Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 67 (2022) 101434 2.1. Cosmopolitan scale Table 1 Types of archaeological dog skeletal deposits as formulated by Perri (2017: 9395). Type Description Isolated full articulation, no co-deposition, may be clustered in collective dog burial areas one or more dogs with human interment(s) may be partially articulated, sometimes with other animals, beyond any collective dog burial area individual dog skeletal element(s) with human interment(s) miscellaneous deposition, apparent absence of care, as in refuse disposal Associated Component Elemental Expedient Fig. 1 shows a simplified map of the world, with approximate loca­ tions of places where some joint dog-human interments are documented. These are merely selected examples, and there are many more. Given that fact, an immediate question is: what conditions led to the selection of some, but the exclusion of others? Our first priority for inclusion was to have earliest cases, wherever they might occur. The second priority was geographic location, meaning the inclusion of cases that expanded the existing geographic range, however slightly. Because this was a cosmopolitan practice, that principle sometimes involved individual judgment, but since the overall goal was to capture the cosmopolitan representation of such burials, the result should be useful nonetheless. At any rate, Table 2 presents basic information on sites/complexes represented in Fig. 1. Not all cases in Fig. 1 are labeled as to site/com­ plex name, for some are given just a number, with the site/complex name identified in the caption. But all cases that are labeled on Fig. 1 are at least mentioned in the text, often treated substantially. And all cases, regardless of how they appear on Fig. 1, are included in Table 2. In combination, Fig. 1 and Table 2 serve as a guide to much of the pre­ sentation below. Many cases have overlapping date ranges, and with one exception (see Ein Mallaha, Section 4.1 below), the earlier date of the range serves as the Table 2 ordering criterion. That exception is the oldest securely dated example of this phenomenon, appearing first in Table 2, from Bonn-Oberkassel. Bonn-Oberkassel also represents one of the earliest known established dogs, though not the earliest (see Morey and Jeger, 2015, 2017; Janssens et al., 2018:132-133). At any rate, after narrative coverage of selected cases of joint dog-human interment from Europe (Section 3), beginning with Bonn-Oberkassel, followed by cases from other continents, we then provide an appraisal of the collective implications of the information covered (Section 6). explicit uncertainty (?). Another important example highlights that multiple dog and human skeletal parts occurring together may not automatically signify coburial, except in the trivial sense of being deposited at about the same time. Herxheim is an unusual and dramatic site in Germany, dating mostly to just over 7,000 years ago and especially known for its distinctive human remains, a portion of which have been described by Bauer (2019). But at this site, there are also some 270 dog remains (Janssens et al., 2019: 235), though not whole skeletons, but rather fragments and clusters of anatomically related skeletal elements (Arbogast, 2019: 159). There are no intact skulls, with skulls routinely subject to blows with stones, and skull caps opened apparently to extract brain tissue (Janssens et al., 2019: 245). And some dog heads may have been roasted (Arbogast, 2019: 158). Even more intriguing are the human skeletal remains in the same deposits. Like the dogs, not only were skulls seldom whole, but the skeletons occurred in a form reflecting partially dismembered bodies with some anatomical connections intact (Boulestin et al., 2009: 971). Quite simply, the corpses were cut up, the heads were apparently skinned, and the tongues removed (Boulestin et al., 2009: 976; see also Bauer, 2019: 20-21). A substantial case exists here for sacrificial cannibalism, a principal point of Boulestin et al.’s (2009) piece, as well as a subsequent more comprehensive work (Bou­ lestin and Coupey, 2015). One can only suspect that the dogs were treated in some analogous capacity, given how their remains were rendered. But whatever was going on, it certainly wasn’t burial in the sense considered here. To return to genuine burials, Perri’s (2017) basic point about what she refers to as isolated depositions apparently reflects what Morey (2010:152) had in mind in suggesting that “individually buried dogs may, under some circumstances, be a more direct indication of a dog as ‘someone’s best friend’ (Griffin, 1967: 178).” Morey (2010) was refer­ ring back to a comment made by James Griffin concerning Middle Archaic Period (ca. 8,000–5,000 BP) dog burials in eastern North America: “Some of the dogs were buried as though they were someone’s best friend” (Griffin, 1967: 178). Because simultaneous dog-human in­ terments introduce complications that are not as prevalent with indi­ vidual burials, Morey (2006, 2010: Chapter 7) distinguished conceptually between individually buried dogs and those interred with people. However, it is precisely the complications underlying that distinction that are of paramount concern here. Simultaneous doghuman interments are what Perri (2017: 94) refers to as an associated type of deposition (see Table 1). People are generally regarded as the primary focus of the attendant ritual in cases of joint dog-human interments, though a consideration of human sacrificial practices warns against adopting that position without evaluation. A primary consideration here is that while people are known to have sacrificed a variety of animals, some groups of people in different regions also sacrificed each other (e.g., Berdan, 1982: 112-116; Hughes, 1991; Green, 2001). In certain cases, both dogs and people were sacrificed, as suggested from the account below of ancient Greek World sites, and evident from a compelling example from China, also covered later (Yin). 3. Cases of joint interment: Europe 3.1. The Bonn-Oberkassel dog This dog was discovered in a quarry in 1914 as bones belonging to one individual that apparently represented a complete skeleton origi­ nally (Street, 2002).1 Loss of bones was due to collection methods at the time, including destruction of the grave before it was recognized as such. In an important study, Benecke (1987: 31) observed that it was “unearthed from a double grave of a 50-year-old man and a 20–25-yearold woman.” A more recent assessment places the man in the 35–50 years range, probably closer to 35 (Trinkaus, 2015: 78), the woman in her mid-20’s (Trinkaus, 2015: 79). At the time of Benecke’s (1987) study, the dog was known primarily through a single jaw frag­ ment, which he analyzed morphometrically, supporting its identifica­ tion as a dog. Benecke (1987: 31) observed that it was dated to about 14,000 BP, so late Paleolithic, and Street (2002) also specified that approximate date. More recent dating essentially corroborates that finding, with only minor ambiguity. Recent assays (Higham et al., 2015: 64; Street and Jöris, 2015: 29; Janssens et al., 2018: 133) vary slightly but place the date between 13,800 and 14,200 BP. By merely splitting the difference between the range of these estimates, one obtains 14,000 BP as long understood and maintained here for simplicity’s sake. This dog was young when it died, estimated to have been about 27 weeks, or six and a half to seven months of age (Janssens et al., 2018: 129). Systematic analysis of pathological indicators revealed that the 1 Apparently a second smaller dog is represented by a single maxillary tooth, regarded as a grave good, along with several other items, including a bone pin, a modified red deer incisor, a modified bear baculum and an elk antler sculp­ ture (Janssens et al., 2018: 132). Moreover, the area of the grave was sprayed with red hematite powder, a substance not native to the area (Janssens et al., 2018: 131). 2 D.F. Morey and R. Jeger Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 67 (2022) 101434 Fig. 1. Generalized map of the world, showing the approximate locations of selected sites/areas where dogs and people were interred together, There are many more, and further information on all cases depicted appears in Table 2. See text for additional explanation. Key to unnamed but numbered sites is as follows. 1: Braden, Idaho (U.S.A.); 2: Chupicuaro, Mexico; 3: Port au Choix, Newfoundland (Canada); 4: Dadastaꝍir, Iceland; 5: Santa Ana, Philippines:6: Neyzats Cemetery, Crimea, Ukraine; 7: Unar 2, United Arab Emirates; 8: Vlasac, Serbia; 9: Himlingøje, Denmark; 10: Yasmina, Tunisia; 11: El Kadada, Sudan. animal apparently spent a considerable part of its brief life afflicted with an illness, most likely canine distemper. Janssens et al. (2015: 285; 2018: 134) outline the customary progression of symptoms stemming from this malady in terms of three basic phases (Fig. 2). Not all afflicted dogs reach the third phase, and some recover, though usually retaining certain symptoms (Janssens et al., 2015: 284; 2018: 134). But appar­ ently, a good many die during the second phase, even today. The dog likely survived in the short term, but Fig. 2 directly draws attention to expected behavioral abnormalities. Given such abnormal­ ities, Street et al. (2015: 265), offer the suggestion that this animal might have been perceived in a distinctive fashion. Specifically, they specu­ latively suggested that “an animal potentially subject to fits (Janssens et al., 2015 in this volume) might have been regarded as particularly suitable for some ‘supernatural’ role” (Street et al., 2015: 265). Certainly, the dog’s condition suggests that one should keep an open mind about the circumstances of its death. Janssens et al. (2018: 132) note the possibility that it was put to death to be buried with the people. To be sure, a variety of animals were sometimes put to death as a part of the spiritually laden sacrificial practices of different peoples, and dogs sometimes played a conspicuous part in these practices (e.g., Brizinski and Savage, 1983; Mazzorin and Minniti, 2006; Anthony and Brown, 2017). Janssens et al.’s (2018) authoritative assessment leaves uncertain just how the young animal died: “We cannot know if the dog was killed advisedly to be buried together with the humans or if it accidentally died spontaneously, as a consequence of its previous illnesses, or due to other reasons, and contemporaneously with the humans” (Janssens et al., 2018: 132). Given that this dog was apparently plagued by canine dis­ temper, Janssens et al. (2018) emphasize that the animal surely required regular human intervention to function. Accordingly, they are inclined to view this probability as a sign that the dog was regarded as a valued pet, much like it might be among modern peoples. So, different possi­ bilities arise for why/how the Bonn-Oberkassel dog died, though it is useful to expand briefly on Street et al.’s (2015) suggestion. Caring for this animal, an apparent necessity, was an undertaking that may have fallen primarily to one or a few individuals. If that un­ dertaking was not ultimately successful and the animal died on their watch, those people could have been regarded as running afoul of whatever supernatural forces might have been believed to underlie this dog’s unusual behaviors. Without certainty about why the dog or the people died and given the human penchant for sacrificial behaviors, it seems possible that the death of the two people could have been func­ tionally linked to the death of the dog in some meaningful fashion. Whatever circumstances obtained there, other European settings also warrant scrutiny, and subsequent European cases appear in a general sequence from oldest to most recent. 3.2. Scandinavia: Skateholm Skateholm consists of three closely spaced Mesolithic settlements in 3 D.F. Morey and R. Jeger Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 67 (2022) 101434 Table 2 Selected examples of sites, or groups of affiliated sites, all appearing on Fig. 1, where one or more dogs were interred with one or more people. Site/Location Date* Number of Dogs Buried with People Source(s) Bonn-Oberkassel, Germany ca. 14,000 BP 1 Ein Mallaha, Israel 15,000–11,500 BP 11,000–10,500 BP 8,500–7,500 BP 1 Skateholm 1, 2, Sweden Braden, Idaho, USA 7,600–6,800 BP 3 ca. 7,500 BP 2 Archaic Sites, Green River, Kentucky, USA Bòbila Madurell, Spain Ancient Egypt, Egypt El Kadada, Sudan 6,600–3,400 BP 31+ (?) 6,200–5,600 BP 13? 5,200–1,700 BP 4,900–4,600 BP hundreds? 16? Unar 2, United Arab Emirates Can Roqueta and Minferri, Spain ca.4,200 BP 1 4,100–3,600 BP 24? Port au Choix, Newfoundland, Canada Ancient Greek World: Mainland Greece, Crete, Cyprus Yin, China Chupicuaro, Mexico Himlingøje, Denmark Neyzats Cemetery, Crimea, Ukraine (de jure) Sipán, Peru ca. 4,000 BP 3? Nobis, 1979; Benecke, 1987; Janssens et al., 2015, 2018 Davis and Valla, 1978 Tchernov and Valla, 1997 Radovanović, 1999: 73–74 Larsson, 1990, 1995; Larsson, 2017: 31-36 Yohe and Pavesic, 2000 data, including original sources, on Table 4 Martín et al., 2019; Albizuri et al., 2019 Ikram, 2013 Reinold, 2005: 108, 113; Hartley, 2015: 69 Blau and Beech, 1999 Grandal-d’Anglade et al., 2019; Espinet et al., 2014 Tuck, 1976: 77-78, 202 3,700–2,700 BP 8+ (?) Day, 1984 3,400–3,100 BP 2,200–1,800 BP 2,000–1,600 BP 1,900–1,700 BP 439 + (?) 46? 1 6? Olsen, 1985: 60-61 Adams, 2005:126 Gotfredsen, 2017: 76 Polit, 2019: 169-173 1,900–1,300 BP 2 Yasmina, Tunisia 1,800–1,500 BP 1 Ipiutak, Alaska, USA 1,500–1,100 BP 4 Valsgärde Cemetery, Sweden Gokstad, Norway Dadastaꝍir, Iceland Santa Ana, Manila, Philippines 1,450–900 BP 18? Alva and Donnan,1993: 123, 159 MacKinnon and Belanger, 2006 Larsen and Rainey, 1948: 250 Nichols, 2021 ca. 1,100 BP pre 1,000 BP 900–600 BP 6 1 1? Gräslund. 2004: 169 McGovern, 2004 Vitales, 2018 Hayonim Terrace, Israel Vlasac, Serbia 2 1? Fig. 2. Pathogenesis of canine distemper (morbillivirus), from Janssens et al. (2015: 284; 2018: 133). of the dog (Larsson, 1990: 156). He directly contrasts these kinds of situations to others that “are witness to more brutal measures” (Larsson, 1990: 157). There, he refers to cases in which dogs were apparently killed just to accompany human burials. Fig. 3 provides a drawing of one such case from Skateholm 2, designated as Grave 8. In showing the original photograph of this case, Larsson’s (1990: 158) figure caption describes “a female placed in a sitting position and a dog, killed and thrown into the grave pit during the filling-in process.” In cases like this, Larsson (1990: 156) inferred that dogs “seem to have accompanied their masters in death.”. Spatial distributions of burials have also merited attention at Skateholm. For example, in a piece explicitly devoted to horizontal stratigraphy and bodily manipulations at Skateholm, Fahlander (2008) was struck that “The most striking spatial pattern, however, is the apparent close relationship between individually buried dogs and children under the age of eight” (Fahlander, 2008: 36, original emphasis). This observation pertains to Skateholm 1, accompanied by the observation that such burials were not located centrally: “it is apparent that dogs and children are purposely buried at the boundaries of the site” (Fahlander, 2008:36). Fahlander (2008: 36) goes on to note a similar pattern at Skateholm 2 and is inclined to view this spatial pattern as perhaps reflecting something of a peripheral ontological status of both children and dogs. That is, the dogs were not fully human by definition, while the children died before they had matured and attained the cultural markers that signified fully adult personhood. Whatever the correct explanation is, dog and human burials at Skateholm, whether separate or together, were distributed spatially in recognizable patterns that surely signified something to those people. 3.3. The Iberian Peninsula Espinet et al. (2014) and Grandal-d’Anglade et al. (2019) have shared information on two sites in the northeastern Iberian Peninsula, Can Roqueta and Minferri. Combined, the timespan of these sites is between 4,100 and 3,600 BP. Both are open-air sites with dispersed small house structures, apparently roofed with wood and branches. The people were engaged in cereal farming and livestock breeding, though it is the funerary facilities at these sites that are especially relevant here. Combined, 24 dogs, or parts of dogs, were found in funerary contexts alongside people, 19 at Can Roqueta and 5 at Minferri. The presented tabular data do not permit a distinction here, though most apparently were complete or nearly complete skeletons. Other dogs were found separately in settings that were not clearly funerary. In addition, several other canids received funerary treatment, including three foxes (Vulpes vulpes) at Minferri and one fox at Can Roqueta, along with a single tentatively identified wolf (Canis cf. lupus) from Can Roqueta. Funerary facilities, in the form of burial pits, occurred in geological substrates between house structures, usually of semi-circular shape. Occasionally, however, pits had lateral niches created in them for * All dates, regardless of their derivation, are offered in calendar year (cali­ brated) terms. coastal southern Sweden, beginning after 8,000 BP (Larsson, 2017: 31). Two are of primary concern here, designated Skateholm 1 and Skate­ holm 2. Skateholm 1 is the more recent of the two, dating within a roughly 400-year span from approximately 7,200–6,800 BP. Skateholm 2 dates slightly earlier, from about 7,600 BP to 7,400 BP. Each is asso­ ciated with its own cemetery area. Larsson (1990) reports on individually buried dogs and joint doghuman burials from both cemeteries. In seeking to understand the symbolic meaning of such burials, Larsson (1990) draws a contrast be­ tween the handling of dog corpses in different settings. For example, he reports that individually buried dogs might receive as many grave goods as a person or even more (Larsson, 1990: 156). Another similarity to human graves is that red ochre was sometimes deposited on the corpse 4 D.F. Morey and R. Jeger Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 67 (2022) 101434 Fig. 3. Grave 8, from Skateholm 2, Sweden, a woman and a dog, from roughly 7,500 years ago. A photographic image of this burial has previously appeared in L. Larsson (1990: 158; 1995: 562). and Morey (1996: 72-73). See text for additional clarification. Drawing by A. Nilsson. There, after having made customary sacrifices of sheep and cows, Achilles is said to have made some further sacrifices for his friend: “He killed four horses, two of Patroklos’ nine dogs and twelve Trojan youths and placed them as sacrifices on the funeral pyre” (Day, 1984: 26). Thus, though not definitive, this setting could have involved both human and dog sacrifice, as documented elsewhere (see Yin, Section 4.2, below). further funerary goods. Domestic livestock, or livestock parts, were also sometimes afforded funerary treatment, and as noted, a few non-dog canids were as well. A major part of Grandal-d’Anglade et al.’s (2019) work was the assessment of diet by evaluating stable carbon and nitro­ gen isotopes in bone collagen samples from both people and canids. This effort revealed that dogs and people had comparable diets, and perhaps noteworthy, at least one fox may have as well. It is not surprising that people provisioned dogs with a diet richer in cereals than they had previously (see also Albizuri et al., 2021), and given that certain foxes were afforded funerary treatment, some of those animals may also have been maintained. Also in the northeastern Iberian Peninsula, though from an earlier time frame (ca. 6,200–5,600 BP), at least 13 partial or complete dogs were buried with people at the Bòbila Madurell necropolis, as reported by Martín et al. (2019) and Albizuri et al. (2019). As pointed out by Albizuri et al. (2019: 203), dog remains that occurred with human re­ mains showed no cut marks or other evidence of human alterations, though poor preservation complicated that assessment. At any rate, these dogs were clearly an integral part of the funerary ritual there and may not have been skinned or otherwise manipulated beforehand. 3.5. Scandinavia: After the Mesolithic Gräslund (2004) has provided a comprehensive account of dogs in human graves from prior centuries, especially in Scandinavia. Gräslund (2004) highlights a particular mode of burial not covered thus far here. In particular, what are called boat graves are conspicuously represented, directly reflecting the seafaring activities associated especially with Viking age peoples of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, from some 1,200–900 years ago. For a boat grave, a boat was used to house the dead or was used as a grave good. Gräslund (2004) described several examples of such graves, one of which, Gokstad, near the city of Oslo, dates to about 1,100 years ago. There, a large Viking ship grave con­ tained a dead man, six dogs and several horses outside the ship (Gräslund, 2004: 169). Reporting several other such cases, Gräslund (2004: 171) further notes that dogs played a substantial role in old Norse religion and then were often regarded negatively in the ensuing early Christian period in Scandinavia. Gräslund (2004) also points to the dual role of dogs: “The dog is both nature and culture, both good and evil and stands between this world and the other world” (Gräslund, 2004: 171). Clearly, Gräslund (2004) is particularly concerned with the spiritual significance attached to dogs in this general setting. Thus, without disputing the idea of dogs serving as grave gifts and status markers, following Prummel’s (1992) lead (Section 3.6), Gräslund (2004) regards that as an insufficient explanation. Early on, she suggests that “the dog may well have been a beloved companion, but it may also have had a deeper, symbolic meaning” (Gräslund, 2004: 167). Then later, she refers to these co-burials as reflecting “an important symbolic-mythological meaning with relation to the transformation from life to death” (Gräslund, 2004: 173). More recently, Nichols (2021) has reported on dog-human graves, including boat graves, from Valsgärde cemetery in Sweden. There, over a span of more than 500 years (ca. 1,450–900 BP), a variety of animals or animal parts were interred with people, including 18 apparently complete dogs. This setting was known from prior years and was even 3.4. Ancient Greek world Day (1984) reported on 1981 excavation of an early Iron Age (ca. 3,100–2,700 BP) tomb in east Crete, yielding dogs in a pit beneath the burial chamber. Day (1984) also inventoried previously known evidence of dog-human burial associations in the larger ancient Greek world, ranging from Crete and Cyprus to the Greek mainland (Day, 1984: 2224). That inventory spans primarily from the late Bronze Age through the early Iron Age or roughly 1,000 years from about 3,700–2,700 BP. Of eighteen different tombs that provided secure evidence of such an as­ sociation, several yielded only one or a few bones of dogs, hence not qualifying for inclusion here, whereas at least 8 yielded complete or nearly complete dog skeletons, thereby qualifying. Day (1984:27) favors suggestions that these dogs were probably meant to serve as companions or guardians on the journey to the Un­ derworld. Although Day (1984) does not systematically consider a role for human sacrifice in the evidence being evaluated, it is certainly known from ancient Greece (Hughes, 1991) and is relevant to consider here. Day (1984) notes that some of these dog burials have been linked with a passage in Homer’s Iliad that describes funeral rites for Patroklos. 5 D.F. Morey and R. Jeger Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 67 (2022) 101434 4. The near and far east noted by Gräslund (2004: 168). Nichols’ (2021) recent piece, however, is devoted entirely to this site, and includes a comprehensive evaluation of the morphological characteristics of the dogs represented. From that evaluation, Nichols (2021:4) infers that at least some of the dogs could be designated as sight hounds. Beyond possible functional implications of such an inference, Nichols (2021: 7) goes on to note that boat graves seem to have featured high-status individuals, and appealing to Gräslund (2004), suggests that a sense of spirituality was also likely in play. Specifically, Nichols (2021: 8)) holds that dogs were likely inten­ ded to accompany their masters in the Afterlife. 4.1. The near east One of the most well-known early examples of canid-human joint burial is from Ein Mallaha, a Natufian site in Israel. There, as reported by Davis and Valla (1978), a puppy skeleton was found associated with the burial of an elderly person, the human skeleton’s hand positioned directly over the puppy. Davis and Valla (1978) provided a photograph of this burial, and that image has subsequently appeared in several other sources (Davis, 1987: 147; Morey, 1994: 337; Clutton-Brock, 1995:11, 2017: 15). Although early, dating there calls for clarification. Davis and Valla (1978) offered no chronometric dates but based on artifact ty­ pologies inferred an early Natufian occupation, some 12,000 years old. But recent radiometric dates from different sites now place the early Natufian as perhaps up to 15,000 years ago, though typically not that old (see Grosman, 2013: 625; Barzilai et al., 2017: 1145). In addition, human bones from burials at the sites considered by Barzilai et al. (2017) are about 14,000 years old or younger. At any rate, Table 2 offers a date range for Ein Mallaha to accommodate this understanding. Also in Israel, though dating just slightly later (ca. 11,000–10,500 BP), two dogs accompanied human burials at Hayonim Terrace (Tchernov and Valla, 1997). From the same region, though much later, beginning just over 5,000 years ago and extending for some 3,500 more years, many dogs were interred with people in ancient Egypt (Ikram, 2013). Moreover, quite often this practice involved prior mummification of both dogs and people. Widespread plundering of antiquities there over the years pre­ cludes a more definitive assessment of quantities, but there were surely at least several hundred such interments during that span. Recalling Prummel’s (1992) suggestion of dogs as grave gifts when buried with people, Ikram (2013) calls attention to settings with deposits that “consisted of human burials with no grave goods, but with associated dogs” (Ikram, 2013: 303). It seems that the dogs served as grave gifts in that setting, and perhaps at Ein Mallaha as well. At any rate, this type of burial was apparently not known from there until 2005 (Ikram, 2013: 303). 3.6. Medieval Europe Wietske Prummel (1992) presented a detailed examination of rele­ vant burials in early medieval Europe, divided into two basic groups, one group from continental Europe and England, the other group encompassing parts of northern Europe, meaning Denmark, Sweden, and western Finland. The period of study was the 5th century well into the 8th century for the former group and on into the 12th century for northern Europe (Prummel, 1992: 134). Table 3 provides a basic breakdown of numerical data presented in Prummel’s study. Prummel presented information from 103 cemeteries, 55 from continental Europe/England and 48 from northern Europe. From these cemeteries, four basic types of recognized graves structure the information that appears here. As can be seen, Prummel’s (1992) compilation includes not only separately buried dogs but also graves that included horses, with or without people. Numerically, graves with only dogs and people predominate overall, though graves with dogs, people, and horses are especially well represented in Northern Europe. Prummel’s (1992) contribution includes a lengthy catalog at the end, some 25 pages long, specifying the known contents of the different numbered graves from the cemeteries evaluated. Because additional relevant European cases from that time frame have come to light in the intervening years, Prummel’s compilation, as summarized on Table 3, should be taken as a snapshot in time, as of some thirty years ago. Prummel (1992: 150) is inclined to see these dogs (and horses) as grave gifts when found in the same grave with people. In addition, Prummel (1992: 152) inferred that most of the dogs buried with people in medieval Europe were surely killed for that purpose. As for the import of this practice, “The function of these animals at the funeral was to mark the prestige, importance and wealth of the deceased” (Prummel, 1992: 151). That inference may be correct for medieval Europe, though this kind of link between dogs and people is underscored by similar practices in modern times. For example, Hughes (2019) reported a case from Chesterfield County, Virginia (U.S.A.), in which a healthy Shih Tzu mix dog named Emma was euthanized to be buried with her recently deceased owner. In this case, the euthanized dog was cremated, and the ashes were placed in an urn to be buried alongside her owner. 4.2. Yin (China): A scene of sacrifice Yin was the last capital city of the Shang Dynasty in China, dating from about 3,400–3,100 BP. John W. Olsen (1985: 60) reports that be­ tween 1969 and 1977, 939 Shang tombs were excavated: “Seventeen of the tombs yielded a total of 38 human sacrificial victims” (Olsen, 1985:61). Other tombs contained different sacrificed animals, including dogs, which were the most common: “there were 439 sacrificial dogs in 339 of the excavated tombs” (Olsen, 1985: 61). Olsen indicates that almost 200 tombs “were found to contain dogs carefully placed in the yaokeng, or ‘waist pit,’ a trench located below the waist of the human interment that was a specially prepared locus for the disposition of sacrificial animals” (Olsen, 1985: 61, original emphasis). The overall importance of the dog to the attendant ritual is signified by the fact that some dog skeletons had bronze bells suspended from their necks (Olsen, 1985: 61). In one case, a dog was not only accompanied by a bronze bell but also jade plectra (Olsen, 1985: 61). Bronze and jade artifacts were associated with predominantly ceremonial use during the Shang period (Olsen, 1985: 61). It seems that dogs were one focus of the attendant ritual at Yin, perhaps not the primary focus, but certainly an important one. Other non-European settings, covered next, shed additional light on how dogs came to be incorporated into human graves and call to mind some of Prummel’s (1992) and Larsson’s (1990) musings about the import of such occurrences in medieval Europe, and at Skateholm in Sweden, respectively. Table 3 Summary findings from Prummel’s (1992: 138, Table 3) survey of early medi­ eval European burial practices concerning dogs. Location/Time Frame Separate Dog Graves Dogs and Humans Dogs and Horses Dogs, Humans, Horses Continental Europe/England 5th – 8th centuries (55 cemeteries) Northern Europe 5th – 12th centuries (48 cemeteries) Totals 18 23 36 9 1 110 __ 74 19 133 36 83 6 D.F. Morey and R. Jeger Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 67 (2022) 101434 5. The Americas described as utilizing log tombs. Many of the burials included mortuary offerings, often of an artistic nature, and sometimes including separate dog bones. But three such burials, 131, 132, and 137, contained com­ plete or almost complete dog skeletons directly with the buried person (Larsen and Rainey, 1948: 250). Perhaps even more noteworthy is Burial 109, consisting of only a dog skeleton: “[Burial 109] contained a com­ plete articulated dog skeleton, which was extended with the head to­ wards the west” (Larsen and Rainey, 1948: 248). Moreover, fragments of a log tomb were associated with this burial. Technically, this does not qualify as a joint dog-human interment, since it was not part of a specific human burial, the dog apparently having its own separate log tomb. But since it occurred within a human cemetery area and is directly associ­ ated with human burials, we make an exception and include it in the Table 2 compilation. In any case, this situation certainly highlights the degree to which dogs could be regarded as much like people. Having covered cases in Eurasia, we now briefly describe several examples of joint dog-human interments as documented in the Amer­ icas. This treatment begins with the southernmost case in our coverage, in South America, followed by our northernmost case, in the Arctic, and then concludes with a compelling case from the mid-latitudes of the United States. From a purely personal perspective, we are saving the best for last, as this setting, the Green River Valley in Kentucky, is a place where author DFM once lived and worked for several years. 5.1. Sipán, Peru Sipán is a village in Peru, associated with ancient pyramids and cemeteries in its vicinity that have been intermittently plundered by local people over a good many years (Alva and Donnan, 1993: 27). Those facilities are the product of ancient Moche society, predating the well-known Inca for a period of several hundred years, from about 1,900 to 1,300B.P. Numerous Moche tombs are known from this period,.and while many were illicitly plundered, three were apparently spared this fate, and were systematically investigated between 1987 and 1990 (Alva and Donnan, 1993: 11). From these tombs, multiple Moche burials were professionally excavated. Of principal concern here are Tombs 1 and 2 from this period of work, including documentation of what are regarded as the tombs of royalty. Tomb 1 turned out to be a large room-sized chamber. The principal figure in this tomb was in the middle, in a coffin made of wooden planks lashed together with copper straps. This was clearly a high-status indi­ vidual, a male, accompanied by rich grave offerings, and judged to be 35–45 years of age at death (Alva and Donnan, 1993: 104). Among the grave offerings were cotton banners, which are bib-like garments, in this case with metal figures appended, along with numerous beaded pecto­ rals, regularly depicted in Moche art as being associated with high status males (Alva and Donnan, 1993: 71). Other burials were in that same tomb. One, in a cane coffin was a man also judged to be 35–45 years old at death, wearing a beaded pectoral and accompanied by several copper objects, so likely relatively high status as well. Inside his coffin there was also “a dog, stretched out, with its head near the man’s feet and its tail by the man’s waist” (Alva and Donnan, 1993: 123). The chamber comprising Tomb 2 was slightly smaller than that of Tomb 1, but like Tomb 1, there was more than one burial. Also like Tomb 1, the principal figure was in a wooden plank coffin, and was accompanied by rich grave offerings. As with Tomb 1, this individual was clearly a high-status male, judged to be 35–45 years old. At the feet of this person was a smaller cane coffin containing an eight- to ten-year old child wearing a copper headdress with a human face depicted. Moreover, “Also inside the coffin were the skeletons of a dog and a snake” (Alva and Donnan, 1993: 159). The dog evoked the situation with the dog in Tomb 1, whereas the snake is an enigma, none previously known from a Moche burial. Tomb 3, in turn, contained no dogs, though in Tombs 1 and 2 dogs were clearly considered appropriate accompaniments for certain royal burials. Such an inference apparently includes the child in Tomb 2, perhaps a member of a distinguished Moche lineage. 5.3. The Green River Valley, Kentucky (U.S.A.) The Green River Valley of west-central Kentucky holds a conspicuous place in the history of North American archaeology. Major excavations at different Archaic Period (ca. 9,500–3,000 BP) sites there took place during especially the late 1930 s and early 1940 s, under the auspices of the Works Progress Administration (see Morey et al., 2002: 521-523). These excavations yielded, among many other things, a series of dog burials, some buried separately but others directly with people. Fig. 4 shows the approximate locations of sites there with documented joint dog-human burials, and Table 4 provides associated information. Collectively, the sites in question span just over 3,000 years, from about 6,600 to 3,400 BP (Marquardt and Watson, 2005a: 631). At the most famous of those sites, Indian Knoll, 24 dogs are known to have been carefully buried, some individually, others with people. Accordingly, Webb (1946: 155) commented: “It appears that many dogs were buried with the same degree of attention to grave pits, and placement of the body as was accorded to their human contemporaries.” Similar accounts from other Green River Archaic sites make clear that this practice took place more broadly there (see Table 4). Webb (1946: 155) also observed that “In some cases, the dog was buried in human graves, in such close association as to indicate simultaneous interment.” Then, in his overall assessment, Webb concluded that dogs were often killed to be buried with the person, “perhaps as a symbol of continued association in the spirit world” (Webb, 1946: 156). Webb’s comment brings to mind the situation at Skateholm in Sweden, where dogs in human graves were seen as accompanying their masters in death (Larsson, 1990: 156). Similarly, Prummel (1992) suggested that dogs were often killed to serve as grave gifts when buried with people in medieval Europe. Webb’s (1946) Indian Knoll report also makes it appropriate to circle back briefly to one of Fahlander’s (2008) points about dogs buried at Skateholm. One might recall that Fahlander (2008: 36) was struck by the spatial association between individually buried dogs and children at Skateholm. Webb’s (1946) Indian Knoll report from long ago does not provide sufficient information to evaluate spatial associations there, but he certainly noted children in his account of joint dog-human graves. Specifically, of 24 dogs known to have been buried at Indian Knoll, he reported 13 buried with people, and of those 13, six were buried with children. There was one each with two boys aged about seven and nine years old, and two each with two younger girls aged only about one and three years old (Webb, 1946: 156). Thus, in conjunction with other cases there, Indian Knoll certainly provides noteworthy examples of joint doghuman burial, raising some of the issues encountered elsewhere. Though distinctive in many ways, it bears noting that the Green River Valley of Kentucky is but one of several areas of the southeastern North American Archaic Period where joint dog-human interment was practiced. For example, as part of a comprehensive osteometric study of dog remains, William Haag, a frequent collaborator of William Webb’s (see Table 4) discussed overall burial practices, including where dogs are 5.2. Ipiutak, Alaska Ipiutak is a large archaeological site at Point Hope, coastal northwest Alaska where fieldwork, beginning in 1939, revealed more than 600 house ruins with an adjoining cemetery area (Rainey, 1941: 364). Comprising a roughly 400-year span from about 1,500 to 1,100 BP. (see Mason, 2004: 108), the people there were, not surprisingly, clearly engaged in sea mammal procurement, though to judge from the artifact inventory, inland hunting was also apparently practiced (Rainey, 1941: 370). At any rate, in a comprehensive report, Larsen and Rainey (1948) inventoried the contents of nearly 140 burials, many of which they 7 D.F. Morey and R. Jeger Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 67 (2022) 101434 Fig. 4. Map of a portion of the Green River Valley in west-central Kentucky, showing approximate locations of several Archaic Period archaeological sites that have yielded one or more cases of simultaneous dog–human interment (see Table 4). and people were buried together, a sampling of which is provided here, Indian Knoll provides a fitting juncture for winding up this account of such occurrences. Table 4 Documented cases of joint dog–human interments from Middle and Late Archaic sites in the Green River Valley, Kentucky.*. Site Number of Joint Interments Total Number of. Buried Dogs Primary Source(s) 6. Synthetic appraisal Chiggerville, (15OH1) Indian Knoll (15OH2) Carlston Annis (15BT5) 5 12 13? 24 Webb and Haag, 1939: 11, 17 Webb, 1946: 155-158 3 29 Barrett (15McL4) Butterfield (15McL7) Ward (15McL11) 2? 9 1 7 7? 25 The Bonn-Oberkassel dog has the distinction of representing the earliest presently known securely dated case of joint dog-human inter­ ment. As such, it serves as a window into a practice that is documented from different places in the world, representing a substantial span of time. Thus, following Bonn-Oberkassel, the practice of burying dogs and people together occurred worldwide and through a diverse range of human societies, from simple to complex, and repeatedly through time. Numerous examples of such are summarized above. And while other animals were sometimes afforded such treatment, examples of which are also noted here, this practice as applied to dogs occurred throughout the world and across virtually the entire timespan of the dog’s known ex­ istence. Often it appears that dogs were put to death to be buried with people, and that could be true at Bonn-Oberkassel, though the causes underlying all the deaths there remain unclear. Other cases throughout the world highlight that each situation is different, and whatever the most accurate appraisal may be in any setting, each reflects in its own way the degree to which dogs and people were regarded similarly, spanning the extremes in perception. Perhaps it is useful to elaborate that last point. People are, of course, capable of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors towards each other, ranging from love and affection at one end of the spectrum to hatred and hostility at the opposite end, sometimes with lethal consequences. That, of course, is simply part of what it means to be a human being, and there are many realized points between those extremes. As individuals, dogs too show a range of attitudes and behaviors, and in human society, they experience the human range widely. That is a reality they must Webb, 1950: 272; Marquardt and Watson, 2005b: 111 Webb and Haag, 1947: 14 Webb and Haag, 1947: 33 Webb and Haag, 1940: 81-82 * There are periodic discrepancies between quantities indicated in the original reports and what is currently present in the Webb Museum holdings in Lex­ ington, Kentucky. Accordingly, certain quantities are not entirely clear. The total number of buried dogs indicated for each site reflects the Webb Museum’s holdings. concerned, at Archaic Period sites in Kentucky and Alabama as one basic unit (Haag, 1948: 119-122). His collective characterization of those practices is highly reminiscent of Webb’s accounts from Indian Knoll, highlighted above. Aside from briefly noting Webb’s work at Indian Knoll, Haag (1948) doesn’t provide individual accounts of such prac­ tices, though specific examples of Archaic Period joint dog-human interment from Alabama as well as Tennessee are highlighted in Morey (2010: 158-160). All told, though there are many other times and places when dogs 8 D.F. Morey and R. Jeger Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 67 (2022) 101434 successfully navigate as peoples’ domestic symbionts. Collectively they do accomplish that, though any given individual may experience only a limited range of those possibilities. And that is simply what it means to be a dog in human society. In reality, of course, each affects the behavioral patterns of the other. Successfully navigating that spectrum of human attitudes and be­ haviors in life is surely why people have so frequently opted to incor­ porate dogs into their own death rituals, as covered above. Moreover, at least sometimes, perhaps most often, people ended a dog’s life to ensure the dog’s participation. Individual dogs who were not successful in this navigation were not likely favored for such a role. That last point is just a supposition and is offered only in a spirit of exploring just why dogs in particular so frequently played a conspicuous part in human death rituals. References Adams, R.E.W., 2005. Prehistoric Mesoamerica, 3rd ed. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Albizuri, S., Nadal, J., Martin, P., et al., 2019. Dogs in funerary contexts in the Middle Neolithic in the northeastern Iberian Peninsula 5th– early 4th millennium BCE). J. Archaeol. Sci.: Rep. 24, 198–207. Albizuri, S., Grandal-d’Anglade, A., Maroto, J., et al., 2021. Dogs that ate plants: Changes in the canine diet during the late Bronze Age and the first Iron Age in the northeast Iberian Peninsula. J. World Prehist. 34, 75–119. Alva, W., Donnan, C.W., 1993. Royal Tombs of Sipán. Fowler Museum of Cultural History, Los Angeles, California. Anthony, D.W., Brown, D.R., 2017. The dogs of war: A Bronze Age initiation ritual in the Russian steppes. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 48, 134–148. Arbogast, Rose-Marie, 2019. Analysis of the faunal assemblages of the LBK site of Herxheim: The larger mammals. In: Zeeb-Lanz, Andrea (Ed.), Ritualized Destruction in the Early Neolithic—The Exceptional Site of Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany), Volume 2. Aussenstelle Speyer, Speyer, Germany, pp. 139–232. Barzilai, O., Rebollo, N., Nadel, D., et al., 2017. Radiocarbon dating of human burials from Raqefet Cave and contemporaneous Natufian traditions at Mount Carmel. Antiquity 91 (359), 1137–1154. Bauer, S., 2019. Human bones from the research excavation 1996–1999-Examination of selected material (excavation slots 282–100 to 282–107). In: Zeeb-Lanz, A. (Ed.), Ritualized Destruction in the Early Neolithic—The Exceptional Site of Herxheim (Palinate, Germany). Aussenstelle Speyer, Speyer, Germany, pp. 3–24. Benecke, N., 1987. Studies on early dog remains from Northern Europe. J. Archaeol. Sci. 14, 31–49. Berdan, F.F., 1982. The Aztecs of Central Mexico—An Imperial Society. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York. Blau, S., Beech, M., 1999. One woman and her dog: an Umm an-Nar example from the United Arab Emirates. Arab. Archaeol. Epigr. 10, 34–42. Boulestin, B., Coupey, A.-S., 2015. Cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture: The Human Remains from Herxheim. Archaeopress, Oxford, England. Boulestin, B., Zeeb-Lanz, A., Jeunesse, C., et al., 2009. Mass cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture at Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany). Antiquity 83, 968–982. Brizinski, M., Savage, H., 1983. Dog sacrifices among the Algonkian Indians: An example from the Frank Bay site. Ontario Archaeol. 39, 33–40. Clutton-Brock, J., 1995. Origins of the dog: domestication and early history. In: Serpell, J. (Ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 7–20. Clutton-Brock, J., 2017. Origins of the dog: the archaeological evidence. In: Serpell, J. (Ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People, second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 7–21. Cohen, S.P., 2002. Can pets function as family members? Western J. Nurs. Res. 24 (6), 621–638. Davis, S.J.M., 1987. The Archaeology of Animals. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Davis, S.J.M., Valla, F.R., 1978. Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natufian of Israel. Nature 276, 608–610. Day, L.P., 1984. Dog burials in the Greek world. Am. J. Archaeol. 88, 21–32. Espinet, Ariadna N., Garra, Andreu M., López Melcion, Joan B., Farjas, Bibiana. A., 2014. Ofrenes o deixalles? El cas dels bovins (Bos Taurus) en context funerari del jaciment del bronze ple de Minferri (Lleida, Catalunya). In: Gardeisen, A., Chandezon, C. (Eds.), Ḗquidés et Bovidés de la Méditerrannée Antique Rites et Combats. Jeux et Saviors. Lattes, France. Actes du Colloque Organisé par l’axe Animal et Sociétés. Monographies d’Archéologie Mediterranéenne Hors-Serie 6 (in Catalan Spanish), pp. 53-112. Fahlander, F., 2008. A piece of the Mesolithic. Horizontal stratigraphy and bodily manipulations at Skateholm. In: Fahlander, F., Oestigaard, T. (Eds.), The Materiality of Death: Bodies, Burials, Beliefs. Archaeopress, Oxford, England, pp. 29–45. Gotfredsen, A.B., 2017. Animal sacrifices and deposits in inhumation graves of the Roman Iron Age in Zealand and Funen, Eastern Denmark. In: Boye, L., Ethelberg, P., Hansen, U.L. (Eds.), Wealth and Prestige 2. Narayana Press, Kroppedal Museum, Taastrup, Denmark, pp. 213–268. Grandal-d’Anglade, Aurora, Albizuri, Silvia, Nieto, Ariadna, et al., 2019. Dogs and foxes in Early-Middle Bronze Age funerary structures in the northeast of the Iberian Peninsula: Human control of canid diet at the sites of Can Roqueta (Barcelona) and Minferri (Lleida). Archaeol. Anthrop. Sci. Jan. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12520-019-00781-z: 1-30. Green, M.A., 2001. Dying for the Gods—Human Sacrifice in Iron Age and Roman Europe. Tempus, Stroud, UK. Griffin, J.B., 1967. Eastern North American archaeology: A summary. Science 156 (3772), 175–191. Grosman, Leore, 2013. The Natufian chronological scheme—New insights and their implications. In: Bar-Yosef, Ofer, Valla, Franҫois R. (Eds.), Natufian Foragers in the Levant: Terminal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 19. Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 622637. Gräslund, Anne-Sofie, 2004. Dogs in graves—a question of symbolism? In: Frizell, Barbro S. (Ed.), Pecus: Man and Animal in Antiquity. Rome, Italy: Proceedings of the Conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 9-12, 2002, pp. 167-176. Haag, William G., 1948. An Osteometric Analysis of some Aboriginal Dogs. University of Kentucky, Reports in Anthropology VII (3), Lexington, Kentucky. Hartley, M., 2015. The significance of predynastic canid burials in ancient Egypt. ArchéoNil 25, 57–74. 7. Conclusion What emerges from a consideration of this practice of joint doghuman burial is that the circumstances behind it were variable and depended on the specific setting, with its local customs and belief sets. In all cases, though, dogs were clearly regarded as spiritually significant beings, leading to their interment with people. Moreover, such a practice occurs in modern times too, and in developed societies. Thus, the kind of perception of dogs that leads to such practices appears to transcend ethnic and religious boundaries widely and stands as a remarkably cosmopolitan practice through time and across space. Dogs have played important roles in our long mutual history, and despite the major cul­ tural differences in play, people chose not only to incorporate dogs into their lives in distinctive ways, but sometimes incorporated them conspicuously into their own deaths as well. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgements First, we sincerely thank Elizabeth McClellan for her insightful input into an earlier draft of this paper, and also for her great help in getting our world map figure (Fig. 1) into presentable shape. As well, Luc Janssens and two anonymous reviewers provided genuinely construc­ tive input on the draft originally submitted to this journal. For sharing important information and/or directly providing or facilitating our ca­ pacity to obtain some key bibliographic resources, we also sincerely thank, in alphabetical order, Kim Aaris-Sørensen, Silvia Albizuri, Dan Amick, Rose-Marie Arbogast, Mark Beech, Norbert Benecke, Ariadna Nieto Espinet, Anne Birgitte Gotfredsen, Salima Ikram, Luc Janssens, Noralane Lindor, Elizabeth McClellan, Jordi Nadal, Dixie West, Reuven Yeshurun, and Andrea Zeeb-Lanz. Special thanks to George Crothers, Director of the William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology at the Uni­ versity of Kentucky in Lexington, for providing specific information on the Webb Museum’s holdings of dog burials from the Green River Valley in west-central Kentucky. Warm thanks also to Ariadna Nieto Espinet for patiently steering us through a piece in a language that neither of us commands. Norbert Benecke was also quite helpful in a similar capacity. As well, we are grateful to Silvia Albizuri for helping guide us through certain analytical issues pertaining to a piece we used that she coauthored. In addition, Salima Ikram graciously clarified for us certain matters pertaining to the many burials from ancient Egypt. Finally, Lars Larsson (Lund University, Sweden) kindly provided the drawing that appears as Fig. 3. 9 D.F. Morey and R. Jeger Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 67 (2022) 101434 Higham, Tom, Schmitz, Ralf W., Giemsch, Liane, Feine, et al. 2015. Radiocarbon dating of the Oberkassel specimens. In: Giemsch, Liane, Schmidt, Ralf. W. (Eds.), The Late Glacial Burial from Oberkassel Revisited. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Rheinische Ausgrabungen 72, Darmstadt, Germany, pp. 63-65. Hughes, D.D., 1991. Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece. Routledge, London and New York. Hughes, Mallory, 2019. A healthy dog was euthanized so it could be buried with its owner. Cable News Network (CNN) News Feed: 25 May 2019: https://www.cnn. com/2019/05/22/us/dog-buried-with-owner-trnd/index.html. Ikram, S., 2013. Man’s best friend for eternity: dog and human burials in ancient Egypt. Anthropozoologica 48 (2), 299–307. Janssens, L., Napierala, H., Street, M., 2015. Description and pathology of the BonnOberkassel dog. In: Giemsch, L., Schmidt, R.W. (Eds.), The Late Glacial Burial from Oberkassel Revisited. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Rheinische Ausgrabungen 72, Darmstadt, Germany, pp. 275–289. Janssens, L., Giemsch, L., Schmitz, R., et al., 2018. A new look at an old dog: BonnOberkassel reconsidered. J. Archaeol. Sci. 92, 126–138. Janssens, Luc, Arbogast, Rose-Marie, Zeeb-Lanz, Andrea, 2019. Dogs of the final Bandkeramik at Herxheim: refitting and pathology. In: Zeeb-Lanz, Andrea (Ed.), Ritualized Destruction in the Early Neolithic—The Exceptional Site of Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany), vol. 2. Aussenstelle Speyer, Speyer, Germany, pp. 233–245. Larsen, Helge, Rainey, Froelich, 1948. Ipiutak and the Arctic Whale Hunting Culture. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers 42, New York City. Larsson, L., 1990. Dogs in fraction – symbols in action. In: Vermeersch, P.M., Van Peer, P. (Eds.), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Leuven University Press, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 153–160. Larsson, L., 1995. Pratiques mortuaires et sépultures de chiens dans les sociétés mésolithiques de Scandinavie méridionale. L’Anthropologie 98 (4), 562–575 in French. Larsson, M., 2017. Life and Death in the Mesolithic of Sweden. Oxbow Books, Oxford, England. MacKinnon, Michael, Belanger, Kyle, 2006. In sickness and in health: Care for an arthritic Maltese dog from the Roman cemetery of Yasmina, Carthage, Tunisia. In: Snyder, Lynn M., Moore, Elizabeth A. (Eds.), Dogs and People in Social, Working, Economic or Symbolic Interaction. Oxbow Books, Oxford, England. (Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham, England, 2002), pp. 38-43. Marquardt, William H., Watson, Patty Jo, 2005a. The Green River shell mound Archaic: Conclusions. In: Marquardt, William H., Watson, Patty Jo (Eds.), Archaeology of the Middle Green River Region, Kentucky. University of Florida, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 5, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 629-647. Marquardt, William H., Watson, Patty Jo, 2005b. SMAP investigations at the Carlston Annis Site, 15BT5. In: Marquardt, William H., Watson, Patty Jo (Eds.), Archaeology of the Middle Green River Region, Kentucky. University of Florida, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 5, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 87-120. Martín, Patricia, Albizuri, Silvia, Cólliga, Aracelli M., Gibaja, Juan F., 2019. Offerings, feasting and psychopomps in the north-east of the Iberian Peninsula: the role of animals in the Bóbila Madurell (Sant Quirze del Vallés, Barcelona) funerary ritual (late fifth millennium-early fourth millennium cal BC). Archaeol. Anthrop. Sci. DOI 10.1007/s12520-019-00932-2. Mason, Owen K., 2004. Ipiutak remains mysterious: A focal place still out of focus. In: Arneborg, Jette, Grønnow, Bjarne (Eds.), Dynamics of Northern Societies: Proceedings of the SILA/NABO Conference on Arctic and North Atlantic Archaeology, Copenhagen, May 10-14, 2004. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, pp. 103-119. Mazzorin, Jacopo De Grossi, Minniti, Claudia, 2006. Dog sacrifice in the ancient world: a ritual passage? In: Snyder, Lynn M., Moore, Elizabeth A. (Eds.), Dogs and People in Social, Working, Economic or Symbolic Interaction. Oxbow Books. Oxford, England (proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002), pp. 62-66. McGovern, Thomas H., 2004. Report of Bones from Dadastaꝍir, Mývatn District, Northern Iceland. New York City: City University of New York, Northern Science and Education Center (NORSEC), Zooarchaeology Laboratory Report 19 (five pages). Morey, D.F., 1994. The early evolution of the domestic dog. Am. Sci. 82, 336–347. Morey, Darcy F., 1996. L’origine du plus vieil ami de l’homme. La Recherche 288 Juin, 72-77 (in French). Morey, D.F., 2006. Burying key evidence: The social bond between dogs and people. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 158–175. Morey, D.F., 2010. Dogs—Domestication and the Development of a Social Bond. Cambridge University Press, New York City. Morey, D.F., Jeger, R., 2015. Paleolithic dogs: Why sustained domestication then? J. Archaeol. Sci.: Rep. 3, 420–428. Morey, D.F., Jeger, R., 2017. From wolf to dog: Late Pleistocene ecological dynamics, altered trophic strategies, and shifting human perceptions. Hist. Biol. 29 (7), 895–903. Morey, D.F., Crothers, G.M., Stein, J.K., et al., 2002. The fluvial and geomorphic context of Indian Knoll, an Archaic shell midden in west-central Kentucky. Geoarchaeology 17 (6), 521–553. Nichols, Christopher, 2021. Domestic dog skeletons at Valsgärde cemetery Uppland, Sweden: Quantification and morphological reconstruction. J. Archaeol. Sci.: Rep. 36, https://doi.org/10.1016/jasrep.2021.102875. Nine pages. Nobis, G., 1979. Der älteste Haushund lebte vor 14000 Jahren. Umschau 79 (19), 610 in German. Olsen, John W., 1985. Prehistoric dogs in mainland east Asia. In: Olsen, S.J. (Ed.), Origins of the Domestic Dog-The Fossil Record. University of Arizona Press Tucson, Arizona, pp. 47-70. Perri, A., 2017. A typology of dog deposition in achaeological contexts. In: RowleyConwy, P., Serjeantson, D., Halstead, P. (Eds.), Economic Zooarchaeology: Studies in Hunting, Herding, and Early Agriculture. Oxbow Books, Oxford, England, pp. 89–99. Polit, B., 2019. Canine burials from the Roman Period on the northern Black Sea coast in the light of materials from the Neyzats Cemetery. Przeglad Archeologiczny 67, 149–176. Prummel, W., 1992. Early Medieval dog burials among the Germanic tribes. Helinium 32 (1–2), 132–194. Radovanović, I., 1999. “Neither person nor beast”- Dogs in the burial practice of the Iron Gates Mesolithic. Documenta Praehistorica 26, 71–87. Rainey, F., 1941. The Ipiutak Culture at Point, Hope, Alaska. Am. Anthropol. 43, 364–375. Reinold, J., 2005. Note sur le monde animal dans le funéraire néolithique du Soudan. Revue de Paléobiologie. Genève spéc. 10, 107–119 in French. Street, M., 2002. Ein Wiedersehen mit dem Hund von Bonn-Oberkassel. Bonner Zoologische Beitrage 50 (3), 269–290 in German. Street, Martin, Jöris, Olaf, 2015. The age of the Oberkassel burial in the context of climate, environment and the late glacial settlement history of the Rhineland. In: Giemsch, Liane, Schmidt, Ralf W. (Eds.), The Late Glacial Burial from Oberkassel Revisited. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Rheinische Ausgrabungen 72, Darmstadt, Germany, pp. 25–42. Street, Martin, Napierala Hannes, Janssens, Luc, 2015. The late Paleolithic dog from Bonn-Oberkassel in context. In: Giemsch, Liane, Schmidt, Ralf W. (Eds.), The Late Glacial Burial from Oberkassel Revisited. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Rheinische Ausgrabungen 72, Darmstadt, Germany, pp. 253-273. Tchernov, E., Valla, F.R., 1997. Two new dogs, and other Natufian dogs, from the southern Levant. J. Archaeol. Sci. 24, 65–95. Trinkaus, Erik, 2015. The appendicular skeletal remains of Oberkassel 1 and 2. In: Giemsch, Liane, Schmidt, Ralf. W. (Eds.), The Late Glacial Burial from Oberkassel Revisited. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Rheinische Ausgrabungen 72, Darmstadt, Germany, pp. 75-132. Tuck, James A., 1976. Ancient People of Port au Choix. Memorial University of Newfoundland, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Newfoundland Social and Economic Studies 17, St. Johns, Newfoundland. Vitales, T.J., 2018. A howl from the grave: Osteological analysis of 12th-15th-century dogs from Santa Ana, Manila, Philippines. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 2018, 1–9. Webb, William S., 1946. Indian Knoll, Site Oh 2, Ohio County, Kentucky. University of Kentucky, Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology IV (3), Part 1, Lexington, Kentucky (republished in its entirety by the University of Tennessee Press in 1974). Webb, William S., 1950. The Carlson Annis Mound, Site 5, Butler County, Kentucky. University of Kentucky, Reports in Anthropology VII (4), Lexington, Kentucky. Webb, William S., Haag, William G., 1939. The Chiggerville Site, Site 1, Ohio County, Kentucky. University of Kentucky, Reports in Anthropology IV (1), Lexington, Kentucky. Webb, William S., Haag, William G., 1940. Cypress Creek Villages, Sites 11 and 12, McClean County, Kentucky. University of Kentucky, Reports in Anthropology IV (2), Lexington, Kentucky. Webb, William S., Haag, William G., 1947. Archaic Sites in McClean County, Kentucky. University of Kentucky, Reports in Anthropology VII (1), Lexington, Kentucky. Yohe, Robert M. II, Pavesic, Max G., 2000. Early Archaic dogs from western Idaho, U.S.A. In: Crockford, S.J. (Ed,), Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. BAR International Series 889, Oxford, U.K., pp. 93–104. 10 View publication stats