Abstract:The discovery of a sacrificed puppy at Tel Miqne-Ekron, a major Philistine settlement in Israel's southern coastal plain, highlights the role of dogs in Iron I Philistia. Though dog sacrifice is described in Hittite religious texts and attested in lands bordering the Aegean during the second–first millennia BCE, evidence for this practice, or even of dog bones, is largely absent from Late Bronze and non-Philistine Iron I (ca. 1550–1000 BCE) Levantine contexts. What distinguishes the Tel Miqne-Ekron puppy inter… Show more
“…This analysis is part of our long-term effort to identify the nature of butchering tools in zooarchaeological assemblages during this crucial period when bronze metallurgy appeared [7,[9][10][11]16,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Our experimental results are used to differentiate and identify the type of chopping instruments used at the site of Göltepe from central Turkey, at the dawn of the Bronze Age.…”
This paper presents a new macroscopic method for identifying chop marks on archaeological faunal assemblages and highlights the major differences in the morphology of chop marks created by stone and metal axes. The method provides macroscopic criteria that aid in the identification of both complete and incomplete chop mark types as well as the raw material of the axe. Experiments with modern stone (chipped and ground) and metal (copper and bronze) axes found that the degree of fragmentation within a chop mark is related to both the width and sharpness of the axe and can be classed on a scale from 1–5 using a variety of criteria. The experiments demonstrate that sharp chipped stone axes are fragile (often break upon impact) and do not create clean and well-defined chop marks. Ground stone axes are more durable but tend to create very fragmented chop marks without a clean cut (sheared) surface. Unalloyed copper metal axes can create sheared chopped surfaces; however, the relatively soft metal creates more crushing at the point of entry than bronze axes. In contrast, bronze axes are durable and create chop marks with exceptionally low rates of fragmentation resulting in a clean-cut sheared surface that extends into the bone for more than 3 mm. The method is applied to the faunal assemblage from the Early Bronze Age site of Göltepe, Turkey to determine whether the chop marks on bones were made by stone or metal axes at this early metal processing settlement. The results suggest that many of the chop marks were made by metal implements (e.g., axes). Hence, this method provides another means to monitor the adoption rates of new raw materials at a time when both metal and stone axes coexisted.
“…This analysis is part of our long-term effort to identify the nature of butchering tools in zooarchaeological assemblages during this crucial period when bronze metallurgy appeared [7,[9][10][11]16,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Our experimental results are used to differentiate and identify the type of chopping instruments used at the site of Göltepe from central Turkey, at the dawn of the Bronze Age.…”
This paper presents a new macroscopic method for identifying chop marks on archaeological faunal assemblages and highlights the major differences in the morphology of chop marks created by stone and metal axes. The method provides macroscopic criteria that aid in the identification of both complete and incomplete chop mark types as well as the raw material of the axe. Experiments with modern stone (chipped and ground) and metal (copper and bronze) axes found that the degree of fragmentation within a chop mark is related to both the width and sharpness of the axe and can be classed on a scale from 1–5 using a variety of criteria. The experiments demonstrate that sharp chipped stone axes are fragile (often break upon impact) and do not create clean and well-defined chop marks. Ground stone axes are more durable but tend to create very fragmented chop marks without a clean cut (sheared) surface. Unalloyed copper metal axes can create sheared chopped surfaces; however, the relatively soft metal creates more crushing at the point of entry than bronze axes. In contrast, bronze axes are durable and create chop marks with exceptionally low rates of fragmentation resulting in a clean-cut sheared surface that extends into the bone for more than 3 mm. The method is applied to the faunal assemblage from the Early Bronze Age site of Göltepe, Turkey to determine whether the chop marks on bones were made by stone or metal axes at this early metal processing settlement. The results suggest that many of the chop marks were made by metal implements (e.g., axes). Hence, this method provides another means to monitor the adoption rates of new raw materials at a time when both metal and stone axes coexisted.
“…Together with their roles as companions, hunting assistants, or guardians of the herds [ 46 ], dogs are often raised for food, sources of meat in crisis times, specific rituals, or medicinal purposes [ 46 , 47 , 48 ]. Puppy sacrifice was in practice in Anatolia during the Bronze Age, and both sacrifice of the dogs and cynophagy is known from Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean [ 21 , 40 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]. Particularly, dog remains found in cooking pots from the Iron Age stratum of the Sardis on the Aegean coast of Western Anatolia were interpreted as sacrificial meals [ 51 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Particularly, dog remains found in cooking pots from the Iron Age stratum of the Sardis on the Aegean coast of Western Anatolia were interpreted as sacrificial meals [ 51 ]. Dog bones with cut marks from the Early–Middle Iron Age stratum of Tel Miqne-Ekron in Palestine [ 49 ] and Ashkelon in Israel [ 50 ] were also described as evidence of cynophagy, sacrificial use, and the sacred status of dogs. At Alaybeyi Höyük, the distribution of dog bones was often associated with ungulate bones deposited as food residues, indicating that dog bones too might have a similar function.…”
To date, little is known about the biological and cultural status of Iron Age dogs in Anatolia. Here, we present a zooarchaeological study of an assemblage of 143 Iron Age dog bones, including two dog skeletons, unearthed from the 2016 and 2017 salvage excavations at Alaybeyi Höyük, Eastern Anatolia. At least eight adults and one juvenile individual, along with a large number of miscellaneous specimens, were identified. The morphological status of the Alaybeyi dogs were primarily compared to previously published Iron Age dogs from Yoncatepe in Eastern Anatolia, and with the average mean of 18 modern dog breeds. Unlike in other Eastern Anatolian Iron Age sites, butcher marks were observed in some specimens, indicating at least occasional cynophagy at the site. Noticeable pathologies were found in about 5% of the sample, particularly pathologies of the oral cavity and dentitions, suggesting that some of the dogs at Alaybeyi Höyük might have been undernourished, had to live on solid food, and probably injured by humans. The results of this study reflect both the morphological and biological status of Alaybeyi dogs, as well as the Alaybeyi people’s attitudes toward dogs, adding vital information to the very limited archaeological knowledge of dogs in Anatolia.
“…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 growing 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 general 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 summaries, a trend noted by Russell (2020).…”
Section: The Roles Of Dogs In the Ancient Near East And Mediterraneanmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Archaeologists working in the Near East and Mediterranean region, who predominantly come from European, American, and Middle Eastern cultures (all of which harbor taboos on cynophagy and often the use of canine skins), have little difficulty imagining ancient living dogs inhabiting roles as pets, hunting 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.…”
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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.