Zooarchaeology

Last updated
Illustration of an Egyptian mummy of a dog PSM V39 D832 Egyptian mummy of a dog front and profile views.jpg
Illustration of an Egyptian mummy of a dog

Zooarchaeology or archaeozoology merges the disciplines of zoology and archaeology, focusing on the analysis of animal remains within archaeological sites. This field, managed by specialists known as zooarchaeologists or faunal analysts, examines remnants such as bones, shells, hair, chitin, scales, hides, and proteins, such as DNA, to derive insights into historical human-animal interactions and environmental conditions. [1] While bones and shells tend to be relatively more preserved in archaeological contexts, the survival of faunal remains is generally infrequent. [2] The degradation or fragmentation of faunal remains presents challenges in the accurate analysis and interpretation of data. [2]

Contents

Characterized by its interdisciplinary nature, zooarchaeology bridges the studies of ancient human societies and the animal kingdom. [3] Practitioners, from various scientific backgrounds including anthropology, paleontology, and ecology, aim primarily to identify and understand human interactions with animals and their environments. [4] Through the analysis of faunal remains, zooarchaeologists can gain insight into past diets, domestication practices, tool usage, and ritualistic behaviors, thus contributing to a comprehensive view of human-environment interactions and the sub-field of environmental archaeology.

Development

The development of zooarchaeology in eastern North America can be broken up into three different periods. [5] The first being the Formative period starting around the 1860s, the second being the Systematization period beginning in the early 1950s, and lastly the Integration period which began about 1969. [5] Full-time zooarchaeologists came to be during the Systematization period. [5] Prior to the Systemization period, it was just a technique that was applied but not specifically studied.

Zooarchaeological specialists started to come about partly because of a new approach to archaeology known as processual archaeology. [6] This approach puts more emphasis on explaining why things happened, not just what happened. [6] Archaeologists began to specialize in zooarchaeology, and their numbers increased. [6]

Uses

A reference collection of shinbones (Tibia) of different animal species helps determining old bones. Dutch Heritage Agency. Archeozoologie-Referentiecollectie-Tibia-RCE.jpg
A reference collection of shinbones (Tibia) of different animal species helps determining old bones. Dutch Heritage Agency.

One important aspect of zooarchaeology is using morphological and genetic evidence to answer questions zooarchaeologists have about the relationship between animals and humans. [7] : 172  These questions include:

  1. What was the diet like, and in what ways were the animals used for food? [6]
  2. Which animals were eaten, in what amounts, and with what other foods? [6]
  3. Who were the ones to obtain the food, and did the availability of that food depend on age or gender? [6]
  4. How was culture, such as technologies and behavior, influenced by and associated with diet? [6]
  5. How can faunal remains identify social differences such as class or ethnicity? [8]
  6. What purposes, other than food, were animals used for? [6]
  7. What was the environment like? [7] : 170 
  8. How did hunter-gatherers collect food? [7] : 170 
  9. How have human populations changed over time? [7] : 171 
  10. How have humans domesticated animals over time? [7] : 171 
  11. How do modern animals compare to animals of the past, and how does this give context to human populations who interacted/still interact with those animals? [7] : 172 

Another important aspect of zooarchaeology is its application to the migration patterns of humans. In areas where people are either closely tied to animal as companions or regularly follow the migrations of herds, the data collected from these animals can help give context to human movement as well. [9] : 103  Studying animal remains can also give context to other remains and artifacts found in association with them. [10] : 1 

Faunal remains

Faunal remains are parts of animals that have been left in the material record, which archaeologists study. These remains are important to the record because they can show cultural practices, such as what food they were eating, based on the remains left behind. [11] Zooarcheologists can find out information like the species the animal is, the age the animal was when it died, and what its sex was. [11]

Some common faunal remains found at sites include, as stated above, bones, shells, hair, chitin, scales, hides, proteins and DNA. These are often found in piles of waste left behind. This means zooarchaeology is part of the general study of waste or garbology. Archaeologists may have to sort through and identify the species and body region of faunal remains. [12] The types of fauna that leave behind these remains will depend on where the archaeological site is located. These animals can be domesticated or wild, and sometimes they find both types of remains at sites. [12]

In addition to helping us understand the past, zooarchaeology can also help us to improve the present and the future. [13] Studying how people dealt with animals, and their effects can help avoid many potential ecological problems. [13] This specifically includes problems involving wildlife management. [13] For example, one of the questions that wildlife preservationists ask is whether they should keep animals facing extinction in several smaller areas, or in one larger area. [13] Based on zooarchaeological evidence, they found that animals that are split up into several smaller areas are more likely to go extinct. [13]

Techniques

Taphonomy

One of the issues to which zooarchaeologists pay close attention is taphonomy. [5] Techniques used in the study of taphonomy include researching how items are buried and deposited at an archaeological site, what the conditions are that aid in the preservation of these items, and how these items get destroyed, all a part of what is referred to by archaeologist Michael Brian Schiffer as behavioral archaeology. [5] One important aspect of taphonomy is assessing how a specimen became damaged; understanding the taphonomy of a faunal assemblage can explain how and why bones were damaged. [10] One source of damage to animal bones is humans. [10] : 169  Cut marks on animal bones provide evidence for butchering. [10] : 169  Fractures, such as by percussion impact and spiral fracture on a bone can suggest that it was processed by humans for its marrow, minerals, and nutrients. [10] : 170  Other human processes that affect bones include burning [10] : 171  and damage from archaeological excavations. [10] : 178  Non-human damage to bones includes interspecies damage, [10] : 173  damage from raptors and scavengers, [10] : 173  damage from rodents, [10] : 175  damage from fungi, [10] : 176  environmental weathering, [10] : 176  and polishing. [10] : 176  Distinguishing different types of damage to animal bones is a tedious and complex process that requires background in multiple scientific fields. [10] : 169  Some of the physical damage on bones can be seen with the naked eye, but a lens with 10x magnification and good lighting is necessary for seeing most damage. [10] : 169 

Identification and taxonomy

Identification is integral to the archaeological analysis of animal remains. [10] : 1  Identification of animal remains requires a combination of anatomy, taxonomy, and studies of archaeological context. [10] : 1  The ability to identify a piece of bone requires knowing what element (bone in the body) it is, and to what animal the bone belongs. [10] : 1  The latter is referred to as taxonomy, which is used to sort animals into different groups. [10] : 1  Zooarchaeology uses Linnean nomenclature, which includes varying degrees of specificity in regards to the species. [10] : 2  Linnaean nomenclature (Linnaean taxonomy) is used because it allows archaeologists to identify and show the genetic and morphological relationships between species. [10] : 2  These relationships are based on species evolution, which can often be subject to interpretation. [10] : 4  While more specific identification is preferable, it is better to be less specific in the identification rather than identify a specimen incorrectly. [10] : 2  When examining animal remains, it is common that there are bones that are too small or too damaged to be able to accurately identify it. [10] : 3  Archaeological context can be used to help with assumptions about species identification. [10] : 3  Skeletal classification is the other half of properly identifying animal remains. [10] : 1  Zoological osteology is useful to zooarchaeology because certain morphological aspects of a bone are associated with particular periods of growth, which can help narrow down the age the specimen was at death. [10] : 9  The analysis of teeth require a slightly different approach than bone, but retain the same level of importance when it comes to analysis. [10] : 9  The wear pattern and tooth morphology provides information about a species diet and age; the enamel also has biochemical remains of what the animal ate. [10] : 9  While animal remains can include more than just bones and teeth, the nature of things like hair and muscle cause it to deteriorate quickly after death, leaving the skeleton behind; this is why most of zooarchaeology revolves around skeletal morphology. [10] : 6  Laboratory analysis can include comparing the skeletons found on site with previously identified lab specimens. [5] This not only helps to identify what the animal is, but also whether the animal was domesticated or not. [5]

Genetic analysis

Genetic analysis using ancient DNA is an important tool used by zooarchaeologists. Genetic history of an animal can give information on population movement over time and environmental adaptations necessary to live in an area. [9] : 103  It can also give context to how animals may or may not have been domesticated over time by a group of people. [9] : 104  Ancient DNA is critical to the genetic analysis of animals remains. Whereas modern DNA has very long fragments in samples, ancient DNA has very short fragments, making it very easily contaminated. [9] : 94  The extraction and sampling of ancient DNA requires highly specialized training, as well as intensive protocol to prevent it from being contaminated by modern DNA. [14] : 5  The paper :Ancient DNA Analysis of the Oldest Canid Species from the Siberian Arctic and Genetic Contribution to the Domestic Dog" by Lee et al. gives a description of claws and teeth were sampled for ancient DNA. In a facility specially designed for ancient DNA extraction, with the use of personal protective equipment and regular bleaching of surfaces and tools, the claws and teeth were wiped with bleach to destroy all modern DNA on the surface, and were then drilled into a powder. The DNA fragments were extracted from the bone powder using an ancient DNA extraction protocol. After using several processes to replicate the DNA fragments and verify the results (PCR and gel electrophoresis), the ancient DNA from the bone powder was sequenced and then analyzed. [14] : 5 

ZooMS

With ZooMS analysis (Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry), the animal species behind a bone fragment or bone artifact can be determined even when no morphological traits survive. The method makes use of interspecies differences in the structure of collagen.[ citation needed ]

Quantification

Yet another technique zooarchaeologists use is quantification. [5] They make interpretations based on the number and size of the faunal remains. [5] These interpretations include how important different animals might have been to the diet. [5]

Examples from prehistory

Carpet exemplifying the image of a Pazyryk horseman in 300 B.C. The Pazyryk were known as superb horseman please see Pazyryk culture, other findings alongside the horses can be explored in Pazyryk burials. PazyrikHorseman.JPG
Carpet exemplifying the image of a Pazyryk horseman in 300 B.C. The Pazyryk were known as superb horseman please see Pazyryk culture, other findings alongside the horses can be explored in Pazyryk burials.

Human-animal relationships and interactions were diverse during prehistory from being a food source to playing a more intimate role in society. [15] Animals have been used in non-economical ways such as being part of a human burial. However, the majority of zooarchaeology has focused on who was eating what by looking at various remains such as bones, teeth, and fish scales. [15] In the twenty-first century researchers have begun to interpret animals in prehistory in wider cultural and social patterns, focusing on how the animals have affected humans and possible animal agency. [15] There is evidence of animals such as the mountain lion or the jaguar being used for ritualistic purposes, but not being eaten as a food source. [15]

Analyses of faunal remains are important to show how prehistoric and hunter-gatherer civilizations interacted with the animals in their environment. [11] This information can be used to help reconstruct Paleolithic environments. Faunal remains with cut marks, teeth marks, burns, or butchering can signify human interaction which can be important to archaeological data. [16] Sometimes these analyses can be difficult due to decomposition and weathering, which can cause damage to the remains. Not only do faunal remains help reconstruct environments from the past they can show other cultural practices as well. These remains are not always from food, but can be found in jewelry, tools, spiritual practices, and more. [16] This information can show the fauna located in the area of analyses, as well as cultural significance.[ citation needed ]

Animal burials date back to prehistory with examples emerging from the Mesolithic period. In Sweden at the site of Skateholm I, dogs were found buried with children under eight years old or were found buried by themselves. Some of the dogs who were buried alone have grave goods similar to their human contemporaries such as flint weapons and deer antlers. [15] Meanwhile, during the same time period Skateholm II emerged and was very different from Skateholm I, as dogs were buried along on the North and West boundaries of the grave area. [15] Another burial site in Siberia near Lake Baikal known as the "Lokomotiv" cemetery had a wolf burial among human graves. [15] [17] Buried together with, but slightly beneath the wolf was a male human skull. [17] The wolf breed was not native to this area as it was warm and other research for the area shows no other wolf habitation. [17] Bazaliiskiy and Savelyev suggests that the presence and significance of the wolf could possibly reflect human interaction. [17] Another example occurred in 300 B.C. in Pazyryk known as the Pazyryk burials where ten horses were buried alongside a human male, the horses were fully adorned with saddles, pendants, among other valuables. [15] The oldest horse as also the horse with the grandest attachments. Erica Hill, a professor in archaeology, suggests that the burials of prehistory animals can shed light on human-animal relationships. [15]

Poster of the Zooarchaeology forum in Zagreb (2023). PZAF2023.jpg
Poster of the Zooarchaeology forum in Zagreb (2023).

Zooarchaeology overlaps significantly with other areas of study. These include:

Wider areas of study

Such analyses provide the basis by which further interpretations can be made. Topics that have been addressed by zooarchaeologists include:

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Domestication of the horse</span>

How and when horses became domesticated has been disputed. Although horses appeared in Paleolithic cave art as early as 30,000 BC, these were wild horses and were probably hunted for meat. The clearest evidence of early use of the horse as a means of transport is from chariot burials dated c. 2000 BC. However, an increasing amount of evidence began to support the hypothesis that horses were domesticated in the Eurasian Steppes in approximately 3500 BC. Discoveries in the context of the Botai culture had suggested that Botai settlements in the Akmola Province of Kazakhstan are the location of the earliest domestication of the horse. Warmuth et al. (2012) pointed to horses having been domesticated around 3000 BC in what is now Ukraine and Western Kazakhstan. The evidence is disputed by archaeozoologist Williams T. Taylor, who argues that domestication did not take place until around 2000 BC.

Archaeogenetics is the study of ancient DNA using various molecular genetic methods and DNA resources. This form of genetic analysis can be applied to human, animal, and plant specimens. Ancient DNA can be extracted from various fossilized specimens including bones, eggshells, and artificially preserved tissues in human and animal specimens. In plants, ancient DNA can be extracted from seeds and tissue. Archaeogenetics provides us with genetic evidence of ancient population group migrations, domestication events, and plant and animal evolution. The ancient DNA cross referenced with the DNA of relative modern genetic populations allows researchers to run comparison studies that provide a more complete analysis when ancient DNA is compromised.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Artifact (archaeology)</span> Objects created and used by humans.

An artifact or artefact is a general term for an item made or given shape by humans, such as a tool or a work of art, especially an object of archaeological interest. In archaeology, the word has become a term of particular nuance; it is defined as an object recovered by archaeological endeavor, including cultural artifacts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental archaeology</span> Sub-discipline of archaeology

Environmental archaeology is a sub-field of archaeology which emerged in 1970s and is the science of reconstructing the relationships between past societies and the environments they lived in. The field represents an archaeological-palaeoecological approach to studying the palaeoenvironment through the methods of human palaeoecology and other geosciences. Reconstructing past environments and past peoples' relationships and interactions with the landscapes they inhabited provide archaeologists with insights into the origins and evolution of anthropogenic environments and human systems. This includes subjects such as including prehistoric lifestyle adaptations to change and economic practices.

Archaeological subfields are typically characterised by a focus on a specific method, type of material, geographical, chronological, or other thematic categories. Among academic disciplines, archaeology, in particular, often can be found in cross-disciplinary research due to the inherent multidisciplinary and geographical nature of the field in general. The lived human experience is vast and varied and reconstructing those lifeways and their consequences requires problem solving from numerous angles. In general, archaeologists work backwards with their research, starting with what is already known.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paleogenetics</span>

Paleogenetics is the study of the past through the examination of preserved genetic material from the remains of ancient organisms. Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling introduced the term in 1963, long before the sequencing of DNA, in reference to the possible reconstruction of the corresponding polypeptide sequences of past organisms. The first sequence of ancient DNA, isolated from a museum specimen of the extinct quagga, was published in 1984 by a team led by Allan Wilson.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paleopathology</span> Archaeological sub-discipline

Paleopathology, also spelled palaeopathology, is the study of ancient diseases and injuries in organisms through the examination of fossils, mummified tissue, skeletal remains, and analysis of coprolites. Specific sources in the study of ancient human diseases may include early documents, illustrations from early books, painting and sculpture from the past. All these objects provide information on the evolution of diseases as well as how past civilizations treated conditions. Studies have historically focused on humans, although there is no evidence that humans are more prone to pathologies than any other animal.

Post-excavation analysis constitutes processes that are used to study archaeological materials after an excavation is completed. Since the advent of "New Archaeology" in the 1960s, the use of scientific techniques in archaeology has grown in importance. This trend is directly reflected in the increasing application of the scientific method to post-excavation analysis. The first step in post-excavation analysis should be to determine what one is trying to find out and what techniques can be used to provide answers. Techniques chosen will ultimately depend on what type of artifact(s) one wishes to study. This article outlines processes for analyzing different artifact classes and describes popular techniques used to analyze each class of artifact. Keep in mind that archaeologists frequently alter or add techniques in the process of analysis as observations can alter original research questions.

Stine Rossel was a Danish archaeologist. She was a postdoc and Instructor of Egyptology at the University of Copenhagen. Her interests included zooarchaeology, the effects of environmental change on animal use, and the rise of complex societies.

In archaeology and paleontology a faunal assemblage is a group of animal fossils found together in a given stratum. In a non-deformed deposition, fossils are organized by stratum following the laws of uniformitarianism and superposition, which state that the natural phenomena observable today also apply to the paleontological record and that the oldest stratum will be at the bottom of a paleontological deposit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biofact (archaeology)</span> Found organic material of archaeological significance

In archaeology, a biofact is any organic material including flora or fauna material found at an archaeological site that has not been technologically altered by humans yet still has cultural relevance. Biofacts can include but are not limited to plants, seeds, pollen, animal bones, insects, fish bones and mollusks. The study of biofacts, alongside other archaeological remains such as artifacts are a key element to understanding how past societies interacted with their surrounding environment and with each other. Biofacts also play a role in helping archaeologists understand questions of subsistence and reveals information about the domestication of certain plant species and animals which demonstrates, for example, the transition from a hunter-gatherer society to a farming society.

Archaeobiology, the study of the biology of ancient times through archaeological materials, is a subspecialty of archaeology. It can be seen as a blanket term for paleobotany, animal osteology, zooarchaeology, microbiology, and many other sub-disciplines. Specifically, plant and animal remains are also called ecofacts. Sometimes these ecofacts can be left by humans and sometimes they can be naturally occurring. Archaeobiology tends to focus on more recent finds, so the difference between archaeobiology and palaeontology is mainly one of date: archaeobiologists typically work with more recent, non-fossilised material found at archaeological sites. Only very rarely are archaeobiological excavations performed at sites with no sign of human presence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pastoral Neolithic</span> Historic site in Tanzania

The Pastoral Neolithic refers to a period in Africa's prehistory, specifically Tanzania and Kenya, marking the beginning of food production, livestock domestication, and pottery use in the region following the Later Stone Age. The exact dates of this time period remain inexact, but early Pastoral Neolithic sites support the beginning of herding by 5000 BP. In contrast to the Neolithic in other parts of the world, which saw the development of farming societies, the first form of African food production was nomadic pastoralism, or ways of life centered on the herding and management of livestock. The shift from hunting to food production relied on livestock that had been domesticated outside of East Africa, especially North Africa. This period marks the emergence of the forms of pastoralism that are still present. The reliance on livestock herding marks the deviation from hunting-gathering but precedes major agricultural development. The exact movement tendencies of Neolithic pastoralists are not completely understood.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paleolithic dog</span> Late Pleistocene canine

Purported remains of "Paleolithic dogs" have been reported from several European archaeological sites dating to over 30,000 years ago. Their status as domesticated is highly controversial, with some authors suggesting them to be the ancestors of the domestic dog or an extinct, morphologically and genetically divergent wolf population.

Ina Plug is a South African archaeozoologist, and teacher. Her long career included field research and in museums such as Transvaal Museum and for the University of Pretoria on southern African mammals, starting with the animals from Iron Age sites at the Kruger National Park. Her work resulted in her publishing 130 scientific papers mostly on the skeletal remains of animals. She also published a book titled What Bone Is That? A Guide to the Identification of Southern African Mammal Bones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diane Gifford-Gonzalez</span> American archaeologist

Diane Gifford-Gonzalez is an American archaeologist who specializes in the field of zooarchaeology. Her research has included fieldwork near Lake Turkana, northwestern Kenya, and her research often touches on the question of animal domestication and the origins and development of African pastoralism. In 2024, Gifford-Gonzalez was elected to the National Academy of Sciences.

Fiona Marshall is an archaeologist at Washington University in St. Louis. Her methodological specialties are zooarchaeology and ethnoarchaeology. She has excavated Pastoral Neolithic sites in eastern Africa, focusing primarily on the domestication and herding of animals, particularly cattle and donkeys. She has also conducted ethnoarchaeological research on factors that affect body part representation in archaeological sites, and on foraging ways of life amongst Okiek people of the western Mau Escarpment, Kenya. She has also worked to conserve the Laetoli footprints.

This page is a glossary of archaeology, the study of the human past from material remains.

Umberto Albarella is an Italian-British archaeologist, prehistorian, and activist. He is professor of Zooarchaeology at the Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield. Albarella's previous work has been based in Britain, Italy, Armenia, Greece, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, France, and Portugal.

Katherine Brunson is an Assistant Professor of Archaeology, affiliated with the departments of East Asian Studies and College of the Environment, at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, USA. She is a zooarchaeologist with a geographical focus on China, specializing in the ritual aspects of animal domestication, ancient DNA, and the origins of pastoralism. She has a particular interest in bone artifact production and is currently researching the origins of Chinese domestic cattle, the relationship between domestic cattle and extinct East Asian wild aurochs.

References

  1. ↑ "Zooarchaeology | Reading Ancient Animal Remains". zooarch.illinoisstatemuseum.org. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
  2. 1 2 Yohe II, Robert M. (2006). Archaeology: The Science of the Human Past. Pearson. pp. 248–264.
  3. ↑ "Zooarchaeology | Reading Ancient Animal Remains". zooarch.illinoisstatemuseum.org. Retrieved 30 July 2020.
  4. ↑ L. Lloveras; M. Moreno-García; J. Nadal (September 2009). "The eagle owl (Bubo bubo) as a leporid remains accumulator: taphonomic analysis of modern rabbit remains recovered from nests of this predator". International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. 19 (5). doi:10.1002/oa.v19:5. ISSN   1047-482X.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Landon, David B. (2005). "Zooarchaeology and Historical Archaeology: Progress and Prospects". Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 12 (1): 1–36. doi:10.1007/s10816-005-2395-7. S2CID   12323687.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Thomas, Kenneth D. (1996). "Zooarchaeology: Past, Present and Future". World Archaeology. 28 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1080/00438243.1996.9980327. PMID   16475284.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Steele, Teresa (2015). "The contributions of animal bones from archaeological sites: the past and future of zooarchaeology". Journal of Archaeological Science. 56: 168–176. Bibcode:2015JArSc..56..168S. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2015.02.036.
  8. ↑ Muñoz, Jennifer (Fall 2011). "Faunal Remains As Markers Of Ethnic Identity: The Philadelphia House As A Case Study Of German-American Ethnicity". scholarworks.calstate.edu. Retrieved 13 November 2020.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Kaestle, Frederika A.; Horsburgh, K. Ann (2002). "Ancient DNA in Anthropology: Methods, Applications, and Ethics". Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. 45: 92–130. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10179. PMID   12653310.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Broughton, Jack; Miller, Shawn (2016). Zooarchaeology and Field Ecology: A Photographic Atlas. University of Utah Press.
  11. 1 2 3 Meadow, Richard H. (January 1983). ""BA" Guide to Artifacts: The Study of Faunal Remains from Archaeological Sites". The Biblical Archaeologist. 46 (1): 49–53. doi:10.2307/3209691. ISSN   0006-0895. JSTOR   3209691. S2CID   134042623.
  12. 1 2 Jenkins, Cliff. "Zooarchaeology" (PDF). msarchaeology.org. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-03-02. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 Lyman, R. L. (1996). "Applied Zooarchaeology: The Relevance of Faunal Analysis to Wildlife Management". World Archaeology. 28: 110–125. doi:10.1080/00438243.1996.9980334.
  14. 1 2 Lee, Esther J.; Merriwether, D. Andrew; Kasparov, Alexei K.; Nikolskiy, Pavel A.; Sotnikova, Marina V.; Pavlova, Elena Yu; Pitulko, Vladimir V. (2015). "Ancient DNA Analysis of the Oldest Canid Species from the Siberian Arctic and Genetic Contribution to the Domestic Dog". PLOS ONE. 10 (5): e0125759. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1025759L. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125759 . PMC   4446326 . PMID   26018528.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hill, Erica (2013). "Archaeology and Animal Persons: Toward a Prehistory of Human-Animal Relations". Environment and Society. 4 (1). doi:10.3167/ares.2013.040108.
  16. 1 2 "Zooarchaeology | Reading Ancient Animal Remains". zooarch.illinoisstatemuseum.org. Retrieved 2020-10-08.
  17. 1 2 3 4 Bazaliiskiy; Savelyev (2003). "The Wolf of Baikal: The "Lokomotiv" Early Neolithic Cemetery in Siberia (Russia)". Antiquity. 77 (295): 20–30. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00061317. S2CID   164017161.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.