Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:07:34.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On a find of a Preboreal domestic dog (Canis familiaris L.) from Star Carr, Yorkshire, with remarks on other Mesolithic dogs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

Magnus Degerbøl
Magnus Degerbøl
Affiliation:
Quaternary-Zoological Laboratory, University of Copenhagen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The acquisition of domestic animals was an epoch-making event in cultural evolution. When did man arrive at such a cultural standard that he was able to live in fairly peaceful coexistence with wild animals, and start the process of taming which finally produced genuine tame or domestic animals? It appears that for hundreds of thousands of years man lived as food-gatherer, hunter or fisherman without domestic animals of any kind. At least the presence of domestic animals was not shown in any of the many palaeolithic settlements known today, nor from the palaeolithic cave-drawings. Only from the Mesolithic is there the first certain, but weak evidence of any domestic animal and the finds show that the dog was among the first animals to be domesticated and attached to human settlements.

Among the oldest and best-known skeletal material of the domestic dog are the Danish finds from the Maglemosian settlements from the bogs at Mullerup, Svaerdborg, Holmegaard, Lundby and Aamosen near Halleby river, all in Zealand. Very few dog bones were found, although tens of thousands of bones have been excavated from these settlements. The dog bones, like those of other animals used for food, were very fragmentary, and several showed marks where they had been cut.

The Maglemosian settlements date from the Boreal period, pollen zones V and VI, i.e. they go back to the time when Denmark was covered with vast pine forests and was part of the European continent.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 27 , December 1961 , pp. 35 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baas, J. 1936. ‘Das Todesjahr unseres Ur's wird festgestellt. Bos primigenius Boj. in der Lebensgruppe “Frankfurter Urlandschaft”,’ Natur und Volk. Bd. 66. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Baas, J. 1938. ‘Zur Geschichte der Pflanzenwelt und der Haustiere im unteren Main-Tal’, Abh. Senckenb. Naturf. Gesellsch, Abh. 440. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Bate, D. M. A. 1937. The fossil Fauna of the Wady El-Mughara Caves. Vide Garrod and Bate.Google Scholar
Brinkmann, A. 1921. ‘Canidenstudien I–III’, Vidensk. Medd. dansk naturh. Foren. Bd. 72, København.Google Scholar
Brinkmann, A. 1925. ‘Canidenstudien V–VI, Bergens Museums Aarbσk, 1923–24, Naturv. række. nr. 7, Bergen.Google Scholar
Clark, J. G. D. 1949. ‘A Preliminary Report on Excavations at Star Carr, Seamer, Scarborough, Yorkshire, 1949’, Paper No. 6, Proc. Prehist. Soc.Google Scholar
Clark, J. G. D. 1950. ‘Preliminary Report on Excavations at Star Carr, Seamer, Scarborough, Yorkshire (Second Season, 1950)’, Paper No. 9, Proc. Prehist. Soc.Google Scholar
Clark, J. G. D. 1954. Excavations at Star Carr, An early Mesolithic Site at Seamer, near Scarborough, Yorkshire, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dahr, E. 1937. ‘Studien über Hunde aus primitiven Steinzeitkulturen in Nordeuropa’, Kungl. Fysiografiska Sällskapets Handlingar N.F., Bd. 47, Nr. 4, Lund.Google Scholar
Dahr, E. 1942. ‘Über die Variation der Hirnschale bei wilden und zahmen Caniden. Ein Beitrag zur Genealogie der Haushunde’, Arkiv för Zoologi, 33 A, No. 16, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Degerbøl, M. 1927. ‘Über prahistorische, dänische Hunde’, Vidensk. Medd. dansk naturh. Foren., Bd. 84, København.Google Scholar
Degerbøl, M. 1933. ‘Danmarks Pattedyr i Fortiden i Sammenligning med recente Former I (Engl. Sum.: The prehistoric Mammals of Denmark compared with Recent Forms, pp. 616–41)’, Vidensk. Medd. dansk naturh. Foren., Bd. 96, København.Google Scholar
Degerbøl, M. 1942. ‘En Yngre Stenalders Boplads paa Als. IV. Dyreknogler (Résumé en français)’, Aarb.f. nord. Oldk. og. Historie, 1939, København, Vide Th. Mathiassen.Google Scholar
Degerbøl, M. 1943. ‘Om Dyrelivet i Aamosen ved Undløse paa Sjælland i Stenalderen (Résumé en français: La vie animale dans l'Aamosen en Seeland dans l'âge de la pierre)’, Nordiske Fortidsminder, III, 3, København, Vide Th. Mathiassen.Google Scholar
Fraser, F. C. and King, J. E. 1949. ‘Preliminary Report on the Bone Remains from Star Carr, Seamer’, Paper No. 6, Proc. Prehist. Soc., Vide J. G. D. Clark.Google Scholar
Fraser, F. C. and King, J. E. 1950. ‘Second Interim Report on the Animal Remains from Star Carr, Seamer’, Paper No. 9, Proc. Prehist. Soc., Vide J. G. D. Clark.Google Scholar
Fraser, F. C. and King, J. E. 1954. ‘Excavations at Star Carr, III, Faunal Remains’, Cambridge, Vide J. G. D. Clark.Google Scholar
Gandert, O. F. 1930. ‘Forschungen zur Geschichte des Haushundes. Die Steinzeitrassen in Nordeuropa’, Mannus-Bibliothek, Nr. 46, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Garrod, D. A. E. and Bate, D. M. A. 1937. ‘The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Excavations of the Wady El-Mughara’, Report of the joint Expedition of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and the American School of Prehistoric Research, 1929, 34, Vol. 1, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hatt, R. T. 1959. ‘The Mammals of Iraq’, Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool., Univ. Michigan, No. 106, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Hauck, E. 1950. ‘Abstammung, Ur- und Frühgeschichte des Haushundes’, Prähistorische Forschungen, H. 1, Wien.Google Scholar
Hilzheimer, M. 1908. ‘Beitrag zur Kenntnis der nordafrikanischen Schakale nebst Bemerkungen über deren Verhältnis zu den Haushunden insbesondere nordafrikanischen und altägyptischen Hunderassen’, Zoologica, H. 53, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Johansen, Friis. 1919. ‘En Boplads fra den ældste Stenalder i Sværdborg Mose’, Aarb.f. nord. Oldk. og Hist. R. III, Bd. 9, København.Google Scholar
Kenyon, K. M. 1957. Digging up Jericho, London.Google Scholar
Kenyon, K. M. 1959. ‘Earliest Jericho’, Antiquity, 33.Google Scholar
Mathiassen, Th., Jessen, K. and Degerbøl, M. 1942. ‘Bundsø En Yngre Stenalders Boplads paa Als’, Aarb. f. nord. Oldk. og Hist., 1939, København.Google Scholar
Mathiassen, Th. 1943. ‘Stenalderbopladser i Aamosen’, Nordiske Fortidsminder, Bd. III, H. 3.Google Scholar
Matthey, R. 1954. ‘Chromosomes et systématique des Canidés’, Mammalia, 18, Paris.Google Scholar
Mertens, R. 1936. ‘Der Hund aus dem Senckenberg-Moor, ein Begleiter des Ur's’, Natur und Volk, Bd. 66, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Mulvaney, D. J. 1959. ‘Dating of Australian Prehistory’, Nature, 184.Google Scholar
Pocock, R. J. 1935. ‘The Mammals collected in S.E. Arabia by Mr Bertram Thomas and Mr H. St. J. Philby’, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (10), XV.Google Scholar
Reed, C. A. 1959. ‘Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East’, Science, Vol. 130, No. 3389.Google Scholar
Schlegel, F. R. 1912. ‘Die Extremitäten der Caniden, ihre Beziehungen zur Körperzymetrie und die Verhältnisse ihrer relativen Proportionen’, Archiv f. Naturgeschichte.Google Scholar
Strunz, C. 1936. ‘Die Ausgrabung des Ur's im Senckenberg-Moor an unserem Museum’, Natur und Volk, Bd. 66, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Studer, Th. 1905. ‘Über einen Hund aus der Paläolithischen Zeit Ruslands, Canis Poutiatini’, Zool. Anzeiger, Bd. XXIX, No. 1.Google Scholar
Wagner, K. 1930. ‘Rezente Hunderassen’, Eine osteologische Untersuchung. Skrifter, Norske Videnskaps-Akademi, Oslo, I Mat.-Naturv. Klasse 1929, Nr. 9, Oslo.Google Scholar
Werth, E. 1944. ‘Die primitiven Hunde und die Abstammungsfrage des Haushundes’, Z. f. Tierzücht. und Züchtungsbiologie, Berlin, Bd. 56.Google Scholar
Winge, H. 1919. ‘Levninger af Hvirveldyr fra Stenalders-Bopladsen i Sværdborg Mose’, Aarb. f. nord. Oldk. og Hist. R. III, Bd. 9, København, Vide Johansen, Friis.Google Scholar
Wolfgramm, A. 1894. ‘Die Einwirkung der Gefangenschaft auf die Gestaltung des Wolfschädels’, Zool. Jahrb. Abt. f. Systematik, Bd. 7, Jena.Google Scholar
Zeuner, F. E. 1956. ‘Domestication of Animals’, in A History of Technology, Singer, C. et al. Eds., London.Google Scholar