Anthropology 397 | March 28, 2013

presentsCanis Vulpis

A Look into Middle Holocene Canid Burials in

Cis-Baikal

2

About UsThis magazine was designed as a project for an anthropology class (“Anthropology 397: Archaeology of Death”) at the University of Victoria. If you’re wondering how this magazine came to be, here is a little bit of information about the people who made this project possible.

Krystal Groves

Krystal Groves is a fourth year Universi-

ty student living in Sooke, B.C. She has an interest in archaeology and hopes to one day work in the Ca-ribbean. Her free time is spent with her three dogs, in the outdoors or paint-ing.

Arielle Hofmeister-Bullick

Arielle Hof-meister-Bul-

lick recently emerged from the Prairies of Alberta to find greenery and an academic future on beau-tiful Vancouver Island. Though dedicated to her studies, predom-inantly Zooarchaeology, Arielle’s heart lies with her puppy and partner. While not locked in the tallest tow-er of the library, Arielle spends her time raving, wilder-ness-exploring, crafting, and bone-collecting.

Amanda Kaluza

When you ask her where she’s from, you will prob-ably receive a look of confusion and hesitation.

It’s only because Amanda Kaluza has lived in many different parts of Canada while not being particularly

tied to one particu-lar area for too long. That being said, Vic-toria BC is the place where she has called “home” for the past thirteen years. She enjoys everything vintage, family board game night and the occasional Montréal Canadiens hockey game.

Peter Raskovsky

Peter Raskovsky is a Canadian born person, living in Victoria British Columbia. While not pulling his

hair out finishing his BA in Anthropology, Peter enjoys reading comic books and speculative fiction. A former musician and cook, Peter looks forward to achieving a Museum Stud-ies Masters and helping to educate the general pub-lic about how our history is just as important as our present and our fu-ture.

Cover Photo: Image from ahawallpaper.com

3

What’s insideAbout Us...........................................................................................................................................................2

What’s inside...................................................................................................................................................3

Introduction to this Issue............................................................................................................................4

Regional Overview: Exploring the Environmental Background of Cis-Baikal ..........................................5 By Amanda Kaluza

Cultural Context: Subsistence Practices of the Kitoi....................................................................................7 By Peter Raskovsky

Domestication of Dogs:From Wild to Tame: How We Think Wolves Became Human’s Best Friend........8 By Krystal Groves

Case Study: An Examination of Three Canid Inhumations.........................................................................10 By Arielle Hofmeister-Bullick

Our Interpretations on the Cis-Baikal Canid Burials.....................................................................................12 By Arielle Hofmeister-Bullick

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................14

References......................................................................................................................................................15

Background image from Losey et al. 2011.

4

Introduction to this Issue

The Cis-Baikal region of Siberia, Russia is rich in Middle-Holocene archaeological sites. These sites trace back the history of a hunting and

gathering people who left behind a myriad of cultural remnants, many of which are in the form of intentional burials. This area of Asia has been occupied by three major cultural groups: the Kitoi, the Serovo and the Glazkovo. Two of these groups, the Serovo and Glaz-kovo, appear after a roughly 1000 year hiatus of any occupation whatsoever. While hundreds of gravesites have been uncovered, there is relatively little known about them in the west due to very few translations of the original Russian papers. The translations, and a few studies by English speaking scholars introduce some fascinating information. In several of the graves, canid osteological remains have been found. This issue will focus on exploring the phenomenon of including canids (canis lupus familiaris and/or canis lupus) into human burials. The majority of these human/canid burials predominantly contain complete canid skele-tons, which is a relatively rare treasure for Holocene burials.

This issue will serve as a comparison between three sites; each of these sites contains one burial from the Cis-Baikal region. These sites include Lokomo-tiv-Raisovet (Lokomotiv), Shamanka II, and Khuzhir (or Shamanksii Mys). Each site is located near Lake Baikal, which is the largest and oldest freshwater lake on the planet. Lake Baikal boasts not only hundreds of Holocene archaeological sites, but also abundant ter-restrial and marine resources.

Also presented in this issue will be a gener-al overview of the ecology of Cis-Baikal, as well as an account of the foraging culture that lived in the area during the middle-Holocene period. We will also take a look at dog domestication, and the possible function they may have had for people in middle-Holocene Si-beria and how it relates to our three case studies.

Tundra wolfImage from hdwallpapers.com

5

Regional Overview

The vast expanse of Siberian Russia serves as the backdrop for our sites of interest. Just north of present-day Mongolia is Lake Baikal, the largest

freshwater lake in the world. Northwest of Lake Baikal is an area known as Cis-Baikal, where the sites Loko-motiv-Raisovet, Shamanka II and Shamanskii Mys (or Khuzhir) can be found. The Cis-Baikal area is a variable environment: the landscape, tempera-tures, fauna and flora all differ within several “micro-regions”(Weber & Bet-tinger 2010:492). Although there does seem to have been a shift in climate during the Holocene period, compre-hensive data on middle Holocene envi-ronments is lacking, so the paleoenvi-ronmental characteristics of the region will have to be extrapolated from mod-ern conditions (Weber et al. 2002:232; Weber & Bettinger 2010:494). Here, we present a general geographic overview of the Cis-Baikal region to provide the sites with environmental context.

The Cis-Baikal region is de-fined by its topography determined by the lake, rivers, and mountain ranges. The western shore of Lake Baikal, along with two rivers, comprises the borders of Cis-Bai-kal. The north westernmost limit of Cis-Baikal is the Angara river, which has its basin at the western tip of Lake Baikal and proceeds northerly to its drainage site at Ust’-Illimsk (Weber et al. 2002:232). Eastward-ly from Ust’Illimsk is Kirensk, where the Upper Lena River drains (Weber et al. 2002:232). Aside from the two mountain ranges (the Primorskii and the Baikals-ki) that characterize the northwest coast of Lake Baikal, the rest of the Cis-Baikal area is marked by rolling hills (Weber et al. 2002:232). Boreal forest (taiga) covers much of the central and southern areas of the region, including river valleys, the lake coast, the rolling hills and lower portions of the mountain ranges (Weber et al. 2002: 232). The aforementioned micro-regions are the Angara

River Valley, Upper Lena River Valley, the “Little Sea” (western Baikal lakeshore), and Southern Baikal. Our three sites of interest are located on, or near the west shore of Lake Baikal within the Angara River Valley and the Little Sea micro-regions. Cis-Baikal endures long winters (average of -26 degrees Celsius) and short summers (average of 20 degrees Celsius), and in be-

tween it sees long change-over seasons; however, the temperature may vary de-pending on proximity to the lake (Weber et al. 2002:234). Thermal energy is stored within the lake making the lake and the area surround-ing it moderately warmer throughout the year than areas that are further away (Weber et al. 2002:243). The amount of precipita-tion throughout Cis-Baikal also fluctuates throughout the various micro-regions. The Little Sea from the mid-dle to southwest of the area sees only an average of 160-190mm, whereas the north-west coast can experience up to 960mm annually (Weber

et al. 234).

The entire Baikal region has a very diverse terrestrial wildlife due to three different Eurasian fauna systems overlapping in the area (Weber et al. 2002:235). Some of the mammals that live in the area include: brown bear, wolf, boar, otter, ermine, hare, fox, moose and several types of deer. The marine life within the Little Sea and Angara River valley micro-regions share many of the same species because of the connection of the Angara River to Lake Baikal. As for marine life, it is likely that the aquatic resources of the lake and river systems have not undergone significant change due to climate change since the Holocene period (Weber et al.

Exploring the Environmental Background of Cis-BaikalBy Amanda Kaluza

Map of Cis-BaikalImage from Weber & Bettinger 2010

Background Image from scenery-wallpapers.com

6

2002:236). Pike, perch, roach and ide are several types of fish that oc-cupy shallow waters, while whitefish and grayling are found in open wa-ters (Weber & Bettinger 2010:493). Considering the possibility that the ecology has not changed drastical-ly since the middle Holocene, it is likely that Cis-Baikal offered a vari-ety of lush potential terrestrial and aquatic food resources for people in the area. There does not seem to be any shortage of archeological sites within the Cis-Baikal region. In fact, there are approximately 151 known sites in the area with most contrib-uting to the mortuary record (We-

ber & Bettinger 2010:492-493). The majority of known sites are concen-trated around the Angara River and the Upper Lena River. There is also a moderate amount of archeological sites located along the coast of Lake Baikal, specifically near Ol’khon Island found approximately in the middle of the west coast. Early Neo-lithic burial traditions are tied to a culture known as the Kitoi (Weber & Bettinger 2010:495). Generally, Kitoi culture is concentrated along the Angara, but one of our case study sites located at the western tip of Baikal Lake, Shamanka II, is also part of the Kitoi culture (We-ber & Bettinger 2010:495). Even

though there are only a handful of canid burial sites in the Cis-Baikal region, their rarity may speak to its cultural value for the Kitoi people. The amount of archaeological sites within the Cis-Baikal region may be able to provide a comparison be-tween the characteristics of canid and human burials.

Ol’khon IslandImage from 9wows.com

7

Cis-Baikal has been occupied by humans since the early Neo-lithic (Weber et al. 2011). There was one major gap in occu-pation around roughly 6800 BP for a period of approximately

1000 years (Weber et al. 2002). Within this time and region, three culture groups have been recognized. The first group, the Kitoi, oc-cupied the western shores of Lake Baikal in the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic. while the second and third groups, the Serovo and the Glazkovo occupied the area after the hiatus at 6800 BP from the Middle Neolithic until the Early Bronze Age (Weber et al. 2011; We-ber et al. 2002). This last occupation was slowly replaced by the em-igration of pastoralists from the surrounding areas of Mongolia and Turkey (Nomokonova 2010). Evidence for the subsistence patterns of the culture groups living in the area is predominantly based upon mortuary evidence, as very few village sites have been uncovered (Nomokonova 2010). As the focus of this article is to elucidate on the cultures associat-ed with graves containing canid remains, the cultures after the occupation gap of 6800 BP will be largely ignored. The Kitoi of the western shores of Lake Baikal will be the main focus of this article. The image that comes to mind upon mention of Siberia is that of a desolate tundra. However, Lake Baikal is situated in southern Siberia and is quite close to the border of Mongolia. The landscape gradually shifts from taiga forest to savannah-like as one heads north from Lake Baikal. Because of this diversity of landscape, a great many resources existed for the Kitoi to hunt and rely on. There were plenty of terrestrial animals for the Kitoi to rely on: red deer, roe deer, moose, reindeer, musk deer, boar, and Siberian mountain goat. Many ornaments found in the Lokomotiv site cemetery were made out of these materials. Pendants made of the teeth of marmots, musk and red deer were abundant(Weber et al. 2002:242). There were also a few head ornaments made out of boar tusks and even a unique antler diadem(Weber et al. 2002:242). For the Kitoi, however, the most important resources were aquatic. Dental analysis has show that the Kitoi had relatively small home ranges and that their diet was heavy in fish and sea mammals (Lieverse et al. 2007:327). The seals that are unique to Lake Baikal were an important part of Kitoi subsistence as evidenced by abundant fishhooks and harpoon points found in the majority of Kitoi burials (Lieverse et al. 2007:327). Most of the sites associated with the Kitoi are located along river mouths as close to aquatic resources as possible. Further dental analysis by Lieverse et al. (2007:336) also shows that the Kitoi had incredibly high physiological stress, possibly due to their great reliance upon fishing. The Kitoi peoples had very small home ranges. Their reliance on aquatic resources meant that they had to stay relatively close to Lake Baikal and the Angara River. This lack of range may be one of the factors that led to their disappearance from the archaeological record around 6800 BP. However, “The Wolf of Baikal” found in Lokomotiv was a true Tundra Wolf which were not native to the Cis-Baikal region. The uniqueness of this find may speak to the importance of canids in Kitoi culture. As evidenced by the elaborate and diverse artifacts made out of bone and antler the Kitoi may have had a rich symbolic relationship with the natural world.

Cultural ContextSubsistence Practices of the KitoiBy Peter Raskovsky

Depiction of Fish Hook ArtifactImage from Bazaliiskiy & Savelyev 2003

Depiction of Whale Bone ArtifactImage from Bazaliiskiy & Savelyev 2003

8

Domestication of Dogs

Human and canid burials are a fascinating sub-ject in an archaeological context, but in order to understand how they might have come

about, a look into the history of the relationship be-tween humans and canids is necessary. The role of the dog (or Canis familiaris) in today’s Western culture is more than just a working relationship; this is evident due to the fact that many people own dogs just as pets with no intentions of using them for work. The dog is popularly regarded as ‘man’s best friend’ and for many people this is most definitely true. Therefore, we see that the main role of this animal is a social one; we often consider ourselves bonded with them and treat them much as family members. How early did the relationship between man and dog develop? Through human-canid burials, we see evidence of a special relationship between these two species. We can try to understand this relationship by looking at the earliest evidence of domestication and how and why canids were transitioned into human culture. Domestication and domesticated are both terms which are hard to clarify in the literature and explanations vary from author to author. There are some consistent definitions though and one of the main theories is that, a domesticated animal will be

morphologically different from its ancestral popula-tion (Crabtree 1993:202). Such animals would also have behavioural differences with their ancestors and would be selected for more amicable behaviour and a tolerance for humans. (Saetre et al. 2004:198; Driscoll et al. 2009: 9972). Although tracing the route of domestication is extremely difficult, geneticists have traced the ancestor of the common dog to the wolf (or Canis lupus)(Olsen 1979:177; Driscoll et al. 2009: 9973). The original domestication of wolves is thought to have began in Eastern Asia, around 15,000 cal BP (Fiedel 2005:11). The domestication of the wolf began amongst human hunter-gatherer populations in the late Mesolithic and initially it would have been diffi-cult to distinguish wild and domesticated wolf and-dogs apart (Driscoll et al. 2009:9971; Saetre et al. 2004: 198). In early archaeological assemblages containing canid remains it can be hard to tell wolves and dogs apart. Researchers rely on a few traits to aid in identi-fication such as, small body size and tooth morphol-ogy (Crabtree 1993:228). Evidence of domestication is hard to see in the archaeological record beacuase much of the physical evidence does not preserve well. Often the canid remains themselves do not preserve, or domestic looking traits can occur for natural rea-

From Wild to Tame: How We Think Wolves Became Human’s Best FriendBy Krystal Groves

Domestic dog family tree.

From insciences.org

9

sons (Crabtree 1993: 217; Olsen 1979:176).

This takes us into a discussion of the actual physical remains of canids which have been preserved in the archaeological record as some of the earliest probable dog finds. Some of the earliest evidence for dog domestication comes from a site known as Bonn-Oberkassel, Ger-many, dated to around 14,000 BP. Here, the mandible of a European domesticated dog (Canis familiaris) was found in a double human grave (Crabtree 1993:229). In addition, there has been a recent discovery of two possible specimens that are dated to earlier than the Bonn-Oberkassel dog: Eliseevich 1 in the Dnieper basin of Russia contained two large, wolf-like dogs dating to between 13,000 and 17,000 BP. Researchers estimate that if these finds have been correctly dated, they would surpass the genetic estimate for the time of first canid domestication (Fiedel 2005:12). We can see that although the preservation conditions for speci-mens dating to these early periods are rare they can indeed survive, and as time goes on more and more will surely be discovered. Now that we have a brief background of both the process of domestication and the earliest ar-chaeological evidence of domesticated dogs, we can look into why these animals became so important to human culture. We can begin with what probably first attracted prehistoric peoples to wolves: Driscoll et al. (2009:9971) suggest that over time, wolves became less afraid of human settlements and began to scav-

enge camps. Eventually, wolves be-gan to provide a utilitarian use for humans. Furthermore, wolves are thought to ahve become guards to warn people of approaching danger in the form of other animals or hu-man groups (2009:9971). After this point, humans began to modify the behaviours of these animals to their advantage. Through this process wolves would have become use-ful for hunting, transport and an emergency food source, amongst many other probable uses (Fiedel 2005:11). There dogs would have played an important role in the transportation of game from the kill site and maybe even participat-ing in the actual hunt (Germonpré et al. 2013:789).

It is probable that the original purposes of canid domestication was for practical use but when we see proper canid burials it might

mean that something else is going on. Formal or ritual burial indicates a special relationship between dogs and people that goes beyond simple utilitarian con-siderations (Morey 2006). The internment of dogs is often portrayed in a way which mimics how humans bury each other. This practice signify more than just hygienically disposing of a body, but the possible intent to carry the animal into the afterlife (Morey 2006). Germonpré et al. state that the original act of domestication is evidence of an intimate relation-ship between the two species (2013:786). Dogs were also one of the first animals to be actively managed by people and so they represent a pioneering species in the evolution of the domestication process. Dog burials are found on virtually every continent in the world and the types of burials are highly variable, but nonetheless, these interments may mean that dogs were held in high regard in many human societies. From the evidence of dog burials in the archaeological record, we can infer that dogs have played an import-ant role for many people in different times and places around the world.

Top skull: “Wolf of Baikal,” the tundra wolf from Lokomotiv

Bottom skull: partially domesti-cated canid from Shamanka IIImage from Losey et al. 2011

Background image from Soman 2012 (nationalgeographic.com)

10

An Examination of Three Canid InhumationsBy Arielle Hofmeister-Bullick

The proceedings are a brief dis-cussion of the canid burials associated with the Lokomo-

tiv, Shamanka II and Shamanskii Mys cemetery sites.

Lokomotiv

The “Wolf of Baikal” was discovered by Russian archaeologists Bazaliiskii and Savelyev in 1995; it is the only intentional wolf burial ever found in the area (2003:28). The Lokomo-tiv archaeological site is the largest North-Asian, Middle-Holocene cem-etery of the Kitoi tradition (Losey et al. 2011:179). Located on the banks of the Angara River, which flows into Lake Baikal, Lokomotiv contains hundreds of burials, which boast rich and beautiful grave goods. These Ho-locene treasures include bone tools, pendants made of deer and fox teeth, and beautifully crafted antler sculp-tures (Bazaliiskii & Svelyev 2003:21-22). The lower section of the cemetery, named Ra-isovet, presented archaeologists with the beautiful, and intriguing burial of a single Canis lupus albus, or tun-dra wolf. Siberian Tundra wolves are one of the largest wolves in the world, weighing up to 55kg (120 lbs.), and are up to 1.45m in length (Bazaliiskii & Savelyev 2003:27). Their habitats are located in generally colder,

northern tundra regions. The “Wolf of Baikal” was the first body to be buried in the grave pit; the pit was reopened and used many times after for human burials (Bazaliiskii & Save-lyev 2003:28). Lying on its right side, the wolf ’s head was slightly arched, and its legs were flexed around a male human skull. Decapitation burials are not un-common for Holocene burials in the Baikal region, with most heads having been purposefully removed with only two vertebrae remaining (Bazaliiskii & Save-lyev 2003:27). Judging by the burial pit, archaeologists Bazaliiskii and Savelyev believe that the human head was buried with the canid at the same time (2003:27).

The wolf ’s grave also included a few burial artifacts such as bone needles and tools, as wellas a patch of ochre spread near the head of the wolf (Bazaliiskii & Savelyev 2003:27-28). Both the tundra wolf and the human skull were dated to between 7970 BP and 8320 BP, making this the oldest burial in the Lokomotiv cemetery (Losey et al. 2011:180).

Above: excavation of canid burial in Loko-motiv site. Image from Losey et al. 2011.

Left: schematic of Lokomotiv canid burial. Image from Losey et al. 2011.

Case Study

11

Shamanka II

The site of Shamanka II is located towards the south-west end of Lake Baikal. It is a smaller and younger site in comparison to Lokomotiv. The Shamanka II site hosts 96 graves, all of which contain human burials and are rich in grave goods such as ochre, bone tools, and ant-ler pendants (Losey et al. 2011:176). The site contains four different graves with canid bones or ar-tifacts, though only one boasts an entire skeleton. The single canid burial at Sha-manka II was exca-vated from grave 26; a grave that would be reopened and used several times after the canid was buried alone (Losey et al. 2011:176). Though the canid was identified as a male, the archae-ologists who excavated him did not provide the spe-cies or subspecies. The canid was placed on its right side, with its legs tightly flexed. Due the pit having been reopened and reused multiples times, there are up to five human individuals’ bones in different layers of the grave as well (Losey et al. 2011:176-177). This reopen-ing “jumbled” the cranial bones of the canid, but most were present in different levels of the burial (Losey et al. 2011:176). A number of bones were dated from the pit, providing a Holocene date of 7280 BP to 7425 BP (Losey et al. 2011:178).

Khuzhir or Shamanksii Mys

The Holocene cemetery of Khuzhir lies on Olkhon Is-land in Lake Baikal, and has only eleven graves (Losey et al. 2011:180). Burials tend to follow Kitoi traditions, as described at the Lokomotiv archaeological site. This is one of the younger Holocene cemeteries in the Bai-kal region, with a radiocarbon date of 6550 BP (Losey et al. 2011:180).

Khuzhir is a spectacular and unique burial, and contains one human and two Siberian husky (Canis lupus familiaris) inhumations. Buried simultaneously, the human male was laid down first, and then covered in a sewn birch bark sheet (Losey et al. 2011:180). On top of this, the two huskies were laid with their heads to the east on either side of the man, with grave goods

including lithics and antler tools (Losey et al. 2011:180) Unfortu-nately, no photographs of this site are avail-able, and the majority of information regard-ing these spectacular finds has only been released in Russian.

Left: excavation of Sha-manka II canid burial. Im-age from Losey et al. 2011.

Below: schematic of Sha-manka II canid burial. Im-

Background image from http://silicon2tanana.blogspot.ca

12

Comparison

Though these archaeological sites all share the aspect of at least one buried canid within the cemetery, the sites differ remarkably both in time and burial practice. Lokomo-tiv is the earliest canid burial in the region, and differs from all others as it contains a member of the sub-species Canis lupus albus, or tun-dra wolf, whereas the other sites mentioned contain members of the subspecies Canis lupus familiaris, or domesticated dog; the phenome-non of the “Wolf of Baikal” is yet to be explained.

Similarity can be found be-tween the cemeteries at Lokomotiv and Shamanka II (which date to approximately 8,000 BP and 7,400 BP respectively) in burial practice and grave goods, as their dates are closer together than that of Khu-zhir (approximately 6550 BP) (Ba-zaliiskii & Savelyev 2003; Losey et al. 2011). This early burial practice is known as Kitoi, characteristic of hunting and gathering peoples, also called the Kitoi, of the region in the Middle-Holocene. All of the buri-al sites contained lithic and antler tools and artifacts; the forest-steppe region of Cis Baikal is rich in deer

and elk species, which are vital to subsistence in the area. The most intriguing aspect of the earlier Middle-Holocene burials (Lokomotiv and Shamanka II), is that the canids appear to have been buried and honoured alone, and not as companions to humans as we see in the Khuzir burial. As twenty-first century dog-lovers, we tend to interpret these burials as loyal canids, which served their community well. This may very well be the case, as discussed below.

There is a lack of interpretation offered by each of the authors of the papers regarding these canid burials. The burials are presented more so as a

phenomenon without much cultural investigation as to their purpose. We propose that these three specific burials may present archaeologists with snapshots in time of the gradual domestication of the tundra wolf in the Cis-Baikal region. The temporal depth and spatial distribution of these sites provides a cohesive cultural narrative. The “Wolf of Baikal”, the oldest and possibly most fascinating of Cis-Baikal canid burials, has many peculiarities surrounding it which deserve an attempt at interpretation. According to Holocene climate re-constructions, the tundra wolf was not known to in-habit the Lokomotiv area at that time, but rather lived further north in the tundra (Bazaliiskii & Savelyev 2003:28). Bazaliiskii and Savelyev (2003:28) discuss the possibility of the “Wolf of Baikal” having been brought to the site by “human agency,” with a “very important

role in ancient society, [due to the fact that] it is very unusual for this animal to be buried in a specially cre-ated grave”. We believe that it is possible that wolves were a valuable social trade item for the people of the Cis-Baikal region; perhaps they were for ritual or func-tional purposes. According to skeletal information, the “Wolf of Baikal” was well taken care of, and subsisted with the Kitoi on local terrestrial resources from the region (Losey et al. 2011:180). Both the “Wolf of Baikal” and the canid of Shamanka II were granted individual, honoured buri-als complete with grave goods and the possible ritual spreading of ochre. Our interpretation of these intern-ments is that the canids may have served a highly im-portant purpose within the community, perhaps be-cause of their rarity within the region. The double husky burial of Khuzhir/Shaman-skii Mys is unique in that the two canids are buried intentionally with a human individual. The effort dis-played in this burial in the form of grave goods (such as

Our Interpretations on the Cis-Baikal Canid BurialsBy Arielle Hofmeister-Bullick

Background image from Warner n.d. (http://rosswarner.com/wolf.html)

13

a birch bark blanket and antler tools) and ritual place-ment of the canids may indicate a high social status of the individual. Our interpretation of the Khuzhir buri-al is that the male individual buried may have been a specialist within the community as a shaman, hunter, or even dog breeder as indicative of his grave compan-ions. No cause of death was provided by Losey et al. (2011) for the male individual and two huskies, thus resulting in a lack of evidence for the possible ritual sacrifice of the canids in this burial. We believe that the chronology of these individ-ual burial sites (Lokomotiv, Shamanka, and Shaman-skii Mys, respectively) displays a periodical timeline of canid domestication. The wild tundra wolf at ~8,000BP

in Lokomotiv, the canid at ~7,200 BP in Shamanka (which remains unclassified, possibly because it is nei-ther completely wild nor domesticated), and the two Siberian Huskies at ~6,550 BP in Khuzhir/Shamanskii Mys show a definite journey from wild to domesticated canids. We believe that if further archaeological inves-tigation in the Cis-Baikal area reveals more canid buri-als at different stages of domestication, it is possible that a clearer time line of the interaction between man and dog will form.

Image from Burr 2009 (http://dburr.blogspot.ca)

14

Conclusion

An environmental overview of the region gave us an idea of what the paleoenvironment may have been like for the Kitoi and what their relationship may have been like to the physical world. The subsistence patterns of the Kitoi cultural group would have varied broadly, which is evident in the exploitation of a variety of

mammals and important marine resources. Their tool kit, including elaborate organic tools, is suggestive of a highly resourceful people fully capable of utilizing their environment. The majority of the Kitoi culture’s subsis-tence evidence comes from their mortuary record. It is also within this mortuary record that valuable cultural information regarding canid burials may be found. These burials contain evidence of the Kitoi culture’s use of canids; an overview of the domestication process from wolf to dog was undertaken in order to place these find-ings into a broader context. Individual case studies of the canid burials at each site provided significant evidence for our theoretical interpretations and conclusions.

The high level of effort in the construction and ceremony of each of the canid burials, analyzed for the purposes of this project, may display significant social importance of canids within the community. In summary, we find that the chronological and spatial distribution of canid burials at the sites: Khuzhir, Shamanka II, and Lokomotiv provides an overarching view of the canid domestication process in the Cis-Baikal region.

Image from sweetmuskan.com

15

References

Bazaliiskii, Vladimir I., and N.A. Savelyev 2003 The “Wolf of Baikal”: the “Lokomotiv” Early Neolithic Cemetery in Siberia (Russia). Antiquity 77(295): 20-30.

Crabtree, Pam J. 1993 Early Animal Domestication in the Middle East and Europe. Archaeological Method and Theory 5:201-245.

Driscoll, Carlos A., with David W. Macdonald, and Stephen J. O’Brien 2006 From Wild Animals to Domestic Pets, an Evolutionary View of Domestication. PNAS 106(1):9971-9978.

Fiedel, Stuart J. 2005 Man’s Best Friend-Mammoth’s Worst Enemy? A Speculative Essay on the Role of Dogs in Paleoindian Colonization and Megafaunal Extinction. World Archaeology 37(1):11-25.

Germonpré, M., with V. M. Sablin, V. Després, M. Hofreiter, M. Láznicková-Galetova, E.R. Stevens and M. Stiller 2013 Palaeolithic dogs and the early domestication of the wolf: a reply to the comments of Crockford and Kuzmin (2012). Journal of Archaeological Science 40(1):786-792.

Lieverse, Angela R., with David W. Link, Vladimir Ivanovich Bazaliisky, Olga Ivanovna Goriunova, and Andrzej W. Weber 2007 Dental Health Indicators of Hunter–Gatherer Adaptation and Cultural Change in Siberia’s Cis-Baikal. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 134(3): 323-339.

Losey, Robert J., with Vladimir I. Bazaliiskii, Sandra Garvie-Lok, Mietje Germonpré, Jennifer A. Leonard, Andrew L. Allen, M. Anne Katzenberg, and Mikhail V. Sablin 2011 Canids as persons: Early Neolithic dog and wolf burials, Cis-Baikal, Siberia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30(2): 174-189.Morey, Darcey F. 2006 Burying key evidence: the social bond between dogs and people. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(2):158-175.

Nomokonova, Tatiana with Robert J. Losey, Andrzej Weber, Ol’ga I. Goriunova and Aleksei G. Novikov 2010 Late Holocene Subsistence Practices Among Cis-Baikal Pastoralists, Siberia: Zooarchaeological Insights from Sagan-Zaba II. Asian Perspectives 49(1): 157-179.

Olsen, Stanley J. 1979 Archaeologically, What Constitutes an Early Domestic Animal? Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 2:175-197.

Saetre, Peter with Julia Lindberg, Jennifer A. Leonard, Kerstin Olsson, Ulf Pettersson, Hans Ellengren, Tomas F. Bergström, Carles Vila, and Elena Jazin 2004 From wild wolf to domestic dog: gene expression changes in the brain. Molecular Brain Research 26:198-206.

16

Weber, Andrzej W., and Robert Bettinger 2010 Middle Holocene hunter-gatherers of Cis-Baikal, Siberia: An overview for the new century. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29(4): 491-506.

Weber, Andrzej W., with David W. Link, and M. Anne Katzenberg 2002 Hunter-Gatherer Culture Change and Continuity in the Middle Holocene of the Cis-Baikal, Siberia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21(2): 230-299.