UDK 903.5(497.11 )"633/634"
Documenta Praehistorica XXVI
"Neither person nor beast" - dogs in the burial practice of the Iron Gates Mesolithic1
Ivana Radovanovic
Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Yugoslavia I. Radovanovic® ai.sanu.ac.yu
ABSTRACT - Research into burial practices of the Iron Gates Mesolithic is here focused uf>on the dog burials and human burials associated with dog remains in the siles of Vlasac and Lepenski Vir. The analyses of these remains was undertaken in regard to the study of human-animal relationship in the Iron gates, especially thai of humans and canids. the canid domestication process, and the possible role of canids in the Iron Gates Mesolithic belief system, It was argued that canid-human relationship, as it is reflected by material remains both in the settlement and formal disf)osal areas, was varied and became more ambiguous at the time of contact with the Early Neolithic. Certain aspects of that relationship are firmly incorporated into a broader network of metaphors operating the worldvietc of the Mesolithic community.
IZV LEČEK - V članku se osredotočamo na raziskave mezolitskih pokopov psov v Železnih vratih in na pokope Ijtuli. ki so povezani z ostanki psov na najdiščih Vlasac in Lepenski tir Analize teh ostankov smo opravili z namenom, da bi raziskati razmerje med človekom in Hvatjo, še posebej razmerji-med ljudmi in psi. udomačevanje psa in njihovo morebitno vlogo v verskem sistemu mezolitskih Železnih vrat. Razmerje pes-človek se je. kot kažejo materialni ostanki v naselbini in na določenih odlagališčih, spreminjalo in je /mstalo bolj negotoiv v času stikov z zgodnjim neoliHkom. Določeni vidiki tega razmerja so trdno vpeti v širšo mrežo svetovnoiuizorskili metafor mezolitskih skupnosti
KEY WORDS - Danube Gorges; Mesolithic burial practices; human-animal relationship. domestication process; belief system
INTRODUCTION
This paper aims to explore the archaeological evidence of the practice of dog burials and placement of dogs or dog skeletal remains in human burials at Iron Cates Mesolithic sites (further: IGM). Interpretation of that evidence is based upon various associations of material remains within dieir immediate contexts. Possible associations of humans and canids over the course of time and the visibility of some of these in die IGM archaeological record are discussed.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF IGM BURIALS WITH CANIDS OR HI MAN CVNID ASSOCIATIONS
There are only four grav es containing canids and/or human-canid associations, and compared to the total number of human burials within formal disposal areas of the IGM. they represent only a small, statistically almost negligible fraction - They w ere recorded at the sites of V lasac (three grav es) and Lepenski Vir (one grave), situated on the right bank of the Danube in the Upper Gorges (Srejovic 1969: Srejo-
1	I wish to thank M. Budja for inviting me to cover the topic of dog burials from the Iron Gates Mesolithic perspective - a topic neglected in ray previous studies of funerary rites of the area. A characterization of the dog being neither person nor beast" Ls bor rowed front J Serpell s (1995.254) inspiring essay on the ambiguous nature of the dog's role in various societies.
2	The total number of human burials in the IGM is 68". and that of burials associated with dogs represents only <).S8"i. (Radota-noric 1996.161) However, the mentioned total number now differs in regard to results of the re-analysis of skeletal material from the right bank of the Danube ( Roksandic In prep fiers enm ) and to recently discovered buriaLs at one of the IGM sites, Schela Cladm ei (Hotmail ft at 1997). As no additional burials associated with dogs were reported on these occasions, their number for now remains unchanged
101
Ivana Radovanovič
Fig. 1. Map of the Iron Gates Late Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Early Xeolithic sites (after Radovanovic and Voytek 1997).
site (Radovanovic 1996.210). This burial also belongs to the later type of the IGM formal disposal areas and could be related to the Vlasac II settlement phase, although attribution to phase III is a possibility (Srejovic and Letica 1978.62, Radovanovic 1996.358). According to Srejovic and Letica, the deceased was extended on his back. »1th his right hand placed across his left on the pelvic area, and with his legs extended. A stone-lined construction could be observed along both sides of the body, w ith a larger stone covering the head. An animal mandible fragment w as recorded upon the chest of the deceased.
Skeletal analyses describe the human as a 53-59 year old man, w hile the animal mandible is that of a dog.
Burial Xo. 27 (Fig. 3)
Recorded in the upstream, western part of the settlement (sq. b/18) in the location that seems to have been reserved for burials since the initial establishment of a formal disposal area at Vlasac. The burial was placed above an area previously used for a number of interments around house 2 (belonging to the Vlasac I phase and interpreted as a possible structure related to funerary practices). Although that structure collapsed long before the No. 27 interment, it is obvious that this location itself maintained the role of a formal disposal area, for it was used repeatedly over a long time span. According to
tic & Letica, 1978, Zoffmann 1980) (Fig. I). All four canid grav es belong to the late phases of the local Mesolithic, dated between the mid-seventh and mid-sixth millennium BC (Radovanovic 1996.289). Thus, all four represent IGM burials in settlements which are contemporaneous with the first Early Neolithic settlements in the region (Radovanovic 1996a). They are described as follows.
Vlasac (phase II and III)
Burial Xo. 25 (Fig. 2)
Recorded at the very end of the downstream part of the V lasac terrace (sq. C/1V). perpendicular to the course of the river, the head tow ards the rear of the
O
Fig. 2. Burial Xo. 25. Vlasac (after Srejovic and Letica 1978).
72
-Nclh»r person nor beast" - dogs in me burial practice ol (he Iron Gales Mesotuhic
Srejovic and Letica (1978.62), burial No. 27 belongs to phase II of the Ylasac settlement although also, possibly, to an early phase III* According to the results of neutron activation analysis, these skeletal remains are dated later, to 5650±50 BC (Radovatio-tic 1996367).
By the burial's prevailing attributes, it belongs to a later type of IGM formal disposal area (Radovatio-lic 1996206, 215-217). Its position in relation to Structure XI above it is similar to the relation of Y lasac I burials (in the central part of the settlement) to the circular stone constructions of Ylasac II erected above them. Therefore, in this case as well, it could be assumed that the grave has some meaningful association with the structure erected above it.
No traces of a burial pit were noted at the time of excavation. Skeletal remains are perpendicular to the course of the river, with the head facing the rear of the site4 (Radownovic ¡996.206). Srejovic and letica (1978.62) reported that the human deceased was laying extended on his back with his right arm across his waist and left arm placed in the secondary position below the rib cage and left hand in the pelvic area. Hie legs were extended, but the right leg was placed across the left one. below the knees. A fragment of animal mandible was recorded just next to the right knee.
According to the skeletal analyses, this human was a 51-57 year old male, while die animal mandible was that of a dog.
Burial jVo. 81 (Fig. 4)
Unfortunately, the evidence for this burial is deficient. Burial No. 81 was recorded in the rear of the upstream, western part of the Vlasac terrace, in the periphery of the prehistoric settlement (sq. d/15). It is perpendicular to the course of the river, with the feet facing the rear of the site and the head facing the river, although unfortunately, the head and upper parts of the body remained unexcavated. This burial belongs to the later type of IGM formal disposal areas (Radovanoiic ¡996.206) and to the Ylasac II phase in terms of settlement stratigraphy (Sre-
o
Fig. 3. Burial No. 27. Vlasac (after Srejovic and Letica 1978).
jotic and Letica ¡978.62. 64). The human s legs are extended, while an animal skeleton, buried parallel to the course of the river with the head pointing dow nstream. was recorded not far from the feet of the deceased. No traces of a burial pit or stone lining were observed.
tica 1978).
j li was uncovered below Siructure XI dated to Vlasac phase III Structure XI was erroneously labeled as Structure X in the original publication about V lasac {comfHire jigs. 25.39. 40 ami 49 in Srejovic c- Mica 1978). Unfortunately, I repeated the same error in illustrations for my book (seeJigs. 339 and344b in Radtnunovic 19961 In my opinion, grave No. 27 already belongs to Vlasac 111: the very same location in sq b/18 contains Structure IV (belonging to Vlasac II) unearthed at 64.78 m above sea level; the noted, more substantial Structure XI (Vlasac III) was found between 65,70 and 65,50 m above sea level, while Burial No. 27 was interred below it at 65,30 m, and thus could be contemporaneous or roughly contemporaneous with Structure XI (see also Rado-i anoric 1996.353-3 4 On grave orientation patterns in the IGM see Radovanovic 1996.167.
73
Ivana Radovanovič
Skeletal analyses have shown that burial No. 81 belongs to a woman older than 23. while the animal skeleton is that of a dog. According to a field sketch (Fig.-i). the dog's skull and neck are missing. They are also missing in Bokonyi s list of measurable bones related to that skeleton (1978.51-55; data forsq., d 15. e.l. IX). One could assume that the skull was not found due to extremely bad preserv ation conditions, but since the postcranial bones were rather well preserved in this case, and since skull bones - especially the teeth and mandible - are usually better preserved than the rest of the skeleton, it could also be assumed that this dog's head was removed before its burial
Dog burial was clearly practised in the IGM. Only in this case, it remains uncertain whether this dog was buried in its own right, or in association with the woman in burial No. 816.
Lepenski Vir I (phase 3)"
Burial No. 70 (Fig. 5)
The secondary disposal of human bones (femur, ribs and an ulna) and an animal mandible were uncovered slightly above the floor' in the rear of the hearth belonging to house 32. House 32 is placed in the rear of the settlement, and according to the site's stratigraphy and its structural properties, it belongs to the latest phase 3 (or Srejovic's phases d-e) of Le-penski Vir I. It is placed in Location 14. which was repeatedly used during phase 3 of LV I (superimposed houses 66, 20.33, 32, see Radovanovic 1996 108-110. fig. 90). An aniconic altar was placed at the rear of house 32's hearth (Radovanovic 1996
table 33). Six signs/supporters'8 are situated alongside the right border of the hearth, and one is placed left of the rear axis of the hearth, just left of the altar (Srejovic & Babovic 1983177).
The human bones belong to a 35-55 year old man, while the animal mandible is that of a dog (Radovanovic 1996.185, after Zoffmann 1983 and field documentation).
The immediate context of these burials implies that humans and clogs in the IGM had some kind of relationship which was at least not an indifferent one. In three cases, the placement of a dog mandible w as recorded w ithin burials of men. In one case, the con-
Fig. 5. House 32 containing burial 70. Lepenski Vir (after Srejovic and Babovic 1983).
5	The practice of disarticulatkHt/muulaikm of interred bodies was observed in human burials of ihe later type in the IGM. xeneral-ly prevailing among women and children. Those with missing skulls, i.e., headless, an* children (burials iîi 21. and 7 - all in the same location within the formal disposal area, Radovanovic 1996206-210. 218). Vlasac male burials such as No.3 (fragments of a skull found in the cultural layer. Srejovic and Letica. 197863), No. lb (a skull associated with burial 17: Radovanovic 1996.216), and No. i3 (a skull without the mandible placed within a grave structure, Snyovic and Letica. 197863) are not postcranial remains, while Vlasac female burials "1 and 73 are indeed postcranial remains, but with lower jaws recorded and thus excluded from the headless' category, as I erroneously listed them in 1996207-8. 210).
6	However, a possible association with the human burial, i.e.. within the same grave, seems to be rather improbable in this case This dog certainly lies close to the woman's feet, but mit close enough: if they were really buried together in the same grave, the spatial disposition of their skeletal remains would have been more compact (see figure t).
" The phases are labeled according to my reinterpretation of the Lepenski Vir site stratigraphy {1996.104-H4).
8 "Stone plaquettes arranged in the form of the letter A were variously interpreted either as the supporters for the construction above the hearth (Jovanovii) or signiflers which stood for the dead members of the family from that house (Srejovic) They seem to stand as the construction supporters in some cases only, when they are arranged symmetrically around the hearth, but in many cases they are arranged only at one border of the hearth, or asymmetrically, or in unequal number at both sides, or just one of them, so that Jovanov ic s assumption remains to be verified. Srejovic s assumption that these were signs is more plausible, although it is not clear w hether the greater number of these signs in later IV houses really coincided w ith the introduction of burials below the houses and in the house floors In regard to their predecessor the human mandible (Snyovic 19692-73. 140-141. Radoai-novic 1996 134) and in view of my comments on the mandibles at the end of this paper. Srejovic s assumptions seems to he closer to their actual meaning, in that they were primarily symbolic and not constructive elements."
74
•Neither person noc beast' - dogs in the burial practice of the Iron Gales MeaoMhic
trusting hurial of a headless' dog may possibly he associated with a woman buried in a nearby grave.
No traces of other grave goods were recorded in association with any of the noted burials. A formal grave construction w as visible in only one case (Ma-sac burial No. 25). The relation of burials to dwelling structures was noted in two cases (Ylasac burial 27 and Lepenski Yir burial 70). All human burials contained direct interments except for the Lepenski Yir secondary interment of a man s femur, ribs, and ulna.
Another consideration should be made here in regard to the chronology of these burials. Both Ylasac and Lepenski Yir I burials belong to the late type of formal disposal area in the IGM. Two Ylasac burials with canid remains are characterised by a generalised pattern of man animal mandible association (Radovanotic in pre/?.) and the third one is the noted exception - a headless' dog burial. All the mentioned Ylasac burials appear to fall within the second part of the Ml millennium BC. F.vcn if they are related to the Masac III phase (i.e., closer to the turn of the VII/VI millennium), they still might be earlier than Lepenski Yir burial No. 70 (belonging to the latest horizon of phase 3 in LY I).
However, the spatial and temporal discontinuity of human/canid association in burials does not appear to be that significant if these burials are analysed w ithin a somewhat broader context of human/animal, i.e.. human/animal mandible associations. As already noted, the later type of IGM funerary practice is marked by a placement of human or animal skulls and human or animal mandibles^ within graves (Radovanotic 1994; 19%; but in greater detail in: Radovanovic 1996b 20. Table 9). All human and animal skulls and animal mandibles are associated w ith either direct or secondary burials of men. while human mandibles seem to be associated with women and children. Animal skull or mandible remains are always associated with men, and it was therefore assumed that they are somehow related to hunting activities, especially because the men buried with such remains are found to belong to adultus and nuiturus age categories (with the exception of one juvenilis), i.e.. those expected to engage in such activities (ibid ). For this reason, the canid skeletal remains associated w ith men's burials should be considered a part of the more general category of an ani-
mal-man. or more precisely, an animal-hunter relationship. However, 1 am not inclined to think that all aspects of the human/canid relationship in the IGM should be interpreted in terms of some generalization about hunters and their "faithful dog companions' and I shall try to explain why I think so in the course of this paper.
HUMAN/CANID RELATIONSHIP IN THE IRON GATES
Several interpretations of the human canid relationship in the IGM are possible. But first I would like to review a number of important general issues in regard to the human/canid relationship, in particular that of the human/wolf. Ecologically, these two species would appear to stand in a relation of rivalry , for both hunt the same repertory of game w ithin a variety of niches (Fax 1978.25; Sharp 1978.77; Ciutlon-Brock 1994.25). In terms of social biology , both are marked by complex patterns of behaviour. They are social hunters, who, apart from hunting, perform all other actions within the social group -the band and pack, respectively - w hich operates within a marked territory (Hall 1978: Peters 1978. 95-96. Peters 1979.I35ff; Peters and Mech 1978. 134; Mech 1970 68[f: CUitton-Brock 1995.8). Both species are aware of each other's presence in the same niche (or territory ); both are aware of each other's behav iour and its impact on practically the same staple food resources (Mech 1970.8). Human awareness of animals (including that of wolves) and an understanding of their relations may. of course, be well illustrated by various mythical narratives and scientific reports (Ingold 1994). An understanding of the w olf s awareness of humans ts more difficult. It may. however, be discerned through analyses of the cognitiv e abilities of wolves and their impact on various aspects of its social behaviour (Mech 1970; Fax- 1975; Klinghammer 1979; Hall and Sharf) 1978) and, especially, of the changes in that behaviour, the most profound of which relate to the so-called domestication process.
The results of these analyses led many scholars to assume that during the Pleistocene of Eurasia, humans and wolves established a relationship which was not exactly a symbiosis, but rather a sort of alliance (Clutton-Brock 1994.25). It is in this frame-
9 Animal hones (unidentified) were uncovered in male graves at early Masac (one case) and Lepenski V ir I (two rases), and in chit drens graves in Lepenski Y ir I (two cases). Antler is recorded in mate graves of early Ylasac (one case) and later in Lepenski Vir
I (four cases), hut it is associated with women only in Lepenski Vir It (four cases)
75
Ivana Radovanovič
work of alliance that I shall further analyse my data, trying not to focus exclusively on the benefits that these two species may have gained in terms of their successful subsistence on a daily survival basis.
The contexts of human/canid relationships in the IGM could be broadly examined as:
•	Human and wolf
•	Human and tamed wolf
•	Human and dog
Human (hunter gatherers) and wolf
The remains of wolves in the Iron Gates sites that precede the Mil millennium BC are recorded in the Cuina Turcului rock-shelter w hich was used by mobile hunter-gatherers both in its earlier stratum (XIII millennium BP) and in the later one (XI millennium BP) (Radovanovic 1996.321 with further reference). The percentage of wolf bones, compared to other species hunted and brought to the camp, is rather low. but still (statistically) higher than the percentage recorded in later Mesolithic settlements in die Iron Gates (Radovanovic ¡996.52-55 with references). In Cuina Turcului I. the wolf ranks in third place in the faunal record, although far below the wild boar and beaver. It also holds the third place in stratum II, far below the chamois and aurochs. A question may be posed as to whether diese wolves (MM 2 and I, respectively) were killed as rivals over prey, or whether dtey were hunted for food and fur. That these haphazard remains belong to wolves killed for interfering w ith human hunters in capturing and/or dismembering game is not very probable because wolves would rather wait until human hunters leave the kill spot (Mech 1970.8; Cat-lin ¡989.257). Social-biological and ethnographical observations show that both prey and hunting strategies of the human and wolf may be similar and overlap in the same territory, but as Sharp (¡978.7778) notes, their approach is different, and rivalry is thus more of an indirect than a direct struggle. Wolves generally avoid close contact with humans, especially when it could lead to conflict. They tend to re-
main close to their dens or rendezvous area during the day and are fully active during the night (Zitnen andBoitani ¡979.63). Mech (¡970.6-7, 292Jf) observed diat the wolf is aggressive only in three cases: when harassing prey, when meeting strange wolves, and when protecting its offspring. If wounded, the wolf is more inclined to act as if it expects help from man rather than act aggressively in defense.10
The incidence of wolf remains is also low during the early IGM (VIII- mid Ml millennium BC) at Icoana. Masac and I'adina A (MM 10 or below it).
However, such remains are not recorded at all in the late IGM (mid V II to MI/VI millennium BC transition). They reappear in the very late Padina B settlement in the first half of the VI millennium and later in the fully Neolithic settlement of Starčev o ty pe at Lepenski Vir. The low frequency of w olf remains in both the Early Mesolithic and Neolithic and their absence in the late Mesolithic is probably just a consequence of sample randomness and lack of identifiable and measurable bones. Be that as it may. there is an apparent disinterest in capturing wolf as prey in both the mobile and sedentary camps and settlements (Bokonyi ¡978.5!. Clason 1980.150; Radovanovic 1996.53-54). If hunting for wolf fur was practised, one would perhaps expect a larger amount of wolf remains on the IGM archaeological sites. How ev er, the animals could have been skinned immediately at the kill site. In this case, no archaeologically visible traces of such an activity would be expected within camps or settlements'1. Unfortunately, av ailable data on the state of wolf bones in the IGM sites do not reveal whether they were eaten on such occasions. Bokonyi (¡978.50) mentions the complete lack of wolf bones of matu-rus and senile age. However, if only fur was brought into the camp or settlement and the animal was left behind at the kill site, perhaps the wolf w as not regarded as an acceptable food. Such an interpretation is even more plausible if we consider certain aspects of human behav iour toward fully domesticated ca-nids, dogs, which are already present in the IGM
10	Reports of wolf attack on humans in modem times seem lo imply thai in all cases the attach were by rahid wolves (Mech 1970.289-294). Human perception of the wolf as a villain dates hack only to the beginning of animal husbandry , w hen livestock became an object for wolves to attack (Mech 1970.298) Such a derogatory perception is thus highly improbable for the IGM hun ters and gatherers, although it could have been present m its later phases (since die late Ml millennium BC) due to contact widi Neolithic communities m the neighbourhood. The ethnographic record also appears to confirm that hunter-gatherers did not )H-r-ceivc wolves as bloodthirsty aggressors (Stephenson mid .ihgook I9"5.288)
11	Ethnographical evidence also suggests that prey (including wolves) could have been given special treatment idler death. For exam pie. the native American Cree suspend bones and carcasses of certain animals on trees (in regard to their beliefs on those animals reincarnation and regeneration), so thai such remains are never left scattered around the ramp to be gnawed or eaten by dogs or other animals (Briglitnmn 1993 117-119; 1.12-1.13).
76
~Nclh0' person nor beast ' - dog* W tho burial practce o) the Iron Galen Mesolithc
from the firsi half of the \ II millennium. These dog remains are mostly fragmented, hearing traces of contact with fire, as well as engravings and gnaw marks (Clason I980.150for late Ylasac, PadinaA and B and Lepenski Yir /-//)'-.
The remaining issue deserving attention is that of the possible human perception of wolves at that time. Ethnographical evidence for small-scale societies such as those of mobile or sedentary hunter-gatherers describes human attitude toward wolves primarily as one of respect (Stephenson and Ahgoofc /975. 288; rax 1978.26; Hall &Sharp 1978.xiii). Our data do not contradict a possible similar attitude toward wolves in the IGM. Both humans and wolves in the Iron Gates shared the same interest in their main prey, the red deer'*. As mentioned above, hunting approaches and strategies of both humans and wolves were such that they were not direct competitors, so that direct mutual struggles over game can generally be excluded. Their relationship can be described as either one of mutual tolerance or alliance, as Clutton-Brock put it. or that of the kind described in the ethnographical record. Ethnography also notes that other animals were equally treated with respect and trust (Brightman 199.il0.iif: '»gold 1994.1516: Serpell and Paul 1994.130-131 with further references), even if. and often precisely because, they were hunted as prey. Respect for the wolf must therefore derive from the perception of particular aspects of its behaviour as v alued or desirable in a particular human societyThis behaviour could be desirable both for an individual (i.e.. hunting skill, respect for intragroup hierarchy) and for the group (advantages of social hunting). It is in this respect that the wolf may have attained the role of metaphor, a metaphor that could most straightforwardly express particular ideological norms (Tiller 1999 49). Thus, the process of canid incorporation into human society could have started with the introduction of the wolf as a metaphor, i.e.. within the domain of the belief system of a particular society .
A process of metaphorical incorporation of animals into human society can be generally traced throughout the t'pper Palaeolithic, back to the appearance of anatomically modem humans (Mithen 1999.99). Nor is there any reason to argue against such a metaphorical role for the wolf, bearing in mind the overall social and ideological complexity of the groups belonging to the IGM and illustrated by v arious aspects of their material culture (Radovanovic 1996 with further references). The wolf w as experienced not only as a part of human society's environment but also as an integral part of the society's worldview.
My assumptions concerning the human/wolf relationship in the IGM can be summarised as follows:
I. The wolf was probably experienced as a metaphor that could help maintain certain ideological norms related to both individual and group social behaviour of humans. Its metaphorical role w as probably expressed through a variety of symbolic representations, none of which, however, are directly observable in the IGM archaeological record to date.
1. Wolves were probably hunted for their fur. They could have been skinned at the kill site, hut their other remains were not brought to the settlement, or, if they were, they were not eaten or allowed to be eaten by other animals. Archaeological evidence of wolves in the IGM is generally scanty. However, the scantiness of the record may be evidence in itself of human attitudes toward wolves, as proposed abov e. Hunter-gatherers could experience and at the same time justify ' hunting for the wolfs fur within the noted metaphorical' framework.
3. Far less probable is that wolves were hunted as competitors over game. They could be skinned for fur on such an occasion, but were still not eaten.
1J If wolf bones were In a similar condition. I would suppose that the authors of the IGM faunal remains analyses would have at
least mentioned It. for it is clear that gnaw marks on hones did not escape their attention 13 The- wolves hunt their preferred prey cooperatively: as a rule. Iheir preferred prey are ungulates larger than themselves (Sutli ran t97S.jt) such as deer, reindeer, moose and musk ox. In the Iron Gates and its hinterlands, large ungulates also captured by humans were bison, elk. wild horse (all three species present until the beginning of the Hokweiie - probably related to the fcpf palaeolithic and very Early Mesolithic), wild ass (only since the Atlantic climatic period - Its remains are found in Neolithic settlements), aurochs and red deer (continually over the millennia). In contrast to aurochs, humans in the IGM (Radotmmic 1996 52-54) hunted red deer very intensively
11 This interpretation is partly in line with Brightnians, i.e., that human foragers economic, technical and ritual practices related lo animals cannot be fully understood if one neglects the consideration thai the foragers w ere experiencing the animals as "social others" in his discussion of the matenalisl and symbolic dichotomy. Bnghtman points out that the issue is not recognition of the necessity of signs but rather the position taken on the relationship betw een social meanings - in structure, ideation, and practice - and their material coordinates" (Brightman 1993.1-2, 324).
77
Ivana Radovanovič
Both archacological and ethnographical records strongly oppose the notion that the IGM community perceived the wolf as a direct rival or an enemy.
This pattern of the human/wolf relationship in the IGM would have remained unchanged from the preceding Late Palaeolithic period. The contexts of human, tamed wolf and human/ domesticated canid relationships are discussed below.
Human (hunter gatherers) and tamed wolf
According to both social biological data of wolves and the ethnographical record, there is only one instance which might enable the appearance of a tamed wolf: the capture of a wolf pup at a certain age and its upbringing within a human environment It is impossible to tame an adult wolf, and if such an attempt is made, it would only take place in laboratory' conditions of modern times, as an experiment with the intent but dubious pros|>ects of success (Mech 1970.9-II; Serpellandjagoe ¡995.83). Let us consider when the mobile or sedentary hunter-gatherers could, and why at all they would, capture and keep a wolf pup.
When
Wolves breed once a year in wintertime, when their packs are in a concentration' phase; the pups are born in springtime and kept in dens that are dug several weeks before that, during the pack's dispersal phase (Sharp ¡978.66). According to Mech's data (¡970.143). tlie pups do not leave the den at all before they are three weeks old. and abandon it finally when they are two months old, living from then on with the pack in temporary rendezvous sites. By the time the pups are three months old. they are already socialised, having established strong and complex bonds with their parents, litter mates and other members of the pack (Mech 1970.10). If this primary socialisation were to take place within a human environment, it would be accomplished according to the same genetically predisposed pattern of behavioural changes during the pup's development. 'Iliese changes would lead to an establishment of strong bonds with humans, as they would otherwise have lead to the establishment of strong bonds with the wolf pack.
This socialisation process allows approximately a 10-week period in the summertime, when it is possible
to capture a wolf pup capable of exhibiting behaviour perceived as agreeable' (and today labelled xs 'tamed') in respect to its human surroundings'\ The capture's location would be either the den or its immediate vicinity w ithin a fixed period of six w eeks (when the pup is between 2 and 8 weeks old), or at the rendezvous area during a four week period (when the pup is between 8 and 12 week old. at the very end of the primary socialisation period).
Once captured, the pup would have to Ik* kept alive and offered the kind of food that it would be capable of consuming. It would be impossible to maintain a pup without milk, which is its critical food resource in the first month of life, while pre-digested food (i.e.. regurgitated by the parents or other members of the wolf pack) is critical for one to four month old pups (Mech 1970.139. 143-144). The only milk available in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer community would be that of breastfeeding women. Indeed, ethnographic evidence records a large number of examples of infant animals (wolves included) that were suckled at the brexst alongside human infants (Serpel and Paul ¡994.130; Serpell 1996.6465 with further references).
Pre-digested food needed in the next critical feeding stage could effectively have been replaced with cooked food, which w as undoubtedly prepared and consumed at lexst since Late Upper Palaeolithic times.
However, a tamed wolf pup (a pup with a strong social bond established with its immediate human environment. instead of that with other wolves,6). will maintain an agreeable behaviour only until it reaches aduldiood (22 months). After reaching adulthood, the tamed wolf would remain with humans only if the indiv idual was marked by a specific agreeable' character. This specific character should dominate its other behavioural traits that could either encourage the young wolf to rejoin die pack, or discourage the humans from tolerating it in their camp (Clutton-Brock 1995.10).
Thus, wolves could remain in human camps after reaching adulthood only if they exhibited very specific individual behavioural traits. If such docile' wolves had an opportunity to breed among themselves, in isolation from wolves outside the human camp (Coppinger and Schneider 1995 36). and if they had depended on food given by humans (a
15	Pups would prohahly not survive if raptured during their neonatal phase, i.e., before they are two weeks old.
16	Tlie same three month deadline" for successful primary socialization is also observed for dog pups (Serf.wll andJagoe 1995).
78
'Neimer person no» beasf - dogs in me bunal pfadice ol the Iron Gates Mesolrthic
diet which is not exclusively based on raw meat and bone), then a morphological change in these wolves would have occurred after several generations. Notwithstanding the importance of the change in diet, it should be emphasised that a decisive role in morphological change is played by the factor of breeding isolation from the wolf pack. Needless to say, such isolation is very difficult to envisage in regard to the mobility of Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers and in regard to the tamed wolf s behaviour when it reaches adulthood. Such isolation is more likely to be envisaged in the case of sedentary hunter-gatherer camps, although it would still be very difficult to imagine how that isolation could be maintained {A. C'hoyke. pers. comm.). Taking into account the v ariability of behaviour among individual wolves (some could he more docile, some more sociable, some more aggressive, etc.), this isolation would have to mean that the particular wolf, marked by a particularly tame character, remained in the human camp after reaching adulthood and raised its offspring among humans. Further breeding of such tame wolves would consequently result in the preservation of "docile behavioural traits in their offspring17, and. after several generations, would also result in morphological change.
It is impossible palaeontologically to differentiate tame and wild wolf remains. In certain I pper Palaeolithic European sites, wolf skeletal remains are sometimes, albeit very rarely , marked by morphological changes such as a smaller skull and teeth crowding (Bokonyi 1989.25; Clutton-Brock 1995.10: Eriksen 1996.119-120). It could be assumed then that under very specific conditions noted above, tamed wolves could have been kept in I pper Palaeolithic camps, and that several generations of such wolves could possibly live with humans for some time, the length of that time depending on a particular hunter-gatherer community's settlement logistics and on the degree of interference with wolves outside the camp.
Why
These conditions immediately open the question of why wolf pups would be captured at all and why they would be allowed to participate in -food-sharing activities" in the human camp. I would argue that pups were not captured purposefully , but rather because they were either found abandoned alone in the den or temporarily left in the rendezvous area
when the adult wolves were away from it (Mech 1970.144-145). i.e.. under conditions when they were most vulnerable. Many pups of different ages could thus occasionally have been brought to human camps, but only those being less than three months old would eventually behave agreeably, i.e., appear to be tamed'. The practice of pup capture could be described at least as a random one, whose purpose was not taming, but rather saving vulnerable wolf pups. Tame behaviour would be more a matter of coincidence - the pup saved when less than three months old would socialise with humans in the same way that it would have socialised with members of its own species. The question of why the wolf pup would be brought into human camps was often raised in dealing with explanations of the origin of dogs. A number of scholars accept the pet theory' as the explanation of taming and domestication of animals in general (Serpell 1989: 1996). Tills theory is attractive, but, in my opinion, wolf pup adoption by humans could only be explained in terms of the wolfs experience in a particular hunter-gatherer society, as proposed earlier. The interest in pup adoption would arise precisely from the existing alliance between humans and wolves that I tried to explain as initially metaphorical in character. One can assume that it was almost a duty to adopt and raise the abandoned offspring of wolves (whether it was a metaphor for the skilled hunter. the wolf ancestor or something else, one can only imagine).
The label tame thus seems rather unsatisfactory in the case of wolves. The tamed wolf s agreeable or friendly behaviour toward the humans who raised it and its possible subsequent friendliness even after rejoining the pack (Henshaw et al. 1979339-341) is a part of the wolfs behaviour as a species, and not the result of purposeful human interference.
Such behaviour on the part of the wolf, after being raised in a human environment and especially after remaining in the human camp during adulthood, would certainly have reinforced its role as a metaphor. It would also have consequently reinforced die status of those individuals who adopted the wolf, or the status of the human group that these individuals belonged to.
It could be assumed that both wild and tame wolves were a part of the same metaphor, and, in this way, firmly incorporated into the particular society's
17 Coppinger and Schneider (1995.26) explained that behaviour is "inherited not in the sense thai ii is the result of a gene product, but inherited in a sense that behaviour is a consequence of, and limited by. the animal s morphological, and physiological structures '" See also Belyaev's experiment in taming foxes (ibid., p. 37: Betyaev ami Trul 1975).
79
Ivana Radovarvovič
worldview and belief system. Tamed wolves could, in addition, be physically incorporated into human society for a limited period of time.
In summary, tamed wolves could be raised in hunter-gatherer camps under the minimum following conditions:
1.	If the wolf pups were caught at a particular age.
2.	If the wolf pups could be kept alive on the food appropriate for their growth (milk and food which could replace pre-digested food).
3- If the wolves were incorporated within the belief system of human society, being experienced as "social others" and as metaphor.
All these conditions seem to have been met in the KIM. since in spite of the absence of archaeological-Iv observable traits, the practice of wolf taming is implied by palaeontological evidence on domestication of the local wolf population at Ylasac (Bokdnyi 1978.38.0) But before I return to this question, let us examine the evidence for the human/dog relationship in the IGM.
Human: hunler-gatherers - (anid: dog
Apart from the earlier described finds of four burials at Ylasac and Lepenski Yir. dog remains in the IGM are recorded at Viasac, Padina, Lepenski Vir and Ilajducka Vodenka (Radomnoiic 1996.57 with references). The earliest dog to date has been found at Viasac (Bokdnyi 1978.38). it dates to the first half of the MI millennium BC. The large sample of identifiable dog remains (MM 160) at Viasac prompted Bokonyi (1978.39-43) to postulate its origin from the local wolf subspecies'. The dogs' skulls are described as belonging to a "running dog type., its size ranging between that of a large Mittelschnautzer and a medium Collie' and "entirely different from dog skulls from the Early Neolithic (Koros-Starievo complex of Southeast Europe of the so-called palu-stris ty pe domesticated in another region (e.g. Near East)". The V iasac type of dog skulls differ from the palustris type in that the brain case more closely resembles that of the wolf, w hile the position of the teeth resembles that of Mesolithic dogs found in other pans of Europe (Denmark, England and South Germany). This ty pe of skull is also found in Lepenski Vir and Starcevo sites, but together with a number of skulls belonging to the smaller-size and more gracile paiustris bread w hich is allegedly of south-
ern origin. Clason's (1980) data on Padina dogs do not reveal whether they w ere of the Viasac or paiustris ty pe or both. However, the majority of dog bones at Padina are collected in its latest settlements (V II/VI and first half of the VI millennium BG). Both Viasac and Padina dog bones were often, as noted above, scorched by fire and marked by traces of carving and gnawing.
It could immediately be noted that the record on dogs and human behaviour towards them in the IGM differs considerably from that toward wolves and/or tamed wolves. The wolf remains are altogether scanty and it was inferred here that the wolf was not hunted either as a rival over game or in order to be consumed as food. If it was caught for fur, it was either skinned and its carcass left on the kill site, or, if carried back to the human camp, it could be skinned and its carcass treated with respect, i.e., removed in such a way that it was not exposed to the scavenging of other animals such as dogs and pigs - which were present in IGM settlements since the first half of the VII millennium BC. The wolfs scantiness in the faunal record is here explained by a particular behaviour of humans tow ard the wolf, which resulted from experiencing it as a metaphor. This interpretation of its metaphorical role in human society may be further reinforced by data which imply that tamed wolves undoubtedly lived alongside humans in the IGM. for if they did not, the dogs found in IGM settlements of the first half of tiie VII millennium BC would have exhibited morphological traits different from those that point clearly to their local origin. Ylasac dogs have their origin in the local wolf population, which means that a number of generations of tamed wolves must have been bred in the IGM settlements. As I have explained earlier, the taming of w olv es, in my opinion, would not have been possible if the wolf was not experienced as a metaphor, if it was not incorporated into the IGM society's ideology.
In all probability , the wolf still maintained its specific metaphorical role at the time w hen its domesticated cousin became a permanent dweller at IGM settlements.
The human attitude toward dogs, as suggested by the deposition of faunal remains, was quite the opposite of that toward w olves in a few respects. On the one hand, the dog w as often eaten and its remains were not removed from the settlement, but left to be scavenged by other animals, including other dogs. Only from the second half of the VII millenni-
80
"Nerthe< person nor beasl' - dogs in tne faunai practice ol the Iron Gates Mesolithic
um BC could one expect u change in how humans perceived the dog, implying that it also became a metaphor. At this time, the material representation of the metaphor is preserved, it is archaeologically visible - dog remains, restricted to lower jaws only, were found, as described above, in the graves of men. They could be view ed in terms of a solid' metaphor (Title? 1999.264).
The change in human attitudes toward dogs as observed in the IGM could he examined from several angles. Chronologically, this change falls within a period of first contact with Early Neolithic groups, and this contact was confirmed in many other aspects of IGM material culture (Radovanovic 1996a. 41-42; Radovanovic and Voytek 1997.26) in the second half of the Ml millennium BC. In terms of the local evolution of the dog population, the lapse of time between the appearance of the first Vlasac dogs and the appearance of their remains in human burials would be long enough to allow the process of purposeful breeding and upbringing of work (hunting and/or guard) dogs. This process could undoubtedly have been triggered or accelerated by the introduction of the Neolithic' palustris ty pe of dog into the IGM. Hie faunai record actually implies such an introduction, since both the local Vlasac and the ¡Htlustris type of dog existed con-currendy in both the late IGM as well as in the local Early Neolithic. For now it remains uncertain whether the introduction of the palustris dog led to interbreeding with local dogs, or whether the local dog w as selectively bred as a work dog even before that. Be that as it may. die appearance of the palustris dog in the IGM coincides with the local community 's new perception of the dog as a species 18 However, this perception was altogether an ambiguous one. Dogs were eaten, their remains were scattered around the camp, their bones gnawed by-other animals. At the same time, dog remains were placed in human graves, and it should be noted once again that it was their mandibles that were chosen to be placed in these exclusively male graves.
I consider the mandible as a metaphor, which was related to some kind of more general category in the IGM belief system (Radovanovic in prep ). The more general category of mandible had a meaning that was associated with both dogs and men. or as Tilley (1999.50) puts it, a frame for its referential extension' w as provided. Thus, dog remains in the burials
of men and the scattered remains of dogs in the settlement could have reflected two quite different meanings. The overall perception of dogs by the IGM community seems to have been burdened by at least two contrasting meanings, and that ambiguity of the human perception of dogs has also been recorded in many different places and in different prehistoric and historic periods (Serpell 1995 with further references). Serpel (/995.254) notes that "in symbolic terms, the domestic dog exists precariously in the no-man's-land between the human and non-human worlds. It is an interstitial creature, neither person nor beast, forever oscillating uncomfortably between the high status animal and low status person". The dog (as a species) was physically incorporated into human society and the status of each individual dog depended on how strong its bond w as with indiv idual humans. In contrast to the dog. the wolf as a species was metaphorically incorporated into human society, its physical incorporation being possible only in the case of individual 'tame' wolves. Dogs both shared die destiny of the human community that kept them, and the destiny of human indiv iduals to which Uiev were attached. Some were eaten, as in the case of the IGM and a large number of ethnographic examples, although pet dogs (those attached to particular humans) seem to have been killed only for sacrificial purposes (Cat-lin 1989.224, Serpell 1989.14; 1995.248-250). Ethnographic evidence also confirms that dogs were given ceremonial burials (Serftell 1989.12-13). Archaeological evidence, especially from the Mesolithic, is rather straightforward in this respect (BelferCohen 1995 ! I; Thorpe 1999.17, 67. 83; Boyd 1995. 21; Larsson 1989.218-220; 1989a J73- 374; Tilley 199635; Bradley 1998.26-27; Schidling 1998).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The three men's burials at Vlasac and Lepenski Vir, each containing a dog mandible, obviously do not fall into the category of the dog's proper' ceremonial burial, but they are equally important in understanding some aspects of the Mesolithic belief system. The remaining burial described at the beginning of this paper is the Vlasac burial of a decapitated dog. w hich is the only IGM proper dog burial. As already noted, the unclear record of that burial does not allow a discernment of whether the dog was decapitated and buried in its own right, or
IK It would be interesting u> see whether the palustris introduction has anything to do with a supposed 'expanded exogamous breeding network" of the IGM in the contact period with Early Neolithic communities (Radovanovic atul Voytek 1997.29).
81
Ivana Radovanovič
whether it is related to a woman's burial in its vicinity. The deposition of a headless dog close to the legs of the buried woman at Ylasac closely resembles the placement of a headless dog across the lower legs of a woman in grave Mil at Skateholm II (Larsson 1989a. 373-374. Tiller 199635).
In his comment on southern Scandinavian dog burials, Tilley (¡996.65) argued that the dog. as the only domesticated animal living and eating with humanity. would be a highly ambiguous and anomalous creature, a kind of potential mediator between the two worlds of humans and animals, acting as an agent for the transference, through the hunt, of animal life-forces into human powers."
The IG.M record, however, implies that further distinctions could be made within such a metaphorical and dearly ambiguous role. Placement of mandibles in male graves at V lasac and Lepenski Vir could probably be interpreted along the lines of Tilley s argument. that it was a metaphor for certain beliefs related to hunting, but other possible meanings should not be excluded. The Ylasac dog burial, w hether it w as isolated or related to die woman buried close to it implies yet another metaphorical role for the dog, which is not related to ideas maintained in respect to hunters and hunting, but rather to die human settlement itself. The peripheral position of this dog's burial in relation to the settlement and formal disposal area may imply its role as a guard dog, and moreover its role as a metaphor that could reinforce an idea of maintaining order in the world as it was
perceived by the local foragers, comprised of both the actual world and the mythical world of the ancestors. Both the IG.M and later Scandinavian Mesolithic communities had reason to ensure that their world was well encapsulated from the different way of life and different values of their Neolithic neighbours. The existence of Mesolithic/Neolithic contact and its consequences is another point of similarity betw een the IGM and the South Scandinav ian Late Mesolithic. notwithstanding their chronological and geographical distance.
In regard to the ambiguous symbolic meanings associated with the dog. perhaps it should be explored beyond the dichotomy of person::beast or domestic: :w ild. Dog remains scattered around the settlement show not only that they were eaten, but also that they were not paid any special respect (since their Inmes were left to be scavenged). 1 assumed in my earlier discussion on the relation of humans to wolves in the IGM that wolves had a special animal status in view of the scarcity of their bones on sites, apparently disproportionate to the probable actual capture of wolves for furThe dog did not replace the wolfs role as metaphor in die IGM belief system, whatever the metaphor's precise meaning.
As stated above, dog mandibles in hunters burials in the IGM are assumed to be related to the dog's role in hunting. However, in the broader context of IGM funerary practices, and in view of various associations of human and animal mandibles to burials and architectural remains, some other probable mean-
Flg. 6. Location of burials associated uith dog remains in the I lasac IIIII format disposal area (after Kadoranovic 1996).
19 There also are some other hone scarcities' in the IGM which need lo be re-examined along these lines, such as those of beluga and perhaps auroch (Radoranoric 1996.53-54, table 2.9; 199789).
82
NcMnor person nor beast' dogs in the Omlal practice ol trw lion Gales Mesohmic
Fig. 7. locution of house 32 in Lepenski lir (phase i) (after Kadoianoric 1996).
ings could also be discerned (Radoranoric I996h). For instance, if only an association of burials and mandibles is considered, one can see the following associations and oppositions: man::dog mandible and woman::man mandible. Woman::man mandible is noted only in Ylasac. Man::dog mandible is noted at Ylasac and Lepenski Yir. At Lepenski Yir it is in fact man secondary burial::dog mandible associated with the rear of the hearth in house 32 (phase 3). On the other hand, it must also be noted that all burials associated with dogs at Vlasac (including the burial of a woman with a decapitated dog burial nearby) are oriented perpendicularly to the river's course in contrast to the then already prevailing orientation parallel to the river. A further observation is that nun-dog mandible burials are placed with the human head facing the rear of the settlement, similarly to the rare burials in a sitting position found elsewhere in the IGM (and one in Vlasac, too). Their position and orientation on the steep Ylasac terrace may imply that they are. in a manner of speaking, watching over the entire settlement. It can further be observ ed that each of the man-dog mandible burials is placed at the extreme ends of the settlement: one is at the furthest point upstream and another is at the furthest point downstream (Fig. 6). The man-dog mandible burial in house 32 at Lepen-
ski Yir is also placed at the very rear of the settlement. Such a position may further reinforce the interpretation that these burials symbolised guarding (Fig. 7). In regard to the female burial, it is also oriented perpendicularly to the river, but her head is pointing toward the river. The orientation of the grave is thus the opposite of that of the men. However, the dog burial by her legs marks the rear of the settlement boundary.
Thus, the man-dog mandible association could be interpreted as not necessarily related primarily to hunting. but also, as in the case of the proper' dog burial. to guarding both the settlement and the ancestors buried within it. In view of this interpretation, one could question whether the dog in the IGM is really placed only in "no-man's land between person and beast (Serpelf) or between the human and animal world (Tilley). The dog's place could also be that of a guardian, on the border of and communicating between the actual and the ancestral world of the IGM. and perhaps also on the border of the IGM world and that of their Neolithic neighbours. Therefore, the association human burial + dog + human burial location + human burial orientation suggests meanings of encapsulation and protection of a worldvievv. On the other hand, the dog mandible
83
Ivana Radovanovič
and decapitated dog suggest the presence of a number of other referential extensions', which act as point metaphors (Tiller 1999.266) in the IGM belief system's framework, or even better, of the network. a concept I explore elsewhere (Radovanovic in prep.).
In summary, the human/canid relationship in the IGM reflects different attitudes toward wolves on the one hand and dogs on the other. Although there would have been no dogs if the wolf had not been tamed, both the dog and the wolf seem not to have been experienced in terms of the biological continuity of the process of domestication in the Early Me-solithic. The wolf probably maintained a metaphorical role that dated back to Upper Palaeolithic times. It would probably be more appropriate to ascribe the ambiguous meaning of 'neither person, nor beast' to wolves (and some other animals), for they were integrated into the vvorldview of foragers as unthreat-ening. social others'. The metaphor of the wolf would have acquired a threatening' connotation only after animal husbandry had been well estab-
lished. The attitude tow ard the dog was entirely different. It is also ambiguous, but it is ambiguous in the same way that perhaps the attitude of humans to other humans might be. The dog. as a species, is physically entirely incorporated into the human world, and each dog's treatment was largely dependent on its particular relation with humans; its dog status depended on the strength of its developed bond with humans. Some dogs were considered as pets and friends or as good work (hunting or guard) dogs, and the ethnographical record is explicit in that such dogs were not eaten except for sacrificial purposes in some societies. As a rule, a pet dog - a friend - is not eaten ev en in cultures where dogs are bred as a food resource (SerpeU 1995248-249). But other dogs that did not gain such a status probably were. The metaphorical role of the dog is generally similar to that of the wolf in that it is related to certain aspects of its behav iour valued as desirable in a particular human society, and as we have seen, this was probably the case in the IGM also. However, the content of the dog and wolf metaphors was entirely different.
REFERENCES
BELFER-COHEN A. 1995. Rethinking Social Stratification in the Natufian Culture. The Evidence from Burials. In Campbell S. and A. Green (eds.). The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near Fast: 9-16.
BELYAEV 0. K. and TRUT L. N. 1975. Some genetic and endocrine effects of selection for domestication of silver foxes. In Fox M. W. (ed), The WildCanids, their Systematics, Behavioral Ecology and Evolution: 416-426.
BOKÔNYI S. 1978. The Vertebrate fauna of Vlasac. In Srejovic D. and Letica Z. (eds.), Vlasac tvl. llgeo-logija biologija-antropologija: 35-65.
1989. Definitions of animal domestication. In Clut-ton-Brock J. (ed.). The walking larder. Patterns of domestication, pastoralism. and prédation: 22-27.
BONSALL C. etal. 1997. Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in the Iron Gates: a palaeodietary perspective. Journal of European Archaeology 5(1): 50-92.
BONSALL C. (ed.) 1989. The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium. Edinburgh 1985.
BOYD B. 1995. Houses and Hearths. Pits and Burials: Natufian Mortuary practices at Mallaha (Eynan), Upper Jordan Valley. In Campbell S. and Green A. (eds ), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East: 17-23.
BRADLEY R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments, On the shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. Routledge. London and New York.
84
•Neither person nor beast' - dogs in the burial practice of the Iror Gales MesoMt-c
BRIGHTMAN R. a. 1993- Grateful Prey. Rock Cree Human-Animal Relationships. University of California Press, Berkeley.
CAMPBELL S. and GREEN A. (eds.) 1995. The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East: 9-16. Oxbow Monograph 51.
CVTLIN G. 1989. (1832-1839). North American Indians. edited and w ith an introduction by P. Matthiessen. Penguin Nature Library, Penguin Books, N. Y.
CLASON A. T. 1980. Padina and Starčevo: Game, Fish and Cattle, Palaeohisloria XII. 141-173
CLUTTON-BROCK J. 1989. Introduction to domestication. In Clutton-BrockJ. (ed.), Ihe walking larder. Patterns of domestication, pastoralism. and preda-lion: 7-9.
1994.	The Unnatural World: Behavioural Aspects of Humans and Animals in the Process of Domestication. In Manning and J. Serpell (eds.). Animal ami Human society. Changing perspectives: 2335.
1995.	Origins of dog: domestication and early history. In J. Serpell (ed ), The domestic dog. its evolution, behaviour, and interactions with (H'o-ple 7-20.
CLUTTON-BROCK J. (ed.) 1989. the walking larder. Patterns of domestication, pastoralism. and preda-lion.
COPPINGER R. and SCHNEIDER R. 1995. Evolution of working dogs. In Serpell J. (ed ). The domestic dog. its evolution, behaviour, and interactions Willi people: 21-47.
ERIKSEN B. V. 1996. Resource Exploitation. Subsistence Strategies, and Adaptiveness in Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene Northwest Europe. In Straus L. G. et al. (eds), Humans at the End of the Ice Age. The Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition: 101-128.
FOX M. W. 1978. Man. Wolf, and Dog. In Hall R. and Sharp H. S. (eds). Wolf and man, evolution in parallel: 19-30.
FOX M. W. (ed.) 1975. The Wild Can ids, their Syste-matics, Behavioral Ecology and Evolution.
HALL R. 1978. Variability and Speciation in Canids and Hominids. In Hall R. and Sharp H. S. (eds ), Wolf and man. evolution in parallel. 153-177.
HALL R. and SHARP H. S. (eds.) 1978. Wolf and man, evolution in parallel.
HENSHAW R. el al. 1979. Experimental Release of Captive Wolves. In Klinghammer E. (ed ). The Behaviour and Ecology of Wolves: 319-345
INGOLD T. 199-1. From trust to domination. An alternative history of human-animal relations. In Manning A. and Serpell J. (eds.). Animal and Human society, Changing /ters/Hrtives: 1-22.
KLINGHAMMER E. (ed.) 1979. The Behaviour and Ecology of Wolves. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Behaviour and Ecology of Wolves held on 23-24 May 1975 at the Annual Meeting of the Animal Behaviour Society in Wilmington. N.C.
LARSSON L. 1989. Big Dog and Poor Man. Mortuary Practices in Mesolithic Societies in Southern Sweden. In Larsson T. B and Lundmark H. (eds ). Approaches to Swedish Prehistory. A spectrum of problems and perspectives in contemporary research: 211223.
1989a. Lite Mesolithic settlements and cemeteries at Skateholm, southern Sweden. In Bonsall C. (ed ). The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium, Edinburgh 1985:367-378.
LARSSON T. B and LUNDMARK H. (eds.) 1989. Approaches to Swedish Prehistory, A spectrum of problems and perspectives in contemporary research. BAR International Series 500.
MANNING A. and SERPELL J. (eds.) 1994. Animal and Human society. Changing perspectives.
MECH L. D. 1970. The Wolf the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. The Natural History press. Garden City. New York.
MITHEN S. 1998. The Supernatural Beings of Prehistory and the External Storage of Religious Ideas. In Renfrew C. and Scarre C. (eds.), Cognition and Material Culture: the Archaeology and Symbolic Storage: 97-106.
85
Ivana Radovanovič
(ed.) 1998. Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory.
PETERS R. 1978. Communication, Cognitive Mapping, and Strategy in Wolves and Ilominids. In Hall R. and Sharp II. S. (eds.), Wolf and man, evolution in parallel 95-107.
1979. Mental Maps in Wolf Territoriality. In Kling-hamraer F.. (ed.). The BehaiHour and Ecology of Wolves: 119-152.
PETERS R. and MECH L. D. 1978. Scent-marking in Wolves. In Hall R. and Sharp H. S. (eds.), Wolf and man. evolution in parallel: 133-147.
RADOVANOVIČ I. 1994. A Review of Formal Disposal Areas in the Mesolithic of Europe. Starinar XLIII-XUV (1992-1993): 93-102.
1996.	The Iron Gales Mesolithic. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 11. .Ann Arbor.
1996a. Mesolithic/Neolithic contacts: a case of the Iron Gates region. Poročilo o raziskovanju pa-leolitika, neolilika in eneolitika r Sloveniji XXIII: 39-48.
1996b. Some Aspects of Burial Procedure in the Iron Gates Mesolithic and Implications of Their Meaning. Starinar XLVLI 9-20.
1997.	The Lepenski Vir Culture: a contribution to interpretation of its ideological aspects. Antido-ron Dragoslavo Srejoiic completis IXVannis ad am ids. cotlegis, discipulis oblatum: 87-93■
in prep. Art of the Lepenski Vir Culture: Iconography. Ideology and Belief Sy stem of the Mesolithic Community (VHI-Y'I millenium BC).
RADOVANOVIČ I. and VOYTEK B. 1997. Hunters, fishers or farmers: sedentism, subsistence, and social complexity in the Djerdap Mesolithic. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29:19-31.
RENFREW C. and Scarre C. (eds.) 1998. Cognition and Material Culture: the Archaeology and Symbolic Storage.
SCHULTING R. 1998. Creativity's coffin: Innovation in the burial record of Mesolithic Europe. In Mithen
S. (ed.). Creativity in Human Evolution and Prehistory: 203-226.'
SERPELLJ. 1989. Pet-keeping and animal domestication: a reappraisal. In Clutton-Brock J. (ed.). The walking larder, Patterns of domestication, pastoral-ism. and predation: 10-21.
1995. From paragon to pariah: some reflections on human attitudes to dogs. In Serpell J. (ed ). The domestic dog, its evolution, behaviour, and interactions with people. 245-256.
19%. In the company of Aninuds. A study ofliu-mati-animal relationships. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
SERPELL J. and JAGOEJ. A. 1995. Early experience and the development of behaviour. In Serpell J. (ed.), The domestic dog, its evolution, behaviour, and interactions with people: 19-102.
SERPELLJ. and PAUL E. 1994. Pets and the development of positive attitude to animals. In Manning A. and Serpell J. (eds.). Animal and Human society, Changing perspectives: 127-144.
SERPELLJ. (ed.) 1995. The domestic dog, its evolution. behaviour, and interactions with people.
SHARP H S. 1978. Comparative Ethnology of the Wolf and the Chipewyan. In Hall R. and Sharp H. S. (eds.), Wolf and man. evolution in parallel: 55-79.
SREJOVIČ D. 1969. Lepenski Vir: Nova praistorijska kultura u Podunavlju. Srpska Književna Zadruga. Belgrade.
SREJOVIČ D. and LETICA Z. (eds.) 1978.1lasac. vol. I: Arheologija, vol. IIgeologija-biologija-anlropolo-Xifi
1978. \ lasac - mezolitsko naselje u Djerdapu. In Srejovič D. and Letica Z. (eds ), Vlasac. vol. /. I-170.
SREJOVIČ I) and BAB0V1Č L. 1983. Umetnost l^fwn-skog Vira. Jugoslavija. Belgrade.
STEPHENSON R. 0. and AIIGOOK R. T. 1975. The Eskimo hunter's view of wolf ecology and behavior. In Fox M. W. (ed.), The Wild Canids, their Systematica. Behavioral Ecology and Evolution: 286-291.
86
•Neither person nor beast' - flops in tho buiat practice ol the Hon Gaies MescMtnc
STRAUS L. G. et aI. (cds.) IWi Humans at the hut of the Ice Age. the Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition.
SULLIVAN J. 0. 1978. Variability in the wolf, a group hunter. In Hall R. and Sharp II. S. (eds), Wolf and man. evolution in parallel: 31-40.
TILLEY C. 1996. An Ethnography of the Neolithic, Early prehistoric societies in southern Scandinavia. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Blackwell Publishers. Oxford.
THORPE I. J. 1999. The origins of agriculture in F.urope. (2nd edition). Routledgc. London and New York.
Z1MEN E. and BOITANI L. 1979. Status of the Wolf in Europe and the Possibilities of Conservation and Reintroduction. In Klinghammer E. (ed.), The Behaviour and Ecology of Wolves: 43-83-
ZOFFMANN K. Z. 1983. Prehistorical skeletal remains from Lepenski Vir (Iron Gate, Yugoslavia). Homo 34: 129-148.
87