
Study Looks at Why Neolithic Humans Buried Their Dogs with Them - pseudolus
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/people-buried-their-dogs-them-4000-years-ago-180971502/
======
revskill
There's no answer to the "Why" question to be found here.

~~~
chrisseaton
> some Paleolithic humans regarded some of their dogs not merely
> materialistically, in terms of their utilitarian value, but already had a
> strong emotional bond with these animals

> ancient humans found the animals to be important enough to stay close to
> even in death

They buried their dogs with them because their dogs were important to them,
for the many reasons listed in the article.

I'm not sure what more explanation you're looking for - you're not going to
get a more definitive explanation of the thought processes someone who's long
dead are you?

Also the headline says that a study is looking at it. They didn't claim to
have a clear answer.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
You quote them giving precise and definitive answers, then say they can't give
them. They can, and seemingly have given such answers, just entirely
unscientifically.

>They buried their dogs with them because their dogs were important to them,
for the many reasons listed in the article.

Or, they kept excess puppies as food, and buried food with bodies; or they
considered the animals to be tools and thought they'd be useful in the next
life.

Nothing they mention seems to imply, nor require emotional attachment.

The food angle seems weird, if you don't make any effort to procure different
food then doesn't that show less attachment; only feeding the animal any
excess (for example) seems less attached than preparing a specific diet.

~~~
simonh
>Or, they kept excess puppies as food,

We’d find knife marks on dog bones at their refuse sites, from the butchering
process, and dog proteins in their faeces. That’s how we know a lot of ancient
populations practiced cannibalism.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>We’d find knife marks on dog bones at their refuse sites //

Are you saying we don't; that's kinda fascinating because I'd expect all
creatures with pelts to be skinned if found recently dead, or killed (eg for
mercy, food, ritual).

>"Samuel Belknap III, a graduate research assistant working under the
direction of Kristin Sobolik in UMaine’s Department of Anthropology and
Climate Change Institute, found a 9,400-year-old skull fragment of a domestic
dog during analysis of an intact human paleofecal sample.

>"The fact that the bone was found in human waste provides the earliest proof
that humans in the New World used domesticated dogs as food sources.

>"“This is an important scientific discovery that can tell us not only a lot
about the genetic history of dogs but of the interactions between humans and
dogs in the past,” said Belknap. “Not only were they most likely companions as
they are today, they served as protection, hunting assistants, and also as a
food source.”" ([https://phys.org/news/2011-01-oldest-domesticated-dog-
americ...](https://phys.org/news/2011-01-oldest-domesticated-dog-
americas.html)) //

~~~
simonh
For specific cultures I'm not familiar with I have no idea, but people can and
do eat dog meat. I'm just saying such questions are not purely in the realm of
unverifiable speculation as there is specific physical evidence we can look
for. My wife is Chinese from Hohhot and used to have a taste for it, though
not so much these days.

------
ggm
Anyone who watched UK Channel-4 "time team" will know the answer, whatever it
is, will be "ritual"

------
rossdavidh
So, is it just me, or are they dancing around the obvious suggestion from the
evidence, that when someone died they would kill their dog and bury it with
them? Perhaps because a strong bond with a dog sounds good, and "kill the dog
when the owner dies" does not sound as great.

------
lurquer
Maybe they buried the humans with the dogs. That would be creepy.

------
NeedMoreTea
I'd suggest most dog owners would think it's bleeding obvious why.

We might do so today except there's bound to be a regulation against that, and
modern society has a very odd relationship with death.

------
infradig
I haven't read the article. As a dog owner my assumption is there was a
special trained bond between human and his dogs. They would have been
impossible to handle after his death anyway so they would have been killed and
buried along with him.

