Environmental influences on the construction of human-dog relations: Insights from Northern Mexico and the North American Arctic

Abstract

For centuries, dogs have played an integral role in human lives, serving as companions, protectors, food sources, and many other roles. However, their ultimate perception was highly predicated on the social, ideological, and environmental circumstances of the cultures they lived in. Through analyzing canid faunal remains, ethnographies, and ethnohistoric depictions of dogs this paper aims to compare dogs’ roles within Northern Mexico and the North American Arctic, two regions with vastly different environments. By utilizing a cross-cultural approach and examining the similarities and differences in dogs’ treatment within the study regions, we argue that environmental factors cannot be discounted when analyzing the development of human-dog relations.

Keywords

dogs environment cross-cultural analysis ontology North American Arctic Northern Mexico

Introduction

Human-animal relations are inherently dynamic in nature, and in recent years archaeologists have started to explore alternative approaches to shed light on anomalous patterns that deviate from traditional models of understanding. Archaeologists must recognize that ancient societies functioned in radically different conceptual worlds, often informed by exposure to differing environmental conditions and previous work (e.g. Bethke and Burtt, 2020; Demuth, 2021; Harris et al., 2020; Hill, 2018; Laugrand and Oosten, 2002; Laurich, 2021; Losey et al., 2018; Monagle and Jones, 2020; Morey, 1994, 2010) discusses these concepts. This paper aims to highlight the benefit of cross-cultural comparison in examining how environmentally predicated activities such as subsistence strategies affect individual and collective ontological perspectives regarding domestication through examining human-dog relations in Northern Mexico and the North American Arctic. Environment in this sense creates the foundation for exclusive interactions between humans and animals in a domestic and subsistence context, and thus consideration of environmental contexts contributes to our understanding of natural and spiritual ties between humans and animals over space and time. By comparing how radically differing environments influence the development of subsistence practices which, in turn, shape human-dog relations in these two regions, we aim to pose new perspectives of how archaeological, ethnographic, and ethnohistoric evidence correlate to ontology through a cross-cultural approach.

Northern Mexico

The cultural influence of both the American Southwest and Central/Southern Mesoamerica within Northern Mexico has diverse archaeological perspectives. In the early 20^th century, work in Northern Mexico, namely the state of Chihuahua throughout the Casas Grandes region, identified cultural links between Chihuahua and the American Southwest, classifying the region as the southernmost limit of Pueblo culture (Kelley, 2017; Phillips, 1991). By the mid 20^th century, expanded archaeological research, specifically at the site of Paquimé in the northwest of Chihuahua, modified traditional perspectives on the placement of this region within the limits of Puebloan culture. Charles Di Peso (1974) argues that the material culture present at the site that represents the region’s cultural and religious foundation was largely influenced by Mesoamerica, due to the arrival of Mesoamerican “pochteca” long distance traders (Nelson et al., 2015). Di Peso’s model of Mesoamerican influence in the Casas Grandes region is subject to both critiques (Lekson, 2009) as well as support (Riley, 2005). In recent decades we have seen the inclusion of core/periphery models (Whalen and Minnis, 2001) that emphasize understanding relations between the core of Casas Grandes and influences from the Southwest and Mesoamerica.

The Casas Grandes region of Northern Mexico encompasses a diverse range of geographic zones throughout the modern states of Chihuahua and Sonora such as the coastal lowlands of Sonora, high-rugged mountainous elevations of the Sierra Madre Occidental mountain range, and the Northern Interior Drainage Basin which provides seasonal drainage to temporary lagunas (Garvin and Kelley, 2017). According to the Köppen-Geiger climate classification, the states of Chihuahua and Sonora have both arid desert and arid steppe climates (Beck et al., 2018). Annual temperature and precipitation are variable and include higher annual temperatures in the geographical basin (16–18°C), and lower temperatures in the mountainous regions to the west (∼10°C) (Garvin and Kelley, 2017). Vegetation mainly consists of grasses, low shrubs, and cacti (Garvin and Kelley, 2017).

We draw primarily upon evidence of dog burials that coincide with two temporal ranges, the Viejo Period and the Medio Period of the Casas Grandes culture. The Viejo Period, ranging from around 700 CE to between 1150 and 1250 CE, is often characterized by smaller pit-house structured communities utilizing “de temporal” agricultural practices (Di Peso, 1974; Kelley, 2017; Kelley and Searcy, 2015). Viejo Period occupation is identified primarily throughout the northwest corner of the modern state of Chihuahua. Additionally, individuals throughout the Viejo period supplemented the cultivation of domesticated plants such as maize, beans, and squash with garden hunting practices (Kelley, 2017). The Medio Period (1200–1450 CE) marks a shift in architecture to include adobe-room blocks over traditional pit-house structures, and more diverse ceramic designs (Kelley and Searcy, 2015). Agricultural practices extend into the Medio Period, with the inclusion of large drainage systems to supplement agricultural expansion, continued smaller scale garden hunting practices of small mammals such as rabbits and hunting of larger mammals such as white-tailed deer (Hodgetts, 1996; Kelley and Phillips, 2017; Nelson et al., 2015).

North American Arctic

The Thule culture was a hunter-gatherer group that spanned from northern Alaska, across Inuit Nunangat (Arctic Canada), and into Greenland and is ancestral to the modern-day Inuit (Friesen, 2017; Maxwell, 1985; Whitridge, 2016). The Thule culture began in Alaska in approximately 1000 CE, migrated to Inuit Nunangat around 1250 CE and eventually transitioned to modern Inuit (Friesen, 2017; Friesen and Arnold, 2008). The Thule primarily focused on hunting and lived a semi-nomadic lifestyle with seasonal movements to procure various faunal resources (Whitridge, 2016). Winter camps were characterized by semi-subterranean houses, with groups transitioning to lighter skin tents in the warmer months (Whitridge, 2016).

The North American Arctic environment poses unique challenges due to its aridity, low temperatures, permafrost and ice coverage, lack of vegetation, and low biomass. According to the Köppen-Geiger climate classification, Nunavut and northern Alaska have a polar tundra climate with summer air temperatures between 0 and 10°C, with some areas occupied in Alaska also classified as having a continental climate with no dry season and cold summers (Beck et al., 2018). Due to the temperatures in these regions, vegetation mainly consists of shrubs and lichen, although some coniferous trees grow below the 68^th parallel north (Brandt et al., 2013). The Arctic marine ecosystem includes bowhead, beluga, and orca whales, walruses, narwhals, several seal species, fish, and polar bears (Harington, 2008). Caribou were the most important terrestrial animals to the Thule along with muskox and smaller animals such as foxes, hares, voles, and lemmings also contributing to their diet (Coltrain et al., 2004; Moody and Hodgetts, 2013; Whitridge, 2016).

Dogs in Northern Mexico

When referring to studies of the Southwest, archaeologists define the area as ranging from the Southwestern United States (largely including New Mexico and Arizona, and parts of Colorado, Utah, and Nevada) to the Northwest region of Mexico (including the states of Chihuahua and Sonora) (Monagle and Jones, 2020). Within Southwestern studies, dogs are well represented throughout the archaeological record, with some of the first evidence of dog domestication seen at the site of Blackwater Draw, New Mexico, dating to around approximately 11095 BCE (Monagle and Jones, 2020). The beginnings of a human-dog relationship centered on domestication extend deep into the prehistoric past and are found in a variety of domestic contexts at Mogollon, Ancestral Puebloan, and Hohokam sites (Hill, 2000; Semanko, 2020; Semanko and Ramos, 2022). Southwest canids include the “common” domestic dog (Canis familiaris), coyotes (Canis latrans), and wolves (Canis lupus). More specifically, there are two types of the “common” domesticated dog simply categorized as small and large based on principal components analysis of cranial measurements (Welker and Semanko, 2023).

Though it is not uncommon to find dog elements amongst midden contexts, dogs are also present in both isolated burials, co-buried with humans or other animals, as well as within ritual deposits (Semanko and Ramos, 2022). Within agricultural communities, dogs often received some form of training and were utilized in hunting activities and as hunting companions to humans (Schwartz, 1998). Based on internment patterns, it is suggested that dogs not only played a role as hunters and companions, but also maintained a perceived liminal status in ritual and sacrificial practices (Hill, 2000; Laurich, 2021; Monagle et al., 2018; Monagle and Jones, 2020; Olsen, 1964, 1985; Schwartz, 2011). Evidence revealed by isotopic studies (Monagle and Jones, 2020; Semanko, 2020; Semanko and Ramos, 2022) shows that Southwest dogs were oftentimes fed a special diet high in both maize and carnivore meat. This evidence further supports the complex nature of human-dog relations, as this type of isotopic signature reinforces conclusions that dogs would have been fed a purposeful diet in preparation to serve in ritual contexts (Semanko, 2020).

Dogs in the North American Arctic

While the earliest accepted faunal remains of a domestic dog date to approximately 15,000 years ago, there is potential evidence of dog domestication in Siberia around 20,000 years ago (Perri et al., 2021). The North American Arctic likely experienced two distinct introductions of dogs, the second occurring with Thule ancestors around 1000 years ago (Ameen et al., 2019; Perri et al., 2021). This later population, which replaced earlier Paleo-Inuit dogs, ultimately gave rise to the Canadian Inuit Dog (Canis familiaris borealis; qimmit [plural] or qimmiq [singular] in Inuktut) (Ameen et al., 2019) (Figure 1). Dogs are the only domesticated species within the North American Arctic, although individuals had complex relationships with wild animals such as whales and caribou as well (Lowenstein 1993; McGhee 1977).

Figure 1.

Dog sled team in Nunavut in the early 1900s. Photo: Larsen (n.d.).

The ability of Thule and Inuit groups to persist in the harsh environment was facilitated by their extensive reliance on dogs for a range of tasks. Most notable was their function as sled dogs, aiding in the seasonal movement of camps (Ameen et al., 2019; Burch, 2005, 2006; Masson-Maclean et al., 2020; Parry, 1824; Ross, 1835; Shannon, 1997). Alaskan Thule groups relied on dog traction and the Thule’s rapid spread across the North American Arctic into Greenland was likely thanks to using sled dogs (Ameen et al., 2019). Dogs were also used in locating seal breathing holes, hunting caribou and muskoxen, and both hunting and scaring off polar bears (Demuth, 2021; Laugrand and Oosten, 2002; Masson-Maclean et al., 2020; Park, 1987; Parry, 1824; Ross, 1835; Shannon, 1997; Strecker and Svanger, 2014). Among the Alaskan Iñupiat, who had more defined territorial borders than eastern Inuit groups, dogs also warned inhabitants of approaching visitors and prevented theft (Burch, 2005, 2006).

Theoretical framework

To explore the roles of dogs in Northern Mexico and the North American Arctic, we draw on theories correlated to understanding the role domestication plays in structuring human-animal relations, and how archaeologists have and continue to define such relations.

Domestication

Domestication, whether dealing with plants or animals, can vary in definition in terms of the type of relations held (Larson and Fuller, 2014; Russell, 2012; Zeder, 2012). Despite variable definitions, all recognize that domestication revolves around a specific relationship of control and intentionality held between human and non-human beings (Lord et al., 2025; Zeder, 2012). For the purposes of this article, we draw on Zeder’s (2012: 171) “commensal pathway” to define the type of relationship seen between humans and dogs. Domestication in this sense establishes a commensal relationship between humans and dogs, where we see a relationship initially structured around human benefit expands to one with reciprocal or mutualistic benefit through the creation of social or economic bonds between dogs and humans (Zeder, 2012). Such relationships vary in the roles of both humans and dogs and can be defined as one-sided or more complex in nature depending on contextual circumstances (Laurich, 2021).

Domesticated dogs emerged from their wild canid ancestors approximately 15,000 years ago, with the first conclusive evidence found at Bonn-Oberkassel in Germany (Perri et al., 2021). From this period, domesticated dogs spread and the first domesticated dogs in the Americas appeared around 10,000 years ago (Perri et al., 2021). In contrast to other domesticated species (cattle, pigs, sheep, etc.), dogs were not bred with the intention of being a source of meat for human populations but rather play a diverse range of roles amongst human-dog relations throughout time, ranging from companions to guards to laborers (Russell, 2012). The domestic relationship between humans and dogs is complex in nature, not neatly fitting within one specific defining relationship. A common factor that contributes to the definition of all roles held by dogs amongst such relations is the crossing of boundaries between the typical western division of nature versus culture (Russell, 2002). The study of human-dog relations thus requires an examination of how archaeologists have traditionally viewed such relations, and advances in theoretical thought surrounding the understanding of social and material constructs of being.

The ontological turn in archaeology and an environmental approach

Relationality in archaeology is defined as “a set of approaches aimed at conflating the abstract and undisputable dualities of modernist ontologies” (Skousen and Buchanan, 2015: 1). Utilizing this definition, we aim to approach ontology as the experience and realization of being as well as the social and material constructs of reality (Boyd, 2017; Descola, 2013). Our approach to defining environment encompasses the way that humans and animals interact with the natural and culturally built landscapes in response to climatic norms in different regions. The ontological positioning of human, and non-human beings, in this sense, can be seen as not fixed but rather arising in a continuous manner through relations held between both natural and built environments (Ingold, 2000; Watts, 2014). Such notions of ontology prove critical in the interpretation of past human-animal relations, specifically related to archaeological and ethnographic approaches in the literature coined the “ontological turn” in anthropology (Alberti, 2016; Kohn, 2015). This turn urges a reexamination of modern, Western ontological frameworks, primarily, the nature/culture, human/animal, and thing/being binaries, which are rooted in Cartesian views that grant knowledge and consciousness solely to humans (Boyd, 2017; Descola, 2013; Ingold, 2002; Watts, 2014).

The work of French anthropologist Philippe Descola has been pivotal in defining what constitutes beings of the world beyond the Western constructs of the modern world, and such perceptions imposed onto past histories. Descola (2013: 113) emphasizes the role of relationships as rooted in how links between beings can be identified through patterns of behavior and social norms, proposing an identification system contingent upon defining the “interiority” or “physicality” of different beings in four distinct categories. Descola (2013) identified beings by their “interiority” (inner consciousness) and “physicality” (outward expression), producing four categories: animism (shared interiority, different physicality), analogism (differences in both), totemism (shared interiority and physicality within a group), and naturalism (shared physicality, different interiority).

While Descola’s categorizations help clarify how relations among beings can be defined, scholars have cautioned against assigning prehistoric cultures to a single ontological category (Harrison-Buck and Hendon, 2018; Kohn, 2015; Sahlins, 2014; Swenson, 2014, 2015). These critiques highlight the need to consider the depth of cultural traditions and the archaeological evidence that exceeds preconceived ontological expectations. Descola’s (2013) ontologies show how different principles shape distinct ways of understanding the world, allowing for multiple coexisting interpretations and even the use of multiple ontologies (Thomas, 2015). Although we must avoid overgeneralizing prehistoric cultures, ontological frameworks remain a valuable tool for interpreting past human-animal relationships, particularly within processes of domestication.

Methods

This study uses a cross-cultural approach to examine how differing conceptions of dogs’ ontological positioning developed. Cross-cultural analysis rose to prominence in the mid-20th century to test theories of cultural development across societies (Ember and Ember, 1995; McNett, 1979; Peregrine, 2001, 2004; Trigger, 2007). Rather than seeking similarities as classical cross-cultural research does, this study aims to employ cross-cultural analysis to explore how ontologies relating to human-dog relations develop in differing directions due to environmental influence on subsistence practices. Although departing from traditional coding-based cross-cultural methods, the effort to explore potential causal factors behind divergent human-dog relations align with cross-cultural analysis’ core goals (Peregrine, 2001). This paper synthesizes existing archaeological data from five to six sites in each region, with ethnographic and ethnohistoric evidence also used to discuss human-dog relations in the Arctic. Relating to dogs’ position, ethnographic and ethnohistoric evidence is quite fruitful in the Arctic, while archaeological evidence provides more substantial information in the case of the prehistoric cultures of Northern Mexico. Importantly, ethnographic and ethnohistoric documents are shaped by Eurocentric perspectives and the differences in the ideological contexts with which Europeans and Inuit viewed dogs and their role in society. Acknowledging potential biases and the contextually situated production of these documents is crucial.

Archaeological evidence in Northern Mexico

Faunal material from five sites (La Playa, Calderon [CH-254], CH-240, El Zurdo, and Paquimé) (Figure 2), present evidence of human-dog relations in Northern Mexico (Table 1). Though the domestication of dogs in the Southwest can be traced back to 11095 BCE, notable evidence of dogs throughout the Northern Mexico region is seen in the Early Agricultural Period (2100 BCE to 150 CE), namely at the site of La Playa in the modern state of Sonora (Carpenter et al., 2015). Dog burials are one of the most prominent features identified within the site at large, with a total of 28 burials identified with 36 individuals present throughout (Carpenter et al., 2015). Dogs were found placed in semi-flexed positions on their sides, devoid of additional grave goods or offerings (Carpenter et al., 2015). Carpenter et al. (2015) suggest placement within areas of human burial and lack of butchering evidence points towards human-dog relations that merit a communal or ritual manner of burial.

Figure 2.

Top: Location of Sonora and Chihuahua. Bottom: Locality of La Playa in relation to other sites in Casas Grandes (adapted from Goguitchaichvili et al., 2023). Right: Site locations in Casas Grandes region (adapted from Davidson, 2020).

Table 1.

NISP and MNI for Northern Mexico sites mentioned in text.

Site	NISP	MNI
Calderon (CH-254) (Pacheco, 2023)	449	4
CH-240 (Pacheco, 2023)	161	2
El Zurdo (CH-159) (Hodgetts, 1996)	123	4
La Playa (Carpenter et al., 2015)	Not Provided	36
Paquimé (Di Peso, 1974)	Not Provided	85

The Proyecto Archaeologico Chihuahua (PAC) within the Casas Grandes cultural area of Chihuahua revealed evidence of human-dog relations at the Viejo Period sites of Calderon (CH-254) and CH-240, and the Medio Period site of El Zurdo (CH-159). At both CH-254 and CH-240, there is evidence of the intentional burial placement of two dogs just outside of house-like structures that predate site abandonment. Though both dogs present variable age categories (CH-254 was full grown and CH-240 was a puppy), such contextual evidence points towards dogs as having companion relationships with humans rather than serving as meals. Both dogs, in similar patterning to those found at earlier sites to the west such as La Playa, were found on their sides in semi-flexed positions, with no evidence of postmortem disarticulation or perimortem trauma (Pacheco, 2023). Differing slightly from earlier evidence at La Playa is the inclusion of grave goods, as the CH-254 dog was found in burial context with a bundle that was inferred to be a possible basket with offerings of multiple different faunal elements. We see human-dog relations extend into the Medio Period sites within the PAC at El Zurdo. Kelley (2008) outlines that evidence of a single burial with possible human-dog relations was present. The intermingling of human and dog bone was identified within an unplastered floor surface/occupation layer, but was not in an in-situ burial (Kelley, 2008). Despite the lack of in-situ context, it can be suggested that there could have once been a connection between the intentional placement of both the dog and humans within this burial context.

Further evidence of human-dog relations in the Casas Grandes region of Northern Mexico was found at the site of Paquimé. Paquimé is a large-scale complex said to reflect the apex of Casas Grandes social complexity throughout the Medio Period (1200–1450 CE) (Minnis and Whalen, 2015). Paquimé had numerous animal burials, largely including the only two known domesticated species in the region, dogs and turkeys, often found interred together (Semanko, 2020). Throughout Paquimé, a total of 51 dog burials were found in a range of contexts including open plazas, structured room blocks, and drainage systems (Di Peso, 1974; Semanko, 2020). Semanko (2020) suggested that the limited evidence of butchering practices and the contextual placement of dogs next to human remains or associated with other animal species such as turkeys supports the conclusion that these dogs were raised for ritual or companionship purposes over a meal. The role of domestic species in this nature is unique, as previous work (VanPool, 2003; VanPool and VanPool, 2016) has highlighted the importance of turkey husbandry to the ideological and social structure of Casas Grandes. In this way, we see the inclusion of the domestic dog species here to represent the bond that dogs would have had with human occupants throughout the occupation of Paquimé.

Archaeological, ethnographic, and ethnohistoric evidence in the North American Arctic

Osteological evidence of dogs’ treatment amongst the Thule is drawn from six sites: Porden Point Brook Village (RbJr-1), Porden Point Pond Village (RbJr-4), RbJr-5, and LlDj-1 in Nunavut and the Nunalleq (GDN-248) and Walakpa (BAR-00,013) sites in Alaska (Masson-Maclean et al., 2020; Park, 1987; Schledermann, 1975; Stanford, 1976; Figure 3; Table 2). RbJr-1, RbJr-4, and RbJr-5 are known collectively as Porden Point (Park, 1987).

Figure 3.

Map of the North American Arctic showing sites mentioned in text. Map: Shelby Patrick.

Table 2.

NISP and MNI for North American Arctic sites mentioned in text.

Site	NISP	MNI
Porden Point (Andrews, 1978; Park, 1987)	Not Provided	21
LlDj-1 (Schledermann, 1975)	298	99
Walakpa (Stanford, 1976)	77	Not Provided
Nunalleq (Masson-Maclean et al., 2020)	1796	78

A commonality between the dogs at Nunalleq and Porden Point is the presence of cranial injuries, such as orbital fractures, puncture wounds, blunt-force trauma injuries, and decapitation in one instance (Andrews, 1978; Masson-Maclean et al., 2020; Park, 1987). Masson-Maclean et al. (2020) and Park (1987) suggest that these cranial injuries were the result of both physical discipline to correct behavior and infighting between dogs. At all of the sites, various lines of evidence support the consumption of dogs. At Nunalleq, Masson-Maclean et al. (2020) found cutmarks on dog skeletal remains consistent with butchery practices. Park (1987) also noted a paucity of postcranial elements and coupled with broken long bones, suggested that this provides evidence for the consumption of dogs at Porden Point. At LlDj-1, Schledermann (1975) found 144 canid faunal elements in a midden context and interpreted the extensive number of canid remains in a refuse area as possible evidence that dogs were processed for consumption. Evidence from Walakpa supports the interpretation that dogs were consumed based on breakages in skull fragments (Stanford, 1976). While there appears to be evidence for the consumption of dogs, the degree to which this occurred is unclear. For the Nunalleq sample, Masson-Maclean et al. (2020) do not believe dogs were being expressly raised or used for meat based on the frequency of butchery marks and isotopic evidence of human diet at the site. The authors concluded that dogs were likely consumed when they were no longer useful for other tasks such as pulling sleds. Whether this happened at the other sites is unclear; taboos around consuming dogs likely varied based on the ethnographic record and more detailed evidence relating to age at death or pathologies would help determine the likelihood of dogs being killed for meat.

Ethnographic and ethnohistoric accounts vary considerably in their depiction of dogs’ treatment and their place in Inuit society. Accounts from the early 19^th century describe harsh treatment of dogs, such as whippings and beatings (Lyon, 1824; Parry, 1824; Ross, 1835). However, it is certainly possible that European prejudices against Inuit and differing beliefs about how dogs should be treated may have made Europeans more likely to record instances of violence (Laugrand and Oosten, 2002; Park, 1987). Ross (1835: 592) comments that he suspects the dogs’ “indispensable utility” kept them from enduring even more severe punishment than was already enacted, a thought echoed by Saladin d’Anglure (2018) and Jenness (1922). Sources also record that dogs had an association with death and were often seen as unclean as they ate deceased human flesh and human excrement (Hill, 2018; Laugrand and Oosten, 2002). Restrictions were also placed on dogs, such as not being allowed to eat caribou meat for fear of offending the caribou and not being allowed inside the house due to their uncleanliness (Laugrand and Oosten, 2002).

Other ethnohistoric documents portray loving, familial relationships with dogs. Among the Inuinnait of the Coronation Gulf region and the Inuvialuit in the Mackenzie Delta area, striking dogs was a rarity, and Jenness (1922) notes the close bond between dog and owner. In Alaskan Iñupiaq communities, Burch (2006) concludes that dogs may have been hit to break up fights but were not otherwise struck in most cases. It also appears that the consumption of dogs only occurred when groups were experiencing resource stress, and often, with reluctance (Burch, 2006; Laugrand and Oosten, 2002; Park, 1987; Saladin d’Anglure, 2018). Burch (2006), Parry (1824), Saladin d’Anglure (2018), and Jenness (1922) also describe how dogs were given names, often the same ones as members of their owner’s family. Although Lyon (1824: 125) described dogs being beaten, he also notes that puppies were well taken care of and even “l[aid] in the beds of their masters,” a custom that Jenness (1922) also documented among the Inuinnait.

Dogs also had spiritual associations and played a significant role in Inuit mythology. One prominent example of dogs’ roles in Inuit mythology can be found in the story of Sedna, the mother of all sea mammals (Lyon, 1824; Saladin d’Anglure, 2018; Strecker and Svanger, 2014). In a variation of this myth, Sedna’s dog-husband is drowned by Sedna’s father and sent to the bottom of the ocean, becoming either the guardian or the punisher of the deceased, depending on the version of the myth (Laugrand and Oosten, 2002; Lyon, 1824; Saladin d’Anglure, 2018). In another myth, a dogsled team is thought to have chased a bear into the sky, resulting in the dogs becoming the Pleiades star cluster (Saladin d’Anglure, 2018). The existence of a punnguq (spirit dog) is also evidence for dogs’ spiritual importance and punnguq served a myriad of protective functions such as aiding shamans in dispelling bad spirits, navigating in blizzards, or finding prey animals (Tester, 2010). Dogs sometimes were used to heal sickness; their saliva was thought to have healing properties, amulets were often made from dog fur and, in more severe cases, dogs could be killed or mutilated to transfer the illness from the person to the dog (Hill, 2018; Laugrand and Oosten, 2002; Saladin d’Anglure, 2018).

Discussion

In the case of the North American Arctic and Northern Mexico, this paper makes the argument that differences in dogs’ ontological positioning was heavily dependent on the regions’ environmental contexts and subsequent subsistence practices. We believe that one can separate dogs’ role in each of these regions through the examination of the differences in both the life histories of dogs, as well as their treatment in relation to their environmental landscapes that influenced differing subsistence strategies and thus distinct ontological positioning (Hill, 2013). Dogs’ roles in Northern Mexico were complex, ranging from companionship and hunting throughout life, as well as maintaining a symbolic role in death. In the North American Arctic, dogs corresponded to several identified roles and often opposing ones; they were symbols, potential food sources in times of scarcity, laborers, and guards.

Turning to Descola’s (2013) definitions of animism and analogism, dogs’ ontological positioning in the two regions diverge. As stated previously, these definitions are useful to identify broad patterning in ontological positioning of beings, but do not reflect the absolute categorization of relations. Though previous research has suggested that human-animal relations in Northern Mexico can be viewed through what Descola (2013) describes as an animistic lens (VanPool, 2003; VanPool and VanPool, 2016), we believe there is evidence that human-dog relations can be viewed through an analogical perspective. Within the North American Arctic, the viewpoint towards dogs among Thule and Inuit groups most corresponds to animism given that dogs have souls and the metamorphosis component of the Sedna myth. Analogism suggests differences in both interiority and physicality, whereas animism prescribes that beings have a shared interiority, but differing physicality (Descola, 2013). As a result, these differences identified between the two regions in their perception of dogs seem to rest on the perception of dogs’ physical forms and how that physical form is utilized in the environment. The environmental differences between the two regions are stark, specifically with regard to how these environments shape everyday resource procurement. Communities in Northern Mexico were commonly agriculturalists supplemented through both large and small game hunting, whereas the Thule practiced a collector system predicated on hunting (Ingold, 2000). We posit that the manifestation of resource procurement practices shaped by environmental conditions contributes to the development of human-dog relations in each region and the contrasts between them.

Hunting activities in combination with agricultural practices were key in maintaining everyday well-being throughout Northern Mexico. Previous contextual and iconographic evidence demonstrates that dogs often held roles as companions in hunting activity that supplemented agricultural practices (Muir and Driver, 2004; Schwartz, 1998). We hypothesize that the situatedness of dogs within burials reflects their important role amongst humans’ subsistence practices and their subsequent perceived ontological status throughout Northern Mexico (Hill, 2000, 2013). From an analogical perspective, dogs differ in both their outward physical expression and inner essence from other beings, possibly correlating to dogs being chosen to take part in activities such as hunting due to their perceived unique physical appearance and inner soul over other beings (Pacheco, 2023). Dogs were intentionally buried with care, exhibited through their placement on their sides in semi-flexed positions, within or outside of main structures, as well as being in either individual or comingled burials with humans or other animal species as opposed to in midden contexts. More specifically, dogs were found within burial contexts of the domesticated turkey at the site of Paquimé (Di Peso, 1974; Semanko, 2020). The domesticated turkey played an important role in shamanic activities (VanPool, 2003), and such evidence can point towards an emphasized importance placed on dogs’ positioning with humans, due to their proximity within these burials. The lack of butchery marks and perimortem injuries is also further evidence that dogs were valued, and we hypothesize that their participation in hunting activities used to sustain the lives of individuals was a contributing factor to their status. In this sense, we see that human-dog relations exist in the natural and built environments through an embedded meaning that is assigned by humans but also influences the way in which human beings interact with their environmental surroundings (David and Thomas, 2008; Fowles, 2010; Haukaas, 2012; Ingold, 2000; Tilley, 1994). The intentional burial placement of dogs in Northern Mexico indicates their role as companions, and subsequently their importance in how humans interacted with their environment symbolically both throughout life and in death.

While in Northern Mexico it can be suggested that dogs differ in terms of both interiority and physicality, societal understandings of dogs in the North American Arctic are highly tied to their differing physicality. Dogs were known to have an inua (soul) and were often seen as valued family members, pointing to a shared interiority between dogs and humans; however, this contrasts with potential evidence of beatings, consumption, and their association with death (Laugrand and Oosten, 2002). A hypothesis for the origin of this dichotomy relates to the Arctic’s environmental setting and dogs’ positioning in the context of the predator-prey relationship in that environment. Ingold (2000) notes that in the Arctic, the environment is not as readily able to provide life as in many other regions—there is no agriculture and there is low biomass. As a result, Thule and Inuit communities relied on wild animals for their dietary needs and whales, seals, and caribou were afforded respect for offering themselves as a life-giving source (Friesen and Stewart, 2019; Laugrand, 2016; Laugrand and Oosten, 2014; Lowenstein, 1993). While likely consumed during times of substantial resource stress, dogs provided aid to humans in daily tasks, but not as sustenance. Saladin d’Anglure (2018) makes the important point that humans are responsible for feeding dogs which positions humans as the life-giving force. In this respect, dogs seem to fall outside of the traditional notions of the predator-prey relationship; they are not seen as prey, but neither are they predators due to their reliance on humans for survival. It is thus suggested that the dichotomy of dogs’ ontological positioning is due to their incongruence with the traditional predator-prey relationship as manifested within the Arctic environment.

Conclusion

Though there are seemingly similarities, when taking the environmental conditions into consideration, there are clear contradictions regarding dogs’ positionality in these societies. The inhabitants of Northern Mexico generally faced less volatile environmental conditions and differences in resource availability than those in the North American Arctic. As a result, dogs’ roles in the two regions reflect these key differences. In the Northern Mexican region, dogs were able to fulfill an ideological role relating to companionship and the maintenance of everyday life. In contrast, dogs in the North American Arctic were needed for survival but existed outside of the traditional predator-prey dynamic. These differences ultimately appear to derive from differing ontological perspectives, and we contend that human-environment relations play a key role in the development of this separation.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ellen R. Pacheco

Shelby M. Patrick

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Shelby Patrick is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Toronto. She is a specialist in the North American Arctic, and her research focuses on human-environment interactions and interregional exchange relationships. Her research also uses archaeological science methodologies such as pXRF and agent-based modelling. She holds a BA in Anthropology from Colorado College.

Ellen Pacheco is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Toronto. She is a zooarchaeologist, and her current research centers on human-animal relations and ritual sacrifice in the Ancient Andes. She holds a BSc in Anthropology from the University of Calgary, as well as an MA in Archaeology from the University of Lethbridge. Her master's reseach focused on examining the ontological turn within zooarchaeology, conducting analysis on zooarchaeological assemblages within the Casas Grandes region of Northern Mexico.

References

Alberti

(2016) Archaeologies of ontology. Annual Review of Anthropology 45: 163–179.

Ameen

Feuerborn

Brown

, et al. (2019) Specialized sledge dogs accompanied Inuit dispersal across the north American arctic. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 286(1916): 20191929.

Andrews

(1978) Faunal Analysis: Porden Point Pond Village, Porden Point Brook Village - Devon Island, N.W.T. Report, Faunal Osteology Lab, University of Toronto.

Beck

Zimmermann

McVicar

, et al. (2018) Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-Km resolution. Scientific Data 5(1): 180214.

Bethke

Burtt

(2020) Introduction. In: Bethke

Burtt

(eds). Dogs: Archaeology Beyond Domestication. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 11–17.

Boyd

(2017) Archaeology and human–animal relations: thinking through anthropocentrism. Annual Review of Anthropology 46: 299–316.

Brandt

Flannigan

Maynard

, et al. (2013) An introduction to Canada’s boreal zone: ecosystem processes, health, sustainability, and environmental issues. Environmental Reviews 21(4): 207–226.

Burch

(2005) Alliance and Conflict: The World System of the Iñupiaq Eskimos. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Burch

(2006) Social Life in Northwest Alaska: The Structure of Inupiaq Eskimo Nations. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.

10.

Carpenter

Sánchez

Watson

, et al. (2015) The La Playa Archaeological Project: binational interdisciplinary research on long-term human adaptation in the Sonoran Desert. Journal of the Southwest 57(2): 213–264.

11.

Coltrain

Hayes

O’Rourke

(2004) Sealing, whaling and caribou: the skeletal isotope chemistry of Eastern Arctic foragers. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(1): 39–57.

12.

David

Thomas

(2008) Landscape archaeology: introduction. In: David

Thomas

(eds). Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 27–43.

13.

Davidson

(2020) Long Distance Interaction in Viejo Period Casas Grandes. PhD Thesis, Brigham Young University, USA.

14.

Demuth

(2021) Labors of love: people, dogs, and affect in North American Arctic borderlands, 1700-1900. The Journal of American History 108(2): 270–295.

15.

Descola

(2013) Beyond Nature and Culture. Translated by Lloyd J. University of Chicago Press.

16.

Di Peso

(1974) Casas Grandes: The Medio Period (Vol 2). A Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca. Dragoon, AZ: Amerind Foundation.

17.

Ember

(1995) Worldwide cross-cultural studies and their relevance for archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 3(1): 87–111.

18.

Fowles

(2010) The Southwest school of landscape archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 453–468.

19.

Friesen

(2017) Archaeology of the Eastern arctic. In: Mason

Friesen

(eds). Out of the Cold: Archaeology on the Arctic Rim of North America. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology, 133–206.

20.

Friesen

Arnold

(2008) The timing of the Thule migration: new dates from the Western Canadian arctic. American Antiquity 73(3): 527–538.

21.

Friesen

Stewart

(2019) Covering bones: the archaeology of respect on the Kazan River, Nunavut. Études Inuit Studies 41(1–2): 151–178.

22.

Garvin

Kelley

(2017) The setting. In: Kelley

Phillips

DAJ

(eds). Not so far from Paquimé́: Essays on the archaeology of Chihuahua, Mexico. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 12–28.

23.

Goguitchaichvili

Villalpando

Abrego

, et al. (2023) New absolute chronological constraints to La Playa (Sonoran Desert) archaeology between the American Southwest and Mesoamerica—from long period human resilience to apparent abandonment. Land 12(3): 560.

24.

Harington

(2008) The evolution of Arctic Marine animals. Ecological Applications 18(2): S23–S40.

25.

Harris

AJT

Feuerbon

Sindig

, et al. (2020) Archives of human-dog relationships: genetic and stable isotope analysis of Arctic fur clothing. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 59: 101200.

26.

Harrison-Buck

Hendon

(2018) An introduction to relational personhood and other-than-human agency in anthropology. In: Harrison-Buck

Hendon

(eds). Relational Identities and Other-than-Human Agency in Archaeology. Boulder: University of Colorado Press, 3–28.

27.

Haukaas

(2012) Ancient Trash: An Analysis of Faunal Remains from Chihuahua, Mexico. Undergraduate thesis. Canada: University of Lethbridge.

28.

Hill

(2000) The contextual analysis of animal interments and ritual practice in Southwestern North America. Kiva 65(4): 361–398.

29.

Hill

(2013) Archaeology and animal persons: toward a prehistory of human-animal relations. Environment and Society 4(1): 117–136.

30.

Hill

(2018) The archaeology of human-dog relations in Northwest Alaska. In: Losey

Wishart

Loovers

JPL

(eds). Dogs in the North: Stories of Cooperation and Co-Domestication. London: Routledge, 87–104.

31.

Hodgetts

(1996) Faunal evidence from El Zurdo. Kiva: Journal of Southwestern Anthropology and History 62(2): 149–170.

32.

Ingold

(2000) The Perception of the Environment. London: Routledge.

33.

Ingold

(2002) From trust to domination: an alternative history of human-animal relations. In: Manning

Serpell

(eds). Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives. London: Routledge, 13–34.

34.

Jenness

(1922) Report of the Canadian Arctic Expedition 1913-18, Vol. XII: The Life of the Copper Eskimos. Ottawa: FA Acland.

35.

Kelley

(2008) El Zurdo: a small prehistoric village in West-Central. Chihuahua, Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology.

36.

Kelley

(2017) Introduction to the Proyecto Arqueológico Chihuahua. In: Kelley

Phillips

DAJ

(eds). Not so far from Paquimé́: Essays on the archaeology of Chihuahua, Mexico. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1–11.

37.

Kelley

Phillips

(2017) Medio Period sites in the Southern Zone. In: Kelley

Phillips

(eds). Not so far from Paquimé́: Essays on the archaeology of Chihuahua, Mexico. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 54–80.

38.

Kelley

Searcy

(2015) Beginnings: the Viejo period. In: Minnis

Whalen

(eds). Ancient Paquimé and the Casas Grandes World. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 17–40.

39.

Kohn

(2015) Anthropology of ontologies. Annual Review of Anthropology 44: 311–327.

40.

Larsen

(n.d.) Sled dog team tied up [photograph]. Library and Archives Canada: e010775437. Available at: https://recherche-collection-search.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/home/record?app=fonandcol&idnumber=3966457&q_type_1=q&q_1=dog_sled_team&ecopy=e010775437-v6 (Accessed 17 November 2025).

41.

Larson

Fuller

(2014) The evolution of animal domestication. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 45: 115–136.

42.

Laugrand

(2016) Ontology on the ice: Inuit traditions, ecology, and the problem of categories. In: Jenkins

Tucker

Grim

(eds). Routledge Handbook of Religion and Ecology. London: Routledge, 148–157.

43.

Laugrand

Oosten

(2002) Canicide and healing. The position of the dog in the Inuit cultures of the Canadian arctic. Anthropos 87(1): 89–105.

44.

Laugrand

Oosten

(2014) Hunters, Predators and Prey: Inuit Perceptions of Animals. New York: Berghahn Books.

45.

Laurich

(2021) Archaeological Pets: A Pathological Examination of the Human-Dog Relationship in the American Southwest. Master’s thesis. USA: Northern Arizona University.

46.

Lekson

(2009) A History of the Ancient Southwest. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press.

47.

Lord

Larson

Allaby

, et al. (2025) A universally applicable definition of domestication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122(22): e2413207122.

48.

Losey

Wishart

Loovers

JPL

(2018) Dogs in the North: Stories of Cooperation and Domestication. London: Routledge.

49.

Lowenstein

(1993) Ancient Land, Sacred Whale: The Inuit Hunt, Its Rituals and Poetry. London: The Harvill Press.

50.

Lyon

(1824) The Private Journal of Captain G.F. Lyon, of H.M.S. Hecla, During the Recent Voyage of Discovery Under Captain Parry. London: John Murray, Albemarle-Street.

51.

Masson-Maclean

McManus-Fry

Britton

(2020) The archaeology of dogs at the precontact site of Nunalleq, Western Alaska. In: Bethke

Burtt

(eds). Dogs: Archaeology Beyond Domestication. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 72–102.

52.

Maxwell

(1985) Prehistory of the Eastern Arctic. London: Academic Press.

53.

McGhee

(1977) Ivory for the sea woman: the symbolic attributes of a prehistoric technology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 1: 141–149.

54.

McNett

JCW

(1979) The cross-cultural method in archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 39–76.

55.

Minnis

Whalen

(2015) Introduction: the Joint Casas Grandes Expedition in historical context. In: Minnis

Whalen

(eds). Ancient Paquimé and the Casas Grandes World. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 3–16.

56.

Monagle

Jones

(2020) Dog life and death in an ancestral Pueblo landscape. In: Bethke

Burtt

(eds). Dogs: Archaeology Beyond Domestication. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 45–71.

57.

Monagle

Conrad

Jones

(2018) What makes a dog? Stable isotope analysis and human-canid relationships at Arroyo Hondo Pueblo. Open Quaternary 4(6): 1–13.

58.

Moody

Hodgetts

(2013) Subsistence practices of pioneering Thule-Inuit: a faunal analysis of Tiktalik. Arctic Anthropology 50(2): 4–24.

59.

Morey

(1994) The early evolution of the domestic dog. American Scientist 82(4): 336–347.

60.

Morey

(2010) Dogs: Domestication and Development of a Social Bond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

61.

Muir

Driver

(2004) Identifying ritual use of animals in the Northern American Southwest. In: O’Day

Van Neer

Ervynck

(eds). Behaviour Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status, and Identity. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 128–143.

62.

Nelson

Villalpando

Punzo Díaz

, et al. (2015) Prehispanic Northwest and adjacent West Mexico, 1200 BC–AD 1400: an inter-regional perspective. Kiva 81(1–2): 31–61.

63.

Olsen

(1964) Mammal Remains from Archaeological Sites: Part I—Southeastern and Southwestern United States. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

64.

Olsen

(1985) Origins of the Domestic Dog: The Fossil Record. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

65.

Pacheco

(2023) Exploration of Proyecto Arqueológico Chihuahua (PAC): A Zooarchaeological Approach to the Ontological Turn. Master’s thesis. Canada: University of Lethbridge.

66.

Park

(1987) Dog remains from Devon Island, N.W.T.: archaeological and osteological evidence for domestic dog use in the Thule culture. Arctic 40(3): 184–190.

67.

Parry

(1824) Journal of a Second Voyage for the Discovery of a North-West Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific: Performed in the years 1821-22-23 His Majesty’s Ships Fury and Hecla, under the Orders of Captain William Edward Parry: Illustrated by Numerous Plates. London: John Murray.

68.

Peregrine

(2001) Cross-cultural comparative approaches in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 30(1): 1–18.

69.

Peregrine

(2004) Cross-cultural approaches in archaeology: comparative ethnology, comparative archaeology, and archaeoethnology. Journal of Archaeological Research 12(3): 281–309.

70.

Perri

Feuerborn

Frantz

LAF

, et al. (2021) Dog domestication and the dual dispersal of people and dogs into the Americas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(6): e2010083118.

71.

Phillips

(1991) Mesoamerican-Northern Mexican Relationships: An Intellectual History. Paper presented at 47th International Congress of Americanists, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, July 7–11.

72.

Riley

(2005) Becoming Aztlan: Mesoamerican Influence in the Greater Southwest, AD 1200-1500. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

73.

Ross

(1835) Narrative of a Second Voyage in Search of a Northwest Passage and of a Residence in the Arctic Regions During the Years 1829, Vol. 1830. 1831, 1832, 1833. London: AW Webster.

74.

Russell

(2002) The wild side of animal domestication. Society and Animals 10(3): 285–302.

75.

Russell

(2012) Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

76.

Sahlins

(2014) On the ontological scheme of Beyond Nature and Culture. Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4(1): 281–290.

77.

Saladin d’Anglure

(2018) Inuit Stories of Being and Rebirth: Gender, Shamanism, and the Third Sex. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

78.

Schledermann

(1975) Thule Eskimo Prehistory of Cumberland Sound, Baffin Island, Canada. Ottawa: National Museum of Man.

79.

Schwartz

(1998) A History of Dogs in the Early Americas. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

80.

Schwartz

(2011) Ritual Use of Canids at Prehispanic La Quemada, Zacatecas, México. Undergraduate thesis. USA: Arizona State University.

81.

Semanko

(2020) Prehistoric Southwest Dogs: A Case Study from Kipp Ruin. Master’s thesis. NewUSA: Mexico State University.

82.

Semanko

Ramos

(2022) Teaching an old dog new tricks: implications for isotopic studies of Southwest dogs. Kiva 88(3): 327–346.

83.

Shannon

(1997) The Unique Role of Sled Dogs Inuit Culture: An Examination of the Relationship Between Inuit and Sled Dogs in the Changing North. Master’s thesis, University of Alberta, Canada.

84.

Skousen

Buchanan

(eds) (2015) Tracing the Relational: The Archaeology of Worlds, Spirits, and Temporalities. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

85.

Stanford

(1976) The Walakpa Site, Alaska: Its Place in the Birnirk and Thule Cultures. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

86.

Strecker

Svanger

(2014) Dogs in the Arctic. In: Hund

(ed). Antarctic and the Arctic Circle: A Geographic Encyclopedia of the Earth’s Polar Regions. New York: Bloomsbury, 231–237.

87.

Swenson

(2014) Chinchorro mortuary ritual and the thesis against ‘Hunter-Gatherer’ religions. In: Sanz

Arriaza

Standen

(eds). The Chinchorro Culture: A Comparative Perspective. the Archaeology of the Earliest Human Mummification. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 153–176.

88.

Swenson

(2015) The materialities of place making in the ancient Andes: a critical appraisal of the ontological turn in archaeological interpretation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22: 677–712.

89.

Tester

(2010) Mad dogs and (mostly) Englishmen: colonial relations, commodities, and the fate of Inuit sled dogs. Études Inuit Studies 34(2): 129–147.

90.

Thomas

(2015) The future of archaeological theory. Antiquity 89(348): 1287–1296.

91.

Tilley

(1994) A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

92.

Trigger

(2007) Cross-cultural comparison and archaeological theory. In: Meskell

Preucel

(eds). A Companion to Social Archaeology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 43–65.

93.

VanPool

(2003) The shaman-priests of the Casas Grandes region, Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 68(4): 696–717.

94.

VanPool

(2016) Animating architecture and the assembly of an elite city: birth and dedication of nonhuman persons at Paquimé, Chihuahua, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Research 72(3): 311–336.

95.

Watts

(2014) Relational archaeologies: roots and routes. In: Watts

(ed). Relational Archaeologies: Humans, Animals, Things. London: Routledge, 1–20.

96.

Welker

Semanko

(2023) Revisiting Harold S. Colton’s 1970 analysis of dogs in the Southwest. Kiva 89(3): 403–421.

97.

Whalen

Minnis

(eds) (2001) Casas Grandes and Its Hinterland: Prehistoric Regional Organization in Northwest Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

98.

Whitridge

(2016) Classic Thule [Classic Precontact Inuit]. In: Friesen

Mason

(eds). The Oxford Handbook of the Prehistoric Arctic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 827–850.

99.

Zeder

(2012) The domestication of animals. Journal of Anthropological Research 68(2): 161–190.