English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The present study concerns a rarely considered subject in the Romanian specialized literature, which is thedocumentation of prehistoric sites with confirmed canid burials; either individually or associated with humanones. The current state of research acknowledges multiple theories about the origin of the dog and the momentof its domestication. The most common and accepted opinion is that Canis familiaris Linnaeus (the domesticdog) is the descendent of Canis lupus Linnaeus (the wolf ). The canids are considered to be the first domesticatedanimals in Europe. Archaeological and zooarchaeological research from Iron Gates area, with Mesolithic sitessuch as Vlasac, Hajdučka Vodenica or Lepenski Vir, have produced valuable information on Canis familiaris(fig. 6). In Siberia, close to Lake Baikal (Russia), these have been found in the Shamanka necropolis (the graveof a Husky, Chow Chow or Samoyed (fig. 7) dog) and in the Lokomotiv necropolis (one of a tundra wolf (Canislupus albus) (fig. 8–10). In Alba Iulia-Lumea Nouă two dog skeletons from the Foeni group were found, one ofthem having a Spondylus shell pendant (fig. 3–5). In the Neolithic necropolis of Ripoli (Italy) a woman’s gravehad her feet placed on a dog skeleton (fig. 12), while in the Parma-via Guidorossi site a dog grave has been found(fig. 13). The Michelsberg culture, specific to Central and Western European Late Neolithic, presents intentionaldog burials at Bretteville-le-Rabet (fig. 11) and Heilbronn-Klingenberg “Schlossberg” (fig. 16). For the BritishNeolithic, a complete dog skeleton has been discovered in one of the ditches of the Windmill Hill settlement,while at Grime’s Graves an intentionally buried dog skeleton (fig. 17–18) has been identified. Research at theVan-Yoncatepe (Eastern Anatolia) Hallstattian necropolis led to identification of 14 dog skulls in one burialchamber (fig. 19-20), and of a female skeleton close to a pot (fig. 21) in another. The presence of dog boneremains in inhumation graves is often considered the result of a particular attitude of the human towards thedog. This special funerary context may represent the unique bond between prehistoric humans and their dogs,reflected in activities such as hunting, guarding, or companionship. The dog protects the domestic space, theflocks and, last but not least, the human that it hunts with. This relationship can explain the dog graves foundnearby the human ones, as the dog follows its master in death as in life.

Relaţia om-câine în preistorie: resturi scheletice umane și de canide. Practici mortuare, dovezi arheologice și posibile semnificaţii / Human-Dog Relationship in Prehistory: Human and Canids Bone Remains. Mortuary Practices, Archaeological Evidence and Possible Interpretations