Abstract
Wolves have always been attracted to the presence of humans and their settlements because they represent a possibility of obtaining food, especially in cold seasons. In Mongolian regions, the survival of nomads and their livestock can be seriously compromised by the lack of strong dogs to protect their campsites fromwolves. Indeed, it can be said that “pastoralism of the steppes” could not exist without domesticated dogs.
The bond between people and dogs is an important and complex aspect of the history of humankind. It is possible to assume that people began to domesticate dogs very early on, as recent archaeological data shows. However, it is very difficult to understand the dynamics that made dog domestication possible, as well as to identify the roles and functions of dogs in prehistoric times and to interpret the archaeological data.
In this light, an ethnoarchaeological approach is a valuable research strategy that can provide useful interpretative models for archaeology and the history of pastoralism. Therefore, to observe and to study Mongolian nomads, who still have a traditional lifestyle and who constantly deal with wolves, is an exceptional opportunity. In fact, it can help to comprehend the past and present of both people and dogs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Other regions have been visited, and more than 220 interviews were conducted over the years in order to obtain a better understanding of nomadic variability: Northern, Western, Southern and Central-Eastern Mongolia [2002–2013].
- 2.
- 3.
A tent usually indicates a family unit.
- 4.
Camps with 5-6 tents have rarely been observed.
- 5.
For the “archaeological” problem of Mongolian tents and summer camps, see Lugli 2008.
- 6.
- 7.
Approximately 120 interviews.
- 8.
In 2013, the interdisciplinary project in the Russian Federation “Siberian Nomads and Their Dogs,” began in collaboration with Prof. Galina Sychenko of the Novosibirsk State Conservatoire (Lugli 2014). The Central-Southern Tuva Republic and Northern Altai Mountains were visited in 2013 and 2014. The aim of the project is to observe nomads and dogs in various Siberian regions, from the southern Altai and Tuva, where it is possible to observe steppe nomadism with strong similarities to Mongolian nomadism and even reindeer pastoralism , such as in the western Tuva area and the northern Jamal peninsula.
- 9.
These are: sheep, goats, horses, cows and/or yaks, and camels. The traditional quantitative relationship between these animals was 2.62 % camel, 9.52 horse, 9.77 cow, 58.8 sheep, and 19.1 % goat. The percentage is currently changing because the goats’ cashmere is the most profitable commodity for nomads. Goats are approximately 43.85 %, and this fact is a serious and dramatic problem for pastures (Bold 2012:46–47).
- 10.
In Mongolia, the most common dogs are lupoids, which can have long hair and powerful bodies, or short hair and thinner bodies and long legs. Mongolian Bankhar mastiff wich was widespread, is not so common nowadays, even in remote areas.
- 11.
In other pastoralist cultures, it is possible to observe dogs with more than one task. For example, in the northern high mountains of the Altai Republic, where a research was conducted in July 2014, it was found that nomads have a closer bond with their dogs (laika dogs), and they teach them to check on and to guide the livestock, and even to hunt.
- 12.
This is also confirmed by Humphrey (1975:18).
- 13.
The traditional Mongol calendar should be consulted before taking a puppy.
- 14.
For example, the names of the 20 dogs selected for the mitochondrial analysis in 2012 were: Arslan, Asar, Baatar, Bankhar (3), Burged, Hartsaga, Khen Be, Khoilog (2), Khotoch, Khuder (2), Khurdan, Paatsag, Sarlag, Tsarailag and two Western names.
- 15.
For this reason, a dog is usually tied down when nomads disassemble or reassemble a tent.
- 16.
The Tuvinian steppe was originally part of Mongolia and it became part of the Soviet Union in 1944.
- 17.
The same belief also exists in the mountains of the Altai Republic.
- 18.
Bone samples were taken in six winter camps in the Mogod district—two or three samples per station, with one in the perimeter area and one in the central area. Due to the low temperatures, the soil was completely frozen.
- 19.
The sedimentological samples taken by Lugli from frozen, solid surfaces in the form of small lumps melted, dried up, and collapsed when observed in the laboratory in Rome. However, the observation of the samples using a binocular microscope reveals something of their structure.
Sample 1 shows the main component of the sediment: in order of apparent frequency, decomposing chaff and other vegetal particles, squashed charcoal particles alternating with micro-lenses of ash, common by-products of domestic activities inside and near the huts; the natural inclusions are almost exclusively made of quartz grains obviously rounded by endless cycles of aeolian transport. Finer soil fractions are not visible, or are preserved due to their being pasted with the pressed charcoal sheets.
In these deposits, a limited amount of dog hair could be observed (Sample 2); in theory, given the high probability of preservation of organic matter typical of Arctic and sub-Arctic regions, one could expect to recover even the physical remains of lice from similar sediments. The images also show that (despite the melting process) part of the sediment’s inclusions still retain a regularly micro-stratified structure. Inclusions, in fact, are horizontally stratified by co-occurring agents and processes, i.e.:
-
On a hypothetical prehistoric living surface, dogs’ sleeping areas should appear as small patches of the described form and size, possibly not too far from one or more fireplaces, and (at least in some cases) empty of larger encumbering objects.
-
When snow melts or the concave sleeping location is filled by rain, lighter fractions (rotten chaff and other light vegetal materials and small charcoal bits) might float up, to be redeposited above the ashy lenses in situ when the puddle would dry up, forming recognizable post-depositional microlayers. Further episodes of local discharge in dry conditions would create fewer ordered lenses above the former.
-
When dogs would return to the dried up station, the center of the shallow cavity would probably be affected by partial re-excavation, while along the edges of the basin the probability of finding undisturbed micro-lenses where lines of charcoal bits cover lenses of ash might be higher.
-
The preservation of the organic inclusions so far mentioned (hair and lice would be quite reliable indicators of the nature and function of the excavated feature) would depend on local micro-environments and contextual stratigraphic formation processes (Massimo Vidale).
-
- 20.
Sheep, goat, cow, and horse bones.
- 21.
The archaeozoological analysis was performed on 39 bone fragments from five different camps. All of the bones were from domestic animals (sheep/goats, horses, and oxen), which were predominantly full-grown animals, but there were also some young sheep and goats). Varying degrees of conservation of the surfaces were found, from fresh and well-maintained ones to deteriorated ones with the cortical surface removed, with cracks and fractures. This indicates that they were collected bone fragments that corresponded to the time of the investigation and were findings that had been abandoned in previous years.
Half of the exhibits had been gnawed by dogs. The signs consisted of grooves (scoring) and punctures made by teeth (pits); these were found on all of the bones of the various anatomical parts, without any particular prevalence on certain fragments. The traces were very obvious only on two of the exhibits (the rib and hipbone of a medium-sized mammal). The traces were less obvious on the other findings, with a higher prevalence on the epiphyseal end and rarely on the shaft of the bones. There were also traces of butchering that consisted of blows, striae, and fractures. The recovery of bones in the dogs’ feces shows that they had been ingested; mainly shards of epiphysis were found, recognizable by the presence of spongy bone. The observations only refer to the specific and anatomic assignation of the findings and the description of the modifications on the surfaces and their state of preservation.
In the future, this data could help to reconstruct the ways of feeding the dogs and the effect of the action of carnivores in the storage or destruction of bone remains, registering which parts of the animals are actually fed to the dogs, and which are the fragments that remain on the ground, while taking into account the behaviour of carnivores who, once sated, hide the part of the meal that is not consumed, sometimes by covering the bones with grass and loose soil or in the snow.
References
Antonini, P., Capitini, G, & Carpanellim M. (2013). The Ger, an optimal structure for using conditions and most extreme stresses-conducting techniques and structural analysis. In F. Lugli, A. A. Stoppiello, & S. Biagetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Italian congress of ethnarchaeology, Rome, 13–14 May 2010 (pp. 298–301). Oxford: Bar International Series 2472.
Atici, A. L. (2006). Who let the dogs out? Bone destruction and its broader implications in interpreting the Bronze Age pastoral economies at Kaman Kalehöyük. Anatolian Archaeological Studies, 15, 121–131.
Bold, B.-O. (2012). Eques Mongolica. Ulaanbaatar: Mongolian ger.
Druzhkova, A. S., Thalmann, O., Trifonov, V. A., Leonard, J. A., Vorobieva, N. V., Ovodov, N. D., et al. (2013). Ancient DNA analysis affirms the Canid from Altai as a primitive dog. PloS ONE, 8(3), 57754. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057754.
Germonpré, M., Láznicková-Galetováand, M., & Sablin, M. V. (2012). Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Predmostí site, the Czech Republic. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(1), 184–202. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.09.022.
Gongorjav, G. (2010). Traditional household and economic knowledge. In U. Norov (Ed.), Intangible cultural heritage of the Mongols (pp. 174–200). Ulaanbaatar: Mongolian ger.
Humphrey, C. (1975). Some notes on the role of dog in the life of Mongolian herdsmen. Journal of the Anglo-Mongolian Society, III(2), 14–23.
Losey, R. J., Bazaliiskii, V. I., Garvie-Lok, S., Germonpré, M., Leonard, J. A., Allen, A. L., et al. (2011). Canids as persons: Early Neolithic dog and wolf burials, Cis-Baikal, Siberia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 30(2), 174–189. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2011.01.001.
Lugli, F. (2008). The nomadic camps of Mid-West Mongolia: The case of the spring site of Hulhin Shilin (IhTamir). In F. Lugli, & A. A. Stoppiello (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Italian congress of ethnarchaeology, Rome, 17–19 March 2004 (pp. 135–145). Oxford: Bar International Series 1841.
Lugli, F. (2011). The nomadic camps of the Middle Gobi Region. The case of SharUdag site (LussDundgov) and of Buleenher site (DelgerhangaiDundgov). In F. Lugli, A. A. Stoppiello, & S. Biagetti (Eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Italian congress of ethnarchaeology, Rome, 17–19 May 2006 (pp. 194–206). Oxford: Bar International Series 2235.
Lugli, F. (2013). Winter camps in Mongolia. In F. Lugli, A. A. Stoppiello, & S. Biagetti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Italian congress of ethnarchaeology, Rome, 13–14 May 2010 (pp. 209–216). Oxford: Bar International Series 2472.
Lugli, F. (2014). Nomads and dogs: A crucial bond. In Proceedings of Урал-Алтай: через века в будущее (Gorno Altaisk 2nd–5th of July 2014) (pp. 19–21). Gorno Altaisk.
Lyman, R. L. (1994). Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morey, D. F. (2010). Dogs—Domestication and the development of a social bond. Cambridge: University Press.
Morey, D. F., & Wiant, M. D. (1992). Early Holocene domestic dog burials from the North American Midwest. Current Anthropology, 33(2), 225–229.
Ovodov, N. D., Crockford, S. J., Kuzmin, Y. V., Higham, T. F. G., Hodgins, G. W. L., & van der Plicht, J. (2011). A 33,000-year-old incipient dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia: Evidence of the earliest domestication disrupted by the last glacial maximum. PLoS One, 6(7), e22821. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022821.
Payne, S., & Munson, P.J. (1985). Ruby and how many squirrels? The destruction of bones by dogs. In N. R. J. Fieller, D. D. Gilbertson, & N.G.A. Ralph (Eds.), Palaeobiological investigations: research design, methods and data analysis (pp. 31–39). Oxford: Bar International Series 266.
Pionnier-Capitan M, Bemilli C, Bodu P, Célérier G, Ferrié J-G, et al. (2011) New evidence for Upper Palaeolithic small domestic dogs in South-Western Europe. J Archaeol Sci 38: 2123–2140.
Reinhard, K. J., Ambler, J. R., & Szuter, C. R. (2007). Hunter-gatherer use of small animal food resources: Coprolite evidence. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 17(4), 416–428.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lugli, F. (2016). Mongolian Nomads and Their Dogs. In: Biagetti, S., Lugli, F. (eds) The Intangible Elements of Culture in Ethnoarchaeological Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23153-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23153-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23152-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23153-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)