1. Introduction
Dogs were the first domestic animals in the world. Genetic evidence suggests that there were multiple lineages of dog domestication in different parts of Eurasia by at least 14,000–15,000 years ago [
1,
2]. By the Holocene, domestic dogs appeared in different parts of the world, and dog burials were discovered from house foundation deposits, special activity areas, or associated with human burials [
3,
4,
5,
6,
7]. In the Near East, dogs were present prior to the Neolithic, helping the Late Pleistocene foragers in hunting and protection [
7,
8]. Since the beginning of sedentary life, dog bones sporadically appear at the majority of the Early Neolithic and most of the Late Neolithic settlements in Anatolia [
5,
9,
10,
11]. In many settlements, dogs were buried alone, and sometimes buried with humans and other animals [
5,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17]. In others, dog bones were unceremoniously discarded in general waste deposits [
11,
18,
19,
20]. Dogs were also associated with fertility deities, healing, the underworld, and the afterlife in Anatolia—evident from multiple cases of dog burials and ritual sacrificing of dogs [
13,
21].
Although sporadic, most of the Bronze Age and Iron Age sites in Eastern Anatolia also represented dog bones, often associated with both household buildings and necropolis areas [
14,
17,
20,
22,
23]. In the western part of Eastern Anatolia, the Bronze Age layers of Arslantepe presented an unusual increase in dogs, comprised of up to 10.5% of the total identified fauna [
22]. However, the following Iron Age layers at the site revealed very sporadic dog bones [
12]. A series of sites in the Elazığ region also represented a large number of dog bones, often comprised of up to 2% of the total identified fauna, from the Bronze Age levels, but very fewer dog bones from the Iron Age [
19,
24].
In the central part of the Eastern Anatolia, a higher number of dog bones were identified from the Bronze Age layers of Sos Höyük in Erzurum [
25]. However, similar to Arslantepe and the sites in Elazığ region, the Iron Age layers of both Sos Höyük and Büyükardiç in Erzurum showed scarcity of dog bones [
18,
25]. Paucity of information also appeared from a few dog bones from another Iron Age site, Büyüktepe Höyük, in Bayburt [
25,
26].
In the eastern most part of the Eastern Anatolia, Iron Age dog remains were mostly found from the Urartian necropolis around the Lake Van region, including a group of dog bones from Altıntepe [
17] and a large concentration of dog bones from Yoncatepe Castle [
14,
23,
27].
Despite these multiple reports of dogs at Bronze Age–Iron Age sites in all parts of Eastern Anatolia, knowledge of their biological and cultural status still remains scant. Here, we present a detailed zooarchaeological study of dog bones, including two near-complete dog skeletons, unearthed from the Iron Age residence buildings and workshop complex at Alaybeyi Höyük, Eastern Anatolia. The results of this study reflect both the morphological status and cultural role of Alaybeyi dogs, adding vital information to the existing archaeological knowledge of dogs in Anatolia.
3. Results
A total of 143 specimens of dog bones from Alaybeyi Höyük were examined in this study (
Table 2). Most of them were in complete or near complete form. In total, 89 of the specimens were identified to a total of 9 distinct individuals. Bones belonging to each of these individuals were grouped under a distinct individual code, while the other specimens were categorized as “ALB miscellaneous” (
Table 3). On the basis of the epiphyseal fusions of the long bones, all the identified individuals were found to be adult dogs, except individual ALB No. 6, which appeared to be a young individual.
All dog bones at Alaybeyi Höyük were found from the Iron Age workshop complex in the east section and its courtyard, and the Early–Late Iron Age residence buildings in the west section and their surrounding pits and wells (
Table 2). Surprisingly, not a single canine bone was found in the large necropolis. The workshop complex (908–797 cal. BC) was a very large and appears to have been an important building complex, revealed by many small finds, adult human graves, a pithos with a child burial, extensive production materials, and two dog burials (
Figure 4).
The central section of the workshop was associated with intensive production activities, supported by smooth stone floor, iron slags, axes, copper alloy tools, a hammer, and bone objects. An
in situ female dog (ALB No. 1) was unearthed from the empty space in the middle of the workshop, in between the central floor and eastern floor. Most of the skeletal part of the dog, including the sternum, caudal vertebrae, and phalanges, were undisturbed (
Figure 5). In the north, the open courtyard of the workshop revealed another
in situ male dog burial without its skull. No cultural materials were associated with these canid skeletons. However, cultural materials, including ceramic parts, bone objects, and ashes, were found in the north-eastern pit of the courtyard. The open courtyard of the workshop complex was very significant, given that its masonry was the only example at the settlement. A hearth in size of 1 × 1.25 m covered with large ceramic fragments, intact vessels, a bone awl, a stone axe, and mine melting crucible with intense rusty slag residues were also found in the courtyard.
Besides the two dog burials, other canid remains, including skulls, mandibles, humerus, pelvis, sacrum, and tibia, were found scattered in the workshop and courtyard complex (
Table 2). Among them, one skull appeared to be the skull of the dog buried without its head.
The “garbage pits”—a characteristic feature of Anatolian Iron Age settlements—of Alaybeyi Höyük also yielded a considerable number of dog bones. Particularly, three Early Iron Age pits and one Early Iron Age well, associated with the habitation architectural remains in the western section, unearthed a considerable number of dog bones, which are associated with other animal bones and cultural artifacts. Among them, one pit revealed two dog mandibles, a dog ulna, and a large number of young goat bones. Dog bones from the Late Iron Age period were also mostly concentrated with other animal bones, found scattered in the residence buildings. Skulls, isolated canine teeth, a humerus, radius, ulna, and tibia were the most notable specimens (
Table 2).
Height at withers and body weight of the Alaybeyi dogs were estimated from long bones such as humerus, radius, ulna, femur, and tibia. Due to the missing skeletal parts, estimation of mentioned parameters was possible to perform for seven individuals. The calculated data present an average height at withers of the Alaybeyi dogs to be 60.49 cm—with the lowest height at withers being 57.46 cm for ALB No. 2 and the highest height at withers being 64.23 cm for ALB No. 7 (
Table 4).
The average body weight of the Alaybeyi dogs observed was 34.54 kg—with the lightest body mass 21.54 kg for the comparatively young dog ALB No. 6 and the heaviest body weight 45.44 kg for the adult individual ALB No. 7 (
Table 4). In general, five dogs at Alaybeyi Höyük were observed to be “large-sized” dogs. However, considering the estimation of the visual morphological characters from the height at withers and body weight, ALB No. 7 was found to be a much larger individual than the others—possibly due to being both a male and a breed close to the mastiff type.
Z-score calculations were made to evaluate the size differences between the Alaybeyi dogs and other Iron Age dogs in the region, as well as the average mean of modern dog breeds. The Z-score of Alaybeyi dogs were separately compared with the Z-score of the Yoncatepe Early Iron Age–Urartian dog breeds (
Table 5) and the score of the modern dog breeds (
Table 6). The GL values were used in the evaluation of the Z-score calculations since GL is more commonly preferred in predicting height at withers among other visual morphological characters. It was found that, except for one individual, ALB No. 2, there was a positive deviation in the GL values of the Alaybeyi dogs from the general average GL value of the Yoncatepe dogs. ALB No. 2 was found to be deviating from the mean by −0.600 units in the negative direction. ALB No. 7 dog was the individual with the highest deviation, also probably due to its larger size and being a male individual.
The comparison between the Alaybeyi dogs and the average mean of the modern dog breeds also revealed a similar picture. However, the positive deviation of ALB No. 7 from the mean value of the modern dog breeds was not as much as found in the comparison with the Yoncatepe dogs, probably due to the presence of large dog breeds, such as the Great Dane, Mastiff, and St. Bernard, among the modern dogs group.
Pathological marks were observed in 4.90% (NISP = 7) of the sample studied. Pathologies such as alveolar recession in the teeth and oral region, a healing fracture in the palatum durum (hard palate), a healing fracture in the frontal bone, oligodontia, periodontal disease, coxal dysplasia, osteophyte proliferations, and exostoses were the most notable (
Figure 6,
Figure 7 and
Figure 8).
Two of the specimens, a coxae and a humerus, were observed with cut and chop marks. The incisions appeared to be V-shaped cut lines when examined under a stereo microscope. Although these two specimens were unearthed from two different trenches, it was possible that they belonged to the same individual given their close location. However, this is yet to be confirmed. Both cut and chop marks were observed in the coxae (
Figure 9), unearthed from Trench D-23 and was evaluated under the “ALB miscellaneous” group. The os coxae fragment was cut obliquely from the acetabulum part with a large knife or chopper. Considering the visual dimensions, it appeared that the coxae fragment belonged to a large dog. On the other hand, a deep cut mark was observed in the distal part of the humerus (
Figure 10), which belonged to the dog examined as ALB No. 4, unearthed form Trench E-23. Apparently, to be a cut caused by a sharp knife, the mark was observed towards the epicondylus in the distolateral part of the humerus. With the help of the measurements of the humerus, the dog (ALB No. 4) was estimated to be 59.46 cm in height at withers and 29.67 kg in body weight. Notably, both specimens with cut marks were unearthed from the Early Iron Age workshop complex (900 BC—800 BC), where the largest concentration of dog bones occurred along with the presence of two
in situ dog burials.
4. Discussion
Since the Neolithic, dogs have been valued by pastoral and agricultural groups in Anatolia for their usefulness in shepherding and guarding [
10,
11,
40]. In many Anatolian sites, dogs were often buried in an intra-settlement context [
5,
12,
16], associated with humans and other animals [
9,
14,
41], or sometimes buried in the same alignment as human burials [
15]. In others cases, dogs bones were unceremoniously discarded in general waste deposits [
18,
19,
20]. Dogs were also associated with fertility deities, healing, the underworld, and the afterlife—evident from multiple cases of dog burials and ritual sacrificing of dogs in the Bronze Age and Iron Age sites [
5,
13,
16,
21]. This indicates that dogs played a multifunctional role in Anatolia throughout ancient times [
40].
In Eastern Anatolia, dogs appeared to be more common from the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age periods—perhaps associated with extensive animal husbandry. Particularly, there was a dramatic increase in domestic dog in the Bronze Age, comprising up to 10% of the total identified fauna at some sites [
12,
22]. Nevertheless, a sharp decrease in the ratio of dogs was observed at most of the Iron Age sites in the east and central parts of East Anatolia, comprising only less than 2% of the total identified fauna [
19,
24,
26]. In the Erzurum region, some Iron Age sites present only a small number of dog bones. For example, only a few dog bones, including a mandible and long bones of a 1–5-month-old puppy, were found from the Early Iron Age site Büyükardiç [
18]. The Iron Age levels of Sos Höyük in Erzurum also present only very few dog bones [
25,
26]. Scarcity of canine remains also appeared at the Iron Age site Büyüktepe Höyük in Bayburt [
26]. In contrast, domestic dogs still stand high at Alaybeyi Höyük, comprising about 9% of the total identified fauna [
20].
Dog remains also comprised significant ratio at the Iron Age sites in the eastern parts of Eastern Anatolia, mostly associated with Urartian castles and royal settlements in the Van region [
14,
17,
42]. However, the Iron Age dogs in the Malatya region were associated with the settlements under Neo-Hittite influence [
12], and the Iron Age dogs from the Elazığ region were associated with a series of simple village type settlements established by the people moving away from the central authority following the collapse of the Hittite Empire [
24,
30,
43]. Archaeological dogs in the Lake Van region were often concentrated with necropolises. For instance, a group of dog bones, including remains of a puppy, were identified from the Urartu–Iron Age necropolis of Altıntepe [
17]. The largest concentration of dog remains, including complete dog skeletons associated with human burials, comes from the Early Iron Age royal necropolises of the Van-Yoncatepe Castle [
14,
23]. In contrast, almost all the dog bones in the Erzurum, Elazığ, and Malatya region were associated with household buildings and activity areas [
19,
20,
24,
26]. Here, although showing strong contrast regarding the ratio of the dogs in the total identified fauna, Alaybeyi too showed no exception to the Iron Age sites in the central and western part of Eastern Anatolia—given that not a single dog bone was unearthed in the necropolis area [
20].
Although sporadic, dog bones were commonly present almost every Iron Age site in Eastern Anatolia. Except for the Early Iron Age Van-Yoncatepe [
14], canine remains from all of these sites were only reported with their numbers and without any particular attribution on their morphological, biological, and cultural status. Therefore, Van-Yoncatepe dogs were the only archaeological benchmark in the region to compare to the Alaybeyi dogs. While the height at withers of the Van-Yoncatepe dogs was calculated between 52.15 cm and 60.13 cm [
27], the calculated data presents the height at withers for Alaybeyi dogs between 57.46 cm and 64.23 cm. On the other hand, the body weight of the Van-Yoncatepe dogs was calculated between 19.99 kg and 29.64 kg [
23], whereas the calculated data presents the body weight of Alaybeyi dogs between 21.54 kg and 45.44 kg. Hence, though the Van-Yoncatepe dogs were categorized in the group of large-size races [
23,
27], with an average height at withers of 60.49 cm and an average body weight 34.54 kg, the Alaybeyi dogs stand to be larger than those in Van-Yoncatepe. Particularly, though the lightest body mass 21.54 kg comes from a young individual, at least five dogs at Alaybeyi Höyük were estimated to be much heavier and “larger-sized” dogs, with a very large individual (ALB No. 7) showing a height at withers of 64.23 cm and a body weight 45.44 kg. Considering the estimation of the visual morphological characters from the height at withers and body weight, the very large feature of ALB No. 7 was possibly because of being both a male and a breed close to the mastiff type [
44].
The comparison between the Alaybeyi dogs and the average mean of the modern dog breeds also revealed a similar situation. However, the positive deviation of ALB No. 7 from the mean value of the modern dog breeds was not as much as found in the comparison with Yoncatepe dogs, probably due to the presence of large dog breeds, such as the Great Dane, Mastiff, and St. Bernard, among the modern dogs group.
Ethnographically, it is clear that there is a wide range of human–dog relations [
45]. Together with their roles as companions, hunting assistants, or guardians of the herds [
46], dogs are often raised for food, sources of meat in crisis times, specific rituals, or medicinal purposes [
46,
47,
48]. Puppy sacrifice was in practice in Anatolia during the Bronze Age, and both sacrifice of the dogs and cynophagy is known from Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean [
21,
40,
49,
50,
51]. Particularly, dog remains found in cooking pots from the Iron Age stratum of the Sardis on the Aegean coast of Western Anatolia were interpreted as sacrificial meals [
51]. Dog bones with cut marks from the Early–Middle Iron Age stratum of Tel Miqne-Ekron in Palestine [
49] and Ashkelon in Israel [
50] were also described as evidence of cynophagy, sacrificial use, and the sacred status of dogs. At Alaybeyi Höyük, the distribution of dog bones was often associated with ungulate bones deposited as food residues, indicating that dog bones too might have a similar function. Although cynophagy was not noticed at other neighboring Iron Age sites, it appears that the practice of eating dog meat was present at Alaybeyi Höyük, if not a regular diet, at least for a special occasion. Cut and chop marks on the specimens from the important workshop building and its courtyard appeared to be best support for this. The “garbage pits” of Alaybeyi Höyük—a characteristic of Iron Age settlements in Anatolia—also yielded a considerable number of dog bones often associated with ungulate bones [
20], further raising aspiration to think that the dog bones were part of food residues. On the other hand, so far no archaeological and zooarchaeological evidence suggested that dogs were sacrificed at the site. Hence, occasional cynophagy appeared to the option; however, other possibilities, including ritual uses or execution of bone tools, could be of importance in future studies with a more elaborate sample size.
In the evaluation of pathological marks, one specimen was observed with coxal dysplasia, two skulls were observed with healing fractures in the palatum durum (hard palate) and frontal region as well as alveolar recession and oligodontia in the oral region, one specimen was observed with periodontal disease, and a long bone was observed with a bone tumor [
35]. These pathologies were formed during the life-time of the dogs. Pathologies in the oral cavity and dentition indicate that these animals were probably malnourished and had to live on solid food, such as bones. On the other hand, humans at Alaybeyi Höyük appear to be responsible for the healing fractures in the frontal region—given that humans might have hit the dogs to control them or prevent their aggressive behavior [
35].
Dogs might have also played an important role in handling herds and guarding at Alaybeyi Höyük. The ratio and pray choice in the wild game [
20,
31] do not indicate that the inhabitants at the site often required dogs for hunting activities. Hence, guarding and shepherding would be the best fit to their roles. This imposed on the Iron Age people at Alaybeyi Höyük who were mostly engaged with extensive production activities [
28]. It appears that the Alaybeyi dogs were generally large-sized and of the Mastiff type [
44]; indeed, this breed is still preferred by the shepherds and cattle herders in Eastern Anatolia.
On the other hand, the two dog burials in the workshop complex—one of the most important places at the site—may indicate the special importance of dogs at Alaybeyi Höyük. Installation of near-complete dog skeletons in special deposits, such as the workshop complex, and installation of dog bones mostly in habitation architectures and their associated deposits, could be the best evidence for this. Particularly, the
in situ status of these dog skeletons stand as strong indication that, unlike practices of throwing away the dead shepherd dogs in present southeast and east Anatolia [
31,
46], the two dogs at the workshop complex were intentionally buried by the people at the site. However, there is no indication that the Alaybeyi dogs were regarded as pets—given that none of them were buried with humans or in the manner of any human burials, nor associated with any kind of special artifacts.