The Impact of Dog Domestication on Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic Hunting Strategies in Northern Europe and Western Asia

Abstract

This entry summarizes the impact of dog domestication on hunting strategies during the Mesolithic period in northern Europe and the Epipaleolithic or Natufian period in western Asia. It explores the transition from Paleolithic hunting methods, which relied heavily on direct impact weapons, to the more efficient long-distance projectiles and cooperative hunting techniques that emerged during the Mesolithic and Natufian periods. The entry highlights the significant role of domesticated dogs in enhancing human hunting efficiency and discusses the implications of this new partnership on human survival and the development of early societies.

Introduction

The domestication of dogs (Canis familiaris) has long been recognized as a crucial turning point in human history, with archaeological evidence suggesting that the process began around 15,000-40,000 years ago (Germonpré et al., 2009; Perri et al., 2021). Dogs were among the first animals to be domesticated, and their contributions to human society have been profound, spanning from companionship to hunting assistance. This article examines the role of dogs in transforming hunting strategies during the Mesolithic period in northern Europe and the Epipaleolithic or Natufian period in western Asia.

Cooperative Hunting

The Mesolithic period in northern Europe and the Epipaleolithic or Natufian period in western Asia marked a significant transformation in human hunting strategies. The domestication of dogs played a pivotal role in this change, as humans began to rely on their newly domesticated companions to improve their hunting efficiency.

The Mesolithic and Natufian periods saw the introduction of innovative hunting technologies that replaced the direct impact weapons, such as heavy stone axes and spears, that characterized the Paleolithic period. One of the most important advancements was the development of long-distance projectile weapons, particularly arrows armed with small, sharp stone blades called microliths (Mithen, 2003). These weapons allowed for greater accuracy and lethality, enabling hunters to target prey from a distance, minimizing the risks associated with close-range encounters.

The domestication of dogs during this period was instrumental in enhancing the effectiveness of these new hunting methods. As a result of this domestication, dogs began to accompany humans on hunting expeditions, utilizing their keen sense of smell and tracking abilities to locate prey. Dogs’ natural hunting instincts enabled them to chase and corner wounded animals, making it easier for human hunters to finish them off (Zeder, 2012). Additionally, dogs served as deterrents to other predators, protecting both humans and their hunted prey from potential threats (Morey, 1994).

The cooperation between humans and dogs in hunting also led to a mutual exchange of benefits. While humans gained an increased hunting efficiency and the ability to bring down larger prey, dogs benefited from a consistent source of food and protection (Clutton-Brock, 1995). This symbiotic relationship not only improved the success rate of hunting parties but also fostered the deep bond between humans and their canine companions that persists to this day.

Cooperative hunting involving dogs had a significant impact on the social and cultural aspects of Mesolithic and Natufian communities. The inclusion of dogs in hunting parties allowed for a division of labor, with dogs taking on specific roles such as tracking, chasing, or holding prey at bay (Koster, 2008). This division of labor likely led to more organized and effective hunting strategies, which in turn could have contributed to increased social complexity and the formation of larger social groups (Lee, 1979).

Another consequence of cooperative hunting with dogs was the development of specialized hunting practices tailored to specific environments and prey species. For example, in densely forested areas, dogs were particularly valuable for tracking elusive prey, such as deer or boar, whereas in open grasslands, they could assist in driving large herds of ungulates towards human hunters (Ovodov et al., 2011). These specialized hunting techniques allowed Mesolithic and Natufian communities to exploit a wider range of resources and adapt to different environments.

Furthermore, the deepening relationship between humans and dogs during this period may have had broader implications for the process of animal domestication. As humans and dogs formed closer bonds through cooperative hunting, humans may have been more inclined to domesticate other animals, recognizing the potential benefits of forming partnerships with other species (Larson & Fuller, 2014). This, in turn, could have laid the groundwork for the eventual domestication of livestock and the development of early agricultural societies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, cooperative hunting with dogs during the Mesolithic and Natufian periods had far-reaching effects on human society, as it transformed hunting strategies, increased efficiency, and fostered deeper relationships between humans and their canine companions. This partnership between humans and dogs not only contributed to the development of more complex social structures but also set the stage for the broader process of animal domestication and the emergence of early agricultural societies.

References

1. Germonpré, M., Lázničková-Galetová, M., & Sablin, M. V. (2012). Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Předmostí site, the Czech Republic. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(1), 184-202.
2. Koster, J. (2008). Hunting with dogs in Nicaragua: an optimal foraging approach. Current Anthropology, 49(5), 935-944.
3. Lee, R. B. (1979). The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society. Cambridge University Press.
4. Mithen, S. (2003). After the Ice: A Global Human History, 20,000-5,000 BC. Harvard University Press.
5. Perri, A., Feuerborn, T. R., Frantz, L. A., Larson, G., Malhi, R. S., Meltzer, D. J., & Witt, K. E. (2021). Dog domestication and the dual dispersal of people and dogs into the Americas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(6), e2010083118.
6. Zeder, M. A. (2012). The domestication of animals. Journal of Anthropological Research, 68(2), 161-190.

Further Reading

1. Clutton-Brock, J. (1995). Origins of the dog: domestication and early history. In J. Serpell (Ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People (pp. 7-20). Cambridge University Press.
2. Davis, S. J., & Valla, F. R. (1978). Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natufian of Israel. Nature, 276(5688), 608-610.
3. Larson, G., & Fuller, D. Q. (2014). The evolution of animal domestication. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, 115-136.
4. Morey, D. F. (1994). The early evolution of the domestic dog. American Scientist, 82(4), 336-347.
5. Ovodov, N. D., Crockford, S. J., Kuzmin, Y. V., Higham, T. F., Hodgins, G. W., & 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.