close
more_vert

As I've been struggling with an essay myself I'm going to take pity on you, heheh, but it's not actually very helpful as these sites aren't really neolithic, or if they are, who's to say when the dog bones arrived. This is only what I found with the search button
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/126
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/38785
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/30687
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/21638
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/11385
Perhaps it wasn't the done thing to be buried with your dog. But what does that mean? It's not the done thing now, and people love their dogs very much. Perhaps it's never been nice to sacrifice dogs. They are useful after all and you can't eat them.

Not forgetting Cuween hill chambered tomb! http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/206

AKA The Fairy Knowe... AKA "Tomb of the Beagles"..!

"Aside from the human bones, perhaps the most interesting discovery was that of 24 dog skulls. This led to the suggestion that the tomb’s users may have had totem animals.

However, over the years the relevance of these dog skulls has been queried, with suggestions that they may post-date the period the cairn was in use. But recent radiocarbon dating of a fragment of bone by the National Museums of Scotland has confirmed the dog skulls are contemporary." (http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/tombs/cuween/index.html)

G x

Rhiannon wrote:
They are useful after all and you can't eat them.
I suppose it's possible that neolithic people were as sentimental and squeamish in their eating habits as Western Europeans, but ultimately, dogs are made of meat and protein and what have you. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't have been used to fill people's stomachs, although as usual, I know bugger all about the subject, so I can't provide proof either way.