International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
Published online 5 April 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/oa.824
Where are the Wolves?
Investigating the Scarcity
of European Grey Wolf (Canis
lupus lupus) Remains in Medieval
Archaeological Contexts and its
Implications
A. PLUSKOWSKI*
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street,
Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK
ABSTRACT The wolf is thought to have been abundant in many parts of medieval Europe, but its remains
are rarely identified in archaeological contexts. One of the potential reasons for this is the
problem of distinguishing between the skeletal elements of wolves and dogs, accentuated by
poor preservation and fragmentation. This paper reviews the extent of this problem, exploring
the morphological relationships between wolves and dogs, as well as the issue of hybridisa-
tion, and goes on to suggest how the scarcity of wolf remains may in fact reflect infrequent
hunting. This is illustrated with a comparative regional case study of wolf hunting and
commercial exploitation in medieval England and southern Scandinavia, synthesising
archaeological and written sources. The paper concludes with an optimistic appraisal of
the value of wolf remains in medieval archaeological contexts for a broader understanding of
relations between humans and wolves in the medieval period. Copyright � 2006 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Key words: wolf; dog; hybrid; medieval; morphology; zooarchaeology; hunting; ecology
Introduction of mustelids. There are a number of potential
reasons for this, but the one explored in detail
The wolf is commonly thought to have been here is the problem of identification. With the
abundant in many parts of medieval Europe, exception of some hybrid strains, Eurasian grey
and is found today in limited numbers in the wolves (Canis lupus lupus) and dogs (Canis familaris)
Scandinavian Peninsula, central and eastern can be clearly distinguished by their different
Europe, particularly Poland and Romania, north- behaviour and appearance (Fox, 1971; Nowak,
ern Iberia and the Apennine Mountain range 2003: 257). In archaeological contexts, distin-
(Boitani, 2003: 326). However, its remains are guishing between the remains of wolves and
rarely encountered in archaeological contexts dogs is more difficult and in some cases, particu-
compared with those of other wild mammals, larly where the evidence is fragmentary (e.g.
including carnivores such as foxes and a range Reichstein, 1991: 37) and individual elements
cannot be clearly identified, virtually impossible
(Scott & Fuller, 1965: 36). There may be an
* Correspondence to: Department of Archaeology, University of
implicit problem of a priori assumptions influencing
Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK.
e-mail: [e-mail] problematic identification (Klein & Cruz-Uribe,
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 11 March 2005
Revised 27 May 2005
Accepted 1 June 2005
280 A. Pluskowski
1984: 19 20); in cases of doubt the analyst cranial morphology, which appear to reflect pae-
identifies dog over wolf because this is what he domorphosis, or the retention of juvenile character-
or she expects to find, perhaps on the basis of istics into adulthood, are characteristic of the
probability, although this decision is usually process of domestication in some animals such
informed by the associated archaeological con- as dogs, certain breeds of pig and cattle (Morey,
text. These problems of identification have been 1992; Clutton-Brock, 1999: 36 37).
associated with the low number of reported wolf Secondly, a general decrease in overall body
bones in medieval contexts (O Connor, pers size is a diagnostic feature of domestication
comm.; Yalden, 1999: 144). Comparable difficul- (Zeuner, 1963; Scott & Fuller, 1965: 37; Higham,
ties in distinguishing between wolves and dogs 1968; B�k�nyi, 1975: 173; 1989: 25; Davis, 1995:
are sometimes encountered when examining 135). These morphological transformations were
artistic sources, and despite some evidence for accompanied by cognitive and behavioural
conceptual fluidity, it is clear that the two animals changes (Hare et al., 2002). By the medieval
occupied different physical and conceptual envir- period, the wolf was clearly separated from the
onments in the medieval period (Pluskowski, dog. However, osteomorphological characteris-
2003: 92 94; forthcoming). This paper reviews tics separating domestic animals from their wild
the literature concerning identification of the ancestral forms are not clearly diagnostic, but
skeletal remains of dogs and wolves, particularly occur in a continuous transition from  typical
in Europe, and draws upon medieval British and wild to  typical domestic forms (�sterg�rd,
Scandinavian zooarchaeological and written data 1980: 60). In the context of widely distributed
to suggest whether the limited number of identi- wolf and dog populations, adult wolves and
fied wolf remains may be attributed to under- highly specialised dog breeds represent the
identification of the wolf, or to the particular extremes at either end of this continuum.
nature of medieval human wolf relations. The
term  medieval is used in this paper to refer to the
period from the 8th 15th centuries AD. Skeletal differences in medieval
and modern specimens
The domestication of the wolf What then is the exact nature of the problem
of identification? Dog and wolf skeletons are
There is general agreement that the grey wolf is not typically labelled as  virtually identical in
the progenitor of the domestic dog, with the the same way that sheep and goats are (with
likelihood of subsequent multiple domestications some exceptions, e.g. Davis & Valla, 1979: 609).
involving various subspecies of wolves (Vilą et al., The primary basis for distinction is size, frequ-
1997; Nowak, 2003: 256 7; Wayne & Vilą, 2003: ently used in relation to modern equivalents to
225). The morphological effects of domestication identify prehistoric dogs (e.g. Benecke, 1987;
on the wolf only become visible in extant skeletal B�k�nyi, 1975: 170 174; Clutton-Brock & Noe-
remains from later prehistoric contexts (Davis, Nygaard, 1990: 645; �hman, 1983: 175) and
1995: 135). Firstly, an excessively shortened or classical and medieval period wolves (e.g. Boess-
lengthened skull can result in crowded teeth, neck & von den Driesch, 1979: 189; Meaney,
although this is probably an age-dependent vari- 1981: 135; Reichstein, 1991: 37; Lie, 1988: 156).
able (Davis & Valla, 1979: 609; Clutton-Brock, Fibres can be used to identify species (Appleyard,
1999: 58). Some (e.g. Meadow, 1975: 270) 1978: 123, Fig. 91; see also Ryder, 2000) but in
confidently distinguish wolves and dogs on this the case of the wolf there are no surviving
basis, although successful identification focuses examples from medieval contexts. Whilst differ-
on a limited part of the skull. B�k�nyi (1975: 173) ences in body size and robusticity can be ascer-
has demonstrated that the shortening of the jaw tained from post-cranial indicators, more reliable
does not affect each part of the mandible and identification can be obtained by measuring
maxilla equally only the premolar region (oral recovered teeth and parts of the skull (sum-
half) is shortened significantly. These changes in marised in Table 1 and Figure 1).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
Where are the Wolves? 281
Table 1. Potential diagnostic differences between skeletal elements of dogs and wolves. This information represents a
review of methods of identification employed by analysts in the last 40 years; these have not all been comparatively
tested on a single, large sample of wolf and dog bones and are continuously being scrutinised
Feature Domestic dog (Canis familiaris) European wolf (Canis l. lupus)
Crowding of teeth (dental overlap)
(Clark, 1996: 214; Degerbłl, 1963; Teeth crowded on the mandible. Less crowding. However, B�k�nyi
Clutton-Brock, 1970; van Occlusion variation can be used to (1975: 174; 1989: 25) cited instances
Wijngaarden-Bakker, 1974). distinguish modern, early breeds and of crowded teeth in modern wolves,
Crown length of M1 alveolar length wolves (Brothwell, 1991; see also particularly in zoos (also Fiennes,
from P4 to M1 Higgs, 2001). This is not a very 1976: 100)
Davis & Valla (1979: 609) concluded reliable method as some dogs fit into
on the basis of overlap in Near the same ranges as wolves, depen-
Eastern specimens that this was dent on age to some extent (ibid).
not a reliable diagnostic difference Lawrence & Bossert (1967: 225), list
between wolves and dogs  relatively small teeth as typical of
dogs, particularly the last upper
molar. In some dogs, the distance
between tooth row and bulla is long
compared with the length of the tooth
row (ibid: 225: 230 31)
Orbital angle (Figure 1A) 48 56 ; Aaris-Słrensen (1977: 136) 36 47 (Aaris-Słrensen, 1977: 136)
examined 35 wolf skulls and 35 dog 40 45 (Mech, 1970: 27)
skulls and found this method of 39.5 46.5 (Iljin, 1941: 387)
differentiation was of limited value,
with only 2 wolves and 3 dogs
overlapping. Iljin (1941: 387) pro-
vided a range of 49 55 and Mech
(1970: 27) 53 60 , from significantly
smaller samples
Shape and size of auditory Smaller, compressed and slightly Large, convex and almost spherical
(or tympanic) bullae (Figure 1B) crumpled
(Lawrence & Bossert, 1967: 230;  Slightly rugged (Lawrence &
Mech, 1970: 27) Bossert, 1967: 230)
Skull The brain case of some dogs is often
atypically heavily ossified and there
are some emphasised differences
in the sagittal crest (Lawrence &
Bossert, 1967: 225)
Size of jaw (Figure 1C) In some dog breeds, the mandible is The mandible of the wolf tends to be
shortened (see above). This feature, bigger, longer (than most dog
resulting in crowded teeth, is recog- breeds) and more robust (Scott &
nised as a general product of do- Fuller, 1965: 38). The shape of the
mestication but manifests fairly late in mastoid region is  more deeply
prehistory (Davis, 1995: 135). In other sculpted (Yates, 2000)
breeds such as the greyhound, the
mandible is noticeably elongated
Snout width/length (Clark, 1996: Some dog breeds tend to have a Narrower snout relative to length
214; Harcourt, 1974) shortening of the facial part of the skull
without a concurrent narrowing of the
muzzle
Frontal sinuses Some dog breeds have inflamed
frontal sinuses resulting in a steep
angle of the forehead (Lawrence &
Bossert, 1967: 225, 230 231)
Continues
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
282 A. Pluskowski
Table 1. Continued
Feature Domestic dog (Canis familiaris) European wolf (Canis l. lupus)
Mid-region of skull Some dog breeds have a bend in the
mid-region of the skull so that the
rostrum and brain case meet at more
of an angle than in wild canids
(Lawrence & Bossert, 1967: 225,
230 231)
Inter-orbital region In some dogs, the skull is elongated in
this region. The palate is also
elongated (Lawrence & Bossert,
1967: 225, 230 231)
The relative length and width of the The summed molar lengths exceed, The sum of the upper carnassial ex-
upper carnassial (Clark, 1996: 214) or are equal to the carnassial ceeds the sum of the lengths of the
(Figure 1E, F, G, H) two molars
The relative length and width of the Typically smaller in dogs This measurement is typically larger in
lower carnassial (Figure 1D, I, J) both modern and prehistoric wolves
but there is overlap (Davis, 2003:
Fig. 6)
Shoulder height (SHT) or  withers Typically smaller than wolf, Typically larger than dog, depending
height (Harcourt, 1974). SHT may decreasing with domestication on age
not be a particularly reliable estimate. (Teichert, 1993: 237), although
It is usually derived from the metapo- increased withers have been
dial length compared with modern developed in some breeds
analogue data to show the
relationship between bone length and
SHT (O Connor, 2000: 116), but whole
metapodials are rarely recovered
(Reitz & Wing, 1999: 175)
Allometric size (variable elements Typically smaller bodies. Features Typically larger bodies. Features
depending on preservation) identified individually due to frag- identified individually due to frag-
mentary preservation, e.g. length of mentary preservation (Schmid, 1972:
upper canines compared with the jaw 80)
(Schmid, 1972: 80). According to
Morey (1994: 343) the cranial
morphology of dogs is unique and
does not conform to allometric
patterns among wild canids. This is
disputed by many biologists, and in
fact Lawrence & Bossert (1967)
eliminate  size as a diagnostic factor
for differentiating wolves, dogs and
coyotes
But there are complications. Firstly, it is diffi- sample is biased in favour of those animals
cult to pin down a diagnostic set of character- accorded complete burial essentially dogs, as
istics. In a detailed study of wolf, dog and coyote no complete wolves have been recorded from
skulls, Lawrence & Bossert (1967: 224) identified medieval archaeological contexts. Whilst she
nine cranial and six tooth measurements as most outlined categories for the metrical analysis of
diagnostic (out of an initial 42 measurements on fragmented elements, successful identification
225 skulls). However, their comparisons of dogs still requires these elements (such as metapodials)
and wolves indicated that no single set of char- to be complete. Where jawbones are missing, a
acteristics was equally diagnostic of all types. number of identifications are made on the relative
Secondly, the fragmentary nature of the evidence size of teeth, particularly the carnassials and
may hinder successful identification. Clark canines, which are smaller in dogs than in wolves
(1995) noted that the overall archaeological Canis (Table 1; Aaris-Słrensen, 1977: 134). But even
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
Where are the Wolves? 283
Figure 1. Measurements used to distinguish between skulls and mandibles of dogs and those of wolves summarised
in Table 1 (taken from Von Den Driesch, 1976; Mech, 1970: 27). A: measuring the orbital angle on a wolf or dog skull; B:
location of auditory or tympanic bullae on a wolf skull; C: size of wolf jaw; D: indicated measurement of the lower
carnassial tooth; E: indicated measurement of the upper carnassial tooth; F: greater width of upper carnassial; G:
length of upper carnassial; H: width of upper carnassial; I: width of the lower carnassial; J: length of the lower
carnassial.
where elements are complete, relying on size as a the robust C. l. albus (extreme northern Eurasia),
distinguishing feature can also be problematic as the large C. l. communis (Ural mountains, but
demonstrated by O Connor s (2000: 151, probably once found in eastern Europe and
Fig. 13.1) comparison of wolf and Alsatian dog Siberia) and the smaller C. l. italicus (Italian
skulls. The smaller skull in his particular example Peninsula) with C. l. lupus being the most wide-
is a female Canis lupus, although both are similarly spread Eurasian animal of moderate size (Nowak,
proportioned in terms of ratio of muzzle length 2003: 244 6). Furthermore a degree of poly-
to overall length. Successful identification is morphism is even visible within individual packs
therefore based on a series of comparative mea- (Scott & Fuller, 1965: 51). In the case of dogs, the
surements, although this is often not possible range of breeds or  types and the possibility for
since remains tend to be fragmentary and incom- wolf dog hybridisation can further confuse posi-
plete: typically the by-product of medieval skin- tive identification.
ning activities.
Wolves and dogs can vary in size across
subspecies (Haltenorth, 1958: 152). In wolves The  problem of morphological
this may be related to the size of their natural variation within dog breeds or types
prey as well as climatic factors (Fiennes, 1976: 88;
Aaris-Słrensen, 1977: 142; Davis, 1981). Indeed, The size and proportions of dogs can vary
recognised Eurasian subspecies of wolf include considerably from breed to breed, this broad
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
284 A. Pluskowski
Table 2. Female European wolf skeletons from Whipsnade Wild Animal Park held in the Grahame Clark Laboratory:
Shoulder height (SHT) estimates calculated by Pluskowski according to Harcourt s (1974) regression equation based
on dog skeletons
Specimen Skull Ulna Radius Humerus Femur Tibia Total mean
no. length reconstructed SHT
400 24.5 69.0 68.8 68.2 71.6 69.6 69.0
107 24.6 69.3 67.8 69.0 69.8 69.0 69.0
393 24.2 69.3 68.4 69.2 69.8 69.0 69.0
Long bone measurements represent SHT estimates and not lengths. All measurements are in cm. Note the consistent
 over-estimates based on femur lengths and the consistent  under-estimates based on radius lengths, factors which
could be explored with further work on wolf skeletons.
variability resulting from the biological plasticity females in the collection of the Grahame Clarke
of the wolf (Teichert, 1993: 237). Whilst modern Laboratory in Cambridge all stood at 69 cm
breeds cannot be readily projected back into the (Table 2 based on Harcourt s regression equa-
past (Hufthammer, 1994: 218; Clark, 1995) tion for dogs applied to wolf skeletons). Where
they are frequently the products of cumulative larger data samples are available, such as from
historical inter-breeding dogs of varying shape hunted European wolf populations, the average
and size from medieval archaeological contexts withers height remains in the upper 60 70 cm
are readily classified into morphologically typical range for adults, although individual males stand-
categories ( types or  morphotypes ). These are ing at over 100 cm have been recorded (e.g.
regularly described in the terminology of modern Ozolnia
, 2001: Table 1). A number of modern
breeds such as  greyhound ,  border collie ,  spitz- dog breeds stand in the 60 70 cm range, from
hound or  Norwegian elk hound to aid recon- the Otter Hound at 61 66 cm and Poitevin at
struction (e.g. �hman, 1983: 180 1; Lie, 1988: 61 70 cm, through to the Irish Wolfhound at
174 5; Smith, 1998: 862). A diverse range of <78.5 cm and Great Dane at < 81 cm (Browne,
medieval dog forms are depicted in numerous 1974). These are often used as comparisons for
manuscripts from across Europe, particularly in tall dog types from British and Scandinavian
hunting books from the 14th and 15th centuries, medieval contexts which fall into the 60 70 cm
and these have been used to complement ana- range. Examples at the upper end of this scale
lyses of faunal remains (e.g. ibid; Clutton-Brock & include an individual from the castle at
Burleigh, 1995). Other artistic sources such as Middleton Stoney dating to post-1225 and stand-
stone sculpture, textiles, wood and ivory carvings ing at an estimated 77 cm (Levitan, 1984), and
have been generally neglected or referred to in one from Bryggen in Bergen dated to 1170/1
isolation, but once synthesised, could represent a 1198 with an estimated shoulder height of 73 cm
valuable complementary resource. (Hufthammer, 1994: 222). This range provides a
In the more advanced and specialised breeds of snapshot of large dog sizes from medieval con-
domestic dog there is little difficulty in separating texts, but also indicates potential overlap with
them from adult wolves (Lawrence & Bossert, wolves; some dog types appear to have been bred
1967: 225; Fiennes, 1976: 100). Where skeletal to be as tall as, or taller than, average wolves.
remains lack obvious morphological characteris- However, withers estimations are not wholly
tics, a standard way of distinguishing between reliable, particularly if based on a few fragments
both types and species is to calculate the shoulder from an individual which can lead to over- and
or  withers height, which can be reconstructed if underestimates (see Table 2). In the literature
enough material is available from an individual they are frequently complemented by observa-
animal. Adult Eurasian wolf (Canis l. lupus) speci- tions of robusticity and shape bone widths as
mens tend to be over 60 cm; an adult male in the well as lengths relative age and gender. Where
Natural History Museum is estimated at 67.4 cm individual teeth are recovered from archaeologi-
(Clutton-Brock & Burleigh, 1995), whilst three cal contexts, as a result of deliberate or accidental
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
Where are the Wolves? 285
deposition, they too have been identified as wolf a strong prevalence of wolf features. One exam-
or dog on the basis of size (Table 1). Dental ple excavated in Canterbury (radiocarbon dated
attrition may be taken into account when using AD 640 990) was tentatively identified as a
tooth size as a criterion for identification. In the bloodhound breed (Clutton-Brock & Burleigh,
case of wolves, this is progressive in 2-year 1995). The main potential problem is that iden-
increments beginning at less than 1 and continu- tified wolf remains may in fact be hybrids the
ing to more than 12 years of age (Gipson et al., skeletal identification of hybrids is extremely
2000). Ideally, zooarchaeological analysis does difficult without additional information and is
not rely on single measurements such as this currently being researched (Yates, 2000). Whilst
and the identification of the early medieval dog comparatively little scientific research has
skeleton from Canterbury exemplifies a successful focused on hybridisation (Crockford, 2000),
application of multiple measurements but in some observations can be cited. Recent studies
some cases there may be little choice. This is suggest that the extent of modern hybridisation
not a quantifiable problem but shows the poten- in  natural conditions has been overestimated.
tial for inaccurately distinguishing between the Hybrid offspring rarely survive in the wild due to
two animals in the archaeological record. Invari- lack of parental care and problems of integration
ably some wolf remains may have been classified into wolf packs, whilst breeding seasons for
as  dog or  unidentifiable . wolves and domestic dogs vary (Vilą & Wayne,
1999; Nowak, 2003: 258; see also critique by
Crockford, 2000). Furthermore, detailed studies
The  problem of hybrids suggest that more widespread hybridisation arises
under specific circumstances. For example, hybri-
Whilst it is widely accepted that wolves and dogs disation was identified in the skulls of arctic
easily hybridise, the conditions for, and extent of, wolves alive between the 1930s and 1950s, coin-
inter-breeding continue to be debated. Wolf ciding with a decrease in persecution followed by
hybrids are a perennial concern for biologists partial recolonisation of former territories. At the
and conservationists, commonly seen as a threat same time, developments in mechanised trans-
to the genetic integrity of wild wolf populations port resulted in a decreased number of working
(e.g. Gloyd, 1992; Randi & Lucchini, 2001; husky dogs, which in turn provided a population
Wayne & Vilą, 2003: 225 6). Contemporary of unwanted animals that potentially became
written sources certainly suggest that wolf feral and presumably interbred. But hybridisation
hybrids may have existed in medieval Europe appears to have been temporary; after the 1950s,
(Pluskowski, 2003: 93, 180; forthcoming). Given the cranial evidence indicated a rapid selection
the morphological variation that can result from for wolf skull morphology (Clutton-Brock et al.,
crossbreeding, hybridisation presents potential 1994: 32 3). This reversion appears to have been
complications for zooarchaeologists, particularly partial and it is uncertain whether it will ulti-
if it is largely a product of human-induced inter- mately represent a new morphology; the results
breeding, as such individuals are more likely to be were disputed by Nowak (1995).
encountered in archaeological deposits. At pre- None the less, these observations can aid our
sent, it is impossible to confirm hybridisation assessment of the potential for hybridisation in
without some form of genetic analysis (e.g. Vilą medieval Europe. The only sustained attempt at
et al., 2001, 2003), whilst phenotypic and beha- wolf persecution in medieval Europe can be
vioural characteristic identification is currently attributed to England, where wild wolf popula-
unreliable (Cusdin & Greenwood, 2000). But to tions probably became extinct by the end of the
what extent does the issue of hybridisation hin- 14th century (sustained persecutions in central
der the identification of wolves in medieval Europe and Scandinavia took place from the 18th
archaeological contexts? to 20th centuries (Zimen, 1978: 282 6; Boitani,
Potential hybridisation has been tentatively 2003: 318 20). There is no evidence for their
identified through osteomorphological analysis recovery following the mid-14th century crisis
in medieval contexts where dog remains exhibit (as implied by Harting, 1880), which resulted in a
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
286 A. Pluskowski
significant contraction of the human population late medieval period (Andersson, 2003: 331;
and the regeneration of woodland. In contrast, Andr�n, 1997).
there is no evidence for sustained wolf persecu- Occasional episodes of cross-breeding can-
tion in medieval Scandinavia, and with the com- not be ruled out, although whilst the offspring
parable contraction in human activity, wolf and of such hybrids may not have been easy to
wild ungulate populations invariably regenerated. detect by sight, modern hybrids are reported
Leaving aside controlled crossbreeding,  natu- as having unpredictable and inappropriately
rally occurring hybridisation in modern popula- aggressive behaviour towards people, live-
tions most frequently occurs near human stock and wild animals and presumably
settlements where wolves are found in low den- behaved in a similar way in the past (Crockford,
sities and feral and domestic dogs are common 2000: 310). Perhaps these were subsumed into
(Vilą & Wayne, 1999: 195 6). In medieval the descriptions of  mad dogs that are docu-
England, where human settlements were rela- mented across medieval Europe. The predict-
tively densely distributed, there appears to have able response from a community would have
been a lack of wolves by, and almost certainly been to destroy such a dog, as it would pose a
after, the end of the 14th century to potentially threat to both people and livestock. In all cases,
trigger hybridisation. Moreover, the evidence the opportunity for hybridisation would be
points to limited populations of dogs in medieval minimal and its effect on the archaeological
English, Scottish and Welsh settlements, few of record almost negligible. If any hybrids are
which appear to have been feral (Smith, 1998: identified, they are likely to be examples of
869). This situation may well have changed in the deliberate crossbreeding. However, to date,
late medieval period. Maltby (1979: 64) noted few such individuals have been identified.
legislation from 15th and 16th century Exeter
targeted at stray dogs, corresponding with a
concentration of dog burials from later deposits; Incorporating wolf remains into
clearly more research is required in this area. medieval socio-ecological models
Written sources suggest that the Scottish wolf
population had become isolated after the exter- In theory, the majority of wolves in medieval
mination of wolves in England, but even if contexts should be distinguishable from dogs.
transient populations had moved from Scotland In practice, many dog types are recognisable,
into England they are unlikely to have sustained a but identification of wolves is hindered by the
significant generation of hybrids. In Scandinavia, fragmentary nature of the evidence, the simila-
alongside the backdrop of an unquantifiable but rities between certain skeletal elements of wolves
mobile wolf population, the extent of permanent and larger dog breeds, and the related problem of
settlement increased from the 11th 14th centu- detecting occasional hybrids (Gloyd, 1992;
ries (Orrman, 2003: 250 69). However, on the Yates, pers comm.). Davis & Valla (1979: 609)
basis of osteoarchaeological data, Lie (1988: 193) went as far as using the term  wolf-dog , parallel-
suggested that dog-keeping was relatively limited ing the problems in distinguishing between sheep
in medieval Scandinavia, particularly in Norway. and goat. A more common conclusion is  wolf
Hufthammer (1994: 243) on the other hand, this or dog ,  small wolf or large dog or  could
time on the basis of a large sample from Bryggen include wolf (Meaney, 1981: 135; O Connor,
dating from 1198 1248, observed that the dog 1989: 186; Shoesmith, 1980: microfiche 5).
population of the town was quite sizeable. As Smaller dogs with gracile bones are occasionally
with the British Isles, this issue requires further categorised with foxes (e.g. Smith & McCormick,
interdisciplinary and inter-regional research. 2001). In a few examples from medieval contexts,
However, in the context of hybridisation it is researchers are certain of their identification
worth mentioning that the density of urban areas (e.g. Reichstein, 1991: 37; McCormick, 2000: 5),
and intensively managed hunting grounds in but in most cases where wolf identity is suspected
medieval Scandinavia and therefore sizeable it cannot be positively ascertained (e.g. Nłrlund,
populations of dogs remained low into the 1948: 262; Prummel & Gabriel, 1993: 99; Yalden,
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
Where are the Wolves? 287
1999: 147). Whilst wolves are occasionally ten- southern Scandinavia from the 8th 14th
tatively identified, dogs are regularly identified centuries AD.
with certainty. But the main reason for this is that
deliberately buried canids, which in turn are
Wolves in England and southern
more likely to possess a relatively complete
Scandinavia from the 8th 14th
skeleton, have after extensive examination pro-
centuries
ven to be dogs of one kind or another. No
deliberately buried complete carcasses of wolves
have been excavated from the medieval contexts Canis lupus in faunal assemblages
surveyed in this paper. Where does this leave
zooarchaeologists? Wolf remains represent a fraction of the medieval
A direct comparison of skeletal examples of faunal assemblages they appear in. This is relative
dogs and wolves from a particular geographical both to domestic species and to other wild
area is ideal for investigating differentiation. species. The proportion of wild to domestic
Without genetic verification, even modern biol- species is itself interesting, and varies from one
ogists can only identify an unknown skull in geographical and cultural context to another. In
terms of probability with respect to measurements the British Isles, virtually all medieval assem-
from a known population (Scott & Fuller, 1965: blages are dominated by domesticates, and wild
43). But such a sample size is unlikely to be species appear in relatively consistent propor-
available to archaeologists in the foreseeable tions. Red, fallow and roe deer are the most
future, since the basic requisite for such a study frequently represented, followed by a host of
is a body of contemporary and identifiable wolf other mammals such as wild boar, rabbit, fox
remains. This leaves a limited amount of material; and a range of mustelids. Already by the 8th
in the light of problematic identification, all 9th century the remains of wild species were
anecdotal accounts of wolf remains from medie- associated with high-status activity in both
val contexts must be treated with suspicion (e.g. England (Loveluck, 2001: 114 15) and Scotland
Harting, 1880; Fisher, 1888: 189). But to what (Morris, 2005). This pattern is accentuated from
extent does the sparsity of identified wolf remains the 12th century where the highest proportions
limit our understanding of human wolf relations, of wild species are found at high status sites such
or wolf ecology in the medieval period? The as castles, associated with seigneurial hunting
overall numbers are too small for any statistical activities and, in particular, access to deer
analysis or detailed study of wolf population (Maltby, 1979: 61; Albarella & Davis, 1996: 33
distribution, structure and pathology. Their 4; Sykes, 2001: 149, Fig. 66). In southern Scan-
absence cannot be taken to mean that wolves dinavia the ratio of domestic to wild appears
were not present, hunted or trapped in nearby comparable (although more faunal analyses
landscapes. Conversely, the presence of wolf from seigneurial sites are required) with two
remains at a particular site does not necessarily exceptions: firstly, early medieval/Viking Age
mean that wolves inhabited the surrounding (8th 11th century) trading centres such as Birka
landscape (nor should it preclude this), and the and Hedeby; and secondly, high medieval (11th
recorded mobility of wolves must be taken 13th century) trapping sites in the interior of the
into account in any ecological reconstruction Scandinavian Peninsula. During their occupation
(Pluskowski, 2003: 80 81). None the less, the these sites were centres of economic specialisa-
few wolf remains, when compared with the tion focusing upon, amongst other things, the
representation of other species in medieval acquisition of wild animal products from the
archaeological contexts, and when integrated interior for redistribution to local, national and
with other forms of primary evidence supported international markets. Faunal assemblages sug-
by ecological analogues, can contribute to socio- gest that fur was processed at both types of site,
ecological models of medieval European societies but wild carnivores only made up a small propor-
and landscapes. This will be demonstrated tion in both. Domesticates dominated the assem-
with reference to a comparison of England and blages in Viking Age trading hubs, such as Birka
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
288 A. Pluskowski
(Wigh, 2001: 54 5, Fig. 10). In high medieval data alone suggests that wolf hunting across
trapping sites, wild ungulates dominated; for medieval Europe was typically infrequent.
example, at Tłftom in central southern Norway, However, written sources indicate that sus-
80% of identifiable faunal remains were from wild tained wolf hunting was practised in 12th and
reindeer (Mikkelsen, 1994). 13th century England, with the last reliable
This pattern is replicated in other parts of reference to native wolf skins dating to the
northern and central Europe. Castle sites, for end of the 14th century (Harting, 1880;
example, which tend to have a higher diversity Rackham, 1986: 35); yet few wolf bones have
of wild taxa are predominantly dominated by been recovered from medieval archaeological
game. Represented species consist of deer, hare, contexts (Figure 2). In Scandinavia, wolf
rabbit and wild boar alongside game birds), bones have been recovered from more sites
whilst carnivores and prized fur-bearers, such as (Figure 2), but written sources only occasionally
bears and mustelids make up a fraction of the wild mention wolf hunting, and then as legal obliga-
animal remains (Groenman-van Waateringe & tions without reference to specific regions
van Wijngaarden-Bakker, 1990: 289; Fehring, (Pluskowski, 2003: 191 3). Both types of evi-
1991: 176; Clavel, 2001: 112 3; PigiŁre et al., dence bones and documents are incom-
2004: 238). Even assemblages from castle sites plete, whilst the latter is also biased in favour
within known hunting domains, such as Sugny in of medieval England. Here from the late 11th
the Ardennes, contain relatively limited numbers century a centralised royal government increas-
of wild species, including game (Ervynck, 1992: ingly employed record-keeping in its bureau-
153). Within this small group, wolf remains are cracy, resulting in an impressive collection of
rarely encountered in northern France and documents (Clanchy, 1993: 6). In Scandinavia
Belgium, although relatively more have been the number and diversity of records remained
reported in northern Germany (e.g. Nobis & comparatively low until the mid-13th century
Ninov, 1992: 254). In eastern Europe, higher (Sawyer & Sawyer, 1993: 1). None the less, by
representations of fur-bearers amongst the wild integrating both sources it is possible to model
taxa in medieval assemblages have been linked to contrasting human wolf interactions in medie-
fur trading. The pine marten is usually the most val Britain and Scandinavia, a model incorpor-
recurring fur-bearer in these assemblages. In the ating a range of variables which can then be
case of Rakvere castle in Estonia, fox remains tested in other regions of Europe. A detailed
dominated; however, they were still outnum- interdisciplinary model of medieval wolf bio-
bered by domesticates which made up around geography in these regions has already been
90% of all represented species (Mugar
vi%0ńs, 2002: proposed and will only be referred to briefly
179). Again, wolf bones from medieval contexts (Pluskowski, 2005).
are rarely reported, although relatively more have
been reported in Poland (Wolsan et al., 1992).
The fact that game species were edible and The early medieval period
hunted both individually, and en masse in parks,
may be a reason for this proportional bias in the Whilst at least a handful of wolf (or dog) teeth
west. Where indigenous and exotic carnivores have been found as grave goods in 6th and 7th
were kept in  menageries , it was for display rather century Anglo-Saxon graves (Meaney, 1981:
than hunting, although there is evidence of 135), early medieval faunal assemblages in the
exceptions. For example, an addition to the law British Isles rarely contain wolf remains. Yalden
of Sk�ne c. 1215 alludes to the breeding of wild (1999: 147), incorporating Harting s (1880)
carnivores in southern Scandinavia (Andr�n, 1997: references, cites a handful of sites, but other
485), presumably for coursing, whilst Gaston than anecdotal evidence the only published
Ph�bus Livre de la Chasse indicates that in 14th example is from a Middle Saxon iron-smelting
century France, wolves were sometimes taken alive site in Ramsbury (Wiltshire), where the  wolf-like
and released into parks for hunting (Cummins, humerus and ulna could just as easily have come
1988: 140). On this basis, the comparative faunal from a  well-exercised dog (Coy, 1980: 49).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
Where are the Wolves? 289
Figure 2. Wolf bones reported from medieval archaeological contexts in Britain and Scandinavia.
There are no references to wolf hunting in extant The situation in southern Scandinavia is dif-
Anglo-Saxon documents; the tribute of wolf skins ferent. Wolf bones have been found at the trad-
demanded by Edgar from the Welsh is known ing settlement of Birka on an island in Lake
from William of Malmesbury writing in the 12th M�laren, occupied in the 9th 10th centuries,
century (Harting, 1880: 16 18). Place-name evi- amongst the largest collection of fur-bearing
dence suggests that wolf packs residing in south- animal bones excavated in Scandinavia. They
ern England had been destroyed, driven away, or are only represented by three distal phalanges
had moved away by the time of the Norman (dated c. 840 860) and it is likely the rest of the
Conquest (Yalden, 1999: 132). The broader con- bones were left where the animal was skinned
text for this trend is the development of an in the outland (Wigh, 1998: 86 8; 2001: 127).
aristocratic hunting culture focusing on the These remains point to the preparation and use of
acquisition of game, particularly roe deer from wolf pelts by local households, but also their
wooded parks, for exclusive consumption (Sykes, potential mobility to and from this trading hub.
2001: 155 6). But although the exploitation of In a comparable likely trading association, a
wild species diversified during the late Anglo- range of wolf bones (mandibles, scapula, limbs)
Saxon period, it only increased significantly after have also been identified in the harbour of
the Conquest with the introduction of a new Hedeby, a settlement on the southern Baltic coast
aristocratic hunting culture (ibid: 159 62). of the Jutland Peninsula occupied from the 8th to
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
290 A. Pluskowski
11th centuries (Reichstein, 1991: 37 9), and also tained efforts in royal forests. This trend can be
potentially at the trading hub of Kaupang related to royal control of wild ungulates
(Norway) dating to the 9th century (Barrett et al., wolves natural prey in England from the late
2004: 88). Wolf remains (cranial elements 11th century (Pluskowski, 2005). The impor-
and limbs) tentatively identified at the ringforts tance attached to deer by the Angevin elites
of Trelleborg (Denmark), dating to c. 1000 was inherited from the hunting culture estab-
(Nłrlund, 1948: 262), and Eketorp on �land lished in post-Conquest England as an expression
(Sweden) from the 5th 8th centuries (Boessneck of aristocratic Norman identity (Sykes, 2001:
& von den Driesch, 1979: 189), may have been 270 71). One might expect to find a higher
obtained locally, or acquired through long- or proportion of wolf remains in regions corre-
short-distance trade. There is certainly archae- sponding to documented accounts of wolf
ological evidence for the export of bear and hunts and payments for presentation of wolf
lynx pelts from the Peninsula to islands such carcasses; however, this likelihood is constrained
as Gotland (Petr�, 1980). In pre-Christian by the paucity of archaeological research in
Scandinavia, the depicted (and later documen- the north compared with the south (Higham,
ted) use of wolf pelts in magical-martial 2004: 11).
mumming and related expressions of socio- In high medieval southern Scandinavia, wolf
metaphysical identity may explain the presence remains recovered from urban centres have
of the animal s remains in major trading hubs been interpreted in relation to their hinterland.
(Breen, 1999: 43; Price, 2002: 372 77). However, The presence of wolf (six individuals dated to
since there is relatively little information on the the period 1025 1225), bear, lynx and deer
use of furs in early medieval northern European bones in 11th and 12th century layers in Oslo
societies, it is impossible to verify this (see have been related to deforestation in the town s
Cameron, 1998). surrounding landscape (Schia, 1991: 186; 1994:
Acknowledging the problems of identification 7). In Sweden, one wolf bone has been recov-
highlighted in this paper, it is interesting to note ered from Skara, dated to the 14th century
that whilst the amuletic appropriation of wolf (Lepiksaar, 1976), four bones from �rebro
teeth is evident in early Anglo-Saxon England, dated to the period 1250 1350 (Johansson,
the use of bear remains in both northern 1990), three bones from V�ster�s dated to the
Continental and Scandinavian burial rites out- period 1350 1420 (Vretemark & Sten, 1995),
weighs that of other carnivores, including wolves nine from a single individual at Eketorp dating
and other canids, which are identified relatively from the 11th 14th centuries (Boessneck & von
infrequently (Meaney, 1981: 136). This may hint den Driesch, 1979: 189), and wolf remains have
at an already limited market for wolf remains in also been reported in Hagestad and Gamla
early medieval northern Europe. L�d�se within the territory of medieval Den-
mark (Lepiksaar, 1975: 231 2). When com-
bined with the sparse references to wolf fur in
The high medieval period written sources, the limited faunal remains sug-
gest that wolf hunting was infrequent and when
In high medieval contexts, reports of wolf it did happen, it targeted individual animals
remains in the British Isles continue to be largely rather than groups or regions. There was cer-
anecdotal and unreliable (e.g. Fisher, 1888: 189). tainly nothing even approaching the scale of
A single bone has been identified at Lyveden as wolf hunting in England. As a result there was
evidence of a rare wolf present in the Forest of no regular supply of wolf fur. With the incor-
Rockingham (Northamptonshire) in the 13th poration of mustelid and squirrel furs into
century (Steane, 1985: 167). When combined seigneurial visual display resulting in an
with written sources, this meagre body of data increased demand for luxury furs from the
suggests that wolf hunting in the British Isles was Scandinavian interior (Delort, 1978: 134 41,
relatively infrequent and predominantly con- 246 52) the social and commercial value of
ducted by specialist hunters, focusing on sus- wolf fur would have become extremely limited.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
Where are the Wolves? 291
At this time it is likely that wolf fur was not indicative of wolf mobility within settled land-
moved significant distances from its place of scapes. The scarcity of Canis lupus in the medieval
acquisition, and that its predominant use was archaeological record should not, therefore, be
local, practical and opportunistic. For example, solely attributed to the difficulties of identifica-
Boessneck & von den Driesch (1979: 189) asso- tion. More wolf remains will invariably be uncov-
ciated the wolf remains from medieval Eketorp ered in future excavations of medieval sites in
with an individual straying close to the settle- both the British Isles and Scandinavia. In all
ment during the winter. On this basis it is likelihood they will add further credence to the
plausible to conclude that wolves were encoun- socio-ecological model of contrasting hunting
tered in the fringes of the Scandinavian Penin- cultures, ungulate control and related wolf bio-
sula, and not just in the  wild interior. Indeed, geography proposed in this paper. In the mean-
their mobility is supported by modern studies time, the relationships between wolf remains,
of wolf dispersal in Scandinavia (e.g. Karlsson hunting and medieval society can be sought in
et al., 1999). other regions of Europe.
Wolf skins were occasionally mentioned in
commercial contexts. In Ireland, documented
instances such as a tax levied on dried and cured Acknowledgements
wolf skins in Waterford in 1243, and a later
medieval toll paid at Bristol for three dozen pelts I would like to thank Dr Preston Miracle and
from Ireland (Carus-Wilson, 1967: 24), are Dr Catherine Hills of the Department of Archaeo-
reflected in the material record by wolf remains logy, University of Cambridge, for their guidance
from medieval Waterford (metacarpals and meta- and support in both the broader context of my
tarsals). This reinforces the notion that pelts were PhD research and the preparation of individual
moved in and out of urban centres (McCormick, papers. I would like to thank Dr Simon Davis and
1997: 837), whilst the hind and limb bones of a Dr Philippa Patrick for proof-reading this paper
single wolf from the Anglo-Norman ringfort at and providing additional advice. I would also like
Ferrycarraig (Co. Wexford) provide evidence of to thank Dr Dirk Heinrich and the technical staff
more local use of wolf skin, perhaps hunted of the Archaeologisch-Zoologischen Arbeits-
opportunistically by the garrison (McCormick, gruppe (Schlo� Gottorf, Schleswig), for their
2000: 5). However, wolf bones are as rare in Irish hospitality, generosity, advice and accessibility
archaeological contexts as they are in other parts to their collections. Finally, I would like to thank
of northwestern Europe. Including the examples Professor Terry O Connor, Dr Kate Clark,
mentioned above, references to traded wolf pelts Dr Juliet Clutton-Brock and Krish Seetah for
in medieval Europe are extremely rare (Delort, their suggestions and help.
1978: 128, note 91), and the distribution of wolf This paper is part of Ph.D research (completed
remains in archaeological contexts, albeit frag- and submitted in September 2002, passed in
mented and incomplete, seems to support this January 2003) funded by the Arts and Humanities
regional trend. Research Board (Award no. 00/3042), Trinity
College and Gonville & Caius College,
Cambridge, and the University of Cambridge.
Conclusion
When combined with other types of evidence,
References
the limited presence of wolf remains in medieval
archaeological contexts is consistent with an
Aaris-Słrensen K 1977. The subfossil wolf in Denmark.
interpretation of infrequent hunting, limited
Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk naturhistorisk Forening
value in relation to other fur-bearers, and a
140: 129 146.
biogeographical distribution related to areas of
Albarella U, Davis SJM. 1996. Mammals and birds
limited human activity and higher numbers of from Launceston Castle, Cornwall: decline in status
and the rise of agriculture. Circaea 12: 1 156.
wild ungulates. This pattern is also likely to be
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
292 A. Pluskowski
Andersson H. 2003. Urbanisation. In The Cambridge Clark KM. 1996. Neolithic dogs: A reappraisal based
History of Scandinavia, Helle K (ed.). Cambridge on evidence from the remains of a large canid
University Press: Cambridge; 312 342. deposited in a ritual feature. International Journal of
Andr�n A. 1997. Paradise lost: looking for deer parks Osteoarchaeology 6: 211 219.
in medieval Denmark and Sweden. In Visions of the Clavel B. 2001. L animal dans l alimentation medievale et
Past. Trends and Traditions in Swedish Medieval Archae- moderne en France du nord (XIIe XVIIe siŁcles). Revue
ology, Andersson H, Carelli P, Ersg�rd L (eds). Archeologique de Picardie 19.
Central Board of National Antiquities: Stockholm; Clutton-Brock J. 1970. The origins of the dog. In
469 490. Science in Archaeology, Brothwell D, Higgs E (eds).
Praeger Publication: New York; 303 309.
Appleyard HM. 1978. Guide to the Identification of Animal
Clutton-Brock J. 1999. A Natural History of Domesticated
Fibres. Wira: Leeds.
Mammals. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Barrett J, Hall A, Johnstone C, Kenward H, O Connor
Clutton-Brock J, Noe-Nygaard N. 1990. New osteo-
T, Ashby S. 2004. Plant and animal remains from
logical and C-isotope evidence on Mesolithic dogs:
Viking Age deposits at Kaupang, Norway. Reports
companions to hunters and fishers at Star Carr,
from the Centre for Human Palaeoecology, University of York
Seamer Carr and Kongemose. Journal of Archaeologi-
2004/10.
cal Science 17: 643 653.
Benecke N. 1987. Studies on early dog remains from
Clutton-Brock J, Kitchener AC, Lynch JM. 1994.
northern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 14:
Changes in the skull morphology of the Artic
31 50.
wolf, Canis lupus arctos, during the twentieth century.
Boessneck J, von den Driesch A. 1979. Eketorp: Befesti-
Journal of Zoology 233/1: 19 36.
gung und Siedlung auf �land, Schweden: die Fauna.
Clutton-Brock J, Burleigh R 1995. The dating and
Almqvist & Wiksell: Stockholm.
osteology of the skeleton of a large hunting dog. In
Boitani L. 2003. Wolf conservation and recovery. In
Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park and Surrounding
Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation, Mech DL,
Areas, II: The Finds, Blockley K, Blockley M, Blockley
Boitani L (eds). University of Chicago Press:
P, Frere S, Stow S (eds). Canterbury Archaeological
Chicago; 317 340.
Trust: Canterbury; 1262 1266.
B�k�nyi S. 1975. Vlasac: an early site of dog
Coy J. 1980. The animal bones. A Middle Saxon iron
domestication. In Archaeozoological Studies, Clason
smelting site at Ramsbury, Wiltshire. Medieval
AT (ed.). North-Holland Publishing: Amsterdam;
Archaeology 24: 41 51.
167 178.
Crockford S. 2000. A commentary on dog evolution:
B�k�nyi S. 1989. Definitions of animal domestication.
regional variation, breed development and hybridi-
In The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastor-
sation with wolves. In Dogs Through Time: An Archae-
alism, and Predation, Clutton-Brock J (ed.). Unwin
ological Perspective: Proceedings of the 1st ICAZ Symposium
Hyman: London; 22 27.
on the History of the Domestic Dog, Eighth Congress of the
Breen G. 1999. The Berserkr in Old Norse and Icelandic
International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ98) 23 29
Literature. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of
August 1998, Victoria, B.C., Canada, Crockford SJ
Cambridge.
(ed.). BAR International Series 889, Archeopress:
Brothwell DR. 1991. Malocclusion and methodology:
Oxford; 295 312.
the problem and relevance of recording dental
Cummins J. 1988. The Hound and the Hawk: the Art of
malalignment in archaeology. International Journal of
Medieval Hunting. Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London.
Osteoarchaeology 1: 27 37.
Cusdin PA, Greenwood AG. 2000. The Keeping of Wolf-
Browne AG-I. 1974. Guide to the Dogs of the World.
Hybrids in Great Britain. International Zoo Veterinary
Treasure Press: London.
Group: Keighley.
Cameron E (ed.). 1998. Leather and Fur: Aspects of Early
Davis SJM. 1981. The effects of temperature change
Medieval Trade and Technology. Archetype Publica-
and domestication on the body size of late Pleisto-
tions: London.
cene to Holocene mammals of Israel. Paleobiology 7:
Carus-Wilson EW. 1967. Medieval Merchant Venturers:
101 114.
Collected Papers. Methuen: London.
Davis SJM. 1995. The Archaeology of Animals. Batsford:
Clanchy MT. 1993. From Memory to Written Record:
London.
England 1066 1307. Blackwell: Oxford.
Davis SJM. 2003. Faunal remains from Alc��ova de
Clark KM. 1995. The later prehistoric and protohis-
Santar�m, Portugal. Trabalhos do CIPA 53. Instituto
toric dog the emergence of canine diversity.
Portuguęs de. Arqueologia, Lisboa.
Archaeozoologica 7/2: 9 32.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
Where are the Wolves? 293
Davis SJM, Valla FR. 1979. Evidence for the domes- mentary Series 5, Herteig AE (ed.). University of
tication of the dog 12000 years ago in the Natufian Bergen/Scandinavian University Press: Bergen;
of Israel. Nature 276: 608 610. 209 285.
Degerbłl N. 1963. On a find of a Preboreal domestic Iljin NA. 1941. Wolf-dog genetics. Genetics 42: 359
dog (Canis familiaris) from Star Carr, Yorkshire, with 414.
remarks on other Mesolithic dogs. Proceedings of the Johansson F. 1990. Benfynd fr�n det medeltida
Prehistoric Society: New Series 3/27: 35 55. �rebro, kv. Tryckeriet 10. Statens historiska Museum,
Delort R. 1978. Le commerce des fourrures en occident Osteologiska enheten rapport 1990: 6.
ą la fin du Moyen Age. �cole Fran�aise de Rome: Karlsson J, Wid�n P-L, Andr�n H. 1999. �rsrapport.
Rome. Lodjursprojektet, Vargprojektet, Viltskadecenter, Grims� for-
Ervynck A. 1992. Medieval castles as top-predators of skningsstation. Viltskade Center, Grims� forsknings-
the feudal system: an archaeozoological approach. station: Grims�.
Chateau Gaillard 15: 151 159. Klein RG, Cruz-Uribe K. 1984. The Analysis of Animal
Fehring GP. 1991. The Archaeology of Medieval Germany: Bones from Archaeological Sites. University of Chicago
An Introduction. Routledge: London. Press: London.
Fiennes R. 1976. The Order of Wolves. Hamish Hamilton: Lawrence B, Bossert WH. 1967. Multiple character
London. analysis of Canis lupus, latrans, and familiaris, with a
Fisher WR. 1888. The Forest of Essex: Its History, Laws, discussion of the relationships of Canis niger. American
Administration and Ancient Custom. Butterworths: Zoologist 7: 223 232.
London. Lepiksaar J. 1975. �ber die Tierknochenfunde aus den
Fox MW. 1971. The Behaviour of Wolves, Dogs and Related mittelalterlichen Sidelungen Sudschwedens. In
Canids. Jonathan Cape: London. Archaeozoological Studies, Clason AT (ed.). North-
Gipson PS, Ballard WB, Nowak RM, Mech LD. 2000. Holland Publishing: Amsterdam; 230 239.
Accuracy and precision of estimating age of Gray Lepiksaar J. 1976. Djurrester fr�n det medeltida Skara.
Wolves by tooth wear. Journal of Wildlife Management V�sterg�tlands fornminnesf�renings tidskrift 1975 76.
64: 752 758. Levitan B. 1984. The vertebrate remains. In Middleton
Gloyd JS. 1992. Wolf hybrids a biological time Stoney: Excavation and Survey in a North Oxfordshire
bomb. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Asso- Parish: 1970 1982, Rahtz S, Rowley T (eds). Oxford
ciation 201: 381 382. University Department for External Study: Oxford;
Groenman-van Waateringe W, van Wijngaarden- 108 148.
Bakker LH. 1990. Medieval archaeology and en- Lie RW. 1988. Animal bones. In  Mindets tomt   Sondre
vironmental research in the Netherlands. In Medieval felt : Animal Bones-, Moss-, Plant-, Insect- and Parasite
Archaeology in the Netherlands, Besteman JC, Bos Remains, Schia E (ed.). Alvheim & Eide: Oslo; 153
JM, Heidinga HA (eds). Van Gorcum: Assen/ 196.
Maastricht; 283 297. Loveluck C. 2001. Wealth, waste and conspicuous
Haltenorth T. 1958. Rassehunde-Wildhunde. Winter: consumption. Flixborough and its importance for
Heidelberg. Middle and Late Saxon rural settlement studies. In
Harcourt RA. 1974. The dog in prehistoric and early Image and Power in the Archaeology of Early Medieval
historic Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science 1: England, Hamerow H, MacGregor A (eds). Oxbow:
151 175. Oxford; 79 130.
Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M. 2002. Maltby M. 1979. Faunal Studies on Urban Sites: The
The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Animal Bones from Exeter, 1971 75. Department of
Science 298: 1634 1636. Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Shef-
Harting JE. 1880, reprinted 1994. A Short History of the field: Sheffield.
Wolf in Britain. Pryor: Whitstable. McCormick F. 1997. The animal bones. In Late Viking
Higgs W. 2001. Will s Skull Page. http://www.skullsite. Age and Medieval Waterford, Excavations 1986 1992,
co.uk [accessed February 2005]. Hurley MF, Scully OMB (eds). Waterford Corpora-
Higham C. 1968. Size trends in Prehistoric European tion: Waterford; 819 853.
domestic fauna, and the problem of local domes- McCormick F. 2000. The Mammal Bones from Ferrycarraig,
tication. Acta Zoologica Fennica 120: 3 21. Co. Wexford (unpublished contact F. McCormick,
Higham NJ. 2004. A Frontier Landscape: The North West in School of Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen s
the Middle Ages. Windgather Press: Macclesfield. University, Belfast).
Hufthammer AK. 1994. The dog bones from Bryggen Meadow RH. 1975. Mammals remains from Hajji
[Bergen, Hordaland]. In The Bryggen Papers. Supple- Firuz: a study in methodology. In Archaeozoological
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
294 A. Pluskowski
Studies, Clason AT (ed.). North-Holland: Oxford; �sterg�rd M. 1980. X-ray diffractometer investiga-
265 283. tions of bones from domestic and wild animals.
Meaney AL. 1981. Anglo-Saxon Amulets and Curing Stones. American Antiquity 45/1: 59 63.
British Archaeological Report, British Series 96. Ozolnia
J. 2001. Status of Large Carnivore Conservation in
Archaeopress: Oxford. the Baltic States: Action Plan for the Conservation of Wolf
Mech DL. 1970. The Wolf: The Ecology and Behaviour (Canis lupus) in Latvia. T-PVS (2001) 73 addendum 2.
of an Endangered Species. Natural History Press for http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/En-
the American Museum of Natural History: vironment/Nature_and_biological_diversity/Natur-
New York. e_protection/sc21_73eadd2.pdf
Mikkelsen E. 1994. Fangstprodukter i vikingtidens og mid- Petr� B. 1980. Bj�rnf�llen i begravningsritualen
delalderens łkonmi. Organiseringen av massefangst av villrein statusobjekt speglande regional skinnhandel?
i Dovre. Universitetets Oldsaksamling: Oslo. Fornv�nnen 75: 5 14.
Morey DF. 1992. Size, shape and development in the PigiŁre F, Boone I, Udrescu M, Van Neer W,
evolution of the domestic dog. Journal of Archaeolo- Vanpoucke S. 2004. Status as reflected in food
gical Science 19: 181 204. refuse of late medieval noble and urban households
Morey DF 1994. The early evolution of the domestic in Namur (Belgium). In Behaviour Behind Bones: The
dog. American Scientist 82: 336 347. Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity,
Morris JT. 2005. Red deer s role in social expression O Day SJ, Van neer W, Ervynch A (eds). Oxbow:
on the isles of Scotland. In Just Skin and Bones? New Oxford; 233 243.
Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations in the Historic Past, Pluskowski AG. 2003. Beasts in the Woods: Medieval
Pluskowski AG (ed.). Archaeopress: Oxford (in Responses to the Threatening Wild. Unpublished PhD
press). thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of
Mugar
vi%0ńs 
. 2002. Forest animals and hunting in Cambridge.
medieval Livonia. In Centre, Region, Periphery, Medieval Pluskowski AG. 2005. Prowlers in wild and dark
Europe Basel 2002, Vol. 1, Helmig G, Scholkmann B, places: Mapping wolves in medieval Britain and
Untermann M (eds). Arch�ologische Boden- southern Scandinavia. In Just Skin and Bones? New
forschung Basel-Stadt: Basel; 177 181. Perspectives on Human Animal Relations in the Historic
Nobis G, Ninov L. 1992. Zur Haustierwelt des Past, Pluskowski AG (ed.). Archaeopress: Oxford;
Mittelalters: Nach Studien an Tierresten aus 79 92.
der Alstadt von Duisburg. In Stadtarchaologie in Pluskowski AG. Forthcoming. Wolves and Wilderness in
Duisburg 1980 1990. Duissburger forschungen Band 38, the Middle Ages. Boydell: Woodbridge.
Krause G (ed.). Walter Brown Verlag: Duisburg; Price N. 2002. The Viking Way: Religion and War in Late
237 294. Iron Age Scandinavia. Department of Archaeology
Nłrlund P. 1948. Nordiske Fortidsminder. 4. bd., 1. hefte: and Ancient History, University of Uppsala:
Trelleborg. I Kommission hos Gyldendalske Boghan- Uppsala.
del, Nordisk Forlag: Copenhagen. Prummel W, Gabriel I. 1993. Starigard/Oldenburg:
Nowak RM. 1995. Hybridization: the double-edged Hauptburg der Slawen in Wagrien 4: Die Tierknochenfunde
threat. Canid News 3: 2 6. unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der Beizjagd. Wachholtz:
Nowak RM. 2003. Wolf evolution and taxonomy. In Neum�nster.
Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation, Mech DL, Rackham O. 1986. The History of the Countryside.
Boitani L (eds). University of Chicago Press: Phoenix: London.
Chicago; 239 258. Randi E, Lucchini V. 2001. Conservation genetics of
O Connor TP 1989. Bones from Anglo-Scandinavian Levels wolves (Canis lupus) in Italy. In Canid Biology and
at 16 22 Coppergate. CBA: York. Conservation Conference Abstracts, Oxford, 17 21 September
O Connor TP. 2000. The Archaeology of Animal Bones. 2001, Sillero C, Hoffmann M (eds). IUCN/SSC
Stroud: Sutton. Canid Specialist Group and the Wildlife Con-
�hman I. 1983. The Merovingian dogs from the boat- servation Research Unit of Oxford University:
graves at Vendel. In Vendel Period Studies: Transactions Oxford; 94.
of the Boat-grave Symposium in Stockholm, February 2 3, Reichstein H. 1991. Berichte �ber die Ausgrabungen in
1981, Lamm JP, Nordstr�m H-� (eds). Museum of Haithabu Bericht 30. Die wildlebenden S�ugetiere von
National Antiquities: Stockholm; 167 181. Haithabu (Ausgrabungen 1966 1969 und 1979 1980).
Orrman E. 2003. Rural conditions. In The Cambridge Karl Wachholtz Verlag: Neum�nster.
History of Scandinavia, Helle K (ed.). Cambridge Reitz EJ, Wing SE. 1999. Zooarchaeology. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge; 250 311. University Press: Cambridge.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)
Where are the Wolves? 295
Ryder ML. 2000. Breed differences in dog hair. In Dogs Vilą C, Sundqvist A-K, Ellegren H. 2001.
Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective: Proceedings of Hybridization and conservation genetics of Scan-
the 1st ICAZ Symposium on the History of the Domestic Dog, dinavian wolves. In Canid Biology and Conservation
Eighth Congress of the International Council for Archae- Conference Abstracts, Oxford 17 21 September 2001,
ozoology (ICAZ98) 23 29 August 1998, Victoria, B.C., Sillero C, Hoffmann H (eds). IUCN/SSC Canid
Canada, Crockford SJ (ed.). BAR International Ser- Specialist Group, Wildlife Conservation Research
ies 889, Archeopress: Oxford; 251 255. Unit of Oxford University: Oxford; 107.
Sawyer B, Sawyer P. 1993. Medieval Scandinavia: From Vilą C, Walker CW, Sundqvist A-K, Flagstad �,
Conversion to Reformation, Circa 800 1500. University Andersone Z, Casulli A, Kojola I, Valdmann H,
of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis. Halverson J, Ellegren H. 2003. Combined use of
Schia E. 1991. Oslo innerst i Viken: liv og virke i middelal- maternal, paternal and bi-parental genetic markers
derbyen. Aschehoug: Oslo. for the identification of wolf-dog hybrids. Heredity
Schia E. 1994. Urban Oslo and its relation to rural 90: 17 24.
production in the hinterland an archaeological Von den Driesch A. 1976. Guide to the Measurement of
view. In Urban-Rural Connexions: Perspectives from En- Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Mu-
vironmental Archaeology, Hall AR, Kenward HK (eds). seum of Archaeology and Ethnology: Cambridge,
Oxbow: Oxford; 1 11. MA.
Schmid E. 1972. Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Vretemark M, Sten S. 1995. Djurbenen fr�n
Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. Elsevier: kv., Klaudia, V�ster�s. Statens historiska museum, Osteo-
Amsterdam. logiska enheten, rapport 1995, 11.
Scott JP, Fuller JL. 1965. Genetics and the Social Behavior of Wayne RK, Vilą C. 2003. Molecular genetic studies of
the Dog. University of Chicago Press: London. wolves. In Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation,
Shoesmith R. 1980. Hereford City Excavations, Vol. 3. Mech DL, Boitani L (eds). University of Chicago
CBA: London. Press: Chicago; 218 238.
Smith C. 1998. Dogs, cats and horses in the Scottish Wigh B. 1998. Animal bones from the Viking
medieval town. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of town of Birka, Sweden. In Leather and Fur:
Scotland 128: 859 885. Aspects of Early Medieval Trade and Technology,
Smith C, McCormick F. 2001. The mammal bones. In Cameron E (ed.). Archetype Publications: London;
Aberdeen: An in-depth View of the City s Past: Excavations 81 90.
at Seven Major Sites within the Medieval Burgh, Cameron Wigh B. 2001. Animal Husbandry in the Viking Age Town
AS, Stones JA (eds). Society of Antiquaries of of Birka and its Hinterland. Birka Project Riksantikvar-
Scotland: Edinburgh; 271 275. ieambetet: Stockholm.
Steane J. 1985. The Archaeology of Medieval England and Wolsan M, Bieniek M, Buchalczyk T. 1992. The
Wales. Croom Helm: London. history and distributional and numerical changes
Sykes NJ. 2001. The Norman Conquest: A Zooarchaeological of the wolf Canis lupus L. in Poland. In Global Trends in
Perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Wildlife Management, 18th IUGB Congress, Kraków 1987,
Archaeology, University of Southampton. Bobek K, Perzanowski K, Regelin WL (eds). Swiat
Teichert M. 1993. Size and utilisation of the most Press: Kraków; 335 340.
important domesticated animals in Central Europe. Yalden DW. 1999. The History of British Mammals. T&A.
In Skeletons in her Cupboard: Festschrift for Juliet Clutton- D. Poyser: London.
Brock, Clason A, Payne S, Uerpmann H-P (eds). Yates B. 2000. Use of the mastoid region of the crania
Oxbow Books: Oxford; 235 238. of canids to distinguish wolves, dogs, and wolf/dog
Van Wijngaarden-Bakker LH. 1974. The animal re- hybrids. In Dogs Through Time: an Archaeological
mains from the Beaker settlement at Newgrange, Perspective: Proceedings of the 1st ICAZ Symposium on the
Co. Meath: first report. Proceedings of the Royal Irish History of the Domestic Dog, Eighth Congress of the
Academy 74: 313 383. International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ98) 23
Vilą C, Savolainen P, Maldonado JE, Amorim IR, Rice 29 August 1998 Victoria, B.C., Canada, Crockford SJ
JE, Honeycutt RL, Crandall KA, Lundeberg J, (ed.). BAR International Series 889, Archeopress:
Wayne RK. 1997. Multiple and ancient origins Oxford; 269 270.
of the domestic dog. Science 276 (13th June): Zeuner FE. 1963. A History of Domesticated Animals.
1687 1689. Hutchinson: London.
Vilą C, Wayne RK. 1999. Hybridization between Zimen E. 1978. Der Wolf: Mythos und Verhalten. Meyster:
wolves and dogs. Conservation Biology 13/1: 195 198. Munich.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 279 295 (2006)