Page 47 - THE SLOUGHI REVIEW - ISSUE 13

T H E S L O U G H I R E V I E W 4 7

This is reminiscent of the ancient Egyptians' hunting with the older type of Tesem (type
A, according to Brixhe). Were these “Salukis”, who hunted inside the gate, also fast
enough to have hunting success outside the gate, in the field?

In Angela Perri's article we learn about the
prehistoric dogs that were used for hunting [29].
As we already read in the title, these are dogs
beyond domestication, at least that is what is
suggested in the title. However, her
recommendations for archaeological excavations

are very much oriented towards modern questions
posed in the industrial age, which were not
necessarily relevant to early forms of
domestication.

“The use of dogs as hunting weapons represents a
first innovative step in human cognition, whereby
tasks previously performed by humans (or never
performed before) are transferred to animals. This
represents not only a novel innovation, but the

inception of a dynamic relationship between
humans and animals whereby humans harness the
innate properties of animals as technology (e.g.,

tools, weaponry, machinery), leading to their
ubiquitous use as modes of production (e.g., hunting,
transport, draught). This signifies an important
cognitive shift in regarding animals not only for
their material products (e.g., meat, bones, hides,

Map with the research area, in “Desert horns), but for their physiological and behavioral
Kites”, A. Holzer et al.
properties..” [30].

The question is immediately raised as to why an independently living wild animal should

find itself as a “tool” at the mercy of man. The “use of dogs as modes of production”,
however, says exactly that. In a figurative sense, it could be expressed like this: Hand me
the open-ended spanner, the Phillips screwdriver won't fit! Regardless of this, however,
the “dynamic relationship” between humans and animals is the essential point in the

trusting cooperation of both species.