兽研1. 引言
人类与狗之间的关系是人类历史上最古老、最具影响力的技术合作关系之一。自晚更新世以来，狗作为猎人、伴侣、守卫和运输动物陪伴人类，使人类得以占据原本难以开发的环境[1,2,3,4]。这种关系在北极地区表现得尤为明显，数千年来，人类与狗之间的协作塑造了迁徙、生计、探索和文化发展的模式。
流动性长期以来一直是北极生活的核心挑战。广阔的距离、高度季节性的资源和极端的环境条件要求建立高效的系统，以便在雪地和海冰上运输人员、食物、设备和物资。新西伯利亚群岛Zhokhov遗址的考古发现——包括约9000年前的雪橇部件和狗遗骸——表明狗在全新世早期就已经作为役用动物发挥作用[5,6]。此后，狗拉雪橇成为环极北方最持久的技术系统之一。对于北美北极原住民——因纽特人、尤皮克人和阿留申人——的祖先而言，狗促进了在原本难以进入的景观中的狩猎、贸易、交流和旅行。它们后来还促成了若干最重要的北极和南极探险，包括Knud Rasmussen的第五图勒探险、Ludvig Mylius-Erichsen率领的丹麦探险以及Roald Amundsen成功抵达南极点的旅程[7,8]。
尽管具有重要的历史意义，雪橇犬种群在近几十年来大幅下降。仅以格陵兰为例，登记的雪橇犬数量从2002年的约25000只下降到2016年的约15000只，且由于气候变化、海冰减少、社会经济转型以及对自给狩猎依赖的降低，数量仍在持续下降[9]。这一下降不仅威胁着一个独特的犬类种群，也威胁着世界上最古老的持续运作的人-动物技术系统之一。除了考古和文化意义之外，这些发现还具有重要的保护和福利意义。保护雪橇犬的健康、遗传多样性和工作条件，对于维持动物福利以及北极人犬关系中蕴含的文化遗产至关重要。因此，种群的持续下降可能产生超出犬类本身的后果，波及原住民知识、传统饲养实践的保存以及世界上最早的人-动物工作伙伴关系之一的长期存续[9]。然而，目前已有地方性举措，旨在通过全年可持续旅游、亲身参与的游客教育和本地繁育传统来保护濒危的格陵兰雪橇犬及其文化遗产。
传统上，技术一直与机械发明和工业发展联系在一起。这种观点倾向于将技术与自然分离，强化了技术必然是制造出来的、惰性物体的假设[10,11]。然而在整个人类历史中，许多最具变革性的技术都是活体的。驯化的植物和动物通过农业、运输、交流和劳动从根本上改变了人类社会。因此，动物的驯化和选择性繁育本身就构成了技术实践，产生了其生物学特征通过持续的人类干预而被塑造的生命系统[12,13,14]。
雪橇犬体现了生物学与技术之间的这种关系。一支狗队不仅仅是拉雪橇的动物的集合；它是一个综合技术系统，其中人类、狗、挽具、雪橇和环境共同运作。该系统的有效性取决于持续的交流、合作和相互适应。指令、身体姿态、地形、天气以及每只狗的反应都促成了一个动态过程，其中技术通过运动来实施，而非仅仅体现在人工制品中。赶狗人与狗作为一个协调的技术单元运作，模糊了操作者与工具、自然与技术之间的传统界限[15,16]。
将雪橇犬视为活体技术也引发了对驯化本身的重新思考。现有的狗驯化模型主要强调共生觅食、狩猎伙伴关系或社会陪伴是驱动家犬出现的主要选择压力[17,18]。虽然这些解释极大地推进了我们对驯化的理解，但它们对流动性作为一种技术挑战的关注相对较少。如果运输成为北方环境中人类生存和扩张的必要条件，那么早期狗协助移动人员和资源的能力很可能代表了强化驯化的最早持续选择压力之一。
在此基础上，我们提出狗驯化的运输假说。我们认为，运输并非已驯化狗的较晚期应用，而是可能构成了人类与狗伙伴关系在进化与文化上趋于稳定的主要技术功能之一。在该假说下，驯化不仅被理解为生物或行为过程，更被视为一种技术过程，其中选择性育种、训练以及日益复杂的运输系统在数千年间共同演化。
本文通过将雪橇犬重新定义为活体技术，并将运输定位为狗驯化的潜在驱动力，为技术史研究做出贡献。通过这一路径，我们认为驯化应被理解为既是进化过程也是技术过程，在这一过程中人类与狗共同创造了一个活体系统，该系统改变了移动性、促成了北极适应，并持续体现为一种独特的非物质文化遗产形式。
2. 背景：狗在北极社会中的多重角色
狗在许多北方社区，尤其是北极社会中扮演着重要而多样的角色[19]。雪橇犬在狩猎和放牧活动中支持人类，并被广泛用于运输[1,20,21,22]。它们还作为食物来源、仪式祭品，并出现在因纽特宇宙观和神话中。狗不仅在生前具有多种功能，死后亦然[21,23]。北美和西伯利亚的考古发掘出土了带有切割痕迹的狗骨，表明它们曾被屠宰[24,25]。例如，在西伯利亚的Ust'-Polui遗址，许多狗骨显示出屠宰迹象[25]。狗遗骸还被用作原材料，例如用于制作衣物[26]。雪橇犬具有厚实的三层被毛，使其能够在北极条件下生存，人类利用这种材料御寒[26]。我们认为，狗通过驮运、雪橇、拖曳架及其他媒介所提供的运输形式的技术进步，在欧亚大陆驯化过程中塑造了早期狗。
雪橇犬构成一种独特的活体技术形式，不仅是工作动物，更是具有特定特征的生物行动者，这些特征使其在北极运输移动系统中不可或缺。在整个环极北极地区，雪橇犬与人类协作已超过9000年，凸显了其技术意义和文化价值[6,27]。北极雪橇犬类型，包括西伯利亚哈士奇、阿拉斯加马拉缪特、加拿大因纽特犬和格陵兰雪橇犬（Qimmeq），共享密切的共同祖先，但已发展出对北极环境和雪橇性能的专门适应[27,28]。格陵兰雪橇犬尤其值得关注，因为该种群在格陵兰近千年来保持了雪橇犬的功能角色，未经历其他北极品种所经历的广泛干预或向伴侣动物的转变[28]。事实上，人类的迁徙可以通过北极狗的祖先追溯，凸显了它们在北极社会工具组合中的作用[1,27,28,29]。遗传学已确定，定义雪橇犬遗传特征的遗传祖先在9700年前就已存在于西伯利亚，这由来自西伯利亚东南部Khatystyr洞穴的一只狗的基因组所证明[30]。也有研究提示，热感受——一项北极关键进化特征[31,32]——已在狗中受到选择，以及低氧适应，可能与狗在拉雪橇时的极端运动表现有关，如Zhokhov狗基因组所示[27]。这些共同表明，至全新世早期，延续至今的雪橇犬谱系已专门适应于拉雪橇和北极条件。有趣的是，现代雪橇犬显示出对富含脂肪酸饮食的遗传适应[27]，可能是人类世代喂食海洋哺乳动物脂肪的结果。然而，这些机制在古老的Zhokhov狗中并未进化出来[27]，表明雪橇犬随时间持续进化，并作为生物将继续如此。格陵兰的独特之处在于，格陵兰雪橇犬继续在其进化所在的土著雪橇文化中生活和工作，保留了自图勒因纽特人800多年前到来以来持续存在的人犬关系[28]。令人惊奇的是，应对富含脂肪酸饮食的适应能力是北极熊[33]和北极人类因纽特人[34,35]共同进化的能力。作为趋同进化的生物学例证，并进一步连接雪橇犬和北极文化，它们相互追随如此之久，以至于朝同一方向进化。
雪橇犬的演化、血统、生理与行为反映了其跨越千年的生活历程，而现存的犬只正是这一全部遗产的体现。这些犬只体格健壮，拥有浓密的被毛、力量与耐力，并展现出社会性与交流能力，使其能够在复杂的犬队中协同运作。雪橇犬通过实践以及在犬群内的社会化获得技能，其中等级制度与合作对于高效的雪橇出行至关重要[22]。这些特征并非静止不变，而是通过与人类、地貌以及雪橇和挽具等技术物件的持续互动而发展形成[16]。
有强有力的考古学证据表明，在北美北极地区贯穿图勒时期（公元1200—1850年）存在雪橇犬的使用[36]。这些犬只最初来自西伯利亚，经白令海峡扩散至北极中部和东部地区[1]。这一迁移与考古记录中相关技术的传播相吻合[36]。雪橇犬使长距离出行成为可能，连接了各个社群，并支撑了海洋资源的利用。欧洲北极探险严重依赖因纽特人的知识及其对犬只的运输使用。在此背景下，犬只既是坚韧的伙伴，也是传统生活方式与新挑战之间的桥梁，持续支撑着流动性。纵观历史变迁，雪橇犬的存在与否表明它们一直是北极生活方式适应过程中的积极参与者。通过增强人类应对环境、空间和文化挑战的能力，犬只在北极的创新与变迁中发挥了关键作用。
诸如雪橇出行和狩猎等活动将犬只的身体能力与人类的规划、工具使用和社会组织相结合，包括速度、抗寒能力和追踪能力。它们共同构成了一种任何一个物种都无法单独实现的技术。这种合作使北极各民族能够以新的、富有创造性的方式理解和与其环境互动。因此，雪橇犬促进了人类发展，并帮助社群适应变化。它们使穿越苔原、冰面和海洋的移动成为可能，并支撑了在持续变迁的景观中的适应与韧性[16]。雪橇犬的多种角色——从运输、狩猎到护卫——展现了其非凡的多面性与适应能力。它们与人类的长期关系反映了一个相互驯化过程或共同驯化过程[22,37,38]。这种共存形式为洞察历史上人类与动物之间复杂而动态的关系提供了视角，并加深了我们对这些关系如何塑造文化实践与技术体系的理解。
3. 驯化与生活技术
犬只驯化的时间、地理和文化背景仍存争议，尽管考古学和基因组学证据日益表明该过程始于欧亚大陆的晚更新世[4]。这早于全新世早期明确可辨识的考古犬类遗存的出现，包括被广泛接受的邦恩-奥伯卡塞尔犬，其年代约为14,000年前[39]。近期古基因组研究表明，犬只在至少约15,800年前就已与狼在遗传上明显分化[2,4]，而基因组分化估计将犬谱系与狼的分离时间置于更早的时期，可能在大约20,000至40,000年前之间[40,41,42]。该过程的地理位置仍未确定，尽管普遍认为其发生在欧亚大陆。因此，现有证据并不支持单一、确凿建立的驯化中心，而是与晚更新世狩猎采集社会中发生的一个复杂过程相一致，并有双重驯化[43]、早期多样化[44]、早期专门化[27]以及犬只广泛迁移[4,26,30]等观点。重要的是，家犬推断起源与专门化工作犬证据之间存在显著的时间间隔，这为确定导致犬谱系形成的机制和动因提出了挑战。
狼最初被驯化时，人类尚无任何驯化经验，因此不太可能拥有明确的计划或目标，例如将狼转变为牧羊犬。家犬起源之谜的关键要素之一是，究竟是什么可能在早期犬与狼之间形成有效的生殖屏障，使所有犬的共同祖先与狼充分分化，成为犬所代表的清晰谱系。雪橇能力可能正是这样一种屏障。作者希望强调，这一观点仍是一个明确受限的假说，因为无法提供来自犬驯化实际背景的证据。运输假说基于对传统雪橇犬育种的观察，这些观察证实雪橇性能是与狼杂交的屏障，由此引发了一个设想：类似的机制在过去是否也曾作为屏障发挥作用。来自阿万纳苏阿克（北格陵兰）的因纽特猎人和雪橇驾驶者拥有与狼—雪橇犬杂交后代打交道的经验，他们的传统知识解释了为什么第一代狼犬后代因其体型而无法有效拉雪橇，并且需要与犬血统进行数代外杂交才能获得具有部分狼血统的“雪橇犬”[45]。历史轶事中也提到，杂交后代因腿部过长而拉雪橇实用性低，这进一步支持了上述观点。具体到格陵兰雪橇犬的背景中，狼杂交的发生已有文献记载[45,46]，值得注意的是，在100多只已进行基因组测序和检测的犬中，未检测到任何北极狼血统[27,28]。这表明，虽然狼—犬杂交后代确实会出现，但它们并未对格陵兰雪橇犬的整体基因库作出显著贡献，杂交后代雪橇性能差可能是其中一个促成因素。如果早期犬获得或拥有有利于拉雪橇的适应性特征，这将对狼杂交后代形成选择压力。这样一来，拉雪橇可能成为所有犬共同祖先与狼之间生殖隔离的瓶颈，这一传统在现代雪橇犬中得以保留，但在其他犬中则随着其祖先在人类各种文化中分化为其他生活方式而丢失。驯服通常被视为驯化过程的第一步，但偶然因素可能发挥了主要作用。驯服改变行为，而驯化同时改变行为和遗传。驯化是一个持续的过程，依赖于对繁殖策略的持续、多代影响，以产生由伙伴生物塑造的谱系[17,18]。一种可能的情景是，驯化通过许多小的、大多无意的步骤逐渐发生。这些变化由直接的实用需求驱动，而非长期繁殖策略。一个可能的起点是生活在人类定居点附近的狼，以骨头和食物残渣等废弃物为食。人类可能容忍甚至欣赏这些狼，因为它们帮助处理废弃物，并能提醒人们注意野生动物或陌生人的危险。遗传学研究支持了这一点，研究鉴定出犬中受选择的与淀粉消化相关的基因[47]；然而，这些适应性可能是在新石器时代谷物驯化开始之后才出现的[48]，北极犬中缺乏这些适应性特征支持了这一观点[27]。对人类恐惧较少的狼有更好的食物获取途径，更有可能生存和繁殖。随着时间推移，这导致自然选择倾向于恐惧较少、更亲近人类的狼。最终，其中一些狼可能进入人类营地，被当作半驯化动物对待，提供陪伴或作为食物来源。在决定宰杀哪些动物时，人类可能首先移除最具攻击性的个体。这将进一步促进种群中温顺行为的出现。经过数代，这些“原犬”的外貌和行为开始与野生狼显著不同，最终被认定为犬。这一长期过程导致了显著的行为和身体变化，形成了一个独特的种群。
尽管狗被认为是最早被驯化的动物，但驯化应被视为一个持续进行的过程。人类与狗之间的关系最好描述为共同驯化，即两个物种相互适应[22]。要理解这一过程，重要的是摆脱以人类为中心的视角，转而突出动物在历史中的作用[48]。在这种多物种视角下，物品往往充当人类与动物之间的中介。例如，McNiven[15]将独木舟描述为调节人类与海洋动物之间狩猎关系的工具。其他技术，如工具或导航技能，也是北方民族与工作动物互动的关键[37]。在北方社会中，驯化往往发生在人类与动物共同生活的共享景观中。动物、景观、工具与人之间的互动对于理解驯化至关重要。景观本身连接物种并塑造其关系[49]。在这一生态系统中，人类与狗之间的合作以环境为基础。动物与技术之间的关系是相互的。技术不仅仅是管理动物的工具；动物和万物有灵信仰也帮助我们理解技术。
因此，随着人类与狼之间关系的日益确立，更多的合作机会可能已经出现。虽然狩猎常被认为是狗最早的功能角色之一，但运输代表了人类与狗合作发展的另一种可能情境。早期运输技术的考古证据为在这一背景下考虑移动性提供了初步支持，尽管它本身并不能证明狗被用于牵引[6,50]。我们提出，运输中的使用是推动原狗或狼进入家庭环境的早期驱动力，最终导致了我们现在所知的独特的狗。考古证据表明，雪橇技术在晚更新世已经存在；然而，甚至在正式雪橇技术发明之前，狼或早期狗可能通过携带轻载或拖拽简单的 travois 来帮助人类，降低了在景观中运输资源的能量成本，而这在考古记录中难以识别。在高度季节性的北方环境中，移动性对于追踪猎物和迁移营地至关重要，即使适度的运输协助也会提供相当大的优势。那些更耐受人类指挥、更愿意合作工作、体能上能够拉载重物的个体将被优先保留和繁殖，从而加强了对与驯化相关的行为特征的选择。尽管最早将狗用于运输的直接考古证据仍然稀少，但雪橇犬在北极地区的古老性和广泛分布表明，运输可能是最早的专业化角色之一，它强化并加速了驯化过程，而不仅仅是后来的文化创新。此外，狗和灰狼谱系分化时存在的环境条件比现在更冷；因此，根据古环境重建[51,52,53]的建议，支持雪橇的条件在欧亚大陆更为广泛。对于高度移动的狩猎采集者，特别是那些居住在季节性和资源多变环境中的人，高效移动是生存的基础。甚至在复杂的雪橇出现之前，早期狗可能通过携带负载或拖拽简单的运输装置来协助，提高狩猎效率，促进居住移动性，并扩大人们运输食物、原材料和设备的距离。因此，那些更合作、更温顺、对人类指挥更敏感的个体将被优先保留和繁殖。因此，运输不仅仅是对狗的一种使用，而是一个技术生态位，有利于与驯化本身相关的行为和生理特征。在这一框架中，移动性成为共同进化的驱动力[51]。
通过物质文化进行的驯化
在北极的人类与动物关系中，物质文化和环境定位的实践往往是共享系统发展的核心[16]。狗的持续驯化，特别是雪橇犬，涉及人类和动物的技能学习。这种相互学习对于雪橇驾驶者与其狗之间的合作至关重要。习得技术所需的技能是驯化过程的关键部分。它涉及重复动作并随时间发展。狗学会理解言语和非言语交流、程序和手势，而人类学会如何引导和回应狗。驾驶者与狗之间的交流通常涉及挽具、鞭子和扣环（图1），而不仅仅是声音或肢体语言。这些工具为此目的不断改进。因此，技术学习必须是相互的，基于共享经验和合作，而不仅仅是强加于动物[38]。
狗鞭和挽具等物品可以被视为人类向狗传达意图的工具（图1）。当考虑狗与人类如何进行身体互动时，挽具尤其使这两个物种产生接触并发出下一步行动的讯号，例如为狗拉雪橇做准备。这些工具也为驯化创造了框架，并充当社会基础设施。如果仅被视为人类控制的工具，它们就无法在共享的共存景观中支持沟通。成为工作动物涉及许多因素，包括物理环境、景观的性质，以及经验丰富的雪橇驾驶者和狗所持有的实践知识。
4. 作为技术行动者的动物
要将雪橇犬理解为技术史的一部分，我们必须考虑它们属于何种系统。在北极地区，雪橇犬系统可以被视为一个网络，包括狗、人类、雪橇、挽具、饲养策略和繁殖实践。这些要素共同构成了一个集成系统，使极端环境中的运输和生存成为可能。行动者网络理论（ANT）[54,55]和人类-动物研究（HAS）等方法为分析此类系统提供了有用的框架。这些视角将人类、动物和工具视为相互关联的行动者，彼此影响和塑造。
雪橇犬并非技术系统中的被动工具；相反，它们是一定程度自主性和不可预测性的共同行动者。这一观点与环境史和多物种研究的近期工作相一致，这些研究强调人与动物关系的动态性和互惠性[56]。动物可以成为技术系统一部分的观点在技术史和多物种研究中已受到关注。这些领域挑战了将技术仅视为非生命的人造物体的传统观点。相反，它们提出了更广泛的定义，将生物体——如被驯化、训练或繁殖的动物——纳入技术组成部分[10,13]。一些学者认为，像雪橇犬这样的动物可以被视为生物技术行动者，与机器和工具一起在基础设施和生产系统中运作[57]。其他人，尤其是后人文主义和多物种研究者，则告诫不要将动物简化为单纯的工具。他们强调动物的能动性，并认为技术关系应被理解为相互的且依赖情境的[56,58]。使用ANT和HAS可以对雪橇犬作为技术进行更细致的分析。这包括它们的生物能力、社会角色以及与物质工具的互动。这一视角通过将生物体纳入积极参与者，扩展了我们对技术系统的理解，挑战了技术、自然与文化之间的传统界限。
以往研究已探讨动物，尤其是马，作为劳动力和活体机器[10,57,59]。这一视角将动物技术连接到环境史和技术史的更广泛讨论中。技术塑造了我们是谁，而动物通常在三个主要技术类别中被研究：农业与食品生产；能源与运输；以及基于动物的科学研究（例如生物技术、生态学、进化生物学和动物学）。在《工作中的马》[10]中，Greene展示了研究动物技术如何通过将其与文化、经济和军事背景联系起来，丰富技术史领域。正如马一样，狗可以被分析为技术系统的一部分，其历史作用帮助塑造了人类社会。文化史帮助我们理解由人类和动物组成的社会，他们在共享但不平等的社会规范下共同生活和工作。在技术史这一动态且不断发展的领域中，重要的是认识到动物可以像机器一样强大、物质性和由人类塑造，但同时也是有生命、有感知和有意识的生物。这挑战了人类与非人类行动者之间的明确划分[60]。
狗不仅仅是生物体，它们是数千年共同进化和技术互动的结果，为在环境中特定角色而优化。随着人类在生态和进化过程中扮演越来越积极的角色，认识到生物体作为技术系统的组成部分——既作为物质资源又作为人类经验和文化的共同创造者——变得更加重要[61]。雪橇犬不仅是工作动物；它们代表着活态文化遗产，是北极地区人与动物之间长期而复杂关系的证据[62]。要理解雪橇犬在技术和文化系统中的持续相关性，我们必须认识到它们不仅作为动物，而且作为知识、传统和身份的承载者的角色。雪橇犬体现着非物质文化遗产，一套无法从书本中学到而只能通过亲身经历获得的知识、故事、声音和动作。这些知识代代相传，包括通过狗本身传递[56,58]。将雪橇犬视为非物质文化遗产对于理解其完整意义至关重要[62]。这不仅是保护一项传统，而是维护人、动物与景观之间的活态关系，这种关系包括技术技能、情感纽带和遗产。
4.1. 犬作为技术系统的一部分
关于动物能否被视为技术的讨论很可能源于工业革命的影响。这一时期强调机器取代自然，例如马被汽车取代，从而导致人们认为只有非生命机器才算技术。然而，纵观历史，人类使用过许多工具，有些是机械的，有些则不是，它们都是技术的形式。这些工具往往来自自然，人类已根据自身需求对其进行了优化[11,14]。尽管许多技术由非生命材料构成，但有些工具是活体生物。当生物被用于满足人类需求或目的时，它们就成为工具。大多数驯化植物和动物已被改造，可被视为人造物[13]。“生物技术”和“基因工程”等术语展示了生物系统与人工系统如何结合以创造新工具和技术。大约一万年来，人类将野生物种转变为驯化物种以支持农业。所有已建立的社会都依赖生物技术，认识这一悠久历史有助于我们理解现代基因工程[13]。将动物视为技术的一种方式是将其视为产品，用于运输、食物或陪伴。育种也旨在使这些产品标准化；犬类育种者精于此道，甚至不熟悉犬的人通常也能识别不同品种。“血统”的概念已成为犬类育种中品质的象征[63]。
动物也作为劳动力发挥作用。有时它们替代或支持人类劳动者，例如牧羊犬帮助牧羊人，成本低于人类劳动力[64]。在其他情况下，动物完成人类无法完成的任务，例如利用其敏锐嗅觉探测炸弹或毒品。动物也被用于替代机器[61]。
4.2. 雪橇犬作为北极技术系统的一部分
几个世纪以来，犬在北方被用于运输，因为它们对环境适应良好。北极社区还驯化驯鹿以获取奶、拉载货物和运输物品[65]。对马作为活机器的研究有助于我们理解雪橇犬在北极社会中作为技术的角色[10,57]。与马一样，雪橇犬对运输至关重要，但它们也具有社会和文化角色。其使用涉及育种、设备和人类互动，表明动物不仅是工具，而是技术系统的活跃组成部分。关于人与动物关系及动物技术的研究表明，雪橇犬不仅仅是运输工具；它们是一个由社会、经济和环境因素塑造的系统的组成部分（图2）[60]。随着新技术进入北极，理解它们如何改变人–动物–技术关系变得重要。从狗拉雪橇到雪地摩托的转变表明，现代化不仅关乎效率；它还影响文化和适应。自20世纪中叶以来，许多因纽特人和北极社区已采用雪地摩托。尽管雪地摩托速度快且能承载重物，但它们并未完全取代雪橇犬。事实上，在整个北极地区，两者现在一起使用。许多传统猎人仍认为雪橇更可靠、更耐用[66]。
在格陵兰，近期研究表明，从雪橇犬转向雪地摩托不仅关乎技术；还涉及身份认同、传统和气候变化[16,67]。在东格陵兰的库卢苏克，人们说雪地摩托改变了他们的出行方式，但雪橇犬对狩猎、旅游和文化遗产仍然重要[67]。阿拉斯加也出现类似趋势，机动运输深刻影响了环境和社区生活。据Francis[68]，这一转变改变了社会和经济体系，存在传统知识流失的风险。在加拿大北极地区，这被称为“雪地摩托革命”，雪地摩托在20世纪60年代很大程度上取代了雪橇犬。这一变化由实际需求和政府现代化努力驱动，但也引发了关于文化连续性和可持续性丧失的争论[64,69]。
由于气候变化、生活方式改变和地缘政治变化，传统雪橇犬实践及其文化遗产日益面临风险。理解人与犬之间的长期关系不仅对了解过去的生存策略很重要，而且对保护这些动物的遗传和文化遗产也很重要[70]。这些实践形成了完整的技术系统，然而尽管雪橇犬在北极生活中发挥关键作用，它们在19世纪和20世纪技术研究中常被忽视。将雪橇犬与技术分离与社会在北极范围内对它们的认知相矛盾。由于对机械的着迷，人们常用技术隐喻来描述和理解雪橇犬作为动力来源，并寻找提高其耐力、力量和效率的方法[66]。技术的定义随时间而变化。要理解北极技术史，我们必须认识到过去社会如何理解和使用技术，不仅作为机器和工具，而且作为人、动物和景观之间动态关系中的活体行动者（图2）。
5. 结论
技术并不局限于机械装置，许多技术在机器发明之前就已发展出来。动物的驯化与使用在技术知识与实践的发展中发挥了核心作用[12]。雪橇犬就是一个例子。数千年来，它们经过选择性繁育和训练，以在北极环境中执行特定任务，使其成为适应北极人类需求的活技术或生物系统。
基于这一视角，我们提出运输假说，作为考量流动性与运输是否可能促进了人犬关系的发展与专门化的框架。现有的犬驯化模型主要强调共生觅食、狩猎伙伴关系或社会陪伴作为这一关系出现的重要情境。虽然这些解释并不互斥，但它们可能无法充分说明流动性的技术意义。因此，运输假说提出，一旦早期狼对人类具有足够的容忍度，其降低人员、营地和资源移动能量成本的能力可能提供了一个额外情境，使人类对犬的投入变得有利。重要的是，该假说并未将运输确立为犬驯化的原因或启动机制。相反，它将运输视为人犬关系发展并日益专门化的较长过程中的一个潜在技术维度。
研究犬起源的主要挑战在于界定犬何时不再是狼，而是已分化到足以被称为“犬”的时刻。这不仅给确定犬何时何地起源带来复杂性，也给确定犬最初为何出现带来复杂性。因此，确切的时刻可能永远无法被精确确定；然而，研究人员可以继续寻找最早出现明显不同个体的地点及其源自何种文化背景的证据。在文字记录之前，寻找犬被用于协助狩猎、守卫和作为伴侣的证据将局限于间接证据，如绘画表现。未来探索早期犬适应性的遗传学研究可能揭示除雪橇犬选择特征之外，针对具有文化价值性状进行选择性繁育的证据，并可能为早期犬角色的替代解释提供进一步见解。
这一视角将驯化重新定义为一种技术过程，而不仅仅是生物或行为过程。选择性繁育、训练以及包括挽具和雪橇在内的运输技术的发展，可以被理解为人类与犬之间较长技术关系的组成部分。因此，雪橇不应被视为运输技术的开端，而应被视为更广泛历史中的一个较晚发展，在这一历史中，人类与犬通过共同劳动和穿越景观的移动而相互适应。目前可获得的考古学和基因组学证据并未确立运输启动了犬驯化，但它为将流动性视为人犬技术关系的一个可能维度提供了基础。
将雪橇犬视为活技术也凸显了其作为非物质文化遗产的重要意义。其价值不仅在于其遗传或工作能力，还在于通过世代人与犬共同传递的生态知识、技术技能、口头传统和社会实践的积累体系。这种关系最好被理解为一种共同驯化关系，其中人类与犬在生物、文化和技术上相互塑造。因此，保护雪橇犬不仅意味着保护一个独特的动物种群，还意味着保护人类最古老的持续运作的技术系统之一，以及一种活生生的伙伴关系，通过这种关系，移动、生存和文化已经共同演化了数千年。
查看英文原文▾
1. Introduction
The relationship between humans and dogs represents one of the oldest and most influential technological partnerships in human history. Since the Late Pleistocene, dogs have accompanied people as hunters, companions, guards, and transport animals, enabling humans to occupy environments that would otherwise have been difficult to exploit [1,2,3,4]. Nowhere is this relationship more evident than in the Arctic, where the collaboration between humans and dogs has shaped patterns of mobility, subsistence, exploration, and cultural development for millennia.
Mobility has long been a defining challenge of Arctic life. Vast distances, highly seasonal resources, and extreme environmental conditions demanded efficient systems for transporting people, food, equipment, and materials across snow and sea ice. Archaeological discoveries from the Zhokhov site in the New Siberian Islands, including sled components and dog remains dating to approximately 9000 years ago, demonstrate that dogs were already functioning as draft animals during the Early Holocene [5,6]. Since then, dog sledding has become one of the most enduring technological systems of the circumpolar North. Dogs facilitated hunting, trade, communication, and travel across otherwise inaccessible landscapes for the ancestors of indigenous populations or Arctic North America, the Inuit, Yu’pik, and Aleuts. They later enabled some of the most significant Arctic and Antarctic expeditions, including Knud Rasmussen’s Fifth Thule Expedition, the Denmark Expedition led by Ludvig Mylius-Erichsen, and Roald Amundsen’s successful journey to the South Pole [7,8].
Despite their historical importance, sled dog populations have declined substantially in recent decades. In Greenland alone, the registered sled dog population decreased from approximately 25,000 animals in 2002 to around 15,000 by 2016, with numbers continuing to decline due to climate change, diminishing sea ice, socioeconomic transformation, and reduced reliance on subsistence hunting [9]. This decline threatens not only a distinctive dog population but also one of the world’s oldest continuously operating human–animal technological systems. Beyond their archaeological and cultural significance, these findings have important conservation and welfare implications. Protecting sled dog health, genetic diversity, and working conditions is essential for sustaining both animal welfare and the cultural heritage embedded in Arctic human–dog relationships. Continued population declines may therefore have consequences that extend beyond the dogs themselves to the preservation of Indigenous knowledge, traditional husbandry practices, and the long-term viability of one of the world’s oldest human–animal working partnerships [9]. However, there are ongoing local initiatives that aim to protect the endangered Greenlandic sled dog and its cultural heritage through year-round sustainable tourism, hands-on visitor education, and local breeding traditions.
Traditionally, technology has been associated with mechanical inventions and industrial development. Such perspectives have tended to separate technology from nature, reinforcing the assumption that technologies are necessarily manufactured, inert objects [10,11]. Yet throughout human history, many of the most transformative technologies have been living. Domesticated plants and animals have fundamentally altered human societies through agriculture, transport, communication, and labour. The domestication and selective breeding of animals therefore constitute technological practices in their own right, producing living systems whose biological characteristics have been shaped through sustained human intervention [12,13,14].
Sled dogs exemplify this relationship between biology and technology. A dog team is more than a collection of animals pulling a sled; it is an integrated technological system in which humans, dogs, harnesses, sleds, and the environment operate together. The effectiveness of this system depends upon continual communication, cooperation, and mutual adaptation. Commands, body position, terrain, weather, and the responses of individual dogs all contribute to a dynamic process in which technology is enacted through movement rather than simply embodied in an artefact. The musher and the dogs function as a coordinated technological unit, blurring conventional distinctions between operator and tool, nature and technology [15,16].
Viewing sled dogs as living technologies also invites a reconsideration of domestication itself. Existing models of dog domestication have primarily emphasized commensal scavenging, hunting partnerships, or social companionship as the principal selective forces driving the emergence of domestic dogs [17,18]. While these explanations have substantially advanced our understanding of domestication, they pay comparatively little attention to mobility as a technological challenge. If transportation became essential to human survival and expansion in northern environments, it is plausible that the capacity of early dogs to assist with moving people and resources represented one of the earliest sustained selective pressures reinforcing domestication.
Building upon this perspective, we propose a transportation hypothesis of dog domestication. Rather than viewing transport as a relatively late application of already domesticated dogs, we argue that transportation may itself have constituted one of the principal technological functions through which the human–dog partnership became evolutionarily and culturally stable. Under this hypothesis, domestication is understood not solely as a biological or behavioural process, but as a technological one in which selective breeding, training, and increasingly sophisticated transport systems co-evolved over thousands of years.
This article contributes to the history of technology by reframing sled dogs as living technologies and by positioning transportation as a potential driver of dog domestication. Through this approach, we argue that domestication should be understood as both an evolutionary and a technological process, one in which humans and dogs co-created a living system that transformed mobility, enabled Arctic adaptation, and continues to embody a unique form of intangible cultural heritage.
2. Background: The Versatile Role of Dogs in Arctic Societies
Dogs have played an essential and diverse role in many northern communities, especially in Arctic societies [19]. Sled dogs have supported humans in hunting and herding activities and have been widely used for transportation [1,20,21,22]. They also served as food sources, ceremonial offerings, and appear in Inuit cosmology and mythology. Dogs had multiple functions not only during their lives but also after death [21,23]. Archaeological excavations in North America and Siberia have uncovered dog bones with cut marks, indicating they were butchered [24,25]. For example, at the Ust’-Polui site in Siberia, many dog bones show signs of slaughter [25]. Dog remains were also used as raw materials, such as for clothing [26]. Sled dogs have a thick, three-layered coat that allowed them to survive Arctic conditions, a material that humans used to protect themselves from the cold [26]. We suggest that the technological advance provided by dogs in the form of transportation, through pack, sled, travois, and other mediums, shaped the early dogs during the domestication process in Eurasia.
Sled dogs constitute a distinctive form of living technology, not merely as working animals but as biological actors possessing specific characteristics that makes them essential within Arctic transport mobility systems. Across the circumpolar Arctic, sled dogs have collaborated with humans for more than 9000 years, underscoring both their technological significance and their cultural value [6,27]. Arctic sled dog types, including the Siberian Husky, Alaskan Malamute, Canadian Inuit Dog, and the Greenlandic sled dog (Qimmeq), share close common ancestors but have developed specialized adaptations to the Arctic and sledding performance [27,28]. The Greenlandic sled dog is of particular interest, as this population has retained its functional role as a sled dog in Greenland for nearly a millennium, without the extensive intervention or transformation into companion animals that other Arctic breeds have undergone [28]. In fact the migrations of humans can be traced through the ancestry of dogs in the Arctic, underscoring their role within the suite of tools of arctic societies [1,27,28,29]. Genetics have established that the genetic ancestry that defines sled dogs genetically was present in Siberia already 9700 years ago as evidenced by the genome of a dog originating from Khatystyr cave in Southeast Siberia [30]. It has also been suggested that thermal reception, an Arctic key evolutionary trait [31,32], was already under selection in the dogs, as well as hypoxia adaptation, likely related to the extreme athletic performance of the dogs during sledding as seen in the Zhokhov dog genome [27]. Together this suggests that by the early Holocene the sled dog lineage that continues today was already specialised for sledding and Arctic conditions. Interestingly, the modern sled dogs show genetic adaptation to a diet rich in fatty acids [27], likely a result of humans feeding them marine mammal blubber over generations. However, these mechanisms are not evolved in the ancient Zhokhov dog [27], indicating that across time sled dogs have continued to evolve, and as living beings will continue to do so. Greenland is unique in that the Greenland Sled Dog continues to live and work within the Indigenous sledding culture in which it evolved, preserving a human–dog relationship that has persisted since the arrival of the Thule Inuit more than 800 years ago [28]. Amazingly, the adaptation to cope with a diet rich in fatty acids is an ability co-evolved in polar bears [33] and Arctic humans as the Inuit [34,35]. Being a biological example of convergent evolution and further connecting sled dogs and Arctic cultures, they have followed each other for so long that they have evolved in the same direction.
The evolution, ancestry, physiology and behaviour of the sled dog reflect its life across millennia and the living dogs embody all this legacy. These dogs are robust, possessing dense coats, strength, and endurance, and they exhibit social and communicative capacities that enable them to operate within complex teams. Sled dogs acquire skills through practice and socialization within the pack, where hierarchy and cooperation are essential for effective sled travel [22]. These characteristics are not static but develop through ongoing interactions with humans, the landscape, and technological objects such as sleds and harnesses [16].
There is strong archaeological evidence for the use of sled dogs during the Thule period (1200-1850 CE) across the North American Arctic [36]. These dogs originally came from Siberia and spread through the Bering Strait into central and eastern Arctic regions [1]. This movement aligns with the spread of related technologies found in archaeological records [36]. Sled dogs enabled long-distance travel, connected communities, and supported the use of marine resources. European expeditions in the Arctic relied heavily on Inuit knowledge and their use of dogs for transport. In this context, dogs acted as resilient partners and as a bridge between traditional ways of life and new challenges, continuing to support mobility. Throughout historical transitions, the presence or absence of sled dogs shows that they have been active participants in the adaptation of Arctic life ways. By enhancing human capacity to respond to environmental, spatial, and cultural challenges, dogs have played a key role in innovation and change in the Arctic.
Activities such as sledding and hunting integrate dogs’ physical capacities with human planning, tool use, and social organization, including speed, climate resistance, and tracking ability. Together, they form a technology that neither species could achieve alone. This cooperation has enabled Arctic peoples to understand and interact with their environment in new and creative ways. Sled dogs have thus contributed to human development and helped communities adapt to change. They have enabled movement across tundra, ice, and sea, and supported adaptation and resilience in a landscape shaped by constant transformation [16]. The many roles of sled dogs, from transport and hunting to protection, demonstrate their remarkable versatility and adaptability. Their long-standing relationship with humans reflects a mutual domestication process or co-domestication [22,37,38]. This form of coexistence offers insight into the complex and dynamic relationships between humans and animals throughout history and deepens our understanding of how these relationships have shaped both cultural practices and technological systems.
3. Domestication and Living Technologies
The timing, geographical, and cultural context of dog domestication remain debated, although archaeological and genomic evidence increasingly indicates that the process began during the Late Pleistocene in Eurasia [4]. This precedes the appearance of clearly recognisable archaeological dog remains in the early Holocene including the widely accepted Bonn Oberkassel dog dated to approximately 14,000 years ago [39]. Recent ancient genomic studies have demonstrated that dogs were already genetically distinct from wolves by at least approximately 15,800 years ago [2,4] and genomic divergence estimates have placed the separation of the dog lineage from wolves considerably earlier, potentially during the period between approximately 20,000 and 40,000 years ago [40,41,42]. The geographic location of this process remains unresolved, although it is widely accepted that it occurred in Eurasia. Rather than supporting a single, definitively established centre of domestication, the available evidence is therefore consistent with a complex process occurring within Late Pleistocene hunter–gatherer societies, with suggestions of dual domestication [43], early diversification [44], early specialisation [27], and widespread movements of dogs [4,26,30]. Importantly, the substantial chronological gap between the inferred origins of the domestic dog and the evidence for specialised working dogs presents a challenge for determining the mechanisms and motivations that led to the dog lineage.
When wolves were first domesticated, humans had no prior experience with domestication, making it unlikely that they had a clear plan or goal, such as turning wolves into herding dogs. One of the key components in the mystery of the origin of domestic dogs is what could possibly make an efficient reproductive barrier between early dogs and wolves, allowing the common ancestry of all dogs to drift sufficiently away from wolves becoming the clear lineage that dogs represent. Potentially sledding ability could be such a barrier. The authors would like to underline that this idea remain an explicitly limited hypothesis, as no evidence from the actual context of dog domestication can be provided. The transportation hypothesis relies on observations from traditional sled dog breeding, which corroborates that sledding performance is a barrier to admixture with wolves, entertaining the idea of whether similar mechanisms have played a role as a barrier in the past. Traditional knowledge from Inughuaq hunters and mushers in Avanersuaq (North Greenland) with experience in working with wolf–sled dog hybrids explain how the first generation of wolf dog offspring are unable to pull a sled efficiently, due to their body shape, and that several generations of out breeding with dog ancestry is needed to have a “sled dog” with part wolf ancestry [45]. The low utility of hybrids to pull sleds due to their legs being too long is further supported as mentioned in historical anecdotes. Specifically in the context of Greenland sled dogs, where occurrence of wolf hybridization is documented [45,46], it is noteworthy that no Arctic wolf ancestry have been detected in over 100 dogs that have been genome-sequenced and tested [27,28]. Pointing out that, while wolf–dog hybrids do occur, they have not contributed significantly to the overall gene pool of Greenland sled dogs, with the poor sledding performance of hybrids being a possible contributing factor. If early dogs obtained or had adaptations favourable in sledding, that would put a selection pressure on wolf hybrids. In this way sledding could be a bottleneck of reproductive isolation from wolves in the common ancestry of all dogs, a tradition maintained in modern sled dogs, but lost in other dogs as their ancestors diversified into other ways of life across human cultures. Taming is often seen as the first step in the domestication process, but coincidences likely played a major role. Taming changes behaviour, while domestication changes both behaviour and genetics. Domestication represents a continuous process that relies upon the sustained, multigenerational influence over breeding strategies to produce a lineage shaped by the partner organism [17,18]. A likely scenario is that domestication happened gradually through many small, mostly unintentional steps. These changes were driven by immediate, practical needs rather than long-term breeding strategies. One possible starting point was wolves living near human settlements, feeding on waste, like bones and food scraps. Humans may have tolerated, or even appreciated, these wolves, as they helped dispose of waste and could alert people to danger from wild animals or strangers. Genetic research has supported this with the identification of genes under selection in dogs that are associated with starch digestion [47]; however, these adaptations may have followed the onset of the Neolithic when cereals were domesticated [48], which is supported by the absence of these adaptations in Arctic dogs [27]. Wolves that were less fearful of humans had better access to food and were more likely to survive and reproduce. Over time, this led to natural selection favouring less fearful, more human-friendly wolves. Eventually, some of these wolves may have entered human camps and been treated as semi-domesticated animals, providing companionship or serving as food sources. When deciding which animals to kill, humans likely removed the most aggressive ones first. This would have further encouraged willing behaviour in the population. Over generations, these ‘proto-dogs’ began to look and behave very differently from wild wolves and were eventually recognized as the dog. This long-term process led to significant behavioural and physical changes, creating a distinct population.
Although dogs are considered the first domesticated animals, domestication should be viewed as an ongoing process. The relationship between humans and dogs is best described as co-domestication, where both species adapt to each other [22]. To understand this process, it is important to move away from a human-centred view and instead highlight the role of animals in history [48]. In this multispecies perspective, objects often act as mediators between humans and animals. For example, McNiven [15] describes the canoe as a tool that mediates the hunting relationship between humans and marine animals. Other technologies, such as tools or navigation skills, are also key to how northern peoples interact with working animals [37]. In northern societies, domestication often takes place in shared landscapes where humans and animals live together. The interaction between animals, landscapes, tools, and people is essential to understanding domestication. The landscape itself connects species and shapes their relationships [49]. In this ecological system, cooperation between humans and dogs is grounded in the environment. The relationship between animals and technology is mutual. Technologies are not just tools for managing animals; animals and animistic beliefs also help us understand technology.
Thus, as relationships between humans and wolves became more established, additional opportunities for cooperation may have emerged. While hunting is often proposed as one of the earliest functional roles of dogs, transportation represents another possible context for the development of human–dog cooperation. Archaeological evidence for early transport technologies provides tentative support for considering mobility in this context, although it does not by itself demonstrate that dogs were used for traction [6,50]. We propose that use in transportation was an early driving force that propelled the adoption of proto-dogs or wolves into domestic environments that lead to the distinct animals we now know as dogs. Archaeological evidence indicates that sledding technologies were present in the Late Pleistocene; however, even before the invention of formal sled technology, wolves or early dogs may have assisted people by carrying light loads or dragging simple travois, reducing the energetic costs of transporting resources across landscapes that would be challenging to identify in the archaeological record. In highly seasonal northern environments, where mobility was essential for following game and moving camps, even modest assistance with transport would have provided a considerable advantage. Individuals that were more tolerant of human direction, more willing to work cooperatively, and physically capable of pulling loads would have been preferentially retained and reproduced, strengthening selection for behavioural traits associated with domestication. Although direct archaeological evidence for the earliest use of dogs in transport remains scarce, the antiquity and widespread distribution of sled dogs across the Arctic suggest that transportation may have been one of the earliest specialised roles that reinforced and accelerated the domestication process, rather than simply representing a later cultural innovation. Furthermore, the environmental condition present at the time of the divergence of the dog and grey wolf lineages was colder than the present day; as a result conditions supporting sledding would have been more widespread across Eurasia as suggested by palaeoenvironmental reconstructions [51,52,53]. For highly mobile hunter–gatherers, particularly those inhabiting seasonal and resource-variable environments, efficient movement was fundamental to survival. Even before the emergence of sophisticated sleds, early dogs may have assisted by carrying loads or dragging simple transport devices, increasing hunting efficiency, facilitating residential mobility, and expanding the distances over which people could transport food, raw materials, and equipment. Individuals that were more cooperative, tractable, and responsive to human direction would consequently have been preferentially retained and bred. Transportation therefore acted not simply as a use of dogs, but as a technological niche that favoured behavioural and physiological traits associated with domestication itself. In this framework, mobility became a driver of co-evolution [51].
Domestication Through Material Culture
In Arctic human–animal relationships, material culture and environmentally situated practices are often central to the development of shared systems [16]. The ongoing domestication of dogs, specifically sled dogs, involves skill learning by both humans and animals. This mutual learning is essential to the cooperation between sled mushers and their dogs. Acquiring a skill, as required by technology, is a key part of the domestication process. It involves repeated actions and develops over time. Dogs learn to understand verbal and non-verbal communication, procedures, and gestures, while humans learn how to guide and respond to the dogs. Communication between the musher and the dogs often involves harnesses, whips and buckles (Figure 1), not just voice or body language. These tools have been continuously refined for this purpose. Therefore, technical learning must be mutual and based on shared experience and cooperation, not just imposed on the animal [38].
Objects like dog whips and harnesses can be seen as tools through which humans can communicate their intention to the dogs (Figure 1). When considering how dogs and humans interact physically, harnesses in particular bring the two species into contact and signal the next step, such as preparing the dog for sledding. These tools also create a framework for domestication and act as social infrastructures. If seen only as instruments of human control, they fail to support communication in a shared landscape of coexistence. Becoming a working animal involves many factors, including the physical environment, the nature of the landscape, and the practical knowledge held by both experienced mushers and dogs.
4. Animals as Technological Agents
To understand sled dogs as part of the history of technology, we must consider what kind of system they are part of. In the Arctic, the sled dog system can be seen as a network that includes dogs, humans, sleds, harnesses, feeding strategies, and breeding practices. Together, these elements form an integrated system that enables transportation and survival in extreme environments. Approaches like Actor-Network Theory (ANT) [54,55] and Human–Animal Studies (HAS) offer useful frameworks for analysing such systems. These perspectives discuss humans, animals, and tools as interconnected actors that influence and shape one another.
Sled dogs are not passive tools in a technological system; instead, they are co-actors with a degree of autonomy and unpredictability. This view aligns with recent work in environmental history and multispecies studies, which emphasize the dynamic and reciprocal nature of human–animal relationships [56]. The idea that animals can be part of technological systems has gained attention in the history of technology and multispecies research. These fields challenge the traditional view of technology as only non-living, human-made objects. Instead, they propose a broader definition that includes living beings, such as domesticated, trained, or bred animals, as technological components [10,13]. Some scholars argue that animals like sled dogs can be seen as biotechnological agents, functioning within infrastructures and production systems alongside machines and tools [57]. Others, especially in posthumanism and multispecies studies, caution against reducing animals to mere tools. They emphasize the agency of animals and argue that technological relationships should be understood as mutual and context-dependent [56,58]. Using ANT and HAS allows for a more nuanced analysis of sled dogs as technology. This includes their biological abilities, social roles, and interactions with material tools. This perspective expands our understanding of technological systems by including living beings as active participants, challenging the traditional boundaries between technology, nature, and culture.
Previous studies have explored animals, especially horses, as both workforce and living machines [10,57,59]. This perspective connects animal technologies to broader discussions in environmental and technological history. Technologies shape who we are, and animals have often been studied in three main technical categories: agriculture and food production; energy and transport; and animal-based scientific studies (e.g., biotechnology, ecology, evolutionary biology, and zoology). In Horses at Work [10], Greene shows how studying animal technologies can enrich the field of technology history by linking them to cultural, economic, and military contexts. Just as horses, dogs can be analysed as part of a technological system, whose historical role helped shape human societies. Cultural history helps us understand societies consisting of both humans and animals, living and working together under shared, but unequal, social norms. In the history of technology, which is a dynamic and evolving field, it is important to recognize that animals can be powerful, material, and human-shaped, like machines, but also living, sensing, and conscious beings. This challenges the clear division between human and non-human actors [60].
Dogs are not just biological beings, they are the result of millennia of co-evolution and technological interaction, optimized for specific roles in environments. As humans play an increasingly active role in ecological and evolutionary processes, it becomes more important to recognize living beings as integral parts of technological systems, both as material resources and as co-creators of human experience and culture [61]. Sled dogs are not just working animals; they represent a living cultural heritage and evidence to the long-standing and complex relationship between humans and animals in the Arctic [62]. To understand the continued relevance of sled dogs in technological and cultural systems, we must recognize their role not only as animals but as carriers of knowledge, tradition, and identity. Sled dogs embody intangible cultural heritage, a body of knowledge, stories, sounds, and movements that cannot be learned from books but only through lived experience. This knowledge is passed down through generations, including through the dogs themselves [56,58]. Recognizing sled dogs as intangible heritage is essential to understanding their full significance [62]. It is not only about preserving a tradition, but about maintaining a living relationship between humans, animals, and the landscape, one that includes technical skills, emotional bonds, and legacy.
4.1. Dogs as Part of Technological Systems
The discussion regarding whether animals can be considered technology likely comes from the influence of the Industrial Revolution. This period emphasized machines replacing nature, such as horses being replaced by automobiles, leading to the belief that only non-living machines count as technology. However, throughout history, humans have used many tools, some mechanical, others not, all of which are forms of technology. These tools often come from nature, which humans have optimised for their needs [11,14]. Although many technologies consist of non-living materials, some tools are living organisms. Organisms become tools when they are used to meet human needs or purposes. Most domesticated plants and animals have been transformed and can be considered as human-made objects [13]. Terms like “biotechnology” and “genetic engineering” show how biological and artificial systems combine to create new tools and technology. For around 10,000 years, humans have turned wild species into domesticated ones to support farming. All established societies rely on biotechnology, recognizing this long history helps us understand modern genetic engineering [13]. One way to consider animals as technology is to perceive them as products, used for transport, food, or companionship. Breeding has also aimed to standardize these products; dog breeders are skilled in this, and even people unfamiliar with dogs can often recognize different breeds. The idea of a “pedigree” has become a symbol of quality in dog breeding [63].
Animals have also performed as a workforce. Sometimes they replace or support human workers, like herding dogs helping shepherds, at a lower cost than human labour [64]. In other cases, animals do tasks humans cannot, such as detecting bombs or drugs with their strong sense of smell. Animals have also been used instead of machines [61].
4.2. Sled Dogs as Part of Arctic Technological Systems
For centuries, dogs have been used for transport in the North because they are well adapted to the environment. Arctic communities have also tamed reindeer for milk, pulling loads, and carrying goods [65]. Studies of horses as living machines help us understand sled dogs as technology in Arctic societies [10,57]. Like horses, sled dogs were essential for transport, but they also had social and cultural roles. Their use involved breeding, equipment, and human interaction, showing that animals are not just tools but active parts of technological systems. Research on human–animal relationships and animal technology shows how sled dogs were more than just transport; they were part of a system shaped by social, economic, and environmental factors (Figure 2) [60]. As new technologies entered the Arctic, it became important to understand how they changed human–animal–technology relationships. The shift from dog sleds to snowmobiles shows that modernization is not just about efficiency; it also affects culture and adaptation. Since the mid-20th century, many Inuit and Arctic communities have adopted snowmobiles. Although snowmobiles are fast and can carry heavy loads, they have not fully replaced sled dogs. In fact, across the Arctic both are now used together. Many traditional hunters still see sleds as more reliable and durable [66].
In Greenland, recent studies show that switching from sled dogs to snowmobiles is not just about technology; it also involves identity, tradition, and climate change [16,67]. In Kulusuk, East Greenland, people say snowmobiles changed how they move around, but sled dogs still matter for hunting, tourism, and cultural heritage [67]. Similar trends are seen in Alaska, where motorized transport has deeply affected both the environment and community life. According to Francis [68], this shift has changed the social and economic system, risking the loss of traditional knowledge. In the Canadian Arctic, this has been called the “snowmobile revolution,” where snowmobiles largely replaced sled dogs in the 1960s. This change was driven by practical needs and government modernization efforts, but it also sparked debates about losing cultural continuity and sustainability [64,69].
Due to climate change, changing ways of living, and geopolitical shifts, traditional sled dog practices and their cultural heritage are increasingly at risk. Understanding the long-term relationship between humans and dogs is important not only for learning about past survival strategies but also for preserving the genetic and cultural heritage of these animals [70]. These practices formed complete technological systems, yet sled dogs have often been ignored in studies of 19th- and 20th-century technology, despite their key role in Arctic life. Separating sled dogs from technology is in contrast to how society perceived them within the Arctic. Fascinated by mechanics, people often used technological metaphors to describe and understand sled dogs as sources of power and to find ways to improve their endurance, strength, and efficiency [66]. What is considered technology changes over time. To understand Arctic technology history, we must recognize how past societies understood and used technology, not just as machines and tools, but as living actors in a dynamic relation between humans, animals, and landscape (Figure 2).
5. Conclusions
Technology is not limited to mechanical devices, and many technologies were developed before machines were invented. The domestication and use of animals have played a central role in the development of technological knowledge and practice [12]. Sled dogs are an example of this. Over thousands of years, they have been selectively bred and trained to perform specific tasks in Arctic environments, making them living technologies or biological systems adapted to human needs in the Arctic.
Building on this perspective, we propose the Transportation Hypothesis as a framework for considering whether mobility and transport may have contributed to the development and specialization of the human–dog relationship. Existing models of dog domestication have primarily emphasized commensal scavenging, hunting partnerships, or social companionship as important contexts for the emergence of this relationship. While these explanations are not mutually exclusive, they may not fully account for the technological significance of mobility. The Transportation Hypothesis therefore proposes that, once early wolves became sufficiently tolerant of humans, their capacity to reduce the energetic costs of moving people, camps, and resources may have provided an additional context in which human investment in dogs became advantageous. Importantly, this hypothesis does not establish transportation as the cause or initiating mechanism of dog domestication. Rather, it identifies transportation as a potential technological dimension of the longer process through which human–dog relationships developed and became increasingly specialized.
The primary challenge in the investigation of the origin of the dog is defining the moment when a dog is no longer a wolf and has instead become differentiated enough to be called a ‘dog’. This presents complications in not only determining when and where dogs would have originated but also in determining why they came to be in the first place. As a result, the precise moment will likely never be pinpointed; however, researchers can continue to seek evidence for where the earliest distinct individuals appear and what cultural context they are derived from. Locating evidence for use of dogs as aids in hunting, guarding, and companions before written records will be limited to indirect evidence such as pictorial representations. Future genetic research exploring adaptations in early dogs may uncover evidence for selective breeding for culturally valuable traits outside of those indicating the selection in sled dogs and may provide further insight into alternative explanations for the roles of early dogs.
This perspective reframes domestication as a technological process rather than solely a biological or behavioural one. Selective breeding, training, and the development of transport technologies, including harnesses and sleds, can be understood as components of a longer technological relationship between humans and dogs. The sled should therefore not be regarded as the beginning of transport technology, but as a later development within a broader history in which humans and dogs adapted to one another through shared labour and movement across landscapes. The archaeological and genomic evidence currently available does not establish that transportation initiated dog domestication, but it provides a basis for considering mobility as one possible dimension of the technological relationship between humans and dogs.
Recognising sled dogs as living technologies also highlights their significance as intangible cultural heritage. Their value lies not only in their genetics or working ability but in the accumulated body of ecological knowledge, technical skills, oral traditions, and social practices transmitted through generations of people and dogs together. This relationship is best understood as one of co-domestication, in which humans and dogs have mutually shaped one another biologically, culturally, and technologically. Conserving sled dogs therefore means preserving not only a distinctive animal population but one of humanity’s oldest continuously functioning technological systems and a living partnership through which movement, survival, and culture have co-evolved for millennia.