Germonpré, M., Sablin, M. V., Stevens, R. E., Hedges, R. E., Hofreiter, M., Stiller, M., & Després, V. R. (2009). Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36(2), 473-490.
Using multivariate techniques, several skulls of fossil large canids from sites in Belgium, Ukraine and Russia were examined to look for possible evidence of the presence of Palaeolithic dogs. Reference groups constituted of prehistoric dogs, and recent wolves and dogs. The fossil large canid from Goyet (Belgium), dated at c. 31,700 BP is clearly different from the recent wolves, resembling most closely the prehistoric dogs. Thus it is identified as a Palaeolithic dog, suggesting that dog domestication had already started during the Aurignacian. The Epigravettian Mezin 5490 (Ukraine) and Mezhirich (Ukraine) skulls are also identified as being Palaeolithic dogs. Selected Belgian specimens were analyzed for mtDNA and stable isotopes. All fossil samples yielded unique DNA sequences, indicating that the ancient Belgian large canids carried a substantial amount of genetic diversity. Furthermore, there is little evidence for phylogeographic structure in the Pleistocene large canids, as they do not form a homogenous genetic group. Although considerable variation occurs in the fossil canid isotope signatures between sites, the Belgian fossil large canids preyed in general on horse and large bovids.
Whether or not the wolf was domesticated during the early Upper Palaeolithic remains a controversial issue. We carried out detailed analyses of the skull material from the Gravettian Předmostí site, Czech Republic, to investigate the issue. Three complete skulls from Předmostí were identified as Palaeolithic dogs, characterized by short skull lengths, short snouts, and wide palates and braincases relative to wolves. One complete skull could be assigned to the group of Pleistocene wolves. Three other skulls could not be assigned to a reference group; these might be remains from hybrids or captive wolves. Modifications by humans of the skull and canine remains from the large canids of Předmostí indicate a specific relationship between humans and large canids.
Highlights
► Accepting an Aurignacian beginning of the domestication of the wolf is controversial. ►The Gravettian canid skulls from Předmostí were studied to check for the presence of dogs. ►Ancient dogs are characterized by short skulls and snouts, and wide palates and braincases. ►Using these criteria three Předmostí skulls were singled out as Gravettian dogs. ►Human modifications of the skulls hint at a specific human/large canid relationship.
Susan J. Crockford, S.J. & Y.V. KuzminComments on Germonpré et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2009 “Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes”, and Germonpré, Lázkičková-Galetová, and Sablin, Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2012 “Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Předmostí site, the Czech Republic” Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(8):2797–2801. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.04.033
Issues related to the identification of Late Pleistocene dogs from different sites in Eurasia, triggered by recent publications (see Germonpré et al., 2009, 2012; Ovodov et al., 2011), are discussed. The main focus is the problem of how to distinguish wolves from early dogs on the basis of skull and teeth morphology. The studies by 18 and 19, reporting so-called ‘Palaeolithic dogs’ from Předmostí, Goyet, and other sites in Eastern and Central Europe, have some serious deficiencies. In our opinion, more work needs to be done to understand the biological mechanisms involved in wolf domestication and until then, it is premature to classify these Palaeolithic canids as fully domesticated dogs or even incipient dogs.
Highlights
► We discuss issues related to so-called ‘Palaeolithic dogs’ from sites in Eurasia. ► Our comments pertain to studies described in 18 and 19. ► We suggest it is premature to classify these Palaeolithic canids as fully domesticated dogs.
This is a response to the comments of Crockford and Kuzmin (2012) on our identification of Palaeolithic dogs from different European Palaeolithic sites. In their comments Crockford and Kuzmin (2012) present some errors, misunderstandings and misrepresentations that we remedy here. In our opinion, the early wolf domestication must be regarded as an intimate relationship between humans and canids including the breeding of the latter by prehistoric people, resulting in the European Palaeolithic dogs.
Highlights
► Accepting an Aurignacian beginning of the domestication of the wolf is controversial. ► Crockford and Kuzmin (2012) conjecture such an early domestication. ► This is a response to the comments of Crockford and Kuzmin (2012) on our identification of European Palaeolithic dogs. ► Two large canid types occur in certain European Palaeolithic sites. ► This is explained by the presence of Palaeolithic dogs and Pleistocene wolves.
see also
Using multivariate techniques, several skulls of fossil large canids from sites in Belgium, Ukraine and Russia were examined to look for possible evidence of the presence of Palaeolithic dogs. Reference groups constituted of prehistoric dogs, and recent wolves and dogs. The fossil large canid from Goyet (Belgium), dated at c. 31,700 BP is clearly different from the recent wolves, resembling most closely the prehistoric dogs. Thus it is identified as a Palaeolithic dog, suggesting that dog domestication had already started during the Aurignacian. The Epigravettian Mezin 5490 (Ukraine) and Mezhirich (Ukraine) skulls are also identified as being Palaeolithic dogs. Selected Belgian specimens were analyzed for mtDNA and stable isotopes. All fossil samples yielded unique DNA sequences, indicating that the ancient Belgian large canids carried a substantial amount of genetic diversity. Furthermore, there is little evidence for phylogeographic structure in the Pleistocene large canids, as they do not form a homogenous genetic group. Although considerable variation occurs in the fossil canid isotope signatures between sites, the Belgian fossil large canids preyed in general on horse and large bovids.
 |
| Dorsal view of the skulls from (a) Goyet (dog); (b) Trou Balleux (wolf); (c) Trou des Nutons (wolf), showing the relative wide braincase of the Goyet dog |
Whether or not the wolf was domesticated during the early Upper Palaeolithic remains a controversial issue. We carried out detailed analyses of the skull material from the Gravettian Předmostí site, Czech Republic, to investigate the issue. Three complete skulls from Předmostí were identified as Palaeolithic dogs, characterized by short skull lengths, short snouts, and wide palates and braincases relative to wolves. One complete skull could be assigned to the group of Pleistocene wolves. Three other skulls could not be assigned to a reference group; these might be remains from hybrids or captive wolves. Modifications by humans of the skull and canine remains from the large canids of Předmostí indicate a specific relationship between humans and large canids.
Highlights
► Accepting an Aurignacian beginning of the domestication of the wolf is controversial. ►The Gravettian canid skulls from Předmostí were studied to check for the presence of dogs. ►Ancient dogs are characterized by short skulls and snouts, and wide palates and braincases. ►Using these criteria three Předmostí skulls were singled out as Gravettian dogs. ►Human modifications of the skulls hint at a specific human/large canid relationship.
Issues related to the identification of Late Pleistocene dogs from different sites in Eurasia, triggered by recent publications (see Germonpré et al., 2009, 2012; Ovodov et al., 2011), are discussed. The main focus is the problem of how to distinguish wolves from early dogs on the basis of skull and teeth morphology. The studies by 18 and 19, reporting so-called ‘Palaeolithic dogs’ from Předmostí, Goyet, and other sites in Eastern and Central Europe, have some serious deficiencies. In our opinion, more work needs to be done to understand the biological mechanisms involved in wolf domestication and until then, it is premature to classify these Palaeolithic canids as fully domesticated dogs or even incipient dogs.
Highlights
► We discuss issues related to so-called ‘Palaeolithic dogs’ from sites in Eurasia. ► Our comments pertain to studies described in 18 and 19. ► We suggest it is premature to classify these Palaeolithic canids as fully domesticated dogs.
This is a response to the comments of Crockford and Kuzmin (2012) on our identification of Palaeolithic dogs from different European Palaeolithic sites. In their comments Crockford and Kuzmin (2012) present some errors, misunderstandings and misrepresentations that we remedy here. In our opinion, the early wolf domestication must be regarded as an intimate relationship between humans and canids including the breeding of the latter by prehistoric people, resulting in the European Palaeolithic dogs.
Highlights
► Accepting an Aurignacian beginning of the domestication of the wolf is controversial. ► Crockford and Kuzmin (2012) conjecture such an early domestication. ► This is a response to the comments of Crockford and Kuzmin (2012) on our identification of European Palaeolithic dogs. ► Two large canid types occur in certain European Palaeolithic sites. ► This is explained by the presence of Palaeolithic dogs and Pleistocene wolves.
see also
No comments:
Post a Comment