Abstract
In their critique of our paper (Krause-Kyora et al. 2013), Rowley-Conwy and Zeder focus on two primary issues. Firstly, they discuss issues associated with the terminology and definitions of animal domestication. Secondly, they question the techniques we employed to explore it. While we completely agree with their points related to terminology, we feel they have misunderstood both the principals and application of shape analyses using geometric morphometrics, and that this misunderstanding undermines their criticism. Having said that, and though our differences are easily overstated, our respective interpretations of the data presented in Krause-Kyora et al. (2013) overlap significantly.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 825-834 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | World Archaeology |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Early online date | 31 Oct 2014 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2014 |
Bibliographical note
Funding:This work was supported by Natural Environment Research Council [grant number NE/F003382/1].
Acknowledgements:
We once again thank the many institutions and individuals that provided sample material and access to collections, especially the curators of the Museum für Haustierkunde, Halle; Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin; Zoologische Staatssammlung, Munich; Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris; The American Museum of Natural History, New-York.
Keywords
- introgression
- geometric morphometrics
- Sus scrofa
- domestication
- pig domestication
- animal domestication
- ancient DNA
- dispersal
- genetics
- shape
- insights
- Europe
- clues