Germonpre et al 2021 Late Glacial Palaeodog Goyet (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Archaeological Science, 2012
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 Germonpré et al. (2009, 2012), reporting so-called 'Palaeolithic dogs' from P redmostí, 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.
Palaeolithic dogs and Pleistocene wolves revisited: a reply to Morey (2014)
This is a reply to the comments of Morey (2014) on our identification of Palaeolithic dogs from several European Palaeolithic sites. In his comments Morey (2014) presents some misrepresentations and misunderstandings that we remedy here. In contrast to what Morey (2014) propounds, our results suggest that the domestication of the wolf was a long process that started early in the Upper Palaeolithic and that since that time two sympatric canid morphotypes can be seen in Eurasian sites: Pleistocene wolves and Palaeolithic dogs. Contrary to Morey (2014), we are convinced that the study of this domestication process should be multidisciplinary.
Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Předmostí site, the Czech Republic
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, characterised 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.
In: O. Grimm, U. Schmölcke (eds.), Hunting in Northern Europe until 1500 AD – Old Traditions and Regional Developments, Continental Sources and Continental Influences. Neumünster, pp. 175-183.
The natural behaviour of wolves and their domesticated form, dogs, make them ideally suited for a life with hunter-gatherers. The period when the first dogs were used as hunting assistance is difficult to establish, even with natural scientific methods, since body size and proportion are not reliable guides to the reconstruction of a dog’s function. Nevertheless, there are several reasons to assume that in Scandinavia and northern Central Europe hunting with dogs had already been established during Mesolithic times. The first clear evidence for hunting with dogs can be found in depictions of the 4th millennium BC in the Mesopotamian region. Later, Scandinavian rock carvings from the Bronze Age also show scenes with hunters and dogs. In ancient Europe, hunting with dogs was highly developed and written sources mention many different types of hunting dogs. This breeding success was achieved without any knowledge of heredity, it was based solely on experience and testing. Although it is nearly impossible to identify dogs for hunting osteologically, archaeozoological methods can be used to prove that the Germanic dogs buried in graves next to men were significantly larger than both the contemporaneous “normal” Germanic dogs and the possible hunting dogs that lived at the Roman Villae rusticae. However, only a combination of archaeozoological methods, along with the interpretation of archaeological features such as grave goods associated with hunting, bequeathed laws and depictions supply evidence for the use of hunting dogs during the 1st millennium AD in both Central and northern Europe.
A refined proposal for the origin of dogs: the case study of Gnirshöhle, a Magdalenian cave site
Scientific Reports, 2021
Dogs are known to be the oldest animals domesticated by humans. Although many studies have examined wolf domestication, the geographic and temporal origin of this process is still being debated. To address this issue, our study sheds new light on the early stages of wolf domestication during the Magdalenian period (16–14 ka cal BP) in the Hegau Jura region (Southwestern Germany and Switzerland). By combining morphology, genetics, and isotopes, our multidisciplinary approach helps to evaluate alternate processes driving the early phases of domestication. The isotope analysis uncovered a restricted, low δ15N protein diet for all analyzed Gnirshöhle specimens, while morphological examinations and phylogenetic relationships did not unequivocally assign them to one or the other canid lineage. Intriguingly, the newly generated mitochondrial canid genomes span the entire genetic diversity of modern dogs and wolves. Such high mitochondrial diversity could imply that Magdalenian people tamed...
SOCIAL INEQUALITY BEFORE FARMING
The dog is the oldest domesticated species and the only animal that was domesticated during the Pleistocene - before the emergence of agriculture - when human populations were living as hunter-gatherers. Today, owned dogs can assist their owners in various ways. They can function as watchdog, facilitate transport as beasts of burden, aid in hunting, play a ritual role or provide company. In some cultures, they are consumed and their skin or hair can be used for the tailoring of cloths. We have shown previously that in several Upper Palaeolithic sites two morphotypes of fossil large canids can be distinguished: Palaeolithic dogs and Pleistocene wolves. The remains of Palaeolithic dogs occur in certain early and mid Upper Palaeolithic sites located above 45° latitude; their geographic distribution in post-Last Glacial Maximum sites is more widespread. We adapt here a table proposed by Sigaut (1980) and compare canid products and roles, from living and dead animals, that could have been of possible use in Upper Palaeolithic societies. These roles and products are based on data from the ethnographic literature and confronted with the possible registration of uses in the archaeological record. It is in a framework of an animated worldview of Upper Palaeolithic peoples drawn upon a range of archaeozoological, archaeological, and ethnographic data that we review whether some of these uses and products could have led to differential access to resources and could possibly have enhanced inequality among Upper Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 1990
The skulls and bones of domestic dog (Canisfamiliaris) and wolf (Canis lupus) from the Mesolithic site of Star Carr, Yorkshire, England are reviewed in the context of the new find of the cervical vertebrae of a dog from the nearby site of Seamer Carr. Examination of the stable carbon isotope ratio of these vertebrae has revealed that the dog's diet must have consisted mainly of marine food. This surprising result compares closely with the stable carbon isotope ratio for dog bone from the Early Atlantic site of Kongemose in Sjaelland, Denmark. If the domestic dogs were feeding predominantly on the scraps left by coastal people then they must have been living on the sea shore and it can be assumed that they died while on hunting trips inland. This in turn implies that Seamer Carr and Kongemose were temporary hunting camps of Mesolithic people who lived for the greater part of the year on the sea shore. This hypothesis is supported by a review of the butchery and age at death of the animal remains from the three sites.