Exploring the complexity of domestication: a response to Rowley-Conwy and Zeder

Allowen Evin; Linus Girdland Flink; Ben Krause-Kyora; Cheryl Makarewicz; Sönke Hartz; Stefan Schreiber; Nicole von Wurmb-Schwark; Almut Nebel; Claus von Carnap-Bornheim; Greger Larson; Keith Dobney

doi:10.1080/00438243.2014.953711

Exploring the complexity of domestication: a response to Rowley-Conwy and Zeder

Allowen Evin, Linus Girdland Flink, Ben Krause-Kyora, Cheryl Makarewicz, Sönke Hartz, Stefan Schreiber, Nicole von Wurmb-Schwark, Almut Nebel, Claus von Carnap-Bornheim, Greger Larson, Keith Dobney

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

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
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2014.953711
State	Published - 20 Oct 2014
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2014, Taylor & Francis.

Keywords

Domestication
Sus scrofa
geometric morphometrics
introgression

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Archaeology
Archaeology
General Earth and Planetary Sciences

Access to Document

10.1080/00438243.2014.953711

Cite this

@article{02b0d4afdf5b442cb6baea89b0b326d4,

title = "Exploring the complexity of domestication: a response to Rowley-Conwy and Zeder",

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.",

keywords = "Domestication, Sus scrofa, geometric morphometrics, introgression",

author = "Allowen Evin and {Girdland Flink}, Linus and Ben Krause-Kyora and Cheryl Makarewicz and S{\"o}nke Hartz and Stefan Schreiber and {von Wurmb-Schwark}, Nicole and Almut Nebel and {von Carnap-Bornheim}, Claus and Greger Larson and Keith Dobney",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2014, Taylor & Francis.",

year = "2014",

month = oct,

day = "20",

doi = "10.1080/00438243.2014.953711",

language = "English",

volume = "46",

pages = "825--834",

journal = "World Archaeology",

issn = "0043-8243",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring the complexity of domestication

T2 - a response to Rowley-Conwy and Zeder

AU - Evin, Allowen

AU - Girdland Flink, Linus

AU - Krause-Kyora, Ben

AU - Makarewicz, Cheryl

AU - Hartz, Sönke

AU - Schreiber, Stefan

AU - von Wurmb-Schwark, Nicole

AU - Nebel, Almut

AU - von Carnap-Bornheim, Claus

AU - Larson, Greger

AU - Dobney, Keith

PY - 2014/10/20

Y1 - 2014/10/20

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Domestication

KW - Sus scrofa

KW - geometric morphometrics

KW - introgression

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908566725&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00438243.2014.953711

DO - 10.1080/00438243.2014.953711

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84908566725

SN - 0043-8243

VL - 46

SP - 825

EP - 834

JO - World Archaeology

JF - World Archaeology

IS - 5

ER -

Exploring the complexity of domestication: a response to Rowley-Conwy and Zeder

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this