The zooarchaeological application of quantifying cranial shape differences in wild boar and domestic pigs (Sus scrofa) using 3D geometric morphometrics

Journal of Archaeological Science

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 159-167

  Owen, Joseph ^a,d   Dobney, Keith ^a   Evin, Allowen ^a,b   Cucchi, Thomas ^a,b   Larson, Greger ^c   Strand Vidarsdottir, Una ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b MUSÉUM NATIONAL D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE   (France)

^c DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Classification; Crania; Domestication; Geometric morphometrics; Sus scrofa; Zooarchaeology

Indexed keywords

ARCHAEOLOGY; BIOMETRY; BODY SIZE; DOMESTICATION; HOLOCENE; MORPHOMETRY; PHENOTYPE; PIG; THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING;

ANIMALIA; CRANIA; MAMMALIA; SUIDAE; SUS; SUS SCROFA; SUS SCROFA DOMESTICA;

EID: 84892961583     PISSN: 03054403     EISSN: 10959238     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2013.12.010     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Albarella U. Size Matters: How and Why Biometry is Still Important in Zooarchaeology, Bones and the Man: Studies in Honour of Don Brothwell 2002, Oxbow Books, Oxford.
2. Albarella U., Dobney K., Rowley-Conwy P. Size and shape of the Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa), with a view to the reconstruction of its Holocene history. Environ. Archaeol. 2009, 14(2):103-136.
3. Arbuckle B.S. Experimental animal domestication and its application to the study of animal exploitation in prehistory. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002 2005, Oxbow Books, Oxford.
4. Baylac M., Friess M. Fourier descriptors, procrustes superimposition, and data dimensionality: an example of cranial shape analysis in modern human populations. Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology 2005, 145-165. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. D. Slice (Ed.).
5. Belyaev D.K. Domestication of animals. Sci. J. 1969, 5(1):47-52.
6. Belyaev D.K. Destabilizing selection as a factor in domestication. J.Hered. 1979, 70(5):301-308.
7. Bignon O., Baylac M., Vigne J.D., Eisenmann W. Geometric morphometrics and the population diversity of Late Glacial horses in Western Europe (Equus caballus arcelini): phylogeographic and anthropological implications. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2005, 32(3):375-391.
8. Bookstein F.L. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology 1991, Cambridge University Press, New York.
9. Cardini A., Elton S. Geographical and taxonomic influences on cranial variation in red colobus monkeys (Primates, Colobinae): introducing a new approach to 'morph' monkeys. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2009, 18(2):248-263.
10. Cardini A., Jansson A.U., Elton S. Ageometric morphometric approach to the study of ecogeographical and clinal variation in vervet monkeys. J.Biogeogr. 2007, 34(10):1663-1678.
11. Clutton-Brock J. The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism and Predation 1988, Unwin Hyman, London/Boston.
12. Coppinger R., Glendinning J., Torop E., Matthay C., Sutherland M., Smith C. Degree of behavioral neoteny differentiates canid polymorphs. Ethology 1987, 75(2):89-108.
13. Cucchi T., Fujita M., Dobney K. New insights into pig taxonomy, domestication and human dispersal in island south east Asia: molar shape analysis of Sus remains from Niah Caves, Sarawak. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 2009, 19:508-530.
14. Cucchi T., Hulme-Beaman A., Yuan J., Dobney K. Early Neolithic pig domestication at Jiahu, Henan Province, China: clues from molar shape analyses using geometric morphometric approaches. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2011, 38(1):11-22.
15. Curran S.C. Expanding ecomorphological methods: geometric morphometric analysis of cervidae post-crania. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2012, 39(4):1172-1182.
16. The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication Popular Edition 1868, John Murray, London. C. Darwin (Ed.).
17. Davis S.J.M. Zooarchaeological evidence for Moslem and Christian improvements of sheep and cattle in Portugal. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2008, 35(4):991-1010.
18. Davis S.J.M., Svensson E.M., Albarella U., Detry C., Gotherstrom A., Pires A.E., Ginja C. Molecular and osteometric sexing of cattle metacarpals: a case study from 15th century AD Beja, Portugal. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2012, 29(5):1445-1454.
19. Dinu A. The action of the masticatory muscles and cranial changes in pigs as results of domestication. Doc. Praehist. 2009, 36:207-218.
20. Dobney K., Cucchi T., Larson G. The pigs of island southeast Asia and the Pacific: new evidence for taxonomic status and human-mediated dispersal. Asian Perspect. 2008, 47:59-74.
21. Drake A.G. Dispelling dog dogma: an investigation of heterochrony in dogs using 3D geometric morphometric analysis of skull shape. Evol. Dev. 2011, 13(2):204-213.
22. Drake A.G., Klingenberg C.P. Large-scale diversification of skull shape in domestic dogs: disparity and modularity. Am. Nat. 2010, 175(3):289-301.
23. Ervynck A., Dobney K., Hongo H., Meadow R. Born free? New evidence for the status of Sus scrofa at Neolithic Çayönü Tepesi (Southeastern Anatolia, Turkey). Paléorient 2001, 27(2):47-73.
24. EVAN Toolbox 2010, (online). http://evan-society.org/node/42.
25. Evin A., Cucchi T., Cardini A., Vidarsdottir U.S., Larson G., Dobney K. The long and winding road: identifying pig domestication through molar size and shape. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2013, 40:735-743.
26. Fang M., Larson G., Ribeiro H.S., Li N., Andersson L. Contrasting mode of evolution at a coat Color Locus in wild and domestic pigs. Plos Genet. 2009, 5(1).
27. Gould S.J. Ontogeny and Phylogeny 1977, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
28. Groves C. Ancestors for the Pigs: Taxonomy and Phylogeny of the Genus Sus 1981, Technical Bulletin No 3, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.
29. Hare B., Wobber V., Wrangham R. The self-domestication hypothesis: evolution of bonobo psychology is due to selection against aggression. Anim. Behav. 2012, 83(3):573-585.
30. Harvati K., Frost S.R., McNulty K.P. Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences. PNAS 2004, 101(5):1147-1152.
31. Klingenberg C.P. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2011, 11:353-357.
32. Kovarovic K., Aiello L.C., Cardini A., Lockwood C.A. Discriminant function analyses in archaeology: are classification rates too good to be true?. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2011, 38(11):3006-3018.
33. Kruska D., Röhrs M. Comparitive-quantitative investigations on brains of feral pigs from the Galapogos islands and the European domestic pig. Z.Anat. Entwickl. 1974, 144:61-73.
34. Künzl C., Kaiser S., Meier E., Sachser N. Is a wild mammal kept and reared in captivity still a wild animal?. Horm. Behav. 2003, 43(1):187-196.
35. Larson G., Albarella U., Dobney K., Rowley-Conwy P., Schibler J., Tresset A., Vigne J.D., Edwards C.J., Schlumbaum A., Dinu A., Balacsescu A., Dolman G., Tagliacozzo A., Manaseryan N., Miracle P., Van Wijngaarden-Bakker L., Masseti M., Bradley D.G., Cooper A. Ancient DNA, pig domestication, and the spread of the Neolithic into Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007, 104(39):15276-15281.
36. Lawing A.M., Polly P.D. Geometric morphometrics: recent applications to the study of evolution and development. J.Zool. 2010, 280(1):1-7.
37. Lyman R.L. Vertebrate Taphonomy (Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology) 1994, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
38. Mayer J.,J., Brisbin I.L. Sex identification of Sus scrofa based on canine morphology. J.Mammal. 1988, 69(2):408-412.
39. Mayer J.J., Novak J.M., Brisbin I.L. Evaluation of molar size as a basis for distinguishing wild boar from domestic swine: employing the present to decipher the past. Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in Prehistory 1998, 39-54. Museum Applied Science Centre for Archaeology, Philadelphia. S.M. Nelson (Ed.).
40. Meiri S., Dayan T. On the validity of Bergmann's rule. J.Biogeogr. 2003, 30(3):331-351.
41. Mitteroecker P., Gunz P. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evol. Biol. 2009, 36(2):235-247.
42. Mitteroecker P., Gunz P., Bookstein F.L. Heterochrony and geometric morphometrics: a comparison of cranial growth in Pan paniscus versus Pan troglodytes. Evol. Dev. 2005, 7(3):244-258.
43. Moray D.F. Size, shape, and development in the evolution of the domestic dog. J.Archaeol. Sci. 1992, 19:181-204.
44. Moray D.F. The early evolution of the domestic dog. Am. Sci. 1994, 82:336-347.
45. O'Higgins P. The study of morphological variation in the hominid fossil record: biology, landmarks and geometry. J.Anat. 2000, 197:103-120.
46. O'Higgins P., Jones N. Facial growth in Cercocebus torquatus: an application of three-dimensional geometric morphometric techniques to the study of morphological variation. J.Anat. 1998, 193:251-272.
47. O'Regan H.J., Kitchener A.C. The effects of captivity on the morphology of captive, domesticated and feral mammals. Mamm. Rev. 2005, 35(3-4):215-230.
48. Payne S., Bull G. Components of variation in measurements of pig bones and teeth, and the use of measurements to distinguish wild from domestic pig remains. ArchæoZoologia 1988, 2:27-65.
49. Porter V. Pigs: A Handbook to the Breeds of the World 1993, Helm Information, East Sussex.
50. Price E.O. Behavioral-aspects of animal domestication. Q.Rev. Biol. 1984, 59(1):1-32.
51. Price E.O. Behavioral development in animals undergoing domestication. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1999, 65(3):245-271.
52. Rohlf F.J. Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in geometric morphometrics. J.Hum. Evol. 2003, 44:665-683.
53. Rosenberg M., Redding R.W. Early pig husbandry in southwestern Asia and its implications for modeling the origins of food production. Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in Prehistory 1998, 55-64. Museum Applied Science Centre for Archaeology (MASCA), Philadelphia. S.M. Nelson (Ed.).
54. Rowley-Conwy P., Dobney K. Wild boar and domestic pigs in Mesolithic and Neolithic southern Scandinavia. Hogs and Humans: 1000 Years of Interaction 2007, 131-155. Oxford University Press, Oxford. U. Albarella, K. Dobney, A. Ervynck, P. Rowley-Conwy (Eds.).
55. Rowley-Conwy P., Albarella U., Dobney K. Distinguishing wild boar from domestic pigs in prehistory: a review of approaches and recent results. J.World Prehist. 2012, 25(1):1-44.
56. Sack W.O. Essentials of Pig Anatomy: Horowitz/Kramer Atlas of Musculoskeletal Anatomy of the Pig 1982, Veterinary Textbooks, Ithaca, New York.
57. Scandura M., Iacolina L., Apollonio M. Genetic diversity in the European wild boar Sus scrofa: phylogeography, population structure and wild×domestic hybridization. Mamm. Rev. 2011, 41(2):125-137.
58. Sisson S., Grossman J.D. The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals 1910, W. B. Saunders and Company, Philadelphia and London.
59. Trut L.N. Early canid domestication: the farm-fox experiment. Am. Sci. 1999, 87(2):160-169.
60. Vigne J.-D., Helmer D., Peters J. New archaeological approaches to trace the first steps of animal domestication: general presentation, reflections and proposals. First Steps of Animal Domestication: New Archaeological Approaches 2005, 1-18. Oxbow Books, Oxford. J.D. Vigne, J. Peters, D. Helmer (Eds.).
61. Vigne J.D. The origins of animal domestication and husbandry: a major change in the history of humanity and the biosphere. C.R. Biol. 2011, 334(3):171-181.
62. Viarsdóttir U.S., O'Higgins P., Stringer C. Ageometric morphometric study of regional differences in the ontogeny of the modern human facial skeleton. J.Anat. 2002, 201:211-229.
63. von den Driesch A. AGuide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites 1976, vol. 1. Peabody Museum Bulletin, Cambridge, MA.
64. Wolff J. The Law of Bone Remodeling (Translation of the German 1892 Edition) 1986, Springer, New York.
65. Zeder M. Pathways to animal domestication. Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability 2012, 228-259. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. P. Gepts, T.R. Famula, R.L. Bettinger, S.B. Brush, A.B. Damania, P.E. McGuire, C.O. Qualset (Eds.).
66. Zeder M.A. Archaeological approaches to documenting animal domestication. Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms 2006, 171-180. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. M.A. Zeder, D.G. B., E. E., B.D. S. (Eds.).
67. Zelditch M.L., Donald L., Swiderski H., Sheets D., Fink W.L. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: a Primer 2004, Elsevier Academic Press, London.
68. Zeuner F.E. AHistory of Domestic Animals 1963, Hutchinson & Co, London.