Durham Research Online
Deposited in DRO:
21 July 2016
Version of attached le:
Accepted Version
Peer-review status of attached le:
Peer-reviewed
Citation for published item:
Rowley-Conwy, P. and Zeder, M. (2014) 'Wild boar or domestic pigs? Response to Evin et al.', World
archaeology., 46 (5). pp. 835-840.
Further information on publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2014.953712
Publisher's copyright statement:
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor
Francis Group in World archaeology on 31/10/2014
available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/00438243.2014.953712
Additional information:
Special Issue: Debates in world archaeology.
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for
personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:
• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
• a link is made to the metadata record in DRO
• the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom
Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971
http://dro.dur.ac.uk
WildBoarorDomesticPigs?ResponsetoEvinetal.
PeterRowley-Conwy
DepartmentofArchaeology
DurhamUniversity
SouthRoad
DurhamDH13LE
UK
[email protected]
+44(0)191-334-1155
(CORRESPONDINGAUTHOR)
MelindaZeder
DepartmentofAnthropology
NationalMuseumofNaturalHistory
SmithsonianInstitution
WashingtonDC20560
USA
[email protected]
301-238-3033
Abstract
WecontinuetocontesttheclaimbyEvinetal.thatRosenhofE24andother
Mesolithicpigsweredomestic.E24’smixtureof‘wild’and‘domestic’traitsisbest
explainedasindicatingabehaviourallywildboarwithsomedomesticancestry.The
fascinatingcomplexitiesofthissituationshouldnotbedownplayedinfavourofa
simplified,morenewsworthy(butprobablyincorrect)conclusion.
Keywords
wildboar,domesticpig,Mesolithic,ancientDNA,GeometricMorphometrics,
Rosenhof
WewelcomeEvinetal.’scommentonourcritiqueoftheirrecentpaper(KrauseKyoraetal.2013).Withtheclarificationsandamendmentsmadehere,our
respectiveinterpretationsoftheinterestingresultspresentedintheKrause-Kyora
paperdoindeedseemtooverlap.Thereremain,however,somesignificant
outstandingdifferencesonwhichwewouldliketoelaboratehere.
Domestication
WeconcurwithEvinetal.thatdomesticationisacomplexprocessandthatalarge
andmulti-facetedmiddlegroundliesbetweenawildanimal(orplant)andafullfledgeddomesticate.Wealsoagreethatthereisnosingle,easywaytocleanly
delineatethepointatwhichawildanimalhasbecomeadomesticate.Clearlyamore
profitableavenuefordomesticationstudiesis,asEvinetal.suggest,tomovebeyond
making“oneoftwodichotomousstatuscalls”andconcentrateinsteadonexploring
theramificationsofcaseslikethemixedancestryoftheMesolithicpigsinthe
Krause-Kyoraetal.study.Thiswas,infact,amajorpointofouroriginal
contribution:wemaintainedthattheresultsoftheKrause-Kyorastudyindicateonly
thatMesolithichuntershadaccesstopigswithsomedomesticancestry;thishadno
bearingonwhetherErtebølleforagerstreated,orevenrecognized,theseanimalsas
domesticates.
WearehappytoseethatEvinetal.concedethispoint(atleasttosomeextent)and
disavowinterpretationsoftheoriginalKrause-Kyoraarticlethatclaimedtheir
resultsdocumenttheearliestexampleofpigrearingbyErtebølleforagers.Butwe
feelweshouldpointoutthattheauthorsoftheoriginalarticlebearmore
responsibilityforthisinterpretationthanisindicatedhere.Thisisnot,as
maintainedbyEvinetal.,asimplecaseinwhichacademicsand,especially,the
mediahavemisinterpretedoroverstatedtheconclusionsoftheoriginalpaper.
WhileKrause-Kyoraetal.wereindeedcarefulnottoclaimthattheErtebølletended
domesticpigs,throughoutthearticletheymakestatementsthatactivelypromote
(a)thenotionthatErtebølleforagersacquireddomesticpigs,and(b)thatthis
contributedbothtothedomesticationofnativeEuropeanwildboar,andthe
eventualadoptionofdomesticpigsandotherdomesticatesbyforagersinthe
region.Theyusetheunambiguouswords‘domestic’and‘domesticated’intheirtitle,
threetimesintheirabstract,andoveradozentimesintheirtext,specificallyto
refertoErtebøllepigs.Toquotejustonesentence(emphasisadded):
…thesedomesticpigs…representnotonlythefirstdomesticanimalsidentified
fromMesolithicsitesincontinentalnorthernEurope,butalsotheearliest
domesticatesfromtheregion—appearingsome500yearsbeforethefirst
reliableevidencefordomesticcattle,sheeporgoat(pg5).
However,asEvinetal.agree,thereisnoevidencethatErtebølleforagerstendedor
managedtheseanimalsinamannerconsistentwithadomesticrelationshipor,
indeed,thattheytreatedtheseanimalsanydifferentlythananyotherhuntedboar.
EvenweretheMesolithicpigsstudiedinKrause-Kyoraetal.todisplayafullsuiteof
morphologicalandgeneticcharacteristicsconsistentwithfullfledgedbehavioural
domesticates(smallsize,molarswithadomesticmolarshape,NearEastern
matrilinealhaplotypes,andhomozygosityintheMC1Rallele),iftheywerenot
tendedandmanagedinawayconsistentwithadomesticrelationship,thenitis
hardtoseehowtheirconsumptionbyErtebøllehuntershasanybearingonthe
processofdomesticationoflocalwildboarortheeventualadoptionofagriculture
byErtebøllesuccessorssome1000yearslater.WealreadyknowthattheErtebølle
wereincontactwithnear-byfarmingcommunitiesandactivelytradedwiththem
foravarietyofmaterialgoods(seeRowley-Conwyinpress).Theywerecertainly
awarethatthesefarmerscultivatedcropsandhusbandedanimals.Theacquisition
ofadomesticanimalortwofromtheirneighbours,eitherthroughtradeorstealth,if
itdoesnotleadtothedevelopmentofadomesticpartnershipbetweentheanimal
anditskeepers,sayslittleabouteitherlocaldomesticationortheassimilationof
agriculturalpracticesintheregion.
ButthepigsrecoveredfromMesolithiccontextsdocumentedinthisstudydonot
displaythisfullsuitofdomestictraits.Insteadtheypossesamixtureofwildand
domesticgeneticandmorphologicalcharacteristicsthat,asweallagree,showthat
theseanimalshadsomedomesticancestry.Thisunevenandvariablemixoftraits
makesitunlikelythatthesewereindeedbehaviourallydomesticanimals.Their
largesizealoneprecludesthepossibilitythattheywere,asclaimedbyKrause-Kyora
etal.,simplyobtainedthroughdirectcontactwithNeolithicfarmingneighbours–
thefarmerssimplydidnothaveanydomesticpigsthatweresolarge.Themore
likelypossibilityis,asweargue,thattheseanimalsweretheproductofhundredsof
yearsofintrogressionbetweenferalizeddomesticstockintowildherds,andthat
theyweretakenfromthoseherdsbyErtebøllehunterswhowereentirelyunaware
oftheirdomesticancestry.
WhyspecimenE24isnotadomesticpig
Despiteacceptinganumberofourarguments,Evinetal.neverthelessadvancethree
reasons“whyspecimenE24…isnotawildboar”.Wefindthereisampleroomto
countereachofthesearguments.
1)CoatColour:Giventhe500+yearsinwhichlooselymanageddomesticpigsfrom
Neolithicfarmsteadslikelyescapedintonearbyforestsandinterbredwithnative
wildpigs,weseenoreasonwhyhybriddescendantsoftheseanimalsmightnotbe
homozygousfortheMC1Rcoatcolourgene,evenifpossessionofthistraitputsthe
animalataselectivedisadvantageinthewild.RosenhofE24wasafterallhunted
andkilledbypeople,perhapsbecauseitsspottedcoatputitataselective
disadvantage.Thecontinuousinjectionofthesegenesintothewildpopulationby
escapeddomesticateswouldinsurethatthesegeneswouldnotbeweededout.
2)Phylogeography:WearenotclearwhythepresenceoftheNearEasternY1
haplotypeisseenasaproblem.WeacceptthatitwasbroughtintoEuropein
domesticpigsthatdescendedfromNearEasternwildboar.Escapeddomestic
femalesthencarrieditintothewildpopulation.Wediscussreasonswhythis
haplotypedoesnotoccurtodayinEuropeanboarsinourcomment,andwereiterate
herethatsincethisisthefirstaDNAstudyofMesolithicpigs,thereisnoprecedent
tosaythatthishaplotypeisunknownamongpigsfromMesolithiccontexts.
3)Molarsizeandshape:WedonotcontesttheresultsofGMM;weseenoproblem
inbehaviourallywildboarcarryingelementsofadomesticmolarshape,justasthey
carriedtheY1haplotype,andforthesamereason.
WhatwecontestistheclaimmadebeEvinetal.(2013)thatonly77.9-87.5%of
animalscanbecorrectlyascribedtowildordomesticusingtraditionalbiometry.As
wepointedout,thisclaimisbasedonwildboarofvaryingsizes:smallonesfrom
Morocco,tolargeonesfromRussia(Evinetal.2013,supplementarytable1).
Differentwildboarpopulationsareofverydifferentsizes(Albarella,Dobneyand
Rowley-Conwy2009).Itisessentialthatindividualpopulationsformthemetrical
unitsofcomparison;whenthisisthecase,amuchgreaterpercentagecanbe
determined.Forexample,inourfig.2,seventeethfallintheoverlapzonewhile102
donot,asuccessrateapproaching94%(seeRowley-Conwy,AlbarellaandDobney
2012,13-23fordiscussionandfurtherexamples).
Addingmeasuresoftheshapeofskeletalelementstothemixofapproachesto
documentingdomesticationmaywellproveausefultool,especiallyifshapes
distinctiveofdomesticatesareconsistentacrossregionalvariationsinthesizeof
animals.Butwecautionthat,likemanynewtechniques,closerscrutinymaywell
findthatinitialclaimscurrentlymadeabouttheapplicationofGMMtocomplicated
problemslikedomestication,commensalism,anddispersalmaynotbesupported–
orwillatleastneedqualification.Mosttroublingisthelackofaclearunderstanding
ofthefactorsresponsibleformolarshapeandhowthesefactorsarerelatedto
processes,likedomestication,thatmolarshapeispurportedtomeasure.
Demonstratingaclearandunequivocalrelationshipbetweenthedomestication
relationshipandaproposedmarkerofthisrelationshipisanimportantprerequisiteforanymethodusedtodocumentdomestication–onethatistoo
frequentlyignoredintherushtopromotenewtechniquesforstudyingthiscomplex
phenomenon(seeZeder2006).
Aboveall,weagreewithEvinetal.thatdocumentingdomesticationinthe
archaeologicalrecordrequirestheapplicationofavarietyofdifferenttools.This
meansnotignoring,astheydohere,ameasurelikesizethathasformanyyears
beeneffectivelyusedtodistinguishintroduceddomesticatesfromnativewildboar
inEurope(seereferencesfromRütimeyer1862toRowley-Conwy,Albarellaand
Dobney2012).Insteadamoreprofitablewayforwardwouldbetoconsidersizeas
anothervariablethatneedstobeaddedtothemixintryingtosortoutthe
complicatedpathwaysanimalstaketodomestication.Anotherfutureavenueof
researchwouldbetoapplymethodsforreconstructingageandsexharvestprofiles
inpigscurrentlyunderdevelopment(Lemoineetal.2014)topigassemblagesfrom
theregionasameansofassessingtheevolvingrelationshipbetweenhumansand
targetanimalspeciesthatliesatthecentreofthedomesticationprocess(Zeder
2006).
ConsideringthemixofcharacteristicsevidencedintheE24specimen(NearEastern
matrilinealhaplotype,homozygousspottedcoat,anddomesticmolarshape,andits
largesize),wethinkwecanmoreconvincinglyargueagainstthepropositionthat
thiswasadomesticanimal.AsEvinetal.(fig.1)show,first-generationcrosses
betweenwildanddomesticanimalswillbeofsmall(domestic)size.RosenhofE24,
however,isoflarge(wild)size(seeourfig.2),soitsdomesticancestryisevidently
moredistant.Thenearestknownfarmingsettlementis>150kmfromRosenhof(see
ourfig.1).Wedonotknowhowquicklygenesfromdomesticpigsthatescapedfrom
thefarmersmighttaketospreadsofarthroughthewildboarpopulation–perhaps
severalormanygenerations.BythetimetheyappearedinE24,theyareunlikelyto
havebeenrelevanttothebehaviourofthatanimal.Inthisinstancewetherefore
believewecansuggestaclearstatuscall:despitepossessingsomedomestic
ancestry,E24wasmostlikelybehaviourallyawildboar,huntedbytheinhabitants
ofRosenhofliketheirotherwildprey–perhapsmademorevulnerabletohuman
predationbyitsspottedcoat,anexampleoftheselectionagainsthomozygosityin
thiscoatcolourtraitamongwildboarinaction.
Conclusion
Wefinditcuriousthatafterthelengthydiscussionoftheperilsofmakingeither/or
callsaboutthestatusofanimalsthatshowsuchamixofcharacteristics,Evinetal.
goontodeclareRosenhofE24,andtheothermixedancestryMesolithicpigsintheir
study,unequivocaldomesticanimals.Moreover,despiteadmittingthattheirresults
shednolightonwhetherErtebølleforagerstendedtheseanimalsinamanner
consistentwithdomestication,orevenrecognizedthemaspossessingdomestic
ancestry,theystillconcludethattheirstudyprovidesevidenceoftheearliest
domesticatesintheregion.
Thepersistenceoftheseclaimsspeakstoanunfortunatetendencyinsomuchofthe
literatureondomesticationtooverstateresultsandpushthesimplerstorylineover
themorenuancedand,toourmind,moreinterestinginterpretationofcomplicated
data.Theprevalenceofthisapproachinsomanyhighprofilepublicationsonthis
topicisprobablywhybothofus,individually,reactedsostronglytothisarticle
whenitwasfirstpublished.Oursharedconcernoverthistrendismostcertainly
whywecametogethertowriteouroriginalcomment,andthisresponsetotheEvin
etal.reply.
Inmakingtheseclaims,theauthorsofthisimportantpieceofresearchburyamuch
moreinterestinginterpretationofthesedata.Wecontendthatamoredefensible
interpretationoftheresultsofthisstudyisthatitprovidesevidenceforthe
feralizationofNeolithicdomesticpigs,andanextensivedegreeofhybridization
betweentheseferalizedanimalsandnativewildboar–aremarkabledemonstration
ofthevalueofthecombinedapproachestostudyingarchaeologicalremainsutilized
here.Insteadofclaimingfirsts,thefocusofthisstudyshouldhavebeenonthemuch
moreinterestingquestionofwhy,despitethedegreeofapparentlycontinuous,
multi-directionalgeneflowbetweenwildanddomesticpigs,Ertebølleforagers
neverthelessdidnotembracethehusbandryofdomesticpigs(andtheother
agriculturalpractices)oftheirnearneighbours.Ertebøllepeopleconsumedanimals
ofmixedancestry;butthereisnoevidencethattheymanagedherdsofdomestic
pigs,orindeedutilizedanyofthelivestockorcropspeciesthatnearbyfarming
communitiesrelieduponsoheavily.Evenwithextensivehybridizationbetween
wildanddomesticpigsinthisregion,andtheclearcontactbetweenErtebølle
foragersandNeolithicfarmers,theremusthavebeenfactorsthatledErtebølle
peopletorejectthesenewsubsistencestrategies,andalltheirattendantbaggage,in
favourofthehighlysuccessfulbroadspectrumforagingstrategiesthathad
sustainedthemforover1000yearsandcontinuedtodosountil3900calBC.So
ratherthanclaimingtohavefoundacatalystthat,aftera1000years,led,through
someunspecifiedway,totheadoptionofagriculture,itwouldseemthattheresults
ofthisremarkablestudyshouldhavecauseditsauthorstoaskwhytheErtebølle
continuedtoresistthisnewtechnologyandwhythefollow-onTRBpeopleelected
toembracethem.
Thiswouldhavebeentheharderstorytotell.Butifweshyawayfromaddressing
thesemoredifficultquestionsinfavourofsimpler,morenewsworthyscenarios,we
diminishtherealaccomplishmentsofastudylikethis,hardlyhelpingour
understandingoftheEuropeanNeolithicortheforcesthatshapedtheoriginsand
dispersalofdomesticatesandagriculturaleconomies.Insodoingwesellshortthe
increasingpowerofourdisciplinetograpplewithdifficultquestionsthatlieatthe
heartofculturalevolution,andweperpetuatethepublicimpressionthat
archaeologyismerelyasourceof“specialinterest”storiesthatroundoutan
otherwiseslownewsday.
Albarella,A.,K.DobneyandP.Rowley-Conwy.2009.“SizeandshapeoftheEurasian
wildboar(Susscrofa)withaviewtothereconstructionofitsHolocene
history.”EnvironmentalArchaeology14:103-36.
Evin,A.,T.Cucchi,A.Cardini,U.StrandVidarsdottir,G.Larson,andK.Dobney.2013.
“Thelongandwindingroad:identifyingpigdomesticationthroughmolarsize
andshape.”JournalofArchaeologicalScience40:735-43.
Krause-Kyora,B.,C.Makarewicz,A.Evin,L.G.Flink,K.Dobney,G.Larson,S.Hartz,S.
Schreiber,C.vonCarnap-Bornheim,N.vonWurmb-SchwarkandA.Nebel.2013.“Use
ofdomesticatedpigsbyMesolithichunter-gatherersinnorthwesternEurope.”Nature
Communications4:2348doi10.1038/ncomms3348(accessdate27-8-13):1-7.
Lemoine,X.,M.A.Zeder,K.BishopandS.Rufolo.2014.“Anewsystemforcomputing
dentition-basedageprofilesinSusscrofa”.JournalofArchaeologicalScience
40:179-93.
Rowley-Conwy,P.(inpress).“Foragers and farmers in Mesolithic/Neolithic Europe,
5500-3900 cal BC: beyond the anthropological comfort zone.” In Wild Things:
Recent Advances in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Research, edited by F.W.F. Foulds,
H.C. Drinkall, A.R. Perri, D.T.G. Clinnick and J.W.P.Walker. Oxford: Oxbow
Books.
Rowley-Conwy,P.,A.AlbarellaandK.Dobney.2012.“Distinguishingwildboarand
domesticpigsinprehistory:areviewofapproachesandrecentresults.”
JournalofWorldPrehistory25:1-44.
Rütimeyer,L.1862.DieFaunaderPfahlbautenderSchweiz.Zürich:Bürkli(Neue
DenkschriftenderAllgemeinenSchweizerischenGesellschaftfürdie
GesammtenNaturwissenschaften).
Zeder,M.A..2006.“Archaeologicalapproachestodocumentinganimal
domestication.”InDocumentingDomestication:NewGeneticand
ArchaeologicalParadigms,editedbyM.A.Zeder,D.Decker-Walters,D.Bradley
andB.D.Smith,209-27.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.