All

What are you looking for?

All
Projects
Results
Organizations

Quick search

  • Projects supported by TA ČR
  • Excellent projects
  • Projects with the highest public support
  • Current projects

Smart search

  • That is how I find a specific +word
  • That is how I leave the -word out of the results
  • “That is how I can find the whole phrase”

Of dogs, wolves, and debate: A reply to Janssens et al. (2021)

The result's identifiers

  • Result code in IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00094862%3A_____%2F21%3AN0000155" target="_blank" >RIV/00094862:_____/21:N0000155 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Result on the web

    <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440320301497" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440320301497</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105228" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.jas.2020.105228</a>

Alternative languages

  • Result language

    angličtina

  • Original language name

    Of dogs, wolves, and debate: A reply to Janssens et al. (2021)

  • Original language description

    Canids from the Upper Paleolithic site of Předmostí are central to debates concerning the domestication of dogs as two morphotypes were identified: Pleistocene wolf and Paleolithic dog (Germonpré et al., 2015a). In Prassack et al. (2020), we set out to determine whether specimens previously parsed into these two groups differed significantly in dental microwear textures, a proxy for diet. We did not assume that one group was comprised of dogs, but hypothesized that if they were, they would likely have consumed more bone, leading to microwear surface textures dominated by pitting. We indeed found significantly higher scales of maximum complexity on second lower molar crushing surfaces of the sample identified as Paleolithic dogs by Germonpré et al. (2015a), consistent with larger pits on average and more bone consumption. These results suggest that the two morphotypes identified by Germonpré et al. (2015a) represent ecologically distinct populations. This is in accord with the interpretation of domestication, but, as we noted, the groups could also represent two distinct wild canid populations with differing diets. Janssens et al. (2021) recently criticized our study, questioning our methods of analysis and claiming bias in our interpretation of results. We reply to their issues here, focusing only on those relevant to Prassack et al. (2020).

  • Czech name

  • Czech description

Classification

  • Type

    J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

  • CEP classification

  • OECD FORD branch

    60102 - Archaeology

Result continuities

  • Project

  • Continuities

    I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Others

  • Publication year

    2021

  • Confidentiality

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Data specific for result type

  • Name of the periodical

    Journal of archaeological science

  • ISSN

    0305-4403

  • e-ISSN

    1095-9238

  • Volume of the periodical

    126

  • Issue of the periodical within the volume

    105228

  • Country of publishing house

    US - UNITED STATES

  • Number of pages

    4

  • Pages from-to

    105228

  • UT code for WoS article

    000632611700001

  • EID of the result in the Scopus database

    2-s2.0-85101875583