Vše

Co hledáte?

Vše
Projekty
Výsledky výzkumu
Subjekty

Rychlé hledání

  • Projekty podpořené TA ČR
  • Významné projekty
  • Projekty s nejvyšší státní podporou
  • Aktuálně běžící projekty

Chytré vyhledávání

  • Takto najdu konkrétní +slovo
  • Takto z výsledků -slovo zcela vynechám
  • “Takto můžu najít celou frázi”

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

Identifikátory výsledku

  • Kód výsledku v 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>

  • Výsledek na webu

    <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>

Alternativní jazyky

  • Jazyk výsledku

    angličtina

  • Název v původním jazyce

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

  • Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

    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).

  • Název v anglickém jazyce

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

  • Popis výsledku anglicky

    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).

Klasifikace

  • Druh

    J<sub>imp</sub> - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

  • CEP obor

  • OECD FORD obor

    60102 - Archaeology

Návaznosti výsledku

  • Projekt

  • Návaznosti

    I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Ostatní

  • Rok uplatnění

    2021

  • Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

Údaje specifické pro druh výsledku

  • Název periodika

    Journal of archaeological science

  • ISSN

    0305-4403

  • e-ISSN

    1095-9238

  • Svazek periodika

    126

  • Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

    105228

  • Stát vydavatele periodika

    US - Spojené státy americké

  • Počet stran výsledku

    4

  • Strana od-do

    105228

  • Kód UT WoS článku

    000632611700001

  • EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

    2-s2.0-85101875583