Ecology, Conservation and Management of Wild Pigs and Peccaries

Chapter 4: A history of pig domestication

43

Determining Phenotypic Change and

Domestication from the Archaeological

Record

Whereas modern populations show a clear morphological
structuration, the morphological identification of wild and
domestic pigs from their ancient bones and teeth is particularly
challenging, not least because wild boar have a wide distribution
across Eurasia (Figure 4.3) and continuous gene-flow between
wild and domestic populations certainly occurred (and contin-
ues today) from its earliest domestication (Frantz et al. 2015).

Statistical Approaches in Archaeology

Most previous GMM studies rely on the assumption that mod-
ern wild and domestic forms reflect the ancestral populations

(Larson et  al. 2007b; Dobney et  al. 2008; Cucchi et  al. 2009;

Bartosiewicz et al. 2013; Krause-Kyora et al. 2013; Owen et al.

2014). Some studies combined modern and archaeological wild

and domestic specimens as a reference (Cucchi et  al. 2011b,

2016), while several actually excluded the use of modern speci-

mens and used only archaeological specimens to infer identifi-

cations (Evin et al. 2015b; Balasse et al. 2016). However, they still

used molar and cranial data sets.

Two main statistical approaches that are commonly used are

predictive discriminant analyses (Larson et  al. 2007b; Cucchi

et al. 2009; Evin et al. 2013; Krause-Kyora et al. 2013; Owen et al.

2014), and the study of the phenotypic relationships between

populations (Cucchi et al. 2011b, 2016). In the case of discrimi-

nant analysis, a probability of identification is provided for each

specimen independently, whereas the overall populations are

analysed when the phenotypic relationships are explored.

Table 4.1 List of publications using geometric morphometrics to study pig domestication and dispersal with mention of the skelettal element analysed, the

geometric morphometric (GMM) protocol used, the modern and archaeological sample sizes (number of teeth or skulls, *: number of individuals), the eventual

combination with other bioarchaeological markers (DNA or stable isotopes) and main objectives of the studies. Line numbers match the numbers of Figure 4.3.

Reference Element

analysed

GMM protocol Sample size Other Objectives

Modern Archaeo marker

1 Larson et al. 2007b M 3 2D outlines with elliptic

Fourier analysis (EFA)

137 6 DNA Identification of archaeological

specimens

2 Cucchi et al. 2009 M 3 2D outlines with EFA 134 22 No Identification of archaeological

specimens

3 Cucchi et al. 2011b M 2 2D Landmarks and sliding

semi-landmarks

23 91 No Identification of archaeologi-

cal specimens. Temporal and

geographic variation

4 Ottoni et al. 2013 M 2 , M 3 2D Landmarks and sliding

semi-landmarks

0 62 DNA Human-mediated dispersal.

Temporal variation

5 Bartosiewicz et al. 2013 M 2 , M 3 2D Landmarks and sliding

semi-landmarks

187 18 DNA Identification of archaeological

specimens

6 Krause-Kyora et al. 2013 M 2 , M 3 , M^2 , M^3 2D Landmarks and sliding

semi-landmarks

400 92 DNA Identification of archaeological

specimens

7 Evin et al. 2013 M 2 , M 3 , M^2 , M^3 2D Landmarks and sliding

semi-landmarks

972 0 No Protocol for identifying wild

and domestic specimens

8 Owen et al. 2014 Cranium 3D landmarks 107 0 No Protocol for identifying wild

and domestic specimens.

Comparison of wild, domestic

and hybrid specimens

9 Duval et al. 2015 M 2 2D Landmarks and sliding

semi-landmarks

0 599 No Human-mediated dispersal.

Temporal and geographic

variation

10 Evin et al. 2014 M 3 2D Landmarks and sliding

semi-landmarks

83 0 No Comparison of wild, domestic

and hybrid specimens

11 Evin et al. 2015a M 2 , M 3 , M^2 , M^3 2D Landmarks and sliding

semi-landmarks

1204 0 No Comparison of domestic, wild,

captive, hybrid and insular

populations

12 Evin et al. 2015b M 2 , M 3 , M^2 , M^3 2D Landmarks and sliding

semi-landmarks

1064 449 DNA Human-mediated dispersal.

Temporal variation. Protocol

for identifying wild and

domestic specimens

13 Balasse et al. 2016 M 2 , M 3 2D Landmarks and sliding

semi-landmarks

0 41* DNA and

isotopes

Wild boars’ ecological niche

and the scale of pig husbandry

14 Cucchi et al. 2016 M 2 2D Landmarks and sliding

semi-landmarks

29 278 Isotopes Co-evolution of pig

domestication and social

complexification

.006

12:31:36