Part I: Evolution, Taxonomy, and Domestication46
of a local domestication or (more likely) through admixture
between local wild and introduced domestic populations. Evin
et al. (2015b) performed a combined study of GMM and ancient
DNA analyses on early Romanian Sus remains and identified the
following sequence of events over five millennia: the presence,
during the early Neolithic (6500–5500 BC), of large specimens
with a domestic molar shape, but carrying a European mtDNA
signature; the introduction of small domestic pigs carrying
a Near Eastern aDNA signature during the middle Neolithic
(5500–5000 BC), and the appearance of further small speci-
mens carrying an European genetic signature no later than the
beginning of the Bronze Age (2000–1500 BC) that completely
replaced the pre-existing domestic population.
For one of the sites studied (Vităneşti-Măgurice), the geo-
metric morphometric identifications from teeth (small domes-
tic, large and domestic shape molar, and large and wild shape
molar, i.e. wild boar) were integrated within stable isotopic
analyses (δ^15 N and δ^13 C) with the aim of investigating wild boar
ecological niche and pig husbandry practices (Balasse et al.
2016). This combined analysis revealed that specimens with
large domestic-shaped molars are likely the result of a feraliza-
tion process, because their isotopic signatures appeared consist-
ent with the wild ecosystem.Pig Husbandry and Romanization in Gaul
The presence of different domestic pig husbandry regimes and
different domestic varieties has been the subject of study in, for
example, Roman Gaul from the fourth century BC to the third
century AD, a period during which Romanization is consid-
ered to have contributed to the zootechnic and morphological
improvement of Gallic swineherd (MacKinnon 2001). A GMM
study of Gallic pig diversity through their skeletal and dentalvariability, compared with contemporaneous populations from
the Italian peninsula, revealed a weak link between the Roman
and Gallic pigs, suggesting distinct livestock management mod-
els (Duval et al. 2015). Furthermore, variation within each prov-
ince was observed, suggesting that pig stocks depended on local
agricultural and economic characteristics and improvements
rather than the direct importation of improved varieties from
the Roman heartland.Conclusion
Currently, the pig is probably the domestic species most studied
in terms of geometric morphometric approaches. Geometric
morphometrics is fast becoming an established approach
to study the morphological changes linked to the process of
domestication. How domestication and human selection acted
on domestic phenotypes remains poorly understood, and much
the same is true of natural selection. However, the development
of new morphometric techniques is providing significant new
details and insight into this complex process. When ancient
DNA, stable isotopic analyses, geometric morphometrics and
direct dating are combined on the same specimens, our inter-
pretative power increases exponentially. Much still remains to
be done before a full understanding of the history of pig domes-
tication can be realized. Future research will combine the analy-
sis of genes associated with specific traits such as coat colour or
fat production and/or full genome analyses with more detailed
morphometric descriptions such as those provided by surface
scanning and three-dimensional morphometric analyses. There
is no doubt, however, that there are much more exciting data
to come from the study of both morphotypes and genotypes of
ancient and modern plant and animal domesticates.References
Albarella, U., Davis, S. J. M., Detry, C. &
Rowley-Conwy, P. (2005). Pigs of the ‘Far
West’: the biometry of Sus from archaeo-
logical sites in Portugal. A nt hr op oz oo
logica 40(2): 27–54.
Albarella, U., Dobney, K. & Rowley-Conwy,
P. (2006). The domestication of the
pig (Sus scrofa): new challenges and
approaches. In Zeder, M. A., Bradley, D. G.,
Emshwiller, E. & Smith, B. D. (eds.),
Documenting domestication: new genetic
and archaeological paradigms. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press,
pp. 209–227.
Alexandri, P., Triantafyllidis, A., Papakostas,
S., et al. (2012). The Balkans and the colo-
nization of Europe: the post-glacial range
expansion of the wild boar, Sus scrofa.
Journal of Biogeography 39: 713–723.
Arbuckle, B. S. (2006). Experimental
animal domestication and its applica-
tion to the study of animal exploitation
in prehistory. In Vigne, J.-D., Helmer
D. & Peters, J. (eds.), The first steps ofanimal domestication: new archaeological
approaches. Proc. 9th ICAZ Conf. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, pp. 18–33.
Balasse, M., Evin, A., Tornero, C., et al.
(2016). Wild, domestic and feral?
Investigating the status of suids in
the Romanian Gumelniţa (5th mil.
cal BC) with biogeochemistry and
geometric morphometrics. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 42: 27–36.
Bartosiewicz, L., Gillis, R., Girdland
Flink, L., et al. (2013). Chalcolithic pig
remains from Çamlibel Tarlasi, Central
Anatolia. In De Cupere, B., Linseele, V. &
Hamilton-Dyer, S. (eds.), Archaeozoology
of the Near East X. Proceedings of the
Tenth International Symposium on the
Archaeozoology of SouthWestern Asia and
Adjacent Areas. Leuven/Walpole, MA:
Peeters, pp. 101–120.
Boessneck, J. & Von Den Driesch, A. (1978).
The significance of measuring animal
bones from archaeological sites. In
Meadow, R. H. & Zeder, M. A. (eds.),Approaches to faunal analysis in the
Middle East. Bulletin No. 2. Cambridge,
MA: Peabody Museum, Harvard
University, pp. 25–40.
Bookstein, F. L. (1991). Morphometric tools
for landmark data: geometry and biology.
New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Bosse, M., Megens, H. J., Madsen, O., et al.
(2014). Untangling the hybrid nature of
modern pig genomes: a mosaic derived
from biogeographically distinct and
highly divergent Sus scrofa populations.
Molecular Ecology 23(16): 4089–4102.
Burger, P., Terral, J.-F., Ruas, M.-P., Ivorra, S.
& Picq, S. (2011). Assessing past agrobio-
diversity of Prunus avium L. (Rosaceae):
a morphometric approach focussed on
the stones from the archaeological site
Hôtel-Dieu (16th century, Tours, France).
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
20(5): 447–458.
Caumul, R. & Polly, P. D. (2005).
Phylogenetic and environmental.00612:31:36