Exploring the complexity of domestication: a response to Rowley-Conwy and Zeder

Allowen Evin*, Linus Girdland Flink, Ben Krause-Kyora, Cheryl Makarewicz, Soenke Hartz, Stefan Schreiber, Nicole von Wurmb-Schwark, Almut Nebel, Claus von Carnap-Bornheim, Greger Larson, Keith Dobney

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Citations (Scopus)
101 Downloads (Pure)


In their critique of our paper (Krause-Kyora et al. 2013), Rowley-Conwy and Zeder focus on two primary issues. Firstly, they discuss issues associated with the terminology and definitions of animal domestication. Secondly, they question the techniques we employed to explore it. While we completely agree with their points related to terminology, we feel they have misunderstood both the principals and application of shape analyses using geometric morphometrics, and that this misunderstanding undermines their criticism. Having said that, and though our differences are easily overstated, our respective interpretations of the data presented in Krause-Kyora et al. (2013) overlap significantly.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)825-834
Number of pages10
JournalWorld Archaeology
Issue number5
Early online date31 Oct 2014
Publication statusPublished - 2014


  • introgression
  • geometric morphometrics
  • Sus scrofa
  • domestication
  • pig domestication
  • animal domestication
  • ancient DNA
  • dispersal
  • genetics
  • shape
  • insights
  • Europe
  • clues


Dive into the research topics of 'Exploring the complexity of domestication: a response to Rowley-Conwy and Zeder'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this