A Dingo Burial From the Arnhem Land Plateau

Gunn, Robert George; Whear, Ray L.; Douglas, L. C.

doi:10.1080/03122417.2010.11689380

Cited by 24 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…And while they do not cry for every dead dog-this depends on the dog, its history, and its human network-any camp dog that dies, gets buried. In an archaeological aside, note that 'dingos were the only animals that were given formal burials' by Aboriginal people (Balme and O'Connor 2015:3; see also Gunn, et al 2010;Meehan, et al 1999; and for dog burials globally, see Morey…”

Section: Dogs As Familymentioning

confidence: 99%

Telling Warlpiri Dog Stories

Musharbash

2017

Anthropological Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Dogs As Familymentioning

confidence: 99%

Telling Warlpiri Dog Stories

Musharbash

2017

Anthropological Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Woman do not hesitate to suckle pups". Such was the status of Dingoes, that upon their death they appear to have been the only animals that were given a formal burial in a record from Arnhem Land (Gunn et al 2010;Meehan et al 1999). Therefore, it seems difficult to deny that Dingoes were under some form of domestication by Aboriginal people.…”

Section: Behaviourally Distinctmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dogma of Dingoes—Taxonomic status of the dingo: A reply to Smith et al.

Jackson¹,

Fleming

Eldridge

et al. 2019

Zootaxa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adopting the name Canis dingo for the Dingo to explicitly denote a species-level taxon separate from other canids was suggested by Crowther et al. (2014) as a means to eliminate taxonomic instability and contention. However, Jackson et al. (2017), using standard taxonomic and nomenclatural approaches and principles, called instead for continued use of the nomen C. familiaris for all domestic dogs and their derivatives, including the Dingo. (This name, C. familiaris, is applied to all dogs that derive from the domesticated version of the Gray Wolf, Canis lupus, based on nomenclatural convention.) The primary reasons for this call by Jackson et al. (2017) were: (1) a lack of evidence to show that recognizing multiple species amongst the dog, including the Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog, was necessary taxonomically, and (2) the principle of nomenclatural priority (the name familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, antedates dingo Meyer, 1793). Overwhelming current evidence from archaeology and genomics indicates that the Dingo is of recent origin in Australia and shares immediate ancestry with other domestic dogs as evidenced by patterns of genetic and morphological variation. Accordingly, for Smith et al. (2019) to recognise Canis dingo as a distinct species, the onus was on them to overturn current interpretations of available archaeological, genomic, and morphological datasets and instead show that Dingoes have a deeply divergent evolutionary history that distinguishes them from other named forms of Canis (including C. lupus and its domesticated version, C. familiaris). A recent paper by Koepfli et al. (2015) demonstrates exactly how this can be done in a compelling way within the genus Canis—by demonstrating deep evolutionary divergence between taxa, on the order of hundreds of thousands of years, using data from multiple genetic systems. Smith et al. (2019) have not done this; instead they have misrepresented the content and conclusions of Jackson et al. (2017), and contributed extraneous arguments that are not relevant to taxonomic decisions. Here we dissect Smith et al. (2019), identifying misrepresentations, to show that ecological, behavioural and morphological evidence is insufficient to recognise Dingoes as a separate species from other domestic dogs. We reiterate: the correct binomial name for the taxon derived from Gray Wolves (C. lupus) by passive and active domestication, including Dingoes and other domestic dogs, is Canis familiaris. We are strongly sympathetic to arguments about the historical, ecological, cultural, or other significance of the Dingo, but these are issues that will have to be considered outside of the more narrow scope of taxonomy and nomenclature.

show abstract

“…As others have noted, defining an art style in any media can be a contentious issue if the questions asked of, and purposes put to, that style transgress the particular conditions of its description and the extent that it can be appropriated from one context to another (e.g. D'Alleva 2005;Franklin 2004;Gunn et al 2013;Plog 1983;Schaafsma 1985;Wiessner 1984Wiessner , 1985. Here we identify a set of motifs with an unusual set of key shared conventions, and their variability, as belonging to a Kimberley Stout figures style.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Kimberley Stout figures’: a new rock art style for Kimberley rock art, North-Western Australia

Gunn

David

Douglas³

et al. 2019

Australian Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rock art of Western Australia's Kimberley region has been the subject of special attention by archaeologists and rock art enthusiasts since George Grey's publication of the first illustration of it (Grey 1841). Since then, researchers have tried to date and classify the Kimberley's many rock art styles. To date, eight widespread and highly recognisable styles have been identified, but many motif types in a range of styles remain undescribed and lie outside the formally recognised art styles. While undertaking archaeological work at Borologa, a highly decorated rock shelter in the Balanggarra lands of the northeast Kimberley, we documented a distinctive set of anthropomorphic figures that stood out for their characteristic formal and decorative attributes. Here termed 'Kimberley Stout figures', we propose this as a distinct motif type undertaken in a hitherto undescribed style within the Kimberley rock art corpus, describing its attributes in depth and discussing its positioning within the Kimberley rock art sequence.

show abstract

A Dingo Burial From the Arnhem Land Plateau

Cited by 24 publications

References 16 publications

Telling Warlpiri Dog Stories

Telling Warlpiri Dog Stories

The Dogma of Dingoes—Taxonomic status of the dingo: A reply to Smith et al.

‘Kimberley Stout figures’: a new rock art style for Kimberley rock art, North-Western Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About