The enigma of the Předmostí protodogs. A comment on Prassack et al. 2020

Abstract Prassack et al. (2020) analyzed dental microwear in a sample of canids from the Gravettian site of Předmosti that had been identified as either Paleolithic dogs or Pleistocene wolves (n = 10 in each group), accepting that the morphological differences between the groups validly distinguished the (self-domesticating) protodogs from wolves. The authors then concluded that differences in one m2 microwear pattern separated those groups and indicated enhanced anthropogenic based durophagy in the putative protodogs. The study also inferred protodog diets from another isotope study. We disagree with this report for several reasons. First morphological criteria (skull and mandible) accepted here to distinguish the groups have been challenged based on robust research and can be explained by variability within wolves. Thus, we reject that one of the groups represents protodogs. We also question why only ten specimens were examined in each group, while about 130 were available in the original study, and why no specimen-selection criteria were reported. The study accepts the self-domestication hypothesis, which we reject based on solid knowledge of wolf behavior and inferences about what prey remains would be available, and where, in a hunter-gatherer setting. In summary, we can neither accept the existence of protodogs, nor the proposed difference in m2 microwear as being related to anthropogenic durophagy.