the report cited below may help if you have proximal phalanges, as it shows an osteometrical method for separating horse from ass, but E. hydruntinus can be a problem and I had now mule ddata - mule skeletons are very scarce in collections.
best
simon
Davis, SJM.; Gonçalves, M-J. and Gabriel, S. 2008 Animal remains from a Moslem period /12th/13th century AD) lixeira (garbage dump) in Silves, Algarve, Portugal. Revista Portuguêsa de Arqueologia 11 (1), 183-258
I have this in *.pdf if anyone is interested.
-----Mensagem original-----
De: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites em nome de Burke Ariane
Enviada: dom 20-07-2014 13:42
Para: [log in to unmask]
Assunto: Re: [ZOOARCH] distinguishing horse, mule, and donkey
It's been a while, but we did a study of equid metrics/taxonomy that was fairly successful at discriminating between equid species using Eisenman's measurements and mixture analysis, here's the ref in case it helps (below). Clearly, we were not considering mules and the methodology may not work as well on horse/mules but it might be interesting to check....
Burke, A., Eisenman, V., Ambler, G. 2003 "The systematic position of Equus hydruntinus, an extinct species of Pleistocene equid". In Quaternary Research. 59:459-469.
Dr. Ariane Burke, Professeure Titulaire,
Universite de Montreal,
Departement d'Anthropologie,
C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-Ville
Montreal, QC
Canada H3C 3J7
tel: 514-343-6574
http://archeozoologie.anthro.umontreal.ca/
________________________________
From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Pajx [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: July 19, 2014 9:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] distinguishing horse, mule, and donkey
Hi
Yes, I'll check Krish's new article - sounds interesting. Also on the GMM front, there are some other papers about horses. Can't remember off the top of my head whether they would be helpful to your quest, but if you're interested, Jonathan, send me an email off-list and I'll look up what ref's I have.
Generally speaking, I'm not aware of any significant studies using enough known mule or even donkey skeletal material to give us strong ID's, but the ref's given can at least be used to suggest specific IDs of equids.
best
Pam
---- Original Message ----
From: Pajx <[log in to unmask]>
To: jlowrey1985 <[log in to unmask]>; ZOOARCH <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sat, Jul 19, 2014 6:06 pm
Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] distinguishing horse, mule, and donkey
Hi Jonathan
I didn't notice that anyone mentioned Cluny Johnstone's phd on distinguishing Roman Equids. She spends a fair amount of time looking at this issue. Her phd is online via her site at York Uni
cheers
Pam
Pamela J Cross
Zoo/Bioarchaeologist
Horses of Men & Gods project
University of Bradford
---- Original Message ----
From: Jonathan Daniel Lowrey <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
To: ZOOARCH <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Sat, Jul 19, 2014 1:08 am
Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] distinguishing horse, mule, and donkey
Thank you all very much for the responses. They have been helpful and enlightening.
Best,
Jonathan
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Deb Bennett <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Umberto, I know you're addressing David and not me, but nonetheless I'll
give you the short and long of it from my point of view: it is that when
you are matching a histogram (linear measurements) to a curve (that is a
segment of a squiggle), even when you curve-match to a "limit to infinity"
you do not, in fact, ever actually "get there." It is the giant's stairway
conundrum -- mathematicians tell you that you can ignore the subtriangular
areas of unmatch, but how serious a problem that may be itself depends
upon the scale.
There are, in fact, no equations whatsoever known that FULLY describe any
curving shape, including a circle ("pi", called an infinite nonclosing
ratio, is just a fancy name for "fudge factor"). In order to describe
shapes, we use agreed-upon fudge factors whose properties are known. Well
and good; but this does not magically transform any linear, algebraic
approach into what in my view would be an adequate descriptor of shape.
By far -- vastly -- the best assessor, descriptor, and distinguisher of
shape is the human "eye" for shape. That this has come to be called
"unscientific", "inaccurate", or "non-quantitative" is either laughable or
tragic, depending how you look at it. Cheers -- Deb Bennett
> David, I'd be interested to know why you think that shape (at least
> aspects of it) cannot be investigated through linear measurements
> Cheers
> Umberto
>
>
> On 19 July 2014 07:38, Orton, David <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> Worth pointing out that while Deb is IMHO right that shape cannot be
>> ascertained from linear caliper measurements, it CAN be both measured
>> and
>> statistically analysed using geometric (as opposed to traditional)
>> morphometrics - GMM - and a landmark approach based on carefully taken
>> photographs. This is often applied to occlusal surfaces of teeth,
>> certainly
>> for bears and pigs thus far.
>>
>> However, I don't know if this approach has yet been applied to horse
>> teeth. Probably. If anyone does know of such work I'd be grateful for
>> the
>> reference. Otherwise, there's a project for someone!
>>
>> Best,
>> David
>>
>> > On 19 Jul 2014, at 08:26, "Deb Bennett" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Jonathan, there is a large body of literature on this subject; the two
>> > authors to go to first are Vera Eisenmann and Ann Forsten. For a handy
>> > start on getting the references, look in the bibliography to Bruce
>> > MacFadden's book "Fossil Horses."
>> >
>> > Though they take somewhat different approaches, both Eisenmann and
>> Forsten
>> > are of the opinion that if you take enough measurements on enough
>> > specimens, that you will then be able to tell equines apart
>> > "statistically". I have never felt real comfortable with this, any
>> more
>> > than I feel that morphometrics per se can lead you to a grasp of the
>> true
>> > relationships within any group of animals. In short, I think that the
>> > thing that most powerfully and accurately distinguishes one sort of
>> animal
>> > from another is shape, but shape cannot be ascertained by any set of
>> > calipers, and cannot be specified by any manipulation, statistical,
>> > algebraic, or otherwise, of the set of linearities that repeated
>> caliper
>> > measurements produce. In short: size cannot really proxy shape, no,
>> not
>> > even when you proxy it "to a limit of infinity".
>> >
>> > Nonetheless, using size to proxy shape is the current professional
>> norm,
>> > and unless you bow to the god of the caliper and the T-test, you are
>> more
>> > likely to perish than be able to publish.
>> >
>> > So I'm not asking you to take my advice -- only giving it out, like
>> just
>> > any other old fogey -- my advice might help you solve the problem, it
>> > might foster your level of insight as to what equines are all about,
>> but
>> > it's not likely to help get you a job. I think that the only RELIABLE
>> way
>> > to tell equine species apart is to have complete, or nearly complete,
>> > skulls. You can reference my "Stripes Do Not a Zebra Make" paper in
>> > Systematic Zoology from 1982 to get the characters by which this
>> > differentiation can be made.
>> >
>> > Shy of having complete skulls, complete jaw rami and/or complete
>> > associated rows of cheekteeth are pretty good. One can usually tell a
>> > horse's jaw from a mule's or donkey's on sight. If you've got teeth,
>> you
>> > can look at the depth to which the ectoflexid penetrates, the
>> separation
>> > of the metaconid-metastylid loops, and the shape of the linguaflexid.
>> In
>> > the upper teeth you can look at the shape and relative length of the
>> > protocone and the degree of wrinkling exhibited by the enamel,
>> especially
>> > that which rims the fossettes.
>> >
>> > Shy of skulls, jaws, or teeth, you have cannon bones -- those of asses
>> are
>> > smaller and more slender, those of horses usually larger, but even if
>> not
>> > larger (or longer), then certainly broader and stouter, especially the
>> > fore cannons. Mules will be intermediate. You can also pretty well
>> make
>> > the same assessment on proximal phalanges, i.e. horsemens' term "long
>> > pastern bones", or indeed on any of the phalanges, again especially
>> those
>> > pertaining to the forefeet.
>> >
>> > Next best after that would be just about any limb bone, the best
>> perhaps
>> > being the pelvis. If very small, it's almost certainly a donkey; if
>> very
>> > large, and especially if the ischium is relatively long, it's almost
>> > certainly a horse.
>> >
>> > Thoracic vertebrae esp. about T4-T8 of horses have longer dorsal
>> spines
>> > than those of donkeys, because domestic horses have been bred to have
>> high
>> > withers, whereas donkeys almost always retain the primitive condition,
>> > which was pretty muttony.
>> >
>> > Can't help you too much beyond this, except to say that it is very
>> unwise
>> > to stick your neck out farther than a tentative assignment or "c.f."
>> for
>> > anything shy of a complete or nearly complete skull. If you have a lot
>> of
>> > loose unassociated teeth, you may very well be better off with
>> Eisenmann
>> > and Forsten than me.
>> >
>> > For the other old fogeys reading here, by the way, I had the amusing
>> > experience this evening (at a wedding reception) of teaching a
>> teenaged
>> > boy how to use a manual typewriter (we were to type messages of
>> > congratulations to the happy couple, who are also both silverhairs).
>> This
>> > young man now knows what a "ribbon reverse" and a "warped platen" are.
>> > What will the world come to next. Cheers -- Deb Bennett
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hello All,
>> >>
>> >> I am working on a faunal corpus containing equid bones. For the
>> period
>> >> under question there were known to be horses, donkeys, and mules at
>> the
>> >> site. How can these be distinguished (esp. mule and horse)? Any
>> tips,
>> >> references, or helpful advice will be greatly appreciated.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Jonathan
>> >>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Umberto Albarella
> Department of Archaeology
> University of Sheffield
> Northgate House
> West Street
> Sheffield S1 4ET
> United Kingdom
> Telephone: (+) 44 (0) 114 22 22 943
> Fax: (+) 44 (0) 114 22 25 109
> http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/archaeology/people/albarella
> For MSc in Osteoarchaeology see:
> http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/postgraduate/masters/courses-available/osteoarchaeology
> For Zooarchaeology short course see:
> http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/zooarchaeology-lab/short-course
> For Archaeologists for Global Justice (AGJ) see:
> http://agj.group.shef.ac.uk/
>
> "only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned
> and the last fish been caught we will realise we cannot eat money"
>