Print

Print
Dear Torstein, 

I'm sorry, I wasn't precise. As far as I know, the formula changes mm to cm so a 60mm astragalus x 1.83 would yield a WH value of 109.8cm. 
As for the standard deviation and the method Tsalkin used to develop this coefficient: I am not sure. Unfortunately I lack this publication. 

I do agree though that weithers height based on bones as short as astragali or calcanea is a bit dodgy since small differences in the measurement may yield large differences in WH. That being said, basing WH on long bones, e.g. metapodials, may also introduce errors because sexes may have different WH coefficient values. Hence, I feel a bit uncertain about the whole idea of WH. In my opinion, analysis of raw measurements or log ratios provide better results. I have used this value for astragalus a couple of times in my past publications as another way to analyse the osteometrical data, additional to raw measurements and log ratios. As I've mentioned, it is often used in publications in Central-Eastern Europe and in this context that's a good tool to compare data with previously published sites (especially from the older literature), despite its actual precision in calculating the real WH of the animal. But then again, we may as well use raw GLi for that.

Best wishes
Mik

Mik Lisowski, PhD

Postdoctoral Research Associate

BioArCh, Department of Archaeology

University of York

Academic page | Academia.edu | ResearchGate

Zooarchaeologist and stable isotope specialist at Urban Ecology and Transitions in the Zanzibar Archipelago project




On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 14:12, Torstein Sjövold <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

The formula provided by Mik Lisowski for astragalus must be wrong. If GLI of astragalus is, say, 60 mm this means that with a coefficient of 1.83 the withers height is 109.8 mm or rounded off to 11 cm since the coefficient is dimensionless. Or to do the calculation the other way: A small Bos taurus with a withers height of 100 cm should have a GLI of astragalus of 54.6 cm which is absurd. It appears that this factor (which standard deviation or uncertainty is not known and therefore not reliable apart from at most the population for which it had been derived)  concerns either tibia, femur or radius+ulna. 


To make clear about the data I mentioned previously, they were derived from tables and figures concerning individual measurement of withers heights and corresponding bone lenghts, and as I am not at home having access to my library, my reference to Teichert may be wrong, it may be a publication by Zalkin.


Torstein Sjövold

Professor emeritus in Historical Osteology

Från: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites <[log in to unmask]> för M Lisowski <[log in to unmask]>
Skickat: den 3 mars 2020 14:22:56
Till: [log in to unmask]
Ämne: Re: Bos Whithers height
 
Hi Humberto,

A Russian researcher Tsalkin has determined several coefficients for Weithers Height for cattle in his book:
Tsalkin,V. I. (1970). Drevneishie domashnie zhivotnye Vostochnoi Evropy. Izdatelstvo Nauka, Moscow.
I don't have a copy I'm afraid.
I only know that the coefficient for astragalus is:
GLl x 1.83 = WH 
This coefficient is being used by many researchers in Eastern Europe, as far as I'm aware. Hopefully someone else can elaborate on this.

Cheers,
Mik

Mik Lisowski, PhD

Department of Archaeology

University of Sheffield

Minalloy House

10-16 Regent Street

Sheffield S1 3NJ, UK

Other address: [log in to unmask]

My academic homepage

My profiles: Academia.edu, ResearchGate

Find out about our Zooarchaeology Short Course
Find out about our MSc in Osteoarchaeology programme

Postgraduate ZooArchaeology Forum 2017



On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 12:57, Laszlo Bartosiewicz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear Humberto,


I am not aware of withers height  calculations for Bos taurus using astragalus or calcaneus measurements. However, the astragalus was used in estimating the animals' weight in::


Noddle, Barbara A. 1973 Determination of the body weight of cattle from bone measurements. In Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Haustiere, ed. by János Matolcsi. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest: 377–390.


Robust, early forming tarsal bones may be growing more in transversal measurements through life supporting the animal's weight, rather than closely following the growth of withers height during ontogeny. 


But this is only speculation. Checking a few reference skeletons for astragalus or calcaneus measurements would be very interesting - unless somebody has already done it that I am not aware of.


Best wishes, Laszlo

From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Humberto Verissimo <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 03 March 2020 13:42:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ZOOARCH] Bos Whithers height
 
Good afternoon dear colleagues
Does anyone know how to calculate, or do you know any bibliography that makes it possible to calculate the the withers height  of Bos taurus from the astragalus or calcaneus?
I would be grateful for any help.

Best regards 

Humberto Veríssimo 

Humberto Filipe Dias Veríssimo
Mestrado em Arqueologia
Universidade do Algarve
Faculdade de Ciências Humanas e Sociais
Campus de Gambelas
8005-139 Faro
Portugal
 

Mailtrack Sender notified by
Mailtrack 03/03/20, 12:40:36

To unsubscribe from the ZOOARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ZOOARCH&A=1


To unsubscribe from the ZOOARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ZOOARCH&A=1


To unsubscribe from the ZOOARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ZOOARCH&A=1


To unsubscribe from the ZOOARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ZOOARCH&A=1


To unsubscribe from the ZOOARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=ZOOARCH&A=1