Yes, Sue, the Vindolanda tablets do indeed mention mules. Robin Birley's
book -- "Vindolanda: Extraordinary Records of Daily Life on the Northern
Frontier" -- is very readable. See the bibliography in this for the
complete technical papers too.

I would also suggest that anyone interested in documenting the use of
mules not leave out the evidence that artwork provides. I'd begin with
Trajan's Column. I don't have the reference for this to hand, but there's
a huge book with complete photographic coverage from plinth to column-top
of that artifact, I think published by the British Museum.

I've had very good luck searching out images of different (can we call
them breeds? or shall we say 'morphotypes'?) of Roman dogs by going to my
local University library and pulling out all the books on Roman mosaics.
Incidental to this of course I take note of the equines too, and I can
tell you certainly there are a few images of mules on Roman mosaics.
Online, Google 'Roman mosaic Tunis' and you'll get a website with many
images from the Bardo Museum and the surrounding area.

As to telling horse bones from those of mules, it ain't easy. There are
two approaches, morphological and morphometric. I'm not a big fan of
morphometrics, because even n-dimensions does not equate to shape, and it
is shape that we must be interested in. But if you want to wade in this
swamp for a while, go look up papers by Vera Eisenmann and her research
group and Anne Forsten and hers.

Morphologically, the more complete your material, the more likely you are
to be correct. Look at modern mules: they vary: you see that, depending on
the dam, the animal may be more horse-like or more donkey-like (this is
why the French word for 'mare' is related to the Latin term for 'mule':
you can't get a mule unless you've got a mare, and there have been
historical periods, and in certain places where the soil is especially
heavy, where almost all planned foals were mules).

The most reliable test for mule-ness is the degree to which the
basiocciput angles forward under the braincase. Practically you can do a
test if you have a complete or nearly-complete skull: stand it on the
occiput. If it'll stand up on its own, it's a horse for sure. If it falls
over, it may not be a horse. If it falls over, then you can look at other
characteristics, including size, the enamel pattern on the lower cheek
teeth, and the particular configuration of the mastoid bone in the ear
region (see my old horse 'Stripes Do Not a Zebra Make' in Systematic
Zoology from 1981).

If you've got skull associated with cannon bones, you'll find the latter
longer and narrower (lower 'index') than they would be in a horse of the
same size/height, and ditto the coffin bones. The pelvis will be longer
and narrower too, both sexes. If you have only postcranial bones isolated
from anything else, the cannon bones would be the most useful -- but
without a skull, or in the absence of a series of fifty or more, I would
probably not identify them beyond 'cf'.

Do remember too that ancient mules could be as small as some modern
donkeys, so it is also possible to muddle mules with donkeys. Go with
caution! Cheers -- Dr. Deb

> Hi All
>
> I have a colleague who has presented me the following questions - he is
> looking at the Roman Army and its logistics
>
> 1.       Sources suggest that the army used mules for moving supplies.
> Q1.  Would mules be distinguishable in the archaeological record from
> horses?  I guess size may be a clue, but anatomically are they different?
>
> 2.       Archaeological sources mentioning mules
> Q2.         Are you aware of any?  To be honest I can’t think of an
> instance where mules are mentioned.
>
>
> 3.       Although the Roman cavalry is listed in the north have you come
> across any references to it in the south east?
> Q3.         Apparently the cavalry consisted of mercenaries from Germany
> and possibly the steppes (Thracian).
>                 Would I be right in thinking that horses from the steppes
> would be smaller?
>
> I would be grateful to hear from anyone who can point us in the
> right direction as this is not something I have personally looked at!
>
> Many thanks
>
> Carol
> Brighton & Hove Archaeological Society
>