bos taurus - UAIC

Analele Științifice ale Universității „Al. I. Cuza” Iași, s. Biologie animală, Tom LVII, 2011

PREHISTORIC CATTLE (BOS TAURUS) - A METRIC STUDY OF SKELETAL REMAINS DISCOVERED IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES OF CUCUTENI A CULTURE Mariana POPOVICI1, Simina STANC1 and Luminița BEJENARU1 “Al. I. Cuza” University Iași, Faculty of Biology, Bd. Carol I 20A, 700505 Iași, Romania, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 1 These authors equally contributed to present work

Abstract. This study summarizes osteometric data of cattle (Bos taurus) remains discovered in archaeological sites of north-eastern Romania dating from Neolithic period, Cucuteni Culture (A phase) in an attempt to distinguish size ranges of domestic form. A total of 16 linear measurements (variables) were used, and the variables are compared in this paper using statistical analysis. Keywords: prehistory, Cucuteni A Culture, osteometry, cattle. Rezumat. Bovina domestică (Bos taurus) preistorică – studiu metric al resturilor scheletice discoperite în situri arheologice de cultură Cucuteni A. Acest studiu prezintă date osteometrice pentru bovina domestică (Bos taurus) și este realizat pe baza resturilor descoperite în situri arheologice din nord-estul Romaniei ce datează din perioda neolitică (Cultura Cucuteni, nivel A). Scopul acestui studiu este de a distinge limite de variabilitate metrică pentru specia Bos taurus. Un total de 16 măsurători liniare au fost folosite, iar variabilele au fost comparate în această lucrare utilizând analiza statistică. Cuvinte cheie: preistorie, cultura Cucuteni A, osteometrie, bovina domestică.

Introduction The morphology and osteometrical characteristics are important for description of animal populations. In the case of Bos attributing a size to one of two forms (cattle or aurochs) can be highly problematic and it is often influenced the domestic/wild ratio of the whole archaeozoological sample (Bartosiewicz et al., 2006). This becomes more difficult in case of bones coming from Neolithic period when the two forms are closed in size; therefore the metric limit between cattle and aurochs is defined in diverse ways by authors. In opinion of Kysely (2008), the range size is a weak point of all studies focused on metric differences between domestic and wild forms and finally reliable determination will be mastered by genetic methods. Therefore this study summarizes new data about size variation of domestic cattle dating of Neolithic period from north-eastern Romania trying to bring insight to the knowledge of the endemic types and also to emphasize some aspects of microevolution. Materials and Methods We had in study three archaeozoological assemblages coming from the Cucuteni sites (A level) of Hoisești (Iași County), Poduri (Bacău County) and Fetești (Suceava County); the samples have been dated between 3750-3200 b.c./4600-4050 CAL. B.C. (Mantu, 1998). Archaeozoological studies, already related to these assemblages, have addressed general question such as animals present and/or consumed in each site, proportion of wild species versus domestic fauna, animal use, and also preliminary morphometrical studies (Cavaleriu et al., 2008; Cavaleriu & Bejenaru, 2009). These three archaezoological samples include a total of 11,551 mammal remains, and 18.54% of them belong to cattle (Table 1). - 147 -

Mariana Popovici et al.

Table 1. Quantification of mammal remains (NISP=number of identified specimens). Archaeological site Hoisesti Fetesti Poduri

Total mammals NISP 2963 238 8350

Domestic mammals NISP 921 79 2810

Bos taurus NISP 222 24 1895

A total of 16 linear measurements (variables) were defined according to von den Driesh (1976) for 15 anatomical elements (Table 2). Variables used are based more width than length of specimens. The advantage of usage of width measurements is that allometrical dissimilarities caused by castration seem to be smaller within the breadth measurements then within the length ones (Pöllath & Peters, 2005). Another advantage using width dimensions is that this dimension could reflect the body weight (Kysely, 2008). In case of our study, another reason for this option is that long bones were not preserved complete; only in case of phalanges there is a relatively large number of complete bones which facilitates the use of length variable. The abbreviations of linear measurements are explained in the Table 2. The measurements were made to the nearest 0.5 mm with a caliper rule. The bones with non fused epiphysis and porous surface were excluded from the study. Table 2. Abbreviations of linear measurements (according to von den Driesh, 1976). Anatomical element

Abbreviation

Variable description

GL

Greatest length

MBS

Middle breadth of the sole

DLS

Greatest diagonal length of the sale

Bp

Greatest breadth of the proximal end

Bd

Greatest breadth of the distal end

astragalus, calcaneum, proximal phalanx, middle phalanx distal phalanx distal phalanx proximal phalanx, humerus, metatarsus, metacarpus, radius, tibia astragalus, middle phalanx, humerus, metatarsus, metacarpus, radius, tibia, proximal phalanx, middle phalanx

GB

Greatest breadth of the facies articularis proximalis Greatest breadth of the facies articularis distalis Greatest breadth

LA

Length of the acetabulum including the lip

coxal

SD

Smallest breadth of diaphysis Greatest length of the processus articularis (glenoid process) Length of the glenoid cavity

proximal phalanx, middle phalanx

scapula

LM3

Breadth of the glenoid cavity Smallest length of the collum scapulae (neck of the scapula) Length of the lower third molar

BM3

Breadth of the lower third molar

the lower third molar

BFp BFd

GLP LG BG SLC

cubitus, distal phalanx, humerus, radius humerus, radius calcaneum, centrotarsus

scapula scapula

scapula the lower third molar

To test the homogeneity of the populations, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used on each variable assuming they had a continuous distribution. The measurements of - 148 -


variables are compared using one-way ANOVA test and t-test. The differences between means of variables were tested with difference index: DI% = (greater value-small value/greater value) x 100) (Ocal, 2004). We described the variability using coefficient of variation (CV%), which is dimensionless and allows a comparisons of variability of large and small bones. Univariate analysis was performed in all variables and some details are presented for those variables and bones which are important in dimorphism sexual The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 13.00 and Excel package program. Results and Discussion The observed distribution of data were insignificant different from normality for every variable (p>0.05). The results of one way ANOVA indicated that there were no significant differences between the mean of variables from the three sites (p>0.05) and this made possible to pool of data from the three sites. The descriptive analysis is presented for every anatomical element in Table 3, and represents an overview of the size in populations investigated. Table 3. Univariate analysis of cattle skeleton in Cucuteni A Culture. Number of bones examined (n); Mean value (M); Standard Error (SE); Standard Deviation (SD); Confidence Level (CL); Minimum-Maximum range (Min-Max); Coefficient of Variation in % (CV). Anatomical element

Variable Bd astragalus GL GL calcaneum GB centrotarsus GB coxal LA cubitus BFp GL Bp proximal phalanx Pd SD GL Bp middle phalanx Bd SD DLS the distal phalanx MBS BFp Bp Bd humerus BFp BFd Bp metatarsus Bd Bp metacarpus Bd GLP LG scapula BG SLC Bp PFp radius Bd BFd

n 21 24 14 14 17 6 4 54 54 54 54 70 70 70 70 39 39 39 4 12 4 12 27 22 32 21 16 19 20 6 10 10 9 9

M (mm) 65.1 70.07 135.18 45.14 56.68 68.5 47 65.05 31.89 30.01 26.65 43.73 31.67 27.24 25.14 71.95 26.09 24.06 101.13 81.08 69.25 77.45 49.72 58.98 60.59 65.09 70.09 56.84 50.35 51 80.85 71.89 76.67 68.72

SE 1.49 1.2 1.83 1.19 1.11 2.02 1.47 0.77 0.38 0.33 0.36 0.5 0.39 0.37 0.33 1.42 0.55 0.36 3.33 3.21 3.57 1.98 0.76 0.89 0.97 1.49 1.32 1.48 0.86 3.05 1.89 2.19 2.58 3

- 149 -

SD 6.81 5.61 6.84 4.45 4.84 4.53 8.67 5.69 2.82 2.43 2.62 4.15 3.3 3.13 2.73 8.84 3.43 2.28 6.66 11.12 7.14 6.58 3.96 4.16 5.48 6.81 5.28 6.47 3.87 6.82 5.99 6.57 7.75 8.99

Min (mm) 57 60 123 41 48 63 44 42 26.5 25 21 34 25 22 20 56 20 21 94.5 55 61 65 42 52.5 39 57 60 41 41 39 70 62 69 60

Max (mm) 78 80 148 54 65 74 50 78 41 37.5 33 55 41 36 33.5 92 33 30 110 93 78 89 56 66.5 70 78 80 68 59 55 90 84 90 82.5

CL 95.0% 3.1 2.49 3.95 2.57 2.33 5.62 4.68 1.55 0.77 0.66 0.71 0.99 0.79 0.75 0.65 2.86 1.11 0.74 10.6 7.07 11.35 4.42 1.57 1.84 1.98 3.10 2.81 3.12 1.81 8.47 4.29 5.05 5.95 6.91

CV (%) 10.47 8 5.06 9.86 8.54 6.61 18.44 8.75 8.84 8.11 9.82 9.48 10.41 11.49 10.87 12.28 13.16 9.46 6.59 13.72 10.3 8.49 7.97 7.05 9.05 10.45 7.53 11.39 7.68 13.37 7.41 9.13 10.1 13.09

Mariana Popovici et al. Anatomical element tibia lower third molar

Variable Bp Bd BFd LM3 BM3

n 7 18 21 27 27

M (mm) 90 63.3 56.2 36.69 17.91

SE 7.13 1.28 1.28 0.89 0.67

SD 18.86 4.95 4.95 4.64 3.48

Min (mm) 47.5 55 48 24 12

Max (mm) 99 73 65 41.5 25.5

CL 95.0% 17.44 2.74 2.74 1.84 1.38

CV (%) 20.96 7.82 8.81 12.65 19.44

The size variation is highlights the best on the Figure 1 where is obvious that a low variability is for GL in calcaneum (CV=5.06%), Bp in humerus (CV=6.59%), GLP and BG in scapula (CV=5.53%, 7.68%), Bp in radius (CV=7.41%), GL and BD in astragalus (CV=8% and 10%). A higher variability is obvious for: BFp in cubitus (CV 18.44%), Bp in tibia (CV=20.96%) and Bd in humerus (CV=13.72%). The both variables of the lower third molar (LM3 and BM3) showed a high variability (CV =12.65% and 19.44% respectively) (Fig. 1). 25 20

CV%

15 10

0

Bd GL GL GB GB LA BFp GL Bp Pd SD GL Bp Pd SD GL Bd BFp Bp Bd BFp BFd Bp Bd Bp Bd GLP LG BG SLC Bp PFp Bd BFd Bp Bd BFd L M3 B M3

5

ast

calc cct co cu

1phx

2 phx

3 phx

hum

mt

mc

sca

radius

tib

lo M3

Figure 1. Coefficient of variation (CV%) in anatomical elements (ast - astragalus; cal - calcaneum; cc - centrotars; co - coxal; cu - cubitus; 1, 2, 3 phx - 1, 2, 3 phalanx; hum - humerus; mt - metatars; mc - metacarp; sca - scapula; tib - tibie; loM3 - lower third molar).

Sexual dimorphism is evident in special for width than length of bones. The width of metapodial bones and phalanges (the middle phalanx in specially) show a high sexual dimorphism (Kysely, 2008). In Figure 2, we present the overall mean of distal and proximal width of metapodals. The histograms (Figs. 3-6) show size variation of metapodals. There are obvious the presence of two size ranges for proximal width in metacarpus which are comprise between 60-62.5 mm and 65-70 mm respectively (Fig. 3). There are two ranges in distal width of metacarpus, too: 57.5-62.5 mm and 70-75 mm respectively (Fig. 4), but it’s difficult to affirm exactly what represent these intervals considering that castrates of domestic cattle can sometimes have the body and bone measurements smaller than bulls, while others have larger depending on the period of the castration (Kysely, 2008). Taking into account the Davis‘opinion (2008) what we say about these bimodal distributions are that larger mode represents the bulls (and most probably oxen) and the smaller one the cows. The same view is shared by Fock (1966) (in Kysely, 2008) who thought the metacarpals bones of bulls have wider shafts and distal - 150 -


ends than the cows while length is similar in either sex that the length of long bones strongly overlap with females and males (Higam, 1968). The size variation of metatarsus was illustrated in the histograms of Figures 5-6. For proximal width in metatarsus it could be separated two size ranges: 48-52 mm and 5456 mm.

76 72 68 64 60 56 52 48

Bd-mt

Bp-mt

Bd-mc

40

Bp-mc

44

Figure 2. Descriptive analysis of metapodal bones’ data; the box plots show the median, 25th and 75th quartiles, and minimum and maximum metapodal bones’data (mc – metacarpus; mt - metatarsus).

Figure 3. Cattle size variations: the proximal width (Bp) of metacarpus (in millimeters).

- 151 -


Figure 4. Cattle size variations: the distal width (Bd) of metacarpus (in millimeters).

Figure 5. Cattle size variations: the proximal width of metacarpus (Bd) (in millimeters).

Figure 6. Cattle size variations: the distal width of metatarsus (Bd) (in millimeters).

- 152 -


The astragalus and centrotarsus are used to estimate sex ratio but they permit less information than width of long bones (Gautier, 2002; Helmer et al., 2002). These anatomical elements are frequent and often intact preserved and the standard measurements are easy to take. The distribution of GL versus Bd in astragalus is showed in the Figure 7 and it could reveal the presence in samples analyzed the both cow and bulls and oxen. This is confirmed by the frequency classes in graphs of astragalus (GL/Bd) and centrotarsus (Bd) (Figs. 8-9).

60 55

Bd (mm)

50 45 40 35 30 50

55

60

65

70

75

80

GL (mm) Figure 7. Scatter plot of GL/Bd of astragalus in cattle.

Figure 8. Cattle size variations: GL/Bd of astragalus.

- 153 -

85


Figure 9. Cattle size variations: the greatest length of centrotarsus (GB) (in millimeters).

Conclusions Metric analysis of cattle remains offers a good perception of the size and robustness of the body of animals from the past times; this type of analysis generates discussions starting from the intermediate data: if they belong either a large domestic males or female aurochs, or castrate individual. But there is the assumption that females are present in sample (especially on prehistoric material), we rely on a value, which can characterize the local populations. It is about the minimum value which could be taken in account as being the minimum size of domestic cattle females from population. Sexual dimorphism is evident in special for the metacarpus than metatarsus. For proximal width in metacarpus there are two size ranges: 60-62.5 mm and 65-70 mm respectively; there are two ranges in distal width of metacarpus: 57.5-62.5 mm and 70-75 mm. A low variability is for GL in calcaneum, Bp in humerus, GLP and BG in scapula, Bp in radius, GL and BD in astragalus. A higher variability is for: BFp in cubitus, Bp in tibia, Bd in humerus and the lower third molar. Acknowledgements This study was supported by the national projects PN II CNCSIS Idei 2116/2008 and POSDRU/89/1.5/S/49944. References Bartosiewicz, L., Boroneanț, V., Bonsall, C., Stallibras, S., 2006. Size ranges of prehistoric cattle and pig at Schela Cladovei (Iron Gates region, Romania). Analele Banatului, S.N. Archeologie-Istorie, 14 (1): 23–42. Cavaleriu, R., Stanc, S., Bejenaru L., 2008. Morphometric data concerning animal species identified in sites of Cucuteni Culture, Phase A. Analele Științifice ale Universității „Al. I. Cuza” Iași, s. Biologie animală, LIV: 279 – 296. Cavaleriu, R., Bejenaru, L., 2009. Cercetări arheozoologice privind Cultura Cucuteni, Faza A. Editura Universității „Al. I. Cuza” Iași. Davis, S.J.M., 2008. Zooarchaeological evidence for Moslem and Christian improvements of sheep and cattle in Portugal. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35: 991-1010. Driesh, A., von den, 1976. A guide to the measurement of animal bones from archaeological sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1, Harvard University (1): 1-137.

- 154 -


Gautier, A., 2002. The evidence for the earliest livestock in North Africa. Or adventures with large bovids, ovicaprids, dogs and pigs. In F.A. Hassan (ed.), Droughts, food and Culture. Ecological Change and Food Security in Africa's Later Prehistory, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 195-207. Helmer, D., Gourichon, L., Monchot, H., Peters, J., Segui, M.S., 2002. Identifying early domestic cattle from Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites on the Middle Euphrates using sexual dimorphism. Proceeding of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham: The First Steps of Animal Domestication (eds. J.D. Vigne,J. Peters and D. Helmer): 86-95. Higam, C.F.V., 1969. The metrical attributes of two samples of bovine limb bones. Journal of the Zoological Society of London, 157: 63-74. Kysely, R. 2008. Aurochs and potential crossbreeding with domestic cattle in Central Europe in the Eneolithic period. A metric analysis of bones from the archaeological site of Kutná Hora-Denemark (Czech Republic). Anthropozoologica, 43 (2): 7-37. Mantu, C.M., 1998. Cultura Cucuteni: evoluție, cronologie, legǎturi. Bibliotheca Memoriae Antiquitatis, V, Piatra Neamț. Ocal, M., Sevil, F., Parin, U., 2004. A quantitative study on the digital bones of cattle. Ann. Anat., 186: 165-168. Pöllath, N., Peters, J., 2005. On the possible use of the LSI scaling technique for stature analysis in cattle. Revue de Paléobiologie, Genève (décembre 2005), Vol. spéc., 10: 225-235.

- 155 -