Hi,

I am not a zooarcheologist, so may be my answer would not fit your needs but it my help you.

Here is some interesting stuff to read/follow:

- you have to identify clearly to which taxon is your bones

- you have to know which methods or measurement techniques to use and its bias

- you have than to check it through the Virtual Zooarchaeology of the Arctic Project (VZAP) : http://vzap.iri.isu.edu/ViewPage.aspx?id=230, direct access to the project database is here: http://bones.iri.isu.edu/ (in the classification field you choose mammalian than rodentia)

- check these links/papers:

+ Animal Bones and Archaeology Guidelines for best practice: https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/animal-bones-and-archaeology/animal-bones-and-archaeology.pdf/

+ Animal Bone Specimens Preparation Method: http://www.nara.accu.or.jp/elearning/2011/animal.pdf

+ Identifying and Interpreting Animal Bones: A Manual (Texas A&M University Anthropology Series): https://www.amazon.com/Identifying-Interpreting-Animal-Bones-Anthropology/dp/162349026X/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=162349026X&pd_rd_r=WTGSHCJN8W6SJKWGYHWX&pd_rd_w=9WPzI&pd_rd_wg=WraQI&psc=1&refRID=WTGSHCJN8W6SJKWGYHWX

+ Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany: A Consideration of Issues, Methods, and Cases (Springer) : http://www.springer.com/la/book/9781441909343

Best.

Hi Yahia, I really thank you for your answer. I'am going to certainly check those links and papers (Already have "Identifying and Interpreting Animal Bones: A Manual" and it's been a really big help for me). I'am also reading about Geometric morphometric, this is a new topic for me but it looks like a good help for this need.

Let me give you more details about why and for what I need take this measures, maybe you would give another extra advice from this info:

I have already identified my taxons, those are from the site Tagua Tagua 1 (13.233-12693 Cal.AP), placed in the Central Zone of Chile, Southamerica.

Taxons:

-Octodon sp. (Octodontidae)

-Abrothryx olivaceus (Cricetidae)

-Aconaemys fuscus (Octodontidae)

-Myocastor coypus (Myocastoridae)

-Oligorzomys longicaudatus (Cricetidae)

-Phylothis xanthopygus (Cricetidae)

-Spalacopus cyanus (Octodontidae)

I had organized my size groups in accord to the natural size of those animals while they are alive. There is when I need to backup with evidence that size order, like for example with measures. Myocastor is the only "big class", while Octodon, Aconaeymis and Spalacopus are "medium class", having similar measures and similar dental keys, and sharing its family: Octodontidae. Finally, my small class is composed by Oligorzomys, Abrothryx and Phylothis, all of them belong to the Cricetidae family and also having similars features.

I have the problem of that I do not have access to some institution or person who may have Cricetidae skeletons, except for Oligorzomys. Same situation for my Octodontidae, except for Spalacopus (whos have almost identical teeth and identical size to Aconaeymis) and Octodon sp (whos also have almost identical teeths and identical size for their three species (Octodon degus, Octodon bridgesi and Octodon lunatus)). Those taxons are hard to find because or they are in other places of my country (I will visit them when I have the chance), and because of some of those taxons are animals protected by law, so they are pretty rare in mammals collections, like it happens with rodents, atleast in my country.

Since that last context, I cant identify the taxon of any bone (except for teeths, mandibles, maxilars and cranium) of Cricetidae and Octodontidae, because of the similar characteristics between their respective genus and species. Myocastor do not have this problem, because its size is more of twice the medium class Octodontidae, so it is easy to identify, while Octodontidae have twice or even less for the size of Cricetidae (except Spalacopus, whos have the same size that any Cricetidae but their teeths are almost identical to Aconaemys).

That is why I need so much the knowledge to generate size groups and have the chance to identify accurately taxons with this size groups.

Best and thank you again for your time and help.

Hi, Alvaro,

It's not unexpected that you have the problem with identification of postcranial bones. I know only one scientific group who worked with this limbs etc- - this is people from Ekaterinburg, Russia - but they anyway could help you - they work with completely different fauna (lemmings etc). But, what may be of some help - they pay special attention on the calcaneus - except for teeth, it is the most firm part of the mammal skeleton, usually not broken and, may be, quite individual (I mean, species-specific or genus- specific - I do not know). So try heels. It seems to me that there is no need to use all this fossil giblets - choose only the most numerous and well-identified parts.

Hi Lilia, thank you for your answer!I would like to see the work or have any contact with this group from Ekaterinbug, would you give more info about them?.

Effectively, calcaneus are one of the more frequent bones in my asseamblage, along with mandibles, teeths, and limbs.

I will absolutely follow your advice

Best, and thank you!

The problem is they almost do not speak English. You may try to contact Evgenia Markova right here on Research Gate. She speaks English well and work with that team. The publications that I mean was Smirnov's or Borodin's (I do not remember whose), and it was a book, in Russian, released in 80 th or so ... I was very impressed with their identification of postcranials. But, I doubt that this contact may help you. They do not zooarchaeologists, they palaeoecologists on the first place. They do not measure bones, so no scheme of measurements to propose you... No criteria for identification, because your fauna is absolutely different ...You simply will have to do the same as they did on your material... And from your answer to Yahia I see that you know the way - to work with museum collections etc. Good luck!

Thank you Lilia, I will have that info in my consideration!

I checked some of the works of this team and I am sure that it will be very useful to me in the future (By the way, that's a good reason to start learning Russian).

I think that the application of geometric morphologic, along to the info provide for you by Yahia would be the best option right now to me. If anybody have something more to say, be my guest please, this thread is being really enrichment for me, and I am sure that i am not the only.

Best to all

Hola Álvaro, te recomiendo leer los trabajos de un arquéologo que se llama Fernando Fernández:

https://unlp.academia.edu/FernandoFern%C3%A1ndez.

También te recomiendo seguir los trabajos de Ulyses Pardiñas y de Pablo Teta que, si bien son biólogos, te pueden servir sus categorias de tamaño.

Saludos !

Hi Álvaro,

Maria Ronniger did some work on identifying small mammal post-crania using material excavated from Troja by Tübingen which may be helpful for your Cricetidae species. Here's a link to the paper https://www.dropbox.com/s/wum54wfwbx0u6os/Ronniger%202009.pdf?dl=0

Good luck!

Hola Lucio, gracias por tu respuesta! he estado siguiendo los trabajos de Pablo y Ulyses desde hace un tiempo y me han venido de maravilla!

Fernando Fernandez, por otro lado, es un gran descubrimiento para mi!, es una gran recomendación.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Sara, I am looking that work right now and certainly it is a helpful source.

Thank you so much for your advice!