Horváth Attila – H. Tóth Elvira szerk.: Cumania 1. Archeologia (Bács-Kiskun Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei, Kecskemét, 1972)

S. Bökönyi: Őstulok (Bos primigenius Boj) leletek az Őrjeg tőzeglápjaiban

Photo] i vos-SÍ lagroí Greece 202 1104.9 — 11.9 25.0 — 204 1115.9 — — — — 226 1236.2 — — — — Polgár—Basatanya Hungary 218 1192.5 21.1 11.2 25.7 — 230 1258.1 23.0 — 24.8 — 240 1312.8 19.2 10.4 22.1 51.6 246 1345.6 21.7 — 24.4 — Seeberg-Burgäschisee-Süd Switzerland 213 1165.1 19.0 10.3 23.0 — Szabadszállás—Ágostonhalmi dűlő Hungary 239 1307.3 22.0 11.3 23.6 49.1 239 1307.3 22.2 11.5 — — Szabadszállás—Tőzegtelep Hungary 239 1307.3 20.3 11.5 23.2 50.1 Üllő Hungary 227 1241.7 21.1 11.0 24.2 47.4 Measurements and indexes of prehistoric wild and domestic cattle metapodials. The comparisons generated the following results: 1. By 1942 Degerböl had established first of all that the aurochs long bones differed from those of domestic cattle in their larger length. The Örjeg material shows that the aurochs metapodials are generally longer, although some of them do not surpass those of domestic cattle in absolute length. Bones of aurochs cows belong to this latter group particulary those of the mountainous regions of Central and Southeast Europe. On the other hand the long domestic cattle bones come from transitional individuals (freshly domesticated ones and aurochs X domestic cattle bastards), strong bulls or castrates. The latter can easily be separated on the basis of their slenderness but the first two groups have rather wide metapodials. 2. As for the proportions of the metapodials the first thing proved by the cumulative measurement series (Table 3) and scatterdiagrams (Figs. 12—21) is that wild cattle metapodials are far less variable than those of the domestic form. The increase of variation as a result of domestication has been a well-known phenomenon (Herre, 1969); therefore the less variability of wild cattle metapodials is not surprising at all. On the other hand aurochs metapodials are comparatively wider than those of domestic cattle. But the different parts of the metapodials do not behave similarly in this respect; while the relative breadth of diaphysis has a rather clear separating line between domestic and wild cattle (at metacarpals a slenderness index of 18.0 may be the separating point, the same at metatarsals is probably 12.5) the epiphysis are extremely variable. The variation of domestic cattle is particularly wide, not only extending with minus variants over a large area; but also covering a big part of the range of variation of the wild form too. Again this is not surprising since everyone who has ever worked on cattle bones knows how variable are their epiphyses. The proximal ones vary morphologically; their lateral part narrows, widens or twists, and all these variations influence their breadth. The distal ones are not as variable in their form but rather in their width; and sometimes show unusually large measurements because they extend considerable in medio-lateral direction. As Figs. 14, 16, 18 and 20 show, it is impossible to make a reliable distinction between wild and domestic cattle on the basis of the relative breadth of their metapodial ends. However, the indexes of the two forms cluster in two different loci and also their averages differ. 3. Studying subfossil and recent domestic cattle metapodials Matolcsi (1970) also found that since the different parts of the bones are very variable themselves it is hopeless to try to determine the main characteristics of a metapodial through one simple metapodial index, e. g., the relative breadth of an epiphysis or the diaphysis. Therefore he introduced the quantitative value (quantitative Wertzahl = qWZ) that is the sum of the seven main measurements of the bone (greatest length + proximal breadth + smajlest breadth + distal breadth + proximal diameter + smallest diameter -f distal diameter). Comparing the individual measurements to this sum one gets quotients that express the characteristics of the different parts independently from the absolute size of the bone. The most important quotient is the length quotient (QL = length of the bone/ quantitative value). As Table 3 and Figs. 17 and 21 show, using quantitative value and length quotient, one obtains much better results for the separation of wild and domestic 29