Developing a method for the morphometrical distinction of red deer (Cervus elaphus), fallow deer (Dama dama), and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) bones

Goal: This project aims to contribute to academic research on archaeological cervid remains, by providing a tool to separate red deer, fallow deer, and roe deer bones. The method relies on the collection of biometrical data from modern specimens of known species (and, where possible, sex and age), to identify size and shape indices which can better separate red deer from fallow deer values, and fallow deer from roe deer values; in turn, values from archaeological cervid remains can be plotted to attempt identification. The measurements chosen will include standard ones as well as new measurements created to translate biometrically morphological diagnostic features identified by previous studies (Di Stefano 1995; Lister 1996). Preliminary analyses of the data so far collected from the Sheffield and Historic England zooarchaeology reference collections provided promising results. An important advantage is represented by the combination of size and shape indices analyses. Red deer is larger than fallow deer, and this latter is larger than roe deer. The body size of these two species changed through time according to a range of environmental and anthropogenic variables, and nowadays substantial geographical size differences persist throughout Europe. Size overlaps are enhanced by sexual dimorphism. For these reasons, size alone cannot be used to separate red deer from fallow deer remains; however, it can be used to enhance the separation provided by shape indices. The development of a biometrical method to separate red deer, fallow deer, and roe deer remains would rely on more objective separation criteria than morphological approaches; the method would also produce graphs which can be directly scrutinised to assess the validity of separation. Alternative identification methods, such as aDNA analyses, can be very effective but are constrained by severe cost limitations and are destructive; ZooMS provides a cheaper alternative, but the peptide mass fingerprints of these species are too similar to attempt separation. Further advantages provided by a biometrical approach, therefore, are ultimately reflected by the low-tech nature of the method, which makes it easy to apply in any circumstances and extremely accessible and inclusive.