“Led to the dog kennels”: The search for historic equines in the zooarchaeological record

“Led to the dog kennels”: The search for historic equines in the zooarchaeological record | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article “Led to the dog kennels”: The search for historic equines in the zooarchaeological record Elizabeth Anne McCague, Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9383036/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Skeletal remains of domesticated horses are surprisingly rare in archaeological assemblages around the world, even when documentary or other evidence suggest they should be present. In North America, horses are nearly ubiquitous in the written record from the past few hundred years, but their remains are notoriously thin in zooarchaeological assemblages. Archaeologists generally attribute the absence of horse remains in recent archaeological contexts to their primary utility as work animals rather than for meat. A survey of horse remains from historic period sites in the Eastern Woodlands, however, suggests another more unusual explanation for their scarcity. Archival and visual materials from the 18th and 19th century provide tantalizing clues that dead horses were used to feed another ubiquitous human companion: domestic dogs. A regional meta-study of archaeological horse remains from 69 sites in the North American Eastern Woodlands provides surprising physical evidence for the provisioning of dogs with horse carcasses. Carnivore-gnawing is more common than expected in horse assemblages, as are butchery marks associated with primary dismemberment. These results are consistent with ethnoarchaeological and experimental studies of canine scavenging and are not consistent with the post-mortem treatment of cattle–a human food animal of similar size. Dogs are notorious taphonomic agents, capable of completely destroying bones, or rendering them unidentifiable. Taken together, the documentary and zooarchaeological records suggest that dog provisioning likely also contributes to the lack of horse remains in archaeological sites in North America and elsewhere. horses dogs provisioning zooarchaeology North America multispecies Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Introduction Squirt, an elderly English stallion described as “poor, despised, and death-doomed”, was on his way “to the dog kennel” with “order[s] to be shot” when his life was spared by a sympathetic stud-groom (Taunton 1887). Squirt, so afflicted by laminitis he could barely walk, was found well enough to stand for stud and went on to grandsire Eclipse, the undefeated 18th century thoroughbred. Eclipse, and therefore Squirt, produced generations of prize-winning racehorses. Squirt’s story is a fascinating and amusing historical footnote about an underdog horse’s brush with death, and his triumphant genetic comeback. But, it is perhaps even more meaningful for what it reveals about the intimate relationships between humans, horses, and dogs. Horses and dogs have served as close human companions for thousands of years. Formerly predator and prey, dogs and horses adapted to live and work alongside each other in the presence of humans–on the hunt, on the move, and in the fields and barns. Despite wildly different evolutionary histories and domestication trajectories, horses and dogs fulfilled overlapping roles in human societies. Prior to the domestication of horses, dogs served as human’s primary “work” animals. In addition to protection, dogs were used for pack, transportation, and hunting. Where they were domesticated, horses and other equines fulfilled some of the same roles as dogs even more effectively, but they never usurped dogs in human societies altogether. Rather, horses were folded into existing human-animal relationships, working alongside their former predators. Squirt’s anecdote reveals a surprising dimension to our understanding of human-dog-horse relationships. Although domesticated equines and canines cohabitate amiably in life, in death it appears that the ancient patterns of predator/prey were reproduced. Exploring this relationship, however, is complicated by a dearth of horse remains in archaeological sites around the world (Taylor 2024), particularly compared to food animals such as cattle. A paradox of studying horses in the archaeological record is that they are both everywhere, and nowhere. This is particularly the case in the Americas. After their 16th century [1] re-introduction, horses ( Equus caballus ) quickly became ubiquitous in communities across the Americas (Taylor 2024). Horses were essential for transportation, traction, and power. Their critical importance is well documented in the written record, and their prevalence is apparent in the recovery of material objects relating to horses in archaeological sites from the 16th century onward, including horseshoes, nails, and tack (McShane and Tarr 2007; Rivers-Cofield 2008). However, despite their significant historical imprint, the bodily remains of horses are notably infrequent in archaeological assemblages (Ameen et al. 2021). Archaeologists generally attribute the absence of horse remains to their primary utility as work animals, rather than for meat (Albizuri et al. 2019). This role certainly explains their absence in food-related contexts such as kitchen middens, but the animals are underrepresented almost everywhere, including in and around stables, barns, fields (Pavão-Zuckerman et al. 2020). Exploring why equine remains are so rare in historic-period archaeological assemblages is hampered by the fact that equine remains are rare in archaeological assemblages. It is difficult to discern meaningful patterns in equine archaeological assemblages based on the handful of specimens typically recovered. However, when these remains are considered in aggregate, such as at a regional scale, archaeological equine remains add up to a sizable assemblage. Here, we conduct a meta-analysis (Jones 2018; Jones and Gabe 2015; Koricheva and Gurevitch 2014) of zooarchaeological “big data” (ie: Neusius et al. 2019), coupled with historical records to 1) explore practices surrounding the end of life and disposal of historic equids, particularly as they relate to their entangled relationship with domestic dogs, and 2) address a long-standing mystery in historical archaeology: where are all the dead horses? Horses: Everywhere and Nowhere In this contribution, we use zooarchaeological data primarily from the Eastern Woodlands of North America to propose an unusual explanation for the underrepresentation of horse remains in archaeological sites. This work is applicable to other time periods and geographical settings, but we focus our efforts on this region and time because: 1. Some of the earliest ports of entry for the arrival of modern horses into North America are within this region and, 2. Several decades of zooarchaeological analyses in the Eastern Woodlands have yielded a sizable collection of historic-period datasets with horse remains, and 3. More recent contexts have the benefit of better bone preservation, and greater access to written records. Horses accompanied many of the earliest 15th-century Spanish entradas and were critical tools of later Spanish, English, and French colonialism. Despite their early introduction, the presence of horses is known primarily through documentary records and material objects such as horseshoes, nails, and tack. Unlike other livestock, horses were quickly adopted by Native communities, beginning in the early 17th century, and becoming widespread well in advance of the spread of European colonizers (Taylor et al. 2021 ; Taylor et al. 2023 ; Taylor 2024 :180–204). By the end of the colonial period, horses were everywhere (Rivers-Cofield 2023 ). The animals served many purposes, spending their lives as agricultural, transportation, and sporting animals. In death, horses were frequently repurposed into fertilizer, horsehair pillows, mortar, plaster, glue, cart and carriage grease, and pet food, either for sale or for local consumption (Fitzgerald 2010 :59–60, McShane & Tarr 2007 :29). Although horsemeat was and is occasionally consumed by people, the practice was formally banned by Pope Gregory III in 732 A.D., restricting the widespread use of horses as a human food source. Material culture related to the use of horses in agricultural and transportation is frequently recovered from archaeological sites; however, outside of the colonial-period research conducted by Rivers-Cofield ( 2008 , 2011 , 2023 ), analysis of horse-related material culture in the Americas is limited. Horse-related material culture can reveal a great deal about practices relating to horse care and husbandry; however, skeletal remains provide the only direct line of evidence to horses in the past. Horses are not commonly interred after death even today, and burials were even less common in the past. Only two horse burials are known from historic period archaeological sites in the Chesapeake region (Dietmeier 2017 ). Nearly all other archaeological horse remains are “isolated” finds–individual bone fragments disassociated from other horse remains (Pavão-Zuckerman et al. 2020 ). These specimens are recovered in a variety of contexts, including domestic middens, sometimes commingled with the remains of food animals. Because they are rare, these isolated finds are usually reported in published data sets as “commensal” (non-food) animals alongside dogs, cats, and rodents, with no further analysis conducted (Pavão-Zuckerman 2007). Isolated horse remains are seldom recovered in sample sizes that allow for more than a cursory analysis. However, their ubiquity across the Eastern Woodlands in the historic period provides an opportunity to explore broader patterns in the treatment of animals after death that may be visible when such remains are studied in aggregate. The explosion of zooarchaeological research in recent decades has created new opportunities for meta-analytical approaches in archaeological inquiry (Jones 2018 ; Jones and Gabe 2015 ; Koricheva and Gurevitch 2014 ; Neusius et al. 2019 ). Historic Horses: Life, Death, and Repurposing Though horses were useful for a variety of purposes, including demanding tasks like traction and transportation, they are, in fact, fragile animals. Horses support their entire body mass on four limbs, each comprised of a single digit (the middle finger). Horses stand not only on a single “toe”, but also literally “on pointe”, with only the terminal digit of each limb on the ground. As a result, leg injuries in horses are catastrophic and generally fatal (via predation or euthanasia). In addition to devastating leg fractures, horses are prone to many other ailments and injuries, some of which are documented in historic texts on veterinary care alongside suggested home remedies (McClure and Harvey 1871 ). Caring for horses in the best of times is expensive, requiring consistent food and water, custom-fit horseshoes that must be reset roughly every five weeks, and regular care and maintenance to keep them fit for physical activity (Hunting 1898 ). Prior to the American Civil War, horse caretaking in wealthy households was more often than not provided by enslaved people, many of whom became skilled at veterinary care (Blakley 2025 :40). The day-to-day care of horses provided by enslaved people no doubt fostered a closeness between humans and these animals. Horses held a complicated role for enslaved people. Enslaved people were, at times, permitted to use horses for transportation, some using this access to escape to freedom. The animals were also weaponized against enslaved people–horses were frequently used to track down those who tried to self-emancipate. The placement of men, women, and children on the same property inventories as horses and livestock was another tool of dehumanization. In death, horse carcasses could be repurposed into valuable goods. Horsehair was commonly shaved from animals prior to euthanasia for use as mortar bonding material, in horsehair pillows, and in furniture manufacture (McShane & Tarr 2007 :29). Hooves of horses were boiled down for gelatin and glue, and hides were repurposed into valuable tanning leather. Bone meal was used as fertilizer, and for the manufacture of soap, ammonia, and insecticide (McShane and Tarr 2007 :29). Dense horse limb bones were made into bone handles for utensils and combs (Jaworski et al. 2020 ). Prior to the formalization of public slaughterhouses in the 19th century, the repurposing and disposal of horse carcasses in rural and urban environments likely occurred in informal structures or butcher sheds (Fitzgerald 2010 :60). In the mid to late 19th century, formalized rendering plants or slaughterhouses became common in urban areas, providing a dedicated space for these unpleasant activities (McShane & Tarr 2007 :27). It is unlikely, however, that rural residents used such facilities. Once injured or deceased, horses are difficult to transport, making the journey to urban slaughterhouses an unlikely disposal practice for rural equines. The presence of rendering plants or slaughterhouses may explain the lack of equine remains in urban environments, but the low frequency of horse remains in rural contexts is harder to understand. End-of-life care and disposal were likely a local affair in rural areas. While reuse was still likely, some activities, such as bone meal production, required industrial-scale technologies not widely available until the mid-19th century. As noted above, horse interment was rare before the availability of mechanical excavators. Although we expect reuse of horse carcasses in rural contexts, none of the typical activities listed above would completely remove horse bones from the archaeological record. Squirt’s near-miss story hints at a more unusual way of repurposing horse carcasses that might, in part, explain the absence of horse bones in archaeological assemblages: the provisioning of domestic dogs. “Led … to the Dog Kennel”: Archival/Historical Evidence Squirt’s story begs the question of how common it was for horses to be led to the dog kennel. Documentary evidence and period artwork suggest that the practice of discarding horse carcasses and feeding horse meat or “horse flesh” to dogs was not uncommon in England in the 19th century. One historic etching (Fig. 1) features what appear to be equine remains in an enclosure with dogs. In the etching, a man waves his hat at three dogs (comparable to modern-day pitbulls). In the corner, a pile of animal bones is visible, including a lower mandible and a humerus, both of which are morphologically consistent with equine. This etching, based on an early 19th-century painting by Henry Bernard Chalon, was published in the 1834 volume of New Sporting Magazine , a publication with wide circulation in the United States ( New Sporting Magazine 1834). In “Episodes in the life of a racehorse”, a (privately owned) painting by English artist Charles Towne (1781–1854), horses and their skeletal remains are similarly depicted surrounded by hungry, lapping hounds (Fig. 2 ). The painting is held in a private collection but appeared in 2015 on a Berkshire (U.K.) art auction website. Historical records suggest that the practice of feeding horse carcasses to dogs was common in England, and that this was considered a “good death” for the horse 2 . Wilson and Edwards ( 1993 ) note that this practice, sometimes called “knackering”, continued well into the 1970s in Southeast England. But did knackering occur in the Americas? It appears so. Conversations with equestrians familiar with hunt clubs in Virginia 3 note that this practice was common until recently, with some noting that it still occurs in certain fox hunting communities. We suspect that knackering was even more widespread in the past. Archaeological Evidence for Knackering and Dog Provisioning Although knackering is evident in the documentary record, horsemeat provisioning of dogs is not as well documented in the archaeological record, and most of the evidence we do have is from the U.K. Two unusual concentrations of commingled butchered horse and dog remains dating to the 18th century and earlier were identified at Witney Palace, Oxfordshire (Wilson and Edwards 1993 ). These deposits were found in non-domestic locations, unlikely to be associated with human consumption activities. At least 20 horses and four dogs were identified, and many of the horses showed signs of advanced age, and injury. Tool marks from primary dismemberment and meat removal were common on the horse remains. Gnaw marks were present, but uncommon. The knackering of horses at Witney did not stop in the 18th century; the practice was carried out at the manor until the 1970s. An 18th century cellar in Dudley Castle (West Midlands), contained the remains of 15 elderly horses that were likely killed at the same time (Thomas and Lacock 2000 ). Over 10% of the horse remains exhibited butchering marks. Most of these were cut marks associated with meat removal, although evidence for carcass dismemberment was also found, as were skinning marks. Importantly, nearly half of these remains were gnawed by carnivores. The authors conclude that the horses were slaughtered and partially dismembered, then fed to the dogs before they were disposed of in a cellar. At medieval Launceton Castle (Cornwall), Albarella and Davis ( 1996 ) identified three horse bones with butchery marks. These remains date to the 15th century (a distal tibia and a distal metapodial), and the 17th to 19th centuries (a metacarpal). Given the papal ban on horsemeat consumption, the authors argue that the horses were processed for dog provisioning. Butchered horse remains were also identified from a Medieval refuse pit at Bedford Castle (Grant 1979 ). Albarella and Simon surveyed archaeological reports from across the U.K. and identified a long list of other English medieval sites with butchered horse remains (Albarella and Davids 1996), plus one site containing a carnivore-gnawed horse metatarsal (Maltby 1983 :38). Contextualizing Dogs in the Historic Period Dogs, like horses, were common in the historic period, and also served a variety of roles. Dogs were used for protection (of people and property), hunting, herding, sport, and companionship. In colonial America, dogs were kept by both free and enslaved people who formed relationships with the animals for companionship, protection, and hunting (Greer 2016 :229). As with horses, the relationship between enslaved people and dogs was complicated. As omnivores, the dietary needs of dogs often competed with the needs of the enslaved community. Enslaved people at times expressed contempt for the allocation of meat to dogs while they were given rations of corn and salt (Parry and Yingling 2020:94). Dogs were beloved companions but were also weaponized against enslaved individuals. Dogs were trained to hunt down and attack people fleeing enslavement, employed as a tool to reinforce chattel slavery (Greer 2016 :229). Members of the gentry class selectively bred dogs for hunting and sport. Fox hunting enslavers, while carefully maintaining their own dogs, condemned the dogs of the enslaved community to death. In 1792, President George Washington threatened to slaughter the dogs kept by enslaved people at Mount Vernon (Washington 1792 ). Although Washington did not carry through with his threats, his presidential successor did. On the day after Christmas in 1808, Thomas Jefferson had all the dogs kept by the people he enslaved at Monticello killed, telling an overseer, “do not spare a single one” (Jefferson 1808 ). These acts are powerful evidence of the threat that dog ownership by enslaved people posed to the white supremacist power structures of the time. An Archaeological Model for Canine Provisioning The historical record contains tantalizing evidence that the provisioning of domestic dogs with horse meat was a common practice in the past. However, is dog provisioning visible in the archaeological record? What might dog provisioning look like? Can we derive a set of reasonable archaeologically visible expectations for dog-provisioned horse assemblages? Canines (dogs and their close relatives) are a significant source of preservation (taphonomic) bias in archaeological assemblages, across time and space. Canines quickly dismember and scatter carcasses through scavenging and can completely destroy bone through gnawing (Kent 1981 ; Munson and Garniewicz 2003 ). Dogs chew bones to extract fat, grease, and marrow, aided by strong jaws and large bone-crushing carnassial teeth. These activities leave behind tell-tale marks and patterns, including punctures, gouges, drag marks, and crenulations (Fig. 3 ) that are visible in the archaeological record (Blumenschine et al 1996 ; Lyman 1994 :204–216). These marks are generally easily distinguished from other marks on bones, such as rodent gnawing and human tool marks. Identifying carnivore gnaw marks on individual specimens is not particularly challenging, but can canine scavenging be observed through patterns of modifications at the level of the assemblage? Experimental and observational data of canine hunting and scavenging of equid and other large mammal remains are scant but reveal some patterns that are likely to be visible in the archaeological record in aggregate (D’Andrea and Gotthardt 1984 , Outram and Rowley-Conwy 1998 , Wilson and Edwards 1993 , Yravedra et al 2011 ). Yravedra and colleagues ( 2011 ) observe that canines initially neglect carcass limbs and may at first leave minimal bone modifications on the remains of large prey (Yravedra et al 2011 :62). It is not until after the meat is removed from the carcass that there is a noticeable increase in gnaw marks and other bone modifications. Observations of scavenged equid carcasses indicate that carnivore gnaw marks are most frequent where the outer layer of bone, called the cortex, is thinnest. Gnaw marks on canine-scavenged equid remains were especially common on long bone epiphyses (ends) and bony prominences (Wilson and Edwards 1993 , D’Andrea and Gotthardt 1984 ), with few gnaw marks on durable long bone shafts. From the above observational data, we expect that if dog provisioning was common in the past, carnivore gnaw marks should be fairly common on equid remains (Table 1 ). We can also expect that gnaw marks will cluster at the ends of long bones, rather than on the shafts. Further, because the ends of long bones are less dense than the shafts, we expect that shafts and other dense (and therefore durable) bones will be disproportionately represented in archaeological horse assemblages. It is also reasonable to expect that gnaw marks will be more common on portions of the carcass with the greatest amount of meat, fat, and marrow (the tastiest parts). It also seems likely that if dogs were provisioned with horse meat, horse carcasses were dismembered before being tossed to the dogs. Primary dismemberment, generally carried out with sharp tools such as axes and cleavers used with blunt force, leaves behind distinctive hack and chop marks that should be archaeologically evident. In contrast, we would not expect to find many fine cut marks associated with the removal of meat from bones before or after cooking for human consumption on horse remains, especially in comparison to animals (such as cattle) that were primarily used for human food. Table 1. Expected zooarchaeological outcomes for dog-provisioned horse assemblages: 1. High frequency of carnivore gnaw marks, 2. Clustering of gnaw marks at long bone ends, 3. Overrepresentation of durable bone portions relative to weaker portions, 4. Higher frequency of carnivore gnaw marks on meatier, high utility elements, and 5. Greater frequency of hack and chop marks compared to cut marks. Methods In this contribution, we use several lines of archaeological and historical evidence to test the possibility that dogs are at least partly responsible for the dearth of equid remains in archaeological sites. We employ documentary research to establish the extent to which dog provisioning is reported in the written record and use zooarchaeological data compiled from existing “legacy” collections to document the post-mortem treatment of horse carcasses. As introduced above, our expectations for dog-scavenged equine assemblages originate in the findings of ethnographic and experimental observations of carnivore interactions with equine and other large mammal carcasses. Archival and Archaeological Collections Research Historical records documenting the provisioning of dogs with horse carcasses provided the impetus for this research, but a full exploration of this topic required a deep dive by McCague into related historical documents and period artwork. McCague conducted historical documentary research for the project, querying online repositories for documented cases of dog provisioning. McCague also conducted archival research at the National Sporting Library and Museum (NSLM), supported by a John H. Daniel’s Fellowship on equestrian history in the Mid-Atlantic. While reviewing books in the NSLM’s F. Ambrose Clark Rare Books Room, McCague found reference to the provisioning of dogs with horse carcasses in the New Sporting Magazine ( New Sporting Magazine 1834). Accessing zooarchaeological datasets proved more challenging than the archival work. We first queried existing digital archaeological repositories, including the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), and the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) to identify pre-A.D.1850 sites from the Eastern Woodlands. We solicited data via the International Council for Archaeozoology’s listserv and sent emails to individual historical zooarchaeologists working in the greater Eastern Woodlands region. We also directly contacted academic institutions, museums, historic sites, and agencies known to curate large amounts of zooarchaeological data, including Colonial Williamsburg, and Jamestown Rediscovery. Many repositories were able to provide us with spreadsheets of primary data, which we standardized by column headings. Some zooarchaeological laboratories, including the Georgia Museum of Natural History, and the Florida Museum of Natural History, maintain paper records of zooarchaeological datasets, necessitating physical access to these institutions. McCague travelled to these institutions, searched through data cards for records of horse remains, and entered paper records into an Excel spreadsheet. Although we were most interested in carnivore gnawing, we gathered and preserved all related data on individual specimens, including species identification, element, element portion, fusion, butchering marks, gnaw marks, and other reported observations. This search yielded a large database of faunal remains from a diverse range of sites across the Eastern Seaboard, as well as in Louisiana and the Caribbean. The data included Spanish, French, and English terrestrial sites, plus one shipwreck. Most sites were associated with English colonialism. Because the documentary evidence for dog provisioning of horse carcasses comes from English sources, we limited the zooarchaeological data we include in the tables below to English-colonial terrestrial sites east of the Appalachian Mountains. A majority of these sites are from the Virginia colony and in and around the colonial metropole of Charleston (SC). Zooarchaeological Methods All zooarchaeological assemblages discussed here were analyzed by highly qualified and experienced professional and academic archaeologists, or staff and students under their direction. It was not feasible within the scope of this project to reanalyze any of the equine remains, but we have a very high degree of confidence in the integrity of these data. We compiled all equine data from all sites into a single database, matching comparable data columns. All zooarchaeological analysts provided basic zooarchaeological primary data, including NISP (number of identifiable specimens), taxonomic identification, and identification of skeletal element, portion, side (left vs. right for paired elements), and modifications (gnaw marks and butchering marks). The existence of shared standards of analysis greatly facilitates comparison between sites and supports the reliability of regional datasets compiled from these site-level data. Because NISP, or bone count, was the only quantitative index reported by all analysts, we rely primarily on this assay as a measure of the frequency of horse remains, and to quantify modifications on those remains. NISP is heavily influenced by taphonomic factors, particularly those affecting fragmentation. Although we cannot control for all the varying depositional contexts within and between sites, the use of NISP is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that we are studying only one large-bodied taxa and are comparing the relative representation of modifications on horse remains, rather than the representation of equids in comparison to other taxa. For the purposes of assessing density-mediated attrition (below), we used the element portion recoveries reported in the datasets to derive a total MNI (minimum number of individuals) for the entire database. MNI is an estimate of the minimum number of individual animals represented in a given assemblage. MNI is calculated by determining the MNE (minimum number of elements), starting with the most numerous elements first. Ideally, MNEs should be calculated via visual inspection to identify overlaps between bone fragments. Without accessing the original specimens, we relied on the analysts written or coded descriptions of specimens to identify overlapping fragments that would indicate the presence of more than one individual. In our calculation of MNI, we considered lefts and rights, fusion (age), and any other characteristics that may distinguish one individual from those of another. MNI was used only in the derivation of expected frequencies, providing the standard for the observation of the proportional survivorship of skeletal portions. Because the use of MNI was limited to this purpose, we determined MNI for all assemblages in aggregate, treating the entire database as a single horse assemblage. Density-Mediated Attrition As noted above, extensive carnivore gnawing will damage or destroy skeletal remains, often leaving only the most durable (densest) elements behind, a process referred to as density-mediated attrition. Model animal measurements of bone density can be used to test whether assemblages were subjected to density-mediated attrition, including carnivore gnawing. Bone density is measured using a technique called photondensitometry–the same tool used to measure osteoporosis in humans. Domesticated horse bone density data are not yet available, but Lam et al. ( 1999 ) assayed bone density values for Przewalski’s horses ( Equus przewalskii ) and zebra ( Equus zebra ). These taxa are from the same genus as horses and donkeys. Prior research shows little variation in bone density within genera (Pavao and Stahl 1999), so we expect these data to be reliable. To explore the role of bone density in preservation, we converted archaeological element portion recoveries to scan sites as mapped by Lam et al. ( 1999 ) to the best of our ability based on the analyst’s description of portion recovery. Determining the number of scan sites is similar to the estimation of MNE, or the minimum number of elements. MNE is an estimate of the minimum number of individual skeletal elements (left humeri, right femora, etc.) represented in a given assemblage (Binford 1984 :50–51). Ideally, MNEs and scan site frequencies should be calculated via visual inspection to identify overlap between bone fragments. Without being able to access the original specimens, we relied on the analysts written or coded descriptions (ie: distal half, distal end) to identify overlapping fragments in order to estimate which scan sites were recovered in what frequencies. We then compared the recovery of scan sites in the assemblage with their respective bone mineral density values, using Pearson’s r to assess whether the representation of scan sites in the assemblage is correlated with estimates of bone mineral density across the entire assemblage. Food Utility and Skeletal Portion Recovery We also expect that carnivore gnaw marks will be more common on skeletal elements or element portions with the greatest amounts of meat, fat, and marrow. Outram and Rowley-Conwy ( 1998 ) used experimental archaeology to create food utility indices (FUI) for horses, butchering three horse carcasses to derive average values for meat and marrow utility. The authors also compared horse utility values to existing data for caribou, a similarly-sized animal (Metcalfe and Jones 1988 ). There was little variation in utility values among the horse carcasses, but horse utility indices were significantly different from caribou. In caribou, smaller concentrations of meat are found along the axial plane, and horse long bones contain less marrow. Here, we employ Outram and Rowley-Conwy’s combined horse meat/marrow food utility indices to examine the relationship between carnivore gnawing and food utility in the archaeological record. As above in the discussion of scan sites, we used the written and/or coded descriptions of element portion recoveries to convert the data reported into the datasets into the units employed by Outram and Rowley-Conwy ( 1998 ). Butchering Marks As noted above, distinctive marks are often left behind as carcasses move through different stages of butchery. Blunt force marks such as chops and hacks are generally left behind in the first stage of butchery, during primary dismemberment. Axes, cleavers, knives, and other tools are often used to break large carcasses into more manageable portions. Hack or chop marks are characterized by asymmetrical V-shaped notches, where a chip of bone is driven from the surface by the tool. Fine cut marks, appearing as narrow slits in the bone surface, are often left behind when flesh is removed from bones, either before or after cooking. Cut marks are generally more carefully placed than hack marks and tend to cluster where muscles attach to bone. In all of the assemblages discussed here, hacks/chop marks were distinguished from cut marks by the original analysts. Although we did not re-examine these marks, we have high confidence that the data we received are accurate to these general categories of marks. Distinguishing and recording hack or chop marks vs. cut marks is standard zooarchaeological practice requiring minimal training. Butchering marks were reported by NISP, rather than by the number of individual marks on each specimen. Challenges Pulling together data from disparate projects is not without its difficulties. Emily Jones ( 2018 ) has written about the “promise and peril” of zooarchaeological meta-analyses of legacy collections. She and her colleagues identify several challenges involved in meta-analyses of zooarchaeological data, including 1) mechanical factors, such as analyst error, screen-size bias, and differential fragmentation; 2) chronological resolution; and 3) the diversity of site types. These challenges also apply to this project. We feel confident in the identification of equine remains given that these collections were analyzed by well-trained zooarchaeologists and their students. However, identification conventions differ among analysts, regardless of training. In particular, the degree of detail provided regarding element portion recovery varies from analyst to analyst, as does the specificity in identifying the specific location of gnaw and cut marks. Although we do not know the screen size used to recover all of these archaeological assemblages, most were excavated in the past 30 years, when the use of ¼” screens was standard practice in North America. Screen size would be more of a concern if we were discussing small-bodied taxa, but horse remains, even in fragmentary form, are much less susceptible to screen size bias than fish or rodent remains. Fragmentation rates likely vary among sites, making it difficult to directly compare archaeological assemblages. Because we are considering these assemblages in aggregate, and avoiding direct comparisons, differential fragmentation rates are slightly less of a problem here. Given issues of chronological resolution, we do not attempt to track how these activities may have changed over time, and we limit our analysis to a roughly 200-year time span before industrialization (when rendering and transportation were substantially transformed). Although our database includes a diversity of site types, we believe that the most important variable here is the likelihood of access to knacker’s yards. We expect that only urban sites had access to centralized places for horse disposal. In addition to the challenges of working with disparate datasets, we faced the complication that horse ( Equus caballus ), donkey ( Equus asinus ), and mule ( Equus asinus × Equus caballus ) skeletons are notoriously difficult to distinguish from one another. Zooarchaeologists are often able to identify equine remains only to the inclusive taxonomic genus ( Equus ), and there is some variation in analyst confidence in making these identifications. We acknowledge this limitation but do not believe this taxonomic ambiguity is problematic for this project. Horses generally outnumbered donkeys and mules on plantations, and although their uses varied in life, it is unlikely that the treatment of horses, donkeys, and mules after death differed in ways that would be meaningful to this research. Despite the challenges of taxonomic attribution and the other issues discussed above, meta-analyses can reveal broad-scale patterns in the zooarchaeological record, which, despite the above limitations, is our goal here. Results Our initial search for existing zooarchaeological datasets yielded horse remains from 136 sites in the Eastern Woodlands of North America, totalling 1,086 specimens. Removing data from Native American, Spanish, French, and Caribbean colonial sites, plus a shipwreck, left 69 sites remaining (Fig. 4 ), with a total of 936 horse specimens from across the horse skeleton (Fig. 5 ) Most of the remaining sites are pre-1850 collections from the Middle Atlantic and South, with a few sites from the Northern Woodlands. An initial survey of the compiled data confirms what zooarchaeologists already know from experience–horse remains occur in very low frequencies in the vast majority of archaeological assemblages. Among the archaeological sites included in this analysis, a vast majority (75%) of the assemblages contain fewer than 10 equid specimens (Table 2 ). Only three sites contained 100 or more specimens. The largest assemblage of horse remains recovered from a single site is from Shields Tavern, in Williamsburg (VA), where 146 specimens were recovered in addition to a nearly complete horse skeleton and a horse limb. Although some smaller bones (such as podials and phalanges) were recovered intact, most specimens are fragmentary, yielding a modest aggregated MNI of 16. This number would be much higher (N ≥ 69) if MNI was calculated for each site individually; however, this step not necessary for this analysis. Table 2 Archaeological sites with horse remains included in this analysis. Site Name Urban/Rural Equid NISP 14 Legare Street, Charleston, SC Urban 2 Anthony Hay House and Cabinetmakers Shop, Williamsburg, VA Urban 51 Archdale Hall, Charleston, SC Rural 1 Armoury, Williamsburg, VA Urban 2 Ashland Plantation, LA Rural 3 Ashland Sugar House, LA Rural 2 Bird-Houston Site, DE Rural 5 Boothe Site, VA Rural 4 Brush-Everard Site, Williamsburg, VA Urban 2 Calvert House, Annapolis, MD Urban 3 Cardon-Holton Site, DE Rural 7 Carter's Grove/Atkinson, VA Rural 1 Central Artery (Cross Street Back Lot), Boston, MA Urban 1 Charleston Place, SC Urban 64 Clifts Plantation, VA Rural 12 Coffeehouse Site, Williamsburg, VA * Urban 20 Compton site, Calvert County, MD Rural 1 Curles Neck, VA Rural 1 Custis Garden, Williamsburg, VA Urban 32 Dr. Gilmer, Williamsburg, VA Urban 4 Drayton Hall, SC Rural 31 Drummond Plantation, VA Rural 30 Elmwood, LA Rural 1 Firehouse Site, Williamsburg, VA Urban 2 Fort Frederica, GA Rural 9 Fort Johnson, Charleston, SC Rural 2 Gloucester VIMS, VA Rural 7 Grissell Hay, Williamsburg, VA Urban 6 Hampton University Historic Site, VA Rural 1 Hatheway Site, CT Rural 1 Hermitage, Nashville, TN Rural 100 Heyward Washington, Charleston, SC Urban 1 James Fort, Jamestown, VA Rural 7 James Geddy House and Kitchen/Foundary, Williamsburg, VA Urban 1 Jamestown, VA Urban 81 Jordan's Journey, VA Rural 9 Kingsmill Slave Quarter, VA Rural 6 Middleburg Quarter, VA Rural 1 Middleburg Village, VA Rural 1 Miles Brewton House, Charleston, SC Urban 1 Monticello, VA Rural 7 Montpelier, VA Rural 15 Moore Hoff Site, VA Rural 1 Noxen Tenancy Site, DE Rural 5 Old Harlem Plantation, LA Rural 1 Palace Lands Quarter (Palace Farm), WIlliamsburg, VA Urban 1 Palace Lands, VA Urban 1 Parting Ways, MA Rural 1 Pettus, VA Rural 6 Peyton Randolph House, Washington, D.C. Urban 1 Peyton Randolph Outbuildings, Williamsburg, VA Urban 30 Powder Magazine, Williamsburg, VA Urban 2 Reed Farmstead, WV Rural 8 Reverend Richard Buck Site, Jamestown, VA Rural 16 Rich Neck Plantation, VA Rural 17 Shields Tavern, Williamsburg, VA Urban 146 Site 44FX1965, Fairfax, VA Rural 2 Telfair, GA Urban 1 Thomas Daniels Homestead Site, CT Rural 2 Toombs House, GA Rural 1 Utopia II & III, VA Rural 31 Virginia Beach Site, Ferry Farm, VA Rural 2 Walter Aston, VA Rural 5 Williamsburg Lodge Tazewell Wing, Williamsburg, VA Urban 2 Willtown (Stobo) Plantation, SC Rural 2 Wilton, VA Rural 5 Wray Site, Williamsburg, VA Urban 109 TOTAL 936 *Complete horse and complete hind limb counted as NISP = 1 (total NISP unavailable) Frequency of Carnivore Gnawing Based on ethnographic and experimental evidence, we expect that horse remains should exhibit evidence of gnawing by carnivores. This expectation is born out in the assemblages discussed here (Table 3 ). Carnivore gnawing was observed on approximately three percent of the equine specimens (n = 27). Although only a small proportion of horse remains exhibit carnivore gnawing, carnivore marks on horse remains are more common than rodent gnaw marks. Less than 0.5% of horse specimens were gnawed by rodents (n = 3). Carnivore gnaw marks are found on elements from across the skeleton, but especially on the radius and the femur (Fig. 6 ). Carnivore gnawing is also more prevalent on horse remains from rural sites than on horse remains in urban contexts (Table 3 ). Table 3 Number of carnivore gnawed (CG) and rodent gnawed (RG) horse specimens in urban vs. rural sites (NISP= Number of Identified Specimens). NISP total Urban Rural Total 510 419 929 CG NISP 9 18 27 %CG 1.76 4.30 2.91 RG NISP 1 2 3 %RG 0.20 0.48 0.32 Location of Carnivore Gnawing Some patterning in the placement of carnivore gnaw marks was noted. Gnaw marks tend to cluster at the articular ends of long bones rather than the shafts, where dense cortical bone makes it much harder for carnassial teeth to penetrate. Carnivore gnaw marks were also frequently observed on irregular elements with thin cortical bone, including innominates, vertebrae, and sacrum. These observations are in keeping with the ethnographic and experimental observations of canine-scavenged equid carcasses discussed above (Wilson and Edwards 1993 , D’Andrea and Gotthardt 1984 ). Bone Mineral Density and Survivorship Gnawing by carnivores is a density-mediated taphonomic process. Carnivore gnawing tends to destroy specimens with the lowest bone mineral density first, leaving behind denser (and therefore sturdier) specimens. This process is complicated by the fact that the least dense elements also tend to be associated with the highest food utility. As a result, we predict that if dogs were given access to horse carcasses for scavenging, the survivorship of skeletal element portions should correlate with bone mineral density. We compare Lam and colleagues’ equine bone mineral density data with archaeological skeletal portion recoveries to assess the role of density-mediated attrition (Fig. 7 ). In the accompanying graph, %Survivorship is standardized to a complete horse, using the Minimum Number of Individuals (calculated using the most frequent skeletal element portion in the assemblage considered in aggregate) as the standard for 100% Survivorship. Each data point represents a portion of an element that corresponds to a bone density scan site as established by Lam et al., or an average density value for a group of scan sites. Bone mineral density and %Survivorship are only weakly positively correlated ( r = .21), suggesting that the patterns in skeletal portion recovery are not fully explained by density-mediated attrition. Carnivore Gnawing and Food Utility If horse carcasses were used to provision dogs, we expect that carnivore gnaw marks will cluster on parts of the skeleton with the greatest amount of meat, fat, and marrow. Food utility indices derived by Outram and Rowley-Conwy ( 1998 ) indicate that horse carcasses have greater concentrations of meat along the axial plane than caribou but contain less marrow. When the locations of gnaw marks are mapped onto Outram and Rowley-Conwy’s food utility values, it is clear that carnivore gnawing is more common on carcass portions with higher food utility (Fig. 8 ). The correlation between food utility values and gnaw mark location is statistically significant ( r = .72), and consistent with experimental and observational evidence for canine gnawing discussed above. Butchering Mark Frequencies If horse carcasses were fed to dogs, they were no doubt butchered into portable units first, using axes, knives, or cleavers, leaving behind blunt-force hack marks, particularly on meaty carcass portions. Cut marks are generally left behind when meat is removed from bone for consumption, which we would not expect to see in a context in which horse carcasses were expediently fed to dogs. If horse meat was fed to the dogs, the meat was probably not removed from bones following primary dismemberment. Once the carcass was butchered into portable chunks, we expect that these raw portions were given to the dogs, bones and all, a practice that is consistent with contemporary illustrations discussed above. Under these conditions, we expect that hack marks will outnumber cut marks on archaeological horse remains. Butchering marks in general were most common on the femur, radius, innominate, and tibia (Fig. 9 ). These are slightly meaty portions, but not always the meatiest. Hack marks are by far the most common butchering mark or other modification seen in the assemblages. Cut marks are much rarer. A total of 159 specimens (17.1%) exhibit hack marks, while only 15 (1.6%) were cut, including 10 that were also hacked. One additional specimen was butchered without any specific identification of mark type. Fifteen of the hacked, cut, and otherwise butchered specimens were also gnawed by carnivores. Some of the cut marks (n = 5) appear on metapodials and podials, possibly evidence that horses were processed for their hides. These cut marks are not consistent with the stripping of meat for consumption, for dogs or humans. As discussed above, horsehide was a useful raw material that we expect was harvested whenever possible. Comparison with Food Animals In our examination of the role of canines in the post-mortem treatment of horses, we cannot ignore the possibility that humans also consumed horses. Horse meat was consumed in some German and French communities, and possibly also in Delaware (Bedell 2000 ). This practice, however, was probably not widespread. Horsemeat in general was somewhat taboo in historic period English and American households. Horses were not typically raised for meat, meaning that the animals were usually old, ill, or injured when they died naturally, or were euthanized. The meat from elderly or ill animals may not have been considered fit for human consumption. Meat from older animals can be tough, and home veterinary remedies used to treat infections, abscesses, and other ailments often involved substances that are toxic to humans. The zooarchaeological record supports our hypothesis that human consumption of horse meat was infrequent. Less than one percent of the horse remains discussed here exhibit cut marks associated with the removal of meat for consumption. The lack of cut marks on horse remains suggests that horsemeat was not removed from the bones, as was typically done for the large-bodied animals consumed by humans. Implicit in our argument that horse carcasses were fed to dogs is the assumption that horses were treated differently after death than animals slaughtered for human consumption. One way of testing this assumption is to compare the post-mortem modification of horse remains with those of a known food animal of similar body size, such as cattle. Beef butchery involves slaughter, primary dismemberment, and the removal of meat from bone for human consumption, either before or after cooking. Even if horses were fed to dogs, we expect both horses and cattle to exhibit evidence of primary dismemberment, including chop and hack marks. Cut marks, left behind when meat tissue is removed from bones, should be more common on cattle than horse remains, however. If horse carcasses were intentionally fed to dogs, carnivore gnawing should be more common on horse remains than cattle, which were eaten first and foremost by humans. We do not, however, expect that cattle remains will exhibit no evidence of carnivore gnawing, as dogs no doubt accessed beef bones in kitchen trash middens. Cattle bones were likely discarded only after most of the meat was stripped, making them less attractive to scavenging canines. Dogs likely spent less time working over pre-stripped cattle bones and therefore would have left fewer tooth marks behind. On the other hand, we expect rodent gnawing to appear in similar frequencies on cattle and horse bones, as rodents gnaw bones not for meat, but to hone their teeth (and, secondarily, for mineral absorption). The low frequency of horse remains within individual archaeological sites makes comparing the frequency of carnivore gnawing and butchery marks on cattle and horse remains difficult. Drayton Hall yielded the largest assemblage of horse remains (n = 31) in the sites presented here. The cattle assemblage at Drayton Hall is moderate in size (n = 128). Although the sample sizes are still very small, the results are suggestive (Table 4 ). At Drayton Hall, less than 8% of cattle specimens exhibit carnivore gnawing, while over 20% of horse specimens were gnawed by carnivores. Further, evidence for primary butchery (hack and saw marks) was more common on horse remains than on cattle. Although by no means conclusive, these results do suggest that horse carcasses were more frequently gnawed by carnivores. And they suggest that Drayton Hall horses were butchered differently than cattle, with an emphasis on primary dismemberment rather than on the preparation of meat cuts for human consumption. Table 4 Drayton Hall horse and cattle remains. Taxon Total NISP Carnivore-gnawed (#) Carnivore-gnawed (%) Primary Butchery (#) Primary Butchery (%) Bos 1707 128 7.5 46 2.7 Equus 31 7 22.6 3 9.7 Urban vs. Rural Sites As discussed above, the practice of feeding horse carcasses to dogs was probably more common on rural farms than on urban locales, where slaughterhouses, rendering plants, abattoirs, or knacker’s yards were available for the disposal of dead horses. To test this assumption, we separated urban from rural sites, while acknowledging that these categories are not as neat as this binary suggests. Although these sample sizes are small, the results are suggestive. Carnivore-gnawing is twice as common on horse remains from rural sites than from urban sites, suggesting that dogs had greater access to horse carcasses and parts in rural contexts (Table 5 ). Even more interesting is the frequency of butchery marks. Butchery marks in general are more common on horse remains from rural contexts than from urban sites–and this applies for both cut and hack marks, although cut marks are far less common within both site types compared to hack marks. These observations together indicate that the post-mortem treatment of horses differed between rural and urban sites. The higher frequency of both carnivore gnawing and butchery marks suggests that the practice of provisioning dogs with horse carcasses was, as expected, more common in rural communities. Table 5 Number of carnivore-gnawed and butchered horse specimens in urban vs. rural sites. Carnivore Gnawed Hacked Cut All Butchered Total NISP NISP % NISP % NISP % NISP % Urban 510 9 1.8 68 13.3 5 1.0 70 13.7 Rural 419 18 4.3 91 21.7 10 2.4 95 22.7 Total 929 27 2.9 159 17.1 15 1.6 165 17.8 Discussion Coupled with documentary evidence, zooarchaeological patterns in gnawing, butchery marks, and skeletal portion recoveries of equine skeletons lend support for the idea that the bodies of horses were, at the ends of their lives, used to nourish another human companion: dogs. These patterns are not visible at the level of individual sites but are visible when equine data are studied in aggregate. Carnivore gnawing, while certainly not ubiquitous, is present on horse remains on historic period horse remains from across the Eastern Woodlands region–and it is more common than rodent gnawing. Carnivore marks tend to cluster on the meatiest portions of the carcasses, in keeping with ethnographic observations of canine-gnawed equid and other large mammal assemblages. The clustering of gnaw marks on elements with high food utility suggests that dogs accessed horse carcasses while the meat was fresh. Although high food utility elements tend to have lower bone density, the correlation between survivorship and bone density was only weakly positive. Patterns in butchery marks are also compelling. Tool marks from primary dismemberment, such as hacks, chops, and saw marks, are more common on horse remains than cut marks, which are generally associated with stripping meat for consumption by humans. The differential representation of these marks suggests that horse carcasses were butchered into units that were easier for humans to maneuver, but that horse bones were not generally stripped of their meat. This is consistent with what would be expected if dogs were fed portions of horse carcasses after death or euthanasia. Drayton Hall contained the largest, albeit still small, samples of horse and cattle remains, allowing some cautious comparison between horses and a similarly large animal exploited for human consumption. Differences in butchering marks and gnawing between cattle and horse remains at Drayton suggest that horses were treated very differently after death than cattle. At Drayton Hall, marks associated with primary dismemberment are more common on horse remains than cattle, suggesting that butchery of equines was focused on gross dismemberment, and not meat removal for human consumption. Further, carnivore gnawing is more common on horse remains at Drayton Hall than on cattle remains, suggesting that dogs had more opportunities to scavenge horse carcasses than cattle. This would be expected if horses were intentionally fed to dogs, while cattle were butchered for human consumption and discarded only after most of the meat was removed. Comparison of urban and rural sites indicates that both horse butchery, and carnivore gnawing are more common in rural areas than urban sites. This pattern is as expected, given access in urban environments to centralized disposal sites for horse carcasses, including knacker’s yards. Conclusion Had poor Squirt not survived his near miss with the dog kennels, entire lineages of prize-winning racehorses would have been lost. His survival changed the horse-racing industry for centuries. But, from an archaeological perspective, his narrow escape from oblivion is even more significant for what it tells us about the relationship between humans and two of our oldest and closest human companions. As tools of transportation, pack, and traction, domesticated horses transformed human societies. These valuable tools in life, however, become a liability in death—a problem to be solved. How do you dispose of a dead horse? In aggregate, the zooarchaeological data presented here suggest that dogs were one solution to this problem, particularly at rural sites. Horses were dismembered into portable portions using axes and cleavers and fed to dogs while the meat was fresh. Dogs had ready and free access to these butchered carcasses, leaving plenty of tell-tale puncture and drag marks behind. As in ethnographic contexts, dogs no doubt removed as much meat from bone as they could, and then used their carnassial teeth to open bone cavities, targeting their efforts first on the least dense elements, which were also the meatiest–explaining the slight over-representation of more dense (and less meaty) skeletal elements in the resulting archaeological assemblages. Given enough time, dogs are capable of crushing even large bones into small fragments, rendering them unidentifiable and, therefore, invisible in the zooarchaeological record. This research was carried out in the context of the historic period Eastern Woodlands of North America, but dog provisioning of carcasses is known from the documentary record elsewhere, and it is likely that this practice was common wherever domesticated equines, dogs, and humans coexisted. Horses and dogs are among our closest and most intimate companions. Dogs and horses fulfill overlapping and complementary roles in human societies across time and space, from pack and transportation, to hunting, labor, and companionship. For thousands of years, dogs, horses, and humans lived in close quarters, developing individual relationships based on proximity, trust, and cooperation. All three species are pro-social animals capable of forming lifelong bonds, and all three developed trusting relationships involving close physical contact. That horses were “led to the dog kennel” introduces a surprising new facet of these entangled relationships. With this contribution, we also sought an answer to the common zooarchaeological question, “where are all the dead horses?” This contribution does not entirely answer the question, but we believe we provide an additional, and unusual, explanation for this problem that has vexed zooarchaeologists for decades. Horses are no doubt rare in archaeological assemblages because they lived long lives in service of human transport, pack, and agriculture. Each horse also has only one opportunity to leave behind a skeleton, and only after 20–30 years of life. Horses may also be rare because many likely died far from human habitation areas, such as in the field or on the road. Although ubiquitous, horses were outnumbered by domesticated food animals on most farms and plantations. Further, if horse meat is taboo for human consumption, horse remains are unlikely to be found amidst regular household refuse. All of these explanations contribute to the paucity of horse remains from archaeological sites—here, we propose that dog provisioning is another contributing factor. This analysis also demonstrates the power of zooarchaeological “big” data, bringing together collections from multiple sites across a large region to observe patterns that are invisible at the level of the individual site. This type of research is only possible thanks to decades of zooarchaeological research by scholars from across the Eastern Woodlands, as well as the willingness of data repositories to share their data. This project, perhaps above all, is a testament to the increased capacity for zooarchaeological research in the United States and around the world, thanks to many decades of research funded in large part by federal and state funding. These discoveries enrich our understanding of the human past and present, and we can only hope that such work can continue in the future. Declarations This research was supported by a Faculty-Student Research Award from the University of Maryland’s Graduate School (awarded to Pavão-Zuckerman and McCague) and by a John H. Daniel’s Fellowship from the National Sporting Library and Museum (awarded to McCague). Both authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. Author Contribution McCague carried out data collection from repositories, including travel to the University of Georgia and the University of Florida, and carried out archival research at the National Sporting Library and Museum in Middleburg, Virginia. McCague located archival and visual sources, and completed most of the background research for the article. McCague transcribed and formatted legacy datasets into a standardized database. McCague completed initial quantification of data. Pavao-Zuckerman completed secondary analyses of the zooarchaeological remains, including the calculation of MNI, and MNE, and studies of density-mediated attrition/survivorship and food utility (including statistical analysis). Pavao-Zuckerman drafted Figure 5 (based on an earlier version created by McCague) and all other data figures, and drafted all manuscript tables. Pavao-Zuckerman derived the model for canine provisioning based on published ethnographic and experimental data. Pavao-Zuckerman prepared the final manuscript for submission. The authors shared manuscript writing duties, with McCague taking the lead on problem orientation and background, and Pavao-Zuckerman taking the lead on methods, results, and interpretation. Acknowledgement This research was supported by a Faculty-Student Research Award provided to McCague and Pavão-Zuckerman by the University of Maryland’s Graduate School, and a John H. Daniel’s Fellowship awarded to McCague by the National Sporting Library and Museum. We are grateful to the many labs, repositories, and zooarchaeologists who generously shared data for this research, including the Zooarchaeology Laboratory at the Georgia Museum of Natural History, University of Georgia (Elizabeth J. Reitz); the Environmental Archaeology Department at the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida (Nicole Cannarozzi); the Colonial Williamsburg Archaeology Department (Joanne Bowen and Sean Devlin); Jamestown Rediscovery (Leah Striker, Emma Derry, and Janene Johnston); tDAR (the Digital Archeological Record); DAACS (Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery); and the ICAZ (International Council for Archaeozoology) listserv. Many thanks to Mark Maltby and Betsy Reitz for their assistance in tracking down original reports. The authors are also grateful to Kristen Hickey for drafting Figure 4, and to Evelyn Pavao-Zuckerman for assistance with data transcription. Data Availability The aggregated data used in this publication will be placed on tDAR, the Digital Archaeological Record, pending permission of repositories. References Albarella, U. and Davis, S. J. M. (1996 for 1994) Mammals and birds from Launceston Castle, Cornwall: Decline in status and the rise of agriculture. Circaea 12(1):1–156. Albizuri, S. et al. (2019) Equid use and provision during the Early Iron Age in Can Roqueta (NE Iberian Peninsula). Zooarchaeological study and first strontium isotope result (87Sr/86Sr). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 26:101907. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101907 Ameen, C. et al. (2021) Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Medieval Warhorse. Cheiron: The International Journal of Equine and Equestrian History 1(1):100–119. https://doi.org/10.22618/TP.Cheiron.20211.1.233005 Bedell, John (2000) Archaeology and Probate Inventories in the Study of Eighteenth-Century Life. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 31(2):223–245. Binford, L. R. (1984) Faunal remains from Klasies River Mouth . Academic Press, New York. Blakley, C. M. (2025) Historicizing the “Beast-Man” On Slavery and Human-Animal Studies. Animal History 1(1) 33–51. Blumenschine, R. J., Marean, C. W., and Capaldo, S. D. (1996) Blind Tests of Inter-analyst Correspondence and Accuracy in the Identification of Cut Marks, Percussion Marks, and Carnivore Tooth Marks on Bone Surfaces. Journal of Archaeological Science 23(4):493–507. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1996.0047 Collin, Yvette Running Horse (2017) The relationship between the indigenous peoples of the Americas and the horse: Deconstructing a eurocentric myth. (Doctoral Dissertation). Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Fairbanks. D’Andrea, A. C. and Gotthardt, R. M. (1984) Predator and Scavenger Modifications of Recent Equid Skeletal Assemblages. Arctic 37(3):276–283. Dietmeier, J (2017) Beyond The Butcher's Block: The Animal Landscapes of Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Lowcountry Plantations. (Doctoral Dissertation). College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. Fitzgerald, A. (2010) A Social History of the Slaughterhouse: From Inception to Contemporary Implications. Research in Human Ecology 17(1):58–69. Grant, Annie (1979) The Animal Bones. In, Excavations in Bedford 1967–1977, by David Baker, Evelyn Baker, Jane Hassall, and Angela Simco. Bedfordshire Archaeological Journal 13:103–107. Greer, Matthew (2016) Contextualizing Canine, a Dog Burial, and Enslaved Life on a Virginia Plantation. Journal of African Diaspora Archaeology & Heritage 5(3):223–244. Hunting, W. (1898) The art of horse-shoeing: a manual for farriers . W.R. Jenkins, New York. Jaworski, Krzysztof and Aleksandra Pankiewicz, Aleksander Chroszcz and Dominik Poradowski (2020) Different Approach to Horses – The Use of Equid Remains in the Early Middle Ages on the Example of Ostrow Tumski in Wroclaw. Animals (Basel) 10(12)1–15. Jefferson, Thomas (1808) “From Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Bacon, 26 December 1808,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-9403 . Jones, Emily Lena (2018) Coming to Terms with Imperfection: Comparative Studies and the Search for Grazing Impacts in Seventeenth Century New Mexico. In Giovas, C. and LeFebvre, M. (eds.), Zooarchaeology in Practice: Case Studies in Methodology and Interpretation in Archaeofaunal Analysi , Springer International Publishing, New York, pp. 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64763-0_13 Jones, Emily Lena and Caroline Gabe (2015) The Promise and Peril of Older Collections: Meta-Analyses and the Zooarchaeology of Late Prehistoric/Early Historic New Mexico, Open Quaternary 1(6):1–13. Kent, S. (1981) The Dog: An Archaeologist's Best Friend or Worst Enemy- the Spatial Distribution of Faunal Remains. Journal of Field Archaeology 8(3):367–372. Koricheva, J. and Gurevitch, J. (2014) Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant ecology. Journal of Ecology 102:828–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12224 Lam, Y.M., Chen, X., Pearson, O.M. (1999) Intertaxonomic Variability in Patterns of Bone Density and the Differential Representation of Bovid, Cervid, and Equid Elements in the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 64(2):343–362. Lyman, R. L. (1994) Vertebrate Taphonomy . Cambridge University Press, NY. Maltby, M. (1983) The animal bones. In, C.M. Heighway The East and North Gate of Gloucester . Bristol: Western Archaeological Trust Excavation Monograph 4: 228–245. McClure, R. and E. Harvey (1871) Every Horse Owner's Cyclopedia . Porter & Coates, Philadelphia, PA. McShane, C. and Tarr, J. A. (2007) The Horse in the City: Living Machines in the Nineteenth Century . Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Metcalfe, D., and Jones, K. T. (1988) A Reconsideration of Animal Body-Part Utility Indices. American Antiquity 53(3):486–504. https://doi.org/10.2307/281213 Munson, P. J. and Garniewicz, R. C. (2003) Age-mediated Survivorship of Ungulate Mandibles and Teeth in Canid-ravaged Faunal Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 30(4):405–416, https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2002.0850 Neusius S.W., et al. (2019) Zooarchaeological Database Preservation, Multiscalar Data Integration, and the Collaboration of the Eastern Archaic Faunal Working Group. Advances in Archaeological Practice 7(4):409–422. doi: 10.1017/aap.2019.33 New Sporting Magazine. “Wasp, Child & Billy.” Vol. 8, no. 44 (December 1834). Illustration inserted between pp. 138–139. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433066623475 . Outram, A., and Rowley-Conwy, P. (1998) Meat and marrow utility indices for horse (Equus). Journal of Archaeological Science 25(9):839–849. Parry, Tyler D. and Charlton W Yingling (2020) Slave Hounds and Abolition in the Americas. Past & Present 246(1):69–108. Pavão-Zuckerman, B. et al. (2020) African American Culinary History and the Genesis of American Cuisine: Foodways and Slavery at Montpelier. Journal of African Diaspora Archaeology and Heritage 9(2):114–147. Pavão, B., & Stahl, P. W. (1999) Structural Density Assays of Leporid Skeletal Elements with Implications for Taphonomic, Actualistic and Archaeological Research. Journal of Archaeological Science 26(1):53–66. Pavao-Zuckerman, B. (2007) Deerskins and Domesticates: Creek Subsistence and Economic Strategies in the Historic Period. American Antiquity 72(1):5–33. Rivers-Cofield, S. (2008) A Preliminary Study Of 17th- And 18th-Century Leather Ornaments From Maryland. Maryland Archeology , Volume 44(2):12–27. Rivers-Cofield, S. (2011) A Guide to Spurs of Maryland and Delaware ca. 1635–1820. Northeast Historical Archaeology 40(3):43–71. Rivers-Cofield, S. (2023) Analysis of Equestrian Artifacts and an Early 18th Century Stable at the Smith’s St. Leonard Plantation. Conference paper presented at the Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Conference. Taunton, T. (1887) Portraits of Celebrated Racehorses of the Past and Present Centuries . Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, London. Taylor, W.T.T. et al. (2021) Interdisciplinary Analysis of the Lehi Horse: Implications for Early Historic Horse Cultures of the North American West. American Antiquity 86(3):465–485. Taylor, W.T.T. et al. (2023) Early dispersal of domestic horses into the Great Plains and northern Rockies. Science 379(6639):1316–1323. Taylor, William T. (2024) Hoof Beats: How Horses Shaped Human History . University of California Press, Oakland. Thomas, Richard and Martin Lacock (2000) Food for the Dogs? The consumption of horseflesh at Dudley Castle in the eighteenth century. Environmental Archaeology 5(1):83–91. Washington, George (1792) “George Washington to Anthony Whitting, 16 December 1792,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-11-02-0315 . Wilson, Bob and Peter Edwards (1993) Butchery of horse and dog at Witney Palace, Oxfordshire, and the knackering and feeding of meat to hounds during the post-medieval period. Post-Medieval Archaeology 27:43–56. Yravedra, J., Lagos, L., & Bárcena, F. (2011) A taphonomic study of wild wolf ( Canis lupus ) modification of horse bones in Northwestern Spain. Journal of Taphonomy 9(1):37–65. Footnotes Fossil evidence indicates that horses ( Equus ) evolved in North America in the Pliocene and went extinct in the late Pleistocene/early Holocene (although see Collin 2017 ). The evolution, taxonomy, and distribution of Equus is still being debated by paleontologists, geneticists, and archaeologists. It is not yet clear which species were present in North America during the Pleistocene, and how they may or may not be related to domesticated horses. There is also disagreement on how to classify domesticated horses. We follow the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (itis.gov), which uses Equus caballus , but other scholars favor classifying domestic horses as a subspecies of wild horse: Equus ferus caballus. This has been supported by a personal communication on the prevalence of horses being fed to dogs in English historical records amongst equine history scholars. This is supported by a personal communication that was notably made anonymously to protect those who still feed horse meat to foxhunting hounds in an off the cuff and off the record anecdote. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 12 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 10 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 07 May, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 15 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 13 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 10 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9383036","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":641565362,"identity":"601ffda2-8ccf-4577-96ff-714c16c2af29","order_by":0,"name":"Elizabeth Anne McCague","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Maryland","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Elizabeth","middleName":"Anne","lastName":"McCague","suffix":""},{"id":641565363,"identity":"09e87810-05c6-4bac-9cf8-2a77c452f492","order_by":1,"name":"Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Maryland","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Barnet","middleName":"","lastName":"Pavao-Zuckerman","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-10 21:08:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9383036/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9383036/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109436383,"identity":"9c399110-4085-4481-b094-d7a3076c22f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 06:16:05","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2786284,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eHistoric etching published in 1834 in the New Sporting Magazine and based on a circa 1809 painting, \u003cem\u003eWasp, Child and Billy\u003c/em\u003e, by Henry Bernard Chalon (\u003cem\u003eNew Sporting Magazine\u003c/em\u003e 1834). From HathiTrust Digital Library, \u003cu\u003ehttps://www.hathitrust.org/\u003c/u\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9383036/v1/f8a0847ce9c2c349d8109fa9.png"},{"id":109759230,"identity":"b57c2078-8904-4e85-a151-92a8f44d59f2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-22 07:26:13","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1445112,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e“Episodes in the life of a racehorse”, by Charles Towne (1781-1854). Figure permission forthcoming.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9383036/v1/d138269f3dd3559cea3263bf.png"},{"id":109436385,"identity":"6e9e43b7-769c-4a60-9243-90f335e21c26","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 06:16:05","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":779242,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCarnivore gnaw marks on a modern cattle bone showing characteristics gouges and drag marks, and edge crenulation (left), and on a chicken (\u003cem\u003eGallus gallus\u003c/em\u003e) bone exhibiting a typical canine tooth puncture mark (right). Images by Pavão-Zuckerman.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9383036/v1/b6c8dd8264613c2f166fe5c2.png"},{"id":109759624,"identity":"4fbc7267-b136-453e-b0e5-27be28b063b4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-22 07:27:27","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":739928,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of sites with horse remains included in this analysis. Figure drafted by Kristen Hickey.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9383036/v1/f73db79e4a44a46d5cd91c5b.png"},{"id":109436387,"identity":"7c8b7823-9437-4a23-a19f-49e189b78d6b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 06:16:05","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":585993,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe number of identifiable equine specimens (NISP) from all sites included in the analysis. Not depicted are a complete horse skeleton and complete horse limb from the Coffeehouse Site (Williamsburg, VA). Figure by authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9383036/v1/3a0e60965719391a0b8e1727.png"},{"id":109760143,"identity":"f97ae00d-7c38-49da-a7ec-b88ab15093a4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-22 07:28:13","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":426984,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDistribution and frequency of carnivore gnawing, cut marks, and hack marks on equine specimens (NISP), all sites. Figure by authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9383036/v1/7272adfab60239a422f4e894.png"},{"id":109436389,"identity":"57d9b5c6-4aa3-4deb-a869-b2ee76a59c51","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 06:16:05","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":82246,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBone mineral density is only weakly correlated with skeletal element survivorship (\u003cem\u003er \u003c/em\u003e= .21). In this graph, %Survivorship is standardized to a complete horse, using an aggregated Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) for all equine remains from all sites. Figure by authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9383036/v1/8f868a31c4100682e48d5282.png"},{"id":109436388,"identity":"febee589-f688-4c80-ad16-30343367d28c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 06:16:05","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":62801,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCorrelation between the frequency of carnivore gnawing on skeletal element portions and their respective food utility indices (FUI). Carnivore gnawing is positively correlated with food utility (\u003cem\u003er \u003c/em\u003e= .72). Figure by authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9383036/v1/cd5f416a9a3f5a720875e829.png"},{"id":109759271,"identity":"a69cd066-4278-44d6-996c-c6c203310ea1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-22 07:26:23","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":162690,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFrequency (NISP) of carnivore gnawing (CG), cuts, and hacks on the remains of equines in the Eastern Woodlands dataset. Figure by authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9383036/v1/50d3c3c0cb2977c39d98ed9c.png"},{"id":109763877,"identity":"1d2d6b8e-4905-4c99-8a99-27b7e9fa6c40","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-22 07:36:06","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":8059649,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9383036/v1/67133d83-dae1-4838-a042-7487d53279aa.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"“Led to the dog kennels”: The search for historic equines in the zooarchaeological record","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSquirt, an elderly English stallion described as \u0026ldquo;poor, despised, and death-doomed\u0026rdquo;, was on his way \u0026ldquo;to the dog kennel\u0026rdquo; with \u0026ldquo;order[s] to be shot\u0026rdquo; when his life was spared by a sympathetic stud-groom (Taunton 1887). Squirt, so afflicted by laminitis he could barely walk, was found well enough to stand for stud and went on to grandsire Eclipse, the undefeated 18th century thoroughbred. Eclipse, and therefore Squirt, produced generations of prize-winning racehorses. Squirt\u0026rsquo;s story is a fascinating and amusing historical footnote about an underdog horse\u0026rsquo;s brush with death, and his triumphant genetic comeback. But, it is perhaps even more meaningful for what it reveals about the intimate relationships between humans, horses, and dogs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHorses and dogs have served as close human companions for thousands of years. Formerly predator and prey, dogs and horses adapted to live and work alongside each other in the presence of humans\u0026ndash;on the hunt, on the move, and in the fields and barns. Despite wildly different evolutionary histories and domestication trajectories, horses and dogs fulfilled overlapping roles in human societies. Prior to the domestication of horses, dogs served as human\u0026rsquo;s primary \u0026ldquo;work\u0026rdquo; animals. In addition to protection, dogs were used for pack, transportation, and hunting. Where they were domesticated, horses and other equines fulfilled some of the same roles as dogs even more effectively, but they never usurped dogs in human societies altogether. Rather, horses were folded into existing human-animal relationships, working alongside their former predators.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSquirt\u0026rsquo;s anecdote reveals a surprising dimension to our understanding of human-dog-horse relationships. Although domesticated equines and canines cohabitate amiably in life, in death it appears that the ancient patterns of predator/prey were reproduced. Exploring this relationship, however, is complicated by a dearth of horse remains in archaeological sites around the world (Taylor 2024), particularly compared to food animals such as cattle. A paradox of studying horses in the archaeological record is that they are both everywhere, and nowhere.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is particularly the case in the Americas. After their 16th century\u003csup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e re-introduction, horses (\u003cem\u003eEquus caballus\u003c/em\u003e) quickly became ubiquitous in communities across the Americas (Taylor 2024). Horses were essential for transportation, traction, and power. Their critical importance is well documented in the written record, and their prevalence is apparent in the recovery of material objects relating to horses in archaeological sites from the 16th century onward, including horseshoes, nails, and tack (McShane and Tarr 2007; Rivers-Cofield 2008). However, despite their significant historical imprint, the bodily remains of horses are notably infrequent in archaeological assemblages (Ameen et al. 2021). Archaeologists generally attribute the absence of horse remains to their primary utility as work animals, rather than for meat (Albizuri et al. 2019). This role certainly explains their absence in food-related contexts such as kitchen middens, but the animals are underrepresented almost everywhere, including in and around stables, barns, fields (Pav\u0026atilde;o-Zuckerman et al. 2020). \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Exploring why equine remains are so rare in historic-period archaeological assemblages is hampered by the fact that equine remains \u003cem\u003eare\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003erare in archaeological assemblages. It is difficult to discern meaningful patterns in equine archaeological assemblages based on the handful of specimens typically recovered. However, when these remains are considered in aggregate, such as at a regional scale, archaeological equine remains add up to a sizable assemblage. Here, we conduct a meta-analysis (Jones 2018; Jones and Gabe 2015; Koricheva and Gurevitch 2014) of zooarchaeological \u0026ldquo;big data\u0026rdquo; (ie: Neusius et al. 2019), coupled with historical records to 1) explore practices surrounding the end of life and disposal of historic equids, particularly as they relate to their entangled relationship with domestic dogs, and 2) address a long-standing mystery in historical archaeology: where are all the dead horses?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eHorses: Everywhere and Nowhere\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this contribution, we use zooarchaeological data primarily from the Eastern Woodlands of North America to propose an unusual explanation for the underrepresentation of horse remains in archaeological sites. This work is applicable to other time periods and geographical settings, but we focus our efforts on this region and time because: 1. Some of the earliest ports of entry for the arrival of modern horses into North America are within this region and, 2. Several decades of zooarchaeological analyses in the Eastern Woodlands have yielded a sizable collection of historic-period datasets with horse remains, and 3. More recent contexts have the benefit of better bone preservation, and greater access to written records.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHorses accompanied many of the earliest 15th-century Spanish entradas and were critical tools of later Spanish, English, and French colonialism. Despite their early introduction, the presence of horses is known primarily through documentary records and material objects such as horseshoes, nails, and tack. Unlike other livestock, horses were quickly adopted by Native communities, beginning in the early 17th century, and becoming widespread well in advance of the spread of European colonizers (Taylor et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Taylor et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Taylor \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e:180\u0026ndash;204). By the end of the colonial period, horses were everywhere (Rivers-Cofield \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The animals served many purposes, spending their lives as agricultural, transportation, and sporting animals. In death, horses were frequently repurposed into fertilizer, horsehair pillows, mortar, plaster, glue, cart and carriage grease, and pet food, either for sale or for local consumption (Fitzgerald \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e:59\u0026ndash;60, McShane \u0026amp; Tarr \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e:29). Although horsemeat was and is occasionally consumed by people, the practice was formally banned by Pope Gregory III in 732 A.D., restricting the widespread use of horses as a human food source.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMaterial culture related to the use of horses in agricultural and transportation is frequently recovered from archaeological sites; however, outside of the colonial-period research conducted by Rivers-Cofield (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), analysis of horse-related material culture in the Americas is limited. Horse-related material culture can reveal a great deal about practices relating to horse care and husbandry; however, skeletal remains provide the only direct line of evidence to horses in the past. Horses are not commonly interred after death even today, and burials were even less common in the past. Only two horse burials are known from historic period archaeological sites in the Chesapeake region (Dietmeier \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Nearly all other archaeological horse remains are \u0026ldquo;isolated\u0026rdquo; finds\u0026ndash;individual bone fragments disassociated from other horse remains (Pav\u0026atilde;o-Zuckerman et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These specimens are recovered in a variety of contexts, including domestic middens, sometimes commingled with the remains of food animals. Because they are rare, these isolated finds are usually reported in published data sets as \u0026ldquo;commensal\u0026rdquo; (non-food) animals alongside dogs, cats, and rodents, with no further analysis conducted (Pav\u0026atilde;o-Zuckerman 2007). Isolated horse remains are seldom recovered in sample sizes that allow for more than a cursory analysis. However, their ubiquity across the Eastern Woodlands in the historic period provides an opportunity to explore broader patterns in the treatment of animals after death that may be visible when such remains are studied in aggregate. The explosion of zooarchaeological research in recent decades has created new opportunities for meta-analytical approaches in archaeological inquiry (Jones \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Jones and Gabe \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Koricheva and Gurevitch \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Neusius et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eHistoric Horses: Life, Death, and Repurposing\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThough horses were useful for a variety of purposes, including demanding tasks like traction and transportation, they are, in fact, fragile animals. Horses support their entire body mass on four limbs, each comprised of a single digit (the middle finger). Horses stand not only on a single \u0026ldquo;toe\u0026rdquo;, but also literally \u0026ldquo;on pointe\u0026rdquo;, with only the terminal digit of each limb on the ground. As a result, leg injuries in horses are catastrophic and generally fatal (via predation or euthanasia). In addition to devastating leg fractures, horses are prone to many other ailments and injuries, some of which are documented in historic texts on veterinary care alongside suggested home remedies (McClure and Harvey \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1871\u003c/span\u003e). Caring for horses in the best of times is expensive, requiring consistent food and water, custom-fit horseshoes that must be reset roughly every five weeks, and regular care and maintenance to keep them fit for physical activity (Hunting \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1898\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to the American Civil War, horse caretaking in wealthy households was more often than not provided by enslaved people, many of whom became skilled at veterinary care (Blakley \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e:40). The day-to-day care of horses provided by enslaved people no doubt fostered a closeness between humans and these animals. Horses held a complicated role for enslaved people. Enslaved people were, at times, permitted to use horses for transportation, some using this access to escape to freedom. The animals were also weaponized against enslaved people\u0026ndash;horses were frequently used to track down those who tried to self-emancipate. The placement of men, women, and children on the same property inventories as horses and livestock was another tool of dehumanization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn death, horse carcasses could be repurposed into valuable goods. Horsehair was commonly shaved from animals prior to euthanasia for use as mortar bonding material, in horsehair pillows, and in furniture manufacture (McShane \u0026amp; Tarr \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e:29). Hooves of horses were boiled down for gelatin and glue, and hides were repurposed into valuable tanning leather. Bone meal was used as fertilizer, and for the manufacture of soap, ammonia, and insecticide (McShane and Tarr \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e:29). Dense horse limb bones were made into bone handles for utensils and combs (Jaworski et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to the formalization of public slaughterhouses in the 19th century, the repurposing and disposal of horse carcasses in rural and urban environments likely occurred in informal structures or butcher sheds (Fitzgerald \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e:60). In the mid to late 19th century, formalized rendering plants or slaughterhouses became common in urban areas, providing a dedicated space for these unpleasant activities (McShane \u0026amp; Tarr \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e:27). It is unlikely, however, that rural residents used such facilities. Once injured or deceased, horses are difficult to transport, making the journey to urban slaughterhouses an unlikely disposal practice for rural equines. The presence of rendering plants or slaughterhouses may explain the lack of equine remains in urban environments, but the low frequency of horse remains in rural contexts is harder to understand.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnd-of-life care and disposal were likely a local affair in rural areas. While reuse was still likely, some activities, such as bone meal production, required industrial-scale technologies not widely available until the mid-19th century. As noted above, horse interment was rare before the availability of mechanical excavators. Although we expect reuse of horse carcasses in rural contexts, none of the typical activities listed above would completely remove horse bones from the archaeological record. Squirt\u0026rsquo;s near-miss story hints at a more unusual way of repurposing horse carcasses that might, in part, explain the absence of horse bones in archaeological assemblages: the provisioning of domestic dogs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Led \u0026hellip; to the Dog Kennel\u0026rdquo;: Archival/Historical Evidence\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSquirt\u0026rsquo;s story begs the question of how common it was for horses to be led to the dog kennel. Documentary evidence and period artwork suggest that the practice of discarding horse carcasses and feeding horse meat or \u0026ldquo;horse flesh\u0026rdquo; to dogs was not uncommon in England in the 19th century. One historic etching (Fig. 1) features what appear to be equine remains in an enclosure with dogs. In the etching, a man waves his hat at three dogs (comparable to modern-day pitbulls). In the corner, a pile of animal bones is visible, including a lower mandible and a humerus, both of which are morphologically consistent with equine. This etching, based on an early 19th-century painting by Henry Bernard Chalon, was published in the 1834 volume of \u003cem\u003eNew Sporting Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, a publication with wide circulation in the United States (\u003cem\u003eNew Sporting Magazine\u003c/em\u003e 1834). In \u0026ldquo;Episodes in the life of a racehorse\u0026rdquo;, a (privately owned) painting by English artist Charles Towne (1781\u0026ndash;1854), horses and their skeletal remains are similarly depicted surrounded by hungry, lapping hounds (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The painting is held in a private collection but appeared in 2015 on a Berkshire (U.K.) art auction website.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHistorical records suggest that the practice of feeding horse carcasses to dogs was common in England, and that this was considered a \u0026ldquo;good death\u0026rdquo; for the horse\u003csup\"\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. Wilson and Edwards (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) note that this practice, sometimes called \u0026ldquo;knackering\u0026rdquo;, continued well into the 1970s in Southeast England. But did knackering occur in the Americas? It appears so. Conversations with equestrians familiar with hunt clubs in Virginia\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e note that this practice was common until recently, with some noting that it still occurs in certain fox hunting communities. We suspect that knackering was even more widespread in the past.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eArchaeological Evidence for Knackering and Dog Provisioning\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlthough knackering is evident in the documentary record, horsemeat provisioning of dogs is not as well documented in the archaeological record, and most of the evidence we do have is from the U.K. Two unusual concentrations of commingled butchered horse and dog remains dating to the 18th century and earlier were identified at Witney Palace, Oxfordshire (Wilson and Edwards \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). These deposits were found in non-domestic locations, unlikely to be associated with human consumption activities. At least 20 horses and four dogs were identified, and many of the horses showed signs of advanced age, and injury. Tool marks from primary dismemberment and meat removal were common on the horse remains. Gnaw marks were present, but uncommon. The knackering of horses at Witney did not stop in the 18th century; the practice was carried out at the manor until the 1970s.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAn 18th century cellar in Dudley Castle (West Midlands), contained the remains of 15 elderly horses that were likely killed at the same time (Thomas and Lacock \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Over 10% of the horse remains exhibited butchering marks. Most of these were cut marks associated with meat removal, although evidence for carcass dismemberment was also found, as were skinning marks. Importantly, nearly half of these remains were gnawed by carnivores. The authors conclude that the horses were slaughtered and partially dismembered, then fed to the dogs before they were disposed of in a cellar.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAt medieval Launceton Castle (Cornwall), Albarella and Davis (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) identified three horse bones with butchery marks. These remains date to the 15th century (a distal tibia and a distal metapodial), and the 17th to 19th centuries (a metacarpal). Given the papal ban on horsemeat consumption, the authors argue that the horses were processed for dog provisioning. Butchered horse remains were also identified from a Medieval refuse pit at Bedford Castle (Grant \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). Albarella and Simon surveyed archaeological reports from across the U.K. and identified a long list of other English medieval sites with butchered horse remains (Albarella and Davids 1996), plus one site containing a carnivore-gnawed horse metatarsal (Maltby \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e:38).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eContextualizing Dogs in the Historic Period\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDogs, like horses, were common in the historic period, and also served a variety of roles. Dogs were used for protection (of people and property), hunting, herding, sport, and companionship. In colonial America, dogs were kept by both free and enslaved people who formed relationships with the animals for companionship, protection, and hunting (Greer \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e:229). As with horses, the relationship between enslaved people and dogs was complicated. As omnivores, the dietary needs of dogs often competed with the needs of the enslaved community. Enslaved people at times expressed contempt for the allocation of meat to dogs while they were given rations of corn and salt (Parry and Yingling 2020:94). Dogs were beloved companions but were also weaponized against enslaved individuals. Dogs were trained to hunt down and attack people fleeing enslavement, employed as a tool to reinforce chattel slavery (Greer \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e:229). Members of the gentry class selectively bred dogs for hunting and sport. Fox hunting enslavers, while carefully maintaining their own dogs, condemned the dogs of the enslaved community to death. In 1792, President George Washington threatened to slaughter the dogs kept by enslaved people at Mount Vernon (Washington \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1792\u003c/span\u003e). Although Washington did not carry through with his threats, his presidential successor did. On the day after Christmas in 1808, Thomas Jefferson had all the dogs kept by the people he enslaved at Monticello killed, telling an overseer, \u0026ldquo;do not spare a single one\u0026rdquo; (Jefferson \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1808\u003c/span\u003e). These acts are powerful evidence of the threat that dog ownership by enslaved people posed to the white supremacist power structures of the time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAn Archaeological Model for Canine Provisioning\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe historical record contains tantalizing evidence that the provisioning of domestic dogs with horse meat was a common practice in the past. However, is dog provisioning visible in the archaeological record? What might dog provisioning look like? Can we derive a set of reasonable archaeologically visible expectations for dog-provisioned horse assemblages?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCanines (dogs and their close relatives) are a significant source of preservation (taphonomic) bias in archaeological assemblages, across time and space. Canines quickly dismember and scatter carcasses through scavenging and can completely destroy bone through gnawing (Kent \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e; Munson and Garniewicz \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Dogs chew bones to extract fat, grease, and marrow, aided by strong jaws and large bone-crushing carnassial teeth. These activities leave behind tell-tale marks and patterns, including punctures, gouges, drag marks, and crenulations (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) that are visible in the archaeological record (Blumenschine et al \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Lyman \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e:204\u0026ndash;216). These marks are generally easily distinguished from other marks on bones, such as rodent gnawing and human tool marks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIdentifying carnivore gnaw marks on individual specimens is not particularly challenging, but can canine scavenging be observed through patterns of modifications at the level of the assemblage? Experimental and observational data of canine hunting and scavenging of equid and other large mammal remains are scant but reveal some patterns that are likely to be visible in the archaeological record in aggregate (D\u0026rsquo;Andrea and Gotthardt \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e, Outram and Rowley-Conwy \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, Wilson and Edwards \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e, Yravedra et al \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Yravedra and colleagues (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) observe that canines initially neglect carcass limbs and may at first leave minimal bone modifications on the remains of large prey (Yravedra et al \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e:62). It is not until after the meat is removed from the carcass that there is a noticeable increase in gnaw marks and other bone modifications. Observations of scavenged equid carcasses indicate that carnivore gnaw marks are most frequent where the outer layer of bone, called the cortex, is thinnest. Gnaw marks on canine-scavenged equid remains were especially common on long bone epiphyses (ends) and bony prominences (Wilson and Edwards \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e, D\u0026rsquo;Andrea and Gotthardt \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e), with few gnaw marks on durable long bone shafts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the above observational data, we expect that if dog provisioning was common in the past, carnivore gnaw marks should be fairly common on equid remains (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). We can also expect that gnaw marks will cluster at the ends of long bones, rather than on the shafts. Further, because the ends of long bones are less dense than the shafts, we expect that shafts and other dense (and therefore durable) bones will be disproportionately represented in archaeological horse assemblages. It is also reasonable to expect that gnaw marks will be more common on portions of the carcass with the greatest amount of meat, fat, and marrow (the tastiest parts). It also seems likely that if dogs were provisioned with horse meat, horse carcasses were dismembered before being tossed to the dogs. Primary dismemberment, generally carried out with sharp tools such as axes and cleavers used with blunt force, leaves behind distinctive hack and chop marks that should be archaeologically evident. In contrast, we would not expect to find many fine cut marks associated with the removal of meat from bones before or after cooking for human consumption on horse remains, especially in comparison to animals (such as cattle) that were primarily used for human food.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 624px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eExpected zooarchaeological outcomes for dog-provisioned horse assemblages:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e1. High frequency of carnivore gnaw marks,\u003cbr\u003e2. Clustering of gnaw marks at long bone ends,\u003cbr\u003e3. Overrepresentation of durable bone portions relative to weaker portions,\u003cbr\u003e4. Higher frequency of carnivore gnaw marks on meatier, high utility elements, and\u003cbr\u003e5. Greater frequency of hack and chop marks compared to cut marks.\u003cbr\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this contribution, we use several lines of archaeological and historical evidence to test the possibility that dogs are at least partly responsible for the dearth of equid remains in archaeological sites. We employ documentary research to establish the extent to which dog provisioning is reported in the written record and use zooarchaeological data compiled from existing \u0026ldquo;legacy\u0026rdquo; collections to document the post-mortem treatment of horse carcasses. As introduced above, our expectations for dog-scavenged equine assemblages originate in the findings of ethnographic and experimental observations of carnivore interactions with equine and other large mammal carcasses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eArchival and Archaeological Collections Research\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHistorical records documenting the provisioning of dogs with horse carcasses provided the impetus for this research, but a full exploration of this topic required a deep dive by McCague into related historical documents and period artwork. McCague conducted historical documentary research for the project, querying online repositories for documented cases of dog provisioning. McCague also conducted archival research at the National Sporting Library and Museum (NSLM), supported by a John H. Daniel\u0026rsquo;s Fellowship on equestrian history in the Mid-Atlantic. While reviewing books in the NSLM\u0026rsquo;s F. Ambrose Clark Rare Books Room, McCague found reference to the provisioning of dogs with horse carcasses in the New Sporting Magazine (\u003cem\u003eNew Sporting Magazine\u003c/em\u003e 1834).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccessing zooarchaeological datasets proved more challenging than the archival work. We first queried existing digital archaeological repositories, including the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), and the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) to identify pre-A.D.1850 sites from the Eastern Woodlands. We solicited data via the International Council for Archaeozoology\u0026rsquo;s listserv and sent emails to individual historical zooarchaeologists working in the greater Eastern Woodlands region. We also directly contacted academic institutions, museums, historic sites, and agencies known to curate large amounts of zooarchaeological data, including Colonial Williamsburg, and Jamestown Rediscovery. Many repositories were able to provide us with spreadsheets of primary data, which we standardized by column headings. Some zooarchaeological laboratories, including the Georgia Museum of Natural History, and the Florida Museum of Natural History, maintain paper records of zooarchaeological datasets, necessitating physical access to these institutions. McCague travelled to these institutions, searched through data cards for records of horse remains, and entered paper records into an Excel spreadsheet. Although we were most interested in carnivore gnawing, we gathered and preserved all related data on individual specimens, including species identification, element, element portion, fusion, butchering marks, gnaw marks, and other reported observations. This search yielded a large database of faunal remains from a diverse range of sites across the Eastern Seaboard, as well as in Louisiana and the Caribbean. The data included Spanish, French, and English terrestrial sites, plus one shipwreck. Most sites were associated with English colonialism. Because the documentary evidence for dog provisioning of horse carcasses comes from English sources, we limited the zooarchaeological data we include in the tables below to English-colonial terrestrial sites east of the Appalachian Mountains. A majority of these sites are from the Virginia colony and in and around the colonial metropole of Charleston (SC).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eZooarchaeological Methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll zooarchaeological assemblages discussed here were analyzed by highly qualified and experienced professional and academic archaeologists, or staff and students under their direction. It was not feasible within the scope of this project to reanalyze any of the equine remains, but we have a very high degree of confidence in the integrity of these data. We compiled all equine data from all sites into a single database, matching comparable data columns. All zooarchaeological analysts provided basic zooarchaeological primary data, including NISP (number of identifiable specimens), taxonomic identification, and identification of skeletal element, portion, side (left vs. right for paired elements), and modifications (gnaw marks and butchering marks). The existence of shared standards of analysis greatly facilitates comparison between sites and supports the reliability of regional datasets compiled from these site-level data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBecause NISP, or bone count, was the only quantitative index reported by all analysts, we rely primarily on this assay as a measure of the frequency of horse remains, and to quantify modifications on those remains. NISP is heavily influenced by taphonomic factors, particularly those affecting fragmentation. Although we cannot control for all the varying depositional contexts within and between sites, the use of NISP is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that we are studying only one large-bodied taxa and are comparing the relative representation of modifications on horse remains, rather than the representation of equids in comparison to other taxa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the purposes of assessing density-mediated attrition (below), we used the element portion recoveries reported in the datasets to derive a total MNI (minimum number of individuals) for the entire database. MNI is an estimate of the minimum number of individual animals represented in a given assemblage. MNI is calculated by determining the MNE (minimum number of elements), starting with the most numerous elements first. Ideally, MNEs should be calculated via visual inspection to identify overlaps between bone fragments. Without accessing the original specimens, we relied on the analysts written or coded descriptions of specimens to identify overlapping fragments that would indicate the presence of more than one individual. In our calculation of MNI, we considered lefts and rights, fusion (age), and any other characteristics that may distinguish one individual from those of another. MNI was used only in the derivation of expected frequencies, providing the standard for the observation of the proportional survivorship of skeletal portions. Because the use of MNI was limited to this purpose, we determined MNI for all assemblages in aggregate, treating the entire database as a single horse assemblage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDensity-Mediated Attrition\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs noted above, extensive carnivore gnawing will damage or destroy skeletal remains, often leaving only the most durable (densest) elements behind, a process referred to as density-mediated attrition. Model animal measurements of bone density can be used to test whether assemblages were subjected to density-mediated attrition, including carnivore gnawing. Bone density is measured using a technique called photondensitometry\u0026ndash;the same tool used to measure osteoporosis in humans. Domesticated horse bone density data are not yet available, but Lam et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) assayed bone density values for Przewalski\u0026rsquo;s horses (\u003cem\u003eEquus przewalskii\u003c/em\u003e) and zebra (\u003cem\u003eEquus zebra\u003c/em\u003e). These taxa are from the same genus as horses and donkeys. Prior research shows little variation in bone density within genera (Pavao and Stahl 1999), so we expect these data to be reliable. To explore the role of bone density in preservation, we converted archaeological element portion recoveries to scan sites as mapped by Lam et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) to the best of our ability based on the analyst\u0026rsquo;s description of portion recovery. Determining the number of scan sites is similar to the estimation of MNE, or the minimum number of elements. MNE is an estimate of the minimum number of individual skeletal elements (left humeri, right femora, etc.) represented in a given assemblage (Binford \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e:50\u0026ndash;51). Ideally, MNEs and scan site frequencies should be calculated via visual inspection to identify overlap between bone fragments. Without being able to access the original specimens, we relied on the analysts written or coded descriptions (ie: distal half, distal end) to identify overlapping fragments in order to estimate which scan sites were recovered in what frequencies. We then compared the recovery of scan sites in the assemblage with their respective bone mineral density values, using Pearson\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e to assess whether the representation of scan sites in the assemblage is correlated with estimates of bone mineral density across the entire assemblage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFood Utility and Skeletal Portion Recovery\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe also expect that carnivore gnaw marks will be more common on skeletal elements or element portions with the greatest amounts of meat, fat, and marrow. Outram and Rowley-Conwy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) used experimental archaeology to create food utility indices (FUI) for horses, butchering three horse carcasses to derive average values for meat and marrow utility. The authors also compared horse utility values to existing data for caribou, a similarly-sized animal (Metcalfe and Jones \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). There was little variation in utility values among the horse carcasses, but horse utility indices were significantly different from caribou. In caribou, smaller concentrations of meat are found along the axial plane, and horse long bones contain less marrow. Here, we employ Outram and Rowley-Conwy\u0026rsquo;s combined horse meat/marrow food utility indices to examine the relationship between carnivore gnawing and food utility in the archaeological record. As above in the discussion of scan sites, we used the written and/or coded descriptions of element portion recoveries to convert the data reported into the datasets into the units employed by Outram and Rowley-Conwy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eButchering Marks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs noted above, distinctive marks are often left behind as carcasses move through different stages of butchery. Blunt force marks such as chops and hacks are generally left behind in the first stage of butchery, during primary dismemberment. Axes, cleavers, knives, and other tools are often used to break large carcasses into more manageable portions. Hack or chop marks are characterized by asymmetrical V-shaped notches, where a chip of bone is driven from the surface by the tool. Fine cut marks, appearing as narrow slits in the bone surface, are often left behind when flesh is removed from bones, either before or after cooking. Cut marks are generally more carefully placed than hack marks and tend to cluster where muscles attach to bone. In all of the assemblages discussed here, hacks/chop marks were distinguished from cut marks by the original analysts. Although we did not re-examine these marks, we have high confidence that the data we received are accurate to these general categories of marks. Distinguishing and recording hack or chop marks vs. cut marks is standard zooarchaeological practice requiring minimal training. Butchering marks were reported by NISP, rather than by the number of individual marks on each specimen.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eChallenges\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePulling together data from disparate projects is not without its difficulties. Emily Jones (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) has written about the \u0026ldquo;promise and peril\u0026rdquo; of zooarchaeological meta-analyses of legacy collections. She and her colleagues identify several challenges involved in meta-analyses of zooarchaeological data, including 1) mechanical factors, such as analyst error, screen-size bias, and differential fragmentation; 2) chronological resolution; and 3) the diversity of site types. These challenges also apply to this project.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe feel confident in the identification of equine remains given that these collections were analyzed by well-trained zooarchaeologists and their students. However, identification conventions differ among analysts, regardless of training. In particular, the degree of detail provided regarding element portion recovery varies from analyst to analyst, as does the specificity in identifying the specific location of gnaw and cut marks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough we do not know the screen size used to recover all of these archaeological assemblages, most were excavated in the past 30 years, when the use of \u0026frac14;\u0026rdquo; screens was standard practice in North America. Screen size would be more of a concern if we were discussing small-bodied taxa, but horse remains, even in fragmentary form, are much less susceptible to screen size bias than fish or rodent remains. Fragmentation rates likely vary among sites, making it difficult to directly compare archaeological assemblages. Because we are considering these assemblages in aggregate, and avoiding direct comparisons, differential fragmentation rates are slightly less of a problem here.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven issues of chronological resolution, we do not attempt to track how these activities may have changed over time, and we limit our analysis to a roughly 200-year time span before industrialization (when rendering and transportation were substantially transformed). Although our database includes a diversity of site types, we believe that the most important variable here is the likelihood of access to knacker\u0026rsquo;s yards. We expect that only urban sites had access to centralized places for horse disposal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to the challenges of working with disparate datasets, we faced the complication that horse (\u003cem\u003eEquus caballus\u003c/em\u003e), donkey (\u003cem\u003eEquus asinus\u003c/em\u003e), and mule (\u003cem\u003eEquus asinus\u003c/em\u003e \u0026times; \u003cem\u003eEquus caballus\u003c/em\u003e) skeletons are notoriously difficult to distinguish from one another. Zooarchaeologists are often able to identify equine remains only to the inclusive taxonomic genus (\u003cem\u003eEquus\u003c/em\u003e), and there is some variation in analyst confidence in making these identifications. We acknowledge this limitation but do not believe this taxonomic ambiguity is problematic for this project. Horses generally outnumbered donkeys and mules on plantations, and although their uses varied in life, it is unlikely that the treatment of horses, donkeys, and mules after death differed in ways that would be meaningful to this research. Despite the challenges of taxonomic attribution and the other issues discussed above, meta-analyses can reveal broad-scale patterns in the zooarchaeological record, which, despite the above limitations, is our goal here.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur initial search for existing zooarchaeological datasets yielded horse remains from 136 sites in the Eastern Woodlands of North America, totalling 1,086 specimens. Removing data from Native American, Spanish, French, and Caribbean colonial sites, plus a shipwreck, left 69 sites remaining (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), with a total of 936 horse specimens from across the horse skeleton (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) Most of the remaining sites are pre-1850 collections from the Middle Atlantic and South, with a few sites from the Northern Woodlands. An initial survey of the compiled data confirms what zooarchaeologists already know from experience\u0026ndash;horse remains occur in very low frequencies in the vast majority of archaeological assemblages. Among the archaeological sites included in this analysis, a vast majority (75%) of the assemblages contain fewer than 10 equid specimens (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Only three sites contained 100 or more specimens. The largest assemblage of horse remains recovered from a single site is from Shields Tavern, in Williamsburg (VA), where 146 specimens were recovered in addition to a nearly complete horse skeleton and a horse limb. Although some smaller bones (such as podials and phalanges) were recovered intact, most specimens are fragmentary, yielding a modest aggregated MNI of 16. This number would be much higher (N\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;69) if MNI was calculated for each site individually; however, this step not necessary for this analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArchaeological sites with horse remains included in this analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSite Name\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban/Rural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquid NISP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14 Legare Street, Charleston, SC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnthony Hay House and Cabinetmakers Shop, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArchdale Hall, Charleston, SC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArmoury, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAshland Plantation, LA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAshland Sugar House, LA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBird-Houston Site, DE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoothe Site, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrush-Everard Site, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCalvert House, Annapolis, MD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCardon-Holton Site, DE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarter's Grove/Atkinson, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentral Artery (Cross Street Back Lot), Boston, MA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharleston Place, SC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClifts Plantation, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoffeehouse Site, Williamsburg, VA *\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompton site, Calvert County, MD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurles Neck, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCustis Garden, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDr. Gilmer, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrayton Hall, SC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrummond Plantation, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElmwood, LA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirehouse Site, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFort Frederica, GA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFort Johnson, Charleston, SC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGloucester VIMS, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrissell Hay, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHampton University Historic Site, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHatheway Site, CT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHermitage, Nashville, TN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeyward Washington, Charleston, SC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJames Fort, Jamestown, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJames Geddy House and Kitchen/Foundary, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJamestown, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJordan's Journey, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKingsmill Slave Quarter, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiddleburg Quarter, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiddleburg Village, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiles Brewton House, Charleston, SC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMonticello, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMontpelier, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoore Hoff Site, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNoxen Tenancy Site, DE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOld Harlem Plantation, LA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePalace Lands Quarter (Palace Farm), WIlliamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePalace Lands, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParting Ways, MA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePettus, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeyton Randolph House, Washington, D.C.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeyton Randolph Outbuildings, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePowder Magazine, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReed Farmstead, WV\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReverend Richard Buck Site, Jamestown, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRich Neck Plantation, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShields Tavern, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e146\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSite 44FX1965, Fairfax, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTelfair, GA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThomas Daniels Homestead Site, CT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eToombs House, GA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUtopia II \u0026amp; III, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVirginia Beach Site, Ferry Farm, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWalter Aston, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWilliamsburg Lodge Tazewell Wing, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWilltown (Stobo) Plantation, SC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWilton, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWray Site, Williamsburg, VA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e109\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTOTAL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e936\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e*Complete horse and complete hind limb counted as NISP\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1 (total NISP unavailable)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFrequency of Carnivore Gnawing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on ethnographic and experimental evidence, we expect that horse remains should exhibit evidence of gnawing by carnivores. This expectation is born out in the assemblages discussed here (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Carnivore gnawing was observed on approximately three percent of the equine specimens (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;27). Although only a small proportion of horse remains exhibit carnivore gnawing, carnivore marks on horse remains are more common than rodent gnaw marks. Less than 0.5% of horse specimens were gnawed by rodents (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3). Carnivore gnaw marks are found on elements from across the skeleton, but especially on the radius and the femur (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). Carnivore gnawing is also more prevalent on horse remains from rural sites than on horse remains in urban contexts (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of carnivore gnawed (CG) and rodent gnawed (RG) horse specimens in urban vs. rural sites (NISP= Number of Identified Specimens).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNISP total\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e510\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e419\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e929\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG NISP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%CG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRG NISP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%RG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLocation of Carnivore Gnawing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome patterning in the placement of carnivore gnaw marks was noted. Gnaw marks tend to cluster at the articular ends of long bones rather than the shafts, where dense cortical bone makes it much harder for carnassial teeth to penetrate. Carnivore gnaw marks were also frequently observed on irregular elements with thin cortical bone, including innominates, vertebrae, and sacrum. These observations are in keeping with the ethnographic and experimental observations of canine-scavenged equid carcasses discussed above (Wilson and Edwards \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e, D\u0026rsquo;Andrea and Gotthardt \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBone Mineral Density and Survivorship\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGnawing by carnivores is a density-mediated taphonomic process. Carnivore gnawing tends to destroy specimens with the lowest bone mineral density first, leaving behind denser (and therefore sturdier) specimens. This process is complicated by the fact that the least dense elements also tend to be associated with the highest food utility. As a result, we predict that if dogs were given access to horse carcasses for scavenging, the survivorship of skeletal element portions should correlate with bone mineral density. We compare Lam and colleagues\u0026rsquo; equine bone mineral density data with archaeological skeletal portion recoveries to assess the role of density-mediated attrition (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). In the accompanying graph, %Survivorship is standardized to a complete horse, using the Minimum Number of Individuals (calculated using the most frequent skeletal element portion in the assemblage considered in aggregate) as the standard for 100% Survivorship. Each data point represents a portion of an element that corresponds to a bone density scan site as established by Lam et al., or an average density value for a group of scan sites. Bone mineral density and %Survivorship are only weakly positively correlated (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .21), suggesting that the patterns in skeletal portion recovery are not fully explained by density-mediated attrition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCarnivore Gnawing and Food Utility\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf horse carcasses were used to provision dogs, we expect that carnivore gnaw marks will cluster on parts of the skeleton with the greatest amount of meat, fat, and marrow. Food utility indices derived by Outram and Rowley-Conwy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) indicate that horse carcasses have greater concentrations of meat along the axial plane than caribou but contain less marrow. When the locations of gnaw marks are mapped onto Outram and Rowley-Conwy\u0026rsquo;s food utility values, it is clear that carnivore gnawing is more common on carcass portions with higher food utility (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). The correlation between food utility values and gnaw mark location is statistically significant (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .72), and consistent with experimental and observational evidence for canine gnawing discussed above.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eButchering Mark Frequencies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf horse carcasses were fed to dogs, they were no doubt butchered into portable units first, using axes, knives, or cleavers, leaving behind blunt-force hack marks, particularly on meaty carcass portions. Cut marks are generally left behind when meat is removed from bone for consumption, which we would not expect to see in a context in which horse carcasses were expediently fed to dogs. If horse meat was fed to the dogs, the meat was probably not removed from bones following primary dismemberment. Once the carcass was butchered into portable chunks, we expect that these raw portions were given to the dogs, bones and all, a practice that is consistent with contemporary illustrations discussed above. Under these conditions, we expect that hack marks will outnumber cut marks on archaeological horse remains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eButchering marks in general were most common on the femur, radius, innominate, and tibia (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e). These are slightly meaty portions, but not always the meatiest. Hack marks are by far the most common butchering mark or other modification seen in the assemblages. Cut marks are much rarer. A total of 159 specimens (17.1%) exhibit hack marks, while only 15 (1.6%) were cut, including 10 that were also hacked. One additional specimen was butchered without any specific identification of mark type. Fifteen of the hacked, cut, and otherwise butchered specimens were also gnawed by carnivores. Some of the cut marks (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5) appear on metapodials and podials, possibly evidence that horses were processed for their hides. These cut marks are not consistent with the stripping of meat for consumption, for dogs or humans. As discussed above, horsehide was a useful raw material that we expect was harvested whenever possible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eComparison with Food Animals\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn our examination of the role of canines in the post-mortem treatment of horses, we cannot ignore the possibility that humans also consumed horses. Horse meat was consumed in some German and French communities, and possibly also in Delaware (Bedell \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). This practice, however, was probably not widespread. Horsemeat in general was somewhat taboo in historic period English and American households. Horses were not typically raised for meat, meaning that the animals were usually old, ill, or injured when they died naturally, or were euthanized. The meat from elderly or ill animals may not have been considered fit for human consumption. Meat from older animals can be tough, and home veterinary remedies used to treat infections, abscesses, and other ailments often involved substances that are toxic to humans.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe zooarchaeological record supports our hypothesis that human consumption of horse meat was infrequent. Less than one percent of the horse remains discussed here exhibit cut marks associated with the removal of meat for consumption. The lack of cut marks on horse remains suggests that horsemeat was not removed from the bones, as was typically done for the large-bodied animals consumed by humans.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplicit in our argument that horse carcasses were fed to dogs is the assumption that horses were treated differently after death than animals slaughtered for human consumption. One way of testing this assumption is to compare the post-mortem modification of horse remains with those of a known food animal of similar body size, such as cattle. Beef butchery involves slaughter, primary dismemberment, and the removal of meat from bone for human consumption, either before or after cooking. Even if horses were fed to dogs, we expect both horses and cattle to exhibit evidence of primary dismemberment, including chop and hack marks. Cut marks, left behind when meat tissue is removed from bones, should be more common on cattle than horse remains, however. If horse carcasses were intentionally fed to dogs, carnivore gnawing should be more common on horse remains than cattle, which were eaten first and foremost by humans. We do not, however, expect that cattle remains will exhibit \u003cem\u003eno\u003c/em\u003e evidence of carnivore gnawing, as dogs no doubt accessed beef bones in kitchen trash middens. Cattle bones were likely discarded only after most of the meat was stripped, making them less attractive to scavenging canines. Dogs likely spent less time working over pre-stripped cattle bones and therefore would have left fewer tooth marks behind. On the other hand, we expect rodent gnawing to appear in similar frequencies on cattle and horse bones, as rodents gnaw bones not for meat, but to hone their teeth (and, secondarily, for mineral absorption).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe low frequency of horse remains within individual archaeological sites makes comparing the frequency of carnivore gnawing and butchery marks on cattle and horse remains difficult. Drayton Hall yielded the largest assemblage of horse remains (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31) in the sites presented here. The cattle assemblage at Drayton Hall is moderate in size (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;128). Although the sample sizes are still very small, the results are suggestive (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). At Drayton Hall, less than 8% of cattle specimens exhibit carnivore gnawing, while over 20% of horse specimens were gnawed by carnivores. Further, evidence for primary butchery (hack and saw marks) was more common on horse remains than on cattle. Although by no means conclusive, these results do suggest that horse carcasses were more frequently gnawed by carnivores. And they suggest that Drayton Hall horses were butchered differently than cattle, with an emphasis on primary dismemberment rather than on the preparation of meat cuts for human consumption.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrayton Hall horse and cattle remains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaxon\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal NISP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarnivore-gnawed (#)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarnivore-gnawed (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary Butchery (#)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary Butchery (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBos\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1707\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e128\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEquus\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eUrban vs. Rural Sites\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs discussed above, the practice of feeding horse carcasses to dogs was probably more common on rural farms than on urban locales, where slaughterhouses, rendering plants, abattoirs, or knacker\u0026rsquo;s yards were available for the disposal of dead horses. To test this assumption, we separated urban from rural sites, while acknowledging that these categories are not as neat as this binary suggests. Although these sample sizes are small, the results are suggestive.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarnivore-gnawing is twice as common on horse remains from rural sites than from urban sites, suggesting that dogs had greater access to horse carcasses and parts in rural contexts (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). Even more interesting is the frequency of butchery marks. Butchery marks in general are more common on horse remains from rural contexts than from urban sites\u0026ndash;and this applies for both cut and hack marks, although cut marks are far less common within both site types compared to hack marks. These observations together indicate that the post-mortem treatment of horses differed between rural and urban sites. The higher frequency of both carnivore gnawing and butchery marks suggests that the practice of provisioning dogs with horse carcasses was, as expected, more common in rural communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumber of carnivore-gnawed and butchered horse specimens in urban vs. rural sites.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarnivore Gnawed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHacked\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCut\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll Butchered\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal NISP\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNISP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNISP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNISP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNISP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUrban\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e510\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRural\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e419\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e929\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e159\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e165\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eCoupled with documentary evidence, zooarchaeological patterns in gnawing, butchery marks, and skeletal portion recoveries of equine skeletons lend support for the idea that the bodies of horses were, at the ends of their lives, used to nourish another human companion: dogs. These patterns are not visible at the level of individual sites but are visible when equine data are studied in aggregate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarnivore gnawing, while certainly not ubiquitous, is present on horse remains on historic period horse remains from across the Eastern Woodlands region\u0026ndash;and it is more common than rodent gnawing. Carnivore marks tend to cluster on the meatiest portions of the carcasses, in keeping with ethnographic observations of canine-gnawed equid and other large mammal assemblages. The clustering of gnaw marks on elements with high food utility suggests that dogs accessed horse carcasses while the meat was fresh. Although high food utility elements tend to have lower bone density, the correlation between survivorship and bone density was only weakly positive.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePatterns in butchery marks are also compelling. Tool marks from primary dismemberment, such as hacks, chops, and saw marks, are more common on horse remains than cut marks, which are generally associated with stripping meat for consumption by humans. The differential representation of these marks suggests that horse carcasses were butchered into units that were easier for humans to maneuver, but that horse bones were not generally stripped of their meat. This is consistent with what would be expected if dogs were fed portions of horse carcasses after death or euthanasia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrayton Hall contained the largest, albeit still small, samples of horse and cattle remains, allowing some cautious comparison between horses and a similarly large animal exploited for human consumption. Differences in butchering marks and gnawing between cattle and horse remains at Drayton suggest that horses were treated very differently after death than cattle. At Drayton Hall, marks associated with primary dismemberment are more common on horse remains than cattle, suggesting that butchery of equines was focused on gross dismemberment, and not meat removal for human consumption. Further, carnivore gnawing is more common on horse remains at Drayton Hall than on cattle remains, suggesting that dogs had more opportunities to scavenge horse carcasses than cattle. This would be expected if horses were intentionally fed to dogs, while cattle were butchered for human consumption and discarded only after most of the meat was removed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison of urban and rural sites indicates that both horse butchery, and carnivore gnawing are more common in rural areas than urban sites. This pattern is as expected, given access in urban environments to centralized disposal sites for horse carcasses, including knacker\u0026rsquo;s yards.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eHad poor Squirt not survived his near miss with the dog kennels, entire lineages of prize-winning racehorses would have been lost. His survival changed the horse-racing industry for centuries. But, from an archaeological perspective, his narrow escape from oblivion is even more significant for what it tells us about the relationship between humans and two of our oldest and closest human companions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs tools of transportation, pack, and traction, domesticated horses transformed human societies. These valuable tools in life, however, become a liability in death\u0026mdash;a problem to be solved. How do you dispose of a dead horse? In aggregate, the zooarchaeological data presented here suggest that dogs were one solution to this problem, particularly at rural sites. Horses were dismembered into portable portions using axes and cleavers and fed to dogs while the meat was fresh. Dogs had ready and free access to these butchered carcasses, leaving plenty of tell-tale puncture and drag marks behind. As in ethnographic contexts, dogs no doubt removed as much meat from bone as they could, and then used their carnassial teeth to open bone cavities, targeting their efforts first on the least dense elements, which were also the meatiest\u0026ndash;explaining the slight over-representation of more dense (and less meaty) skeletal elements in the resulting archaeological assemblages. Given enough time, dogs are capable of crushing even large bones into small fragments, rendering them unidentifiable and, therefore, invisible in the zooarchaeological record.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research was carried out in the context of the historic period Eastern Woodlands of North America, but dog provisioning of carcasses is known from the documentary record elsewhere, and it is likely that this practice was common wherever domesticated equines, dogs, and humans coexisted. Horses and dogs are among our closest and most intimate companions. Dogs and horses fulfill overlapping and complementary roles in human societies across time and space, from pack and transportation, to hunting, labor, and companionship. For thousands of years, dogs, horses, and humans lived in close quarters, developing individual relationships based on proximity, trust, and cooperation. All three species are pro-social animals capable of forming lifelong bonds, and all three developed trusting relationships involving close physical contact. That horses were \u0026ldquo;led to the dog kennel\u0026rdquo; introduces a surprising new facet of these entangled relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith this contribution, we also sought an answer to the common zooarchaeological question, \u0026ldquo;where are all the dead horses?\u0026rdquo; This contribution does not entirely answer the question, but we believe we provide an additional, and unusual, explanation for this problem that has vexed zooarchaeologists for decades. Horses are no doubt rare in archaeological assemblages because they lived long lives in service of human transport, pack, and agriculture. Each horse also has only one opportunity to leave behind a skeleton, and only after 20\u0026ndash;30 years of life. Horses may also be rare because many likely died far from human habitation areas, such as in the field or on the road. Although ubiquitous, horses were outnumbered by domesticated food animals on most farms and plantations. Further, if horse meat is taboo for human consumption, horse remains are unlikely to be found amidst regular household refuse. All of these explanations contribute to the paucity of horse remains from archaeological sites\u0026mdash;here, we propose that dog provisioning is another contributing factor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis analysis also demonstrates the power of zooarchaeological \u0026ldquo;big\u0026rdquo; data, bringing together collections from multiple sites across a large region to observe patterns that are invisible at the level of the individual site. This type of research is only possible thanks to decades of zooarchaeological research by scholars from across the Eastern Woodlands, as well as the willingness of data repositories to share their data. This project, perhaps above all, is a testament to the increased capacity for zooarchaeological research in the United States and around the world, thanks to many decades of research funded in large part by federal and state funding. These discoveries enrich our understanding of the human past and present, and we can only hope that such work can continue in the future.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by a Faculty-Student Research Award from the University of Maryland\u0026rsquo;s Graduate School (awarded to Pav\u0026atilde;o-Zuckerman and McCague) and by a John H. Daniel\u0026rsquo;s Fellowship from the National Sporting Library and Museum (awarded to McCague). Both authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMcCague carried out data collection from repositories, including travel to the University of Georgia and the University of Florida, and carried out archival research at the National Sporting Library and Museum in Middleburg, Virginia. McCague located archival and visual sources, and completed most of the background research for the article. McCague transcribed and formatted legacy datasets into a standardized database. McCague completed initial quantification of data. Pavao-Zuckerman completed secondary analyses of the zooarchaeological remains, including the calculation of MNI, and MNE, and studies of density-mediated attrition/survivorship and food utility (including statistical analysis). Pavao-Zuckerman drafted Figure 5 (based on an earlier version created by McCague) and all other data figures, and drafted all manuscript tables. Pavao-Zuckerman derived the model for canine provisioning based on published ethnographic and experimental data. Pavao-Zuckerman prepared the final manuscript for submission. The authors shared manuscript writing duties, with McCague taking the lead on problem orientation and background, and Pavao-Zuckerman taking the lead on methods, results, and interpretation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by a Faculty-Student Research Award provided to McCague and Pav\u0026atilde;o-Zuckerman by the University of Maryland\u0026rsquo;s Graduate School, and a John H. Daniel\u0026rsquo;s Fellowship awarded to McCague by the National Sporting Library and Museum. We are grateful to the many labs, repositories, and zooarchaeologists who generously shared data for this research, including the Zooarchaeology Laboratory at the Georgia Museum of Natural History, University of Georgia (Elizabeth J. Reitz); the Environmental Archaeology Department at the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida (Nicole Cannarozzi); the Colonial Williamsburg Archaeology Department (Joanne Bowen and Sean Devlin); Jamestown Rediscovery (Leah Striker, Emma Derry, and Janene Johnston); tDAR (the Digital Archeological Record); DAACS (Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery); and the ICAZ (International Council for Archaeozoology) listserv. Many thanks to Mark Maltby and Betsy Reitz for their assistance in tracking down original reports. The authors are also grateful to Kristen Hickey for drafting Figure 4, and to Evelyn Pavao-Zuckerman for assistance with data transcription.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe aggregated data used in this publication will be placed on tDAR, the Digital Archaeological Record, pending permission of repositories.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlbarella, U. and Davis, S. J. M. (1996 for 1994) Mammals and birds from Launceston Castle, Cornwall: Decline in status and the rise of agriculture. \u003cem\u003eCircaea\u003c/em\u003e 12(1):1\u0026ndash;156.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlbizuri, S. et al. (2019) Equid use and provision during the Early Iron Age in Can Roqueta (NE Iberian Peninsula). Zooarchaeological study and first strontium isotope result (87Sr/86Sr). \u003cem\u003eJournal of Archaeological Science: Reports\u003c/em\u003e 26:101907. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101907\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101907\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmeen, C. et al. (2021) Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Medieval Warhorse. \u003cem\u003eCheiron: The International Journal of Equine and Equestrian History\u003c/em\u003e 1(1):100\u0026ndash;119.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.22618/TP.Cheiron.20211.1.233005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.22618/TP.Cheiron.20211.1.233005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBedell, John (2000) Archaeology and Probate Inventories in the Study of Eighteenth-Century Life. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Interdisciplinary History\u003c/em\u003e 31(2):223\u0026ndash;245.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBinford, L. R. (1984) \u003cem\u003eFaunal remains from Klasies River Mouth\u003c/em\u003e. Academic Press, New York.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlakley, C. M. (2025) Historicizing the \u0026ldquo;Beast-Man\u0026rdquo; On Slavery and Human-Animal Studies. \u003cem\u003eAnimal History\u003c/em\u003e 1(1) 33\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlumenschine, R. J., Marean, C. W., and Capaldo, S. D. (1996) Blind Tests of Inter-analyst Correspondence and Accuracy in the Identification of Cut Marks, Percussion Marks, and Carnivore Tooth Marks on Bone Surfaces. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Archaeological Science\u003c/em\u003e 23(4):493\u0026ndash;507. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1996.0047\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1006/jasc.1996.0047\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCollin, Yvette Running Horse (2017) The relationship between the indigenous peoples of the Americas and the horse: Deconstructing a eurocentric myth. (Doctoral Dissertation). Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Fairbanks.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD\u0026rsquo;Andrea, A. C. and Gotthardt, R. M. (1984) Predator and Scavenger Modifications of Recent Equid Skeletal Assemblages. \u003cem\u003eArctic\u003c/em\u003e 37(3):276\u0026ndash;283.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDietmeier, J (2017) Beyond The Butcher's Block: The Animal Landscapes of Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Lowcountry Plantations. (Doctoral Dissertation). College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFitzgerald, A. (2010) A Social History of the Slaughterhouse: From Inception to Contemporary Implications. \u003cem\u003eResearch in Human Ecology\u003c/em\u003e 17(1):58\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrant, Annie (1979) The Animal Bones. In, Excavations in Bedford 1967\u0026ndash;1977, by David Baker, Evelyn Baker, Jane Hassall, and Angela Simco. \u003cem\u003eBedfordshire Archaeological Journal\u003c/em\u003e 13:103\u0026ndash;107.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreer, Matthew (2016) Contextualizing Canine, a Dog Burial, and Enslaved Life on a Virginia Plantation.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eJournal of African Diaspora Archaeology \u0026amp; Heritage\u003c/em\u003e 5(3):223\u0026ndash;244.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHunting, W. (1898) \u003cem\u003eThe art of horse-shoeing: a manual for farriers\u003c/em\u003e. W.R. Jenkins, New York.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJaworski, Krzysztof and Aleksandra Pankiewicz, Aleksander Chroszcz and Dominik Poradowski (2020) Different Approach to Horses \u0026ndash; The Use of Equid Remains in the Early Middle Ages on the Example of Ostrow Tumski in Wroclaw. Animals (Basel) 10(12)1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJefferson, Thomas (1808) \u0026ldquo;From Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Bacon, 26 December 1808,\u0026rdquo; Founders Online, National Archives, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-9403\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-9403\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones, Emily Lena (2018) Coming to Terms with Imperfection: Comparative Studies and the Search for Grazing Impacts in Seventeenth Century New Mexico. In Giovas, C. and LeFebvre, M. (eds.), \u003cem\u003eZooarchaeology in Practice: Case Studies in Methodology and Interpretation in Archaeofaunal Analysi\u003c/em\u003e, Springer International Publishing, New York, pp. 251\u0026ndash;268. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64763-0_13\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-64763-0_13\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones, Emily Lena and Caroline Gabe (2015) The Promise and Peril of Older Collections: Meta-Analyses and the Zooarchaeology of Late Prehistoric/Early Historic New Mexico, \u003cem\u003eOpen Quaternary\u003c/em\u003e 1(6):1\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKent, S. (1981) The Dog: An Archaeologist's Best Friend or Worst Enemy- the Spatial Distribution of Faunal Remains. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Field Archaeology\u003c/em\u003e 8(3):367\u0026ndash;372.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoricheva, J. and Gurevitch, J. (2014) Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant ecology. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ecology\u003c/em\u003e 102:828\u0026ndash;844. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12224\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1365-2745.12224\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLam, Y.M., Chen, X., Pearson, O.M. (1999) Intertaxonomic Variability in Patterns of Bone Density and the Differential Representation of Bovid, Cervid, and Equid Elements in the Archaeological Record. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Antiquity\u003c/em\u003e 64(2):343\u0026ndash;362.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLyman, R. L. (1994) \u003cem\u003eVertebrate Taphonomy\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press, NY.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaltby, M. (1983) The animal bones. In, C.M. Heighway \u003cem\u003eThe East and North Gate of Gloucester\u003c/em\u003e. Bristol: Western Archaeological Trust Excavation Monograph 4: 228\u0026ndash;245.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcClure, R. and E. Harvey (1871) \u003cem\u003eEvery Horse Owner's Cyclopedia\u003c/em\u003e. Porter \u0026amp; Coates, Philadelphia, PA.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcShane, C. and Tarr, J. A. (2007) \u003cem\u003eThe Horse in the City: Living Machines in the Nineteenth Century\u003c/em\u003e. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMetcalfe, D., and Jones, K. T. (1988) A Reconsideration of Animal Body-Part Utility Indices. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Antiquity\u003c/em\u003e 53(3):486\u0026ndash;504. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/281213\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/281213\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMunson, P. J. and Garniewicz, R. C. (2003) Age-mediated Survivorship of Ungulate Mandibles and Teeth in Canid-ravaged Faunal Assemblages. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Archaeological Science\u003c/em\u003e 30(4):405\u0026ndash;416, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2002.0850\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1006/jasc.2002.0850\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeusius S.W., et al. (2019) Zooarchaeological Database Preservation, Multiscalar Data Integration, and the Collaboration of the Eastern Archaic Faunal Working Group. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Archaeological Practice\u003c/em\u003e 7(4):409\u0026ndash;422. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1017/aap.2019.33\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/aap.2019.33\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNew Sporting Magazine. \u0026ldquo;Wasp, Child \u0026amp; Billy.\u0026rdquo; Vol. 8, no. 44 (December 1834). Illustration inserted between pp. 138\u0026ndash;139. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433066623475\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://hdl.handle.net/2027/nyp.33433066623475\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOutram, A., and Rowley-Conwy, P. (1998) Meat and marrow utility indices for horse (Equus). \u003cem\u003eJournal of Archaeological Science\u003c/em\u003e 25(9):839\u0026ndash;849.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParry, Tyler D. and Charlton W Yingling (2020) Slave Hounds and Abolition in the Americas. \u003cem\u003ePast \u0026amp; Present\u003c/em\u003e 246(1):69\u0026ndash;108.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePav\u0026atilde;o-Zuckerman, B. et al. (2020) African American Culinary History and the Genesis of American Cuisine: Foodways and Slavery at Montpelier. \u003cem\u003eJournal of African Diaspora Archaeology and Heritage\u003c/em\u003e 9(2):114\u0026ndash;147.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePav\u0026atilde;o, B., \u0026amp; Stahl, P. W. (1999) Structural Density Assays of Leporid Skeletal Elements with Implications for Taphonomic, Actualistic and Archaeological Research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Archaeological Science\u003c/em\u003e 26(1):53\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePavao-Zuckerman, B. (2007) Deerskins and Domesticates: Creek Subsistence and Economic Strategies in the Historic Period. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Antiquity\u003c/em\u003e 72(1):5\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRivers-Cofield, S. (2008) A Preliminary Study Of 17th- And 18th-Century Leather Ornaments From Maryland. \u003cem\u003eMaryland Archeology\u003c/em\u003e, Volume 44(2):12\u0026ndash;27.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRivers-Cofield, S. (2011) A Guide to Spurs of Maryland and Delaware ca. 1635\u0026ndash;1820. \u003cem\u003eNortheast Historical Archaeology\u003c/em\u003e 40(3):43\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRivers-Cofield, S. (2023) Analysis of Equestrian Artifacts and an Early 18th Century Stable at the Smith\u0026rsquo;s St. Leonard Plantation. Conference paper presented at the Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Conference.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaunton, T. (1887) \u003cem\u003ePortraits of Celebrated Racehorses of the Past and Present Centuries\u003c/em\u003e. Sampson Low, Marston, Searle \u0026amp; Rivington, London.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor, W.T.T. et al. (2021) Interdisciplinary Analysis of the Lehi Horse: Implications for Early Historic Horse Cultures of the North American West. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Antiquity\u003c/em\u003e 86(3):465\u0026ndash;485.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor, W.T.T. et al. (2023) Early dispersal of domestic horses into the Great Plains and northern Rockies. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e 379(6639):1316\u0026ndash;1323.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor, William T. (2024) \u003cem\u003eHoof Beats: How Horses Shaped Human History\u003c/em\u003e. University of California Press, Oakland.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThomas, Richard and Martin Lacock (2000) Food for the Dogs? The consumption of horseflesh at Dudley Castle in the eighteenth century. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Archaeology\u003c/em\u003e 5(1):83\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWashington, George (1792) \u0026ldquo;George Washington to Anthony Whitting, 16 December 1792,\u0026rdquo; Founders Online, National Archives, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-11-02-0315\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-11-02-0315\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilson, Bob and Peter Edwards (1993) Butchery of horse and dog at Witney Palace, Oxfordshire, and the knackering and feeding of meat to hounds during the post-medieval period. \u003cem\u003ePost-Medieval Archaeology\u003c/em\u003e 27:43\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYravedra, J., Lagos, L., \u0026amp; B\u0026aacute;rcena, F. (2011) A taphonomic study of wild wolf (\u003cem\u003eCanis lupus\u003c/em\u003e) modification of horse bones in Northwestern Spain. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Taphonomy\u003c/em\u003e 9(1):37\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Fossil evidence indicates that horses (\u003cem\u003eEquus\u003c/em\u003e) evolved in North America in the Pliocene and went extinct in the late Pleistocene/early Holocene (although see Collin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The evolution, taxonomy, and distribution of \u003cem\u003eEquus\u003c/em\u003e is still being debated by paleontologists, geneticists, and archaeologists. It is not yet clear which species were present in North America during the Pleistocene, and how they may or may not be related to domesticated horses. There is also disagreement on how to classify domesticated horses. We follow the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (itis.gov), which uses \u003cem\u003eEquus caballus\u003c/em\u003e, but other scholars favor classifying domestic horses as a subspecies of wild horse: \u003cem\u003eEquus ferus caballus.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e This has been supported by a personal communication on the prevalence of horses being fed to dogs in English historical records amongst equine history scholars.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e This is supported by a personal communication that was notably made anonymously to protect those who still feed horse meat to foxhunting hounds in an off the cuff and off the record anecdote.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"journal-of-archaeological-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Journal of Archaeological Research](https://link.springer.com/journal/10814)","snPcode":"10814","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/10814/3","title":"Journal of Archaeological Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"horses, dogs, provisioning, zooarchaeology, North America, multispecies","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9383036/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9383036/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSkeletal remains of domesticated horses are surprisingly rare in archaeological assemblages around the world, even when documentary or other evidence suggest they should be present. In North America, horses are nearly ubiquitous in the written record from the past few hundred years, but their remains are notoriously thin in zooarchaeological assemblages. Archaeologists generally attribute the absence of horse remains in recent archaeological contexts to their primary utility as work animals rather than for meat. A survey of horse remains from historic period sites in the Eastern Woodlands, however, suggests another more unusual explanation for their scarcity. Archival and visual materials from the 18th and 19th century provide tantalizing clues that dead horses were used to feed another ubiquitous human companion: domestic dogs. A regional meta-study of archaeological horse remains from 69 sites in the North American Eastern Woodlands provides surprising physical evidence for the provisioning of dogs with horse carcasses. Carnivore-gnawing is more common than expected in horse assemblages, as are butchery marks associated with primary dismemberment. These results are consistent with ethnoarchaeological and experimental studies of canine scavenging and are not consistent with the post-mortem treatment of cattle\u0026ndash;a human food animal of similar size. Dogs are notorious taphonomic agents, capable of completely destroying bones, or rendering them unidentifiable. Taken together, the documentary and zooarchaeological records suggest that dog provisioning likely also contributes to the lack of horse remains in archaeological sites in North America and elsewhere.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"“Led to the dog kennels”: The search for historic equines in the zooarchaeological record","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-18 06:15:59","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9383036/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"57115560962105227877932779570588657329","date":"2026-05-12T15:34:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-10T17:31:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"95333066963589699284722204900589996767","date":"2026-05-07T18:48:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-05-07T15:19:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-15T11:43:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-13T13:22:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Journal of Archaeological Research","date":"2026-04-10T20:54:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"journal-of-archaeological-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Journal of Archaeological Research](https://link.springer.com/journal/10814)","snPcode":"10814","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/10814/3","title":"Journal of Archaeological Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3b053ce5-d103-431d-a5ca-35b1b790a87e","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"57115560962105227877932779570588657329","date":"2026-05-12T15:34:05+00:00","index":12,"fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-10T17:31:34+00:00","index":11,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"95333066963589699284722204900589996767","date":"2026-05-07T18:48:21+00:00","index":9,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"5","date":"2026-05-07T15:19:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T06:16:00+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-18 06:15:59","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9383036","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9383036","identity":"rs-9383036","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}