 Okay, so good morning, and thank you for being here. My name is Emily Hull. I'm from the University of Alberta in Canada. And my presentation today will continue on the theme of previous presentations, a reindeer-themed morning. And I will be covering some of my in-progress research on pathological and osteological differences, both large and small, between ecotypes of Ranga for Turandus. Establishing a baseline that exists in wild animals so that we can look at anomalies that happen in domestic or managed animals. To begin with, I would like to acknowledge my collaborators and co-authors, as well as the experts who have selflessly and generously given their time, energy and expertise in helping me learn. And especially to who are in this room right now, who have been so fundamental to my experience. And I would also like to thank the staff at L'Opital d'Artois for allowing me to CT scan a caribou in the middle of the night. And also Charlie in Geneva, who gave me free time in his internet cafe after my laptop died and without whom I would literally not have a presentation to give you today. For reference, I am coming from a theoretical background of animal agency-based backgrounds with a focus on human-emotional relationships. As my research is focused on differences between ecotypes of reindeer and caribou, it's important to give some background on the species of rengaphorterandis and what the ecotypes of the species are and why they matter in the archeological record. Rengaphorterandis, who are colloquially known as caribou in North America and reindeer in Europe and Asia, are a circumpolar and a circumporial species with innumerable and often debated subspecies, but with three globally occurring ecotypes which, despite the vast differences between them, share similarities in size, behavior, herd composition and habitat. As we currently understand it, these ecotypes formed through parallel evolution as groups of reindeer and caribou underwent ecological niche adaptation into woodland or forest which is the largest ecotype, tundra or beringron ecotypes and arctic ecotypes in arctic environments. My research focuses primarily on the differences between tundra and forest ecotypes as these have had the most historical interactions with humans. Skittish forest reindeer are larger, they live in smaller herds, generally, and in more forested, often mountainous terrain. They have been hunted by peoples in North America and it's been again yet for thousands of years. Tundra reindeer have also been hunted, but their relationship with humans is more complex. And it's important to note that these ecotypes overlap in size and are difficult to differentiate in archeological assemblages. Tundra reindeer tend to live in much larger herd groups. They migrate further distances in general and live on the tundra and beringround areas of the North. While no caribou have ever been domesticated in North America, ancient and modern peoples of Europe, Asia, and North America followed the migratory routes of tundra herds, often influencing these migratory routes for their own purposes. In the Yukon and Alaska, caribou fences were used to funnel and corral herds of beringround caribou and in Philadelphia herding, as we have heard, eventually led to pastoralism and domestication. And it's important to note that all domestic reindeer in Philadelphia are tundra ecotypes. Forest ecotypes have never been domesticated or herded in either North America or Finland, Scandinavia. So it's a pretty big difference. So these ecotypes are distinguishable in life from one another and have different relationships with humans. So what's the archeological issue? Unfortunately, archeologically identifying these ecotypes is actually kind of challenging. Reindeer, first of all, don't show a lot of the traditional markers of domestication that we see in other domestic animals such as cattle, goats, and sheep. Reindeer, I just said that. And even though forest ecotypes are generally larger than tundra ecotypes, as I said before, there are these overlapping sides. This difficulty is compounded by the manner in which we typically find reindeer remains, which is in commingled multi-individual assemblages of processed bone. This makes it hard to determine if a fragmented bone belongs to a butchered domestic tundra deer or a hunted forest deer, or if the assemblage is a combination of both. Reindeer are also usually processed for secondary by-products such as antler, which is distinctive between subspecies and complicates this matter further. Additionally, as landscapes change, we can't depend on modern locality to determine the ecotypes of historical reindeer. Forests move, humans move, humans move animals, animals move humans, and animals move themselves. So despite these difficulties, ecotypes have much to offer us in zoarchaeology. First, they give us clues to what relationships a group of people were having with reindeer or caribou using animal behavioral patterns to help understand or clarify human ones. Secondly, in an era of climate change, ecotypes can give us an insight into regional paleoecology. And thirdly, and I think most importantly, studying ancient animals is a reward in and of itself as we gain insight into the personal lives of individual non-human persons, her dynamics, migration patterns, and the health and welfare and how these have changed over time. So how do we counter the issues of ecotype identifications of archaeology? So the research I'm presenting today is in two areas. Differences in rates and types of trauma and differences in habitual activity as seen through emphysial changes of the phalanges, which seems to be a theme in this session. With pathology, as is seen in study of South American camelids, animals are in different environments are subject to different injuries. For example, a forest reindeer walking down a rocky slope is more likely to injure a hoof or a light than a tundra reindeer walking on a flat, bare and ground area. Humans also influence these patterns. Humans preserve and are often protective of animals, but humans are also quick to kill injured men of our compromise. As for habitual activity, this study focuses on reindeer hooves and as was mentioned by Dr. Ninomaki. It is taking inspiration for earlier studies by doctors, saw me and Ninomaki, on reindeer engaged in different activities, as well as again, taking inspiration from studies of pathological lesions in South American camelid feet. So first, pathology. So the pathological sample, first of all, these are from the Zoological Museum at the University of Olu. There were both domestic reindeer and torrentous torrents, which is a tundra ecotype, while the reindeer and torrentous finicus, which is a forest ecotype. They're all modern individuals. We assess 131 adult individuals, both sexes, but only ended up analyzing 101 adult sample feet who have the most clear data for sex, for being an ecotype. Additionally, I've analyzed all of the available complete or mostly complete caribou skeletons of the Canadian Museum of Nature. These cover wild individuals of all three ecotypes and are supplemented with additional caribou housed at Washington State University. Versaity, however, the rubric used on the finished sample has not yet been applied to these. So the finished samples were assessed with a focus on major traumatic injury, but all pathologies were noted just for comparison. The rubric for a preliminary set number divided into five groups. First was ambiguous. These included samples where taphonomy or potential postmortem damage made assessment inconclusive. Nope, pathology included individuals who were completely healthy. Minor pathology were small pathological lesions, minor osteoarthritis, and other age-related conditions. These were noted, but were not going to be the focus of further assessment as other people have worked on these much better than I ever could. So my focus was on the major pathology and injury, which included broken bones or limbs, fusion of these broken bones or limbs, major sites of infection or deformation. And the last section is trauma and cause of death. This was where the trauma was paramortem enlisted as the direct cause of death. While many of these were vehicular accidents, some were dramatic and almost Shakespearean. One unfortunate forest ranger's cause of death was listed as, quote, starvation, comma, fell off of a cliff, comma, eaten by a beast. When you remove the ambiguous and fatal injury data, the pattern becomes even more clear in the major pathology of forest ranger at the major pathology of tundra ranger. The pattern becomes very clear that forest ecotypes are experiencing much greater rates of major trauma, primarily limb breakage. While the more minor age-related pathologies appear consistent, the levels of trauma are so extreme that we can anticipate that major skeletal pathology is a major factor in the lives of woodland ranger. Most of these injuries are of long-term duration and occur either in the long bones of the hind limbs, the phalanges, or both. Fracture with evidence of healing and long-term use is common. While this data does compare modern populations and may be influenced by animal husbandry of domestic ranger, initial findings from the wild Canadian sample appear to show the same pattern with barren ground and arctic animals experiencing less gross trauma than their woodland cousins. They are more likely, however, to have a cause of death listed simply with two words, polar bear. After completing the analysis of the North American samples according to the screw break, my research plans to analyze the gross trauma by type and atomical location in a new jury duration. I also plan to analyze if the prevalence of major pathologies according to sex. So the implications of this. So the associations of certain pathologies with specific ecotypes can help us have a, not definitively define an ecotype in an archeological assemblage, but the percentage of the long-term trauma may give us a clue as to what percentage in the assemblage is a forest reindeer, especially with the great divide in pathologies between the forest and kind of reindeer. And this in turn can give us information about ecology, migration, human hunting and animal husbandry practices. So next, embecile changes. So this research is on change in the phalangellium theses as inspired by and done in collaboration with Dr. Salmi Aninamaki, whose work on reindeer and theses, Sirva just talked a bit about and is primary and fundamental to this book. So as we've sort of established what an theses is, this study aims to establish a baseline difference in the minute connections of reindeer totes as different terrain movement and forging activity may result in an increased development of different sites. To this point, we have undertaken data collection stages of this research and scored our entire finished sample. So that included initial identification of sites of the theses, cross-checking these sites with the deception, development of an identification matrix to identify thoracic versus pelvic phalanges and establishment of an ordinal scoring system and then scoring the entire sample. Well, further analysis remains initial findings do support that there are differences in some in theses in certain sites, according to ecotype, but we need to dig deeper into this information to find out exactly what that means. So the future plans are a potential addition of North American materials just to counter that domestic wild division. Just looking at sex and ecotype, adding working animals and again looking at animal size for comparison. So why phalanges? The phalanges are important bones in zoarchaeology of reindeer because first they're often recovered intact from site as they have little soft tissue to entice the omnivores like humans or parmivores like dogs. Their hooves are used differently in different terrains and hooves are used in forging and thus used differently by foddered and unboddered animals. And determination of habitual hoof activities can help archaeologists distinguish between ecotypes as well as wild and domestic animals. So thank you kindly for your attention if we have time, maybe some questions, but again, thank you very much.