Horse/Donkey skull id

[Darko]

Hello !

What a wonderful day ! I went today with my dog Lea to Great Morava river to try to find maybe some pleistocene fossils cause i haven't found any before and what a luck! I found a horse skull, at first i thought that it's not fossilized but i was wrong cause it is !

Now the question is : Can anyone help me to identify this specie cause it's obviously from pleistocene period. I found it in Great Morava river (Paraćin).

My first ever pleistocene fossil that i've found! 

pics are bellow

enjoy!

Darko

[Uncle Siphuncle]

Nice skull.  Can you tell us what made you conclude it was fossilized?  i would expect it to be packed with mud and gravel if fossilized, otherwise the thin sections would have little support over the eons.

[Darko]

16 minutes ago, Uncle Siphuncle said:

Nice skull.  Can you tell us what made you conclude it was fossilized?  i would expect it to be packed with mud and gravel if fossilized, otherwise the thin sections would have little support over the eons.

First because od the color, it doesn't have to be packed with the mud to be fossilized.. The color tells that it was long time in the mud, second as many people have found similar stuff in the Danube river, it has that same color. Also when i put a water on the skull it dries so fast. Third i asked one Serbian paleontologist and he confirmed that belongs to a Horse from pleistocene period.

The Danube and Morava river fossils have similar colors.  And yes, i have also a mammoth lower jaw from a Danube river which is fossilized and at first you'll never say that is fossilized cause it's very light and with yellow color.

[caldigger]

3 minutes ago, Darko said:

i asked one Serbian paleontologist and he confirmed that belongs to a Horse from pleistocene period.

So if you did this, wouldn't your local paleontologist have been your best bet for an ID?

[Darko]

4 minutes ago, caldigger said:

So if you did this, wouldn't your local paleontologist have been your best bet for an ID?

He says Horse/Donkey at first. That's all.

[caldigger]

It looks like Lea wants to help by giving it a taste test.

[Darko]

43 minutes ago, caldigger said:

It looks like Lea wants to help by giving it a taste test.

Haha correct

[Uncle Siphuncle]

I agree that local knowledge regarding preservation of Pleistocene bones from the same vicinity can be very insightful, since Pleistocene preservation can be highly variable based on exogenous mineralogy. 

 

I've collected places where the horse and bison bones and teeth are light in weight and color, making me doubt age. Then I've found mammoth teeth and a tapir jaw nearby, with the same preservation, making me wonder if it was a mistake to throw back some of the horse and bison stuff on prior hunts.  Now I keep a lot more of the horse and bison stuff.

 

As a general rule, the youngest Pleistocene bones will often look the most modern, as you might expect since time and mineral leaching have not interacted with the specimen as long.  The Irvingtonian and Blancan bones and teeth I've found have caused much less confusion, as they are often more mineralized and/or have adhering sandstone or pebble conglomerate matrix. 

 

I've also noticed that Pleistocene skulls found in stream deposits often have small gravel packed into many available canals such as ears, blood vessels, etc.  Also, over time hollow bones such as jaws etc. become filled with sand.  More recent skulls are less likely to demonstrate this presentation.

 

Do you have other photos of delicate bones and/or skulls to show us from the same locality, either found by you or others?  Most of us don't have the benefit of examining multiple specimens of your local Pleistocene preservation, putting us at a disadvantage when trying to ascertain age.  

[Darko]

14 minutes ago, Uncle Siphuncle said:

I agree that local knowledge regarding preservation of Pleistocene bones from the same vicinity can be very insightful, since Pleistocene preservation can be highly variable based on exogenous mineralogy. 

 

I've collected places where the horse and bison bones and teeth are light in weight and color, making me doubt age. Then I've found mammoth teeth and a tapir jaw nearby, with the same preservation, making me wonder if it was a mistake to throw back some of the horse and bison stuff on prior hunts.  Now I keep a lot more of the horse and bison stuff.

 

As a general rule, the youngest Pleistocene bones will often look the most modern, as you might expect since time and mineral leaching have not interacted with the specimen as long.  The Irvingtonian and Blancan bones and teeth I've found have caused much less confusion, as they are often more mineralized and/or have adhering sandstone or pebble conglomerate matrix. 

 

I've also noticed that Pleistocene skulls found in stream deposits often have small gravel packed into many available canals such as ears, blood vessels, etc.  Also, over time hollow bones such as jaws etc. become filled with sand.  More recent skulls are less likely to demonstrate this presentation.

 

Do you have other photos of delicate bones and/or skulls to show us from the same locality, either found by you or others?  Most of us don't have the benefit of examining multiple specimens of your local Pleistocene preservation, putting us at a disadvantage when trying to ascertain age.  

Unfortunately not cause this was my first time. Tomorrow i am going again and people who work in the facility nearby where they are getting the sand from the Great Morava river told me that there is even more stuff to find. So i'm looking forward to it! The tiny holes in the skull are full with tiny rocks and sand as well, i saw it today.

If i find something tomorrow i will let you know

Thanks!