This week I’m going to give you something to identify from an archaeological excavation near Coulsdon in Surrey. It was associated with human remains and some clay pipes that suggest an approximate date between 1600-1850AD. Any idea what this section of mandible belonged to?
After getting the scale wrong last week I have made sure that there are scale bars in the image this time!
As usual you can put your questions, observations and suggestions in the comments section below and I’ll do my best to respond. Good luck!
Zygoma 
The teeth look doggy or foxy but the jaw is a funny shape. I don’t think this animal had strong jaws but it ate meat.
PS. Can anyone help me with this very strange rock ?
http://jakes-bones.blogspot.com/2011/04/does-anyone-know-what-this-is.html
I changed my mind. The holes where the root canal means it isn’t very long and the bit chopped off wasn’t very big. It looks a bit catty now but I think the back molar is a different shape.
But cats only have three cheek teeth so it isn’t a cat.
You just went through all the things that I considered when I found it.
By the way, I love the ‘strange rock’!
It’s the jawbone of Charles Darwin as a young man …
As far as location goes that’s pretty reasonable, but I’d be interested in seeing the sequence of events to enable that particular bit of preservation!
Thoroughly disappointed the #FMO on 1/4/11 was serious!
Would this be an animal extinct in the UK (probably, bar rumoured escapees?), but on the list of contenders for reintroduction?
It’s not extinct in the UK.
Hmmm. Pine Marten?
Looks distinctly foxy to me
It does look a bit foxy, but it’s rather small, the angular process (the bit sticking out at the bottom of the back of the jaw, just under the articulation point) is the wrong shape and the coronoid process is narrower and at a slightly different angle. The jaw is also a bit narrower.
maybe this is an otter, then?
Badger. Meles meles. Or even Meles meles meles. But meles to its friends.
Close, but no cigar.
Ferret ?
This is what I thought for a while, but it didn’t quite fit with specimens I compared it to.
I reckon it’s an otter too, I can’t think what else it could be.
I’m sure you can think of other options…
But it might actually be a badger too!
…see! There are a couple of other options from the right Family.
I’m inclined to think its an otter, too.
Again, close, but no cigar.
I’m also thinking it’s probably an otter…unless it’s a young badger it looks too small, and unless it’s a very large pine marten it’s too big. The otter is really the only native mustelid of roughly the right size.
But what about the teeth? Shape is often more important than size…
I agree with others here that it’s probably some kind of mustelid. The dental formula seems consistent with incisors and canines missing, then a distinct alveolus (p1?) and three pointed premolars, one large carnassial molar (m1) and an alveolus (m2).
so matching the dental formula for lower tooth row in some mustelids such as Eurasian otters and Eurasian badgers: incisors, 3; canine, 1; premolars, 3-4, and molars, 2
Excellent conclusion drawn from good, well-reasoned observation. I like the fact that you go as far as the data takes you, but no further (without additional data) – the mark of a good scientist.