Why are claims of horse remains from Surkotada treated cautiously?

Some equid bones from Surkotada have been identified as horse, but specialists have debated anatomical criteria, species and archaeological context. The question should therefore test the disputed nature of the evidence instead of presenting horse identification as settled fact. Fragmentary equid bones are difficult to identify securely to species and context fits that evidence because it matches the specific chronology, agency and function contained in the question. A comparison with the alternatives is useful: No animal bones were found there, Horses are not mammals and The site belongs to the Gupta period are genuine historical terms or names, but each belongs to a different office, patron, text, region or sequence. Reading the question as a relationship among person, period, place and institutional purpose prevents that mistake. The compact memory link is therefore Fragmentary equid bones are difficult to identify securely to species and context together with the factual context above, not the isolated option letter.