A morphometric system to distinguish sheep and goat postcranial bones.

Distinguishing between the bones of sheep and goat is a notorious challenge in zooarchaeology. Several methodological contributions have been published at different times and by various people to facilitate this task, largely relying on a macro-morphological approach. This is now routinely adopted by zooarchaeologists but, although it certainly has its value, has also been shown to have limitations. Morphological discriminant criteria can vary in different populations and correct identification is highly dependent upon a researcher's experience, availability of appropriate reference collections, and many other factors that are difficult to quantify. There is therefore a need to establish a more objective system, susceptible to scrutiny. In order to fulfil such a requirement, this paper offers a comprehensive morphometric method for the identification of sheep and goat postcranial bones, using a sample of more than 150 modern skeletons as a basis, and building on previous pioneering work. The proposed method is based on measurements-some newly created, others previously published-and its use is recommended in combination with the more traditional morphological approach. Measurement ratios, used to translate morphological traits into biometrical attributes, are demonstrated to have substantial diagnostic potential, with the vast majority of specimens correctly assigned to species. The efficacy of the new method is also tested with Discriminant Analysis, which provides a successful verification of the biometrical indices, a statistical means to select the most promising measurements, and an additional line of analysis to be used in conjunction with the others

A morphometric system to distinguish sheep and goat postcranial bones.

Distinguishing between the bones of sheep and goat is a notorious challenge in zooarchaeology. Several methodological contributions have been published at different times and by various people to facilitate this task, largely relying on a macro-morphological approach. This is now routinely adopted by zooarchaeologists but, although it certainly has its value, has also been shown to have limitations. Morphological discriminant criteria can vary in different populations and correct identification is highly dependent upon a researcher's experience, availability of appropriate reference collections, and many other factors that are difficult to quantify. There is therefore a need to establish a more objective system, susceptible to scrutiny. In order to fulfil such a requirement, this paper offers a comprehensive morphometric method for the identification of sheep and goat postcranial bones, using a sample of more than 150 modern skeletons as a basis, and building on previous pioneering work. The proposed method is based on measurements-some newly created, others previously published-and its use is recommended in combination with the more traditional morphological approach. Measurement ratios, used to translate morphological traits into biometrical attributes, are demonstrated to have substantial diagnostic potential, with the vast majority of specimens correctly assigned to species. The efficacy of the new method is also tested with Discriminant Analysis, which provides a successful verification of the biometrical indices, a statistical means to select the most promising measurements, and an additional line of analysis to be used in conjunction with the others

Comments on Jeff R. Crump's 'The end of public housing as we know it: public housing policy, labor regulation and the US city'

Jeff Crump's discussion of housing policy in the United States is highly polemic but not very analytic or informative. Crump argues that federal housing policy is attempting to move people out of public housing and into the private housing market and the lowwage labor force. However, he fails to support his argument with credible evidence. My comments point out the most egregious of Crump's claims. I start with Crump's most extreme contentions that housing policy is coercing public housing residents into the low-wage labor force. I then question his dismissive attitude toward the problems confronted by residents of distressed public housing and policies designed to help low-income families move out of impoverished neighborhoods. I subsequently show how Crump exaggerates the extent to which federal housing policy is clearing central cities of subsidized low-income housing. I conclude with a few words on the serious issues that a more informed critique of US housing policy could have raised. Copyright Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003.