Disentangling long bones of foxes (Vulpes vulpes and Alopex lagopus) from arctic archaeological sites

Three statistical methods for sex determination in extant and fossil caprines: assessment of the Rupicapra long bones

“…Additionally, this methodology does not have the drawbacks of discriminant analysis, in which the direct application to archaeological samples is difficult. Moreover, the k-means method has been previously applied in Archeology in the spatial use analysis (Kintigh and Ammerman, 1982), as well as in the analysis of lithic remains (Rios, 2010) and probably can be useful in taxonomic assessments similar to those done by Monchot and Gendron (2010) using MA.…”

On the crucial importance of a small bird: The ecosystem services of the little auk (Alle alle) population in Northwest Greenland in a long-term perspective

“…From at least the 8th century AD and until the historical period, the Arctic fox has been an important source of clothing and food for both pre-Inuit and Inuit communities. Faunal assemblages from Late Dorset (8th to 13th century AD) and Ruin Island Phase (13th–15th century AD) sites always include Arctic fox, and at some sites in the area Arctic fox constitutes one-third to two-thirds of the total number of identified bone specimens (Appelt et al 1998 ; Bendix 2000 ; Monchot and Gendron 2010 ; Monchot and Gendron 2011 , Table 1; data compiled by Gotfredsen et al 2018 ). Analyses of ethnographic collections also document an extensive use of fox fur in the Inughuit clothing of last century (Box 2 ).…”

Identifying and siding the stylohyoid bone for North American artiodactyls

“…A wide variety of different approaches have been taken to providing species identification criteria for mammalian skeletal elements in zooarchaeology (e.g., Balkwill & Cumbaa, 1992;Gee, 1993;Grayson, 1983;Haruda, 2017;Jacobson, 2003Jacobson, , 2004Lawrence, 1951;Lyman, 2004;Monchot & Gendron, 2010;Neusius & Flint, 1985;Wolfhagen & Price, 2017). Although a thorough review is not attempted here, a brief introduction is provided to lead into our stylohyoid study.…”

“…Approaches using osteometrics have employed one, two, or more criteria in combination (e.g., Grayson, ; Lyman, ; McGuire, ) with taxonomic distinctions made by showing lack of overlap in metric distributions (e.g., Payne, ), employing chosen cut‐off values (e.g., Grayson, ), and/or by using statistical analyses. Statistical techniques have ranged from simple t tests (e.g., Lyman, ) to more complex multivariate tests, or combinations thereof (e.g., Haruda, ; Monchot & Gendron, ; Salvagno & Albarella, ). In any approach, the number of attributes (metric, morphological, or otherwise) and the complexity of statistical analysis needed likely both increase as the skeletal elements of separated taxa become more similar.…”