Book Reviews448

that data interpretation plays in our quest to under-stand the past through scientific processes. And fi-nally, the last chapter outlines the role of forensicosteology (as distinct from forensic anthropology,according to the author) in Britain.

Overall, the book is a sound compendium ofcurrent British osteological research. The editorshave carefully organized the book into sections thatare both useful and novel. Their hand at ensuringorganizational and structural consistency within eachchapter is evident and contributes greatly to the‘readability’ of the book. The special attention givento the analysis and understanding of juvenile skele-tons is long overdue, and hopefully will assist inending the regrettable void in the literature on thistopic. The emphasis on theory, along with the com-mitment within each chapter to discuss future direc-tions, further strengthens the work as a whole andadds a dimension to each topic that is too frequentlyignored.

The majority of the chapters within this book aredesigned to introduce students and the public tomethods and techniques employed within humanosteology. For classroom or laboratory use the bookwill be helpful if coupled with other texts, sincetopic discussions are often cursory and frequentlylack visual references or aids. The narrowed focus onnorth-western Europe might also be limiting, as thetechniques and topics discussed are not unique tothis geographic region. Regardless, the book is en-joyable to read, admirably highlights the strengthsand weaknesses of the theories and methods cur-rently used within our field, and is a welcomedaddition to the growing body of work on humanosteology.

A.L. GrauerAssociate Professor of Anthropology,

Department of Sociology and Anthropology,Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago,

IL 60626, USA

DOI: 10.1002/oa.577

THE COMPARATIVE OSTEOLOGY OF EUROPEANCORVIDS (AVES: CORVIDAE), WITH A KEY TOTHE IDENTIFICATION OF THEIR SKELETALELEMENTS

Tomek T, Bochenski ZM, Polish Academy of Sciences,Institute of Systemics and Evolution of Animals.Krakow, 2000. Price: $25.00.

One for sorrow, two for joy. . . (Trad.)

Corvids, although not one of the most economicallyimportant bird species of the past, are frequentlyfound on European archaeological sites. Their statusas scavengers is well known and as O’Connor (1993)notes, not only does the family include ‘some of themost resourceful and adaptable of European birds’but it also includes specialists, such as the nutcracker(Nucifraga caryocatactes) and choughs (Pyrrhocoraxspp.).

Unfortunately, the morphological and metricalsimilarity of many of the species within this familyhas meant that they are often grouped together, andthe occurrence of the ‘crow/rook’ is a familiar sightin species representation tables. One of the aims ofthe authors in this publication is to prevent the lossof such data from archaeological and palaeontologi-cal sites. However, this is not just a manual forzooarchaeologists and the book also aims to provideanatomical evidence which can be used to study therelationship and phylogeny of corvids and help inthe understanding of ‘ecomorphological’ problems.

This manual clearly follows the tradition of the‘Munich School’ (see, for example, Otto 1981; Kell-ner 1986), and considers both the morphological andmensural separation of these closely related species.The research is based on the analysis of 662 skeletalspecimens of 11 different species of European corvid:jay (Garrulus glandarius), Siberian jay (Perisoreus infaus-tus), magpie (Pica pica), azure-winged magpie(Cyanopica cyanus), nutcracker, chough (Pyrhocoraxpyrrhocorax), alpine chough (P. graculus), jackdaw(Corvus monedula), rook (C. frugilegus), crow (C. corone)and raven (C. corax).

For each of the anatomical elements considered(cranium, mandible, quadrate, sternum, coracoid, fur-cula, scapula, humerus, radius, ulna, carpometacar-pus, phalanx 1, pelvis, femur, tibiotarsus and tarso-metatarsus) a range of morphological differences aredepicted. A calculation of the frequency of eachcharacteristic amongst the considered reference ma-terial and an anatomical description are also pro-vided.

Some of the characters considered in this report,particularly those on the pelvis, sternum and craniumfor example, are unlikely to be found on archaeolog-ical sites due to their fragility, and this no doubtreflects the biological background of the authors.However, as noted above the use of the manual forarchaeological identifications is not the only reasonfor the publication of this book. The only otherslight grumble with this work is the rather simplenature of the diagrams, which consist of little morethan outline drawings. However this problem is

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 11: 447–450 (2001)

Book Reviews 449

offset by the inclusion of a textual description ofeach characteristic.

The measurements taken on each anatomical ele-ment are well defined and summary tables containingthe basic statistics for each measurement (i.e. samplesize, minimum and maximum measurements, meanand standard deviation) are provided on the samepage as the morphological distinction, making thedata for each element readily accessible. Unfortu-nately however, although summary tables are pro-vided for each measurement, the lack of any tablecontaining the raw data (although appreciably cum-bersome) is slightly disappointing.

Nineteen scatterplots of selected measurementshave been produced to further assist in the identifica-tion of species. It is readily apparent from thesediagrams that size alone cannot be used to distin-guish some members of the corvid family on allskeletal elements; this appears to be particularly thecase for crow and rook, and jackdaw and magpie.However, discriminant function analysis has beenshown to separate species with ‘relatively high prob-ability’. It is again unfortunate that tables of raw datasupporting these diagrams were not included, be-cause this would have provided a more amenabletool for the comparison of the data with archaeolog-ical specimens.

In addition to the presentation of data, the authorsalso draw a number of conclusions. Analysis of thenumber of shared morphological characteristics be-tween different species has provided some indica-tions as to the closeness of the relationship betweenthe Corvidae. For example, while no osteological dif-ference between hooded and carrion crow confirmsthat the two forms are conspecific, thirty-six charac-ters were found to differentiate rook from crow.Multivariate analyses were also performed to checkwhether two sub-species of crow (hooded crow andcarrion crow) differed in size, and statistically signif-icant differences were found in only five skeletalelements. Species with sufficient specimens were alsochecked for sexual dimorphism, and showed that inall cases where sexual dimorphism was apparent, thatmales were largest (although there is some overlap).

Using morphological and mensural data, the au-thors therefore demonstrate that it is possible todistinguish the corvids, even in case of closely re-lated species of similar size. Although manuals cannever replace the comparison of archaeological mate-rial with known reference skeletons, this book pro-vides a comprehensive guide to the distinction of theCorvidae and is a worthy addition to any zooarchaeo-logical reference library. The accurate identificationof species within this family will hopefully lead to

more detailed research into the development of thecommensal habit of these species as well as providemore information regarding the past distribution ofspecies such as jay and nutcracker, which are rarelyidentified in bone reports.

This book can be purchased from the Library ofthe Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Ani-mals, Polish Academy of Sciences, and is priced at$25 (postage included). For further details contactZofia Malcher (malcher@isez.pan.krakow.pl) or visitthe Website, www.isez.pan.krakow.pl and select‘journals’ and then ‘other publications’.

References

Kellner M. 1986. Vergleichend morphologischeuntersuchungen an einzelknochen des postkrania-len skeletts in europa vorkommender Ardeidae.Inaugural-dissertation zur Erlangung der tiermedi-zinischen Doktorwurde der Tierarztlichen Fakultatder Ludwig-Maximimilans-Universitat Munchen.

O’Connor TP. 1993. Birds and the scavenger niche.Archaeofauna 2: 155–162.

Otto C. 1981. Vergleichend morphologische unter-suchungen an einzelknochen in zentraleuropavorkommender mittelgrosser Accipitridae. Inaugural-dissertation zur Erlangung der tiermedizinischenDoktorwurde der Tierarztlichen Fakultat derLudwig-Maximimilans-Universitat Munchen.

Richard ThomasDepartment of Ancient History and Archaeology,

University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

DOI: 10.1002/oa.589

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ANIMAL BONES

Terry O’Connor, Sutton Publishing, 2000. ISBN: 0 75092251 6. Price: £30.00.

Zooarchaeology is now becoming a ‘mature’ archaeo-logical discipline. According to the last of ICAZnewsletter (International Council for ArchaeoZool-ogy) there are some 2000 practising zooarchaeolo-gists worldwide. Of these 400 attended the lastICAZ conference in Victoria (British Columbia,Canada). Another sign of the growing interest in thisfield of research is the steady stream of general textbooks. Since Davis (1987) published his excellentThe Archaeology of Animals, several volumes have ap-peared, mostly in English, but also in French (Gau-tier, 1990) and in German (Benecke, 1994).

Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 11: 447–450 (2001)