Advertisement

Aging and Sexing Human Remains from the Hopewell Site

  • Cheryl A. Johnston
Part of the Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology book series (IDCA)

Abstract

Accurate aging and sexing of individual skeletons is fundamental to bioarchaeological analysis. Without these basic data, a mortuary site is limited in its potential to inform us about social organization, gender roles, the functions of ceremonial artifacts, and the demographic structure of the local community. The need for reliable age and sex information is particularly acute within Ohio Hopewell mound and earthwork sites, because extant collections of the individuals buried at the sites are spotty in coverage, putting a premium on the study of the individuals that are available. Most Ohio Hopewell sites were excavated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Chapter 7), prior to the development of modern archaeological methods.

Keywords

Pubic Symphysis Human Remains Discriminant Function Analysis Auricular Surface Epiphyseal Union 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aykroyd, Robert G., Dave Lucy, Mark A. Pollard, and Charlotte A. Roberts 1999 Nasty, Brutish, But Not Necessarily Short: A Reconsideration of the Statistical Methods Used to Calculate Age at Death from Adult Human Skeletal Remains and Dental Age Indicators. American Antiquity 64(1): 55–70. Bass, WilliamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bedford, M.E., Katherine F. Russell, Owen C. Lovejoy, Richard S. Meindl, Scott W. Simpson, and Patty Stuart-MacAdam 1993 Test of the Multifactorial Aging Method Using Skeletons with Known Ages-at-death from the Grant Collection. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 91:287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks, Sheilagh T., and Judy M. Suchey 1990 Skeletal Age Determination Based on the Os Pubis: A Comparison of the Acsadi-Nemeskeri and Suchey-Brooks Methods. Human Evolution 5(3): 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buikstra, Jane E., Lyle W. Konigsberg, and Jill Bullington 1986 Fertility and the Development of Agriculture in the Prehistoric Midwest. American Antiquity 51(3):528–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buikstra, Jane E. and Douglas H. Ubelaker 1994 Standards For Data Collection From Human Skeletal Remains: Proceedings of a Seminar at The Field Museum of Natural History. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville, AK.Google Scholar
  6. Fazekas, György, and Peter F. Kosa 1978 Forensic Fetal Osteology. Akademiai Kaido, Budapest.Google Scholar
  7. Goose, Denys H. 1963 Dental measurement: An assessment of its value in anthropological studies. In Don Brothwell (ed.): Dental Anthropology. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 125–148.Google Scholar
  8. Hillson Simon 1996 Dental Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Işcan, Mehemet Y. 1989 Assessment of Age at Death in the Human Skeleton. In Age Markers in the Human Skeleton, edited by Mehemet Y Işcan, pp. 5–18. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.Google Scholar
  10. Johnston, Cheryl A. 2002 Culturally Modified Human Remains from the Hopewell Mound Group. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  11. Johnston, Francis E. and L. O. Zimmer 1989 Assessment of Growth and Age in the Immature Skeleton. In Reconstruction of Life from the Skeleton, edited by M. Y. Işcan and K. A. R. Kennedy, pp. 11–21. Alan R. Liss, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  12. Konigsberg, Lyle W. 1985 Demography and Mortuary Practice at Seip Mound One. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 10(1):123–148.Google Scholar
  13. Konigsberg, Lyle W., Susan R. Frankenberg, and Robert B. Walker 1997 Regress What on What? Paleodemographic Age Estimation as a Calibration Problem. In Integrating Archaeological Demography: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Prehistoric Population, edited by R. R. Paine, pp. 64–88. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper, No. 24. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, IL.Google Scholar
  14. Lovejoy, C. Owen, Richard S. Meindl, Robert P. Mensforth, and Thomas J. Barton 1985a Multifactorial Determination of Skeletal Age at Death: A Method and Blind Tests of Its Accuracy. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lovejoy, C. Owen, Richard S. Meindl, Thomas P. Pryzbeck, and Robert P. Mensforth 1985b Chronological Metamorphosis of the Auricular Surface of the Ilium: A New Method for the Determination of Adult Skeletal Age at Death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68:15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lovejoy, C. Owen, Richard S. Meindl, Robert G. Tague, and Bruce Latimer 1997 The Comparative Senescent Biology of the Hominoid Pelvis and Its Implications for the Use of Age-at-death Indicators in the Human Skeleton. In Integrating Archaeological Demography: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Prehistoric Population, edited by R. R Paine, pp. 43–63. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper, 24. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, IL.Google Scholar
  17. Masset, Claude 1989 Age Estimation on the Basis of Cranial Sutures. In Age Markers in the Human Skeleton, edited by M. Y. Işcan, pp. 71–103. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.Google Scholar
  18. Meindl, Richard S and C. Owen Lovejoy 1985 Ectocranial Suture Closure: A Revised Method for the Determination of Skeletal Age at Death Based on the Lateral-anterior Sutures. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68:57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mensforth, Robert P., and C. Owen Lovejoy 1985 Anatomical, Physiological, and Epidemographical Correlates of the Aging Process: a Confirmation of Multifactorial Age Determination in the Libben Skeletal Population. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68(1):87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miles, A.E.W. 1963 The Dentition in the Assessment of Individual Age in Skeletal Material. In Dental Anthropology, edited by D. R. Brothwell, pp. 191–209. Symposia of the Society for the Study of Human Biology, vol. V. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  21. Miles, A.E.W. 1978 Teeth as an Indicator of Age in Man. In Development, Function and Evolution of Teeth, edited by P. M. Butler and K. A. Joysey, pp. 455–464. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  22. Moorees, Coenraad F., Ellen A. Fanning, and Edward E. Hunt, Jr. 1963a Formation and Resorption of Three Deciduous Teeth in Children. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 21:205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moorees, Coenraad F., Ellen A. Fanning, and Edward E. Hunt, Jr. 1963b Age Variation of Formation Stages for Ten Permanent Teeth. Journal of Dental Research 42(6):1490–1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moorehead, Warren King 1891–1892 Record of Warren K. Moorehead, Explorations, Little Miami Valley, Ohio, April 1891–Jan. 1892. Field notes on file, File A-17, Folder 6, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.Google Scholar
  25. Moorehead, Warren King 1897a The Hopewell Group (continued). The Antiquarian 1:312–316.Google Scholar
  26. Moorehead, Warren King 1922 The Hopewell Mound Group of Ohio. Field Museum of Natural History, Publication 211; Anthropological Series 6(5):73–184, plates 51–83. Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  27. Phenice, Terrell 1969 A Newly Developed Visual Method of Sexing the Os Pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 30:297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prufer, Olaf H. 1964a The Hopewell Complex of Ohio. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by J. Caldwell and R. Hall, pp. 35–83. Scientific Papers, vol. 12. Illinois State Museum, Springfield, IL.Google Scholar
  29. Saunders, Shelley R. 2000 Subadult Skeletons and Growth Related Studies. In Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton, edited by M. A. Katzenberg and S. R. Saunders, pp. 135–16. Wiley-Liss, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  30. Schwartz, Jeffrey H. 1995 Skeleton Keys: An Introduction to Human Skeletal Morphology, Development and Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  31. Shetrone, Henry Clyde 1922 Field Notes: The Hopewell Group (Accession #283). Document on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  32. Shetrone, Henry Clyde 1925 Field Notes: The Hopewell Group (Accession #283). Document on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  33. Shetrone, Henry Clyde 1926a Explorations of the Hopewell Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 35:1–227.Google Scholar
  34. Shipman, Pat, Alan Walker, and David Bichell 1985 The Human Skeleton. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, B. Holly 1991 Standards of Human Tooth Formation and Dental Age Assessment. In Advances in Dental Anthropology, edited by M. A. Kelley and C. S. Larsen, pp. 143–168. Wiley-Liss, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  36. Stewart, T. Dale 1979 Essentials of Forensic Anthropology: Especially as Developed in the United States. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.Google Scholar
  37. Ubelaker, Douglas H. 1989 The Estimation of Age at Death from Immature Human Bone. In Age Markers in the Human Skeleton, edited by M. Y. Işcan, pp. 55–70. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.Google Scholar
  38. Walker, Phillip L., J.R. Johnson, and Patricia M. Lambert 1988 Age and Sex Biases in the Preservation of Human Skeletal Remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 76:183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. White, Tim D. and Pieter A. Folkens 1991 Human Osteology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  40. Moorehead, Warren King 1897a The Hopewell Group. The Antiquarian 1: 113–120.Google Scholar
  41. Bass, William M. 1995 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. Missouri Archaeological Society, Special Publication, 2. 4th Edition. 361 pages.Google Scholar
  42. Hintze, Jerry L. 1998 NCSS 2000 Statistical System for Windows. Computer Software. Kaysville, Utah: Number Cruncher Statistical Systems.Google Scholar
  43. McKern, Thomas W. and T. Dale Stewart 1957 Skeletal Age Changes in Young American Males, Analyzed from the Standpoint of Identification. Environmental Protection Research Division (Quartermaster Research and Development Center, U.S. Army Natick, MA), Technical Report No. EP-45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cheryl A. Johnston
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anthropology and Sociology, G15B McKee BuildingWestern Carolina UniversityCullowheeNorth Carolina

Personalised recommendations