Advertisement

Evaluating the Consistency of Age and Sex Assessments of Ohio Hopewell Human Remains by Previous Investigators

  • D. Troy Case
Part of the Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology book series (IDCA)

Abstract

The thick prehistory approach that we suggest for bringing past peoples and their cultures to life from their bioarchaeological remains requires, by definition, the identification of individuals and social groups. It also involves describing these individuals in action through their on-the-ground, sociocultural roles. An essential step in this reconstructive process is to determine the age and sex of each individual for which skeletal remains are extant. The age and sex of an individual at death will have played a part in determining the culture-specific age and gender categories of his or her social personae at the time of death, and the roles associated with those personae.

Keywords

Pubic Symphysis Catalog Number Physical Anthropologist Cranial Suture Dental Wear 
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. Brooks, Sheilagh T. 1955 Skeletal Age at Death: The Reliability of Cranial and Pubic Age Indicators. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 13:567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Buckberry, JL and AT Chamberlain 2002 Age Estimation from the Auricular Surface of the Ilium: A Revised Method. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 119:281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Derry, Douglas E 1909 Note on the Innominate Bone as a Factor in the Determination of Sex: With Special Reference to the Sulcus Preauricularis. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology 43:266–276.Google Scholar
  6. Derry, Douglas E 1911 The Significance of the Sulcus Prearuricularis. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 39:13–20.Google Scholar
  7. Dwight, Thomas 1890 The Closure of the Cranial Sutures as a Sign of Age. Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 122: 389–392.Google Scholar
  8. Giesen, Myra 1992 Summary of Age and Sex Data Collected on Turner and Madisonville Skeletons. Document on file with Paul Scuilli, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  9. Gilbert B. M. and T. W. McKern 1973 A Method for Aging the Female Os Pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 38: 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greber, N’omi 1976 Within Ohio Hopewell: Analysis of Burial Patterns from Several Classic Sites. Ph.D. dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.Google Scholar
  11. Greber, N’omi, and Katharine Ruhl 1989 The Hopewell Site: A Contemporary Analysis Based on the Works of Charles C. Willoughby. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  12. Igarashi, Yuriko, Kagumi Uesu, Tetsuaki Wakebe, and Eisaku Kanazawa 2005 New Method for Estimation of Adult Skeletal Age at Death from the Morphology of the Auricular Surface of the Ilium. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 128(2):324–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnston, Cheryl A. 1995 Age and Sex Data for Hopewell Inhumations from the Ohio Historical Center. Document on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  14. Johnston, Cheryl A. 2002 Culturally Modified Human Remains from the Hopewell Mound Group. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  15. Katz, Daryl and Judy M. Suchey 1986 Age Determination of the Male Os Pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 69: 427–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Konigsberg, Lyle W. 1985 Demography and Mortuary Practice at Seip Mound One. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 10(1):123–148.Google Scholar
  17. Krogman, Wilton Marion 1939 A Guide to the Identification of Human Skeletal Material. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 8: 1–29.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Mann, Robert W, S. A. Symes, and W. M. Bass 1987 Maxillary Suture Obliteration: Aging the Human Skeleton Based on Intact or Fragmentary Maxilla. Journal of Forensic Sciences 32: 148–157.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Metz, C. L. 1882 Field Notes: Mounds 3 and 4, Mound 5, Mound 7, Mound 8, Mound 12, and Mound 13. Document on file at the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (X-File 32–25A(2)).Google Scholar
  23. Mills, William C. 1907 The Explorations of the Edwin Harness Mound. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 16:113–193.Google Scholar
  24. Mobius, P. J. 1907 Über die Verschiedenheit männlicher und weiblicher Schädel. Archiv für Anthropologie 6:1–7.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  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. Pickering, Robert B. 1987 Table 1: Inventory of Hopewell Skeletons Identified by Moorehead’s Numbering System. Manuscript on file at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  29. Pittard, E 1900 Quelques Comparisons Sexuelles de Cranes Anciens. L’Anthropol 11:179–192.Google Scholar
  30. Putnam, Frederick W. 1885 Explorations of the Harness Mounds in the Scioto Valley, Ohio. Eighteenth and Nineteenth Annual Reports of the Trustees of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University (1884–1885), 3(5): 449–466.Google Scholar
  31. Putnam, Frederick W. 1886a Explorations in Ohio. The Marriott Mound, No. 1, and Its Contents. Eighteenth and Nineteenth Annual Reports of the Trustees of the Peabody Museum 3(5–6):449–466.Google Scholar
  32. Putnam, Frederick W. 1886b Report of the Curator. Eighteenth and Nineteenth Annual Reports of the Trustees of the Peabody Museum 3(5–6):401–418.Google Scholar
  33. Reichs, Katherine J. 1975 Biological Variability and the Hopewell Phenomenon: An Interregional Approach. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt, E 1888 Anthropologische Methoden: Anleitung zum Beobachten und Sammeln für Laboritoriumund Reise. Leipzig, Veit Co.Google Scholar
  35. Schwartz, Jeffrey H. 1995 Skeleton Keys: An Introduction to Human Skeletal Morphology, Development and Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  36. Shetrone, Henry Clyde 1922 Field Notes: The Hopewell Group (Accession #283). Document on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  37. Shetrone, Henry Clyde 1925 Field Notes: The Hopewell Group (Accession #283). Document on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  38. Shetrone, Henry Clyde 1926a Explorations of the Hopewell Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 35:1–227.Google Scholar
  39. Shetrone, Henry Clyde 1926b Field Notes: The Seip Site. Document on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, Ohio (Accession #957).Google Scholar
  40. Shetrone, Henry C. and Emerson F. Greenman 1931 Explorations of the Seip Group of Prehistoric Earthworks. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 40:343–509.Google Scholar
  41. Snow, Charles 1943 Craniometric Data Sheets for Ohio Hopewell Skeletons. Document on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, Ohio, and with Lyle Konigsberg, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
  42. Stevenson, P. H. 1924 Age Order of Epiphyseal Union in Man. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 7:53–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Straus, William L. 1927 The Human Ilium: Sex and Stock. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 11(1):1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Todd, T. Wingate 1920 Age Changes in the Pubic Bone I: The Male White Pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 3:285–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Todd, T. Wingate 1921 Age Changes in the Pubic Bone II. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 4:1–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Todd, T. Wingate and D. W. Lyon, Jr. 1924 Endocranial Suture Closure: Its Progress and Age Relationship. Part I. Adult Males of White Stock. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 7:325–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Todd, T. Wingate and D. W. Lyon, Jr. 1925a Cranial Suture Closure: Its Progress and Age Relationship. Part II. Ectocranial Closure in Adult Males of White Stock. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 8(1):23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Volk, Ernest 1905 Field Notes: Explorations on Turner Farm, Ohio. Document on file at the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (X-File 05–5).Google Scholar
  50. Willoughby, Charles C 1922 The Turner Group of Earthworks, Hamilton County, Ohio. With Notes on the Skeletal Remains by Earnest A. Hooton. Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Papers 8(3): 1–132.Google Scholar
  51. Baby, Raymond S. 1948 Field Notes: Ohio State Museum Archaeological Expedition (Site Ro 63). Document on file at the Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, OH, (Envelope 18).Google Scholar
  52. Baby, Raymond S. 1954 Hopewell Cremation Practices. Papers in Archaeology, 1. The Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  53. Cadiente, Teresa 1998 Musculoskeletal Stress Markers (MSM) and Social Differentiation: A Comparison of Hopewellian and Fort Ancient Peoples of Ohio. Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  54. Carr, Christopher 2005c Scioto Hopewell Ritual Gatherings: A Review and Discussion of Previous Interpretations and Data. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by C. Carr and D. T. Case, pp. 463–479. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  55. 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

  • D. Troy Case
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighNorth Carolina

Personalised recommendations