Most analyses of dental enamel hypoplasia compare frequencies of disturbed tooth types, which do not account for variability in the area of affected enamel. An alternate methodology, hypoplastic area, is presented here that accounts for this variability by combining acute and continuous enamel hypoplasia into an interval-level variable. The method compares samples based on individuals, by multiple tooth type variables, or by a single value rather than by tooth types. Use of the hypoplastic area method is illustrated by analyzing human skeletal dentitions in three archaeological samples: Meroitic Nubians from Semna South, Sudan; Anasazi from Navajo Reservoir, New Mexico; and Mogollon from Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Both univariate and multivariate statistical tests are employed to assess variation in defects between individuals and samples. By incorporating measurements of continuous defects, the hypoplastic area method provides information beyond that of frequency data in comparing levels of stress. Flexibility of the method is also discussed.

The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of the record. Please see the repository URL above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

Kinship theory is argued to be an important aspect of social dynamics in past societies. However, archaeological critiques of kinship have suggested that descent and residence models are ideological constructs not associated with socioeconomic behavior, that social anthropologists believe normative kinship rules are rarely practiced, and that the models are biased by Western assumptions of biological relatedness. These critiques ignore the past several decades of kinship research. A review of kinship theory demonstrates sophisticated holistic approaches to socioeconomic behavior and ideology that are not based on biological assumptions, and that historic and ongoing social disruptions and political economic transformations have significantly altered kinship behavior. Furthermore, empirical data demonstrate adherence to kinship rules prior to historic transformations. The fact that kinship changes is argued to be the source of confusion leading to the critiques in archaeological literature but is also argued to present an opportunity for archaeologists to explain social transformations in the deep past.

No abstract