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.
Ethnohistoric data on the Omaha tribe of Nebraska indicate that marriage practices favored the disproportionate demographic growth of ceremonially prominent clans while other clans remained small or decreased in population. Ultimately, this process may lead to a "crisis in exogamy" for the larger, more ceremonially active clans, which can lead to fissioning or social transformations. As a model, the disproportionate demographic growth among ceremonially prominent clans is suggested to account for the formation of large multi-mound sites and ranked settlement hierarchies in the prehistoric U.S. Southeast. The model may also explain subsequent fissioning to establish new settlements and the formation of large sites comprised of multiple kin groups.The formation of chiefdoms from less ranked societies and the formation of complex chiefdoms from simple chiefdoms has long been a topic of concern for archaeologists. Environmental, warfare, circumscription, subsistence, population, conflict, and elite strategy models have all been used in attempts to explain the development of simple and complex chiefdoms. Settlement size hierarchies within Southeastern regions are typically viewed through a chiefdom perspective. Simple chiefdoms are interpreted where there are two-tiers to a regional settlement hierarchy. Complex chiefdoms are assumed to have existed where three or more tiers have been demonstrated. Using such models for interpreting regional settlement size hierarchies, Anderson (1996aAnderson ( , 1996b points out a widespread pattern in 309 Ó 2002, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
Waters and Ravesloot (2001) test the assumption that natural river channel change caused periods of Hohokam cultural reorganization. However, they conclude that channel changes did not correlate with all periods and areas of significant cultural changes and that landscape alone cannot explain Hohokam transformations. An anthropological perspective on political ecology and disasters can explain why environmental processes and events differentially impact societies, differentially impact societies diachronically and differentially impact social groups within societies. We suggest that this perspective may explain the variability described by Waters and Ravesloot.
Although not a new topic, there is a growing trend in ethnology to interpret changing kinship terminology, social organization, and marriage practices deep into prehistory. These efforts are largely guided by phylogenetic, neoevolutionary, and historical particularist theoretical models using 19th to 20th century ethnographically recorded kin terminology. However, the "high-level" theoretical models and their assumptions are untestable without data dating to prehistory. Archeological kinship analysis based on cross-cultural "mid-level" factual correspondence between social organization and patterns in material culture, which is not biased by any given "high-level" theory, can empirically test the ethnological models and assumptions. Archeological case studies on the Chontal Maya and Hohokam illustrate problems in phylogenetic, neoevolutionary, and historical particularist theoretical assumptions. Instead, the results are consistent with contemporary anthropological theory emphasizing practice and agency within historically contingent political economic social contexts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.