2015
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22791
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

New dental and isotope evidence of biological distance and place of origin for mass burial groups atCahokia's mound 72

Abstract: Collectively, these results question the long-standing idea that individuals in the four mass graves were non-local to Cahokia and suggest that F229-lower contained a biologically dissimilar group that either came from an outside region with a similar Sr signature to Cahokia, or represent a distinct and restricted group from the region. Am J Phys Anthropol 158:341-357, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
(77 reference statements)
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These standards are widely used today and were selectively incorporated into the Standards manual (Buikstra & Ubelaker, ), thus assuring that many tens of thousands of individuals have been observed for dental morphological variation (see also Scott & Irish, ; Scott, Turner, Townsend, & Martinón‐Torres, 2018). Continued interest in dental morphology is evidenced by the recent publication of multiple synthetic volumes (Edgar, ; Scott & Irish, ; Scott et al, a) and multiscalar applications in bioarchaeological contexts (e.g., McIlvaine, Schepartz, Larsen, & Sciulli, ; Reyes‐Centeno, Rathmann, Hanihara, & Harvati, ; Scott et al, b; Thompson, Hedman, & Slater, ). However, if phenotypic datasets are ever to approach genetic datasets in their quality and resolution, continued validation research on the biological underpinnings of crown variation is necessary to inform analytical assumptions and methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These standards are widely used today and were selectively incorporated into the Standards manual (Buikstra & Ubelaker, ), thus assuring that many tens of thousands of individuals have been observed for dental morphological variation (see also Scott & Irish, ; Scott, Turner, Townsend, & Martinón‐Torres, 2018). Continued interest in dental morphology is evidenced by the recent publication of multiple synthetic volumes (Edgar, ; Scott & Irish, ; Scott et al, a) and multiscalar applications in bioarchaeological contexts (e.g., McIlvaine, Schepartz, Larsen, & Sciulli, ; Reyes‐Centeno, Rathmann, Hanihara, & Harvati, ; Scott et al, b; Thompson, Hedman, & Slater, ). However, if phenotypic datasets are ever to approach genetic datasets in their quality and resolution, continued validation research on the biological underpinnings of crown variation is necessary to inform analytical assumptions and methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dental studies of geographical variation have been used to study biodistance, to investigate population history, migration and kinship patterns [ 106 108 ]. Only one study is known to provide GM analysis of geographical variation, estimating biological affinities [ 29 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dental metric dataset consists of 32 mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) crown and cervical diameters of the permanent teeth recorded for each individual. Only polar teeth were recorded (UI1, UC, UP3, UM1, LI2, LC, LP3, LM1) in order to reduce genetic covariation between traits, and to minimize potential effects of fluctuating asymmetry and ontogenetic plasticity on adult tooth size (Butler, ; Dahlberg, ; Sciulli & Cook, ; see also Stojanowski, , ; Thompson, Hedman, & Slater, ). Only left teeth were measured, but when a left tooth was missing, damaged, or affected by wear or pathology, the corresponding right antimere was measured.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%