Odontometric determination of sex at Mound 72, Cahokia

Abstract

The mortuary context of Mound 72 at the Cahokia site is one of the most unusual ever described in prehistoric North America. Previous skeletal analyses suggested that four large mass graves within the mound contained only female skeletons. However, these findings were complicated by extremely poor bone preservation that limited the number of skeletal observations that could be made. Furthermore, most skeletons were aged in the 15-25 year range, a time when sexually dimorphic bony traits may still be developing. In this study, dental remains were used to examine sex in the four presumably all-female mass graves in Mound 72. Additional sources of information, including the original field/laboratory notes and new sexing data based on modern standards, were gathered to fully evaluate the dental estimates. Initially, discriminant function analysis was performed on odontometrics using the original Mound 72 sex assignment. Inconsistent results indicated that some of the skeletons may have been misclassified in the original analyses. To overcome this issue, discriminant function equations were generated using a large pooled skeletal sample from two sites in close temporal and geographic proximity to Cahokia. Application of the equations to Mound 72 revealed that each of the four mass burial groups contained individuals classified as male. These assignments were checked against the skeletal remains and the original field/laboratory notes. Discussion centers on how the results affect previous archaeological interpretations as well as the methodological considerations associated with this study.

Canine sex estimation and sexual dimorphism in the collection of identified skeletons of the University of Coimbra, with an application in a Roman cemetery from Faro, Portugal

“…In this research, reliable information is offered for sex estimation from traditional and Bayesian statistics, which proved to be adequate for application in spatial‐related samples. This data aid in bioarchaeological and forensic cases, mostly when the human remains are fragmented or commingled and especially for subadult sex estimation, a very important aspect for the identification of missing individuals and the development of complete mortality profiles (e.g., Khamis et al, ; Luna, , , , ; Mitsea et al, ; Pettenati‐Soubayroux et al, ; Thompson, ). Finally, it is stressed than the application of the posterior probabilities provided in this paper may improve the quality of information obtained in such cases.…”

“…In these contexts, teeth are valuable and useful tools for sex estimation (Ling & Wong, 2007). Numerous methodologies based on canine metrics have been proposed for archaeological and forensic samples throughout the world, with satisfactory results (e.g., Acharya & Mainali, 2007;Aris, Nystrom, & Craig-Atkins, 2018;García-Campos et al, 2018;Isçan & Kedici, 2003;Karaman, 2006;Khamis, Taylor, Malik, & Townsend, 2014;Kieser, 2008;Mitsea, Moraitis, Leon, Nicopoulou-Karayianni, & Spiliopoulou, 2014;Okazaki, 2005;Saunders, Chan, Kahlon, & Kluge, 2007;Thompson, 2013;Viciano, D'Anastasio, & Capasso, 2015;Viciano, López-Lázaro, & Alemán, 2013;Zorba, Moraitis, Eliopoulos, & Spiliopoulou, 2012;Zorba, Moraitis, & Manolis, 2011;Zorba, Vanna, & Moraitis, 2014). However, as the degree of sexual dimorphism varies among different samples, their application is usually restricted to the population in which it was created (Cardoso, 2010;Hillson, 1986;Kondo & Townsend, 2004;Luna, 2008Luna, , 2010Luna, , 2012Luna, , 2015Pereira, Bernardo, Pestana, Santos, & Mendonça, 2010;Roberts & Manchester, 1999;Saunders et al, 2007;Schwartz & Dean, 2005).…”

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

“…The condition of the skeletal remains in Mound 72 often prevented a complete assessment of sex using sexually dimorphic characteristics of the skeleton. In this study, biodistance analyses were conducted using sex estimates obtained using a combination of skeletal morphology and discriminant function analysis using dental metrics (see Thompson, ).…”

“…Mean error was ±0.03 mm with a mean difference of 0.005 mm across all variables. Additional details regarding the intraobserver error study have been described elsewhere (Thompson, ). Teeth with obvious pathology, wear, or calculus that affected the measurement landmarks were omitted.…”

“…72Sub3 contained the largest mass burial (F105), which included remains of an estimated 53 individuals. The demographic profile of primarily adolescent and young adult females (Fowler et al, ; Thompson, ) and careful placement of bodies in these four separate mass burial features suggests that the events associated with their construction represent the ritual sacrifice of deliberately selected individuals (Fowler et al, ).…”