1996
DOI: 10.1007/bf02229400
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Skeletal correlates of human behavior in the americas

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 134 publications
0
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, the late‐Mississippian period is associated with sociopolitical organization which includes a differential mortuary treatment (mound versus village), arguably indicating the presence of social elites of ascribed and/or achieved status, which reflects some manner of hierarchical and/or heterarchical power structure (Saxe,1970; Peebles and Kus,1977; Steponaitis,1978; Bense,1994; Chapman,1994; Cobb,2003; Pauketat,2007). Health status differences have long been observed between mound‐interred (“elite”) and village‐interred (“nonelite”) individuals in the late‐Mississippian period; indeed, it has been the backbone of bioarchaeological inquiry for at least three decades (Buikstra and Cook,1980; Cohen and Armelagos,1984; Powell,1991; Boyd,1996; Danforth,1999; Larsen,1997,2002; Steckel and Rose,2002). This interment‐associated health disparity has also been amply demonstrated in studies of east Tennessee late‐Mississippian samples (Hatch and Willey,1974; Hatch,1976; Guagliardo,1980; Parham,1982; Hatch et al,1983; Jablonski,1983; Scott,1983; Richardson,1988; Betsinger,2002; Betsinger and Smith,2006,2007,2008; Vogel,2007).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, the late‐Mississippian period is associated with sociopolitical organization which includes a differential mortuary treatment (mound versus village), arguably indicating the presence of social elites of ascribed and/or achieved status, which reflects some manner of hierarchical and/or heterarchical power structure (Saxe,1970; Peebles and Kus,1977; Steponaitis,1978; Bense,1994; Chapman,1994; Cobb,2003; Pauketat,2007). Health status differences have long been observed between mound‐interred (“elite”) and village‐interred (“nonelite”) individuals in the late‐Mississippian period; indeed, it has been the backbone of bioarchaeological inquiry for at least three decades (Buikstra and Cook,1980; Cohen and Armelagos,1984; Powell,1991; Boyd,1996; Danforth,1999; Larsen,1997,2002; Steckel and Rose,2002). This interment‐associated health disparity has also been amply demonstrated in studies of east Tennessee late‐Mississippian samples (Hatch and Willey,1974; Hatch,1976; Guagliardo,1980; Parham,1982; Hatch et al,1983; Jablonski,1983; Scott,1983; Richardson,1988; Betsinger,2002; Betsinger and Smith,2006,2007,2008; Vogel,2007).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is consistent with previous research in the pre‐Columbian Southeast (e.g. Hutchinson; Williamson, ; Wilson, ) as well as the interpretive framework for much paleopathological research (Armelagos, ; Boyd, ; Buikstra & Beck, ; Larsen, , ). Biassed or not and statistically significant or not, the prevalence data does mirror the general temporal trend of a less steep rise in treponemal disease visibility with agricultural intensification and a large village settlement pattern.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…porotic hyperostosis, cribra orbitalia, linear enamel hypoplasia and periosteal reaction [periostosis]) have long been informative in reconstructing extinct pre-Columbian North American lifeways (e.g. Armelagos, 2003;Buikstra & Beck, 2006;Boyd, 1996;Larsen, 1995Larsen, , 2002Martin & Goodman, 2002;Powell et al, 1991;Steckel et al, 2002). These reactive changes, reflecting response(s) to persistent environmental conditions such as crowding, nutritional stress and poor community hygiene (Buikstra & Beck, 2006;Larsen, 2002), have not only indicated differential health across subsistence and settlement shifts but also revealed intrasite health differences based on sex, age and social role or status (e.g.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In contrast, Barrett and colleagues (2001) examined prehistoric Ohio Valley Native Americans from three Late Archaic hunting-gathering populations, Murphy (2002a,b) examined New Zealand Polynesian skeletal remains from the prehistoric (pre-European settlement) period, and Wilbur (1998) examined prehistoric Native Americans from West-Central Illinois, spanning the Middle Woodland to Mississippian periods (AD 1-1100). As prehistoric Native American populations began to develop and depend upon agriculture, populations would have aggregated into sedentary settlements (Boyd, 1996). Similarly, prehistoric…”
Section: Analysis Of Sexual Dimorphism In the Thai Populationmentioning
confidence: 99%