A POPULATION MODEL FOR THE ANALYSIS OF OSTEOLOGICAL MATERIALS Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Wolf, David Jay, 1942- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 07/10/2021 09:25:48 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/289387 INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 76-21,106 WOLF, David Jay, 1942- A POPULATION MODEL FOR THE ANALYSIS OF OSTEOLOGICAL MATERIALS. The University of Arizona, Ph.D., 1976 Anthropology, archaeology Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 © 1976 • DAVID JAY WOLF ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A POPULATION MODEL FOR THE ANALYSIS OF OSTEOLOGICAL MATERIALS by David Jay Wolf A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 19 7 6 Copyright 1976 David Jay Wolf f THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction by David Jay Wolf . entitled A Population Model for the Analysis of Osteological Materials be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation Director DatenA-o. f After inspection of the final copy of the dissertation, the follouing members of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and recommend its acceptance:-'" 5.22.-^ 7 *'f/// titbit This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate's adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination. STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to bor­ rowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder. SIGNED: This Dissertation is Dedicated to My Parents and to P.P.S.L. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with most research, both the actual work and the final report are seldom, if ever, the product of a single individual. This disser­ tation too is the product of the contributions of many people. To all of those individuals who have contributed, I would like to express my sincere gratitude. Their faith, patience, and efforts have sustained me on many occasions. However, I, alone, bear the responsibility for any errors contained in this dissertation. Special thanks must be extended to Drs. Frederick S. Hulse, Walter H. Birkby, and J. Jefferson Reid for serving on my committee. As a benefactor of their wisdom, encouragement, and friendship, I am deeply indebted to my committee. Most especially, I would like to thank Dr. Hulse who, over the years, has been a constant source of inspiration. I would like to extend my personal thanks to the many people who provided technical and/or financial assistance for this project. Without their help, this research would not have been completed. Among those individuals are Dr. Robert L. Blakely at Georgia State University who kindly provided his skeletal data for the Dickson Mounds site; Dr. Frank E. Rackerby at the Southern Illinois University Museum who provided not only access to the Kane Burial Mounds collection, but also laboratory facilities and delightful living accommodations; and iv James A. Scholtz and Peggy Hoffman of the University of Arkansas Museum staff who made the Arkansas collections readily available for study. I would like to express my gratitude to Larry Manire and David Taylor at The University of Arizona as well as to Dr. Robert Chenhall and Sandra C. Scholtz of the Museum Data Bank Coordinating Committee, all of whom assisted in providing computer facilities and their exper­ tise. To the many students who worked with me on many phases of this research project, I would like to offer my thanks—their help was most appreciated. And finally, I want to thank my wife, Judy, who has sac­ rificed and endured with a sense of humor. Financial support for this research was kindly provided by Dr. Aubrey Harvey, Research Coordinator at the University of Arkansas, and Dr. Raymond H. Thompson, Head of the Anthropology Department at The University of Arizona. Dr. Harvey provided support in the form of two NSF Institutional grants (NSF #12-5031 and NSF #42-969). Dr. Thompson provided Departmental funds which financed the majority of the computer work. Without their aid, the fate of the entire research project would have been in jeopardy. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xi ABSTRACT xii INTRODUCTION 1 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT 28 THE SKELETAL SAMPLES 64 Ageing Criteria 67 Sexing Criteria 69 HYPOTHESES TESTING AND THE ANALYSES OF DATA 85 Primary Hypothesis 89 Major Assumptions and Their Justifications 90 Data Available for Analysis 96 Controls Imposed upon the Data 99 Testing Methodology 103 Test Situation 1 108 The Available Data 108 Test Statistics 109 Significance Level Ill Preliminary Analyses Ill Summary of Analyses 115 Test Situation 2 126 The Available Data 127 Test Statistic 127 Significance Level 127 Summary of Analyses 128 Test Situation 3 130 The Available Data 130 Test Statistic 131 Significance Level , . 131 Summary of Analyses . 131 vi vii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page Test Situation 4 140 The Available Data 140 Test Statistics 141 Significance Levels . 144 Summary of Analyses 144 Test Situation 5 168 The Available Data 168 Test Statistics 169 Significance Levels 172 Summary of Analyses 172 Summary and Conclusions 182 APPENDIX A: REVISED RECORDING FORM FOR HUMAN SKELETAL DATA ... 185 APPENDIX B: AGE AND SEX ESTIMATES FOR THE SIX SKELETAL SAMPLES 196 APPENDIX C: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR INTERVAL AND RATIO SCALED VARIABLES RECORDED FOR THE SIX SKELETAL SAMPLES (ADULTS ONLY) 209 APPENDIX D: PHENOTYPIC FREQUENCIES FOR MEDIAL AND BILATERAL DISCRETE CRANIAL TRAITS 229 REFERENCES 242 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. A Partial Listing of the Literature Reporting upon Osteological Features 6 2. A Partial Listing of the Literature Reporting upon Behavior Scars 8 3. A Partial Listing of Methodological Studies in Osteology . 12 4. A Sampling of Literature Concerned with Estimating Paleodemographic Parameters 19 5. Literature Containing Biological Data for Skeletal Collections from a Mississippian Context 46 6. A Partial History of the Archaeological Fieldwork Conducted at the Hazel, Vernon Paul, and Upper Nodena Sites ... 50 7. Mississippian Skeletal Data Available for Analysis 63 8. Sex Differences in Vertical Head Diameters for Humeri and Femora 72 9. The Age and Sex Structure of the Six Skeletal Samples ... 77 10. Some Additional Descriptive Features of the Six Skeletal Samples (Adults Only) 79 11. The Genetic Inheritance of Some Discrete Traits 93 12. Comparable Metric Variables and Indices Which Were Recorded for All Six Skeletal Samples 100 13. Selected Pearson Correlation Coefficients Illustrating Independence of Variables (Hazel Sample) 116 14. Selected Pearson Correlation Coefficients Illustrating Independence of Variables (Vernon Paul Sample) 118 15. Selected Pearson Correlation Coefficients Illustrating Independence of Variables (Upper Nodena Sample) .... 119 viii ix LIST OF TABLES—Continued Table Page 16. F Tests for Significant Differences in Sample Means for Arkansas Adult Males (Two-Tailed Tests) 121 17. t-Tests for Significant Differences in Sample Means for Hazel and Upper Nodena Adult Males (Two-Tailed Tests) . 122 18. t-Tests for Significant Differences in Sample Means for Hazel and Upper Nodena Adult Females (Two-Tailed Tests) 122 19.