Am Osteometric Analysis of Southeastern Prehistoric Domestic

Home , Citico (Cherokee town), Osteometry, Polynesian Dog

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2008 An Osteometric Analysis of Southeastern Prehistoric Domestic Dogs Brian E. Worthington

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE

AN OSTEOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF SOUTHEASTERN

PREHISTORIC DOMESTIC DOGS

BRIAN E. WORTHINGTON

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2008

The members of the Committee approve the Thesis of Brian E. Worthington defended on June 3, 2008.

______Glen H. Doran Professor Directing Thesis

______Rochelle A. Marrinan Committee Member

______William Parkinson Committee Member

Approved:

______Glen H. Doran, Chair, Department of Anthropology

______Joseph Travis, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

This thesis is dedicated to the memory of my father, C.K. Worthington. I would also like to dedicate this thesis to my mother, Susan Worthington, and to my uncle, Edmond Worthington.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Glen H. Doran, Dr. Rochelle A. Marrinan, and Dr. William Parkinson, for their guidance, comments, and patience. I would also like to thank Dr. Michael Faught and Dr. Michael Russo for their assistance and support.

This thesis would have not been possible if it were not for the generosity of many who provided access to specimens for analysis. These people include: Dr. Elizebeth S. Wing, Dr. Kitty Emery, Silvia Scudder, and Irvy Quitmyer of the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida; John Connaway of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History; Dr. David Dickel of the Bureau of Archaeological Research, State of Florida; Lynne P. Sullivan and Paul W. Parmalee of the McClung Museum, University of Tennessee; John Erenhardt and Richard Vernon of the Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service; Dr. Glen H. Doran, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University; Dr. Yvonne M. Narganes Storde, Centro DE Investigaciones Arqueologicas, Universidad De Puerto Rico; Aaron Deter-Wolf, TRC, Inc.; Dr. Tanya M. Peres and Dr. George Crothers, William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology, University of Kentucky; Dr. Ray Crook and Susan E. Fisherman- Armstrong, Antonio J. Waring Jr. Archaeological Laboratory, University of West Georgia; Dr. Jeffrey M. Mitchem, Arkansas Archaeological Survey, University of Arkansas; Dr. Mark J. Brooks, Tammy R. Forehand, and D. Keith Stephenson, Savannah River Archaeological Research Program; Robert S. Carr, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.; and Dr. Daniel C. Swan, Chucalissa Museum, University of Memphis.

I must also acknowledge the unending support and patience of my mother, Susan Worthington, and my uncle, Edmond Worthington.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... x Abstract ...... xviii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...... 1

CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLGY...... 8

CHAPTER THREE: AXIAL SKELETON ...... 23

CHAPTER FOUR: APPENDICULAR SKELETON ...... 69

CHAPTER FIVE: SHOULDER HEIGHT AND BODY LENGTH ...... 114

CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION...... 124

APPENDIX A: ESTIMATED SEX OF DOGS...... 131

APPENDIX B: SHOULDER HEIGHT ESTMATES ...... 137

APPENDIX C: CRANIAL INDICES ...... 141

APPENDIX D: CRANIAL AND DENTARY MEASUREMENTS AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS ...... 144

APPENDIX E: T-TESTS COMPARING MALES AND FEMALES ...... 152

APPENDIX F: T-TESTS COMPARING CULTURAL PERIODS...... 156

APPENDIX G: UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SOUTHEASTERN PREHISTORIC DOGS BY SEX AND CULURAL AFFILIATION (Postcrania) ...... 171

APPENDIX H: UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SOUTHEASTERN PREHISTORIC DOGS BY SEX AND CULURAL AFFILIATION (Crania and Dentary) ...... 189

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 208

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 227

v LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Samples Analyzed ...... 8

Table 2.2: Fusion Estimates of Dogs ...... 11

Table 2.3: Tooth Eruption in Dogs ...... 12

Table 2.4: Measurement Definitions for Indices ...... 19

Table 2.5: Average Indices of the Three Basic Cranial Types ...... 20

Table 2.6: Indices of Modern Dog Breeds...... 20

Table 2.7: Shoulder Height and Body Length Equations ...... 21

Table 2.8: Modern Dog Breed Shoulder Heights ...... 22

Table 3.1: Skull Indices ...... 26

Table 3.2: Facial Indices...... 27

Table 3.3: Cranial Indices...... 28

Table 3.4: Snout Width Indices ...... 29

Table 3.5: Palatal Indices...... 30

Table 3.6: Cranium Measurements...... 32

Table 3.7: Descriptive Statistics for the Crania ...... 36

Table 3.8: Dentary Measurements ...... 47

Table 3.9: Descriptive Statistics for the Dentary...... 48

Table 3.10: T-Tests of Cranial and Dentary Measurements for Total Males vs. Total Females...... 57

Table 4.1: Scapula Measurements ...... 69

Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics for the Scapula ...... 71

Table 4.3: Humerus Measurements ...... 74

Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics for the Humerus ...... 76

Table 4.5: Radius Measurements...... 80

Table 4.6: Descriptive Statistics for the Radius...... 81

Table 4.7: Ulna Measurements ...... 85

Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics for the Ulna ...... 86

Table 4.9: Femur Measurements...... 89

Table 4.10: Descriptive Statistics for the Femur ...... 89

Table 4.11: Tibia Measurements...... 96

Table 4.12: Descriptive Statistics for the Tibia ...... 98

Table 4.13: Fibula Measurements ...... 102

Table 4.14: Descriptive Statistics for the Fibula...... 102

Table 4.15: Astragalus Measurements...... 103

Table 4.16: Calcaneus Measurements...... 103

Table 4.17: Descriptive Statistics for the Calcaneus and Astragalus...... 103

Table 4.18: Metapodial Measurements...... 104

Table 4.19: Descriptive Statistics for the Metapodials ...... 105

Table 5.1: Comparison of Average Shoulder Height of Southeastern Dogs ...... 114

Table 5.2: T-tests for Southeastern Dogs by Culture...... 117

Table 5.3: Average Shoulder Height of Male and Female Southeastern Dogs ...... 118

Table 5.4: SE Males vs. SE Females by SHAVRG...... 118

Table 5.5: Comparison of Average Shoulder Height of Southeastern Dogs to Northeastern and West Indian Dogs ...... 120

vii

Table 5.6: NE Dogs vs. SE Dogs by SHAVRG ...... 121

Table 5.7: SE Dogs v. West Indian Dogs by SHAVRG...... 121

Table 5.8: Body Length Estimates...... 122

Table 6.1: Comparison of Specimens 90 and 111 with Similarily Small Prehistoric Dogs from Mesoamerica ...... 126

Table 6.2: Comparison of Identified Types of Prehistoric Dogs...... 127

viii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Sagittal Crest ...... 13

Figure 2.2: Basiocranium ...... 14

Figure 2.3: Condyloid Ridge ...... 15

Figure 2.4: Subpubic Angle ...... 16

Figure 3.1: Scatterplot of SE Dog Skull Indices by Culture ...... 27

Figure 3.2: Scatterplot of SE Dog Facial Indices by Culture ...... 28

Figure 3.3: Scatterplot of SE Dog Cranial Indices by Culture ...... 29

Figure 3.4: Scatterplot of SE Dog Snout Width Indices by Culture ...... 30

Figure 3.5: Scatterplot of SE Dog Palatal Indices by Culture ...... 31

Figure 3.6: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Median Palatal Length for Males ...... 37

Figure 3.7: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Cheektooth Row Length for Males ...... 38

Figure 3.8: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Carnassial Length for Males ...... 38

Figure 3.9: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Palatal Breadth for Males ...... 39

Figure 3.10: Length of Aboral Side of M2 to Oral Side of Canine vs. Cheektooth Row Length for Males ...... 39

Figure 3.11: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Molar Row Length for Males ...... 40

Figure 3.12: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Premolar Row Length for Males ………………………………………………… 40

Figure 3.13: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Carnassial Length for Males ...... 41

Figure 3.14: Carnassial Length vs. Carnassial Breadth for Males ...... 41

Figure 3.15: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Median Palatal Length for Females ...... 42

Figure 3.16: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Cheektooth Row Length for Females ...... 42

Figure 3.17: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Carnassial Length for Females ...... 43

Figure 3.18: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Palatal Breadth for Females ...... 43

Figure 3.19: Median Palatal Length vs. Cheektooth Row Length for Females ...... 44

Figure 3.20: Length of Aboral Side of M2 to Oral Side of Canine vs. Cheektooth Row Length for Females ...... 44

Figure 3.21: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Molar Row Length for Females ...... 45

Figure 3.22: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Premolar Row Length for Females ...... 45

Figure 3.23: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Carnassial Length for Females ...... 46

Figure 3.24: Carnassial Length vs. Carnassial Width for Females ...... 46

Figure 3.25: Total Length vs. Carnassial Length for Males ...... 49

Figure 3.26: Total Length vs. Carnassial Length for Males ...... 50

Figure 3.27: Total Length vs. PM2 to M3 Length for Males ...... 39

Figure 3.28: Carnassial Length vs. Carnassial Width for Males ...... 51

Figure 3.29: Height of Dentary Behind M1 vs. Greatest Thickness of Dentary for Males ...... 51

Figure 3.30: Aboral Border of Canine Aveolus to Aboral Border of M3 Aveolus Length vs. M3 Length for Males ...... 52

Figure 3.31: Molar Row Length vs. Carnassial Length for Males ...... 52

Figure 3.32: PM2 to M3 Length vs. Molar Row Length for Males ...... 53

Figure 3.33: Total Length vs. Carnassial Length for Females ...... 53

Figure 3.34: Total Length vs. Height of Dentary Behind M1 for Females ...... 54

Figure 3.35: Carnassial Length vs. Carnassial Width for Females ...... 54

Figure 3.36: Height of Dentary Behind M1 vs. Greatest Thickness of Dentary for Females ...... 55

Figure 3.37: Aboral Border of Canine Aveolus to Aboral Border of M3 Aveolus Length vs. PM1 to M3 Length for Females ...... 55

Figure 3.38: Carnassial Length vs. Molar Row Length for Females ...... 56

Figure 3.39: Total Length vs. PM2 to M3 Length for Females ...... 56

Figure 3.40: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Medial Palatal Length for All Dogs ...... 60

Figure 3.41: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Cheektooth Row Length for All Dogs ...... 60

Figure 3.42: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Carnassial Length for All Dogs ...... 61

Figure 3.43: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Palatal Breadth for All Dogs ...... 61

Figure 3.44: Median Palatal Length vs. Cheektooth Row Length for All Dogs ...... 62

Figure 3.45: Length of Aboral Side of M2 to Oral Side of Canine vs. Cheektooth Row Length for All Dogs ...... 62

Figure 3.46: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Molar Row Length for All Dogs ...... 63

Figure 3.47: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Premolar Row Length for All Dogs ...... 63

Figure 3.48: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Carnassial Length for All Dogs ...... 64

Figure 3.49: Carnassial Length vs. Carnassial Width for All Dogs ...... 64

Figure 3.50: Total Dentary Length vs. Carnassial Length for All Dogs ...... 65

Figure 3.51: Total Dentary Length vs. PM2 to M3 Length for All Dogs ...... 65

Figure 3.52: Carnassial Length vs. Molar Row Length for All Dogs ...... 66

Figure 3.53: Total Dentary Length vs. Height of Dentary Behind M1 for All Dogs ...... 66

Figure 3.54: PM2 to M3 Length vs. Molar Row Length for All Dogs ...... 67

Figure 3.55: Carnassial Length vs. Carnassial Width for All Dogs ...... 67

Figure 3.56: Greatest Dentary Thickness vs. Height of Dentary for All Dogs ...... 68

Figure 3.57: Aboral Border of Canine Aveolus to Aboral Border of M3 Aveolus Length vs. PM1 to M3 Length for All Dogs ...... 68

Figure 4.1: Length of Scapula Neck vs. Length of Glenoid Process for Males ...... 71

Figure 4.2: Length vs. Breadth of Glenoid Cavity for Males ...... 72

Figure 4.3: Length of Scapula Neck vs. Length of Glenoid Process for Females ...... 72

Figure 4.4: Length vs. Breadth of Glenoid Cavity for Females ...... 73

Figure 4.5: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Proximal Breadth for Males ...... 76

Figure 4.6: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Distal Breadth for Males ...... 77

xii Figure 4.7: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Proximal Breadth for Females ...... 77

Figure 4.8: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Distal Breadth for Females ...... 78

Figure 4.9: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Proximal Breadth for Unidentified ...... 78

Figure 4.10: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Distal Breadth for Unidentified ...... 79

Figure 4.11: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Radius for Males ...... 82

Figure 4.12: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Radius for Males ...... 83

Figure 4.13: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Radius for Females ...... 83

Figure 4.14: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Radius for Females ...... 84

Figure 4.15: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Radius for Unidentified ...... 84

Figure 4.16: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Radius for Unidentified ...... 85 Figure 4.17: Greatest Length vs. Depth across Anconaeus Process for Males ...... 87

Figure 4.18: Greatest Length vs. Depth across Anconaeus Process for Females ...... 88

Figure 4.19: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Breadth of the Proximal end for Males ...... 92

Figure 4.20: Greatest Length vs. Greatest Depth of the Femoral Head for Males ...... 92

Figure 4.21: Greatest Length vs. Greatest Breadth of Distal End for Males ...... 93

Figure 4.22: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Breadth of the Proximal end for Females ...... 93

xiii

Figure 4.23: Greatest Length vs. Greatest Depth of the Femoral Head for Females ...... 94

Figure 4.24: Greatest Length vs. Greatest Breadth of Distal End for Females ...... 94

Figure 4.25: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Breadth of the Proximal end for Unidentified ...... 95

Figure 4.26: Greatest Length vs. Greatest Depth of the Femoral Head Unidentified ...... 95

Figure 4.27: Greatest Length vs. Greatest Breadth of Distal End for Unidentified ...... 96

Figure 4.28: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Tibia for Males ...... 99

Figure 4.29: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Tibia for Males ...... 99

Figure 4.30: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Tibia for Females ...... 100

Figure 4.31: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Tibia for Females ...... 100

Figure 4.32: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Tibia for Unidentified ...... 101

Figure 4.33: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Tibia for Unidentified ...... 101

Figure 4.34: Length of Scapula Neck vs. Length of Glenoid Process for All Dogs ...... 108

Figure 4.35: Length vs. Breadth of Glenoid Cavity for All Dogs ...... 108

Figure 4.36: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Proximal Breadth for All Dogs ...... 109

Figure 4.37: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Distal Breadth for All Dogs ...... 109

xiv Figure 4.38: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Radius for All Dogs ...... 110

Figure 4.39: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Radius for All Dogs ...... 110

Figure 4.40: Greatest Length vs. Depth across Anconaeus Process for All Dogs ...... 111

Figure 4.41: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Breadth of the Proximal end for All Dogs ...... 111

Figure 4.42: Greatest Length vs. Greatest Depth of the Femoral Head All Dogs ...... 112

Figure 4.43: Greatest Length vs. Greatest Breadth of Distal End for All Dogs ...... 112

Figure 4.44: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Tibia for All Dogs ...... 113

Figure 4.45: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Tibia for All Dogs ...... 113

Figure 5.1: Size Divisions Based on Average Shoulder Height for Southeastern Dogs ...... 115

Figure 5.2: Comparisons of Size Divisions from Dogs in Different Regions ...... 116

Figure 6.1: Total Cranial Length of Southeastern Dogs by the Average Radiocarbon BP Date of Site ...... 130

Figure 6.2: Total Dentary Length of Southeastern Dogs by the Average Radiocarbon BP Date of Site ...... 130

Figure 6.3: Average Shoulder Height of Southeastern Dogs by the Average Radiocarbon BP Date of Site ...... 131

xv ABSTRACT

This study examines the morphological variation present in prehistoric and early historic aboriginal dogs recovered from sites in the southeastern United States. Over 200 dogs from 40 archaeological sites in the southeastern United States were examined using 141 measurements. These sites range in age between 7450 BP to 220 BP. Additionally, 26 prehistoric dogs from the West Indies and 27 prehistoric dogs from the northern United States were compared to the southeastern samples. Univariate and bivariate analysis shows both homogeneity and variation in the morphology of the dogs in the southeastern region. In the Archaic dogs no morphological differences were present, indicating a single morphological type. This same type of dog was also the most common in the Woodland through early Historic period. However, two additional, morphologically distinct, types of dogs were also present by the Woodland period. This indicates that by the Woodland period three distinct dogs were present in the southeastern region. Shoulder height estimates do indicate both smaller and larger dogs in the later cultural periods. No significant differences were seen between dogs from different cultural periods. Dogs from the West Indies and dogs from the northern United States show similar morphology to most of the southeastern dogs.

xvi CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The thesis presented here interprets osteometric and odontometric measurements taken on the skeletons of prehistoric domestic dogs recovered from archaeological sites throughout the southeastern United States (Table 2.1). The dogs used in this study come from sites ranging from approximately 7450 BP to 220 BP, equivalent to the Archaic to Protohistoric/early Historic periods. This study attempts to determine whether size- related and morphological differences are present in archaeological dog remains from this region, and to determine if these size and morphological variations are present over time and space. The southeastern dogs are also compared to dogs from the West Indies and the northeastern United States.

Origin and Domestication of Domestic Dogs

The origins of the domestic dog have long been of interest to researchers. John Hunter et al. (1787) argued that the domestic dog, wolf, and jackal were all a single species based mostly on their capacity to interbreed. During the eighteenth to the early twentieth centuries it was widely argued the domestic dogs may have been domesticated from several species of wild Canis based mostly on the variation and outward appearances of modern breeds and aboriginal dogs. Such species considered as progenitors of the domestic dog include the wolf (Canis lupus), the golden jackal (Canis aureus), the coyote (Canis latrans), or a hybrid of two wild species; even perhaps an extinct Canis species has been suggested (Darwin 1859, 1868; Packard 1885; and Coues 1873; Allen 1920; Haag 1948; Fiennes and Fiennes 1968; Sauer 1969; Stains 1975; Fox 1978; Skaggs 1974; Wayne and Ostrander 1999: 249). It is well established through studies of morphology, social behavior, and genetic analysis that the grey wolf is the sole progenitor of all domestic dogs (Olsen 1985; Coppinger and Coppinger 2001; Clutton- Brock 1977, 1995; Wayne 1993, 1986a, 1986b; Wayne and Ostrander 1999; Hall and Sharp 1978; Lorenz 1975; Verginelli et al. 2005; Tsuda et al. 1997; Vila et al. 1997, 1999; Bokonyi 1988; Scott 1968, 1967). However, recently the theory of an alternate ancestral canid giving rise to the domestic dog was renewed by Janice Koler-Matznick (2002), and by Michelle Jeanette Raisor (2004, 2005). Both archaeological and molecular research has been used to resolve when and where the dog was domesticated. The earliest physical remains identified as domestic dog range in date from 17,000 to 13,000 years before present; these remains have been found in Germany, Switzerland, and Russia (Muller 2005; Sablin and Khlopachev 2002). The earliest accepted evidence of domestic dog comes from a grave at the Bonn- Oberkassel site in Germany and dates to 14,000 BP, consisting of a dentary fragment associated with two human burials (Benecke 1987). Morey (2006:168) states that the Bonn-Oberkassel dog was originally a complete skeleton and from a burial and argues that poor excavation methods account for the loss of association. Another early dog was a puppy skeleton found in association with a Natufian human burial at the site of Ein Mallaha from northern Israel, which dates to 12,000 BP (Davis and Valla 1978). However, the Oberkassel and the Ein Mallaha specimens, along with other proposed

1 early domestic dogs recovered from sites in Europe, Asia and the Near East, have recently been argued by some to be Canis lupus (Sablin and Khlopachev 2002: 795). Sablin and Khlopachev (2002: 795) argue that the two dog crania discovered at the Eliseevichi I site in Russia are the earliest, dating between 13,000 and 17,000 C14 years B.P. Another dog recovered from the Champreveyres site in Switzerland dated to 13,000 C14 years BP is also disputed to be the oldest (Muller 2005: 35). Crockford (2005: Figure 1) and Morey (2006: Table 1) provide a list of other early dog discoveries worldwide. Morey (2006: 166-168) argues that only early dog remains from attest to the timing of canid domestication. Molecular studies have provided further insight and debate to when the dog became domesticated. The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis by Vila et al. (1997) suggests an origin of possibly 135,000 to 100,000 years BP. Some geneticists and archaeologists have found these dates somewhat dubious (Morell 1997; Morey 2006). Robert Wayne does state that these dates may be too old, but he still feels that the domestication date is earlier than dates provided by archaeological finds (Morell 1997: 1647). Vila and his colleagues suggest the reason why dogs are not seen in the archaeological record before approximately 14,000 years BP is that they were still morphologically similar to wolves before this date (Vila et al. 1997: 1689). Savolainen et al. (2002) mtDNA analysis argues for an origin of approximately 15,000 years BP for a multiple origin or about 40,000 years BP for a single origin. Their analysis also suggests an East Asian origin for the domestic dog. The mtDNA analysis by Leonard et al. (2002) suggests a similar Euroasian origin for New World prehistoric dogs. There is also still argument over the possibility of a single or multiple domestication event of the dog (Koop et al. 2000). The polyphyletic origin theory seems to be the most popular; it argues that between two and as many as five separate domestication events occurred from wolf subspecies in Europe, Asia, and North America (Morey 1994; Burbidge 1998; Clutton-brock 1995; Vila et al. 1997; Wayne and Ostrander 1999; Crockford 2000:298, 2005; Morell 1997:1647; Koop et al. 2000; and Verginelli et al. 2005). Further research is required in order to resolve discrepancies seen in the molecular and archaeological data. Another question which can only be theorized is what motivations led to the domestication of the dog. Needless to say, within just a few thousand years the dog was dispersed throughout Europe, Asia, and the Americas.

Archaeological Evidence of Prehistoric Dogs

Skeletal remains of prehistoric dogs have been found on nearly every landmass humans have occupied, in sites as far north as northernmost Alaska and Siberia to as far south as southernmost Argentina and New Zealand. Their remains have also been identified from sites in Japan, Hawaii, Polynesia, China, Europe, the Caribbean, and throughout North and South America (Allen 1920, 1939, 1954; Benecke 1987; Bokonyi 1974; Brothwell et al. 1979; Burleigh et al. 1977; Clark 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1998; Coutts and Jurisich 1973; Crockford 2000; Day 1984; Dayan 1994; Fiedel 2005; Gleeson 1970; Haag 1948, 1954, 1966, 1968; Haag and Heizer 1953; Hamblin 1984; Harcourt 1974; Higham et al. 1980; Holland 1990; Intoh and Shigehara 2004; Kerber 1997; Morey 2006: Table 1; Morey and Sorensen 2001; Murie 1948; Onar et al. 2002; Park 1987; Schwartz 1997: Table 4.1; Shigehara et al. 1993, 1997, 1998; Snyder 1991, 1995;

2 Tchernov and Valla 1997; Wing 1997, 1998, 2001; Wood-Jones 1929, 1931; and Zeuner 1963) . The remains of these dogs have come in the form of complete burials, isolated bones, and butchered refuse. The sites in which these dogs have been found include some of the earliest prehistoric to later historic sites. Perhaps one of the more impressive discoveries is the “dog cemetery” at the site of Tell Ashkelon in Israel where more than 1000 dog burials have been recorded (Wapnish and Hesse 1993). The cited discoveries above are just some of an overwhelming number of sites where dogs have been recorded. It is widely believed that the domestic dog arrived in the New World with Paleoindians. However, the archaeological evidence is very scarce (Allen 1920; Fiedel 2005; and Schwartz 1997). The earliest remains identified as domestic dog were recovered from the Danger Cave site in Utah, dating to 9,000 to 10,000 years before present (Grayson 1988). The Danger Cave specimens consisted of an isolated skull fragment and two dentary fragments (Grayson 1988: 23). Other early dogs in North America have been identified from Rancho La Brea asphalt deposits, the Koster site, the Braden site, the Itasca Bison Kill site, the Modoc Rockshelter, and the Crypt Cave and Earth Mother Cave sites (Reynolds 1985; Shay 1971; Dansie 1999; and Morey and Wiant 1992). Of particular interest are the Koster and Braden sites. Excavations at the Koster site in Illinois uncovered two complete dog skeletons in deliberate burials. Both dogs were in Early Archaic horizons dating to 8,500 BP, making them the earliest dog burials in North America (Morey and Wiant 1992). In the 1960’s, archaeological work at the Braden site in western Idaho uncovered a mass grave of six humans and two dogs. Dating to 6,600 BP, the Braden site is the earliest occurrence of a deliberate burial of dogs with humans (Yohe II and Pavesic 2000). Many other sites in North America have dog remains, quite a few of these are in the southeastern region of the United States.

Archaeological Record of dogs in the southeastern United States

The burial of dogs in discrete burials appears to be common in the Middle and Late Archaic periods throughout much of southeastern North America (Warren 2004; Walker et al. 2005). Some of these dogs were found buried in midden deposits and some in distinct pits. Often dogs were found in single burials, but have also been buried in association with human remains. The Archaic midden sites in Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama have some of the largest numbers of dog interments. In Kentucky, these sites include Indian Knoll, Carlson Annis, Chiggerville, and Read Shell Midden. At Indian Knoll, 21 discrete dog burials were uncovered. Eight dogs were buried in their own pits, while 13 dogs were buried in association with human graves (Webb 1974: 155). The Carlson Annis site had 28 dogs, including three dogs buried with human remains (Webb 1950a: 272). At Chiggerville, 12 dog burials were found, including five with humans (Webb and Haag 1939:11). The Read Shell Midden contained 63 dog burials; none was associated with humans (Webb 1950b: 360). Archaic sites in Tennessee have also produced a number of dog interments. Many of these sites are found in the western half of the state along the Tennessee River (Lewis and Kneberg 1947). The excavation of the Eva site uncovered 18 intact dog burials. Disarticulated dog bones were also found and are believed to be from disturbed dog burials, suggesting more dog interments had been present (Lewis and Lewis 1961: 144). The Big Sandy site, located along the Big Sandy River, had 11 dog burials recorded

3 (Lewis and Kneberg 1947). Other sites in Tennessee with dogs include the Anderson site with one dog, the Ledbetter Landing site with four dogs, and the Oak View Landing site with two dogs in association with human remains (Dowd 1989; Lewis and Kneberg 1947). Archaic period sites in Alabama have also produced dog remains. The Perry site is a large shell midden located upstream of Seven Mile Island along the Tennessee River (Webb and Dejarnette 1948a; Futato 2002). Excavations at the site uncovered a total of 55 dogs, of which at least 13 were in association with human burials (Webb and Dejarnette 1942; Webb and Dejarnette 1948a). However, Diane Warren (2004:123) indicates that as many as 129 dogs were recovered at the Perry site. Other Archaic period sites include Whitesburg Bridge with nine dog burials, the Flint River site with about 19 dogs, and Mulberry Creek site with about 12 dogs (Webb and DeJarnette 1948b; Haag 1948). Other southeastern Archaic period sites with dogs include: the Tick Island site in Florida, Rodgers Rockshelter in Missouri, Duncan Tract and Hiwassee Island in Tennessee, and the Windover site in Florida (Breitberg 1983; Doran 2002; McMillan 1970; Jahn and Bullen 1978; and Harrington 1922). During the Woodland and Mississippian periods, there appears to be a decline in dog burials. The reason for this decline may be associated with a changing role of dogs in these latter cultural periods especially with the increased dependence on agriculture (Schwartz 1997, 2000; Smith 1975). Regardless, dog burials are found in Woodland and Mississippian period sites throughout much of the southeast and other regions (Borgic and Galloy 2004; Bullen and Bullen 1976; Moore 1896, 1897; Parmalee 1957, 1975; Lazarus 1979; Bilyeu 1972; Cotter 1952; Darwent and Gilliland 2001; Larson 1958; Lewis and Kneberg 1957, 1976; Moore 1992; Sears 1960; Wheeler 1992; Haag 1948; and Hogue 2003). The burial of dogs by aboriginal groups continued even in the protohistoric and historic periods (Schroedl and Parmalee 1997; Parmalee and Bogan 1978; Weisman 1992; Milanich 1996; Hogue 2003; and Blick 1988). Dog remains in the archaeological record of the southeast is not limited to burials; their fragmentary remains have also been identified in refuse features and appear to have contributed to the aboriginal diet. Evidence for the consumption of domestic dog by southeastern prehistoric groups has been cited from sites in Florida, and Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Illinois, and Louisiana (Ferguson 1951; Parmalee 1965; Smith 1975; and Griffin and Smith 1954; and Jackson and Scott 2001). Although with some exceptions, the dog played only a minor and infrequent role in the prehistoric diet compared to other species (Schwartz 1997; Smith 1975). Florida has probably the strongest archaeological evidence for the consumption of dogs than anywhere in the southeast (Schwartz 1997: 80; Mills 1989). At South Indian Field (8Br23), 437 fragmentary dog remains were found in the lower levels of the kitchen middens, dating to the Orange Period (2000-1000 BC) (Houck 1951). Many of the dogs were juvenile, and the disarticulated nature of the specimens suggests the animals were not buried as intact skeletons; instead the dogs were eaten (Houck 1951). The excavation of the Cotton site (8Vo83) also revealed large amounts of dog remains in the midden. In fact, dog and deer were the most common vertebrates in the midden from the site (Griffin and Smith 1954: 53). The South Indian Field site and the Cotton site are contemporaneous; the presence of large amounts of disarticulated dog remains at these

4 sites suggests that dogs were important to the aboriginal diet during this period (Griffin and Smith 1954; Schwartz 1997). Fragments of nearly 193 domestic dogs were recovered at the Tick Creek Cave in Missouri; the minimum number of individuals identified was 28 dogs. This rockshelter was occupied between the Archaic and Woodland periods. Butchered dog bones were identified from both periods. Parmalee (1965) estimates 15 to 20 percent of the dogs had been butchered. Smaller numbers of butchered dog bones have also been found at the Halliday site, the Conly site, the Watson Brake site, Chucalissa site, and Banks site (Jackson and Scott 2001; Parmalee 1960; and Smith 1975).

Ethnohistoric Data

Both ethnographic and historic literature provides some information on the roles of dogs amongst different cultures in North America. The paucity of some of this information for the southeast is unfortunate. Yerkes (2000: 8) and Swanton (1946: 344) suggest dogs were not as economically important as in other regions. However, it is believed that dogs in the southeast may have served in hunting, as food, as a beast of burden, ceremonial feasting, and sacrifice. The use of dogs for hunting is touched upon by some. Driver (1961: 60) and Driver and Massey (1957: 199) suggests that the dog was probably regulated for hunting solitary and small game. It is also suggested that dogs may have been used in chasing deer and possibly bears (Driver and Massey 1957: 199; Swanton 1946). Adair (1968 (1775): 330) mentions the use of dogs for hunting bear by the Choctaw. Swanton (1946) states that the Alabama used dogs for hunting rabbit, and Creek used them for hunting squirrel, opossum, and raccoon. However Swanton (1946: 345) suggests that the use of dogs by the Alabama and the Creek for hunting may have been influenced by European example. The use of dogs as a food source has also been suggested. Driver and Massey (1957: 181 and Map 6) suggests aborigines in the Georgia and South Carolina area raised and fattened dogs for food. Historical accounts of the De Soto expedition through the southeast indicate dogs were given to (or stolen by) the explorers by Indians in Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Arkansas as food (Biedma 1993: 226, 231, 236; Elvas 1993: 77, 87; and Rangel 1993: 281, 282). Elvas (1993: 87) stated the Indians at Guaxule (or Gauquili), a settlement in Georgia, did not eat dogs. However, Rangel (1993: 281) indicates these Indians raised dogs for food. Swanton (1942: 134) suggests dogs were eaten by the Caddo only in times of famine or ceremony. Natchez and other groups also participated in ceremonial eating of dogs (Swanton 1911; Hudson 1976). Dogs may have been used as a beast of burden and as a ceremonial grave deposit. Although Swanton (1946: 344) states no evidence for dogs a beast of burden, Driver and Massey (1957) indicate otherwise. Driver and Massey (1957: 281-283 and Map 84) suggest Native groups in South and North Carolina, to Tennessee loaded their dogs with hide containers similar to saddle bags. Amongst the Choctaw the dog of deceased person was killed and buried with the individual (Swanton 1931: 183).

5 Previous Analyses

Glover Allen (1920) made the first attempt to classify and describe the aboriginal dogs in the New World. His monograph synthesizes the previous work done on the origin of dogs and descriptions of the New World dog given by explorers and naturalists. Allen used both early descriptions and archaeological remains to describe the types of dogs in the New World. He argued that there were three types of dogs: the Eskimo dog; the large, or Common Indian dog; and the small Indian dog, or Techichi. He goes on to say that as many as eleven varieties of the large Indian dog and five varieties of the small Indian dog may exist (Allen 1920: 503). Allen refers to only two possible dogs in the eastern region: the Common Indian dog and the Small Indian dog. He believes the Common Indian dog ranged throughout the eastern US and in the Caribbean (Allen 1920: 457-463). He was less confident of the Small Indian dog’s distribution, although he believed it to have been in the southeast (Allen 1920: 481-490) In 1948, William Haag conducted a metric analysis of 393 archaeological and modern aboriginal dogs from Archaic sites in Kentucky and Alabama, sites in St. Lawrence Island, Kodiak Island, the Northwest Coast, and the Southwest; Woodland and Mississippian period sites, and modern aboriginal dogs from Siberia, Alaska, and Greenland. Haag (1948: 258) argued that there was a statistically significant difference in the size of dogs from different archaeological horizons. He concluded dogs of similar cultural manifestation would be similarly sized. Haag also argued that dogs of from older sites tend to be smaller than dogs from later sites. Many other osteometric and osteological studies on dogs in North America have been undertaken since Haag (1948). These analyses have focused on taxonomic relationships, hybridization, breeds, and size and morphological comparisons (Nowak 1979; Morey 1986, 1992; Gleeson 1970; Handley 2000; Switzer 1992; Crockford 1997; Walker and Frison 1982; Walker et al. 2005; Potter and Baby 1964; Azua 2000; Blick 1988; Colton 1970; Lawrence 1968; Darwent and Gilliland 2001; and Yerkes 2000). Other analyses of dogs focused on pathological conditions of dogs and the roles dogs played in aboriginal cultures (Warren 2004; Zimmer 2007). Many of the metric analyses of domestic dogs are parts of larger faunal analyses or site reports. Thus they are often limited to univariate comparisons between dogs from specific archaeological sites and mean measurements from dogs of similar cultural manifestation in Haag’s 1948 monograph. Multivariate analyses have been conducted on prehistoric dogs (Handley 2000; Switzer 1992; Crockford 1997; and Walker et al. 2005). Brent Handley (2000) did multivariate analysis of 27 dogs from New England and Long Island sites and distinguished three dog types: a large type, a medium type, and a small type. He believes these dogs correspond to the three size types described by Allen (1920). The osteometric analyses by Switzer (1992) and by Crockford (1997) both indicate at least two types of dogs in the Northwest region. These studies both indicate two size types present in the region. The smaller of the two types is believed to represent the possible indigenous “Wool dog” breed and the larger is the “Village dog” with varieties common to most aboriginal populations throughout North America. Wool dogs are the only dog apparently bred by indigenous people in North America. Walker et al. (2005) compared dogs from the Dust Cave site with dogs from other Archaic sites in the southeast and Midwest using

6 univariate and multivariate analyses. Walker and colleagues found that the dogs from Dust Cave have similar morphology to the Archaic comparative sample (Walker et al. 2005: 90). The historical and archaeological existence of a distinct dog breed from North America has only been identified in the Northwest region. Because no known selective breeding has been identified for aboriginal populations in southeastern North America the term “type” will be used to describe any distinct dogs in this analysis.

Thesis outline The purpose of this thesis is to provide a better understanding of the osteometric variation of the domestic dog in the southeast, and further, how their similarities and differences compare to dogs in other regions. This study has six chapters. Chapter 1, the Introduction, provides background into the origin of domestication of the dog, the early archeological evidence of dogs, archeological evidence of southeastern dogs, and previous analysis of prehistoric dogs. Chapter 2, the Methodology, provides a list of the data set procedures used to examine and analyze the sample. This includes age estimates, sex determination, cranial indices, and shoulder height and body length equations. Chapter 3, the Osteometry of the Axial Skeleton, provides the results from cranial indices, the univariate, and bivariate analyses conducted on the skulls and dentaries samples. Chapter 4, the Osteometry of the Appendicular Skeleton, provides the results from univariate and bivariate analyses of the humerus, radius, ulna, femur, tibia, astragulus and calcaneus, and metapodials. Chapter 5, the Shoulder Height and Body Length Estimates, provides the results from the shoulder height and body length equations conducted on the samples. Additionally a quantitative based definition is proved to describe small, medium, and large dogs from this region. Chapter 6, the Conclusion, summarizes the findings from this analysis. In addition, eight appendices are provided. Appendix A is a table of the sex of each dog in the sample. Appendix B is a table listing the estimated shoulder heights of the samples. Appendix C is a table of the results of the five different cranial indices for each sample. Appendix D is the list of all cranial and dentary measurement definitions with the number of dogs from each cultural period with that measurement. This appendix also provides the univariate analyses for the cranial and dentary samples. Appendix E is the results of t-tests comparing males and females conducted on all measurements used on the dog samples. Appendix F presents the results of t-tests comparing different cultural periods conducted on all measurements used on the dog samples. Appendices G and H present the univariate analysis on all measurements by sex and cultural affiliation.

7 CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

The skeletal remains of 206 dogs were analyzed (Table 2.1). This includes 118 examined by the author and 88 dogs from published sources. These samples were recovered from 40 sites throughout the southeastern United States, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Carolina. The dogs examined date to the Archaic (7450 – 3370 BP), Woodland (2285 – 1000 BP), Mississippian (950 – 365 BP), and Historic periods (318 – 220 BP). All dogs are associated with aboriginal sites, including the Historic period dogs. Most of the dogs used were recovered from discrete intentional burials and were nearly complete. A few disarticulated and fragmentary remains were included. Only specimens identified as domestic dog were used in this analysis. In addition to the Southeastern dogs, 26 prehistoric dogs from the West Indies and 27 prehistoric dogs from the Northeastern United States were included for comparison (Table 2.1). Analytical problems in this study include variable bone quality and fragmentary skeletons. Few individuals were entirely intact with all elements represented. No age or sex information was available for many of the specimens. Material conditions ranged from excellent to very poor. This limited available measurements. For inclusion in the study it was important to establish the age at death of the dogs. In addition, the sex of each dog had to be assessed. Sex, where possible, was determined during analysis.

Table 2.1: Specimens Analyzed

Site/ Site Number Site Age (BP) Number of Dogs State/Country Reference

Southeast (n = 206) Bear Creek Cave 5450 1 Alabama Haag 1948 Cedar Creek 3450 1 Alabama Futato 1983 Reservoir* Deposit Landing 1650 2 Alabama Haag 1948 Dust Cave 6950 4 Alabama Walker et al. 2005 Flint River 5000 3 Alabama Haag 1948 Flint Shop 5450 2 Alabama Haag 1948 Henry Island 600 2 Alabama Haag 1948 Little Bear Creek 5450 2 Alabama Haag 1948 Mason Island 5450 1 Alabama Haag 1948 Mulberry Creek 6950 7 Alabama Haag 1948 Perry 4764 7 Alabama Haag 1948 Riley 1650 1 Alabama Haag 1948 Stearns site 1650 2 Alabama Haag 1948 Whitesburg Bridge 5000 1 Alabama Haag 1948 Armorel* 500 1 Arkansas Mitchie and Mulvihill 1999 Fig Springs* 318 1 Florida Weisman 1991 Hontoon Island* 1700 1 Florida Purdy 1987 Key Marco* 494 3 Florida Wing 1965

Table 2.1: Specimens Analyzed (continued)

Site/ Site Number Site Age (BP) Number of Dogs State/Country Reference Lake Jackson 592 1 Florida Jones 1994 Mound* Palmer* 1100 3 Florida Bullen and Bullen 1976 South Indian Field 3450 13 Florida Gross 1971 Trail site* 1000 1 Florida Carr 2003 Windover* 7400 1 Florida Doran 2002 9Br20* 1200 2 Georgia Wauchope 1966 Cowarts Landing 375 1 Georgia Haag 1948 Etowah* 670 2 Georgia Larson 1958 Ocmulgee* 950 3 Georgia Hally 1994 15Jo9* 2150 1 Kentucky Webb 1942 Annis Village* 675 2 Kentucky Brown 1940 Baker* 5450 5 Kentucky Haag 1948 Barret* 5070 3 Kentucky Webb and Haag 1947 Bell Shelter* 1650 1 Kentucky Haag 1948 Butterfield* 5450 1 Kentucky Webb and Haag 1947 Carlston Annis* 4578 10 Kentucky Webb 1950 Chiggerville* 5000 8 Kentucky Webb and Haag 1939 Hardin Village 450 1 Kentucky Haag 1948 Indian Knoll 4282 19 Kentucky Haag 1948 Jackson Bluff* 5450 4 Kentucky Stout and Baugh 1938 Kirkland* 4945 2 Kentucky Webb and Haag 1940 Morris Village* 450 1 Kentucky Haag 1948 Read 3400 1 Kentucky Webb 1950 Ward* 4960 7 Kentucky Webb and Haag 1940 Greenhouse 550 3 Louisiana Haag 1948 22Ok904 220 1 Mississippi Hogue 2003 Austin* 900 7 Mississippi Connaway (N.D.) Josey Farm 391 1 Mississippi Hogue 2003 Oliver* 365 2 Mississippi Yerkes 2000 Kersey 1625 1 Missouri Darwent and Gilliland 2001 McColloch 1625 1 Missouri Darwent and Gilliland 2001 Miller Cave 1300 1 Missouri Darwent and Gilliland 2001 Rodgers Shelter 7450 1 Missouri McMillan 1970 Chattooga* 450 1 South Carolina Schroedl and Parmalee 1997 G.S. Lewis West* 1950 3 South Carolina Anderson (N.D.) Ausmus* 700 1 Tennessee Webb 1938

9 Table 2.1: Specimens Analyzed (continued)

Site/ Site Number Site Age (BP) Number of Dogs State/Country Reference Bailey* 4450 1 Tennessee Bentz 1996 Big Sandy* 5450 2 Tennessee Lewis and Kneberg 1947, 1959 Camp Creek* 1995 7 Tennessee Lewis and Kneberg 1957 Cherry* 3700 8 Tennessee Lewis and Kneberg 1947, 1959 Chota 250 2 Tennessee Parmalee and Bogan 1978 Chucalissa* 650 2 Tennessee Parmalee 1960 Citico 400 1 Tennessee Parmalee and Bogan 1978 Danville Ferry* 4450 2 Tennessee Chapman 1988 Ensworth/Chase 3370 1 Tennessee Deter-Wolf 2004 Devon* Eva* 4950 12 Tennessee Lewis and Lewis 1961 Fewkes* 650 2 Tennessee Peres 2002 Hampton * 900 2 Tennessee Webb and Wilder 1951 Tallahassee 250 1 Tennessee Parmalee and Bogan 1978 Toqua 400 4 Tennessee Parmalee and Bogan 1978 Westmoreland- 2285 1 Tennessee Faulkner and Barber* Graham 1965, 1966; Chapman 1988 Northeast (n = 27) Granniss Island 1650 3 Connecticut Handley 2000 Tubbs 650 1 Connecticut Handley 2000 Port Washington 1650 7 Long Island Handley 2000 Frenchman’s Bay 2300 1 Maine Handley 2000 Nevin site 4450 2 Maine Handley 2000 Ruth Moore 4450 1 Maine Handley 2000 Turner Farm 4450 2 Maine Handley 2000 Turner Farm 1650 1 Maine Handley 2000 Whaleback Shell 1650 3 Maine Handley 2000 Heap Quincy 1450 1 Massachusetts Handley 2000 South Truro 1650 1 Massachusetts Handley 2000 Watertown 3150 2 Massachusetts Handley 2000 Lambert Farm 650 1 Rhode Island Handley 2000 Meeting House:1 650 1 Rhode Island Handley 2000 West Indies (n = 26) Indian Creek 1575 1 Antigua Wing 1997 Chancery Lane 1510 1 Barbados Wing 1991 Heywoods 1015 1 Barbados Wing 1991 Silver Sands 1325 1 Barbados Wing 1991

10 Table 2.1: Specimens Analyzed (continued)

Site/ Site Number Site Age (BP) Number of Dogs State/Country Reference MC-12* 1325 2 Caicos Wing 2001 El Carril 1030 1 Dominican Lawrence 1977 Republic Roman Santana 600 2 Dominican Lawrence 1977 Republic White Marl 1250 2 Jamaica Wing 1998 Sorce* 1673 14 Puerto Rico Narganes 1982 Cayon* 1800 1 St.Kitts Wing 1998 * Sites where specimens were measured by the author

Aging

Estimation of age can be assessed from the skeleton and teeth of animals. The purpose of aging the dogs here was not to estimate the age at death but to insure that only adult dogs were measured. The use of bones and teeth from subadult specimens would skew the data when compared with the bones and teeth of adult dogs. Most bones go through a constant process of growth. However, only after maturity is reached are all epiphyses fused (Table 2.2). Teeth are also useful tools for age determination. Deciduous teeth are the first set of fully functional teeth. These teeth erupt by the second month after birth and are present throughout subadult life. Only near maturity are the deciduous teeth shed and all permanent dentition erupts (Table 2.3). Most published age data are based on modern, highly inbred types. For this reason the age criterion presented by Silver (1970) for mixed breed dogs is used as the primary age reference (Table 2.2 and 2.3). Generally, domestic dogs tend to reach full maturity between approximately 12 to 18 months, by which time all epiphyses are generally fused (Silver 1970; Sumner-Smith 1966; Gilbert 1997; and Schmid 1972). In this study, only fully mature dogs were measured. All subadults were excluded from analysis based on dental eruption and epiphyseal union.

Table 2.2: Fusion Estimates of Dogs (from Silver 1970: 252-253)

Bone Ossification Center Fusion (In months)

Scapula Bicipital Tuberosity 6-7 Humerus Proximal 15 Distal 8-9 Radius Proximal 11-12 Distal 11-12 Ulna Olecranon 9-10 Distal 11-12 Metacarpus Proximal Before birth Distal 8 1st Phalanx Proximal 7 Distal Before birth

11 Table 2.2: Fusion Estimates of Dogs (from Silver 1970: 252-253) (continued)

Bone Ossification Center Fusion (In months) 2nd Phalanx Proximal 7 Distal Before birth Pelvis Fusion of Main Bones 6 Ischium-sciatic tuberosity 24 Femur Proximal 18 (1.5 yrs) Distal 18 (1.5 yrs) Tibia Proximal 18 (1.5 yrs) Distal 13-16 Fibula Proximal 15-18 Distal 15 Calcaneus Tuber calcis 13-16 Metatarsal Proximal Before birth Distal 10

Table 2.3: Tooth Eruption in Dogs (from Silver 1970: 265)

Tooth Deciduous (In weeks) Permanent (In months) Incisors Central 1/1 4-6 3-5 Lateral 1/1 4-6 3-5 Corner 1/1 4-6 3-5 Canines 1/1 3-5 5-7 Premolars #1 * 1/1 Absent 4-5 #2 1/1 5-8 5-6 #3 1/1 5-8 5-6 #4 1/1 5-8 5-6 Molars #1 1/1 N.D 4-5 #2 1/1 N.D 5-6 #3 ^ 1/1 N.D 6-7 * Permanent upper and lower premolars often absent ^ Permanent upper molars often absent N.D: No data reported

Sexing

Perhaps the most important aspect to be resolved prior to analysis was the determination of the sex of the individual dogs used in this study. Sexual dimorphism is present in all mammals, including members of the genus Canis. Males tend to be larger than female dogs. In addition male dogs also have a baculum, or os penis. It is thus surprising that previous metric analyses of prehistoric dogs have ignored sexual dimorphism in their analysis (i.e. Haag 1948, Allen 1920, Gleeson 1970, and Switzer 1992). Several non metric and metric methods to distinguish male and female dogs have also been devised. All but one of the methods used here are based on characteristics of the crania and dentaries.

12 Forty-four dogs with a baculum were sexed as male. Seventeen dogs in which the baculum was not present during my analysis were also sexed as male. These dogs had bacula when Haag (1948) had examined them. Three dogs were recovered with fetal dogs in association, and were sexed as female. All dogs from published sources retained the sex determined by the authors. The remaining dogs were sexed using sagittal crest formation, basiooccipital region, masseter fossa, subpubic angle, and discriminant function analysis of the crania and dentary and are discussed in the following section.

Sagittal crest

The sagittal crest is a longitudinal projection created when the superior temporal lines on both sides of the skull unite at the mid-sagittal line (Evans 1993; The and Trouth 1976; and Warren 2004). The use of the sagittal crest for sex determination in domestic dogs is long debated (Crockford 1997; Shigehara et al. 1997; Scott 1957; Morey 1990; The and Trouth 1976; and Warren 2004). In male dogs, the sagittal crests tend to form just posterior to the bregma and are well developed. Female dogs often do not have a sagittal crest; instead the temporal lines remain separate. When females do have sagittal crests they form well posterior to the bregma (Figure 2.1) (Shigehara et al.1997).

Figure 2.1: Sagittal crest

Basioccipital

The surface markings of the basioccipital region are the attachment points of the left and right rectus capitis ventralis major and minor muscles. The muscle markings demarcate a triangular area around the tuberculum pharyngicum (The and Trouth 1976 and Trouth et al. 1977). This traingular area is believed to show sexual dimorphic differences in domestic dogs (Brothwell et al 1979; Evans 1993; Shigehara et al. 1997; The and Trouth 1976; and Trouth et al. 1977). In male dogs the muscle markings meet at the median line, forming a very acute vertex angle. The base is very small, giving an appearance of a narrow triangle. In female dogs the muscle markings never meet in the midline, and the base is wider giving an appearance of truncated triangle (Figure 2.2). There are variations to both these conditions where the basiocranium cannot be easily classified to either sex (The and Trouth 1976).

Figure 2.2: Basiocranium

14 The Condyloid Ridge

The condyloid ridge of the mandible forms the inferior margin of the masseter fossa. Male dogs have a distinct condyloid ridge, clearly separating the masseter fossa from the inferior area of the dentary. In female dogs, the condyloid ridge is less distinct and the masseter fossa shifts downward with little or no separation (Figure 2.3) (Shigahara et al. 1997: 119).

Figure 2.3: Condyloid Ridge

15 Subpubic angle

The subpubic angle of the ischiatic arch is formed when the left and right innominates are fused at the symphysis pubis. The angle is more obtuse in female dogs than in male dogs as required for parturition (Figure 2.4). Sexing dogs by the subpubic angle is argued to be very reliable when the pelvis is intact (Warren 2004). This rarely occurs in archaeologically recovered material due to postmortem damage. Of the 118 southeastern dogs examined, only one dog (15Jo9) had an intact symphysis pubis. Thus this sex feature was of little use in this analysis.

Figure 2.4: Subpubic Angle

16 Discriminant function analysis

In addition to nonmetric methods, metric methods have also been devised for sex assessment. Two discriminant function equations were used to assign sex to the dogs. The equations were defined by Shigehara et al. (1997) and are based on measurements of the crania and dentaries of modern Japanese shiba dogs of known sex. The shiba dog is a small spitz-like dog, which is very similar in cranial shape and size to many prehistoric dogs (Crockford 1997; Warren 2004). The Shigehara et al. (1997) discriminant functions have been used to sex prehistoric dogs in China, Japan, the United States, and Canada (Shigehara et al. 1997; Shigehara et al. 1998; Crockford 1997; Darwent and Gilliland 2001; and Warren 2004). The two discriminate equations chosen for this study were:

y = zygomatic breadth + 0.447(cranial basal length) –154.26 and y = ramus breadth + 3.413(body thickness) + 0.130(total length) – 69.22

These discriminate functions are only applicable to adult specimens. The first equation has a probability of error of 17.2 %, and the second equation has a probability of error of 21.1 %. These two equations have the highest probability of error of the nine equations defined by Shigehara et al. (1997), but were the only ones that could be utilized due to the condition of the specimens under analysis and the problem of missing data. Shigehara et al. (1997) made 0 the cut point for the discriminate equation when sexing shiba dogs. All dogs with a y value less than 0 are female, all dogs with a y value greater than 0 are male. Warren (2004) modified the cut point from 0 to 1.5 when she used one of the equations to sex southeastern and Illinois prehistoric dogs, increasing the number of correctly sexed dogs in her sample. Modifying the cut point from 0 to 1.5 showed little difference in the number of dogs correctly sexed in this sample, so 0 remained the cut point in this sample. The results from this analysis are discussed in Chapter 3 and presented in Appendix A.

Pathologies

During analysis all dogs were examined for pathologies. Only 52 dogs exhibited pathologies. Most exhibited single pathological elements and only a few exhibited multiple pathologies. The pathological conditions of the sample are not discussed here. Diane Warren (2004) has done a thorough analysis of pathologies present in prehistoric domestic dogs from the southeast; included in her dissertation are some of the dogs from Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama examined here. The most frequent occurring pathologies identified on the dogs in this thesis included osteophytosis and osteoarthiritis, fractures, deviated vertebral spinous processes, and the congenital absence of teeth. Osteophytosis (marginal vertebral osteophytosis) was identified only on thorasic and lumbar vertebrae, although cases of arthritis on long bones were encountered. Most instances of arthritis exhibited only minor growths; however, several dogs had two or more vertebrae nearly fused. Most of the occurrences of vertebral osteophytosis were restricted to thoracic vertebrae 10 through 13, and the lumbar vertebrae. Fractures were identified on both the bones of the cranial and postcranial skeleton, this included fractures

17 of the zygomatic arch and cranium, long bones, vertebral spinous processes, ribs, and metapodials. Deviated spinous processes were also recorded in the form of curved spinous processes and flattening of the top of spinous processes. Like the occurrences of osteophytosis, the cases of deviated spinous processes were mostly restricted to the thoracic vertebrae 10 through 13, and the lumbar vertebrae.

Osteometry, Analytical, and Statistical Procedures

This study incorporates measurements of crania, teeth, and apendicular skeletons. A series of 141 standard measurements defined by von den Driesch (1976) were taken using digital sliding calipers and spreading calipers. All measurements were recorded in millimeters. Many of the specimens from published sources had previously been measured using metrics defined by Haag (1948). Only those measurements of Haag (1948) that corresponded with those of von den Driesch (1976) were incorporated. All measurements were taken from left elements whenever possible. Right elements were substituted for left elements if the left was absent or too damaged for accurate measurements. The data collected were input into a Dbase IV file (Ashton-Tate 1986) and imported into SYSTAT 11 (SYSTAT Software, Inc. 2004) for statistical and graphical analysis. Univariate and bivariate analysis was done on all variables examined. Univariate analysis was performed to determine which variables have large representative samples, and would be suited for further examination. A small sample size would provide questionable results. Univariate analysis provided the basic descriptive statistics, including the number, mean, median, minimum and maximum measurements, and standard deviation data for each variable (Tables 3.7, 3.9, 4.2, 4.4, 4.6, 4.8, 4.10, 4.12, 4.14, 4.17, and 4.19). The number is simply the number of cases which have a given variable. The mean is the average of all samples of a variable. The mean is useful in order to compare data with other analyses (Crockford 1997; Handley 2000). The mean is sensitive to extremes, so any exceptionally large or small value may skew the mean. To insure that the mean is expressing a good measure of the central tendency, the median is also included. The median is the middle value when the data were arranged in order of magnitude. The median is less sensitive than the mean to outlying values (Agresti and Finlay 1997; Triola 2001). The minimum and maximum measurements show the range of size for each variable. The standard deviation shows the summed difference of each case from the mean. Univariate analysis is only the first step in examining the data. For many questions bivariate analysis is required to fully describe the sample. Variables with sufficient measures for reasonable statistical analysis were chosen for bivariate analysis. Much of the analysis is presented in scatterplot form in order to better show any relationship between distinct variables. Such analysis can provide a means to reveal possible groupings and interpret the data.

18 Indices

In addition five indices were also calculated. The indices used are defined by Harcourt (1974) and Evans (1993). Indices show the relationship between two measurements, expressed as a single term. The indices were performed to assess variation in different portions of each dog skull (Table 2.4). The indices examined were the skull, cranial, facial, snout width, and palatal (Table 2.4). The shape and size of the dog’s face varies more than any other part of the skeleton (Evans 1993: 132). There are three terms generally used to designate these head shapes: dolichocephalic, a long narrow head; mesaticephalic, a head of medium proportion; and brachycephalic, a short, wide head. Dolicephalic-shaped heads are present in such modern breeds as the collie and the Russian wolfhound. Mesaticephalic-shaped heads are present in German shepards, beagles, and setters. Brachycephalic head-shaped dogs are present in Boston terriers and Pekingese (Evans 1993: 132). To assess variation in skull, cranial, facial, palate, and snout width shape the appropriate indices were calculated:

y = Width x 100 ÷ Length

Table 2.4: Measurement Definitions for Indices

Indices Width Width Length Measurement Length Measurement Measurement Measurement # #

Skull Index Bizygomatic 30 Total 1 Cranial Index Neurocranium 29 Neurocranium 42* Facial Index Bizygomatic 30 Viscerocranium 8 Snout Width Index Canine Aveolii 36 Total 8 Palatal Index Palatal 34 Median Palatal 13 * From Haag 1948 and Evans 1993.

Table 2.5 shows the average measurements of randomly sampled modern adult dog skulls of the three basic types (Evans 1993:132). In addition, indices from modern dogs are presented for comparison (Table 2.6). Each of the prehistoric dog samples’ indices was compared with those in Table 2.5 and Table 2.6. The indices could not be calculated on all of the specimens due to the condition of the specimens and missing variables.

19 Table 2.5: Average Indices of the Three Basic Cranial Types (from Evans 1993)

Skull Type Skull Index Cranial Index Facial Index Snout Width Palatal Index Index Brachycephalic 81 57 215 - - Mesaticephalic 52 56 111 - - Dolicephalic 39 48 81 - -

Table 2.6: Indices of Modern Dog Breeds (from Onar et al. 2001, 2002)

Breed Skull Index Cranial Index Facial Index Snout Width Palatal Index Index Beagle 50.50 - - - 67 Cocker 52.91 - - - Spaniel Collie 42.37 - - - - Dalmation 56.39 - - - 67.6 Doberman 46.51 - - - - English 107 69 - 37.1 122 Bulldog Fox Terrier 70 - - - - German 56 51 - - 60 Shepard Great Dane 51.67-53.48 - - - 64.9-68.5 Greyhound 50-52.9 - - 28.4 62.3-66.9 Husky du 59.00 - - - 69 Labrador Irish Setter 49.50 - - - - Pekinese 107 84 - - 122 Pointer 59.00 - - - - Pug 90 - - - - Rotweiler 56.18-62.6 - - 47.2 - Saluki 56 64 - - 57 Shiba - 61-60.7 78 - 78.6-79.2 Siberian 53.76 - - - - Husky St. Bernard 51.36 - - - - White 72-75 - - - - Pomerian

Shoulder Height and Body Length Estimates

Shoulder height was chosen because of the large sample size to examine temporal and spatial variation. Seven of the shoulder height estimates are derived from Harcourt (1974) and are based on the total length of individual long bones and combinations of long bones (Table 2.7). The shoulder height estimates based on the combination of long bones are regarded as more accurate (Harcourt 1974; Crockford 1997). Eight other shoulder height estimates based on the total length of metacarpals two through five and metatarsals two through five were also included (Clark 1995; Crockford 1997) (Table 2.7). These shoulder height estimates are based on modern European dogs, but have been used successfully to estimate shoulder heights of prehistoric domestic dogs from various sites (Crockford 1997; Handley 2000; Warren 2004; Walker et al. 2005; Clark 1997; and Onar and Belli 2005). All 15 shoulder height formulas were calculated for each of the dogs with the appropriate measurements. All shoulder heights are expressed in centimeters. The average shoulder height for each dog is used in the analysis (Appendix B). To better show how the prehistoric dog shoulder heights compare with modern breeds, a sample of 22 pure bred dog shoulder heights are given (Table 2.8). A quantitative definition of small, medium, and large dogs is provided for the southeastern region. Skull length and shoulder height estimates will be used to define the size of the southeastern dog (Chapters 3 and 5). Quantitative methods to classify dogs have been used for dogs in other regions (Colton 1970; Crockford 1997; Mazzorin and Tagliacozzo 2000). In addition, a body length estimate was performed based on the total length of the innominate (Table 2.7). The body length estimate regression formula derived by G.R. Clark (1995) relates the live body length from the total innominate length (Cockford 1997: 89) (Table 2.7). As with the shoulder height formulae, the body length formula is based on modern dogs but has also been applied to prehistoric dogs (Crockford 1997: 89). The body length estimates are expressed in centimeters (Table 5.4). Modern dogs of “average size” are suggested to have shoulder heights equal to or longer than their body length (Crockford 1997: 89). The estimated body length and estimated shoulder height are presented in Table 5.4.

Table 2.7: Shoulder Heights and Body Length Equations

Shoulder Height Bone Element (Total Equation Reference Estimate Length) Shoulder Height 1 Humerus (3.43 x TL) – 26.54 Harcourt 1974 Shoulder Height 2 Radius (3.18 x TL) + 19.51 Harcourt 1974 Shoulder Height 3 Ulna (2.78 x TL) + 6.21 Harcourt 1974 Shoulder Height 4 Humerus + Radius (1.65 x TL + TL) – 4.32 Harcourt 1974 Shoulder Height 5 Femur (3.14 x TL) – 12.96 Harcourt 1974 Shoulder Height 6 Tibia (2.92 x TL) + 9.41 Harcourt 1974 Shoulder Height 7 Femur + Tibia (1.52 x TL + TL) – 2.47 Harcourt 1974 Shoulder Height 8 Metacarpal 2 (0.94 x TL) – 1.56 Clark 1995 Shoulder Height 9 Metacarpal 3 (0.83 x TL) – 2.03 Clark 1995 Shoulder Height 10 Metacarpal 4 (0.84 x TL) – 2.60 Clark 1995

21 Table 2.7: Shoulder Heights and Body Length Equations (continued)

Shoulder Height Bone Element (Total Equation Reference Estimate Length) Shoulder Height 11 Metacarpal 5 (0.98 x TL) – 1.56 Clark 1995 Shoulder Height 12 Metatarsal 2 (0.86 x TL) – 2.04 Clark 1995 Shoulder Height 13 Metatarsal 3 (0.77 x TL) – 2.26 Clark 1995 Shoulder Height 14 Metatarsal 4 (0.75 x TL) – 2.68 Clark 1995 Shoulder Height 15 Metatarsal 5 (0.83 x TL) – 1.75 Clark 1995 Body Length Pelvis (0.47 x TL) – 15.7 Clark 1995

Table 2.8: Modern Dog Breed Shoulder Heights (from American Kennel Club (www.akc.org))

Breed Male SH (inches) Male SH (cm) Female SH Female SH (cm) (inches) American 22-25 56-63.5 21-24 53.5-61 Foxhound Australian Cattle 18-20 46-50 17-19 43-48 Dog Basengi 17 43 16 40.5 Basset Hound 13-15 33-38 13-15 33-38 Beagle 13-15 33-38 13-15 33-38 Border collie - 53.0 - - Bull Mastiff 25-27 63.5-68.5 24-26 61-66 Cairn Terrier 11-12 28-31 11 28-31 Cocker Spaniel 15-16 38-41 14-15.5 35.5-39 Doberman 26-28 66-71 24-26 61-66 Pinscher German shepherd - 62.5 - 57.5 Irish Wolfhound 32+ 81.5+ 30+ 76+ Jack Russel terrier - 31.5 - 29 Labrador Retriever 22.5-24.5 57-61.5 21.5-23.5 54-59.5 Lancashire Heeler 12 30 10 25 Neapolitan Mastiff 26-31 66-79 24-29 61-73.5 Pharoah Hound 23-25 58.5-63.5 21-24 53-61 Rhodesian 25-27 63.5-68.5 24-26 61-66 Ridgeback Scottish Terrier 10 25.5 10 25.5 Shibu Inu 14.5-16.5 37-42 13.5-15-5 34-39.5 West Highland 11 28 11 28 White Terrier Whippet 19-22 48-56 18-21 46-53.5

22 CHAPTER 3

OSTEOMETRY OF THE AXIAL SKELETON

Sex Analysis

Several methods were used in order to sex the dogs in this sample (Chapter 2). Each method presented its own problems and limitations. The two discriminant function equations were run on all southeastern and West Indies dogs with the appropriate measurements (Shigehara et al. 1997; von den Driesch 1976). The cut point defined by Shigehara et al. (1997) was 0; however Warren (2004) modified the cut point from 0 to 1.5 to correctly sex the dogs in her sample (Chapter 2). Modifying the cut point from 0 to 1.5 made little difference in the sex assignment in this sample; therefore it was not done here. Of the 118 prehistoric domestic dogs from the southeast examined personally, 64 were determined to be male, three probable males, 18 female, and ten probable females. Not all dogs could be sexed; a total of 23 dogs remained unsexed (Appendix A). All the non-metric and metric methods were utilized to sex these dogs when possible. The different methods did not always provide unanimous results. The sex that best represented the specimen was used, after taking all results into consideration and reexamining photographs of the dogs. Some specimens consisted of isolated elements, and others were too fragmentary to sex by any of the methods used; these were left unsexed. Another 88 southeastern dogs were taken from published sources. From these, 32 were sexed as males, one probable male, 12 female, and four probable females and 39 remained unsexed (Appendix A). All dogs from published sources retained the sex determined by the authors. Only those dogs that were published without sex assignment were sexed here. This was done through the two discriminant functions. Only 11 of the 26 West Indies dogs could be sexed. Three were sexed as male, six were sexed as female, and two as probable female (Appendix A). The number of males versus females may be a result of small sample size. All the sexed dogs from the West Indies are from the Sorce site in Puerto Rico. The West Indies dogs that were examined were sexed in the same manner as the southeastern dogs. The remaining fifteen dogs were too fragmentary to assign a sex. Nine West Indies dogs were from published sources. None of these dogs from publications could be sexed through discriminant analysis. Brent Handley (2000) as part of his thesis had sexed the 27 northeastern dogs. Eighteen dogs were determined to be male and nine were female (Appendix A). To facilitate analysis, all dogs marked as “probable male” or “probable female” were grouped into the sex category best fitting them. Thus, probable males are male and probable females are female (Appendix A). An unequal distribution of males to females was present in the southeastern sample (100 males/ 44 females). This difference between the number of males and number of females is not unusual. Other authors in their examination of prehistoric dog samples have noted similar unequal male to female distributions (Crockford 1997; Handley 2000; and Warren 2004). A possible reason explaining the unequal distribution of male and female dogs may be the culling of newborn bitches or a higher mortality rate amongst female dogs.

23 The culling of female dogs by prehistoric southeastern Indians is purely speculative. However, ethnographic accounts suggest a preference for male dogs amongst some North American aboriginal populations. Buffalo Bird Woman, a Hidatsa informant, told Wilson (1924) that of the three or four puppies that are kept from a litter generally only one is female. She did not specify if female dogs were culled for population control. Dogs of either sex with “surly dispositions” and dogs that dig holes were also killed (Wilson 1924: 229). Crockford (1997: 25) states that among some Inuit groups the culling of females was done for population control and to limit males fighting for access to females in heat. Buffalo Bird Woman also mentioned the killing of some puppies from a litter was to prevent weakness and death of the mother (Wilson 1924). Thus it is possible that there was a higher mortality rate amongst female dogs due to stress of giving birth and nursing. Errors in sexing may also contribute to the skewed sex ratios. Many of the nonmetric characteristics of the skeleton these methods are based on have not been fully examined for morphological variation. Thus variation may result in some dogs being misidentified as male or female. The two discriminant function equations have not been fully examined for their accuracy in sexing prehistoric dogs, though they have been used previously for this (Chapter 2). In addition, the fragmentary nature of many specimens along with unsexed dogs from published sources prevented assignment of sex.

Osteometric Analysis

Axial Skeleton

The axial skeleton of the domestic dog consists of the skull, the dentary, the vertebrae (including the sacrum), the ribs, and the sternum. However only the skull and dentary are analyzed; the vertebrae, ribs, and sternum are extremely fragile compared to the other bones of the axial skeleton, and are often absent or too fragmented to measure. In fact, the ribs and sternum bones of the dog have been totally exempt from previous metric studies of prehistoric dogs.

The Cranium

The cranium is the most complex part of the skeleton. It is made up of over 36 bones that house the brain, sense organs, and maxillary teeth. The cranium of the dog varies in shape and size more than any other domestic species (Evans 1993). Five indices were used to determine the general shape of the dogs in the sample (Chapter 2). Indices were calculated on 60 southeastern, 13 northeastern, and 3 West Indian dogs. The calculated indices for individual dogs are in Appendix C. A skull index describes the width of the head in relationship to the total length. Skull indices were run on 42 southeastern dogs (Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1). The Archaic dogs (n=33) had skull indices ranging between 52.64 and 61.02. Thirty Archaic dogs had indices between 52.64 and 58.41, with three outliers having indices of 60.91 to 61.02. Only three Woodland samples had skull indices, ranging from 53.40 to 56.08. Mississippian dogs (n=4) had indices ranging from 55.90 to 60.13. Only two historic dogs had skull indices, which were 53.87 and 56.96. Overall the skull indices for

24 southeastern dogs ranged from 52.64 to 61.02, well within the range of mesaticephalic skull type (Tables 2.4, 2.5, and 3.1). The skull indices also show the northeastern dogs have mesaticephalic features (Tables 2.4, 2.5, and 3.1). No skull indices could be calculated for the West Indian dogs (Table 3.1). The facial index illustrates the relationship of the width of the skull to the length of the snout. Only 16 southeastern dogs were complete enough to calculate facial indices (Table 3.2 and Figure 3.2). The Archaic sample (n=9) had indices ranging from 110.04 to 123.32. Woodland dogs (n=3) ranged between 109.55 and 116.90. The Mississippian dogs (n=4) had indices ranging between 113.53 and 138.61. Three of the four Mississippian dogs were grouped between 113.53 and 120.81, with a single outlier of 138.61 (Specimen 192). All were characteristic of mesaticephalic-shaped skulls (Tables 2.4 and 3.2). No facial indices could be calculated for Historic period dogs. The facial indices for northeastern dogs were similar to the southeastern dogs, indicating mesaticephalic features (Tables 2.4 and 3.2). Again no West Indian samples had facial indices calculated (Table 3.2). Cranial index describes the width of the cranium to the length of the cranium. Thirty-two southeastern dogs were able to have cranial indices calculated. The Archaic sample (n=14) ranged from 55.10 to 67.72 (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3). The Woodland dogs (n=7) ranged from 57.28 to 73.87 (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3). Mississippian period dogs (n=11) had cranial indices from 47.84 to 66.85 (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3). No Historic period dogs had measurements needed for cranial indices (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3). Cranial indices ranged from 47.84 to 73.87, extending from dolicephalic to slightly brachycephalic skull types (Tables 2.4, 2.5, and 3.3). The cranial indices for northeastern dogs also show dolicephalic to slightly bachycephalic skull shapes (Tables 2.4, 2.5, and 3.3). The West Indies dogs all had mesaticephalic to brachycephalic skull shapes (Tables, 2.4, 2.5, and 3.3). Snout width index describes the width of the snout in relation to its length. A total of 33 southeastern dogs had snout width indices (Table 3.4 and Figure 3.4). The Archaic sample (n=13) ranged from 35.28 to 44.56. The Woodland period dogs (n=8) have indices from 36.97 to 53.03. Mississippian period dogs (n=11) have indices ranging from 37.09 to 46.98. The single Historic period dog had snout width index of 43.54. The snout width indices of the southeastern dogs range from 35.28 to 53.03, suggesting dogs with mesaticephalic features (Tables 2.5 and 3.4). The northeastern and West Indian dogs also had mesaticephalic features (Tables 2.5 and 3.4). The palatal index presents the relationship of the palatal width to its length. Palatal indices were run on 89 southeastern dogs. Archaic dogs (n=62) have indices between 61.45 and 83.12 (Table 3.5 and Figure 3.5). Sixty-one of the Archaic indices were between 61.45 and 77.99, with one outlier at 83.12. The Woodland samples (n=9) ranged from 66.78 to 89.63. Seven of the nine Woodland dogs were grouped between 66.78 and 73.99, with two outliers at 83.67 and 89.63. Mississippian dogs (n=16) ranged from 67.87 to 78.95. Again only two Historic period dogs had indices; these were 67.72 and 68.87. The palatal indices were 61.45 to 89.63, which are well within the mesaticephalic to slightly brachycephalic range (Tables 2.5 and 3.5). Both the northeastern and West Indian samples all showed mesaticephalic indices (Table 2.5 and 3.5).

25 Overall the indices calculated on the dogs show that they are characteristic of the mesaticephalic skull type. Only the cranial and palatal indices showed much variation in skull shape. Cranial indices for both the southeastern and northeastern dogs ranged from dolicephalic to brachycephalic, suggesting dogs from both regions share similar morphology. Only two southeastern dogs had cranial indices outside the mesaticephalic range, these were Specimens 108 and 111. Specimen 108 from the Key Marco site had a thinner, longer neurocranium, with a smaller neurocranium width to length ratio giving it a cranial index close to the average for dolicephalic (Tables 2.4 and 3.3 and Figure 3.3). Specimen 111 from the Palmer Burial Mound had a more rounded neurocranium found in brachycepahlic dogs (Tables 2.4, 2.5, 3.3 and Figure 3.3). The palatal index for the southeastern dogs ranged between mesaticephalic to brachycephalic. Most of the dogs showed palatal indices characteristic of mesaticephalic dogs, one dog (Specimen 83) showed closer resemblance to brachycephalic type. Specimen 83 from 15Jo9 has a palatal index of 89.63; this dog has a very wide palate compared to most of the other dogs, but its palate length is similar giving the dog a foreshortened appearance. Some variation in the morphology of the dog skulls is apparent over time as seen in some of the indices results and the presence of some outliers. This aside, the skull morphologies of the sample is best characterized as being quite homogeneous. Most skulls consistently show the same general mesaticephalic skull shape from the Archaic to Historic period.

Tables 3.1-3.5: Comparisons of Indices Among Southeastern, Northeastern, and West Indian Dogs

Table 3.1: Skull Indices Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic N of Cases 33 3 4 2 Minimum 52.640 53.400 55.900 53.870 Maximum 61.020 56.080 60.130 56.960 Median 55.680 54.170 57.540 55.415 Mean 55.793 54.550 57.778 55.415 S.D. 2.330 1.380 1.850 2.185 C.V. 0.042 0.025 0.032 0.039

Total SE NE Dogs West Indies N of Cases 42 4 0 Minimum 52.640 52.550 . Maximum 61.020 57.730 . Median 55.960 57.425 . Mean 55.875 56.283 . S.D. 2.279 2.499 . C.V. 0.041 0.044 .

26 W

U C H

52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 INDEX1

Figure 3.1: Scatterplot of SE Dog Skull Indices by Culture

Figure 3.2: Facial Indices Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic N of Cases 9 3 4 0 Minimum 110.040 109.550 113.530 . Maximum 123. 320 116.900 138.610 . Median 116.760 115.100 120.105 . Mean 116. 638 113.850 123.088 . S.D. 5.562 3.831 10.818 . C.V. 0.048 0.034 0.088 .

Total SE NE Dogs West Indies N of Cases 16 3 0 Minimum 109.550 113.390 . Maximum 138.610 139.150 . Median 116.830 126.650 . Mean 117.728 126.397 . S.D. 7.333 12.882 . C.V. 0.062 0.102 .

27 W

U C H

100 110 120 130 140 INDEX2

Figure 3.2: Scatterplot of SE Dog Facial Indices by Culture

Table 3.3: Cranial Indices Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic N of Cases 14 7 11 0 Minimum 55.100 57.280 47.840 . Maximum 67.720 73.870 66.850 . Median 61.850 66.760 60.160 . Mean 62.214 65.101 59.771 . S.D. 3.601 5.870 4.960 . C.V. 0.058 0.090 0.083 .

Total SE NE West Indies N of Cases 32 12 3 Minimum 47.840 47.710 57.360 Maximum 73.870 63.360 59.830 Median 61.500 52.910 59.480 Mean 62.006 53.742 58.890 S.D. 4.899 4.791 1.337 C.V. 0.079 0.089 0.023

28 W

U C H

40 50 60 70 80 INDEX3

Figure 3.3: Scatterplot of SE Dog Cranial Indices by Culture

Table 3.4: Snout Width Indices Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic N of Cases 13 8 11 1 Minimum 35.28 36.07 37.09 43.54 Maximum 44.56 53.03 46.98 43.54 Median 41.77 42.91 40.03 43.54 Mean 40.956 44.02 41.075 43.54 S.D. 2.415 5.463 3.099 . C.V. 0.059 0.124 0.075 1.00

Total SE NE Dogs West Indies N of Cases 33 11 6 Minimum 35.28 38.96 40.22 Maximum 53.03 47.47 46.37 Median 41.92 43.04 43.00 Mean 41.817 43.579 43.04 S.D. 3.676 2.599 2.398 C.V. 0.088 0.060 0.056

U C H

30 40 50 60 INDEX4

Figure 3.4: Scatterplot of SE Dog Snout Width Indices by Culture

Table 3.5: Palatal Indices Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic N of Cases 62 9 16 2 Minimum 61.450 66.780 67.870 67.720 Maximum 83.120 89.630 78.950 68.870 Median 69.860 71.770 72.130 68.295 Mean 70.311 74.049 72.397 68.295 S.D. 3.721 7.672 3.017 0.813 C.V. 0.053 0.104 0.042 0.012

SE Dogs NE Dogs West Indies N of Cases 89 13 6 Minimum 61.450 64.120 68.390 Maximum 89.630 73.230 78.320 Median 70.340 68.430 74.155 Mean 71.019 68.828 73.818 S.D. 4.279 2.822 3.694 C.V. 0.060 0.041 0.050

30 W

U C H

60 70 80 90 INDEX5

Figure 3.5: Scatterplot of SE Dog Palatal Indices by Culture

The cranial bones are fairly durable and are often present when other parts of the skeleton are absent. The cranium has long been used in osteometric studies. The cranium sample consisted of about 92 more or less complete samples. In addition fragmentary cranial remains are included. Not all specimens were complete enough for all measures to be taken and sample sizes are quite variable (Table 3.7). Of the 42 cranial measures 13 of the most frequently recorded variable were selected for bivariate analysis (Table 3.6). From these measurements the following 10 scatterplots were created: CRN1 by CRN13, CRN1 by CRN15, CRN1 by CRN34, CRN13 by CRN15, CRN15 by CRN15A, CRN15 by CRN16, CRN15 by CRN17, CRN15 by CRN18, CRN15 by CRN34, and CRN18 by CRN18A. Graphs were produced to examine the male and female samples separately. The samples of unidentified dogs were small thus information from scatterplots would be misleading. Summary statements and graphs with combined samples (males, females, and unidentified) are provided at the end of the chapter. T-tests indicate significant differences between male and female dogs in all but one of the cranial measurements chosen for analysis (Table 3.10). Regardless, there is a great deal of size overlap between the sexes (Table 3.7)

31 Table 3.6: Cranium Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic CRN1 Total Length 65 8 15 4 CRN13 Median Palatal Length 66 10 17 2 CRN15 Cheektooth Row 84 15 27 4 CRN15A Oral Canine Border to 78 16 26 4 Aboral M2 Border CRN16 Length of Molar Row 106 18 32 4 CRN17 Length of Premolar Row 40 11 20 1 CRN18 Carnassial Length 114 22 32 4 CRN18A Carnassial Breadth 56 13 21 0 CRN20 M1 Length 52 15 27 4 CRN20A M1 Breadth 49 14 25 3 CRN21 M2 Length 39 10 24 4 CRN21A M2 Breadth 39 9 23 3 CRN34 Greatest Palatal Length 80 12 22 2

Males

The male dog sample has the largest number of cases for each measurement, ranging between 44 and 91 cases (Table 3.7). The nine scatterplot graphs show both similarities and differences in the pattern of distribution. Scatterplot of CRN1 by CRN13 consists of 28 Archaic dogs, three Woodland dogs, seven Mississippian dogs, and two Historic dogs (Figure 3.6). The samples in this graph are all clustered. The prehistoric dogs vary greatly in cranial size and overlap in size regardless of their cultural affiliation; only the two Historic dogs are isolated near the top of the cluster. The linear pattern of the cluster indicates that the median palatal length (CRN13) is approximately one half the total cranial length (CRN1) in these dogs, suggesting similar morphology. A single aberrant dog is present; this dog (Specimen 183) has a medial palatal length nearly nine millimeters smaller than similarly sized dogs in this sample. A similar pattern is presented in the scatterplot of CRN1 by CRN15 (Figure 3.7). This graph consists of 31 Archaic dogs, four Woodland dogs, nine Mississippian dogs, and four Historic dogs. The dogs from different cultural periods vary in their size with a great deal of overlap; the Historic dogs are again near the top of the cluster. The scatterplot shows that the length of the cheek teeth row (CRN15) varies somewhat independently of the total cranial length (CRN1); many of the dogs with 10 to 20 millimeters difference in their cranial lengths have nearly identical lengths of their cheek teeth row (Figure 3.7). This is likely the result of some dogs having smaller overall teeth, and others having crowded teeth rows. This pattern is far more apparent in the scatterplot of CRN1 by CRN18 (Figure 3.8). Although not the result of crowded teeth, the length of the carnassial tooth (CRN18) has little relation to the cranial length. Many dogs with as much as 10 to 30 millimeters difference in their cranial size have similar sized carnassials. This scatterplot again shows dogs from different cultural periods clustered together with no apparent differences (Figure 3.8). The scatterplot of CRN1 by CRN34 has a sample of 35 Archaic, four Woodland, nine Mississippian, and two Historic dogs (Figure 3.9). Examinations of the samples in

32 the graph again show little difference between the dogs. The majority of the dogs are clustered with the prehistoric dogs overlapping in size. The two Historic dogs are also grouped closely to the other samples; both are located near the top of the cluster. A single Mississippian period dog (Specimen 108) with a proportionally wider palatal breadth is present near the top of the graph and is slightly outside the cluster of dogs. Some variation in the greatest palatal breadth (CRN34) is present with dogs in the cluster. Several dogs with 10 to 20 millimeters difference in cranial length share similar palatal breadths (Figure 3.9). The scatterplot of CRN15 by CRN15A has a sample of 38 Archaic, seven Woodland, 14 Mississippian, and four Historic dogs (Figure 3.10). The samples presented in the graph are all tightly clustered, with the exception of one dog. Again dogs from different cultural periods show extensive overlap. The placement of the samples show an approximately 11 to 12 millimeter difference between the two measurements for these dogs, with the measurement CRN15A being the longer of the two measurements. One dog deviates slightly from the cluster. This aberrant dog (Specimen 114) has a slightly longer cheektooth row (CRN15) compared with dogs with similar CRN15A lengths, suggesting a dog with either overall larger teeth or with less crowding of the teeth (Figure 3.10). The scatterplot of CRN15 by CRN16 has a sample of 44 Archaic, seven Woodland, 14 Mississippian, and four Historic dogs (Figure 3.11). All dogs are clustered with overlap. In the graph of CRN15 by CRN17 a sample of 21 Archaic, five Woodland, 13 Mississippian, and one Historic dog are present (Figure 3.12). In these scatterplots the majority of the dogs are clustered together with extensive overlap. No aberrant dogs were present in either graphs (Figures 3.11 and 3.12). The scatterplot of CRN15 by CRN18 showed no outliers (Figure 3.13). This graph has a sample of 43 Archaic, seven Woodland, 14 Mississippian, and four Historic dogs. All the dogs are clustered with no discernable separation by cultural periods; instead a great deal of overlap was present. Only Specimen 114 is slightly outside the cluster but the difference in size between this dog and the next largest is very small (Figure 3.13). This pattern is again repeated in the graph of CRN18 by CRN18A (Figure 3.14); this graph has a sample size of 53 dogs, including 35 Archaic, five Woodland, and 13 Mississippian dogs. No Historic dogs were present in this graph. The samples are clustered with dogs from different cultures overlapping. No outliers were present (Figure 3.14).

Females

The female sample has far fewer individuals than the male sample. Sample sizes for the cranial measurement range from 21 to 40 dogs. Although the female sample is smaller it does have a more intriguing sample with three nearly consistent outliers. Ten scatterplots were produced to examine this sample (Figures 3.15 through 3.24). The scatterplot of CRN1 by CRN13 has a sample of 16 Archaic, four Woodland, and three Mississippian dogs (Figure 3.15). The sample distribution of the graph is very similar to the one for the male sample. As with the males, the females have CRN13 measurements approximately one half the lengths of their CRN1 measurements. Most of the dogs from the three cultural periods are again clustered; however two outliers are

33 present. The first outlier (Specimen 111) has a cranial length of only 123 millimeters; this is nine millimeters smaller than the next smallest dog in the sample. The other dog (Specimen 92) is nine millimeters larger than the next largest dog in the sample (Figure 3.15). The scatterplot of CRN1 by CRN15 (Figure 3.16) has the same sample size and number of dogs from different cultural periods as Figure 3.15. The sample shows a fairly restricted size range for both measurements. Some dogs with as much as ten millimeters difference in their total lengths (CRN1), share similar cheektooth row lengths (CRN15); regardless, the majority of the dogs are clustered with overlap of dogs from the different cultural periods. Three outliers are present. The first outlier (Specimen 92) is again nine millimeters larger than the next largest dog, but is otherwise similar to the other dogs. The other two dogs are different. The second outlier (Specimen 111) is again the smallest dog in the sample. Additionally, Specimen 111 has an extremely small cheektooth row of only 43.30 millimeters, nearly seven millimeters smaller than the cheektooth row of the next smallest dog. The third outlier is Specimen 83. This dog has the smallest cheektooth row, measuring only 40.80 millimeters. The cheektooth length of this dog is more than nine and eleven millimeters smaller than two other Woodland dogs with similar cranial lengths; Specimen 83 also has a cheektooth length smaller than Specimen 111, a dog with a 22 millimeter smaller cranial length (Figure 3.16). The scatterplot of CRN1 by CRN18 has a sample of 18 Archaic, four Woodland, and three Mississippian dogs (Figure 3.17). The pattern of distribution in the female sample is similar to that of the male sample. The pattern of distribution is fairly dispersed, showing no length relationship between the two measurements; and as with the male sample, many dogs with great size differences in the cranium length share very similar carnassial lengths (Figure 3.17). The scatterplot of CTN1 by CRN34 (Figure 3.18) also has the same sample and number of dogs from different cultural periods as seen in Figures 3.15 and 3.16. The distribution of the samples shows a somewhat restricted pattern; and most of the samples are loosely grouped together. There is some relationship between the two measurements with larger dogs having wider palatal breadths. However, as seen in other graphs, there are again many dogs with great differences in cranial length yet have very similar palatal breadths. This is quite evident in one of the outliers (Specimen 111); this dog has a palatal breadth of 49.20 millimeters, which is almost the same – and in two cases slightly larger - than three dogs (Specimens 144, 180, and 192) with cranial lengths between nine and 27 millimeters larger than Specimen 111 (Figure 3.17). The other aberrant dogs are also the outliers from the previous graphs. Specimen 92 is again quite large with respect to both measurements compared to the other dogs, and is again separated from the dogs in the cluster. Perhaps the most interesting of the dogs is the aberrant Specimen 83. This dog has a palatal breadth of 67.90 millimeters, the largest of all the dogs in the sample. Compared to other Woodland period dogs with similar cranial lengths, Specimen 83 has a palatal breadth between 16.90 and 17 millimeters wider; this dog’s palatal breadth is also almost five millimeters larger than the palatal breadth of Specimen 92, a dog with a 26 millimeter larger cranial length (Figure 3.18). The next scatterplot examines the relationship of CRN13 by CRN15 (Figure 3.19). The sample consists of 18 Archaic, four Woodland, and four Mississippian. As seen in the previous graphs most of the samples are clustered, even Specimen 92,

34 although this dog has been an outlier in other graphs. No differentiation is seen between most of the dogs from the different cultural periods. However, three outliers are present, two of which have also been seen in previous graphs; these are Specimens 83, 90 and 111. Specimens 90 and 111 appear very similar in size and morphology; both dogs are closely grouped together with fairly small median palatal lengths and cheektooth rows compared to the other samples. Specimen 83 is again perhaps the most interesting dog. Although Specimen 83 has a median palatal length similar to many of the dogs in the larger cluster, its cheektooth row is far smaller. As discussed before regarding Figure 3.15, Specimen 83 is far larger than Specimen 111, and from Figure 3.19 it is also larger than Specimen 90 yet its cheektooth row is smaller. The scatterplots of CRN15 by CRN15A, CRN15 by CRN16, and CRN15 by CRN17 all show similar distribution patterns (Figures 3.20, 3.21, and 3.22). The scatterplot of CRN15 by CRN15A has a sample of 21 Archaic, four Woodland, and four Mississippian dogs. The majority of the dogs from different cultural periods are clustered. As seen previously in Figure 3.19 three aberrant dogs (Specimens 83, 90, and 111) are isolated from this larger cluster, and are grouped closely together indicating similar lengths of the measurements (Figure 3.20). The scatterplot of CRN15 by CRN16 has a sample of 23 Archaic, 4 Woodland, and 4 Mississippian dogs. The scatterplot of CRN15 by CRN17 has a sample of 13 Archaic, 4 Woodland, and 4 Mississippian dogs. In both Figure 3.21 and Figure 3.22, Specimens 90 and 111 are extremely close together indicating nearly similar cheektooth rows, and premolar and molar row lengths. Specimens 90 and 111 both have a longer premolar row length and shorter molar row length than Specimen 83, although the differences are likely not significant (Figures 3.20 to 3.22). The scatterplot of CRN15 by CRN18 has a sample of 24 Archaic, 4 Woodland, and 4 Mississippians dogs (Figure 3.23). Again there are two groupings with a large cluster of dogs and the three outliers (Specimens 83, 90, 111). This graph shows that although the three outliers have significantly smaller cheektooth rows, the length of their carnassials is the same as dogs with much longer cheektooth rows. The only dog with a smaller carnassial length than all the dogs is Specimen 90, but only by a few millimeters (Figure 3.23). This is much more apparent in the graph of CRN18 by CRN18A; this graph has a sample of 16 Archaic, five Woodland, and four Mississippian dogs (Figure 3.24). This graph shows that the carnassial teeth provide no difference in the samples; nearly all the dogs in the graph are clustered, even two of the outliers (Specimens 83 and 111) are grouped into the cluster. Only Specimen 90 is outside the cluster; this dog has a similar carnassial width to many of the larger dogs, but the carnassial length is approximately two millimeters smaller (Figure 3.24).

Table 3.7: Descriptive Statistics for the Crania Males 1 13 15 15A 16 17 18 18A N of Cases 55 47 69 69 85 44 91 53 Minimum 141.000 62.200 50.000 60.900 13.650 37.500 14.200 6.900 Maximum 194.000 90.300 66.000 77.500 23.00 49.600 20.500 10.470 Median 165.000 79.100 57.600 69.890 16.100 43.290 16.900 8.800 Mean 164.935 79.204 57.407 69.640 16.388 43.052 16.919 8.951 S.D. 12.084 5.326 3.352 3.836 1.648 2.629 1.151 0.768 C.V. 0.073 0.067 0.058 0.055 0.101 0.061 0.068 0.086

20 20A 21 21A 34 N of Cases 57 53 48 46 65 Minimum 9.860 10.300 5.160 7.250 49.390 Maximum 13.800 17.100 7.400 10.700 67.900 Median 11.580 13.550 6.365 8.575 56.800 Mean 11.593 13.593 6.324 8.664 56.516 S.D. 0.774 1.182 0.535 0.830 3.322 C.V. 0.067 0.087 0.085 0.096 0.059

Females 1 13 15 15A 16 17 18 18A N of Cases 25 29 32 30 37 21 40 25 Minimum 123.000 58.800 40.800 51.100 13.400 29.160 12.800 7.400 Maximum 171.000 84.400 59.400 70.500 28.800 46.900 19.400 10.300 Median 150.000 74.000 54.100 64.400 15.500 40.500 15.900 8.400 Mean 148.080 73.153 53.175 63.106 15.954 39.874 16.073 8.505 S.D. 10.392 5.791 4.343 4.591 2.574 4.431 1.228 0.756 C.V. 0.070 0.079 0.082 0.073 0.161 0.111 0.076 0.089

20 20A 21 21A 34 N of Cases 25 24 21 21 28 Minimum 9.000 11.800 4.800 5.900 47.000 Maximum 13.200 15.100 9.000 9.600 64.890 Median 11.100 12.795 6.000 8.200 51.900 Mean 10.922 12.946 6.096 8.029 52.869 S.D. 0.856 0.908 0.801 0.863 3.988 C.V. 0.078 0.070 0.131 0.108 0.075

Unidentified 1 13 15 15A 16 17 18 18A N of Cases 12 19 29 25 38 7 41 12 Minimum 137.000 69.600 51.800 60.200 13.500 38.700 14.100 7.290 Maximum 164.000 84.600 63.000 81.500 20.400 44.800 19.400 10.300 Median 155.000 78.200 56.200 68.000 15.850 42.260 16.100 8.445 Mean 153.608 78.145 56.296 68.366 16.211 42.330 16.366 8.534 S.D. 8.927 4.039 2.940 4.432 1.526 2.113 1.238 0.729 C.V. 0.058 0.052 0.052 0.065 0.094 0.050 0.076 0.085

36 Table 3.7: Descriptive Statistics for the Crania (continued)

Unidentified 20 20A 21 21A 34 N of Cases 16 14 8 7 24 Minimum 10.200 5.100 6.000 7.600 47.000 Maximum 13.100 16.300 6.700 10.200 60.000 Median 11.190 13.900 6.490 9.000 54.250 Mean 11.455 13.438 6.442 8.923 54.154 S.D. 0.954 2.648 0.229 1.017 3.176 C.V. 0.083 0.197 0.036 0.114 0.059

200

190

180

N 170

160 CULT A 150 H M 140 W 60 70 80 90 100 CRN13

Figure 3.6: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Median Palatal Length for Males

37 200

190

180

N 170

160 CULT A 150 H M 140 W 40 50 60 70 CRN15

Figure 3.7: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Cheektooth Row Length for Males

200

190

180

N 170

160 CULT A 150 H M 140 W 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CRN18

Figure 3.8: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Carnassial Length for Males

38 200

190

180

N 170

160 CULT A 150 H M 140 W 40 50 60 70 CRN34

Figure 3.9: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Palatal Breadth for Males

C 60 CULT A H M 50 W 40 50 60 70 CRN15

Figure 3.10: Length of Aboral Side of M2 to Oral Side of Canine vs. Cheektooth Row Length for Males

39 70

50 CULT A H M 40 W 10 15 20 25 CRN16

Figure 3.11: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Molar Row Length for Males

50 CULT A H M 40 W 35 40 45 50 CRN17

Figure 3.12: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Premolar Row Length for Males

40 70

50 CULT A H M 40 W 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CRN18

Figure 3.13: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Carnassial Length for Males

8 18

C 17

16 CULT A 15 H M 14 W 6 7 8 9 10 11 CRN18A

Figure 3.14: Carnassial Length vs. Carnassial Width for Males

41 180

170

160

N 150

140 CULT A 130 H M 120 W 50 60 70 80 90 CRN13

Figure 3.15: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Median Palatal Length for Females

180

170

160

N 150

140 CULT A 130 H M 120 W 40 45 50 55 60 CRN15

Figure 3.16: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Cheektooth Row Length for Females

42 180

170

160

N 150

140 CULT A 130 H M 120 W 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CRN18

Figure 3.17: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Carnassial Length for Females

180

170

160

N 150

140 CULT A 130 H M 120 W 40 50 60 70 CRN34

Figure 3.18: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Palatal Breadth for Females

43 90

N 70

CULT 60 A H M 50 W 40 45 50 55 60 CRN15

Figure 3.19: Median Palatal Length vs. Cheektooth Row Length for Females

A 65

C 60 CULT 55 A H M 50 W 40 45 50 55 60 CRN15

Figure 3.20: Length of Aboral Side of M2 to Oral Side of Canine vs. Cheektooth Row Length for Females

44 60

N 50

CULT 45 A H M 40 W 10 15 20 25 CRN16

Figure 3.21: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Molar Row Length for Females

N 50

CULT 45 A H M 40 W 20 30 40 50 CRN17

Figure 3.22: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Premolar Row Length for Females

45 60

N 50

CULT 45 A H M 40 W 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CRN18

Figure 3.23: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Carnassial Length for Females

N 16

C 15 CULT 14 A 13 H M 12 W 7 8 9 10 11 CRN18A

Figure 3.24: Carnassial Length vs. Carnassial Width for Females

The Dentary

The dentary (or mandible) of the dog consists of right and left halves joined at the mandibular symphysis (Evans 1993:154). The dentary houses the mandibular teeth. The dentary sample consisted of 136 fairly complete samples. As with the cranial sample many fragmentary dentaries are included that could not have all measurements taken on them. Thus the differences in the number of cases for individual measurements are variable. A total of 21 measurements was taken to examine the dentary. Only ten of these

46 measurements are used here; these measurements have some of the largest samples (Table 3.8). T-tests indicate that all of the measurements chosen show significant size differences between the male and female dogs, although size overlap is present (Tables 3.9 and 3.10). The eight graphs produced include: DNT1 by DNT13, DNT1 by DNT19, DNT13 by DNT13A, DNT17 by DNT19, DNT7 by DNT8, DNT13 by DNT10, DNT1 by DNT9, and DNT9 by DNT10. Examination of these graphs reveals very similar patterns previously presented in the bivariate analysis of the crania. Due to the similarity in the distribution of the cranial and dentary samples no individual discussions are made of the eight graphs. Instead a general discussion of the graphs is presented. Summary graphs with combined male, female, and unidentified dogs are presented at the end of this chapter. The number of male dogs for the individual measurements range between 88 and 39; with the bulk of the sample being composed of Archaic period dogs. Mississippian, Woodland, and Historic period dogs are also present. The graphs all exhibit clustering of either all or most of the samples (Figures 3.25 to 3.32). No distinctions are present between the dogs from the different cultural periods. Five of the graphs exhibited outliers in the sample; these outliers were restricted mostly to Mississippian and Historic period dogs and include Specimens 2, 46, 114, 217, and 219 (Figures 3.26, 3.27, 3.28, 3.29, and 3.30). Specimens 114 and 217 are the only dogs that occur more than once as outliers in the graphs (Figures 3.26, 3.27, 3.29, and 3.30). The outliers are further discussed at the end of this chapter. The female sample consists of far fewer dogs with only 41 to 17 dogs represented by the individual measurements. Again Archaic period dogs make up the bulk of the sample, in addition Woodland, Mississippian, and a single Historic dog are present. As with the male sample, the female sample exhibits clustering, however due to the small sample size the clustering is less obvious. As previously seen in the graphs of the female crania, there are two consistent outliers present; these two dogs are Specimens 90 and 111 (Figures 3.34, 3.35, 3.36, 3.39, and 3.40). In addition two other outliers (Specimens 168 and 170) are present in Figure 3.38; these dogs occur as outliers only in this graph. These outliers are further discussed at the end of this chapter.

Table 3.8: Dentary Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic 1 Total Length 92 17 23 4 7 Aboral border of Canine to 52 15 19 4 Aboral border of M3 8 Length of Cheektooth Row 80 12 16 4 (P1-M3) 9 Length of Cheektooth Row 101 22 28 5 (P2-M3) 10 Length of Molar Row 104 23 29 5 13 Carnassial Length 112 23 34 4 13A Carnassial Breadth 56 15 28 4 17 Greatest Thickness of 53 15 26 4 Ramus below M1 18 Height of Vertical Ramus 44 11 15 0 19 Height of Dentary behind 55 15 25 4 M1

47 Table 3.9: Descriptive Statistics for the Dentary Males 1 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 N of Cases 81 52 56 59 80 82 39 53 Minimum 100.500 89.590 62.400 58.300 51.140 27.200 29.600 17.500 Maximum 152.000 122.900 89.400 77.000 72.300 37.200 39.500 48.700 Median 117.000 98.975 69.770 65.000 60.700 30.950 34.300 29.800 Mean 117.491 98.967 70.206 64.975 60.853 30.912 34.315 29.959 S.D. 7.660 5.899 5.971 3.796 3.835 1.845 2.244 3.751 C.V. 0.065 0.060 0.085 0.058 0.063 0.060 0.065 0.125

13 13A 15 15A 17 18 19 N of Cases 88 60 53 50 57 43 60 Minimum 16.600 6.200 6.000 5.000 8.730 40.000 17.100 Maximum 21.600 9.900 10.100 8.700 14.500 53.300 26.800 Median 19.100 7.700 7.800 6.300 9.990 47.500 20.310 Mean 19.089 7.705 7.838 5.315 10.165 47.011 20.700 S.D. 1.056 0.627 0.736 0.647 1.088 3.182 1.892 C.V. 0.055 0.081 0.094 0.103 0.107 0.068 0.091

Females 1 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 N of Cases 29 23 24 30 38 38 17 23 Minimum 90.200 73.200 48.200 46.200 42.300 21.900 24.900 21.100 Maximum 125.100 100.800 76.120 68.400 63.900 33.400 35.600 31.200 Median 110.000 90.700 65.965 61.890 57.985 29.500 32.530 28.100 Mean 107.800 90.058 64.620 60.855 56.966 29.487 31.909 27.634 S.D. 8.432 6.824 6.229 4.334 3.955 2.021 2.721 2.363 C.V. 0.078 0.076 0.096 0.071 0.069 0.069 0.085 0.086

13 13A 15 15A 17 18 19 N of Cases 41 26 24 24 26 23 25 Minimum 15.100 6.470 5.700 4.400 7.400 33.000 13.200 Maximum 22.00 8.400 8.100 7.300 10.580 46.900 21.600 Median 18.000 7.200 7.450 5.900 9.000 43.400 18.400 Mean 18.277 7.299 7.396 5.925 8.998 42.606 18.261 S.D. 1.292 0.527 0.503 0.521 0.744 3.466 1.847 C.V. 0.071 0.072 0.068 0.088 0.083 0.081 0.101

Unidentified 1 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 N of Cases 26 4 10 23 38 42 5 10 Minimum 96.000 88.900 62.300 58.000 49.100 22.030 32.300 18.100 Maximum 133.000 101.250 90.200 73.800 68.500 35.500 37.300 58.030 Median 113.600 95.850 68.905 64.300 58.850 29.900 33.500 28.730 Mean 114.652 95.463 71.051 63.940 59.409 30.150 33.992 30.510 S.D. 7.935 5.180 8.930 3.724 3.923 2.587 1.984 10.338 C.V. 0.069 0.054 0.126 0.058 0.066 0.086 0.058 0.339

48 Table 3.9: Descriptive Statistics the Dentary (continued)

Unidentified

13 13A 15 15A 17 18 19 N of Cases 44 17 10 10 15 4 14 Minimum 16.500 6.480 7.260 5.300 9.000 41.000 11.500 Maximum 21.400 8.900 9.300 7.000 12.200 45.450 25.000 Median 18.700 8.000 7.795 6.100 10.500 44.675 19.850 Mean 18.928 7.845 7.996 6.190 10.549 43.950 19.794 S.D. 1.211 0.684 0.744 0.601 1.083 2.046 3.232 C.V 0.064 0.087 0.093 0.097 0.103 0.047 0.163

140

131

122

N D 113 CULT 104 A H M 95 W 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 DNT13

F Figure 3.25: Total Length vs. Carnassial Length for Males

49 160

150

140

1 T 130

120 CULT A 110 H M 100 W 15 20 25 30 DNT19

Figure 3.26: Total Length vs. Height of Dentary Behind M1 for Males

160

150

140

1 T 130

120 CULT A 110 H M 100 W 50 55 60 65 70 75 DNT9

Figure 3.27: Total Length vs. PM2 to M3 Length for Males

50 22

T 19

18 CULT A 17 H M 16 W 6 7 8 9 10 DNT13A

Figure 3.28: Carnassial Length vs. Carnassial Width for Males

20 CULT A H M 15 W 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DNT17

Figure 3.29: Height of Dentary Behind M1 vs. Greatest Thickness of Dentary for Males

51 90

70 CULT A H M 60 W 50 60 70 80 DNT8

Figure 3.30: Aboral Border of Canine Aveolus to Aboral Border of M3 Aveolus Length vs. PM1 to M3 Length for Males

30 CULT A H M 25 W 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 DNT13

Figure 3.31: Molar Row Length vs. Carnassial Length for Males

52 75

N D 60 CULT 55 A H M 50 W 25 30 35 40 DNT10

Figure 3.32: PM2 to M3 length vs. Molar Row Length for Males

130

120

1 T 110

CULT 100 A H M 90 W 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DNT13

Figure 3.33: Total Length vs. Carnassial Length for Females

53 130

120

1 T 110

CULT 100 A H M 90 W 10 15 20 25 DNT19

Figure 3.34: Total Length vs. Height of Dentary Behind M1 for Females

T 19

D 18 CULT 17 A 16 H M 15 W 6 7 8 9 DNT13A

Figure 3.35: Carnassial Length vs. Carnassial Width for Females

54 25

15 CULT A H M 10 W 7 8 9 10 11 DNT17

Figure 3.36: Height of Dentary Behind M1 vs. Greatest Thickness of Dentary for Females

7 T 60

CULT 50 A H M 40 W 40 50 60 70 DNT8

Figure 3.37: Aboral Border of Canine Aveolus to Aboral Border of M3 Aveolus Length vs. PM1 to M3 Length for Females

55 35

25 CULT A H M 20 W 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DNT13

Figure 3.38: Carnassial Length vs. Molar Row Length for Females

130

120

1 T 110

CULT 100 A H M 90 W 40 50 60 70 DNT9

Figure 3.39: Total Length vs. PM2 to M3 Length for Females

56 Table 3.10: T-tests of Cranial and Dentary Measurements for Total Males vs. Total Females.

Comparison Metric Code # t-value df p-value Groups Males vs. Females

Crania 1 -6.382 53.6 0.000* 13 -4.560 55.6 0.000* 15 -4.879 48.8 0.000* 15A -6.828 47.4 0.000* 16 -2.166 75.9 0.033* 17 -3.042 26.9 0.005* 18 -3.699 70.4 0.000* 18A -2.419 47.8 0.019* 20 -3.366 42 0.002* 20A -2.624 57 0.011* 21 -1.194 28.1 0.240 21A -2.826 37.5 0.008* 34 -4.246 43.9 0.000*

Dentary 1 -5.438 45.6 0.000* 7 -3.722 42 0.001* 8 -4.416 52.1 0.000* 9 -5.037 70.8 0.000* 10 -3.696 66.6 0.000* 13 -3.516 65.9 0.001* 13A -3.096 56.2 0.003* 17 -5.688 68.5 0.000* 18 -5.061 41.9 0.000* 19 -5.507 46 0.000* * Significant differences

Summary Graphs

The 18 summary graphs below consist of combined male, female and unidentified dogs (Figures 3.40 to 3.57). The purpose of these graphs is to provide a better picture of the pattern of distribution previously presented in the separate male and female graphs by increasing the sample size. The samples sizes for the summary cranial graphs range from 75 to 118 dogs (Archaic = 40 to 84, Woodland = 8 to 15, Mississippian = 15 to 27, and Historic = 0 to 4) and the samples for the summary dentary graphs range from 85 to 161 (Archaic = 53 to 104, Woodland = 12 to 23, Mississipian = 16 to 29, and Historic = 4 to 5). The analysis of the crania and dentaries show that between the Archaic through early Historic period the dogs in the southeast remained fairly unchanged in their morphology indicated by clustering of the samples. The sizes of the dogs are quite variable. The total length of the dog skulls varies between 123 mm to almost 200 mm. If skull total length can be used as an indication of general size then dog skulls 120 to 145 mm long are small dogs, 146 to 165 mm are medium-sized dogs, skulls 166 to 185+ mm are large dogs. The Archaic period sample is numerically the largest. Archaic dogs also show the greatest size variation. Archaic samples are amongst the smallest and largest in size based

57 on the skull lengths. In all graphs the Archaic dogs are clustered, indicating the morphology of the skulls are fairly similar regardless of the variable size. Some Archaic dogs (Specimens 170, 185, 187, and 188) have morphologically distinct features. These dogs were found outside the cluster in some graphs (Figures 3.45, 3.52, 3.54, and 3.57). Specimen 170 showed a CRN15A measurement longer than the other samples. The reason for this is unclear but is likely due to an extended space between the canine tooth and the first premolar (Figure 3.45). Specimens 187 and 188 have molar row lengths approximately four or five millimeters smaller than the smallest dogs in the clusters (Figures 3.52 and 3.54). The reason for this is likely due to either smaller or compacted teeth. Specimens 185, 187, and 188 all show slightly longer DNT7 measurements. All three dogs likely have a greater space between the canine and first premolar (Figure 3.57). These three dogs are from published sources so the reason for the difference is unknown. The Woodland sample has the smallest sample size of the prehistoric dogs. This sample also has a wide size variation. Woodland dogs are amongst the largest and have one of the smallest dogs. Like the Archaic sample, the skull lengths range between large and small dogs. Most of the samples are grouped together within the same cluster as the Archaic sample. The majority of the samples from the cranial and dental measurements show most of the Woodland dogs located in the lower 50 percent of the graphs indicating small to medium sized dogs. Small sample size likely accounts for the low distribution range. At least two dogs are found in the range for large dogs. Two morphologically distinct dogs (Specimens 83 and 111) are in this sample (Figures 3.40, 3.41, 3.43, 3.44, 3.45, 3.46, 3.47, 3.48, 3.53, 3.56, and 3.57). Specimen 83 is a small dog (145mm) with morphologically distinct features separating it from the other dogs. Specimen 83 has a very foreshortened cheektooth row and a very wide palatal breadth compared to dogs with similar or larger skull total lengths. The cheektooth row length and other facial length measurements show closer size resemblance to dogs with skull lengths 22 millimeters smaller (Figures 3.41, 3.45, 3.46, 3.47, and 3.48). Specimen 83 has a distinctive palatal breadth larger than all but the largest dog in the sample (Figure 3.43). The foreshortened face and wide palate gives Specimen 83 a skull similar to the modern pit bull breed. Although the dentary of Specimen 83 has morphologically distinctive features including very crowded teeth and a slightly bowed horizontal ramus, these features were not distinctive in any graphs. Specimen 111 is one of the smallest dogs (123 mm) in the sample. This dog is consistently smaller than any other dog in the sample. Specimen 111 has a foreshortened face and a round shaped head more indicative of brachycephalic type dogs. This dog’s small size is evident in figures of the dentary but otherwise no other distinctive features are present (Figures 3.50, 3.51, 3.53, 3.54, 3.56, and 3.57) The Mississippian sample is the second largest sample. Mississippian dogs also have a wide size distribution similar to the Archaic dogs. This sample includes one of the smallest and the largest dog in the sample based on skull size. These samples are also morphologically similar to the earlier period dogs and are grouped in the same cluster. The smallest Mississippian dog (Specimen 90) is morphologically distinct with similar features to the Woodland dog Specimen 111, and is usually found in close association (Figures 3.44, 3.45, 3.46, 3.47, 3.48, 3.49, 3.50, 3.51, 3.53, 3.54, 3.55, 3.56, and 3.57). The only apparent difference between Specimens 90 and 111 is the length of the

58 carnassial and the length between the PM2 and M3; the lengths are smaller in Specimen 90, albeit not by much (Figures 3.50 and 3.51). The largest dog is Specimen 108 with a total skull length of 194 mm. It is otherwise morphologically the same as other dogs in the sample (Figures 3.40, 3.41, 3.42, and 3.43). Two other Mississippian dogs (Specimens 2 and 213) showed distinctive characteristics. Specimen 2 has the greatest carnassial width of any dogs in the sample (Figure 3.55). Specimen 2 also has the greatest dentary thickness and height of any of the sample (Figure 3.56). Specimen 213 showed similar characteristics to three Archaic dogs (Specimens 185, 187, and 188) and two Historic dogs (Specimens 217 and 219), having one of the greatest lengths between canine and M3 but with similar PM1 to M3 lengths to other dogs (Figure 3.57). The reason is again likely because there is a longer space between the canine and first premolar. The outlying features in Specimens 2 and 213 are isolated and show no apparent significance to its overall morphology. These two dogs are generally clustered with the other samples. The Historic sample has the smallest number of dogs. The skulls from these dogs are all large. Otherwise the skulls are morphologically similar to the prehistoric dogs (Figures 3.40, 3.41, 3.42, 3.43, 3.44, 3.45, 3.46, and 3.47). The dentaries show the same similarity to the prehistoric dogs (Figures 3.50, 3.51, 3.52, 3.53, 3.54, and 3.55). Three Historic dogs showed slight variation (Specimens 114, 217, and 219). The variation in two of these dogs is mentioned above. Specimen 114 is the largest Historic dog with skull length of 191 mm. This dog has a somewhat longer cheektooth row and a longer carnassial (Figure 3.45 and 3.48). This dog also had the longest dentary, and the length between the PM1 to M3 is longer than the other samples (Figures 3.51, 3.53, and 3.57). The differences in Specimen 114 to the other samples all appear to be size-related and show no significant morphological difference. Analysis of bones and teeth of the skull and dentary from southeastern dogs indicates the dogs of this region remained morphologically homogeneous from the Archaic to early Historic period (Figures 3.40 to 3.57). However their overall size was quite variable, with most skulls ranging between 130 to 194 millimeters. Size overlap is quite evident in dogs from different cultural periods with t-tests showing only a few measurements with significant differences (Appendix F). Several dogs did show distinct features; most appear as individual variation with differences in only single measurements. Otherwise these dogs have the same cranial and dental morphology as the other dogs. However it is also evident that during the Woodland period two new and morphologically distinct types of dogs were present. One type was substantially smaller with a skull size about 123 mm and brachycephalic features. This small type of dog was found in both the Woodland (Specimen 111) and in the Mississippian (Specimen 90). The other dog type presented in Specimen 83, has a wider, foreshortened face distinct from any other dog in the sample and also shows brachycephalic features. Based on the analysis three distinctive types of dogs are present by the Woodland period.

59 200

190

180

170

N 160

C 150 CULT 140 A 130 H M 120 W 50 60 70 80 90 100 CRN13

Figure 3.40: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Median Palatal Length for All Dogs

200

190

180

170

N 160

C 150 CULT 140 A 130 H M 120 W 40 50 60 70 CRN15

Figure 3.41: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Cheektooth Row Length for All Dogs

60 200

190

180

170

N 160

C 150 CULT 140 A 130 H M 120 W 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CRN18

Figure 3.42: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Carnassial Length for All Dogs

200

190

180

170

N 160

C 150 CULT 140 A 130 H M 120 W 40 50 60 70 CRN34

Figure 3.43: Greatest Cranial Length vs. Palatal Breadth for All Dogs

61 100

C 70 CULT 60 A H M 50 W 40 50 60 70 CRN15

Figure 3.44: Median Palatal Length vs. Cheektooth Row Length for All Dogs

N 70

C CULT 60 A H M 50 W 40 50 60 70 CRN15

Figure 3.45: Length of Aboral side of M2 to Oral side of Canine vs. Cheektooth Row Length for All Dogs

62 70

50 CULT A H M 40 W 10 15 20 25 CRN16

Figure 3.46: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Molar Row Length for All Dogs

50 CULT A H M 40 W 20 30 40 50 CRN17

Figure 3.47: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Premolar Row Length for All Dogs

63 70

50 CULT A H M 40 W 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CRN18

Figure 3.48: Cheektooth Row Length vs. Carnassial Length for All Dogs

21 20 19 18

1 17

R 16

15 CULT 14 A 13 H M 12 W 6 7 8 9 10 11 CRN18A

Figure 3.49: Carnassial Length vs. Carnassial Width for All Dogs

64 140

130

120

N D 110 CULT 100 A H M 90 W 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DNT13

Figure 3.50: Total Dentary Length vs. Carnassial Length for All Dogs

160

150

140

1 130

D 120

110 CULT A 100 H M 90 W 40 50 60 70 80 DNT9

Figure 3.51: Total Dentary Length vs. PM2 to M3 Length for All Dogs

65 40

T 30

CULT 25 A H M 20 W 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DNT13

Figure 3.52: Carnassial Length vs. Molar Row Length for All Dogs

160

150

140

1 130

D 120

110 CULT A 100 H M 90 W 10 15 20 25 30 DNT19

Figure 3.53: Total Dentary Length vs. Height of Dentary Behind M1 for All Dogs

66 80

9 T 60

CULT 50 A H M 40 W 20 25 30 35 40 DNT10

Figure 3.54: PM2 to M3 Length vs. Molar Row Length for All Dogs

T 19

D 18 CULT 17 A 16 H M 15 W 6 7 8 9 10 DNT13A

Figure 3.55: Carnassial Length vs. Carnassial Width for All Dogs

67 15

T 11

D 10 CULT 9 A 8 H M 7 W 10 15 20 25 30 DNT19

Figure 3.56: Greatest Dentary Thickness vs. Height of Dentary Behind M1 for All Dogs

100

7 T 70

60 CULT A 50 H M 40 W 40 50 60 70 80 DNT8

Figure 3.57: Aboral Border of Canine Aveolus to Aboral Border of M3 Aveolus Length vs. PM1 to M3 Length for All Dogs

68 CHAPTER 4

OSTEOMETRY OF THE APPENDICULAR SKELETON

The apendicular skeleton consists of consists of the clavicles, scapulae, long bones, innominate, carpals and tarsals, metapodials, and phalanges. Analysis is restricted to the scapulae, long bones, calcaneus and astragalus, and metapodials. Analysis of these elements follows the procedure used in Chapter 3. In addition, scatterplots of certain long bone elements from the Unidentified dogs have also been included.

Scapula

The scapula is a somewhat flat, triangular bone which articulates with the humerus at the glenoid process. Much of the time the scapula does not remain intact. Seventy-six scapulae were analyzed. However, only 23 of these were complete enough to provide the complete series of measurements. Most scapulae were represented by the glenoid process and neck, which is denser than the rest of the scapula. Forty-six male scapulae were present but only 12 were complete. The mean total length of male scapulae (n=12) is 103.40 mm. Only eight of the 21 female scapulae were complete with a mean length of 94.50 mm. The Unidentified dogs (n=3) have a mean length of 99.34 mm (Table 4.2). Of the five scapulae measurements, all but one (SCP2) showed significant differences between the total male and total female samples, suggesting clear sexual dimorphism (Appendix E). Due to the very small number of scapulae with the SCP1 measurement multivariant analysis is restricted to measurements SCP2 through SCP5 for both the male and female dogs (Table 4.1; Figures 4.1 through Figures 4.4). Two scatterplot graphs were produced for both the male and female samples. The first graph examines the relationship of the smallest length of the neck (SCP2) by the greatest length of the glenoid process (SCP3); the other graph examines the relationship of the length and breadth of the glenoid cavity (SCP4 by SCP5) (Table 4.1; Figures 4.1 to 4.4).

Table 4.1: Scapula Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic SCP1 Height along Spine 18 1 4 0 SCP2 Smallest Length of Neck 39 8 13 0 SCP3 Greatest Length of Glenoid 51 7 13 0 SCP4 Length of Glenoid Cavity 51 7 14 0 SCP5 Breadth of Glenoid Cavity 54 8 14 0

69 Males

The scatterplot of the SCP2 by SCP3 for male dogs consisted of 27 Archaic dogs, four Woodland, and nine Mississippian (Figure 4.1). The majority of the Archaic male dogs range between 15.50 mm to 21 mm, with a single outlier at 22.90 mm. Three of the four Woodland dogs are grouped near the center from 18.39 mm to 18.60 mm; the fourth dog was located in the upper right at 23 mm. Six of the male Mississippian dogs were clustered between 18.80 mm to 19.70 mm. Three of the Mississippian dogs were outside this cluster; one in the lower left at 17 mm and two in the upper right at 22 mm and 23.90 mm (Figures 4.1). The scatterplot of the SCP4 by SCP5 for male dogs included 43 dogs (Figure 4.2). The pattern present in this graph is similar to the other, with a linear progression from the lower left to upper right. The Archaic dogs (n=30) were mostly grouped between 23 mm and 18.67 mm, with a single outlier (Specimen 25) at 17.10 mm. Three Woodland dogs were grouped between 20.36 mm and 21.33 mm, with the fourth slightly outside of the group at 22.80 mm. The Mississippian dogs (n=9) were quite spread out. Four Mississippian dogs were clustered between 20.10 mm and 20.75 mm; two samples are slightly below these at 19 mm and 19.26 mm, and two dogs are slightly above the cluster at 21.90 mm and 22.58 mm. The largest Mississippian dog (Specimen 2) is located in the upper right at 24.30 mm; this dog, along with the Archaic dog (Specimen 25), are the only apparent outliers (Figures 4.2). Other than these two dogs the samples in these graphs are clustered together (Figure 4.1 and 4.2).

Females

The graph of SCP2 by SCP3 for female dogs has a total sample of only 13 dogs (Figure 4.3). Similar to the male sample, the graph showed a generally linear spread from the lower left to upper right ends. However, the small sample size makes it difficult to assess true patterns. The Archaic dogs (n=9) were all located near the lower end of the graph between 15 mm and 18.59 mm. A single Archaic dog (Specimen 61) has a much larger glenoid process length than the other dogs. The two Woodland dogs are both located near the upper left of the graph, one at 21.50 mm and the other at 24 mm. Also, only two Mississippian period dogs are present; one dog is at 16.30 mm and the other at 18 mm (Figures 4.3). The two Woodland dogs (Specimens 83 and 95) and the Archaic dog (Specimen 61) are the only apparent outliers (Figure 4.3). The scatterplot of SCP4 by SCP5 for the female samples has 20 dogs (Figure 4.4). This graph too shows a spread from the lower left to upper right. The Archaic dogs (n= 16) spread from the lower extreme of 17.40 mm, to the upper extreme 22.40 mm. Again only two Woodland and two Mississippian dogs are present. The Woodland dogs are located next to each other in the upper right side at 21.30 mm and 21.70 mm. The two Mississippian dogs were located near the bottom and center of the graph, at 18.70 mm and 19.57 mm (Figures 4.4).

70 Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics for the Scapula Males SCP1 SCP2 SCP3 SCP4 SCP5 N of Cases 12 40 43 43 46 Minimum 95.000 15.500 19.700 17.100 12.500 Maximum 113.000 23.900 28.200 24.300 17.400 Median 103.500 18.535 23.700 20.850 14.990 Mean 103.400 18.814 24.016 20.939 15.091 S.D. 5.584 1.897 1.699 1.430 1.062 C.V. 0.054 0.101 0.071 0.068 0.070

Females SCP1 SCP2 SCP3 SCP4 SCP5 N of Cases 8 14 20 20 21 Minimum 88.000 15.000 19.300 17.400 11.900 Maximum 108.020 24.000 25.800 22.400 15.340 Median 91.250 17.220 23.150 20.250 14.060 Mean 94.503 17.670 22.585 19.958 13.990 S.D. 7.408 2.475 1.691 1.365 0.995 C.V. 0.078 0.140 0.075 0.068 0.071

Unidentified SCP1 SCP2 SCP3 SCP4 SCP5 N of Cases 3 6 8 9 9 Minimum 90.000 15.800 20.100 17.000 11.500 Maximum 112.030 22.700 25.400 22.400 16.100 Median 96.000 17.730 22.990 19.900 15.100 Mean 99.343 18.478 22.948 20.209 14.466 S.D. 11.389 2.685 1.800 1.727 1.551 C.V. 0.115 0.145 0.078 0.085 0.107

24 23 22 21

2 20

S 19

18 CULT 17 A 16 H M 15 W 15 20 25 30 SCP3

Figure 4.1: Length of Scapula Neck vs. Length of Glenoid Process for Males

P 21

S 20 CULT 19 A 18 H M 17 W 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 SCP5

Figure 4.2: Length vs. Breadth of Glenoid Cavity for Males

15 CULT A H M 10 W 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SCP3

Figure 4.3: Length of Scapula Neck vs. Length of Glenoid Process for Females.

72 23

P 20

19 CULT A 18 H M 17 W 11 12 13 14 15 16 SCP5

Figure 4.4: Length vs. Breadth of Glenoid Cavity for Females

Humerus

The humerus is the bone of the upper forelimb. It articulates with scapula at the proximal end and with the radius and ulna at the distal end. Five measurements are used to examine the humerus (Table 4.3). Eighty-nine complete and fragmentary humeri were present in the sample (Table 4.4). Forty-six of the 50 male humeri were complete. The mean total length of the male humeri is 130.35 mm (Table 4.4). The mean total length of the female humeri (n=22) is 121.71 mm (Table 4.4). Unidentified dogs (n=15) have a mean total length of 125.77 mm (Table 4.4). Of the five humeral measurements taken, all exhibited significant size differences between males and females when cultural periods were combined (Appendix E). This suggests that sexual dimorphism is generally present between males and females; however overlap in the measurements is also evident. Two scatterplot graphs were produced to examine the humerus. The scatterplots examine the relationship of the Greatest Length from the Humerus Head (HUM2) to the Proximal and Distal Breadths (HUM3 and HUM5) (Table 4.3). The HUM2 measurement was used instead of HUM1 because some dogs have this measurement and other do not. A similar distribution in the dog samples was present when using HUM1 or HUM2. Bivariate analysis was calculated on the Male, Female, and Unidentified dogs (Figures 4.5 to 4.10).

73 Table 4.3: Humerus Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic HUM1 Greatest Length 61 8 14 0 HUM2 Greatest Length from Head 59 8 16 0 HUM3 Depth of Proximal End 60 7 16 0 HUM4 Smallest Diaphysis Breadth 59 8 20 0 HUM5 Breadth of Distal End 57 6 21 2

Males

The two scatterplot graphs for the male dogs have very similar distributions. Both graphs show a generally linear distribution from the lower left to upper right (Figures 4.5 and 4.6). The scatterplot of HUM2 by HUM3 has a sample of 43 dogs (Figure 4.5). The Archaic dogs (n= 34) ranged from 107 mm to 145 mm (HUM2). The Archaic dogs have the greatest sample size and have the greatest range in size. The smallest and largest of the humeri samples are from Archaic dogs. Only three Woodland dogs are present; two of the dogs are grouped together at 122 mm and 127 mm, and the other at 139 mm (HUM2). Woodland dogs have the smallest sample size, however these three dogs are large compared to the majority of the Archaic sample. The smallest Woodland dog is 15 millimeters larger than the smallest Archaic dog; the largest Woodland dog is larger than all but one of the Archaic dogs. The Mississippian dogs (n= 6) range from 114 mm to 139 mm (HUM2). The six Mississippian dogs are distributed in three groups; two dogs are in the lower left end at 114 mm and 117 mm, two are in the center at 125 mm and 126 mm, and the other two dogs are located in the upper right of the graph at 137 mm and 139 mm. The Mississippian dogs are also large compared to the Archaic dogs. The smallest Mississippian dogs are between seven and 10 millimeters larger than the smallest Archaic dog; the largest Mississippian dog is larger than all but one of the Archaic dogs. Four of the Mississippian dogs are nearly equal to and larger than the three Woodland dogs. The two smaller Mississippian dogs are five and eight millimeters smaller than the smallest Woodland dog. No outliers are apparent in this prehistoric dog sample; all the dogs are clustered together (Figure 4.5). The scatterplot of HUM2 by HUM5 has a smaller sample with only 41 dogs (Figure 4.6). The Archaic dogs (n= 31) again ranged from 107 mm to 145 mm (HUM2). Only two Woodland dogs are present, both grouped near each other at 122 mm and 127 mm (HUM2). The Woodland specimens are the same dogs from Figure 4.5, and are smaller than nearly half the Archaic dogs, and larger than the other half. The Mississippian dogs (n= 8) range from 114 mm to 141 mm (HUM2). There is little difference present in the distribution of the Mississippian dogs present in Figure 4.5 and 4.6. Overall this graph is similar to Figure 4.5; the dogs are again clustered together with no outliers (Figure 4.5 and 4.6).

74 Females

The scatterplot of HUM2 by HUM3 has a total sample of 20 dogs (Figure 4.7). The Archaic sample (n= 16) range from 107 mm to 127 mm (HUM2). The Archaic dogs have the greatest sample size and size range. Only two Woodland and two Mississippian period dogs were present. The Woodland dogs are located near the top end of the cluster at 130 mm and 124 mm (HUM2), and are two of the largest dogs in this sample. One of the Woodland dogs is the largest dog in the sample; the other is dwarfed only by three Archaic dogs. The Mississippian dogs are located at the lower end of the cluster and in the center at 105 mm and 117 mm (HUM2). One of the dogs is the smallest, two millimeters smaller than the smallest Archaic dog. The other dog is located about midway in the distribution, but is smaller than more than half the Archaic dogs. Overall, the samples are relatively grouped together, with no outliers present (Figure 4.7). The graph of HUM2 by HUM5 has a total sample of 22 dogs (Figure 4.8). Overall, the distribution of the dogs is the same as in the previous graph, ranging from 105 mm to 130 mm (HUM2). However, and additional Woodland dog (Specimen 111) is located at 87.20 mm (HUM2) (Figure 4.8). This Woodland dog is freakishly small compared to the other samples. It is nearly 43 millimeters smaller than the largest Woodland dog present, and nearly 18 millimeters smaller than the nearest dog (Figure 4.8).

Unidentified

The scatterplot graphs of HUM2 by HUM3 and HUM2 by HUM5 have total samples of 14 and 15 dogs (Figure 4.9 and 4.10). Both graphs have very similar patters of distribution. The Archaic dogs (n= 7) are located in the lower portion of the graphs between 114 mm and 123 mm. The Archaic dogs are comparatively small compared to most of the other samples and have far less difference in size than the dogs from later periods. Between one and two Woodland dogs are present in the samples; one is located in the lower left at 112 mm, and the other in the upper right of the graph at 132 mm (Figure 4.9 and 4.10). The two Woodland dogs are the smallest and largest dogs in this sample. The small Woodland dog is twenty millimeters smaller than the largest dog, and one to two millimeters smaller than the smallest Archaic and Mississippian dogs. The six Mississippian dogs are mostly located in the upper right of the graphs between 125 mm and 131mm; a single Mississippian dog is located in the lower left of the graph at 115 mm. The Mississippian dogs are somewhat larger than the Archaic dogs; the smallest Mississippian dog is two millimeters larger than the large Archaic dog. The large Mississippian dog is only smaller than the large Woodland dog, but only by one millimeter. The samples in both graphs are more far more segregated into their perspective cultural periods than in the previous figures (i.e. Figures 4.5 to 4.8), but are still grouped close together (Figure 4.9 and 4.10).

75 Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics for the Humerus Males HUM1 HUM2 HUM3 HUM4 HUM5 N of Cases 46 46 45 50 48 Minimum 111.000 107.000 28.300 7.750 20.800 Maximum 155.000 145.000 39.600 12.800 32.700 Median 130.000 126.000 33.800 9.875 26.200 Mean 130.348 126.283 33.802 9.870 26.365 S.D. 9.219 8.666 2.260 0.842 2.009 C.V. 0.071 0.069 0.067 0.085 0.076

Females HUM1 HUM2 HUM3 HUM4 HUM5 N of Cases 22 22 22 22 23 Minimum 110.000 87.200 25.460 8.000 22.000 Maximum 135.990 130.000 35.400 11.900 27.600 Median 123.000 117.000 32.350 8.880 24.600 Mean 121.709 115.827 31.735 9.054 24.696 S.D. 7.761 9.390 2.405 0.881 1.656 C.V. 0.064 0.081 0.076 0.097 0.067

Unidentified HUM1 HUM2 HUM3 HUM4 HUM5 N of Cases 15 15 16 15 15 Minimum 117.000 112.000 26.580 8.570 22.500 Maximum 138.600 132.000 36.500 22.800 30.400 Median 126.000 123.000 33.050 9.730 25.500 Mean 125.773 121.733 32.920 10.715 25.981 S.D. 7.681 6.464 2.922 3.481 2.462 C.V. 0.061 0.053 0.089 0.325 0.095

150

140

130

U H 120 CULT 110 A H M 100 W 25 30 35 40 HUM3

Figure 4.5: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Proximal Breadth for Males

150

140

130

U H 120 CULT 110 A H M 100 W 20 25 30 35 HUM5

Figure 4.6: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Distal Breadth for Males

140

130

M 120

CULT 110 A H M 100 W 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 HUM3

Figure 4.7: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Proximal Breadth for Females

77 140

130

120

M 110

100 CULT A 90 H M 80 W 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HUM5

Figure 4.8: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Distal Breadth for Females

140

130

M 120

110 CULT A M 100 W 25 30 35 40 HUM3

Figure 4.9: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Proximal Breadth for Unidentified

78 140

130

M 120

110 CULT A M 100 W 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 HUM5

Figure 4.10: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Distal Breadth for Unidentified

Radius and Ulna

The radius and ulna are the two long bones which make up the lower forelimb. The radius is the main weight-bearing bone of the forelimb. The ulna serves mainly for muscle attachment. The radius and ulna articulate at the proximal and distal ends. At the proximal end they articulate with the humerus and at the distal end, to the radial and ulnar carpals. Four measurements are used for the radius (Table 4.5). Four measurements are also used for the ulna (Table 4.7). Eighty-four complete and fragmentary radii were analyzed (Table 4.6). Forty-nine radii were present for male dogs, of which 45 were complete. The mean radius length of male dogs is 129.44 mm. Female dogs (n=21) had a mean radius length of 118.66 mm. Dogs of unidentified sex (n= 13) had a mean radius length of 126.69 mm. Eighty-nine complete and fragmentary ulnae were also examined (Table 4.7). Fifty-one ulnae of male dogs were analyzed, of these 46 were complete. The mean total length of male ulnae (n=46) is 153.12 mm. Female dogs (n=25) have a mean length of 137.22 mm. The Unidentified dogs (n=13) have a mean length of 146.98 mm. T-tests comparing the total male and total female samples again show significant size differences, suggesting clear sexual dimorphism between the sexes for both the radius and ulna (Appendix E). Scatterplot graphs were produced to examine the relationships between the total length of the radius (RAD1) to the breadth of the proximal (RAD2) and distal (RAD4) ends (Figures 4.11 to 4.16).

79 Radius

Table 4.5: Radius Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic RAD1 Greatest Length 50 9 19 1 RAD2 Breadth of Proximal End 53 6 18 1 RAD3 Smallest Diaphysis Breadth 54 7 20 1 RAD4 Breadth of Distal End 49 7 20 1

Males

The scatterplot graphs of male dogs show similar results; the prehistoric dogs are all clustered in the lower left and center of the graphs (Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.12). The graph of the RAD1 by RAD2 for male radii shows that the prehistoric dogs ranged between 109 mm to 148 mm (Figure 4.11). The Archaic dogs (n=28) ranged between 109 mm to 145 mm in length. The Archaic dogs had the greatest range in size with nearly 36 millimeters between the smallest and largest dog. Only two Woodland dogs are included in the sample; these two dogs were at 128 mm long (RAD1), which is near the average radius length of male dogs. The 11 male Mississippian period dogs extended between 118 mm to 148 mm. The Mississippian dogs have nearly as great a range in size as the Archaic dogs. The Mississippian dogs tend to be somewhat larger than many of the Archaic and both Woodland dogs. In fact the largest Mississippian dog is the largest in the sample; and the smallest Mississippian dog is nearly nine millimeters larger than the smallest Archaic dog. All prehistoric dogs are intermingled. The only outlier was a historic dog (Specimen 114) in the upper right end of the graph at 188 millimeters. A nearly identical pattern is present in the graph of RAD1 by RAD4 for male dogs (Figure 4.12). The only difference is the inclusion of an additional Woodland dog, with a radius length at 140 mm (Figure 4.12). The inclusion of this large Woodland dog shows that the dogs of this period are nearly as variable in size as the Archaic and Mississippian dogs. This Woodland dog is quite close in size to the large Archaic and Mississippian dogs.

Females

The same scatterplot graphs were made for the female samples (Figure 4.13 and Figure 4.14). The two graphs are very similar. The bulk of the prehistoric dogs are located in the upper center and upper right end, between 108 mm to 134 mm. The Archaic sample (n=12) ranged between 108 and 133 mm. The Archaic dogs again have a fairly wide size range. Two of the three Woodland dogs are present in the upper right side of the graph at 129 and 134 mm. The third Woodland dog was located in the lower left side at 83.40 mm. The Woodlands have the largest and smallest dog in this sample. The largest Woodland dog is larger than all others in this sample, and the other large Woodland dog is larger than all but three Archaic dogs. The small Woodland dog (Specimen 111) is the freakishly small dog; this dog is nearly 51 mm smaller than the largest dog and 21 mm smaller than the next smallest dog. A single female Mississippian dog was also present, located at 110.50 mm (Figure 4.13). An additional Mississippian

80 dog was present in the graph of RAD1 by RAD4 (Figure 4.14) and was located at 117 mm. These Mississippian dogs are fairly small compared to the majority of the samples. No historic samples were present. As with the male sample, the female dogs from different cultural periods overlap (Figure 4.13 and 4.14).

Unidentified

Additionally, scatterplot graphs were produced for the Unidentified dogs (Figure 4.15 and 4.16). Both graphs are very similar, with three apparent groupings of dogs. The bulk of the prehistoric samples located in the lower left end of the graphs in two groups. The clustering of samples here suggests most of the dogs are small to medium in size. The first group in the lower left includes only three Archaic dogs. The second group consists of two Archaic dogs, a Woodland dog, and five Mississippian period dogs. The last group in the upper right consists of a single Mississippian dog. The Archaic dogs (n=5) ranged between 112 mm and 129 mm. The Archaic dogs are the smallest dogs in this sample. A single Woodland dog is present in the sample with a radius length of 132 mm. The single Woodland dog is slightly larger than all of the Archaic dogs. A total of six Mississippian dogs are present, with five grouped between 126 mm and 134 mm. These five Mississippian dogs are fairly large compared to the other samples. The smallest Mississippian dog is 14 mm larger than the smallest Archaic dog and only three millimeters smaller than the largest Archaic. The sixth dog is in the upper right of the graphs at 162 mm. This Mississippian period dog (Specimen 235) is the only outlier in the sample. This Mississippian dog is very large in comparison to the other samples; it is 28 mm larger than the next largest dog and 50 mm larger than the smallest dog. No historic period dogs are present in the sample (Figure 4.15 and 4.16).

Table 4.6: Descriptive Statistics for the Radius Males RAD1 RAD2 RAD3 RAD4 N of Cases 45 47 49 45 Minimum 109.000 12.000 7.740 15.580 Maximum 188.000 16.900 13.500 24.800 Median 128.000 14.760 9.600 19.760 Mean 129.444 14.696 9.808 19.839 S.D. 12.585 0.945 1.048 1.579 C.V. 0.097 0.064 0.107 0.080

Females RAD1 RAD2 RAD3 RAD4 N of Cases 21 17 20 19 Minimum 83.400 11.800 7.700 15.200 Maximum 134.000 14.890 11.500 20.260 Median 119.000 13.780 8.550 18.580 Mean 118.656 13.560 8.718 18.306 S.D. 11.268 0.949 0.855 1.227 C.V. 0.095 0.070 0.098 0.067

81 Table 4.6: Descriptive Statistics for the Radius (continued)

Unidentified RAD1 RAD2 RAD3 RAD4 N of Cases 13 14 13 13 Minimum 112.000 13.100 8.400 17.100 Maximum 162.000 19.300 13.700 26.100 Median 127.000 14.775 9.700 19.800 Mean 126.692 15.010 10.205 20.340 S.D. 13.002 1.583 1.479 2.234 C.V. 0.103 0.105 0.145 0.110

190 180 170 160

1 150

R 140

130 CULT 120 A 110 H M 100 W 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RAD2

Figure 4.11: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Radius for Males

82 190 180 170 160

1 150

R 140

130 CULT 120 A 110 H M 100 W 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RAD4

Figure 4.12: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Radius for Males

140

130

120

D 110

100 CULT A 90 H M 80 W 11 12 13 14 15 RAD2

Figure 4.13: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Radius for Females

83 140

130

120

D 110

100 CULT A 90 H M 80 W 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 RAD4

Figure 4.14: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Radius from Females

170

160

150

D 140

130 CULT 120 A M 110 W 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 RAD2

Figure 4.15: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Radius of Unidentified Dogs

84 170

160

150

D 140

130 CULT 120 A M 110 W 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RAD4

Figure 4.16: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Radius for Unidentified Dogs

Ulna

A single scatterplot graph is used to examine the ulnae of the male and female samples. The graph used for the ulna examines the relationship of ULNA1 by ULNA2 (Figures 4.17 and 4.18). The fragmentary nature of the ulna resulted in very few having the total score of measurements; the ulna from published sources were restricted to total length measurements (Tables 4.7 and 4.8). This resulted in most of the samples being exempted from bivariate analysis. Originally, unidentified dogs were also going to be included in the analysis, but too few unidentified dogs were available for bivariate analysis of the ulna; the scatterplot of ULNA1 by ULNA2 has only four unidentified samples. Thus no bivariate analysis was done on the ulnae from Unidentified dogs.

Table 4.7: Ulna Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic ULNA1 Greatest Length 61 4 15 3 ULNA2 Depth across 60 6 17 1 Anconaeus Process ULNA3 Least Breadth of 60 5 17 1 Olecranon ULNA4 Greatest Breadth of 61 6 16 1 Coronoid Process

85 Males

The scatterplot graph for the ULNA1 by ULNA2 includes only Archaic and Mississippian dogs (Figure 4.17). The samples are in a linear progression from the lower left to upper right of the graph. The Archaic dogs (n=20) range between 130 mm and 162 mm. The Mississippian dogs (n= 6) range in size from 140 mm to 173 mm. Both the Archaic and Mississippian dogs have similarly large size ranges; over 30 mm difference is present between the smallest and largest of the dogs from both cultural periods. Although overlap in ulnae size is present between the Archaic and Mississippian dogs, the Mississippian dogs are somewhat larger. The smallest Mississippian dog is ten millimeters larger than the smallest Archaic dog, and the largest Mississippian dog is about 12 millimeters larger than the largest Archaic. Most of the samples are restricted between 139 mm and 162 mm. Three apparent outliers are present; a single Archaic dog (Specimen 56) at 130 mm and two Mississippian dogs (Specimens 2 and 93) at 171 mm and 173 mm (Figure 4.17). Specimen 56 is nearly nine millimeters smaller than the next small Archaic dog. Specimens 2 and 93 are quite large compared to the other dogs, with a nine and 11 millimeter difference to the nearest large dog at 162 mm (Figure 4.17).

Females

The scatterplot graph of ULNA1 by ULNA2 has a total sample of only 14 dogs (Figure 4.18). The samples consisted of mostly Archaic and Mississippian period dogs; only a single Woodland dog is included. The Archaic dogs (n= 11) ranged from 124 mm to 158 mm. Archaic dogs by far have the greatest sample size. It is difficult to assess true size variation with such small samples. The two Mississippian dogs are located at 132 mm and 139 mm. These two dogs happen to be within the small to medium range; they are much smaller than most of the Archaic dogs present. The Archaic and Mississippian dogs all overlap. The single Woodland dog (Specimen 111) is the only outlier present, located at the lower left of the graph at 100.70 mm (Figure 4.18). Specimen 111 is again aberrantly small compared to the other dogs in the sample, being over 23 and 57 mm smaller than the next smallest and the largest dogs in this sample.

Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics for the Ulna Males ULNA1 ULNA2 ULNA3 ULNA4 N of Cases 46 51 50 51 Minimum 120.700 16.270 13.800 10.380 Maximum 206.200 24.000 21.100 17.600 Median 150.500 20.200 17.425 14.200 Mean 153.124 20.094 17.293 14.116 S.D. 15.581 1.523 1.278 1.211 C.V. 0.102 0.076 0.074 0.086

86 Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics for the Ulna (continued) Females ULNA1 ULNA2 ULNA3 ULNA4 N of Cases 25 20 21 21 Minimum 100.700 16.000 14.400 11.100 Maximum 158.000 22.000 18.850 14.460 Median 139.000 18.950 16.150 13.290 Mean 137.216 18.701 16.221 13.153 S.D. 13.021 1.605 1.247 1.002 C.V. 0.095 0.086 0.077 0.076

Unidentified ULNA1 ULNA2 ULNA3 ULNA4 N of Cases 12 13 12 12 Minimum 123.500 16.600 14.800 9.800 Maximum 188.400 22.260 18.400 15.100 Median 143.000 19.580 16.665 13.870 Mean 146.983 19.852 16.682 13.456 S.D. 17.850 1.771 1.092 1.436 C.V. 0.121 0.089 0.065 0.107

180

160

140 CULT A H M 120 W 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ULNA2

Figure 4.17: Greatest Length vs. Depth across Anconaeus Process for Males

87 160

150

140

N 130

120 CULT A 110 H M 100 W 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ULNA2

Figure 4.18: Greatest Length vs. Depth across Anconaeus Process for Females

Femur

The femur is the upper hind limb bone. This bone articulates with the innominate at the proximal end and with the tibia and patella at the distal end. Five measurements were used to examine the femur (Table 4.9). One hundred twenty-six femurs were examined. The male dogs (n= 73) have a mean length of 139.73 mm, the female dogs (n= 30) have a mean length of 129.49 mm, and the Unidentified dogs (n= 23) have a mean length of 135.05 mm (Table 4.10). Of the seven femur measurements taken t-tests all exhibited significant size differences in which the total male sample is larger than the total female sample, suggesting clear sexual dimorphism (Appendix E). Three scatterplots were produced from the femur to examine the relationship of the Greatest Length from Femur Head (FEM2) by the Proximal and Distal Breadths (FEM3 and FEM7), and by the Depth of the Femur Head (FEM4). The use of FEM2 instead of FEM1 is done in order to include dogs from Haag (1948) and from other publications that used Haag’s measurements. As with the humerus little difference was exhibited in the distribution of dogs by using either FEM1 or FEM2 in bivariate analysis. Males, females, and unidentified dogs were examined (Figures 4.19 to 4.27).

88 Table 4.9: Femur Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic FEM1 Greatest Length 54 3 17 1 FEM2 Greatest Length from Femoral 94 10 18 4 Head FEM3 Breadth of Proximal End 54 4 17 4 FEM4 Depth of Femoral Head 58 7 16 4 FEM5 Smallest Diaphysis Breadth 61 6 18 1 FEM7 Breadth of Distal End 58 5 21 4

Table 4.10: Descriptive Statistics for the Femur Males Males FEM1 FEM2 FEM3 FEM4 FEM5 FEM7 N of Cases 47 73 50 50 51 56 Minimum 117.000 117.300 26.850 12.900 8.830 21.800 Maximum 192.000 192.000 39.100 18.700 15.200 33.400 Median 137.000 138.000 31.390 15.000 10.500 26.365 Mean 136.957 139.726 31.676 15.189 10.668 26.650 S.D. 12.054 13.392 2.336 1.112 0.992 2.087 C.V. 0.088 0.096 0.074 0.073 0.093 0.078

Females Females FEM1 FEM2 FEM3 FEM4 FEM5 FEM7 N of Cases 15 30 16 21 20 17 Minimum 114.000 104.500 27.500 11.100 8.300 23.000 Maximum 141.000 146.590 31.700 16.000 11.400 29.500 Median 128.000 130.000 29.650 14.300 9.700 25.100 Mean 127.600 129.493 29.442 14.287 9.782 25.308 S.D. 7.356 8.885 1.193 1.177 0.720 1.653 C.V. 0.058 0.069 0.041 0.082 0.074 0.065

Unidentified Unidentified FEM1 FEM2 FEM3 FEM4 FEM5 FEM7 N of Cases 13 23 13 14 15 15 Minimum 120.000 117.000 28.500 13.200 9.370 23.500 Maximum 170.000 173.000 39.800 18.600 14.100 33.200 Median 128.000 130.000 31.500 14.860 10.180 26.800 Mean 134.462 135.052 31.761 15.021 10.704 26.595 S.D. 13.352 11.945 3.225 1.428 1.309 2.539 C.V. 0.099 0.088 0.102 0.095 0.122 0.095

89 Males

The results for the three scatterplots for the male femurs are all similar. The samples progress from the lower left to upper right. The prehistoric dogs are clustered in the lower left. The sample of 32 to 35 Archaic dogs ranged between 118 mm and 160 mm in all graphs (Figures 4.19 to 4.21). The Archaic dogs again have the greatest sample size and greatest range in size for the prehistoric sample. They are both the largest and smallest in this sample, with nearly 42 millimeters difference between the largest and smallest dogs. Only two Woodland dogs were in the sample thus it is not possible to get a clear determination of the true size range of Woodland dogs. A single Woodland dog was present in all graphs, located in the center left of the prehistoric cluster at 138 mm; this dog is approximately 22 millimeters smaller than the large Archaic dog and 20 millimeters larger than the smallest Archaic dog. The second Woodland dog was present in only Figure 4.20 near the upper extreme of the prehistoric dogs, at 152 mm; this dog is nearly 14 millimeters larger than the other Woodland dog, and is larger than all but one of the Archaic dogs. Only seven to eight Mississippian dogs were present in the graphs. In Figures 4.19 and 4.21, the Mississippian period dogs (n=8) were all clustered between 129 mm and 156 mm. In Figure 4.20, seven Mississippian dogs were present ranging between 129 mm to 150 mm. A difference of nearly 27 millimeters is present between the smallest and largest Mississippian dogs. The largest Mississippian dog is four millimeters smaller than the largest Archaic and four millimeters larger than the largest Woodland dog. The smallest Mississippian dog is nearly 11 millimeters larger than the smallest Archaic dog. Four Historic dogs were present in the graphs. These dogs were the only outliers present in the sample. Three of these dogs (Specimens 200, 202, and 114) were clustered in the upper right of the scatterplot between 173.90 mm and 192 mm; the fourth Historic dog (Specimen 218) was the smallest in the femur sample at 117.30 mm (Figures 4.19 to Figures 4.21). The Historic dogs have the greatest size range of the entire sample, with nearly 75 millimeters difference between the smallest and largest dogs. The smallest Historic dog is in fact almost 10 millimeters smaller than the smallest prehistoric dog, and the largest Historic dog is over 30 millimeters larger than the largest prehistoric dog. Overlap of the prehistoric sample was quite evident in the male sample.

Females

The distribution patterns are less defined in the females than in the males, but the general distribution of the samples are from the lower left to upper right of the graphs (Figures 4.22 to 4.24). Scatterplot of FEM2 by FEM3 has a total of 15 dogs, ranging between 120 mm and 144 mm (Figure 4.22). The majority of the dogs were between 120 and 136 mm. Most of the Archaic samples (n= 10) extend from 121 mm to 136 mm, with a single Archaic dog at 144 mm. The largest of the Archaic dogs (Specimen 59) is eight millimeters larger than the nearest large dog, and may be a possible outlier. The Archaic dogs again have the largest sample and the greatest size distribution of the samples with nearly 23 millimeters difference between the smallest and largest dogs. Since only one Woodland dog and two Mississippian dogs are present it is again impossible to know the true size range of the dogs during these cultural periods based on this sample. The single Woodland dog is present at 135 mm, and is relatively large compared to many of the

90 other dogs; it is dwarfed only by the two largest Archaic dogs. The two Mississippian period dogs are located at 120 mm and 130 mm. The Mississippian dog at 120 mm is the smallest dog in this sample. The other Mississippian dog at 130 mm is located near the middle of the size distribution. The scatterplot of FEM2 by FEM4 has a sample of 19 dogs (Figure 4.23). Overall, the pattern in distribution is much like Figure 4.22. Most of the dogs are between 120 and 136 mm. Thirteen of the 15 Archaic dogs are grouped between 121 and 136 mm. Two Archaic dogs lie outside the other Archaic dog measurements; these are both in the upper right at 144 mm and 146.59 mm. Two Woodland dogs are present; located at 135 mm and 140 mm. The same two Mississippian dogs are present at 120 mm and 130 mm (Figure 4.22 and 4.23). The only outliers are the two Archaic dogs (Specimens 59 and 170) in the top right of the graph (Figure 4.23). Only 14 dogs are in the FEM2 by FEM7 scatterplot (Figure 4.24). This graph had far less of a pattern of distribution than the previous graphs. Most of the dogs are centered to the left of the graph between 120 mm and 136 mm. Three apparent outliers are present, including two Archaic dogs and one Woodland dog. The first outlier is the Archaic dog (Specimen 59) present in the previous graphs at 144 mm. The other outliers have femur lengths within the range of most of the samples, but have large distal breadths in comparison (Figure 4.24). Most of the samples have distal breadths extending no further than 26.36 mm; the outlying Archaic (Specimen 63) and Woodland dog (Specimen 83) have breadths of 27.90 mm and 29.50 mm (Figure 4.24). Although Specimens 63 and 83 have large distal breadths compared to the other dogs, the differences are only between 1.54 and 3.14 millimeters.

Unidentified

Twelve to thirteen unidentified dogs were also included for analysis. The patterns of distribution in the three scatterplot graphs are nearly identical. The samples extend from the lower left to the upper right of the graph. Three clusters of dogs are present (Figure 4.25 to 4.27). The cluster of dogs in the lower left of the graphs includes five Archaic dogs, one Woodland dog, and one Mississippian dog. This group of small dogs ranged between 123 mm to 130 mm. The cluster of dogs in the center consists of four Mississippian dogs (Figures 4.25 to 4.27). In Figure 4.26, an Archaic dog is included in the center cluster with these Mississippian dogs. These dogs ranged from 140 mm to 150 mm. Overall the size range of the dogs in this sample is very similar to those seen in the male and female samples. The far upper right of each graph includes a single Mississippian period dog (Specimen 233) at 173 mm; this dog is nearly 23 millimeters larger than the next largest dog in this sample (Figure 4.25 to 4.27).

91 200 190 180 170

2 160

F 150

140 CULT 130 A 120 H M 110 W 25 30 35 40 FEM3

Figure 4.19: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Breadth of Proximal end for Males

200 190 180 170

2 160

F 150

140 CULT 130 A 120 H M 110 W 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 FEM4

Figure 4.20: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Depth of the Femoral Head for Males

92 200 190 180 170

2 160

F 150

140 CULT 130 A 120 H M 110 W 20 25 30 35 FEM7

Figure 4.21: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Breadth of Distal end for Males

150

143

136

E F 129 CULT 122 A H M 115 W 27 28 29 30 31 32 FEM3

Figure 4.22: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Breadth of Proximal end for Females

93 150

143

136

E F 129 CULT 122 A H M 115 W 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 FEM4

Figure 4.23: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Depth of the Femoral Head for Females

150

143

136

E F 129 CULT 122 A H M 115 W 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 FEM7

Figure 4.24: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Breadth of Distal end for Females

94 180

170

160

2 150

F 140

130 CULT 120 A M 110 W 25 30 35 40 FEM3

Figure 4.25: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Breadth of Proximal end for Unidentified Dogs

180

170

160

2 150

F 140

130 CULT 120 A M 110 W 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 FEM4

Figure 4.26: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Depth of the Femoral Head for Unidentified Dogs

95 180

170

160

2 150

F 140

130 CULT 120 A M 110 W 20 25 30 35 FEM7

Figure 4.27: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Breadth of Distal end for Unidentified Dogs

Tibia

The tibia articulates with the femur at the proximal end and with the astragulus at the distal end. Along the lateral side the fibula articulates with the tibia. Four measurements were used to examine the tibia (Table 4.11). Ninety complete and fragmentary tibiae were analyzed (Table 4.14). Male dogs (n=51) have a mean length of 142.96 mm, the females (n=23) have a mean length of 133.26 mm, and the Unidentified dogs (n=14) have a mean length of 137.93 mm (Table 4.12). As with the other long bones, a clear size difference exists between the mean male and female tibiae. T-tests reveal significant sexual dimorphism in all four measurements taken on the tibia (Appendix E). Scatterplot graphs were produced to examine the relationships of the tibia greatest length (TIB1) by the proximal (TIB2) and distal (TIB5) ends. Graphs were produced for the male, female, and unidentified samples (Figures 4.28 to 4.33).

Table 4.11: Tibia Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic TIB1 Greatest Length 60 9 18 1 TIB2 Breadth of Proximal End 58 7 19 1 TIB3 Smallest Diaphysis Breadth 54 6 17 1 TIB5 Breadth of Distal End 55 8 19 2

96 Males

The two graphs for male dogs both show similar results; the prehistoric samples are located along the lower center of the scatterplot graphs. All the prehistoric male dogs overlap in size (Figure 4.28 and Figure 4.29). For the scatterplot of TIB1 by TIB2, the Archaic dogs (n=35) range between 121 mm to 160 mm (Figure 4.28). The Archaic dogs were at the minimum and maximum extremes of the prehistoric dogs’ range. The Archaic dogs have the greatest variation in size, with nearly 40 millimeters difference between the largest and smallest dogs. Only three male Woodland dogs were present in the sample; they were grouped between 137 mm to 155 mm. Although only three Woodland dogs were present, all were fairly large, the smallest was nearly 16 millimeters larger than the smallest Archaic dog. However, the largest Woodland dog was five millimeters smaller than the largest Archaic dog. The Mississippian male dogs (n=11) ranged between 129 mm to 160 mm. The Mississippian dogs have a similar size range to the Archaic, although the smallest Mississippian dog is eight millimeters larger than the smallest Archaic. A similar pattern is present in the scatterplot of TIB1 by TIB5 (Figure 4.29). The Archaic male sample (n=33) ranged between 121 and 153 mm. The same three Woodland and 11 Mississippian period dogs were present. Mississippian dogs are the largest in this sample only because the larger Archaic dog from Figure 4.28 is absent here. The only outlier from both graphs was the historic period dog (Specimen 114) with a tibia length of 206 mm located in the upper right end (Figure 4.28 and Figure 4.29).

Females

The female sample (n= 19) consisted of only prehistoric dogs. The pattern of distribution is somewhat ambiguous. However, overlapping sizes of the dogs from the different cultural periods is evident (Figure 4.30 and Figure 4.31). In Figure 4.30, the total tibia sample has total lengths between 120 and 147 mm, however all but three dogs are restricted between 120 and 139 millimeters. Archaic dogs (n=15) ranged between 120 mm to 146 mm, and have the greatest size range in the sample with 26 mm difference between the largest and smallest dog. Only two Woodland period dogs are present; both are grouped together at the top at 146 and 147 mm and are the largest dogs in this sample with the Archaic dog at 146 mm. The two Mississippian dogs were located near the bottom of the graph at 124 mm, and in the middle of the graph at 135 mm. The Mississippian dogs are both relatively small compared to many dogs from the earlier periods; the smallest Mississippian dog is only larger than two Archaic dogs, and the largest Mississippian dog is smaller than five Archaic dogs and both Woodland dogs although it is larger than the majority of the Archaic dogs (Figure 4.30). The two Woodland dogs (Specimens 83 and 95) and the largest Archaic dog (Specimen 59) are apparent outliers, and are between seven and eight millimeters larger than the next largest dog (Figure 4.30). The same dogs in Figure 4.30 were also present in Figure 4.31; the length measurements remained the same, and the distal breaths ranged between 10.35 and 19.90 mm (Figure 4.31). The majority of the samples were located in the right end of the graph, breadths between 15.70 mm to 19.90 mm. A single outlier was present in the left end of

97 the graph; this Archaic period dog (Specimen 68) had a tibia length of 139 mm and a distal breadth of 10.35 mm (Figure 4.31). Other than this outlier, the general distribution is very similar to Figure 4.30.

Unidentified

The Unidentified dog sample of tibia also includes only prehistoric dogs. Both scatterplot graphs included 13 dogs total; six Archaic dogs, two Woodland dogs, and five Mississippian dogs were present (Figures 4.32 and 4.33). In both figures, most of the sample tibia lengths ranged from 126 mm to 148 mm. The Archaic dogs ranged between 126 and 142 mm; the Woodland dogs were at 126 and 148 mm; the Mississippian dogs were between 140 and 147 mm. Again, overlap is characteristic of the samples. A single outlier, a Mississippian dog (Specimen 234) with a tibia length of 167 mm was present in both graphs, located near the top right (Figures 4.32 and 4.33). In Figure 4.32, most of the dogs are located in the lower left and middle of the graph; their proximal breadths ranging between 25.30 mm to 31.60 mm. The outlier has a proximal breadth of 33.80 mm (Figure 4.32). The distal breadths of the dogs were restricted to 9.27 mm and 18.50 mm, with the outlier at 24.30 mm (Figure 4.33).

Table 4.12: Descriptive Statistics for the Tibia Males TIB1 TIB2 TIB3 TIB5 N of Cases 51 52 45 48 Minimum 121.000 23.280 8.600 14.900 Maximum 206.000 34.800 13.700 23.200 Median 142.000 28.500 10.300 18.650 Mean 142.961 28.472 10.333 18.501 S.D. 13.031 2.044 0.982 1.496 C.V. 0.091 0.072 0.095 0.081

Females TIB1 TIB2 TIB3 TIB5 N of Cases 23 19 20 21 Minimum 120.000 24.660 8.200 10.350 Maximum 148.130 28.700 11.470 19.900 Median 133.000 26.960 9.425 17.500 Mean 133.262 26.699 9.512 17.134 S.D. 8.570 1.187 0.758 1.977 C.V. 0.064 0.044 0.080 0.115

Unidentified TIB1 TIB2 TIB3 TIB5 N of Cases 14 14 13 15 Minimum 124.000 25.300 8.900 9.270 Maximum 167.000 33.800 14.100 24.300 Median 139.500 28.850 10.280 18.800 Mean 137.929 28.704 10.574 18.311 S.D. 11.744 2.532 1.453 3.155 C.V. 0.085 0.088 0.137 0.172

210 200 190 180

1 170

T 160

150 CULT 140 A 130 H M 120 W 20 25 30 35 TIB2

Figure 4.28: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Tibia for Males

210 200 190 180

1 170

T 160

150 CULT 140 A 130 H M 120 W 10 15 20 25 TIB5

Figure 4.29: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Tibia for Males

99 150

140

I 130

CULT 120 A H M 110 W 24 25 26 27 28 29 TIB2

Figure 4.30: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Tibia for Females

150

140

I 130

CULT 120 A H M 110 W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TIB5

Figure 4.31: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Tibia for Females

100 170

160

150

T 140

CULT 130 A M 120 W 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 TIB2

Figure 4.32: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Tibia for Unidentified Dogs

170

160

150

T 140

CULT 130 A M 120 W 0 10 20 30 TIB5

Figure 4.33: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Tibia for Unidentified Dogs

Fibula

The fibula is a thin, long laterally compressed bone. It articulates with the tibia at the proximal end and with the tibia and astagalus at the distal end. The fibula is extremely fragile, and seldom preserves intact. Of the southeastern dogs with skeletons, only five fibulae were intact enough to measure. All the dogs (Specimens 98, 99, 100, 101, and 175) with intact fibulae are from the Mississippian period (Table 4.13). Males (n=3) have a mean fibula length of 121.93 mm and females (n=2) have a mean fibula length of

101 120.40 mm (Table 4.14). Since only a total length measurement was taken and so few fibulae were present, no further analysis was done (Tables 4.13 and 4.14).

Table 4.13: Fibula Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic FIB1 Greatest Length 0 0 5 0

Table 4.14: Descriptive Statistics for the Fibula

Males Females FIB1 FIB1 N of Cases 3 2 Minimum 116.100 114.800 Maximum 127.900 126.000 Median 121.800 120.400 Mean 121.933 120.400 S.D. 5.901 7.920 C.V. 0.048 0.066

Tarsals

There are seven tarsal bones that make up part of the hindpaw. Only the astragalus, or talus, and the calcaneus were measured. The other tarsal bones and the carpal bones occurred less frequently and were not measured. A total of 66 complete astagulii were present, of which 47 were from Archaic dogs, six from Woodland dogs, 12 Mississippian dogs, and a single Historic period dog (Table 4.15). The male dogs (n= 44) have a mean length of 22.12 mm, the female dogs (n=17) have a mean length of 21.42 mm, and the Unidentified dogs (n= 5) have a mean length of 21.87 mm (Table 4.17). Only one measurement was used for the astragalus thus no multivariate analysis was possible for this bone (Table 4.15). Two measurements were used for the calcaneus (Table 4.16). The calcaneus sample consisted of 71 complete bones. No fragmented calcaneii were included. Calcaneus sample consisted of 49 Archaic dogs, eight Woodland dogs, 13 Mississippian dogs, and a single Historic period dog (Table 4.16).The male dogs (n = 43) have a mean length of 37.49 mm, the female dogs (n= 19) have a mean length of 34.99 mm, and indeterminate dogs (n= 9) have a mean total length of 34.78 mm (Table 4.17). T-test examining comparing the total male and total female samples again reveal a significant size difference in the mean measurements, suggesting sexual dimorphism in these elements (Appendix E). Scatterplot graphs were produced of the relationship between the greatest length (CAL1) and greatest breadth (CAL2) of the calcaneus. These graphs provided no additional information not provided by the previous scatterplots, and are excluded from the analysis.

102

Astragalus and Calcaneus

Table 4.15: Astragalus Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic AST1 Greatest Length 47 6 12 1

Table 4.16: Calcaneus Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic CAL1 Greatest Length 49 8 13 1 CAL2 Breadth 49 8 13 1

Table 4.17: Descriptive Statistics for Calcaneus and Astragulus

Males CAL1 CAL2 AST1 N of Cases 43 43 44 Minimum 31.800 11.360 18.460 Maximum 45.700 19.500 27.900 Median 37.600 14.500 21.900 Mean 37.490 14.775 22.119 S.D. 2.529 1.316 1.492 C.V. 0.067 0.089 0.067

Females CAL1 CAL2 AST1 N of Cases 19 19 17 Minimum 27.900 12.200 19.000 Maximum 38.900 15.560 23.860 Median 35.700 13.660 21.590 Mean 34.994 13.872 21.415 S.D. 2.646 0.873 1.293 C.V. 0.076 0.063 0.060

Unidentified CAL1 CAL2 AST1 N of Cases 9 9 5 Minimum 32.200 12.250 20.380 Maximum 38.100 15.370 23.500 Median 34.280 13.580 21.900 Mean 34.784 13.783 21.874 S.D. 1.791 1.110 1.185 C.V. 0.051 0.081 0.054

103

Metapodials

The metapodials consist of the metacarpals of the forepaws and the metatarsals of the hindpaws. Five metacarpal and five metatarsal bones are present in the domestic dog. However, only the metacarpals II-V and metatarsals II-V have measurements. Two measurements are used to examine the metapodials (Table 4.18). Only complete metapodials were measured. A total of 267 metacarpals and 241 metatarsals were available for analysis (Table 4.18 and 4.19). T-tests examining the total male and total female samples exhibited significant size differences in the means, suggesting again that there is some sexual dimorphism present in both the metacarpals and metatarsals (Appendix E). Bivariate analysis was done only on the male and female samples. However, as with the calcaneus no additional information was provided from these scatterplots and was excluded from the thesis.

Table 4.18: Metapodial Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic MC2 _1 Total Length 50 5 12 1 MC2 _2 Greatest Breadth of Distal end 50 5 12 1 MC3_1 Total Length 48 5 12 1 MC3_2 Greatest Breadth of Distal end 48 5 12 1 MC4_1 Total Length 45 6 13 1 MC4_2 Greatest Breadth of Distal end 45 6 13 1 MC5_1 Total Length 45 8 14 1 MC5_2 Greatest Breadth of Distal end 45 8 14 1 MT2_1 Total Length 44 6 12 1 MT2_2 Greatest Length of Distal end 44 6 12 1 MT3_1 Total Length 45 5 11 0 MT3_2 Greatest Breadth of Distal end 45 5 11 0 MT4_1 Total Length 48 6 9 0 MT4_2 Greatest Breadth of Distal end 48 6 9 0 MT5_1 Total Length 40 3 11 0 MT5_2 Greatest Breadth of Distal end 40 3 11 0

104 Table 4.19: Descriptive Statistics for the Metapodials. Males MC2_1 MC2_2 MC3_1 MC3_2 MC4_1 MC4_2 MC5_1 MC5_2 N of Cases 42 42 40 40 40 40 43 43 Minimum 37.800 6.250 44.300 5.800 44.400 5.790 37.400 6.400 Maximum 63.400 9.000 71.900 9.000 71.100 9.000 58.800 10.000 Median 44.235 7.555 51.100 7.125 50.880 6.900 42.800 7.970 Mean 44.953 7.614 51.727 7.222 51.676 7.055 43.543 7.963 S.D. 4.189 0.522 4.642 0.580 4.522 0.592 3.691 0.635 C.V. 0.093 0.069 0.090 0.080 0.088 0.084 0.085 0.080

MT2_1 MT2_2 MT3_1 MT3_2 MT4_1 MT4_2 MT5_1 MT5_2 N of Cases 39 39 40 40 40 40 35 35 Minimum 42.700 5.650 48.680 5.700 47.700 5.700 45.600 5.700 Maximum 70.200 9.000 67.000 9.000 69.200 7.940 61.100 7.970 Median 50.000 7.000 56.940 7.285 58.135 7.000 52.160 6.700 Mean 51.050 7.084 57.155 7.314 58.282 7.061 52.461 6.713 S.D. 4.875 0.590 4.073 0.609 4.163 0.430 3.510 0.550 C.V. 0.095 0.083 0.071 0.083 0.071 0.061 0.067 0.082

Females MC2_1 MC2_2 MC3_1 MC3_2 MC4_1 MC4_2 MC5_1 MC5_2 N of Cases 17 17 17 17 18 18 17 17 Minimum 38.300 6.100 40.300 6.000 44.900 6.000 33.800 6.200 Maximum 47.700 8.380 54.500 7.300 54.200 7.770 45.700 8.250 Median 42.400 7.200 47.600 6.800 48.455 6.640 40.200 7.270 Mean 42.626 7.203 48.528 6.717 48.711 6.641 40.273 7.318 S.D. 3.009 0.608 3.553 0.400 2.773 0.456 3.273 0.582 C.V. 0.071 0.084 0.073 0.060 0.057 0.069 0.081 0.079

MT2_1 MT2_2 MT3_1 MT3_2 MT4_1 MT4_2 MT5_1 MT5_2 N of Cases 15 15 13 13 18 18 13 13 Minimum 37.400 5.500 46.900 5.900 43.700 5.700 43.100 5.100 Maximum 51.900 7.500 60.100 7.580 62.600 7.270 54.400 7.140 Median 47.100 6.650 53.560 6.850 55.325 6.685 49.600 6.100 Mean 46.299 6.575 53.577 6.882 55.152 6.662 49.222 6.165 S.D. 4.118 0.548 3.837 0.481 5.177 0.441 3.240 0.513 C.V. 0.089 0.083 0.072 0.070 0.094 0.066 0.066 0.083

Unidentified MC2_1 MC2_2 MC3_1 MC3_2 MC4_1 MC4_2 MC5_1 MC5_2 N of Cases 9 9 9 9 7 7 8 8 Minimum 38.160 6.100 44.000 5.500 43.500 5.900 36.300 6.500 Maximum 45.800 8.000 53.800 7.700 52.760 7.300 45.700 8.600 Median 42.700 7.290 49.900 6.800 47.900 6.700 40.950 7.510 Mean 42.249 7.229 49.446 6.861 48.232 6.653 40.979 7.536 S.D. 2.956 0.628 3.518 0.613 3.385 0.425 3.464 0.736 C.V. 0.070 0.087 0.071 0.089 0.070 0.064 0.085 0.098

105 Table 4.19: Descriptive Statistics for the Metapodials (continued) Unidentified MT2_1 MT2_2 MT3_1 MT3_2 MT4_1 MT4_2 MT5_1 MT5_2 N of Cases 9 9 8 8 5 5 6 6 Minimum 43.500 5.900 49.900 6.000 51.800 6.250 45.900 5.600 Maximum 58.100 7.800 58.950 7.750 60.360 7.300 52.590 6.750 Median 46.700 6.400 52.700 6.750 53.000 6.400 47.575 6.250 Mean 47.609 6.651 53.388 6.804 54.468 6.658 48.340 6.228 S.D. 4.733 0.546 3.121 0.530 3.420 0.465 2.380 0.374 C.V. 0.099 0.082 0.058 0.078 0.063 0.070 0.049 0.060

Summary Graphs

The scatterplot graphs presented above show varied patterns of distribution in the samples. However what is apparent is that no clear separation of dogs from different cultural periods is present; in fact dogs from the Archaic to Mississippian periods all show extreme size overlap. This is especially visible in the figures for the male samples. The small samples for female and unidentified dogs made their graphs far less clear. Appendix F presents the results of t-tests of comparison between prehistoric dogs from the three different cultural periods, showing there are essentially no significant differences between any of the dogs. Only 59 of the 498 measurement combinations showed significant differences; these are presented in bold (Appendix F). Perhaps the most apparent observation is that the graphs exhibit a cluster of dogs as well as outliers. A total of 23 dogs were identified as possible outliers, including 19 prehistoric dogs (Specimens 2, 25, 28, 32, 44, 56, 59, 61, 63, 68, 83, 93, 95, 98, 111, 170, 233, 234, 235) and four historic dogs (Specimens 114, 217, 218, and 219). Twenty-three scatterplots consisting of combined male, female, and unidentified samples are provided (Figures 4.34 to 4.45). These graphs give a clear illustration of the differences in the postcranial skeleton of the dogs. These graphs examined the same combination of measurements as the previous graphs (Figures 4.1 to 4.33). The Archaic sample is numerically the largest and most variable in size. These dogs range among the smallest to largest of the prehistoric samples. The Archaic dogs all share a similar morphology regardless of the difference in their size. This is indicated by their clustering. A single dog (Specimen 68) has a tibia distal breadth several millimeters smaller than the other samples (Figure 4.45). This is not the only dog with such a small distal tibia breadth; Specimen 60 also has a similarly small breadth measurement (Table 4.14). This aberrant breadth measurement of Specimen 68 and 60 is isolated and probably due to individual variation. These dogs’ other measurements conform to the normal distribution patterns. The Woodland sample is the smallest prehistoric sample. Regardless, the samples range between the smallest to amongst the largest prehistoric dogs. Most of the Woodland dogs are grouped in the same cluster with the Archaic and Mississippian dogs. They tend to occur grouped in the lower or middle portion of the cluster. A single Woodland dog (Specimen 111) is consistently smaller than any of the other dogs; it is at

106 times as much as 20 millimeters smaller (Figures 4.37 to 4.40). The calcaneus and metapodial measurements are also smaller than the other samples but not to the degree seen in the long bones. A clear example to the smallness of Specimen 111 is the radius, which is nearly 50 millimeters smaller than the other Woodland dog (Specimen 112) recovered from the same site, suggesting at least two clearly different sized, and morphologically distinct dogs at this site (Figure 4.38 and 4.39). Specimen 83 showed no distinctive features in its postcranial skeleton. The Mississippian sample is the next largest prehistoric sample. The Mississippian sample has a size range similar to the other prehistoric samples. These samples range amongst the smallest to the largest of the prehistoric dogs (Figures 4.34 to 4.45). Morphologically most of the Mississippian examples show no distinct differences. They are clustered with the other dogs. Specimen 90, the small Mississippian dog similar to Specimen 111 had no postcranial elements available for analysis. The only outliers in the Mississippian sample are Specimens 233, 234, and 235 (Figures 4.38, 4.39, 4.41, 4.42, 4.43, 4.44, and 4.45). Specimens 233, 234, and 235 are isolated long bones (femur, tibia, and radius) from the Marco Island site; these individual long bones may likely be from the same large dog and are also likely associated with the cranium Specimen 108. This dog (or dogs as it may be) has long bones as much as 10 millimeters greater than the next largest prehistoric dog, and long bones between 30 and 37 millimeters larger than the other dog long bones from Marco Island (Radii: Specimens 231 and 232; Tibia: Specimens 226, 227, and 228; Femur: Specimens 223, 224, and 225). Specimen 233 shows the greatest difference with a size similarity closer to the historic samples than to the prehistoric (Figures 4.41 to 4.43). Regardless of the size discrepancy the long bones from Key Marco are still morphologically similar to the other prehistoric samples. The Historic dogs (Specimens 114, 217, 218, and 219) have the smallest sample. Three of the Historic dogs (Specimens 114, 217, and 219) included for analysis were consistently larger than the prehistoric dogs in the sample. Only the long bones (Specimens 233, 234, and 235) from Marco Island were similar in size. These dogs are otherwise morphologically similar to the prehistoric dogs. Specimen 114 was recovered from the seventeenth-century Fig Springs Mission site in Columbia County, Florida; the dog was found as a burial in an aboriginal structure associated with the mission (Weisman 1992). The other three dogs (Specimens 217, 218, and 219) are from the Chota-Tanasi site, Monroe County, Tennessee. All three dogs were found as burials from this historic Cherokee site (Parmalee and Bogan 1978). The only Historic dog not larger than the prehistoric dogs is Specimen 218. This dog is described as “extremely short- legged and very probably bowlegged” based on the curvature of the long bones (Parmalee and Bogan 1978: 105). Specimen 218 has long bones as short as 56.60 mm and 65.20 mm smaller than the other dog recovered from this site. Examination of the summary graphs of the apendicular skeleton reveals similar results presented for the axial skeleton. The graphs show dogs from different cultural periods retained nearly the same morphology as indicated by the cluster of samples in every graph. The ranges in size are quite variable in the prehistoric samples. Most of the prehistoric dogs have similar small and large size ranges indicated by their overlap. By the Woodland period a smaller morphologically distinctive dog (Specimen 111) is present. A similar dog is found during the Mississippian with Specimen 90 (Chapter 3). In addition larger dogs become present by the Mississippian as indicated by Specimens

107 233, 234, and 235. These graphs indicate at least two types of dogs are present by the Woodland period in the southeast.

15 CULT A H M 10 W 15 20 25 30 SCP3

Figure 4.34: Length of Scapula Neck vs. Length of Glenoid Process for All Dogs

25 24 23 22

4 21

S 20

19 CULT 18 A 17 H M 16 W 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 SCP5

Figure 4.35: Length vs. Breadth of Glenoid Cavity for All Dogs

108 150

140

130

2 120

H 110

100 CULT A 90 H M 80 W 25 30 35 40 HUM3

Figure 4.36: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Proximal Breadth for All Dogs

150

140

130

2 120

H 110

100 CULT A 90 H M 80 W 20 25 30 35 HUM5

Figure 4.37: Greatest Length of Humerus from Head vs. Distal Breadth for All Dogs

109 200

150

100 CULT A H M 50 W 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 RAD2

Figure 4.38: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Radius for All Dogs

200

150

100 CULT A H M 50 W 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 RAD4

Figure 4.39: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Radius for All Dogs

110 220

200

180

N 160

140 CULT A 120 H M 100 W 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ULNA2

Figure 4.40: Greatest Length vs. Depth across Anconaeus Process for All Dogs

200 190 180 170 160

M 150

E F 140 130 CULT 120 A H 110 M 100 W 25 30 35 40 FEM3

Figure 4.41: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Breadth of Proximal end for All Dogs

111 200 190 180 170 160

M 150

E F 140 130 CULT 120 A H 110 M 100 W 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 FEM4

Figure 4.42: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Depth of the Femoral Head for All Dogs

200 190 180 170 160

M 150

E F 140 130 CULT 120 A H 110 M 100 W 20 25 30 35 FEM7

Figure 4.43: Greatest Length from Femoral Head vs. Greatest Breadth of Distal end for All Dogs

112 210 200 190 180 170

I 160

T 150 140 CULT 130 A H 120 M 110 W 20 25 30 35 TIB2

Figure 4.44: Greatest Length vs. Proximal Breadth of the Tibia for All Dogs

210 200 190 180 170

I 160

T 150 140 CULT 130 A H 120 M 110 W 0 10 20 30 TIB5

Figure 4.45: Greatest Length vs. Distal Breadth of the Tibia for All Dogs

113 CHAPTER 5

SHOULDER HEIGHTS AND BODY LENGTH ESTIMATES

Bivariate analysis of the apendicular skeleton revealed three groupings of dogs in the prehistoric sample. The majority of dogs regardless of the cultural affiliation showed similar morphology and overlapping size ranges. Only two exceptions were present, a Woodland period dog from the Palmer Burial Mound and a Mississippian period dog (or dogs) from the Key Marco site. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the presence or absence of significant differences in the shoulder height of the examined dogs. Comparisons are made of shoulder heights of southeastern dogs from different cultural periods, southeastern male and female dogs, and dogs from different geographical regions (e.g. Southeastern vs. Northeastern and Southeastern vs. West Indian). In addition a quantitative definition of what is a small, medium, or large dog is provided based on the estimated shoulder heights. The designation of small, medium, and large dogs used here does not reflect any established classification, but is only to better compare the dogs from this sample. Shoulder heights were determined for 191 dogs using the fifteen shoulder height formulas described in Chapter 2. Due to the incomplete nature of many of the skeletons examined, shoulder height estimates could not be taken on all dogs. In order to facilitate comparisons, the average shoulder height (SHAVRG) of each dog was used (Appendix B). Of the 191 dogs with estimated stature, 163 southeastern dogs were included, with an additional twenty-two dogs from the northeast and six dogs from the West Indies (Appendix B). The southeastern sample consisted of 107 Archaic dogs, 16 Woodland dogs, 36 Mississippian dogs, and four Historic period dogs (Appendix B and Table 5.1).

Table 5.1: Comparison of Average Shoulder Heights of Southeastern Dogs*

Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic^

N Of Cases 107 16 36 4 Minimum 33.240 30.050 35.700 34.860 Maximum 48.690 50.440 53.470 58.810 Median 40.470 41.705 42.930 54.800 Mean 40.460 41.873 43.291 50.818 S.D. 3.025 4.253 4.299 10.926 C.V. 0.075 0.102 0.099 0.215 * Sexes combined: Male, Female, and Indeterminate ^ Historic dogs consist of males only

Archaic dogs (n=107) ranged in height of 33.24 cm to 48.69 cm, equivalent of a beagle to a whippet (Table 5.1 and Table 2.8). The average stature of an Archaic dog is 40.46 cm, approximately the same as a male cocker spaniel (Table 5.1 and Table 2.8). Woodland dogs (n=16) ranged in height of 30.05 cm to 50.44 cm. This is approximately the same as the shoulder heights of a male Lancashire Heeler and a larger male Australian cattle dog (Table 5.1 and Table 2.8). Woodland dogs have a mean shoulder

114 height of 41.83 cm, equivalent to the height of a male shiba inu (Table 5.1 and Table 2.8). Mississippian period dogs (n=36) range between 35.70 cm to 53.47 cm, approximately that of small female cocker spaniel or an average-sized beagle, to a border collie (Table 5.1 and Table 2.8). The mean height of Mississippian dogs is 43.29 cm, similar in height of a male basenji (Table 5.1 and Table 2.8). Three sizes of dog have been classified based on their average shoulder heights; these are small, medium, and large dogs (Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1). Small dogs have shoulder heights between 25 cm and 40 cm. Medium-sized dogs are between 41 cm to 55 cm. Large dogs are those with shoulder heights of 56 cm and above. However, no clear division between small, medium, and large dogs is present. That is, there are no separate concentrations of small, medium, and large dogs; instead there is more of a gradation between smaller to larger individuals (Figure 5.1). Based on these divisions most dogs from the southeast range between small to medium in size. The Archaic samples show most of the samples concentrated between 35cm and 45 cm. Both the Woodland and Mississippian samples show greater concentrations just above the small/medium cut off between 40 cm and 45 cm. The historic dogs have small, medium, and large individuals. However, the small individual was bowlegged, and would be much taller, and therefore larger, if not deformed. The presence of separate groupings in the Woodland, Historic, and to a degree in the Mississippian samples, is likely the result of small sample sizes for these cultural periods. Northeastern prehistoric samples range between small and large dogs. Most are clustered between approximately 45 cm to 51 cm compared to the 35 cm to 45 cm cluster for southeastern dogs (Figure 5.2). This finding suggests that dogs in the northeast were generally larger than those in the southeast. West Indian dogs appear similar on average to southeastern dogs, however, the small sample size makes these results tentative (Figure 5.2).

Large

S Medium 40 CULT A H M 30 Small W A H M W CULT

Figure 5.1: Size Divisions Based on Average Shoulder Height for Southeastern Dogs.

115 70

60 Large

V 50

Medium 40 REGION NE SE Small 30 WI NE SE WI REGION

Figure 5.2: Comparisons of Size Divisions from Dogs in Different Regions.

Differences by Cultural Period.

An examination of shoulder heights of southeastern dogs from different cultures revealed that on average, there is an increase in size from the Archaic to the Historic periods (Table 5.1). Between the Archaic to Mississippian periods, the average height increase is about two centimeters. The mean shoulder height of dogs from the Archaic to Woodland period increased approximately 1.41 cm. T-tests comparing the mean shoulder height of Archaic and Woodland dogs indicated no significant difference (t= -1.282, df = 17.3, p-value = 0.217) is present. Similarly no significant difference exists between the shoulder height of Woodland and Mississippian dogs (t= 1.105, df = 29.1, p-value = 0.278). However significant shoulder height differences are present between Archaic and Mississippian dogs (t= -3.658, df = 47.2, p-value = 0.001) (Table 5.2). By the Historic period, the average shoulder height is 50.82 centimeters, an increase of nearly seven centimeters from the average Mississippian period dog, and ten centimeters from the average Archaic period dog. Curiously no significant difference is present between the Historic dogs and the Archaic (t = -1.893, df = 3.0, p-value = 0.154), Woodland (t = 1.607, df = 3.2, p-value = 0.200), or Mississippian dogs (t = 1.366, df = 3.1, p-value = 0.262). This may be an artifact of too small a sample size for Historic dogs (n = 4) (Table 5.2).

116 Table 5.2: T-tests of Southeastern Dog Shoulder Heights by Culture

Culture Number Mean SD t-value df p-value Archaic 107 40.460 3.025 -1.282 17.3 0.217 Woodland 16 41.873 4.253

Archaic 107 40.460 3.025 -3.658 47.2 0.001* Mississippian 36 43.291 4.299

Archaic 107 40.460 3.025 -1.893 3.0 0.154 Historic 4 50.818 10.926

Woodland 16 41.873 4.253 1.105 29.1 0.278 Mississippian 36 43.291 4.299

Historic 4 50.818 10.926 1.607 3.2 0.200 Woodland 16 41.873 4.253

Historic 4 50.818 10.926 1.366 3.1 0.262 Mississippian 36 43.291 4.299 * Significant Difference

Difference by Sex

Sexual dimorphism is present in most wild and domestic canids, and such differences were exhibited in this sample. Examination of differences in male (n=83) and female (n=36) dogs shows that the average male dog tends to be larger than female dog during every cultural period (Table 5.3). Increasing differences in the shoulder heights between male and female dogs is evident from the Archaic to the Mississippian (Table 5.3). The difference between the average male (41.64 cm) and female (38.88 cm) Archaic dogs is about 2.76 cm (Table 5.3). T-tests reveal a significant difference in shoulder height between the male and female Archaic sample (Table 5.4). During the Woodland period the average male (43.16 cm) and female (39.08 cm) dogs differ by approximately 4 cm. T-tests indicate no significant shoulder height differences between the Woodland males (n=7) and Woodland females (n=4). The t-test shows that of the seven males and four females there are six male dogs and three female dogs clustered between 40 and 45 centimeters in stature, with a single male at 50.44 centimeters and a single female at 30.05 centimeters. Undoubtedly the reason for no significance between the males and females is due to the small sample size, and that most of the dogs present overlap (Table 5.4). It is likely that if a larger sample were present a significant size difference would be present between the Woodland dogs. The average Mississippian period male (42.37 cm) and female (37.05 cm) dogs differ by 5.32 cm. T-tests show a significant difference in the Mississippian sample, although the significance is not as great as seen in the Archaic sample (Table 5.4). The majority of the Mississippian dogs are male (n=13), with only two females in the sample. The two females are both quite small compared to the males; both female dogs having shoulder heights below 40 centimeters, whereas only two males have shoulder heights below 40 centimeters, with the majority of the males (n=8) grouped between 40 and 45

117 centimeters, and three above 45 centimeters. Undoubtedly, the stature range of female Mississippian dogs is not accurately represented. A t-test comparing the total southeastern male (including the Historic dogs) and female samples also show a significant difference (p = 0.000) in the average shoulder height between male and female dogs (Table 5.4). However, overlap between the sexes is evident during all cultural periods.

Table 5.3: Average Shoulder Height of Male and Female Southeastern Dogs

Archaic Archaic Woodland Woodland Mississippian Mississippian Males Females Males Females Males Females

N Of Cases 59 30 7 4 13 2 Minimum 35.660 33.240 39.470 30.050 37.310 35.700 Maximum 48.690 44.130 50.440 43.250 47.240 38.390 Median 41.530 38.860 41.720 41.510 41.500 37.045 Mean 41.640 38.882 43.160 39.080 42.369 37.045 S.D. 2.866 2.679 3.706 6.077 3.004 1.902 C.V. 0.069 0.069 0.086 0.156 0.071 0.051

Total Total Males* Females*

N Of Cases 83 36 Minimum 34.860 30.050 Maximum 58.810 44.130 Median 41.600 38.860 Mean 42.324 38.802 S.D. 4.052 3.067 C.V. 0.096 0.079 *Cultures combined: Archaic, Woodland, Mississippian, and Historic

Table 5.4: T- tests of Shoulder Height Differences by Sex

Sex Number Mean SD t-value df p-value Archaic Males 59 41.640 2.866 -4.482 62.1 0.000* Archaic Females 30 38.882 2.679

Woodland Males 7 43.160 3.706 -1.219 4.3 0.284 Woodland Females 4 39.080 6.077

Mississippian Males 13 42.369 1.902 -3.365 1.9 0.084 Mississippian Females 2 37.045 3.004

Total Males^ 83 42.324 4.052 -5.198 86.8 0.000* Total Females 36 38.802 3.067 ^ Includes Historic period dogs. * Significant Difference

118 Difference by Region

Southeastern prehistoric dogs were consistently smaller than prehistoric dogs in the northeast (Table 5.5). The average height of northeastern Archaic dogs (n=4) are 45.763 cm, approximately 5.30 cm larger than the average southeastern Archaic dogs (Table 5.5). Table 5.5 shows that the smallest northeastern Archaic dogs is over ten millimeters larger than the smallest southeastern Archaic dog, however the largest northeastern Archaic dog is smaller than the largest southeastern dog albeit by a very small difference (less than two centimeters). The mean shoulder height of the Archaic northeastern dogs also exceeded average southeastern Woodland and southeastern Mississippian dogs by 3.89 cm and 2.47 cm (Table 5.5). T-tests indicate these differences in the stature between the northeastern Archaic and southeastern prehistoric samples to be significant (Table 5.6). Since the northeastern Archaic sample is so small with a much more restricted size range compared to the southeastern Archaic dogs, the findings of the analysis may be misleading. However, if the comparison of the southeastern and northeastern Woodland dogs is accurate (see below) it could still be argued that the average Archaic dogs in the northeast were larger than the average southeastern Archaic dogs. In order to secure a more accurate comparison a larger northeastern Archaic sample would be required. The mean shoulder height of northeastern Woodland dogs (n=18) are 49.123 cm, some 7.25 cm larger than the average southeastern Woodland dog (Table 5.5). Table 5.5 shows that the smallest northeastern Woodland dog is over nine centimeters larger than the smallest southeastern Woodland dog, and the largest northeastern Woodland dog is over ten centimeters larger than the largest southeastern Woodland dog. The mean northeastern Woodland dogs are also larger than the average southeastern Archaic and Mississippian dogs by 8.66 cm and 5.91 cm (Table 5.5). T-tests indicated that the northeastern Woodland dogs are significantly larger than all the southeastern prehistoric dogs; the only southeastern dogs that exceed the average northeastern Woodland dogs are the southeastern historic sample, although the difference is not significant (Table 5.6). Comparisons made of the combined southeastern sample (n=163) to the combined northeastern sample (n=22) also reveal a significant difference in the average stature of the dogs in these regions (Table 5.6). The shoulder heights of West Indian dogs were also compared to the southeastern dog sample. The small sample of West Indian dogs (n=6) ranged in height between 35.350 cm to 45.100 cm, with a mean shoulder height of 39.973 cm. The West Indian dogs most closely resemble the southeastern Archaic sample in height (Table 5.5). The average shoulder height of West Indian dogs and southeastern Archaic dogs differed by only 0.49 cm. T-test show no significant difference in the stature of the average southeastern Archaic dog and the West Indian dogs (Table 5.7). Size difference between West Indian dogs and the southeastern Woodland and Mississippian period dogs was also small. The difference between the mean shoulder heights of southeastern Woodland dogs and the West Indian sample was only 1.90 cm (Table 5.5). The mean shoulder heights of southeastern Mississippian dogs and West Indian dogs differed by 3.32 cm (Table 5.5). T-tests show that the stature differences between the West Indian dogs and the southeastern Woodland, Mississippian, or Historic dogs are not significant (Table 5.7). A t-test of the average shoulder height of the total southeastern sample and the total West Indian sample indicated no significant difference (p = 0.388) between the samples (Table

119 5.7). Due to the small sample size of the West Indian dogs, the full range in stature of the dogs in this region may not be reflected. A larger sample is required to illustrate the full range in shoulder height of these dogs for a more accurate comparison. The statures of the southeastern domestic dogs were compared to both prehistoric dogs in the northeastern United States and the West Indies. Analysis show overall the prehistoric southeastern dogs are significantly smaller than the northeastern prehistoric dogs; the only southeastern dogs with equivalent stature to the northeastern dogs were from the Historic period (Table 5.5). The southeastern dogs have a closer size affinity to the West Indian dogs in stature (Table 5.5 and Table 5.7).

Table 5.5: Comparison of Average Shoulder Height of Southeastern Dogs to Northeastern and West Indian Dogs*

SE Archaic SE SE SE Historic^ NE Archaic NE Woodland Mississippian Woodland

N Of Cases 107 16 36 4 4 18 Minimum 33.240 30.050 35.700 34.860 44.300 39.080 Maximum 48.690 50.440 53.470 58.810 46.800 61.100 Median 40.470 41.705 42.930 54.800 45.975 49.450 Mean 40.460 41.873 43.291 50.818 45.763 49.123 S.D. 3.025 4.253 4.299 10.926 1.059 5.382 C.V. 0.075 0.102 0.099 0.215 0.023 0.110

West Indian** Total NE Total SE

N Of Cases 6 22 163 Minimum 35.350 39.080 30.050 Maximum 45.100 61.100 58.810 Median 39.220 47.805 41.300 Mean 39.973 48.512 41.478 S.D. 4.407 5.037 4.178 C.V. 0.110 0.104 0.101 * Sexes combined: Male, Female, and Indeterminate ^ Historic dogs consist of males only ** All Cultural periods combined

120 Table 5.6: Comparison of Shoulder Heights of SE and NE Dogs

Region Number Mean SD t-value df p-value NE Archaic 4 45.763 1.059 8.764 5.1 0.000* SE Archaic 107 40.460 3.025

NE Archaic 4 45.763 1.059 3.274 17.9 0.004* SE Woodland 16 41.873 4.253

NE Archaic 4 45.763 1.059 2.774 18.7 0.012* SE Mississippian 36 43.291 4.299

NE Woodland 18 49.123 5.382 4.380 31.6 0.000* SE Woodland 16 41.873 4.253

NE Woodland 18 49.123 5.382 6.654 18.8 0.000* SE Archaic 107 40.460 3.025

NE Woodland 18 49.123 5.382 4.003 28.2 0.000* SE Mississippian 36 43.291 4.299

NE Woodland 18 49.123 5.382 -0.302 3.3 0.780 SE Historic 4 50.818 10.926

Total NE 22 48.512 5.037 6.266 25.1 0.000* Total SE ^ 163 41.478 4.178 * Significant Difference ^ Includes Historic period Dogs

Table 5.7: Comparison of Shoulder Heights of SE and WI Dogs

Region Number Mean SD t-value df p-value Total WI 6 39.973 4.407 0.267 5.3 0.800 SE Archaic 107 40.460 3.025

Total WI 6 39.973 4.407 0.909 8.7 0.388 SE Woodland 16 41.873 4.253

Total WI 6 39.973 4.407 1.713 6.7 0.132 SE Mississippian 36 43.291 4.299

Total WI 6 39.973 4.407 1.885 3.7 0.139 SE Historic 4 50.818 10.926

Total WI 6 39.973 4.407 0.823 5.3 0.446 Total SE* 163 41.478 4.178 * Includes Historic period dogs.

121 Body Length Estimates

Body length estimates were produced for 36 southeastern dogs, nine northeastern dogs, and two West Indian dogs. The results of the of the body length estimate calculations are provided in Table 5.8, along with the mean shoulder heights for the dogs. In comparing the shoulder height to the body length, 32 southeastern prehistoric dogs had shoulder heights longer than their body length. Four southeastern dogs (Specimens 31, 84, 99, and 101) had body lengths that slightly exceeded their estimated shoulder height. However, the difference was very small. The southeastern dog (Specimen 99) with the greatest difference between body length and shoulder height had a difference of only 1.50 cm (Table 5.8). Similar findings were seen among the northeastern dogs. Of the nine dogs with body length estimates, three (Specimen 237, 245, and 252) had body lengths longer than their shoulder height. The differences were small though; the largest difference was seen in Specimen 245 which had a body length of 65.60 cm and a shoulder height of 61.10 cm (Table 5.8). One of the two West Indian dogs (Specimen 117) also had a body length estimate greater than its shoulder height, but the difference was miniscule (Table 5.8). Based on this small sample, the prehistoric dogs were all well proportioned, with no instance of significantly short-legged or long-bodied individuals; no difference in body proportion was observed between the dogs in the different regions. Such similar findings were observed in prehistoric dogs from the Northwest Coast analyzed by Crockford (1997: 89).

Table 5.8: Body Length Estimates

Specimen Site Region Culture SHAVRG Body Length 7 Danville Ferry SE A 42.15 39.20 9 Big Sandy SE A 40.61 37.40 24 Eva SE A 48.49 45.40 26 Eva SE A 37.73 31.70 27 Eva SE A 43.90 42.50 31 Eva SE A 44.76 44.90 35 Cherry SE A 36.13 29.40 37 Cherry SE A 40.47 36.40 38 Cherry SE A 41.80 40.20 42 Carlston Annis SE A 37.89 33.60 43 Carlston Annis SE A 41.46 37.80 44 Carlston Annis SE A 40.78 38.80 45 Carlston Annis SE A 39.30 36.00 47 Carlston Annis SE A 43.21 42.10 48 Carlston Annis SE A 40.18 36.00 49 Carlston Annis SE A 44.03 42.50 50 Carlston Annis SE A 35.62 30.80 52 Chiggerville SE A 41.30 38.30 55 Chiggerville SE A 38.63 36.90 57 Chiggerville SE A 42.93 42.50 58 Chiggerville SE A 37.99 36.40 63 Jackson Bluff SE A 41.37 32.70

122 Table 5.8: Body Length Estimates (continued)

Specimen Site Region Culture SHAVRG Body Length 67 Barret SE A 36.93 31.30 70 Ward SE A 43.75 38.30 74 Ward SE A 45.67 41.10 76 Baker SE A 42.07 34.50 83 15Jo9 SE W 41.69 40.20 84 Bell Shelter SE W 41.68 42.50 87 Fewkes SE M 41.25 36.00 93 Etowah SE M 47.24 42.10 95 G. S. Lewis SE W 43.25 43.00 West 98 Austin SE M 35.70 33.60 99 Austin SE M 41.50 43.00 100 Austin SE M 40.47 38.30 101 Austin SE M 37.31 37.80 113 Lake Jackson SE M 42.84 41.10 Mound 117 Cayon WI 45.10 45.30 121 Sorce, Visques WI 44.98 42.50 192 Oliver SE M 38.39 37.80 237 Tubbs NE W 47.61 47.70 244 South Truro NE W 52.60 50.50 245 Quincy NE W 61.10 65.60 248 Frenchman’s NE W 48.00 43.90 Bay: 1 252 Port NE W 49.26 49.40 Washington 253 Port NE W 49.64 48.40 Washington 254 Port NE W 46.07 42.40 Washington 259 Lambert Farm NE W 47.09 40.80

123 CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this thesis was to examine the variation present in domestic dogs recovered from archaeological sites in the southeastern United States. The dogs used dated from the Archaic to Historic periods. The sample included 118 dogs from 40 sites. An additional 88 dogs from published sources were also included. Most of the dogs were recovered from discrete burials, but a few disarticulated individuals also were included. This analysis includes only adults as indicated by complete epiphyseal union and dental maturation. Sex was assessed on all dogs. T-tests indicate significant differences between males and females; however overlap is evident between sexes in all cultural periods. All measurements used are from Von den Driesch (1976). A series of 141 measurements were taken, but the fragmentary nature of most dogs prevented a full set of measurements on all individuals. Most of the published dogs used measurements from Haag (1948) so only those measures compatible with Von den Driesch (1976) were included. Both univariate and bivariate analyses examined differences in size and shape. Bivariate analysis was carried out using scatterplot graphs. Various combinations of measurements for the cranial and postcranial skeleton were examined. These graphs provided the best means to visually identify differences of size and shape. Bivariate analysis revealed that size and morphological differences were apparent in the dogs. Size differences are present within and between different cultural periods. Morphological differences are also present but only appear by the Woodland. Dogs with different morphological features were separated into different types (Table 6.2). Archaic dogs are the largest sample with 131 dogs. Archaic dogs used in this analysis were from sites in Alabama, Florida, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Most of these are from the Middle to Late Archaic burials. The dogs were found in individual burials or burials with humans. In addition some are likely from refuse deposits. These dogs showed little morphological variation. Indices results on the skulls indicate that these dogs all show mesaticephalic features. The similarity of these dogs is quite clear from the clustering seen in all the graphs for the cranial and postcranial skeletons. There was however a degree of size variation. Archaic dogs show shoulder heights ranging between 33.24 cm to 48.69 cm. This indicates dogs that are small to medium in size (Chapter 5). Overall a single type of dog (Type 1) is apparent in this period. Woodland dogs (n=28) were from sites in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The dogs were all recovered from individual burials. The size differences in these dogs are similar to Archaic dogs with shoulder heights between 30.05 cm to 50.44 cm. Morphological variation was much more evident in this sample. As in the Archaic sample, most Woodland dogs showed mesaticephalic features; and are often found clustered with the Archaic dogs in the scatterplot graphs, suggesting the same type of dog (Type 1) as in the Archaic. In addition, two distinct dogs (Types 2 and 3) are also present in the Woodland sample; these are Specimens 83 and 111. Specimen 83 is a medium-sized (41.69 cm shoulder height) dog recovered as a burial from 15Jo9 in Kentucky. The cranial features of this dog set it apart from the other dogs in the sample. Specimen 83 has a skull length of about 145 mm but has a palatal

124 breadth wider than dogs with cranial lengths 40 mm longer. The palatal index for this dog indicates bracycephalic features. This face morphology has also caused crowded teeth. Cheektooth row lengths for Specimen 83 are smaller than dogs with much smaller cranial lengths. This dog’s features often separated it from the Type 1 dogs. This specimen is sufficiently distinct to give it separate type (2) identification. Specimen 111 is the smallest dog in the whole sample with an estimated shoulder height between 28.47cm to 31.60 cm (average is 30.05 cm). Specimen 111 was recovered from Palmer Burial Mound in Florida. Although other small dogs are also present in the sample, Specimen 111 shows distinctive features other than its size. It is almost consistently separated from the larger cluster of Type 1 dogs. The skull from this dog has a much more rounded neurocranium and a short snout giving the skull brachycephalic features. These features produced distinct indices. The long bones from Specimen 111 are approximately 20 mm smaller than most other dogs, and 50 mm smaller than another dog (Specimen 112) from the same site. The Specimen 111 is very similar in size and morphology to a short-legged dog, or Tlalchichi, and the short-nosed dog recovered from the sites in Mexico (Table 6.1). However, this is not to suggest Specimen 111 is either of these dogs. Specimen 111 has some cranial and postcranial measurements much smaller than either of the Mexican dogs. Table 6.1 shows a comparison of measurements from theses dogs. Based on the morphological difference in Specimen 111, it is clear this is a distinct type of dog and is the third type of dog (Type 3). There were 42 dogs from the Mississippian period. These dogs were from sites in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The dogs from this period range in size between 35.70 cm to 53.47 cm, indicating dogs of small to medium size. The dogs from this sample were mostly found in individual burials; some dogs such as the Key Marco dogs were disposed of in a less obvious manner. Similar to the Archaic and Woodland period dogs, the dogs from this period mostly fit the Type 1 morphology. Two dogs, however, do not fit the Type 1 morphology completely, or at all. Specimen 108 is a cranium recovered from the Key Marco site during Frank Hamilton Cushing’s excavations. This skull is the largest in the sample measuring 194 mm. This skull may be associated with the larger long bones also recovered from this site (Chapter 4). Most of Specimen 108’s index results are for that of a mesaticephalic shaped skull; its cranial index was quite close to the average index for a dolicephalic shaped skull due to a longer, but narrower neurocranium. The other dog which does not fit the appearance of the Type 1 dog is Specimen 90. This dog was recovered from the Ocmulgee site in Georgia. This dog is represented only by a partial skull and no postcranial elements. This dog is very small with a rounder cranium and smaller snout. Overall Specimen 90’s cranial features are nearly identical to Specimen 111 (Table 6.1). Its postcranial skeleton would likely be nearly the same as well. In the scatterplot graphs that it appears in, it is found next to Specimen 111. Specimen 90 is thus another Type 3 dog. The Historic sample consists of only five dogs. These dogs are all from burials in aboriginal and mission sites. The estimated shoulder heights for these dogs are between 34.86 cm and 58.81 cm, indicating small to large dogs. Specimen 218 is the smallest dog with a 34.86 cm shoulder height. The congenital deformity in the long bones accounts for the short stature in this dog. The other Historic dogs in this sample are amongst the largest in the sample evident from both cranial and postcranial elements. The cranial and

125 postcranial skeletons of these dogs suggests these dogs fit the Type 1 morphology, although they are larger than most of the prehistoric dogs with the same features. These dogs should not be considered pure aboriginal dogs but are likely European crosses. The crossing of native dogs with European dogs started as early as the contact period to the point that most or all original characters of the pre-Columbian dog were lost (Schwartz 1997).

Table 6.1: Comparison of Specimens 90 and 111 with Similarly Small Prehistoric Dogs from Mesoamerica.

Measurements* Ocmulgee Dog Palmer Burial Short-legged dog Short-nosed (Specimen 90) Mound Dog (Tlalchichi) Indian Dog (From (Specimen 111) (From Azua 2000: 196) Azua 2000: 196) CRN 1 - 123 - 150 CRN 9 75.9 67 - 70.6 CRN 13 63 58.8 - 70 CRN 18 12.8 15 16 16.1 CRN 31 35.2 37.4 - 30.8 CRN 32 - - - 41.5 CRN 34 48.7 49.2 - 59.9 CRN 36 27.4 28.9 - 33.8 DNT 1 90.2 91.3 - 114 DNT 2 88.2 87.4 - 114.4 DNT 3 86.7 86.3 - 111.1 DNT 5 74.9 73.2 98.1 99 DNT 10 - 26.9 31.2 28.5 DNT 11 24.9 28.7 31.6 31.3 DNT 13 15.1 17 18.5 18.7 DNT 17 7.7 7.8 17.1 21.9 DNT 18 35.8 33 44.2 - HUM 1,2 - 87.2 97 - ULNA 1 - 100.7 112 - FEM 1,2 - - 114 - TIB 1 - - 114 121 Estimated Shoulder - 28.47 – 31.60 30 33-34? Height (Avg. 30.05) *Measurements in mm, except shoulder heights (cm).

Dog Types

The results of this analysis indicate that three morphologically distinct types of dogs were present in the southeastern United States. Type 1 dogs were the most common. This type of dog best fits previous descriptions of aboriginal dogs in the southeastern United States and other regions (Allen 1920; Colten 1970; Haag 1948; Handley 2000; and Zimmer 2007). They are probably characteristic of the earliest dogs in the New World. This type dog is common from the Archaic to early Historic periods. They are characterized by their generalized and nondescript features. Their skulls are mesaticephalic or of medium proportion. These dogs usually have some form of a sagittal

126 crest, either well pronounced or diminutive. This skull type is perhaps the most common type, seen in many modern pure breeds and mongrel dogs (Evans 1993; Stockard 1941). These dogs often lack some or all of their first premolars, and their sizes are quite variable, as seen in both the scatterplot graphs and shoulder height estimates. These dogs ranged in height between 33.24 cm to 58.81cm, equivalent to a modern beagle and Pharoah hound. The body proportions for Type 1 dogs show no excessively short-legged or long-legged dogs in the sample. The northeastern dogs analyzed by Handley (2000) and the West Indian dogs also fit the Type 1 characteristics. Overall this type of dog varied in size only, but shared similar cranial and postcranial features. Only a single occurrence of a Type 2 dog is present from this sample (Specimen 83). This dog was only identified at a Woodland period site. This dog had an average shoulder height of 41.69, similar to the modern cocker spaniel or basenji. This dog is distinctive from its cranial features. The dog processes a much wider palate and shorter snout. This gives the dog brachycephalic features. Its teeth are also quite crowded and lack all first premolars. This dog also lacks a sagittal crest. The dentary of this dog is bowed at the body fitting to the wide foreshortened face. The postcranial skeleton of this dog shows no apparent distinctive features from the scatterplots, but does appear somewhat stockier than Type 1 dogs. Overall, the cranial and postcranial features of this dog resemble a modern pit bull. Type 3 dogs are represented by two individuals (Specimens 90 and 111). This type of dog is first present in the Woodland period, and again in the Mississippian period. This type is characterized by its diminutive size. These dogs had shoulder heights of only 28.47 cm to 31.60 cm, equivalent to a modern Cairn terrier. The skulls of these dogs have round, wide neurocraniums and lack sagittal crests. The maxillae of these dogs are shorter with slightly wider palatal widths giving the dogs some brachycephalic features. Their teeth also show extreme crowding. The long bones of these dogs are short and stocky, with much smaller length measurements; however they have similar breadth measurements of the larger Type 1 dogs.

Table 6.2: Comparison of Identified Types of Prehistoric Dogs

Dog Type Representative Time Periods Characteristics Specimens Identified From 1 Majority of Archaic to Historic Mesaticepahlic-shaped skulls; Large size Sample ranges; Sagittal crests; slight tooth crowding ; Little morphological difference over time. 2 83 Woodland Brachycepahlic-shaped features; foreshortened face with short snout and wide palatal breadth; teeth crowded; jaw bowed to fit skull; no sagittal crest; stocky skeleton and pit bull-like skull 3 90 and 111 Woodland and Brachycepahlic-shaped features; Mississippian Rounded, wide skull and small snout with extreme crowding; Diminutive size; 28.47 to 31.60 cm shoulder height; No sagittal crest

127

Comparisons to Previous Analyses

The results from this thesis both support and contradict previous metric studies of aboriginal domestic dogs. Allen (1920) described two types of dogs in the southeastern region: the Common Indian dog and the Small Indian dog. Allen (1920: 461 and 482) states that the Common Indian dog was similar to a wolf, whereas the Small Indian dog was more fox-like. The measurements provided by Allen (1920: 459, 460 and 489) lend support that both of these dogs can be best described as the Type 1 dog. None of these measurements support a wolf or fox-like size or morphology for these dogs. In addition no clear naturally distinctive medium and small dogs are present within the Type 1 dogs. These dogs do range between small, medium, and large but with no clear natural separation between sizes (Figures 5.1 and 5.2). However these size range definitions are only arbitrary. These findings contradict the size-related dog types suggested by Allen (1920). Haag (1948) examined dogs from Archaic sites in Kentucky and Alabama, along with Woodland and Mississippian dogs from the Midwest and Southeast as part of a larger analysis. Overall his findings concluded that dogs from similar cultural manifestation would have similar-sized dogs. He also suggested that dogs from older cultural periods would be smaller than those from later periods. Examination of size differences in this sample reveals an increase in shoulder height between the Archaic to Mississippian periods. However this increase is small. T-tests reveal that significant differences are present only between Archaic and Mississippian dogs. Similar findings were presented by Warren (2004). T-tests comparing the cranial and postcranial measurements also indicate few significant differences between cultures; however some of the t-tests results could be inconclusive due to the small samples for Woodland and Mississippian dogs (Appendix F).

Conclusion

The analysis presented here shows that both homogeneity and change are present in the prehistoric dogs of the southeast. Bivariate analysis revealed that three types of dogs were present by the Mississippian period. The first type of dog is the most common type and is the only type found in the Archaic period and the most commonly found type in the Woodland and Mississippian periods. This dog is probably characteristic of the dogs brought by Paleoindians. Size variation is persistent in this dog and ranges from small to medium. The Type 1 dog is likely the breeds described by Allen (1920) as the Common Indian dog and the Small Indian dog. The morphology of the dogs from the northeast and the West Indies also conform to this type. By the Woodland period a second and third type of dog was present. The second type is represented by a single individual found from a site in Kentucky. This dog is characterized by its foreshortened snout and very wide palatal breadth. It is quite similar in appearance to a pitbull. The fact that only a single dog represents this type may suggest it is anomalous. The third type of dog was found in both a Woodland period and a Mississippian period site. These dogs have wide round craniums with comparatively small snouts giving them brachycephalic characters. Both Type 3 dogs were found with larger Type 1 dogs. The Type 2 and Type

128 3 dogs may have had some specific purpose beyond that of the Type 1 dogs. The occurrence these Type 2 and Type 3 dogs somewhat coincide with the increase in the presence of more dependence on agriculture, including maize. Possible direct or indirect trade networks with cultural groups from Mexico have been suggested for the presence of maize in later prehistory in the southeast. This trade network may also account for at least one these new types of dogs. As indicated in Table 6.1, the two Type 3 dogs, Specimens 111 and 90, show close similarity to small prehistoric dogs from Mexico. The morphological similarity with dogs from Mexico may represent new evidence for contact with Mesoamerica. Perhaps only molecular studies may verify if Type 3 dogs are related to dogs in Mexico or an independently selectively bred dog. What, if any specific purpose or different roles these new types of dogs may have had is difficult to discern. None showed any butchering marks. No significant difference in their burial ritual indicated that the dogs were held in any higher or lower regard than Type 1 dogs. For example, Specimen 111 (Type 3 dog) from the Palmer Burial Mound was buried within the mound as were three Type 1 dogs. All dogs from this site were buried in shallow pits without grave goods. The occurrence of permanent settlements and agriculture during the Woodland and Mississippian periods may also account for increased size variation present in the dogs from these later sites. Permanent settlements and increased dependence on agriculture may have provided more available food and less selective pressure on dogs. Dogs would have increased chances to scavenge refuse, included discarded animal carcasses and vegetable crops. Dogs would also be able to eat many wild species attracted to the accumulated trash near sites, such as rodents and other small mammals. As such permanent sites provide a more regular, stable source of food to dogs that may have otherwise not been available to dogs associated with mobile aboriginal groups. This analysis indicates that little or no significance is present between dogs from different cultural periods based on measurements of the skeleton. Shoulder height estimates also show slight increase in size from early to later cultural manifestations. These differences were not significant. However, sample size for Woodland and Mississippian dogs was small. A larger sample may provide different results. Examination of the skeleton from the sample also indicates that differences based on size are inconclusive. No naturally occurring separation between small, medium, and large dogs was consistently present (Figures 6.1 to 6.3). Multivariate analysis of both the cranial and postcranial skeleton is essential in order to determine true differences in the types of dogs kept by prehistoric aboriginal groups.

129 8000

7000

6000

N 5000

E 4000

B 3000 CULT 2000 A 1000 H M 0 W 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 CRN1

Figure 6.1: Total Cranial Length of Southeastern Dogs by the Average Radiocarbon BP Date of Site

8000

7000

6000

N 5000

E 4000

B 3000 CULT 2000 A 1000 H M 0 W 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 DNT1

Figure 6.2: Total Dentary Length of Southeastern Dogs by the Average Radiocarbon BP Date of Site

130 8000

7000

6000

N 5000

E 4000

B 3000 CULT 2000 A 1000 H M 0 W 30 40 50 60 SHAVRG

Figure 6.3: Average Shoulder Height of Southeastern Dogs by the Average Radiocarbon BP Date of Site

131 APPENDIX A DESIGNATED SEX OF DOGS

Specimen Site/Site Number Sex Sex Number* 1 Etowah M 1 2 Armorel M 1 3 Westmoreland-Barber M 1 4 Ausmus Farm U 3 5 Bailey F 2 6 Danville Ferry M 1 7 Danville Ferry M 1 8 Big Sandy F? 2.5 9 Big Sandy F 2 10 Chattooga M 1 11 Altatoma Dam M 1 12 Altatoma Dam M 1 13 Hampton M 1 14 Hampton M 1 15 Camp Creek M 1 16 Camp Creek M 1 17 Camp Creek F 2 18 Camp Creek U 3 19 Camp Creek M? 1.5 20 Camp Creek M 1 21 Camp Creek F 2 22 Eva M 1 23 Eva M 1 24 Eva M 1 25 Eva M? 1.5 26 Eva U 3 27 Eva M 1 28 Eva M? 1.5 29 Eva M 1 30 Eva U 3 31 Eva M 1 32 Eva M 1 33 Eva M 1 34 Cherry F 2 35 Cherry F 2 36 Cherry M 1 37 Cherry M 1 38 Cherry M 1 39 Cherry U 3 40 Cherry F? 2.5 41 Cherry U 3 42 Carlson Annis F 2 43 Carlson Annis F 2 44 Carlson Annis M 1 45 Carlson Annis M 1 46 Carlson Annis M 1 47 Carlson Annis M 1

132

Specimen Site/Site Number Sex Sex Number 48 Carlson Annis M 1 49 Carlson Annis M 1 50 Carlson Annis F 2 51 Carlson Annis M 1 52 Chiggerville M 1 53 Chiggerville M 1 54 Chiggerville M 1 55 Chiggerville M 1 56 Chiggerville M 1 57 Chiggerville M 1 58 Chiggerville M 1 59 Chiggerville F 2 60 Jackson Bluff U 3 61 Jackson Bluff F? 2.5 62 Jackson Bluff M 1 63 Jackson Bluff F? 2.5 64 Kirkland M 1 65 Kirkland F 2 66 Barret F 2 67 Barret U U 68 Barret F? 2.5 69 Ward F? 2.5 70 Ward M 1 71 Ward M 1 72 Ward M 1 73 Ward U 3 74 Ward M 1 75 Ward F 2 76 Baker U 3 77 Baker F? 2.5 78 Baker M 1 79 Baker M 1 80 Baker M 1 81 Annis Village M 1 82 Annis Village U 3 83 15Jo9 F? 2.5 84 Bell Shelter M 1 85 Morris Village M 1 86 Butterfield M 1 87 40Wm1 M 1 88 40Wm1 U 3 89 Ensworth/Chase Devon F 2 90 Ocmulgee F 2 91 Ocmulgee U 3 92 Ocmulgee F 2 93 Etowah M 1 94 G.S. Lewis West U 3 95 G.S. Lewis West F? 2.5 96 G.S. Lewis West M 1 97 Austin U 3

133 Specimen Site/Site Number Sex Sex Number 98 Austin F 2 99 Austin M 1 100 Austin M 1 101 Austin M 1 102 Austin U 3 103 Austin M 1 104 Windover U 3 105 Cedar Creek Reservoir M 1 106 8Da33 U 3 107 Key Marco M 1 108 Key Marco M 1 109 Hontoon Island U 3 110 Palmer U 3 111 Palmer F 2 112 Palmer U 3 113 Lake Jackson Mound M 1 114 Fig Springs M 1 115 MC-12 U 3 116 MC-12 U 3 117 Cayon U 3 118 Sorce, Visques M 1 119 Sorce, Visques F 2 120 Sorce, Visques F 2 121 Sorce, Visques F? 2.5 122 Sorce, Visques F 2 123 Sorce, Visques U 3 124 Sorce, Visques M 1 125 Sorce, Visques F 2 126 Sorce, Visques U 3 127 Sorce, Visques F 2 128 Sorce, Visques M 1 129 Sorce, Visques U 3 130 Sorce, Visques F? 2.5 131 Sorce, Visques F 2 132 Read M 1 133 Flint River M 1 134 Flint River M 1 135 Flint River M 1 136 Little Bear Creek M 1 137 Little Bear Creek U 3 138 Stearns U 3 139 Stearns U 3 140 Greenhouse U 3 141 Greenhouse U 3 142 Greenhouse U 3 143 Cowarts Landing U 3 144 Riley U 3 145 Whitesburg Bridge M 1 146 Bear Creek Cave U 3 147 Flint Shop U 3

134 Specimen Site/Site Number Sex Sex Number 148 Flint Shop U 3 149 Mason Island M 1 150 Hardin Village U 3 151 Henry Island U 3 152 Henry Island U 3 153 Deposit Landing M 1 154 Deposit Landing M 1 155 Perry M 1 156 Perry M 1 157 Perry F 2 158 Perry F 2 159 Perry U 3 160 Perry M 1 161 Perry F 2 162 Mulberry Creek U 3 163 Mulberry Creek U 3 164 Mulberry Creek M 1 165 Mulberry Creek U 3 166 Mulberry Creek M 1 167 Mulberry Creek M 1 168 Mulberry Creek M 1 169 South Indian Field U 3 170 South Indian Field U 3 171 South Indian Field U 3 172 South Indian Field U 3 173 South Indian Field U 3 174 South Indian Field F 2 175 South Indian Field M 1 176 South Indian Field U 3 177 South Indian Field U 3 178 South Indian Field U 3 179 South Indian Field U 3 180 South Indian Field U 3 181 South Indian Field U 3 182 McCulloch U 3 183 Kersey M 1 184 Miller Cave F 2 185 Dust Cave F 2 186 Dust Cave U 3 187 Dust Cave F 2 188 Dust Cave U 3 189 Rodgers Shelter U 3 190 Chucalissa M 1 191 Chucalissa U 3 192 Oliver F? 2.5 193 Indian Knoll M 1 194 Indian Knoll F? 2.5 195 Indian Knoll F 2 196 Indian Knoll M 1 197 Indian Knoll F? 2.5

135 Specimen Site/Site Number Sex Sex Number 198 Indian Knoll F? 2.5 199 Indian Knoll F? 2.5 200 Indian Knoll M 1 201 Indian Knoll U 3 202 Indian Knoll M? 1.5 203 Indian Knoll M 1 204 Indian Knoll F 2 205 Indian Knoll M 1 206 Indian Knoll M 1 207 Indian Knoll M 1 208 Indian Knoll F 2 209 Indian Knoll F 2 210 Indian Knoll U 3 211 Indian Knoll M 1 212 Citico U 3 213 Toqua U 3 214 Toqua M 1 215 Toqua M 1 216 Toqua U 3 217 Tallahassee M 1 218 Chota M 1 219 Chota M 1 220 El Carril U 3 221 Ramon Santana U 3 222 Ramon Santana U 3 223 Key Marco U 3 224 Key Marco U 3 225 Key Marco U 3 226 Key Marco U 3 227 Key Marco U 3 228 Key Marco U 3 229 Key Marco U 3 230 Key Marco U 3 231 Key Marco U 3 232 Key Marco U 3 233 Key Marco U 3 234 Key Marco U 3 235 Key Marco U 3 236 Oliver U 3 237 Tubbs M 1 238 Graniss Island F 2 239 Graniss Island M 1 240 Graniss Island F 2 241 Nevin site:1 M 1 242 Nevin site:2 M 1 243 Meeting House:1 F 2 244 South Truro M 1 245 Quincy M 1 246 Watertown:1 F 2 247 Watertown:2 M 1

136 Specimen Site/Site Number Sex Sex Number 248 Frenchman’s Bay:1 F 2 249 Turner Farm M 1 250 Turner Farm F 2 251 Turner Farm M 1 252 Port Washington M 1 253 Port Washington M 1 254 Port Washington F 2 255 Port Washington M 1 256 Port Washington F 2 257 Port Washington M 1 258 Port Washington F 2 259 Lambert Farm M 1 260 Ruth Moore M 1 261 Whaleback Shell Heap M 1 262 Whaleback Shell Heap M 1 263 Whaleback Shell Heap M 1 264 22Ok904 F 2 265 Josey Farm U 3 266 Indian Creek U 3 267 Silver Sands U 3 268 Heywoods U 3 269 Chancery Lane U 3 270 White Marl U 3 271 White Marl U 3 272 Perry M 1 * Sex Numbers were utilized in the initial sex assessment but were not utilized further.

137 APPENDIX B

ESTIMATED SHOULDER HEIGHTS

Specimen Site Region Culture Sex Shoulder SHAVRG Height Range 1 Etowah SE M M 40.60 – 45.80 43.72 2 Armorel SE M M 42.80 – 48.16 45.44 3 Westmoreland- SE W M 38.10 – 40.40 39.47 Barber 4 Ausmus Farm SE M U 33.90 – 39.52 36.14 6 Danville Ferry SE A M 38.20 – 40.75 39.20 7 Danville Ferry SE A M 39.52 – 43.80 42.15 8 Big Sandy SE A F? 32.60 – 39.21 36.46 9 Big Sandy SE A F 39.82 – 41.07 40.61 12 Altatoma Dam SE W M 39.40 – 42.66 40.70 13 Hampton SE M M 36.80 – 40.75 39.02 14 Hampton SE M M 45.84 – 41.10 43.45 22 Eva SE A M 37.13 – 38.06 37.80 23 Eva SE A M 38.40 – 41.77 40.47 24 Eva SE A M 47.66 – 49.30 48.49 25 Eva SE A M? 36.79 – 38.52 37.56 26 Eva SE A U 36.10 – 38.58 37.73 27 Eva SE A M 37.60 – 45.66 43.90 28 Eva SE A M? 34.00 – 39.78 37.20 29 Eva SE A M 38.40 – 49.10 41.45 30 Eva SE A U 34.90 – 38.90 36.79 31 Eva SE A M 43.40 – 46.00 44.76 32 Eva SE A M 38.50 – 42.66 40.17 33 Eva SE A M 37.20 – 40.56 39.41 35 Cherry SE A F 34.60 – 37.57 36.13 36 Cherry SE A M 40.40 – 42.66 41.54 37 Cherry SE A M 39.70 – 41.72 40.47 38 Cherry SE A M 40.70 – 42.80 41.80 39 Cherry SE A U 41.53 – 39.10 40.47 40 Cherry SE A F? 36.79 – 39.40 38.36 41 Cherry SE A U 40.07 40.07 42 Carlston Annis SE A F 37.13 – 38.90 37.89 43 Carlston Annis SE A F 40.00 – 42.34 41.46 44 Carlston Annis SE A M 39.60 – 41.40 40.78 45 Carlston Annis SE A M 38.16 – 40.75 39.30 46 Carlston Annis SE A M 39.80 – 42.66 41.48 47 Carlston Annis SE A M 40.70 – 44.75 43.21 48 Carlston Annis SE A M 36.90 – 41.77 40.18 49 Carlston Annis SE A M 42.80 – 44.70 44.03 50 Carlston Annis SE A F 35.10 – 36.30 35.62 51 Carlston Annis SE A M 43.20 – 45.90 44.43 52 Chiggerville SE A M 39.20 – 42.97 41.30 53 Chiggerville SE A M 36.10 – 43.57 41.13 54 Chiggerville SE A M 39.40 – 42.04 40.80 55 Chiggerville SE A M 38.27 – 39.54 38.63

138 Specimen Site Region Culture Sex Shoulder SHAVRG Height Range 56 Chiggerville SE A M 34.60 – 36.76 35.66 57 Chiggerville SE A M 41.30 – 43.61 42.93 58 Chiggerville SE A M 37.30 – 39.19 37.99 59 Chiggerville SE A F 41.60 – 44.25 42.94 60 Jackson Bluff SE A U 37.60 – 39.30 38.20 61 Jackson Bluff SE A F? 41.09 – 44.55 42.61 62 Jackson Bluff SE A M 43.31 – 45.60 44.20 63 Jackson Bluff SE A F? 39.78 – 42.90 41.37 64 Kirkland SE A M 40.60 – 42.97 41.80 65 Kirkland SE A F 35.70 – 37.30 36.53 66 Barret SE A F 37.57 – 36.10 36.88 67 Barret SE A U 35.40 – 37.48 36.93 68 Barret SE A F? 38.40 – 41.38 40.04 69 Ward SE A F? 37.80 – 42.00 39.85 70 Ward SE A M 41.80 – 45.05 43.75 72 Ward SE A M 39.60 – 42.66 41.53 73 Ward SE A U 35.70 – 38.90 37.98 74 Ward SE A M 46.43 – 44.90 45.67 75 Ward SE A F 38.03 – 39.88 38.86 76 Baker SE A U 40.70 – 43.10 42.07 77 Baker SE A F? 36.60 – 40.65 38.86 78 Baker SE A M 36.90 – 39.00 38.48 79 Baker SE A M 42.70 – 44.82 43.79 80 Baker SE A M 40.10 – 43.43 41.60 83 15Jo9 SE W F? 39.80 – 43.57 41.69 84 Bell Shelter SE W M 39.90 – 42.99 41.68 85 Morris Village SE M M 41.09 - 41.70 41.40 86 Butterfield SE A M 44.74 - 46.05 45.40 87 Fewkes SE M M 41.24 – 41.25 41.25 89 Ensworth/Chase SE A F 35.30 – 38.30 36.68 Devon 93 Etowah SE M M 45.90 – 49.02 47.24 95 G.S. Lewis West SE W F? 41.09 – 44.56 43.25 96 G.S. Lewis West SE W M 43.20 – 46.60 45.45 98 Austin SE M F 33.10 – 37.32 35.70 99 Austin SE M M 39.30 – 42.70 41.50 100 Austin SE M M 39.80 – 41.38 40.47 101 Austin SE M M 33.10 – 39.54 37.31 102 Austin SE M U 38.60 – 42.77 40.94 103 Austin SE M M 38.00 – 43.29 40.00 105 Cedar Creek SE A M 38.50 – 40.70 39.67 Reservoir 106 Trail site SE W U 37.48 – 37.95 37.78 110 Palmer SE W U 43.20 – 47.90 45.10 111 Palmer SE W F 28.47 – 31.60 30.05 112 Palmer SE W U 41.50 – 44.68 43.30 113 Lake Jackson SE M M 40.80 – 44.56 42.84 Mound 114 Fig Springs SE H M 56.10 – 61.74 58.81 117 Cayon WI W U 42.60 – 56.43 45.10 119 Sorce, Visques WI W F 39.00 – 43.71 41.12 121 Sorce, Visques WI W F? 43.90 – 45.52 44.98

139 Specimen Site Region Culture Sex Shoulder SHAVRG Height Range 132 Read site SE A M 42.04 42.04 134 Flint River SE A M 48.44 – 48.94 48.69 136 Little Bear Creek SE A M 39.21 – 43.99 41.60 137 Little Bear Creek SE A U 42.35 42.35 139 Stearns site SE W U 40.47 – 41.77 41.12 140 Greenhouse SE M U 38.90 38.90 144 Riley SE W U 44.23 44.23 145 Whitesburg SE A M 45.18 45.18 Bridge 146 Bear Creek Cave SE A U 39.52 39.52 147 Flint Shop SE A U 37.32 37.32 149 Mason Island SE A M 42.04 – 43.43 42.74 151 Henry Island SE M U 42.35 – 43.43 42.89 153 Deposit Landing SE W M 41.72 41.72 154 Deposit Landing SE W M 42.66 42.66 155 Perry SE A M 37.95 – 38.43 38.19 156 Perry SE A M 38.15 – 40.47 39.31 157 Perry SE A F 42.88 – 43.14 43.01 158 Perry SE A F 41.09 41.09 159 Perry SE A U 39.52 39.52 160 Perry SE A M 43.61 – 43.99 43.80 161 Perry SE A F 35.76 – 36.48 36.12 162 Mulberry Creek SE A U 41.09 41.09 163 Mulberry Creek SE A U 39.54 39.54 164 Mulberry Creek SE A M 41.41 – 42.04 41.73 166 Mulberry Creek SE A M 46.49 46.49 167 Mulberry Creek SE A M 44.86 – 45.66 45.26 183 Kersey SE W M 49.12 – 51.77 50.44 184 Miller Cave SE W F 40.51 – 42.10 41.33 185 Dust Cave SE A F 36.11 – 39.79 38.26 186 Dust Cave SE A U 37.15 – 38.52 37.80 187 Dust Cave SE A F 43.24 – 44.73 44.13 188 Dust Cave SE A U 44.89 – 45.87 45.38 191 Chucalissa SE M U 41.21 – 42.02 41.63 192 Oliver SE M F? 35.90 – 40.36 38.39 193 Indian Knoll SE A M 41.72 41.72 194 Indian Knoll SE A F? 31.52 – 34.95 33.24 195 Indian Knoll SE A F 35.37 – 41.41 38.39 196 Indian Knoll SE A M 37.95 37.95 197 Indian Knoll SE A F? 34.26 – 35.91 35.09 198 Indian Knoll SE A F? 40.78 – 41.77 41.24 199 Indian Knoll SE A F? 40.47 40.47 200 Indian Knoll SE A M 37.33 – 37.60 37.47 201 Indian Knoll SE A U 34.95 – 35.44 35.20 202 Indian Knoll SE A M? 38.57 – 38.58 38.58 203 Indian Knoll SE A M 42.60 – 42.98 42.75 204 Indian Knoll SE A F 36.07 36.07 205 Indian Knoll SE A M 38.90 – 40.93 39.92 206 Indian Knoll SE A M 41.72 41.72 207 Indian Knoll SE A M 41.25 41.25 208 Indian Knoll SE A F 38.58 – 39.68 39.13 209 Indian Knoll SE A F 38.90 – 39.26 39.08

140 Specimen Site Region Culture Sex Shoulder SHAVRG Height Range 210 Indian Knoll SE A U 38.01 38.01 211 Indian Knoll SE A M 47.06 – 47.88 47.47 212 Citico SE M U 47.99 47.99 213 Toqua SE M U 53.00 53.00 215 Toqua SE M M 47.16 47.16 217 Tallahassee SE H M 52.30 – 53.31 52.81 218 Chota SE H M 34.18 – 35.54 34.86 219 Chota SE H M 55.63 – 57.94 56.79 220 El Carril WI W U 37.32 37.32 221 Ramon Santana WI M U 35.84 – 36.14 35.97 222 Ramon Santana WI M U 35.08 – 35.66 35.35 223 Key Marco SE M U 43.61 43.61 224 Key Marco SE M U 44.55 44.55 225 Key Marco SE M U 44.23 44.23 226 Key Marco SE M U 43.87 43.87 227 Key Marco SE M U 41.82 41.82 228 Key Marco SE M U 41.82 41.82 229 Key Marco SE M U 43.81 43.81 230 Key Marco SE M U 42.97 42.97 231 Key Marco SE M U 44.56 44.56 232 Key Marco SE M U 43.29 43.29 233 Key Marco SE M U 53.03 53.03 234 Key Marco SE M U 49.71 49.71 235 Key Marco SE M U 53.47 53.47 236 Oliver SE M U 40.90 – 42.88 41.84 237 Tubbs NE W M 44.61 – 49.24 47.61 238 Granniss Island NE W F 49.79 – 52.62 50.85 239 Granniss Island NE W M 56.00 – 57.00 56.47 240 Granniss Island NE W F 40.32 – 42.98 41.57 241 Nevin site:1 NE A M 45.62 – 47.69 46.80 243 Meeting House:1 NE W F 51.03 – 52.47 51.62 244 South Truro NE W M 51.17 – 54.10 52.60 245 Quincy NE W M 56.00 – 65.90 61.10 248 Frenchman’s NE W F 43.29 – 50.20 48.00 Bay:1 249 Turner Farm NE A M 43.75 – 45.09 44.30 250 Turner Farm NE A F 45.87 – 46.50 46.15 251 Turner Farm NE W M 54.43 – 54.63 54.53 252 Port Washington NE W M 48.57 – 49.83 49.26 253 Port Washington NE W M 48.89 – 50.80 49.64 254 Port Washington NE W F 45.33 – 47.04 46.07 255 Port Washington NE W M 48.83 – 50. 37 49.67 256 Port Washington NE W F 38.76 – 39.54 39.08 257 Port Washington NE W M 45.91 – 46.54 46.23 258 Port Washington NE W F 40.43 – 43.26 41.72 259 Lambert Farm NE W M 45.65 – 47.91 47.09 260 Ruth Moore NE A M 45.12 – 46.68 45.80 261 Whaleback Shell NE W M 50.51 – 51.88 51.20 Heap 272 Perry SE A M 39.21 – 41.77 40.49

141 APPENDIX C

CRANIAL INDICES

Specimen Site Region Skull Facial Cranial Snout Width Palatal Index Index Index Index Index 5 Bailey SE - - 66.27 42.20 - 9 Big Sandy SE 52.67 110.04 64.57 42.28 71.52 11 Altatoma Dam SE - - - 42.96 - 13 Hampton Site SE - - 57.38 - 69.08 14 Hampton Site SE - - 55.99 37.09 74.09 15 Camp Creek SE - - - 42.86 71.77 17 Camp Creek SE 53.40 115.10 57.99 39.74 69.16 19 Camp Creek SE 54.17 109.55 66.76 41.85 73.99 20 Camp Creek SE 56.08 116.90 64.42 - 68.46 21 Camp Creek SE - - 66.85 36.07 73.65 32 Eva SE 54.63 - - - 71.43 33 Eva SE 57.32 123.32 61.06 40.33 - 35 Cherry SE 54.01 111.00 66.58 - 73.15 36 Cherry SE - - 55.10 - 67.45 43 Carlson Annis SE 56.67 116.76 64.38 - 69.62 44 Carlson Annis SE - - - - 71.01 45 Carlson Annis SE - - 62.64 41.97 72.21 47 Carlson Annis SE - - 60.32 41.77 69.09 49 Carlson Annis SE 54.04 121.51 59.06 42.53 69.72 51 Carlson Annis SE 55.42 110.84 60.72 38.55 66.86 52 Chiggerville SE - - - 35.28 67.35 60 Jackson Bluff SE - - - - 71.21 63 Jackson Bluff SE 52.64 112.31 64.02 44.56 70.21 64 Kirkland SE 57.50 - - - - 69 Ward SE 54.72 - - - 70.75 70 Ward SE - - - 39.71 71.03 71 Ward SE - - - 43.43 78.07 72 Ward SE - - - 39.12 71.46 74 Ward SE 56.97 123.07 60.71 - 71.34 75 Ward SE - 120.89 - 40.70 77.99 81 Annis Village SE - - 61.90 37.46 72.97 82 Annis Village SE - - - - 67.87 83 15Jo9 SE - - 68.55 50.07 89.63 85 Morris Village SE - - - - 71.12 86 Butterfield SE - - 57.84 - - 89 Ensworth SE - - 67.72 - - 90 Ocmulgee SE - - - 43.01 77.30 92 Ocmulgee SE - - - 73.82 93 Etowah SE - - 59.39 39.52 - 96 G. S. Lewis SE - - 57.28 45.58 - West 97 Austin SE - - - 41.92 - 98 Austin SE - - 66.85 - 74.19 99 Austin SE 55.90 120.81 60.12 45.10 72.05 101 Austin SE 58.28 119.40 64.04 40.03 71.54 107 Key Marco SE - - 61.10 39.01 69.31

142 Specimen Site Region Skull Facial Cranial Snout Width Palatal Index Index Index Index Index 108 Key Marco SE - - 47.84 46.98 78.95 111 Palmer SE - - 73.87 53.03 83.67 114 Fig Springs SE - - - 43.54 - 120 Sorce WI - - 59.83 46.37 76.23 124 Sorce WI - - 57.36 44.34 76.13 125 Sorce WI - - - 44.56 78.32 126 Sorce WI - - - 40.22 68.39 129 Sorce WI - - - 41.66 71.66 130 Sorce WI - - 59.48 41.09 72.18 133 Flint River SE 56.02 - - - 69.51 134 Flint River SE - - - - 66.28 135 Flint River SE - - - - 65.31 136 Little Bear SE - - - - 69.88 Creek 140 Greenhouse SE - - - - 73.70 141 Greenhouse SE - - - - 71.68 145 Whitesburg SE - - - - 71.25 Bridge 146 Bear Creek SE - - - - 68.21 Cave 148 Flint Shop SE - - - - 69.38 149 Mason Island SE - - - - 67.16 150 Hardin Village SE - - - - 68.48 153 Deposit SE - - - - 69.33 Landing 155 Perry SE - - - - 72.60 156 Perry SE - - - - 70.67 157 Perry SE 52.94 - - - 68.92 158 Perry SE 56.05 - - - 68.42 159 Perry SE - - - - 73.97 160 Perry SE - - - - 74.68 161 Perry SE 58.12 - - - 70.00 272 Perry SE 56.11 - - - 68.68 162 Mulberry Creek SE - - - - 63.29 163 Mulberry Creek SE 61.02 - - - - 164 Mulberry Creek SE 55.38 - - - 69.23 165 Mulberry Creek SE - - - - 68.29 166 Mulberry Creek SE - - - - 70.76 167 Mulberry Creek SE 54.20 - - - 74.07 168 Mulberry Creek SE 54.65 - - - - 170 South Indian SE - - - - 66.87 Field 174 South Indian SE 53.21 - - - 68.82 Field 175 South Indian SE 60.91 - - - 71.75 Field 176 South Indian SE - - - - 67.45 Field 177 South Indian SE - - - - 67.77 Field 181 South Indian SE - - - - 62.65 Field

143 Specimen Site Region Skull Facial Cranial Snout Width Palatal Index Index Index Index Index 183 Kersey SE - - - - 66.78 185 Dust Cave SE - - - - 68.46 187 Dust Cave SE - - - - 61.45 190 Chucalissa SE 56.80 113.53 62.71 39.50 - 192 Oliver SE 60.13 138.61 60.16 42.21 72.21 193 Indian Knoll SE 56.71 - - - 72.28 194 Indian Knoll SE 53.01 - - - 69.84 195 Indian Knoll SE 54.25 - - - 74.32 196 Indian Knoll SE 53.18 - - - 68.97 197 Indian Knoll SE - - - - 75.15 198 Indian Knoll SE 56.68 - - - 68.55 199 Indian Knoll SE - - - - 69.63 200 Indian Knoll SE - - - - 83.12 201 Indian Knoll SE - - - - 68.97 202 Indian Knoll SE 60.99 - - - 77.70 203 Indian Knoll SE 58.41 - - - - 205 Indian Knoll SE - - - - - 206 Indian Knoll SE 56.79 - - - - 207 Indian Knoll SE 56.79 - - - 70.34 208 Indian Knoll SE - - - - 72.89 209 Indian Knoll SE 53.47 - - - 64.90 211 Indian Knoll SE 55.68 - - - 75.36 217 Tallahassee SE 56.96 - - - 67.72 219 Chota SE 53.87 - - - - 237 Tubbs NE - - 53.02 44.73 - 243 Meeting NE - - - 43.04 68.43 House:1 244 South Truro NE - - 51.17 41.91 67.59 245 Quincy NE 57.64 126.65 50.89 46.49 72.33 246 Watertown:1 NE 52.55 113.39 52.80 38.96 68.93 247 Watertown:2 NE 57.21 - - - 71.39 252 Port NE 57.73 139.15 50.24 46.87 64.12 Washington 253 Port NE - - 49.09 42.39 70.51 Washington 254 Port NE - - 57.91 - 64.59 Washington 255 Port NE - - 47.71 41.23 66.69 Washington 256 Port NE - - 61.18 47.47 67.43 Washington 257 Port NE - - 63.36 - 71.25 Washington 259 Lambert Farm NE - - 53.12 43.00 73.23 260 Ruth Moore NE - - 54.41 43.28 68.27

144 APPENDIX D

CRANIAL AND DENTARY MEASUREMENT DEFINITIONS AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS

Cranium Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic 1 Total Length 65 8 15 4 2 Condylobasal Length 67 9 12 3 3 Basal Length 63 9 12 3 4 Basiocranial Axis 26 7 11 0 5 Basiofacial Axis 17 6 12 0 6 Neurocranium Length 23 9 11 0 7 Upper Neurocranium 27 8 14 0 Length 8 Visceocranium Length 19 10 14 1 9 Facial Midpoint 18 10 14 0 10 Greatest Nasal Length 10 6 13 0 12(11) Snout Length 11 7 12 1 13 Median Palatal Length 66 10 17 2 13A Palatal Length 8 7 8 0 14 Length of Horizontal Part 23 6 14 0 of Palatine 14A Length of Horizontal Part 10 6 9 0 of Palatine (Corresponds to 13A) 15 Length of Cheektooth 84 15 27 4 Row 15A Length of Aboral side of 78 16 26 4 M2 to Oral side of Canine 16 Length of Molar Row 106 18 32 4 17 Length of Premolar Row 40 11 20 1 18 Length of Carnassial 114 22 32 4 18A Breadth of Carnassial 56 13 21 0 19 Length of Carnassial 57 13 25 1 Aveolus 20 Length of M1 52 15 27 4 20A Breadth of M1 49 14 25 3 21 Length of M2 39 10 24 4 21A Breadth of M2 39 9 23 3 22 Greatest Diameter of 40 12 16 0 Auditory Bulla 23 Greatest Mastoid Breadth 74 15 12 3 24 Breadth Dosal to External 28 10 12 0 Auditory Meatus 25 Occiptial Condyle 81 17 16 3 Breadth 26 Paraoccipital Processes 4 7 8 0 Breadth 27 Foramen Magnum 32 11 13 0 Breadth

145 Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic 28 Foramen Magnum Height 28 11 13 0 29 Neurocranium Breadth 82 16 16 2 30 Zygomatic Breadth 39 3 4 2 31 Least Breadth of Skull 82 15 18 3 32 Frontal Breadth 72 10 13 1 33 Least Breadth Between 81 13 16 3 Orbits 34 Palatal Breadth 80 12 22 2 35 Least Palatal Breadth 23 9 19 0 36 Canine Aveoli Breadth 54 12 20 2 37 Height of Inner Orbit 18 10 12 0 38 Skull Height 29 9 13 0 39 Skull Heght without 29 10 13 0 Sagittal Crest 40 Occipital Triangle Height 29 9 12 0 41 Length of Canine 28 3 6 1 42* Neurocranium Length 16 7 13 1 *From Haag 1948 and Evans 1993

Univariate Analysis Males 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N of Cases 55 53 51 27 20 29 32 28 Minimum 141.000 132.000 126.000 35.900 76.160 78.000 71.730 66.030 Maximum 194.000 180.000 172.000 51.600 119.000 106.000 95.300 90.500 Median 165.000 154.000 145.000 41.200 104.030 88.000 81.195 74.550 Mean 164.935 154.009 146.500 41.219 101.967 87.966 81.882 76.795 S.D. 12.084 10.538 10.091 2.974 9.773 5.852 6.042 5.848 C.V. 0.073 0.068 0.069 0.072 0.096 0.067 0.074 0.076

9 10 12(11) 13 13A 14 14A 15 N of Cases 28 17 17 47 13 27 15 69 Minimum 79.200 53.300 48.900 62.200 70.300 22.700 21.900 50.000 Maximum 102.000 65.400 83.000 90.300 82.400 32.390 30.410 66.000 Median 89.100 58.670 66.300 79.100 75.870 27.560 25.700 57.600 Mean 89.700 58.528 65.626 79.204 76.162 27.169 25.737 57.407 S.D. 5.560 4.163 7.080 5.326 3.467 2.459 2.239 3.352 C.V. 0.062 0.071 0.108 0.067 0.046 0.090 0.087 0.058

15A 16 17 18 18A 19 20 20A N of Cases 69 85 44 91 53 58 57 53 Minimum 56.200 13.650 24.240 14.200 6.900 13.000 9.860 10.300 Maximum 77.500 28.900 49.600 20.500 10.470 19.700 13.800 17.100 Median 69.890 16.100 43.290 16.900 8.800 15.600 11.580 13.550 Mean 69.524 16.455 42.707 16.912 8.951 15.806 11.593 13.593 S.D. 4.113 2.122 3.836 1.157 0.768 1.297 0.774 1.182 C.V. 0.059 0.129 0.090 0.068 0.086 0.082 0.067 0.087

146

21 21A 22 23 24 25 26 27 N of Cases 48 46 42 56 31 63 12 37 Minimum 5.160 7.250 18.800 50.800 50.000 28.150 36.270 15.400 Maximum 7.400 10.700 25.600 67.700 67.400 39.600 57.100 19.360 Median 6.365 8.575 22.000 58.125 56.200 32.600 44.525 17.000 Mean 6.324 8.664 21.751 58.108 56.309 32.821 44.642 17.148 S.D. 0.535 0.830 1.574 4.135 3.717 2.071 5.519 0.909 C.V. 0.085 0.096 0.072 0.071 0.066 0.063 0.124 0.053

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 N of Cases 34 60 28 62 53 62 65 31 Minimum 10.500 45.560 78.000 26.600 36.200 26.200 49.390 24.700 Maximum 14.800 62.600 107.200 38.800 55.200 39.600 67.900 36.800 Median 12.700 52.000 92.000 32.560 44.100 31.925 56.800 29.630 Mean 12.795 52.583 91.462 32.639 44.470 32.040 56.516 29.502 S.D. 1.096 3.136 6.722 2.550 3.895 3.065 3.322 2.566 C.V. 0.086 0.060 0.073 0.078 0.088 0.096 0.059 0.087

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 N of Cases 48 26 34 35 33 22 23 Minimum 27.400 23.300 45.670 41.000 30.800 30.000 72.800 Maximum 39.400 29.760 62.100 56.500 49.400 37.800 111.200 Median 31.450 25.185 50.740 47.500 40.800 33.800 84.550 Mean 32.108 25.522 51.433 47.083 40.453 33.741 86.087 S.D. 2.721 1.826 3.946 3.435 3.418 1.734 8.075 C.V. 0.085 0.072 0.077 0.073 0.084 0.051 0.094

Females 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N of Cases 25 26 24 16 15 13 16 15 Minimum 123.000 116.000 104.000 31.300 77.200 70.000 65.000 54.500 Maximum 171.000 157.600 150.030 49.670 111.170 86.000 83.900 82.500 Median 150.000 141.000 134.000 37.680 95.000 81.000 72.885 68.900 Mean 148.080 139.504 132.088 38.301 93.769 80.231 73.988 69.141 S.D. 10.392 8.688 9.195 3.777 9.426 4.065 5.150 6.027 C.V. 0.070 0.062 0.070 0.099 0.101 0.051 0.070 0.087

9 10 12(11) 13 13A 14 14A 15 N of Cases 14 11 13 29 10 15 10 32 Minimum 67.000 27.500 41.000 58.800 56.500 17.100 14.600 40.800 Maximum 97.000 57.000 75.100 84.400 83.500 28.500 27.400 59.400 Median 83.350 50.400 60.080 74.000 69.745 24.900 22.985 54.100 Mean 82.476 47.645 58.468 73.153 69.571 24.005 21.954 53.175 S.D. 7.347 8.502 9.735 5.791 7.232 3.162 3.749 4.343 C.V. 0.089 0.178 0.167 0.079 0.104 0.132 0.171 0.082

147 15A 16 17 18 18A 19 20 20A N of Cases 30 37 21 40 25 25 25 24 Minimum 51.100 13.400 29.160 12.800 7.400 11.400 9.000 11.800 Maximum 70.500 28.800 46.900 19.400 10.300 17.500 13.200 15.100 Median 64.400 15.500 40.500 15.900 8.400 14.490 11.100 12.795 Mean 63.106 15.954 39.874 16.073 8.505 14.743 10.922 12.946 S.D. 4.591 2.574 4.431 1.228 0.756 1.367 0.856 0.908 C.V. 0.073 0.161 0.111 0.076 0.089 0.093 0.078 0.070

21 21A 22 23 24 25 26 27 N of Cases 21 21 21 27 17 29 7 16 Minimum 4.800 5.900 18.500 47.000 47.400 26.100 36.400 14.300 Maximum 9.000 9.600 22.870 57.500 55.700 35.900 42.000 18.400 Median 6.000 8.200 20.600 53.500 53.000 30.300 39.900 16.250 Mean 6.096 8.029 20.510 52.912 51.942 30.418 39.459 16.156 S.D. 0.801 0.863 1.332 2.706 2.569 1.839 2.508 1.222 C.V. 0.131 0.108 0.065 0.051 0.049 0.060 0.064 0.076

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 N of Cases 16 34 18 32 24 26 28 16 Minimum 11.300 45.200 70.500 25.600 33.700 23.800 47.000 24.250 Maximum 16.100 56.000 95.000 39.000 45.000 33.000 64.890 34.900 Median 12.795 49.900 81.000 31.730 39.000 27.200 51.900 27.060 Mean 12.989 50.206 82.482 32.139 39.245 27.916 52.869 28.072 S.D. 1.350 2.489 5.930 2.699 2.620 2.344 3.988 3.109 C.V. 0.104 0.050 0.072 0.084 0.067 0.084 0.075 0.111

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 N of Cases 21 14 16 16 15 10 13 Minimum 25.200 23.000 42.000 40.200 32.200 27.700 68.500 Maximum 36.000 29.400 57.000 54.000 47.740 35.500 89.460 Median 28.930 25.350 45.850 43.900 36.380 31.950 77.200 Mean 28.930 25.739 46.686 44.731 37.198 31.880 77.426 S.D. 2.423 1.812 3.365 3.464 3.364 2.475 6.093 C.V. 0.084 0.070 0.072 0.077 0.090 0.078 0.079

Unidentified 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N of Cases 12 12 12 1 0 1 1 1 Minimum 137.000 129.000 123.000 42.500 . 85.000 79.500 70.600 Maximum 164.000 157.200 149.500 42.500 . 85.000 79.500 70.600 Median 155.000 147.000 141.000 42.500 . 85.000 79.500 70.600 Mean 153.608 146.417 139.258 42.500 . 85.000 79.500 70.600 S.D. 8.927 8.569 7.837 . . . . . C.V. 0.058 0.059 0.056 1.000 . 1.000 1.000 1.000

9 10 12(11) 13 13A 14 14A 15 N of Cases 0 1 1 19 0 1 0 29 Minimum . 56.500 47.900 56.600 . 25.380 . 51.800 Maximum . 56.500 47.900 84.600 . 25.380 . 63.000 Median . 56.500 47.900 78.200 . 25.380 . 56.200 Mean . 56.500 47.900 77.103 . 25.380 . 56.296

148 S.D. . . . 6.386 . . . 2.940 C.V. . 1.000 1.000 0.083 . 1.000 . 0.052

15A 16 17 18 18A 19 20 20A N of Cases 25 38 7 41 12 13 16 14 Minimum 60.200 13.500 38.700 14.100 7.290 14.800 10.200 5.100 Maximum 81.500 27.200 44.800 19.400 10.300 19.500 13.100 16.300 Median 68.000 15.850 42.260 16.100 8.445 15.350 11.190 13.900 Mean 68.366 16.474 42.330 16.366 8.534 16.043 11.455 13.438 S.D. 4.432 2.344 2.113 1.238 0.729 1.503 0.954 2.648 C.V. 0.065 0.142 0.050 0.076 0.085 0.094 0.083 0.197

21 21A 22 23 24 25 26 27 N of Cases 8 7 5 21 2 25 0 3 Minimum 6.000 7.600 17.700 43.400 56.800 27.800 . 15.600 Maximum 6.700 10.200 24.900 66.000 57.100 37.300 . 18.400 Median 6.490 9.000 22.200 50.000 56.950 33.300 . 18.300 Mean 6.442 8.923 21.390 52.295 56.950 32.576 . 17.433 S.D. 0.229 1.017 2.707 5.138 0.212 2.386 . 1.589 C.V. 0.036 0.114 1.127 0.098 0.004 0.073 . 0.091

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 N of Cases 2 22 2 24 19 25 23 4 Minimum 11.400 48.000 82.200 28.800 37.000 25.800 47.000 26.400 Maximum 12.100 60.500 89.700 38.000 49.200 35.800 60.000 30.600 Median 11.750 53.900 85.950 31.850 41.800 29.300 54.000 28.130 Mean 11.750 53.427 85.950 32.300 42.058 29.452 54.048 28.315 S.D. 0.495 3.039 5.303 2.269 3.079 2.271 3.203 1.738 C.V. 0.042 0.057 0.062 0.070 0.073 0.077 0.059 0.061

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 N of Cases 19 0 1 1 2 6 1 Minimum 21.700 . 50.100 48.300 32.650 31.700 82.400 Maximum 34.500 . 50.100 48.300 41.100 36.000 82.400 Median 30.600 . 50.100 48.300 36.875 33.950 82.400 Mean 30.279 . 50.100 48.300 36.875 33.917 82.400 S.D. 3.032 . . . 5.975 1.504 . C.V. 0.100 . 1.000 1.000 0.162 0.044 1.000

149 Dentary Measurements

Metric Code Measurement Archaic Woodland Mississippian Historic 1 Total Length 92 17 23 4 2 Total Length 2 37 10 17 3 3 Total Length 3 38 12 18 4 4 Length: Condyle Process to 48 13 17 1 Aboral Border of Canine Aveolus 5 Length: Indention Between 47 13 18 1 Condyle Process and Angular Process to Aboral Border of Canine Aveolus 6 Length: Angular Process to 41 11 15 0 Aboral Border of Canine Aveolus 7 Length: Aboral Border of 52 15 19 4 Canine Aveolus to Aboral Border of M3 Aveolus 8 Length of PM1 to M3 80 12 16 4 9 Length of PM2 to M3 101 22 28 5 10 Length of Molar Row 104 23 29 5 11 Length of PM1 to PM4 42 7 11 1 12 Length of PM2 to PM4 48 15 22 1 13 Carnassial Length 112 23 34 4 13A Carnassial Breadth 56 15 28 4 14 Carnassial Aveolus Length 54 14 22 1 15 M2 Length 48 12 22 5 15A M2 Breadth 48 11 21 4 16 M3 Length 12 4 9 1 16A M3 Breedth 12 4 9 0 17 Greatest thickness of Jaw 53 15 26 4 18 Height of Vertical Ramus 44 11 15 0 19 Height of Jaw behind M1 55 15 25 4 21 Height of Jaw between 27 3 6 1 PM2 and PM3 22 Length of Canine 38 12 15 0

150 Univariate Analysis Males 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N of Cases 81 48 52 53 52 43 56 59 Minimum 100.500 102.000 99.000 92.900 89.590 93.600 62.400 58.300 Maximum 152.000 134.400 141.000 131.800 122.900 116.000 89.400 77.000 Median 117.000 118.000 112.500 102.800 98.975 104.200 69.770 65.000 Mean 117.491 117.694 113.815 103.100 98.967 103.845 70.206 64.975 S.D. 7.660 7.336 7.408 6.584 5.899 5.252 5.971 3.796 C.V. 0.065 0.062 0.065 0.064 0.060 0.051 0.085 0.058

9 10 11 12 13 13A 14 15 N of Cases 80 82 39 53 88 60 57 53 Minimum 51.140 27.200 29.600 17.500 16.600 6.200 14.800 6.000 Maximum 72.300 37.200 39.500 48.700 21.600 9.900 21.000 10.100 Median 60.700 30.950 34.300 29.800 19.100 7.700 17.400 7.800 Mean 60.853 30.912 34.315 29.959 19.089 7.705 17.583 7.838 S.D. 3.835 1.845 2.244 3.751 1.056 0.627 1.114 0.736 C.V. 0.063 0.060 0.065 0.125 0.055 0.081 0.063 0.094

15A 16 16A 17 18 19 21 22 N of Cases 50 19 18 57 43 60 23 48 Minimum 5.000 3.700 3.480 8.730 40.000 17.100 30.300 24.000 Maximum 8.700 5.690 5.000 14.500 53.300 26.800 38.600 33.000 Median 6.300 4.500 4.180 9.990 47.500 20.310 32.900 26.500 Mean 5.315 4.585 4.209 10.165 47.011 20.700 32.835 27.104 S.D. 0.647 0.527 0.445 1.088 3.182 1.892 1.857 2.390 C.V. 0.103 0.115 0.106 0.107 0.068 0.091 0.057 0.088

Females 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N of Cases 29 16 17 23 23 20 24 30 Minimum 90.200 87.400 86.300 75.500 73.200 73.900 48.200 46.200 Maximum 125.100 119.000 115.000 114.000 100.800 104.800 76.120 68.400 Median 110.000 110.000 106.000 94.000 90.700 96.950 65.965 61.890 Mean 107.800 108.744 103.359 93.861 90.058 94.798 64.620 60.855 S.D. 8.432 9.569 8.055 7.792 6.824 8.113 6.229 4.334 C.V. 0.078 0.088 0.078 0.083 0.076 0.086 0.096 0.071

9 10 11 12 13 13A 14 15 N of Cases 38 38 17 23 41 26 24 24 Minimum 42.300 21.900 24.900 21.100 15.100 6.470 13.300 5.700 Maximum 63.900 33.400 35.600 31.200 22.000 8.400 19.300 8.100 Median 57.985 29.500 32.530 28.100 18.000 7.200 16.340 7.450 Mean 56.966 29.487 31.909 27.634 18.277 7.299 16.442 7.396 S.D. 3.955 2.021 2.721 2.363 1.292 0.527 1.303 0.503 C.V. 0.069 0.069 0.085 0.086 0.071 0.072 0.079 0.068

15A 16 16A 17 18 19 21 22 N of Cases 24 5 5 26 23 25 10 17 Minimum 4.400 4.000 3.500 7.400 33.000 13.200 27.000 21.000

151 Maximum 7.300 5.070 4.330 10.580 46.900 21.600 32.300 31.000 Median 5.900 4.400 3.800 9.000 43.400 18.400 30.200 25.000 Mean 5.925 4.454 3.906 8.998 42.606 18.261 30.000 25.006 S.D. 0.521 0.478 0.389 0.744 3.466 1.847 1.442 2.377 C.V. 0.088 0.107 0.100 0.083 0.081 0.101 0.048 0.095

Unidentified 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N of Cases 26 3 3 3 4 4 10 23 Minimum 96.000 111.500 107.500 92.400 88.900 93.000 62.300 58.000 Maximum 133.000 131.300 128.000 103.400 101.250 104.470 90.200 73.800 Median 113.600 118.350 115.120 98.600 95.850 97.600 68.905 64.300 Mean 114.652 120.383 116.873 98.133 95.463 98.167 71.051 63.940 S.D. 7.935 10.055 10.362 5.515 5.180 4.905 8.930 3.724 C.V. 0.069 0.084 0.089 0.056 0.054 0.050 0.126 0.058

9 10 11 12 13 13A 14 15 N of Cases 38 41 5 10 44 17 10 10 Minimum 49.100 26.200 32.300 18.100 16.500 6.480 15.200 7.260 Maximum 68.500 35.500 37.300 58.030 21.400 8.900 18.700 9.300 Median 58.850 30.000 33.500 28.730 18.700 8.000 16.445 7.795 Mean 59.409 30.348 33.992 30.510 18.928 7.845 16.823 7.996 S.D. 3.923 2.275 1.984 10.338 1.211 0.684 1.250 0.744 C.V 0.066 0.075 0.058 0.339 0.064 0.087 0.074 0.093

15A 16 16A 17 18 19 21 22 N of Cases 10 2 2 15 4 14 4 0 Minimum 5.300 3.940 3.600 9.000 41.000 11.500 31.200 . Maximum 7.000 4.300 3.700 12.200 45.450 25.000 34.000 . Median 6.100 4.120 3.650 10.500 44.675 19.850 32.250 . Mean 6.190 4.120 3.650 10.549 43.950 19.794 32.425 . S.D. 0.601 0.255 0.071 1.083 2.046 3.232 1.312 . C.V. 0.097 0.062 0.091 0.103 0.047 0.163 0.040 .

152 APPENDIX E

T-TESTS COMPARING MALES AND FEMALES

Cranium and Dentary Comparison Group Metric t-value df p-value Code Males vs. Females # A W M Total A W M Total A W M Total* Cranium 1 -2.455 -1.961 -1.009 -6.382 23.8 5.0 2.9 53.6 0.022 0.107 0.390 0.000 13 -1.830 -2.062 -1.087 -4.560 32.1 6.8 3.6 55.6 0.077 0.079 0.344 0.000 15 -2.847 -2.535 -1.858 -4.879 58.5 5.5 3.6 48.8 0.006 0.048 0.145 0.000 16 -1.185 -0.261 -1.315 -2.166 52.0 7.0 5.3 75.9 0.241 0.802 0.234 0.033 17 -1.858 -1.971 -1.644 -3.042 18.7 4.6 3.5 26.9 0.079 0.111 0.186 0.005 18 -2.972 -0.507 -0.857 -3.664 56.1 10.8 3.2 70.7 0.004 0.622 0.450 0.000 18A -1.740 -1.745 -0.599 -2.419 28.7 7.5 4.3 47.8 0.093 0.122 0.580 0.019 20 -2.895 -0.111 -0.748 -3.366 26.6 8.8 3.2 42.0 0.007 0.914 0.506 0.002 20A -1.430 -0.126 -2.142 -2.624 31.2 8.7 10.2 57.0 0.163 0.903 0.057 0.011 21 0.123 0.023 -1.603 -1.194 14.7 8.0 3.6 28.1 0.904 0.982 0.191 0.243 21A -1.972 -0.948 -1.014 -2.826 19.0 6.3 3.8 37.5 0.063 0.378 0.371 0.008 34 -5.201 -0.316 -1.011 -4.246 39.3 3.6 4.1 43.9 0.000 0.769 0.368 0.000

Comparison Group Metric t-value df p-value Code Males vs. Females # A W M Total A W M Total A W M Total* Dentary 1 -4.321 -1.139 -2.855 -5.438 34.4 3.8 2.3 45.6 0.000 0.321 0.087 0.000 7 -1.951 -1.714 -2.239 -3.722 23.9 3.7 2.4 42.0 0.063 0.167 0.135 0.001 8 -4.021 -0.761 -2.349 -4.416 50.4 1.1 1.2 52.1 0.000 0.577 0.229 0.000 9 -4.262 -1.581 -1.848 -5.037 66.7 7.5 2.2 70.8 0.000 0.155 0.195 0.000 10 -0.166 -0.616 -2.311 -0.432 47.3 11.2 1.8 56.1 0.869 0.550 0.160 0.688 13 -0.681 -0.504 -0.907 -1.414 35.1 7.0 3.3 48.4 0.500 0.630 0.427 0.164 13A -2.520 0.238 -1.480 -3.096 30.3 5.3 4.6 56.2 0.017 0.821 0.204 0.003 17 -5.830 -0.639 -4.153 -5.688 44.7 5.5 4.0 68.5 0.000 0.548 0.014 0.000 18 -3.601 -1.860 -2.753 -5.061 39.2 2.5 2.5 41.9 0.001 0.178 0.085 0.000 19 -4.344 -1.178 -3.256 -5.507 36.5 3.2 2.8 46.0 0.000 0.320 0.052 0.000 * All Males vs. All Female

153

Scapula and Long Bones Comparison Groups Metric t-value df p-value Code Males vs. Females # A W M Total* A W M Total* A W M Total* Scapula 1 -2.407 I.D. I.D. -2.893 10.7 I.D. I.D. 12.2 0.035 I.D. I.D. 0.013 2 -2.695 0.281 -2.567 -1.574 18.1 2.8 2.4 18.6 0.015 0.798 0.102 0.132 3 -3.010 0.489 -2.151 -3.123 30.1 3.5 2.1 37.3 0.005 0.654 0.157 0.003 4 -2.359 0.442 -2.591 -2.616 31.6 3.6 5.3 38.8 0.025 0.684 0.046 0.013 5 -3.591 -1.023 -1.983 -4.111 37.5 2.3 1.5 41.2 0.001 0.401 0.223 0.000 Humerus 1 -3.709 -1.014 -2.257 -4.035 38.6 3.7 2.6 48.6 0.001 0.372 0.123 0.000 2 -4.290 -1.091 -2.408 -4.402 41.0 2.6 2.0 38.6 0.000 0.367 0.139 0.000 3 -2.989 -0.252 -2.006 -3.370 30.2 2.0 2.1 39.5 0.006 0.825 0.176 0.002 4 -5.087 0.447 -2.130 -3.670 36.6 4.0 1.4 38.6 0.000 0.678 0.218 0.001 5 -3.133 -0.193 -2.115 -3.703 36.0 2.1 1.9 51.9 0.003 0.864 0.177 0.001 Radius 1 -2.394 -1.627 -3.879 -3.488 27.2 4.5 3.0 43.4 0.024 0.170 0.031 0.001 2 -4.284 -0.066 I.D -4.231 22.7 2.6 I.D. 28.3 0.000 0.952 I.D. 0.000 3 -6.385 -0.112 -1.948 -4.490 43.1 4.0 1.4 43 0.000 0.916 0.248 0.000 4 -3.820 -1.035 -2.599 -4.178 29.8 3.6 4.3 43.3 0.001 0.365 0.056 0.000 Ulna 1 -3.787 I.D. -3.497 -4.581 39.3 I.D. 5.8 57.4 0.001 I.D. 0.014 0.000 2 -3.076 -0.247 -2.268 -3.338 24.9 1.7 3.1 33.2 0.005 0.831 0.106 0.002 3 -2.976 -0.201 -2.789 -3.281 30.6 1.3 5.0 38.5 0.006 0.868 0.038 0.002 4 -3.073 -1.082 I.D. 3.478 37.2 2.4 I.D. 44.8 0.004 0.375 I.D. 0.001 Femur 1 -3.137 I.D. I.D. -3.615 25.5 I.D. I.D. 39.5 0.004 I.D. I.D. 0.001 2 -3.592 -1.476 -2.665 -4.536 50.1 4.9 1.9 80.3 0.001 0.201 0.122 0.000 3 -3.878 I.D. -4.951 -5.020 35.2 I.D. 8.7 50.9 0.000 I.D. 0.001 0.000 4 -2.514 -0.403 -3.491 -2.996 27.0 3.0 7.7 35.7 0.018 0.714 0.009 0.005 5 -5.209 -0.792 -1.643 -4.162 46.3 2.6 1.2 47.8 0.000 0.494 0.313 0.000 7 -3.343 1.965 I.D. -2.748 26.2 1.3 I.D 33.0 0.003 0.257 I.D. 0.010

154

Scapula and Long Bones (continued) Comparison Group Metric t-value df p-value Code Tibia 1 -3.457 -1.034 -2.047 -3.798 36.5 4.6 1.7 62.1 0.001 0.352 0.200 0.000 2 -4.541 0.119 -1.591 -4.508 36.6 2.3 2.4 55.3 0.000 0.915 0.230 0.000 3 -4.048 2.285 -2.805 3.668 37.1 1.9 2.4 46.7 0.000 0.153 0.087 0.001 5 -2.311 -0.238 -1.796 -2.835 18.1 3.6 3.1 30.5 0.033 0.825 0.168 0.008 * All Males vs. All Females I.D. = Insufficient Data

Metacarpals Comparison Group Metric t-value df p-value Code Males vs. Females # A W M Total A W M Total A W M Total* Metacarpal 2 1 -1.997 1.338 -3.684 -2.387 25.4 1.5 6.7 41.1 0.057 0.352 0.009 0.022 2 -2.681 3.086 -2.474 -2.447 20.3 1.0 2.1 26.1 0.014 0.199 0.123 0.021 Metacarpal 3 1 -2.096 -0.485 -3.158 -2.826 28.8 1.0 5.1 39.2 0.045 0.712 0.025 0.007 2 -3.025 -0.327 -2.124 -3.781 32.7 1.0 2.2 43.2 0.005 0.799 0.155 0.000 Metacarpal 4 1 -2.618 0.406 -3.077 -3.060 33.6 2.7 3.2 50.5 0.013 0.714 0.051 0.004 2 -3.395 0.876 -1.853 -2.907 33.2 2.6 3.0 42.1 0.002 0.454 0.162 0.006 Metacarpal 5 1 -2.728 -0.711 -2.455 -3.358 23.0 2.7 1.5 32.9 0.012 0.534 0.171 0.002 2 -3.807 -0.198 -2.522 -3.774 22.2 4.0 1.7 32.0 0.001 0.853 0.150 0.001 * All Males vs. All Females

155

Metatarsals Comparison Group Metric t-value df p-value Code Males vs. Females # A W M Total* A W M Total* A W M Total* Metatarsal 2 1 -2.328 I.D. -4.917 -3.602 25.5 I.D. 6.9 30.0 0.028 I.D. 0.002 0.001 2 -2.097 I.D. -2.939 -2.989 27.4 I.D 1.9 27.2 0.045 I.D. 0.105 0.006 Metatarsal 3 1 -2.524 I.D. -3.175 -2.877 17.8 I.D. 5.4 21.5 0.021 I.D. 0.022 0.009 2 -2.165 I.D. -2.098 -2.629 22.4 I.D. 2.7 25.6 0.041 I.D. 0.139 0.014 Metatarsal 4 1 -1.678 -0.670 -1.947 -2.258 23.6 1.0 5.0 27.3 0.107 0.621 0.109 0.032 2 -2.510 -1.010 -1.670 -3.207 34.1 1.5 1.2 32.1 0.017 0.451 0.316 0.003 Metatarsal 5 1 -2.494 I.D. -1.586 -3.009 23.7 I.D. 1.4 23.2 0.020 I.D. 0.308 0.006 2 -2.931 I.D. -3.015 -3.222 21.1 I.D. 2.5 23.0 0.008 I.D. 0.073 0.004 * All Males vs. All Females I.D. = Insufficient Data

Calcaneus and Astragulus

Comparison Group Metric t-value df p-value Code Males vs. Females # A W M Total A W M Total A W M Total* Calcaneus 1 -2.980 -0.638 -3.018 -3.470 28.6 2.7 2.5 33.2 0.006 0.574 0.073 0.001 2 -3.251 -0.153 -4.088 -3.186 40.8 4.1 9.0 50.5 0.002 0.886 0.003 0.002 Astragulus 1 -1.199 0.572 -3.201 -1.823 20.2 3.8 2.0 33.4 0.244 0.600 0.087 0.077 * All Males vs. All Females

156

APPENDIX F

T-TESTS COMPARING CULTURAL GROUPS

Crania Comparison Group t-value df p-value Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total CRN1 Archaic vs. Woodland 0.193 1.455 I.D. -2.041 3.2 3.8 I.D. 26.8 0.859 0.222 I.D. 0.051 Archaic vs. Mississippian -0.876 -0.991 -0.572 -1.661 12.3 2.2 5.1 19.9 0.398 0.416 0.592 0.112 Mississippian vs. Woodland 0.545 1.709 I.D. 1.782 4.1 3.7 I.D. 10.5 0.614 0.168 I.D. 0.104

CRN13 Archaic vs. Woodland 0.185 1.573 I.D. 0.993 4.6 3.6 I.D. 10.1 0.861 0.199 I.D. 0.344 Archaic vs. Mississippian 0.222 0.189 -1.582 -0.448 12.1 3.3 10.3 22.7 0.828 0.861 0.144 0.659 Mississippian vs. Woodland 0.068 0.795 I.D. 1.132 5.7 5.4 I.D. 14.7 0.948 0.460 I.D. 0.276

CRN15 Archaic vs. Woodland 1.681 3.001 3.722 3.273 6.6 3.2 13.8 23.7 0.139 0.053 0.002 0.003 Archaic vs. Mississippian -0.037 1.023 -1.887 -0.046 17.4 3.2 14.2 33.1 0.971 0.378 0.080 0.964 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1.517 1.182 4.629 2.708 10.1 5.8 10.6 27.2 0.160 0.283 0.001 0.012

CRN15A Archaic vs. Woodland 1.412 2.876 1.988 2.475 8.5 3.4 12.4 27.3 0.193 0.055 0.069 0.020 Archaic vs. Mississippian -0.031 0.682 -0.931 -0.479 15.8 3.1 18.8 32.8 0.975 0.542 0.363 0.635 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1.070 0.880 3.228 2.336 18.3 4.8 8.9 34.1 0.299 0.421 0.010 0.025

CRN16 Archaic vs. Woodland 0.344 0.411 1.927 0.943 10.1 7.4 6.9 22.7 0.738 0.692 0.096 0.356 Archaic vs. Mississippian -0.799 0.742 0.096 -0.695 20.8 7.7 26.1 50.2 0.433 0.480 0.924 0.490 Mississippian vs. Woodland 0.821 -0.198 1.686 1.285 16.4 6.9 8.6 35.0 0.424 0.849 0.128 0.207

157 t-value df p-value CRN17 Archaic vs. Woodland 2.635 2.837 -0.472 3.238 4.9 3.7 1.1 11.8 0.047 0.052 0.712 0.007 Archaic vs. Mississippian 0.452 1.185 -1.548 0.533 19.4 3.5 1.4 28.0 0.656 0.310 0.312 0.598 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2.118 1.078 2.394 2.564 7.0 5.9 2.9 17.7 0.072 0.323 0.098 0.020

CRN18 Archaic vs. Woodland 1.510 0.407 2.204 -1.375 11.2 6.3 21.2 69.4 0.159 0.697 0.039 0.174 Archaic vs. Mississippian -2.028 -0.058 -0.705 -1.201 21.6 3.1 24.5 41.6 0.055 0.957 0.488 0.237 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2.615 0.177 2.668 2.744 18.5 3.4 17.0 52.6 0.017 0.870 0.016 0.008

CRN18A Archaic vs. Woodland 0.772 1.232 -0.273 -1.243 6.6 13.5 5.5 51.8 0.467 0.239 0.795 0.219 Archaic vs. Mississippian -0.266 -0.175 0.116 0.261 18.4 3.7 5.5 31.9 0.793 0.870 0.911 0.796 Mississippian vs. Woodland 0.815 0.722 -0.651 0.819 12.9 3.6 4.7 32.0 0.430 0.514 0.545 0.419

CRN20 Archaic vs. Woodland 2.543 0.485 0.096 -0.556 8.1 6.8 5.9 70.1 0.034 0.643 0.927 0.580 Archaic vs. Mississippian -1.030 -0.112 -0.085 -1.082 27.0 3.2 6.0 44.9 0.312 0.917 0.935 0.285 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2.993 0.288 0.235 2.562 10.6 3.7 3.8 35.6 0.013 0.789 0.827 0.015

CRN20A Archaic vs. Woodland 0.640 0.089 -0.906 -3.479 6.1 5.3 4.4 60.5 0.545 0.932 0.411 0.001 Archaic vs. Mississippian -2.268 -0.622 0.345 -1.094 19.8 5.9 8.7 29.5 0.035 0.557 0.738 0.283 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1.957 0.460 -0.992 0.770 9.6 6.3 7.9 35.6 0.080 0.661 0.351 0.446

CRN21 Archaic vs. Woodland 1.640 1.216 I.D. 0.159 6.6 14.7 I.D. 35.9 0.147 0.243 I.D. 0.875 Archaic vs. Mississippian -0.605 1.282 1.927 0.229 28.7 5.7 5.1 54.4 0.550 0.250 0.111 0.820 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1.981 -0.522 I.D. 2.063 8.0 4.2 I.D. 23.5 0.083 0.628 I.D. 0.050

CRN21A Archaic vs. Woodland -1.196 -1.080 I.D. -1.492 3.4 6.4 I.D. 32.6 0.308 0.319 I.D. 0.145 Archaic vs. Mississippian -2.303 -0.499 -0.829 -2.751 20.1 3.6 3.3 33.3 0.032 0.647 0.463 0.010 Mississippian vs. Woodland 0.080 -0.151 I.D. 0.734 4.7 4.9 I.D. 16.9 0.940 0.886 I.D. 0.473

158 t-value df p-value CRN34 Archaic vs. Woodland 0.849 -0.442 I.D. -0.055 9.1 3.2 I.D. 12.6 0.418 0.687 I.D. 0.957 Archaic vs. Mississippian -1.002 -0.622 -0.931 -1.597 13.7 3.2 6.1 26.6 0.334 0.575 0.387 0.122 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1.395 0.061 I.D. 0.970 17.7 5.8 I.D. 23.0 0.180 0.954 I.D. 0.342

Dentary Comparison Group t-value df p-value Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total DNT1 Archaic vs. Woodland 0.374 0.106 4.265 0.681 13.1 3.4 10.0 20.2 0.714 0.922 0.002 0.504 Archaic vs. Mississippian -0.953 1.335 -0.791 -0.705 18.7 2.3 8.7 28.7 0.353 0.300 0.450 0.486 Mississippian vs. Woodland 0.964 -0.882 3.059 1.042 19.4 4.9 6.7 36.0 0.347 0.419 0.019 0.304

DNT7 Archaic vs. Woodland 1.813 1.826 0.024 2.088 9.2 3.5 3.2 17.7 0.103 0.153 0.982 0.052 Archaic vs. Mississippian -0.641 1.688 -1.051 -0.520 13.3 2.1 5.0 20.3 0.532 0.225 0.341 0.609 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1.753 -0.320 1.263 1.717 18.0 3.8 4.2 30.6 0.097 0.766 0.272 0.096

DNT8 Archaic vs. Woodland 3.150 0.836 0.886 2.646 9.1 1.0 2.9 14.3 0.012 0.553 0.443 0.019 Archaic vs. Mississippian 0.046 1.861 -1.813 -0.207 8.5 1.0 6.2 16.5 0.964 0.309 0.118 0.838 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1.897 -0.858 2.115 1.600 11.9 2.0 6.8 23.2 0.082 0.483 0.074 0.123

DNT9 Archaic vs. Woodland 1.274 1.266 1.660 2.016 12.5 4.5 14.2 27.5 0.226 0.267 0.119 0.054 Archaic vs. Mississippian 0.391 1.365 -1.111 -0.037 17.0 2.0 13.6 31.8 0.701 0.303 0.286 0.970 Mississippian vs. Woodland 0.793 -0.755 1.888 1.349 19.9 2.7 13.7 47.2 0.437 0.510 0.080 0.184

DNT10 Archaic vs. Woodland 1.122 0.130 0.683 1.368 11.5 7.1 20.6 34.6 0.285 0.900 0.502 0.180 Archaic vs. Mississippian -0.880 0.793 -1.916 -2.060 14.4 1.4 28.2 39.4 0.393 0.543 0.065 0.046 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1.483 -0.617 2.604 2.709 20.9 2.1 18.9 49.9 0.153 0.598 0.017 0.009

159 t-value df p-value DNT13 Archaic vs. Woodland 1.321 0.090 1.312 1.598 13.5 5.3 10.8 32.8 0.208 0.932 0.217 0.120 Archaic vs. Mississippian -2.018 -0.002 -0.903 -2.046 20.6 3.1 28.1 44.6 0.057 0.998 0.374 0.047 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2.545 0.034 1.920 2.830 23.6 3.8 13.0 54.9 0.018 0.974 0.077 0.006

DNT13A Archaic vs. Woodland 2.503 0.217 -0.243 1.527 9.5 3.9 6.0 20.7 0.032 0.839 0.816 0.142 Archaic vs. Mississippian -1.780 -0.219 -0.758 -2.508 19.0 3.6 5.8 43.0 0.091 0.838 0.478 0.016 Mississippian vs. Woodland 3.277 0.324 0.598 3.149 18.5 5.8 3.7 33.7 0.004 0.757 0.585 0.003

DNT17 Archaic vs. Woodland 0.677 -0.311 -3.982 -0.719 8.3 3.2 3.8 17.0 0.517 0.775 0.018 0.482 Archaic vs. Mississippian -2.468 1.685 -2.804 -3.024 15.3 2.1 8.4 30.0 0.026 0.226 0.022 0.005 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2.319 -1.421 -0.305 1.749 18.2 4.9 9.7 36.5 0.032 0.216 0.767 0.089

DNTT18 Archaic vs. Woodland -0.118 0.969 I.D. 0.244 11.4 2.1 I.D. 12.3 0.908 0.429 I.D. 0.811 Archaic vs. Mississippian -1.361 1.012 I.D. -0.406 16.7 2.3 I.D. 20.5 0.192 0.407 I.D. 0.689 Mississippian vs. Woodland 0.903 0.181 I.D. 0.470 13.5 3.7 I.D. 19.2 0.382 0.866 I.D. 0.644

DNT19 Archaic vs. Woodland 2.326 0.758 -2.451 0.116 16.6 3.2 4.7 18.2 0.033 0.501 0.061 0.909 Archaic vs. Mississippian -2.332 1.231 -1.798 -2.246 18.4 2.2 4.4 34.8 0.031 0.334 0.140 0.031 Mississippian vs. Woodland 3.560 -0.153 -1.143 1.661 19.5 5.0 4.5 30.8 0.002 0.885 0.310 0.107

160 Scapula Comparison Groups SCP t-value df p-value # Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 1.272 I.D. 0.690 5.2 I.D. 5.3 0.256 I.D. 0.519 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D. I.D.

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 -1.071 -1.377 -2.192 3.5 2.1 8.0 0.352 0.296 0.060 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 -2.148 -0.277 -1.916 12.2 1.6 16.9 0.052 0.814 0.073 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 0.236 -1.222 -0.890 5.1 2.4 11.9 0.823 0.327 0.391

Archaic vs. Woodland 3 -0.092 -4.078 -1.631 3.5 5.6 8.1 0.932 0.008 0.141 Archaic vs. Mississippian 3 -0.083 0.866 -0.043 11.4 1.4 16.1 0.935 0.508 0.967 Mississippian vs. Woodland 3 -0.033 -3.043 -1.208 5.5 1.2 16.1 0.975 0.161 0.245

Archaic vs. Woodland 4 -0.556 -4.087 -2.393 4.4 10.0 11.9 0.605 0.002 0.034 Archaic vs. Mississippian 4 -0.140 1.318 -0.250 11.7 2.6 17.4 0.891 0.292 0.806 Mississippian vs. Woodland 4 -0.325 -4.940 -1.263 8.7 1.4 18.8 0.753 0.075 0.222

Archaic vs. Woodland 5 0.153 0.111 0.193 6.1 2.2 9.0 0.883 0.921 0.851 Archaic vs. Mississippian 5 0.268 0.994 0.267 12.3 1.2 17.0 0.793 0.484 0.793 Mississippian vs. Woodland 5 -0.128 -0.530 -0.051 10.6 3.0 17.8 0.900 0.633 0.960 I.D. = Insufficient Data

161 Humerus Comparison Groups HUM t-value df p-value # Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 -1.337 -3.335 -0.387 -1.821 3.3 2.2 1.1 8.1 0.266 0.070 0.760 0.105 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 0.167 1.203 -1.545 -0.240 7.7 1.3 9.9 18.7 0.871 0.404 0.154 0.813 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 -1.267 -3.043 0.138 -1.470 5.2 1.5 1.1 12.4 0.259 0.129 0.910 0.167

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 -0.685 0.222 -0.354 0.108 2.3 2.1 1.0 7.5 0.555 0.845 0.782 0.917 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 -0.448 0.915 -2.720 -0.932 9.3 1.2 8.2 21.8 0.665 0.511 0.026 0.362 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 -0.294 -0.161 0.341 0.502 4.3 2.6 1.1 9.6 0.782 0.884 0.786 0.627

Archaic vs. Woodland 3 -0.096 -3.039 -1.536 -1.335 2.2 17 1.9 8.2 0.932 0.007 0.271 0.218 Archaic vs. Mississippian 3 -0.105 0.823 -1.549 -0.823 9.1 1.4 11.3 22.1 0.918 0.529 0.149 0.419 Mississippian vs. Woodland 3 -0.033 -2.162 -0.317 -0.488 3.2 1 -2 15.1 0.975 0.276 0.781 0.632

Archaic vs. Woodland 4 -0.179 -1.765 -0.955 -1.299 2.1 2.1 1.0 7.0 0.874 0.214 0.514 0.235 Archaic vs. Mississippian 4 -2.122 0.185 -2.863 -3.282 13.5 1.1 7.1 23.7 0.053 0.882 0.024 0.003 Mississippian vs. Woodland 4 0.583 -1.492 -0.763 -0.757 2.5 2.9 1.0 7.3 0.608 0.235 0.584 0.473

Archaic vs. Woodland 5 2.372 -0.213 I.D. 0.649 9.8 2.2 I.D. 6.2 0.039 0.849 I.D. 0.540 Archaic vs. Mississippian 5 0.356 1.142 -1.960 -0.932 16.6 1.3 10.3 28.6 0.727 0.421 0.078 0.359 Mississippian vs. Woodland 5 0.943 -0.836 I.D. 1.159 12 3 I.D. 11.1 0.364 0.465 I.D. 0.271 I.D. = Insufficient Data.

162 Radius Comparison Groups Rad # t-value df p-value Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 -1.864 0.313 I.D. -0.643 3.4 3.2 I.D. 8.6 0.149 0.774 I.D. 0.537 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 -1.433 1.600 -2.629 -2.310 15.2 2.0 7.3 25.0 0.172 0.253 0.033 0.029 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 -1.006 -0.222 I.D. 0.406 4.6 3.5 I.D. 11.2 0.365 0.837 I.D. 0.692

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 2.299 -0.104 I.D. 0.670 1.3 2.2 I.D. 5.6 0.215 0.926 I.D. 0.529 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 0.554 I.D. -2.241 -1.315 13.7 I.D. 6.5 21.2 0.589 I.D. 0.063 0.203 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 1.458 I.D. I.D. 1.371 2.9 I.D. I.D. 10.6 0.244 I.D. ID 0.199

Archaic vs. Woodland 3 -0.275 -1.684 I.D. -1.633 2.1 2.1 I.D. 6.5 0.808 0.230 I.D. 0.150 Archaic vs. Mississippian 3 -1.880 -0.024 -2.767 -3.194 13.0 1.0 7.6 23.7 0.083 0.985 0.026 0.004 Mississippian vs. Woodland 3 0.407 -1.220 I.D. 0.292 2.5 2.8 I.D. 10.6 0.716 0.316 ID 0.776

Archaic vs. Woodland 4 0.158 0.440 I.D. 0.252 2.2 2.1 I.D. 6.5 0.888 0.700 I.D. 0.809 Archaic vs. Mississippian 4 0.434 1.793 -1.675 -0.827 12.6 1.5 6.7 23.0 0.672 0.253 0.140 0.417 Mississippian vs. Woodland 4 -0.101 -0.311 I.D. 0.691 3.7 2.5 I.D. 11.6 0.925 0.779 I.D. 0.503 I.D. = Insufficient Data

163 Ulna Comparison Groups ULNA t-value df p-value # Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 I.D. 0.558 I.D. 0.010 I.D. 1.0 I.D. 3.1 I.D. 0.675 I.D. 0.993 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 -1.387 0.713 -3.187 -2.305 7.4 2.2 6.3 17.9 0.206 0.544 0.018 0.033 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 I.D. 0.431 I.D. 0.620 I.D. 1.0 I.D. 3.4 I.D. 0.739 I.D. 0.574

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 -0.077 -0.243 -8.879 -0.971 1.0 1.0 6.7 5.4 0.951 0.847 0.000 0.373 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 -0.129 0.846 -0.840 -0.612 12.5 1.7 3.3 20.3 0.899 0.499 0.457 0.548 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 -0.027 -0.472 -1.343 -0.571 1.3 1.1 3.1 8.0 0.982 0.712 0.270 0.584

Archaic vs. Woodland 3 0.138 -0.168 I.D. -0.408 1.1 1.0 I.D. 4.3 0.911 0.894 I.D. 0.703 Archaic vs. Mississippian 3 -0.066 1.436 -0.843 -0.374 13.2 2.2 3.7 21.7 0.948 0.276 0.450 0.712 Mississippian vs. Woodland 3 0.158 -0.463 I.D. -0.217 1.8 1.1 I.D. 5.6 0.891 0.721 I.D. 0.836

Archaic vs. Woodland 4 -1.295 -0.122 I.D. -0.109 1.5 2.2 I.D. 5.6 0.357 0.913 I.D. 0.917 Archaic vs. Mississippian 4 -0.156 I.D. 0.099 -0.258 14.0 I.D. 3.5 18.7 0.878 I.D. 0.927 0.800 Mississippian vs. Woodland 4 -0.833 I.D. I.D. 0.068 4.4 I.D. I.D. 10.5 0.448 I.D. I.D. 0.947 I.D. = Insufficient Data

164 Femur Comparison Groups FEM t-value df p-value # Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 I.D. I.D. I.D. 0.097 I.D. I.D. I.D. 2.5 I.D. I.D. I.D. 0.930 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 -0.514 I.D. -2.961 -2.226 15.2 I.D. 6.2 23.5 0.615 I.D. 0.024 0.036 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 I.D. I.D. I.D. 1.555 I.D. I.D. I.D. 4.7 I.D. I.D. I.D. 0.185

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 -1.640 -2.698 -0.698 -1.889 4.3 2.2 2.7 10.3 0.171 0.101 0.539 0.087 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 -1.099 0.796 -2.397 -2.004 9.3 1.3 10.5 21.5 0.299 0.548 0.036 0.058 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 -0.942 -2.236 -0.698 -0.295 6.2 1.5 2.7 18.7 0.381 0.199 0.539 0.771

Archaic vs. Woodland 3 4.048 I.D. I.D. -0.283 30.0 I.D. I.D. 4.1 0.000 I.D. I.D. 0.791 Archaic vs. Mississippian 3 -0.804 3.226 -2.647 -1.852 11.5 3.6 6.1 19.5 0.438 0.037 0.038 0.079 Mississippian vs. Woodland 3 2.772 I.D. I.D. 1.349 8.3 I.D. I.D. 13.9 0.023 I.D. I.D. 0.199

Archaic vs. Woodland 4 -0.015 0.044 I.D. 0.134 2.1 2.1 I.D. 6.3 0.989 0.969 I.D. 0.898 Archaic vs. Mississippian 4 0.472 3.333 -2.288 -0.969 9.2 14.2 7.9 18.5 0.648 0.005 0.052 0.345 Mississippian vs. Woodland 4 -0.212 -0.443 I.D. 0.576 2.8 2.0 I.D. 9.1 0.847 0.701 I.D. 0.573

Archaic vs. Woodland 5 -0.983 -0.604 I.D. -0.950 1.0 2.0 I.D. 5.2 0.503 0.606 I.D. 0.384 Archaic vs. Mississippian 5 -2.331 0.016 -3.347 -3.375 12.3 1.0 5.9 20.1 0.045 0.990 0.016 0.003 Mississippian vs. Woodland 5 -0.391 -0.488 I.D. 0.674 1.1 3.0 I.D. 7.5 0.757 0.659 I.D. 0.520

Archaic vs. Woodland 7 3.202 -1.658 I.D. 0.018 1.3 1.1 I.D. 4.4 0.139 0.330 I.D. 0.986 Archaic vs. Mississippian 7 0.715 I.D. -1.806 -0.900 15.2 I.D. 11.6 26.3 0.486 I.D. 0.097 0.376 Mississippian vs. Woodland 7 1.982 I.D. I.D. 0.485 3.3 I.D. I.D. 6.7 0.133 I.D. I.D. 0.643 I.D. = Insufficient Data

165 Tibia Comparison Groups TIB # t-value df p-value Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total Males Females UID Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 -1.538 -2.586 -0.493 -1.992 3.4 3.2 1.1 9.7 0.212 0.075 0.702 0.075 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 -0.546 0.443 -2.797 -1.894 15.1 1.3 6.2 24.8 0.593 0.722 0.030 0.070 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 -1.148 -2.015 0.859 -0.545 4.6 1.9 1.5 15.6 0.307 0.188 0.509 0.593

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 -1.801 -2.114 -0.028 0.776 2.9 10.4 1.2 7.9 0.173 0.060 0.981 0.460 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 1.481 0.925 -1.583 -0.127 14.0 1.3 8.3 24.0 0.161 0.495 0.151 0.900 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 0.206 -1.840 0.738 0.691 7.0 1.1 1.4 17.6 0.843 0.302 0.562 0.498

Archaic vs. Woodland 3 1.054 -3.627 -0.071 -1.579 1.2 1.2 1.2 5.8 0.454 0.135 0.455 0.167 Archaic vs. Mississippian 3 -1.543 0.625 -2.972 -2.753 11.3 1.2 5.3 18.9 0.150 0.631 0.029 0.013 Mississippian vs. Woodland 3 1.938 -3.068 1.016 0.752 3.4 2.0 2.2 14.0 0.136 0.092 0.406 0.464

Archaic vs. Woodland 5 0.296 -0.312 -0.092 -0.282 2.1 2.5 3.2 9.0 0.793 0.799 0.351 0.784 Archaic vs. Mississippian 5 -0.368 -0.178 -2.488 -2.299 13.2 3.3 10.1 30.9 0.719 0.869 0.032 0.028 Mississippian vs. Woodland 5 0.438 -0.227 1.112 1.184 2.9 2.5 1.9 13.1 0.692 0.838 0.389 0.258

166 Calcaneus Comparison Groups CAL t-value df p-value # Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 1.068 0.471 1.258 3.7 2.1 8.1 0.350 0.682 0.243 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 0.693 3.036 0.722 16.3 3.4 20.3 0.498 0.048 0.479 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 0.639 -0.293 0.804 4.5 2.1 10.5 0.554 0.795 0.439

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 0.039 -0.477 -0.134 3.3 2.1 8.0 0.971 0.679 0.897 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 0.001 4.578 0.265 12.1 3.6 15.8 0.999 0.013 0.794 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 0.036 -1.309 -0.272 4.4 2.1 13.1 0.973 0.317 0.790

Metacarpal 2 Comparison Groups MC 2 t-value df p-value Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 -0.566 -2.912 -2.943 3.5 2.0 9.8 0.605 0.103 0.015 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 -0.343 3.351 0.330 7.9 3.6 14.3 0.741 0.034 0.746 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 0.049 -5.463 -1.956 7.0 1.7 14.6 0.963 0.044 0.070

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 5.166 -2.853 -1.069 31.2 1.5 4.7 0.000 0.146 0.337 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 -0.131 1.731 0.860 7.0 1.3 12.8 0.899 0.292 0.406 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 1.626 -3.368 -1.415 6.0 1.9 12.1 0.155 0.085 0.182

167 Metacarpal 3 Comparison Groups MC 3 t-value df p-value Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 0.235 0.225 0.107 7.4 1.0 4.3 0.821 0.858 0.919 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 -0.689 1.911 -0.129 8.5 2.2 14.9 0.509 0.185 0.899 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 0.839 -0.118 0.157 6.9 1.0 5.8 0.430 0.924 0.880

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 4.880 0.446 1.229 25.8 1.1 4.7 0.000 0.730 0.276 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 -0.389 1.210 0.520 7.4 1.1 12.9 0.708 0.421 0.619 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 2.150 -0.298 0.510 6.2 1.7 12.0 0.074 0.798 0.619

Metacarpal 4 Comparison Groups MC 4 t-value df p-value Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 -0.200 -1.927 -1.317 3.9 1.3 6.8 0.852 0.261 0.231 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 -0.618 1.556 -0.180 11.0 1.6 16.9 0.549 0.292 0.859 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 0.238 -2.679 -0.911 6.3 1.8 13.2 0.819 0.128 0.379

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 -0.104 -2.461 -1.382 3.6 1.2 6.0 0.923 0.217 0.216 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 0.215 1.048 0.569 8.9 1.2 15.6 0.835 0.457 0.577 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 -0.229 -2.676 -1.505 7.2 1.9 11.7 0.825 0.120 0.159

168 Metacarpal 5 Comparison Groups MC 5 t-value df p-value Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 -0.097 0.004 -0.260 3.9 2.2 8.4 0.927 0.997 0.801 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 -0.058 1.417 0.306 12.7 1.3 18.9 0.955 0.353 0.763 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 -0.046 -0.774 -0.414 6.3 2.9 13.2 0.965 0.496 0.685

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 0.200 -0.627 -0.480 3.3 2.2 8.1 0.853 0.589 0.644 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 -0.388 1.394 0.462 9.8 1.1 15.8 0.706 0.375 0.650 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 0.391 -1.426 -0.694 5.6 2.9 16.1 0.710 0.252 0.497

Metatarsal 2 Comparison Groups MT 2 t-value df p-value Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 -0.118 I.D. -0.199 5.6 I.D. 5.5 0.910 I.D. 0.849 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 -0.351 3.016 0.113 13.2 5.9 16.7 0.731 0.024 0.911 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 0.189 I.D. -0.237 8.2 ID 7.0 0.855 I.D. 0.820

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 0.580 I.D. 0.055 6.2 I.D 5.7 0.582 I.D. 0.958 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 1.065 2.951 1.864 11.3 1.3 14.7 0.309 0.158 0.082 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 -0.514 I.D. -1.069 9.7 I.D. 9.6 0.619 I.D. 0.311

I.D. = Insufficient Data

169 Metatarsal 3 Comparison Groups MT 3 t-value df p-value Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 -0.651 I.D. -1.835 4.2 I.D. 5.6 0.549 I.D. 0.120 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 -0.369 1.362 0.019 8.9 3.5 14.3 0.721 0.254 0.985 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 -0.251 I.D. -1.453 7.4 I.D. 11.1 0.809 I.D. 0.174

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 1.067 I.D. 0.557 5.1 I.D. 6.8 0.334 I.D. 0.596 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 0.362 1.887 1.017 7.7 1.3 12.6 0.727 0.265 0.328 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 0.355 I.D. -0.570 9.0 I.D. 14.0 0.731 I.D. 0.578

I.D. = Insufficient Data

Metatarsal 4 Comparison Groups MT 4 t-value df p-value Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 -0.584 0.323 0.058 5.9 1.0 5.5 0.580 0.800 0.956 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 -0.165 1.252 -0.143 7.5 2.3 9.9 0.873 0.322 0.889 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 -0.174 -0.174 0.133 8.5 8.5 9.3 0.866 0.866 0.897

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 0.000 0.607 0.330 3.5 1.0 5.5 1.000 0.649 0.754 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 0.252 1.183 0.507 10.7 1.1 10.0 0.806 0.437 0.623 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 -0.130 -0.130 -0.015 4.5 4.5 9.3 0.902 0.902 0.988

170 Metatarsal 5 Comparison Groups MT 5 t-value df p-value Males Females Total Males Females Total Males Females Total Archaic vs. Woodland 1 0.275 I.D. -0.836 4.0 I.D. 3.1 0.797 I.D. 0.462 Archaic vs. Mississippian 1 0.244 0.940 -0.001 13.0 1.1 13.6 0.811 0.504 1.000 Mississippian vs. Woodland 1 -0.005 I.D. -0.591 7.9 I.D. 8.7 0.996 I.D. 0.570

Archaic vs. Woodland 2 -0.003 I.D. -0.376 2.1 I.D. 2.1 0.998 I.D. 0.747 Archaic vs. Mississippian 2 0.484 2.626 0.559 10.2 1.3 11.8 0.638 0.180 0.587 Mississippian vs. Woodland 2 -0.215 I.D. -0.581 2.9 I.D. 2.9 0.844 I.D. 0.603

I.D. = Insufficient Data

171 APPENDIX G

UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS BY SEX AND CULTURAL AFFILIATION FOR PREHISTORIC SOUTHEASTERN DOGS (Postcrania)

Archaic Males

Scapula SCP1 SCP2 SCP3 SCP4 SCP5 N of Cases 8 27 30 30 33 Minimum 95.00 15.50 19.70 17.10 12.50 Maximum 113.00 22.90 26.47 23.00 17.17 Median 103.50 18.26 24.155 20.95 15.35 Mean 103.625 18.333 23.994 20.889 15.118 SD 5.397 1.692 1.622 1.426 1.105 CV 0.052 0.092 0.068 0.068 0.073

Humerus HUM1 HUM2 HUM3 HUM4 HUM5 N of Cases 35 35 34 35 33 Minimum 111.00 107.00 28.30 7.75 20.80 Maximum 150.00 145.00 37.60 10.67 29.16 Median 130.00 126.00 33.90 9.80 26.57 Mean 129.686 125.743 33.771 9.693 26.329 SD 8.425 8.452 2.137 0.615 1.739 CV 0.065 0.067 0.063 0.063 0.066

Radius RAD1 RAD2 RAD3 RAD4 N of Cases 29 33 34 30 Minimum 109.00 12.00 7.740 16.50 Maximum 145.00 16.31 11.50 21.38 Median 126.00 14.86 9.50 19.73 Mean 125.966 14.756 9.562 19.805 SD 7.679 0.846 0.732 1.160 CV 0.061 0.057 0.077 0.059

172

Archaic Males (continued)

Ulna ULNA1 ULNA2 ULNA3 ULNA4 N of Cases 35 37 36 37 Minimum 130.00 16.27 13.80 10.38 Maximum 172.00 22.30 19.40 16.00 Median 149.00 20.18 17.38 14.20 Mean 149.929 19.995 17.213 14.010 SD 10.280 1.253 1.077 1.078 CV 0.069 0.063 0.063 0.077

Femur FEMUR1 FEMUR2 FEMUR3 FEMUR4 FEMUR5 N of Cases 35 56 35 35 38 Minimum 117.00 118.00 28.85 12.90 8.83 Maximum 160.00 160.00 34.88 16.20 11.79 Median 137.00 138.00 31.16 15.00 10.33 Mean 135.371 137.027 31.201 15.011 10.413 SD 9.204 9.333 1.806 0.793 0.651 CV 0.068 0.068 0.058 0.053 0.062

FEMUR7 N of Cases 38 Minimum 23.00 Maximum 29.60 Median 26.365 Mean 26.469 SD 1.479 CV 0.056

Tibia TIBIA1 TIBIA2 TIBIA3 TIBIA5 N of Cases 35 37 32 33 Minimum 121.00 23.60 8.60 14.90 Maximum 160.00 31.28 11.51 20.25 Median 142.00 28.80 10.115 18.70 Mean 140.514 28.651 10.142 18.375 SD 8.773 1.744 0.713 1.176 CV 0.062 0.061 0.070 0.064

173

Archaic Males (continued)

Metacarpals MC2 1 MC2 2 MC3 1 MC3 2 MC4 1 N of Cases 32 32 30 30 27 Minimum 37.80 6.25 44.30 5.80 44.40 Maximum 52.50 8.40 60.10 8.00 60.30 Median 44.07 7.60 50.59 7.215 50.86 Mean 44.394 7.593 51.03 7.18 50.964 SD 3.036 0.435 3.389 0.478 3.312 CV 0.068 0.057 0.066 0.067 0.065

MC4 2 MC5 1 MC5 2 N of Cases 27 29 29 Minimum 5.79 37.40 6.40 Maximum 7.80 51.50 8.67 Median 6.95 42.70 7.99 Mean 7.013 43.152 7.90 SD 0.455 2.892 0.457 CV 0.065 0.067 0.058

Metatarsals MT2 1 MT2 2 MT3 1 MT3 2 MT4 1 N of Cases 26 26 29 29 29 Minimum 42.70 5.65 48.68 5.70 50.49 Maximum 59.50 8.19 67.00 9.00 69.20 Median 49.735 7.145 56.88 7.30 57.80 Mean 50.417 7.093 56.909 7.359 58.135 SD 4.078 0.521 4.168 0.596 4.050 CV 0.081 0.073 0.073 0.081 0.070

MT4 2 MT5 1 MT5 2 N of Cases 29 23 23 Minimum 5.70 45.60 5.70 Maximum 7.94 61.10 7.60 Median 7.00 52.10 6.70 Mean 7.068 52.59 6.745 SD 0.443 3.542 0.432 CV 0.063 0.067 0.064

174

Archaic Males (continued)

Calcaneus and Astragulus CAL1 CAL2 AST1 N of Cases 29 29 30 Minimum 31.80 11.36 18.46 Maximum 41.17 16.97 23.90 Median 37.70 14.70 22.24 Mean 37.539 14.666 22.09 SD 2.283 1.040 1.159 CV 0.061 0.071 0.053

Male Woodland

Scapula SCP1 SCP2 SCP3 SCP4 SCP5 N of Cases 1 4 4 4 4 Minimum 112.00 18.39 22.57 20.36 14.36 Maximum 112.00 23.00 27.20 22.80 15.70 Median 112.00 18.50 23.305 20.89 15.10 Mean 112.00 19.597 24.095 21.235 15.065 SD . 2.27 2.105 1.131 0.580 CV 1.00 0.116 0.087 0.053 0.038

Humerus HUM1 HUM2 HUM3 HUM4 HUM5 N of Cases 4 3 3 3 2 Minimum 126.00 122.00 32.00 8.95 25.28 Maximum 155.00 139.00 37.60 11.60 25.67 Median 136.50 127.00 32.25 9.00 25.475 Mean 138.50 129.33 33.95 9.85 25.475 SD 12.871 8.737 3.163 1.516 0.276 CV 0.093 0.068 0.093 0.154 0.011

Radius RAD1 RAD2 RAD3 RAD4 N of Cases 4 2 3 3 Minimum 128.00 13.36 8.77 18.56 Maximum 152.00 14.70 11.70 21.60 Median 134.00 13.765 9.00 18.78 Mean 137.00 13.765 9.823 19.647 SD 11.489 0.573 1.629 1.695 CV 0.089 0.042 0.166 0.086

175

Woodland Males (continued)

Ulna ULNA1 ULNA2 ULNA3 ULNA4 N of Cases 1 2 2 2 Minimum 180.00 18.45 16.30 14.17 Maximum 180.00 21.80 17.90 14.90 Median 180.00 20.125 17.10 14.535 Mean 180.00 20.125 17.10 14.535 SD . 2.369 1.131 0.516 CV 1.00 0.118 0.066 0.036

Femur FEMUR1 FEMUR2 FEMUR3 FEMUR4 FEMUR5 N of Cases 1 5 2 3 2 Minimum 137.00 137.00 29.80 13.90 10.40 Maximum 137.00 169.00 30.00 16.60 12.50 Median 137.00 140.00 29.90 14.57 11.45 Mean 137.00 147.20 29.90 15.023 11.45 SD . 13.59 0.141 1.406 1.485 CV 1.00 0.092 0.005 0.094 0.130

FEMUR7 N of Cases 2 Minimum 23.80 Maximum 25.00 Median 24.40 Mean 24.40 SD 0.849 CV 0.035

Tibia TIBIA1 TIBIA2 TIBIA3 TIBIA5 N of Cases 4 3 2 3 Minimum 137.00 26.30 9.36 16.80 Maximum 165.00 28.50 10.10 20.30 Median 149.50 27.39 9.73 17.00 Mean 150.25 27.397 9.73 18.033 SD 12.312 1.100 0.523 1.966 CV 0.082 0.040 0.054 0.109

176

Woodland Males (continued)

Metacarpals MC2 1 MC2 2 MC3 1 MC3 2 MC4 1 N of Cases 2 2 2 2 4 Minimum 44.27 7.19 50.40 6.70 48.40 Maximum 45.40 7.20 51.30 6.76 56.20 Median 44.835 7.195 50.85 6.73 50.35 Mean 44.835 7.195 50.85 6.73 51.325 SD 0.799 0.007 0.636 0.042 3.39 CV 0.018 0.001 0.013 0.006 0.066

MC4 2 MC5 1 MC5 2 N of Cases 4 4 4 Minimum 6.65 40.80 7.10 Maximum 7.90 47.40 8.90 Median 6.815 42.50 7.635 Mean 7.045 43.30 7.817 SD 0.586 2.853 0.812 CV 0.083 0.066 0.104

Metatarsals MT2 1 MT2 2 MT3 1 MT3 2 MT4 1 N of Cases 4 4 4 4 4 Minimum 48.40 6.70 55.38 6.80 56.60 Maximum 54.20 7.40 63.50 7.70 62.00 Median 49.895 6.925 56.95 6.98 58.585 Mean 50.598 6.987 58.195 7.115 58.942 SD 2.607 0.301 3.632 0.399 2.318 CV 0.052 0.043 0.062 0.056 0.039

MT4 2 MT5 1 MT5 2 N of Cases 4 3 3 Minimum 6.78 50.30 6.00 Maximum 7.90 54.20 7.80 Median 6.795 52.16 6.44 Mean 7.067 52.22 6.747 SD 0.555 1.951 0.938 CV 0.079 0.037 0.139

Calcaneus and Astragulus CAL1 CAL2 AST1 N of Cases 4 4 4 Minimum 34.49 13.40 19.70 Maximum 39.80 17.10 23.80 Median 35.12 14.015 20.30 Mean 36.132 14.633 21.03 SD 2.494 1.681 1.872 CV 0.069 0.115 0.089

177

Mississippian Males

Scapula SCP1 SCP2 SCP3 SCP4 SCP5 N of Cases 3 9 9 9 9 Minimum 96.50 17.00 21.29 19.00 13.20 Maximum 104.00 23.90 28.20 24.30 17.40 Median 99.30 19.50 23.70 20.50 14.90 Mean 99.933 19.907 24.054 20.976 15.003 SD 3.79 1.969 1.986 1.685 1.149 CV 0.038 0.099 0.083 0.080 0.077

Humerus HUM1 HUM2 HUM3 HUM4 HUM5 N of Cases 7 8 8 12 12 Minimum 117.00 114.00 29.56 8.56 22.18 Maximum 144.00 141.00 39.60 12.80 31.40 Median 128.00 125.50 33.80 10.30 25.83 Mean 129.00 127.50 33.881 10.392 26.085 SD 10.165 10.337 2.772 1.083 2.136 CV 0.079 0.081 0.082 0.104 0.082

Radius RAD1 RAD2 RAD3 RAD4 N of Cases 11 11 11 11 Minimum 118.00 12.30 8.32 15.58 Maximum 148.00 16.90 12.10 23.10 Median 128.00 14.60 10.10 19.80 Mean 130.545 14.545 10.229 19.531 SD 9.491 1.161 1.100 1.978 CV 0.073 0.080 1.108 0.101

Ulna ULNA1 ULNA2 ULNA3 ULNA4 N of Cases 7 11 11 11 Minimum 140.00 17.29 14.00 11.87 Maximum 173.00 24.00 20.00 16.70 Median 161.00 20.35 17.50 13.80 Mean 157.629 20.076 17.245 14.079 SD 13.949 1.975 1.528 1.352 CV 0.088 0.098 0.089 0.096

178

Mississippian Males (continued)

Femur

FEMUR1 FEMUR2 FEMUR3 FEMUR4 FEMUR5 N of Cases 10 8 9 8 10 Minimum 126.00 129.00 30.10 13.90 9.25 Maximum 153.00 156.00 36.90 17.00 12.30 Median 135.00 139.50 31.40 14.545 11.165 Mean 137.00 140.75 31.798 14.836 11.028 SD 8.731 8.908 2.032 0.977 0.806 CV 0.064 0.063 0.064 0.066 0.073

FEMUR7 N of Cases 12 Minimum 21.80 Maximum 29.00 Median 25.94 Mean 26.032 SD 1.952 CV 0.075

Tibia TIBIA1 TIBIA2 TIBIA3 TIBIA5 N of Cases 11 11 10 11 Minimum 129.00 23.28 8.85 15.60 Maximum 160.00 32.30 13.30 22.50 Median 140.00 27.50 10.55 18.39 Mean 142.364 27.585 10.729 18.581 SD 10.092 2.190 1.136 1.729 CV 0.071 0.079 0.106 0.093

Metacarpals MC2 1 MC2 2 MC3 1 MC3 2 MC4 1 N of Cases 7 7 7 7 8 Minimum 39.20 6.80 46.40 6.60 46.10 Maximum 50.50 8.66 58.10 8.30 58.00 Median 44.20 7.38 51.50 7.00 51.85 Mean 44.909 7.63 52.086 7.286 51.825 SD 3.710 0.708 3.713 0.679 3.508 CV 0.083 0.093 0.071 0.093 0.068

MC4 2 MC5 1 MC5 2 N of Cases 8 9 9 Minimum 6.30 38.60 7.40 Maximum 8.18 49.47 9.60 Median 6.64 43.00 7.60 Mean 6.958 43.219 8.006 SD 0.693 3.069 0.772 CV 0.100 0.071 0.096

179

Mississppian Males (continued)

Metatarsals MT2 1 MT2 2 MT3 1 MT3 2 MT4 1 N of Cases 8 8 7 7 7 Minimum 44.80 6.30 51.00 6.70 47.70 Maximum 55.77 7.80 64.86 9.00 66.20 Median 51.05 6.70 58.30 7.00 60.20 Mean 50.94 6.863 57.58 7.243 58.514 SD 3.563 0.540 4.352 0.793 5.743 CV 0.070 0.079 0.076 0.110 0.098

MT4 2 MT5 1 MT5 2 N of Cases 7 9 9 Minimum 6.70 46.40 5.90 Maximum 7.80 59.30 7.97 Median 6.90 52.70 6.30 Mean 7.027 52.211 6.619 SD 0.364 4.093 0.734 CV 0.052 0.078 0.111

Calcaneus and Astragulus CAL1 CAL2 AST1 N of Cases 9 9 9 Minimum 34.70 13.50 21.00 Maximum 40.19 17.30 23.79 Median 36.30 14.40 21.60 Mean 37.021 14.666 22.08 SD 1.848 1.178 0.996 CV 0.050 0.080 0.045

180

Female Archaic

Scapula SCP1 SCP2 SCP3 SCP4 SCP5 N of Cases 7 9 16 16 16 Minimum 88.00 15.00 19.30 17.40 12.80 Maximum 108.02 18.59 25.80 22.40 15.34 Median 91.50 17.00 23.15 20.25 14.135 Mean 95.331 16.887 22.457 19.868 14.084 SD 7.590 1.280 1.663 1.383 0.858 CV 0.080 0.076 0.074 0.070 0.061

Humerus HUM1 HUM2 HUM3 HUM4 HUM5 N of Cases 18 17 18 17 17 Minimum 110.00 107.00 25.46 8.20 22.50 Maximum 135.99 127.00 35.40 9.85 27.60 Median 123.00 117.00 32.35 8.80 24.60 Mean 121.333 116.718 31.686 8.855 24.82 SD 7.403 6.368 2.518 0.526 1.545 CV 0.061 0.055 0.079 0.059 0.062

Radius RAD1 RAD2 RAD3 RAD4 N of Cases 15 13 15 14 Minimum 108.00 12.40 7.90 16.80 Maximum 133.00 14.70 9.30 20.26 Median 119.00 13.78 8.50 18.59 Mean 119.925 13.595 8.495 18.516 SD 8.063 0.820 0.427 0.983 CV 0.067 0.060 0.050 0.053

Ulna ULNA1 ULNA2 ULNA3 ULNA4 N of Cases 21 16 17 17 Minimum 121.00 16.00 14.40 11.70 Maximum 158.00 20.39 17.88 14.40 Median 140.00 19.00 16.24 13.29 Mean 138.548 18.699 16.249 13.151 SD 11.234 1.469 1.112 0.892 CV 0.081 0.079 0.068 0.068

181

Female Archaic (continued)

Femur FEMUR1 FEMUR2 FEMUR3 FEMUR4 FEMUR5 N of Cases 13 26 13 16 15 Minimum 114.00 104.50 27.50 12.70 9.20 Maximum 141.00 146.59 31.70 15.50 10.40 Median 127.00 129.50 29.70 14.30 9.70 Mean 127.077 129.223 29.519 14.371 9.693 SD 7.708 9.070 1.110 0.866 0.346 CV 0.061 0.070 0.038 0.060 0.036

FEMUR7 N of Cases 14 Minimum 23.00 Maximum 27.90 Median 24.95 Mean 25.054 SD 1.305 CV 0.052

Tibia TIBIA1 TIBIA2 TIBIA3 TIBIA5 N of Cases 18 15 16 15 Minimum 120.00 24.66 8.20 10.35 Maximum 148.13 28.70 10.30 19.47 Median 130.70 26.96 9.385 17.50 Mean 132.085 26.708 9.376 17.039 SD 8.21 1.231 0.564 2.094 CV 0.062 0.046 0.060 0.123

Metacarpals MC2 1 MC2 2 MC3 1 MC3 2 MC4 1 N of Cases 13 13 13 13 14 Minimum 38.95 6.40 45.70 6.24 45.36 Maximum 46.30 8.00 53.70 7.30 52.90 Median 42.40 7.20 48.80 6.89 48.455 Mean 42.573 7.178 49.006 6.798 48.546 SD 2.657 0.485 2.671 0.329 2.499 CV 0.062 0.068 0.055 0.048 0.051

MC4 2 MC5 1 MC5 2 N of Cases 14 12 12 Minimum 6.00 36.90 6.70 Maximum 7.20 45.70 8.00 Median 6.64 40.20 7.325 Mean 6.579 40.646 7.335 SD 0.348 2.582 0.422 CV 0.053 0.064 0.058

182

Female Archaic (continued)

Metatarsals MT2 1 MT2 2 MT3 1 MT3 2 MT4 1 N of Cases 12 12 10 10 14 Minimum 40.40 6.00 46.90 6.27 47.00 Maximum 51.90 7.50 58.60 7.58 62.60 Median 47.70 6.785 53.68 6.915 55.595 Mean 47.466 6.768 53.406 6.984 55.763 SD 3.407 0.403 3.643 0.420 4.480 CV 0.072 0.060 0.068 0.060 0.080

MT4 2 MT5 1 MT5 2 N of Cases 14 11 11 Minimum 6.10 45.40 5.80 Maximum 7.27 54.40 7.14 Median 6.745 49.60 6.30 Mean 6.768 49.724 6.302 SD 0.324 2.921 0.403 CV 0.048 0.059 0.064

Calcaneus and Astragulus CAL1 CAL2 AST1 N of Cases 14 14 13 Minimum 32.30 13.39 19.00 Maximum 38.90 15.30 23.86 Median 35.80 13.675 21.90 Mean 35.481 13.886 21.57 SD 2.040 0.533 1.336 CV 0.057 0.038 0.062

Woodland Females

Scapula SCP1 SCP2 SCP3 SCP4 SCP5 N of Cases 0 3 2 2 3 Minimum . 15.60 24.30 21.30 11.90 Maximum . 24.00 24.97 21.70 15.00 Median . 21.50 24.635 21.50 15.00 Mean . 20.367 24.635 21.50 13.967 SD . 4.313 0.474 0.283 1.79 CV . 0.212 0.019 0.013 0.128

183

Woodland Females (continued)

Humerus HUM1 HUM2 HUM3 HUM4 HUM5 N of Cases 2 3 2 3 3 Minimum 129.00 87.20 33.48 8.90 22.00 Maximum 134.00 130.00 33.50 11.90 26.80 Median 131.50 124.00 33.49 10.40 26.70 Mean 131.50 113.733 33.49 10.40 25.167 SD 3.536 23.174 0.014 1.50 2.743 CV 0.027 0.204 0.000 0.144 0.109

Radius RAD1 RAD2 RAD3 RAD4 N of Cases 4 3 3 3 Minimum 83.40 11.80 8.50 15.20 Maximum 134.00 14.89 11.50 19.70 Median 124.00 14.40 9.90 18.80 Mean 116.35 13.697 9.967 17.90 SD 22.467 1.661 1.501 2.381 CV 0.193 0.121 0.151 0.133

Ulna ULNA1 ULNA2 ULNA3 ULNA4 N of Cases 2 2 2 3 Minimum 100.70 16.70 14.40 11.10 Maximum 149.20 22.00 18.85 14.46 Median 124.95 19.35 16.625 14.30 Mean 124.95 19.35 16.635 12.287 SD 34.295 3.748 3.174 1.895 CV 0.274 0.194 0.189 0.143

184

Woodland Females (continued)

Femur FEMUR1 FEMUR2 FEMUR3 FEMUR4 FEMUR5 N of Cases 1 2 1 3 3 Minimum 134.00 135.00 31.10 11.10 8.30 Maximum 134.00 140.00 31.10 16.00 11.40 Median 134.00 137.50 31.10 15.80 11.20 Mean 134.00 137.50 31.10 14.30 10.30 SD . 3.536 . 2.773 1.735 CV 1.00 0.026 1.00 0.194 0.168

FEMUR7 N of Cases 2 Minimum 26.20 Maximum 29.50 Median 27.85 Mean 27.85 SD 2.333 CV 0.084

Tibia TIBIA1 TIBIA2 TIBIA3 TIBIA5 N of Cases 3 2 2 3 Minimum 135.50 27.30 10.60 14.50 Maximum 147.00 27.65 11.47 19.90 Median 146.00 27.475 11.035 18.30 Mean 142.833 27.475 11.035 17.567 SD 6.371 0.247 0.615 2.774 CV 0.045 0.009 0.056 0.158

Metacarpals MC2 1 MC2 2 MC3 1 MC3 2 MC4 1 N of Cases 2 2 2 2 2 Minimum 45.40 7.80 40.30 6.00 50.49 Maximum 47.70 8.38 54.50 7.10 54.20 Median 46.55 8.09 47.40 6.55 52.345 Mean 46.55 8.09 47.40 6.55 52.345 SD 1.626 0.41 10.041 0.778 2.623 CV 0.035 0.051 0.212 0.119 0.050

MC4 2 MC5 1 MC5 2 N of Cases 2 3 3 Minimum 7.10 33.80 6.60 Maximum 7.77 45.10 8.25 Median 7.435 43.00 8.20 Mean 7.435 40.633 7.683 SD 0.474 6.010 0.939 CV 0.064 0.148 0.122

185

Woodland Females (continued)

Metatarsals MT2 1 MT2 2 MT3 1 MT3 2 MT4 1 N of Cases 1 1 1 1 2 Minimum 37.40 5.80 60.10 7.10 43.70 Maximum 37.40 5.80 60.10 7.10 61.90 Median 37.40 5.80 60.10 7.10 52.80 Mean 37.40 5.80 60.10 7.10 52.80 SD . . . . 12.869 CV 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.244

MT4 2 MT5 1 MT5 2 N of Cases 2 0 0 Minimum 5.80 . . Maximum 7.00 . . Median 6.40 . . Mean 6.40 . . SD 0.849 . . CV 0.133 . .

Calcaneus and Astragulus CAL1 CAL2 AST1 N of Cases 3 3 2 Minimum 27.90 12.20 21.00 Maximum 38.00 15.56 22.38 Median 36.10 15.50 21.69 Mean 34.00 14.42 21.69 SD 5.367 1.923 0.976 CV 0.158 0.133 0.045

186

Mississippian Females

Scapula SCP1 SCP2 SCP3 SCP4 SCP5 N of Cases 1 2 2 2 2 Minimum 88.70 16.30 20.60 18.70 12.50 Maximum 88.70 18.00 22.51 19.57 14.06 Median 88.70 17.15 21.56 19.135 13.28 Mean 88.70 17.15 21.56 19.135 13.28 SD . 1.202 1.351 0.615 1.103 CV 1.00 0.070 0.063 0.032 0.083

Humerus HUM1 HUM2 HUM3 HUM4 HUM5 N of Cases 2 2 2 2 2 Minimum 110.60 105.80 29.00 8.00 22.60 Maximum 120.00 117.00 31.84 9.44 24.60 Median 115.30 111.40 30.42 8.72 23.60 Mean 115.30 111.40 30.42 8.72 23.60 SD 6.647 7.920 2.008 1.018 1.414 CV 0.058 0.071 0.066 0.117 0.060

Radius RAD1 RAD2 RAD3 RAD4 N of Cases 2 1 2 2 Minimum 110.50 12.70 7.70 16.90 Maximum 117.00 12.70 9.33 17.98 Median 113.75 12.70 8.515 17.44 Mean 113.75 12.70 8.515 17.44 SD 4.596 . 1.15 0.764 CV 0.040 1.000 0.135 0.044

Ulna ULNA1 ULNA2 ULNA3 ULNA4 N of Cases 2 2 2 1 Minimum 132.00 17.40 15.20 12.80 Maximum 139.00 18.72 15.96 12.80 Median 135.50 18.06 15.58 12.80 Mean 135.50 18.06 15.58 12.80 SD 4.950 0.933 0.537 . CV 0.037 0.052 0.034 1.000

187

Mississippian Females (continued)

Femur FEMUR1 FEMUR2 FEMUR3 FEMUR4 FEMUR5 N of Cases 1 2 2 2 2 Minimum 128.00 120.00 27.80 13.50 8.90 Maximum 128.00 130.00 28.42 13.68 10.46 Median 128.00 125.00 28.11 13.59 9.68 Mean 128.00 125.00 28.11 13.59 9.68 SD . 7.071 0.438 0.127 1.103 CV 1.000 0.057 0.016 0.009 0.114

FEMUR7 N of Cases 1 Minimum 23.78 Maximum 23.78 Median 23.78 Mean 23.78 SD . CV 1.00

Tibia TIBIA1 TIBIA2 TIBIA3 TIBIA5 N of Cases 2 2 2 2 Minimum 124.00 25.00 8.60 16.60 Maximum 135.00 26.72 9.54 17.76 Median 129.50 25.86 9.07 17.18 Mean 129.50 25.86 9.07 17.18 SD 7.778 1.216 0.665 0.820 CV 0.060 0.047 0.073 0.040

Metacarpals MC2 1 MC2 2 MC3 1 MC3 2 MC4 1 N of Cases 2 2 2 2 2 Minimum 38.30 6.10 45.50 6.00 44.90 Maximum 39.80 6.86 47.60 6.71 47.56 Median 39.05 6.48 46.55 6.355 46.23 Mean 39.05 6.48 46.55 6.355 46.23 SD 1.061 0.537 1.485 0.502 1.881 CV 0.027 0.083 0.032 0.079 0.041

MC4 2 MC5 1 MC5 2 N of Cases 2 2 2 Minimum 6.00 35.40 6.20 Maximum 6.55 39.59 7.13 Median 6.275 37.495 6.665 Mean 6.275 37.495 6.665 SD 0.389 2.963 0.658 CV 0.062 0.079 0.099

188

Mississippian Females (continued)

Metatarsals MT2 1 MT2 2 MT3 1 MT3 2 MT4 1 N of Cases 2 2 2 2 2 Minimum 43.00 5.50 50.00 5.90 51.60 Maximum 44.49 6.11 52.34 6.62 54.86 Median 43.745 5.805 51.17 6.26 53.23 Mean 43.745 5.805 51.17 6.26 53.23 SD 1.054 0.431 1.655 0.509 2.305 CV 0.024 0.074 0.032 0.081 0.043

MT4 2 MT5 1 MT5 2 N of Cases 2 2 2 Minimum 5.70 43.10 5.10 Maximum 6.67 49.82 5.73 Median 6.185 46.46 5.415 Mean 6.185 46.46 5.415 SD 0.686 4.752 0.445 CV 0.111 0.102 0.082

Calcaneus and Astragulus CAL1 CAL2 AST1 N of Cases 2 2 2 Minimum 32.50 12.81 19.60 Maximum 33.65 13.10 20.63 Median 33.075 12.955 20.12 Mean 33.075 12.955 20.12 SD 0.813 0.205 0.728 CV 0.025 0.016 0.036

189 APPENDIX H

UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS BY SEX AND CULTURAL AFFILIATION FOR PREHISTORIC SOUTHEASTERN DOGS (Crania and Dentary)

Archaic Male

CRN1 CRN2 CRN3 CRN4 CRN5 N of cases 37 36 34 16 10 Minimum 141.00 132.50 126.00 35.900 76.160 Maximum 185.00 167.00 160.00 43.520 112.90 Median 164.00 152.75 145.00 41.025 103.43 Mean 162.67 152.40 144.60 40.777 100.24 Standard Dev 9.708 8.668 8.511 1.986 11.245 C.V. 0.060 0.057 0.059 0.049 0.112

CRN6 CRN7 CRN8 CRN9 CRN10 N of cases 16 18 12 12 6 Minimum 79.000 71.730 71.000 82.960 53.300 Maximum 96.000 93.000 84.100 93.250 63.980 Median 88.000 81.195 74.325 88.580 56.135 Mean 87.500 81.371 75.911 88.939 57.475 Standard Dev 4.427 5.501 4.721 3.601 4.777 C.V. 0.051 0.068 0.062 0.040 0.083

CRN11 CRN13 CRN13A CRN14 CRN14A N of cases 6 32 6 16 8 Minimum 62.200 62.200 74.780 23.000 24.160 Maximum 71.180 86.000 82.400 29.490 28.250 Median 65.935 79.300 78.075 27.530 26.485 Mean 66.108 78.917 78.183 27.140 26.474 Standard Dev 3.239 4.943 2.751 2.068 1.282 C.V. 0.049 0.063 0.035 0.076 0.048

CRN15 CRN15A CRN16 CRN17 CRN18 N of cases 44 43 57 25 61 Minimum 51.000 60.900 13.650 39.440 14.480 Maximum 62.670 76.160 23.000 48.400 19.000 Median 57.590 69.600 16.000 43.300 16.900 Mean 57.397 69.490 16.119 43.405 16.758 Standard Dev 2.588 3.226 1.413 1.982 0.967 C.V. 0.045 0.046 0.088 0.046 0.058

190

Archaic Males (continued)

CRN18A CRN19 CRN20 CRN20A CRN21 N of cases 35 35 31 30 25 Minimum 6.900 13.700 10.180 10.300 5.160 Maximum 10.470 19.590 12.500 15.520 7.150 Median 9.000 15.600 11.580 13.500 6.360 Mean 8.952 15.799 11.505 13.325 6.271 Standard Dev 0.752 1.143 0.571 0.975 0.521 C.V. 0.084 0.072 0.050 0.073 0.083

CRN21A CRN22 CRN23 CRN24 CRN25 N of cases 25 26 38 17 43 Minimum 7.250 18.800 50.800 50.890 29.400 Maximum 9.180 23.810 63.400 58.900 35.600 Median 8.400 21.630 57.950 56.000 32.600 Mean 8.320 21.428 57.392 55.665 32.656 Standard Dev 0.606 1.415 3.262 2.119 1.520 C.V. 0.073 0.066 0.057 0.038 0.047

CRN26 CRN27 CRN28 CRN29 CRN30 N of cases 2 22 19 41 21 Minimum 41.780 16.300 11.420 48.700 78.700 Maximum 44.050 19.360 14.800 58.000 107.20 Median 42.915 17.185 12.790 52.600 92.000 Mean 42.915 17.425 13.125 52.591 91.407 Standard Dev 1.605 0.942 0.988 2.471 5.680 C.V. 0.037 0.054 0.075 0.047 0.062

CRN31 CRN32 CRN33 CRN34 CRN35 N of cases 41 37 43 43 14 Minimum 26.600 36.200 26.200 50.000 24.700 Maximum 38.000 53.200 36.600 63.000 33.190 Median 32.400 43.600 31.400 56.560 29.390 Mean 32.048 43.711 31.241 56.260 28.964 Standard Dev 2.209 3.744 2.616 2.885 2.446 C.V. 0.069 0.086 0.084 0.051 0.084

CRN36 CRN37 CRN38 CRN39 CRN40 N of cases 30 12 20 20 20 Minimum 27.400 23.600 45.670 42.800 30.800 Maximum 36.800 27.620 55.560 50.000 43.200 Median 31.150 25.425 50.650 46.695 40.300 Mean 31.485 25.347 50.526 46.286 39.575 Standard Dev 2.139 1.220 2.818 2.153 2.942 C.V. 0.068 0.048 0.056 0.047 0.074

191

Archaic Males (continued)

CRN41 CRN42 DNT1 DNT2 DNT3 N of cases 17 10 53 27 28 Minimum 32.000 78.000 100.50 102.00 106.00 Maximum 37.800 89.400 131.00 132.00 126.00 Median 34.200 86.175 116.00 117.00 112.00 Mean 34.141 85.502 116.47 117.33 113.00 Standard Dev 1.493 3.568 6.269 6.593 4.776 C.V. 0.044 0.042 0.054 0.056 0.042

DNT4 DNT5 DNT6 DNT7 DNT8 N of cases 32 31 27 32 41 Minimum 93.390 89.600 94.500 63.800 58.300 Maximum 115.60 110.00 116.00 75.260 70.900 Median 102.78 98.900 104.94 69.230 65.500 Mean 102.40 98.753 104.75 69.039 64.984 Standard Dev 5.042 4.752 4.901 2.762 3.047 C.V. 0.049 0.048 0.047 0.040 0.047

DNT9 DNT11 DNT12 DNT13 DNT13A N of cases 52 25 29 58 34 Minimum 51.140 31.100 26.500 16.790 6.450 Maximum 69.900 38.400 33.100 21.300 8.690 Median 60.700 34.690 30.400 19.000 7.700 Mean 60.842 34.546 30.089 18.978 7.631 Standard Dev 3.313 1.861 1.650 0.945 0.453 C.V. 0.054 0.054 0.055 0.050 0.059

DNT14 DNT15 DNT15A DNT16 DNT16A N of cases 34 29 29 8 8 Minimum 15.800 6.000 5.000 4.100 3.480 Maximum 18.900 8.700 7.800 5.200 5.000 Median 17.585 7.850 6.300 4.600 4.210 Mean 17.531 7.746 6.285 4.606 4.250 Standard Dev 0.788 0.638 0.563 0.437 0.477 C.V. 0.045 0.082 0.090 0.095 0.112

DNT17 DNT18 DNT19 DNT20 DNT21 N of cases 32 26 33 0 17 Minimum 9.000 40.000 18.370 . 30.300 Maximum 11.300 52.500 23.300 . 38.600 Median 9.870 46.850 20.200 . 33.000 Mean 9.870 46.664 20.246 . 32.906 Standard Dev 0.594 3.286 1.275 . 1.935 C.V. 0.060 0.070 0.063 . 0.059

192

Archaic Males (continued)

DNT22 N of cases 28 Minimum 24.000 Maximum 33.000 Median 26.000 Mean 26.857 Standard Dev 2.305 C.V. 0.086

Woodland Males

CRN1 CRN2 CRN3 CRN4 CRN5 N of cases 4 5 5 2 2 Minimum 144.00 136.00 130.00 37.000 92.100 Maximum 183.50 171.70 163.40 37.470 94.500 Median 158.00 152.00 144.00 37.235 93.300 Mean 160.87 151.54 144.48 37.235 93.300 Standard Dev 18.377 15.403 14.493 0.332 1.697 C.V. 0.114 0.102 0.100 0.009 0.018

CRN6 CRN7 CRN8 CRN9 CRN10 N of cases 4 3 6 6 3 Minimum 78.000 74.900 66.030 80.100 53.400 Maximum 96.000 83.800 76.300 93.800 59.700 Median 84.500 77.800 72.100 86.340 54.300 Mean 85.750 78.833 72.022 86.405 55.800 Standard Dev 8.342 4.539 3.564 4.670 3.407 C.V. 0.097 0.058 0.049 0.054 0.061

CRN11 CRN13 CRN13A CRN14 CRN14A N of cases 3 5 3 2 2 Minimum 57.300 71.500 70.300 24.000 22.250 Maximum 66.300 90.300 78.400 26.130 23.600 Median 63.390 75.000 72.400 25.065 22.925 Mean 62.330 78.280 73.700 25.065 22.925 Standard Dev 4.593 7.456 4.204 1.506 0.955 C.V. 0.074 0.095 0.057 0.060 0.042

CRN15 CRN15A CRN16 CRN17 CRN18 N of cases 7 8 9 5 10 Minimum 50.000 62.600 13.790 37.500 14.200 Maximum 62.300 74.000 19.000 44.200 17.400 Median 52.800 66.850 15.900 39.600 16.600 Mean 54.471 67.229 15.926 40.034 16.180 Standard Dev 4.486 4.312 1.587 2.719 1.146 C.V. 0.082 0.064 0.100 0.068 0.071

193

Woodland Males (continued)

CRN18A CRN19 CRN20 CRN20A CRN21 N of cases 5 7 7 6 5 Minimum 8.270 13.000 9.860 11.150 5.300 Maximum 9.600 16.000 11.500 15.200 6.360 Median 8.690 15.000 11.000 12.950 5.830 Mean 8.746 14.841 10.817 12.960 5.914 Standard Dev 0.525 1.029 0.663 1.327 0.427 C.V. 0.060 0.069 0.061 0.102 0.072

CRN21A CRN22 CRN23 CRN24 CRN25 N of cases 4 5 7 5 7 Minimum 7.650 18.900 51.200 50.100 28.150 Maximum 9.610 22.100 66.400 60.000 35.700 Median 9.145 20.700 55.700 53.900 31.400 Mean 8.887 20.576 57.114 54.100 32.084 Standard Dev 0.918 1.465 5.579 4.105 2.695 C.V. 0.103 0.071 0.098 0.076 0.084

CRN26 CRN27 CRN28 CRN29 CRN30 N of cases 4 5 5 7 2 Minimum 36.270 15.400 10.500 48.600 78.000 Maximum 48.700 17.900 14.200 57.300 83.000 Median 40.550 16.850 12.700 50.600 80.500 Mean 41.518 16.746 12.300 51.543 80.500 Standard Dev 5.204 0.997 1.495 3.026 3.536 C.V. 0.125 0.060 0.122 0.059 0.044

CRN31 CRN32 CRN33 CRN34 CRN35 N of cases 7 6 7 8 5 Minimum 30.300 41.300 29.000 50.800 27.200 Maximum 37.000 47.500 33.000 60.300 31.800 Median 31.300 44.240 32.000 54.985 29.900 Mean 32.513 44.295 31.459 55.209 29.280 Standard Dev 2.288 2.537 1.413 3.277 1.920 C.V. 0.070 0.057 0.045 0.059 0.066

CRN36 CRN37 CRN38 CRN39 CRN40 N of cases 6 6 3 4 3 Minimum 28.500 23.300 46.650 42.400 37.800 Maximum 38.300 26.800 58.500 54.000 44.500 Median 32.030 24.300 47.800 45.610 38.400 Mean 32.443 24.693 50.983 46.905 40.233 Standard Dev 3.479 1.476 6.535 5.205 3.707 C.V. 0.107 0.060 0.128 0.111 0.092

194

Woodland Males (continued)

CRN41 CRN42 DNT1 DNT2 DNT3 N of cases 2 3 11 7 8 Minimum 32.200 72.800 107.00 108.00 103.00 Maximum 33.200 93.400 131.30 122.00 117.50 Median 32.700 77.000 115.00 120.00 110.00 Mean 32.700 81.067 115.57 115.57 110.06 Standard Dev 0.707 10.885 7.444 6.503 6.062 C.V. 0.022 0.134 0.064 0.056 0.055

DNT4 DNT5 DNT6 DNT7 DNT8 N of cases 8 8 7 8 7 Minimum 92.900 89.590 94.600 62.400 58.500 Maximum 109.00 103.20 107.50 70.770 65.000 Median 100.05 95.980 105.36 66.140 62.000 Mean 100.12 95.987 101.81 66.591 61.543 Standard Dev 5.931 5.259 5.875 3.562 2.602 C.V. 0.059 0.055 0.058 0.053 0.042

DNT9 DNT11 DNT12 DNT13 DNT13A N of cases 11 5 9 11 8 Minimum 54.100 29.600 17.500 16.600 6.200 Maximum 68.000 35.300 32.300 19.800 7.800 Median 58.900 32.270 27.900 19.000 7.240 Mean 59.065 32.272 27.210 18.541 7.117 Standard Dev 4.368 2.034 4.295 1.016 0.538 C.V. 0.074 0.063 0.158 0.055 0.076

DNT14 DNT15 DNT15A DNT16 DNT16A N of cases 8 8 7 4 4 Minimum 14.800 6.700 5.000 3.840 3.560 Maximum 18.500 8.410 6.690 5.310 4.360 Median 16.850 7.485 5.870 4.300 3.900 Mean 16.677 7.485 5.883 4.437 3.930 Standard Dev 1.129 0.506 0.520 0.642 0.367 C.V. 0.068 0.068 0.088 0.145 0.093

DNT17 DNT18 DNT19 DNT20 DNT21 N of cases 8 8 8 0 1 Minimum 8.730 42.200 18.260 . 32.900 Maximum 11.800 53.300 20.460 . 32.900 Median 9.360 46.345 19.575 . 32.900 Mean 9.619 46.824 19.404 . 32.900 Standard Dev 1.005 3.382 0.810 . . C.V. 0.105 0.072 0.042 . 1.000

195

Woodland Males (continued)

DNT22 N of cases 8 Minimum 24.000 Maximum 30.000 Median 26.000 Mean 26.250 Standard Dev 1.832 C.V. 0.070

Mississippian Males

CRN1 CRN2 CRN3 CRN4 CRN5 N of cases 10 9 9 9 8 Minimum 151.00 139.00 138.00 39.400 93.500 Maximum 194.00 180.00 172.00 51.600 119.00 Median 164.50 157.00 148.00 41.900 106.93 Mean 166.30 156.11 149.61 42.888 106.29 Standard Dev 12.074 11.263 9.867 3.720 7.016 C.V. 0.073 0.072 0.066 0.087 0.066

CRN6 CRN7 CRN8 CRN9 CRN10 N of cases 9 11 9 10 8 Minimum 80.000 71.900 72.600 79.200 55.600 Maximum 106.00 95.300 87.300 102.00 65.400 Median 89.000 83.000 80.700 93.095 60.100 Mean 89.778 83.550 79.634 92.589 60.341 Standard Dev 7.102 7.161 5.100 6.891 3.477 C.V. 0.079 0.086 0.064 0.074 0.058

CRN11 CRN13 CRN13A CRN14 CRN14A N of cases 7 8 4 9 5 Minimum 48.900 71.500 72.500 22.700 21.900 Maximum 71.300 86.000 78.900 32.390 30.410 Median 66.300 78.080 74.250 28.800 25.700 Mean 64.143 78.527 74.975 27.688 25.682 Standard Dev 7.705 4.306 2.751 3.152 3.067 C.V. 0.120 0.055 0.037 0.114 0.119

CRN15 CRN15A CRN16 CRN17 CRN18 N of cases 14 14 15 13 16 Minimum 50.600 56.200 13.900 37.500 15.560 Maximum 63.100 77.500 19.400 45.950 19.200 Median 57.535 70.925 16.370 43.400 17.250 Mean 57.436 69.541 16.467 43.032 17.366 Standard Dev 3.630 5.733 1.523 2.609 1.092 C.V. 0.063 0.082 0.092 0.061 0.063

196

Mississippian Males (continued)

CRN18A CRN19 CRN20 CRN20A CRN21 N of cases 13 15 15 14 14 Minimum 7.600 13.900 10.400 12.700 5.300 Maximum 10.400 18.500 12.650 17.100 7.140 Median 8.800 15.800 11.700 13.850 6.445 Mean 9.028 16.013 11.695 14.229 6.371 Standard Dev 0.914 1.278 0.590 1.333 0.486 C.V. 0.101 0.080 0.050 0.094 0.076

CRN21A CRN22 CRN23 CRN24 CRN25 N of cases 14 11 8 9 10 Minimum 8.100 21.100 51.160 50.000 30.200 Maximum 10.700 25.600 67.700 67.400 36.000 Median 8.575 23.200 59.850 58.000 32.000 Mean 8.929 23.050 59.719 58.751 32.390 Standard Dev 0.879 1.216 4.680 4.875 1.649 C.V. 0.098 0.053 0.078 0.083 0.051

CRN26 CRN27 CRN28 CRN29 CRN30 N of cases 6 10 10 10 3 Minimum 40.000 15.900 11.100 45.560 88.000 Maximum 57.100 17.400 13.690 56.300 96.000 Median 46.000 16.850 12.450 51.050 90.000 Mean 47.300 16.740 12.415 51.331 91.333 Standard Dev 5.723 0.576 0.966 2.760 4.163 C.V. 0.121 0.034 0.078 0.054 0.046

CRN31 CRN32 CRN33 CRN34 CRN35 N of cases 11 9 9 12 12 Minimum 30.000 40.750 28.200 49.390 26.000 Maximum 38.600 55.200 39.400 67.900 36.800 Median 33.150 48.300 34.900 56.950 30.100 Mean 33.815 47.194 34.499 57.613 30.222 Standard Dev 2.691 4.218 3.411 4.422 2.931 C.V. 0.080 0.089 0.099 0.077 0.097

CRN36 CRN37 CRN38 CRN39 CRN40 N of cases 10 8 11 11 10 Minimum 29.400 23.700 45.700 41.000 36.670 Maximum 38.900 29.760 62.100 56.500 49.400 Median 32.850 25.585 53.800 48.900 42.350 Mean 32.848 26.404 53.204 48.596 42.274 Standard Dev 2.978 2.545 4.753 4.403 3.846 C.V. 0.091 0.096 0.089 0.091 0.091

197

Mississippian Males (continued)

CRN41 CRN42 DNT1 DNT2 DNT3 N of cases 3 9 13 11 12 Minimum 30.000 77.300 104.00 102.00 99.000 Maximum 35.200 111.20 126.00 124.00 119.00 Median 31.300 84.440 118.00 117.00 112.55 Mean 32.167 86.810 118.28 116.02 112.38 Standard Dev 2.706 9.947 6.115 6.763 5.972 C.V. 0.084 0.115 0.052 0.058 0.053

DNT4 DNT5 DNT6 DNT7 DNT8 N of cases 12 12 9 12 8 Minimum 95.600 89.800 93.600 62.900 59.500 Maximum 111.50 106.20 111.57 82.300 72.400 Median 105.60 100.00 103.00 70.260 64.550 Mean 104.53 99.511 102.69 70.072 64.913 Standard Dev 5.089 4.811 5.740 5.320 4.183 C.V. 0.049 0.048 0.056 0.076 0.064

DNT9 DNT11 DNT12 DNT13 DNT13A N of cases 13 8 14 16 15 Minimum 54.300 31.700 26.000 17.460 7.000 Maximum 66.400 38.700 48.700 21.600 9.900 Median 60.960 33.540 29.740 19.500 8.000 Mean 60.397 34.222 31.111 19.625 7.993 Standard Dev 3.760 2.465 5.527 1.183 0.728 C.V. 0.062 0.072 0.178 0.060 0.091

DNT14 DNT15 DNT15A DNT16 DNT16A N of cases 14 12 11 6 6 Minimum 15.780 6.600 5.600 3.700 3.800 Maximum 20.400 10.100 7.000 5.690 5.000 Median 17.600 7.860 6.700 4.700 4.225 Mean 17.984 7.948 6.418 4.682 4.342 Standard Dev 1.222 0.905 0.517 0.671 0.434 C.V. 0.068 0.114 0.081 0.143 0.100

DNT17 DNT18 DNT19 DNT20 DNT21 N of cases 14 9 15 0 5 Minimum 9.200 41.600 17.100 . 30.400 Maximum 14.500 50.500 26.300 . 34.800 Median 10.740 48.900 21.670 . 32.300 Mean 10.786 48.180 21.670 . 32.580 Standard Dev 1.332 2.727 2.202 . 1.973 C.V. 0.124 0.057 0.102 . 0.061

198

Mississippian Males (continued)

DNT22 N of cases 12 Minimum 25.000 Maximum 33.000 Median 27.500 Mean 28.250 Standard Dev 2.667 C.V. 0.094

Archaic Females

CRN1 CRN2 CRN3 CRN4 CRN5 N of cases 18 20 18 10 7 Minimum 132.00 124.50 118.80 35.700 86.830 Maximum 162.00 157.60 150.30 49.670 102.40 Median 150.00 142.50 135.50 37.840 96.500 Mean 148.44 141.20 133.95 39.028 95.110 Standard Dev 8.652 7.899 7.781 3.907 5.127 C.V. 0.058 0.056 0.058 0.100 0.054

CRN6 CRN7 CRN8 CRN9 CRN10 N of cases 7 9 7 6 4 Minimum 79.000 67.600 64.400 78.700 50.400 Maximum 86.000 83.900 74.450 89.360 57.000 Median 81.000 73.000 69.100 85.100 50.990 Mean 81.571 74.049 69.939 85.077 52.345 Standard Dev 2.573 4.830 3.359 4.075 3.134 C.V. 0.032 0.065 0.048 0.048 0.060

CRN11 CRN13 CRN13A CRN14 CRN14A N of cases 5 21 2 7 2 Minimum 61.000 65.800 68.430 24.000 23.420 Maximum 73.000 83.000 70.890 26.500 23.570 Median 61.700 74.200 69.660 25.500 23.495 Mean 64.280 74.042 69.660 25.376 23.495 Standard Dev 5.109 4.649 1.739 0.910 0.106 C.V. 0.079 0.063 0.025 0.036 0.005

CRN15 CRN15A CRN16 CRN17 CRN18 N of cases 24 22 28 13 31 Minimum 49.000 59.400 13.400 37.920 14.580 Maximum 59.400 68.800 18.800 46.900 17.900 Median 54.750 65.000 15.500 41.700 15.800 Mean 54.593 64.410 15.723 41.810 16.086 Standard Dev 2.494 2.850 1.467 2.745 1.053 C.V. 0.046 0.044 0.093 0.066 0.065

199

Archaic Females (continued)

CRN18A CRN19 CRN20 CRN20A CRN21 N of cases 16 16 16 15 12 Minimum 7.650 12.910 9.700 11.900 5.650 Maximum 10.300 16.700 11.900 14.300 9.000 Median 8.400 14.725 11.140 12.890 6.005 Mean 8.553 14.881 10.939 12.915 6.305 Standard Dev 0.764 1.209 0.667 0.869 0.896 C.V. 0.089 0.081 0.061 0.067 0.142

CRN21A CRN22 CRN23 CRN24 CRN25 N of cases 12 13 21 11 21 Minimum 5.900 18.800 48.000 49.580 28.000 Maximum 8.500 22.870 57.500 54.000 35.900 Median 8.000 20.600 53.700 53.300 31.000 Mean 7.850 20.631 53.256 52.460 30.889 Standard Dev 0.710 1.275 2.461 1.668 1.679 C.V. 0.090 0.062 0.046 0.032 0.054

CRN26 CRN27 CRN28 CRN29 CRN30 N of cases 2 10 9 26 16 Minimum 41.700 14.740 11.300 46.200 70.500 Maximum 41.810 18.400 14.800 56.000 90.000 Median 41.755 16.790 12.540 50.000 81.000 Mean 41.755 16.750 12.739 50.507 81.949 Standard Dev 0.078 0.986 1.185 2.379 5.296 C.V. 0.002 0.059 0.093 0.047 0.065

CRN31 CRN32 CRN33 CRN34 CRN35 N of cases 23 19 18 20 8 Minimum 29.000 33.700 23.800 47.000 24.540 Maximum 36.000 45.000 33.000 57.400 32.600 Median 31.600 38.780 27.150 52.350 28.400 Mean 31.566 39.192 27.932 52.359 28.249 Standard Dev 1.791 2.752 2.168 2.717 2.429 C.V. 0.057 0.070 0.078 0.052 0.086

CRN36 CRN37 CRN38 CRN39 CRN40 N of cases 15 6 9 9 8 Minimum 25.200 24.200 44.000 40.530 35.600 Maximum 31.000 26.650 48.600 46.400 39.300 Median 29.500 25.250 45.700 43.600 36.540 Mean 28.913 25.292 46.063 44.000 37.123 Standard Dev 1.889 0.945 1.414 2.000 1.379 C.V. 0.065 0.037 0.031 0.045 0.037

200

Archaic Females (continued)

CRN41 CRN42 DNT1 DNT2 DNT3 N of cases 7 6 22 10 10 Minimum 29.500 72.900 95.000 102.00 98.000 Maximum 35.500 80.870 125.10 119.00 113.00 Median 31.400 77.650 110.00 110.00 106.00 Mean 32.043 76.730 108.75 111.90 106.60 Standard Dev 2.282 3.139 7.345 4.999 4.033 C.V. 0.071 0.041 0.068 0.045 0.038

DNT4 DNT5 DNT6 DNT7 DNT8 N of cases 16 16 14 17 25 Minimum 88.460 84.800 90.390 60.200 55.600 Maximum 101.90 98.100 103.70 76.120 68.400 Median 96.300 92.850 97.850 66.970 62.100 Mean 95.304 92.024 97.204 66.879 61.855 Standard Dev 4.271 4.133 4.261 4.096 3.078 C.V. 0.045 0.045 0.044 0.061 0.050

DNT9 DNT11 DNT12 DNT13 DNT13A N of cases 29 14 16 31 17 Minimum 52.000 30.150 25.560 16.690 6.600 Maximum 63.900 35.600 31.200 21.000 8.400 Median 58.000 33.150 28.650 18.000 7.200 Mean 57.891 32.854 28.506 18.289 7.278 Standard Dev 2.791 1.698 1.573 1.104 0.482 C.V. 0.048 0.052 0.055 0.060 0.066

DNT14 DNT15 DNT15A DNT16 DNT16A N of cases 18 17 17 4 4 Minimum 14.600 7.100 5.550 4.000 3.500 Maximum 19.300 8.000 7.300 4.800 4.300 Median 16.440 7.400 5.950 4.200 3.700 Mean 16.761 7.465 6.076 4.300 3.800 Standard Dev 1.193 0.262 0.423 0.383 0.356 C.V. 0.071 0.035 0.070 0.089 0.094

DNT17 DNT18 DNT19 DNT20 DNT21 N of cases 18 17 18 0 7 Minimum 8.000 38.700 16.600 . 27.000 Maximum 9.970 46.900 20.900 . 31.100 Median 9.000 44.000 18.715 . 29.900 Mean 9.018 43.399 18.671 . 29.543 Standard Dev 0.431 2.628 1.217 . 1.364 C.V. 0.048 0.061 0.065 . 0.046

201

Archaic Females (continued)

DNT22 N of cases 10 Minimum 24.000 Maximum 27.000 Median 25.000 Mean 25.000 Standard Dev 1.054 C.V. 0.042

Woodland Females

CRN1 CRN2 CRN3 CRN4 CRN5 N of cases 4 4 4 4 4 Minimum 123.00 116.00 104.00 31.300 77.200 Maximum 147.00 140.00 134.00 40.650 95.000 Median 144.50 136.00 129.50 36.990 91.000 Mean 139.75 132.00 124.25 36.483 88.550 Standard Dev 11.236 11.106 13.817 3.894 7.800 C.V. 0.080 0.084 0.111 0.107 0.088

CRN6 CRN7 CRN8 CRN9 CRN10 N of cases 4 4 4 4 3 Minimum 70.000 65.000 54.500 67.000 27.500 Maximum 84.000 74.400 71.900 84.300 52.750 Median 79.500 72.535 69.450 81.150 50.400 Mean 78.250 71.118 66.325 78.400 43.550 Standard Dev 6.238 4.176 8.033 7.874 13.949 C.V. 0.080 0.059 0.121 0.100 0.320

CRN11 CRN13 CRN13A CRN14 CRN14A N of cases 4 4 4 4 4 Minimum 41.000 58.800 56.500 17.100 14.600 Maximum 58.000 73.600 72.400 26.600 25.560 Median 49.700 70.825 69.800 23.450 22.070 Mean 49.600 68.513 67.125 22.650 21.075 Standard Dev 7.637 6.730 7.255 4.159 4.881 C.V. 0.154 0.098 0.108 0.184 0.232

202 CRN15 CRN15A CRN16 CRN17 CRN18 N of cases 4 4 5 4 5 Minimum 40.800 53.300 13.600 29.160 15.000 Maximum 51.900 62.400 18.600 39.380 17.200 Median 46.650 57.050 14.900 35.425 16.000 Mean 46.500 57.450 15.660 34.848 15.916 Standard Dev 5.296 4.685 1.942 4.666 0.835 C.V. 0.114 0.082 0.124 0.134 0.052

Woodland Females (continued)

CRN18A CRN19 CRN20 CRN20A CRN21 N of cases 5 5 5 5 5 Minimum 7.570 13.600 9.700 11.800 5.400 Maximum 8.620 15.600 11.400 15.100 6.500 Median 8.300 14.200 10.860 12.500 5.800 Mean 8.230 14.378 10.774 12.860 5.920 Standard Dev 0.402 0.756 0.661 1.297 0.409 C.V. 0.049 0.053 0.061 0.101 0.069

CRN21A CRN22 CRN23 CRN24 CRN25 N of cases 5 5 4 4 6 Minimum 7.300 18.500 47.000 47.400 26.100 Maximum 9.600 21.900 53.300 55.700 32.100 Median 8.200 19.400 50.370 48.565 29.200 Mean 8.320 19.570 50.260 50.058 29.128 Standard Dev 0.858 1.375 2.671 3.816 2.057 C.V. 0.103 0.070 0.053 0.076 0.071

CRN26 CRN27 CRN28 CRN29 CRN30 N of cases 3 5 5 5 1 Minimum 36.400 14.300 11.450 45.700 78.500 Maximum 42.000 16.000 16.100 50.600 78.500 Median 36.500 14.400 13.250 49.600 78.500 Mean 38.300 14.960 13.686 49.000 78.500 Standard Dev 3.205 0.862 1.731 1.938 . C.V. 0.084 0.058 0.126 0.040 1.000

CRN31 CRN32 CRN33 CRN34 CRN35 N of cases 5 3 4 4 4 Minimum 25.600 36.000 24.370 49.200 24.250 Maximum 39.000 40.260 32.280 64.890 34.900 Median 32.580 39.600 26.700 50.950 26.150 Mean 32.856 38.620 27.512 53.998 27.862 Standard Dev 5.502 2.293 3.670 7.308 4.806 C.V. 0.167 0.059 0.133 0.135 0.172

203 CRN36 CRN37 CRN38 CRN39 CRN40 N of cases 4 4 5 5 5 Minimum 25.500 24.250 42.000 40.200 35.260 Maximum 36.000 29.400 50.100 50.000 37.700 Median 28.000 24.835 45.200 43.200 36.000 Mean 29.375 25.830 45.500 44.000 36.210 Standard Dev 4.630 2.414 2.977 3.663 1.010 C.V. 0.158 0.093 0.065 0.083 0.028

Woodland Females (continued)

CRN41 CRN42 DNT1 DNT2 DNT3 N of cases 1 4 4 3 4 Minimum 34.300 68.500 91.300 87.400 86.300 Maximum 34.300 78.800 120.00 116.00 115.00 Median 34.300 73.200 110.50 116.00 99.500 Mean 34.300 73.425 108.07 106.46 100.07 Standard Dev . 4.214 12.381 16.512 11.743 C.V. 1.000 0.057 0.115 0.155 0.117

DNT4 DNT5 DNT6 DNT7 DNT8 N of cases 4 4 3 4 2 Minimum 75.500 73.200 73.900 53.900 53.100 Maximum 114.00 100.80 104.80 68.500 62.600 Median 90.700 86.000 93.130 58.800 57.850 Mean 92.725 86.500 90.610 60.000 57.850 Standard Dev 15.904 11.349 15.603 7.267 6.718 C.V. 0.172 0.131 0.172 0.121 0.116

DNT9 DNT11 DNT12 DNT13 DNT13A N of cases 5 1 4 5 4 Minimum 49.700 28.700 24.500 17.000 6.470 Maximum 59.400 28.700 28.100 19.600 7.800 Median 57.150 28.700 26.070 18.600 7.275 Mean 55.230 28.700 26.185 18.240 7.205 Standard Dev 4.556 . 1.933 1.146 0.629 C.V. 0.082 1.000 0.074 0.063 0.087

DNT14 DNT15 DNT15A DNT16 DNT16A N of cases 3 3 3 0 0 Minimum 15.600 6.400 5.300 . . Maximum 17.000 7.850 5.640 . . Median 16.000 7.600 5.600 . . Mean 16.200 7.283 5.513 . . Standard Dev 0.721 0.775 0.186 . . C.V. 0.045 0.106 0.034 . .

204 DNT17 DNT18 DNT19 DNT20 DNT21 N of cases 4 3 4 0 2 Minimum 7.800 33.000 13.200 . 30.000 Maximum 10.100 43.700 21.600 . 30.900 Median 9.440 43.200 17.300 . 30.450 Mean 9.195 39.967 17.350 . 30.450 Standard Dev 1.119 6.038 3.439 . 0.636 C.V. 0.122 0.151 0.198 . 0.021

Woodland Females (continued)

DNT22 N of cases 4 Minimum 21.000 Maximum 31.000 Median 26.000 Mean 26.000 Standard Dev 4.163 C.V. 0.160

Mississippian Females

CRN1 CRN2 CRN3 CRN4 CRN5 N of cases 3 2 2 2 4 Minimum 142.00 133.00 127.00 35.800 78.100 Maximum 171.00 142.00 135.00 40.810 111.17 Median 158.00 137.50 131.00 38.305 98.650 Mean 157.00 137.50 131.00 38.305 96.643 Standard Dev 14.526 6.364 5.657 3.543 15.803 C.V. 0.093 0.046 0.043 0.092 0.164

CRN6 CRN7 CRN8 CRN9 CRN10 N of cases 2 3 4 4 4 Minimum 77.000 70.500 63.700 74.100 35.300 Maximum 82.000 83.400 82.500 97.000 50.670 Median 79.500 79.000 68.020 79.750 49.050 Mean 79.500 77.633 70.560 82.650 46.018 Standard Dev 3.536 6.558 8.227 10.416 7.186 C.V. 0.044 0.084 0.117 0.126 0.156

205 CRN11 CRN13 CRN13A CRN14 CRN14A N of cases 4 4 4 4 4 Minimum 49.000 63.000 62.700 17.800 18.300 Maximum 75.100 84.400 83.500 28.500 27.400 Median 58.090 72.555 70.845 22.775 21.275 Mean 60.070 73.128 71.972 22.962 22.062 Standard Dev 11.018 9.456 9.358 4.408 3.964 C.V. 0.183 0.129 0.130 0.192 0.180

CRN15 CRN15A CRN16 CRN17 CRN18 N of cases 4 4 4 4 4 Minimum 42.700 51.100 14.000 32.000 12.800 Maximum 56.300 70.500 17.100 44.200 19.400 Median 53.195 62.385 15.335 39.115 16.235 Mean 51.347 61.593 15.443 38.608 16.167 Standard Dev 6.261 8.170 1.345 5.185 2.745 C.V. 0.122 0.133 0.087 0.134 0.170

Mississippian Females (continued)

CRN18A CRN19 CRN20 CRN20A CRN21 N of cases 4 4 4 4 4 Minimum 7.400 11.400 9.000 12.200 4.800 Maximum 10.100 17.500 13.200 13.700 6.450 Median 8.565 14.845 10.975 13.390 5.750 Mean 8.657 14.647 11.038 13.170 5.687 Standard Dev 1.128 2.556 1.731 0.685 0.813 C.V. 0.130 0.174 0.157 0.052 0.143

CRN21A CRN22 CRN23 CRN24 CRN25 N of cases 4 3 2 2 2 Minimum 6.300 21.100 52.200 50.100 29.000 Maximum 9.500 22.150 57.000 55.620 29.700 Median 8.505 21.400 54.600 52.860 29.350 Mean 8.203 21.550 54.600 52.860 29.350 Standard Dev 1.352 0.541 3.394 3.903 0.495 C.V. 0.165 0.025 0.062 0.074 0.017

CRN26 CRN27 CRN28 CRN29 CRN30 N of cases 2 1 2 3 1 Minimum 37.900 16.200 11.940 45.200 95.000 Maximum 39.900 16.200 12.800 53.820 95.000 Median 38.900 16.200 12.370 49.800 95.000 Mean 38.900 16.200 12.370 49.607 95.000 Standard Dev 1.414 . 0.608 4.313 . C.V. 0.036 1.000 0.049 0.087 1.000

206 CRN31 CRN32 CRN33 CRN34 CRN35 N of cases 4 2 4 4 4 Minimum 33.800 39.000 25.800 48.700 25.200 Maximum 35.200 42.370 31.100 62.300 32.800 Median 34.575 40.685 28.040 53.070 26.860 Mean 34.538 40.685 28.245 54.285 27.930 Standard Dev 0.574 2.383 2.308 6.071 3.361 C.V. 0.017 0.059 0.082 0.112 0.120

CRN36 CRN37 CRN38 CRN39 CRN40 N of cases 2 4 2 2 2 Minimum 27.400 23.000 47.900 45.700 32.200 Maximum 28.930 28.800 57.000 54.000 47.740 Median 28.165 26.735 52.450 49.850 39.970 Mean 28.165 26.318 52.450 49.850 39.970 Standard Dev 1.082 2.460 6.435 5.869 10.988 C.V. 0.038 0.093 0.123 0.118 0.275

Mississippian Females (continued)

CRN41 CRN42 DNT1 DNT2 DNT3 N of cases 1 3 3 3 3 Minimum 27.700 74.500 90.200 88.200 86.700 Maximum 27.700 89.460 111.00 112.00 107.00 Median 27.700 88.500 100.20 101.30 97.100 Mean 27.700 84.153 100.46 100.50 96.933 Standard Dev . 8.374 10.403 11.920 10.151 C.V. 1.000 0.100 0.104 0.119 0.105

DNT4 DNT5 DNT6 DNT7 DNT8 N of cases 3 3 3 3 2 Minimum 79.000 74.900 76.200 48.200 46.200 Maximum 96.340 93.350 98.280 65.830 57.100 Median 87.700 84.700 88.800 59.900 51.650 Mean 87.680 84.317 87.760 57.977 51.650 Standard Dev 8.670 9.231 11.077 8.971 7.707 C.V. 0.099 0.109 0.126 0.155 0.149

DNT9 DNT11 DNT12 DNT13 DNT13A N of cases 3 2 3 4 4 Minimum 42.300 24.900 21.100 15.100 6.700 Maximum 58.830 28.900 29.050 22.000 8.400 Median 52.700 26.900 24.600 18.035 7.180 Mean 51.277 26.900 24.917 18.292 7.365 Standard Dev 8.356 2.828 3.984 2.880 0.761 C.V. 0.163 0.105 0.160 0.157 0.103

207 DNT14 DNT15 DNT15A DNT16 DNT16A N of cases 3 3 3 1 1 Minimum 13.300 5.700 4.400 5.070 4.330 Maximum 15.820 8.100 6.120 5.070 4.330 Median 15.200 7.400 6.100 5.070 4.330 Mean 14.773 7.067 5.540 5.070 4.330 Standard Dev 1.313 1.234 0.987 . . C.V. 0.089 0.175 0.178 1.000 1.000

DNT17 DNT18 DNT19 DNT20 DNT21 N of cases 3 3 3 0 0 Minimum 7.400 35.800 14.400 . . Maximum 9.160 44.240 18.360 . . Median 7.700 42.200 18.300 . . Mean 8.087 40.747 17.020 . . Standard Dev 0.942 4.404 2.269 . . C.V. 0.116 0.108 0.133 . .

Mississippian Females (continued)

DNT22 N of cases 3 Minimum 21.000 Maximum 27.100 Median 23.000 Mean 23.700 Standard Dev 3.110 C.V. 0.131

208 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adair, James 1986 (1775) History of the American Indians. Promontory Press, New York.

Agresti, Alan and Barbara Finlay 1997 Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Allen, Grover M. 1920 Dogs of the American Aborigines. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 63 (9):429-517.

1939 Dog Skulls from Uyak Bay, Kodiak Island. Journal of Mammalogy 20 (3):336- 340.

1954 Canid Remains from Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo Del Arroyo. In The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito by Neil M. Judd, pp. 385-389. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 124. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Anderson, David G. n.d. Dogs from the G.S. Lewis West Site (38Ak228). Ms. on file, Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia, South Carolina.

Azua, R. Valadez 2000 Prehispanic Dog Types in Middle America. In Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective, edited by Susan Crockford, pp. 193-204. BAR International Series 889.

Beidma, Luys Hernandez de 1993 Relations of the Island of Florida. In The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543, edited by L. Clayton, V. J. Knight, and E. C. Moore).University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Beneke, Norbert 1987 Studies on Early Dog Remains from Northern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 14:31-49.

Bentz Jr., Charles (editor) 1988 The Bailey Site (40GL26): Late Archaic, Middle Woodland, and Historic Settlement and Subsistence in the Lower Elk River Drainage of Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Transportation Publications in Archaeology No. 2.

209 Bilyeu, Glenn E. 1972 A Dog Burial. Southeastern Indian Antiquities Survey:136-138.

Bokonyi, Sandor 1988 History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.

Borgic, Quentina L., and Joseph M. Galloy 2004 Domesticated Dog Remains from the Janey B. Goode Site. Paper presented for the 2004 Joint Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference and the Midwestern Archaeological Conference, October 21-23, 2004, St. Louis, Missouri.

Brothwell, Don, A. Malaga, and Richard Burleigh 1979 Studies on Amerindian Dogs, 2: Variation in Early Peruvian Dogs. Journal of Archaeological Science 6:139-161.

Breitburg, Emanuel 1983 An Analysis of Faunal Remains Recovered. In, The Duncan Tract Site, (40TR27), Trousdale County, Tennessee by Charles H. McNutt and Guy G. Weaver, pp. 357-400. Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology No. 33.

Brown, Ralph D. 1940 Field Report on Excavations of Annis Village Site, Bt 20, Butler Co., KY. Ms. on file, William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Bullen, Ripley P. and Adelaide K. Bullen 1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropologist 29 (2), Part 2.

Burbidge, Maryann Louise 1998 Polyphyletic Origins of Extinct and Extant Domestic Dogs. Master’s Thesis, University of Victoria, Canada.

Burleigh, R., Juliet Clutton-Brock, P. J. Felder, and G. de G. Sieveking 1977 A Further Consideration of Neolithic Dogs with Special Consideration to a Skeleton from Grime’s Graves (Norfolk), England. Journal of Archaeological Science 4:353-366.

Carr, Robert S., Alison Elgart-Berry, and William Rombola 2003 Archeological Monitoring and Excavations of the C-4 Canal Expansion, Miami-Dade County, Florida. AHC Technical Report # 447 prepared for the South Florida Water Management District.

210

Chapman, Jefferson 1988 Archaeological Collections at the Frank H. McClung Museum. Occasional Papers No. 7. The Franklin H. McClung Museum, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Clark, Geoffrey 1997 Osteology of the Kuri Maori: the Prehistoric Dog of New Zealand. Journal of Archaeologial Science 24:113-126.

1997 Anthropogenic Factors and Prehistoric Dog Morphology: A Case Study from Polynesia. Archaeol. Oceania 32:124-130.

1997 Maori Subsistence Change: Zooarchaeological Evidence from the Prehistoric Dog Of New Zealand. Asian Perspectives 36 (2):200-219.

1998 Prehistoric Contact Between Australia and Polynesia: the Pukapuka Dog Re-examined. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 8:116-122.

Clark, Kate M. 1995 The Later Prehistoric and Protohistoric Dog: the Emergence of Canine Diversity. Archaeozoologia VII (2):9-32.

Clutton-Brock, Juliet 1977 Man-Made Dogs. Science 197 (4311):1340-1342.

1995 Origins of the dog: Domestication and Early History. In, The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with People edited by James Serpell, pp. 7-20. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Colton, Harold S. 1970 The Aboriginal Southwestern Indian Dog. American Antiquity 35 (2):153-159.

Connaway, John M. n.d. Excavation Notes for the Austin Site (22-Tu-549). Ms. on file, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Survey, Clarksdale.

Coppinger, Richard, and Lorna Coppinger 2001 Dogs: A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Coues, Elliott 1873 The Prairie Wolf, or Coyote: Canis latrans. The American Naturalist 7 (7):385- 389.

211

Crockford, Susan J. 1997 The Osteometry of the Makah and Coast Salish Dogs. Archaeology Press Publication 22, Simon Frazier University, Burnaby B.C.

2000 A Commentary on Dog Evolution: Regional Variation, Breed Development, and Hybridisation with Wolves. In Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective edited by Susan Crockford, pp. 297-312. BAR International Series 889

Crockford, Susan J. (editor) 2000 Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. Proceedings of the 1st ICAZ Symposium on the History of the Domestic Dog. BAR International Series 889.

2000 Dog Evolution: A Role for Thyroid Hormone Physiology in Domestication Changes. In Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective edited by S. Crockford, pp. 11-20. BAR International Series 889.

2005 Native Dog Types in North America Before Arrival of European Dogs. Paper Presented at the 30th World Congress of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association. Mexico City, Mexico.

Coutts, Peter, and Mark Jurisich 1973 Canine Passengers in Maori Canoes. World Archaeology 5 (1):72-85.

Dansie, Amy 1999 Man’s Oldest Best Friends: Ancient Dogs in Nevada. Nevada State Museum Newsletter XXVII (3).

Darwent, Christyann M., and J. Eric Gilliland 2001 Osteological Analysis of Domestic Dogs from Burials in Southern Missouri. Missouri Archaeologist 62:149-169.

Darwin, Charles 1859 On the Origin of Species. Random House, New York.

1868 The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Day, Leslie Preston 1984 Dog Burials in the Greek World. American Journal of Archaeology 88:21-33.

Dayan, Tamar 1994 Early Domesticated Dogs of the Near East. Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 633-640.

212 Davis, Simon J. M. and Francois R. Valla 1978 Evidence for Domestication of the Dog 12,000 Years Ago in the Natufian of Israel. Nature 276:608-610.

Dbase IV 1986 Ashton-Tate.

Deter-Wolf, Aaron, Sean Norris, Marc Wampler, and Josh Tuschl 2004 Ensworth School Project: Archaeological Investigations at the Site 40DV184, Davidson County, Tennessee. TRC, Inc. Report submitted to D.F. Chase, Inc.

Doran, Glen H. (editor) 2002 Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Archaic Florida Cemetery. University Press of Florida, Gainesville .

Dowd, John T. 1989 The Anderson Site: Middle Archaic Adaptation in Tennessee’s Central Basin. Miscellaneous Paper No. 13. Tennessee Anthropological Association, Knoxville.

Driver, Harold E. 1961 Indians of North America. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Driver, Harold E. and William C. Massey 1957 Comparative Studies of North American Indians. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 47, Part 2. The American Philosophical Society, Philadephia.

Elvas, the Portuguese Gentleman of 1993 The Account of a Gentleman from Elvas. In, The De Soto Chronicles: The Expeditions of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543, edited by L. Clayton, V. J. Knight Jr., and E. C. Moore, pp 19-220. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Evans, Howard E. 1993 Miller’s Anatomy of the Dog. W.B. Saunders Co, New York.

Faulkner, Charles H. and J. B. Graham 1965 Excavations in the Nickajack Reservoir: Season I. Report submitted to the National Park Service.

1966 Westmoreland-Barber Site (40MI11): Nickajack Reservoir, Season II. Report submitted to the National Park Service.

Ferguson, Vera Masius 1951 Chronology at South Indian Field, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology Number 45. Yale University Press, New Haven.

213 Fiedel, Stuart J. 2005 Man’s Best Friend – Mammoth’s Worst Enemy? A Speculative Essay on the Role of Dogs in Paleoindian Colonization and Megafaunal Extinction. World Archaeology 37(1):11-25.

Fiennes, Richard and Alice Fiennes 1968 The Natural History of Dogs. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

Fox, Michael W. (editor) 1975 The Wild Canids: Their Systematics, Behavioral Ecology, and Evolution. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.

1978 The Dog: Its Domestication and Behavior. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar.

Futato, Eugene M. 1983 Archaeological Investigations in the Cedar Creek and Upper Bear Creek Reservoirs. The University of Alabama Office of Archeological Research Report of Investigation 29. Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology 32.

2002 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement at the Perry Site, 1LU25, Lauderdale County, Alabama. Journal of Alabama Achaeology 48(2):80-92.

Gilbert, B. Miles 1997 Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.

Gleeson Jr., Paul Francis 1970 Dog Remains from the Ozette Village Archaeological Site. Master’s Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman.

Grayson, Donald K. 1988 Danger Cave, Last Supper Cave, and Hanging Rock Shelter: The Faunas. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 66 (1).

Griffin, John W. and Hale G. Smith 1954 The Cotton Site: An Archaeological Site of Early Ceramic Times in Volusia County, Florida. Florida State University Studies, Number 16:27-60.

Gross, Bob 1971 Analysis of Dog Remains from South Indian Field. Ms. on file, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Haag, William G. 1948 An Osteometric Analysis of Some Aboriginal Dogs. The University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology VII (3).

214 1954 A Mummified Dog from the Lighthouse Site, Peru. In Early Ancon and Early Supe Culture: Chavin Horizon Sites of the Central Peruvian Coast, by Gordon R. Willey and John M. Corbett, pp. 138-140. Columbia University Press, New York.

1966 Two Dog Skeletons from Caldwell Village. In Caldwell Village by J. Richard Ambler, pp. 97-101. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No 84. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

1968 Dogs from Pharo Village. In Pharo Village by John P. Marwitt, pp. 79-81. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No 91. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

1970 Dog Remains from Hogup Cave. In Hogup Cave by C. Melvin Aikens, pp. 273- 274. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No 93. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Haag, William G., and R. F. and Heizer 1953 A Dog Burial from the Sacramento Valley. American Antiquity 18(3):263-265.

Hall, Roberta L., and Henry S. Sharp 1978 Wolf and Man: Evolution in Parallel. Academic Press, New York.

Hally, David J. (editor) 1994 Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936-1986. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Hamblin, Nancy L. 1984 Animal Use by the Cozumel Maya. The University of Arizona Press, Tucsan.

Handley, Brent M. 2000 An Osteometric Analysis of Prehistoric Dog Remains From Sites in New England and Long Island. Master’s thesis, Universisty of Conneticut, Storrs.

Harcourt, R. A. 1974 Dog in Prehistoric and Early Historic Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science 1:151-175.

Harrington, M. R. 1922 Cherokee and Early Remains on Upper Tennessee River. In Indian Notes and Monographs edited by F. W. Hodge. Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation, New York.

Higham, C. F. W., A. Kijngam, and B. F. J. Manly 1980 An Analysis of Prehistoric Canid Remains from Thailand. Journal of Archaeological Science 7:149-165.

215

Hogue, S. Homes 2003 Corn Dogs and Hush Puppies: Diet and Domestication at Two Protohistoric Farmsteads in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Southeastern Archaeology 22(2): 185-195.

Holland, Kathryn M. 1990 Prehistoric Dogs Reflect Human Behavior: An Aleutian Example. Paper Presented at the Sixth International Conference, International Council for Archaeozoology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D. C.

Houck, Margaret Van Winkle 1951 Animal Remains from South Indian Field. In Chronology at South South Indian Field by Vera Masius Ferguson, pp. 51-62. Yale University Publications in Anthropology Number 45. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Hudson, Charles 1976 The Southeastern Indians. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Hunter, John, Clanbrassil, Herbert, and Wm. Mears 1787 Obsevations Tending to Shew That the Wolf, Jackal, and Dog Are All of the Same Species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 77:253- 266.

Intosh, Michiko, and Nobuo Shigehara 2004 Prehistoric Pig and Dog Remains from Fais Island, Micronesia. Anthropological Science 112(3):257-267.

Jackson, H. Edwin, and Susan L. Scott 2001 Archaic Faunal Utilization in the Louisiana Bottomlands. Southeastern Archaeology 20(2):187-196

Jahn, Otto L., and Ripley P. Bullen 1978 The Tick Island Site, St. Johns River, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 31(4-2), Part 2.

Jones, B. Calvin 1994 The Lake Jackson Mound Complex (8LE1): Stability and Change in Fort Walton Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 47(2):120-145.

Kerber, Jordon E. 1997 Lambert Farm: Public Archaeology and Canine Burials Along Narragansett Bay. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York.

216 Koler-Matznick, Janice 2002 The Origin of the Dog Revisited. Anthrozoos 15(2):98-118.

2003 An Updated Description of the New Guinea Singing Dog (Canis hallstromi, Troughton 1957). Journal of Zoology 261:109-118.

Koop, Ben F., Maryann Burbridge, Ashley Byun, Ute Rink, and Susan J. Crockford 2000 Ancient DNA Evidence of a Separate Origin for North American Indigenous Dogs. In Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective edited by Susan Crockford, pp. 271-285. Proceedings. BAR International Series 889

Larson, Lewis 1958 Etowah Mound C Excavation Notes. Ms. on file, Antonio J. Waring, Jr. Archaeological Laboratory, University of West Georgia.

Lawrence, Barbara 1968 Antiquity of Large Dogs in North America. Tebiwa 11:43-49.

1977 Dog from the Domincan Republic. Centro Dominicano de Investigaciones Anthropogicas CCLXIII(8):5-15.

Lazarus, Yulee W. 1979 The Buck Burial Mound: A Mound of the Weeden Island Culture. Temple Mound Museum, Fort Walton Beach, Florida.

Leonard, Jennifer A., Robert K. Wayne, Jane Wheeler, Raul Valadez, Sonia Guillen, and Carles Vila 2002 Ancient DNA Evidence for Old World Origin of New World Dogs. Science 298 (5598): 1613-1616.

Lewis, Thomas M. N. and Madeline Kneberg 1947 The Archaic Horizon in Western Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropology Papers Number 2. The University of Tennessee Record Extension Series XXIII (4).

1957 The Camp Creek Site. Tennessee Archaeologist XIII(1):2-46

1959 The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25(2):161-183

1961 Eva, An Archaic Site. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

1976 Hiwassee Island: An Archaeological Account of Four Tennessee Indian Peoples. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

217 Lorenz, Konrad Z. 1975 Foreword. In The Wild Canids: Their Systematics, Behavioral Ecology, and Evolution, edited by Michael W. Fox, pp. vii-xii. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.

Mazzorin, Jacopa De Grossi, and Antonio Tagliacozzo 2000 Morphological and Osteological Changes in the Dog from the Neolithic to the Roman Period in Italy. In Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective edited by Susan Crockford, pp. 141-162. BAR International Series 889.

McMillan, R. Bruce 1970 Early Canid Burial from the Western Ozark Highland. Science 167(3922):1246- 1247.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1995 Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. The University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Mills, James O. 1989 Canis familiaris in Florida’s Prehistory. Paper presented to Dr. Barbara Purdy, April 17, 1989. Ms. on file, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M. and Timothy S. Mulvihill 2001 The 1995 Salvage Excavations at the Armorel Site (3MS23). The Arkansas Archaeologist 40:1-7.

Moore, Clarence Bloomfield 1999 (1896) Additional Mounds of Duval and Clay Counties, Florida: Mound Investigations on the East Coast of Florida; and Certain Florida Coast Mounds North of the St. Johns River. In The East Florida Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore edited by Jeffrey R. Mitchem, pp. 377-399. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

1897 Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Georgia Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11.

Moore, Robin 1992 Analysis of Dog Burial from Fountain of Youth Park Site, St. Augustine, Florida. Ms. on file, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Morell, Virginia 1997 The Origin of Dogs: Running with the Wolves. Science 276 (5319): 1647-1648.

218

Morey, Darcy F. 1986 Studies on Amerindian Dogs: Taxonomic Analysis of Canid Crania from the Northern Plains. Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 119-145.

1990 Cranial Allometry and the Evolution of the Domestic Dog. A Ph.D Dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

1992 Size, Shape, and Development in the Evolution of the Domestic Dog. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 181-204.

1994 The Early Evolution of the Domestic Dog. American Scientist 82: 336-347.

2006 Burying Key Evidence: The Social Bond Between Dogs and People. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 158-175

Morey, Darcy F., and Michael D. Wiant 1992 Early Holocene Domestic Dog Burials from the North American Midwest. Current Anthropology 33 (2): 224-229.

Morey, Darcy F., and Kim Aaris-Sorensen 2001 Paleoeskimo Dogs of the Eastern Arctic. Arctic 55 (1): 44-56.

Muller, Werner 2005 The Domestication of the Wolf – the Inevitable First?. In The First Steps of Animal Domestication: New Archaeological Approaches edited by J. D. Vigne, J. Peters, and D. Helmer, pp. 34-40. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Murie, Olaus J. 1948 Dog Skulls from Ipiutak. In Ipiutak and the Arctic Whale Hunting Culture by Helge Larsen and Froelich Rainey, pp. 255-259. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 42. The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Nowak, Ronald M. 1979 North American Quarternary Canis. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History No. 6, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Olsen, Stanley J. 1985 Origins of the Domestic Dog: The Fossil Record. The University of Arizona Press, Tucsan.

Onar, Vedat, Altan Armutak, Oktay Belli, and Erkan Konyar 2002 Skeletal Remains of Dogs Unearthed from the Van-Yoncatepe Necropolises. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 12: 317-334.

219 Onar, Vedat, and Oktay Belli 2005 Estimation of Shoulder Height from Long Bone Measurements on Dogs Unearthed from the Van-Yoncatepe Early Iron Age Necropolis in Eastern Anatolia. Revue de Medicine Veterinaire 156(1):53-60.

Packard, A.S. 1885 Origin of the American Varieties of the Dog. The American Naturalist 19:896- 901.

Park, Robert W. 1987 Dog Remains from Devon Island, N.W.T.: Archaeological and Osteological Evidence for Domestic Dog Use in the Thule Culture. Arctic 40 (3): 184-190.

Parmalee, Paul W. 1960 Vertebrate Remains from the Chucalissa Site. Tennessee Archaeologist XVI(2): 84-90.

1965 The Food Economy of Archaic and Woodland Peoples at the Tick Creek Cave Site, Missouri. The Missouri Archaeologist 27(1):1-34.

Parmalee, Paul W, and Arthur E. Bogan 1978 Cherokee and Dallas Dog Burials from the Little Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist III(1):100-112.

Potter, Martha A., and Raymond S. Baby 1964 Hopewellian Dogs. The Ohio Journal of Science 64(1):36-40.

Rangel, Rodrigo 1993 Account of the Northern Conquest and Discovery of Hernando De Soto (247-306). In The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539-1543 edited by L. A. Clayton, V. J. Knight Jr., and E. C. Moore, pp. 247-306. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Raisor, Michelle Jeanette 2004 Determining The Antiquity of Dog Origins: Canine Domestication as a Model For The Consilience Between Molecular Genetics and Archaeology. Ph.D Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.

2005 Determining The Antiquity of Dog Origins: Canine Domestication as a Model For The Consilience Between Molecular Genetics and Archaeology. BAR International Series 1367. Archeopress, Oxford.

Reynolds, Richard L 1985 Domestic Dog Associated with Human Remains at Rancho La Brea. Bulletin Of the Southern California Academy of Science 84(2):76-84.

220 Sablin, Mikhail V., and Gennady A. Khlopachev 2002 The Earliest Ice Age Dogs: Evidence from Eliseevichi I. Current Anthropology 43 (5):795-799.

Sauer, Carl O. 1969 Seeds, Spades, Hearths, and Herds: The Domestication of Animals and Foodstuffs. The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Savolainen, Peter, Ya-ping Zhang, Jing Lou, Joakim Lundeberg, and Thomas Leitner 2002 Genetic Evidence for an East Asian Origin of Domestic Dogs. Science 298(5598): 1610-1613.

Schmid, Elisabeth 1971 Atlas of Animal Bones: For Prehistorians, Archaeologists, and Quaternary Geologists. Elsevier Publishing Company, New York .

Schwartz, Marion 1997 A History of Dogs in the Early Americas. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Scott, J. P. 1967 The Evolution of Social Behavior in Dogs and Wolves. American Zoologist 7: 373-381.

1968 Evolution and Domestication of the Dog. In Evolutionary Biology Volume 2, edited by T. Dobzhansky, M. K. Hecht, and W. C. Steere, pp. 243-275. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Scott, J. H. 1957 Muscle Growth and Function in Relation to Skeletal Morphology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 15(2):197-234

Schroedl, Gerald F., and Paul W. Parmalee 1997 Dog Burials from the Eighteenth Century Cherokee Town of Chattooga, South Carolina. Brimleyana 24:7-14.

Sears, William H. 1960 The Bayshore Homes Site, St. Petersburg, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences 6, Gainesville.

Shay, C. Thomas 1972 Itasca Bison Kill Site: An Ecological Analysis. The Minnesota Historical Society.

Shigehara, Nobuo, Shuji Matsu’Ura, Toshio Nakamura, and Meguma Kondo 1993 First Discovery of the Ancient Dingo-Type Dog in Polynesia (Pukapuka, Cook Islands). International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3(4):315-320.

221

Shigehara, Nobuo, Satoru Onodera, and Moriharu Eto 1997 Sex Determination by Discriminate Analysis and an Evaluation of Non-Metric Traits in the Dog Skeleton. In Osteometry of Makah and Coast Salish Dogs by Susan J. Crockford, pp. 113-126. Archaeology Press, Simon Frazier University, Barnaby, B.C.

Shigehara, Nobuo, Qi Guoqun, Hajime Komiya, and Yuan Jing 1998 Morphological Study of the Ancient Dogs from Three Neolithic Sites in China. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 8:11-22.

Silver, I. A. 1970 The Aging of Domestic Animals. In Science in Archaeology edited by D. Brothwell and E. Higgs, pp. 250-268. Praeger Publishing, New York.

Skaggs, Opal 1974 A Study of the Dog Skeletons from Indian Knoll with Special Reference to the Coyote as Progenitor. In Indian Knoll by William S. Webb, pp. 341-357. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Smith, Bruce D. 1975 Middle Mississippi Exploitation of Animal Populations. Anthropological Papers Number 57. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Snyder, Lynn M. 1991 Barking Mutton: Ethnohistoric, Ethnographic, Archaeological, and Nutritional Evidence Pertaining to the Dog as a Native American Food Resource on the Plains. In Beamers, Bobwhites, and Blue-Points: Tribute to the Career of Paul W. Pamalee edited by J. R. Purdue, W. E. Klippel, and B. W. Styles, pp. 359-378. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Vol. 23, Springfield.

Snyder, Lynn M. 1995 Assessing The Roles of the Domestic Dog As A Native American Food Resource in the Middle Missouri Subarea A.D. 1000-1840. Ph.D. dissertation University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Stains, Howard J. 1975 Distribution and Taxonomy of the Canidae. In The Wild Canids: Their Systematics, Behavioral Ecology, and Evolution edited by Michael W. Fox, pp. 3-26. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Stockard, Charles R. 1941 The Genetic and Endocrinic Basis for the Differences in Form and Behavior As Elucidated by Studies of Contrasted Pure-line Dog Breeds and Their Hybrids. The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, Phildelphia.

222 Storde, Yvonne M. Narganes 1982 Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Sorce, Vieques, Puerto Rico. Master’s thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.

Stout, D. B., and M. H. Baugh 1938 Notes on the Excavations of Site Oh 12. Ms. on file, William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Sumner-Smith, G. 1966 Observations on Epiphyseal Fusion of the Canine Apendicular Skeleton. Journal of Small Animal Practice 7:303-311.

Swanton, John R. 1911 Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Adjacent Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Bureau of Ethnology 43, Smithsonian Institution. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C.

1931 Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians. Bureau of Ethnology 103, Smithsonian Institution. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C.

1942 Source Material on the History and Ethnology of the Caddo Indians. Bureau of Ethnology 132, Smithsonian Institution. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C.

1946 Indian of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137, Smithsonian Institution. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C.

Switzer, Linda L. 1992 An Osteometric Comparison on Northwest Aboriginal Dogs. Master’s thesis, Washington State University, Pullman.

SYSTAT 11 2004 SYSTAT Software, Inc.

Tchernov, Eitan , and Francois Valla 1997 Two New Dogs, and Other Natufian Dogs, from the Southern Lavant. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:65-95.

The, T. L. and C. O. Trouth 1976 Sexual Dimorphism in the Basilar Part of the Occipital Bone of the Dog (Canis familiaris). Acta Anatomica 95:565-571.

Triola, Mario F. 2001 Elementary Statistics. Addison Wesley Longman Inc, New York.

223

Trouth, C. O., S. Winter, K. C. Gupta, R. M. Mills, and J. A. Holloway 1977 Analysis of the Sexual Dimorphism in the Basioccipital Portion of the Dog’s Skull. Acta Anatomica 98:469-473.

Tsuda, Kaori, Yoshiaki Kikkawa, Hiromichi Yonekawa, and Yuichi Tanabe 1997 Extensive Interbreeding Occurred Among Multiple Matriarchal Ancestors During the Domestication of Dogs: Evidence from Inter-and Intraspecies Polymorphisms in the D-loop Region of Mitochondrial DNA Between Dogs and Wolves. Genes & Genetic. Systems 72:229-238.

Verginelli, Fabio, Cristian Capelli, Valentina Coia, Marco Musiani, Mario Falchetti, Laura Ottini, Raffaele Palmirotta, Antonio Taliacozzo, Iacopo De Grossi Mazzorin, and Renato Mariani-Costantini 2005 Mitochondrial DNA from Prehistoric Canids Highlights Relationships Between Dogs and South-East European Wolves. Molecular Biology and Evolution 22(12): 2541-2551.

Vila, Carles, Peter Savolainen, Jesus Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, and Robert K. Wayne 1997 Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog. Science 276(5319):1687- 1689.

Von Den Driesch, Angela 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin, Bulletin 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Walker, Danny N., and George C. Frison 1982 Studies on Amerindian Dogs, 3: Prehistoric Wolf/Dog Hybrids from the Northwestern Plains. Journal of Archaeological Science 9:125-172.

Walker, Renee B., Darcy F. Morey, and John H. Relethford 2005 Early And Mid-Holocene Dogs in Southeast North America: Examples from Dust Cave. Southeastern Achaeology 24(1):83-92.

Wapnish, Paula, and Brian Hesse 1993 Pampered Pooches or Plain Pariahs? The Ashkelon Dog Burials. The Biblical Archaeologist 56(2):55-80.

Warren, Diane M. 2004 Skeletal Biology and Paleopathology of Domestic Dogs From Prehistoric Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

224

Wauchope, Robert 1966 Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia, with A Test of Some Cultural Hypothesis. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, Number 21.

Wayne, Robert K. 1986a Cranial Morphology of Domestic and Wild Canids: The Influence of Development on Morphological Change. Evolution 40(2):243-261

1986b Limb Morphology of Domestic and Wild Canids: The Influence of Development on Morphological Change. Journal of Morphology 187:301-319.

1993 Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family. Trends in Genetics 9(6):218-224.

Wayne, Robert K., and Elaine A. Ostrander 1999 Origin, Genetic Diversity, and Genome Structure of the Domestic Dog. BioEssays 21:247-257.

Webb, William S. 1942 The C. and O. Mounds at Paintsville: Sites Jo 2 and Jo 9, Johnson County, Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology V (4).

1950a The Carlson Annis Mound, Site 5, Butler County, Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology VII (4).

1950b The Read Shell Midden, Site 10, Butler County, Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology VII (5).

1974 Indian Knoll. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Webb, William S., and William G. Haag 1939 The Chiggerville Site, Site 1, Ohio County, Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology IV (1).

Webb, William S., and David L. DeJarnette 1942 An Archeological Survey of Pickwick Basin. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 129.

1948a The Perry Site, Lu°25, Units 3 and 4, Lauderdale Co., Alabama. Alabama Museum of Natural History, Museum Paper 25.

1948b The Flint River Site, Ma°48. Alabama Museum of Natural History, Museum Paper 23.

225 Webb, William S., and Charles G. Wilder 1951 An Archaeological Survey of Guntersville Basin on the Tennessee River in Northern Alabama. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

Weisman, Brent Richard 1992 Excavations on the Franciscan Frontier: Archaeology at the Fig Springs Mission. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Wheeler, Ryan J. 1992 The Riviera Complex: An East Okechobee Archaeological Settlement. The Florida Anthropologist 45(1):5-17.

Wilson, Gilbert L. 1924 The Horse and Dog in Hidatsa Culture. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History XV, Part II. American Museum Press, New York.

Wing, Elizabeth 1965 Animal Bones Associated with Two Indian Sites on Marco Island, Florida. Florida Anthropologist XVIII(1):21-28.

1991 Economy of Subsistence I – Faunal Remains. In Prehistoric Barbados Edited by Peter L. Drewett, pp. 134-152. Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London.

1997 Animal Remains from the Indian Creek Site, Antigua. Ms. on file, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville.

1998 Caribbean Dogs and a Re-evaluation of the Cuban Dog. Ms. on file, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville.

2001 Native American Use of Animals in the Caribbean. In Biogeography of the West Indies: Patterns and Perspectives edited by Charles A. Woods and Florence E. Sergile, pp. 481-518. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Wood-Jones, Frederic 1929 The Cranial Characters of the Papuan Dog. Journal of Mammalogy 10(4):329- 333.

1931 The Cranial Characters of the Hawaiian Dog. Journal Mammalogy 12(1):39-41.

Yerkes, Richard W. 2000 An Analysis of the Vertebrate Remains from the Oliver Site (22-Co-503), Coahoma County, Mississippi. Ms. on file, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Survey, Clarksdale.

226 Yohe II, Robert M. and Max G. Pavesic 2000 Early Archaic Domestic Dog from Western Idaho, USA. In Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective edited by Susan Crockford, pp. 93-104. BAR International Series 889

Zeuner, Frederic E. 1963 A History of Domesticated Animals. Harper and Row, New York.

Zimmer, Jessica 2007 Native Americans’ Treatment of Dogs in Prehistoric and Historic Florida. Master’s thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

227 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Brian Worthington was born in Hollywood, Florida. He graduated high school in 1997. In 2001 he completed his Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology at Florida State University. In 2002 he was accepted into the Masters program at the Anthropology Department at Florida State University. During his time in the Masters program he has coauthored and authored faunal reports and paper presentations. After completing his Masters of Science degree he will continue a career in archaeology.

227