University of Mississippi eGrove Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2019 Minimum Number of Individuals: A Methodological Comparison using Human Remains from Caves Branch Rockshelter in the Cayo District of Belize Caitlin Elizabeth Stewart University of Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Stewart, Caitlin Elizabeth, "Minimum Number of Individuals: A Methodological Comparison using Human Remains from Caves Branch Rockshelter in the Cayo District of Belize" (2019). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1693. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/1693 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Minimum Number of Individuals: A Methodological Comparison using Human Remains from Caves Branch Rockshelter in the Cayo District of Belize A Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology The University of Mississippi by Caitlin Stewart May 2019 Copyright © 2019 by Caitlin Stewart All rights reserved. ABSTRACT The analysis of human remains in archaeological contexts is often complicated by the presence of highly fragmented and commingled remains. The standard methods used to help quantify the number of individuals and elements in these contexts are based upon the segmentation of whole bones. The methods provide standardization and are flexible enough to allow for the idiosyncratic nature of each context. However, this results in a lack of transparency, which is necessary to reanalyze the same sample or to compare “like” contexts, as the data collected will vary. New methods developed during the last decade have resulted in data collection systems created specifically for analyzing incomplete and complex archaeological samples. However, the majority of these new methodologies focus on the analysis of faunal remains in the field of zooarchaeology. This thesis compares the standard method presented by Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994) with one based on bone element features used to determine the number of individuals in an assemblage using a presence and absence system of specific features (Herrmann 2008) against a known number of individuals to evaluate how representative each is when fragmentary remains are present. The analysis uses landmarks from six bone elements from 30 individuals sampled from the archaeological site of Caves Branch Rockshelter in central Belize to address two questions. First, it shows that the feature-based method produces better results than the more widely used segmentation approach, although it is more time consuming and ii requires greater expertise. Second, the use of a standardized method allows the retention of the same level of data integrity, transparency, and comparability across individuals, features, and sites that easily adaptable segmentation approaches lack. iii DEDICATION To My Loving Husband, Travis Cureton iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to say a brief thank you to all the people who helped make this a reality. Dr. Gabriel Wrobel, thank you for allowing me to work on this collection and all the insight and help you provided. Dr. Carolyn Freiwald, this truly wouldn’t have happened without you. Thanks for all the help and all the talks we’ve had. I hope we have many more to come. I also want to thank the rest of my committee Dr. Jay Johnson and Dr. Maureen Meyers. To my mom and dad, you have supported me my whole life and I owe much of this accomplishment to you. I love you. There were many nights spent bouncing ideas off of my peers, well into the early morning that helped me gain perspective along the way. So, Hanna Stewart, Kim Harrison, Becky Pollett, Nick Billstrand, Steph McLeod and the many other members of my cohort and peers along the way: let’s keep the discussions going. Finally, to my husband, Travis Cureton. Meeting you and choosing each other will always be one of my best decisions. Your support, which included lots of encouragement, praise, and criticism throughout the years was essential to this and all of my success. There are many others who were part of my journey and should be acknowledged: Dave Swezey, Jamaal Crawford, Mat Saunders, Priscilla Saunders, Christy Pritchard, Jim v Pirtchard, Steven Cureton, JoAnn Wamble, Tom Cureton, and Niki Cureton. You all deserve a thank you for being people who have helped me in both small and big ways. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ v TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 4 Taphonomy ..................................................................................................................... 5 Primary Data Recording Collection ................................................................................ 9 Overlap Approach ..................................................................................................... 10 Fraction Approach .................................................................................................... 11 Zonal Approach ........................................................................................................ 13 Feature/Landmark Analysis ...................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER III: CAVES BRANCH ROCKSHELTER ..................................................... 19 Caves Branch Rockshelter ............................................................................................ 21 Previous Excavations ................................................................................................ 22 Artifacts..................................................................................................................... 28 Summary of Interpretations from Previous Excavations .......................................... 30 CHAPTER IV: METHODS .............................................................................................. 34 Research Sample ........................................................................................................... 34 Description of Areas Analyzed ..................................................................................... 35 Standards Approach Analysis ....................................................................................... 37 Age Determination .................................................................................................... 38 Feature Analysis ........................................................................................................... 39 Minimum Number of Elements and Minimum Number of Individuals ....................... 40 CHAPTER V: RESULTS ................................................................................................. 42 Minimum Number of Elements (MNE) ........................................................................ 43 Temporal ................................................................................................................... 43 Mandible ................................................................................................................... 44 Clavicle ..................................................................................................................... 45 vii Humerus .................................................................................................................... 46 Ulna ........................................................................................................................... 47 Femur ........................................................................................................................ 48 Minimum Number of Individuals ................................................................................. 49 CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ..................................................... 50 LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 56 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................... 64 Feature Analysis Landmarks/Features .......................................................................... 65 APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 73 VITA ................................................................................................................................