An examination of biodistance between Late Woodland and

An examination of biodistance between Late Woodland and

An examina3on of biodistance between Late Woodland and Mississippian individuals from the northern Mississippian hinterlands using odontometric analysis Ka.e Zejdlik Indiana University; ORISE Fellow JPAC-­‐CIL Introduc3on Around A.D. 1050 swiF changes in the form of site organiza.on, mound construc.on, ideological symbols, technology, subsistence, mortuary prac.ces, and social hierarchy appeared from Alabama to Minnesota marking a transi.on, for many, from a Late Woodland lifestyle to a Mississippian one. It was a .me of gene.c mixing, social interac.on, iden.ty crea.on, and culture making (Pauketat and Alt 2005). Mul.ple concurrent processes created these changes. This aim of this project was to inves.gate biological processes that contributed to this transi.on, specifically, evidence of biological change between Late Woodland period and early Mississippian period individuals at the northern periphery of the Mississipppian cultural landscape. Mississippians on the Periphery Inves.ga.on of biological interac.on between Late Woodland and Mississippian groups at the northern periphery of the Mississippian cultural landscape is especially interes.ng for several reasons: •  Limited biological distance (biodistance) research has been on individuals at the northern periphery •  Cahokia has been designated as the center of Mississippian florescence (Figure 1) and therefore has created a center-­‐out rather than periphery-­‐in research focus •  Extensive resources would have been necessary to reach the hinterlands despite the possibility of an advantageous resource exchange Methods and Resources Buccolingual and mesiodistal crown diameters were used as units of analysis. Tooth size is gene.cally inherited and can therefore be used as a proxy for gene.c varia.on (e.g. Bowden and Goose 1969; Dempsey, et al. 1995; Goose 1963, 1967, 1971; Lundström 1948). Details on specific measurement protocol and steps taken to ensure the reliability of the data can be found in Zejdlik (2015, forthcoming). Biological distances were examined through the use of a rela.onship matrix (R-­‐matrix) model (J H Relethford 2013). The R-­‐matrix model calculates biological distances based on devia.ons from a regional centroid, derived from popula.on means. Each popula.on is given an es.mated popula.on size to make it comparable to other sites within the analysis. Individuals from Late Woodland and Mississippian sites in three, non-­‐neighboring sub-­‐regions were examined (Table 1). •  Small Late Woodland samples due to preserva.on and excessive dental wear •  Kratz Creek, McClaughry, and Neale Effigy Mound (KMN) individuals were combined as a single sample Table 1. Descrip3ve informa3on for site assemblages used in this project Site Dates (A.D.) Morton Mound (LW) 600-­‐950 (Mounds 10, 12, 14) Morton Mound (MS) 958-­‐1278 (Mound 14) N 7 Orendorf KMN (Kratz Creek, McClaughry, Neale Nitschke Polander (MS) 1150-­‐1250 (LW) 700-­‐1030 15 (LW) 700-­‐1030 (LW) 700-­‐1030 13 8 Raisbeck Aztalan Albee (LW) 700-­‐1030 (MS) 1000-­‐1200 (LW) 700-­‐1050 10 20 4 Bucci Angel (LW) 850-­‐1200 (MS) 1050-­‐1400 6 54 RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION
DESIGN © 2011
www.PosterPrese
ntations.com
26 Reference(s) (Cole and Deuel 1937; Strezewski 2003; Wilson 2010) (Cole and Deuel 1937; Santure, et al. 1990; Strezewski 2003; Wilson 2010) (Conrad 1991; Steadman 2008) (Barreb 1919; Handwerk 2007; McKern 1928; Ruth 1998; Smith 2008) (Bradley 2005; McKern 1930) (McKern 1931; Ruth 1998; Thomas 1894) (Rowe 1956; Ruth 1998) (Richards 1992; Rudolph 2009) (Havill 2003; MacLean 1927; MacLean 1931) (Havill 2003) (Black 1967; Monaghan and Peebles 2010) Summary Results Hypothesis 1 Mississippian peoples, as a whole, are a biologically different group from Late Woodland peoples at the northern periphery of the Mississippian landscape. This hypothesis assumes that swiF, region-­‐
wide cultural changes in areas occupied by Late Woodland individuals was the result of non-­‐local, Mississippian people moving into the area rather than an in-­‐situ change (Emerson and Lewis 1991; Richards and Jeske 2002; Stoltman 1991; Stoltman 2000; Stoltman, et al. 2008). Biologically, it was expected that Mississippian individuals, as a group, were less gene.cally distant from each other than from any other groups in the analysis Result Table 2. Mahalanobis distances derived from the R-­‐Ma3x model Figure 1. Loca.on of sites discussed Albee Angel The results of the scaled R-­‐Matrix model do not support the hypothesis (Table 1). The matrix shows that the smallest biological distances between Mississippian individuals and others are frequently with Aztalan Bucci KMN Albee 0.000 0.0621 0.0954 0.1084 0.2804 Angel 0.0000 0.1750 0.0938 0.2692 Aztalan 0.0000 0.3831 0.5662 Bucci 0.0000 0.2252 KMN 0.0000 Morton LW Morton MS Nitschke Orendorf Polander Raisbeck Morton LW 0.0331 0.0113 0.1708 0.0617 0.2681 0.0000 Morton MS 0.0457 0.1015 0.0459 0.1535 0.2934 0.0993 0.0000 Nitschke Orendorf Polander Raisbeck 0.4067 0.5144 0.4953 0.3440 0.6203 0.4515 0.3418 0.0000 0.0064 0.0178 0.0681 0.1528 0.3771 0.0309 0.0406 0.4850 0.1113 0.0000 0.0528 0.1059 0.2214 0.0746 0.2123 0.0408 0.0615 0.4351 0.0000 0.3960 0.6123 0.4642 0.8226 0.6686 0.5825 0.4382 1.3156 0.5091 0.4609 0.0000 Late Woodland peoples. The MDS plot (Figure 2) visually demonstrates this as well. The Mississippian groups do not cluster together as expected for closely related groups. The close relatedness of the Angel Mounds and Orendorf sites suggests a non-­‐
geographically influenced interac.on, which may support ideas of a single Mississippian popula.on; however, the overall lack of close relatedness among Mississippian peoples in this dataset does not support the presence of a single, large, biological popula.on that moved into, and spread Figure 2. MDS plot of the R-­‐matrix distances showing rela.ve relatedness between groups. Late Woodland groups = blue dot, Mississippian groups = orange dot. across, the Midwest. HYPOTHESIS 2 Different responses to Mississippianiza.on in different sub-­‐regions of the Midwest, combined with evidence of swiF and extensive Mississippian influenced cultural changes, suggests that there was migra.on of outside individuals into some of the sub-­‐regions. Biologically, I expected there to be large biological distances between the Late Woodland and Mississippian peoples within each sub-­‐region. Illinois Hypothesis 2 is not supported by the results of the R-­‐
Matrix model (Table 3, Figure 3). The most closely related groups within the Illinois sub-­‐region are the Morton Mounds Late Woodland people and the Mississippian Orendorf people. Overall, there are small biological distances between all Illinois groups in this analysis and a hypothesis of biological intrusion of different people is Table s3upported. . Mahalanobis d istances derived from the R-­‐Ma3x model not Morton LW Morton MS Orendorf Morton LW 0 Morton MS 0.254075 0 Orendorf 0.136139 0.202649 0 Figure 3. MDS plot of the R-­‐matrix distances showing rela.ve relatedness between groups. Late Woodland groups = blue dot, Mississippian groups = orange dot. Indiana
Hypothesis 2 is mildly supported by the results of the R-­‐
matrix model (Table 4, Figure 4), which shows that the two Late Woodland groups are more closely related to each other than either of them are to the Mississippian group. However, differences between all groups is not especially large and a strong argument for in-­‐migra.on from a biologically different popula.on cannot be made. Table 4. Mahalanobis distances derived from the R-­‐Ma3x model Albee Angel Bucci Albee 0 0.3477 0.2405 Angel 0 0.4617 Bucci 0 Wisconsin Hypothesis 2 is supported by the R-­‐Matrix results (Table 5, Figure 5) in that Late Woodland people show a rela.vely large biological distance between themselves and the Mississippian Aztalan group, with the excep.on of the Polander people. The Polander people and the Aztalan people are the most closely related group in the matrix. However, large distances among Wisconsin Late Woodland groups and between many others (Table 2, Figure 2) suggests more complicated relatedness than iden.fied or achievable with the current dataset. Table 5. Mahalanobis distances derived from the R-­‐Ma3x model Aztalan KMN Nitschke Polander Aztalan 0.0000 0.5812 0.8308 0.0153 KMN 0.0000 0.8596 0.4326 Nitschke 0.0000 0.8474 Polander 0.0000 Raisbeck Raisbeck 0.4620 0.4892 1.5553 0.4508 0.0000 Figure 4. MDS plot of the R-­‐matrix distances showing rela.ve relatedness between groups. Late Woodland groups = blue dot, Mississippian groups = orange dot. The swiF explosion of changed site and social organiza.on that spread across the Midwest circa A.D. 1050 has led many to assume that a unique, biological popula.on migrated into the Midwest, or its sub-­‐regions, from outside the area. Specifically, for this project, that individuals from Cahokia moved into the north along the Mississippian River and its tributaries. Dental biodistance methods were used to inves.gate that assump.on. The results achieved with the dataset do not support the presence of a dis.nct, biologically different group having moved into the larger Midwest region (hypothesis 1) or into specific sub-­‐regions (hypothesis 2). Previous research examining Late Woodland and Mississippian interac.on in the Midwest has generally concluded biological con.nuity rather than popula.on replacement or mixing. When biological distances were present, they more oFen correlated with geographic distances than mate exchange with a different popula.on. The results presented here also support an interpreta.on of biological con.nuity in the Central Illinois River Valley and south-­‐central Indiana. The rela.vely large biodistances derived from the Wisconsin data suggest that, possibly, a unique biological mixing not iden.fied by this dataset took place. The interac.on of biology and culture is complicated and it cannot be assumed that same biology equals same material culture or that either indicate a specific kinship iden.ty. Biodistance research provides a small and important perspec.ve that, when combined with material culture and ideological symbolism specialists, provides a more holis.c look at how individuals interacted in the past. References Barreb SA. 1919. The Kratz Creek mound group: A study in Wisconsin Indian mounds. Milwaukee: Published by order of the trustees (Milwaukee, Wis.). Black GA. 1967. Angel site: an archaeological, historical, and ethnological study: Indiana Historical Society Indianapolis. Bowden D, and Goose D. 1969. Inheritance of tooth size in Liverpool families. Journal of medical gene.cs 6(1):55. Bradley M. 2005. Paleopathology and Nutri.onal Health at the Nitschke Effigy Mound Site Dodge County, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-­‐Milwaukee. Cole FC, and Deuel T. 1937. Rediscovering Illinois: Archaeological Explora.ons in and around Fulton County: University of Chicago Press. Conrad LA. 1991. The Middle Mississippian cultures of the central Illinois valley. Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest:119-­‐156. Dempsey PJ, Townsend GC, Mar.n NG, and Neale M. 1995. Gene.c covariance structure of incisor crown size in twins. Journal of Dental Research 74(7):1389-­‐1398. Emerson TE, and Lewis RB. 1991. Cahokia and the Hinterlands. The Apple River Mississippian culture of northwestern Illinois 164:182. Goose D. 1971. The inheritance of tooth size in Bri.sh families. Dental Morphology and Evolu.on University Chicago Press, Chicago:263-­‐270. Goose DH. 1963. Dental measurement: an assessment of its value in anthropological studies. Dental anthropology:
125-­‐148. Goose DH. 1967. Preliminary study of tooth size in families. Journal of Dental Research 46(5):959-­‐962. Handwerk EJ. 2007. An Osteological and Mortuary Analysis of the McClaughry Effigy Mound Site, Marquebe County, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-­‐Milwaukee. Havill LM, A.A. QWhirte and K.A. Murphy. 2003. Skeletal biology adn cemetery use at the Albee Mound, Bucci, Shaffer and Shepherd Sites. In: Brian G. Redmond adn James R. Jones I, editor. Facing the Final Millennium: Studies in the Prehistory of Indiana AD 700-­‐1700 Pp 95-­‐113 Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preserva.on and Archaeology. p 95-­‐113. Lundström A. 1948. Tooth size and occlusion in twins. Basel S. Karger. MacLean JA. 1927. Excava.on of Albee Mound: Descrip.on, Catalog, and Illustra.ons Covering the Summer's Work from July 12 to August 7, 1926: Historical Bureau of the Indiana Library and Historical Department. MacLean JA. 1931. Excava.on of Albee Mound 1926-­‐1927 with descrip.on, catalog, and illustra.ons. Indiana History Bulle.n 8(4):89-­‐176. McKern WC. 1928. The Neale and McClaughry mound groups Milwaukee: published by order of the Board of Trustees. McKern WC. 1930. The Kletzien and Nitschke Mound Groups. Milwaukee: order of the Board of trustees. McKern WC. 1931. A Wisconsin variant of the Hopewell culture: order of the Board of trustees. Monaghan GW, and Peebles CS. 2010. The construc.on, use, and abandonment of Angel Site Mound A: tracing the history of a Middle Mississippian town through its earthworks. American An.quity 75(4):935-­‐953. Pauketat TR. 1993. Big Bang in the Bobom: Poli.cal consolida.on and Mississippianism at Cahokia. 58th Annual Mee.ng of the Society for American Archaeology. St. Louis, MO. Pauketat TR. 1998. Refiguring the archaeology of greater Cahokia. Journal of Archaeological Research 6(1):45-­‐89. Pauketat TR. 2004. Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pauketat TR, and Alt SM. 2005. Agency in a postmold? Physicality and the archaeology of culture-­‐making. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3):213-­‐237. Richards JD. 1992. Ceramics and culture at Aztalan: a late prehistoric village in Southeast Wisconsin. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-­‐Milwaukee. Richards JD, and Jeske RJ. 2002. Loca.on, Loca.on, Loca.on: The Temporal and Cultural Context of Late Prehistoric Seblement in Southeast Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Archeologist 83:32-­‐54. Rowe CW. 1956. The Effigy Mound Culture of Wisconsin. Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public Museum Board of Trustees. Rudolph KZ. 2009. A Taphonomic Analysis of Human Skeletal Material from Aztalan: Cannibalism, Hos.lity and Mortuary Variability. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-­‐Milwaukee. Ruth CE. 1998. Death, Decay and Reconstruc.on: An Ostological Analysis of Effigy Mound Material from Wisconsin [Disserta.on]. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-­‐Milwaukee. 354 p. Santure SK, Harn AD, and Esarey D. 1990. Archaeological Inves.ga.ons at the Morton Village and Norris Farms 36 Cemetary. Reports of Inves.ga.ons. Springfield: Illinois State Museum. Smith K. 2008. An Osteological and Ac.vity Pabern Analysis of the Kratz Creek Effigy Mound Site (47MQ0039), Marquebe County, Wisconsin. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-­‐Milwaukee. Steadman DW. 2008. Warfare related trauma at Orendorf, a middle Mississippian site in west-­‐central Illinois. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136(1):51-­‐64. Stoltman JB, editor. 1991. New perspec.ves on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Stoltman JB. 2000. A Reconsidera.on of the Cultural Processes Linking Cahokia to its Northern Hinterlands During the Period AD 1000–1200. Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L Fowler:439-­‐467. Stoltman JB, Benden DM, and Boszhardt RF. 2008. New evidence in the Upper Mississippi Valley for Premississippian cultural interac.on with the American Bobom. American An.quity:317-­‐336. Strezewski M. 2003. Morton Mound 14 and mortuary ceremonialism in the central Illinois River valley. Midcon.nental Journal of Archaeology:7-­‐31. Thomas C. 1894. Mound explora.ons. TwelFh Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology Washington. Wilson JJ. 2010. Modeling life through death in late prehistoric west-­‐central Illinois: An assessment of paleodemographic and paleoepidemiological variability. Binghampton: State University of New York at Binghamton.
Figure 5. MDS plot of the R-­‐matrix distances showing rela.ve relatedness between groups. Late Woodland groups = blue dot, Mississippian groups = orange dot. Acknowledgements Indiana University Anthropology, David Skomp Research Fund, Indiana University-­‐ Glenn Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Wisconsin Archaeological Society Della Cook, Frederika Kaestle, Susan Alt, Valerie O’Loughlin, David Polly, Andrew Thompson, Nicholas Passalacqua, Danielle Hanson, Kathryn E.D. Kuhlhavy, Meghan Buchanan, and Elizabeth Wabs.