<%BANNER%>

Sex Determination by Discriminant Function Analysis of Native American Crania from Florida and Georgia

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021802/00001

Material Information

Title: Sex Determination by Discriminant Function Analysis of Native American Crania from Florida and Georgia
Physical Description: 1 online resource (105 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Mcginnes, Michael B
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: archaeology, bioarchaeology, cranium, discriminant, florida, georgia, osteology, prehistoric, sex, southeast
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Anthropology thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The goal of this research is to determine if the accuracy of discriminant function analysis for sex determination could be improved by using local or regional populations, and by better variable selection. In archaeological contexts, skeletons are usually all that remains of the actual people who once lived there. Information about the sex of those individuals is fundamental to the study of demographics, sex roles, and life ways of past cultures. Determining an individual?s sex is also fundamental to personal identification of skeletal remains from modern contexts, whether from a mass disaster or an unmarked grave. There are several techniques available for determining sex from skeletal remains, and each technique has its place. Discriminant function analysis is valuable in sex determination because it requires relatively little training to use effectively and it serves as an objective check to other methods. The cranium is a reliable indicator of sex and is often the best indicator of sex when other parts of the skeleton have been damaged, destroyed, or separated from the cranium. Previous research assumed that discriminant functions for sex determination developed for one population could easily be used for all populations, with little regard for the skeletal variation between populations. This work tests the hypothesis that sex determination by discriminant function analysis of the crania for Florida and Georgia Native American remains from archaeological contexts is more accurate when the functions are developed using remains from those populations than functions developed from other populations. Cranial measurements and sex identification data are collected from skeletal collections housed at the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida, and the Smithsonian Institution?s National Museum of Natural History. The sample includes 46 individuals from ten Native American archaeological sites in Florida and Georgia, ranging from the Middle Archaic Period to the Spanish contact era. This research finds that existing discriminant function formulas disproportionately misclassify skeletons from the Florida and Georgia unless the formula is adjusted for that population. Additionally, existing formulas require measurements that are rarely preserved or that do not contribute to identifying sex. New discriminant function formulas based on skeletons from Florida and Georgia are only nominally more accurate than existing formulas, but it is no more difficult to produce new formulas than to adjust existing formulas. Creating new formulas also provides the opportunity to select variables that are more often preserved in archaeological contexts and that also clearly contribute to identifying the sex individuals. This research finds that existing formulas are reliable only if the sectioning point is adjusted for the study population.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Michael B Mcginnes.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Falsetti, Anthony B.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021802:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021802/00001

Material Information

Title: Sex Determination by Discriminant Function Analysis of Native American Crania from Florida and Georgia
Physical Description: 1 online resource (105 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Mcginnes, Michael B
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: archaeology, bioarchaeology, cranium, discriminant, florida, georgia, osteology, prehistoric, sex, southeast
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Anthropology thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The goal of this research is to determine if the accuracy of discriminant function analysis for sex determination could be improved by using local or regional populations, and by better variable selection. In archaeological contexts, skeletons are usually all that remains of the actual people who once lived there. Information about the sex of those individuals is fundamental to the study of demographics, sex roles, and life ways of past cultures. Determining an individual?s sex is also fundamental to personal identification of skeletal remains from modern contexts, whether from a mass disaster or an unmarked grave. There are several techniques available for determining sex from skeletal remains, and each technique has its place. Discriminant function analysis is valuable in sex determination because it requires relatively little training to use effectively and it serves as an objective check to other methods. The cranium is a reliable indicator of sex and is often the best indicator of sex when other parts of the skeleton have been damaged, destroyed, or separated from the cranium. Previous research assumed that discriminant functions for sex determination developed for one population could easily be used for all populations, with little regard for the skeletal variation between populations. This work tests the hypothesis that sex determination by discriminant function analysis of the crania for Florida and Georgia Native American remains from archaeological contexts is more accurate when the functions are developed using remains from those populations than functions developed from other populations. Cranial measurements and sex identification data are collected from skeletal collections housed at the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida, and the Smithsonian Institution?s National Museum of Natural History. The sample includes 46 individuals from ten Native American archaeological sites in Florida and Georgia, ranging from the Middle Archaic Period to the Spanish contact era. This research finds that existing discriminant function formulas disproportionately misclassify skeletons from the Florida and Georgia unless the formula is adjusted for that population. Additionally, existing formulas require measurements that are rarely preserved or that do not contribute to identifying sex. New discriminant function formulas based on skeletons from Florida and Georgia are only nominally more accurate than existing formulas, but it is no more difficult to produce new formulas than to adjust existing formulas. Creating new formulas also provides the opportunity to select variables that are more often preserved in archaeological contexts and that also clearly contribute to identifying the sex individuals. This research finds that existing formulas are reliable only if the sectioning point is adjusted for the study population.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Michael B Mcginnes.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Falsetti, Anthony B.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021802:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110209_AAAADI INGEST_TIME 2011-02-09T19:51:27Z PACKAGE UFE0021802_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 110818 DFID F20110209_AABYOC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH mcginnes_m_Page_049.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
da9173db710d3ce90de4ef094ae8268d
SHA-1
9c3f7f0205fb8bdfd3b1b665d2a64bf5fdebda33
1053954 F20110209_AABYNN mcginnes_m_Page_022.tif
f91c090051c0e4349761188ca43bb846
482eca7286248a32be3125e1ef5ffe078531d01e
F20110209_AABYMZ mcginnes_m_Page_031.tif
4280237a3f8f36a863c188f23837e750
15e5c605e7ab69073d425ec8b1c11b0bec8a5d95
46522 F20110209_AABYOD mcginnes_m_Page_073.pro
45d103648bf83bd62b3af7433504dd4c
17d8ea4ecfc9df01cfa15bfd4b048644a59f3c69
8561 F20110209_AABYNO mcginnes_m_Page_021thm.jpg
fc8a8c34ec0b471a4098c4accb9a638c
4b5b2ea1d6c4114daa3550d613810a7c746d487f
109682 F20110209_AABYOE mcginnes_m_Page_078.jp2
96e7c038669ed4e6aacffe2b4abf2133
f9260cecd85c228c41129b083adfa92166110542
32739 F20110209_AABYNP mcginnes_m_Page_035.QC.jpg
88b9f854148e1bf10d1b2cb8098d1555
97b4749895fcb9c86f519f4e607af64949b87ff1
2039 F20110209_AABYOF mcginnes_m_Page_049.txt
0cb9e0642f082f709ceaf0750d7e06d7
4abb15ac3c06d7aca6081d26321e9818d3d003d1
2115 F20110209_AABYNQ mcginnes_m_Page_088.txt
08086ad9858bdb2ad93434cf87ba000d
042dd6a9e2efaac918516a4cc8648c59a9b0ed6c
8773 F20110209_AABYOG mcginnes_m_Page_085thm.jpg
26b63277f4f7434f40efaa4e2252314d
b1a8263f044b495810084df0d236c469156c9e08
2156 F20110209_AABYNR mcginnes_m_Page_001thm.jpg
0adf2183546fba20b3a32b4a7a86eb8a
2a6fb6303bfb2cc91979f5776f20ef992430f719
1284 F20110209_AABYNS mcginnes_m_Page_002.QC.jpg
0f0e40abb0d38a7758e1ad1be2ea790d
cd9f80001cf276e4f9fdcb6f0bd55b4dae67db91
16871 F20110209_AABYOH mcginnes_m_Page_104.jp2
f85963fade92d905542cb92e5e685f67
a3d3726a31d95dca752d7595148f15999d007a89
F20110209_AABYNT mcginnes_m_Page_044.tif
8d63e30d93c916982587626e140f32c9
dca3b7c4a49b768a9921c579067ac9a419982b43
97101 F20110209_AABYOI mcginnes_m_Page_055.jpg
8d45b84e74faf118b5c098a967d3cfa5
25d3b8a9590d4c92ce5d81559f59c918e8787317
37399 F20110209_AABYNU mcginnes_m_Page_068.QC.jpg
2d199fd16c76515034bda32dafff5029
e8e02b0fcf438ab7945fc040de1ffbff14a1c681
9358 F20110209_AABYOJ mcginnes_m_Page_043thm.jpg
dd3f99124002c45568bc1f37ce6efe00
d8be3a09c6b22639c99969fe14ba4e3c9a23c114
1051970 F20110209_AABYNV mcginnes_m_Page_009.jp2
52bb816bbb371e40264493d6b5708e77
a7503e54fb049f031b39f70605499364c71b22a5
2158 F20110209_AABYOK mcginnes_m_Page_021.txt
af7687691f9cb8858d630c7380401470
c9a3747294aaefd58c4baa2d35996e201ceb7c8b
4192 F20110209_AABYNW mcginnes_m_Page_007.txt
b0a97d966b2546de0a3fd6f4ac420a75
ef26329d110a435f2f15c43146d5b589a7b2c1c2
8067 F20110209_AABYOL mcginnes_m_Page_061thm.jpg
8fe4b62484fa7f5291ae523055bdd7ad
424c77651b556fa39a0f2d0c4fb60c3a6ae51f3e
112401 F20110209_AABYNX mcginnes_m_Page_100.jp2
77838d1a0ac6bdd1c72729b0110c8f8a
505b6fb236cf3b0dece286d4096974d93fc44346
7675 F20110209_AABYPA mcginnes_m_Page_076.QC.jpg
33c5b096830e0d18dfd8b52522571842
6ac114cfe6abae5d87c828470844b162b28def99
37676 F20110209_AABYOM mcginnes_m_Page_036.QC.jpg
dafbfaa5b595f7349bfd97552dc4fd51
71a4ce341a61c7e41965b0e18e3bf0b155165ef1
116862 F20110209_AABYNY mcginnes_m_Page_102.jp2
a625dca3d638821b8fe165db13e478cf
82946c521543eca9dfbefbf099379ef42bf247e7
F20110209_AABYPB mcginnes_m_Page_028.txt
9acf71a9c6c30768320d3ce11b4b67e8
6c44dfd58f57a6c20b3b3ae497a111472a1ff622
53830 F20110209_AABYON mcginnes_m_Page_086.pro
192299b2a3812236f372602d97388684
66b0acd5698bbe1153f84968b56c7c88e28ccaf3
106472 F20110209_AABYNZ mcginnes_m_Page_094.jpg
d8b9795fc2983dd17946d6404167b497
f6b030e2bb8aac6ed0f52dfc2391e713cf1787ad
111708 F20110209_AABYPC mcginnes_m_Page_033.jpg
48425e0749fcaa397aa454b9eb834f5b
5af54f8c5cafc8453f5a888037f9d611103d18e6
2200 F20110209_AABYOO mcginnes_m_Page_084.txt
1d3e2d964027c8a7a3c5ec9ea14f1a45
44a38bd6e457f4d9ccb6d95409aef9f844822b17
F20110209_AABYPD mcginnes_m_Page_093.tif
204d52cf81ae86fc09d952a8aa3b29e1
73eee91d3a780fdc65f24a1dc9eed0cdf505ba3d
364 F20110209_AABYPE mcginnes_m_Page_003.txt
8a52b3cbe14e04daa2acca41320a549d
453457a8483cae4a56bdec2cf89dbe0bb80fa9e6
90950 F20110209_AABYOP mcginnes_m_Page_090.jpg
bbbca736a92a2517adea57168f67dc2c
234a155b9606b870e74193abd72a97443be853c6
F20110209_AABYPF mcginnes_m_Page_020.tif
1d730948738319d7a1ff650c80f35772
b79132e9f410795f854d144038866d30265cc985
107747 F20110209_AABYOQ mcginnes_m_Page_028.jpg
059756016719ee3b0f453d2862587a3b
66c21ee26d60ac3d71af534cf1e02e0e25ab56e9
29680 F20110209_AABYPG mcginnes_m_Page_060.QC.jpg
870fc30b7b4e56a71ae065db25981d3e
421031ba85d610b52af3146e48646f974972ccb4
F20110209_AABYOR mcginnes_m_Page_013.tif
7807dab03e8a2ea983392c68446c274e
e4c89f449369c578b2894b0d6008d9d8890474b7
53255 F20110209_AABYPH mcginnes_m_Page_082.pro
d1b642f13246ae5fd61343084120b4a7
24a0fd11411355f459170087dc9e924720d30c17
2023 F20110209_AABYOS mcginnes_m_Page_032.txt
8d9ae14e3ed9f6c049b64202fb6c2efc
37fb61df9c516367437b30419c243285a4dd76ec
99250 F20110209_AABYOT mcginnes_m_Page_074.jpg
00da6ebc2449447beba5c385ef63a756
9dd366c56ef6167e1a5aef87afa5ab8ca9feb750
474 F20110209_AABYPI mcginnes_m_Page_001.txt
d97e7395f10159f543a6385d3c836797
ba2ae9a27fbb319cbd5e54e37c6fad08bb329656
1002 F20110209_AABYOU mcginnes_m_Page_011.txt
215e27f839f9ab8ebf2097bab7a09abd
f52c3d84698b573617fcbba871fb216711b6c970
54297 F20110209_AABYPJ mcginnes_m_Page_019.pro
7f9c8a126c2d67a74650369d52dfda7e
810c677966a90f2c7eb3dc0368e501a9890cc8df
104059 F20110209_AABYOV mcginnes_m_Page_075.jpg
4e3f0d8e04607d039237122dea1c6887
1613ccff9d58cb2eadc4f588db29e5430b294c6d
102076 F20110209_AABYPK mcginnes_m_Page_059.jpg
a92f5cbd54dfe5a9c20bfcb79b80d412
99cd157e7f14d25cc5859e56ccec65ee997b2f68
18958 F20110209_AABYOW mcginnes_m_Page_025.pro
69396a39fc8634e9579bbfa0d8aac8d8
5c7a6017546a78922a23a52ed78469427ab4520a
F20110209_AABYQA mcginnes_m_Page_030.tif
b0c5d227150b6994e08219d660303172
d46b972f6602d053cfcfb43e03be3ec0ac2781cf
103365 F20110209_AABYPL mcginnes_m_Page_051.jpg
df7e26329925be9a13b3f742e315c05e
6102d12c544193acc3a65b7e4f61c1d1f335568f
104823 F20110209_AABYOX mcginnes_m_Page_078.jpg
db5506256c6e33999ea6732868bf3dff
16ad88a4efdc4ac37eff164bbd68c3ad1be2b638
101667 F20110209_AABYQB mcginnes_m_Page_055.jp2
67a88f35e1a6b98c4709cbde8c3ccccc
22722cef15da0c6547dfeda6ca8cf4b60a2cdcb3
9026 F20110209_AABYPM mcginnes_m_Page_050thm.jpg
af905cd8e9113bcc715cf31a66a20e06
af4f0697966d06e6482972fe1a01b5870554f697
8244 F20110209_AABYOY mcginnes_m_Page_047thm.jpg
3423254405318584f63fb38135951fd8
aa612cc6165c09793c35bbb9d93b4313ebb018e8
114567 F20110209_AABYQC mcginnes_m_Page_057.jp2
b929fae903014cbbc953511ec23975ec
0c23720fd3baeb1b6015e5e9c2566beee2c3826e
43284 F20110209_AABYPN mcginnes_m_Page_026.pro
869fea91dd34935b40f5e1cd8f99dc60
91ec298999f8a762551fc0df14ca5b078f1deda1
F20110209_AABYOZ mcginnes_m_Page_103.tif
fb9ee7f28515b9afd82f336372df3274
6118e31f4d3563b14baef1ee32ee1bbb62040551
6989 F20110209_AABYQD mcginnes_m_Page_029thm.jpg
a3e425abdd24d135c2b48819f85f2368
258f7b19d2e7c3aace8cd5d1977eec5a6dba8057
55218 F20110209_AABYPO mcginnes_m_Page_016.pro
c9e1bbe3f278cee273fa99d7f1d4f517
3e8d408dfcdf88758844a3b493d0963239446bde
35626 F20110209_AABYQE mcginnes_m_Page_082.QC.jpg
cdfa9bfa3a2d096b748610b5b2de79af
ed511613a6cc77919008250715e8a12ea2b896db
3521 F20110209_AABYPP mcginnes_m_Page_025thm.jpg
3db7059e5d3dada7588cf6da381acf69
58582a3264e983be8744989572fab4b44fa7cc64
36331 F20110209_AABYQF mcginnes_m_Page_048.QC.jpg
b4158439651f14e0c167977ee685c408
40f4858b5ff7ed68764683c13446002c3f0ad288
F20110209_AABYPQ mcginnes_m_Page_041.tif
154fe0d2bde1d10a909994c6a32078bf
fb4aa0775b667eb47412cc60d51da48568705e83
38052 F20110209_AABYQG mcginnes_m_Page_023.QC.jpg
304190fbbd3454a89016642491013589
5cc47354d00df1774b58ea178bf20882e8bdbb0f
3333 F20110209_AABYPR mcginnes_m_Page_093thm.jpg
f42e881c80a8a71209e8e48371275b6d
e48b16ca11d7977fb7426cc810db5a485c9ae36c
102509 F20110209_AABYQH mcginnes_m_Page_053.jpg
98a3e58c592447b688a47c6f7920687b
38240140a45172095b37d37a7f2c795f2d9400a6
7919 F20110209_AABYPS mcginnes_m_Page_060thm.jpg
a95ac7a09cc302550ebfd6ce00ad23c9
09989d991184456f2d2d02c46a936ffb2c8ae107
100713 F20110209_AABYQI mcginnes_m_Page_013.jpg
854d173175f14ea9c958d41356b646f0
0c5e24460c16927be512b24b16cb515f9f47974f
8351 F20110209_AABYPT mcginnes_m_Page_027thm.jpg
6c73fc18093f97c33ff37afc00493332
021f3238020a7b37d4c6a9db2c574efb62717d0d
117332 F20110209_AABYPU mcginnes_m_Page_101.jp2
6cfac6a4cf50c08af3a169bf7c7da45f
c60f012e1e6a2483956ba17efbb8a1ffa72345b9
33523 F20110209_AABYQJ mcginnes_m_Page_020.QC.jpg
430d269349957ac50dbe761e17c8eb57
ab0dee534e1545b9902f0d60a076dfccad489921
F20110209_AABYPV mcginnes_m_Page_073.tif
93582bc914bacc4123a0906c5deaf7ae
4c9542b84a285feb05869970805f18393a70e46b
2143 F20110209_AABYQK mcginnes_m_Page_081.txt
1a72d673b45e651bd5d69d6a190d5c8c
9109377b51f6703ffc834301cadbd81fee748977
8514 F20110209_AABYPW mcginnes_m_Page_071thm.jpg
0bb44d716bce7fc4d9d1bebc5136af0d
f434e513e8241a97ca9ce3c9924897f2dd00e3d4
17431 F20110209_AABYQL mcginnes_m_Page_003.jp2
9edbf9056f6863bf5b2b72d61c86489a
b3e17014191b7a091e9d2bd52d6af655c3e778c1
116416 F20110209_AABYPX mcginnes_m_Page_097.jp2
8a1ed235ac84fb1f386a83be354bc6b7
72ccca57e6c27a3be4a6e78d3a8a8cb4e5e86ec9
114214 F20110209_AABYRA mcginnes_m_Page_019.jp2
32fde4f669b8e2a4299ee70194b073e0
bb2086a69a78ecd892771dd48dbbcdb7ccb07790
728170 F20110209_AABYQM mcginnes_m_Page_029.jp2
b46ae5e82f6f602184791c6fef327ba7
966a4894a82aa527071c0f5d4cc8aef4329b62f5
9001 F20110209_AABYPY mcginnes_m_Page_066thm.jpg
95fef83d68e866e1a9116a9011827cc3
a5f144f22050a1fb2c391b70a34c78235dd5fb1b
15780 F20110209_AABYRB mcginnes_m_Page_008.jpg
03f7876987fc1d0fa9e857ff7a8c4af0
bd08f75a919b1de3391a008db788939114975b22
758 F20110209_AABYQN mcginnes_m_Page_025.txt
31059b65d7b085da5307f6f41d05ae42
9209a361e446b97c4685ebd352e15fd3d0011300
6485 F20110209_AABYPZ mcginnes_m_Page_092thm.jpg
2152a83bd51763930ab2b2f9f446a414
3a60843ffac659af9461c2c3ad6aa1cd5c827a9e
109468 F20110209_AABYRC mcginnes_m_Page_072.jp2
db55584fa930104219ada41b11703f67
1d69401d5e8fd10db01cad1809ee687c7ca7ba64
1144780 F20110209_AABYQO mcginnes_m.pdf
e5e20b528cba90d17dc29452869e69f3
e7a41c2ff6b5b046a18c0ba6d294f5c3043b8067
F20110209_AABYRD mcginnes_m_Page_047.tif
9749edc15eddb02ae29d5fd2bd682cce
6e4b9d530714d6d268cd32344cb581b42aa9cbaf
1208 F20110209_AABYQP mcginnes_m_Page_003thm.jpg
c33ec9723b653b0feb3964a12a710f1c
ebdff40496d523229f9188fd580ac9fee454c3aa
F20110209_AABYRE mcginnes_m_Page_045.tif
75837ee2203d34116ae8d7ab854ed49f
006ed42613d0112419ba67604e615aad95c7c2f9
112463 F20110209_AABYQQ mcginnes_m_Page_056.jpg
30ed66aed447b09e83e8cf8c3340157f
457b25f569b5b4171a9d02edc1ca316931fa4aa4
48182 F20110209_AABYRF mcginnes_m_Page_089.pro
f11531e3dc77fd0f69e9d9ff8eb45acf
12fd1852b590d3305f412f50da41791ea11d1f24
105546 F20110209_AABYQR mcginnes_m_Page_037.jpg
bc4d004e53292c8e97501749dec74277
aaaa69d5cfe45894af6c7853593309a1afb8171f
8759 F20110209_AABYRG mcginnes_m_Page_004thm.jpg
bc82686d7b9f07a4a0197700b5486f90
21b42b3557f7c188c1042d196eacb9e73bf23274
2237 F20110209_AABYQS mcginnes_m_Page_100.txt
f24cddf49b3377cf6cd4ca6fb2ec0a6c
c96ca832e4a8e1988d89451052083997bfaeb093
115987 F20110209_AABYRH mcginnes_m_Page_040.jp2
0fe0c70c6aeee1e304b8de66a0bb4a2d
e8cb412c01381087617ee5e69014fc0616007079
8444 F20110209_AABYQT mcginnes_m_Page_103thm.jpg
40abaaefd0a80f664a2d51442af87070
f88ed877aab2ca94fd710e6268403c5d788e9bea
4175 F20110209_AABYRI mcginnes_m_Page_006.txt
83958e8dc6cd221574ed52feaf44daf4
370860b4a67852fab0a802d6bad11a685317f14f
1832 F20110209_AABYQU mcginnes_m_Page_058.txt
d50a9fb145c1ce3f3f4abfbb28956ecc
c6282f2095cd57df4d9c2da6dacc955010f3e7ad
1896 F20110209_AABYRJ mcginnes_m_Page_010thm.jpg
7691ede9e0d1fc5c5ab47aa092e6f559
f7a852b5bef3d00fcbc85b91017a152756f806cf
41261 F20110209_AABYQV mcginnes_m_Page_009.pro
556e7f5feca99cb15b6c312c07c0d013
259eae1a01746765595352326bcb6ed1226d117e
35519 F20110209_AABYQW mcginnes_m_Page_051.QC.jpg
04ee7a7f254a3f6d30b97ab951dfd322
846a7ab427670505b7d3cccf42c6b64b0d2c236c
32640 F20110209_AABYRK mcginnes_m_Page_078.QC.jpg
acb67a4a1d3a1efd79f3e817b48e01e6
71309d225d0f15ff0b0871b7c350f4655ce70db0
8313 F20110209_AABYQX mcginnes_m_Page_030thm.jpg
f106fe124d7546b2c10b86a31598a713
5ef12ae482f36788cdbd7855de4cc364ff62e244
F20110209_AABYSA mcginnes_m_Page_070.tif
455e2c8082904ac5e1ad9a9156a67af5
fec8dac152e0c5716d44dc2efc13f462586ad7ca
34777 F20110209_AABYRL mcginnes_m_Page_086.QC.jpg
e2a6442a4ebe91bc0c6312d7dba8fe99
6dbd7a2f8920410416e1bb5d27de25ef902bef7d
8678 F20110209_AABYQY mcginnes_m_Page_015thm.jpg
03134eed8e77b584ec5413d24005e776
b55d75e0dadeff2d211e398234f9bb0b444a2b6a
45138 F20110209_AABYSB mcginnes_m_Page_058.pro
213ce65267933e39575cc5e5536bd613
f128e165ca46d26928fc0e87aa007591244f83fa
2083 F20110209_AABYRM mcginnes_m_Page_004.txt
1080e98e23ab2ba87c8716382821b938
2dcdb754cdf4b38a373c1c2215e5eaa3f089d1ce
96852 F20110209_AABYQZ mcginnes_m_Page_026.jp2
e07e3547d046845db453d68dec78f5ef
19bbc1beeb43acf98c507e469ad338f90ca36032
2923 F20110209_AABYSC mcginnes_m_Page_070.txt
283d95c3d72be7523cf9b65c45b6e8a1
0b8fc241ec855c3000bc94f25c1dcdd70e779591
98109 F20110209_AABYRN mcginnes_m_Page_059.jp2
ed765c95ded6d6767a87c613820d1f31
33a53e64ffa0bb9665d87834370199109addf17f
5550 F20110209_AABYSD mcginnes_m_Page_006thm.jpg
82e159b9e7f3fc3fb68c1660faaa9cb3
f21010078918b575155bb17c5425393df231defe
117441 F20110209_AABYRO mcginnes_m_Page_015.jp2
4ecb203d89752db287bd0c424037bd74
ab7ac36ebceb4288ace9df815547c2a6ffda6e15
8894 F20110209_AABYSE mcginnes_m_Page_067thm.jpg
d8c1c6a755e88277f3ccbfc9a82f32d2
e86b7e13360970158e17b2efb74cf779445291d5
30236 F20110209_AABYRP mcginnes_m_Page_017.jp2
c6f7f1cc0e0682f6a96e3251af430c97
09dfd8bdd34a3077f7f659816a603a53b93e5ce5
31148 F20110209_AABYSF mcginnes_m_Page_102.QC.jpg
369efc592a25eab15ab46ae6ecf7526f
0a8872de83dbf51b4705a3c48a8e47a349fd8ef7
40313 F20110209_AABYRQ mcginnes_m_Page_062.pro
c60a5070ecdc70b542df08b700164a65
cbf3cd2c3006b1a1db10f9a1d99a11be897aabae
18282 F20110209_AABYSG mcginnes_m_Page_005.pro
c2d61e8765cf3a3976a44dddf2c2c3c0
ad55e8ebe1e1980e2dcf16f5c084eec522544ac1
507 F20110209_AABYRR mcginnes_m_Page_017.txt
ca1499496d773042090d306591de59dd
ebd1eafb4eb87dbc54a9505640b7089a95061a63
54378 F20110209_AABYSH mcginnes_m_Page_015.pro
ddf0f7e5f5571d5e089190601f4e49a0
63fef7e8f17558f2d484521b034d8baef59d2540
F20110209_AABYRS mcginnes_m_Page_078.tif
819753e15d7ec8798abaf51e59b9c314
fbd9ae629215800307f1c98bd4aa6b8de5bcecac
F20110209_AABYSI mcginnes_m_Page_034.tif
914cc6c2b80051c319952f48fca53c1b
31b73a5370828063f6d45946332ad0f7fb087c86
113253 F20110209_AABYRT mcginnes_m_Page_088.jp2
541c9dd823df51fb65daed892e886c1a
d7bb7484bf3607634b615cbc038a5d84565bf665
35887 F20110209_AABYSJ mcginnes_m_Page_033.QC.jpg
c298b86c65c8490d9e63fd1e26ce34d2
14b2c52fd20c7d62e8b1e0ccb230ab77545ffbde
53493 F20110209_AABYRU mcginnes_m_Page_088.pro
48d61c553238a5ddccb4c82f5a8f6081
ca4c77da5c63683f262217016319e5f50198e76b
52199 F20110209_AABYSK mcginnes_m_Page_102.pro
87875bd3a7e346dcde3c87ca01241d71
b87a9e76b530a043fc6a354fcbdf69b7f90e78b1
8741 F20110209_AABYRV mcginnes_m_Page_042thm.jpg
d8148dffa031b1cf0784d35af4c1dd95
a3c99dd8edf3e9d7364aa3855c489b0f3b06149d
51713 F20110209_AABYRW mcginnes_m_Page_087.pro
fca23608011bdbfe3b71168ae18a75eb
bb443436ac9ec1e5f24e96f9a0749bfa9803e031
25271604 F20110209_AABYTA mcginnes_m_Page_009.tif
76f925719ac94d51215f6250abe15954
cdde187266ce1535552ced4e500922957975bc10
4469 F20110209_AABYSL mcginnes_m_Page_105thm.jpg
a30736a6b56d87a434a042f019394c96
b888d7988a3aff8fb097aed2da37ce359c4f42e8
104824 F20110209_AABYRX mcginnes_m_Page_049.jpg
62df3e1b23218cb7675eb8009cca8083
b1c31f52c0d40881f20a673fcff020b86d79623b
74763 F20110209_AABYTB mcginnes_m_Page_029.jpg
e17223fac66684e80b866f41f0f3cd1d
2d4a4c470d06e05fc8be7414655d4211702d0faf
7941 F20110209_AABYSM mcginnes_m_Page_074thm.jpg
4c52bcbfa397151151a3b7d1b45f20de
396790de9f9801421bcff95a0249014b4c638cd8
18466 F20110209_AABYRY mcginnes_m_Page_105.QC.jpg
17b63306946f7107523a928540f4dffa
b60b47668ac2ca388e5ac434a9b728ac8bbe42ed
F20110209_AABYTC mcginnes_m_Page_104.tif
c4af76fd770c8d4e3226f45e0ed30bd0
437ff67b6ee6ae97cda4bdacbe713244e4a6dc42
35202 F20110209_AABYSN mcginnes_m_Page_021.QC.jpg
89e6a4a9f7d6c4109264df9778e3476f
f8fff65e71f69044369c020158d80e2b634cb9c9
104289 F20110209_AABYRZ mcginnes_m_Page_087.jpg
c399bbf78f5516421c42315c7951b905
4453a57e66bd5890cf0c603a69a949570ae70a62
53176 F20110209_AABYTD mcginnes_m_Page_077.pro
81572955cedd6c2d0665e1b2fcf5ab14
f307a3c74cbd5c3c8f3a2eb67966bef19f73ea9c
7558 F20110209_AABYSO mcginnes_m_Page_012.QC.jpg
b33b691109f234dbd85887dec9e0388b
fe468a854ceb32d3d3e784fd955884032b9cf51d
53114 F20110209_AABYTE mcginnes_m_Page_028.pro
47622231d717e9af44485ee003455a73
c3f3083f2a9a205a533b5e0236bd93343c7385c3
120434 F20110209_AABYSP mcginnes_m_Page_042.jp2
fb90c3c1d726db5089cef567ea8d743d
2c808fab0ae99a6e696c110aa889d59b1b6c78b4
36229 F20110209_AABYTF mcginnes_m_Page_064.jpg
a20ad3b5b3521e62d39a28cda3ca07ef
7b57e0d04d8bcda30d821a356b1ad9216dc28536
F20110209_AABYSQ mcginnes_m_Page_012.tif
8a714837941ccca7b6146671968abf7e
5aa81bff31063d3ea2081668e8c2d7cb84212a93
7019 F20110209_AABYTG mcginnes_m_Page_062thm.jpg
a39e25f6154001debc54be3b76605a5f
52afd032e6504472b14a7a48879da74f3dedfe14
5918 F20110209_AABYSR mcginnes_m_Page_010.QC.jpg
aa93c064ddedf5b482757f948b400f2a
c0b3870cfcf0bef9410ddb3641b42d73066fa352
32086 F20110209_AABYTH mcginnes_m_Page_063.QC.jpg
21aadfef1f933beba38c2c700e38eeb1
dd961bc933bee6cfeeb3224c0b73b2f624b1db0d
31272 F20110209_AABYSS mcginnes_m_Page_103.QC.jpg
3bffc1f1904ea68c3fa5c65fefeffb8f
485f456ae132f2536596053a1f397e75d700ecba
F20110209_AABYTI mcginnes_m_Page_019.tif
3e68f473e9cf30f76e8b640551c62314
05a83a53a28d1abd34ec8e476747c48e81cb3163
1391 F20110209_AABYST mcginnes_m_Page_034.txt
f787c110ff188f881cb76b039bff98d9
2117bdd06b5686aff0335e3c20e23f395f259008
54283 F20110209_AABYTJ mcginnes_m_Page_066.pro
b48f170e81947f8184710316a7da320b
22f0292298a138d85001be4c3bc7a06144e355c8
F20110209_AABYSU mcginnes_m_Page_105.tif
763740092cc03a48fe5fdaae6c1ef30f
c0aa33b9d25995fa3ab04cad06c4f883eeb87cb2
107529 F20110209_AABYTK mcginnes_m_Page_048.jpg
a8d11ebc7dbbff1bc85cdd60e15e27dc
54092dfee9bf51c48268aa30f6105105f716e303
2124 F20110209_AABYSV mcginnes_m_Page_076thm.jpg
75ec2ea825ff9e89eeaa5343b8b22283
53eca81ec152f6a9b71bd9ccb461dfdc72c32916
12558 F20110209_AABYTL mcginnes_m_Page_017.pro
f6556c07bdbc290574857bc08783c43a
3c8acd3bdbcc233cfcadaac5807bd92d7a455442
8995 F20110209_AABYSW mcginnes_m_Page_056thm.jpg
f657e47c44c152b64c317a8950996acb
466cdb29b087fa481e2f409b1b6bf0a5e02bbd84
9004 F20110209_AABYSX mcginnes_m_Page_019thm.jpg
f8567d9267236312ec27a0952d60838b
b905b34ce4a8dfb1350ad3eff2039263a985cf39
F20110209_AABYUA mcginnes_m_Page_036.tif
8b81840346f9b09e6c333d230357b384
79134e21cbfd73483ceb33101b772d2324b28d24
34348 F20110209_AABYSY mcginnes_m_Page_077.QC.jpg
c25db5d6f8209f69d4812de208a40cee
d1b81a5a902fd9758f6161b5b605554f1e7d96df
34848 F20110209_AABYUB mcginnes_m_Page_004.QC.jpg
7b4687977fa61cf047e9f40a62594bfc
5cf2f1fb92144e0d0b6c02951894c689936cafdc
113356 F20110209_AABYTM mcginnes_m_Page_044.jpg
9b7528e2e6dc0106d503212b7764d2ac
9d33adab56ba3bb30a79ac513f4c5204753037ea
8139 F20110209_AABYSZ mcginnes_m_Page_102thm.jpg
7bb84afe3265c3248a6738054a72066d
76ea9956a4c541fb9693e3841e3400b6708ea54f
F20110209_AABYUC mcginnes_m_Page_014.tif
eaf036a40ba68ba44de190bbd50d51ad
24e7224a3adfad7a2a3099663a4bde8187fab8b9
F20110209_AABYTN mcginnes_m_Page_008.tif
774d7ad5c19d04774cccf186f3c0f706
d2d16da7719094f87bfd5713e821f4f50b1e1386
36871 F20110209_AABYUD mcginnes_m_Page_041.QC.jpg
e2a845e47f0ceb02c5695d0eb5700617
f67fe6ebf668ba47f0e363d19cc1018a45731afb
53129 F20110209_AABYTO mcginnes_m_Page_057.pro
e96a0805758d75cba14d2ac418dc439f
d47ae7ce38596ff32819752276a7478e0b3d173b
25396 F20110209_AABYUE mcginnes_m_Page_062.QC.jpg
732928f101ac3670554736c3b61695c1
020a85b3e82b52e9f7cf62bfa26d1245f12d5ce8
7806 F20110209_AABYTP mcginnes_m_Page_070thm.jpg
a871631df3da54e7edd43f1d97c94d52
a482fe2bc368448c982d55154afa801a216fc24d
113574 F20110209_AABYUF mcginnes_m_Page_070.jpg
695f4238a9ccd7e23a2ce68c8b7767af
b7f961d3ab0155795a0b2ab87a64aefa3f1fbfeb
8462 F20110209_AABYTQ mcginnes_m_Page_038thm.jpg
16a16b44a51752147959f787b7dbecb2
b13baf3dcf78cd9b97633a597612cb843407b2e3
1858 F20110209_AABZAA mcginnes_m_Page_063.txt
0413faa10c5d2498fdc6ffc66b3ee62a
fd0280c8c899020f2750f57f628b473cdd53a2d5
1547 F20110209_AABYUG mcginnes_m_Page_029.txt
765ddb23121b9b4209d8cdee64297991
a0639add38a63b7479ff14d146f0a8b85c96291f
5581 F20110209_AABYTR mcginnes_m_Page_054.pro
b12537ee5b94f78771fa7c66b0df54ee
c7340316f6455ae5b24c472125e9519cd6354a97
2100 F20110209_AABZAB mcginnes_m_Page_065.txt
04914ac32eccb84fcc3f600c94374b61
7795bf8f6a7bdba85cc3dbc8561727682c847364
48358 F20110209_AABYUH mcginnes_m_Page_013.pro
d92b5c7fb50e6fc9835ff47c5099587f
787146b6746c8c50be810b399a3bcf2140d05774
660 F20110209_AABYTS mcginnes_m_Page_064.txt
2b7769cf0ccd00a52e637eec50bf417e
ad24cb9c52731574c84a472e4e69819ce157b637
F20110209_AABZAC mcginnes_m_Page_066.txt
aa576679518ca27f44bc04132264297d
b776857396a59c2088cf9264e005d150d852a858
F20110209_AABYUI mcginnes_m_Page_080.tif
d38c9ab2ee59260ec2846b4d9981a2bb
7c2a9b3c9bfd0ec2d7219e059e9775bf1fc96197
107400 F20110209_AABYTT mcginnes_m_Page_069.jp2
6b6d46d011b07b8da724fc231dee850d
e73deb83e122584168f4c7ecf3a1ef738bd6d0c6
2214 F20110209_AABZAD mcginnes_m_Page_067.txt
201489c24b4fc2892b2b3793c5ecd91c
242fbdcd9c9a8573079df43fef71416065d120b8
8049 F20110209_AABYUJ mcginnes_m_Page_065thm.jpg
02595a7c58c995f70b0641ec08283c7e
34c091d96b85f7417d07dba82de8fca8a521b913
2118 F20110209_AABYTU mcginnes_m_Page_027.txt
2f303b59f77058f33fa7dbf82757de43
2d0882dcd37a3ae1fce8ff9f6346f04167337953
2920 F20110209_AABZAE mcginnes_m_Page_068.txt
98393c33b8ce4425d443a8327aaba50d
050c8b044cdd3e325549d5ea54f8b29f92a3f84d
F20110209_AABYUK mcginnes_m_Page_007.tif
b835919580ba726119e2da0fe110b2c7
04f437190d61c1abdf9c83339486f86fee2cd042
F20110209_AABYTV mcginnes_m_Page_015.tif
3a0fbdf5c4f0cc4c413827d5dbb6a682
1bb304b590eadd789d79927605294d644f73f3d6
2017 F20110209_AABZAF mcginnes_m_Page_069.txt
fb503ce0d67d3cb92e931e97d5ffb729
ff5cbb2de891685c74f75d8af410a4f90afa51b9
1923 F20110209_AABYUL mcginnes_m_Page_089.txt
89002189abe544005401838b4906487d
5bb20eeb16c5adef54e34b470a714d99ab24be84
54977 F20110209_AABYTW mcginnes_m_Page_052.pro
ab3d96e3462d45583f0a788d5b26a5a9
51c11dbb048b8f0bbff4ce2368b6ec5ef3a88223
2085 F20110209_AABZAG mcginnes_m_Page_071.txt
177ed4af45c19f57d8b99609b5b3fb98
e2bbecf19774fb1742aa80fa1a15e5bb27f053d2
34832 F20110209_AABYVA mcginnes_m_Page_081.QC.jpg
480402470d771f01fefd5c8cbe784c3b
a9badec27d84a596e73922a3f34f8562b409d1bc
44408 F20110209_AABYUM mcginnes_m_Page_090.pro
a12e7c1f279dcfe2f348f0e654354690
3dc494fa24a8a9405b32110f4f74631aa45b96c4
F20110209_AABYTX mcginnes_m_Page_096.tif
a5398564fe86c69e3cf0c6f48166335b
8de59b9ecf94778eb775ac12b9cdd083021651c4
2134 F20110209_AABZAH mcginnes_m_Page_072.txt
09b03ee87796f3b1c8e32ba64de843e0
9ca8efed0e086ef7e928416dba466b1ca29a52c7
53588 F20110209_AABYVB mcginnes_m_Page_084.pro
3c3698d640a7f46dd5a70c3fe1d2c8f3
a9c376b943043a212c320c559c73d61a670ab7aa
107335 F20110209_AABYTY mcginnes_m_Page_057.jpg
2a47884c93cf07a39e41f6d00e7e77b4
c3cd092b61a69891cad1f3e4ae99742dcf3feb99
2046 F20110209_AABZAI mcginnes_m_Page_073.txt
20c8f80d169562dfb9f7118b0650cf2a
0c03c07bb0552c4ea359c49951fa61d16e2cd337
34034 F20110209_AABYVC mcginnes_m_Page_032.QC.jpg
069266fcf16a7e36d541909875cea9cb
8b7e5ccbb092839bcea5f6c8e57234ebaea10956
36614 F20110209_AABYUN mcginnes_m_Page_016.QC.jpg
42df392632f7a32bdafd2bf7760f28f1
a7aeed7a8ea7ec30f737aef78688c0d1bfafb28d
8106 F20110209_AABYTZ mcginnes_m_Page_080thm.jpg
65ce411cca7e222ede3b9ed3f3d4a573
0c34daf6bc24df5f2545c66ed013fe6698be6949
2209 F20110209_AABZAJ mcginnes_m_Page_074.txt
0d4a3cc3ae7e0919e1757f01abeaceee
d567afc3bf3fa1bf038ab0ab04b89b941d36a1b4
47112 F20110209_AABYVD mcginnes_m_Page_055.pro
1935c31b2fe451252efc022ee6729c56
af707f2ed80864350b25e8c577c1e86c9a5557e9
8971 F20110209_AABYUO mcginnes_m_Page_036thm.jpg
02e60d2e90f465aa719f9e8c0c5e5c8d
411a2c6e8365d9f5b9af52c18f2606e3eabeaa30
21395 F20110209_AABYVE mcginnes_m_Page_012.jpg
ad3a781dde75034c0af0eda5934e5b06
094034218ab5a72c53176d03b3468e77c348f6ff
2388 F20110209_AABYUP mcginnes_m_Page_017thm.jpg
586d72cbfce7c338df55dc6ec7a16a6d
0828c6ec86d07fbbba06e6b676f84c8c4ed2153e
2344 F20110209_AABZAK mcginnes_m_Page_075.txt
76fb571d8c9cf0d01ac1a8ab7d73d2b6
926b9bd853a34644b0b0a5b8ca5922acca53f850
F20110209_AABYVF mcginnes_m_Page_028.tif
279b688493eedc6ef13bd53d1af2a414
9c055c542acec87fa336dad6c248883b40356ff2
59916 F20110209_AABYUQ mcginnes_m_Page_105.jp2
cd1bff87345b85acf8d33dfe8cd7ca18
1cb114fe3ba639e78d1ed747b480a2e298952d8a
385 F20110209_AABZAL mcginnes_m_Page_076.txt
74fcc5e6888e9fbc0afa349f250efd97
0a461fbd1c6f5054322c1e38da5dca6f59926788
9547 F20110209_AABYVG mcginnes_m_Page_008.pro
50d662036469413cbeddda3a4276c150
8909d6ba9b1204afdea0cd54622db6721673e4c1
7787 F20110209_AABYUR mcginnes_m_Page_058thm.jpg
c53bf77465ecb398e6aa5243f07eff3d
fa9874d7f5f0f011952b609c2ba2f97991b0b5e5
2482 F20110209_AABZBA mcginnes_m_Page_095.txt
32f16be02dc47389cdb43bcb10e5115f
9ca81b6db36b5d6e3eae0668294c0fc6244029f6
2220 F20110209_AABZAM mcginnes_m_Page_077.txt
ec82a4291958c2b6be013aa71ff9812d
a1c1ba780e63b10cfebbe1a43b51c0978638df83
726 F20110209_AABYVH mcginnes_m_Page_005.txt
91df3fa77ff67ed26902849a8ad9eb04
56fed7fb957955862434dc80639c34f208808112
8404 F20110209_AABYUS mcginnes_m_Page_087thm.jpg
491b7becca1e1a6a7f1fd83fe6d8b811
6418e631287589c3dc2b7d664f3c420ab5bafb8d
2419 F20110209_AABZBB mcginnes_m_Page_096.txt
d87423edc12b168d7395fabf02ff2f5b
c26d04152254f1a6fd321e55ad03b2bc9d4f9559
2064 F20110209_AABZAN mcginnes_m_Page_078.txt
be352f5cb65b97d11279bdf1907456c1
a907e16bcd0091ac64bba2576b61e967023914be
8415 F20110209_AABYVI mcginnes_m_Page_078thm.jpg
c3cbbc298a5933147a4115df668f8471
8370a4238588bbdec83507e3f9a02f5c9f2e838f
16473 F20110209_AABYUT mcginnes_m_Page_064.pro
cf206f89c35473c776cf8a70ddd348f0
75640028e7a9b679830a690fa41604777abcec2b
2299 F20110209_AABZBC mcginnes_m_Page_097.txt
a059f513753fbfaee6d99a02117aff12
1d3ef6fbdb9b1ff92f2f90c5da08ae193570d2f4
2123 F20110209_AABZAO mcginnes_m_Page_079.txt
af236e3eee1264297648c388aabfbb08
0b0930f3ec823457b22535d173ee6d4e6e00c9ce
46143 F20110209_AABYVJ mcginnes_m_Page_063.pro
9b511e7b9b523e73cd5f8710267fddc5
e9880577251db89302d3d87bdd280a49e5ae73f8
47525 F20110209_AABYUU mcginnes_m_Page_018.pro
6d9f95679dff9806cfbe31e7e2f28740
727a81c321102644b6ba7641246fdfc8d299c150
2177 F20110209_AABZBD mcginnes_m_Page_098.txt
972325e1e34a5d1f13e760cfe95999d1
6f0c84c3a1eac7da3af83ecb0f82ef214d274829
2068 F20110209_AABZAP mcginnes_m_Page_080.txt
92894c0dc325f57725b28d14af9c978e
651fcd20387ffbbdf5987b14fb042d7421733304
132294 F20110209_AABYVK mcginnes_m_Page_022.jp2
51f4682a1eebf72c40181824387e54d5
19c62828687bc7ab8a7ef48bad8787b5c13e389b
7897 F20110209_AABYUV mcginnes_m_Page_099thm.jpg
04c140e410bcdcd5ad8396a73d6d0bb9
c1d863887cfffec833a8b37902e753c59771fa29
F20110209_AABZBE mcginnes_m_Page_099.txt
b3ac85539462c0a815425644dea6d2a5
9bdbeb4e8acc81ff3d579d29be67b7d3b5102c06
2132 F20110209_AABZAQ mcginnes_m_Page_082.txt
ef824e6b89c779d962fa0aa51e6277a1
0f1c36cc92371fabe3fab6cbcc2c7e886fb330e3
125045 F20110209_AABYVL UFE0021802_00001.mets FULL
e3f431a5e4b3145acf05f3e3aeb5daf3
b8c8d46cac8c045c7854c705d50e398d48b2c3df
48926 F20110209_AABYUW mcginnes_m_Page_047.pro
70c7d436b506fcc6e731480ce2f303cf
f291010370c2d8ac705b7dd22d716332516a789f
2311 F20110209_AABZBF mcginnes_m_Page_101.txt
25a7573127b7095e30790289d9b08793
5f48ff8c5800da25e38ee1f5093a7dd6e1dda72f
867 F20110209_AABZAR mcginnes_m_Page_083.txt
c78852f8ddea860e29619294dce2c116
02d06b9fd5826f5e0213402a1f0cc461b3f9d57e
111700 F20110209_AABYUX mcginnes_m_Page_067.jpg
d5e1ea036ad574535740f842c7ec9fb9
c478ce2d7a23f977b34159bc9a69328cb6237ad8
2321 F20110209_AABZBG mcginnes_m_Page_102.txt
549e39fde68d9f6ec004da3003134baa
5fbef082c8736e35214ba491ed634ec51e8f6e96
F20110209_AABYWA mcginnes_m_Page_025.tif
a95baa443cb895da8358f039a52e33ff
c60e5f60baf09d4c8e063a8e2b767ee8e32685ab
2075 F20110209_AABZAS mcginnes_m_Page_085.txt
857951a8fa147fe9e924859f5c9eec50
cd22d196f01442fd9433ba3490a97475681aab2c
25337 F20110209_AABYUY mcginnes_m_Page_105.pro
a6a1de3e4f842ec93588ab056c30880b
49d0fbce616788b5b50542d11fe4af745cb980be
2370 F20110209_AABZBH mcginnes_m_Page_103.txt
99fc7f85329151b232ba6dbeff108cff
804d30f6800426fee7dbb3eda55ce065facd0151
F20110209_AABYWB mcginnes_m_Page_026.tif
82f31cfc36f2cb992f91dea8d7e03790
9df110cb4b8f005ed6d1021e4ccd173a7d3b7df0
2119 F20110209_AABZAT mcginnes_m_Page_086.txt
11a6743c100db81982eb85bbd2aa2f16
e637f2195873c597a4c43fdb2c445ae5c2d1687b
1045 F20110209_AABYUZ mcginnes_m_Page_002.pro
4ef9d9391be3f4fd9f48449d60575ade
514972d243fa99540ca330aa8e04eb4a82506c28
258 F20110209_AABZBI mcginnes_m_Page_104.txt
35cf9921d5c624527374a06c62a8ba07
002659ea522580dd6b17c73526d254ba9f730641
F20110209_AABYWC mcginnes_m_Page_027.tif
60c952b2b33d0c99395db5eb1317e2cb
fdebd5ecb682375f717f0f0006ab7af68dd70a0e
2080 F20110209_AABZAU mcginnes_m_Page_087.txt
b4c22b366b147971037c48fdadf4b14f
99440540047337aef98ff6e1b17ddc811278689a
F20110209_AABYVO mcginnes_m_Page_002.tif
14a1efd885ebcd3f01f9af2ae857ab41
60df37968ed8e5d4d324af06f18426f58ad4c130
1043 F20110209_AABZBJ mcginnes_m_Page_105.txt
2ce746f4bd77b07d16a123cb2f07d20b
c18c8305c812a0dce0a642983ff4688fe9db05cd
8423998 F20110209_AABYWD mcginnes_m_Page_029.tif
c884b1059ff0211ee1b5199c2b0a92f8
d9c8717fb46f1f6a0cdee3d165a249a96effe904
1780 F20110209_AABZAV mcginnes_m_Page_090.txt
516008042b6cbf0bdc333f3526ffd4e2
3a68a7b1b65bcf20b64d24eb60f6a354d8ef26ff
F20110209_AABYVP mcginnes_m_Page_003.tif
07d447c9408fad1d8258e91a00f7dff1
b91bbec5b37b4863b48fff06cf0a98871a847710
8626 F20110209_AABZBK mcginnes_m_Page_001.pro
1faa2dd3d4ae5b2ec4ceb886ccabc46e
4824b27f9b37badbc0e08beeb50a03cbe459e9a4
F20110209_AABYWE mcginnes_m_Page_032.tif
bebacbe68e507ee4115f8711e61be280
64f0fbc023c55e8c37fcd6b3aef3c49af0022a9c
581 F20110209_AABZAW mcginnes_m_Page_091.txt
f53a333001d0fe7b7a345af51d89be63
29a2f01c3cd7737b28e4cb3d77b6f71e1dd6df9d
F20110209_AABYVQ mcginnes_m_Page_004.tif
3d4fbff4fd5f48360fa93ee798341e52
f77ea7b9f71a19d8257b57e9c48a7a370a425fab
7046 F20110209_AABZBL mcginnes_m_Page_003.pro
3bc4a99f0b3de99b2dd8ba5f461d48a1
8d3bb840db6432e3185613538a454d27da08ae95
F20110209_AABYWF mcginnes_m_Page_033.tif
a52bcd6ee666f03af5b27ff0b1aa766c
4d82b9d19b7c0f106a013c8537b2974c1fc6df3e
3413 F20110209_AABZAX mcginnes_m_Page_092.txt
f3f8f17ab13c74063785d8dedf37afff
98c5efddf78effadf41cce4edb45550499d3c5c3
F20110209_AABYVR mcginnes_m_Page_006.tif
ecac7df6bfad5e0f5c56047e6125a89d
72f51314899af9c87aedaa3bba9bd380bb73813b
48683 F20110209_AABZCA mcginnes_m_Page_030.pro
a8e03ab86535d0f6141e1470c395d517
fa75b2025421862991476e9f1e044ef3e9a5f458
51871 F20110209_AABZBM mcginnes_m_Page_004.pro
a16427d21239e735f3120cec4887cee6
aa2df5d9329c209b1d17b301ce5ee6d169bcf0bf
F20110209_AABYWG mcginnes_m_Page_035.tif
bff5950baf9be02e3acf2448fbe88591
65130d58d41e2feb1e7d8b536a9a7653ab06fda9
F20110209_AABYVS mcginnes_m_Page_010.tif
08a64b4a9a1d84d4fe5668cfdad77b87
6f12255af27432d74e111b28bc1960b2fa8670bd
43914 F20110209_AABZCB mcginnes_m_Page_031.pro
99973cab364e1d9c7518bd5e7365ed66
6663ff86745d04cfb87c2798902c70bf6605961e
100768 F20110209_AABZBN mcginnes_m_Page_006.pro
bae1731b655bd10b51d7f55d5a46a989
142c30412a0940340e93b9c13db200cf02b044d2
F20110209_AABYWH mcginnes_m_Page_038.tif
04355d14b443cd4da932eaf39e8e2a16
6aa512e4f2343f7782609f853ca7157701516e23
1125 F20110209_AABZAY mcginnes_m_Page_093.txt
6e7adeda31fed94ca5aa4a02a32d06be
138d99854cb924e75c66abac4623fde060bebace
F20110209_AABYVT mcginnes_m_Page_011.tif
2257840f7cbb258842ee4e9bb4b267c9
f619be1ca0aa7cd7e505a0d025d902cf582f5cf0
50069 F20110209_AABZCC mcginnes_m_Page_032.pro
7a6ecc6abd6df624011efce087d871aa
7acdb0ab6880f423d16b74878c1e7571367340de
103500 F20110209_AABZBO mcginnes_m_Page_007.pro
2da57c08321413b979cafbcb8f7ddc96
f8355dbd4b6cd06052a981d2d8a074eed94f0e8d
F20110209_AABYWI mcginnes_m_Page_039.tif
62df158c0a4db28ba06c34a6dbbdc868
eb04499e90a488ab2c32824a73c105b6166182f9
2293 F20110209_AABZAZ mcginnes_m_Page_094.txt
1fb1445c9ccb4218431731a1cf39a2b9
14ca69f84b1c90b73c0d3bf902191d2fb2c3adea
F20110209_AABYVU mcginnes_m_Page_016.tif
ca2797b5ded0aeeb507a3070881bc71d
5fcbff22c0e7f376ff4f2e5b65104d0d861156ae
55378 F20110209_AABZCD mcginnes_m_Page_033.pro
b178b0b844596583afa03955e31f5059
92d51aeff3effc87a9577a16168009df87813159
9596 F20110209_AABZBP mcginnes_m_Page_010.pro
b75cca66f6f109913d221f0ee7ae6af7
5ae3f6bef71ea2277626d4f5276c56a1d355f794
F20110209_AABYWJ mcginnes_m_Page_040.tif
63397150c465a655bb0a01587fae7005
3718d51c31d127862ba0b0dfee680f1780caca31
F20110209_AABYVV mcginnes_m_Page_017.tif
4963cc71d076dc35f5c6104dc8ec19b3
5988385a4a6252f3273687d052e9fd6407b09730
34820 F20110209_AABZCE mcginnes_m_Page_034.pro
04571020dcab89e56ece37a4e44efe7f
a0483dc7af98c05ab235b097aa7eaefbc62cdc7c
22696 F20110209_AABZBQ mcginnes_m_Page_011.pro
7f95b8acd5fc91f523f51396a2c4db39
417ec634dcf0a6dba32bdf2ea456ef3cb6aea66b
F20110209_AABYWK mcginnes_m_Page_042.tif
6137b26235b86b7ed48af9deb6f9c19c
bb33870ce9206f31d8f4b381897d850b2c23a661
F20110209_AABYVW mcginnes_m_Page_018.tif
e05c2cef405d333f83b148041ab65590
73c442ea7d38b7c42fc8d0df60a2a4171973750d
54670 F20110209_AABZCF mcginnes_m_Page_036.pro
484fc9ab5efd026a2f129980b9a4b76a
8aac009b69f790531a084bae708361a0af284346
8912 F20110209_AABZBR mcginnes_m_Page_012.pro
743c4f48cacdbe00f1bf86fe852f997b
37ff256b861c0061973dcaebf95299a028562638
F20110209_AABYWL mcginnes_m_Page_043.tif
5846a2d978a588270b4f0e8731a8ca2f
2734d21b7b0c8996b10da9d7deae9831e002f246
F20110209_AABYVX mcginnes_m_Page_021.tif
e03d0047c04cba371dcbde7425c758c5
70da2c0b25132bd0a73f12f4d2a4a9cb2238d661
51845 F20110209_AABZCG mcginnes_m_Page_037.pro
53fe41358ce0ca72e753c2f2d8c6f9a6
e159722c8a8631e7bdd38616b65cff84759d3665
F20110209_AABYXA mcginnes_m_Page_062.tif
5f1b38d2bbadad9379401a82806de323
6c9330eb071bcb34748eb505eaa8ee65a325fa48
37658 F20110209_AABZBS mcginnes_m_Page_014.pro
b6ae9979c99704ab813320886504b6a6
682874cf5c425eeaa1b838f411ef7e5190342d82
F20110209_AABYWM mcginnes_m_Page_046.tif
d92b31b14fb1899140e619228f43f54a
9579b2c3acae98adcc03586f00193f350301c057
F20110209_AABYVY mcginnes_m_Page_023.tif
f9ecfc3125e3d270b17fdbaf04a17b59
68d8f85c8b5b1200bb41d2eccf9f5b0128efaf21
49749 F20110209_AABZCH mcginnes_m_Page_038.pro
6dca7857137b6adbdac6fe805a4dd575
a63d7367dbda2fac7aa244db69eea05ff6904b8b
F20110209_AABYXB mcginnes_m_Page_063.tif
e08f13c331a2958a7c8883d27d35a423
b77536cab630bc25128206af4c82f8e201e13b2e
51571 F20110209_AABZBT mcginnes_m_Page_020.pro
9f3031de8f527e35361349f9b3d73156
7e8518da594be09e3e5465269ebcd698cd083b10
F20110209_AABYWN mcginnes_m_Page_048.tif
81b6b72854947113d47946ef92779298
088de6adc53c6a40e9155be04f87ad15990e5959
F20110209_AABYVZ mcginnes_m_Page_024.tif
c1f36907e93aae3613baee70c0ff6e84
92822d4c616c4551ccb0fdfe38d4580c40f8c690
51376 F20110209_AABZCI mcginnes_m_Page_039.pro
6e712b9efcb1f82f86391d655516168e
b7e63a2800b08a7ce4bb6f8e162160c17c816aae
F20110209_AABYXC mcginnes_m_Page_064.tif
90dea20790b2c0c2170036eecd7ee67e
b5cbd63e20a88cf6898a1e820fc67ad566f49405
53827 F20110209_AABZBU mcginnes_m_Page_021.pro
e7658db05a0975d8792a674e67e36dd1
2d492253006b9ac4dbf3da9d5c38f5467577962b
F20110209_AABYWO mcginnes_m_Page_049.tif
ee5d619ba827a98314289553f5ccc226
f381c76ae5165719a61e08ce989840570153853c
52603 F20110209_AABZCJ mcginnes_m_Page_040.pro
d3cfd1735fb8af86e5b4498e12c1022f
874fe6fc7ee85973be3083cd62648fb555ac924f
F20110209_AABYXD mcginnes_m_Page_065.tif
e1fff53c3fe807e4347de5fc47b69e86
12fc6e6e29886332f3d6f49870aabe8247fce1aa
64603 F20110209_AABZBV mcginnes_m_Page_022.pro
f17ecfcb0deb8524d6436407457e7e86
aa70c620b08afcd4521d09ae35c33d711189e3f7
55838 F20110209_AABZCK mcginnes_m_Page_041.pro
f1343e7c166ea9740f184a78fc57979d
0fbfc38830543752654e95cd284d20b13d2a47ab
F20110209_AABYXE mcginnes_m_Page_066.tif
13453ad268b4de106dd6d848b787f903
6b3c38b6d61d1cb29b44b562f036944b065db7d5
59280 F20110209_AABZBW mcginnes_m_Page_023.pro
4b9699972369721800c32dd85075bb1f
919086e5b12b2917e25214636ec7c02d0eeb6663
F20110209_AABYWP mcginnes_m_Page_051.tif
883c1823dee94ea4cf783fab2ebc8151
d2d7b101c44bbd82d1cf5679e2f8d62d93f8821e
55168 F20110209_AABZCL mcginnes_m_Page_042.pro
6aded6acd2dc84aeff80ac2fd95cc84f
c612bbdb12c0ab99903e8d033ab8ceec2eed997d
F20110209_AABYXF mcginnes_m_Page_067.tif
64085efea83dfa587c5e321a5b77320e
b5b11e604f86873f9e40961289c86ab1d28bfe75
54495 F20110209_AABZBX mcginnes_m_Page_024.pro
c77638a07b6e7c888a5b58fa1da30cc2
21e59ec570465422b5c53f582467ac0a679398ff
F20110209_AABYWQ mcginnes_m_Page_052.tif
ca68112d930bc1bc7e0b0e0771ffbe18
e637dce55e1f01cae839069de1011f7e084e68ba
57378 F20110209_AABZCM mcginnes_m_Page_043.pro
82c1e54442a2dd4e90a7d4637c389f17
d85b15c60dcd5a7d63020ea74af9353a68662d5c
F20110209_AABYXG mcginnes_m_Page_068.tif
4cba030e6801b73a0722a115d2c189c9
03b33020c363b20095d80458344949608b0ca97c
52849 F20110209_AABZBY mcginnes_m_Page_027.pro
355095689c31da92cc81f1f31ec5dcea
b13968008dea1754fe5fcd2c401be6079fac0391
F20110209_AABYWR mcginnes_m_Page_053.tif
19b1add691f48798a6af0d918d986330
fa1263ffb368128841679848ed66f763ee506423
64085 F20110209_AABZDA mcginnes_m_Page_068.pro
0c9bf42805baa5c48309ce67878e6036
7751d09327f90d6c33d5ca1d2157ceda29574004
55205 F20110209_AABZCN mcginnes_m_Page_044.pro
8097b0efd67dd87807c054c02b31bc2a
43e2b1dc7d1e01962c28e3a124bb2fda878abe4f
F20110209_AABYXH mcginnes_m_Page_069.tif
2b7e1b7bf0ed974f813731c722c5199c
1924c51e254bf48a988fed21f9663d6268ae9fa9
F20110209_AABYWS mcginnes_m_Page_054.tif
b090ae02eeaba0c9c9e420b15f2450d2
9de64e5bef001b18990e390b136853e953504f59
50862 F20110209_AABZDB mcginnes_m_Page_069.pro
1ae6b3e895cca8a1d9fce87c326097b1
d3a011bb6af0321789638332e153f52922455708
50654 F20110209_AABZCO mcginnes_m_Page_045.pro
b4470798312acdb3abdc211d523c6f1b
289b592e02ec38e595a88c3c9b4a85eac227e5f7
F20110209_AABYXI mcginnes_m_Page_071.tif
5b5fb07b78974abd8846da3e4b5d456d
2e535ff883081d69b80015322c6d8511ca399c36
31102 F20110209_AABZBZ mcginnes_m_Page_029.pro
391b658b02049e35e6950379d7310811
1214afdb1791b737040f67d9fe35c6ca7b32a69f
F20110209_AABYWT mcginnes_m_Page_055.tif
a4d2fadb25099b01372e430f0e14ad8d
c6c1475045861f460cb73895210cfb5dda6a7988
57930 F20110209_AABZDC mcginnes_m_Page_070.pro
b3c4f510b6ee4920fa4aa25d35037212
50d2fca844e9e9896f4e87aa319a0e2a398930e3
46242 F20110209_AABZCP mcginnes_m_Page_046.pro
6bc9678caeae340ee382366b007df951
1b4308d88dd7b05334421bf371d9284b8df2af41
F20110209_AABYXJ mcginnes_m_Page_072.tif
24caab10f93655f0657378c9738962bd
30b06f2a53236479ebdff3ad3746faee2ffb1848
F20110209_AABYWU mcginnes_m_Page_056.tif
e8d551a43578ef512e475ab139d4c68d
05b9655e3b8471b41376b06b2fdaf22e1256ee6a
49704 F20110209_AABZDD mcginnes_m_Page_071.pro
badccf386d36248f712e8b81dfd82001
189e97f6460b9240f556a6f4381508d74573d826
52976 F20110209_AABZCQ mcginnes_m_Page_048.pro
ab2e6b36536f1ec4286653bb91ca5ba8
90885f5a91fffbace555eb5aa3bb81714e1c4c67
F20110209_AABYXK mcginnes_m_Page_074.tif
9e0c388c6a414303826a72257038630c
e47f37743fb08e6deba004dd173ef93f9a748e47
F20110209_AABYWV mcginnes_m_Page_057.tif
0c3ebbf6b5f8fe6f5448ce0ac7f479c4
071c5d09a94837482beb1ea93b8f3e9c9dd3d4cc
52706 F20110209_AABZDE mcginnes_m_Page_072.pro
80c1c86fda4f99596d521420cd355435
38f148afee1b57f4611396e45b9be04acf56d901
51590 F20110209_AABZCR mcginnes_m_Page_049.pro
5f748c9c372c4fc7d108805775c87101
a05c0c19a4713e93cc5769df7d7fa96f97882cc2
F20110209_AABYXL mcginnes_m_Page_075.tif
ff19bcffa6f77d2f18c247d222dc60a4
8fedc17fb8d287fd89706687a15514367bce6623
F20110209_AABYWW mcginnes_m_Page_058.tif
06f36491652bc90868ce0e34b1db1673
b466ee498c927a2832848733770f314e7ed0be42
49363 F20110209_AABZDF mcginnes_m_Page_074.pro
bd83c69d7316282ca53b03cd78cb7ecc
7be2e982ab2a30dc8dfc2d2d854bb2ee3d49e31d
F20110209_AABYYA mcginnes_m_Page_094.tif
ccec8c91b3897e5f00e74d30b43156f4
0ff1aad627a0f3652f57c754496802045398e6b7
53715 F20110209_AABZCS mcginnes_m_Page_050.pro
fb6f00fafc4d314f30cc2740ebb5b9b3
1761b226b14c765403a1280397d89e4d2edb3ccf
F20110209_AABYXM mcginnes_m_Page_076.tif
3cb7899d12467886459d8e723a7f7240
420eba736066198f2f994d233835d325fdb34c8d
F20110209_AABYWX mcginnes_m_Page_059.tif
4d263bc20973be8e10babce09d1c3d17
00dfae27975a940bf5c1d15aa277c0688f9c62d1
9668 F20110209_AABZDG mcginnes_m_Page_076.pro
59083e566f775443bdbd5f3864dead9e
b328601b6591cf40106dfa5dc7b822fff58f876e
F20110209_AABYYB mcginnes_m_Page_095.tif
cd125def22de4e17aa400de3a376a0ad
274024f51d518297ad13c7b1984c68418864d3ba
49801 F20110209_AABZCT mcginnes_m_Page_051.pro
86d92f206300ef3c79bfadbe91ef76df
419c10cf9d4f88b42269afe133f0e03a4f300614
F20110209_AABYXN mcginnes_m_Page_077.tif
34595d9bb4efb09303dc814f3533da76
0f70ca8064b99a98110e8332bf740ba3ccaadd60
F20110209_AABYWY mcginnes_m_Page_060.tif
4cbf6289c6a0a6ad2f81feb4ab02d5b9
bf6c210f7bc92660033516a152032a1b0fc9908c
51544 F20110209_AABZDH mcginnes_m_Page_078.pro
0a6386293a8c37dfcda5afa2e09a5da9
06cb02a430006f323045ebfc0eaedeb48a10d8c6
F20110209_AABYYC mcginnes_m_Page_097.tif
30f8e491ccc237510d42cd2b4bf64da5
465c4087693018644c071486b916774e2e5610c7
49999 F20110209_AABZCU mcginnes_m_Page_053.pro
af462e45355a2b7e154945cff9dc5adb
d4b29bdbb6a8bd12402b0b63eafe76a3b33809df
F20110209_AABYXO mcginnes_m_Page_081.tif
8346bed7d304f72b9558a7de7a6d7c26
45fa9ada899903773aeaef4a96407b5e83aa7869
F20110209_AABYWZ mcginnes_m_Page_061.tif
bc08ad05093204595bc2dd62635e05a8
2f7c74cce857618321d7306710a04cebf25cfb5a
51667 F20110209_AABZDI mcginnes_m_Page_079.pro
cf6b0dd5e9d443faac58c5ebff70e621
38889cdde66c6cd5df1a855d643cc5a6b741d153
F20110209_AABYYD mcginnes_m_Page_098.tif
078ba6e3f8285a899f7c540c9dd22593
ba9e8908bcf8a6b959ad717e92bff8ca973355c8
55105 F20110209_AABZCV mcginnes_m_Page_056.pro
ca15c9abb3f6f24377acd5e87677bbc5
142e80c9ff321fed41ff2906001507ea87f3946d
F20110209_AABYXP mcginnes_m_Page_082.tif
296e07184293919fd4f2b0334ec1759f
7725568c2fb9196c6dcc3c604ad78b598fdd5b8d
51219 F20110209_AABZDJ mcginnes_m_Page_080.pro
f8428cfd8596b563ff1615d88c11b772
7bded1399056e07dd128728af17889a0864964ca
F20110209_AABYYE mcginnes_m_Page_099.tif
3245b9b4f6b97bac842cc1106878d1f0
7a5dfe29b062fb020e0fa16c00b8c76795ad53e9
47521 F20110209_AABZCW mcginnes_m_Page_059.pro
35b2190dae22faeaa33a6b49f44c26ff
f60dc81fc0eecfbbc5a33cfd1025682b448099cd
54290 F20110209_AABZDK mcginnes_m_Page_081.pro
f396638237c87897b77cec3838a875f6
4e420dffb4c731b9f741142e509e27485fb95e22
F20110209_AABYYF mcginnes_m_Page_100.tif
62deecb049615a6102b37ab221e778f2
15bdd321ccec13bdf1287ba5811180329819e23b
49061 F20110209_AABZCX mcginnes_m_Page_061.pro
f129c8586a384686bd1260413b29dd81
6ab6ad342456144f7bf1ca5ca24ed928498ef347
F20110209_AABYXQ mcginnes_m_Page_083.tif
cf3c6d99f9c32992bb53df45e29ea7e1
13c7830d3406ca74acedd3e774e3bb3236c3b145
21573 F20110209_AABZDL mcginnes_m_Page_083.pro
35287afe430365bcca5879d6b94a919b
1415af3d892a270d13977643e128f41dceb9efc4
F20110209_AABYYG mcginnes_m_Page_101.tif
1a38cbba1541f5a1ce5caf89f4b55757
68792a4e768b749822a71d97531b7dbc67f1d2b5
50289 F20110209_AABZCY mcginnes_m_Page_065.pro
100e79e270f4e7a9a4fe969a9c348ae2
a7eac3825eb584ea014dba8fa3002069d407dd8f
F20110209_AABYXR mcginnes_m_Page_084.tif
e4ec21328edbc32139bb3cc5886e60cc
d2cbf01aae702c66cdc474b035ef6d26981c2687
4562 F20110209_AABZEA mcginnes_m_Page_002.jpg
e558ff9565fd95d0fe64d3db1680a9e0
000ab07a2cfd05a5edf47beabd0aa65f081980ea
52580 F20110209_AABZDM mcginnes_m_Page_085.pro
5da553287fa6c32a4e34ea43ab4a535c
732d5cc40453508ef54d827d0d8962959aef178f
F20110209_AABYYH mcginnes_m_Page_102.tif
ff9f67401b747aa98a74d1de2311f157
e5235d8b6bbf5c5f8e322437a9e20248053363a8
55445 F20110209_AABZCZ mcginnes_m_Page_067.pro
9a6ee08d1b7b5d5afe2964988540742d
67f4f2f10be7d3295e4ffb2a5808ce3465e95271
F20110209_AABYXS mcginnes_m_Page_085.tif
f8acf8e3fa2cce92484ac572ad9bf7b9
a6198c1240c3a8cd4dda5c2bd788d304bbe9b202
16151 F20110209_AABZEB mcginnes_m_Page_003.jpg
3651b1a771c2cb5e467e78f29f4e02d3
6c2bb0a0639372542a9125416b586201689e59b2
14482 F20110209_AABZDN mcginnes_m_Page_091.pro
87956ad9b47182f520d791b968931151
92efda4aa898fcc69407f9d2af623188244f609c
96 F20110209_AABYYI mcginnes_m_Page_002.txt
53e61c3df15b7917e33e54f131df18ba
e1858f6443dd75b4d07e5c0f6a50188553b31afa
F20110209_AABYXT mcginnes_m_Page_086.tif
bf7ad3a84d3c16862168fce95d60d98e
51580afbf1dac6d8b1c3ac7427941ee15e1beeac
106521 F20110209_AABZEC mcginnes_m_Page_004.jpg
365962aa9b4906fce69048196f6f2d64
76b26386b6e4e650f6d8dcabc3831b5c70fb3060
41789 F20110209_AABZDO mcginnes_m_Page_092.pro
5dc81f056cfbec5b813a5eb4b64327d7
8aded93ce1a427e7a9be11cd52046da8f8cac869
378 F20110209_AABYYJ mcginnes_m_Page_008.txt
b4c59cd8be892e21891f1d0bbf999f50
2218a6c8b04c8d2fc83d3def5f2c3d35aec8d3ef
F20110209_AABYXU mcginnes_m_Page_087.tif
065be084c36b152dd866c1509b3f21bc
613f4a562cf31fb799cea21af9dc1d47277e7d93
40462 F20110209_AABZED mcginnes_m_Page_005.jpg
0bf255656ebbd0c5adc04cb53c90885e
46e7ef1972b660fa8e99d26002d3d4deb9aa00dd
20704 F20110209_AABZDP mcginnes_m_Page_093.pro
fb285184cb407388b2ae92793bf27fc8
f26625f4dd542a773b6e540e07fc9d8e3703eb22
F20110209_AABYXV mcginnes_m_Page_088.tif
0a2f164a8ae15be5d86fc38f2e49f4c0
18ca87be69bef1b1ee72b0515dc44bb3ef75fff3
107183 F20110209_AABZEE mcginnes_m_Page_006.jpg
6010d12c3fd0feb485cfd518f248e670
dbd2ce4e1acf2250802a13d8946256515dc53b06
52240 F20110209_AABZDQ mcginnes_m_Page_094.pro
476e31d216ade4a44b2c6f2c3e8f2784
dcc2ffc243e616a6c4c96da9357c431b492cdc36
1704 F20110209_AABYYK mcginnes_m_Page_009.txt
3e3afea151a11032127b332a84a65d68
083b8e7566f3f55e974ebc72b98c93c8749833b7
F20110209_AABYXW mcginnes_m_Page_089.tif
67ce1f9d4fd6e09156564e741346de1f
491042b4e5bb43ac3ad799cbdf761ea0acd6dc7e
114349 F20110209_AABZEF mcginnes_m_Page_007.jpg
97a0f8838567f8086832671b61c25081
afc06c40f699a794339d82344476ab609d8a5b61
56523 F20110209_AABZDR mcginnes_m_Page_095.pro
f997c3ace444b004b8d72588654ea08a
6c7e627b0799eaac79c7a688d410e3ff9515f03a
426 F20110209_AABYYL mcginnes_m_Page_010.txt
15a55aad2db4bb37cfc51ee38807aa68
d29c3197fd3170e495d48e2d0d416155f1e38782
F20110209_AABYXX mcginnes_m_Page_090.tif
2185d4a20947424930ed6e401294e116
69143bd849dfdb90a33b4a659e8384af2447b449
72820 F20110209_AABZEG mcginnes_m_Page_009.jpg
52b003ef9eb8539a79d1aad11193146a
ddac6b2e1e420a6ab53fbf6857a95c611a6e1343
2309 F20110209_AABYZA mcginnes_m_Page_035.txt
9fa4d7d11b88bb2bdc4a2499868a2b0b
b7b6e8bd8fe037dbfc9ec720ed954cf4abd9d8ec
55229 F20110209_AABZDS mcginnes_m_Page_096.pro
96395e12d9bd34b33740a340435b38e7
c97713c14e1504db645e4ba1bcbbc6a8de338abf
387 F20110209_AABYYM mcginnes_m_Page_012.txt
4e26038e09d4c7e5059866806153d261
7228c076b4f323e8c361caa731e6d9abfe0d2588
F20110209_AABYXY mcginnes_m_Page_091.tif
68113332fe2156eb396f691d96226eb5
26f2b208081768e2246a9b9f7b3825b9d72cc893
20435 F20110209_AABZEH mcginnes_m_Page_010.jpg
d258078bebf375ffaa6e18e0c3722e44
a7269df7889f3d41b253ee54f09cd95bfeb06c0a
2181 F20110209_AABYZB mcginnes_m_Page_036.txt
8f42febf58e19a31ab70e0d7356c37bb
5a5d8fdcfffa65f75b92fe7212c972020cd42037
49486 F20110209_AABZDT mcginnes_m_Page_098.pro
f38dfcd9ae732cbef2fae505a208e39c
a4b206e8fc2b32dbdcd08242e9e7d353a5c27b7a
2104 F20110209_AABYYN mcginnes_m_Page_013.txt
0b66611064fc74bfbbe9347e5aba2804
e4bbe3438378212140e028c7a865118ee4ab3f01
F20110209_AABYXZ mcginnes_m_Page_092.tif
f43dfa02d4ba883ea5c6b643daee8f78
701145207bcf5ec910a19b5d70a5ccc9c265348b
52133 F20110209_AABZEI mcginnes_m_Page_011.jpg
a65382477bb279febe70a2add544d66f
18c519b4eeddbb3017d340ef8cae99fb7f7ac803
2050 F20110209_AABYZC mcginnes_m_Page_037.txt
18de2f462ed81a26d8d1d891fd8d58cc
476945ce9e8f5217a808601c0896ed93b4fafc2a
F20110209_AABZDU mcginnes_m_Page_099.pro
b0051a0db0c4bd1d37a872c842667d86
f3934b0f6c5bcd7db83ee7438052103261945c76
2212 F20110209_AABYYO mcginnes_m_Page_015.txt
ca5fad3a56fc06cbd1331d4e7c9a8cf3
49535492efe532624362a0e9c58db9b2bc315977
77072 F20110209_AABZEJ mcginnes_m_Page_014.jpg
73c0ed8b0e0cdbe9e35c6108a56b09b6
deb94d85e3ec4c1ac309303434eaf81a897a9a43
1965 F20110209_AABYZD mcginnes_m_Page_038.txt
7314c0e4ac2b1783b2e8a23f8680badf
7c1b5ed1baad8c2c8f196db3a0867eb643f7c10b
50410 F20110209_AABZDV mcginnes_m_Page_100.pro
d65a4744ff996a7a41e6939a10e89cda
0e71cbfc7cca72bec912257c15129c3fba460eeb
2168 F20110209_AABYYP mcginnes_m_Page_016.txt
a1bc19405cd032b9abf1d73b05f55c30
a6a417bdb143e406d1be7d13b290291698a09422
110356 F20110209_AABZEK mcginnes_m_Page_015.jpg
a0034757519aea0e41ea5b897daa41ba
166a53990fca9317c4d26f1dcc434e5d2f35eaea
2020 F20110209_AABYZE mcginnes_m_Page_039.txt
135689d86a1c96b65a77cee9feecebe7
0f9e2917ccead8d4d0bdfb58c63c7e5030230b01
53228 F20110209_AABZDW mcginnes_m_Page_101.pro
b9738829670bd6673c1d50a46ed583ab
4d3850e1e0f9c709972d17d4eb27740d93150728
2024 F20110209_AABYYQ mcginnes_m_Page_018.txt
f113c59d43823a7ec9518f71be3462b8
6f1d790a1d656616b51dc2529d86532edebd9f0e
112163 F20110209_AABZEL mcginnes_m_Page_016.jpg
7908d970d0b52085851f55986d7932e0
8e42420256db1038fdcb3b288a42555a6391e34a
2076 F20110209_AABYZF mcginnes_m_Page_040.txt
e31c7786281985154ad611684e09c8ad
34967f159797d014ff8bf5b2bd116ae0e375de9b
53514 F20110209_AABZDX mcginnes_m_Page_103.pro
e0ea65cbbc554520cdaff26af2969f4d
4f906c7f77f3e4f977b62f80823ccdf81a0a3f08
71921 F20110209_AABZFA mcginnes_m_Page_034.jpg
778b68b16a3c25298488abdd649c1134
b6cd683dc80ed6af924ea8e1c536b82e0cff2d43
27864 F20110209_AABZEM mcginnes_m_Page_017.jpg
4825f11280039fd5f56fcb840323c33c
d91bc4c33dda4a14e5bb0c5995ecd619f5fe3ae0
2189 F20110209_AABYZG mcginnes_m_Page_041.txt
ce63794fc2ce48cdfe796575d7e7528a
c038b7b7cd7578bdbf6e383ef968058181afaf18
6277 F20110209_AABZDY mcginnes_m_Page_104.pro
66687939b23c09e09c683e961394a8f2
3eaff0ce44d564ae5bf716ed99fd4ac3cc76ba8d
2142 F20110209_AABYYR mcginnes_m_Page_019.txt
7d2742167599b535315e465fdd382fa6
0c2648a3f058d04a9ff769f1f0ebd643bdadf1be
105166 F20110209_AABZFB mcginnes_m_Page_035.jpg
04ea8adffb7d395a8a0d74a21e0dfd00
242df995717311fbc761da367c8e98a4c3b05d7b
97378 F20110209_AABZEN mcginnes_m_Page_018.jpg
efe6f2f1c424bca797199cd8c897a8dd
6d7cf783780dffc2ed26c91653ee9d00c2e50fa4
2162 F20110209_AABYZH mcginnes_m_Page_042.txt
d6f42879dc35d7345a7f318f278db0a5
b6726b2bd60a70e65ab170aec361f19454fb9d8b
27095 F20110209_AABZDZ mcginnes_m_Page_001.jpg
139430ff755aa19afc2d199b9825b925
006b1990c54f6f5cd4dc69e58c1e808595f78156
2037 F20110209_AABYYS mcginnes_m_Page_020.txt
7ccdf6349ee53c54ced8eb3fe93db907
7464572bce60a0710b5ae6936e0c4fbae984ed6b
111317 F20110209_AABZFC mcginnes_m_Page_036.jpg
96e510bfe91f668b2cae099c1f0d59d3
557acf95d23334856a375c7add9857a68b74f1c4
107125 F20110209_AABZEO mcginnes_m_Page_019.jpg
6e22b19f2f77518f2e81c610d1e53dc8
8ec53b7a01fbcec54af6b0a8260bdacef69f5ce2
2239 F20110209_AABYZI mcginnes_m_Page_043.txt
f2814f1ce58966f13289b116628b8ec6
fbb8d2396ba24d3f2f51f0fe5e1b5330bee939b5
2543 F20110209_AABYYT mcginnes_m_Page_022.txt
313a9ed993169ba787382e2a73ad426d
b2b207e81fae4d6f46501b6cc449f34bace4d25c
103472 F20110209_AABZFD mcginnes_m_Page_038.jpg
0c8388be14ac1a3fbef9c5dccb2e1dce
122fc0bcba2bd2831f9a2efbcc4d07b086c38a65
103006 F20110209_AABZEP mcginnes_m_Page_020.jpg
b74a0ec7aad6e7a151da4bfa053c900f
3fb8680786cf20a94058bde3bd9dbb27563c8b01
2161 F20110209_AABYZJ mcginnes_m_Page_044.txt
c5a6a31c0f9c6f888186c82208d0d431
a87e3f7f76d2f79d4ba6976c8134747531999ce1
2624 F20110209_AABYYU mcginnes_m_Page_023.txt
fbee34c5d3b9de9e2017d867c52cbd70
15378d5f7c8041a12b1d432903858c4a7121a1ed
105230 F20110209_AABZFE mcginnes_m_Page_039.jpg
eb307d9921cb0d07e7f49d13f32b259f
ab39b01c1e479c4524fd986a243dc48e5aaac74b
107560 F20110209_AABZEQ mcginnes_m_Page_021.jpg
a19da83a10776ed09f3473ea12abc38f
4a9908c8ebae49dc68e16fc4f8a106d4dd0922c5
1996 F20110209_AABYZK mcginnes_m_Page_045.txt
d73d9f65e93d65ccd00c2954b927bcdb
ce1f517b3531677edbad9bab205600a6623dd34f
2140 F20110209_AABYYV mcginnes_m_Page_024.txt
809384c0138a18fa18288baad52d2a1b
68a235a80903f3657cd9e6bc06b45336cb31998d
107785 F20110209_AABZFF mcginnes_m_Page_040.jpg
cadff6943eac0c99eb3690e40c1a80e0
53d8a15b24e1062c2f37bf8243ba2a7929ce4d8e
122773 F20110209_AABZER mcginnes_m_Page_022.jpg
7baf8260e2db2585a5fb4373bda29da6
26d00a42487a14af3f25c8958f8f697c0cbca842
1834 F20110209_AABYZL mcginnes_m_Page_046.txt
2310d86bbc49ece8608972e390294a66
78183fdb5b9af14b7ed219fe862eba01f42c3a89
1793 F20110209_AABYYW mcginnes_m_Page_026.txt
32beb4d5bb8aef0a33e28f94035ab3b4
817464a117834659bb502b4fb47af2d7b792ae29
114025 F20110209_AABZFG mcginnes_m_Page_041.jpg
1a8b7ab283f9ca53865237cfd6d7e212
aed51926fe69dbb2a7252a717f61cacd6b197aa2
123934 F20110209_AABZES mcginnes_m_Page_023.jpg
ee81733347831dc9b6c0f01ed2bd0e2a
843169fa67b3c73c78b49dcd8b42f6c7c3082ec2
2078 F20110209_AABYZM mcginnes_m_Page_047.txt
d49413cf92d6881812e09b5f424a48a3
3e2bf71acfc58f3db14a215171156ba73bf89bcf
1951 F20110209_AABYYX mcginnes_m_Page_030.txt
1c4f11b5f482d157e39fa7b740ab7041
2f0d4ebedef4d78be1074ba81cbe5a656ba9771d
110011 F20110209_AABZET mcginnes_m_Page_024.jpg
b3a4e3fef845bed2ff2bf1c3bb9b6398
e96e33ee00643a1ea1086562c818ba5a5b6bf635
2151 F20110209_AABYZN mcginnes_m_Page_048.txt
6248c3c127a361c492c7d79d6defb07c
dd7f9816758a52f1843e237529540a2deda3e94e
1847 F20110209_AABYYY mcginnes_m_Page_031.txt
e54f5be1a4e6af8952e8cea86711e086
b16955c9c0788821ad9fc854794d7abebe81df28
112271 F20110209_AABZFH mcginnes_m_Page_042.jpg
5be621767b5add0f4317e3bc6cf67d0b
0c98b98fa531595940acc8fac59f901c913dcf33
41842 F20110209_AABZEU mcginnes_m_Page_025.jpg
d7fa956aef201e8d31c4ae4fa40d6228
c8c0f849c72ddd888281409238857e9043ce509f
2173 F20110209_AABYZO mcginnes_m_Page_050.txt
857b9f821b2610c53f7c2acd1822e562
3efebe252e8edce2b4a95f6ebfc321f717618cca
F20110209_AABYYZ mcginnes_m_Page_033.txt
01e549ff90fe985a2214ace2749e6549
658894b4b9857f1a29368320dcf9df82e4ce569b
115703 F20110209_AABZFI mcginnes_m_Page_043.jpg
dcc0a1a4a6b044a959d9488ec7d4c1e8
183fd1eee097c18232565d0cf1d55a0417b4d0ff
89880 F20110209_AABZEV mcginnes_m_Page_026.jpg
3bba9934f449879a7a2b0f2df2e320b7
d131d02e6ce3c554ce0fb6fa45cbd805b8c91030
2033 F20110209_AABYZP mcginnes_m_Page_051.txt
296523f5baeb4686170f4523e322ca83
611bad9d9db2e7c27505fa5b412aa5ccdac62f80
105673 F20110209_AABZFJ mcginnes_m_Page_045.jpg
bd5c3a97c3b453800da197db16c285d0
46c290af42f18d2cb8c1049bae959f6137125275
103227 F20110209_AABZEW mcginnes_m_Page_027.jpg
2d7a474446a2abf55b94262dce4f0d00
d376c1ea46f0f3fdb1b82301a1f9e5a5015e9583
2163 F20110209_AABYZQ mcginnes_m_Page_052.txt
1d271a473806fb03c03f06ccc408e902
0bd3d757a515a24b678c0f781ec73b91f6e7164d
96018 F20110209_AABZFK mcginnes_m_Page_046.jpg
36cdd4705b89825f7d84eaa9eba0b2f8
eed479bfb1656908c58e2460eaf32d4fe4c51534
98483 F20110209_AABZEX mcginnes_m_Page_030.jpg
03b2b586018d090716f186ed25777924
621dd2fbf6112c10b5613e98f4ade3072e67b6b8
2007 F20110209_AABYZR mcginnes_m_Page_053.txt
d07fc9835a089f3247b1ca689b38b5f7
f68678fd4849d7e767ff2f3c5342883cde84a2b4
100670 F20110209_AABZFL mcginnes_m_Page_047.jpg
315ffea2eb7b7fb1a8d52ee40b215f62
dc5bb001d033dc68405c3aa96f0e4abef6a95b7a
89848 F20110209_AABZEY mcginnes_m_Page_031.jpg
a93dada6482863b193dacb2fbb72f8ee
3edaa218c27ea5323840faa92ef23ebc1b638b32
97905 F20110209_AABZGA mcginnes_m_Page_073.jpg
5cbdb2218d4f376d8e1cf56b6608521d
31dd757dbc09a9c8b4bec272bee3ea699f7c9af4
110908 F20110209_AABZFM mcginnes_m_Page_050.jpg
7bf4633ea8b47741258e8510782ec553
010ead51c773eec601c294421dbcaa7df0b04e03
103621 F20110209_AABZEZ mcginnes_m_Page_032.jpg
8be2590eb7b579a13d694119281d7c88
d88c138827d27c3e2d371bd8bcb1648c6ba09de6
273 F20110209_AABYZS mcginnes_m_Page_054.txt
aca994b470e444e3ccece3900fc83e2f
c6fe0ee1fa0e0caf8e1a9fcd002981323dfee62e
22816 F20110209_AABZGB mcginnes_m_Page_076.jpg
12730a432fa2e7f728a9ac381bb351bf
eafdc3485ba09a3a3f98f643507602573bccc51f
110220 F20110209_AABZFN mcginnes_m_Page_052.jpg
43db7b33502592c71422498ade8dc5aa
ac37c0152332058ed0726eed58c281711206eb64
1975 F20110209_AABYZT mcginnes_m_Page_055.txt
ff81194b12ce8e22e77d1beceaa5dfd7
f82bcdd1a87e1e3fd0191f9276a2401d70538751
107419 F20110209_AABZGC mcginnes_m_Page_077.jpg
9662c7826963686b21aca1074cd5919f
4faa8c22168d57699de7b60d0b29122f1d97509a
42085 F20110209_AABZFO mcginnes_m_Page_054.jpg
974cbbdd35e8bf90d007a77f8eac2665
0ba9193079c2a5dd9f58dbfd74eac8c1e4892679
2171 F20110209_AABYZU mcginnes_m_Page_056.txt
60959e46a60d30c32ba565cbeac30362
a7f2f3f759e96b7c4dd1db952c33d4ae6b74b08e
107234 F20110209_AABZGD mcginnes_m_Page_079.jpg
4fe0215131c383c289d7f3466c565dd4
f84bf4401029a08dae86e38382d6f12c756e03a2
94013 F20110209_AABZFP mcginnes_m_Page_058.jpg
3202b8e0aa489896c4586edb6b1b4d07
8139fbcb3b26edb9e054f8875fc05ae1d5d088fe
2099 F20110209_AABYZV mcginnes_m_Page_057.txt
af046978ef61939826c49f8aa8871927
571e2c3156b15269eb65f2666556a82ce7bf6574
102728 F20110209_AABZGE mcginnes_m_Page_080.jpg
889d54821adb58b149ee68d8d0dba436
7b4ed1274a0010404130c69d0a8eed2d56c2db13
101696 F20110209_AABZFQ mcginnes_m_Page_060.jpg
1a6184d4bbe61575444aaef9cd13e6f2
fe8d7f046687d49d40127c0a21aac9611f1b0727
3081 F20110209_AABYZW mcginnes_m_Page_059.txt
0f6103108421a99a9f03bea49fd54cb2
8356afde5d96388f7b5ee136d30b967c4c732fdb
108960 F20110209_AABZGF mcginnes_m_Page_081.jpg
6331d92f263ce7b6e9a577f28cd85ff0
ba080c78fc790c0d6ac99eda109dd5c47d8723c9
106206 F20110209_AABZFR mcginnes_m_Page_061.jpg
6c9627d9401d07bba59a41c88f4aa9dd
7cb30a2aaac054bcd9fe99949877f6ca9ed4a31e
2755 F20110209_AABYZX mcginnes_m_Page_060.txt
bb6b0dc576c8cb6cef212455f37ba51c
e43dd1c2689a828809a3648207c67bff27cffc2a
106126 F20110209_AABZGG mcginnes_m_Page_082.jpg
105ee49acc39cea08a0b31ef2efc12be
6d12fb3abc056fdfbe1cf177e8441e59aa1fdb41
80622 F20110209_AABZFS mcginnes_m_Page_062.jpg
e07c892ab29b04e19883ce7f0700f118
971af2eabbb428f07ba8a86bc0c5b6bffb69fe4c
3050 F20110209_AABYZY mcginnes_m_Page_061.txt
a29c7967337a7e6bddb4cfabff09cdb4
abfcbc8df70acac27d7804ce11226163a6cca68f
45948 F20110209_AABZGH mcginnes_m_Page_083.jpg
fbc6dd160aa9ae46aed8d6fea0910a0e
e933d8949faafdf7806285d2f30a27b1a2902f4b
92807 F20110209_AABZFT mcginnes_m_Page_063.jpg
ad5b58ef3513fa86c1a414f388bf8659
825eb3258b105c7c13d7fc8732227a0fcb50a924
1670 F20110209_AABYZZ mcginnes_m_Page_062.txt
3722d5282373b28cf0e761ec572561a2
157b25ce28817cd59a7b28eb5006347fcb7652f4
110301 F20110209_AABZGI mcginnes_m_Page_084.jpg
c599089eb17ea8f2e99d4234b3a4fd69
6718a9fff2669f2369950ef519e976ce46ee6270
102942 F20110209_AABZFU mcginnes_m_Page_065.jpg
e73e37d5a70cd29607fb9a7246fd96d7
b3e346d6419be157662bf90288461bd78b2b282e
108653 F20110209_AABZGJ mcginnes_m_Page_085.jpg
7a3333fa37ebdfc829472687435c4899
5fdb45df9b3f33a11c6b5b8d521dbe865d625163
111936 F20110209_AABZFV mcginnes_m_Page_066.jpg
3bcd6b3ae5ccd24813690fec748dc8c5
86d32d7903ad225e47b0f2cb6fafbcc11315bcc8
108969 F20110209_AABZGK mcginnes_m_Page_086.jpg
2d5365087b905b649cb167971015ab05
9b8db7f6576352f6c99dd7d5806eb598441ab13f
126481 F20110209_AABZFW mcginnes_m_Page_068.jpg
e0f1e4351db4abb7be9ca208b7948b4e
33b69e21aa2cd605a2a827d995f9d8776aafb407
107089 F20110209_AABZGL mcginnes_m_Page_088.jpg
f1da1a8ea86278f8757c2c2e378ecb34
d82c9a56a587fd742d2663241a4863abb1911299
102675 F20110209_AABZFX mcginnes_m_Page_069.jpg
a3f2d9e89ec31ac79ec92bb8cc26d9e1
4f22a9aa39f6bc9205d868099233b29d53273dcc
26269 F20110209_AABZHA mcginnes_m_Page_001.jp2
065ac6640559f8286b9ce74b75523d5d
b79f21d55be7b6243d1498e071243f9304f8a5b8
99834 F20110209_AABZGM mcginnes_m_Page_089.jpg
523a6584ead2cd1031294cb73612d666
9b08c83525585166926c0e4062e8ba0d1acb65a7
100858 F20110209_AABZFY mcginnes_m_Page_071.jpg
abcedc02c9a2566a15c9038a22c2c280
d207457808a6ec93551899dae834c6f61780a225
5986 F20110209_AABZHB mcginnes_m_Page_002.jp2
14966cdf988724292abd5256ccaa81e5
11595fda3741e16e0c6513c69a417f9cfd2708f1
31921 F20110209_AABZGN mcginnes_m_Page_091.jpg
a059c875050b9172d277cf2606f74ddf
bb5742724643d3b27020eb5a3c52b4ca299f8f61
104821 F20110209_AABZFZ mcginnes_m_Page_072.jpg
9d0e582334c61c42a54322387e03fd81
70dae0f5c3bb68d5150f6cc8dd321b9bf554bc43
112005 F20110209_AABZHC mcginnes_m_Page_004.jp2
46e2c8b8c5085c7302d3975c5ed8c7dd
f2923bfbfaf314f6d026de78564b3df9690fdab6
89207 F20110209_AABZGO mcginnes_m_Page_092.jpg
6c7d34c307d49409ad14b864f11e39ae
05dadda636f852656cbca34780c07823ef72805d
42814 F20110209_AABZHD mcginnes_m_Page_005.jp2
e1ae05e48c548595867171f42b5ec3f5
1a33f553b343c7703ae5db1448132ab1191683b2
47989 F20110209_AABZGP mcginnes_m_Page_093.jpg
62b28329b829c120dd685b5bfdb250c3
57c7e805f7594b61a661b4d8b416ce7ca153ba3e
1051974 F20110209_AABZHE mcginnes_m_Page_006.jp2
c4d21f54aa219c1a89eb60e596676997
a87faa096aa54407efe36efd22fd9467820a444e
114327 F20110209_AABZGQ mcginnes_m_Page_096.jpg
ec37b2a084929ec2428709c3c3c8184e
8b20e62f76ba5b463baf3fa731be87a4556cc388
1051971 F20110209_AABZHF mcginnes_m_Page_007.jp2
a919f6c452993bda59a143036e4d16f6
93526b833ca93c2b7353264c3235308e44ad13b1
104642 F20110209_AABZGR mcginnes_m_Page_097.jpg
346ad6a06ad92977f5af72c03312feea
897cec91c709baf314a0031f0a2e74c7af523e9d
232683 F20110209_AABZHG mcginnes_m_Page_008.jp2
aa012e5c2a901e06047adf32134c36de
7ba564bb0193783cadf10f42bd70cbb19fc6fc5c
100603 F20110209_AABZGS mcginnes_m_Page_098.jpg
6d91d0f08c02da5c80358d146f01e945
e39dafa5707bb0f8d9057dbf464cc2e186c9efbc
307807 F20110209_AABZHH mcginnes_m_Page_010.jp2
4b4b233479dd765fbf136e202a2f3eb2
43318f86c14c9084f68a56414f9e138800479e06
103727 F20110209_AABZGT mcginnes_m_Page_099.jpg
077edb30797d51c93a494e187d1e0d39
7e57b9524b0c50395853a4582c75324377c555b1
53964 F20110209_AABZHI mcginnes_m_Page_011.jp2
e6684ec5f22b5d0758d13ed135d7939c
26e8378f35c579419aa106d0303f6855dfa29fee
102471 F20110209_AABZGU mcginnes_m_Page_100.jpg
c4bfdcc72a6cd2308428c718e1568d3a
64179fdb2e01c9dc6c10ff739d0060a2de3b16a4
23020 F20110209_AABZHJ mcginnes_m_Page_012.jp2
d71644c64ecb0e034c7ab113986320ae
c67b725020efa125631b8c11b2877025ab79cad0
106281 F20110209_AABZGV mcginnes_m_Page_101.jpg
fcec1cf8fa82b24110ca4ccd2f3313eb
9819959b5dedf004bad4f4e55991b08cef637e29
104834 F20110209_AABZHK mcginnes_m_Page_013.jp2
987487bc14d9203b85a6611b401906bb
ba8c3976c0a027a0be27edf93b225c0d9143c066
107406 F20110209_AABZGW mcginnes_m_Page_102.jpg
099bc45c306796635923ea239a87e032
beecc2e470ffa90734da6c416196ebc702a86adb
83082 F20110209_AABZHL mcginnes_m_Page_014.jp2
ae6630a1ba833aad8589f29ce0c5ce3c
0428759159307a8691367cb94b20ef02696ace3f
108475 F20110209_AABZGX mcginnes_m_Page_103.jpg
15e79027c7696d33d3b54d32747bef90
8d12819b30e65b64161256915c195d3d359c0c82
119291 F20110209_AABZHM mcginnes_m_Page_016.jp2
443c35ff47e4e3ccd4b237be9658b47a
d53ca98a0b509e47765bdc12c19fdee9508e9fb5
16056 F20110209_AABZGY mcginnes_m_Page_104.jpg
30164440b8d9bb2f5f11ba77135ce3ef
1103e45c5e10664aa04da7c1a69f528d52213128
111295 F20110209_AABZIA mcginnes_m_Page_035.jp2
eb3f4247057fe8feac7c741051e00220
9669700cf23026e4cb6e2d4e613225ab31f6783b
102826 F20110209_AABZHN mcginnes_m_Page_018.jp2
1f5a041d7b0232fc80661c14c4c7d772
f0f83d12c6715d7315164f22bdf0669d9b0d8de5
55879 F20110209_AABZGZ mcginnes_m_Page_105.jpg
a9877e4689c7df7ab21fd3af2ee7e4e7
420ed7e9b26ac7ec7ed7efdca2d8084477342d44
119417 F20110209_AABZIB mcginnes_m_Page_036.jp2
efdf3d341256ce79303650f246011509
1858e94649bfcd5c54fd2a5689f51733c07a9e50
109895 F20110209_AABZHO mcginnes_m_Page_020.jp2
a350f8a6b7a66a0e4e2829995e4a38bb
18611ec5df64a5a27ce6a565a7a419e8851f8f41
109180 F20110209_AABZIC mcginnes_m_Page_038.jp2
1d2a08c42395f1d911f2400fda156b84
5405ff34ebe1c99a10e850c21d4c70cc3f3ed366
113654 F20110209_AABZHP mcginnes_m_Page_021.jp2
9cb01f1fb6d70fbaebd87e128fa4324b
8714135f410148f8e1c3b6575d34245813e377b4
114173 F20110209_AABZID mcginnes_m_Page_039.jp2
e036b6768871eeaad46302d19bd6a1b6
d2449eab74ae4bdd5a4c00279b2291891fb4b1db
123520 F20110209_AABZHQ mcginnes_m_Page_023.jp2
8dc74e51f435caa14c21c5268b9aec64
2cba69a85b8e4c715af960a2c03fb583415e0731
120295 F20110209_AABZIE mcginnes_m_Page_041.jp2
ff332c4db671bae2a651a700fdd9d61e
981851d6cf0d2eadbb13a1e604363bc9a4a7d990
117232 F20110209_AABZHR mcginnes_m_Page_024.jp2
bf613f024e04053de64df8c0da7c236b
a2407a23618c192984521ba9ab50612f1f5f9396
123322 F20110209_AABZIF mcginnes_m_Page_043.jp2
9020adb5de15189b249a8bcd23284064
a1fd1de30bd2173afe1bfb7294006549018fc331
44976 F20110209_AABZHS mcginnes_m_Page_025.jp2
969bf4ce0887696d2a6378abb918e409
2a62a326ca18f7e6a79dec156727688aad39df02
120635 F20110209_AABZIG mcginnes_m_Page_044.jp2
456eb82bdefbf9e012a3a98a3d15bf45
fb1c6c2d1f8f2fffc66e1e7734eec587ea10c10e
110010 F20110209_AABZHT mcginnes_m_Page_027.jp2
7dbde5d1055b5c0f768fd1cf1789643a
ae940545a318f5f063f47a61b022d9f6d0aef12a
111679 F20110209_AABZIH mcginnes_m_Page_045.jp2
06f8b2c650266bd4abd47873c39297a8
0f8b64bb9e484179396df10f9e9a1fde132f98b0
114564 F20110209_AABZHU mcginnes_m_Page_028.jp2
8064f30d9fc69f7a44f165c3cf2de402
a74f108de304377804966b39f00cee1d1181da0a
101077 F20110209_AABZII mcginnes_m_Page_046.jp2
f85944052e85a9264ab180e4dc467ee9
6bbd9bc2dce147e0158e9134d031166111fd4b77
105583 F20110209_AABZHV mcginnes_m_Page_030.jp2
53b09803aae19d385c7a5a8e10245104
f40793252cf141b1c1bfca5194ae188a6b0528dc
105814 F20110209_AABZIJ mcginnes_m_Page_047.jp2
91833dd694af61daa0dc276d6bd188d9
84d6920873fb08c28aca1ae5f3a113097a0342f7
94243 F20110209_AABZHW mcginnes_m_Page_031.jp2
e68ee98f71d25be2304893e81d4dd52d
79e316ab7d50a7aaf231ac724a3e8aa305021ac9
113893 F20110209_AABZIK mcginnes_m_Page_048.jp2
bdcd7a773d72d5a6184413b254de4d61
8d566fc94d85a809b8b519da3514f8218d257bef
109210 F20110209_AABZHX mcginnes_m_Page_032.jp2
ee097a9ffd04f51d559be8370576ed0e
bb6086c428ffb8234b5507c4ea2a4616036112d6
129553 F20110209_AABZJA mcginnes_m_Page_068.jp2
cf5f0c47af25e04432ef978bb289ec47
cb42726e9ef0b9b4d47bea33bba3d262bf8c1d32
117049 F20110209_AABZIL mcginnes_m_Page_050.jp2
f8384a7e885d990e64f5d2d9522b06dd
1005d72f97f12114c1d720fc6243100620a3b825
117852 F20110209_AABZHY mcginnes_m_Page_033.jp2
1f50afe28ab79b17e4b1c3f572d6a3b0
4aff4a4c6e94232d782d3d14e346097e8561bf30
109465 F20110209_AABZIM mcginnes_m_Page_051.jp2
7025a842a7b69e87ebba3f79b9852879
bfb1509dc97e2bd8b25bc5b45dcbc87ae4fd3fb3
76921 F20110209_AABZHZ mcginnes_m_Page_034.jp2
6887dcfb48f942dde04faa64ad2db075
393efa34ad10719bb8343df40280c2f18166c953
100026 F20110209_AABZJB mcginnes_m_Page_070.jp2
dffbb6963937caac16a608143b7a1a9b
288fe2c25aa9ea56e296253f6b3dfd3b1242f06c
116846 F20110209_AABZIN mcginnes_m_Page_052.jp2
995bf99d944a140a792862b2bd2ce66e
915200efe39607b207473d378af5c94f38dfbe84
101255 F20110209_AABZJC mcginnes_m_Page_071.jp2
c824b39b1dae957452133101d4db9697
05a551febd5c988c17762db8a5e88a6ba51e4530
109495 F20110209_AABZIO mcginnes_m_Page_053.jp2
2d0aa920062be14755a534e5c4d47bee
f129ca386c6d99b923f55dbedb43178035665f75
97643 F20110209_AABZJD mcginnes_m_Page_073.jp2
8222dfd79d9a6c23575e671db45d27b3
037f2f9e9bfbb69eb5e57552b0845bd083874005
400492 F20110209_AABZIP mcginnes_m_Page_054.jp2
71eb0b654550faa4bbd23ed2d0b93ffd
f6001bb7534b72dfb7cb73bc44cd54f195b1e94c
102359 F20110209_AABZJE mcginnes_m_Page_074.jp2
7f590219a1e31f1642e703da97c9a7e5
95a3090d8d0a4363395be859424f8f5f36616d6a
119008 F20110209_AABZIQ mcginnes_m_Page_056.jp2
1bd35e661844695b0de62e76f6efdbe3
ca7396dfefa702fb86b3c38acdec1d0be228d989
106484 F20110209_AABZJF mcginnes_m_Page_075.jp2
af54a87b389f5cd7e28ccd99342fa77d
b586d7417247585c514192bc1206f9f90f699e85
99503 F20110209_AABZIR mcginnes_m_Page_058.jp2
09a1bdb37d45d697ecbed302f074d264
6e6b6130c4a7c2985581bda7097e662e5d56fb01
24363 F20110209_AABZJG mcginnes_m_Page_076.jp2
a5b076da9c9eeb417826d3c705dc6679
69e93f6137787efec3b42ced21f8be8c513f1ab9
98704 F20110209_AABZIS mcginnes_m_Page_060.jp2
5226d3e84b34e0adc5a51b8e1297ee7f
1bc95e57eae0796c87d534d11071bb4b8b1dcd92
115966 F20110209_AABZJH mcginnes_m_Page_077.jp2
6d227c601768d264d08b5bfe28d6c1ca
4acfb4fe54c043e8c274c1099c44d6b7f060626b
101543 F20110209_AABZIT mcginnes_m_Page_061.jp2
4c261b33f56bf3713e5a9f424382728d
f137e99cbf02863a7f93c0c6eda3e0dfcec7da68
109383 F20110209_AABZJI mcginnes_m_Page_079.jp2
a4a94d6c7974e3fc1db171972703c110
a032a99dcb55e4bacfb55ee5fe7af1fd9a56b9ad
85976 F20110209_AABZIU mcginnes_m_Page_062.jp2
c26c30a37c9421b06aec6f0c86f6ddda
7509c7204a87b42ee693e7788810991cb51b3d17
106661 F20110209_AABZJJ mcginnes_m_Page_080.jp2
b85f76c06ee59335dc56a100d6f829fe
d95c8320c102096b3ba6de84adda96f906481d86
100869 F20110209_AABZIV mcginnes_m_Page_063.jp2
f33d80bdb1761b0b7ef60d112248ca10
d120c8474ae7dfa418402a9f5b6ae39e98ea0c40
114523 F20110209_AABZJK mcginnes_m_Page_081.jp2
696346908b58251c245952cc0e9d8ff1
cab1f27cc811a611f0642740e3644c1126f5060b
38882 F20110209_AABZIW mcginnes_m_Page_064.jp2
bd3f5958af4f4b019596e8447fa21d49
f2ffbf003a504ced4d0c707428d2b8be0a5fe4e2
115547 F20110209_AABZKA mcginnes_m_Page_099.jp2
d83f1d93c58c2f6920746ff64b041091
8609fcf36194e892f3fb10fa8955ae6a41c5fa00
113036 F20110209_AABZJL mcginnes_m_Page_082.jp2
f6b6e06aa8c80574c528c497dc4e2d1e
4fd91a5c0e3eb318b6d31750329c0ab547803f8a
106701 F20110209_AABZIX mcginnes_m_Page_065.jp2
6534ca9ac5fe63481ea8d576d98bc406
73a7f16235f92b218dd4ebf68ce496d48a664ecd
118382 F20110209_AABZKB mcginnes_m_Page_103.jp2
376fb71379a5c0a3e80354bfe81174f2
4397c4e35830007936794bd8c66345f82fb3c4b7
48715 F20110209_AABZJM mcginnes_m_Page_083.jp2
d60c18a671ea3cfbbc2131265e55b1e0
7f02c0468c17586366b700dd1b47c5c4b94e71e6
116728 F20110209_AABZIY mcginnes_m_Page_066.jp2
a7dedecc96a893231dfabf79b84fc5db
c3c91e4581450e895e2d62eec3df5937b0724e14
113245 F20110209_AABZJN mcginnes_m_Page_084.jp2
8285b39d7e85b3f347c7edd46aef0839
427c1805d3bd78f9c32cc5de668a1b7fb82eea18
117318 F20110209_AABZIZ mcginnes_m_Page_067.jp2
d73febcc46402617d6e2ad62962c2c6e
9fbebcdaec86db7d47fe9dc046b5f78b39e22791
8495 F20110209_AABZKC mcginnes_m_Page_096thm.jpg
1db2f5e220409bdcef94eb79376702ac
333bbd00a8eb673044945546865e9c4424a28643
113367 F20110209_AABZJO mcginnes_m_Page_085.jp2
43211d49e300b35920b6754d2fe166f1
43bfb46793ddc40f5f16c82b1cd4fe754433f862
8808 F20110209_AABZKD mcginnes_m_Page_068thm.jpg
5182854d943a0d05074c2dddee4b258c
5af1cb11c8f0484ac7fa8ac0f68336bb8400d4d7
114728 F20110209_AABZJP mcginnes_m_Page_086.jp2
ca87c39cbdd72421116456c1d663d766
0b3cb420e2fe0adb68937395c5f637eca87bb4d1
109945 F20110209_AABZJQ mcginnes_m_Page_087.jp2
fcf1101337d5b39f95e1c4f6b44773cb
6d5e9d47faf282a11f6d461c2f5fc66d436f6c01
F20110209_AABZKE mcginnes_m_Page_012thm.jpg
66e9bfa9b03f0960ad9a9ff56a0a465b
00ac77bd06b3cd071b1d979d3c09f6b702860b67
104901 F20110209_AABZJR mcginnes_m_Page_089.jp2
5590a2c99a4f28a74e11931cbbb21c73
33ab15935c1090c03fb335139fa016ee9242a8ff
31422 F20110209_AABZKF mcginnes_m_Page_046.QC.jpg
28587a32e58e8051c3d7f35184d33095
e23a024a0046139d898392b72e5296917a559033
96705 F20110209_AABZJS mcginnes_m_Page_090.jp2
32bf3610067f1ef21f76322c5d649028
59b8751a445d17bd4d64a81631517d5334476958
35287 F20110209_AABZKG mcginnes_m_Page_085.QC.jpg
a5c830e5b0d146eb245fe09fe52b4cae
056f38aee849ce34f176182db9fdf7685a0f362a
33526 F20110209_AABZJT mcginnes_m_Page_091.jp2
1fe9d85b2390e2fdbabc4e91a63486e7
2009835a46e76182b7398d17889f615482a3cb67
31019 F20110209_AABZKH mcginnes_m_Page_058.QC.jpg
3d611b574023e681ef6ae75453874909
7cc756e1abd4aa118f2270b1a61dd1c5ccacb037
89323 F20110209_AABZJU mcginnes_m_Page_092.jp2
ba7729d6477cc779ce0ffcb36b815063
ecdf1b40482be119229269a534b3a271e51ccfff
31011 F20110209_AABZKI mcginnes_m_Page_013.QC.jpg
88266ff6ffa6761d9b1216a20466f3b9
24197ad4dbd1990ca9a5e27120bf6d7d0b5c7557
49936 F20110209_AABZJV mcginnes_m_Page_093.jp2
3675762eaa3fb7be82b40f9d21af046e
422900a8c21b39444987c9133a718e0dabd9379e
13953 F20110209_AABZKJ mcginnes_m_Page_005.QC.jpg
c1ba5178d07439d25f782be51537451b
2aef393adf49f62fc9bc2a4e143b4867393ca825
119559 F20110209_AABZJW mcginnes_m_Page_094.jp2
4a78984bab71e7e2bed53b7b358f0116
ae6451c2cf8683d0ea767f7e7d12388580ae8458
8625 F20110209_AABZKK mcginnes_m_Page_053thm.jpg
425d7315bb6707df04d592490fbe9113
7340c5772e5b0c5d6c98deab0e7949d4054d0046
124524 F20110209_AABZJX mcginnes_m_Page_095.jp2
268d46e3c8e39acc1af16b51385b8880
1560e6a850facd9203280f355e733999d21645b0
8836 F20110209_AABZLA mcginnes_m_Page_049thm.jpg
f014d66515c23e0c7c0d6be01c62cfbf
628e164af9d89f6c8498a345750f5d02b66bf95c
29973 F20110209_AABZKL mcginnes_m_Page_026.QC.jpg
390a4b74008eb3199e42342d69edf219
1f34ba2d527e6336efd8799edbe25291c4f4a159
120355 F20110209_AABZJY mcginnes_m_Page_096.jp2
89b51b8f37f0087cef03ff0787538f6d
adeb9d7029cd74ab2555130e411d193588bf8252
171644 F20110209_AABZLB UFE0021802_00001.xml
86c23ca24dde1d6f7be5dbae732746f0
500eec86fbca26a7e3d8db8f5435f81cef3f27c0
8503 F20110209_AABZKM mcginnes_m_Page_077thm.jpg
2dca64bc51b8758107759463f36b9590
68591daf2c5a5818f07a2165e7ae150ac265eb22
112150 F20110209_AABZJZ mcginnes_m_Page_098.jp2
d4b26286b7bd430eab38e4ac81eb2410
d9f997fc70b5df0a141ae81e3c1f65817d761e99
8472 F20110209_AABZLC mcginnes_m_Page_001.QC.jpg
de35d0d7bc2ff4e22ee36deb5bb7689b
23064dcaba9063a2e451324814747670547f034a
34719 F20110209_AABZKN mcginnes_m_Page_088.QC.jpg
4a6e131a3539df7d9a3edc84f15ea5ad
f883f4f4a2d1f7c35279be51b05fe13c0d297090
F20110209_AABZKO mcginnes_m_Page_014thm.jpg
920b899c4f38da537cc8eeed58bf3e39
7aab3987c423dba8dbca0a35618bc61bf65b3877
4503 F20110209_AABZLD mcginnes_m_Page_003.QC.jpg
f489279d024bbe9b6034b98f67e7ab0b
81048683c316bcaa1f90f0659aacf5f77e2ce77e
29139 F20110209_AABZKP mcginnes_m_Page_059.QC.jpg
da253efd4a05f7c2c866c9d62fff847c
c7c4589dfa522711f824f12efe5696a0e55b1226
22884 F20110209_AABZLE mcginnes_m_Page_006.QC.jpg
468f870724b2051a18206a65dfef3698
b517a4f5640079a81809d717361948ec81f23405
23447 F20110209_AABZKQ mcginnes_m_Page_034.QC.jpg
f2b2963f38137b5a5cd24e07a38f38f3
fd426a530792464544607bdae6ec1f40b3ff584c
24139 F20110209_AABZLF mcginnes_m_Page_007.QC.jpg
76a4935f5bef488a9c227a72931fafb7
67461fdc3ade4be5a9a9146435e41e6c4592f38e
30731 F20110209_AABZKR mcginnes_m_Page_073.QC.jpg
574e3c37c0979a783f7a05552dc849ab
2a5fa53a504a8d0aa3799825efb3cf4aba7019e2
4252 F20110209_AABZLG mcginnes_m_Page_008.QC.jpg
dee5662b75e01cd562ab79f50446e0b9
cc5c9e388c9c992035726a7f8a407b71fddfa337
8799 F20110209_AABZKS mcginnes_m_Page_057thm.jpg
5539def44ee0049533e62b446ef4b9e4
1fd1693aad5a837c76cb3ab2b04a2fbed9424613
19392 F20110209_AABZLH mcginnes_m_Page_009.QC.jpg
4299f85bd32046d80533eb5993662fee
81c668845d94dfacc1b920245dec4fb5c8696e29
34572 F20110209_AABZKT mcginnes_m_Page_087.QC.jpg
97908342fc968840f3f8e52262da4a0a
75b7a553da090991e132ac1fe6817cc251e83a9e
18704 F20110209_AABZLI mcginnes_m_Page_011.QC.jpg
a2b72cb8bba29c28662a8fb160fc5eb8
a208b998d6cb9f185224951cb988c8a7d276260c
32635 F20110209_AABZKU mcginnes_m_Page_096.QC.jpg
c1808b7081d77831995690015897ad5e
e720a895fb13a05cae9b984aac9271ace9baa7d9
25765 F20110209_AABZLJ mcginnes_m_Page_014.QC.jpg
fff513bb831fe78808e4ecd1087ff725
1921f88233dee8e4f3d8a25b0e770990e1536ad4
8681 F20110209_AABZKV mcginnes_m_Page_081thm.jpg
97f121ffba910b9a0c64bc552d2210f4
bc236dcc9073d18498f5b4cdf69c5ba41b558f04
9553 F20110209_AABZLK mcginnes_m_Page_017.QC.jpg
830bbe0ecbb2099e95b904f66ccc2bd8
51f5a8ec0c278518ca8a1d08f6657229ed532d6d
30724 F20110209_AABZKW mcginnes_m_Page_100.QC.jpg
3dd249c338dc3d3ce8cfcd88b65288b3
b074ee65599afecf9699ff81e03e56d87fdb0737
37541 F20110209_AABZMA mcginnes_m_Page_044.QC.jpg
d49ffaad5d8f4169d7e5d7c2b0956e0b
b61667e2f277c53db1fc4104424c98d9dc9890b4
32136 F20110209_AABZLL mcginnes_m_Page_018.QC.jpg
842b98c5858accb57f0729b5480960d9
82c7bea4b63ea80f11a0aa0a288a83b2329ff15c
2717 F20110209_AABZKX mcginnes_m_Page_091thm.jpg
c173abc06876d2851173b2926b4f1872
ecd2e5eff626ac92add92dbf946aa2f93cf87e5e
34645 F20110209_AABZMB mcginnes_m_Page_045.QC.jpg
9c7603567878a59cf23408173042ea13
a6902df7b15956482d3b0559094797473cfcb7c0
34469 F20110209_AABZLM mcginnes_m_Page_019.QC.jpg
1dc7024de8b41867d6c5d5bd2994a231
12fb3bccbc9d9c4d81fedc8c41f248725d7268ea
30489 F20110209_AABZKY mcginnes_m_Page_099.QC.jpg
5971076851680461fdeca3df009fa454
a6accc2b207295bd13245ed0365af40577533e9f
33716 F20110209_AABZMC mcginnes_m_Page_047.QC.jpg
d59c0087115d705d0d1477e79b96f07d
6f087ec305abd5109d4277a6f6d84fd530dca4c7
36821 F20110209_AABZLN mcginnes_m_Page_022.QC.jpg
dfc7d08044183fa2ee399103f7f9e10b
e2bd1848136e473ad43178652a850262009a0ebf
35222 F20110209_AABZKZ mcginnes_m_Page_015.QC.jpg
536f9fb13a0059023b210dc9117b775b
b495189c8ec31f64afab5d62ca42f41270402b75
34710 F20110209_AABZMD mcginnes_m_Page_049.QC.jpg
cbf0402b4d31192992aeb14cb8ff25fe
0302e3f8fcb9729ea191843861656f204d1bfbcf
35590 F20110209_AABZLO mcginnes_m_Page_024.QC.jpg
ef0bf0e136d77a87c25b795fb270f0ee
36952f37c806cf3f357d2f67f13fe46b95fb1a45
14119 F20110209_AABZLP mcginnes_m_Page_025.QC.jpg
c80379f7290a0763f331f1e7636cf4de
9e79b5c217a7a2a1bdcf0d4f373430e37a1a4861
36813 F20110209_AABZME mcginnes_m_Page_050.QC.jpg
468137d37240b9c68aa11b1294125dad
d43d7fd48413ea8f6da284e0259b998a4ee59d7d
33590 F20110209_AABZLQ mcginnes_m_Page_027.QC.jpg
ebab2fd8b10ba6247918d9d1a08f28c2
a167789ffe6e4ecc4bd653dd9d9087720bc591c3
35862 F20110209_AABZMF mcginnes_m_Page_052.QC.jpg
e552b35b12fa89846b487894328cb5c4
ee563beca087dcaf775f59e438453df22406538d
35243 F20110209_AABZLR mcginnes_m_Page_028.QC.jpg
6998f77b79c2dec393fbf403ad82d536
7b9e783e0c12415837b5971b650ec75c297a7896
33477 F20110209_AABZMG mcginnes_m_Page_053.QC.jpg
4d98f35aaf2ee8d0142af83bbc8cf27b
a7481114922d8de4bfddd9e287b5ff52d9978252
25675 F20110209_AABZLS mcginnes_m_Page_029.QC.jpg
c8a52a695c933612d9c361cdda62b9de
c130c9884b8ab45a8ad5d383a5a4faec80eb878f
15293 F20110209_AABZMH mcginnes_m_Page_054.QC.jpg
b86ae0fbd95917acb338ef54381c1ce8
8cfefe7ce9a97d52f5662e0726b1d440dfa1fb4c
33506 F20110209_AABZLT mcginnes_m_Page_030.QC.jpg
786f7129d7e08c6b929d54f64a4a8dc4
7dd7bf7e235b28d5bb4204cc9ad574bd4915dabb
32103 F20110209_AABZMI mcginnes_m_Page_055.QC.jpg
16f39834fc2c9e7e6d67ea3e6ac183ff
e441da9cf9e892348a90b6d85a845221c62dcb10
28222 F20110209_AABZLU mcginnes_m_Page_031.QC.jpg
55d41e0292e177d250db41946d3cae2c
3365d9dc452386ad368ac2be47cc253c4d6babc5
37210 F20110209_AABZMJ mcginnes_m_Page_056.QC.jpg
8a36570ca135a51de212277ba00ec3d4
a30a7acb76486195acd9e12745e1fd0912d384f8
34226 F20110209_AABZLV mcginnes_m_Page_037.QC.jpg
9914a44ddd3bf5aac2bfb68679c9631c
eaaeea8c62a2328fa3378f5235b3d7c97c42dea1
30809 F20110209_AABZMK mcginnes_m_Page_061.QC.jpg
214eaf00c4609fdbc0032df2e148ffa6
9a0ae20b33244e3c933b5772c9b0cadc3bf65d14
32591 F20110209_AABZLW mcginnes_m_Page_038.QC.jpg
e764361a48768f7bf6a6389ac5ded2a4
d05ac04cd0fedfbaff33cbf28ce3413c34de743f
12798 F20110209_AABZML mcginnes_m_Page_064.QC.jpg
87b3593cf948d834410257ce5a4ae7ef
1367f36a626479709fb4ba1a600876875b4a401e
34466 F20110209_AABZLX mcginnes_m_Page_039.QC.jpg
c06a6730608a73c66eb19fe238fe5567
0c12f3120137f6d6aa27787c8b93774b902a7d74
30249 F20110209_AABZNA mcginnes_m_Page_090.QC.jpg
d192f4ba79497be35a76c30d02327faf
cedd09a0c97ac5dcfef3906db8c1a82cd39a6778
32971 F20110209_AABZMM mcginnes_m_Page_065.QC.jpg
72e14d9de0fc675d430c95758cf4750c
a0ffaa4feb6185e8e8df3d91288d76bde3dde1a1
35896 F20110209_AABZLY mcginnes_m_Page_040.QC.jpg
0b2d3ec78b4e22d3885299b4de95aac8
3ddaae1b45273f35c49c0f05559cd7569898fb5d
10958 F20110209_AABZNB mcginnes_m_Page_091.QC.jpg
a3d863deb57176389d97c88946ee3893
a6b5ce6f40d5d15944e8d5a2448b07888d103764
37476 F20110209_AABZMN mcginnes_m_Page_066.QC.jpg
565f73ed92d05994f9b21f4b5124d78f
77e0462abf5a49c95b41ba7d7497d73e51c46e9f
37531 F20110209_AABZLZ mcginnes_m_Page_042.QC.jpg
6aa1d1fa848c2fc3850dde4e6d2e8768
6ef3295183c46e0c3048d5532f4050a70706d47a
24852 F20110209_AABZNC mcginnes_m_Page_092.QC.jpg
b65da9983cef373ae8e0d518946a1e03
8444791d6cceef12e1de8c5bc255f10285173b64
37378 F20110209_AABZMO mcginnes_m_Page_067.QC.jpg
ba9ba2d2f29899cde7289cdd9dad3859
1d497a78f411ddd440884c2a09d7c85c36a2c348
13594 F20110209_AABZND mcginnes_m_Page_093.QC.jpg
4e1ffd0debaed22cac2e7d1806afd4c6
7893bba0bc023fc9a0cb9796d627835a4fda1d52
33018 F20110209_AABZMP mcginnes_m_Page_069.QC.jpg
67a212c38451dbb1eb8d633f671c45b8
702d07f4a7b83b4d1f6a622b1e4e074b602d3b32
30462 F20110209_AABZNE mcginnes_m_Page_094.QC.jpg
d26bde841813533bfbdaad52a90c79ae
320c5dd4d88c21760880a7d02a73e44801f38425
33229 F20110209_AABZMQ mcginnes_m_Page_070.QC.jpg
c04c04e7cabf911ef112a297583d92bc
be795d208028148f3e8b6693793b85687b024fdf
32884 F20110209_AABZMR mcginnes_m_Page_071.QC.jpg
ba0c6dbc9379af8d9cba1901538c66ec
400beaf10d9e2dcbf33c2e9a61dfed38037dd062
32124 F20110209_AABZNF mcginnes_m_Page_095.QC.jpg
5f575b9686b96c7537ba17756f259297
cb7afbf3122010ea8a46cbbdd7a1b073a718a8a0
32955 F20110209_AABZMS mcginnes_m_Page_072.QC.jpg
d82b2cc54bbe2da8a324e080d3cc54b7
c9365bfbe09be062fefe350790537735c62d76ab
30122 F20110209_AABZNG mcginnes_m_Page_097.QC.jpg
db8ac880506758ef52a99bdf806f2533
32fa82734ad515bc14b5913b4e2bf4d57904f21c
32504 F20110209_AABZMT mcginnes_m_Page_074.QC.jpg
dfce9a01c4600772d32c5550a3e55d47
ac68f8ddb498f2586300de0e922ae801215a03f9
29237 F20110209_AABZNH mcginnes_m_Page_098.QC.jpg
dd6fb00f53e18dd4f55b6e3d096ba24f
9d3124fe6c3e239781f64315f7aa36d38370588b
32737 F20110209_AABZMU mcginnes_m_Page_075.QC.jpg
6ecbe54ac421012640bdc681246d5e96
0d56629d6bfd3a32d8991d2460eae0c6e60ccbda
30808 F20110209_AABZNI mcginnes_m_Page_101.QC.jpg
74b2fe7d3f20734bffc32ab7bf26b73b
578c73c7ec1b92b2fb331b313be9e2e4e14b14d8
32176 F20110209_AABZMV mcginnes_m_Page_079.QC.jpg
3aed48282087e2ff8e638957fefb95e5
7b14c9f22498d2bf9e132bbe46688150a3e5f0e6
4872 F20110209_AABZNJ mcginnes_m_Page_104.QC.jpg
cb9735ab2ee6612c6be3f04d82bbd86b
514f523eace48a94fdb321b6c7968f840e77efe2
33831 F20110209_AABZMW mcginnes_m_Page_080.QC.jpg
d46d3f8f41ac83192c5bfe6594bd1163
d7170769153e9672d450e0f0b05ac858d84dcf75
3404 F20110209_AABZNK mcginnes_m_Page_005thm.jpg
989a62fd3432585c7b5a145562c0a52b
86485f0b95a270fc7137c5b624f96e4f70088f7f
15039 F20110209_AABZMX mcginnes_m_Page_083.QC.jpg
03ceacc540025d4a6280eeed77e8b318
1d7fd31f6546f83dd044880ec5e5a0116c6fdd77
8854 F20110209_AABZOA mcginnes_m_Page_033thm.jpg
6012f8c5955e5cc3a69ce121d5564188
7eedaaf6a126f726898503248be2f7abb30706e9
5938 F20110209_AABZNL mcginnes_m_Page_007thm.jpg
5af8510af590c281ef74ded25832e94d
0083251f63b11038cba41c002a04e0bcb0207e12
36136 F20110209_AABZMY mcginnes_m_Page_084.QC.jpg
2e2ff6d193948a6a933873ef36502fa6
3d83e8b0be03e2d4d1b76e0167a14d46d0e0f4ab
5774 F20110209_AABZOB mcginnes_m_Page_034thm.jpg
e1ab71080dcf54878bd6c2d4ed097a19
fd0030e45e5ac4a3a89f903e426af987d8714db4
1387 F20110209_AABZNM mcginnes_m_Page_008thm.jpg
e38df123a80aec06c3452109c2853c68
bb5855b4393501f31f55b47c6453639092b75e6e
32269 F20110209_AABZMZ mcginnes_m_Page_089.QC.jpg
8a36c0648691bfe1a0a88afc449c8f2c
55cb695c95f1e4bfb6cfd52628d6cfedf6fee84f
8034 F20110209_AABZOC mcginnes_m_Page_035thm.jpg
2c5c9594a25a85821794c373907d6c1c
065734fe803d19dd0d908bbd5a9f83baff5f460f
4976 F20110209_AABZNN mcginnes_m_Page_009thm.jpg
aa487ed47c8133763e81210b3d636daa
23a44fc391a526b6a677a46240786f2c944ae351
8745 F20110209_AABZOD mcginnes_m_Page_037thm.jpg
342c4ef59cf0041415b7fa7e70fcabb1
e5942a5229b25773f9993eab47cc6617c36dff42
4913 F20110209_AABZNO mcginnes_m_Page_011thm.jpg
f44b961e78bb7485bf5d6c97f574ffa4
ed7be3ee8103d3a8ad421147a2566f70a941390f
8418 F20110209_AABZOE mcginnes_m_Page_039thm.jpg
0acc5885aef28e82d923376e46c4f724
a2b7eb0802b8d9a9caf3dd5a9c2383da412f251d
8104 F20110209_AABZNP mcginnes_m_Page_013thm.jpg
feeffc9f96cb167d624963d91ab5f42f
f57d5049c4becbebc2b03affc7ffdd4d8acd94e9
9068 F20110209_AABZOF mcginnes_m_Page_041thm.jpg
5daee1f92543f484e41a8e907bc6a798
4a3cff85420287cb26cf0b5d9bae7d864a26303b
8898 F20110209_AABZNQ mcginnes_m_Page_016thm.jpg
d5dc4d7b29bc58d51e4589e6e61244da
aff547e9a16bac8c453eeffcad6e5f2581ba0dda
7764 F20110209_AABZNR mcginnes_m_Page_018thm.jpg
15b476a2df9481c2813104a1bfb6e72d
184816a6c2028c564d1ce9efd37acc05da633b93
8953 F20110209_AABZOG mcginnes_m_Page_044thm.jpg
d7b4913763479441b94fcf84d227ec23
921362f9628506dbdcf890c411dd40fed9b09ba6
8621 F20110209_AABZNS mcginnes_m_Page_020thm.jpg
4be480dcc1bfeaffc36aa9dea07de367
abfc4af3d7267855206cbc1f0fc6736149e70d41
8564 F20110209_AABZOH mcginnes_m_Page_045thm.jpg
2640e087bf7257c913e505cf6536f71c
7c5d5891994e4eeb14640fd841bb7ad5f1e99d9a
8820 F20110209_AABZNT mcginnes_m_Page_022thm.jpg
c7362faec68704e90092a0920875fd03
5f1610ada418bccb537c00fe588bc0db04758b37
7531 F20110209_AABZOI mcginnes_m_Page_046thm.jpg
91b1b9888607ece9d96ee002fe616979
155b5ae4a62ef3af7ef04c36feb5dd95ad0ab047
8703 F20110209_AABZNU mcginnes_m_Page_023thm.jpg
233e209c82bba5d3821fbd0e82be1336
4e2633f8ef6d285a20fd7188bb58946391989e81
8957 F20110209_AABZOJ mcginnes_m_Page_048thm.jpg
c1a36705f8ac9dd10d95c416033ac732
bfbaa9e72fc45fcabadf0563e7dabd1014edb7bc
8882 F20110209_AABZNV mcginnes_m_Page_024thm.jpg
b6bd895c3f8939daedf61cf223c823ce
8713be0d4b074fa8d77a3162ed8da42cc7dbbc4c
8529 F20110209_AABZOK mcginnes_m_Page_051thm.jpg
8ae5786a24cc599a8ec5a4d4231b4ef3
4e8731ad2173f3c8a87b3f007ed8f0e998173b8e
7158 F20110209_AABZNW mcginnes_m_Page_026thm.jpg
b4ffe1097268ebcfefea0282a5e5f8a3
64494e35e275ed0beaedfe86ff10b9dd0e5389a4
8774 F20110209_AABZPA mcginnes_m_Page_088thm.jpg
fac0268678d8b8651ce6195370e86923
98de0363d39650ed69b791cf506d5fa4508bba26
9153 F20110209_AABZOL mcginnes_m_Page_052thm.jpg
95303c98dbf5744286f7db61c0c3cb66
13d8d17e8bb8f6b99283ae066e7bcba9e0826750
8445 F20110209_AABZNX mcginnes_m_Page_028thm.jpg
a2410fc809ea44709c3991d46ade9858
3fb9b179807f2467ece07eb3a440d09b7f02d090
8159 F20110209_AABZPB mcginnes_m_Page_089thm.jpg
6c710c3cde2732dd9cd09c78105554bf
7c6f9e3c52373a6ba04e1f762bbbfbd8a56b7051
4714 F20110209_AABZOM mcginnes_m_Page_054thm.jpg
86b5bdff4137e3ba8f736721baf5b2dd
353c103faaf65d12257ad07f5cb10e47f71fe904
7544 F20110209_AABZNY mcginnes_m_Page_031thm.jpg
b0af63c9832566bc9320585e4c43aca0
ad3eb745adb48ece372334ee92590c972e03ac12
7958 F20110209_AABZON mcginnes_m_Page_055thm.jpg
1ba6ce32947d039ffa039f4c8adfc0f3
e86c4cc55c91742fc9acac93395631c34953092e
8676 F20110209_AABZNZ mcginnes_m_Page_032thm.jpg
2b4406f5a834624c2a766ab784feec8f
3f29cd121f2761269b256b0e11a6059712d0c410
7725 F20110209_AABZPC mcginnes_m_Page_090thm.jpg
0ea050843b85a8d221bec12697f83f96
97a3d4e6ae59a6db9e47fe9393c682ea88536013
7747 F20110209_AABZOO mcginnes_m_Page_059thm.jpg
35c6cad8c7fe253086c37cf2470a32ea
424f77181bd0889be6bcd056f227c4d0eae0c17a
7980 F20110209_AABZPD mcginnes_m_Page_094thm.jpg
3b932316c69c8bced52c9c3d627fba86
538ccaadfaa1006007eb4d7cd6a57d096f841132
7611 F20110209_AABZOP mcginnes_m_Page_063thm.jpg
7e462d664a9178910ba069b0bdf3ab3c
9442381a0843a5e4898c10dd0cee66be3c2be6c9
8485 F20110209_AABZPE mcginnes_m_Page_095thm.jpg
a33d259a0f5b334353949c8880c7b7c2
9cb685c989cbb08b86b10f91bfef071ee049b4fd
3067 F20110209_AABZOQ mcginnes_m_Page_064thm.jpg
c8d71e85ad81da82dc02f545dc3080ed
553ed0bf645483b117b515cafbe51e3af663be26
8121 F20110209_AABZPF mcginnes_m_Page_097thm.jpg
a0d08df440c7ad1279f4d0d9c46dfc47
caf58691a88d0afcc4cd0f28bc9e023407caa735
8265 F20110209_AABZOR mcginnes_m_Page_069thm.jpg
f7252fdd54556d42342aba1cd549b689
b4fc4e0e75bdf4e25a7cf381230e6606d243117e
8187 F20110209_AABZPG mcginnes_m_Page_098thm.jpg
741bd0c7a5e6843671776f9c24c335a2
905aca4ddb1dabe9c9b6d71d0e90985c7f3e5d8e
8354 F20110209_AABZOS mcginnes_m_Page_072thm.jpg
8d33a027f0b142cc557971c3cee34ef9
4915c0b0a014aad6a5e789e49d5a5142783d9631
7513 F20110209_AABZOT mcginnes_m_Page_073thm.jpg
aec5e8b9703cc398c749ccc026924b97
84ed56c75fb9a7d5b876db5c83a9a781bb86db8b
8220 F20110209_AABZPH mcginnes_m_Page_100thm.jpg
92d1e7717d90dc74d88c9c3d47d0c410
976317735d0af741af907ba4955b924fc3999151
8083 F20110209_AABZOU mcginnes_m_Page_075thm.jpg
eb3cd4e11040c58e7fef89a9f96a23ec
cf074435370bfa54dc0b213b9f74b9da7ebce6ba
8249 F20110209_AABZPI mcginnes_m_Page_101thm.jpg
2c3f37a74e5055038914c9af3c41c0cd
6db74c7f7a7ef7064d6fe0beb744b1329c1dea59
7945 F20110209_AABZOV mcginnes_m_Page_079thm.jpg
400fe2576df76c93df7ef6afbe5ee9a1
e079e702a97b316048b3e280a9e643e1bf31895b
1303 F20110209_AABZPJ mcginnes_m_Page_104thm.jpg
03295a7bc7071ba88f1cf283b3ec2fff
7c349dd019c317aac97db27fd2a6974bf731483d
8719 F20110209_AABZOW mcginnes_m_Page_082thm.jpg
bd2aaaf3fac2bb254dcf692d00ac9035
e5a439c424d00976ceed7fc1fe814c6e0c935cb6
3925 F20110209_AABZOX mcginnes_m_Page_083thm.jpg
3726cbbbdaae13fe777cd15c68fd67cb
bed82a5b121fbea69c89e75039042903555b75d4
8730 F20110209_AABZOY mcginnes_m_Page_084thm.jpg
8032dc6db3a96e5c74da8e5925bdc99b
b3253a7a54259e691d2c479dbab9aff2a98d3c2c
9046 F20110209_AABZOZ mcginnes_m_Page_086thm.jpg
7d82f5a7a03e21309b27e8d71df80c7e
f2b0fda9a92e418b8c37b701fb791ac9124bd2ca
50710 F20110209_AABYNA mcginnes_m_Page_075.pro
809eb33a0cd4434a155e810a1b55506c
0e0b967af52876685a0876ceee0c9889056ab386
F20110209_AABYNB mcginnes_m_Page_001.tif
e378b38d41153aa101de1ce6e13aa8ab
7122b8e66de37d280cc845d0184d2da4a01273c1
F20110209_AABYNC mcginnes_m_Page_037.tif
5fa9860efd5ec7938f37907454884197
9c228fa34cf48ecb5c8514940513e53156569af0
F20110209_AABYND mcginnes_m_Page_050.tif
9d46cdfec800f8106ee8462caa45a4c8
94a97f441d1a7d46ab6f74ceda7c1e9bbd6bc903
38340 F20110209_AABYNE mcginnes_m_Page_043.QC.jpg
81526309ff7c2e64425fd6795b5b0e72
4ffd0122a95ae68cdbe3cc4532fa9d183fd1bdbd
8461 F20110209_AABYNF mcginnes_m_Page_040thm.jpg
3be429f0c3f898239f211e02b1bcf1b3
43cc84b63e8b8a39f1f8ef2f04ac752fb9ec064b
F20110209_AABYNG mcginnes_m_Page_005.tif
8e12c87ef8b475002125cfcd13987f9b
8ad266080df23115cbb5fdff8448fde97c106087
F20110209_AABYNH mcginnes_m_Page_079.tif
8dc8251a885aedc4f1421e16e8969b0e
a42162bc635827f7ac221da72cbd5fb6d59d29de
1505 F20110209_AABYNI mcginnes_m_Page_014.txt
bf440065fdb9514b308fa2a02ac77f68
d8ac42d66800f49b13d2a414112675c030bef479
114252 F20110209_AABYNJ mcginnes_m_Page_095.jpg
dbed0bbfa5d49c6ca479cfcddb252ef0
b9b3258bb54be113f48c4489ddfba59703d8484a
112968 F20110209_AABYNK mcginnes_m_Page_037.jp2
e71b55891a42ae514fb5017a8b3b4d6a
7d234593856f190a0012ca95c7ba7990e3896d98
51480 F20110209_AABYOA mcginnes_m_Page_097.pro
da5ba0d09094282bacae3331a2e56af8
acda8717230b45ca67a3bb5d0f434ef0b1a2f99c
562 F20110209_AABYNL mcginnes_m_Page_002thm.jpg
4528d122a8612f49070937713daafe8b
c77dc0487bca16c3faf038020ca39aa32443e6db
34969 F20110209_AABYOB mcginnes_m_Page_057.QC.jpg
3843e2572cf428867ae494589646ecbb
bcc17f17b737d15a950113d11b98f681432c51b1
48380 F20110209_AABYNM mcginnes_m_Page_060.pro
0dbde813ce5c95582c89a05711c003df
a18210f807cda126fd79607106667c357223ba9c
55335 F20110209_AABYMY mcginnes_m_Page_035.pro
9755ea72a92fc6c63e4f6fef02a98b09
0286662fe991781d98bd5a4412f83ed5821c41dd







SEX DETERMINATION BY DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS OF NATIVE
AMERICAN CRANIA FROM FLORIDA AND GEORGIA





















By

MICHAEL BRYAN MCGINNES


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2007

































2007 Michael Bryan McGinnes




























To my grandmother,
Sarah Napps, she loved me for who I was,
no matter what. She supported me in
in every way she could, no matter what.
She saw the best in me, and was proud of me, no matter what.
I strive to live up to her image of me, and her pride in me.










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of my

supervisory committee, Anthony Falsetti and Thomas Hollinger. I also thank Jerry Milanich,

who was a de facto committee member, but was unable to attend the defense. Special thanks go

to Elaine Oran for her invaluable insight on the structure and writing of a scientific paper, even if

it isn't about rocket science. Finally, I am forever grateful to David Hunt, Collections Manager of

the Smithsonian Institution's Physical Anthropology collections, for his immeasurable

contribution to this research. Collecting the skeletal data would have been impossible without his

permission and assistance. He not only tolerated my haphazard schedule and unannounced visits

with infectious good humor, he was there when I needed a sounding board, provided stimulating

conversation, and answered my many questions. He was always ready to share a grouse or a

laugh, whichever was needed. Thanks in part to a shared interest in food, wine, and the finest

Australian Tupperware; I am honored to call him my friend.

Special thanks are due to the staffs of the Anthropology Departments at the Florida

Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) and the National Museum of Natural History,

Smithsonian Institution, where the collections examined for this research are housed. Ann

Cordell, Elise LeCompte, Diane Kloetzer, and Donna Ruhl provided friendship, assistance, and

knowledge of the collections at the FLMNH. Maggie Dittemore and the rest of the staff at the

John Wesley Powell Library of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution provided access to

printed resources that are unobtainable elsewhere.

My immediate family -- Dorothy, Rodney, and Judie McGinnes -- was integral to

completing this project. They contributed in innumerable ways I can't thank them loudly or

strongly enough. I am fortunate to be part of a very large and diverse extended family who









offered all sorts of support through the years, including kind words, empathy, sympathy, a roof, a

meal, companionship, and even nagging when needed. Barbara and Max Skidmore have been

positive role models since childhood. More recently, Elizabeth and Jay Boris, and Dan and

Elaine Oran have provided unflagging support I thank them for their extreme generosity, good

cheer, and for allowing me to deep fry the Thanksgiving turkey. Last, but not least, thank you to

Dr. Ruth Trocolli, my wife, my best friend, an exemplary scholar and outstanding human being. I

could not have done it without her love, support, and encouragement. We shared the long road

that culminated in this thesis.










TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ......... .................. ........................................................................ 4

LIST OF TA BLE S...................................................... 9

L IST O F F IG U R E S ......... .................. ........................... ........................................ 10

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ................................................................. .................................... 15

2 SE X D E TE R M IN A TIO N .................................................................... ........................ 18

In tro d u ctio n ...................................................................... 18
Visual Methods........................................................ 18
M etric M eth o d s ................................................................... ....................................... 2 1

3 DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS................................ 26

Canonical Discrim inant Functions ............................................................... .. ............ 27
Multiple Discriminant Functions......................................................... 28
Tests of Significance ............................................................................. 30
Prior Probabilities ................................................................. ................. 30
Stepw ise D iscrim inant Function A analysis ................................................................... 30
M ahalanobis D instance .............................................................................................. ........ 31
L ogistic R egression............................. .............. ..... 31
C o n c lu sio n ..................................................................................................... .............. ..... 3 2

4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT......................... ......... ................... 35

Intro du action ..................................................... 3 5
Environm mental Setting .................................................................................................. 35
C u ltu ra l H isto ry ................................................................... ...................................... 3 6
P aleoindian P period ............................................................................................ ........ 36
T he A rchaic P period ........................................................................................ ........ 38
E arly A rchaic............................................ 38
M middle Archaic .................................................................. .... ........ 39
L ate A rc h a ic ................................................................... ............................. 4 0
W oodland and Regional Cultures .......................................................................... ...... 41
K ellog .................................................................................................... .............. 42
D e p tfo rd ................................................................. ..................................... 4 2
St. Johns/M alabar ............................................................... ................ .............. 43
M a n a so ta ................................................................................................ 4 4
W ilm ington Culture .................................. ..................................... 45
H historic P eriod............................. .............. ..... 45


6









5 S IT E S ...................................................................................... ............. 4 7

In tro d u ctio n ........................................................... ...................................... 4 7
Golf Course (8Br44) ...................................................................... ......... 47
B ay P in e s (8 P i6 4 ) ................................................................. ..................................... 4 8
Canaveral (8Br85) ........................................................ .................. 48
Casey Key (8So17) ....................................................................... ......... 50
Palmer Burial M found (8So2a) ......................................... ................... .. ......... 50
P erico Islan d (8M a6 ) .............................................................. ................................... 5 1
St. Sim ons Island, G eorgia................................... .............. 51
G airfield Site (9B R 57) .......................................................................................... ........ 53

6 M ETHODS AND M ATERIALS ........................................................... ....... 55

Intro du action ..................................................... 5 5
S a m p lin g .......................................................................................................... 5 5
D term nation of Sex ...................................................................... 55
M materials ................................. ......... ..... 56
Cranial Measurement Definitions............................. .............. 58
Giles and Elliot Measurements ........... ...... ........................ 58
Statistical Procedures ................ ......... .................. 62

7 R E S U L T S ............................................................................................................ 6 5

G general R results .............. .... ..... ......................................................... ...... 65
Specific R results .............. .. ................. .................. ...... .............. ........ 67
G iles and Elliot D iscrim inant Function ................................................................. 67
Variable Selection........................................ ............ 69
Test for Site Effect on Selected Variables ........................................ 71
Discriminant Function Analysis ................................. ...................... .. ........... 72
F u n action 1 A ccu racy ......................................................... .................... 73
Function 2 A accuracy ....................................................................................... ........ 75

8 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................... 77

C o n c lu sio n s ........................................................................................................ 7 7
Summery of Statistical Results............. .... .......... ................... 78
Specific Statistical Results ................................. ........................... .. ....... 79
D iscu ssio n ..................................................... 8 0
Future Research ................................................................. ..... ..... ......... 82

APPENDIX

A CRANIAL MEASUREMENT DEFINITIONS ......................................................... 84

G iles and E lliot M easurem ents ...................... ................................................................. 84
O their M easurem ents .............. ............................................................... ... ........ 87



7









B TABLE OF SITES............................................................... 92

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......... ..... ............ ................. ......................................................94

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........... .... ............. ................. ....................... ....................... 105









LIST OF TABLES


Table pae

2-1 Coefficients for discriminant functions 1,2, and 3 from Giles and Elliot 1963 used to
assign sex based on a white sample, a black sample, and a combined black and white
sam p le .............. ............................. .. .......................................... . ..... ...... 2 3

6-1 Measurements used by Giles and Elliot. ...................... .. .......................... 59

6-2 M measurements not used by Giles and Elliot ................ .................... ................. 60

7-1 Accuracy of the Giles and Elliot Function 3 for sex determination on the study
sample of Florida and Georgia Native Americans ........... ................................ 68

7-2 T-scores and p-values for a difference in mean values of each cranial variable
between males and females. ............ ...... ............................. 70

7-3 F-values and p-values for the hypothesis of no site effect for each variable .................. 71

7-4 MANOVA test criteria and F approximations for the hypothesis of no overall site
effect...... ......................... ........ ................ .. 72

7-5 Coefficients, group means, and sectioning points for Function 1 and Function 2............ 73

7-6 A accuracy of Function 1 .............................................................................. ....... 74

7-7 A accuracy of F unction 2 ................................................................. .. ........................ 75









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pae

3-1 Discriminant Function Analysis with three groups using the graphic device proposed
by Rao ......................................... ........ .......... 29

5-1 Locator map of sites used in this study and major rivers. .............................................. 54












AUB, au-au

B.P.

BBH, ba-b

BNL, ba-n

BPL, ba pr

DFA

DKB, d-d

DKB, d-d

EKB, ec-ec

EKB, ec-ec

FOB

FOL, ba-o

FRC, n-b

GOL, g-op

MAB, ecm-ecm

MAL, pr-alv

MDHA

MDHL

MDHR

MNI

NLB, al-al

NLH, n-ns

OBB, d-ec

OBH


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Biauricular breadth

Radiocarbon years before present, with present defined as the year 1950.

Basion bregma height

Cranial base length

Basion prosthion length

Discriminant function analysis.

Interorbital breadth

Interorbital breadth

Biorbital breadth

Biorbital breadth

Foramen magnum breadth

Foramen magnum length

Frontal chord

Maximum cranial length

Maxillo-alveolar breadth external palate breadth

Maxillo-alveolar length, external palate length

Average mastoid height

Left mastoid height

Right mastoid height

Minimum Number of Individuals

Nasal breadth

Nasal height

Orbital breadth

Orbital height









OCC, l-o

p


PAC, b-1

UFBR, fmt-fmt

UFHT, n-pr

WFB, ft-ft

XCB, eu-eu

ZYB, zy-zy


Occipital chord

P-value, the probability of getting a value at least as extreme as the
observed value by chance alone.

Parietal chord

Upper facial breadth

Upper facial height

Minimum frontal breadth

Maximum cranial breadth

Bizygomatic breadth









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

SEX DETERMINATION BY DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS OF NATIVE
AMERICAN CRANIA FROM FLORIDA AND GEORGIA

By

Michael Bryan McGinnes

December 2007

Chair: Anthony Falsetti
Major: Anthropology

The goal of this research is to determine if the accuracy of discriminant function analysis

for sex determination could be improved by using local or regional populations, and by better

variable selection. In archaeological contexts, skeletons are usually all that remains of the actual

people who once lived there. Information about the sex of those individuals is fundamental to the

study of demographics, sex roles, and life ways of past cultures. Determining an individual's sex

is also fundamental to personal identification of skeletal remains from modern contexts, whether

from a mass disaster or an unmarked grave.

There are several techniques available for determining sex from skeletal remains, and each

technique has its place. Discriminant function analysis is valuable in sex determination because it

requires relatively little training to use effectively and it serves as an objective check to other

methods. The cranium is a reliable indicator of sex and is often the best indicator of sex when

other parts of the skeleton have been damaged, destroyed, or separated from the cranium.

Previous research assumed that discriminant functions for sex determination developed for

one population could easily be used for all populations, with little regard for the skeletal

variation between populations. This work tests the hypothesis that sex determination by

discriminant function analysis of the crania for Florida and Georgia Native American remains









from archaeological contexts is more accurate when the functions are developed using remains

from those populations than functions developed from other populations.

Cranial measurements and sex identification data are collected from skeletal collections

housed at the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida, and the

Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. The sample includes 46

individuals from ten Native American archaeological sites in Florida and Georgia, ranging from

the Middle Archaic Period to the Spanish contact era.

This research finds that existing discriminant function formulas disproportionately

misclassify skeletons from the Florida and Georgia unless the formula is adjusted for that

population. Additionally, existing formulas require measurements that are rarely preserved or

that do not contribute to identifying sex. New discriminant function formulas based on skeletons

from Florida and Georgia are only nominally more accurate than existing formulas, but it is no

more difficult to produce new formulas than to adjust existing formulas. Creating new formulas

also provides the opportunity to select variables that are more often preserved in archaeological

contexts and that also clearly contribute to identifying the sex individuals. This research finds

that existing formulas are reliable only if the sectioning point is adjusted for the study

population.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Sex identification has long been an important part of skeletal analysis in the archaeological

setting. Accurate sex estimations are basic to studies of past adaptations of humans to new

environments and demographic histories. Archaeologists may use sex information to establish

demographic patterns, study the affect of sex on status within a particular archaeological culture,

or to examine migration patterns (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:15). Additionally, forensic

anthropologists may use this information to help identify an individual in a medico-legal context.

Methods for sex identification have evolved from visual methods to include metric

methods based on univariate and multivariate statistical analysis, particularly discriminant

function analysis. Using visual methods to determine sex, an osteologist may examine the overall

size of the subject, the size of the mastoid process, the shape of the frontal bone, or the gonial

angle of the mandible. The determination of sex using visual method relies primarily on the

experience and judgment of the osteologist. Using these methods, osteologists typically achieve

an accuracy of 80% to 90% (Giles and Elliot 1962). Metric methods use various measurements

of the skeleton, many of which attempt to capture aspects used in visual methods (David Hunt,

personal communication 2006). In univariate analysis, a single measurement of an individual is

compared to the distribution of measurements from a sample of known sex specimens to arrive at

the likely sex of the individual. Using only one measurement, however, does not account for

differences in shape of a skeletal element between males and females, and for any single

measurement there is considerable overlap between the range of variation for males and females.

Multivariate methods use multiple measurements which can capture the shape of a skeletal

element and minimize the amount of overlap between males and females. Discriminant function

analysis is a multivariate method designed for this problem.









Discriminant function analysis was developed to solve the problem of predicting group

membership based one or more interval variables. The goal of discriminant function analysis is

to minimize misclassification by maximizing between group differences, or minimizing group

overlap. Discriminant function analysis is also used to determine which variables best

discriminate between groups, and in what ways groups differ. How well a function performs is

usually reported in terms of how many cases would be correctly assigned to their groups using

the discriminant functions (Manly 1994).

One widely used discriminant function for sex determination is calculated by Giles and

Elliot (1963) based on data collected from the Terry and Hamann-Todd skeletal collections. The

Terry and Hamann-Todd collections are comprised of skeletal remains collected from cadavers

used by medical school anatomy classes during the late nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries

(Hunt and Albanese 2005). The problems presented by a medical school cadaver sample include

possible effects of the inherent socio-economic bias on skeletal morphology. The Terry and

Hamann-Todd skeletal collections are biased, with older individuals and males overrepresented

compared the population as a whole, and they do not include Native Americans. For studying the

sex differences in skeletons, however, such collections are essential because the sex of each

individual is positively known from written records (Giles and Elliot 1963:56). The sample Giles

and Elliot used to calculate their discriminant functions did not include any native Americans,

but the formulas are tested on three series of American Indian crania from Indian Knoll (N>=

344), Pecos Pueblo (N>=110), and Florida (N>=217). These materials are analyzed by Snow

(1948; Johnson and Snow 1961), Hooton (1930), and Hrdlicka (1940) respectively. "On the

whole the discriminant functions described [by Giles and Elliot 1963], assign the correct sex,

assuming that the original estimations are correct, with the same order of magnitude as they do









for the black and white sample. For the Florida Indians, however, this is true only when the

sectioning point is based on mean values of these same Indians." (Giles and Elliot 1963:66-67).

Can the accuracy of sex determination by discriminant function analysis be improved over

Giles and Elliot's results by deriving new formulas based on regional populations? This

hypothesis is tested using skeletal remains recovered from archaeological sites in Florida and

Georgia.









CHAPTER 2
SEX DETERMINATION

Introduction

This chapter describes the various visual, univariate, and multivariate metric methods used

in sex determination using cranial and post-cranial skeletal remains. Estimating sex from a

skeleton relies on sexual dimorphism, the morphological differences between men and women.

Men tend posses a larger body size when compared to females. Female morphology must allow

for both bipedal locomotion and giving birth to relatively large-headed babies when compared to

other primates. With a complete adult skeleton, and particularly a complete pelvis, a physical

anthropologist should be able to correctly assign sex with nearly perfect accuracy. Additionally,

the anthropologist should be able to recognize ambiguous cases where sex identification is less

certain. If the complete skeleton is not available, accuracy depends largely on what bony

elements are available and if the skeleton can be linked to a specific population. If the skeleton is

fragmented or from a sub-adult, then determining the sex is more difficult and less reliable than

with a complete adult skeleton. Methods of sex determination are either visual or metric, and

apply to the crania and post-cranial skeleton. For the best results, the forensic anthropologist

should use all available data.

Visual Methods

Visual methods for estimating sex from the skeleton make use of size differences between

men and women or morphological differences related to childbirth in women. Sexing methods

that rely on morphological differences in the pelvis related to childbirth are the most accurate.

The method for sexing the skeleton by the pubic bone developed by Phenice (1969) is the most

accurate method known for determining the sex of an individual from the skeleton (White 1991).









Phenice (1969) identifies three indicators of sex in the pubic bone: the ventral arch, the subpubic

concavity, and the medial aspect of the ischiopubic ramus.

The ventral arch is a slightly elevated ridge of bone that sweeps inferiorly and laterally

across the ventral surface of the pubis, merging with medial border of the ischiopubic ramus. The

ventral arch is evaluated by orienting the pubis so that its rough ventral surface faces the

observer, who looks down along the plane of the pubic symphysis surface. The ventral arch,

when present, sets off the inferior, medial corner of the pubic bone in ventral view. The ventral

arch is present only in females. Male pubic bones may have elevated ridges in this area, but these

do not take the wide, evenly arching path of the female's ventral arch or set off the lower medial

quadrant of the pubis.

The subpubic concavity is a concave curve on the medial edge of the ischiopubic ramus

displayed in female os coxae. The female ischiopubic ramus is concave, while male edges are

straight or very slightly concave. The subpubic concavity is evaluated by turning the pubis over,

orienting it so that its smooth, convex dorsal surface faces the observer, who is once again

sighting along the midline. From this position it is possible to observe the medial edge of the

ischiopubic ramus. For females, the edge of the ramus is concave in this view. Males do not

show the dramatic concavity here. Male edges are straight or very slightly concave. (If the bone

is in good shape, and there is no danger of damage, another method for evaluating the subpubic

concavity is to lay the ischiopubic ramus on a flat surface. If it can be rocked, it indicates a male,

if it cannot be rocked, it indicates a female).

To evaluate the medial aspect of the ischiopubic ramus, the observer turns the pubis 90,

orienting the symphysis surface so that the observer is looking directly perpendicular to it. From

this position it is possible to observe the ischiopubic ramus in the region immediately inferior to









the symphysis. This medial aspect of the ischiopubic ramus displays a sharp edge in females. In

males the surface is fairly flat, broad, and blunt.

In the Phenice method, some criteria may not obviously sex the specimen, so those criteria

should be discarded. If there is some ambiguity concerning one or two of the criteria, there is

usually one of the remaining criteria that clearly indicate the subject's sex. Accuracy of sexing

based on this method ranges from 96 to 100% (White 1991:325).

Because of its position in childbirth, the pelvis includes many other characteristics that can

be used to visually estimate sex. Compared to the male, the female pelvis is broader, has a wider

sciatic notch, and normally includes a pre-auricular sulcus (a groove between the auricular area

and the sciatic notch). It has a smaller acetabulum (the socket that holds the head of the femur), a

longer pubic bone, and a wider subpubic angle. The sacrum is shorter and broader, and the

obturator foramen smaller and triangular in females. Compared to females, the male pelvis may

be heavier and more robust, and the auricular area tends to be flatter. The pre-auricular sulcus

seldom occurs in males, but if present in males, it is shallower than in females. The obturator

foramen is larger and ovoid in males. Evaluation of these criteria individually yields accuracies

from 83 to 94%. In combination, accuracies range from 95 to 98% (Rogers and Saunders

1994:1050-1051).

After the pelvis, the next best indicator of sex is the cranium. Estimation of sex is based on

the generalization that the male is more robust and has muscle attachment points that are larger

and rougher. Male muscle attachment points are especially pronounced on the occipital bone,

where they may form a nuchal crest. Males also have larger mastoid processes, more prominent

supraorbital ridges, and the posterior end of the zygomatic process extends farther as a crest. The









upper edges of the eye orbits are blunt, and frontal sinuses are larger in males. On the mandible,

the male chin is squarer, and the gonial angle is more acute.

Compared to the male, the female cranium is smaller, smoother and more gracile. In the

female mandible, the chin is more rounded and pointed, and the gonial angle is more oblique.

The smaller size of the female cranium is evident in a smaller palate, and smaller teeth. Females

also display frontal and parietal bossing into adulthood; the upper edges of the eye orbits are

sharp.

Evaluation of these characteristics depends not only on the experience of the osteologist,

but also on matching the specimen to a genetically and temporally close comparative population

(Bass 1995; White 1991). Using the crania, an experienced osteologist should be able to make a

sex determination that is 80-90% accurate. Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994:16-20) provide a

scoring system for several of these visual traits.

For the remainder of the skeleton, males tend to be larger than females, with long bones

that are longer, heavier, and have larger attachment areas for muscles, including the linea aspera,

crests, tuberosities and impressions (Brothwell 1981, Stewart 1948). These criteria are useful if a

related skeletal series is available, but for isolated or fragmentary remains this is only useful if

the bone is at the extreme end of the range, either 'very male' or 'very female.'

Metric Methods

While visual methods can estimate sex quickly and accurately, their evaluation is

subjective and requires experience with sexing techniques and the relevant population. Metric

procedures are based on quantifying the same criteria used in visual sexing. A metric procedure

could be better if the observer is not familiar with visual techniques or the relevant population.

Additionally, metric procedures serve as an objective check to visual methods and can strengthen

the position of the osteologist as expert witness in a courtroom (Stewart 1979). The simplest









metric methods use a single measurement, and compare it to a distribution of that measurement

from a collection of known sex individuals. A sectioning point is placed such that males and

females are equally likely to be classified correctly, and misclassifications are minimized. The

sectioning points are usually arrived at by discriminant function analysis. Sectioning points for

several different long bones are given by Bass (1995), and an exhaustive list of discriminant

function studies to determine sex and their accuracies can be found in Rathbun and Buikstra

(1984:212-216). There are a host of discriminant function tests based on cranial and post-cranial

measurements.

Giles and Elliot (1963) provide one of the best established discriminant functions for sex

determination using the skull. From combinations of nine cranial measurements a total of 21

discriminant functions are described to indicate sex in whites, blacks and whites and blacks taken

together. The measurements are:

Glabello-occipital length: The maximum length of the skull, from the most anterior point of the
frontal in the midline to the most distant point on the occiput in the midline.
Maximum width: The greatest breadth of the cranium perpendicular to the median sagittal plane,
avoiding the supra-mastoid crest.
Basion-bregma height: Cranial height measured from basion to bregma.
Maximum diameter bi-zygomatic: The maximum width between the lateral surfaces of the
zygomatic arches measured perpendicular to the median sagittal plane.
Basion-nasion: The direct distance from basion to nasion.
Basion-prosthion: The direct distance from basion to the most anterior point on the maxilla in the
median sagittal plane.
Nasion breadth: The maximum breadth of the nasal aperture perpendicular to nasal height.
Palate-external breadth: The maximum breadth of the palate taken on the outside of the alveolar
borders.
Opisthion-forehead length: The maximum distance from opisthion (the midpoint on the posterior
border of the foramen magnum) to the forehead in the midline.
Mastoid length: The length of the mastoid measured perpendicular to the plane determined by
the lower borders of the orbits and the upper borders of the auditory meat uses (Frankfort
plane).

Functions 1, 2, and 3 use 8 of the 9 measurements, are the most accurate for each group,

and use the same measurements from each group. The sectioning point is halfway between the









mean score for males and the mean score for females. A score above the sectioning point is

designated male; one below is designated female.

Table 2-1. Coefficients for discriminant functions 1,2, and 3 from Giles and Elliot 1963 used to
assign sex based on a white sample, a black sample, and a combined black and white
sample.
Measurements Whites Blacks Combined
(Function 1) (Function 2) (Function 3)
Glabello-Occipital Length (GOL) 3.107 9.222 6.083
Maximum Width (XCB) -4.643 7.000 -1.000
Basion-Bregma height (BBH) 5.786 1.000 9.500
Max Diameter Bi-zygomatic (ZYB) 14.821 31.111 28.250
Basion-Prosthion (BPL) 1.000 5.889 2.250
Prosthion-Nasion Height (UFHT) 2.714 20.222 9.917
Palate--External breadth (MAB) -5.179 -30.556 -19.167
Mastoid Length (MDH) 6.071 47.111 25.417
Sectioning Points 2676.39 8171.53 6237.95
Male mean 2779.66 8487.56 6466.17
Female Mean 2573.12 7855.50 6009.72
Sample Accuracy (Percent correct) 86.1% 84.6% 86.0%
Expected Accuracy 86.6% 87.6% 86.4%

A large variety of metric methods using the post-cranial skeleton are available in Krogman

and Iscan (1986) and Bass (1995). These are commonly used in forensic anthropology. Several

methods were developed for fragmentary remains that focus on bioarchaeology collections.

Using Bioarchaeology collections has the advantage of using the population of interest to

develop criteria, but in most cases the true sex of the individuals in the study is unknown.

Therefore, true accuracy cannot be determined, only how consistent the method is with other,

established methods.

Several studies have been focused on identifying sex from fragmentary remains. Using a

discriminant function based on only the midshaft femoral circumference of prehistoric skeletons

from Ohio, Black (1978) recorded an accuracy of 85%. Using the same measurement,

DiBennardo and Taylor (1979) developed and tested discriminant functions on black and white

femura of known sex and achieved an accuracy of 82%. Using various combinations of three









measurements, Taylor and DiBennardo (1982) recorded accuracies between 80 and 85% for

white femora.

Dittrick and Suchey (1986) minimize the problem of unknown sex by using only skeletons

with the pubic bone and applying the Phenice method. Suchey had established an accuracy of

99% in sex determination by using a blind test on pubic bone pairs from modern autopsies of

individuals over age 16. In tests on prehistoric central California skeletal remains, they achieved

accuracies of about 90% using linear discriminant function analysis of measurements from the

ends of the long bones. Interestingly, functions based on multiple measurements did not produce

results much better than the best functions using single measurements.

One of the limitations of discriminant function analysis is that the functions should only be

used on skeletons that come from the same population as the one used in development of the

function. Otherwise, results can be unpredictable. Giles and Elliot (1963) tested their own

functions on skeletons from Ireland and on three series of native American skeletons from Indian

Knoll in Ohio, Pecos Pueblo, and Florida. The functions correctly sexed 40 of 42 males (95%)

and 3 of 8 females (37.5%) of the Irish skeletons. Giles and Elliot dismiss the poor female result

and take this as evidence that their formula can be used across populations. A better

interpretation is that the formula disproportionately misclassifies females as male. For the Native

American samples, good results are achieved only after altering the sectioning point. Although it

has been used in the literature, altering sectioning points is not a practical solution to using

discriminant functions across populations (Calcagno 1981; Henke 1977). Kajonoja (1966) found

that the Giles and Elliot functions had an accuracy of only 65% on Finnish crania. It is

interesting to note that the functions developed by Giles and Elliot (1963) for the combined

sample of blacks and whites worked about as well on blacks and whites separately as it did on









the combination of both groups. This suggests that functions developed on a wider population

can achieve good results across that population's constituent groups. (See Henke 1977 for a more

detailed discussion of using discriminant function analysis across populations.)

The methods and criteria discussed above are only applicable to adult remains. A skeleton

may be considered an adult if all long bone epiphyses are fused or if the third molars have

erupted. For sub-adults, if age can be established from dental development, then sex can be

estimated from long bone lengths (see Bass 1995). Other sexing techniques for sub-adults use

sex differences in pelvic measurements (see Krogman and Iscan 1986:200-208).









CHAPTER 3
DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS

Discriminant function analysis (DFA) has been used extensively to determine sex by

archaeologists and forensic anthropologists (e.g. Giles and Elliot 1963; Black 1978; DiBennardo

and Taylor 1979, 1982, 1983; Dittrick and Suchey 1986). The results are comparable to those of

traditional methods, but requires far less training and experience. This section describes the goals

and capabilities of discriminant function analysis, some of the methods for calculating

discriminant functions, and introduces research using discriminant function analysis in sex

determination.

Discriminant function analysis addresses the problem of how well it is possible to separate

two or more groups of individuals using multiple combinations of weighted variables. DFA

requires classes that are predetermined, such as male or female. The object is not to create

classes or populations that divide heterogeneous material. With two groups, there are two

specific errors one can make: mistaking a member of one group for being from the other. For

example, misclassifying (1) a male as a female, or (2) a female as a male. Both types of mistakes

should occur at an equal rate, and there should be as few mistakes as possible. Finally, each

subject must be assigned to one population or the other so that "Unknown" is not an option

(Kendall 1957).

There are several approaches, including Canonical discriminant functions, Mahalanobis

distances and logistic regression. These methods are described below, followed by the

advantages and disadvantages of DFA and by a literature review of DFA used in sex

determination.









Canonical Discriminant Functions

Canonical discriminant functions determine a combination of variables that separate the

groups as well as possible. Fisher (1936) introduced a simple way to choose the coefficients for a

linear function that maximizes the F-ratio of a one-way analysis of variance for two groups,

which is the ratio of between group variance to within group variance. Specifically, his paper

deals with the discrimination of Iris setosa and Iris versicolor', two species found growing

together in the same colony. His variables are measurements of sepal length, sepal width, petal

length, and petal width. Most of the literature cites Fisher as the originator of discriminant

function analysis, but he cites "Mr. E.S. Martin" and "Miss Mildred Barnard" for applying the

principle to sex differences in the mandible and a secular trend in cranial measurements,

respectively.

The approach involves finding coefficients for a linear combination of n variables:

Z = a + bx, + bx,...b,x,

where Z is the discriminant function score, a is a constant, b1 through b, are discriminant

function coefficients, and xI through x, are independent variables, which maximizes the F-ratio

of Z in a one-way analysis of variance for the two groups. Finding the coefficients of the

canonical discriminant functions is an eigenvalue problem. Details on the computation of DFA

coefficients can be found in Manly (1994).

Discriminant function analysis has uses other than classifying individuals. Discriminant

function coefficients can also be used to evaluate how groups differ (Manly 1994:114). Howells

(1989) used discriminant functions as a form of data reduction, similar to the way others have

used principle components analysis, but that use is not common in the literature.

1 The article is primarily concerned with the discrimination of I setosa and I versicolor, but Fisher extends his
analysis to test the hypothesis that I virginica is a hybrid of I setosa and I versicolor.









Among the most widely cited uses of canonical discriminant function analysis in

anthropology come from Giles and Elliot, who used the technique for the estimation of sex

(1963; Giles 1964) and race (Giles and Elliot 1962). For these studies, Giles and Elliot used

measurements of Native American remains from the Indian Knoll, KY site originally published

by Snow (1948), while black and white subjects came from the Terry and Todd Collections.

Their use of discriminant functions for estimation of sex from the crania is discussed in detail in

the chapter on sex estimation. In their calculations, Giles and Elliot used formula from Kendall

(1957), which are equivalent to those presented by Fisher (1936). Using Black and White

individuals from the same sample, Giles and Elliot (1963) developed discriminant functions for

sex using nine cranial measurements in different combinations to form 21 discriminant functions

for sex determination. An accuracy of 82-89% is attained with the Black and White material.

This compares favorable with the 77-87% accuracy expected from visual sex estimation using

the cranium alone.

Multiple Discriminant Functions

When canonical discriminant analysis is used, it may be possible to determine several

linear combinations of variables for separating groups where there are multiple groups and

variables. The number of functions available is either the number of variables or one less than

the number of groups, which ever is smaller. All functions maximize the F-ratio subject to the

condition that they are uncorrelated with previous functions within groups. The canonical

discriminant functions are, therefore, linear combinations of the original variables chosen such

that the first function reflects group differences as much as possible, and subsequent functions

capture as much as possible of group differences not displayed by previous functions. Group

assignment is then accomplished by calculating the distances to group means (Manly 1994:108-









110). While this method is useful for analyzing group differences, it is computationally difficult

for the end user to assign individuals to groups.



Z?
Third Group







Y' * *
0 0










.Second Group


First Group X'

Function 1: First Group vs. Second Group


Figure 3-1 Discriminant Function Analysis with three groups using the graphic device proposed
by Rao. Function 1 is plotted on the X-axis, Function 2 is plotted on the Y-axis. Thin
rods X', Y', and Z' are placed to minimize errors (Adapted from Rao 1952; Giles and
Elliot 1962).


A different method is used by Giles and Elliot(1962) to estimate race. Giles and Elliot


(1962) use a pair of canonical discriminant function formulas for the placement of a skull into

white, black, or Native American categories: One formula for black vs. white, and the other for

white vs. Native American. The two functions are then plotted, with the black-white function on

one axis, and the white and Native American function on the other. To place individuals into one

of the three groups, Giles and Elliot use a geometrical device described by Rao (1952:327),









which is not common in the literature (see fig. 3-1; Giles and Elliot 1962). The Giles and Elliot

functions correctly identified race for 82.6% of males 88.1% of females (Giles and Elliot 1962).

Tests of Significance

Various tests of significance are available for evaluating the difference between the mean

values for any pair of groups, overall differences between the means of several groups, and if the

mean of a discriminant function differs from group to group. See Harris (1985) for a discussion

of the difficulties surrounding these tests.

Prior Probabilities

Some computer programs can allow for prior probabilities of group membership. This

could be useful in sex determination if reliable data can be generated for the proportion of male

and female skeletons recovered from a particular environment, whether due to taphonomy,

demographics, or other causes. Care should be taken that assignment of prior probabilities

reflects actual or known proportions (e.g. number of males and females in a population) and not

any form of prior bias.

Stepwise Discriminant Function Analysis

Stepwise discriminant function analysis simply applies a stepwise selection to the variables

included in a discriminant function analysis. Variables are added to the discriminant functions,

one at a time, until adding additional variables does not give significantly better discrimination.

Several authors have used stepwise discriminant function analysis in estimating sex from skeletal

measurements. Holman and Bennett (1991) use the procedure built into SAS (STEPDISC) on the

bones of the arm and wrist with good results. Taylor and DiBennardo (1982), DiBennardo and

Taylor (1983), and Iscan and Miller-Shaivitz (1984) each use the procedure built into SPSS for

the femur, femur and pelvis, and tibia, respectively, with good results.









Mahalanobis Distance

The Mahalanobis distance (D2) is a measure of distance that takes into account

correlations between variables. For classification purposes, Mahalanobis distance can be used to

measure the distance of individuals to group centers and each individual can be allocated to the

group to which it is closest. If x,,x,,...,x, are the values of variables X,,X,,...,Xp for the

individual, with corresponding population mean values of 1, 12,..., then:

P P
D 1= (X, Y,)vs (Xs Ys)
r=l s=l

where v'"is the element in the rth row and sth column of the inverse of the covariance matrix for

thep variables (Manly 1994:63).

Assumptions

Both canonical and Malahanobis distance methods are based on two assumptions. The first

is that the within-group covariance matrix is the same for all groups. The second is that the data

is normally distributed within groups. The second assumption is important for the validity of

tests of significance.

Logistic Regression

A different approach to discrimination between two groups uses logistic regression.

Logistic regression is a variation of multiple linear regression where the dependent variable is

assigned as either 1 or 0, usually used as 'success' or 'failure.' The regression formula then returns

a probability of success or failure. Rather than representing success or failure, 1 and 0 can be

used to represent groups. When applied to unknown individuals, the regression will return the

posterior probability of group membership, with a sectioning point of 0.5. Konigsberg and Hens

(1998) use logistic regression in sex estimation on measurements of the crania. They reported









good results, but found the method "cumbersome." They preferred a probit model that used

categorical independent variables.

Conclusion

On the whole, the accuracy of DFA in identifying sex is no more accurate than visual

methods when used by a trained osteologist. The advantage is that someone who is not an

osteologist, with brief instructions in measuring, can perform discriminant function sexing

quickly and objectively. This group includes medical examiners and archeologists who have had

some training in osteology, but who may be inexperienced or 'rusty' (Krogman 1962;

Birkbyl966; Giles 1970). For the trained osteologist and forensic anthropologist, discriminant

function analysis can be used as an objective check to visual methods and adds weight to expert

testimony (Snow 1979).

Discriminant function analysis has two critical limitations when used for sex estimation of

skeletal remains. The first is the need for all measurements used in the function to be observable.

The second is that the functions can only be used on individuals who come from the population

from which the function was developed.

The first problem is fairly straightforward, as is its solution. A discriminant function score

cannot be calculated if an observation is missing. One solution is to generate multiple functions

using different combinations of measurements. Another solution is to generate functions using

skeletal elements that are robust, and therefore likely to be preserved. This approach was taken

by Black [femur] (1978); DiBennardo and Taylor [femur] (1982); Taylor and DiBennardo

[stepwise-femur] (1982); Iscan and Miller-Shaivitz [tibia] (1984); Dittrick and Suchey [femur

and humerus] (1986).

The problem of using functions across populations is more difficult. Some authors have

suggested moving the sectioning point by various methods, including using the mid-point









between the means of the sexes (Giles and Elliot 1963), finding the sectioning point graphically

from the bimodal distribution of the scores (Giles and Elliot 1963), or placing the sectioning

point at the grand mean of the function scores (Henke 1977). Henke (1977) tested each of these

methods, and also used the unmodified functions. Henke concluded that only the first two

methods are practical. Calcagno (1981) found that moving the sectioning point by any method

was not a practical solution to the problem. Placing the sectioning point mid-way between the

means of the sexes requires that one first know the sex of the skeletons. The graphic method is

not practice because the distribution of discriminant scores is multimodal, and not bimodal.

Finally, placing the sectioning point at the grand mean of the discriminant scores assumes that

the sexes are equally represented in the sample, which is particularly unlikely to be true in

archaeological series (Henke 1977). Henke's conclusion seems to be that discriminant functions

developed for one group can be used on another, but the sectioning point has to be adjusted.

Birkby (1966) tested the Discriminant Functions developed by Giles and Elliot for race and sex

(1962; 1963). His goal was to determine (1) if discriminant function analysis is applicable in the

assessment of race and sex in human identification and (2) the reliability of such techniques. He

found Indian crania are often misclassified for race and sex. Birkby concludes that the Indian

Knoll sample used by Giles and Elliot (1962, 1963) is not representative of Native Americans as

a whole. Therefore, the functions based on those data are not applicable in the identification of

race and sex in human identification, either forensic or archaeological.

Snow et al. (1979) performed another test of the Giles and Elliot discriminant functions

using forensic cases. The discriminant function for sex determination attained an accuracy that

was not significantly different from Giles and Elliot. With no significant difference in accuracy

between the sexes.









For race, Native Americans are misclassified at a significantly higher rate that non-Native

Americans (83% correct for black and white combined vs. 14% correct for Native Americans).

Snow et al. conclude that the Giles and Elliot functions "provide a useful tool for the

determination of sex and race of unidentified crania submitted for forensic science examination."

The functions, however, did not perform well among Native American subjects. "It thus appears

that the 5000 year old Indian Knoll crania used by Giles and Elliot in developing their functions

do not adequately represent the entire U.S. category of Indian" (Snow et al 1979:459).

The advantages of discriminant function analysis in physical anthropology are that it is

relatively easy to apply, allowing sex and race estimations by those with little training in

osteology, and that it is an objective indicator or race and sex, especially for isolated remains.

The weaknesses include needing to develop functions on the populations from which the subject

comes, and the need to be able to make all of the measurements called for in the discriminant

function, which is not always possible in fragmentary remains typically found in archaeological

sites. Functions developed with fragmentary remains in mind help avoid the problem of missing

measurements.









CHAPTER 4
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

Introduction

This chapter provides a general cultural history of the southeast, introduces the

archaeological sites that provide the skeletal materials for this study. It places those sites

geographically, temporally and within the framework of the area's cultural history.

Environmental Setting

Human occupation in what is now Florida and Georgia began about 13,000 B.P.2 during

the end of the Pleistocene epoch. From the start of human occupation until about 7000 B.P.,

Florida and Georgia were undergoing tremendous environmental change. The environment

gradually went from cold and dry at the end of the Pleistocene, to the warm and humid modern

climate. That change in temperature was accompanied by higher sea levels, which have reduced

Florida to half the land area of what it was when people first entered the state. Along with a

warming climate and rising sea levels, many of the plants and animals in Florida and Georgia

were supplanted by species better adapted to the changing environment. By 7000 B.P. sea levels

reached about the levels where they are today, and the flora and fauna present were essentially

the same species present in the region today (Milanich 1994).

The coastal zone of the region, including the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coast of Florida

and southern Georgia, is characterized by a generally inhospitable beach and foreshore. This area

is subject to seasonal exposure to storms and scarce resources. Chains of barrier islands are also

found along the eastern coastline of Florida and Georgia containing beach and dune landscapes,



2 B.P. stands for years before present based on radiocarbon dating, with present defined as the year 1950. It is an
alternative to traditional dates of A.D. and B.C.. B.P. dates can be roughly converted to traditional dates by
subtracting 1950, but radiocarbon years are not equivalent to calendar years. For this reason, the dating framework
used in the primary reports for each site and region are followed without attempting to impose imprecise
conversions.









Live Oak hammock, tidal flats, and estuary habitats. Farther inland, the sandy beaches and dunes

give way to broad estuaries, mudflats, and thickly vegetated shores. These areas serve as place

for marine and inland species to interact (Milanich and Fairbanks 1978; Williams 2004:13).

Inland areas of northern Florida and Georgia with an abundance of fresh water, such as along

streams and lakes, are dominated by hardwood hammocks. Hardwood hammocks are dense

forests characterized by a broad spectrum of plant communities that provide shelter and food for

a vast array of animals (Milanich 1998; Milanich and Fairbanks 1978; Wallace 1978).

Cultural History

Prehistoric occupation of the southeastern United States, or Southeast, is divided into

periods and sub-periods that reflect changes in technology, environment, and subsistence. Breaks

between periods are often subtle, and changes occur at different times across the region.

Archaeological cultures describe specific regional or local units from specific time periods.

Periods include Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian. The Archaic, Woodland,

and Mississippian periods are divided into Early, Middle, and Late sub-periods. The Woodland

and Mississippian cultures are comprised of a number of regional cultures.

Paleoindian Period

The initial period of human occupation in North American is termed the Paleoindian

period, and is characterized by the occurrence of fluted stone projectile points or knives, such as

Clovis, Suwannee, and Simpson points. The best available evidence suggests that during the late

Pleistocene bands of highly moble hunters crossed the Bering land bridge from Siberia into

Alaska. The Bering land bridge was exposed during the last glaciation when large amounts of

water were locked up in the polar ice caps and ice sheets, resulting in the lowering of global sea

levels by about 100 meters. The presence of mid-continent ice sheets appear to have prevented

movement of these populations eastward from Alaska until about 13,000 B.C. based on the









distribution of fluted points in the archaeological record. Most of North America appears to have

been occupied by 10,000 B.C. (Bense 1994: 38-39; Milanich 1994: 37-40).

The general consensus is that the Paleoindian life ways were based on the hunting of large

game animals and the gathering of a variety of plant foods. Paleoindians were highly mobile, and

were probably organized into bands with widely ranging patters of movement and inter-group

interaction (Doran 2002:49,50; Bense 1994;Griffin 1979:51). Because of their mobility, the

traditional expectation has been that they should exhibit a basic biological similarity over a wide

geographical area (Key 1983:8; Meiklejohn 1972). Preliminary results from Ross, Ubelaker and

Falsetti (2002), however, indicate that Native Americans are much more biologically

heterogeneous than previously thought.

During the Paleoindian period, the climate was cooler and dryer than today, but with

reduced seasonal variation. Sea levels were as much as 100 meters below current levels (Clausen

et al 1979; Widmer 1988). In Florida, this resulted in more land being exposed, lower water

tables and few sources of surface water. This scarcity of surface water is thought to be a

determining factor in Paleoindians settlement patters in Florida. It is also thought that many sites

that were along the coast during the Paleoindian period have been inundated by rising sea levels

(Bullen 1958; Ruppe 1980). Most Paleoindian sites found to date consist of little more than

limited scatters of lithic debitage (Edwards 1954; Waller 1969).

The human skeletal remains of fewer than 100 individuals from the Paleoindian period

have been recovered from all of North America. In Florida, Paleoindian sites with human

remains include Little Salt Spring, Warm Mineral Springs, and Cutler Ridge, although the

material at Little Salt Spring cannot be incontrovertibly placed within the Paleoindian occupation

(Doran 2002).









The Archaic Period

The Archaic Period describes is differentiated from the earlier Paleoindian period on the

basis of stylistic differences in point types, the appearance of new artifacts types, and apparent

changes in economic orientation (Anderson and Sassaman 2004). The change in material culture

from Paleoindian to Archaic coincided with a change to a warmer, less arid climate. As the

temperature increased, the glaciers retreated and sea levels rose. Because of these environmental

changes many species that had previously thrived in the Southeast went extinct or disappeared

from the region. Changes in flora and fauna led to changes in subsistence patterns and material

culture.

The regional chronology for the Archaic period in the Southeast was established by

correlating changes in dagnotic artifacts from excavations at deeply stratified sites such as Ice

House Bottoms in Tennessee, Russell Cave in Alabama, Indian Knoll in Kentucky, and the

Hardaway and Doerschuk sites in North Carolina (Stoltman 2004). The Archaic is traditionally

divided into Early, Middle, and Late Archaic phases.

Early Archaic

The Early Archaic can be seen as a transition from the Paleoindian period to the Middle

Archaic. Population increased throughout the Archaic, and people were shifting from nomadic

hunting to somewhat more sedentary lifestyles near coastal and riverine settings (Milanich

1994). The shift in subsistence strategies coincided with a period of transition to warmer, less

arid conditions. Projectile points transition from lanceolate forms present during the Paleoindian

period to stemmed, side- and corner-notched, and hafted forms with bifurcated bases (Anderson

and Sassaman 2004; Milanich 1994:63). The Early Archaic appears to reflect a continuation of

the Paleoindian hunting and gathering lifestyle with increased regional specialization. Early









Archaic sites have been found at a number of locations in Georgia (Wauchope 1966) and Florida

(Milanich 1994), many near permanent water sources.

Because of the rapidity of post-glacial sea level changes, the complex estuary systems that

would eventually become dominant resource procurement areas for many coastal populations

had not stabilized. Stable, productive estuary systems were not present until after 3,000 B.C. Sea

level rise caused ground water levels to rise increasing the amount of surface water available

(Widmer 1988; Watts 1975; Doran 2002:50). The increase in surface water made new locations

suitable for occupation, allowing Archaic peoples to move into new ecotones (Milanich

1994:63). Additionally, "because water sources were large and more numerous, the Early

Archaic peoples could sustain larger populations, occupy sites for longer periods, and perform

activities that required longer occupation at a specific locale" (Milanich 1994:69). A period of

greater aridity returned near the end of the Early Archaic, about 6000 B.C., though less arid than

at the end of the Pleistocene.

Middle Archaic

Average annual temperatures during the Middle Archaic were not much different than

modern temperatures, but temperature variance was more extreme. Summers were hotter and

winters were colder. While lake water levels were lower throughout much of the North American

continent, sea and ground water levels were higher in Florida and Georgia (Anderson and

Sassaman 2004). During the Middle Archaic period more and larger surface water sources were

available in Florida, and increasingly moist conditions appeared after about 4000 B.C. (Milanich

1994:84; Watts 1969, 1971; Watts and Hansen 1988). A gradual change in forest cover occurred

with pines and mixed forests replacing oaks. By about 3000 B.C., vegetation and climate become

essentially modern, and sea level rise tapered off (Milanich 1994:75, 84).









The Middle Archaic was a time of dramatic cultural change in the Southeast. Middle

Archaic peoples occupied new types of locations for the first time and created new types of sites,

including freshwater and marine shell middens (Milanich 1994). Ceremonial shell and earthen

mound construction were initiated in several areas, long-distance trade networks appeared, and

new tool forms were adopted (Anderson and Sassaman 2004:95). Both Early and Middle Archaic

peoples in peninsular Florida began using aquatic environments, such as Windover pond, for

burial (Milanich 1994:81).

Late Archaic

The beginning of the Late Archaic coincides with the beginning of the late Holocene

Period and essentially modern environmental conditions by 3000 B.C. (Milanich 1998;

Sassaman and Anderson 2004; Watts and Hansen 1988:310). This period is marked by greater

regionalization and cultural diversity as human populations adapted to specific environmental

zones. Cultures were no longer faced with the challenge of long-term environmental and climatic

fluctuations (Milanich 1994).

During the Late Archaic period, the firing of clay pottery, along with other technological

innovations, appeared in Florida. Ceramic vessel technology gradually spread across the

southeast, and was adopted by virtually all regional populations by about 650 B.C. "Local

variations in pottery technology and style reflect growing diversity of cultural expression.

Regional exchange and intergroup ritual at locations of ceremonial earthworks were among the

means by which members of different populations interacted" (Anderson and Sassaman

2004:101). More Late Archaic sites are know than sites from any earlier period.

Despite changes in technology, there are few apparent differences between Late Archaic

subsistence strategies and earlier periods. Populations in the Southeast continued to expand on

the hunting and gathering economies of ancestral populations, with shellfish, fish and other food









resources becoming increasingly important (Milanich 1994:85). With the exception of areas that

eventually adopted intensive agriculture, the general subsistence patterns of the late Archaic

period continued largely unchanged into the colonial period (Milanich 1994; Sassaman and

Anderson 2004). Diminished rates of sea-level rise promoted the establishment of increasingly

productive estuarine environments, and maturing floodplain habitat. During this time, evidence

of coastal populations in Florida is much more abundant, and Late Archaic shell middens are

preserved in many locales (Milanich 1994; Sassaman and Anderson 2004:101). "The panregional

spread of mortuary ceremonial institutions and greater use of native cultigens in certain sub-

regions mark the end of the period at about 650 B.C." (Sassaman and Anderson 2004:101).

Woodland and Regional Cultures

The Woodland period follows the Archaic. It is characterized by increasing population and

social complexity through time, and limited adoption of horticulture. With more people on the

landscape, mobility decreased and local manifestations of the culture emerged. Trade and

exchange with regions outside the Southeast occurred to some extent. As groups settled into their

local environment and became more sedentary, regional cultures began to emerge. Regional

cultures are distinguished by variations in potter styles, projectile point styles, house types, and

settlement patterns. Due to the abundance of regional cultures, only the woodland cultures

represented in the skeletal sample are detailed here.

The advent of the Woodland period occurs at different times throughout Eastern North

America, but began earlier in Florida and Georgia and lasted until the European contact in some

areas. After 500 B.C., there is archaeological evidence for occupation of every environment

within Florida, including the forested interior uplands of northern Florida (Milanich 1994: 106).

After about A.D. 750, there is evidence for more intensive cultivation of plants, including the

possible introduction of maize (Milanich 1994: 108).









Kellog

The Kellog culture was concentrated in northwest Georgia Piedmont between about 800

and 200 BC. Kellog settlements include large, year round camps concentrated in narrow flood

plains adjacent to streams, and small seasonal camps. Kellog base camps covered about an acre

and include abundant artifacts, some sites having middens several feet thick. Seasonal camps are

not as common and contain fewer artifacts. Kellog material culture is dominated by fabric

marked pottery early in the period, with simple stamp and check stamp pottery more popular

later. Stone tools included both stemmed and unstemmed chipped stone points with triangular

blades, slate hoes, and biconvex mortars (Bense 1994:135). Kellog culture subsistence strategies

were not much different than Archaic strategies of hunting, gathering and fishing, but with

perhaps more emphasis on plant foods (Bense 1994:135-136; Hally and Mainfort 2004:266).

Deptford

The Deptford culture was located along the Gulf coast of Florida and the southeast Atlantic

coast between 500 BC and AD 100. The Deptford culture area is located between Mobile Bay

and Cedar Key along the Gulf coast stretching inland approximately 60 miles, and along the

Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and northern most Florida extending 30 miles inland.

Modest Deptford shell middens found along the coast are located in hardwood hammocks near

salt marshes and estuaries, while inland sites are usual located in river valleys. Deptford coastal

villages are small and generally contain 5 to 10 houses of either cold weather houses or summer

warm weather pavilions. The cold weather houses are around 20 by 30 foot ovals, and the warm

weather pavilions are approximately 20 by 13 foot ovals. As might be expected from their choice

of site locations, Deptford peoples relied heavily on fish and shellfish gathered from tidal

streams and shallow inshore waters, as well as nearby terrestrial resources. Inland sites are small

as well and may be special use sites, such as hunting camps (Milanich 2004a: 193-194). "In both









the Atlantic and Gulf areas sand burial mounds appear during the Deptford period. By AD 1

some mounds on the Gulf coast contained items thought to be linked to Hopewellian-related

beliefs and trade" (Milanich 2004a: 194). As the Southeast entered the Middle woodland period,

Deptford was succeeded by the Swift Creek culture in most areas.

St. Johns/Malabar

The Saint Johns culture persisted along the Atlantic coast of Florida for around 2,000

years, from the end of the Archaic in 500 BC into the seventeenth century and contact with the

Spanish. The Saint Johns region includes two sub-regions, the St. Mary's zone in the North, and

the Indian River Zone in the south. The Indian River Zone is located around Brevard, Indian

River, and St. Lucie counties, and with sites found near wetlands of the Saint Johns River Basin,

the Indian River, and along barrier islands (Milanich 1994: 249). The culture of the Indian River

Zone during the Saint Johns period is identified as the Malabar culture, and is divided into two

periods (Rouse 1951). The Malabar I period is approximately contemporaneous with the Saint

Johns I period, present from 500BC to 750 AD, while Malabar II is of the same age as the Saint

Johns II period, present from 750AD to 1565 AD (Milanich 1994: 247,249-250). Malabar sites

can be classified as villages, special use sites, or single use sites. Villages are large,

multicomponent sites that exhibit a wide range of artifacts and large middens. Villages are

always located near wetlands, and are surrounded by special use sites. Special use sites are

smaller multicomponent sites used intermittently for short periods of time. Single use sites were

probably used to gather some specific resource, and all that remains are small artifact scatters or

a few animal remains (Milanich 1994:251-252). Malabar peoples were foragers, and subsistence

patterns were remarkably consistent through both phases, with diets composed of roughly 15%

terrestrial resources, such as deer, raccoons, and rabbits, and 80% fish and shellfish. As time

passed and water levels changed, the Malabar peoples tended to collect larger fish and a wider









variety of species (Milanich 1994:251,253). The Malabar I pottery assemblages include Saint

Johns sponge-spiculate tempered pottery, but are dominated by undecorated pottery tempered

with quartz sand. Malabar II pottery is characterized by the appearance of Saint Johns Check

Stamped pottery. Analysis of pottery from Malabar sites shows continuity of manufacturing

methods through both periods (Cordell in Sigler-Eisenberg et al 1985:118-134; Milanich

1994:250) and a link to Saint Johns pottery (Espenshade 1983; Milanich 1994:250).

Manasota

The Manasota culture found along the central peninsular Gulf coast region coincided with

the Deptford and early Weeden Island cultures, lasting from about 500 B.C. to A.D. 700. This

region, which surrounds Tampa Bay, extends along the Gulf from Pasco county south to Sarasota

County, and stretches inland nearly to the Peace River drainage. Most Manasota village sites are

multicomponent shell middens of various sizes found on or near the shore. Some of the coastal

shell middens include shell ramps constructed to provide access to the tops. Intensively occupied

interior villages with dirt middens have been found in wetland locals (Hemmings 1975; Padgett

1976; Luer et al. 1987; Milanich 1994). Other types of Manasota sites are found away from the

coast, in interior pine flatwoods on higher ground near water sources and wetland habitats. These

are presumed to be short-term villages and special use camps (Austin and Russo 1989). The

evidence from these sites suggests that the Manasota economy was based on fishing, hunting,

and shellfish gathering. Most of the Manasota meat diet was derived from aquatic species,

including fish, shark, rays, and shellfish. The Manasota peoples also consumed terrestrial species

such as deer, canines, rodents, birds, reptiles and amphibians (Milanich 1994). Manasota

material culture is dominated by the use of shell tools with some bone tools, but little use of

stone tools. Ceramics were limited to plain sand-tempered pottery (Luer and Almy 1979:40-41 in

Milanich 1994:222-223).









Wilmington Culture

The Wilmington Culture succeeded the Deptford culture along the coast and coastal plain

of Georgia at the end of the Late Woodland period, 500-1150AD. The Wilmington Culture is

defined by Wilmington Plain, Wilmington Cord Marked, and Wilmington Brushed ceramics

(DePratter 1979; Martinez 1975). The typical Wilmington vessel is decorated with large, parallel

individual cord impressions made with a cord wrapped paddle (Caldwell 1952:316). Wilmington

culture is thought to have been influenced by the coeval Weeden Island culture in Florida and by

Mississippian people in the Piedmont (Milanich 1976). Like other Late Woodland cultures,

Wilmington subsistence was based on hunting, fishing and gathering with some horticulture

(Wood et al 1986).

Historic Period

The historic period begins with European contact. This happens at different times in

different areas, and initially has varying degrees of impact. For the Timucua of Northern Florida

and Southern Georgia, contact with Europeans probably begins in 1525 and early 1526 when

scout ships that preceded the Lucas Vasquez de Ayll6n expedition landed on the northern end of

St. Simons Island (Hoffman 1994; Milanich 2004b:225). In 1565 the Spanish began to establish

a missions and colony in Florida with their first permanent New World settlement in St.

Augustine. From this base they established Roman Catholic Missions along the Atlantic Coast to

the Timucua Indians and Guale Indians along the Georgia coast just north of the Timucua. At the

time of the Spanish arrival, many of the Guale and Timucua in northern Florida and Georgia

were already involved in maize agriculture and readily missionized. By 1620 virtually every

Timucuan chiefdom had received Franciscan missions (Milanich 2004b:225). Non-agricultural

groups south of the Timucua, such as the Calusa, were not missionized, despite numerous

Spanish attempts.









The Timucua and the Guale paid a terrible price for there service to the Spanish crown.

The Spanish used the Indians as a labor force to support the Spanish colony. They did supply the

Indians with technology to increase maize production, but the demand for maize and labor

shifted the native populations from a semi-nomadic hunting, gathering, and farming subsistence

base to sedentary intensive maize agriculture. The maize diet led to nutritional deficiencies,

especially in lysine, tryptophan and iron. These deficiencies can be seen in the remains of

mission Indians in the form of poratic hyperostosis, cribra orbitalia, and enamel hypoplasia. The

increased physical stress imposed by the Spanish need for labor can be seen in the form of

osteoarthritis. They also experienced increased levels of carious lesions and periosteal reactions

due to the increase stresses of mission life. Indian populations under the mission system dropped

sharply as a result of working conditions and a series of Old World disease epidemics in 1595,

1612-1617, 1649-1650, and 1655-1656. Population levels were further impacted by slaving raids

by the English and there allies from 1660 to 1684 (Milanich 1998). As the Timucua populations

declined, the Spanish consolidated the remaining tribes along the Camino Real, giving them

access to the Apalachicola and their labor. By the time the Spanish ceded Florida to the English

in 1763, the Timucua had dwindled from a pre-contact population of approximately 20,000 in the

early sixteenth century to a single adult. Other Indian populations in Florida and Southern

Georgia were similarly decimated, and the few remaining survivors were evacuated to Cuba

when the Spanish left Florida (Milanich 1994, 2004b; Williams 2004).









CHAPTER 5
SITES

Introduction

Of the ten archaeological sites used in this study, six (Golf Course, Bay Pines, Canaveral,

Casey Key, Palmer, and Perico Island) are located along the coast of Florida, and three

(Cannon's Point, Taylor Mound, and Couper Field/Indian Field) are located on Saint Simon's

Island, Georgia. The tenth site (Garfield) is located in the Piedmont of Georgia. These sites

represent to Archaic, Deptford, Weeden Island, and contact periods. These sites date from

possibly as early as the Paleoindian through the Contact period. Site numbers and brief

descriptions of the location, the archaeological investigation, and the interpretation of each of

these sites follow below.

Golf Course (8Br44)

The Golf Course site is located on the north edge of the Melbourne Municipal Golf Course

just east of a canal that cuts through the property in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The

site was discovered in 1952 by F.B. Loomis of Amherst College, J.W. Gidley of the U.S.

National Museum (Smithsonian), and C.P. Singleton, a resident of Melbourne, during a survey of

spoil from the nearby canal (Rouse 1951: 153). Loomis and Gidley prevaricated on whether the

remains came from the Pleistocene Melbourne bone bed, or from the lower levels of the

overlying Holocene Van Valkenburg bed. Ales Hrdlicka argued that the "Melbourne Man" was

similar to recent Indians and could not be of great antiquity based on his analysis of the skulls

morphology and his own conviction that humans had not entered the New World more than a

few thousand years ago (Miller 1950; Wilmsen 1965). After reconstructing and reexamining the

skull, Stewart (1946) suggested that it might in fact belong to the Paleoindian period. (Milanich

1994:8; Miller 1950) While the lack of a definitive cultural affiliation is frustrating, this case is









an excellent example of the kind of where the present research will be of the greatest benefit,

namely in gathering information about isolated remains with uncertain affiliation.

Bay Pines (8Pi64)

The Bay Pines site is located in Pinellas County, Florida on Boca Ciega Bay, just west of

St. Petersburg. The site consists of a shell ridge oriented on a north-south axis, parallel to the

coast of Boca Ciega Bay. The north end of the ridge is near a freshwater lagoon, and two smaller

ridges are present perpendicular to the shore, one in the middle, and one at the south end termed

"shell ridge A." Shell ridge A was excavated by members of the Suncoast Archaeological

Society in 1971 in a salvage operation prior to the construction of a nursing home. Ten burials

are identified in a cemetery and fragmentary remains of at least 14 other individuals are found

scattered throughout what was probably a burial mound. The remains of all 24 individuals are

currently housed at the Florida Museum of Natural History. The site is thought to be multi-

component with occupations from the Deptford period through the early Weeden Island period.

A reanalysis of faunal remains associated with the site and stable isotope analysis of the

skeletons suggest a diet heavy in fish from the nearby Gulf of Mexico and included turtle,

mammal, bird, crab and possibly maize (Gallagher and Warren, 1975; Kelly, Tykot and Milanich

2006).

Canaveral (8Br85)

The Canaveral site is located on Cape Canaveral in Brevard County, in the Indian River

area of Florida's Atlantic coast. Dr. George Woodbury excavated burial mounds on Cape

Canaveral from 1933-1934 as part of the Civil Works Administration relief archaeological

program affiliated with the Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution during the

Great Depression (Milanich 1994:9-10). The site consists of several burial mounds, including the

Burns Mound and Fuller Mounds A, B, and D. The Burns Mound (8Br85) is a burial mound built









on top of a shell midden. The burial mound was composed of a lower sandy layer and an upper

layer composed of "a thick laminated deposit which contained ... charcoal, pot sherds, shells,

etc." (Woodbury n.d.). Woodbury recovered 31 burials from the lower zone and 21 from the

upper zone; all are primary burials with their heads oriented toward the center of the mound in a

spoke pattern. All of the upper zone burials are extended while some from the lower zone are

flexed or semi-flexed (Willey 1954:81). All but one of the burials are adults with approximately

equal numbers of males and females. The Burns Mound is dated to the Malabar II period based

on ceramic types, although a pendant of European silver indicates the mound was used after

European contact.

The excavation at Fuller Mound A recovered in a sample of 96 complete skeletons. All but

twelve are adults, with slightly more females than males. Almost all of the burials are oriented in

the spoke pattern with their heads toward the center of the mound. Most are primary extended

burials lying on the back, although a few are semi-flexed. A few may have been secondary

burials. Iron and metal tools and glass beads of European manufacture are present (Stirling

1935:386). Based on the ceramics and the quantity of European goods, Rouse (1951:197)

suggested that the mound dates from the 17th century.

Fuller Mound B contained the remains of about 20 individuals disarticulated and mixed in

a single secondary burial at the center of the mound. Two primary burials are also found away

from the center with their feet pointing toward the center of the mound (Stirling 1935:387).

Rouse (1951:197) dates the mound to the Malabar I' period based on the ceramics and the lack of

European artifacts.

Fuller Mound D consisted of 16 primary extended burials in the spoke pattern oriented

with heads toward the center of the mound. Five of the individuals are infants, and there are









more adult males than females. A few glass beads are present suggesting that the mound dates

from the 17th century, the same as Fuller Mound A (Stirling 1935:387).

Casey Key (8So17)

The Casey Key site lies on Casey Key, a Gulf coast barrier island located about three miles

south of Osprey, in Sarasota County, Florida. The site was known to residents of the area long

before it was recorded by archaeologists and has never been systematically excavated. The site is

near the Palmer site, discussed below, and is thought to have been roughly contemporaneous

with it, although it is not tightly dated due to a dearth of diagnostic artifacts. The limited pottery

assemblage indicates it is from the Manasota-Weedon Island culture dating from ca. A.D. 250-

750. Casey Key included a village and a burial mound that is thought to have contained over 200

burial but most of these are collected by local residents or sold by high school students. A few

skeletons were donated to the Florida Museum of Natural History in the 1950s and 1960s by

Hilton Leech, who attempted to salvage some data from the mound before it was completely

destroyed (Bullen and Bullen 1976:47-48).

Palmer Burial Mound (8So2a)

The Palmer Site is a complex of sites located near Osprey, in Sarasota County, on Little

Sarasota Bay on the Florida Gulf Coast. The site was the subject of a number of scientific

excavations. The first formal excavations by Ripley Bullen between 1959 and 1962 are the most

extensive and only ones to include the burial mound (Bullen and Bullen 1976). Those

excavations recorded five sites: Hill Cottage Midden, dating to the Archaic period; Shell Ridge,

dating to the Middle Woodland period; Shell Midden, dating from Middle Woodland through

Mississippian periods; the North Creek Area middens; and Palmer Burial Mound. A survey of

the Palmer tract performed in 1974 uncovered four additional sites, including another burial

mound (Miller 1974). Limited investigations were performed in 1979 and 1980 prior to the









establishment of the Spanish Oaks historical site. The Shell Ridge area was excavated in 1991

under the direction of Corbett Torrence, George Luer, and Marion Almy, and detailed

zooarchaeological analyses were conducted (Hutchinson 2004; see Almy and Luer 1993; Kozuch

1998; Quitmyer 1998).

Bullen and Bullen (1976:35) describe Palmer Mound as "a very unassuming, dome-

shaped, sand mound rising 4 feet above the surrounding land." Despite its modest appearance, it

is actually one of the largest systematically excavated burial mounds in the southeast, with over

400 individuals recovered. The mound was used primarily between A.D. 500 and 800, during the

Manasota period (Bullen and Bullen 1976; Hutchinson 2004:43-59; Williams 2004). Faunal

analysis indicates that fish and shellfish dominated the diet, with little consumption of terrestrial

animals, but some use of terrestrial plants.

Perico Island (8Ma6)

The Perico Island site is located on the western edge of Perico Island in Manatee County,

Florida, west of Bradenton, and between Sarasota and Tampa Bays. The site is composed of

large and small shell middens, a burial mound, and a cemetery area. The site was excavated by

Dr. M.T. Newman in 1933-34 as a relief project. Newman recovered 185 flexed burials from the

burial mound, and 43 primary flexed burials from the cemetery (Willey 1949:176,180). Willey

(1949) initially categorized the site as a local variant of the Glades culture (Willy

1949; 1998:192), but it is now considered part of the Manasota culture (see Milanich 1994; Luer

and Almy 1982).

St. Simons Island, Georgia

Remains are used from three sites located on the northern end of St. Simon's Island,

Martinez B-C, Taylor Mound, and Couper Field/Indian Field. All were excavated as part of the

St Simons Island Archaeological Project operated by the University of Florida between 1972 and









1975. All three locations are on Cannon's Point at the northern end of the island. Wallace (1975)

used ceramic and mortuary analysis to examine the relationship between these sites. He found that

the sites are from a single, contemporaneous group of Guale Indians, but represent different

hierarchical groups within the culture. That conclusion will not be challenged here.

Martinez B-C is located at the tip of Cannon's Point near the Hampton River. The test pit

was excavated there in 1974 and initially two burials were recovered. A third burial discovered

adjacent to the test pit was recovered in 1975. The individuals include one infant and two adult

males, and all are primary extended burials. This location is thought to be part of a primary

living area. Based on associated ceramics, the burials are thought to be from the Wilmington

Period (Martinez 1975:56-58).

Taylor Mound is a Historic period (ca. A.D. 1600-1650) ceremonial mound with associated

burials. While some historic artifacts are associated with the mound, it does not appear to have

been heavily impacted by European contact (Wallace 1975:39-78; Zahler 1976:2). Eleven burials

were recovered from this location, The sex of one skeleton could not be identified because it was

too fragmented and too young. A second was excluded from analysis because its stratagraphic

affiliation was uncertain (Wallace 1975:44). The remaining nine individuals included seven

females and two males. Prior to formal excavation, thirteen burials were excavated by local

residents, but information for these individuals was not recorded.

Couper Field and Indian Field are the northern and southern parts, respectively, of the

same village, and is part of the same sociocultural population as Taylor Mound, but represents

different levels of the social hierarchy. Couper Field lies immediately south of the remains of the

antebellum Couper Mansion. Although the area had been heavily plowed the majority of burials

are undisturbed. There are 16 interments containing 18 individuals, including one infant, ten









females and seven males (Wallace 1975:141-144). Indian Field was the location of a large

ceremonial pavilion in which were interred six burials that contained the disturbed, fragmented

,and mixed remains of 22 individuals. Remains of at least 13 of these are recovered from a single

interment (Zahler 1976: 8).

Garfield Site (9BR57)

The Garfield site is the remains of a village located on the confluence of the Etowah River

and Macedonia Slough near Kingston, Bartow County, in northwestern Georgia. Portions of the

site were first excavated by two amateur archaeologists from Decatur, Georgia, James Chapman

and Richard Criscoe during the 1960s. Eighteen burials are recovered from what appeared to be

abandoned storage pits. Those remains were transferred to the Florida Museum of Natural

History in 1974 with other collections they had excavated. Jerald T. Milanich tested the site in

1972 while he was a post-doctoral fellow at the Smithsonian Institution. He recovered an

additional four burials, including two adults, one infant, and one cremation. An additional

fragment of human bone was identified among animal bone excavated from midden deposits.

Artifacts recovered from the site indicate it belongs to the Kellog culture dating to 600 B.C. to

A.D. 100, a date supported by two radiocarbon assays (185570 B.P. and 235060 B.P.) from

charcoal obtained by Milanich (Jerald T. Milanich personal communication 2007; Milanich

1975).

Milanich also recovered a large quantity of floral and faunal remains, ceramics, and lithic

artifacts. As a group they suggest an occupation from early spring into late summer or early fall.

While it seems likely that some maize gardening was carried out toward the end of the site's

period of occupation, wild foods, especially nuts and other plant products, fish and a variety of

mammals, provided most of the diet (Milanich 1975).














N
N


. Simons Island


Atlantic
Ocean


Gulf of Mexico

0 50 100
S 5 0 0Miles
6 50 160Kilometers


Course


Figure 5-1 Locator map of sites used in this study and major rivers.









CHAPTER 6
METHODS AND MATERIALS

Introduction

This section describes sampling methods and the criteria used for selecting skeletal

materials for measurement. It also describes the skeletal materials used for this study and the

methods used in determining the sex of each skeleton. Finally, it describes the procedures used in

data collection, including measurements taken and their description, and the software and

methods used in calculating the discriminant functions.

Sampling

In terms of research design, the ideal approach is to take a simple random sample or

random block sample from all pre-contact Native American skeletons excavated from Florida or

Georgia archaeological sites, and sex them using the pubic bone. Unfortunately, this ideal is not

practical. The remains of Florida and Georgia Native Americans are housed in several

institutions around the country, and not all are readily accessible. Of the accessible remains, not

all have measurable crania. Of those, few have an intact pubic bone, and none are of known sex.

Therefore, it is necessary to draw the sample from those remains that can provide the needed

data. The best practical method is to use all of the available remains that have a measurable

cranium, and which can be reliably sexed. This 'total sample' approach is likely to introduce bias

into the sample. For example, individuals who are robust, buried in shell middens, or from more

recent populations are likely to be over represented.

Determination of Sex

The sex of the specimens is determined by using visual assessment of the crania and

postcrania described in chapter 2. The Phenice (1969) method is used in conjunction with other

postcranial indicators, such as the sciatic notch and pre-auricular sulcus, and with cranial









indicators. In sexing skeletons, the heaviest weight is given to the Phenice method of sexing the

pubic bone because of its high accuracy, followed by other features of the pelvis and postcrania.

Cranial indicators are given the least weight, and sexing by crania alone is avoided.

Materials

The samples used in this study come from a total of ten sites. Samples from Canaveral,

Perico Island, and Ballard Estates are housed at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum

of Natural History. Samples from Garfield Site, Couper Field, Taylor Mound, Cannon's Point,

Palmer, Casey Key, and Bay Pines are from the Collections of the Anthropology Division of the

Florida Museum of Natural History. Measurements are taken from a total of 46 individuals.

Because some individuals are incomplete, not all measurements could be taken for every

individual, so not all individuals are included in each stage of the analysis.

Data are collected from one complete adult male recovered from the Garfield site. The

complete set of 25 cranial measurements is recorded. The postcrania, including the pubic bone is

missing, so sexing is accomplished using visual evaluation the crania.

Data are collected from nine individuals recovered from Couper Field, five males and four

females. Two of the four females are excluded from further analysis because they lacked a

measurable pubic bone and have fragmentary crania. The remaining two females are sexed with

using visual analysis of the crania and postcrania. Two males have an observable pubic bone.

The remaining three males are sexed using visual analysis of the crania.

Data are collected from seven individuals recovered from Taylor mound, including four

males, two females and one individual of unidentified sex. One male and one female are

excluded from further analysis because they lacked postcranial remains including the pubic bone

and have fragmentary crania. Two males are sexed using the pubic bone, although their crania

are fragmentary, and with only seven and 14 observable measurements. The remaining male and









female are sexed using a combination of cranial and visual analysis of the postcrania, but did not

include the pubic bone. The individual of unidentified sex is missing postcranial sex indicators,

and the cranium is fragmentary.

Data are collected from one male recovered from Cannon's Point. This individual has a

fragmentary cranium, allowing observation of 9 of 25 cranial measurements; but possesses a

relatively complete postcrania that included the pubic bone. This individual is sexed using

cranial and postcranial visual methods, including observation of the pubic bone.

Data are collected from nineteen individuals recovered from Canaveral, including three

females and 16 males. All three females and 14 males have crania that are complete or nearly

complete, and have relatively complete postcrania including the pubic bone. All 17 are sexed

using a combination of cranial and postcranial visual methods, including observation of the pubic

bone. The remaining two male crania and postcrania are nearly complete, but lack an observable

pubic bone. These two individuals are sexed using a combination of cranial and postcranial

visual methods, excluding observation of the pubic bone.

Data are collected from four individuals recovered from from Perico Island, including two

males and two females. All four individuals are complete, allowing observation of all 25 cranial

measurements and the pubic bone. All are sexed using a combination of cranial and postcranial

visual methods, including observation of the pubic bone.

Data are collected from two individuals recovered from the Palmer site, including one male

and one female. The female is nearly complete, allowing observation 24 of 25 cranial

measurements and the pubic bone. This individual is sexed using a combination of cranial and

postcranial visual methods, including observations of the pubic bone. The second individual is a

fragmentary male, allowing observation of only 7 of 25 cranial measurements, and is missing the









pubic bone. This individual is sexed using a combination of cranial and postcranial visual

methods, excluding the pubic bone.

Data are collected from one female cranium recovered from Casey Key. This cranium is

nearly complete, allowing observation of 22 cranial measurements. The postcrania including the

pubic bone is missing. This individual is sexed using visual analysis of the cranium.

Data are collected from one malerecovered from Bay Pines. This individual is nearly

complete, allowing observation of all 25 cranial measurements but not the pubic bone. This

individual is sexed using a combination of cranial and postcranial visual methods, excluding the

pubic bone.

Data are collected from one male recovered from Ballard Estates. This individual is nearly

complete, allowing observation of 23 of 25 cranial measurements but not the pubic bone. This

individual is sexed using a combination of cranial and postcranial visual methods, excluding the

pubic bone.

Cranial Measurement Definitions

Giles and Elliot Measurements

Ten measurements are taken from Giles and Elliot (1962, 1963) following their

descriptions (Table 6-1). Other sources are used to clarify descriptions and measurement

techniques where Giles and Elliot are unclear, particularly Bass (1971, 1995), Howells (1973),

Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994), and FORDISC 2.0 materials (Ousley and Jantz 1996).

The remaining measurements (Table 6-2) are not included in the Giles and Elliot (1962)

study, but are used in more recent research by Bass (1995), Howells (1973), Buikstra and

Ubelaker (1994), and FORDISC 2.0 materials (Ousley and Jantz 1996). The descriptions and

techniques primarily follow Ousley and Jantz (1996).









Table 6-1. Measurements used by Giles and Elliot, the measurement's modern equivalent,
common symbols, Giles and Elliot descriptions, and references used. Complete
measurement descriptions and techniques are listed in appendix A.
Giles and Modern Symbols Description References
Elliot equivalent
measurement
Glabello- Maximum g-op, The distance of Bass 1971:62;
occipital cranial length GOL glabella (g) from Howells 1973:170;
length opisthocranion (op) Martin 1956:453 ;
in the mid sagittal Olivier 1969:128.
plane measured in a
straight line.
Maximum Maximum eu-eu, The maximum Bass 1971:62;
width cranial breadth XCB width of the skull Howells 1973:172;
perpendicular to the Hrdlicka 1952:140;
mid-sagittal plane. Martin 1956:455 ;
Montagu 1960:44.
Basion-bregma Basion bregma ba-b, The direct distance Bass 1971:62;
height height BBH from the lowest Howells 1966:6;
point on the anterior Martin 1956:459;
margin of the Olivier 1969:129.
foramen magnum,
basion (ba), to
bregma (b).
Maximum Bizygomatic zy-zy, The direct distance Bass 1971:67;
diameter bi- breadth ZYB between each Martin 1956:476.
zygomatic zygion (zy), located
at the most lateral
points of the
zygomatic arches.
Basion-nasion Cranial base ba-n, The direct distance Howells 1966:6;
length BNL from nasion (n) to Martin 1956:455
basion (ba).
Basion- Basion ba pr, The direct distance Martin 1956:474.
prosthion prosthion BPL from basion (ba) to
length prosthion (pr).
Nasion breadth Nasal breadth al-al, The maximum Bass 1971:68;
NLB breadth of the nasal Howells 1973:176;
aperture. Martin 1956:479;
Montagu 1960:50;
Olivier 1969:153.










Table 6-1. Continued
Giles and Modern Symbols Description References
Elliot equivalent
measurement
Palate-external Maxillo- ecm-ecm, The maximum Bass 1971:70;
breadth alveolar MAB breadth across the Howells 1973:176;
breadth, alveolar borders of Martin 1956:480;
external palate the maxilla Montagu 1960:51.
breadth measured at its
widest point,
between each
ectomolare (ecm).
Mastoid length Mastoid length MDH The projection of Howells 1966:6;
the mastoid process 1973:176.
below, and
perpendicular to, the
eye ear (Frankfort
Horizontal) plane in
the vertical plane.
Prosthion- Upper facial n-pr The direct distance Howells 1966:6;
Nasion Height height from nasion (n) to Hrdlicka 1952:143;
prosthion (pr). Martin 1956:476.


Table 6-2. Measurements not used by Giles and Elliot, common symbols, measurement
descriptions, and sources of the measurements. Complete measurement descriptions
and techniques are listed in appendix A along with a sample data collection sheet.
Measurement Symbol Description References
Biorbital ec-ec, EKB The direct distance from one Howells 1973:178
breadth ectoconchion (ec) to the
other.
Interorbital d-d, DKB The direct distance between Martin 1956:477.
breadth right and left dacryon (d).
Maxillo- pr-alv, The direct distance from Bass 1971:70; Hrdlicka
alveolar length, MAL prosthion (pr) to alveolon 1952:146 147; Martin
external palate (alv). 1956:480.
length
Biauricular au-au, ALB The least exterior breadth Howells 1973:173
breadth across the roots of the
zygomatic processes.
Foramen ba-o, FOL The direct distance of basion Martin 1956:455
magnum length (ba) from opisthion (o).









Table 6-2. Continued
Measurement Symbol Description References
Minimum ft-ft, WFB The direct distance between Bass 1971:67; Hrdlicka
frontal breadth the two frontotemporale (ft). 1952:142; Martin
1956:457; Olivier
1969:151.
Foramen FOB The distance between the Martin 1956:459
magnum lateral margins of the
breadth Foramen magnum at the point
of greatest lateral curvature.
Upper facial fmt-fmt The direct distance between Martin 1956:475.
breadth each frontomalare temporale
(fmt). This measurement
differs from Howells' FMB
in that the lateral most points
on the suture are used rather
than the most anterior points.
Nasal height n-ns, NLH The direct distance from Bass 1971:68; Howells
nasion (n) to nasospinale (ns). 1966:6; Martin
1956:479; Olivier
1969:153
Orbital breadth d-ec, OBB The laterally sloping distance Martin 1956:477 478;
from dacryon (d) to Howells 1973:175
ectoconchion (ec).
Orbital height OBH The direct distance between Bass 1971:69; Martin
the superior and inferior 1956:478; Montagu
orbital margins. 1960:51; Olivier
1969:152.
Biorbital ec-ec, EKB The direct distance from one Howells 1973:178
breadth ectoconchion (ec) to the
other.
Interorbital d-d, DKB The direct distance between Martin 1956:477.
breadth right and left dacryon (d).
Frontal chord n-b, FRC The direct distance from Howells 1973:181;
nasion (n) to bregma (b) Martin 1956:465.
taken in the midsagittal plane.
Parietal chord b-l, PAC The direct distance from Howells 1973:182;
bregma (b) to lambda (1) Martin 1956:466.
taken in the midsagittal plane.
Occipital chord l-o, OCC The direct distance from Howells 1973:182;
lambda (1) to opisthion (o) Martin 1956:466.
taken in the midsagittal plane.









Statistical Procedures

Calculations are performed using Microsoft Excel 2004 for Macintosh, Version 11.3.3 and

SAS 8.3 running on Unix at grove.ufl.edu. A t-test is a statistical hypothesis test that follows a

Student's t-distribution if the null hypothesis is true and the variable is normally distributed. The

t-test is used to test the null hypothesis that the mean of a variable is the same for males and

females against the alternative that the means are different. The value of the t-statistic is the

difference between the means of the two groups divided by the standard error of the difference.

The result is used to identify which variables are likely to be useful in discriminating between

male and female crania. The t-statistic is calculated using the formula:


sx1 -X2
Xi-X2


where Xi X2 is the difference between the sample means, and s- -l is the standard error of

the differences between the two means. For groups of unequal size, s 2is computed by the

formula:

(N, 1)s + (N2 1)s2 1 1
X 2N, + N, -2 N, N,


where s2 (variance) is calculated by the formula:

2 (x- x)2
(n -1)

and s2 is calculated using the VAR function in Excel. The t-statistic is then compared to a

Student's t-distribution with n-2 degrees of freedom. This is accomplished using the 'TDIST'

function in Excel.

Multiple Analysis of Variance, or MANOVA, is the multivariate equivalent of a t-test. It is

used to test the null hypothesis that more than two groups do not differ for multiple variables. In









the present case, it is used to test the hypothesis that all of the individuals from the different sites

in this research can be considered to be a single group for the purposes of this study. The

MANOVA is preformed using SAS PROC GLM.

PROC GLM Data=thesisdata ORDER=freq;
CLASS site;
MODEL GOL XCB ZYB BBH BNL BPL AUB WFB UFBR EKB FRC PAC MDHA= site;
MANOVA H=site / PRINTED;


The next task is to calculate the results of the Giles and Elliot (1962) function 3 for sex

discrimination on the study sample in order to evaluate its accuracy. Sex is first determined using

the sectioning point given by Giles and Elliot. The sectioning point is then recalculated using the

method described by Giles and Elliot. The average of the function is calculated using the average

value of each function for each sex separately,

f(f,,ff)

and the sectioning point is placed midway between the two results. The function is calculated

again, replacing missing values with the average of the male and female means for that variable.

Accuracy is then evaluated again using the original sectioning point, and the recalculated

sectioning point described above.

Once the accuracy of the Giles and Elliot formula is determined, new discriminant

functions are calculated based on the data collected. The first function calculated uses the same

variables Giles and Elliot used. The second function calculated uses the variables selected using

t-tests and that showed good preservation as indicated by the proportion of crania from which the

measurement could be observed.

Exact binomial probabilities are used to compare the accuracy of new results to Giles and

Elliot's (1963) reported accuracy of 86.4%. Exact probabilities are calculated using the SAS









PROC FREQ procedure with the EXACT BINOMIAL option. The null hypothesis is that the

accuracy of the formulas is equal against the alternative that the new accuracy is higher.

Fisher's exact test is used to compare the accuracy between sets of new results. Fisher's

exact test is a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test used for categorical data where samples

are too small for the Chi-squared test. Fisher's exact test is calculated using the PROC FREQ

procedure with the CHISQ option. The null hypothesis is that the accuracies are equal, which is

tested against the alternative that the accuracies are different.









CHAPTER 7
RESULTS

General Results

This section presents the results of the analysis described in Methods and Materials.

Discriminant function scores are calculated for each individual using the Giles and Elliot (1963)

formula for sex determination. Each individual is classified as male or female using the

sectioning point published by Giles and Elliot. Each individual is classified again using a

recalculated sectioning point based on sample data following a method recommended by Giles

and Elliot (1963). Using the published Giles and Elliot (1963) sectioning point, the formula

correctly classifies 13 of 13 males, and 2 of 4 females. The overall accuracy is 88.24%, but the

error is unequally distributed. Using the recalculated sectioning point, the formula correctly

classifies 12 of 13 males, and 3 of 4 females. The overall accuracy is still 88.24%, but the error is

evenly distributed. This error rate is not significantly different than that reported by Giles and

Elliot, but the sample size is unacceptably small due to missing variables.

In order to increase the sample size, missing variables are replaced with the average of the

male and female means for each variable. This allows the calculation of the discriminant

function to be completed without allowing missing variables to influence sex classification.

Discriminant function scores are calculated for each individual using the Giles and Elliot (1963)

formula for sex determination. Each individual is classified as male or female using the

sectioning point published by Giles and Elliot (1963). Each individual is classified again using a

recalculated sectioning point based on sample data following a method recommended by Giles

and Elliot. Using the Giles and Elliot sectioning point, the formula correctly classifies 31 of 32

males, and 2 of 13 females. The overall accuracy is 73.33%, but the error is unequally









distributed. Using the recalculated sectioning point, the formula correctly classifies 27 of 32

males, and 11 of 13 females. The overall accuracy is 84.44%, and the error is evenly distributed.

Variables for further analysis are selected using t-tests and variable preservation rates. T-

tests are performed to identify variables that are likely to be useful in discriminating between

males and females. Ten variables are significant, including: GOL, BBH, BNL, BPL, AUB,

WFB, UFBR, EKB, PAC, and MDH. Five of these variables are excluded from further analysis

because their low preservation would have decreased the number of usable individuals to

unacceptable levels. The excluded significant variables are: BBH, BNL, BPL, UFBR, and EKB.

The variables retained for further analysis are GOL, AUB, WFB, PAC, and MDHA.

A MANOVA is performed using the retained variables to test the null hypothesis that there

is no difference between groups. There is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that

there is no difference between groups. Therefore, it is concluded that all individuals could be

treated as a single group.

Two new discriminant functions are created. The first is created from the sample data

using the same variables used by Giles and Elliot (1963). The second is created using the

variables identified in the variable selection step. The first step is to create a new formula using

the same variables as Giles and Elliot (1963). This is done using PROC DISCRIM in SAS and

variables GOL XCB BBH ZYB BPL UFHT MAB MDHA. Again, discriminant function scores

could only be calculated for 17 individuals (13 Male and 4 female) due to missing variables. The

new function correctly classifies 13 of 13 males and 4 of 4 females, for a combined accuracy of

100%. This is not significantly different from the accuracy of the Giles and Elliot function.

Next, a new function is calculated using the variables identified during variable selection.

This is done using PROC DISCRIM in SAS and variables GOL, XCB, AUB, WFB, FRC, PAC,









and MDHA. Discriminant function scores are calculated for 38 individuals, 26 males and 12

females. The new function correctly classifies 11 of 12 females and 24 of 26 males for a

combined accuracy of 91.99%. The discriminant function is then applied to the full sample,

substituting missing values with the average of the male and female means from the test sample.

This function assigned sex correctly to 12 of 13 females and 27 of 32 males, for a total accuracy

of 86.67%. This is not significantly different than the accuracy of the Giles and Elliot function.

Specific Results

Giles and Elliot Discriminant Function

Discriminant function scores are calculated for each individual using Giles and Elliot's

(1963) discriminant function 3 based on a combined sample of black and white individuals (see

Table 2-1, function 3). The purpose of this task is to establish the accuracy of the Giles and Elliot

function on Florida and Georgia Native Americans for comparison to new discriminant

functions. Thirteen males and four females are complete enough to record all eight

measurements needed to use the Giles and Elliot function. Using the sectioning point reported by

Giles and Elliot (1963), the formula classifies individuals with discriminant function scores

above 6237.95 as male, and individuals below that score as female. The formula correctly

classifies all 13 males, but only classifies 2 of 4 females correctly. While the overall accuracy of

88.24% compares well with the Giles and Elliot result of 86%, the error is not equally distributed

between males and females. All males are correctly classified while half of the females are

misclassified. This violates the requirement of DFA that error be spread equally among groups

(Kendal 1957). This type of error is known to occur when a discriminant function is applied to a

group that is not included in the development of the formula.

Giles and Elliot report this type of error where they attempt to use their formula on

different groups. To avoid this problem, Giles and Elliot recommend recalculating the sectioning









point based on the sample data. Their method is to create a centroid discriminant function score

for each sex by using the mean value of each variable to calculate discriminant function scores.

The average of the male and female centroids is used as the sectioning point.

"We can determine the mean value of the discriminant function scores for males by taking
the mean male value for each measurement and entering them into the discriminant
function. If this is likewise done for the females, the arithmetic mean of the two scores
provides a sectioning point to use when we have no a priori reason to believe that a
specimen is more likely to be male than female (Kendall 1957). Following this procedure,
we will say that any specimen falling on the side of this line toward the male mean will be
called male, and any specimen falling on the other side will be called female. So doing
should minimize the probability of misclassification (Giles and Elliot 1963).


Table 7-1


Accuracy of the Giles and Elliot function 3 for sex determination on the study sample
f o Florida and Georgia Nat ve Americans


Number
Sectioning Point Sex Correct Total (n) Accuracy
Giles and Elliot overall 15 17 88.24%
Individuals Sectioning Point male 13 13 100.00%
with missing (6237.95) female 2 4 50.00%
variables Recalculated overall 15 17 88.24%
omitted Sectioning Point male 12 13 92.31%
(6513.392571) female 3 4 75.00%
Missing Giles and Elliot overall 33 45 75.56%
variables Sectioning Point male 32 32 100%
replaced with (6237.95) female 2 13 15.38%
average of the Recalculated overall 38 45 84.44%
male and Sectioning Point male 27 32 84.375%
female means (6513.392571) female 11 13 84.615%

The male centroid is 6731.518743, the female centroid is 6295.266398, and the

recalculated sectioning point is 6513.392571. Using the recalculated sectioning point, the overall

accuracy remains the same, but errors are evenly distributed. The function correctly sexed 12 of

13 males and 3 out of 4 females. The accuracy of the formula using the recalculated sectioning

point is not significantly different from the result reported by Giles and Elliot for males

(p=0.9109), females (p=0.8855) or males and females combined (p=1.0000).









In order to increase sample size, missing variables are replaced with the average of the

male mean and the female mean for each variable. This allows the discriminant function to be

calculated without the missing observation influencing the final classification.

With the missing variables replaced and using the Giles and Elliot sectioning point, 31 out

of 32 males (p=0.1123) are correctly classified, but only 2 out of 13 females (p<.0001) are

correctly classified. Both of these results are significantly different from both Giles and Elliot's

result and from each other (p<0.0001). With the sectioning point recalculated, 28 out of 32 males

are correctly classified, and 10 out of 13 females are correctly classified. The results using the

repositioned sectioning point are not significantly different from the Giles and Elliot result for

males (p=1.0000), females (p=0.5112), or male and females combined (p=0.8283).

Variable Selection

The goal of variable selection is to select for further analysis those variables that are likely

to aid in the discrimination of males and females, and that are likely to be preserved for

measurement. Variables are selected for further analysis using t-tests and variable preservation

rates. T-tests are performed for all cranial variables for a difference in mean between males and

females (Table 7-2). This is done in order to identify variables likely to useful in discriminant

function analysis. The t-test tests the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the male

and female means of a variable against the alternative that there is a difference. A variable whose

mean is not significantly different between males and females is unlikely to contribute to sex

discrimination. A variable that is poorly preserved in the present sample would reduce the

sample size to unacceptable levels, and is likely to limit the applicability of this research in other

cases.









Table 7-2. T-scores and p-values for a difference in mean values of each cranial variable
between males and females. Significant values are in italics. Variables with
acceptable )reservation that are used in further analysis are in bold face.
Cranial Measurement Male Count Female Count Total Count T-statistic P-value
GOL 30 12 42 -3.25 0.0024
XCB 29 12 41 -2.25 0.0310
ZYB 15 4 19 -2.84 0.0113
BBH 27 11 38 -3.12 0.0036
BNL 27 10 37 -3.28 0.0023
BPL 26 9 35 -2.96 0.0057
MAB 25 8 33 -0.15 0.8835
MAL 24 10 34 -1.34 0.1889
AUB 30 13 43 -3.63 0.0008
UFHT 28 10 38 -0.79 0.4356
WFB 31 12 43 -3.16 0.0030
UFBR 29 11 40 -2.73 0.0096
NLH 28 10 38 -1.13 0.2679
NLB 27 10 37 -0.53 0.6000
OBB 26 10 36 -1.44 0.1577
OBH 27 10 37 -0.25 0.8047
EKB 25 10 35 -2.73 0.0100
DKB 25 10 35 -2.36 0.0242
FRC 32 12 44 -1.40 0.1696
PAC 32 13 45 -3.63 0.0008
OCC 30 11 41 -.11 0.9135
FOL 27 10 37 -1.53 0.1360
FOB 25 11 36 -1.82 0.0770
MDHR 28 13 41 -4.01 0.0003
MDHL 27 9 36 -2.70 0.0106
MDHA 31 13 44 -3.92 0.0003


Thirteen of the 26 measurements are significant at the alpha=0.01 significance level,

including left, right and average mastoid length (Table 7-2). The significant variables are:

Glabello-occipital length (GOL); Basion-Bregma height (BBH); Basion-nasion (BNL); Basion-

prosthion (BPL); Left, right and average Mastoid height (MDHL, MDHR, MDHA); Parietal

chord (PAC); Biauricular breadth (AUB); Minimum frontal breadth (WFB); Upper facial breadth

(UFBR); and Biorbital breadth (EKB). Giles and Elliot's function 3 includes the significant









variables GOL, BBH, BPL, and MDH. Variables included in the Giles and Elliot formula which

are not significant are: XCB, ZYB, and MAB.

A variable is considered to be poorly preserved if it is not observable in at least 90% of

cases for each sex. For this sample, the variable has to be observable in at least twelve females

and at least 29 males. Five of the significant variables, BBH, BNL, BPL, MDHR, and MDHL,

are excluded because of poor preservation. Five variables, GOL, AUB, WFB, PAC, and MDHA,

meet the criteria for significance and preservation. These five variables are used in discriminant

function analysis for the determination of sex in Florida and Southern Georgia Native

Americans.

Test for Site Effect on Selected Variables

The purpose of testing for site effect is to determine if individuals from different sites in

Florida and Georgia can be treated as a single population. If there is no significant site effect,

then a single discriminant function for sex determination can be used for all sites.

Table 7-3 F values and P values for the hypothesis of no site effect for each variable using type
IV sums of squares and cross products.
Variable DF F P
GOL 8 1.35 0.2581
AUB 8 3.11 0.0116
WFB 8 1.60 0.1688
PAC 8 1.31 0.2756
MDHA 8 0.61 0.7620


An ANOVA is first performed on individual variables to test for the effects of site (Table

7-3). There is no significant site effect for any of the variables at the 0.01 alpha-level. There is a

significant site effect for AUB at the 0.05 alpha-level. This difference is driven by a difference

between the Casey Key site and the Golf Course site, each of which is represented by one

individual. For this variable, the individual from Golf Course is a larger-than-average male, and









the Casey Key individual is an unusually small female. There is not enough evidence to justify

rejecting the null hypothesis, eliminating the variable AUB, or eliminating either site.

The MANOVA test is the multivariate equivalent to an ANOVA. It is used in cases where

there are multiple metric dependent variables, and one or more categorical independent variables.

It is used to test the null hypothesis that there is no overall difference between sites for the array

of variables included in this study. The sex of the individual is also used as an independent

variable so that all individuals can be included, and site difference is controlled for sex

differences.

Table 7-4 MANOVA test criteria and F approximations for the hypothesis of no overall site
effect, using type IV sums of squares and cross products.
Statistic Value F Value DF Pr > F
Wilks' Lambda .1636 1.44 40 0.0709
Pillai's Trace 1.387 1.39 40 0.0817
Hotelling Lawley Trace 2.483 1.48 40 0.0830


In the MANOVA test, all variables are considered as a single array to test the null

hypothesis that site has an effect on the array of cranial measurements against the alternative that

there is a site effect. SAS provides three approximations of the F for a MANOVA, Wilk's

Lambda, Pillai's Trace and the Hotelling- Lawley Trace. None of the statistics are significant at

the 0.05 alpha-level, so there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (Table 7-4).

This indicates that it is reasonable to treat all sites as a single group for this analysis.

Discriminant Function Analysis

The goal of the discriminant function analysis is to produce a linear formula that can be

used with cranial data to accurately assign sex to Native American skeletal remains recovered

from Florida archaeological sites. To use the function, each variable is multiplied by the

corresponding coefficient and the results and constant are summed. If the result is greater than









the sectioning-point, the individual is categorized as male. If it is less than the sectioning point,

the individual is categorized as female.

This analysis presents two discriminant functions. Function 1 uses the same eight variables

used by Giles and Elliot in their discriminant function analysis, but the function is calculated

using a sample of thirteen male and four female Native Americans from Florida and Southern

Georgia (Table 7-5). Function 2 uses the five variables selected based on t-tests and preservation

rates as described above, and it is calculated from 27 males and 12 females. The coefficients,

constants, and sectioning points for this analysis are presented in table 7-5.

Table 7-5 Coefficients, group means, and sectioning points for Function 1 and Function 2.
Cranial variable Function 1 Function 2
coefficients coefficients
AUB 0.0696568389
WFB 0.0138332675
PAC 0.1046833664
GOL -.0717749505 -0.0325698854
MDHA 0.1075559971 0.2188344979
XCB 0.1456008386
BBH -0.0620766571
ZYB 0.2196351470
BPL 0.4499153016
UFHT -0.2704566313
MAB -0.1675593848
Constant -49.19563 -21.50963
Male Mean 1.007282992 0.744143627
Female Mean -3.273669725 -1.674323160
Sectioning Point -1.133193367 -0.470560251
Constant=0 48.062436633 21.039069749
Sectioning Point


Function 1 Accuracy

Only 17 individuals included all of the measurements required for Function 1. Because of

the small sample size, the function is tested on the same individuals used to develop the function.

When applied to the sample of thirteen males and four females from which it is developed,









Function 1 correctly assigned sex to all seventeen individuals (Table 7-6). This result is not

significantly better than the reported Giles and Elliot result (p = 0.0509). It is also not

significantly different than the Giles and Elliot formula applied to the current sample when

observations with missing variables are omitted (p= 0.4848). The accuracy of this function is

inflated in this test due to the small sample size. A better indication of the accuracy of the

function is given by cross validation.

Table 7-6. Accuracy of Function 1, which uses the variables originally used by Giles and Elliot
(1963).
Number
Sex correct Count (n) Percent
Overall 14 17 82.35%
Cross validation Male 11 13 84.62%
Female 3 4 75.00%
Individuals with Overall 17 17 100%
missing variables Male 13 13 100%
omitted Female 4 4 100%
Missing variables Overall 35 45 77.78%
replaced by the Male 24 32 75%
average of the male
and female means Female 11 13 84.62%


Cross validation classifies each observation based on all of the other observations. A

discriminant function is calculated for the dataset minus one observation, and the omitted

observation is classified using the resulting function. This procedure provides a more realistic

estimate of the accuracy of the discriminant function. Using cross validation, a discriminant

function analysis using the Giles and Elliot variables correctly classified eleven of thirteen males

and three of four females, for a combined accuracy of 82.35%. This is not significantly better

than the Giles and Elliot result (p = 0.4130). It is also not significantly different than the Giles

and Elliot formula applied to the current sample when observations with missing variables are

omitted (p= 1.00).









In order to apply Function 1 to all observations, missing variables are replaced with the

average of the male and female means for each variable. With missing variables replaced,

Function 1 correctly classifies 24 of 32 males and 11 of 13 females, for an overall accuracy of

77.78% (Table 7-6). This is not significantly different from the Giles and Elliot function using

the recalculated sectioning point and missing variables replaced with the average of the male and

female means (p= 0.5912).

Function 2 Accuracy

Function 2 is based on measurements from 39 individuals, including 27 males and 12

females. When applied to the sample from which it is developed, Function 2 correctly assigns

sex to 26 of 27 males and 10 of 12 females, for an overall accuracy of 92.31% (Table 7-7). This

is not significantly different from Giles and Elliot's reported accuracy of 86.4% (p= 0.4087).

Using cross validation, the formula correctly classifies 10 of 12 females and 23 of 27 males for

an overall accuracy of 84.62%. This is not significantly different from the accuracy of the Giles

and Elliot function (p= 0.8819).

Table 7-7. Accuracy of Function 2, which uses variables selected using t-tests and preservation
rates.
Number
Sex correct Count (n) Accuracy
Overall 33 39 84.26%
Cross validation Male 23 27 85.19%
Female 10 12 83.33%
Overall 36 39 92.31%
Individuals with missing Male 26 27 96.30%
variables omittedFemale 26 27 96.30%
variables omitted
Female 10 12 83.33%
Missing variables replaced Overall 39 45 86.87%
by the average of the male Male 28 32 87.50%
and female means Female 11 13 84.62%


To apply Function 2 to all individuals in the sample, missing variables are replaced by the

average of the male and female means for each variable. With the missing variables replaced,









Function 2 correctly classified 28 of 32 males and 11 of 13 females for an overall accuracy of

86.87%. The accuracy of Function 2 is not significantly different than the Giles and Elliot (1963)

formula applied to the current sample using the recalculated sectioning point and missing

variables replaced with the average of the male and female means (p= 1.00).









CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Conclusions

The most significant finding of this research is that the function derived by Giles and Elliot

does not accurately sex skeletons from Florida and Georgia unless the sectioning point is

adjusted. Using the sectioning point published by Giles and Elliot (1963), the function classifies

only 15.38% of females correctly. When the sectioning point is adjusted using male and female

averages for each variable, the function classifies about 84% of males and females correctly. For

Florida and Georgia Native Americans, the sectioning point should be changed to 6513.4 when

using Giles and Elliot's (1963) function 3.

The overall goal of this research is to determine if the accuracy of discriminant function

analysis for sex determination could be improved by using local or regional populations, and by

better variable selection. Previous research has tested the Giles and Elliot (1963) discriminant

functions on Finnish crania and developed functions for that population (Kajanoja 1966). Other

research has developed discriminant functions for fragmentary archaeological post-cranial

remains from other areas (Bass 1995; Black 1978; Krogman and Iscan 1986). None of the

previous studies focuses on comparing the established Giles and Elliot methods to new formula

developed from fragmentary crania from Southeastern archaeological sites, thus making this

research novel. This research is also novel in treating all prehistoric Native Americans in Florida

and Georgia as a single population, regardless of time period. This study addresses the following

hypotheses related to sex determination by discriminant function analysis (DFA):

For archaeological populations, higher accuracy in sex determination by DFA can be
achieved drawing a sample from the archaeological population than by using a dissecting
room sample.

Sex determination by DFA can be accomplished with a smaller number of more robust
measurements without reducing accuracy.









For the purpose of sex determination by DFA, Florida and Georgia Native Americans can
be viewed as a single population, regardless of time period.

There is evidence that better discriminant functions can be developed using local

populations, but the results are not statistical significant possibly because of the small sample

size. Sample size is small because of the requirement that individuals include both a relatively

intact cranium and pubic bone. Both of these skeletal elements are relatively delicate and are

seldom preserved intact. Individuals who have both elements intact are rare.

There is evidence that sex determination by DFA can be accomplished with a smaller

number of more robust variables than those used by Giles and Elliot without reducing accuracy.

Five variables are identified that are preserved in at least 90% of males and females selected for

this study. It is possible to apply the discriminant function using these variables to 86.66% of the

sample, compared to just 37.77% for the Giles and Elliot variables. The new function also has

higher accuracy than the function developed using the Giles and Elliot variables, although the

difference is not significant.

Implicit in this research is the assumption that all of the sites used in this study can be

considered a single population. The results of the Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)

suggest that there is no significant difference between individuals from the different sites used in

this study. It is, therefore, reasonable to treat all of the individuals from these sites as belonging

to a single population.

Summery of Statistical Results

The results presented in the previous chapter can be summarized as follows. When applied

to Florida and Georgia Native Americans:

The Giles and Elliot function 3 and original sectioning point classifies males correctly,
but misclassifies females at a significantly higher rate than other methods.









The accuracy of the Giles and Elliot function 3 with the sectioning point recalculated is
not significantly different from the Giles and Elliot function applied to black and white
individuals.

The Giles and Elliot function includes some variables that do not contribute to sex
discrimination, and others that preserve poorly.

The accuracy of a new discriminant function developed using the Giles and Elliot
variables (GOL, XCB, BBH, ZYB, BPL, UFHT, MAB, and MDHA) is no more accurate
than the original Giles and Elliot function.

Variables which do contribute to sex discrimination and preserve well include: GOL,
AUB, WFB, PAC, and MDHA.

GOL, AUB, WFB, PAC, and MDHA are not significantly different across the samples
sites in Florida and Georgia individually, or taken together.

The accuracy of a new discriminant function developed using GOL, AUB, WFB, PAC,
and MDHA is more accurate than the Giles and Elliot function, but the difference is not
significant.

Specific Statistical Results

Other researchers have found that the Giles and Elliot formula cannot be applied to other

populations without modification (Giles and Elliot 1963, Kajanoja 1966). While Giles and Elliot

suggested several methods for recalculating a sectioning point, Henke (1977) and Calcagno

(1981) have determined that those methods are not practical.

Using the Giles and Elliot function with the original sectioning point did not produce

acceptable results. The function is able to classify 13 of 13 males correctly, but misclassified 2 of

4 females. When missing values are replaced with neutral values, the Giles and Elliot function

classifies all 32 males correctly, but misclassifies 11 of 13 females. The Giles and Elliot function

is not a reliable indicator of sex for Florida and Georgia Native Americans using the original

sectioning point. The Giles and Elliot function does produce acceptable results when the

sectioning point is recalculated.









In terms of accuracy, Function 1 correctly categorizes all individuals in the initial sample,

but did not do as well overall in cross validation or when missing values are substituted with

neutral values. The accuracy of Function 1 is not significantly different from the Giles and Elliot

function. Since it is based on the same variables, Function 1 suffers from the same issues of

applicability as the Giles and Elliot function. Function 1 could only be applied to 2 of 13

females, and 15 of 32 males.

Function 2 is more accurate across the board than the Giles and Elliot function, but the

difference is not statistically significant. Accuracies are almost identical in cross validation and

when missing values are substituted with neutral values. Function 2 offers better applicability

than the Giles and Elliot function. Where the Giles and Elliot function could be applied to 2 of

13 females and 15 of 32 males, Function 2 could be applied to 12 of 13 females and 27 of 32

males.

Discussion

The goal of the research is to determine if new discriminant functions for sex

determination could be developed for Florida and Georgia Native American populations that are

better than the functions presented by Giles and Elliot (1963). While neither Function 1, which

uses the Giles and Elliot variables, nor Function 2, which uses more robust variables, did

significantly better than the Giles and Elliot function, Function 2 could be used on more than

twice as many individuals without having to substitute missing variables.

While neither of the two new functions are significantly better than the Giles and Elliot

function with a recalculated sectioning point, there is reason be believe that creating new

functions might be beneficial. The first has to do with the problems involved with calculating the

new sectioning point. The second problem has to do with sample size and the power of the

statistics used here.









Several authors point out the problem of using discriminant functions developed for one

population on another and conclude the problem of recalculating the sectioning point has no

practical solution (Henke 1977, Calcagnol981). Using the midpoint of the male and female

mean score for a function produces a workable sectioning point, but requires a sufficient number

of male and female individuals whose sex has already been identified. This is a problem akin to

opening a crate with the enclosed crowbar. If there are enough individuals whose sex has been

identified it is almost as easy to create a new discriminant function as it is to recalculate the

sectioning point. The Giles and Elliot function can be made to work across populations by

recalculating the sectioning point, but does not take full advantage of the power of DFA to

separate groups. Regional differences in shape are going to add within-group variance, which is

going to work to reduce the effectiveness of the function. A function developed on a group

includes regional differences as part of the calculation. A discriminant function created from the

population under study should have a higher ratio of between-group to within-group variation

and be more accurate if the sample size in sufficiently large. If the sample size is too small, the

function may be skewed by idiosyncratic variation within the sample.

Another problem with small sample sizes is a lack of statistical power. Statistical power is

the ability of a hypothesis test to detect a difference. The larger the sample size, the higher the

statistical power, and the smaller the difference a hypothesis test can detect. In the present study,

Function 1 is more accurate than the Giles and Elliot function, but there is not enough statistical

power for the difference to be significant because of the small sample size.

If one considers individuals who could not be sexed due to missing variables as incorrect,

then Function 1 does significantly better than the Giles and Elliot function (p< 0.0001). Function









1 is able to correctly classify 36 of 45 individuals (80%), while the Giles and Elliot function

correctly classified 15 of 45 individuals (33.33%).

This research draws on sites and individuals ranging from the Archaic to the Spanish

mission periods, and should be applicable to any remains from that time range found in Florida.

This research does not use any Paleoindian remains because they are so rare. Therefore, the

functions developed here are not recommended for use in determining the sex of Paleoindians.

One might argue that all Native Americans from the Archaic to the Spanish Mission period

from Florida and Georgia is too diverse a group to be considered a single population. The

MANOVA test results show that there is no significant between-site difference for these groups.

The Giles and Elliot function uses blacks and whites from dissecting room collections, and that

function works well for both of those groups. It is hard to argue that blacks and whites are a

single population, but that Native Americans from a limited geographic area are not, even if the

Native Americans are from a broad time span. The Giles and Elliot discriminant function works

well for both blacks and whites, and there is no reason to believe that the functions developed in

this research would not work as well for any Native Americans recovered from Florida or

Georgia.

Future Research

Because of the small sample size used in this research and the lack of significant

improvement over the established Giles and Elliot function, using Function 1 is not

recommended without further testing. It should be possible to generate larger samples using

Function 1 because the variables it uses are more robust than the ones used by Giles and Elliot.

Because of Function 1's potential for application to a larger number of less well-preserved crania

and potentially greater accuracy, it should be tested on a larger sample. Future tests should

include as many sites from Florida and Georgia as possible.









This study demonstrates that when using discriminant function analysis missing variables

can be replaced with the average of the male and female means with good results, although the

limits of this method are not explored. One potential line of future research is to determine how

robust discriminant functions are to this method of replacing missing variables.

One of the purported advantages of discriminant function analysis is that the functions can

be used by individuals with relatively little training. This assumption needs to be tested. A study

where students with little or no osteology training are asked to measure crania and use

discriminant functions to determine sex should be performed. Their results could be compared to

a group of students given an identical amount of training in visual methods.









APPENDIX A
CRANIAL MEASUREMENT DEFINITIONS

Giles and Elliot Measurements

The following are the ten measurements used by Giles in Elliot in their 1963 study. The

name of the measurement is followed by the measurement's abbreviation, Giles and Elliot's

description of the measurement, the name of the equivalent Howells/FORDISC measurement,

and the method used to record the measurement. Detailed descriptions of cranial points and

landmarks can be found in Bass (1995), White (1991), and others.

Glabello-occipital length (g-op, GOL): Maximum length of the skull, from the most

anterior point of the frontal in the midline to the most distant point on the occiput in the midline.

This measurement is equivalent to Maximum Cranial Length; the distance of Glabella (g) from

Opisthocranion (op) in the mid sagittal plane measured in a straight line using spreading calipers.

The skull is placed on its side for this measurement. The endpoint of the left branch of the caliper

is placed on Glabella and held with fingers while the endpoint of the right branch of the caliper is

applied similarly to the posterior portion of the skull in the mid sagittal plane until the maximum

length is obtained (Bass 1971:62; Howells 1973:170; Martin 1956:453; Olivier 1969:128).

Maximum width (eu-eu, XCB): The greatest breadth of the cranium perpendicular to the

median sagittal plane, avoiding the supra-mastoid crest. This measurement is equivalent to

Maximum Cranial Breadth; the maximum width of the skull perpendicular to the mid-sagittal

plane wherever it is located with the exception of the inferior temporal line and the immediate

area (i.e. the posterior roots of the zygomatic arches) measured with spreading calipers. The

Maximum Cranial Breadth is measured with the skull resting either on its base or on the occiput.

The two measuring points lie in the same horizontal and frontal planes. The arms of the caliper

are placed at the same level while maintaining the hinge joint of the caliper in the mid sagittal









plane. The ends of the caliper are held in each hand and applied to the lateral portions of the

skull, making circular motions until the maximum breadth is obtained. Areas below the

squamosal suture are included, where the maximum is sometimes found (Bass 1971:62; Howells

1973:172; Hrdlicka 1952:140; Martin 1956:455; Montagu 1960:44).

Basion-bregma height (ba-b, BBH): Cranial height measured from basion to bregma. This

measurement is equivalent to Basion Bregma Height; the direct distance from the lowest point on

the anterior margin of the foramen magnum, basion (ba), to bregma (b) is measured with the

spreading caliper. The skull is placed on its side and the endpoint of one of the arms of the

caliper is placed at the most inferior point of the margin of the foramen magnum in the mid

sagittal plane and supported with fingers. Then the endpoint of the second arm of the caliper is

applied to bregma (Bass 1971:62; Howells 1966:6; Martin 1956:459; Olivier 1969:129).

Maximum diameter bi-zygomatic (zy-zy, ZYB): Maximum width between the lateral

surfaces of the zygomatic arches measured perpendicular to the median sagittal plane. This

measurement is equivalent to Bizygomatic Breadth; The direct distance between each zygion

(zy), located at the most lateral points of the zygomatic arches measured with a sliding caliper.

The skull is placed on its base, and he blunt points of the caliper are applied to the zygomatic

arches and the maximum breadth is recorded (Bass 1971:67; Martin 1956:476).

Basion-nasion(ba-n, BNL): Distance from basion to nasion. Equivalent to Cranial Base

Length: The direct distance from nasion (n) to basion (ba) measured using the spreading caliper.

The skull is placed with the cranial vault down on a cork or sandbag skull-ring. The endpoint of

the one arm of caliper is applied to nasion (n) while the other is applied to the anterior border of

the foramen magnum in the mid sagital plane. This measurement is not taken where anomalous









growths occurred on the anterior border of the foramen magnum (Howells 1966:6; Martin

1956:455).

Basion-prosthion (ba pr, BPL): Distance from basion to the most anterior point on the

maxilla in the median sagittal plane. Equivalent to Basion Prosthion Length; The direct distance

from basion (ba) to prosthion (pr) measured using a spreading caliper, or sliding caliper where

the foramen magnum obstructs the use of spreading calipers or in crania in which the central

incisors have been lost. The fixed point of the sliding caliper or one tip of the spreading caliper is

applied to the most anterior point on the alveolar process in the mid sagittal plane. The movable

point of the sliding caliper or the other tip of the spreading caliper is then brought to the margin

of the anterior border of the foramen magnum in the mid sagittal plane (Martin 1956:474).

Nasion breadth (al-al, NLB): Maximum breadth of the nasal aperture perpendicular to

nasal height. Equivalent to Nasal Breadth; the maximum breadth of the nasal aperture measured

with a sliding caliper. The points of the instrument are placed on the sharp lateral margins of the

nasal aperture at its most lateral curvature. The measurement is taken perpendicular to the mid

sagittal plane and recorded to the nearest millimeter (Bass 1971:68; Howells 1973:176; Martin

1956:479; Montagu 1960:50; Olivier 1969:153).

Palate-external breadth (ecm-ecm, MAB): The maximum breadth of the palate taken on the

outside of the alveolar borders. Equivalent to Maxillo-Alveolar Breadth and External Palate

Breadth; the maximum breadth across the alveolar borders of the maxilla measured at its widest

point between each ectomolare (ecm). The maximum breadth is usually found at the level of the

second molars. Using a spreading caliper, both arms of the caliper are applied to the alveolar

borders above the tooth row from an anterior position. The points of measurement (ecm) are

usually not found on the alveolar processes, but are located on the bony segment above the









second maxillary molars. (Bass 1971:70; Howells 1973:176; Martin 1956:480; Montagu

1960:51).

Opisthion-forehead length: The maximum distance from opisthion (the midpoint on the

posterior border of the foramen magnum) to the forehead in the midline. This measurement is not

used in this study because it is not used in the Giles and Elliot formulas, nor has it survived in the

current literature.

Mastoid length (MDH): The length of the mastoid measured perpendicular to the plane

determined by the lower borders of the orbits and the upper borders of the auditory meatuses

(Frankfort horizontal plane). Equivalent to Mastoid Length; The projection of the mastoid

process below, and perpendicular to, the Frankfort horizontal plane in the vertical plane. Both

right and left sides are measured using a sliding caliper. The skull is rested on its right side, and

the calibrated bar of the caliper is applied just behind the mastoid process, with the fixed flat arm

tangent to the upper border of the auditory meatus and pointing (by visual sighting) to the lower

border of the orbit. The calibrated bar is perpendicular to the eye ear plane of the skull (i.e.,

approximately level in the position given). The measuring arm is adjusted until it is level with

the tip of the mastoid process, using the base of the skull generally, and the opposite mastoid

process to control the plane of sighting. (Howells 1966:6, 1973:176; Keen 1950).

Other Measurements

The remaining measurements are not included in the Giles and Elliot (1962) study, but are

used in more recent research, including Bass (1971, 1995), Howells (1973), Buikstra and

Ubelaker (1994), and FORDISC 2.0 materials (Ousley and Jantz 1996). The descriptions and

techniques primarily follow Ousley and Jantz (1996).

Biorbital Breadth (ec-ec, EKB): The direct distance from one ectoconchion (ec) to the

other. This measurement is taken using the sliding caliper (Howells 1973:178).









Interorbital Breadth (d-d, DKB): The direct distance between right and left dacryon

measured using a sliding caliper (Martin 1956:477).

Maxillo-Alveolar Length, External Palate Length (pr-alv, MAL): The direct distance from

prosthion (Hrdlicka's prealveolar point) to alveolon (alv) measured using a Spreading or sliding

caliper. A sliding caliper is used only in crania in which the central incisor teeth have been lost.

The skull is placed with the cranial vault down on a cork or sandbag skull-ring so the base is

facing up. A rubber band is applied to the posterior borders of the alveolar arch and the distance

measured from the anterior prosthion to the middle of the band in the midsagittal plane (Bass

1971:70; Hrdlicka 1952:146 147; Martin 1956:480).

Biauricular Breadth (au-au, ALB): The least exterior breadth across the roots of the

zygomatic processes, wherever found, measured using a sliding caliper. With the skull resting on

the occiput and with the base toward the observer, the outside of the roots of the zygomatic

process are measured at their deepest incurvature, generally slightly anterior to the external

auditory meatus, with the sharp points of the caliper. This measurement makes no reference to

standard landmarks of the ear region. (Howells 1973:173).

Upper Facial Height (n-pr, UFHT): The direct distance from nasion (n) to prosthion (pr)

measured using a sliding caliper. The fixed point of the caliper is placed on nasion and the

movable point is applied to the tip of the alveolar border between the upper central incisors. If

the alveolar process exhibited slight resorption or erosion at the point of prosthion, the projection

of the process is estimated when the alveolar process of the lateral incisors is still intact. This

measurement is not taken when resorption or erosion is more pronounced (Howells 1966:6;

Hrdlicka 1952:143; Martin 1956:476). This differs from Howells' NPH in using the inferior

border of the alveolar process rather than the most anterior point.









Foramen Magnum Length (ba-o, FOL): The direct distance of basion (ba) from opisthion

(o) measured using a sliding caliper. The tips of the instrument are applied on the opposing edges

of the border of the foramen magnum along the sagittal plane (Martin 1956:455).

Minimum Frontal Breadth (ft-ft, WFB): The direct distance between the two

frontotemporale measured with a sliding caliper. With the skill placed on its base, the two

endpoints of the caliper are placed on the temporal ridges at the two frontotemporale, and the

least distance between both temporal lines on the frontal bone is recorded (Bass 1971:67;

Hrdlicka 1952:142; Martin 1956:457; Olivier 1969:151).

Foramen Magnum Breadth (FOB): The distance between the lateral margins of the

Foramen magnum at the point of greatest lateral curvature measured with a sliding caliper

(Martin, 1956:459).

Upper Facial Breadth (UFBR, fmt-fmt): The direct distance between each frontomalare

temporale measured using a sliding caliper. The measurement is taken between the two external

points on the frontomalar suture (Martin 1956:475). UFBR differs from Howells' FMB in that

the lateral most points on the suture are used rather than the most anterior points.

Nasal Height (n-ns, NLH): The direct distance from nasion (n) to nasospinale (ns)

measured using a sliding caliper. The direct distance from nasion to the midpoint of a line

connecting the lowest points of the inferior margin of the nasal notches is measured (Bass

1971:68; Howells 1966:6; Martin 1956:479; Olivier 1969:153).

Orbital Breadth (d-ec, OBB): The laterally sloping distance from dacryon (d) to

ectoconchion (ec) measured using a sliding caliper. The left orbit is measured for standardization

and practical reasons where available. If the left orbit is damaged or otherwise could not be









measured, the right orbit is measured and the side recorded on the measurement sheet (Martin

1956:477 478; Howells 1973:175).

Orbital Height (OBH): The direct distance between the superior and inferior orbital

margins measured using a sliding caliper. Orbital height is measured perpendicular to orbital

breadth and similarly bisects the orbit. The measuring points are located on the opposing margins

of the orbital borders. Any notches or depressions on either superior or inferior borders are

avoided and the margin is projected when necessary (Bass 1971:69; Martin 1956:478; Montagu

1960:51; Olivier 1969:152).

Biorbital Breadth (ec-ec, EKB): The direct distance from one ectoconchion (ec) to the

other measured using a sliding caliper (Howells 1973:178).

Interorbital Breadth (d-d, DKB): The direct distance between right and left dacryon

measured with a sliding caliper (Martin 1956:477).

Frontal Chord (n-b, FRC): The direct distance from nasion (n) to bregma (b) taken in the

midsagittal plane using a sliding caliper. The skull is rested on its right side to view the left

profile of the frontal region. The tips of the instrument are placed on the bone surface or at the

level of this surface and not in a suture or other depression (Howells 1973:181; Martin

1956:465).

Parietal Chord (b-l, PAC): The direct distance from bregma (b) to lambda (1) taken in the

midsagittal plane measured with a sliding caliper. The skull is left in the same position used to

measure the Frontal Chord (above). The tips of the instrument are placed on the bone surface or

at the level of this surface and not in a suture or other depression (Howells 1973:182; Martin

1956:466 ).









Occipital Chord (l-o, OCC): The direct distance from lambda (1) to opisthion (o) taken in

the midsagittal plane measured using a sliding caliper. The skull is left in the same position used

to measure the Frontal Chord (above). The tips of the instrument are placed on the bone surface

or at the level of this surface and not in a suture or other depression. The point of the movable

branch of the caliper is placed against the posterior border of the foramen magnum and held in

place with the right thumb (Howells 1973:182; Martin 1956:466 ).









APPENDIX B
TABLE OF SITES


Site name Sex Catalog
overall #
Golf Course site (8Br44), Brevard county, Florida. "Melbourne Man" male 331422
Bay Pines (8Pi64) Pinellas county, Florida. (Gallagher and Warren
1975) 24 burials male s0272
Canaveral (8Br85), Brevard county, Florida. female 377440
The Canaveral site includes the Burns and Fuller mounds. Rouse 377475
(1951) places the mounds in the Malabar I, Malabar I', and Malabar II 377503
cultures based on ceramic types. Malabar is an Indian River variation male 377427
of St. Johns (500 B.C.-AD1763). 377428
377441
377465
377466
377467
377471
377478
377481
377484
377489
377502
377507
377513
377602
377605
Cannon's Point, St. Simons Island, Glynn County, Georgia.
Late Wilmington culture ceramic assemblage, radiocarbon dated to
990+75 (A.D. 960) (Martinez 1975; Milanich 1977) male s0418
Casey Key (8So17) Sarasota County, Florida. A Manasota Weeden
Island culture mound dating from ca. A.D. 250-750. (Bullen and Bullen
1976). female 92733
Couper Field/Indian Field, Glynn County, Georgia. St. Simons Island. female s0300
Late Pre-Columbian/early Spanish colonial/mission period village. s0301
s0302
s0311
male s0299
s0303
s0304
s0305
s0309
Garfield Site (9Br57) Bartow County, Georgia. Kellog culture (Early
Woodland, ca. 600BC-AD 100) village on Etowah River. 18 Burials.
(Milanich 1975; Wood and Bowan 1995:8). male s0325


female


97533









Palmer Site (8So2a) Sarasota County, Florida. Gulf coast. Archaic, female 97533
Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland. Final MNI
429. (Bullen and Bullen 1976, Miller 1974, Almy and Luer 1993,
Kozuch 1998, Hutchinson 2004:49)
PatiuerlSiAeF(SMa anataeBontyF6riidailfidaitpttetaiwith female 373499
Earl Wsn aed, niddle WTq~t da ildW ya4hlate4ilahn12)Final MNI 373552
429. (Bullen and Bullen 1976, Miller 1974, Almy and Luer 1993, male 373493
Kozuch 1998, Hutchinson 2004:49) 373530
Taylor Mound, St. Simons Island, Georgia. Historic period (AD1600- Unknown s0385
1650) ceremonial mound. 11 total burials. Same sociocultural female s0361
population as Couper Field (Wallace 1975). s0368
male s0362
s0365
s0367
s0371









LIST OF REFERENCES


Almy, Marion M., and George M. Luer
1993 Guide to the Prehistory of Historic Spanish Point. Historic Spanish Point, Osprey,
Florida.

Austin, Robert J., and Michael Russo
1989 Limited Excavations at the Catfish Creek Site (8So608), Sarasota County,
Florida. Piper Archaeological Research, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida.

Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
2004 Early and Middle Holocene Periods, 9500 to 3750 B.C. In .,tiheati, edited by
Raymond D. Fogelson, pp. 87-100. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol.
14, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.

Bass, William M.
1971 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and FieldManual of the Human .\keleli 2nd
ed. Missouri Archaeological Society, University of Missouri, Columbus.

1987 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and FieldManual of the Human .\keleslu 3rd
ed. Missouri Archaeological Society, University of Missouri, Columbus.

1995 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and FieldManual of the Human .\keleli 4th
ed. Missouri Archaeological Society, University of Missouri, Columbus.

Bense, Judith A.
1994 Archaeology of the .Sniet /hie.i n United States: Paleoindian to World War I.
Academic Press, San Diego.

Birkby, Walter H.
1966 An Evaluation of Race and Sex Identification from Cranial Measurements.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 24:21-28.

Black, Thomas K.
1978 A New Method for Assessing the Sex of Fragmentary Skeletal Remains: Femoral
Shaft Circumference. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 48:227-232.

Boas, Franz
1910 Report Presented to the 61st Congress on Changes in Bodily Form of
Descendants of immigrants. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

1912 Changes in the Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants. American
Anthropologist 14:530-562.

Brothwell, Donald R.
1981 Digging Up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment and Study of Human .,\keletil
Remains. 3rd ed. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.









Buikstra, Jane E., and Douglas H. Ubelaker (editors)
1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human .\kel/ei Remains: Proceedings of a
Seminar at the Field Museum ofNatural History. Arkansas Archaeological
Survey Research Series 44. Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Bullen, Ripley P.
1958 Six Sites Near the Chattahoochee River in the Jim Woodruff Reservoir Area,
Florida. In River Basin Survey Papers, edited by Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr., pp.
315-357. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 169. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.

Bullen, Ripley P., and Adelaide K. Bullen
1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropological Society, Gainesville. Issued as Florida
Anthropologist 29, no.2, part 2.

Calcagno, James M.
1981 On the Applicability of Sexing Human Skeletal Material by Discriminant
Function Analysis. Journal ofHuman Evolution 10:189-198.

Caldwell, Joseph R.
1952 The Archeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archeology ofEastern
United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 312-321. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.

Clausen, Carl J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman, and J. J. Stipp
1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203:609-614.

DePratter, Chester B.
1979 Ceramics. In The Anthropology of St. Citwhei ine, Island, The Refuge-Deptford
Mortuary Complex, edited by D. H. Thomas and C. S. Larsen, pp. 109-132.
Anthropological Papers 56 (1). American Museum of Natural History, New York.

DiBennardo, Robert, and James V. Taylor
1979 Sex Assessment of the Femur: A Test of a New Method. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 50:635-637.

1982 Classification and Misclassification in Sexing the Black Femur by Discriminant
Function Analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 58:145-151.

1983 Multiple Discriminant Function Analysis of Sex and Race in the Postcranial
Skeleton. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 61:305-314.

Dittrick, Jean and Judy M. Suchey
1986 Sex Determination of Prehistoric Central California Skeletal Remains Using
Discriminant Analysis of the Femur and Humerus. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 70:3-9.









Doran, Glen H.
2002 Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida
Cemetery. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Edwards, William Edward
1954 The Helen Blazes Site of Central-eastern Florida: A study in Method Utilizing the
Disciplines of Archaeology, Geology, and Pedology. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York.

Espenshade, Christopher T.
1983 Ceramic Ecology and Aboriginal Household Pottery Production at the Gauthier
Site, Florida. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Fisher, Ronald A.
1936 The Utilization of Multiple Measurements in Taxonomic Problems. Annals of
Eugenics 7:179-188.

Gallagher, John C., and Lyman O. Warren
1975 The Bay Pines Site, Pinellas County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 28:96-116.

Giles, Eugene and Orville Elliot
1962 Race Identification from Cranial Measurements. Journal of Forensic Science
7:149-184.

1963 Sex Determination by Discriminant Function Analysis of Crania. American
Journal ofPhysical Anthropology 21:53-68.

Giles, Eugene
1964 Sex Determination by Discriminant Function Analysis of the Mandible. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 22:129-136.

1970 Discriminant Function Sexing of the Human Skeleton. In Personal Identification
in Mass Disasters, edited by Thomas Dale Stewart, pp. 99-107. National Museum
of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Griffin, John W.
1949 Notes on the Archaeology of Useppa Island. Florida Anthropologist 2:92-93.

1979 The Origin and Dispersion of American Indians in North America. In The First
Americans: Origins, Affinities, and Adaptations, edited by W.S. Laughlin and
A.B. Harper, pp. 43-56. Gustav Fischer, New York.

Hally, David J., and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr.
2004 Prehistory of the Eastern Interior after 500 B.C. In S.,iniheav\i, edited by Raymond
D. Fogelson, pp. 265-285. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14,
William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.









Harris, Richard J.
1985 A Primer on Multivariate Statistics. 2nd ed. Academic Press, Orlando.

Hemmings, E. Thomas
1975 An Archaeological Survey of the South Prong of the Alafia River, Florida.
Florida Anthropologist 28:41-51.

Henke, Winfried
1977 On the Method of Discriminant Function Analysis for Sex Determination of the
Skull. Journal of Human Evolution 6:95-100.

Hoffman, Paul E.
1994 Narvaez and Cabeza de Vaca in Florida. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and
Europeans in the American .Si/th, 1521-1704, edited by Charles Hudson and
Carmen Chaves Tesser, pp. 50-73. University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Holman, Darryl J., and Kenneth A. Bennett
1991 Determination of sex from arm bone measurements. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 84:421-426.

Hooton, Earnest A.
1930 The Indians ofPecos Pueblo: a study of their skeletal remains. Department of
Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts. Yale University Press,
New Haven.

Howells, William W.
1966 Craniometry and Multivariate Analysis: The Jomon Population of Japan: A Study
by Discriminant Analysis of Japanese and Ainu Crania. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 57:1-43. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.

1973 Cranial Variation in Man. A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of
Difference Among Recent Human Populations. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology 67. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

1989 Skull shapes and the map: Craniometric analysis in the dispersion of modern
homo. Papers of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology 79.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Hrdlicka, Ales
1940 Catalogue of human crania in the United States National Museum collections:
Indians of the Gulf States. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum 87, no
3076:315-364.

1952 Practical Anthropometry. 4th ed., edited by T.D. Stewart. Wistar Institute of
Anatomy and Biology, Philadelphia.









Hunt, David R., and John Albanese
2005 History and Demographic Composition of the Robert J. Terry Anatomical
Collection. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 127:406-417.

Hutchinson, Dale L.
2004 Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Adaptation, Conflict, and Change.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Iscan, Mehmet Y., and Patricia Miller-Shaivitz
1984 Determination of Sex from the Tibia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
64:53-57.

Johnson, Francis E., and Charles E. Snow
1961 The reassessment of the age and sex of the Indian Knoll skeletal population:
Demographic and methodological aspects. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 19: 237-244.

Kajanoja, Pauli
1966 Sex determination of Finnish Crania by Discriminant Function Analysis.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 24:29-34.

Kelly, Jennifer A., Robert H. Tykot and Jerald T. Milanich
2006 Evidence for Early Use of Maize in Peninsular Florida. In Histories ofMaize:
Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography,
Domestication, and Evolution ofMaize, edited by John Staller, Robert Tykot and
Bruce Benz, pp. 249-261. Elsevier Academic Press, Boston.

Kendall, Maurice G.
1957 A Course in Multivariate Analysis. Hafner Publishing Co., New York.

Key, Patrick J.
1983 Craniometric Relationships Among Plains Indians. Report of Investigations 34.
University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Knoxville.

Konigsberg, Lyle W., and Samantha M. Hens
1998 Use of Ordinal Categorical Variables in Skeletal Assessment of Sex from the
Cranium. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 107:97-112.

Kozuch, Laura
1998 Faunal Remains from the Palmer Site (8So2), with a focus on shark remains. The
Florida Anthropologist 52:208-222.

Krogman, Wilton M.
1962 The Human \ke/leti, in Forensic Medicine. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield,
Illinois.









Krogman, Wilton M., and Mehmet Yasar Iscan
1986 The Human .\le/etl,n in Forensic Medicine. 2nd ed. Charles C. Thomas,
Springfield, Illinois.

Loucks, L. Jill
1976 Early Alachua Tradition Burial Ceremonialism: The Henderson Mound, Alachua
County, Florida. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida. Gainesville.

Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy
1979 Three Aboriginal Shell Middens on Longboat Key, Florida: Manasota Period
Sites of Barrier Island Exploitation. Florida Anthropologist 32:33-45.

1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. Florida Anthropologist 35:34-58.

Luer, George M., Marion M. Almy, Dana Ste. Claire, and Robert Austin
1987 The Myakkahatchee Site (8So397), A Large Multi-Period Inland from the Shore
Site in Sarasota County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 40:137-153.

Manly, Bryan F.J.
1994 Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer. Chapman & Hall, New York.

Martin, Rudolf
1956 Lehrbuch der Anthropologie in Systematischer Darstellung. 3rd ed. Gustav
Fischer, Stuttgart.

Martinez, Carlos A.
1975 Culture Sequence on the Central Georgia Coast, 1000 B.C.-1650 A.D.
Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Meiklejohn, Christopher
1972 Biological concomitants of a model of band society. In International Conference
on the Prehistory and Paleoecology of Western North America Arctic and
Subarctic, edited by S. Raymond and P. Schledermann, pp. 133-141.
Archaeological Association, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary,
Calgary.

Milanich, Jerald T.
1975 Fabric Impressed Pottery Site, Bartow County, Georgia. Early Georgia
Newsletter, Society for Georgia Archaeology 11:4-5.

1976 Georgia Origins for the Alachua Tradition. Bulletin No. 5. Florida Bureau of
Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee.

1977 A Chronology for the Aboriginal Cultures of St. Simons Island, Georgia. Florida
Anthropologist 30:134-144.









1994 Archaeology ofPrecolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

1998 Florida's Indians From Ancient Time to the Present. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.

2004a Prehistory of Florida After 500 B.C. In .Si,,nluhei, edited by Raymond D.
Fogelson, pp. 191-203. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14, William
C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

2004b Timucua. In .SNi,nlheti, edited by Raymond D. Fogelson, pp. 219-228. Handbook
of North American Indians, Vol. 14, William C. Sturtevant, general editor,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks
1978 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Miller, Carl F.
1950 Early Cultural Horizons in the Southeastern United States. American Antiquity
15(4):273-288.

Miller, James J.
1974 An Archaeological Survey of the Palmer Oaks Tract in Sarasota County.
Miscellaneous Project Report Series, No. 20. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and
Properties, Tallahassee.

Montagu, M.F. Ashley
1960 A Handbook ofAnthropometry. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

Padgett, Thomas J.
1976 Hinterland Exploitation in the Central Gulf Coast-Manatee Region during the
Safety Harbor Period. Florida Anthropologist 29:39-48.

Olivier, Georges
1969 PracticalAnthropology. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

Ousley, Stephen D., and Richard L. Jantz
1996 FORDISC 2.0: Personal Computer Forensic Discriminant Functions. Forensic
Anthropology Center, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.

Phenice, T.W.
1969 A Newly Developed Visual method of Sexing the Os Pubis. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 30:297-302.

Quitmyer, Irv
1998 Zooarchaeological Indicators of Habitat Exploitation and Seasonality from the
Shell Ridge Midden, Palmer Site (8So2), Osprey, Florida. Florida Anthropologist
51:193-203.









Rathbun Ted A. and Jane E. Buikstra
1984 Human Identification: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology. Charles C.
Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

Rao, C. Radhakrishna
1952 Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometric Research. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.

Rogers, Tracy L., and Shelley R. Saunders
1994 Accuracy of sex determination using morphological traits of the human pelvis.
Journal of Forensic Science 39:1047-1056.

Ross, Ann H., Douglas H. Ubelaker, and Anthony B. Falsetti
2002 Craniometric Variation in the Americas. Human Biology 74:807-818.

Rouse, Irving
1951 A Survey ofIndian River Archeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology 44, New Haven.

Ruppe, Reynold J.
1980 The Archaeology of Drowned Terrestrial Sites: A Preliminary Report. Bulletin
No. 6:35-45. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee.

SAS Institute, Inc.
1979 SAS User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., and David G. Anderson
2004 Late Holocene Period, 3750 to 650 B.C. In S.,tnlheati, edited by Raymond D.
Fogelson, pp. 115-127. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14, William
C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Sigler-Eisenberg, Brenda, Ann Cordell, Richard Estabrook, Elizabeth Horvath, Lee A. Newsom,
and Michael Russo
1985 Archaeological Site Types, Distribution, and Preservation i i/hin the Upper St.
Johns River Basin, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report 27. Department of
Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Snow, Charles E.
1948 Indian Knoll .keleit,iu of Site Oh 2, Ohio County, Kentucky. Reports in
Anthropology 4, no. 3, part 2. Department of Anthropology, University of
Kentucky, Lexington.

Snow, Charles E., Steve Hartman, Eugene Giles, and Fontaine Young
1979 Sex and Race Determination of Crania by Calipers and Computer: A test of the
Giles and Elliot Discriminant Functions in 52 Forensic Science Cases. Journal of
Forensic Sciences 24:448-460.









Stewart, Thomas Dale
1946 A Re-examination of the Fossil Human Skeletal Remains from Melbourne,
Florida, with Further Data on the Vero Skull. .Suithi,iuial Miscellaneous
Collections 106(10): 1-28.

1948 Medico-legal aspects of the skeleton: Age, sex, race and stature. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 6:3 15-321.

1979 Essentials ofForensic Anthropology. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

Stirling, Matthew W,
1935 Smithsonian Archaeological Projects Conducted under the Federal Emergency
Relief Administration, 1933-1934. Annual Report of the S.itli,,i, tnin Institution
1934, pp. 371-400. Washington, D.C.

Stoltman, James B.
2004 History of Archaeological Research. In So.,inheati, edited by Raymond D.
Fogelson, pp. 14-30. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14, William C.
Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Taylor, James V., and Robert DiBennardo
1982 Determination of Sex of White Femora by Discriminant Function Analysis:
Forensic Science Applications. Journal of Forensic Sciences 27:417-423.

Wauchope, Robert W.
1966 Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia with a Test of Some Cultural
Hypotheses. American Antiquity 35; Memoirs of the Society for American
Archaeology 21. Washington, D.C.

Waller, Ben I.
1969 Paleoindian and other artifacts from a Florida stream bed. Florida Anthropologist
22: 37-39.

Watts, William A.
1969 A pollen diagram from Mud Lake, Marion County, north-central Florida.
Geological Society ofAmerica Bulletin 80: 631-642.

1971 Post-Glacial and Interglacial Vegetation History of Southern Georgia and Central
Florida. Ecology 52:676-689.

1975 A late Quaternary record of vegetation from Lake Annie, south-central Florida.
Geology 3: 344-346.

Watts, William A., and Barbara C.S. Hansen
1988 Environments of Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site
Archaeology, edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 307-323. Telford Press, West
Caldwell, New Jersey.









Wallace, Ronald L.
1975 An Archaeological, Ethnohistorical and Biochemical Investigation of the Guale
Aborigines of the Georgia Coastal Strand. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida. Gainesville.

White, Tim D.
1991 Human Osteology. Academic Press, San Diego.

Widmer, Randolph J.
1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the S.i,,nl e'\t
Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections
113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1954 Burial Patterns in the Burns and Fuller Mounds, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Florida
Anthropologist 7:79-90.

Williams, Shanna E.
2004 Dental Asymmetry Through Time in Coastal Florida and Georgia. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Williams, Wilma B.
1983 Bridge to the Past: Excavations at the Margate-Blount Site. Florida
Anthropologist 36:142-153.

Wilmsen, Edwin N.
1965 An Outline of Early Man Studies in the United States. American Antiquity
31:172-192.

Wood, W. Dean, and William R. Bowen
1995 Woodland Period Archaeology in Northern Georgia. University of Georgia
Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report Number 33. Athens.

Wood, W. Dean, Dan T. Elliot, Teresa P. Rudolph, and Dennis B. Blanton
1986 Prehistory in the Richard B. Russell Reservoir: The Archaic and Woodland
Periods of the Upper Savannah River. The Final Report of Data Recovery at the
Anderson and Elbert County Groups: 38AN8, 38AN126, 9EB17, and 9EB21.
Russell Papers. Interagency Archaeological Services, National Park Service,
Atlanta.

Woodbury, George
n.d. Preliminary Report on Excavation of Mortuary Mounds in Brevard County,
Florida East Coast. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology (former
Bureau American Ethnology), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
(Archaeological Report of CWA Project 5-F-70, December 18, 1933-February 15,
1934.)









Zahler, James
1976


W., Jr.
A Morphological Analysis of a Protohistoric-Historic Skeletal Population from St.
Simons Island, Georgia. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Michael McGinnes, who grew up in Gainesville, Florida, earned an Associate of Science

degree in photography from the Southeast Center for Photo/Graphic Studies at Daytona Beach

Community College, an Associate of Arts degree from Santa Fe Community College, and a

bachelor's degree from the University of Florida. He has been employed as a professional

archaeologist since 1995 and specializes in mortuary archaeology. He has conducted field

projects in Panama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Delaware, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama,

Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. At the National Museum of Natural History,

Smithsonian Institution, he worked as the bibliographic research assistant for the Southeast

volume of the Handbook of North American Indians, and was an intern for the collections

manager of the physical anthropology collections. He is married to Dr. Ruth Trocolli, the

archaeologist of the District of Columbia.





PAGE 1

SEX DETERMINATION BY DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS OF NATIVE AMERICAN CRANIA FROM FLORIDA AND GEORGIA By MICHAEL BRYAN MCGINNES A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Michael Bryan McGinnes

PAGE 3

3 To my grandmother, Sarah Napps, she loved me for who I was, no matter what. She supported me in in every way she could, no matter w hat. She saw the best in me, and was proud of me, no matter what. I strive to live up to her image of me, and her pride in me.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of my supervisory committee, Anthony Falsetti and Thomas Hollinger. I also thank Jerry Milanich, who was a de facto committee member, but was unable to attend the defense. Special thanks go to Elaine Oran for her invaluable insight on the structure and writing of a scientific paper, e ven if it isn't about rocket science. Finally, I am forever grateful to David Hunt, Collections Manager of the Smithsonian Institutions Physical Anthropology collections, for his immeasurable contribution to this research. Collecting the skeletal data wou ld have been impossible without his permission and assistance. He not only tolerated my haphazard schedule and unannounced visits with infectious good humor, he was there when I needed a sounding board, provided stimulating conversation, and answered my ma ny questions. He was always ready to share a grouse or a laugh, whichever was needed. Thanks in part to a shared interest in food, wine, and the finest Australian Tupperware; I am honored to call him my friend. Special thanks are due to the staffs of the Anthropology Departments at the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) and the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, where the collections examined for this research are housed. Ann Cordell, Elise LeCompte, Diane Kloetzer, and Do nna Ruhl provided friendship, assistance, and knowledge of the collections at the FLMNH. Maggie Dittemore and the rest of the staff at the John Wesley Powell Library of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution provided access to printed resources that a re unobtainable elsewhere. My immediate family -Dorothy, Rodney, and Judie McGinnes -was integral to completing this project. They contributed in innumerable ways I cant thank them loudly or strongly enough. I am fortunate to be part of a very larg e and diverse extended family who

PAGE 5

5 offered all sorts of support through the years, including kind words, empathy, sympathy, a roof, a meal, companionship, and even nagging when needed. Barbara and Max Skidmore have been positive role models since childhood. More recently, Elizabeth and Jay Boris, and Dan and Elaine Oran have provided unflagging support I thank them for their extreme generosity, good cheer, and for allowing me to deep fry the Thanksgiving turkey. Last, but not least, thank you to Dr. Ruth T rocolli, my wife, my best friend, an exemplary scholar and outstanding human being. I could not have done it without her love, support, and encouragement. We shared the long road that culminated in this thesis.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 15 2 SEX DETERMINATION ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 18 Visual Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 18 Metric Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 21 3 DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ...... 26 Canonical Discriminant Functions ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 Multiple Discri minant Functions ................................ ................................ ........................ 28 Tests of Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 30 Prior Probabilities ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 30 Stepwise Discriminant Function Analysis ................................ ................................ .......... 30 Mahalanobis Distance ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 31 Logistic Regression ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 31 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 32 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ................................ ................................ .................... 35 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 35 Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 35 Cultural History ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 36 Paleoindian Period ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 36 The Archaic Period ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 38 Early Archaic ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 38 Middle Archaic ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 39 Late Archaic ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 40 Woodland and Regional Cultures ................................ ................................ ................ 41 Kellog ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 42 Deptford ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 42 St. Johns/Malabar ................................ ................................ ................................ 43 Manasota ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 44 Wilmington Culture ................................ ................................ ............................. 45 Historic Period ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 45

PAGE 7

7 5 SITES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 47 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 47 Golf Course (8Br44) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 47 Bay Pines (8Pi64) ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 48 Canaveral (8Br85) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 48 Casey Key (8So17) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 50 Palmer Burial Mound (8So2a) ................................ ................................ ........................... 50 Perico Island (8Ma6) ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 51 St. Simons Island, Georgia ................................ ................................ ................................ 51 Garfield Site (9BR57) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 53 6 METHODS AND MATERIALS ................................ ................................ ....................... 55 Introduction.......................................................................................................................55 Sampling....................................................................................................................55 Determination of Sex..................................................................................................55 Materials.....................................................................................................................56 Cranial Measurement Definitions.......................................................................................58 Giles and Elliot Measurements....................................................................................58 Statistical Procedures..................................................................................................62 7 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 65 General Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 65 Specific Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 67 Giles and Elliot Discriminant Function ................................ ................................ ....... 67 Variable S election ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 69 Test for Site Effect on Selected Variables ................................ ................................ ... 71 Discriminant Function Analysis ................................ ................................ .................. 72 Function 1 Accuracy ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 73 Function 2 Accuracy ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 75 8 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ .............. 77 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 77 Summery of Statistical Results ................................ ................................ .................... 78 Specific Statistical Results ................................ ................................ .......................... 79 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 80 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 82 APPENDIX A CRANIAL MEASUREMENT DEFINITIONS ................................ ................................ .. 84 Giles and Elliot Measurements ................................ ................................ ........................... 84 Other Measurements ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 87

PAGE 8

8 B TABLE OF SITES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 92 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 94 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 105

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Coeff icients for discriminant functions 1,2, and 3 from Giles and Elliot 1963 used to assign sex based on a white sample, a black sample, and a combined black and white sample. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 6 1 Measurements used by Giles and Elliot. ................................ ................................ ........ 59 6 2 Measurements not used by Giles and Elliot ................................ ................................ ... 60 7 1 Accuracy of the Giles and Elliot Function 3 for sex determination on the study sample of Florida and Georgia Native Americans. ................................ ......................... 68 7 2 T scores and p values for a difference in mean values of each cranial variable between males and females. ................................ ................................ .......................... 70 7 3 F values and p values for the hypothesis of no site effect for each variable ................... 71 7 4 MANOVA test criteria and F approximations for the hypothesis of no overall site effect ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 72 7 5 Coefficients, group means, and sectioning points for Function 1 and Function 2. ........... 73 7 6 Accura cy of Function 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ 74 7 7 Accuracy of Function 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ 75

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Discriminant Function Analysis with three groups using the graphic de vice proposed by Rao ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 29 5 1 Locator map of sites used in this study and major rivers. ................................ ............... 54

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AUB, au au Biauricular breadth B.P. Radiocarbon years before present, with present defined as the year 1950. BBH, ba b Basion bregma height BNL, ba n Cranial base length BPL, ba pr Basion prosthion length DFA Discriminant function analysis. DKB, d d Interorbital breadth DKB, d d Interorbital breadth EKB, ec ec Biorbital breadth EKB, ec ec Biorbital breadth FOB Foramen magnum breadth FOL, ba o Foramen magnum length FRC, n b Frontal chord GOL, g op Maximum cranial length MAB, ecm ecm Maxillo alveolar breadth external palate breadth MAL, pr alv Maxillo alveolar length, external palate length MDHA Average mastoid height MDHL Left mastoid height MDHR Right mastoid height MNI Minimum Number of Individuals NLB, al al Nasal breadth NLH, n ns Nasal height OBB, d ec Orbital breadth OBH Orbital height

PAGE 12

12 OCC, l o Occipital chord p P value, th e probability of getting a value at least as extreme as the observed value by chance alone. PAC, b l Parietal chord UFBR, fmt fmt Upper facial breadth UFHT, n pr Upper facial height WFB, ft ft Minimum frontal breadth XCB, eu eu Maximum cranial breadth Z YB, zy zy Bizygomatic breadth

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts SEX DETERMINATION BY DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYS IS OF NATIVE AMERICAN CRANIA FROM FLORIDA AND GEORGIA By Michael Bryan McGinnes December 2007 Chair: Anthony Falsetti Major: Anthropology The goal of this research is to determine if the accuracy of discriminant function analysis for sex determination co uld be improved by using local or regional populations, and by better variable selection. In archaeological contexts, skeletons are usually all that remains of the actual people who once lived there. Information about the sex of those individuals is fundam ental to the study of demographics, sex roles, and life ways of past cultures. Determining an individuals sex is also fundamental to personal identification of skeletal remains from modern contexts, whether from a mass disaster or an unmarked grave. There are several techniques available for determining sex from skeletal remains, and each technique has its place. Discriminant function analysis is valuable in sex determination because it requires relatively little training to use effectively and it serves a s an objective check to other methods. The cranium is a reliable indicator of sex and is often the best indicator of sex when other parts of the skeleton have been damaged, destroyed, or separated from the cranium. Previous research assumed that discrimin ant functions for sex determination developed for one population could easily be used for all populations, with little regard for the skeletal variation between populations. This work tests the hypothesis that sex determination by discriminant function ana lysis of the crania for Florida and Georgia Native American remains

PAGE 14

14 from archaeological contexts is more accurate when the functions are developed using remains from those populations than functions developed from other populations. Cranial measurements an d sex identification data are collected from skeletal collections housed at the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida, and the Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of Natural History. The sample includes 46 individuals from te n Native American archaeological sites in Florida and Georgia, ranging from the Middle Archaic Period to the Spanish contact era. This research finds that existing discriminant function formulas disproportionately misclassify skeletons from the Florida and Georgia unless the formula is adjusted for that population. Additionally, existing formulas require measurements that are rarely preserved or that do not contribute to identifying sex. New discriminant function formulas based on skeletons from Florida and Georgia are only nominally more accurate than existing formulas, but it is no more difficult to produce new formulas than to adjust existing formulas. Creating new formulas also provides the opportunity to select variables that are more often preserved in archaeological contexts and that also clearly contribute to identifying the sex individuals. This research finds that existing formulas are reliable only if the sectioning point is adjusted for the study population.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Sex identificati on has long been an important part of skeletal analysis in the archaeological setting. Accurate sex estimations are basic to studies of past adaptations of humans to new environments and demographic histories. Archaeologists may use sex information to esta blish demographic patterns, study the affect of sex on status within a particular archaeological culture, or to examine migration patterns ( Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:15). Additionally, forensic anthropologists may use this information to help identify an individual in a medico legal context. Methods for sex identification have evolved from visual methods to include metric methods based on univariate and multivariate statistical analysis, particularly discriminant function analysis. Using visual methods to determine sex, an osteologist may examine the overall size of the subject, the size of the mastoid process, the shape of the frontal bone, or the gonial angle of the mandible. The determination of sex using visual method relies primarily on the experience and judgment of the osteologist. Using these methods, osteologists typically achieve an accuracy of 80% to 90% (Giles and Elliot 1962). Metric methods use various measurements of the skeleton, many of which attempt to capture aspects used in visual methods (David Hunt, personal communication 2006). In univariate analysis, a single measurement of an individual is compared to the distribution of measurements from a sample of known sex specimens to arrive at the likely sex of the individual. Using only one mea surement, however, does not account for differences in shape of a skeletal element between males and females, and for any single measurement there is considerable overlap between the range of variation for males and females. Multivariate methods use multip le measurements which can capture the shape of a skeletal element and minimize the amount of overlap between males and females. Discriminant function analysis is a multivariate method designed for this problem.

PAGE 16

16 Discriminant function analysis was developed to solve the problem of predicting group membership based one or more interval variables. The goal of discriminant function analysis is to minimize misclassification by maximizing between group differences, or minimizing group overlap. Discriminant functio n analysis is also used to determine which variables best discriminate between groups, and in what ways groups differ. How well a function performs is usually reported in terms of how many cases would be correctly assigned to their groups using the discrim inant functions (Manly 1994). One widely used discriminant function for sex determination is calculated by Giles and Elliot (1963) based on data collected from the Terry and Hamann Todd skeletal collections. The Terry and Hamann Todd collections are compri sed of skeletal remains collected from cadavers used by medical school anatomy classes during the late nineteenth and mid twentieth centuries (Hunt and Albanese 2005). The problems presented by a medical school cadaver sample include possible effects of th e inherent socio economic bias on skeletal morphology. The Terry and Hamann Todd skeletal collections are biased, with older individuals and males overrepresented compared the population as a whole, and they do not include Native Americans. For studying th e sex differences in skeletons, however, such collections are essential because the sex of each individual is positively known from written records (Giles and Elliot 1963:56). The sample Giles and Elliot used to calculate their discriminant functions did n ot include any native Americans, but the formulas are tested on three series of American Indian crania from Indian Knoll (N>= 344), Pecos Pueblo (N>=110), and Florida (N>=217). These materials are analyzed by Snow (1948; Johnson and Snow 1961), Hooton (193 0), and Hrdli ka (1940) respectively. On the whole the discriminant functions described [by Giles and Elliot 1963], assign the correct sex, assuming that the original estimations are correct, with the same order of magnitude as they do

PAGE 17

17 for the black and w hite sample. For the Florida Indians, however, this is true only when the sectioning point is based on mean values of these same Indians. (Giles and Elliot 1963:66 67). Can the accuracy of sex determination by discriminant function analysis be improved ov er Giles and Elliot's results by deriving new formulas based on regional populations? This hypothesis is tested using skeletal remains recovered from archaeological sites in Florida and Georgia.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 SEX DETERMINATION Introduction This chapter desc ribes the various visual, univariate, and multivariate metric methods used in sex determination using cranial and post cranial skeletal remains. Estimating sex from a skeleton relies on sexual dimorphism, the morphological differences between men and women Men tend posses a larger body size when compared to females. Female morphology must allow for both bipedal locomotion and giving birth to relatively large headed babies when compared to other primates. With a complete adult skeleton, and particularly a c omplete pelvis, a physical anthropologist should be able to correctly assign sex with nearly perfect accuracy. Additionally, the anthropologist should be able to recognize ambiguous cases where sex identification is less certain. If the complete skeleton i s not available, accuracy depends largely on what bony elements are available and if the skeleton can be linked to a specific population. If the skeleton is fragmented or from a sub adult, then determining the sex is more difficult and less reliable than w ith a complete adult skeleton. Methods of sex determination are either visual or metric, and apply to the crania and post cranial skeleton. For the best results, the forensic anthropologist should use all available data. Visual Methods Visual methods for e stimating sex from the skeleton make use of size differences between men and women or morphological differences related to childbirth in women. Sexing methods that rely on morphological differences in the pelvis related to childbirth are the most accurate. The method for sexing the skeleton by the pubic bone developed by Phenice (1969) is the most accurate method known for determining the sex of an individual from the skeleton (White 1991).

PAGE 19

19 Phenice (1969) identifies three indicators of sex in the pubic bone : the ventral arch, the subpubic concavity, and the medial aspect of the ischiopubic ramus. The ventral arch is a slightly elevated ridge of bone that sweeps inferiorly and laterally across the ventral surface of the pubis, merging with medial border of t he ischiopubic ramus. The ventral arch is evaluated by orienting the pubis so that its rough ventral surface faces the observer, who looks down along the plane of the pubic symphysis surface. The ventral arch, when present, sets off the inferior, medial co rner of the pubic bone in ventral view. The ventral arch is present only in females. Male pubic bones may have elevated ridges in this area, but these do not take the wide, evenly arching path of the female's ventral arch or set off the lower medial quadra nt of the pubis. The subpubic concavity is a concave curve on the medial edge of the ischiopubic ramus displayed in female os coxae The female ischiopubic ramus is concave, while male edges are straight or very slightly concave. The subpubic concavity is evaluated by turning the pubis over, orienting it so that its smooth, convex dorsal surface faces the observer, who is once again sighting along the midline. From this position it is possible to observe the medial edge of the ischiopubic ramus. For females the edge of the ramus is concave in this view. Males do not show the dramatic concavity here. Male edges are straight or very slightly concave. (If the bone is in good shape, and there is no danger of damage, another method for evaluating the subpubic co ncavity is to lay the ischiopubic ramus on a flat surface. If it can be rocked, it indicates a male, if it cannot be rocked, it indicates a female). To evaluate the medial aspect of the ischiopubic ramus, the observer turns the pubis 90, orienting the sym physis surface so that the observer is looking directly perpendicular to it. From this position it is possible to observe the ischiopubic ramus in the region immediately inferior to

PAGE 20

20 the symphysis. This medial aspect of the ischiopubic ramus displays a shar p edge in females. In males the surface is fairly flat, broad, and blunt. In the Phenice method, some criteria may not obviously sex the specimen, so those criteria should be discarded. If there is some ambiguity concerning one or two of the criteria, the re is usually one of the remaining criteria that clearly indicate the subjects sex. Accuracy of sexing based on this method ranges from 96 to 100% (White 1991:325). Because of its position in childbirth, the pelvis includes many other characteristics that can be used to visually estimate sex. Compared to the male, the female pelvis is broader, has a wider sciatic notch, and normally includes a pre auricular sulcus (a groove between the auricular area and the sciatic notch). It has a smaller acetabulum (the socket that holds the head of the femur), a longer pubic bone, and a wider subpubic angle. The sacrum is shorter and broader, and the obturator foramen smaller and triangular in females. Compared to females, the male pelvis may be heavier and more robust, and the auricular area tends to be flatter. The pre auricular sulcus seldom occurs in males, but if present in males, it is shallower than in females. The obturator foramen is larger and ovoid in males. Evaluation of these criteria individually yields acc uracies from 83 to 94%. In combination, accuracies range from 95 to 98% (Rogers and Saunders 1994:1050 1051). After the pelvis, the next best indicator of sex is the cranium. Estimation of sex is based on the generalization that the male is more robust and has muscle attachment points that are larger and rougher. Male muscle attachment points are especially pronounced on the occipital bone, where they may form a nuchal crest. Males also have larger mastoid processes, more prominent supraorbital ridges, and the posterior end of the zygomatic process extends farther as a crest. The

PAGE 21

21 upper edges of the eye orbits are blunt, and frontal sinuses are larger in males. On the mandible, the male chin is squarer, and the gonial angle is more acute. Compared to the male the female cranium is smaller, smoother and more gracile. In the female mandible, the chin is more rounded and pointed, and the gonial angle is more oblique. The smaller size of the female cranium is evident in a smaller palate, and smaller teeth. Female s also display frontal and parietal bossing into adulthood; the upper edges of the eye orbits are sharp. Evaluation of these characteristics depends not only on the experience of the osteologist, but also on matching the specimen to a genetically and tempo rally close comparative population (Bass 1995; White 1991). Using the crania, an experienced osteologist should be able to make a sex determination that is 80 90% accurate. Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994:16 20) provide a scoring system for several of these vi sual traits. For the remainder of the skeleton, males tend to be larger than females, with long bones that are longer, heavier, and have larger attachment areas for muscles, including the linea aspera, crests, tuberosities and impressions (Brothwell 1981, Stewart 1948). These criteria are useful if a related skeletal series is available, but for isolated or fragmentary remains this is only useful if the bone is at the extreme end of the range, either 'very male' or 'very female.' Metric Methods While visua l methods can estimate sex quickly and accurately, their evaluation is subjective and requires experience with sexing techniques and the relevant population. Metric procedures are based on quantifying the same criteria used in visual sexing. A metric proce dure could be better if the observer is not familiar with visual techniques or the relevant population. Additionally, metric procedures serve as an objective check to visual methods and can strengthen the position of the osteologist as expert witness in a courtroom (Stewart 1979). The simplest

PAGE 22

22 metric methods use a single measurement, and compare it to a distribution of that measurement from a collection of known sex individuals. A sectioning point is placed such that males and females are equally likely to be classified correctly, and misclassifications are minimized. The sectioning points are usually arrived at by discriminant function analysis. Sectioning points for several different long bones are given by Bass (1995), and an exhaustive list of discrimina nt function studies to determine sex and their accuracies can be found in Rathbun and Buikstra (1984:212 216). There are a host of discriminant function tests based on cranial and post cranial measurements. Giles and Elliot (1963) provide one of the best e stablished discriminant functions for sex determination using the skull. From combinations of nine cranial measurements a total of 21 discriminant functions are described to indicate sex in whites, blacks and whites and blacks taken together. The measureme nts are: Glabello occipital length : The maximum length of the skull, from the most anterior point of the frontal in the midline to the most distant point on the occiput in the midline. Maximum width : The greatest breadth of the cranium perpendicular to the median sagittal plane, avoiding the supra mastoid crest. Basion bregma height : Cranial height measured from basion to bregma. Maximum diameter bi zygomatic : The maximum width between the lateral surfaces of the zygomatic arches measured perpendicular to t he median sagittal plane. Basion nasion : The direct distance from basion to nasion. Basion prosthion : The direct distance from basion to the most anterior point on the maxilla in the median sagittal plane. Nasion breadth : The maximum breadth of the nasal a perture perpendicular to nasal height. Palate external breadth : The maximum breadth of the palate taken on the outside of the alveolar borders. Opisthion forehead length : The maximum distance from opisthion (the midpoint on the posterior border of the fora men magnum) to the forehead in the midline. Mastoid length : The length of the mastoid measured perpendicular to the plane determined by the lower borders of the orbits and the upper borders of the auditory meat uses (Frankfort plane). Functions 1, 2, and 3 use 8 of the 9 measurements, are the most accurate for each group, and use the same measurements from each group. The sectioning point is halfway between the

PAGE 23

23 mean score for males and the mean score for females. A score above the sectioning point is desig nated male; one below is designated female. Table 2 1. Coefficients for discriminant functions 1,2, and 3 from Giles and Elliot 1963 used to assign sex based on a white sample, a black sample, and a combined black and white sample. Measurements Whites (F unction 1) Blacks (Function 2) Combined (Function 3) Glabello Occipital Length (GOL) 3.107 9.222 6.083 Maximum Width (XCB) 4.643 7.000 1.000 Basion Bregma height (BBH) 5.786 1.000 9.500 Max Diameter Bi zygomatic (ZYB) 14.821 31.111 28.250 Basion P rosthion (BPL) 1.000 5.889 2.250 Prosthion Nasion Height (UFHT) 2.714 20.222 9.917 Palate -External breadth (MAB) 5.179 30.556 19.167 Mastoid Length (MDH) 6.071 47.111 25.417 Sectioning Points 2676.39 8171.53 6237.95 Male mean 2779.66 8487.56 6466. 17 Female Mean 2573.12 7855.50 6009.72 Sample Accuracy (Percent correct) 86.1% 84.6% 86.0% Expected Accuracy 86.6% 87.6% 86.4% A large variety of metric methods using the post cranial skeleton are available in Krogman and Iscan (1986) and Bass (1995). These are commonly used in forensic anthropology. Several methods were developed for fragmentary remains that focus on bioarchaeology collections. Using Bioarchaeology collections has the advantage of using the population of interest to develop criteria, but in most cases the true sex of the individuals in the study is unknown. Therefore, true accuracy cannot be determined, only how consistent the method is with other, established methods. Several studies have been focused on identifying sex from fragmenta ry remains. Using a discriminant function based on only the midshaft femoral circumference of prehistoric skeletons from Ohio, Black (1978) recorded an accuracy of 85%. Using the same measurement, DiBennardo and Taylor (1979) developed and tested discrimin ant functions on black and white femura of known sex and achieved an accuracy of 82%. Using various combinations of three

PAGE 24

24 measurements, Taylor and DiBennardo (1982) recorded accuracies between 80 and 85% for white femora. Dittrick and Suchey (1986) minimiz e the problem of unknown sex by using only skeletons with the pubic bone and applying the Phenice method. Suchey had established an accuracy of 99% in sex determination by using a blind test on pubic bone pairs from modern autopsies of individuals over age 16. In tests on prehistoric central California skeletal remains, they achieved accuracies of about 90% using linear discriminant function analysis of measurements from the ends of the long bones. Interestingly, functions based on multiple measurements did not produce results much better than the best functions using single measurements. One of the limitations of discriminant function analysis is that the functions should only be used on skeletons that come from the same population as the one used in develo pment of the function. Otherwise, results can be unpredictable. Giles and Elliot (1963) tested their own functions on skeletons from Ireland and on three series of native American skeletons from Indian Knoll in Ohio, Pecos Pueblo, and Florida. The function s correctly sexed 40 of 42 males (95%) and 3 of 8 females (37.5%) of the Irish skeletons. Giles and Elliot dismiss the poor female result and take this as evidence that their formula can be used across populations. A better interpretation is that the formu la disproportionately misclassifies females as male. For the Native American samples, good results are achieved only after altering the sectioning point. Although it has been used in the literature, altering sectioning points is not a practical solution to using discriminant functions across populations (Calcagno 1981; Henke 1977). Kajonoja (1966) found that the Giles and Elliot functions had an accuracy of only 65% on Finnish crania. It is interesting to note that the functions developed by Giles and Ellio t (1963) for the combined sample of blacks and whites worked about as well on blacks and whites separately as it did on

PAGE 25

25 the combination of both groups. This suggests that functions developed on a wider population can achieve good results across that popula tion's constituent groups. (See Henke 1977 for a more detailed discussion of using discriminant function analysis across populations.) The methods and criteria discussed above are only applicable to adult remains. A skeleton may be considered an adult if a ll long bone epiphyses are fused or if the third molars have erupted. For sub adults, if age can be established from dental development, then sex can be estimated from long bone lengths (see Bass 1995). Other sexing techniques for sub adults use sex differ ences in pelvic measurements (see Krogman and Iscan 1986:200 208).

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 3 DISCRIMINANT FUNCTIO N ANALYSIS Discriminant function analysis (DFA) has been used extensively to determine sex by archaeologists and forensic anthropologists (e.g. Giles and E lliot 1963; Black 1978; DiBennardo and Taylor 1979, 1982, 1983; Dittrick and Suchey 1986). The results are comparable to those of traditional methods, but requires far less training and experience. This section describes the goals and capabilities of discr iminant function analysis, some of the methods for calculating discriminant functions, and introduces research using discriminant function analysis in sex determination. Discriminant function analysis addresses the problem of how well it is possible to se parate two or more groups of individuals using multiple combinations of weighted variables. DFA requires classes that are predetermined, such as male or female. The object is not to create classes or populations that divide heterogeneous material. With two groups, there are two specific errors one can make: mistaking a member of one group for being from the other. For example, misclassifying (1) a male as a female, or (2) a female as a male. Both types of mistakes should occur at an equal rate, and there sh ould be as few mistakes as possible. Finally, each subject must be assigned to one population or the other so that Unknown is not an option (Kendall 1957). There are several approaches, including Canonical discriminant functions, Mahalanobis distances an d logistic regression. These methods are described below, followed by the advantages and disadvantages of DFA and by a literature review of DFA used in sex determination.

PAGE 27

27 Canonical Discriminant Functions Canonical discriminant functions determine a combin ation of variables that separate the groups as well as possible. Fisher (1936) introduced a simple way to choose the coefficients for a linear function that maximizes the F ratio of a one way analysis of variance for two groups, which is the ratio of betwe en group variance to within group variance. Specifically, his paper deals with the discrimination of Iris setosa and Iris versicolor 1 two species found growing together in the same colony. His variables are measurements of sepal length, sepal width, petal length, and petal width. Most of the literature cites Fisher as the originator of discriminant function analysis, but he cites "Mr. E.S. Martin" and "Miss Mildred Barnard" for applying the principle to sex differences in the mandible and a secular trend i n cranial measurements, respectively. The approach involves finding coefficients for a linear combination of n variables: where Z is the discriminant function score, a is a constant, through are discriminant function coefficients, and through are independent variables, which maximizes the F ratio of Z in a one way analysis of variance for the two groups. Finding the coefficients of the can onical discriminant functions is an eigenvalue problem. Details on the computation of DFA coefficients can be found in Manly (1994). Discriminant function analysis has uses other than classifying individuals. Discriminant function coefficients can also be used to evaluate how groups differ (Manly 1994:114). Howells (1989) used discriminant functions as a form of data reduction, similar to the way others have used principle components analysis, but that use is not common in the literature. 1 The article is primarily concerned with the discrimination of I setosa and I versicolor but Fisher extends his analysis to test the hypothesis that I virginica is a hybrid of I setosa and I versic olor.

PAGE 28

28 Among the most wid ely cited uses of canonical discriminant function analysis in anthropology come from Giles and Elliot, who used the technique for the estimation of sex (1963; Giles 1964) and race (Giles and Elliot 1962). For these studies, Giles and Elliot used measuremen ts of Native American remains from the Indian Knoll, KY site originally published by Snow (1948), while black and white subjects came from the Terry and Todd Collections. Their use of discriminant functions for estimation of sex from the crania is discusse d in detail in the chapter on sex estimation. In their calculations, Giles and Elliot used formula from Kendall (1957), which are equivalent to those presented by Fisher (1936). Using Black and White individuals from the same sample, Giles and Elliot (1963 ) developed discriminant functions for sex using nine cranial measurements in different combinations to form 21 discriminant functions for sex determination. An accuracy of 82 89% is attained with the Black and White material. This compares favorable with the 77 87% accuracy expected from visual sex estimation using the cranium alone. Multiple Discriminant Functions When canonical discriminant analysis is used, it may be possible to determine several linear combinations of variables for separating groups wh ere there are multiple groups and variables. The number of functions available is either the number of variables or one less than the number of groups, which ever is smaller. All functions maximize the F ratio subject to the condition that they are uncorre lated with previous functions within groups. The canonical discriminant functions are, therefore, linear combinations of the original variables chosen such that the first function reflects group differences as much as possible, and subsequent functions cap ture as much as possible of group differences not displayed by previous functions. Group assignment is then accomplished by calculating the distances to group means (Manly 1994:108

PAGE 29

29 110). While this method is useful for analyzing group differences, it is co mputationally difficult for the end user to assign individuals to groups. Figure 3 1 Discriminant Function Analysis with three groups using the graphic device proposed by Rao. Function 1 is plotted on the X axis, Function 2 is plotted on the Y axis. Thi n rods and are placed to minimize errors (Adapted from Rao 1952; Giles and Elliot 1962). A different method is used by Giles and Elliot (1962) to estimate race. Giles and Elliot (196 2) use a pair of canonical discriminant function formulas for the placement of a skull into white, black, or Native American categories: One formula for black vs. white, and the other for white vs. Native American. The two functions are then plotted, with the black white function on one axis, and the white and Native American function on the other. To place individuals into one of the three groups, Giles and Elliot use a geometrical device described by Rao (1952:327),

PAGE 30

30 which is not common in the literature ( see fig. 3 1; Giles and Elliot 1962). The Giles and Elliot functions correctly identified race for 82.6% of males 88.1% of females (Giles and Elliot 1962). Tests of Significance Various tests of significance are available for evaluating the difference bet ween the mean values for any pair of groups, overall differences between the means of several groups, and if the mean of a discriminant function differs from group to group. See Harris (1985) for a discussion of the difficulties surrounding these tests. Pr ior Probabilities Some computer programs can allow for prior probabilities of group membership. This could be useful in sex determination if reliable data can be generated for the proportion of male and female skeletons recovered from a particular environm ent, whether due to taphonomy, demographics, or other causes. Care should be taken that assignment of prior probabilities reflects actual or known proportions (e.g. number of males and females in a population) and not any form of prior bias. Stepwise Disc riminant Function Analysis Stepwise discriminant function analysis simply applies a stepwise selection to the variables included in a discriminant function analysis. Variables are added to the discriminant functions, one at a time, until adding additional variables does not give significantly better discrimination. Several authors have used stepwise discriminant function analysis in estimating sex from skeletal measurements. Holman and Bennett (1991) use the procedure built into SAS (STEPDISC) on the bones of the arm and wrist with good results. Taylor and DiBennardo (1982), DiBennardo and Taylor (1983), and Iscan and Miller Shaivitz (1984) each use the procedure built into SPSS for the femur, femur and pelvis, and tibia, respectively, with good results.

PAGE 31

31 Mah alanobis Distance The Mahalanobis distance ( ) is a measure of distance that takes into account correlations between variables. For classification purposes, Mahalanobis distance can be used to measure the distance of individuals to gr oup centers and each individual can be allocated to the group to which it is closest. If are the values of variables for the individual, with corresponding population mean values of t hen: where is the element in the r th row and s th column of the inverse of the covariance matrix for the p variables (Manly 1994:63). Assumptions Both canonical and Malahanobis distance methods are based on two assumptions. The first is that the within group covariance matrix is the same for all groups. The second is that the data is normally distributed within groups. The second assumption is important for the validity of tests of significance. Logistic Regress ion A different approach to discrimination between two groups uses logistic regression. Logistic regression is a variation of multiple linear regression where the dependent variable is assigned as either 1 or 0, usually used as 'success' or 'failure.' The regression formula then returns a probability of success or failure. Rather than representing success or failure, 1 and 0 can be used to represent groups. When applied to unknown individuals, the regression will return the posterior probability of group me mbership, with a sectioning point of 0.5. Konigsberg and Hens (1998) use logistic regression in sex estimation on measurements of the crania. They reported

PAGE 32

32 good results, but found the method cumbersome. They preferred a probit model that used categorical independent variables. Conclusion On the whole, the accuracy of DFA in identifying sex is no more accurate than visual methods when used by a trained osteologist. The advantage is that someone who is not an osteologist, with brief instructions in measurin g, can perform discriminant function sexing quickly and objectively. This group includes medical examiners and archeologists who have had some training in osteology, but who may be inexperienced or rusty (Krogman 1962; Birkby1966; Giles 1970). For the tr ained osteologist and forensic anthropologist, discriminant function analysis can be used as an objective check to visual methods and adds weight to expert testimony (Snow 1979). Discriminant function analysis has two critical limitations when used for sex estimation of skeletal remains. The first is the need for all measurements used in the function to be observable. The second is that the functions can only be used on individuals who come from the population from which the function was developed. The firs t problem is fairly straightforward, as is its solution. A discriminant function score cannot be calculated if an observation is missing. One solution is to generate multiple functions using different combinations of measurements. Another solution is to ge nerate functions using skeletal elements that are robust, and therefore likely to be preserved. This approach was taken by Black [femur] (1978); DiBennardo and Taylor [femur] (1982) ; Taylor and DiBennardo [stepwise femur] (1982); Iscan and Miller Shaivitz [tibia] (1984); Dittrick and Suchey [femur and humerus] (1986). The problem of using functions across populations is more difficult. Some authors have suggested moving the sectioning point by various methods, including using the mid point

PAGE 33

33 between the mean s of the sexes (Giles and Elliot 1963), finding the sectioning point graphically from the bimodal distribution of the scores (Giles and Elliot 1963), or placing the sectioning point at the grand mean of the function scores (Henke 1977). Henke (1977) tested each of these methods, and also used the unmodified functions. Henke concluded that only the first two methods are practical. Calcagno (1981) found that moving the sectioning point by any method was not a practical solution to the problem. Placing the sec tioning point mid way between the means of the sexes requires that one first know the sex of the skeletons. The graphic method is not practicle because the distribution of discriminant scores is multimodal, and not bimodal. Finally, placing the sectioning point at the grand mean of the discriminant scores assumes that the sexes are equally represented in the sample, which is particularly unlikely to be true in archaeological series (Henke 1977). Henke's conclusion seems to be that discriminant functions dev eloped for one group can be used on another, but the sectioning point has to be adjusted. Birkby (1966) tested the Discriminant Functions developed by Giles and Elliot for race and sex (1962; 1963). His goal was to determine (1) if discriminant function an alysis is applicable in the assessment of race and sex in human identification and (2) the reliability of such techniques. He found Indian crania are often misclassified for race and sex. Birkby concludes that the Indian Knoll sample used by Giles and Elli ot (1962, 1963) is not representative of Native Americans as a whole. Therefore, the functions based on those data are not applicable in the identification of race and sex in human identification, either forensic or archaeological. Snow et al. (1979) perf ormed another test of the Giles and Elliot discriminant functions using forensic cases. The discriminant function for sex determination attained an accuracy that was not significantly different from Giles and Elliot. With no significant difference in accur acy between the sexes.

PAGE 34

34 For race, Native Americans are misclassified at a significantly higher rate that non Native Americans (83% correct for black and white combined vs. 14% correct for Native Americans). Snow et al. conclude that the Giles and Elliot fu nctions provide a useful tool for the determination of sex and race of unidentified crania submitted for forensic science examination. The functions, however, did not perform well among Native American subjects. It thus appears that the 5000 year old In dian Knoll crania used by Giles and Elliot in developing their functions do not adequately represent the entire U.S. category of Indian (Snow et al 1979:459). The advantages of discriminant function analysis in physical anthropology are that it is relativ ely easy to apply, allowing sex and race estimations by those with little training in osteology, and that it is an objective indicator or race and sex, especially for isolated remains. The weaknesses include needing to develop functions on the populations from which the subject comes, and the need to be able to make all of the measurements called for in the discriminant function, which is not always possible in fragmentary remains typically found in archaeological sites. Functions developed with fragmentary remains in mind help avoid the problem of missing measurements.

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTE XT Introduction This chapter provides a general cultural history of the southeast, introduces the archaeological sites that provide the skeletal materials for this study. It places those sites geographically, temporally and within the framework of the area's cultural history. Environmental Setting Human occupation in what is now Florida and Georgia began about 13,000 B.P. 2 during the end of the Pleistocene epoc h. From the start of human occupation until about 7000 B.P., Florida and Georgia were undergoing tremendous environmental change. The environment gradually went from cold and dry at the end of the Pleistocene, to the warm and humid modern climate. That cha nge in temperature was accompanied by higher sea levels, which have reduced Florida to half the land area of what it was when people first entered the state. Along with a warming climate and rising sea levels, many of the plants and animals in Florida and Georgia were supplanted by species better adapted to the changing environment. By 7000 B.P. sea levels reached about the levels where they are today, and the flora and fauna present were essentially the same species present in the region today (Milanich 19 94). The coastal zone of the region, including the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coast of Florida and southern Georgia, is characterized by a generally inhospitable beach and foreshore. This area is subject to seasonal exposure to storms and scarce resources Chains of barrier islands are also found along the eastern coastline of Florida and Georgia containing beach and dune landscapes, 2 B.P. stands for years before present based on radiocarbon dating, with present defined as the year 1950. It is an alternative to traditional dates of A.D. and B.C.. B.P. dates can be roughly converted to traditional dates by subtracting 1950, but r adiocarbon years are not equivalent to calendar years. For this reason, the dating framework used in the primary reports for each site and region are followed without attempting to impose imprecise conversions.

PAGE 36

36 Live Oak hammock, tidal flats, and estuary habitats. Farther inland, the sandy beaches and dunes give way to broad estuaries mudflats, and thickly vegetated shores. These areas serve as place for marine and inland species to interact (Milanich and Fairbanks 1978; Williams 2004:13). Inland areas of northern Florida and Georgia with an abundance of fresh water, such as along str eams and lakes, are dominated by hardwood hammocks. Hardwood hammocks are dense forests characterized by a broad spectrum of plant communities that provide shelter and food for a vast array of animals (Milanich 1998; Milanich and Fairbanks 1978; Wallace 19 78). Cultural History Prehistoric occupation of the southeastern United States, or Southeast, is divided into periods and sub periods that reflect changes in technology, environment, and subsistence. Breaks between periods are often subtle, and changes occ ur at different times across the region. Archaeological cultures describe specific regional or local units from specific time periods. Periods include Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian. The Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian periods are d ivided into Early, Middle, and Late sub periods. The Woodland and Mississippian cultures are comprised of a number of regional cultures. Paleoindian Period The initial period of human occupation in North American is termed the Paleoindian period, and is ch aracterized by the occurrence of fluted stone projectile points or knives, such as Clovis, Suwannee, and Simpson points. The best available evidence suggests that during the late Pleistocene bands of highly moble hunters crossed the Bering land bridge from Siberia into Alaska. The Bering land bridge was exposed during the last glaciation when large amounts of water were locked up in the polar ice caps and ice sheets, resulting in the lowering of global sea levels by about 100 meters. The presence of mid con tinent ice sheets appear to have prevented movement of these populations eastward from Alaska until about 13,000 B.C. based on the

PAGE 37

37 distribution of fluted points in the archaeological record. Most of North America appears to have been occupied by 10,000 B.C (Bense 1994: 38 39; Milanich 1994: 37 40). The general consensus is that the Paleoindian life ways were based on the hunting of large game animals and the gathering of a variety of plant foods. Paleoindians were highly mobile, and were probably organize d into bands with widely ranging patters of movement and inter group interaction (Doran 2002:49,50; Bense 1994;Griffin 1979:51). Because of their mobility, the traditional expectation has been that they should exhibit a basic biological similarity over a w ide geographical area (Key 1983:8; Meiklejohn 1972). Preliminary results from Ross, Ubelaker and Falsetti (2002), however, indicate that Native Americans are much more biologically heterogeneous than previously thought. During the Paleoindian period, the c limate was cooler and dryer than today, but with reduced seasonal variation. Sea levels were as much as 100 meters below current levels (Clausen et al 1979; Widmer 1988). In Florida, this resulted in more land being exposed, lower water tables and few sour ces of surface water. This scarcity of surface water is thought to be a determining factor in Paleoindians settlement patters in Florida. It is also thought that many sites that were along the coast during the Paleoindian period have been inundated by risi ng sea levels (Bullen 1958; Rupp 1980). Most Paleoindian sites found to date consist of little more than limited scatters of lithic debitage ( Edwards 1954; Waller 1969). The human skeletal remains of fewer than 100 individuals from the Paleoindian period have been recovered from all of North America. In Florida, Paleoindian sites with human remains include Little Salt Spring, Warm Mineral Springs, and Cutler Ridge, although the material at Little Salt Spring cannot be incontrovertibly placed within the Pal eoindian occupation (Doran 2002).

PAGE 38

38 The Archaic Period The Archaic Period describes is differentiated from the earlier Paleoindian period on the basis of stylistic differences in point types, the appearance of new artifacts types, and apparent changes in ec onomic orientation (Anderson and Sassaman 2004). T he change in material culture from Paleoindian to Archaic coincided with a change to a warmer, less arid climate. As the temperature increased, the glaciers retreated and sea levels rose. Because of these e nvironmental changes many species that had previously thrived in the Southeast went extinct or disappeared from the region. Changes in flora and fauna led to changes in subsistence patterns and material culture. The regional chronology for the Archaic peri od in the Southeast was established by correlating changes in dagnotic artifacts from excavations at deeply stratified sites such as Ice House Bottoms in Tennessee, Russell Cave in Alabama, Indian Knoll in Kentucky, and the Hardaway and Doerschuk sites in North Carolina (Stoltman 2004). The Archaic is traditionally divided into Early, Middle, and Late Archaic phases. Early Archaic The Early Archaic can be seen as a transition from the Paleoindian period to the Middle Archaic. Population increased throughout the Archaic, and people were shifting from nomadic hunting to somewhat more sedentary lifestyles near coastal and riverine settings (Milanich 1994). The shift in subsistence strategies coincided with a period of transition to warmer, less arid conditions. Projectile points transition from lanceolate forms present during the Paleoindian period to stemmed, side and corner notched, and hafted forms with bifurcated bases (Anderson and Sassaman 2004; Milanich 1994:63). The Early Archaic appears to reflect a co ntinuation of the Paleoindian hunting and gathering lifestyle with increased regional specialization. Early

PAGE 39

39 Archaic sites have been found at a number of locations in Georgia (Wauchope 1966) and Florida (Milanich 1994), many near permanent water sources. Be cause of the rapidity of post glacial sea level changes, the complex estuary systems that would eventually become dominant resource procurement areas for many coastal populations had not stabilized. Stable, productive estuary systems were not present until after 3,000 B.C. Sea level rise caused ground water levels to rise increasing the amount of surface water available (Widmer 1988; Watts 1975; Doran 2002:50). The increase in surface water made new locations suitable for occupation, allowing Archaic people s to move into new ecotones (Milanich 1994:63). Additionally, because water sources were large and more numerous, the Early Archaic peoples could sustain larger populations, occupy sites for longer periods, and perform activities that required longer occu pation at a specific locale (Milanich 1994:69). A period of greater aridity returned near the end of the Early Archaic, about 6000 B.C., though less arid than at the end of the Pleistocene. Middle Archaic Average annual temperatures during the Middle Arc haic were not much different than modern temperatures, but temperature variance was more extreme. Summers were hotter and winters were colder. While lake water levels were lower throughout much of the North American continent, sea and ground water levels w ere higher in Florida and Georgia (Anderson and Sassaman 2004). During the Middle Archaic period more and larger surface water sources were available in Florida, and increasingly moist conditions appeared after about 4000 B.C. (Milanich 1994:84; Watts 1969 1971; Watts and Hansen 1988). A gradual change in forest cover occurred with pines and mixed forests replacing oaks. By about 3000 B.C., vegetation and climate become essentially modern, and sea level rise tapered off (Milanich 1994:75, 84).

PAGE 40

40 The Middle Archaic was a time of dramatic cultural change in the Southeast. Middle Archaic peoples occupied new types of locations for the first time and created new types of sites, including freshwater and marine shell middens (Milanich 1994). Ceremonial shell and e arthen mound construction were initiated in several areas, long distance trade networks appeared, and new tool forms were adopted (Anderson and Sassaman 2004:95). Both Early and Middle Archaic peoples in peninsular Florida began using aquatic environments, such as Windover pond, for burial (Milanich 1994:81). Late Archaic The beginning of the Late Archaic coincides with the beginning of the late Holocene Period and essentially modern environmental conditions by 3000 B.C. (Milanich 1998; Sassaman and Anders on 2004; Watts and Hansen 1988:310). This period is marked by greater regionalization and cultural diversity as human populations adapted to specific environmental zones. Cultures were no longer faced with the challenge of long term environmental and clima tic fluctuations (Milanich 1994). During the Late Archaic period, the firing of clay pottery, along with other technological innovations, appeared in Florida. Ceramic vessel technology gradually spread across the southeast, and was adopted by virtually al l regional populations by about 650 B.C. Local variations in pottery technology and style reflect growing diversity of cultural expression. Regional exchange and intergroup ritual at locations of ceremonial earthworks were among the means by which members of different populations interacted (Anderson and Sassaman 2004:101). More Late Archaic sites are know than sites from any earlier period. Despite changes in technology, there are few apparent differences between Late Archaic subsistence strategies and earlier periods. Populations in the Southeast continued to expand on the hunting and gathering economies of ancestral populations, with shellfish, fish and other food

PAGE 41

41 resources becoming increasingly important (Milanich 1994:85). With the exception of areas that eventually adopted intensive agriculture, the general subsistence patterns of the late Archaic period continued largely unchanged into the colonial period (Milanich 1994; Sassaman and Anderson 2004). Diminished rates of sea level rise promoted the es tablishment of increasingly productive estuarine environments, and maturing floodplain habitat. During this time, evidence of coastal populations in Florida is much more abundant, and Late Archaic shell middens are preserved in many locales (Milanich 1994; Sassaman and Anderson 2004:101). The panregional spread of mortuary ceremonial institutions and greater use of native cultigens in certain sub regions mark the end of the period at about 650 B.C. (Sassaman and Anderson 2004:101). Woodland and Regional C ultures The Woodland period follows the Archaic. It is characterized by increasing population and social complexity through time, and limited adoption of horticulture. With more people on the landscape, mobility decreased and local manifestations of the cu lture emerged. Trade and exchange with regions outside the Southeast occurred to some extent. As groups settled into their local environment and became more sedentary, regional cultures began to emerge. Regional cultures are distinguished by variations in potter styles, projectile point styles, house types, and settlement patterns. Due to the abundance of regional cultures, only the woodland cultures represented in the skeletal sample are detailed here. The advent of the Woodland period occurs at different times throughout Eastern North America, but began earlier in Florida and Georgia and lasted until the European contact in some areas. After 500 B.C., there is archaeological evidence for occupation of every environment within Florida, including the foreste d interior uplands of northern Florida (Milanich 1994: 106). After about A.D. 750, there is evidence for more intensive cultivation of plants, including the possible introduction of maize (Milanich 1994: 108).

PAGE 42

42 Kellog The Kellog culture was concentrated in northwest Georgia Piedmont between about 800 and 200 BC. Kellog settlements include large, year round camps concentrated in narrow flood plains adjacent to streams, and small seasonal camps. Kellog base camps covered about an acre and include abundant art ifacts, some sites having middens several feet thick. Seasonal camps are not as common and contain fewer artifacts. Kellog material culture is dominated by fabric marked pottery early in the period, with simple stamp and check stamp pottery more popular la ter. Stone tools included both stemmed and unstemmed chipped stone points with triangular blades, slate hoes, and biconvex mortars (Bense 1994:135). Kellog culture subsistence strategies were not much different than Archaic strategies of hunting, gathering and fishing, but with perhaps more emphasis on plant foods (Bense 1994:135 136; Hally and Mainfort 2004:266). Deptford The Deptford culture was located along the Gulf coast of Florida and the southeast Atlantic coast between 500 BC and AD 100. The Deptfor d culture area is located between Mobile Bay and Cedar Key along the Gulf coast stretching inland approximately 60 miles, and along the Atlantic coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and northern most Florida extending 30 miles inland. Modest Deptford shell mi ddens found along the coast are located in hardwood hammocks near salt marshes and estuaries, while inland sites are usual located in river valleys. Deptford coastal villages are small and generally contain 5 to 10 houses of either cold weather houses or s ummer warm weather pavilions. The cold weather houses are around 20 by 30 foot ovals, and the warm weather pavilions are approximately 20 by 13 foot ovals. As might be expected from their choice of site locations, Deptford peoples relied heavily on fish an d shellfish gathered from tidal streams and shallow inshore waters, as well as nearby terrestrial resources. Inland sites are small as well and may be special use sites, such as hunting camps (Milanich 2004a:193 194). In both

PAGE 43

43 the Atlantic and Gulf areas s and burial mounds appear during the Deptford period. By AD 1 some mounds on the Gulf coast contained items thought to be linked to Hopewellian related beliefs and trade (Milanich 2004a:194). As the Southeast entered the Middle woodland period, Deptford wa s succeeded by the Swift Creek culture in most areas. St. Johns/Malabar The Saint Johns culture persisted along the Atlantic coast of Florida for around 2,000 years, from the end of the Archaic in 500 BC into the seventeenth century and contact with the Sp anish. The Saint Johns region includes two sub regions, the St. Marys zone in the North, and the Indian River Zone in the south. The Indian River Zone is located around Brevard, Indian River, and St. Lucie counties, and with sites found near wetlands of t he Saint Johns River Basin, the Indian River, and along barrier islands (Milanich 1994: 249). The culture of the Indian River Zone during the Saint Johns period is identified as the Malabar culture, and is divided into two periods (Rouse 1951). The Malabar I period is approximately contemporaneous with the Saint Johns I period, present from 500BC to 750 AD, while Malabar II is of the same age as the Saint Johns II period, present from 750AD to 1565 AD (Milanich 1994: 247,249 250). Malabar sites can be class ified as villages, special use sites, or single use sites. Villages are large, multicomponent sites that exhibit a wide range of artifacts and large middens. Villages are always located near wetlands, and are surrounded by special use sites. Special use si tes are smaller multicomponent sites used intermittently for short periods of time. Single use sites were probably used to gather some specific resource, and all that remains are small artifact scatters or a few animal remains (Milanich 1994:251 252). Mala bar peoples were foragers, and subsistence patterns were remarkably consistent through both phases, with diets composed of roughly 15% terrestrial resources, such as deer, raccoons, and rabbits, and 80% fish and shellfish. As time passed and water levels c hanged, the Malabar peoples tended to collect larger fish and a wider

PAGE 44

44 variety of species (Milanich 1994:251,253). The Malabar I pottery assemblages include Saint Johns sponge spiculate tempered pottery, but are dominated by undecorated pottery tempered wit h quartz sand. Malabar II pottery is characterized by the appearance of Saint Johns Check Stamped pottery. Analysis of pottery from Malabar sites shows continuity of manufacturing methods through both periods (Cordell in Sigler Eisenberg et al 1985:118 134 ; Milanich 1994:250) and a link to Saint Johns pottery (Espenshade 1983; Milanich 1994:250). Manasota The Manasota culture found along the central peninsular Gulf coast region coincided with the Deptford and early Weeden Island cultures, lasting from about 500 B.C. to A.D. 700. This region, which surrounds Tampa Bay, extends along the Gulf from Pasco county south to Sarasota County, and stretches inland nearly to the Peace River drainage. Most Manasota village sites are multicomponent shell middens of vario us sizes found on or near the shore. Some of the coastal shell middens include shell ramps constructed to provide access to the tops. Intensively occupied interior villages with dirt middens have been found in wetland locals (Hemmings 1975; Padgett 1976; L uer et al. 1987; Milanich 1994). Other types of Manasota sites are found away from the coast, in interior pine flatwoods on higher ground near water sources and wetland habitats. These are presumed to be short term villages and special use camps (Austin an d Russo 1989). The evidence from these sites suggests that the Manasota economy was based on fishing, hunting, and shellfish gathering. Most of the Manasota meat diet was derived from aquatic species, including fish, shark, rays, and shellfish. The Manasot a peoples also consumed terrestrial species such as deer, canines, rodents, birds, reptiles and amphibians (Milanich 1994). Manasota material culture is dominated by the use of shell tools with some bone tools, but little use of stone tools. Ceramics were limited to plain sand tempered pottery (Luer and Almy 1979:40 41 in Milanich 1994:222 223).

PAGE 45

45 Wilmington Culture The Wilmington Culture succeeded the Deptford culture along the coast and coastal plain of Georgia at the end of the Late Woodland period, 500 11 50AD. The Wilmington Culture is defined by Wilmington Plain, Wilmington Cord Marked, and Wilmington Brushed ceramics (DePratter 1979; Martinez 1975). The typical Wilmington vessel is decorated with large, parallel individual cord impressions made with a co rd wrapped paddle (Caldwell 1952:316). Wilmington culture is thought to have been influenced by the coeval Weeden Island culture in Florida and by Mississippian people in the Piedmont (Milanich 1976). Like other Late Woodland cultures, Wilmington subsisten ce was based on hunting, fishing and gathering with some horticulture (Wood et al 1986). Historic Period The historic period begins with European contact. This happens at different times in different areas, and initially has varying degrees of impact. For the Timucua of Northern Florida and Southern Georgia, contact with Europeans probably begins in 1525 and early 1526 when scout ships that preceded the Lucas Vsquez de Aylln expedition landed on the northern end of St. Simons Island (Hoffman 1994; Milanic h 2004b:225). In 1565 the Spanish began to establish a missions and colony in Florida with their first permanent New World settlement in St. Augustine. From this base they established Roman Catholic Missions along the Atlantic Coast to the Timucua Indians and Guale Indians along the Georgia coast just north of the Timucua. At the time of the Spanish arrival, many of the Guale and Timucua in northern Florida and Georgia were already involved in maize agriculture and readily missionized. By 1620 virtually eve ry Timucuan chiefdom had received Franciscan missions (Milanich 2004b:225). Non agricultural groups south of the Timucua, such as the Calusa, were not missionized, despite numerous Spanish attempts.

PAGE 46

46 The Timucua and the Guale paid a terrible price for there service to the Spanish crown. The Spanish used the Indians as a labor force to support the Spanish colony. They did supply the Indians with technology to increase maize production, but the demand for maize and labor shifted the native populations from a s emi nomadic hunting, gathering, and farming subsistence base to sedentary intensive maize agriculture. The maize diet led to nutritional deficiencies, especially in lysine, tryptophan and iron. These deficiencies can be seen in the remains of mission India ns in the form of poratic hyperostosis, cribra orbitalia, and enamel hypoplasia. The increased physical stress imposed by the Spanish need for labor can be seen in the form of osteoarthritis. They also experienced increased levels of carious lesions and pe riosteal reactions due to the increase stresses of mission life. Indian populations under the mission system dropped sharply as a result of working conditions and a series of Old World disease epidemics in 1595, 1612 1617, 1649 1650, and 1655 1656. Populat ion levels were further impacted by slaving raids by the English and there allies from 1660 to 1684 (Milanich 1998). As the Timucua populations declined, the Spanish consolidated the remaining tribes along the Camino Real, giving them access to the Apalach icola and their labor. By the time the Spanish ceded Florida to the English in 1763, the Timucua had dwindled from a pre contact population of approximately 20,000 in the early sixteenth century to a single adult. Other Indian populations in Florida and So uthern Georgia were similarly decimated, and the few remaining survivors were evacuated to Cuba when the Spanish left Florida (Milanich 1994, 2004b; Williams 2004).

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 5 SITES Introduction Of the ten archaeological sites used in this study, six (Gol f Course, Bay Pines, Canaveral, Casey Key, Palmer, and Perico Island) are located along the coast of Florida, and three (Cannons Point, Taylor Mound, and Couper Field/Indian Field) are located on Saint Simons Island, Georgia. The tenth site (Garfield) is located in the Piedmont of Georgia. These sites represent to Archaic, Deptford, Weeden Island, and contact periods. These sites date from possibly as early as the Paleoindian through the Contact period. Site numbers and brief descriptions of the location, the archaeological investigation, and the interpretation of each of these sites follow below. Golf Course (8Br44) The Golf Course site is located on the north edge of the Melbourne Municipal Golf Course just east of a canal that cuts through the property in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The site was discovered in 1952 by F.B. Loomis of Amherst College, J.W. Gidley of the U.S. National Museum (Smithsonian), and C.P. Singleton, a resident of Melbourne, during a survey of spoil from the nearby canal (Ro use 1951: 153). Loomis and Gidley prevaricated on whether the remains came from the Pleistocene Melbourne bone bed, or from the lower levels of the overlying Holocene Van Valkenburg bed. Ale Hrdli ka argued that the Melbourne Man was similar to recent I ndians and could not be of great antiquity based on his analysis of the skulls morphology and his own conviction that humans had not entered the New World more than a few thousand years ago (Miller 1950; Wilmsen 1965). After reconstructing and reexamining the skull, Stewart (1946) suggested that it might in fact belong to the Paleoindian period. (Milanich 1994:8; Miller 1950) While the lack of a definitive cultural affiliation is frustrating, this case is

PAGE 48

4 8 an excellent example of the kind of where the presen t research will be of the greatest benefit, namely in gathering information about isolated remains with uncertain affiliation. Bay Pines (8Pi64) The Bay Pines site is located in Pinellas County, Florida on Boca Ciega Bay, just west of St. Petersburg. The s ite consists of a shell ridge oriented on a north south axis, parallel to the coast of Boca Ciega Bay. The north end of the ridge is near a freshwater lagoon, and two smaller ridges are present perpendicular to the shore, one in the middle, and one at the south end termed "shell ridge A." Shell ridge A was excavated by members of the Suncoast Archaeological Society in 1971 in a salvage operation prior to the construction of a nursing home. Ten burials are identified in a cemetery and fragmentary remains of at least 14 other individuals are found scattered throughout what was probably a burial mound. The remains of all 24 individuals are currently housed at the Florida Museum of Natural History. The site is thought to be multi component with occupations from the Deptford period through the early Weeden Island period. A reanalysis of faunal remains associated with the site and stable isotope analysis of the skeletons suggest a diet heavy in fish from the nearby Gulf of Mexico and included turtle, mammal, bird, crab and possibly maize (Gallagher and Warren, 1975; Kelly, Tykot and Milanich 2006). Canaveral (8Br85) The Canaveral site is located on Cape Canaveral in Brevard County, in the Indian River area of Floridas Atlantic coast. Dr. George Woodbury excavated burial mounds on Cape Canaveral from 1933 1934 as part of the Civil Works Administration relief archaeological program affiliated with the Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution during the Great Depression (Milanich 1994:9 10). The site con sists of several burial mounds, including the Burns Mound and Fuller Mounds A, B, and D. The Burns Mound (8Br85) is a burial mound built

PAGE 49

49 on top of a shell midden. The burial mound was composed of a lower sandy layer and an upper layer composed of a thick laminated deposit which contained charcoal, pot sherds, shells, etc. (Woodbury n.d.). Woodbury recovered 31 burials from the lower zone and 21 from the upper zone; all are primary burials with their heads oriented toward the center of the mound in a spo ke pattern. All of the upper zone burials are extended while some from the lower zone are flexed or semi flexed (Willey 1954:81). All but one of the burials are adults with approximately equal numbers of males and females. The Burns Mound is dated to the M alabar II period based on ceramic types, although a pendant of European silver indicates the mound was used after European contact. The excavation at Fuller Mound A recovered in a sample of 96 complete skeletons. All but twelve are adults, with slightly mo re females than males. Almost all of the burials are oriented in the spoke pattern with their heads toward the center of the mound. Most are primary extended burials lying on the back, although a few are semi flexed. A few may have been secondary burials. Iron and metal tools and glass beads of European manufacture are present (Stirling 1935:386). Based on the ceramics and the quantity of European goods, Rouse (1951:197) suggested that the mound dates from the 17 th century. Fuller Mound B contained the rema ins of about 20 individuals disarticulated and mixed in a single secondary burial at the center of the mound. Two primary burials are also found away from the center with their feet pointing toward the center of the mound (Stirling 1935:387). Rouse (1951:1 97) dates the mound to the Malabar I' period based on the ceramics and the lack of European artifacts. Fuller Mound D consisted of 16 primary extended burials in the spoke pattern oriented with heads toward the center of the mound. Five of the individuals are infants, and there are

PAGE 50

50 more adult males than females. A few glass beads are present suggesting that the mound dates from the 17 th century, the same as Fuller Mound A (Stirling 1935:387). Casey Key (8So17) The Casey Key site lies on Casey Key, a Gulf co ast barrier island located about three miles south of Osprey, in Sarasota County, Florida. The site was known to residents of the area long before it was recorded by archaeologists and has never been systematically excavated. The site is near the Palmer si te, discussed below, and is thought to have been roughly contemporaneous with it, although it is not tightly dated due to a dearth of diagnostic artifacts. The limited pottery assemblage indicates it is from the Manasota Weedon Island culture dating from c a. A.D. 250 750. Casey Key included a village and a burial mound that is thought to have contained over 200 burial but most of these are collected by local residents or sold by high school students. A few skeletons were donated to the Florida Museum of Nat ural History in the 1950s and 1960s by Hilton Leech, who attempted to salvage some data from the mound before it was completely destroyed (Bullen and Bullen 1976:47 48). Palmer Burial Mound (8So2a) The Palmer Site is a complex of sites located near Osprey in Sarasota County, on Little Sarasota Bay on the Florida Gulf Coast. The site was the subject of a number of scientific excavations. The first formal excavations by Ripley Bullen between 1959 and 1962 are the most extensive and only ones to include the burial mound (Bullen and Bullen 1976). Those excavations recorded five sites: Hill Cottage Midden, dating to the Archaic period; Shell Ridge, dating to the Middle Woodland period; Shell Midden, dating from Middle Woodland through Mississippian periods; the North Creek Area middens; and Palmer Burial Mound. A survey of the Palmer tract performed in 1974 uncovered four additional sites, including another burial mound (Miller 1974). Limited investigations were performed in 1979 and 1980 prior to the

PAGE 51

51 establishm ent of the Spanish Oaks historical site. The Shell Ridge area was excavated in 1991 under the direction of Corbett Torrence, George Luer, and Marion Almy, and detailed zooarchaeological analyses were conducted (Hutchinson 2004; see Almy and Luer 1993; Kozu ch 1998; Quitmyer 1998). Bullen and Bullen (1976:35) describe Palmer Mound as a very unassuming, dome shaped, sand mound rising 4 feet above the surrounding land. Despite its modest appearance, it is actually one of the largest systematically excavated b urial mounds in the southeast, with over 400 individuals recovered. The mound was used primarily between A.D. 500 and 800, during the Manasota period (Bullen and Bullen 1976; Hutchinson 2004:43 59; Williams 2004). Faunal analysis indicates that fish and sh ellfish dominated the diet, with little consumption of terrestrial animals, but some use of terrestrial plants. Perico Island (8Ma6) The Perico Island site is located on the western edge of Perico Island in Manatee County, Florida, west of Bradenton, and between Sarasota and Tampa Bays. The site is composed of large and small shell middens, a burial mound, and a cemetery area. The site was excavated by Dr. M.T. Newman in 1933 34 as a relief project. Newman recovered 185 flexed burials from the burial mound and 43 primary flexed burials from the cemetery (Willey 1949:176,180). Willey (1949) initially categorized the site as a local variant of the Glades culture (Willy 1949;1998:192), but it is now considered part of the Manasota culture (see Milanich 1994; Luer and Almy 1982). St. Simons Island, Georgia Remains are used from three sites located on the northern end of St. Simons Island, Martinez B C, Taylor Mound, and Couper Field/Indian Field. All were excavated as part of the St Simons Island Archaeologic al Project operated by the University of Florida between 1972 and

PAGE 52

52 1975. All three locations are on Cannons Point at the northern end of the island. Wallace (1975) used ceramic and mortuary analysis to examin the relationship between these sites. He found that the sites are from a single, contemporaneous group of Guale Indians, but represent different hierarchical groups within the culture. That conclusion will not be challenged here. Martinez B C is located at the tip of Cannons Point near the Hampton Riv er. The test pit was excavated there in 1974 and initially two burials were recovered. A third burial discovered adjacent to the test pit was recovered in 1975. The individuals include one infant and two adult males, and all are primary extended burials. T his location is thought to be part of a primary living area. Based on associated ceramics, the burials are thought to be from the Wilmington Period (Martinez 1975:56 58). Taylor Mound is a Historic period (ca. A.D.1600 1650) ceremonial mound with associate d burials. While some historic artifacts are associated with the mound, it does not appear to have been heavily impacted by European contact (Wallace 1975:39 78; Zahler 1976:2). Eleven burials were recovered from this location, The sex of one skeleton coul d not be identified because it was too fragmented and too young. A second was excluded from analysis because its stratagraphic affiliation was uncertain (Wallace 1975:44). The remaining nine individuals included seven females and two males. Prior to formal excavation, thirteen burials were excavated by local residents, but information for these individuals was not recorded. Couper Field and Indian Field are the northern and southern parts, respectively, of the same village, and is part of the same sociocult ural population as Taylor Mound, but represents different levels of the social hierarchy. Couper Field lies immediately south of the remains of the antebellum Couper Mansion. Although the area had been heavily plowed the majority of burials are undisturbed There are 16 interments containing 18 individuals, including one infant, ten

PAGE 53

53 females and seven males (Wallace 1975:141 144). Indian Field was the location of a large ceremonial pavilion in which were interred six burials that contained the disturbed, fra gmented ,and mixed remains of 22 individuals. Remains of at least 13 of these are recovered from a single interment (Zahler 1976: 8). Garfield Site (9BR57) The Garfield site is the remains of a village located on the confluence of the Etowah River and Mace donia Slough near Kingston, Bartow County, in northwestern Georgia. Portions of the site were first excavated by two amateur archaeologists from Decatur, Georgia, James Chapman and Richard Criscoe during the 1960s. Eighteen burials are recovered from what appeared to be abandoned storage pits. Those remains were transferred to the Florida Museum of Natural History in 1974 with other collections they had excavated. Jerald T. Milanich tested the site in 1972 while he was a post doctoral fellow at the Smithson ian Institution. He recovered an additional four burials, including two adults, one infant, and one cremation. An additional fragment of human bone was identified among animal bone excavated from midden deposits. Artifacts recovered from the site indicate it belongs to the Kellog culture dating to 600 B.C. to A.D. 100, a date supported by two radiocarbon assays (185570 B.P. and 235060 B.P.) from charcoal obtained by Milanich (Jerald T. Milanich personal communication 2007; Milanich 1975). Milanich also re covered a large quantity of floral and faunal remains, ceramics, and lithic artifacts. As a group they suggest an occupation from early spring into late summer or early fall. While it seems likely that some maize gardening was carried out toward the end of the sites period of occupation, wild foods, especially nuts and other plant products, fish and a variety of mammals, provided most of the diet (Milanich 1975).

PAGE 54

54 Figure 5 1 Locator map of sites used in this study and major rivers.

PAGE 55

55 CHAPTER 6 METHODS AND MATERIALS Introduction This section describes sampling methods and the criteria used for selecting skeletal materials for measurement. It also describes the skeletal materials used for this study and the methods used in determining the sex of each skeleto n. Finally, it describes the procedures used in data collection, including measurements taken and their description, and the software and methods used in calculating the discriminant functions. Sampling In terms of research design, the ideal approach is to take a simple random sample or random block sample from all pre contact Native American skeletons excavated from Florida or Georgia archaeological sites, and sex them using the pubic bone. Unfortunately, this ideal is not practical. The remains of Florida and Georgia Native Americans are housed in several institutions around the country, and not all are readily accessible. Of the accessible remains, not all have measurable crania. Of those, few have an intact pubic bone, and none are of known sex. Therefor e, it is necessary to draw the sample from those remains that can provide the needed data. The best practical method is to use all of the available remains that have a measurable cranium, and which can be reliably sexed. This total sample approach is lik ely to introduce bias into the sample. For example, individuals who are robust, buried in shell middens, or from more recent populations are likely to be over represented. Determination of Sex The sex of the specimens is determined by using visual assessme nt of the crania and postcrania described in chapter 2. The Phenice (1969) method is used in conjunction with other postcranial indicators, such as the sciatic notch and pre auricular sulcus, and with cranial

PAGE 56

56 indicators. In sexing skeletons, the heaviest w eight is given to the Phenice method of sexing the pubic bone because of its high accuracy, followed by other features of the pelvis and postcrania. Cranial indicators are given the least weight, and sexing by crania alone is avoided. Materials The samples used in this study come from a total of ten sites. Samples from Canaveral, Perico Island, and Ballard Estates are housed at the Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of Natural History. Samples from Garfield Site, Couper Field, Taylor Mound, Cannons Point, Palmer, Casey Key, and Bay Pines are from the Collections of the Anthropology Division of the Florida Museum of Natural History. Measu rements are taken from a total of 46 individuals. Because some individuals are incomplete, not all measurements cou ld be taken for every individual, so not all individuals are included in each stage of the analysis. Data are collected from one complete adult male recovered from the Garfield site. The complete set of 25 cranial measurements is recorded. The postcrania, including the pubic bone is missing, so sexing is accomplished using visual evaluation the crania. Data are collected from nine individuals recovered from Couper Field, five males and four females. Two of the four females are excluded from further analysis because they lacked a measurable pubic bone and have fragmentary crania. The remaining two females are sexed with using visual analysis of the crania and postcrania. Two males have an observable pubic bone. The remaining three males are sexed using visual analysis of the crania. Data are collected from seven individuals recovered from Taylor mound, including four males, two females and one individual of unidentified sex. One male and one female are excluded from further analysis because they lacked postcra nial remains including the pubic bone and have fragmentary crania. Two males are sexed using the pubic bone, although their crania are fragmentary, and with only seven and 14 observable measurements. The remaining male and

PAGE 57

57 female are sexed using a combinat ion of cranial and visual analysis of the postcrania, but did not include the pubic bone. The individual of unidentified sex is missing postcranial sex indicators, and the cranium is fragmentary. Data are collected from one male recovered from Cannons Po int. This individual has a fragmentary cranium, allowing observation of 9 of 25 cranial measurements; but possesses a relatively complete postcrania that included the pubic bone. This individual is sexed using cranial and postcranial visual methods, includ ing observation of the pubic bone. Data are collected from nineteen individuals recovered from Canaveral, including three females and 16 males. All three females and 14 males have crania that are complete or nearly complete, and have relatively complete po stcrania including the pubic bone. All 17 are sexed using a combination of cranial and postcranial visual methods, including observation of the pubic bone. The remaining two male crania and postcrania are nearly complete, but lack an observable pubic bone. These two individuals are sexed using a combination of cranial and postcranial visual methods, excluding observation of the pubic bone. Data are collected from four individuals recovered from from Perico Island, including two males and two females. All fo ur individuals are complete, allowing observation of all 25 cranial measurements and the pubic bone. All are sexed using a combination of cranial and postcranial visual methods, including observation of the pubic bone. Data are collected from two individua ls recovered from the Palmer site, including one male and one female. The female is nearly complete, allowing observation 24 of 25 cranial measurements and the pubic bone. This individual is sexed using a combination of cranial and postcranial visual metho ds, including observations of the pubic bone. The second individual is a fragmentary male, allowing observation of only 7 of 25 cranial measurements, and is missing the

PAGE 58

58 pubic bone. This individual is sexed using a combination of cranial and postcranial vis ual methods, excluding the pubic bone. Data are collected from one female cranium recovered from Casey Key. This cranium is nearly complete, allowing observation of 22 cranial measurements. The postcrania including the pubic bone is missing. This individua l is sexed using visual analysis of the cranium. Data are collected from one malerecovered from Bay Pines. This individual is nearly complete, allowing observation of all 25 cranial measurements but not the pubic bone. This individual is sexed using a comb ination of cranial and postcranial visual methods, excluding the pubic bone. Data are collected from one male recovered from Ballard Estates. This individual is nearly complete, allowing observation of 23 of 25 cranial measurements but not the pubic bone. This individual is sexed using a combination of cranial and postcranial visual methods, excluding the pubic bone. Cranial Measurement Definitions Giles and Elliot Measurements Ten measurements are taken from Giles and Elliot (1962, 1963) following their de scriptions (Table 6 1). Other sources are used to clarify descriptions and measurement techniques where Giles and Elliot are unclear, particularly Bass (1971, 1995), Howells (1973), Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994), and FORDISC 2.0 materials (Ousley and Jantz 1996). The remaining measurements (Table 6 2) are not included in the Giles and Elliot (1962) study, but are used in more recent research by Bass (1995), Howells (1973), Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994), and FORDISC 2.0 materials (Ousley and Jantz 1996). The d escriptions and techniques primarily follow Ousley and Jantz (1996).

PAGE 59

59 Table 6 1. Measurements used by Giles and Elliot, the measurements modern equivalent, common symbols, Giles and Elliot descriptions, and references used. Complete measurement descriptio ns and techniques are listed in appendix A. Giles and Elliot measurement Modern equivalent Symbols Description References Glabello occipital length Maximum cranial length g op, GOL The distance of glabella (g) from opisthocranion (op) in the mid sagittal plane measured in a straight line. Bass 1971:62; Howells 1973:170; Martin 1956:453 ; Olivier 1969:128. Maximum width Maximum cranial breadth eu eu, XCB The maximum width of the skull perpendicular to the mid sagittal plane. Bass 1971:62; Howells 1973:172 ; Hrdli ka 1952:140; Martin 1956:455 ; Montagu 1960:44. Basion bregma height Basion bregma height ba b, BBH The direct distance from the lowest point on the anterior margin of the foramen magnum, basion (ba), to bregma (b). Bass 1971:62; Howells 1966:6; M artin 1956:459 ; Olivier 1969:129. Maximum diameter bi zygomatic Bizygomatic breadth zy zy, ZYB The direct distance between each zygion (zy), located at the most lateral points of the zygomatic arches. Bass 1971:67; Martin 1956:476 Basion nasion Crania l base length ba n, BNL The direct distance from nasion (n) to basion (ba). Howells 1966:6; Martin 1956:455 Basion prosthion Basion prosthion length ba pr, BPL The direct distance from basion (ba) to prosthion (pr). Martin 1956:474. Nasion breadth Nasal breadth al al, NLB The maximum breadth of the nasal aperture. Bass 1971:68; Howells 1973:176; Martin 1956:479; Montagu 1960:50; Olivier 1969:153.

PAGE 60

60 Table 6 1. Continued Giles and Elliot measurement Modern equivalent Symbols Description References Pala te external breadth Maxillo alveolar breadth, external palate breadth ecm ecm, MAB The maximum breadth across the alveolar borders of the maxilla measured at its widest point, between each ectomolare (ecm). Bass 1971:70; Howells 1973:176; Martin 1956:480; Montagu 1960:51. Mastoid length Mastoid length MDH The projection of the mastoid process below, and perpendicular to, the eye ear (Frankfort Horizontal) plane in the vertical plane. Howells 1966:6; 1973:176. Prosthion Nasion Height Upper facial height n pr The direct distance from nasion (n) to prosthion (pr). Howells 1966:6; Hrdli ka 1952:143; Martin 1956:476. Table 6 2. Measurements not used by Giles and Elliot, common symbols, measurement descriptions, and sources of the measurements. Complete measurement descriptions and techniques are listed in appendix A along with a sample data collection sheet. Measurement Symbol Description References Biorbital breadth ec ec, EKB The direct distance from one ectoconchion (ec) to the other. Howells 1973:178 Interorbital breadth d d, DKB The direct distance between r ight and left dacryon (d). Martin 1956:477. Maxillo alveolar length, external palate length pr alv, MAL The direct distance from prosthion (pr) to alveolon (alv). Bass 1971:70; Hrdli ka 1952:146 147; Martin 1956:480. Biauricular breadth au au, ALB The least exterior breadth across the roots of the zygomatic processes. Howells 1973:173 Foramen magnum length ba o, FOL The direct distance of basion (ba) from opist hion (o). Martin 1956:455

PAGE 61

61 Table 6 2. Continued Measurement Symbol Description References Minimum frontal breadth ft ft, WFB The direct distance between the two frontotemporale (ft). Bass 1971:67; Hrdli ka 1952:142; Martin 1956:457; Olivier 1969:151. Foramen magnum breadth FOB The distance between the lateral margins of the Foramen magnum at the point of greatest lateral curvature. Martin 1956:459 Upper facial breadth fmt fmt The direct distance between each frontomalare temporale (fmt). This mea surement differs from Howells FMB in that the lateral most points on the suture are used rather than the most anterior points. Martin 1956:475. Nasal height n ns, NLH The direct distance from nasion (n) to nasospinale (ns). Bass 1971:68; Howells 1966: 6; Martin 1956:479; Olivier 1969:153 Orbital breadth d ec, OBB The laterally sloping distance from dacryon (d) to ectoconchion (ec). Martin 1956:477 478; Howells 1973:175 Orbital height OBH The direct distance between the superior and inferior orbit al margins. Bass 1971:69; Martin 1956:478; Montagu 1960:51; Olivier 1969:152. Biorbital breadth ec ec, EKB The direct distance from one ectoconchion (ec) to the other. Howells 1973:178 Interorbital breadth d d, DKB The direct distance between right and left dacryon (d). Martin 1956:477. Frontal chord n b, FRC The direct distance from nasion (n) to bregma (b) taken in the midsagittal plane. Howells 1973:181; Martin 1956:465. Parietal chord b l, PAC The direct distance from bregma (b) to lambda (l) taken in the midsagittal plane. Howells 1973:182; Martin 1956:466. Occipital chord l o, OCC The direct distance from lambda (l) to opisthion (o) taken in the midsagittal plane. Howells 1973:182; Martin 1956:466.

PAGE 62

62 Statistical Procedures Calculation s are performed using Microsoft Excel 2004 for Macintosh, Version 11.3.3 and SAS 8.3 running on Unix at grove.ufl.edu. A t test is a statistical hypothesis test that follows a Students t distribution if the null hypothesis is true and the variable is norm ally distributed. The t test is used to test the null hypothesis that the mean of a variable is the same for males and females against the alternative that the means are different. The value of the t statistic is the difference between the means of the two groups divided by the standard error of the difference. The result is used to identify which variables are likely to be useful in discriminating between male and female crania. The t statistic is calculated using the formula: wher e is the difference between the sample means, and is the standard error of the differences between the two means. For groups of unequal size, is computed by the formula: where (variance) is calculated by the formula: and is calculated using the VAR function in Excel. The t statistic is then compared to a Students t distribution with n 2 degree s of freedom. This is accomplished using the TDIST function in Excel. Multiple Analysis of Variance, or MANOVA, is the multivariate equivalent of a t test. It is used to test the null hypothesis that more than two groups do not differ for multiple variab les. In

PAGE 63

63 the present case, it is used to test the hypothesis that all of the individuals from the different sites in this research can be considered to be a single group for the purposes of this study. The MANOVA is preformed using SAS PROC GLM. PROC GLM Da ta=thesisdata ORDER=freq; CLASS site; MODEL GOL XCB ZYB BBH BNL BPL AUB WFB UFBR EKB FRC PAC MDHA= site; MANOVA H=site / PRINTE; The next task is to calculate the results of the Giles and Elliot (1962) function 3 for sex discrimination on the study sam ple in order to evaluate its accuracy. Sex is first determined using the sectioning point given by Giles and Elliot. The sectioning point is then recalculated using the method described by Giles and Elliot. The average of the function is calculated using t he average value of each function for each sex separately, and the sectioning point is placed midway between the two results. The function is calculated again, replacing missing values with the average of the male and female means for that variable. Accuracy is then evaluated again using the original sectioning point, and the recalculated sectioning point described above. Once the accuracy of the Giles and Elliot formula is determined, new discriminant functions are calculated based on the data collected. The first function calculated uses the same variables Giles and Elliot used. The second function calculated uses the variables selected using t tests and that showed good preservation as indicated by the proportion of crania from wh ich the measurement could be observed. Exact binomial probabilities are used to compare the accuracy of new results to Giles and Elliots (1963) reported accuracy of 86.4%. Exact probabilities are calculated using the SAS

PAGE 64

64 PROC FREQ procedure with the EXAC T BINOMIAL option. The null hypothesis is that the accuracy of the formulas is equal against the alternative that the new accuracy is higher. Fishers exact test is used to compare the accuracy between sets of new results. Fishers exact test is a non para metric statistical hypothesis test used for categorical data where samples are too small for the Chi squared test. Fishers exact test is calculated using the PROC FREQ procedure with the CHISQ option. The null hypothesis is that the accuracies are equal, which is tested against the alternative that the accuracies are different.

PAGE 65

65 CHAPTER 7 RESULTS General Results This section presents the results of the analysis described in Methods and Materials. Discri minant function scores are calculated for each individual using the Giles and Elliot (1963) formula for sex determination. Each individual is classified as male or female using the sectioning point published by Giles and Elliot. Each individual is classifi ed again using a recalculated sectioning point based on sample data following a method recommended by Giles and Elliot (1963). Using the published Giles and Elliot (1963) sectioning point, the formula correctly classifies 13 of 13 males, and 2 of 4 females The overall accuracy is 88.24%, but the error is unequally distributed. Using the recalculated sectioning point, the formula correctly classifies 12 of 13 males, and 3 of 4 females. The overall accuracy is still 88.24%, but the error is evenly distribute d. This error rate is not significantly different than that reported by Giles and Elliot, but the sample size is unacceptably small due to missing variables. In order to increase the sample size, missing variables are replaced with the average of the male and female means for each variable. This allows the calculation of the discriminant function to be completed without allowing missing variables to influence sex classification. Discriminant function scores are calculated for each individual using the Gile s and Elliot (1963) formula for sex determination. Each individual is classified as male or female using the sectioning point published by Giles and Elliot (1963). Each individual is classified again using a recalculated sectioning point based on sample da ta following a method recommended by Giles and Elliot. Using the Giles and Elliot sectioning point, the formula correctly classifies 31 of 32 males, and 2 of 13 females. The overall accuracy is 73.33%, but the error is unequally

PAGE 66

66 distributed. Using the reca lculated sectioning point, the formula correctly classifies 27 of 32 males, and 11 of 13 females. The overall accuracy is 84.44%, and the error is evenly distributed. Variables for further analysis are selected using t tests and variable preservation rates T tests are performed to identify variables that are likely to be useful in discriminating between males and females. Ten variables are significant, including: GOL, BBH, BNL, BPL, AUB, WFB, UFBR, EKB, PAC, and MDH. Five of these variables are excluded fr om further analysis because their low preservation would have decreased the number of usable individuals to unacceptable levels. The excluded significant variables are: BBH, BNL, BPL, UFBR, and EKB. The variables retained for further analysis are GOL, AUB, WFB, PAC, and MDHA. A MANOVA is performed using the retained variables to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups. There is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups. Therefore it is concluded that all individuals could be treated as a single group. Two new discriminant functions are created. The first is created from the sample data using the same variables used by Giles and Elliot (1963). The second is created using the varia bles identified in the variable selection step. The first step is to create a new formula using the same variables as Giles and Elliot (1963). This is done using PROC DISCRIM in SAS and variables GOL XCB BBH ZYB BPL UFHT MAB MDHA. Again, discriminant funct ion scores could only be calculated for 17 individuals (13 Male and 4 female) due to missing variables. The new function correctly classifies 13 of 13 males and 4 of 4 females, for a combined accuracy of 100%. This is not significantly different from the a ccuracy of the Giles and Elliot function. Next, a new function is calculated using the variables identified during variable selection. This is done using PROC DISCRIM in SAS and variables GOL, XCB, AUB, WFB, FRC, PAC,

PAGE 67

67 and MDHA. Discriminant function scores are calculated for 38 individuals, 26 males and 12 females. The new function correctly classifies 11 of 12 females and 24 of 26 males for a combined accuracy of 91.99%. The discriminant function is then applied to the full sample, substituting missing val ues with the average of the male and female means from the test sample. This function assigned sex correctly to 12 of 13 females and 27 of 32 males, for a total accuracy of 86.67%. This is not significantly different than the accuracy of the Giles and Elli ot function. Specific Results Giles and Elliot Discriminant Function Discriminant function scores are calculated for each individual using Giles and Elliots (1963) discriminant function 3 based on a combined sample of black and white individuals (see Tabl e 2 1, function 3). The purpose of this task is to establish the accuracy of the Giles and Elliot function on Florida and Georgia Native Americans for comparison to new discriminant functions. Thirteen males and four females are complete enough to record a ll eight measurements needed to use the Giles and Elliot function. Using the sectioning point reported by Giles and Elliot (1963), the formula classifies individuals with discriminant function scores above 6237.95 as male, and individuals below that score as female. The formula correctly classifies all 13 males, but only classifies 2 of 4 females correctly. While the overall accuracy of 88.24% compares well with the Giles and Elliot result of 86%, the error is not equally distributed between males and femal es. All males are correctly classified while half of the females are misclassified. This violates the requirement of DFA that error be spread equally among groups (Kendal 1957). This type of error is known to occur when a discriminant function is applied t o a group that is not included in the development of the formula. Giles and Elliot report this type of error where they attempt to use their formula on different groups. To avoid this problem, Giles and Elliot recommend recalculating the sectioning

PAGE 68

68 point b ased on the sample data. Their method is to create a centroid discriminant function score for each sex by using the mean value of each variable to calculate discriminant function scores. The average of the male and female centroids is used as the sectionin g point. "We can determine the mean value of the discriminant function scores for males by taking the mean male value for each measurement and entering them into the discriminant function. If this is likewise done for the females, the arithmetic mean of t he two scores provides a sectioning point to use when we have no a priori reason to believe that a specimen is more likely to be male than female (Kendall 1957). Following this procedure, we will say that any specimen falling on the side of this line towar d the male mean will be called male, and any specimen falling on the other side will be called female. So doing should minimize the probability of misclassification (Giles and Elliot 1963). Table 7 1 Accuracy of the Giles and Elliot function 3 for sex dete rmination on the study sample of Florida and Georgia Native Americans. Sectioning Point Sex Number Correct Total (n) Accuracy overall 15 17 88.24% male 13 13 100.00 % Giles and Elliot Sectioning Point (6237.95) female 2 4 50.00% overall 15 17 88.24% male 12 13 92.31% Individuals with missing variables omitted Recalculated Sectioning Point (6513.392571) female 3 4 75.00% overall 33 45 75.56% male 32 32 100% Giles and Elliot Sectioning Point (6237.95) female 2 13 15.38% overall 38 45 84.44% male 27 32 84.375% Missing variables replaced with average of the male and female means Recalculated Sectioning Point (6513.392571) female 11 13 84.615% The male centroid is 6731.518743, the female centroid is 6295.266398, and the recalculate d sectioning point is 6513.392571. Using the recalculated sectioning point, the overall accuracy remains the same, but errors are evenly distributed. The function correctly sexed 12 of 13 males and 3 out of 4 females. The accuracy of the formula using the recalculated sectioning point is not significantly different from the result reported by Giles and Elliot for males (p=0.9109), females (p=0.8855) or males and females combined (p=1.0000).

PAGE 69

69 In order to increase sample size, missing variables are replaced w ith the average of the male mean and the female mean for each variable. This allows the discriminant function to be calculated without the missing observation influencing the final classification. With the missing variables replaced and using the Giles an d Elliot sectioning point, 31 out of 32 males (p=0.1123) are correctly classified, but only 2 out of 13 females (p<.0001) are correctly classified. Both of these results are significantly different from both Giles and Elliots result and from each other (p <0.0001). With the sectioning point recalculated, 28 out of 32 males are correctly classified, and 10 out of 13 females are correctly classified. The results using the repositioned sectioning point are not significantly different from the Giles and Elliot result for males (p=1.0000), females (p=0.5112), or male and females combined (p=0.8283). Variable Selection The goal of variable selection is to select for further analysis those variables that are likely to aid in the discrimination of males and females, and that are likely to be preserved for measurement. Variables are selected for further analysis using t tests and variable preservation rates. T tests are performed for all cranial variables for a difference in mean between males and females (Table 7 2). This is done in order to identify variables likely to useful in discriminant function analysis. The t test tests the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the male and female means of a variable against the alternative that there is a differ ence. A variable whose mean is not significantly different between males and females is unlikely to contribute to sex discrimination. A variable that is poorly preserved in the present sample would reduce the sample size to unacceptable levels, and is like ly to limit the applicability of this research in other cases.

PAGE 70

70 Table 7 2. T scores and p values for a difference in mean values of each cranial variable between males and females. Significant values are in italics. Variables with acceptable preservation t hat are used in further analysis are in bold face. Cranial Measurement Male Count Female Count Total Count T statistic P value GOL 30 12 42 3.25 0.0024 XCB 29 12 41 2.25 0.0310 ZYB 15 4 19 2.84 0.0113 BBH 27 11 38 3.12 0.0036 BNL 27 10 37 3.28 0. 0023 BPL 26 9 35 2.96 0.0057 MAB 25 8 33 0.15 0.8835 MAL 24 10 34 1.34 0.1889 AUB 30 13 43 3.63 0.0008 UFHT 28 10 38 0.79 0.4356 WFB 31 12 43 3.16 0.0030 UFBR 29 11 40 2.73 0.0096 NLH 28 10 38 1.13 0.2679 NLB 27 10 37 0.53 0.6000 OBB 26 10 36 1.44 0.1577 OBH 27 10 37 0.25 0.8047 EKB 25 10 35 2.73 0.0100 DKB 25 10 35 2.36 0.0242 FRC 32 12 44 1.40 0.1696 PAC 32 13 45 3.63 0.0008 OCC 30 11 41 .11 0.9135 FOL 27 10 37 1.53 0.1360 FOB 25 11 36 1.82 0.0770 MDHR 28 13 41 4.01 0 .0003 MDHL 27 9 36 2.70 0.0106 MDHA 31 13 44 3.92 0.0003 Thirteen of the 26 measurements are significant at the alpha=0.01 significance level, including left, right and average mastoid length (Table 7 2). The significant variables are: Glabello occip ital length (GOL); Basion Bregma height (BBH); Basion nasion (BNL); Basion prosthion (BPL); Left, right and average Mastoid height (MDHL, MDHR, MDHA); Parietal chord (PAC); Biauricular breadth (AUB); Minimum frontal breadth (WFB); Upper facial breadth (UFB R); and Biorbital breadth (EKB). Giles and Elliots function 3 includes the significant

PAGE 71

71 variables GOL, BBH, BPL, and MDH. Variables included in the Giles and Elliot formula which are not significant are: XCB, ZYB, and MAB. A variable is considered to be po orly preserved if it is not observable in at least 90% of cases for each sex. For this sample, the variable has to be observable in at least twelve females and at least 29 males. Five of the significant variables, BBH, BNL, BPL, MDHR, and MDHL, are exclude d because of poor preservation. Five variables, GOL, AUB, WFB, PAC, and MDHA, meet the criteria for significance and preservation. These five variables are used in discriminant function analysis for the determination of sex in Florida and Southern Georgia Native Americans. Test for Site Effect on Selected Variables The purpose of testing for site effect is to determine if individuals from different sites in Florida and Georgia can be treated as a single population. If there is no significant site effect, th en a single discriminant function for sex determination can be used for all sites. Table 7 3 F values and P values for the hypothesis of no site effect for each variable using type IV sums of squares and cross products. Variable DF F P GOL 8 1.35 0.2581 AUB 8 3.11 0.0116 WFB 8 1.60 0.1688 PAC 8 1.31 0.2756 MDHA 8 0.61 0.7620 An ANOVA is first performed on individual variables to test for the effects of site (Table 7 3). There is no significant site effect for any of the variables at the 0.01 alpha le vel. There is a significant site effect for AUB at the 0.05 alpha level. This difference is driven by a difference between the Casey Key site and the Golf Course site, each of which is represented by one individual. For this variable, the individual from G olf Course is a larger than average male, and

PAGE 72

72 the Casey Key individual is an unusually small female. There is not enough evidence to justify rejecting the null hypothesis, eliminating the variable AUB, or eliminating either site. The MANOVA test is the mu ltivariate equivalent to an ANOVA. It is used in cases where there are multiple metric dependent variables, and one or more categorical independent variables. It is used to test the null hypothesis that there is no overall difference between sites for the array of variables included in this study. The sex of the individual is also used as an independent variable so that all individuals can be included, and site difference is controlled for sex differences. Table 7 4 MANOVA test criteria and F approximation s for the hypothesis of no overall site effect, using type IV sums of squares and cross products. Statistic Value F Value DF Pr > F Wilks Lambda .1636 1.44 40 0.0709 Pillais Trace 1.387 1.39 40 0.0817 Hotelling Lawley Trace 2.483 1.48 40 0.0830 In t he MANOVA test, all variables are considered as a single array to test the null hypothesis that site has an effect on the array of cranial measurements against the alternative that there is a site effect. SAS provides three approximations of the F for a MA NOVA, Wilks Lambda, Pillais Trace and the Hotelling Lawley Trace. None of the statistics are significant at the 0.05 alpha level, so there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (Table 7 4). This indicates that it is reasonable to treat al l sites as a single group for this analysis. Discriminant Function Analysis The goal of the discriminant function analysis is to produce a linear formula that can be used with cranial data to accurately assign sex to Native American skeletal remains recov ered from Florida archaeological sites. To use the function, each variable is multiplied by the corresponding coefficient and the results and constant are summed. If the result is greater than

PAGE 73

73 the sectioning point, the individual is categorized as male. If it is less than the sectioning point, the individual is categorized as female. This analysis presents two discriminant functions. Function 1 uses the same eight variables used by Giles and Elliot in their discriminant function analysis, but the function is calculated using a sample of thirteen male and four female Native Americans from Florida and Southern Georgia (Table 7 5). Function 2 uses the five variables selected based on t tests and preservation rates as described above, and it is calculated from 27 males and 12 females. The coefficients, constants, and sectioning points for this analysis are presented in table 7 5. Table 7 5 Coefficients, group means, and sectioning points for Function 1 and Function 2. Cranial variable Function 1 coefficients F unction 2 coefficients AUB 0.0696568389 WFB 0.0138332675 PAC 0.1046833664 GOL .0717749505 0.0325698854 MDHA 0.1075559971 0.2188344979 XCB 0.1456008386 BBH 0.0620766571 ZYB 0.2196351470 BPL 0.4499153016 UFHT 0.2704566313 MAB 0.167559 3848 Constant 49.19563 21.50963 Male Mean 1.007282992 0.744143627 Female Mean 3.273669725 1.674323160 Sectioning Point 1.133193367 0.470560251 Constant=0 Sectioning Point 48.062436633 21.039069749 Function 1 Accuracy Only 17 individuals included all of the measurements required for Function 1. Because of the small sample size, the function is tested on the same individuals used to develop the function. When applied to the sample of thirteen males a nd four females from which it is developed,

PAGE 74

74 Function 1 correctly assigned sex to all seventeen individuals (Table 7 6). This result is not significantly better than the reported Giles and Elliot result (p = 0.0509). It is also not significantly different t han the Giles and Elliot formula applied to the current sample when observations with missing variables are omitted (p= 0.4848). The accuracy of this function is inflated in this test due to the small sample size. A better indication of the accuracy of the function is given by cross validation. Table 7 6. Accuracy of Function 1, which uses the variables originally used by Giles and Elliot (1963). Sex Number correct Count (n) Percent Overall 14 17 82.35% Male 11 13 84.62% Cross validation Female 3 4 75.00% Overall 17 17 100% Male 13 13 100% Individuals with missing variables omitted Female 4 4 100% Overall 35 45 77.78% Male 2 4 32 75% Missing variables replaced by the average of the male and female means Female 11 13 84.62% Cross validation classifies each observation based on all of the other observations. A discriminant function is calculated for the dataset minus one observation, and the omitted observation is classified using the resulting function. This procedure provides a more realistic estimate of the accuracy of the discriminant function. Using cross validation, a discriminant function analysis using the Giles and Elliot variables correctly classified eleven of thirteen males and three of four females, for a combined accuracy of 82.35%. This is not significantly better than the Giles and Elliot result (p = 0.4130). It is also not significantly different than the Giles and Elliot formula applied to the current sample when observations wi th missing variables are omitted (p= 1.00).

PAGE 75

75 In order to apply Function 1 to all observations, missing variables are replaced with the average of the male and female means for each variable. With missing variables replaced, Function 1 correctly classifies 2 4 of 32 males and 11 of 13 females, for an overall accuracy of 77.78% (Table 7 6). This is not significantly different from the Giles and Elliot function using the recalculated sectioning point and missing variables replaced with the average of the male an d female means (p= 0.5912). Function 2 Accuracy Function 2 is based on measurements from 39 individuals, including 27 males and 12 females. When applied to the sample from which it is developed, Function 2 correctly assigns sex to 26 of 27 males and 10 of 12 females, for an overall accuracy of 92.31% (Table 7 7). This is not significantly different from Giles and Elliots reported accuracy of 86.4% (p= 0.4087). Using cross validation, the formula correctly classifies 10 of 12 females and 23 of 27 males for an overall accuracy of 84.62%. This is not significantly different from the accuracy of the Giles and Elliot function (p= 0.8819). Table 7 7. Accuracy of Function 2, which uses variables selected using t tests and preservation rates. Sex Number correct Count (n) Accuracy Overall 33 39 84.26% Male 23 27 85.19% Cross validation Female 10 12 83.33% Overall 36 39 92.31% Male 26 27 96.30% Individuals with missing variables omitted Female 10 12 83.33% Overall 39 45 86.87% Male 28 32 87.50% Missing variables replaced by the average of the male and female means Female 11 13 84.62% To apply Function 2 to all individuals in the sample, missing variables are replaced by the average of the male and female means for each variable. With the missing var iables replaced,

PAGE 76

76 Function 2 correctly classified 28 of 32 males and 11 of 13 females for an overall accuracy of 86.87%. The accuracy of Function 2 is not significantly different than the Giles and Elliot (1963) formula applied to the current sample using t he recalculated sectioning point and missing variables replaced with the average of the male and female means (p= 1.00).

PAGE 77

77 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND DISC USSION Conclusions The most significant finding of this research is that the function derived by Giles an d Elliot does not accurately sex skeletons from Florida and Georgia unless the sectioning point is adjusted. Using the sectioning point published by Giles and Elliot (1963), the function classifies only 15.38% of females correctly. When the sectioning poin t is adjusted using male and female averages for each variable, the function classifies about 84% of males and females correctly. For Florida and Georgia Native Americans, the sectioning point should be changed to 6513.4 when using Giles and Elliots (1963 ) function 3. The overall goal of this research is to determine if the accuracy of discriminant function analysis for sex determination could be improved by using local or regional populations, and by better variable selection. Previous research has tested the Giles and Elliot (1963) discriminant functions on Finnish crania and developed functions for that population (Kajanoja 1966). Other research has developed discriminant functions for fragmentary archaeological post cranial remains from other areas (Bas s 1995; Black 1978; Krogman and Iscan 1986). None of the previous studies focuses on comparing the established Giles and Elliot methods to new formula developed from fragmentary crania from Southeastern archaeological sites, thus making this research novel This research is also novel in treating all prehistoric Native Americans in Florida and Georgia as a single population, regardless of time period. This study addresses the following hypotheses related to sex determination by discriminant function analysi s (DFA): For archaeological populations, higher accuracy in sex determination by DFA can be achieved drawing a sample from the archaeological population than by using a dissecting room sample. Sex determination by DFA can be accomplished with a smaller num ber of more robust measurements without reducing accuracy.

PAGE 78

78 For the purpose of sex determination by DFA, Florida and Georgia Native Americans can be viewed as a single population, regardless of time period. There is evidence that better discriminant functio ns can be developed using local populations, but the results are not statistical significant possibly because of the small sample size. Sample size is small because of the requirement that individuals include both a relatively intact cranium and pubic bone Both of these skeletal elements are relatively delicate and are seldom preserved intact. Individuals who have both elements intact are rare. There is evidence that sex determination by DFA can be accomplished with a smaller number of more robust variable s than those used by Giles and Elliot without reducing accuracy. Five variables are identified that are preserved in at least 90% of males and females selected for this study. It is possible to apply the discriminant function using these variables to 86.66 % of the sample, compared to just 37.77% for the Giles and Elliot variables. The new function also has higher accuracy than the function developed using the Giles and Elliot variables, although the difference is not significant. Implicit in this research i s the assumption that all of the sites used in this study can be considered a single population. The results of the Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) suggest that there is no significant difference between individuals from the different sites used in this study. It is, therefore, reasonable to treat all of the individuals from these sites as belonging to a single population. Summery of Statistical Results The results presented in the previous chapter can be summarized as follows. When applied to Florid a and Georgia Native Americans: The Giles and Elliot function 3 and original sectioning point classifies males correctly, but misclassifies females at a significantly higher rate than other methods.

PAGE 79

79 The accuracy of the Giles and Elliot function 3 with the sectioning point recalculated is not significantly different from the Giles and Elliot function applied to black and white individuals. The Giles and Elliot function includes some variables that do not contribute to sex discrimination, and others that pres erve poorly. The accuracy of a new discriminant function developed using the Giles and Elliot variables (GOL, XCB, BBH, ZYB, BPL, UFHT, MAB, and MDHA) is no more accurate than the original Giles and Elliot function. Variables which do contribute to sex dis crimination and preserve well include: GOL, AUB, WFB, PAC, and MDHA. GOL, AUB, WFB, PAC, and MDHA are not significantly different across the samples sites in Florida and Georgia individually, or taken together. The accuracy of a new discriminant function d eveloped using GOL, AUB, WFB, PAC, and MDHA is more accurate than the Giles and Elliot function, but the difference is not significant. Specific Statistical Results Other researchers have found that the Giles and Elliot formula cannot be applied to other p opulations without modification (Giles and Elliot 1963, Kajanoja 1966). While Giles and Elliot suggested several methods for recalculating a sectioning point, Henke (1977) and Calcagno (1981) have determined that those methods are not practical. Using the Giles and Elliot function with the original sectioning point did not produce acceptable results. The function is able to classify 13 of 13 males correctly, but misclassified 2 of 4 females. When missing values are replaced with neutral values, the Giles an d Elliot function classifies all 32 males correctly, but misclassifies 11 of 13 females. The Giles and Elliot function is not a reliable indicator of sex for Florida and Georgia Native Americans using the original sectioning point. The Giles and Elliot fun ction does produce acceptable results when the sectioning point is recalculated.

PAGE 80

80 In terms of accuracy, Function 1 correctly categorizes all individuals in the initial sample, but did not do as well overall in cross validation or when missing values are su bstituted with neutral values. The accuracy of Function 1 is not significantly different from the Giles and Elliot function. Since it is based on the same variables, Function 1 suffers from the same issues of applicability as the Giles and Elliot function. Function 1 could only be applied to 2 of 13 females, and 15 of 32 males. Function 2 is more accurate across the board than the Giles and Elliot function, but the difference is not statistically significant. Accuracies are almost identical in cross valida tion and when missing values are substituted with neutral values. Function 2 offers better applicability than the Giles and Elliot function. Where the Giles and Elliot function could be applied to 2 of 13 females and 15 of 32 males, Function 2 could be app lied to 12 of 13 females and 27 of 32 males. Discussion The goal of the research is to determine if new discriminant functions for sex determination could be developed for Florida and Georgia Native American populations that are better than the functions p resented by Giles and Elliot (1963). While neither Function 1, which uses the Giles and Elliot variables, nor Function 2, which uses more robust variables, did significantly better than the Giles and Elliot function, Function 2 could be used on more than t wice as many individuals without having to substitute missing variables. While neither of the two new functions are significantly better than the Giles and Elliot function with a recalculated sectioning point, there is reason be believe that creating new f unctions might be beneficial. The first has to do with the problems involved with calculating the new sectioning point. The second problem has to do with sample size and the power of the statistics used here.

PAGE 81

81 Several authors point out the problem of using discriminant functions developed for one population on another and conclude the problem of recalculating the sectioning point has no practical solution (Henke 1977, Calcagno1981). Using the midpoint of the male and female mean score for a function produces a workable sectioning point, but requires a sufficient number of male and female individuals whose sex has already been identified. This is a problem akin to opening a crate with the enclosed crowbar. If there are enough individuals whose sex has been ide ntified it is almost as easy to create a new discriminant function as it is to recalculate the sectioning point. The Giles and Elliot function can be made to work across populations by recalculating the sectioning point, but does not take full advantage of the power of DFA to separate groups. Regional differences in shape are going to add within group variance, which is going to work to reduce the effectiveness of the function. A function developed on a group includes regional differences as part of the cal culation. A discriminant function created from the population under study should have a higher ratio of between group to within group variation and be more accurate if the sample size in sufficiently large. If the sample size is too small, the function may be skewed by idiosyncratic variation within the sample. Another problem with small sample sizes is a lack of statistical power. Statistical power is the ability of a hypothesis test to detect a difference. The larger the sample size, the higher the statis tical power, and the smaller the difference a hypothesis test can detect. In the present study, Function 1 is more accurate than the Giles and Elliot function, but there is not enough statistical power for the difference to be significant because of the s mall sample size. If one considers individuals who could not be sexed due to missing variables as incorrect, then Function 1 does significantly better than the Giles and Elliot function (p< 0.0001). Function

PAGE 82

82 1 is able to correctly classify 36 of 45 individ uals (80%), while the Giles and Elliot function correctly classified 15 of 45 individuals (33.33%). This research draws on sites and individuals ranging from the Archaic to the Spanish mission periods, and should be applicable to any remains from that time range found in Florida. This research does not use any Paleoindian remains because they are so rare. Therefore, the functions developed here are not recommended for use in determining the sex of Paleoindians. One might argue that all Native Americans from the Archaic to the Spanish Mission period from Florida and Georgia is too diverse a group to be considered a single population. The MANOVA test results show that there is no significant between site difference for these groups. The Giles and Elliot functi on uses blacks and whites from dissecting room collections, and that function works well for both of those groups. It is hard to argue that blacks and whites are a single population, but that Native Americans from a limited geographic area are not, even if the Native Americans are from a broad time span. The Giles and Elliot discriminant function works well for both blacks and whites, and there is no reason to believe that the functions developed in this research would not work as well for any Native Americ ans recovered from Florida or Georgia. Future Research Because of the small sample size used in this research and the lack of significant improvement over the established Giles and Elliot function, using Function 1 is not recommended without further testin g. It should be possible to generate larger samples using Function 1 because the variables it uses are more robust than the ones used by Giles and Elliot. Because of Function 1s potential for application to a larger number of less well preserved crania an d potentially greater accuracy, it should be tested on a larger sample. Future tests should include as many sites from Florida and Georgia as possible.

PAGE 83

83 This study demonstrates that when using discriminant function analysis missing variables can be replaced with the average of the male and female means with good results, although the limits of this method are not explored. One potential line of future research is to determine how robust discriminant functions are to this method of replacing missing variables One of the purported advantages of discriminant function analysis is that the functions can be used by individuals with relatively little training. This assumption needs to be tested. A study where students with little or no osteology training are asked to measure crania and use discriminant functions to determine sex should be performed. Their results could be compared to a group of students given an identical amount of training in visual methods.

PAGE 84

84 APPENDIX A CRANIAL MEASUREMENT DEFINITIONS Giles and E lliot Measurements The following are the ten measurements used by Giles in Elliot in their 1963 study. The name of the measurement is followed by the measurements abbreviation, Giles and Elliots description of the measurement, the name of the equivalent Howells/FORDISC measurement, and the method used to record the measurement. Detailed descriptions of cranial points and landmarks can be found in Bass (1995), White (1991), and others. Glabello occipital length (g op, GOL): Maximum length of the skull, fro m the most anterior point of the frontal in the midline to the most distant point on the occiput in the midline. This measurement is equivalent to Maximum Cranial Length; the distance of Glabella (g) from Opisthocranion (op) in the mid sagittal plane measu red in a straight line using spreading calipers. The skull is placed on its side for this measurement. The endpoint of the left branch of the caliper is placed on Glabella and held with fingers while the endpoint of the right branch of the caliper is appli ed similarly to the posterior portion of the skull in the mid sagittal plane until the maximum length is obtained (Bass 1971:62; Howells 1973:170; Martin 1956:453; Olivier 1969:128). Maximum width (eu eu, XCB) : The greatest breadth of the cranium perpendi cular to the median sagittal plane, avoiding the supra mastoid crest. This measurement is equivalent to Maximum Cranial Breadth; the maximum width of the skull perpendicular to the mid sagittal plane wherever it is located with the exception of the inferio r temporal line and the immediate area (i.e. the posterior roots of the zygomatic arches) measured with spreading calipers. The Maximum Cranial Breadth is measured with the skull resting either on its base or on the occiput. The two measuring points lie in the same horizontal and frontal planes. The arms of the caliper are placed at the same level while maintaining the hinge joint of the caliper in the mid sagittal

PAGE 85

85 plane. The ends of the caliper are held in each hand and applied to the lateral portions of t he skull, making circular motions until the maximum breadth is obtained. Areas below the squamosal suture are included, where the maximum is sometimes found (Bass 1971:62; Howells 1973:172; Hrdli ka 1952:140; Martin 1956:455; Montagu 1960:44). Basion bregm a height (ba b, BBH) : Cranial height measured from basion to bregma. This measurement is equivalent to Basion Bregma Height ; the direct distance from the lowest point on the anterior margin of the foramen magnum, basion (ba), to bregma (b) is measured with the spreading caliper. The skull is placed on its side and the endpoint of one of the arms of the caliper is placed at the most inferior point of the margin of the foramen magnum in the mid sagittal plane and supported with fingers. Then the endpoint of t he second arm of the caliper is applied to bregma (Bass 1971:62; Howells 1966:6; Martin 1956:459; Olivier 1969:129). Maximum diameter bi zygomatic (zy zy, ZYB) : Maximum width between the lateral surfaces of the zygomatic arches measured perpendicular to th e median sagittal plane. This measurement is equivalent to Bizygomatic Breadth; The direct distance between each zygion (zy), located at the most lateral points of the zygomatic arches measured with a sliding caliper. The skull is placed on its base, and h e blunt points of the caliper are applied to the zygomatic arches and the maximum breadth is recorded (Bass 1971:67; Martin 1956:476). Basion nasion (ba n, BNL) : Distance from basion to nasion. Equivalent to Cranial Base Length: The direct distance from nas ion (n) to basion (ba) measured using the spreading caliper. The skull is placed with the cranial vault down on a cork or sandbag skull ring. The endpoint of the one arm of caliper is applied to nasion (n) while the other is applied to the anterior border of the foramen magnum in the mid sagital plane. This measurement is not taken where anomalous

PAGE 86

86 growths occurred on the anterior border of the foramen magnum (Howells 1966:6; Martin 1956:455). Basion prosthion (ba pr, BPL) : Distance from basion to the most a nterior point on the maxilla in the median sagittal plane. Equivalent to Basion Prosthion Length; The direct distance from basion (ba) to prosthion (pr) measured using a spreading caliper, or sliding caliper where the foramen magnum obstructs the use of sp reading calipers or in crania in which the central incisors have been lost. The fixed point of the sliding caliper or one tip of the spreading caliper is applied to the most anterior point on the alveolar process in the mid sagittal plane. The movable poin t of the sliding caliper or the other tip of the spreading caliper is then brought to the margin of the anterior border of the foramen magnum in the mid sagittal plane (Martin 1956:474). Nasion breadth (al al, NLB) : Maximum breadth of the nasal aperture pe rpendicular to nasal height. Equivalent to Nasal Breadth; the maximum breadth of the nasal aperture measured with a sliding caliper. The points of the instrument are placed on the sharp lateral margins of the nasal aperture at its most lateral curvature. T he measurement is taken perpendicular to the mid sagittal plane and recorded to the nearest millimeter (Bass 1971:68; Howells 1973:176; Martin 1956:479; Montagu 1960:50; Olivier 1969:153). Palate external breadth (ecm ecm, MAB) : The maximum breadth of the palate taken on the outside of the alveolar borders. Equivalent to Maxillo Alveolar Breadth and External Palate Breadth; the maximum breadth across the alveolar borders of the maxilla measured at its widest point between each ectomolare (ecm). The maximum breadth is usually found at the level of the second molars. Using a spreading caliper, both arms of the caliper are applied to the alveolar borders above the tooth row from an anterior position. The points of measurement (ecm) are usually not found on the alveolar processes, but are located on the bony segment above the

PAGE 87

87 second maxillary molars. (Bass 1971:70; Howells 1973:176; Martin 1956:480; Montagu 1960:51). Opisthion forehead length: The maximum distance from opisthion (the midpoint on the posterior bor der of the foramen magnum) to the forehead in the midline. This measurement is not used in this study because it is not used in the Giles and Elliot formulas, nor has it survived in the current literature. Mastoid length (MDH) : The length of the mastoid me asured perpendicular to the plane determined by the lower borders of the orbits and the upper borders of the auditory meatuses (Frankfort horizontal plane). Equivalent to Mastoid Length; The projection of the mastoid process below, and perpendicular to, th e Frankfort horizontal plane in the vertical plane. Both right and left sides are measured using a sliding caliper. The skull is rested on its right side, and the calibrated bar of the caliper is applied just behind the mastoid process, with the fixed flat arm tangent to the upper border of the auditory meatus and pointing (by visual sighting) to the lower border of the orbit. The calibrated bar is perpendicular to the eye ear plane of the skull (i.e., approximately level in the position given). The measuri ng arm is adjusted until it is level with the tip of the mastoid process, using the base of the skull generally, and the opposite mastoid process to control the plane of sighting. (Howells 1966:6, 1973:176; Keen 1950 ). Other Measurements The remaining meas urements are not included in the Giles and Elliot (1962) study, but are used in more recent research, including Bass (1971, 1995), Howells (1973), Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994), and FORDISC 2.0 materials (Ousley and Jantz 1996). The descriptions and techniq ues primarily follow Ousley and Jantz (1996). Biorbital Breadth (ec ec, EKB): The direct distance from one ectoconchion (ec) to the other. This measurement is taken using the sliding caliper (Howells 1973:178).

PAGE 88

88 Interorbital Breadth (d d, DKB): The direct distance between right and left dacryon measured using a sliding caliper (Martin 1956:477). Maxillo Alveolar Length, External Palate Length (pr alv, MAL): The direct distance from prosthion (Hrdli ka's prealveolar point) to alveolon (alv) measured using a Spreading or sliding caliper. A sliding caliper is used only in crania in which the central incisor teeth have been lost. The skull is placed with the cranial vault down on a cork or sandbag skull ring so the base is facing up. A rubber band is applied to the posterior borders of the alveolar arch and the distance measured from the anterior prosthion to the middle of the band in the midsagittal plane (Bass 1971:70; Hrdli ka 1952:146 147; Martin 1956:480). Biauricular Breadth (au au, ALB): The least exterior breadth across the roots of the zygomatic processes, wherever found, measured using a sliding caliper. With the skull resting on the occiput and with the base toward the observer, the outside of the roots of the zygomatic process are measured at their dee pest incurvature, generally slightly anterior to the external auditory meatus, with the sharp points of the caliper. This measurement makes no reference to standard landmarks of the ear region. (Howells 1973:173). Upper Facial Height (n pr, UFHT): The dire ct distance from nasion (n) to prosthion (pr) measured using a sliding caliper. The fixed point of the caliper is placed on nasion and the movable point is applied to the tip of the alveolar border between the upper central incisors. If the alveolar proces s exhibited slight resorption or erosion at the point of prosthion, the projection of the process is estimated when the alveolar process of the lateral incisors is still intact. This measurement is not taken when resorption or erosion is more pronounced (H owells 1966:6; Hrdli ka 1952:143; Martin 1956:476). This differs from Howells NPH in using the inferior border of the alveolar process rather than the most anterior point.

PAGE 89

89 Foramen Magnum Length (ba o, FOL): The direct distance of basion (ba) from opisthio n (o) measured using a sliding caliper. The tips of the instrument are applied on the opposing edges of the border of the foramen magnum along the sagittal plane (Martin 1956:455). Minimum Frontal Breadth (ft ft, WFB): The direct distance between the two f rontotemporale measured with a sliding caliper. With the skill placed on its base, the two endpoints of the caliper are placed on the temporal ridges at the two frontotemporale, and the least distance between both temporal lines on the frontal bone is reco rded (Bass 1971:67; Hrdli ka 1952:142; Martin 1956:457; Olivier 1969:151). Foramen Magnum Breadth (FOB): The distance between the lateral margins of the Foramen magnum at the point of greatest lateral curvature measured with a sliding caliper (Martin, 1956 :459). Upper Facial Breadth (UFBR, fmt fmt): The direct distance between each frontomalare temporale measured using a sliding caliper. The measurement is taken between the two external points on the frontomalar suture (Martin 1956:475). UFBR differs from H owells FMB in that the lateral most points on the suture are used rather than the most anterior points. Nasal Height (n ns, NLH): The direct distance from nasion (n) to nasospinale (ns) measured using a sliding caliper. The direct distance from nasion to the midpoint of a line connecting the lowest points of the inferior margin of the nasal notches is measured (Bass 1971:68; Howells 1966:6; Martin 1956:479; Olivier 1969:153). Orbital Breadth (d ec, OBB): The laterally sloping distance from dacryon (d) to e ctoconchion (ec) measured using a sliding caliper. The left orbit is measured for standardization and practical reasons where available. If the left orbit is damaged or otherwise could not be

PAGE 90

90 measured, the right orbit is measured and the side recorded on t he measurement sheet (Martin 1956:477 478; Howells 1973:175). Orbital Height (OBH): The direct distance between the superior and inferior orbital margins measured using a sliding caliper. Orbital height is measured perpendicular to orbital breadth and simi larly bisects the orbit. The measuring points are located on the opposing margins of the orbital borders. Any notches or depressions on either superior or inferior borders are avoided and the margin is projected when necessary (Bass 1971:69; Martin 1956:47 8; Montagu 1960:51; Olivier 1969:152). Biorbital Breadth (ec ec, EKB): The direct distance from one ectoconchion (ec) to the other measured using a sliding caliper (Howells 1973:178). Interorbital Breadth (d d, DKB): The direct distance between right and l eft dacryon measured with a sliding caliper (Martin 1956:477). Frontal Chord (n b, FRC): The direct distance from nasion (n) to bregma (b) taken in the midsagittal plane using a sliding caliper. The skull is rested on its right side to view the left profil e of the frontal region. The tips of the instrument are placed on the bone surface or at the level of this surface and not in a suture or other depression (Howells 1973:181; Martin 1956:465). Parietal Chord (b l, PAC): The direct distance from bregma (b) t o lambda (l) taken in the midsagittal plane measured with a sliding caliper. The skull is left in the same position used to measure the Frontal Chord (above). The tips of the instrument are placed on the bone surface or at the level of this surface and not in a suture or other depression (Howells 1973:182; Martin 1956:466 ).

PAGE 91

91 Occipital Chord (l o, OCC): The direct distance from lambda (l) to opisthion (o) taken in the midsagittal plane measured using a sliding caliper. The skull is left in the same position used to measure the Frontal Chord (above). The tips of the instrument are placed on the bone surface or at the level of this surface and not in a suture or other depression. The point of the movable branch of the caliper is placed against the posterior bor der of the foramen magnum and held in place with the right thumb (Howells 1973:182; Martin 1956:466 ).

PAGE 92

92 APPENDIX B TABLE OF SITES Site name Sex overall Catalog # Golf Course site (8Br44), Brevard county, Florida. Melbourne Man male 331422 Bay Pines (8 Pi64) Pinellas county, Florida. (Gallagher and Warren 1975) 24 burials male s0272 female 377440 377475 377503 male 377427 377428 377441 377465 377466 377467 377471 377478 377481 377484 377489 377502 377507 377513 377602 Canaveral (8Br85), Brevard county, Florida. The Canaveral site includes the Burns and Fuller mounds. Rouse (1951) places the mounds in the Malabar I, Malabar I, and Malabar II cultures based on ceramic types. Malabar is an Indian River variation of St. Johns (500 B.C. AD1763). 377605 Cannon's Point, St. Simons Island, Glynn County, Georgia. Late Wilmington culture ceramic assemblage, radiocarbon dated to 99075 (A.D. 960) (Martinez 1975; Milanich 1977) male s0418 Casey Key (8So17) Sarasota County, Florida. A Manasota Weeden Island culture mound dating from ca. A.D. 250 750. (Bullen and Bullen 1976). female 92733 female s0300 s0301 s0302 s0311 male s0299 s0303 s0304 s0305 Couper Field/Indian Field, Glynn County, Georgia. St. Simons Island. Late Pre Columbian/early Spanish colonia l/mission period village. s0309 Garfield Site (9Br57) Bartow County, Georgia. Kellog culture (Early Woodland, ca. 600BC AD 100) village on Etowah River. 18 Burials. (Milanich 1975; Wood and Bowan 1995:8). male s0325 female 97533

PAGE 93

93 Palmer Site (8So2a) Sarasota County, Florida. Gulf coast. Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland. Final MNI 429. (Bullen and Bullen 1976, Miller 1974, Almy and Luer 1993, Kozuch 1998 Hutchinson 2004:49) female 97533 Palmer Site (8So2a) Sarasota County, Florida. Gulf coast. Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland. Final MNI 429. (Bullen and Bullen 1976, Miller 1974, Almy and Luer 1993, Kozuch 1998 Hutchinson 2004:49) male 97555 female 373499 373552 male 373493 Perico Island (8Ma6) Manatee County, Florida. Glades I pottery with some Biscayne and some Deptford (Willey 1949:172 182). 373530 Unknown s0385 female s0361 s0368 male s0362 s0365 s0367 Taylor Mound, St. Simons Island, Georgia. Historic period (AD1600 1650) ceremonial mound. 11 total burials. Same sociocultural population as Couper Field (Wallace 1975). s0371

PAGE 94

94 LIST OF REFERENCES Almy, Marion M ., and George M. Luer 1993 Guide to the Prehistory of Historic Spanish Point. Historic Spanish Point, Osprey, Florida. Austin, Robert J., and Michael Russo 1989 Limited Excavations at the Catfish Creek Site (8So608), Sarasota County, Florida. Piper Archaeo logical Research, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida. Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman 2004 Early and Middle Holocene Periods, 9500 to 3750 B.C. In Southeast, edited by Raymond D. Fogelson, pp. 87 100. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14, Wil liam C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bass, William M. 1971 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual of the Human Skeleton. 2nd ed. Missouri Archaeological Society, University of Missouri, Columbus. 1987 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual of the Human Skeleton. 3rd ed. Missouri Archaeological Society, University of Missouri, Columbus. 1995 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual of the Human Skeleton. 4th ed. Missouri Archaeological Society, University of Missouri, Columbus. Bense, Judith A. 1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Paleoindian to World War I. Academic Press, San Diego. Birkby, Walter H. 1966 An Evaluation of Race and Sex Identification from Cranial Measurements. Ame rican Journal of Physical Anthropology 24:21 28. Black, Thomas K. 1978 A New Method for Assessing the Sex of Fragmentary Skeletal Remains: Femoral Shaft Circumference. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 48:227 232. Boas, Franz 1910 Report Present ed to the 61st Congress on Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1912 Changes in the Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants. American Anthropologist 14:530 562. Brothwell, Donald R. 1981 Digging Up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment and Study of Human Skeletal Remains. 3rd ed. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

PAGE 95

95 Buikstra, Jane E., and Douglas H. Ubelaker (editors) 1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains: Proceedings o f a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series 44. Fayetteville, Arkansas. Bullen, Ripley P. 1958 Six Sites Near the Chattahoochee River in the Jim Woodruff Reservoir Area, Florida. In River Basin Survey Papers edited by Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr., pp. 315 357. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 169. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bullen, Ripley P., and Adelaide K. Bullen 1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropological Society, Gainesville. Iss ued as Florida Anthropologist 29, no.2, part 2. Calcagno, James M. 1981 On the Applicability of Sexing Human Skeletal Material by Discriminant Function Analysis. Journal of Human Evolution 10:189 198. Caldwell, Joseph R. 1952 The Archeology of Eastern Geo rgia and South Carolina. In Archeology of Eastern United States edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 312 321. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Clausen, Carl J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman, and J. J. Stipp 1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203:609 614. DePratter, Chester B. 1979 Ceramics. In The Anthropology of St. Catherines Island, The Refuge Deptford Mortuary Complex edited by D. H. Thomas and C. S. Larsen, pp. 109 132. Anthropological Papers 56 (1). American Museum of Natural History, New York. DiBennardo, Robert, and James V. Taylor 1979 Sex Assessment of the Femur: A Test of a New Method. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 50:635 637. 1982 Classification and Misclassification in Sexing the Black Femur by Discriminant Function Analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 58:145 151. 1983 Multiple Discriminant Function Analysis of Sex and Race in the Postcranial Skeleton. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 61:305 314. Dittrick, J ean and Judy M. Suchey 1986 Sex Determination of Prehistoric Central California Skeletal Remains Using Discriminant Analysis of the Femur and Humerus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 70:3 9.

PAGE 96

96 Doran, Glen H. 2002 Windover: Multidisciplinary Inves tigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Edwards, William Edward 1954 The Helen Blazes Site of Central eastern Florida: A study in Method Utilizing the Disciplines of Archaeology, Geology, and Pedology. Unpu blished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York. Espenshade, Christopher T. 1983 Ceramic Ecology and Aboriginal Household Pottery Production at the Gauthier Site, Florida. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Ant hropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Fisher, Ronald A. 1936 The Utilization of Multiple Measurements in Taxonomic Problems. Annals of Eugenics 7:179 188. Gallagher, John C., and Lyman O. Warren 1975 The Bay Pines Site, Pinellas County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 28:96 116. Giles, Eugene and Orville Elliot 1962 Race Identification from Cranial Measurements. Journal of Forensic Science 7:149 184. 1963 Sex Determination by Discriminant Function Analysis of Crania. American Journal of Physical A nthropology 21:53 68. Giles, Eugene 1964 Sex Determination by Discriminant Function Analysis of the Mandible. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 22:129 136. 1970 Discriminant Function Sexing of the Human Skeleton. In Personal Identification in Mass Disasters, edited by Thomas Dale Stewart, pp. 99 107. National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Griffin, John W. 1949 Notes on the Archaeology of Useppa Island. Florida Anthropologist 2:92 93. 1979 The Origin and Dispers ion of American Indians in North America. In The First Americans : Origins, Affinities, and Adaptations edited by W.S. Laughlin and A.B. Harper, pp. 43 56. Gustav Fischer, New York. Hally, David J., and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. 2004 Prehistory of the Easter n Interior after 500 B.C. In Southeast, edited by Raymond D. Fogelson, pp. 265 285. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 97

97 Harris, Richard J. 1985 A Primer on Multivaria te Statistics. 2nd ed. Academic Press, Orlando. Hemmings, E. Thomas 1975 An Archaeological Survey of the South Prong of the Alafia River, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 28:41 51. Henke, Winfried 1977 On the Method of Discriminant Function Analysis for Se x Determination of the Skull. Journal of Human Evolution 6:95 100. Hoffman, Paul E. 1994 Narvez and Cabeza de Vaca in Florida. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and Europeans in the American South, 1521 1704 edited by Charles Hudson and Carmen Chaves T esser, pp. 50 73. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Holman, Darryl J., and Kenneth A. Bennett 1991 Determination of sex from arm bone measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 84:421 426. Hooton, Earnest A. 1930 The Indians of Pecos Puebl o: a study of their skeletal remains. Department of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts. Yale University Press, New Haven. Howells, William W. 1966 Craniometry and Multivariate Analysis: The Jomon Population of Japan: A Study by Discrimi nant Analysis of Japanese and Ainu Crania Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 57:1 43. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 1973 Cranial Variation in Man. A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference Among Recent Human Populations. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 67. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 1989 Skull shapes and the map: Craniometric analysis in the dispersion of modern homo. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 79. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Hrdli ka, Ales 1940 Catalogue of human crania in the United States National Museum collections: Indians of the Gulf States. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum 87, no 3076:315 364. 1952 Practical Anthropometry 4th ed., edited by T.D. Stewart. Wistar I nstitute of Anatomy and Biology, Philadelphia.

PAGE 98

98 Hunt, David R., and John Albanese 2005 History and Demographic Composition of the Robert J. Terry Anatomical Collection. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 127:406 417. Hutchinson, Dale L. 2004 Bioarcha eology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Adaptation, Conflict, and Change. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Iscan, Mehmet Y., and Patricia Miller Shaivitz 1984 Determination of Sex from the Tibia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 64:53 57. Joh nson, Francis E., and Charles E. Snow 1961 The reassessment of the age and sex of the Indian Knoll skeletal population: Demographic and methodological aspects. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 19: 237 244. Kajanoja, Pauli 1966 Sex determination of Finnish Crania by Discriminant Function Analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 24:29 34. Kelly, Jennifer A., Robert H. Tykot and Jerald T. Milanich 2006 Evidence for Early Use of Maize in Peninsular Florida. In Histories of Maize: Multidisci plinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize edited by John Staller, Robert Tykot and Bruce Benz, pp. 249 261. Elsevier Academic Press, Boston. Kendall, Maurice G. 1957 A Course in Multivariate An alysis. Hafner Publishing Co., New York. Key, Patrick J. 1983 Craniometric Relationships Among Plains Indians. Report of Investigations 34. University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Knoxville. Konigsberg, Lyle W., and Samantha M. Hens 1998 Use of Ordinal Categorical Variables in Skeletal Assessment of Sex from the Cranium. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 107:97 112. Kozuch, Laura 1998 Faunal Remains from the Palmer Site (8So2), with a focus on shark remains. The Florida Anthropologist 52:208 222. Krogman, Wilton M. 1962 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

PAGE 99

99 Krogman, Wilton M., and Mehmet Yasar Iscan 1986 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine 2nd ed Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois Loucks, L. Jill 1976 Early Alachua Tradition Burial Ceremonialism: The Henderson Mound, Alachua County, Florida. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida. Gainesville. Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy 1979 Three A boriginal Shell Middens on Longboat Key, Florida: Manasota Period Sites of Barrier Island Exploitation. Florida Anthropologist 32:33 45. 1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. Florida Anthropologist 35:34 58. Luer, George M., Marion M. Almy, Dana Ste. Claire, and Robert Austin 1987 The Myakkahatchee Site (8So397), A Large Multi Period Inland from the Shore Site in Sarasota County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 40:137 153. Manly, Bryan F.J. 1994 Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer Chapman & Hal l, New York. Martin, Rudolf 1956 Lehrbuch der Anthropologie in Systematischer Darstellung 3rd ed. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart. Martinez, Carlos A. 1975 Culture Sequence on the Central Georgia Coast, 1000 B.C. 1650 A.D. Unpublished Master's thesis, Departm ent of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Meiklejohn, Christopher 1972 Biological concomitants of a model of band society. In International Conference on the Prehistory and Paleoecology of Western North America Arctic and Subarctic edited b y S. Raymond and P. Schledermann, pp. 133 141. Archaeological Association, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary. Milanich, Jerald T. 1975 Fabric Impressed Pottery Site, Bartow County, Georgia. Early Georgia Newsletter, Society for Geo rgia Archaeology 11:4 5. 1976 Georgia Origins for the Alachua Tradition. Bulletin No 5. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee. 1977 A Chronology for the Aboriginal Cultures of St. Simons Island, Georgia. Florida Anthropologist 30:13 4 144.

PAGE 100

100 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1998 Florida's Indians From Ancient Time to the Present University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2004a Prehistory of Florida After 500 B.C. In Southeast, edited by Raymond D. Fogelson, pp. 191 203. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 2004b Timucua. In Southeast, edited by Raymond D. Fogelson, pp. 219 228. Handbook of North Amer ican Indians, Vol. 14, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks 1978 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Miller, Carl F. 1950 Early Cultural Horizons in the So utheastern United States. American Antiquity 15(4):273 288. Miller, James J. 1974 An Archaeological Survey of the Palmer Oaks Tract in Sarasota County. Miscellaneous Project Report Series, No. 20. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahasse e. Montagu, M.F. Ashley 1960 A Handbook of Anthropometry. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. Padgett, Thomas J. 1976 Hinterland Exploitation in the Central Gulf Coast Manatee Region during the Safety Harbor Period. Florida Anthropologist 29:39 48. O livier, Georges 1969 Practical Anthropology. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. Ousley, Stephen D., and Richard L. Jantz 1996 FORDISC 2.0: Personal Computer Forensic Discriminant Functions. Forensic Anthropology Center, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Phenice, T.W. 1969 A Newly Developed Visual method of Sexing the Os Pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 30:297 302. Quitmyer, Irv 1998 Zooarchaeological Indicators of Habitat Exploitation and Seasonality fr om the Shell Ridge Midden, Palmer Site (8So2), Osprey, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 51:193 203.

PAGE 101

101 Rathbun Ted A. and Jane E. Buikstra 1984 Human Identification: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. Rao, C Radha krishna 1952 Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometric Research John Wiley and Sons, New York. Rogers, Tracy L., and Shelley R. Saunders 1994 Accuracy of sex determination using morphological traits of the human pelvis. Journal of Forensic Science 39:10 47 1056. Ross, Ann H., Douglas H. Ubelaker, and Anthony B. Falsetti 2002 Craniometric Variation in the Americas. Human Biology 74:807 818. Rouse, Irving 1951 A Survey of Indian River Archeology, Florida Yale University Publications in Anthropology 44, New Haven. Rupp, Reynold J. 1980 The Archaeology of Drowned Terrestrial Sites: A Preliminary Report. Bulletin No 6:35 45. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee. SAS Institute, Inc. 1979 SAS User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Raleigh, N orth Carolina. Sassaman, Kenneth E., and David G. Anderson 2004 Late Holocene Period, 3750 to 650 B.C. In Southeast, edited by Raymond D. Fogelson, pp. 115 127. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonia n Institution, Washington, D.C. Sigler Eisenberg, Brenda, Ann Cordell, Richard Estabrook, Elizabeth Horvath, Lee A. Newsom, and Michael Russo 1985 Archaeological Site Types, Distribution, and Preservation within the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report 27. Department of Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. Snow, Charles E. 1948 Indian Knoll Skeletons of Site Oh 2, Ohio County, Kentucky. Reports in Anthropology 4, no. 3, part 2. Department of Anthropo logy, University of Kentucky, Lexington. Snow, Charles E., Steve Hartman, Eugene Giles, and Fontaine Young 1979 Sex and Race Determination of Crania by Calipers and Computer: A test of the Giles and Elliot Discriminant Functions in 52 Forensic Science Cas es. Journal of Forensic Sciences 24:448 460.

PAGE 102

102 Stewart, Thomas Dale 1946 A Re examination of the Fossil Human Skeletal Remains from Melbourne, Florida, with Further Data on the Vero Skull. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 106(10): 1 28. 1948 Medico lega l aspects of the skeleton: Age, sex, race and stature. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 6:315 321. 1979 Essentials of Forensic Anthropology Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. Stirling, Matthew W, 1935 Smithsonian Archaeological Projects C onducted under the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 1933 1934. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution 1934, pp. 371 400. Washington, D.C. Stoltman, James B. 2004 History of Archaeological Research. In Southeast, edited by Raymond D. Fogelson, pp. 14 30. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 14, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Taylor, James V., and Robert DiBennardo 1982 Determination of Sex of White Femora by Discriminant Function Analysis: Forensic Science Applications. Journal of Forensic Sciences 27:417 423. Wauchope, Robert W. 1966 Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia with a Test of Some Cultural Hypotheses. American Antiquity 35; Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 21. Washington, D.C. Waller, Ben I. 1969 Paleoindian and other artifacts from a Florida stream bed. Florida Anthropologist 22: 37 39. Watts, William A. 1969 A pollen diagram from Mud Lake, Marion County, north central Florida. Geological Society of America Bu lletin 80: 631 642. 1971 Post Glacial and Interglacial Vegetation History of Southern Georgia and Central Florida. Ecology 52:676 689. 1975 A late Quaternary record of vegetation from Lake Annie, south central Florida. Geology 3: 344 346. Watts, William A. and Barbara C.S. Hansen 1988 Environments of Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site Archaeology edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 307 323. Telford Press, West Caldwell, New Jersey.

PAGE 103

103 Wallace, Ronald L. 1975 An Archaeological, Ethnohistorica l and Biochemical Investigation of the Guale Aborigines of the Georgia Coastal Strand. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida. Gainesville. White, Tim D. 1991 Human Osteology. Academic Press, San Diego. Widmer, Ra ndolph J. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113. Smithso nian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1954 Burial Patterns in the Burns and Fuller Mounds, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 7:79 90. Williams, Shanna E. 2004 Dental Asymmetry Through Time in Coastal Florida and Georgia. Unpublished Masters the sis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Williams, Wilma B. 1983 Bridge to the Past: Excavations at the Margate Blount Site. Florida Anthropologist 36:142 153. Wilmsen, Edwin N. 1965 An Outline of Early Man Studies in the Unite d States. American Antiquity 31:172 192. Wood, W. Dean, and William R. Bowen 1995 Woodland Period Archaeology in Northern Georgia University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report Number 33. Athens. Wood, W. Dean, Dan T. Elliot, Teresa P. Rudo lph, and Dennis B. Blanton 1986 Prehistory in the Richard B. Russell Reservoir: The Archaic and Woodland Periods of the Upper Savannah River. The Final Report of Data Recovery at the Anderson and Elbert County Groups: 38AN8, 38AN126, 9EB17, and 9EB21. Russ ell Papers. Interagency Archaeological Services, National Park Service, Atlanta. Woodbury, George n.d. Preliminary Report on Excavation of Mortuary Mounds in Brevard County, Florida East Coast. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology (former Bureau American Ethnology), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Archaeological Report of CWA Project 5 F 70, December 18, 1933 February 15, 1934.)

PAGE 104

104 Zahler, James W., Jr. 1976 A Morphological Analysis of a Protohistoric Historic Skeletal Population from St. Simons Island, Georgia. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 105

105 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Michael McGinnes, who grew up in Gainesville, Florida, earned an Associate of Science degree in photography from the Southeast Center for Photo/Graphic Studies at Daytona Beach Community College, an Associate of Arts degree from Santa Fe Community College, and a bachelors degree from the University of Florida. He has been employed as a professional archaeologist since 1995 and specializes in mortuary archaeology. He has conducted field projects in Panama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Delaware, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. At the National Museum of Natural History, Smit hsonian Institution, he worked as the bibliographic research assistant for the Southeast volume of the Handbook of North American Indians and was an intern for the collections manager of the physical anthropology collections. He is married to Dr. Ruth Tro colli, the archaeologist of the District of Columbia.