Prehistoric Denizens of Fort Center, Florida

Material Information

Prehistoric Denizens of Fort Center, Florida Osteoarchaeology and Isotope Geochemistry
Van Voorhis, Laura B
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 online resource (351 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Committee Chair:
Committee Co-Chair:
Davidson,James M
Committee Members:
Wallis,Neill Jansen
Graduation Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
bioarchaeology -- florida -- fortcenter -- isotopes -- osteology
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Anthropology thesis, Ph.D.


The Fort Center, Florida archaeological site is known for its extensive monumental architecture, intricate wooden effigy carvings, and 2,000-year continuous occupation. It is thought to be a persistent monumental place (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012:52) because of its long-term (re)use of landscape features, mortuary ceremonialism, and ritualism regarding sacred ancestral space. Cultural materials excavated in the 1960s and the 1970s, including the human remains, are curated at the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida. This research provides a comprehensive and multi-faceted approach to understanding these individuals with a focus on human osteology (paleodemography and paleopathology), mortuary practices, diet, and mobility. Objectives were to re-associate dispersed skeletal elements of individuals and re-assess earlier interpretations regarding the Fort Center population. This research provides a necessary foundation for extensive future research endeavors. Results indicate that these individuals were given uniform mortuary treatment regardless of age or biological sex, which suggests that Fort Center was egalitarian. Skeletal elements re-associated represent 693 individuals: 272 juveniles (18 years), including 120 males and 126 females. As many as 359 individuals exhibited one or more pathological conditions, with linear enamel hypoplasias affecting 27% of identified individuals. Female individuals, infants, and young children display higher rates of observed antemortem conditions such as LEH, cribra orbitalia, and non-specific reactive bone, which suggests that periods of pregnancy, breastfeeding, weaning, and early childhood were particularly stressful. Pilot-level isotopic data (n = 14 individuals) indicates that individuals were native to south-central Florida and relied on a varied diet. Strontium values identified a single individual identified as non-local to Fort Center but still originally from the Florida region. Carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios indicate that the Fort Center individuals consumed both aquatic and terrestrial resources and did not rely on maize agriculture or any other single food crop for subsistence. Unexpected results, both mortuary and osteological, indicate that the individuals recovered from the center of the pond during the first year of excavations (1963) represent a separate, distinct population. Differences observed include frequencies of antemortem conditions, perimortem cut marks, bundle burials, and red staining of elements. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
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.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2020.
Adviser: Krigbaum,John.
Co-adviser: Davidson,James M.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Laura B Van Voorhis.

Record Information

Source Institution:
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
LD1780 2020 ( lcc )


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text




© 20 20 Laura Van Voorhis


To Dad, my mentor, inspiration and friend


4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is often thought that researching and writing are lonely and isolating endeavors with the researcher spending many hours hunched over an analysis table or a computer. While the latter part of that might be true, the work is far from solitary. In fact, t here are many people who have impacted my life and been integral to the success of my academic work. Although there is not enough time or space here for me to personally thank everyone who had an impact along the way, please allow me to try. First, I would like to thank my family; none of this would have been possible without your unwavering support and love. To my parents, there are no existing words to express how grateful and lucky I am that you are in my life. Thank you for everything . To my brothers, E ric understand what all I was doing. The two of you made visits and vacations better and more memorable, and I will always cherish our time together. In addition everyone at UF , m y second family. I would like to thank my advisor and mentor Dr. John Krigbaum, who has become a colleague and a friend to me over the years. Thank you for never tell special thank you to my committee members, Drs. Neill Wallis, James Davidson, and Mark Brenner. Y our feedback and assistance proved to be invaluable in writing what is hopefully a cogent dissertation. Any mistakes are my own. Dr. Andrea Dutton, although by a technicality at the end, your insight and expertise was greatly appreciated. My orts and advice of Drs. Jason Curtis and George Kamenov in the Geological Sciences department. Dr. Kamenov, thank you for providing


5 me access to the clean lab, and Amanda Friend, thank you for patiently guiding me through the chemistry necessary to properl y run columns. I would like to give a special thank you to my colleagues at the Florida Museum of Natural History , especially to Donna Ruhl, who has taken me under her wing and taught me a great deal of things about a great many topics (too many to list h ere) . Donna, thank you for always making the time not only to work with me but also to ensure that I always understood how what we were working on was a part of a larger and ongoing process. Your wealth of knowledge, but even more than that, your kind hear t, laughter, and camaraderie has made more of an impact than you know. I am privileged to call you a mentor and a friend. Also thank you to Nicole Cannarozzi who patiently helped me to identify faunal remains encountered in my analysis . And finally, thank infectious and made even the frustrating parts of research more bearable. I would like to g ive a distinct thank you to Karen Jones, Juanita Bagnall, Pat King and Pam Freeman. These lovely ladies tackled every question and concern with a ready smile and were always warm, welcoming, and encouraging. I loved every one of my office visits and likely stayed for far longer than I should have . This research was funded by several sources. The University of Florida Graduate School and the Department of Anthropology provided the Graduate School Fellowship that supported the majority of my time at UF. The Department of Anthropology also provided additional funds in the form of the James C. Waggoner Jr. Grant in Aid and the Elizabeth M. Eddy Dissertation Write Up Fellowshi p .


6 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 11 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 14 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 15 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 19 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 21 Research O bjectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 22 Research Approach ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 23 Organization of Dissertation ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 25 2 BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 29 Bioarchaeology ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 29 Benefits of Bioarchaeology ................................ ................................ ............................ 32 Reconstruction of past behaviors and lifestyles ................................ ...................... 32 Reconstructi on of bio relatedness ................................ ................................ ........... 34 Reconstruction of stature ................................ ................................ ......................... 34 Insights into social aspects ................................ ................................ ...................... 35 Insights into paleopathology of past populations ................................ .................... 38 Using Bioarchaeology in a Multi Faceted Approach ................................ ..................... 39 Ancient DNA ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 40 Radiocarbon dating ................................ ................................ ................................ . 40 Isotopes ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 41 Mortuary analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 42 Limitations of Bioarchaeology ................................ ................................ ....................... 43 Preservation bias ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 43 Data interpretat ion ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 44 Pathological interpretation ................................ ................................ ...................... 46 Methodology improvements ................................ ................................ ................... 47 Conclusi ons about Bioarchaeology ................................ ................................ ................ 49 Archaeological Theories Applied to Human Remains ................................ .......................... 49 Materiality ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 50 Phenomenology ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 53 Agency and Practice Theory ................................ ................................ .......................... 53 Social Bioarchaeology ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 55 Identity, Kinship, Gender, and Childhood ................................ ................................ ...... 57 Isotopes and Bioarchaeological Analysis ................................ ................................ .............. 62


7 Chemistry of Stable Isotopes ................................ ................................ .......................... 62 Isotope fractionation ................................ ................................ ................................ 63 Isotope standards ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 64 Biological Fractionation of Stable Isotopes ................................ ................................ ... 66 Interpreting Isotopes in Skeletal Tissues ................................ ................................ ........ 69 Isotopic baseline ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 70 Dietary considerations ................................ ................................ ............................. 71 Origin and mobility considerations ................................ ................................ ......... 74 Cultural and individual interpretations ................................ ................................ .... 78 Limitations of Stable Isotope Analysis ................................ ................................ ........... 79 Diagenesis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 80 Sample processing meth odology ................................ ................................ ............. 82 Commingled remains ................................ ................................ .............................. 83 Ambiguous results ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 84 Destructive analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ . 85 Stable Isotopes and Bioarchaeology ................................ ................................ ............... 85 Fort Center Site History ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 87 Terrestrial Environment ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 88 Occupation History ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 88 Excavation His tory ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 90 Skeletal Collection History ................................ ................................ ............................. 92 Rehabilitation at the FLMNH ................................ ................................ ................. 93 Lost osteological field records ................................ ................................ ................ 95 Pr evious Research on Fort Center ................................ ................................ .................. 95 Pollen, coprolites, fauna, soil, microbotanicals, and monuments ........................... 96 Monumentality ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 98 Early bioarchaeology ................................ ................................ ............................... 99 Radiocarbon dates ................................ ................................ ................................ . 100 ................................ .............................. 101 ................................ ................................ .................. 101 ................................ ................................ ................. 102 Mo unds and Monumentalization ................................ ................................ ......................... 104 Southeastern Archaeology ................................ ................................ ............................ 104 Early Interpretations with Agriculture ................................ ................................ .......... 106 Woodland Period in the Southeast ................................ ................................ ............... 108 Woodland Period and Ritual in Florida ................................ ................................ . 110 Belle Glade Culture ................................ ................................ ............................... 113 Fort Center Compared to Other Woodland Period Sites ................................ ..................... 114 3 HYPOTHESES, MATERIALS, AND METHODS ................................ ............................ 130 Research Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 130 Materials ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 130 Documents Review ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 131 Methods of Skele tal Analysis ................................ ................................ .............................. 132 Skeletal Material Inventory ................................ ................................ .......................... 132


8 Re Associating Individuals ................................ ................................ .......................... 133 Osteol ogical Assessment ................................ ................................ .............................. 134 Assessing Population Dynamics ................................ ................................ .......................... 138 Overall Health ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 138 Status ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 139 Assessing Diet and Mobilit y ................................ ................................ ................................ 139 Pilot Sample Selection ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 140 Sample Preparation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 141 Fort Center Comparisons ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 143 Sample Groups for Intra Site Comparisons ................................ ................................ . 144 Statistics ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 145 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 154 Chronology ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 154 Field Season Reviews ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 154 1963 Excavations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 155 1966 Excavations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 156 1967 Excavations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 156 1968 Excavations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 158 1969 Excavations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 159 1970 Excavations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 159 Mortuary Behaviors ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 160 Charnel Platform and Fire ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 161 General Remarks and Taphonomy ................................ ................................ ...................... 161 Red Staining ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 162 Cut Marks ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 164 Burnt Bone ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 164 Re Associating Individuals ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 165 MNI ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 166 Fort Center Paleodemography ................................ ................................ ............................. 168 Age ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 16 8 Biological sex ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 169 Stature ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 170 Pathological Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 170 General Observations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 173 Antemortem and Perimortem Trauma ................................ ................................ ................. 173 Stable Isotopes Pilot Results ................................ ................................ ................................ 174 Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen ................................ ................................ ..................... 174 Strontiu m and Lead ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 175 Intra Population Isotope Values by Biological Sex and Site Feature .......................... 175 5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ................................ ................................ ............................. 194 Taphonomy Red Staining ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 194 Mortuary Practices ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 196


9 Manual Maceration or Defleshing ................................ ................................ ................ 196 Burial Placement ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 199 Burial Meaning ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 201 Wooden Platform and Fire ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 206 Reasons for Doubting Existence of the Wooden Platform ................................ ........... 207 Contribution of this Research ................................ ................................ ....................... 208 Burnt Bone ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 214 Burnt Bone at Fort Cen ter ................................ ................................ ............................ 215 Concluding Thoughts ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 216 Re Associating Individuals ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 217 Thoughts on MNI ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 218 Total MNI using 1963 Burials ................................ ................................ ...................... 219 MNI using 1967 Burials ................................ ................................ ............................... 220 Total MNI using 1968 and 1969 Burials at FLMNH ................................ ................... 220 1966 through 1970 Uncollected Materials ................................ ................................ ... 221 Using No Provenience Materials ................................ ................................ .................. 222 Paleodemography ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 222 Paleopathologies ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 224 Dental Pathologi es ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 227 Cribra Orbitalia and Porotic Hyperostosis ................................ ................................ ... 232 Periosteal Reactions ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 236 Degenerative Joint Disease ................................ ................................ ........................... 238 Trepon emal Disease and Syphilis ................................ ................................ ................ 241 Osteological Paradox ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 244 Other Non Pathological Observations ................................ ................................ ................. 244 Non Metric Traits ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 244 Entheseal Chan ges ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 245 Button Osteoma ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 246 ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 246 Antemortem and P erimortem Trauma ................................ ................................ ................. 247 Stable Isotopes Pilot Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 249 Pilot Results Population ................................ ................................ ............................ 250 Pilot Results Intra Population ................................ ................................ .................... 254 By Feature ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 256 Diagenesis of Materials ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 257 Physical Environment ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 257 Post Excavat ion Treatment of Bones ................................ ................................ ........... 258 Two Osteobiographies ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 260 A 16272HR ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 260 82 22 30081HR ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 262 6 FORT CENTER IN REGIONAL CONTEXT ................................ ................................ .... 265 Bioarchaeology in Florida ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 265 Comparisons ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 266 Mortuary Practices ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 267


10 Osteology ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 269 Daily Lives ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 274 Stable Isotopes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 276 7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ................................ ................................ .......... 288 Hypotheses Re Visited ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 288 H1. The mound pond complex included a wooden platform over part of the pond. ... 288 H2. Individuals whose remains were interred in the pond area had high status. ......... 289 H3. Mortuary specialists at Fort Center defleshed bones of the deceased. .................. 291 H4. Individuals at Fort Center were not all contemporary. ................................ .......... 291 H5. Individuals at Fort Center were native to south central Florida. ........................... 292 H6. Individuals at Fort Center enj oyed a broad spectrum diet. ................................ ... 292 Persistent Monumental Place ................................ ................................ ............................... 292 Separate or Sub Population ................................ ................................ ................................ . 294 NAGPRA Related Contribution ................................ ................................ .......................... 294 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 296 Relatedness ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 296 Fort Center Timeline ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 296 Paleodiet, O rigin, and Paleomobility ................................ ................................ ............ 297 Re Associating Individuals with Artifacts ................................ ................................ ... 297 Other Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 298 Life Course Approach ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 298 APPENDIX A OVERVIEW OF WOOD AT FORT CENTER. ................................ ................................ . 300 B SKELETAL ELEMENTS, HUMAN AND FAUNAL, OBSERVED WITH SUPERFICIAL RED STAINING. ................................ ................................ ...................... 307 C STATURE ME ASUREMENTS ................................ ................................ .......................... 310 D HUMAN BURIALS RECORDED IN THE 1966 FIELD NOTES AND MNI. ................. 312 E HUMAN BURIALS RECORDED IN THE 1967 FIELD NOTES AND MNI. ................. 313 F HUMAN BURIALS RECORDED IN THE 1968 AND 1969 FIEL D NOTES AND MNI. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 316 G HUMAN BURIALS RECORDED IN THE 1970 FIELD NOTES AND MNI. ................. 318 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 319 BIOGRAPHICAL S KETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 350


11 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 An overview of the excavation chronology at Fort Center. ................................ ............. 121 2 2 AMS radiocarbon dates on samples from the Fort Center Mound Pond Complex. ........ 125 3 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 148 3 2 Stable isotope pilot samples. ................................ ................................ ............................ 149 4 1 Excavation years and features excavated at Fort Center and their corresponding FLMNH catalog numbers. ................................ ................................ ............................... 177 4 2 Tarsals, metatarsals, carpals and metacarpals present within ACC#4406 and ACC#82 22. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 178 4 3 Burials 9 and 10 and associated artifacts from 1963 excavations. ................................ .. 178 4 4 Age, sex, and pathologies of individuals from CAT#98810HR, Burial 9. ...................... 178 4 5 Age, sex, and pathologies of individuals from CAT#98811HR, Burial 10. .................... 178 4 6 1969 field notes. .............................. 179 4 7 Human skeletal element s with red staining. ................................ ................................ .... 180 4 8 Overview of peri and postmortem cut marks observed within the Fort Center skeletal collection. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 181 4 9 Fort Center skeletal elements that exhibited fire damage. ................................ ............... 181 4 10 Two examples of FLMNH catalog numbers that were re associated into groups by coordinates. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 182 4 11 ............................. 182 4 12 Fort Center MNI distribution by site feature. ................................ ................................ .. 182 4 13 Fort Center MNI distributions by age. ................................ ................................ ............. 183 4 14 Ages of the Fort Center individuals by site feature. ................................ ........................ 183 4 15 Ages of the Fort Center individuals by site feature juveniles vs. adults ....................... 183 4 16 Biological sex of Fort Center individuals by site feature. ................................ ............... 184


12 4 17 Counts of identified male and female individuals by age. ................................ ............... 184 4 18 Estimated ranges and average stature (in cm) for Fort Center adults. ............................. 184 4 19 Counts of trauma, dental pathologies, and degenerative joint diseases for re associated individuals from the Fort Center site and f or remains with no provenience. . 184 4 20 Counts of non specific stress / infectious diseases and additional observations for re associated individuals from the Fort Center site and for remains with no provenience. . 185 4 21 Frequencies (%) of Fort Center trau ma, dental pathologies, and degenerative joint diseases for re associated individuals by site feature. ................................ ..................... 185 4 22 Frequencies (%) of Fo rt Center non specific stress / infectious diseases and additional observations for re associated individuals by site feature. ............................. 186 4 23 Average number of antemortem conditions per individual by feature ............................ 186 4 24 Average number of antemortem conditions per individual in Pond Center 1963 compared with the rest of Fort Center, using the two sample, unpooled t test. .............. 186 4 25 Frequencies (%) of Fort Center trauma, dental pathologies, and degenerative joint diseases by age. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 187 4 26 Frequencies (%) of Fort Center non spec ific stress/ infectious diseases and additional observations by age. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 187 4 27 Counts and frequencies (%) of Fort Center trauma, dental pathologies, and degenerative joint diseases by biological sex. ................................ ................................ . 188 4 28 Counts and frequencies (%) of Fort Center non specific stress/ infectious diseases and additional observations by biological sex. ................................ ................................ 188 4 29 Antemortem trauma observed within the F ort Center skeletal collection. ...................... 189 4 30 Carbon isotopes from bone collagen and bone apatite. ................................ ................... 190 4 3 1 Nitrogen isotopes from bone collagen and oxygen isotopes from bone apatite. ............. 190 4 32 Carbon isotopes from tooth enamel apatite. ................................ ................................ .... 190 4 33 Oxygen isotopes from tooth enamel apatite. ................................ ................................ .... 191 4 34 Strontium isotopes from tooth enamel apatite. ................................ ................................ 191 4 35 Lead isotopes from tooth enamel apatite. ................................ ................................ ........ 192 4 36 Isotope values correlated with biological sex. ................................ ................................ . 192


13 4 37 P values for t test of difference between means for biological sexes. ............................. 192 4 38 Isotope values for different features. ................................ ................................ ............... 193 4 39 p values for t test of difference between means for site features. ................................ ... 193 6 1 Overview of other Florida sites. ................................ ................................ ....................... 279 6 2 Paleodemographics of biological sex at Fort Center and other Woodland Period sites in Florida. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 281 6 3 Paleodemographics of age of Fort Center and other Woodland Period sites in Florida. . 282 6 4 Total population frequencies (%) of dental pathologies observed in Fort Center and other Florida sites. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 283 6 5 Total population frequencies (%) of non specific and other pathologies observed in Fort Center and other Florida sites. ................................ ................................ .................. 284 6 6 Biological sex frequencies (%) of dental pathologies observed in Fort Center and other Florida sites. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 284 6 7 Biological sex frequencies (%) of non specific and other pathologies observed in Fort Center and other Florida sites. ................................ ................................ .................. 285 6 8 Observed rates of trauma in Florida sites. ................................ ................................ ....... 285 6 9 Recorded stature averages and ranges for Fort Center and other Florida sites. ............... 286 6 10 Levels of LEH and cribra orbitalia and the ag e cohort with the greatest number of individuals. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 287 6 11 Levels of pathologies in terms of biological sex (males and females). ........................... 287 A 1 Wood excavated at Fort Center. ................................ ................................ ....................... 300 B 1 Red Staining. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 307 C 1 Stature measurements. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 310 D 1 Human remains recorded in 1966 field notes. ................................ ................................ . 312 E 1 Human remains recorded in the 1967 field notes. ................................ ........................... 313 F 1 Human remains recorded in 1968 and 1969 field notes. ................................ ................. 316 G 1 Human remains recorded in the 1970 field notes. ................................ ........................... 318


14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Location of the archaeological site Fort Center. ................................ ................................ 28 2 1 Dietary mix suggested by isotopes in bone collagen. ................................ ...................... 119 2 2 Original site map and aerial photograph of Fort Center. ................................ ................. 119 2 3 View of the modern hiking trail now available for use at Fort Center. ........................... 120 2 4 Images of Fisheating Creek as it passes through Fort Center. ................................ ......... 120 2 5 Map of the continental United States displaying the location of the Fort Center archaeological site and the universities involved in the excavation. ............................... 122 2 6 An overview of the site locations of previous research at Fort Center. ........................... 123 2 7 Overview of the landscape features at Fort Center. ................................ ......................... 124 2 8 Sources of samples for AMS radiocarbon dating.. ................................ .......................... 126 2 9 Map of the Mound Pond Complex following Sears (1982) Fig. 9.5. .............................. 127 2 10 Reconstruction of the wooden charnel platform, including bundle burials and wooden effigy carvings.. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 127 2 11 Example of a wooden effigy carving in the form of a woodpecker. ................................ 128 2 12 Map displaying select known Woodland Period sites in Florida ................................ ..... 128 2 13 Overview of select Florida sites from the Belle Glades culture. ................................ ..... 129 3 1 Sources of skeletal remains recovered from Fort Center. ................................ ................ 148 3 2 Sources for isotope pilot samples. ................................ ................................ ................... 150 3 3 Areas in and near the pond. ................................ ................................ .............................. 151 3 4 Burial locations for 1968 recoveries. ................................ ................................ ............... 152 3 5 Burial locations for 1969 recoveries. ................................ ................................ ............... 153 5 1 15 N co 13 C co values for isotope samples and . ................................ ................. 264


15 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACC # ADNA Accession Ancient DNA AIR Atmospheric nitrogen ap Apatite (bone or tooth enamel) ap co Apatite collagen spacing Ar asl ATL Argon Above sea level Antemortem Tooth Loss BCL Bone Chemistry Lab C Carbon or Celsius ca. CaCO 3 Circa Calcium carbonate CAM Ca 10 (PO 4 ) 6 (OH) 2 Crassulacean acid metabolism Calcium phosphate CAT CAT# Computerized axial technology Catalog number CH 3 COOH Acetic acid C:N Carbon to Nitrogen ratio co Collagen (bone) C O 2 Carbon dioxide CT Computed tomography CD T Canon Diablo Troilite DDI H 2 O Double de ionized distilled water


16 DJD Degenerative joint disease DNA DOHaD Deoxyribonucleic acid Developmental Origins of Health and Disease e.g. Exempli grati (for example) en Enamel (tooth) FAU FBAR FLMNH Florida Atlantic University Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research Florida Museum of Natural History FMSF Florida Master Site File FSM Fx Florida State Museum Fracture g Gram HCl HR Hydrochloric acid Human remains (suffix on a FLMNH catalog number) HNO 3 Nitric acid IRMS km Isotope ratio mass spectrometer Kilometer KOE LEH Kissimmee Okeechobee Environment Linear Enamel Hypoplasia M Molar MC ICP MS Md Multi collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer Mound mg Milligram mL Milliliter


17 m m MNI Millimeter Minimum number of individuals n= Number N NAGPRA Nitrogen Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NaOH Sodium hydroxide NaOCl Sodium hypochlorite (bleach) NBS National Bureau of Standards O OC Oxygen Osteological cabinet p value Probability associated with test statistic p b Lead PD B PeeDee Belemnite p pm Rb RB Parts per million R ubidium Reactive Bone SEM Scanning electron microscope Sr TMJ Strontium Temporo mandibular joint TRA UF Time resolved analysis University of Florida VPD B Vienna PeeDee Belemnite VSMOW Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water Delta (lower case)


18 Delta (upper case) Parts per S igma symbol, one s tandard deviation ± Plus or minus < Less than > Greater than Less than or equal to Greater than or equal to Feet Inches


19 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PREHISTORIC DENIZENS OF FORT CENTER, FLORIDA: OSTEOARCHAEOLOGY AND ISOTOPE GEOCHEMISTRY By Laura Van Voorhis May 20 20 Ch air: John Krigbaum Major: Anthropology The Fort Center, Florida archaeological site is known for its extensive monumental architecture , intricate wooden effigy carvings , and 2,000 year continuous occupation . It is thought to be a persistent monumental pl ace (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012: 52 ) because of its long term (re)use of landscape features, mortuary ceremonialism, and ritualism regarding sacred ancestral space. Cultural materials excavated in the 1960s and the 1970s, including the human remains, are curated at the Florida Museum of Natural History , University of Florida . This research provides a comprehensive and multi faceted approach to understanding these ind ividuals with a focus on human osteology (paleodemography and paleopathology ) , mortuary practices, diet, and mobility. Objectives were to re associate dispersed skeletal elements of individuals and re assess earlier interpretations regarding the Fort Cente r population . This research provides a necessary foundation for extensive future research endeavors. Results indicate that these individuals were given uniform mortuary treatment regardless of age or biological sex, which suggests that Fort Center was ega litarian. Skeletal elements re associated represent 693 individuals : 272 juveniles (<18 years) and 421 adults (>18 years), including 120 males and 126 females . As many as 35 9 individuals exhibited one or more


20 pathological condition s , with linear enamel hyp oplasias affecting 2 7 % of identified individuals . Female individuals, infants, and young children display higher rates of observed antemortem conditions such as LEH, cribra orbitalia, and non specific reactive bone , which suggest s that periods of pregnancy , breastfeeding, weaning, and early childhood were particularly stressful. Pilot level isotopic data (n = 14 individuals) indicates that individuals were native to south central Florida and relied on a varied diet. S trontium values identif ied a single individual identified as non local to Fort Center but still originally from the Florida region. Carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios indicate that the Fort Center individuals consumed both aquatic and terrestrial resources and did not rely on maize agriculture or any other single food crop for subsistence. Unexpected results, both mortuary and osteological, indicate that the individuals recovered from the center of the pond during the first year of excavations (1963) represent a separate , distinct population. Differences observed include frequencies of antemortem conditions, perimortem cut marks, bundle burials, and red staining of elements .


21 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Fort Center archaeological site (8GL13) in south central Florida contains dozens of earthworks spread over approximately 300 acres along the south side of Fisheating Creek (Figure 1 1 ). First occupied during the Early Woodland period (around cal B.C. 960 750), and continuously inhabited for over 2,000 years, Fort Center encompasses an extensive amount of landscape modification indicative of long term occupation , persistent religious and ancestral beliefs , and social complexity (Sears 1982; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012). Given the similarities between For t Center and other Florida sites, it is likely that Fort Center participated in extra local networks of commerce, social practices, and ritual beliefs (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012). Until the last few decades, southeastern archaeology was dominated by uni linear views of cultural development and progression (Morris 201 2; Russo 1994 a ), and Fort Center was no exception. For example, Sears (1982:189) ascribe d the presence of monumentality and complexity at Fort Center to agriculture, asserting that the ritual prominent part of life at Fort Center . Indeed, at Fort Center and many other architecturally complex prehistoric sites , inhabitants were hunter g atherers in resource rich environments and achieved re sidential stability, including the formation and maintenance of permanent villages (Johnson 1990; Morris 2012; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2013 , 2014). Instead, theories on the importance of the relationship between religious beliefs and the development of social complexity and inequalities have burgeoned ( Aldenderfer 2010; Lucero 2003; Rakita 2009; Rappaport 1979; Schachner 2001) .


22 The emergence of Fort Center was a n important likely coincided with a change in traditional social relationships among other Florida sites as well as a transition in the role of landscape modification in religious ceremonies and social memory (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012, 2013). Unrelated to agriculture, the activities of landscape modification at Fort Center coincided with world renewal ceremonies and feasting. Centralized rituals associated with burials were common among sites o f prehistoric Florida, and they functioned as elaborate and labor intensive endeavors to maintain ties with distant communities (Hall 1997; Milanich 2002; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012 ; Yerkes 2002). Given its size, Fort Center was likely a central and impor tant meeting place for these rituals ; hosting feasts and b urial ceremonies would allow Fort Center to occupy a role of renewing dispersed social ties under common ritual and religious beliefs (Hall 1976; Yerkes 2002). As described in Chapter 2, the pri mary excavation activities at Fort Center involved three universities over the summers from 196 3 to 197 0 , with almost all of the human skeletal materials excavated by William Sears . The human skeletal assemblage used for this thesis is a part of the materi als curated at the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) in Gainesville, Florida . Research Objectives Okeechobee region, interpretations using human skeletal remains, a key line of archaeological evidence, have been largely absent. The objectives of this research were to fill this gap by applying data obtained from the large human skeletal assemblage to a series of questions , some erpretations , whereas others were more recently proposed .


23 Specifically, osteological data are interpreted to assess the question s invoked by Sears (1982), such as whether the individuals buried at Fort Center represent multiple generations of high status mortuary specialists , and whether their mortuary practices included placing bundled burials on wooden platform s . e s, this research aims to view osteological data, most notably paleodemographic and paleopathologi cal data , through a sociocultural framework with a particular focus on agency and life history theor y . H uman bodies are treated as material evidence and a primary resource to better understand who the Fort Center individuals were, how they li ved in terms of daily practices, their overall health, what they ate, how they related to one another, how they ritually viewed and treated their ancestors, and where they were from. This knowledge contribute s to a better understanding of complex hunter gatherer societies during the Woodland Period (ca. A.D. 200 to 600) in Florida. Using multiple types of derived data, this research provides a nuanced understanding of the Fort Center population by looking at the people themselves. Original questions of so cial status and new questions of overall health and population dynamics are reassessed using all available data. All results provide a critical foundational framework for extensive future research and more refined research questions. Research Approach Thi s research provides the first comprehensive osteological examination of human remains from Fort Center. This bioarchaeological work is multi faceted and incudes: in depth review of all original documentation, including comprehensive field notes as well as a standard osteological assessment considering a minimum number of individuals (MNI), sex, age at death, stature, overall health and pathologies, and trauma (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994) . It


24 also presents a pilot level isotopic analysis of dietary a nd mobility indicators ( Ambrose 2003; Bentley 2006; Quinn et al. 2007 ). The primary research effort for this dissertation was to perform a comprehensive osteological assessment of the human skeletal collection from Fort Center. A foundational contribution of this research is the re association of separated cranial, dental and post cranial elements from For t analyses are impossible. Through the application of MS Excel sort ing , nested comparisons, and filtering functi ons, a detailed determination of biological data at the individual level was made possible. This provided the data with which larger questions of status, health, and paleodemograp hy could be critically evaluated using osteological data. Overall health was assessed through a combination of factors, including antemortem conditions , stature, and traumatic injuries. These data were interpreted within a life history framework to assess how these conditions might affect men, women, and children at Fort Center at a daily scale of analysis . Insight into social status was determined through a correlation of physical health factors with mortuary data . Information regarding mortuary behaviors was derived from original site documentation at the FLMNH, To make meaningful interpretations using both osteological and mortuary data, individuals were correlated with distinct site features at Fort Center, including Mound A, Mound 13, Mound B, the platform, and the pond. A secondary research effort was to complete a n isotop ic analysis for a pilot level collection of 1 4 individuals to assess diet ary and mobility patterns. Individual s amples were assayed for light stable isotope ratios derived from bone collagen ( 13 C and 15 N), bone apatite


25 ( 13 C and 18 O ), and tooth enamel apatite ( 13 C and 18 O), as well as heavy isotope ratios derived from tooth enamel ( 20n Pb/ 204 Pb and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr). Finally, Fort Center was situated into a broader regional context. Results derived from mortuary practices, paleodemographics, paleopathologies, and isotop ic analyses were compared with available osteological and isotopic data from other prehistoric Florida sites. Data were again interpreted to discuss the quality of daily life in terms of age and gender differences for the Fort Center population and other prehistoric Florida populations. Organization of Dissertation Following the introduction, Chapter 2 provides background information on the Fort Cente r archaeological site in terms of environment, previous research and interpretations , excavation history, and skeletal collections history. Background information on the development, importance, and utilization of bioarchaeological analysis and isotop ic an alysis is also discussed. The theoretical relevance of using the human skeletal body as material insight into the past, which provides the backbone of this dissertation work, is presented. Lastly, a geopolitical overview of prehistoric Florida , situating F ort Center among its contemporary populations , is provided. Chapter 3 summarizes an overview of all materials, methodologies, and hypotheses. First, relevant research hypotheses are provided. Second, a review of the materials used for this research, inclu ding documentation and skeletal remains, is given. Third , methods of osteological analysis are presented , s pecifically, methods of re association and standard methods utilized to How these data can be carefully applied to sociocultural questions of health and status is reviewed. Fourth , the steps undertaken for sample selection and sample preparation for isotop ic analysis are presented. Finally, this chapter


26 summarizes the statistical method s utilized for intra site and inter site comparisons as well as the rationale for intra site groups by site feature . Chapter 4 presents the results of this research. Summaries of all field seasons that excavated human remains at Fort Center are provided , as are results indicative of mortuary behaviors. An overview of the bioarchaeological information, including re association of individuals, minimum number of individuals, age at death, sex, stature, pathologies, and trauma, is discussed for the Fort Cente r population. Finally, t he isotop ic results for carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, strontium, and lead ratios are presented at both the population level and by biological sex and site feature . Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the significance of the results pres ented in Chapter 4. Mortuary behaviors are assessed in terms of placement and meaning, and contributions to the existing debate of a wooden platform are made. Paleodemographics and paleopathologies from the human skeletal assemblage are discussed, and the isotop ic data are interpreted in terms of individual and population level diet and mobility patterns. Finally, two in depth osteobiographies are provided for two individuals , for which all relevant data are available to contextualize the power of multi faceted bioarchaeological inquiry . Chapter 6 relates the osteological and isotopic data from Fort Center to available, published data from other Florida sites. Comparisons in terms of mortuary pract ices, pathologies, diet, origins, and mobility patterns are made among different prehistoric Florida sites. These comparisons are then interpreted within a broader social framework that enables insight into daily practices and quality of life according to age and biological sex. Finally, in Chapter 7 , all results are related back to the original hypotheses discussed in Chapter 3. Broad interpretations and key findings regarding the Fort Center population , including


27 overall health, social status, and patter ns of mobility , are summarized, and extensive avenues for future research are suggested.


28 Figure 1 1. Location of the archaeological site Fort Center. Figure adapted from Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012).


29 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND This dissertation illustrates the effective use of bioarchaeology, a companion to anthropological archaeology, which has developed into an integrative and multidisciplinary approach within biological anthropology. Bioarchaeological data generally encompass a broad variety of information derived from visual inspection (e.g., sex, age at death, ancestry, stature, skeletal trauma, skeletal pathologies, dental disease, cultural body modifications), as well as valuable insight inferred from isotope analysis (e.g ., date of death, paleodiet, mobility, and origin). An overview of the bioarchaeology discipline and the theory behind using extensive, multifaceted physical data to infer cultural details is presented below . Also discussed is the u se of different i sotope systems for bioarchaeological a nalysis and relevant information that may be gleaned from their analysis, highlighting one of the most versatile tools of the bioarchaeologist. Finally, a history of Fort Center provide s focus. Bioarchaeology The human skeleton is a ubiquitous but unique repository for social information regarding the lifeways, including diet, patterns of movement, and social inequality of past people (Gowland and Kn ü sel 2006 ; Katzenberg and Saunders 2008). Bioarchaeology seeks to explain human behaviors across space and time to better understand cultural similarities, differences, and complexities (Zuckerman and Martin 2006). Looking at past skeletal populations with a simulta neously individual and population level approach is compl e mentary. Bioarchaeology can o of individuals excavated within an archaeological domain (Stodder and Pa lkovich 2012). These osteobiographies can then be used as a natural complement to a wider understanding of the population.


30 Although bioarchaeologists specialize in analyzing the physical materials present, or human skeletal remains, through an assessment of biological components, it is only through this material that bioarchaeologists are able to access a deeper understanding of past cultures. The its social and phy sical environment in dynamic ways. The skeletal body reflects the social body, a qualified to study past individuals and populations. With an osteological approa ch that considers both biological and cultural data, bioarchaeologists can study individuals and society from infancy to death and beyond (Geller 2008). Furthermore, skeletal remains provide information that may not be visible from other lines of evidence (Perry 2007). When utilized as part of a multi faceted approach, including additional components such as archaeological data, mortuary analysis, historical records, isotop ic analysis, radiocarbon dating, and ancient DNA, bioarchaeology offers an invaluable , integrative and interdisciplinary perspective. Human skeletal remains provide a unique source of information on the interaction of physical attributes, such as health, genetics, and cultural processes. Osteological analysis can be used to infer cultu ral variability as well as to examine relationships of disease, the environment, and lifeways (Lambert 2000). Skeletal remains offer a direct means of interpreting these processes, in contrast with archaeological or historical resources, which must be inte rpreted with more caution (Walker 1997). However, using human skeletal remains in addition to other means of knowledge archaeological, historical, ethnographical is a powerful way to reduce bias of interpretation. Using multiple lines of evidence creat es a multi faceted understanding that is more likely to be an accurate reflection of the past (Walker 2000). In fact, a reliable and comprehensive bioarchaeological approach to infer past behaviors and lifestyles requires the


31 analysis and understanding of both the archaeological contexts and the human skeletal remains (Pearson and Buikstra 2006). Additionally, when a skeletal population is known to represent multiple generations, a diachronic assessment is useful for providing adaptive information about hum ankind (Walker 2000). Bioarchaeology focuses on the analysis of human skeletal remains to gain information from past populations that can be of value to modern populations ( Walker 2000 ; Zuckerman and Armelagos 2011). Bioarchaeologists seek to analyze skel etal populations in order to document major biocultural trends in the processes of human adaptation (Stodder and Palkovich 2012). The data sets already produced by global bioarchaeologists are enormous, and large scale comparisons can shed light on general changes that human populations have undergone over time (Larsen 2002). For example, one area of focus for such broad comparisons is the adoption of a sedentary lifestyle concomitant with intensive agriculture (Cohen and Armelagos 1984 ; Cohen and Crane Kra mer 200 7 ). Cohen and Armelagos (1984) broadly compare d pre agriculture populations with agricultural populations and discern ed that general changes in health, although not universal, did occur during this transition. Bioarchaeology, with a focus on paleopa thology, can also determine major epidemiological transitions and their implications over time (Armelagos 2003). Studying infectious disease and health among past populations can yield insight into the suffering of modern populations. Dental pathologies , f or example, are a n increasing global issue today. Developed and developing countries alike suffer from dental caries, alveolar abscesses, and to a certain extent, linear enamel hypoplasias. Furthermore, a study using human osteology is well suited to a fra mework for integrating factors of human adaptability and health within their larger biocultural and ecological context (Zuckerman and


32 Martin 2006). Human susceptibility to physical stress is dependent upon many factors, and bioarchaeology is uniquely quali fied to look at the effects of these variables on human biology. Benefits of Bioarchaeology The tools and techniques used by bioarchaeologists facilitate the reconstruction of the , as well as an assessment of biologica l relatedness among individuals. Bioarchaeological data can provide insights into social aspects of a past population , as well as conclusions regarding their pathologies and overall health. These benefits are considered more fully below. Reconstruction of past behaviors and lifestyles bones and the teeth. These changes are generally interpreted as being the result of habitual behaviors that occurred with enough freq uency to impact the body. In the bones, cartilage that covers the articulating surfaces of joints will erode as a result of use of the joint (Larsen 2002). When the amount of use is pronounced, usually the result of repetitive or prolonged physical activi ties, the skeletal joints will begin to change. Three primary indicators of physical activity are osteoarthritis, the biomechanics of long bones, and muscle attachment morphology (Larsen 2002). Osteoarthritis, which is the wearing down of articular cartila ge between joints through repetitive use and age, has been correlated to activity patterns is multifactorial. Osteoarthritis as well as musculoskeletal stres s markers, such as enthesopathies and muscle markings, are mainly correlated with age and are more pronounced among older individuals. Additional discern i ble factors include genetics, sex differences, and trauma (Pearson and Buikstra 2006 ; Weiss and Jurmai n 2007). Osteoarthritis is used by bioarchaeologists to


33 reconstruct past activity patterns because it results from specific, daily, and repetitive tasks. However, there is only a modest correlation between activity and osteoarthritis, and there is a large variation in incidence and severity of osteoarthritis. This suggests that interpretations regarding osteoarthritis should be made cautiously and with consideration of context , such as culture and environment (Larsen 2002 ; Weiss and Jurmain 2007). Bone remo dels as a result of repetitive mechanical loading forces. In areas of the skeleton that are subjected to high and prolonged levels of mechanical loading, increased bone tissue is deposited to thicken the bone. Cross sectional morphology is thus used to cor relate the size and shape of long bone cross sections to activity. Smaller, less robust cross sectional views of long bones typically indicate less physical activity, whereas larger, more robust cross sectional views generally suggest greater levels of phy sical activity (Larsen 2002). Additionally, more pronounced sites of muscle attachment also suggest greater levels of physical activity. The larger the site of muscle attachment, the more likely that the muscle was well developed and thus used repetitively . Habitual behavior can also be discerned by examining the teeth to interpret masticatory function, and thus diet, and tooth use, such as using teeth as tools. The patterns of wear and damage that are present among teeth reflect how teeth and jaws were us ed in daily life behaviors (Larsen 2002). Teeth can be observed macroscopically to assess general patterns of wear. For example, coastal populations typically show heavier amounts of occlusal surface wear because of a gritty diet from sandy inclusions in p repared food that hasten wear of tooth enamel . Microscopically, using scanning electron microscopy, teeth can be analyzed for patterns of microwear that correlate to hard or soft textured foods.


34 Reconstruction of bio relatedness Physical evaluation of bo nes and teeth can provide key information about the history and relatedness of populations (Larsen 2002). Biodistance, or biological distance, examines evolutionary patterns to measure and reconstruct the genetic relatedness within or between groups and po pulations (Knudson and Stojanowski 2008). The general assumption behind the validity of this approach is that related individuals share more physical attributes than unrelated individuals (Larsen 2002). An analysis of relatedness is based on an inventory o f certain genetically controlled metric and non metric cranial and dental traits ( Larsen 2002 ; Turner et al. 1991). Metric traits are scored with linear measurements , whereas non metric traits are scored for presence or absence. Intra population studies ca n ultimately aid in the reconstruction of social organization, such as post marital residence patterns or patterns of kinship relations (Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006). Biodistance analyses also provide insight into the changing lives of native population s , as well as larger scale interactions of populations. Although an analysis of these genetically linked physical traits is illuminating, it is not able to provide the exact nature of genetic relatedness among individuals, for example, mother daughter or g randmother granddaughter (Stojanowski and Schillaci 2006). However, as described below, if adequate samples are available, ancient DNA ( aDNA ) analysis can pinpoint familial relationships . Reconstruction of s tature Adult stature of archaeological populatio ns has long been inferred using regression formulae derived from skeletal data from modern populations. The height that an individual achieves within a lifetime, or terminal stature, is dependent upon many factors, including genetics, the physical environment, and sociocultural influences. Climate has been correlated to


35 body breadth, and the amount of body surface area differs in hot and cold cl imates (Ruff 2002). Additionally, rates of growth and thus overall stature are genetically influenced. There are three general ways to determine stature from skeletal remains. One is to measure the length of a skeleton in terred within a grave. For this to work, the individual must be well articulated and in a fully extended position. Second is to measure the individual lengths of several bones that contribute to height and add them together. This is the Fully M ethod, which was developed by Georges Fully, a French physical anthropologist. The third way to estimate stature is by measuring the length of a certain long bone, such as the femur, tibia, or humerus, and use that measurement within regression formulae to estimate a total stature for that individual ( Mays 2010). Using regression formulae for singular long bones is often easier to apply within archaeological settings that are subject to disparate patterns of skeletal preservation and representation . Variation within adult stature is commonly linked to s tress levels during development, making it an important reflection of other sociocultural influences factors, particularly stress from inadequate nutrition (Larsen 2015). Stature, like other responses to stress by the body , is mutable during individual gro wth and development. Estimated stature may be correlated to individual and population overall health and life conditions. Insights into social aspects Recent bioarchaeological analyses are conducted within a social, economic, and political framework to i nterpret the occurrences and changes in health, power, and inequality (Armelagos 2003 ; Zuckerman and Armelagos 2011). This broader perspective is better able to illuminate the underlying causes behind the observations within the data from skeletal material . The why as well as the who (individual actors) becomes important. Bioarchaeologists are able to better


36 ascertain what the presence of certain pathologies and their patterning might mean with respect to ant within a larger cultural framework, and how bioarchaeology can contribute to bigger scale questions of human understanding. The modern goal of bioarchaeology is to utilize the human skeleton to transcend the material or physical , and recreate the socia l realm of lived experience. Engaging in social theory, bioarchaeologists can examine aspects of past social processes and identity such as gender, disability, and childhood. This ultimately aids in the understanding of social processes and life in the pas t (Agarwal and Glencross 2011). Social bioarchaeology encompasses research on disability and impairment, gender, identities of age, body modification, and ethnic identities (Knudson and Stojanowski 2008). Bioarchaeology today has matured to the point wher e it bridges both biological and social aspects of anthropology. It facilitates inter disciplinary and multidisciplinary research to understand past and present populations through human osteology, mortuary practices, and social theory (Knudson and Stojanow ski 2008). Although bioarchaeology relies on a physical examination of skeletal remains, recent research has progressed beyond merely gaining a demographic representation of past populations. Bioarchaeology now seeks to reach deeper aspects of past lives, such as an understanding of nutrition, survivorship, physiological adaptation, well being, the human condition, and social identity ( Knudson and Stojanowski 2008 ; Larsen 2002 ; Reitsema 2013 ; Wright and Yoder 2003). One critical way in which the current bioarchaeological practice succeeds is that it no longer focuses research questions on merely biological or evolutionary processes. Instead, bioarchaeology poses broader research questions that delve into a deeper social understanding , and thus e nt wines anthropological archaeology with biological anthropology . Bioarchaeology can access past individual and


37 collective identity in terms of gender, age, status, ethnicity, and religion. By combining all of (Knudson and Stojanowski 2008:398), bioarchaeology uses the past to make important contributions to issues that persist today. In e arl ier days of archaeology as well as the incipient days of bioarchaeology , socia l scientists focused on power and social status with the underlying assumption that power or centralization appeared in response to a need for social regulation (Hodder 2004). More recent approaches in archaeology and bioarchaeology incorporate newer socia l theories and, in moving away from the central concept of power, investigators instead consider the importance of daily practices. Emphasis is increasingly placed on the ways in which social meanings, rules, and relations of power are manifested in daily practices. This focus increases the importance of reconstructing the daily lives of past individuals (Hodder 2004). Daily practices, such as the relationships between men and women and children and adults, become social practices and social rules. Archaeol ogists and bioarchaeologists try to recreate the ways in which human bodies moved through social spaces, such as within houses, communities, and landscapes, on a daily basis, and changes in these patterns of bodily movement that are linked to changes in re lationships and power ( Barrett and Ko 2009 ; Hodder 2004 ; Tilley 1994). Taking daily practice theory one step further, bioarchaeology attempts to explain how these practices create social memory with time. Archaeology and bioarchaeology focus on key themes within the past such as sedentism, domestication, and the treatment of the dead and ancestors (Hodder 2004). These daily practices combine to create culturally meaningful beliefs that, when studied within their cultural context using a multidisciplin ary a pproach, can yield


38 insight into the effects of changes in time, memory, and relationships with the past (Hodder 2004). Insights into paleopathology of past populations Understanding health and disease in past populations is important for several reasons. The incidence of different diseases provides insight into the life history of individuals and populations. Intra population comparisons can be made for more nuanced analysis, for example, health disparities between men and women or the elderly and children . Comparisons of health and disease between different populations can provide insight s regarding patterns of interaction on a regional scale. And finally, diachronic comparisons of populations can yield insight into changes in health and disease over time. Studying past patterns of disease may provide insight into modern occurrences of disease 2002). Bioarchaeology is generally unable to access information rega rding acute, or fast acting, diseases, because the individual die d before changes in the skeleton occur red . Chronic diseases, on the other hand, typically linger long enough that there are corresponding skeletal changes. Three major chronic infections for which there is undeniable and clear skeletal evidence are leprosy, tuberculosis, and treponematosis (tertiary syphilis) (Larsen 2002; Ortner 2003). Bioarchaeologists typically examine the human skeleton for signs of stress, which is considered to be physiological disruption resulting from environmental circumstances (Larsen 2002). When these circumstances are negative, disruption can be identified on both the bones and teeth through microscopic and macroscopic analysis . Frequently studied pathologies include dental caries, alveolar abscesses, linear enamel hypoplasias, porotic hyperostosis , cribra orbitalia, periostitis, Harris lines, and osteoarthriti s. However, diagnosis of pathological conditions from


39 human remains is not straightforward. Despite the availability of more precise methods of diagnosis, many of these pathologies are referred to as non specific indicators of stress, meaning their etiolog y is unknown. For example, periostitis , which results from a disruption to the periosteum, the fibrous membrane surrounding the exterior surface of all living bone, can result from a variety of different pathologies as well as from traumatic insults or events. Despite these limitations, a careful and nuanced evaluation of the form, frequency, location, and severity of lesions, as well as the context of the affected individual has led recent researchers to stipulate a more precise ca use of periosteal lesions ( Assis 2013; Marques et al. 2018; Weston 2008 ). Stress indicators in the skeleton largely reflect stress that occur red during periods of childhood development when the bone tissue and tooth enamel was forming. Archaeologica l assemblages of human remains paradoxically reflect patterns of fertility and birth within a population as opposed to rates of mortality (Larsen 2002). An assemblage with average age at death that is fairly low, caused for example by high abundance of children or infants, is more likely to represent a high fertility rate. The high number of younger individuals indicates that the population wa s growing. Therefore, bioarchaeol o gy is limited in what it can learn about mortality from such assem blages but is well suited for assessment of fertility (Larsen 2002). Using Bioarchaeology in a Multi Faceted Approach A surge in innovative techniques to collect information from human skeletal remains has bolstered the knowledge gained from bioarchaeolog y. Such techniques, including ancient DNA, radiocarbon dating and isotop ic analysis, generate information directly from preserved tissue, i.e. , the skeletal remains. The disadvantage of these techniques is that they are intrusive and destructive. Furthermo re, it can be difficult to balance the benefit s of generating data that provide


40 insight s into people of the past against the loss from destruction of human remains (Turner and Andrushko 2011). T here is , however, evidence of increased case by case collabora tion and dialogue between bioarchaeologists and Native American groups, which normalizes these (Kakaliouras 2008). Only with cooperation between bioarchaeologists and descendant communities can an in creased understanding of the collective human past be gained (Larsen and Walker 2005). Ancient DNA Physical anthropologists have realized the benefits of using ancient DNA (aDNA) studies as a part of their broader research questions. Ancient DNA studies provide a glimpse into past individual life histories, particularly when bioarchaeology achieves the limits of its potential, such as when remains are extremely degraded or fragmentary. Ancient DNA can clarify an rkers on the X and Y chromosomes. Furthermore, bioarchaeology often deals with commingled individuals, which can make re associating specific individuals difficult. Ancient DNA enables identification of specific individuals (Kaestle and Horsburgh 2002). Wh en working with a diachronic perspective, a bioarchaeologist can also use aDNA studies to assist with reconstructing past population movements and replacements. This p rovides definitive links to descendant groups, which in turn augments the depth of interp retations regarding the relationships between the social constructs and cultures involved. Radiocarbon dating Originally proposed by W illard F. Libby in 1946 1948 (Marlowe 1980 ), the exponential decay of 14 C atoms (radioactive carbon) into 14 N atoms provides the basis for dating carbon containing (organic and inorganic) archaeological materials. The calendar age of an archaeological sample can be estimated by the 14 C/ 12 C ratio measured in the sample, together


41 with the known rate of decay for 1 4 C, and corrected (i.e., calibrated) for changes in 14 C/ 12 C ratios in the atmosphere during the past ca. 50,000 years . Carbon isotopes ratios in atmospheric carbon dioxide are reflected in plants following photosynthesis and in consumer tissues, the bones and teeth of animals higher in the food web . Radiocarbon dating can be used to estimate date of death for skeletal remains, provided a sufficiently large sample is available for measuring its 14 C/ 12 C ratio; typically , the petrous portion of the temporal b one is used (Pinhasi et al. 2015) . Alternatively, radiocarbon dates on grave good s or even a sample from the burial structure may provide a reasonable estimate of the date of death for the associated archaeological remains. I sotopes Unlike radioactive 14 C, the abundant forms of most naturally occurring isotopes of common elements are stable, i.e. , do not undergo radioactive decay. T he relative frequencies of selected stable isotopes in archaeological materials can be used to reconstruct past patterns of h uman life ( Katzenberg 2007 ). Isotope ratios measured in archaeological assemblages are now routinely used to reconstruct diet, nutritional ecology, weaning periods, climate, and habitat (Ambrose and Krigbaum 2003; Larsen 2015). For example, bones and teeth from human skeletal remai The three main skeletal tissues utilized for isotopic analysis are tooth enamel apatite, bone apatite, and bone collagen (Tykot 2004). R atios of carbon ( 14 C / 12 C and 13 C / 12 C), nitrogen ( 15 N / 14 N), and other selected elements in food consumed by an individual are assimilated into preserved in skeletal remains (DeNiro and Epstein 1978, 1981; Schoeninger and DeNiro 1984). Since tooth en amel is fixed at the time of tooth formation, the isotope ratios in pre


42 early adolescence (Sealy et al. 1995). Once enamel has matured, which occurs in early adulthood, it will not inc orporate changes that occur throughout adulthood (Quinn et al. 2008). Although mineralization of bones is continuous throughout the life of an individual , the rate of uptake varies, occurring relatively quickly in small porous bones and more slowly in larg e heavy bones (Hedges et al. 2007). S table isotope ratios provide insight regarding diet, socioeconomic status, origin, and mobility. The 13 C / 12 C ratios provide a record of long term consumption of C 3 and C 4 plant resources (van der Merwe and Vogel 1978) . A nalysis of 15 N / 14 N ratios can be used to determine the amount of dietary protein and the trophic level of the protein consumed (Hedges et al. 2007). The 18 O/ 16 O ratios can provide insight s into the water resources utilized and climate during which the deceased individual lived, and radiogenic ratios for lead and strontium isotopes ( 20n Pb/ 204 Pb and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) can be used to identify the geographic area(s) in which the deceased lived. These applications for stable isotope analysis are discussed further in the sections below. Mortuary analysis The dead do not bury themselves (Parker Pearson 1993). Bioarchaeology can be combined with mortuary analysis to gain insight into not only the physical bodies , but also into the social constructs that influenced the type and manner of burial. Mortuary analysis takes the material of the human skeletal remains a step further and allows the archaeologist to better understand how a past society was structured (socia l stratification, ascribed or achieved status), beliefs about death, and practicality regarding disposal of the dead (Parker Pearson 1999). The archaeological remains of the body represent a culmination of culturally applied rites of passage that separate the living from the dead. Within a wider mortuary framework, the body is prepared for final deposition according to socially meaningful, repetitive behaviors (Perry and Joyce


43 2001). E mphasis on the performed funerary conditions enacted by the living provid es a more critical evaluation of the social context. Limitations of Bioarchaeology limitations. One significant issue that has always plagued bioarchaeologists and archa eologists alike is preservation bias of materials at an archaeological site. As discussed below, taphonomic factors affect which materials, organic and non organic, survive through time. A second major first articu lated by Wood et al. (1992), which outlines key factors that can make osteological metrics for the deceased an unreliable representation for the general population. Additional sections below review the challenges regarding drawing conclusions from osteolog ical data, particularly data on pathologies, followed by methodological improvements to address this difficulty. Preservation b ias Poor preservation is a common problem with archaeological remains, both skeletal and non organic. Archaeologists are at the processes, which ultimately determine the materials that are preserved in the archaeological record. Taphonomy, the life history of remains from burial to recovery, encompasses a wide variety of natural and unnatural processes that influence the condition of archaeological, particularly skeletal, remains (Warren et al. 2008). Unfortunately, preservation of organic materials such as skeletal remains is often poor. This begs the question of whether the preserv ed skeletal assemblage is representative of the entire living population. Differential preservation of skeletal elements causes a preponderance of larger, more robust elements to be found by archaeologists, whereas smaller, more fragile elements are lost


44 ( Gowland and Knüsel 2006). For example, the bones of infants and children are more likely to decay because they are smaller in size and density, are more fragile and contain more collagen (Gordon and Buikstra 1981; Walker et al. 1988). Additionally, the dep ositional environment influences the condition and rate of degradation of skeletal materials. For example, highly acidic soils demineralize the bone, leaving it structurally weak and more prone to fracturing. Similarly, prolonged exposure to water will often decompose or disintegrate skeletal remains (Stojanowski and Doran 1998). The taphonom ic process mean s that bioarchaeologists must often work with fragmentary skeletal remains, which makes data collection and interpretation difficult. Fragmentary rema ins hinder inference s about age and sex, which are critical for generating comparative data (Knudson and Stojanowski 2008). In addition to natural processes that affect the archaeological record, skeletal materials are influenced by a culture or population set of funerary rites and burial practices, which can have positive or negative effects on their preservation of remains (DeWitte and Stojanowski 2015). Data interpretation Bioarchaeology relies on the assumption that an individual was not cap able of masking his or her biological response to environmental factors such as disease and nutrition (Krieger 2005). However, in their seminal article, Wood and colleagues ( 1992) introduced the alth and status from human skeletal remains is not at all straightforward. They raised three important conceptual issues that need to be addressed: 1) demographic nonstationarity, 2) hidden heterogeneity in risks, and 3) selective mortality . Demographic no nstationarity refers to fluctuation in population size. Unless a population is static and does not change in size, the age distribution of the deceased reveals more about fertility patterns than mortality patterns. In other words, a lower average age at de ath


45 within an archaeological assemblage correlates to an increased fertility rate as opposed to an increased mortality rate. Hidden heterogeneity in risks recognizes that i ndividuals vary in their susceptibility to illness because the underlying frailty of individual s is not identical (Wright and Yoder 2003). This individual variation to disease susceptibility makes it a challenge for bioarchaeologists to make general inferences about health and disease within an aggregate population. Selective mortality pr esents another problem for bioarchaeologists. All skeletons represent individuals who died for a reason. However, the question becomes, does a skeleton without lesions represent a healthy person or a weak individual who died before skeletal signs of exposu re were able to manifest? Considering the three issues they raise d , Wood et al. (1992) present ed two additional and unavoidable challenges for bioarchaeology. First, any aggregate estimate of epidemiology from archaeological assemblages is problematic, be cause the precise risk to illness or death of every individual is unknown and unknowable. And second, although health and disease are biological characteristic s o f the individual, bioarchaeological reconstructions of past health and disease rely on a popul ation level approach. All three issues prevent investigators from drawing unassailable conclusions regarding health and mortality from bioarchaeological data (DeWitte and Stojanowski 2015). Furthermore, there is always the question of whether or not the o riginal population is well represented by the excavated human skeletal remains; at some archaeological sites, remains constitute a representative sample, whereas at other sites, remains yield a biased and limited sample ( Weiss Krejci 2011 ; Wright and Yoder 2003). To confirm that the skeletal sample is indeed representative of the original population, three conditions must be met : 1) the sample must provide correct determination s of age and sex of the individuals; 2) all individuals in the


46 po pulation must have had an equal chance of being represented within the sample; and 3) bias affecting the skeletal data must be detectable and considered within the analysis (Bello and Andrews 2006). In addition to issues of the osteological paradox and po pulation representation, bioarchaeology struggles with limitations pertaining to age and sex. A ge at death distribution is not uniform across all ages and may be different between the sexes. For example, young females of high reproductive fitness, and youn g males during times of conflict, have disproportionately high risk of death (Jackes 2011). In addition, many demographic inferences are limited by inconsistent diagnostic criteria, and the statistical models utilized to infer sex based on post cranial ele ments are very population specific ( DeWitte and Stojanowski 2015 ; Knudson and Stojanowski 2008). This limits their applicability, particularly if the sex determination models are generated from a modern population. Another difficulty for sex analysis is th e inability to reliably sex subadult remains. Pathological i nterpretation Physiological stress, which disrupts normal development or biological processes, can result from a variety of environmental factors. The diagnos is of diseases from skeletal remains is not straightforward. Paleopathology relies on a general, nonspecific, and macroscopic analysis of human bone for stress and disease (DeWitte and Stojanowski 2015). For example, the human body, teeth in particular, ha ve only so many way s they . Despite it being, in most cases, extremely difficult to determin e the cause of skeletal lesions with certainty, or the precise narrative associated with trauma, the skeleton nonetheless provides indisputa ble evidence that stress occurred (Walker 2000).


47 M odern clinical research, such as histological and radiological analyses, has improved the ability to discern specific diseases among archaeological remains (Larsen 2002). However, the difficulty of definin g health among living populations makes it particularly challenging to apply such concepts to past populations (DeWitte and Stojanowski 2015). Additionally, careful analysis of the location of markers of physical stress can provide insight into the past po pulation. T ooth growth is genetically controlled and occurs primarily during the early years of childhood development . Thus, if most of visible stress markers occur in the dentition, then one can infer Conversely, because bone constantly remodels throughout life, if the majority of stress markers are visible on skeletal elements, then these changes more likely occurred during adu lthood (Larsen 2002). Identifying the specific time of stress can provide insight s into the lives of specific individuals as well as the broader population. Methodology improvements Despite the osteological paradox, bioarchaeology has not been mortally w ounded and bioarchaeologists should not despair ( Armelagos and Van Gerven 2003 ; Wood et al. 1992). Wood et al. (1992) create d awareness and understanding of the inherent limitations of bioarchaeology, and the need for scrutiny of context (Larsen 2002). Thi s awareness offers researchers an opportunity to develop and test alternative methods. Wright and Yoder (2003) note improvements of methodology within bioarchaeology in studies of demography, biodistance, paleodiet, growth disruption, and paleopathology , w hich are steps toward addressing the o steological p aradox. DeWitte and Stojanowski (2015), on the other hand, found that, in the still mentions the Osteological P aradox but without considering its effect on their conclusions.


48 There have been several methodological improvements since Wood et al. (1992) originally described the limitations of the osteological paradox. One significant improvement is the use of stable isotope analysis, which enables study of different tissues that represent distinct providing pictures during infancy, childhood, and early and late adulthood, stable isotopes provide a record of temporal changes in diet. These dietary shifts can be correlated with overall health during the (Reitsema 2013). Furthermore, better understanding of the effects of physiolog ical processes that influence nitrogen signatures, such as bone deposition during growth, bone loss during stress, bone deposition from fractures, and various other pathologies, can provide insight s into infants and children (Katzenberg et al. 1999). Given the preservation bias against remains of infants and child ren, which are often lost because of poor preservation or the fragility of the small bones (Gordon and Buikstra 1981; Walker et al. 1988), isotopic analysis on adult remains can provide insight regarding past childhood nutrition and health. Anthropologie de terrain is a recently developed methodology to reconstruct mortuary practices and social identity. A field in France, anthopologie de terrain is a holistic and dynamic approach to burial excavation. It seeks to understand the circumstances of burial in detail by reconstructing the totality of all events and taphonomic processes that took place from the moment of burial to excavation (Duday 2006). Anthropologie de terrain is concerned with human anatomy and decomposition as well as natural taphonomic process es post burial. This approach considers every deviation from normal, anatomical articulation to be the result of explainable process es (Knudson and Stojanowski 2008).


49 Conclusions about Bioarchaeology Bioarchaeology has grown and matured substantially since its inception. With the development of new techniques and an advanced understanding of human osteology, bioarchaeology is a critical way to ass ess information about the people of the past. When people disappear, what they leave behind is a material record of their behaviors and beliefs, including natural and modified objects as well as oftentimes their own skeletal remains. Bioarchaeology is a ne cessary means to understand the past ; it is also flexible, adaptive, and collaborative. Its rigorous foundation in the scientific method makes it ideal to use in conjunction with other means of investigation . Archaeological Theories Applied to Human Remai ns The processualist approach led archaeologists to assert that objectivity and the scientific method allowed them to draw definitive conclusions about past societies using archaeological evidence, including human remains. In contra s t, post processualists are more cautio us , considering inferences regarding past societies to be tentative, and likely influenced by the background and world view of the archaeologist. Post processual approaches including the body and embodiment, experience, personhood, gender, m emory, landscape, and materiality have added new depth and meaning to the interpretation of archaeological remains ( Crossland 2009 ; Gosden 1999 ; Thomas 2001 ; Wilson 2010). An additional theoretical shift toward a focus on relationships, including people, t hings, and places, has emerged with the inherent understanding that relationships constantly chang e to produce new phenomena and new relationships (Hodder 2012 ; Joyce 2015). These more recent approaches provide more insightful concepts that focus on local meaning systems by using theories of symbolic and interpretive approaches.


50 This section briefly reviews theories used by post processualists including materiality, phenomenology, agency, and practice and concludes with a discussion of social bioarchae ology. Materiality Materiality focuses on relationships between humans, animals, things, and places ( Olsen 2003 ; Thomas 2001 ; Trigger 2006 ; Watts 2013). Materiality is included as a quality of being because all human actions involve components of the material world (Gosden 1999 , 2005 ). With a departure from an over emphasis on the subject and a new inclusion of the material world, a relationa l ontology that focuses on the nature of relationships between entities has emerged (Knappett 2012). An ontological shift to relationism, action, being, and perception was implemented within a monistic framework to create a singular world view with one sys tem of being (Joyce 2015). E mphasis on the relationships of daily interactions between individuals and materials was clearly beneficial to archaeology, which deals with the material world. With a focus on processes of materiality, archaeologists expanded their objects of study to include non human agents (Olsen 2003 ; Watts 2013). Access to the data of different materialities facilitated the reconstruction of the different ways that people, animals, objects, and places were enmeshed in interactive networks , as well as the ways that individual subjectivities were constructed (Gosden 1999 , 2005 ; Olsen 2003 ; Robb 2010 ; Watts 2013). In addition to focusing on the active and meaningful relationships among present entities, materiality accounted for the meaningful influence of absences and the processes of deconstruction ( Joyce 2015 ; Knappett 2012). Both aspects were critical to archaeology, which contended with fragmentary remains of entities that were once part of the itinerary and flow (Thomas 2002).


51 Materialit y recognizes that society and individuals differ in scale but not in type; both comprise patterns of social and material interactions (Gosden 1999). Archaeology specifically focuses on the interaction between objects and people, viewing the two as mutually entangled within a social network to produce material products of routine, daily activities ( Dobres and Robb 2000 ; Ortner 1984). Bioarchaeology assesses the movement of past individuals by analysis of the material remains left behind. Materiality encompas ses how humans interact with things at many different levels in the form of material culture (Hodder 2012). When dealing with human burials, one often encounters bodies interred with other material remains. Recognizing the human object relationships and in teractions enables greater awareness about the objects placed within graves, because they are not merely a reflection of the identity of the deceased individual. They also constitute the active negotiation of social roles among the living (Joyce 2005). An emphasis on the relationships of daily interactions between individuals and materials is synergistic with archaeology, which deals with the material world. With a focus on processes of materiality, archaeologists have expanded their objects of study to in clude non human agents (Olsen 2003 ; Watts 2013). Access to the data of different materialities facilitated the reconstruction of the different ways that people, animals, objects, and places were enmeshed in interactive networks , as well as the ways that in dividual subjectivities were constructed (Gosden 1999 ; Olsen 2003 ; Robb 2010 ; Watts 2013). This provides a practical application to archaeology, which is now better able to access the material products of the routine, daily activities of past people ( Dobre s and Robb 2000 ; Ortner 1984). Furthermore, recently developed theoretical perspectives have facilitated a multi dimensional analysis of burial practices and the physical bodies themselves. There can be no (Sofaer 2002), which makes the bodies


52 themselves an invaluable resource to studying past populations. Human skeletal remains are literally material products and they are , although not universally, treated by the living as objects. Archaeology has traditio nally focused on material remains such as artifacts to interpret of past populations. The body, or skeleton, is an important part of understanding past peoples because the physical body is a human universal. Human skeletal remains need to be well integrated within other pieces of interpretive archaeological evidence fo r a holistic understanding of the past ( Sofaer 2002). The human body, particularly with regards to funerary contexts, is a carefully crafted artifact that is manipulated by the living at an individual and collective level (Parker Pearson 1999). A body, or a deceased individual member of a population, is the primary reason for the social phenomena surrounding a depositional event ( Sofaer 2002). A rchaeological remains of the human body represent a culmination of culturally applied rites of passage that separ ate the living from the dead. When a deceased individual is buried, the body is treated as a centralized and symbolic medium for the transmission of ritual beliefs and practices (Barrett 1994 ; Sofaer 2002). Within a wider mortuary framework, the body is us ed as a social resource and prepared for final deposition according to socially meaningful, repetitive behaviors (Perry and Joyce 2001). E mphasis on the performed funerary conditions enacted by the living enables a more critical evaluation of the social co ntext. Additionally, monuments themselves are a particular type of material culture. The repeated or cyclical use and reuse of construct ed features perception of time and social memory ( Gilchrist 2000 ; Gosden 199 9 ). Landsca pe modification becomes a symbolic activity, and the product itself, the monument, becomes a symbolic and meaningful feature within a culture.


53 Phenomenology Phenomenology focuses on experiential aspects of existence, consciousness, and knowledge, which en ables an understanding of how past individuals and cultures construe the world (Joyce 2015); it is how an individual makes sense of the world as an embodied and emplaced being. Furthermore, it removes the assumption that all individuals experience the worl d in the same way because each possessed a physical, biological body (Thomas 2002). H umanistic understanding of the individual emphasizes the which is critical for an individualistic approach of bioarchaeology (Thomas 2002). All i ndividuals live in and engage with the world, which is a product of experiences (Trigger 2006 ). The physical body is the surface through which all humans experience the physical world and give it meaning, and the body serves as a medium for all actions and experiences ( Barrett 2012 ; Barrett and Ko 2009 ; Gosden 1999 ; Thomas 2001). Human bodies are not stagnant; on the contrary, they constantly move and chang e over time , throughout the life course of an individual ( Sofaer 2002). Importantly, the body is also the boundary through which an individual creates a complex set of relationships between the internal self and the external society (Joyce 2005). Bodies are transformed into entities that are symbolic s social presence ( Sofaer 2002), which means that bioarchaeology, through a careful understanding of the body, can produce meaningful information about living individuals of the past . Agency a nd Practice Theory Agency theory emphasizes that individuals create the material conditio ns and institutions of social life , while being simultaneously influenced and constrained by community p ractices ( Dobres and Robb 2000 ; Pauketat 2000). Individuals possess the ability to consciously or


54 unconsciously reproduce or transform these conditions (Dobres and Robb 2000). Although agency theory initially prioritized rational actor theory, there has been a shift to methodological relationism , emphasizing the active engagement of agents with their surrounding world ( Dobres and Robb 2000 ; Ortner 1984). Practice occurs at the intersection of thought and action (Pauketat 2000), incorporating the ways that agencies are motivated, created, and transformed through the material conditions ( Barrett 2001 ; Dobres and Robb 2000). Through daily practices, past peop le perceive d and create d the world around them, producing intentional, unintentional, short term, and long term consequences ( Dobres and Robb 2000 ; Lightfoot et al . 1998 ; Pauketat 2000). The theoretical underpinnings of agency and practice theories developed from prominent individuals such as Marx, Bourdieu, and Giddens. Marx argued that man made his own history according to the conditions in which he lived. This was incorporated into the idea of praxis , that society was composed of individuals who exist by virtue of the relationships created throughout daily material production (Dobres and Robb 2000). A Marxist, material influence on practice theory can be seen in the implementation of asy mmetrical interactions and power dynamics. Bourdieu (1977) proposed the concept of habitus , which emphasized the taken for granted routines of daily life and that individuals make sense of the world through evaluative schemes ( Dobres and Robb 2000 ; Ortner 1984). Giddens (1979, 1984) contributed structuration theory, which proposed an interactive relationship between structure and agents. Agency theory evolved through the newer applications of phenomenology and materiality, which focused on the interaction between humans and the material world ( Joyce 2015 ; Knappett 2012 ; Olsen 2003). Non humans, such as objects, can be considered as actors with agency and are able to influence people and society ( Latour 2005 ; Olsen 2003). Although objects may not always be visible, they never stop occupying an active role in social


55 relationships. Using the basis of the material world as an interface between thought and action, behavioral theory has developed from practice attempt ing to read past actions through the material patterning of the archaeological record (Trigger 2006). S everal approaches emerged from practice and agency theory, including a focus on the role of individuals, the body, the material world, and the landscape ( Barrett 2012 ; Dobres and Rob 2000 ; Gosden 1999 ; Olsen 2003). Life consisted of a bodily engagement with the physical world, which served to mediate actions and experiences ( Barrett 2012 ; Barrett and Ko 2009 ; Gosden 1999 ; Thomas 2001). Invoking biological processes of agency as a means of reproducing life made an understanding of human agency beyond the pre existing culture nature dichotomy possible; this provided a more meani ngful interpretation of human agency as making sense of the world in such a way that life continued (Barrett 2012). Further breaking down the divide between nature and culture was the incorporation of landscape in agency theories, which considered a set of interactive relationships between people and places (Thomas 2001). People created lived spaces, which were networks of familiar places that influenced individuals, groups, histories, and identities (Thomas 2001). Additional theoretical developments incl ude concepts of relationalities, personhood, and fields of action, which recognize latent capacities of human and non human actors and the fluidity of identity that occurs from interactions ( Barrett and Ko 2009 ; Joyce 2015 ; Robb 2010 ; Thomas 2002). Practic e and agency theory focus on the role of the individual and the physical body ( Barrett 2012 ; Dobres and Rob 2000 ; Gosden 1999 ; Olsen 2003,). Social Bioarchaeology Social bioarchaeology encompasses research on disability and impairment, gender identity, id entities of age, body modification, and ethnic identities (Knudson and Stojanowski


56 2008). Bioarchaeology today has grown to the point where it bridges the biological and social aspects of anthropology. By viewing the body and the physical remains as the cu lmination of environmental, social and biological processes, bioarchaeology facilitates transdisciplinary research to understand past and present populations through human osteology, mortuary practices, and social theory (Knudson and Stojanowski 2008 ; Mays et al. 2017 ). Although bioarchaeology relies on a physical examination of skeletal remains, recent research has progressed beyond merely gaining a demographic representation of past populations. Bioarchaeology now seeks to access deeper aspects of past li ves, such as an understanding of nutrition, survivorship, physiological adaptation, well being, the human condition, and social identity ( Knudson and Stojanowski 2008 ; Larsen 2002; Reitsema 2013 ; Wright and Yoder 2003). More recent approaches in archaeolog y and bioarchaeology have moved away from the earlier focus on power, social status, and centralization as a response for social regulation (Hodder 2004). Instead, newer approaches incorporate social theories and, in leaving behind the central concept of power, they instead consider the importance of daily practices. Emphasis is increasingly placed on the ways in which social meanings, rules, and relations of power are manifested in daily practices. This focus increases the importan ce of reconstructing the daily lives of past individuals (Hodder 2004). Daily practices, such as the relationships between men and women and children and adults, become social practices and social rules. Archaeologists and bioarchaeologists try to recreate the ways in which human bodies would have moved through social spaces, such as within houses, communities, and landscapes, on a daily basis, and changes in these patterns of bodily movement are linked to changes in relationships and power ( Barrett and Ko 2009 ; Hodder 2004; Tilley 1994 ).


57 One critical way in which current bioarchaeological practice succeeds is that it no longer focuses research questions on merely biological or evolutionary processes; instead, bioarchaeology poses broader research questions that delve into deeper social understanding. The body is treated as a dynamic mediator and the culmination of social, cultural, economic, and environmental factors (Mays et al. 2017). Bioarchaeology can access past individual and collective identity in te rms of gender, age, status, ethnicity, and religion. By combining all these and Stojanowski 2008:398), bioarchaeology uses the past to make important contributio ns toward issues that persist today. Taking daily practice theory one step further involves trying to understand how these practices create social memory with time. Archaeology and bioarchaeology focus on key themes of the past such as sedentism, domestica tion, and the treatment of the dead and ancestors (Hodder 2004). These daily practices combine to create culturally meaningful beliefs that, when studied within their cultural context using a multidisciplin ary approach, can yield insight into the effects o f changes in time, memory, and relationships with the past (Hodder 2004). Identity , Kinship, Gender, a nd Childhood Bioarchaeologists are moving forward and away from interpreting osteological data in a straightforward , two dimensional way in terms of mere ly presenting biological profiles and frequencies of pathologies and trauma. Instead, they are delving deeper into what sex, age, pathologies, or trauma meant for an individual in terms of daily behaviors. We also seek to better understand how these identi ty categories, such as age and gender, were identified, experience d , and measured by past individuals and populations ( Gilchrist 2000). Bioarchaeologists are placing physical, skeletal evidence within a broader social framework to create narratives of indi vidual


58 and collective social identities. Skeletal tissues are the physical and material culmination of many biocultural influences that an individual experience d within his or her entire life (Agarwal 2012). It is important to consider the fluidity with wh ich an individual engage d with the material, social, and cultural realms and how that person change d social, gender, or age identities accordingly throughout the life course (Agarwal 2012 ; Knudson and Stojanowski 2008). Identity has become a buzzword in b ioarchaeology. An identity can be collective , individual , or both, but identities are an important part of how societies organize themselves. Identities are multi faceted and include social components such as gender, age, ethnicity, status, and religion an d they occur along a continuum rather than as strict, non overlapping categories lifetime. It is the tangling and inter weaving of these layers of individual ident ities that develops into collective, societal identities (Knudson and Stojanowski 2008). Social identity has come to be valued as the construction of daily human experiences, and distinct forms of social identities possess different behavioral roles and ex pectations within a culture. Another critical component of social identity is kinship and family ties. These unrelated individuals of a population. Kinship rul es of behavior have a primary impact on daily lifetime (Gillespie 2000). Every individual possesses a unique personality that is the result of cultural specif ic both material and non material parts, but it is the material remains from the past that bioarchaeologists study (Gillespie 2002). Bioarchaeologists can use th e unique contributions


59 made by the body to better understand past social identities. Material, archaeological remains, including the skeleton, must be interpreted within appropriate cultural parameters , while using a meaningful theoretical framework to und erstand past identities. Bioarchaeology has also begun to consider the nuanced relationship between biological sex and gender (Geller 2005 ; Sofaer 2006). Skeletal differences are recognized as being sexually dimorphic and differentiable. Gender identity has therefore been contingent on these skeletal anatomical differences and considered in terms of biological sex, particularly because indivi duals represented by fragmentary remains who are unable to be sexed are often left out of an analysis altogether (Geller 2005). Biological sex determination was traditionally carried out with the assumption that it is inherently dualistic and unchanging; h owever, this separate and non biological experiences (Agarwal 2012). Additionally, earlier bioarchaeology studies considered divisions of labor to be dualistic , with a clear separation between roles and behaviors of men and women (Geller 2008). Osteological data were produced to correlate gender roles to evidence of pathologies and degenerative joint disease (Bridges 1991) . Women have been traditionally tied to domestic activities, sexual reproduction, and child raising. However, recent works on the archaeology of mothering utilized skeletal data to gain insight into cultural understandings of motherhood, which is a universal experience for women who bear childre n (Wilkie 2003 ). life course . Childcare and mothering are integral aspects of studying past societies, particularly with regards to gender roles and family stru ctures (Wilkie 2003 ). More recent research using feminist inspired theories changed the understanding of sex, particularly with regard to gender and gender identit y . A general viewpoint is that the term sex


60 denotes biological identity, whereas the term ge nder refers to social identity ( Knudson and Stojanowski 2008 ; Walker and Cook 1998). It is widely recognized that a strict division of a past population into binary sex groups relies on an inherent assumption that all cultures use this separation of non ov erlapping gender groups (Agarwal 2012). Gender is dynamic and fluid course, and gender identity is often closely linked to other dimensions of social identity, such as class, race, or age. Bioarchaeologists can use their unique perspective of placing skeletal evidence of biological sex within a larger and broader social framework to make impactful interpretations regarding the dynamism of gender identity, gender roles and gender relationships. In addition to bioarchaeological s tudies of social identity and gender, identifying the social meaning behind age categories is an integral part of understanding past populations. As with sex and gender, age is contextual and culturally dependent. Different groups may assign different leve course ( Gilchrist 2000). Bioarchaeologists have therefore developed a better understanding of the differences among biological age, which is represented by osteology, social a ge, which encompasses social constructions of age behaviors and expectations, and chronological age, which is the time since birth ( Halcrow and Tayles 2008 ; Knudson and Stojanowski 2008 ; Sofaer 2006). Although methodological improvements within the field h ave made accurate determination of more specific biological ages possible, it is the nuanced understanding of social age in terms of life course that is crucial. Recent approaches to studying age integrat e the biological and the social aspects of the body to include culturally meaningful social age categories. This is important because it allows bioarchaeologists to more meaningful ly interpret


61 biological data in terms of age and health, such as rates of mortality, fertility, and disease (Halcrow and Tayles 2008). Biological interpretations of social ages have expanded to include periods of childhood and old age, which have generally been overlooked. Children are not the primary producers or consumers within the archaeological record, even though childhood i s a social development period that is unique to humans (Baxter 2005). It has been more recently recognized that children are a critical component of populations because children, who are present within every population, represent the transmission of cultur al knowledge through generations. Childhood is an important cultural category of identity, and experiences during childhood affect the behaviors and roles of adults (Kamp 2002). A study of children allows for a better and more meaningful diachronic perspec tive (Baxter 2005). However, children and childhood should not merely be assumed simply on the basis of skeletal age, because different cultures have different symbolic age categories (Kamp 2002). When investigating age categories, a life course approach has been employed by bioarchaeologists. Childhood, for example, should be viewed as a stage, or period of time within 017). A life course approach recogni zes that an individual is the result of cumulative experiences, and experiences that occurred during earlier stages of life impact those in later life stages. This point has been more thoroughly explored in research pertaining to the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD), originally the Barker H ypothesis. With a focus on negative health indicators that occur in infancy and early childhood, bioarchaeologists can gain insights into the long term consequences of such diseases into adulthood (Armelagos et al. 2009) .


62 Isotopes and Bioarchaeological Analysis The existence of element isotopes was not recognized until the early 20 th cent ury ( Thompson et al . 1921 ), and neutron particles that explain isotopes were first reported by James Chadwick (1931). P hysicists and chemists with the earliest interest in atomic structures tended to focus on radioactive nuclei, while early studies using s table isotopes were carried out by geologists. Today the study of stable isotopes provides important contributions to a wide variety archaeology, meteorology, meteoritic Sharp 2017 : 1 4). This section begins with a review of the chemistry behind the use of stable isotopes, and then provides more detail on their application for investigating the diet, origin, and mobili ty of past populations, and inferences about past cultures. A review of factors that limit the use of isotopic analyses is followed by a summary of the strong synergy between advances in isotopic analysis and bioarchaeology. Chemistry of Stable Isotopes T he configuration of a compound comprised of two or more atoms var ies according to the isotopes of its constituent atoms. For example, a water molecule made of two hydrogen atoms and a single oxygen atom (i.e., H 2 O) can have as few as 8 neutrons (in the oxy gen atom) or as many as 14 neutrons (2 in each hydrogen atom and 10 in the oxygen atom). Specific configurations for a compound are termed isotopologues (Sharp 2017) . R elative abundance s of the three stable isotopes of oxygen on Earth are : 99.76% for 16 O; 0 .04% for 17 O; and 0 .20% for 18 O. Although the ratio of 18 O to 16 O atoms is approximately 0 .0002 worldwide (0 .02/99.76 ) , the 18 O/ 16 O ratio in compounds from different environments


63 varies su bstantially, because mass differences make one isotopologue more or less likely to participate in a particular phase transition or chemical reaction. For example, evaporation of H 2 O molecules containing 16 O requires less energy than evaporation of heavier water molecules containing 18 O, so that the 18 O/ 16 O ratio in the water vapor over a body of water is lower than the corresponding ratio in the liquid water. This can be expressed by saying that the water vapor is 18 O relative to the liquid water. Similarly, precipita tion of calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ) from calcium (Ca) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in water (H 2 O ) favors reactant isotopologues with the heavier 18 O isotopes, so that the calcium carbonate is said to be 18 O relativ e to the reactants. The change in the isotope ratios brought about by a phase transition or chemical reaction is termed fractionation. The next two subsections discuss the metrics and standards used to quantify fractionation. Isotope f ractionation The fractionation factor for the particular isotope of an element in a phase transition or chemical reaction is defined by a fraction whose numerator represents isotope ratios after the fractionation and whose denominator represents isotope r atios before fractionation. By an element under study, with the understanding that this single symbol signifies a ratio whose unstated denominator is the conce ntration of the most common isotope for that element (Sharp B A = R A 18 O / R B 18 O (2 1) represents the 18 O/ 16 O ratio after fractionation, denoted R A 18 O, divided by the 18 O/ 16 O ratio before the fractionation, denoted R B 18


64 including strontium and lead, are often assessed for ratios whose denominator does not represent the concentration of the most common isoto pe. For example, although the most abundant isotope for strontium is 88 Sr, geological studies commonly focus on fractionation of 87 Sr relative to 86 Sr, for which the fractionation factor is B A = ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) A / ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) B (2 2) The first significant use of stable isotopes for geological studies resulted from the observation by Harold Urey that the fractionation factor for the precipitation of calcite (a form of calcium carbonate, CaCO 3 ) was temperature dependent (Urey et al. 1948). This me ant that a careful assessment of the 18 O/ 16 O ratio in a sedimentary carbonate could indicate the temperature at which the carbonate was formed. Several years of intense effort were required to overcome a accuracy of mass spectrometers and developing a reliable method for sample preparation (Sharp 2017). Isotope standards T formula (McKinney et al. 1950) is used to relate the ratio in a sample under study to the known ratio in a standard substance. Using this formulation, the ratio R SAM 18 O measured in a sample would be characterized as follows, in relation to the known ratio R STD 18 O in a standard substance. 18 O SAM STD = 1000*[ (R SAM 18 O/R STD 18 O) 1] (2 3) The scale factor of 1000 offers the convenience of dealing with values that typically fall between 99 and +99, rather than the nuisance of handling tiny ratios. As previously noted, 18 O/ 16 O ratios are likely to fall around 0


65 statements about the effects of fractionation, so that the nonspecific observation that water vapor over the ocean is depleted in 18 O rel ative to the liquid water can be updated with the more 18 O difference of about the water vapor compared to the liquid water. both depend on a ratio of ratios, rather than an individual ratio. This allows mass spectrometers to compensate for electronic drift by assessing an unknown sample SAM while simultaneously re assessing a sample of the stan dard substance. For early work with 18 O fractionation in carbonates, the known standard substance used was a calcite substance collected from the Upper Cretaceous Pee D ee formation of South Carolina. The substance chosen was the bivalve known as Belemnitell a a mericana , and the standard name selected, PDB (PeeDee Belemnite) , is an acronym for the sample source and type (Sharp 2017). Although all of the original PDB substance has been depleted, delta values determined for new samples measured against a new sta ndard substance , STD2 are easily converted to delta values that would have been determined using PDB, to facilitate comparison equations for 18 O shows that the shift from new s tandard STD2 to PDB can be calculated as follows 18 O STD2 PDB before the supply of PDB ran out . 18 O SAM PDB 18 O SAM STD2 18 O STD2 PDB 18 O SAM STD2 18 O STD2 PDB (2 4) 13 C values measured today representing 13 C/ 12 C ratios also reported relative to PDB, ratios for oxygen and hydrogen are typically reported based on the reference standard


66 VSMOW (Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water). Other common reference standards include atmo spheric nitrogen (AIR) for nitrogen, National Bureau of Standards (NBS) 987 for strontium, and NBS 981 for lead (Sharp 2017) . Biological F ractionation of S t able I sotopes Is otope analysis , as used today to assess past diet and mobility patterns , can be tra ced to early geochemistry studies by geologists who were trying to determine 14 C ages of ancient organic materials, particularly whole bones. Harold Krueger (1991) was a pioneer geochemist who sought to improve methods of radiocarbon dating, including pret reatment of bone apatite to remove diagenetic carbonates. However, carbon ratios determined during early attempts at radiocarbon dating human remains yielded dates that were younger than expected for consumers whose diet s included substantial maize (Ambros e and Krigbaum 2003). This difference between the known age and radiocarbon age of samples from maize consumers led to the realization that carbon isotopes in humans vary according to their diet ( Katzenberg 2007; Schoeninger and DeNiro 198 4 ; Sullivan and K rueger 1981 ). More generally, living organisms from microbes to marine and terrestrial flora and fauna use different chemical pathways at the cellular level that fractionat e selected elements relative to se processes, photosynthesis by plants, yields carbohydrates that are depleted in 13 C relative to the atmospheric CO 2 substrate . For organisms higher up the trophic pyramid , cellular processes fractionat e some of the isotopes in the water and foodstuffs they consume. Following are summaries of biological fractionation of isotopes in the two elements of greatest interest to bioarchaeologists carbon and nitrogen . Minimal biological fractionation of isotopes of other elements occurs in humans .


67 C arbon . Three distinct photosynthe tic pathways have been identified , and their 13 C signatures (Farquhar et al . 1989). Most t errestrial plants, including trees, shrubs , and weedy taxa use the C 3 (Calvin) photosynthesis p rocess which depending on environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity 13 C values in the plant of 33 to efficient C 4 (Hatch Slack) process used by maize, millet, 13 C in plant tissu es of 16 to more moisture efficient Crassulacean A cid M etabolism (CAM ) process performs part of the C 4 13 C in the plant of 20 to 13 C of 31 to but depends in part of the value of the dissolved inorganic carbon available for photosynthesis, and the average 13 C value for marine plants is Mammals and other animals fractionate dietary carbon while processing fats, carbohydrates, and proteins to form bones and teeth. Carbon is assimilated into bone collagen, a structured protein comprising spiral windings of amino acids that contain carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen , and (infrequently) sulfur. Carbon is also assimilated into hydroxyapatite (apatite), a major component of tooth enamel and bone mineral. Apatite is primarily calcium phosphate (Ca 10 (PO 4 ) 6 (OH) 2 crystals), but 2.5% of its mass is comprised of carbonate rad icals (CO 3 ) substituting for (OH). Bioarch a eologists assess the 13 C content of the carbonate in bone and tooth apatite, as well as the 13 C content of bone collagen. To explain the observed divergence between 13 C in apatite ( 13 C ap ) and 13 C in collagen ( 13 C co ) in a single individual, Krueger and Sullivan (1984) developed models for the cellular processing of 13 C from the food a human consumes. These models were tested and refined based on studies of animals whose diets were strictly controlled with respec t to different combinations


68 of proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates ( Ambrose and Norr 1993 ; DeNiro and Epstein 1978). Two key results from the Ambrose and Norr (1993) dietary study using rats were: (1) f or every test, 13 C in the 13 C ap fell in the narrow range +9.1 to 13 C ap reflects the whole diet; and (2) a lthough the difference 13 13 C co 13 C co closely tracked the protein portion of the diet, independent of carbon in other components of the diet. Nitrogen . An important component of terrestrial plant proteins, nitrogen is also an essential element in chlorophyll, the primary molecule involved in photosynthesis. Although some higher plants get their nitrogen indirectly from N 2 in the atmosphere, with the help of symbiotic bacteria and with negligible fractionation (Sharp 2017), most plants acquire their nitrogen from nitrates and nitrites in soil o r water 15 N for nitrogen absorbed through a where the plant grows, and the nitrogen 15 N value . 200 8 ). 15 N reported by Joseph Craine et al . (2009) for a wide variety of plants ranged from a low of and Epstein (198 1 15 N for a range of animals compared 15 N in their diet. Nitrogen ratios in animals vary depending on trophic level, with 15 N enrichment at successively higher trophic levels (Schoeninger and DeNiro 1984). For herbivores, measured 15 15 N in their diet, and each successive trophic level for carnivores and omnivores displays an


69 Although the 15 N content of phytoplankton in the oceans varies with the available nitrogen sources, which in turn vary with multiple factors including season and latitude, growth 15 N values consistent . 1998). A more recent study by Needoba et al . (2003) report ed 1 5 on nitrates. Schoeninger and DeNiro (1984) report ed that marine animals, like terrestrial animals, Interpreting I sotope s in S keletal T issues Stable carbon, nitrogen, and other element teeth when that tooth was formed, whereas ratios in bones reflect the diet over the last few years prior infancy, childh ood, adolescence, and adulthood which facilitates reconstruction of longitudinal, intra individual changes (Turner et al. 2005). Isotopic analysis of intra tooth variation of enamel in different teeth from a single individual (e.g., pre molars and molar s) can provide a detailed life history of changing diet . Sampling successive depositions of enamel that occur in a chronological sequence supports interpretation of the timing of specific changes, such as weaning, migration, or other events that cause diet ary changes (Balasse 2002). Additionally, examining isotopes in multiple individuals from a single population provides an understanding of the dietary variation , as well as different origin s , which can shed light on social dynamics and status (Quinn et al. 2008). This has enabled


70 a more nuanced interpretation of age and sex differences, and resource allocation within a population, which ultimately illuminates cultural practices and social identity ( Katzenberg 2007 ). Isotopic baseline Accurate interpretation of isotopic data from human bones and tooth enamel facilitates the recognition of patterns of demography, health, status, and social behaviors and changes over time. Different ecosystems have unique isotopic characteristics that mus t be considered. There is substantial variation among ecosystems in the 15 N and 13 C at the base of the foodweb from which other organisms acquire their carbon and nitrogen (Ambrose 1991; Post 2002); isotopes of oxygen, sulfur, strontium, and lead also ex hibit variability . In order to draw accurate conclusions regarding human patterns of diet or mobility, the isotopic character of the paleoenvironment termed its isotopic baseline must be established (Johnston 2009). Researchers studying local diet and naturally available resources must first understand the local foodwebs before making comparisons to the human population (Ambrose 1991). The most thorough way to establish a n isotopic baseline for a particular environment is by sampling local bedrock, soil, water, flora, small archaeological and modern fauna, and large modern fauna (Price et al. 2002). Human dietary patterns are diverse because humans are typically opportunistic omnivores, meaning they consume a variety of plants and animals. T herefore, an understanding of the dietary signatures of local herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores is necessary (Kru e ger and Sullivan 1984). A range of isotopic values from the studied environment is analyzed first and subsequently human isotope ratios ar e viewed relative to the environmental values ( Katzenberg 2007 ).


71 D ietary considerations assessing past diets. The first element to be studied intensively was carbon, w ith which archaeologists were already familiar from radiocarbon investigations. S pecial emphasis was placed on determining whether or not maize was cultivated and consumed (Vogel and van der Merwe 1977). The 13 C value in the bones and teeth of fauna shoul d reflect the photosynthesis method used by the plants in their diet; a relatively low value for 13 C would suggest C 3 photosynthesis and argue against significant ingestion of C 4 maize . After carbon, the next element to be considered in archaeological and dietary research was nitrogen ( Ambrose and DeNiro 1987 ; DeNiro and Epstein 1981; Schoeninger and DeNiro 15 N increases with successively higher trophic levels, the information derived from analysis of nitrogen reflects the source of dietary p rotein consumed (Hedges et al. 2007). Furthermore, consumed marine fauna typically have 15 N values than terrestrial animals, 15 arine food webs likely have more trophic levels than terrestrial webs (e.g., phytoplankton to zooplankton to marine invertebrate to small fish to large fish vs. 15 N values can be used to assess the relative importance of terrestrial or marine food resources (Schoeninger et al. 1983; Schwarcz and Schoeninger 1991). The non specific guidance in the preceding two paragraphs is summarized in Figure 2 1, which provides a general indication of the likely dietary mix for an individual based on the 15 13 15 13 C 15 N values a re indicative of a substantial


72 dietary preference for fish, whose trophic level is higher than for shellfish. In any event , the isotopic baseline for 15 13 C values of local fauna can help clarify the significance of any variance between their isotop ic signatures and values in human remains. 13 C co 13 C ap value for apatite , and the sulfur isotope ratios . Collage n apatite spacing . B one collagen reflects protein intake whereas bone carbonate (in the bone apatite) reflects the whole diet (Ambrose and Norr 1993); therefore, the collagen 13 C ap co 13 C ap 13 C co , highlights the portion of t he diet that was protein. A small collagen apatite spacing value suggests that the protein content of the apatite spacing indicates that the protein content of the diet was more modest. The implic ation of collagen apatite spacing can be 13 C co 13 C ap for each individual in a population under study, and a plot 15 13 C ap co for each individual provides a focus on protein intake and carbohydrate source of animal pro tein. Sulfur . Naturally occurring sulfur in the environment includes four stable isotopes: 32 S, 33 S, 34 S, and 36 S. Terrestrial plants have 34 S/ 32 S ratios that are a match to their environment with little biological fraction ation : depletion of perhaps 1 34 S from 34 S values that reflect depletion of about 1 34 Coplen et al . 2002 ; Peterson and Fry 1987; Peterson et al . 1985). Early feeding studies showed biological


73 34 +1. Peterson and Fry 1987; Peterson et al . 1985). In human remains, the sulfur available for study is limited to methionine, the single sulfur containing amino acid in bone collagen (Nehlich et al . 2014), which co mprises only 0.43% of the amino acids in the collagen (Eastoe 1955). Since dietary studies show that animals cannot synthesize methionine (Doyle and Muir 1979; Walton et al. 1982), the sulfur content in bone collagen should directly reflect the methionine in controlled diet study for pigs (Webb et al . 2017) demonstrated the expected strong linear 34 34 collagen, independent of the die tary mix of terrestrial and marine protein sources. 34 S ter that 34 S mar 34 S co 34 S co 34 S ter would indicate a dietary preference for terrestrial protein sources, whereas a value slightly 34 S mar 34 S as a dietary marker. First is the relatively small amount of 34 S in bone collagen, which means a large sample must be collected. Second is the growing anthropogenic contribution of sulfur to the environment from factory and auto emissions, which may confound 34 S content of the archaeological environment .


74 Origin and mobility considerations Prior to the introduction of isotopic analyses, studies of past patterns of population movement relied on the presence / absence of material culture in different geographical locations. Displaced material culture was interpreted as si gnifying contact with outside populations or movement of populations ( Sassaman 1998, 2004 ). With stable isotope analyses, patterns of movement recorded in the human body can be utilized to discern individual mobility and population interactions. The first step is to identify individuals whose isotopic values are statistically different from the population average. These outliers are likely to be individuals with high mobility or non 15 N and 13 C pairing (Fi gure 2 1 13 C ap co spacing, and/or individual ratios for the isotopes of sulfur, oxygen, strontium, or lead. In some cases , isotope values match the isotopic baseline documented for anothe r location. Strontium . Naturally occurring strontium in the environment includes four stable isotopes: 84 Sr, 86 Sr, 87 Sr, and 88 Sr. Strontium enters the ecological environment from the bedrock, and then moves into the soil, groundwater, and local food chai n (Price et al. 2002). In humans, strontium substitute s for calcium atoms in tooth and bone apatite (calcium phosphate). Biological fractionation of strontium is minimal because of the small mass difference between the isotopes , so that its isotope ratios remain relatively constant once strontium enters the foodweb ( Beard and Johnson 2000; Price et al. 2002 ; Quinn et al. 2008 ; Sealy et al. 199 5 ). Therefore, strontium in human remains preserves a record of the local isotopic baseline. G eologists typically work with 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios, relative to the NBS987 standard, despite the fact that the relative abundance of 88 Sr is 83%. Successful strontium analyses rely on the fact that bedrock formations from diff erent ages have characteristic strontium ratios. Although the


75 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio has increased steadily over geological time (Bentley 2006), because of radioactive decay of 87 Rb (an isotope of rubidium) to 87 Sr, the 49 billion year half life of 87 Rb makes thi s increase extremely slow. Thus, the 87 Sr/ 86 Sr is assumed to have been constant over the past few millennia ( Montgomery 2010 ; Sealy et al. 1995) , although technically the ratio has changed because 87 Sr is radiogenic and the daughter of 87 Rb (rubidium) . Bec ause strontium in human bones is exchanged over an average of six years, values (Beard and Johnson 2000). On the other hand, strontium values derived from tooth enamel the timing of tooth enamel mineralization early in life is genetically controlled. A comparison of strontium values from pre molar teeth, which reflects place of birth, to strontium values in bone, which reflects later residence, provides understand the nuanced patterns of interaction between populations, including trade networks and mating patterns (Quinn et al. 2008). In Florida, the central region is composed primarily of Tertiary marine limestone bedrock, whereas rock of the coastal areas is of Quaternary age (Randazzo and Jones 1997). Different formation times of the limestone in coastal and inl and regions of Florida are responsible for the different strontium isotopic values of the underlying bedrock. These differences make it possible to determine the regional origins in Florida of individuals with an archaeological assemblage. However, althoug h strontium can identify a coastal origin, the specific coast is impossible to determine using only strontium (Montgomery 2010). There are several limitations to locality determination based on strontium. Burial and fossilization of skeletal elements can mobilize strontium, leading to partial or complete isotopic


76 equilibrium with environmental components such as ground water (Beard and Johnson 2000). Additionally, strontium analysis is limited in its precision with respect to determin ing patterns of mobili ty. For example, strontium isotopes can not discern whether an individual moved back and forth between areas during their lifetime or whether an individual changed residence within the same geological provenience (Grupe et al. 1997). Because of the inabilit y to tease out such nuanced patterns of movement, strontium results likely underestimate the amount of mobility , which remain undetected . Finally, strontium analysis cannot reveal whether non local food was brought to and consumed by an individual who did not travel (Montgomery 2010). Lead . Four isotopes of lead are present in the bedrock, soil, and groundwater: 204 Pb, 206 Pb, 207 Pb, and 208 Pb. The NBS981 standard for lead isotope ratios uses 204 Pb in the denominator, because it is the only one of the four that is non radiogenic. Conveniently, it is also the lightest of the four stable isotopes, and typically yields ratios between 15 and 50. Since the three heavier stable isotopes result from decay of uranium and thorium isotopes, the lead ratios in the bedr ock of different locations vary according to the coexisting concentrations of uranium and thorium. A s with strontium, growth of the heavier isotopes occurs slowly, so that the modern 20 n Pb/ 204 Pb value can be considered to have been represent s 206, 207, or 208. Studies with lead isotopes initially focused on sourcing lead rich artifacts to infer past patterns of trade and interaction. More recently, lead from human remains has been appli ed to help assess the origin and mobility of past populations. Lead is not consumed as a part of the food web ; instead, it enters the body through inadvertent ingestion and inhalation of soil and dust particles that adhere to hands, food, and other objects (Kamenov and Gulson 2014). Like strontium, lead undergoes only minor biological fractionation in humans, before presenting as a


77 substitute for calcium in tooth and bone apatite. Therefore, lead isotope values reflect the bones during the last few years prior to death. strontium, as well as the low lead concentration i n human apatite (Price 2015). Furthermore, work on a lead baseline for different environments and geographic distributions in the Americas (Sharpe et al . 2016) ha s focused on southern Mexico, Central America, and the Andes , and is not directly applicable t o a study of Fort Center in Florida. Oxygen . Three stable isotopes of oxygen are used by bioarchaeologists to assess origin and migration of past peoples: 16 O, 17 O, and 18 O. Oxygen in the human body derives from the water consumed, and the resulting 18 O v alues are generally utilized in archaeological contexts to distinguish individuals with variant, and thus non local, water sources (Knudson and Price 2007). As with strontium and lead, oxygen ratios in tooth and bone apatite, respectively, reflect the env ironment at the time of tooth formation and during the last few years prior to death. Oxygen ratios in water sources reflect climate and geography, particularly rainfall, temperature, the distance from an evaporation source (e.g., an ocean), elevation, and latitude , as well as post depositional evaporation (e.g., from lakes and ponds) (Price 2015). Generally, 18 O decreases with increasing latitude, altitude, and distance from the coast ( Katzenberg 2007 ). Application of oxygen ratios to determine human origins and migrations is subject to all the limitations noted for strontium, as well as the extra difficulty of establishing general geographic baselines for 18 O values. Although oxygen isotopes generally v ary by geographic location, many temperate or tropical regions in the world have similar oxygen isotope ranges (Price 2015). Overlapping ranges makes determining a precise point of origin difficult. Oxygen


78 values are affected by the amount of rainfall, whi ch can display inter annual variation at a single location. This annual variability ultimately produces a larger range of values over multiple areas. Additionally, there are observable difference s in oxygen ratios from different individuals who are from the same , known place of origin (Price 2015). Even more difficult, there can be considerable variability of oxygen values among the teeth of a single individual or even within the same tooth. This c ould be the result of local seasonal fluctuations. Cultural and individual interpretations Stable isotope analysis is applied today to studies of demography, residence patterns, and disease ( Katzenberg 2007 ). Furthermore, considerations of intergroup dieta ry differences can illuminate significant cultural factors such as gender roles and socioeconomic status (Lovell et al. 1986; Murray and Schoeninger 1988). Increasingly refined knowledge of isotopic fractionation ha s developed and aided in a better appreci ation of how isotopic analysis can expand our understanding of archaeological assemblages. For example, it is now widely understood that bone collagen and apatite represent s with tooth analyses incorporate several types of tissues that preserve isotopic signatures from different bioarchaeologist to reconstruct longitudinal, intra individual trends (Turner et al. 2005). Isotopic studies have recently been applied to assess physiology, disease, and nutrition within various bio archaeological contexts . This type of research builds on the foundational theme of paleodiet reconstruction using isotopes , i.e. , A more nuanced understanding of isotopes as well as the physical mechanisms underlying stable isotope variation can aid investigations of past health (Katzenberg and Lovell 1999; Reitsema 2013). The


79 ways and extent to which stable isotopes of foods are found within tissue do not provide a direct correlation to any specific health issue; the relationship is mediated by the physiology of the consumer through fractionation. This, in theory, can cause inter in dividual variation that could help researchers construct meaningful interpretations of past health, stress, and nutrition (Reitsema 2013). For example, Reitsema (2013) identifie d specific factors that affect isotopic signatures in cluding eating disorders, pregnancy, high protein diets, and specific pathologies such as liver disease, diabetes, and osteoporosis. Pathological conditions result in variations in bone protein isotope ratios at three distinct ife: 1) bone tissue deposition during normal growth; 2) bone tissue maintenance in adults; and 3) bone tissue loss during times of stress (Katzenberg and Lovell 1999). Katzenberg and Lovell (1999) examined the effects of fracture, periostitis, atrophy, and osteomyelitis on nitrogen signatures, and determined that, instead of using nitrogen from dietary protein for newly formed bone tissue, an individual experiencing stress may use recycled nitrogen from existing proteins in the body. For example, new bone t issue deposition that occurs subsequent to a fracture can produce isotopic values that register as short term dietary change (Katzenberg and Lovell 1999). Further study to determine with precision the ways in which individual physiology affects isotopic va lues will enable the application of isotopic analysis to studies beyond the traditional paleodiet (Reitsema 2013). This could provide a means for assessing nutritional stress, for example among infants and children, that generally is not apparent in the ar chaeological record (Katzenberg and Lovell 1999). Limitations of Stable Isotope Analysis The most serious problem associated with isotope analyses is generating incorrect isotope values because of unrecognized diagenesis of analyzed samples or from sample processing


80 errors. Slightly less daunting are the multiple alternative conclusions that can be drawn from valid isotope values measured on samples that are unrepresentative , or which yield results that are simply not conclusive. These limitations a re considered below, followed by a brief review of the ethical and legal implications of analyses that involve destroying an archaeological sample. Diagenesis Isotope values in human bones and teeth can be altered by post mortem processes that occur after burial. Diagenetic pathways in bone collagen, bone apatite, and tooth apatite vary because of their structural and chemical differences. However, broadly speaking, there are three pathways that lead to diagenesis of bone: chemical deterioration of the orga nic, or collagen, portion; chemical deterioration of the mineral, or bioapatite, portion; or microbiological attack of both the protein and mineral components (Collins et al. 2002). When bone is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with its external environmen t, which is most often the case, the bone is first subject to chemical deterioration which then causes microbial attack. Thus, it is generally a combination of these three possible pathways that leads to bone deterioration. Because bone is soft and porous , it is susceptible to long term structural degradation. Bone apatite has low crystallinity (Crowley and Wheatley 2014), making it vulnerable to changes based on the environmental conditions of the burial site. For example, the concentration of strontium a nd lead isotopes that substitute for calcium atoms in apatite (calcium phosphate) can shift to match concentrations in the groundwater (Beard and Johnson 2000), and the carbonate content of bone apatite can be altered by irreversible exchange with absorbed environmental carbonate (Ambrose and Krigbaum 2003). Bone collagen is less susceptible to diagenesis than bone apatite, making it a more reliable source of paleodiet information. The process for removing contaminants from bone


81 collagen is more straightfor ward than apatite extraction, making it more likely to eliminate potential contaminants (Ambrose and Norr 199 3 ). Under favorable conditions bone collagen can survive for thousands of years ( Katzenberg 2007 ); nevertheless, understanding postmortem degradati on of collagen has been an active avenue of research (DeNiro 1985; Schoeninger et al. 1989). Key factors that affect the rate and extent of diagenesis include moisture, pH, microbes, temperature, and elapsed time (Lee Thorp 2008). Tooth apatite in enamel a nd dentine is non porous, with large, dense crystal structures, which makes it less susceptible than bone apatite to diagenetic alteration over time (Balasse 2002). Tooth enamel has few substitutions and is considered to be stable , with minimal structural and chemical changes over long timescales (Montgomery 2010). Its resistance to diagenesis in humid and low latitude environments make it an attractive choice for isotope analyses. Because bone collagen is known to degrade over time and at rates that reflec t the depositional environment, researchers have focused on the diagenetic factors that could prevent measured isotope ratios from accurately representing the deceased life history (Lee Thorp 2008). Sample preparation procedures have been designed to min imize the effects of known diagenetic factors, and metrics have been developed to assess the viability of the extracted collagen. The most commonly used guideline, suggested by DeNiro (1985), is that viable collagen should exhibit an atomic C:N ratio in th e range of 2.9 to 3.6. Diagenesis of apatite, on the other hand, is less well understood. There is no uniform protocol to detect, properly deal with, or eliminate diagenesis that alters apatite (Lee Thorp 2008). Bone apatite has low crystallinity and is s ubject to many substitutions over time (Crowley and Wheatley 2014; Lee Thorp 2008). U ncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the pathways


82 and effects of diagenesis on apatite introduce variability into isotopic results, which must be accommodated statis tically by using larger samples. The possibility and magnitude of diagenesis is also related to site formation processes, which makes it critical to understand post depositional factors that could alter the original isotopic values. For example, several k ey factors, including moisture, pH, microbes, temperature and time (Lee Thorp 2008) affect the rate and extent of diagenesis. Sample processing methodology Preparing bone and teeth samples for mass spectrometric analysis is intended to remove contaminan ts and mitigate or assess damage from diagenesis. Two general tests for the viability of bone samples are the percent nitrogen and the atomic carbon nitrogen ratio (Brock et al . 2012). A more recent approach uses Raman spectroscopy, which indicates whether or not collagen is present within the bone and allows identification of ionic substances and secondary minerals that have formed (King et al. 2011). Such tests can avoid the expense of processing samples whose viability is suspect unless, of course, mor e promising samples are not available. The most widely used approaches for removing contaminants hopefully without affecting the isotopic signature of the tissue are immersion in highly caustic sodium hydroxide to remove humic contaminants that skew 1 3 C values (Lee Thorp 2008) and ultra filtration of the crushed sample (DeNiro and Epstein 1978, 1981 ). Jorkov et al. (2007) highlight ed the importance of considering the burial environment and potential sources of diagenesis and contamination before choosing a preparation method, and judge treatment with sodium hydroxide to be more effective at removing contaminants than using ultra filtr ation. Nevertheless, Crowley and Wheatley (2014) conclude d that there is still no general consensus as to which type of treatment is best for removing the compromised material.


83 Using a dilute acid solution can help recover partially degraded collagen, and this has base bone. Extraction of apatite from crushed bone or enamel typically uses a base acid sequence, starting with bleach. One understudied , and hopefully small , risk is that a bioarchaeologist could base conclusions on inaccurate isotopic data because of inter lab variability. Pestle et al. (2014) discovered that the main factor that causes differences between collagen values reported by different bone chemistry l abs is analytical methodology (instrumentation, working standards, data calibration) or standardization, rather than pretreatment methodologies. Commingled remains When skeletal elements from multiple individuals are commingled, as is apparent in the Fort Center remains, the bioarchaeologist is faced with two potentially serious problems: (1) a n assessment of life history, such as diet or geological location(s) for a particular individual, requires association of multiple skeletal elements to that individual, which is obstructed by the commingling; and (2) a statistical analysis of population traits requires a selection of skeletal elements that are known to represent different individuals, which is also thwarted by comingling. One strategy for overcoming the limitations of commingled samples, employed by Gregoricka et al. (2016), is to focus on complete or nearly complete mandibles, each of which is clearly associated 13 C values in enamel carbonate (in apatite diet and environment during childhood and early adolescence (Price 2015). Furtherm ore, teeth are ideal elements to choose for isotope analyses because tooth enamel is more resistant to diagenesis, the chemical and physical processes that alter remains in the burial environment


84 (Katzenberg 1992). If well preserved, the mandible itself ca 13 C values in its bone collagen to provide an adult 13 C value for the individual. Ambiguous results Although instructive, the assessment of stable isotope ratios in human skeletal remains does not (and cannot) provide a preci populations, and different profiles can overlap. For example, if local animals consume C 4 plants and 13 C of C 4 plants, even if no maize is consumed. Also, since marine resources generally yield ranges 13 C values similar to C 4 plants (Schoeninger and DeNiro 1984), a human diet heavy on 13 C values that mimic values indicative of maize. More 15 N value is especially difficult for environments where lakes or streams provide resources t hat augment terrestrial sources (Larsen 2015). A wide variety of environmental conditions including temperature, rainfall, elevation, soil chemistry, forestation can affect the availability and biological fractionation of th e isotopes used by bioarchaeologists to evaluate diet and mobility. A few examples are: 13 C values in closed, humid forest environments that are lower than their actual diet would suggest, particularly for organisms that live near the forest floor (Ambrose 1986). Nitrogen isotopic values for organisms within consistently cool environments have lower 15 N values than predicted, whereas organisms in hotter, dryer environments have higher 15 N values (Ambrose 1991 ; Ambrose and Norr 1993). Within an environment that offers limited water supplies, herbivores that are metabolically tolerant to conditions of water deprivation will present unu 15 N values similar to carnivores within the same environment (Ambrose 1986).


85 15 N values can result from starvation and protein stress because the body will metabolize its own protein under these circumstances (Lee Thorp 2008; Katzen be r g 15 N values are subject to interpretation as a protein rich diet. Destructive analysis A surge in innovative techniques to collect information from human skeletal remains has bolstered the knowledge gained from bioarchaeology. Such t echniques, including ancient DNA sequencing and isotope analyses , generate information directly from the biological, skeletal remains. Stable isotope analysis is an important part of many research projects because isotopes provide data that is otherwise un available, to infer patterns of movement, diet, and disease. Isotopic data also aids in the illumination of past local and regional levels of social and political interaction. The disadvantage of these techniques, however, is that they are intrusive and d estructive, which poses the ethical question of whether or not human skeletal remains of past people should be destroyed in the name of scientific research and pursuit of knowledge. This question can be particularly difficult to answer when dealing with Na tive American remains that are protected through NAGPRA. Some legislation prohibit s any destructive analysis of human remains (Lee Thorp 2008). However, there are increasing case by case collaboration s and dialogue between bioarchaeologists and Native Amer ican groups, which helps to normalize these relationships (Kakaliouras 2008). Only with cooperation between bioarchaeologists and descendant communities can an increased understanding of the collective human past be gained (Larsen and Walker 2005). Stable I sotopes and B ioarchaeology Isotope ratios in archaeological assemblages are now routinely used to augment conclusions about past peoples drawn from their material culture (Walker 1997). For example,


86 the bones and teeth from human skeletal remains provide direct information regarding an , as well as geographical location(s) where the individual lived. Bone chemistry and bioarchaeology have developed in tandem since the 1970s. Technology improvements and cost reductions have mad e stable isotope analyses a routine part of evaluating archaeological assemblages to help reconstruct past dates, diet, nutritional ecology, weaning periods, climate, and habitat (Ambrose and Krigbaum 2003; Larsen 2015). Instead of selecting a handful of h uman samples for isotopic analysis in an archaeological assemblage, researchers now analyze a variety of materials, including fauna, plants, bedrock, and water ( Katzenberg 2007 ). The human skeleton, particularly bones and teeth for chemical analysis, provi de direct available material culture (Walker 1997). For example, archaeological evidence is limited by what is present or absent, and even the presence of food item s does not guarantee that they were locally consumed. Isotopes are an effective and clear means of determining paleodiet that serves to supplement archaeology and bioarchaeology because they reflect what people actually ate (Lee Thorp 2008). Similarly, cla rification of the 15 N ratios and trophic levels of freshwater fish has provided a direct means of assessing fish consumption, which is important because small fish bones are often lost in the archaeological context s . A better understanding of the complex and nuanced ways in which carbon and nitrogen isotopes are absorbed into the body has also produced an awareness of bone turnover rates (Hedges et al. 2007). Isotopic examination of multiple individuals from a single population can shed light on social dy namics and cultural practices (Quinn et al. 2008). Utilizing isotopic analysis to assess demographic differences in diet can highlight correlations between age and sex and resource


87 allocation ( Katzenberg 2007 ). Furthermore, isotopic analysis of intra tooth variation of enamel history ( Balasse 2002 ; Turner et al. 2005). Fort Center Site History The Fort Center, Florida archaeological site is known for its extensi ve landscape modification, including monumental construction (Sears 1982; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012; Thompson et al. 2013) ( Figure 2 2 ). First occupied during the Early Woodland period (around cal B.C. 750 960), and continuously inhabited for over 2 , 000 years, Fort Center encompasses an extensive amount of landscape modification , indicative of long term occupation (Sears 1982; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012). Fort Center is known for its many site features , including more than two dozen modified earthwo 11, 12, 13 (not pictured in Figure 2 2 ), 14 (not pictured in Figure 2 2 ), UF Mound, Mounds A and B, Middens A and B, and the Great Circle. There are pronounced linear em bankments features are the Great Circle and the mortuary mound pond complex. The Great Circle spans 1,200 feet in diameter and contains the traces of two smaller but no n overlapping interior circles (Sears 1982). No artifacts were uncovered within the Great Circle, which suggests that it was pond complex, located north east of the Gr eat Circle, consists of two mounds, Mound A and Mound B, a n artificial pond with a wooden platform structure, a low earth platform, and a surrounding low wall. Intricate wooden effigy carvings in the form of different animals were likely placed alongside t he human remains on the top of this wooden platform.


88 This section reviews Fort Center and its history in terms of its terrestrial environment, occupation chronology, and excavation history. Previous research is presented and early hypotheses and interpret ations are discussed. Finally, I give an overview of the steps taken at the FLMNH to rehabilitate the Fort Center collection, including digitizing and rehousing the materials and producing an updated inventory for NAGPRA compliance. Terrestrial Environmen t The climate of s outhern Florida can be characterized as neotropical or subtropical (Morris 2012). Located along Fisheating Creek, the Fort Center site encompasses an area 1.5 km east to west and 1 km north to south and includes a minimum of 24 known ear thworks (Thompson et al. 2013). The environment surrounding Fort Center can be described as low lying savannah with 3 sub environments, including the river meander belt, oak hammocks, and the grass savannah ( Morris 2012 ; Sears 1982) (Figure s 2 3 and 2 4 ). Fisheating Creek drains into Lake Okeechobee, which means that the overall physical environment surrounding Fort Center is dominated by wetlands, including wet prairies, marshes, and swamps. The river, the lake, and the nearby freshwater wetlands undoubted ly provided the Fort Center inhabitants with a variety of resources. Tropical and temperate plants grow well under these wet and warm conditions. The vegetation within this area was likely stable over the past 5,000 years, making it an ideal area for long term habitation (Scarry and Newsom 1992). Occupation H istory During the Belle Glade I period (900 B . C . A . D . 200), Fort Center was first occupied around 750 BC (Morris 2012). The Great Circle , which was formed by an excavated ditch, was constructed in the initial stages of occupation. In addition to the Great Circle, Midden A and Midden B were first utilized and additional mounds, such as Mounds 3, 11, 12, 13, and 14, were


89 constructed (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012, 2014). This would have taken a considerable number of individuals for the amount of labor, which included large scale earth clearance for the Great Cir cle and other earthworks (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2014). Furthermore, evidence of carbonized microbotanical remains suggests that individuals at this site used fire as part of a large scale land clearance effort , possibly to construct the Great Circle or ot her earthworks (Morris 2012; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2014). During the Belle Glade II period (A . D . 200 900/1000), the m ound p ond complex was constructed while the Great Circle was still occupied. The mound pond complex consists of two platform mounds, mou nds A and B, as well as an artificial pond. It is speculated that the p ond area and Mound B may have each contained around 150 individuals at this time (Sears 1982) . Additionally, during this time, the Fort Center inhabitants constructed or occupied two additional mounds, Mounds 1 and 3 (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2014). During the Belle Glade III period (A . D . 1000 1513), people at Fort Center expanded the site and co nstructed many of the circular linear earthworks that are present , as well as Mounds 1, 2, 3, and 5 (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2014). Mound B was still actively occupied during this period and used for mortuary activities (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012). Other mounds, including the UF Mound and Mound 8, may have been constructed. During the Belle Glade IV period (A . D . 1513 1763), Mound B was still in use. It is possible that Mound A was also used during this time period (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2014). Artifact s from the historic Spanish period suggest that Fort Center inhabitants likely traded them from the coast. Perhaps Fort Center participated in exchange s with the Calusa, who were a complex group of hunter gatherers with social and political hierarchy who se political influence extended across a significant geographical range of southern Florida (Goggin and Sturtevant


90 1964; Marquardt 1986; Thompson and Worth 2011). However, the exact nature of the relationship between Fort Center and the Calusa during th at ti me is unknown. It is likely that Fort Center was to an extent integrated into the Calusa polity (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012) and thus part of a regional network of interaction and exchange. Excavation H istory The history of the Fort Center excavation, wh ich includes primary field seasons from 1963 to 1970, is discussed . This chronology provides an overview of what features were excavated when and by whom, factors that were important in terms of re associating individuals that were separated , through excav ation as well as making intra population comparisons. Table 2 1 excavation year, institution involved, and primary investigator(s). P opular interest in the Fort Center site was initially sparked in 1926 when a local resident recovered a well preserved wooden eagle carving from the site, which was transported to the then Florida State Museum (FSM), today the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) in Gainesville (Sears 1982) . initial archaeological work at Fort Center was conducted by John Goggin, who first visited the site in 1944 and collected ceramic fragments that he sent to the Yale Peabody Museum (Goggin 1952). Go ggin returned to Fort Center in 1947 with John W. Griffin of the Florida Park Service. Goggin visited again several times in 1949 and 1950 to survey the site in a more detailed manner. During that time, Goggin examined both Fort Center and the nearby Platt site, excavating materials such as animal bones, shells, ceramics, and other artifacts, from multiple test pits (Goggin 1952). At Fort Center, Goggin excavated midden areas.


91 Despite these early efforts, s erious archaeological activity at Fort Center didn until 1963 . Excavations took place during six field seasons and were conducted by three universities (Figure 2 1 ). The University of Florida field school, under the direction of Charles Fairbanks, excavated Fort Center during 1966 and 1967. John Longyear, with the Colgate University field school, excavated during 1966, 1967, and 1968. And William Sears, along with Florida Atlantic University, worked on the site from 1966 through 1971 . These excavations were done on what was then private land. Excavations, including textbook blocks, test pits, and trenches, were recorded on a grid system. Both east west oriented rows and north south rows were marked every 100 foot interval with a capped pipe, and a precise elevation was recorded at each pipe ( Sears 1982). Original excavation notes thoroughly describe and document the provenience of excavated areas, burials, and artifacts. In addition to original field notes , there are drawings and photographs that depict the excavated units (Sears 1982). Despit e using seriation for chronology, excavation strategies were not ad o pted to document chronological control at Fort Center. A lthough a comprehensive excavation was conducted to understand the complex nature of the cultural use of a particular feature, chron ological analysis was conducted later after excavation and in laboratories (Sears 1982). During his excavations, Sears (1982) observed feature disturbances that led him to believe that certain areas, particularly around the burials of Mounds A and B, had l ikely been disturbed by earlier pot and treasure hunters. Unfortunately, because of the collaborative nature of early excavation projects at Fort Center, the labeling system of earthworks and features is somewhat inconsistent. For example, the University of Florida mound was originally mislabeled as Mound 13 and 14, so Sears (1982) renamed it the University of Florida Mound to avoid numerical confusion. Additionally,


92 Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012) recognize d that many isolated earthworks at Fort Center were were not excavated, but a surface collection of materials was conducted at Mound 14 (Sears 1982). More recent work on Fort Center occurred in 2010 under the directio n of The Ohio State University. This work included the excavation of four units as well as multiple types of remote sensing (Morris 2012). Two units were located on the northeast berm of the Great Circle, and the other two units were situated at the inside edge of the ditch along the Great Circle. Bulk and flotation samples as well as soil columns were taken for analysis of pollen and phytoliths (Morris 2012). In 2013, exposed bits of w ood in the Fort Center pond area prompted the Florida Bureau of Archaeo logical Research (FBAR) to conduct a salvage expedition to recover these potentially cultural items. Upon visiting, FBAR archaeologist Daniel Seinfeld deduced that these wooden items were exposed from the wallowing of feral swine. After consultations and d iscussions with to excavate these exposed pieces of wood. An additional site visit and recovery was done in 2015. These wooden items were recovered and later anal yzed by Spivey Faulkner (2018) for her dissertation. Skeletal Collection History Dr. William Sears, the principal investigator at the Fort Center archaeological site, began his excavations in 1963. At that time, he was a Curator of the FSM. During those initial years, skeletal and other materials from Fort Center were brought back to t he FSM for organization and curation. Th ose human skeletal remains are accession (ACC) #4406. One year later, Dr. Sears


93 retired from the FSM and transferred to the D epartment of A nthropology at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) , where he taught and continu ed his excavations at the Fort Center site . The human skeletal materials from Fort Center during th ose later years of excavation, 1966 197 0 , were sent to FAU for storage and analysis. R emains from th ose years form ACC #82 22. Dr. Sears ultimately transferre d the skeletal remains from FAU to the FSM in 1982 when he retired from FAU. However, it was discovered in 2011, when the FLMNH began the process of NAGPRA compliance for the Fort Center assemblage , that not all remains had been returned to the FSM in 198 2. A dditional skeletal materials were brought to the FLMNH in 2012 and were given the ACC #2012 52 until they could be re associated with either of the two existing accessions. Rehabilitation at the FLMNH Recent reorganization of the Fort Center human skele tal materials took place between 2011 and 2017 under the direction of Donna Ruhl, who is the Collections Manager for Florida Archaeology and Bioarchaeology at the FLMNH. During th ose years, Ruhl and several UF graduate students specializing in bioarchaeolo gy (Ellen Lofaro, Kylie Williamson , and I ) consider ed the most effective ways to rehabilitate, digitize, and organize the Fort Center human skeletal materials in a more stable way at the FLMNH. It was through careful assessment of records and field notes, old skeletal inventories, and field bag correlations that three separate accessions were assigned to these human remains. These three accessions are ACC#4406, ACC#82 22, and ACC#2012 52. Summaries of these accessions can be found within the FLMNH documents ; however, a brief summary of the skeletal materials per accession is provided below .


94 ACC#4406 . S keletal materials from ACC#4406 are from the first years of excavation at Fort Center, 1963 and possibly 1964. The skeletal elements within this accession possess pre existing numbers that were either written (inked) or stamped onto the bones. These materials were excavated by William Sears and sent directly to the FSM for permanent storage and curation. Many of these materials are described as originating f rom the A B Pond area, with excavators during the 1963 field season assigning burial numbers B 1 through B 46 , inclusive, to human skeletal materials encountered . ACC#82 22 . FLMNH ACC#82 22 consists of skeletal materials from the 1966 through 1970 field se asons and is extensive. Over 200 distinct human burials are noted. The human skeletal materials from th ose field seasons were originally sent to FAU for storage and analysis , but accessioned by the FSM in 1982. As with the ACC#4406 material, many individua l skeletal elements were inked with pre existing information, which was utilized for organization purposes during rehabilitation. The many types of numbers inked onto the bones include D67#s, B68#s, . ACC#2012 52 . H uman skeletal materials in this accession were also received by the FSM in 1982. This accession includes the material that could not be associated with either ACC#4406 or ACC#82 22. Much of this skeletal material possesses no discern i ble provenience. There are assigned researcher numbers (Miller Shaivitz 1986) but no documented information that directly correlat es with these numbers.


95 Lost o steological f ield r ecords Dr. Audrey Sublett was a physical anthropology professor in the Anthropology D epartment at Florida Atlantic University. During the excavation of the human burials at Fort Center, Dr. Sublett was the osteologist who was responsible for all human skeletal materials. All excavated skeletal elements were cleaned, observed, and measured in situ by Dr. Sublett and her team of students. These elements were then removed and transported to her laboratory, illness and death led to the loss of oste ological notes, photographs, and observations. As Sears (1982:xi) said Sears (1982:xi) mention ed that a report the human skeletal materials from Fort Center, Florida Atlantic University ha d no records of her work at Fort Center. No copies of her original field notes or any in lab anal yses were found. Sears (1982) report ed that Dr. Sublett and her team estimate d a count of approximately 150 individuals who were excavated in the A B pond area based on a count of duplicate right mastoid processes. Previous R esearch on F ort Center There has been extensive research done on Fort Center since its initial excavation. Previous research focuse d on the earthworks, artifacts, faunal remains, coprolites, pollen residues, soil, microbotanicals ( Hale 1984 ; Hogan 1978; Johnson 1990; Morris 2012 ; Sears 1976), monumentality (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012, 2013; Thompson et al. 2013), wooden artifacts ( Seinfeld 2019 ; Spivey Faulkner 2018, 2 0 18) and human skeletal remains ( Cucina and 1997 ; Isler and 1986 ; Miller Shaivitz 1986; Miller Shai vitz and 1991).


96 Pollen, c oprolites, f auna, s oil, m icrobotanicals, and m onuments Sears (1976) assesse d five samples of soil, coprolites, and a white pigment from wood carving for the presence of pollen grains and determine d that corn pollen was pres ent based on the size of the grains (Figure 2 6 ). He argue d that the circular ditches at Fort Center were built for drainage required for agriculture and that the linear earthworks were used for agricultural plots. Sears (1976) also note d evidence of burni ng of shells in lime deposits throughout the midden and Mound A and believe d that lime was used to soften dried corn for food preparation. Although the size of the corn pollen grains was somewhat smaller than usual for corn, Sears believe d that the size re flected contemporary environmental conditions and did not result from modern contamination. Hogan (1978) examine d 21 human coprolites found at Fort Center and extract ed pollen to samples came from the bottom of the pond and from Mound A (Figure 2 6 ). For his analysis, Hogan assume d that the coprolites were concurrent with the ceremonial mound pond complex, that the coprolites were human, represent ed a short time span, were from residents or visitors to Fort Center, and that the individuals who deposited the coprolites came into contact with pollen near Fort Center. After determ ining the types of pollen present, Hogan (1978) concluded that the Fort Center inhabitants did not rely solely on any one particular wild plant , and found no strong evidence for an agricultural crop. He instead posit ed that these ancient inhabitants exploi ted their natural environment in a more general and opportunistic way. Hogan conclude d , however, that corn agriculture at Fort Center was possible, particularly because his analysis indicate d that the plant resource exploitation likely occurred during the spring seasons. The admixture of different


97 plants could have be en Hogan 1978:39) made by people as part of a site renewal ceremony in the spring. Hale (1984) analyzed the faunal remains from Fort C Mound Group. He compare d the differential distribution of faunal remains at separate locations at Fort Center, including Mound A, Midden A, Midden B, Mound 3, Mound 1, the Pond, and Mound B and suggest ed that these areas refle ct different social patterns or seasons of use (Figure 2 6 ). Based on the presence of deer, bowfin, and gar, Hale (1984) indicate d that Mound A and Mound 1 were most likely occupied during the wet seasons , whereas Midden A was utilized during dry seasons. Hale, however, believe d that these differences could also result from differential access to these animal resources by the leading mortuary and ceremonial specialists, who were of higher social status. This was justified because areas around the central mo und pond complex had a higher number of deer remains, whereas peripheral areas had a higher number of fish remains. Finally , based on the presence of remains of raptoral bird s such as hawks, owls, and vultures at Mound A, Hale (1984) also infer red that the se animals were consumed ritually and not part of the primary diet. Johnson (1990) present ed work on the soil s at Fort Center to address the overarching question of maize cultivation at the site. Analysis of a soil sample from within one of the circular earthworks indicate d that soil at Fort C enter was too acidic and contains too much aluminum to sustain maize agriculture. Additionally, he discusse d Fontaneda, a shipwreck survivor who lived among the Calusa for 17 years, who mention ed a root bread that was consumed , but made no mention of maize. Johnson ultimately conclude d that maize, although not cu ltivated intensively within the linear embankments, was possibly present and even grown at Fort Center.


98 Morris (2012) analyze d microbotanical and macrobotanical evidence from different areas and different occupation periods at Fort Center ( s ee Figure 2 6 ) . Although she view ed these plants in terms of their dietary potential, Morris (2012) also consider ed the use of plants beyond food ( i.e. for medicin e, tools , or construction ) . She argued that the botanicals reflect a moist and wet environment, which is un surroundings . There was no evidence for use of a specific plant, such as maize, as a staple, but Morris (2012) identifie d several plant species, such as bulrush, goosefoot, grapes, saw palmettos, cabbage palms, oak acorns, arrowhead, and gopher apples, that were likely consumed as part of the diet. Mo r ris (2012) note d that plants, in addition to providing various sources of food, also serve d as an important source of medicine for prehistoric populations. Several plants recovered from Fort Center were identified as having significant medic in of these plants range from the treatment of fevers and coughs, to antibacterial applications, to a brewed tea beverage. Monumentality R ecent work by Victor D. Thompson and Thomas J. Pluckhahn (2012, 2014) evaluate d the archaeological landscape and monumental constructions at Fort Center ( see Figure 2 7 ). Thompson and Pluckhahn ( 2012: 52 ) assess ed the Fort Center monuments ed that these monuments were ritually and repeatedl y used and re made to serve within broader social, economic, and environmental contexts. For the inhabitants of Fort Center, landscape modification Pluckhahn 2012:61 ) were integral components of daily life. Additionally, the y recognize d that the long term construction of these monuments required mobilization of substantial labor


99 (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2014). The authors (2012) believe d that the original emergence of Fort Center indicat ed a change in traditional social relati ons among Lake Okeechobee sites as well as a shift in the view and treatment of landscape with monumental architecture. Additionally, they observe d that the nature of the earthworks at Fort Center changed dramatically over time, and that the shift in type and function of architecture indicates a broader division within social groups of the population. Early b ioarchaeology Previous research on the human skeletal remains at Fort Center ( Cucina and 1997 ; Isler and 1986 ; Miller Shaivitz 1986; Mi ller Shaivitz and 1991) focuse d on adult dentition and selected post cranial elements . However, this work wa s generally incomplete and, because of sampling bias, does not represent the entire population. The dentition at Fort Center was analyzed in two separate studies. Isler and (1986) assess ed 950 teeth from Fort Center as well as 1500 teeth from Highland Beach, a coastal prehistoric ( A . D . 800 1200) site in Florida. The authors compare d the two sites in terms of the presence a nd frequency of dental pathologies , including carious lesions, periodontal abscesses, and occlusal attrition. They demonstrated that the Highland Beach population had twice the attrition and a higher number of periodontal abscesses , but had fewer caries th an the Fort Center population. Isler and (1986) relate d these findings to differences in life styles between the two sites and suggest ed that the Highland Beach population was a hunter gatherer group with incidental consumption of sand and grit acco unting for the high attrition, whereas the Fort Center population relie d on intensive maize agriculture which accounts for the greater number of carious lesions.

PAGE 100

100 Patricia Miller Shaivitz (1986) conducted a preliminary osteological assessment of a sample o f the human skeletal remains recovered from Fort Center, which was subsequently reported in a book chapter (Miller Shaivitz and , 1991). Cranial metrics, postcranial metrics, and a summary of pathological conditions for remains from Fort Center were compared with published values for selected Florida sites, leading to the conclusions that Fort Center residents had similar stature but slightly better health than their neighbors. However, the support s hypothesis that Fort Center residents had high status, based on their supposed role as mortuary specialists for surrounding areas, was declared inconclusive. Cucina and (1997) examine d the number and frequency of linear enamel hypoplasias (LEH) within the Fort Center population and use d th is as a proxy for social status at this site. The authors looked at a total of 1,072 teeth and scored the position, count, and severity of LEH defects. The mean number of defects suggested that stress affected the children in this population multiple times during th e period of tooth development. Although slight LEH defects were more frequent than severe LEH defects, the authors estimate d that 30 40% of the Fort Center population exhibited at least one severe LEH defect. Finally, the authors were unable to d raw definitive conclusions about the social status of the Fort Center population. Radiocarbon d ates Previous research provided radiocarbon dates for several features at Fort Center , including the Great Circle, Middens A and B, Mound 3, and the Mound Pond complex. Sears (1982) produced a suite of 10 radiocarbon dates from charcoal samples, several of which produced acceptable date ranges despite sampling error (accidentally mixing ca rbon from different sources into a single sample for evaluation) or inadequate sample cleaning . Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012) establish provenience for the original 10

PAGE 101

101 samples, and evaluated an additional 16 samples to develop t he chronology of architecture at Fort Center. Spivey Faulkner (2018) evaluated 7 additional samples during her research on wooden carvings from the Mound Pond Center. The 26 samples reported by Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012, Table 1, pp. 54 55) reflect acti vity at Fort Center that spans more than 2000 years, from as early as 700 B . C . to the arrival of Europeans. Table 2 2 and Figure 2 8 summarize the samples from the Mound Pond Complex for which coordinate data are available. s Interpretations of Fort Center Culture Sears assembled descriptions of the physical earthworks and artifacts found at Fort complete account of the site ( s primary conclusions is presented below , followed by a review o f subsequent challenges to and endorsements of his assertions. p rimary c onclusions Sears (1982) interpreted the earliest circular mound and adjacent ditch as an agricultural plot with effective drainage, and inferred a design influence and even a potential migration of people from South America. An analysis of sparse pollen samples sifted from the muck supported his supposition that the farming technology came with a focus on maize cultivation. Sears hypothesized that at one time Fort Center beca me a mortuary center, providing ceremonial services for a number of individuals from the surrounding area. According to Sears (1982:145), mortuary activities took place in the m ound p ond c omplex that is comprised of two mounds, Mound A and Mound B , a charnel pond with a wooden platform structure , and a surrounding low wall (Figure 2 9).

PAGE 102

102 Sears (1982) believed that Fort Center was inhabited by multiple generations of elite ritual specialists who oversaw mortuary cerem onial events. Deceased individuals were ritually B and subsequently placed on a wooden charnel platform alongside intricately carved wooden animal effigies (Figure 2 1 1 ). These individuals, along with their families, lived in residential buildings on Mound A and, according to Sears (1982), multiple generations of these mortuary families were interred on the wooden charnel platform. According to Sears (1982), the po nd had once contained a wooden platform that was utilized by the living individuals for the ritual placement of secondarily bundled human remains. In addition to human remains, Sears (1982) believed that large wooden effigy carvings were ritually placed on the platform. He argued that ca. A . D . 500, this wooden platform caught fire and collaps ed, dropping the supported bundle burials into the pond. Sears speculate d that perhaps half of these bundles were recovered and reburied on the earthen platform, which at that time stood about 4 feet above the savannah, or about 25 feet above sea level (asl) . More dirt enveloping these reburials raised mound B to about 28 29 feet asl , and clean white sand was added to raise the mound to an elevation estimated at 46 feet. Long term erosion reduced the 35 feet asl by the historic period (Sears 1982). s c onclusions r evisited s conclusions have been contested over the years, particularly regarding South American influence, the agric ulture technology, and the cultivation of maize. Much recent research indicates that it is unlikely that Fort Center relied on intensive maize cultivation. Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012) argue d strongly that the largest system of circular or arcuate mounds s Period I (Belle Glade I) was actually a monument for social or

PAGE 103

103 ritual activities, and did not include a maize garden. Additionally, it has been suggested that the pollen discussed by Elsie Sears and William Sears (1976) was likely misidentified or the result of recent contamination (Morris 2012; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2013). No evidence of maize cultivation was found during analysis of the microbotanical and macrobotanical pollen and phytoliths (Morris 2012), and previously found ma ize pollen was dated to the Historic Period (post Belle Glades IV), which suggests that it was likely a modern contaminant (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2013 ). The interpretation that considered a wooden platform over the pond on which the remains of bundled individuals were placed has been question ed by recent research ( Lawres 2019 ; Seinfeld and Spivey 2016 ; Spivey Faulkner 2018, 2019), particularly by work that has focused on the wooden specimens from the site. Although there is no doubt that both hu man skeletal remains and culturally significant wooden effigy carvings were found together in the pond, there are re are questions about the timing of placement of the deceased individuals versus the woode n effigies, and even the existence of a platform like structure on which human remains and wooden effigies would have been placed has been called into question. s theories regarding high status, multigenerational specialists , however, have receive d support (Milanich 1994 ; Milanich et al. 1997). Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012) agree that, given the smaller size of earthworks surrounding the mound pond c omplex, it can be inferred that a select group of elite individuals were indeed responsible for medi ating rituals. Large burial mounds, such as those at Fort Center, that were re used through time for burials, are not likely to have been used by a sing le family unit (Wallis 2013), so that individuals buried at Fort Center are likely from different social groups and multiple generations. It is possible that a

PAGE 104

104 small group of individuals buried at Fort Center achieved higher social status by overseeing elaborate mortuary rituals. No research has explicitly addressed whether Fort Center was occupied by elite mortuary specialists who processed the dead and lived on Mound A with their immediate families. Although it is possible that a small group of individuals buried within Fort Center achieved higher social status by overseeing elaborate mortuary rituals, it is also possible that Fort Center, like the McKeithen site , was actively occupied by one or more elite lineages (Turner et al. 2005). This dissertation utilize d the human skeletal remains from Fort Center to illuminate these hypotheses. Mounds and Monumentalization Landscape alteration is commonly seen in prehistoric Florida sites across time and space , and this is certainly a prominent theme at Fort Center . T he sections below present a brief introduction to southeastern archaeology, the Woodland period in Florida, and place Fort Center in a regional context. Southeastern Archaeology Southeastern archaeology has historically focused on regions north of Florida, such as Georgia, Louis ana, Ohio, and Illinois. Although Florida has a rich archaeological record and a long history of research, it was often peripheral to major synthesis of the Southeastern United States (Wallis and Randall 2014). This view ignored the role that ancient Flori dians played in large scale regional interactions. Today, research on early Florida abounds and most efforts adopt a holistic, multidimensional approach to better understand past people in terms of culture, biology, and environment. W ith the development of new analytical techniques, however, a reevaluation of past interpretations has been necessary. The understanding of prehistoric Florida

PAGE 105

105 as represented by long term environmental and social models is no longer tenable, because an enormous amount of intercu ltural variation has been discovered (Wallis and Randall 2014). Southeastern archaeology was dominated by unilinear views of cultural development and progression as well as cultural classification with typologies ( Morris 2012 ; Russo 1994 a ). T hese perspecti ves included and were structurally and behaviorally simplistic. The development of socially and politically complex populations was often correlated with the implementation of intensive agriculture, even going so far as to claim that agriculture was an essential prerequisite for complex social, political, and economic systems. Agriculture was thought to provide the necessary foundation for the development of division of labor, resource control, hereditary inequality, i ncreased sedentism, and construction efforts (Morris 2012). This view of a regular progression of cultural evolution has been slowly but not completely overturned by recent research (Sassaman 2004). The construction of earthworks, shell rings, and shell m ounds in the Southeast United States began and developed during the Archaic period ( 9500 to 1000 B.C. ) with the emergence of the social transition to bands and tribes . Contemporary groups were integrated at different levels of complexity and were present i n different parts of the Southeast region (Anderson 2004). These separate populations were connected via trade and travel routes but still functioned independently (Sassaman 2004). Despite the construction of different types of shell rings and middens dur ing the Archaic period, there are conflicting interpretations regarding their function and significance. It has been argued that different heights of various parts of the rings may indicate differential status (Russo 2004). T he mere presence of an Archaic shell ring does not automatically equate to an egalitarian

PAGE 106

106 society. These early hunter gatherers who did not rely on exploitation of domesticated plants or animals did indeed have social inequality (Sassaman 2004). A major de velopment in southeastern archaeology is the recognition that hunter gatherer groups during the Archaic, not exclusively beginning during the Woodland Period, constructed mortuary mounds (Randall and Tucker 2012). The subject of monumentality has recently emerged within discussions of hunter gatherer complexity in the Southeast United States. Debates as to whether mounds were intentionally constructed or the result of quotidian debris have produced a substantial amount of research (Anderson 2004; Marquardt 2010). Shell mounds were often interpreted as the accumulation of trash, but more recent research suggest s that shell mounds are likely the result of rapid accumulation of material as the result of large scale social contexts such as the display of food re mains and public feasting (Marquardt 2010; Randall and Tucker 2012 ; Sassaman and Randall 2012 ). Furthermore, questions concerning the seasonality of mound or midden use, which could indicate feasting, have been explored (Thompson and Worth 2011 ; Thompson e t al. 201 5 ). Early Interpretations with Agriculture Until recently, s outheastern archaeology was dominated by unilinear views of cultural development and progression as well as cultural classification with typologies ( Morris 2012 ; Russo 1994 a ). Agricultu re was thought to provide the necessary foundation for the development of division of labor, resource control, hereditary inequality, increased sedentism, and construction efforts (Morris 2012). In the past decades, these progressive views of cultural evol ution have slowly declined due to the efforts of ongoing research (Sassaman 2004). The term , instead of for inferences regarding internal cultural dynamics. R ecent research indicates that soci al complexity can arise

PAGE 107

107 without agriculture in areas with abundant natural food resources ( Carr 1985; Magoon et al. 2001; Morris 2012 ; Russo 1994 a ; gatherers, despite not implementing agriculture, are not simplistic, egalit arian, or uniform. Complex hunter gatherers rely on dynamic ecological resources and internal power struggles (Sassaman 2004). Hayden (1997) recognize d transegalitarianism, which qualifies complex hunter gatherer societies as being neither egalitarian or p olitically stratified. He describe d egalitarian societies as arising under conditions in which food resources are limited , and thus relates the development of transegalitari a n societies to exploitation of high yield resources that produce surplus (Hayden 1 997). Furthermore, Widmer (2002) support ed the view that population growth and the development of a sociopolitical system corresponds with the emergence of rich and productive ecosystems. Early work at Fort Center relied on evolutionary models to make interpretations regarding its inhabitants. For example, Sears (1982), used the evidence of ritual and monumental complexity at Fort Center to support his argument that these people relied on maize agriculture. Sears believed that the Great Circle and linea r earthworks were constructed to aid in the cultivation of maize. To support the maize cultivation hypothesis , Sears speculated that the ditch was used to drain water into the Circle and the elevated linear earthworks were used for irrigation of beds to grow the maize (Sears 1982). He correlated the presence of monuments and een refuted (Johnson 1990; Morris 2012; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2013 , 2014).

PAGE 108

108 Woodland Period in the Southeast The Woodland period roughly spans the years of ca. 1000 B . C . to A . D . 1050. This long period has been traditionally divided into three subperiods, Early, Middle, and Late Woodland, which are discussed below. Generally, the Woodland Period in the Southeast is notable for its burial mound construction, population aggregation, long distance exchange, and the implementation of more widespread agricultur al practices. Despite these well known characteristics of the Woodland Period, recent research has demonstrated that many of these trends actually extend back to the Archaic (Anderson and Mainfort 2002; Russo 1994 b ) . Early Woodland, ca. 1000 to 3 00 B . C . , r eflects the widespread use of pottery types across the larger Southeast region. Although pottery types and forms were diverse across the Southeast, ceramics have been successfully used to assign archaeological culture groups and chronological order to spec ific practices (Anderson and Mainfort 2002). During this time, group size was likely small and highly mobile. Early populations were generally egalitarian and tied together by ritual activities that were centered around burials and mound building . I nteract ions at a larger regional level were limited during the Early Woodland . Middle Woodland, ca. 3 00 B . C . to A . D . 400, is notable for interaction networks that span the region and place important emphasis on mortuary ceremonialism, and the ritual practice of mound burials continued to flourish. Similar artifacts and iconography among Middle Woodland groups suggests that they interacted with each other across vast distances of the Eastern Woodlands , particularly engaging in religious exchanges and activities. D uring this time, group size was likely still small across most of the American Southeast with individual groups interacting at a larger scale at ceremonial centers and burial mounds (Anderson 2002). But in northern Florida and southern Georgia, more than a

PAGE 109

109 sites that combined large resident populations, numbering in the low hundreds, with ceremonial mound complexes (e.g., Milanich et al. 1997; Pluckhahn 2003). There is evidence of movement between these sites. Patt erns of migration during this period and the Late Woodland period were likely a reflection of small groups of people moving over extended periods of time rather than massive migration events, even though Pluckhahn et al. (2020) have proposed a trend of mov ement of people from southern to northern areas in Florida and the Deep South. Other factors, such as climate change affecting more coastal sites, and the development of more elaborate mortuary ritual practices, would have encouraged a greater number of pe ople to aggregate in a specific area (Pluckhahn et al. 2020). Although still generally egalitarian, there is through the mediation of exchanges and public monumental and mortuary ceremonial events (Mainfort 1988, 1989). While the majority of burials received similar mortuary treatment, some artifacts as a part of more elab orate mortuary conditions (Anderson and Mainfort 2002). Major Middle Woodland period sites in the Southeast are likely to have participated in regional networks of exchange that were influenced by the Hopewell heartlands in Ohio (Anderson 1998; Mainfort 19 88; Mainfort and Sullivan 1998). These exotic goods suggest Hopewellian exchange networks was present in some, but not all, areas of the Southeast during this period . The frequency of these exotic items during the Middle Woodland indicates a general openn ess or acceptance of what was considered to be novel (White 2014). However, the variation of the extent that these novel, exotic artifacts were incorporated within Woodland burials is likely a reflection of cultural practices that placed differential impor tance on traditional, familial, and exotic artifacts (White 2014). The variation

PAGE 110

110 observed is also in part due to local and natural geography. For example, rivers that connect to the Gulf of Mexico better facilitated connections among areas in the Midwest c ompared to rivers in eastern Florida . For example , the major waterway in eastern Florida is St. Johns R iver, which flows north and ends near the Florida Georgia border, thus not facilitating any travel into the interior of the content. It has been theorized that non local, exotic Hop e well related artifacts signify an exchange among competitive high status individuals or that these items were exchanged as part of an alliance building strategy between different populations (Hall 1997; Wall is 2013; Wallis et al. 2016; Yerkes 2002). More recent interpretations have recognized that the Hopewell Interaction Sphere actually entailed distinct aspects beyond acquiring goods for mortuary ritual, including subsistence materials (Carr 2006; Fie 2006; Wallis et al. 2016). However, the precise nature of these long distance interactions, including who was participating as well as the origin of materials, has been difficult to discern merely through the presence or absence of said materials. Late Woodlan d, ca. A . D . 400 to 10 50 , represents a time of increased population size and aggregation as well as the development of intensive agriculture in some areas (Anderson and Mainfort 2002). Mound construction was variable during the Late Woodland in the S outheas t, increasing in certain areas while declining in others. During this later period, some populations transitioned away from egalitarian social relations and instead promoted the development of civic ceremonial centers that were ruled by high status individ uals. These areas were occupied continuously by inhabitants and served as sites of central religious authority. Woodland Period and Ritual in Florida The transformation of natural landscapes is a common theme in Florida history. Beginning with Paleoindian s who constructed dwellings and deposited shell, place making in

PAGE 111

111 Florida has been diverse (Wallis and Randall 2014). These activities, in turn, allowed these past individuals a means of expressing both a local and a larger sense of identity (Pluckhahn and Thompson 2013). The Woodland Period in southern Florida has three regional divisions that have been established based on ceramic typology Caloosahatchee, the Glades, and the Okeechobee. Despite use of ceramics to distinguish between regions and cultures, the settlement and community patterning are more reflective of local environmental conditions (Widmer 2002). However, traits that characterize the Woodland period are also present in the Late Archaic, some extending as far back as the Middle Archaic. The Woodland Period in the S outheast marked changes in the relationships between people, ritual activities, and the landscape. The extent of ritual and ceremonial behaviors among Woodland Period sites was considerable. In particular, this period is notable for its extensive practices of mound building. Although not exclusive to the Woodland Period, these mounds were apparently widely proliferated and ubiquitous. During this time, the construction of these mounds was primarily associated with mortuary rituals, s pecifically the burial of remains as well as caches of objects. Accordingly , Ford and Willey (1941) categorized this span of time as the stage across the Eastern Woodlands . In addition to these mounds, by the Middle Woodland in some places, people began to aggregate and construct fully sedentary villages with formalized spaces. Extensive long distance exchange networks also developed, which is, in part, evidenced by exotic materials found within many of these different burial mounds (Wallis 2 013). The pronounced construction of these mounds indicates a pervasive practice of modifying the natural landscape as a part of social interactions (Wallis and Randall 2014). In other words, these mounds did not merely function as repositories for the de ceased or as

PAGE 112

112 territorial markers. Instead, they provided a constructed sociocultural environment where individuals from disparate communities interacted. This is especially evidenced in the n orthern half of Florida, which exhibits evidence of extensive lon g distance exchange networks among Middle and Late Woodland sites (Crystal River, Garden Patch, Kolomoki, etc.). Exotic artifacts, including ceramic vessels, were likely gifts proffered with a sense of social obligations and to solidify social ties among g roups (Hall 1997; Wallis 2013; Yerkes 2002). Prominent features on the landscape , natural or man made , impact daily practices and influence the structured ways in which the physical body moves through public and private areas (Creese 2012; Johnson 2012; S tone 2016). Organized groups of people create and maintain a social landscape in which architecture serves as the tie between time, memory, and meaningfully created places. Moving through these physically created and modified spaces, individuals create mea ningful, social relationships. Furthermore, architecture is one means of defining and transmitting cultural and social identity through memory through time (Cobb and King 2005; Wilson 2010). The social dimension of memory involves the embodiment in places and things, which allows architectural constructions to function as resources for social memory such as political networks and kin based interactions (Wilson 2010). Monumentalization, particularly within the past, can be analyzed as a means of interpreting the ways in which social memory and human agency are embedded in structural practices and the ways in which these practices change in meaning over time (Cobb and King 2005; Stone 2016). Burial events simultaneously integrate and divide a community. A bur ial is an occasion that intentionally separates the deceased from the rest of the society under specific culturally moderated conditions (Luer 2014). Furthermore, monumental constructions such as burial ces within society (Thompson et al. 2011).

PAGE 113

113 Burial mounds served as physical and ceremonial places that brought people together, and the artifacts were the glue that held them together. Burial artifacts, particularly ceramic vessels, could have served as gi fts given or exchanged with social obligations (Wallis 2013). Belle Glade C ulture Sites in the Lake Okeechobee Region of south central Florida are representative of the Belle Glade culture (500 B.C. A.D. 1700) (Figure 2 13). This archaeological culture generally demonstrates a freshwater dependence on natural and abundant resources and a fisher hunter including a range of plants, terrestrial fauna, and aquatic f oods (Klingle 2006; Morris 2012). This combination supported the development of high levels of cultural complexity, including the construction of varied and extensive monumental landscapes (Lawres 2019). Despite this complexity, the people associated with the Belle Glade culture generally participated in an egalitarian social structure. The majority of Belle Glade settlements are located in the tree island hammocks, which fostered a heavy reliance on fishing. Plainware pottery, or Belle Glade Plain, was al most exclusively manufactured (Porter 1951; Sears 1982). Because Belle Glade style pottery was discovered in coastal Manasota and Safety Harbor sites (McGoun 1993), it is thought that Belle Glade peoples were connected with other southern Florida populatio ns via trade or travel routes. In fact, Lawres (2019) posits that the majority of the cultural materials found at these Belle Glade sites are actually not local but imported materials , although sourcing studies have yet to be conducted to verify this . Fina lly, while Belle Glade peoples did build mortuary mounds, some noted burials were subaqueous (Hale 1989; Sears 1982).

PAGE 114

114 Much of the information on the Belle Glade culture originates from early surveys and test excavations. The Belle Glade site and Big Mound City were both excavated in the 1930s (Stirling 1935) and produced the data utilized for chronicling the initial traits observed in the Belle Glade culture. Another extensively excavated Belle Glade site is Fort Center, whose investigation was led by Will iam Sears (1982). The Belle Glade culture is characterized by complex constructed features such as conical mounds, linear embankments, circular ditches, canals, and various earthworks (Griffin 2002; Milanich 1994; Milanich et al. 1997). Many of these architectural types are unlike those seen elsewhere in North America (Lawres 2019). The presence of a semicircular sand embankment (McGoun 1993; Milanich 1994; Widmer 2002). Belle Glade site (Milanich 1994). Fort Center Compared to Other Woodland Period Sites Fort Center is an expansive site well known for its lasting mortuary ceremonialism and monumentalization. This section will compare notable features present at Fort Cent er to both earlier and contemporaneous sites in Florida. In particular, Fort Center will be compared to Weeden Island, sites in North Florida, and other Belle Gla de archaeological culture sites in the Lake Okeechobee region. Subaqueous burial dates back to the Archaic period in Florida with so the most common t ype of burial seems to have been the deposition of deceased individuals within shallow ponds, some of which were demarked by wooden stakes (Dickel 2002;

PAGE 115

115 Hutchinson 2004). Large groups of individuals were buried together, and individuals were more often pla ced in a flexed position (Klingle 2006). At Windover and Republic Groves, individual burials were flexed and primary (Dickel 2002; Wharton et al. 1981 ). These features are discussed in comparison to Fort Center in more detail in Chapter 6; however, it shou ld be noted here that bundling. This characteristic of secondary, bundle burials is inconsistent with Archaic sites in Florida. Middle Woodland period sites in Flori da have several key features in common. Many of these Woodland Period sites exhibit actively constructed mortuary mounds through which lineage and kinship ties were maintained (Milanich 2002). In particular, Florida sites within the Weeden Island cultures, share a striking similarity of pronounced burial mound ceremonialism. Several of these sites, including Crystal River, Kolomoki, Garden Patch, and McKeithen share several similarities with Fort Center. However, Fort Center also maintains distinctive chara cteristics that separate it from those other sites of northern Florida, several of which are more similar to Archaic sites. Crystal River, Kolomoki, and Fort Center all share several key site characteristics. They are located at the boundary of two distin ct archaeological culture areas, situated near major bodies of water, contain both ceremonial and domestic features, and exhibit circular earthworks (Pluckhahn and Thompson 2013). These extensive mounds were likely the result of multi stage constructions o ver time and possibly a reflection of some of the early forms of organized religion in Florida (Weisman 1999). Additionally, these distinct site features were episodically modified over a period of time and reflect the efforts of multiple generations (Pluc khahn and Thompson 2013). The meaning and significance appointed to these mortuary structures by these people

PAGE 116

116 changed over time and according to developed cultural beliefs. Hutchinson (2004) suggests that m onumental construction could have functioned as a means through which local authority figures maintained social control. Additionally, these prominent Middle Woodland sites are located next to a major body of water, which has long term economic implications. With a few exceptions, t heir features construc ted for daily village life include a horseshoe shaped ring of midden along the residences, a central plaza, multiple burial mounds, and a platform mound (Wallis et al. 2015). Elaborate mortuary rituals were clearly a focus of these communities, and the pre sence of similar ceramics or other burial artifacts suggests that these sites were linked by trade routes. Such similarities indicate close connections among these sites, such as ties among close kin members, and broad connections, such as long distance ex change and interaction (Wallis 2013). The extensive burial mounds constructed during Swift Creek and Weeden Island cultures clearly functioned as gathering centers for these people (Wallis 2008, 2013). Belle Glade cultures exhibit two primary patterns of mortuary behaviors: burial within water and interment within constructed mounds (Lawres 2019). Sites in the Okeechobee region that possess either of these two traits include but are not limited to Fort Center, Belle Glade, Blueberry, Big Mound City, and T mound size and shape. Two of these Belle Glade sites, Belle Glade mound and Fort Center, are more extensively excavated and researched because these investigations occurred prior to the implementa tion of NAGPRA. Although many of the burials at Belle Glade are disturbed, they contain individuals that are generally extended and face up (Stirling 1935). Additionally, the burials at Belle Glade are located within the mounds at this site, which differs from the burials described at Fort Center. Sears (1982) notes that the majority of individuals interred at Fort

PAGE 117

117 Center were either flexed or bundled after being intentionally processed for the removal of soft tissue. Manual maceration is not found at any o ther Belle Glade site. Despite these notable differences, the Fort Center and Belle Glade sites do share two key characteristics. The first is that grave goods are not generally present within burials until closer to the historic period (Lawres 2019). The second is that, at both sites, human skeletal materials were utilized to manufacture other material goods. For example, at Fort Center, Sears (1982) notes an infant skull cap that exhibits cut marks along the margins of the bone. At Belle Glade, Willey (1 949) reports two daggers that were manufactured from human long bones. Finally, the Belle Glade site of Big Mound City presents other different mortuary practices. At this site, two separate burial mounds, Mound 8 and Mound 11, included human burials. Howe ver, whereas Mound 8 contained human skulls, Mound 11 contained only post cranial elements (Willey 1949). Unfortunately, Willey (1949b) does not describe whether or not associated goods or cultural materials were found with these remains. Several sites in the Okeechobee region demonstrate subaqueous burial. Fort Center is certainly notable for its extensive aquatic burials within an artificially constructed pond. The intentional construction of the watery environment for mortuary events is unique to Fort Center (Lawres 2019). Other aquatic burial sites, such as Ritta Island, Grassy Island, Kreamer Island, utilize natural landscape features and waters of Lake Okeechobee (Davenport et al. 2011; Hale 1984; Will 2002). Additionally, there is som e observed variation in the spatial organization of the burials within these aquatic environments, with some sites containing individuals more tightly packed together and others, more dispersed (Lawres 2019). In conclusion, when comparing Fort Center to o ther Florida sites, Fort Center represents an amalgam of distinctive characteristics with both northern and southern and earlier and later

PAGE 118

118 sites. Fort Center is primarily a site of aquatic burials, which is a practice that carries over from the earlier Arc haic period. Fort Center shares other key features with Middle Woodland, specifically Weeden Island, sites in Florida, such as its extensive monumentalization and mound construction, non local artifacts, and long period of use. Finally, while Fort Center d emonstrates key site features that are consistent with other Belle Glade period sites in the Lake Okeechobee other sites.

PAGE 119

119 Figure 2 1. Dietary mix suggeste d by isotopes in bone collagen. Figure c ourtesy of Krigbaum et al. ( 2013 ) . Figure 2 2. Original site map and aerial photograph of Fort Center. Figure adapted from Sears (1982) .

PAGE 120

120 Figure 2 3. View of the modern hiking trail now available for use at Fort Center. Photo taken by Van Voorhis 2016. Figure 2 4. Images of Fisheating Creek as it passes through Fort Center. Photos taken by Van Voorhis 2016.

PAGE 121

121 Table 2 1. An overview of the excavation chronology at Fort Center. Year Institution Primary Investigator 1944, 1949 Florida Park Service John Goggin 1950 Florida Park Service John Goggin 1963 Florida State Museum William Sears 1964 Florida Atlantic University William Sears 1965 Florida Atlantic University William Sears 1966 Florida Atlantic University, University of Florida, and Colgate University William Sears, John Longyear and Charles Fairbanks 1967 Florida Atlantic University, University of Florida, and Colgate University William Sears, John Longyear and Charles Fairbanks 1968 Florida Atlantic University and Colgate University John Longyear and William Sears 1969 Florida Atlantic University William Sears 1970 Florida Atlantic University William Sears 2010 Ohio State University Victor Thompson 2013 2015 Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research Daniel Seinfeld

PAGE 122

122 Figure 2 5. M ap of the continental U nited S tates displaying the location of the Fort Center archaeological site and the universities involved in the excavation.

PAGE 123

123 Figure 2 6. An overview of the site location s of previous research at Fort Center.

PAGE 124

124 Figure 2 7 . Overview of the landscape features at Fort Center. Figure adapted from Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012).

PAGE 125

125 Table 2 2. AMS radiocarbon dates on s amples from the Fort Cen ter Mound Pond Complex. Tag Sample Number Material Context Radiocarbon Years B.P. 2 sigma calibrated date range Original Sources B253748 Carbonized Wood Mound B charcoal specimen 67 8 2530 ± 40 Cal BC 700 540 3 I 3554 Carbonized Wood Mound B base, during the period with secondary burial deposition 1690 ± 110 Cal AD 80 590 1,2 B253745 Soot o n sherd Mound B basal bidden associated with charnel house 1660 ± 40 Cal AD 340 540 3 I 3552 Carbonized Wood Mound A midden lens, possible living floor with ceramics similar to charnel house 1645 ± 115 Cal AD 130 650 1,2 B244803 Wood Carving Pond at edge of Mound B, two legged creature in three pieces 1450 ± 40 Cal AD 540 650 3 16C0305 Coprolite Mound B at edge of Pond 1270 ± 30 Cal AD 663 859 4 M 1600 Carbonized Wood Mound B fragments from deposit under charnel house. 770 ± 100 Cal AD 1030 1330 1,2 Sources 1. Sears (1982, Table 7.1, pg. 116) 2. Fort Center documents at FLMNH 3. Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012, Table 1, pp. 54 55) 4. Spivey Faulkner (2018, Table 2.1, pg. 69)

PAGE 126

126 Figure 2 8. Sources of samples for AMS radiocarbon dating . S ample is not shown because its exact coordinates (near the western edge of the Charnel Platform) were not available.

PAGE 127

127 Figure 2 9 . Map of the Mound Pond Complex following Sears (1982) Fig. 9.5. Figure 2 10 . R econstruction of the wooden charnel platform, including bundle burials and wooden effigy carvings. Figure adapted from Sears (1982 ).

PAGE 128

128 Figure 2 11. E xample of a wooden effigy carving in the form of a woodpecker. The image on the left is from the Florida Museum of Natural History; the figure on the right is adapted from Sears (1982). Figure 2 12. Map displaying select known Woodland Period sites in Florida

PAGE 129

129 Figure 2 13. O verview of select Florida sites from the Belle Glades culture.

PAGE 130

130 CHAPTER 3 HYPOTHESES, MATERIALS, AND METHODS The primary research effort for this dissertation involved careful visual examination of all physical remains and related documentation from Fort Center, augmented by a pilot level chemical evaluation (isotopic analysis) of a small sample of mandibles and associated teeth. The extensive osteological data collected facilitates a detailed analysis of the site population, including: sex distribution, age at death, pathologies, and traumas. Together with stable isotope data from the sample dental material, the site wide osteological data facilitates broader insight s into Fort Center population dynamics, including social structure, diet, mobility, and mortuary practices. Chapter 5 uses the collected data s conclusions reviewed in Chapter 2. The methods used to collect the data are discussed further below, and Chapter 7 identifies a list of topics for future research based on these data. Research Hypotheses I t is generally impossible to definitively prove o r disprove conclusions regarding past populations, but s key assertions are re visited as hypotheses in Table 3 1. Each hypothesis was addressed to determine whether new data supports or fails to support it. Materials As discussed in Chapter 2, anth ropological materials used for this dissertation are curated in the Florida Museum of Natural History collections building, Dickinson Hall, in Gainesville, Florida. The skeletal elements and dental assortments are kept in individual acid free boxes lined w ith ethafoam and separated by their assigned catalog number. All but a few of the remains were recovered from a water (pond) context; remains uncovered in the mounds themselves were generally in very poor condition, and were not collected. The materials we re generally clean with

PAGE 131

131 some adher ing dirt and debris; when necessary , remains were manually cleaned with soft brushes to gently remove adhering material . The primary documentation used to guide the examination of the physical remains was the provenience c opied from their original packaging and recorded in workbooks for the three FLMNH accessions summarized in Chapter 2. Field notes, maps, and catalog cards provided additional information, and such information was supplemented by excavation scenarios presen ted by Sears (1982). Figure 3 1 identifies the source of all the remains whose coordinates could be identified except: one box of remains recovered by the UF field team in 1967 (at coordinates 2520 L450, just 100 feet south of the drawing in Figure 3 1); a nd five boxes of remains recovered from Mound 13 in 1968 (located approximately 1000 feet west northwest of the Great Circle). Documents Review FLMNH documents provided important information for this research, primarily in terms of excavation chronology a nd burial practices. Before an osteological analysis of the Fort Center population could be conducted , FLMNH documents were reviewed to reconstruct a detailed eight field seasons and by investigators from three universities. Additionally, human remains were found at several different site features. C areful reconstruction was done to more accurately analyze the composite population represented by the skeletal remains. An establishment o f the excavation chronology enabled a means to better analyze the individuals present. Additionally, all relevant FLMNH documents were reviewed for descriptions of burial practices. Specifically, any mention of flexed, bundled, or extended burials , as we ll as

PAGE 132

132 descriptions of single individual or multi individual burials , were noted. These original descriptions were utilized to make inferences regarding mortuary practices at Fort Center. Methods of Skeletal Analysis The completed skeletal inventory provi ded the basis for a full osteological assessment of the skeletal remains, which consider ed sex , age at death , stature , overall health , and trauma (Buikstra and Ubelaker 199 4 ). However, previous work with remains from Fort Center, whether directly following excavation or during laboratory efforts, separated many of the individual elements into three broad categories: crania, dentition, and post cranial remains. Before assessin g the minimum number of individuals (MNI) represented by the population, as well as the remaining osteological measures individual. This effort, and the methods for the subsequent osteological asse ssment, are described below. Skeletal Material Inventory All skeletal remains from Fort Center were assessed as part of an overall inventory recorded in a massive Excel workbook . In addition to noting bones and teeth present, this inventory contains a reco rd of the accession number, osteological cabinet (OC) and tray numbers in which the remains are stored at the FLMNH, the catalog number, provenience information associated with the remains, and dates associated with the remains. The inventory is organized in ascending order of osteological cabinet and tray numbers, which range from OC 121.1 to OC 139.1. Research evaluation began with an assessment of each assigned catalog number utilizing standard data collection procedures recommended by Buikstra and Ubel aker (1994). The skeletal inventory contains a list of every individual skeletal element, both bones and teeth, present

PAGE 133

133 within this collection. For this inventory, each bone was identified (e.g., humerus, femur, calcaneus, lumbar vertebra), sided (left/rig ht) , and scored for completeness. A column for additional comments was created to note obvious or unique taphonomy, pathology, or trauma. If a side could not be determined, a score of unknown was given. The completeness score was assigned one of the follow ing: <25%, 25 50%, 50 75%, or 100%. In addition to this completeness score, a short description of the element was provided, including naming portions present or absent. If pieces of the same bone could be re fit, a note of this was made (e.g., 3 fragments of an ulna). Teeth present within their alveoli, such as those within maxillae or mandibles, were noted in the additional comments column following the completeness column. Loose teeth were identified as to which class of tooth (upper or lower, sided), and scored as cusp only or cusp and root. Non diagnostic bone fragments that were too small to . specified as cranial or post cranial. Re Associating Individuals Previ ous work at Fort Center, whether directly following excavation or during laboratory efforts, separated many of the skeletal remains of individuals broadly into three categories: crania, dentition, and post cranial remains. Provenience for many, but not all assigned catalog numbers , included two dimensional coordinates, an East West value between 2300 and 2600 and a North South value between L150 and L350, as illustrated in Figure 3 1. Excel sort and filter functions for Excel tables were used to identify sk eletal elements in close proximity to one an not prove to be a valuable third dimension check, because available provenience often lacked these values, and in an y event , horizontal differences were typically less than one foot.

PAGE 134

134 Despite their possible placement in different trays and even different cabinets, the skeletal elements identified by the sorting and filtering as having close coordinate matches were examin ed to determine whether any of the separated elements could be re associated as part of the same individual. If elements of the biological profile, along with unique taphonomic indicators, could be paired between separate catalogue numbers with matching pr ovenience coordinates, then these remains were considered to be from the same individual. All available and relevant FLMNH documentation, including original accession cards, catalogue cards, excavation notes, and early lab analysis notes, was carefully r eviewed to obtain specific site provenience for skeletal materials. Special attention was also paid to numbers that were hand written on the bone in ink or permanent marker. These numbers were individually recorded and an effort was made to match these num bers to re associate specific individuals. Osteological Assessment The methods used for obtaining the standard osteological data, and the methods for identifying and processing the samples for isotopic analysis, are defined below. Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI ). To calculate the MNI in the Fort Center skeletal assemblage, the initial estimate considered duplication of skeletal elements, or a total count of the same skeletal element from the same side. This, however, provided only a rough estimat e of the number of individuals present. To determine a more precise count beyond duplicate elements, factors such as developmental and chronological age, size of the bones, sex and robusticity, and taphonomic conditions were also considered when re associa ting specific individuals (Schultz et al. 2018). More detailed analysis, especially considering the incomplete juvenile individuals, increased the MNI estimate.

PAGE 135

135 The field notes from excavation years 1967 19 70 provide some descriptions of skeletal remains that were briefly examined but considered unrecoverable. T hese notes were used to develop a rough lower bound on the MNI of individuals buried at Fort Center but not counted in the MNI calculated for the skeletal elements housed at the FLMNH. Sex . M orphological criteria for the pelvis and skull, and metric criteria for long bones (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Byers 2011; Ubelaker 1989) were used , if possible , to classify an individual as male or female. For incomplete or fragmentary remains, however, sex was identified as probable female, probable male, or indeterminate. Juvenile and infant sex identifications were not determined , because morphological characteristics needed for an accurate sex assessment do not develop until after puberty. Therefore, sex estimates were made only for adolescent and adult individuals. Age . A variety of skeletal standards were used to assess age at death. Whenever possible, multiple methods for age estimations were utilized to provide a n accurate age estimate (Buikstra a nd Ubelaker 1994). This was especially necessary when dealing with fragmentary skeletal assemblage s . For juveniles, age was determined using the dentition , according to the standards of Ubelaker (1989) and the epiphyseal fusion of secondary ossification ce nters ( Schaefer et al. 200 9 ; Scheuer and Black 2000). The age of infant individuals was calculated using metric guidelines provided by Schaefer et al. (2009). Age categories utilized followed those of Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994) and Baker et al. (2005), w hich include: prenatal, infant (<1 year), child (1 12 years), adolescent (13 17 years), young adult (17 25 years), adult (24 45 years), and older adult (45+ years). When it was not possible to assign an individual to a specific adult age was used; similarly, when it was not possible to assign an individual to a

PAGE 136

136 used. The total number of adults is the sum o f individuals identified as young adults, adults, and older adults (17+ years of age) , whereas the total number of juveniles is the sum of individuals identified as prenatal, infant, child, and adolescent (<17 years of age). Stature . Stature was estimated through metric analysis of long bones. Only elements representative of adults were measured for stature estimation. Adult age was d etermined by a visual examination of proximal and distal epiphyses for complete fusion. Additionally, only complete elements were selected. Any elements that had postmortem damage to either the proximal or distal ends were not included . It should be noted that several femora measured for stature were reconstructed as part of a previous lab analysis or curation efforts. These femora are held together with glue , which should in no way affect length measurements. Although the femur was preferred, it was somet imes incomplete or absent; in such cases, the humerus was substituted. For femora, the estimated stature was calculated for both males and females using from prehistoric populat ions that include those from Florida. For humeri, the estimated stature of the original regression equations from Genovés (1967). Antemortem conditions . Assessin g multiple indicators and skeletal stress or disease provides a comprehensive overview of population health (Cohen 1994; Goodman 1993). All skeletal elements were assessed for antemortem conditions of pathology and trauma. Any skeletal anomaly observed was recorded in terms of location and type of bone or dental modification. Note that an individual with multiple expressions of the same condition was

PAGE 137

137 counted once ( e.g ., several teeth from the same mandible affected by caries were regarded as a count of one) . Observations were made under normal light conditions without the aid of microscopy. Determination of the chronology of any observed injuries (antemortem, perimortem, or postmortem) was based on a macroscopic observation of the bone and included color ch anges, fracture margins, fracture patterns, and externally induced bone surface alterations (Byers 2005; Fernández 2015 ; Ortner 2008). All individuals , regardless of age , were included in this analysis of trauma. Injuries with no visible signs of osteogeni c response in the diploë , no visible color changes on the inner or outer bone surfaces, and straight, sharp fracture margins , were classified as occurring perimortem ( Fernández 2015). Fracture margins combined with irregular lines and obvious color changes between the outer and inner bone surfaces were classified as post mortem damage. General pathological conditions affecting the skeleton that were noted include d non specific stress and infectious disease indicators , such as cribra orbitalia, porotic hype rostosis , periostitis, and osteomyelitis, and osteoarthritic or degenerative joint changes, including osteoarthritis, spinal osteophytosis, and S d antemortem tooth loss, dental abscesses, linear enamel hypoplasias, carious lesions, and occlusal surface wear. Although etiology for many of these pathological conditions is not known, differential diagnosis is provided when possible. Other antemortem co nditions assessed include d modifications indicative of habitual behaviors, bilateral asymmetry, and antemortem or perimortem fractures. Cut marks. Ritual defleshing of the dead prior to their interment on the charnel platform is thought to have been a pri

PAGE 138

138 removal of soft tissue, it is likely that whatever implement was used would have periodically nicked the bones, particularly around areas of joints that are difficult to disarticulate. To test whet her the human remains were intentionally defleshed, an assessment of the presence, location, and frequency of cut marks was completed. P otential cut marks were classified as perimortem or postmortem using several criteria. Marks were determined to have oc curred perimortem if there was no obvious color difference between the cut margins and the areas of surrounding bone and the striations, or cut marks, were linear. Marks were determined to have occurred postmortem if the cut margin was lighter or whiter an d the surrounding areas of bone were darker and the cut marks were jagged in form Burned bone. To assess the frequency of burned bone at Fort Center, this research focused on all original field notes as well as the human remains at the FLMNH. All skeletal elements were visually assessed for the presence or absence of fire damage as well as the degree of damage observed. Additionally, field notes were carefully reviewed for any mentions of burnt o r charred human bone. Each incidence was recorded along with the date observed, provenience, and a brief description. Assessing Population Dynamics Fort Center population dynamics of health and status were assessed using the following methods. Overall Health To determine the overall health of the individuals in t he Fort Center population, this research utilized a combined approach and looked for a number of health or stress indicators in the osteological assemblage. Incidences of antemortem pathology, stature, and trauma were assessed together.

PAGE 139

139 Status A multi me thod approach, including bioarchaeology, stable isotope geochemistry, and mortuary analysis , was applied to assess social rank or status within the Fort Center populations. An osteological assessment of antemortem or perimortem trauma and pathologies was completed and correlated an indicator 9; Goodman and Martin 2002). This analysis employed a range of skeletal indicators, including but not limited to the antemortem conditions listed above, to establish a comprehensive understanding of past stress and status (Goodman and Martin 2002). Identif ication of pathologies was conducted in accordance with the methodologies of Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994). S table isotope (carbon and nitrogen) analysis was used to examine diet. An understanding of the dietary variation can shed light on social dynamics and status (Quinn et al. 2008). Meat, or protein consumption , which is reflected by larger 15 N values, is generally considered to be a high status food. An assessment of the amount of dietary protein consumed was done to explore whether an individual grea ter access to meat and thus had higher social status. Assessing Diet and Mobility To discern dietary ecology and mobility patterns at Fort Center, isotopic analysis was performed on samples of human bone (n= 14 individuals, n= 14 samples) and tooth ename l (n= 14 individuals, n= 14 samples). Bone collagen, bone apatite, and tooth enamel apatite from these samples were prepared in the Bone Chemistry Lab at the University of Florida following basic procedures outlined in Ambrose (1993).

PAGE 140

140 Pilot S ample S election The aim of this isotopic pilot study on the Fort Center population was to gain preliminary insights pertaining to intra population variation across the entire site . S amples representative of the two primary accessions, ACC#4406 and ACC#82 22, were chosen for analysis; samples from ACC#2012 52 were not analyzed because there is no known provenience for this accession. Within these two studied accessions, samples were chosen to represent the large number groupings, such as the 9800#s a nd the 100#s within ACC#4406 and the B#S, the A#s, and the U#s within ACC#82 22. Additionally, samples were chosen from catalog numbers that have different and non overlapping proveniences throughout the Fort Center site. Specifically, these samples repres ent distinct coordinates from the site, including areas from Mound 13, Mound B, the wooden Charnel Platform, and the Pond. Provenience information that specified a unique burial number was also prioritized. Catalog numbers that had only one individual repr esented were ideal, although this was not always possible. The number of individuals within a catalog number chosen for sampling did not exceed three. If more than one individual was present, a single adult mandible was used; juveniles less than 18 years o f age were not sampled. To avoid the possibility of resampling the same individual, all samples of bone and teeth were taken together from a single adult mandible or maxilla . For bone, all samples were taken from area s of these elements that were free of diagnostic features or pathological conditions. For teeth, the third molar was preferentially selected for sampling, when possible, because the third molar is the last tooth to form/mineralize and reflects the period of mid adolescence (Hillson 1996). If t he third molar was absent , either due to agenesis or postmortem loss , the second molar was used.

PAGE 141

141 Table 3 2 and Figure 3 2 identify the samples selected and their extraction point from the Fort Center site. Five samples were chosen from 1963 excavations ne ar the center of the pond, five samples were chosen from 1969 and 1970 excavations near the north end of the pond, two 1968 samples were chosen from the Charnel Platform area, one 1968 sample was from the eastern edge of Mound B, and one sample (not shown) was from Mound 13. Sample P reparation All bone and tooth samples were assigned a BCL (Bone Chemistry Lab) number and tooth and bone were initially cleaned by hand with scalpels to remove debris and/or impurities with double deionized distilled water (DDI H 2 O) sonicat ed and air dried for 24 hours. Ceramic mortars and pestles were utilized on the cleaned bone fragments, and sampled bone powder was sieved into two fra ctions for bone collagen (0.25 0.5mm) and bone apatite (0.25mm) analysis. For teeth, each tooth was sampled using a Brass e ler dental drill and a Dedeco NM slim separating disc to produce a wedge of tooth enamel ca. 100 mg in size . Adhering dentin along th e interior portions of the wedge and exogenous debris were removed using a dental drill and carbide bit. Once cleaned, the enamel chunk was split into a smaller sample (ca. 20 30 mg) and ground using an agate mortar and pestle. The larger sample (ca. 40 50 mg) was retained as a analysis ) and placed in a 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube for subsequent column chemistry and ICP MS analysis . Bone collagen was prepared by demineralization of ca. 0.5g of ground bone (0.25 0.5mm) in 12 13mL 0.2 M hydrochloric acid (HCl) using 15mL tubes for approximately 24 hours, and after centrifugation every 24 hours, the HCl was refreshed in each sample until the samples were completely demineralized . I n this case, demineralization took 7 days.

PAGE 142

142 Demineralized samples were then rinsed to neutral pH with DDI H 2 O, followed by treatment with ca. 12ml of 0.125 M sodium hydroxide (NaOH) for 16 hours. Samples were then rinsed to neutral pH and transferred to a 20 mL scintillation vial with ca. 10 mL of 0.001 M HCl, and transferred to a 95°C oven for 4 5 hours. Samples were then spiked with 100µl of 1M HCl to completely dissolve the collagen and heated at 95 ° C for another 4 5 hours. Solubi li zed samples were then transf erred back to their respective 15 mL vial (cleaned), centrifuged, and the solution was then transferred to its 20ml scintillation vial and reduced to ca. 2 mL at 65°C. Samples were then placed in the freezer and lyophilized for four days , weighed, and prep ared for mass spectrometry in the Stable Isotope Laboratory at the University of Florida. Samples and relevant standards were then weighed and loaded into tin capsules for elemental analysis using a Carlo Erba NA1500 CNS elemental analyzer and subsequent i sotope ratio analysis with a Delta V isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IRMS). Bone apatite was prepared using the finer bone fraction (<0.25mm), of which ca. 0.5g was weighed and placed in a 15 mL centrifuge tube and ca. 12 13ml of 50:50 bleach (~2.5%) or sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) was added. After 24 hours, the samples were refreshed, and then once fully oxidized (ca. 48 hrs), the samples were rinsed to neutral pH and ca. 12 13ml of 0.2M acetic acid (CH 3 COOH) was added for 16 hours. Samples were then rins ed to neutral pH, decanted, placed in the freezer, and lyophilized for three days . All pretreated bone apatite samples were then weighed and loaded into a Kiel carbonate prep device connected to a Finnegan MAT 252 IRMS. For tooth enamel samples, a similar procedure was adopted, but ca. 20 25 mg of tooth powder was weighed and placed in a 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube, and 50:50 bleach was added for ca. 8 hours, rinsed to neutral, and then 0.2 M acetic acid was added for ca. 8 hours, and then samples were rins ed to neutral, frozen, and lyophilized before being loaded

PAGE 143

143 into the Kiel for analysis on the IRMS. All light stable isotope ratios are expressed in standard delta notation, and carbon and oxygen isotope ratios are reported relative to VPDB, and nitrogen is otope ratios are reported relative to AIR. For heavy isotope analysis of Sr and Pb ratios, requisite column chemistry was conducted in a Class 500 cleaned Teflon vials with 1 mL 5 % nitr ic acid (HNO 3 ) and placed on a 120°C hotplate under laminar flow for 24 hours . Following methods outlined in Valentine et al. (2008), ion chromatography was used to separate Pb and Sr from single aliquots, using Dowex 1X 8 and Sr selective crown ether resi n (Eichrom Technologies, Inc.), respectively. Sr and Pb ratios were analyzed separately using a Nu Plasma multi collector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (MC ICP MS), using time resolved analysis (TRA) for Sr and the Tl normalization technique for Pb (Kamenov et al. 2004). Sr ratios ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) are reported relative to the NBS 987 standard 87 Sr/ 86 Sr=0.71024 (±0.00003, 2 ) , and Pb ratios ( 20n Pb/ 204 Pb) are reported relative to the NBS 981 standard 206 Pb/ 204 Pb=16.937 (±0.004, 2 ), 207 Pb/ 204 Pb=15.4 90 (±0.003, 2 ), and 208 Pb/ 204 Pb=36.695 (±0.009, 2 ). Fort Center Comparisons Once the physical evaluation of all human remains and the pilot isotope analysis of selected dental elements were complete, it was instructive to make a variety of intra site c omparisons of results among different population groupings, considering biological sex, age at death, and site feature. For example, it was informative to determine whether the incidence of linear enamel hypoplasias ( LEH ) was higher or lower for males than for females, or for children than for adults, or for individuals recovered from the eastern edge of Mound B than from the center of the pond. Results are presented in Chapter 4 and discussed in Chapter 5. Similarly,

PAGE 144

144 Chapter 6 compares the bioarchaeological and isotopic data derived for Fort Center remains with published data for other Florida sites. Comparisons with earlier Archaic wet cemetery sites such as Windover and Republic Groves in addition to other Woodland Period sites such as McK eithen Mound C, Palmer Mound, Bayshore Homes Mound B , provide insights into regional and chronological changes in demography, health, status, diet, and mobility of prehistoric Floridians. The next section defines a number of areas within the Mound Pond Co mplex that were the basis for intra site comparisons using assessment of both physical and stable isotope differences identified in remains from the different areas. A final section below summarizes the statistical methods used for these comparisons, as we ll as for the comparisons between Fort Center and other Florida sites. Sample Groups for Intra Site Comparisons As noted above in Chapter 2 section Radiocarbon dates, occupation and use of the Mound Pond Complex continued for six to eight centuries. Theref ore, careful osteological assessment and isotopic analysis is likely to identify differences among groups of individuals recovered from different areas of the site. F ew of the human remains were recovered from areas that had not been continuously under wat came from three areas, Mound 13, Mound A, and the central area of Mound B. Figure 3 3 defines three distinct feature areas, in and near the pond, from which most of the human remains were recovered. All of the 1963 recoveries 63, and most of the recoveries from the Charnel Platform area were realized in 1968. For convenience, the few recoveries from the area labeled CPP (Charnel Platform or Pond) are considered part of the Pond for intra site comparisons in Chapters 4 and 5. As indicated in Figure 3 3, the Pond abuts the eastern edge of Mound B and the western edge of Mound A.

PAGE 145

145 Center area, Figures 3 4 and 3 5 show multi ple active areas for 1968 and 1969 recoveries, but with minimal overlap. Two but include too few specimens for meaningful statistical analysis. However the scatt ering of excavated remains from the central area of Mound B , shown in Figure 3 1 , can be combined with 1969 recoveries from the eastern edge of Mound B to define a robust collection of samples that can be compared with the other three other robust collecti ons Charnel Platform, Pond Center 63, and Pond after 1963 to facilitate statistically significant conclusions . Statistics Chapters 4 and 5 use hypothesis testing as described in Triola (200 6 ) to assess the isotopic values from the pilot study and to co mpare intra site averages for physical, pathological, and isotopic results. Chapter 6 provides similar comparisons of Fort Center results with data from other Florida sites. site, and for each tooth, the null hypothesis is that the tooth is representative of the site. For example, the average (mean) and standard deviation for 13 C en values from all 14 teeth sampled are the basis for determining whether the tooth from individu al should be considered a statistical evaluations in many disciplines, the p value chosen for rejecting a null hypothesis is p 0 .05 = 5%. For isotopic ana lyses, the typical rejection criterion for defining an outlier is two standard deviations away from the mean. This convenient but slightly more stringent metric corresponds to a p value of 4.55% on the standard normal probability distribution curve.

PAGE 146

146 It sho uld be noted that for the isotope samples analyzed, the relative complexity of the sample preparation process could lead to an outlier status (rejection of the null hypothesis) , implying that a processing error resulted in the individual being deemed not r epresentative of the Fort Center population. For bone samples, it is assumed that, as discussed in Chapter 2 section Limitations of Stable Isotope Analysis , a C:N ratio outside the range 2.9 to 3.6 identifies a sample that suffered post mortem diagenesis or poor sample preparation. Otherwise, absent problem s observed during sample processing, it is assumed that outlier status characterizes a sample that is NOT representative of the Fort Center population, presumably because the associated indivi dual was non local. To compare the percentages of individuals or physical elements with a specific characteristic, such as males with teeth indicating apical abscesses vs. females with teeth indicating apical abscesses, or teeth from the Charnel Platform i ndicating apical abscesses vs. teeth from Pond Center indicating apical abscesses, a two proportion pooled z test was performed. To compare the average number of dental pathologies of any kind for males vs. the average for females, or for individuals from Mound B vs. individuals from the Charnel Platform, a t test for difference between population means was performed. The t test was also used to compare mean values for isotope ratios from different site features. For all two sample comparisons the null hypo thesis was that the two samples came from the same population, and a p value less than 0.05 indicated that the null hypothesis should be rejected , the small number o f isotope samples analyzed for this dissertation and the potential that a future, larger sample would yield slightly different means and variances a more relaxed range

PAGE 147

147 of 0.08 to 0.05 for p values ion. This relaxed range corresponds to values at least 1.75 standard deviations from the mean.

PAGE 148

148 Table 3 s h ypotheses . H1 . The Mound Pond Complex included a wooden platform over part of the pond. H2. Individuals whose remains were interred in the pond a rea had high status. H3. Mortuary specialists at Fort Center defleshed bones of the deceased prior to interring them in the pond. H4. Individuals at Fort Center were not all contemporary. H5. Individuals at Fort Center were native to south central Florida. H6. Individuals at Fort Center were reliant on maize agriculture. Figure 3 1. Sources of s keletal r emains r ecovered from Fort Center .

PAGE 149

149 Table 3 2 . Stable i sotope p ilot s amples . Tag ACC# Catalog# Element Tooth Age Sex 4406 98808HR Mandible LM3 Adult Fem ale 4406 98816HR Right Maxilla RM3 Adult Probable Fem ale 4406 98826HR Mandible RM2 Adult Male 4406 98832HR Mandible LM3 Adult Probable Male 4406 98848HR Mandible RM2 Adult Male 82 22 82 22 30210HR Mandible RM3 Adult Probable Male 82 22 82 22 30384HR Mandible RM3 Adult Female 82 22 82 22 30551HR Mandible LM3 Adult Indeterminate 82 22 82 22 30648HR Mandible RM3 Young Adult Probable Female 82 22 A 16272HR Mandible RM2 Adult Indeterminate 82 22 82 22 30092HR Mandible RM2 Adult Indeterminate 82 22 82 22 30096HR Right Maxilla RM3 Adult Probable Male 82 22 82 22 30081HR Mandible RM3 Adult Indeterminate 82 22 A 16027HR Mandible LM2 Adult Male

PAGE 150

150 Figure 3 2 . Sources for i sotope p ilot s amples .

PAGE 151

151 Figure 3 3. Areas i n and n ear the p ond .

PAGE 152

152 Figure 3 4. Burial locations for 1968 r ecoveries.

PAGE 153

153 Figure 3 5. Burial locations for 1969 r ecoveries.

PAGE 154

154 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Chapter 4 presents the results from all analyses conducted for this dissertation. The original field notes, including excavation chronology, field se ason summaries, and observations on mortuary behaviors; the osteological results, including taphonomy, re association of individuals, MNI, paleodemography, and paleopathologies; and stable isotope results, including data obtained from bone apatite, bone co llagen, and enamel apatite. Chronology Before osteological analysis could be conducted, it was necessary to formulate a detailed , which is discussed in greater detail in C hapter 2. Once this general chronologi cal overview was established, it was possible to determine a more specific chronology to assess which burials were encountered at what site feature location and in what year (Table 4 1 ). This was done in the hopes that a more detailed understanding of the burial relationships to one an other could aid the re association of specific individuals. The depositional chronology and seriation of these remains is particularly important. Elevation or depth was sometimes recorded in the original field notes ; however, this was rarely a helpful means of determining whether or not remains belong to the same individual. Table 4 1 summarizes the more detailed excavation history, including the excavation year, the feature(s) excavated, and the FLMNH catalog numbers of human remains. Field Season Reviews As previously discussed, Sears led excavation s of Fort Center for a total of 6 field seasons, the Fall of 1963 and the summers from 1966 to 1970. Following are summaries of the field activities with a focus on the human skele tal remains found and recovered.

PAGE 155

155 1963 Excavations This was the first field season in which Fort Center was actively excavated. T he excavations began and focused on the center of the pond. The excavated area was marked with a 10 foot square grid system. T o properly access and excavate the pond, a water pump was used to remove water and lower the water level. Sears note d that , within the pond area, they encountered human burials, animal bone, feces, many pottery fragments, pipe fragments, and other cultura l materials. In a 1963 field report, Sears describe d (Sears 1964:2 3). These descriptions support what is depicted on plan view drawings from the 1963 excavati ons in the pond. It was during this field season that large wooden carvings of animals, such as birds, an otter, and deer, were first uncovered. In addition to carved wooden figures, Sears note d the presence of many timbers and poles, which were found both above and below the human burials. These pole like structures were removed during their excavations but ultimately reburied under a tarp at their approximate original location in the pond. In the 1963 field notes, Sears describes a particularly dense ar ea full of human burials, wood carvings, and timbers as a charnel house. He speculate d that , after death, the bones were placed, possibly wrapped within bundles, upon a wooden platform that was part of this structure. Because of time and financial constrai nts, Sears and his excavation crew were not able to clear to the bottom of the pond and locate the original post holes of the charnel structure. Unfortunately, the excavation notes on file at the FLMNH for the 1963 field season are incomplete. They end abruptly after describing Burial 26, but provenience information on materials at the FLMNH from 1963 indicate s the burials continue until Burial 48. Although not

PAGE 156

156 mentioned in the field notes or site report for this year, some of the FLMNH CAT#s for the 100 s material are depicted on the 1963 burial maps. 1964 and 1965 Excavations Excavations in both 1964 and 1965 are discussed together because there was little to report in either season. Although Sears was at Fort Center during these years, there are no fi eld notes for these years within the FLMNH materials. Additionally, there is no indication that human remains were excavated during either of these seasons. 1966 Excavations 1966 was the first year that saw a collaborative excavation among Florida Atlant ic University, University of Florida, and Colgate University. Florida Atlantic University and Sears worked to excavate Mound B and the pond, the two primary areas for human burials. The University of Florida and Colgate University focused on additional fea tures at Fort Center such as the UF Mound, the Round Moun d , Middens A and B, Mound 1 and its associated linear earthwork, Mound 3, and Mound 5 and its associated linear earthwork ( see Table 2 1 in Chapter 2 for specifics). This field season did not uncover many human remains ; s pecifically, only 9 catalog numbers from the FLMNH material . 1967 Excavations It should be noted that the human skeletal remains from the 1967 excavations of the p ond s 9.8 and 9.11 (Sears 1982:154, 159), are in the FLMNH collections. These burials, with the exception of B67 7 (FLMNH CAT#ANT 82 22 30005HR) and B67 38 (FLMNH CAT#ANT 82 22 30006HR), were documented and then discarded when they proved too fragile to excavate, as described by Sears (1982:154): A few well decayed burials and a few small and rather poorly defined postholes were as sociated. These burials, and those to follow in this central area, were

PAGE 157

157 had gone just above them, revealing the brownish stain. In all cases, the only facts recoverable were whether the bones were human, sometimes whether they were adults or children, and usually whether the burial was a bundle or flexed. Most were flexed. There were a few bundles and no extended burials. Since this information was gain ed, and rechecked, by a clean slice or slices through a stain with a few bone splinters and teeth broken in place, we did not modify our technique. and documenting the and teeth, Sears later reference to the 1967 burials (1982:160): The human teeth were, in most cases, just below it, on the original surface of the mound. We could only record them in part because of rapid dryi ng conditions that led to immediate deterioration. With the teeth, invariably represented only by enamel that was fractured in place, were many smaller human bones. These were It is doubtful that the bone qualit y lent itself to adequate removal during this excavation season. The remains likely crumbled or deteriorated upon removal, if excavators were able to remove them at all. However, despite the fact that these individuals were not collected for long term cura tion, there were clear records made about the specific proveniences. These burial locations are clearly shown i the FLMNH records of the 1967 FAU season materials. This typed list provi des a detailed description of these burials encountered in 1967. The list enumerates a provenience with specific coordinates and sometimes elevation as well as a brief description of elements present for B67 1 through B67 95, inclusive. These descriptions assessment of adult or child age or provide any demographic or pathological insight. The only burial that includes a descrip 92, which is recorded as an infant, and B67 , which suggests a

PAGE 158

158 likely young adult. These provenience coordinates were carefully cross checked against all coordin ates of materials in the FLMNH holdings from Fort Center. With the exception of a B67 7 (FLMNH CAT#ANT 82 22 30005HR) and B67 38 (FLMNH CAT#ANT 82 22 30006HR), there were no matches. 1968 Excavations The 1968 excavations focused on Mound B and what Sears Many unique burials were identified during excavations. These burials range from B68 1 to B68 87 but both B68 14 and B68 26 are absent . The 1968 FAU field notes within the FLMNH ACC#82 22 documents do n ot focus on the human burials encountered. Instead, these field notes prominently feature the wood specimens discovered. As seen in Chapter 2, there was a designated physical anthropologist, Dr. Audrey Sublett, who worked as a part of the FAU field crew in the 1968 season. It was her role, along with a few selected graduate students, to document and excavate the human burials. Unfortunately , she suffered an extended illness and passed away without publishing her observations; her original field notes and ma terials have not been recovered to date . For the 1968 materials, an effort was made to correlate skeletal materials to the materials present within the FLMNH collections. This was done in the hopes of illuminating a better context for the individuals exca vated and to assist with the long term goal of re associating individuals. It became difficult, however, because the 1968 FAU field notes only mention skeletal materials in passing. There are fairly detailed notes for Burials 68 1 through 68 10, but then t he notes mention the arrival of Dr. Sublett and no additional specific burial numbers are mentioned. However, an attempt to match the mentioned skeletal materials to FLMNH materials was carried out by searching for specific provenience given in the 1968 fi eld notes. This proved

PAGE 159

159 to be largely unsuccessful, possibly because many of the skeletal materials encountered during excavation, particularly miscellaneous loose teeth, were not collected at this time. 1969 Excavations The bulk of the skeletal material s in ACC#82 22 are from the 1969 FAU excavation season. More than one hundred unique burials were noted during this excavation season. These burials range from B69 1 to B69 125 but B69 15, B69 18, B69 38, B69 79, B69 106, B69 116, and B69 122 are absent fr om the FLMNH collection . As with 1968 field notes, the 1969 field notes do not primarily note human burials but instead focus on wood and other specimens. Again, Dr. Sublett and her students were responsible for documenting the human burials in situ but as mentioned, all of her original field notes and materials are missing. An effort was made to match recorded provenience of materials present in the FLMNH holdings to human remains recorded in the 1969 field notes, but this was unsuccessful for the same reasons described above for 1968 excavations . Skeletal remains were only briefly mentioned in the field notes. 1970 Excavations The 1970 field season was the last led by Dr. Sears at FAU. There was a focus that year on Mound A , but also on final recovery of cultural materials from Mound B. They also excavated the midden associat ed bone are mentioned in the FAU field notes for the 1970 season, but not many were collected. On ce again, the focus of the field notes was on other artifacts encountered, such as shell, lithics, and pipes. These original records also indicate that bone preservation in Mound A was generally poor. In terms of human remains, only seven FLMNH CAT#s were collected during this field season (Table 4 1 ).

PAGE 160

160 Mortuary Behaviors Interpretations of mortuary behaviors demonstrated at Fort Center are discussed in Chapter 5. However, this research indicates that all individuals buried at Fort Center appear to have be en given the same social or ritual treatment by the living. Burials contained individuals of both biological sexes and all ages, including infant s , children, adolescents, adults, and older adults. The majority of individuals were buried at similar location s in the Fort Center site, with the greatest number of individuals interred within the artificial pond. A few primary burials contain ed only a single individual, but t he majority of burials represent a minimum of two or three individuals. Unfortunately, l ittle information was gained regarding specific burial position. Original plan view drawings from 1963 depict individuals as bundled, but subsequent details from Dr. were lost. Therefore, it cannot be said whether or not the bulk of the individuals interred at Fort Center, those representative of ACC#82 22, were bundled. To further assess the questions of defleshing and bundling, all phalanges, tarsals, metatarsals, carpals, and metacarpals were counted in each accession a nd compared to the total counts of elements present (Table 4 2). Although ACC#82 22 had a greater number of individual elements (n= 9,766) than ACC#4406 (n= 2,477), the frequencies of these bones were similar at 3. 6 % for ACC#4406 and 4. 1 % for ACC#82 22. I n the original 1963 with regards to either burial 9 or burial 10, which are catalogue numbers 98810HR and 98811HR, respectively, from ACC#4406 . Tables 4 3 through 4 5 summarize the finding s from these burials. including a two legged animal (CAT#98791), duck head (CAT#98789) and an otter effigy

PAGE 161

161 (CAT#98792). The other pieces of wood were too fragmentary or rott ed to be identified and collected in 1963 by excavation personnel. These burials are also adjacent to projectile point fragments, ceramic sherds, and red ochre. Additionally, each of these burials contains more than one individual. Ultimately, no singular or unusual treatment was observed for the individuals within these burials . Charnel Platform and Fire First, a detailed overview of wood specimens encountered at Fort Center, including those that were destroyed, left uncollected, and within the FLMNH coll ections, was constructed to facilitate burn assessments (Appendix A ). Original field notes from 1963 and 1966 1969, the years during which the artificial pond was excavated, were carefully reviewed for evidence of a prehistoric fire, including specimens that were not collected for long term curation. Any mention of burnt materials, particularly wood or human bone, was noted in a separate document along with the date, recorded provenience at Fort Center, and a short description (Table 4 6 ). There were ten separate references to burnt wood and bone in the 1968 field notes and twelve references in the 1969 field notes. Except for two charred specimens found on the west side of Mound B, the locations of these specimens are presented in Figure 4 1 using a scat ter plot overlaid with a segment of generally follows the edge of the charnel wooden platform demarked by Sears (1982). General Remarks and Taphonomy The osteol ogical information from Fort Center is derived primarily from a mix of complete , nearly complete , and fragmentary skeletons. The overall bone preservation site features (see Chapter 2 for distinctions) is good, and many of the individual skeletal

PAGE 162

162 elements, even smaller ones such as vertebrae, tarsals, carpals, and phalanges, are complete. There is a tremendous range of color variation among remain s within the Fort Center collection, with individual elements displaying colors such as white, tan, gray, orange, brown, and black. The larger elements, particularly long bones, are heavy when held, which indicates good overall bone density. Few remains ar e chalky or dry to the touch, areas of the site. This further suggests that there is still a considerable amount of the organic component within the bones. Although there are many small, non diagnostic fragments as well a s bits of bone dust, the elements are generally not friable or fragile. Surface areas of many elements are a brownish or black color that results from prolonged contact with soil. There are also many visible fine etchings made from plant roots adhering to the bones. The dark staining and root marks were accompanied by small amounts of vegetal matter, likely roots, that adhere d to elements along with a plethora of dirt and soil that wa s contained within crevices and medullary cavities. Occasionally, adheren t whitish gray concrete like sand is present in lumpy regions on the exterior surfaces of elements. There is post mortem damage throughout the collection, but the majority of elements are complete or nearly (>75%) complete. In addition to post mortem fract ures, some elements display evidence of cortical flaking and delamination. Striations from rodent gnawing are present on only a few elements, which is consistent with their long time storage in cardboard boxes. There is no evidence of algae staining. Red Staining Red staining was noted on 71 skeletal elements in the Fort Center assemblage ( Appendix B ). This coloration covers a large portion , if not the entire surface , of the affected bone . There is a range in the red coloration with certain elements presenting with a bright , vibrant red , w hereas

PAGE 163

163 others exhibit a faded and darke ned red . This staining is only found within the materials from ACC#4406 which were excavated in 1963 and possibly 1964. Of these 71 skeletal elements, seven are faunal, including the species of panther, probable bobcat, and deer. The remaining 64 human skeletal elements represent approximately 26 individuals of the population, including 21 adults and 5 adolescents. Of these 26 adults, four individuals are male, five are probable male, and one is female, while the remaining individuals are of indeterminate sex . The adolescents are all aged generally between 12 to 20 years old , although it is impossible to determine sex for th ese individuals due to a lack of skeletal elements informative of biological sex . However, a total count of individuals is obfuscated by two factors. Because m any of the catalog numbers with red stained elements contain multiple individuals, it was imposs ible to determine to which individual specific metatarsals, metacarpals, phalanges, or vertebrae belong. Furthermore, many of the catalog numbers with red stained elements do not have a specific provenience recorded. This staining affects limited areas of the body. Specifically, there are 26 metatarsals stained red, 8 metacarpals, 5 manual and pedal phalanges, 18 vertebrae, one clavicle, one fibula, and one sacrum (Table 4 7 ). The most common area of the body affected was by far the feet, which account ed f or 44% of the remains (28 of 63 elements ). Hands and feet combined account for 62% (39 of 63 elements ), which is a substantial percentage. Vertebrae, in contrast, account ed for 25% (16 of 63 elements ) of the red stained elements. It is interesting to note that the uncommon elements with red staining, the clavicle, fibula, and sacrum, all belong to adolescent individuals (i.e., not adult s ) . Possible etiologies of the red staining are discussed in Chapter 5.

PAGE 164

164 Cut Marks The presence, absence, location and frequency of cut marks were observed through careful visual examination of every element within the Fort Center skeletal collection. When a cut mark was found, a note of the element, side, location, and brief description was made. In total, cut marks were observed on 26 skeletal elements (Table 4 8 ). Of these 26, only 4 ( 15 %) occurred within the perimortem interval whereas 22 (8 5 %) occurred postmortem. The cut marks from the perimortem interval are observed on two tibiae and two femora and were present as m ultiple and clustered shallow cuts. The marks reflective of postmortem damage, in contrast, are likely the result of accidental damage by a shovel or trowel during excavation. These were singular and deep or multiple, widely spaced, with sharp margins. The re was also an obvious color difference between the margin of the cut and the interior of the bone, which suggests that these marks occurred more recently. All observations of perimortem cut marks were found within ACC#4406 materials that are from the pon d. The only elements that displayed perimortem cut marks were the tibia and femur. In contrast, postmortem cut marks are found on many different elements, such as the sacrum and clavicle, which are areas unlikely to demonstrate damage from the intentional removal of soft tissue. Burnt Bone All skeletal elements within the Fort Center collection were assessed for fire damage. Any evidence of burning was noted and described ( Table 4 9 ) , but t his research found minimal evidence of burn t bone. Only six FLMNH CAT#s contained skeletal elements that exhibited damage from contact with a fire. Specifically, this totaled to approximately 12 out of more than 12,000 fragments that displayed visible evidence of burning. Approximately six bone and teeth

PAGE 165

165 fragments presented with blackened areas of burning, while five were white indicating calcined bone , and one had evidence of both blackened and calcined bone. A single element presented with linear fractures, which are consistent with fire damage. Al though two of the original field burnt bone was found within these bags. All 12 fragments were from the ACC#82 22 portion of the Fort Center collection; no eviden ce of any kind of fire damage was found within ACC#4406. Interpretations of the b urnt bone observed within the Fort Center collection, as well as Re Associating In dividuals Re association of individuals was done for all skeletal materials excavated during the 1966 1970 field seasons, which comprise ACC#82 22. The materials from ACC#4406 excavated in 1963 were never separated in any way post excavation, and thus ind ividuals encountered during the original excavation at Fort Center are intact. No sorting or re association effort was necessary for these materials. A first look at re association sorted all skeletal materials regardless of excavation year. This was done to account for the possibility that the excavation of a single individual could have occurred across more than one field season. A sorting of all FLMNH catalog numbers by coordinates did not yield any significant overlap between different field seasons, wh ich suggested that FAU was not re excavating the exact same areas within the pond or Mound B in subsequent field seasons. Re association of individuals was therefore primarily done according to excavation year and coordinates . When all FLMNH catalog numbe rs were sorted by site coordinates within the excavation year s , there proved to be a considerable frequency of overlap among different and disparate catalogue numbers. A complete list of these sorted materials is too large for this

PAGE 166

166 dissertation but is avai ACC#82 22. There was a range in the number of separate catalog numbers that matched with the same or nearby coordinates. For some coordinates, only two catalog numbers matched that same pro venience, but for others, as many as twelve catalog numbers matched. Generally , however , the majority of specific coordinates (i.e., 2398 L275 ) matched with less than five catalog numbers, whereas the less specific coordinates (i.e., 2400 L275) matched a l arger number of catalog numbers. For example, while sorting the 1968 materials, only three catalog numbers matched with the coordinates 2398 L275. These catalog numbers are 82 22 30032HR, 82 22 30133HR, and 82 22 30519HR. However, twelve of the 1968 catalo g numbers matched with the same 2400 L275 coordinates. These catalog numbers are A 16246HR, A 16258HR, 82 22 30123HR, 82 22 30126HR, 82 22 30128HR, 82 22 30130HR, 82 22 30131HR, 82 22 30134HR, 82 22 30137HR, 82 22 30413HR, 82 22 30469HR, and 82 22 30471HR (Table 4 10 ). were given the same coordinate, which was the southeast corner of that square. Overall, efforts to re associate individuals were largely successful. More than 100 matches of disparate FLMNH catalog numbers were possible and as many as 300 individuals were able to be re associated. Specifically, individuals represented by distinct catalog numbers that were over several hundred c atalog numbers apart and in different cabinets were able to be re associated. MNI MNI for the Fort Center population is estimated to be a total of 7 8 4 (Table 4 1 1 ), that were not coll ected

PAGE 167

167 There are an estimated 693 Of the se 6 93 individuals, there are 183 (26%) individuals from ACC#4406, 50 9 individuals (73%) from ACC#82 22, and a single individual ( <1 %) from ACC#2012 52 . Of the 91 total individuals represented by the uncollected materials, there were no individuals from 1966, 65 ( 7 2 %) individuals from 1967, two ( 2 %) individuals from 1968, and 22 ( 2 4 %) individuals n ot collected in 1969 , and two ( 2 %) individuals from 1970 . Table 4 1 2 distinguishes among the site feature at Fort Center and groups the interred individuals into six general areas according to where they were excavated. These site features correspond to Mound 13, Mound A, Mound B, charnel platform, the pond , and incorrect or no provenience . With respect to the number of individuals representative of each feature, the area with the largest MNI is the pond. There are a total of 4 8 5 individuals ( 70 % of the population), including those from the center of the pond excavated in 1963 as well as the rest of the pon d ; these individuals comprise both sexes and come from all age groups , ranging from prenatal to older adult. The features with the second and third largest numbers of individuals uncovered are the regions denoted by Sears (1982) as the charnel platform and Mound B , both of which also contain individuals of both biolog ical sexes and all ages . The area marked as the charnel platform represents 9 0 individuals (13% of the population), whereas Mound B represents 86 individuals (12% of the population). Features with a smaller number of individuals are Mound 13, which ha s 4 i ndividuals ( 1 % of the population), and Mound A, which ha s 5 individuals ( 1 % of the population).

PAGE 168

168 Fort Center Paleodemography More than 12,300 bone fragments were assessed for this dissertation. Based on counts of skeletal elements as well as a refined ass essment of additional factors, there was a minimum of 6 93 individuals within the Fort Center collection and a t least 7 8 4 individuals represented at the site . The specific age and sex demographics focus on those individuals within the FLMNH population and a re discussed below. Age The ages of the Fort Center individuals range from prenatal, or gestational age, to infant (<1 year), child (1 12 years), adolescent (13 17 years), young adult (17 25 years), adult (25 45 years), and older adult (45+ years). When considering all age ranges, the skeletal assemblage represents 4 21 adults (6 1 % of the population ), both young, middle aged, and older, and 27 2 juveniles (39% of the population ), including all individuals younger than 18 years (Table 4 1 3 ). Specifically, of the 4 2 1 adults, 2 5 ( 6 %) were determined to be younger adults of 17 25 years of age, 3 36 (8 0 %) were determine d to be 25 45 years of age, and 60 (1 4 %) were determined to be older adults of 45 years of age or older. For juveniles, of which there are 272 individuals, there are 8 ( 3 %) prenatal, 3 1 (11%) infants present, 18 6 (6 9 %) children b etween t he ages of 5 and 12 years, and 47 (17%) adolescents present . Table s 4 1 4 and 4 1 5 present s MNI of age categories by site feature at Fort Center. In terms of site feature, the largest number of individuals of all ages was excavated from the pond. The relative frequencies for each age group is fairly consistent across the different site features, except that a statistically significant difference (higher percentage) for adults 25 to 45 years was noted for the Pond Center 1963 (p value = 0.04) and fo r the No/Bad Coordinates (p value = 0.03) of individuals with no coordinates or obviously mis recorded coordinates. The relative

PAGE 169

169 frequencies that determine the composite ratios shown in Table 4 15 for adults (> 17 years) to juveniles (prenatal to 17 years) exhibited no statistically significant difference. The apparently large differences for Pond Center and No/Bad Coordinates reflect p values of 0.12 and 0.08, respectively, which exceed the criteria of 0.05 used to define statistical significance. Biologic al sex Biological sex of these individuals was assessed for both adults and adolescents , when possible. It was determined that, of these 693 identified individuals in the skeletal population , there were 1 20 ( 29% of 421 adults ) males or probable males and 12 6 ( 30 % of 421 adults ) females or probable females. It was not possible to determine the sex of 44 7 (6 5 % of total 693 ) individuals, including both adults and juveniles, due to the absence of features utilized for the assessment of biological sex and the i nability to estimate biological sex from juvenile remains. Tables 4 1 6 and 4 1 7 present MNIs by biological sex according to site feature and age . T he majority of each biological sex was recovered from the artificial pond. However, there are some other nota ble differences with respect to the distribution of biological sex. The only individuals from both Mound 13 and Mound A whose biological sex could be identified were male; there were no females identified in either of these mounds. In contrast, both the ch arnel platform area and Mound B contained more female than male individuals. The charnel platform assemblage included 19 identified females (1 5 % of all females) and 9 identified males ( 8 % of all males). Similarly, Mound B had 14 out of 126 females (11%) bu t only 9 out of 120 (7%) males. With the exception of the center of the pond excavated in 1963, which is discussed in depth below, the ratio of males to females among the different site features was similar. In terms of age, there were similar percentages of adolescent and young adult ma les and females but different percentages of adults and older adults. While for both biological sex es , adults aged 25 -

PAGE 170

170 45 years displayed the greatest frequency, males showed a higher percentage of older adults (2 6 %) than did females (13%). Stature Adult s tature estimates were done using the maximum lengths of 16 humeri and 24 femora (Appendix C ). Only long bones that could be reliably assessed for sex were used for stature analysis. In total, stature data were obtained for 40 adults of the population, 2 3 m ales and 17 females, revealing substantial sexual dimorphism. Table 4 1 8 presents the average statures and ranges for both males and females within the population. The average male stature was 167 centimeters with a range of 165 to 177 cm, whereas the aver age female stature was 156 centimeters with a range of 147 to 159 cm. The average stature within the population in general is 162 cm . Pathological Conditions Multiple antemortem conditions were observed, including infectious diseases, osteoarthritic ch anges, and dental pathologies. The total frequencies of these pathologies within the Fort Center population are recorded in T ables 4 1 9 and 4 20 . As many as 35 9 ( 5 2 %) individuals exhibited one or more pathological condition in the Fort Center population. The most commonly expressed pathology was linear enamel hypoplasia, which affected 19 0 individuals, or 2 7 % of the individuals available for analysis . The pathologies with the next highest frequencies include periosteal lesions ( n=106, 15% ), porotic hyperostosis ( n=97, 1 4 %), cribra orbitalia ( n=95, 1 4 %) pronounced occlusal wear of teeth ( n=85, 1 2%) , and carious lesions ( n=69, 10%) . The remaining pathol ogies, although exhibited, were all present in less than 10% of the population.

PAGE 171

171 An overview of pathological conditions observed according to sit e feature at Fort Center is presented in T ables 4 21 and 4 22 . No single site feature exhibit ed the highest fre quency of all observed pathologies; however, the group of individuals that make up no or bad coordinates ha d the highest frequency of many of these pathologies. Mound A, likely due to its small number of individuals (n= 5), had the highest percentage of ca rious lesions ( n=1 individual, 20%), LEH ( n=2 individuals, 40%) and occlusal wear ( n=1 individual, 20%). Mound B demonstrate d the greatest percentages of individuals with porotic hyperostosis (n=18 individuals, 21%). The pond area excavations after 1963 ha d the highest frequency of cribra orbitalia ( n=54 individuals, 18 %), second highest frequency of porotic hyperostosis ( n=54 individuals, 18 %) and periostitis ( n=46 individuals, 1 5 %). Individuals recovered from the center of the pond in 1963 had the most periodontal disease ( n=16 individuals, 9 %), TMJ ( n=10 individuals, 5 %) and a higher frequency of periosteal lesions (n=26 individuals, 14%). Mound 13 had the fewest number of all pathological conditions but also ha d a small MNI (n= 4). The pathology frequencies in Tables 4 21 and 4 22 do not indicate any statistically significant differences among the feature areas for any individual pathology; the smallest p value calculated was p=.084, which results from comparing LEH frequencies in Pond Center 1963 vs. the rest of the Fort Center population. However, as indicated in Tables 4 23 and 4 24, a comparison of the average number of different antemortem conditions per person in each site feature area shows that the group of individuals excavated from the ce nter of the pond in 1963 (n= 183) had significantly fewer average negative health problems per individual than those from the rest of the population. The implication s of these differences are discussed in Chapter 5. An overview of pathological conditions observed according to age is presented in T ables 4 2 5 and 4 2 6 . In general, adults demonstrated a greater number of pathologies than did

PAGE 172

172 juveniles . Older adults (n= 60 ) expressed the highest rates of several pathologies, including LEH (n=3 8 individuals, 63%), periodontal disease ( n=1 4 individuals, 2 3 %), abscesses ( n= 8 individuals, 1 3 %), antemortem tooth loss, ( n= 1 4 individuals, 2 3 % ) , osteoarthritis ( n= 1 2 individuals, 2 0 %) , and TMJ (n= 3 individuals, 5%) . Older adults also exhibited an overwhe lmingly high rate of heavy occlusal wear of teeth at 62 % (n= 3 8 individuals) . Middle aged adults (n=336) generally expressed pathological conditions at frequencies less than those of older adults but greater than those of young adults . In fact, middle aged adults did not have the highest frequency of any single antemortem condition observed. Young adults (n=25) generally expressed lower rates of pathologies. Y oung adults , however, exhibited the greatest number of carious lesions ( n=7 individuals, 28 %) , LEH (n=12 individuals, 48%) and S n=1 individual, 4%). Although non pathological, or benign, young adults also expressed the greatest percentage of button osteoma (n= 1 individual , 4%). Following adults, children between the ages of 1 and 12 years (n=186) exhibited a high number of pathologies . Specifically, children had the highest frequency of cribra orbitalia at 2 5 % (n= 47 individuals) . Prenatal individuals (n=8) , however, exhibited the greatest amoun t s of both periostitis ( n= 3 individua ls, 3 8 %) and reactive bone (n= 2 individuals, 25%) . An overview of pathological conditions observed according to sex is presented in T ables 4 2 7 and 4 2 8 . Males (n=120) exhibited higher numbers of antemortem trauma ( n=4 individuals, 3 %), LEH ( n=32 individu als, 2 7 %) , antemortem tooth loss ( n=12 individuals 10 %) , osteoarthritis ( n=15 individuals, 13%) , periostitis ( n=13 individuals, 1 1 %) , osteolytic lesions ( n=3 individuals, 3 %) and S ( n=3 individuals, 3 %) . Males also generally presented with mo re occlusal wear of teeth ( n=29 individuals, 2 4 %) . Females, in contrast, exhibited the highest frequency of carious lesions ( n=14 individuals, 11%) , periodontal disease ( n=18 individuals,

PAGE 173

173 14%) , abscesses ( n=9 individuals, 7 %) , TMJ ( n=8 individuals, 6%) , cribra orbitalia ( n=30 individuals, 2 4 %) , porotic hyperostosis ( n=32 individuals, 25%) , and areas of reactive bone ( n=8 individuals 6%) . Additionally, only individuals identified as female presented with symptoms of treponemal disease or syphilis; no identified male individuals were observed with syphilis. Interpretations of these differences are discussed in Chapter 5. General Observations Although not pathological in nature, several additional observations are worth mentioning. Entheseal changes were frequently noted, particularly on the deltoid tuberosity of the humerus, the anterior crest of the tibia, and the gluteal lines of the femur. Additional observations include bilaterally pronounced mastoid grooves in many individuals, a high frequency of bilateral cranial bossing, and many W ormian bones present within the lambdoidal suture. I nterpretations related to these non pathological observ ations are discussed in Chapter 5. A ntemortem and Perimortem Trauma As noted in T able 4 1 9 , twenty instances of antemortem and possible antemortem trauma were observed, whereas there were no instances of perimortem fractures noted among Fort Center bones e xamined. The types of antemortem trauma exhibited include wedge compression fractures of vertebrae, particularly lumbar, several noticeable calluses observed on the radius and ulna, and several areas of likely trauma within the metatarsals and metacarpals (Table 4 2 9 ). Many of these instances of trauma also exhibited pronounced regions of reactive bone, and in a few cases, areas of pronounced heterotopic ossification. Discussions of the significance of antemortem trauma are presented in Chapter 5.

PAGE 174

174 Stable Isotopes Pilot Results A bone sample and a tooth sample for each of the fourteen dental elements listed in Table 3 2 were processed for a stable isotope pilot analysis. Unfortunately, for bone apatite, only two of the fourteen samples proved viable, as in dicated by C:N ratio s that were within the target range of 2.9 to 3.6 (DeNiro 1985). The non viable bone samples actually produced no collagen at all. All fourteen teeth yielded useful results for carbon, oxygen, strontium, and lead. The two bone samples that yielded good C:N ratios, together with isotope values for all fourteen teeth, were utilized for the analys e s detailed in the following sections. At this point, results are enlightening but preliminary. For all sections below, relevant values within these tables are noted as being statistic ally significant, whereas other values are noted as being statistically suggestive . See Chapter 3 section Statistics for these differences . Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen Tables 4 30 and 4 3 1 show the carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen isotope values for the two viable bone samples from ACC#82 22 CAT#s A16272HR and 82 22 30081HR which are mandibles from different adults of indeterminate age at death. Individuals with good bone collagen yields (n= 2) have 13 C co values of and and 15 N co values of and two 13 C ap values are two 18 O ap value s are 1.8 to 1.0 Tables 4 3 2 and 4 3 3 display the carbon and oxygen isotope values for the enamel from the fourteen tooth samples evaluated. The average 13 C en from 18 O en values have an average of 1.04 and a range from 3.8 to 0.004 3 2 (individual at 13 C en of 11.00 and one in Table 4 3 3 (individual at 18 O en of 3.80 ) is greater than two standard deviations from the ir respective

PAGE 175

175 mean value s, or statistically significant, whereas another value in Table 4 3 2 (individual at 13 C en of 1 4.6 0 is statistically suggestive . As explained in Chapter 2 , the carbon and nitrogen values and the c ollagen 13 C ap co 13 C ap 13 C co in Table 4 30 ) Strontium and Lead Tables 4 3 4 and 4 3 5 show the strontium and lead isotope values for the fourteen tooth samples evaluated. 87 Sr/ 86 Sr had an average value of 0.7089 2 ± 0.0002 3 208 Pb/ 204 Pb had an average value of 40. 11 , 207 Pb/ 204 Pb had , and 206 Pb/ 204 Pb had an average value of 20.7 3 . A single 87 Sr/ 86 Sr value in Table 4 34 (individual at 0.70837) is the only statistically significant value at more than two standard deviations from the mean value. In Table 4 3 5 , two 20n Pb/ 204 Pb values , those of individual and , are statistically suggestive. As discussed in Chapter 2 section Interpreting Isotopes in Skeletal mobility. These are discussed in Chapter 5. Intra Population Isotope Values by Biological Sex and Site Feature In addition to population wide values, it was possible to examine in more detail isotopic differences by biological sex and site feature at Fort Center. Statistical analysis assessing differences between biological sexes and site feature s for 87 Sr/ 86 Sr, 206 Pb/ 204 Pb, 13 C en and 18 O en are presented in Tables 4 3 6 through 4 3 9 . In Tables 4 36 and 4 T he average 13 C en for females ( ) is almost the same as that for males ( ); however, the average 18 O en for females ( 0.24 ) is higher than the average 18 O en for males ( 1.22 ) The t test for

PAGE 176

176 different means shows that this difference is statistically suggestive (p = 0 .062), and difference between females and males + indeterminate is statistically significant (p = 0 .011). Average values for strontium and lead isotopes for females and males are quite similar, as shown in Table 4 36, and the corresponding t tests for mean s reported in Table 4 37 shows no statistically significant differences. The site feature names used in Tables 4 38 and 4 39 reflect groupings identified in Figures 3 2 and 3 3, with addition of excavation year and clarification that samples were colle (Pond NorthEast 70) has been identified as an outlier from this grouping. The statistically significant and statistically suggestive comparisons for Pond Center 1963 are discussed in Chapter 5.

PAGE 177

177 Table 4 1. E xcavation years and features excavated at Fort Center and their corresponding FLMNH catalog numbers. Excavation Year Feature(s) Excavated FLMNH ACC# and CAT#s for Human Remains 1963 Pond 4406: 98802HR to 98848HR inclusive, 4406 100HR to 125HR inclusive 1964/1965 n/a No human remains collected in 1964 or 1965 1966 Mound A 82 22: A 15381HR, A 15404HR, A 15407HR 1966 Mound B 82 22: A 15366HR, A 15600HR, 82 22 30001HR to 82 22 30004HR inclusive 1967 Mound B 82 22: 82 22 30005HR, 82 22 30006HR, S 521HR 1968 Mound 13 82 22: A 16025HR, A 16027HR, A 16030HR, 82 22 30072HR 1968 A B Pond 82 22: A 15972HR to A 15975HR inclusive, A 15998HR, 82 22 30016HR, 82 22 30028HR to 82 22 30033HR inclusive, 82 22 30040HR to 82 22 30043HR inclusive, 82 22 30123HR, 82 22 30126HR, 82 22 30128HR, 82 22 30130HR, 82 22 30131HR, 82 22 30133HR, 82 22 30134HR, 82 22 30137HR, 82 22 30141HR, 82 22 30148HR, 82 22 30149HR, 82 22 3 0150HR, 82 22 30462HR 1968 Charnel Platform 82 22: A 16006HR, A 16009HR, 82 22 30008HR to 82 22 30172HR inclusive, 82 22 30446HR to 82 22 30526HR not inclusive 1968 Mound B 82 22: A 16040HR, 82 22 30081HR, 82 22 30103HR, 82 22 30110HR, 82 22 30111HR, 82 22 30508HR 1969 A B Pond 82 22: 82 22 30173HR to 82 22 30198HR inclusive, 82 22 30375HR, 82 22 30376HR, 82 22 30377HR, 82 22 30379HR, 82 22 80380HR, 82 22 30666HR, 82 22 30668HR, 82 22 30672HR, 82 22 30673HR, 82 22 30674HR 1969 Boundary: A B Pond/ Mound B 82 22: 82 22 30202HR to 82 22 30436HR inclusive, 82 22 30530HR to 82 22 30683HR not inclusive 1969 Mound B 82 22: A 16156HR, 82 22 30213HR, 82 22 30234HR, 82 22 30378HR, 82 22 30581HR 1970 Mound A 82 22: A 16254HR, A 16272HR, A 16284HR, A 16308HR 1970 A B Pond 82 22: A 16246HR, A 16258HR, A 16314HR

PAGE 178

178 Table 4 2. Tarsals, metatarsals, carpals and metacarpals present within ACC#4406 and ACC#82 22. ACC# Approx. Total Skeletal Frag ment s Tarsals Meta tarsals Carpals Meta carpals Phalanges Total Count Total % 4406 2,477 30 34 0 20 6 90 3. 6 % 82 22 9,766 144 104 63 75 11 397 4. 1 % Table 4 3. Burials 9 and 10 and associated artifacts from 1963 excavations. CAT# Burial # Prov. Wood Assoc. Other Artifacts MNI of Burial 98810HR B9 A B Pond 2045 L285 possible "duck" head, possible "otter," many other decayed wood red ochre, 1 Saint John's Plain sherds, 26 Sand tempered Plain sherd, 1 Zoned dec. sand tempered sherd, 2 PPs, 1 PP tip frag, 1 chalky lime stone plummet 3 98811HR B10 A B Pond 2045 L285 290 5 Table 4 4. Age, sex, and pathologies of individuals from CAT#98810HR, Burial 9. Age Biological Sex Pathologies Individual 1 adult female cribra orbitalia, periostitis Individual 2 adult male none found Individual 3 adolescent indeterminate periostitis Table 4 5. Age, sex, and pathologies of individuals from CAT#98811HR, Burial 10. Age Biological Sex Pathologies Individual 1 adult male none found Individual 2 adult indeterminate none found Individual 3 adolescent indeterminate none found Individual 4 child indeterminate TMJ, cribra orbitalia Individual 5 child indeterminate none found

PAGE 179

179 Table 4 6. original 1968 1969 field notes. Date Year E W Coord N S Coord Elevation Field Notes 18 Jul 1968 2402 L297 n/a removed wooden object (curved, heavily burned) 24 Jul 1968 2425 L300 n/a heavily charred wood timbers 26 Jul 1968 2417 L295 18 charred wood mixed with human bones 29 Jul 1968 n/a n/a n/a charred wood pieces 31 Jul 1968 2418 L297 18 mass of wood, badly rotted with possible charring, some heavy 19 Aug 1968 2416 L296 17.8 burned stump 19 Aug 1968 2432 L306 17.3 charred wood scrap 20 Aug 1968 n/a n/a n/a human bone and charred wood 20 Aug 1968 2422.5 L307.5 n/a charred wood (and charcoal) and human bone 21 Aug 1968 2420.4 L302.7 17.3 charred timber fragment 9 Jul 1969 2407 L266 18± charred wood 10 Jul 1969 2412.8 L267 17.6 charred fragment of wooden artifact 14 Jul 1969 2406 L270.5 17.5 charred wood scrap 14 Jul 1969 2404.6 L270 17.7 charred wood scrap 4 Aug 1969 2402.5 L263.9 17.5 structural timber fragment, charred at top 5 Aug 1969 2401 L263.5 n/a charred log, flattened 5 Aug 1969 2402 L263.5 n/a charred wood, flat and thin 5 Aug 1969 2402.5 L260 n/a large log with some charring 26 Aug 1969 2424 L322.7 17.8 grouping of charred wood fragments 27 Aug 1969 2548 L260 23 mass of human bone fragments with burned parietal and long bone 27 Aug 1969 n/a n/a n/a human bone, burned and in poor condition 27 Aug 1969 n/a n/a n/a burned human bone and teeth

PAGE 180

180 Figure 4 1. An overview of burnt wood (dots) and human bone (triangles) found in the pond. Table 4 7. Human skeletal elements with red staining. Element Count Metatarsals 26 Pedal Phalanges 2 Metacarpals 8 Manual Phalanges 3 Metatarsal/Metacarpal 4 Cervical 2 Thoracic 7 Lumbar 9 Clavicle 1 Fibula 1 Sacrum 1 Total 64

PAGE 181

181 Table 4 8. Overview of peri and postmortem cut marks observed within the Fort Center skeletal collection. ACC# CAT# Element Side Description Peri or Postmortem 4406 98808HR tibia left multiple shallow cuts peri 4406 98811HR femur left multiple sharp cuts post 4406 98812HR humerus left multiple sharp cuts post 4406 98815HR femur left multiple sharp cuts post 4406 98817HR femur right multiple shallow cuts peri 4406 98819HR femur left multiple shallow cuts peri 4406 98829HR sacrum n/a single deep cut post 4406 98839HR tibia left multiple shallow cuts peri 4406 98846HR C5 n/a single deep cut post 4406 98848HR scapula left single deep cut post 4406 4406 100HR tibia left single deep cut post 4406 4406 101HR sacrum n/a single deep cut post 4406 4406 102HR femur left multiple sharp cuts post 4406 4406 104HR frontal n/a multiple sharp cuts post 4406 4406 110HR humerus right single deep cut post 82 22 A 15366HR tibia right multiple sharp cuts post 82 22 A 16009HR tibia right multiple sharp cuts post 82 22 A 16027HR scapula left multiple sharp cuts post 82 22 30017HR femur right multiple sharp cuts post 82 22 30223HR femur right single deep cut post 82 22 30240HR C2 n/a single deep cut post 82 22 30290HR long bone frag. n/a single deep cut post 82 22 30306HR parietal n/a single deep cut post 82 22 30455HR long bone frag. n/a multiple sharp cuts post 82 22 30472HR femur left multiple sharp cuts post 82 22 30480HR lumbar n/a multiple deep cuts post Table 4 9. Fort Center skeletal elements that exhibited fire damage. ACC# CAT# Coordinates Elements Affected Color 4406 98827HR 2409 L299 faunal bone black 4406 98839HR 2413 L283 cranial frags. black 4406 98845HR 2414 L272 femur black 82 22 30109HR 2420 L300 loose tooth and misc. frags white and black 82 22 30173HR 2548 L260 humerus white with fracture 82 22 30442HR 2524 L219 tibia white

PAGE 182

182 Table 4 10. Two examples of FLMNH catalog numbers that were re associated into groups by coordinates. Year Coordinates CAT# 1968 2398 L275 CAT # ANT 82 22 30032HR, 82 22 30133HR, 82 22 30519HR 1968 2400 L275 A16246HR, A16258HR, 82 22 30123HR, 82 22 30126HR, 82 22 30128HR, 82 22 30130HR, 82 22 30131HR, 82 22 30134HR, 82 22 301HR37, 82 22 30413HR, 82 22 30469HR, 82 22 30471HR Table 4 11. total MNI incl udes individuals of all ages as well as uncollected materials. ACC# Excavation Year(s) Remains at FLMNH Remains Uncollected TOTAL MNI 4406 1963 183 0 183 82 22 1966 5 0 5 82 22 1967 3 65 68 82 22 1968 101 2 103 82 22 1969 216 22 238 82 22 1968/1969 160 n/a 160 82 22 1970 10 2 12 82 22 Unknown 14 0 14 2012 52 Unknown 1 0 1 Totals 693 91 784 Table 4 12. Fort Center MNI distribution by site feature. Fort Center Feature Total MNI % MNI by feature Mound 13 4 1% Mound A 5 1% Mound B 86 12% Charnel Platform 90 13% Pond Center 1963 183 26% Pond After 1963 302 44% No/Bad Coordinates 23 3% Totals 693 100%

PAGE 183

183 Table 4 13. Fort Center MNI distributions by age. Age Category MNI Prenatal 8 Infant (<1 year) 31 Child (1 12 years) 186 Adolescent (13 17 years) 47 Young Adult (17 25 years) 25 Adult (25 45 years) 336 Older Adult (45+ years) 60 Totals 693 Table 4 14. Ages of the Fort Center individuals by site feature . Fort Center Feature Prenatal Infant (<1 year) Child (1 12 years) Adolescent (13 17 years) Young Adult (17+25 years) Adult (25 45 years) Older Adult (45+ years) TOTAL Mound 13 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 Mound A 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 5 Mound B 3 1 26 3 2 42 9 86 Charnel Platform 0 5 28 4 4 41 8 90 Pond Center 1963 1 3 38 21 6 105 9 183 Pond After 1963 4 22 87 19 13 125 32 302 No/Bad Coordinates 0 0 5 0 0 17 1 23 Totals 8 31 186 47 25 336 60 693 % of Population 1% 4% 27% 7% 4% 48% 9% 100% % of Juveniles 3% 11% 68% 17% N/A N/A N/A N/A % of Adults N/A N/A N/A N/A 6% 80% 14% N/A Table 4 15. Ages of the Fort Center individuals by site feature juveniles vs. adults Fort Center Feature Juveniles (<18 years) Adults (>18 years) Ratio: Adults/Juveniles Mound 13 0 4 N/A Mound A 2 3 1.5 Mound B 33 53 1.6 Charnel Platform 37 53 1.4 Pond Center 1963 63 120 1.9 Pond After 1963 132 170 1.3 No/Bad Coordinates 5 18 3.6 Totals 272 421 1.5

PAGE 184

184 Table 4 16. Biological sex of Fort Center individuals by site feature. Note that each category includes both adults and juveniles, when possible . Fort Center Feature MNI Identified Males Females Ratio: Males/Females Mound 13 2 2 0 N/A Mound A 1 1 0 N/A Mound B 23 9 14 0.6 Charnel Platform 28 9 19 0.5 Pond Center 1963 72 41 31 1.3 Pond After 1963 110 52 58 0.9 No/Bad Coordinates 10 6 4 1.5 Totals 246 120 126 1.0 Table 4 17. Counts of identified male and female individuals by age. Note that sex for individuals younger than 13 years (prenatal, infant, child) could not be assessed. Age Category MNI Identified Males Females Adolescent 7 5 2 Young Adult 9 3 6 Adult 181 80 101 Older Adult 49 32 17 Total 246 120 126 Table 4 18. Estimated ranges and average stature (in cm ) for Fort Center adults. Biological Sex MNI Assessed Range (cm) Average (cm) Female 17 147 159 156 Male 23 165 177 167 Total 40 147 177 162 Table 4 19. Counts of trauma, dental pathologies, and degenerative joint diseases for re associated individuals from the Fort Center site and for remains with no provenience. Dental Pathology Degenerative Joints MNI Trauma Carious Lesion Linear Enamel Hypoplasia Periodontal Disease Periapical Abscess Antemortem Tooth Loss Occlusal Wear Osteoarthritis Temporo mandibular Joint Re associated 693 12 51 158 42 21 31 75 48 18 No Provenience N/A 8 18 32 7 2 3 10 12 3

PAGE 185

185 Table 4 20. Counts of non specific stress / infectious diseases and additional observations for re associated individuals from the Fort Center site and for remains with no provenience . Non Specific Stress / Infectious Disease Additional Observations MNI Cribra Orbitalia Porotic Hyperostosis Periosteal Reaction Osteolytic Lesions Reactive Bone Cysts Osteomyelitis Treponemal Disease Button Osteoma Schmorl's Nodes Re associated 693 95 94 92 16 40 3 1 4 3 9 No Provenience N/A 0 3 14 2 8 1 0 4 0 2 Table 4 21. Frequencies (%) of Fort Center trauma, dental pathologies, and degenerative joint diseases for re associated individuals by site feature. Dental Pathologies Degenerative Joints Feature MNI Trauma Carious Lesion Linear Enamel Hypoplasia Periodontal Disease Periapical Abscess Antemortem Tooth Loss Occlusal Wear Osteoarthritis Temporo mandibular Joint Mound 13 4 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% Mound A 5 0% 20% 40% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% Mound B 86 2% 8% 21% 5% 1% 7% 9% 8% 0% Charnel Platform 90 1% 6% 17% 6% 6% 2% 7% 4% 0% Pond Center 1963 183 1% 3% 9% 9% 1% 5% 10% 7% 5% Pond After 1963 302 3% 10% 33% 5% 4% 5% 13% 8% 2% No/Bad Coordinates 23 0% 9% 22% 4% 0% 0% 9% 0% 4% Total 693 2% 7% 23% 6% 3% 4% 11% 7% 3%

PAGE 186

186 Table 4 22. Frequencies (%) of Fort Center non specific stress / infectious diseases and additional observations for re associated individuals by site feature. Table 4 23. Average number of antemortem conditions per individual by feature MNI Dental Pathologies Non Dental Pathologies Overall Negative Health Factors Mound 13 4 .25 0 .25 Mound A 5 .60 0 .60 Mound B 86 .41 .58 1.00 Charnel Platform 90 .31 .41 .73 Pond Center 1963 183 .19 .35 .54 Pond After 1963 302 .55 .63 1.19 No/Bad Coordinates 23 .35 .61 .96 Total 693 .40 .51 .92 Table 4 24. Average number of antemortem conditions per individual in Pond Center 1963 compared with the rest of Fort Center, using the two sample, unpooled t test. MNI Dental Pathologies Non Dental Pathologies Overall Negative Health Factors Pond Center 1963 183 .19 .35 .54 All Except 1963 510 .47 .57 1.05 p value N/A .<.0001 .0001 <.0001 Non Specific Stress / Infectious Disease Additional Observations Feature MNI Cribra Orbitalia Porotic Hyperostosis Periosteal Reaction Osteolytic Lesions Reactive Bone Cysts Osteomyelitis Treponemal Disease Button Osteoma Schmorl's Nodes Mound 13 4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mound A 5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mound B 86 16% 21% 8% 1% 7% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Charnel Platform 90 8% 10% 14% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Pond Center 1963 183 9% 4% 14% 1% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Pond After 1963 302 18% 18% 15% 2% 7% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% No/Bad Coordinates 23 17% 22% 4% 9% 4% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% Total 693 14% 14% 13% 2% 6% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%

PAGE 187

187 Table 4 25. Frequencies (%) of Fort Center trauma, dental pathologies, and degenerative joint diseases by age. Dental Pathology Degenerative Joints Age MNI Trauma Carious Lesion Linear Enamel Hypoplasia Periodontal Disease Periapical Abscess Antemortem Tooth Loss Occlusal Wear Osteoarthritis Temporo mandibular Joint Prenatal 8 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Infant (<1 year) 31 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Child (1 12 years) 186 0% 7% 23% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% Adolescent (13 17 years) 47 0% 6% 17% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Young Adult (17 25 years) 25 0% 28% 48% 0% 4% 0% 8% 4% 0% Adult (25 45 years) 336 3% 6% 17% 8% 4% 5% 10% 10% 4% Older Adult (45+ years) 60 2% 15% 63% 23% 13% 23% 62% 20% 5% Total 693 2% 7% 23% 6% 3% 4% 11% 7% 3% Table 4 26. Frequencies (%) of Fort Center non specific stress/ infectious diseases and additional observations by age. Non Specific Stress / Infectious Disease Additional Observations Age MNI Cribra Orbitalia Porotic Hyperostosis Periosteal Reaction Osteolytic Lesions Reactive Bone Cysts Osteomyelitis Treponemal Disease Button Osteoma Schmorl's Nodes Prenatal 8 13% 13% 38% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Infant (<1 year) 31 6% 10% 35% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Child (1 12 years) 186 25% 15% 8% 3% 6% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% Adolescent (13 17 years) 47 9% 13% 30% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Young Adult (17 25 years) 25 8% 12% 12% 8% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% Adult (25 45 years) 336 9% 11% 13% 2% 6% 1% <.3% 1% 1% 2% Older Adult (45+ years) 60 17% 25% 3% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% Total 693 14% 14% 13% 2% 6% 0% <.2% 1% 0% 1%

PAGE 188

188 Table 4 27. Counts and frequencies (%) of Fort Center trauma, dental pathologies, and degenerative joint diseases by biological sex. Dental Pathology Degenerative Joints Biological Sex MNI Trauma Count Carious Lesion Linear Enamel Hypoplasia Periodontal Disease Periapical Abscess Antemortem Tooth Loss Occlusal Wear Osteoarthritis Temporo mandibular Joint Male 120 4 8 32 13 6 12 29 15 5 % of Males 3% 7% 27% 11% 5% 10% 24% 13% 4% Female 126 3 14 33 18 9 8 25 12 8 % of Females 2% 11% 26% 14% 7% 6% 20% 10% 6% Indeterminate 447 1 25 79 7 4 7 14 4 1 % of In d e te r min ates <1% 6% 18% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% <1% Table 4 28. Counts and frequencies (%) of Fort Center non specific stress/ infectious diseases and additional observations by biological sex. Non Specific Stress / Infectious Disease Additional Observations Biological Sex MNI Cribra Orbitalia Porotic Hyperostosis Periosteal Reaction Osteolytic Lesions Reactive Bone Cysts Osteomyelitis Treponemal Disease Button Osteoma Schmorl's Nodes Male 120 10 16 13 3 6 1 0 0 1 3 % of Males 8% 13% 11% 3 % 5% 1% 0% 0% 1% 3% Female 126 30 32 10 3 8 1 0 1 1 2 % of Females 24% 25% 8% 2% 6% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% Indeterminate 447 53 43 44 8 18 0 1 2 1 1 % of Indeterminates 12% 10% 10% 2% 4% 0% <1% <1% <1% <1%

PAGE 189

189 Table 4 29. Antemortem trauma observed within the Fort Center skeletal collection. CAT# Element Trauma? Description A 15974HR thoracic verts. possible pathology secondary to trauma corresponding SAF/IAF pair with RB/pitting and some osteophytes 82 22 30178HR ulna, right yes major fracture callus about 1/3 midshaft on distal end, mis aligned when healing 82 22 30179HR thoracic possible pathology secondary to trauma RB/ pitting on the entire surface of right SAF and right and left IAFs with some osteophytes 82 22 30181HR lumbar yes two lumbar verts affected, lower one is compressed, both have major osteophytes/ heterotopic ossification 82 22 30188HR radius, left yes fracture callus on prox end directly under head 82 22 30198HR lumbar yes wedge fx present on lumbar vert with osteophytes around body, several other verts with osteophytes/RB which could be path or path secondary to trauma 82 22 30240HR MT/MC possible trauma cortical thickening and RB present on entire shaft 82 22 30253HR MT5, left possible trauma distal end present with RB and heterotopic ossification 82 22 30265HR ulna and radius, right possible trauma prox ulna, specifically olecranon process, has RB and heterotopic ossification; also RB present on distal radius 82 22 30461HR lumbar yes wedge fx present on lumbar vert with osteophytes around body 82 22 30484HR MC2, right yes majority of shaft is affected by RB with macro/micro pitting and strange new bone deposition 2012 52 2HR radius, right possible pathology secondary to trauma concave area on medial aspect of distal end with RB and pitting

PAGE 190

190 Table 4 30. Carbon isotopes from bone collagen and bone apatite. Tag Catalog # Feature Sex C:N d 13 C co vs. VPDB) d 13 C ap VPDB) D 13 C ap co VPDB) A16272HR Pond NorthEast 70 I 3.4 20.0 12.0 8.0 82 22 30081HR Mound B East 68 I 3.6 20.9 13.8 7.1 Average 20.5 12.9 7.6 Standard Deviation 0.6 1.3 0.6 Table 4 31. Nitrogen isotopes from bone collagen and oxygen isotopes from bone apatite. Tag Catalog # Feature Sex C:N 15 N co vs. AIR) 18 O ap VPDB) A16272HR Pond NorthEast 70 I 3.4 10.4 1.0 82 22 30081HR Mound B East 68 I 3.6 8.9 1.8 Average 9.7 1.4 Standard Deviation 0.6 1.1 Table 4 32 . Carbon isotopes from tooth enamel apatite. Tag Catalog # Feature Tooth Sex 13 C en VPDB) 13 C en std devs from mean 4406 98808HR Pond Center 63 LM3 F 13.20 0.07 4406 98816HR Pond Center 63 RM3 F? 13.50 0.32 4406 98826HR Pond Center 63 RM2 M 13.30 0.06 4406 98832HR Pond Center 63 LM3 M? 13.50 0.32 4406 98848HR Pond Center 63 RM2 M 13.40 0.19 82 22 30210HR Pond NorthWest 69 RM3 M? 13.70 0.58 82 22 30384HR Pond NorthWest 69 RM3 F 13.40 0.19 82 22 30551HR Pond NorthWest 69 LM3 I 13.50 0.32 82 22 30648HR Pond NorthWest 69 RM3 F? 13.20 0.07 A16272HR Pond NorthEast 70 RM2 I 11.00 2.94 82 22 30092HR Charnel Platform 68 RM2 I 13.20 0.07 82 22 30096HR Charnel Platform 68 RM3 M? 12.70 0.73 82 22 30081HR Mound B East 68 RM3 I 14.60 1.75 A16027HR Mound 13 LM2 F? 13.40 0.19 Average 13.26 Standard Deviation 0.77

PAGE 191

191 Table 4 33. Oxygen isotopes from tooth enamel apatite. Tag Catalog # Feature Tooth Sex 18 O en VPDB) 18 O en std devs from mean 4406 98808HR Pond Center 63 LM3 F 0.70 0.30 4406 98816HR Pond Center 63 RM3 F? 0.80 0.21 4406 98826HR Pond Center 63 RM2 M 0.20 0.75 4406 98832HR Pond Center 63 LM3 M? 1.20 0.15 4406 98848HR Pond Center 63 RM2 M 0.90 0.12 82 22 30210HR Pond NorthWest 69 RM3 M? 1.30 0.24 82 22 30384HR Pond NorthWest 69 RM3 F 0.10 0.84 82 22 30551HR Pond NorthWest 69 LM3 I 0.70 0.30 82 22 30648HR Pond NorthWest 69 RM3 F? 0.004 0.94 A16272HR Pond NorthEast 70 RM2 I 3.80 2.50 82 22 30092HR Charnel Platform 68 RM2 I 0.70 0.30 82 22 30096HR Charnel Platform 68 RM3 M? 2.50 1.32 82 22 30081HR Mound B East 68 RM3 I 2.00 0.87 A16027HR Mound 13 LM2 F? 0.40 1.30 Average 1.04 Standard Deviation 1.11 Table 4 34. Strontium isotopes from tooth enamel apatite. Tag Catalog # Feature Tooth Sex 87 Sr/ 86 Sr 87 Sr/ 86 Sr 1 std dev from mean 4406 98808HR Pond Center 63 LM3 F 0.70837 2.37 4406 98816HR Pond Center 63 RM3 F? 0.70898 0.24 4406 98826HR Pond Center 63 RM2 M 0.70894 0.06 4406 98832HR Pond Center 63 LM3 M? 0.70884 0.34 4406 98848HR Pond Center 63 RM2 M 0.70854 1.65 82 22 30210HR Pond NorthWest 69 RM3 M? 0.70929 1.56 82 22 30384HR Pond NorthWest 69 RM3 F 0.70896 0.15 82 22 30551HR Pond NorthWest 69 LM3 I 0.70893 0.01 82 22 30648HR Pond NorthWest 69 RM3 F? 0.70902 0.40 A16272HR Pond NorthEast 70 RM2 I 0.70922 1.29 82 22 30092HR Charnel Platform 68 RM2 I 0.70894 0.08 82 22 30096HR Charnel Platform 68 RM3 M? 0.70902 0.43 82 22 30081HR Mound B East 68 RM3 I 0.70894 0.08 A16027HR Mound 13 LM2 F? 0.70894 0.08 Average 0.70892 Standard Deviation 0.00023

PAGE 192

192 Table 4 35. Lead isotopes from tooth enamel apatite. Tag 208 Pb/ 204 Pb 207 Pb/ 204 Pb 206 Pb/ 204 Pb 208 Pb/ 204 Pb 1 std dev from mean 207 Pb/ 204 Pb 1 std dev from mean 206 Pb/ 204 Pb 1 std dev from mean 40.30 15.84 21.07 0.24 0.14 0.30 39.76 15.80 20.33 0.44 0.25 0.41 40.82 15.92 21.65 0.89 0.96 0.86 40.96 15.93 21.83 1.08 1.04 1.03 40.87 15.92 21.76 0.96 1.02 0.97 39.09 15.72 19.58 1.28 1.13 1.13 40.44 15.87 21.20 0.42 0.41 0.43 40.50 15.87 21.30 0.49 0.43 0.52 40.05 15.82 20.69 0.08 0.10 0.06 38.66 15.64 18.76 1.83 1.97 1.91 40.65 15.89 21.43 0.68 0.66 0.65 40.65 15.89 21.43 0.68 0.66 0.65 38.68 15.65 18.77 1.80 1.86 1.90 39.70 15.82 20.34 0.52 0.12 0.40 Average 40.11 15.83 20.76 Std. Dev. 0.79 0.09 1.04 Table 4 36. Isotope values correlated with biological sex. No. of Samples Sex 13 C en VPDB) 18 O en VPDB) 87 Sr/ 86 Sr 208 Pb/ 204 Pb 207 Pb/ 204 Pb 206 Pb/ 204 Pb 4 Females: Average 13.3 3 0. 40 0.7088 3 40. 14 15.83 20. 82 Females: Std. Dev 0.1 5 0. 41 0.000 31 0.3 0 0.0 3 0. 39 6 Males: Average 13.3 3 0.95 0.70893 40. 35 15.8 7 21. 10 Males: Std. Dev 0 .34 1.00 0.0002 4 0.7 7 0.0 8 0.9 3 Table 4 37. P values for t test of difference between means for biological sexes. Comparison 13 C en VPDB) 18 O en VPDB) 87 Sr/ 86 Sr 208 Pb/ 204 Pb 207 Pb/ 204 Pb 206 Pb/ 204 Pb Females vs. Males 0.9 59 0.265 0.615 0.565 0.387 0.538 Females vs. Others 0.741 0.051 0.489 0.803 0.836 0.744 Males vs. Others 0. 734 0.808 0.9 44 0.291 0.181 0.250

PAGE 193

193 Table 4 38. Isotope values for different features. No. of Samples Feature 13 C en VPDB) 18 O en VPDB) 87 Sr/ 86 Sr 208 Pb/ 204 Pb 207 Pb/ 204 Pb 206 Pb/ 204 Pb 5 Pond Center 63 13.38 0.76 0.70873 40.54 15.88 21.33 4 Pond NorthWest 69 13.45 0.52 0.70905 40.02 15.82 20.69 1 Pond NorthEast 70 11.00 3.80 0.70922 38.66 15.64 18.76 5 Pond NorthWest 69& Pond NorthEast 70 12.96 1.18 0.70908 39.75 15.78 20.31 2 Charnel Platform 68 12.95 1.60 0.70898 40.65 15.89 21.43 1 Mound B East 68 14.60 2.00 0.70894 38.68 15.65 18.77 1 Mound 13 13.40 0.40 0.70894 39.70 15.82 20.34 Weighted Average 13.26 1.04 0.70892 40.08 15.83 20.73 Table 4 39. p values for t test of difference between means for site features. . Comparison 13 C en VPDB) 18 O en VPDB) 87 Sr/ 86 Sr 208 Pb/ 204 Pb 207 Pb/ 204 Pb 206 Pb/ 204 Pb Pond Center 63 vs. Pond NorthWest 69 0.584 0.524 0.070 0.242 0.188 0.242 Pond Center 63 vs. Pond NorthWest 69& Pond NorthEast 70 0.447 0.586 0.044 0.114 0.097 0.120 Pond Center 63 vs. Charnel Platform 68 0.324 0.519 0.110 0.659 0.779 0.732 Charnel Platform vs. Pond North 69 0.261 0.431 0.521 0.150 0.130 0.159 Charnel Platform vs. Pond North 69 & Pond NorthEast 70 0.986 0.742 0.286 0.073 0.074 0.085

PAGE 194

194 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The following sections present interpretations regarding the Fort Center population. It should be noted, however, that although conclusions were drawn regarding the mortuary practices, paleodemographics, and paleopathologies of the F ort Center individuals, Sears (198 2 ) admits that there were many burials left unexcavated. Instead of speculating about what was not excavated, interpretations wer e made on the basis of burials that were excavated at Fort Center and are curated in the FLMN H collections . Taphonomy Red Staining Red staining was found on 71 skeletal elements in the Fort Center collection (see Table 4 7 and Appendix B ). Although etiology of this staining is unknown, it predominantly presents as a vibrant red that coats the exterior surface of the element affected and, in some instances, is also present within visible cortical bone. Even under a microscope, it is difficult to discern whether this red pigment was laid down on the bone b efore or after a shiny substance, likely a shellac, glue, or B72 acetone and the black ink catalog number. On some elements, it appears as though the red pigment is the bottom layer, whereas on others, the red pigment looks to have dripped or run slightly over the black ink. On one element, a possible root hair within the trabecular bone that was also stained red was visible, which suggests an earlier application of the red pigment. There are several possible explanations for the red pigment on these ele ments, all of which reflect two broader hypotheses. The first is that this staining is the result of a cultural or mortuary behavior that was probably ritually significant for the living, whereas the second is that the staining occurred post excavation and in the lab. Future research should shed light on which interpretation is more plausible. However, whichever scenario is true, the elements with red

PAGE 195

195 staining are almost exclusively metatarsals, metacarpals, phalanges, and vertebrae. The fact that the red s taining is limited to these specific areas of the body suggests that this was the result of intentional behavior, whether ritual or in lab. If the staining were caused by ritual behavior, then the pigment is likely either red ochre, a natural clay, or hema tite, a mineral with iron oxide. Red ochre has been found in many prehistoric sites worldwide , including burials in the Southeast, and it is often associated with residential sites and human burials (Northam 2013 ; Zede ñ o 2009 ). Among prehistoric population s, red ochre and hematite were modified in a number of ways, including being crushed into powder or heated, for an array of cultural activities. Both produce bright red pigments that would be quite versatile. Red ochre and hematite are also quite portable, which makes it an important artifact for understanding past human behaviors and beliefs. Additionally, at Fort Center this red staining affects both males and females, adults and children, which suggests that, if ritually significant, it is not a reflecti biological sex. Unlike other archaeological artifacts, the purpose and meaning behind red ochre and hematite is often difficult to interpret. It has been speculated that these materials were used as a symbol of prestige, beca use the b right red color would have had a high impact during a burial or mortuary ceremony (Northam 2013). Additionally, the materials could have been an important k on Fort Center, he mention s in passing that hematite was found in the charnel pond (Sears 1982:83). Additionally, red ochre has been found in other burial contexts within the southeast United States (Northam 2013). Alternatively, if the red staining ref lects a practice implemented post excavation, likely in the lab, there are no records that document this. The red staining is only present on elements in

PAGE 196

196 ACC#4406, which is the accession that has remained at the FLMNH since excavation in 1963. If there wer e something done in lab, then it seems like it would be more likely to affect ACC#82 22 which was actively handled as a teaching and research collection for many years at FAU. Mortuary Practices Humans are unique in that they act upon their dead. The disposal of the dead is a broadly shared cultural complexity, although there are myriad techniques involved in this process. Treatment of the dead is done exclusively by the living through specific cu ltural processes and (Parker Pearson 1999 ; Sprague 2005). T argued to be a somewhat exclusive term when studying t he dead (Shepherd 1999 ; Sprague 2005), but these terms will be used in this research because the deceased individuals were, in fact, intentionally buried. This research considers the literal burial processes in terms of post mortem treatment of the remains , the position and orientation of bodies at an individual level, and the collective organization of bodies at a site level. Manual M aceration or D efleshing All skeletal elements were assessed for the presence, location, and frequency of cut marks. Particu lar attention was given to larger joint areas (e.g., the femoral head and humeral head) because these areas ar e more difficult to detach manually . Perimortem cut marks were differentiated using two criteria: 1) color of the margins of the cut in comparison to the color of the surrounding bone , and 2) the form (linear or jagged) of the cut mark itself. When bone is broken at or around the time of death, the margins of the fracture are smooth edged. Postmortem damage, however, is more likely to produce jagged and irregular margins because of the drier and more fragile nature of the bone after its prolonged exposure to taphonomic conditions.

PAGE 197

197 A careful, visual examination of all elements yield ed possible evidence of manual defleshing of individuals. The evidenc e , however, was minimal , affecting only two of all tibiae and two of all femora recovered within the Fort Center skeletal population. These possible instances of defleshing were observed within the ACC#4406 materials, which were likely deposited during a m ore recent time period. There were several, shallow cut marks found on the anterior crest of the tibiae and the gluteal tuberosity of the femora. The appearance of these shallow and linear cuts is highly suggestive of manually scraping against the bone sur face to remove soft tissue . However, the small number of perimortem cut marks observed could be an underrepresentation of manual defleshing at Fort Center. E vidence of defleshing would not be evident under two scenarios. The first depends upon the implement used to remove soft tissue, and the second has to do with whether the inhabitants of Fort Center relied on natural decomposition processes to remove the soft tissue. Sears (1982:39) mentions that i ndividuals Center. He also describes the presence of many chert chips and blade like objects recovered from Mound B. These implements are all durable and s harp enough to remove soft tissue. If, however, the individuals who did the defleshing used something other than a sharp instrument, then it is possible that a duller or softer implement would not have left any visible marks on the bone. For example, it wa s documented that historic Choctaw morticians actually used their long fingernails to remove the soft tissue from bones ( Kidwell and Roberts 1980; Swanton 1946 ). It is unlikely that fingernails would leave any visible marks on the bones. It has also been hypothesized that the deceased individuals at Fort Center were buried in the ground as a means of natural maceration. After an unknown period of time, individual

PAGE 198

198 remains were then exhumed, wrapped in a fetal, or flexed, position, and placed in the charnel house or on the charnel house platform ( Rogers 1974 ). In fact, Sears (1982) speculate d that there like feature found at the edge of the earthen platform. He posits that deceased individuals were processed within this feature by ritual speci alists who temporarily deposited the remains until such time as they were deemed ready for final deposition. Decomposition is a complex biogeochemical process that affects all organic substances. The rate of decomposition depends on a multitude of enviro nmental factors, including temperature and pH, humidity, exposure to the sun, presence of insects and other animals, and water depth ( and Steyn 2013). In Florida, four important variables that affect decomposition are body size, burial depth, burial duration, and the type of soil (Schultz 2007). Shallow burials, smaller or child sized individuals, and soils without the presence of clay generally expedite the rate of decomposition (Schultz 2007). The decomposition rates in warm, moist climates are ge nerally faster compared to those of dry or cold climates (Bass 1997; Galloway et al. 1989; Komar 1998). Studies of decomposition rates in Florida, specifically wetland areas such as the Everglades, indicated that the timeline of decomposition in these area s is accelerated (van der Heiden 2008). It would stand to reason, therefore, that of the area surrounding Fort Center, which is generally sunny and damp because of all the surrounding wetlands, would also be subject to accelerated rates of decomposition. T his sub tropical and temperate environment would lead to rapid decomposition of soft tissue . If bodies were placed within this natural environment, either buried in a shallow location or left exposed to the elements, and allowed to naturally decompose for a period of time, then it is possible that minimal manual defleshing would be necessary. The soft tissue would likely be decomposed and soft enough to remove without a lot of cutting.

PAGE 199

199 Evidence of perimortem processing of individuals was only found within A CC#4406, the part of the Fort Center population that was likely the latest chronolog ically . This supports the likelihood that the individuals who lived during this later time period manually defleshed and bundled their dead. As described in Chapter 4 , the original excavation plan view maps depict individuals that appear to have been bundled upon deposition. These individuals are clearly not in anatomical position. When individuals are defleshed and bu ndled elsewhere for final burial, often times smaller elements, such as those from the hands and feet, are lost during the transfer. To determine whether or not this was the case with the materials from ACC#4406 and ACC#82 22 , a total count of tarsals, met atarsals, carpals, and metacarpals was made per primary accession ( Table 4 2 ). In both accession s , the percentage s of skeletal elements recovered that were identified as tarsals, metatarsals, carpals, and metacarpals were similarly small. In ACC#4406, th ese types of elements represented only 3.4% of all skeletal materials and only 4.0% of all materials in ACC#82 22. Although these percentages are low, which support s the argument for manual defleshing and bundle style burials, it could also be a reflection of selective excavation. As noted earlier, Sears admitted that the collection of smaller elements was not a priority. Therefore, it is likely that many of these smaller elements were not collected for long term curation. Burial Placement ng term use of an artificial pond as a locale for the ritual placement of the dead is significant. The following sections discuss the significance of an artificially constructed pond as well as the deliberate placement of deceased individuals.

PAGE 200

200 Pond Use . I t is likely that the charnel pond was used continuously for a minimum of hundreds of years, with episodic ritual events of deposition, as opposed to a single massive deposition event. Dates from the charnel pond support this interpretation. Dates on wood from the pond span ca. A . D . 545 to 1025 (Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012), which suggests a continued use of the wooden carvings as well as a continued deposition of them within the pond. These episodes of deposition are thought to be significant ritual m oments that mark ed a change for the Fort Center community ( Spivey Faulkner 2018 ; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012). Future dating of the human remains will provide more direct evidence regarding the question of continued use. Burial position . Many of the origin al field notes and proveniences mention that the Fort results when deceased individuals are buried at an original location and left to decompose naturally for a pe riod of time. Once the flesh is gone, these remains are then excavated and re location (Hertz 1960:54). Secondary burials typically occur after a length of time from the moment of death and represent a different part o f the multistage process of burial (Hutchinson and Ar a gon 2002 ; Ubelaker 1978). These are represented in the archaeological record by disarticulated remains that are not in anatomical position. Among all of the Fort Center materials, approximately 16 original field bags, not counting bags with duplicate provenience, were found to contain both of whic h are part of ACC#82 22 and from the mound pond complex . No original material labeled as 1963, which yielded the materials in ACC#4406, depict individuals that do appear t o have been

PAGE 201

201 bundled. They are certainly not drawn in anatomical position , but rather with elements jumbled together and contained within a small area. I n any event , Sears (1982) did not recover any materials, such as cloths, used to contain the skeletal re mains. However, Sears (1982:164) notes in undocumented communications with the late Dr. Sublett, the physical anthropologist who worked with students on excavating and analyzing the human remains, that many of the buried individuals excavated ha d only further argue d that the collapse of the charnel platform after it was burned affected the degree of skeletal articulation observed , suggesting that these individuals would have been found closer to anatomical position had the platfor m not collapsed. Burial Meaning Mortuary analysis enables the archaeologist to gain insights into how a society wa s structured (social stratification, ascribed or achieved status), beliefs about death, as well as the practicality of the disposal of the dead (Parker Pearson 1999). Body modification in mortuary treatment is often linked with social identity (Geller 2012 ). Different aspects of social identity include gender, age, status, ethnic affiliation, community, and religion (Buikstra and Scott 2009). These aspects were considered in the interpretation of the Fort Center burials. Individuals, representative of both sexes and all ages, were deposited at Fort Center in a shared space and in a similar manner. This indicates that burial patterns and treatment of the dead were not sex or age dependent. Therefore, there was no consistent association between either gender o r age for those to be significant factors within this mortuary program. Childhood . The daily lives of children and past, cultural notions of childhood can be difficult to study within archaeological or mortuary contexts. Children are a unique component of a population because they are not yet fully integrated into a society. Children are often under -

PAGE 202

202 represented within burial contexts, although it is certain that they were included in daily adult activities at least to a certain extent. Particularly because the skeletal remains of children are fragile and often do not survive for prolonged periods in the archaeological record (Binford 1971 ; Parker Pearson 1999), bioarchaeologists sometimes struggle to determine what place children occupied in an otherwise wo rld of adults (Berseneva 2006). Burials in general are the responsibility and result of actions governed by the living (Parker Pearson 1999), and buried children become objectified as they occupy the place of objects manipulated by living adults (Berseneva 2006). The children, whose ages range from prenatal to adolescent, are a significant percentage, 39 original estimation of MNI and were definitely omitted in Mille r and paleopathological assessment of Fort Center. Although many of the children, particularly the prenatal infants, are represented only by a single or a handful of skeletal elements, their presence makes them important memb ers of a population. This research seeks to correct this oversight by giving them the time and attention that they deserve. infants were found buried alongside the adults. Children were deposited in the same manner as adults, which indicates that the living members of the Fort Center community gave similar treatment to all members of the population regardless of age. Unfortunately, at this time, no interpretations regardin g the period of childhood or the daily lives of the children at Fort Center can be made except for those that pertain to health , which will be discussed below . A closer inspection of burial artifacts could yield further insight, although Sears (1982) makes no mention of artifacts that he interprets as being used by (e.g.,

PAGE 203

203 toys) or made for children. It seems likely that Fort Center was not a location where many, if any, children were raised (Baxter 2005) . Available evidence suggests that Belle G lade cultures were egalitarian in social structure prior to the 16th century. At Fort Center, there is no obvious evidence for social differentiation or singled out figures of political or ritual authority. Sears (19 82 :193) originally noted that 19 8 2 :197). There has been debate as to whether the accumulation of grave goods associated with a particular individual in fact indicates special, high status. Early interpretations of these caches of objects suggested that the populat Hopewell related sites indicates that they are more likely to be corporate or community level gifts (Yerkes 2002). However, despite a likely absence of centralized authority, it is believed that certain individuals, through ritual means in particular, can achieve higher status as spiritual leaders ( Klingle 2006 ; Milanich 1994 ; Sears 1956 ). The Weeden Island McKeithen site , may have be en inhabited by one or more As noted in Chapter 4 and in Tables 4 3 through 4 5 , two burials excavated from the center of the pond in 1963 were not ed as being possibly ceremonial in the original field notes. Although a thorough analysis was completed for these individuals, my research did not support these original claims. Other than a cursory description primarily of wood, which is difficult to

PAGE 204

204 di stinguish because everything was found clustered within a n area, the 1963 field notes do not explain why these burials were noted as exhibiting singular mortuary treatment . It is likely that the large quantities of wood led excavators to these conclusions, but I did not find any evidence that suggests that these individuals were treated differently from others at Fort Center . A dditionally, careful osteological analysis does not indicate anything unique about burials 9 and 10. In fact, neither burial is a s ingle individual; both represent multiple individual burials. Burial 9 has three individuals : one adult male, one adult female, and one adolescent ; Burial 10 has five individuals : one male adult, one adult of unknown sex, one adolescent, and two children. Several p athologies were observed among these individuals, including cribra orbitalia and periostitis, and TMJ . burials within the original excavation notes at Fort C enter. An assessment of specific burial proveniences throughout the site yields that there is no singular individual who stands out as having been given obviously unique mortuary treatment. Although it has been suggested (e.g. , Sears 1986 ; Thompson and Plu ckhahn 2012) that there were several elite specialists who performed and led mortuary rituals at Fort Center, no corroborating evidence was observed. My research did not given deferen ce and a higher social status by others. However, my research focused on an osteological assessment as well as a detailed review hin this population, only that this research was unable to confirm their existence . It is possible that these individuals were interred in a feature or area of the site that was not excavated by Sears or others, such as Mound 13. Sears (1982:141) hypothesi zed

PAGE 205

205 suggesting that this could have been a residential mound. He also admit ted that (1982:141) ime a rise in water despite the interest. It is also possible that a careful analysis of associated artifacts in relation to specific individuals could yield a clearer picture of social status and treatment , but not likely because Sears (1982:105) said most common artifacts found at Fort Center were animal bones and ceramics (Sears 1982:13) but, with the exception of Hale ( 1984 ) , no official report on the zooarchaeology was ever produced. Additionally, several distinctive artifacts, including shell and stone plummets, worked animal bone artifacts, unique lithics, and a single piece of metal, were found in the mound pond complex in association with the human remains. The stone plummets were imported as they were made from exotic and non gneiss, diorite, rhyolite granite, q uartz crystal (one specimen) and conch ( Busycon (Sears 1982:84). The worked animal bone includes polished, drilled, and carved materials found alongside human remains in the pond. The lithic points found at Mound B and the pond are distinctive because they are not stemmed like those found in Mound A. Sears speculates that these points were used by the individuals for procurement related activities. Finally, a single piece of metal was recovered in the mound pond area, which was a small galena h emi cone. There is no description or picture of this material in Sears (1982), only a brief mention in the field notes .

PAGE 206

206 In addition to a closer analysis of artifacts, more intensive stable isotope analysis could be helpful in the future to address social stratification . Stable isotopes of strontium and lead would be beneficial to identify whether there were any non local individuals present who could have been ritual specialists, as was the case at the McKeithen site (Turner et al. 2005) . A closer inspection of burial artifacts, such as the types and frequencies, could but is unlikely to illuminate whether certain individuals were given unique mortuary treatment. Other High Status Role? During investigation of Weeden Island mortuary cer emonialism , which occurred across cultures in Florida, an evaluation of ceramic vessels has provided insight into status and craft specialization. Ritual specialists who rose to higher status and led mortuary rituals may also have been responsible for craf ting specialized sacred and prestige wares ( Pluckhahn and Cordell 2011; Wallis et al. 2016). At Fort Center, it is possible that ritual specialists or individuals of high status were treated as such not because they processed the dead but because they car ved the wooden effigies. A high degree of craft specialization would have be en required to carve such large and intricate statues. Sears (198 2 ) suggests that these statues were portable, which would mean that they were fashioned to be transferred between l ocations and activities. And these wooden statues were clearly of significant spiritual value to these people considering they were deposited alongside human burials. Wooden Platform and Fire As noted in Chapter 2, several authors have challenged Sea the collapse of a wooden charnel platform, which led to the shift of burials from the pond to the earthen platform that was subsequently built into Mound B. This section reviews the rationale for these challenges and the co ntributions of my research.

PAGE 207

207 Reasons for Doubting Existence of the Wooden Platform Recent work by Daniel Seinfeld and Margaret Spivey Faulkner question s not only the idea that a fire burned down a charnel platform at Fort Center , but also the very existence of a wooden platform like structure. Salvage excavations at Fort Center in 2013 and 2015 by the FBAR and Daniel Seinfeld led to the discovery of wood objects in the charnel pond that were ations. Spivey Faulkner (2018) assesses these abandoned pieces, including four long poles of wood, and re assesse d the wooden artifacts that are curated at the FLMNH. With a complete analysis of 268 wooden artifacts in total, only 11 displayed any evidence of burning. The argument is that, if a fire occurred and caused a wooden platform structure to collapse, then it is likely that a higher percentage of the se wooden artifacts would have burned. Additionally, Spivey Faulkner (2018) finds that the specific wooden pieces that Sears believed served as structural supports to the platform were not burned. In addition to questioning a prehistoric burning event, Sei nfeld and Spivey Faulkner (2016, 2018) expressed doubt that a wooden charnel platform was even present at Fort Center. According to their arguments, there were no plank like or horizontal pieces of wood found in the Fort Center assemblage, including among e absence of decking materials may imply there never were any at Fort Center, Sears did not collect them , they decomposed over time, or the inhabitants collected them after the platform collapsed. Spivey Faulkner (2018) also saw no evidence to support the claim that there were wooden pilings or connective facets that could have been used as structural support for a platform or dock. She furthermore argue d that the wood pieces are not tall enough to have been structural s upport for a platform given the estimated depth of the pond (Spivey Falkner 2018). If stood

PAGE 208

208 upright, they would be completely submerged within the pond and thus of very little structural support. Despite a recent, general argument that the wooden effigies were placed on poles, the timing of their deposition within the pond is still debated. Seinfeld and Spivey (2016) and Spivey Faulkner (2018) believe that the wooden carvings were possibly viewed by the living as powerful and dangerous objects with their o wn agency, so when these objects were no longer in use, they were ritually deposited within the charnel pond alongside the dead. It has long been argued that the animals depicted in the wooden carvings, primar il y birds, were likely thought to be sacred by the living. The main arguments in support of there never having been a wooden platform over the pond , include: not enough wood was recovered , based on what is now present within the Faulkner 2018 ; Wheeler 1996 ), not enough burned pieces of wood were found to substantiate a fire, no plank like pieces of wood were found, no connective or structural parts of wood were found, and the recovered wood was not tall enough to breach the surface of the pond given its estimated depth (Spivey Faulk n er 2018). Contribution of this Research This dissertation contributes to the overall debates about whether there was an original wooden platform that burnt and collapsed into the pond by reviewing two new lines of evidence: the human skeletal remai ns and the original field notes. All skeletal elements within the FLMNH collections were assessed for fire damage. When evidence of fire was encountered, the coloration and extent of the burn damage were both noted. Additionally, FLMNH documentation was th oroughly reviewed for a detailed composite of wooden specimens within the collection ( Appendix A ). O riginal field notes from seasons 1963, 1968, 1969, and 1970 were carefully

PAGE 209

209 reviewed for any descriptions of wooden specimens, burnt or otherwise. These are noted within a 22 records. Burned wood and burned human bone are presented separately in the sections below. Before evidence of burned wood is discussed, a review of the key components of the recent ar guments against the existence of a wooden platform that burned and tumbled into the pond at Fort Center is made (Seinfeld 2019 ; Spivey Faulkner 2018, 2019). Components considered for review are: (1) there was not enough wood recovered and now present withi n FLMNH holdings to make a platform, (2) there was not enough burned wood to suggest a fire event, (3) there were no plank like pieces of wood found within FLMNH holdings, (4) no connective or structural parts of wood were found, and (5) the recovered wood was not tall enough to breach the surface of the pond given its estimated depth. Not enough wood? constitute a wooden platform, as Sears claims, is difficult to evaluate. Spivey work assesse d 268 wooden artifacts, 91 pieces of wood recovered by the FBAR in 2013 and 2015 as wel l as all wood present within FLMNH collections, presumably 177 pieces. Upon review, this research found that the FLMNH has 173 CAT#s specifically for wooden specimens from Fort Center, but many of these are broken into two or more fragments (see Appendix A ) . During excavation, not all wooden specimens were collected. There is a hand written note at the top of a plan view map of burials 22 through 49 from the 1963 excavations, which was the first year that William Sears and others were at Fort Center. This n large poles and logs over these burials. Removed. In separate area . More slender poles under early excavators indeed encounter ed wooden poles and le ft them at Fort Center instead of collecting t hem for curation. This description matches the

PAGE 210

210 conclusions drawn by Spivey Faulkner (2018) who discovered a similar notation on an original plan view map that mentioned the reburial of wooden pole like objects found within the pond. Additionally, Sears w as clear about the fact that many wooden specimens were While excavating, Sears was constantly faced with the problem of keep ing these water logged specimens from d rying out and crumbling. He was careful to keep them wet and preserved by immediately placing them within vats of water mixed with white glue, but many fragments were too small or too fragile to be successfully recovered. In addition to their handling in t he field, possible, these breaks were re glued, but it is likely that not all breaks were fix able . For example, during the 1968 field season, which excavated hea vily within the pond, wooden fragments, only 68 (62%) actually received a ca talog number. Several of these were given a justification as to why they were not assigned an official catalog number, while others do Others that were uncollected without justification were nine ssible large totals to 41 (3 8 %) items of wood that were not collected and are therefore not a part of

PAGE 211

211 Not enough burned wood ? Spivey Faulkner (2018) argue d wooden fragments that show evidence of burning to support a fire based destruction of a charnel platform. Her research found only 11 wooden fragments out of 268 (4%) with fire damage. However, as mentioned above, it has already been demonstrated that Sears was unable or chose not to collect all wooden specimens encountered during the excavations. Therefore, in an effort to determine a more holistic understanding of the burnt wood present at Fort Ce nter, this research took an in depth look at notes from all field seasons, including 1963, 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969. Each occurrence of burnt or charred wood was noted and recorded in a document with the excavation date, and available descriptions of the wood encountered (Table 4 6 ). In total, there were 20 distinct charred or burnt wood pieces noted in all the field seasons. The 1963 field notes do not mention burnt or charred wood at all. In fact, most of the burnt materials were observed in 19 68 . Ther e does not seem to be one particular type of wooden artifact that was preferentially burned. The field notes mention a variety of wood, including timbers, scraps, stumps, logs, and other wood fragments. Several of these are noted as having been found in as sociation with burnt human bone, which is discussed in the section below. Using the available provenience, these burnt wood pieces 9. 5 of the mound pond complex (Figure 4 1 ). This burn line, which has definitive end points, loosely follow s the edge of the wooden platform as demarked by Sears in Figure 2 9 (1982). No planks found? d. However, there are like piece of wood. According to the American Heritage D a s

PAGE 212

212 For example, Sears (1982 :19) mention ed that excavations but not collected , and he note d logs as large as 30 inches in diameter . Additionally, an uncollected timber from the 1968 field season , given the wood specimen number 68 52 , is describe the Platanus occidentalis tree, which is native to the eastern and central United States. This supports the inished logs and long finished/dressed pieces of lumber. No structural parts? At no point did Sears (1982) suggest that all wooden artifacts encountered or recovered served a structural purpose. On the contrary, he repeatedly indicate d that these carvings had religious or spiritual significance to the past inhabitants of Fort Center. He did say that some of the wooden specimens, particularly the tenoned birds, likely served as a structural component of the platform. Sears also describe d these wooden carvin gs as being 82 :3) and speculate d that they were placed inside the charnel house structure, in front , at the main entrance, or even on the roof. With regards to the tenoned birds, he not ed that the long, associated poles were carefully the tops of these poles and the bases of several bird carvings. This sug gests that the pole and the carving were separate structures and not carved together as a single and large piece of wood. In addition to being a part of the mound pond complex, Sears posit ed that these wooden carvings were portable, meaning that they could have also served a different purpose elsewhere at the site before being ritually deposited in the pond.

PAGE 213

213 Not tall enough? Spivey Faulkner (2018) also notes that the recovered wood was not tall enough to breach the surface of the pond given its estimated d epth. Her argument is as follows: After a reanalysis of the pond construction phases and chronology (see above), we know that the pond was at least a meter deep at times based on the height of the ground surface (21 22 feet above sea level) and the depth of the pond where the wood was found (15 16 feet above sea level). The average height of the tenoned wooden statuary was 68 centimeters, including the figural positions (Spivey Faulkner 2018:77). No mathematical justifications for these estimat es are give n, and the measurements of the wooden specimens in the FLMNH are not reported. A length of 68 centimeters corresponds to 26.7 inches , or 2 feet and 2.7 inches. As opposed to the average height, the range of heights observed among the wood would be a better extend from the surface to the bottom of the pond . Sears (1982) also did not argue that all wooden artifacts would have necessarily been long enough or constructed with the intent to reach the bottom of the pond. Sears (1982:147) noted that the bottom of the pond was flat and measured the elevation to be between 16 and 17 feet below sea level. The majority of the wooden effigy carvings found at Fort Center are of animals , with no complete, adjoi ning tenoned pole at their base. However, that does not mean that Sears did not find any poles. On the contrary, Sears (1982:43) estimate d that each supportive et long. Additionally, although some the poles at the base of these carvings were lost and therefore are not present within FLMNH holdings, other larger wooden artifacts are not. Sears notes many large timbers or partial timber fragments in his original fi eld notes, and he also mention ed that

PAGE 214

214 These reported lengths were not an arbitrary guess on his part. Sears (1982:43) justifie d these estimates based on field measurements. If t hese poles were indeed the base of the carved figures, then a 6 foot pole would definitely have been long enough to reach the bottom of the pond. There is a significant difference between measures of 6,10, and 15 feet and the recently reported average of slightly greater than 2 feet (Spivey Faulk n er 2018). It is likely that the 68 Faulkner (2018) is the portion of the wood carving that Sears speculated ha d protruded above the water, not below it. Burnt B one Fire damage can dramatically alter bone. Bone that is altered by intense heat or fire has a very distinct appearance that is unlikely to be confused with any other type of post mortem damage. In fact, there are a myriad of published studies regarding the effects of heat and fire damage on soft tissue and bone that come from the anthropological, archaeological, and medicolegal communities (Correia 1997). These studies have focused on how to distinguish perimortem trauma despite fire damage, how to determine whether the fire occurred to fleshed or dry bone, and on bioarchaeological analyses of cremated bone (Pope and Smith 2004). These studies have produced experimental models that enable researchers to better interpret burn patterns on skeletal remains , because they occur in predictable ways. Important factors that determine how and to what extent fire actually alters bones are the temperature of the heat applied and the duration o f the heat event (Ubelaker 2009). Fire damage to bone not only changes the color of the bone but it may also change the shape of the bone (Symes et al. 2008). The color change of burned bones progresses in a systematic manner as more heat is applied and as more time elapses ( Shipman et al. 1984 ). These color changes indicate the progression of stages of organic pyrolysis, including collagen, proteins, lipids, and

PAGE 215

215 water (Pope and Smith 2004). The typical color changes from least burned to most burned bone ar e yellow, to light brown, to black, to blue gray, and white. However, a variety of colors may be present in a single bone fragment or within a single individual ( Mayne 1990 ). When bone is burned in an oxygen deprived state, it becomes charred and takes on a permanent, dark black stain in the affected areas ( Herrmann 1970 ). With prolonged exposure, the organic component of bone disappear s , turning the bone shades of white, gray, or rarely blue, leaving only the inorganic component; this is calcined bone. In addition to color changes, calcined bone in particular, which has been subjected to intense heat, sometimes also undergo es irreversible shape changes. Specifically, bone has been known to shrink up to 20 percent from its original size, warp, which happens when the bone shape changes from its original architecture, or fracture. Fractured calcined bone typically displays fracture margins that are outlined in a deep black color (Pope and Smith 2004). Spongy or trabecular bone, that shrinks, is more likely to retain its original and recognizable shape, while compact bone is more likely to fragment into smaller pieces ( Correia 1997 ; Gejvall 1969). Burnt Bone at Fort Center The minimal evidence of burned bone does not , in and of itself , original interpretations. The lack of burnt bone within the Fort Center skeletal assemblage could signify that, if there was a prehistoric fire that burned down the charnel platform on which the bodies rested, then the bodies them selves were minimally affected by the fire. In fact, it is possible that, if a platform fire did occur, fire damage was Falling immediately into the water below could also have minimize d the fire damage and kept the fire from spreading. Additionally, the platform structure itself is not large enough to have held a significant number of individuals, which suggests that not many individuals would have

PAGE 216

216 even been exposed to fire damage. Finally, it is likely that any burn ed or calcined bone would have become very fragile and thus difficult to recover during excavation. It is possible that these bones, if present, crumbled upon removal from the pond area or after being allowed to air dry. Additionally, an attempt was made to locate within the FLMNH collection any burned describe burned wood (timbers, fragments, scraps, logs, etc.), there are a few mentions of burned bone. Unfortuna tely, several of these do not contain a clear site provenience, so these materials could not be found by their coordinates. However, a match was made to the description of burned bone in the 1969 field notes. In this particular instance, the coordinates in the field notes of 2584 L260 were identical to the coordinates of FLMNH CAT#82 22 30175HR. Several cranial and post cranial bones were noted to have been burned, and upon examination at the FLMH, there are several bones that indeed exhibit evidence of bei ng burned. Concluding Thoughts It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions based on a potentially unreliable count of the wooden specimens and human remains. T his approach was undermined by two fundamental problems. First, the evidenc e available today at the FLMNH field notes, wooden specimens, and human remains may not accurately represent the evidence Sears discovered during his late 1960s excavation, because many physical elements were unsalvageable or simply discarded. Second, the physical evid ence available to Sears may not accurately represent the wreckage from a wooden platform that collapsed ca. A.D. 500, because the Fort Center residents at that time may have salvaged most of the wood pieces for local reuse. Going beyond simple artifact cou nts, my research consider ed the location of burnt wooden and human remains in the pond.

PAGE 217

217 The lack of burnt bone within the Fort Center skeletal assemblage signifies that, if there had been a prehistoric fire that burned down the charnel platform on which th e bodies rested, then the bodies themselves were affected minimally by the fire. This is unsurprising considering that, once the platform was structurally weakened, it, along with the human remains would have fallen directly into the water below. Direct co ntact with the water would have immediately put out any fire, so the overall damage to human bone w ould have been minimal. Furthermore, it is unlikely, because of size constraints, that the platform would have held a significant numbe r of individuals at an y given time. So, had a fire occurred, only the small number of individuals directly on top of the platform, not those that had already been deposited within the pond, would have potentially been exposed to fire. Re Associating Individuals This existing separation of mandibles, maxillae, and reconstructed crania only affected the remains from ACC#82 22, which were transferred from FAU, but not those from ACC#4406, which have been stored at the FLMNH since their original excavation in 1963. Separated mandi bles, maxillae, and reconstructed crania were given unique catalogue numbers at the FLMNH during rehabilitation efforts and a careful record of written provenience information was kept. This was done in the hopes that they could one day be re associated an d cross referenced, which was a task f a r beyond rehabilitation. For this research, careful attempts were made to re associate individuals that were assigned unique catalog numbers and stored within distinct osteological cabinets at the FLMNH. This was done by sorting all assigned FLMNH catalogue numbers by excavation year, provenience, and elevation. The year of excavation and site coordinates were gi ven the highest priority in terms of sorting these individuals. Additionally, all skeletal materials present were

PAGE 218

218 carefully assessed for other indicators such as age, biological sex, and taphonomy . The skeletal remains of juvenile individuals are more frag ile and thus non adult members of a population are less well preserved within the archaeological record ( Gordon and Buikstra 1981 ). These younger individuals are less likely to be well represented by a count of duplicate elements, and in fact, many of thes e individuals were represented by only a few skeletal elements. Finally, taphonomy was an important consideration when determining MNI. In some instances , elements that were broken postmortem could be re fit, which then link ed two separate catalog numbers together. For example, a distal humerus fragment found as a part of CAT#4406 120HR was re fit to a proximal humerus fragment found within the materials of CAT#4406 110HR. The humerus described had a clean postmortem break in the midshaft and was easily re fit. These two catalog numbers were therefore considered together as the same individual when formulating a total MNI. Thoughts on MNI Although an estimate of MNI is a useful tool for bioarchaeologists, this count does not necessarily reflect exactly ho w many individuals were interred at a particular site; rather, this number is an estimate of the minimum number of individuals represented by the observed skeletal remains. The MNI is never an absolute and is bound to overlook some individuals buried at a particular site. Because an estimate of MNI is typically conservative, the count derived typically underestimates the true number of individuals interred . This is likely the case with the MNI estimate of Fort Center. Although stringent efforts were made t o re associate individuals and only count individuals once, it is likely that certain individuals were missed by this count. For materials with unknown provenience or no associations, cranial fragments were given priority for the MNI estimate . Furthermore, Sears

PAGE 219

219 (198 2 ) admit ted that excavations only worked on part of Mound B at the site. It is extremely likely that many individuals remain unexcavated at Fort Center. Additionally, the skeletal collection is very large with thousands of individual bone fragme nts, which made it impossible due to space limitations to assess all remains simultaneously. Finally, the lack of definite provenience for many catalog numbers and individuals also hindered the overall estimation of MNI. This may have influenced the MNI in such a way that certain individuals were accidentally counted twice or not counted at all, although multiple levels of Excel sorting were done to minimize this. Because the MNI estimate of Fort Center required the careful compilation of many factors, spe cifically burials excavated by Sears, the following sections review what was and was not counted as part of a site wide MNI. Total MNI using 1963 Burials Not all of the ACC#4406 skeletal materials excavated in 1963 have specific proveniences. Many are simply listed as being from the A B Pond, which makes an overall assessment of MNI from this portion of the Fort Center population difficult. For those burials listed as being from the A B Pond, an effort was made to determine a more specific provenience, including site coordinates, by reviewing original plan view maps from the 1963 field season. These documents demonstrate a detailed rendering of the burials and skeletal materials encountered during this time. A determination of specific coordinates allowe d for a more refined estimation of MNI because it reduced the probability that an individual would be counted twice. For example, if skeletal elements from two separate CAT#s were buried within very close proximity of one another, and it appeared likely th at skeletal materials likely overlapped between both CAT#s, then these materials were assessed together for MNI . However, if the proveniences

PAGE 220

220 were distinct enough that it looked as though separate CAT#s were, in fact, representative of separate individuals , then each was counted in the overall MNI. MNI using 1967 Burials As mentioned in Chapter 4 section 1967 Field Season , the human skeletal remains encountered during excavations in 1967 were n ever collected. This means that a detailed osteological asse ssment of this part of the Fort Center population is not possible. However, the individuals from the 1967 field season were still counted as a component of the total Fort Center MNI. A count of individuals from these burials was estimated by using a sum of the number of along with a unique provenience. The cranium was chosen for an estimation of MNI because there is only one cranium per individual which decreases the odds of duplicate counts. B67#s without these descriptions were not counted. It is, however, possible that some of these individuals were counted twice within this MNI. Appendix E summarizes the information from the 1967 burials as well as whether or not a specific burial was utilized to estimate a total MNI. Total MNI using 1968 and 1969 Burials at FLMNH The bulk of the Fort Center population was excavated during these two field seasons. MNI for the human skeletal mate rials excavated in 1968 and 1969 was estimated by compiling several different methodologies applied to sorted materials, unsorted materials, unprovenienced materials, and unexcavated materials. The primary component of the overall MNI from these years was determined using the catalog numbers as they sorted by specific site coordinates and excavation year . Catalog numbers were considered to be a match only when their coordinates were within plus or minus five feet in

PAGE 221

221 either the north south or east west direc tions. This allowed for a systematic estimation of MNI on a grid by grid basis throughout the site, which ensured that individuals were only counted once. Sorted catalog numbers were assessed together to re associate these individuals and to determine a co unt of individuals present at those specific grid coordinates. In addition to catalog numbers that sorted as having the same site coordinates, there were catalog numbers that had unique coordinates and did not match with any other catalog numbers. These were predominantly singular crania. These individuals were assessed separately and counted as part of the overall population MNI. Finally, there were materials whose site coordinates are incorrect, unknown or were lost MNI. However, catalog numbers that only contained post cranial elements were not included in a total MNI estimate, because it is likely that they are a part of an existing individual represented by a cranium. 1966 through 1970 Uncollected Materials With a careful review of the original field notes from 1966 through 1970, it was quickly noticeable that not all human skeletal materials encountered in the field were collected or have ultimately survived as part of the current Fort Center collection at t he FLMNH. In order to still I made a detailed list ( Appendi ces D through G ) of the coordinates of the bones or teeth and a description of the materials uncovered. The same strateg y used to discern a workable total number of individuals from the 1967 field season was used for these materials as well. Individuals who were clearly represented by unique crania and unique site coordinates were included in an overall estimation of MNI.

PAGE 222

222 Using No Provenience Materials There are 128 catalog numbers within ACC#82 22 that contain skeletal materials from Fort Center that lack any known provenience information, including site feature, coordinates, or the year of excavation. These materials we re assessed as part of an overall MNI estimation but not all of these materials were used. As with the un matched coordinates, catalog numbers with no provenience that contained only post cranial elements were excluded from the MNI. This was done because i t is likely that the non provenienced post cranial elements are part of an individual within the collection that is represented by a cranium. Paleodemography When combining collected and uncollected human remains, the overall estimation of the population is 774 individuals . Individuals of all ages and both sexes are represented, which suggests that this is a good approximation of a total population. The abundance of juvenile skeletal remains augments the reliability of paleodemographic interpretations and allows this research to provide deeper insight s into aspects of growth and development at Fort Center (Armelagos et al. 1972 ; Van Gerven et al. 198 6 ) The majority of these individuals ( n= 485 , 70 %) were excavated from within the pond , including the center of the pond excavated in 1963 . This may be a consequence of intentional and selective burial practices of the living, preservation bias, or a combination of the two. The mucky pond conditions actually better preserved skeletal elements, while those recover ed from the dry contexts of m ounds A and 13 were more fragile and subject to crumbling when handled. There is a good distribution of ages and both males and females were recovered from the pond, which suggests that if this was a preferred burial location, then the entire population was given access by the living . Previous interpretations of the symbolic and supernatural role of water as a

PAGE 223

223 gateway support the idea that the pond was preferentially selected as a place for final deposition ( Hall 1976 ) . Because both m ounds 13 and A have low MNIs ( 4 and 5, respectively ) , it is difficult to draw meaningful interpretations about burials in these site features. This research presents demographics and antemortem conditions of these features but does not extrapolate heavily from such a small sample size. However, it is interesting to note that, at Mound 13, all individuals identified were adul ts and two were males. There are no females or children recovered from this mound. At Mound A, there are two children and three adults. While only one of these adult individuals could be assessed for biological sex, it was estimated to be male. The mean a dult age at death was within the 25 to 45 years range, which represents the bulk of individuals recovered at Fort Center. All age ranges were observed, from prenatal to older adult, suggesting that both the median and average age at death were early adulth ood . Additionally, there is a greater number of older adults ( n=60 individuals) than young er adults ( n=25 individuals) , which supports the inference that individuals generally survived into adulthood. However, there is a discrepancy between the number of o lder adult males and females. A higher percentage of older adult males than females suggests that the average life expectancy for males was greater than that for females. The majority of identified females died as adults. Of the individuals younger than 1 8 years of age, the largest age cohort at Fort Center is 1 to 12 years , representing 6 8 % of all juvenile individuals. These early years encompass the critical weaning period, which is often a time of increased physiological stress ( Lewis 2007 ; Schultz et a l. 2018). Finally, there are more infants (n=31) and adolescents (n= 47) than young adults (n= 25) present, which suggests a difficult period of transition for these individuals.

PAGE 224

224 is already sickly or affected with other pathologies. Perhaps, in addition to the demands of puber ty , social obligations changed according to age gradient, and during this period individuals had to become more self reliant or were given dietary changes. W hatever the case, the large number of adolescents suggests that this was potentially a difficult period for the Fort Center inhabitants . Biological sex could not be assessed for many individuals due to a lack of elements necessary for sex assessment , or b ecause individuals were young and had not yet undergone puberty changes. Of the adult population, 1 20 male individuals and 12 6 female individuals were identified. Although slightly more female than male individuals were present, the difference is not stati stically significant. With respect to site feature , there were a total number of 9 3 males and 8 9 females recovered from the pond, including the center region excavated in 1963, which had the greatest number of individuals present. There were also 14 females and 9 males recovered from Mound B, 19 females and 9 males recovered from the charnel platform area, no females and 2 males recovered from Mound 13, and no females and 1 male recovered from Mound A. This nearly equal distribution suggests that burial practices were unrelated to the biological sex of deceased individuals. P aleop athologies It is important to assess multiple indicators of skeletal stress or disease. Within the F ort Center population, at least 35 9 individuals ( 5 2 % of the population) exhibited one or more of the different antemortem conditions and 2 41 individuals (3 5 % of the population) suffered from one or more non specific stress condition . None of the comparison s of frequencies for individual conditions across site features, age groups, or biological sex revealed any statistically significant differences. However, as reported in Table 4 24, the average number of different antemortem

PAGE 225

225 conditions for individuals fro m Pond Center 1963 (0.54 per individual) was significantly lower than the average for the rest of the Fort Center population (1.05 per individual). And across the whole site the average number of non dental pathologies for males (0.60) was significantly lo wer than the average number for females (0.85). The most frequently observed pathological conditions in this population were linear enamel hypoplasias , porotic hyperostosis , cribra orbitalia, occlusal surface wear , and carious lesions (Tables 4 1 9 and 4 20 ) ; a ll affect 10% or more of the Fort Center population. The high frequency of LEH suggests that childhood was a critical age period for these individuals and is discussed in depth below. Despite the extent of dental pathologies observed, there were surprisingly few instances of abscesses (2 3 individuals affected , 3% of population ) and antemortem tooth loss ( 3 4 individuals affected , 5% of population ). Of the 421 individuals identified as adult, 3 3 females, 33 mal e s, and 125 of indeterminate sex exhibited at least one pathological condition. Fe males generally exhibited a higher frequency of pathological conditions than males, with respect to numbers of carious lesions, periodontal disease, abscesse s, TMJ, cribra orbitalia, porotic hyperostosis , and reactive bone. Additionally, only female individuals present with evidence of syphilis. Males demonstrated a higher frequency of antemortem trauma, LEH, antemortem tooth loss, occlusal surface wear, osteo arthritis, periostitis , and S . For count s and frequenc ies of these pathologies in both biological sexes , see Tables 4 2 7 and 4 2 8 . The differences between sexes are likely correlated with either dietary differences or behavioral differences b etween males and females in the population. It should be noted that, the frequencies of pathological conditions observed among individuals of indeterminate biological sex, were often greater than frequencies observed

PAGE 226

226 within both males and females ; this is no surprise considering the greater number of indeterminate individuals . Of the 272 individuals identified as juvenile , at least 60 individuals (22% of juveniles) exhibit at least one pathological condition. The age cohort with the fewest number of antemortem conditions is prenatal, which also has the smallest number of individuals present. Prenatal individuals were affected by cribra orbitalia, porotic hyperostosi s , periostitis, and reactive bone. However, prenatal individuals exhibit the highest frequencies of both periostitis and reactive bone (see Table 4 2 5 and 4 2 6 ). Infants within this population were similarly affected by non specific infections of cribra or bitalia, porotic hyperostosis , and periostitis. Children between 1 12 years of age exhibited the greatest frequency of most antemortem conditions when compared to the other juvenile age cohorts. Many were affected by carious lesions, linear enamel hypoplas ias, cribra orbitalia, porotic hyperostosis , osteolytic lesions and areas of reactive bone. Adolescents generally expressed minimal frequencies of antemortem conditions with the exception of the amount of periostitis ( 30 %). Older adults generally exhibited a greater number of pathologies than adolescents but not as many as younger adults. Several specific antemortem conditions were observed within the Fort Center skeletal population (see Tables 4 17 through 4 24 for all details) . Dental pathologies, includ ing carious lesions, linear enamel hypoplasias, periodontal disease, abscesses, antemortem tooth loss, and occlusal surface wear were observed and assessed. Non specific infections, including cribra orbitali a , porotic hyperostosis , periostitis, osteolytic lesions and reactive bone, cysts, osteomyelitis, and S pathological observations include button osteoma, parietal bossing, and W ormian bones. Each of these conditions,

PAGE 227

227 including causes, prognoses, and interpreta tions for the Fort Center population, are discussed below. Antemortem and perimortem trauma are discussed in a separate section. Dental Pathologies Dental pathology is represented by dental caries, enamel hypoplasias, periodontal disease, abscesses, antem ortem tooth loss, and occlusal surface wear. Carious l esions . Carious lesions occur when a tooth decays and range in severity from Larsen 2015 : 65). These dental caries result from the demineralization of dental hard tissues, such as enamel, by organic acids that are produced by the bacterial fermentation of carbohydrates and sugars (Hillson 1979 ) . Different bacterial breakdown s of foods within small grooves and fissures in the teeth can lead to carious lesions . Because molars and premolars possess more and deeper grooves, these teeth are most likely to be affected by carious lesions (Hutchinson 2006). Although not all causes of carious lesions are currently known, there are several proposed factors that can contribute to their formation. Dietary factors such as the types of foods consumed and food textures can affect the rate of formation of carious les ions. Non dietary f actors include but are not limited to biological sex, hormonal levels, oral hygiene, attrition rates, the composition and flow rate of saliva, and pregnanc y and lactation ( Lukacs 2008 ). However, the most commonly attributed factor is the buildup of bacterial flora and diet , which is the primary way in which carious lesions are interpreted in anthropological studies . Specifically , high incidences of carious lesions are associated with a diet rich in carbohydrates or cariogenic foods , which is often times interpreted as a reflection on agriculture ( Cucina et al. 2011). In

PAGE 228

228 contrast, low incidences of carious lesions signify a more varied diet that includes proteins and other less cariogenic foods. The total numbers of carious lesion s per too th and according to tooth type were not assessed as a part of this research . Observed w ithin the population at Fort Center, 69 ( 10 %) individuals demonstrated carious lesions , the majority of wh om were young adults (n=7 individuals, 28% of all young adults) . This group was followed by older adults, children, and middle aged adults, but the frequencies of carious lesions among children and middle aged adults were quite similar. Additionally, older adults experiencing the second highest frequency (15% of n=60 older adults) was of attrition and bacteria within their mouth and on their teeth. The difference observed between frequencies of caries for males and f emales is minor and not statistically significant. This small difference suggests that dietary behaviors were not correlated to biological sex , and that food availability was approximately equal for males and females . Finally, a relatively low population w ide prevalence of dental caries, which are caused by the demineralization of teeth caused by bacterial fermentation of dietary carbohydrates, supports existing literature that the Fort Center individuals did not heavily rely on agriculture (maize) . Linear e namel h ypoplasias . LEHs can manifest in different ways, including small pits on the surfaces of teeth and thick, pronounced grooves within the enamel. LEHs result from periods of metabolic stress or malnutrition during childhood. These perturbations, or stress, affect developing ameloblasts, the enamel forming cells, and disrupts otherwise normal enamel deposition (Hutchinson 2006). Because the enamel of permanent teeth is formed during childhood before teeth actually erupt, it has been accepted that LEHs occur early in an . Specifically, an assessment of the locations of enamel defects can

PAGE 229

229 approximately twelve years old. Deciduous tee th are affected by LEH as early as the fifth fetal month to the tenth to twelfth postnatal month, while permanent teeth are affected from birth to early adolescence (Armelagos et al . 2009). Although LEHs are nonspecific indicators of stress, these linear defects do not remodel 2006). There are three speculated causes for LEHs, including hereditary anomalies, localized trauma, or systemic metabolic stress ( Larsen 20 15 ). However, because hereditary anomalies or trauma leading to LEHs rarely occur among humans, the predominant cause is systemic metabolic stress. Many previous bioarchaeological studies have correlated the presence and frequency of LEHs to particularly s intestinal parasites, endemic disease, and social or cultural stressors (Goodman and Armelagos 1988 ; Hutchinson and Larson 1988). Teeth were not cleaned of calculus or other affixed materials , which likely produced a slightly conservative estimate for the rate of linear enamel hypoplasias (LEH). Additionally, LEHs were not tabulated in terms of the number of lesions per individual or per type of tooth. Individuals were merely scored i n terms of presence or absence for LEH. LEH is the most prevalent antemortem condition observed among the Fort Center population, affecting at least 19 0 individuals (2 7 % of the population ). They are most commonly observed among older adults, with 38 out of 60 ( 7 4 %) older adult individuals exhibiting LEH on their dentition. It is likely that the Barker H ypothesis, or the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease hypothesis (DOHaD), is at play. This hypothesis suggests that many diseases experienced by adul ts originate during the fetal or childhood development period due to a

PAGE 230

230 permanent change in metabolism . Specifically, defects occurring in utero are associated with negative adult health consequences and a decrease in longevity (Armelagos et al . 2009). For these older individuals at Fort Center , the period of stress did not occur within the critical phases of prenatal and fetal development. Instead, because these LEH are present on permanent teeth, the period of stress occurred in at a later childhood age. The age cohort with the second highest frequency of LEH is young adults at 48 % (n= 1 2 of 25 young adult individuals ). In this instance, these individuals survived a physiologically stressful period of childhood. Defects observed on deciduous teeth reflect an early period of 19 % (n= 51 of 272 juvenile individuals ) of all individuals exhibiting LEHs were children under the age of 12 years. I ncidences of LEH present on deciduous teeth indicate that these individuals experienced stress in utero or during the period of infancy. This is a critical period of development for all individuals , which causes greater levels of susceptibility to stress. If the stres sor event occurred while in utero, then this is more of a reflection of the health and quality of life of a pregnant female within the Fort Center population. If the stressor event occurred while the individual was an infant, this could be a reflection of either the mother or the infant. In either scenario, exposure to nutritional deficiencies or infectious disease insults would compromise the future survival of the individual (Armelagos et al. 2009). Of the adults affected , 27% of males (n=32 of 120 male individuals) and 26% of females (n=33 of 126 female individuals) exhibit LEH. This small difference between males and females is not statistically significant. Young adults and children ha ve the next highest levels of LEH. Because LEHs are lines of enamel deficiency due to disruption of the enamel formation process,

PAGE 231

231 this suggests that a high percentage of the Fort Center population exhibited some form of physiological stress during the period of childhood . Periodontal disease, abscesses, antemortem tooth l oss , and occlusal wear . Other oral health conditions observed within the Fort Center population include periodontal disease, abscesses, antemortem tooth loss (ATL) , and occlusal surface wear . These conditions are discussed together because of the high prob ability that their causes and symptoms are co related. Infections, or buildup o f bacteria, that extends to the tooth pulp can cause both periodontal disease and abscesses. Periodontal disease is characterized by the inflammation and destruction of the periodontium, or the structure containing the teeth. Etiology is complex, with factors such as genetics, ag e, sex, oral hygiene, and other environmental conditions at play (Tuggle and Watson 2019). Periodontal disease was identified by reduction and horizontal resorption of the alveolar bone, which exposes a greater area of the tooth root. Abscesses form when t hese infections cause pus to build up in a specific area, which results in the formation of a hollowed cavity in the alveolar bone. The etiology of ATL is multifactorial and includes severe to infection, extreme periodontal disease, or trauma (Kinaston et al. 2016). ATL at Fort Center was identified by healed and actively remodeled alveolar bone. At Fort Center, females exhibit higher levels of periodontal disease ( n=18 individuals, 14%) an d abscesses (n=9 individuals, 7 %), whereas males have a greater frequency of ATL ( n=12 individuals, 10 %) and occlusal wear ( n=29 individuals, 2 4 %) . All four oral health diseases are highest in older adult s and non existent within individuals under the age of 12 years. This supports a general trend of age related progression of oral diseases in terms of cumulative effects of use and life history .

PAGE 232

232 With females being more affected by periodontal disease and abscesses, it is possible that hormonal factors, par ticularly those associated with pregnancy such as estrogen and progesterone levels , may have produced a negative effect on oral health ( Silk et al. 2008; Tuggle and Watson 2019). Although pregnancy does not directly cause periodontal disease or other negat ive oral health conditions, associated hormonal effects may exacerbate already existing oral conditions (Silk et al. 2008). As discussed earlier, females also had higher rates of carious lesions; these co occurring trends observed in the data suggest that these processes are likely related and contribute to overall poorer dental health among female individuals. It is possible that a n underlying biological phenomenon is responsible for disproportionate and negative impacts on Watson (2019) attribute similar results observed among Mogollon females as being due to high fertility rates. The higher rates of both ATL and occlusal wear observed among males suggests that these two conditions are also related. It is likely that, for t he Fort Center male individuals, pronounced occlusal surface wear of teeth wa s a primary causal factor in the progression of ATL. The loss of a tooth can be a painful process. It is unknown whether these teeth were lost naturally or removed intentionally a s a part of palliative care, but the outcome of these missing teeth likely impacted the quality of life for these male individuals, who would have had to readjust how they ate and use d their teeth in daily practices (Tuggle and Watson 2019). Cribra Orbita lia and Porotic Hyperostosis Cribra orbitalia is identified macroscopically by circular areas of pitting and porosity that are located in the upper surfaces of the orbits and the external surface of the cranial vault . Cribra orbitalia is often, but not always, seen bilaterally and is frequently seen in conjunction with porotic hyperostosis . Some researchers believe that cribra orbitalia is an early form of porotic

PAGE 233

233 hyperost osis , although this has been more recently contested because porotic hyperostosis often occurs on crania that lack cribra orbitalia ( Mann and Hunt 2005; Ortner 2003 ; Walker et al. 2009 ). Porotic hyperostosis is similar to cribra orbitalia in that it appear s as areas of porosity along the outer table and diploë of the exterior surface of the cranial vault. There is a corresponding increase in thickness (Mann and Hunt 2005 ) or thinness (Hutchinson 2006) of the affected vault bones. Porotic hyperostosis is ide ntified by rough patches of porous bone that are typically present on the parietals or occipital. The precise cause of cribra orbitalia is not known, and many factors have been suggested , such as iron deficiency anemia, possibly related to malnutrition, sc urvy, chronic gastrointestinal bleeding, ancylostomiasis, parasites, and epidemic disease ( Hirata 1998 ; Larsen 2015 ; Ortner 2003). Anemia, the most commonly noted cause, is characterized by low levels of iron in the blood and usually results from an insuff icient diet or blood loss from parasitic infections or menstruation . When iron levels fall below what they should be for an individual, red marrow is stimulated to produce more red blood cells (Hens et al. 2019). This results in an increase of bone marrow and the expansion of diploë , particularly within the orbits and on the cranial vault. The etiology of porotic hyperostosis is often the expansion of the diplo ë (spongy bone) of the skull in response to marrow hypertrophy, but other pathological processes s uch as scurvy, iron deficiency, hereditary anemia, nutritional or vitamin deficiencies, infection, trauma, or toxi ns could also be factors (Hrdli ka 1914 ; Salvedei et al. 2001 ; Walker 1986; Walker et al. 2009 ). In instances where there is not a clear indication of diplo ë hypertrophy, subperiosteal inflammation is a suggested cause ( Wapler et al. 2004 ). For both cribra orbitalia and porotic hyperostosis, Walker et al. (2009) suggest two alternate etiologies. First, two other types of anemia, megaloblast ic and hemolytic anemia, and even more specifically, vitamin B 12 (cobalamin) and B 9

PAGE 234

234 (folic acid) deficiencies, may play a role . And second, porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia may result from age related responses to other underlying antemortem condi tions. Within the Fort Center population, 9 5 individuals (1 4 % of 693 assessed individuals ) had cribra orbitalia and 9 7 individuals (1 5 % of 693 assessed individuals ) had porotic hyporstosis. At Fort Center, certain individuals expressed both conditions si multaneously while other individuals expressed either cribra orbitalia or porotic hyporstosis. Cribra orbitalia is most prevalent among children aged 1 12 years with 4 6 of 18 7 (2 5 %) individuals affected, while porotic hyporstosis is most common among older adults with 15 of 60 ( 2 5 %) individuals affected. Of all females, 30 (2 4 % of 126 female individuals ) display ed cribra orbitalia and 3 0 (2 4 % of 126 female individuals ) exhibit porotic hyperostosis . For males, 10 (8% of 120 male individuals ) exhibit ed cribra orbitalia while 16 (13% of 120 male individuals ) had porotic hyperostosis . These differences between male and female frequencies of cribra orbitalia and porotic hyperostosis are not statistically significant. The rates of cribra orbitalia and porotic hyperostosis generally increase among larger, more sedentary populations with inadequate sanitation and other pathologies (Obertov and Thurzo 2008). An increase in parasitic infections likely correlates with increased rates of both cribra orbitalia and porotic hyperostosis. Children and females were clearly the most affected groups within the population , and the reason s for this are likely related . Because of the high frequency of cribra orbitalia among children, it is likely that cribra orbitalia is associate d with the high childhood mortality seen at Fort Center. Low reserves of vitamin B 12 in infants can causes symptoms to develop within months of birth, especially when being breastfed by mothers who also have a vitamin B 12 deficiency (Walker et al. 2009). For other young children, physiological stress induced by breastfeeding and

PAGE 235

235 weaning processes could correlate with the stress developed from cribra orbitalia. Weaning is commonly accomplished by administering fo ods of low nutritional value to babies in unsanitary conditions. Additionally, fetuses and infants exposed to B 12 deficiency in utero are more likely to develop a susceptibility to infections later in life (Walker et al. 2009). Young c hildren generally ex hibit greater vulnerability and susceptibility to infectious diseases and parasitic infections than adults . Both past and current populations have suffer ed from diarrheal disease s , respiratory infections, and parasitic infections , which are common causes o f energetic and nutritional stress for young individuals (Tanner et al. 2014). Parasitic infections, such as soil transmitted helminths (roundworm, whipworm, and hookworm) and protozoa, are pervasive today (Hotez et al. 2013). At Fort Center, early childho od residential factors, particularly exposure to parasites and infectious diseases, may have be en a primary cause of higher levels of cribra orbitalia and porotic hyp e rostosis among younger individuals (Turner and Armelagos 2012). As with LEHs, children ex hibiting nutritional anemia have a compromised level of survival and ultimately a lower age at death. If cribra orbitalia and porotic hyp erostosis are related to malnutrition, particularly low iron or B 12 levels, then it is not surprising that females are most affected. Females, due to the blood loss during menstruation and pregnancy, are generally at a higher risk of having lower iron levels (Hens et al. 2019). Furthermore, many societies enact food taboos , which potentially shape or limit the diets of women or particularly pregnant females. Under such circumstances, a deficiency that develop s in the female would ultimately be passed to the child. Modern e thnographic analogs to the Fort Center population wo uld provide useful comparison s .

PAGE 236

236 Periosteal Reactions P eriosteal reactions, also called periosteal are among the most common types of pathologies documented by bioarchaeologists. inherently refers to the tissue membrane of the periosteum and not the bone, making it an inaccurate description of lesions observed on the bone. For this researc h, the term periosteal reactions is used instead. Periosteal reactions can affect any bone in the skeleton but are most frequently observed on the tibiae or other long bones ( Klaus 2014; Weston 2012). Expression ranges from visible areas of small, longitud inal striations to regions of heavy pitting and thickening of the bony plaque on the cortical surface of the bone affected. Periosteal reactions generally result from stimuli that stretch, tear, or traumatize the periosteum, which in turn, causes new bone formation in the affected regions. These perturbances to the periosteum can be a product of local or systemic infection or inflammation caused by a variety of other factors (DeWitte 2014; Larsen 2015 ; Ortner 2003). Periostitis has been traditionally inte rpreted by bioarchaeologists as an indicator of stress, and more specifically, the product of non specific infectious disease s (Marques et al. 2018). Although the disease is not specifically interpreted, periostitis is considered to be a clear sign that th e body, and thus the skeleton, respond ed to periods of stress. However, more recent research has demonstrated that a strict correlation between periostitis as a non specific infection and stress within past populations is challenging and misleading (Assis 2013; Marques et al. 20 1 8; Weston 2008). Weston (2008) pointed out that classifying periostitis as a non specific infection is a misnomer because it implies that no etiology is known or discern i ble. In contrast , more recent work has linked periosteal react ions to many types of factors, illuminating that it is a complex phenomenon. P eriosteal reactions are multifactorial and have been linked to a wider

PAGE 237

237 range of etiologies, including hormonal, mechanical (such as trauma) , metabolic (such as scurvy, rickets) , rheumatic (such as rheumatoid arthritis), nutritive (deficiency of vitamins) or pathogenic conditions ( Klaus 2014; Marques et al. 2018; Weston 2008) . Although now recognized that there is not a straightforward correlation betwee current research is still working to determine these various, complicated and inter related etiologies. Periosteal reactions were present in 10 6 individuals (1 5 % of 693 assessed ) in the Fort Center po pulation. It most commonly affect ed the youngest age groups, both prenatal and infant individuals . The rate of expression of periosteal reactions observed among prenatal individuals wa s the highest, affecting 3 of 8 (3 8 %) individuals. Similarly affected we re infants under the age of one , with periosteal reactions exhibited by 11 of 30 (3 5 %) individuals. The age cohort with the lowest frequency of periosteal reactions was older adults with only 2 out of 60 ( 3 %) affected. Despite these seemingly large differe nces among age groups at Fort Center , none of these differences are statistically significant. O f the identified adults, 1 0 females ( 8 % of 126 female individuals ) and 1 3 males (1 1 % of 120 male individuals ) were affected by periosteal reactions . Although the incidence of periosteal reactions affecting different skeletal elements was not studied, this pathology was noted as primarily affecting a single element, the tibia. It was not widespread , which indicates that it was not systemic in nature wit hin the Fort Center population. The youngest age cohorts at Fort Center , prenatal and infant individuals, were most commonly affected. Infancy and childhood are generally viewed as period s of high physiological stress , and this seems to be the case for the se individuals at Fort Center. Individuals of these younger age groups possess a periosteal membrane that is more loosely attached and more susceptible to tearing and inflammation (Klaus 2014; Wenaden et al. 2005). Knowing this, it is likely that the

PAGE 238

238 etiol ogy of periosteal lesions among these individuals is multi faceted and influenced by the multiple factors discussed above. Additionally, a greater expression was observed among adult males than adult females. This finding has been reported in many previou s bioarchaeological studies and is also the likely result of many factors. Males are more likely to engage in activities that have a higher risk of physical trauma and are also more likely to be exposed to different infectious agents. Sex hormones may also affect the rates of periosteal reactions, as they play an important role in the However, additional factors, such as the nutritional and metabolic status of these individuals, their expressio n of other antemortem conditions, and the extent and aggressiveness of the underlying stressor, should also be considered as part of the etiology. Osteomyelitis occurs when an infection spreads to below the periosteum of the bone. This type of infection i s typically marked by three defining features: cloaca, lesions from which pus drains out of the infected area; sequestra, patches of deadened bone; and involucr a , irregular bone growth s that result from loss of the periosteum. Within the Fort Center popula tion, only two instances of osteomyelitis were observed, and it is likely that these were bilateral expression within the same individual. Both right and left femora were similarly affected with osteomyelitis and cloaca . The individual is an adult of indet erminate biological sex, which limits interpretation. However, the overall rate of osteomyelitis within the Fort Center population was low. Degenerative Joint Disease Degenerative joint disease (DJD) is used as an umbrella term that encompasses osteoarthritis, osteoarthrosis, and osteophytosis. It is caused by degeneration of the articular joints of the skeleton over time , specifically when joint allostasis fails (Hutchinson 2006 ; Klaus

PAGE 239

239 2014 ). Under these circumstances, chronic inflam matory changes to the area perturbed causes bone resorption or bone formation (osteophytosis) (Klaus 2014). Although it is one of the most common pathologies seen in both archaeological and modern populations, it can be difficult to diagnose and score for severity ; scoring systems generally follow the guidelines proposed by Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994) of lipping, porosity, eburnation, and osteophytes . Furthermore, there is no straightforward relationship between the presence and extent of DJD and an indivi individual seem physiologically older than their actual chronological age (Calce et al. 2017). DJD is affected by many factors, including genetics, sex and hormonal d ifferences, age, environmental factors, individual immune response, diet and nutrition , disease, physical activity, body size, and trauma ( Calce et al. 2017; Lieverse et al. 2016; Pearson and Buikstra 2006; Weiss and Jurmain 2007). Although DJD is often us ed by bioarchaeologists to glea n inferences on past patterns of behavior, this must be done carefully and with a consideration of all factors that could have caused the development of DJD (Larsen 2002; Weiss and Jurmain 2007) . There is only a modest correl ation between activity and osteoarthritis, by no means a direct and simplistic relationship, and there are large variation s in incidence and severity of osteoarthritis. That does not mean, however, that osteoarthritis, when viewed in conjunction with other data and within a broader context, is not a useful means of inferring past behaviors and lifestyles (Lieverse et al. 2016). Both osteoarthritis and temporo mandibular joint (TMJ) disorder were observed within the Fort Center population. Osteoarthritis at Fort Center was scored as primarily taking the form of lipping and porosity with few cases of eburnation and osteophytes. The majority of instances were noted within the vertebrae, primarily the lower thoracic and lumbar, followed by the upper

PAGE 240

240 and lower li mbs. TMJ was marked by localized regions of porosity or pitting to the superior surface of either mandibular condyles as well as either mandibular fossa on the temporals. Occasionally, these lesions were correspondingly present in both locations. TMJ was a lso noted when alteration to the joint contour, either on the mandible or the temporals was present (Rando and Waldron 2012). A total of 60 individuals ( 9 % of 693 individuals assessed ) presented with osteoarthritis and 21 individuals (3% of 693 individual s assessed ) with TMJ. No osteoarthritis was present within any juvenile (<18 years) individuals and there was only 1 young adult individual ( n=1 out of 25 individuals, 4%) affected. TMJ was noted in only a single child individual ( n=1 out of 186 individual s, <1%) and a single young adult ( n=1 out of 25 individuals, 4%). The age cohort at Fort Center expressing the highest frequency of osteoarthritis was older adults, which suggests a positive correlation between osteoarthritis and age related degenerat ive changes . Adults had the greatest rate of expression of TMJ ( n=3 individuals, 5%) , but the difference , in comparison with other age cohorts, was not statistically significant . With respect to biological sex, males had a greater expression of o steoarthritis ( n=15 out of 120 male individuals, 13%) than females ( n=12 out of 126 individuals, 10%) . Although this difference is not statistically significant, it likely suggest s a gender related activity difference, or differing intensities or durations of activities, particularly as this relates to adulthood and older age. These differences could reflect foraging activities; if male dominated, then these frequent or intensive activities would increase joint degeneration over time, causing higher frequen cies in older male individuals (Lieverse et al. 2016). Additionally , f emales are generally more prone to joint degeneration than males (Lieverse et al. 2016). Pregnancy and lactation have been demonstrated to affect calcium homeostasis , which affects long term bone production and bone

PAGE 241

241 mass. It is possible that the reproductive histories are a contributing factor for rates of osteoarthritis observed among females (Mays 2016). TMJ is rarely observed among young individuals, suggesting that the single child a t Fort Center with TMJ suffered from either a developmental defect or trauma (Lobbezoo et al. 2004). Females, in contrast, exhibit higher rates of TMJ ( n=8 of the 126 female individuals, 6%) than males , but this is not a statistically significant differenc e. Pilot isoto pic data indicate minimal dietary differences between male and female individuals at Fort Center, which suggests that higher levels of TMJ among females could be attributed to a gender related behavior, such as using the jaw or teeth as tools . Treponemal Disease and Syphilis The origin of the bacteria that causes syphilis, Treponema pallidum , has been widely researched and debated by anthropologists and bioarchaeolog ists . The two primary, most which states that syphilis was transmitted from the New World to the Old by Columbus in the 14 9 0s and the is was present in the Old World before Harper et al. 2011 ). It is a type of treponemal disease, which encompasses pinta, bejel, and yaws, and affects the periosteum of bones, particularly the tibi a. The skeleton is limited in the ways in which it can respond to perturbations, meaning different pathologies may produce similar looking changes. Although syphilis has the potential to be identified with good skeletal context, differential diagnosis betw een treponemal disease and other infecti on s or other causes is not straightforward. The lesions caused by treponematoses can appear similar to those caused by other infectious diseases or parasites . Furthermore, the

PAGE 242

242 appearance of these lesions is also infl uenced by the state of healing, the duration of infection, Harper et al. 2011 ; Ortner 2003) Treponemal disease presents in three stages: primary, secondary, and tertiary. It is during the later tertiary stage that dist inctive lesions may develop on the skeleton, particularly on the tibiae. Earlier primary and secondary stages cause periosteal reactions and osteitis, while the tertiary stage also involves osteomyelitis ( Harper et al. 2011 ). Tertiary lesions are systemic and bilateral , affecting a number of specific elements. Pseudo bowing of the tibia, or saber shins, can also occur. Additionally, regions of the cranium present with nodes, cavitations and stellate scares ( caries sicca ) (Mann and Hunt 2005). There are num erous proposed etiologies for treponemal diseases that include trauma to n of the lymphatic system (Pinto 2004 ). There are two types of syphilis, endemic or non venereal and v enereal . Endemic or non venereal syphilis is spread by body contact and, when acquired in early childhood, causes skeletal lesions during the tertiary stage that persist for years and into adult life (Ortner 2003 ). Venereal syphilis, in contrast, is sexually transmitted and does not affect the skeleton . Within the Fort Center population, no cranial lesions ( caries sicca ) indicative of treponemal disease were observed. However, symptoms suggestive of treponemal disease were noted on several tibiae in the form of porosity, finely striated areas of reactive bone, circumferential expansion, medullary narrowing, and pseudo bowing of the anterior tibiae ( Harper et al. 2011 ) . Although syphilis from skeletal remains is almost impos sible to diagnose, due to the overlap of symptomatic lesions with those produced from other infectious diseases and factors, the evidence from skeletons recovered at Fort Center is consistent with treponemal

PAGE 243

243 disease. A single incident of suspected congenit al syphilis was diagnosed based on the presence have also documented that these notched incisors may result from other non infectious diseases ( Harper et al. 2011 ). Therefore, a diagnosis of syphilis at Fo rt Center is tentative . A total of nine individuals within the Fort Center population present ed with symptoms that are consistent with treponemal disease . Three cases were observed within young children and suggest congenital syphilis. Two children pres ent ed with bilateral and pronounced bowing of anterior tibiae with increased cortical thickness from new bone deposition , circumferential expansion, and shallow lytic pitting on the bone surface . The third child possesse d incisors , which is a common symptom of congenital syphilis. Among these three children, in congenital syphilis due to the ir young ages and the fact that transplacental transmission of yaws and bejel is rare. A lthough yaws and bejel are acquired during childhood, syphilis is primarily acquired after puberty ( Harper et al. 2011 ). Cases of congenital syphilis result from maternal infection at the primary or secondary stage, which indicates that, whether or not skeletal lesions were observed, syphilis was present within at least three female individuals (i.e., the mothers of these children) in the Fort Center population. The remaining five individuals were all adults of indeterminate biological sex and present ed with varying severities of anterior tibial bowing, shallow lesions of reactive bone, and circumferential expansion . A lthough the evidence is suggestive of syphilis , a positive diagnosis is not possible at this time. Nevertheless , symptoms are consistent with the identification of a nonspecific treponemal disease in these individuals.

PAGE 244

244 Osteological Paradox A proper application of the osteological paradox to bioarch aeological research is often overlooked or used as an after thought without any real meaning ( DeWitte and Stojanowski 2015; Wood et al. 1992 ; Wright and Yoder 2003 ). For this research, straightforward relationships between frequencies of negative health in dicators and overall individual and population level frailties were avoided. In particular, social and environmental contexts were carefully considered. This is because skeletal lesions may not actually be a reflection of poor health. Many of these skeleta l markers actually require a long formation period before they become visible on the bone (DeWitte 2014 ). In other words, individuals who exhibit skeletal lesions may have been at least healthy enough to survive their development, while individuals without any visible skeletal lesions may have died prior to their development. Therefore, it should be noted that, if the presence of antemortem conditions and pathological lesions do signify poor health and increased pathology of individuals affected, then these conditions reflect elevated mortality hazards. However, if these conditions and lesions instead represent survivorship of an individual, then they may in fact reflect lower frailty compared to individuals who did not develop pathologies (Hens et al. 2019) . All interpretations regarding a direct relationship between the frequency of pathological lesions and overall health are made with caution and a critical eye. Other Non Pathological Observations Several non pathological observations are discussed belo w . Non Metric Traits Non metric, or discrete, traits, reflect patterns of genetic inheritance and can illuminate potential familial relationships within a population. Several noted cranial non metric traits within

PAGE 245

245 the Fort Center population include d but were not limited to supraorbital notches, supraorbital foramina, mental foramina, parietal foramina, infraorbital foramina, zygomaticofacial foramina, and extra sutural bones. Dental traits observed , but not analyzed at this time , include d but were no cusp variation, and groove patterns (Turner et al. 1991). Non metric traits and biodistance were not assessed for this research but will be an important part of future re search. Potential applications of non metric and biodistance include not only an assessment of biological relationships but also insight into postmarital residence patterns. However, craniometric analyses may be limited due to the fact that the majority of the crania within this collection were reconstructed decades ago. They are currently he l d together by long dried glue, and many have since warped, making it unlikely that accurate measurements are possible. Entheseal Changes An enthesis is an area where a tendon or ligament directly interacts with bone, and this area anchors muscles and dissipates the stress of using them (Larsen 2015). Although several skeletal elements presented with obvious entheseal changes, the most commonly affected were the humerus, tibia, and femur. The precise cause of entheseal changes is not universal, although they are generally the result of continu ous or repetitive use of that muscle. Analyzing entheseal changes, therefore, can be an important means of inferring p ast patterns of activity (Hawkey and Merbs 1995 ; Villotte and Kn ü sel 2013 ). Although entheseal changes were noted throughout the Fort Center population on both men and women, they were more commonly seen on males. This is not unexpected and generally fits an archaeological pattern that suggests that males partake in greater and more intense physical activity, including repeated muscle use, than females (Larsen

PAGE 246

246 2015). Future work regarding a more specific analysis of types and frequencies of entheseal change s would provide a greater understanding of gender related activities at Fort Center. Button Osteoma A button osteoma is a small to large circular area of dense bone that is convex like a dome (Mann and Hunt 2005 ). These circular protrusions are sharply defined and are often solitary. This area of dense, well organized lamellated bone is poorly vascularized and has few osteocytes (Eshed et al . 2002). Some authors have correlated b utton osteomas with sex but not age (Aufderheide and Rodriguez Martin 1998). These growth areas are benign tumors that affect past and modern populations alike. As such, individuals with button osteomas do not present with any negative health symptoms. The cause of button osteomas is unknown. Button osteomas were found on three individuals (<1%) within the Fort Center population. Of these three individuals, one was a young adult male, one was an adult female, and one was an adult of indeterminate biological sex. n odes present as small lesions on vertebral bodies where the bone has remodeled around a herniated intervertebral disk. They are thought to be of multifactorial or i gin, and different etiologies, including functional or axial loading, trauma, age related degeneration, work activity and stre ss, and mechanical stress, have been suggested (Robb 2019). In the Fort Center population, 11 individuals (2% of 693 individuals assessed ) had S age category that exhibited the highest frequency of S was young adults at 4% . However, this was only a single individual within this age cohort . Among the adults, 8 individuals (2%) were affected by S ed S nodes represent ed <1%. This indicates, at least for the Fort Center population, S

PAGE 247

247 were not a result of older age and degenerative processes. Additionally, males present ed with a slightly higher number of S It is therefore more likely that S within these younger individuals were caused by functional or axial loading than age related degeneration . Antemortem and Perimortem Trauma Trauma is an extremely useful part of reconstructing the lifeways of past populations. Different ty pes of trauma present in distinctive ways on the skeleton, which enables bioarchaeologists to determine the type of trauma and its cause typically accidental or intentional moments of violence. Bioarchaeologists often study patterns of trauma and correla te specific injuries to past periods of warfare. The presence and frequency of traumatic injuries to the skeleton can provide insight into inter or intra population patterns of violence (Larsen 2002). Twenty incidences of antemortem trauma were observed at Fort Center , while no perimortem trauma was seen (see Table 4 29) . The majority of the antemortem fractures noted were wedge compression fractures ( n=6, 30 %) to the vertebrae, particularly the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae. There were various types of a ntemortem trauma, but many of these affected several common regions. The radius and ulna exhibited several healed fractures with a prominent callus , and there were possible areas of trauma observed within the metatarsals and metacarpals. No radiographs wer e used , but they are recommended as a valuable part of future work. With wedge fractures, an external force is applied to the vertebral body which results in the crushing of the anterior portion and cancellous bone . The posterior portion of the vertebral body remains intact, making this a key characteristic of a wedge fracture. W edge flexion fractures most commonly occur in the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae specifically, the thoraco lumbar junction (Aquarius et al. 2011) , which is consistent with observa tions at Fort Center.

PAGE 248

248 Most if not all noted wedge fractures were accompanied by pronounced osteoarthritis including osteophytic l i pping around the vertebral bodies. Specific etiology is unknown but could be associated with a fall or carrying a heavy weight. Three cases of antemortem trauma were observed in the arm. First , one parry fracture to the ulna , also known as a nightstick fracture, was noted on an adult individual of unknown biological sex . This was an isolated fracture that affected the dista l third portion of the ulnar shaft. A parry fracture is often correlated with an act of interpersonal violence because it can result from an individual raising the arm in a defensive position. Unfortunately, both radi i were absent for analysis and the exte nt of this injury could not be assessed, which would have help ed to determine the possible cause of the trauma (Judd 2008). Furthermore, it is possible that this was a Monteggia fracture, which would have included radial displacement. However, neither rad i us was available for examination, and the bone was too dry to allow for an assessment of the displacement . Second, a healed fracture callus was present on a proximal radius of an adult probable female directly below the neck and in the area of the radial t uberosity. Unfortunately, the radial head is absent due to post mortem damage, which leads to imprecise assessment of the type of fracture. The area surrounding the callus present s with reactive bone. Third, a possible fracture is noted on the olecranon pr ocess of an ulna from an adult of indeterminate biological sex . Although healed, there was reactive bone present along the edges of the olecranon process and there were pronounced margins of heterotopic ossification. A corresponding radius was present for analysis but did not exhibit any associated trauma. The radius did, however, have an area of reactive bone on the distal portion, the etiology of which is unknown. Four fractures were noted within the hands and feet. An indiscernible metacarpal or metatar sal shaft fragment was noted with abnormal cortical thickening and reactive bone

PAGE 249

249 covering the majority of the shaft. Although the etiology is unknown, antemortem trauma or pathology secondary trauma is suspected. Within the metacarpals, one incident of a p ossible proximal mid shaft of a fifth metacarpal. There is a pronounced ridge of bone along the medial portion of the shaft which could have resulted from a fracture l impact to the knuckle. Although antemortem trauma is a possible cause, this could also be due to individual variation. A second occurrence of possible antemortem trauma was noted on the second metacarpal of an adult of indeterminate biological sex. An isolated fracture to the mid shaft is suspected, but the etiology is unknown; the entire bone is pitted and affected by severe reactive bone. A possible Jones fracture was observed in a fift h metatarsal of an adult of unknown biological sex . There was a pronounced region of reactive bone and heterotopic ossification between the base and mid shaft of this metatarsal, which could have resulted from a traumatic event. This injury could have also resulted from an avulsion fracture or an oblique fracture to the distal portion of the shaft. The frequency of antemortem trauma within the Fort Center population observed was quite low, and no instances of perimortem trauma were observed. No cases of antemortem trauma to juvenile individuals were observed. Although males exhibit ed more antemortem trauma than females, the difference is not statistically significant. With the exception of the one parry fracture described above, which could h ave result ed from personal injury or interpersonal violence, the skeletal evidence suggests that there was little to no violence within the Fort Center population. Stable Isotopes Pilot Study The objective for the stable isotope pilot study was to provide evidence about diet, origin, and mobility patterns for the Fort Center population. Of the fourteen mandible samples selected

PAGE 250

250 for the stable isotope analysis pilot, only two produced viable C:N ratios and could be used as reliable data. These two data valu es will be discussed but they are not sufficient by themselves to draw definitive conclusions about the Fort Center population. Therefore, dietary inferences from isotopes in the two individuals is instructive but not conclusive. Because of this limitation , this research relies on enamel apatite data to draw broad er interpretations about the Fort Center population. Future isotopic endeavors at Fort Center should aim to select baseline samples, such as water and bedrock from the charnel pond, Fisheating Cree k, Lake Okeechobee and various faunal species. From the 14 viable tooth enamel samples, this section reviews inferences about diet, origin and mobility of individuals recovered from a cross section of the Mound Pond complex. The data are discussed in term s of all samples being representative of the Fort Center population and then in terms of intra population dynamics with respect to biological sex and site feature. Finally, possible causes for the non viable bone samples are considered. Isotope data for th e two viable bone samples, and in Table 3 1 and Figure 3 4, together with isotope data from tooth enamel samples and osteological analyses in the preceding sections are used to develop detailed reports on individuals and (CAT#A16272HR and 82 22 300 chapter. Both individuals are isotopic outliers in several respects, which suggest s that they are not local to the Fort Center area. Pilot Results Population Discusse d below are the results and interpretations for all isotopic data. Although the sample size (n=14) is small, for the purposes of interpretation, all individuals with the exception of outliers are treated as representatives from a single population .

PAGE 251

251 Carbon and Nitrogen. Figure 5 1 plots the 15 N co vs. 13 C co ( see Table s 4 30 and 4 31 ) for individuals and with viable bone samples on an overview of dietary categories for both carbon and nitrogen (Krigbaum et al. 2013), which was introduced as Figure 2 1. The position of these individuals in isotope space suggests that they likely relied on a plethora of ava ilable resources, both aquatic and terrestrial, from their local environment. An average 13 C co of 30 is assumed to be an enrichment of relative to the diet (Ambrose and Norr 1993 ; Katze nberg 2007 ). Therefore, the inferred diet is actually closer to 25.45 , which suggests that these individuals consumed C 3 plants such as rice, legumes, trees, or shrubs. The general range of in 13 C values for C 3 plants is 20 to C 4 plants. The reliance on maize, a C 4 plant that is more enriched in 13 C, produces higher 13 C co values that range from 9 to the ext ent to which individuals are exploiting coastal areas with aquatic resources. The consumption of top predator freshwater fish can cause a trophic level effect that produces greater 13 C values ( Katzenberg 2007 ). The bone apatite average 13 C ap ( 1 2 .9 ± 1.3 contention, and the average collagen 13 C (7. 6 these individuals had a mixed diet. As indicated in Table 4 32 , the enamel apatite average of 13 C en is also supports the interpretation of a mixed aquatic and terrestrial diet. As expected, this value is similar to that derived from the bone apatite for these individuals. With a 13 C en value of individual is a statistically sig nificant outlier at over two standard deviations from the average. The 13 C en of i s 1.75 standard deviations from the mean,

PAGE 252

252 which I consider to be as discussed in Chapter 3 . This suggests that future isot ope study should include additional samples near individual , in area Mound B East. Nitrogen levels reflect the amount of dietary protein consumed. The average 15 N co of 9. 7 ± 0.6 31 supports a reliance on freshwater based and terrestrial protein. A more complete dependence on marine or other aquatic resources would yield higher 15 N co values between 14 and ; Walker and DeNiro 1986). At Center individuals are below this range, indicating that these individuals made little to no use of deep sea marine resources. In fact, the 15 N co value of 9. 7 suggests that these individuals consumed considerable terrestrial fauna. These averages suppo rt a mix of maritime and terrestrial diet (Krigbaum et al. 2013). freshwater areas likely provided a variety of both aquatic and terrestrial resources for its pr ehistoric inhabitants. There are more than 60 species of fish in this lake today , including: bass, catfish, bullhead , trout, crappie, sunfish, drum, carp, shiner, gar, and bigmouth buffalo. Other modern species from the Lake Okeechobee area, both aquatic a nd terrestrial, that past inhabitants likely exploited include deer, opossum, raccoon, turtles, frogs, snakes, alligators, snails, shrimp, mollusks, oysters, crayfish, muskrats, marsh rabbits, many birds, and other small animals. Additionally, it was not a surprise to find no evidence of maize consumption considering past research efforts that have argued against the intensive cultivation of maize at Fort Center. This supports previous research (Johnson 1990 ; Morris 2012 ; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2013 ; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2014). Oxygen. For oxygen isotopes on apatite, shown in Table 4 31 , the 18 O ap could only be obtained from two individuals, which yielded values of 1.8 and 18 O en

PAGE 253

253 obtained from tooth enamel for all 14 indivi duals was 3.8 to (Table 4 33 ) . For 18 O en , thirteen individuals showed values that were not significantly greater or less than the average. However, the 18 O en value of 3.8 obtained for individual is an outlier at more than two standard deviations away from the average of support s the interpretation that this individual was from an area beyond Fort Center, which is discussed in more detail below. If the 18 O en value for this in dividual is removed, then the average 18 O en value increases to 0.82 ± 0.80 ; however, the p value of .35 obtained from the two sample t test indicates that this difference is not statistically significant . Although the sample size of 18 O ap (n=2) was t oo small to prove a statistical difference, the difference in averages between bone and enamel apatite suggest behavioral differences that vary by age. The teeth selected for analysis were second and third molars, which reflect periods of adolescence and e lives. Strontium. Variation in strontium values are correlated with local bedrock geologies. Strontium ratios in Table 4 3 4 for the 14 teeth from the Fort Center sugg ests that 13 of these individuals were from the same geographic region . The average 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio is 0.70892 ± 0.00023. Removing individual ( CAT#82 22 98808HR), the single individual whose 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio (0.70837 ) is more than two standard deviations from the average produces a new 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio of 0.70897 ± 0.00018 . It is possible that this individual was from a different geographic area. Additionally, this 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio of is 0.70892 is very close to the value for modern seawater, which is 0.7090 (McArthur and Howarth 2004). Lead. Variation of lead isotope abundances in geological bedrocks reflects the initial proportions of uranium, thorium and lead as well as the amount of time that has passed since the

PAGE 254

254 initial formatio n. The average 206 Pb/ 204 Pb ratio in Table 4 3 5 is 20.7 6 ± 1.04 , which suggests that the bedrock of Fort Center is geologically old with relatively concentrations of uranium and thorium (Kamenov and Gulson 2014). The average 208 Pb/ 204 Pb ratio is 40. 11 ± 0.79, while the average 207 Pb/ 204 Pb ratio is 15.83 ± 0.09. For lead, twelve individuals had similar ratios of 208 Pb/ 204 Pb, 207 Pb/ 204 Pb, and 206 Pb/ 204 Pb that are with in one standard deviation of the means. The lead ratios for individuals and are more than 1.75 standard deviations from the corresponding averages. These values reflect two tail probabilities of less than 8%, and suggest that it would be useful to anal yze more lead isotope samples in the future . However, if the average is re calculated with these two individuals omitted, the new values of 208 Pb/ 204 Pb at 40.23 ± 0.56, 207 Pb/ 204 Pb at 15.86 ± 0.06, and 206 Pb/ 204 Pb at 21.05 ± 0.69 reflect little change. P ilot Results Intra P opulation To the extent possible, this research also assessed the intra site differences in isotope values of individuals at Fort Center in terms of biological sex and site feature (Tables 4 36 through 4 39) in one group, and in another . This yielded 4 ( 28.6 %) females, 6 ( 42.9 %) males, and 4 (28.6%) of indeterminate sex represented by the pilot sample. For comparisons between males and females, the indeterminate individuals were omitted. Site features compared include d the pond excavated in 1963, the pond at the base of Mound A, the rest of the pond, the charnel platform area, Mound B, and Mound 13. The mat erials excavated from the center of the pond in 1963 are treated separately from the handful of 1968 and 1969 excavations from this area to facilitate an assessment of the hypothesis that the individuals from 1963 represent a distinct sub population at For t Center. Additionally , the individual from the pond at the base of Mound A was kept as a separate point of comparison; it is possible that the original place of

PAGE 255

255 burial was Mound A , but the individual rolled into the pond. Unfortunately, no bone collagen o r bone apatite patterns can be classified by sex because a sex estimate was not possible for the two individuals that yielded good bone collagen and bone apatite. However, enamel apatite yielded data for all 14 samples, which allows for several intra popul ation comparisons between males and females. Carbon. As indicated in Table 4 3 6 , the average 13 C en 3 ± 0.1 5 while the average 13 C en for males is 13 C en 3 ± 0.3 4 and both averages are close to the overall average of 13. 26 ± 0. 77 between males and females suggests that all adults, regardless of biological sex, consumed the same types of resources. It is likely that the Fort Center individuals relied on a mixed diet of terrestrial and fresh water protein with no reliance on maize agriculture. Oxygen. In archaeological contexts, oxygen isotopes are typically utilized as a proxy for meteoric drinking wa ter, because 18 O values can generally distinguish individuals with different, and thus non local, water sources (Knudson and Price 2007). For 18 O en , females had an average value of 0.40 whereas males had an average value of 0.95 (Tabl e 4 36). Although this difference is not significant, a comparison of the 4 female samples with the other 10 samples (6 males and 4 indeterminates) yields a statistically suggestive p value of 0.051, highlighting the potential for future analysis of additi onal samples. A difference between oxygen ratios for teeth from females and ratios from others might suggest that the females consumed water from a different source than the others, at least during the period of adolescence and early adulthood when their m olars were formed. Oxygen ratios vary with the amount of rainfall and seasonality, both of which could have affected Fort Center. Additionally, oxygen isotope ratios are influenced by cultural practices. For instance, storing,

PAGE 256

256 boiling, and cooking with wat er causes evaporation and enrichment in 18 O (Knudson 2009; between oxygen ratios for women and the rest of the samples is further evidence that individuals excav ated in 1963 represent a subpopulation, because the difference between 18 O en for the two females from Pond Center 63 ( 0.75 females from Pond North 69 ( Strontium . The average 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio for females is 0.708 8 3 ± 0.000 31 and the average 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio for males is 0.7089 3 ± 0.0002 4 , while the population average for Sr is 0.7089 2 . This is not a statistically significant difference, which suggests that the individuals sampled are from the same geographi c region of origin. However, individual ( CAT#98808HR), an adult female, is an outlier whose 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio of 0.708 37 37 s tandard deviations below the average . This difference suggest s that this individual was from a different place of origin. If this outlier is removed from analysis, the 87 Sr/ 86 Sr average becomes 0.70897 Lead. The average 206 Pb /204 Pb ratio for ma les is 21. 10 ± 0.9 3 82 ± 0. 39 females. Additionally, the female average for 208 Pb /204 Pb is 40. 14 ± 0.3 0 and the male average is 40. 35 ± 0.7 7 while the female average for 207 Pb /204 Pb is 15.8 3 ± 0.0 3 and the male average is 15.8 7 ± 0.0 8 . Comparable averages for males and females do not differ statistically and are also similar to the averages calculated for the total population. By Feature Table s 4 3 8 and 4 39 provide all isotope data from the featu res identified in Figure 3 4: Pond Center (n=5 individuals ); Pond North (n=5 individuals ); Pond East (n=1 individuals ); Charnel Platform (n=2 individuals ); Mound B East (n=1 individuals ); and Mound 13 (n=1

PAGE 257

257 individuals ). Table 4 3 9 reports comparison tests for the three features with more than one sample. A single statistically significant difference is observed when comparing pond center with the northwest pond and the northeast pond. T he se comparisons also identified a statistically suggestive p value of 7% for strontium ratio differences between Pond Center 63 and Pond North 69 and 7% for 208 Pb/ 204 Pb and 207 Pb/ 204 Pb between the charnel platform, pond north and pond northeast. Diagenesis of Materials Before discussing the pilot results, it is important to address why twelve of fourteen bone samples (85.7%) did not produce acceptable data. The diagenesis of the Fort Center skeletal materials is likely the result of a combination of different factors, including the physi cal environment at the site and post excavation treatment of the bones . Physical Environment One important cause of diagenesis and contamination is the burial environment (Jorkov et rs, either individually or combined, that could ultimately have led to bone collagen diagenesis. These factors include: marshy waters, acidic soils, warmer temperatures, higher levels of humidity, and possible microbes. An observed cause of bone collagen loss is microbial attack. However, although research has demonstrated that waterlogged sites are not prone to microbial attack, it is likely that a fluctuation of water, such as seasonal variation and the movement of ground water, could lead to more diagen etic changes (Bocherens et al. 1997; Hedges 2002). Warmer climates also likely possess certain mechanisms that are responsible for collagen loss. Bones buried in acidic soils tite is

PAGE 258

258 transformed into brushite (Molleson 1990). Furthermore, bone can be in thermodynamic disequilibrium with its burial environment. Continued recharge with fresh water, which can occur from rain y cause dissolution of bone and accelerate both chemical and biological degradation (Collins et al. 2002). Because the surrounding physical environment, bone within areas of recharging water and soil of non neutral pH are negatively affected (Hedges 2002). Under these circumstances, bone generally exhibits increased porosity and becomes more fragile. Post Excavation Treatment of Bones No notes were found regarding a ny chemical treatment of the human remains, but there is a visible shine on the exterior of almost all elements within the Fort Center collection. This shine could not be scraped off with a scalpel during sample preparation and, after a deep surface cleani ng, the bone samples remained shiny. Synthetic resins have been widely used by conservators to preserve archaeological specimens. These resins are polymers, or long molecules made up of hundreds to millions of groups of smaller molecules called monomers ( Johnson 1994). In early bioarchaeology studies , these resins were applied to preserve deteriorated bone by holding the bone within a network of stronger polymer molecules. A common solvent used was Paraloid B 72, which is often mixed in acetone before appl ication. Paraloid B 72, or Acryloid 72, is an acrylic resin that has been considered to be a good and all purpose consolidant. Paraloid B 72 is soluble in acetone, which makes it reversible. However, even though Paraloid B 72 is still utilized to preserve archaeological specimens, it was more commonly used on bone in the earlier days of

PAGE 259

259 archaeology. It is now known that this type of treatment has negative long term physical and chemical effects on bone. Sears (198 2 ) mentio ned that carbowax and white glue w ere used to treat the wood specimens that were excavated at Fort Center. Additionally, vats of water and a water white glue admixture were kept on site during the excavations so personnel could place wooden specimens removed from the pond directly into the se vats. His protocols reflect the general rules of archaeological conservation, such as to keep already wet specimens wet. Letting them dry out 2 :16) until the wood could be moved 2 :16) of glue. The wooden specimens were left within these tanks for a subjective amount of time that ranged from several days to several months. Additionally, these specimens were often re soaked in the white glue solution to prevent further damage. Because many of the human remains were excavated from within the pond alongside the wood specimens, it is possible that the human bones were given the same on site treatment and placed within these vats of white glue. Although not mentioned directly, Sears does state that both wood and bone specimens were excavated and cleaned in place (Sears 1982:15). However, bone can also develop a shine that makes it appear polished after extensive (Bromage 1984), and it is generally characterized by a smooth, glossy appearance. This happens through the removal of the ex ternal layers of lamellar bone over time (Behrensmeyer 1982). Causes of abrasion are varied and include natural processes and animal or human modification. There are two relevant scenarios for ablation being the cause of the shiny appearance of the majori ty of the bones within the Fort Center collection. First, abrasion can result from many

PAGE 260

260 people touching the bones after an extended period of time. The natural oils produced in human skin, particularly on the fingertips, tend to cling and linger to the surfaces of the bone. Second, movement of the bone within aqueous settings can also be a cause of abrasion (Bromage 1984; Denys 2002). The first scenario is more likely than the second. The majority of the Fort C enter human remains (ACC#82 22) were housed at Florida Atlantic University before being recalled by the FLMNH. It is known that at least part of this skeletal collection was used at FAU as a teaching collection, which would facilitate the regular handling of these materials. There was additional handling of these bones by researchers in the 1980s. Fluvial ablation, in contrast, also rounds and smooths the broken edges and other sharp margins of bones. Rounded edges were not observed within this collection. Diagenesis at Fort Center is likely multi factorial. However , the largest contributing factor is most likely the treatment of bones with an unknown chemical, such as the white glue or Acryloid 72. Two Osteobiographies Because only two individuals yielde d the full suite of isotopic data considered, these two individuals separately and in more detail. A 16272HR Individual is represented by a single and incomplete mandible. It is estimated that this individual is an adult around 25 years of age, which was scored noting that the permanent first and second molars that were minimally worn. Elements typically used for the estimation of sex were absent or too fragmentary to be adequately utilized, so this younger adult individual is of unknown biological sex . This individual was buried in association with a child between 5 10

PAGE 261

261 years of age. Together, this individual and this younger child were buried within the pond but close to the perimeter of Mound A indicated in Figure 3 4. In terms of paleopathologies, this individual presented with linear enamel hypoplasias (LEH) on the left second premolar. Bilateral buccal carious lesions were present on the first and second molars that affected a small region on the first molars and a larger area on the second molar s. Finally, periodontal disease with horizontal resorption was evident throughout both the upper and lower dentition. It should be noted that the young child also presented with LEH but otherwise had no notable pathologies. Isotopic data for individual generally indicated this individual w as an outlier with respect to the broader population. The bone collagen and apatite values of 15 N co 13 C ap = and 13 C ap co = are consistent with a mixed diet of terrestrial and marine protein. Although the 13 C en value of 11.0 2 ) is consistent with the bone value 13 C ap of de viations above the population mean for teeth, 13.6 . This suggests that individual had a more 13 C enriched diet as reflected in its 13 C value . In terms of geographical origin, this 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio is 0.70922 which is more than one standard deviation above the population mean of 0.70892 statistically suggestive because they are more than 1.75 standard deviations above the averag e ratios . Oxygen data from bone apatite and enamel apatite vary considerably for individual . Oxygen from bone apatite produced a value of 1 8 O ap = apatite produced a value of 1 8 O en 18 O en an outlier among

PAGE 262

262 lifetime, isotopic da ta from bo development. For this individual, a second molar was chosen for sampling, which reflects a period of o lder childhood to early adolescence, around 12 to 13 years of age. A change of this magnitude from childhood to adulthood suggests a shift in the source of imbibed water for this individual. This new water source likely reflects a migration, or movement fr om somewhere non local, into the Fort Center area. Considering that this individual displayed unique ratios for carbon, oxygen, and lead, it is possible that they migrated into Fort Center from the coast. 82 22 30081HR Individual is represented by an incomplete mandible and right maxilla. It is estimated that this individual was an adult, likely younger due to minimal wear of the posterior molars. As with the individual , biological sex could not be determined because elements typically used for the estimation of sex were absent or too fragmentary to be scored. This individual was recorded in the original provenience records as being burial 68 66 and was found in association with one other adult of indeterminat e biological sex. The second adult individual is represented only by incomplete right and left maxillae. These two individuals were buried at the eastern edge of Mound B. In terms of paleopathologies, this individual had a small carious lesion on the lab ial surface of the right first premolar and a buccal carious lesion on the right first upper molar. LEHs are present on the right canine, lateral incisor, and first premolar. There was antemortem loss of the right third lower molar with a corresponding alv eolar resorption. Finally, mild periodontal

PAGE 263

263 disease with horizontal resorption wa s observed. It should be noted that the second adult individual ha d LEH on the first right premolar and slight periodontal disease. Isotopic data generally classifies differ ences between individual and the rest of the population as statistically suggestive, rather than as an outlier. Bone collagen and apatite values of 15 N co 13 C ap = 13 C aquatic die t. The 13 C ap value is consistent with the 13 C en of lower right third molar (RM 3 13 C en and the rest of the teeth sampled is statistically suggestive. The 87 Sr/ 86 Sr value of 0.70922 for individual is very close to the mean for all samples , but the lead ratios exhibited by this individual are significantly different from the means, but the d ifferences between lead ratios exhibited by this individual and the lead ratios for other teeth is statistically suggestive . Oxygen data from bone and enamel apatite are quite similar for individual . Oxygen from bone apatite produced a value of 13 O ap = produced a value of 13 O en = For this individual, a third molar was selected fo r analysis. Third molars erupt around 17 to 21 years of age, which reflects a period of early adulthood. Therefore, the oxygen ratios suggest that individual resided at Fort Center at least from early adulthood until death.

PAGE 264

264 Figure 5 1 . 15 N co 13 C co values for isotope samples and . Figure adapted from Krigbaum et al. 2013.

PAGE 265

265 CHAPTER 6 FORT CENTER IN REGIONAL CONTEXT T o situate the Fort Center population within a regional context, t his chapter compares the results of this research to data available from other prehistoric Florida sites. Data compared include mortuary practices, paleodemography, paleopathologies, and stable isotope analyses. Bioarchaeology in Florida Although early archaeological invest igations in Florida and elsewhere in the southeastern United States did not place significant importance on the analysis of human skeletal remains, research on the topic has burgeoned within the last several decades. Bioarchaeology in Florida, in particular, has had to contend with several archaeological challenges and limitations , including: destruction of sites, improper excavations and inadequate documentation, the dis appearance or destruction of excavated materials, and poor preservation (Klingle 2006). Extensive studies of human osteology, including demographics, trauma, and pathology, as well as stable isotope analyses have contributed to questions of the past within the Southeast. Interpretation from human skeletal remains, particularly with a diachronic perspective, provides insight into changes in environment, population growth, workload stress, health and disease, diet, patterns of violence social conditions, and lifeways (Lambert 2000). Bioarchaeology is able to emphasize regional and developmental diversity in distinct biocultural adaptations (Powell et al. 1991). The variety of bioarcheological interpretations have led to recent reconsiderations of traditional a ssumptions about cultural complexity. The majority of bioarchaeological research in Florida and the Southeast has focused on the Contact era to examine differences before and after European arrival, or on the earlier transition to sedentary lifestyles with the implementation of maize agriculture ( Hutchinson 2004, 2006 ; Hutchinson and Norr 1994; Hutchinson et al. 1998; Lambert 2000; Larsen et al. 2001).

PAGE 266

266 With poor preservation conditions and acidic soil in Florida, it is uncommon that a large number of indiv Additionally, many other sites in Florida were not excavated in their entirely, with original excavations leaving behind buried individuals. Fort Center, in contrast, is unique in that it was so extensively excavated , which led to the recovery and ultimate curation of a greater number of individuals. With larger skeletal samples, it is more likely that these individuals, particularly if there is an equal distribution of age and sex, are representative of the entire po pulation. Fort Center represents a remarkably well preserved and large number of individuals , which makes it ideal for regional and diachronic comparisons. Comparisons This research compare d the Fort Center data to data from other Florida skeletal assembl ages , which are represented, along with their original references, in Table 6 1 . Data from two Archaic wet cemetery sites, Windover and Republic G roves, are used to situate Fort Center of the pond as a primary area for interment makes this a critical evaluation. The bulk of comparisons, however, are made with other Woodland period sites because this is the time period thought to represent the most activity of the mound pond complex at Fo rt Center ( Sears 1982; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012 ). It should be noted that osteological comparisons in particular are limited to available data. Although additional Woodland Period sites are mentioned in Figure 2 12, not all of these sites have osteologi cal data that are currently available. All data were compared in two meaningful ways. First, an overview of the mortuary practices discerned within Fort Center were compared to mortuary practices at other selected Florida sites. Second, bioarchaeological data, including skeletal stress, disease and health, dental disease, trauma and injury, paleodiet inferred from light stable isotopes, mobility and origin

PAGE 267

267 inferred from heavy stable isotopes, situate the Fort Center popula tion within a greater regional context (Katzenberg and Saunders 2008). A focus was placed on negative health indicators to discern a general understanding of demographic health disparities within populations. Several key pathologies are counted within a po pulation to determine the percentage of occurrence, and these percentages are compared among populations to discern trends in physical health . S ites with unreported or unavailable osteological data for a particular category (i.e., dental pathologies) were omitted from the corresponding tables . Mortuary Practices The majority of the burials recovered at Fort Center were from the pond. Use of a pond as a final place of deposition is similar to other sites from the Early Archaic Period. This time period was marked by burials that were placed in shallow ponds and held down by wooden stakes (Dickel 2002 ; Hutchinson 2004). These so called wet cemetery sites, including Republic Groves and Windover Pond, contained a large number of individuals, typically flexed b urials, and associated artifacts such as stone tools, animal bones, and jewelry (Klingle 2006). However, the precise burial location of the Fort Center individuals is unknown. Sears (198 2 ) also posits that individuals recovered from the pond were originall y defleshed, bundled and placed on a wooden platform over the pond , and subsequently positioned in the pond . In Florida, a well known example of a wet cemetery site, and one of the most analyzed, is Windover, which dates to 5000 6000 B.C. of the Early Arc haic p eriod. This is one of the most thoroughly and well excavated wet cemetery sites, along with one of the larger human skeletal samples of 168 individuals. The long term occupation of this site, perhaps as long as 1,000 years, indicates a significant pe rsistence in cultural way of life (Tuross et al. 1994). This is similar to how Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012 :52 monumental

PAGE 268

268 term ritual use and significance. Early analysis at both Windover and Re public Groves has determined that the individuals interred within these mortuary ponds are primary and flexed burials (Doran and David 1988 ; Klingle 2006). Additionally, in contrast to practices observed at Fort Center, juvenile individuals were buried wit h a greater number of burial goods than adults (Doran and Dickel 1988). C ontemporary Weeden Island sites to the North in Florida do not have an artificial pond. There are, however, several excavated and analyzed sites that indicate the presence of a charn el house, such as Bayshore Mound B, McKeithen, and Palmer Mound (see Chapter 2) , as well as frequent bundle and single skull burials (Willey 1949 a ) . This research suggests that, while it is likely that there was a wooden structure erected over the pond at Fort Center, which at some po int burned and fell into the pond, it is unclear how long deceased individuals were maintained on top of this structure. Furthermore, this research found little evidence to support the hypothesis t hat deceased individuals were intentional ly defleshing . As discussed in Chapter 4 section Cut Marks, p erimortem cut marks found noted on only four long bones, two tibiae and two femora from the ACC#4406 materials recovered in 1963. The precise burial position of the rest of the population, including whether or not burials were primary or secondary, is unknown at this point excavated in 1963 depict individuals that are not in anatomical position and appear to have been bundled, but this is a relatively small component of the overall Fort Center population. Finally, no evidence of special treatment of select individuals was found at Fort Center. It has been suggested that some individuals at Weeden Island period site s in northern Florida were able to achieve higher social status by being ritual leaders or specialists. Evidence of higher status has been inferred from slightly different burial treatment observed, includ ing burial

PAGE 269

269 placement and the association of grave goods. For example, at McKeithen Mound B , a Weeden Island site, and Block Sterns Mound A, a pre Weeden Island site, a single individual at each site was the recipient of distinguished treatment (Brose 1979 ; Milanich 1997 ; Turner et al. 2005). The osteological assessment conducted for this research did not find evidence suggesting that a similar high intensive analysis of either stable isotope geochemistry or burial goods would yield more insight. clustered individuals within the pond area, not only are few grave goods even noted but it is also nearly impossible to correlate specific grave items to specific individuals. Osteology Osteological data from the Fort Center population, including paleodemography and paleopathologies, are described and compared to other Florida sites below. Paleod emography. MNI estimates from multiple Florida sites, ranging from the Archaic Period to Post Contact, are shown in Table 6 1. Original references for all data utilized in the following comparisons are also provided within this table. The number of individuals recovered at Fort Center (n=693) is unusually large, particularly for a pre contact site in Florida. The other sites with substantial MNIs generally peak at 400 or 500 individuals (i.e., Palmer Mound, Thomas Mound and Bayshore Mound B). The exception was Tick Island, which may have held as many as a thousand burials; however, shell mining removed them and thus a final MNI count is unknown (Aten 1999). Additionally, other sites, such as Windover, were not fully excavated. Therefore, th e MNI reported is not representative of the entire site or population, merely the number of individuals excavated and available for analysis. The Fort Center site has a robust MNI of 6 93 inal field notes

PAGE 270

270 but uncollected and those individuals who were likely buried in areas of the site not excavated at all. The 6 93 individuals at Fort Center include of 42 1 adults ( 61 %), including younger and older adults, and 272 juveniles (3 9 %), including prenatal individuals, infants, children , and adolescents . Of the adults, 12 6 are female ( 18 %), 1 20 are male ( 17 %), and another 450 ( 65 %) , including both adults and juveniles, are of indeterminate sex (see Chapter 4). Table 6 2 summarizes the paleodemogr aphics in terms of biological sex at Fort Center , two Archaic period wet cemetery sites, and other Woodland Period Florida sites. When Center has a fairly even distri bution of males to females. Several other sites also display a similar number of males and females, including Windover, Republic Groves, Woodward Mound , McKeithen Mound C, Palmer Mound, and Bayshore Homes Mound B. The majority of other sites have as many a s two or three times as many males as females. These sites include Thomas Mound, Jones Mound, Browne Mound, and Briarwoods. Additionally, Aqui Esta is unique in that no female individuals were identified . Another exception is Perico Island, which has a significantly larger number of females. It should be noted that Fort Center, along with several other sites, has a large percentage of individuals who se biological sex could not be determined. Other sites could also be affected by preservation bias or even researcher bias. Table 6 3 summarizes the paleodemographies for Fort Center and other Florida sites in terms of age at death . When juveniles ( indivi duals < 18 years of age) are compared to adults of adult/juvenile ratio of 1.6 ( n=421 adults , 61% ; n=272 juveniles , 39%) places it in the middle of the range for all sites. The largest percentage of juvenile individuals was reported a t Windover , which is one of the wet cemetery sites . Other sites with high

PAGE 271

271 percentage s of juvenile individuals include Sowell Mound and Bayshore Homes Mound B. The higher number of adults relative to juveniles at Fort Center is generally the case at other F lorida sites . Nevertheless, the adult/juvenile at Fort Center is smaller than values at Republic Groves, Aqui Esta Mound, Thomas Mound, Jones Mound, Browne Mound, McKeithen Md C, Bayshore Homes Mound B, and Briarwoods . Overall, adult and juvenile percentag es at Fort are comparable with these reported rang es from other prehistoric Florida sites and do not stand out as being exceptionally high or low. Paleopathology. A summary of observed pathological conditions observed at Florida archaeological sites is summarized in Table 6 4 through 6 7 . In general, Fort Center has intermediate to low levels of antemortem conditions compared with other Florida sites. For whatever reason, general oral health was better at Fort Center. Other, non s pecific infectious diseases, such as porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia, were also encountered at fairly low frequencies within the Fort Center population. Dental p athologies . Dental pathologies are reported in Table 6 4. The most common pathology at Fort Center , dental or otherwise, was LEH at 2 7 % (n=190 individuals) which is intermediate when compared to sites with lower prevalence such as Windover and Bayshore homes and sites with higher prevalence such as Browne Mound, Palmer Mound, and Pericho Island. Other dental pathologies at Fort Center , including the frequency of carious lesions, antemortem tooth loss, periodontal disease, and abscesses are lower than percentages report ed from other Florida sites. exception of carious lesions, for which Fort Center demonstrated the highest percent, all other negative health indicators were much lower than va lues reported from other sites. McKeithen

PAGE 272

272 Mound C, Palmer Mound, and Perico Island, in particular, exhibited high frequencies of nearly all dental pathologies. Non specific pathologies. Non specific pathologies are reported in Table 6 5. Osteoarthritis and syphilis are not compared because data from other Florida sites are not available . Both cribra orbitalia (n=95 individuals, 13%) and porotic hyperostosis (n=97 individuals, 14%) frequen cies are lower than those observed in Windover, Palmer Mound, and Perico Island. Periosteal reactions , on the other hand, are observed on 106 individuals , or 1 5 % of the 693 Fort Center individuals , which is a high frequency when compared to other Florida s ites except Sowell Mound. When comparing non dental pathologies, Fort Center also presents with relatively low frequencies of non dental pathologies . For porotic hyperostosis, Fort Center has the second lowest frequency , with only Bayshore Mound B display ing a lower percent . For cribra orbitalia, Fort Center was also the second lowest following Aqui Esta Mound. For periostitis, osteolytic were comparable to those of other sites. Male vs. female . Patho logies according to biological sex are reported in Tables 6 6 and 6 7. When comparing the overall health differences between males and females, results varied and no general trends were observed. However, it should be noted that many pathological condition s for these comparative sites are reported as a single value for the entire population and do not differentiate between frequencies of pathologies in males and females and certainly not between adults and juveniles . In terms of biological sex , females at Fort Center demonstrated higher frequencies of carious lesions, periodontal disease, and abscesses than did males . Similar to Palmer Mound and Perico Island, males at Fort Center displayed a higher frequency of LEHs than females. Palmer

PAGE 273

273 Mound , Bayshore Homes Mound B, and Fort Center also display higher rates of abscesses among females , compared to males . For non dental pathologies, females at Fort Center and Windover were more affected by porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia. Palmer Mound a nd Perico Island, in contrast, had higher frequencies of those afflictions than were exhibited among males. With the exception of Palmer Mound, p eriostitis more frequently affected males within Fort Center and all other compared populations. Osteoarthritis , which was only reported at two other sites, was more commonly observed to affect male individuals in Fort Center and Windover. Antemortem Trauma. An overview of observed t rauma in Fort Center and other Florida sites is presented in Table 6 8 . Minimal oc currences of antemortem trauma were reported across all Florida sites used for comparison. The number of individuals affected by antemortem trauma is generally less than 10% of the entire population, with the exception of Windover, which had a high rate of trauma of 22%. Antemortem trauma observed within the Fort Center population is the second lowest reported, following that of Perico Island. Bot h Fort Center and Palmer Mound exhibit a higher rate of antemortem trauma for male than females. Females at Wind over, in contrast, exhibit a dramatically higher frequency of antemortem trauma than males . Perico Island only reports one incident of antemortem trauma which affected a single female individual. Stature . Estimated statures are presented in T able 6 9 bel ow. For some comparative sites, only ranges, for either the total population or by biological sex, were reported; for others, no estimate of stature was reported. To compare stature at Fort Center to a greater number of Florida populations, search paramete rs were broadened to include sites of any time period. When comparing the available stature data, there is a general trend that males have a greater stature than females. The mean stature calculated within the Fort Center population falls nicely within

PAGE 274

274 the range of mean statures estimated from other Florida populations. Specifically, the mean stature observed within the Fort Center population is very similar to that observed at Wind over, Manasota Key, and Bayshore Homes Mound B. Reported ranges of stature, either population wide or by biological sex, are also similar to the range of 165 to 171cm within the Fort Center population. Daily Lives A brief interpretation of the quality of daily life in terms of gender differences and age categories is discussed below . For inferences about age groups , an emphasis is placed on LEH and cribra orbitalia, which are thought to reflect physiological stress during periods of childhood , and the num ber of juvenile individuals present at a particular site . For gender inferences, all available health data are considered. Mortuary and burial practices were not considered in this analysis but should be incorporated in future research efforts. Table 6 10 compares the frequencies of LEH and cribra orbitalia among the different Florida sites. Fort Center exhibits intermediate levels of both LEH and cribra orbitalia when compared to the other Florida sites. Aqui Esta Mound has the lowest incidence of LEH and an intermediate frequency of cribra orbitalia. Perico Island, in contrast, demonstrates high levels of both. The incidence of LEH is also extremely high at McKeithen Mound C and Palmer Mound, although neither site reports a frequency for cribra orbitalia. When looking at whether there are a greater number of juveniles or adults, all sites with the exception of Windover Pond report that there are more adult individuals present. Windover also exhibits a high incidence of LEH but a surprisingly low incidence of cribra orbitalia. Different LEH and cribra orbitalia values across sites suggest that the period of childhood was not comparable within these populations. Individuals at Perico Island, which had high levels

PAGE 275

275 of both LEH and cribra orbitalia, likely suff ered from a particularly stressful period of childhood. Unfortunately, age determination was done on these individuals, so age at death distributions are unknown . P almer Mound too had the highest percentage of LEH , and individuals there likely experienced stressful times during childhood. However, the majority of individuals analyzed at Palmer Mound were adult, which suggests that, despite a stressful childhood, these individuals were able to survive into adulthood. This is not uncommon w ith past populations, as the weaning transition can be especially stressful to young individuals. Childhood was apparently less stressful at Aqui Esta Mound, Windover, and Fort Center. The population at Windover, as the site with the greatest number of juv enile individuals, perhaps had high levels of fertility . Table 6 11 presents an overview of health indicators according to biological sex. The frequencies of pathologies according to biological sex reflect what is presented above, with Palmer Mound and Per ico Island exhibiting high frequencies and Fort Center displaying lower and intermediate frequencies across the board. Generally, the majority of sites compared have nearly equivalent number s of males and females , and both biological sexes are affected by pathologies at the same rate . This suggests that, if there were cultural rules that mediated gender behaviors, biological sex was not a limiting factor. Even osteoarthritis, when reported, was present at similar levels in males and females, which indicates that levels of activity and activity patterns between biological sexes. In other words, males and females likely performed similar daily tasks and ate similar foodstuffs . Although this research did not assess the mortuary practices of these sites, the nea rly equal distribution s of males and females found at Fort Center, Windover, and Palmer Mound suggests that individuals of different biological sex were treated similarly, at least insofar as they were placed within the same general area . Future work shoul d

PAGE 276

276 consider Aqui Esta, Perico Island, and Bayshore Homes Mound B, all of which had unequal percentages of males and females. Despite the fact that health levels between males and females were quite similar at most sites , there were two primary exceptions. Aqui Esta Mound males exhibited a highe r level of periostitis ; h owever, no females were reported as present, although a large numbe r of individuals were of indeterminate biological sex. This makes intra population comparisons in terms of biolog ical sex difficult for this site. At Fort Center, males and females demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the frequency of porotic hyperostosis . While the levels exhibited by females at Fort Center were intermediate compared to other Flori da sites, they were much higher than the levels of males. While specific interpretations of this difference are discussed in Chapter 5 Paleopathologies section s, this suggests that, at Fort Center, which appears to have been an egalitarian society, females clearly suffered more than males at least to a certain extent. Stable Isotopes There have been few isotope studies on prehistoric archaeological remains in Florida. Current research that uses stable isotope s as a part of a multidisciplinary archaeologic al approach in Florida falls into three general categories: 1) sampling human remains to determine paleodiet with a specific focus on maize agriculture, 2) analysis of shells to determine midden accumulation processes, and 3) case studies of human remains to discern past origins and trends of mobility. Many existing reports of stable isotopes have used data from bone collagen and bone apatite data to make inferences about paleodiet. Specifically, studies have sought to determine when and where maize agricu lture was implemented in Florida and th us distinguish between pre

PAGE 277

277 and post contact periods in the area ( Hutchinson 2006; Hutchinson and Norr 1994; Hutchinson et al. 1998; Kelly et al. 2006 ; Larsen et al. 2001; Norr 2003; Tykot et al. 2005). Results generally suggest that reliance on maize agriculture did not occur in Florida until after European contact (contra Kelly et al. 2006) . As discussed in Chapter 5 section Stable Isotopes Pilot, the 13 C ap , 13 C co , and 13 C en value s suggest that individuals at Fort Center did not consume maize. In fact, it is more likely that these individuals had a mixed diet that relied heavily on both fresh water and terrestrial resources. Other studies in Florida used stable isotopes to investi gate shell mounds and deposits ( Randall and Tucker 2012; Thompson et al. 2015) . Recent research indicates that shell mound formation was likely rapid and an important discovery for understanding past large scale gatherings (Sassaman and Randall 2012). A cr itical isotopic assessment of shell, such as oyster, can provide insight s into the seasonal harvest of the bivalves, use of the midden , and larger site area. Such isotope analyses may make it possible to determine whether shell middens accumulated in a single season or over multiple years. This , in turn, may enable inferences about past social and ritual gatherings in a particular site and area, particularly with respect to reconstructing past feasting events. Stable isotope studies in Florida that have utilize d strontium, lead, or oxygen data from tooth enamel were predominantly case studies. For example, Turner et al. (2005) utilize 18 O data to identify a non local woman at McKeithen buried in Mound B and several individuals in Mound C. Quinn et al. (2008) sample d individuals from Tick Island and use d 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios to determine that two individuals at the site were non local. At Fort Center, although the sample size is small, isotopic data suggest that one adult individual of unknow n biological sex likely

PAGE 278

278 migrated to the site from the coast. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this individual Isotopic analysis, particularly as a part of broader, multidisciplinary approa ches to studying the past, have tremendous potential. Additional research on prehistoric Florida that employs stable isotopes is necessary t o better understand past populations in the region . Isotopes can be used to identify what people ate , where they cam e from, how they moved across the landscape, and for making broader socio cultural interpretations.

PAGE 279

279 Table 6 1 . Overview of other Florida sites. Site Time/ Culture Period Analyzed MNI Reference/s Bird Island Early Archaic 36 Stojanowski 1997 ; Stojanowski and Doran 1998 Windover Pond Early Archaic 169 Estes 1988 ; Purdy 1991 ; Hamlin 1995 ; Walsh Haney 1999 ; Dickel 1991, 2002 ; Doran 2002 ; Smith 2003 ; Hutchinson 2004 Tick Island Middle Archaic 184 Aten 1999 Republic Groves Middle Late/ Transitional Archaic 37 Saunders 1972 ; Purdy 1991 ; Wharton et al. 1981 Gauthier Late Archaic 105 Maples 1987 Manasota Key Transitional/Late Manasota 120 Dickel 1991 Aqui Esta Md Late Weeden Safety Harbor 100 Hutchinson 1991, 2002 Thomas Md Late Weeden Safety Harbor 112 Willey 1949 a Jones Md Late Weeden Safety Harbor 188 Bullen 1952 ; Willey 1949 a Browne Md Late Weeden Island/St Johns 41 Sears 1959 ; Simpson 2001 Mackenzie Md Late Weeden island/St Johns 24 Sears 1959 Woodward (T a coma) Md Late Weeden Island/St Johns 28 Bullen 1949 Sowell Md Late Weeden Island 169 Robbins 1994 Safety Harbor Safety Harbor Contact Period 100 Griffin and Bullen 1950 Mayport Md Swift Creek 46 Wilson 1965 ; Simpson 2001

PAGE 280

280 Table 6 1. Continued Site Time/ Culture Period Analyzed MNI Reference/s McKeithen Md B Weeden Island 1 Milanich et al. 1997 ; Turner et al. 2005 McKeithen Md C Weeden Island 36 Milanich et al. 1997 ; Turner et al. 2005 Palmer Md Weeden Island 429 Hutchinson 2004 Perico Island Glades I/Manasota 185 Wiley 1949 ; Hutchinson 2004 Bayshore Homes Md B Late Weeden Island/ Early Safety Harbor 118 Sears 1960 Briarwoods Late Weeden Island/ Safety Harbor 87 Mitchem 1985 ; Pinto 2004 Yellow Bluffs Whitake Md Semi Safety Harbor/Glades III/Manasota 10 Milanich 1972 Tatham Md Safety Harbor Post Contact 314 Hutchinson 1991, 2004 ; Mitchem and Hutchinson 1986

PAGE 281

281 Table 6 2 . Paleodemographics of biological sex at Fort Center and other Woodland Period site s in Florida. Site Period Analyzed MNI Males (%) Females (%) Indeter minate (%) Males: Females Fort Center Woodland Period 693 17 18 65 0.9 Windover Pond Early Archaic 169 47 47 74 1.0 Republic Groves Middle Late/ Transitional Archaic 37 10 10 17 1.0 Aqui Esta Md Late Weeden Safety Harbor 100 18 0 82 n/a Thomas Md Late Weeden Safety Harbor 112 53 24 24 2.2 Jones Md Late Weeden Safety Harbor 188 75 25 0 3.0 Browne Md Late Weeden Island/St Johns 41 28 10 63 2.8 Mackenzie Md Late Weeden Island/St Johns 24 0 0 100 n/a Woodward (T a coma) Md Late Weeden Island/St Johns 28 29 21 50 1.4 Sowell Md Late Weeden Island 169 40 46 14 0.9 McKeithen Md C Weeden Island 36 28 25 47 1.1 Palmer Md Weeden Island 429 17 17 66 1.0 Perico Island Glades I /Manasota 185 38 62 0 0.6 Bayshore Homes Md B Late Weeden Island/ Early Safety Harbor 118 42 36 23 1.2 Briarwoods Late Weeden Island/ Safety Harbor 87 32 13 55 2.5

PAGE 282

282 Table 6 3 . Paleodemographics of age of Fort Center and other Woodland Period sites in Florida. Site Period Analyzed MNI Adults (%) Juveniles (%) Unk. Age (%) Adults: Juveniles Fort Center Woodland Period 693 61 39 0 1.6 Windover Early Archaic 169 43 50 7 0.9 Republic Groves Middle Late/ Transitional Archaic 37 31 6 0 5.2 Aqui Esta Md Late Weeden Safety Harbor 100 77 23 0 3.3 Thomas Md Late Weeden Safety Harbor 112 85 15 0 5.7 Jones Md Late Weeden Safety Harbor 188 78 17 5 4.6 Browne Md Late Weeden Island/St Johns 41 75 8 17 9.4 Mackenzie Md Late Weeden Island/St Johns 24 0 4 96 n/a Woodward (T a coma) Md Late Weeden Island/St Johns 28 25 71 4 0.4 Sowell Md Late Weeden Island 169 36 64 0 0.6 McKeithen Md C Weeden Island 36 72 28 0 2.6 Palmer Md Weeden Island 429 79 12 9 6.6 Bayshore Homes Md B Late Weeden Island/ Early Safety Harbor 118 36 63 1 0.6 Briarwoods Late Weeden Island/ Safety Harbor 87 52 14 34 3.7

PAGE 283

283 Table 6 4 . Total population frequencies (%) of dental pathologies observed in Fort Center and other Florida sites . Site MNI Carious Lesion Linear Enamel Hypoplasia Antemortem Tooth Loss Periodontal Disease Periapical Abscess Occlusal Wear (present/absent) Fort Center 693 10 27 5 7 3 p res . Windover Pond 169 5 2.8 n/a n/a 38 reported n/a Republic Groves 37 3.1 n/a n/a 83 n/a p res . Aqui Esta Md 100 6 23 0 0 0 n/a Woodward (Tcoma) Md 28 8 n/a 32 n/a n/a p res . Sowell Md 169 4 teeth n/a n/a n/a n/a p res . McKeithen Md C 36 n/a 67 n/a n/a n/a n/a Palmer Md 429 3 78 26 23 14 pres . Perico Island 185 5 52 n/a 50 50 n/a Bayshore Homes Md B 118 n/a 1 n/a n/a 5.2 pres .

PAGE 284

284 Table 6 5 . Total population frequencies (%) of non specific and other pathologies observed in Fort Center and other Florida sites . MNI Porotic Hyperostosis Cribra Orbitalia Periosteal Reaction Osteolytic Lesions Osteomyelitis Syphilis (Treponemal) Osteoarthritis Fort Center 693 14 1 3 15 3 <1 1 9 Windover Pond 169 41.6 27.2 7 to 8 n/a 0.4 n/a 98 Republic Groves 37 7 n/a n/a n/a 10.8 n/a most common pathology Aqui Esta Md 100 30 7.7 9 11 11 4.5 n/a Sowell Md 169 n/a n/a 58.5 19.4 1 person 0.3 Palmer Md 429 29 n/a 8 6 0.5 2 11 Perico Island 185 44 44 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a Bayshore Homes Md B 118 0.8 n/a n/a 5 5.2 2 >13% Table 6 6 . Biological sex frequencies (%) of dental pathologies observed in Fort Center and other Florida sites . Carious Lesion Linear Enamel Hypoplasia Antemortem Tooth Loss Periodontal Disease Periapical Abscess Site MNI M F M F M F M F M F Fort Center 693 7.5 11 28 26 12 7 12 14 6 8 Aqui Esta Md 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palmer Md 429 4 2 80 71 29 31 24 29 14 21 Perico Island 185 10 7 65 51 n/a n/a 52 47 n/a n/a Bayshore Homes Md B 118 n/a n/a 2 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.1 12 For this table, M = m ales and F = f emales.

PAGE 285

285 Table 6 7 . Biological sex frequencies (%) of non specific and other pathologies observed in Fort Center and other Florida sites . Porotic Hyperostosis Cribra Orbitalia Periosteal Reaction Osteoarthritis MNI M F M F M F M F Fort Center 693 13 25 8 24 1 1 8 13 10 Windover Pond 169 38.8 52.3 16.6 30 1.80 1.10 100 97 Aqui Esta Md 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 50 0 n/a n/a Sowell Md 169 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.8 7.8 n/a n/a Palmer Md 429 56 39 n/a n/a 8 14 20 24 Perico Island 185 50 43 50 43 n/a n/a n/a n/a Bayshore Homes Md B 118 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a For this table, M = m ales and F = f emales. Table 6 8 . Observed rates of t rauma in Florida sites. Site MNI Trauma (%) T M F M:F Fort Center 693 3 3 2 1. 5 Windover Pond 169 22 27.8 34 1.3 Republic Groves 19 n/a n/a n/a n/a Aqui Esta Md 100 0 0 0 0 Thomas Md 112 7 n/a n/a n/a Woodward (T a coma) Md 100 4 n/a n/a n/a Sowell Md 46 4 n/a n/a n/a Palmer Md 36 4 11 5 2.8 Perico Island 429 1 0 1 0 Bayshore Homes Md B 185 5 n/a n/a n/a For this table, T = total population, M = males, and F = females.

PAGE 286

286 Table 6 9 . Recorded stature averages and ranges for Fort Center and other Florida sites. Site Period Total (cm) Males (cm) Females (cm) Fort Center Woodland Period 162 167 158 Bird Island Early Archaic 170 172 164 Windover Pond Early Archaic 165 170 159 Republic Groves Middle Late/ Transitional Archaic 157 to 172 Bay Cadillac Late Archaic n/a 158 to 178 120 to 141 Gauthier Late Archaic 159 165 154 Aqui Esta Md Late Weeden Island/ Safety Harbor n/a n/a n/a Tierra Verde Md Safety Harbor 156 to 163 Manasota Key Late Manasota/ Caloosahatchee 164 166 157 Bayshore Homes Md B Late Weeden Island/ Early Safety Harbor 167 169 164 Briarwoods Late Weeden Island/ Safety Harbor n/a 158.2 n/a Quad Block Second Seminole War n/a 165.1 to 172.7 152.4 to 165.1 Weeki Wachee Md Safety Harbor Post Contact 174 n/a n/a

PAGE 287

287 Table 6 10 . Levels of LEH and cribra orbitalia and the age cohort with the greatest number of individuals. Site Greater Age Cohort Linear Enamel Hypoplasia Cribra Orbitalia Fort Center adults medium medium Windover juveniles high low Republic Groves adults n/a n/a Aqui Esta Md adults low medium McKeithen adults n/a high Palmer Md adults n/a high Perico Island n/a high high Table 6 11 . Levels of pathologies in terms of biological sex (males and females). Site Biological Sex w/ More Individuals Dental Pathologies Porotic Hyperostosis Periostitis Osteoarthritis Fort Center equal same, low except for LEH different, females > males same, low same, low Windover equal n/a same, high same, low same, high Aqui Esta Md all males same, low n/a different, males > females n/a Palmer Md equal same, high/intermed. same, high same, low same, intermed. Perico Island females same, high except for caries same, high n/a n/a Bayshore Homes Mound B males same, low n/a n/a n/a

PAGE 288

288 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK s in prehistoric Florida, the lack of information from a complete assessment of the human remains has inhibited more holistic archaeological interpretations. This research sought to begin filling this gap by examining the Fort Center human skeletal collecti on and draw ing broader health and sociocultural conclusions about these people. Specifically, by drawing on approaches of social bioarchaeology, this research contribute d to an understanding of how these people lived in terms of daily practices and overall health, what they ate, where they came from, how they related to one another, and how they ritually treated their dead. Hypotheses Re Visited The primary hypotheses assessed by this research interpretations of Fort Center , are presented in Table 3 1. The following sections provide an explanation as to whether the results obtained support or fail to support each of the hypotheses. H1. The mound pond complex included a wooden platform over part of the pond. Evidence supports this hypothesis. A careful review of existing documentation indicates that the burnt wood found at Fort Center is from the vicinity of the original demarcation of the charnel platform by Sears (1982). The wood collectio n present within the FLMNH does not provide a holistic view of the wood present within the site in general and should not be treated as such. Sears (1982) , in his extensive field notes , include d multiple references to uncollected ng excavations. Although these large wooden timbers are not available for analysis, it is certainly possible that they were used to construct a platform. The amount of wood described as discarded or too fragile for collection is extensive. Finally, it is

PAGE 289

289 c onceivable that the prehistoric inhabitants of Fort Center recollected and reused larger pieces of wood after the fire for other practical purposes. M inimal evidence of fire damage is observed on human skeletal elements and wood fragments present within t he FLMNH collections , but this not definitive . I t is likely that severely burnt wood was destroyed during or after the fire event . Due to its fragility, it is unlikely that much of the severely burnt wood would have survived post depo sitional processes for hundreds/thousands of years. Discovery of only a dozen burnt human skeletal elements is also not surprising. It is unlikely that many deceased individuals would have been placed upon the platform at any given time due to space constr ictions. Finally, a fire on the wooden platform likely would have affected the platform itself. Once the structure grew too weak and damaged to support the human remains , it would have collapsed, submerging those individuals into the pond. Th e collapse would have extinguished any fire that affected the human remains . Although not found at the FLMNH, many instances of burnt materials are noted in original field notes. A s seen in Figure 4 1 , these materials proved to be a good match to the edge of the charnel platform as originally drawn by Sears (1982). This is not a coincidence and suggests s artificial pond. H2. Individuals whose remains were interred in the pond area had high status. Evidence fails to support this hypothesis. This research did not identify individuals who were distinguished as either high or low status. All osteological a nd mortuary evidence suggests that individuals, regardless of biological sex or age, were given the same social treatment in death. As discussed in Chapter 5, in terms of overall health, however, certain intra population

PAGE 290

290 differences were discerned, which c ould reflect differential social status or roles of behavior. Females and children were most affected by certain pathological conditions, for example LEH and cribra orbitalia. This uneven distribution of negative health indicators suggests that the periods of pregnancy, breastfeeding, weaning, and early childhood were especially stressful within the Fort Center population . In particular, this research found no specialist, at Fort Center. No single indivi dual, or group of individuals, stood out in terms of osteological, mortuary, or stable isotope evidence. However, a single individual, CAT#A 16272 HR, was identified as a possible non local inhabitant at Fort Center , but local to the area of south central Florida. The general lack of evidence to support elite status , however, could be a consequence of preservation bias. If elite mortuary specialists lived at and were buried the site, then their remains likely would not have been preserved. Only five individuals were recovered from Mound A, and their remains are all heavily fragmentary. Additionally, as discussed in Ch apter 6, this research found that incidences of negative health indicators at Fort Center were generally lower than those observed at other prehistoric Florida sites. This could be because the population of Fort Center was representative of a higher status group. The se differences in overall health, however, could also be a reflection of Fort surrounding environment . With more abundant and diverse natural resources, it is possible t hat stress levels, particularly during childhood, were relatively low in the Fort Center population.

PAGE 291

291 H3. Mortuary specialists at Fort Center defleshed bones of the deceased. Evidence fails to support this hypothesis. Only four long bones had perimortem c ut marks, which is certainly not a large enough frequency to characterize the behaviors of an entire population. The majority of cut marks ( n= 22, 85% ) were, in fact, the result of postmortem damage and likely occurred during excavation from the sharp edge of a trowel. Additionally , s econdary, bundled burials are often seen in association with postmortem treatment of human remains, and there is minimal evidence of secondary or bundled burials at Fort Center. However, the few elements with perimortem cut marks came from the center of the pond, which was excavated in 1963, the first year of excavation. Original burial maps depict individuals in bundled positions. Both the cut marks and the bundling, as well as o ther lines of evidence discussed below, suggest that the individuals excavated from the center of the pond in 1963 are representative of a separate or sub population. H4. Individuals at Fort Center were not all contemporary. Evidence supports this hypothe sis. Although no radiocarbon dating was done for this research, a careful review of the original field notes and assessment of the burials indicates a complex depositional history at Fort Center. Different groups of individuals were recovered at different depths within the pond and Mound B, which suggests multiple and periodic use of these site features. Furthermore, due to the large number of individuals interred at Fort Center (n= 693 ), it is extremely unlikely that all of these individuals were deposited in a single or even several depositional events. The observed intra site differences, in terms of burial treatment, overall health, and stable isotopes, which are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, indicate it is unlikely that individuals from all the differen t site features represent a single population. Additionally, several

PAGE 292

292 exceptional characteristics of individuals from the 1963 excavations suggest they belong to a separate or sub population. H5. Individuals at Fort Center were native to south central Flor ida. Evidence supports this hypothesis. All individuals had an average 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio of 0.70892, which suggest s a n origin in south central Florida, particularly a coastal region . Specifically, this average ratio indicates an area of origin near the junc ture of the Quaternary limestone bedrock to the north and the Upper Tertiary region to the south (Quinn et al. 2008). Even the single outlier 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratio (0.70837) , identified in Chapter 5, is consistent with the Upper Tertiary region, perhaps slightly south of Fort Center. H6. Individuals at Fort Center enjoyed a broad spectrum diet. Evidence supports this hypothesis. All 15 N c o , 13 C co and 13 C en data from Chapters 4 and 5 indicate that individuals at Fort Center likely relied on myriad resou rces, both aquatic and terrestrial , available to them . Lake Okeechobee and the surrounding environment unsurprisingly Additionally, isotopic data suggests that the Fort C enter individuals did not consume maize or rely on any other single food crop for subsistence. In addition to a diverse diet, these individuals consumed C 3 plants such as rice, legumes, trees, or shrubs . Persistent Monumental Place The Fort Center, Florida archaeological site is known for its extensive landscape modification , ceremonial significance , and long term occupation . Persistent plac e is a term originally proposed by Schlanger (1992) to mean locations that are occupied or reoccupied over exte nded periods of time. According to this original definition, persistent places possess certain key characteristics that serve as a focal point for their long term histories of (re) use , such as

PAGE 293

293 particular landscape features, and are generally located near a n area of abundant natural resources (Schlanger 1992) . Given the broad nature of this concept, Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012:50) proposed the partitioning into specific types of persistent places, and suggest ed the This new term was successfully applied to Fort Center due to its long term practice (over 2,000 years) of large monument constr uction in association with mortuary ceremonialism. Thompson and Pluckha h n (2012) provide numerous radiocarbon dates that support ed a long term use of the mound pond complex. al Given the extensive number of individuals buried at Fort Center, including both males and females and individuals of all age categories, it is highly unlikely that all of these individuals were interred in a single depositional event or even ove r a short timeframe . The complicated seriation of the Fort Center individuals as well as their dispersed locations throughout the site also suggests that burial events were episodic. Indeed, preferential use of a particular site feature, such as Mound A or Mound 13, suggests it was socially or ritually significant to a specific group of prehistoric inhabitants of Fort Center. Despite some location variation at the site , this research showed that , by far, the majority of individuals ( n= 485, including pond center 1963 ) were placed within the artificial pond, which further supports the persistent practice of aquatic burial. The recognition of water as a sacred ancestral space was clearly a persistent belief and an important part of spiritual beliefs, ritual practices, and ancestral treatment . To summarize , t his research supports previous conclusions that Fort Center i s a ritually significant mortuary site that was used for many generations and

PAGE 294

294 through a long period of time ( Lawres 2019; Seinfeld and Spivey 2016; Thompson and Pluckhahn 201 2 ). Separate or Sub Population Results presented in Chapter 4 and discussed in Chapter 5 suggest that individuals extracted in 1963 from the center of the pond are likely representative of a separate or sub population at Fort Center. Numerous characteristics observed in the skeletal collection from this area of the site were not seen anywhere else. These characteristics include perimortem cut marks indicative of postmortem defleshing, bundle burials and red staining for which etiology is unknown . Additionally, a comparison of isotopic data and antemortem conditions between the 1963 extractions from the center of the pond and the rest of the population yielded many significant differences (see Chapter 4). It is possible that individuals from the pond represent a w hen the living performed specific and sacred burial rites that included the defleshing and bundling of the dead. NAGPRA Related Contribution In addition to providing a wealth of bioarchaeological data, this research contributes to ongoing efforts in support of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990. Human remains curated at museums, while available for study by qualified and approved researchers , are culturally , ethically, and legally sensitive materials. Bioarchaeological analysis and ongoing efforts to repatriate cultural materials present a complex and labor intensive set of requirements . This is especially true for museum collections that comprise cultural m aterials which were excavated decades prior to the passing of NAGPRA legislation, such as Fort Center.

PAGE 295

295 With the implementation of NAGPRA, federally recognized Native American tribes have a legal pathway to repatriate ancestral remains and funerary, sacred , and patrimonial objects. NAGPRA also facilitates collaboration, communication, and consultation between museums and tribes. With culturally sensitive collections, NAGPRA requires the inventorying of unassociated and associated funerary objects, sacred an d patrimonial objects, and human remains. NAGPRA compliance includes an accurate minimum number of individuals (MNI) estimate, which is then listed in the Notices of Inventory Completion published in the Federal Registrar. This is a time consuming and labo rious effort for museum personnel and is often, at least in part, compiled by knowledgeable volunteers and researchers. Such is the case with the materials from Fort Center. Efforts for this dissertation contribute to ongoing NAGPRA compliance and communi cations regarding the Fort Center human remains as well as associated funerary objects, such as the wooden effigy carvings. The two primary contributions of this research as a part of NAGPRA efforts are a detailed analysis of Fort Center accession records and documentation as well as the human remains. First, before working with the more than 12,300 skeletal elements, I thoroughly reviewed and assessed all associated documentation and records for the Fort Center collection. Because the Fort Center materials represent a legacy collection, their documentation is extensive. Second, a s a trained bioarchaeologist, I was able to work directly with the remains, museum professionals, and associated documentation to provide a revised evaluation of the individuals rep resented within the Fort Center collection , including estimat es of their age at death and biological sex. Early NAGPRA submissions for the Fort Center skeletal materials listed an estimated MNI of 342, which is only about half of the individuals actually r epresented by this collection (see Table 4 11). This research ultimately reassessed and re inventoried these materials to provide the required line by line list of individuals present. Information from this

PAGE 296

296 recent review of both the documentation and the s keletal remains provides a foundation for future artifact analyses to distinguish which cultural materials are associated funerary objects. All of these efforts are part of the ongoing process to correct and resubmit the Fort Center notice to National NAGP RA. Future Research The Fort Center skeletal collection is exceptionally large and contains a wealth of important information . Although this research provides a foundational approach to working with this collection, particularly in terms of re associating individuals, there is still much work to be done . Future work should be multi faceted and focus on different types of evidence, including the human skeletal remains, other associated artifacts, and original documentation from the multiple field seasons . T he potential applications for future research are extensive; several primary avenues are considered below. Relatedness Biodistance analysis, the study of genetically controlled traits, would be extremely helpful for determining relatedness of individuals . Even if occupation and use of Fort Center was episodic, it is possible that different generations were genetically related. In addition to relatedness, sex specific patterns of trait variation can suggest past practices of post marital residence , which w ould provide valuable insights into past patterns of mobility . In addition, aDNA research is recommended to enhance understanding of gene flow. Ancient DNA can be used to track past patterns of migration and inter population gene mixture. Fort Center Time line Radiocarbon dates have been provided for different moments of construction of site features but not on the human remains themselves. Selective sampling of the human remains for

PAGE 297

297 AMS dates would be provide direct evidence about the occupation history at Fort Center. These results also have broader social implications because the majority of landscape modification at this site is related to mortuary rituals. A more refined chronology of these practices would facilitate more accur ate interpretations of social identity and social interactions, particularly as they transform ed and change through time (Stojanowski 2013). Paleodiet, Origin, and Paleomobility Further work using a larger sample for stable isotope analysis would facilit ate a more detailed analysis of the dietary variation, human origins, and movements of individuals within the Fort Center population . However, future samples will have to be selected carefully due to the poor yields of bone collagen and bone apatite. Tooth enamel samples should be preferentially chosen as well as skeletal elements that are more robust and less likely to be affected by postmortem treatments and diagenesis . Given the small sample size used in this research, the potential for identifying mobil e and non local residents was minimal . Now that individuals have been re associated and placed within their broader burial contexts, a more precise approach to broader sampling can be applied. Baseline samples , including bedrock, soil, water, and small fau na, from the Fort Center and Lake Ok e echobee region should also be collected and analyzed isotopically to facilitate a more nuanced understanding of patterns of mobility. Re Associating Individuals with Artifacts F uture work on associated burial artifact s and original records is also necessary. All provenience of non osteological materials, including but not limited to ceramics, historic artifacts, and wooden effigies, should be retrieved carefully using the original documentation. The n, the non osteologi cal methodologies (information processing techniques) utilized within this dissertation to re associate component elements of specific individuals (i.e., to overcome the

PAGE 298

298 separation of crania, dental elements, and post cranial remains) can be applied to art ifacts . Specifically , the application of Excel sort and nested filtering functions to tables of collected data can be used to re associate these individuals to specific artifacts. This would provide a nother step towards NAGPRA compliance and would also hel p answer earlier questions about chronology and status. Other Research The above suggestions for future work are by no means exhaustive . Additional and meaningful analyses include dental microwear analysis, micro CT scanning of dentine and tooth enamel, CAT scanning and 3D scanning the crania and radiographing for a better analysis of antemortem pathologies . Life Course Approach A more detailed assessment of antemortem health conditions observed within the Fort Center population can be completed by applying life course theories. Using this theoretical framework, which posits that an individual body is the sum of all experiences, including social, environmental, and physiological, it would be possible to make interpretations regarding soci o cultura l experiences in terms of life history developments. Specifically, the relationship between childhood frailty and adulthood frailty should be examined. It has long been posited that e that occurr ing in utero, (Agarwal 2016). Early exposure to stressors often correlates with more frequent manifestations of disease in later adult life. By a ssessing childhood frailty and mortality, direct insight s can be gained about these affected individuals as well as indirect inferences regarding their mothers, including pregnancy, breastfeeding, and weaning practices.

PAGE 299

299 Additional research on the Fort Cen ter population would include a more detailed assessment of LEH , including types of teeth affected and band measurements, and cribra orbitalia data in relation to other adult negative health indicators. LEH is a direct record of early life stressors ranging from in utero to around twelve ye a rs of age, while cribra orbitalia reflects periods of stress that occur before the age of four (Armelagos et al. 2009; Watts 2013). Using the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) paradigm , one can address w hether individuals who display either LEH or cribra orbitalia were more likely to have early rates or mortality , smaller terminal stature heights , or more frequent occurrences of other antemortem conditions . If no direct relationships are observed among th ese factors , then even this can inform as to whether periods of stress experienced as a young age were episodic and not long term or Finally, using a life hist ory approach also enables the interpretation of cumulative events not only at the individual level but also over many generations at a community level.

PAGE 300

300 APPENDIX A OVERVIEW OF WOOD AT FORT CENTER. Table A 1 . Wood excavated at Fort Center. FLMNH ACC# FLMNH CAT# FAU ACC# FAU CAT# Excavation Year Wood # Description Provenience 4406 98791 n/a 98791 1963 n/a a two legged animal Charnel House 4406 98792 n/a 98792 1963 5 animalistic in shape with neck, back and tail A B Pond, adjacent to 2045 L285 in 2035 L290 4406 98793 n/a 98793 1963 6 woodpecker like head with vertical shaft A B Pond, 2038 L294.5 4406 98794 n/a 98794 1963 7 carved wood bowl, oval, with carved owl head at one end A B Pond, 2042.7 L303.5 4406 98795 n/a 98795 1963 8 somewhat fish like in outline A B Pond 4406 98796 n/a 98796 1963 9 bifurcated deer antler A B Pond, 204.5 L292 4406 98797 n/a 98797 1963 10 deer antler A B Pond, 2052.1 L290.7 4406 98798 n/a 98798 1963 11 possible deer head A B Pond, 2053.9 L271 4406 98799 n/a 98799 1963 12 small fragment, irregular shape A B Pond, 2046.2 L273.2 4406 98800 n/a 98800 1963 13? resembles half a wheel A B Pond, 2053.7 L293.7 4406 98801 n/a 98801 1963 13? roughly rectangular in cross section A B Pond, 2054.5 L297 82 22 A 15166 38 A 0165 1964 n/a large bird carving in 2 pieces Charnel House Pond 82 22 A 15167 38 A 0166 1964 n/a cat head carving Charnel House Pond 82 22 A 15168 38 A 0167 1966 n/a bird carving Charnel House 2434 L267 Elev 18 82 22 A 15169 38 A 0168 1966 n/a unknown Charnel House 2433 L262 Elev 18 82 22 A 15170 38 A 0169 1966 n/a unknown Charnel House 2436 L268 Elev 19 82 22 A 15171 38 A 0170 1966 n/a unknown Charnel House 2436 L266 Elev 17.9 82 22 A 15172 38 A 0171 1966 n/a unknown Charnel House 2421 L268 Elev 17.8 82 22 A 15173 38 A 0172 1966 n/a unidentified Charnel House 2420 and 2450 L265 to 270 82 22 A 15356 38 A 0395 1967 W67 1 deer antler 2409 L306 82 22 A 15357 38 A 0396 1967 W67 2 eagle head 2407 L298 82 22 A 15358 38 A 0397 1967 W67 3 double ended pounder Charnel House Indef. Location 82 22 A 16058 26 A 1281 1968 68 1 hollow pine square 2433 L297 Elev 20.6

PAGE 301

301 Table A 1. Continued. FLMNH ACC# FLMNH CAT# FAU ACC# FAU CAT# Excavation Year Wood # Description Provenience 82 22 A 16087 26 A 1312 1968 68 2 small fragment 10' north of 68 1 and 1" lower 82 22 A 16004 26 A 1217 1968 68 3 2 small fragments, irregular 2423 L299.5 82 22 n/a [26] possible A 1216 1968 68 4 5 fragments 2420 L271 Elev 17.8 82 22 A 16056 26 A 1279 1968 68 5 large flat woodcarving in 2 pieces n/a 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 6 timber, not collected A B pond 82 22 A 16028 26 A 1245 1968 68 7 flat woodcarving in 3 pieces n/a 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 8 timber, not collected A B pond 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 9 stick n/a 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 10 scrap, destroyed n/a 82 22 A 16105 26 A 1333 1968 68 11 small long nosed mammal Charnel House 240284" L280 Elev 16.9 82 22 A 15874 26 A 1084 1968 68 12 flat woodcarving, 2 pieces n/a 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 13 partial timber, not collected A B pond 82 22 A 15886 26 A 1096 1968 68 14 triangular woodcarving, possible part of bird n/a 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 15 knot (like horse hoof), destroyed 2422 L294 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 16 scrap, destroyed 2415 L290 Elev 1.9 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 17 scrap, destroyed 2416 L292 Elev 17.6 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 18 scrap, destroyed 2416.5 L289 Elev 17.6 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 19 scrap, destroyed 2415.5 L288 Elev 17.6 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 20 scrap, destroyed 2414 L291 Elev 17.4 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 21 scrap, destroyed 2415 L291 Elev 17.1 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 22 scrap, destroyed 2425 L291 Elev 18 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 23 scrap, destroyed 2424 L290 Elev 17.9 or 19.9 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 24 scrap, destroyed 2428.5 L282 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 25 n/a, left in place n/a 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 26 scrap, destroyed 2406 L284 Elev 16.4 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 27 scrap, destroyed 2420 L284 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 28 timber, not collected 2425 L283 Elev 18.3 82 22 A 15876 26 A 1086 1968 68 29 rounded timber 2429 L279 to 2845 Elev 18.4 82 22 A 16069 26 A 1293 1968 68 30 pointed woodcarving, possible bird head 2412.5 L292 Elev 16.6 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 31 scrap, destroyed 2420 L2935

PAGE 302

302 Table A 1 . Continued FLMNH ACC# FLMNH CAT# FAU ACC# FAU CAT# Excavation Year Wood # Description Provenience 82 22 A 16071 26 A 1295 1968 68 32 woodcarving unk. 2413.2 L281 Elev 16.4 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 33 hollowed piece 2423 L299.2 Elev 18 82 22 A 15882 26 A 1092 1968 68 34 bird head, possible vulture 2419 L302 Elev 18 82 22 A 16063 26 A 1286 1968 68 35 Woodcarving scraps 2422 L298 Elev 18 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 36 timber, not collected A B pond, 2416 L279 Elev 17.7 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 37 scrap, destroyed 241 L291 Elev 17.5 82 22 A 15866 26 A 1076 1968 68 38 woodcarving unk. 2417 L285 Elev 17.9 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 39 timber and scrap, not collected A B pond, 2416 L286 82 22 A 15887 26 A 1097 1968 68 40 woodcarving unk. 242 L304 Elev 18.1 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 41 n/a, rotted 2420 L85 Elev 18.1 82 22 A 15867 26 A 1077 1968 68 42 winged bird 2423 L302 Elev 18.3 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 43 n/a 2423 L298 Elev 18.1 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 44 large timber, not collected A B pond, 2421 L285 Elev 17.9 82 22 A 16062 26 A 1285 1968 68 45 two woodcarving pieces 2419 L286 Elev 17.6 82 22 A 15889 26 A 1099 1968 68 46 trapezoid shaped 2416 L287 Elev 17.5 82 22 A 16060 26 A 1283 1968 68 47 prob larger panther, in pieces 2418 L283.5 Elev 17.6 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 48 scrap, adjoins 68 47 2418 L284 Elev 17.5 82 22 A 16109 26 A 1337 1968 68 49 small bird's head with long narrow beak Charnel House 2430 L285 Elev 18 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 50 partial timber, destroyed 2416 L289 Elev 17.6 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 51 buttonwood timber with roots, not collected A B pond, 2415.5 L289 Elev 17.7 82 22 A 15869 26 A 1079 1968 68 52 cat, two pieces 2419 L274 Elev 17.6 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 53 wing 2425 L303 Elev 17.9 82 22 A 16064 26 A 1287 1968 68 54 possible eagle 2435 L291 Elev 17.8 82 22 A 15883 [26] A 1093 1968 68 55 possible bird back and part of legs 2429 L293 Elev 17.8 82 22 A 16061 26 A 1284 1968 68 56 small woodcarving 2434 L289 Elev 17.8 82 22 A 15868 26 A 1078 1968 68 57 cat head 2427 L296.5 Elev 17.8 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 58 timber, rotted A B pond, 2422 L291 Elev 17.3

PAGE 303

303 Table A 1 . Continued FLMNH ACC# FLMNH CAT# FAU ACC# FAU CAT# Excavation Year Wood # Description Provenience 82 22 A 15871 26 A 1081 1968 68 59 large carved bird or cat, 2 pieces 2440 L286 Elev 18.3 82 22 A 16072 26 A 1296 1968 68 60 bird on post, 2 pieces 2435 L306 Elev 18 82 22 A 16067 26 A 1290 1968 68 61 small pointed object 2421 L276 from top of burials above basal midden and below sand wash 82 22 A 16085 26 A 1310 1968 68 62 badly rotted cat head 2437 L284.5 Elev 18.4 82 22 A 16084 26 A 1309 1968 68 63 masked cat, 2 pieces 2435 L280 Elev 17.6 82 22 A 16068 26 A 1291 1968 68 64 small pointed woodcarving 2415 L270 assoc with burials above basal midden and below sand wash 82 22 A 16066 26 A 1289 1968 68 65 possible bird 2440 L294 Elev 19.2 82 22 A 15873 26 A 1083 1968 68 66 bird minus head 2427 L275 Elev 17.7 on post just below legs 82 22 A 15879 26 A 1089 1968 68 67 possible duck 2434 L277 Elev 17.6 82 22 A 15881 26 A 1091 1968 68 68 cat head 2416.5 L274 Elev 17 82 22 A 16092 26 A 1317 1968 68 69 woodcarving unk. 2435 L277 Elev 18.1 82 22 A 16059 26 A 1282 1968 68 70 small flat wing 2430 L308 Elev 18.2 82 22 A 16073 26 A 1297 1968 68 71 probable bird, 2 pieces 2433 L311 to L306 Elev 18.3 82 22 A 16091 26 A 1316 1968 68 72 small bird, 5 pieces 2436 L279 Elev 18 82 22 A 15885 26 A 1095 1968 68 73 resembles a mortar 2422 L314 Elev 17.9 82 22 A 16090 26 A 1315 1968 68 74 possible bird, 2 pieces 2430 L310 82 22 A 15884 26 A 1094 1968 68 75 two legged bird, 2 pieces 2440 L298 between sand and muck at Elev 18 82 22 A 16086 26 A 1311 1968 68 76 bird, possible duck 2444 L295 Elev 18.5 82 22 A 15870 26 A 1080 1968 68 77 possible bird, 5 pieces n/a 82 22 A 15875 26 A 1085 1968 68 78 large effigy (deer or bear?) 2420 L315.4 Elev 17.1 82 22 A 15880 26 A 1090 1968 68 79 spoonbill 2420 L277.5 Elev 17.5 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 80 crow head 2437 L305 Elev 18.7 82 22 A 15890 26 A 1100 1968 68 81 timber piece, possibly hollowed 2441 L274 Elev 18.2

PAGE 304

304 Table A 1 . Continued FLMNH ACC# FLMNH CAT# FAU ACC# FAU CAT# Excavation Year Wood # Description Provenience 82 22 A 16108 26 A 1336 1968 68 82 bird's head with a stout beak Charnel House 2417 L275 Elev 17.4 82 22 A 16106 26 A 1334 1968 68 83 small head of a bird of prey, probably owl Charnel House 2421 L279 Elev 17.9 82 22 A 15888 26 A 1098 1968 68 84 woodcarving, possible bird tail 2419 L286.5 Elev 17.8 82 22 A 15877 26 A 1087 1968 68 85 woodcarving of animal vicinity 2420 L275 Elev 17.7 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 86 bird head 2420 L283.5 82 22 A 15872 26 A 1082 1968 68 87 bird breast back 2418 L303 82 22 A 16080 26 A 1305 1968 68 88 wing, 2 pieces 2422 L302 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 89 large bird wing 2423 L275 82 22 A 16078 26 A 1303 1968 68 90 twist e d knot resembling a bird 2431 L292.5 Elev 17.6 82 22 A 16076 26 A 1300 1968 68 91 small bird 2431.5 L285.6 Elev 17.5 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 92 timber, not collected 2427 L269 82 22 A 16065 26 A 1288 1968 68 93 small bird, 2 pieces 2426 L265 Elev 17.7 82 22 A 16070 26 A 1294 1968 68 94 two legged bird (possible eagle) on post, no head 2426 L284Elev 17.7 82 22 A 16077 26 A 1301 1968 68 95 two legged bird, 2 pieces head NE end 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 96 possible cat n/a 82 22 A 16088 26 A 1313 1968 68 97 spoon bill duck head 2422 L274 Elev 17.5 82 22 A 16089 26 A 1314 1968 68 98 bird head 2427.9 L289 Elev 17.3 82 22 A 16079 26 A 1304 1968 68 99 back of bird or other animal 2440 L301 Elev 17.9 82 22 A 15878 26 A 1088 1968 68 100 duck head, spoon part of bill decayed 2427 L286.5 on basal muck 82 22 A 16057 26 A 1280 1968 68 101 possible wing 2432.7 L302 Elev 17.5 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 102 pointed bill bird head 2433.4 L305.6 Elev 17.5 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 103 triangular woodcarving 2429 L305.9 Elev 17.2 82 22 A 16107 26 A 1335 1968 68 104 rectangular portion of unidentified woodcarving Charnal House 2420 L304 Elev 17.2 82 22 A 16083 26 A 1308 1968 68 105 pointed woodcarving 2422.3 L276.2 Elev 7.3 82 22 A 16074 26 A 1298 1968 68 106 wing woodcarving 2426 L276.5 82 22 n/a [26] n/a 1968 68 107 two legged creature, discarded 2426.5 L277 Elev 17.1

PAGE 305

305 Table A 1 . Continued FLMNH ACC# FLMNH CAT# FAU ACC# FAU CAT# Excavation Year Wood # Description Provenience 82 22 A 16081 26 A 1306 1968 68 108 timber frag m ent 2426 L273.3 82 22 A 16082 26 A 1307 1968 68 109 eagle wing, 2 pieces 2427 L305 Elev 17.3 82 22 A 15380 48 A 0427 1969 69 1 cat face Charnel House 2428.9 L265 Elev 8.1 82 22 A 16565 48 A 1886 1969 69 2 irregular worked piece in 3 pieces Charnel House 2424.3 L265 Elev 18.1 82 22 A 15503 48 A 0551 1969 69 3 two legged bird on tapered base Charnel House 2412.2 L269 o 2414 L268.8 Elev. 17 82 22 A 16097 48 A 1325 1969 69 4 possible bird Charnel House 2391.2 L254.75 to 2390.7 L257.75 Elev 18.2 82 22 A 16095 48 A 1323 1969 69 4 2 possible bird wing Charnel House 2391.2 L254.5 to 2390.7 L257.75 Elev 18.2 82 22 A 15509 48 n/a 1969 69 5 large bird wing, 2 pieces Charnel House 2409'8" L262'10" to 2407'6" L265 Elev 17.6 82 22 A 15539 48 A 0587 1969 69 6 bird with vertical wings Charnel House 2409'9" L261'8" to 2409'11" L263'9" Elev. 17.2 82 22 A 15835 48 n/a 1969 69 7 bird head with flat beak Charnel House N.E. quadrant of 2420 L285 basal midden 82 22 A 16102 48 A 1330 1969 69 8 tapered post Charnel House 2416'3" L262'6" Elev 17.4 82 22 A 16567 48 A 1924 1969 69 9 oblong frag Charne l House 2416'3" L262'6" 82 22 A 15540 48 A 0588 1969 69 10 bird head Charnel House 2419'5" L280'4" 82 22 A 15424 48 A 0471 1969 69 11 founded, shaped piece Charnel House 2418'2" L263'3" 82 22 A 15361 48 A 0406 1969 69 12 bird Charnel House 2412'2" L263'5" to 2412'4" L262'5" Elev 17.4 82 22 A 15368 48 A 0414 1969 69 13 two legged creature in 3 pieces Charnel House 2414'2" L263'5" to 2412'4" L262'5" Elev 17.4 82 22 A 16566 48 A 1896 1969 69 14 bird wing frag . Charnel House 2412'6" L262 to 2411'6" L263'2" Elev 17.4 82 22 A 15526 [48] n/a 1969 69 14 1 flat rectangular fragment Charnel Pond 82 22 A 15372 48 A 0419 1969 69 15 bird head with pointed beak Charnel House 2418'3" L261'6" middle of head Elev 17.7

PAGE 306

306 Table A 1 . Continued FLMNH ACC# FLMNH CAT# FAU ACC# FAU CAT# Excavation Year Wood # Description Provenience 82 22 A 15865 48 A 1061 1969 69 16 oblong shaped frag Charnel House 2405'8" L259'8" Elev 17.7 82 22 A 16096 48 A 1324 1969 69 17 oblong shaped frag Charnel House 2412 L261 Elev 17.3 82 22 A 16101 48 A 1329 1969 69 18 conical pedestal Charnel House 2409'1" L260'1" to 2407' L262.9" Elev 17 82 22 A 16155 48 A 1448 1969 69 19 conical pedestal frag. Charnel House 2410'2" L257'8" to 2410'11" L259'8" Elev 17.4 82 22 A 15415 48 A 0462 1969 69 20 shaped fragment Charnel House 2405 L256'3" Elev 17.7 82 22 A 15541 48 A 0589 1969 69 21 shaped fragment Charnel House 2411'3" L260'11" Elev 17.2 82 22 A 16231 48 A 1525 1969 69 22 rectangular frag Charnel House 2415 L253'11" Elev 17.7 82 22 A 16094 48 A 1322 1969 69 23 bird head split longitudinally Charnel House 2404'8" L255'2" Elev 17.6 82 22 A 16098 48 A 1326 1969 69 24 right triangular concave convex piece Charnel House 2402'9" L258'2" Elev 17.5 82 22 A 15829 48 A 0965 1969 69 25 small bird's head Charnel House 2429'7" L273'9" Basal muck 82 22 A 15346 48 A 0385 1969 69 26 medium bird's head Charnel House 2412'6" L269 basal muck 82 22 A 16103 48 A 1311 1969 69 27 bird on tenon Charnel House 2429'4" L258 on basal muck 82 22 A 16104 48 A 1332 1969 69 28 thin necked effigy Charnel House 2431'4" L254 to 2426'4" L254 Elev 17.9 82 22 A 15583 48 A 0632 1969 69 29 wooden pestle Charnel House 2401'10" L322'5" to 2402'6" L322'3" Elev 17.4 82 22 A 15864 48 A 1029 1969 69 30 panther Charnel House 2431'8" L261'8" Elev 17.6 82 22 A 15401 48 A 0448 1969 69 31 bird effigy on conical base Charnel House 2428 L262'8" Elev 17.6 82 22 n/a 48 n/a 1969 69 32 shaped fragment with slede? Midsection Charnel House 2428'10" L263'6" Elev 17.6 82 22 A 16099 48 A 1327 1969 69 33 conical pedestal Charnel House 2420 L260'10" Elev 17.7 82 22 A 16100 48 A 1328 1969 69 34 eagle wing Charnel House 2424'8" L235'4" to 2426'4" L323'11" Elev 17.8 82 22 A 15482 48 A 0529 1969 69 35 alligator head Charnel House Elev 17.4

PAGE 307

307 APPENDIX B SKELETAL ELEMENTS, HUMAN AND FAUNAL, OBSERVED WITH SU PE RFICIAL RED STAINING. Table B 1. Red Staining. CAT# Provenience Element Side Age Sex 98803 A B Pond, B 5 panther, 1 phalanx and 4 metacarpals/ metatarsals n/a n/a n/a 98804HR A B Pond, B 3 first metatarsal right adult M? 98804HR A B Pond, B 3 fourth metatarsal right adult M? 98804HR A B Pond, B 3 metatarsal left adult M? 98804HR A B Pond, B 3 metatarsal/ metacarpal not sided adult M? 98804HR A B Pond, B 3 proximal manual phalanx from ray 2 5 not sided adult M? 98805HR A B Pond, B 4 clavicle left adolescent, 13 14 years I 98810HR A B Pond, B 9 metatarsal/ metacarpal not sided adult I 98812HR A B Pond, B 11 proximal manual phalanx from ray 1 n/a adult M 98812HR A B Pond, B 11 lumbar n/a adult M 98813HR A B Pond, B 12 metatarsal/ metacarpal n/a adult I 98813HR A B Pond, B 12 thoracic n/a adult I 98814HR A B Pond, B 13 fourth metacarpal right adult M? 98817HR A B Pond, B 16 first metatarsal right adult M 98817HR A B Pond, B 16 third metatarsal right adult M 98817HR A B Pond, B 16 fifth metatarsal right adult M 98817HR A B Pond, B 16 second metatarsal not sided adult M 98817HR A B Pond, B 16 lumbar n/a adult M 98817HR A B Pond, B 16 lumbar n/a adult M 98819HR 2045 L300 A B Pond, B 18 lumbar n/a adult I 89929HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 28 thoracic adult I 89929HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 28 thoracic n/a adult I 89929HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 28 third metacarpal right adult I 89929HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 28 second metacarpal right adult I 98831HR A B Pond, B 29B fifth metatarsal left adult M? 98832HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 30 thoracic n/a adult I

PAGE 308

308 Table B 1. Continued. CAT# Provenience Element Side Age Sex 98832HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 30 thoracic n/a adult I 98832HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 30 fibula n/a adolescent, 14 17 years I 98832HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 30 second cervical n/a adult I 98832HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 30 cervical n/a adult I 98832HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 30 thoracic n/a adult I 98832HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 30 lumbar n/a adult I 98832HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 30 lumbar n/a adult I 98833HR 2045 L290, A B Pond, B 31 second metatarsal left adult M? 98835HR 2045 L280 290, B 33 fourth metatarsal right adult I 98837 A B Pond, B 35 likely bobcat, metatarsal/ metacarpal n/a n/a I 98839HR 2045 L280, A B Pond, B 37 S1 segment n/a adolescent, 6 18 years I 98839HR 2045 L280, A B Pond, B 37 first metatarsal left? adolescent, 13 16 years I 98839HR 2045 L280, A B Pond, B 37 lumbar n/a adolescent, 12 20 years I 98839HR 2045 L280, A B Pond, B 37 third metacarpal right adult I 98839HR 2045 L280, A B Pond, B 37 metatarsal/ metacarpal n/a adult I 98841HR 2045 L280, A B Pond, B 39 fifth metacarpal left adult F 98845HR 2045 L270, B 44 fifth metacarpal right adult I 98846HR 2040 L270, B 45 first metatarsal right adult I 98846HR 2040 L270, B 45 first metatarsal left adult I 98846HR 2040 L270, B 45 fifth metatarsal right adult I 98846HR 2040 L270, B 45 proximal pedal phalanx from ray 2 5 n/a adult I 98846HR 2040 L270, B 45 first metacarpal right adult I 98846HR 2040 L270, B 45 proximal manual phalanx from ray 2 5 n/a adult I 98846HR 2040 L270, B 45 second metatarsal right adult I

PAGE 309

309 Table B 1. Continued. CAT# Provenience Element Side Age Sex 98847HR 2040 L270, B 46, A B Pond fourth metatarsal right adult I 98847 2040 L270, B 46, A B Pond deer phalanx n/a n/a I 98847HR 2040 L270, B 46, A B Pond thoracic n/a adult I 9881XHR No provenience third metatarsal right adult I 9884XHR No provenience second metacarpal left adult I 988XXHR No provenience proximal pedal phalanx from ray 1 n/a adult I 988XXHR No provenience lumbar n/a adult I 988XXHR No provenience lumbar n/a adult I 4406 101HR A B Pond, 2025 L290; Top 12" +/ fourth metatarsal left adult I 4406 101HR A B Pond, 2025 L290; Top 12" +/ fifth metatarsal left adult I 4406 102HR 2025 L290; Level 2 first metatarsal left adult M? 4406 102HR 2025 L290; Level 2 second metatarsal left adult M? 4406 102HR 2025 L290; Level 2 fourth metatarsal left adult M? 4406 102HR 2025 L290; Level 2 fourth metatarsal right adult M? 4406 104HR A B Pond, 2025 L300, L310; Level 1; 0 12" first metatarsal right adult M 4406 108HR A B Pond, 2035 L290; Level 2; 12 24" first metatarsal right adult I 4406 108HR A B Pond, 2035 L290; Level 2; 12 24" fourth metatarsal right adult I

PAGE 310

310 APPENDIX C STATURE MEASUREMENTS Table C 1. Stature measurements. ACC# CAT# Bone Sex Stature (cm) 4406 98831 Humerus F 150.494 4406 98837 Humerus F 155.07 4406 98838 Femur F 158.542 4406 98839 Femur F 159.076 4406 98847 Femur F 156.406 82 22 82 22 30179HR Femur F 152.935 82 22 82 22 30196HR Femur F 155.338 82 22 82 22 30203HR Humerus F 159.646 82 22 82 22 30265HR Femur F 159.61 82 22 82 22 30448HR Humerus F 147.582 82 22 82 22 30475HR Femur F 159.877 82 22 82 22 30479HR Femur F 152.134 82 22 82 22 30484HR Femur F 151.6 82 22 82 22 30506HR Humerus F 157.982 82 22 82 22 30520HR Humerus F 153.406 82 22 82 22 30605HR Femur F 156.406 82 22 82 22 30616HR Humerus F 155.07 82 22 82 22 30684HR Femur F 160.678 82 22 82 22 30186HR Femur F? 158.809 82 22 82 22 30639HR Femur F? 161.479 4406 98813HR Femur M 166.134 4406 98817HR Femur M 166.388 4406 98828HR Femur M 165.118 4406 98832HR Femur M 171.722 4406 98838HR Humerus M 166.686 4406 98839HR Femur M 169.69 4406 98846HR Femur M 166.134 4406 98848HR Femur M 173.5 82 22 82 22 30179HR Humerus M 166.185 82 22 82 22 30196HR Femur M 170.452 82 22 82 22 30472HR Femur M 166.134 82 22 82 22 30623HR Humerus M 167.9385 4406 98832HR Femur M? 165.626 4406 98847HR Humerus M? 161.9265 82 22 82 22 30195HR Humerus M? 161.175 82 22 82 22 30494HR Femur M? 168.674

PAGE 311

311 Table C 1 . Continued ACC# CAT# Bone Sex Stature (cm) 82 22 82 22 30571HR Femur M? 168.674 82 22 82 22 30490HR Humerus M? 177.95 82 22 82 22 30621HR Humerus M? 165.886 82 22 82 22 30229HR Humerus M? 170.878

PAGE 312

312 APPENDIX D H UMAN BURIALS RECORDED IN THE 196 6 FIELD NOTES AND MNI. Table D 1. Human remains recorded in 1966 field notes. Year Coordinates Elevation Description Counted in MNI 1966 Feature 1 n/a one bone frag. no 1966 2390 L215 and 2380 L215 n/a various bone no 1966 2477.2 L212.3 20.4 calvarium no

PAGE 313

313 APPENDIX E H UMAN BURIALS RECORDED IN THE 1967 FIELD NOTES AND MNI. Table E 1. Human remains recorded in the 1967 field notes. Burial # Provenience Description Counted in MNI 67 1 2527 L265 cranium, vertebrae yes 67 2 2528 L264 jaw with teeth no 67 3 2532 L262 long bones (tibia, fibula) no 67 4 2525 L262 skull cap yes 67 5 2521 L267 unidentified bones and teeth no 67 6 2502 L244 skull cap yes 67 7 2478 L251 teeth, bones, copper no 67 8 2505 L246 unidentified bones and teeth no 67 9 2507 L246 skull cap yes 67 10 2509 L245 vertebrae, jaw, teeth no 67 11 2503 L240 teeth, possible skull fragments yes 67 12 2541 L251 jaw and teeth no 67 13 2539 L251 small bone no 67 14 2537 L251 skull fragments yes 67 15 2537 L252 unidentified bones no 67 16 2535 L253 skull fragments yes 67 17 2539 L248.5 skull fragments yes 67 18 2538 L252 skull yes 67 19 2531 L217 long bones no 67 20 2534 L218 possible skull fragments, long bones yes 67 21 2533 L219 skull cap, possible jaw and teeth yes 67 22 2535 L220 partial skull yes 67 23 2536 L221 partial skull and jaw yes 67 24 2530 L217 skull cap, possible teeth yes 67 25 2533 L217 long bones (femur, tibia, radius, humerus), patella, skull yes 67 26 2532 L222 3 skull caps and long bones yes, counted as 3 67 27 2531 L221 most of a skull yes 67 28 2537 L221 long bones (radius, ulna, humerus) no 67 29 2538 L222 long bone, skull fragment yes 67 30 2536 L222.5 skull cap yes 67 31 2511 L224 skull fragments yes 67 32 2531 L225 skull fragment yes

PAGE 314

314 Table E 1 . Continued Burial # Provenience Description Counted in MNI 67 33 2528 L225 skull and jaw yes 67 34 2532 L255.5 skull fragments yes 67 35 2530 L257 skull fragments yes 67 36 2520 L261 unidentified bones no 67 37 2505 L249 skull yes 67 38 2462 L240 skull and other bones yes 67 39 2509.5 L223.8 misc bone no 67 40 2522.6 L224.6 skull fragments yes 67 41 2523 L222.4 skull and jaw yes 67 42 2528.5 L225.6 skull, jaw, misc bone yes 67 43 2530 L223.1 skull fragment yes 67 44 2537.8 L226.4 skull fragment yes 67 45 2504.5 L236.8 long bone no 67 46 2506.6 L237.4 skull fragment yes 67 47 2506.8 L238.6 skull fragment yes 67 48 2507.7 L231 skull, jaw, and teeth yes 67 49 2519 L221 long bone fragment no 67 50 2504 L239 skull yes 67 51 2509 L241 long bone no 67 52 2513 L239 skull yes 67 53 2503 L250 skull and misc bone yes 67 54 2504 L236 skull yes 67 55 2534 L255.5 skull fragments yes 67 56 2535 L252 skull fragments yes 67 57 2530 L257 unidentified bones no 67 58 2530 L259 long bone no 67 59 2529 L263 destroyed bone no 67 60 2520.5 L262.5 unidentified bones no 67 61 2518 L257 long bones no 67 62 2517.5 L258 unidentified bones no 67 63 2513 L256 skull fragment yes 67 64 2513 L28.5 unidentified bones no 67 65 2509 L261 long bone no 67 66 2507 L261.5 skull fragment yes 67 67 2505.5 L255 unidentified bones no

PAGE 315

315 Table E 1 . Continued Burial # Provenience Description Counted in MNI 67 68 2530 L216 skull and teeth yes 67 69 2531.5 L217.5 skull yes 67 70 2535 L218.3 skull fragments yes 67 71 2533.5 L220 long bone no 67 72 2536.5 L223 skull yes 67 73 2537.5 L226 skull and long bone yes 67 74 2531.8 L225 skull fragments and long bone yes 67 75 2517 L217 jaw and teeth no 67 76 2516 L219 jaw and teeth no 67 77 2501 L243 skull fragment yes 67 78 2512 L241 long bone and teeth no 67 79 2495.5 L241 skull and teeth yes 67 80 2494.2 L240 skull cap yes 67 81 2308 L253 skull and long bones yes 67 82 2541 L257 skull and long bones yes 67 83 2535.5 L257 skull and teeth yes 67 84 2534 L252 skull fragments yes 67 85 2506 L253 skull cap yes 67 86 2540 L255 skull yes 67 87 2533 L251.5 skull, jaw, and teeth yes 67 88 2514 L246 skull fragments yes 67 89 2535 L246 two skulls yes, counted as 2 67 90 2528 L245 skull yes 67 91 2531 L224 skull fragment yes 67 92 2537 L220 infant skull, jaw, and teeth yes 67 93 2541 L253 skull fragment and long bones (femur) yes 67 94 2537 L212 unidentified bones no 67 95 2458.5 L228 skull, jaw, and long bones (femur, humerus) yes

PAGE 316

316 APPENDIX F H UMAN BURIALS RECORDED IN THE 196 8 and 1969 FIELD NOTES AND MNI. Table F 1. Human remains recorded in 1968 and 1969 field notes. Year Coordinates Elevation Description Counted in MNI 1968 2513 L225 24.1 24.5 Loose teeth no 1968 2517 L223.5 24.1 24.5 Loose teeth no 1968 2513.5 L226.5 24.1 24.6 Loose tooth no 1968 2512 2517 L225 230 24.1 24.6 Loose teeth no 1968 2515 L270 17.9 Skull fragments and post cranial fragments from adult and child yes, count as 2 1968 2515 L275 n/a Misc, unidentified bone no 1969 2497 L225 21 Skull yes 1969 2512.3 L233 24.8 Loose teeth no 1969 2546 2551 L229 242 27.9 2 calvarias and one mandible yes, count as 2 1969 2548 L242 27.9 calvarium yes 1969 2551 L236 27.9 calvarium yes 1969 2551 L238 27.9 mandible no 1969 2547 L234.5 27.9 two long bones no 1969 2545 L235 240 27.1 Irregular mass of bone, 3 possible bundle burials yes, count as 1 1969 2530 2490 L210 220 24.6 Misc. bone and teeth no 1969 2472 L258 23.2 24.1 Misc. bones no 1969 2477 L252 23.4 Misc. bone no 1969 2475 L252 23.7 Misc. bone no 1969 2555 L247 24.2 Probable skull yes 1969 2560 L248 22.1 Bone with ochre traces no 1969 2561 L247 22.1 loose tooth no 1969 2561 L250 22.1 Skull frag and loose teeth no 1969 2562 L240 22.1 infant or immature skull, 3 tooth caps yes 1969 2549 L229.1 22.1 Probably human humerus no 1969 2561 L240 22.5 probably maxilla no 1969 2548 L228 22.3 Mandible no 1969 2559 L230 n/a cranium and long bones yes 1969 2553 L239 22.1 possible bundle burial yes 1969 2568 L222.6 22.9 possible bundle burial yes

PAGE 317

317 Table F 1 . Continued Year Coordinates Elevation Description Counted in MNI 1969 2561 L249.6 n/a long bone no 1969 2563 L249 22.1 Maxilla no 1969 2562 L231 22.1 Loose teeth no 1969 2555 L256.4 22.1 possible bundle burial yes 1969 2556 L257.8 22.3 Misc. unidentifiable bone no 1969 2555 L254.7 22.3 Skull yes 1969 2557.6 L254.4 22.3 Misc. unidentifiable bone no 1969 2562.5 L24 22.3 Skull yes 1969 2565 L245 22.2 Long bone no 1969 2557 L255 22.2 Misc. unidentifiable bone no 1969 2557.6 L258 22.2 Misc. unidentifiable bone no 1969 2561 L256.4 22.2 Long bones no 1969 2562.5 L257 n/a Misc. unidentifiable bone no 1969 2566.5 L254 n/a Long bone no 1969 2569.5 L234.5 n/a Cranium yes 1969 2552.4 L254 n/a Cranium yes 1969 2557.4 L258.6 21.9 Misc. unidentifiable bone no 1969 2563 L256.7 22 Long bones no 1969 2542.4 L258.3 21.5 Long bone no 1969 2541.6 L257.4 23.5 Adult with teeth no 1969 2543.9 L259.1 23.4 Misc. small bones no 1969 2543.7 L257 23.2 Misc. small bones no 1969 2544.8 L255.4 23.3 Misc. bones no 1969 2548 L258 23.3 Misc. bones no 1969 2542 L267 22.9 Two skulls and bone yes, count as 2 1969 2548 L260 24.3 Long bones no 1969 2548 L260 23 Large mass of bone no 1969 2548 L260 23 Loose tooth no 1969 2550 L264.9 23 Loose teeth no 1969 2552.3 L265 22.9 2 skulls yes, count as 2 1969 2554.6 L270.5 22.2 Skull yes 1969 2555.9 L271 22.3 Possible skull no 1969 2556.3 L262.3 22.3 Long bones no 1969 2556.1 L270.5 22.2 Skull yes

PAGE 318

318 APPENDIX G H UMAN BURIALS RECORDED IN THE 1970 FIELD NOTES AND MNI. Table G 1. Human remains recorded in the 1970 field notes. Year Coordinates Elevation Description Counted in MNI 1970 2358.5 L215 12 18" possible human bone no 1970 2370 2375 n/a possible human bone no 1970 2322.3 L212 30" possible human bone no 1970 2358 L215 to 2390 L215 18 24" possible human bone no 1970 2364 L213 36 42" possible human bone no 1970 2315 L215 to 2320 L215 26 32" dense bone layer, possible human bone no 1970 2325 L215 to 2330 L215 32 38" dense bone layer, possible human bone no 1970 2395 L215 to 2395 L320 n/a possible human bone no 1970 2395 L270 24" heavy concentration of bone, possibly human no 1970 2395 L266.5 25" possible human femur and other bones no 1970 2350 L285 n/a possible human bone no 1970 2350 L265 10 11" concentration of bone, possibly human no 1970 2495 L215 18 24 possible human bone no 1970 2675 L215 18 24 possible human bone no 1970 2365 L215 40 26" heavy concentration of bone, possibly human no 1970 2385 L210 6" possible human bone no 1970 2400 L225 n/a possible human bone no 1970 2400 L255 6" bone bits, possibly human no 1970 2376.9 L224.7 19" human bone no 1970 2375 L260 n/a human femur no 1970 2385 L260 29.7" vertical long bone, possibly human no 1970 2621 L211 n/a loose teeth no 1970 2598 L209 n/a 2 skulls, one with long bones yes, count as 2

PAGE 319

319 LIST OF REFERENCES Agarwal, Sabrina C. 2012. The Past of Sex, Gender, and Health: Bioarchaeology of the Aging Skeleton. American Anthropologist 114(2):322 335. Agarwal, Sabrina C. and Bonnie A. Glencross. 2011. Social Bioarchaeology . Chichester: Blackwell Publishing. Agarwal, Sabrina C. 2016. Bone Morphologies and Histories: Life Course Approaches in Bioarchaeology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 159 (S61):130 149. Aldenderfer, Mark. 2010. Gimme that Old Time Religion: Rethinking the Role of Religion in the Emergence of Social Inequality. In P athways to Power: New Perspectives on the Emergence of Social Inequality , edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M . Feinman. Springer, New York, pp.77 94. Ambrose, Stanley H.1986. Stable Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Analysis of Human and Animal Diet in Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 15(8):707 731. Ambrose, Stanley H. 1991. Effects of Diet, Climate and Physiology on Nitrogen Isotope Abundances in Terrestrial Foodwebs. Journal of Archaeological Science 18(3):293 317. Ambrose, Stanley H. and Michael J. DeNiro. 1987. Reconstruction of African H uman D iet U sing B one C ollagen C arbon and N itrogen I sotope R atios. Nature 31 9(23):321 423. Ambrose, Stanley H. , and John Krigbaum. 2003. Bone Chemistry And Bioarchaeology . Journal of Anthropological Anthropology 22(3):193 199. Ambrose, Stanley H. and Lynette Norr. 1993. Experimental Evidence for the Relationship of the Carbon Iso tope Ratios of Whole Diet and Dietary Protein to Those of Bone Collagen and Carbonate. In Prehistoric Human Bone: Archaeology at the Molecular Level , edited by Joseph Lambert and Gisela Grupe. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Heidelberg, pp. 1 37. The American Heritage Dictionary . 2001. 4th ed. Dell Publishing, New York. Anderson, David G. 2004. Archaic Mounds and the Archaeology of Southeastern Tribal Societies. In Signs of Power: The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast , edited by Jon L. Gibs on and Philip J. Carr. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 270 299. Anderson, David G. 1998. Swift Creek in a Regional Perspective. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture , edited by J. Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliott. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa , pp. 274 300 . Anderson, David G 2002. Evolution of Tribal Social Organization in the Southeast. In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies , edited by William A. Parkinson. International Monographs in Prehistory , Ann Arbor , pp. 246 277 .

PAGE 320

320 Anderson, David G. and Robert C. Jr. Mainfort . 2002. The Woodland Southeast . The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Aquarius, René, Jasper Homminga, Verdonschot Nico, and Esther Tanck. 2011. The Fracture Risk of Adjacent Vertebrae is Increased by the Changed Loading Direction a fter a Wedge Fracture. Spine 36(6):408 412. Armelagos, George J. 2003. Bioarchaeology as Anthropology. In Archaeology is Anthropology , edited by Susan D. Gillespie and D. L. Nichols , Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 13, Washington, D.C., pp. 27 41. Armelagos, George J., James H. Mielke, Kipling H. Owen, Dennis P. Van Gerven, John R. Dewey, and Paul Emil Mahler. 1972. Bone Growth and Development in Prehistoric Po pulations from Sudanese Nubia. Journal of Human Evolution 1(1):89 118. Armelagos, George J. and Dennis P. Van Gerven. 2003. A Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleopathology: Contrasts, Contradictions, and Conflicts. American Anthropologist 105(1):53 64. A rmelagos, George J., Alan H. Goodman, Kristin N. Harper, and Michael L. Blakey. 2009. Enamel Hypoplasia and Early Mortality: Bioarchaeological Support for the Barker Hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology 18(6):261 271. Assis, Sandra S. 2013. Beyond the Vis ible World: Bridging Macroscopic and Paleohistopathological Techniques in the Study of Periosteal New Bone Formation in Human Skeletal Remains . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Coimbra. Aten, Lawrence E. 1999. Middle Archaic Ceremonialism at Tick Island 1961 Excavation at the Harris Creek Site. The Florida Anthropologist 52(3):131 200. Auerbach, Benjamin M. and Christopher B. Ruff. 2010. Stature Estimation Formulae for Indigenous North American Populations. American Journal of Ph ysical Anthropology 141(2):190 207. Aufderheide, Arthur C. and Conrado Rodriguez Martin. 1998. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Baker, Brenda J., Tosha L. Dupras, Matt W. Tocheri, and Sandra M. Whee ler. 2005. The Osteology of Infants and Children . Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Balasse, Marie. 2002. Reconstructing Dietary and Environmental History from Enamel Isotopic Analysis: Time Resolution of Intra tooth Sequential Sampling. Intern ational Journal of Osteoarchaeology 12:155 165. Barrett, John C. 1994. F ragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900 1200 . Blackwell, Oxford.

PAGE 321

321 Barrett, John C. 2001. Agency, the Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archaeological Record. In Archaeological Theory Today , edited by Ian Hodder. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 141 164. Barrett, John C. 2012. Agency: A Revolutionist Account. In A rchaeological Theory Today , 2nd edition, edited by Ian Hodder. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 146 166. Barrett, John C. and Ilhong Ko. 2009. A Phenomenology of Landscape : A C risis in British Landscape Archaeology ? Journal of Social Archaeology 9(3):275 294. Bass, William M. 1997. Outdoor Decomposition Rates in Tennessee. In Forensic T aphonomy: the P ostmortem F ate of H uman R emains , edited by William D. Haglund and Marcella H. Sorg. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 181 186. Baxter, Jane E. 2005. The Archaeology of Childhood: Children, Gender, and Material Culture . AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Beard, Brian L., and Clark M. Johnson. 2000. Strontium Isotope Composition of Skeletal Material Can Determine the Birth Place and Geographic Mobility of Humans and Anima ls. Journal of Forensic Sciences 45(5):1049 1061. Behrensmeyer, Anna K. 1982. Time Resolution in Fluvial Vertebrate Assemblages . Paleobiology 8(3):211 227. Bello, Silvia and Peter Andrews. 2006. The Intrinsic Pattern of Preservation of Human Skeletons an d Its Influence on t he Interpretation of Funerary Behaviors . In Studies in Funerary Archaeology , edited by Rebecca Gowland and Christopher J. Knüsel. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 1 13. Bentley, R. Alexander. 2006. Strontium Isotopes from the Ear th to the Archa eological Skeleton: A Review. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13(3):135 187. Berseneva, Natalia. 2006. Archaeology of Children: Sub Adult Burials during the Iron Age in the Trans Urals and Western Siberia. In Archaeology of Cult and Death , edi ted by Mercourios Georgiadis and Chrysanthi Gallou. Budapest, Archaeolingua, pp. 179 192. Binford, Lewis R. 1971. Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25:6 29. Bocherens, Hervé, Anne Tresset, and Felicitas B. Bldlack. 1997. Bone Diagenetic Evolution in Two French Neolithic Sites. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 168(5):555 564. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice . Cambridge Universi ty Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 322

322 Bridges, Patricia. 1991. Degenerative Joint Disease in Hunter Gatherers and Agriculturalists in the Southeastern United States. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 85(4): 379 391. Brock, Fiona, Rachel Wood, Alex Bayliss, and Christopher Bronk Ramsey. 2012. Reliability of Nitrogen Content (%N) and Carbon: Nitrogen Atomic Rations (C:N) as Indicators of Collagen Preservation Suitable for Radiocarbon Dating. Radiocarbon 54(3 4):879 886. Bromage, Timothy G. 1984. Interpretation of Scanning Electron Microscope Images of Abraded Forming Bone Surfaces . American Journal of Physical Anthropology 64(2):161 178. Brose, David S. 1979. An Interpretation of Hopewellian Traits in Florida. In Hopewel l Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference Kent University Press, Kent, pp. 141 149. Buikstra, Jane E. and Douglas H. Ubelaker. 1994. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains . Arkansas Archaeol ogy Survey Research Series No. 44, Fayetteville. Buikstra, Jane E. and Rachel E. Scott. 2009. Key Concepts in Identity Studies. In Bioarchaeology of Identity and the Americas , edited by Kelly J. Knudson and Christopher M. Stojanowski. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 24 55. Bullen, Ripley P. 1949. The Woodward Site. Florida Anthropologist 2(3 4):49 63. Bullen, Ripley P. 1952. Eleven Archaeological Sites in Hillsborough County . Report of Investigation No 8. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahas see. Byers, Steven N. 2011. Introduction to Forensic Anthropology . Routledge, New York. Calce, Stephanie E., Helen K. Kurki, Darlene A. Weston, and Lisa Gould. 2017. Effects of Osteoarthritis on Age at Death Estimates from the Human Pelvis. American Journ al of Physical Anthropology 167(1):3 19. Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction , edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case. Springer, New York, pp. 575 6 23. Carr, Robert S. 1985. Prehistoric Circular Earthworks in South Florida. Florida Anthropologist 38:288 301. Chadwick, James. 1931. Possible Existence of a Neutron. Nature 193:312. Cobb, Charles R. and Adam King. 2005. Re Inventing Mississippian Trad ition at Etowah, Georgia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3):167 192. Cohen, Mark Nathan and George J. Armelagos. 1984. Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture . Academic Press, Orlando.

PAGE 323

323 Cohen, Mark Nathan and Gillian M.M. Crane Kramer. 2007. Ancient Health: Skeletal Indicators of Agriculture and Economic Intensification . University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Cohen, Lawrence. 1994. Old Age: Cultural and Critical Perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 23(1):137 158. Collins, Mat thew, Christina M. Nielsen Marsh, J. Hiller, Colin I. Smith, Sam Roberts, Richard V. Prigodich, Tim J. Wess, J á nos Csap ó , Andrew R. Millard, and Gordon Turner Walker. 2002. The Survival of Organic Matter in Bone: A Review. Archaeometry 44(3):383 394. Cople n, Tyler B., J.K. Bohlke, Paul J De Bi è vre, and Tiping Ding. 2002. Isotope abundance Variations of Selected Elements (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure and Applied Chemistry 74(10):1987 2017. Correia, Pamela Mayne. 1997. Fire Modification of Bone: A Review of the Literature. In Forensic T aphonomy: P ostmortem F ate of H uman R emains , edited by William D. Haglund and Marcella H. Sorg. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 275 293. Craine, Joseph M., Andrew J. Elmore, Marcos P.M. Aidar, Mercedes Bustamante, Todd E. Dawson, Erik A. Hobbie, Ansgar Kahmen, Michelle C. Mack, Kendra K. McLauchlan, Anders Michelsen, Gabriela B. Nardoto, Linda H. Pardo, Josep Pe ñ uelas, Peter B. Reich, Edward A.G. Schuur, William D. Stock, Pamela H. Templer, Ross A. Virginia, Jeffrey M. Welk er, and Ian J. Wright. 2009. Global Patterns of Foliar Nitrogen Isotopes and Their Relationships with Climate, Mycorrhizal Fungi, Foliar Nutrient Concentrations, a nd Nitrogen Availability . New Phytologist 183(4):980 992. Cresse, John L. 2012. The Domestica tion of Personhood: A View from the Northern Iroquoian Longhouse. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22(3):365 386. Crossland, Zo ë . 2009. Evidential Regimes in Forensic Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 42(1):121 137. Crowley, Brooke E. and Patri ck V. Wheatley. 2014. To B leach or N ot to B leach? Comparing Treatment Methods for Isolating Biogenic Carbonate . Chemical Geology 381(2014):234 242. Cucina, Andrea and Mehmet Yasar . 1997. Assessment of Enamel Hypoplasia in a High Status Burial Site. American Journal of Human Biology 9:213 222. Cucina, Andrea, Cristina Perera Cantillo, Thelma Sierra Sosa, and Vera Tiesler. 2011. Carious Lesions and Maize Consumption Among the Prehispanic Maya: An Analysis of a Coastal Community in Northern Yucatan. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 145(4) :560 567. Davenport, Christian, Gregory Mount, and George Boyer, Jr. 2011. The Boyer Survey: An Archaeological Investigation of Lake Okeechobee . Report prepared in fulfillment of 1A -

PAGE 324

324 32 State Research Permit Number 0607.67. Copies available from Florida Di vision of Historic Resources, Tallahassee. Deines, Peter. 1980. The Isotopic Composition of Reduced Organic Carbon . In Handbook of Environmental Isotope Geochemistry , Vol 1, edited by P. Fritz and J. Ch Fontes. Elsevier, New York, pp. 329 406. del Angel , Andres and Hector B. Cisneros. 2004. Technical Note: Modification of Regression Equations Used to Estimate Stature in Mesoamerican Skeletal Remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125(3):264 265. DeNiro, Michael J. 1985. Postmortem Preservatio n and Alteration of in vivo Bone collagen isotope ratios in relation to palaeodietary reconstruction. Nature 317:806 809. DeNiro, Michael J. and Samuel Epstein. 1978. Influence of Diet on the Distribution of Carbon Isotopes in Animals . Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 42(5):495 506. DeNiro, Michael J. and Samuel Epstein. 1981. Influence of Diet on t he Distribution o f Nitrogen Isotopes i n Animals . Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 45(3):341 351. Denys, Christiane. 2002. Taphonomy and E xperimentation. Arch aeometry 44(3):469 484. DeWitte, Sharon N. 2014. Health in post Black Death London (1350 1358): Age Patterns of Periosteal New Bone Formation in a Post Epidemic Population . American Journal of Physical Anthropology 155(2):260 267. DeWitte, Sharon N. and Christopher M. Stojanowski. 2015. The Osteological Paradox 20 Years Later: Past Perspectives, Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 23(4):397 450. Dickel, David N. 1991. Descriptive Analysis of the Skeletal Collections from the Prehistori c Manasota Key Cemetery, Sarasota, County, Florida (8SO1292) . Florida Archaeological Reports 22. Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee. Dickel, David N. 2002. Analysis of Mortuary Patterns. In Windover: Multidisciplina ry Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery , edited by Glean H. Doran. University Press of Florida Gainesville, pp. 73 92. Dijkstra, Paul, Corinne M. LaViolette, Jeffrey S. Coyle, Richard R. Douchett, Egbert Schwartz, Stephen C. Hart, and Bruce A. Hungate. 2008. 15 N Enrichment as an Integrator of the Effects of C and N on Microbial Metabolism and Ecosystem Function . Ecology Letters 11:389 397. Dobres, Marcia Anne and John E. Robb. 2000. Agency in Archaeology . Routledge, London. Doran, Glen H. 2002. Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery . University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 325

325 Doran, Glen H. and David N. Dickel. 1988. Radiometric Chronology of the Archaic Windover Archaeological Sites (8BR246). Florid a Anthropologist 41(3):365 380. Doyle, P.T. and R.J. Muir. 1979. Sulfur and Methionine Metabolism in Sheep . II. Quantitative Estimates of Sulfur Metabolism in the . Australian Journal of Biological Science 32(1):65 76. Duday, Henri. 2006. L M ort (Archaeoethnoarchaeology or the A rchaeology of D eath). In Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains , edited by Rebecca Gowland and Christopher J. Knüsel. Alden Press, Oxford, pp. 30 56. Eshed, Vered, Bruce Latimer, Charles M. Greenwald, Lyman M. Jellema, Bruce M. Rothschild, Susanne Wish Baratz, and Israel Hershokovitz. 2002. Button Osteoma: Its Etiology and Pathophysiology. American Journal of Ph ysical Science 118(3):227 230. Estes, Anna M. 1988. Non Invasive Investigation of Skeletal Stress Markers in an Archaic Population from Central Florida (9Br246) . M.A. Thesis, Florida State University. Eastoe, J.E. 1955. Amino Acid Composition of Mammalian Collagen and Gelatin . Biochemistry Journal 61(4):589 600. Fernández, Ángela Pérez, Inmaculada Alemán, Miguel C. Botella and Eugenia Cunha. 2015. Perimortem Fractures in the Osteological Collection of Aljubarrota (Portugal). Journal of Anthropological Archa eology 40:82 88. Fie, Shannon M. 2006. Visiting in the Interaction Sphere : Ceramic E xchange and I nteraction in the L ower Illinois Valley. In Recreating Hopewell: New Perspectives on Middle Woodland in Eastern North America , edited by Douglas K. Charles an d Jane E. Buikstra. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 427 445. Galloway, Alison, Walter H. Birkby, Allen M. Jones, Thomas E. Henry, and Bruce O. Parks. 1989. Decay Rates of Human Remains in An Arid Environment . Journal of Forensic Sciences 34( 3):607 616. Gejvall, N.G. 1969. Cremations. In Science in Archaeology , edited by Don Brothwell and Eric Higgs, Praeger, New York, pp . 468 479. Geller, Pamela. 2005. Skeletal Analysis and Theoretical Complications. World Archaeology 37(4):597 609. Geller, Pamela. 2008. Conceiving Sex: Fomenting a Feminist Bioarchaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 8(1):113 138. Geller, Pamela. 2012. Parting (With) the Dead: Body Portability as Evidence of Commoner Ancestor Veneration. Ancient Mesoamerica 23(1):115 130.

PAGE 326

326 Genovés, Santiago. 1967. Proportionality of the Long Bones and Their Relation to Statue Among Mesoamericans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 26(1):66 77. Giddens, Anthony. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradic tion in Social Analysis . University of California Press, Berkeley. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuralism . University of California Press, Berkeley. Gilchrist, Roberta. 2000. Archaeology and the Life Course: A Time and Place for Gender. In A Companion to Social Archaeology , edited by Lynn Meskell and Robert W. Preucel. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 142 160. Gillespie, Susan. 2000. Beyond Kinship: An Introduction. In Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies , edited by Rosemary Joyce and Susan Gillespie. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia , pp. 1 21. Gillespie, Susan. 2002. Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies . University of Pennsylvania Press, Phil adelphia. Goggin, John M. 1952. Archaeological Notes on Lower Fisheating Creek. Florida Anthropological Society 4(3 4):50 66. Goggin, John M. and William T. Sturtevant.1964. The Calusa: A Stratified Non Agricultural Society (with notes on sibling marriage) . In Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in honor of George Peter Murdock , edited by Ward Hunt Goodenough. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, pp. 179 219. Goodman, Allen H. 1993. On the Interpretation of Health from Skeletal Remains. Current Anthropology 34(3):281 288. Goodman, Allen H. and George J. Armelagos. 1989. Infant and Childhood Morbidity and Mortality Risks in Archaeological Populations . World Archaeology 21(2):225 243. Goodman, Allen H. and Deborah L. Martin. 2002. Reconst ructing Health Profiles from Skeletal Remain s. In The Back Bone of History: Health and Nutrition in the Western Hemisphere , edited by Richard H. Steckel and Jerome C. Rose. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 11 60. Gordon, Claire C. and Jane E. Bu ikstra. 1981. Soil pH, Bone Preservation, and Sampling Bias at Mortuary Sites. American Antiquity 46(3):566 571. Gosden, Christopher. 1999. Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Relationship . Routledge, New York. Gosden, Christopher. 2005. What Do Obj ects Want ? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3):193 211.

PAGE 327

327 Gowland, Rebecca and Christopher J. Knüsel. 2006. Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains . Oxford: Alden Press Gregoricka, Lesley A., Susan G. Sheridan, and Mary B. Schirtzinger. 2016. Re constructing Life Histories u sing Multi Tissue Isotope Analysis of Commingled Remains f rom St. Archaeometry 59(1):148 163. Griffin, John W. and Ripley P. Bullen. 1950. The Safety Harbor Site, Pi nellas County, Florida . Publication No. 2. Florida Anthropological Society, Gainesville. Griffin, John W. 2002. Archaeology of the Everglades . University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Grupe, Gisela, T. Douglas Price, Peter Sch ö rter, Frank S ö llner, Clark M. Johnson, and Brian L. Beard. 1997. Mobility of Bell Beaker People Revealed by Strontium Isotope Ratios of Tooth and Bone: A Study of Southern Bavarian Skeletal Remains . Applied Geochemistry 12(4):517 525. Halcrow, Sian Ellen and Nancy Tayles. 2008. The B ioarchaeological Investigation of Childhood and Social Age: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15(2):190 215. Hale, H. Stephen. 1984. Prehistoric Environmental Exploitation Around Lake Okeechobee. Southeastern Archaeology 3(2):173 187. Hale, Stephen H. 1989. Prehistoric Subsistence Strategies and Settlement Patterns in the Lake Okeechobee Basin of the South Florida Peninsula . Ph.D. D issertation, University of Florida. Hall, Robert L. 1976. Ghosts, Water Barriers, Corn, and Sacred Enclosures in the Eastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 41(3):360 364. Hall, Robert L. 1997. An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Beliefs and Ritual . University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Hamlin, Christine. 1988. Labor Division in an Early Archaic Florida Population: The Archaeological Evidence for Gender Role at the Windover Site (8BR246) . M . S . Thesis, Florida State University. Harper, Kristin N., Molly K. Zuckerman, Megan L. Har per, John D. Kings t on, and George G. Armelagos. 2011. The Origin and Antiquity of Syphilis Revisited: An Appraisal of Old World Pre Columbian Evidence for Treponemal Infection. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 54(S53):99 133. Hawkey, Diane E. and Charles F. Merbs. 1995. Activity induced M usculoskeletal S tress M arkers (MSM) and S ubsistence S trategy C hanges among A ncient Hudson Bay Eskimos. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 5(4):324 338.

PAGE 328

328 Hayden, Brian. 1997. Observations on the Prehistoric Social a nd Economic Structure of the North American Plateau. World Archaeology 29(2):242 261. Hedges, Robert E.M. 2002. Bone Diagenesis: An Overview of Processes. Archaeometry 44(3):319 328. Collagen Turnover in the Adult Femoral Mid Shaft: Modeled from Anthropogenic Radiocarbon Tracer Measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 133(2):808 816. Hens, Samantha M., Kanya Godde, and Kristin M. Macak. 2019. Iron Deficiency Anemia, Population Health and Frailty in a Modern Portuguese Skeletal Sample . PL o S ONE 7(14):1 20. Herrmann, Bernd. 1970. Anthropologische Bearbeitung der Leichenbränden von Ber lin Rudow. Ausgrabungen in Berlin 1:61 71. Hertz, Robert. 1960. Death and the Right Hand . The Free Press, Glencoe. Hillson, Simon W. 1979. Diet and Dental Disease. World Archaeology 11(2):147 162. Hillson, Simon W. 1996. Dental Anthropology . Cambridge U niversity Press, Cambridge. Hirata, Kohji. 1998. A Contribution to the Paleopathology of Cribra Orbitalia in Japanese, Cribra Orbitalia in Edo Japanese. St. Marianna Medical Journal 16(2):6 24. Hodder, Ian. 2004. Women and Men at Çatalhöyük . Scientific American 290(1):64 83. Hodder, Ian. 2012. Entangled: Archaeology of the Relationships Between Humans and Things . John Wiley & Sons, Inc, West Sussex. Hogan, Jacqueline. 1978. Palynology of Ft Center Environmental Interpretations and Cultural I mplications for a Central Florida Hopewellian Ceremonial Center . M.A. Thesis, Florida Atlantic University. Hotez, Peter J., Eric Dumonteil, Michael J. Heffernan, and Maria E. Bottazzi. 2013. Innovation ropical Disease in the Americas. In Hot Topics in Infection and Immunity in Children IX, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology , edited by Nigel Curtis, Adam Finn, and Andrew J. Pollard. Springer Sciences, Springer, pp.1 12. Hrdli ka , Ales. 1914. An thropological W ork in Peru, in 1913, with N otes on the P athology of the A ncient Peruvians with T wenty S ix P lates. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 61(18):1 69.

PAGE 329

329 Hutchinson, Dale L. 1991. Postcontact Native American Health and Adaptation: Assessing the Impact of Introduced Diseases in Sixteenth Century Gulf Coast Florida . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois. Hutchinson, Dale L. 2002. Osteological Analysis of the Aqui Esta Mound Population. In Archaeology of Upper Charlotte Harbor Florida , edited by George M. Luer. Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 15, pp. 111 181. Hutchinson, Dale L. 2004. Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Adaptation, Conflict, and Change . University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Hutchinson, Dale L. 2006. Tatham Mound and the Bioarchaeology of European Contact: Disease and Depopulation in Central Gulf Coast Florida . University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Hutchinson, Dale L. and Lorraine V. Aragon. 2002. Collective Burials and Community Memories: Inter preting the Placement of the Dead in the Southeastern and Mid Atlantic United States with Reference to Ethnographic Cases from Indonesia. In The Space and place of Death , edited by Helaine Silverman and David B. Small. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No 11. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 27 54. Hutchinson, Dale L. and Clark Spencer Larson. 1988. Determination of Stress Episode Duration from Linear Enamel Hypoplasias : A Case Study from St. Cathe rines Island, Georgia. Human Biology 60(1):93 110. Hutchinson, Dale L. and Lynette Norr. 1994. Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Diet in Gulf Coast Florida. In In the Wake of Contact: Biological Responses to Conquest , edited by Clark Spencer Larsen and George R. Milner. Wiley Liss, New York, pp. 9 20. Hutchinson, Dale L., Clark Spencer Larsen, Margaret J. Schoeninger, and Lynette Norr. 1998. Regional Variation in the Pattern of Maize Adoption and Use in Florida and Georgia. American Antiquity 63(3):397 416. , Mehmet Ya ar and Maryna Steyn. 2013. The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine . Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield. Isler, Robert and Mehmet Ya ar . 1986. Dental Pathological Comparisons of Prehistoric Inland and Coastal Florida Indi an Populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 69:217 218. Jackes, Mary. 2011. Representativeness and B ias in Archaeological Skeletal Samples . In Social Bioarchaeology , edited by Sabrina C. Agarwal and Bonnie A. Glencross. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Chichester, pp. 107 146. Johnson, Jessica S. 1994. Consolidation of Archaeological Bone: A Conservative Perspective. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(2):221 233.

PAGE 330

330 Johnson, Matthew H. 2012. Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology . Annual Review of Anthropology 41(1):269 284. Johnson, William Gray. 1990. The Role of Maize in South Florida Aboriginal Societies: An Overview. Florida Anthropologist 43(3):209 214. Johnston, Kevin A. 2009. Methodological Developments in the use of St able Isotope Analysis for Reconstructing Paleodiets . M.A. Thesis, Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Jorkov, Marie Louise, Jan Heinemeier, Niels Lynnerup. 2007. Evaluating Bone Collagen Extraction Methods for Stable Isotope Analysis in Dietary Stud ies . Journal of Archaeological Science 34(11):1824 1829. Joyce, Rosemary. 2005. Archaeology of the Body. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:139 158. Joyce, Rosemary. 2015. History and Materiality. In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences , edited by Robert Scott and Stephan Kosslyn. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, pp. 1 16. Judd, Margaret A. 2008. The Parry Problem. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(6):1658 1666. Kaestle, Frederika A. and Ann K. Horsburgh. 2002. Ancient DNA in An thropology: Methods, Applications, and Ethics. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 45:92 130. Kakaliouras, Ann M. 2008. Leaving Few Bones Unturned: Recent Work on Repatriation by Osteologists. American Anthropologist 110(1):44 52. Kamenov, George D., Paula A. Mueller, Michael R. Perfit. 2004. Optimization of Mixed Tb Tl Solutions for High Precision Isotopic Analyses by MC ICP MS. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 19(9):1262 1267. Kamenov, George D. and Brian Gulson. 2014. The Pb Isotopic Record of H istorical to Modern Human Lead Exposure . Science of the Total Environment 490(2014):861 870. Katzenberg, M. Anne. 1992. Advances in Stable Isotope Analysis of Prehistoric Bones. In Skeletal Biology of Past Peoples: Advances in Research Methods , edited by S helley R. Saunders and Anne M. Katzenberg. Wiley Liss, New York, pp. 105 119. Katzenberg, M. Anne. 2007. Stable Isotope Analysis: A Tool for Studying Past Diet, Demography, and Life History. In Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton , edited by M. A nne Katzenberg and Shelley R. Saunders. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 411 441. Katzenberg, M. Anne and Shelley R. Saunders. 2008. Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton . John Wiley & Sons, New York.

PAGE 331

331 Katzenberg, M. Anne and Nancy C. Lovell . 1999. Stable Isotope Variation in Pathological Bone. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 9(5):316 324. Kamp, Kathryn A. 2002. Working for a Living : Childhood in the Prehistoric Southwestern Pueblos. In Children in the prehistoric Puebloan southwest , edite d by Kathryn A. Kamp. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 71 89. Kelly, Jennifer A., Robert H. Tykot, and Jerald T. Milanich. 2006. Evidence for Early Use of Maize in Peninsular Florida. In Histories of Maize: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography, Domestication and Evolution of Maize , edited by John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, and Bruce F. Benz. Academic Press, Waltham, pp. 249 262. Kidwell, Clara Sue and Charles Roberts. 1980. The Choctaws . University of Indiana Press, Bloomington. Kinaston, Rebecca L., Georgia L. Roberts, Hall i e R. Buckley, and Marc Oxenham. 2016. A Bioarchaeological Analysis of Oral and Physiological Health on the South Coast of New Guinea. American Journal of Physical A nthropology 160(3):414 426. King, Charlotte L., Nancy Tayles, and Keith C. Gordon. 2011. Re examining the Chemical Evaluation of Diagenesis in Human Bone Apatite . Journal of Archaeological Science 38(9):2222 2230. Klaus, Haagen D. 2014. Frontiers in the Bi oarchaeology of Stress and Disease: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives from Pathophysiology, Human Biology, and Epidemiology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 155(2):294 308. Klingle, David. 2006. Burial in Florida: Culture, Ritual, Health, and Stat us: The Archaic to Seminole Periods . M.A. Thesis, Florida State University. Knappett, Carl. 2012. Materiality. In Archaeological Theory Today , second ed., edited by Ian Hodder. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 188 207. Knudson, Kelly J. 2009. Oxygen Isotope Analysis in a Land of Environmental Extremes: The Complexities of Isotopic Work in the Andes. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 19(2):171 191. Knudson, Kelly J. and T. Douglas Price. 2007. Utility of Multiple Chemical Techniques in Archaeological Residential Mobility Studies: Case Studies from Tiwanaku and Chiribaya affiliated Sites in the Andes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132(1):25 39. Knudson, Kelly J. and Christopher M. Stojanowski. 2008. New Directions in Bioarchaeology: Recent Contributions to the Study of Human Social Identities. Journal of Archaeological Research 16(4):397 432.

PAGE 332

332 Komar, Debra A. 1998. Decay Rates in a Cold Climate Region : A Review of Cases Involving Advanced Decomposition from the in Ed monton, Alberta. Journal of Forensic Sciences 43(1):57 61. Krieger, Nancy. 2005. Embodiment: a Conceptual Glossary f or Epidemiology . Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59(5):350 355. Krigbaum, John, Scott M. Fitzpatrick, and Jamie Bankaitis. 201 3. Human Paleodiet at Grand Bay, Carriacou, Lesser Antilles. The Journal of Island of Coastal Archaeology 8(2):210 227. Krueger, Harold W. 1991. Exchange of Carbon with Biological Apati te. Journal of Archaeological Science 18(3):355 361. Krueger, Harold W. and Charles H. Sullivan. 1984. Models for Carbon Isotope Fraction Between Diet and Bone . In Stable Isotopes in Nutrition , edited by Judith R. Turnlund and Phyllis E. Jo h nson. American Chemical Society, Washington, pp. 205 222. Lambert, Patricia M. 2000 . Bioarchaeological Studies of Life in the Age of Agriculture: A View from the Southeast . The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Larsen, Spencer Clark. 2002. Bioarchaeology: The Lives and Lifestyles of Past People. Journal of Archaeological Research 10(2):119 166. Larsen, Spencer Clark. 2015. Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the Human Skeleton . 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Larsen, Clark Spencer and Phillip L. Walker. 2005. The Ethics of Bioarchaeology. In Biological Anthropology and Ethics: From Repatriation to Genetic Identity , edited by Trudy R. Turner. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 111 119. Larsen, Clark Spencer, Dale L. Hutchinson, Margaret J. Schoeninger, and Lynette Norr. 2001. Food and Stable Isotopes in La Florida: Diet and Nutrition Before and After Contact. In Bioarchaeology of Spanish Florida: The Impact of Colonialism , edited by Clark Spencer La rsen. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, pp. 52 81. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor Network Theory . Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lawres, Nathan R. 2019. Engaging the Monumental Through the Ontological: Th e Belle Glade Monumental Landscape of South Florida . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida. Lee Thorp, Julia A. 2008. On Isotopes and Old Bones. Archaeometry 50(6):925 95. Lewis, Mary E. 2007. The Bioarchaeology of Children: Perspectives from Biologic al and Forensic A nthropology . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 333

333 Lieverse, Angela R., Brianna Mack, Vladimir I. Bazaliiskii, and Andrzej W. Weber. 2016. Revisiting Osteoarthritis in the Cis Baikal: Understanding Behavioral Variability and Adaptation A mong Middle Holocene Foragers. Quaternary International 405(Part B):160 171. Lightfoot, Kent, Antoinette Martinez, and Ann M. Schiff. 1998. Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological Study of Culture Change and P ersistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity 63(2):199 222. Lightfoot, Emma, Mario laus, and Ta ms Age, Roman, and Early Medieval Croatia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 154(4):535 54 3. Lightfoot, Emma and Ta ms Identify Human Migrants in the Archaeological Record: Intra Sample Variation, Statistical Methods and Geographical Considerations. PL o S ONE 11(4):e0153850. Lobbezoo, Frank, Mark Drangsholt, Christopher Peck, Hironobu Sato, Sigvard Kopp, and Peter Svensson. 2004. Topical review: New Insights into the Pathology and Diagnosis of Disorders of the Temporomandibular Joint. Journal of Orofacial Pain 18(3):181 191. Lovell, Na ncy C., D. E. Nelson, and Henry P. Schwarcz. 1986. Carbon Isotope Ratios in Paleodiet : Lack of Age or Sex Effect . Archaeometry 28(1):51 55. Lucero, Lisa J. 2003. The Politics of Ritual: The Emergence of Classic Maya Rulers. Current Anthropology 44(4):523 5 58. Lukacs, John R. 2008. Fertility and Agriculture Accentuate Sex Differences in Dental Caries Rate s. Current Anthropology 49(5):901 914. Luer, George M. 2014. New Insights on the Woodland and Mississippi Periods of West Peninsular Florida. In New Histories of Precolumbian Florida , edited by Neill J. Wallis and Asa R. Randall. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 74 93. Mainfort, Robert C. Jr. 1988. Middle Woodland Ceremonialism at Pinson Mounds, Tennessee. American Antiquity 53(1):158 173 . Mainfort, Robert C. Jr. 1989. Adena Chiefdoms? Evidence from the Wright Mound . Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 14(2):164 178. Mainfort, Robert C. Jr and Lynne P. Sullivan. 1998. Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands . Florida Museum o f Natural History, Ripley P. Bullen Series, Gainesville. Magoon, Dane, Lynette Norr, and Dale L. Hutchinson. 2001. An Analysis of Human Skeletal Materials from the Snow Beach Site (8WA52). Southeastern Archaeology 20(1):18 30.

PAGE 334

334 Mann, Robert W. and David R. Hunt. 2005. Photographic Regional Atlas of Bone Disease . Charles C. Thomas, Springfield. Maples, William R. 1987. Analysis of Skeletal Remains Recovered at the Gauthier Site, Brevard County, Florida . Miscellaneous Project 31, Florida State Museum, Depa rtment of Anthropology, Gainesville. Marlowe, Greg. 1980. W . F . Libby and the Archaeologists, 1946 1948. Radiocarbon 22(3):1005 1014. Marquardt, William R 198 6 . Development of Cultural Complexity in Southwest Florida: Elements of a Critique. Southeastern Archaeology 5(1):63 70. Marquardt, William R. 2010. Mounds, Middens and Rapid Climate Change During the Archaic Woodland Transition in the Southeastern United States. In Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to the Southeastern Archaic? , edited by David H. Thomas and Matthew C. Sanger. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, pp. 253 271. Marques, Carina, Victor Matos, and Nicholas J. Meinzer. 2018. Proliferative Periosteal Reactions: Assessment of Trends in Eur ope Over the Past Two Millennia. In The Backbone of Europe: Health, Diet, Work and Violence o ver Two Millennia . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 137 174. Mayne, Pamela Correia. 1990. The Identification of Precremation Trauma in Cremated Remains . M.A. Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton. Mays, Simon. 2010. The Archaeology of Human Bones . Routledge, London. Mays, Simon 2016. Bone Formers and Bone Losers in an Archaeological Population. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 159(4):577 584. Mays, Simon, Rebecca Gowland, Si â n Halcrow and Eileen Murphy. 2017. Child Bioarchaeology: Perspectives on the Past Ye ars. Childhood in the Past 10(1):38 56. McArthur, James M., and Richard J. Howarth. 2004. Strontium Isotope Stratigraphy . In A Geologic Time Scale , edited by Felix M. Gradstein, James G. Ogg, and Alan G. Smith. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 96 105. McGoun, William. 1993. Prehistoric Peoples of South Florida . The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. McKinney, C.R., J, M. McCrea, Sa muel Epstein, H.A. Allen, and Harold C. Urey. 1950. Improvements in Mass Spectrometers for the Measurement of Small Differences in Isotope Abundance Ratios. Review of Scientific Instruments 21(8):724 730.

PAGE 335

335 Milanich, Jerald T. 1972. Excavations at the Yello w Bluffs Whitaker Mound, Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 25(2):21 41. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994. Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida . University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerald T. 2002. Weeden Island Cultures. In The Woodland Southeast , edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 373 397. Milanich, Jerald T., Ann Cordell, and Vernon J. Knight. 1997. Archaeology of Northern Florida, AD 200 900: The McKeithen Weeden Is land Culture . University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Miller Shaivitz, Patricia. 1986. Physical and Health Characteristics of the Indians from the Fort Center Site . M.A. Thesis, Florida Atlantic University. Miller Shaivitz, Patricia and Mehmet Yasar can .1991. The Prehistoric People of Fort Center: Physical and Health Characteristics. In What Mean These Bones? Studies in Southeastern Bioarchaeology , edited by Mary Lucas Powell, Patricia S. Bridges, and Ann Marie Wagner Mires. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 131 147. Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1985. Excavation of the Briarwoods Site (8PA66), Pasco County, Florida. Florida Scientist 48(3):161 165. Mitchem, Jeffrey M. and Dale L. Hutchinson. 1986. Interim Report on Excavations at the Tatham Mou nd, Citrus County, Florida: Season II . Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 28. Florida State Museum, Department of Anthropology, Gainesville. Molleson, Theya. 1990. The Accumulation of Trace Metals in Bone During Fossilization . In Trace Metals and Flu oride in Bone and Teeth , edited by Nicholas D. Priest and Frank L. Van der Vyver. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 341 365. Montgomery, Janet. 2010. Passports from the Past : Investigating Human Dispersals Using Strontium Isotope Analysis of Tooth Enamel . Annals of Human Biology 37(3):325 346. Morris, Hannah Ruth. 2012. Paleoethnobotanical Investigations at Fort Center (8GL13), Florida . M.A. Thesis, Ohio State University. Murray, Matthew L. and Margaret J. Schoeninger. 1988. Diet, Status, and Complex Social Str ucture in Iron Age Central Europe: Some Contributions of Bone Chemistry. In Tribe and Polity in Late Prehistoric Europe: Demography, Production and Exchange in the Evolution of Complex Social Systems , edited by D. Blair Gibson and Michael N. Geselowitz. Pl enum, New York, pp. 155 176.

PAGE 336

336 Needoba, Joseph A. Dorothea Waser, Paul J. Harrision, and Stephen Calvert. 2003. Nitrogen Isotope Fractionation in 12 Species of Marine Phytoplankton During Growth on Nitrate. Marine Ecology Progress Series 255:81 91. Nehlic h, Olaf, Vicky M. Oelze, Mandy Jay, Matthias Conrad, Harald St ä uble, Wolf R ü diger Teegen, and Michael P. Richards. 2014. Sulphur Isotope Ratios of Multi Period Archaeological Skeletal Remains from Central Germany: A Dietary and Mobility Study. Anthropologi e 52(1):15 33. Norr, Lynette. 2003. Appendix E: Stable Isotope Analysis and Dietary Inference. In Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Adaptation, Conflict, and Change , edited by Dale L. Hutchinson. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 169 1 84. Northam, Janice K. 2013. Red Ochre: An Archaeological Artifact . M.A. Thesis, Ball State University. Obertova, Zuzana and Milan Thurzo. 2008. Relationship Between Cribra Orbitalia and Enamel Hypoplasia in the Early Medieval Slavic Population at Borovc e, Slovakia. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 18(3):280 292. Olsen, Bjorner. 2003. Material Culture after Text: Re Membering Things. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(2):87 104. Ortner, Donald J. 1984. Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26(1):126 166. Ortner, Donald J. 2003. Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains . Academic Press, San Diego. Parker P earson, Mike. 1993. The Powerful Dead: Archaeological Relationships between the Living and the Dead . Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3(2):203 229. Parker Pearson, Mike. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial . Sutton Publishing, Phoenix Mill. Pauketat, Timothy. 2000. The Tragedy of the Commoners. In Agency in Archaeology , edited by Marcia Ann Dobres and John E. Robb. Routledge, London, pp. 113 129. Pearson, Osbjorn M. and Jane E. Buikstra. 2006. Behavior and the Bones. In Bioarchaeology: The Contextua l Analysis of Human Remains , edited by Jane E. Buikstra and Lane A. Beck. Left Coast Press Inc, Walnut Creek, pp. 389 417. Perry, Megan A. 2007. Is Bioarchaeology a Handmaiden to History ? Developing a Historical Bioarchaeolog y. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26(3):486 515.

PAGE 337

337 Perry, Elizabeth M. and Rosemary A. Joyce. 2001. Providing a Past for Bodies that Matter: Impact on the Archaeology of Gender . International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies 6(1 2):63 76. Pestle, William J., Brooke E. Crowley, and Matthew T. Weirauch. 2014. Quantifying Inter Laboratory Variability in Stable Isotope Analysis of Ancient Skeletal Remains. PLOS ONE 9(7):1 19. Peterson, Bruce J. and Brian Fry. 1987. Stable Isotopes in Ecosyste m Studies. Annual Review Ecology System 18:293 320. Peterson, Bruce J., Robert W. Howarth, and Robert H. Garritt. 1985. Multiple Stable Isotopes u sed to Trace the Flow of Organic Matter in Estuarine Food Webs. Science 227(4692):1361 1363. Pinhasi, Ron, Dan iel Fernandes, Kendra Sirak, Mario Novak, Sarah Connell, Song ü l Alpaslan Roodenberg, Fokke Gerritsen, Vyacheslav Moiseyev, Andrey Gormov, P á l Paczky, Alexandra Anders, Michael Pietrusewsky, Gary Rollefson, and Michael Hofreiter. 2015. Optimal Ancient DNA Y ields from the Inner Ear Part of the Human Petrous Bone. PLOS ONE 10(6):e0129102. Pinto, Deborrah C. 2004. Re visiting Briarwoods: Determining Reliability of Assessing Population Health from Fragmentary Remains . M.A. Thesis, Florida Atlantic University. P luckhahn, Thomas J. and Ann S. Cordell. 2011. Paste Characterization of Weeden Island Pottery from Kolomoki and Its Implications for Specialized Production. Southeastern Archaeology 30(2):288 310. Pluckhahn, Thomas J. and Victor D. Thompson. 2013. Constitu ting Similarity and Difference in the Deep South: The Ritual and Domestic Landscapes of Kolomoki, Crystal River, and Fort Center. In Early and Middle Woodland Landscapes of the Southeast , edited by Alice P. Wright and Edward R. Henry. University Press of F lorida, Gainesville, pp. 181 195. Pluckhahn, Thomas J., Neill J. Wallis, and Victor D. Thompson. 2020. The History and Future of Migrationist Explanations in the Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands with a Synthetic Model of Woodland Period Migrations on t he Gulf Coast. Journal of Archaeological Research. DOI: 10.1007/s10814 019 09140 x . Traumatic Injury in Burned Cranial Bone : An Experimental Approach . Journal of Forensic Science 49(3):431 440. Porter, Rita K. 1951. An Analysis of Belle Glade Rim Sherds from Two Fisheating Creek Sites . Florida Anthropologist 4:67 75. Post, David M. 2002. Using Stable Isotopes to Estimate Trophic Position: Models, Methods, and Assumptions. Ecology 83(3):703 718.

PAGE 338

338 Powell, Mary Lucas, Patricia S. Bridges, and Ann Marie Wagner Mires.1991. What Mean These Bones? Studies in Southeastern Bioarchaeology . The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Price, T. Douglas, James H. Burton, and R. Alexander Ben tley. 2002. The Characterization of Biologically Available Strontium Isotope Ratios for the Study of Prehistoric Migration. Archaeometry 44(1):117 135. Price, T. Douglas. 2015. An Introduction to the Isotopic Studies of Ancient Human Remains. Journal of the North Atlantic 7(sp7):71 87. Price, T. Douglas, James H. Burton and R. Alexander Bentley. 2002. The Characterization of Biologically Available Strontium Isotope Ratios for the Study of Prehistoric Migration. Archaeometry 44(1):117 135. Purdy, Barbara A . 1991. . CRC Press, Boca Raton. Quinn, Rhonda L., Bryan D. Tucker, and John Krigbaum. 2008. Diet and Mobility in Middle Archaic Florida: Stable Isotope and Faunal Evidence from the Harris Creek Archaeological Site (8Vo24), Tick Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(8):2346 2356. Rakita, Gordon F. M. 2009. Ancestors and Elites: Emergent Complexities and Ritual Practices in the Casas Grandes Polity . AltaMira, Lanham. Randall, Asa R. and Brian D. Tucker. 2012. A Mount Taylor Period Radiocarbon Assay from the Bluffton Burial Mound (8VO23). Florida Anthropologist 65(4):219 225. Randazzo, Anthony F. and Douglas S. Jones. 1997. The Geology of Florida . University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Rando, Carolyn a nd Tony Waldron. 2012. TMJ Osteoarthritis: A New Approach to Diagnosis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 148(1):45 53. Rappaport, R oy A. 1979. The Obvious Aspects of Ritual. In Ecology, Meaning, and Religion , edited by R oy A . Rappaport. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, pp. 173 221. Reitsema, Laurie J. 2013. Beyond Diet Reconstruction: Stable Isotope Applications to Human Physiology, Health, and Nutrition. American Journal of Human Biology 25(4):445 456. Robb, John E. 2010. Be yond Agency. World Archaeology 42(4):493 520. Robb, John E., Sarah A. Inskip, Craig Cessford, Jenna Dittmar, Toomas Kivislid, Piers D. Scheib. 2019. Osteobiography: The History of the Body as Real Bottom Line History. Bioarchaeology International 3(1):16 31.

PAGE 339

339 Robbins, Laura E. 1994. An Analysis of Weeden Island Period Ceramic Variability at the Sowell Site (8BY3) in Northwest Florida . M.S. Thesis, Florida State Universit y. Rogers, Steve. 1974 . Vertebrate Remains Excavated f rom the Fort Center Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Unpublished student report. FLMNH documents in ACC#82 22. Ruff, Christopher. 2002. Variation in Human Body Size and Shape. Annual Review of Anthropology 31(2992):211 232. Russo, Michael. 1994 a Should: The Case from Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 13 (2):93 109. Russo, Michael. 1994 b . Southeastern Archaic Mounds. In Archaeology of the Mid Holocene Southeast , edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson. University Press of Florida, Gainesville , pp. 259 287 . Russo, Michael. 2004. Measuring Shell Rings for Social Inequality. In Signs of Power: The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast , edited by John L. Gibson and Philip J. Carr. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 26 70. Russo, Michael. 2010. Shell Rings and Other Settlement Features as Indicators of Cultural Continuity between the Late Archaic and Woodland Periods of Coastal Florida. In Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened t o t he Southeastern Archaic? , edited by D avid Hurst Thomas and Matthew C. Sanger. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, pp. 149 172. Salvedei, Loratana, Francesca Ricci, and Giorgio Manzi. 2001. Porotic Hyperostosis as a Marker of Health and Nutritional Con ditions During Childhood: Studies at the Transition Between Imperial Rome and the Early Middle Ages. American Journal of Human Biology 13(6):709 717. Saul, Frank P. and Julie M. Saul. 1989. Osteobiography: A Maya Example . In Reconstruction of Life from th e Skeleton , edited by Mehmet Ya ar and Kenneth A.R. Kennedy. Wiley Liss, New York, pp. 287 302. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1998. Crafting Cultural Identity in Hunter Gatherer Economies. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 8(1 ):93 107 Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2004. Complex Hunter Gatherers in Evolution and History: A North American Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 12(3):227 280. Sassaman, Kenneth E. and Asa R. Randall. 2012. Shell Mounds of the Middle St. Johns Basi n, Northeast Florida. In Early New World Monumentality , edited by Richard L. Burger and Robert M. Rosen s wig. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 53 72. Saunders, Lorraine. 1972. Osteology of the Republic Groves Site . M.A. Thesis, Florida Atlanti c University.

PAGE 340

340 Scarry, C. Margaret and Lee A. Newsom. 1992. Archaeobotanical Research in the Calusa Heartland. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa , edited by William H. Marquart and Claudine Payne . Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvir onmental Studies. University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 375 401. Schachner, Gregson. 2001. Ritual Control and Transformation in Middle Range Societies: An Example from the American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:625 639. Schaefer, Maureen, Sue Black, and Louise Scheuer. 2009. Juvenile Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual . Elsevier Inc, New York. Schoeninger, Margaret J. and Michael J. DeNiro.1984. Nitrogen and Carbon Isotopic Composition of Bone Collagen from Marine and Terres trial Animals . Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 48(4):625 239. Schoeninger, Margaret J., Michael J. DeNiro, and Henrik Tauber. 1983. Stable Nitrogen Isotope Ratios of Bone Collagen Reflect Marine and Terrestrial Components of Prehistoric Diet. Science 220(4 604):1381 1383. Schultz, John. 2007. Variables Affecting the Gross Decomposition of Buried Bodies in Florida: Controlled Graves Using Pig ( Sus sc rofa ) Cadavers as a Proxy for Human Bodies. Anthropological Sciences 70(2):157 165. Schultz, John J., Patrisha L. Meyers, and J. Marla Toyne. 2018. Life in the Caribbean: An Overview of Skeletal Pathology from the Red House Archaeological Site, Port of Spain, Trinidad. In An Archaeological Study of the Red House, Port of Spain, Trinidad a nd Tobago , edited by Basil Reid. The University of the West Indies Press, Jamaica , pp . 82 1 00 . Schwarcz, Henry P. and Margaret J. Schoeninger. 1991. Stable Isotope Analysis in Human Nutritional Ecology. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 34(S13):283 321. S ealy, Judith and Nicholas van der Merwe. 1985. Isotope assessment of Holocene Human Diets in the Southwestern Cape, South Africa. Nature 315(6015):138 140. Sealy, Judith, Richard Armstrong and Carmel Schrire. 1995. Beyond Lifetime Averages : Tracing Life H istories Through Isotopic Analysis of Different Calcified Tissues from Archaeological Human Skeletons . Antiquity 69(263):290 300. Sears, William H. 1956. Kolomoki, Final Report . Series in Anthropology , No. 5. University of Georgia Press, Athens . Sears, Wi lliam H. 1959. Two Weeden Island Burial Mounds, Florida . Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences, No. 5. Florida State Museum, Gainesville.

PAGE 341

341 Sears, William H. 1960. The Bayshore Homes Site, St. Petersburg, Florida . Contributions of the F lorida State Museum, Social Sciences, No. 6. Florida State Museum, Gainesville. Sears, William H. 1964. Excavation Report of 1963 F ield S eason. FLMNH document in ACC#82 22. Sears, William H. 1976. Preliminary Report on Prehistoric Corn Pollen from Fort Center, Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 19:53 56. Sears, William H. 1982. Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin . Universit y Press of Florida, Gainesville. Seinfeld, Daniel M. 2019. Mounds, Watery Places, and Death in South Florida: The Fort Center Mound Pond Complex. In Realms , edited by Ryan Wheeler and Joanna Ostapkowicz. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 24 46. Seinfeld, Daniel M. and S. Margaret Spivey. 2016. Monumentality, Art, the Natural Environment, and Cosmology at the Fort Center Mound Pond Complex. Paper presented f Dwelling and Donna Ruhl, and Margo Schwadron, for the 73 rd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Athens , Georgia . Scheuer, Louise and Sue Black. 2000. Developmental Juvenile Osteology . Academic Press, San Diego. Schlanger, Sarah H. 1992. Recognizing Persistent Places in Anasazi Settlement Systems . In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes , edited by Jaqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider. S pringer, New York, pp. 91 112. Sharp, Zachary. 2017. Principles of Stable Isotope Geochemistry . 2nd ed. Pearson, London. Sharpe, Ashley E., George D. Kamenov, Adrian Gilli, David A. Hodell, Kitty F. Emery, Mark Brenner, and John Krigbaum. 2016. Lead (Pb) Isotope Baselines for Studies of Ancient Human Migration and Trade in the Maya Region. PLoS ONE 11(11):e0164871. Shepherd, Deborah J. 1999. Funerary Symbolism: An Interdisciplinary Interpretation of Burial Practices in Late Iron Age Finland . BAR Internati onal Series, Number 808, Oxford, UK. Shipman, Pat, Giraud Foster, and Margaret Schoeninger. 1984. Burnt Bones and Teeth: An Experimental Study of Color, Morphology, Crystal Structure and Shrinkage. Journal of Archaeological Science 2(4):307 325. Silk, Hu gh, Alan B. Douglas, Joanna M. Douglas, and Laura Silk. 2008. Oral Health During Pregnancy. American Family Physician 77(8):1139 1144.

PAGE 342

342 Simpson, Scott W. 2001. Patterns of Growth Disruption in La Florida: Evidence from Enamel Microstructure. In Bioarchaeol ogy of Florida , edited by Clark Spencer Larsen. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 146 180. Smith, Rachel Kathleen. 2003. The Analysis of Skeletal Fractures from Windover (8Br246) and Their Inference Regarding Lifestyle . M.S. Thesis, Florida St ate University. Sofaer, Joanna. 2002. Engendering Context. Context as Gendered Practice in the Early Bronze Age of the Upper Thames Valley, UK. European Journal of Archaeology 5(2):191 211. Sofaer, Joanna. 2006. Gender, Bioarchaeology and Human Ontogeny. In The Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains , edited by Rebecca Gowland and Christopher J. Knüsel. Alden Press, Oxford, pp. 156 167. Spivey Faulkner, S. Margaret. 2018. Assemblage . Ph.D. dissertation, Washington University in St. Louis. Spivey Reanalysis. In , edited by Ryan W heeler and Joanna Ostapkowicz. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, pp. 130 151. Sprague, Roderick. 2005. Burial Terminology A Guide for Researchers . Alta M ira Press, Lanham. Stirling, Matthew W. 1935. Smithsonian Archaeological Projects Conducted Und er the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 1933 1934. In Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institute for 1934, pp. 371 400. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. Stodder, Ann L. and Ann M. Palkovich. 2012. The Bioarchaeology of Individuals . Universi ty Press of Florida, Gainesville. Stojanowski, Christopher M. 2013. Ethnogenetic Theory and New Directions in Biodistance Research. In The Dead Tell Tales: Essays in Honor of Jane E. Buikstra , edited by Mar í a nstitute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles, pp. 71 82. Stojanowski, Christopher M. 1977. Descriptive Analysis of the Prehistoric Bird Island (8DI52) Skeletal Population . M.S. Thesis, Florida State University. Stojanowski, Christopher M. and Glen H. Doran. 1998. Osteology of the Late Archaic Bird Island Site (8D152), Dixie County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 51(3):138 146. Stojanowski, Christopher M. and Michael A. Schillaci. 2006. Phenotypic Approaches for Understanding Patterns of Intracemetery Bi ological Variation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 131(S43):49 88.

PAGE 343

343 Stone, Tammy. 2016. Organizational Variability in Early Aggregated Communities in Middle Range Societies: an Example from the Kayenta Region of the American Southwest. American A ntiquity 81(1):58 73. Sullivan, Charles H. and Harold W. Krueger. 1981. Carbon Isotope Analysis of Separate Chemical Phases in Modern and Fossil Bone. Nature 292(5821):333 335. Swanton, John R. 1946. The Indians of the Southeastern United States . Smithson ian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137, Washington D.C. Symes, Steven A., Christopher W. Rainwater, Erin N. Chapman, Desina Rachel Gipson, and Andrea L. Piper. 2008. Patterned Thermal Destruction of Human Remains in a Forensic Setting. In The Analysis of Burned Human Remains , edited by Christopher W. Schmidt and Steven A. Symes. Elsevier, London, pp. 15 54. Tanner, Susan and TAPS Bolivia Study Team. 2014. Health and Disease: Exploring the Relation Between Parasitic Infections, Child Nut rition Status, and Markets. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 155(2):221 228. Thomas, Julian. 2001. Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In Archaeological Theory Today , edited by Ian Hodder. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 165 186. Thinking Through the Body , edited by Yannis Hamilakis, Mark Pluciennik, and Sarah Tarlow. Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 29 45. d Thompson, J.J., F.W. Aston, F. Soddy, T.R. Merton, an d F.A. Lindeman. 1921. Discussion on Isotopes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 99:87 104. Thompson, Victor D. and Thomas J. Pluckhahn. 2012. Monumentalization and Ritual Landscapes at Fort Center in the Lake Okeechobee Basin of South Florida. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31(1):49 65. Thompson, Victor D. and Thomas J. Pluckhahn. 2013. Constituting Similarity and Difference in the Deep South: The Ritual and Domestic Landscapes of Kolomoki, Crystal River, and Fort Center. In Early and Middle Woodland Landscapes of the Southeast , edited by Alice P. Wright and Edward R. Henry. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 181 195. Thompson, Victor D. and Thomas J. Pluckhahn. 2014. The Modification and Manipulation of Landscape at Fort Center. In Precolumbian Archaeology in Florida: New Approaches to the Append icular Southeast , edited by Neill J. Wallis and Asa R. Randall. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 163 182. Thompson, Victor D. and John E. Worth. 2011. Dwellers by the Sea: Native American Adaptations along the Southern Coasts of Eastern Nort h America. Journal of Archaeological Research 19(1):51 101.

PAGE 344

344 Thompson, Victor D., Kristen J. Gremillion, and Thomas J. Pluckhahn. 2013. Challenging the Evidence for Prehistoric Wetland Maize Agriculture at Fort Center, Florida. American Antiquity 78(1):181 193. Thompson, Victor D., Thomas J. Pluckhahn, Oindrilla Das, C. Fred T. Andrus. 2015. Assessing Village Life and Monument Construction (ca. A . D . 65 1070) along the central Gulf Coast in Florida Through Stable Isotope Geochemistry. Journal of Archaeologic al Science : Report 4:111 123. Tilley, Christopher. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments . Berg Publishers, Oxford. Trigger, Bruce. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Triola, Mario F. 2006. Elementary Statistics . 10th ed. Pearson Education, Boson. Tuggle, Alexandra and James T. Watson. 2019. Periodontal Health and the Lifecourse Approach in Bioarchaeology. Dental Anthropology 3 2(2):12 21. Turner, Bethany L. and Valerie A. Andrushko. 2011. Partnerships, Pitfalls, and Ethical Concerns in International Bioarchaeology. In Social Bioarchaeology , edited by Sabrina C. Agarwal and Bonnie A. Glencross. Blackwell Publishing, Chichester, p p. 44 67. Turner, Bethany L. and George J. Armelagos. 2012. Diet, Residential Origin, and Pathology at Machu Picchu, Peru. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 149(1):71 89. Turner, Bethany L. John D. Kingston, and Jerald T. Milanich. 2005. Isotopic E vidence of Immigration Linked to Status During the Weeden Island and Suwannee Valley Periods in North Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 24(2):121 136. Turner II, Christy G., Christian R. Nichol, and Richard G. Scott. 1991. Scoring Procedures for Key Morph ological Traits of the Permanent Dentition : the Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System. In Advances in Dental Anthropology , edited by Marc A. Kelley and Clark Spencer Larsen. Wiley Liss, New York, pp. 13 31. Tuross, Noreen, Marilyn L. Fogel, Lee Newsom, and Glen H. Doran. 1994. Subsistence in the Florida Archaic: The Stable Isotope and Archaeobotanical Evidence from the Windover Site. American Antiquity 59(2):288 303. Tykot, Robert. 2004. Stable Isotopes and Diet : You Are What You Eat . In Proc eedings of the , edited by M. Martini, M. Milazzo, and M. Piacentini. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 433 444. Tykot, Robert, Jennifer A. Kelly and Jerald T. Milanich. 2005. Stable Isotope Analysis and Subsistence Adaptations along the Gulf Coast of Florida from the Archaic through Safety Harbor Periods. Geoarchaeological and Bioarchaeological Studies 3:517 520.

PAGE 345

345 Ubelaker, Douglas. 2009. The Forensic Evaluation of Burned Skeletal Remains: A Synthesis . Fo rensic Science International 181(1 3):1 5. Ubelaker, Douglas. 1978. Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation . Aldine, Chicago. Ubelaker, Douglas. 1989. Human Skeletal Remains: Preservation or Reburial ? American Journal of Physical Ant hropology 32(S10):249 287. Urey, Harold C., Samuel Epstein, and C.R. McKinney. 1951. Measurement of Paleotemperatures and Temperatures of the Upper Cretaceous of England, Denmark, and the Southern United States. Geological Society of American Bulletin 62: 399 416. Valentine, Benjamin, George D. Kamenov, and John Krigbaum. 2008. Reconstructing Neolithic Groups in Sarawak, Malaysia through Lead and Strontium Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(6):1463 1473. van der Heiden, Sheryl R. 2008. Differe ntiating Decomposition Rates Within the Ridge Slough Microtopography of the Central Florida Everglades . M.S. Thesis, Florida Atlantic University. van der Merwe, Nikolaas J. and J . C. Vogel.1978. 13 C Content of Human Collagen as a Measure of Prehistoric Di et in Woodland North America. Nature 276(5690):815 816. Van Gerven, Dennis, James R. Hummit, and David B. Burr. 1986. Cortical Bone Maintenance and Geometry of the Tibia in Prehistoric Children American Journal of Physical Anthr opology 66(3):275 280. Villotte, S é bastien and Christopher J. Kn ü sel. 2013. Understanding Entheseal Changes: Definition and Life Course Changes. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 23:135 146. Vogel, John C. and Nikolaas J. van der Merwe. 1977. Isotopic Evidence for Early Maize Cultivation in New York State. American Antiquity 42(2):238 242. Walker, Phillip L. 1997. Wife Beating, Boxing, and Broken Noses: Skeletal Evidence for Cultural Patternin g of Interpersonal Violence. In Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past , edited by Debra L. Martin and David W. Frayer. Gordon and Breach, New York, pp. 145 179. Walker, Phillip L. 2000. Bioarchaeological Ethics: A Historical Perspective on the V alue of Human Remains. In Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton , edited by M. Anne Katzenberg and Shelley R. Saunders. Wiley Liss, New Jersey, pp. 3 39. Walker, Phillip L. and Della Collins Cook. 1998. Brief Communication: Gender and Sex: Vive la difference. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 106(2):255 259.

PAGE 346

346 Walker, Phi l lip L. and Michael J. DeNiro. 1986. Stable Nitrogen and Carbon Isotope Ratios in Bone Collagen as Indices of Prehistoric Dietary Dependence on Marine and Terrestrial Resourc es in Southern California. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 71(1):51 61. Walker, Ph i llip L., John R. Johnson, and Patricia M. Lambert. 1988. Age and Sex Biases in the Preservation of Human Skeletal Remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropolog y 76(2):183 188. Walker, Phillip L., Rhonda R. Bathurst, Rebecca Richman, Thor Gjerdrum, and Valerie A. Andrushko. 2009. The Cause of Porotic Hyperostosis and Cribra Orbitalia: A Reappraisal of the Iron Deficiency Anemia Hypothesis. American Journal of Phy sical Anthropology 139(2):109 125. Wallis, Neill J. 2013. Swift Creek and Weeden Island Mortuary Landscapes of Interaction. In Early and Middle Woodland Landscapes of the Southeast , edited by Alice P. Wright and Edward R. Henry. University Press of Florid a, Gainesville, pp. 204 218. Wallis, Neill J., Thomas J. Pluckhahn, and Michael D. Glascock. 2016. Sourcing Interaction Networks of the American Southeast: Neutron Activated Analysis of Swift Creek Complicated Stamped Pottery. American Antiquity 81(4):717 736. Wallis, Neill J. and Asa R. Randall. 2014. New Histories of Pre Columbian Florida . University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Wallis, Neill J., Paulette S. McFadden, and Hayley M. Singleton. 2015. Radiocarbon Dating the Pace of Monument Constructi on and Village Aggregation at Garden Patch: A Ceremonial Center on the Florida Gulf Coast. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 2:507 516. Wallis, Neill J., Ann S. Cordell, Erin Harris Parks, Mark C. Donop and Kristen Hall. 2016. Provenance of Weeden Specialized Ritual Craft Production. Southeastern Archaeology 36(2):1 13. Walsh Haney, Heather. 1999. Skeletal Evidence of Health, Disease, Subsistence, and Settlement at Two Archaic Florida Sites: Bay West (8CR200) and Windover (8BR246) . Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida. Walton, Michael J., Colin B. Cowey, and John W. Adron. 1982. Methionine Metabolism in Rainbow Trout Fed Diets of Differing Methionine and Cystine Content . Journal of Nutri tion 112(8):1525 1535. Wapler, Ulrike, Eric Crub é zy, and Michael Schultz. 2004. Is Cribra Orbitalia Synonymous with Anemia ? Analysis and Interpretation of Cranial Pathology in Sudan. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 123(4):333 339. Warren, Michael W., Nicolette M. Parr, Carlos Zambrano, and Katherine Skorpinski. 2008. Bare Bones: A Survey of Forensic Anthropology . Kendall Hunt, Dubuque.

PAGE 347

347 Wasser, Nathalie A., Yin Kedong Yu Zhiming, Tada Kuninao, Paul J. Harrison, Davi d H. Turpin, and Stephen E. Calvert. 1998. Nitrogen Isotopic Fractionation During the Uptake and Assimilation of Nitrate, Nitrite, Ammonium , and Urea by a Marine Diatom . Limnology and Oceanography 43:215 224. Watts, Christopher. 2013. Relational Archaeolog ies: Roots and Routes. In Relational Archaeologies: Humans, Animals, Things , edited by Christopher Watts. Routledge, London, pp. 1 20. Watts, Rebecca. 2013. Childhood Development and Adult Longevity in an Archaeological Population from Barton upon Humber , Lincolnshire, England. International Journal of Paleopathology 3(2):95 104. Webb, Emily C., Jason Newton, Jamie Lewis, Alan Stewart, Bevis Miller, John F. Tarlton, and Richard P. Evershed. 2017. Sulphur isotope Compositions of Pig Tissues from a Control led Feeding Study . STAR: Science & Technology of Archaeological Research 3(1):71 79. Weisman, Brent R. 1999. . University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Weiss Krejci, Estella. 2011. The Format ion of Mortuary Deposits, Implications for Understanding Mortuary Behavior of Past Populations. In Social Bioarchaeology , edited by. Sabrina C. Agarwal and Bonnie A. Glencross. Blackwell Publishing, Chichester, pp. 68 106. Weiss, Elizabeth and Robert Jurma in. 2007. Osteoarthritis Revised: A Contemporary Review of Aetiology. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 17(5):435 450. Wenaden, Audrey E.T., Teresa A. Szyszko, and Asif Saifuddin. 2005. Imaging of Periosteal Reactions Associated with Focal Lesions of Bone. Clinical Radiology 60(4):439 456. Weston, Darlene A. 2012. Nonspecific Infection in Paleopathology: Interpreting Periosteal Reactions. In A Companion to Paleopathology , edited by Anne L. Grauer. Wiley Blackwell, New York, pp. 492 512. Wharton, Ba rry, George Ballo, and Mitchell Hope. 1981. The Republic Groves Site, Hardee County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34(2):59 80. White, Nancy Marie. 2014. Woodland and Mississippian in Northwest Florida. In New Histories of Precolumbian Florida , edit ed by Neill J. Wallis and Asa Randall. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 223 242. Wheeler, Ryan J. 1996. Ancient Art of the Florida Peninsula: 500 B.C. to A.D. 1763 . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.

PAGE 348

348 Widmer, Randolph J. 2002. The Woodland Archaeology of South Florida. In The Woodland Southeast , edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 373 397. Will, Lawrence E. 2002. A Cracker History of Oke echobee . Sir Speedy Printing, West Palm Beach. Wilkie, Laurie A. 2003. The Archaeology of Mothering: An African . Routledge, New York. Willey, Gordon R. 1949 a . Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast . Miscellaneous Contributions No. 113, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Willey, Gordon R. 1949b. Excavations in Southeast Florida . Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 42. Yale University Press, New Haven. Wilson, Rex L. 1965. Excavati ons at the Mayport Mound, Florida . Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences, No 13. Florida State Museum, Gainesville. Wilson, Gregory D. 2010. Community, Identity, and Social Memory at Moundville. American Antiquity 75(1):3 18. Wood, James W., George R. Milner, Henry C. Harpending, and Kenneth M. 1992. The Osteological Paradox: Problems of Inferring Prehistoric Health from Skeletal Samples. Current Anthropology 33(4):343 70. Wright, Lori E. and Cassady J. Yoder. 2003. Recent Progress i n Bioarchaeology: Approaches to the Osteological Paradox. Journal of Archaeological Research 11(1):43 70. Yerkes, Richard W. 2002. Hopewell Tribes: A Study of Middle Woodland Social Organization in the Ohio Valley. In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies , e dited by William A. Parkinson. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 15, Ann Arbor, pp. 227 245. Yerkes, Richard W. 2006. Middle Woodland Settlements a nd Social Organization i n t he Central Ohio Valley : Were t he Hopewell Really Farm ers? In Recreating Hopewell , edited by Douglas K. Charles and Jane E. Buikstra. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 50 61. Zede ñ o, Mar í a Nieves. 2009. Animating by Association: Index Objects and Relational Taxonomies. Cambridge Archaeological Jo urnal 19(3):401 417. Zuckerman, Molly K. and George J. Armelagos. 2011. The Origins of Biocultural Dimensions in Bioarchaeology. In Social Bioarchaeology , edited by Sabrina C. Agarwal and Bonnie A. Glencross. Blackwell Publishing, Chichester, pp. 15 43.

PAGE 349

349 Zu ckerman, Molly K. and Debra L. Martin. 2006. New Directions in Biocultural Anthropology . Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Chichester.

PAGE 350

350 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dr. Laura Van Voorhis was born in Boca Raton, Florida and lived there until she anthropology and human biology at Emory University, where her interest in anthropology f irst began. Dr. Van Voorhis had the honor and privilege of being mentored by Dr. George Armelagos, who was an influential and foundational biological anthropologist. It was under his tutelage that Dr. Van Voorhis first dove into the waters of human osteolo gy. Dr. Van Voorhis continued her education at Florida Atlantic University where she obtained a Master of Arts in anthropology from this institution. Her thesis, Land of Contrast: Osteological Analysis of Human Remains from Salango, Ecuador and a Comparis on of Paleopathologies Between Coastal Highlands , contributed new paleodemographic and paleopathological data from Site 35 Salango, Ecuador . Upon a successful completion of her m University of Florida anthropo Prehistoric Denizens of Fort Center, Florida: Osteoarchaeology and Isotope Geochemistry , was supervised by Dr. John Krigbaum. This dissertation focused on the Fort Center, Florida human s keletal population that is a legacy collection at the Florida Museum of Anthropology. Dr. Van Voorhis received her Ph.D. from UF in the spring of 2020. During her time at UF, Dr. Van Voorhis also worked as a research assistant and Lab Manager in the Bone Chemistry Lab under the direction of Dr. John Krigbaum. As a research assistant, she learned the protocols and procedures for stable isotope analysis and geochemistry and collaborated with Dr. Krigbaum on several long term projects, including Trinidad and Tobago, Belize, and St. Augustine. Dr. Van Voorhis also served as a forensic analyst assistant at

PAGE 351

351 the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory for several years, during which time she solo authored and peer reviewed several forensic case reports. In addi tion to lab work, Dr. Van Voorhis worked as teaching assistant and teaching associate/ instructor of record for multiple courses, including Introduction to Biological Anthropology, both in person and online, Human Osteology, General Anthropology, and The B ioarchaeology of Violence, a special topics course that she helped to design. Dr. Van Voorhis has also been actively involved in museum studies work throughout her tenure at UF with a particular focus on ongoing consultations with Native Peoples as part o f NAGPRA compliance. She spent several years as a volunteer at the Florida Museum of Natural History and progressed to an intern and different part time positions working alongside Donna Ruhl in North Florida and bioarchaeological collections. Dr. Van Voor his also worked alongside the South Florida Museum in Bradenton to aid with the analysis of a human skeletal collection that was ultimately repatriated under NAGPRA.