Time's River: Archaeological Syntheses from the Lower Mississippi Valley

9. Bioarchaeology in the Mississippi Delta

9 Bioarchaeology in the Mississippi Delta S. Homes Hogue Introduction to Bioarchaeology Over the past several decades, bioarchaeology has risen to the forefront in understanding and interpreting human behavior from archaeological skeletal series . Introduced in the mid-1970s, bioarchaeology represents an explanatory framework that recognizes the correlation between biological, cultural, and environmental variables (Blakely 1977; Buikstra 1976; Smith 1993). The bioarchaeology paradigm is a consequence of the “New Archaeology” revolution of the 1960s. New approaches to archaeological research were being realized, and the development of methods useful in understanding subsistence strategies , settlement patterns, and ecological adaptations were beginning to replace the traditional culture-history approach dominated by tool typologies and ceramic sequences (Smith 1993). Smith (1993) provides a detailed synopsis of the history of physical anthropology in southeastern archaeology. Several main points from her overview are expanded upon in the following paragraphs. Prior to the bioarchaeological focus, typological classifications of human populations, like tool typologies and ceramic sequences, were not uncommon among physical anthropologists studying skeletal populations in the southeastern United States. Underlying this typological approach was the premise that human phenotypes and measurements could be reduced to unique types or races resulting from evolutionary selection (Smith 1993). Cranial measurements and shapes were used much like lithic and pottery types to document population movement and stability, culture contact, and miscegenation. The classification of southeastern crania is best exemplified by the work of Georg Neumann (1952, 1959). Neumann’s interest in the regional diversity of physical appearances was founded in evolutionary principles. While discussing human antiquity in the New World, he states: “The increase in time-depth allows for a much greater possibility of such factors as genetic drift and selection in the adaptation to different environmental conditions to become operative in the racial differentiation of populations in various geographical areas” (Neumann Bioarchaeology in the Mississippi Delta / 183 1959:66). Using cranial types and associated temporal distinctions, Neumann and others addressed questions related to population migration and culture change. Although Neumann considered cranial variation as a response to environmental and geographical differences, he did not adequately answer how these factors affected cranial shape (Rose and Harmon 1989). Neumann’s work (1952) was well publicized in Griffin’s edited volume Archaeology of Eastern United States (Griffin, ed. 1952), a text likely read by anyone studying southeastern archaeology during the 1950s and ‘60s. Unfortunately, Neumann’s efforts may have led many scholars to conclude that research on human skeletal remains had little to offer the archaeological discipline (Rose and Harmon 1989). It is noteworthy that biological/physical anthropologists recognized early on that cranial typologies provided little if any help in reconstructing and explaining the past. This acknowledgement may illuminate why a typological research focus was soon abandoned in favor of methods involving more detailed osteological analysis of populations rather than individual skull shapes (Smith 1993). This switch would result in founding an important database useful in addressing future questions posed by bioarchaeologists. In contrast to the much-needed methodological shift by physical/biological anthropologists working with human skeletal collections, many archaeologists continue to use a typological approach to analysis (e.g., Mooney et al. 2004; Toth 1988; Walling and Chapman 1999; Weinstein et al. 1995). Salvage archaeological projects began to increase in the 1930s, and with this, so did the number of skeletal collections in need of analysis. Although considered to be peripheral to archaeological problem solving, the archaeological projects of the New Deal (WPA, TVA, NPS) produced numerous skeletal collections that ultimately led to the expansion of biological anthropology in the Southeast (Smith 1993). In addition to craniometry, general osteological investigations involving morphological and metrical analyses led to increased accuracy in the determination of age, sex, and stature, with many methods still in use today (Bass 1995; Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Krogman 1978; Steinbock 1976; Stewart 1979; Ubelaker 1978). More descriptive information on pathology data also began to be recorded. Unfortunately, the overall descriptive nature of the analyses provided little information in reconstructing the archaeological past, and most skeletal reports were consigned to the appendices (Smith 1993:65). Many of the largest skeletal collections analyzed more recently in the Southeast are described in CRM reports (Hill 1981; Powell 1983) and research reports of the Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series. These more detailed descriptions and inventories have allowed researchers access to relatively large collections for use in their work on paleodemography, mortuary practices, and paleopathology. 184...