Hickman, H. Eugene, Jr.

English

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 23 Article 111969Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter BurialsH. Eugene Hickman Jr.University of Arkansas, FayettevilleFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Biological and PhysicalAnthropology CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academyof Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu, ccmiddle@uark.edu.Recommended CitationHickman, H. Eugene Jr. (1969) "Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter Burials," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 23 ,Article 11.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol23/iss1/1157Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. 23, 1969SKELETAL ANALYSIS OF THREEBLUFF SHELTER BURIALSH. Eugene Hickman, Jr.Department of Anthropology, University of ArkansasINTRODUCTIONThe following data and descriptions come from three multiple)luffshelter burials. The first two were excavated with no provenienceontrol and collected by Glen Clark of Springdale, who presentedlem to the University of Arkansas Museum. They came from theicinity of War Eagle Cave and Peterbottom Cave and were dug>y some individuals apparently searching for artifacts. The burialsre extremely fragmentary and consist of at least four individuals,which will be described at greater length.IThe other burial comes from 3WA143 northwest of Fayette-lle on the Illinois River and was excavated by John Clark andilliam Westbury, both graduate students in anthropology at theniversity of Arkansas. This burial consists of two individuals withlough skeletal material from both to be able to determine sex andre. Allthree burials are now stored with the University of Arkansasuseum.I John Clark and Dr. William W. Klusmeier helped with thisaper immeasurably. Mr. Clark helped with a bibliography, measui-ig of the bones, and supplying forms from the University of Texasiwhich to record the data. Dr. Klusmeier, an orthodontist fromort Smith, listened to the original hypotheses concerning the path-ogy of the skull of Burial III.He added comments of his own,>me of which were incorporated with his permission. Both menere invaluable.ARCHEOLOGICAL BACKGROUNDI There is no material of archeological significance with any ofese burials. The first two were presented to the museum with nontext at all and no information except for the genera! area ofeir burial. Some cracked stones, mussel shells, and a deer mandibleong with a few other animal bones is all that was received withese.The burial from 3WA143 had been dug up by some personswho, for some reasons, decided they no longer wanted it and re-buried it. They had glued the mandible to its articulation surfaceof the skull before redeposition. This destroyed all context, makingarcheological interpretation impossible. Found with this burial wasa fill of ash mixed with soil, leaves, ovate scats, hackberry seeds,acorn fragments and a massive roof fall.57Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196958Arkansas Academy of Science ProceedingsDESCRIPTION OF BURIALS IAND IIThe first two burials were so fragmentary that measurementswere almost impossible. Out of 110 identifiable bones and bone frag-ments only two left and one right femurs and part of one recon-structed skull were measurable. The breakdown is shown in Table I:HUMAN2222791011SkullMandibleFragmentsVertebrae :AtlasCervicalThoracicLumbarClavicleFragmentsScapula (Fragmentary)Humerus:4RightLeft22FragmentsUlna27RadiusCarpals82Metacarpals andMetatarsuls (no distinctionPelvis (fragmentary)made) 961Sacrum (fragmentary)Femur:RightLeft12Epiphyses 2FragmentaryPatella31Tibia:RightLeft321EpiphysesCalcaneumTalus84DEERMandible:Fragments 22OtherOTHERUnidentified58Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol23/iss1/1159Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter BurialsBesides these there are numerous unidentifiable fragmentsand ribs that were not counted. The small sampling of measurablematerial made it difficult to reach any conclusions through measure-ments. Those that were obtainable are listed in Table II: (measure-ments after University of Texas)TABLE IISKULLMaximum Length 170 mm.Maximum Breadth 125 mm.Left Parietal Thickness 3 mm.Foramen Magnum:Maximum Basion-Opisthion 33 mm.Maximum Transverse Diameter 23 mm.FEMURLEFT1 2Bicondular Length 393 mm. 460 mm.Morphological Length 401 mm. 466 mm.Maximum Diameter of Head 41 mm. 47 mm.Subtrochantor Anterior-Posterior 29 mm. 30 mm.Subtrochantor Lateral 20 mm. 21 mm.Middle Anterior-Posterior 25 mm. 27 mm.Middle Lateral 20 mm. 24 mm.FEMURRIGHTSubtrochantor Anterior-Posterior 27 mm.Subtrochantor Lateral 21 mm.Middle Anterior-Posterior 24 mm.Middle Lateral 19 mm.The skull is probably male, as are the two left femurs. Judgingfrom the thinness of the left parietal and the openness of some ofthe sutures, this particular individual was probably an adolescent.The femurs appear to be from three different individuals. Left femur1is probably from a male younger than left femur 2 because of thedifference in size and because there appears to be more matrix in1 than 2. The right femur is judged to be female because it is lessrobust than the other two, even though its measurements almostcoincide with 1. The lesser trochantor is little more than a bumpwhile the greater trochantor is smoother than that in 1 (Edwards,1963: 219).The other skull is smaller than the one measured, but it ismuch more fragmentary. Itwas probably an immature individual andmay have been male. Itis doubtful if any of the femurs went withit, since they appear to be older. The number of radii show a min-59Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196960Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedingsimu in of four people, possibly more. It is my opinion that theseburials contain probably no more than parts of four individuals.This is borne out by eight radii and calcanea, conveniently in fourlefts and four rights. Of course, it could be that they do not gotogether, but, if that is the case, a few extra arms and feet wouldhave been thrown in at the time of the burial. There are five tibia,three right and two left, with the left probably going with the right,in at least one case, making a maximum of four. In no other caseare there enough bones that could conceivably surpass four indi-viduals. Itwas interesting to note there was no pathology with anyof the bones in Burials Iand II.DESCRIPTION OF BURIALIIIBurial IIIwas in much better condition than the others andhad fewer bones; however, those that ithad were measurable. Thosebones present and measurements of each, with exception of the skulland mandible which will be treated separately, are listed as followsin Table III:The main aging and sexing techniques used were comparingthe public symphysis with the component outline in Brothwell'sDigging Up Bones, pp. 64-65, viewing the general robustness of thebones, measuring the greater sciatic notch and looking for theamount of matrix.The humera obviously belonged to two different individuals,but both were robust and probably male. The pelvises belonged totwo different individuals on the basis of the comparison of thepublic symphyses. The left pelvis belonged to a male probably 22 to25 years of age while the right was probably a male, although thatcould not be ascertained with as much definitiveness as the other,and was from 28 to 36 years of age. The sacrum, due to the sharpcurve starting at the fourth segment and complete closure of all thesegments was judged to be a male over 25 years old. The femur andtibia were all robust. There is pathology present in the smallerhumerus. It appears that it was broken because the distal end ismuch thicker and rougher than is normal.The skull is that of a male probably between 35 and 40. Thiswas determined by the sutures and the wearing of the teeth. Histeeth were worn down to a flat and smooth surface on one side andon the other side to an acute angle that would have taken a minimumof 30 years to wear so completely (Brothwell: 68).There was much pathologically wrong with this individual,which is what prompted the writing of this paper. Before the path-ology is described, it would be better to enumerate the measurementsand indices: 60Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol23/iss1/11TABLE IIIBONE L R CONDITION MEASUREMENTS TAKEN MEASUREMENTSL R1 2Scapula 1 broken immeasurableHumerus 2 good maximum length 285 mm. 302 mm.maximum middle diameter 18 mm. 21 mm.minimum middle diameter 16 mm. 17 mm.maximum diameter of head 38 mm. 38 mm.Ribs 1 2 broken were not measuredPelvis 1 1 broken maximum pelvic height 18.6 mm. nothingdiagonal conjugate diameter 164 mm. present butnormal conjugate diameter 150 mm. acetabulumsaggital diameter of pelvis an^ pubicinlet 155 mm. symphysisSacrum 1 in good sacral height 96 mm.condition sacral breadth 105 mm.maximum diameter ofsuperior body 46 mm.Femur 2 1 broken unmeasurableTibia 1 1 left morphological length 363 mm.broken nutrient foramen lateral 67 mm.Calcaneum 1 good maximum length 63 mm.maximum breadth 38 mm.There were other bones and bone fragments that were measurable but not measured.61Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter Burials61Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196962Arkansas Academy of Science ProceedingsTABLE IVCRAINAL MEASUREMENTS AND INDICESPALATElength 53 mm36 mm16 mm.55 mm.58 mm.breadthdepthmaxillo-alveolar lengthmaxillo-alveolar breadthCALVARIAmaximum lengthmaximum breadthbasion-bregma height90 mm125 mm133 mm.minimum frontal breadth 90 mm.FACEtotal heightupper heightbasion-nasion140 mm.74 mm.110 mm.basion-nasosopinalebasion-prosthionprosthion nasospinale94 mm.97 mm.15 mm.ORBITSheight Lheight Rbreadth Lbreadth R36 mm.37 mm.40 mm.38 mm.24 mm.93 mm.interorbital breadthbiorbital breadthNOSEheight 62 mm.22 mm.20 mm.22 mm.breadthupper breadthlower breadthFORAMEN MAGNUMbasion-opisthion 38 mm.31 mm.34.2 mm.transverse diametermeanMANDIBLEbicondylar diameter 112 mm.60 mm.31 mm.height of left ascending ramusminimumbreadth of left ascending ramuslength of mandibular bodybetween Ml and 2Langle23 mm.62°62Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol23/iss1/1163Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter BurialsINDICEScranial index 73 mm.length-height index 77 nun.breadth-height index 93 mm.total facial index 78 mm.nasal index 36 mm.orbital index L 90 mm.orbital index R 97 mm.palatal index 67 mm.maxillo-alveolar index 94 mm.skull capacity 1298.49 mm.Unfortunately, these measurements and indices do not meanvery much since there is no other skull to compare them with. Fromthe indices it is possible to determine this was a dolichocranic (longheaded), euryposopic (broad and low faced), leptorrhine (high andnarrow nosed) individual with a leptostaphylic or long and narrowpalate, and a small cranial capacity or oligencephalic (University ofTexas). There is no way to determine ifthis is the norm or if thiswas a variant individual. He was certainly variant pathologically,lowever.The two most notable injuries are a depression on the rightside at the juncture of the frontal and parietal bones and the oddwearing of the teeth on the left side. Besides these, one discoverson closer examination, a depression in the left orbit beside the upperpart of the nose, extreme infection of the teeth, and a smaller depres-sion behind the larger on the parietal bone.It is impossible to determine what caused the trauma. Abouthe only two things that can definitely be determined are that itlappened a number of years earlier and was not trepanning. Thereason these conclusions were reached is that the bone has healedover entirely, and a blow strong enough to cause such damage wasprobably strong enough to shatter it. Ifthis were the case, it wouldtake a number of years for the bone to grow back as well as it did.On the other hand, the bone was probably not totally destroyed be-cause the suture is stillintact. This is what leads me to believe trepan-ning is not the cause of the depression. Ifthe section were totallyremoved, as it would have been with trepanation, then the suturewould probably either be non-existent or very indistinct. Conse-quently, trauma of some sort is the logical conclusion.In spite of having completely healed over, the bone is verythin here and the convolutions on the interior are indistinct. Thisled to the question of whether that blow may have caused paralysisor in some way affected the motor operations of this individual. Thisis a particularly valid question in light of the angular wearing of63Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1969Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedingsthe teeth on the left side which could have well been caused bymotor disturbances causing the individual to chew in such a way asto use those teeth almost to exclusion. It is certainly a possibility,but, when one takes into consideration all the circumstances of themouth, it does not seem to be the best one. Three of his palatalincisors are missing and apparently were lost at a very early age,since there is no sign of where the roots were in the bone. Conse-quently, the individual had a severe protrusion of the mandible,putting the mandibular incisors over where the palatal incisorswould have gone. This threw his entire mandible out of normal oc-clusion, putting the outside cusps of the mandibular molars on theoutside of the outside cusps of the palatal molars on the left side.This is completely the reverse of normal occlusion. With his leftside so maloccluded, the molars would have worn each other down.Another possibility is that he inherited his "jutting jaw" whichwould have caused the same process. Ifeither of these were the case,which seems likely, his face would not have been thrown out of line,which it is not. Another reason why this would appear to be thecase is that it would have taken practically his entire lifetime towear his left molars down to that great an extent. Ido not believethe trauma happened early enough to cause that. On the other hand,ifa motor disturbance were the cause, his face would have a drasticalignment toward the left, which it does not.Besides having a malocclusion, this individual had severeperiodontal and pariapical infection of the teeth. His left secondand third palatal molars, all the right palatal premolars and molars,right mandibular molars and left first mandibular molar had severeperiodontal infection. The left first palatal molar, second premolar,canine, right second premolar and first molar, and left mandibularsecond and third molars had periapical infection. The main dif-ference between the two forms of infection is that periapical is in-fection of the nerve which eventually dstroys all bone in contactwith it and peridontal is infection of the gums and spongy bonebeneath. This particular individual had lost six teeth to these in-fections and the only remaining teeth he had that were uninfectedwere the four mandibular incisors.The last pathology to be brought up is that of the depressionin the left orbit. There are three possibilities of what may havecaused it. The first is that it could have been a tumor of thelachrymal gland. If that were the cause, it would have most likelybeen malignant and may have contributed to his death. However, thispossibility is the least likely, simply because lachrymal tumors arerare, almost to the point of non-existance.A second possibility is that a polyp could have grown from hisnose into the orbital region. However, this would probably not have64Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol23/iss1/1165Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter Burialshappened because polyps grow along the lines of least resistance, andto invade the orbital region, it would have to destroy bone. Morelikely it would have grown down the nose or the back of the throat.The third alternative, and the one that best fits this case hasto do with sinusitis. Sinusitis has been discovered to be one of themost prevalent diseases among Indians of this area. Since that is thecase, this individual may well have had it (Wakefield and Dellinger:1940). In severe cases, when the sinuses are infected continously forlong periods of time, the bone can be destroyed through decay fromthe infection. Often in a case like this, a benign tumor will invadesurrounding areas. This particularly happens with frontal and maxil-lary sinuses (Thoma, 1946: 932).The first two possibilities are not entirely out of the question,but since sinusitis was a common infection found in the nativeAmericans of this area, the third alternative explains the orbitaldepression better. This is particularly so because the depression isimmediately beside the left frontal sinus.CONCLUSIONThe first conclusion to be stated is that no conclusion can bedrawn from these three burials, archeologically. Since the first twohad no controls, they are practically useless except to study forwhatever morphological, physiological, or genetical problems one maywant to investigate concerning Indians of Northwest Arkansas.Although the third had controls, it had been redeposited, therebydestroying all context, so the same can be said about it.In my observations Iwas able to determine the Burials IandIIcontained parts of probably four individuals, one of whom wasfemale and all of whom were young. Since the burials were so frag-mentary and lacking in pathology and context, little besides thatcan be said.In concluding on Burial III would add that the skull, sacrum,and right pelvis probably belong to each other, although that is notcompletely ascertainable. Itseems logical, since there are only twoindividuals and those three parts are approximately the same age,that they would have gone together. As for the skull itself, it wouldbe safe to say that this individual lived in severe pain all of hisadult life. Why he did not die before he did is a point worth ponder-ing.The pathology of the skull is what prompted this paper and ithas been intriguing following this through. Itwould be interesting tofind another skull with similar oral pathology to compare this onewith and find out if these theories have any substantiation.65Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196966Arkansas Academy of Science ProceedingsREFERENCESBrothwell, Don R.1963 Digging Up Bones. British Museum (Natural History),London.1965 Dental Anthoropology. Oxford University Press, Cam-bridge.Edwards, Linden F.1956 Concise Anatomy. Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, NewYork.Harris, J. A.1930 "Measurement of Man". Man. University of MinnesotaPress. St. Paul.Thoma, K.H.1946 Oral Pathology. First Edition, McGraw-Hill, New YorkWakefield, Elmer G. and S. C. Dellinger1940 "Disease of Prehistoric Americans of South CentralUnited States". Ciba Symposia, Vol. 2, No. 2, Summit,New Jersey.66Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol23/iss1/11

Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter Burials

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 23 Article 11 1969 Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter Burials H. Eugene Hickman Jr. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Hickman, H. Eugene Jr. (1969) "Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter Burials," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 23 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol23/iss1/11 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu. 57Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. 23, 1969SKELETAL ANALYSIS OF THREEBLUFF SHELTER BURIALSH. Eugene Hickman, Jr.Department of Anthropology, University of ArkansasINTRODUCTIONThe following data and descriptions come from three multiple)luffshelter burials. The first two were excavated with no provenienceontrol and collected by Glen Clark of Springdale, who presentedlem to the University of Arkansas Museum. They came from theicinity of War Eagle Cave and Peterbottom Cave and were dug>y some individuals apparently searching for artifacts. The burialsre extremely fragmentary and consist of at least four individuals,which will be described at greater length.ITheother burial comes from 3WA143 northwest of Fayette-lle on the Illinois River and was excavated by John Clark andilliam Westbury, both graduate students in anthropology at theniversity of Arkansas. This burial consists of two individuals withlough skeletal material from both to be able to determine sex andre. Allthree burials are now stored with the University of Arkansasuseum.IJohn Clark and Dr. William W. Klusmeier helped with thisaper immeasurably. Mr. Clark helped with a bibliography, measui-ig of the bones, and supplying forms from the University of Texasiwhich to record the data. Dr. Klusmeier, an orthodontist fromort Smith, listened to the original hypotheses concerning the path-ogy of the skull of Burial III.He added comments of his own,>me of which were incorporated with his permission. Both menere invaluable.ARCHEOLOGICAL BACKGROUNDIThere is no material of archeological significance with any ofese burials. The first two were presented to the museum with nontext at all and no information except for the genera! area ofeir burial. Some cracked stones, mussel shells, and a deer mandibleong with a few other animal bones is all that was received withese.The burial from 3WA143 had been dug up by some personswho, for some reasons, decided they no longer wanted it and re-buried it. They had glued the mandible to its articulation surfaceof the skull before redeposition. This destroyed all context, makingarcheological interpretation impossible. Found with this burial wasa fill of ash mixed with soil, leaves, ovate scats, hackberry seeds,acorn fragments and a massive roof fall.57Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196958Arkansas Academy of Science ProceedingsDESCRIPTION OF BURIALS IAND IIThe first two burials were so fragmentary that measurementswere almost impossible. Out of 110 identifiable bones and bone frag-ments only two left and one right femurs and part of one recon-structed skull were measurable. The breakdown is shown in Table I:HUMAN2222791011SkullMandibleFragmentsVertebrae :AtlasCervicalThoracicLumbarClavicleFragmentsScapula (Fragmentary)Humerus:4RightLeft22FragmentsUlna27RadiusCarpals82Metacarpals andMetatarsuls (no distinctionPelvis (fragmentary)made) 961Sacrum (fragmentary)Femur:RightLeft12Epiphyses 2FragmentaryPatella31Tibia:RightLeft321EpiphysesCalcaneumTalus84DEERMandible:Fragments 22OtherOTHERUnidentified58Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol23/iss1/1159Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter BurialsBesides these there are numerous unidentifiable fragmentsand ribs that were not counted. The small sampling of measurablematerial made it difficult to reach any conclusions through measure-ments. Those that were obtainable are listed in Table II: (measure-ments after University of Texas)TABLE IISKULLMaximum Length 170 mm.Maximum Breadth 125 mm.Left Parietal Thickness 3 mm.Foramen Magnum:Maximum Basion-Opisthion 33 mm.Maximum Transverse Diameter 23 mm.FEMURLEFT1 2Bicondular Length 393 mm. 460 mm.Morphological Length 401 mm. 466 mm.Maximum Diameter of Head 41 mm. 47 mm.Subtrochantor Anterior-Posterior 29 mm. 30 mm.Subtrochantor Lateral 20 mm. 21 mm.Middle Anterior-Posterior 25 mm. 27 mm.Middle Lateral 20 mm. 24 mm.FEMURRIGHTSubtrochantor Anterior-Posterior 27 mm.Subtrochantor Lateral 21 mm.Middle Anterior-Posterior 24 mm.Middle Lateral 19 mm.The skull is probably male, as are the two left femurs. Judgingfrom the thinness of the left parietal and the openness of some ofthe sutures, this particular individual was probably an adolescent.The femurs appear to be from three different individuals. Left femur1is probably from a male younger than left femur 2 because of thedifference in size and because there appears to be more matrix in1 than 2. The right femur is judged to be female because it is lessrobust than the other two, even though its measurements almostcoincide with 1. The lesser trochantor is little more than a bumpwhile the greater trochantor is smoother than that in 1 (Edwards,1963: 219).The other skull is smaller than the one measured, but it ismuch more fragmentary. Itwas probably an immature individual andmay have been male. Itis doubtful if any of the femurs went withit, since they appear to be older. The number of radii show a min-59Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196960Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedingsimu in of four people, possibly more. It is my opinion that theseburials contain probably no more than parts of four individuals.This is borne out by eight radii and calcanea, conveniently in fourlefts and four rights. Of course, it could be that they do not gotogether, but, if that is the case, a few extra arms and feet wouldhave been thrown in at the time of the burial. There are five tibia,three right and two left, with the left probably going with the right,in at least one case, making a maximum of four. In no other caseare there enough bones that could conceivably surpass four indi-viduals. Itwas interesting to note there was no pathology with anyof the bones in Burials Iand II.DESCRIPTION OF BURIALIIIBurial IIIwas in much better condition than the others andhad fewer bones; however, those that ithad were measurable. Thosebones present and measurements of each, with exception of the skulland mandible which will be treated separately, are listed as followsin Table III:The main aging and sexing techniques used were comparingthe public symphysis with the component outline in Brothwell'sDigging Up Bones, pp. 64-65, viewing the general robustness of thebones, measuring the greater sciatic notch and looking for theamount of matrix.The humera obviously belonged to two different individuals,but both were robust and probably male. The pelvises belonged totwo different individuals on the basis of the comparison of thepublic symphyses. The left pelvis belonged to a male probably 22 to25 years of age while the right was probably a male, although thatcould not be ascertained with as much definitiveness as the other,and was from 28 to 36 years of age. The sacrum, due to the sharpcurve starting at the fourth segment and complete closure of all thesegments was judged to be a male over 25 years old. The femur andtibia were all robust. There is pathology present in the smallerhumerus. It appears that it was broken because the distal end ismuch thicker and rougher than is normal.The skull is that of a male probably between 35 and 40. Thiswas determined by the sutures and the wearing of the teeth. Histeeth were worn down to a flat and smooth surface on one side andon the other side to an acute angle that would have taken a minimumof 30 years to wear so completely (Brothwell: 68).There was much pathologically wrong with this individual,which is what prompted the writing of this paper. Before the path-ology is described, it would be better to enumerate the measurementsand indices: 60Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol23/iss1/11TABLE IIIBONE L R CONDITION MEASUREMENTS TAKEN MEASUREMENTSL R1 2Scapula 1 broken immeasurableHumerus 2 good maximum length 285 mm. 302 mm.maximum middle diameter 18 mm. 21 mm.minimum middle diameter 16 mm. 17 mm.maximum diameter of head 38 mm. 38 mm.Ribs 1 2 broken were not measuredPelvis 1 1 broken maximum pelvic height 18.6 mm. nothingdiagonal conjugate diameter 164 mm. present butnormal conjugate diameter 150 mm. acetabulumsaggital diameter of pelvis an^ pubicinlet 155 mm. symphysisSacrum 1 in good sacral height 96 mm.condition sacral breadth 105 mm.maximum diameter ofsuperior body 46 mm.Femur 2 1 broken unmeasurableTibia 1 1 left morphological length 363 mm.broken nutrient foramen lateral 67 mm.Calcaneum 1 good maximum length 63 mm.maximum breadth 38 mm.There were other bones and bone fragments that were measurable but not measured.61Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter Burials61Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196962Arkansas Academy of Science ProceedingsTABLE IVCRAINAL MEASUREMENTS AND INDICESPALATElength 53 mm36 mm16 mm.55 mm.58 mm.breadthdepthmaxillo-alveolar lengthmaxillo-alveolar breadthCALVARIAmaximum lengthmaximum breadthbasion-bregma height90 mm125 mm133 mm.minimum frontal breadth 90 mm.FACEtotal heightupper heightbasion-nasion140 mm.74 mm.110 mm.basion-nasosopinalebasion-prosthionprosthion nasospinale94 mm.97 mm.15 mm.ORBITSheight Lheight Rbreadth Lbreadth R36 mm.37 mm.40 mm.38 mm.24 mm.93 mm.interorbital breadthbiorbital breadthNOSEheight 62 mm.22 mm.20 mm.22 mm.breadthupper breadthlower breadthFORAMEN MAGNUMbasion-opisthion 38 mm.31 mm.34.2 mm.transverse diametermeanMANDIBLEbicondylar diameter 112 mm.60 mm.31 mm.height of left ascending ramusminimumbreadth of left ascending ramuslength of mandibular bodybetween Ml and 2Langle23 mm.62°62Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol23/iss1/1163Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter BurialsINDICEScranial index 73 mm.length-height index 77 nun.breadth-height index 93 mm.total facial index 78 mm.nasal index 36 mm.orbital index L 90 mm.orbital index R 97 mm.palatal index 67 mm.maxillo-alveolar index 94 mm.skull capacity 1298.49 mm.Unfortunately, these measurements and indices do not meanvery much since there is no other skull to compare them with. Fromthe indices it is possible to determine this was a dolichocranic (longheaded), euryposopic (broad and low faced), leptorrhine (high andnarrow nosed) individual with a leptostaphylic or long and narrowpalate, and a small cranial capacity or oligencephalic (University ofTexas). There is no way to determine ifthis is the norm or if thiswas a variant individual. He was certainly variant pathologically,lowever.The two most notable injuries are a depression on the rightside at the juncture of the frontal and parietal bones and the oddwearing of the teeth on the left side. Besides these, one discoverson closer examination, a depression in the left orbit beside the upperpart of the nose, extreme infection of the teeth, and a smaller depres-sion behind the larger on the parietal bone.It is impossible to determine what caused the trauma. Abouthe only two things that can definitely be determined are that itlappened a number of years earlier and was not trepanning. Thereason these conclusions were reached is that the bone has healedover entirely, and a blow strong enough to cause such damage wasprobably strong enough to shatter it. Ifthis were the case, it wouldtake a number of years for the bone to grow back as well as it did.On the other hand, the bone was probably not totally destroyed be-cause the suture is stillintact. This is what leads me to believe trepan-ning is not the cause of the depression. Ifthe section were totallyremoved, as it would have been with trepanation, then the suturewould probably either be non-existent or very indistinct. Conse-quently, trauma of some sort is the logical conclusion.In spite of having completely healed over, the bone is verythin here and the convolutions on the interior are indistinct. Thisled to the question of whether that blow may have caused paralysisor in some way affected the motor operations of this individual. Thisis a particularly valid question in light of the angular wearing of63Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1969Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedingsthe teeth on the left side which could have well been caused bymotor disturbances causing the individual to chew in such a way asto use those teeth almost to exclusion. It is certainly a possibility,but, when one takes into consideration all the circumstances of themouth, it does not seem to be the best one. Three of his palatalincisors are missing and apparently were lost at a very early age,since there is no sign of where the roots were in the bone. Conse-quently, the individual had a severe protrusion of the mandible,putting the mandibular incisors over where the palatal incisorswould have gone. This threw his entire mandible out of normal oc-clusion, putting the outside cusps of the mandibular molars on theoutside of the outside cusps of the palatal molars on the left side.This is completely the reverse of normal occlusion. With his leftside so maloccluded, the molars would have worn each other down.Another possibility is that he inherited his "jutting jaw" whichwould have caused the same process. Ifeither of these were the case,which seems likely, his face would not have been thrown out of line,which it is not. Another reason why this would appear to be thecase is that it would have taken practically his entire lifetime towear his left molars down to that great an extent. Ido not believethe trauma happened early enough to cause that. On the other hand,ifa motor disturbance were the cause, his face would have a drasticalignment toward the left, which it does not.Besides having a malocclusion, this individual had severeperiodontal and pariapical infection of the teeth. His left secondand third palatal molars, all the right palatal premolars and molars,right mandibular molars and left first mandibular molar had severeperiodontal infection. The left first palatal molar, second premolar,canine, right second premolar and first molar, and left mandibularsecond and third molars had periapical infection. The main dif-ference between the two forms of infection is that periapical is in-fection of the nerve which eventually dstroys all bone in contactwith it and peridontal is infection of the gums and spongy bonebeneath. This particular individual had lost six teeth to these in-fections and the only remaining teeth he had that were uninfectedwere the four mandibular incisors.The last pathology to be brought up is that of the depressionin the left orbit. There are three possibilities of what may havecaused it. The first is that it could have been a tumor of thelachrymal gland. If that were the cause, it would have most likelybeen malignant and may have contributed to his death. However, thispossibility is the least likely, simply because lachrymal tumors arerare, almost to the point of non-existance.A second possibility is that a polyp could have grown from hisnose into the orbital region. However, this would probably not have64Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol23/iss1/1165Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter Burialshappened because polyps grow along the lines of least resistance, andto invade the orbital region, it would have to destroy bone. Morelikely it would have grown down the nose or the back of the throat.The third alternative, and the one that best fits this case hasto do with sinusitis. Sinusitis has been discovered to be one of themost prevalent diseases among Indians of this area. Since that is thecase, this individual may well have had it (Wakefield and Dellinger:1940). In severe cases, when the sinuses are infected continously forlong periods of time, the bone can be destroyed through decay fromthe infection. Often in a case like this, a benign tumor will invadesurrounding areas. This particularly happens with frontal and maxil-lary sinuses (Thoma, 1946: 932).The first two possibilities are not entirely out of the question,but since sinusitis was a common infection found in the nativeAmericans of this area, the third alternative explains the orbitaldepression better. This is particularly so because the depression isimmediately beside the left frontal sinus.CONCLUSIONThe first conclusion to be stated is that no conclusion can bedrawn from these three burials, archeologically. Since the first twohad no controls, they are practically useless except to study forwhatever morphological, physiological, or genetical problems one maywant to investigate concerning Indians of Northwest Arkansas.Although the third had controls, it had been redeposited, therebydestroying all context, so the same can be said about it.In my observations Iwas able to determine the Burials IandIIcontained parts of probably four individuals, one of whom wasfemale and all of whom were young. Since the burials were so frag-mentary and lacking in pathology and context, little besides thatcan be said.In concluding on Burial III would add that the skull, sacrum,and right pelvis probably belong to each other, although that is notcompletely ascertainable. Itseems logical, since there are only twoindividuals and those three parts are approximately the same age,that they would have gone together. As for the skull itself, it wouldbe safe to say that this individual lived in severe pain all of hisadult life. Why he did not die before he did is a point worth ponder-ing.The pathology of the skull is what prompted this paper and ithas been intriguing following this through. Itwould be interesting tofind another skull with similar oral pathology to compare this onewith and find out if these theories have any substantiation.65Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 196966Arkansas Academy of Science ProceedingsREFERENCESBrothwell, Don R.1963 Digging Up Bones. British Museum (Natural History),London.1965 Dental Anthoropology. Oxford University Press, Cam-bridge.Edwards, Linden F.1956 Concise Anatomy. Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, NewYork.Harris, J. A.1930 "Measurement of Man". Man. University of MinnesotaPress. St. Paul.Thoma, K.H.1946 Oral Pathology. First Edition, McGraw-Hill, New YorkWakefield, Elmer G. and S. C. Dellinger1940 "Disease of Prehistoric Americans of South CentralUnited States". Ciba Symposia, Vol. 2, No. 2, Summit,New Jersey.66Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 23 [1969], Art. 11https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol23/iss1/11

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3011&context=jaas

Skeletal Analysis of Three Bluff Shelter Burials

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UARK

UARK (University of Arkansas )