4.2 Article

Status and gender differences in diet at Mound 72, Cahokia, revealed by isotopic analysis of bone

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 217-226

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/S0278-4165(03)00036-9

Keywords

Mississippian; Cahokia; maize agriculture; status; gender; bioarchaeology; paleodiet; bone chemistry; carbon isotopes; nitrogen isotopes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cahokia Mound 72 contains 272 human burials dating to the Lohmann and early Stirling phases (ca. 1050-1150 AD) of the Mississippian period. Substantial status- and gender-related differences in burial style are apparent. Some burials are associated with large quantities of prestigious grave goods, suggesting high status. Mass graves of young adult females with skeletal indicators of poor health suggest low status and nutritional stress. Nitrogen isotope ratios of bone collagen show that high status individuals ate much more animal protein, but carbon isotope ratios of collagen suggest these individuals ate only ca. 10% less maize than lower status individuals. Apatite carbon isotopes show low status females ate ca. 60% more maize than high status individuals, which confirms the large nitrogen isotope difference of females in mass graves. These results indicate high and low status individuals had significantly different diet compositions and nutritional qualities. The stable isotope evidence supports paleopathological data for status-related differences in health, and dental morphological data for presumed genetic differences in origin. These data also provide insights into the nutrition- and health-related dimension of regional hierarchical organization of settlements and social inequality of this complex chiefdom in the greater Cahokia region. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available