Bioarchaeology of the American Southeast: Approaches to Bridging Health and Identity in the Past

BIOARCHAEOLOGY of the AMERICAN SOUTHEAST

A Dan Josselyn Memorial Publication

BIOARCHAEOLOGY of the AMERICAN SOUTHEAST

APPROACHES TO BRIDGING HEALTH AND IDENTITY IN THE PAST

Edited by Shannon Chappell Hodge and Kristrina A. Shuler

The University of Alabama Press

Tuscaloosa

The University of Alabama Press

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0380

uapress.ua.edu

Copyright © 2018 by the University of Alabama Press

All rights reserved.

Inquiries about reproducing material from this work should be addressed to the University of Alabama Press.

Typeface: Trump Medieval and Futura

Cover image: Engraved bottle, ca. A.D. 1550 to 1650, Bradley site (3CT7), Crittenden County, Arkansas; courtesy of David H. Dye

Cover design: David Nees

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Hodge, Shannon Chappell, editor. | Shuler, Kristrina A., 1967– editor.

Title: Bioarchaeology of the American Southeast : approaches to bridging health and identity in the past / edited by Shannon Chappell Hodge and Kristrina A. Shuler.

Description: Tuscaloosa, Alabama : The University of Alabama Press, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2017058575| ISBN 9780817319915 (cloth : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780817391942 (e book)

Subjects: LCSH: Indians of North America—Anthropometry—Southern States. | Human remains (Archaeology)—United States. | Southern States—Antiquities. | Excavations (Archaeology)—Southern States.

Classification: LCC E78.S65 B57 2018 | DDC 975/.01—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017058575

Contents

List of Illustrations

Foreword

Mary Lucas Powell

Preface

Shannon Chappell Hodge and Kristrina A. Shuler

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Kristrina A. Shuler and Shannon Chappell Hodge

PART I. CONTEXT AND CULTURE HISTORY IN BIOARCHAEOLOGY

1. Biodistance among Four Louisiana Archaeological Sites from the Woodland Period

Steven N. Byers and Rebecca Saunders

2. Health in Transition: An Assessment of Nonspecific Pathologies during the Coles Creek Period in the Southern Lower Mississippi Valley

Ginesse A. Listi

3. Regional Differences in Caries by Sex and Social Status in Late Prehistoric East Tennessee

Tracy K. Betsinger and Maria Ostendorf Smith

4. The End of Prehistory in the Land of Coosa: Oral Health in a Late Mississippian Village

Mark C. Griffin

PART II. SOCIAL IDENTITIES IN BIOARCHAEOLOGY

5. Nonlethal Scalping in the Archaic: Violence, Trophy Taking, and Social Change

Shannon Chappell Hodge

6. Warriors, Identity, and Gender: Status and Health at the King Site

Matthew A. Williamson

7. Intentional Cranial Shaping: A View from Lake Cormorant and Irby Sites, De Soto County, Mississippi

Della Collins Cook

8. Voyageurs in a New World: A French Colonial Cemetery in Nouveau Biloxi

J. Lynn Funkhouser and Barbara Thedy Hester

9. A Tale of Two Cemeteries: Bioarchaeology and Cultural Resources Management at the Citadel

Kristrina A. Shuler, Emily Jateff, Eric C. Poplin, Ralph Bailey Jr., Eric Sipes, and Charles F. Philips Jr.

10. Skeletal Remains from the School of Anatomy, DeSaussure College, University of South Carolina

William D. Stevens, Carlina de la Cova, Christopher Judge, and Christopher Young

References Cited

Contributors

Index

Illustrations

FIGURES

I.1. Site locations featured in this volume

1.1. Locations of Crooks, Greenhouse, Lafayette Mounds, and Little Woods sites

1.2. Mound designations and excavation locations at Greenhouse

1.3. Belmont’s culture history of the Greenhouse site

2.1. Lower Mississippi valley showing locations of sites examined in this study

2.2. Linear enamel hypoplasias in a mandibular canine

2.3. Eye orbit showing coalescing porous lesions

2.4. Cranial fragment showing distinct porous lesions

2.5. Severity of porous lesions for occipitals

2.6. Severity of porous lesions for parietals

2.7. Severity of porous lesions for orbits

3.1. Location of Cox (40AN19) and Citico (40MR7) along tributary branches of the Tennessee River

3.2. Crown and cervical carious lesions that have penetrated the dentin or caused pulp exposure

4.1. Location of David Davis site (40HA301)

4.2. Frequencies of carious lesions in maxillary and mandibular dentitions for 40HA301

4.3. Frequencies of carious lesions in maxillary and mandibular dentitions of females and males for 40HA301

4.4. Frequencies of carious lesions in 40HA301 and four other southeastern US population samples

4.5. Frequencies of enamel hypoplasias in maxillary and mandibular dentitions of 40HA301

4.6. Frequencies of enamel hypoplasias in 40HA301 and two other prehistoric population samples

4.7. Age distribution of enamel hypoplasias in maxillary and mandibular canines

4.8. Frequencies of enamel hypoplasias in maxillary and mandibular dentitions of females and males for 40HA301

4.9. Frequencies of B. H. Smith (1984) composite dental wear scores for 40HA301

4.10. Mean dental wear by tooth class and sex for 40HA301

4.11. Abnormal anterior dental wear at 40HA301

4.12. Mean dental wear by tooth class and sex for 40HA301 and three California populations

5.1. Cut marks on the frontal

5.2. Cut marks on the right parietal

5.3. Cut marks on the occipital

5.4. Lytic lesion on the frontal and at bregma

5.5. Lytic lesion on the right parietal

5.6. Lytic lesion on the left parietal

5.7. Lytic lesion on the occipital

6.1. Location of the King site

6.2. Frequencies of health and status indicators between achieved-status and low-status groups

6.3. Frequencies of health and status indicators between low-status males and females

7.1. Lake Cormorant TUI-7T left view with auditory exostosis (courtesy of Virginia L. Lucas).

7.2. Lake Cormorant TU1–7T posterior view with Inca bone, lambdoidal ossicles, and depressed inion

7.3. Lake Cormorant TUI-7U right view

7.4. Lake Cormorant TUI-7U detail of fissures perpendicular to coronal suture

7.5. Lake Cormorant TUI-7V left view

7.6. Lake Cormorant TUI-7V posterior view with lambdoidal ossicles, impressed inion, and healed lesion

7.7. Lake Cormorant TUI-7V superior view with sutural ossicles and healed lesion

7.8. The Irby cranium left view

7.9. The Irby cranium posterior view

8.1. Comparison of mean stature by sex in contemporaneous eighteenth-century populations

8.2. Metabolic insult at Moran and comparative sites

8.3. Nonspecific infection at Moran and comparative sites

8.4. Map of Fort St. Louis and surrounding area 1721

9.1. Location of site 38CH1648 on the 1979 Charleston, South Carolina, USGS quadrangle

9.2. West stand footers removed from Johnson Hagood Stadium

9.3. Flexed burial at 38CH1648

9.4. Examples of coffin hardware and personal items recovered from 38CH1648

9.5. Burial 208 from 38CH1648

9.6. Keenan’s 1844 Plan of the City and Neck of Charleston

9.7. Plat of Charleston Potter’s Field, 1894

9.8. Plan of the Port Society Sailor’s Burying Grounds and Confederate Navy Cemeteries, ca. 1947

9.9. Aerial view of the Citadel campus showing the Sailor’s Cemetery and the Confederate Naval Cemetery, ca. 1939

9.10. Distribution of graves by age and sex across 38CH1648

9.11. Distribution map showing the primary orientations of graves

9.12. Field map from 2004 superimposed over the 1933 Works Progress Administration map plat

10.1. Earliest known photograph of DeSaussure College, circa 1885

10.2. Faculty of the School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, 1868

10.3. Bone feature at DeSaussure College

10.4. Autopsied calvarium with partially healed blunt force injury

10.5. Distal humerus with saw and drill toolmarks

TABLES

1.1. Sites, Cultures, Dates, and Minimum Number of Individuals

1.2. Count of Skeletons with Nonmetric Traits at Different Times at Greenhouse

1.3. Percentages of Nonmetric Cranial Traits by Site

1.4. Tests of Homogeneity of Trait Frequencies at Little Woods, Lafayette, Crooks, and Greenhouse

1.5. Mean Measure of Divergence and 95 Percent Confidence Intervals between and within Sites

1.6. Tests of Homogeneity of Trait Frequencies at Greenhouse

2.1. Pre–Coles Creek and Coles Creek Sites

2.2. Skeletal Elements Examined for Cranial Porous Lesions and Linear Enamel Hypoplasia in Pre–Coles Creek and Coles Creek Samples

2.3. Frequency of Linear Enamel Hypoplasia in Pre–Coles Creek and Coles Creek Samples

2.4. Frequency of Cranial Porous Lesions in Pre–Coles Creek and Coles Creek Samples

3.1. Sample Demography by Mortuary Context at Citico and Cox Sites

3.2. Burial Location Comparisons of Caries and Caries Severity, by Individual, at Citico and Cox Sites

3.3. Between Sample Comparisons of Caries and Caries Severity, by Individual, at Citico and Cox Sites

4.1. Carious Lesion Frequencies from 40HA301

4.2. Frequencies of Teeth with Enamel Hypoplasias from 40HA301

5.1. Dental Pathology and Antemortem Tooth Loss

5.2. Location and Description of Cut Marks

5.3. Location and Description of Osteitic Lesions

6.1. Number of Individuals Adequate for Study in High-Status and Low-Status Categories

6.2. Lesion Frequencies between Achieved-Status and Low-Status Males

6.3. Mean Maximum Lengths of the Tibia and Femur between Achieved- and Low-Status Males

7.1. Cranial Indices from Lake Cormorant, Irby, and Nodena

8.1. Age and Sex Distribution within the Moran Site Sample

8.2. Comparative Series Used in This Study

8.3. Occurrence of Caries and Antemortem Tooth Loss by Burial at Moran

9.1. Artifacts Analyzed from 38CH1648

9.2. Skeletal Preservation at 38CH1648

9.3. Demographic Profile for Burials Recovered in 2004 at 38CH1648

9.4. People Known to Have Been Buried at the Sailor’s Cemetery

9.5. Data from 2004 Archaeological Excavations Combined with 1933 Works Progress Administration Map

10.1. Artifacts Inventory from DeSaussure College

10.2. Skeletal Remains Inventory from DeSaussure College

Foreword

In 1974, when I made the fateful decision to follow my childhood dream of becoming an archaeologist, the first class that I took was Human Osteology, taught by Jerry Rose at the University of Alabama–Birmingham. He started off the class with a stunning slide show about the fascinating discoveries in Mound 72 at Cahokia, where he had supervised the recovery of the human remains in the last season of excavation. Jerry introduced us to the concept of biocultural analysis of skeletons from archaeological sites: a synthetic theoretical framework that interpreted biological data within the cultural context created by the site’s inhabitants. This seemed to me to be the most exciting and productive approach possible to answer the questions that I had about the lives of ancient peoples, and the numerous advances in theoretical perspectives and methodologies developed over the past forty-three years have only strengthened this opinion.

In 1976, when Robert Blakely introduced his symposium Biocultural Adaptations in Prehistoric America at the Southern Anthropological Society annual meeting, it was the first organized presentation of research papers devoted to the analysis of human skeletal remains from archaeological sites in the southeastern United States conceived within an explicitly anthropological context. Blakely urged active communication and cooperation between the field (the archaeologists who excavated these remains) and the lab (the physical anthropologists who examined them to assess age, sex, physical characteristics, and evidence of pathology), starting with the initial planning stages of archaeological projects, so that the resulting interpretations of biological features would be fully informed by a deep understanding of the cultural and ecological contexts of the societies represented by the recovered materials. The proceedings of this groundbreaking symposium were published the following year (under the same title) by the University of Georgia Press, and the term bioarchaeology entered the scientific vocabulary, coined by Jane E. Buikstra in her chapter Biocultural Dimensions of Archaeological Study: A Regional Perspective.

In 1985, the Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC) hosted another symposium that explicitly promoted this same interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of human remains from archaeological contexts: What Mean These Bones? The Dynamic Integration of Physical Anthropology and Archaeology in the Southeast, organized by Patricia S. Bridges, Ann Marie Mires, and Mary Lucas Powell. Since its founding in 1964, the scientific programs of SEAC’s annual meetings had sporadically included reports on human remains, but no SEAC symposium or session had ever specifically focused on the actual physical remains of the peoples who had created the thousands of archaeological sites under study across the Southeast. The University of Alabama Press published the SEAC symposium proceedings as What Mean These Bones? Studies in Southeastern Bioarchaeology in 1991; yet, not until 2000 did the term bioarchaeology appear again in the title of a SEAC scientific program session (Bioarchaeology, Mortuary Studies, and Paleodemography, chaired by T. Foster, November 9, 2000). From that time onward, however, bioarchaeology claimed its rightful place as a recognized topic of interest at SEAC, now regularly appearing in the scientific programs of the annual meetings. Indeed, in 2008, Hodge and Shuler initiated an annual SEAC symposium series on current research in southeastern bioarchaeology, with the goal of developing an active community of bioarchaeologists within the SEAC membership. Over ten years, this annual symposium expanded from a half-day to a full-day session, presented the work of more than 150 scholars, and articulated a cautious approach to displaying images of human remains. The year 2015 marked a high point of five symposia or sessions on this topic. It remains an ad-hoc group, among whom responsibility passes at the end of each year’s symposium to a volunteer organizer for the following year’s symposium.

This new volume, Bioarchaeology of the American Southeast, testifies to the development of a critical mass of scholarly interest in bioarchaeological research in the southeastern United States, as manifested by the multiplication of sessions devoted to this dynamically integrative approach not only at SEAC but at scientific conferences throughout the world in the twenty-first century. Shannon Hodge and Kristrina Shuler would, no doubt, be the first to admit that they stand on the shoulders of giants who preceded them, but they deserve the highest praise for their innovative and sustained efforts to actively embrace new topics and methods of inquiry that broaden the scope of bioarchaeological research in this richly endowed region. Whereas all of the bioarchaeological studies presented in the 1977 and 1991 volumes focused on analyses of community samples, this volume includes three brilliant examples of a new perspective: osteobiographies, individual case studies viewed not as quaint curiosities but as life histories, deeply embedded in cultural context, that broaden our understanding of gender roles, care of the disabled, and the literal embodiment of social identity. Several chapters address the motives behind the collection of human remains—are they trophies, or scientific specimens, or both?—as well as the various effects these motives have on sample composition and on critical ethical issues. New perspectives on statistical analysis encourage reassessment of old models of social and biological interactions among groups for whom no historic documentation exists. And the opportunities (and constraints) posed for bioarchaeological recovery and analysis conducted under the auspices of cultural resource management projects are thoughtfully appraised and the importance of cooperation with local descendant communities emphasized.

In sum, the case studies presented here are definitely not your grandfather’s archaeology, where discoveries of human burials were prized primarily for their artifact content not for their biological potential to contribute essential insights into ancient lives. On a final note, the gender ratio of the contributors to this collection comes as a pleasant surprise. Robert Blakely’s symposium included six men and two women, and in their SEAC session, Patricia Bridges, Ann Marie Mires, and Mary Lucas Powell expanded the gender balance somewhat to include ten men and six women. Shannon Hodge and Kristrina Shuler have continued this progression, recruiting nine men and fourteen women, an accurate reflection of the growing participation of a previously underrepresented segment of our profession: female scholars. Perhaps the growing attention paid to inquiries focused on previously quasi-invisible segments of past communities (e.g., women warriors, African Americans) is not merely coincidental.

Mary Lucas Powell

Lexington, Kentucky

April 2017

Preface

Shannon Chappell Hodge and Kristrina A. Shuler

More than a quarter century has passed since publication of a critical synopsis of southeastern bioarchaeology, and as such, the editors of and contributors to this volume set out to discern the current state of the discipline. A group of active and engaged scholars contributed presentations on southeastern bioarchaeology to symposia organized by Shannon Hodge and Kristrina Shuler at the 65th, 66th, and 67th Southeastern Archaeological Conferences and at a poster symposium organized by Steven Byers at the 79th annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

In this resulting volume, we have brought together chapters reflecting diversity in methodology, technology, research scale, and research focus. The chapters are organized under two central themes: context and culture history in bioarchaeology and social identities in bioarchaeology. Specifically, our chapters address such issues as paleopathological and ancient DNA investigations and outline new methods for statistical testing of small samples. Some of the authors address the growing roles and concerns of bioarchaeologists working in cultural resource management, and the importance of engaging constituent communities in public archaeology projects. Other chapters explore gender and status and their respective and combined impacts on health, marriage, and postmarital residence patterns.

Our contributors represent four generations of scholars, from teacher to student and peer to peer. Although our focus in this volume is on the southeastern United States, our academic training and our home institutions span the Southeast and the continent. Our collective geographic scope of study is truly international. We are scientists and researchers from multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Many of us are university professors who see in our classrooms the future generation of bioarchaeologists, who will bring even greater diversity to our field, which has become increasingly well integrated in the scope of sex, gender, and nationality since the original publications we echo here. This volume contributes a reassessment of the state of bioarchaeology in the fourth decade since our discipline found its direction and earned its name (Buikstra 1977).

Acknowledgments

This volume results from the combined efforts of many hands and minds, and we extend our appreciation to the authors of each chapter. Each has displayed scholarship, diligence, and patience with repeated edits, revisions, delays, and the inevitable bumps along the road to this finished project. We hope this volume has met the expectations of each contributor, and that they and their research teams are proud to be included among the talented company that the authorship of these chapters represents.

Marie Danforth has earned our eternal gratitude for her mentorship and friendship. In true Danforth style, this volume was launched when she dragged our bashful selves to the book room at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference for an audience with the University of Alabama Press’s Judy Knight, who encouraged us to submit a book proposal, which ultimately became this volume.

Mary Lucas Powell has been generous with her mentorship and guidance, and from the very beginning supported our wish to honor and update the beloved What Mean These Bones? volume, edited by Powell, Bridges, and Mires, which had itself honored and responded to Blakeley’s Biocultural Adaptation in Prehistoric America. We are grateful for her contribution of the foreword to this volume.

We are indebted to those whose generosity with their technical skills both informed and enhanced this volume. In particular, David Dye provided the striking cover photograph of a skeletal-themed bottle from the Bradley site in Arkansas; we are also thankful for the skill of the unknown prehistoric artist who made and so beautifully decorated it. We are grateful for the talent of our map and plan draftsmen, Phillip Hodge and Eric Sipes, and peripatetic photographer Ginny Lucas.

The editorial and production staff of the University of Alabama Press, in particular Wendi Schnaufer, has led us through an unfamiliar process with diligence and forbearance, for which we are appreciative. This gratitude also extends to the anonymous reviewers who helped refine our focus and held us accountable for our mistakes and missteps.

Our most heartfelt thanks go to our families: Phil, John, and Caroline Hodge, and Eric and Claire Sipes. We dedicate our investment in this edited volume to our parents: Jennie Aust Chappell, Dillard Maurice Chappell, Milledge Bernard Bernie Shuler II, and Jean Brantley Shuler.

Introduction

Kristrina A. Shuler and Shannon Chappell Hodge

The southeastern United States is an ecologically and culturally diverse area of the world with nearly fifteen thousand years of continual human occupation and a rich history of diverse populations (Bense 1994). Through the scientific study of archaeologically derived skeletal remains from this region, we gain unique insight into the adaptations, health, and behavior of populations over time, including those who otherwise remain invisible historically because little or no direct textual evidence exists.

Bioarchaeology is generally considered to be a field that bridges or connects a variety of disciplines both within and outside of anthropology, such as archaeology, medical anthropology, skeletal biology, public health, and history. These interdisciplinary connections are unique contributions of bioarchaeology and provide insight into our understandings of health, history, and identities of people in the past. Southeastern bioarchaeology in particular has its roots in more than a century of archaeology and paleopathology, though the earliest biological studies would not meet modern scientific or ethical standards, with their focus on describing anatomical novelties, identifying rare pathologies, and reconstructing (or reifying) traditional racial typologies (see Larsen 2012 who provides a detailed overview of the history of southeastern paleopathology). By the early 1930s, a boom in development, resulting from federally funded New Deal projects, began to usher in substantial archaeological excavations across the United States, including many sites in the Southeast, such as the large Mound State Monument in Alabama (Moore 1907), the Eva site in Tennessee (Lewis and Lewis 1961), and Irene Mounds in Georgia (Hulse 1941) among others (Larsen 2012:268; Jacobi 2002). Burial complexes at many of these mound sites, in particular, offered sufficiently large skeletal samples for comprehensive analyses and comparison across the region; nevertheless, the focus remained primarily on the elaborate and ornate material culture and regional chronologies, while human remains were relegated to descriptions in the appendices (Buikstra 1977).

By the 1980s, bioarchaeology in the United States was transforming from a largely descriptive science to an evolutionary science, and many osteologists at the time, including those working in the Southeast, began examining the effects of such processes as the shift from foraging to agriculture (Cohen and Armelagos 1984; Powell et al. 1991) or the development of social ranking (Larsen 2002; Powell 1988) on disease and nutrition. Also around this time, the term bioarchaeology in its modern Americanist sense was first introduced in an edited volume of studies from the southeastern United States, thus beginning the formal field of bioarchaeology as a holistic, interdisciplinary scientific field that seeks to answer archaeological and anthropological questions using the data and methods of biological anthropology (Buikstra 1977:69).

In the first pivotal state of the field, an edited volume by Blakely (1977b) called for collaboration between archaeologists and biological anthropologists and sought a more informed and nuanced view of the past from a joint biocultural perspective. Indeed, in the introduction to Biocultural Adaptation in Prehistoric America, Blakely (1977a; see also Buikstra 1977; Peebles 1977:118; Robbins 1977) urged archaeologists and biological anthropologists to work together. Blakely and his contributors encouraged collaborative problem-oriented holistic investigations that would take advantage of the strengths of both disciplines and yield insight into both biological and cultural (biocultural) impacts and adaptive responses to social and environmental conditions. From the 1950s through the 1970s, cultural anthropologists led by such central figures as White (1959), Sahlins (1962), and Service (1962) strongly influenced a New (Processual) Archaeology, with a resulting shift from culture history to culture process, including an emphasis on building theory around mortuary complexes in the Southeast (e.g., Peebles and Kus 1977). Researchers posited system formation and cultural adaptation to environmental stressors and examined the effects of increased population pressures and changing subsistence economies within functional systems (Binford 1972a, 1972b; Flannery 1967, 1972, 1973; Peebles 1977). The subsequent papers in the Blakely (1977b) volume, which were products of a scholarly symposium, had a common orientation in their conviction that the discipline we now call bioarchaeology could contribute more than just description and typology and could help address the questions that Americanist anthropological archaeologists hoped to explore.

A second critical synthesis of the discipline developed out of the 42nd Southeastern Archaeological Conference, originating in a symposium in which Powell, Bridges, and Mires sought to revisit the question of archaeological and biological collaboration on matters of biocultural significance, with explicit reference to Blakely’s challenge more than a decade before. The resulting chapters were published in the 1991 What Mean These Bones? Studies in Southeastern Bioarchaeology, a reflection on and homage to Blakely’s earlier work. As a key contributor to the earlier Blakely symposium, Jane Buikstra was invited to compose the reflective concluding chapter to What Mean These Bones?, in which she famously declared that bioarchaeology was Out of the Appendix and into the Dirt (Buikstra 1991), affirming that bioarchaeology as a discipline had matured from one of the technical -ologies, where data reports are relegated to a place among the appendices of an archaeological report to a fully realized research focus and from a descriptive paradigm to a truly anthropological bioarchaeology (Buikstra 1991:188). Buikstra avowed that the challenge posed by Blakely had been met and that the intervening years of research had indeed brought bioarchaeology into deserved parity in the question building and research design of anthropological archaeology. By declaring that bioarchaeologists were in the dirt, Buikstra deemed them to be with other archaeologists, where they belonged.

In the twenty-six years following this publication, bioarchaeology in the United States and Southeast has been shaped by two key factors: the greater role of bioarchaeology in cultural resource management (CRM) and the implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, Pub. L 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/). A substantial boom in urban development on public and private lands, especially throughout the 1980s to 2007, led to an increase in collaboration with bioarchaeologists through CRM, both in academic and nonacademic settings. As with our archaeologist counterparts, bioarchaeologists often work in consultation with clients and government agencies, fulfilling regulatory compliance with cultural resources laws including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (54 CFR 306108), Section 4(f) of the 1966 US Department of Transportation Act, requirements of the National