close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Diet reconstruction in antebellum Baltimore Insights from dental microwear analysis.

код для вставкиСкачать
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 141:571–582 (2010)
Diet Reconstruction in Antebellum Baltimore: Insights
from Dental Microwear Analysis
Peter H. Ma and Mark F. Teaford*
Center for Functional Anatomy & Evolution, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205
KEY WORDS
Homo sapiens; molar; incisor; tooth wear
ABSTRACT
Construction in the City of Baltimore
during 1996 led to the recovery of human skeletal
remains dating from 1792 to 1856. Historical research
indicates that the skeletal remains come from two adjacent graveyards: Christ’s Church Episcopalian Cemetery
and the Potters Field East. The different socioeconomic
status of the internees in each cemetery suggests the
possibility of marked contrasts in lifestyle, health, and
diet. To shed further light on these possibilities, analyses
of microscopic wear patterns on teeth, or dental microwear analyses, were undertaken. A sample from Spanish
Florida was used to help interpret the results. Epoxy
casts of incisor and molar teeth were placed in an SEM
and photomicrographs of clean wear facets were taken.
The photomicrographs were digitized using the software
package Microware 4.02. Statistical analyses of rank
transformed data consisted of single-factor ANOVA, followed by post hoc tests. No significant differences were
found between Christ’s Church and Potters Field East
samples for any of the variables examined in either
molar or incisor teeth. However, differences between
each Baltimore sample and the La Florida samples give
suggestions of possible diet differences in antebellum
Baltimore. The mosaic of differences between the Baltimore and La Florida samples probably reflects the wide
variety of foods available to antebellum Baltimoreans as
well as the relative lack of abrasives in their diet. Am J
Phys Anthropol 141:571–582, 2010. V 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Baltimore, Maryland, is a major city situated on the
Chesapeake Bay, about 35 miles north of Washington,
D.C. During the colonial and antebellum periods of
American history (1650s–1860), Baltimore was an
expanding city, a center of trans-Atlantic commerce and
the northernmost port for the slave trade (Blood, 1937;
Bernard, 1974; Muller and Groves, 1979). During this
time, the United States was undergoing an enormous period of social, political, and economic changes, as new
technologies and westward expansion into the interior of
the United States opened up new markets for goods.
Baltimore is notable for its large number of cemeteries,
ranging from well-known and still-used cemeteries such
as Greenmount and St. Johns Episcopal cemeteries to
anonymous burials in pottersfields, the burial grounds of
the poor, and indigent (Wilson, 1991). Many pottersfield
burials consisted of free blacks and hospital patients who
had succumbed to yellow fever during summer epidemics,
which plagued the seaports of the eastern United States
throughout the 1800s (Anonymous, 1917; Wilson, 1991;
Harvey, 2005). A pottersfield unearthed in 1996 at the
intersection of Orleans Street and Broadway Street,
referred to in old city maps as ‘‘Potters Field East,’’ was
in operation from 1793 until 1857, after which it disappears from Baltimore City maps (Varle, 1801; Lucas,
1822, 1836; Legg (The burying grounds of Baltimore,
Undated manuscript); Sidney and Neff, 1851).
Christ’s Church was a prominent Episcopal congregation near the heart of the city (Sun, 1851; Buck, 1937; Savage, 1944). Of particular relevance to this study was its
graveyard, the burial ground of relatively prosperous
members of Baltimore society (Christ’s Church Protestant
Episcopal Parish, Register of Marriages, Baptisms, and
Burials). The records of the Episcopal diocese of Maryland
indicate that the Christ’s Church graveyard was in continuous use from 1800 to 1857, when the Christ’s Church
vestry voted to transfer the bodies in the graveyard to
other grave sites, including St. Johns Episcopal Cemetery
and the Greenmount Cemetery (Christ’s Church Protestant Episcopal Parish, Treasurer of the Vestry of Christ’s
Church). Diocese records indicate that the Christ’s
Church Sexton and his labor crews were paid for the procedure in July 1857. Of note is the fact that the Christ’s
Church cemetery is adjacent to the aforementioned Potters Field East, a unique situation, as church cemeteries
were consecrated ground, while pottersfields were not.
During construction for new research buildings for the
Cancer Research Center at Johns Hopkins Hospital,
human skeletal remains were uncovered at a location
sometimes known as Hampstead Hill (Lubensky et al.,
1998). Historical records of cemeteries and maps of the
early antebellum and colonial periods of the City of Baltimore identified these remains as originating from the
Potters Field East and the Christ’s Church Episcopal
Cemetery (Varle, 1801; Lucas, 1822, 1836), although
there were no written records of individual burials. The
remains included intact teeth from numerous individuals
C 2009
V
WILEY-LISS, INC.
C
Grant sponsor: National Science Foundation.
*Correspondence to: Mark F. Teaford, Center for Functional Anatomy and Evolution, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,
1830 E. Monument St., Room 303, Baltimore, MD 21205.
E-mail: mteaford@ jhmi.edu
Present address of Peter H. Ma: Penn State Hershey Medical
Center Hershey, PA 17033.
Received 30 October 2008; accepted 2 August 2009
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.21177
Published online 19 November 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com).
572
P.H. MA AND M.F. TEAFORD
from each cemetery (95 total individuals), raising the
possibility of using dental microwear analysis (DMA)
techniques to examine dietary differences between two
populations from radically different socioeconomic backgrounds in early industrial, antebellum Baltimore.
DMA uses high-resolution casts, various forms of microscopy, and image-processing software to identify and
record the dimensions of dental microwear features.
Dental microwear measurements are then compared
statistically, enabling a picture of how teeth were used
in life (Gordon, 1988; Teaford, 1988a,b, 2007; Noble and
Teaford, 1995). This type of analysis also uses historical,
archeological, and field observation to help discern the
significance of dental microwear trends whenever possible. Successfully used to characterize the diets of modern
nonhuman primate taxa (Teaford, 1988a; Teaford and
Glander, 1991; Nystrom et al., 2004), dental microwear
also has proven beneficial when studying early human
populations (Bullington, 1991; Molleson and Jones, 1991;
Fox, 1992; Pastor, 1992; Ungar and Spencer, 1999;
Larsen et al., 2001, 2002; Schmidt, 2001; Teaford et al.,
2001; Organ et al., 2005).
Diets in Maryland during the colonial and antebellum
periods were extremely complex, reflecting a broad range
of social, economic, and temporal factors, as well as technological and ecological changes, each affecting the quality, availability, and prices of foods (Booth, 1971; Carr,
1991). Unfortunately, there are no published studies of
diet reconstruction for Baltimore during this time period.
In fact, the available information about diet composition,
nutrition, cooking techniques, and cooking technology
from this time comes from Virginia, Philadelphia, and
Great Britain (Booth, 1971; Root and de Rochemont,
1976; Hooker, 1981; Carson, 1985; Smith, 1994). This
study attempts to address this void by comparing and
contrasting the diets of populations from the Potters
Field East and the Christ’s Church Cemetery using
DMA. To date, dental microwear analyses have not been
published for populations undergoing industrialization.
As antebellum Baltimore reflects a time period during
which industrial food processing technologies such as
canning and sugar refining, and the use of roller mills
became widespread (Hooker, 1981; Kiple and Ornelas,
2001), this study also could shed new light on the impact
of technology on dental microwear in our species with an
eye toward analyzing the effect of the industrial revolution on human health. For instance, might individuals
from the Potters Field have had poorer access to some of
these improvements in food processing? If so, might they
show more microwear as evidence of more abrasives in
the diet? Finally, to aid in interpretations of the dental
microwear patterns documented in these populations,
comparisons will be made with samples from prehistoric
(pre 1400 AD) and Spanish mission era (1500–1670)
Native American dental remains from Spanish Florida
(Larsen, 2001; Teaford et al., 2001; Organ et al., 2005).
Again, given the improvements in food processing evident in Colonial America, might the Baltimore samples
show less microwear than those from Spanish Florida?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Baltimore samples
Dental remains from the Potters Field East and
Christ’s Church Cemetery were collected, cataloged, and
cast during the winter of 1997, following the exhumation
of their accompanying remains. Many specimens could
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
not be included in the analysis because of postmortem
etching of the enamel by groundwater running through
various portions of the sites. The net result was a sample
of 16 maxillary central incisors and 62 maxillary first
molars suitable for DMA. Unfortunately, the material was
reburied within 5 years of discovery and due to the fragmentary nature of the remains, only 14 individuals could
be sexed with any confidence (Lubensky et al., 1998).
Florida samples
Samples of Native American teeth from Florida provided a comparison sample to the Baltimore samples.
Prehistoric teeth (1200–1500 AD) were obtained from
Lake Jackson Mounds Archeological State Park north of
Tallahassee (Organ et al., 2005). Spanish mission era
(post-1450) teeth were from two types of sites: coastal
sites included Santa Catalina de Amelia, Santa Catalina
de Guale, and Mayport Mound; and inland sites included
San Luis de Apalachee and San Martin (Larsen, 2001;
Organ et al., 2005; Teaford et al., 2001). Mission era
teeth were from burials of Christianized Native Americans who worked as agricultural laborers on Spanish
Franciscan missions throughout La Florida (Larsen,
2001; Organ et al., 2005).
DMA has traditionally required high-resolution replicas of teeth, photomicrographs of clean wear facets, and
software for digitizing the obtained photomicrographs
[although see Scott et al. (2005, 2006) for an alternative
methodology]. High-resolution molds of teeth were made
using polyvinlysiloxane impression material (Coltene
‘‘President Jet Regular’’), which has been shown to demonstrate excellent resolution and dimensional stability
when used for DMA (Teaford, 1988a; Teaford and Oyen,
1989a). These molds were then blocked with Coltene
‘‘Presidential Putty.’’ The molds were then poured with
Ciba-Geigy ‘‘Araldite’’ resin and hardener to construct
the tooth replica. Immediately after pouring, the epoxyfilled molds were centrifuged to eliminate air bubbles
and then cured in an oven set at 1008F for 48 h. These
casting techniques have been proven to preserve detail
down to resolutions of at least 0.1 lm (Organ et al.,
2005). The casts were then sputter-coated with gold-palladium to facilitate their analysis with scanning electron
microscopy.
Photomicrographs of clean wear regions on molar and
incisor teeth were taken using an AMRAY 1810 SEM in
secondary emissions mode and an accelerating voltage of
20 kV. Photomicrographs were taken at a working distance of 12 lm, with the tooth wear surface nearly perpendicular to the electron beam. The micrographs were
then digitized as bitmap files using Microware 4.02 software (Ungar et al., 1990). In this software, wear features
are selected and delineated by the user. To minimize the
risk of interobserver errors (Grine et al., 2002), digitized
micrographs of all Baltimore samples were digitized by
the original digitizer of the comparative samples (MFT).
Microware 4.02 automatically classifies user-identified
wear patterns into scratches and pits; with a 4:1 length:
width ratio being used to discriminate between these
two feature types (Grine, 1986). Microware 4.02 automatically generates the following parameters for analysis: feature number, average pit width, average scratch
width, pit percentage, and homogeneity of scratch orientation. As all have proven useful in previous analyses of
human dental material (e.g., Teaford et al., 2001; Organ
et al., 2005), all were used in the present analyses.
573
DENTAL MICROWEAR AND DIET IN ANTEBELLUM BALTIMORE
TABLE 1. Raw incisor descriptive statistics (mean 6 SE)
Baltimore (N 5 19)
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% pits
Scratch R
160.97
2.59
1.11
24.50
0.512
6
6
6
6
6
Prehistoric (N 5 10)
14.63
0.19
0.02
3.09
0.03
259.70
1.89
1.28
27.64
0.511
6
6
6
6
6
Mission (N 5 19)
19.18
0.13
0.21
3.05
0.05
252.26
1.97
1.14
31.03
0.632
6
6
6
6
6
23.53
0.09
0.09
3.43
0.02
TABLE 2. ANOVA of ranked values for incisors
Total features
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Pit width
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Scratch width
Between groups
Within groups
Total
% Pits
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Scratch R
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Sum of squares
df
Mean square
F
Sig.
2748.742
6461.258
9210.000
2
45
47
1374.371
143.584
9.572
0.000
1694.637
7513.863
9208.500
2
45
47
847.318
166.975
5.075
0.010
225.374
8984.126
9209.500
2
45
47
112.687
199.647
0.564
0.573
492.237
8719.763
9212.000
2
45
47
246.118
193.773
1.270
0.291
1994.047
7217.453
9211.500
2
45
47
997.024
160.388
6.216
0.004
Data for incisors and molars were gathered and
grouped for statistical analysis. Incisor data had to be
grouped into three categories: Baltimore (consisting of
Christ’s Church and Potters Field East), Prehistoric
Florida, and Spanish Mission era Florida. The two Baltimore groups were combined, because there was only one
usable incisor from the Christ’s Church sample. Molar
data were initially grouped into Potters Field, Christ’s
Church, Prehistoric Florida, and Mission-era Florida
groups. Two further analyses were run, one combining
all Baltimore teeth as a single group and another in
which San Luis teeth were separated into a group after
evidence emerged that their diets varied considerably
from that of their Spanish Florida counterparts (Organ et
al., 2005). Again, because of the fragmentary nature of the
remains, no comparisons by age or sex were possible.
All variables were rank transformed before statistical
analysis, because they tended to demonstrate non-normal
distributions with high variability (Conover and Iman,
1981). Statistical tests involved single-factor ANOVAs followed by both the Tukey’s highly significant difference
test and Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test
when ANOVA testing indicated that significant differences existed between mean values for a specific variable.
In all cases, ‘‘significance’’ was based on a P value \ 0.05.
RESULTS
Comparison of incisors
Prehistoric La Florida and Mission era La Florida incisors generally did not demonstrate significant differences
from one another, although results from the LSD analysis suggested that the Mission era incisors showed more
homogeneously oriented scratches than did prehistoric
ones (Tables 1–3). Results from the Tukey’s test, however, were barely insignificant (P \ 0.07). The Baltimore
incisors were found to be significantly different from
both Prehistoric and Mission era La Florida incisors in
having fewer overall features but wider pits. Mission era
incisors also showed more homogeneously oriented
scratches than did those from the Baltimore sample. Average scratch width and percentage of pits were not significantly different between groups.
Comparisons of molars
Initial analysis of the molars divided the samples into
four groups: Christ’s Church, Potters Field, Prehistoric
La Florida, and Mission era La Florida (Table 4).
ANOVA indicated that all microwear variables except for
scratch orientation exhibited significant differences
between groups (Table 5). Tukey’s test and the LSD tests
demonstrated no significant differences between Christ’s
Church and Potters Field molars for any of the variables
tested (Table 6). However, both tests showed that Potters
Field molars had significantly fewer microwear features
than did either of the La Florida groups, whereas the
Christ’s Church molars demonstrated no such differences. The LSD test indicated that average pit widths from
the Christ’s Church and Potters Field groups were significantly greater than those from Mission era La Florida. However, the Tukey’s test did not mirror those
results, and average pit widths for the mission and Prehistoric La Florida groups were not significantly different. Average scratch widths from Prehistoric La Florida
molars were significantly smaller than those of Potters
Field and the Mission era La Florida molars. However,
once again, the Tukey’s and LSD tests showed conflicting
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
574
P.H. MA AND M.F. TEAFORD
scratch width, and percentage of pits (Table 7). As with
the previous comparisons, there were no significant differences for scratch orientation. Again, multiple comparison tests indicated that the Baltimore sample had fewer
microwear features than did either sample from La Florida (Table 8). The Baltimore sample also exhibited fewer
pits, but wider pits, than those in the Mission era sample, and wider scratches than those in the Prehistoric La
Florida sample. Again, scratch widths from the Prehistoric sample were significantly smaller than those from
the Mission era molars.
As can be seen in Table 4, the San Luis molars had
higher values than the rest of the Mission sample for every microwear variable except scratch orientation. This
is perhaps not surprising, given historical evidence indicating dietary and demographic differences when
compared with other mission era settlements (Hann
1988; Reitz, 1993; Ruhl, 2000; Larsen, 2001; Larsen et
al., 2001). When the San Luis sample and the Mission
sample were analyzed separately, additional differences
emerged, as the ANOVA indicated that all variables
except scratch orientation showed significant differences
somewhere within the samples (Table 9). The San Luis
molars showed significantly greater scratch widths and
percentages of pits than did those from Christ’s Church,
Potters Field, Prehistoric La Florida, and the Mission
era La Florida sites (Table 10). Results for other measures from the San Luis molars showed mixed results, as
the LSD test suggested some significant differences (e.g.,
wider pits than on molars from the Mission sites, and
more variable scratch orientations than those from either Baltimore site) where the Tukey’s test did not. The
results for the comparison of scratch width between the
Prehistoric La Florida molars and those from Christ’s
Church. Potters Field molars demonstrated a significantly lower percentage of pits than the Mission era La
Florida groups only, a difference that was unique in that
other intergroup comparisons of pit percentage yielded
no significant differences.
When the Christ’s Church and Potters Field molars
were grouped together (‘‘Baltimore Combined’’ sample in
Table 4), F tests indicated that significant differences
existed between groups for the number of features,
TABLE 3. Multiple comparisons of ranked values for incisors
Baltimore
Prehistoric
Mission
–
–
–
\0.001
\0.008
NS
NS
NS
\0.001
\0.013
NS
NS
\0.001
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
NS
NS
NS
NS
\0.028 (LSD)
NS (Tukey)
Baltimore
Total N
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
Prehistoric
Total N
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
Both Tukey’s highly significant difference test and Fisher’s least
significant difference test were run; highest P values are presented in the table, along with any differences between results
from the two tests.
TABLE 4. Raw molar descriptive statistics (mean 6 SE)
Christchurch
(N 5 17)
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
229.97
2.67
0.97
40.22
0.500
6
6
6
6
6
15.37
0.12
0.02
3.17
0.03
Pottersfield
(N 5 45)
199.94
2.76
0.96
36.08
0.490
6
6
6
6
6
7.75
0.13
0.01
1.98
0.02
Baltimore
combined
(N 5 62)
208.17
2.74
0.965
37.21
0.493
6
6
6
6
6
Prehistoric
(N 5 34)
7.17
0.10
0.01
1.68
0.02
299.06
2.52
0.88
38.31
0.472
6
6
6
6
6
Mission
(N 5 84)
24.49
0.14
0.03
2.38
0.01
265.48
2.46
1.05
42.92
0.458
6
6
6
6
6
12.48
0.10
0.03
1.52
0.02
Mission minus
San Luis
(N 5 58)
260.79
2.39
1.01
38.14
0.473
6
6
6
6
6
14.17
0.13
0.04
1.71
0.02
San Luis
(N 5 26)
275.92
2.62
1.13
53.57
0.423
6
6
6
6
6
24.94
0.12
0.04
1.82
0.03
TABLE 5. ANOVA of ranked values for molars (comparisons of Christchurch, Pottersfield, Prehistoric, and Mission samples)
Total features
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Pit width
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Scratch width
Between groups
Within groups
Total
% Pits
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Scratch R
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Sum of squares
df
Mean square
F
Sig.
42813.315
443155.685
485969.000
3
176
179
14271.105
2517.930
5.668
0.001
22426.834
463506.166
485933.000
3
176
179
7475.611
2633.558
2.839
0.039
38784.574
440951.426
479736.000
3
176
179
12928.191
2505.406
5.160
0.002
21509.674
464472.826
485982.500
3
176
179
7169.891
2639.050
2.717
0.046
10384.667
475584.833
485969.500
3
176
179
3461.556
2702.187
1.281
0.282
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
575
DENTAL MICROWEAR AND DIET IN ANTEBELLUM BALTIMORE
TABLE 6. Multiple comparisons of ranked values for molars (comparisons of Christchurch, Pottersfield, Prehistoric,
and Mission samples)
Christchurch
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
Pottersfield
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
Prehistoric
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
Christchurch
Pottersfield
Prehistoric
Mission
–
–
–
–
–
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
\0.043 (LSD) NS (Tukey)
NS
NS
NS
\0.038 (LSD) NS (Tukey)
NS
NS
NS
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
\0.002
NS
\0.035
NS
NS
\0.003
\0.017 (LSD) NS (Tukey)
\0.001
\0.034
NS
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
NS
NS
\0.001
NS
NS
Both Tukey’s highly significant difference test and Fisher’s least significant difference test were run; highest P values are presented
in the table, along with any differences between results from the two tests.
TABLE 7. ANOVA of ranked molar values using Baltimore combined sample
Total features
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Pit width
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Scratch width
Between groups
Within groups
Total
% Pits
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Scratch R
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Sum of squares
df
Mean square
F
Sig.
37340.738
448628.26
485969.00
2
177
179
18670.369
2534.623
7.366
0.001
22010.449
463922.55
485933.00
2
177
179
11005.225
2621.031
4.199
0.17
38775.775
440960.23
479736.00
2
177
179
19387.888
2491.301
7.782
0.001
18531.784
33118.088
34409.663
2
177
179
645.787
187.108
3.451
0.034
0.044
3.475
3.519
2
177
179
0.022
0.020
1.118
0.329
Prehistoric molars also had significantly narrower
scratches than did the molars from Potters Field. But
again, there were mixed results for the comparisons of
scratch widths between Prehistoric molars and Christ’s
Church and the Mission era sites. Potters Field molars
still had significantly fewer microwear features than did
those from any of the La Florida sites, whereas the Mission sites (minus the San Luis material) showed significantly narrower pits on their molars than did the Potters Field site (comparisons with Christ’s Church, again,
showed mixed results).
DISCUSSION
Differences between the Baltimore and La Florida dental remains include differences in both incisor and molar
microwear. As dietary reconstructions have already been
published for the various La Florida sites (Head, 1999;
Larsen, 2001; Larsen et al., 2001; Teaford et al., 2001;
Organ et al., 2005), the focus here will be on the implications of the results for the Baltimore samples.
TABLE 8. Multiple comparisons of ranked values for
molars (comparisons of Baltimore combined, Prehistoric,
and Mission samples)
Baltimore
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
Prehistoric
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
Baltimore
Prehistoric
Mission
–
–
–
–
–
\0.003
NS
\0.012
NS
NS
\0.004
\0.014
NS
\0.033
NS
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
NS
NS
\0.001
NS
NS
Both Tukey’s highly significant difference test and Fisher’s least
significant difference test were run; highest P values are presented in the table, along with any differences between results
from the two tests.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
576
P.H. MA AND M.F. TEAFORD
TABLE 9. ANOVA of ranked molar values using Mission and San Luis as separate samples
Sum of squares
df
Mean square
F
Sig.
42915.570
443053.430
485969.000
4
175
179
10728.892
2531.734
4.238
0.003
36811.186
449121.814
485933.000
4
175
179
9202.796
2566.410
3.586
0.008
81493.648
398242.352
479736.000
4
175
179
20373.412
2275.671
8.953
0.000
80345.636
405636.864
485982.500
4
175
179
20086.409
2317.925
8.666
0.000
19193.458
466776.042
485969.500
4
175
179
4798.365
2667.292
1.799
0.131
Total features
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Pit width
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Scratch width
Between groups
Within groups
Total
% Pits
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Scratch R
Between groups
Within groups
Total
TABLE 10. Multiple comparisons of ranked values for molars (comparisons including San Luis separated from Mission sample)
Christchurch
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
Pottersfield
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
Prehistoric
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
Mission
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
Christchurch
Pottersfield
Prehistoric
Mission
San Luis
–
–
–
–
–
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
\0.034(LSD) NS (Tukey)
NS
NS
NS
\0.008(LSD) NS (Tukey)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
\0.033
\0.009
\0.031(LSD) NS (Tukey)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
\0.003
NS
\0.037
NS
NS
\0.0013
\0.017
NS
NS
NS
\0.046
NS
\0.004
\0.001
\0.019(LSD) NS (Tukey)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
NS
NS
\0.017(LSD) NS (Tukey)
NS
NS
NS
NS
\0.001
\0.001
NS
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
NS
\0.019(LSD) NS (Tukey)
\0.001
\0.001
NS
Both Tukey’s highly significant difference test and Fisher’s least significant difference test were run; highest P values are presented
in the table, along with any differences between results from the two tests.
Unfortunately, comparisons of incisor microwear
were not possible for the Potters Field and Christ’s
Church samples, because there was only one incisor
from Christ’s Church. However, the Baltimore incisor
wear patterns stand in contrast to either La Florida
sample in having fewer features and wider pits. Baltimore molar data indicate that, while the Christ’s
Church molars and Potters Field molars did not differ
significantly from one another, the Potters Field molars
more frequently demonstrated significant differences
from the La Florida samples. So what does it all
mean?
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Baltimore’s population represented a later period of
technological development (the industrial era of 19th
century America) in marked contrast to the hunter gatherers of Prehistoric La Florida and the maize intensive
agriculturalists of Mission-era La Florida. Thus, food
processing and cooking technologies had advanced significantly during the 19th century. Flour was now rolled,
milled, and ground on a scale necessary to supply large
cities with adequate foods (Root and de Rochemont,
1976; Muller and Groves, 1979; Hooker, 1981). Preservation of foods in the form of canning and the addition of
salts and sugar also altered the consistency and nutri-
DENTAL MICROWEAR AND DIET IN ANTEBELLUM BALTIMORE
tive value of foods. Likewise, widespread availability of
iron pots, pans, ovens, and cooking utensils made food
preparation and cleaning possible for a much larger portion of the population (Hooker, 1981).
At one level, the inability of DMA techniques to
detect significant differences between the two Baltimore
dental samples is not surprising. Recent work with the
physical properties of primate foods has shown that
most are not hard enough to scratch enamel (Lucas,
1994, 2004). Historical evidence suggests that antebellum Baltimore diets were soft and that the general population enjoyed foods processed to such an extent that
most abrasives had been removed, even from the foods
of the poorest members of society (Hooker, 1981). Thus,
one might expect similarities between the Baltimore
samples. From this perspective, the fact that the
Christ’s Church and Potters Field specimens demonstrated significantly fewer microwear features on their
incisors or molars than the La Florida specimens would
seem to be expected. But what else is evident from
these analyses?
Incisor microwear
Incisor microwear data interpretation is difficult, as
incisors are often used for many nonmasticatory activities, particularly in populations where smoking was
prevalent and in hunter gatherer societies who used
their teeth as tools (Moorees, 1957; Murphy 1964a,b;
Milner and Larsen, 1991). Although the reduced number
of microwear features suggests that the Baltimore group
was consuming a less-abrasive diet than its La Florida
counterparts, at the same time, pit widths were significantly greater in the Baltimore samples suggesting that
some element of the Baltimore diet was introducing
occasional, large abrasives into the oral cavity (Teaford
and Oyen, 1989b; Teaford et al., 2001). Culinary sources
suggest that this pattern may be due to consumption of
oysters, which were consumed ‘‘on the half shell’’ by
being scraped against the upper incisors (Root and de
Rochemont, 1976). Furthermore, as seafood consumers
know, oysters often contain grit and sediment. Low levels of scratch orientation homogeneity seen in both Prehistoric La Florida and Baltimore incisors suggest that
these populations either used a wide variety of movements of food or objects across the teeth or consumed a
wide variety of foods.
Molars
Once again, the amount of molar microwear suggests
that Baltimore diets consisted of softer, cleaner foods
compared to the diets seen in La Florida. However, Baltimore molars had larger pits than Mission-era La Florida molars, but fewer of them, and their pit widths were
similar to those of the Prehistoric La Florida molars.
This, plus wider scratches than on the Prehistoric
molars, again lends credence to the idea that occasional
large-grained abrasives were the main source of these
patterns. The lower incidence of pitting on the Baltimore
molars also suggests that meat-eating was not the primary cause (contra. San Luis) (Organ et al., 2005). Separation of the Potters Field and Christ’s Church specimens into two samples may give a few glimpses of sociocultural differences within the Baltimore sample.
Overall, the Christ’s Church and Potters Field molars
give evidence of a diet rich in soft nonabrasive foods,
577
with occasional ingestion of abrasives. However, a comparison of the microwear results from the combined Baltimore sample and the separated Potters Field and
Christ’s Church samples suggests that it may be a lower
number of features and the lower incidence of pitting in
the Potters Field sample that is driving the differences
between the Baltimore samples and the La Florida samples. Can historical references give us any further
insights into such possibilities?
Rich and poor individuals consumed large quantities
of maize, seafood, and pork; however, the food of the
wealthy was likely to be of higher quality and well seasoned with sauces and wines (Smallzreid, 1956; Carson,
1985). Dietary differences between rich and poor in
antebellum Baltimore included higher levels and greater
varieties of meat, fresh fruit, and fresh vegetables consumed by the wealthy (Carr, 1993; Steckle, 1999; Kiple
and Ornelas, 2000; Blonigen, 2004). Christ’s Church congregants, particularly those from earlier in the 19th century, also probably had greater access to fresh game,
food requiring firearms and hunting skills to acquire
(Carr, 1993). The poorer population most likely consumed a diet heavy in maize in the form of cornmeal,
cornbread, and mushes and large quantities of salt pork
plus occasionally abundant seafood (Muller and Groves,
1979; Stickle, 1979; Blonigen, 2004). So, the main contrast seems to have been in the quality of the diets.
From one perspective, that might seem to suggest
cleaner food items in the diet of the wealthy. However,
the microwear data, if anything, suggest the opposite.
The other possibility is that higher quality diets
included fresher foods and/or foods requiring less cooking. This might be more in line with the results of the
dental microwear analyses, as fresher vegetables might
have included more natural silicates, and less cooking
might have left foods slightly tougher for the wealthy to
chew.
CONCLUSION
The Potters Field and Christ’s Church dental specimens from antebellum Baltimore yielded evidence of
diets markedly free of abrasives when compared to Prehistoric and Mission era Spanish Florida. The two Baltimore samples also showed no statistically significant
differences from one another with respect to molar
microwear. This absence of significant intergroup differences was not surprising in light of historical accounts
of the trend toward more processed, softer diets with
occasional forays into harder, more abrasive food items
in Colonial America. Historical records suggest that
socioeconomic dietary differences may have revolved
around access by the wealthy to imported wines, fresh
vegetables, and a variety of meats. The effects of each
of these items on dental microwear are admittedly difficult to discern. But the possibility that poorer populations in Baltimore survived on less fresh foods and
more heavily cooked foods certainly deserves further
investigation.
Our current understanding of diet in early industrialized societies is limited by the availability of contemporaneous comparison samples as well as inadequate documentation of the details of local food preparation and
availability. Lack of clear demarcation between socioeconomic groups and specific types of foods also impedes robust diet reconstruction. Temporal effects on these samples are unknown and would make for a subject of fasciAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology
578
P.H. MA AND M.F. TEAFORD
nating study. It is clear from this study, however, that
antebellum Baltimoreans enjoyed a clean and relatively
abrasive free diet with a wide variety of foods for rich
and poor alike.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Ms. Arlene Daniel, Ms. Tonya
Penkrot, Mr. Shawn Zack, and Mr. Jason Organ from
the Center for Functional Anatomy and Evolution at
Johns Hopkins University for their assistance with
SPSS, advice, and encouragement throughout the
course of this project; Mrs. Tammy Wong, Mr. Ed Redmond, and the staff of the Geography and Map Division
of the Library of Congress for providing access to the
maps of Early Baltimore; Dr. Tomoko Steen of the Science, Technology, and Business Division of the Library
of Congress and Christine A. Ruggere, Curator of the
Institute of the History of Medicine at the Welch Medical Library for helping to instill a better understanding
of 19th century medicine and medical records; Ms.
Mary Klein for providing access to the records of the
Archives of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland; the staff
of the Library of Congress Manuscript Division for
providing access to colonial era cookbooks as well as
pencils and paper for note-taking. We also benefited
significantly from the comments of two reviewers and
an Associate Editor.
APPENDIX A
TABLE A1. Incisor microwear measurements
ImageFile
B703C
136I11
136MXI12
205MXIC0
B117B
B136
B141
B165
B201A
B207A
B207B
B207I
B240A
B240B
B276
B547
IM186
IM220
IM24
IM7
IM81A
IM8A
LJ13
LJ15
LJ18
LJ5
OsSCDG28
OsSCDG3
OsSCDG30
OsSCDG32
OsSCDG51
OsSCDGIndB
OsSCDGlab28
Sm9111
SmY44
SmY9112
SmY9116
SmY9117
SmY9121
SmY9124
SmY9125
SmY9131
SmY9138
SmY91-39
SmY914
Group
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
273
126
94
307
140
276
137
220
80
149
196
172.5
230
158
72
92
249
280
270
255
366
288
284
128
266
211
251
179
169
263
429
502
239
329
182
184
285
280
173
266
408
156
119
200
179
1.53
2.8
2.83
1.56
3.72
1.68
4.88
1.91
2.73
2.99
2.42
2.705
1.62
3.16
1.63
2.55
1.58
1.64
1.64
1.81
1.63
1.41
2.37
1.92
2.7
2.16
1.5
1.76
2.29
2.1
1.39
1.41
1.62
1.98
2.08
1.84
1.9
2.6
1.84
2
1.73
2.67
2.67
2.17
1.97
0.79
1.17
1.22
0.99
1.2
1.04
1.15
0.99
1.25
1.11
1.07
1.09
1.16
1.09
1.06
1.01
0.88
0.79
0.8
0.84
0.78
0.85
0.87
1.09
0.96
1.13
0.8
0.86
1.13
0.895
0.76
0.72
0.85
0.91
0.97
1.07
0.91
1.09
1.1
0.85
1.14
1.11
1.22
1.19
0.95
15.02
16.67
13.83
60.26
10.00
44.20
22.63
26.82
36.25
25.50
24.49
24.93
46.96
20.89
15.28
10.87
35.34
31.07
37.78
19.61
32.79
38.54
21.30
8.59
21.05
30.33
12.35
31.28
32.54
43.16
40.33
63.15
31.80
56.08
31.87
33.70
27.02
8.21
35.84
34.96
16.42
23.08
10.08
13.50
44.13
0.51
0.514
0.495
0.314
0.531
0.653
0.532
0.849
0.343
0.488
0.572
0.53
0.466
0.437
0.758
0.22
0.456
0.547
0.656
0.621
0.478
0.566
0.7285
0.548
0.284
0.225
0.538
0.683
0.582
0.78
0.709
0.564
0.431
0.72
0.594
0.706
0.549
0.634
0.647
0.676
0.641
0.713
0.641
0.477
0.719
Group code: 0, CC; 1, PF; 2, Prehistoric; 3, Mission.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
579
DENTAL MICROWEAR AND DIET IN ANTEBELLUM BALTIMORE
TABLE A2. Molar microwear measurements
ImageFile
group
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
B267
B283A
B313
B362
B371A
B371B
B371M
B394M
B396B
B406M
B438M
B563A
B563B
B563M
B697A
B703A
POT283M
203M
205M2-31
209M
B109
B111
B115
B117
B121
B134
B138
B139
B156
B171
B175M
B177
B193
B197
B201B
B203M
B205M
B209A
B21M
B238
B240M
B533
B543
B545
B546
B548M
B551
B556
B559
B565M
B568M
B575
B586
B675M
B79
B86
B89
B95
POT238M6
POT240M
POT357M2
POT569M
im 44
im11B
im151 ave
im152 ave
im186
im230
im238A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
159
365
134
233
311
316
313.5
205.75
222
184.5
219.5
186
225
205.5
187
263
179.6667
179
379
175
203
262
259
319
223
187
160
190
163
244
161
159.5
174
280
178
199
173.5
115
137.5
202
194
250
174
129
170
189.5
166
231
214
220.67
282
192
256
180
124
120
181
198.5
201
228
197
177
399
593
499
323.5
480
526
404
3.71
2.61
3.65
2.56
2.75
2.06
2.405
3.09
2.65
2.385
2.28
2.47
2.28
2.375
2.8
2.07
3.3267
3.85
1.5
2.4925
3.95
2.93
2.17
2.22
3.45
1.71
2.96
3.4
2.34
1.8
2.285
4.08
3.15
2.66
2.28
3.17
2.395
2.29
3.725
2.65
2.39
1.99
3.88
5.05
3.9
2.78
4.25
2.5
2.01
1.433
2.39
1.66
2.17
2.2
4.95
2.4
1.5
2.48
2.52
3.045
2.29
2.9167
1.54
1.77
1.53
2.63
2.39
1.68
1.83
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.925
0.995
0.94
1.07
1.27
0.94
0.94
0.865
0.94
0.94
1.0133
1.0567
0.94
0.8875
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
1.005
1.09
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.945
0.94
1.05
0.94
1.125
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
1.1
0.8867
0.85
1.02
0.96
0.92
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.95
0.94
1.115
0.94
1.1333
0.76
0.67
0.56
0.89
0.81
0.65
0.81
34.59
39.73
31.34
28.76
61.74
50.32
55.98
19.81
19.37
29.54
33.94
48.92
51.56
50.36
53.48
46.39
27.83
43.39
58.31
44.29
55.17
37.79
10.81
61.13
50.22
23.53
31.88
55.26
20.25
45.08
27.64
40.13
36.78
17.86
51.69
55.78
43.52
41.74
25.09
47.52
36.34
22.00
34.48
24.03
38.82
48.81
46.39
35.50
64.02
31.42
28.37
23.44
39.84
33.33
19.35
14.17
27.07
29.97
29.85
21.05
28.43
22.03
40.85
68.97
42.00
49.49
53.54
55.51
42.33
0.632
0.581
0.544
0.471
0.505
0.516
0.5105
0.5475
0.183
0.548
0.609
0.482
0.454
0.468
0.279
0.512
0.6533
0.3517
0.568
0.495
0.757
0.313
0.514
0.213
0.243
0.269
0.506
0.17
0.467
0.592
0.4815
0.5375
0.379
0.574
0.665
0.5295
0.5495
0.558
0.3475
0.702
0.4515
0.562
0.512
0.576
0.203
0.413
0.467
0.484
0.422
0.557
0.0875
0.481
0.893
0.618
0.658
0.24
0.523
0.5605
0.675
0.789
0.559
0.5393
0.409
0.69
0.42
0.495
0.535
0.555
0.564
(Continued)
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
580
P.H. MA AND M.F. TEAFORD
TABLE A2. (Continued)
ImageFile
im247
im248
im249 ave
im261B ave
im5A
im62/63
im79
indian1
johns 17
johns 21
johns 26b2
johns 401
lj10m25
lj15m29
lj18m29
lj1m24
lj5m25
lj7m22
may12-0
may13-4
may16-2
may2-4
may30b8
may37a7
mayp20-0
mayp26-1
mayp37b1
Ossuary at SCDG 101
Ossuary at SCDG 25
Ossuary at SCDG 26
Ossuary at SCDG 28
Ossuary at SCDG 30
Ossuary at SCDG 31
Ossuary at SCDG 37
Ossuary at SCDG 45
Ossuary at SCDG 51
Ossuary at SCDG 58
Ossuary at SCDG Ind. A
Ossuary at SCDG Ind. B
San Luis de Apalachee 3
San Luis de Apalachee 7073-2
San Luis de Apalachee 7076-11
San Luis de Apalachee 7076-13__2_
San Luis de Apalachee 7104-6
San Luis de Apalachee 7169-10A
San Luis de Apalachee 7182-4_LM2
San Luis de Apalachee 7182-4_RM2
San Luis de Apalachee 7193-11
San Luis de Apalachee 7198-18A
San Luis de Apalachee 7255-35
San Luis de Apalachee 7256-62
San Luis de Apalachee 7259-20b
San Luis de Apalachee 7259-22
San Luis de Apalachee 7259-23c
San Luis de Apalachee 7259-95
San Luis de Apalachee 7304-18
San Luis de Apalachee 7304-26J
San Luis de Apalachee 7314-17
San Luis de Apalachee 7490-49
San Luis de Apalachee 7493-17h
San Luis de Apalachee 7540-50c_LM1
San Luis de Apalachee 7555-23
San Luis de Apalachee 7606-66
San Luis de Apalachee 7683-1M
San Luis de Apalachee 7722-184d
San Martı́n 91-11
San Martı́n 91-12
San Martı́n 91-16
San Martı́n 91-25
San Martı́n 91-3
group
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
272
338
283.5
205.5
387
731
194
165
230.5
198.9
137.3
215
280
350
268
372
404
188
169.6
150.18
156.14
218
166.45
241.3
188.9
135.75
297.5
259
272
356
224
316
229
315
361
256
258
329
281
236
307
339
369
116
479
550
133
164
300
342
150
184
253
196
609
213
319
252
300
155
117
211
290
382
208
284
325
250
465
209
3.07
1.67
1.9
2.01
2.33
1.33
2.15
2.31
2.39
2.21
4.12
4.23
2.08
2.08
2.33
1.86
2.07
3.78
3.39
3.2
3.17
2.36
4
2.556
2.43
4.05
3.398
2.11
2.24
2.34
1.69
2.03
1.76
2.38
1.91
2.34
2.39
1.91
2.80
3.17
1.94
2.30
2.42
2.72
2.66
2.29
2.96
1.94
1.96
2.16
2.00
2.27
2.40
2.23
2.20
1.91
3.24
2.53
2.68
3.91
3.07
2.58
4.04
2.46
4.10
1.83
1.86
2.14
2.22
2.36
1
0.74
0.93
1.1
0.77
0.62
1.4
1.06
1.08
1.13
0.967
0.9
0.75
0.87
0.89
0.8
0.9
1.06
0.9625
0.7684
0.78
0.713
0.9455
0.8612
1.06
0.876
0.777
0.97
0.81
0.73
0.92
1.00
1.08
0.78
0.85
0.91
0.82
0.95
0.89
1.07
0.97
1.07
1.45
0.87
1.03
1.56
0.94
1.00
0.94
1.09
1.22
1.05
1.07
0.90
1.16
1.15
1.23
1.18
1.45
1.66
1.23
1.13
1.00
1.07
1.07
0.87
0.93
0.88
0.90
1.12
20.22
41.12
46.00
26.91
55.04
47.33
22.16
20.00
43.38
40.72
52.44
32.09
26.79
36.86
36.57
47.31
20.54
13.83
14.15
47.28
49.96
31.19
16.22
32.74
53.47
27.26
48.40
36.10
49.26
39.89
40.18
59.81
52.40
46.67
59.00
45.70
38.95
56.84
18.33
43.29
40.39
64.31
59.89
88.00
64.41
68.55
85.21
176.39
67.03
75.01
116.13
101.48
108.04
79.93
59.11
61.48
65.15
58.23
56.67
51.32
69.80
55.17
55.90
66.54
68.32
47.18
57.23
42.60
20.00
44.74
0.311
0.411
0.46
0.269
0.55
0.473
0.443
0.5
0.4634
0.4682
0.4906
0.4012
0.536
0.41
0.458
0.473
0.512
0.347
0.392
0.5413
0.5526
0.561
0.4056
0.4558
0.477
0.5072
0.5233
0.416
0.270
0.525
0.542
0.494
0.533
0.391
0.592
0.588
0.505
0.343
0.431
0.206
0.403
0.419
0.358
0.501
0.478
0.347
0.617
0.409
0.663
0.396
0.409
0.377
0.561
0.542
0.411
0.286
0.298
0.260
0.440
0.777
0.490
0.485
0.521
0.783
0.444
0.579
0.344
0.397
0.512
0.674
(Continued)
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
581
DENTAL MICROWEAR AND DIET IN ANTEBELLUM BALTIMORE
TABLE A2. (Continued)
ImageFile
San Martı́n 91-31
San Martı́n 91-36
San Martı́n 91-38
San Martı́n 91-39
San Martı́n 91-4
San Martı́n 91-42
San Martı́n 91-49
San Martı́n 91-50
San Martı́n 91-51
San Martı́n 91-53
San Martı́n 91-54
San Martı́n 91-58
San Martı́n 91-61
San Martı́n 91-7
San Martı́n 91-8
Santa Catalina de Amelia 19
Santa Catalina de Amelia 31
Santa Catalina de Amelia 36B
Santa Catalina de Amelia 41
Santa Catalina de Amelia 50A
Santa Catalina de Amelia 59B
Santa Catalina de Amelia 9
Santa Catalina de Amelia 93
Santa Catalina de Amelia 99G
Santa Catalina de Guale 109
Santa Catalina de Guale 129
Santa Catalina de Guale 160
Santa Catalina de Guale 188
Santa Catalina de Guale 254
Santa Catalina de Guale 258
Santa Catalina de Guale 383
Santa Catalina de Guale 593
SM de Yamasee 16
SM de Yamasee 40
SM de Yamasee 44
SM de Yamasee 45
SM de Yamasee 47
SM de Yamasee 48
SM de Yamasee 55
SM de Yamasee 92
SM de Yamasee 97
group
Total features
Pit width
Scratch width
% Pits
Scratch R
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
409
256
354
302
220
434
282
499
306
274
534
414
426
221
136
158
252
129
95
78
164
180
173
190
120
142
205
174
107
255
175
88
160
376
232
141
208
482
276
220
290
1.90
2.12
1.92
2.18
1.80
1.92
2.11
1.93
1.91
2.64
1.61
1.42
1.78
1.73
2.18
2.06
2.39
1.64
2.55
1.92
3.33
3.44
2.59
3.00
4.28
3.00
3.13
2.69
3.27
2.68
3.52
2.83
2.81
1.90
2.29
2.71
2.36
1.63
1.71
1.93
2.16
0.73
1.03
0.82
0.84
0.80
0.78
0.78
0.73
0.84
1.03
0.76
0.75
0.67
0.95
1.22
1.07
.97
1.07
2.28
1.17
0.67
0.89
1.12
0.98
1.26
1.00
1.14
1.15
1.41
0.95
1.21
1.65
1.52
0.64
0.78
1.22
1.17
0.71
0.80
0.92
1.50
26.89
40.23
32.20
48.01
32.27
40.09
41.84
54.11
17.48
40.88
35.77
40.34
56.57
43.44
47.06
22.11
43.70
14.75
31.75
15.36
25.03
47.22
39.40
25.26
33.22
10.53
38.12
21.23
16.87
42.35
29.80
23.95
33.13
47.87
36.21
35.46
15.38
59.75
27.17
27.73
24.48
0.527
0.371
0.694
0.368
0.540
0.256
0.412
0.237
0.464
0.568
0.747
0.556
0.371
0.694
0.271
0.460
0.654
0.516
0.353
0.212
0.238
0.829
0.464
0.529
0.422
0.433
0.653
0.475
0.479
0.624
0.618
0.145
0.575
0.341
0.228
0.177
0.552
0.639
0.647
0.497
0.483
Group code: 0, Christchurch; 1, Pottersfield; 2, Prehistoric; 3, Mission; 4, San Luis de Apalachee.
LITERATURE CITED
Anonymous. 1917. The potter’s field. Maryland Hist Soc Mag
12:187–191.
Bernard RM. 1974. A portrait of Baltimore in 1800: economic
and occupational patterns in an early American city. Maryland Hist Soc Mag 69:341–360.
Blonigen B. 2004. A re-examination of the slave diet: a thesis. Collegeville, MN: College of St. Benedicts, St. Johns University.
Blood P. 1937. Factors in the economic development of Baltimore. Econ Geog 13:187–208.
Booth S. 1971. Hung, strung, and potted: a history of eating in
colonial America. New York: Crown Publishers.
Buck GF. 1937. Christ Protestant Episcopal Church, Baltimore,
Maryland. Baltimore: Mayer and Thalheimer.
Bullington J. 1991. Deciduous dental microwear of prehistoric
juveniles from the lower Illinois River valley. Am J Phys
Anthropol 84:59–73.
Carr LG, Menard RR, Walsh LS. 1991. Robert Cole’s world:
agriculture and society in early Maryland. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Carson J. 1985. Colonial Virginia cookery: procedures, equipment, and ingredients in colonial cooking. Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Christ’s Church Protestant Episcopal Parish. Register of
Marriages, Baptisms, and Burials, 5 October 1828–1849.
Archives of the Diocese of Maryland.
Christ’s Church Protestant Episcopal Parish. Treasurer of the
Vestry of Christ’s Church, Baltimore, June 1836 to 1869.
Archives of the Diocese of Maryland.
Conover WJ, Iman RL. 1981. Rank transformation as a bridge
between parametric and non-parametric statistics. Am Stat
35:127–129.
Fox CL. 1992. Dental striation pattern in Andamanese and Veddahs from skull collections of the British Museum. Man India
72:377–384.
Gordon KD. 1988. A review of methodology and quantification in dental microwear analysis. Scanning Microsc 2:
1139–1147.
Grine FE. 1986. New hominid fossils from the Swartkrans formation (1979–1986 excavations): craniodental specimens. Am
J Phys Anthropol 70:409–449.
Grine FE, Ungar PS, Teaford MF. 2002. Error rates in dental
microwear quantification using scanning electron microscopy.
Scanning 24:144–153.
Harvey KH. 2005. Practicing medicine at the Baltimore almshouse, 1828–1850. Maryland Hist Mag 100:298–314.
Head DM. 1999. Review: Florida’s Indians from ancient times
to the present; Timucuan chiefdoms of Spanish Florida Vol.
1: assimilation; Timucuan Chiefdoms of Spanish Florida Vol.
2: resistance and destruction. Sixteenth Cent J 30:201–
904.
Hooker RJ. 1981. Food and drink in America. New York: The
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
582
P.H. MA AND M.F. TEAFORD
Kiple KF, Ornelas KC. 2000. The Cambridge world history of
food. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Larsen CS, editor. 2001. Bioarchaeology of La Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Larsen CS, Crosby AW, Griffin MC, Hutchinson DL, Ruff CB,
Russell KF, Schoeninger MJ, Sering LE, Simpson SW, Takacs
JL, Teaford MF. 2001. Frontiers of contact: bioarchaeology of
Spanish Florida. J World Prehist 15:69–123.
Larsen CS, Crosby AW, Griffin MC, Hutchinson DL, Ruff CB,
Russell KF, Schoeninger MJ, Sering LE, Simpson SW, Takacs
JL, Teaford MF. 2002. A biohistory of health and behavior in
the Georgia Bight. In Steckel RH, Rose JC, editors. The backbone of history: health and nutrition in the Western Hemisphere. New York: Cambridge University Press. p 406–440.
Lubensky AM, Ruff CB, Teaford MF. 1998. Pathology at the
Hampstead Hill Site: Health in an early 19th century U.S.
population. Am J Phys Anthropol 105 (Suppl. 26):152.
Lucas F. 1822. Plan of the City of Baltimore compiled from
actual survey. Baltimore: Fielding Lucas, Jr.
Lucas F. 1836. Improved plan of the city of Baltimore compiled
from actual survey. Baltimore: Fielding Lucas, Jr.
Milner GR, Larsen CS. 1991. Teeth as artifacts of human
behavior: intentional mutilation and accidental modification.
In: Kelley MA, Larsen CS, editors. Advances in dental anthropology. New York: Wiley-Liss. p 357–378.
Molleson T, Jones K. 1991. Dental evidence for dietary changes
at Abu Hureyra. J Archaeol Sci 18:525–539.
Moorees CFA. 1957. The Aleut dentition: a correlative study of
dental characteristics in an Eskimoid people. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Muller EK, Groves PA. 1979. The emergence of industrial districts
in mid-nineteenth century Baltimore. Geog Rev 69:159–178.
Murphy TR. 1964a. A biometric study of the helicoidal occlusal
plane of the worn Australian dentition. Arch Oral Biol 9:255–267.
Murphy TR. 1964b. The relationship between attritional facets
and the occlusal plane in aboriginal Australians. Arch Oral
Biol 9:269–280.
Noble VEN, Teaford MF. 1995. Dental microwear in caucasian
American Homo sapiens: preliminary results [abstract]. Am J
Phys Anthropol Suppl 20:162.
Nystrom P, Phillips-Conroy JE, Jolly CJ. 2004. Dental microwear in anubis and hybrid baboons (Papio hamadryas, sensu
lato) living in Awash National Park, Ethiopia. Am J Phys
Anthropol 125:279–291.
Organ JM, Teaford MF, Larsen CS. 2005. Dietary inferences
from dental occlusal microwear at Mission San Luis de Apalachee. Am J Phys Anthropol 128:801–811.
Pastor RF. 1992. Dietary adaptations and dental microwear in
Mesolithic and Chalcolithic South Asia. J Hum Ecol 2 (Special
issue):215–228.
Reitz EJ. 1993. Evidence for animal use at the missions of Spanish
Florida. In: McEwan BG, editor. The spanish missions of La
Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. p 376–399.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Root W, de Rochemont R. 1976. Eating in America: a history.
New York: Echo Press.
Savage FW. 1944. A brief history of Christchurch, Baltimore.
Baltimore: Episcopal Diocese of Maryland.
Schmidt CW. 2001. Dental microwear evidence for a dietary
shift between two nonmaize-reliant prehistoric human populations from Indiana. Am J Phys Anthropol 114:139–145.
Sidney JC, Neff JPW. 1851. Plan of the City of Baltimore Maryland: compiled from records of surveys by Sidney and Neff.
Baltimore: Lloyd van Derveer.
Smallzried KA. 1956. The everlasting pleasure: influence on
America’s kitchens, cooks, and cookery, from 1565 to the year
2000. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Smith BG. 1990. The ‘‘Lower Sort’’: Philadelphia’s laboring people, 1750–1800. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Steckel RH. 1999. Nutritional status in the Colonial American
economy. William Mary Quart 56:31–52.
Stickle DF. 1979. Death and class in Baltimore: the yellow fever
epidemic of 1800. Maryland Hist Mag 4:282–299.
Sun B. 1851. Christ’s Church Burying Ground. Sunday, March
2005, Final ed. B2.
Teaford MF. 1988a. A review of dental microwear and diet in
modern mammals. Scanning Microsc 2:1149–1166.
Teaford MF. 1988b. Scanning electron microscope diagnosis of
wear patterns versus artifacts in fossil teeth. Scanning
Microsc 2:1167–1175.
Teaford MF. 2007. Dental microwear and paleoanthropology:
cautions and possibilities. In: Bailey SE, Hublin J-J, editors.
Dental perspectives on human evolution. The Netherlands:
Springer. p 345–368.
Teaford MF, Glander KE. 1991. Dental microwear in live, wildtrapped Alouatta palliata from Costa Rica. Am J Phys
Anthropol 95:313–319.
Teaford MF, Larsen CS, Pastor RF, Noble VE. 2001. Dental
microwear and diet in La Florida. In: Larsen CS, editor. Bioarchaeology of La Florida. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida. p 82–112.
Teaford MF, Oyen OJ. 1989a. In vivo and in vitro turnover in
dental microwear. Am J Phys Anthropol 80:447–460.
Teaford MF, Oyen OJ. 1989b. In vivo and in vitro turnover in
dental microwear. Am J Phys Anthropol 80:447–460.
Ungar PS, Simon J-C, Cooper JW. 1990. A semiautomated
image analysis procedure for the quantification of dental
microwear. Scanning 13:31–36.
Ungar PS, Spencer MA. 1999. Incisor microwear, diet, and tooth
use in three Amerindian populations. Am J Phys Anthropol
97:93–99.
Varle C. 1801. Plan of the city and environs of Baltimore,
respectfully dedicated to the mayor, city council, & citizens
thereof by the proprietors. Baltimore: Warner and Hanna.
Wilson JB. 1991. The very quiet Baltimoreans: a guide to the
burial sites and historic cemeteries of Baltimore. Shippensburg: White Mane.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
0
Размер файла
120 Кб
Теги
diet, dental, insights, antebellum, analysis, baltimore, reconstruction, microwear
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа