Abstract
Howell and Kintigh (1996) argue for ascribed leadership at Hawikku based on biological kinship within cemetery areas and nonrandom distribution of higher-diversity burials. Their statistical evidence could be questioned based on principles of two-tailed null hypotheses, the Bonferroni principle, and other aspects. Especially when taking the bioanthropological literature more adequately into account, alternate conclusions somewhat at variance with Howell and Kintigh's concerning biological and social patterning according to gender could be envisioned.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Museology,Archaeology,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),History
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. METHODS OF KINSHIP ANALYSIS IN FOSSIL POPULATIONS;Moscow University Anthropology Bulletin (Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta Seria XXIII Antropologia);2024-04-12
2. Biological Distance;Handbook of Archaeological Sciences;2023-02-10
3. Biodistance Evidence of Gene Flow from the Kayenta Region;KIVA;2018-10-12
4. Sex and Gender in Bioarchaeological Research;Social Bioarchaeology;2011-04-27
5. Phenotypic approaches for understanding patterns of intracemetery biological variation;American Journal of Physical Anthropology;2006