A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800–5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East

Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East Hugh G. McKenzie a, *, Alexander N. Popov b a b

Department of Anthropology, MacEwan University, Edmonton, AB, Canada Far Eastern National University, Okeansky 37, Vladivostok, 690950, Russia

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online xxx

The Middle Neolithic (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP) shell-midden cemetery Boisman 2, located on the Russian coast of the Sea of Japan, is one of only three Neolithic sites in all of Primorye at which human remains have been recovered, and therefore it is the key site representing a major cultural reorganization in which terrestrial foragers adopted a more seasonally-sedentary, marine-based subsistence economy. Previous research at the site has described a variety of forms of artificial cranial modification. As a permanent bodily modification that is applied to infants, cranial modification is one important method of symbolizing ascribed social identities and so can be useful for archaeological investigations into interand intra-group social relations. The aim of the present study is to re-evaluate the evidence for cranial modification at Boisman 2 using two sets of discriminant function analyses designed to provide a more objective means of identifying modified and unmodified crania. Our results confirm the use of artificial cranial modification at the site, making Boisman 2 one of the earliest e if not the earliest e documented example of the practice in Holocene East Asia; however, our metric analysis identified only six crania as modified, instead of the 11 previously identified through visual assessment. Further research is required to determine whether this discrepancy is a product of the conservative nature of the discriminant functions, the potential that the discriminant function produces inaccurate results for crania from this population, or whether normal or incidental variation in this population resembles artificial cranial shaping. Finally, as a means of introducing some potential hypotheses for future research, we discuss preliminary associations between the presence of cranial modification, age, sex, and burial cluster. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Intentional cranial modification Neolithic Boisman Russian Far East Primorye

1. Introduction A wide range of archaeological, faunal and climatic data suggest that sometime just after ~7000 14C BP, in the context of the socalled Holocene Climatic Optimum (Lutaenko et al., 2007; Mikishin et al., 2008), mobile terrestrial foraging populations in the Primorye (Maritime) region of the Russian Far East, underwent a major cultural reorganization in which they adopted a more seasonally-sedentary, marine-based subsistence economy (Jull et al., 1994; Vostretsov, 1998; Tabarev, 2007; Popov et al., 2014). The Middle Neolithic shell-midden complex Boisman 2 constitutes the key site demonstrating this transformation, not only because of

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H.G. McKenzie), popov@museum. dvgu.ru (A.N. Popov).

its abundant artifacts and faunal materials, but also because it contained preserved human skeletal remains (Popov et al., 1997, 2014; Popov, 2008). Owing to high soil acidity across the Russian Far East, Boisman 2 is one of only three Neolithic sites in Primorye at which human remains (and other organic artifacts) have been recovered, and therefore it is no exaggeration to say that the site is “without parallel in the entire Russian Far East” with respect to its ability to inform us about Neolithic lifeways (Popov et al., 2014:252). Beyond a change in subsistence economy, the accumulation of burials at Boisman 2, many interred with large quantities of grave goods and exhibiting signs of violent trauma (Popov et al., 1997; Chikisheva, 2003; Tabarev, 2009), suggests that there were equally important transformations occurring in the conceptual relationships between people and their environment (e.g., symbolic embedding of ancestors on the visible landscape, territoriality) and in the relationships people held with each other (e.g., social

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.007 1040-6182/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: McKenzie, H.G., Popov, A.N., A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.007

2

H.G. McKenzie, A.N. Popov / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

stratification, inter-group conflicts). In a previous assessment of the skeletal materials from Boisman 2, Chikisheva (2003; Popov et al., 1997) visually identified artificial cranial modification, which represents one of the earliest e if not the earliest e examples of the practice in Holocene Asia (Pechenkina and Oxenham, 2013). As a permanent and highly visible bodily modification that is applied to infants, cranial shaping is one important means of symbolizing and physically embodying ascribed social identities and cultural beliefs, making it useful for archaeological investigations into inter- and intra-group relations (Tiesler, 2014). Unfortunately, the visual identification and classification of artificial cranial modification can be difficult, particularly when skeletal remains are fragmentary, for bioarchaeological contexts in which there are no regionally or temporally relevant reference collections, and for skeletal populations that show a continuum from unmodified to highly modified crania, all of which apply to Boisman 2. Given the early dates and archaeological significance of Boisman 2, the primary aim of our study is to re-evaluate the evidence for artificial cranial modification at the site using two sets of craniometric discriminant functions that were designed to provide an objective means of distinguishing modified from unmodified crania (Clark et al., 2007; O'Brien and Stanley, 2013). The second aim was to relate these findings to the ongoing investigation of the transformative process of Neolithization that occurred in Primorye, and which gave rise to the unique maritime hunter-fisher-gatherer Boisman Culture (Popov et al., 2014). 2. Artificial cranial modification Artificial cranial modification, also called here cranial shaping, is quite simply the altering of the shape of the head as a result of mechanical pressure placed on the cranial bones during the first three years of life (for a recent comprehensive review of artificial cranial modification see Tiesler, 2014). At this stage of childhood, the cranial bones are still fusing, and consequently the cranium is highly plastic. As an intentional practice, artificial cranial

modification is widely distributed in both time and space, being documented on every inhabited continent and in a variety of historic and prehistoric cultural contexts (Dingwall, 1931). Although a number of more specific typologies exist, it is generally accepted (e.g., Dembo and Imbelloni, 1938; Anton, 1989; Tiesler, 2014) that there are two basic styles of modification, both of which alter shape by restricting cranial expansion along certain vectors, forcing compensatory growth in other areas: annular modification is achieved by wrapping flexible objects such as strings, bandages, or hats around the circumference of the head, typically resulting in a lengthened and narrowed cranial vault with a round cross-section; tabular modification is produced by affixing rigid objects such as boards or stones to the vault, which flattens the plane(s) of compression, causing expansion in other areas (Fig. 1). The type and number of instruments used, the angle and placement of the bandages or objects relative to sutures and growth planes, the degree of pressure, and the duration of use, all interact to enable an extraordinary variety of cranial shapes. Both ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrate that cranial shaping, like many forms of body modification, has been used to express cultural ideals of beauty and health, and to embody a variety of intra- and inter-group identities, including ethnicity, status and gender (Dingwall, 1931). However, because cranial modification is permanent, it differs from other more transitory body modifications that can be easily manipulated (e.g., clothing, jewelary, hairstyles, etc.), and the fact that it is conducted on infants means that it also differs from other types of permanent bodily modifications such as scarification, sub-incision, tattoos, etc., which tend to be initiated or sanctioned by the individual themselves, or reflective of achieved identities such as those associated with individual rites of passages (Torres-Rouff, 2003, 2008; Tiesler, 2014). Cranial modification, while it certainly comes to constitute a fundamental part of a person's individual identity, is transgenerational (Tiesler, 2012), and therefore is bound up in more ascribed, stable, long-term group identities at scales ranging from families, kinship groups, and broader ethnic affiliations depending

Fig. 1. Column A: infants. Column B: adults. Column C: adult skull, lateral view. Column D: adult skull, superior view. Row 1: tabular style. Row 2: normal. Row 3: annular style (used with permission from O'Brien and Stanley, 2013).

Please cite this article in press as: McKenzie, H.G., Popov, A.N., A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.007

H.G. McKenzie, A.N. Popov / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

on the particular historical circumstances. The permanence of artificial cranial modification and its implications for individual and group identity make it particularly useful for archaeological investigations into past culture dynamics (Torres-Rouff, 2008; Tiesler, 2012, 2014). Unfortunately, identifying artificially modified crania from archaeological contexts can be problematic. First, the diverse processes through which cranial shaping is accomplished can produce a wide range of variability, from mild flattening of a single bone to radical reshaping of the entire vault. Even leaving aside judgments of intentionality (e.g., should we consider incidental posterior flattening produced by swaddling practices to be artificial cranial modification?), it is often difficult to clearly recognize what degree of shape change is sufficient to be deemed artificially or culturally induced. In some cases, such as with posterior flattening, metric analyses demonstrate that there is an effectively continuous variation in cranial shapes, meaning the cut-off between types is somewhat arbitrary (Pomeroy et al., 2010). In a test of qualitative vs metric assessment techniques, O'Brien and Stanley (2013) found that visual assessments, even by experienced researchers, were only successful between 73.2% and 87.5% of the time, depending on the type of modification, which they claimed was less than could be achieved through quantitative methods. The problem of distinguishing normal or incidental cranial variation from artificial cranial shaping is particularly acute when evaluating skeletal remains from cultural contexts that lack large or well-described comparative collections of modified and unmodified crania. Although it is possible to use comparisons with other cultural groups, the high degree of natural population variation in cranial shapes (Howells, 1973, 1989; 1995) combined with the diversity in shaping practices, complicates such efforts, leading some researchers to advise against using comparative samples from populations other than that from which modified crania are derived (Cheverud et al., 1992; Kohn et al., 1993). A lack of comparative samples can also make it difficult to recognize atypical pathological changes in a small number of individuals in contrast to culturally induced changes. As noted above, high soil acidity in Primorye has resulted in a dearth of prehistoric human skeletal remains against which to compare Boisman materials. In fact, in all of East Asia there are only sporadic reports of Neolithic cranial shaping, and none of these have been published in manner sufficient to allow meaningful comparisons (e.g., Han and Pan, 1980; Nie et al., 2014). Finally, a variety of taphonomic processes including the effects of humidity, temperature, mechanical pressure, and biochemical changes can alter bone shape and subsequently induce fragmentation and degradation of the cranium, particularly for younger individuals whose bones are thinner and less dense (Crist et al., 1997; Tiesler, 2014:62). While the shell-rich context of the Boisman 2 burials facilitated preservation of human skeletal remains, many crania were extensively fragmented, requiring reconstruction. 3. Archaeological context In the Russian Far East, the Neolithic period represents a major cultural reorganization in which mobile terrestrial foraging populations developed more a seasonally-sedentary lifeway centered on the intensive exploitation of maritime resources including seasonal salmon runs, marine mammal hunting, and the collection and processing of huge numbers of molluscs e primarily oysters (Tabarev, 2007; Kuzmin, 2009, 2012). Note that according to Russian conventions, the term Neolithic generally demarks the advent of pottery rather than the adoption of agriculture (e.g., Kuzmin, 2010). Recently, however, Popov et al. (2014) have suggested that this typology is insufficient for developing full interpretations of the changes that occurred during this period in the

3

Russian Far East. Instead, they employ the concept of Neolithization, which attempts to investigate “the full spectrum of human social and spiritual activities, rather than just focusing on basic shifts in ‘Neolithic’ subsistence or technology” (p. 248). They point out that Neolithization requires us to consider humanenvironment relations as a reciprocal process (for English language summaries of the history of the concept of Neolithic and Neolithization in Russian archaeology see Popov et al., 2014: 248e252 and Kuzmin, 2010). Pollen and other paleoenvironmental data suggest that this transition to a marine adaptation was facilitated by a climate that was increasingly warm and wet resulting in sea levels that were, at times, up to 2 m higher than today (Lutaenko et al., 2007; Mikishin et al., 2008). As a consequence, numerous shallow inland estuaries and lagoons would have been created along the coast, which would have harboured large, shallow, and easily accessible oyster beds. In Primorye, this period is associated with the Middle Neolithic Boisman Culture (~7000e4800 BP), which is represented at several sites, the most important of which are the residential complex Boisman 1 and the shell-midden burial cluster Boisman 2, both located in Boisman Bay within the Gulf of Peter the Great on the Sea of Japan. As Popov et al. (2014) note, while the pit-houses and abundant faunal remains from Boisman 1 has enabled us to document the development of this novel intensive marine-oriented subsistence economy (Vostretsov, 1998), the fact that Boisman 2 is one of only three Neolithic sites in the entire Russian Far East at which human skeletal remains are preserved, provides us with a unique opportunity to explore numerous additional aspects of Boisman lifeways, including the development of stratified social relations and changes in the use of ancestors in mediating human landscape interactions. It should also be noted that analysis of the bone chemistry of these skeletal remains also supports the maritime interpretation, as stable Carbon and Nitrogen isotope data indicate that as much as 80% of dietary protein may have come from aquatic resources (Yoneda et al., 1998; Kuzmin et al., 2002). Boisman 2, consists of six shell middens spread across three large mounds located approximately 500 m from the current shoreline, where the slope of a coastal knoll meets the alluvial plain of the Ryazonovka River as it empties into Boisman Bay (Fig. 2). The elevated location of the site relative to the alluvial fan would not only have provided access to important marine resources, including abundant oyster beds, but it would also have been clearly visible from the surrounding land and the sea, as well as from the Boisman 1 habitation site. Two of the six middens were excavated between 1995 and 2005 revealing several shell-rich horizons separated by paleosols, spanning the Middle Neolithic Boisman culture, Late Neolithic Zaisanivka culture, and Iron Age Yankovsky culture, according to local culture-history schemes (Fig. 3; Popov et al., 1997; Popov, 2008). At the base of the middens, in the Middle Neolithic deposits, were a single dwelling and two distinct burial clusters separated from each other by approximately 18 m (Fig. 4). Burial Cluster 1 consists of 3 individual and 2 collective graves (described in Popov et al., 1997), and Burial Cluster 2 consists of 1 single grave, 2 double graves, and 4 communal graves (described in Popov, 2008). The highly fragmentary nature of many of the remains, including several infants and children, and the potential that some individuals were apparently represented by only a few bones, makes it difficult to provide an exact number of interments; however, there were approximately 20 individuals in Burial Cluster 1 and approximately 15 in Burial Cluster 2 (Popov et al., 2014). Within each cluster, a wide range of mortuary practices was used, including both primary and secondary burials as well as single, double and multiple inhumations of males and females ranging in age from neonates to adults (60 þ years). At least three of

Please cite this article in press as: McKenzie, H.G., Popov, A.N., A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.007

4

H.G. McKenzie, A.N. Popov / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

Fig. 2. Paleogeographical situation around the sites of Boisman 1 and 2 in the Middle Holocene (used with permission from Popov et al., 2014).

the individuals appear to have been victims of violence, as indicated by both skeletal trauma as well as the presence of points found in chest cavities and, in one instance, embedded in bone (Chikisheva, 2003; Tabarev, 2009). The type and quantity of grave inclusions is similar between burial clusters, but within each cluster some individuals were associated with very few artifacts, while other individuals were found with extensive goods, including decorated pottery and an abundance of well-preserved organic (e.g., faunal remains, bone tools, pollen, etc.) and lithic objects, suggesting emergent social stratification. Nine radiocarbon dates from human bone were reported by Kuzmin et al. (2002), and they all range between 5780 ± 70 14C BP e

6080 ± 70 14C BP. When reservoir corrected this corresponds to 5480 ± 75 BPe5780 ± 75 BP (Kuzmin et al., 2002). The high degree of statistical overlap between the dates and the stratigraphic association of the burials within the middens suggest that the burials were likely interred in a very short period of time, perhaps even a matter of years or decades and, in the case of the collective graves, in single mass events (Fig. 5). The highly visible location of the site, the massive number of shells covering the burials, and evidence for the use of ritual fire at the level of the burials (Popov et al., 1997), suggests that the burials may have been associated with collective feasting (Tabarev, 2007). This, combined with the evidence of social stratification and violence, has led Tabarev (2007, 2009) to suggest

Fig. 3. Stratigraphic profile of Boisman 2 indicating the location of the burials at the base of the shell midden (modified from Popov, 2008; original photo by Popov).

Please cite this article in press as: McKenzie, H.G., Popov, A.N., A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.007

H.G. McKenzie, A.N. Popov / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

5

Fig. 4. Profile and layout of Boisman 2 Site (used with permission from Popov et al., 2014).

that the site was primarily used to inter elite members of the community, perhaps to advertise increasingly contested territories. Popov (2008) has also pointed out that both burial clusters are organized in a radial fashion around a central burial (Fig. 4), which he interprets as comprising two family or clan divisions within the same community. In either case e and these interpretations are not necessarily mutually exclusive e it seems that Boisman 2 reflects a context in which social relations are being marked. An additional line of evidence supporting this view is the presence of artificial cranial modification, which as noted above, is often used to advertise and embody a variety of inter- and intra-group identities. To date, the skeletal remains from Boisman 2 have primarily been interpreted with respect to what they can tell us about regional models of ethnogenesis; however, during her initial assessment Chikisheva (2003; Popov et al., 1997) also identified three main forms of cranial modification (Annular, Fronto-Occipital, Parieto-Occipital) in 11 of 17 observable individuals. Chikisheva's analysis was qualitative and relied on the visual evaluation of cranial form, the identification of impressions created by the shaping instruments (i.e., pads, bands, etc.), and the presence of reactive bone as responsive to application of the instruments. Given the potential difficulties of identifying intentional cranial modification, reviewed above, and the recent development of objective metric approaches, we saw an opportunity to re-evaluate the evidence for cranial modification at Boisman 2 in more detail. 4. Materials and methods

Fig. 5. Grave 3 (7 individuals) from Burial Cluster 2 at Boisman 2 (modified from Popov, 2008; original photo by Popov).

In recognition of the difficulties of visually classifying artificial cranial modification, several authors have made efforts to provide more objective quantitative methods. The most sophisticated of these techniques employ multivariate statistics or geometric morphometrics (e.g., Frieb and Baylac, 2003; Rhode and Arriaza, 2006; Perez, 2007; Brown, 2010; Pomeroy et al., 2010; Brown and Mizoguchi, 2011); however these are often designed to test the effects of cranial modification on other attributes, such as facial dimensions, and they are difficult to employ on fragmentary

Please cite this article in press as: McKenzie, H.G., Popov, A.N., A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.007

6

H.G. McKenzie, A.N. Popov / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

remains for which there are no relevant comparative collections. Therefore, for the current study we applied two quantitative methods designed specifically to test for the presence or absence of cranial modification, and which rely on only a small number of more traditional metrics that seem to be largely applicable across populations (Clark et al., 2007; O'Brien and Stanley, 2013). Relying on the principle that diverse forms of cranial modification all produce flattening of the frontal and occipital bones, Clark et al. (2007) created a discriminant function that requires only six measurements, all of which are taken from easily identifiable cranial landmarks: arc and chord for the frontal bone (glabella to bregma); arc and chord for the parietal bones (bregma to lambda); and arc and chord for the occipital bone (lambda to opisthion). Curvature indices for each bone are then calculated (arc/chord*100) and entered into the following discriminant function:

ð0:50337*frontal indexÞ þ ð0:43922*parietal indexÞ  ð0:49494*occipital indexÞ þ 59:302 The function's section point is 0, meaning that negative results are classified as unmodified and positive scores are classified as modified. Importantly, Clark et al. (2007:604) state that, “the conservative nature of the function means that although artificially deformed crania may occasionally score as undeformed, undeformed crania should never have a positive function scores” (p. 604, italics in original). As Clark et al. (2007:605) suggest, this function is not designed to replace visual classification, but rather to provide confirmation of previous assessments, to help distinguish visually ambiguous cases, and to aid in archaeological cases where comparative samples are lacking e all of which apply to the Boisman 2 collection. O'Brien and Stanley (2013) also employed a discriminant function analysis not only to distinguish modified from unmodified crania, but also to categorize by type of modification: annular or tabular. The two functions they developed rely on only four measurements: maximum cranial length (L, glabella to opisthocranion), maximum cranial breadth (B, euryon to euryon), maximum cranial height (H, basion to bregma) and frontal chord (F, nasion to bregma). These measurements are then combined to create three indices, which are then entered into the following two discriminant functions:

Function 1 ¼ 4:997*B=H þ 29:179*F=L þ 19:551*H=L  38:311 Function 2 ¼ 21:466*B=H þ 28:719*F=L þ 24:521*H=L  23:115 The results of these two functions are then plotted on a territorial map (Fig. 6), which classifies cranial type by location in one of three zones: annular, tabular or normal. The placement of the cranium on this map also provides information on degree of modification, as the closer a crania plots to the normal zone, the less severe the shape change. In summer 2008, as part of a more general bioarchaeological assessment, we collected a full suite of craniometric data from the Boisman 2 skeletal collection (following the standards of Buikstra and Ubelaker, 1994). Arcs were measured with a plastic tape (resolution 1 mm), while chords were measured using digital sliding calipers (resolution 0.01 mm). For consistency, all measurements were rounded to the nearest millimeter in the present study. Of the 17 crania evaluated by Chikisheva (2003), we were able to obtain the necessary measurements for the Clark et al. (2007) discriminant function from all but one (Burial Cluster 1 Individual 3a), for which the glabella and the foramen magnum were completely absent. Fortunately, this is one cranium that seems unambiguously

Fig. 6. Territorial map for discriminant functions (used with permission from O'Brien and Stanley, 2013).

modified, as evidenced by the flattened frontal bone, large postbregmatic sulcus, and elongated shape (Fig. 7). While we do not include this individual in our metric analyses, we will refer to it in our results and discussion section. Unfortunately, due to the fragmentary nature of many of the other crania, basion was frequently not preserved, and so we were only able to apply the two O'Brien and Stanley (REF) discriminant functions to 6 of the remaining 16 individuals. In some cases, reconstruction of crania was required, for which we used a variety of temporary adhesives including modeling clay and masking tape. In these instances, each member of our research team individually examined the reconstruction and, in some instances, the crania were disassembled and reassembled to ensure accurate measurements could be taken. Notably, individuals from Burial Cluster 1 had considerably less fragmentation than those from Burial Cluster 2 and many of the skulls required very little reconstruction or had already been reconstructed by Chikisheva during her original assessment. Although Chikisheva (2003) did not rely on craniometrics in her identification of artificial cranial modification, she did collect comprehensive craniometric data (following the Russian standards outlined by Alekseev and Debetz, 1964), and these data were published for the individuals from Burial Cluster 1, making up 6 of the 16 crania we measured (Popov et al., 1997). For four individuals, our arc and chord measurements were within ± 2 mm of Chikisheva's, which makes us confident that intra-observer error was not a significant factor. In two cases, our measurements of occipital chords and arcs diverged from Chikisheva's by up to ± 5 mm, but for each of these crania (Burial Cluster 1, Individuals 2 and 1b) the foramen magnum was partially broken and the location of opisthion had to be estimated. For these two crania, we computed indices using both Chikisheva's estimates and our own, and in neither case did the results change, so we only report our results here. The location of opisthion also had to be estimated for two other crania (Burial Cluster 2, Individuals 3b and 3zh), but

Please cite this article in press as: McKenzie, H.G., Popov, A.N., A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.007

H.G. McKenzie, A.N. Popov / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

7

the 10 crania we were able to measure that Chikisheva identified as modified, our results confirmed six with at least one of the metric methods (Figs. 8e13). Of the six individuals for which both sets of discriminant functions could be used, the results were consistent in five cases (one modified, four unmodified). Individual 2 from Cluster 1 was the only individual for which the two metric methods were inconsistent; however given that both sets of discriminant functions are designed to be extremely conservative and that the result for this cranium was only barely below zero (0.93) on the Clark et al. (2007) function, it seems that this individual's head was also likely artificially modified. Furthermore, when we sort by the magnitude of the results from the Clark et al. (2007) discriminant function, it becomes clear that these results are largely consistent with the degree of severity as identified by Chikisheva. The eight crania that Chikisheva scored as either ‘unmodified’ or as ‘weakly’ modified returned eight of the nine most negative results, and the six most positive scores were derived from crania that Chikisheva identified as strongly modified. There are four crania for which the results of the metric analysis and the visual assessment are inconsistent. Three of these were identified as ‘weakly’ modified by Chikisheva (2003). There are several possible explanations for failure of the discriminant function to identify those weakly modified crania. First, as noted above, the function is designed to be conservative, and so it is likely that weakly modified crania will not surpass the function's threshold. Another possibility is that the discriminant function, which measures the curvature of the frontal, parietal and occipital bones individually, is inappropriate for recognizing forms of deformation that are centered on lambda or bregma. Clark et al. (2007) also note that the function is likely not applicable to tabular erect forms of

Fig. 7. Lateral view of Individual 3A from Burial Cluster 1 at Boisman 2. This individual could not be assessed using metric methods; however, the substantial flattening of the frontal bone, post-bregmatic sulcus and elongated shape are very suggestive of annular modification.

unfortunately we have no independent estimates against which to compare as Chikisheva did not publish her cranimetric data from Burial Cluster 2. Estimates were only taken when there was a significant portion of the foramen magnum in place (i.e., enough that we could reasonably estimate the anterioreposterior length of the foramen), and in each case we measured several times until a consensus was met about the exact location. Finally, note that our study required us to take two different measurements for frontal arc and chord since O'Brien and Stanley's (2013) method measures the frontal bone from nasion to bregma, but Clark et al. (2007) elected to measure from glabella instead of nasion to avoid incidentally incorporating unrelated variability in the size of the supraorbital torus. Chikisheva (2003) followed Alekseev and Debetz (1964) in measuring from nasion to bregma. Since post-cranial remains had been separated from their crania for many individuals, sex and age estimates were taken from Chikisheva's (2003) original study. 5. Results and discussion 5.1. Cranial modification at Boisman 2 The results of our discriminant function analyses (Table 1, Supplementary Data 1e2) support Chikisheva's visual assessments that cranial modification was indeed used by Boisman peoples. All six of the crania Chikisheva identified as unmodified were also determined to be unmodified according to our metric analyses. And of

Fig. 8. Lateral view of Individual 3B from Burial Cluster 2 at Boisman 2.

Please cite this article in press as: McKenzie, H.G., Popov, A.N., A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.007

8

H.G. McKenzie, A.N. Popov / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

Fig. 9. Lateral view of Individual 3 g from Burial Cluster 2 at Boisman 2.

Fig. 10. Lateral view of Individual 3b from Burial Cluster 1 at Boisman 2.

modification that only affect the occipital bone (as in cradle boarding). Next, it may be the case that the skeletal populations from which the discriminant functions were developed differ from the Boisman population in some respects. Finally, it may also be the case that these weakly modified crania are, in fact, simply reflective of normal cranial variation among Boisman peoples rather than artificial modification. Although hardly demonstrative of this point, the results of the O'Brien and Stanley functions may be helpful in assessing this view. When we examine the distribution of the four crania that were found to be unmodified by all three techniques we see that they cluster very closely in the extreme right edge of the ‘normal’ territory (Fig. 14). If this cluster is, indeed, reflective of the normal shape of Boisman peoples, then it would be easy to see how even slightly more positive (on function 1) or negative (on function 2) scores would result in ambiguous border cases. The fringe location of the cluster, seems to confirm (as would be expected) that the territorial zone of ‘normal’ crania is different among Boisman peoples than among the Peruvian sample used by O'Brien and Stanley (2013). Although there are no published data available on other artificially modified crania from Neolithic East Asia with which to derive new discriminant functions, it may be possible for future analyses to use Howell's (1996) craniometric data to redefine the normal territorial zone for this region of the world. The one cranium that is more difficult to explain is Individual 5 from Burial Cluster 1 (Fig. 15), which was determined to be strongly modified by Chikisheva, but determined to be unmodified by both sets of metric analyses. All of the comments above regarding the conservative nature of the functions and the potentially

unreflective sample population inherent in the discriminant functions also apply to this individual; however, it is also worth noting that in her assessment of this cranium, Chikisheva (Popov et al., 1997) focused less on the shape of the vault (although she did note flattening around lambda), and more on the identification of small flattened areas on the frontal bone and upper portions of the parietal bones, which she attributed to the ‘pads’ that were used to shape the skull. In addition, she pointed to porosity in and around these flat spots, which she attributed to inflammatory processes as a result of necrosis of the soft tissue underneath the pads. Such processes are known to be associated with artificial cranial modification (Tiesler, 2014). Our own visual examination of this cranium noted these flat spots and porosity, but the shape of the cranium did not, in our view, warrant an interpretation of cranial shaping, and we are not as confident in a particular aetiology for the porosity. 5.2. Artificial cranial modification in East Asia The confirmation of artificial cranial modification at Boisman 2 represents among the earliest e if not the earliest e example of the practice in Holocene East Asia. There have been occasional reports that cranial shaping was employed in Neolithic China, but to date these materials have not been systematically analyzed or published except in preliminary or cursory reports (e.g., Han and Pan, 1980; Nie et al., 2014). Prior to the Holocene, it has been suggested that Pleistocene inhabitants of Asia and Australia engaged in the practice, but these contentions are debated (e.g., Brothwell, 1975; Brown, 2010; Durband, 2014). In his comprehensive review of worldwide cranial shaping practices, Dingwall (1931:100)

Please cite this article in press as: McKenzie, H.G., Popov, A.N., A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.007

H.G. McKenzie, A.N. Popov / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

9

Fig. 11. Lateral view of Individual 6 from Burial Cluster 2 at Boisman 2.

Fig. 12. Lateral view of Individual 1 from Burial Cluster 2 at Boisman 2.

suggested that the origin of such practices in East Asia was likely diffusion from the western steppes, but given the early dates from Boisman (and China), it seems more likely that we are seeing a local development associated with new forms of identity-marking in the context of transformative culture change.

comparing those two largely ascribed identities with the individual life histories as encoded in the skeletal and dental remains, we have an opportunity to explore what individual identity actually entailed in prehistoric societies, and how those identities were related to broader societal concerns. At Boisman 2, the bioarchaeological synthesis of osteological and archaeological materials is only just beginning (Popov et al., 2014), and given the small sample sizes and lack of comparative collections, it is difficult to take our analysis of these materials too far. Boisman 2 is, for the moment, absolutely unique, and it is therefore difficult to determine how representative it is of the wider Middle Neolithic context in Primorye. There are

5.3. Cranial modification, identity and Neolithization in Primorye Because cranial modification is applied to infants, it differs from other ephemeral forms of body modification as well as from other forms of permanent modifications that are applied to older individuals (Torres-Rouff, 2003, 2008; Tiesler, 2014). From the biocultural perspective advanced by bioarchaeology, then, cranial modification provides us with a unique opportunity to look at the nature of identity in past societies. In a sense, cranial modification and mortuary treatment represent two bookends of an individual's life and of the various identities they held during life. Cranial shape is the imposition of a rather fixed identity at birth, and as such, would seem to reflect the culture's expectations for who this child is and how they will be perceived throughout their life. Mortuary treatment, in contrast, is the imposition of an identity (or identities) at death that is influenced in part by who a person was in life, or at least, how the people responsible for directing the form of the burial would like the dead to be represented. Compared to the birth identity, mortuary identities are somewhat more fluid, and are more easily able to be manipulated for various purposes e both by the individual themselves during life and by the individuals directing the mortuary practices. By evaluating these two endpoints e the identities given at birth and the identities given death e and by

Fig. 13. Lateral view of Individual 2 from Burial Cluster 1 at Boisman 2.

Please cite this article in press as: McKenzie, H.G., Popov, A.N., A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.007

10

H.G. McKenzie, A.N. Popov / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

Fig. 14. Results of O'Brien and Stanley discriminant functions for the Boisman 2 crania.

some patterns that are worth considering, at least as a way to stimulate hypotheses for the direction of future research. With respect to sex, of the six crania confirmed to be modified by metric analyses, five were female and only one was male. And even if we assume that some of the weakly modified were, in fact, modified, and we include the one cranium for which measurements were not possible but which visually appears extremely modified (Burial Cluster 1 Individual 3A), then the sex balance is still uneven: 8 female and 3 male. For unmodified crania, the balance is reversed, with 4 males and two females. At this point it is impossible to say whether this is a statistical sampling effect, whether it is a product of the practice being applied more often to females than males, or whether we might be seeing some other cultural force at work such as marriage patterns that require females from one group (who tend to use cranial shaping) to marry into males of another group (who tend to be unmodified) or vice versa. Age at death also seems to be relevant in that artificial cranial modification is more prevalent among younger individuals than older. Six of the seven unmodified crania are all over 30 years of age, whereas of the six confirmed to be modified by metric analysis, four were younger than 30 years of age. If we include individual 3A and all of the weakly modified crania, then eight modified crania come from individuals younger than 30 years, and only three individuals are older. Given that cranial modification is a permanent, highly visible alteration that is applied to infants, it must rely, to a certain extent on the belief that this identity will remain stable and relevant for the duration of the individual's life. Assuming we are correct that the burials were all interred in a very short period of time, perhaps the greater prevalence among younger individuals is reflective of group identities becoming increasingly stable through time, such that each generation is more confident in their willingness to engage in the practice. Cranial modification was confirmed from both burial clusters: two out of the six crania evaluated from Cluster 1 were modified, as were four out of 10 from Cluster 2. No patterns in grave goods or other aspects of mortuary treatment are obvious, but the small sample size may be disguising these factors. With respect to Popov's suggestion that the Burial Clusters reflect intra-community divisions, such as clans or kin groups, it is interesting that neither of the crania from the central burial 4 in Burial Cluster 2 were modified, while the central female from Burial Cluster 1 did display a modified cranium. She was also the eldest individual buried at the site. Burial 3 from Cluster 2, which contained 7 individuals, had two individuals with confirmed cranial shaping, and they were lying side-by-side. If we include the weakly modified crania, then two other individuals from this cluster would also be included. Even within burial clusters, cranial shapes may be marking relevant differences. 6. Conclusions

Fig. 15. Lateral view of Individual 5 from Burial Cluster 1 at Boisman 2.

Our results support Chikisheva's (2003) conclusion that intentional cranial modification was used by Boisman peoples, representing among the earliest, if not the earliest example in Holocene East Asia. However, of the 10 crania we were able to measure that Chikisheva identified as modified, our results confirmed only six. Further research is required to determine whether this discrepancy is a product of the conservative nature of the discriminant functions, the potential that these functions produces inaccurate results for crania from this specific population, or whether some of the variation observed is a result of normal population variation rather than cranial shaping. Preliminary assessment of cranial shaping in relation to demographic and archaeological variables suggests that females may have been more affected than males, and that younger individuals were more likely to receive the practice than older individuals, which is perhaps a reflection of increasingly stable social

Please cite this article in press as: McKenzie, H.G., Popov, A.N., A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.007

H.G. McKenzie, A.N. Popov / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

identities. Overall, it seems likely that mortuary treatment and cranial modification were being employed in order to renegotiate social relations e likely with some sort of incipient social stratification e in a context of a new sedentary marine based economy. The next step in this research is twofold. First, since our data were collected in 2008, an increasing number of multivariate and geometric morphometric approaches have been developed (e.g., Frieb and Baylac, 2003; Perez, 2007; Brown, 2010; Pomeroy et al., 2010; Brown and Mizoguchi, 2011), and the 3-dimensional scanning equipment has become portable and cost-effective enough that we would like to apply such approaches to obtain a more detailed understanding of the nature of cranial forms at Boisman 2. This is especially relevant for the large number of fragmentary crania for which it is impossible to rely on traditional landmarkbased metrics. Second, it is now necessary to examine, in more detail, how cranial modification relates to other biological and cultural factors. Bone and tooth samples have been obtained from each of these individuals for future stable isotope, radiocarbon, DNA, trace element analyses, which may help us develop a clearer picture of each individual life history. Ultimately, we hope that by comparing identities given at birth (as reflected in cranial modification), identities given at death (as reflected in mortuary treatment), and individual life histories, as encoded in their skeletal remains, we will be able to explore the changing natures of identities at Boisman 2 and how those identities were related to broader societal concerns for Neolithic foragers of the Russian Far East as they underwent transformative changes towards a more sedentary, marine-based lifeway.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Far Eastern National University, Vladivostok, (Grant No. 13-06-009-m-a) and MacEwan University, Edmonton (MacEwan Research Scholarly Activity and Creative Achievements Fund and MacEwan Arts and Sciences Research Fund) for financial support. We also thank Christopher Puckett for his assistance in the lab, and Dr. Angela Lieverse for her invitation to contribute to this volume.

Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.007.

11

References Alekseev, V.P., Debetz, G.F., 1964. Kraniometriya: Metodika antropologicheskikh issledovanii. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian). Anton, S.C., 1989. Intentional cranial vault deformation and induced changes of the cranial base and face. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 79 (2), 253e267. Brothwell, D., 1975. Possible evidence of a cultural practice affecting head growth in some late Pleistocene East Asian and Australasian populations. Journal of Archaeological Science 2 (1), 75e77. Brown, P., 2010. Nacurrie 1: mark of ancient Java, or a caring mother's hands, in terminal Pleistocene Australia? Journal of Human Evolution 59 (2), 168e187. Brown, P., Mizoguchi, Y., 2011. Identifying the influence of artificial neurocranial deformation on Craniofacial dimensions. Bulletin of the National Museum of Nature and Science, Series D 37, 1e33. Buikstra, J.E., Ubelaker, D.H., 1994. Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. In: Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History Organized by Jonathan Haas. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series, vol. 44. Chikisheva, T.A., 2003. Rezul'taty isledovaniiq novyx paleoantropologicheskikh materialov iz mogil'nika na poselenii Boismana 2 (raskopki 1998-2000) ([Results of research into new paleoanthropological material from graves at the Boisman-2 site: 1998e2000 excvations]). SO RAN. In: Derevianko, A.P. (Ed.), Problems of Archaeology and Paleoecology in Northern, Eastern and Central Asia. Research of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, pp. 209e213 (in Russian).  n, S.A., Hawks, J., Hunley, K.L., Wolpoff, M.H., 2007. Clark, J.L., Dobson, S.D., Anto Identifying artificially deformed crania. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 17, 596e607. Cheverud, J.M., Kohn, L.A.P., Konigsberg, L.W., Leigh, S.R., 1992. Effects of frontooccipital artificial cranial vault modification on the cranial base and face. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 88, 323e345. Crist, T.A.J., Washburn, A., Park, H., Hood, I., Hickey, M.A., 1997. Cranial bone displacement as a taphonomic process in potential child abuse cases. In: Haglund, W.D., Sorg, M.H. (Eds.), Forensic Taphonomy. The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains. CRC Press, Florida, pp. 319e336. Dembo, A., Imbelloni, J., 1938. Deformaciones intencionales del cuerpo humano de tnico, vol. 3. Editori Nova. car acter e Dingwall, E.J., 1931. Artificial Cranial Deformation: a Contribution to the Study of Ethnic Mutilations. John Bale, Sons and Danielsson, London. Durband, A.C., 2014. Brief communication: artificial cranial modification in Kow Swamp and Cohuna. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 155 (1), 173e178. Frieß, M., Baylac, M., 2003. Exploring artificial cranial deformation using elliptic Fourier analysis of Procrustes aligned outlines. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 122 (1), 11e22. Han, K., Pan, Q., 1980. Signs of artificial head modificaitons in Neolithic cranial series. Kaogu 2, 187e191. Howells, W.W., 1973. Cranial variation in man e A study by multivariate analysis of patterns of differences among recent human populations. In: Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 67. Peabody Museum, Cambridge. Howells, W.W., 1989. Skull shapes and the map e craniometrics analysis in the dispersion of modern Homo. In: Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 79. Peabody Museum, Cambridge. Howells, W.W., 1995. Who's who in skulls e ethnic identification of crania from measurements. In: Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 82. Peabody Museum, Cambridge.

Table 1 Summary of evaluation for artificial cranial modification at Boisman 2. Burial cluster

Burial number

Sex

Age (years)

Cranial Modification type (Chikisheva)

Clark et al. d.f.

Clark et al. result

O'Brien & Stanley df 1/df 2

O'Brien & Stanley result

1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2

3A 3B 3r 3b 6 1 2 1A 5A 5 3A 1b 3zh 3b 4b 5b 4A

Male Female Female Female Female Male Female Male Female Male Male Female Female Female Female Male Male

14 40e45 20e25 20e25 25e30 20e25 60 20 25e30 25e30 35e40 40e45 14e15 35e40 30e35 40e45 45e50

annular (strong) fronto-occipital (strong) fronto-occipital (strong) fronto-occipital (strong) fronto-occipital (strong) fronto-occipital (strong) annular (weak) and fronto-occipital (strong) unmodified parieto-occipital (weak) fronto-occipital (strong) unmodified unmodified fronto-occipital (weak) parieto-occipital (weak) unmodified unmodified unmodified

e

e modified modified modified modified modified unmodified unmodified unmodified unmodified unmodified unmodified unmodified unmodified unmodified unmodified unmodified

e e e 3.46/¡5.16 e e 4.81/¡2.13 0.61/0.68 e 0.36/1.2 e e e e 0.09/0.14 0.78/1.03 e

e e e Modified e Annular e e Modified e Tabular Unmodified e Unmodified e e e e Unmodified Unmodified e

0.85 0.84 0.81 0.35 0.02 0.93 1.87 2.07 2.43 2.80 3.65 3.71 3.90 5.50 5.71 5.97

Please cite this article in press as: McKenzie, H.G., Popov, A.N., A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.007

12

H.G. McKenzie, A.N. Popov / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

Howells, W.W., 1996. Howells' craniometric data on the internet. Notes and comments. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 101, 441e442. Jull, A.J.T., Kuzmin, Y.V., Lutaenko, K.A., Orlova, L.A., Popov, A.N., Rakov, V.A., Sulerzhitsky, L.D., 1994. Composition, age and habitat of the Boisman 2 Neolithic site in the Maritime Territory. Doklady Biological Sciences 339, 620e623. Kohn, L.A.P., Leigh, S.R., Jacobs, S.C., Cheverud, J.M., 1993. Effects of annular cranial vault modification on the cranial base and face. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 90, 147e168. Kuzmin, Y.V., 2009. Prehistoric maritime adaptation on the Pacific coast of Russia: results and problems of geoarchaeological research. North Pacific Prehistory 3, 115e139. Kuzmin, Y.V., 2010. The Neolithic of the Russian Far East and neighbouring East Asia: definition, chronology, and origins. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 30, 157e162. Kuzmin, Y.V., 2012. Radiocarbon chronology for prehistoric complexes of the Russian Far East: 15 years later. Radiocarbon 54 (3e4), 727e736. Kuzmin, Y.V., Richards, M.P., Yoneda, M., 2002. Palaeodietary patterning and radiocarbon dating of Neolithic populations in the Primorye province, Russian Far East. Ancient Biomolecules 4 (2), 53e58. Lutaenko, K.A., Zhushchikhovskaya, I.S., Mikishin, Y.I., Popov, A.N., 2007. Mid-Holocene climatic changes and cultural dynamics in the basin of the Sea of Japan and adjacent areas. In: Anderson, D., et al. (Eds.), Climatic Change and Cultural Dynamics: a Global Perspective on Mid-holocene Transitions. Academic Press, London, pp. 331e406. Mikishin, Y.A., Petrenko, T.I., Gvozdeva, I.G., Popov, A.N., Kuzmin, Y.V., Gorbarenko, S.A., et al., 2008. Golotsen yugo-zapadnogo poberezhia Primorya. (The Holocene of the southwestern Primorye coast). Scientific Review 1, 8e27 (In Russian). Nie, Y., Yang, D., Zhu, H., 2014. Artificial cranial modification of human remains from two archeological sites in Xinjiang, China. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 153 (S58), 195. O'Brien, T.G., Stanley, A.M., 2013. Boards and cords: discriminating types of artificial cranial deformation in prehispanic south central Andean populations. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 23 (4), 459e470. Pechenkina, K., Oxenham, M., 2013. Research on human skeletal biology in East Asia: a historical overview. In: Pechenikna, K., Oxenham, M. (Eds.), Bioarchaeology of East Asia: Movement, Contact, Health. University Press of Florida, pp. 1e27. Perez, S.I., 2007. Artificial cranial deformation in South America: a geometric morphometrics approximation. Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (10), 1649e1658.

Pomeroy, E., Stock, J.T., Zakrzewski, S.R., Lahr, M.M., 2010. A metric study of three types of artificial cranial modification from north-central Peru. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 20 (3), 317e334. Popov, A.N., 2008. Burial complexes of Boisman-2, multilayered site in south Primorye. Archaeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia 2 (34), 68e76. Popov, A.N., Chikisheva, N.F., Shpakova, E.G., 1997. Boismanskaya arheologicheskaya kultura v Yuzhnom Primorye. (Boisman archaeological culture in southern Primorye). Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Novosibirsk (In Russian). Popov, A.N., Tabarev, A.V., Mikishin, Y.A., 2014. Neolithization and ancient landscapes in Southern Primorye, Russian Far East. Journal of World Prehistory 27 (3e4), 247e261. Rhode, M.P., Arriaza, B.T., 2006. Influence of cranial deformation on facial morphology among prehistoric South Central Andean populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 130 (4), 462e470. Tabarev, A.V., 2007. On oysters and archaeologists (the notion of ‘aquaculture’ in Far Eastern archaeology). Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 4 (32), 52e59. Tabarev, A.V., 2009. On the dark side of the Neolithisation: evidences of violence in the Neolithic burials at Boisman-2 site, Russian Far East. In: Uchiyama, J. (Ed.), Neolithisation and Modernisation: Landscape History on East Asian Inland Seas. Nakanishi Printing Co, Kyoto, pp. 131e138. Tiesler, V., 2012. Studying cranial vault modifications in ancient Mesoamerica. Journal of Anthropological Sciences 90, 1e26. Tiesler, V., 2014. Conclusions: new perspectives for studying head-shaping practices in Mesoamerica. In: The Bioarchaeology of Artificial Cranial Modifications. Springer, New York, pp. 257e265. Torres-Rouff, C., 2003. Shaping Identity: Cranial Vault Modification in the PreColumbian Andes. Unpublished dissertation. University of California, Santa Barbara. Torres-Rouff, C., 2008. The influence of Tiwanaku on life in the Chilean Atacama: mortuary and bodily perspectives. American Anthropologist 110 (3), 325e337. Vostretsov, Y.E. (Ed.), 1998. Pervye rybolovy v zalive Petra Velikogo: Drevni chelovek v bukhte Boismana. Dalpress, Vladivostok (In Russian). Yoneda, M., Kuzmin, Y.V., Morita, M., Popov, A.N., Chikisheva, T.A., Shibata, Y., Shpakova, E.G., 1998. Rekonstruktsia paleodiety po stabilnym izotopam ugleroda i azota v kollagene kostei iz neoliticheskogo mogilnika Boisman-2 (Primorye) ((The reconstruction of paleo-diet using stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen from human bone collagen of the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery, Primorye)). Gumanitarnye nauki v Sibiri 3, 9e13.

Please cite this article in press as: McKenzie, H.G., Popov, A.N., A metric assessment of evidence for artificial cranial modification at the Boisman 2 Neolithic cemetery (ca. 5800e5400 14C BP), Primorye, Russian Far East, Quaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2015.06.007