Examining the influence of hide processing on Native American upper limb morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The commercial pelt trade between Native Americans and Europeans flourished in the 17th and 18th centuries. However, the impact of this economic change and increased hide processing efforts on Native American upper limb morphology is unknown. The hide scraping hypothesis, tested in living subjects, suggests that hide processing efforts may lead to significant changes in humeral morphology. Two modern human Native North American skeletal collections from south‐western Virginia, USA, were studied to test if intensive hide processing led to changes in humeral morphology. At the earlier Late Woodland Crab Orchard site, animal skins and furs were prepared for household use. During the occupation of the later early historic Trigg site, processing activities intensified to produce surplus hides for the commercial pelt trade. In this study, the cross‐sectional geometric properties at the mid‐distal humerus (35% of length) of Crab Orchard and Trigg adult males and females were examined. We assessed whether Trigg site individuals had increased humeral symmetry, changes to diaphyseal shape, and increased robusticity. Additionally, humerus morphological properties were compared between males and females to assess if there were sex‐based differences. Trigg site males had greater humeral robusticity than Crab Orchard males. The humeri of females from the Trigg and Crab Orchard sites were both relatively anteroposterior strengthened and displayed quite low levels of bilateral asymmetry. This pattern suggests that females at both sites may have employed techniques that involved bimanual hide processing tools. The differences between the morphologies predicted and those observed in these Native American populations may indicate (a) adaptation to bimanual hide processing techniques or (b) adaptation to osteogenic tasks not involved in hide processing but associated with postcontact economic changes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".