Comparison of population structure in Ohio's late archaic and late prehistoric periods

Abstract

Previous studies of population structure among prehistoric groups in the Ohio valley region have shown that hunting-gathering populations exhibited a different structure than horticultural populations. Among both Late Archaic hunter-gatherers and Late Prehistoric horticulturists, covariance structures for cranial metrics were found to be homogenous within the populations, but the Late Archaic subpopulations showed little differentiation while the Late Prehistoric subpopulations exhibited a marked differentiation. Biodistance based on cranial discrete trait frequency showed similar patterns, but in the Late Archaic discrete trait distance was associated significantly with the geographical distance separating populations. The present investigation is an extension of the previous studies increasing the Late Prehistoric sample (n = 8 samples and n = 341 individuals) and using the Harpending-Ward model, modified for use with multivariate quantitative data, to estimate the effects of differential gene flow and the amount of differentiation within populations. Results of the present analyses indicate that differentiation among subpopulations, measured by minimum F(ST), was greater in the Late Prehistoric compared to the Late Archaic period. However, for both periods the minimum F(ST) is comparable to values found for historic native populations of the northeast woodlands. Analysis of differential gene flow in the Late Archaic period indicates that geographically peripheral populations were affected more by external gene flow than more central populations. Late Prehistoric populations exhibit a very complex pattern of differential gene flow. We discuss the latter pattern in terms of proposed culture change in the Late Prehistoric period of Ohio.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 30 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.