Citation
Assessing Nonmetric Cranial Traits Currently Used in Forensic Determination of Ancestry

Material Information

Title:
Assessing Nonmetric Cranial Traits Currently Used in Forensic Determination of Ancestry
Creator:
HEFNER, JOSEPH T. ( Author, Primary )
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Ancestry ( jstor )
Anthropological museums ( jstor )
Anthropology ( jstor )
Asians ( jstor )
Correlations ( jstor )
Forensic anthropology ( jstor )
Nasal bone ( jstor )
Personality traits ( jstor )
Phenotypic traits ( jstor )
Physical anthropology ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Joseph T. Hefner. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
12/31/2008
Resource Identifier:
77742041 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

ASSESSING NONMETRIC CRANIAL TRAITS CURRENTLY USED IN FORENSIC DETERMINATION OF ANCESTRY By JOSEPH T. HEFNER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

Copyright 2003 by Joseph T. Hefner

PAGE 3

To my loving Kim, who always keeps me laughing We cannot really love anybody with whom we never laugh. Agnes Repplier (1855-1950)

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge the support and guidance of my committee members, Michael Warren (chair), David Daegling, Thomas Hollinger, and John Krigbaum, for their advice and criticisms; and for the hours of their own research time they interrupted to assist me in mine. A special "Thank you" is due to Steve Ousley of the National Museum of Natural History; and Dennis Dirkmaat of Mercyhurst College; for their tireless support and guidance. As friends and mentors they have been invaluable – without their creativity and insight, I would not be where I am today. I am also grateful to David Hunt, whose permission and assistance in obtaining skeletal material from the Smithsonian has made this all possible. For this I remain grateful. Patricia Kervick (Associate Archivist of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University) deserves special acknowledgment for her tireless search of the Hooten archives, answering my many questions, even when I wasn't always sure what I was asking. For their critical eye in editing, and their generous giving of time and ideas, I would like to thank John Schultz, Heather Walsh-Haney, Laurel Freas, and Kathryn Jemmott. To my family, I can only say "thank you," for pushing me in that direction and watching me go. Last, and most importantly, I want to thank the one person who supported me and understood my path, as circuitous as it may have been – Kim. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1 Statement of Problem......................................................................................................5 Summary..........................................................................................................................6 2 HISTORY OF THE RACE CONCEPT........................................................................8 3 METHODS AND MATERIALS.................................................................................26 Characters and Character States....................................................................................28 Inferior Nasal Morphology (INA).......................................................................28 Nasal Bone Structure (NBS)...............................................................................29 Nasal Aperture Width (NAW).............................................................................32 Interorbital Breadth (IOB)...................................................................................33 Post-bregmatic Depression (PBD)......................................................................34 Anterior Nasal Spine (ANS)................................................................................34 Zygomaticomaxillary Suture Shape (ZS)............................................................35 Transverse Palatine Suture Shape (TP)...............................................................36 Posterior Zygomatic Tubercle (ZT).....................................................................38 Malar Tubercle (MT)...........................................................................................39 Nasal Overgrowth (NO)......................................................................................41 Metopic Suture (MS)...........................................................................................41 Supranasal Suture (SPS)......................................................................................42 Statistical Methods.........................................................................................................44 4 RESULTS....................................................................................................................46 Polychoric Correlations.................................................................................................50 v

PAGE 6

Correlations: Pooled Sample (n = 722)...............................................................50 African Sample (n = 180)....................................................................................53 East Asian Sample (n = 75).................................................................................55 Amerindian Sample (n = 283).............................................................................57 European Sample (n = 184).................................................................................59 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................61 Population Specific Results...........................................................................................62 Africans...............................................................................................................63 American Indians.................................................................................................63 East Asians..........................................................................................................64 Europeans............................................................................................................65 Conclusions....................................................................................................................66 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................67 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................74 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Nonmetric cranial traits used by E. A. Hooton...................................................16 3-1 Nonmetric cranial traits assessed in this study...................................................26 3-2 Materials Used in the Present Study...................................................................27 4-1 Inferior nasal aperture (INA)frequencies............................................................46 4-2 Nasal bone structure (NBS) frequencies.............................................................47 4-3 Nasal aperture width (NAW) frequencies...........................................................47 4-4 Interorbital breadth (IOB) frequencies................................................................47 4-5 Post-bregmatic depression (PBD) frequencies...................................................47 4-6 Anterior nasal spine (ANS) frequencies.............................................................48 4-7 Zygomaticomaxillary suture (ZS) frequencies...................................................48 4-8 Transverse palatine suture (TP) frequencies.......................................................48 4-10 Malar tubercle (MT) frequencies........................................................................49 4-11 Nasal overgrowth (NO) frequencies...................................................................49 4-12 Metopic suture (TM) frequencies.......................................................................49 4-13 Supranasal suture (SPS) frequencies..................................................................50 4-14 Polychoric correlations for the pooled sample....................................................52 4-15 Polychoric correlations for the African sample..................................................54 4-16 Polychoric correlations for the East Asian sample.............................................56 vii

PAGE 8

4-17 Polychoric correlations for the American Indian sample...................................58 4-18 Polychoric correlations for the European sample...............................................60 5-1 Post-bregmatic depression frequencies in Africans............................................62 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Abridged lineage of Earnest A. Hooton...........................................................15 2-2 A sample of the somatotypes of "born criminals" by E. A. Hooton................18 2-3 The "Harvard List"...........................................................................................20 2-4 Scaling system for three variants of the Harvard List......................................21 3-1 Inferior nasal aperture character states............................................................30 3-2 Nasal bone structure character states...............................................................31 3-3 A typical contour gauge...................................................................................32 3-4 Nasal aperture width character states...............................................................33 3-5 Interorbital breadth character states.................................................................33 3-6 The two character states of post-bregmatic depression...................................34 3-7 Anterior nasal spine character states................................................................35 3-8 Zygomaticomaxillary suture character states...................................................36 3-9 Transverse palatine suture character states......................................................38 3-10 Posterior zygomatic tubercle character states..................................................39 3-11 Malar tubercle character states.........................................................................40 3-12 Degree of nasal overgrowth.............................................................................41 3-13 Metopic suture character states........................................................................42 3-14 Supranasal suture character states....................................................................43 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts ASSESSING NONMETRIC CRANIAL TRAITS CURRENTLY USED IN FORENSIC DETERMINATION OF ANCESTRY By Joseph T. Hefner December 2003 Chair: Michael Warren Major Department: Anthropology Forensic anthropology is a subdiscipline within physical anthropology that applies a specialized knowledge of human skeletal variation in a forensic, or medicolegal, setting. When criminal investigators (such as local law enforcement, coroners, medical examiners) discover decomposed, or decomposing, skeletal material believed to be human, they regularly call on a forensic anthropologist to aid in the identification process. Forensic anthropologists begin their analysis by first determining if the remains are indeed human. If so, the identification process starts with the construction of a biological profile based on the skeletal remains. This most often includes assessing the age, sex, ancestry, and stature of the deceased. The methods used to construct a biological profile originate from early anatomists and anthropologists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Modern anthropologists have refined these methods. Unlike other methods used in establishing the identity of human skeletal remains (e.g., age, sex, stature), ancestry determination has not been as x

PAGE 11

carefully documented; most likely because of the nature of ancestry and its unfortunate ties to early ideas about "races" of humans. Nevertheless, a determination of ancestry is important in limiting the number of missing person reports the data are compared to. Forensic anthropologists make use of two methods in ancestry determination, metric and nonmetric analysis. Nonmetric analysis, detailed exclusively herein, relies on subtle variations in cranial form. Researchers have documented a number of these variants which they believe define large, geographically based ancestral populations. To assess the efficacy of these traits to modern populations, my study determined: 1) formal, anatomically-based definitions for select nonmetric traits, 2) clear and concise illustrations of the character states for each nonmetric trait, 3) the frequency of each trait within the four main ancestral populations, and 4) whether correlation exists among the individual nonmetric traits; and what, if any, correlation exists among the nonmetric traits and the ancestral populations. Results indicate that some of the most frequently cited traits do not reflect the accuracy often attributed to a determination of ancestry. Although the experienced forensic anthropologist may make correct assumptions based on nonmetric traits, reliable and quantified ancestry determinants should be delineated and described more rigorously. For those traits currently used, however, it may not be possible to quantify them if they do not represent actual underlying biological structures appropriate for use in these studies. Likewise, the inclusion of traits that are susceptible to outside forces and stresses may not be appropriate for use on any level of analysis. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In 1972, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) accepted fourteen members into its newly established Physical Anthropology section (Stewart 1979). The primary purpose of this section was the dissemination of knowledge and research pertaining to the use of physical anthropological methods in a medico-legal setting. Before the establishment of this AAFS section, there was little acknowledgment of the subdiscipline known as forensic anthropology. Forensic anthropologists apply a specialized knowledge of physical anthropology in a forensic setting, assisting investigators in cases where the identity of human remains, as well as the causal mechanisms of death, is uncertain. Stewart (1979: ix) defined the field as That branch of physical anthropology which, for forensic purposes, deals with the identification of more or less skeletonized remains known to be, or suspected of being, human. Beyond the elimination of nonhuman elements, the identification process undertakes to provide opinions regarding age, sex, race, stature and such other characteristics of each individual involved as may lead to his or her recognition. As evidenced by Stewart's definition, forensic anthropologists initially focused on skeletal assessment of identification by creating a biological profile for the remains in question, including an assessment of human skeletal variation. A broad, yet intimate, knowledge of the skeletal system, is fundamental to the forensic anthropologist's ability to provide opinions on age, sex, ancestry, stature, and postmortem interval (and positive identification of the individual). An understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the 1

PAGE 13

2 human skeletal system also enables the forensic anthropologist to predict how bone will react to trauma and insult (e.g., blunt or sharp force, burning). The roots of forensic anthropology are deeply imbedded in the more general field of physical anthropology. Physical anthropologists draw heavily from evolutionary principles and apply them to the study of humans, both past and present. Methodologically, the two fields are indistinguishable. Both rely on acquiring information from skeletal material. Working with fossil skeletal material, paleoanthropologists can – and often do – make broad assumptions, based on fragmentary or incomplete specimens. This partly because of the relative infrequency of new material and the destructive nature of the fossilization process. Therefore, paleoanthropologists must glean as much information as possible from the material at hand. Biological anthropologists working with archaeological specimens also work with fragmentary remains. Like the forensic anthropologist, these skeletal biologists rely on methods developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by anatomists and early anthropologists. Most of these methods have been refined by modern anthropologists; however, the early research detailing methodological approaches for determining age, sex, stature, and ancestry continue to operate as catalysts for current research methods used to create a biological profile. In any human skeletal analysis, researchers may draw on two diametrically opposed, yet complimentary, methods: metric and nonmetric analysis. Metric analyses (or anthropometrics) rely on continuous features; and use calipers, measurements, and indices to draw conclusions on the remains. Nonmetric analyses (or anthroposcopy) relies

PAGE 14

3 on discontinuous traits and slight variation in the cranial and postcranial skeleton. That is, nonmetric analysis relies on detecting subtle nuances in form through one's own eyes. Both methods are usually needed for the forensic anthropologist's analysis. This is particularly true for ancestry determination: while most forensic anthropologists prefer nonmetric analysis, most also use metric analysis to underscore and support their conclusions. Analysis at any level, whether a beginning student or a seasoned professor, begins with a visual assessment. No researcher begins analysis blindfolded, with calipers in hand. The natural instinct, when seeing a long bone or a cranium for the first time, is to visually interpret, making preliminary determinations of the material under study. After this initial interpretation, the novice and the professional alike, proceed to measure and analyze the skeletal material, making an educated attempt at explanation only after progressing through natural levels of analysis. While metric analyses have proven effective in discriminating the four ancestral groups (i.e., African, American Indian, Asian, and European) most frequently encountered in forensic anthropology within the United States, nonmetric traits remain an important corroborative tool, as they are considered more efficient, with a wider applicability to complete and fragmented remains (Rhine 1990). The history of the recognition and development of nonmetric traits in the forensic determination of ancestry is outlined in Chapter 2. Despite their shared theoretical foundations, physical anthropologists and forensic anthropologists tend to view nonmetric traits from different perspectives; and to pursue corresponding research toward slightly different ends. Within the broader field of physical anthropology, research focusing on nonmetric traits and population distances

PAGE 15

4 (Anderson 1969; Berry and Berry 1967; DiBennardo and Taylor 1983; Hanihara 1996, 2000; Ishida and Dodo 1997; Jantz 1970; Konigsberg 1990; Lahr 1996; Saunders 1978; Tyrell and Chamberlain 1998) have typically centered on discrete traits, largely defined as either present or absent (e.g., the presence or absence of asterionic bone). While these traits are perfectly suited to studies aimed at tracing and quantifying population distances1 and heritability within closely related groups, they are not well-suited for the larger sample pool that forensic anthropologists regularly encounter. In forensic anthropology, the nonmetric traits used are more often multiple-state trait expressions superimposed onto an ordinal scale (Anderson 1969; Hefner 2003; Rhine 1990; Tyrell 2000). Using an ordinal system of trait classification is potentially beneficial, because it “may provide an increased amount of information about levels of genome/environment interaction” that are normally lost when using the presence/absence system (Tyrell 2000). However, an ordinal method also comes with one major caveat. Although multiple trait expressions represent actual variation, use of an ordinal scale to distinguish among them also increases interand intra-observer error, escalating the need for standard definitions of nonmetric traits based on anatomical structures and clearly illustrated line drawings representing the variation normally encountered. Other methods used in constructing a biological profile (e.g., aging and sexing techniques, stature estimation) are sufficiently standardized in textbooks and data-collection manuals. Buikstra and Ubelaker (1995) detailed discrete traits used in the aforementioned heritability studies of physical anthropology, but it does not treat the 1 Anderson (1969: 135) describes traits detailing population distance as "discrete variations, or anomalies" whereas he terms the traits that forensic anthropologists use as "morphological" which he defines as the "non-metrical description of continuous characteristics."

PAGE 16

5 nonmetric variants used in the forensic determination of ancestry. Rightly so, because "Standards," as this manual is commonly referred to, is not a book for the forensic anthropologist, but rather this book is for the collection of data from archaeological populations. This deficiency in the current body of data, coupled with the relatively small sample sizes of some of the more frequently cited research, has resulted in methodological issues in nonmetric trait analysis and interpretation. Furthermore, questions regarding the usefulness of some nonmetric traits have emerged as a result of these deficiencies. Statement of Problem Research on nonmetric traits used to determine ancestry have been documented and assessed by multiple authors (Angel and Kelly 1990, Baker et al. 1990, Bass 1987, Brooks et al. 1990, Brothwell 1981, Brues 1990, Craig 1995, Duray et al. 1999, Gill 1995, Gill and Rhine 1990, Hauser and De Stefano 1986, Hinkes 1990, Krogman and can 1986, Ousley and Jantz 2002, Rhine 1990, Stewart 1979). Regrettably, there has been only a minimal attempt to quantify the frequency of those traits within the four main ancestral groups most commonly encountered in the United States: African, American Indian, East Asian, and European. Further, the range in variation of these traits is often not considered when developing new methodologies for nonmetric trait analysis, resulting in the loss of existing nuances that could distinguish individual populations (Brues 1991). Nonmetric trait analysis and its use in ancestry determination has not been subjected to the same levels of scrutiny as other methods (such as age and sex determination). Although several authors have devoted a great deal of time to nonmetric

PAGE 17

6 trait analysis, the published data originate from sources with less than ideal sample sizes (Gill and Rhine 1990; Rhine 1990). Again and again, these sources are used and cited in research articles, textbooks, and case reports without substantiation of the results (Bass 1987; Brothwell 1981; Brues 1990; Burns 1999; Krogman and can 1986; Rhine 1990; Stewart 1979). The information introduced in these seminal texts remains important; but much more rigorous quantification (at the very least, frequency distributions for each trait within ancestral groups) needs to be addressed. Given these deficiencies, my study has four primary objectives. First, standard definitions based on anatomical structures were formalized for select nonmetric traits. The lack of clear definitions produces difficulties for the beginning student to accurately define the slight variations in form often associated with nonmetric trait analysis. This is further compounded by the lack of clearly illustrated line drawings for each character trait. Therefore, the second objective was the accurate illustration of the individual character states for each nonmetric trait. Third, without an understanding of the frequency distribution of nonmetric traits for large samples, their usefulness as indicators of ancestry will be questionable. As such, my sample is composed of a large (albeit pooled) sample from each of the ancestral groups most frequently encountered. The fourth objective of was to determine whether correlations exists among the individual nonmetric traits, and what, if any, correlation exists among the traits and the ancestral populations. To that end, polychoric and polyserial correlations were calculated. Summary After the establishment of the Physical Anthropology section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, forensic anthropology moved into the forefront of the identification of decomposed human skeletal material. This identification process, which

PAGE 18

7 relies on the establishment of biological parameters, or a biological profile, includes a determination of the individual in questions ancestry. Unlike other methods used in the establishing the identity of human skeletal material (e.g., age, sex), ancestry determination has not been as rigorously described and defined. Considering the existing deficiencies in the body of data devoted to nonmetric traits useful in ancestry determination, my study determined: 1) formal, anatomically-based definitions for select nonmetric traits, 2) clear and concise illustrations of the character states for each nonmetric trait, 3) the frequency of each trait within the four main ancestral populations, and 4) whether correlation exists among the individual nonmetric traits, and what, if any, correlation exists among the traits and the ancestral populations.

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 2 HISTORY OF THE RACE CONCEPT Considerable debate exists today regarding the scientific validity of the term "race," especially as it was used by the early "skull scientists;" these human skeletal biologists were interested only in cranial material, and paid little attention to post-cranial remains. While the current study deals with the concept of ancestry and not "race," it is prudent to discuss the origins of the "race" concept. Connotations surrounding this four-letter word should not be ignored. In fact, modern anthropology has almost completely abandoned the use of the word "race." They now prefer to put quotation marks around this word, perhaps as a way to express regret for using such an anachronistic term. Montague (1964) provides an excellent background on the dissolution of the term "race" in anthropology. He suggested replacing it with the more broadly defined "ethnic group," because "the term 'race' is so embarrassed by confused and mystical meanings, and has so many blots upon its escutcheon, that a discouragement of its use would constitute an encouragement to clearer thinking" (Montague 1964:693). Addressing the issue of the continued use of "race" with the ubiquitous quotation marks, Montague (1964: 694) caterwauls "One cannot combat racism by enclosing the word in quotes." Unfortunately for Montague, his preferred idiom–Ethnic group–never came into vogue. As the debate on "race" and human variation continues, a universally accepted word describing and defining human variation may never be found. In the following chapter, the term "race" will be presented in its historical context, and is the language and term used by the researchers being discussed. 8

PAGE 20

9 For my purposes, however, the term ancestry is used to denote large groups of individuals who share similar morphologies in cranial form, likely the result of shared environmental constraints over great periods of time. Ancestry does not denote, nor imply, that "races" of humans exist. Rather, it is a used to establish geographical relationships for large groups of people, living and dead, who can trace their lineage of progenitors to a given continent (Africa, Europe, Asia, or the Americas). In forensic anthropology, the term ancestry also designates the social construct humans are all too familiar with; these are stereotypical group classifications based on phenotypic features. This chapter will demonstrate that modern humans are not the first to practice this type of classification schema. Rather, humans likely began to classify each other the moment they encountered "the other." The Origins of "Race" in Physical Anthropology There is little doubt that human variability exists. A quick glance at the Sunday personal classified ads in any newspaper undoubtedly will reveal the ubiquitous non-smoking, white male seeking a partner of innumerable characteristics; or perhaps, a single, black female seeks companionship from a Tennessee Republican, preferably one who speaks with a slight Gaelic accent. These classification schema appear in our everyday life, and speak to the natural tendency of Homo sapiens to classify themselves. Awareness of the clinal distribution of Homo sapiens developed largely as the result of extensive explorations by Europeans. This expansion ultimately culminated in an interest in describing and defining the differences early explorers encountered. Drawing on illustrations found within Egyptian tombs that show a variety of individuals

PAGE 21

10 from various ethnic groups,2 several authors have proposed that interest in "the other" is as old as recorded history. Nonetheless, it was not until the seventeenth century that scientific explanations were sought for the observed differences. Colonization and exploration, particularly European expansion between the fourteenth and eighteenth centuries (as well as into the present day), undoubtedly introduced "different peoples" to one another. At that time, scientists were particularly interested in taxonomic schema for plants and animals, including the classification and organization of humans. This is exemplified in the writings of Francois Bernier (1655) who first proposed a system of classification for humans based on a suite of phenotypic traits; or the work of Giordano Bruno and Jean Bodin who, in the late sixteenth century, were developing a "geographic arrangement of human beings in terms of skin color," (Smedley 1993: 162). The inclusion of Homo sapiens by Carolus Linnaeus (1707 – 1778) in Systema Naturae (1759) signaled a new era in the classification systems used for humans. Linnaeus originally classified all human populations together. However, in subsequent editions of his book, he subdivided humans into four categories, which he defined as Europaeus, Americanus, Asiaticus, and Africanus. Unlike Bernier, Bruno and Bodin, Linnaeus' classifications were based not only on skin color and physical traits, but also on alleged differences in behavior and social interaction (e.g., Asiaticus: yellow, melancholy, ruled by belief [as quoted in Shanklin 1994:26]). Although Linnaeus' stated 2 Or the "umbrella-footed people of Ethiopia, people who could use their (one) foot as a sunshade when the occasion demanded" as described by Herodotus in the fifth century (in Shanklin 1994: 24). Herodotus had never seen these people himself, but he was told about them, and other strange peoples in distant lands, by Greek travelers. Obviously these peoples did not exist, but they were revived by C. S. Lewis in The Chronicles of Narnia, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (1952). For an excellent discussion of Herodotus and the 'Umbrella-footed peoples' see Shanklin (1994).

PAGE 22

11 his typological descriptions were based on geographic criterion, they acted to reinforce the racist views of that era. In 1749, George Comte de Buffon asked a question still debated today: did the various human "races" share "a monogenic or polygenic origin?" (Armelagos 1992: 4). These conflicting views both accepted the inequality of non-European "races," but they disagree on how the various "races" of humans were originally formed. Polygenists, who believed individual "races" had evolved as separate species with separate geographic origins, "explained racial differences by divine intent" (Armelagos 1992). The monogenists, on the other hand, felt the origin of all "races" diverged from a single group. To explain the differences observed, monogenists believed human populations resulted from multiple degenerations from an archetypical form (Armelagos 1992; Spencer 1997; Wolpoff and Caspari 1997). One of the earliest monogenists was Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752 – 1840), a German anatomist and naturalist. Considered by some to be the father of modern physical anthropology (Wolpoff and Caspari 1997), Blumenbach's interest in the variability of humans, and in particular cranial form, makes him the father of the study of "race." In De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa Liber (1775), Blumenbach classified mankind into four "races," based on selected combinations of head shape, skin color, and hair form. In his second edition (1781) he found it necessary to expand this division into five "races." The more familiar categories (Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malayan) were not used until the publication of the third edition in 1795 (Bendyshe 1969).

PAGE 23

12 Blumenbach thought morphological and physiological differences among the "races" were the result of natural, environmental factors. Despite a typological system of classification for humans, Blumenbach "believed all humans fell within one variable type," leaving little room for the interpretation of "intermediate forms" not included in his analysis (Wolpoff and Caspari 1997: 61). Like most monogenists of this era, Blumenbach assumed Caucasians were the prototype for all other human forms. The "Caucasoid form," he believe, "was the original race, the most beautiful of the human races, and others varied from the Caucasoid archetype as they changed from the ideal form" (Wolpoff and Caspari 1997: 62). Variation from this "ideal form" occurs as the result of exposure to different climactic environments, rather than a polygenic evolution of the "races." By replacing behavioral characteristics with morphological variants, Blumenbach transformed the early Linnaean classification scheme into its present form: divisions of mankind achieved through morphological variation. Ironically, the fires of inequality were fueled more by Blumenbach's work than possibly by any other scientist once "others went to apply rank and value to the different racial groups" (Wolpoff and Caspari 1997: 65). While no deliberate ranking system is proposed in the Blumenbach classification, the inclusion of the Malayan as an intermediate variant between "Caucasians" and "Ethiopians" inadvertently established a legacy of hierarchy and racial inequality. I have allotted the first place to the Caucasian . . . which makes me esteem it the primeval one. This diverges in both directions into two, most remote and very different from each other; on the one side, namely, into the Ethiopian, and on the other into the Mongolian. The remaining two occupy the intermediate positions between the primeval one and these two extreme varieties; that is, the American between the Caucasian and the Mongolian; the Malay between the Caucasian and the Ethiopian (Blumenbach, quoted in Spencer 1997: 185).

PAGE 24

13 After Linnaeus and Blumenbach came a long and ignominious lineage of scientists who set out to show that the division of humankind into discrete "races" reflected differences in overall value, with Europeans at the top of the evolutionary tree. Scientists of this period revived Ernst Haeckel's recapitulation theory – ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny – to demonstrate that groups other than Europeans, women included, represented an earlier, more primitive stage of evolution, and were, as a result, inferior to European males. For example, Brinton (1890) believed The adult who retains the more numerous fetal, infantile or simian traits, is unquestionably inferior to him whose development has progressed beyond them. . . . Measured by these criteria, the European or white race stands at the head of the list, the African or Negro at its foot. (quoted in Gould 1996: 116) So it was that a measurement of worth was introduced into classification schemata for the "races" of humankind. The variety of methods introduced to measure "racial" differences provided little if any absolute data.3 Perhaps the most documented example is Samuel Morton and his use of mustard seeds to measure cranial capacity. Morton, incorrectly believing cranial capacity correlated to intellect, measured the cranial capacity of multiple individuals, concluding Europeans had the largest cranial capacity and were therefore the most intelligent. Later, Morton's data were shown to be inaccurate by Gould (1996). Gould explained that Morton had exaggerated his data "without conscious motivation" (1996: 97), rather Morton unconsciously manipulated data to fit into preconceived notions. It appears Morton, who knew the "race" of each specimen, would unconsciously force more seed into European crania and less into African. As if that were not enough, Morton, when confronted with an extremely small European cranium or a 3 For an excellent review of this topic, see Gould (1996).

PAGE 25

14 large African cranium, would leave these out of his study, believing they were outliers which would skew his analysis. Armelagos (1992) alludes to two events which "had the potential to challenge the foundation of the race concept," (1992: 5; my italics) but in point of fact, may have reified "race" studies as a scientific enterprise – the publication of the theory of natural selection by Charles Darwin (1859) and the creation of a theory of genetic evolution by Ronald Fisher and Sewall Wright (1930). Many major contributions to "race" studies appear to blossom around the time of these two events. At the forefront of these studies was Earnest A. Hooton (1926, 1946). Hooton, in attempting to "deal with race in light of natural selection" sought to identify non-adaptive traits not subjected to the forces of natural selection. Hooton posited that such traits would be the most useful traits for ancestry prediction. Earnest A. Hooton (1887 – 1954) was possibly the most influential physical anthropologist on the topic of "race" and "race" studies. Figure 2-1 illustrates an abridged lineage of his students and grand-students. This figure illustrates that Hooton single-handedly trained most of the dominant thinkers of "race" studies. During his tenure at Harvard University, beginning in 1913 and ending with his death in 1954, Hooton displayed an active interest in human variability studies. An interest he passed on to multiple generations. Hooton, a confirmed polygenist, followed a "polyphyletic model of raciation that rejected the origin of race from separate species, but recognized a differential transformation of various races as they evolved from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens in various regions of the world" (Brace 1992a, 1992b). He believed that non-adaptive

PAGE 26

15 morphological variants capable of differentiating the various "races" of man were likely to be found. The skeletal variants he found helpful in differentiating the geographic "races" of humans remain in use today, and constitute most of the variables under consideration herein. Figure 2-1. Abridged Lineage of Earnest A. Hooton In lecture notes obtained from the Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Hooton lectures to a "Criminal Anthropology" class (approximately 1946) on the advantages and disadvantages of nonmetric morphological observations as racial criteria. "Advantages," of morphological traits, according to Hooton, are: "1) they spring to the eye, [and are] qualitative as well as quantitative; 2) they are dependent upon form differences rather size/proportions; 3) [and, they are] more certainly heritable" (Hooton 1931: no page #). The only disadvantage of morphological treatment was that these traits are "often incapable of metric treatment" (Hooton 1931). The morphological traits Hooton thought were helpful for determining "race" are listed in Table 2-1. These traits, remarkably similar to morphological variants listed in

PAGE 27

16 Table 2-1. Nonmetric cranial traits used by E. A. Hooton Morphological Trait Whites Negroids Mongoloids Interorbital Space Narrowest Broad Broad Upper Nasalia Arched, high Broad, flat Flat, often narrow Bridge (space) Narrowest Broadest Lowest Bridge (height) Highest Intermediate Lowest Nasal Aperture Narrowest Broadest Intermediate Nasal Sills Sharpest Infantile Least developed Nasal Spine Most developed Usually infantile Variable current studies, are not referenced by Hooton to a particular study by other researchers. Rather, it appears Hooton relied on his own research to generate these lists of nonmetric traits. This is perhaps the single most important realization recognized from my study. It will be shown that Hooton, whose list of students and grand students represents a Who's Who of later "race"/ancestry studies, passed on to his students nonmetric morphological variants he considered useful for determining "race," and Hooton's students subsequently passed on these same traits to their own students (and so forth and so on), though the actual frequencies of these traits in more modern populations were never assessed. By the 1920's, studies looking exclusively at osseous features of the cranium begin to emerge in journals and reviews. Before this, nearly all of the literature highlighting traits useful for differentiating the "races" dealt exclusively with soft tissues (e.g., skin color, eye color, hair form). Hooton's lecture notes demonstrate that he, like most other physical anthropologists of this era, also spent time observing soft tissue differences. One

PAGE 28

17 of the more interesting areas of Hooton's work was in "criminal anthropology," a field that in many ways is the forefather to the present day field of forensic anthropology. Criminal anthropology is usually associated with the efforts of Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909), an Italian criminalist who believed criminals had characteristics similar to primitive humans, monkeys, and chimpanzees (e.g., cranial width, cranial height, forehead shape) (Gould 1996). However, Hooton is also well-known for his work in somatology, or body-type theories. He studied thousands of criminals and non-criminals, concluding that criminals were inferior to non-criminals–or "civilians" as he liked to refer to them–in all physical aspects. To establish somatotypes for "born criminals," Hooton would collect the name, age, height, weight, hair and eye color, as well as the cranial breadth, cranial length, and cranial index of known criminals. Figure 2-2 shows a sample of these somatotypes. Perhaps surprised by the civility of a Boston-born male, Hooton points out the individual had a "clean shave," was a "chairmaker," and had donned a bowtie. Accompanying each entry is a simple line drawing. These illustrations are presented as accurate representations of the individual, but one cannot help but to wonder whether they are not also caricatures meant to exaggerate the features of these "born criminals."

PAGE 29

18 Figure 2-2. A sample of the somatotypes of "born criminals" by E. A. Hooton Hooton's somatotypes are of historical interest, but of greatest importance to the current study is his research detailing nonmetric morphological variants which he prescribed as useful indicators of "racial" affinity. While Hooton did not believe physical anthropologists of the period had advanced the methods of "individual identification" (Stewart 1979: 9), his contribution to the field of forensic anthropology cannot be underestimated, particularly when we consider his legacy of students. As forensic anthropology was maturing into a valid, scientific field,4 Hooton continued to concentrate on "race" and human variation. Hooton's decisive manuscript, The Indians of Pecos Pueblo, remains a central text to skeletal biologists (Hooton 1930). Brues (1990) acknowledged that it was in this report that Hooton uttered the familiar phrase, "Morphological features which can be observed and described but cannot be measured are probably of greater anthropological significance than diameters and indices" (Hooton, quoted in Brues 1990: 2). Facilitating 4 For an excellent history on the historical setting of forensic anthropology, see Stewart (1979) and Thompson (1982).

PAGE 30

19 the analysis of skeletal material from Pecos Pueblo, Hooton used forms and standard descriptions. Now known as the "Harvard List," its development appears to coincide with the production of punch-card systems for public use (Brues 1990; MacBride 1967).5 The Harvard List (Figure 2-3) has changed little from when Hooton was recording data. Although no one knows for sure how many organizations use similar versions of the list, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of Hooton's students used or borrowed from it when establishing their own laboratory protocols for data collection (Brues 1990). One shortcoming of the Harvard list, which Hooton readily admitted, was the lack of "scales for standard observation" (Hooton 1930: 1). To wit, Hooton believed "methods and methodology are the very vitals of any study and should be kept up to date and in the forefront of one's thinking" (Hooton 1930). As a preliminary attempt to rectify that issue, he composed an abridged scaling system. Figure 2-4 is an example of the scales Hooton believed should accompany morphological trait analysis. To test his scales, Hooton engaged five of his former students6 – Carleton Coon, J. Lawrence Angel, Joseph Birdsell, Gabriel Lasker, and Marshall Newman. Rather upset by the results, Hooton (reporting in an unpublished document obtained from the Peabody Museum) states that he Can see no reason for attempting an elaborate analysis of this incomplete data; suffice it to say that four observers agreed perfectly in only 18.7% of the cases. Quite obviously the observational technique as practiced by these four men could do with a goodly measure of standardization (Hooton, n.d.) 5 Punch-card systems, the predecessor of the modern computer, allowed rapid data collection and storage, which could later be retrieved more conveniently than in the past. 6 Although Hooton says that five students will be tested, only four are discussed in the results.

PAGE 31

20 Figure 2-3. The "Harvard List" Unfortunately, the Hooton archives do not include the second trial of these five participants utilizing standard scales, so it will never be known whether the scales would have helped. Modern Forensic Anthropology and Ancestry The 1939 publication of Wilton Krogman's article "Guide to the Identification of Human Skeletal Material" in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, signaled the beginning of the "Modern Period" of forensic anthropology (Stewart 1979; Thompson 1982). As law enforcement agencies and medico-legal death investigators became aware of the special knowledge physical anthropologists had concerning the human skeletal structure, they began to ask them for help in the analysis of unidentified human remains, particularly when faced with highly decomposed skeletal material. As the United States became embroiled in war–first World War II, then the Korean War, and finally the Vietnam

PAGE 32

21 Figure 2-4. Scaling system for three variants (nasal profile, nasal spine, and nasion depression) of the Harvard List Conflict–the talents of physical anthropologists became invaluable to the U. S. Army (Stewart 1979). Anthropologists involved in the identification process were afforded ample opportunity to collect large amounts of data, albeit from a select sample (i.e., war dead are generally comprised of males, ages 18-30 years old). Nevertheless, the data collected during these wars continues to be used by forensic anthropologists. By the end of the Vietnam conflict, forensic anthropology had fully matured. Ellis R. Kerley established the Physical Anthropology section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in 1972. That same year, William R. Maples, at the University of Florida, Department of Anthropology, accepted his first forensic case. The forensic program at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville was established by William M. Bass.

PAGE 33

22 Stanley Rhine, Harvard graduate and student of E. A. Hooton, was beginning a career both as a professor in the University of New Mexico's Department of Anthropology, and acting as a consultant to the State of New Mexico's Office of the Medical Investigator. Stanley Rhine's article, "Non-metric Skull Racing," (1990) is perhaps the most frequently cited article on nonmetric cranial traits useful in ancestry prediction studies in forensic anthropology. Few articles, textbooks, or publications dealing with nonmetric trait analysis or ancestry determination do not include some reference to the suites of characters Rhine considers useful for differentiating among "American Caucasoid," "[American] Southwestern Mongoloid," and "American Blacks" (Rhine 1990: 10-11). The lists of traits presented by Rhine come with the caveat that they represent "only a fraction of the variability to be seen worldwide," because his sample derived only from material encountered in the southwestern United States (Rhine 1990: 13). This is problematic, because subsequent studies which utilized the nonmetric traits prescribed by Rhine generally do not acknowledge the provenience of his material, rather they cite Rhine as their source and propagate his suites of traits, with no forethought of the traits applicability to broader population samples. An additional problem, not limited solely to Rhine's study, is relatively small sample sizes. Rhine explains that his sample "reflects the demography of New Mexico," and that his sample "represents only a very small fragment of the continuum of variability" for any given population. (Rhine 1990: 13). Sample sizes, especially samples used to investigate human variability, play an extremely important role in developing discriminating criteria. This does not mean that Rhine's (1990) study should be ignored. Quite the contrary, Rhine's study should be used as a template for future work. However,

PAGE 34

23 general texts and research articles citing Rhine (1990) need to include the aforementioned caveat; his material is region specific and composed of a limited sample. The traits Rhine uses in his analyses are essentially indistinguishable from those given by Hooton. To be sure, Hooton, like all other university professors past and present, established an 'oral tradition' with his students. Oral traditions become problematic when they are accepted (and subsequently passed down to a new generation) without testing and quantifying them with new, and larger, samples. Summary In the intervening years between Linnaeus' initial classification of man, through to Blumenbach, Morton, Hooton, and Rhine, a lot has changed. Our understanding of the clinal distribution of human variation has led to the understanding that true races of man do not exist. Most anthropologists no longer accept the concept of "race" as a valid scheme for separating Homo sapiens. Race implies a "natural category [of humans who display] unique features that define the essence of that category" (Caspari 2003), but the application of biological determination to socially constructed views began to crumble in the anthropological community in the 1960's. Anthropologists, biological anthropologists included, accept the view that discrete races of humans do not, nor have they ever, existed. The deconstruction of the concept of race by anthropologists nearly coincided with the rise of the application of anthropological knowledge in medico-legal settings (i.e., the rise of forensic anthropology). The forensic anthropologist, whose job regularly involves aiding law enforcement personnel, medical examiners and coroners in the identification of skeletal material, has been unfairly characterized as holding on to an anachronistic

PAGE 35

24 belief in "race," by subscribing to, and attempting to classify human skeletal material into one group or another. Unfortunately, humans classify each other. An identification system has been created which commonly refers to the "race" or ancestry of an individual. It is not uncommon to hear law enforcement officials seeking a "white male, 6' 7," approximately 30 – 40 years old." These descriptions also serve to narrow down antemortem record searches when attempting to identify unknown human skeletal remains. This does not mean forensic anthropologists support the notion of "race." They are merely working in an environment where it is necessary to use language and descriptive terminology in constructing a biological profile. The biological profile is structured to provide approximations for each of these types of traits. Was the individual male or female? How old was the individual at death? How tall was she? And, whether one likes the language or possible connotations, Was this individual of African, Asian, American Indian, or European ancestry? Because of this, methods are needed which enable the accurate assessment of a biological profile. While standard and well-tested methods exist for age, sex, and stature, standard nonmetric methods have only recently been developed. Worse yet, the methods established in the 1930's by E. A. Hooton, and sustained by his students, have not been assessed for modern populations using large samples. Drawing upon his vast experience with human variation and skeletal populations, Hooton established criteria he believed useful in "race"/ancestry determination. This research established the legacy of nonmetric trait analysis. Indeed, most of the data and traits remain in use today. However, the lack of large, geographically diverse samples hinders

PAGE 36

25 the method. Nevertheless, the work of Hooton, and his students, remain an important starting point for new research.

PAGE 37

CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND MATERIALS Thirteen nonmetric cranial traits (Table 3-1) were documented for 709 adult individuals from 20 geographically and temporally diverse populations (African, n = 180; American Indian, n = 283; Asian, n = 75; European, n = 184), all curated at the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC (Table 3-2). Both males and females were included to determine whether any difference in trait manifestation exists between the sexes. Individuals were excluded if trauma, pathology, or taphonomic destruction was noted on the cranium. Table 3-1. Nonmetric cranial traits assessed in this study. Nonmetric Feature Reference Inferior Nasal Aperture Bass 1987; Gill 1998; Krogman and can 1986; Rhine 1990 Nasal Bone Structure Brues 1990; Gill 1998 Anterior Nasal Spine Gill 1998; Rhine 1990 Zygomaticomaxillary Suture Gill 1998; Hauser and De Stephano 1986; Rhine 1990 Nasal Aperture Width Bass 1987; Rhine 1990; Stewart 1979; Interorbital Breadth Bass 1987; Gill 1998; Gill and Rhine 1990; Rhine 1990 Metopic Suture Hauser and De Stephano 1986; Rhine 1990 Nasal Overgrowth Rhine 1990 Transverse Palatine Suture Gill 1998; Hauser and De Stephano 1986; Rhine 1990 Venal Etching Rhine 1990 Post-bregmatic Depression Bass 1987; Krogman and can 1986; Rhine 1990 Supranasal Suture Hauser and De Stephano 1986 Zygomaxillary (Malar) Tubercle Hauser and De Stephano 1986; Rhine 1990 Marginal Tubercle Hauser and De Stephano 1986; Rhine 1990 The African population consists of individuals from East and West Africa (n = 15 and n = 17, respectively) housed at the NMNH and African-American individuals (n = 150) of the Terry Collection. The American Indian sample consists of the following groups (all housed at the NMNH): Arikara (n = 42), Hawikuh (n = 40), Doyon Eskimo (n = 39), Pastolik Eskimo (n = 12), Pueblo Bonito (n = 7), Santa Barbara (n = 57), Almeda

PAGE 38

27 (n = 26), Perico Island (n = 17), Canaveral (n = 19), and St. Lawrence Eskimo (n = 9). The Asian sample is composed of individuals of Japanese and Chinese ancestry (n = 15 and n = 59, respectively) housed at the NMNH. The European sample is composed of individuals of Dutch and German ancestry (n = 7 and n = 8, respectively) and American whites from the Terry Collection (n = 170). Table 3-2. Materials Used in the Present Study (Male and Female Samples). Sample female (n) male (n) Age Native North Americans (Prehistoric and Protohistoric) Arikara 18 24 1550 1700 Hawikuh 16 24 1000 200 y.b.p. Doyon Eskimo 24 15 1600 + Pastolik Eskimo 8 4 1600 + Pueblo Bonito 4 3 1000 200 y.b.p. Santa Barbara 27 30 1000 200 y.b.p. Almeda 17 9 1000 200 y.b.p. Perico Island 10 7 1000 200 y.b.p. Canaveral 6 13 1000 200 y.b.p. St. Lawrence Eskimo 4 5 1800 + Terry Collection American whites 89 81 Contemporary American blacks 61 89 Contemporary Japanese 10 10 Contemporary Dutch 3 4 Contemporary German 4 4 Contemporary Chinese 14 53 Contemporary African East 8 7 Contemporary West 7 10 Contemporary Total 330 392 The first phase of required establishing comprehensive descriptions and illustrations for each nonmetric trait and its various character states. Descriptions of each trait were based on anatomical features or structures following Agur (1991), Clemente (1975), Goss (1973), Moore (1992), Sampson et al. (1991), and Steele and Bramblett (1988). The nonmetric traits under consideration have been previously outlined in Bass

PAGE 39

28 (1987), Brothwell (1981), Brues (1990), Gill and Rhine (1990), Hauser and De Stefano (1986), Hooton (ca. 1930), Krogman and Iscan (1986), Rhine (1990), and Stewart (1979). When necessary (see Characters and Character States, below) intermediate variations not previously described were included to account for total variability. Black and white line drawings were generated for all of the traits and data were collected over a ten-week period at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. After data collection, frequency distributions by character state for each trait were calculated for the four main ancestral groups. These data were then examined for correlations among traits using polychoric correlations. Observed correlations were tested for significance and characters suites evaluated for the four main ancestral groups. Characters and Character States Inferior Nasal Morphology (INA) Inferior nasal morphology is defined as the most inferior portion of the nasal aperture, which, when combined with the lateral alae, constitutes the transition from nasal floor to the vertical portion of the maxillae, superior to the anterior dentition. Rhine (1990) describes the morphology of the inferior nasal aperture as: “deep,” “shallow,” “blurred,” or “guttered” (Rhine 1990:16). The following morphological variants of the inferior nasal aperture were assessed: guttered, incipient gutter, straight, partial sill, and sill (Figure 3-1). Guttering is defined as a gradual posterior to anterior sloping of the nasal floor which begins posteriorly at vomeral insertion into the maxilla and terminates at the vertical surface of the maxilla, resulting in a smooth transition. Although the severity of guttering may vary among individuals, the guttered morphology is distinct from the

PAGE 40

29 incipient gutter morphology with respect to the more posterior position (e.g., closer to vomeral insertion) of the slope origin. In the incipient gutter morphology, the sloping of the nasal aperture originates anteriorly, and then proceeds in a manner similar to a guttered inferior nasal morphology, but with less slope from the nasal aperture exit to the maxilla. Straight inferior nasal morphology, described as “blurred” by Rhine (1990), refers to the immediate transition from the nasal floor to the vertical maxilla (more of a right angle) with no intervening projection of bone (i.e., a nasal sill), but which nevertheless sharply demarcates the nasal floor. A partial sill is defined as a weak (but present) vertical ridge of bone, which traverses from one alae to the other. A pronounced ridge, obstructing the nasal floor-to-maxilla transition is defined as a sill. Although the term is antiquated (Hooten 1930), a nasal sill, or vertical ridge of bone extending from one alae to the other is still a useful description of the paradigmatic form. Nasal Bone Structure (NBS) Nasal bone structure, also referred to as nasal root contour, was originally described by Brues (1990:5), who suggests that “three types of horizontal contour[s] across the nasal root” are prevalent and can be used in ancestry determination: “quonset

PAGE 41

30 Figure 3-1. Inferior nasal aperture character states. Note: Dashed lines indicate reference plane hut,” “tented,” and “steepled." The present study identified two additional character states of the external surface contour of the nasal bones, oval and semi-triangular (Figure 3-2). Visual interpretation of nasal contour was not always the most effective manner of analysis; rather it was found that the use of a contour gauge permitted more reliable and consistent assessment of nasal contour. This tool (Figure 3-3) can duplicate any shape and readily conforms to irregular surfaces, and is ordinarily used for duplicating mechanical parts and transferring prototype contours of ornamental molding, pipes, and so forth. In the present application, this tool was used to assess the contours of nasal bones at their approximate superior to inferior mid-line (ca. 1 cm from nasion). The

PAGE 42

31 character states considered for this trait include: round, oval, plateau, semi-triangular (vaulted), and triangular (Figure 3-2). Figure 3-2. Nasal Bone Structure character states. Note: Red lines indicate shape The round contour was originally defined by Brues (1990:5), who felt that this character state (which she called "quonset-hut") exhibited a “low and rounded” nasal contour, which lies flat in profile. The oval contour of the nasal bones is an intermediate trait that is also rounded in contour, but tends to be more superio-inferiorly elongated, projecting anteriorly from the mid-face. Plateau nasals are steep sided, with a broad and flat anterio-superior surface “plateau.” Vaulted (Semi-triangular) nasal bones refer to steep-sided nasals, with a narrower anterio-superior surface plateau. Steepled nasal bone structure, the traditional term provided by Brues (1990:5) for the final variant, has been changed to the more descriptive triangular nasal bone structure. It is defined as triangular in cross section, extremely superio-inferiorly elongated with steep straight walls, and no anterio-superior surface plateau.

PAGE 43

32 Figure 3-3. A typical contour gauge Nasal Aperture Width (NAW) Nasal aperture width was considered to be a determination of nasal aperture morphology as well as the width of the nasal opening relative to the facial skeleton. This trait has been described by various authors, but with little explication of the characteristics of individual variants (Bass 1987; Hooten 1930; Krogman and Iscan 1986; Rhine 1990; Stewart 1979). The character states used include: narrow, medium, and wide (Figure3-4). The narrow morphology, as the name implies, is narrow. This morphology is also distinct regarding its shape when viewed anteriorly (i.e., teardrop) and in profile (i.e., a superior constriction and an inferior lateral projection). The medium morphology is defined by the greatest lateral projection of the nasal aperture at the inferior margin, coupled with a superior constriction which results in a bell-shaped nasal aperture when

PAGE 44

33 viewed anteriorly. The wide nasal aperture is probably the most amenable to analysis by the uninitiated observer. In the modal form, the wide nasal aperture dominates the face, with greatest lateral projection near the horizontal midline (i.e., the middle of the nasal aperture based on nasal aperture height). Figure 3-4. Nasal aperture width character states. Note: Dashed lines represent reference planes Interorbital Breadth (IOB) Like nasal aperture width, interorbital breadth is considered a nonmetric trait which could be measured, rather than scored nonmetrically. Unlike nasal aperture width, which suffers from a lack of easily recognized landmarks, interorbital breadth can be assessed using the defined measurement dacryon to dacryon (Howells 1973, 1989). Nevertheless, it was included in the present study in the following forms: narrow, intermediate, and broad (Figure 3-5). Figure 3-5. Interorbital breadth character states. Note: Dashed line indicates reference plane.

PAGE 45

34 Post-bregmatic Depression (PBD) Post-bregmatic depression is defined as a slight to broad depression along the sagittal suture located posterior to bregma. Viewed in lateral profile, the trait was scored as either absent (no depression) or present (a depressed area posterior to bregma which was not the result of pathology or trauma) (Figure 3-6). Figure 3-6. The two character states of post-bregmatic depression. Anterior Nasal Spine (ANS) Anterior nasal spine projection has been detailed by several authors (Brues 1990; Burns 1999; Gill 1998; Rhine 1990). Brues (1990:5) citing the Harvard list scored this area as either "absent," "small," "medium," or "large." Burns (1999:154) defined three variants: "medium/tilted," "large/long," and "little or none." Gill (1998:299) categorized the anterior nasal spine as "medium," "medium, tilted," "prominent, straight," and "reduced." Rhine (1990:20) scores the feature dichotomously as either “large or small, depending upon the amount of projection." One of the problems confronting the forensic anthropologist in assessing an anterior nasal spine is its extreme fragility. Often, this area is damaged either perior

PAGE 46

35 postmortem. This proved to be true for the various collections used in the current study. As such, those crania exhibiting trauma, pathology (including alveolar resorption), or postmortem damage to the overall inferior nasal margin were excluded from the analysis. Anterior nasal spine is scored progressively as short (rounded), dull, medium, and long (sharp) (Figure 3-7). A short (rounded) anterior nasal spine is defined as minimal-to-no projection of the anterior nasal spine. A dull anterior nasal spine is one which does not transect an imaginary line running perpendicular to the face, superiorly from prosthion (greatest point of alveolar projection). Medium projection is considered to be a nasal spine which projects to prosthion, but which neither extends beyond it, nor terminates in a sharp anterior point. Finally, a Long (sharp) anterior nasal spine projects beyond prosthion, and is characterized by a sharp anterior termination. Zygomaticomaxillary Suture Shape (ZS) A relatively new nonmetric trait currently used by forensic anthropologists is the shape of the zygomaticomaxillary suture. Gill (1998:309) suggested two forms of suture shape useful for differentiating whites from American Indians. His two variants (based on the unpublished works of Martindale [Martindale and Gilbert 1984]) were: "Angled" and Figure 3-7. Anterior nasal spine character states. Note: Red lines indicate degree of projection

PAGE 47

36 "Curved." Rhine (1990:20) also used the Martindale and Gilbert (1984) study, defining the two variants as “either 'curved’ (a general ‘S’ shape), or ‘Angled’ from orbit to cheek." Burns (1999:38) recorded similar definitions for the “zygomaxillary” suture. Her definitions of the three main variants included: “angled,” “jagged, or S-shaped,” and “curved, or S-shaped” (Burns 1999:38). These definitions represent the acme of confusion encountered when applying descriptive terms to nonmetric traits. In Figure 3-8, the three variants of zygomaticomaxillary suture are outlined. As described above, the "angled" variant appears to be more curve-shaped, or smooth. In the present study, an angled zygomaticomaxillary suture is shown as having greatest lateral projection of the suture at, or near, the midline. A smooth zygomaticomaxillary (previously termed "angled" [see above references]) has greatest lateral projection of the suture at the inferior terminus. A jagged suture is represented by a zigzag appearance. Figure 3-8. Zygomaticomaxillary suture character states. Note: Red lines indicate shape Transverse Palatine Suture Shape (TP) The various manifestations of the transverse palatine suture have been well documented. As early as 1920, Hooten was including "Palatine Transverse Suture direction" on his data collection form as: a) transverse; b) anterior; and, c) posterior (Hooten 1920, in Brues 1990:5). Gill (1998:303) also describes three variants: "curved,"

PAGE 48

37 "straight," and "jagged." Rhine (1990:20) reported two: "straight" and "bulging." Burns (1999:38) reported three variants: "straight," "Z-shaped," and "arched." In their seminal work on nonmetric traits, Hauser and De Stefano (1989) relate nine variants of transverse palatine suture: "Straight transverse, symmetric," "straight transverse, posterior protrusions," "straight transverse, scalaris," "straight transverse, posterior protrusion at midline," "convex, posterior protrusion," "irregular, posterior protrusion at midline," "transverse symmetric, anterior protrusion," "convex, anterior protrusion," and "median rectangular, anterior protrusion" (Hauser and De Stefano 1989: 173). In the current study, transverse palatine suture was scored as follows (Figure 3-9): straight, symmetrical; anterior bulging, symmetrical; anterior/posterior bulging, scalaris; posterior bulging, symmetrical. In reviewing the literature, it was apparent that symmetry and orientation of bulging (when present) were both important factors of transverse palatine suture shape. The scoring methodology incorporated both of these factors. A straight, symmetrical suture crosses the palate perpendicular to the median palatine suture, with no deviation from midline. A suture scored as anterior, symmetrical also crosses the palate perpendicular to the median palatine, but at or near this juncture it deviates anteriorly, nevertheless remaining symmetrical. If the suture deviates anteriorly and posteriorly (i.e., jagged) asymmetrically, the suture is scored as anterior/posterior bulging, scalaris. Finally, a posterior bulging, symmetrical suture crosses the palate perpendicular to the median palatine, deviating at midline posteriorly on both the left and right halves.

PAGE 49

38 Figure 3-9. Transverse palatine suture character states. Note: Red lines indicate shape Posterior Zygomatic Tubercle (ZT) Posterior zygomatic tubercles have been previously reported by several authors under various names and character states. The most frequently cited reference to this trait is Rhine (1990:20) who defined it as a “projection posteriorly of the zygomatic at approximately mid orbit as viewed in norma lateralis.” Hauser and De Stefano (1989:227) scored the presence of a "marginal process" utilizing a “small transparent ruler . . . [and observing whether] a part of the frontal process extends beyond the ruler." Further, they added a metric component to their character state definition, which they defined into three grades: “weak = projecting up to 4 mm., medium = projection between 4 and 7 mm., and strong = projections of more than 7 mm” (Hauser and De Stefano 1989: 228). Although no metric analyses were used in my study, this trait was scored following Hauser and De Stefano (1989) as absent, weak, medium, and strong. Utilizing a method similar to Hauser and De Stefano (1989), a small, transparent ruler was placed on the right frontal process of each zygomatic beginning at the most postero-lateral projecting portion of the superior process down to the deepest point of the curve on the temporal edge of the zygomatic (Figure 3-10). A score of Absent was attributed to any specimen having no projection of bone. Weak was assigned to all specimens projecting minimally past the ruler. All specimen projecting past the ruler with

PAGE 50

39 a steeper inferior angle was scored as Medium, while those specimens grossly projecting past the ruler, appearing as a true tubercle (separate ridge of bone) were scored as Strong. Figure 3-10. Posterior zygomatic tubercle character states. Note: Dashed line represents reference plane Malar Tubercle (MT) Rhine (1990:20) recorded the presence/absence of the projection of the inferior zygomatic, which he termed the “zygomatic hook” and defined as “the tendency for the maxillae and zygomatic to form an inferior projection at the zygomaticomaxillary suture” (Rhine 1990: 20). This trait was also documented by Hauser and De Stefano (1989:76), but under the term zygomaxillary tubercle. They preferred to score the trait in more detail using the following ordinal scale: “a) absent. . . . b) trace. . . . c) medium. . . . d) strong. . . .” (Hauser and De Stefano 1989: 76). Burns (1999:38), citing Gill (1995) attributed this trait to American Indians only, and scored it as present. For purposes of my study, malar tubercle was scored following Hauser and De Stefano (1989:76) as: absent, incipient, trace, and present (Figure 3-11). As is generally a problem with nonmetric trait definitions, without a plane of reference there is an increased chance of interand intra-observer error.

PAGE 51

40 Figure 3-11. Malar tubercle character states. Note: Dashed lines indicate reference plane During the analysis, malar tubercle was scored with explicit reference to the defining plane of nasospinale (ns), the lowest point on the inferior margin of the nasal aperture as projected in the mid sagittal plane (Martin 1956:448). From this plane, a judgment was made in reference to the amount of projection. A score of Absent was assigned when there was no inferior projection in the region of the zygomaticomaxillary suture. When a projection was noted, a determination was made regarding whether it broke the nasospinale plane. If not, the specimen was assigned the score Incipient. However, a specimen whose tubercle does break this plane, but not profanely, was assigned a score of Trace. All specimens breaking the nasospinale plane to a great extent were assigned the score Present.

PAGE 52

41 Nasal Overgrowth (NO) Rhine (1990:20) remarks that nasal overgrowth, or a "projection of the ends of the nasal bones slightly beyond the maxillae," is useful in ancestry determination. Bass (1986:88) defines nasal overgrowth as "the nasal bones project[ing] forward beyond their junction with the frontal portion of the maxilla." For purposes of my study, nasal overgrowth (Figure 3-12) is defined as a projection of the lateral border of the nasal bones beyond the maxillae. Individuals with projections beyond the maxillae are scored as present. Specimens with no projection are scored as absent. Figure 3-12. Degree of nasal overgrowth. Note: Due to the fragile nature of the region, some specimen could not be scored and were assigned a score of 2 = unobservable Metopic Suture (MS) The persistence of a metopic suture into adulthood has been documented by several authors as a useful trait in ancestry determination. Rhine (1990:20) refers to a "Metopic Trace, or partial metopism [as] an incomplete persistence of the metopic suture in the area immediately superior to nasion," which he scored as either present or absent. Hauser and De Stephano (1989:41) refer to sutura metopica which they score with respect to: "1.

PAGE 53

42 partial persistence of the suture: a) only nasal, b) only parietal, c) both nasal and parietal (but not connected), 2. Total persistence of the suture." Figure 3-13. Metopic suture character states. Note: Dashed lines indicate multiple regions suture may originate A metopic suture was scored as either present or absent. Any specimen having a persistence of the suture (at nasion or bregma) was scored as present. Any specimen which does not possess a persistent suture was scored as absent (Figure 3-13). It should be noted that assessment of a partial metopic suture in the nasal region must be differentiated from a secondary short, complex suture in this area (see Supranasal Suture below). Trace metopic sutures tend to be simple in form, whereas Supranasal sutures are generally complex, zigzag sutures in the glabellar region. Supranasal Suture (SPS) In adult crania, a secondary complex suture may persist which is generally referred to as the supranasal suture, or sutura supranasalis. This suture does not represent the nasal portion of a persistent metopic suture, which is generally simple in shape, but rather it

PAGE 54

43 represents the fusion of the nasal portion of a frontal suture, which forms as interlocking bony spicules during the secondary formation of osseous layers. This trait is Figure 3-14. Supranasal suture character states. Note: Line indicates degree of persistence observed as a complex of interlocking bony-spicules at glabella. Hauser and De Stephano (1986:46) score this trait with reference to "1. Degree of persistence: a) open, b) closed, but visible, c) closed, barely visible, d) obliterated not visible, 2. Shape: a) uniform, b) oscillation larger towards nose, c) oscillation smaller towards nose, d) supranasal triangle." Because this trait does not appear in the forensic literature on ancestry determination, no other description of SPS could be found. For my study, the region was scored using the same methodology as Hauser and De Stephano (1986) (Figure 3-14).

PAGE 55

44 Statistical Methods Statistical methods have been developed for nonmetric trait analysis in physical anthropology (Berry and Berry 1967; Ishida and Dodo 1997; Jantz 1970; Konigsberg 1990). Berry and Berry (1967) first provided robust statistical treatment to nonmetric variation in population studies through the application of a multivariate technique for obtaining non-Euclidean dissimilarity measures from nonmetric trait frequencies (Tyrell 2002). The method, Smith-Grewal, or mean measure of divergence, measures the relative similarity among populations of skeletal material. Berry and Berry’s (1967) research acted as a catalyst for further studies utilizing multivariate statistics for determining “average distances between sample populations” (Saunders 1978: 98). However, in forensic anthropology, few studies use these techniques in nonmetric trait analysis because they are not suitable for obtaining information on ancestral populations, but rather they are appropriate for micro geographic populations. As such, traditional studies within forensic anthropology dealing with nonmetric traits most often rely on frequency distributions of trait expression, with little consideration of more robust statistical methods. Frequency distributions were calculated for each trait, along with polychoric and polyserial correlations to determine the relationship of traits within both population-specific groups and the larger ancestral populations. Polychoric and polyserial correlations were calculated using the computer program LISREL 8.51, developed by Karl Joreskorg and Dag Sorbom (2001). Polychoric and polyserial correlation coefficients are the recommended measures of association for categorical, ordinal variables, as they are not affected by errors made during the categorization process (Coenders and Saris 1995). In short, the polychoric

PAGE 56

45 correlation coefficient r(y*i, y*j) is the correlation between the two variables y*i and y*j. To estimate the scores of yi and yj, LISREL 8.51 uses Limited Information Maximum Likelihood analysis following a two-step procedure (Joreskorg and Sorbom 2001). First, thresholds are estimated from the raw frequency distributions for yi and yj. Polychoric and polyserial correlations are then "estimated by Restricted Maximum Likelihood conditional on the threshold values" (Coenders and Saris 1995: 132). The polychoric and polyserial correlation coefficients are contingent on normally distributed data, a condition met with the large sample of the current study. Further, both polychoric and polyserial correlations are appropriate for use when the underlying character states that form the fundamental scoring methodology can be viewed as continuous. This contingency is slightly more complicated. Most of the traits in my study can be viewed as continuous variables. For example, the degree of development of anterior nasal spine is in essence a metric, and therefore continuous, variable. However, some of the traits (e.g., zygomaticomaxillary suture) are more difficult to perceive on an continuous scale, although they represent (as defined here) quasi-continuous variables. In these instances, categorization entailed defining the variables ordinal qualities on a continuous scale. As an example, zygomaticomaxillary suture (defined above) may be viewed as the number of angles present. A smooth zygomaticomaxillary suture has zero angles. Whereas an angled zygomaticomaxillary would have one angle and a jagged zygomaticomaxillary would have two or more angles. By utilizing this categorization method, the fundamental scoring methodology may be viewed as continuous, without violating any assumptions.

PAGE 57

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Frequency distributions for all traits are presented in Tables 4-1 to 4-13. Polychoric correlations are presented in Tables 4-14 to 4-18. All variables passed tests for underlying bivariate normality, with the exception of IOB, which failed when calculating the correlation for IOB to INA, NBS, NAW. Sex differences were statistically insignificant (p > .05), with the exception of post-bregmatic depression (see Discussion and Conclusions). Table 4-1. Inferior nasal aperture (INA) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 283) INA n % n % n % n % 0 1 0.5 9 12.0 64 35.6 11 3.9 1 6 3.3 13 17.3 59 32.8 66 23.3 2 41 22.3 48 64.0 33 18.3 159 56.2 3 76 41.3 3 4.0 18 10.0 46 16.3 4 60 32.6 2 2.7 6 3.3 1 0.4 46

PAGE 58

47 Table 4-2. Nasal bone structure (NBS) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 283) INA n % n % n % n % 0 8 4.3 17 22.7 106 58.9 21 7.4 1 28 15.2 18 24.0 29 16.1 76 26.9 2 33 17.9 30 40.0 18 10.0 67 23.7 3 52 28.3 9 12.0 18 10.0 106 37.5 4 63 34.2 1 1.3 9 5.0 13 4.6 Table 4-3. Nasal aperture width (NAW) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 283) NAW n % n % n % n % 1 103 56.0 1 1.3 7 3.9 21 7.4 2 66 35.9 66 88.0 66 36.7 231 81.6 3 15 8.2 8 10.7 107 59.4 31 11.0 Table 4-4. Interorbital breadth (IOB) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 283) IOB n % n % n % n % 1 54 29.3 31 41.3 19 10.6 175 61.8 2 122 66.3 39 62.0 60 33.3 99 35.0 3 8 4.3 5 6.7 101 56.1 9 3.2 Table 4-5. Post-bregmatic depression (PBD) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 283) PBD n % n % n % n % 0 133 72.3 63 84.0 92 51.1 255 90.1 1 27 14.7 8 10.7 72 40.0 11 3.9 2 24 13.0 4 5.3 16 8.9 17 6.0

PAGE 59

48 Table 4-6. Anterior nasal spine (ANS) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 283) ANS n % n % n % n % 0 14 7.6 26 34.7 43 23.9 61 21.6 1 58 31.5 34 45.3 98 54.4 137 48.4 2 48 26.1 10 13.3 23 12.8 58 20.5 3 48 26.1 5 6.7 12 6.7 19 6.7 4 16 8.7 0 0.0 4 2.2 8 2.8 Table 4-7. Zygomaticomaxillary suture (ZS) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 283) ZS n % n % n % n % 0 3 1.6 4 5.3 9 5.0 7 2.5 1 73 39.7 21 28.0 57 31.7 107 37.8 2 75 40.8 38 50.7 90 50.0 152 53.7 3 33 17.9 12 16.0 24 13.3 17 6.0 Table 4-8. Transverse palatine suture (TP) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 283) TP n % n % n % n % 0 57 31.0 34 45.3 32 17.8 183 64.7 1 44 23.9 25 33.3 84 46.7 70 24.7 2 64 34.8 11 14.7 46 25.6 17 6.0 3 19 10.3 5 6.7 18 10.0 13 4.6

PAGE 60

49 Table 4-9. Posterior zygomatic tubercle (ZT) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 283) ZMT n % n % n % n % 0 102 55.4 18 24.0 55 30.6 119 42.0 1 64 34.8 30 40.0 62 34.4 118 41.7 2 10 5.4 17 22.7 36 20.0 35 12.4 3 8 4.3 10 13.3 27 15.0 11 3.9 Table 4-10. Malar tubercle (MT) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 283) MT n % n % n % n % 0 93 50.5 32 42.7 87 48.3 122 43.1 1 59 32.1 25 33.3 51 28.3 103 36.4 2 25 13.6 10 13.3 26 14.4 40 14.1 3 7 3.8 8 10.7 16 8.9 18 6.4 Table 4-11. Nasal overgrowth (NO) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 283) NO n % n % n % n % 0 98 53.3 51 68.0 117 65.0 100 35.3 1 69 37.5 19 25.3 51 28.3 130 45.9 2 17 9.2 5 6.7 12 6.7 53 18.7 Table 4-12. Metopic suture (TM) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 282) TM n % n % n % n % 0 165 89.7 68 90.7 170 94.4 279 98.6 1 19 10.3 7 9.3 10 5.6 3 1.5

PAGE 61

50 Table 4-13. Supranasal suture (SPS) frequencies in four ancestral groups. European (N = 184) Asian (N = 75) African (N = 180) American Indian (N = 283) SPS n % n % n % n % 1 7 3.8 1 1.3 4 2.2 6 2.1 2 74 40.2 5 6.7 54 30.0 82 29.0 3 66 35.9 24 32.0 67 37.2 93 32.9 4 37 20.1 45 60.0 55 30.6 102 36.0 Polychoric Correlations In order to asses both interand intra-population correlation for the thirteen traits, polychoric correlations were evaluated for the pooled sample and for individual ancestral groups. The pooled sample evaluates the correlation of individual traits to ancestry as well as the correlation of all traits to one another, irregardless of ancestry. To minimize confusion and redundancy, individual correlations are listed only once, though the inverse would also be true (e.g., NAW correlates with IOB, therefore IOB correlates with NAW). Correlations: Pooled Sample (n = 722) Polychoric correlations for the pooled sample were higher on average than for individual ancestral populations. Only statistically significant correlations (p < .05) will be discussed below. Nonmetric traits significantly correlated to ancestry (ANC in Table 4-14) include: INA (r = -0.676), NBS (r = -0.577), ANS (r = -0.330), NAW (r = 0.679), IOB (r = 0.405), and ZMT (r = 0.281). Inferior Nasal Aperture is significantly correlated to NBS (r = 0.467), ANS (r = 0.423), NAW (r = -0.521), IOB (r = -0.237), and ZMT (r = -0.272). Nasal Bone Structure is significantly correlated to ANS (r = 0.359), NAW (-0.589), and IOB (r = -0.399). Anterior Nasal Spine is significantly correlated to NAW (r = -0.360) and SPS (r = -0.210). Nasal Aperture Width is significantly correlated to IOB (r

PAGE 62

51 = 0.448). Interorbital Breadth is significantly correlated to TP (r = 0.283) and PBD (r = 0.263). Metopic Trace is significantly correlated to PBD (r = 0.210).

PAGE 63

Table 4-14. Polychoric correlations for the pooled sample. 52 ANC INA NBS ANS ZS NAW IOB TM NO TP PBD SPS ZMT ANC — INA -0.676* — — — 094 — — NBS -0.577* 0.467* ANS -0.330* 0.423* 0.359* ZS -0.023 0.014 0.050 -0.016 — NAW 0.679* -0.521* -0.589* -0.360* -0. IOB 0.405* -0.237* -0.399* -0.092 0.021 0.448* TM -0.155 0.071 0.019 0.078 0.006 -0.054 0.190 — NO -0.094 0.061 0.183 -0.007 0.021 -0.103 -0.182 0.009 — TP 0.030 -0.033 -0.025 0.081 0.020 0.016 0.283* 0.054 -0.101 — PBD 0.158 -0.093 -0.149 0.052 0.055 0.170 0.263* 0.210* -0.164 0.084 — SPS 0.116 -0.063 -0.144 -0.210* 0.081 0.073 0.023 -0.176 0.046 -0.021 0.006 — ZMT 0.281* -0.272* -0.146 -0.081 0.032 0.185 0.156 0.002 -0.059 0.092 0.054 0.036 — MT 0.056 -0.041 0.010 0.035 -0.034 -0.036 0.012 -0.129 0.019 -0.028 -0.030 -0.039 0.137 * P < 0.05

PAGE 64

53 African Sample (n = 180) For the African sample, statistically significant correlations include the following. Inferior Nasal Aperture is significantly correlated to NBS (r = 0.238), ANS (r = 0.408), NAW (r = -0.422), and ZMT (r = -0.275). Nasal Bone Structure is significantly correlated to ANS (r = 0.447), NAW (r = -0.578), IOB (r = -0.491), and NO (r = 0.207). Anterior Nasal Spine is significantly correlated to NAW (r = -0.382), IOB (r = -0.277), and SPS (r = -0.246). Zygomaticomaxillary Suture is significantly correlated to NO (r = 0.213). Nasal Aperture Width is significantly correlated to IOB (r = 0.619), TP (r = 0.329), and ZMT ( r = 0.200). Interorbital Breadth is significantly correlated to TP (r = 0.272). Metopic Trace is significantly correlated to PBD (r = 0.196) and MT (r = -0.305). Post-bregmatic Depression is significantly correlated with ZMT (r = 0.207). And finally, Zygomaticomaxillary Suture is significantly correlated with MT (r = 0.238).

PAGE 65

Table 4-15. Polychoric correlations for the African sample. 54 INA NBS ANS ZS NAW IOB TM NO TP PBD SPS ZMT MT INA — NBS 0.238* — — ANS 0.408* 0.447* ZS -0.060 0.111 -0.024 — NAW -0.422* -0.578* -0.382* -0.097 — IOB -0.164 -0.491* -0.277* 0.007 0.619* — TM 0.060 -0.005 0.098 -0.022 0.163 0.040 — NO 0.159 0.207* 0.190 0.213* -0.119 -0.125 0.077 — TP -0.163 -0.133 0.000 -0.095 0.329* 0.272* 0.066 -0.097 — PBD -0.008 -0.018 0.009 0.028 0.175 0.067 0.196* -0.080 -0.062 — SPS 0.064 -0.134 -0.246* 0.082 0.013 0.173 -0.044 -0.046 0.085 0.045 — ZMT -0.275* -0.097 -0.090 0.014 0.200* 0.102 -0.044 -0.179 0.079 0.207* 0.017 — MT -0.136 0.055 -0.011 0.040 -0.068 -0.026 -0.305* -0.023 0.011 0.070 -0.001 0.238 — * P < 0.05

PAGE 66

55 East Asian Sample (n = 75) Statistically significant correlations in the East Asian sample include the following. Inferior Nasal Aperture is significantly correlated to ANS (r = 0.284), NAW (r = 0.344), IOB (r = 0.214), NO (r = -0.329), and PBD (r = 0.241). Nasal Bone Structure is significantly correlated to ANS (r = 0.314), ZS (r = -0.205), and NAW (r = -0.233). Anterior Nasal Spine is significantly correlated to TM (r = -0.257) and ZMT (r = 0.203). Zygomaticomaxillary Suture is significantly correlated to NAW (r = -0.245), IOB (r = -0.250), and PBD (r = 0.232). Nasal Aperture Width is significantly correlated to IOB (r = 0.613), TM (r = -0.309), NO (r = 0.200), PBD (r = -0.351), and SPS (r = 0.388). Interorbital Breadth is significantly correlated to PBD (r = -0.248). Metopic Trace is significantly correlated to NO (r = -0.344). Nasal Overgrowth is significantly correlated to TP (r = 0.367) and SPS (r = 0.209). And, Post-bregmatic Depression is significantly correlated to ZMT (r = -0.232) and MT (r = -0.281).

PAGE 67

Table 4-16. Polychoric correlations for the East Asian sample. 56 INA NBS ANS ZS NAW IOB TM NO TP PBD SPS ZMT MT INA — NBS 0.109 -0.177 — ANS 0.284* 0.314* — ZS 0.024 -0.205* -0.104 — NAW 0.344* -0.233* -0.131 -0.245 — IOB 0.214 -0.165 -0.080 -0.250 0.613* — TM 0.062 -0.257* 0.055 -0.309* 0.070 — NO -0.329* 0.158 0.012 -0.067 0.200* 0.008 -0.334* — TP -0.114 -0.042 0.086 0.026 0.153 0.144 0.021 0.367* — PBD 0.241* -0.003 0.105 0.232* -0.351* -0.248* -0.088 0.029 0.183 — SPS 0.162 -0.006 -0.086 0.133 0.388* 0.167 -0.150 0.209* -0.194 -0.026 — ZMT 0.034 0.046 0.203* 0.113 0.109 -0.013 -0.159 -0.116 -0.032 -0.232* 0.191* — MT -0.116 -0.071 -0.041 0.037 0.041 0.168 -0.321 0.107 -0.097 -0.281* 0.014 0.051 — * P < 0.05

PAGE 68

57 Amerindian Sample (n = 283) Statistically significant correlations for the American Indian sample include the following variants. Inferior Nasal Aperture is significantly correlated to NBS (r = 0.283), ANS (r = 0.297), IOB (r = -0.323), TM (r = -0.512), and PBD (r = -0.244). Nasal Bone Structure is significantly correlated to ANS (r = 0.276), IOB (r = -0.264), TM (r = -0.559), and PBD (r = -0.275). Nasal Aperture Width is significantly correlated to IOB (r = 0.327) and TM (r = -0.326). Interorbital Breadth is significantly correlated to TM (r = 0.285). Metopic Trace is significantly correlated to TP (r = -0.851), PBD (r = 0.336), and MT (r = 0.228).

PAGE 69

Table 4-17. Polychoric correlations for the American Indian sample. 58 INA NBS ANS ZS NAW IOB TM NO TP PBD SPS ZMT MT INA — NBS 0.283* — — ANS 0.297* 0.276* ZS -0.031 -0.040 -0.110 — NAW -0.027 -0.134 -0.062 -0.049 — IOB -0.323* -0.264* -0.093 0.013 0.327* — TM -0.512* -0.559* -0.081 -0.118 -0.326* 0.285* — NO -0.056 0.142 -0.129 -0.041 -0.004 -0.021 -0.192 — TP -0.013 0.177 0.041 -0.042 -0.121 -0.137 -0.851* 0.012 — PBD -0.244* -0.275* -0.047 -0.116 0.093 0.178 0.336* 0.034 -0.129 — SPS -0.040 -0.075 -0.139 0.042 0.057 -0.073 -0.123 0.096 0.118 0.131 — ZMT -0.068 -0.002 -0.025 0.033 -0.073 0.117 -0.050 0.121 0.015 -0.045 -0.055 — MT 0.069 0.056 0.119 -0.086 0.006 0.071 0.228* 0.033 -0.192 0.013 -0.125 0.093 — * P < 0.05

PAGE 70

59 European Sample (n = 184) Statistically significant polychoric correlations for the European sample include the following variants. Inferior Nasal Aperture width is significantly correlated to NBS (r = 0.203), ANS (r = 0.207), and NAW (r = -0.258). Nasal Bone Structure is significantly correlated to ZS (r = 0.250) and NAW (r = -0.496). Anterior Nasal Spine is significantly correlated to NAW (r = -0.259). Nasal Aperture Widths of the European sample is significantly correlated to MT (r = -0.259). Interorbital Breadth is significantly correlated to TM (r = 0.274). Metopic Trace is significantly correlated to NO (r = 0.353) and SPS (r = -0.229).

PAGE 71

Table 4-18. Polychoric correlations for the European sample. 60 INA NBS ANS ZS NAW IOB TM NO TP PBD SPS ZMT MT INA — NBS 0.203* — ANS 0.207* 0.099 — ZS 0.138 0.250* 0.073 — NAW -0.258* -0.496* -0.259* -0.153 — IOB 0.097 -0.080 -0.076 0.025 0.097 — TM 0.139 0.022 0.110 -0.006 0.168 0.274* — NO 0.118 0.051 -0.055 0.027 -0.103 -0.027 0.353* — TP -0.096 0.017 -0.065 0.080 -0.107 0.089 -0.152 -0.038 — PBD -0.068 0.029 0.130 0.059 0.154 -0.056 0.169 -0.191* -0.123 — SPS 0.043 -0.143 -0.144 0.162 -0.072 0.065 -0.229* -0.053 -0.040 0.024 — ZMT -0.159 0.025 -0.059 0.022 0.012 -0.079 0.124 0.003 0.108 -0.129 -0.063 — MT 0.178 0.056 0.077 -0.034 -0.249* -0.053 -0.090 0.006 0.132 -0.073 -0.079 0.073 — * P < 0.05

PAGE 72

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In a forensic setting, the goal of ancestry determination is simple: provide a reasonable prediction of the peer-perceived ancestry of an individual from cranial and postcranial diagnostic features. The result is most often a stereotypical group classification based solely upon a limited number of phenotypic features of the skull. When assessing these diagnostic features, forensic anthropologists usually rely on evaluating whether a particular skull exhibits trait values, or suites of characters, believed to be representative of a given ancestral population (e.g., ‘angled’ zygomaticomaxillary suture and straight transverse palatine suture in Asian and Native American individuals). In the current study, no individuals possessed all thirteen expected trait values. By assessing only those traits showing both a significant frequency and a high correlation, individuals possessing all expected trait values ranged from 0.4% for the Amerindian sample (n = 1/283), 1.3% for the East Asian sample (n = 1/75), 1.6% for the European sample (n = 3/184), and 3.9% for the African sample (n = 7/180). By decreasing the number of traits to only the four most significant, INA, NBS, NAW, and IOB, percentages increased to 17.3 % for the East Asian sample (n = 13/75), 28.8% for the African sample (n = 52/180), 29.9% for the European sample (n = 55/184), and 34.6% for the Amerindian sample (n = 98/283). These numbers do not reflect the accuracy often attributed to a determination of ancestry when utilizing a suite of nonmetric traits. Although the experienced forensic anthropologist can make correct assumptions based on nonmetric traits, reliable and 61

PAGE 73

62 quantified ancestry determinants should be delineated and described more rigorously. For those traits currently used, however, it may not be possible to quantify them if they do not represent actual underlying biological structures appropriate for use in these studies. Likewise, the inclusion of traits that are susceptible to outside forces (i.e., remodeling and functional modification) and stresses (e.g., ZMT and MT) may not be appropriate for use in ancestry determination studies on any level. Population Specific Results Sex differences were statistically insignificant, with the exception of post-bregmatic depression in the African sample. Table 5-1 presents the frequency of PBD for this group. Note that African females exhibited a significantly high frequency of presence (1) of PBD (52%), while African males, though scoring high relative to the three other groups, possessed this trait in only 31.4% of the cases. Below is a synopsis of the character states that had a higher frequency in the four main ancestral populations, which may indicate their usefulness in ancestry prediction. These character states suggest validation of several aforementioned studies, but several (MT and SPS in the European sample) imply that the lack of standard definitions has led researchers astray in analysis. Table 5-1. Post-bregmatic depression frequencies in Africans. Male (N = 105) Female (N = 75) PBD N % N % 0 64 61.0 28 37.3 1 33 31.4 39 52.0 2 8 7.6 8 10.7

PAGE 74

63 Africans The African sample, composed of both East and West Africans, as well as African-Americans, features trait distributions similar to previously published results, although several traits previously reported as African traits did not show high frequencies. African individuals in this sample express a higher frequency of the guttered and incipient guttered INA (pooled 68.3; n = 123/180). African nasal bone structure features the 'Round' contour (58.9%; n = 106/180). As previously described (Rhine 1990), African individuals exhibit both a broad nasal aperture and broad interorbital breadth (respectively 59.4%; n = 107/180, and 56.1%; n = 101/180). Further, the absence of nasal overgrowth in African individuals (65.0%; n = 117/180) is useful for discriminating between this group and the Amerindian population. Transverse palatine sutures in the African sample is expressed more frequently as 'anterior bulging, symmetrical' (46.7%; n = 84/180). Although post-bregmatic depression does feature sex significant sex differences, it is also useful at the population level. In this sample, African individuals expressed a post-bregmatic depression 40.0% (n = 72/180), while the other groups (discussed below) displayed a depression in up to only 14.7% of the cases (European sample). Of the remaining traits, intraand inter-population frequencies were too similar to require their inclusion in the African suite. American Indians Even though the Amerindian sample is composed of geographically diverse groups, significant frequency distributions do not waft significantly from previous research. Amerindians exhibit an 'Incipient Gutter' or 'Straight' inferior nasal aperture morphology (pooled 79.5%; n = 225/283). Nasal bone structure for this group features a 'Vaulted' nasal bones (37.5%; n = 106/283). Nasal aperture width is inclined to the

PAGE 75

64 medium variant (81.6%; n = 231/283), while interorbital breadth tends to be narrow (61.8%; n = 175/283). Interestingly, the Amerindian sample exhibited nasal overgrowth in a higher frequency (45.9%; n = 130/283) than any other group, including East Asians. Finally, Amerindians evinced a straight, symmetrical transverse palatine suture in 64.7% of the crania (n = 183/283). Of the remaining traits, intraand inter-population frequencies were too similar to require their inclusion in the Amerindian suite. East Asians Because the sample size of the East Asian sample is by far the smallest subset, these results are a preliminary attempt to understand the nonmetric variation of this group. Because of this, these results should be considered carefully before making any determination of ancestry based on the traits present. With that caveat, East Asian individuals featured a higher frequency of 'Incipient Gutter' and 'Straight' inferior nasal aperture morphology (pooled 81.3%; n = 61/75), while the nasal bone structure of this group tends to be 'Plateau' (40.0%; n = 30/75). Frequency distributions for NAW and IOB in the East Asian sample are similar to the Amerindian sample. The East Asian sample evinces an intermediate nasal aperture (88.0%; n = 66/75) and a narrow interorbital breadth (62.0%; n = 39/75). Also like the Amerindian sample, East Asians evinced a straight, symmetrical transverse palatine suture (45.3%; n = 34/75). Finally, unlike the Amerindian sample, the East Asian sample did not feature a high frequency of nasal overgrowth, as it was present in only 25.3% of the cases (n = 19/75). Of the remaining traits, intraand inter-population frequencies were too similar to require their inclusion in the East Asian suite.

PAGE 76

65 Europeans While the European sample is composed of both Europeans and European-Americans, distributions are similar to previous research. The inferior nasal apertures of the European sample features high frequencies of 'partial sill' and 'sill' (pooled 73.9%; n = 136/184), whereas nasal bones tend to be of the 'Triangular' variant (34.2%; n = 63/184). A narrow nasal aperture is evinced in 56.0% of the cases (n = 103/184), while an intermediate interorbital breadth is displayed in 66.3% (n = 122/184). Although a trace metopic has previously been regarded as a European feature, in this sample only 10.3% (n = 19/184) of the individuals had this trait. Although this is slightly higher than the African (5.6%; n = 10/180) and the Amerindian (1.1%; n = 3/283), the East Asian sample evinced a trace metopic in 9.3% of the cases (n = 7/75).7 Nasal overgrowth was noted in 37.5% (n = 69/184) of the European sample, slightly higher than all others except the Amerindian sample, but it should be noted that overgrowth was not expressed in 53.3% (n = 98/184) of the examined specimen. The transverse palatine suture of the European sample exhibited a higher frequency of the 'anterior/posterior bulging, scalaris' morphology (34.8%; n = 64/184). Finally, the persistence of the supranasal suture for the European sample is unlike the other three groups. In Europeans, this suture evinced a higher frequency of either 'open' or 'closed, but visible' (pooled 44.0%; n = 81/184). This is perhaps not surprising given the relative confusion between this trait and a metopic trace. 7 This may be the result of the relatively small sample size of the East Asian sample.

PAGE 77

66 Conclusions Shape differences, as suites of characteristics or slight variations in cranial form, are the key to assessing differences in population groups. The mid face is continually referred to as the most prolific area used in ancestry prediction, but the traits often referred to in these studies (some of which suffer from sample sizes much to small to be significant) are not producing results when applied to a larger sample that would indicate usefulness in ancestry determination studies (Hefner 2003). The relatively small sample sizes of several of the most frequently cited studies (Gill and Rhine 1990; Rhine 1990) continues to hinder and abate the use of nonmetric traits in a forensic setting. Research similar to the current study is needed for large modern and archaeological populations if we are to understand the temporal distribution of these traits, and thus secular change affecting their distributions, more fully. Nonmetric traits will continue to be important in ancestry prediction. That several of the frequently cited traits do not have a high frequency in contemporary populations suggests they may not be as useful in ancestry prediction, contrary to earlier studies. However, skilled forensic anthropologists will continue to make correct assumptions of ancestry from human crania, often citing the very traits which do not have a high frequency. Perhaps this is due to the ability of the well-trained forensic anthropologist to recognize slight variations in form which they cannot define as a variant or character state, but which they recognize as belonging to a certain group. They need only to select traits which 'define' that group. Unfortunately, this method of analysis cannot be taught to students, as experience alone is fundamental in developing the ability to determine ancestry anthroposcopically.

PAGE 78

LIST OF REFERENCES Agur, AMR (1991) Grant's Atlas of Anatomy. 9th ed. Cambridge: William & Wilkins Press. Anderson, JE (1969) Skeletal "anomalies" as genetic indicators. In, Skeletal Biology Symposia for the Study of Human Biology. Edited by D. Brothwell. Elmsford, New Jersey: Pergamon Press. Angel, JL and JO Kelly (1990) Inversion of the posterior edge of the jaw ramus: New race trait. In Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology, edited by Gill and Rhine, pp. 33-39. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. Armelagos, G (1992) The Concept of Race, Racism, and Anthropology. Paper presented at the Wenner-Gren Foundation for anthropological research symposium. Baja California, Mexico. Baker, SJ, GW Gill and DA Keiffer (1991) Race and sex determination from the intercondylar notch of the distal femur. In Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology, edited by Gill and Rhine, pp. 91-96. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. Bass, WM (1987) Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. 3rd Edition. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society. Bendyshe, T (1969) The Anthropological treatises of Johann Blumenbach. Publications for the Anthropological Society. London: Longman Green Press. Berry, RJ and AC Berry (1967) Epigenetic variation in the human cranium. J Anat 101:361-379. Blumenbach, JF (1775) De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa Liber. Gottingae, Germany: Bergman Publishers. Blumenbach, JF (1781) De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa Liber. 2nd Edition. Gottingae, Germany: Bergman Publishers. Blumenbach, JF (1795) De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa Liber. 3rd Edition. Gottingae, Germany: Bergman Publishers. 67

PAGE 79

68 Brace, CL (1992a) A four letter word called "race." In, Race and Other Miscalculations and Mismeasures: Papers in Honor of Ashley Montague, edited by LJ Reynolds and L Lieberman. New York: General Hall Publishers. Brace, CL (1992b) Modern human origins and the dynamics of regional continuity. In, Prehistoric Mongoloid Dispersals, Symposium 1992, edited by T. Akazawa and E. Szathmary. New York: Oxford University Press. Brinton, DG (1890) Races and People. New York: NDC Hodges Press. Brooks, S, RH Brooks, and D France (1990) Alveolar prognathism contour, an aspect of racial identification. In Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology, edited by G. C. Gill and S. Rhine, pp. 41-46. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. Brothwell, DR (1981) Digging Up Bones. 3rd Edition. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Brues, AM (1990) The once and future diagnosis of race. In Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology, edited by Gill and Rhine, pp. 1-8. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. Buikstra, J and D Ubelaker (1995) Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series #44, Arkansas. Burns, K (1999) Forensic Anthropology Training Manual. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Burris, BG and EF Harris (1998). Identification of race and sex from palate dimensions. J Forensic Sci 43:959-963. Byers, SN, SE Churchill, and B Curran (1997) Identification of Euro-Americans, Afro-Americans, and Amerindians from palatal dimensions. J Forensic Sci 42:3-9. Clemente, CD (1975) Anatomy: A Regional Atlas of the Human Body. Lea & Feibeger: Philadelphia. Coenders, G and WE Saris (1995) Categorization and measurement quality. The choice between Pearson and Polychoric correlations. In, The Multitrait-Multimethod Approach to Evaluate Measurement Instruments, edited by WE Saris & . Mnnich, pp. 125-144. Etvs University Press: Budapest. Craig, EA (1995) Intercondylar shelf angle: a new method to determine race from the distal femur. J Forensic Sci 40:777-782. Darwin, C (1859) On the Origin of Species. John Murray Press: London.

PAGE 80

69 DiBennardo, R and JV Taylor (1983). Multiple discriminant function analysis of sex and race in the postcranial skeleton. Am J Phys Anthropol 61: 305-314. Duray, SM, HB Morter and FJ Smith (1999) Morphological variation in cervical spinous processes: potential applications in the forensic identification of race from the skeleton. J Forensic Sci 44: 937-944. Finnegan, M and SA McGuire (1979). Classification systems for discrete variables used in forensic anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol 51: 547-553. Gill, GW (1990) Introduction. In, Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology, edited by G. W. Gill and S. Rhine, pp. vii-xii. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. Gill, GW (1995). Challenge on the frontier: discerning American Indians from whites osteologically. J Forensic Sci 40: 783-788. Gill, GW and R Gilbert (1990) Race identification from the midfacial skeleton: American blacks and whites. In, Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology, edited by G. W. Gill and S. Rhine, pp. 47-54. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. Gill, GW and S Rhine (1990) Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. Goss, CM (1973) Gray's Anatomy. 29th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger Press. Hanihara, T (1996) Comparison of craniofacial features of major human groups. Am J Phys Anthropol 99: 389-412. Hanihara, T (2000) Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 111:105-134. Hauser, G and GF De Stefano (1989) Epigenetic Variants of the Human Skull. Stuttgart, Germany: E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Hefner, JT (2003) The utility of nonmetric cranial traits in ancestry determination Part II. Paper presented at the 55th Annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Chicago, IL Hinkes, MJ (1990) Shovel-shaped incisors in human identification. In, Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology, edited by Gill and Rhine, pp. 21-26. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. Holliday, TW and AB Falsetti (1999). A new method for discriminating African-American from European-American skeletons using postcranial osteometrics reflective of body shape. J Forensic Sci 44: 926-930.

PAGE 81

70 Hooton, EA (no date) The Test. Unpublished manuscript by EA Hooton. Peabody Museum archives. Cambridge, MA. Hooton, EA (1926) Lecture notes of EA Hooton. Peabody Museum archives. Cambridge, MA. Hooten, EA (1930) The Indians of Pecos Pueblo. Yale University Press, New Haven. Hooton, EA (1931) Lecture notes of EA Hooton. Unpublished manuscripts of the Peabody Museum archives of E. A. Hooton. Cambridge, MA. Hooton, EA (1946) Lecture notes of EA Hooton. Unpublished manuscripts of the Peabody Museum archives of E. A. Hooton. Cambridge, MA. Howells, WW (1970) Multivariate analysis for the identification of race from the crania. In Personal Identification in Mass Disasters, edited by T. D. Stewart, pp. 111-112. Washington, D. C: Smithsonian Institution Press. Howells, WW (1973) Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference Among Recent Human Populations. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol. 67. The Museum: Cambridge, MA. Howells, WW (1989) Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of Modern Homo. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol. 79. The Museum: Cambridge, MA. Howells, WW (1995)Who's Who in Skulls: Ethnic Identification of Crania from Measurements. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol. 82. The Museum: Cambridge, MA. Iscan, MY (1983). Assessment of race from the pelvis. Am J Phys Anthropol 62: 205-208. Isan, MY (1990) A comparison of techniques on the determination of race, sex, and stature from the Terry and Hamann-Todd Collections. In, Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology, edited by Gill and Rhine, pp. 73-81. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. Ishida, H and Y Dodo (1997) Cranial variation in prehistoric human skeletal remains from the Marianas. Am J Phys Anthropol 104: 399-410. Jantz, RL (1970) Change and variation in skeletal populations of Arikara Indians. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence. Jantz, RL (2001) Cranial change in Americans:1850. J Forensic Sci 46: 784.

PAGE 82

71 Konigsberg, LW (1990) Analysis of prehistoric biological variation under a model of isolation by geographic and temporal distance. Hum Bio 62: 49-70. Krogman, WM (1939) A guide to the identification of human skeletal remains. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 3: 3-31. Krogman, WM and MY Isan (1986) The Human Skeleton in Forensic Anthropology. 2nd Edition. Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas Press. Lahr, MM (1996) The Evolution of Modern Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, CS (1952) The Chronicles of Narnia, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Loeb Classical Library. Linnaeus, CV (1759) Systema Naturae. Lugduni Batavorum: Theodorum Haak. MacBride, R. (1967). The Automated State: Computer Systems as a New Force in Society. Philadelphia: Chilton Book Company. Meadows, L and RL Jantz (1995). Allometric secular change in the long bones from the 1800s to the present. J Forensic Sci 40: 762-767. Montagu, A (1964) The Concept of Race. London: Collier-Macmillan Limited. Montagu, A (1974) Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. 5th Edition. London: Oxford University Press. Moore, KL (1992) Clinically Oriented Anatomy. 3rd Edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Osterburg, JW and JF Coates (1967). Crime, science, and technology. Science 158: 1079-1080. Ousley, SD and RL Jantz (1996) FORDISC 2.0: Personal Computer Forensic Discriminant Functions. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee. Ousley, SD and RL Jantz (1998) The forensic data bank: Documenting skeletal trends in the United States. In, Forensic osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains, edited by KJ Reichs, pp. 441-458. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Ousley, SD and RL Jantz (2002) Social races and human populations: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying races. Paper presented at the 71st annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Buffalo, NY. April 2002. Rhine, S (1990) Nonmetric Skull Racing. In Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology, edited by Gill and Rhine, pp. 7-20. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology.

PAGE 83

72 Rhine, JS and HR Campbell (1980). Thickness of facial tissues in American blacks. J Forensic Sci 25: 847-858. Richtsmeier, JT, VB Deleon, SR Lele (2002) The promise of geometric morphometrics. Yearbook of Phys Anthropol 45:63-91. Rohlf, F and L Marcus (1993) A revolution in morphometrics. TREE 8:129-132 Ross, AH, RL Jantz and WF McCormick (1998). Cranial thickness in American females and males. J Forensic Sci 43: 267-272. Ross, AH, H McKeown and LW Konigsberg (1999). Allocation of crania to groups via the "new morphometry." J Forensic Sci 44: 584-587. Ross, AH, DH Ubelaker, and AB Falsetti (2002) Craniometric variation in the Americas. Human Biology. In press. Sampson, HW, JL Montgomery, and GL Henryson (1991) Atlas of the Human Skull. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press. Sauer, NJ (1992) Forensic anthropology and the concept of race: If races don't exist why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them? Social Science and Medicine 34(2):107-111. Saunders, S (1989) Nonmetric skeletal variation. In, Reconstruction of Life from the Skeleton, edited by M.Y. Isan and K. A. R. Kennedy, pp. 95-108. New York: Alan R. Liss. Sciulli, PW and RM Gramly (1989). Analysis of the Ft. Laurens, Ohio, skeletal sample. Am J Phys Anthropol 80: 11-24. Shanklin, E (1994) Anthropology & Race. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company Smedley, A (1993) Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Snow, CC, S Hartman, E Giles, and FA Young (1979). Sex and race determination of crania by calipers and computer: A test of the Giles and Elliot discriminant functions in 52 forensic science cases. J Forensic Sci 24: 448-460. Spencer, F (1997) Anthropometry. In, History of Physical Anthropology: An Encyclopedia, edited by F. Spencer, pp. 80-90. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Steele, DG and CA Bramblett (1988) The Anatomy and Biology of the Human Skeleton. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.

PAGE 84

73 Stewart, TD (1979) Essentials of Forensic Anthropology. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Thompson, DD (1982) Forensic anthropology. In, A History of American Physical Anthropology, edited by F. Spencer. New York: Academic Press. Tyrell, AJ (2000) Skeletal non-metric traits and the assessment of interand intrapopulation diversity: Past problems and future potential. In, Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science, edited by M Cox and S Mays. London: Greenwich Medical Media. Tyrell, AJ and AT Chamberlain (1998) Non-metric trait evidence for modern human affinities and the distinctiveness of Neanderthals. Journal Human Evol 34: 549-554. Ubersax, JS (2000) Statistical modeling of expert ratings on medical treatment appropriateness. J Am Stat Assoc 88: 421-427. Walker, GF (1976). The computer and the law: Coordinate analysis of skull shape and possible methods of postmortem identification. J Forensic Sci 21: 357-366. Whittaker, DK and MM Bakri (1996). Racial variations in the extent of tooth root translucency in aging individuals. Arch Oral Biol 41: 15-19. Wolpoff, MH and R Caspari (1997) Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction. New York: Simon and Schuster. Wright, S (1930) Review of Fisher's "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection." J Heredity 21: 349-356.

PAGE 85

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Joseph T. Hefner received his Bachelor of Science degree in anthropology in 1997 from Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina. After 3 years of fieldwork in Southeastern archaeology, Mr. Hefner switched his focus to forensic anthropology. In 1999, Mr. Hefner enrolled in the post-baccalaureate program at Mercyhurst College, Erie, Pennsylvania. During his tenure there, Mr. Hefner spent extensive time with the skeletal collections at Mercyhurst and the Natural History Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. In 2002, Mr. Hefner was accepted into the anthropology graduate program at the University of Florida, where he plans to stay in pursuit of a doctoral degree. 74