Christopher W. Schmidt - University of Indianapolis Archeology ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION In the field of forensic anthropology, the construction of a reliable biological profile of the decedent is of utmost importance. The biological profile provides valuable information that the authorities use as a starting point for the identification of the deceased and includes the age, sex, stature, and ancestry of the individual. Of these, ancestry is considered to be the most difficult to determine, least precise, and most controversial, in part because of the inherent complexity of its morphological indicators and the confusion between the biological and social definitions of ancestry (Reichs, 1986). The determination of ancestry is also crucial in archeological situations where sometimes, osteological material is the only evidence present for cultural affiliations (Cooprider et al. 1980). Despite these obstacles, there are techniques used by anthropologists to establish ancestral affiliation. The two most common methods employ metric (anthropometric) and non- metric (anthroposcopic) observations. Metric analysis involves taking measurements of the skull and applying discriminant function analysis to those measurements. Non-metric analysis involves scoring morphological variants of the skull on a discrete or discontinuous scale. The current study looks at ancestry determination using non-metric traits of the mandible. As such, non-metric traits are discussed in more detail before addressing the specifics of the current study. Non-Metric Analysis Non-metric skeletal traits are features that vary from one individual to another, are visually determined, and cannot easily be measured (Saunders, 1989; Schwartz, 1995). These traits are normal skeletal variants that are not expressed externally on the human body and are not pathological or traumatic in nature (Mays, 1998). Russel (1900) and Wood-Jones (1930 1
a,b,c) were the first to show that these variants could be used to differentiate between ancestral groups. Later, Laughlin and Jorgensen (1956) statistically demonstrated the significance of non- metric traits in population studies. In 1984, Finnegan and Rubison (p. 74) described three different contexts in which non-metric traits have proven valuable: 1. classifying one cranium or postcranial skeleton in an archaeological setting; 2. classifying one cranium or postcranial skeleton in a recent forensic case in order to aid in identification; 3. specific or subspecific classification of animals in a given geographical region, or calculating biological distances between free ranging animal populations. The first and second methods are the most common applications of non-metric variants in the field of anthropology. Some scientists feel that qualitative traits are imprecise because they tend not to be measured on a continuous scale. In addition, these traits may be more susceptible to intra- observer error, especially if they are not fully described (DeStefano et al., 1984). Nonetheless, non-metric analyses are simple to perform and have been more thoroughly applied in more recent years (Wood-Jones, 1930a; Church, 1995). Berry and Berry (1967), Corruccini (1974), and Hauser and DeStefano (1989) conducted in-depth non-metric analyses of the skull. In these studies, each variant was illustrated by line drawings and described in great detail to represent each trait as thoroughly as possible. In doing so, these researchers have standardized the use of specific discrete traits and current investigators employ these descriptions for use in their own studies. As non-metric traits are studied in a more precise manner and detailed descriptions are provided for each one, the more valuable they become. Due to an increase in standardization of these traits, analysts are using non-metric traits in population studies all over the world at an increasing rate (see Table 1.1). 2
Page 1 and 2: Determination of Ancestry from Disc
Page 3 and 4: DEDICATION I would like to dedicate
Page 5 and 6: ABSTRACT In the field of forensic a
Page 7: TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page .
Page 11 and 12: 1998, p. 102): Most non-metric trai
Page 13 and 14: Sex. A number of researchers have f
Page 15 and 16: statistics. Being discontinuous in
Page 17 and 18: CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND The most reli
Page 19 and 20: Murphy (1957) performed another non
Page 21 and 22: younger and older adults. Modern St
Page 23 and 24: TABLE 2.3. Rhine’s (1990) Non-Met
Page 25 and 26: displaying the trait. In the entire
Page 27 and 28: European Americans and Africans. Be
Page 29 and 30: TABLE 2.5. Populations Analyzed for
Page 31 and 32: mandibles. Thirty-two percent of th
Page 33 and 34: Sawyer and colleagues (1998) conduc
Page 35 and 36: 1990; Manjunath, 2003), while other
Page 37 and 38: performed using chi-squared analysi
Page 39 and 40: archeological setting. On the other
Page 41 and 42: collections are usually prehistoric
Page 43 and 44: TABLE 3.3. Age Distribution for the
Page 45 and 46: The African American males have an
Page 47 and 48: “2” is assigned when a moderate
Page 49 and 50: Square: this category includes thos
Page 51 and 52: continuously varying independent va
Page 53 and 54: Descriptive Statistics CHAPTER 4: R
Page 55 and 56: TABLE 4.4. Location of Inversion Fr
Page 57 and 58: TABLE 4.10. Mandibular Border Form
Page 59 and 60:
TABLE 4.16. Muscle Attachment Sites
Page 61 and 62:
TABLE 4.22. Accessory Mandibular Fo
Page 63 and 64:
TABLE 4.28. Chin Shape Frequencies.
Page 65 and 66:
TABLE 4.34. Position of the Mental
Page 67 and 68:
TABLE 4.37. Male and Female Trait F
Page 69 and 70:
Ordinal Regression on All Populatio
Page 71 and 72:
trait is on the border (p = 0.051)
Page 73 and 74:
TABLE 4.44. Ordinal Regression Para
Page 75 and 76:
the dependent variables. Age is the
Page 77 and 78:
ANCOVA output for mandibular length
Page 79 and 80:
The ANCOVA results show that ancest
Page 81 and 82:
African Americans (96%). From these
Page 83 and 84:
with Rhine (1990), 69% of the Europ
Page 85 and 86:
(Giles, 1964). In fact, Hunter and
Page 87 and 88:
female sample displays robust muscl
Page 89 and 90:
mandibular corpus increases in leng
Page 91 and 92:
have the largest bicondylar breadth
Page 93 and 94:
displays predominately slight evers
Page 95 and 96:
African American vs. Native African
Page 97 and 98:
eadth. As expected, males have a wi
Page 99 and 100:
accessory mandibular foramen, chin
Page 101 and 102:
displayed by Native Africans includ
Page 103 and 104:
determination of ancestry. The numb
Page 105 and 106:
LITERATURE CITED Akabori K (1934) C
Page 107 and 108:
Enlow DH, Bianco HJ, Eklund S (1976
Page 109 and 110:
Lundy, JK (1980) The mylohyoid brid
Page 111 and 112:
Rosing FW (1984) Discreta of the hu
Page 113:
Zivanovic S (1970) Some morphologic
show all

Christopher W. Schmidt - University of Indianapolis Archeology ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?