Cranial Nonmetric Variation and Estimating Ancestry *

Abstract:  Historically, when predicting the ancestry of human skeletal remains, forensic anthropologists have not fully considered the variation within human populations, but instead have relied on a typological, experience‐based approach. Unfortunately, reliance on observer experience has produced a method that is as much an art as it is a science. This research focuses on the frequency distribution and inter‐trait correlations of 11 common morphoscopic traits to demonstrate that the experience‐based approach to ancestry prediction is indeed an art that is unscientific, because it is unreplicable, unreliable, and invalid. Ten of 11 traits examined had frequency distributions with significant differences (p < 0.001) between groups, but the range in variation of these traits far exceeds previous assumptions. Such within group variation clearly demonstrates that extreme trait expressions are not reliable for estimating ancestry through visual observation alone, but instead that these traits should be analyzed within a statistical framework.

[1]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[2]  W. Bass Human osteology : a laboratory and field manual of the human skeleton , 1971 .

[3]  W. Howells,et al.  Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of Modern Homo , 1992 .

[4]  Steven N. Byers,et al.  Introduction to Forensic Anthropology: A Textbook , 2001 .

[5]  W. Howells,et al.  Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference Among Recent Human Populations , 1975 .

[6]  G. Hauser,et al.  Epigenetic Variants of the Human Skull , 1989 .

[7]  W. M. Krogman The human skeleton in forensic medicine. I. , 1963, Postgraduate medicine.

[8]  E. Hooton,et al.  Up from the Ape , 1947 .

[9]  Carme Rissech,et al.  The determination of male adult age at death by central and posterior coxal analysis--a preliminary study. , 2004, Journal of forensic sciences.

[10]  W. Willett,et al.  Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic. , 1987, American journal of epidemiology.

[11]  Robert S. Corruccini,et al.  Skull shapes and the map: Craniometric analyses in the dispersion of modern homo (Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Volume 79). By W. W. Howells. 189 pp. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1989, $35.00 (cloth), $14.95 (paper) , 1991 .

[12]  Angi M Christensen,et al.  The impact of Daubert: implications for testimony and research in forensic anthropology (and the use of frontal sinuses in personal identification). , 2004, Journal of forensic sciences.

[13]  A. Feinstein,et al.  High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. , 1990, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  J. Fleiss Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. , 1971 .

[15]  Calyampudi R. Rao,et al.  Statistics and Truth Putting Chance to Work , 1989 .

[16]  Karen Ramey Burns,et al.  Forensic Anthropology Training Manual , 2006 .

[17]  T. Fenton,et al.  Identifying Southwest Hispanics Using Nonmetric Traits and the Cultural Profile * , 2008, Journal of forensic sciences.

[18]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[19]  W. Saris,et al.  Categorization and measurement quality. The choice between Pearson and Polychoric correlations , 1995 .

[20]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications , 1988 .

[21]  Phillip L Walker,et al.  Sexing skulls using discriminant function analysis of visually assessed traits. , 2008, American journal of physical anthropology.

[22]  Chih-Ping Chu,et al.  The I+ Test , 1998, LCPC.