 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.llxi...
.I 53.33;. ’\

 

 

 

 

E. 7
. . , . . , . 4 ....,.:.mxn..
_.r,...~,.$ﬁe_ . , ‘ . , V ‘ .

 

 

 

5Q T I'DDARY
poo l MIChIt. In State
University

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

NON-METRIC ASSESSMENT OF SOUTHEAST AND
NORTHEAST ASIAN ANCESTRY IN THE FORENSIC
CONTEXT

presented by

AMBER NICOLE HEARD

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in FORENSIC SCIENCES

 

 

7924M

Wm Professor’s Signature

A7“? I// ﬂf/
Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:lProj/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DaIeDue.indd

NON-METRIC ASSESSMENT OF SOUTHEAST AND NORTHEAST ASIAN
ANCESTRY IN THE FORENSIC CONTEXT

By

Amber Nichole Heard

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Forensic Sciences

2008

ABSTRACT

NON-METRIC ASSESSMENT OF SOUTHEAST AND NORTHEAST ASIAN
ANCESTRY IN THE FORENSIC CONTEXT

By

Amber Nichole Heard

Use of non-metric traits for the assessment of ancestry in the forensic context has
recently received renewed attention. In order for non-metric methods to be effectively
employed, it is necessary for the forensic anthropologist to have an understanding of non-
metric trait expression for a variety of populations. This thesis describes character state
expression for a series of cranial and dental non-metric traits in a sample of individuals of
Southeast and Northeast Asian ancestry. To date, the skeletal morphology of these
populations has received limited attention in the forensic literature; however, the increase
of East Asian populations living in the United States warrants an evaluation of their
cranial and dental morphology. The sample for this study includes the remains of 49
individuals of Southeast Asian ancestry and 93 individuals of Northeast Asian ancestry.
The cranial non-metric traits evaluated have been described by Hefner (2003) and the
dental non-metric traits by Turner et a1. (1991). Results show that the sample of
Southeast Asian individuals can be distinguished from the sample of Northeast Asian
individuals using a series of cranial and dental non-metric traits. Future analysis is
necessary, however, to determine the strength of the ability to make this distinction.
Additional research may possibly show that these regional populations are, in fact, best
characterized as belonging to a broader East Asian group for the purpose of forensic

ancestry assessment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To all of those who have supported me on my personal and academic journey, I
thank you. It is to my good fortune that I have been able to surround myself with
scholars who have not only taught me academically, but also demonstrated an inspiring
devotion to teaching and never-ending personal growth.

I wish to thank my fellow students and committee members at Michigan State
University for their support throughout my Masters coursework and the thesis writing
process. Thank you to Dr. Norm Sauer for his rousing passion for teaching; Dr. Todd
F enton for always reminding me to focus on what is best for myself; Dr. Christina
DeJong for being a calming voice when things were intense and urgent; and to my
student cohort for enduring it all together.

I also wish to thank the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command Central
Identiﬁcation Laboratory and the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution for access to collections in their care.

I offer many thanks to my friends at The University of Michigan, notably Dr. Bill
Sanders and Dr. Laura MacLatchy, for encouraging me to continue my education from
the Bachelors to the graduate level. Though I no longer sit in the classrooms of Ann
Arbor, they have not stopped guiding me through my academic and personal endeavors.

Finally, I am grateful for the lifelong support of my family, especially my mother,
Debbie, and my twin sister, Ashley, who have always encouraged me to reach my goals.
And last, but certainly not least, to my husband, Ryan, for his patience, understanding,

and uncanny ability to make me laugh through the most stressful of times.

iii

PREFACE

Throughout the course of this thesis, ancestry should not be read as a euphemism
for race. It is the author’s contention that race is a social construct, and that biological
race among human populations does not exist. This assertion is in agreement with that of
a number of physical anthropologists (e.g. Brace 1964, 1982, 1996, 2005; Lieberman et
a1. 2003; Littleﬁeld et al. 1982; Livingstone 1962; Montagu 1942; Sauer 1992), but
continues to be ill received by others (e. g. Gill 1990).

Acceptance of the biological race concept in physical anthropology has declined
over the past few decades (Lieberman et al. 2003) and one could argue that this trend will
continue. Despite the fact that the majority of physical anthropologists do not accept the
existence of biological racial groups within Homo sapiens, forensic anthropologists are
faced with the task of identifying the race of an unidentiﬁed set of human remains. The
ability of a forensic anthropologist to accomplish this was eloquently articulated by Sauer
(1992) in his paper, “Forensic Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If Races Don’t
Exist, Why Are Forensic Anthropologists So Good At Identifying Them?” Sauer asserts
that the assignment of race by a forensic anthropologist does not validate the existence of
biological races. Instead, forensic anthropologists are attempting to determine what
socially constructed group an unidentiﬁed individual may have belonged to. In order to
effectively achieve a positive identiﬁcation, the forensic anthropologist is forced to
abandon their own understanding of the race concept, and oblige those of law
enforcement and the larger society. As discussed by Cox and colleagues (2006:872),

“people identify by ‘race’ or ancestry not only other people but also themselves.”

iv

Therefore, whether individuals of a society identify themselves as being socially or
biologically distinct from others is irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is that forensic
anthropologists recognize the means by which individuals may identify themselves so
that they can more effectively identify the remains of the individual in question. The
present study was undertaken in order to help strengthen the effectiveness of the forensic

anthropologist in this endeavor.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. viii

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1

NON-METRIC ANCESTRY ASSESSMENT IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY ...... 8
Roots of Non-Metric Trait Studies in Physical Anthropology ......................... 8
Current Use of Non-Metric Traits in the Forensic Context ........................... 10

CHAPTER 2

NON-METRIC TRAIT EXPRESSION IN EAST ASIAN POPULTIONS ................ 15

Cranial and Dental Non-Metric Traits in Asian Populations:
A Bioarchaeological Perspectivel6

CHAPTER 3
EAST ASIAN POPULATIONS LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES ...................... 22
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES, HYPOTHESES, AND PREDICTIONS ........................... 26
Research Objectives and Hypotheses ................................................... 26
Research Objective 1a ............................................................................... 26
Research Objective lb ............................................................................... 26
Research Objective 2 ................................................................................. 27
Research Objective 3 ................................................................................. 28
Predictions ............................................................................................................. 29
Traits Expected to Characterize Southeast and Northeast Asian Ancestry ........... 30
CHAPTER 5
MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................................... 33
Cranial Non-Metric Traits ...................................................................................... 34
Dental Non-Metric Traits ....................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 6
RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 42
Summary of Non-Metric Trait Expression in the Southeast Asian Sample .......... 42
Summary of Non-Metric Trait Expression in the Northeast Asian Sample .......... 45
Comparison of Cranial Non-Metric Traits in the Southeast and Northeast
Asian Samples ............................................................................................ 48
Comparison of Dental Non-Metric Traits in the Southeast and Northeast
Asian Samples ............................................................................................ 53

vi

CHAPTER 7

DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 61
Non-Metric Assessment of Southeast and Northeast Asian Ancestry ................... 61
Cranial Non-Metric Traits ...................................................................................... 62
Dental Non-Metric Traits ....................................................................................... 66
Implications for Forensic Anthropology ................................................................ 68
Future Research Considerations ............................................................................ 69

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 75

APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................... 80

APPDENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 85

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 102

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Signiﬁcant t test scores between Sinodont and Sundadont groups
(Turner 1990, Table 9, pp. 304) ............................................................................. 17

Table 2: Summary of cranial non-metric traits commonly used within the
bioarchaeological literature to investigate population relationships in mainland
and insular East Asia .............................................................................................. 18

Table 3: Summary of the sample used in the present study ............................................... 34

Table 4: Summary of the cranial non-metric traits evaluated in the present study. The
thirteen traits are described and illustrated by Heﬁler (2003) ................................ 35

Table 5: Summary of dental non-metric traits evaluated in the present study. A full
description of the various trait forms is provided by Turner et al. (1991) and
Scott and Turner (1997). ....................................................................................... 36

Table 6: Summary of Cohen’s Kappa results for the test of intra-observer reliability
in scoring of the cranial non-metric traits for the Southeast Asian sample using
the scoring methods outlined by Hefner (2003) .................................................... 43

Table 7: Summary of modiﬁcations to cranial non-metric trait scoring system
developed by Hefner (2003) .................................................................................. 49

Table 8: Summary of cranial non-metric trait comparison between the Southeast and
Northeast Asian samples ........................................................................................ 51

Table 9: Summary of modiﬁcations to ASU dental non-metric trait scoring system
procedures .............................................................................................................. 54

Table 10: Summary of dental non-metric trait comparison between the Southeast and
Northeast Asian samples ........................................................................................ 58

Table 11: Summary of cranial and dental non-metric traits that differ in frequency
between the sample of individuals of Southeast Asian and Northeast Asian
ancestry. “High” refers to a high observed frequency within the population;
“moderate” refers to a moderate observed frequency within the population;

“low” refers to a low observed ﬁ'equency within the population .......................... 62

Table 12: Frequencies of the various character states of the cranial non-metric traits
for the Northeast Asian sample as scored by Heard (2008) and Hefner (2003)....64

viii

Table A1: Frequencies of the various character states of the inferior nasal aperture
for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ..................................................... 80

Table A2: Frequencies of the various character states of the nasal bone structure for
the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ........................................................... 80

Table A3: Frequencies of the various character states of the nasal aperture width for
the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ........................................................... 80

Table A4: Frequencies of the various character states of the inter-orbital breadth for
the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ........................................................... 81

Table A5: Frequencies of the various character states of the post-bregmatic depression
for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ..................................................... 81

Table A6: Frequencies of the various character states of the anterior nasal spine for
the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ........................................................... 81

Table A7: Frequencies of the various character states of the zygomaticomaxillary
suture shape for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ................................ 82

Table A8: Frequencies of the various character states of the transverse palatine suture
shape for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ........................................... 82

Table A9: Frequencies of the various character states of the posterior zygomatic
tubercle for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ....................................... 82

Table A10: Frequencies of the various character states of the malar tubercle for the
Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ................................................................ 83

Table A11: Frequencies of the various character states of the nasal overgrowth for
the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples .......................................................... 83

Table A12: Frequencies of the various character states of the metopic suture for the
Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ................................................................ 83

Table A13: Frequencies of the various character states of the supranasal suture for
the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples .......................................................... 84

Table Bl: Frequencies of the various character states of maxillary incisor winging
for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples .................................................... 85

Table B2: Frequencies of the various character states of maxillary incisor labial
convexity for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples .................................... 85

ix

Table B3: Frequencies of the various character states of incisor shoveling for the
Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ................................................................ 86

Table B4: Frequencies of the various character states of maxillary double-shoveling
for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ..................................................... 87

Table BS: Frequencies of the various character states of the maxillary tuberculum
dentale for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ........................................ 88

Table B6: Frequencies of the various character states of the maxillary canine mesial
ridge for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ............................................ 88

Table B7: Frequencies of the various character states of the canine distal accessory
ridge for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ............................................ 89

Table B8: Frequencies of the various character states of the maxillary premolar distal
cusp for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ............................................. 89

Table B9: Frequencies of the various character states of the metacone for the
Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ................................................................ 90

Table B10: Frequencies of the various character states of the hypocone for the
Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ................................................................ 91

Table B11: Frequencies of the various character states of cusp 5 for the Southeast
and Northeast Asian samples ................................................................................. 92

Table B12: Frequencies of the various character states of the parastyle of the
maxillary molars for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ......................... 93

Table B13: Frequencies of the various character states of the Carabelli’s trait for the
Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ................................................................ 94

Table B 14: Frequencies of the various character states of enamel extensions for the
Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ................................................................ 95

Table B15: Frequencies of the various character states of premolar odontomes for
the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples .......................................................... 96

Table B16: Frequencies of the various character states of the mandibular premolar
lingual cusp for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ................................ 97

Table B17: Frequencies for the various character states of the anterior fovea of the
ﬁrst mandibular molar for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ................ 97

Table 318: Frequencies for the various character states of the mandibular molar
groove pattern for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ............................. 98

Table B19: Frequencies of the various character states of the mandibular molar cusp
number for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ........................................ 98

Table B20: Frequencies of the various character states of the mandibular deﬂecting
wrinkle for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ........................................ 99

Table BZ l: Frequencies of the various character states of the mandibular distal
trigonid crest for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ............................... 99

Table B22: Frequencies of the various character states of the protostylid for the
Southeast and Northeast Asian samples .............................................................. 100

Table 823: Frequencies of the various character states of the mandibular molar sixth
cusp for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ........................................... 100

Table 824: Frequencies of the various character states of the mandibular seventh
cusp for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples ........................................... 10]

xi

INTRODUCTION

One of the primary tasks of a forensic anthropologist when establishing the
biological proﬁle of an unidentiﬁed individual is the determination of ancestry. Ancestry
is arguably the most difﬁcult component of the proﬁle to assess, as the forensic
anthropologist is asked to determine with which social race the individual would have
identiﬁed during life. When the ancestry of the unidentiﬁed individual is known, the list
of potential identities from missing person reports can be greatly narrowed, increasing the
likelihood that the remains will be positively identiﬁed.

As applied physical anthropologists, forensic anthropologists are trained to
understand modern human phenotypic variation in both soft tissue and skeletal form.
Variation in metric and non-metric trait expression of skeletal morphology has been
documented for a number of populations, and the worldwide distribution of this variation
is systematic. Having an understanding of this distribution is what enables the forensic
anthropologist to estimate the ancestry of an unidentiﬁed set of human remains,
meanwhile challenging them to place the individual into a discrete, socially determined
category. In order to classify an individual as belonging to, or having identiﬁed as a
member of, a particular social race, forensic anthropologists must oblige the population
category schemes of both law enforcement and the society at large, which may conﬂict
with their anthropological understanding of human variation (Sauer 1992). In other
words, forensic anthropologists may be forced to temporarily abandon their awareness of

the continuous nature of human variation in order to facilitate a positive identiﬁcation.

Ancestry assessment in forensic anthropology can be accomplished through
employment of metric or non-metric techniques, or a combination of both. Metric
analysis involves taking a series of measurements between cranial landmarks, which can
then be compared to a database of known ranges of the measurements for a variety of
population groups. Based on these measurements, one can determine the likelihood that
a particular individual belongs to a certain group using multivariate analyses (Howells
1970), such as discriminant function analysis (e. g. Giles & Elliot 1962; Snow et al. 1979)
or calculation of indices (e.g. Gill et al. 1988). Some forensic anthropologists are,
however, critical of metric methods for a number of reasons. Metric determination of
ancestry is time consuming and requires that the entire cranium is present for
preservation of the natural distance between landmarks. In addition, because the current
database does not include data on every possible population group, an individual whose
population group is not included in the data set would be misclassiﬁed (Birkby 1966). As
a result, a number of practitioners of forensic anthropology prefer non-metric methods of
ancestry assessment.

Non-metric analysis involves evaluating the presence, or degree of expression, of
a series of traits that have been found to occur in differing frequencies among human
populations. By assessing the nature of these traits, an estimate is made about the
population afﬁliation of an unknown individual. Use of non-metric traits is currently the
preferred method of ancestry determination by a large number of forensic anthropologists
because the traits are easy to evaluate (Rhine 1990) and the method can be employed in
cases of fragmentary remains (Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994). Despite their wide usage,

non-metric methods are not without error. One criticism is that non-meu'ic traits cannot

be subject to the robust statistical analyses used to evaluate metric traits (Rhine 1990).
Rather, assessment of the distribution of non-metric traits is performed by calculating the
observed frequency of the trait within a deﬁned population group. If a high frequency of
a trait, or of a particular character state of trait expression, is observed in a population,
that trait may be ascribed to the suite of traits characteristic of that population. Such
methods have been employed to develop the series of cranial traits used by forensic
anthropologists to distinguish between the skeletal remains of European, African, and
Native American individuals (Brooks er a1. 1990, Napoli & Birkby 1990, Rhine 1990).
Research into the distribution and expression of cranial non-metric traits has
focused on documenting the variation exhibited by individuals of European (white),
African (black), and Native American ancestry. These three groups represent the three
“primary races” described by Hooton in 1946, though he referred to the groups as Whites,
Negroids, and Mongoloids (Shanklin 1994). The reason that research has focused on
documenting non-metric trait variation in these populations speciﬁcally is likely two-
fold: 1) Because these three populations have historically comprised the majority of the
population of the United States, it is highly likely that an unidentiﬁed set of remains will
be an individual of European, Aﬁican, or Native American ancestry; and 2) Reference
populations available for study in American museums largely consist of individuals
representing these three ancestral groups. The paucity of studies devoted to investigating
non-metric trait expression in other populations is more likely related to the latter than to
the former—reference populations for individuals of other ancestral backgrounds are
lacking. As a result, there may be a tendency to lump a number of groups under one of

the “primary” umbrella categories for which non-metric trait variation is understood. An

inherent problem with this method is the assumption that certain groups will share a
particular suite of non-metric traits. Assessment of non-metric trait distribution in other
populations could demonstrate that they can be characterized as having their own unique
suite of non-metric traits.

Of Hooton’s primary races, the “Mongoloid” group has been used as an umbrella
category that includes a number of populations. The term “Mongoloid” stems from
writings of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries where ﬁgures such as Johann
Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1849) and Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) created a scheme
that divided the people of the world into four and three groups, respectively.
“Mongoloid”, meaning “Mongol-like”, has since been used as a catch-all category that
includes modern populations of East Asia, and their ancestors and descendents (including
Native Americans and some Paciﬁc Islanders). From an anthropological perspective, it
seems inappropriate to use such a general term to refer to a group of populations that are
clearly not biologically, linguistically, or culturally homogeneous. Further, the term
“Mongoloid” carries negative connotations as it has historically been used to refer to the
features of individuals with Down Syndrome——a ﬂattened face, yellow pigmented skin,
and inferior intelligence—all of which reminded Dr. Down of characteristics of East
Asian populations (Brace 1996). In spite of the clear ambiguity and racial undertones
associated with the term “Mongoloid”, prominent texts in forensic anthropology continue
to use the term to refer to individuals of East Asian and/or Native American ancestry (e. g.
Bass 2005, Gill, 1998, Gill and Rhine 1990, Krogman 1955, Krogman & Iscan 1986).
While the labeling system itself is problematic, so is the fact that one suite of naits is

used to classify a variety of populations as being of “Mongoloid” ancestry.

Recently, physical anthropologists have noted that traits considered to be
characteristic of the classic “Mongoloid” group were not derived ﬁ'om studies
encompassing all of the populations that would be classiﬁed as “Mongoloid”. While the
term “Mongoloid” is used to refer to populations of East Asian ancestry, the reference
population used for establishing the suite of traits characteristic of “Mongoloids” is
primarily comprised of Southwest Native Americans (Rhine 1990). In other words, the
current understanding of “Mongoloid” traits does not capture the true spectrum of
diversity within the group, as little data has been collected on samples of individuals from
mainland or insular East Asia. The call for the study of non-metric trait expression in a
variety of East Asian populations for purposes of forensic identiﬁcation began nearly
twenty years ago, but has remained largely unanswered. Rhine (1990) noted that
understanding the skeletal characteristics of Southeast Asian individuals was of
increasing importance to forensic anthropologists due to the rise in reﬁrgee populations
living in the United States. While it was astute of him to recognize this trend, Rhine
(1990) cites the lack of an appropriate reference sample as his reason for not including a
sample of Southeast Asian individuals in his study of cranial non-metric trait distribution.
The rise in Southeast Asian refugee populations was also mentioned by Brooks and
colleagues (1990), who suggested that the increasing presence of Southeast Asian
individuals in the United States would make it difﬁcult for forensic anthropologists to
differentiate the facial skeletons of Asians from each other, and also with those of Native
Americans.

Most recently, the issue of the lack of true Southeast and Northeast Asian data in

the “Mongoloid” reference sample was addressed by Rankin and Moore (2004). As

forensic anthropologists working at the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command Center
Central Identiﬁcation Laboratory, Rankin and Moore were able to collect cranial non-
metric data from samples of Southeast Asian individuals while on deployment missions
in Southeast Asia. Cranial non-metric trait data were recorded for Thai individuals from
the collections of the Chiang Mai University Medical School, Thailand; the Mahidol
School of Medicine in Bangkok, Thailand; and from a collection of remains at the
Memorial Museum at the former Choeung Ek Khmer Rouge prison in the Kingdom of
Cambodia. These data were collected for a study comparing non-metric traits of Thai
and Cambodian skeletal remains to those of the “Southwest Mongoloids” as described by
Rhine (1990). The results were presented at the 2004 Annual Meetings of the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences, but to date have not yet been published. As this study
may possibly represent the largest that has been undertaken to document the expression
of cranial non-metric traits for a modern sample of individuals of Southeast Asian
ancestry, it is unfortunate that these results are not available for use by fellow forensic
anthropologists.

The purpose of this thesis is to describe the expression of cranial and dental non-
metric traits in a sample of Southeast and Northeast Asian individuals. Bioarchaeological
studies of biological distance have demonstrated considerable differences in the
expression of non-metric traits between these regional groups, but it is unclear if these
differences are useful for the forensic anthropologist. In this thesis, the expression of
cranial and dental non-metric traits commonly used in forensic anthropology will be
described for a sample of Southeast and Northeast Asian individuals. Non-metric trait

expression within Southeast Asians will be compared to trait expression in Northeast

Asians in order to determine if the two groups can be distinguished. The results of this
study will contribute to the current understanding of non-metric trait expression in Asian
populations, and may lend support to the deconstruction of the “Mongoloid” typology in

forensic anthropology.

CHAPTER 1:

N ON-METRIC ANCESTRY ASSESSMENT IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY

The use of cranial and dental non-metric traits to assess ancestry in a forensic
context developed from early twentieth century efforts to document and understand the
scale of modern human phenotypic variation. An understanding of the worldwide
distribution of these traits, along with the genetic nature of their inheritance, is what
enables forensic anthropologists to use a variety of non-metric traits to assess the

probable ancestry of an unidentiﬁed set of human remains.

Roots of Non-Metric Trait Studies in Physical Anthropologr

The study of modern human phenotypic variation has a long history in the ﬁeld of
physical anthropology, its application in the forensic context being, perhaps, the most
recent. Researchers such as Russell (1900) and Wood-Jones (1930-3 la,b,c; 1933-34) can
be credited as some of the ﬁrst to recognize that certain cranial traits can be used to
distinguish populations, while a number of others have used non-metric traits to
investigate population relatedness through biological distance analysis (e.g. Berry &
Berry 1967). Interest in non-metric trait expression grew throughout the middle to latter
half of the twentieth century for two primary reasons: ﬁrst, non-metric traits are clearly
deﬁnable and more easily scored than metric traits; and second, advancements in the ﬁeld
of genetics began to show that non-metric trait expression was the result of a complex
pattern of inheritance, suggesting that traits should be predictably shared by members of a
deﬁned population. Traits of the cranium and dentition are considered to be best suited

for population studies, as it has been suggested that their expression is more strongly

buffered from environmental or functional inﬂuence than postcranial non-metric traits
(Tyrrell 2000; but see Finnegan 1978).

Within the forensic literature, Earnest A. Hooton (1887 - 1954) is acknowledged
as being the most inﬂuential contributor to the study of ancestry, or race, as well as one
of the ﬁrst to be interested in cataloguing non-metric trait expression for a variety of
populations. Hooton’s lineage of students includes prominent physical anthropologists
that have devoted their studies to the issue of race, of whom many have contributed to
the current standards for ancestry determination used by forensic anthropologists (Hefner
et al. 2004). Hooton’s interest in human phenotypic variation focused on the study of
non-adaptive traits, which he predicted would offer the most reliable means for
differentiating populations. During his tenure at Harvard, Hooton developed a list,
known as the Harvard List, which served as a standard for data collection for a variety of
cranial and post-cranial traits. The legacy of Hooton, as well as the impact of the
Harvard List, has been discussed by Brues (1990) and more recently by Hefner and
colleagues (2004). The publication by Brues (1990) includes examples of excerpt pages
from the Harvard List, which highlights the extensive detail Hooton was interested in
documenting from each set of human remains.

The Harvard List has since been adapted by forensic anthropologists as research
has proved the utility of some non-metric traits over others for the purpose of ancestry
assessment. While each practitioner in forensic anthropology may rely on their own set
of non-metric traits to assign a probable ancesz to a set of remains, there is a consensus
about the variation in expression of a handful of traits for individuals of European,

African, and Native American ancestry. These traits, primarily of the mid-face and

dentition, were described and illustrated by Rhine (1990) in his chapter Non-Metric Skull
Racing, perhaps the most used and cited chapter of the entire Gill and Rhine (1990)
volume, Skeletal Attribution of Race. Although the sample used to generate these
descriptions was small, these traits have been, and are still considered by many to be, the

standard for non-metric determination of ancestry.

Current Use of Non-Metric Traits in the Forensic Context

Shortly over a decade following the publication of Gill and Rhine’s Skeletal
Attribution of Race, 3 new era in the use of non-metric traits has begun to develop. This
new research has been led by the work of Hefner and Ousley (e. g. Hefner 2002, 2003,
2003a; Ousley & Hefner 2005; Hefner & Ousley 2006), whose goal has essentially been
three-fold: 1) Create standards for non-metric trait scoring by developing comprehensive
deﬁnitions, descriptions, and illustrations of character states; 2) Document the frequency
of occurrence of the various traits for a variety of populations; and 3) Develop a
statistical means of ancestry assessment. Accomplishment of these goals, in particular
the latter, would allow the forensic anthropologist to strengthen their ancestry estimation
by providing posterior and/or typicality probabilities that an unidentiﬁed individual
belongs to a deﬁned ancestral group. The impetus for this renewed interest in non-metric
ancestry determination stems from the fact that the current methods fail to uphold the
forensic standards for expert witness testimony set by Daubert. While many forensic
anthropologists feel conﬁdent using non-metric traits to estimate the probable ancestry of
an unidentiﬁed set of human remains, current methods do not allow them to state the

statistical likelihood that individual X was of ancestry Y. The most recent work by

10

Hefner and Ousley (Ousley & Hefner 2005, Hefner & Ousley 2006) has attempted to
provide forensic anthropologists with the ability to do just that using discriminant
function analysis and logistic regression.

An effort to apply more robust statistical support for non-metric ancestry
assessments has also been undertaken for dental traits. Edgar (2005) has developed a
method of predicting ancestry based on characteristics of dental morphology using traits
of the Arizona State University dental morphology system (Turner et al. 1991). By
examining dental casts of a large set of African and European Americans, Edgar was able
to develop probability tables based on Bayesian prediction and logistic regression. These
tables allow the forensic anthropologist to state the probability that an unknown
individual is of either African American or European American ancestry. While Edgar’s
publication represents a constructive contribution to the task of ancestry assessment, her
method can only be applied in cases where the probable ancestry of the unidentiﬁed
individual is Aﬁican or European American. In order to strengthen the method, it is
necessary to document dental non-metric trait frequencies for a variety of other
populations, notably Native Americans, Hispanics and Asians.

The last point is of particular importance and is also true of the methods currently
under development for cranial traits. In order for non-metric methods of ancestry
determination to be effective, an understanding of trait distribution for major populations
living in the United States is essential. Historically, forensic anthropologists have
focused on cataloguing trait distribution among three primary ancestral groups:
Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids. By using such categories, the intention was to

capture the distribution of non-metric traits for European Americans, Aﬁican Americans,

11

and Native Americans, which (at the time) represented the principal populations of the
United States. Using Rhine (1990) as a standard, other populations have been
anecdotally classiﬁed as falling within one of the three primary categories despite a lack
of devotion to studying the true nature of their cranial and dental morphology. Only very
recently have forensic anthropologists begun to call for the study of non-metric trait
expression in populations outside of the three traditional ones (e. g. Slice & Ross 2004,
Rankin & Moore 2004, Birkby et al. 2008), highlighting the fact that populations that
have been grouped for forensic identiﬁcation purposes are not, in fact, homogenous.
Such has been the argument for the classiﬁcation of Hispanics (Slice & Ross 2004) and
Asians (Rankin & Moore 2004), two groups that have typically been included within the
Caucasoid (Rhine 1990) and Mongoloid categories, respectively.

Efforts to better understand non-metric trait expression in Hispanic populations
have been accelerated by those working along the US-Mexican border, who are
increasingly tasked with identifying the remains of Mexican migrants who succumb to
the environmental challenges of crossing the terrain into the United States (Anderson
2008, Hinkes 2008, Birkby et al. 2008). While it is necessary to identify these
individuals from a medico-legal perspective at the border, the number of Hispanics living
legally across the US has also grown. The increase in the US Hispanic population
translates into a greater likelihood that an unidentiﬁed set of remains could belong to an
individual of Hispanic ancestry, creating a sense of urgency among forensic
anthropologists to understand their skeletal morphology. This notion has caught the

attention of a number of forensic anthropologists, many of whom are beginning to outline

12

the suite of traits that can be used to identify an individual as Hispanic (e.g. Birkby et al.
2008).

Though there has been an improved attempt to understand the skeletal
morphology of Hispanic peoples, less effort has been devoted to understanding non-
metric trait expression in Asian populations. Despite the fact that Asian populations
began immigrating to the United States in the second half of the eighteenth century
(Tokuyama 2003), and Asians now make up a very large component of the US
population, few studies of non-metric traits include Asian individuals in their sample.
Until the recent work by Hefner (2002, 2003, 2003a), few papers in the forensic literature
comment on cranial and/or dental non-metric trait expression in East Asian samples.
Like Hispanic groups, the people commonly referred to as “Asian Americans” do not
constitute one homogenous population. Rather, the group is comprised of individuals
from nations such as China, Japan, and Korea, as well as those from the region of
Southeast Asia, including the countries of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand.
Nonetheless, it has long been presumed that East Asians exhibit cranial and dental non-
metric traits similar to those of Native Americans, their New World descendents. While
the groups have been shown to share some traits, such as a high frequency of incisor
shoveling, bioarchaeological analyses have proved that there are clusters of regional
groups that can be characterized by differing expression of non-metric traits (e. g.
Hanihara et al. 2003, Matsumura 1995). This suggests that it is inappropriate for forensic
anthropologists to assume that non-metric trait expression is equivalent for all of the

traditionally termed “Mongoloid” populations.

13

As the following chapter will highlight, non-metric trait expression in East Asian
populations is well documented in the bioarchaeological literature. One of the goals of
this thesis is to supplement this literature with an understanding of non-metric trait

expression for traits commonly used in the forensic assessment of ancestry.

14

CHAPTER 2:

N ON-METRIC TRAIT EXPRESSION IN EAST ASIAN POPULATIONS

Though few studies in the forensic literature include samples of East Asian
individuals, these populations have been extensively studied in other subﬁelds of
anthropology. Within physical anthropology, much research has been devoted to
understanding the population history of mainland and insular East Asia, with speciﬁc
interest in regional migration and microevolution. Since the late 19703, a debate has
emerged regarding the population history of Southeast Asia, a discussion that has fueled
research on prehistoric populations within mainland and insular East Asia. The
conventional view holds that the region commonly referred to as Southeast Asia was ﬁrst
occupied by Australo-Melanesians and was later inﬂuenced by a southward expansion of
Asian populations (from the area of modern China) during the Neolithic. This hypothesis
has been supported by both archaeological and linguistic evidence (see Matsumura &
Hudson 2005 for a review). The implications of this view are that the populations of
Southeast Asia would have received genetic contributions from northern Asian
populations, leading to a modern population of Southeast Asians that exhibits traits
common to northern Asian populations and those of prehistoric Australo-Melanesians. In
contrast, it has more recently been proposed that the early populations of Southeast Asia
did not receive genetic inﬂuence ﬁom the north and, instead, exhibit cranial and dental
morphologies that are the result of local, microevolutionary forces (Hanihara 1993,

Turner 1990).

15

While the objective of the present paper does not warrant a review of the evidence
supporting either side of the aforementioned debate, it is important to highlight the
heterogeneity of cranial and dental morphology between regional Asian populations.
Much of the literature dedicated to supporting either side of the argument has potential
for being of use to forensic anthropologists interested in developing a suite of non-metric
traits characteristic of Asian ancestry. Further, the dichotomization of the Asian, or
“Mongoloid” group by some researchers suggests that it may be possible to differentiate
individuals of Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian ancestry through the use of non-

metric traits, notably those of the dentition.

Cranial and Dental Non-Metric Traits in Asian Populations: A Bioarchaeological
Perspective

The earliest studies of non-metric traits in Asian populations focused on variation
of the dentition. Hanihara (1969) was the ﬁrst to deﬁne a “Mongoloid Dental Complex”
based on his observations of the dentition of Japanese, Native American, and Eskimo
populations. These “Mongoloid” groups were characterized by a high frequency of
incisor shoveling, as well as three features of the lower molars, including a sixth cusp, the
protostylid and deﬂecting wrinkle. Presence of these traits had come to be accepted as
characteristic of “Mongoloid” individuals until Christy Turner H proposed that this dental
complex is not, in fact, shared by all “Mongoloid” populations (Turner 1983, 1990).
Through the study of non-metric traits, Turner (1983, 1990) has demonstrated that two
dental complexes are exhibited by the people of mainland and insular Asia, as well as
their New World and Paciﬁc descendents. The ﬁrst pattern is known as Sundadonty, and

those who exhibit it the Sundadonts. Sundadonts include prehistoric and modem

16

populations living in the region of mainland and insular Southeast Asia, on the region
that was once a land mass known as the Sunda Shelf. The second pattern is Sinodonty
and is exhibited by the Sinodonts. Sinodonts include the prehistoric and modern
populations of North and East Asia, including the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, as well
as their North and South American descendents. Through his analysis, Ttu'ner (1990)
determined that eight traits have signiﬁcant mean differences between Sundadonts and
Sinodonts, suggesting that these traits may be useful for distinguishing individuals as
belonging to a Sundadont or Sinodont population (Table 1). Sinodonts are characterized
as having signiﬁcantly higher ﬁ'equencies of incisor shoveling and double shoveling;
single rooted upper ﬁrst premolars; upper ﬁrst molar enamel extensions; congenitally
absent, pegged, or reduced upper third molars; lower ﬁrst molar deﬂecting wrinkles;
three rooted lower ﬁrst molars; and a low frequency of four cusped lower second molars.
These ﬁndings have been further supported by Hanihara (1992) and Matsumura (1995),

who agree that East Asians can be characterized by two regional dental complexes.

Table 1: Signiﬁcant t test scores between Sinodont and Sundadont groups (Turner 1990, Table 9, pp. 304).

 

 

Sundadont Sinodont
Trait Mean SD. Mean SD. t p d.f.
UIl shovel 30.8 15.8 71.1 11.5 9.08 <10(-6) 39
U11 double-shovel 22.7 18.2 55.8 21.9 5.29 4.90509E-6 39
UP] one root 70.6 11.8 78.8 11.4 2.25 0.0299 39
W1 enamel extension 26.4 16.5 50.1 9.5 5.41 3.255488E-6 39
UM3 P/R/CA 16.3 10.0 32.4 10.3 4.97 1.448393E-5 38
LMl deﬂecting wrinkle 25.5 18.3 44.1 19.7 3.04 4.316424E-3 37
LMl three roots 8.8 5.8 24.7 7.7 7.55 <10(-6) 39
LM2 four cusps 30.7 14.1 15.5 6.9 4.05 2.337923E-4 39

 

l7

In addition to dental analyses, numerous studies of cranial non-metric traits have
been conducted on Asian populations to investigate population relationships. These
studies have been within the realm of bioarchaeology and have focused on determining
population relatedness through biological distance analysis. Japanese scholars have had a
strong interest in non-metric traits for a number of years, having conducted copious
studies on prehistoric Asian populations (Ossenberg et al. 2006). The traits that are
typically used in such studies, however, are different than those commonly used by the
forensic anthropologist when making an assessment of ancestry. A review of the trait
lists commonly used by both Japanese and American scholars to document non-metric
trait variation in Asian populations reveals that few of the traits match those frequently
used by forensic anthropologists for ancestry determination (Table 2). In particular, only
one trait was found in the bioarchaeological literature, metopism (or persistence of the
metopic suture), that is on Hefner’s (2002, 2003) list of non-metric traits, a list that is
admittedly still growing, but is nonetheless on its way to becoming a standard for data

collection within the ﬁeld of forensic anthropology.

Table 2: Summary of cranial non-metric traits commonly used within the bioarchaeological literature to
investigate population relationships in mainland and insular East Asia.

 

 

Cranial Non-Metric Traits Publications of Descriptions and/or Use
Supernumernry Osstcles
Occipito-mastoid bone Ossenberg 1970; Dodo 1974; Ishida & Dodo 1993;

Ishida 1995; Hanihara et al. 2003; Hanihara & Ishida
2001 a; Fukumine et al. 2006; Ossenberg et al. 2006

Ossicle at lambda Dodo 1974; Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995;
Hanihara & Ishida 20013; Hanihara et al. 2003; Fukumine et
al. 2006

Parietal notch bone Dodo 1974; Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995; Hanihara &

Ishida 2001a; Hanihara et al. 2003; Fukumine et al. 2006

18

Table 2 (continued)

Asterionic bone

Hypoostotic Traits
T ransverso-zygomatic suture trace

Metopism "

Tympanic dehiscence

OvaIe-spinosum conﬂuence

Biasterionic suture

Hyperostotic Traits
Medial palatine canal

Hypoglossal canal bridging

Jugularforamen bridging

Mylohyoid bridge

Precondylar tubercle

Paracondylar process
Conaylus tertius

Auditory exostosis
Ptetygobasal spur or bridge
C Iinoid bridge

Trochlear spur

Ossenberg 1970; Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995; Hanihara
& Ishida 2001a; Hanihara et a1. 2003; Fukumine et al. 2006

Dodo 1974; Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995; Hanihara &
Ishida 2001b; Hanihara et al. 1998, 2003; Fukumine et al.
2006; Ossenberg et al. 2006

Hauser & De Stefano 1989; Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995;
Hanihara & Ishida 2001b; Hanihara et al. 2003; Fukumine et
al. 2006

Dodo 1974; Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995; Hanihara &
Ishida 2001b; Hanihara et al. 2003; Fukumine et al. 2006;
Ossenberg et al. 2006

Dodo 1974; Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995; Hanihara &
Ishida 2001b; Hanihara et al. 2003; Fukumine et al. 2006

Dodo 1974; Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995; Hanihara &
Ishida 2001b; Hanihara et al. 2003; Fukumine et al. 2006

Dodo 1974; Hauser & De Stefano 1989; Ishida & Dodo 1993;
Ishida 1995; Hanihara & Ishida 2001c; Hanihara et al. 2003;
Fukumine et al. 2006

Dodo 1974; Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995; Hanihara &
Ishida 2001c; Hanihara et al. 2003; Fukumine et al. 2006;
Ossenberg et al. 2006

Dodo 1986a,b; Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995; Hanihara &
Ishida 2001c; Hanihara et a1. 2003; F ukumine et al. 2006

Dodo 1974; Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995; Jidoi et al.
2000; Hanihara & Ishida 2001c; Hanihara et al. 2003;
Fukumine et al. 2006; Ossenberg et al. 2006

Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995; Hanihara & Ishida 2001c;
Hanihara et al. 2003; Fukumine et al. 2006

Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995

Dodo 1974; Hanihara et a1. 2003

Dodo 1972; Hanihara & Ishida 2001c; Hanihara et al. 2003
Ossenberg et al. 2006

Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995; Ossenberg et al. 2006

Ossenberg et al. 2006

19

Table 2 (continued)

Vessel/NerveRelated Traits
Supraorbitalforamen

Spraorbital nerve groove
Postcondylar canal absent
Lateral condylar canal

C ondylar canal patent

Accessory infraorb ital foramen

Accessory mental foramen

Accessory optic canal
Marginal foramen of tympanic plate

Other
Sagittal sinus groove ﬂexes left

Orbital suture variant
lnfraorbital suture variant
Pharyngealfossa

Frontal grooves

Dodo 1974, 1987; Ishida & Dodo 1993;1shida 1995; Hanihara
& Ishida 2001d; Hanihara et al. 2003; Fukumine et al. 2006;
Ossenberg et al. 2006

Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995

Ossenberg et al. 2006

Ossenberg et al. 2006

Dodo 1974; Hauser & De Stefano 1986; Ishida & Dodo 1993;
Ishida 1995; Hanihara & Ishida 2001d; Hanihara et al. 2003;

F ukumine et al. 2006

Berry & Berry 1967; Hanihara & Ishida 2001d; Hanihara et al.
2003

Hanihara & Ishida 2001d; Hanihara et al. 2003; Ossenberg et
al. 2006

Ossenberg et a1. 2006

Ossenberg et al. 2006

Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995
Ossenberg et al. 2006
Ossenberg et al. 2006
Ossenberg et al. 2006

Ossenberg et al. 2006

 

‘Commonly used by forensic anthropologists.

It is clear from the bioarchaeological literature that Asian populations have

received a wealth of attention with regards to the expression of non-metric traits, however

the traits of interest differ than those commonly used by the forensic anthropologist.

While the goal of biological distance analysis as performed by the bioarchaeologists is to

study the degree of relatedness between two populations, forensic anthropologists are

interested in determining the social race with which an unidentiﬁed individual most

20

likely identiﬁed with during life. To this end, the suite of traits used by the
bioarchaeologist includes traits with known heritability rates and those that show regional
variation in expression (e. g. Cheverud 1981, 1982). In contrast, the traits preferred by the
forensic anthropologist are ones that have differences in expression with a more global
pattern, reﬂecting the traditional major geographic races of humans. It is unclear at this
point whether or not select non-metric traits may be of use in both endeavors.

Due to the current lack of agreement in trait batteries used by bioarchaeologists
and forensic anthropologists, the bioarchaeological literature on non-metric trait
expression in Asian populations is of limited use in describing the suite of non-metric
traits characteristic of Asian ancestry for use in the forensic context. For the forensic
anthropologist, the bioarchaeological discussion of dental non-metric traits will likely
prove to be more informative than that of the cranial non-metric traits, with the exception
of metopism. In order to gain a better understanding of non-metric trait expression in
Asian populations for use in the forensic context, this study will describe the expression

of traits commonly used for the forensic assessment of ancestry.

21

CHAPTER 3:

EAST ASIAN POPULATIONS LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES

East Asian peoples ﬁrst came to the Americas in the middle of the eighteenth
century as merchants, prompted by economic ventures and missionary sponsored
education programs (Bankston & Hidalgo 2007). The earliest settlers were ﬁ'om the
islands of the Philippines, who started a small community in present day Louisiana
(Tokuyama 2003, Gold & Rumbaut 2007). The initial settlement of Filipino populations
in Louisiana was followed a century later by the Chinese in California, and the Japanese
in Hawai’i.

During the Gold Rush of the late 18403, a number of Chinese merchants came to
the United States to work in the mining ﬁelds of California, Idaho, Wyoming, and
Colorado. With the end of the Gold Rush in the mid 18508, Chinese workers were hired
to work for the railroads. In 1865, the Transcontinental Railroad Project began, with
aspirations of building a railroad system that would connect California and Nebraska. It
is estimated that approximately 12,000 of the workers of the Transcontinental Railroad
Project were Chinese (Gold & Rumbaut 2007). The next group of East Asians to
immigrate was the Japanese. Japanese workers settled in the islands of Hawai’i in the
late nineteenth century to work in agricultural jobs (Gold & Rumbaut 2007), and
eventually moved to the continental US once trade began with the islands of the Paciﬁc.
It is estimated that less than 150 Japanese lived in the United States in 1880, but by 1900
there were approximately 24,330 (Tokuyama 2003). Such a drastic inﬂux of Chinese and

Japanese workers was unsettling to the European population living in America, and

22

discrimination against these East Asian populations escalated. With the implementation
of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Asian immigration halted at the turn of the
twentieth century (Zhou & Gatewood 2007).

In spite of the discrimination efforts directed against Chinese and Japanese
migrants, groups of individuals from Southeast Asia began immigrating to the United
States after Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943. It is estimated that
approximately 130,000 Filipinos were living in the US. by the 1930s, and around 7,000
Koreans were working in the sugar plantations of Hawai’i by 1950 (Gold & Rumbaut
2007). The largest resettlement of Southeast Asians in the United States followed the end
of the Vietnam War. United States military involvement in Vietnam opened the gate for
movement between the US and Southeast Asia. As Vietnamese civilians began seeking
refuge in Thailand, the US government took action to assist Southeast Asian refugees, as
evidenced by the Refugee Act of 1980. In 1975, around 135,000 Vietnamese refugees
entered the United States, followed by a second wave of nearly 400,000 Vietnamese
refugees from 1977 to 1982 (Gold & Rumbaut 2007). Refugee groups comprised of
Cambodians, Laotians, and Hmong settled in America by the tens of thousands, making
Southeast Asians the largest refugee population to ever enter the United States
(Tokuyama 2003).

The current US population of “Asian Americans” is a heterogeneous group
comprised of individuals whose cultural, linguistic, religious, and political backgrounds
are at times in stark contrast (Philip 2007). The Census Bureau deﬁnes “Asian” as those
individuals with origins in areas of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian

subcontinent. This includes individuals from countries such as Cambodia, China, India,

23

Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
According to the US Census Bureau, the population of Asian and Paciﬁc Islanders living
in the United States increased by 108% between 1980 and 1990, and totaled 12.5 million
in March of 2002. Between 1990 and 2000, the Asian population increased faster than
the total population, increasing by some 50%, while the total US population only grew by
13%. The enormous increase in the migration of Asian populations to America was the
direct result of changes in US immigration law during the 19605, and also the inﬂux of
Southeast Asian refugees following the fall of Saigon in April of 1975 (Barringer et al.
1993). These refugees are primarily from the countries of Vietnam, the Philippine
Islands, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand, and currently make up one third of the Asian
American population (Bankston & Hidalgo 2007). Asian families living in America are
most concentrated in the West (51%), followed by the South (19%), Northeast (19%),
and Midwest (12%) (Reeves & Bennett 2003). Approximately 51% of Asian Americans
live in one of three states: California (4.2 million), New York (1.2 million), and Hawai’i
(0.7 million) (Barnes and Bennett 2002). The census data also show that 95% of all
Asian and Paciﬁc Islanders live in metropolitan areas such as New York, Los Angeles,
San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago, Houston, and Honolulu.

Change in the composition of America’s population can affect a variety of facets
of society. As forensic anthropologists, we are impacted by this change as we are forced
to understand the skeletal variation of an increasing number of populations. A change in
society’s population structure could mean a change in the possible ancestral identities of
individuals in a missing persons report. Rhine (1990), Brooks and colleagues (1990), and

Rankin and Moore (2004) have called attention to the lack of understanding among

24

forensic anthropologists of the skeletal traits of East Asian populations, particularly
Southeast Asian peoples. Having an understanding of the skeletal morphology of these
populations is essential if forensic anthropologists wish to accurately identify East Asian

ancestry in a forensic context.

25

CHAPTER 4:

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES, HY POTHESES, AND PREDICTIONS

This section outlines the hypotheses and predictions for the present thesis. The
hypotheses and related predictions have been generated from a synthesis of both the
forensic and bioarchaeological literature on non-metric trait expression in East Asian,
Native American, and Paciﬁc populations. Because these populations qualify as
members of the traditional “Mongoloid” ancestral group, it is hypothesized that the
sample of Southeast and Northeast Asian individuals included in the current analysis will

exhibit similar expression of non-metric traits.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND HY POT HESES
Research Objective Ia

As little has been written in the forensic literature about the expression of cranial
and dental non-metric traits in contemporary Southeast Asian populations, the ﬁrst
objective of this study is to describe non-metric trait expression within the Southeast
Asian sample. This will be accomplished by determining the frequency of expression of

the various trait forms for the cranial and dental non-metric traits under consideration.

Research Objective 1 b
One criticism of non-metric trait usage in forensic anthropology is the subjectivity
of trait expression interpretation. As a result, it is important to establish both intra— and

inter-observer repeatability in trait scoring. The second goal of Research Objective 1 is

26

to establish intra-observer repeatability in scoring. A goal for future research will be to
also establish the level of inter-observer repeatability in scoring.

During the data collection period at the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command
Central Identiﬁcation Laboratory, the cranial non-metric traits of each individual of the
Southeast Asian sample was scored on two separate occasions by the author. In order to
establish repeatability, the score assigned during the ﬁrst scoring period will be compared

to those assigned during the second scoring period using Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient.

0 H10: Scores assigned during the second trial will show no relationship to scores
assigned during the ﬁrst trial.
0 H11: Scores assigned during the second trial will show consistency with scores

assigned during the ﬁrst trial.

If the null hypothesis of Research Objective lb is accepted, there is poor to no
congruence in scoring between the scores assigned during the ﬁrst and second scoring
period. If the null hypothesis is rejected based on the analysis of the sample, this
demonstrates a strong level of intra-observer consistency in scoring. Rejection of the null
hypothesis would further suggest that the traits can be easily interpreted using the

available published descriptions.

Research Objective 2

While the expression of cranial non-metric traits has already been studied for a

portion of this particular sample of Northeast Asian individuals (Hefner 2003), the

27

expression of dental non-metric traits has yet to be evaluated. The goal of the second
research object is to determine the frequency of expression of the various dental non-
metric trait forms in the sample of Northeast Asian individuals. Cranial non-metric traits
will also be evaluated in this sample, as the uncertainty of the level of inter—observer error
in scoring precludes the use of trait frequencies collected by other observers (e. g. Hefner

2003).

Research Objective 3

In order to determine whether or not the two East Asian populations can be
recognized by different suites of non-metric traits, the frequency of individuals
expressing the different trait forms for the Southeast Asian sample will be compared to
the expression of traits within the Northeast Asian sample. A chi-square goodness-of-ﬁt

test will be used to assess the degree of statistical signiﬁcance of this relationship.

0 H30: Ancestry does not have an effect on the distribution of character state forms
for the various non-metric traits.
0 H31: Ancestry has an effect on the distribution of character state forms for the

various non-metric traits.

In other words, if the null hypothesis is true in the population, a character state of
a given non-metric trait is equally as likely to be exhibited by an individual of Southeast
Asian ancestry as it is by an individual of Northeast Asian ancestry. If the alternative

hypothesis is true, certain trait forms will be exhibited in higher frequency for individuals

28

of Southeast Asian ancestry compared to individuals of Northeast Asian ancestry, and
vice versa. By rejecting the null hypothesis, it can be argued that certain trait forms of
the various cranial and dental non-metric traits may be characteristic of individuals of
Southeast Asian ancestry, and others may be characteristic of individuals of Northeast
Asian ancestry based on the analysis of the sample. This would lend support to the
hypothesis that Southeast Asian and Northeast Asian populations can be characterized by

different suites of non-metric traits.

PREDICTIONS

The ﬁrst two research objectives of this thesis can be generalized to entail
describing the expression of cranial and dental non-metric traits in the Southeast and
Northeast Asian sample. Because of the migratory history of East Asians into North
America and the Paciﬁc Islands, it is predicted that the East Asian populations analyzed
in this study will share trait expression with these groups on some level. More
speciﬁcally, the sample of Southeast Asian individuals is expected to share trait
expression with Paciﬁc Islanders, while the sample of Northeast Asian individuals is
expected to share trait expression with Native Americans. These expectations follow the
history of population movement out of East Asia and the subsequent directional pattern
of gene ﬂow.

Biological distance analyses of East Asian archaeological populations have shown
that regional Southeast and Northeast Asian populations cluster into discrete groups.
When populations outside of continental East Asia are included, Southeast Asian groups

form a cluster with Paciﬁc Island populations, and Northeast Asian groups form a cluster

29

with Alaskan Eskimos and Native American populations (Matsumura 1995). While
bioarchaeologists study a battery of traits that differs from those of forensic
anthropologists to establish these population clusters, it is hypothesized that a number of
the non-metric traits examined in the present thesis will show a difference in expression

between the Southeast Asian and Northeast Asian sample.

Traits Expected to Characterize Southeast and Northeast Asian Ancestry

Though there is a dearth of studies discussing non-metric trait expression of East
Asian populations in the forensic literature, Gill (1998) provides a very general
description of trait expression. According to his observations, East Asians have small
nasal bones with a medium nasal form. In proﬁle, the nasal area is concave with a
medium-projected nasal spine. The nasal sill is described as medium, which contributes
to moderate alveolar prognathism. Malar tubercles are projecting ﬁom the maxillae,
which meet the zygomatics at an “angled” suture. The palate is parabolic or elliptical in
shape and the palatine suture is straight or jagged.

The use of vague descriptors in non-metric trait analyses was addressed by Hefner
(2003), who included a sample of East Asian individuals in his study. One of Hefner’s
(2003) primary goals was to establish a higher level of standardization in scoring by
creating drawings and descriptions of the various character states of each non-metric trait.
The observations of Hefner (2003) are, therefore, much more detailed than those offered
by Gill (1998). In his analysis, Hefner (2003) found that East Asians were characterized
by a straight inferior nasal aperture (i.e. absence of a nasal sill and guttering); a nasal

aperture width that was widest at the base; the absence of a post-bregmatic depression;

30

minimal projection of the nasal spine; an S-shaped zygomaticomaxillary suture; variable
expression in shape of the transverse palatine suture; moderate expression of both the
posterior zygomatic and malar tubercles; a low incidence of nasal overgrowth; near
absence of the metopic suture; and a high incidence of supra-nasal suture obliteration.
While the results of Hefner’s (2003) analysis are more detailed than the summary of traits
given by Gill (1998), the sample only included individuals representing Northeast Asian
populations. In order to learn something about non-metric trait expression in Southeast
Asian populations, one must reference the bioarchaeological literature.

Bioarchaeological studies of non-metric trait expression in East Asian populations
are much more extensive than the few accounts ﬁ'om the forensic literature. However,
the traits commonly assessed for biological distance analysis differ ﬁ'om those used by
the forensic anthropologist to assess ancestry. For this reason, we can rely on only a few
select trait frequencies ﬁ'om the bioarchaeological literature to make predictions about
what we should expect to see in the current samples. One trait that has received attention
from both bioarchaeologists and forensic anthropologists is the persistence of the metopic
suture into adulthood This trait, which is sometimes referred to as metopism, has been
observed in low frequency among Northern Chinese archaeological samples (Ishida
1995, Ishida & Dodo 1993), Hawaiian (Ishida & Dodo 1993, Kellock & Parsons 1970),
Modern Japanease (Ishida & Dodo 1993), and Alaskan Eskimos (Ishida & Dodo 1993).
These observations suggest that the persistence of the metopic suture should also occur in
low frequency among the two East Asian samples in this study.

Another trait that has received attention by bioarchaeologists and forensic

anthropologists alike is the presence of incisor shoveling of the maxillary central and

31

lateral incisors of populations of East Asian ancestry. While the trait has been observed
in both Southeast and Northeast regional populations, it has a higher frequency, or a more
marked expression, among Northeast Asians and their New World descendents. Suzuki
and Sakai (1964) observed a high frequency of shoveling among Chinese, Japanese, and
Native American groups, but a low frequency of marked incisor shoveling among
Polynesians. A similar pattern was found by Matsumura and Hudson (2005), who
observed a lower incidence of shoveling in Southeast Asian populations compared to
more northern East Asian groups. These observations suggest that the degree of incisor
shoveling (in constellation with other characters) may be a reliable trait that can be used
to distinguish individuals of Southeast and Northeast Asian ancestry.

Finally, it is expected that the differences in dental non-metric traits that
distinguish Sundadonts from Sinodonts (Turner 1983, 1990; Table 1) (or in the present
study, Southeast Asians from Northeast Asians, respectively) will be observed. With
speciﬁc reference to the use of such features in the forensic context, Scott and Turner
(1997) suggest that dental remains exhibiting incisor shoveling, bilateral winging of the
ﬁrst incisors, upper ﬁrst molar enamel extensions, and the absence of a molar ﬁfth cusp
are more likely to represent an individual of Sinodont (Northeast Asian) descent
compared to any other population. However, the authors warn that the traits should be
used “as constellations of characters rather than as isolated traits” in order to facilitate an

ancestry estimation (Scott & Turner 1997: 315).

32

CHAPTER 5: MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study documents the expression of cranial and dental non-metric traits in a
sample of individuals of Southeast and Northeast Asian ancestry. The sample includes
cranial and dental remains of 49 individuals of Southeast Asian ancestry and 93
individuals of Northeast Asian ancestry (Table 3). The remains of the individuals of
Southeast Asian ancestry were recovered between 1974 and spring of 2007 by teams of
the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command Center Central Identiﬁcation Laboratory
(JPAC—CIL) during recovery missions in Southeast Asia, including the countries of
Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia. All of the individuals in this sarnple are casualties of the
Vietnam Conﬂict and are currently housed in the collections of the JPAC—CIL. The
Northeast Asian sample includes the remains of individuals acquired by a variety of
means. The collection of 74 Chinese individuals is comprised of salmon cannery workers
recovered from Kodiak Island by Hrdlicka during the early twentieth century. Fifteen of
the Japanese individuals are former anatomical specimens from the Tokyo Medical
School, and the other is a WWII casualty recovered by teams of the JPAC—CIL from the
island of Okinawa. Finally, the Korean sample is comprised of two individuals recovered
by teams of the JPAC—CIL during recovery missions in the Republic of Korea, while
the other was collected by Hrdlicka during a visit to Northeast Asia. The three
individuals recovered by teams of the JPAC—CIL are currently housed in the collections
at the JPAC—CIL. The remains of the other Northeast Asian individuals are currently
housed in the collections at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian

Institution, Washington DC.

33

Table 3: Summary of the sample used in the present study.

 

 

Location of Recovery Ancestry Number of
Individuals

Laos Southeast Asian 3

Cambodia Southeast Asian 4

Vietnam Southeast Asian 42

Kodiak Island Northeast Asian (Chinese) 74

Tokyo Medical School Northeast Asian (Japanese) 15

Okinawa Northeast Asian (Japanese) 1

Republic of Korea Northeast Asian (Korean) 3

 

Cranial Non-Metric Traits

While researchers have used numerous non-metric traits to investigate population
relatedness and document human variation, only a selection of these are used in the
forensic assessment of ancestry. Recently, Hefner (2002, 2003, 2003a) has proposed a
move towards the standardization of scoring methods for cranial non-metric traits in the
forensic context by developing discrete categories that can be scored using a categorical
scale for 13 cranial non-metric traits. In order to further support these efforts, the present
study evaluates these 13 traits on each cranium according to Hefner (2003). Both the
descriptions and illustrations (Hefner 2003) of the various trait forms were used to assign
a score to each non-metric trait. Table 4 provides an abbreviated description of the

cranial non-metric traits and their forms of expression.

34

Table 4: Summary of the cranial non-metric traits evaluated in the present study. The thirteen traits are
described and illustrated by Hefner (2003).

 

Cranial Non-Metric Trait Trait Abbreviation Possible Score

Inferior nasal morphology IN A 0 - guttered
l — incipient gutter
2 — straight
3 - partial sill
4 — sill
Nasal bone structure NBS 0 — Quonset-hut (round)
1 — hut (oval)
2 — tented (plateau)
3 — vaulted (semi-triangular)
4 - steepled (triangular)

Nasal aperture width NAW 1 — long (narrow)
2 — rounded
3 — wide
lnterorbital breadth 108 1 — narrow
2 - intermediate
3 — broad
Post-bregmatic depression PBD 0 — absent
1 - present
Anterior nasal spine ANS 0 — short, rounded
1 - dull
2 — medium
3 — long
Zygomaticomaxillary suture shape ZS 1 — angled
2 - smooth
3 — S-shaped
Transverse palatine suture TP 0 — straight, symmetrical
l — anterior bulging at midline,
symmetrical

2 —— anterior bulging right side, posterior
bulging left side
3 — posterior bulging at midline,
symmetrical
Posterior zygomatic tubercle ZT 0 — absent
1 - weak
2 — medium
3 - strong
Malar tubercle MT 0 - absent
1 — incipient
2 — trace
3 — present
Nasal overgrowth NO 0 - absent
1 — present
2 - unobservable
Metopic suture MS 0 — absent
1 — present
Supranasal suture SP8 1 — open
2 — closed, but visible
3 — closed, barely visible
4 — obliterated

 

35

Dental Non-Metric Traits

Non-metric traits of the dentition have received extensive attention in the
bioarchaeological literature, and less so in the forensic (but see Edgar 2005). Regardless
of the context, however, most researchers interested in non-metric dental variation focus
on evaluating the crown and/or root traits described in the Arizona State University
Dental Anthropology System. For the present study, each tooth was scored for the
appropriate non-metric traits according to the guidelines outlined in the ASU system. In
order to assign a score to each trait, both the descriptions (Turner et al. 1991, Scott &
Turner 1997) and casts of the various trait forms were used. Table 5 provides an

abbreviated description of the dental non-metric traits and their forms of expression.

Table 5: Summary of dental non-metric traits evaluated in the present study. A full description of the
various trait forms is provided by Turner et al. (1991) and Scott and Turner (1997).

 

Dental N on-Metric Trait Teeth Scored Possible Score

 

Winging U11 1 — bilateral winging

2 — unilateral winging

3 — straight

4 — counter-winging
Shoveling U11, U12, UC, L11, L12 0 - absent

1 — faint

2 — trace

3 — semishovel

4 — semishovel, stronger than

grade 3

5 — shovel

6 — marked shovel

7 — barrel (U12 only)
Labial convexity U11 0 — ﬂat

1 — trace convexity

2 — weak convexity

3 -— moderate convexity

4 — pronounced convexity

36

Table 5 (continued)

Double shoveling U11, U12
Interruption groove U11, U12
Tuberculum dentale U11, U12, UC
Canine mesial ridge UC

Canine distal accessory ridge UC, LC

Premolar mesial and distal UP
accessory cusps
Tricusped premolars UP

Distosagittal ridge UP3

37

0 -— absent

1 - faint

2 - trace

3 — semi-double shovel

4 — double shovel

5 — pronounced double shovel

6 —- extreme double shovel

0 — none

M — mesiolingual border

D — distolingual border

MD — both lingual borders

Med. — medial are of cingulum

0 — no expression

1 — faint ridging

2 - trace ridging

3 - strong ridging

4 - pronounced ridging

5 — small cuspule with free
apex

6 — strong cusp with free apex

0—MandDridgesarethe
same size

1 — mesiolingual ridge larger
than distolingual; is weakly
attached to the tuberculum
dentale

2 — mesiolingual ridge larger
than distolingual; is
moderately attached to the
tuberculum dentale

3 - mesiolingual ridge is much
larger than distolingual;

fully incorporated into the
tuberculum dentale

0 - absent

1 - faint

2 — weakly developed

3 — moderately developed

4 — strongly developed

5 — very pronounwd

O — absent

1 — present

0 — extra distal cusp
(hypocone) absent

1 — hypocone present

0 — normal premolar form

1 — distosagiggal ridge present

Table 5 (continued)

Metacone

Hypocone

Cusp 5 (Metaconule)

Carabelli’s trait

Parastyle

UM], UM2, UM3

UMl, UM2, UM3

UM] , UM2, UM3

UMl, UM2, UM3

UMl, UM2, UM3

38

0 — absent

1 - attached ridge at metacone
site

2 — fait cuspule with free apex
present

3 — weak cusp present

4 — metacone large

5 - metacone very large

0 — absent

1 — faint ridging present at site

2 — faint cuspule present

3 — small cusp present

3.5 —- moderate—sized cusp
present

4 — large cusp present

5 - very large cusp present

0 — site of cusp 5 is smooth

1 — faint cuspule present

2 — trace cuspule present

3 — small cuspule present

4 — small cusp present

5 - medium-sized cusp present

0 — mesiolingual aspect of cusp
1 is smooth

1 — groove is present

2 — pit is present

3 — small Y-shaped depression
present

4 — large Y-shaped depression
present

5 — small cusp without a free
apex

6 — medium cusp with an
attached apex

7 — large free cusp present

0 — buccal surfaces of cusps 2
and 3 are smooth

1 — pit present near buccal
groove between cusps 2
and 3

2 — small cusp with an attached
apex is present

3 — medium cusp with a free
apex is present

4 — large cusp with a free apex
is present

5 - very large cusp with a free
apex is present

6 — free peg-shaped crown
attached to the root of
UM3

Table 5 (continued)

Enamel extensions

Premolar lingual cusp variation

Anterior fovea

Groove pattern

Cusp number

UP, UMl, UM2, UM3

LP3, LP4

LMl

LMl, LM2, LM3

LMl, LM2, LM3

39

0 — enamel border is straight
I — faint, approximately 1.0
mm- long extension toward
the root present
2 — medium, approximately 2.0
mm-long extension toward
the root present
3 — extension > 4.0 mm-long
A — no lingual cusp
0 - one lingual cusp
1 — one or two lingual cusps
2 — two lingual cusps; mesial is
much larger than distal
3 - two lingual cusps; mesial is
larger than distal
4 - two lingual cusps; mesial
and distal are equal in size
5 — two lingual cusps; distal is
larger than mesial
6 — two lingual cusps; distal is
much larger than mesial
7 - two lingual cusps; distal is
very much larger than
mesial
8 - three lingual cusps; equal
in size
9 — three lingual cusps; mesial
is much larger than medial
and/or distal
0 — absent
1 — weak ridge connects mesial
aspects of cusps 1 and 2
2 - connecting ridge is larger
than in grade 1
3 — groove is longer than in
grade 2
4 — groove is very long and
mesial ridge is robust
Y—cuspsZand3arein
contact
+ — cusps 1— 4 are in contact
X—cusps 1and4arein
contact
4—cusps l —4 arepresent
5 - cusp 5 (hypoconulid) is
also present
6 — cusp 6 (entoconulid) is also
present

Table 5 (continued)

Deﬂecting wrinkle

Distal trigonid crest

Protostylid

Cusp 5 (hypoconulid)

Cusp 6 (entoconulid)

Cusp 7 (metaconulid)

LMl

LMl, LM2, LM3

LMI, LM2, LM3

LMl, LM2, LM3

LM 1 , LM2, LM3

LMl, LM2, LM3

0 — absent

1 — cusp 2 medial ridge is
stright, but has a midpoint
constriction

2 — medial ridge is deﬂected
distally, but does not
contact cusp 4

3 — medial ridge is deﬂected
distally, contacting cusp 4

0 — absent

1 — present

0 — buccal surface is smooth

1 — pit occurs in the buccal
groove

2 — buccal groove is curved
distally

3 - faint secondary groove
extends mesially ﬁ'om the
buccal groove

4 — secondary groove more
pronounced

5 — secondary groove stronger

6 — secondary groove extends
across most of the buccal
surface of cusp 1

7—cuspwithafreeapex
present

0 — absent

1 - present, but very small

2 — small

3 — medium-sized

4 — large

5 — very large

0 - absent

1 — much smaller than cusp 5

2 — smaller than cusp 5

3—equalinsizetocusp 5

4 — larger than cusp 5

5 — much larger than cusp 5

0 — absent

1 — faint cusp present

1A — bulge on the lingual

surface of cusp 2
2 - small
3 — medium-sized
4 - large

 

U = maxillary, L = mandibular, I = incisor, C = canine, P = premolar, M = molar

40

Scoring, Recording, and Analysis of the Non-Metric Traits

Cranial and dental non-metric traits were scored for each individual by the author.
Each set of remains was examined individually, and all scores were recorded on separate
scoring sheets (cranial and dental) before moving on to the next individual. Crania of the
Southeast Asian sample were scored twice to establish the degree of intra-observer error.
Scoring sessions were separated by four weeks and no reference was made to the scores
assigned during the ﬁrst scoring session. Inna-observer agreement in scoring was
established using Cohen’s Kappa statistic.

It is important to note that sample size for each trait does not reﬂect the true
sample size of the study. It was the intention of the author to score all traits when
possible; however, due to the ﬁagrnentary nature of some remains, it was not possible to
score all of the traits for each individual. For traits that are bilaterally occurring, a score
was given for both the right and leﬁ side, though only the score from the side with the
greatest expression of a trait was used in the ﬁnal analysis. Such a method uses the
individual, rather than the side, as the unit of analysis, and has been advocated by Korey
(1980) and McGrath and colleagues (1984) (but see Green et al. 1979 and Ossenberg
1981 for an alternative position).

The frequency of each character state for all non-metric traits was determined for
both the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples. Contingency tables were created using
the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0 in order to compare the
frequency of expression of the various character states for each of the cranial and dental
non-metric traits. The statistical signiﬁcance of the observed differences was evaluated

using a chi-square goodness-of—ﬁt test.

41

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS

The expression of cranial and dental non-metric traits in a sample of
individuals of Southeast and Northeast Asian ancestry is assessed in order to
determine if there is a suite of traits characteristic of each group. In order to
determine whether or not traits were being consistently scored by the observer, the
cranial traits were scored on two separate occasions for the sample of Southeast Asian
individuals. Cohen’s kappa statistic, which evaluates the level of agreement between
two sets of scores assigned to mutually exclusive categories, was used to evaluate the
level of intra-observer agreement A kappa value of 1 indicates perfect agreement,
and a value of 0 indicates a level of agreement that is no greater than what would be
expected by chance. The results of the current analysis show a high level of intra-
observer agreement in scoring for the non-metric cranial traits (Table 6). This
suggests that Hefner’s (2003) trait descriptions and illustrations are comprehensible to
those other than the original author. The level of inter-observer agreement in scoring,

however, remains to be established.

Summary of Non-Metric Trait Expression in the Southeast Asian Sample

Due to the circumstances surrounding the deposition of the remains, the
sample of individuals of Southeast Asian ancestry was highly fragmentary in nature.
Fragmentation of the cranial remains precludes the observer from examining the

gestalt of the crania in order to make an ancestral assessment. However, the few

42

crania that were complete can be qualitatively characterized as being spherical in

shape with ﬂat facial features and laterally ﬂaring zygomatic arches.

Table 6: Summary of Cohen’s Kappa results for the test of intra-observer reliability in scoring of the
cranial non-metric traits for the Southeast Asian sample using the scoring methods outlined by Hefner
(2003).

 

 

Trait Kappa value Approx. Sig;
Inferior nasal aperture 0.614 0.000
Nasal bone structure 0.590 0.000
Nasal aperture width 0.596 0.000
Inter—orbital breadth 0.422 0.001
Anterior nasal spine 0.625 0.000
Zygomaticomaxillary suture shape 0.655 0.000
Transverse palatine suture shape 0.644 0.000
Zygomatic tubercle 0.532 0.000
Malar tubercle 0.730 0.000
Nasal overgrowth 0.627 0.000
Metopic suture 0.839 0.000
Supranasal suture 0.700 0.000

 

Non-metric trait expression in the Southeast Asian sample was variable. The
fragmentary nature of the remains oﬁen led to a reduction in sample size, but
inherently offers support for the need of further research into non-metric trait
expression as a means of assessing ancestry in a forensic context. The Southeast
Asian sample is characterized as having a nasal aperture that is widest at the base
with only slight expression of a nasal sill inferiorly. The inferior nasal margin has
moderate expression of the anterior nasal spine. The overall shape of the aperture is
most often exhibited as but (oval), but may also appear as Quonset-hut (round) or
steepled (triangular); the valuted (semi-triangular) form was absent in the Southeast

Asian sample. The middle-grade of nasal aperture width is accompanied by a middle-

43

grade of inter-orbital breadth, which qualitatively adds to the ﬂatness of the face.
Below the orbits, the maxillae exhibit variable expression of the malar tubercle, the
majority of cases having a process of bone that project inferiorly to an imaginary
horizontal line placed bilaterally below the zygomaticomaxillary suture. The
expresson of the zygomaticomaxillary suture is S-shaped, and there is a low incidence
of a tubercle on the posterior zygomatic. The transverse palatine suture shape appears
to be variable, as no single type was found to be characteristic of the group. There is
a very low persistence of the metopic suture, but a moderate persistence of the
supranasal suture.

Analysis of dental non-metric trait expression in the Southeast Asian sample
was also plagued by small sample sizes due to the ﬁagmentary nature of the remains.
The sample of single-rooted teeth was small, as these teeth may often be lost during
decomposition, especially in cases of secondary burials. The central maxillary
incisors that were present in the sample exhibited a moderate degree of shoveling
(ASU grades 2-4), as did the lateral incisors. Double-shoveling was minimal on the
maxillary incisors and absent on the maxillary canines and premolars. Maxillary
canines were lacking a mesial ridge, and few exhibited a distal accessory ridge. An
accessory distal cusp was lacking on the maxillary premolars, as were enamel
extensions. The ﬁrst maxillary molars (UMl) are characterized as having
pronounced metacones and hypocones, with no expression of a ﬁfth cusp. A
pronounced metacone was also present on the second maxillary molar (UM2),
however the hypocone was not as pronounced as on UM]; UM2 also lacked a ﬁfth

cusp. Accessory cusps of UM], the parastyle and Carabelli’s trait, were absent in the

Southeast Asian sample. Enamel extensions were occasionally exhibited on UMl
and UM2, but with projection rarely exceeding 2.0 mm.

The sample of mandibular dentition for the Southeast Asian individuals was
also dominated by teeth of the distal arcade. The ﬁrst mandibular molars (LMl) all
exhibited 5 cusps, and each lacked an anterior fovea, distal trigonid crest, and
protostylid. The groove pattern of LMl was variable, with the majority exhibiting
the “X” pattern (contact between the protoconid and entoconid). Few LMl teeth
showed the projection of a sixth cusp, and one displayed a developed seventh cusp.
The second mandibular molar (LM2) was often lacking a pronounced hypoconulid,
and exhibited both the “Y” (contact between the metaconid and hypoconid) and “+”
(equal contact between the protoconid, metaconid, hypoconid, and entoconid) groove
patterns in equal frequencies. Cusp 6 and 7 were not exhibited on the LM2 in this
sample, while enamel extensions for LMl and LM2 were exhibited by approximately

half of the teeth observed.

Summary of Non-Metric Trait Expression in the Northeast Asian Sample

The majority of crania in the Northeast Asian sample were complete, except
for those of the few individuals that were recovered by teams of the JPAC—CIL.
Overall, the crania of the Northeast Asian individuals can qualitatively be described
as spherical with wide, ﬂattened facial features. The zygomatic arches ﬂared
laterally, and the shape of the palate was elliptical.

The completeness of the crania in this sample created a much larger Northeast

Asian sample compared to the Southeast Asians. For nearly all individuals in this

45

sample, it was possible to evaluate all of the 13 cranial non-metric traits. The nasal
aperture of Northeast Asian individuals is widest at the horizontal midline, with more
than half of the individuals exhibiting some level of expression of a nasal sill at the
inferior margin. The overall shape of the nasal aperture is best described as Quonset-
hut (round) or hut (oval), though all shapes were present in the sample. The inter-
orbital breadth was of a medium or wide grade, which presumably adds to the
appearance of the ﬂattened facial morphology. The area inferior to the orbits was
moderately marked by the presence of a malar tubercle, and nearly always exhibited
an S-shaped zygomaticomaxillary suture. The posterior margin of the zygomatic
bone was frequently marked by the projection of a posterior zygomatic tubercle. The
shape of the transverse palatine suture was variable, with all types being exhibited in
near equal frequencies. Finally, there was a low incidence in the persistence of the
metopic suture, but the supranasal suture was visible in half of the crania surveyed.

Tooth preservation was also better in the Northeast Asian sample, which
translates to more data on the anterior dentition than was possible with the Southeast
Asian sample. However, the retention of the teeth in the alveolus, combined with the
museum collection curation, meant that root traits were not able to be examined for
this sample. As a result, root traits could not be compared between the two
populations.

The maxillary central incisors were most often straight in-line with the upper
dental arcade, and did not exhibit signiﬁcant “winging”. Shoveling of both the
central and lateral maxillary incisors was pronounced, with double-shoveling also

common. The maxillary canines lacked double-shoveling, but did exhibit a slight

46

expression (grade 1) of the tuberculum dentale. The canine mesial and distal
accessory ridge was nearly absent in the sample, as was the presence of accessory
cusps on the maxillary premolars. The ﬁrst maxillary molar (UMl) was marked by
pronounced expression of the metacone and hypocone, but only minimal expression
of a ﬁfth cusp. Accessory cusps such as the parastyle and Carabelli’s trait were also
absent on UM]. The second maxillary molar (UM2) expressed the metacone to its
full potential, but has hypocones that are smaller than seen on UM]. The ﬁfth cusp,
parastyle, and Carabelli’s trait were all absent on UM2 in the Northeast Asian sample.
Enamel extensions for the maxillary dentition were absent ﬁom the premolars, but
present on UM] and UM2, with both teeth frequently exhibiting projections beyond
2.0 mm.

The mandibular teeth of the Northeast Asian sample were well seemed within
the alveolus and did not permit scoring of the root traits; crown traits, however, were
easily observable and scored. The ﬁrst mandibular molar (LMl) exhibited frequent
expression of the hypoconulid, though it was only moderately developed. The groove
pattern of LM] was most always “Y” (contact between the metaconid and
hypoconid), with minimal expression of the deﬂecting wrinkle, and a sixth cusp. The
second mandibular molar (LM2) was also characterized by a ﬁ'equent expression of
the hypoconulid in moderate form, but most often exhibited the “X” (contact between
the protoconid and entoconid) groove pattern. The sixth and seventh cusps were
seldom observed on the LM2. Finally, enamel extensions of the mandibular dentition
were absent on the premolars, but were frequent and far projecting on the LMl and

LM2.

47

Comparison of Cranial Non-Metric Traits in the Southeast and Northeast Asian
Samples

Results of the cranial analysis show that a distinction between individuals of
Southeast Asian and Northeast Asian ancestry is not easily achieved using the
discrete categories developed by Hefner (2003). When sample size is relatively
small, an increase in the number of categories per trait correspondingly increases the
likelihood that cells will have expected counts less than 5. Violation of this statistical
assumption means that the data cannot be subjected to a variety of statistical analyses,
as was found with the present data set for 11 of the 13 traits, the exceptions being the
transverse palatine suture shape and the posterior zygomatic tubercle.

In order to allow further statistical analysis, the discrete categories developed
by Hefner (2003) were modiﬁed (when possible) to a two-category, present-or-absent
system. Traits that lend themselves to such a scoring system include those that are
scored on a graded scale, but not those for which each category represents a discrete
shape. For example, instead of scoring the inferior nasal aperture on a graded scale
from 0 to 4, where 0 = guttering, 1 = incipient guttering, 2 = straight, 3 = partial sill,
and 4 == sill, the trait was changed to examine the presence or absence of the nasal sill.
In this new scale, absence of the sill corresponds to Hefner’s (2003) 0 —— 2 categories,
and presence is deﬁned by Hefner’s (2003) 3 — 4 categories. In other words, if any
evidence of a sill is present the individual is scored as a l, or presence of the nasal
sill, regardless of how far the sill projects from the mid-face. Table 7 summarizes the

traits whose scale was modiﬁed to enable further analysis.

48

Table 7: Summary of modiﬁcations to cranial non-metric trait scoring system developed by Hefner

 

 

(2003).

Hefner (2003) Scoring System Changed? Modiﬁed Scoring System
Inferior nasal morphology Yes Presence of nasal sill

0 - guttered 0 (Hefner 0 — 2) = absent

1 — incipient gutter l (Heﬁrer 3 -4) = present

2 — straight

3 - partial sill

4 — sill

Nasal bone structure No

Nasal aperture width No

lnterorbital breadth No

Post-bregmatic depression NA

Anterior nasal spine Yes Presence of nasal spine

0 — short, rounded 0 (Hefner 0 — 1) = absent

1 — dull l (Hefner 2 -— 3) = present

2 — medium

3 - long

Zygomaticomaxillary suture shape Yes Presence of smooth suture shape
l—angled 0(Hefner1,3)=absent

2 — smooth 1 (Hefner 2) = present

3 - S-shaped

Transverse palatine suture No

Posterior zygomatic tubercle Yes Presence of zygomatic tubercle
0 — absent 0 (Hefner 0) = absent

1 — weak 1 (Hefner l — 3) = present

2 — medium

3 — strong

Malar tubercle Yes Presence of malar tubercle
0 — absent 0 (Hefner 0 — 1) = absent

1 — incipient 1 (Hefner 2 — 3) = present

2 — trace

3 -— present

Nasal overgrowth Yes Presence of nasal overgrowth
0 — absent 0 (Hefner 0) = absent

1 - present ] (Hefner l) = present

2 — unobservable“

Metopic suture NA

49

Table 7 (continued)

Supranasal suture Yes Presence of supranasal suture
l -— open 0 (Hefner 4) = absent

2 — closed, but visible 1 (Hefner l — 3) = present

3 — closed, barely visrhle

4 — obliterated

 

l'Character state was eliminated as a category during scoring modiﬁcation.

Modiﬁcations to the scoring system allowed 9 of the 13 traits to be scored on
a present-or-absent basis, which enabled the data to be compared between populations
using the Chi-Square goodness-of-ﬁt test. Such a test permitted investigation of the
statistical signiﬁcance of any observed differences in the distribution of frequency of
expression of various trait forms between the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.

Table 8 summarizes the observed frequency of expression of the various
character states for each of the cranial non-metric traits as scored using the modiﬁed
system]. The table also shows which of those characters were exhibited in
frequencies found to be statistically signiﬁcant between the two populations. Cranial
non-metric traits that were found to differ signiﬁcantly between the Southeast and
Northeast Asian population include the presence of the nasal sill (inferior nasal
aperture), nasal aperture width, inter-orbital width, posterior zygomatic tubercle, and

nasal overgrowth.

 

1 Tables summarizing the results using the scoring method outlined by Hefner (2003) can be found in
Appendix A.

50

Table 8: Summary of cranial non-metric trait comparison between the Southeast and Northeast Asian

 

 

samples.
Trait SE Asian sample NE Asian sample p.va]ue"
Inferior nasal aperture
Presence of nasal sill 13/35 57/88 0.005
More likely to have More likely to have
guttered or incipient partial sill or sill
gutter
Nasal bone structure
Quonset-hut (round) 3/26 24/78 0.124
Hut (oval) 15/26 32/7 8
Tented (plateau) 0/26 1/7 8
Vaulted (semi-triangular) 3/26 13/78
Steepled (triangular) 5/26 8/78
N asa] aperture width
Long (narrow) 2/29 0/89 0.000"
Rounded 20/29 33/89
Wide 7/29 56/89
More likely to have More likely to have
nasal aperture that is nasal aperture that is
widest at the base with widest at the horizontal
a superior constriction midline
Inter-orbital breadth
Narrow 6/32 7/90 0.002"
Intermediate 1 8/32 28/90
Broad 8/32 55/90
More likely to have More likely to have
intermediate inter- wide inter-orbital
orbital breadth breadth
Post-bregmatic depression
Presence of depression 0/28 1 1/89 0.05]
Anterior nasal spine
Presence of nasal spine 5/35 24/84 0.098
Zygomaticomaxillary
suture shape
Presence of smooth suture shape 30/35 79/87 0.410
Transverse palatine suture
shape
Straight, symmetrical 9/29 13/82 0.186
Anterior bulging at midline,
symmetrical 3/29 21/82
Asymmetrical bulging at
midline 10/29 29/82

51

Table 8 (continued)

 

Posterior bulging at midline,
symmetrical 7/29 1 9/82
Posterior zygomatic tubercle
Presence of zygomatic tubercle 19/36 76/90 0.000
Less likely to have More likely to have
projection of bone projection of bone
known as posterior at site of zygomatico-
zygomatic tubercle frontal suture
Malar tubercle
Presence of malar tubercle 22/34 43/90 0.092
Nasal overgrowth
Presence of nasal overgrowth 6/22 3/67 0.002"
More likely to have Less likely to have
nasal bones that nasal bones that
project beyond the project beyond the
maxillae maxillae
Metopic suture
Presence of metopic suture 4/33 6/89 0.336

Supranasal suture
Presence of supranasal suture 24/32 56/89 0.178

 

*signiﬁcance is at the p=0.05 level.
"signiﬁcance possibly a result of cells with expected counts < 5.

Results of this analysis reveal that Southeast Asian individuals are
characterized as being more likely to display guttering or incipient guttering of the
inferior nasal aperture; exhibit nasal aperture widths that are widest at the base; have
a narrow inter-orbital breadth compared to Northeast Asian individuals; are not likely
to display a posterior zygomatic tubercle; and are more likely to have nasal bones that
project anteriorly beyond the maxillae. Northeast Asian individuals are characterized
as being more likely to have a partial or full nasal sill; display a nasal aperture that is
widest at the horizontal midline; have a wide inter—orbital breadth; exhibit some

degree of bone projection on the posterior zygomatic; and are less likely than

52

Southeast Asian individuals to have nasal bones that project anteriorly beyond the
maxillae. Both populations were found to exhibit variation in nasal bone structure,
although the tented (plateau) form was found in low frequency among both groups
(0.0% among Southeast Asians and 1.3% among Northeast Asians). Few individuals
from either population had a presence of post-bregmatic depression or metopic suture,
while individuals from both populations exhibited the smooth zygomaticomaxillary
suture shape in high frequency (85.7% among Southeast Asians and 90.8% among

Northeast Asians).

Comparison of Dental Non-Metric Traits in the Southeast and Northeast Asian
Samples

Results of the dental analysis show there are few traits that differ signiﬁcantly
between the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples. Sample size presented the same
problem as was encountered during the cranial analysis, in fact more notably so
because the number of discrete categories describing the expression of each dental
trait was greater than for the cranial traits. As a result, only one of the 72 generated
cross tabulations, the protostylid of the ﬁrst mandibular molar, produced a valid chi-
square statistic, where no cells had expected counts less than 5. In order to facilitate
further analysis, modiﬁcations were made to the ASU dental scoring system
procedures in accordance with those previously published in the literature. A number
of researchers have modiﬁed the scoring of these traits from the graded to a presence
or absence scale, and their scoring criteria were used if available. Table 9

summarizes the traits whose scoring system has been previously modiﬁed.

53

Table 9: Summary of modiﬁcations to ASU dental non-metric trait scoring system procedures.

 

ASU Scoring System (Turner et al. 1991)

Changed?

Modiﬁed Scoring System

 

Winging

Shoveling

Labial convexity
Double shoveling
Interruption groove
Tuberculum dentale

0 — no expression

1 - faint ridging

2 — trace ridging

3 -— strong ridging

4 — pronounced ridging

5 — small cuspule with ﬁ'ee apex
6 — strong cusp with free apex

Canine mesial ridge

0 — M and D ridges are the same size

1 — mesiolingual ridge larger than
distolingual; is weakly attached to
die tuberculum dentale

2 — mesiolingual ridge larger than
distolingual; is moderately attached
to the tuberculum dentale

3 - mesiolingual ridge is much larger
than distolingual; fully incorporated
into the tuberculum dentale

Canine distal accessory ridge

Premolar mesial and distal accessory cusps
Distosagittal ridge

Metacone

0 — absent

1 - attached ridge at metacone site

2 — fait cuspule with free apex present
3 — weak cusp present

4 - metacone large

5 — metacone very large

Hypocone
0 — absent

1 - faint ridging present at site
2 — faint cuspule present

No
No
No
No
No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

54

Turner et al. 199]

0 (ASU 0 — 2) = absent
1 (ASU 3 - 6) = present

0 = absent

1 (ASU 1 — 3) = present

0 (ASU 0 — 3) = absent

1 (ASU 4 — 5) = present

0 (ASU 0 — 2) = absent

1 (ASU 3 - 5) = present

Table 9 (continued)

 

3 — small cusp present

3.5 — moderate-sized cusp present
4 — large cusp present

5 - very large cusp present

Cusp 5 (Metaconule)

0 - site of cusp 5 is smooth

1 —— faint cuspule present

2 -— trace cuspule present

3 — small cuspule present

4 — small cusp present

5 — medium-sized cusp present

Carabelli’s trait

0 — mesiolingual aspect of cusp 1 is
smooth

1 — groove is present

2 - pit is present

3 — small Y-shaped depression present

4 — large Y-shaped depression present

5 - small cusp without a ﬁee apex

6 - medium cusp with an attached apex

7 - large free cusp present

Parastyle

0 -— buccal surfaces of cusps 2 and 3 are
smooth

1 - pit present near buccal groove
between cusps 2 and 3

2 — small cusp with an attached apex is
present

3 - medium cusp with a free apex is
present

4 - large cusp with a free apex is present

5 - very large cusp with a free apex is
present

6 - free peg-shaped crown attached to
the root of UM3

Enamel extensions

0 - enamel border is straight

I — faint, approximately 1.0 mm-long
extension toward the root present

2 —- medium, approximately 2.0 mm-
long extension toward the root
present

3 - extension > 4.0 mm-long

Premolar lingual cusp variation

Anterior fovea

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

55

0 (ASU 0 — 3) = absent

1 (ASU 4 — 5) = present

0 (ASU 0 — 4) = absent

1 (ASU 5 -— 7) = present

0 (ASU 0 — 2) = absent

1 (ASU 3 - 6) = present

0 (ASU 0 — l) = absent

1 (ASU 2 — 3) = present

Table 9 (continued)

Groove pattern Yes

1- X, cusps l and 4 are in contact
2 —— Y, cusps 2 and 3 are in contact
3 -— +, cusps l — 4 are in contact

Molar cusp number Yes

4 — cusps l — 4 are present
5 — cusp 5 (hypoconulid) is also present
6 — cusp 6 (entoconulid) is also present

Deﬂecting wrinkle Yes
0 — absent
1 — cusp 2 media] ridge is stright, but

has a midpoint constriction

2 — medial ridge is deﬂected distally, but
does not contact cusp 4

3 - medial ridge is deﬂected distally,
contacting cusp 4

Distal trigonid crest NA

Protostylid Yes

0 — buccal surface is smooth

1 - pit occurs in the buccal groove

2 — buccal groove is curved distally

3 — faint secondary groove extends
mesially from the buccal groove

4 — secondary groove more pronounced

5 - secondary groove stronger

6 — secondary groove extends across
most of the buccal surface of cusp l

7 — cusp with a free apex present

Cusp 5 (hypoconulid) Yes
0 — absent

1 — present, but very small

2 — small

3 — medium-sized

4 — large

5 — very large

56

Presence of Y pattern
Jergensen 1955

0(1, 3) = absent

1 (2) = present
Presence of X pattern
Jorgensen 1955

0 (2, 3) = absent

1 (1) = present
Hypoconulid reduction
Turner et al. 1991

0 (ASU 5 — 6) = absent
1 (ASU 4) = present
Turner et al. 199]

0 (ASU 0 — 1) = absent
1 (ASU 2 — 3) = present

0 (ASU 0 — 6) = absent

1 (ASU 7) = present

0 (ASU o — 2) = absent

1 (ASU 3 — 5) = present

Table 9 (continued)

 

Cusp 6 (entoconulid) Yes Turner et al. 1991
O — absent 0 = absent
1 — much smaller than cusp 5 l (ASU 1 - 5) = present

2 — smaller than cusp 5

3 — equal in size to cusp 5
4 — larger than cusp 5

5 -— much larger than cusp 5

Cusp 7 (metaconulid) Yes Turner et al. 1991

0 — absent 0 (ASU 0 — 1) = absent
1 — faint cusp present 1 (ASU 2 — 4) = present
1A — bulge on the lingual surface of

cusp 2
2 — small
3 — medium-sized
4 -— large
U = maxillary, L = mandibular, l = incisor, C = canine, P = premolar, M = molar

 

Table 10 summarizes the observed frequency of expression of the various
character states for each of the dental non-metric traits as scored using the modiﬁed
systemz. The table also shows which of those characters were exhibited in
frequencies found to be statistically signiﬁcant between the two populations. Root
traits were eliminated from the analysis as they were unable to be examined in the
Northeast Asian sample. In addition, assessment of the character state for a variety of
other traits was not undertaken after preliminary analysis proved these traits to be too
variable within each sample (e.g. anterior fovea), and/or there were too few teeth in
one or both of the samples (e. g. maxillary incisors). These traits have therefore been

omitted from the summary table (Table 10).

 

2 Tables summarizing the results using the scoring method outlined by Turner et al. 1991 can be found
in Appendix B.

57

Table 10: Summary of dental non-metric trait comparison between the Southeast and Northeast Asian

 

 

samples.

Trait Tooth SE Asian sample NE Asian sample p-value

Tuberculum dentale

Presence of tuberculum dentale U11 0/6 0/24 «-
U12 0/1 1 0/12 —--

Canine mesial ridge

Presence of canine mesial ridge UC 2/9 2/34 0.133

Premolar accessory cusps

Presence of accessory cusp UP3 0/15 0/56 —-
UP4 0/18 0/62 --

Metacone

Presence of metacone UMl 25/25 63/63 ---
UM2 19/22 53/56 0.217
UM3 0/ 1 3 26/41 0.000

Absence of metacone More likely to have
on third mandibular metacone on third
mandibular molar

Hypocone

Presence of hypocone UM] 26/26 63/64 0.522
UM2 18/23 45/56 0.833
UM3 3/1 3 16/40 0.269

Cusp 5 (Metaconule)

Presence of metaconule UMl 0/29 1/63 0.495
UM2 0/22 0/57 --
UM3 0/ 14 0/42 --

Carabelli’s trait

Presence of Carabelli’s cusp UMl 1/28 0/66 0.123

Parastyle

Presence of Parastyle LMl 1/27 0/65 0.119
LM2 0/22 1/57 0.532
LM3 0/14 0/41 --

Table 10 (continued)

Enamel Extensions
Presence of Enamel Extension

Groove pattern Y
Presence of “Y” groove pattern

Groove pattern X
Presenc of “X” groove pattern

Molar Cusp Number
Hypoconulid Reduction

Deﬂecting wrinkle
Presence of deﬂecting wrinkle

Protostylid
Presence of protostylid

Cusp 5 (Hypoconulid)
Presence of hypoconulid

Lower molar cusp 6
Presence of cusp 6

W1
UM2
UM3

LMl
LM2
LM3

LMl

LM2

LMl
LM2
LM3

LMl

LMl
LM2
LM3

LM 1
LM2
LM3

LMl

2/28
4/23
2/13

Less likely to have
enamel extensions
on maxillary l“ and
2"d molars

0/18
3/23
3/20

Less likely to have
enamel extensions

on mand. l" and
2“d molars

1/18

30/37

Less likely to have
“X” groove pattern

on second mandibular

molars

0/18
13/22
12/17

2/15

0/20
0/23
0/19

17/18
6/20
4/17

Less likely to have

presence of hypoconulid

on 2nd and 3 molars

7/19

59

20/54 0.004
23/48 0.013
10/35 0.348
More likely to have

enamel extensions

on maxillary 1“ and

2nd molars

30/57 0.000
32/58 0.001
15/41 0.083
More likely to have

enamel extensions

on mand. 1’t and

2nd molars

22/34 0.000
35/54 0.000
More likely to have

“X” groove pattern

on second mandibular
molars

1/52 0.553
20/53 0.090
21/42 0.149
2/32 0.417
0/58 --
0/56 ---
0/48 ---
45/48 0.916
29/48 0.022
21/41 0.053
More likely to have

presence of hypoconulid

on 2““| and 3 molars

8/47 0.082

Table 10 (continued)

Lower molar cusp 7
Presence of cusp 7 LMl 1/ 19 3/55 0.975

 

*signiﬁcance is at the 0.50 level.
"signiﬁcance possibly a result of cells with expected counts < 5.

Dental non-metric traits that were found to differ signiﬁcantly between the
Southeast and Northeast Asian population include the presence of the metacone on
the third mandibular molar; the presence of enamel extensions on the ﬁrst and second
maxillary and mandibular molars; the presence of the “X” groove pattern on the
second mandibular molar; and the presence of the hypoconulid on the second and
third mandibular molar. All of these traits were exhibited in higher frequency within
individuals of Northeast Asian ancestry. Individuals of both the Southeast and
Northeast Asian populations can be characterized by an absence of the tuberculum
dentale of the maxillary incisors; absence of maxillary premolar accessory cusps; a
high prevalence of the metacone and hypocone on the maxillary ﬁrst and second
molars; a low prevalence of Carabelli’s cusp, the parastyle, and protostylid; moderate
expression of the “Y” groove pattern on the ﬁrst mandibular molar; a low prevalence
of the deﬂecting wrinkle; and low prevalence of the deﬂecting wrinkle, and sixth and

seventh cusps of the ﬁrst mandibular molar.

60

CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION

The ability of the forensic anthropologist to make an accurate assessment of
the ancestry of an unidentiﬁed set of human remains is permitted through an
extensive understanding of human skeletal variation. Most methods of ancestry
assessment require careful measurement or classiﬁcation of traits of the cranium
and/or dentition. Due to their case of scoring and utility in cases of fragmentary
remains, evaluation of non-metric traits is a preferred method for a large number of
forensic anthropologists. Recent research into the expression of cranial and dental
non-metric traits has aimed to improve the statistical support of such methods, and
continues to be a valuable contribution to the ﬁeld. Improvements to non-metric
methods also involve the continued collection of data on non-metric trait expression
for a variety of population groups, as exempliﬁed by the recent work that has been
devoted to describing trait expression in Hispanic peoples (Anderson 2008; Hinkes
2008; Birkby et a1. 2008). The purpose of the present thesis is to continue in this
endeavor by describing the expression of cranial and dental non-metric traits in a

sample of Southeast and Northeast Asian individuals.

Non-Metric Assessment of Southeast and Northeast Asian Ancestry

Comparison of the relative trait frequencies between the Southeast and
Northeast Asian samples shows that a number of the examined traits differ
signiﬁcantly in form between individuals of Southeast and Northeast Asian ancestry.

These results suggest that the traits commonly used by forensic anthropologists to

61

assess ancestry in a forensic context may have the ability to distinguish Southeast and
Northeast Asian individuals if a particular constellation of characters were observed.
Table 1] summarizes the traits that may be of use for distinguishing Southeast and

Northeast Asian ancestry.

Table 11: Summary of cranial and dental non-metric traits that differ in frequency between the sample
of individuals of Southeast Asian and Northeast Asian ancestry. “High” refers to a high observed
frequency within the population; “moderate” refers to a moderate observed frequency within the
population; “low” refers to a low observed frequency within the population.

 

 

Trait Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Cranial Non-Metric Traits
Presence of nasal sill Low High
Round nasal aperture High‘ Low“
Wide nasal aperture Low“ High‘
Wide inter-orbital breadth Low" High“
Presence of zygomatic tubercle Moderate High
Presence of nasal overgrowth Moderate“ Low“
Dental Non-Metric Traits Tooth
Presence of metacone UM3 Low High
Enamel extensions UM] Low High
UM2 Low High
LMl Low High
LM2 Low High
Presence of “X” LM2 Low High
groove pattern
Presence of hypoconulid LM2 Low High
LM3 Moderate“ High“

 

‘Difference is only marginally signiﬁcant

Cranial Non-Metric Traits

Cranial non—metric traits have received the most attention in the forensic
literature as an anthroposcopic means of assessing ancestry. For this study, however,
it was expected that the series of cranial non-metric traits would be poorer at

distinguishing Southeast Asian individuals from Northeast Asian individuals than the

62

dental non-metric traits. This hypothesis was based on the fact that Turner (1983,
1990) has extensively documented differences in dental morphology between these
groups. Of the 13 cranial non-metric traits examined, ﬁve show potential for
discriminating between these groups. Presence of a partial or full nasal sill is
characteristic of individuals of Northeast Asian ancestry, while guttering or incipient
guttering of the inferior nasal aperture is characteristic of Southeast Asian ancestry.
Presence of a posterior zygomatic tubercle is consistent with Northeast Asian
ancestry, and its absence with Southeast Asian ancestry. The three other traits that
were found to distinguish the groups did so at only a marginal level. These traits
include the presence of nasal overgrowth, nasal aperture width, and inter-orbital
breadth. While Southeast Asian individuals were more likely to exhibit nasal
overgrowth, the trait was exhibited in low frequency within the sample. Nasal
aperture width appears to be a more reliable trait, as Northeast Asian individuals most
often exhibited an aperture that was widest at the horizontal midline, while Southeast
Asian individuals most often exhibited an aperture that was widest at the base, or
inferior margin.

The results of this analysis are similar to those obtained by Hefner (2003) for
the Northeast Asian sample, but differ for a selection of traits (Table 12). Both the
study by Hefner (2003) and the present study found an absence of a post-bregmatic
depression; a high incidence of a smooth, or S-shaped, zygomaticomaxillary suture;
variable expression of the transverse palatine suture shape; and near absence of
metopism. The low incidence of metopism confrrrns the observations of other

researchers who have found a near absence of the trait among individuals of East

 

63

Table 12: Frequencies of the various character states of the cranial non-metric traits for the Northeast
Asian sample as scored by Heard (2008) and Hefner (2003).

 

 

Heard (2008) Hefner (2003)
Trait n % n %
Inferior nasal aperture
0 5 5.7 9 12.0
1 15 17.0 13 17.3
2 1 1 12.5 48 64.0
3 36 40.9 3 4.0
4 21 23.9 2 2.7
Nasal bone structure
0 24 30.8 17 22.0
1 32 41.0 18 24.0
2 1 1.3 30 40.0
3 13 16.7 9 12.0
4 8 10.3 1 1.3
Nasal aperture width
1 0 0.00 1 1.3
2 33 37.1 66 88.0
3 56 62.9 8 10.7
Inter-orbital breadth
1 7 7.8 31 41.3
2 28 31.1 39 62.0
3 55 61.1 5 6.7
Post-bregmatic depression
0 28 100.0 63 84.0
1 0 0.00 8 10.7
2 -- - 4 5.3
Anterior nasal spine
0 8 9.5 26 34.0
1 52 61.9 34 45.3
2 24 28.6 10 13.3
3 0 0.00 5 6.7
4 -- -- 0 0.00
Zygomaticomaxillary suture shape
0 -- -- 4 5.3
1 8 9.2 21 28.0
2 79 90.8 38 50.7
3 0 0.00 12 16.0
Transverse palatine suture shape
0 13 15.9 34 45.3
1 21 25.6 25 33.3
2 29 35.4 1 1 14.7
3 19 23.2 5 6.7

Table 12 (continued)

Posterior zygomatic tubercle

0 14 15.6 18 24.0
1 38 42.2 30 40.0
2 19 21.1 17 22.7
3 19 21.1 10 13.3
Malar tubercle

0 15 16.7 32 42.7
1 32 35.6 25 33.3
2 40 44.4 10 13.3
3 3 3.3 8 10.7
Nasal overgrowth

0 64 71.1 51 68.0
1 3 3.3 19 25.3
2 23 25.6 5 6.7
Metopic suture

0 83 93.3 68 90.7
1 6 6.7 7 9.3
Supranasal suture

1 1 1.1 1 1.3
2 1 1.1 5 6.7
3 54 60.7 24 32.0
4 33 37.1 45 60.0

 

Asian ancestry (Ishida & Dodo 1993; Ishida 1995;1(ellock & Parsons 1970). Despite
this relative agreement of expression for some of the cranial non-metric traits, the
observed frequency of others was not in congruence with the ﬁndings of Heﬁrer
(2003). While Hefner observed a high incidence of a straight inferior nasal aperture,
results of this study show that a partial or full nasal sill is common among individuals
of Northeast Asian ancestry. The shape of the nasal aperture also differs, as Hefner’s
documentation of a nasal aperture that is widest at the base was observed in the

current sample of Southeast Asian individuals, but not within the Northeast Asian

group.

65

These results emphasize the need for further research into cranial non-metric
trait expression and the level of inter-observer repeatability in scoring. A study
investigating the level of inter-observer agreement in scoring using the cranial non-
metric traits outlined by Hefner (2003) is currently underway (Heard & Malone, in
press). The preliminary results suggest that the level of inter-observer agreement in
scoring is lower than the level of intra-observer agreement for the 13 traits described
by Hefner (2003). It is unclear at this time if these differences are due to different
levels of observer experience in evaluating non-metric traits, and/or different
interpretations of Hefner’s descriptions. It will be important to conﬁrm that a high
degree of inter-observer agreement in scoring is possible before methods utilizing
these traits (and their descriptions for scoring) can be effectively employed within

forensic anthropology.

Dental Non-Metric Traits

The work by Turner (1983, 1990) has extensively documented dental
variation in archaeological samples from both mainland and insular East Asia. His
dichotomization of Hanihara’s “Mongoloid Dental Complex” into the Sundadont and
Sinodont patterns (Turner 1983, 1990) suggests that distinguishing populations of
Northeast and Southeast Asian ancestry is possible through examination of dental
remains. The results of this study reveal that distinguishing these two regional
population groups based on dental non-metric traits may be possible if a particular
constellation of characters were observed; however, the traits used by Turner (1983,

1990) to distinguish these regional groups did not prove as useful. Turner (1990)

66

found that Sinodonts (Northeast Asians) could be distinguished from Sundadonts
(Southeast Asians) based on differing expression of eight dental non-metric traits
(Table 1). Of Turner’s eight traits, three were not able to be evaluated in this study.
Turner (1990) found that Sinodonts exhibited a higher frequency of single rooted
maxillary ﬁrst premolars and three rooted mandibular ﬁrst molars than Sundadonts,
but root traits were unable to be examined in the present study for the Northeast
Asian sample. He also noted differences of the maxillary third molars, but third
molars were often excluded from analysis in this thesis due to limited sample size. Of
the remaining ﬁve traits (U11 shovel, UIl double-shovel, UMl enamel extensions,
LM] deﬂecting wrinkle, and LM2 four cusps), those of the maxillary incisors were
eliminated from comparison due to a limited sample of Southeast Asian incisors (n =
5 UN; 11 = 11 U12). While shoveling could not be quantitatively compared between
the two samples, it can be qualitatively noted that extensive shoveling was observed
on both the central and lateral maxillary incisors of the Northeast Asian sample, and
double-shoveling was marginally expressed in this group. These observations are in
agreement with the ﬁndings of others that Northeast Asian populations have a high
incidence of incisor shoveling (e.g. Matsumura & Hudson 2005; Scott & Turner
1997; Suzuki & Sakai 1964; Turner 1983, 1990).

It was expected that the sample of Southeast Asian individuals could be
distinguished from the individuals of Northeast Asian ancestry using the eight dental
non-metric traits described by Turner (1983, 1990). As a number of these traits were
not suitable for inclusion in the present analysis, the results of this thesis cannot

conﬁrm whether or not these traits can continue to be used to distinguish the regional

67

populations from one another. While further analysis may conﬁrm the utility of this
particular suite of traits for use by the forensic anthropologist, it should be noted that
other non-metric traits of the dentition may also prove useﬁrl. These traits include the
metacone of the third maxillary mandibular molar; ﬁrst and second maxillary and
mandibular molar enamel extensions; the presence of the “X” groove pattern on the
second mandibular molar; and the presence of the hypoconulid on the second and
third mandibular molars. All of these traits were observed in statistically signiﬁcant
higher frequency among the sample of Northeast Asian individuals than the sample of
Southeast Asian individuals. As these forms of trait expression demonstrate an
exaggeration of trait expression, they seem to coincide with Turner’s (1983, 1990)
suggestion that the dentition of Sinodonts represents a more derived and complex

morphology than that seen among Sundadont populations.

Implications for Forensic Anthropology

In summarizing the results of this thesis, it is important to note the
implications for the ﬁeld of forensic anthropology. As discussed in the introductory
chapters, Asian families living in the US are most concentrated in the West, followed
by the South, Northeast, and Midwest, and approximately 51% of Asian Americans
live in the states of California, New York, and Hawai’i. The census data also show
that 95% of all Asian and Paciﬁc Islanders live in metropolitan areas such as New
York, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago, Houston, and Honolulu. The
concentration of East Asian populations in particular areas of the US means that the

pool of potential ancestral identities for unidentiﬁed remains found in these areas will

68

include East Asian. It is therefore necessary for forensic anthropologists, especially
those working in these areas, to have an understanding of the expression of non-
metric traits of these East Asian populations.

An understanding of non-metric trait expression in East Asian populations is
also needed by those working at JPAC—CIL. Through personal communication with
forensic anthr0pologists at this facility, it has been brought to my attention that these
scientists are interested in the results of research such as that of the present study, as
well as future ones. The majority of recovery missions conducted by teams of the
JPAC-CIL take place in countries within the region of Southeast Asia, and teams are
often confronted with the task of distinguishing the remains of American soldiers
with those of Vietnamese and/or Japanese forces. Given the current methods
available, these anthropologists are unable to provide equivocal evidence that a set of
recovered remains are those of an individual of East Asian ancestry.

Non-metric methods of ancestry assessment are especially important to
forensic anthropologists working at JPAC-CIL. Because the objective of these
scientists is to positively identify the remains of individuals who were victim to
military conﬂict, the remains are often fragmentary in nature. In such cases, ancestry
assessment by metric means is eliminated as an option, and an understanding of non-

metric trait distribution among populations is needed.

Future Research Considerations

The surge of renewed interest in non-metric methods of ancestry assessment

creates a number of areas for continued research. Such areas include gathering more

69

information about the expression of non-metric traits for a variety of populations, as
well as continued comparison of the expression of those traits across populations. In
addition, it is equally as necessary for researchers to continue to standardize trait
classiﬁcation and methods of scoring.

As discussed in the opening of this thesis, documentation of non-metric trait
expression has historically focused on understanding trait expression across three
primary ancestral groups: European Americans (Whites), African Americans
(Blacks), and Native Americans. In order to effectively employ non-metric methods
of ancestry assessment in a forensic context, it is necessary for the forensic
anthropologist to understand the anthroposcopic variation of these populations as well
as others. The recent research devoted to documenting non-metric trait expression in
Hispanic peoples (Anderson 2008, Hinkes 2008, Birkby et al. 2008) is a move in the
right direction, as is the focus of the present thesis with regard to East Asian
populations. Continued research devoted to understanding non-metric trait
expression in both Hispanic and East Asian populations will be essential as forensic
anthropologists work to develop a suite of traits that can be considered characteristic
of these groups.

While understanding non-metric trait expression in Hispanic and East Asian
populations will greatly enhance our understanding of population morphological
diversity, there still remains a number of broad population groups for which forensic
anthropologists have limited understanding of their skeletal morphology. An
example of such a group includes populations of Middle Eastern descent. Gaining an

understanding of non-metric trait expression in populations from this area of the

70

world may become crucial if military conﬂict continues in this region. The current
and future placement of forensic anthropologists in this region for the pru'pose of both
US soldier and civilian identiﬁcation necessitates a need to understand the scope of
skeletal variation within these peoples. When the magnitude of weapon force and
increased use of explosive devices in the current conﬂicts is considered, it is clear that
methods of positive identiﬁcation will rely on techniques that can extract the most
amount of information ﬁom the smallest of skeletal elements. Non-metric methods,
therefore, will be preferred to metric techniques when ancestry is assessed.

As forensic anthropologists continue to document the expression of non-
metric traits for a variety of populations, it is critical that comparisons are made
across populations. As evidenced by the results of this thesis, it is possible that
regional population groups may permit distinction using a particular constellation of
non-metric u'aits. It is important for the forensic anthropologist to understand which
populations can and cannot be distinguished using a particular suite of traits, so as to
not limit the possibilities of ancestral identity for a set of unidentiﬁed remains. To
this end, there is potential for additional research to supplement the work that was
undertaken for this thesis. Not only should more individuals of both Southeast and
Northeast Asian ancestry be examined, but the expression of non—metric traits for
these groups should be compared to other populations, notably Native Americans and
Hispanics. As Native Americans represent the New World descendents of East Asian
populations, and Hispanic phenotypes represent an interaction of Native American
and European American gene ﬂow, it is worth determining which traits will be

consistent and which will differ across these populations.

71

In addition to furthering our understanding of non—metric trait expression
within and across a variety of population groups, it is equally as important for
forensic anthropologists to continue to establish standards for the application of non-
metric methods. This was the goal of the recent work by Hefner (2003), but there
remains room for improvement. Notably, further testing of intra- and inter-observer
reliability in scoring is necessary to determine whether or not the trait descriptions
and illustrations outlined by Hefner (2003) are comprehensive to forensic
anthropologists of varying levels of experience. The modiﬁcations made in this study
to Hefner’s (2003) scoring procedures were performed to facilitate further statistical
testing, but it is also hypothesized that a present-absent scoring system of non-metric
traits may be more comprehensible across observers (Heard & Malone, in prep).
Scoring traits on a graded scale is thought to capture more subtleties in variation
between populations (Tyrrell 2000), but there is also a greater chance of intra- and
inter-observer scoring error. This is because using a graded scale of expression for a
particular trait essentially divides a trait with a continuous form of expression into
discrete categories. Grades of expression at the extreme ends (e. g. grade 1 versus
grade 5 of incisor shoveling) are more likely to be classiﬁed correctly; but those that
are close, for example a grade 3 versus a grade 4 of incisor shoveling, may be scored
as a 3 or a 4 within and between observers. This was the criticism of Nichol and
Turner (1986) in their analysis of discrete categories for a variety of dental non-
metric traits, having found it difﬁcult to reach a high level of inter-observer
agreement in scoring traits with multi-category character states. Establishment of

intra- and inter-observer scoring reliability for non-metric cranial traits was

72

investigated by Gualdi-Russo and colleagues (1999), who found that establishment of
scoring repeatability was possible within observers, but was more difficult between
observers. The results of these earlier efforts support the notion that a high level of
inter-observer reliability in scoring is difﬁcult to establish, reinforcing the need to test
inter-observer repeatability in scoring for the traits recently described by Hefner
(2003).

An additional methodological concern has to do with choosing the appropriate
traits to examine. It has not yet been established that the traits outlined by Hefner
(2003) are the best to document non-metric trait variation across multiple populations.
In fact, Hefner (2002, 2003a) has shown that some of the traits for which he has
chosen to document variation in trait expression may not differ in a predictable
manner across populations. In order for the traits to be reliable indicators of ancestry,
there must be a high correlation of a particular character state of expression within a
given population. As we attempt to establish which traits will best correlate with a
particular population group, it is likely best to not limit the traits for which data is
collected. In other words, approaching a project with a predetermined list may
preclude the observer from collecting data on traits that may prove to be important for
distinguishing that population, but which may not show variation in others (T yrrell
2000). It is for this reason that bridging the gap between forensic anthropology and
the ﬁeld of bioarchaeology is important. As evidenced by this thesis, populations of
Southeast Asian ancestry and those of Northeast Asian ancestry have consistently
been distinguished using traits commonly used for biological distance analysis, and

this may also be possible using those traits more commonly used by forensic

73

anthropologists. It remains to be determined, however, if traits of the
bioarchaeologist’s repertoire should be added to those commonly examined by the

forensic anthropologist when assessing ancestry.

74

CONCLUSIONS

This thesis marks one of the few attempts in the forensic literature to
understand cranial and dental non-metric trait expression in contemporary samples of
individuals of East Asian ancestry. Prior studies of non-metric variation have focused
on documenting trait expression in individuals of European, African, and Native
American ancestry, as there are large skeletal collections of individuals of these
ancestral backgrounds. While it has historically, and may still be, the case that
forensic anthropologists will most frequently encounter the remains of individuals of
European, African, or Native American ancestry, the composition of the population in
the United States is changing. This change affects our job as forensic
anthropologists, as we must be prepared to identify an increasing number of ancestral
identities. To address this concern, research into the expression of non-metric traits
among Hispanic populations in the American Southwest has escalated, as it has been
recognized that they do not share the presumed traits with Southwest Native
American populations. And though it has been duly noted that populations of East
Asian ancestry also may not share the same suite of non-metric traits as Southwest
Native Americans, little effort has been put forth to investigate this possibility.

The primary objective of this thesis was to describe non-metric trait
expression for a series of commonly used non-metric traits in a contemporary sample
of individuals of Southeast and Northeast Asian ancestry. Further, this study tested

whether or not there were certain traits that were exhibited differently between the

75

two population samples, as such a distinction between regional East Asian
populations has been extensively noted in the bioarchaeological literature.

The results of this study suggest that the Southeast and Northeast Asian
samples share the expression of a series of non-metric traits, but show differences in
the expression of others. Cranial non-metric trait expression shared by the two
samples includes the presence of a smooth zygomaticomaxillary stuture shape, and
near absence of both post-bregmatic depression and a persisting metopic suture.
Dental non-metric trait expression shared by the two samples includes a low
incidence of the tuberculum dentale of the maxillary incisors, maxillary premolar
accessory cusps, Carabelli’s cusp, parastyle, protostylid, deﬂecting wrinkle, and sixth
and seventh cusps of the ﬁrst mandibular molar. Both samples were characterized by
a “Y” groove pattern on their ﬁrst mandibular molar, and the presence of a large
metacone and hypocone on the ﬁrst and second maxillary molars.

Of the various non-metric traits examined, relatively few were found to differ
signiﬁcantly in expression between the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.
However, if a particular constellation of these characters were observed, it may be
possible to assert that an individual was of either Southeast or Northeast Asian
ancestry. Cranial non-metric trait expression that was found to characterize Southeast
Asian ancestry includes a lack of a nasal sill; a nasal aperture width that is widest at
the base; an intermediate inter-orbital breadth; lack of a posterior zygomatic tubercle;
and the presence of nasal overgrowth. Traits that were found to be characteristic of

Northeast Asian ancestry include the presence of a nasal sill; a nasal aperture width

76

that is widest at the horizontal midline; a wide inter—orbital breadth; the presence of a
posterior zygomatic tubercle; and the lack of nasal overgrowth.

In addition to the cranial non-metric traits, a series of dental non-metric traits
were also found to differ signiﬁcantly in expression between the two East Asian
samples. These traits include the presence of the metacone on the third maxillary
molar; the presence of enamel extensions of the ﬁrst and second maxillary and
mandibular molars; the presence of the “X” groove pattern on the second mandibular
molar; and the presence of a large hypoconulid on the second and third mandibular
molars. All of these features were observed in the sample of Northeast Asian
individuals and were absent or occurred in low frequency within the Southeast Asian
sample. The inability to statistically assess traits of the anterior maxillary dentition
(e. g. shoveling) is regrettable, and it is hoped that ﬁrture investigations with increased
samples sizes will enable such analyses, in addition to those of the root traits.

Future research will be necessary to determine the strength of the ability to
distinguish these groups using non-metric traits. Studies of East Asian skeletal
morphology should be encouraged, especially by forensic anthropologists working in
areas of the country where East Asian individuals comprise a large portion of the
population. These regions include large metropolitan areas such as New York,
Chicago, Houston, Honolulu, San Diego, and San Francisco. In particular, East Asian
families living in the United States are especially concentrated along the Paciﬁc
Coast, making it especially important for forensic anthropologists in this portion of
the country to be familiar with the traits that characterize Southeast and Northeast

Asian populations. Forensic anthropologists who regularly encounter remains of

77

individuals of Southeast and/or Northeast Asian ancestry, such as those working at
JPAC—CIL, will be crucial to fru'thering our understanding of East Asian skeletal
morphology. These scientists may have access to international collections that are
difﬁcult for American forensic anthropologists or graduate students to visit, so it is
important for them to document trait expression or other useful information when
possible. The long term presence of the JPAC—CIL in Southeast Asian countries
and their continued activity in this region additionally highlights the need to better
our understanding of non-metric trait expression in East Asian populations.

The results of this thesis offer a ﬁrst look at non-metric trait expression in East
Asian populations. In order to enhance these results, future research into non-metric
trait expression in additional samples will be necessary, as will the comparison of
non-metric trait expression in East Asian population samples to that of Native
American samples. Non-metric trait expression has been studied in a series of Native
American samples, and these traits have historically been used to characterize
“Mongoloid” populations. Continued use of the term “Mongoloid”, as well as use of
a single suite of traits to characterize the many populations that would fall beneath the
“Mongoloid” umbrella, is problematic. The results of this study highlight the
heterogeneity in non-metric trait expression within the traditional “Mongoloid”
ancestral group, suggesting that an all-inclusive “Mongoloid” category does not
accurately capture the spectrum of non-metric variation of these diverse populations,
including Southeast and Northeast Asians, Native Americans, and Hispanic

Americans. Conﬁrmation that each of these population groups is characterized by its

78

own suite of non-metric traits lends support to discontinuing the use of the

“Mongoloid” typology in forensic anthropology.

79

APPENDIX A

Table A1: Frequencies of the various character states of the inferior nasal aperture for the Southeast

and Nordreast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Inferior nasal aperture
0 9 25.7 5 5.7
1 l 1 31.4 15 17.0
2 2 5.7 '1 1 12.5
3 8 22.9 36 40.9
4 5 14.3 21 23.9
Total 35 100.0 88 100.0

 

Table A2: Frequencies of the various character states of the nasal bone structure for the Southeast and

Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Nasal bone structure
0 3 1 1.5 24 30.8
1 15 57.7 32 41.0
2 0 0.00 1 1.3
3 3 1 l .5 13 16.7
4 5 19.2 8 10.3
Total 26 100.0 78 100.0

 

Table A3: Frequencies of the various character states of the nasal aperture width for the Southeast and

Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Nasal aperture width
1 2 6.9 0 0.00
2 20 69.0 33 37.1
3 7 24.1 56 62.9
Total 29 100.0 89 100.0

 

80

Table A4: Frequencies of the various character states of the inter-orbital breadth for the Southeast and

Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Inter-orbital breadth
1 6 18.8 7 7.8
2 18 56.3 28 31.1
3 8 25.0 55 61.1
Total 32 100.0 90 100.0

 

Table A5: Frequencies of the various character states of the post-bregmatic depression for the

Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Souﬂreast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Post-bregrnatic depression
0 28 100.0 78 87.6
1 0 0.00 1 1 12.4
Total 28 100.0 89 100.0

 

Table A6: Frequencies of the various character states of the anterior nasal spine for the Southeast and

Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Anterior nasal spine
0 8 22.9 8 9.5
1 22 62.9 52 61.9
2 5 14.3 24 28.6
Total 35 100.0 84 100.0

 

81

Table A7: Frequencies of the various character states of the zygomaticomaxillary suture shape for the

Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Zygomaticomaxillary suture shape
1 4 11.4 8 9.2
2 30 85.7 79 90.8
3 1 2.9 0 0.00
Total 35 100.0 87 100.0

 

Table A8: Frequencies of the various character states of the transverse palatine suture shape for the

Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Transverse palatine suture shape
0 9 31.0 13 15.9
1 3 10.3 21 25.6
2 10 34.5 29 35.4
3 7 24.1 19 23.2
Total 29 100.0 82 100.0

 

Table A9: Frequencies of the various character states of the posterior zygomatic tubercle for the Southeast

and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Posterior zygomatic tubercle
0 17 47.2 14 15.6
1 8 22.2 38 42.2
2 9 25.0 19 21.1
3 2 5.6 19 21.1
Total 36 100.0 90 100.0

 

82

Table A10: Frequencies of the various character states of the malar tubercle for the Southeast and Northeast
Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Malar tubercle
0 6 17.6 15 16.7
1 6 17.6 32 35.6
2 13 38.2 40 44.4
3 26.5 3 3.3
Total 34 100.0 90 100.0

 

Table A1 1: Frequencies of the various character states of the nasal overgrowth for the Southeast and
Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Nasal overgrowth
0 1 6 44.4 64 71 . 1
1 6 1 6.7 3 3 .3
2 14 38.9 23 25.6
Total 36 100.0 90 100.0

 

Table A12: Frequencies of the various character states of the metopic suture for the Southeast and
Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Metopic suture
0 29 87.9 83 93.3
1 4 12.1 6 6.7
Total 33 100.0 89 100.0

 

83

Table A13: Frequencies of the various character states of the supranasal suture for the Southeast and

Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Supranasal suture
1 1 3.1 1 1.1
2 6 18.8 1 1 . 1
3 17 53 .1 54 60.7
4 8 25.0 33 37.1
Total 32 100.0 89 100.0

 

84

APPENDIX B

Table Bl: Frequencies of the various character states of maxillary incisor winging for the Southeast and
Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Winging
1 1 25.0 0 0.00
1 B 0 0.00 6 13.6
3 3 75.0 38 86.4
Total 4 100.0 44 100.0

 

Table 82: Frequencies of the various character states of maxillary incisor labial convexity for the Southeast
and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Labial convexity
1 3 60.0 34 89.5
2 1 20.0 2 5.3
3 1 20.0 2 5.3
Total 5 100.0 38 100.0

 

85

Table B3: Frequencies of the various character states of incisor shoveling for the Southeast and Northeast

Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Maxillary central incisor
1 0 0.00 9 24.3
2 2 40.0 12 32.4
3 2 40.0 10 27.0
4 1 20.0 5 13.5
5 0 0.00 1 2.7
Total 5 100.0 37 100.0
Maxillary lateral incisor
0 2 18.2 1 2.7
1 1 9.1 5 13.5
2 1 9.1 6 16.2
3 2 18.2 7 18.9
4 4 36.4 1 1 29.7
5 0 0.00 4 10.8
6 1 9.1 3 8.1
Total 1 1 100.0 37 100.0
Mandibular incisors
1 5 100.0 32 82.1
2 0 0.00 7 17.9
Total 5 100.0 39 100.0

 

86

Table B4: Frequencies of the various character states of maxillary double-shoveling for the Southeast and

Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Central incisor double-shoveling
0 3 60.0 25 69.4
1 1 20.0 0 0.00
2 0 0.00 3 8.3
3 1 20.0 6 16.7
4 0 0.00 1 2.8
5 O 0.00 0 0.00
6 0 0.00 1 2.8
Total 5 100.0 36 100.0
Lateral incisor double-shoveling
0 6 54.5 33 82.5
1 3 27.3 1 2.5
2 2 18.2 2 5.0
3 0 0.00 3 7.5
4 0 0.00 1 2.5
Total 1 1 100.0 40 100.0
Canine double-shoveling
0 8 88.9 47 95.9
1 1 1 1.1 1 2.0
2 0 0.00 1 2.0
Total 9 100.0 49 100.0
P3 double—shoveling
0 14 100.0 55 98.2
1 0.00 1 1.8
Total 14 100.0 56 100.0

 

87

Table BS: Frequencies of the various character states of the maxillary tuberculum dentale for the Southeast

and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Central incisor tuberculum dentale
0 1 16.7 2 8.3
1 5 83.3 20 83.3
2 0 0.00 2 8.3
Total 6 100.0 24 100.0
Lateral incisor tuberculum dentale
0 1 9.1 6 50.0
1 10 90.9 6 50.0
Total 1 1 100.0 12 100.0
Canine tuberculum dentale
0 1 10.0 0 0.00
1 8 80.0 26 96.3
2 1 10.0 1 3.7
Total 10 100.0 27 100.0

 

Table B6: Frequencies of the various character states of the maxillary canine mesial ridge for the Southeast

and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Canine mesial ridge
0 7 77.8 32 94.1
1 2 22.2 1 2.9
2 0 0.00 1 2.9
Total 9 100.0 34 100.0

 

88

Table B7: Frequencies of the various character states of the canine distal accessory ridge for the Southeast

and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Maxillary canine distal accessory ridge
0 7 77 .8 34 100.0
1 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 2 22.2 0 0.00
Total 9 100.0 34 100.0
Mandibular canine distal accessory ridge
0 4 100.0 44 100.0
Total 4 100.0 44 100.0

 

Table B8: Frequencies of the various character states of the maxillary premolar distal cusp for the

Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian

Trait n % n %

P3 distal cusp

0 1 5 100.0 56 100.0
Total 15 100.0 56 100.0
P4 distal cusp

0 18 100.0 62 100.0
Total 18 100.0 62 100.0

 

89

Table B9: Frequencies of the various character states of the metacone for the Southeast and Northeast
Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
M1 metacone
0 0 0.00 0 0.00
1 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 0 0.00 0 0.00
4 4 16.0 1 1.6
5 21 84.0 62 98.4
Total 25 100.0 63 100.0
M2 metacone
0 0 0.00 0 0.00
1 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 1 4.5 1 1.8
3 2 9.1 2 3.6
4 11 50.0 16 28.6
5 8 36.4 37 66.1
Total 22 100.0 56 100.0
M3 metacone
0 2 15.4 0 0.00
1 4 30.8 3 7.3
2 1 7.7 0 0.00
3 6 46.2 12 29.3
4 0 0.00 19 46.3
5 0 0.00 7 17.1
Total 13 100.0 41 100.0

 

90

Table 310: Frequencies of the various character states of the hypocone for the Southeast and Northeast
Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
M1 hypocone
0 0 0.00 1 1.6
1 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 0 0.00 0 0.00
4 10 38.5 5 7.8
5 16 61.5 58 90.6
Total 26 100.0 64 100.0
M2 hypocone
0 0 0.00 2 3.6
1 3 13.0 5 8.9
2 2 8.7 4 7.1
3 4 17.4 19 33.9
4 14 60.9 13 23.2
5 0 0.00 13 23.2
Total 23 100.0 56 100.0
M3 hypocone
0 4 30.8 10 25.0
1 4 30.8 12 30.0
2 2 15.4 2 5.0
3 3 23.1 12 30.0
4 0 0.00 3 7.5
5 0 0.00 1 2.5
Total 1 3 100.0 40 100.0

 

91

Table B] 1: Frequencies of the various character states of cusp 5 for the Southeast and Northeast Asian
samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Maxillary M1 cusp 5
0 29 100.0 47 74.6
1 0 0.00 11 17.5
2 0 0.00 3 4.8
3 0 0.00 1 1.6
4 0 0.00 1 1.6
Total 29 100.0 63 100.0
Maxillary M2 cusp 5
0 22 100.0 56 98.2
1 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 0 0.00 1 1.8
Total 22 100.0 57 1.00
Maxillary M3 cusp 5
0 14 100.0 40 95.2
1 0 0.00 1 2.4
2 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 0 0.00 1 2.4
Total 14 100.0 42 100.0
Mandibular M1 cusp 5
0 1 5.6 1 2.1
1 0 0.00 1 2.1
2 0 0.00 1 2.1
3 1 5.6 2 4.2
4 3 16.7 3 6.3
5 13 72.2 40 83.3
Total 18 100.0 48 100.0
Mandibular M2 cusp 5
0 9 45.0 9 18.8
1 3 15.0 3 6.3
2 2 10.0 7 14.6
3 2 10.0 7 14.6
4 3 15.0 10 20.8
5 1 5.0 12 25.0
Total 20 100.0 48 100.0

92

Table B] 1 (continued)

 

Mandibular M3 cusp 5

0 10 58.8 16 39.0
1 2 l 1.8 l 2.4

2 l 5.9 3 7.3

3 l 5.9 3 7.3

4 1 5.9 8 19.5
5 2 11.5 10 24.4
Total 17 100.0 41 100.0

 

Table B] 2: Frequencies of the various character states of the parastyle of the maxillary molars for the
Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
M1 parastyle
0 26 96.3 65 100.0
1 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 0 0.00 0 0.00
4 0 0.00 0 0.00
5 0 0.00 0 0.00
6 0 0.00 0 0.00
7 1 3.7 0 0.00
Total 27 100.0 65 100.0
M2 parastyle
0 22 100.0 56 98.2
1 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 0 0.00 0 0.00
4 0 0.00 1 1.8
Total 22 100.0 57 100.0
M3 parastyle
0 14 100.0 41 100.0
Total 14 100.0 41 100.0

 

93

Table B] 3: Frequencies of the various character states of the Carabelli’s trait for the Southeast and
Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
M1 Carabelli’s trait
0 25 89.3 52 78.8
1 2 7.1 13 19.7
2 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 0 0.00 1 1.5
4 0 0.00 0 0.00
5 0 0.00 0 0.00
6 l 3.6 0 0.00
Total 28 100.0 66 100.0
M2 Carabelli’s trait
0 21 95.5 56 98.2
1 0 0.00 1 1.8
2 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 0 0.00 0 0.00
4 0 0.00 0 0.00
5 0 0.00 0 0.00
6 1 4.5 0 0.00
Total 22 100.0 57 100.0
M3 Carabelli’s trait
0 14 100.0 40 100.0
Total 14 100.0 40 100.0

 

94

Table 814: Frequencies of the various character states of enamel extensions for the Southeast and

Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Maxillary P3 enamel extension
0 15 88.2 61 100.0
1 2 11.8 0 0.00
Total 17 100.0 61 100.0
Maxillary P4 enamel extension
0 19 100.0 68 100.0
Total 19 100.0 68 100.0
Maxillary M1 enamel extension
0 20 71.4 22 40.7
1 6 21.4 12 22.2
2 1 3.6 13 24.1
3 1 3.6 7 13.0
Total 28 100.0 54 100.0
Maxillary M2 enamel extension
0 12 52.2 13 27.1
1 7 30.4 12 25.0
2 3 13.0 16 33.3
3 1 4.3 7 14.6
Total 23 100.0 48 100.0
Maxillary M3 enamel extension
0 8 61.5 14 40.0
1 3 23.1 11 31.4
2 2 15.4 8 22.9
3 0 0.00 2 5.7
Total 13 100.0 35 100.0
Mandibular P3 enamel extension
0 13 100.0 65 98.5
1 0 0.00 1 1.5
Total 13 100.0 66 100.0
Mandibular P4 enamel extension
0 14 100.0 61 100.0
Total 14 100.0 61 100.0

95

Table 814 (continued)

 

Mandibular M1 enamel extension

0 11 61.1 20 35.1

1 7 38.9 7 12.3
2 0 0.00 19 33.3
3 0 0.00 11 19.3
Total 18 100.0 57 100.0
Mandibular M2 enamel extension

0 12 52.2 12 20.7
1 8 34.8 14 24.1
2 2 8.7 25 43.1
3 1 4.3 7 12.1
Total 23 100.0 58 100.0
Mandibular M3 enamel extension

0 10 50.0 13 31.7
1 7 35.0 13 31.7
2 2 10.0 13 31.7
3 1 5 0 2 4 9
Total 20 100.0 41 100.0

 

Table BIS: Frequencies of the various character states of premolar odontomes for the Southeast and
Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Maxillary P3 odontome
0 14 100.0 59 100.0
Total 14 100.0 59 100.0
Maxillary P4 odontome
0 18 100.0 64 100.0
Total 18 100.0 64 100.0
Mandibular P3 odontome
0 14 100.0 53 100.0
Total 14 100.0 53 100.0
Mandibular P4 odontome
0 15 100.0 54 100.0
Total 15 100.0 54 100.0

 

96

Table 816: Frequencies of the various character states of the mandibular premolar lingual cusp for the

Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
P3 lingual cusp
0 l 6.3 3 5.7
1 1 6.3 0 0.00
2 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 8 50.0 8 15.1
4 2 12.5 1 1.9
5 0 0.00 l 1.9
6 0 0.00 0 0.00
7 1 6.3 1 1.9
8 0 0.00 1 1.9
9 3 18.8 38 71 .1
Total 16 100.0 53 100.0
P4 lingual cusp
0 7 43.8 30 65.2
1 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 2 12.5 7 15.2
3 0 0.00 2 4.3
4 0 0.00 0 0.00
5 0 0.00 0 0.00
6 0 0.00 0 0.00
7 4 25.0 6 13.0
8 2 12.5 1 2.2
9 1 6.3 0 0.00
Total 16 100.0 46 100.0

 

Table 817: Frequencies for the various character states of the anterior fovea of the ﬁrst mandibular molar
for the Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Anterior fovea
0 5 100.0 1 6.7
1 0 0.00 8 53.3
2 0 0.00 1 6.7
3 0 0.00 5 33.3
Total 5 100.0 15 100.0

 

97

Table Bl 8: Frequencies for the various character states of the mandibular molar groove pattern for the

Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
M1 groove pattern
X 10 58.8 6 16.2
Y 5 29.4 31 83.8
+ 2 11.8 0 0.00
Total 17 100.0 37 100.0
M2 groove pattern
X 1 5.6 22 64.7
Y 8 44.4 8 23.5
+ 9 50.0 4 11.8
Total 18 100.0 34 100.0
M3 groove pattern
X 5 31.3 30 81.1
Y 3 18.8 5 13.5
+ 8 50.0 2 5.4
Total 16 100.0 37 100.0

 

Table B19: Frequencies of the various character states of the mandibular molar cusp number for the

Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
M1 cusp number
4 0 0.00 1 1.9
5 18 100.0 46 88.5
6 0 0.00 5 9.6
Total 18 100.0 52 100.0
M2 cusp number
4 13 59.1 20 37.7
5 9 40.9 32 60.4
6 0 0.00 1 1.9
Total 22 100.0 53 100.0
M3 cusp number
3 11.8 1 2.4
4 10 58.8 20 47.6
5 5 29.4 19 45.2
6 0 0.00 2 4.8
Total 17 100.0 42 100.0

 

98

Table B20: Frequencies of the various character states of the mandibular deﬂecting wrinkle for the
Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
M1 deﬂecting wrinkle
0 13 86.7 29 90.6
1 0 0.00 ] 3.1
2 1 6.7 1 3.1
3 1 6.7 1 3.1
Total 15 100.0 32 100.0
M2 deﬂecting wrinkle
0 14 93.3 43 93.5
1 0 0.00 1 2.2
2 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 1 6.7 2 4.3
Total 15 100.0 46 100.0
M3 deﬂecting wrinkle
0 12 92.3 38 95.0
1 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 1 7.7 0 0.00
3 0 0.00 2 5.0
Total 1 3 100.0 40 100.0

 

Table B21: Frequencies of the various character states of the mandibular distal trigonid crest for the
Southeast and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian

Trait n % n %
M1 distal trigonid crest

0 16 100.0 33 100.0
Total 16 100.0 33 100.0
M2 distal trigonid crest

0 18 100.0 47 100.0
Total 18 100.0 47 100.0
M3 distal trigonid crest

0 14 100.0 38 100.0
Total 14 100.0 38 100.0

 

99

Table B22: Frequencies of the various character states of the protostylid for the Southeast and Northeast
Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian

Trait n % n %
M1 protostylid

0 20 100.0 58 100.0
Total 20 100.0 58 100.0
M2 protostylid

0 23 100.0 56 100.0
Total 23 100.0 56 100.0
M3 protostylid

0 19 100.0 48 100.0
Total 19 100.0 48 100.0

 

Table 823: Frequencies of the various character states of the mandibular molar sixth cusp for the Southeast
and Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
Ml cusp 6
0 12 63.2 39 83.0
1 3 15.8 1 2.1
2 3 15 .8 2 4.3
3 0 0.00 3 6.4
4 1 5.3 1 2.1
5 0 0.00 1 2.1
Total 19 100.0 47 100.0
M2 cusp 6
0 22 95.7 50 94.3
1 1 4.3 1 1.9
2 0 0.00 1 1.9
3 0 0.00 0 0.00
4 0 0.00 0 0.00
5 0 0.00 1 1.9
Total 23 100.0 53 100.0

100

Table 323 (continued)

 

M3 cusp 6

MAWN—‘O

Total

COO—OH

94.4
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

100.0

MOO—I—M

t

 

Table B24: Frequencies of the various character states of the mandibular seventh cusp for the Southeast and

Northeast Asian samples.

 

 

Southeast Asian Northeast Asian
Trait n % n %
M1 cusp 7
0 18 94.7 52 94.5
1 0 0.00 2 3.6
2 0 0.00 0 0.00
3 1 5.3 0 0.00
4 0 0.00 1 1.8
Total 19 100.0 55 100.0
M2 cusp 7
0 22 100.0 54 96.4
1 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 0 0.00 1 1.8
3 0 0.00 1 1.8
Total 22 100.0 56 100.0
M3 cusp 7
0 18 100.0 44 97.8
1 0 0.00 0 0.00
2 0 0.00 1 2.2
Total 1 8 100.0 45 100.0

 

101

REFERENCES

Anderson BE (2008) Identifying the dead: Methods utilized by the Pima County
(Arizona) Office of the Medical Examiner for Undocumented Border Crossers: 200]-
2006. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53(1): 8-15.

Bankston CL 111 and Hidalgo DA (2007) The waves of war: Immigrants, refugees, and
new americans from Southeast Asia. In: M Zhou and JV Gatewood (eds.) Contemporary

Asian America: A Multidisciplinary Reader. New York: New York University Press, pp.
139-57.

Barnes J S and Bennett CE (2002) The Asian Population: 2000, Census 2000 Brief,
Washington DC: US. Census Bureau.

Barringer HR, Gardner RW, and Levin MJ (1993) Asians and Paciﬁc Islanders in the
United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bass WM (2005) Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. Special
Publication No. 2, Columbia, MO: Missouri Archaeological Society.

Berry AC and Berry RJ (1967) Epigenetic variation in the hmnan cranium. Journal of
Anatomy 101(2): 361-379.

Birkby WH (1966) An evaluation of race and sex identiﬁcation from cranial
measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 24: 21-8.

Birkby WH, Fenton TW, and Anderson BE (2008) Identifying Southwest Hispanics
using nonmetric traits and the cultural proﬁle. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53(1): 29-33.

Brace CL (1964) On the race concept. Current Anthropology 5: 113-20.

Brace CL (1982) The roots of the race concept in American physical anthropology. In: F
Spencer (ed.) A History of A merican Physical Anthropology, 1930-1980. New York:
Macmillan, pp. 11-29.

Brace CL (1996) A four-letter word called “Race”. In: Reynolds and Lieberman (eds.)
Race and Other Misadventures. General Hal] Publishers, pp. 106-41.

Brace CL (2005) “Race ” is a F our-Letter Word: The Genesis of the Concept. New York:
Oxford University Press.

102

Brooks S, Brooks RH, and France D (1990) Alveolar prognathisrn contour, an aspect of
racial identiﬁcation. In: GW Gill and S Rhine (eds.) Skeletal Attribution of Race:

Methods for Forensic Anthropology. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology:
Anthropological Papers No. 4, pp. 41-6.

Brues AM (1990) The once and future diagnosis of race. . In: GW Gill and S Rhine (eds.)
Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology. Maxwell Museum of
Anthropology: Anthropological Papers No. 4, pp. 1-7.

Buikstra JE and Ubelaker DH (eds.) Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal
Remains. Arkansas Archeological Survey: Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1994.

Cheverud JM (1981) Variation in highly and lowly heritable morphological traits among
social groups of rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatto) on Cayo Santiago. Evolution 35(1):
7 5-83.

Cheverud JM (1982) Phenotypic, genetic, and environmental morphological integration
in the cranium. Evolution 36(3): 499-516.

Cox K, Tayles NG, and Buckley HR (2006) Forensic identiﬁcation of “race”. Current
Anthropology 25: 869-74.

Dodo Y (1972) Aural exostosis in the human skeletal remains excavated in Hokkaido.
Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon. 80: 11-22.

Dodo Y (1974) Nonmetrical cranial traits in the Hokkaido Ainu and the Northern
Japanese of recent times. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon 82: 31-51.

Dodo Y (1986a) Observations on the bony bridging of the jugular foramen in man.
Journal of Anatomy 114: 153-65.

Dodo Y (1986b) Population study of the jugular foramen bridging of the human cranium.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 69: 15-9.

Dodo Y (1987) Supraorbital foramen and hypoglossal canal bridging: the two most
suggestive nonmetric cranial traits in discrimination major racial groupings of man.
Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon 95: 9-35.

Edgar HJH (2005) Prediction of race using characteristics of dental morphology. Journal
of Forensic Sciences 50 (2): 269-273.

Finnegan M (1978) Non-metric variation of the infracranial skeleton. Journal of Anatomy
125(1): 23-37.

103

Fukumine T, Hanihara T, Nishirne A, and Ishida H (2006) Nonmetric cranial variation of
early modern human skeletal remains from Kumej irna, Okinawa and the peopling of the
Ryukyu Islands. Anthropological Science 114: 141-51.

Giles E and Elliot 0 (1962) Race identiﬁcation from cranial measurements. Journal of
Forensic Sciences 7: 147-57.

Gill GW (1990) Introduction In: GW Gill and S Rhine (eds.) Skeletal Attribution of
Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology,
Anthropological Papers No. 4, pp. xii-xvii.

Gill GW (1998) Craniofacial criteria in the skeletal attribution of race. In: KJ Reichs (ed.)
Advances in the identiﬁcation of human remains. Springﬁeld, IL: Charles C. Thomas, pp.
293-3 17.

Gill GW and Rhine S (eds.) (1990) Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic
Anthropology. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology: Anthropological Papers No. 4.

Gill GW, Hughes SS, Bennett SM, and Gilbert BM (1988) Racial identiﬁcation from the
midfacial skeleton with special reference to American Indians and whites. Journal of
Forensic Sciences 33(1): 92-9.

Gold SJ and Rumbaut RG (eds.) (2007) Asian American Assimilation: Ethnicity,
Immigration, and Socioeconomic Attainment. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

Green RF, Suchey JM, and Gokhale DV (197 9) The statistical treatment of correlated
bilateral traits in the analysis of cranial material. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 50: 629-34.

Gualdi-Russo E, Tasca MA, and Brasili P (1999) Scoring of nonmetric cranial traits: a
methodological approach. Journal of Anatomy 195: 543-50.

Hanihara K (1969) Mongoloid dental complex in the permanent dentition. In:
Proceedings VIIIth International Congress of A nthropological and E thnological
Sciences, Tokyo, 1968, pp. 298-300.

Hanihara T (1992) Negritos, Australian Aborigines, and the “Proto-Sundadont” dental
pattern: The basic populations in East Asia, V. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 88: 183-96.

Hanihara T (1993) Craniofacial features of Southeast Asians and Jomonese: A

reconsideration of their microevolution since the late Pleistocene. Anthropological
Science 101(1): 25-46.

Hanihara T and Ishida H (2001a) Frequency variations of discrete cranial traits in major

human populations. I . Supemumerary ossicle variations. Journal of Anatomy 198: 689-
706.

104

Hanihara T and Ishida H (2001b) Frequency variations of discrete cranial traits in major
human populations. 11. Hypostotic variations. Journal of Anatomy 198: 707-25.

Hanihara T and Ishida H (2001c) Frequency variations of discrete cranial traits in major
human populations. III. Hyperostotic variations. Journal of Anatomy 199: 251-72.

Hanihara T and Ishida H (2001d) Frequency variations of discrete cranial traits in major
human populations. IV. Vessel and nerve related variations. Journal of A natomy 199:
273-87 .

Hanihara T, Ishida H, and Dodo Y (1998) Os zygomaticum bipartium: frequency
distribution in major human populations. Journal of Anatomy 192: 539-55.

Hanihara T, Ishida H, and Dodo Y (2003) Characterization of biological diversity
through analysis of discrete cranial traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
121 : 241-5 1 .

Hauser G and De Stefano GF (1989) Epigenetic Variants of the Human Skull. Stuttgart:
Schweizerbart.

Heard AN and Malone CA (in prep) Test of intra- and inter-rater agreement of scoring
cranial non-metric traits used in the forensic determination of ancestry. Abstract for the
7 8'” Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

Hefner JT (2002) An assessment of craniofacial nonmetric traits currently used in
forensic determination of ancestry. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic
Sciences H35, pp. 232-3.

Hefner JT (2003) Assessing nonmetric cranial traits currently used in forensic
determination of ancestry. Masters Thesis, The University of Florida.

Hefner JT (2003a) The utility of nonmetric cranial traits in ancestry determination — Part
H. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences H12, pp. 245.

Hefner JT and Ousley SD (2006) Morphoscopic traits and the statistical determination of
ancesu'y 11. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences H16, pp. 282.

Hefner JT, Ousley SD, and Warren MW (2004) An historic perspective on nonmetric
skeletal variation: Hooton and the Harvard List. Proceedings of the American Academy of
Forensic Sciences, pp. 287.

Hinkes MJ (2008) Migrant deaths along the California-Mexico border: An
anthropological perspective. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53(1): 16-20.

105

Howells WW (1970) Multivariate analysis for the identiﬁcation of race from the crania.
In: TD Stewart (ed.) Personal Identiﬁcation in Mass Disasters. National Museum of
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 111-21.

Ishida H (1995) Nonmetric cranial variation of Northeast Asians and their population
affrnities. Anthropological Science 103(4): 385-401.

Ishida H and Dodo Y (1993) Nonmetric cranial variation and the population afﬁnities of
the paciﬁc peoples. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 90: 49-57.

J idoi K, Nara T, Dodo Y (2000) Bony bridging of the mylohyoid groove of the human
mandible. Anthropological Science 108: 345-70.

Kellock WL and Parsons PA (1970) A comparison of the incidence of minor nonmetrical
cranial variants in Australian Aborigines with those of Melanesia and Polynesia.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 33: 235-40.

Korey KA (1980) The incidence of bilateral nonmetric skeletal traits: A reanalysis of
sampling procedures. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 53: 19-23.

Krogrnan WM (1955) The skeleton in forensic medicine. Postgrad Med 17(2): A48-A62.

Krogrnan WM and Iscan MY (1986) The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Illinois:
Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Lieberman L, Kirk RC, and Littleﬁeld A (2003) Exchange across difference: The status
of the race concept — Perishing paradigm: Race—193 1-99. American Anthropologist
105(1): 110-3.

Littleﬁeld A, Lieberman L, and Reynolds L (1982) Redeﬁning race: The potential demise
of a concept in physical anthropology. Current Anthropology 23: 641-55.

Livingstone F B (1962) On the nonexistance of human races. Current Anthropology 3:
297-81.

Matsumura H (1995) Dental characteristics afﬁnities of the prehistoric to modern
Japanese with the East Asians, American Natives and Australo-Melanesians.
Anthropological Science 103(3): 235-61.

McGrath JW, Cheverud JM, and Buikstra J E (1984) Genetic correlations between sides
and heritability of asymmetry for nonmetric traits in rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 64: 401-1 1.

Montagu A (1942) Man ’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. New York:
Columbia University Press.

106

Napoli ML and Birkby WH (1990) Racial differences in the visibility of the oval window
in the middle ear. In: GW Gill and S Rhine (eds.) Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods
for Forensic Anthropology. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology: Anthropological Papers
No. 4, pp. 27-32.

Nichol CR and Turner CG II (1986) Intra- and interobserver concordance in classifying
dental morphology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 69: 299-3 15.

Ossenberg NS (1970) The inﬂuence of artiﬁcial cranial deformation on discontinuous
morphological traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 33: 357-72.

Ossenberg NS (1981) An argument for the use of total side frequencies of bilateral
nonmetric skeletal traits in population distance analysis: The regression of symmetry on
incidence. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 54: 471-9.

Ossenberg NS, Dodo Y, Maeda T, and Kawakubo Y (2006) Ethnogenesis and
craniofacial change in Japan ﬁrm the perspective of nonmetric traits. Anthropological
Science 114: 99-115.

Ousley SD and Hefner JT (2005) Morphoscopic traits and the statistical determination of
ancestry. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences H17, pp. 291-2.

Philip C (2007) Asian American Identities. Youngstown, New York: Cambria Press.

Rankin DR and Moore CE (2004) Playing the “race” card without a complete deck: The
addition of missing Asian data to aid racial determinations in forensic casework.
Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences H36, pp. 288-9.

Reeves T and Bennett C (2003) The Asian and Pacific Islander Population in the United
States: March 2002, Current Population Reports, Washington DC: US. Census Bureau,
pp. 20-540.

Rhine S (1990) Non-metric skull racing. In: GW Gill and S Rhine (eds.) Skeletal
Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology. Maxwell Museum of
Anthropology: Anthropological Papers No. 4, pp. 9-20.

Russell F (1900) Studies in Cranial Variation. The American Naturalist 34(405): 73 7-
745.

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 Medicine 34(2):
107-1 1 1.

Scott GR and Turner 11, CG (1997) The Anthropology of Modern Human Teeth.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

107

Shanklin E (1994) Anthropology and Race. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

Slice DE and Ross AH (2004) Population affmities of “Hispanic” crania: Implications for
forensic identiﬁcation. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Snow CC, Hartman S, Giles E, and Young FA (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. Journal of Forensic Sciences 24(2): 448-60.

Suzuki M and Sakai (1964) Shovel-shaped Incisors among the living Polynesians.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 22: 65-72.

Tokuyama MY (2003) Asian Americans and Paciﬁc Islanders. Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Turner CG [1 (1983) Sinodonty and Sundadonty: A dental anthropological view of
Mongoloid microevolution, origin, and dispersal into the Paciﬁc Basin, Siberia, and the
Americas. In: RS Vasilievsky (ed.) Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Cultural
Connections of Asian and America. USSR Academy of Sciences, Siberian Branch,
Novosibirsk, pp. 72-6.

Turner CG II (1990) Major features of sundadonty and Sinodonty, including suggestions
about East Asian microevolution, population history and late Pleistocene relationships
with Australian Aboriginals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 82: 295-317.

Turner 11, CG, Nichol CR, and Scott GR (1991) Scoring procedures for key
morphological traits of the permanent dentition: The Arizona State University Dental
Anthropology System. In: MA Kelley and CS Larsen (eds.) Advances in Dental
Anthropology. New York: Wiley-Liss, pp. 13-31.

Tyrrell AJ (2000) Skeletal non-metric traits and the assessment of inter- and intra-
population diversity: past problems and future potential. In: M Cox and S Mays (eds.)
Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science. Greenwich Medical Media, pp.
289-306.

Wood-Jones F (1930-31a) The non-metrical morphological characters of the skull as
criteria for racial diagnosis part I: General discussion of the morphological characters
employed in racial diagnosis. Journal of Anatomy 65: 179-195.

Wood-Jones F (1930-31b) The non-metrical morphological characters of the skull as

criteria for racial diagnosis part H: The non-metrical morphological characters of the
Hawaiian skull. Journal of Anatomy 65: 368-378.

108

Wood-Jones F (1930-3 10) The non-metrical morphological characters of the skull as
criteria for racial diagnosis part III: The non-metrical morphological characters of the
skulls of prehistoric inhabitants of Guam. Journal of Anatomy 65: 438-445.

Wood-Jones F (1933-34) The non-metrical morphological characters of the skull as
criteria for racial diagnosis part IV: The non-metrical morphological characters of the
Northern Chinese skull. Journal of Anatomy 68: 96-108.

Zhou M and Gatewood JV (2007) Transforming Asian America: Globalization and
contemporary immigration to the United States. In: M Zhou and JV Gatewood (eds.)
Contemporary Asian America: A Multidisciplinary Reader. New York: New York
University Press, pp. 115-38.

109