Racial Identification in the Skull and Teeth

Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal ofAnthropology

Volume 8 | Issue 1 Article 4

6-21-2011

Racial Identification in the Skull and TeethJodi BlumenfeldThe University of Western Ontario

Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totemPart of the Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Totem: The University of WesternOntario Journal of Anthropology by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationBlumenfeld, Jodi (2000) "Racial Identification in the Skull and Teeth," Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal ofAnthropology: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 4.Available at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol8/iss1/4

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem?utm_source=ir.lib.uwo.ca%2Ftotem%2Fvol8%2Fiss1%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol8?utm_source=ir.lib.uwo.ca%2Ftotem%2Fvol8%2Fiss1%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol8/iss1?utm_source=ir.lib.uwo.ca%2Ftotem%2Fvol8%2Fiss1%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol8/iss1/4?utm_source=ir.lib.uwo.ca%2Ftotem%2Fvol8%2Fiss1%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/320?utm_source=ir.lib.uwo.ca%2Ftotem%2Fvol8%2Fiss1%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


mailto:[email protected]

Racial Identification in the Skull and Teeth

Keywordsracial identification, skull, teeth, forensic anthropology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0License.

This article is available in Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol8/iss1/4

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/





RACIAL IDENTIFICATION IN THE S'I(ULLAND TEETHJodi Blumenfeld

There is one major problem in thedetermination of race and that is the extremedifficulty encountered when attempting todefine the term "race". According to Skinnerand Lazenby (1983:48-49), in the field offorensic anthropology, the term "race" isused very broadly. Racial affinity isidentified for the lone purpose of identifyinghuman skeletal remains. Shipman et al.(1985:250-251) define race as "...amorphologically recognisable subset of aspecies". According to Dyer (1974: 1), theterm "race" describes populations, notindividuals, and it "...implies that apopulation, or group of populations, issufficiently different from all others in thespecies to be separately recognized" .

Dyer (1974:8) discusses early racialclassifications such as the earliestclassification of Linnaeus, who recognizedfour human racial subspecies: Homo sapienseuropaeus, Homo sapiens asiaticus, Homosapiens ajer, and Homo sapiens americanus.Dyer (1974:8) also mentions the sixclassifications proposed by W.C. Boyd in1950. Based on blood group studies, theseclassifications include: Early European,European (Caucasoid), African (Negroid),Asiatic (Mongoloid), Amerindian, andAustraloid.

One major problem in these racialclassifications is that they do not take intoaccount the occurrence of racial hybridity.As Shipman et al. (1985:251) state, "...manyskeletons possess features "typical" of twoor more racial groups". Shipman et al.(1985:251) use the example of "Americanblacks" who are "...an admixture of severaldifferent racial stocks and are skeletally

difficult to differentiate". Skeletons that arehybrids of several different racial groups,and exhibit characteristics typical of one ormore race are difficult to categorise into onespecific racial group.

According to C. Loring Brace (1995),prior to the Renaissance era of trans-oceanicvoyaging, there was no such thing as aconcept of race. Brace (1995: 174) refers tothe travels of Marco Polo and Ibn Batuta,who were fully aware of the wide range ofhuman biological variation that existed.Neither explorer used such a concept as"race" because their voyages were broken upinto day-long segments and they"...perceived the spectrum of humanvariation as an unbroken continuum" (Brace1995: 174). After the European discovery ofthe western hemisphere, when navigationalcapabilities allowed one to board a boat inEngland and get off in the New Worldwithout seeing anything in between,concepts of human variation becamecategorical. Today, airplanes and thetelevision camera have further reinforcedcategorical notions of human biologicalvariation (Brace 1995: 174).

In 1940, Franz Boas pronounced that"...homogenous populations do not existanywhere in the world" (Boas 1940:38). Inhis anthropometric experiments on thecharacteristics of European immigrants tothe United States, Boas stressed theimportant influence of social and geographicenvironments on body form, and stated that"...head forms may undergo certain changesin course of time, without change ofdescent" (Boas 1940:74). Boas refers to theplasticity of the form of the human craniumas the "instability or plasticity of types"(Boas 1940:72).

Blumenfeld: Racial Identification in the Skull and Teeth

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2000

More than 50 years after Boas'experiments, the American Association ofPhysical Anthropology published astatement on the biological aspects of race(1996:569-570). In this statement, theAAP A declared that all living humansbelong to a single species (Homo sapiens),and all share a common descent. The AAP Astated that there is a great deal of geneticdiversity and variation within all humanpopulations, and "...pure races, in the senseof genetically homogenous populations, donot exist in the human species today, nor isthere any evidence that they have everexisted in the past" (AAPA 1996:569).

According to Gill (1998:293), skeletalrace attribution is important to the process ofrecords screening and personalidentification. The AAP A may state thatpure races do not exist, but society stillperceives human genetic diversity in termsof discrete racial groups. This poses adilemma for many forensic anthropologists.While most contemporary anthropologistshave abandoned the traditional Westernconcept of race as bounded, identifiablebiological populations (Sauer 1992: 107), therace concept continues to persist ingovernment census data and mass mediasources. Because of this, the forensicanthropologist must be equipped to provideresults of analysis in those terms, and thus,perpetuates the myth that races exists withinour species (Kennedy 1995:798). Thispractice is not a vindication of the traditionalrace concept but a prediction, based uponskeletal morphology, that a certain labelwould have been assigned to a person whenthat person was alive (Sauer 1992: 110).Brace (1995:172) warns that skeletalanalysis can provide an accurate estimate of

ancestry, or original geographical ongms,but no straight assessment of skin colour."Africa of course entails "black", but"black" does not entail African" (Brace1995: 172). Jim Chatters, the anthropologistwho first described Kennewick Man, wasmisunderstood and misquoted when he usedthe term "Caucasoid" to describe the ancientremains (Shanklin 2000: 102). Caucasoiddoes not mean "white", but only that theremains exhibit Caucasoid-like features.Brace (1995:172) warns that forensicanthropologists must be fully aware of themany biological inaccuracies contained inthe socially-expected practice of assigningrace to a skeleton.

In this paper, I will attempt to describethe many different morphological variationsin the skull and teeth that occur amongdifferent "racial" groups. I will also attemptto describe the different methods, both pastand present, anthroposcopic andanthropometric, which are used within thefield of forensic anthropology fordetermining race from the skull and teeth.For the sake of simplicity, I have chosen touse the three primary racial classificationsused in modem race identification studies inforensic anthropology: Caucasoid, Negroidand Mongoloid (including AmericanIndians) (Sauer 1992:109).

MORPHOLOGICAUANATOMICAL \JARIATIONIN THE )\(ULL AND TEETH

Table 1. outlines the essentialcraniofacial trait variations, which arecommon to these three racial categories.

Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 8 [2000], Iss. 1, Art. 4

http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol8/iss1/4

Monjtoloid Caucasoid NeJ!ToidCranialform broad medium LongSagittal outline high, high, highly variable,

globular rounded post-bregmaticdepression

Nose form medium narrow BroadNasal bone size small large medium/smallNasal profile concave straight straight!

concaveNasal spine medium prominent, Reduced

straightNasal sill medium sharp dull/absentIncisorform shoveled blade BladeFacial moderate reduced ExtremeprojtnathismAlveolar moderate reduced Extremeproj!nathismMalar form projecting reduced ReducedPalatal form parabolic/ parabolic Hyperbolic

ellipticOrbitalform round rhomboid RoundMandible robust medium gracile, oblique gonial

angleChin pro;ection moderate prominent ReducedChin form median bilateral Median

Table 1. Craniofacial trait variations.(modified from Gill 1986, Table 1.)

A Caucasoid cranium is long inlength, narrow in breadth and high inheight. The sagittal contour is round, andit exhibits a somewhat sloping foreheadin comparison to Negroid or Mongoloidcrania. The occipital profile is roundedand it exhibits strong nuchal musclemarkings (Skinner & Lazenby 1983:50).

Bass (1979) has referred to astudy by Adeloye et al.,which wasconducted in 1975 that measured thethickness of the cranium at four different

points on the sagittal plane. This studywas done on the skulls of black andwhite males, and it concluded that thefrontal bones of white males werethicker than those of black males (Bass1979:558).

A Negroid cranium is long inlength, narrow in breadth, and low inheight. The sagittal contour is flat andthe occipital profile is quite rounded(Skinner & Lazenby 1983:50). Theflatness of the sagittal contour is due to apost-bregmatic depression, a trait that



occurs frequently in the Negroidcranium (Eckert 1997:356). Skinner andLazenby (1983:50) describe the Negroidforehead as steep, but El-Najjar andMcWilliams (1978:74) describe theNegroid forehead as rounded. Accordingto Bass (1979:558), again referring tothe 1975 Adeloye et al. study, theNegroid cranium exhibits thickerparieto-occipital areas than Caucasoidcrama.

The Mongoloid cranium is longin length (Skinner & Lazenby 1983:50),but can frequently appear round insteadof long (EI-Najjar & McWilliams1978:74). The Mongoloid cranium isbroad in breadth and average in height,categorised between the high Caucasoidcranium and the low Negroid cranium.The occipital profile is angular and thenuchal muscle markings are moderate(Skinner & Lazenby 1983:50). Thesagittal contour is arched due to a"keeling" of the skull vault (Eckert1997:356).

Birkby (1966:25) notes thatarchaeological American Indian skullssometimes exhibit posterior occipitalcranial deformation, or occipitalflattening, which is the result of the useof cradleboards during infancy.

El-Najjar and McWilliams(1978:74) describe the Caucasoid face asa "hatchet face" due to the fact that theface aligns vertically in the sagittalplane. There is little or no prognathismexhibited, because Caucasoids have anorthognathic face with little protrusion in

the dental region of the skull (Bass1995:88).

The malar bones (zygomatic bones)retreat in the Caucasoid skull which canmake the skull appear somewhat"pointed" (Ubelaker 1989: 119). In thenasal region, Caucasoids possess a ratherlarge and sharp nasal sill (Bass 1995:88).EI-Najjar and McWilliams (1978:74)describe the Caucasoid nasal rootdepression as well-marked, and mentionthat the "...superior ends of the nasalbones often seem to disappear beneathan overhanging projection at glabella".Gill (1986:148-149) refers to theCaucasoid nose as narrow with a long,straight nasal spine and large nasalbones.

Ubelaker (1989:119) describes theCaucasoid palate as narrow andtriangular, as does Gill (1986:150) whoalso mentions that the palatine suture hassharp angles close to, but not on, themidline. El-Najjar and McWilliams(1978:74) and Gill (1986:149) bothdescribe the Caucasoid orbital form asrounded.

Gill (1986:151) discusses themastoid form and its use in identifyingrace from a skull, and states that theCaucasoid mastoid process is narrower,and more pointed than Negroid orMongoloid mastoid processes.

According to Lahr (1996:47),metopism "...is by definition theabnormal persistence of the medio-frontal suture into adulthood", and Lahrstates that metopism can occur inCaucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloidskulls, but it is most commonly found inCaucasoid skulls.

AccordingNegroid faces

to Bass (1995:92),are renowned for



exhibiting alveolar prognathism, theanterior protrusion of the alveolarprocess. Alveolar prognathism producesfacial prognathism, which is pronouncedin Negroid skulls (Gill 1986:149).

Ubelaker (1989:119) notes that theNegroid face possesses rectangularshaped orbits and little projection of themalars. The most diagnostic feature ofthe Negroid face, according to EI-Najjarand McWilliams (1978:74), is theguttered nasal sill. The base of the noselacks the sharp sill seen in Caucasoidfaces, it is round in shape and "...a gutteror trough is often found running laterallyabout 5mm inside the nostril" (EI-Najjar& McWilliams 1978:74). The nasal formis broad, the nasal bones aremedium/small and heavy, the nasalprofile is straight or concave and thenasal spine is somewhat reduced (Gill1986: 148-149).

Ubelaker (1989:119) describes theNegroid palate as wide, and rectangularin shape, but Gill (1986: 150) describes itas hyperbolic with long, parallel sides,and mentions that there tends to be adefinite curve in the palatine suture closeto the midline.

When discussing the use of themastoid form in determining race from askull, Gill (1986:150-151) states that"...the very oblique angle of the Negroidmastoid with its characteristically smalltubercle along the inferior borderconstitutes the most distinctive of themastoid forms".

Post (1969) conducted a studycomparing the size of the externalopening of the tear duct, or naso-lachrymal canal, between AmericanNegroids and Caucasoids. Post(1969:85) concluded that AmericanNegroids possessed shorter naso-lachrymal canals which are straighter,

and larger in diameter than AmericanCaucasoids.

Bass (1995:92) describes theMongoloid face as flat, due to theextreme projection of the malar bones.Bass mentions that not only do thezygomatic bones protrude forward, butthey also project inferiorly, below theinferior border of the maxilla.

Mongoloid faces exhibit mediumalveolar prognathism, but it is not asextreme as it is in Negroid skulls (El-Najjar & McWilliams 1978:75). El-Najjar and McWilliams (1978:75)describe the Mongoloid orbital form astriangular, but Ubelaker (1989:119) andGill (1986:149) both describeMongoloid orbits as round and circular.

Mongoloid nose form is medium,with small nasal bones and a concavenasal profile. The nasal spine and nasalsill are described as medium (Gill1986:149). Ubelaker (1989:119)mentions that the Mongoloid nasalaperture tends to have a pointed lowermargin, and Bass (1995:92) notes thatMongoloid skulls exhibit a nasalovergrowth. "The nasal bones projectforward beyond their junction with thefrontal portion of the maxilla" (Bass1995:92).

Gill (1986: 151) describes theMongoloid mastoid process as wide andvertical, and mentions that there is somesimilarity between the shape ofMongoloid and Caucasoid mastoidprocesses.

According to Krogman and Iscan(1986:279), racial differentiation in themandible is insignificant, and the



mandible cannot be racially categorisedwith any amount of accuracy. Althoughthey have differing views, Krogman andIscan (1986) refer to Shultz, whobelieves that there are morphologicalvariations between the mandibles ofCaucasoids and Negroids.

Shultz argues that a Negroidmandible has a "...lower, wider, andmore vertical ramus; greater corpal anddental arch length, i.e., a long U-shapeddental arch; relatively smaller breadthdimensions; a less dominant chin, i.e.,mental tubercles more medial in positionand smaller" (Shultz in Krogman &Iscan 1986:280). In contrast, aCaucasoid mandible "...has largerbreadth measures; a higher, narrowerramus; a greater gonial angle; ramalsurfaces more parallel to the mediansagittal plane; (and) a more protrusivechin with mental tubercles more lateralin position" (Krogman & Iscan1986:279).

Gill (1986:149) also notes racialvariations in the mandible, and describesa Negroid mandible as gracile, with anoblique gonial angle. It has a reducedchin projection, a median chin form and"...an undulating mandibular border,(and) a narrow posterior aspect to thehorizontal mandibular ramus" (Gill1986:149-150). A Caucasoid mandibleexhibits a medium degree of robusticity,with prominent chin projection and abilateral chin form. A Mongoloidmandible is robust, similar to a Negroidmandible, with moderate chin projectionand a median chin form (Gill 1986:149).

Ubelaker (1989:119) has made theobservation that the anterior alveolus ina Negroid mandible is quite projecting incomparison with Caucasoid andMongoloid mandibles. This is due to thepronounced prognathism, or alveolarprojection seen in Negroid skulls.

According to Ubelaker (1989:120),evidence suggests that "...maxillarylateral incisors of diminished size andvariable form are more common amongwhites, such as peg-shaped forms andminiature versions of normal teeth".Also common in Caucasoid dentition areoverbites, with the maxillary teethprotruding over the mandibular teeth(Ubelaker 1989:1989:120).

Carabelli's Cusp is an extra cusp onthe mesio-lingual side of the maxillarymolars. This feature is most commonlyfound in Caucasoid teeth, occurring witha frequency of 35-50%, and is lessfrequently found among Negroid andMongoloid dentition. Other features ofthe Caucasoid dentition are bucco-lingual flattening of the mandibularsecond premolars and a long, narrow,parabolic arch with a high-vaulted palate(Eckert 1997:309-310).

Gill (1986:149-150) describes theCaucasoid parabolic palate as triangular,and states that the reduced alveolarprognathism seen in Caucasoid skulls isdue to consistent dental crowding.

Krogman and Iscan (1986:369)describe Caucasoid dental roots asshorter, straighter, and less splayed thanNegroid or Mongoloid dental roots, andmention that enamel extensions are morecommon in Caucasoid teeth.

According to Eckert (1997:310),Negroid dentition is characterized by 2-3lingual cusps on the mandibular fIrstmolar, wide, hyperbolic arches with anarrow palatal vault, both maxillary andmandibular alveolar prognathism, and aTuberculum Intermedium. A



Tuberculum Intermedium is an extralingual cusp "...between the disto-lingualand mesio-lingual on (the) mandibularfirst molar" (Eckert 1997:310).

EI-Najjar and McWilliams(1978:75) mention that crenulations tendto appear on the occlusal surface ofNegroid molars, but this has not beenproven to be conclusive. EI-Najjar andMcWilliams (1978:74) also describe theNegroid palate as rectangular in shape,or pointed and narrow. Krogman andIscan (1986:369) state that the firstpermanent mandibular molar in theNegroid dentition often displays the"Y5" cusp pattern.

De Melo E Freitas and Salzano(1975:147) conducted a study on theeruption of permanent teeth in Brazilianwhites and blacks, and concluded that ingeneral, there were no vast differences inthe eruption rate between black andwhite children. The only variation foundwas that at age six, black children hadmore of their permanent teeth than whitechildren, and this occurred with aprobability of five percent (De Melo EFreitas & Salzano 1975:147).

One major feature of Mongoloiddentition is an edge-to-edge bite thatoccurs when the mandible and maxillaare occluded. The incisor teeth willocclude edge-to-edge without showingthe overbite that is commonly found inCaucasoid dentition. Occlusal wear onthe incisors will usually indicate aMongoloid skull (Bass 1995:92).

According to Ubelaker (1989: 120),Mongoloid teeth are the largest in size incomparison with those of Negroids andCaucasoids. Other Mongoloid dentitionfeatures include extra distal roots on themandibular first molars, an ellipticalmaxillary arch with a flat palatal vault, avertical, wide ascending ramus, enamelpearls (lumps of enamel on the roottrunks of molars), and a dens evaginatus- an extra tubercle on the occlusalsurface of mandibular premolars (Eckert1997:309). Protostylids, which areaccessory cusps/tubercles that occur inthe mesio-buccal surface of mandibularmolars, occur with the highest frequencyin the Mongoloid dentition (Ubelaker1989:120).

The one dental trait that can be saidto be diagnostic of Mongoloid dentitionis shovel-shaped incisors. Shovel-shapedincisors have "...prominent marginalridges on the lingual surface, givingthem a "shovel-shaped" appearance"(Ubelaker 1989: 120). This occurs with ahigh frequency in Mongoloidpopulations. According to Eckert(1997:308), shovel-shaped incisors occurin 85-99% of Mongoloid dentitions.Shovel-shaped incisors can occur inNegroid and Caucasoid dentitions, butthe trait is rarely found in thesepopulations (EI-Najjar & McWilliams1978:75).

Krogman and Iscan (1986:368-369)state that Mongoloid incisors haveshorter roots, that Mongoloid molarroots are more frequently fused, shorter,and less splayed, and that tooth crownsare more bulbous and taper down to theneck.



ME:THO[)) FOR RACIAL IDENTIFICATIONIN THE ~~ULLAND TEE:TH

Racial differentiation can bedetermined through the use ofanthroposcopic, or non-metric methods.Many physical characteristics found onthe skull can be analyzed non-metricallyin order to assess the race of anindividual. When trying to identify therace of an individual, mostanthroposcopic methods tend to focus onthe craniofacial region of the skull. Thebest traits for determining race tend to bethose found in and around the nose,mouth and cheeks (Gill 1986:156).

Krogman and Iscan (1986:270-274)describe an anthroposcopic method usedby Todd and Tracy in 1930 to determineracial affinity from Negroid and

Caucasoid skulls. Todd and Tracyfocused on five descriptive traits:supraorbital ridges, upper orbitalmargins, glabella, the frontonasal sutureand the interorbital distance. Under eachof these five descriptive traits, Todd andTracy looked for two contrastingvariations which they believed to beracially connected. The supraorbitalridges were either mesa-like orundulating; the upper orbital marginswere either sharp or blunt; glabella waseither rounded or depressed; thefrontonasal suture was either plain orbeetling; and the interorbital distancewas either narrow or wide. Two types ofskulls were found, a U-type and an M-type, both distributed throughout the tworaces. Table 2. shows the distribution ofboth types of skulls found in the tworaces studied by Todd and Tracy.

Supraorb. Upper orb. Glabella Fronta- Interorb.Ridpes Marf!ins Nas.Junction Distance

Modal U M S B R D P B W NCharactersWhite + + + + + +M-Type +

AmericanBlack + + + + + +M-TvpeEast African + + + + + + + +M-TvpeWest African + + + + + +M-TvpeWhite + + + + + +U-TVDeAmericanBlack + + + + +U-TvpeEast African + + + + +U-TypeWest African + + + + +U-TVDe

Table 2. Distribution of race related morphological traits in blacks and whites.(adapted from Krogman and Iscan, 1986. Table 7.3)



Gill (1986: 154-155) refers to a1984 study conducted by Martindale,who looked at the zygomatic sutures inorder to determine race from a skull.Martindale distinguished between thezygomatic sutures of Caucasoids, whichhe observed to curve backwards, and ofMongoloids, which were more angled.

Birkby and Napoli (1990) studiedthe oval window position in the middleear, and its usefulness in distinguishingbetween Caucasoid, Mongoloid andCaucasoidIMongoloid admixedindividuals. The authors concluded thatthe visibility of the oval window withinthe middle ear is a racially indicativetrait - the oval window of Mongoloidskulls is generally obscured from view,but this is not the case in Caucasoid andCaucasoidIMongoloid admixedindividuals (Birkby & Napoli 1990:31).

Brooks et al. (1990:45)conducted an anthroposcopic analysis ofalveolar prognathism and its usefulnessin determining race from a skull, andconcluded that "...there are raciallydistinct differentiations in themorphological appearance of maxillaryalveolar prognathism".

Angel and Kelley (1990:33) statethat "...midway up the posterior edge of

the ramus, the bone is turned inward inmost skulls of African genetic origin",and the authors conclude that thischaracteristic is a valid trait whenattempting to determine race from amandible (Angel & Kelley 1990:38).

Anthropometric methods ofdetermining racial affinity in the skullhave been conducted through the use ofdiscriminant function statistics. One ofthe first methods using discriminantfunction statistics to determine race wascarried out by Giles and Elliot in 1962.

Giles and Elliot (1962:147-157)studied American Caucasoid andNegroid skulls from the Hamann-Toddand Terry Collections and AmericanIndian skulls from the Indian KnollCollections, the Gulf States, and thesouthwestern United States. Using thismethod, eight cranial measurements aretaken and multiplied by a determinedfactor. The results are then added orsubtracted to produce a score that can beassessed for racial affiliation. Thesevariables and multiplication factors areshown in table 3.

White vs. White vs. Malevs.Black Indian Black Indian Female

Basion-Prosthion 3.06 0.10 1.74 3.05 -1.00Glabella-Occipital L 1.60 -0.25 1.28 -1.04 1.16Max. Cranial br. -1.90 -1.56 -1.18 -5.41Basion-BreKma hI. -1.79 0.73 -0.14 4.29Basion-Nasion length -4.41 -0.29 -2.34 -4.02 1.66Max. Bizygomatic br. -0.10 1.75 0.38 5.62 3.98Prosthion-Nasion hI. 2.59 -0.16 -0.01 -1.00 1.54Nasal Breadth 10.56 -0.88 2.45 -2.19Section inK Point 89.27 22.28 92.20 130.10 891.12

Variables and multiplication factors for determining race.(adapted from Ubelaker 1989, Table 26)



The final score is then compared withthe corresponding sectioning point.Scores that are greater in value than thespecific point signify that the skull is notconsidered Caucasoid, but Negroid orMongoloid, depending upon the specificcolumn and sectioning point that is used(Ubelaker 1989: 121).

Birkby (1966) has criticised thisspecific anthropometric method fordetermining race. According to Birkby(1966:22-26), Giles and Elliot's methodclassifies skulls according to three mainracial categorisations, and any skull thatis analyzed using this method must beplaced in one of these three categories.This method does not take into accounthybridity or human variation.

Birkby also criticises theAmerican Indian population(IndianKnoll) included in the Giles andElliot study. According to Birkby(1966:26), the Indian Knoll population isnot representative of all AmericanIndians found in the United States,which would be necessary in order touse this method to determine race on anational basis: "The determination ofrace by discriminant functions basedonly on a single American Indian samplecannot be used with any degree ofconfidence on any other AmericanIndian population" (Birkby 1966:26).

In 1984, Gill developed ananthropometric method to determinerace" ...that results in a ninety-percent-correct classification" (Bass 1995:93).This method involves six measurementsof the midfacial skeleton and thecomputation of three indices: themaxillofrontal index, the zygoorbitalindex, and the alpha index (Curran1990:55). According to Krogman andIscan (1986:276), this method workedadequately to distinguish Caucasoidsfrom Negroids and Mongoloids, but it

was not useful in distinguishing betweenNegroids and Mongoloids. Gill(1986:153-154) states that no othermethods seems to show such stable,dependable results, but adds that it doesrequire the use of a simometer, which isan instrument that was rarely foundand/or used at the time of hispublication.

DiBennardo (1986) has made use ofcomputer implementations which havesimplified the use of statistical methods,such as discriminant function analysis, indetermining racial affiliation fromskulls.

FORDISC 2.0, by Ousley and Jantz(1996), is an interactive DOS computerprogram used in determining race fromcranial measurements. According toOusley and Jantz (1996), this program is

. able to classify unknown adult craniabased on known samples with the use ofup to 21 cranial measurements. Theknown samples are all recentpopulations, and therefore the programshould only be used in the analysis ofmodern, non-archaeological individuals.The majority of the known samples usedin the FORDISC 2.0 program are fromthe Forensic Data Bank (Jantz & Moore-Jansen 1988). All measurements andlandmarks used are published in DataCollection Procedures jor ForensicSkeletal Material (Moore-Jansen et al.1994), which is included with each copyof the FORDISC 2.0 program.

Howells (1989) has also usedanthropometric methods, Q-Modeanalysis, and analysis by populationdistances in order to "...search forspecific distinctions between thepopulations of different major regions"(Howells 1989: 1). Howells used fifty-seven different measurements in order tolook for differences within six differentpopulations; Europeans, Africans (sub-



Saharan), Australo-Melanesians, FarEasterners (Japanese, Chinese),Polynesians, and those from North andSouth America. Howells concluded thatthere are "...signs of evolutionarydivergence in cranial shape amongrecent populations of differentgeographic areas" (Howells 1989:83).Howells (1995) recently made use ofmultivariate analysis in determiningethnic identification from human crania.

Benfer (1970) has usedmultivariate analysis on the associationsamong seven discontinuous cranial traitswhich were first presented in 1968 byHertzog: five sites where accessoryossicles occur, the presence of parietalforamina and the form of the fronto-temporal suture. Benfer found theseseven traits to occur independently fromeach other, and concluded that theycannot be used in order to determineracial affiliation from skulls.

All living human beings aremembers of a single species (Homosapiens). There is a great deal of geneticdiversity within all human populations,and human genetic variation should beperceived as a continuum, rather thandiscrete categories. But within the fieldof forensic osteology, determining racefrom a skull is useful in its ability to aidin identifying human remains. Societystill perceives human genetic diversity interms of discrete racial groups, and theforensic anthropologist must beequipped to provide results of analysis inthose terms. In doing so, the forensicanthropologist must heed the warningsof Brace (1995:172), and always beaware of the biological inaccuracies

involved in the practice of assigning raceto a skeleton.

Different studies in racial variation,such as morphological variation, andboth anthroposcopic and anthropometricmethods, make useful contributions tothe practice within modem forensicanthropology of determining racialaffinity from human crania. Eachmethod focuses on observations of manydifferent characteristics and traitsoccurring on the human skull. This isimportant because no one single trait onits own denotes "race". Only when alltraits are observed together and thenanalysed according to a specific method,can inferences be made about the racialidentification of a skull. One majorproblem with classifying human remainsinto specific races, is the fact that theseracial classifications do not take intoaccount the occurrence of hybridity.Methods used in order to classifyindividuals into separate racialcategories do not take note of individualswho exhibit a mix of different "racial"traits. The geographic movement ofpeoples occurs on a very large scale,resulting in larger populations ofadmixed individuals. Methods used indetermining race from human skulls willhave to take note of this, and formulatedifferent categories of racial affiliationwhen attempting to analyze race fromhuman remains.

American Association of PhysicalAnthropology 1996. AAP A Statement

on Biological Aspects of Race.American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology. 101:569-570.



Angel, 1. Lawrence and Jennifer OlsenKelley 1990. "Inversion of thePosterior Edge of the Jaw Ramus:New Race Trait." In SkeletalAttribution of Race: Methods forForensic Anthropology. Gill,George W. and Stanley Rhine,(eds.), pp. 33-39. Maxwell Museumof Anthropology, AnthropologicalPapers No.4.

Bass, William M. 1979. Developmentsin the Identification of HumanSkeletal Material. American Journalof Physical Anthropology. 51:555-562.

Bass, William M. 1995. HumanOsteology: A Laboratory and FieldManual. Columbia: MissouriArchaeological Society, Inc.

Benfer, Robert A. 1970. AssociationsAmong Cranial Traits. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology.32:463-464.

Birkby, Walter H. 1966. An Evaluationof Race and Sex Identification fromCranial Measurements. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology.24:21-28.

Birkby, Walter H. and Michelle L.Napoli 1990. "Racial Differences inthe Visibility of the Oval Windowin the Middle Ear." In SkeletalAttribution of Race: Methods forForensic Anthropology. Gill,George W. and Stanley Rhine,(eds.). pp. 27-32. Maxwell Museumof Anthropology, AnthropologicalPapers No.4.

Boas, Franz 1940. Race, Language andCulture. New York: The MacmillanCompany.

Brace, C. Loring 1995. Region Does notMean "Race" - Reality VersusConvention in ForensicAnthropology. Journal of ForensicSciences. 40:171-175.

Brooks, Sheilagh, Richard H. Brooksand Diane France 1990. "AlveolarPrognathism Contour, An Aspect ofRacial Identification." In SkeletalAttribution of Race: Methods forForensic Anthropology. Gill,George W. and Stanley Rhine,(eds.). pp. 41-46. Maxwell Museumof Anthropology, AnthropologicalPapers No.4.

Curran, B.K. 1990. "The Application ofMeasures of Mid facial Projectionfor Racial Classification." InSkeletal Attribution of Race:Methodsfor Forensic Anthropology.Gill, George W. and Stanley Rhine,(eds.). pp. 55-57. Maxwell Museumof Anthropology, AnthropologicalPapers No.4.

De Melo E Freitas, Mario J. and F.M.Salzano 1975. Eruption

of Permanent Teeth in BrazilianWhites and Blacks. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology.42: 145-150.



DiBennardo, Robert 1986. "The Use andInterpretation of CommonComputer Implementations ofDiscriminant Function Analysis." InForensic Osteology: Advances inthe Identification of HumanRemains. Reichs, KI(ed.), pp.171-195. Springfield: Charles C.Thomas.

Dyer, KF. 1974. The Biology of RacialIntegration. Bristol: Scientechnica,Ltd.

Eckert, William G. 1997. Introduction toForensic Science. United States ofAmerica: CRC Press, Inc

EI-Najjar, Mahmoud Y. and K RichardMcWilliams 1978. Forensic

Anthropology: The Structure,Morphology and Variation ofHuman Bone and Dentition. Illinois:Charles C. Thomas.

Giles, Eugene and Orville Elliot 1962.Race Identification from CranialMeasurements. Journal of ForensicSciences. 7:147-157.

Gill, George W. 1998. "CraniofacialCriteria in the Skeletal Attributionof Race. " In Forensic Osteology:Advances in the Identification ofHuman Remains. (2nd edition)Reichs, Kathleen l(ed.), pp.293-315.

Gill, George W. 1986. "CraniofacialCriteria in Forensic Identification."In Forensic Osteology: Advances inthe identification of HumanRemains. Reichs, KI(ed.). pp. 143-159. Springfield: Charles C.Thomas.

Howells, W.W. 1989. Skull Shapes andthe Map: Craniometric Analyses inthe Dispersion of Modem Homo.Papers of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 79Peabody Museum, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge.

Howells, W.W. 1995. Who's Who inSkulls: Ethnic Identificationof Crania from Measurements.Papers of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 82Peabody Museum, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge.

Jantz, R.L. and P.H. Moore-Jansen 1988.A Data Base for ForensicAnthropology: Structure, Contentand Analysis. Report ofInvestigations No. 47, Departmentof Anthropology. Knoxville: TheUniversity of Tennessee.

Kennedy, Kenneth A.R. 1995. ButProfessor, Why Teach RaceIdentification if Races Don't Exist?Journal of Forensic Sciences.40:797-800.

Krogman, Wilton Marion and MehmetYascar Iscan 1986. The Human

Skeleton in Forensic Medicine.Springfield: Charles C.Thomas.

Lahr, Marta Mirazon 1996. TheEvolution of Modern HumanDiversity: A Study of CranialVariation. Britain: University Press,Cambridge.

Moore-Jansen, P.R., S.D. Ousley andR.L. Jantz 1994. Data Collection

Procedures for Forensic SkeletalMaterial. Third Edition. Knoxville:The University of Tennessee.



Ousley, S.D. and R.L. Jantz 1996.FORDISC 2.0: Personal ComputerForensic Discriminant Functions.Knoxville: The Universityof Tennessee.

Post, Richard H. 1969. Tear Duet SizeDifferences of Age, Sex and Race.American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology. 30:85-88.

Sauer, Norman J. 1992. ForensicAnthropology and the Concept ofRace: If Races Don't Exist, Why areForensic Anthropologists so Goodat Identifying Them? Social Scienceand Medicine. 34(2): 107-111.

Shanklin, Eugenia 2000. Representationsof Race and Racism in AmericanAnthropology. CurrentAnthropology. 41(1): 99-103.

Shipman, Pat, Alan Walker and DavidBichell 1985. The Human Skeleton.Cambridge, Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press.

Skinner, Mark and Richard A. Lazenby1983. Found! Human Remains: AField Manual for the Recovery ofthe Recent Human Skeleton. BritishColumbia: Archaeology Press,Simon Fraser University.

Ubelaker, Douglas H. 1989. HumanSkeletal Remains: Excavation,Analysis and Interpretation.Washington: Taraxacum.



Documents

Racial Identification in the Skull and Teeth