Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
taino_migracion_morphometric.pdf

taino_migracion_morphometric.pdf

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9|Likes:
Published by Rubén García

More info:

Published by: Rubén García on Jan 27, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/27/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Cranial Evidence of Pre-Contact Multiple Population Expansions inthe Caribbean
A
NN
H. R
OSS
North Carolina State University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Campus Box 8107, Raleigh, NC27695-8107 Email: ann_ross@ncsu.edu
A
BSTRACT
.—The most recognized Caribbean population dispersal hypothesis is a direct jump from SouthAmerica followed by dispersal into the Lesser Antilles and westward. This evidence primarily comes fromthe archaeological record, as skeletal material is scarce in the Caribbean due to generally poor preservation.This study evaluated the direct jump hypothesis along with other possible migration routes using craniallandmark data. A study of three-dimensional facial shape variation among pre-Contact Taino groups fromCuba,PuertoRico,Jamaica,andHispaniola,andpre-ContactgroupsfromMexico,Venezuela,Colombia,andFlorida was conducted. Cuban Tainos differed from other Caribbean Taino groups, suggesting a dissimilarancestry. No significant difference between the Caribbean Taino (excluding Cuba) groups and the SouthAmerican groups was observed, a result that was consistent with the archaeological record for dispersal fromSouth America into the Lesser Antilles. Cuba was also very distinct from the Florida series, a finding thatcontradicts hypotheses of possible migrations across the Straits of Florida. The differentiation of the CubanTainos from the rest of the American and Caribbean series suggests another source of population influx.K
EYWORDS
.—Caribbean, population migrations, geometric morphometrics
I
NTRODUCTION
The peopling of the New World and ex-pansion into the rest of the Americas, in-cluding population movements into theCaribbean, is a topic of fundamental inter-est to physical anthropologists, geneticists,linguists, and archaeologists. Discussionsand studies designed to uncover the mys-tery of Native American origins have not been without controversy, and have pre-sented various dispersal models such assingle or multiple waves of migrations.There has been a renewed interest in thepeopling of the Caribbean with recentDNA, dental, and craniometric studies, anarea that has traditionally been dominated by archaeology (Coppa et al. 2002; Lalueza-Fox et al. 2001; Lalueza-Fox et al. 2003; Mar-tinez-Cruzado et al. 2001; Toro-Labrador etal. 2003; Ross et al. 2002).The Caribbean was settled by severalwaves of migrations of pre-ceramic and ce-ramic age settlers (Keegan 1995). Severalmigration routes were proposed for thesettlement of the Caribbean, including pre-ceramic colonists crossing the Yucatan pas-sage or dispersing across the Straits of Florida into Cuba and then eastward. How-ever, the most recognized Antillean dis-persal hypotheses is a direct jump by agri-culturalists from South America, followed by dispersal into the Lesser Antilles andwestward (Keegan 1995; Moreira de Lima1999).At the time of contact, two main indig-enous groups inhabited the Caribbean is-lands. The Tainos, inhabited Hispaniola,Puerto Rico, the eastern part of Cuba, Ja-maica, the Bahamas, and Turks and Caicos,while the Caribs inhabited the WindwardIslands and Guadeloupe (Lalueza-Fox et al.2003; Rouse 1986, 1992; Petersen 1994).There is evidence that a third group, theaceramic Ciboneys or Guanahatabeys, in-habited the western Greater Antilles in-cluding western Cuba, and who are be-lieved to have originated from a pre-ceramic Paleolithic people from CentralAmerica (Petersen 1994; Highfield 1994).However, the information available for thisgroup is scarce. The origins of the Tainohave been traced to the Orinoco River inVenezuela, and their expansion into theLesser Antilles to Puerto Rico has been welldocumented on the basis of a characteristic
Caribbean Journal of Science,
Vol. 40, No. 3, 291-298, 2004Copyright 2004 College of Arts and SciencesUniversity of Puerto Rico, Mayagu¨ez
291
 
type of pottery known as Saladoid (Rouse1992; Keegan 1992). The early Saladoidpeople then gave rise to the Ostionoidaround A.D. 600, with these groups even-tually giving rise to the Tainos encountered by Columbus (Rouse 1992; Keegan 1992;Callaghan 2001). To evaluate these dis-persal hypotheses, a preliminary study of facial shape variation was conductedamong pre-contact Caribbean Taino groupsand pre-contact groups from North andSouth America using three-dimensionallandmark data.M
ATERIALS AND
M
ETHODS
Eight groups totaling 103 individualswere used in this study. Group names,sample sizes, source of data, and prove-niences are presented in Table 1. Specificinformation regarding the exact prove-nience of some of the samples is limited.Generally, all that is known is the locationand date of acquisition of the remains.Males and females were pooled in order toincorporate all of the biological variationwithin a population.Ten homologous facial landmarks wereutilized in the analyses (1. Alare left, 2.Alare right, 3. Dacryon left, 4. Dacryonright, 5. Ectoconchion left, 6. Ectoconchionright, 7. Nasion, 8. Inferior orbital borderleft, 9. Superior orbital border left, and 10.Subspinale). Because the Tainos practicedintentional cranial vault reshaping, onlyfacial landmarks were analyzed. The land-marks used in this study are standard cra-niometric landmarks, and detailed land-mark descriptions are found in Howells(1973). A Microscribe
3-DX 
digitizer wasused to obtain the x, y, and z coordinatesfor each landmark using the softwareThreeSkull, written by Stephen D. Ousley.After digitizing the sets of landmark co-ordinates, it was necessary to scale, trans-late and rotate each configuration of pointsso that all skulls would be of comparablesize, location and orientation. A General-ized Procrustes Analysis (or GPA) wasused to perform these transformations tominimize the sum of squared distances be-tween homologous landmarks on all skullsand scale specimens to a common size(Bookstein 1996; Rohlf and Slice 1990; Slice1993; Ross et al. 2004). The GPA superim-position was performed using Morpheus etal., a cross-platform program written byDennis E. Slice and available for download-ing from the SUNY-Stony Brook Morpho-metrics homepage (Slice 1998).A Principal component analysis (PCA) of the covariance matrix was conducted on
T
ABLE
1. Group names, sample sizes, source of data, and proveniences of the samples used in the presentstudy.Samplename N ProvenienceCuban Taino (Arawak) 21 (ca. 800-1500 A.D.) Museo de Montane, Havana, CubaHispaniola Taino (Arawak) 16 (ca. 800-1500 A.D.) National Museum of Natural History,Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.Puerto Rico Taino (Arawak) 9 (ca. 800-1542 A.D.) American Museum of Natural History,New York City Jamaica Taino (Arawak) 7 (ca. 800-1500 A.D.) National Museum of Natural History,Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.Colombia 5 Pre-Contact, American Museum of Natural History, New YorkCityVenezuela 4 Pre-Contact, American Museum of Natural History, New YorkCityMexico Tarasco 27 Carl Lumholtz collection, American Museum of Natural His-tory, New York CityFlorida 14 Pre-Contact (1300-1400 A.D.) 3-D coordinates provided bySteve Ousley, National Museum of Natural History, Smith-sonian Institution, Washington D.C.ANN H. ROSS292
 
the GPA transformed coordinates to reducedimensionality and derive principal com-ponent scores for subsequent multivariateanalyses. A multivariate analysis of vari-ance (MANOVA) was performed on thefirst five principal component scores to testfor mean shape differences betweengroups. The degree of differentiationamong groups was assessed using Mahala-nobis D
2
or generalized squared distance of the principal component scores. In addi-tion, an UPGMA Clustering analysis wasperformed from the generalized distancematrix to characterize relative shape simi-larities between the groups (Sneath and So-kal 1973). These analyses were performedusing the SAS system for Windows Version8 (SAS n.d.).R
ESULTS
The MANOVA detected significant be-tween group differences (Wilks
= 0.257;
F
value = 4.19; df = 35;
p
< = 0.0001). The firstfive principal components accounted for38%, 18%, 15%, 8%, and 7%, roughly ex-plaining 86% of the total variation. D
2
val-ues based on the first five principal compo-nent scores are presented in Table 2. Thefurthest removed populations are Cubaand Florida. Hispaniola, Jamaica, PuertoRico, Venezuela, and Colombia are not sig-nificantly different, and Mexico and Co-lombia do not differ significantly.Figure 1 shows an anterior view of thesuperimposition of the mean configurationfor all populations. This superimposition oroverlay illustrates that Cuba and Floridaare morphologically very different from therest of the Americans. In Cubans, the alareswere more superiorly placed, the inferiororbital border was more laterally and infe-riorly placed, the superior orbital borderwas more superiorly placed, and nasionwas more inferiorly placed. By contrast, inFloridians, the alares were oriented moreinferiorly, subspinale was more laterallyand inferiorly placed, inferior orbital bor-der was more medially placed, and nasionwas superiorly oriented.Figure 2 presents the difference betweenthe Mexican and Colombian mean configu-rations as magnified (X2) difference vec-tors, which are very similar suggested bythe short vectors. The difference vectorsshow the direction and magnitude of thedifference between one mean configurationand another. The difference between thepooled mean forms of three CaribbeanTaino groups (Hispaniola + Puerto Rico + Jamaica) and Cuba is illustrated in Figure 3.Here Cubans had more superiorly placedalares, a more antero- inferiorly placed na-sion, more medially placed dacryons, a lat-erally placed inferior orbital border, and in-fero-medially oriented ectochonchions. Themagnitude of the morphological differ-ences between Cuba and Florida and be-tween Mexico and Florida were also pro-nounced as observed by the length of thedifference vectors (Fig. 4 and 5.).In the UPGMA clustering analysis (Fig.6), two distinct groupings were observed.One cluster included Colombia, Venezuela,and Mexico, while the other included His-paniola, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico. Notably,
T
ABLE
2. Generalized squared Mahalanobis distance using principal component scores (D
2
) showing thedegree of differentiation among the groups.Group Colom Cuba FL Hisp Jam Mex PR VenzColom 0Cuba 5.015* 0FL 3.620* 11.822 0Hisp
1.380
4.024 4.329 0 Jam
1.773
6.217 2.629*
0.365
0Mex
0.738
5.339 5.871 2.675 3.547* 0PR
1.493
3.775 5.408
0.471 1.152 1.620
0Venz
0.244
4.938*
3.184 0.680 0.911 0.898 0.667
0All groups significant at
p
< 0.0001 except those marked *, which are significant at
p
< 0.05. Figures in boldfaceindicate no significance.PRE-CONTACT POPULATION EXPANSIONS 293

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->