Osteometric Assessment of 20th Century S

OSTEOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF 20TH CENTURY SKELETONS FROM
THAILAND AND HONG KONG
by
Christopher A. King
ISBN: 1-58112-011-7
DISSERTATION.COM
1997
BLANK
by
Christopher A. King
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
The Schmidt College of Arts and Humanities
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, Florida
August 1997
© Copyright by Christopher A. King 1997
ii
by
Christopher A. King
This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis advisor, Dr. Susan R.
Loth, Department of Anthropology, and has been approved by the members of his
supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of The Schmidt College of Arts
and Humanities and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Arts.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to give my sincerest thanks to Dr. M. Ya·ar ·can. As he is one of the top
researchers in the world, it is a privilege to call myself his student. His patience and
interest not only in my academics, but also for my personal well-being can never be fully
repaid. Next, I would like to thank Dr. Susan R. Loth for her relentless editing and
selfless assistance in helping me understand how to explain my results and not just
describe. I wish to thank my committee members, Drs. William J. Kennedy and Michael
Pietrusewsky. Dr. Kennedy’s open door and Dr. Pietrusewsky’s timely e-mails are greatly
appreciated.
I give both my love and thanks to my progenitors and family, for their
encouragement and guidance over the years.
To the inter-library loan office Tim, Usha, Dorothy, Bill, Stacia thanks and
appreciation for handling my thousands of requests for journal articles.
Thanks must be extended to Dr. Peter Lucas at the University of Hong Kong, and
Dr. Tejatat Tejasen at Chiang Mai University hospital. They both went to a lot of trouble
to make the collection phase of this project as comfortable and accomodating as possible.
To my roommates, Dan, Heather, Steve, and Skye I really appreciate their
support and friendship in and out of school. A special thanks to Sam for her friendship
and academic support.
iv
ABSTRACT
Author: Christopher A. King
Title: Osteometric Assessment of 20th Century

Skeletons from Thailand and Hong Kong
Institution: Florida Atlantic University
Thesis Advisor: Susan R. Loth, Ph.D.
Degree: Master of Arts
Year: 1997
Cranial and postcranial research on East and Southeast Asians has shown population
variability between and within these two regions. Moreover, as populations vary by sex,
sex differences vary by population. The purpose of this study is to provide the first
descriptive and comparative analysis of two recently curated samples of complete,
documented, contemporary skeletons from Thailand (N=104) and Hong Kong (N=94)
that have not been previously studied. Sex differences reveal Hong Kong males and
females as larger but less dimorphic than Thais. Stepwise discriminant function analysis of
the Thai humerus and femur allowed 94%-96% sex classification accuracy. In conclusion,
this research has increased our knowledge of sex and population differences in Asia and
has important applications to demographic and medicolegal investigations.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Population Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Sexual Dimorphism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Skeletal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Biological affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Sex determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Stature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
CHAPTER II
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Thai Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
The Hong Kong Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Measurements and Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
CHAPTER III
RESULTS: POPULATION DIFFERENCES
Craniometric Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Postcraniometric Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Males . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS: SEX DIFFERENCES
Craniometric Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Postcraniometric Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
vi
CHAPTER V
DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS OF THE THAI FEMUR . . . . . . . 76
CHAPTER VI
DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS OF THE THAI HUMERUS . . . . 84
CHAPTER VII
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
APPENDIX I
DESCRIPTION OF CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS 134
APPENDIX II
DATA COLLECTION FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Frequency distribution of the samples by decade (N=198). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2. Descriptive statistics of cranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and significance

of differences between means of Thai and Hong Kong males. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. T-test and significance of differences between the means of cranial indices for
Thai and Hong Kong males. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

of differences between means of Thai and Hong Kong females. . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Thai and Hong Kong females. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. Descriptive statistics of postcranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and significance

of differences between means of Thai and Hong Kong males. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7. T-test and significance of differences between the means of postcranial indices

for Thai and Hong Kong males. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8. Descriptive statistics of postcranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and significance

of differences between means of Thai and Hong Kong females. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

for Thai and Hong Kong females. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
10. Descriptive statistics of cranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and

significance of differences between means of Thai males and females. . . . . . . . . 48
males and females from Thailand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

of differences between means of Hong Kong males and females. . . . . . . . . . . . 52
viii
males and females from Hong Kong. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
14. Descriptive statistics of postcranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and

significance of differences between means of Thai males and females. . . . . . . . . 56
for males and females from Thailand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
16. Descriptive statistics of postcranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and

significance of differences between means of Hong Kong males and females. . . 68
for males and females from Hong Kong. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
18. Means, standard deviations and univariate F-ratios of the Thai femur. . . . . . . . 78
19. Stepwise discriminant function analysis of the femur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
20. Canonical discriminant function coefficients from the Stepwise discriminant

function analysis of the femur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
21. Canonical discriminant function coefficients from Direct analyses based on a

combination and singular variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
22. Sexing accuracy using combination and singular variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
23. Comparison of sex determination accuracy from maximum head

diameter and bicondylar breadth from various geographic regions. . . . . . . . . . . 83
24. Means, standard deviations and univariate F-ratios of humeral dimensions. . . . . 86
25. Stepwise discriminant function analysis of the humerus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
26. Canonical discriminant function coefficients for the humerus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
27. Canonical discriminant function coefficients from the stepwise analysis

of the humerus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
ix
28. Accuracy of correct group membership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
29. Comparison of cranial indices for a number of prehistoric and modern males and
females from East and Southeast Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
30. Comparison of postcranial indices of prehistoric and modern males and females
from East and Southeast Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Map showing the approximate regional breakdown of Asia and the Pacific
by biological affinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
It is essential to learn as much as possible from the human skeleton, because it
contains the key to a better understanding of many subjects such as human anatomy,
growth and development, odontology, paleontology, paleopathology, demography, sexual
dimorphism, and population variation. From the anthropological perspective, the value of
skeletal collections is immense. For example, metric, morphologic, and nonmetric studies
have contributed to our understanding of interrelationships among populations and to
biological comparison of prehistoric peoples with their living descendants, and have been a
major source of information on ancient diseases, trauma, etc. Skeletal collections also
permit the study of age, sex, stature, and biological affiliation differences from skeletal
features both metrical and morphological as well as the study of sexual dimorphism
within and between populations. Only from the assessment of known skeletal series can
standards be established to interpret remains from the past and identify forensic cases of
today and tomorrow.
Population Origins
Within the region of Southeast Asia and East Asia (Figure 1), many researchers
1
have demonstrated regional discontinuity (Brace, Brace, and Leonard 1989; Hanihara
1996; Howells 1973, 1989, 1990; Lahr 1995; Pietrusewsky 1984, 1990a,b, 1995; Turner
1985, 1986, 1989, 1990). Early explanations for this variability have frequently pointed to
a north to south migration from East Asia resulting in interbreeding or complete
replacement of aboriginal Southeast Asians (Pietrusewsky 1988a). Although, this is not
supported archaeologically because of the lack of evidence of Upper Paleolithic
technologies in Southeast Asia (Pope 1988), genetic data indicates a clustering of Eurasian
groups that would point to such gene flow (Nei and Roychoudhury 1993). The possibility
of such a reversal of said migration has also been raised (Pietrusewsky 1988a, 1992;
Turner 1992).
Theories of population differentiation and migration from Southeast and East Asia
abound (Bellwood 1979, 1985; Stoneking et al. 1990; Turner 1987; Zhao and Lee 1989).
Bellwood (1985) proposed two major prehistoric migrations into Southeast Asia with the
first as an ancient “Australoid” migration from the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago about 40
kya and second, a more recent “Southern Mongoloid” or “Austro-Melanesian” migration
from Fujian or Zhejian provinces of China around 4-6 kya (Ballinger et al. 1992:139). A
slightly different conclusion was made by Turner (1983, 1985, 1987), who used dental
morphological traits to hypothesize that two migrations originated from Central China
about 20-30 kya. One group, the sundadonts, was characterized by low frequencies of
incisor shoveling, double shoveling, lower first molar cusp 6, lower second molar cusp 5,
and 3-rooted first molars, and had generalized cranial morphology and additional
Mongoloid features like facial flatness and a broad vault (Turner 1985). These peoples
2
Figure 1
Map showing the approximate regional breakdown of Asia and the Pacific by
biological affinity.
(From Pietrusewsky 1997:122)
3
inhabited Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia, and reached as
far as Japan (J©mon and Ainu). Evolutionary factors such as genetic drift and gene flow
may have led to a more specialized morphological pattern, with intensified expression of
certain dental features (sinodonty).
In contrast, the sinodont dental pattern is established with high frequencies of incisor
shoveling, double shoveling, 3-rooted first molars, lower first molar 6; and the crania
characterized by facial flatness, broad vaults, tall faces and orbits, high cheekbones and
comparatively narrow noses. This sinodont pattern expanded northward into China,
Siberia and across the Bering land bridge to the New World (Turner 1985). As Turner
(1987) notes, differentiation of dental morphology must have occurred before 17 kya for it
is present in several fossil remains. Gracilization seems to have occurred somewhat later
(Bellwood 1985). This early population has been called “southern Mongoloids.” These
findings are consistent with multivariate analyses of cranial form and support the
consensus that Southeast Asians are less specialized morphologically, thus contributing to
the possible conclusion that Mongoloids originated in the South (Hanihara 1993a,b;
Harihara et al. 1992; Pietrusewsky 1992).
It has also been argued that within the last 5,000 years, the spread of agriculture
has contributed greatly in the formation of clinal variation between Southeast and East
Asia (Bellwood 1985, 1987). It is suggested that as farming began along the Yangtze
River delta, the migration of peoples and large scale rice cultivation eventually reached
Thailand about 1,000 years (Yen 1977) to as early as 4,000 years before present. This
agricultural revolution would have resulted in admixture from the newly settled
4
agriculturalists and migrating foraging groups creating a clinal pattern of morphology.
Such variation has been identified in the frequencies of sinodont and sundadont traits
among Hong Kongers, southern Chinese, and Taiwanese populations (Turner 1990).
In the Pacific, it is commonly thought that Polynesians and Micronesians share
common ancestral ties with Southeast Asia and East Asia (Chen et al. 1992; Hanihara
1992a,b,c,d; Hanihara, Hanihara, and Koizumi 1993; Howells 1989, 1990; Pietrusewsky
1990a,b, 1992, 1994a; Turner 1987, 1989, 1990). There has also been general agreement
that mainland and Southeast Asia as well as Pacific groups have Sundaland origins
(Bellwood 1985; Birdsell 1977; Brace and Hinton 1981; Hanihara, Hanihara, and Koizumi
1993; Pietrusewsky 1990a,b, 1992, 1994a, 1995; Hanihara 1989a,b,c, 1990a,b,
1992a,b,c). In a different light, Brace and associates suggested a “J©mon-Pacific cluster”
(Brace, Brace, and Leonard 1989; Brace et al. 1990). The cluster emphasizes a direct line
of descent from the ancient Japanese (J©monese) to Polynesia and Micronesia. Studying
skeletal morphology, Katayama (1990) suggested that the Lapita culture of Polynesia was
closely aligned with the J©monese (Hanihara, Hanihara, and Koizumi 1993).
Between Thailand and China, metric studies have shown both differences and
similarities in their biological affinities. Numerous researchers have conducted
craniometric and dental studies (using predominately male samples) that exposed apparent
divergence between Southeast and East Asians (Brace, Brace, and Leonard 1989; Brace et
al. 1990; Hanihara 1993a,b; Li et al. 1991; Matsumura 1995; Nakbunlung 1994;
Pietrusewsky 1988a,b, 1992, 1994a,b, 1995; Pietrusewsky et al. 1992; Sangvichien 1970;
Turner 1989, 1990, 1992). For example, it was found that variation was most pronounced
5
in facial and frontal breadth, minimum cranial breadth, vault and facial height, and
concluded there is a recognizable subdivision between Southeast and East Asian
populations (Pietrusewsky et al. 1992). Also, Nakbunlung (1994) found similar results in
her study of archaeological and modern Thai and Chinese samples, and determined that
interorbital breadth is the most distinguishing factor in differentiating the populations in
both males and females. She further noted that facial height and nasal height and breadth
differed significantly between males and cranial and orbital breadth between females of
these populations.
Sexual Dimorphism
Sexual dimorphism in the human skeleton and dentition have been studied
extensively (Bennett 1981; Bogin 1988; Brace 1972; Brace and Ryan 1980; De Villiers
1968; Finkel 1982; Frayer 1977; Frayer and Wolpoff 1985, Ghesquiere, Martin, and
Newcombe 1985; Hunter and Garn 1972; ·can 1989; Keen 1950; Krogman and ·can
1986; Loth 1990, 1996; McCown 1982; Ross and Ward 1982; St. Hoyme and ·can 1989;
Thieme and Schull 1957; Van Gerven 1972; Wolpoff 1976). By studying dimorphism, the
plasticity or magnitude of differences between males and females, between and within
groups, plus the degree of geographic variability can possibly lead to clues concerning
long term selection in a region. Moreover, the study of sexual dimorphism includes the
study of growth and of the factors that modify growth patterns (Bogin 1988; Eveleth
1975; Eveleth and Tanner 1990; Gray and Wolfe 1980; Hall 1982; Ji and Ohsawa 1992;
Stini 1975; Tanner 1962, 1988; Tobias 1975).
6
A basic principle of sexual dimorphism is that size, along with other morphologic
and metric traits, of each population changes over time (Bogin 1988; Eveleth and Tanner
1990; Hall 1982b). A population (also termed local population) is defined as a group of
panmictic individuals tied together by bonds of parentage and mating that share a common
gene pool (Mayr 1970) and thus serves as the a priori unit for the study of natural
selection and genetic variation (Lewontin 1972). It was these mechanisms that Garn
(1965) and Lewontin (1972) regarded as most important to the study of the forces of
evolution. Furthermore, at the genetic level the greatest amount of variation is found
within the local population, rather than by population affinity or geographic region
(Lewontin 1972; also see Frayer and Wolpoff 1985).
As Hall (1982a,b) and Bogin (1988) pointed out, sexual dimorphism is affected by
cultural, nutritional, and environmental factors. Furthermore, while these factors do not
affect growth and size in the sexes identically. It has been postulated that genetic variation
contributed more to sexually dimorphic variation than environmental or cultural factors
(Eckhardt 1989; Eveleth 1975; Frayer and Wolpoff 1985; Hall 1982a; Stini 1975; Tobias
1975). Thus, a compromise from this environmental versus genetic dichotomy views
sexual dimorphism as a result of a variety of factors (Gray and Wolfe 1980). Results by
Gray and Wolf (1980:455) “indicate that societies with poor protein availability are
characterized by low mean height and low degree of sexual dimorphism in stature.”
However, these authors also found that sexual dimorphism varied greatly in populations
with high protein availability. Therefore, when nutrition is adequate, sexual dimorphism
must be genetically regulated.
7
Skeletal Characteristics
The determination of demographic characteristics of a population is of primary
concern to paleodemographers and forensic anthropologists (Krogman and ·can 1986).
By encompassing many of the latest techniques, more information can be extracted from
skeletal remains (·can 1989; ·can and Helmer 1993; ·can and Kennedy 1989). As noted
by ·can and Loth (1997), it is from this information that we are now able to determine
with a high degree of accuracy, sex and race with certainty, age within about 5 years, and
stature within a standard error of about 3.5cm.
Biological affinity
Observable biological characteristics or phenotypes between people show obvious
variation. These differences can be assessed metrically and morphologically (Gill 1986;
Gill and Rhine 1990; Hinkes 1990; Howells 1970; ·can 1990; ·can and Cotton 1990;
Krogman 1955; Krogman and ·can 1986; Napoli and Birkby 1990; Rhine 1990). This
determination is essential because population variation extends to every demographic
assessment.
Probably the oldest craniometric indicators used to determine biological affinity
were indices (Brues 1992). Introduced by Europeans to help explain the great range of
variation within Europe, these methods were extended globally.
Discriminant function analysis was formally introduced by Fisher (1936, 1938), but
Barnard (1935) was the first to apply the method (see Howells 1973). Since then,
numerous studies using many different bones have been attempted (Krogman and ·can
8
1986). The earliest discriminant function formulae for racial classification in identification
were published by Giles and Elliot (1962). These metric methods are popular because it is
widely assumed that quantification is easier to apply than morphologic techniques (Loth
1996). The methodology involves a 3-way discrimination between American blacks,
American whites, and American Indians, with the data for the first two groups from the
Terry Collection and the third from Indian Knoll (Snow 1948). The success rate using this
method ranges from 77-100%. Measurement based techniques however, are problematic
because of the inevitable interracial overlap of dimensions; results are often equivocal
when the amount of divergence is close to the boarder of two affinities (Birkby 1966).
Midface variation has also been investigated (Curran 1990; Gill 1984; Gill and Gilbert
1990; Gill et al. 1988; Hughes 1980; Morant 1927; Woo and Morant 1932, 1934). Woo
and Morant (1932, 1934) presented one of the earliest studies of Asian Mongoloids to
craniometrically assess affinity. These studies were innovative for the time since they
incorporated 3-point measurements called subtenses in an attempt to measure the flatness
of the face and nasal region a method which was found to significantly discriminate
between Europeans and Asians as well as between other Asians.
In the postcranium, early work by Todd (1929) concluded that flaring of the ilium
is narrower in blacks, and that blacks have a "pedestaled" pelvis for a narrow torso, while
in whites it is "basket-shaped" for a broad torso. Also, in a series of studies by Trotter and
Gleser (Trotter and Gleser 1952, 1958, 1977) proportions of limb bones to stature were
shown to be greater in blacks when compared to whites. Also prior to 1980, work was
done on the pelvis (Derry 1923; Howells and Hotelling 1936; Strauss 1927; Torpin 1951),
9
long bones include, (Flower 1879; Gilbert 1976; Hrdligka 1942; Krogman 1955; Munter
1936; Schultz 1937; Stewart 1962; Walensky 1965;). More currently, the femur
(DiBennardo and Taylor 1983; Gilbert and Gill 1990), tibia (Farrally and Moore 1975;
·can and Cotton 1990; ·can and Miller-Shaivitz 1984a,b), sternal end of the rib (·can,
Loth, and Wright 1987; Loth 1990) and pelvis (DiBennardo and Taylor 1984; ·can 1982,
1983; ·can and Cotton 1985, 1990; ·can and Derrick 1984; Schulter-Ellis and Hayek
1984) also show significant race differences. As a whole, postcraniometric studies are
comparable to these from the skull.
Studies of Mongoloid populations were conducted by Woo and Morant (1932,
1934) who used a coefficient of Racial Likeness (now referred to as Penrose's Distance) as
well as standard measurements to compare Asians with each other. They latter focused on
the amount of facial "flatness" by measuring the degree of prognathism and nasal size and
shape. Hanihara (1967) was responsible for the earliest Japanese publications in Asia that
dealt with a possible racial classification system. It was from this work that Professor
Hanihara coined the term Mongoloid Dental Complex, which would later be revised by
Turner (Turner 1983). Additional studies include craniometric analyses from Han (1988),
Wang (1987), and Zhang (1988), and one postcranial analysis dealing with the shape of
the scapula (Chao and Huanjiu 1986). It must be kept in mind that races are not
homogeneous units (Brace 1994; Brues 1990, 1992; Loth 1996; Sauer 1992). There is a
great deal of variation between populations within each racial phenotype that must be
accounted for in skeletal assessments.
10
Sex determination
Although nearly all bones show some form of metric and morphologic sexual
dimorphism (Holland 1991; Krogman and ·can 1986; Wu 1989b), the pelvis is the most
obvious anatomic site from which to identify sex (·can and Derrick 1984; Kimura
1982a,b; Novotný, ·can, and Loth 1993; Phenice 1969; Schulter-Ellis et al. 1983;
Schulter-Ellis, Hayek, and Schmidt 1985; St. Hoyme 1957; Strauss 1927; Suchey and
Brooks 1990; Washburn 1949; Wu, Shao, and Wang 1982). However, as the pelvis is not
always 100% accurate nor is it always present or intact, the need for other standards has
led to research on nearly every bone in the body (Krogman and ·can 1986). Besides the
pelvis, research includes the face and neurocranium (De Villiers 1968; Giles 1964, 1970;
Giles and Elliot 1963; Hanihara 1959; ·can, Yoshino, and Kato 1995; Kieser and
Groeneveld 1986; Loth 1996; Loth and Henneberg 1996; Steyn and ·can 1997), the rib
(Allen 1997; Çöloylu et al. 1997; Dupras and Pfeiffer 1996; ·can 1985; ·can, Loth, and
Wright 1984, 1985; Loth 1990), the femur (Black 1978; DiBennardo and Taylor 1979;
·can and Miller-Shaivitz 1984c; Trancho et al. 1997), the tibia (·can and Miller-Shaivitz
1984a,b; Kieser, Moggi-Cecchi, and Groeneveld 1992; Singh, Singh, and Singh 1975),
and even the talus and calcaneus (Steele 1976; Pickering 1986).
The highest reported accuracies regardless of population are from morphologic
characteristics of the pelvis at 95% (Krogman and ·can 1986) and ramus flexure of the
mandible at 94% (Loth and Henneberg 1996). Osteometric techniques must be used on
long bones. The femur and tibia provide the greatest accuracy (83-97%), but even the
humerus can yield percentages as high as 97% (see Table 28). As in any skeletal analysis,
11
problems exist. Moreover, discriminant function analysis, based on metric analysis are
highly population specific. Sample size, and even the choice of variables can all affect the
results (St. Hoyme and ·can 1989).
Several studies of sexual dimorphism have been conducted in Asia. Japanese
sexing methods from the skull were developed by Hanihara (1958, 1959, 1967, 1981);
Hoshi (1962); Inoue (1990); Inoue and associates (1992); ·can, Yoshino, and Kato
(1995); Matsumura (1995); Tanaka, Hanihara, and Koizumu (1979). From China, cranial
researchers on sexing include Bao and Wang (1984); Ding and associates (1992); Li
(1991, 1992); Wang and Bao (1984, 1988); Song, Lin, and Jin (1992); Wang (1989);
Yang and co-workers (1987); Yang, Wu, and Tai (1988); and Zhu and associates (1985).
In other parts of the body, Japanese studies have focused on the long bones (Hanihara
1958, 1959; ·can, Yoshino, and Kato 1994; Kimura 1971; Tagaya 1987, 1992) and the
pelvis (Hanihara and Suzuki 1978; Kimura 1982a,b). Chinese postcranial research has
been carried out in long bones (Chao and Xi 1986; Du 1984; ·can and Ding 1995a,b; Ren
1986, 1987; Sheng 1985; Wu 1989a,b; Wu, Shao, and Wang 1982; Wu, Yang, and Tai
1989; Zheng 1987; Zheng and Pang 1988), and the pelvis (Wu, Chen, and Xu 1988; Sun
and Qu 1986; Wu, Shao, and Wang 1982). All of this work is based on metric evaluation.
Research on sexual dimorphism has clearly revealed that this characteristic both varies
over time and by population within a racial phenotype.
Stature
When attempting to draw a picture of what an individual looked like when living,
12
stature plays a major role. A large number of studies have been undertaken over the years
to improve the accuracy of stature estimation with emphasis on lower limbs because they
are the largest component of height. The most often used method has been regression
formulae (El-Najjar and McWilliams 1978; ·can 1988; Krogman and ·can 1986). When
calculating stature for adults, the most commonly used formulae are those of Trotter and
Gleser (1951a,b, 1952, 1958, 1977) and Trotter (1970) developed from American whites
and blacks. Knowing sex and population affinity are crucial to obtaining the best possible
results, because the proportions of skeletal components to stature varies based on sex and
race.
When only fragmentary skeletal material is available, formulae calculated by Müller
(1935), Steele and McKern (1969), and Steele (1970) are frequently used to extrapolate
total bone length (El-Najjar and McWilliams 1978; Krogman and ·can 1986). These are
population specific formulae based on samples from Europe (Müller 1935), Native
Americans (Steele and McKern 1969), and for American whites and blacks (Steele 1970).
Formulae for use with American and Asiatic Mongoloids have received little
attention in the United States. However, these formulae are less accurate as a result of
small size and lack of homogeneity of the sample used. When the sample is known to be
American Indian, Genovés (1967) is frequently used. Stephenson’s (1929) was the first
major work on the Chinese. His regression formulae are based on cadaveral length and
dry bones of Chinese males. Further examples of formulae based on Asian Mongoloid
samples have included such bones as the clavicle, scapula, vertebrae, or innominate in
addition to long bones (Krogman and ·can 1986). Two examples from the Japanese
13
literature include formulae from the lumbar vertebrae (Terazawa et al. 1990) and long
bones (Kimura 1984; Kimura, Hagiya, and Kitano 1959; Takaishi 1994; Yoshino et al.
1986). The Chinese literature includes studies of long bones (Mo 1983; Shao 1989, 1992;
Wang, Weng, and Hu 1979; Wu, Zhang, and Zhang 1984; Xi 1985), phalanges (Zhu
1983) and combinations of bones (Peng and Zhu 1983). Niyomsen (1963) and
Sangvichien, Srisurin, and Watthanayingsakul (1985) established standards from all long
bones for stature estimation of Thais. These studies again point to the need to understand
the range of inter- and intra-populational variation.
Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to provide a descriptive and comparative analysis of
two recently curated samples of nearly complete, documented, contemporary skeletons
from Thailand and Hong Kong that have not been previously studied. As most
researchers have noted, there is a need for further investigation of this region, both about
population variation and sexual dimorphism. Because of the known variation by region in
archaeologic Asian populations, it is essential to assess the modern inhabitants of this area
and establish a database for present and future studies of population affinity and
demographic characteristics. As little has been done on modern Asian skeletal remains
using combined cranial and postcranial material; analysis of the data will lead to a more
thorough and accurate description of the current inhabitants of this region, and that is
essential to research on biological origins, demographic change, and medicolegal
identification.
14
In the present work, these data will be used to assess population variation and
sexual dimorphism within and between these groups. To begin the process of developing
population specific standards, discriminant function formulae will be calculated from the
femur and humerus using the Thai sample, to help determine sex from unknown skeletons
in that region. Finally, the results of this study will be compared with those from earlier
work on other East and Southeast Asian populations.
15
CHAPTER II
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The specimens used in this study are curated at Maharaj Nakorn Hospital, Chiang
Mai, Thailand (N=104) and Prince Philip Dental Hospital, University of Hong Kong
Medical School (N=94). The Thai sample is composed of 70 males and 34 females and
Hong Kong has 68 males and 26 females. All are of known age, sex, and date of death
(Table 1). Age and sex were documented from individual death records and reconfirmed
by visual inspection using standard methods of forensic anthropology (Bass 1987;
Brothwell 1965; Krogman and ·can 1986; Stewart 1979). Only adult skeletons, 18 years
and older were used in this study. The Chaing Mai sample will be referred to in this work
as the “Thai” sample; however, this does not assume that these are representative of
Thailand as a whole. In the same vein, the Hong Kong sample is not assumed to represent
China at least in part because of its 150 year separation from the mainland.
The Thai Collection
The skeletal collection from Thailand consists of donated remains from individuals
who died at Chiang Mai University Hospital between 1993-1996. All were residents of
Chiang Mai or adjacent villages. Occupations varied widely farmer, civil servant,
16
teacher, retiree and generally fell between lower middle and middle class
socioeconomically.
Skeletalization was done at the hospital. This process began by dismembering
Table 1
Frequency distribution of the samples by decade (N=198).

___________________________________________________
Thailand Hong Kong
Male Female Male Female
Age (N=70) (N=34) (N=68) (N=26)
Intervals N % N % N % N %
___________________________________________________
18-29 0 0 2 6 2 3 1 4
30-39 5 7 3 9 3 4 1 4
40-49 8 11 6 18 10 15 1 4
50-59 11 16 4 12 16 24 3 11
60-69 17 24 8 23 19 28 7 27
70-79 20 29 6 17 15 22 8 31
80-99 9 13 5 15 3 4 5 19
Mean 63.3 58.9 59.6 66.9
Range 3288 1890 2484 2888
__________________________________________________
and defleshing. The bones were then piled together, wrapped in plastic netting, and buried
in sand in a concrete container of approximately 30x1x1 meters. Equally spaced along the
unit are faucets that continuously drip water into the sand. Each burial was marked with a
stake and a cloth flag denoting the individual’s name and date of death. Burials were left
in the sand for at least four months or until insects had adequately cleaned the bones. The
clean bones were removed from the netting, placed on metal sheets, and allowed to air-
dry. When dried, each bone was labeled with its accession number, and the hands and feet
articulated with copper wire. Each individual is stored in a plastic bag along with its cloth
flag. An example of this information is as follows:
17
3908051 39- year of death following the Buddhist calendar1
08- month of death
051- 51st.
The Hong Kong Collection
The collection at the University of Hong Kong is housed at Prince Philip Dental
Hospital, and consists of more than 800 skulls, about 100 of which also have postcranial
material of known age, sex and cause of death. All except for a few unknowns are of
southern Chinese origin, with most restricted to Guangdong and Fujian provinces (judging
from surnames). The skeletons used in this study are donated cemetery remains from the
Wo Hop Shek cemetery collected in 1982 by Dr. Nina Jablonski, now at the California
Academy of Sciences (personal communication). This is the only collection in the
anatomy department to contain complete individuals (both cranial and postcranial
material). It consists of about 150 skeletons ranging from complete to highly fragmentary.
Only complete or substantially complete adult specimens were selected for this study.
Collection of these remains was possible because of a long established, but
unwritten, rule among the cemeteries in Hong Kong. A burial plot is not purchased, but
rented for seven years. After that, the bones are exhumed. In the case of individuals who
have living relatives, the relatives claim the exhumed skeletons and cremate them. For the
unclaimed bodies, notice is posted in the main Hong Kong Chinese newspaper that
remains of persons who died in a given year would be available for collection at a specified
time. Unclaimed remains are then cremated by the government or made available to the
1
2539 is 1996 using the Roman calendar, thus a difference of 543 years. The third line
represents the individual accessioned during that month and year.
18
university on a long-term loan. These skeletons are considered Hong Kong government
property, and if the relatives of any of the deceased make themselves known, they take
possession of the remains. This has yet to occur.
The preservation of the remains is similar to those from an archaeological site.
Furthermore, soil in the cemetery from which the skeletons were retrieved was acidic and
bone deterioration was observed in some cases. Each case was stored in a separate plastic
bag with an identification number, name, age, and sex. An example of an identification
number is:
T821930 T- location grid of the cemetery where bodies were located

82- year the individual was added to the collection
1930- plot number at the cemetery
Measurements and Analyses
A total of 116 measurements were taken (37 cranial and 79 Thai and 59 Hong
Kong postcranial dimensions) from both samples. These are described in Appendices I
and II. For certain skeletal components such as vertebrae, sample size for Hong Kong
males females were too small to be included in this study. Each metric measurement is
based on dimensions originally defined by Martin and Saller (1957) (revised by Bräuer
1988), Black (1928), Krogman and ·can (1986), Loth (1996), or ·can (personal
communication 1996).
Measurements (in millimeters) were taken using sliding and spreading calipers, an
osteometric board, mandibulometer, and steel tape. All dimensions were taken from the
left side whenever possible. Pathologic and edentulous remains were excluded from the
19
sample.
Data were analyzed using several SPSSX (1988) statistics to assess population
variation and sexual differences within and between the groups. Selected cranial and
postcranial indices were also calculated. These indices are ratios that describe
mathematically the relative shape of bones, and provides a means of sex and population
comparisons regardless of size. The t-test, and the univariate F-value, are used to test for
differences in mean values between populations and sexes as well as their significance.
When describing the differences between and within populations, it is important to
have an understanding of the terminology. In Thailand, the accepted term used to refer to
the population (sexes combined) is “Thais.” According to Dr. Peter Lucas, of the
University of Hong Kong Anatomy Department, the common term for Hong Kong
residents is “Hong Kongers.”
Also of importance is the use of proper terminology when describing the limb
proportions of a group. In this study, proper anatomical terms will be used. The phrases
“arm” will refer to the humerus, “forearm,” the radius and ulna, “total arm,” combined
maximum lengths of the arm and radius, “thigh,” the femur, “leg,” tibia and fibula, and
“total leg,” the femur plus tibia maximum maximum lengths.
One important application of this data is to serve as the base sample for developing
osteometric techniques to determine sex. The humerus and femur were chosen to begin
this process (see chapters 5 and 6). Discriminant functions analysis was used to select the
optimal combination of dimensions to calculate population specific formulae that can be
used to determine sex from unknown remains from these areas.
20
CHAPTER III
RESULTS: POPULATION DIFFERENCES
This chapter systematically provides results of a metric comparison between
modern populations from Thailand and Hong Kong. This was accomplished by
statistically analyzing same sex samples from each group and testing for significant
differences.
Craniometric Comparisons
Males
Tables 2 through 5 contain descriptive statistics and indices of 37 cranial
measurements along with t-tests of differences between means of Thai and Hong Kong
males. Comparisons of male cranial dimensions from both populations (Table 2) revealed
that 11 are statistically significant. Of these, the majority (eight dimensions) are larger in
Thai males. The greatest (p<0.001) size differentials are observed in cranial length and
breadth, and nasal width with Thais larger in the latter two. Within the p<0.05-0.01 levels
are eight dimensions which loosely cluster around the mandible and orbital regions.
Nearly half (N=4) of the significant population differences are in the mandible, with the
other six evenly divided between the face and vault. Over half (N=6) are breadth
measurements. No significant differences appear in the basicranium.
Indices reveal shape differences without the influence of size. As can be seen in
Table 3, the cranial and cranial breadth-height indices are significantly different (p<0.001).
21
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of cranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and significance

of differences between means of Thai and Hong Kong males.
______________________________________________________________
Variable N Mean S.D. Range t p
______________________________________________________________
Cranial length
Thailand 67 171.7 6.85 157-190 -5.22 0.001
Hong Kong 56 177.9 6.42 165-196
Cranial breadth
Thailand 62 144.5 5.69 130-156 4.24 0.001
Hong Kong 55 140.1 5.38 127-153
Basion-nasion
Thailand 68 99.4 6.63 87-134 -0.23 0.818
Hong Kong 56 99.6 6.58 91-137
Basion-bregma
Thailand 66 135.3 9.04 98-153 -1.44 0.154
Hong Kong 54 137.7 9.11 99-171
Basion-prosthion
Thailand 66 95.1 9.65 78-136 1.23 0.222
Hong Kong 56 93.4 4.27 86-104
Biasterionic breadth
Thailand 68 108.1 5.99 95-131 -0.45 0.655
Hong Kong 56 108.8 9.25 93-155
Minimum frontal breadth

Thailand 64 94.8 5.94 84-115 1.02 0.308
Hong Kong 55 93.6 7.37 85-128
Maximum frontal breadth

Thailand 63 112.7 6.31 94-124 2.88 0.005
Hong Kong 55 109.2 6.95 87-125
Bizygomatic breadth
Thailand 68 133.8 5.48 119-146 1.16 0.250
Hong Kong 52 132.6 6.04 103-143
Left orbital breadth

Thailand 69 37.8 2.25 31-43 2.45 0.016
Hong Kong 55 36.9 1.62 32-41
Left orbital height

Thailand 69 33.9 2.02 30-38 1.19 0.237
Hong Kong 55 33.4 2.31 28-42
Right orbital breadth

Thailand 68 38.1 2.59 30-43 2.80 0.006
Hong Kong 56 37.1 1.49 34-41
______________________________________________________________
22
Table 2 (cont.)
_____________________________________________________________
Variables N Mean S.D. Range t p
______________________________________________________________
Right orbital height

Thailand 68 33.4 2.05 29-37 -0.28 0.778
Hong Kong 56 33.5 1.99 30-42
Interorbital breadth
Thailand 68 23.6 2.86 18-30 -3.07 0.003
Hong Kong 55 25.0 2.38 20-30
Biorbital breadth
Thailand 68 96.0 4.09 87-104 1.83 0.069
Hong Kong 55 94.7 4.00 86-105
Bifronto malare orbitale

Thailand 68 97.2 4.54 89-109 1.81 0.073
Hong Kong 55 95.8 4.03 87-108
Frontomalare orbitale-inferior zygomaxillare

Thailand 63 44.8 3.22 33-50 -0.87 0.389
Hong Kong 45 45.8 7.71 39-93
Frontomalare orbitale-superior zygomaxillare

Thailand 62 31.7 2.39 28-42 -0.82 0.413
Hong Kong 42 32.1 2.02 27-39
Superior zygomaxillare-inferior zygomaxillare

Thailand 61 33.1 3.77 23-43 0.21 0.834
Hong Kong 43 33.0 3.14 28-41
Nasion-prosthion
Thailand 67 68.8 5.45 57-80 -0.52 0.601
Hong Kong 54 69.4 7.23 34-83
Nose height
Thailand 68 53.8 3.98 46-71 1.45 0.151
Hong Kong 55 52.9 3.17 45-63
Nose breadth
Thailand 68 27.1 1.98 22-32 3.40 0.001
Hong Kong 55 25.9 2.13 22-32
Mastoid height
Thailand 69 30.3 2.95 24-36 -0.83 0.410
Hong Kong 56 30.7 3.01 25-38
Foramen magnum length

Thailand 69 34.2 2.37 26-40 0.17 0.863
Hong Kong 55 34.1 2.47 29-42
Foramen magnum breadth

Thailand 69 28.1 2.60 23-38 0.97 0.334
Hong Kong 55 27.7 2.68 22-38
______________________________________________________________
23
Table 2 (cont.)
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Biauricular breadth
Thailand 69 115.9 5.44 103-134 1.83 0.069
Hong Kong 56 114.3 4.04 105-124
External palatal length

Thailand 68 51.1 4.86 36-61 -0.57 0.570
Hong Kong 54 51.5 3.44 46-61
External palatal breadth

Thailand 68 62.1 5.80 48-74 0.45 0.656
Hong Kong 53 61.7 4.85 50-70
Bicondylar breadth
Thailand 65 125.1 6.11 110-137 2.14 0.035
Hong Kong 48 122.4 7.20 103-137
Bigonial breadth
Thailand 68 101.7 6.05 89-116 -0.74 0.462
Hong Kong 53 102.5 6.67 94-137
Ramus height
Thailand 63 55.0 7.14 30-71 -0.43 0.667
Hong Kong 46 55.6 7.76 38-78
Oblique ramus height

Thailand 67 60.3 7.00 42-76 0.62 0.539
Hong Kong 55 59.6 5.86 47-74
Minimum ramus breadth

Thailand 69 33.8 4.09 28-59 1.59 0.115
Hong Kong 56 32.8 2.60 24-38
Mandibular body height

Thailand 65 25.9 5.48 12-34 -2.25 0.026
Hong Kong 53 28.0 4.25 14-35
Mandibular body breadth

Thailand 65 15.5 2.22 12-25 -0.73 0.465
Hong Kong 55 15.7 1.64 12-20
Gonial angle
Thailand 68 118.4 8.91 95-141 2.73 0.007
Hong Kong 46 114.2 7.04 94-129
Mandibular length
Thailand 68 103.7 7.71 89-125 2.09 0.039
Hong Kong 46 101.0 5.01 91-112
______________________________________________________________
24
Table 3
T-test and significance of differences between the means of cranial indices for
Thai and Hong Kong males.
__________________________________________________________________
Index N Mean S.D. t p Classification
__________________________________________________________________
Cranial
Thailand 62 84.4 4.72 7.20 0.001 Brachycranic
Hong Kong 55 78.8 3.61 Mesocranic
Length-height
Thailand 66 78.9 5.60 1.48 0.140 Hypsicranic
Hong Kong 54 77.5 4.90 Hypsicranic
Breadth-height
Thailand 62 93.5 6.18 -4.47 0.001 Metriocranic
Hong Kong 54 98.4 5.64 Acrocranic
Frontoparietal
Thailand 62 65.7 3.70 -1.35 0.178 Stenometopic
Hong Kong 55 66.8 4.84 Metrimetopic
Upper facial
Thailand 67 51.5 3.93 -1.01 0.317 Mesene
Hong Kong 51 52.5 6.54 Mesene
Orbital
Thailand 69 89.9 7.06 -0.60 0.550 Hypsiconchic
Hong Kong 55 90.7 6.62 Hypsiconchic
Nasal
Thailand 68 50.6 4.72 1.78 0.077 Mesorrhine
Hong Kong 55 49.1 4.84 Mesorrhine
External palatal
Thailand 68 122.0 9.84 1.18 0.240 Brachyuranic
Hong Kong 53 112.0 8.57 Mesuranic
Gnathic
Thailand 66 105.0 8.18 -1.31 0.192 Prognathic
Hong Kong 56 106.8 6.46 Prognathic
Foramen magnum
Thailand 69 82.4 7.66 0.88 0.378 Megosemic
Hong Kong 55 81.2 7.63 Microsemic
Mandibular
Thailand 65 83.1 7.52 0.45 0.657 Dolichostenic
Hong Kong 43 82.5 6.78 Dolichostenic
_________________________________________________________________
25
Table 4

of differences between means of Thai and Hong Kong females.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Cranial length
Thailand 33 163.7 6.00 149-174 -5.77 0.001
Hong Kong 20 173.6 6.03 164-184
Cranial breadth
Thailand 33 139.6 5.85 129-153 0.23 0.821
Hong Kong 20 139.3 6.26 129-155
Basion-nasion
Thailand 33 93.8 4.58 84-105 -1.11 0.272
Hong Kong 20 95.2 4.16 87-102
Basion-bregma
Thailand 33 128.3 12.11 91-143 -2.28 0.027
Hong Kong 19 134.9 5.15 125-144
Basion-prosthion
Thailand 32 90.8 5.89 83-105 -0.81 0.423
Hong Kong 19 92.1 5.24 81-102
Thailand 32 105.0 6.26 86-114 1.03 0.307
Hong Kong 20 103.3 5.24 94-114

Thailand 33 90.6 4.01 82-98 -0.98 0.333
Hong Kong 20 91.7 3.33 86-100

Thailand 33 111.2 5.95 100-128 1.39 0.171
Hong Kong 20 109.0 5.23 99-116
Bizygomatic breadth
Thailand 34 124.3 5.53 111-137 -1.28 0.206
Hong Kong 19 126.1 2.99 121-130

Thailand 34 36.4 1.86 32-40 1.04 0.301
Hong Kong 21 35.9 1.55 34-39
Left orbital height

Thailand 34 33.4 2.02 30-40 1.08 0.284
Hong Kong 20 32.9 1.79 30-37

Thailand 34 36.8 1.51 33-40 1.91 0.062
Hong Kong 21 36.0 1.48 34-39
______________________________________________________________
26
Table 4 (cont.)
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Thailand 34 33.4 1.86 30-37 1.53 0.132
Hong Kong 21 32.7 1.56 30-36
Thailand 34 22.2 2.42 17-28 -2.70 0.009
Hong Kong 21 23.9 1.80 21-28
Biorbital breadth
Thailand 34 92.6 3.63 84-101 0.18 0.855
Hong Kong 21 92.5 2.87 88-99

Thailand 34 92.9 3.76 83-98 0.22 0.827
Hong Kong 21 92.7 3.10 87-98

Thailand 34 42.0 2.76 37-48 0.90 0.372
Hong Kong 21 41.4 1.91 38-45

Thailand 34 30.9 1.45 28-34 0.33 0.745
Hong Kong 21 30.7 2.37 28-39

Thailand 34 29.3 2.83 24-34 -1.29 0.201
Hong Kong 21 30.3 2.99 26-36
Nasion-prosthion
Thailand 34 64.4 4.83 53-75 -2.34 0.023
Hong Kong 19 67.5 4.40 60-75
Nose height
Thailand 34 49.4 2.92 44-58 -1.23 0.223
Hong Kong 21 50.4 2.91 43-55
Nose breadth
Thailand 34 25.9 1.51 23-29 -0.75 0.454
Hong Kong 21 26.2 1.40 23-29
Mastoid height
Thailand 34 27.1 3.21 17-34 -0.51 0.610
Hong Kong 21 27.6 2.54 22-31

Thailand 33 32.9 2.39 28-38 0.47 0.638
Hong Kong 20 32.6 2.16 29-37

Thailand 33 26.9 2.52 24-35 0.69 0.491
Hong Kong 20 26.4 2.28 21-30
______________________________________________________________
27
Table 4 (cont.)
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Biauricular breadth
Thailand 34 108.4 5.55 97-119 -1.01 0.317
Hong Kong 20 109.9 3.66 102-118

Thailand 34 49.1 4.73 39-61 -1.45 0.154
Hong Kong 19 50.9 3.05 45-57

Thailand 34 58.1 6.08 46-68 0.25 0.800
Hong Kong 20 57.7 5.37 48-68
Bicondylar breadth
Thailand 33 116.8 5.85 105-130 -1.29 0.204
Hong Kong 18 118.9 4.99 105-127
Bigonial breadth
Thailand 33 93.0 5.60 81-106 -1.21 0.232
Hong Kong 18 94.8 3.65 90-102
Ramus height
Thailand 33 48.5 7.33 33-67 1.06 0.294
Hong Kong 17 46.4 6.02 40-65

Thailand 32 53.4 6.86 41-67 1.19 0.242
Hong Kong 20 51.3 5.35 42-66

Thailand 33 31.6 3.42 24-38 0.20 0.840
Hong Kong 20 31.5 2.95 26-37

Thailand 33 24.0 4.93 13-31 -2.16 0.036
Hong Kong 20 26.6 2.56 23-32

Thailand 33 15.5 2.67 11-25 0.17 0.862
Hong Kong 20 15.4 1.60 13-19
Gonial angle
Thailand 32 121.0 8.64 104-137 0.13 0.898
Hong Kong 17 120.6 7.78 100-131
Mandibular length
Thailand 33 98.9 5.21 90-114 -0.67 0.507
Hong Kong 17 99.9 4.62 93-107
______________________________________________________________
28
Table 5
Thai and Hong Kong females.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Cranial
Thailand 33 85.4 4.76 4.07 0.001 Hyperbrachycranic
Hong Kong 20 80.3 3.82 Brachycranic
Length-height
Thailand 33 78.4 7.55 0.27 0.791 Hypsicranic
Hong Kong 19 77.9 2.25 Hypsicranic
Breadth-height
Thailand 33 92.0 9.24 -2.16 0.035 Metriocranic
Hong Kong 19 96.8 3.84 Metriocranic
Frontoparietal
Thailand 32 65.0 3.61 -0.92 0.362 Stenometopic
Hong Kong 20 65.9 3.16 Stenometopic
Upper facial
Thailand 34 51.9 3.96 -2.10 0.041 Mesene
Hong Kong 17 54.2 3.14 Mesene
Orbital
Thailand 34 91.9 4.88 0.08 0.938 Hypsiconchic
Hong Kong 20 91.8 4.64 Hypsiconchic
Nasal
Thailand 34 52.5 3.75 0.42 0.678 Mesorrhine
Hong Kong 21 52.1 3.63 Mesorrhine
External palatal
Thailand 34 118.9 13.65 1.46 0.151 Brachyuranic
Hong Kong 19 113.6 10.50 Mesuranic
Gnathic
Thailand 32 103.3 5.93 -0.18 0.855 Prognathic
Hong Kong 19 103.7 7.09 Prognathic
Foramen magnum
Thailand 33 82.0 8.48 0.39 0.699 Megosemic
Hong Kong 20 81.1 6.45 Microsemic
Mandibular
Thailand 33 84.9 6.25 0.70 0.488 Dolichostenic
Hong Kong 16 83.8 3.31 Dolichostenic
________________________________________________________________
29
Thais are brachycranic approaching hyperbrachycranic while their Hong Kong
counterparts are mesocranic. The breadth-height index for Thai skulls is medium
(metriocranic), while Hong Kong males are high headed relative to breadth (acrocranic).
Although not all statistically significant, some indices produced different classification
results. Thais have narrow (stenometopic) forehead and a broad (brachyuranic) palate,
whereas Hong Kong males tend toward a medium (metrimetopic) forehead and medium
(mesuranic) palate. Similarities among males from Thailand and Hong Kong include high
skulls (hypsicranic) relative to length, round faces, tall narrow orbits, and long, narrow
mandibles.
Females
Analysis of population differences between females are listed in Table 4. Only five
dimensions are significantly different, most notably, cranial length (p<0.001). These are
followed by interorbital breadth (p<0.01), basion-bregma, nasion-prosthion, and
mandibular corpus height (p<0.05). Hong Kong female means are larger than those of
Thais in all significant dimensions.
Only three cranial indices differ significantly between Thai and Hong Kong females
(Table 5). Cranial index show the greatest divergence (p<0.001) followed by breadth-
height and upper facial indices (p<0.05). Differences in shape classifications exist between
the two female groups, though not as many as in males. Thai females have very wide
heads (hyperbrachycranic) and a medium (megosemic) foramen magnum while Hong
Kong females tend to be brachycranic with a narrow (microsemic) foramen magnum.
Numerous similarities include length-height (hypsicranic), breadth-height (metriocranic),
30
upper face (mesene), nasal (mesorrhine), orbital (hysiconchic), frontoparietal
(stenometopic), gnathic (prognathic), and mandibular (dolichostenic) indices.
Postcraniometric Comparisons
Males
Table 6 includes mean dimensions and significance levels of postcranial dimensions
in males. Of the 59 dimensions, 10 differ significantly. Only one bone, the Thai clavicle,
is smaller in all dimensions. The lower portion of both limbs are longer in Thais, while
both bones of the upper limb (arm) are longer and circumferential measurements are
consistently more robust in Hong Kong males. Midshaft circumference of the ulna
showed the greatest population difference (p<0.001). Within the p<0.01-0.05 levels, nine
dimensions are significantly different with six from the clavicle and upper extremities, two
in the leg, and two in the sacrum. Hong Kong males are larger in midshaft circumference
of the clavicle, humerus, and ulna, humeral maximum midshaft diameter, and sacral
bialare. In contrast, humeral epicondylar breadth, ulnar physiologic length, tibial proximal
breadth, fibular length, and transverse breadth of the sacral base (S1) are greater in Thais.
Shape differences between Thai and Hong Kong males are assessed in 11 indices
(Table 7). Only three are significantly different: crural (p<0.001), brachial (radiohumeral)
(p<0.01), and humerofemoral indices (p<0.05). Thai males have relatively long forearms
(dolichoceric) while those from Hong Kong are medium (mesoceric). Similarities in both
populations of males include eurycnemic tibiae, indicating a broad (wide) proximal tibial
shaft, with little flattening in the anteroposterior direction.
31
Table 6
Descriptive statistics of postcranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and significance

of differences between means of Thai and Hong Kong males.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Scapular height
Thailand 65 147.4 7.73 126-164 -0.95 0.345
Hong Kong 33 149.2 10.97 110-166
Anterior scapular length

Thailand 67 103.7 5.48 92-120 0.11 0.914
Hong Kong 36 103.6 5.15 93-118
Anterior scapular breadth

Thailand 66 103.9 5.53 89-120 -0.29 0.775
Hong Kong 35 104.4 11.20 91-161
Posterior scapular length

Thailand 67 104.5 5.44 89-116 0.45 0.656
Hong Kong 36 103.6 5.02 94-116
Posterior scapular breadth

Thailand 66 102.8 5.44 88-115 0.02 0.981
Hong Kong 35 102.8 8.09 91-139
Inferior border length

Thailand 68 131.8 6.97 117-150 -0.12 0.902
Hong Kong 37 132.0 8.30 105-152
Clavicular length
Thailand 67 148.8 8.21 129-165 -0.16 0.875
Hong Kong 51 149.1 10.85 118-175
Clavicular sagittal diameter

Thailand 69 11.8 1.55 8-15 -0.92 0.357
Hong Kong 54 12.0 1.41 9-16
Clavicular vertical diameter

Thailand 69 10.7 1.57 8-15 -0.38 0.705
Hong Kong 54 10.8 1.16 8-13
Clavicular midshaft circumference

Thailand 69 36.9 3.38 28-45 -1.97 0.050
Hong Kong 54 38.1 3.18 29-45
Humeral maximum length

Thailand 70 300.6 15.65 229-333 -1.53 0.129
Hong Kong 54 305.0 16.61 271-341
Humeral vertical head diameter

Thailand 70 44.4 2.11 39-49 -1.39 0.169
Hong Kong 54 45.0 2.33 39-51
______________________________________________________________
32
Table 6 (cont.)
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Humeral transverse breadth

Thailand 70 40.8 2.98 22-46 -0.92 0.359
Hong Kong 51 41.3 2.39 37-48
Humeral maximum midshaft diameter

Thailand 70 21.3 1.64 17-25 -2.79 0.006
Hong Kong 55 22.3 2.36 19-31
Humeral minimum midshaft diameter

Thailand 70 16.7 2.18 10-24 -0.63 0.527
Hong Kong 56 16.9 1.70 14-21
Humeral epicondylar breadth

Thailand 70 60.3 2.92 55-68 2.67 0.009
Hong Kong 54 58.7 3.68 52-66
Humeral deltoid circumference

Thailand 70 65.9 4.65 58-78 -0.49 0.625
Hong Kong 56 66.4 7.02 44-82
Humeral midshaft circumference

Thailand 70 61.2 3.74 54-75 -2.39 0.018
Hong Kong 56 63.2 5.25 53-78
Radial maximum length

Thailand 70 240.6 16.07 207-323 1.46 0.148
Hong Kong 51 236.1 18.13 201-318
Radial distal breadth

Thailand 70 31.2 1.91 25-36 -0.54 0.590
Hong Kong 50 31.4 1.92 28-37
Radial anterior-posterior midshaft diameter

Thailand 70 12.0 1.16 10-16 0.58 0.564
Hong Kong 54 11.9 0.93 10-14
Radial transverse midshaft diameter

Thailand 70 14.8 1.42 11-19 0.39 0.694
Hong Kong 54 14.7 1.57 11-20
Ulnar maximum length

Thailand 70 257.3 17.13 222-349 1.66 0.100
Hong Kong 50 251.6 20.24 217-356
Ulnar physiological length

Thailand 70 231.6 20.69 195-329 2.06 0.041
Hong Kong 51 223.9 19.78 188-329
Ulnar dorso-volar midshaft diameter

Thailand 70 15.5 1.41 11-19 -1.16 0.247
Hong Kong 54 15.8 1.47 12-19
______________________________________________________________
33
Table 6 (cont.)
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Ulnar transverse midshaft diameter

Thailand 70 12.3 1.22 10-17 -0.46 0.648
Hong Kong 54 12.4 1.03 10-15
Ulnar midshaft circumference

Thailand 70 33.9 2.47 30-40 -3.45 0.001
Hong Kong 52 35.5 2.68 30-40
Femoral maximum length

Thailand 69 429.4 21.38 375-494 -0.10 0.920
Hong Kong 53 429.8 20.33 385-471
Femoral physiological length

Thailand 69 426.1 21.46 367-493 -0.18 0.855
Hong Kong 53 426.8 20.95 383-468
Femoral head diameter

Thailand 69 45.1 1.98 41-51 -1.57 0.120
Hong Kong 53 45.6 1.96 42-51
Femoral anterior-posterior midshaft diameter

Thailand 70 27.8 2.44 22-36 -0.05 0.621
Hong Kong 55 28.0 2.06 23-32
Femoral transverse midshaft diameter

Thailand 70 25.3 2.00 21-30 0.39 0.699
Hong Kong 55 25.1 2.46 20-32
Femoral distal breadth

Thailand 70 79.6 3.65 72-88 1.77 0.080
Hong Kong 48 78.4 3.51 73-85
Femoral midshaft circumference

Thailand 70 83.7 4.67 72-95 -1.26 0.209
Hong Kong 55 84.7 4.55 75-96
Tibial maximum length

Thailand 68 353.0 20.78 295-411 1.84 0.069
Hong Kong 54 346.1 20.10 299-388
Tibial proximal breadth

Thailand 69 74.8 3.58 68-84 2.37 0.019
Hong Kong 49 73.2 3.58 65-80
Tibial distal epiphyseal breadth

Thailand 69 52.7 3.23 47-63 -1.55 0.125
Hong Kong 50 53.7 3.75 43-64
Tibial anterior-posterior midshaft diameter

Thailand 69 29.4 2.53 24-35 0.18 0.858
Hong Kong 54 29.4 2.58 23-35
______________________________________________________________
34
Table 6 (cont.)
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Tibial transverse midshaft diameter

Thailand 69 20.3 2.34 16-30 -0.35 0.725
Hong Kong 54 20.5 2.29 17-29
Tibial anterior-posterior diameter at nutrient foramen

Thailand 69 33.3 3.06 23-40 0.37 0.715
Hong Kong 54 33.1 3.07 27-40
Tibial transverse diameter at nutrient foramen

Thailand 69 22.1 2.78 18-36 -0.68 0.495
Hong Kong 54 22.4 2.60 17-31
Tibial minimum circumference

Thailand 69 72.4 5.43 63-87 -0.94 0.350
Hong Kong 54 73.3 4.96 62-89
Tibial nutrient foramen circumference

Thailand 69 89.2 6.74 67-99 -0.12 0.904
Hong Kong 54 89.3 5.95 78-99
Fibular maximum length

Thailand 70 353.2 19.01 294-397 2.91 0.004
Hong Kong 44 342.3 20.37 290-380
Fibular anterior-posterior midshaft diameter

Thailand 69 15.4 1.67 12-21 1.52 0.132
Hong Kong 54 14.9 1.74 10-19
Fibular transverse midshaft diameter

Thailand 69 11.3 1.43 8-16 -0.16 0.874
Hong Kong 54 11.3 1.27 9-15
Pelvic height
Thailand 67 203.8 8.15 178-221 -1.78 0.077
Hong Kong 41 208.0 16.20 185-288
Pubic length
Thailand 67 75.1 4.87 63-91 -1.19 0.238
Hong Kong 37 76.3 4.80 67-85
Ischial length
Thailand 67 73.9 3.84 64-82 0.11 0.910
Hong Kong 42 73.8 3.89 65-81
Iliac breadth
Thailand 65 149.8 6.77 135-165 -1.10 0.274
Hong Kong 34 151.4 7.75 136-167
Bi-iliac breadth
Thailand 64 259.9 14.20 229-288 -0.75 0.454
Hong Kong 29 262.3 14.49 231-296
______________________________________________________________
35
Table 6 (cont.)
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Sacral bialare
Thailand 64 108.7 5.61 89-125 -2.31 0.023
Hong Kong 34 111.7 6.79 96-127
Sacral height
Thailand 65 110.3 11.63 86-136 -0.12 0.905
Hong Kong 36 110.6 10.42 91-131
Sacral base (S1) anterior-posterior diameter

Thailand 62 37.7 7.56 28-55 -1.21 0.228
Hong Kong 40 39.6 7.88 26-51
Sacral base (S1) transverse diameter

Thailand 62 42.6 8.25 28-57 3.02 0.003
Hong Kong 42 37.9 6.74 23-50
Calcaneal maximum length

Thailand 19 74.5 4.49 63-83 0.57 0.573
Hong Kong 47 73.7 5.00 65-89
Calcaneal minimum width

Thailand 19 24.6 2.43 21-30 -0.73 0.469
Hong Kong 11 25.3 2.05 22-29
Talar maximum length

Thailand 19 57.6 4.94 52-74 1.12 0.267
Hong Kong 51 56.5 2.97 50-64
Talar maximum width

Thailand 38 40.8 4.24 26-56 -0.86 0.394
Hong Kong 51 41.4 2.26 37-47
______________________________________________________________
36
Table 7
T-test and significance of differences between the means of postcranial indices

for Thai and Hong Kong males.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Brachial (radiohumeral)
Thailand 70 80.1 4.87 2.96 0.004 Dolichoceric
Hong Kong 50 77.4 5.13 Mesoceric
Platymeric (tibia)
Thailand 69 69.3 7.78 -0.49 0.626 Mesocnemic
Hong Kong 54 67.0 7.07 Mesocnemic
Sacral (breadth)
Thailand 63 99.2 9.55 -0.94 0.348 Dolichohieric
Hong Kong 31 101.2 9.26 Hyplatyhieric
Claviculohumeral
Thailand 67 49.6 3.38 0.80 0.426
Hong Kong 49 49.1 3.44
Humeral robusticity
Thailand 70 20.4 1.33 -1.34 0.184
Hong Kong 54 20.8 1.84
Femoral robusticity
Thailand 69 12.5 0.60 -0.17 0.867
Hong Kong 53 12.5 0.69
Pilastric (femur)
Thailand 70 110.5 12.31 -0.81 0.417
Hong Kong 55 112.4 12.50
Intermembral
Thailand 67 69.4 2.30 -1.01 0.316
Hong Kong 48 69.9 3.04
Crural
Thailand 67 82.2 2.26 4.14 0.001
Hong Kong 52 80.5 2.15
Humerofemoral
Thailand 69 70.0 3.01 -2.17 0.032
Hong Kong 51 71.1 1.86
Ishiopubic
Thailand 67 101.8 6.09 -1.10 0.275
Hong Kong 36 103.1 4.86
_________________________________________________________________
37
Although not statistically significant, classification differences give Hong Kong
males a broader (hyplatyhic) sacrum than the narrower (dolichoieric) Thai males. The
claviculohumeral index indicates that Thai males have a broader thorax. Hong Kong
males have a more robust humerus, and while femoral robusticity is equal in the groups,
there is an unequal development of the linea aspera (pilastric) it is slightly greater in
Hong Kong males. Interestingly, despite significant differences in the relative proportion
of lower to upper portions of both the arm and leg, the intermembral indices are nearly
identical. The humerofemoral and crural indices reveal that this difference results from a
longer humerus in Hong Kong males and longer lower leg in Thais.
Lower limb to stature proportions indicate Thai and Hong Kong males have similar
leg proportions. Median stature for Thai (168.3cm ) and Hong Kong (170.5cm) males
(Eveleth and Tanner 1990) were divided by total lower limb bone lengths, and the lower
limb to stature ratios for both groups are very similar - 46.5% to 45.5% respectively.
Females
Table 8 contains the descriptive statistics for Thai and Hong Kong females. Of
these, 15 of 59 measurements differed significantly. The greatest divergence is in the
midshaft circumference of the ulna (p<0.001). followed by a cluster of circumferential
measurements in the clavicle and all long bones, sacral height and the A-P dimension of S1
(p<0.01-0.05). All significant measurements are larger in Hong Kong females except
sacral height.
Mathematically described, shape indices indicate fewer significant differences (a
total of three) in females than their male counterparts (Table 9). The most sensitive
38
Table 8
Descriptive statistics of postcranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and significance

of differences between means of Thai and Hong Kong females.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Scapular height
Thailand 31 127.1 6.22 115-142 -1.68 0.102
Hong Kong 7 131.9 9.08 123-149

Thailand 31 91.8 4.60 82-102 -0.11 0.909
Hong Kong 10 92.0 4.81 85-99

Thailand 32 92.0 4.71 81-103 -1.05 0.302
Hong Kong 8 93.9 3.04 91-98

Thailand 31 91.6 4.87 81-104 0.27 0.787
Hong Kong 10 91.1 4.86 82-97

Thailand 32 91.4 4.48 79-102 -1.16 0.252
Hong Kong 8 93.4 2.72 91-98

Thailand 32 117.1 6.94 103-137 0.34 0.738
Hong Kong 7 116.1 5.82 108-123
Clavicular length
Thailand 33 132.7 7.79 116-153 -0.64 0.523
Hong Kong 13 134.2 6.34 126-146

Thailand 33 9.7 1.51 8-14 -2.05 0.046
Hong Kong 15 10.6 0.99 9-12

Thailand 33 9.2 1.23 7-12 -1.01 0.319
Hong Kong 15 9.6 1.81 8-13

Thailand 33 31.1 2.77 27-38 -2.82 0.007
Hong Kong 15 33.5 2.92 30-38

Thailand 34 278.9 13.67 253-306 -1.74 0.088
Hong Kong 19 285.4 11.65 268-309

Thailand 34 38.2 2.34 33-44 -2.49 0.016
Hong Kong 20 39.9 2.43 34-46
______________________________________________________________
39
Table 8 (cont.)
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Thailand 34 36.2 1.78 33-40 -0.98 0.330
Hong Kong 19 36.7 2.08 33-41

Thailand 34 19.3 3.50 13-29 -0.62 0.538
Hong Kong 21 19.8 2.52 14-26

Thailand 34 13.9 1.39 12-19 -2.39 0.020
Hong Kong 21 14.9 1.59 13-20

Thailand 34 52.1 2.29 46-58 -1.07 0.289
Hong Kong 19 52.9 2.69 48-58

Thailand 34 56.9 3.75 49-62 -2.48 0.016
Hong Kong 21 59.0 5.07 52-74

Thailand 34 53.1 4.00 47-67 -2.89 0.006
Hong Kong 21 56.7 4.97 51-72

Thailand 34 217.5 12.29 193-242 0.95 0.349
Hong Kong 19 214.3 11.06 194-245

Thailand 34 27.3 1.99 23-35 -1.20 0.234
Hong Kong 18 27.9 1.83 24-30

Thailand 34 9.7 0.94 8-13 -2.37 0.022
Hong Kong 20 10.3 0.80 9-12

Thailand 34 13.0 1.39 9-16 -0.89 0.376
Hong Kong 20 13.4 1.39 9-15

Thailand 33 235.3 10.55 218-263 1.31 0.197
Hong Kong 19 231.2 11.55 208-261

Thailand 33 210.5 10.49 194-237 1.31 0.196
Hong Kong 19 206.5 11.10 183-237

Thailand 33 13.3 1.55 9-15 -2.22 0.031
Hong Kong 20 14.1 0.79 13-15
______________________________________________________________
40
Table 8 (cont.)
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Thailand 33 10.3 1.58 9-16 -0.56 0.576
Hong Kong 20 10.6 0.89 9-12

Thailand 33 29.9 2.15 27-35 -3.64 0.001
Hong Kong 20 32.2 2.42 27-36

Thailand 34 397.0 19.60 361-443 -1.46 0.151
Hong Kong 20 405.1 19.74 380-445

Thailand 34 393.4 19.89 357-442 -1.47 0.147
Hong Kong 20 401.5 19.24 375-438

Thailand 34 39.3 1.93 35-45 -1.72 0.092
Hong Kong 20 40.3 2.31 35-44

Thailand 34 24.6 1.75 22-29 -1.56 0.124
Hong Kong 21 25.5 2.40 22-30

Thailand 34 23.3 2.78 17-32 -1.79 0.079
Hong Kong 21 24.5 1.86 22-29

Thailand 34 70.0 3.30 64-80 0.19 0.848
Hong Kong 19 69.8 3.26 64-75

Thailand 34 75.4 5.49 64-88 -2.08 0.043
Hong Kong 20 78.8 6.05 70-87

Thailand 34 328.3 16.49 299-365 -0.14 0.888
Hong Kong 21 329.0 17.15 302-367

Thailand 34 66.2 3.16 61-74 -0.18 0.861
Hong Kong 17 66.4 3.78 59-73

Thailand 34 46.0 3.06 35-52 -1.29 0.202
Hong Kong 19 47.2 3.47 38-51

Thailand 34 26.1 2.43 22-37 0.20 0.842
Hong Kong 21 26.0 1.45 23-28
______________________________________________________________
41
Table 8 (cont.)
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Thailand 34 17.9 1.37 15-21 -2.08 0.042
Hong Kong 21 18.9 2.07 16-24

Thailand 34 29.0 1.71 27-33 -1.39 0.172
Hong Kong 21 29.8 2.46 25-36

Thailand 34 19.8 2.09 16-28 -1.49 0.142
Hong Kong 21 20.9 3.21 17-33

Thailand 34 65.6 5.64 58-86 -0.76 0.453
Hong Kong 21 66.7 4.89 58-76

Thailand 34 78.3 5.32 61-89 -2.16 0.035
Hong Kong 21 81.6 5.81 68-91
Fibular maximum diameter

Thailand 34 328.2 15.97 300-360 -0.11 0.909
Hong Kong 10 328.8 15.75 305-350

Thailand 34 14.1 1.23 12-17 -0.76 0.451
Hong Kong 16 14.4 1.32 12-17

Thailand 34 9.4 1.15 7-12 -2.21 0.032
Hong Kong 16 10.1 1.15 8-12
Pelvic height
Thailand 32 186.9 7.77 167-201 -1.00 0.321
Hong Kong 15 189.6 9.90 174-209
Pelvic length
Thailand 31 76.3 4.44 67-85 -1.67 0.101
Hong Kong 15 78.7 4.48 68-86
Ischial length
Thailand 32 66.1 4.09 58-75 -1.00 0.325
Hong Kong 16 67.3 3.47 60-73
Iliac breadth
Thailand 32 145.2 8.47 126-160 0.87 0.391
Hong Kong 13 142.5 11.61 128-166
Bi-iliac breadth
Thailand 29 255.8 13.72 225-289 -0.70 0.489
Hong Kong 12 259.3 16.01 229-285
______________________________________________________________
42
Table 8 (cont.)
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Sacral bialare
Thailand 30 108.7 7.08 96-120 -0.57 0.574
Hong Kong 16 109.9 7.02 100-125
Sacral height
Thailand 29 104.9 12.45 86-129 2.37 0.023
Hong Kong 12 95.6 8.16 85-109

Thailand 30 32.0 6.05 23-45 -2.28 0.027
Hong Kong 17 36.4 7.02 27-48

Thailand 30 40.2 8.00 24-54 1.61 0.115
Hong Kong 17 36.5 7.15 27-52

Thailand 10 69.0 3.71 63-75 -0.33 0.747
Hong Kong 15 69.5 4.19 64-78

Thailand 19 24.6 2.43 21-30 -0.73 0.469
Hong Kong 11 25.3 2.05 22-29

Thailand 10 50.2 2.78 46-54 -0.63 0.537
Hong Kong 18 50.8 2.07 48-55
Talar maximum width

Thailand 19 36.4 1.77 34-41 -1.56 0.129
Hong Kong 18 37.5 2.60 34-45
______________________________________________________________
43
Table 9

for Thai and Hong Kong females.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Thailand 34 78.0 2.22 3.46 0.001 Mesoceric
Hong Kong 18 75.5 2.76 Mesoceric
Platymeric (tibia)
Thailand 34 69.2 7.07 -1.81 0.076 Mesocnemic
Hong Kong 21 72.7 7.27 Eurycnemic
Sacral (breadth)
Thailand 29 105.2 11.87 -2.69 0.010 Hyplatyhieric
Hong Kong 12 115.9 10.74 Platyhieric
Claviculohumeral
Thailand 33 47.6 2.04 0.45 0.658
Hong Kong 13 47.3 2.37
Humeral robusticity
Thailand 34 19.1 1.43 -1.88 0.066
Hong Kong 19 19.9 1.74
Femoral robusticity
Thailand 34 12.2 1.02 -1.07 0.289
Hong Kong 20 12.5 0.63
Pilastric (femur)
Thailand 34 106.9 11.80 0.77 0.444
Hong Kong 21 104.5 10.60
Intermembral
Thailand 34 68.5 1.70 1.17 0.248
Hong Kong 17 67.9 1.18
Crural
Thailand 34 82.7 2.41 2.14 0.037
Hong Kong 20 81.4 1.92
Humerofemoral
Thailand 34 70.3 1.96 0.09 0.930
Hong Kong 18 70.2 1.66
Ishiopubic
Thailand 31 115.3 7.93 -0.69 0.492
Hong Kong 15 117.0 6.94
__________________________________________________________________
44
differentiator is the brachial (radiohumeral) index . Although both groups are mesoceric
(medium forearm), Hong Kong females are at the low end of the range while Thais border
the long category. The sacral index for Hong Kong females is platyhieric (broad) while in
Thai females it is hyplatyhieric approaching platyhieric (p<0.01). The higher crural index
in Thais (p<0.05) give a similar proportionality of lower limb length components to that of
the arm, namely the leg is longer relative to the thigh. Robusticity indices (humeral and
femoral) are higher in Hong Kong females (p<0.01).
Other indices yield classification differences even though they are not statistically
significant. The platymeric index reflects that Hong Kong females are very eurycnemic
(broad and wide proximal shafts) in contrast to the Thais who are mesocnemic
(moderately flat). As in males, Thai females have a broader thorax, relative to humeral
length (claviculohumeral). Robusticity indices of the humerus and femur show that Hong
Kong females are nearly equal, but the development of the linea aspera is slightly greater
in Thais.
As in their male counterparts, Thai and Hong Kong females have similar leg
proportions when total lower limb to stature proportions are calculated. Median stature
for Thai (156.6cm ) and Hong Kong (157.2cm) males (Eveleth and Tanner 1990) were
divided by total lower limb lengths, the percentage of lower limb to stature ratios for
females are nearly equal 46.3% to 46.7% respectively.
Summary
Osteometric cranial and postcranial population variation exists between the
45
inhabitants of Thailand and Hong Kong. These group differences also vary by sex with
females having fewer differences than males cranially but the reverse is true postcranially.
In the crania, total differences in mean dimensions regardless of significance show that
Thai males are larger in 23 (62%) while Thai females are larger in 19 (51%) of 37
measurements. Only a few indices are significantly different between the populations
two for males and three for females. Cranial and breadth-height indices support Hong
Kong males and females are relatively higher with narrower heads. Thais tend to have
high, broad heads while Hong Kongers are high, but narrow. Otherwise, these
populations show few metrically based morphologic differences.
Postcranially, 10 dimensions in males and 15 in females differ significantly, but in
contrast to the cranium, most are larger in Hong Kongers. Midshaft circumference of the
clavicle, humerus, and ulna are significantly different in both sexes. Mean length
dimensions of long bones indicate Thai males and females have longer forearm and leg
lengths than their Hong Kong counterparts. This suggests that a greater percentage of
total arm and leg lengths among Thais are taken up by the lower components of both
extremities. Among Hong Kongers, longer femoral and humeral lengths contribute to a
taller mean stature than Thais. In both groups, crural, brachial, and humerofemoral for
males and brachial, sacral, and crural in females are significant. Thais of both sexes have
broader chests, and longer forearms and legs relative to arm and thigh proportions when
compared to Hong Kong males and females. Sacral indices in both sexes from Hong
Kong reveal a longer pubic length relative to the ischium and broader sacral breadth
indicating a wider pelvis than Thais.
46
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS: SEX DIFFERENCES
The purpose of this chapter is to give the results of metrical comparisons between
the sexes within Thailand and Hong Kong samples. Comparisons also revealed population
variation in the expression of sexual dimorphism between these two groups.
Craniometric Comparisons
Thailand
Tables 10 through 14 contain descriptive statistics and indices to compare and
contrast variation between the sexes, within each population, along with t-tests of their
significance. Of 37 dimensions tested 30 differed significantly (Table 10). All significant
dimensions are larger in males. Variations are greatest (p<0.001) in the following 17
measurements: cranial length and breadth, biauricular breadth, minimum frontal breadth,
biorbital breadth, bizygomatic breadth, bifrontomalare, frontomalare obitale-inferior
zygomaxillare, superior zygomaxillare-inferior zygomaxillare, basion-nasion, nasion-
prosthion, nose height, mastoid height, bicondylar breadth, bigonial breadth, ramus height,
and oblique ramus height. Of these, 12 dimensions measured are facial with eight
involving length. Two-thirds of these facial dimensions are in the zygomatic region and
47
Table 10
Descriptive statistics of cranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and

significance of differences between means of Thai males and females.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Cranial length
Male 67 171.7 6.85 157-190 5.66 0.001
Female 33 163.7 6.00 149-174
Cranial breadth
Male 62 144.5 5.69 130-156 3.89 0.001
Female 33 139.6 5.85 129-153
Basion-nasion
Male 68 99.4 6.63 87-134 4.38 0.001
Female 33 93.8 4.58 84-105
Basion-bregma
Male 66 135.3 9.04 98-153 3.26 0.002
Female 33 128.3 12.11 91-143
Basion-prosthion
Male 66 95.1 9.65 78-136 2.34 0.021
Female 32 90.8 5.89 83-105
Male 68 108.1 5.99 95-131 2.38 0.019
Female 32 105.0 6.26 86-114

Male 64 94.8 5.94 84-115 3.66 0.001
Female 33 90.6 4.01 82-98

Male 63 112.7 6.31 94-124 1.08 0.282
Female 33 111.2 5.95 100-128
Bizygomatic breadth
Male 68 133.8 5.49 119-146 8.21 0.001
Female 34 124.3 5.53 111-137

Male 69 37.8 2.25 31-43 3.13 0.002
Female 34 36.4 1.86 32-40
Left orbital height

Male 69 33.9 2.02 30-38 1.08 0.282
Female 34 33.4 2.02 30-40

Male 68 38.1 2.59 30-43 2.81 0.006
Female 34 36.8 1.51 33-40
__________________________________________________________
48
Table 10 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Male 68 33.4 2.05 29-37 -0.04 0.972
Female 34 33.4 1.86 30-37
Male 68 23.6 2.86 18-30 2.37 0.020
Female 34 22.2 2.42 17-28
Biorbital breadth
Male 68 96.0 4.09 87-104 4.05 0.001
Female 34 92.6 3.63 84-101
Bifronto malare
Male 68 97.2 4.54 89-109 4.82 0.001
Female 34 92.9 3.76 83-98

Male 63 44.8 3.22 33-50 4.35 0.001
Female 34 42.0 2.76 37-48

Male 62 31.8 2.39 28-42 1.99 0.050
Female 34 30.9 1.45 28-34

Male 61 33.1 3.77 23-43 5.20 0.001
Female 34 29.3 2.83 24-34
Nasion-prosthion
Male 67 68.8 5.45 57-80 4.01 0.001
Female 34 64.4 4.83 53-75
Nose height
Male 68 53.8 3.98 46-71 5.75 0.001
Female 34 49.4 2.92 44-58
Nose breadth
Male 68 27.1 1.98 22-32 3.24 0.002
Female 34 25.9 1.51 23-29
Mastoid height
Male 69 30.3 2.95 24-36 4.94 0.001
Female 34 27.1 3.21 17-34

Male 69 34.2 2.37 26-40 2.57 0.012
Female 33 32.9 2.39 28-38

Male 69 28.1 2.60 23-38 2.27 0.025
Female 33 26.9 2.52 24-35
__________________________________________________________
49
Table 10 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Biauricular breadth
Male 69 115.9 5.44 103-134 6.46 0.001
Female 34 108.4 5.55 97-119

Male 68 51.1 4.86 36-61 1.90 0.060
Female 34 49.1 4.73 39-61

Male 68 62.1 5.80 48-74 3.22 0.002
Female 34 58.1 6.08 46-68
Bicondylar breadth
Male 65 125.1 6.11 110-137 6.43 0.001
Female 33 116.8 5.85 105-130
Bigonial breadth
Male 68 101.7 6.05 89-116 6.94 0.001
Female 33 93.0 5.60 81-106
Ramus height
Male 63 55.0 7.14 30-71 4.15 0.001
Female 33 48.5 7.33 33-67

Male 67 60.3 6.98 42-76 4.62 0.001
Female 32 53.4 6.86 41-67
Minimum Ramus Breadth

Male 69 33.8 4.09 28-59 2.68 0.009
Female 33 31.6 3.41 24-38

Male 65 25.9 5.48 12-34 1.64 0.104
Female 33 24.0 4.93 13-31

Male 65 15.5 2.22 12-25 -0.11 0.916
Female 33 15.5 2.67 11-25
Gonial angle
Male 68 118.4 8.91 95-141 -1.34 0.182
Female 32 121.0 8.64 104-137
Mandibular length
Male 68 103.7 7.71 89-125 3.22 0.002
Female 33 98.9 0.91 90-114
__________________________________________________________
50
Table 11
males and females from Thailand.
_________________________________________________________________
Index
N Mean S.D. t p Classification
_________________________________________________________________
Cranial
Male 62 84.4 4.72 -0.97 0.333 Brachycranic
Female 33 85.4 4.76 Hyperbrachycranic
Length-height
Male 66 78.9 5.60 0.40 0.693 Hypsicranic
Female 33 78.4 7.55 Hypsicranic
Breadth-height
Male 62 93.5 6.18 0.92 0.362 Metriocranic
Female 33 92.0 9.24 Metriocranic
Frontoparietal
Male 62 65.7 3.70 0.91 0.363 Stenometopic
Female 32 65.0 3.61 Stenometopic
Upper facial
Male 67 51.5 3.93 -0.40 0.688 Mesene
Female 34 51.9 3.96 Mesene
Orbital
Male 69 89.9 7.06 -1.50 0.138 Hypsiconchic
Female 34 91.9 4.88 Hypsiconchic
Nasal
Male 68 50.6 4.72 -2.05 0.043 Mesorrhine
Female 34 52.5 3.75 Mesorrhine
External palatal
Male 68 122.0 9.84 1.32 0.188 Brachyuranic
Female 34 118.9 13.65 Brachyuranic
Gnathic
Male 66 105.0 8.19 1.02 0.309 Prognathic
Female 32 103.3 5.93 Prognathic
Foramen magnum
Male 69 82.4 7.66 0.27 0.786 Megosemic
Female 33 82.0 8.48 Megosemic
Mandibular
Male 65 83.1 7.52 -1.20 0.234 Dolichostenic
Female 33 84.9 6.25 Dolichostenic
_________________________________________________________________
51
Table 12

of differences between means of Hong Kong males and females.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Cranial length
Male 56 177.9 6.42 165-196 2.67 0.009
Female 20 173.6 6.03 164-184
Cranial breadth
Male 55 140.1 5.38 127-153 0.57 0.568
Female 20 139.3 6.26 129-155
Basion-nasion
Male 56 99.6 6.58 91-137 2.85 0.006
Female 20 95.2 4.16 87-102
Basion-bregma
Male 54 137.7 9.11 99-171 1.26 0.213
Female 19 134.9 5.15 125-144
Basion-prosthion
Male 56 93.4 4.27 86-104 1.09 0.281
Female 19 92.1 5.24 81-102
Male 56 108.8 9.25 93-155 2.49 0.015
Female 20 103.3 5.24 94-114

Male 55 93.6 7.37 85-128 1.12 0.267
Female 20 91.7 3.33 86-100

Male 55 109.2 6.95 87-125 0.10 0.924
Female 20 109.0 5.23 99-116
Bizygomatic breadth
Male 52 132.6 6.04 103-143 4.48 0.001
Female 19 126.1 2.99 121-130
Left Orbital breadth

Male 55 36.9 1.62 32-41 2.49 0.015
Female 21 35.9 1.55 34-39
Left orbital height

Male 55 33.4 2.31 28-42 1.03 0.307
Female 20 32.9 1.79 30-37

Male 56 37.1 1.49 34-41 2.76 0.007
Female 21 36.0 1.48 34-39
__________________________________________________________
52
Table 12 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Male 56 33.5 1.99 30-42 1.73 0.088
Female 21 32.7 1.56 30-36
Male 55 25.0 2.38 20-30 2.05 0.043
Female 21 23.9 1.80 21-28
Biorbital breadth
Male 55 94.7 4.00 86-105 2.28 0.026
Female 21 92.5 2.87 88-99

Male 55 95.8 4.03 87-108 3.23 0.002
Female 21 92.7 3.10 87-98

Male 45 45.8 7.71 39-93 2.57 0.013
Female 21 41.4 1.91 38-45

Male 42 32.1 2.02 27-39 2.50 0.015
Female 21 30.7 2.37 28-39

Male 43 33.0 3.14 28-41 3.24 0.002
Female 21 30.3 2.99 26-36
Nasion-prosthion
Male 54 69.4 7.23 34-83 1.08 0.286
Female 19 67.5 4.40 60-75
Nose height
Male 55 52.9 3.17 45-63 3.11 0.003
Female 21 50.4 2.91 43-55
Nose breadth
Male 55 25.9 2.13 22-32 -0.63 0.529
Female 21 26.2 1.40 23-29
Mastoid height
Male 56 30.7 3.01 25-38 4.28 0.001
Female 21 27.6 2.54 22-31

Male 55 34.1 2.47 29-42 2.45 0.017
Female 20 32.6 2.16 29-37

Male 55 27.7 2.68 22-38 1.86 0.066
Female 20 26.4 2.28 21-30
__________________________________________________________
53
Table 12 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Biauricular breadth
Male 56 114.3 4.04 105-124 4.28 0.001
Female 20 109.9 3.66 102-118

Male 54 51.5 3.44 46-61 0.70 0.487
Female 19 50.9 3.05 45-57

Male 53 61.7 4.85 50-70 3.02 0.003
Female 20 57.7 5.37 48-68
Bicondylar breadth
Male 48 122.4 7.20 103-137 1.90 0.062
Female 18 118.9 4.99 105-127
Bigonial breadth
Male 53 102.5 6.67 94-137 4.69 0.001
Female 18 94.8 3.66 90-102
Ramus height
Male 46 55.6 7.76 38-78 4.43 0.001
Female 17 46.5 6.02 40-65

Male 55 59.6 5.86 47-74 5.54 0.001
Female 20 51.3 5.35 42-66

Male 56 32.8 2.60 24-38 1.98 0.051
Female 20 31.5 2.95 26-37

Male 53 28.0 4.25 14-35 1.34 0.184
Female 20 26.6 2.56 23-32

Male 55 15.7 1.64 12-20 0.77 0.444
Female 20 15.4 1.60 13-19
Gonial angle
Male 46 114.2 7.04 94-129 -3.16 0.002
Female 17 120.6 7.78 100-131
Mandibular length
Male 46 101.0 5.01 91-112 0.78 0.441
Female 17 99.9 4.62 93-107
__________________________________________________________
54
Table 13
males and females from Hong Kong.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Cranial
Male 55 78.8 3.61 -1.61 0.112 Mesocranic
Female 20 80.3 3.82 Brachycranic
Length-height
Male 54 77.5 4.90 -0.37 0.712 Hypsicranic
Female 19 77.9 2.25 Hypsicranic
Breadth-height
Male 54 98.4 5.64 1.12 0.266 Acrocranic
Female 19 96.8 3.84 Metriocranic
Frontoparietal (frontal)
Male 55 66.8 4.84 0.77 0.443 Metrimetopic
Female 20 65.9 3.16 Stenometopic
Upper facial
Male 51 52.5 6.54 -1.01 0.314 Mesene
Female 17 54.2 3.14 Mesene
Orbital
Male 55 90.6 6.62 -0.72 0.472 Hypsiconchic
Female 20 91.8 4.64 Hypsiconchic
Nasal
Male 55 49.1 4.84 -2.58 0.012 Mesorrhine
Female 21 52.1 3.63 Mesorrhine
External palatal
Male 53 120.0 8.57 2.62 0.011 Brachyuranic
Female 19 113.6 10.50 Mesuranic
Gnathic
Male 56 106.8 6.46 1.76 0.082 Prognathic
Female 19 103.7 7.09 Prognathic
Foramen magnum
Male 55 81.2 7.63 0.05 0.961 Microsemic
Female 20 81.1 6.45 Microsemic
Mandibular
Male 43 82.5 6.78 -0.73 0.471 Dolichostenic
Female 16 83.8 3.31 Dolichostenic
__________________________________________________________________
55
Table 14
Descriptive statistics of postcranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and

significance of differences between means of Thai males and females.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Scapular height
Male 65 147.4 7.73 126-164 12.78 0.001
Female 31 127.1 6.22 115-142

Male 67 103.7 5.48 92-120 10.52 0.001
Female 31 91.8 4.60 82-102

Male 66 103.9 5.53 89-120 10.45 0.001
Female 32 92.0 4.71 81-103

Male 67 104.0 5.44 89-116 10.89 0.001
Female 31 91.6 4.87 81-104

Male 66 102.8 5.41 88-115 10.29 0.001
Female 32 91.4 4.48 79-102

Male 68 131.8 6.97 117-150 9.88 0.001
Female 32 117.1 6.94 103-137
Clavicular length
Male 67 148.8 8.21 129-165 9.41 0.001
Female 33 132.7 7.79 116-153

Male 69 11.8 1.55 8-15 6.27 0.001
Female 33 9.7 1.51 8-14

Male 69 10.7 1.57 8-15 4.93 0.001
Female 33 9.2 1.23 7-12

Male 69 36.9 3.38 28-45 8.66 0.001
Female 33 31.1 2.76 27-38

Male 70 300.6 15.65 229-333 6.88 0.001
Female 34 278.9 13.67 253-306

Male 70 44.4 2.11 39-49 13.41 0.001
Female 34 38.2 2.34 33-44
__________________________________________________________
56
Table 14 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Male 70 40.8 2.98 22-46 8.35 0.001
Female 34 36.2 1.77 33-40

Male 70 21.3 1.64 17-25 3.96 0.001
Female 34 19.3 3.50 13-29

Male 70 16.7 2.18 10-24 6.85 0.001
Female 34 13.9 1.39 12-19

Male 70 60.3 2.97 55-68 14.30 0.001
Female 34 52.1 2.29 46-58

Male 70 65.9 4.65 58-78 10.72 0.001
Female 34 56.1 3.75 49-62

Male 70 61.2 3.74 54-75 10.12 0.001
Female 34 53.1 4.00 47-67

Male 70 240.7 16.07 207-323 7.41 0.001
Female 34 217.5 12.29 193-242

Male 70 31.2 1.91 25-36 9.79 0.001
Female 34 27.3 1.99 23-35

Male 70 12.0 1.16 10-30 10.07 0.001
Female 34 9.7 0.94 8-13

Male 70 14.8 1.42 11-19 6.19 0.001
Female 34 13.0 1.39 9-16

Male 70 257.3 17.13 222-349 6.80 0.001
Female 33 235.3 10.55 218-263

Male 70 231.6 20.69 195-329 5.52 0.001
Female 33 210.5 10.49 194-237

Male 70 15.5 1.41 11-31 7.11 0.001
Female 33 13.3 1.55 9-15
__________________________________________________________
57
Table 14 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Male 70 12.3 1.22 10-17 6.77 0.001
Female 33 10.3 1.58 9-16

Male 70 33.9 2.47 15-40 8.03 0.001
Female 33 29.9 2.15 27-35

Male 69 429.4 21.38 30-494 7.42 0.001
Female 34 397.0 19.60 361-443

Male 69 426.1 21.46 35-493 7.46 0.001
Female 34 393.4 19.89 357-442

Male 69 45.1 1.98 30-50 13.98 0.001
Female 34 39.3 1.93 35-45

Male 70 27.8 2.44 22-43 6.76 0.001
Female 34 24.6 1.76 22-29

Male 70 25.3 2.00 21-30 4.21 0.001
Female 34 23.3 2.78 17-32

Male 70 79.6 3.65 25-88 12.99 0.001
Female 34 70.0 3.30 64-80

Male 70 83.7 4.67 72-95 7.97 0.001
Female 34 75.4 5.49 64-88

Male 68 353.0 20.78 295-411 6.04 0.001
Female 34 328.3 16.47 299-365

Male 69 74.8 3.58 68-84 11.87 0.001
Female 34 66.2 3.16 61-74

Male 69 52.7 3.23 47-63 10.06 0.001
Female 34 46.0 3.06 35-52

Male 69 29.4 2.53 24-35 6.34 0.001
Female 34 26.1 2.43 22-37
__________________________________________________________
58
Table 14 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Male 69 20.3 2.34 16-30 5.51 0.001
Female 34 17.9 1.37 15-21

Male 69 33.3 3.06 23-40 7.63 0.001
Female 34 29.0 1.71 27-33

Male 69 22.1 2.77 18-36 4.23 0.001
Female 34 19.8 2.09 16-28

Male 69 72.4 5.43 63-87 5.92 0.001
Female 34 65.6 5.64 58-86

Male 69 89.2 6.74 67-99 8.25 0.001
Female 34 78.3 5.32 61-89

Male 70 353.2 19.01 294-397 6.72 0.001
Female 34 328.2 14.97 300-360

Male 69 15.4 1.67 12-21 3.80 0.001
Female 34 14.1 1.23 12-17

Male 69 11.3 1.43 8-16 6.81 0.001
Female 34 9.4 1.15 7-12
Pelvic height
Male 67 203.8 8.15 178-221 9.75 0.001
Female 32 186.9 7.77 167-201
Pubic length
Male 67 75.1 4.87 63-91 -1.17 0.245
Female 31 76.3 4.44 67-85
Ischial length
Male 67 73.9 3.84 64-82 9.30 0.001
Female 32 66.1 4.09 58-75
Iliac breadth
Male 65 149.8 6.77 135-165 2.91 0.005
Female 32 145.2 8.47 126-160
Bi-iliac breadth
Male 64 259.9 14.20 229-288 1.31 0.194
Female 29 255.8 13.72 225-289
__________________________________________________________
59
Table 14 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Sacral bialare
Male 64 108.7 5.61 89-125 0.01 0.989
Female 30 108.7 7.08 96-120
Sacral height
Male 65 110.3 11.63 86-136 2.04 0.044
Female 29 104.9 12.45 86-129

Male 62 37.7 7.56 28-55 3.63 0.001
Female 30 32.0 6.05 23-45

Male 62 42.6 8.25 28-57 1.28 0.203
Female 30 40.2 8.00 24-54

Male 19 74.5 4.49 63-83 3.30 0.003
Female 10 69.0 3.71 63-75

Male 38 28.9 8.82 21-78 2.07 0.043
Female 19 24.6 2.43 21-30

Male 19 57.6 4.94 52-74 4.39 0.001
Female 10 50.2 2.78 46-54
Talar maximum width

Male 38 40.8 4.24 26-56 4.37 0.001
Female 19 36.4 1.77 34-41
Lumbar (L1) anterior-height

Male 62 23.0 1.71 19-26 1.18 0.239
Female 32 22.6 1.85 18-26
Lumbar (L1) posterior height

Male 62 27.0 1.79 24-30 4.33 0.001
Female 31 25.4 1.54 22-29
Lumbar (L1) transverse breadth

Male 62 41.8 2.61 36-48 8.27 0.001
Female 31 36.8 3.06 26-42
Lumbar (L1) superior anterior-posterior depth

Male 59 30.5 2.78 21-37 7.25 0.001
Female 30 26.4 1.76 23-30

Male 63 24.0 1.59 20-27 0.30 0.763
Female 32 23.9 1.85 20-27
__________________________________________________________
60
Table 14 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Male 63 27.4 1.83 23-31 4.22 0.001
Female 32 25.8 1.51 23-28

Male 62 43.9 3.02 38-54 6.92 0.001
Female 32 39.5 2.72 34-46

Male 60 32.3 2.70 26-40 7.48 0.001
Female 31 28.0 2.33 23-33

Male 64 25.3 1.66 21-28 2.95 0.004
Female 31 24.2 1.88 20-27

Male 64 27.0 1.69 24-30 4.04 0.001
Female 32 25.4 2.03 20-29

Male 63 46.1 3.86 36-57 5.34 0.001
Female 32 41.9 2.96 35-50

Male 63 33.7 3.64 23-47 6.03 0.001
Female 30 29.3 2.28 24-34

Male 66 24.9 1.83 19-28 3.01 0.003
Female 32 23.6 2.06 19-26

Male 65 25.5 2.02 21-31 3.72 0.001
Female 32 23.9 2.12 18-27

Male 65 48.9 4.10 36-60 6.23 0.001
Female 32 43.8 2.97 39-49

Male 64 35.0 3.95 21-51 6.47 0.001
Female 31 29.8 2.90 21-37

Male 65 25.6 1.90 20-29 4.20 0.001
Female 32 23.8 2.00 20-27

Male 66 23.7 1.92 19-28 4.56 0.001
Female 30 21.7 2.09 17-25
__________________________________________________________
61
Table 14 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Male 64 50.4 4.57 36-59 5.35 0.001
Female 32 45.3 4.12 31-55

Male 62 35.0 4.88 25-55 4.29 0.001
Female 30 30.9 2.50 26-36
__________________________________________________________
62
mandible. Other significant differences at the p<0.001 level are clustered around vault
breadth dimensions. As can be seen in Table 10, the 13 other dimensions showing
significance (p<0.05-0.01) tended to cluster in the upper face and maxillo-mandibular
regions.
Of the 30 cranial dimensions found significant at all levels, nine are in the upper
face (zygomaxillare and orbital regions) and of those six are measurements of breadth.
Secondary to facial dimensions are five in the vault breadth. Males are larger in all
significant mean measurements. In the analysis, only seven are not significant maximum
frontal breadth, left and right orbital height, external palatal length, mandibular body
height and breadth, and gonial angle.
Cranial indices for Thai males and females are presented in Table 11. Only the
nasal index is significant (p<0.05). Females have wider noses, and though both are
mesorrhine, females are approaching platyrrhine and males are nearly leptorrhine primarily
due to their proportionally greater length. Though not statistically significant, Thai males
are brachycranic while females are hyperbrachycranic. Similarities among Thai males and
females include a tendency toward tall narrow orbits (hyspiconchic), round faces, slight
prognathism, wide palates, high skulls (relative to length), medium skulls (relative to
breadth), and long, narrow mandibles.
Hong Kong
Table 12 provides metric differences between Hong Kong males and females.
Statistically, 21 dimensions are significant, much fewer than in Thais. Nearly half (N=9)
63
of the significant dimensions are breadth dimensions, and ten are facial. The greatest size
differentials (p<0.001) include bizygomatic, biauricular and gonial breadth, mastoid height,
ramus height, and oblique ramus height. These are followed by 15 measurements at the
p<0.05-0.01 level, of which 8 are breadth dimensions. These significant dimensions
centered on the face (N=11) and four vault measurements. All measurements (significant
or not) are larger in males except nose breadth and gonial angle. As with Thais,
significant dimensions cluster in zygomaxillary and orbital regions of the face, but in Hong
Kongers, vault sex differences tend to center on length and height dimensions.
Table 13 lists the cranial indices for Hong Kong males and females with only two
reaching significance (p<0.05) nasal and external palatal indices. The external palatal
index gives Hong Kong males a wider palate than females. Other indices, though not
significant, also showed classification differences. Males have higher, narrower heads than
females, but Hong Kong females have narrower foreheads. Similarities between Hong
Kongers include round faces, medium noses and foramen magnums, tall orbits, slight
prognathism and long, narrow mandibles.
Postcraniometric Comparisons
Thailand
Significant differences between the sexes appear in 73 of 79 dimensions, and 67
are at the p<0.001 level (Table 14). Of these, only iliac breadth is larger in females. In the
p<0.05-0.01 range are six dimensions which cluster in the pelvis, vertebrae, and feet. Only
six dimensions are not significant and interestingly, these are concentrated in the pelvic
64
region (pubic length, bi-iliac breadth, bialare, and S1 transverse diameter) and anterior
heights of vertebrae L1 and L2.
Indices comparing Thai males and females are listed in Table 15, and five of these
are significant. Humeral robusticity, humeral shaft, and ishiopubic indices are highly
significant (p<0.001), claviculohumeral (p<0.01), and intermembral and sacral (p<0.05).
Significant results indicate Thai males have more robust humeri, a broader thorax, longer
upper limbs relative to lower limbs (brachial and intermembral), and narrower hips (sacral
and ishiopubic) when compared to females.
Classification differences between the sexes also include limb proportions from the
crural and humerofemoral indices which reveal that females have slightly greater leg to
thigh ratios than males, while males have a longer humerus relative to the femur. Femoral
robusticity between the sexes is nearly equal, but linea aspera development is slightly
greater in males.
Hong Kong
Comparisons of male and female measurements (Table 16) show that 51 are
significantly different. Of these, 44 reached the highest level of significance (p<0.001),
followed by 9 significant dimensions at the p<0.05-0.01 range. These significant
dimensions clustered around the pectoral girdle, and pelvic breadth dimensions, as well as
the leg. All significant dimensions were greater in males. Eight dimensions are not
significant and tended to cluster around the femoral transverse diameter, pelvic region
(N=5), and fibula (N=2).
65
Table 15

for males and females from Thailand.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Male 70 80.1 4.87 2.46 0.015 Dolichoceric
Female 34 78.0 2.22 Mesoceric
Platymeric (tibia)
Male 69 69.3 7.78 0.10 0.919 Mesocnemic
Female 34 69.2 7.07 Mesocnemic
Sacral (breadth)
Male 63 99.2 9.55 -2.59 0.011 Dolichohieric
Female 29 105.2 11.87 Hyplatyhieric
Ishiopubic
Male 67 101.8 6.09 -9.31 0.001
Female 31 115.3 7.93
Claviculohumeral
Male 67 49.6 3.38 3.15 0.002
Female 33 47.6 2.04
Humeral robusticity
Male 70 20.4 1.33 4.68 0.001
Female 34 19.1 1.43
Femoral robusticity
Male 69 12.5 0.60 1.71 0.090
Female 34 12.2 1.02
Pilastric (femur)
Male 70 110.5 12.31 1.44 0.154
Female 34 106.9 11.80
Intermembral
Male 67 69.4 2.30 2.11 0.037
Female 34 68.5 1.70
Crural
Male 67 82.2 2.26 -1.05 0.298
Female 34 82.7 2.41
Humerofemoral
Male 69 70.0 3.01 -0.43 0.671
Female 34 70.3 1.96
__________________________________________________________________
66
Table 15 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Vertebral (L1)
Male 60 117.6 8.06 2.50 0.014
Female 31 113.2 7.78
Vertebral (L2)
Male 62 114.3 7.35 3.96 0.001
Female 32 108.2 6.73
Vertebral (L3)
Male 63 107.2 8.90 1.50 0.138
Female 31 105.1 5.84
Vertebral (L4)
Male 65 102.9 7.75 0.91 0.366
Female 32 101.4 8.27
Vertebral (L5)
Male 65 92.7 7.19 1.16 0.250
Female 30 90.8 7.91
__________________________________________________________________
67
Table 16
Descriptive statistics of postcranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and

significance of differences between means of Hong Kong males and females.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Scapular height
Male 33 149.2 10.97 110-166 3.90 0.001
Female 7 131.9 9.08 123-149

Male 36 103.6 5.15 93-118 6.40 0.001
Female 10 92.0 4.81 85-99

Male 35 104.4 11.20 91-161 2.61 0.012
Female 8 93.9 3.04 91-98

Male 36 103.6 5.02 94-116 6.98 0.001
Female 10 91.1 4.86 82-97

Male 35 102.8 8.09 91-139 3.22 0.003
Female 8 93.4 2.72 91-98

Male 37 132.0 8.30 105-152 4.82 0.001
Female 7 116.1 5.82 108-123
Clavicular length
Male 51 149.1 10.85 118-175 4.72 0.001
Female 13 134.2 6.34 126-146

Male 54 12.0 1.41 9-16 3.65 0.001
Female 15 10.6 0.99 9-12

Male 54 10.8 1.16 8-13 3.05 0.003
Female 15 9.6 1.81 8-13

Male 54 38.1 3.18 29-45 4.99 0.001
Female 15 33.5 2.92 30-38

Male 54 305.0 16.61 271-341 4.74 0.001
Female 19 285.4 11.65 268-309

Male 54 44.9 2.33 39-51 8.15 0.001
Female 20 39.9 2.43 34-46
__________________________________________________________
68
Table 16 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Male 51 41.3 2.39 37-48 7.33 0.001
Female 19 36.7 2.08 33-41

Male 55 22.3 2.36 19-31 3.96 0.001
Female 21 19.8 2.52 14-26

Male 56 16.9 1.70 14-21 4.81 0.001
Female 21 14.9 1.59 13-20

Male 54 58.7 3.68 52-66 6.33 0.001
Female 19 52.9 2.69 48-58

Male 56 66.4 7.02 44-82 4.39 0.001
Female 21 59.0 5.07 52-74

Male 56 63.2 5.25 53-78 4.90 0.001
Female 21 56.7 4.97 51-72

Male 51 236.1 18.13 201-318 4.90 0.001
Female 19 214.3 11.06 194-245

Male 50 31.4 1.92 28-37 6.67 0.001
Female 18 27.9 1.83 24-30

Male 54 11.9 0.93 10-14 6.79 0.001
Female 20 10.3 0.80 9-12

Male 54 14.7 1.57 11-20 3.44 0.001
Female 20 13.4 1.39 9-15

Male 50 251.6 20.24 217-356 4.15 0.001
Female 19 231.2 11.55 208-261

Male 51 223.9 19.78 188-329 3.62 0.001
Female 19 206.5 11.10 183-237

Male 54 15.8 1.47 12-19 4.80 0.001
Female 20 14.1 0.79 13-15
__________________________________________________________
69
Table 16 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Male 54 12.4 1.03 10-15 6.92 0.001
Female 20 10.6 0.89 9-12

Male 52 35.5 2.68 30-40 4.83 0.001
Female 20 32.2 2.42 27-36

Male 53 429.8 20.33 385-471 4.66 0.001
Female 20 405.1 19.74 80-445

Male 53 426.8 19.95 383-468 4.88 0.001
Female 20 401.5 19.24 375-438

Male 53 45.6 1.96 42-51 9.82 0.001
Female 20 40.3 2.32 35-44

Male 55 28.0 2.06 23-32 4.51 0.001
Female 21 25.5 2.40 22-30

Male 55 25.1 2.46 20-32 1.05 0.298
Female 21 24.5 1.86 22-29

Male 48 78.4 3.51 73-85 9.23 0.001
Female 19 69.8 3.26 64-75

Male 55 84.7 4.55 75-96 4.58 0.001
Female 20 78.8 6.05 70-87

Male 54 346.1 20.10 299-388 3.45 0.001
Female 21 329.0 17.15 302-367

Male 49 73.2 3.58 65-80 6.67 0.001
Female 17 66.4 3.78 59-73

Male 50 53.7 3.75 43-64 6.56 0.001
Female 19 47.2 3.47 38-51

Male 54 29.4 2.58 23-35 5.61 0.001
Female 21 26.0 1.45 23-28
__________________________________________________________
70
Table 16 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

Male 54 20.5 2.29 17-29 2.75 0.008
Female 21 18.9 2.07 16-24

Male 54 33.1 3.07 27-40 4.43 0.001
Female 21 29.8 2.46 25-36

Male 54 22.4 2.60 17-31 2.17 0.033
Female 21 20.9 3.21 17-33

Male 54 73.3 5.00 62-89 5.18 0.001
Female 21 66.7 4.89 58-76

Male 54 89.3 5.95 78-99 5.09 0.001
Female 21 81.6 5.81 68-91

Male 44 342.3 20.37 290-380 1.95 0.056
Female 10 328.8 15.75 305-350

Male 54 14.9 1.74 10-19 1.00 0.322
Female 16 14.4 1.32 12-17

Male 54 11.3 1.27 9-15 3.36 0.001
Female 16 10.1 1.15 8-12
Pelvic height
Male 41 208.0 16.20 185-288 4.10 0.001
Female 15 189.6 9.90 174-209
Pelvic length
Male 37 76.3 4.80 67-85 -1.64 0.107
Female 15 78.7 4.48 68-86
Ischial length
Male 42 73.8 3.89 65-81 5.90 0.001
Female 16 67.3 3.47 60-73
Iliac breadth
Male 34 151.4 7.75 136-167 3.08 0.004
Female 13 142.5 11.61 128-166
Bi-iliac breadth
Male 29 262.3 14.49 231-296 0.60 0.554
Female 12 259.3 16.01 229-285
__________________________________________________________
71
Table 16 (cont.)
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Sacral bialare
Male 34 111.7 6.79 96-127 0.84 0.407
Female 16 109.9 7.02 100-125
Sacral height
Male 36 110.6 10.42 91-131 4.52 0.001
Female 12 95.6 8.16 85-109

Male 40 39.6 7.88 26-51 1.44 0.155
Female 17 36.4 7.02 27-48

Male 42 37.9 6.74 23-50 0.74 0.463
Female 17 36.5 7.15 27-52

Male 47 73.7 5.01 65-89 2.93 0.005
Female 15 69.5 4.19 64-78

Male 43 28.2 2.62 23-35 3.45 0.001
Female 11 25.3 2.05 22-29

Male 51 56.5 2.97 50-64 7.60 0.001
Female 18 50.8 2.07 48-55
Talar maximum width

Male 51 41.4 2.26 37-47 6.08 0.001
Female 18 37.5 2.60 34-45
__________________________________________________________
72
Table 17 lists the analysis of shape differences among Hong Kong males and
females, and three appear to be significant. Sacral and ishiopubic indices (p<0.001)
indicate a wider and longer pelvis in females. The pilastric and intermembral indices
(p<0.05) reveal that development of the linea aspera is greater in males even though
femoral robusticity is equal between the sexes. A higher intermembral index in Hong
Kong males denote a longer upper limbs in proportion to lower limbs than females.
Classification differences are also seen in the platymeric index. Hong Kong
females are eurycnemic (broad and wide proximal shafts) in contrast to the mesocnemic
(medium) males (Table 17). Though both are classified mesoceric, the brachial index
indicate males indicate longer forearm than females. Hong Kong females have a narrower
upper chest than males, and humeral robusticity is slightly greater in males than females.
Limb proportions from the crural and humerofemoral indices indicate females have a
proportionally longer leg to thigh ratio than males, while males have a longer humerus to
femur ratio. Femoral robusticity is equal in both sexes.
Summary
Cranial and postcraniometric data reveal that Hong Kongers are less sexually
dimorphic than Thais. Males from both groups have greater overall mean dimensions than
females. Craniometrics indicate Thai and Hong Kong males have wider upper faces,
palates, foramen magnums, and higher vaults than females. Females have wider heads,
nasal breadths, narrower faces and short cranial lengths than males. Indices, however,
show more similarities than differences. Of the 79 Thai and 59 Hong Kong postcranial
73
Table 17

for males and females from Hong Kong.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Male 50 77.4 5.13 1.47 0.147 Mesoceric
Female 18 75.5 2.76 Mesoceric
Platymeric (tibia)
Male 54 67.0 7.07 -1.51 0.136 Mesocnemic
Female 21 72.7 7.27 Eurycnemic
Sacral (breadth)
Male 31 101.2 9.26 -4.47 0.001 Hyplatyhieric
Female 12 115.9 10.74 Platyhieric
Claviculohumeral
Male 49 49.1 3.44 1.79 0.079
Female 13 47.3 2.37
Humeral robusticity
Male 54 20.8 1.84 1.82 0.073
Female 19 19.9 1.74
Femoral robusticity
Male 53 12.5 0.69 0.13 0.900
Female 20 12.5 0.63
Pilastric (femur)
Male 55 112.4 12.50 2.56 0.012
Female 21 104.5 10.60
Intermembral
Male 48 69.9 3.04 2.61 0.011
Female 17 67.9 1.18
Crural
Male 52 80.5 2.15 -1.54 0.127
Female 20 81.4 1.92
Humerofemoral
Male 51 71.1 1.86 1.70 0.094
Female 18 70.2 1.66
Ishiopubic
Male 36 103.1 4.86 -8.21 0.001
Female 15 117.0 6.94
__________________________________________________________________
74
dimensions, 73 and 51 dimensions respectively are significant.
Females have larger mean dimensions than males in iliac breadth, and ischial length
in Thais, and pubic length in Hong Kong females. Mean long bone lengths are greater in
groups of males with the Hong Kongers having longer total limb lengths than Thais.
Humeral shaft and ishiopubic indices are significantly different between both populations.
Females from both populations have higher leg to thigh proportions as well as a wider
pelvic region than their male counterparts.
75
CHAPTER V
DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS OF THE THAI FEMUR
As noted in Chapter 1, there is plentiful evidence that populations are metrically
distinct, even within a race group (e.g., Black 1978; Giles and Elliot 1963; Gill and Rhine
1990; Hanihara 1959; ·can and Miller-Shaivitz 1984c; Krogman and ·can 1986; Loth
1996). Many studies from around the world have focused on the femur and humerus, so
these bones were chosen to begin the process of developing Thai specific standards.
Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to conduct a discriminant function analysis of
sexual dimorphism in Thai femora to establish standards for this group, and sexing
accuracy with other Asians and populations from other parts of the world. A similar
analysis of the humerus appears in Chapter VI. The production of formulae from the
Hong Kong sample will be carried out when the collection is enlarged to include a
significant number of females
Osteometric analysis, mostly with the use of discriminant function statistics, has
become one of the most common means to assess sexual dimorphism between and within
populations. Discriminant function analysis can determine 1) which variables are the most
useful for separating one group from one another, 2) if different sets of variables perform
equally well, and 3) which groups are most similar. In addition, comparisons of
76
percentages of diagnostic accuracy can indicate which group has a greater separation of
males and females, i.e., greater sexual dimorphism. Discriminant function statistics can
also pinpoint cases that differ markedly from others in their group (outliers).
Materials and Methods
The sample (N=104) consisted of 70 males and 34 females, all of whom were
collected at Chiang Mai University Hospital between 1993-1996. Using the same samples
as described in Chapter 2 , a total of seven standard femoral dimensions as presented in
Bräuer (1988) and Krogman and ·can (1986) were used: maximum length, physiologic
length, maximum head diameter, midshaft circumference, midshaft A-P and transverse
diameters, and bicondylar breadth (see Appendix I for description).
Data were analyzed using a mainframe version of SPSSX (1988). Stepwise
discriminant function analysis was used to select the combination of variables that best
discriminate between the sexes. In addition, individual and paired variables were subjected
to direct analysis to developed other functions to allow sex determination from
fragmentary remains using a single variable or combination of the few that remain.
Results
Table 18 presents descriptive statistics. Male values are greater than those of
females in all dimensions and the differences are statistically significant at p<0.001. The
results of the stepwise procedure appear in Tables 19 and 20. Of the seven measurements
entered into the analysis, only maximum head diameter and epicondylar breadth are
77
Table 18
Means, standard deviations and univariate F-ratios of the Thai femur.

________________________________________________________________
Variable Males (N=70) Females (N=34) F-Ratio*
(mm) ______________ ______________
Mean SD Mean SD
________________________________________________________________
Max length 429.40 21.38 397.03 19.60 55.11
Bicondylar length 426.12 21.46 393.35 19.89 55.67
Max head dia 45.06 1.98 39.29 1.93 195.50
A-P midshaft dia 27.81 2.46 24.65 1.76 44.97
Trans midshaft dia 25.34 1.97 23.29 2.78 18.71
Epicondylar br 79.65 3.63 69.97 3.30 171.60
Midshaft circ 83.68 4.70 75.41 5.49 62.99
________________________________________________________________
* Degrees of freedom = 1,101. All significant at p < 0.001
Table 19
Stepwise discriminant function analysis of the femur.

_________________________________________________________________
Step Variables Wilks’ lambda Equiv F-ratio d.f.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Max head dia 0.37080 283.375 1,101
2 Epicondylar br 0.33977 161.281 2,100
_________________________________________________________________
Table 20
Canonical discriminant function coefficients from the Stepwise discriminant

function analysis of the femur.
_________________________________________________________________
Functions and Raw Standard Structure
Variables Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
_________________________________________________________________
1 Max head dia 0.3229101 0.64 0.94
Epicondylar br 0.1298626 0.46 0.88
Constant -23.86411
_________________________________________________________________
selected as the optimal combination for sex determination. The univariate F-ratio analyzes
the variance within and between the sexes and indicates its level of significance, while
Wilks’ lambda calculates how diagnostic a given variable is and determines the order in
which the variables are selected to enter the function. Function 1 contains the canonical
78
discriminant coefficients produced by the stepwise discriminant function analysis. The
standard coefficient indicates the contribution of a given variable to the overall
classification, while the structure coefficient accounts for the intercorrelation between the
variables in the function. For example, maximum head diameter accounts for 64% of the
difference between the sexes and 94% between the variables in the function (Table 20).
The raw coefficients are the variable weights used to calculate the discriminant score.
The direct discriminant approach was then used to determine the diagnostic
accuracy of single and various combinations of variables that can be useful in sexing a
fragmentary bone. The results appear in Table 21. In the case of a single variable, a
demarking point is also included. This is the average of the group means of each variable
and a larger value for femoral dimension can be considered male, a lower one, female.
To calculate the discriminant score, simply multiply each dimension by its raw
coefficient and add them together along with the constant as follows:
0.3229101(maximum head diameter) + 0.1298626(epicondylar breadth)

23.86411 (constant) = Discriminant score
The statistical program adds a constant to standardize zero as the sectioning point, thus a
score larger than zero indicates a male and less than zero, a female.
Overall mean accuracies using multiple variables spanned 84.5% to 94.2% with
maximum accuracy from the function selected by the stepwise procedure appearing in
Table 22. By sex, females are better diagnosed than males. Functions 1 through 6 yielded
79.7% to 94.2% accuracy for males and 91.2% to 94.1% for females.
The mean accuracies from single variables ranged from 74.0% to 93.3%, and these
79
too differed by sex (Table 22). Epicondylar breadth provided the highest separation for a
Table 21
Canonical discriminant function coefficients from Direct analyses based on a

combination and singular variables.
_________________________________________________________________
Functions and Raw Standard Structure
_________________________________________________________________
2 Max head dia 0.4755673 0.94 0.99
A-P midshaft dia 0.0701216 0.16 0.47
Constant -22.40021
3 Max head dia 0.4904943 0.96 0.99

Bicondylar length 0.0033082 0.07 0.53
Constant -22.54138
4 A-P midshaft dia 0.0603360 0.14 0.99

Epicondylar br 0.2660140 0.94 0.51
Constant -21.95347
5 Epicondylar br 0.2600200 0.92 0.99

Constant -23.15398
6 A-P midshaft dia 0.2172585 0.49 0.90

Constant -19.02858
7 Max head dia 0.5083566 1.00 1.00

Constant -21.93830
Females < 43.16 < Males
8 Epicondylar br 0.2835034 1.00 1.00

Constant -21.67562
9 Bicondylar length 0.0477178 1.00 1.00

Constant -19.81725
10 A-P midshaft dia 0.4440092 1.00 1.00

Constant -11.88479
_________________________________________________________________
80
Table 22
Sexing accuracy using combination and singular variables.

________________________________________________________________
Functions and N Males Females Average
Variables ______________ ____________
% N* % N
________________________________________________________________
1 Max head dia 103 94.2 65/69 94.1 32/34 94.2

Bicondylar br
2 Max head dia 103 89.9 62/69 94.1 32/34 91.3

A-P midshaft dia
3 Max head dia 103 89.9 62/69 94.1 32/34 91.3

Bicondylar length
4 A-P midshaft dia 104 92.9 65/70 91.2 31/34 92.3

Bicondylar br
5 Epicondylar br 103 92.8 64/69 94.1 32/34 93.2

Bicondylar length
6 A-P midshaft dia 103 79.7 55/69 94.1 32/34 84.5

Bicondylar length
7 Max head dia 103 88.4 61/69 97.1 33/34 91.3
8 Bicondylar br 104 94.3 66/70 91.2 31/34 93.3
9 Bicondylar length 103 79.7 55/69 73.5 25/34 77.7
10 A-P midshaft dia 104 67.1 47/70 88.2 30/34 74.0

_________________________________________________________________
*Ratio of cases correctly classified in a given function
single variable among males at 94.3% while maximum head diameter produced 97.1%
accuracy in females.
Discussion
The results of this analysis indicate that the femur of Thai individuals is a good
skeletal component from which to determine sex, with classification accuracies reaching
94.2%. As with other long bone studies on various populations, such as DiBennardo and
Taylor (1979, 1982, 1983), ·can and Ding (1995a), Krogman and ·can (1986), Trancho
81
and associates (1997), and Wu (1989a,b), circumferential dimensions are found to be
better chosen for Function 1, and direct analysis produced relatively low F-values
indicating it contributed little to the separation of the sexes.
Stepwise discriminant function analysis selected a combination of two
circumferential dimensions, maximum head diameter and epicondylar breadth that attained
an accuracy of 94%. The best single measurement is epicondylar breadth with an average
of 93.3%. This is also consistent with other long bones. All studies have found
circumferential measurements to be the most discriminatory.
A list of the accuracies comparing maximum head diameter and epicondylar
breadth from different populations is provided in Table 23. These studies suggest that
proximal and distal measurements are better discriminators because these areas are more
subjected to functional or occupational stress (Macho 1990). A possible explanation for
this phenomenon is discussed by Black (1978), who proposed that differential bone
remodeling exists between males and females. Furthermore, cortical bone developed
during adolescence is greater in males and the ratio remains essentially unchanged
throughout adulthood. DiBennardo and Taylor (1982) came to a similar conclusion with
their study of black femora from the Terry Collection. They suggest that circumferential
measurements are of major significance for correct diagnosis of sex because the functional
demands of weight and musculature affect circumferential measurements more than
length. This is consistent with the results presented here.
The current test also revealed a disparity in the level of discrimination between
sexes, with females being somewhat better identified than males. This, along with slightly
82
higher levels of standard deviation (Table 18), indicates that males in the sample likely
Table 23
Comparison of sex determination accuracy from maximum head

diameter and bicondylar breadth from various geographic regions.
_______________________________________________________
Population Accuracy
Max head dia Epicondylar br
_______________________________________________________
Thailand1 91.3 93.3
Northern Chinese2 85.1 83.5
Northern Chinese3 83.1 94.9
American Indians4 88.7 85.8
American Whites5 90.1 89.2
American Blacks5 90.0 73.1
Spaniards6 91.2 97.6
________________________________________________________
1) King, ·can, and Loth 1996, 2) Wu 1989a, 3) ·can and Ding 1995a, 4) Dittrick and
Suchey 1986, 5) ·can and Miller-Shaivitz 1984c, 6) Trancho et al. 1997
showed greater sexual dimorphism than females and that there are more smaller males
than large females. Another consideration is the sample distribution. Of the 104
individuals in this study only 34 or 33% of the sample are female. This may impact the
representativeness of the female sample.
Today, most experts agree that interpopulational differences necessitate the
utilitization of group or at least regionally specific standards for sex identification
(DiBennardo and Taylor 1983; ·can and Ding 1995a,b; ·can and Miller-Shaivitz 1984c;
Loth 1990, 1996; Macho 1990; MacLaughlin and Bruce 1985). Although diagnostic
accuracy from the femur is similar, differences are apparent in the weighting of coefficients
for the same dimensions in diverse populations. Thus, the contribution of each dimension
to sexing accuracy varies from one group to the next.
83
CHAPTER VI
DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS OF THE THAI HUMERUS
Osteometric analysis of skeletal material is a useful technique in the determination
of sex. Further, sexual dimorphism occurs in differing degrees not only in different
populations, but also on an individual level, and also temporally, thus standards for one
population may not be used for another population. As a result, discriminant function
analysis of the Thai humerus is carried out to establish standards for sex identification, and
to compare sexual dimorphism with Asians and populations around the world.
Materials and Methods
The sample (N=104) consisted of 70 males and 34 females, all of whom were
collected at Chiang Mai University Hospital between 1993-1996. Using the same samples
as described in Chapter 2, eight humeral measurements were used: maximum length,
vertical and transverse head diameter, midshaft A-P and transverse diameters, midshaft
and deltoid circumference, and epicondylar breadth (see Appendix I for descriptions). All
dimensions were taken using a osteometric board, sliding caliper, and steel tape to the
nearest millimeter.
Data were analyzed using a mainframe version of SPSSX (1988). Stepwise
discriminant function analysis was used to select the combination of variables that best
discriminate between the sexes. In addition, individual and paired variables were subjected
to direct analysis to developed other functions to allow sex determination from
84
fragmentary remains using a single variable or combination of the few indicators that
remain.
Results
Table 24 presents descriptive statistics, along with the univariate F-ratio which
analyzes the variance within and between the sexes and indicates its level of significance.
Male values are greater than those of females in all dimensions and the F-ratios indicate
the differences for all measurements are statistically significant at the p< 0.001 level. The
stepwise analyses appear in Table 25. Wilks’ lambda determines the order in which the
variables are selected to enter into the function. Of the eight measurements entered into
the analysis, epicondylar breadth, vertical head diameter, and deltoid circumference are
selected as the optimal combination for sex determination. Function 1 (Table 26) displays
the canonical discriminant coefficients produced by the stepwise analysis.
The direct discriminant approach is then used to determine the diagnostic accuracy
of individual and combined variables that can be useful in sexing a fragmentary bone. The
results appear in Table 27 as functions 2 through 10. The standard coefficient indicates
the contribution of a given variable to the overall classification, while the structure
coefficient analyzes the correlation between the variables and the discriminant function.
For example, in Function 2, vertical head diameter accounts for 51% of the difference
between the sexes and 84% between the variables in the function. Sectioning points (of
centroids) are also provided for single variables and a variety of combinations for use with
highly fragmentary remains. A larger value for humeral dimension can be considered
85
Table 24
Means, standard deviations and univariate F-ratios of humeral dimensions.

_______________________________________________________________
Variables (mm) Males (N=70) Females (N=34) F-ratio*
____________ ______________
Mean SD Mean SD
_______________________________________________________________
Max length 300.57 15.65 278.94 13.67 47.34
Vert head dia 44.37 2.11 38.24 2.34 179.90
Trans head dia 40.83 2.98 36.21 1.77 69.71
Max midshaft dia 21.26 1.64 19.26 3.50 15.71
Min midshaft dia 16.69 2.18 13.88 1.39 46.96
Epicondylar br 60.30 2.92 52.15 2.28 204.40
Deltoid circ 65.90 6.65 56.09 3.75 114.90
Midshaft circ 61.24 3.74 53.15 4.00 102.50
_______________________________________________________________
* Degrees of freedom = 1,102. All significant at p < 0.001
Table 25
Stepwise discriminant function analysis of the humerus.

___________________________________________________________
Step* Variables Wilks’ lambda F-ratio d.f.
___________________________________________________________
1 Epicondylar br 0.33286 204.433 1,101
2 Vert head dia 0.28772 125.017 1,102
3 Deltoid Circ 0.28007 86.686 1,103
___________________________________________________________
* Max length, transverse head dia, max midshaft dia, and deltoid circ did not have large
enough Wilks’ lambda value to enter the function.
Table 26
Canonical discriminant function coefficients for the humerus.

____________________________________________________________
Functions and Raw* Standard Structure
____________________________________________________________
1 Vert head dia 0.1984874 0.43 0.83
Epicondylar br 0.2044284 0.56 0.88
Deltoid circ 0.0509856 0.22 0.22
Constant -23.38755
____________________________________________________________
86
Table 27
Canonical discriminant function coefficients from the stepwise analysis

of the humerus.
____________________________________________________________
Functions and Raw* Standard Structure
____________________________________________________________
2 Vert head dia 0.2343809 0.51 0.84
Epicondylar br 0.2310283 0.63 0.90
Constant -23.24487
3 Epicondylar br 0.2875864 0.78 0.94

Deltoid circ 0.0835369 0.37 0.70
Constant -21.82564
4 Epicondylar br 0.3018484 0.82 0.96

Midshaft circ 0.0794679 0.30 0.68
Constant -22.05343
5 Vert head dia 0.3599955 0.78 0.95

Midshaft circ 0.0912803 0.34 0.72
Constant -20.60002
6 Vert head dia 0.3418467 0.74 0.93

Deltoid circ 0.0928687 0.41 0.74
Constant -20.30462
7 Vert head dia 0.4569675 1.00 1.00

Constant -19.35961
8 Epicondylar br 0.3665973 1.00 1.00

Constant -21.12870
9 Deltoid circ 0.2284140 1.00 1.00

Constant -14.31980
10 Midshaft circ 0.2613668 1.00 1.00

Constant -15.31509
____________________________________________________________
* Raw coefficients are used to calculate discriminant function scores. a discriminant
score less than zero classifies an individual as female.
male, a lower one, female. To calculate the discriminant score, simply multiply each
dimension by its coefficient and add them together along with the constant as follows:
0.2044284 (epicondylar breadth) + 0.1984874 (vertical head diameter) +

0.0509856 (deltoid circumference) 23.38755 (constant) = Discriminant
87
score
The statistical program is standardized (by the constant) so that zero is the
sectioning point. A score larger than zero indicates a male and less than zero, a female.
Overall, mean accuracies using multiple variables spanned 90.4% to 97.1% (Table 28).
By sex, females appeared to be better diagnosed than males. Functions 1 through 6,
yielded 88.6% to 97.1% accuracy for males and 97.1% for females. The mean accuracies
from single variables ranged from 87.5% to 93.3%, and these too, differed by sex.
Epicondylar breadth provided the highest separation for a single variable with 91.4% for
both males and females. Interestingly, the program added deltoid circumference to the
stepwise even though it produced 1% lower accuracy.
Discussion
The results of this study indicate that the humerus of Thai individuals is a good
bone from which to determine sex, with classification accuracies ranging from 87.5% to
97.1%. As with other long bone studies on various populations, mentioned earlier such as
DiBennardo and Taylor (1979, 1982, 1983), France (1983), ·can and Ding (1995b), ·can
and Miller-Shaivitz 1984a,b,c; Wu (1989a), ·can, Yoshino, and Kato 1994; and Tagaya
(1987), breadth dimensions are found to be better discriminators than length in the present
study. This is also reflected in the fact that humeral length was not even selected by the
stepwise analysis as it did not contribute significantly to separate the sexes.
Stepwise discriminant function analysis selected a combination of three dimensions,
epicondylar breadth, vertical head diameter, and deltoid circumference, to attain an
88
accuracy of 96%, even though accuracy declined with the addition of deltoid
Table 28
Accuracy of correct group membership.

_________________________________________________________________
Functions and N Males Females Average
Variables ______________ ______________
% N* % N
_________________________________________________________________
1 Vert head dia 104 95.7 67/70 97.1 33/34 96.2

Epicondylar br
Deltoid Circ
2 Vert head dia 104 97.1 69/70 97.1 33/34 97.1

Epicondylar br
3 Epicondylar br 104 92.9 65/70 97.1 33/34 94.2

Deltoid circ
4 Epicondylar br 104 92.9 65/70 97.1 33/34 94.2

Midshaft circ
5 Vert head dia 104 91.4 64/70 97.1 33/34 93.3

Midshaft circ
6 Vert head dia 104 88.6 62/70 97.1 33/34 91.4

Deltoid circ
7 Vert head dia 104 90.0 63/70 91.2 31/34 90.4
8 Epicondylar br 104 91.4 64/70 97.1 33/34 93.3
9 Deltoid circ 104 88.6 62/70 85.3 29/34 87.5
10 Midshaft circ 104 84.3 59/70 94.1 32/34 87.5

_________________________________________________________________
*Ratio of cases correctly classified in a given function
circumference. The best single measurement is epicondylar breadth with a classification
accuacy of 93% followed by vertical head diameter (90%). It is thus shown that the
functions with epiphyseal and distal dimensions provide the highest correlation between
the actual and predicted sex of an individual. Wu's (1989a) study of 20th Century
northeastern Chinese also found high correlation in proximal and distal bone dimensions,
89
but here, humeral head diameters were the most discriminatory at 84%. Furthermore, the
same finding is made by Dittrick (1979) and Dittrick and Suchey (1986) in their work on
prehistoric samples from California, and they, too, reported accuracy of nearly 90% for
head diameter alone.
One of the most complete studies from the humerus was by France (1983). From
her study of Caucasoid, Negroid, Sudanese Nubians, Pueblo, and Arikara skeletal samples,
she was able to conclude that circumferential measurements are the most discriminatory
variables in all samples. Results from the discriminant function analysis portion of her
work based on 11 variables, indicated that sex can be determined from the humerus with
over 90% accuracy. It further suggested that proximal and distal measurements are more
accurate because these areas are more subjected to functional or occupational stress. Her
findings are consistent with the work presented here.
A possible explanation for this phenomenon is discussed by Black (1978), who
proposed that differential bone remodeling exists between males and females.
Furthermore, cortical bone developed during adolescence is greater in males and the ratio
remains essentially unchanged throughout adulthood. DiBennardo and Taylor (1982)
came to a similar conclusion with their study of black femora from the Terry Collection.
They suggest that shape measurements are of major significance for correct diagnosis of
sex because the functional demands of weight and musculature affect circumferential
measurements more than length. This however, is only a few of the possible factors that
could affect the classification. DiBennardo and Taylor (1979, 1982) and ·can and Miller-
Shaivitz (1984a) also noted that population affinity is a factor in determination the sex of
90
an individual. In their studies, it was shown that the length of the femur and tibia were
better indicators of sex, while circumferential dimensions yielded greater accuracy for
Caucasoids.
As noted in the femur (Chapter 5), the present study also revealed a disparity in the
level of diagnosis between sexes, with females being somewhat better identified than
males. This indicates that males in the sample likely showed more variability than females
and that there are more small males than large females. A second consideration may be
the sample size. Of the 104 individuals in this study only 34 or 33% of sample are female.
This may impact the representativeness of the female sample.
Also of note, the discriminant function analysis produced slightly lower accuracy
with deltoid circumference than without. Further investigation by the author revealed that
one female was consistently misclassified as male. As stated above, sample size may have
played a factor in the analysis.
Today, most skeletal biologists agree that interpopulational differences necessitate
the utilitization of group and even regionally specific standards for sex identification.
Although diagnostic accuracy from the humerus is similar, population differences are
apparent in the values of weighting of the coefficients for the same dimensions in diverse
populations. Thus, the contribution of each dimension to sexing accuracy varies from one
group to the next. This study of modern Thai and Hong Kong skeletons strongly
underscores the need for population-specific techniques not only for medicolegal
investigation but also for the study of population affinities.
91
CHAPTER VII
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
As the present work confirms, variability exists between East and Southeast Asian
populations as represented by selected samples from Chiang Mai Thailand and Hong
Kong. This was evident in metric analyses of both the cranial and postcranial skeleton.
Furthermore, these population differences vary by sex. Cranially, for example, there are
more significant population differences in males than females, while postcranially, the
reverse is true. Just as population differences vary by sex, sex differences vary by
population. To wit, Thais have more significant cranial differences between the sexes than
their Hong Kong counterparts. However, postcranial dimorphism is nearly equal between
the populations.
When cranial measurements were compared by sex between these populations,
Thai males were found to have larger mean dimensions in more than half of the significant
dimensions than their Hong Kong counterparts. In contrast, Hong Kong females generally
are larger in all significant measurements than Thai females. In both sexes, significant
differences were clustered around cranial length, the mandible, facial height, and breadth
of the orbits. Thai males have shorter, broader heads with narrower foreheads, while
Hong Kong males have high and narrow heads with a wider foreheads relative cranial
92
breadth. In contrast, the outward appearance of Hong Kong females only differs
significantly in cranial breadth. Significant differences were also observed in the upper
face with Thai females having a narrower upper facial breadth.
Postcranially, Hong Kong males and females have longer total limb lengths than
Thais. However, the percentage of total lower limb to stature proportions are very similar
between the sexes of each population. Thai males and females have longer forearms and
legs than Hong Kongers. Calculation of indices reveal different pelvic proportions in
Thais and Hong Kongers of both sexes. In both populations, females, as expected, have a
wider pelvic region than males. Furthermore, though males have longer total limb lengths,
females have higher leg to thigh proportions. Male circumferential measurements of the
long bones were the most discriminating measures in both populations. In general, Hong
Kong males are more robust in the femur, have longer arms relative to legs, and a wider
pelvis than Thai males. More postcranial dimensions are significant in males. Hong Kong
females have more robust humeri and femora. Thai males and females have longer
forearms and longer legs than arm and thigh proportions.
Discriminant function analysis using eight standard femoral and humeral
dimensions was performed on the Thai samples (N=70 males, 34 females). Stepwise
classification accuracies ranged from 94% for the femur and 96% from the humerus.
Tests of both bones confirmed earlier studies that found circumferential measurements
were better discriminators of sex than length. Females from both studies averaged higher
levels of classification accuracy than males. However, this may be attributable to the
lower sample size and variability in the females.
93
Previous metric studies of craniofacial traits come predominately from
archaeologic (predominately male) remains. These have shown that modern Thai and
Chinese fall into different clusters (Brace, Brace, and Leonard 1989; Brace et al. 1990;
Hanihara 1993a,b; Li et al. 1991; Matsumura 1995; Nakbunlung 1994; Pietrusewsky
1988a,b, 1992, 1994a,b, 1995, 1997; Pietrusewsky et al. 1992; Sangvichien 1970, Turner
1989, 1990, 1992). Thais are grouped with other Southeast Asians (mainland and
insular), while the Chinese are closely related to the inhabitants of East Asia and Mongolia
(Li et al. 1991; Nakbunlung 1994; Pietrusewsky 1992b; Pietrusewsky 1994a). Both
groups in this study fit into these patterns, suggesting regional continuity.
Several studies of Thai archaeological skeletal material have been conducted by
Brace and associates (1990); Brace and Hunt (1990); Bulbeck (1982); Houghton and
Wiriyaromp (1984); Nakbunlung (1994); Pietrusewsky (1974a,b, 1975, 1978, 1981, 1982,
1984, 1988a, 1992, 1994b, 1997), Pietrusewsky and co-workers (1992); Sangvichien
(1966); Sangvichien, Sirigaroon, and Jørgensen (1969); and Wiriyaromp (1984). Similar
findings in these studies led these researchers to describe ancient Thais as having wide
foreheads, medium to broad faces, wide palates, narrow eye sockets and relatively high
vaults. Males have narrower heads, while female heads are wider and non-projecting, with
faces of medium to broad width, high narrow eye sockets, expansive palates, prominent
cheek bones, and high-vaulted skulls. Archaeological populations tended to exhibit larger
crania with correspondingly larger faces than modern groups in males, while only slight
differences were seen in females. In addition, results generally conclude that male group
differences are centered on the length of the face as well as the shape of the nose, whereas
94
female group differences are centered on the width of the skull and the shape of the eye
orbits.
As shown in Table 29, the modern cranial materials from Thailand examined in the
present work suggest very little temporal changes in cranial sexual dimorphism. Modern
Thais exhibit wider, broader heads, but narrower foreheads than ancient Thais who have
wider orbits and are less prognathic.
There have been few postcranial analyses of archaeological collections. The
prehistoric inhabitants of Thailand came primarily from five sites Ban Chiang
(Pietrusewsky 1997), Ban Na Di (Houghton and Wiriyaromp 1984), Ban Kao
(Sangvichien, Sirigaroon, and Jørgensen 1969), Khok Phanom Di (Pietrusewsky 1997),
Non Nok Tha (Pietrusewsky 1974b), and Non Pa Kluay (Pietrusewsky 1988b).
Archaeologic males and females exhibited similar limb proportions as their
contemporaries.
From East Asia, studies of prehistoric populations in Japan and China have been
conducted by international researchers (Brace and Hunt 1990; Brace, Brace, and Leonard
1989; Brace et al. 1990; Dodo 1986, Hanihara 1985; Hanihara 1990a, 1991a,b; Kondo
1995; Kovintsev 1993; Ossenberg 1986; Pietrusewsky 1995; Turner 1976; Turner and
Hanihara 1977; Yamaguchi 1982, 1986, 1989). These researchers have made it clear that
a direct connection was established between modern Japanese and Northeast Asians
during the Yayoi and Kofun periods, about 300 B.C. and 1,000 years ago (Brace, Brace,
and Leonard 1989, Dodo 1986; Hanihara 1985, 1987, 1991, 1992a; Ishida and Dodo
1990; Mizoguchi 1988; Ossenberg 1986; and Turner 1976, 1979, 1987, 1990).
95
Table 29
Comparison of cranial indices for a number of prehistoric and modern males and females
from East and Southeast Asia.
__________________________________________________________________________
Index Male Female
Population N Mean N Mean
__________________________________________________________________________
Cranial
Southeast Asia
Modern Thai1 70 84.4 Brachycranic 34 85.5 Hyperbrachycranic
Modern Thai2 119 82.7 Brachycranic 92 84.3 Brachycranic
Non Nok Tha3 5 76.8 Mesocranic 9 82.5* Brachycranic
Ban Chiang4 10 76.5* Mesocranic
Ban Kao5 3 87.5 Hyperbrachycranic
East Asia
Modern Hong Kong1 68 78.8 Mesocranic 26 80.3 Brachycranic
Modern Chinese6 46 79.9* Mesocranic 19 78.3* Mesocranic
Ainu7 79 74.9* Mesocranic
J©mon7 51 78.1* Mesocranic
Upper Facial
Modern Thai 70 51.5 Mesene 34 51.9 Mesene
Modern Thai 119 53.1 Mesene 92 52.1 Mesene
Non Nok Tha 2 55.0 Mesene
Ban Kao 4 50.7* Mesene
Modern Hong Kong 68 52.5 Mesene 26 54.2 Mesene
Modern Chinese 46 53.5* Mesene 14 50.8* Mesene
8
Ainu 24 51.5 Mesene
J©mon8 6 48.3 Mesene
Orbital
Modern Thai 70 89.9 Hypsiconchic 34 91.9 Hypsiconchic
Modern Thai 119 81.5 Mesoconchic 92 81.5 Mesoconchic
Non Nok Tha 2 77.8 Mesoconchic 3 93.0 Hypsiconchic
Ban Chiang 10 86.1* Hypsiconchic
Ban Kao 5 74.7* Chamaeconchic
Modern Hong Kong 68 90.7 Hypsiconchic 26 91.8 Hypsiconchic
Modern Chinese 46 85.1* Hypsiconchic 19 85.5* Hypsiconchic
Ainu 79 79.5 Mesochonchic
J©mon 51 77.5 Mesochonchic
Nasal
Modern Thai 70 50.6 Mesorrhine 34 52.5 Mesorrhine
Modern Thai 119 52.2 Mesorrhine 92 54.5 Platyrhine
Non Nok Tha 2 52.0 Mesorrhine 5 55.0 Platyrhine
Ban Chiang 10 49.5* Mesorrhine
Ban Kao 6 51.4* Mesorrhine
Modern Hong Kong 68 49.1 Mesorrhine 26 52.1 Mesorrhine
Modern Chinese 46 48.3* Mesorrhine 19 48.9* Mesorrhine
Ainu 79 48.4 Mesorrhine
J©mon 51 50.9 Mesorrhine
________________________________________________________________________
* Indices calculated by the present author from previously published dimensions.
1) Present study 2) Sangvichien (1970) 3) Pietrusewsky (1974) 4) Pietrusewsky
(1981) 5) Sangvichien, Sirigaroon, and Jørgensen (1969) 6) Nakbunlung (1994)
7) Pietrusewsky (1995) 8) Hanihara, Hanihara, and Koizumi (1993)
96
Furthermore, there was a fairly clear separation between the modern Japanese and the
earliest inhabitants of East Asia. Research in East Asia has primarily focused on the
differentiation of different ethnic groups and their association to other modern populations
(Brace and Hunt 1990; Brace, Brace, and Leonard 1989; Brace et al. 1990; Dodo 1986;
Dodo and Ishida 1990; Hanihara 1985; Hanihara 1990a, 1991a; Kondo 1995; Kozintsev
1993; Ossenberg 1986; Pietrusewsky 1984, 1992, 1995; Pietrusewsky et al. 1992; Turner
1976; Turner and Hanihara 1977; Yamaguchi 1982).
Modern Chinese have an average cranial and upper face with tall orbits, and
medium to narrow nasal aperture (Nakbunlung 1994). Females also have medium head
and upper face shapes with tall orbits, but a slightly wider nose than their male
counterparts. She also dealt with archaeologic Chinese. Here, males and females have
wider heads and orbits, with slightly wider noses than their contemporaries (Nakbulung
1994). She concluded that archaeologic Chinese are more similar to modern Thais than
Chinese. This supports similar findings in the present study and further validates early
migration theories of peoples from Southeast Asia to South China (Turner 1989).
Two Asian groups who have received much attention over the years are the Ainu
and J©mon of Japan (Brace and Hunt 1990; Brace et al. 1990; Hanihara, Hanihara, and
Koizumi 1993; Ossenberg 1986; Pietrusewsky 1995; Turner and Hanihara 1977;
Yamaguchi 1982). These groups are morphologically different from modern Chinese and
Japanese while there is a stronger association with Southeast Asians. Variation in these
ancient groups does not exceed that of modern Japanese (Table 29), yet the Ainu and
J©mon can be characterized by a large braincase, low, broad face, wider nasal breadth
97
relative to height, smaller cranial heights in proportion to breadth, and with a broad upper
face (Hanihara, Hanihara, and Koizumi 1993; Yamaguchi 1989). As noted by Yamaguchi
(1982), these characteristics of the J©mon and partially of the Ainu are similar to the
cranium of Liujiang man from Guangxi, South China. In addition, further research has
identified a clustering of Ainu-J©mon similarities (Brace and Hunt 1990; Brace et al. 1990;
Dodo 1986; Hanihara, Hanihara, and Koizumi 1993; Pietrusewsky 1997; Turner and
Hanihara 1977; Yamaguchi 1982), thus these archaeologic mainland East Asian samples
are morphologically similar to modern Chinese and Japanese, whereas ancient insular East
Asians are not (Howells 1989; Pietrusewsky 1992, 1995, 1997; Turner 1985, 1987, 1990,
1992; Yamaguchi 1982).
Analysis of the literature indicates comparatively few papers have emphasized the
morphology of limb bones between modern and archaeologic East and Southeast Asians.
As described by Yamaguchi (1982, 1986, 1989), the postcranial differences between
ancient East Asians are distinct from modern East Asians (Table 30). As noted by
Yamaguchi (1982), the J©mon have a relatively longer radius and tibia but shorter
humerus than modern Japanese. Also the J©mon brachial index is quite high owing to a
short humerus accompanied by a relatively long radius (Yamaguchi 1989). The crural
index is moderately high, being close to the Ainu and some prehistoric groups in East and
Southeast Asia (Yamaguchi 1989). The Ainu resemble the J©mon with relatively high
crural indices, but differ significantly with lower brachial and higher humero-femoral
indices (Yamaguchi 1982, 1989).
Metric differences in sexual dimorphism between the ancient insular East Asians
98
Table 30
Comparison of postcranial indices of prehistoric and modern males and females from East
and Southeast Asia.
________________________________________________________________________
Index Male Female
Population N Mean N Mean
________________________________________________________________________
Brachial
Southeast Asia
Modern Thai1 70 80.1 Dolichoceric 34 78.0 Mesoceric
Non Nok Tha2 4 78.0 Mesoceric 5 81.3* Dolichoceric
Ban Chiang3 n/a 82.0 Dolichoceric
Ban Kao3 n/a 75.0 Mesoceric
East Asia
Modern Hong Kong1 51 77.4 Mesoceric 19 71.1 Brachyceric
Modern Chinese4 105 81.8 Dolichoceric 103 80.5 Dolichoceric
Modern Japanese5 30 71.5 Brachyceric 66 73.0 Brachyceric
J©mon6 63 80.5 Dolichoceric 45 78.3 Mesoceric
Humerofemoral
Modern Thai 67 71.1 34 70.3
Non Nok Tha 2 72.0 2 70.0
Ban Chiang n/a 69.0
Ban Kao n/a 72.0
Modern Hong Kong 53 69.9 19 71.1
Modern Chinese n/a
Modern Japanese 83 71.5 66 71.8
J©mon 52 69.6 34 70.0
Crural
Modern Thai 68 82.2 34 82.7
Non Nok Tha 3 86.0 3 83.0
Ban Chiang n/a 85.0
Ban Kao n/a 72.0
Modern Chinese 105 83.6 103 82.4
Modern Japanese 83 80.6 66 80.5
J©mon 57 83.3 39 83.2
Intermembral
Modern Thai 67 69.4 34 68.5
Non Nok Tha 4 69.0 3 69.0
Ban Chiang n/a 69.0
Ban Kao n/a 68.0
Modern Chinese
Modern Japanese 30 69.3*
J©mon6 8 68.7*
________________________________________________________________________
* Indices calculated by the present author from published dimensions.
1) Present study 2) Pietrusewsky (1974) 3) Pietrusewsky (1988)
4) Yang and Dai (1990) 5)Yamaguchi (1989) 6) Yamaguchi (1982)
99
and modern Japanese were also shown. The modern Japanese are different from the
J©mon with signficantly lower brachial and crural indices and a significantly higher
humerofemoral index. As a result, the J©mon have relatively longer forearms, but shorter
upper arms than the modern Japanese (Yamaguchi 1989). This same distinction is also
found when the Ainu are compared to modern Japanese. Moreover, Ainu and J©mon
sexual dimorphic variability is shown to be very high between the sexes. Apparent
variation in length proportions between the leg and thigh can be separated geographically
along a North/South axis bringing credence to Bergmann's and Allen's ecogeographical
rules (Yamaguchi 1989).
While skeletal research has consistently shown a Southeast Asian origin for the
Ainu and J©mon, a different line of inquiry led to apparently contradictory findings.
Analysis of eight blood groups led to the conclusion that these ancient Japanese have a
higher probability of an East Asian origin (Omoto and Saitou 1997). However, according
to Mendel’s Law of Independent Assortment, the genetic underpinnings of skeletal
phenotype are not necessarily dependent on those producing blood factors, and therefore
may reflect an admixed origin (Loth, personal communication 1997).
Apparent differences exist between the ancient populations of Japan and with the
modern Japanese, Chinese, and Neolithic East Asians. This divergence is postulated to
have occurred as result of radiation from the Sunda land mass which at one time
connected Japan with East Asia (Bellwood 1985; Brace and Hinton 1981; Howells 1976;
Turner 1979, 1987, 1990; Omoto 1984, 1992, etc.). One of the earliest studies to take
note of possible significant differences between temporal and spatial populations of East
100
Asia was by Hanihara (1967). He pointed out, using dental traits, that peoples of East
Asia can be distinguished by a so-called Mongoloid dental complex. Turner (1976, 1979,
1983, 1987, 1989, 1990) would later distinguish subdivisions of this complex: sundadonty
and sinodonty. These subdivisions were then shown to exist regionally between East
(sinodont) and Southeast (sundadont) dental patterns. Possible causes for this separation
in physical differences probably developed as the population increased, partly by genetic
selection due to differential population growth rates between food gatherers and farmers,
and also due to changes in lifestyle over time (Yamaguchi 1982).
Osteometric analyses suggest the possibility of long-term historical biological
connections which may have resulted in movements of people originating from Southeast
and mainland East Asia (Hanihara 1989b, 1990a, 1992b,c, 1993a; Hanihara, Hanihara, and
Koizumi 1993; Ishida 1993; Matsumura 1995; Pietrusewsky 1988a, 1992, 1995; Turner
1987, 1989, 1990; Yamaguchi 1982, 1986, 1989). This research has primarily focused on
discriminant function analysis and Mahalanobis’ Generalized Distance measures of cranial
dimensions. As a whole, research suggests that the dimensions most sensitive to
population differences are orbital breadth, biorbital breadth, nasal height, nasion-alveolar
length, and cranial length and breadth. This is generally consistent with the findings in the
present study.
While cranial and postcranial metric comparisons (Tables 29 and 30) reveal
continuity within each region, further analysis supports these dimensions as being highly
sensitive to population differentiation between these regions. Distance studies have made
it clear that certain assumptions can be made concerning the correlation or separation of
101
various groups in East and Southeast Asia (e.g., Brace and Hunt 1991; Brace et al. 1990;
Hanihara 1992a,b,c; Li et al. 1991; Pietrusewsky 1988, 1992, 1995, 1997; Pietrusewsky et
al. 1992). These groupings are essentially formed into five distinct clusters (see map,
Chapter 1): 1) primarily early and modern island Southeast Asians, 2) Polynesia and
Micronesia, 3) Australia/Tasmania and Melanesia, and two separate but nearly connected
clusters of 4) mainland East Asia and modern Taiwan, and 5) modern and ancient
Japanese, Thai, and ancient Taiwanese. This association is postulated by numerous
researchers as a product of possible long-term historical and biological connection
resulting from population expansion during the late Pleistocene when the continuous
Sunda landmass existed (Hanihara 1992a,b,c,d; Hanihara, Hanihara, and Koizumi 1993;
Howells 1973, 1989, 1990; Pietrusewsky 1990a,b, 1992, 1994a; Turner 1987, 1989,
1990, 1992).
In the present study, complete skeletons from two populations in geographically
separate regions of Asia were also examined to assess differences within and between
populations. This assessment may be affected by several factors. First, errors from other
sources, such as recording documentation, and application of techniques, can all affect the
magnitude of size differences (Howells 1973). Second, the failure to be able to control for
genotypic or phenotypic components which influence sexual dimorphism may also
influence results and their interpretation (Hamilton 1982). The size of the sample is also
of particular importantance to the representativeness of the sample. It must also be kept in
mind that one sample of a population may not be representative of an entire region.
However, agreement with earlier studies supports the probability that these are
102
representative. In the present study, the most likely sources of erroneous conclusion
pertain to sample size, since the remains were carefully controlled during processing.
Pending collection of additional specimens, the results of the present study do increase our
knowledge of the inhabitants of these regions.
While many studies have focused on a single influence (i.e., sex, age, stature, or
biological affinity), variation in sexual dimorphism results from different selective factors
operating independently on each sex plus similar selective factors which may affect the
sexes differentially. The summation of genetic and environmental influences affecting
males, or females, or both in different ways, will be reflected in the magnitude of
dimorphism measured (Van Gerven and Oakland 1974). As the body of more
standardized data grows, it should become possible to make more detailed inferences
about the nature of factors influencing genetic variation (such as directional selection,
which would be expected to reduce additive genetic variance) and environmental
influences (such as nutritional stress), which could have differential effects across age
classes, thus influencing comparisons of parents and offspring (Eckhardt 1989).
The main conclusions which may be drawn from this study of 20th century
skeletons from Thailand and Hong Kong are:
1. Thais are more sexually dimorphic than Hong Kongers.

2. Population differences are primarily associated with cranial length, components
of facial height, orbital breadths, and most mandibular measurements.
3. While intermembral indices are similar, Thai males and females have shorter
forearms and legs than Hong Kongers
4. While Thais have larger heads, Hong Kongers have greater total limb lengths
than Thais. This corresponds to a greater overall stature.
103
5. Modern Thais are more similar to archaeologic and modern Southeast Asians,
while Hong Kongers show greater similarity to archaeologic and modern
East Asians.
6. Indices are better indicators of population differences than sex differences.
7. Discriminant function formulae developed 94% accuracy for the femur
(maximum head diameter + bicondylar breadth) and 96.2% for the humerus
(vertical head diameter + epicondylar breadth + deltoid circumference)
9. Differences in size and shape that are present between Thais and Hong Kongers
may reflect regional differences in Southeast and East Asians.
The results of the analyses presented in this study have agreed with previous
cranial and postcraniometric descriptions of population and sex variation between East
and Southeast Asian populations. This study also supports earlier work revealing regional
continuity in East and Southeast Asia. Future research with enlarged databases, though, is
required before more definite conclusions can be drawn.
104
REFERENCES
Allen, Mary Barbot

1997 Osteometric Analysis of Intercostal Variation and Sexual
Dimorphism in the Sternal End of the Rib in Modern American Blacks.
M.A. thesis. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University.
Ballinger, S.W., Theodore Schurr, G., Antonio Torroni, Y.Y. Gan, J.A. Hodge, K.
Hassan, K.H. Chen, and Douglas C. Wallace.
1992 Southeast Asian Mitochondrial DNA Analysis Reveals Genetic
Continuity of Ancient Monogloid Migrations. Genetics 130:139-152.
Bao, Mingxin, and Ruxin Wang

1984 The Measurements of Some Chinese (Qingdao District) Cranial
Angles (Continued) (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta Anthropologica
Sinica 3(4):330-333.
Barnard, M.M.
1935 The Secular Variation of Skull Characters in Four Series of
Egyptian Skulls. Annals of Eugenics 6:352-372.
Bass, William M.
1987 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. 3rd. edition.
Special Publication No.2. Missouri: Missouri Archaeological Society.
Bellwood, Peter
1979 Man's Conquest of the Pacific: The Prehistory of Southeast Asia
and Oceania. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1985 Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Sydney: Academic
Press.
1987 The Polynesians, Prehistory of an Island People. London: Thames
and Hudson.
Bennett, K.A.
1981 On the Expression of Sex Dimorphism. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 56:59-61.
Birdsell, J.B.
1977 The Recalibration of a Paradigm for the First Peopling of Greater
Australia. In Sunda and Sahul: Prehistoric Studies in Southeast Asia,
Melanesia, and Australia. J. Allen, J. Golson and Jones R., eds. Pp.
113-167. London: Academic Press.
105
Birkby, W.H.
1966 An Evaluation of Race and Sex Identification from Cranial
Measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 24:21-28.
Black, D.
1928 A Study of Kansu and Honan Æneolithic Skulls and Specimens
from Later Kansu Prehistoric Sites in Comparison with North China and
Other Recent Crania. Palaeontologia Sinica, Series D 6(1):1-83.
Black, Thomas K., III

1978 A New Method for Assessing the Sex of Fragmentary Skeletal
Remains: Femoral Shaft Circumference. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 48:227-232.
Bogin, Barry
1988 Patterns of Human Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Brace, C. Loring
1972 Sexual Dimorphism in Human Evolution. Yearbook of Physical
1994 Region Does not Mean "Race" - Reality Versus Convention in
Forensic Anthropology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40:171-175.
Brace, C. Loring, M.L. Brace, Yukio Dodo, Kevin D. Hunt, William R. Leonard,
Yongyi, Li, Sood Sangvichien, Xiang-Qing Shao; and Zhenbiao Zhang
1990 Micronesians, Asians, Thais and Relations: A Craniofacial and
Odontometric Perspective. Micronesia Supplement 2:323-348.
Brace, C. Loring, and R.J. Hinton

1981 Oceanic Tooth-Size Variation as Reflection of Biological and
Cultural Mixing. Current Anthropology 22:549-569.
Brace, C. Loring, and Kevin D. Hunt

1990 A Nonracial Craniofacial Perspective on Human Variation:
A(Ustralia) to Z(Uni). American Journal of Physical Anthropology
82:341-360.
Brace, C. Loring, M.L. Brace, and William R. Leonard

1989 Reflections on the Face of Japan: A Multivariate Craniofacial and
Odontometric Perspective. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
78:93-113.
106
Brace, C. Loring, and A.S. Ryan
1980 Sexual Dimorphism and Tooth Size Differences. Journal of Human
Evolution 9:417-435.
Bräuer, Günter
1988 Osteometrie. In Anthropologie: Handbuch der Vergleichenden
Biologie Des Menschen. Rudolf Martin, Rainer Knußmann, IIse
Schwidetzky, Hans W. JÃrgens and Gerfried Ziegelmayer, eds. Pp. 160-232.
Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Lerlag.
Brothwell, Don R.
1965 Digging up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment and Study of
Human Skeletal Remains. London: British Museum of Natural History.
Brues, Alice M.
1990 The Once and Future Diagnosis of Race. In George W. Gill and
Stan J. Rhine, eds. Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic
Anthropology. Pp: 1-8. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology,
Anthropological Papers #4, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.
1992 Forensic Diagnosis of Race—general Race vs. Specific Populations.
Social Science and Medicine 34(2):125-128.
Bulbeck, David
1982 A Re-Evaluation of Possible Evolutionary Processes in Southeast
Asia Since the Late Pleistocene. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 3:1-21.
Chao, Sun, and Huanjiu Xi

1986 Observation on the Chinese Scapulae (Chinese with English
Abstract). Acta Anthropologica Sinica 5(4):372-376.
Chen, Liang Zhong, Simon Easteal, Philip G. Board, and Robert L. Kirk
1992 Genetic Affinities of Oceanic Populations Based on RFLP and
Haplotype Analysis of Genetic Loci on Three Chromosomes. Human
Biology 64(1):1-15.
Çöloylu, A. Sedat, M. Ya·ar ·can, M. Fatih Yavuz, and Hüseyin Sar

n.d. Sex Determination from the Ribs of Contemporary Turks.
Manuscript.
107
Curran, B.K.
1990 The Application of Measures of Midfacial Projection for Racial
Classification. In Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic
Anthropology. George W. Gill and Stan J. Rhine, eds. Pp. 55-58.
Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology.
De Villiers, Hertha
1968 The Skull of the South African Negro. Johannesburg:
Witwatersrand University Press.
Derry, D.E.
1923 On the Sexual and Racial Characters of the Human Ilium. Journal
of Anatomy 58:71-83.
DiBennardo, Robert, and James V. Taylor

1979 Sex Assessment of the Femur: A Test of a New Method. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 50:635-638.
1982 Classification and Misclassification in Sexing the Black Femur by
Discriminant Function Analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
58:145-151.
1983 Multiple Discriminant Function Analysis of Sex and Race in the
Postcranial Skeleton. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
61:305-314.
1984 Race and Sex Determination of the Central Portion of the
Innominate by Discriminant Function Analysis. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 63:152 (abstract).
Ding, Shihai, Guangjin Ren, Dehua Fa, Xiguang Yan, and Xianchen Lai
1992 Sexual Diagnosis of Chinese Crania from Discriminant Function
Analysis. Canadian Society of Forensic Science 22(2):119-122.
Dittrick, Jean
1979 Sexual Dimorphism of the Femur and Humerus in Prehisotric
Central California Skeletal Samples. MA thesis. Fullerton: California State
University.
Dittrick, Jean, and Judy Myers Suchey

1986 Sex Determination of Prehistoric Central California Skeletal
Remains Using Discriminant Analysis of the Femur and Humerus. American
108
Dodo, Yukio
1986 Metrical and Non-Metrical Analysis of J©mon Crania from Eastern
Japan. In Prehistoric Hunters-Gatherers in Japan. Takeru Akazawa and
Melvin Aikens, eds. Pp. 137-161. University of Tokyo: The University
Musuem Bulletin, No.27.
Dodo, Yukio, and Hajime Ishida

1990 Population History of Japan as Viewed from Cranial Nonmetric
Variation. Journal of Anthropological Society of Nippon 98:269-287.
Due, Qingtai
1984 Measurements of the Patellas of Chinese Unearthed from the
Changchun Area (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta Anthropologica
Sinica 3(2):114-117.
Dupras, T.L., and S.K. Pfeiffer

1996 Determination of Sex from Adult Ribs. Canadian Society of
Forensic Science Journal 29:221-231.
Eckhardt, R.B.
1989 Evolutionary Morphology of Human Skeletal Characteristics.
Anthropologischen Anzeiger 47(3):193-228.
El-Najjar, Mahmoud, and Richard K. McWilliams

1978 Forensic Anthropology: The Structure, Morphology, and Variation
of Human Bone and Dentition. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Eveleth, Phyllis B.
1975 Differences Between Ethnic Groups in Sex Dimorphism of Adult
Height. Annals of Human Biology 2:35-39.
Eveleth, Phyllis B., and James M. Tanner

1990 Worldwide Variation in Human Growth. 2nd edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Farrally, M.R., and W.J. Moore

1975 Anatomical Differences in the Femur and Tibia Between Negroids
and Caucasoids and Their Effect on Locomotion. American Journal of
109
Finkel, David J.
1982 Sexual Dimorphism and Settlement Pattern in Middle Eastern
Skeletal Populations. In Sexual Dimorphism in Homo Sapiens: A Question
of Size. Roberta L. Hall, ed. Pp. 165-185. New York: Praeger.
Fisher, R.A.
1936 The Use of Multiple Measurements in Taxonomic Problems. Annals
of Eugenics 7:179-188.
1938 The Statistical Utilization of Multiple Measurements. Annals of
Eugenics 8:376-386.
Flower, W.H.
1879 On the Scapular Index as a Race Character in Man. Journal of
Anatomy 14:13-17.
France, Diane L.
1983 Sexual Dimorphism in the Human Humerus. Ph.D. dissertation,
Boulder: University of Colorado.
Frayer, David W.
1977 Metric Change in the European Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 46:109-120.
Frayer, David W., and Milford H. Wolpoff

1985 Sexual Dimorphism. Annual Review in Anthropology 14:429-473.
Garn, Stanley M.
1965 Human Races. 2nd edition. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Ghesquiere, J., R.D. Martin, and F. Newcombe, eds.

1985 Human Sexual Dimorphism. London: Taylor and Francis.
Gilbert, B. Miles
1976 Anterior Femoral Curvature: Its Probable Cause and Utility as a
Criterion of Racial Assessment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
45:601-604.
Gilbert, B. Miles, and George W. Gill

1990 A Metric Technique for Identifying American Indian Femora. In
Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology. George
W. Gill and Stan J. Rhine, eds. Pp. 97-99. Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum
of Anthropology.
110
Giles, E.
1964 Sex Determinationby Discriminant Function Analysis of the
Mandible. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 22:129-135.
1970 Discriminant Functions Sexing of the Human Skeleton. In Personal
Identification in Mass Disasters. T.D. Stewart, ed. Pp. 99-107.
Washington: National Museum of Natural History.
Giles, E., and O. Elliot

1962 Race Identification from Cranial Measurements. Journal of Forensic
Sciences 7:147-157.
1963 Sex Determination by Discriminant Function Analysis of Crania.
Gill, George W.
1984 A Forensic Test Case for a New Method of Geographical Race
Determination. In Human Identification: Case Studies in Forensic
Anthropology. Ted Rathbun and Jane Buikstra, eds. Pp. 323-329.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
1986 Craniofacial Criteria in Forensic Race Identification. In Forensic
Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. Kathleen
Reichs, ed. Pp. 143-159. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Gill, George W., and B. Miles Gilbert

1990 Race Identification from the Midfacial Skeleton: American Blacks
and Whites. In Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic
Anthropology. George W. Gill and Stan J. Rhine, eds. Pp. 47-53.
Gill, George W., Susan S. Hughes, Suzanne M. Bennett, and B. Miles Gilbert
1988 Racial Indentification from the Midfacial Skeleton Wih Special
Reference to American Indian and Whites. Journal of Forensic Sciences
33:92-99.
Gill, George W., and Stan Rhine, eds.

1990 Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology.
Anthropological Papers No. 4. Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of
Anthropology.
Gray, J. Patrick, and Linda D. Wolfe

1980 Height and Sexual Dimorphism of Stature Among Human
Societies. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 53:441-456.
111
Hall, Roberta L.
1982a Unit of Analysis. In Sexual Dimorphism in Homo sapiens: A
Question of Size. Roberta L. Hall, ed. Pp. 189-196. New York: Praeger.
1982b Sexual Dimorphism for Size in Seven Nineteenth-Century
Northwest Coast Populations. In Sexual Dimorphism in Homo sapiens: A
Question of Size. Roberta L. Hall, ed. Pp. 231-243. New York: Praeger.
Hall, Roberta L., ed.

1982 Sexual Dimorphism in Homo sapiens: A Question of Size. New
York: Praeger.
Hamilton, Margaret E.
1982 Sexual Dimorphism in Skeletal Samples. In Sexual Dimorphism in
Homo sapiens: A Question of Size. Roberta L. Hall, ed. Pp. 107-163. New
York: Praeger.
112
Han, Kangxin
1988 Racial Characters of the Human Skull from Shan Pu La Cemetery
in Luo Pu County, Xinjiang (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta
Anthropologica Sinica 7(3):239-248.
Hanihara, Kazuro
1958 Sexual Diagnosis of Japanese Long Bones by Means of
Discriminant Functions (Japanese with English Abstract). Journal of
Anthropological Society of Nippon 66:187-196.
1959 Sex Diagnosis of Japanese Skulls and Scapulae by Means of
Discriminant Functions. Journal of Anthropological Society of Nippon
67:191-197.
1967 Racial Characteristics in the Dentition. Journal of Dental Research
46:923-928.
1981 Sexing of Japanese Skeleton Teeth by Discriminant Function
Method. Journal of Anthropological Society of Nippon 89:401-418.
1985 Origins and Affinities of Japanese as Viewed from Cranial
Measurements. In Out of Asia: Peopling the Americas and the Pacific.
Robert Kirk and Emöke Szathmary, eds. Pp. 105-112. Canberra: Journal of
Pacific History.
1987 Estimation of the Number of Early Migrants to Japan: A Simulative
Study. Journal of Anthropological Society of Nippon 95:391-403.
1991 Dual Structure Model for the Populations History of the Japanese.
Japan Review 2:1-33.
Hanihara, Kazuro, Tsunehiko Hanihara, and Kiyotaka Koizumi

1993 Biological Relationship Between the J©mon-Ainu and Pacific
Population Groups. Japan Review 4:7-25.
Hanihara, Kazuro, and Takao Suzuki

1978 Esitmation of Age from the Pubic Symphysis by Means of Multiple
Regression Analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
48:233-240.
Hanihara, Tsunehiko
1989a Affinties of the Philippine Negritos as Viewed from Dental
Characters: A Preliminary Report. Journal of Anthropological Society of
Nippon 97:327-339.
1989b Comparative Studies of Geographically Isolated Populations in
Japan Based on Dental Measurements. Journal of Anthropological Society
of Nippon 97:95-107.
1989c Comparative Studies of Dental Characteristics in the Aogashima
Islanders. Journal of Anthropological Society of Nippon 97(1):9-22.
113
1990a Affinities of the Philippine Negritos with Modern Japanese and the
Pacific Populations in East Asia, I. Journal of Anthropological Society of
Nippon 98(1):13-27.
1990b Dental Anthropological Evidence of Affinities Among the Oceania
and the Pan-Pacific Populations: The Basic Populations in East Asia, II.
Journal of Anthropological Society of Nippon 98:233-246.
1991a The Origin and Microevolution of Ainu as Viewed from Dentition:
The Basic Populations in East Asia, VII. Journal of Anthropological Society
of Nippon 99(3):345-361.
1991b Dentition of Nansei Islanders and Peopling of the Japanese
Archipelago: The Basic Populations in East Asia, IX. Journal of
Anthropological Society of Nippon 99(4):399-409.
1992a Dental and Cranial Affinities Among the Populations in East Asia
and the Pacific: The Basic Populations in East Asia, IV. American Journal
of Physical Anthropology 88:163-182.
1992b Negritos, Asutralia Aborigines and the "Proto-Sundadont" Dental
Pattern: The Basic Populations in East Asia, V. American Journal of
1992c Biological Relationships Among Southeast Asians, J©monese, and
the Pacifc Populations as Viewed from Dental Characters: The Basic
Populations in East Asia, X. Journal of Anthropological Society of Nippon
100(1):53-67.
1992d Dental Variation of the Polynesian Populations. Journal of
1993a Population Prehistory of East Asia and the Pacific as Viewed from
Craniofacial Morphology: The Basic Populations in East Asia, VII.
1993b Dental Affinities Among Polynesian and Circum-Polynesian
Populations. Japan Review 4:59-82.
1996 Comparison of Craniofacial Features of Major Human Groups.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 99(3):389-412.
Harihara, Shinhi, Momoki Hirai, Yumiko Suutou, Koji Shimizu, and Keiichi
Omoto
1992 Frequency of a 9-Bp Deletion in the Mitochondrial DNA Among
Asian Populations. Human Biology 64(2):161-166.
Hinkes, M.J.
1990 Shovel-Shaped Incisors in Human Identification. In Skeletal
Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology. George W. Gill
and Stan J. Rhine, eds. Pp. 21-26. Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of
Anthropology.
114
Holland, Thomas Dean
1991 Sex Assessment Using the Proximal Tibia. American Journal of
Hoshi, H.
1962 Sex Differences in the Shape of the Mastoid Process in Norma
Occipitalis and Its Importance to the Sex Determination of the Human
Skull. Okajima Folia Anatomica Japonica 38:309-313.
Howells, W.W.
1970 Multivariate Analysis for the Identification of Race from Crania. In
Personal Identification in Mass Disasters. T. Dale Stewart, ed. Pp.
111-122. Washington, D.C.: National Museum of Natural History.
1973 Cranial Variation in Man. A Study by Multivariate Analysis of
Patterns of Difference Among Recent Human Populations. Papers of the
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
1976 Physical Variation and History in Melanesia and Australia.
1989 Skull Shapes and the Man. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
1990 Micronesia to Macromongolia: Micro-Polynesian Craniometrics
and the Mongoloid Population Complex. Micronesia Supplement
2:363-372.
Howells, W.W., and H. Hotelling

1936 Measurements and Correlations on Pelves of Indians of the
Southwest. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 21:91-106.
Houghton, Philip, and Warrachai Wiriyaromp

1984 The People of Ban Na Di. In Prehistoric Investigations in Northeast
Thailand. Charles Higham and Kijngam, eds. Pp. 391-412. Oxford: BAR
International Series 231(ii).
Hrdligka, Aleš
1942 The Adult Scapula; Additional Observations and Measurements.
Hughes, S.
1980 Differences in Nasal Projection Between American Indian and
Caucasoid Crania. Wyoming Contributions to Anthropology 2:97-113.
115
Hunter, W. Stuart, and Stanley M. Garn
1972 Disproportionate Sexual Dimorphism in the Human Face. American
Inoue, Masashi
1990 Fourier Analysis of the Forehead Shape of Skull and Sex
Determination by Use of Computer. Forensic Science International
47:101-112.
Inoue, Masashi, Terutaka Inoue, Yoshitaka Fushimi, and Kichiro Okada

1992 Forensic Science International 57:109-117.
·can,
M. Ya·ar
1982 Race Determination from the Pelvis. Ossa 8:95-100.
1983 Assessment of Race from the Pelvis. American Journal of Physical
1985 Osteometric Analysis of Sexual Dimorphism in the Sternal End of
the Rib. Journal of Forensic Sciences 30:1090-1099.
1988 Rise of Forensic Anthropology. Yearbook of Physical
1989 Age Markers in the Human Skeleton. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
1990 A Comparison of Techniques on the Determination of Race, Sex,
and Stature from the Terry and Hamann-Todd Collections. In Skeletal
Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology. George W. Gill
and Stan J. Rhine, eds. Pp. 73-81. Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of
Anthropology.
·can,
M. Ya·ar, and Timothy S. Cotton
1985 The Effect of Age on the Determination of Race from the Pelvis.
Journal of Human Evolution 14:275-282.
1990 Osteometric Assessment of Racial Affinity from Multiple Sites in
the Postcranial Skeleton. In Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for
Forensic Anthropology. George W. Gill and Stan J. Rhine, eds. Pp. 83-90.
·can,
M. Ya·ar, and Karen Derrick
1984 Determination of Sex from the Sacroiliac Joint: A Visual
Assessment Technique. Florida Scientist 47(2):94-98.
·can,
M. Ya·ar, and Shihai Ding
1995a Sexual Dimorphism in the Chinese Femur. Forensic Science
International 74:79-87.
116
1995b Sexual Dimorphism in the Chinese Cranium. International
Association for Craniofacial Identification. Boca Raton, FL. (Abstract)
·can,
M. Ya·ar and Richard P. Helmer, eds.
1993 Forensic Analysis of the Skull: Craniofacial Analysis,
Reconstruction, and Identification. New York: Wiley-Liss.
·can,
M. Ya·ar, and Susan R. Loth
1997 The Scope of Forensic Anthropology. In Introduction to Forensic
Sciences. William G. Eckert, ed. Pp. 343-369. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
·can,
M. Ya·ar, Susan R. Loth, and Ronald K. Wright
1984 Age Estimation from the Rib Phase Analysis: White Males. Journal
of Forensic Sciences 29(4):1094-1104.
1985 Age Estimation from the Rib by Phase Analysis: White Females.
Journal of Forensic Sciences 30(3):853-863.
1987 Racial Variation in the Sternal Extremity of the Rib and Its Effect
on Age Determination. Journal of Forensic Sciences 32(2):452-466.
·can,
M. Ya·ar, and Patricia Miller-Shaivitz
1984a Determination of Sex from the Tibia. American Journal of Physical
1984b Discriminant Function Sexing of the Tibia. Journal of Forensic
Sciences 29(4):1087-1093.
1984c Determination of Sex from the Femur in Blacks and Whites.
Collegium Antropologicum 8(2):169-175.
·can,
M. Ya·ar, Mineo Yoshino, and Susumu Kato
1994 Sex Determination from the Tibia: Standards for Contemporary
Japan. Journal of Forensic Sciences 39(3):785-792.
1995 Sexual Dimorphism in Modern Japanese Crania. American Journal
of Human Biology 7(4):459-464.
·can,
M. Ya·ar, and K.A.R. Kennedy, eds.
1989 Reconstruction of Life from the Human Skeleton. New York: Alan
R. Liss.
Ishida, Hajime
1993 Limb Bone Characteristics in the Hawaiian and Chamorro Peoples.
Japan Review 4:45-57.
117
Ji, Chengye, and Seiji Ohsawa
1992 Different Growth Status of Youths Aged 18 from 27 Chinese
Minority Nations. Journal of Anthropological Society of Nippon
100(1):31-42.
Katayama, Kazumichi
1990 A Scenario on Prehistoric Mongoloid Dispersals Into the South
Pacific, with Special Reference to Hypothetic Proto-Oceanic Connection. 6.
Pp. 151-159.
Keen, H.A.
1950 A Study of Sex Differences in Male and Female Skulls. American
Kieser, J.A., and H.T. Groeneveld

1986 Multivariate Sexing of the Human Viserocranium. Journal of
Forensic Odontostomalogy 4:41-46.
Kieser, J.A., J. Moggi-Cecchi, and H.T. Groeneveld

1992 Sex Allocation of Skeletal Material by Analysis of the Proximal
Tibia. Forensic Science International 56:29-36.
Kimura, Kunihiko
1982a A Base-Wing Index for Sexing the Sacrum. Journal of
Anthropological Society of Nippon 90(Supplement):153-162.
1982b Sex Differences of the Hip Bone Among Several Japanese
Populations. Okajima's Folia Anatomica Japonica 58:266-273.
1984 Studies on Growth and Development in Japan. Yearbook of
Kimura, Kunihiko, Shukuko Hagiya, and Shinsei Kitano

1959 Effect of War on Stature. Journal of the Anthropological Society of
Tokyo 76:34-40.
Kimura, Tasuku
1971 Sex Determination on the Cross-Section of Human Lower Leg
Bones. Japanese Journal of Legal Medical 25(6):431-438.
King, Christopher A. Susan R. Loth, and M. Ya·ar ·can

1996 Metric Analysis of Sexual Dimorphism in the Humerus of South
Asians. Florida Scientist 60(Supplement 1):2.
118
Kondo, Osamu
1995 An Analysis of Ainu Population Structure, Based on Cranial
Morphology. Journal of Anthropological Society of Nippon
103(4):369-384.
Kovintsev, A.G.
1993 Ainu Orgins in the Light of Modern Physical Anthropology. Homo
44:105-127.
Krogman, Wilton Marion

1955 The Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Postgraduate Medicine
17(2):A48-A62.
Krogman, Wilton Marion, and M. Ya·ar ·can

1986 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. 2nd edition.
Lahr, Marta Mirazon

1995 Patterns of Modern Human Diversification: Implications for
Amerindian Origins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
38(Supplement 21):163-198.
Lewontin, R.C.
1972 The Apportionment of Human Diversity. Evolutionary Biology
6:381-398.
Li, Chunbiao
1991 Sex Determination by Skull. Journal of Chinese Forensic Medicine
6:120.
1992 A Study on Sex Difference of Adult Skull of the Northeast China:
By Fourier Transform. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 11:312.
Li, Yongyi, C. Loring Brace, Gao Qiang, and David P. Tracer

1991 Dimensions of Face in Asia in the Perspective of Geography and
Prehistory. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 85:269-279.
Loth, Susan R.
1990 A Comparative Analysis of the Manifestations of Age, Sex, and
Race in the Sternal Extremity of the Rib: A Consideration of Human
Skeletal Variation. MA Thesis. Boca Raton, FL: Florida Atlantic University.
1996 Sexual Dimorphism in the Human Mandible: A Developmental and
Evolutionary Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, Johannesburg, South Africa:
University of Witwatersrand.
119
Loth, Susan R., and Maciej Henneberg
1996 Mandibular Ramus Flexure: A New Morphologic Indicator of
Sexual Dimorphism in the Human Skeleton. American Journal of Physical
Macho, Gabriele A.
1990 Is Sexual Dimorphism in the Femur a "Population Specific"
Phenomenon. Zeitschrift Für Morphologie und Anthropologie
78(2):229-242.
MacLaughlin, Susan M., and Margaret Bruce, F.

1985 A Simple Univariate Technique for Determining Sex from
Fragmentary Femora: Its Application to a Scottish Short Cist Population.
Martin, R., and K. Saller

1957 Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Stuttgart: Gustav Fisher.
Matsumura, Hirofumi
1995 Dental Characteristics Affinities of the Prehistoric to Modern
Japanese with the East Asians, American Natives and Australo-Melanesians.
Journal of Anthropological Society of Nippon 103(3):235-261.
Mayr, Ernst
1970 Populations, Species, and Evolution. Harvard University Press.
McCown, Elizabeth R.
1982 Sex Differences: The Female as Baseline for Species Description.
Roberta L. Hall, ed. Pp. 37-83. New York: Praeger.
Mizoguchi, Y.
1988 Affinities of the Proohistoric Kofun People of Japan with Pre- and
Protohistoric Asian Populations. Journal of Anthropological Society of
Nippon 96:71-109.
Mo, Shitai
1983 Estimation of Stature by Long Bones of Chinese Male Adults in
South China (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta Anthropologica Sinica
2(1):80-85.
Morant, G.M.
1927 A Study of Australian and Tasmanian Skulls, Based on Previously
Published Measurements. Biometrika 19:419-440.
120
Müller, G.
1935 Zur Bestimmung der Länge Beschadigter Extremitätenknochen.
Anatomischer Anzeiger 12:70-72.
Münter, A.H.
1936 A Study of the Lengths of the Long Bones of the Arms and Legs in
Man, with Special Reference to Anglo Saxon Skeletons. Biometrika
28:84-122.
Nakbunlung, Supaporn
1994 Origins and Biological Affinities of the Modern Thai Population:
An Osteological Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, Urbana-Champaign, IL:
University of Illinois.
Napoli, M.L., and W.H. Birkby

1990 Racial Variability in the Visibility of the Oval Window in the Middle
Ear. In Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology.
George W. Gill and Stan J. Rhine, eds. Pp. 27-32. Albuquerque: Maxwell
Museum of Anthropology.
Nei, M., and A.K. Roychoudhury

1993 Evolutionary Relationships of Human Populations on a Global
Scale. Molecular Biology and Evolution 10:927-943.
Niyomsen, Songkran
1963 Forensic Science (in Thai). Bangkok: Thammasat University.
Novotný, Vladimír, M. Ya·ar ·can, and Susan R. Loth

1993 Morphologic and Osteometric Assessment of Age, Sex, and Race
from the Skull. In Forensic Analysis of the Skull. M. Ya·ar ·can and
Richard P. Helmer, eds. Pp. 71-88. New York: Wiley-Liss.
Omoto, Keiichi
1984 The Negritos: Genetic Orgins and Microevolution. Acta
Anthropogenetica 8(1/2):137-147.
1992 Some Aspects of the Genetic Composition of the Japanese. In
Japanese as Member of the Asian and Pacific Populations. International
Symposium, 4. Kazuro Hanihara, ed. Pp. 137-145. Tokyo: International
Research Center for Japanese Studies.
121
Omoto, Keiichi, and Naruya Saitou
1997 Genetic Orgins of the Japanese: A Partial Support for the Dual
Structure Hypothesis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
102(4):437-446.
Ossenberg, Nancy S.
1986 Isolate Conservatism and Hybridization in the Population History of
Japan: The Evidence of Nonmetric Cranial Triats. In Prehistoric
Hunters-Gatherers in Japan. Takeru Akazawa and C. Melvin Aikens, eds.
Pp. 199-215. University of Tokyo: The University Musuem Bulletin, No.27.
Peng, Shulin, and Fangwu Zhu

1983 Estimation of Stature from Skull, Clavicle, Scapula and Os Coxa of
Male Adult of Southern Chinese (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta
Phenice, T.W.
1969 A Newly Developed Visual Method of Sexing the Os Pubis.
Pickering, Robert B.
1986 Population Differences in the Calcaneus as Determined by
Discriminant Function Analysis. Kathleen Reichs, ed. Pp. 160-170.
Pietrusewsky, Michael
1974a Neolithic Populations of Southeast Asia Studied by Multivariate
Craniometric Analysis. Homo 25:207-230.
1974b Non Nok Tha. The Human Skeletal Remains from the 1966
Excavations at Non Nok Tha, Northeastern Thailand. Otago University
Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology., Vol. 6. Dunedin: Department of
Anthropology, University of Otago.
1975 The Paleodemography of a Prehistoric Thai Population: Non Nok
Tha. Asian Perspectives 17(2):125-140.
1978 A Study of Early Metal Age Crania from Ban Chiang, Northeastern
Thailand. Journal of Human Evolution 7:383-392.
1981 Cranial Variation in Early Metal Age Thailand and Southeast Asia
Studied in Multivariate Procedures. Homo 32(1):1-26.
1982 The Ancient Inhabitants of Ban Chiang: The Evidence from the
Human Skeletal and Dental Remains. Expedition 24:42-50.
1984 Pioneers on the Khorat Plateau: The Prehistoric Inhabitants of Ban
Chiang. Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society 10:90-106.
122
1988a Multivariate Comparisons of Recently Excavated Neolithic Human
Crania from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. International Journal of
Anthropology 3(3):267-283.
1988b Prehistoric Human Remains from Non Pa Kluay, Northeast
Thailand. University of Otago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology, Vol. 17.
Dunedin: Department of Anthropology, University of Otago.
1990a Craniometric Variation in Australasian and Pacific Populations.
Micronesia Supplement 2:373-402.
1990b Craniofacial Variation in Micronesia and the Pacific: A Multivariate
Study. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 82:319-340.
1992 Japan, Asia and the Pacific: A Multivariate Craniometric
Investigation. In Japanese as a Member of the Asian and Pacific
Populations. Kazuro Hanihara, ed. Pp. 9-52. Kyoto: International Research
Center for Japanese Studies.
1994a Pacific-Asian Relationships: A Physical Anthropological
Perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 33(2):407-429.
1994b The People of Ban Chiang: An Early Bronze Site in Northeast
Thailand. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 15th Congress. Chiang Mai,
Thailand.
1995 Tawain Aboriginals, Asians and Pacific Islanders: A Multivariate
Investigation of Skulls. P. Jen-Kuei Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei
Huang, Dan-an Ho and Chiu-yu Tseng, eds. Symposium Series of the
Insitute of History and Philosphy. Pp. 295-351. Taipei, Tawain, Republic of
China: Academica Sinica.
1997 The People of Ban Chiang: An Early Bronze Site in Northeast
Thailand. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 16:119-148.
Pietrusewsky, Michael, Yongyi Li, Xiangqing Shao, and Quang Quyen Nguyen
1992 Modern and Near Modern Populations of Asia and the Pacific: A
Multivariate Craniometric Interpretation. In The Evolution and Dispersal of
Modern Humans in Asia. Takeru Akazawa, Kenichi Aoki and Tasuku
Kimura, eds. Pp. 531-538. Tokyo: Hokusen-sha.
Pope, Geoffrey G.
1988 Recent Advances in Far Eastern Paleoanthropology. Annual
Review in Anthropology 17:43-77.
Ren, Guangjin
1986 The Measurements, Correlation and Sexual Diagnosis of Chinese
Atlas (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta Anthropologica Sinica
5(2):138-142.
1987 Sexual Diagnosis of Scapula by Discriminant Function Analysis
(Chinese with English Abstract). Acta Anthropologica Sinica 6(2):144-146.
123
Rhine, Stan J.
1990 Non-Metric Skull Racing. In Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods
for Forensic Anthropology. George W. Gill and Stan J. Rhine, eds. Pp.
9-20. Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology.
Ross, William D., and Richard Ward

1982 Human Proportionality and Sexual Dimorphism. In Sexual
Dimorphism in Homo sapiens: A Question of Size. Roberta L. Hall, ed. Pp.
317-361. New York: Praeger.
Sangvichien, Sanjai
1970 Thai Skulls: The Study of Physical Anthropology (in Thai). M.D.
Dissertation. Bangkok: Mahidol University.
Sangvichien, Sood
1966 A Preliminary Report on Non-Metrical Characteristics of Neolithic
Skeletons Found At Ban Kao, Kanchanaburi. Journal of the Siam Society
54(1):1-18.
Sangvichien, Sood, Patai Sirigaroon, and J. Balslev Jørgensen

1969 Ban Kao: Neolithic Cemeteries in the Kanchanaburi Province.
Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Sangvichien, S.J., V Srisurin, and V. Watthanayingsakul

1985 Estimation of Stature of Thai and Chinese from the Length of the
Femur, Tibia, and Fibula (in Thai). Siriraj Hospital Gazette 37:215-218.
Sauer, Norman J.
1992 Forensic Anthropology and the Concept of Race: if Race Don’t
Exist, Why are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying Them?
Social Science and Medicine 34(2):107-111.
Schulter-Ellis, F.P., and L.C. Hayek

1984 Predicting Race and Sex with an Acetabulum/Pubic Index.
Collegium Anthropologicum 8:155-162.
Schulter-Ellis, Francis P., Dwight J. Schmidt, L.-A. Hayek, and James Craig
1983 Determination of Sex with a Descriminant Analysis of New Pelvic
Bone Measurements. Part I. Journal of Forensic Sciences 28:169-180.
Schulter-Ellis, Francis P., L.C. Hayek, and Dwight J. Schmidt

1985 Determination of Sex with a Discriminant Analysis of New Pelvic
Bone Measurements. Part II. Journal of Forensic Sciences 30:178-185.
124
Schultz, A.H.
1937 Proportions, Variability and Asymemetries of the Long Bones of
the Limbs and the Clavicles in Man and Apes. Human Biology 9:281-328.
Shao, Xiangqing
1989 Estimation of Stature from Intact Long Bones of Chinese Males in
Comparison with American Whites and Negroes. Journal of
1992 Estimation of Stature from Intact Long Bones of Chinese Males.
Canadian Society of Forensic Science 22(2):123-126.
Sheng, Kebiao
1985 Measurements and Analyses of Chinese Elite Boatmen Humeri by
X-Ray (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta Anthropologica Sinica
3(2):126-131.
Singh, G., S. Singh, and S.P. Singh

1975 Identification of Sex from Tibia. Journal of the Anatomy of the
Society of India 24(1):20-24.
Snow, C.E.
1948 Indian Knoll Skeletons of Site OH 2, Ohio County, Kentucky.
University of Kentucky Report in Anthropology 4(3, part 2):381-554.
Song, Hongwei, Ziqing Lin, and Jingtao Jin

1992 Sex Diagnosis of Chinese Skulls Using Multiple Stepwise
Discriminant Function Analysis. Forensic Science International 54:135-140.
SPSS-X
1988 SPSS-X User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
St. Hoyme, Lucile E.

1957 The earliest use of indices for sexing the pelves. American Journal
of Physical Anthropology 15:537-546.
St. Hoyme. Lucile E., and M. Ya·ar ·can

1989 Determination of Sex and Race: Accuracy and Assumptions. In
Reconstruction of Life from the Skeleton. M.Y. ·can and K.A.R. Kennedy,
eds. Pp. 53-94. New York: Wiley-Liss.
125
Steele, D. Gentry
1970 Esitmation of Stature from Fragments of Long Bones. In Personal
Identification in Mass Disasters. T. Dale Stewart, ed. Pp. 85-97.
Washington, D.C.: National Museum of Natural History.
1976 The Estimation of Sex on the Basis of the Talus and Calcaneus.
Steele, D. Gentry, and Thomas W. McKern

1969 A Method for Assessment of Maximum Long Bone Length and
Living Stature from Fragmentary Long Bones. American Journal of Physical
Stephenson, Paul Huston
1929 On Racial Differences in Stature Long Bone Regression Formulae,
with Special Reference to Stature Reconstruction Formulae for the Chinese.
Biometrika 21(1-4):303-318.
Stewart, T. Dale
1962 Anterior Femoral Curvature: Its Utility for Race Identification.
Human Biology 34:49-62.
1979 Sex Determination of the Skeleton by Guess and by Measure.
Steyn, Maryna, and M. Ya·ar ·can

n.d. Sexual Dimorphism in the Crania and Mandibles of South African
Whites. Manuscript.
Stini, W.A.
1975 Adaptive Strategies of Human Population Under Nutritional Stress.
In Biosocial Interrelations in Population Adaptation. E.S. Watts, F.E.
Johnston and G.W. Lasker, eds. The Hague: Mouton.
Stoneking, M., L.B. Jorde, K. Bhatia, and A.C. Wilson

1990 Geographic Variation in Human Mitochondrial DNA from Papua
New Guinea. Genetics 124:717-733.
Strauss, W.L. Jr.

1927 The Human Ilium: Sex and Stock. American Journal of Physical
Suchey, Judy Myers, and Sheila Brooks

1990 Skeletal Age Determination Based on the os Pubis: A Comparison
of the Acsádi-Nemeskéri and Suchey-Brooks Methods. Human Evolution
5:227-238.
126
Sun, Shanghui, and Yongzhang Qu
1986 The Measurements and Sexual Diagnosis of the Greater Sciatic
Notch in Chinese (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta Anthropologica
Sinica 5(4):368-371.
Tagaya, Akira
1987 Interpopulation Variation of Sex Differences: An Analysis of the
Extremity Long Bone Measurements of Japanese. Journal of
1992 Development of a Generalized Discriminant Function for
Cross-Population Determination of Sex from Long Bones of the Arm and
Leg. Canadian Society of Forensic Science 22(2):159-176.
Takaishi, M.
1994 Secular Changes in Growth of Japanese Children. Journal of
Pediatric Endocrinology 7:163-173.
Tanaka, T., K. Hanihara, and K. Koizumu

1979 Sex Determination of the Modern Japanese Skull by Means of
Discriminant Function. Sapporo Medical Journal 48:583-593.
Tanner, James M.
1962 Growth at Adolescence. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
1988 Human Growth and Constitution. In Human Biology. G.A.
Harrison, J.M. Tanner, D.R. Pilbeam, and P.T. Baker. Pp. 339-427. Oxford:
Oxford Science Publications.
Terazawa, K., H. Akabane, H. Gotouda, K. Mizukami, M. Nagao, and T.

Takatori.
1990 Estimating Stature from the Length of the Lumbar Part of the Spine
in Japanese. Medicine, Science, and the Law 30(4):354-357.
Thieme, F.P., and W.J. Schull

1957 Sex Determination from the Skeleton. Human Biology 29:242-273.
Tobias, Philip V.
1975 Anthropometry Among Disadvantaged Peoples: Studies in South
Africa. In Biosocial Interrelations in Population Adaptation. E.S. Watts,
F.E. Johnston and G.W. Lasker, eds. The Hague: Mouton.
Todd, T. Wingate
1929 Entrenched Negro Physical Features. Human Biology 1:57-69.
127
Torpin, R.
1951 Roentgenpelvimetric Measurements of 3604 Female Pelves, White,
Negro, and Mexican, Compared with Direct Measurements of Todd
Anatomy Collections. American Journal of Ostetrics and Gynecology
62:279-293.
Trancho, Gonzalo, Beatriz Robledo, Inmaculada López-Bueis, and José A.

Sánchez
1997 Sexual Determination of the Femur Using Discriminant Functions
Analysis of a Spanish Population of Known Sex and Age. Journal of
Forensic Sciences 42(2):181-185.
Trotter, Mildred
1970 Estimation of Stature from Intact Limb Bones. In Personal
Identification in Mass Disasters. T. Dale Stewart, ed. Pp. 71-84.
Washington, D.C.: National Museum of Natural History.
Trotter, Mildred, and Goldine C. Gleser

1951a The Effect of Aging on Stature. American Journal of Physical
1951b Trends in Stature of American Whites and Negroes Born Between
1840 and 1924. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 9:427-440.
1952 Estimation of Stature from Long Bones of American Whites and
Negroes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 10:463-514.
1958 A Re-Evaluation of Estimation of Stature Based on Measurments
of Stature Taken During Life and of Long Bones After Death. American
1977 Corrigenda to "Estimation of Stature from Long Bones of
American Whites and Negroes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
(1952)." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 47:355-356.
Turner, Christy G., II

1976 Dental Evidence on the Origin of the Ainu and Japanese. Science
193:911-913.
1979 Dental Anthropological Indications of Agriculture Among the
J©mon People of Central Japan. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
51:619-636.
1983 Dental Evidence for the Peopling of the Americas. In Early Man in
the New World. R. Shuttler, Jr., ed. Pp. 147-157. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
1985 The Dental Search for Native American Origin. In Out of Asia.
Peopling of the Americas and the Pacific. Robert Kirk and Emöke
Szathmary, eds. Pp. 31-78. Canberra: Journal of Pacific History.
1986 The First Americans: The Dental Evidence. National Geographical
Research 2:37-46.
128
1987 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Population History of East Asia
Based on Dental Variation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
68:149-155.
1989 Teeth and Prehistory in Asia. Scientific American, February, 88-96.
1990 Major Features of Sundadonty and Sinodonty, Including
Suggestions About East Asian Microevolution, Population History, and
Late Pleistocene Relationships with Australian Aboriginals. American
1992 Microevolution of East Asian and European Populations: A Dental
Perspective. In The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia.
Takeru Akazawa, Kenichi Aoki and Tasuku Kimura, eds. Pp. 415-438.
Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha.
Turner, Christy G. II, and Kazuro Hanihara

1977 Additional Features of Ainu Dentition. V. Peopling of the Pacific.
Van Gerven, D.P.

1972 The Contribution of Size and Shape Variation to Patterns of Sexual
Dimorphism of the Human Femur. American Journal of Physical
Van Gerven, D.P., and G.B. Oakland

1974 Univariate and Multivariate Statistical Models in the Analysis of
Human Sexual Dimorphism. The Statistician 22:256-268.
Walensky, N.
1965 A Study of Anterior Femoral Curvature in Man. Anatomical
Record 151:559-570.
Wang, Linghong
1987 Racial Relationship Between Chinese and Japanese: A Statistical
Study of Cranial Measurements (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta
1989 A Study of Recent Human Skulls from Hong Kong Assessment of
Sex and of Regional Population (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta
Wang, Ruxin, and Mingxin Bao

1984 The Measurements of Some Chinese (Qingdao District) Cranial
Angles (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta Anthropologica Sinica
3(1):32-36.
1988 The Measurements of Some Cranial Angles (Chinese with English
129
Wang, Yunghao, Chiaying Weng, and Pingcheng Hu
1979 Estimation of Stature from Long Bones of Chinese Male Adults in
South-West District (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta Anatomica
Sinica 10:1-6.
Washburn, S.L.
1949 Sex Differences in the Pubic Bone of Bantu and Bushman.
Wiriyaromp, Warrachai
1984 A Prehistoric Population from North East Thailand. Southeast
Asian Archaeology at the XV Pacific Science Congress, Vol. 16. Dunedin:
University of Otago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology.
Wolpoff, Milford H.
1976 Some Aspects of the Evolution of Early Homonid Sexual
Dimorphism. Current Anthropology 17:579-606.
Woo, T.L., and G.M. Morant

1932 A Preliminary Classification of Asiatic Races Based on Cranial
Measurements. Biometrika 24:108-134.
1934 A Biometric Study of the "Flatness" of the Facial Skeleton in Man.
Biometrika 26:196-250.
Wu, Liu
1989a Sex Discriminant Analysis of Long Bones of Upper Limb (Chinese
with English Abstract). Acta Anthropologica Sinica 8(3):231-239.
1989b Sex Determination of Chinese Femur by Discriminant Function.
Journal of Forensic Sciences 34(5):1222-1227.
Wu, Liu, Shixian Chen, and Zhaojin Xu

1988 Estimation of Age from the Pubic Symphysis of Chinese Male by
Means of Multiple Analysis. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 7(2):147-153.
Wu, Liu, Maoyou Yang, and Fengjiu Tai

1989 Sex Discriminant Analysis of Long Bones of Lower Limb (Chinese
Wu, Xinzhi, Xinzhou Shao, and Heng Wang

1982 Sex Differences and Sex Determination of the Innominate Bone of
Modern Han Nationality (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta
130
Wu, Xinzhi, Zhenbiao Zhang, and Jianjiun Zhang
1984 Estimation of the Stature of Liujiang Paleolithic Man (Chinese with
English Abstract). Acta Anthropologica Sinica 3(3):210-211.
Xi, Huanjiu
1985 Regression Formulae for Estimating Age and Stature from
Epiphyseal Fusion and Linear Measurement (Chinese with English
Yamaguchi, Bin
1982 A Review of the Osteological Characteristics of The J©mon
Populations in Prehistoric Japan. Journal of Anthropological Society of
Nippon 90:77-90.
1986 Metric Characters of the Femora and Tibiae from Protohistoric
Sites in Eastern Japan. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Series D
12:11-23.
1989 Limb Segment Proportions in Human Skeletal Remains of the
J©mon Period. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Series D 15:41-48.
Yang, Dongya, and Yujing Dai

1990 Physical Characteristics of Bonan Nationality from Gansu Province,
Northwest China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 9(1):55-63.
Yang, Maoyou, Liu Wu, and Fengjiu Tai

1988 Sex Determination of Mandible by Discriminant Analysis (Chinese
Yang, Yutian, Jingzhong Zheng, Rulin Dang, and Yingyi Li

1987 The Skull of the Face of Xi'an Area (Chinese with English
Yen, D.E.
1977 Hoabinhian Horticulture? The Evidence and the Questions from
Northwest Thailand. In Sunda and Sahul: Prehistoric Studies in Southeast
Asia, Melanesia and Australia. J. Allen, J. Golson and R. Jones, eds. Pp.
567-599. London: Academic Press.
Yoshino, Mineo, Sachio Miyasaka, Hajime Sato, and Sueshige Seta

1986 Estimation of Stature from Long Bones Based on Somatometric
Analysis. Republic of the National Institute for Political Science
39(4):201-207.
131
Zhang, Zhenbiao
1988 An Analysis of the Physical Characteristics of Modern Chinese.
Acta Anthropologica Sinica 7(4):314-323.
Zhao, T., and T. Lee

1989 Gm and Km Allotypes in 74 Chinese Populations: A Hypothesis of
the Origin of the Chinese Nation. Human Genetics 83:101-110.
Zheng, Jingzhong
1987 Anthropological Research of Tibia in Modern Chinese (Chinese
Zheng, Tingzhong, and Tianci Pang

1988 Determination of Sex from the Tibia by the Stepwise
Discriminatory Analysis (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta
Zhu, Fangwu
1983 Study on the Estimation of Stature from Phalanges of Middle
Finger (Chinese with English Abstract). Acta Anthropologica Sinica
2(4):375-379.
Zhu, Zongze, Wenqiang Cao, Bingqiang Lu, and Chenling Zhang

1985 Measurements of the Arc, Chord and Circumference and
Sex-Discriminating Analysis in Chinese Skulls (Chinese with English
132
APPENDIX I
DESCRIPTION OF CRANIAL AND POSTCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS
133
Osteometric data forms were prepared to record cranial and postcranial dimensions.
Measurements of both cranial and postcranial remains are from Black (1928); Bräuer
(1988); Howells (1973); Krogman and ·can (1986), and Loth (1996). All numeric
references in parenthesis correspond to Bräuer (1988) unless otherwise noted.
CRANIAL OSTEOMETRY
Cranial length (1) 1928)

Cranial breadth (8) Nasion-prosthion (48)
Basion-nasion (5) Nose height (55)
Basion-bregma (17) Nose breadth (45)
Basion-prosthion (40) Mastoid height (19a)
Biasterionic breadth (12) Foramen magnum length (7)
Minimal frontal breadth (9) Foramen magnum breadth (16)
Maximal frontal breadth (10) Biauricular breadth (11)
Bizygomatic breadth (45) External palatal length (60)
Left orbital breadth (51a) External palatal breadth (61)
Left orbital height (52) Bicondylar breadth (65)
Right orbital breadth (51a) Bigonial breadth (66)
Right orbital height (52) Ramus height (70)
Interorbital breadth (49a) Oblique ramus height (Loth 1996)
Biorbital breadth (44) Gonion-Kondylion Laterale
Bifronto malare orbitale (43(1)) Minimum ramus breadth (71)
Frontomalare orbitale-inferior zygomatic Maximum height at mental foramen (68(1))
(Black 1928) Maximum corpus thickness (69(3))
Frontomalare orbitale-superior zygomatic Gonial angle (79)
(Black 1928) Mandibular length (68)
Superior zygomatic-inferior zygomatic (Black
CRANIAL INDICES
Cranial Nasal
Length-height External palatal
Breadth-height Gnathic
Frontoparietal (frontal) Foramen magnum
Upper facial Mandibular
Orbital
134
APPENDIX I (cont.)
POSTCRANIAL OSTEOMETRY
Scapular height (1) Femoral distal epiphyseal breadth (21)

Scapular anterior breadth at spine (left) (2a) Femoral midshaft circumference (8)
Scapular anterior breadth at spine (right)(2a) Tibial maximum length (1)
Scapular posterior breadth at spine (left)(2) Tibial proximal epiphyseal breadth (3)
Scapular posterior breadth at spine (right)(2) Tibial distal epiphyseal breadth (6)
Scapular inferior border length (3) Tibial anterior-posterior diameter (8)
Clavicular length (1) Tibial transverse diameter (9)
Clavicular sagittal diameter (5) Tibial nutrient foramen anterior-posterior diameter
Clavicular vertical diameter (4) (8a)
Clavicular midshaft circumference (6) Tibial nutrient foramen transverse diameter (9a)
Humeral maximum length (1) Tibial minimum circumference (10)
Humeral vertical head diameter (10) Tibial nutrient foramen circumference (10a)
Humeral transverse head diameter (9) Fibial maximum length (1)
Humeral maximum midshaft diameter (5) Fibial anterior-posterior diameter (2)
Humeral minimum midshaft diameter (6) Fibial transverse diameter (3)
Humeral epicondylar breadth (4) Innominate maximum height (1)
Humeral deltoid circumference (7) Pubic maximum length (17a)
Humeral midshaft circumference (7a) Ischial maximum length (15a)
Radial maximum length (1) Iliac maximum breadth (12)
Radial distal epiphyseal breadth 5(6) Bi-iliac breadth (13)
Radial sagittal midshaft diameter (5) Bi-alare (4)
Radial transverse midshaft diameter (4) Sacral anterior height (5)
Ulnar maximum length (1) S1 anterior-posterior diameter (·can, personal
Ulnar physiological length (2) communication 1996)
Ulnar dorso-volar diameter (11) S1 transverse diameter ( ·can, personal
Ulnar transverse diameter (12) communication 1996)
Ulnar minimum circumference (distal end) (3) Calcaneus maximum length (1)
Femoral maximum length (1) Calcaneus maximum breadth (2))
Femoral bicondylar length (2) Talus maximum length (1)
Femoral maximum head diameter (18) Talus maximum breadth (2)
Femoral anterior-posterior diameter (6)
Femoral transverse diameter (7)
135
APPENDIX I (cont.)
L1 anterior height (·can, personal L3 transverse breadth (·can, personal

communication 1996) communication 1996)
L1 posterior height (·can, personal L3 superior anterior-posterior depth (·can,
communication 1996) personal communication 1996)
L1 transverse breadth (·can, personal L4 anterior height (·can, personal
L1 superior anterior-posterior depth (·can, L4 posterior height (·can, personal
personal communication 1996) communication 1996)
L2 transverse breadth (·can, personal L5 anterior height (·can, personal
L2 superior anterior-posterior depth (·can, L5 posterior height (·can, personal
personal communication 1996) communication 1996)
POSTCRANIAL INDICES
Claviculohumeral Femoral pilasteric Ishiopubic

Scapular Femoral robusticity Sacral
Humeral robusticity Tibial platymeric
Humero-femoral Tibial cnemic
Radial-humeral Tibial-femoral
Femoral platymeric
136
APPENDIX II
DATA COLLECTION FORM
137
Catalog No:___________ Sex:_______ Age:_______ Race:_____________ Occupation:____________
Cause of Death:________________________ Location of Collection:_____________________________
Cranial Length / Breadth _______\________ Femur Length, Maximum _______________

Biasterionic Breadth ________________ Length, Bicondylar _______________
Frontal Breadth Min. / Max. _______\________ Head Diameter _______________
Bizygomatic Breadth ________________ A-P / Trans. Diameter _______\_______
Basion-Nasion ________________ Distal Epiphyseal Br. _______________
Basion-Bregma ________________ Midshaft Circumference _______________
Basion-Prosthion ________________
Orbital Breadth Lt / Rt. _______\________ Tibia Length _______________
Orbital Height Lt / Rt. _______\________ Proximal / Distal Epiphyseal Br. _______\_______
Interorbital Breadth ________________ Midshaft Diameter Max. / Trans. _______\_______
Bi-Orbital Breadth ________________ Nutrient Foramen A-P / Trans. _______\_______
Bifronto Malare Orbitale ________________ Minimum Circumference _______________
Fr. malare Orbitale- Inf. Zymax. ________________ Nutrient Foramen Circumference _______________
Fr. malare Orbitale- Sup. Zymax. ________________
Sup. Zymax.- Inf. Zymax. ________________ Fibula Length _______________
Nasion-Prosthion ________________ A-P \ Trans Diameter _______\_______
Nose Height / Breadth _______\________
Mastoid Ht. @ Frankfort ________________ Innominate Height (Left) _______________
Foramen Magnum Lng / Br. _______\________ Pubic Length _______________
Biauricular Breadth ________________ Ischial Length _______________
External Palatal Lng / Br. _______\________ Iliac Breadth _______________
Bicondylar Lng / Br _______\________
Bigonial Breadth ________________ Pelvic Brim A-P / Trans. _______\_______
Ramus Height ________________ Bi-Iliac Breadth _______________
Minimum Ramus Breadth ________________
Max. Height at Mental Foramen ________________ Sacrum Bialare _______________
Max. Corpus Thick. @ M1 ________________ Anterior Height _______________
Gonial Angle ________________ S1 A-P / Trans. Breadth _______\_______
Scapula Total Height ________________ Calcaneus Length / Breadth _______\_______

Ant. Breadth @ Spine Lt / Rt. _______\________
Post. Breadth @ Spine Lt / Rt. _______\________ Talus Length / Breadth _______\_______
Inferior Border Length ________________
L1 Ant / Post. Height _______\_______
Clavicle Length ________________ L1 Transverse Breadth _______________
Sagittal / Vertical Diameter _______\________ L1 Superior A-P Depth _______________
Midshaft Circumference ________________ L2 Ant / Post. Height _______\_______
L2 Transverse Breadth _______________
Humerus Length ________________ L2 Superior A-P Depth _______________
Head Diameter Vert / Trans. _______\________ L3 Ant / Post. Height _______\_______
Max. / Min. Diameter _______\________ L3 Transverse Breadth _______________
Epicondylar Breadth ________________ L3 Superior A-P Depth _______________
Deltoid Circumference ________________ L4 Ant / Post. Height _______\_______
Midshaft Circumference ________________ L4 Transverse Breadth _______________
L4 Superior A-P Depth _______________
Radius Length ________________ L5 Ant / Post. Height _______\_______
Distal Epiphyseal Br. ________________ L5 Transverse Breadth _______________
A-P \ Trans Diameter ________________ L5 Superior A-P Depth _______________
Ulna Length _______________

Physiological Length _______________
Dorso-Volar / Trans. Diameter _______\_______
Minimum Circ. (Distal End) _______________
138

Osteometric Assessment of 20th Century S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Osteometric Assessment of 20th Century S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OSTEOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF 20TH CENTURY SKELETONS FROM

THAILAND AND HONG KONG

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

The Schmidt College of Arts and Humanities

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida

encouragement and guidance over the years.

appreciation for handling my thousands of requests for journal articles.

To my roommates, Dan, Heather, Steve, and Skye I really appreciate their

and academic support.

Author: Christopher A. King

Title: Osteometric Assessment of 20th Century

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Thesis Advisor: Susan R. Loth, Ph.D.

Degree: Master of Arts

descriptive and comparative analysis of two recently curated samples of complete,

has important applications to demographic and medicolegal investigations.

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

1. Frequency distribution of the samples by decade (N=198). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2. Descriptive statistics of cranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and significance

4. Descriptive statistics of cranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and significance

6. Descriptive statistics of postcranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and significance

7. T-test and significance of differences between the means of postcranial indices

8. Descriptive statistics of postcranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and significance

9. T-test and significance of differences between the means of postcranial indices

10. Descriptive statistics of cranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and

12. Descriptive statistics of cranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and significance

14. Descriptive statistics of postcranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and

16. Descriptive statistics of postcranial dimensions (mm), t-test, and

19. Stepwise discriminant function analysis of the femur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

20. Canonical discriminant function coefficients from the Stepwise discriminant

21. Canonical discriminant function coefficients from Direct analyses based on a

22. Sexing accuracy using combination and singular variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

23. Comparison of sex determination accuracy from maximum head

24. Means, standard deviations and univariate F-ratios of humeral dimensions. . . . . 86

25. Stepwise discriminant function analysis of the humerus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

26. Canonical discriminant function coefficients for the humerus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

27. Canonical discriminant function coefficients from the stepwise analysis

It is essential to learn as much as possible from the human skeleton, because it

growth and development, odontology, paleontology, paleopathology, demography, sexual

have contributed to our understanding of interrelationships among populations and to

today and tomorrow.

a north to south migration from East Asia resulting in interbreeding or complete

replacement of aboriginal Southeast Asians (Pietrusewsky 1988a). Although, this is not

supported archaeologically because of the lack of evidence of Upper Paleolithic

first as an ancient “Australoid” migration from the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago about 40

kya and second, a more recent “Southern Mongoloid” or “Austro-Melanesian” migration

certain dental features (sinodonty).

Harihara et al. 1992; Pietrusewsky 1992).

In the Pacific, it is commonly thought that Polynesians and Micronesians share

1993; Pietrusewsky 1990a,b, 1992, 1994a, 1995; Hanihara 1989a,b,c, 1990a,b,

1992a,b,c). In a different light, Brace and associates suggested a “J©mon-Pacific cluster”

similarities in their biological affinities. Numerous researchers have conducted

concluded there is a recognizable subdivision between Southeast and East Asian

interorbital breadth is the most distinguishing factor in differentiating the populations in

Stini 1975; Tanner 1962, 1988; Tobias 1975).

(Lewontin 1972; also see Frayer and Wolpoff 1985).

contributed more to sexually dimorphic variation than environmental or cultural factors

must be genetically regulated.

The determination of demographic characteristics of a population is of primary

concern to paleodemographers and forensic anthropologists (Krogman and ·can 1986).

stature within a standard error of about 3.5cm.

Observable biological characteristics or phenotypes between people show obvious

concern to paleodemographers and forensic anthropologists (Krogman and ·can 1986).

results (St. Hoyme and ·can 1989).