Biological Affinity in

Forensic Identification of
Human Skeletal Remains

Beyond Black and White

Edited by Gregory E. Berg and Sabrina C. Ta’ala

Biological Affinity in
Forensic Identification of
Human Skeletal Remains
Beyond Black and White

Edited by
Gregory E. Berg
Sabrina C. Ta’ala

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Cover photo courtesy of Gregory Berg.

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2015 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20140908

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4398-1577-9 (eBook - PDF)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been
made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the valid-
ity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright
holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this
form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may
rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or uti-
lized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopy-
ing, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the
publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://
www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,
978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For
organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
Contents

Foreword ix
Acknowledgments xi
Editors xiii
Contributors xv

1 A Brief History of the Race Concept in Physical Anthropology 1

SABRINA C. TA’ALA

2 Biological Affinity in Medicolegal, Public, and

Anthropological Contexts 17
GREGORY E. BERG AND SABRINA C. TA’ALA

3 Cranial Morphoscopic Traits and the Assessment of

American Black, American White, and Hispanic Ancestry 27
JOSEPH T. HEFNER

4 Biological Affinity and Sex from the Mandible Utilizing

Multiple World Populations 43
GREGORY E. BERG

5 Metric Ancestry Estimation from the Postcranial Skeleton 83

KATHERINE SPRADLEY

6 The Sagittal Suture as an Indicator of Race and Sex 95

ROBERT W. MANN, JIRO MANABE, JOHN E. BYRD,
STEPHANIE AH SAM, THOMAS D. HOLLAND, AND
PANYA TUAMSUK

7 Beyond the Cranium: Ancestry Estimation from

the Lower Limb 133
NATALIE R. SHIRLEY, EMAM ELHAK ABDEL FATAH, AND
MOHAMED MAHFOUZ

8 Population Affinities of Hispanic Crania: Implications for

Forensic Identification 155
ANN H. ROSS, DENNIS E. SLICE, AND DOUGLAS H. UBELAKER

vii
viii Contents

9 Dental Nonmetric Variation around the World: Using Key

Traits in Populations to Estimate Ancestry in Individuals 165
JOEL D. IRISH

10 Dental Morphological Estimation of Ancestry in Forensic

Contexts 191
HEATHER J. H. EDGAR

11 Size Matters: Discrimination between American Blacks

and Whites, Males and Females, Using Tooth Crown
Dimensions 209
EDWARD F. HARRIS AND CANDICE L. FOSTER

12 Linking Identity with Landscape: Osteological and Sr–Pb

Isotopic Methods for Biogeoreference 239
ERIN H. KIMMERLE AND GEORGE D. KAMENOV

13 The Use of DNA in the Identification of Degraded Human

Skeletal Remains: A Basic Primer 257
SUNI M. EDSON AND ALEXANDER F. CHRISTENSEN

14 Identification of Deceased Unauthorized Border Crossers

in the United States 271
LORI E. BAKER

15 Sequence, Haplotype, and Ancestry: Using the

Mitochondrial DNA Hypervariable Region to Predict
Forensic “Race” 287
ALEXANDER F. CHRISTENSEN
Cranial Morphoscopic Traits
and the Assessment of
American Black, American
White, and Hispanic Ancestry
3
JOSEPH T. HEFNER

Contents
Introduction 27
Previous Research 28
Reference Sample Description 29
The Seven Traits 30
Ancestry Assessment in a Statistical Framework 33
Applications 34
Results 35
Discussion 39
Acknowledgments 40
References 41

Introduction

Assessing ancestry using cranial morphoscopic (cranial nonmetric) traits gives the
­impression of a straightforward approach—pick up a cranium, observe the trait values
according to ancestry from published trait lists, and classify the individual’s ancestry
according to the observed values. In reality, these assessments are not so clear-cut; instead,
they are clouded in misunderstandings on the nature of human variation and hindered
by the experience-based approach that relies on typological trait lists (cf. Rhine 1990).
Like other contributions to this volume, the purpose of this chapter is to provide the
reader with an effective and relatively straightforward method of ancestry assessment.
The original intention was the presentation of a large suite of morphoscopic traits to
which the researcher could refer and incorporate in an analysis. However, after focus-
ing more or less exclusively on the analytical value of slight variations in cranial form
over the past decade, I have noticed (and I hope the reader will develop an acute appre-
ciation for this proposal, as well) that more is not always better (contra Gill 1998). In
fact, as more variables are considered, the number of individuals in the reference sample
expressing so-called “expected” trait values (derived from trait lists) reaches nearly zero
(Hefner 2003, 2007, 2009).
With that in mind, and drawing on analytical autopsies of the usefulness of these traits
to assess ancestry, this chapter and the method proposed herein provide the reader with a
series of equations and working examples useful for assessing ancestry with a combination
of seven morphoscopic traits: the anterior nasal spine, the inferior nasal aperture, the inter-
orbital breadth, the nasal aperture width, the nasal bone contour, the nasal overgrowth,

27
28 Biological Affinity in Forensic Identification of Human Skeletal Remains

and the post-bregmatic depression. Why these traits? These seven traits were selected for
two reasons. First, earlier research identified them as the most effective discriminators
of ancestry between American Blacks, American Whites, and Hispanics (Birkby, Fenton,
and Anderson 2008; Anderson 2009; Hefner 2009). Second, by restricting an analysis to
seven traits, the tendency for observers to select traits post hoc—a misstep unchecked in
most analyses using published trait lists—is virtually removed (Ousley and Hefner 2005).
In other words, they achieve the task at hand and do so well without clouding the issue
with opinion and subjectivity.
Like most analyses with relevance in skeletal biology and forensic anthropology, the
method proposed herein is not a “works every time, 100% effective” method. This is not
necessarily a fault. Unlike ancestry-specific trait lists that lack known error rates and a
delineated method of analysis, the method proposed herein unambiguously states that an
analyst will be wrong; and knowing that you are going to be wrong—and how often—is
actually a good thing—not only because you will also know how often you should be right,
but also because understanding the rate of error (misclassification) is one aspect of good
science (Rao 1989).

Previous Research

The typological approach to the forensic assessment of ancestry is common—so ­common,

in fact, that the majority of active forensic anthropologists work within a typological
framework (e.g., Gill and Rhine 1990). When identifying unknown skeletal remains,
there is always cause to reflect on the range of variation present within and between
­populations. In every aspect of skeletal biology, consideration of how a trait is differ-
entially expressed between groups (or between sexes, etc.) is an obligation. By ignor-
ing the true nature of human variability and relying almost exclusively on an inherited,
unquantified, and typological approach, assessing ancestry using morphoscopic traits is
a complicated method. This is especially true when using only the simplified grades of a
feature supposedly linked explicitly to a specific race cited in the literature. Experienced
observers can, and do, ­correctly assess ancestry, but not always in a manner that can be
objectively defined.
Although an element of subjectivity may always be present, minimizing subjectiv-
ity is another goal of science (Rao 1989). And while the observer’s experience and her
expert-level confidence in the underpinnings of human variation is an important factor
in ancestry assessment using morphoscopic traits, the interaction of morphoscopic traits
and their relationship within and between groups is the true driving force behind their
utility in the proper assessment of ancestry.
With that said, the experience-based approach often overlooks the meaningful infor-
mation. This is true in forensic anthropology and in other fields where one’s experience
is often cited as the “how” in a method. And yet, research on the judgment process has
concluded that an expert’s interpretation of complex variables outside a statistical frame-
work is not as accurate as the expert would like to believe (Hastie and Dawes 2001). In fact,
many of these same studies indicate that an expert’s evaluation of his or her performance is
often at odds with reality. In other words, the honest expert should really ask, “Am I doing
any better than flipping pennies?” (Meehl 1986:136). Accurately predicting an unknown
event from visual information (e.g., assessing ancestry using a suite of traits) is also subject
Cranial Morphoscopic Traits 29

to “certain systematic flaws; perhaps the most prominent…is simple ­overconfidence”

(Meehl  1986). Like  experts in other fields, forensic anthropologists are not immune to
­overconfidence. They, too, very often cite expertise and experience as the fundamental
influence in an analysis.
Yet research has demonstrated several problems inherent in the human judgment
process, which, if correct, would greatly diminish the value of the experience-based
approach to ancestry assessment. For example, psychological experiments have shown
that experts rely on very little information to make a prediction of an unknown event,
in part because feedback is often not available until long after a judgment has been made
(Hastie and Dawes 2001). This is also true when a forensic anthropologist assesses ances-
try; only after the assessment is made and a positive identification is established does the
forensic anthropologist learn the accuracy of that judgment. Most often, the information
obtained after the fact leads to adjustments in the relative importance of each trait with no
empirical basis for supporting the decision. This leads to eventual post hoc trait selection
conditioned on the cranial gestalt (Ousley and Hefner 2005).
Without a doubt, the experience-based approach to ancestry assessment is not immune
to errors introduced during the judgment process. But another paradox even more detri-
mental to the entire process is that morphoscopic traits found in the ancestry-specific trait
lists are not distributed in a manner that permits assessments based on visual observation
and experience alone. However, if differences in the distribution of these traits within and
between groups can be maximized, their full potential can be realized. This is the role that
statistical methods can play in ancestry assessment.
First, however, we need to understand how these traits are properly scored, which
requires a certain level of standardization in observations. For the current study, the suite
of morphoscopic traits is defined and illustrated according to the guidelines outlined by
Hefner (2009). For clarity, the seven traits incorporated in this study are repeated here with
only slight modifications from that earlier manuscript.

Reference Sample Description

The three groups selected as reference samples for this investigation represent ancestry
groups encountered in the majority of forensic anthropology cases in the United States. The
American Black sample (n = 218) comprises nineteenth and twentieth century American
Blacks from the Terry Collection (n = 180) and modern American Blacks (n = 38) from the
William M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection. The Terry Collection material is currently
housed at the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), Smithsonian Institution, in
Washington, DC. The William M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection is currently housed
in the University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology, Knoxville. The American
White sample (n = 146) comprises nineteenth and twentieth century American Whites
from the Terry Collection (n = 100) and modern American Whites from the William M.
Bass Donated Skeletal Collection (n = 46).
Hispanic data (n = 176) were obtained from the Pima County Medical Examiner’s
Office (PCMEO), Tucson, Arizona. Anderson (2008) provides a thorough overview of
the recognition and classification process for the unidentified border crossers (UBC)
encountered in Pima County. These UBCs are identified by the PCMEO using a “pre-
established profile…that indicates the decedent was engaged in the undocumented
30 Biological Affinity in Forensic Identification of Human Skeletal Remains

crossing of our southern border” (Anderson 2008:12). Due to this diligence of the
PCMEO, all of these individuals are placed in one broad category: Hispanic. Justification
is perhaps obligatory and is provided by Anderson (2008), who demonstrates the effi-
cacy of the model used by PCMEO. Of the UBCs eventually identified by the PCMEO,
92% were Mexican nationals; the remaining 8% were from the Caribbean, Central and
South America, and other countries predominantly inhabited by individuals considered
Hispanic in the United States. For more detailed information on the UBC individuals
(and justification for their inclusion in this line of research), the reader is referred to
Spradley and colleagues (2008).

The Seven Traits

The anterior nasal spine (ANS) is a protrusion of bone extending forward at the base of
the nasal aperture (Figure 3.1). In some cases the anterior nasal spine is quite small; in
others, the ANS dominates the vertical maxilla. Because of the fragility of the anterior
nasal spine and the position of this trait on the face, taphonomic factors and patho-
logical responses to disease can alter the projection of the spine. Those crania exhibiting
trauma, pathology (including alveolar resorption), or postmortem damage to the overall
inferior nasal margin should be excluded from the analysis. To score the anterior nasal
spine, view the cranium laterally. The ANS is scored progressively as slight, intermediate,
and marked:

1. Slight: minimal to no projection of the anterior nasal spine beyond the inferior
nasal aperture
2. Intermediate: a moderate projection of the anterior nasal spine beyond the inferior
nasal aperture
3. Marked: a pronounced projection of the anterior nasal spine beyond the inferior
nasal aperture

Inferior nasal morphology (INA) is the most inferior portion of the nasal aperture,
which, when combined with the lateral alae, constitutes the transition from the nasal floor
to the vertical portion of the maxillae, superior to the anterior dentition (Figure 3.2). INA
is an assessment of the shape of the inferior border of the nasal aperture just lateral to

1 2 3

Figure 3.1  Character states for the anterior nasal spine (ANS). See text for detailed descriptions
of each character state.
Cranial Morphoscopic Traits 31

Oblique view Oblique view Oblique view

Cross-section Cross-section
Cross-section
1 2 3

Oblique view Oblique view

Cross-section Cross-section
4 5

Figure 3.2  Character states for the inferior nasal aperture (INA). See text for detailed descrip-
tions of each character state.

1 2 3

Figure 3.3  Character states for interorbital breadth (IOB). See text for detailed descriptions of
each character state.

the anterior nasal spine. The morphology of INA ranges from an inferior slope with no
­delineation of the inferior border (guttering), to a sharp and vertical ridge of bone (nasal
sill). The five character states of INA should be scored following these guidelines:

1. Guttering is a pronounced sloping of the nasal floor beginning within the nasal
cavity and terminating on the vertical surface of the maxilla, producing a smooth
transition. This morphology can be differentiated from INA 2 (see later discussion)
by noting the more posterior origin and greater slope of INA 1.
2. Partial guttering is a moderate sloping of the nasal aperture beginning more anteri-
orly than in INA 1, and with more angulation at the exit of the nasal opening.
3. Straight is a straight transition from nasal floor to the vertical maxilla with no inter-
vening projection of bone. This morphology is usually angled sharply, although more
blunted forms have been observed.
4. Partial sill is any superior projection of the anterior nasal floor, creating a weak
(but present) vertical ridge of bone traversing the inferior nasal border (partial sill).
5. Nasal sill is a pronounced ridge (sill) obstructing the nasal floor-to-maxilla transition.

Interorbital breadth (IOB) is the distance between the dacrya (Howells 1973). As a
morphoscopic trait, interorbital breadth (Figure 3.3) is assessed relative to the total breadth
of the facial skeleton: (1) narrow, (2) intermediate, or (3) wide.
32 Biological Affinity in Forensic Identification of Human Skeletal Remains

Nasal aperture width (NAW) is the breadth of the nasal aperture relative to the facial
skeleton (Figure 3.4). The width of the nasal aperture is (1) narrow, (2) medium, or (3) broad.
Nasal bone contour (NBC) is the contour of the midfacial skeleton in the region where
the nasal bones and the frontal process of the maxilla meet (Figure 3.5). Assess the contour
approximately 1 cm below nasion. The following character states are used to assess NBC:

0. Low and rounded

1. An oval contour, with elongated, high, and rounded lateral wall
2. Steep lateral walls with a broad (roughly 7 mm or more) and flat superior surface
plateau
3. Steep-sided lateral walls and a narrow superior surface plateau
4. Triangular cross section and no superior surface plateau

Nasal overgrowth (NO) is the inferior projection of the lateral border of the nasal bones
beyond the maxillae in the area of nasale inferious (Figure 3.6). Assessment of nasal over-
growth does not include anterior bulging of the nasal bones. Observations should be made
of the left side if it is undamaged. If the left side is damaged, the right side may be substi-
tuted. If both nasal bones are missing or fractured (ante-, peri-, or postmortem), the trait is
not scored. Running a finger along the borders of the maxilla and nasal bones near nasale
inferious to determine whether a projection is present may be useful. Nasal overgrowth is
scored dichotomously as (0) absent or (1) present.
Post-bregmatic depression (PBD) is a slight to broad depression along the sagittal suture
posterior to bregma (Figure 3.7) that is not the result of pathology or trauma. Observed in the
lateral profile, the trait is scored as (0) absent or (1) present.

1 2 3

Figure 3.4  Character states for nasal aperture width (NAW). See text for detailed descriptions
of each character state.

0 1 2

3 4

Figure 3.5  Character states for the nasal bone contour (NBC). See text for detailed descriptions
of each character state.
Cranial Morphoscopic Traits 33

0 1

Figure 3.6  Character states for the nasal overgrowth (NO). See text for detailed descriptions
of each character state.

0 1

Figure 3.7 Character states for the post-bregmatic depression (PBD). See text for detailed
descriptions of each character state.

Ancestry Assessment in a Statistical Framework

Since the experience-based, trait-list-driven approach to ancestry assessment is ­questionable

at best, a reliable, objective method to replace that approach is necessary. One alternative pre-
sented here is a fairly common classification statistic in anthropology. Discriminant func-
tion analysis (DFA) is not a new approach to ancestry assessment, including in conjunction
with cranial nonmetric traits (cf. Finnegan and McGuire 1979). Giles and Elliot (1962) first
used a linear discriminant function analysis to predict “race” from the cranial measure-
ments of a sample of American Whites, American Blacks, and Native Americans. In the
1960s and 1970s, DFAs were calculated by hand (including the ever intimidating calculation
of the variance/covariance matrix) using a pencil, slide rule, and graph paper. (Note: that is
why Dr. Jantz understands DFA better than you and I.) Today, however, calculating a DFA
is  much  simpler owing to desktop computers and statistical software packages that guide
the user through the whole process.
The rationale of linear discriminant function analysis is the classification of a target
individual (e.g., an unknown cranium) into one of several reference groups incorporating a
mathematical model similar to regression analysis (Krzanowski 2002). In regression analy-
sis, a weighted combination of predictor variables (X1, X2…Xp) is used to calculate a value
(e.g., stature from measurements of the postcranial skeleton). Similarly, DFA uses a weighted
combination of predictor variables to classify an unknown into a reference group,  but in
34 Biological Affinity in Forensic Identification of Human Skeletal Remains

discriminant function analysis the predictor variable is a derived discriminant f­unction

score  (Krzanowski 2002). This score is the singular equivalent of the weighted sum of
observed v­ alues for each original variable in the analysis derived from imputation into an
equation (see later discussion).
The underpinnings of discriminant function analysis are described fully elsewhere
(Kachigan 1982; Krzanowski 2002), so an in-depth discussion on classification statistics
and setting prior probabilities will not be repeated. Likewise, justifications and method-
ological considerations for modeling discriminant function analyses using categorical
data are cumbersome discussions better left to journal articles, theses, and dissertations
(Hefner 2007). One benefit of the proposed approach worthy of brief discussion is cross
validation, which serves as a measure of the effectiveness of the discriminant model. Cross-
validation methods partition a sample of the data set and initially perform the analysis
on a single subset, retaining the others for subsequent validation. I use a leave-one-out
jackknife procedure for this analysis, which removes a single observation from the origi-
nal data set as the validation data, processes the remaining individuals in the DFA, and
then repeats the process again using another individual. This process is repeated until
each observation in the original data set has gone through the process and a classification
matrix is constructed for the entire model. All classification rates presented herein are the
cross-validated results.

Applications

Complete (nonstepwise) discriminant function analyses using seven (ANS, IOB, INA,
NAW, NBC, NO, and PBD), five (IOB, INA, NBC, NO, and PBD), and three (INA, IOB,
NBC) variables are modeled using the sample of American Whites, American Blacks, and
Hispanics. A second series of discriminant function analyses using the same seven-, five-,
and three-variable combinations is modeled for a two-way discriminant function analysis
using the American Black and American White samples.
Again, the purpose of this volume is a relatively straightforward approach to a­ ncestry
assessment. The product of this chapter is a series of discriminant function equations
that the end user can utilize to assess ancestry by scoring morphoscopic traits and input-
ting these values into one of the equations, depending on the traits available for analysis
and the reference groups of interest. Several caveats need to be made clear, however. First,
since the end user does not have raw data, calculating probabilities of group membership
and measures of certainty for an individual classification is not possible. In other words,
these equations will classify a cranium into one of the three groups, but the greatest weak-
ness of the method is the lack of a definitive measure of how certain you can be of the
classification. The cross-validation classification rates can serve as a proxy, but should not
replace probabilities (i.e., posterior and typicality probabilities).
Second, each discriminant function requires all variables used to construct the equation.
For example, if six of the seven morphoscopic traits are present, the seven-variable discrimi-
nant function cannot be used. Taphonomic modification of the midfacial skeleton is quite
common in forensic anthropological casework. And while morphoscopic traits can be scored
on fragmented crania, unobservable traits will be encountered, so the analyst will have to
determine (usually heuristically) which traits to include in the three- or five-trait analyses
when all seven morphoscopic traits are not present.
Cranial Morphoscopic Traits 35

Results

Tables 3.1–3.7 present raw data and sample sizes for each reference group by morphoscopic
trait. The distribution of these traits within and between groups is a reflection of human
variation, not individual idiosyncrasy or admixture (contra Rhine 1990:18). Correlation
coefficients (Spearman’s rho) are presented in Table 3.8. All traits are significantly correlated,
with the exception of nasal overgrowth with interorbital breadth (r = –0.0633) and nasal
overgrowth with post-bregmatic depression (r = –0.0192).
As can be seen in Table 3.1, the complete DFA with seven morphoscopic traits and three
groups performed well, correctly classifying 83.4% of the sample (cross validated). This
method performs slightly better than Finnegan and McGuire’s (1979), whose discriminant

Table 3.1  Frequency Distribution of the Anterior Nasal Spine

Ancestry 1 2 3 Total
Black 195 14 9 218
Hispanic 48 115 13 176
White 53 33 60 146
Total 296 162 82 540
Notes: χ2 = 286.675; df = 4; p < 0.001.

Table 3.2  Frequency Distribution of the Inferior Nasal Aperture

Ancestry 1 2 3 4 Total
Black 170 10 23 15 218
Hispanic 8 21 118 26 173
White 20 16 20 90 146
Total 198 47 161 131 537
Notes: χ2 = 418.732; df = 6; p < 0.001.

Table 3.3  Frequency Distribution of the Interorbital Breadth

Ancestry 1 2 3 Total
Black 18 43 157 218
Hispanic 14 147 13 174
White 110 26 10 146
Total 142 216 180 538
Notes: χ2 = 470.779; df = 4; p < 0.001.

Table 3.4  Frequency Distribution of the Nasal Aperture Width

Ancestry 1 2 3 Total
Black 12 84 122 218
Hispanic 38 131 2 171
White 76 57 13 146
Total 126 272 137 535
Notes: χ2 = 247.700; df = 4; p < 0.001.
36 Biological Affinity in Forensic Identification of Human Skeletal Remains

Table 3.5  Frequency Distribution of the Nasal Bone Contour

Ancestry 0 1 2 3 4 Total
Black 114 50 25 19 9 217
Hispanic 11 46 16 71 13 157
White 6 22 25 40 51 144
Total 131 118 66 130 73 518
Notes: χ2 = 234.109; df = 8; p < 0.001.

Table 3.6  Frequency Distribution of the Nasal Overgrowth

Ancestry 0 1 Total
Black 152 66 218
Hispanic 21 119 140
White 88 58 146
Total 261 243 504
Notes: χ2 = 108.186; df = 2; p < 0.001.

Table 3.7  Frequency Distribution of the Post-Bregmatic Depression

Ancestry 0 1 Total
Black 116 102 218
Hispanic 122 43 165
White 123 22 145
Total 361 167 528
Notes: χ2 = 43.693; df = 2; p < 0.001.

Table 3.8  Spearman’s Rho Correlation Coefficient (below Diagonal) and Significance (above
Diagonal)
Variable ANS INA IOB NAW NBC NO PBD
ANS — 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010 0.0015
INA 0.5849 — 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000
IOB –0.2391 –0.3643 — 0.0000 0.0000 0.1559 0.0000
NAW –0.4060 –0.5081 0.4691 — 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000
NBC 0.3397 0.4418 –0.4956 –0.5538 — 0.0002 0.0000
NO 0.1457 0.1649 –0.0633 –0.1707 0.1656 — 0.6708
PBD –0.1379 –0.1912 0.1848 0.2023 –0.2176 –0.0192 —

function analysis using cranial nonmetric (epigenetic) traits correctly classified 78% of
their sample. In the current study, the first axis separates American Blacks from American
Whites and Hispanics and accounts for 91.5% of the variation (function 1). The  second
axis separates Hispanics from American Whites and accounts for the remaining variation
(function 2).
Table  3.9 presents the discriminant function equations for all two- and three-group
analyses. The unstandardized weighting coefficients and accompanying equations for the
first two functions are provided for assessing ancestry when the unknown individual is
Cranial Morphoscopic Traits 37

Table 3.9  Discriminant Function Equations for Two- and Three-Group Analyses

Group Centroid
Function 1 Function 2
Predictive Equations Sample Centroid Sample Centroid
Three-way discriminant function

Seven-trait functiona
1 ANS(0.385) + INA(0.425) + IOB(–0.700) + Black –1.757 Black –0.141
NAW(–0.123) + NBC(0.194) + NO(0.180) +
PBD(–0.208)
2 ANS(–0.123) + INA(0.198) + IOB(0.353) + Hispanic 0.817 Hispanic 0.787
NAW(–0.084) + NBC(–0.025) + NO(0.886) +
PBD(–0.011)
White 1.930 White –0.495

Five-trait functionb
1 INA(0.628) + IOB(–0.430) + NBC(0.399) + Black –1.081 Black –0.011
NO(0.149) + PBD(–0.243)
2 INA(0.082) + IOB(–0.359) + NBC(–0.589) + Hispanic 1.097 Hispanic 0.877
NO(0.796) + PBD(0.131)
White 1.211 White –0.321

Three-trait functionc
1 INA(0.667) + IOB(–0.457) + NBC(0.421) Black –1.056 Black 0.016
2 INA(–0.277) + IOB(0.693) + NBC(0.928) Hispanic 0.931 Hispanic –0.505
White 1.164 White 0.204

Two-way discriminant function

Seven-trait functiond
1 ANS(0.001) + INA(0.522) + IOB(–0.301) + Black –0.925
NAW(–0.320) + NBC(0.352) + NO(0.037) +
PBD(–0.255)
White 1.468

Five-trait functione
1 INA(0.602) + IOB(–0.393) + NBC(0.485) + Black –0.920
NO(0.017) + PBD(–0.253)
White 1.390

Three-trait functionf
1 INA(0.626) + IOB(–0.423) + NBC(0.509) Black –0.895
White 1.342
a 83.4% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.
b 71.0% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.
c 63.1% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.
d 86.0% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.
e 85.4% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.
f 85.4% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.
38 Biological Affinity in Forensic Identification of Human Skeletal Remains

suspected to be American White, American Black, or Hispanic. Equations are also provided
for assessing ancestry when the unknown individual is suspected of being either American
White or American Black.
A few examples to guide the user through the process are warranted. To use the equa-
tions, score each trait using the accompanying figures and definitions and place that value
in the appropriate position within the equation. (An Excel spreadsheet can greatly ­simplify
this process. I have one that I will make freely available to anyone ­making a request.) Two
examples will simplify the process and provide the reader with reasonable reporting strate-
gies. The reader is encouraged to assess the seven traits from the ­photographs and compare
them to the reported observations of the author. Likewise, various trait combinations can
be tried from the equations available in Table 3.9.

Example 3.1
Figure 3.8 provides the anterior and lateral views of a cranium recovered along the US–Mexican
border. The circumstantial evidence recovered at the scene suggests this individual is Hispanic
(Anderson 2008; Birkby et al. 2008). Morphoscopic traits consistent with this evidence include
the following observations. The anterior nasal spine is well developed and markedly protrudes
from the face (ANS = 3). The inferior nasal aperture (difficult to assess from a photograph) is the
straight morphology (INA = 3). Interorbital breadth and nasal aperture width are both inter-
mediate expressions (INA = 2; NAW = 2). The nasal bones have steep lateral walls and a broad
surface plateau (NBC = 2). A well-developed nasal overgrowth is observed in lateral profile (NO
= 1). A post-bregmatic depression is not present (PBD = 0). Substituting these values into the
equation for the first function:

Ancestry = 3(0.385) + 3(0.425) + 2(–0.700) + 2(–0.123) + 2(0.194) + 1(0.180) + 0(–0.208)

The discriminant function score is 1.352. Since this value does not definitively suggest
American Black (centroid = –1.757), we go to the next function. Again substituting the values
into the equation for function 2:

Ancestry = 3(–0.123) + 3(0.198) + 2(0.353) + 2(–0.084) + 2(–0.025) + 1(0.886) + 0(–0.011)

The discriminant function score in function 2 is strongly positive (= 1.599) and well above the
group centroid for Hispanics (0.787), so it is reasonable to classify this individual as Hispanic.

Figure 3.8  Anterior and lateral views of the cranium used for Example 3.1.
Cranial Morphoscopic Traits 39

Figure 3.9  Anterior and lateral views of the cranium used for Example 3.2.

Example 3.2
Anterior and lateral views of the second cranium are presented in Figure 3.9. The projection of the
anterior nasal spine is slight (ANS = 1). The inferior nasal aperture is difficult to assess from the pho-
tograph; however, the moderate slope (INA = 2) is appreciable in the anterior view of the cranium.
The interorbital breadth is wide (IOB = 3) and the nasal aperture width is medium (NAW = 2). Nasal
bone contour is most consistent with the low and rounded contour (NBC = 0), since the walls are
not high and elongated, but the superior surface is still quite rounded. No nasal overgrowth is noted
(NO = 0). A well-defined post-bregmatic depression is observed in profile (PBD = 1).
After scoring all seven traits and placing them in the equation for function 1 (three-way,
seven-trait discriminant function), we get a discriminant function score of –1.319. A negative
discriminant score of this magnitude in the first function is well within range of the group
centroid for American Blacks, so it is reasonable to classify this cranium as an American Black.
There is no need to continue to function 2.
In a two-way discriminant function analysis (American Whites versus American Blacks),
the results are even stronger. Substituting all seven trait values into the seven-trait equation:

Ancestry = 1(0.001) + 2(0.522) + 3(–0.301) + 2(–0.320) + 0(0.352) + 0(0.037) + 1(–0.255)

The discriminant function score is –3.303, well below the American Black centroid and strongly
suggesting that the skull is indeed American Black. The strength of this (and the preceding clas-
sifications) can be stated in terms of the cross-validated classification accuracy. For example,
in the previous two-way, seven-trait classification, the model correctly classified 86.0% of the
sample following cross validation.

In these examples, the intuitive nature of this discriminant function analysis is high-
lighted. In future endeavors, made-to-order discriminant functions (and other classifica-
tion methods) will be offered to provide users with multiple options for analysis and more
robust statistical methods. For now, however, the user need only remember that, as with any
­discriminant analysis, the unknown will always be classified into a reference group, even if
it does not necessarily belong to any one of the reference groups used in an analysis.

Discussion

Elsewhere, the influence of the cranial gestalt and the power of post hoc trait selection
on ancestry estimation have been discussed (Ousley and Hefner 2005; Hefner et al. 2007;
Hefner 2009). Our (preternatural?) ability as professional forensic anthropologists to
40 Biological Affinity in Forensic Identification of Human Skeletal Remains

assess ancestry from the cranium will never be divorced from our visual appreciation of
the gestalt. Stewart’s (1979:231) “indefinable ‘something’ about a skeleton that suggests
Black” or his insistence that experience is a necessity in most analyses, while true at some
level, does little to advance the methods of forensic anthropology. The exploration of sta-
tistical methods and novel approaches to ancestry estimation, along with standardization
and validation of our current methods, will surely change the way we perceive ancestry
assessments.
Trait analysis has a long history in anthropology, in general, and forensic anthropology
in particular. Like most other students, I was first introduced to morphoscopic traits in an
Introduction to Forensic Anthropology course. And, like so many others before me, I faced
the same initial confusion surrounding the interpretation of these traits as indicators of
ancestry. I now realize that a lot of this confusion could have been avoided if the true nature
of these traits within and between modern humans had been given greater emphasis. In
other words, until one can fully understand how to score morphoscopic traits properly and
consistently and appreciate the range in human variability, using these slight variations in
cranial form to assess ancestry is akin to a first-year medical student performing surgery.
University lecturers do not spend hours teaching their students the mean maximum cra-
nial length (GOL) of American Whites or Hispanics. Instead, they teach students how to
identify the bony landmarks glabella and opisthicranium and how to measure properly
between those two landmarks with calipers. The analytical component comes after the
fact. The same should hold true for morphoscopic traits. Learn and understand the traits
first. Then apply statistical methods of classification.
Of course, there will be detractors. Some practicing forensic anthropologists will ask,
“Why do I need seven traits and a fancy statistic to tell me what I already know from look-
ing at the skull?” First, good science dictates that we estimate our error rate (do not forget
about Rao). In order to do so, however, we have to be able to test the method in question.
Quantifying experience is difficult and quantifying the visual appreciation of a cranial
gestalt is impossible. By limiting (and in some ways simplifying) a method, the process of
quantification is possible and greatly simplified. More fully understanding morphoscopic
traits acknowledges the role human variation plays in their distribution within and
between groups, shifting emphasis from the typological approach of race estimation to an
acknowledgment of human variation.
Any method should point out shortcomings and inadequacies. The statistical method
presented here is not perfect. In fact, posterior and typicality probabilities, larger sam-
ple sizes, and more appropriate statistics are all needed. Forthcoming publications will
address some of these issues (Hefner and Ousley 2014), but for now these seven cranial
traits and the discriminant function analyses provide the user with a novel method for
ancestry assessment.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the Pima County Medical Examiner’s Office in Tucson, Arizona.
Drs. Parks and Anderson provided me with a great opportunity while I was there. I hope
they continue to open their doors to researchers hoping to understand the variation seen
among southwestern Hispanics. Drs. Richard and Lee Meadows Jantz have gone out of
their way on many occasions for me. My time with the Bass Collection was no different.
Their support, guidance, and understanding are always appreciated. Dr. David Hunt
Cranial Morphoscopic Traits 41

was to me, as he is to so many others, invaluable while I was collecting data at the Terry
Collection. Finally, Dr. Steve Ousley deserves a thank-you in every article I publish from
now until the day I’m dead. Thanks, Steve.

References
Anderson, B. 2008. Identifying the dead: Methods utilized by the Pima County (Arizona) Office
of the Medical Examiner for undocumented border crossers: 2001–2006. Journal of Forensic
Sciences 53 (1): 8–15.
Birkby, W., Fenton, T., and Anderson, B. 2008. Identifying Southwest Hispanics using nonmetric
traits and the cultural profile. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53 (1): 29–33.
Finnegan, M., and McGuire, S. A. 1979. Classification systems for discrete variables used in forensic
anthropology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 51:547–553.
Giles, E., and Elliot, O. 1962. Race identification from cranial measurements. Journal of Forensic
Sciences 7:147–157.
Gill, G. W. 1998. Craniofacial criteria in the skeletal attribution of race. In Forensic osteology:
Advances in the identification of human remains, ed. Reichs, K. J., 293–315. Springfield, IL:
Charles C Thomas.
Gill, G. W., and Rhine, S., eds. 1990. Skeletal attribution of race: Methods for forensic anthropology.
Maxwell Museum Anthropological Papers no. 4. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Hastie, R., and Dawes, R. M. 2001. Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment
and decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hefner, J. T. 2003. Assessing nonmetric cranial traits currently used in the forensic determination of
ancestry. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
   . 2007. The statistical determination of ancestry using cranial nonmetric traits. Unpublished
PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
   . 2009. Nonmetric cranial traits: New approaches for the determination of ancestry. Journal
of Forensic Sciences 54 (5):985–995.
Hefner, J. T., and Ousley, S. D. 2014. Estimating ancestry using morphoscopic traits: Statistical
procedures. Article first published online: March 20, 2014 DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.12421
Hefner, J. T., Emanovsky, P. D., Byrd, J. E., and Ousely, S. D. 2007. The value of education and
experience in the determination of ancestry. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the
American Academy of Forensic Sciences 19–23.
Howells, W. W. 1973. Cranial variation in man: A study by multivariate analysis of patterns of differ-
ence among recent human populations. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology, vol. 67. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kachigan, S. K. 1982. Multivariate statistical analysis: A conceptual introduction. New York: Radius Press.
Krzanowski, W. J. 2002. Principles of multivariate analysis: A user’s perspective. London: Oxford
University Press.
Meehl, P. 1986. Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and review of the literature.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ousley, S. D., and Hefner, J. T. 2005. Morphoscopic traits and the statistical determination of ancestry.
Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 11:291–292.
Rao, C. R. 1989. Statistics and truth: Putting chance to work. London: World Scientific.
Rhine, S. 1990. Non-metric skull racing. In Skeletal attribution of race: Methods for forensic anthropol-
ogy, ed. Gill, G. W. and Rhine, S., 9–20. Albuquerque, NM: Maxwell Museum Anthropological
Papers no. 4.
Spradley, M. K., Jantz, R. L., Robinson, A., and Peccerelli, F. 2008. Demographic change and foren-
sic identification: Problems in metric identification of Hispanic skeletons. Journal of Forensic
Sciences 53 (1): 21–28.
Stewart, T. D. 1979. Essentials of forensic anthropology. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.