Chapter 14 CRANIOFACIAL CRITERIA IN THE SKELETAL ATTRIBUTION OF RACE Grouse W. Gre INTRODUCTION [ gereticaton ‘of ancestry from human skeletal remains {a process some- times known as skeletal race attribution), as performed by the forensic physical anthropologist in a medicolegal setting, constitutes an important contribution to the process of records screening and personal identification, Just as determinations of age, sex and stature are useful to law enforcement in the screening of records, 3p is the identification of race. Each year new discoveries are made that make race attribution from individual remains a more precise process, Research in this area is advancing faster than in the others such as aging, calculation of fiving stature or sex determination. ironically, however, at the same time that this is happening the whole concept of race, including racial taxonomy and the idea of race as a vatid tool in evolutionary biology, is being questioned. In the last few years there have been national symposia and special forums om race at meetings of the American Anthropological Association, American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and tae American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and entire editions of popular magazines have heen dedicated to the subject of race (e.g., Discover, Nov. 1994}, So, to be effective today, the forensic physical anthropologist must, like never before, be fully aware of advances in skeletal anatomy and cognizant of the changing biological and social meanings of vace {and even the many political ramifications). ‘The Race Concept ‘The biological race concept is admittedly a difficult one and certuinly not the only way in which to view human variation. It is a very important concept for the evolutionary biologist to understand and for the forensic physical anthropologist to use. Many physical anthropologists who deal with modern human population biology, origins and relationships find race taxonomy a very useful tool. The usefulness of the xace concept, however, does not necessarily relate so closely to its validity. Other anthropologists 203 “Li, Rerdes 3 led) Grevgic Deleslegy Clos C- “roca hub, 5ypua BEM Cerio Clos204 Forensic Osteology (Brace, 1995) believe that a more valid way of looking at human biological variation is through the clinal approach (that is, as a series of subtle gradi- ents of traits} rather than through attempts to define distinguishable majar populations (which within any living species, no matter how polytypic, are admittedly never totally diserete biological entities), Both views are vali certain contexts. Some morphological waits, particularly those subject to climatic forces of selection, pattern well geographically, others do not Depending in part upon what traits are being studied and in part upon the research objectives and personal orientation of the researcher, there will probably always be these two ways of tooking at human variation. Focusing on more subtle clinal variations has never been the way that society has viewed its own biological variation. People organize and classily, and it is these perceptions and observations that eventually form the per- sonal records that law enforcement personnet obtain, Therefore, it would seem that whatever the test of biological science may choose to do about race in the future, lorensie physical anthropologists will likely continue to artien- late results of their analyses within the framework of the traditional race concept, at least as long as society itself does this. In this way the forensic physical anthropologist is providing informuation on ancestry that is compre- hensible to law enforcement and fo the rést of the society in which we all must operate. The Race Formation Process Races within many widely distributed species develop because the process of subspecies formation is central to their continued survival over wide- ranging und varied habitats. Race formation, iv other words, is an adaptive response to success, As success of a species leads to increased numbers and radiation into widely separated ecological niches, genetic responses are necessary, Physical variation resulis. This dispersion and increased genetic variability constitutes a hedge aguinst extinction, thus enhancing the contin- uued success of the species. Subspecies formation can even serve as a prelude to the origin of new species, at least in some species less mobile than Fone sapiens. The resouree- dul human species, just as various interbreeding and mobile breeds of wild. ducks, will in all probability remain asa widely dispersed, securely adapted polytypic single species. In this way total extinction becomes highly unlikely, The understanding of racial dynamics, particularly at the subspecies level, is tantamount to an effective understanding of evolutionary process. The forms subspecies or race do not have to be used, but they appear to be far superior (less ambiguous) than any others.Craniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race 295 Racial Taxonomy 11 does not create a particular problem if many anthropologists choose to cffectively ignore the traditional concept of race, or even actively reject it, if they find it less productive than more quantitative approaches to genetic relationships. However, the forensic anthropologist cannot. As long as soci- ety perceives human variation in terms of diserete races (sometimes event social races}, then the forensic anthropologist must be prepared fo at least articulate results of analysis in those terms, This necessitates bringing modern. populational thinking avd terminology into an old, traditional scheme of racial classification; one encumbered ever: by past association with unsopis- ticated typological concepts. This is not, however, an insurmountable lisita- tion and has actually proven over the years to be easier than attempting to establish new terminology. Racial taxa such as white (or Caucasian), black or American indian have clear meaning to both the scientists and to law enforee- ‘ment personnel. More difficwlt are the “social race” terms like “Hispanic” which are induded in individual records to mean sometbing about race, Jn reality, Hispanic can mean a southern European white, a Spanish-speaking Meso~ american or South American Indian, of, as is usually the case, a blend of the {wo [mestizo). Fortunately, most people of uumixed Spanish background list themselves as “Caucasian,” and most American Indians with Hispanic names consider themselves as American Indians, not Hispanics, So, the term “Hispanic,” as it is most often used (to mean Mestiza or Latino}, does conforin t0 some biological reality and has even become « term used by the forensic anthropologists themselves. Part of the broader “social race” problem lor scientists today is the increas- ng use of “ethnic categories.” Some of these ethnic categories (ie. Hispanic, ‘American black} have always been there to provide instances where the proportions of European to non-European ancestry are tar from any xed percentage. Others are new and create an even greater nightmare for the biologically oriented anthropologist. Some of the new categories are not only too vague and inadequate for use in biological science but are also unacceptably ethnocentric. For instance, to call unknown Caucasoid cranial remains “Euroamerican” is quize unjustifiable. Nothing known to medern science can possibly prove these skeletal remains to be either “Euro” or “American,” They could just as readily be Turkish or Moroccan. With more than 90 percent accuracy they could probably be shown to be Caucasoid, but nothing, in skeletal biology will show them to be Euroamerican. The term uroamerican by itsell is not bad. If applied to trade beads of Austsiat manufacture found in an archaeological context on the Great Plains of296 Forensic Osteology North America it would be perfectly appropriate, To use this term (and related ones: African-American, Native American), however, to imply race is reprehensible. In short, scientists have no business using terms for human populations that ave virtually devoid of biological meaning. Ttwill not be the purpose of this chapter to cover all criteria involved in skeletal attribution of race but rather to concentrate on the most reliable traits of the skull and face, with emphasis on recently developed or little- known methods of analysis, TRADITIONAL METHODS From the earliest days of physical anthropology, extending well into the Jast century and before, cranial studies have been made with an orientation toward distinguishing traits peculiar to the major geographic races of human- kind. Significant progress bad been made in the quantification of skeletal criteria for the various buman races by the early decades of this century {Hrdlicks, 1903, 1927; Morant, 1927; Hooton, 1930, 198; Woo & Morant, 1934), The Six Geographic Races ‘Today, much of this information is elfectively condensed and reviewed in manuals used routinely by forensic anthropologists and other human oste- ologists (Olivier, 1969; Stewart, 1970, 1979; El Najjar & McWilliams, 1978; Rathbun & Buikstra, 1984; Krogiman & Iscan, 19865 Reichs, 1986; Steele & Bramblett, 1988; Gill & Rhine, 1990; White, 1990; Bass, 1995). Since most of these references are oriented toward forensic applications in North America, the skeletal biology of some populations isnot treated. Melanesian/Australoid characteristics, for instance, are not discussed in the standard relerences of Stewast (£979) or Krogman and Iscan (1986), and Polynesian traits are only rarely mentioned. So, among the sia geographic races of the world described by Carnpbell (1992), Gill and Rhine (1990), and others~ black (Negroid), white {Caucasoid}, East Asian (Mongoloid), Meianesian/Australian (Austra ‘oid), American Indian and Polynesian—four are well described metrically and anthroposcopically, while two (Polynesian and Australoid) are nol Emphasis here will be much the same, but with some treatment of Polynesian traits. Figures 1-5 provide cranial views of male representatives of each of five geographic races. Few rucially diagnostic traits show significant sexual dimorphism, Comment will be made on those that do. ‘The Samples and Approaches Among the traits commonly used by physical anthropologists in the identification of racial affinities, many are anthroposcopic characteristics ofCroniofacial Criteria in the Sheletai Attribution of Race 297 Ri Photograpted by James se 1. Polynesian. Easter Island wale (RHO) from the North Coast site of Aba Nau Nas. in of he 1981 Faster Island Anthropological Expedition Figure 2, White Frontiorsman (HRO89) trom ear the Bes dea Trading Post, astern Wyoming. He apparently died as 2 result of aaahtipfe gunshot wounds. Nowe ahe entry wound above the elt eye.208 Forensic Osieology igure J, East Asian, Early historic Chinese laborer (HOM) from the Red Mountain Cemetery, Evanston, Wyoming. Figure 4. American Indian, Late Prehistoric male (FC36-2) from Rabber’s Gulch, southwest- era Wyoming. the midface. Others relate to cranial outline and mandibular form, and fewer yet to the posteranial skeleton, The latter are not discussed here, but lor treatment of the subject of posteranial characteristics useful in race tion, the reader may wish fo review (in addition to the standardGruntofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Aitribuaion of Race 299 igure &. American black male (F647, Wyoming Crime Laboratory Case 82874). references mentioned above), Stewart (1962), Gilbert (1976), Pickering (1986), Reichs (1984) and some of the reports in Gill and Rhine (1990), particularly the contributions by Baker, Gilbert and Gill and by Iscan, Also, a recent report by Gill (1995) treais posteranial differences between whites and Ameri- can Indians, Table J lists the most commonly used craniofacial traits. This list has been compiled over the years from traditional checklists of Krogman {1962}, Olivier (1969), Stewart (1979), Bass (1987), and Rhine (1990), and from personal observations of crania in archaeological and forensic contexts. The Polynesian characteristics in Table T are based upon work by Muvvill (1968), Howells (1973a, 1973), Snow (1974), Houghton (1977), Pietrusewsky (1876), nd data collecied on 425 protohistorie Faster Islanders excavated during the 198] Easter Island Anthropological Expedition (Gill, 198la) and subse- quent expedition tips and studies (Gill, 198ta; Chapman, 1995; Gill & Owsley, 1995; Owsley, Gill & Ousley, 104), Traits of blacks, East Asians, and whites are drawn largely from the publications of Krogman (1962), Stewart (1979) and Rhine (1990) and the work of Gill on Terry Collection materials, carly historic cemetery samples, and forensic cases from Tennessee, Wyo- ming and New Mexico. The American Indian traits are based partly on the works of Rhine (1990) and Bass (1987, 1996), but mostly upon observations by Gill on 245 classic and postelassic Mesoaznerican Indian skeletons from. western Mexico (Gill, 1971; Gill & Case, 1983}, a number of Peruvian collections, and over 200 skelotous of Northwestern Plains Indians (Gill, 1981b, 1991; Scheiber & Gill, n,)Forensic Osteologyy ape ao wipe apr wigan snsepone vemos sesspoct orampocr ——_wompod en nie s9001 sojoq pono go anapou swoon aiipeeny Spin pitiod note open Preqitous proquons ougecen sing pa nese sgoqeaed pauno yompar eonpos aeons perp sen prioions 9p, 2H paypaeys onsgnam ster * aes urapaes npes sees Sige —_wtess wooston ‘rpm soy asormot ng sot Sm eapons omypaee capone seid py Beaders sunypoun popunor diy mopomypom —_seinqo? ay getsen sre crnipon—_promnegpour eon, ey 08 ‘eewiag Beat Pa eae wee oH Bases YOVY OIHaV¥OOTD HOVE OL NOWNOD SNOLLVNEVA LIVEL TYIDVIOINVED reaeLCraniofocial Criteria in the Skeletal Auribution of Race wot Most of the terminology in Table 1 will be familiar to human osteologists, and cranial views illustrating these traits are provided by Rhine (1990) and Bass (1995), The palatal and orbital forms are defined and illustrated by Olivier (1969), and the palatal Jorms and transverse palatine suture forms iJlustrated and discussed by Gill (1985, 1999). Brues (1990) treats in detail the form of the nasal bridge and defines “tented,” *steeple-shaped” and “quonset hut” profiles of the nasal skeleton. Some description of her approach is also contained below. For additional nomenclature and definitions, see Gill agi). The Mast Useful Craniofacial Traits Certainly not all of the traits listed in Table 1 are to be given equal weight in assessing ancestry. Cranial form, for instance, can vary widely within major races and between racial groups. Viewed in conjunction with sagittal contout, however, the trait is at least of some value as an indieator of racial aifinities. Nose ano Mourn. ‘The area of the nose and mouth is the most useful for race assessment, Most of the traits in that region are important, The value of the shovel-shaped incisor as an indicator of Mongoloid ancestry (both American Indian and East Asin} is wetl known to forensic anthropologists, A report by Hinkes (1990) provides valuable information on the worldwide distribution (degrees of development and frequencies of occurrence} of t ait, In recent years some attention, has been paid 10 the nasal bridge and adjacent bones of the maxilla as indicators of ancestry (Brues, 1990; Gill et al., 1988; Gill & Gilbert, 1990). This region of the face can be approached either anthroposcopically or metrically (see discussion below). the shape and form of the nose, as listed in Table 1 (nose form, nasal profile, nasal sill and spine), should be considered in any evaluation of geoyraphic race, The combination of narrow Jeptorthine nasal aperture, shgrp sill, and long, straight nasal spine, is a common constellation of traits in whites (Figs. 2A & 2B). Equally Jamilias is the broad nasal aperture of most Blacks, found’ in combination with short, heavy nasal bones (which form a low bridge), a small nasal spine, and either a guttered or reduced nasal sill (Bigs, 5A & 5B), American Indians can often be distinguished from whites in this part of the lace by their concavo-convex nasal profiles (Fig. 4B) and the upward tilt to. a medium-sized nasal spine. Some East Asians show the same pattern (Fig. 38). The interorbital area (adjacent to the nasal bones) is extremely useful in distinguishing whites from American Indians (Gill ot al, 1988) and also whites from blacks (Gill & Gilbert, 1940) (see discussion below). Little comment is necessary with regard to total lacial prognathism, alveo-302 Forensic Osteology lar prognathism, and degree of projection of the malars, These features are commonly observed by human osteologists. A few features of the dentition and jaw bones do deserve comment, however. Often overlooked in analysis, they are of special value when dealing with fragmentry remains. Associated with the reduced alveolar prognathism of whites is an almost invariable crowding of the dentition. ‘The teeth are usually small and exhibit noticeable averbite (Fig, 2B). Sometimes a Carabelli’s cusp occurs on the first molar, Clear concavity (cupping) may be seen below the lower incisors, superior to a prominent chin. The crania of blacks, on the other hand, show so much alvealar progna- thism that teeth are rarely crowded and maxillary incisors are often procum- bent (Fig. 5B}. The extreme projection of tie maxilla resuits in a noticeable angle between the incisor root and the tooth itself. This can be observed on. very fragmentary jaws of blacks. An undulating mandibular border, narrow posterior aspect to the horizontal mandibular ramus, and a very oblique gonial angle are also often found among the blacks (Fig. 3B}. American Indians, Kast Asians and Polyntesians show the opposite condi- tion from blacks with regard to mandibolar form and robusticity. Their gonial angles are square atid their horizontal ranai are heavy (Figs. 1B, 3B, & 4B}. A particularly uncommon aspect of the Polynesian mandible is the well-known “rocker jaw," (Fig, 1B) found among 73 percent of New Zealanders and 8) percent of Hawaiians (Houghton, 1977), Other Polynesians show similar frequencies, except for the enigmatic Easter Islanders (48.5%) who also possess unusual frequencies for other discrete skeletal conditions, This, probably reflects a small Amerindian genetic contribution to the original Easter Island population (Chapman, 1993; Gill, 1994), Patate anb Patative Suture, Form of the palate and shape of the transverse palatine suture are important features to consider in the assess ment of major racial affinities (Fig. 6). A high frequency of American, Indians trom Canada to Peru show a distinctive elliptic or horseshoe-shaped. palate with a straight transverse palatine suture, Blacks tend to show a long, parallel-sided palate called the hyperbolic or U-shaped palate, 1t often possesses a distinct anterior curve of the transverse palatine suture called the “arched” suture form, The arch is often rounded near the midline {intermaxillary suture) (Fig. 68). Whites most often show a parabolic palate (occasionally almost triangular in form) and an accompanying palatine suture with sharp anterior projections near (but uot on) the midline. The majority of Polynesians possess the parabolic form (but not triangular), and East Asians exhibit the elliptic palate of their Amerindian cousins. although in somewhat lower lrequencies. Recent efforts by Boronat (1984) working with materials at Maxwell Museum and by Chapman (3991) working with similar data collected by Gill on palates and palatine sutures have improved the quantification of these traits (see discussion below).Cruniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Atribution of Race 303 A B Cc Figure 6, Elliptic palate with straight suture common among American fndians (A, hyper. bolic pute with curved suture common among blacks (B), and parvbolic palate with jagged some coraman among, whites {G). Mastom Fors, Another anthroposcopic trait tittle used today, but of value, is variation of mastoid torm, Figure 7 shows three common mastoid Jorms as described by the late Georg K, Neumann (personal communication), ‘The oblique angle of the mastoid of blacks with its characteristic tubercle (located along the posterior border} constitutes the most distinctive of the mastoid forms. High frequencies of Polynesians, East Asians and American Indians exhibit a wide mastoid, Whites tend to show narrower, somewhat more pointed, and quite vertical mastoids. As with many commonly known, traditional anthroposcapic approaches, use of mastoid form suffers from a Jack of quantification, Unlike the palate shapes and palatine sutures which are now undergoing thorough analysis, mastoid form has not yet been adequately studied. The population frequencies for each form are not Y vv U A B c igure 7, Mastoid foress as originally depicted hy Neumatin. Rach view represents the lateral culling ofa left mastoid procass. The wide mastoid {A} is most wypicel of American Indians, and the very oblique masioid with tubercle (Bis charucevistie of blacks. Whites offen exhibit a narra, pointed mastuid process (C) Meri Avraoacuss. Even though non-metric approaches are strongly favored by forensic anthropologists in the skeletal attribution of race (and for the other basic assessments as well), some metrics have been utilized too (Giles & Elliot, 1962; Howells, 1970), In the recent past, the Giles and Elliot (1962) discriminant funetion method was widely used for both forensic race and sex identification. The sexing techniques, with some revision (Giles & Elliot, 1963; Giles, 1970), are still quite elfective. The same cannot be said of304 Forensic Osteology ‘the race identification part of the Giles and Elliot method. The exceedingly poor results for racial identilication of skeletal remains of western region ‘American Indians (Birkby, 1966; Fisher %& Gill, 1990) and for black males (Ayers et al, 1990) probably account for the general distrust in and the decreasing reliance upon the Giles-Eiliot approach, “Today, more and more researchers ure turning to computer applications of metric data such as Fordise. For {uriler information on this approach, tone may consult Jantz and Ousley (this volume}, Some problems have been encountered with Fordise, since certain population samples in the data base are still quite small (Hispanics, lor instance), In time, however, as sample sizes increase, this current problem should abate. ‘A recently developed metric approach to interorbital projection (Gill et al., 1988) seems to be quite accurate in distinguishing the crania of whites from those of all other major populations. Furthermore, it seems to be somewhat more accurate than non-metri¢ assessment of the sume part of the facial skeleton (Gill & Gilbert, 1990), More will be said about interorbital projection below. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, “The past decade hus witnessed a number of developments in racial assessment, These inchide everything from new descriptions of racial differ- ences in the structure of the middle ear 10 shapes of facial and palatal sutures. Recently Developed or Recently Tested Approaches Nasa. Bonss. An important method developed years ago by Brues (1480, 1900} and used successfully by her for some time involves visual assessment of the shape of the nasal bones. The region observed is the nasal root just below nasion. As Brues points out, the nasal bridge in that area is differently shaped among the blacks, Mongoloids (including American Indians), and whites. The low, curved shape of the nasal root of blacks Brues refers to as Squonset hut” in cross section, while Mongoloids shaw a more straight- sided, “tent-shaped” form. Whites have the highest nasal bridge of all, with the two nasal bones rising abruptly to the midline to form a high “church steeple” shape in cross section. Brues provides photographic iHustrations of these three forms (Brues 199055). JwrrRoRMTAL Pxopscrion, A method developed by Gill and Hughes {Gillet al., 1998; Gil] & Gilbert, 1990) examines metrically the nasal skele- ton and adjacent interorbital and midiacial areas. The technique has to dateCmmiojacial Criteria tn the Skeletal Attribution of Race 305 been tested on a few hundred blacks, whites, American Indians, East Asians and Polynesians. It has been found reliable in sorting whites rom other populations in approximately 0 percent of cases (Gill et al., 1988). Measure- ments of projection, known as subtenses, are teken with a modified coordi- nate caliper called the simometer. The simometer is described and illustrated, in Howells (1973:164) and Bass (1987, 1995). The method itself has also been, described andl illustrated (Gill et al., 1988). No other single approach appears to produce such reliable results. Females place somewhat more reliably than, males. OF 73 American Indian females from various regions of the United States, 94.5 percent were correctly separated from white females using this method. In the Northwestern Plains area, nearly 100 percent of specimens ‘of both sexes and all races classify correctly. The method has the additional advantage of being quickly applied following a standard form (see Appen- dix 1). Also, for thase sesearchers who prefer (o use visual assessment rather than metrics, a purely anthroposcopic version of the test has been described and illustrated photographically (Gill & Gilbert, 1990:48). In the original interorbital ‘projection study (Gill et al., 1988) which included 173 American Indiens and 125 whites, 68.8% of Whites and 87.9% ‘of American Indians (of all regions and both sexes} were correctly classified. More recent tests by other researchers on independent samples have yielded results even better than the original study (Curran, 1990; Pierce, 1994). The Curran (1990) study of 50 whites and 100 American Indians from the Ameri- can Southwest produced a correct classification of 88% of whites and 95% of the Southwest Indians . The simometer approach is deieribed in several basic references (Rathbun & Buikstra, 1984; Krogman & Iscan, 2986; Bass, 1987, 1995; Steele & Bramblett, 1988; Gillet al., 1988 Gill & Gilbert 1990), and outlined in Appendix 1 of this report. Nevertheless, two points need emphasis. First, the original sectioning points between whites and Indians for the three indices (maxillofrontal, zygoorbital and alpha} tisted in some rel ences as 40-40-60 (Gill, 1984, Krogman & Iscan, 1986; Bass, 1987; Steele & Bramblett, 1988) are actually 40-38-60 as mentioned in the more recent studies (Gill et al., 1988; Gill & Gilbert, 1990) and as shown as Appendix 1, Second, these same sectioning points are also best for separating Ameri can blacks from whites and produce the same levels of accuracy. Of the 100 American blacks measured in the original sample, 1 misclassified to the white sector, with an overall percentage of correct placement of 87%. These results for blacks are not only similar to the results for whites and American Indians on overall percentage of correct placement (88.8% and 87.9% respectively) but show the same patterning by sex. That is, black females are more olten correctly placed (94.7%) than black mates (82.3%.Forensic Osteology Parate aNd PALATINE Sevunes. Dilferent forms of the human palate have been described previously (Olivier, 1969) and their distribution among the vurious major populations discussed (Olivier, 1969; Gill, 1986). These carlier discussions have tended to lack precise quantification. Chapman has recently undertaken an analysis of data on palate forms and tansverse palatine suture shapes at the University of Wyoming Human Osteology Laboratory. A fow of the sesults have beon reported in brief (Chapman & Gill, 1993; Gill, 1995}, But much more information exists in unpublished documents (Chapman, 1983; Gill & Chapman, n.d.), Table 2 draws on these records and shows the frequencies of occurrence of the three common palate forms (illustrated in Figute 8} for six populations (grouped by major race) ‘Table 3 shows frequencies for the three main wansverse palatine suture forms. “Table 2 PALATE FORMS AMONG FOUR GEOGRAPHIC RACES IN INDIAN POLYINESTAN Pore Maruosas Kester land n= ona na 6s WHITE BLACK n-w neo Bilipaic (A ¥ oe 39% OF 1% Hyperbotie(B) 6% 18% Om % 2% Pavabolic(C) SUR SA 50% an, 9% sz rhe Als Fk (2) desiguaionseorglae wath dhe dagramvel Figured Ye petcomrages hihighted an under tied inca he pale fms that ae dhe mos characters? gnostic ofthe eacalrowp “Tables “TRANSVERSE PALATINE SUTURES AMONG FOUR GEOGRAPHIC RACES WHITE BLACK AMERICAN INDIAN POLYNESIAN ome Paster Chaprnan Boreaat NW, Pleins Peru Marquesas lest n= 20 m= % y= o=1 n=® a9 n~ 160 Sieaight (A) wee ci 7% 18% 1G Arched (B) ae o% 2% WOK anterior curved) SK ait Jagged {C) so be 0% "The (A) (@) designation somvlates with the dlageans of Figure sethe peresntages highlighted stad weve! nana the stare (rms hat ue the ost charactors Atixguostcof tat val group, "Wosterior curved suturesCraniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race 307 For those who have observed these traits on forensic specimens or other skeletons over the years, there are very few surprises in Tables 2 and 8. In ‘Table 2, the whites show a preponderance of parabolic palates as would be expected from previous observations among human osteologists. The Ameri- can Indians show approximately half elliptic and halé parabolic palates, and the Blacks approximately half hyperbolic and half parabolic palates. The common, basic palate form for all Home sapiens seems to be the parabolic form (Chapman & Gill, 1993}, A}! populations seem io reveal about half parabolic palate forms or more. Where the distinctiveness of each popula ton shows itself is in the way in which each population deviates from the parabolic norm, About half the blacks deviate toward the hyperbolic with little or no manifestation of the elliptic, while about half the Mongoloids (seemingly East Asians as well as all Amerindians) deviate toward the clliptic with litle or no manifestation of the hyperbolic. Whites simply do not deviate much from the parabolic norm. Rhine (1990:15) presents evi- dene to the contrary in his Table 2. His findings could be due to Amerindian admixture in the white sample or could reflect a diflerent rating of the forms. Probably, Polynesians do not deviate much from the parabolic norm, but further study is needed to confirm this. Obviously, the Easter Islanders do deviate, but a number of other traits common to South American Indians are also found in this popalation (Gill, 1994}. This suggests a very small and probably quite early Amerindian contribution to that otherwise typically Bast Polynesian population, ‘Table 3 presents 4 more complex picture and one that suggests that varia- tions in the transverse palatine suture may be less useful than variations in palate forin in the identification of racial affinity. It is unclear for example why Boronat and associates obtained 60% or less jagged sutures among New Mexico whites, while Gill and Chapman found many more among the whites of the Northern Plains (60% among males but 99% among females). Possibly the small sample size utitized hy Gill and Chapman is a problem Blacks seem 10 show a lot of arched sutures (anterior curved) as has been previously described. Analysis of a much larger sample of American blacks (and some African blacks too) is needed, Judging from the consistency found within the two samples of East Polynesians it would seem safe io say that a little over half tend 10 show jagged sutures and about a third should be expected to reveal the arched form {and baif of that for the straight). The Polynesian sample size of 183 is good, but samples irom other island groups should certainly be examined. ‘The very different findings between the Plains Indians of North America and the Peruvian Indians is surprising. Observations on a number of North American Indian palates over the years support the fact that the small308 Forensic Osteology sample from the Northwestern Plains is at least basically representative That is, a lot of straight palatine sutures occur. It is much less certain how representative the Peruvian Indians are of the rest of South America, Per~ haps the straight suture is much more rare among them than among their North American cousins. ZxCOMATICOMAXILLARY SoTURE. Another effective method for distinguish- ing whites from American Indians has been described previously (Gill, 1988, 1995} based upon she unpublished works of Martindale (Martindale & Gilbert, 1994}. Figure 8 shows the two zygomaticomaxillary suture forms. Suture form alone quite often distinguishes whites from American Indians. ‘The “angled” form which is observed on 85 percent of American Indians (N =-i6} is most divergent near the inferior margins of the malar bone, at the. zygomaxillace anterior points (Howells, 19788). In contrast, the “curved” suture found on 85 percent of whites (N=67) is most divergent (i.e., shows its widest diameter from left to sight) at some point above the zygomasillare anterior points (note arrows in Fig. 8B), The suture among whites, in other words, curves back inward as it nears the inferior margin of the malar bone. ‘This method needs further testing on « wider sample of both whites and Indians. An impression that blacks show an almost equal percentage of the two forms also needs to be adequately quantified. AtveoLae Contour, Recent work by Brooks, Brooks and France (1990) on maxillary alveolar contour suggests much potential for differentiating between members of several biological populations. Morphological varia- tion in the shape of the maxillary alveolus is described by use of profile photographs accompanied by line drawings. These are done on a series of American blacks, Sudanese Nubians, whites, American Indians and South- east Asians. The method is anthroposcopic and not based upon any measure ments, it involves the maxillary bone between the roots of the upper central incisors, the lateral incisor teeth and, to some extent, the canines. Profile outlines are obtained by use of an “instant contour gauge” modified from the Formagage (using moveable pins). The contour is an exact profile of the midsagitial plane of the facial skeleton, from nasospinale to infradentale superior. Their 14 photographic plates and 21 line drawings are very useful characterizations of alveolar profile. They consider their research prelimi- nary due ta small semple sizes, but quite discernible variations of maxillary shape can be seen for the various populations. American black and Nubian black miaxillae are quite comparable and vary considerably in overall morphology from those of whites. The Ameri- can Indian contours show noticeable differences from those of the Southeast Asians and the peoples of Inclsa. Even though population samples are small, the study by Brooks, Brooks and France (1990) shows promise in the arena of skeletal race attribution, especially in the difficult area of Kast Asian-American Indian separationCraniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race 309 Figure 8. The *ungled” (A) and “carved” (B) zygomaxillary sutares described by Mactindate, Arrows indicate he points at whicl the widest diameter is obtained, Oat (Vestiotak) Winoow, Napoli and Birkby (1990) describe racial differences between American Indians and whites in the visibility of the oval window in the middle ear. Visualization of the oval (vestibular) window within the middte eer, as viewed through the external auditory meatus, ditiers between these two populations, The results of their study have been recently reviewed (Gill, 1995). It is obvious that the approach holds great promise and should be tested on more samiples representing a wider geo- graphic distribution, Posrexion Encr or Manpanoiar Ramus. Angel and Kelley (1990) report differences between blacks and whites with regard to the amount of iniver- sion to the posterior edge of the jaw ramus. They looked at 375 females and 404i males irom the Terry Collection and from forensic contexts. For both sexes inversion is lacking in 70% of 428 whites and 5% of 353 blacks, giving a 65% cace difference. They conelude that inversion of the middle third of the310 Foronsic Osleology posterior edge of the jaw ramus is a valid race trait, and suggest that blacks (US. and Atrica) can be distinguished rom whites and American Indians about two-thirds of the time using this trait alone Future Directions ‘As Rhine (1984) pointed out at the 1984 Race Symposium in Aneheim, ax important step for making non-mettic approaches more useful to forensic anthropologists, and other human osteoiogists, is the systematic testing of their utility in diagnosing racial affinity. ILis very exciting to see the great amount of progress that has been made in that direction in the decade since Rhine's statement was made. As the information presented here demonstrates, the quantification of many metric and aon-metric methods has been ‘accomplished. Yet, sample sizes are still inadequate in some cases and geographic distribution of samples still less than ideal SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: Racial variation is an important part of the adaptation of highly suecess- fol species to the varying habitats of their range. Homo sapiens, as one of tbe most successful of all species, bas evolved into many morphologically dis- tinct populations, In the course of busman existence, as people Lora widely separated geographical areas have come more and more into conte with ‘ne another, racial identity has become a part of personal identity, And so, in vontemporary society race is a parl of an individual's personal record, just as mnuch as sex, age, height, or body weight. Identification of ancestry from human skeletal remains has therefore become an important contribu: tion of forensic anthropologists to the records-sereening, process in medicole- gal identification. ‘A great number of physical characteristics of the human skeleton bave deen found to be useful in assessing racial affinities, The greatest number of these traits, and the best ones for determination of race, are craniofuctal characteristics, many of which are from the midfacial skeleton (nose, mouth, cheekbones). ‘All traits possible should be considered it the evaluation of a unknowa specimen, Yet so single trait ar even combination of traits can be considered completely diagnostic of race. Not orily do many more hybrid conditions cxist within Homo sapiens than are defined by society (or even physical anthropologists}, but race itself is simply not a qualitative or diserete condi- tion in nature. By delinition, race is quantitative. Perfection can never be attained ia defining or diagnosing a condition that does not exist in absolute form. Some metric approaches, while often quite accurate, are not practical inCraniofacial Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race Bu certain forensic contests. The future of forensic race attribution, as in the past, will probably lie in the extensive use of non-mettic observation. The techniques reviewed in this chapter do suggest this, An important task for forensic anthropologists interested in racial identifi cation is the continued quantification of all approaches new and old, Prog- ress along these lines over the last decade has been impressive, but more needs to be done, The confidence limits of several of the methods mentioned above are now known, at least within the parameters of the original study samples, and in some cases within other regional samples. Many other potentially valuable approaches, such as the use of nasal bone shapes, mastoid process form, and others, still need quantification, Quantification does not mean that these anthroposeopic trait approaches will be turned info metric ones. It simply means that the frequencies of occurrence in various populations need io be determined so that the accuracy of these tools in racial identification can be known and be stated in court. Many of the muthors mentioned here have begun this task. We should not take the stand as expert witnesses presenting evidence for biological uncestry with- out knowing the accuracy of our awn determinations. We all have some sense of the confidence limits for methods we use, but this “sense” is no longer sufficient in terms of scientitic accuracy or legal precision, For those of us involved in forensic racial identification it bas been extremely gratify- ing to see the progress of the last decade, Nevertheless, more can be done and undoubtedly will be done as we carry forensic physical anthropology into the twenty-first century, REFERENCES Angel, J and Ketley, J.0, Inversion of the posterior edge of the jaw ramus: New aoe trait, In Seiia? Auritusion of Race, G.W. Gill and 8, Rhine (Eds). Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Anthropology Papers No, 4, 1480:33~98 Ayers, HG, Jantz, RL, and Moore-Jansen, PH. Giles & Elliot race discriminant functions revisited: A test asing recent forensic cases. In Steleel Attribution of Rece. G.W, Gill and 8, Rhine (Eds), Maxwell Muscum of Anthropology, Anthro- pology Papers No. 4, 1990, 65-71. Buss, WM, Humon Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Matiual of the Human Skeleion (3rd Ea.), Cohinebia: Missouri Archaeological Society, 1987, Bass, WM. Human Osteology: 4 Laboratory and Field Manval of the Human Skeleton (4th Ed). Columbia: Missouri Archacolagical Society, 1995, ‘Birkby, WH. An evaluation of race and sex identification frow cranial measurements American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 18, 24-21-28, Boronat, M.A. The transverse palatine suture and its use 10 determuine race in Cancasoids for forenste anthropology. Unpublished manuscript on file at Max- well Museum of Anthropology.312 Forensic Osteology Brace, GL. Region does not mean “ave"—reality verse convention ia forensic anthropology. fouraal uf Foransic Seiences: 1995, 40(2):171-175, Brooks, S. Brooks, REL, and Branee, D, Alveolar prognathism contour: Ap aspect fof racial identification. [n Skeletal Anibution of Race. G.W. Gil and S. Rhine, (Eds). Maxwetl Museum of Anthropology, Anthropology Papers No. 4, 1990, 41-46. Bras, A.M. Discussant comments, Forensic Anthropology Symposium, XL Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Denver, Colorado: £98. Brues, A.M. The once and forure diagnosis of race, {n Skeletal attributions of Roce GAM, Gill and 5. Rhine (Eds.}. Maxwell Muscum of Anthropology, Authropol- ‘ogy Papers No. 4, 1990, 1-7. Byrd, JE and fants, [4 Osteological evidesce for distinet social groups at the Teavenworth site. In Skeletal Biology in she Great Plsins, DW. Owsley and R.L. Jantz (ds,} Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995, 203-208. Campbell, B.G. Humankind Emerging (3th Bd.), Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1902, Chapman, B, ‘The palate: Ruco and sex, Unpublished manuse University of Wyoming, 1993. Chapman, P. Analysis of non-metric cranial waits from prehistoric Easter Ishand ‘with comparisons to Peru. Master's thesis, Department of Anthrapology, Univer. sity of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 1995, Chapman, P., and Gill, GW, Use of the palate and palatine suture in race identification. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Mecting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Roston, Massachusetts, 198 Curran, B-K. The application of measures of midfacial projection for racial classification, In Skeletal AUtibution of Race. G.W. Gill and 8. Rhine (Eds) ‘Maxwell Buseum of Anthropalogy, Anthropology Papers No. 4, 180, 55-57 Discover, Special Issue: The Seienee of Race, Nov. 1984, 15(11). ELNajjar, MY, and MeWilliams, K.R. Forensic Anthropology Springfield, Minos: Charles € Thomas, 1978. Fisher, ED. and Gill, G.W. Application of the Giles & HMliot Discrirainant Function Formulae toa Cranial Sample of Northwestern Plains Indias. In Skeletal Attrib tion of Roce, G.W, Gill and 8, Rhine (Eds.). Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, ‘Anthropology Papers No. 4, 1990, 59-63, Gilbert, BM. Anterior femoral curvature: Its probable busis and utility as a crite- ‘ion of racial assessment. Ameria fournal of Physical Anshrepology, 1976, 45:601-604. Giles, E. Discriminant fanction sexing of the human skeleton, In Personal Ldensifioa- ian tn Mass Disastos. TD. Steward (Ed). National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., 1970, 98-109, Giles, E,, and Eliot, O, Race identification from cranial measurements. Journal of Forensic Sconces, 1962, 7147-17 Giles, E., and Elliot, O. Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of crania, American fontraal of Phusical Anthropology, 1963, 24°35-68, Gill, G.W. The prehistoric inhabitants of northern coastal Nayarit: Skeletal analysis, fon file at theCraniofacial Griteria in the Skeletal Attribution of Race 33 and description of burials. Doctoral Dissertation (Anthropology), University of Ransas, Lawrence, Kansas, HTL Gill, GW. Preliminary report of the 1981 Easter Islnd anthropological expedition. Submitted to National Geographic Society, Committee for Research and Explor ation, August 13, 98, Grant No, 2256-80, 1981a, Gill, G.W. Human skeletal populations of the Northern Plains: A preliminary analysis. In Memoir 17, Plains Anthropologist. Jantz, R.L., and Ubelaker, DH (Eds.) 1988, 26:57-70. Gill, G.W. A forensic test case for a now method of geographic race determination, In Human Jdenuificaion: Case Sludiee ix Forensic Anthropology. Rathbun, T.A., and (Eds), Springfield, Minois: Charles © Thomas, 1984, 329-259. I, G.W. Graniofacial erieria in forensic race identification. 1u Forensic Ostelogy, K. Reichs (#.}. Springfield, Illinois: Charles Thomas, 1986, 143-159. Gill, G.W, Human skeletal remains in the Northwestern Plains. In Prehisorie Hunters of the Novthern Plas. G.C. Frison (Ed.). Academic Press, 1081, 431-447, Gill, G.W. On the Settlement of Easter Istand: In Response to Paul Bubn. Rept Nui Fousal, 19, S{1):16-26, Gill. G.W, Challenge on the frontier: Disceming American Indians trom whites osteologically. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1095, 40(5):783-788, Gill, G.W,, and Case, FLW. Migration and population change in the prehistoric Marismas Nacionales of Northwestern Mexico, Paper presented at the XVIIL ‘Mesa Redonda, Sociedad Mexicma dle Anthropologia, Taxco, Guerrera, Mexico, 1988. Gill, G.W, and Chapiana, P. The palate: Race and sex, Unpablished manuscript on le at the University of Wyorning.* Gill, GW, and Gitbert, B.M. Race identification from the midfacial skeleton American blacks and wastes, Skeletal Attibasion of Race. Gill, G.W, and Rhine, S {Ea.). Anthropology Papers No, 4 Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, 1990, 47-58. Gill, G.W., Hughes, S., Bennett, $.ML, and Gilbert, BM. Racial identification from the midfacial skeleton with speciat reference 0 Amerivan Indians and whites. fournat of Forensic Sciences, 1988, 85:.92-09, Gill, G.W, suid Rhine, 8. (ds. In Sheleta Atouion of Rece, Anthropology Papers No, 4, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, 1990. Hinkes, M.J. Shovel shaped incisors in buman identification, In Skeletal Attribution of Race, Gill, GM, and Rhine, S. (Eds,). Anthropology Papets No. 4, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, 1990, 21-25, Hooton, B.A. The Indions of Pecos Puebio. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1900 Hooton, E.A. Up from the Ape. New York: The McMillan Company, 1983 Houghton, P. Rocker jaws. American Journel of Physical Anthropology, 1977, 47:905-370. Howells, W.W. Muhivariate analysis for the identification of race {rom eranfa, In Parsonal Identification in Mass Disasters. “T.D. Steward (d.). Washington, D.C. National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, 3979, 11-121 Howells, WW. The Pacific Islander: New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1975.