RACIAL IDENTIFICATION IN THE S'I(ULLAND TEETH Jodi Blumenfeld

difficult to differentiate". Skeletons that are hybrids of several different racial groups, There is one major problem in the and exhibit characteristics typical of one or determination of race and that is the extreme more race are difficult to categorise into one difficulty encountered when attempting to specific racial group. define the term "race". According to Skinner According to C. Loring Brace (1995), and Lazenby (1983:48-49), in the field of prior to the Renaissance era of trans-oceanic forensic , the term "race" is voyaging, there was no such thing as a used very broadly. Racial affinity is concept of race. Brace (1995: 174) refers to identified for the lone purpose of identifying the travels of Marco Polo and Ibn Batuta, skeletal remains. Shipman et al. who were fully aware of the wide range of (1985:250-251) define race as "...a human biological variation that existed. morphologically recognisable subset of a Neither explorer used such a concept as species". According to Dyer (1974: 1), the "race" because their voyages were broken up term "race" describes populations, not into day-long segments and they individuals, and it "...implies that a "...perceived the spectrum of human population, or group of populations, is variation as an unbroken continuum" (Brace sufficiently different from all others in the 1995: 174). After the European discovery of species to be separately recognized" . the western hemisphere, when navigational Dyer (1974:8) discusses early racial capabilities allowed one to board a boat in classifications such as the earliest England and get off in the New World classification of Linnaeus, who recognized without seeing anything in between, four human racial subspecies: Homo sapiens concepts of human variation became europaeus, Homo sapiens asiaticus, Homo categorical. Today, airplanes and the sapiens ajer, and Homo sapiens americanus. television camera have further reinforced Dyer (1974:8) also mentions the six categorical notions of human biological classifications proposed by W.C. Boyd in variation (Brace 1995: 174). 1950. Based on blood group studies, these In 1940, pronounced that classifications include: Early European, "...homogenous populations do not exist European (Caucasoid), African (), anywhere in the world" (Boas 1940:38). In Asiatic (), Amerindian, and his anthropometric experiments on the Australoid. characteristics of European immigrants to One major problem in these racial the United States, Boas stressed the classifications is that they do not take into important influence of social and geographic account the occurrence of racial hybridity. environments on body form, and stated that As Shipman et al. (1985:251) state, "...many "...head forms may undergo certain changes skeletons possess features "typical" of two in course of time, without change of or more racial groups". Shipman et al. descent" (Boas 1940:74). Boas refers to the (1985:251) use the example of "American plasticity of the form of the human cranium " who are "...an admixture of several as the "instability or plasticity of types" different racial stocks and are skeletally (Boas 1940:72). More than 50 years after Boas' ancestry, or original geographical ongms, experiments, the American Association of but no straight assessment of skin colour. Physical Anthropology published a " of course entails "", but statement on the biological aspects of race "black" does not entail African" (Brace (1996:569-570). In this statement, the 1995: 172). Jim Chatters, the anthropologist AAP A declared that all living who first described , was belong to a single species (Homo sapiens), misunderstood and misquoted when he used and all share a common descent. The AAP A the term "Caucasoid" to describe the ancient stated that there is a great deal of genetic remains (Shanklin 2000: 102). Caucasoid diversity and variation within all human does not mean "white", but only that the populations, and "...pure races, in the sense remains exhibit Caucasoid-like features. of genetically homogenous populations, do Brace (1995:172) warns that forensic not exist in the human species today, nor is anthropologists must be fully aware of the there any evidence that they have ever many biological inaccuracies contained in existed in the past" (AAPA 1996:569). the socially-expected practice of assigning According to Gill (1998:293), skeletal race to a skeleton. race attribution is important to the process of In this paper, I will attempt to describe records screening and personal the many different morphological variations identification. The AAP A may state that in the skull and teeth that occur among pure races do not exist, but society still different "racial" groups. I will also attempt perceives human genetic diversity in terms to describe the different methods, both past of discrete racial groups. This poses a and present, anthroposcopic and dilemma for many forensic anthropologists. anthropometric, which are used within the While most contemporary anthropologists field of for have abandoned the traditional Western determining race from the skull and teeth. concept of race as bounded, identifiable For the sake of simplicity, I have chosen to biological populations (Sauer 1992: 107), the use the three primary racial classifications race concept continues to persist in used in modem race identification studies in government census data and mass media forensic anthropology: Caucasoid, Negroid sources. Because of this, the forensic and Mongoloid (including American anthropologist must be equipped to provide Indians) (Sauer 1992:109). results of analysis in those terms, and thus, perpetuates the myth that races exists within our species (Kennedy 1995:798). This MORPHOLOGICAUANATOMICAL \JARIATION practice is not a vindication of the traditional IN THE )\(ULL AND TEETH race concept but a prediction, based upon skeletal morphology, that a certain label Table 1. outlines the essential would have been assigned to a person when craniofacial trait variations, which are that person was alive (Sauer 1992: 110). common to these three racial categories. Brace (1995:172) warns that skeletal analysis can provide an accurate estimate of Monjtoloid Caucasoid NeJ!Toid Cranialform broad medium Long Sagittal outline high, high, highly variable, globular rounded post-bregmatic depression Nose form medium narrow Broad Nasal bone size small large medium/small Nasal profile concave straight straight! concave Nasal spine medium prominent, Reduced straight Nasal sill medium sharp dull/absent Incisorform shoveled blade Blade Facial moderate reduced Extreme projtnathism Alveolar moderate reduced Extreme proj!nathism Malar form projecting reduced Reduced Palatal form parabolic/ parabolic Hyperbolic elliptic Orbitalform round rhomboid Round Mandible robust medium gracile, oblique gonial angle Chin pro;ection moderate prominent Reduced Chin form median bilateral Median

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

points on the sagittal plane. This study was done on the skulls of black and white males, and it concluded that the frontal bones of white males were A Caucasoid cranium is long in thicker than those of black males (Bass length, narrow in breadth and high in 1979:558). height. The sagittal contour is round, and it exhibits a somewhat sloping forehead in comparison to Negroid or Mongoloid crania. The occipital profile is rounded A Negroid cranium is long in and it exhibits strong nuchal muscle length, narrow in breadth, and low in markings (Skinner & Lazenby 1983:50). height. The sagittal contour is flat and Bass (1979) has referred to a the occipital profile is quite rounded study by Adeloye et al.,which was (Skinner & Lazenby 1983:50). The conducted in 1975 that measured the flatness of the sagittal contour is due to a thickness of the cranium at four different post-bregmatic depression, a trait that occurs frequently in the Negroid the dental region of the skull (Bass cranium (Eckert 1997:356). Skinner and 1995:88). Lazenby (1983:50) describe the Negroid The malar bones (zygomatic bones) forehead as steep, but El-Najjar and retreat in the Caucasoid skull which can McWilliams (1978:74) describe the make the skull appear somewhat Negroid forehead as rounded. According "pointed" (Ubelaker 1989: 119). In the to Bass (1979:558), again referring to nasal region, Caucasoids possess a rather the 1975 Adeloye et al. study, the large and sharp nasal sill (Bass 1995:88). Negroid cranium exhibits thicker EI-Najjar and McWilliams (1978:74) parieto-occipital areas than Caucasoid describe the Caucasoid nasal root crama. depression as well-marked, and mention that the "...superior ends of the nasal bones often seem to disappear beneath an overhanging projection at glabella". The Mongoloid cranium is long Gill (1986:148-149) refers to the in length (Skinner & Lazenby 1983:50), Caucasoid nose as narrow with a long, but can frequently appear round instead straight nasal spine and large nasal of long (EI-Najjar & McWilliams bones. 1978:74). The Mongoloid cranium is Ubelaker (1989:119) describes the broad in breadth and average in height, Caucasoid palate as narrow and categorised between the high Caucasoid triangular, as does Gill (1986:150) who cranium and the low Negroid cranium. also mentions that the palatine suture has The occipital profile is angular and the sharp angles close to, but not on, the nuchal muscle markings are moderate midline. El-Najjar and McWilliams (Skinner & Lazenby 1983:50). The (1978:74) and Gill (1986:149) both sagittal contour is arched due to a describe the Caucasoid orbital form as "keeling" of the skull vault (Eckert rounded. 1997:356). Gill (1986:151) discusses the Birkby (1966:25) notes that mastoid form and its use in identifying archaeological American Indian skulls race from a skull, and states that the sometimes exhibit posterior occipital Caucasoid mastoid process is narrower, cranial deformation, or occipital and more pointed than Negroid or flattening, which is the result of the use Mongoloid mastoid processes. of cradleboards during infancy. According to Lahr (1996:47), metopism "...is by definition the abnormal persistence of the medio- frontal suture into adulthood", and Lahr states that metopism can occur in Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid El-Najjar and McWilliams skulls, but it is most commonly found in (1978:74) describe the Caucasoid face as Caucasoid skulls. a "hatchet face" due to the fact that the face aligns vertically in the sagittal plane. There is little or no prognathism exhibited, because Caucasoids have an According to Bass (1995:92), orthognathic face with little protrusion in Negroid faces are renowned for exhibiting alveolar prognathism, the and larger in diameter than American anterior protrusion of the alveolar Caucasoids. process. Alveolar prognathism produces facial prognathism, which is pronounced in Negroid skulls (Gill 1986:149). Ubelaker (1989:119) notes that the Bass (1995:92) describes the Negroid face possesses rectangular Mongoloid face as flat, due to the shaped orbits and little projection of the extreme projection of the malar bones. malars. The most diagnostic feature of Bass mentions that not only do the the Negroid face, according to EI-Najjar zygomatic bones protrude forward, but and McWilliams (1978:74), is the they also project inferiorly, below the guttered nasal sill. The base of the nose inferior border of the maxilla. lacks the sharp sill seen in Caucasoid Mongoloid faces exhibit medium faces, it is round in shape and "...a gutter alveolar prognathism, but it is not as or trough is often found running laterally extreme as it is in Negroid skulls (El- about 5mm inside the nostril" (EI-Najjar Najjar & McWilliams 1978:75). El- & McWilliams 1978:74). The nasal form Najjar and McWilliams (1978:75) is broad, the nasal bones are describe the Mongoloid orbital form as medium/small and heavy, the nasal triangular, but Ubelaker (1989:119) and profile is straight or concave and the Gill (1986:149) both describe nasal spine is somewhat reduced (Gill Mongoloid orbits as round and circular. 1986: 148-149). Mongoloid nose form is medium, Ubelaker (1989:119) describes the with small nasal bones and a concave Negroid palate as wide, and rectangular nasal profile. The nasal spine and nasal in shape, but Gill (1986: 150) describes it sill are described as medium (Gill as hyperbolic with long, parallel sides, 1986:149). Ubelaker (1989:119) and mentions that there tends to be a mentions that the Mongoloid nasal definite curve in the palatine suture close aperture tends to have a pointed lower to the midline. margin, and Bass (1995:92) notes that When discussing the use of the Mongoloid skulls exhibit a nasal mastoid form in determining race from a overgrowth. "The nasal bones project skull, Gill (1986:150-151) states that forward beyond their junction with the "...the very oblique angle of the Negroid frontal portion of the maxilla" (Bass mastoid with its characteristically small 1995:92). tubercle along the inferior border Gill (1986: 151) describes the constitutes the most distinctive of the Mongoloid mastoid process as wide and mastoid forms". vertical, and mentions that there is some Post (1969) conducted a study similarity between the shape of comparing the size of the external Mongoloid and Caucasoid mastoid opening of the tear duct, or naso- processes. lachrymal canal, between American and Caucasoids. Post (1969:85) concluded that American Negroids possessed shorter naso- According to Krogman and Iscan lachrymal canals which are straighter, (1986:279), racial differentiation in the mandible is insignificant, and the mandible cannot be racially categorised with any amount of accuracy. Although they have differing views, Krogman and Iscan (1986) refer to Shultz, who believes that there are morphological According to Ubelaker (1989:120), variations between the mandibles of evidence suggests that "...maxillary Caucasoids and Negroids. lateral incisors of diminished size and Shultz argues that a Negroid variable form are more common among mandible has a "...lower, wider, and whites, such as peg-shaped forms and more vertical ramus; greater corpal and miniature versions of normal teeth". dental arch length, i.e., a long U-shaped Also common in Caucasoid dentition are dental arch; relatively smaller breadth overbites, with the maxillary teeth dimensions; a less dominant chin, i.e., protruding over the mandibular teeth mental tubercles more medial in position (Ubelaker 1989:1989:120). and smaller" (Shultz in Krogman & Carabelli's Cusp is an extra cusp on Iscan 1986:280). In contrast, a the mesio-lingual side of the maxillary Caucasoid mandible "...has larger molars. This feature is most commonly breadth measures; a higher, narrower found in Caucasoid teeth, occurring with ramus; a greater gonial angle; ramal a frequency of 35-50%, and is less surfaces more parallel to the median frequently found among Negroid and sagittal plane; (and) a more protrusive Mongoloid dentition. Other features of chin with mental tubercles more lateral the Caucasoid dentition are bucco- in position" (Krogman & Iscan lingual flattening of the mandibular 1986:279). second premolars and a long, narrow, Gill (1986:149) also notes racial parabolic arch with a high-vaulted palate variations in the mandible, and describes (Eckert 1997:309-310). a Negroid mandible as gracile, with an Gill (1986:149-150) describes the oblique gonial angle. It has a reduced Caucasoid parabolic palate as triangular, chin projection, a median chin form and and states that the reduced alveolar "...an undulating mandibular border, prognathism seen in Caucasoid skulls is (and) a narrow posterior aspect to the due to consistent dental crowding. horizontal mandibular ramus" (Gill Krogman and Iscan (1986:369) 1986:149-150). A Caucasoid mandible describe Caucasoid dental roots as exhibits a medium degree of robusticity, shorter, straighter, and less splayed than with prominent chin projection and a Negroid or Mongoloid dental roots, and bilateral chin form. A Mongoloid mention that enamel extensions are more mandible is robust, similar to a Negroid common in Caucasoid teeth. mandible, with moderate chin projection and a median chin form (Gill 1986:149). Ubelaker (1989:119) has made the observation that the anterior alveolus in According to Eckert (1997:310), a Negroid mandible is quite projecting in Negroid dentition is characterized by 2-3 comparison with Caucasoid and lingual cusps on the mandibular fIrst Mongoloid mandibles. This is due to the molar, wide, hyperbolic arches with a pronounced prognathism, or alveolar narrow palatal vault, both maxillary and projection seen in Negroid skulls. mandibular alveolar prognathism, and a Tuberculum Intermedium. A Tuberculum Intermedium is an extra According to Ubelaker (1989: 120), lingual cusp "...between the disto-lingual Mongoloid teeth are the largest in size in and mesio-lingual on (the) mandibular comparison with those of Negroids and first molar" (Eckert 1997:310). Caucasoids. Other Mongoloid dentition EI-Najjar and McWilliams features include extra distal roots on the (1978:75) mention that crenulations tend mandibular first molars, an elliptical to appear on the occlusal surface of maxillary arch with a flat palatal vault, a Negroid molars, but this has not been vertical, wide ascending ramus, enamel proven to be conclusive. EI-Najjar and pearls (lumps of enamel on the root McWilliams (1978:74) also describe the trunks of molars), and a dens evaginatus Negroid palate as rectangular in shape, - an extra tubercle on the occlusal or pointed and narrow. Krogman and surface of mandibular premolars (Eckert Iscan (1986:369) state that the first 1997:309). Protostylids, which are permanent mandibular molar in the accessory cusps/tubercles that occur in Negroid dentition often displays the the mesio-buccal surface of mandibular "Y5" cusp pattern. molars, occur with the highest frequency De Melo E Freitas and Salzano in the Mongoloid dentition (Ubelaker (1975:147) conducted a study on the 1989:120). eruption of permanent teeth in Brazilian The one dental trait that can be said whites and blacks, and concluded that in to be diagnostic of Mongoloid dentition general, there were no vast differences in is shovel-shaped incisors. Shovel-shaped the eruption rate between black and incisors have "...prominent marginal white children. The only variation found ridges on the lingual surface, giving was that at age six, black children had them a "shovel-shaped" appearance" more of their permanent teeth than white (Ubelaker 1989: 120). This occurs with a children, and this occurred with a high frequency in Mongoloid probability of five percent (De Melo E populations. According to Eckert Freitas & Salzano 1975:147). (1997:308), shovel-shaped incisors occur in 85-99% of Mongoloid dentitions. Shovel-shaped incisors can occur in Negroid and Caucasoid dentitions, but One major feature of Mongoloid the trait is rarely found in these dentition is an edge-to-edge bite that populations (EI-Najjar & McWilliams occurs when the mandible and maxilla 1978:75). are occluded. The incisor teeth will Krogman and Iscan (1986:368-369) occlude edge-to-edge without showing state that Mongoloid incisors have the overbite that is commonly found in shorter roots, that Mongoloid molar Caucasoid dentition. Occlusal wear on roots are more frequently fused, shorter, the incisors will usually indicate a and less splayed, and that tooth crowns Mongoloid skull (Bass 1995:92). are more bulbous and taper down to the neck. ME:THO[)) FOR RACIAL IDENTIFICATION Caucasoid skulls. Todd and Tracy IN THE ~~ULL AND TEE:TH focused on five descriptive traits: supraorbital ridges, upper orbital margins, glabella, the frontonasal suture and the interorbital distance. Under each Racial differentiation can be of these five descriptive traits, Todd and determined through the use of Tracy looked for two contrasting anthroposcopic, or non-metric methods. variations which they believed to be Many physical characteristics found on racially connected. The supraorbital the skull can be analyzed non-metrically ridges were either mesa-like or in order to assess the race of an undulating; the upper orbital margins individual. When trying to identify the were either sharp or blunt; glabella was race of an individual, most either rounded or depressed; the anthroposcopic methods tend to focus on frontonasal suture was either plain or the craniofacial region of the skull. The beetling; and the interorbital distance best traits for determining race tend to be was either narrow or wide. Two types of those found in and around the nose, skulls were found, a U-type and an M- mouth and cheeks (Gill 1986:156). type, both distributed throughout the two Krogman and Iscan (1986:270-274) races. Table 2. shows the distribution of describe an anthroposcopic method used both types of skulls found in the two by Todd and Tracy in 1930 to determine races studied by Todd and Tracy. racial affinity from Negroid and

Supraorb. Upper orb. Fronta- Interorb. Glabella Ridpes Marf!ins Nas.Junction Distance Modal U M S B R D P B W N Characters White + + + + + + + M-Type American Black + + + + + + M-Tvpe East African + + + + + + + + M-Tvpe West African + + + + + + M-Tvpe White + + + + + + U-TVDe American Black + + + + + U-Tvpe East African + + + + + U-Type West African + + + + + U-TVDe

Table 2. Distribution of race related morphological traits in blacks and whites. (adapted from Krogman and Iscan, 1986. Table 7.3) Gill (1986: 154-155) refers to a the ramus, the bone is turned inward in 1984 study conducted by Martindale, most skulls of African genetic origin", who looked at the zygomatic sutures in and the authors conclude that this order to determine race from a skull. characteristic is a valid trait when Martindale distinguished between the attempting to determine race from a zygomatic sutures of Caucasoids, which mandible (Angel & Kelley 1990:38). he observed to curve backwards, and of , which were more angled. Birkby and Napoli (1990) studied the oval window position in the middle ear, and its usefulness in distinguishing Anthropometric methods of between Caucasoid, Mongoloid and determining racial affinity in the skull CaucasoidIMongoloid admixed have been conducted through the use of individuals. The authors concluded that discriminant function statistics. One of the visibility of the oval window within the first methods using discriminant the middle ear is a racially indicative function statistics to determine race was trait - the oval window of Mongoloid carried out by Giles and Elliot in 1962. skulls is generally obscured from view, Giles and Elliot (1962:147-157) but this is not the case in Caucasoid and studied American Caucasoid and CaucasoidIMongoloid admixed Negroid skulls from the Hamann-Todd individuals (Birkby & Napoli 1990:31). and Terry Collections and American Brooks et al. (1990:45) Indian skulls from the Indian Knoll conducted an anthroposcopic analysis of Collections, the Gulf States, and the alveolar prognathism and its usefulness southwestern United States. Using this in determining race from a skull, and method, eight cranial measurements are concluded that "...there are racially taken and multiplied by a determined distinct differentiations in the factor. The results are then added or morphological appearance of maxillary subtracted to produce a score that can be alveolar prognathism". assessed for racial affiliation. These Angel and Kelley (1990:33) state variables and multiplication factors are that "...midway up the posterior edge of shown in table 3.

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

Variables and multiplication factors for determining race. (adapted from Ubelaker 1989, Table 26) The final score is then compared with was not useful in distinguishing between the corresponding sectioning point. Negroids and Mongoloids. Gill Scores that are greater in value than the (1986:153-154) states that no other specific point signify that the skull is not methods seems to show such stable, considered Caucasoid, but Negroid or dependable results, but adds that it does Mongoloid, depending upon the specific require the use of a simometer, which is column and sectioning point that is used an instrument that was rarely found (Ubelaker 1989: 121). and/or used at the time of his Birkby (1966) has criticised this publication. specific anthropometric method for DiBennardo (1986) has made use of determining race. According to Birkby computer implementations which have (1966:22-26), Giles and Elliot's method simplified the use of statistical methods, classifies skulls according to three main such as discriminant function analysis, in racial categorisations, and any skull that determining racial affiliation from is analyzed using this method must be skulls. placed in one of these three categories. FORDISC 2.0, by Ousley and Jantz This method does not take into account (1996), is an interactive DOS computer hybridity or human variation. program used in determining race from Birkby also criticises the cranial measurements. According to American Indian population Ousley and Jantz (1996), this program is (IndianKnoll) included in the Giles and . able to classify unknown adult crania Elliot study. According to Birkby based on known samples with the use of (1966:26), the Indian Knoll population is up to 21 cranial measurements. The not representative of all American known samples are all recent Indians found in the United States, populations, and therefore the program which would be necessary in order to should only be used in the analysis of use this method to determine race on a modern, non-archaeological individuals. national basis: "The determination of The majority of the known samples used race by discriminant functions based in the FORDISC 2.0 program are from only on a single American Indian sample the Forensic Data Bank (Jantz & Moore- cannot be used with any degree of Jansen 1988). All measurements and confidence on any other American landmarks used are published in Data Indian population" (Birkby 1966:26). Collection Procedures jor Forensic In 1984, Gill developed an Skeletal Material (Moore-Jansen et al. anthropometric method to determine 1994), which is included with each copy race" ...that results in a ninety-percent- of the FORDISC 2.0 program. correct classification" (Bass 1995:93). Howells (1989) has also used This method involves six measurements anthropometric methods, Q-Mode of the midfacial skeleton and the analysis, and analysis by population computation of three indices: the distances in order to "...search for maxillofrontal index, the zygoorbital specific distinctions between the index, and the alpha index (Curran populations of different major regions" 1990:55). According to Krogman and (Howells 1989: 1). Howells used fifty- Iscan (1986:276), this method worked seven different measurements in order to adequately to distinguish Caucasoids look for differences within six different from Negroids and Mongoloids, but it populations; Europeans, Africans (sub- Saharan), Australo-, Far involved in the practice of assigning race Easterners (Japanese, Chinese), to a skeleton. , and those from North and Different studies in racial variation, South America. Howells concluded that such as morphological variation, and there are "...signs of evolutionary both anthroposcopic and anthropometric divergence in cranial shape among methods, make useful contributions to recent populations of different the practice within modem forensic geographic areas" (Howells 1989:83). anthropology of determining racial Howells (1995) recently made use of affinity from human crania. Each multivariate analysis in determining method focuses on observations of many ethnic identification from human crania. different characteristics and traits Benfer (1970) has used occurring on the human skull. This is multivariate analysis on the associations important because no one single trait on among seven discontinuous cranial traits its own denotes "race". Only when all which were first presented in 1968 by traits are observed together and then Hertzog: five sites where accessory analysed according to a specific method, ossicles occur, the presence of parietal can inferences be made about the racial foramina and the form of the fronto- identification of a skull. One major temporal suture. Benfer found these problem with classifying human remains seven traits to occur independently from into specific races, is the fact that these each other, and concluded that they racial classifications do not take into cannot be used in order to determine account the occurrence of hybridity. racial affiliation from skulls. Methods used in order to classify individuals into separate racial categories do not take note of individuals who exhibit a mix of different "racial" traits. The geographic movement of All living human beings are peoples occurs on a very large scale, members of a single species (Homo resulting in larger populations of sapiens). There is a great deal of genetic admixed individuals. Methods used in diversity within all human populations, determining race from human skulls will and human genetic variation should be have to take note of this, and formulate perceived as a continuum, rather than different categories of racial affiliation discrete categories. But within the field when attempting to analyze race from of forensic , determining race human remains. from a skull is useful in its ability to aid in identifying human remains. Society still perceives human genetic diversity in terms of discrete racial groups, and the forensic anthropologist must be American Association of Physical equipped to provide results of analysis in Anthropology 1996. AAP A Statement those terms. In doing so, the forensic on Biological Aspects of Race. anthropologist must heed the warnings American Journal of Physical of Brace (1995:172), and always be Anthropology. 101:569-570. aware of the biological inaccuracies Angel, 1. Lawrence and Jennifer Olsen Boas, Franz 1940. Race, Language and Kelley 1990. "Inversion of the Culture. New York: The Macmillan Posterior Edge of the Jaw Ramus: Company. New Race Trait." In Skeletal Attribution of Race: Methods for Brace, C. Loring 1995. Region Does not Forensic Anthropology. Gill, Mean "Race" - Reality Versus George W. and Stanley Rhine, Convention in Forensic (eds.), pp. 33-39. Maxwell Museum Anthropology. Journal of Forensic of Anthropology, Anthropological Sciences. 40:171-175. Papers No.4. Brooks, Sheilagh, Richard H. Brooks Bass, William M. 1979. Developments and Diane France 1990. "Alveolar in the Identification of Human Prognathism Contour, An Aspect of Skeletal Material. American Journal Racial Identification." In Skeletal of Physical Anthropology. 51:555- Attribution of Race: Methods for 562. Forensic Anthropology. Gill, George W. and Stanley Rhine, Bass, William M. 1995. Human (eds.). pp. 41-46. Maxwell Museum Osteology: A Laboratory and Field of Anthropology, Anthropological Manual. Columbia: Missouri Papers No.4. Archaeological Society, Inc. Curran, B.K. 1990. "The Application of Benfer, Robert A. 1970. Associations Measures of Mid facial Projection Among Cranial Traits. American for Racial Classification." In Journal of Physical Anthropology. Skeletal Attribution of Race: 32:463-464. Methodsfor Forensic Anthropology. Gill, George W. and Stanley Rhine, Birkby, Walter H. 1966. An Evaluation (eds.). pp. 55-57. Maxwell Museum of Race and Sex Identification from of Anthropology, Anthropological Cranial Measurements. American Papers No.4. Journal of Physical Anthropology. 24:21-28. De Melo E Freitas, Mario J. and F.M. Salzano 1975. Eruption Birkby, Walter H. and Michelle L. of Permanent Teeth in Brazilian Napoli 1990. "Racial Differences in Whites and Blacks. American the Visibility of the Oval Window Journal of Physical Anthropology. in the Middle Ear." In Skeletal 42: 145-150. Attribution of Race: Methods for Forensic Anthropology. Gill, George W. and Stanley Rhine, (eds.). pp. 27-32. Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No.4. DiBennardo, Robert 1986. "The Use and Howells, W.W. 1989. Skull Shapes and Interpretation of Common the Map: Craniometric Analyses in Computer Implementations of the Dispersion of Modem Homo. Discriminant Function Analysis." In Papers of the Peabody Museum of Forensic Osteology: Advances in Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 79 the Identification of Human Peabody Museum, Harvard Remains. Reichs, KI(ed.), pp.171- University, Cambridge. 195. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. Howells, W.W. 1995. Who's Who in Skulls: Ethnic Identification Dyer, KF. 1974. The Biology of Racial of Crania from Measurements. Integration. Bristol: Scientechnica, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Ltd. Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 82 Peabody Museum, Harvard Eckert, William G. 1997. Introduction to University, Cambridge. Forensic Science. United States of America: CRC Press, Inc Jantz, R.L. and P.H. Moore-Jansen 1988. A Data Base for Forensic EI-Najjar, Mahmoud Y. and K Richard Anthropology: Structure, Content McWilliams 1978. Forensic and Analysis. Report of Anthropology: The Structure, Investigations No. 47, Department Morphology and Variation of of Anthropology. Knoxville: The Human Bone and Dentition. Illinois: University of Tennessee. Charles C. Thomas. Kennedy, Kenneth A.R. 1995. But Giles, Eugene and Orville Elliot 1962. Professor, Why Teach Race Race Identification from Cranial Identification if Races Don't Exist? Measurements. Journal of Forensic Journal of Forensic Sciences. Sciences. 7:147-157. 40:797-800.

Gill, George W. 1998. "Craniofacial Krogman, Wilton Marion and Mehmet Criteria in the Skeletal Attribution Yascar Iscan 1986. The Human of Race. " In Forensic Osteology: Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Advances in the Identification of Springfield: Charles C.Thomas. Human Remains. (2nd edition) Reichs, Kathleen l(ed.), pp.293- Lahr, Marta Mirazon 1996. The 315. Evolution of Modern Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Gill, George W. 1986. "Craniofacial Variation. Britain: University Press, Criteria in Forensic Identification." Cambridge. In Forensic Osteology: Advances in the identification of Human Moore-Jansen, P.R., S.D. Ousley and Remains. Reichs, KI(ed.). pp. 143- R.L. Jantz 1994. Data Collection 159. Springfield: Charles C. Procedures for Forensic Skeletal Thomas. Material. Third Edition. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee. Ousley, S.D. and R.L. Jantz 1996. FORDISC 2.0: Personal Computer Forensic Discriminant Functions. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee.

Post, Richard H. 1969. Tear Duet Size Differences of Age, Sex and Race. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 30:85-88.

Sauer, Norman J. 1992. Forensic Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If Races Don't Exist, Why are Forensic Anthropologists so Good at Identifying Them? Social Science and Medicine. 34(2): 107-111.

Shanklin, Eugenia 2000. Representations of Race and in American Anthropology. Current Anthropology. 41(1):99-103.

Shipman, Pat, Alan Walker and David Bichell 1985. The Human Skeleton. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Skinner, Mark and Richard A. Lazenby 1983. Found! Human Remains: A Field Manual for the Recovery of the Recent Human Skeleton. British Columbia: Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University.

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