University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2006 Alaskan Eskimo and Polynesian Island Population Skeletal Anatomy: The "Pacific arP adox" Revisited Through Surface Area to Body Mass Comparisons Wendy Nicole Leach The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Leach, Wendy Nicole, "Alaskan Eskimo and Polynesian Island Population Skeletal Anatomy: The "Pacific Paradox" Revisited Through Surface Area to Body Mass Comparisons" (2006). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 109. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/109 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ALASKAN ESKIMO AND POLYNESIAN ISLAND POPULATION SKELETAL ANATOMY: THE “PACIFIC PARADOX” REVISITED THROUGH SURFACE AREA TO BODY MASS COMPARISONS By Wendy Nicole Leach B.A., Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2003 Thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts In Anthropology The University of Montana Missoula, MT Autumn 2006 Approved by: Dr. David A. Strobel, Dean Graduate School Dr. Noriko Seguchi, Chairperson Department of Anthropology Dr. Randall Skelton Department of Anthropology Dr. Richard Bridges Department of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Science Leach, Wendy N. MA, Autumn 2006 Anthropology Alaskan Eskimo and Polynesian Island Population Skeletal Anatomy: The “Pacific Paradox” Revisited Through Surface Area to Body Mass Comparisons Chairperson: Noriko Seguchi This project is an attempt to re-examine the “Pacific Paradox”, as proposed by Philip Houghton (1996), through various morphological measurements on two climatically different populations, Alaskan Eskimo and Pacific Island groups. The “Pacific Paradox” has been widely discussed, but research using direct comparisons between this Pacific population and cold climate groups has received little attention. The methods employed are those preformed by Ruff (1994), Ruff et al (1991, 2004, 2005) and Houghton (1996) to create the most accurate determination of overall body form in both populations. Eight measurements were used to construct variables to create an accurate portrayal of overall body shape. These measurements were taken on Alaskan Eskimo populations spread throughout the entire region of Alaska and on Polynesian populations from a wide variety of Pacific Islands. The overall comparisons demonstrate similarities in the two body mass estimations; the bi-iliac breadth measurement and maximum femoral head diameter, and in the overall stature to body mass ratios, except in the males, who are significantly different in every measurement apart from surface area to body mass ratios and stature to body mass ratios. Further studies on each population were conducted to determine the role of latitude or isolation factors on each population. Interestingly, the Alaskan group did not follow the stereotypical trend of cold climate adaptation based on latitude. In the female groups, the females from the lowest latitude had the lowest surface area to body mass ratios followed by the highest latitude group. The male groups followed the stereotype with the highest latitude group having the lowest surface area to body mass ratio but interestingly, the group from the lowest latitude had the next lowest ratio. Polynesian results illustrated somewhat similar body proportions throughout the region with only a few exceptions. Meanwhile, several individuals measured from the Polynesian collection could be considered part of Melanesia. Migration patterns, founder effect through disease frequencies, nutritional effects and cultural traits along with many other issues are presented when examining the similarities and differences the Polynesian population has in comparison to both the Alaskan group and the small Melanesian sample. ii Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND................................................................................................................. 4 POPULATION HISTORY................................................................................................................................4 Alaskan Population History.................................................................................................................. 4 Yearly Cultural Practices in Arctic Eskimo Alaska ............................................................................ 10 Classification of Modern Alaskan Groups.......................................................................................... 13 Eskimo Lifestyle .................................................................................................................................. 15 Polynesian Population History ........................................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS ..................................................................................... 24 MATERIALS .............................................................................................................................................. 24 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................. 24 Stature Estimation............................................................................................................................... 28 Body Mass Estimation......................................................................................................................... 29 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS.......................................................................................................................... 35 OVERALL COMPARISON: ALASKA VS. REMOTE OCEANIA ........................................................................ 35 COMPARISONS BY SEX: ALASKA VS. REMOTE OCEANIA .......................................................................... 39 SURFACE AREA TO BODY MASS RATIO COMPARISONS............................................................................ 40 STATURE TO BODY MASS RATIO COMPARISONS...................................................................................... 46 SURFACE AREA COMPARISONS ................................................................................................................ 51 STATURE COMPARISONS .......................................................................................................................... 56 BODY MASS FROM BI-ILIAC BREADTH COMPARISONS ............................................................................. 60 BODY MASS FROM MAXIMUM FEMORAL HEAD DIAMETER COMPARISONS ............................................. 61 OUTLIERS VS. REMOTE OCEANIA ............................................................................................................. 69 COMPARISONS BETWEEN SOUTHEAST ASIAN ISLAND, MELANESIAN, AND POLYNESIAN ISLAND POPULATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 71 REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN ALASKA BY LATITUDE ................................................................................. 77 T-TEST RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 87 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................... 92 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCE .................................................................................................................. 94 EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS................................................................................................................. 97 Heritability of Traits ........................................................................................................................... 97 Gene Frequencies ............................................................................................................................... 99 DNA STUDIES .......................................................................................................................................... 99 Founder Effect through Disease Frequencies................................................................................... 101 Nutritional Effects............................................................................................................................. 104 CULTURAL PRACTICES AND SEXUAL DIFFERENCES IN PHYSIQUE .......................................................... 107 Division of Labor.............................................................................................................................. 111 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................