Craniometric variation among Brazilian and Scottish populations: a physical anthropology approach.

  • Thais Torralbo Lopez-Capp
  • Christopher Rynn
  • Caroline Wilkinson
  • Luiz Airton Saavedra de Paiva
  • Edgard Michel-Crosato
  • Maria Gabriela Haye Biazevic

Abstract

Aim: The present investigation intended to compare the craniometric variations of two samples of different nationalities (Brazilian and Scottish). Materials and methods: The Brazilian sample consisted of 100 modern complete skulls, including 53 female skulls and 47 male skulls, and the Scottish sample consisted of 100 historical skulls (61 males, 39 females) and 36 mandibles (24 males, 12 females). The cranial measurement protocol was composed of 40 measurements, 11 bilateral and 29 unilateral, and the measurement protocol of the mandible was composed of 15 measurements, with six that were bilateral and nine that were unique. The comparative analysis of the metric variability between the two samples was performed using the means and
medians analysis, the t-test, the Wilcoxon test, and the coefficient of variance, with a significance level of 5%. Results: The results showed that, among the 72 analysed variables, 44 measurements (61.11%) presented statistical differences between the samples. The Scottish skull tends to have a cranial length (GOL diff=5.53),
breadth (XCB diff=3.78) and height (NPH diff=5.33) greater than the Brazilian skulls, and the Scottish mandibles tend to show a higher mandibular ramus height (MRH diff=9.25), a higher mandibular body height (HMB diff=6.37) and a larger bigonial breadth (BGB diff=5.29) than the Brazilians. The discriminant analysis of the 51 cranial measurements and 21 mandibular measurements showed a variation of the percentage of accuracy between 46.3- 83.8%. Conclusion: The metric analysis demonstrated that there is variability between the two samples studied (61.11%), but a concrete cause cannot be determined considering the multifactorial aspects of the variations of form and size.

References

1. Buretić-Tomljanović A, Ostojić S, Kapović M. Secular change of craniofacial measures in Croatian younger adults. Am J Hum Biol. 2006 Sep-Oct;18(5):668-75.
2. Jantz RL. Cranial change in Americans: 1850-1975. J Forensic Sci. 2001 Jul;46(4):784-7.
3. Jantz RL, Meadows Jantz L. Secular change in craniofacial morphology. Am J Hum Biol. 2000 May;12(3):327-38.
4. Manthey L, Jantz RL, Bohnert M, Jellinghaus K. Secular change of sexually dimorphic cranial variables in Euro-Americans and Germans. Int J Legal Med. 2017 Jul;131(4):1113-1118. doi: 10.1007/s00414-016-1469-2. Martin DC, Danforth ME. An analysis of secular change in the human mandible over the last century. Am J Hum Biol. 2009 Sep-Oct;21(5):704-6. doi: 10.1002/ajhb.20866.
6. Ousley S, Jantz R, Freid D. Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009 May;139(1):68-76. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21006.
7. Spradley K, Stull KE, Hefner JT. Craniofacial Secular Change in Recent Mexican Migrants. Hum Biol. 2016 Jan;88(1):15-29.
8. Israel H. The dichotomous pattern of craniofacial expansion during aging. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 1977;47(1):47-51. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330470110.
9. Hubbe M, Hanihara T, Harvati K. Climate Signatures in the Morphological Differentiation of Worldwide Modern Human Populations. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2009 Nov;292(11):1720-33. doi: 10.1002/ar.20976.
10. Harvati K, Weaver TD. Human cranial anatomy and the differential preservation of population history and climate signatures. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2006 Dec;288(12):1225-33.
11. Roseman CC. Detecting interregionally diversifying natural selection on modern human cranial form by using matched molecular and morphometric data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 31;101(35):12824-9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0402637101.
12. Noback ML, Harvati K, Spoor F. Climate-related variation of the human nasal cavity. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2011 Aug;145(4):599-614. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21523.
13. Evteev A, Cardini AL, Morozova I, O’Higgins P. Extreme climate, rather than population history, explains mid-facial morphology of northern asians. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2014 Mar;153(3):449-62. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22444.
14. Holton NE, Yokley TR, Franciscus RG. Climatic adaptation and Neandertal facial evolution: A comment on Rae et al. (2011). J Hum Evol. 2011 Nov;61(5):624-7; author reply 628-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.08.001.
15. Buretić-Tomljanović A, Ristić S, Brajenović-Milić B, Ostojić S, Gombač E, Kapović M. Secular change in body height and cephalic index of Croatian medical students (University of Rijeka). Am J Phys Anthropol. 2004 Jan;123(1):91-6. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.10306.
16. Kouchi M. Brachycephalization in Japan has ceased. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2000 Jul;112(3):339-47.
17. Kouchi M. Secular changes in the Japanese head form viewed from somatometric data. Anthropol Sci. 2004;112(1):41-52. doi: 10.1537/ase.00071.
18. Weisensee KE, Jantz RL. Secular changes in craniofacial morphology of the portuguese using geometric morphometrics. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2011 Aug;145(4):548-59. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21531.
19. Hubbe M, Strauss A, Hubbe A, Neves WA. Early South Americans Cranial Morphological Variation and the Origin of American Biological Diversity. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 14;10(10):e0138090. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138090.
20. Pena SDJ, Di Pietro G, Fuchshuber-Moraes M, Genro JP, Hutz MH, Kehdy FdSG, et al. The Genomic Ancestry of Individuals from Different Geographical Regions of Brazil Is More Uniform Than Expected. PLoS One. 2011 Feb 16;6(2):e17063. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017063.
21. Perez SI, Bernal V, Gonzalez PN, Sardi M, Politis GG. Discrepancy between Cranial and DNA Data of Early Americans: Implications for American Peopling. PLoS One. 2009 May 29;4(5):e5746. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005746.
22. Hens SM, Ross AH. Cranial variation and biodistance in three Imperial Roman cemeteries. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2017 Jun;27(5):880-7. doi: 10.1002/oa.2602.
23. Nikita E. Αge-associated Variation and Sexual Dimorphism in Adult Cranial Morphology: Implications in Anthropological Studies. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2014 Sep-Oct;24(5):557-69. doi: 10.1002/oa.2241.
24. Relethford JH. Apportionment of global human genetic diversity based on craniometrics and skin color. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002 Aug;118(4):393-8. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.10079.
25. Relethford JH. Population-specific deviations of global human craniometric variation from a neutral model. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010 May;142(1):105-11. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21207.
26. Roseman CC, Weaver TD. Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2004 Nov;125(3):257-63. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.10424.
27. Albert AM, Ricanek K Jr., Patterson E. A review of the literature on the aging adult skull and face: implications for forensic science research and applications. Forensic Sci Int. 2007 Oct 2;172(1):1-9.
Published
2002-04-01
How to Cite
LOPEZ-CAPP, Thais Torralbo et al. Craniometric variation among Brazilian and Scottish populations: a physical anthropology approach.. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, [S.l.], p. e18019, apr. 2002. ISSN 1677-3225. Available at: <https://www.fop.unicamp.br/bjos/index.php/bjos/article/view/205>. Date accessed: 21 may 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v17i0.8651900.
Section
Original Research

Most read articles by the same author(s)