Resurrecting Pompeii (55 page)

32 J.E. Buikstra and D.H. Ubelaker (eds),
Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains: Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History Organized by Jonathon
Haas. Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1994.

33 M. Smith (Department of Econometrics, University of Sydney) to E. Lazer, circa 1993, personal communication.
34 W.W. Howells,
Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference among Recent Populations
. Vol. 67, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1973, 34–35. See also E. Lazer, ‘Human Skeletal Remains in Pompeii: Vols. I and II’, unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Anatomy and Histology. Sydney: The University of Sydney, 1995, 94–
_102.

35 Lazer 1995, op. cit., GOL: Fig. 4.2, 96.
36 Ibid., FRC: Fig. 4.11, 100.
37 Ibid., PAC: Fig. 4.12, 101.
38 Ibid., XCB: Fig. 4.6, 98.
39 Ibid., XFB: Fig. 4.7, 98.
40 Ibid., ZYB: Fig. 4.8, 99.
41 Ibid., NOL: Fig. 4.3, 96.
42 Ibid., ASB: Fig. 4.10, 100.
43 Ibid., BNL: Fig. 4.4, 97.
44 Ibid., OCC: Fig. 4.13, 101.
45 Ibid., FRC: Fig. 4.11, 100.
46 Ibid., BBH: Fig. 4.5, 97.
47 Ibid., AUB: Fig. 4.9, 99.
48 Compare with C. Pardoe, ‘Prehistoric Human Morphological Variation in Australia’, unpublished PhD thesis. Canberra: Australian National University, 1984, 25.
49 Discriminant function analysis is based on the assumption that all groups have the same intrapopulation covariance matrix. In the case of sex, interpopulation variability is great enough to require the development of separate sets of equations for different populations for sex attribution. In addition, it relies on the use of data derived from known populations to place unknown individuals into ‘correct’ groups with a high probability, such as for sex. This highlights the questionable value of applying this technique to an unknown population, as it will probably produce results that are artefacts.
50 W. Haglund, ‘Forensic “art” in human identification’,in
Craniofacial Identi
fi
cation in Forensic Medicine
, ed. J.G. Clement and D.L. Ranson. London: Arnold, 1998, 235.
51 Haglund, 1998, op. cit., 237–40.
52 K.T. Taylor,
Forensic Art and Illustration
. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 2001, 85.

1 P. Drackett,
The Book of Great Disasters
. Berkshire: Purnell, 1977, 115; G. Nicolucci, ‘Crania Pompeiana: Descrizione de’ crani umani rinvenuti fra le ruine dell’ antica Pompei’,
Atti della R. Accademia delle Scienze Fisiche e Matematiche,
Vol. 9, No. 10, 1882, 1.

2 A. Massa,
The World of Pompeii
. London: Routledge, 1972, 135–36.
3 E. De Carolis
et al
., ‘Rinvenimenti di corpi umani nell’area urbana di Pompei’,
Rivista di Studi Pompeiani,
Vol. 9, 1998, 79, 84, 113.
4 B.E. Anderson, ‘Ventral arc of the os pubis: Anatomical and developmental considerations’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 83, 1990, 454; M.Y. El-Najjar, and K.R. McWilliams,
Forensic Anthropology: The Structure, Morphology and Variation of Human Bone and Dentition
. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1978, 76; W.M. Krogman, and M.Y. Iscan,
The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine
. 2nd edn. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1986, 190; S. Mays,
The Archaeology of Human Bones
. London: Routledge, 1998, 38–42; F.W. Rösing, ‘Sexing immature human skeletons’,
Journal of Human Evolution
, Vol. 12, 1983, 149; L. Scheuer and S. Black,
The Juvenile Skeleton
. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2004, 19–21; L.E. St Hoyme and M.Y. Iscan, ‘Determination of sex and race: Accuracy and assumptions’,in
Reconstruction of Life from the Skeleton
, ed. M.Y. Iscan and K.A.R. Kennedy. New York: Alan R. Liss, 1989, 54.
5 S.M.C. Holcomb and L.W. Konigsberg, ‘Statistical study of sexual dimorphism in the human foetal sciatic notch’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 97, 1995, 113– 25, Mays, 1998, op. cit., 39.
6 H. Schutkowski, ‘Sex determination of infant and juvenile skeletons: 1. Morphognostic features’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 90, 1993, 199–205.
7 K.M. Bowden,
Forensic Medicine
. 2nd edn. Brisbane: Jacaranda, 1965, 481; G. Gustafson,
Forensic Odontology
. London: Staples Press, 1966, 91; St Hoyme and Iscan, 1989, op. cit., 54, 69; D.H. Ubelaker,
Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation
. 2nd edn. Vol. 2, Manuals on Archaeology. Washington: Taraxacum, 1989, 52.
8 Mays, 1998, op. cit., 39–42; Scheuer and Black, 2004, op. cit., 20.
9 D. Donlon, ‘The Value of Postcranial Nonmetric Variation in Studies of Global Populations in Modern Homo Sapiens’, unpublished PhD thesis. Armidale: University of New England, 1990, 109, 128; Scheuer and Black, 2004, op. cit., 20.
10 A.C. Stone
et al
., ‘Sex determination of ancient human skeletons using DNA’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 99, 1996, 231–38.
11 To gain an appreciation of some of the problems, it is worth considering an example. An attempt was made to obtain samples of DNA from skeletons from an historic nineteenth– early-twentieth-century cemetery site at Cadia in Central Western NSW, Australia. Small samples were extracted from juvenile and adult dental material using techniques that were established for the skeletal study of the cemetery site at the Destitute Children’s Asylum at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, Australia (Donlon
et al
., 1997, op. cit., 7– 178.) Genetic material can often be obtained from the pulp cavity of the tooth, especially in the case of adults when the root has fully formed and provides a seal against contamination. Genetic material is also bound with the dentine. Whilst it is still possible to obtain genetic material from juvenile teeth, they are less likely to provide a good yield of DNA. The material extracted from these skeletons appeared promising but ultimately did not yield any readable sequences of DNA. (E. Lazer,
Report on the Excavation of the Cadia Cemetery, Cadia Road, Cadia, NSW, 1997
–
98
. Vol. 4: Skeletal Report: Unpublished report for Cadia Holdings. Orange, NSW: Edward Higginbotham & Associates, 2001, 8, 20.) 12 Scheuer and Black, 2004, op. cit., 21.
13 D.R. Brothwell,
Digging up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment and Study of Human Skeletal Remains
. 3rd edn. London: British Museum (Natural History) & Oxford University Press, 1981/1965; Krogman and Iscan, 1986, op. cit., 195; Ubelaker, 1989, op. cit., 53; T.D. White,
Human Osteology
. 1st edn. San Diego, California: Academic Press, 1991, 320. 14 El-Najjar and McWilliams, 1978, op. cit., 76; St Hoyme and Iscan, 1989, op. cit., 54, 59. 15 V. Higgins, ‘A model for assessing health patterns from skeletal remains’,in
Burial Archaeology: Current Research, Methods and Developments
, ed. C.A. Robert, F. Lee and J. Bintliff, 211. Oxford: BAR, 1989, 182, 191–94; St Hoyme and Iscan, 1989, op. cit., 59. 16 S. Genovés, ‘Sex determination in earlier man’,in
Science in Archaeology: A Survey of Progress and Research
, ed. Brothwell, D. and E. Higgs. London: Thames & Hudson, 1969a, 431–32. 17 Higgins, 1989, op. cit, 194.
18 Brothwell, 1981, op. cit., 59; El-Najjar and McWilliams, 1978, op. cit., 75; St Hoyme and Iscan, 1989, op. cit., 59; White, 1991, op. cit., 322.
19 The standard scoring system takes into account the difficulties involved with the identification of sexual markers in biological material where there can be considerable overlap between males and females for particular features. In addition, there can be diversity within and between populations, respectively known as intrapopulation and interpopulation variation. I modified the standard five point system with the addition of two further scores to include equivocal cases for which a sexual attribution could be inferred. Observations made on skulls and innominate bones were therefore scored in terms of a seven point scale which ranged from hyperfemale (1) to hypermale (7) See Table 6.1.
20 The data for each measurement and observation were visualized as a series of histograms to determine whether any individual measurement displayed significant bimodality (define bimodality), which could be used as an indicator of sex separation in the sample. Histograms using Z-scores, standardized about the mean, were employed to demonstrate whether there was any skewing. The pooled measurements were subjected to a k means cluster analysis. Principal components analysis was also employed as a descriptive technique. E. Lazer, ‘Human Skeletal Remains in Pompeii: Vols. I and II’, unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Anatomy and Histology. Sydney: The University of Sydney, 1995, 130. 21 Brothwell, 1981, op. cit., 62; El-Najjar and McWilliams, 1978, op. cit., 76; Krogman and Iscan, 1986, op. cit., 200; Ubelaker, 1989, op. cit., 53.
22 Anderson, 1990, op. cit., 453.
23 M.A. Kelley, ‘Phenice’s visual sexing technique for the os pubis: A critique’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 48, 1978, 121–22; T.W. Phenice, ‘A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 30, 1967, 297–301. 24 For these reasons the pubic index was not used. The measurement of this index has also been found to be very time-consuming. Brothwell, 1981, op. cit., 62–63; Phenice, 1969, op. cit., 297–98; White, 1991, op. cit., 325; was not used.
25 Krogman and Iscan, 1986, op. cit., 247; Ubelaker, 1989, op. cit., 55, 60. 26 Brothwell, 1981, op. cit., 62; El-Najjar and McWilliams, 1978, op. cit., 80–81; P. Houghton, ‘The relationship of the pre-auricular groove of the ilium to pregnancy’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 41, 1974, 381.
27 Genovés, 1969a, op. cit., 430.
28 S. Genovés, ‘Estimation of age and mortality’,in
Science in Archaeology: A Survey of Progress and Research
, ed. D. Brothwell and E. Higgs. London: Thames & Hudson, 1969b, 449; T. D. Stewart, ‘Distortion of the pubic symphyseal surface in females and its effect on age determination’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 15, 1957, 9–18. 29 A.T. Chamberlain,
Demography in Archaeology
, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 96; J.M. Suchey
et al
., ‘Analysis of dorsal pitting in the os pubis in an extensive sample of modern American females’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 51, 1979, 522; T.D. White, and P.A. Folkens,
The Human Bone Manual
. Boston: Academic Press, 2005, 380.
30 M.A. Kelley, ‘Parturition and pelvic changes’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 51, 1979, 541.
31 Tague 1988 in T.D. White,
Human Osteology
. 2nd ed. San Diego, California: Academic Press, 2000, 354–55.
32 M. Cox and A. Scott, ‘Evaluation of the obstetric significance of some pelvic characters in an 18th century British sample of known parity status’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 89, 1992, 431–40; T. Molleson
et al
.,
The Spital
fi
elds Project
. Vol. 2: The Anthropology: The Middling Sort, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 86. York, UK: Council for British Archaeology, 1993, 214.
33 Brothwell, 1981, op. cit., 66; D. Ferembach
et al
., ‘Recommendations for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons (Workshop of European Anthropologists)’,
Journal of Human Evolution
, Vol. 9, No. 7, 1980, 517–49.
34 For example, R.G. Tague, ‘Bone resorption of the pubis and preauricular area in humans and nonhuman mammals’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 76 1988, 255. 35 Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 114–17.
36 Kelley, 1978, op. cit., 121–22.
37 V. Higgins (University of Notre Dame, Rome) to E. Lazer, 1989–90, personal communication. 38 Ibid.
39 Molleson, 1981, op. cit., 20.
40 Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 119–21.
41 W.M. Bass,
Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual of the Human Skeleton
. 2nd edn. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society, 1984, 114–15; Brothwell, 1981, op. cit., 85; D.L. France, ‘Osteometry at muscle origin and insertion in sex determination’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 76, 1988, 517–20.
42 France, 1988, op. cit., 517.
43 J. Dittirick and J.M. Suchey, ‘Sex determination of prehistoric central California skeletal remains using discriminant analysis of the femur and humerus’,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
, Vol. 70, 1986, 3.
44 Bass, 1984, op. cit., 114–15; Brothwell, 1981, op. cit., 85.
45 France, 1988, op. cit., 515–26; Dittrick and Suchey, 1986, op. cit., 3–9. 46 Dittrick and Suchey, 1986, op. cit., 8–9.
47 France, 1988, op. cit., 523.
48 France, 1988, op. cit., 523; Dittrick and Suchey, 1986, op. cit., 8.
49 France, 1988, op. cit., 523.
50 France, 1988, op. cit., 524.
51 Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 136–37.
52 Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 117–19
53 Dittrick and Suchey, 1986, op. cit., 8–9.
54 Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 121–24.
55 Brothwell, 1981, op. cit., 59–61; J.E. Buikstra
et al
. (eds),
Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains: Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History Organized by Jonathon Haas
. Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1994, 19–20; Ferembach
et al
., 1980, op. cit., 523–25; El-Najjar and McWilliams, 1978, op. cit., 83–84; Krogman and Iscan, 1986, op. cit., 192–93; White, 1991, op. cit., 322–23.
56 Ferembach
et al
., 1980, op. cit., 523.
57 Compare with White, 1991, op. cit., 322.
58 These were supraorbital ridges, zygomatic processes and overall shape (Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 137, Figs. 5.31, 5.32 and 5.33).
59 For example, temporal line, glabella, mastoid process and nuchal crest (Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 137).
60 Features that were skewed towards female attribution were overall shape, degree of angling of the frontal bone, supraorbital ridges, glabella, orbital shape, orbital rims, parietal bosses, mastoid process, nuchal crest, external occipital protuberance, zygomatic bone and dental arch. Features that were apparently skewed towards male attribution were posterior root of the zygomatic process, frontal eminences and the temporal line. Only one feature, the zygomatic process, separated into equal numbers of each sex. Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 137. 61 Ferembach
et al
., 1980, op. cit., 523.
62 Five factors were extracted from a principal components analysis of 12 of the skull observations. BZYG, ZYGP and DEN were excluded. Overall shape was also excluded because it appeared to operate more like a sex index than an individual feature. Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 139. 63 D’Amore et al.
,
1979, op. cit., 304.
64 For example, D’Amore
et al.,
1964, op. cit.
65 S.C. Bisel (Physical anthropologist, Herculaneum) to E. Lazer, 1988c, personal communication. 66 W.W. Howells,
Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference among Recent Populations
. Vol. 67, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1973, 7–8; Howells, W. W.
Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of Modern Homo
. Vol. 79, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1989, 3.
67 Brothwell, 1981, op. cit., 83; Howells, op. cit., 1973, 174–76; Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 124–28.
68 Brothwell, 1981, op. cit., 61; Krogman and Iscan, 1986, op. cit., 193–98; Ubelaker, 1989, op. cit., 55.
69 Ubelaker, 1989, op. cit., 55.
70 Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 140–41.
71 B. Flury, and H. Riedwyl,
Multivariate Statistics: A Practical Approach
. London: Chapman & Hall, 1988, 218–28.
72 Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 128–29.
73 Brothwell, 1981, op. cit., 59–61; Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994: 19–20; El-Najjar and McWilliams, 1978, op. cit., 83–84; Ferembach
et al
., 1980, op. cit., 523–25; Krogman and Iscan, 1986, op. cit., 192–93; White, 1991, op. cit., 322–23. Since a mandible board was not available, sex was assessed purely from visual inspection.
74 Brothwell, 1981, op. cit., 59; Ferembach
et al
., 1980, op. cit., 525; S. Hillson, Teeth, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, 240–41; Krogman and Iscan, 1986, op. cit., 193, 366–69; Lazer, 1995, op. cit., 129– 30.
75 Compare with B.C.W. Barker, ‘Concerning the possibility of estimating the original dimensions of worn Aboriginal teeth’,