Discussion:
A linear discriminant function is a set of measurements that is weighed against other measurements to gain the most accurate estimation of all the measurements combined within a particular taxon of skeletal remains. The weighing of each set of measurements is to provide the smallest amount of error in determination of sex, ancestry and stature of a particular individual. By applying the tested methods of discriminant function analysis to the specimen of UC71 and UC20/UC53-Cranium, the comparison of measurements provided an accurate estimation of sex, ancestry and stature.
Sex:
On the topic of determining the accurate sex of a set of skeletal remains there are particular landmarks and features that appear on the post cranial and …show more content…
Anthropology postulates that race is not something that should be used to categorize humans, yet from specific landmarks on the cranium and post cranial skeleton an estimation of ancestry can be approximated with an accuracy of 80%. This value takes into account the variation in populations and the changes in skeletal morphology over an individual’s lifetime. Giles and Elliot (1962), provided a table of discriminant function analysis for ancestry determinations based on a sample of African American males and females and Caucasian males and females of European descent. To make sure that all population variations are included in this determination ancestry the data was correlated with Jantz and Moore-Jansen (1987) tables that were based on a 67 % White,19 % Black, 6 % Hispanic and 3 % Native American group. While these are an alternative to the limited sample of Giles and Elliot (1962) it should be noted that to correctly use these tables lengthy measurements that require special tools is required (Snow et al. 1979). The craniophor is a complicated tool to use when measuring the different landmarks of the cranium. Sliding and spreading calipers were more effective in these measurements as the full use of the craniophor was not totally understood to have been used properly. The limits of the tables provided as Schwartz points out …show more content…
The tables from Giles and Elliot on ancestry and the correlated Jantz and Moore-Jansen tables allowed a focused look at the discriminant functions of the group of African American descent datum tables. When addressing the stature of an individual, the long bones are particularly focused on due to the small amount of variation between the left and right sides and the estimated size of the long bones at the time of sexual maturity. Long bones can also show signs of trauma that may have been recorded and can allow for a more accurate estimation of stature at time of death. The conversion of centimeters to millimeters was a bit difficult to navigate so to account for intra-observer and measurement error, the long bones where measured in both specimens three times to correlate the overall size of each set of measurements. However, the measurements of the femur seem to be the most consistent with actual stature, whereas averaging all of the long bones gives a much broader picture of the stature possibilities and can provide many false estimates. To regain accuracy in this area the excel table was used and the results were cross referenced with the tables located in Human Osteology (White, Black, and
A linear discriminant function is a set of measurements that is weighed against other measurements to gain the most accurate estimation of all the measurements combined within a particular taxon of skeletal remains. The weighing of each set of measurements is to provide the smallest amount of error in determination of sex, ancestry and stature of a particular individual. By applying the tested methods of discriminant function analysis to the specimen of UC71 and UC20/UC53-Cranium, the comparison of measurements provided an accurate estimation of sex, ancestry and stature.
Sex:
On the topic of determining the accurate sex of a set of skeletal remains there are particular landmarks and features that appear on the post cranial and …show more content…
Anthropology postulates that race is not something that should be used to categorize humans, yet from specific landmarks on the cranium and post cranial skeleton an estimation of ancestry can be approximated with an accuracy of 80%. This value takes into account the variation in populations and the changes in skeletal morphology over an individual’s lifetime. Giles and Elliot (1962), provided a table of discriminant function analysis for ancestry determinations based on a sample of African American males and females and Caucasian males and females of European descent. To make sure that all population variations are included in this determination ancestry the data was correlated with Jantz and Moore-Jansen (1987) tables that were based on a 67 % White,19 % Black, 6 % Hispanic and 3 % Native American group. While these are an alternative to the limited sample of Giles and Elliot (1962) it should be noted that to correctly use these tables lengthy measurements that require special tools is required (Snow et al. 1979). The craniophor is a complicated tool to use when measuring the different landmarks of the cranium. Sliding and spreading calipers were more effective in these measurements as the full use of the craniophor was not totally understood to have been used properly. The limits of the tables provided as Schwartz points out …show more content…
The tables from Giles and Elliot on ancestry and the correlated Jantz and Moore-Jansen tables allowed a focused look at the discriminant functions of the group of African American descent datum tables. When addressing the stature of an individual, the long bones are particularly focused on due to the small amount of variation between the left and right sides and the estimated size of the long bones at the time of sexual maturity. Long bones can also show signs of trauma that may have been recorded and can allow for a more accurate estimation of stature at time of death. The conversion of centimeters to millimeters was a bit difficult to navigate so to account for intra-observer and measurement error, the long bones where measured in both specimens three times to correlate the overall size of each set of measurements. However, the measurements of the femur seem to be the most consistent with actual stature, whereas averaging all of the long bones gives a much broader picture of the stature possibilities and can provide many false estimates. To regain accuracy in this area the excel table was used and the results were cross referenced with the tables located in Human Osteology (White, Black, and