I. SJo-68 DENTAL MORPHOLOGY AND ITS BEARING ON THE "DIHYBRID THEORY" OF AMERICAN INDIAN ORIGINS Edward F. Harris and Christy G. Turner II Department of Anthropology Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona 85281 2 ABSTRACT Despite some two decades of research on the origins of the American Indian, the dihybrid model proposed by Joseph Birdsell (1951) persists as one of the few paradigms couched in an essentially evolutionary framework. Birdsell holds that, in addition to the unquestionable Mongoloid ancestry, there is also a genetic contribution from an archaic Caucasoid (Amurian) element. This paper presents data on the dental morphology of an Early Horizon Californian skeletal series (San Joaquin-68). This temporally early, geographically peripheral sample fulfills the criteria for analysis of American Indian origins proposed by Birdsell. Incisor labial and lingual shoveling is frequent and often marked in expression, Carabelli's cusp is uncommon, the protostylid complex is in high frequency, as is incisor winging, and 3-rooted mandibular first molars are relatively common. All of these features stand in contrast to the Caucasoid dental plan. The SJo-68 series is compared to samples of archaic and Mediterranean Caucasoids, Asiatic Mongoloids, and American Indians, all of which support the contention that the American Indian is of a uniracial, Mongoloid origin. 3 INTRODUCTION The origin of the American Indian has long been of interest to laymen and scholars alike. Substantial evidence indicates that the New World was first populated by migrant hunters from eastern Siberia who crossed the now- submerged Bering Land Bridge, reaching Alaska more than 12,000 years ago (Stewart 1973). There is less evidence or agreement on the number of migrations and the region within Asia from which these Paleolithic people originated. The biological characteristics and origin of the early Asian geographic race is itself still poorly known. One excellent reason for research on the skeletal and dental variation of native Americans is that it helps to further our understanding of ancient Asian populations whose skeletal remains are less common than those from the Americas, especially North America. One worker, Joseph B. Birdsell, stands out in his pioneering efforts to unravel the biological history of the American Indian by employing con- cepts from evolutionary biology rather than continuing to apply the methods of classical taxonomy. Birdsell's review of the racial features of Indians, Asians, and Australians suggested to him that the genetic character of American Indians resulted from a dihybrid mixture in Asia between Mongoloids, who evolved late out of Amurians in cold northeastern Asia, and earlier- evolved eastern Caucasoids, called Amurians by Birdsell. It is the purpose of this paper to examine this hypothesis in light of an available skeletal series of prehistoric California Indians that con- forms to suggestions for analysis set forth by Birdsell. The selection of this series is based on its definite antiquity, its geographic provenience, its large sample size, and the preservation of the dentition, a tissue suggested by Birdsell as valuable for investigating his model. THE DIHYBRID MODEL Synoptically, Birdsell's argument rests on two assumptions. First, j1l evidence indicates that modern man did not originate in northeastern ad.ia or in the New World. Second, what has become the Mongoloid race was ae last of the major groups to differentiate; "Their definitive phase Levolution occurred late in the fourth glacial period as the result of * treme environmental stressing in a dry Arctic environment" (Birdsell,1951:7). Taking into account the temporal and geographic requirements involved u polyracial theories of American Indian origins, Birdsell convincingly pies that earlier claims of Negritoid, Carpentarian, Melanesian, Australian, /or Mediterranean Caucasoid contributions to the peopling of the New ld are unreasonable given the prescriptions involved in having any of se groups at the right place at the right time for entry into the Americas. oral and spatial restrictions allow only two likely sources of New World 4 Indians: One, the Amurian branch of the "Caucasoid" race and, two, the "newly-evolved" Mongoloid race. The Amurian group is defined as the hypo- thetical antecedent mainland population located in the Amur River basin, ".. a region which must have been occupied by the populations ancestral to ...the living Ainu... ." (1951:12). From these two sources, the American Indian is considered to possess a dihybrid racial origin, and "...the universally admitted Mongoloid element has been adulterated only by an archaic Caucasoid contribution from the Amurians" (Birdsell.1951:62). Implicit in this argument is that, since the Amurian peoples were present in the right place (east Asia) at the right time (late Wiirm glaciation), then, not only could they have contributed to the New World gene pool, but they did in fact do so. Our physical anthropological knowledge for eastern Asia prior to the fourth interglacial has advanced but little in the last two decades, and Birdsell's hypothesis of an archaic Caucasoid group is still tenable. There is almost no skeletal evidence of early man in eastern Asia between the terminal Pleistocene and the occurrence of wholly modern Mongoloids (i.e. between about 10,000 and 5,000 years ago). Examining the Upper Pleistocene finds in northern Asia, though, the morphological variability in the three adult skeletons from Upper Paleolithic deposits in the Upper Cave at Choukoutien is noteworthy (e.a. Weidenreich, 1939). The male cranium is described as Neanderthaloid with certain Caucasian features. The two female skulls have morphologic similarities with Melanesians and Eskimos respectively. If these skeletons are coeval there is no problem accounting for the morphologic variation in American Indians, even if microevolutionary changes did not occur after entrance into the Americas. W. W. Howells, regarding the Mongoloid features of these skulls, has labelled them "unmigrated American Indians" (1959:300); likewise, Birdsell sees the phylogeny of the American Indian as stemming at least from the morphology of these individuals, especially the male cranium, skull no. 101 (Birdsell, 1951:17). The other Upper Pleistocene finds from Asia, such as those from near Ting T'sun (Movius, 1956), Tzeyang (Pei and Woo, 1957), Changyang (Chia, 1957), and Liukang (Woo, 1959), are each presented by these authors as examples of a primitive Mongoloid stock, and the few available teeth exhibit Mongoloid features. So too, the candidates for early man in the New World mentioned by Birdsell (Brown's Valley, Punin, Lagoa Santa, and the Paltacalo series) do not support the contention of an archaic Caucasoid element. Temporally more recent New World skeletal evidence is also unconvincing (including finds since Birdsell's paper). Birdsell concluded, "... that the cranial materials offer even less substantiation of the Amurian-Mongoloid hypothesis than do the living peoples" (1951:49). Birdsell's model provides for two alternatives depending on when the earliest immigrants entered North America: If modern man reached the New World as early as during the third interglacial period, it is predicted that this type will be found to be unmixed Amurian in its characteristics. Any group of people migrating across 5 Bering Strait in post-glacial times should be dihybrid in origin [1951:63] . All anthropological and geological information to date supports a terminal or late glacial movement by man into the New World; we may cite Wormington (1964) as the most comprehensive current work (see also Hopkins, 1967; Bryan, 1969; and Borden, 1969). Consequently, Birdsell's model would have the migrants as dihybrid in origin, and, thusly interpreted, the model becomes that of a single migration of indeterminant length and number of immigrants. Implicit in this model is the assumption that admixture occurred between the Amurian and Mongoloid groups prior to their entrance into the New World, and only the resultant hybridized group reached the Americas. Birdsell provides no explanation as to why or how extensive gene flow would have occurred between Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples at any point in time (except, of course, along common areal peripheries). It is not surprising that Birdsell's most substantial evidence among living Indians should come from geographically marginal, relict populations. The Cahuilla of southern California and the Pomo and Yuki of northern California are cited (1951:63) as being the.most suggestive of possessing a high frequency of archaic Caucasoid characteristics. It is instructive to note in passing what these characteristics are. Five "distinctively Caucasoid" traits are listed for these Californian groups: 1) unusually abundant facial hair, 2) early graying of the facial and head hair, 3) concave nasal profile with unusual breadth, 4) greatly developed ear lobes, and 5) a marked tendency towards obesity (1951:36). But the 'propositae' illustrated in the article (see also Birdsell,1972:492-) are not -- with one probable exception -- representative of their groups. There is the assumption that the individuals selected do not possess appreciable post-Columbian White admixture. Not unreasonably, most if not all of these traits would be expected to be possessed by particular individuals within any living New World group due simply to independent assortment and random recombination within a wholly Mongoloid population. Although it is stated that Birdsell's model relies primarily upon natural selection as an evolutionary force (1951:6-7), there is no mention of the likelihood of convergent evolution. It is, of course, the frequency rather than the mere presence of traits which distinguishes between geographic races. From this critical standpoint, one becomes skeptical of Birdsell's comment that, "This [ant roposcopic] evidence, as slim as it is, is the best testimony for an Amurian element in the Americas" (1951:36). Simply put, there are too many alternative hypotheses to explain the minor, observed variations, but most importantly, claiming features to be markers of an hypothetical pop lation is untestable. A METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH Birdsell comments that, "It is believed that the Mongoloid component in the immigrants would increase with the passage of time" (1951:63). 6 Ideally, then, the detection of a non-Mongoloid component in the New World would derive from 1) the examination of one or more prehistoric series which approximate as closely as possible the earliest immigration into the Americas, 2) samples from refugial areas would provide somewhat of a safeguard against admixture with more recent immigrants, 3) characteristics examined should be under relatively complete genetic control, and the selection of traits should consist of those which will discriminate between the populations in question (in this case between Caucasoid and Mongoloid groups), and 4) a populational rather than a typological approach is requisite. These requirements are met in the following analysis of the dental morphology of the skeletal series from a Central Californian site, San Joaquin-68, which, although its antiquity is not remarkable (ca. 4,000 years B.P.), it is still the earliest series to meet the demands of sample size, geographically peripheral location, and sufficient preservation to afford the desired examinations. An alternative, the much earlier (pre- Anathermal ?) series from the Tranquillity site (Fre-48), California, reported by Angel (1966) is too small (two fairly complete skeletons and altogether about a dozen individuals represented), and the dentition is in extremely poor condition. It will be noted that this method of utilizing appropriate skeletal material and traits possessing strong genetic components was proposed by Birdsell as an approach "... pertinent to the solution of American Indian origins" (1951:55). Specifically, Birdsell even lists nine dental charac- teristics which he notes to be "promising phenotypic traits" (1951:56). The utility of the dentition for the identification of microevolutionary changes has been discussed elsewhere (Turner, 1969). MATERIAL AND METHODS SJo-68, the Blossom Site, has been described by R. F. Heizer (1949) and Ragir (1972) as a single-component, Early Horizon habitation site. The low-lying midden is situated on an alluvial plain, south of the Mokelumne River and northwest of the town of Thornton. Radiocarbon dating of a combined sample of scattered bits of burnt wood screened from the midden (C-440 and C-522) place the occupation of the site at 4052 + 160 radiocarbon years B.P. A sample of calcined and carbon- ized human bone (M-647) was radiocarbon dated at 4350 + 250 years B.P. (Heizer, 1958). More recently, Ragir (1972) has reported dates calculated from human bone collagen. An untreated sample (I-2749a) dates as 3585 + 110 B.P., and two samples, each treated overnight with two-molar sodium hydroxide, date at 3775 + 160 B.P. (I-2479b) and 2980 + 110 B.P. (I-3038). 7 The first two of these three collagen dates are from four feet below present ground surface while the third is from one foot below the surface (Ragir, 1972:32). These dates and the associated artifacts (Beardsley, 1948; Ragir, 1972) place SJo-68 in the Windmiller Culture of the Californian Early Horizon. Ragir states that the known Windmiller Culture sites range between three and four thousand years B.P. (1972:121-123) which is more conservative than the earlier estimate of four to seven thousand years ago made by Heizer and Cook (1949). The data of this report are from 27 individuals out of a total of 188 individuals and at least five cremations (Ragir, 1972:163-166). Selection was based only on the preservation of teeth, and, as is crucial in many prehistoric Californians (see Leigh, 1928; Kennedy, 1960; Molnar, 1971), individuals without extensive pre-mortem tooth loss and/or extreme attrition (which often removes all of the tooth above the cingulum). Table 1 lists the sex and age distribution of the usable sample. The traits examined and their grading scales are those established in the literature. Data collection was accomplished through visual and hand lens examination of the teeth with constant comparison of the traits against standardized plaques. All observations were made by one of us (CGT). No metrical traits were examined. Using chi-square analysis none of the traits exhibit sexual di- morphism significant at the 0.05 level. All data are presented with the sexes (male, female and unknown) pooled, and, unless noted, all counts are of teeth, not individuals, a procedure necessitated by the sample's condition. SJo-68 DENTAL MORPHOLOGY 1. Incisors. A. Hrdli?ka was the first (1907:55; see also Hrdlicka,1920 and 192l)-to comment that the incidence of maxillary incisor lingual shoveling in American Indians, as in Mongoloid populations in general, is essentially unity. Table 2 indicates that shoveling is in high frequency in the SJo-68 series and thus fits the Mongoloid dental plan per this trait. This incidence is close to that of more recent American Indian series such as prehistoric Texas Indians where stronger maxillary central incisor shovel- ing grades are also 100 per cent (n = 124 individuals) (Goldstein, 1948:70), Indian Knoll's 100 per cent (n = 30 individuals) (Dahlberg and Snow, in Dahlberg, 1951:144), and the Papago of Arizona with 100 per cent shoveling 8 (n = 198 individuals) (D. H. Morris, 1965:116). In South America the prehistoric Atacama all possessed shoveling (n a 17 individuals) (DeVoto and Arias, 1967:1478), and living Pewenche Indians in Chile have 95 per cent shoveling (n = 60 individuals) (Rothhammer et al . 1968:163). In the mandible, where the degree of lingual marginal ridging is always less developed than in the maxillary teeth (Carbonell, 1963), the frequency of some shoveling expression for the SJo-68 series is still high, 93.8 per cent (15/16) in the central incisors and 90.0 per cent (18/20) in the laterals. The degree of lingual shoveling is also noteworthy. In the maxilla, two-thirds (10/16)of the teeth exhibit full shoveling while the other third (6/16) possess semi-shoveling (Table 2). This is in contrast to the distribution in Caucasoids (here an American White [Mediterranean Caucasoid] series described by Hrdli~ka, 1920:452) where full-shoveling is a mere 1.1 per cent (8/742 individuals) and semi-shoveling is only 5.8 per cent (43/ 742 individuals). Although a quarter of this White sample (23.7%, 176/742 individuals) has trace shoveling, this still leaves over half (69.4%, 515/742) of these Caucasians with no lingual ridging. Given the simple models proposed for the inheritance of lingual shoveling (e..&. Abrahams, 1949; Turner, 1969), it seems quite likely that, if present, a genetic contribution from a Caucasoid population would be apparent in a descendant series (e.&. SJo-68) due to random recombination of the alleles for this trait. Nor is the absence of shoveling detectable in the upper central incisors even when larger, though more recent samples of American Indians without European admixture are examined. Alternatively, if lingual shoveling is a quasi-continuous trait under polygenic control (e.&. Scott, 1972, 1973), then gene flow between Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples would reflect itself in a lowered incidence of full shoveling in the descendent Mongoloid groups in the Americas. This is not, however, what is observed in the SJo-68 sample. Campbell notes that shoveling "... is by no means a characteristic of the Australian's teeth" (1925:28). Riesenfeld (1956) found no cases of full shoveling in Australians (n = 47 incisors). Barksdale (1972) did not encounter any cases of full shoveling in his study of six Papuan groups (n = 279 individuals) from New Guinea, and semi-shoveling was consistently less than ten per cent for these Melanesians. The labial surfaces of the incisors in the SJo-68 series also exhibit marginal ridging (Table 2), a feature seldom seen in Europeans. In the mandible, only the mesial labial borders of the lateral incisors possess this trait (15%, 3/20), but in the maxilla, all of the available teeth possess 9 either labial shoveling of the mesial border (50%, 4/8) or ridging of both the mesial and distal borders (50%, 4/8). Four grades of medial lingual ridges were tabulated for the incisors (Table 3). Most of the incisors (75%, 39/52) lack lingual ridges. When present, though, they are much more common on central (7/8) than on lateral incisors (1/8) in the maxilla, while the reverse is true for the mandibular incisors. The presence of multiple ridges seems to be confined to the maxillary centrals, but none of the teeth examined have more than two medial lingual ridges. No lingual tubercles were found. The position of the central incisors could be examined in eight maxillary arcades (Table 4). Incisor winging, the mesial rotation of the incisors (Enoki and Dahlberg, 1958), is 12.5 per cent (1/8 individuals) in this small sample. Dahlberg comments that, "The frequencies [of winging] vary from 22 to 38 per cent among Indian tribes, but drop to 10 per cent for Japanese and to 3 per cent for Chicago Whites" (1963:156, see also Scott, 1973:190). The SJo-68 frequency is closer to the Mongoloid than to the Caucasoid frequencies. 2. Canines. The only trait scored on the canine is the tuberculum dentale. This term is used here in a broad sense to refer to *t... any pronounced single or multiple tubercle or cusp with a free apex that occurs on the lingual surface of maxillary incisors and canines" (Turner, 1967:39). In the SJo-68 series (Table 5), the occurrence of such tubercles is similar to that of other American Indians, 20 per cent (9/45). Except for Arctic populations where the incidence of tuberculum dentale is low (less than 10%, Turner, 1967:45; see also Moorrees, 1957:26), this trait does not appear to characterize any particular geographic group; frequencies of the tubercle are generally less than 25 per cent. As in the SJo-68 series, the incidence of tuberculum dentale is typically higher on the canine than on either of the maxillary incisors. 3. Premolars. The features of the mandibular first and second premolars are scored by the criteria of Kraus and Furr (1953) and Ludwig (1957) respectively. No traits were scored on the maxillary premolars. The modal form of the lower first premolar (Table 6) is: One external lingual groove, an uninterrupted sagittal sulcus with two occlusal pits and an independent apex on the deuteroconid, just one lingual cusp which is Situated mesially, and the medial occlusal ridge is not bifurcated. The second lower premolar (Table 7) has this modal form: Both a mesial and a distal accessory occlusal ridge and a divergent medial-occlusal ridge on the protoconid; the lingual cusp is mesial and independent of the buccal cusp; the sagittal sulcus is interrupted, and the multiple cusp, when present, is distal to the deuteroconid. There is essentially no comparative data for P2, but four studies involving five different ethnic and geographic groups have followed Kraus and Furr's scheme for the lower first premolar. D. H. Morris (1965) presents data for the living Papago of Southern Arizona and for the skeletal series 10 from Pecos Pueblo, New Mexico; Turner (1967) studied Eskimo skeletal series (Kodiak Island, Arctic Coast, Sadlermiut, and Greenland), Aleut series, and northern Indians (Southeast Alaska and Arctic Interior); Turner and Scott (1973) describe the premolars of living Easter Islanders, and Harris et al. (n.d.) provide data on living Yap Islanders, Micronesia. Although minor variations exist in the number of traits examined, it is of interest that the modal condition for the morphology of P1 in each of these seven series is the same as that stated above for the SJo-68 sample in spite of potential sampling or inter-observer error. All of these seven are Asian or Asian-derived series, though, and it may be this consideration rather than any inherent lack of variation in the lower first premolar that accounts for the lack of discriminatory power for the traits examined. Certainly, much more work needs to be done in dental anthropology on non-Mongoloid populations. 4. Molars. Considering the maxillary molars first, the variation in hypo- cone size is presented in Table 8. The SJo-68 series nicely demonstrates the field effect (e.g. Dahlberg, 1951, 1963) for increasing reduction and loss of the hypocone from the first to the third molars. The first molar has an incidence of unity (32/32) for the full-size hypocone (grade 4) while the second molar typically exhibits a reduced hypocone (grade 4-), and the third molar possesses both the smallest hypocones and the greatest variability in types of expression. These general conditions are typical of all human populations, but there is a more than usual retention of the full-size hypo- cone on the first molar in this sample (cf. Scott, 1973:178). The observed variation in Carabelli's trait is given in Table 9. As is typical of several Mongoloid series studied, and in contrast to Caucasoid samples, the SJo-68 molars do not commonly possess actual cusps, although the frequency of the complete complex is fairly high (8O% for Ml and 96% for M2) as with other American Indian series. The protostylid complex was scoredfor the lower molars (Table 10). The frequency of this trait (ca. 22% for Ml) is somewhat higher than for that reported for Southwest Indians (Scott, 1973:206), for Eskimo and Aleut (Turner, 1967), and for Pacific Islanders (e.a. Turner and Scott, 1973; Harris et al., n.d.). However, the SJo-68 frequencies for the protostylid complex of the three molars are closer to these Mongoloid groups than for the sketchily known Caucasoid groups. Lower molar cusp number in this series (Table 11) exhibits the typical influences of the field effect. Retention of five cusps is the mode for the first (96%) and second (82%) molars while the frequency is low in the third molars. The habitual retention of five cusps on Ml makes this trait of little interest for between-group comparisons, but the variability on the second molar suggests that the SJo-68 series aligns with the Mongoloid in contrast to Caucasoid or Negroid groups._ In these latter two geographic races, the incidence of five cusps on M2 is well below one-third (e.a. Jergensen, 1955: Table 5; Scott, 1973:Table 66) while the frequency in Mongoloid groups appears to be over one-half and is commonly in excess of three-fourths of all indi- viduals (or teeth) examined. 11 Mandibular molar groove pattern likewise exhibits less inter-group variation on the first than on the second or third molar. In the SJo-68 series (Table 12), the Y cusp pattern (occlusal contact between cusps 2 and 3) on M2 and M3 is uncommon. The low frequency is not uncommon in Mongoloid populations, but Caucasoid and, to a lesser extent, Negroid groups typically retain the phylogenetically more ancient Y pattern to a greater degree on these posterior molars. Scoring the molars for the occurrence of supernumerary cusps, the incidence of cusp 5 on the maxillary molars is 10.5 per cent on Ml (4/38) and absent on the second (0/24) and third (0/16) molars. Cusp 6, the "fentoconulid," on the lower molars is moderately common on the first (8.8%, 3/34) and second (8.7%, 2/23) molars, but was not found on the third molar (0/22). Cusp 7, the "metaconulid," occurs on 5.9 per cent (2/34) of the lower first molars, but not on the second (0/23) or third (0/22). Molar enamel extensions, the deflection of the enamel border on the buccal aspect of the crown-root junction, are common in the SJo-68 series (Table 13), ranging from 75 per cent (M1) to unity (M2). Comparison with Danish series (Pedersen and Thyssen, 1942 cited in Pedersen, 1949; Jirgensen, 1956) and an American White series (Chappel, 1927) suggest that enamel extensions, notably the marked forms, are uncommon in Europeans while being reasonably common in the New World. 5. Rare morphological variants. Table 14 presents the incidence of nine features which may be under essentially genetic rather than environmental control. Too little data are available to allow any meaningful comments on their anthropological significance, however. 6. Root configurations. Tables 15 and 16 present the root numbers and forms found in the SJo-68 series for the upper and lower arcades respectively. The classification is that originated by Turner (1967:133-152). As defined here, a root is independent of other roots for at least half of its overall length. A radical (or 'partial root') is free for less than half of its total length or may not even possess an independent apex, being recognized only by its elevated contour as seen in cross section. This scoring procedure differs from that used by some (e.&. Alexandersen, 1963) which equates root apices with root number. Because most of the studies have been done on living subjects without benefit of radiography and because most workers dealing with skeletal series or samples of extracted teeth have ignored the roots, this discussion must be essentially descriptive. Some of the exceptions are Pedersen's work on the East Greenland Eskimo (1949), papers by Tratman (1938) and Turner (1971) Which are concerned with three-rooted mandibular first molars, and the work by Alexandersen (e.&. 1963) on double-rooted lower canines. One example of a three-rooted mandibular first molar (3RMl) occurs in the SJo-68 series (Table 16) yielding a sample frequency of 4.5 per cent. This incidence compares well with other American Indian samples (mean = 5.9%, excluding Eskimo-Aleuts and Navajos), but stands in contrast to the lower incidence in the Negroid (absent) and Caucasoid (mean = 1.1%) samples studied 12 to date (see Turner, 1971). No example of two-rooted lower canines was found. 7. Additional observations. The size and incidence of the palatine and mandibular tori were recorded for the SJo-68 series (Tables 17 and 18 respectively). To date, only the high frequency of very pronounced tori among Eskimo groups has been recognized as of discriminatory utility in inter-group studies (cf. Hrdligka, 1940; Woo, 1950; N. T. Morris, 1970). As noted by Moorrees, only additional studies (and new techniques or procedures ?) will reveal whether the observed variations are "incidental or part of a geographic pattern" (1957:61). The incidence of congenital absence of third molars is 3.3 per cent (2/61) as a tooth count and 5.9 per cent (1/17) as an approximate individual count. No example of cosmetic or craft-related tooth modification was found. As already noted, though, occlusal attrition is severe in this series (cf. Leigh, 1928; Molnar, 1971). PREHISTORIC AFFINITIES In addition to the remarks on inter-group comparisons in the above descriptions, we have compared the SJo-68 dental series to select groups from the New and Old Worlds in order to estimate morphological relationships with this early New World sample. Two problems occur: Small sample sizes may produce spurious similarities or differences, especially when dealing on a subspecific level, and, two, inter-observer differences caused by the absence of agreed upon standards have often resulted in false interpretations of relationship. Phylogeny is also confounded by genetic adaptation of the individual populations to their specific environments subsequent to their biologic separation from other groups, although this has not yet been demon- strated for the dentition. Table 19 presents dental trait frequencies for seven series in addition to the SJo-68 data. The Sakhalin Ainu are presented here as a putative example of archaic Caucasoids which emigrated from the Southeast Asian source of this race. The Ainu have been the subject of countless arguments both for and against their archaic Caucasoid affiliation. Birdsell stated that the Ainu are "closely related" to the eastern branch of the Caucasoid race (1951:12), and he has remained firm in this opinion (e.&. Birdsell, 1972:499-500). Others have argued that the Ainu are reasonably within the range of Mongoloid variation, and simply evidence extremes for some few traits (e.g. facial and body hair). Two studies on the Ainu dental morphology are available, one by Suzuki and Sakai (1957) which is based on a small series of morphologically and culturally pure Ainu, and the second by Hanihara (1973) is an analysis specifically aimed at testing the non-Caucasoid (and non-Amurian) nature of the Ainu. 13 Relative to the SJo-68 sample, I2 lingual shoveling is more common in the Ainu, although both groups lack examples of trace- and no-shoveling. This grade distribution is in the direction of intensification of this Mongoloid dental feature, which, of course, is most pronounced in certain American Indian groups living today. The Ainu exhibit an intermediate frequency of the cusp of Carabelli (i.e. the forms with free apices) on Ml and may lack actual cusps on M2; Hanihara reports a frequency of 9.5 per cent (10/105 individuals) for living Ainu (1973:Table 2). The low but positive incidence of protostylid tubercles on Ml conforms to known Mongoloid samples. The Ainu possess a greater incidence of six-cusped MT than the SJo-68 series, or, for that matter, any of the other groups in Table 19. This is probably not just a function of sample size because Hanihara (1973) reports an in- cidence of 26.6 per cent (21/79 individuals). Palatine and mandibular tori appear more commonly in the Ainu than in the SJo-68 series. Upper central incisor shoveling and the frequency of large hypocones on Ml are similar to those in SJo-68, but there is a more pronounced trend towards the loss of the hypocone on M2 (as with most groups) among the Ainu than that evidenced in the SJo-68 sample. The dental plan of the Ainu lends no support to the view that these people are Caucasoid. The problem exists that genetic changes through time may have occurred so that the living Ainu are different (i.e. more Mongoloid) in their dental form than their potential archaic ancestors. Examinations of the osteology (Yamaguchi, 1967), dermatoglyphics (Kimura, 1962), and serologic polymorphisms (Omoto, 1972) do not support such an interpretation, however. Analysis of a larger, prehistoric sample of the Ainu dentition would help to further clarify this problem; there does not appear to be any difficulty distinguishing these people from the present, Japanese inhabitants (Howells, 1966). Now, though, we simply note that the SJo-68 series is similar to the Ainu only insofar as both series reflect Mongoloid dental characteristics, and, interestingly, the differences (et.. I2 shoveling, protostylid tubercles) are due to the Ainu expressing the Mongoloid plan more intensely; hypocone reduction is the only, tentative, exception for the traits examined. Descendants of the Amurians are represented by the Australian Aborigines. (That is, Birdsell suggested that the Australians are descended in part from the Murrayians who shared a common ancestry with the Amurians.) Both the Australians and the SJo-68 sample appear to have a strong retention of full- size hypocones on Ml, a tendency which contrasts with the direction in which American Whites (Mediterranean Caucasoids) have evolved. The Australians are also notable in their retention of the hypocone on M2 and M3, perhaps as a selective response to their need for greater tooth mass (cf. Molnar, 1972). As noted below, though, this apparent need for tooth mass is not evidenced in the lower molars where the Australians and some other groups have not retained the hypoconulid, especially on M2. The teeth are large in size, though. The Australian sample is similar to SJo-68 in its low incidence of palatine and mandibular tori, particularly when one considers the larger grades, but is quite distinct in its high frequency of Carabelli's cusp on Ml. Riesenfeld (1956) provides data on maxillary incisor shoveling for Oceanic groups wherein he notes that the Australians have 64 per cent shoveling (51% trace and 13% semi) in a sample of 47 teeth (22I1 + 25 I2). This suggests that the archaic Caucasoids are considerably closer to the Mongoloid pattern 14 of shoveling than to that of the Mediterranean branch, but they are not similar or truly intermediate to the grade distribution in the SJo-68 sample. Insofar as the Australians are the best example of the archaic Caucasoid branch referred to by Birdsell, it is unfortunate that a more recent study with more comparable analysis is not available for their dental morphology than Campbell's pioneering work (1925). Hanihara's brief analysis (1973) does suggest that the Australians are relatively unlike the Asiatic. and New World groups studied to date. It has long been recognized that the Mediterranean Caucasoids have followed a different evolutionary track and are, therefore, not nearly as useful for the purposes of these comparisons (e. Birdsell, 1951:14). As the evidence stands, there is no good case for a phylogenetic relationship between the Australian Aborigine and the American Indian. Similar frequencies obtain for the mutual absence of moderate and large grades of mandibular and palatine tori, but the dental evidence provides several distinctions: Australians have almost no incisor shoveling (and no marked examples) Carabelli's cusp is much more common, as is reduction of cusp number on MS, and there is a greater retention of the hypocone. The recently studied group of American Whites (Scott,1973) is the most directly comparable data on the Mediterranean Caucasoids (this particular sample is from California and Arizona). Additional data on a variety of Southeastern European Whites has recently been reported by Kochiyev (1973). The striking differences relative to the SJo-68 series is the absence of moderate and pronounced grades of incisor shoveling, simplification of the Caucasoid maxillary molars evidenced by the reduction of the hypocone on Ml and M2, and the relatively high incidence of an actual cusp of Carabelli. Although the frequencies for cusp number are close to SJo-68 for Ml, the Whites are noted, as are the Australians, for the absence of the hypoconulid on the lower second molars compared to Mongoloid groups. At least for the first molar, the SJo-68 series exhibits a greater incidence of actual tubercles at the protostylid sites than do the Whites. In all, the Mediterranean Caucasoids are quite distinct, and these comparisons agree with the suggestion by Thoma (1973) that the Mongoloids represent an early separation onto a separate evolutionary track, probably during the Neandertal stage. The Papago, a Sonoran desert Uto-Aztecan group in Southern Arizona, are presented here as an Indian group which appears to have occupied the same geographic area for several millenia. Compared to this early California series, the Papago possess very similar grade distributions of lingual shoveling in both Il and I2. A different grading procedure for the grade 4 hypocone is responsible for the frequencies being considerably different in these Papago; the biologically similar Pima Indians do not express any notable difference to the SJo-68 sample except for a higher frequency of three-cusped M2 (19%, 36/182 individuals) when Dahlberg's scale is used (see Dahlberg, 1951:165-166). The Papago exhibit relatively high frequencies of Carabelli's cusp (i.e. with a free apex) which is roughly twice that of even the White series, suggesting a possible trend towards increasing tooth mass or complexity. In contrast, there is a reduction in molar size in the Papago as seen in the higher frequency of absence of the fifth and sixth cusps in the Papago Ml and M2 relative to SJo-68; in this latter feature, the Papago approximate the Caucasoid condition. The molar groove patterns of the 15 Papago are more like the SJo-68 condition than like Whites. No protostylid Cusps appear to occur in the Papago. The Hopi are also a Uto-Aztecan group with considerable antiquity in their homeland of Northeastern Arizona (e.g. Seltzer, 1944), but these people occupy a higher, wetter and colder ecologic setting than do the Papago. The Hopi exhibit lower incidences of the extreme form of incisor shoveling relative to SJo-68 and other American Indian groups in Table 19, but clearly do not align with the Caucasian examples. Although the distribution of hypo- cone forms on Ml is similar between the Hopi and SJo-68, M2 exhibits an appreciable reduction in hypocone size relative to SJo-68 and is even more extreme in this respect than the American White series. For the other traits in Table 19, the Hopi series is not readily distinguished from the other samples. The Navajo represent a recent Athapascan immigration into the American Southwest and possibly are relatively recent to the New World. This particular sample was collected at Keams Canyon (Hopi Reservation), Arizona, which, because of admixture, may account for its gross similarity to non-Athapascan Southwest groups. Upper incisor shoveling is clearly Mongoloid, but is not notable relative to other American Indian groups. As seen in the other native groups, the Navajo do not exhibit the strong retention of large hypocones on the molars. The Navajo and Hopi series both indicate somewhat higher frequencies of actual cusps at the Carabelli and protostylid sites than do the Caucasian samples. The Aleut, along with the Eskimo, are possibly the most recent pre- Columbian immigrants into the New World, and, as such, are suggested to best approximate the nature of Northeastern Siberian dentitions. The Aleuts do not exhibit the high incidence of full shoveling characteristic of American Indians including SJo-68, but there is also an absence of non-shoveling in these Arctic Mongoloids. The distributions of the hypocone form is similar to SJo-68 for Ml and M3, but cusp four reduction is more pronounced on M2 for the Aleut. Carabelli's cusp is conspicuous by its absence, but the proto- Stylid cuspule is, relatively, not uncommon in this northern series. Cusp number in the Aleuts tends toward increasing (or at least not reducing) tooth mass; possession of five- and six-cusped molars is more common in the Aleut Ml, notably so forM2. The characteristics of Mongoloid and Caucasoid dental features differentiate from one another rather clearly (Table 19), but, since it is the relative proportions within the grade distribution per trait which best distinguishes these groups, rather than specific percentages, it is not possible to state unequivocally that there is no archaic Caucasoid component in the SJo-68 sample, or, by extension, other American Indian groups. By the same. token, however, Birdsell's model contends that, if present, a Caucasoid element should manifest itself more clearly in this temporally early, marginal series than in, say, living series of American Indians. Using the approach suggested to be ". . . pertinent to the solution of American Indian origins" (Birdsell, 1951:55), the parsimonious conclusion is that the Asian immigrants into North America were sufficiently within the known range of Mongoloid dental variation to exclude the need for assuming any Caucasoid element. 16 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Temporal and spatial limitations, in addition to the biologic evidence itself, strongly mitigates against the possibility of racial groups other than archaic Caucasoid and Mongoloid immigrating into the New World prehistorically. The Asian origin of the American Indian is without question, but whether there was also a Caucasoid contribution has not been adequately determined. Birdsell's delineation of some somatic traits which are in low frequency in some Indian groups and which are common in modern Caucasian populations has been cited as a priori evidence of such a non-Mongoloid component. The present study describes and compares the dental morphology of an Early Horizon California skeletal series dating circa 2,000 B. C. This description is of value in its own right, but, of equal interest, the SJo-68 series does not exhibit any recognizable Caucasoid component. It may be argued that this series is simply too recent and that the many millenia between the peopling of the New World and the occupation of SJo-68 was more than sufficient to dilute the Amurian characteristics beyond recognition. A review of the dental morphology of the isolated early man finds from both Northeast Asia and from North and South America indicates that this is not the case. Although the details are beyond the scope of this paper, examination of the literature devoted to early man skeletal descriptions (e.R. Jenks,1936; Black and Eyman, 1963; Anderson, 1965; Angel)1966; Romano, 1970; Breternitz et al.,1971) shows that the Mongoloid rather than the Caucasoid dental complex (see Hanihara,1967) is manifest in all prehistoric American Indians. This is to say that, as in SJo-68, the Mongoloid dental complex has 1) a high frequency of lingual shoveling on II and I2, 2) a high frequency of the protostylid complex (when all grades are considered), and 3) a low incidence of actual cusps of Carabelli. Additionally, the SJo-68 series is characterized by retention of large hypocones on Ml, some proto- stylid cuspules, relatively common incisor winging, and the occurrence of 3RM1. All of these features stand in significant contrast to the Caucasoid dental plan. Finally, even though no recognizable Caucasoid element can be found in the SJo-68 dental series, the contention may be made that the authors are "feasy evolutionists" (cf. Birdsell 1972:499) in that they rely on a parsimon- ious interpretation of the data. This is indeed true, and it has already been mentioned that the use of epigenetic traits which vary in proportion instead of simple occurrence prevents absolute proof of a single biologic origin of the American Indian. There are also the questions of how much gene flow from a non-Mongoloid source could have occurred and yet go undetected, and, secondly, what influence the actual movement of people into North America through the so-called "Arctic filter" had on either the diminution or the accentuation of non-Mongoloid characteristics. It is possible, then, that a proportionately insignificant non-Mongoloid genetic contribution, if indeed it existed, will not be found in the New World simply because it was selected out as the aboriginal immigrants crossed the Bering Platform to North America. In any event, there is no evidence of it either in the subfossil record of modern man in northeastern Asia or in the New World, and the bio- logic evidence of this early California series points entirely towards an immigration of only Mongoloid peoples. 17 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported in part by a Genetics Training Grant from the National Institute of Health to one of the authors (EFH) (5 T01 GM1433-06), and portions of this paper were prepared when one (CGT) was a 1970-71 Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California. Drs. William R. Bascom and Robert F. Heizer permitted the study of the SJo-68 collection in the Lowie Museum, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. 18 REFERENCES CITED Abrahams, L. C. 1949 Shovel-shaped incisors in the Cape Malays. Journal of the Dental Association of South Africa 4:7. Alexandersen, 1963 V. Double-rooted human lower canine teeth. In Dental Anthropology. D. R. Brothwell, editor. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 235-244. Angel, J. L. 1966 Early skeletons from Tranquillity, California. Contributions to Anthropology, vol. 2, no. 1. Smithsonian Barksdale, J. T. 1972 A descriptive and comparative investigation of dental morph- ology. Appendix III. In Physical Anthropology of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. R. A. Littlewood. Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp. 113-174. Beardsley, R. K. 1948 Culture sequences in Central California archaeology. American Antiquity 14:1-28. Birdsell, J. B. 1951 The problem of the early peopling of the Americas as viewed from Asia. In Papers on the Physical Anthropology of the American Indian. W. S. Laughlin, editor. New York: The Viking Fund, pp. 1-68. 1972 Human Evolution; An Introduction to the New Physical Anthropology. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company. Black, Meredith, and C. E. Eyman 1963 The Union Lake Skull, a possible early Indian find in Michigan. American Antiquity 29:39-48. Borden, C. E. 1969 Breternitz, 1971 Bryan, A. L. 1969 Early population movements from Asia into western North America. Syesis 2:1-13. D. A., A. C. Swedlund, and D. C. Anderson An early burial from Gordon Creek, Colorado. Antiquity 36:170-182. American Early man in America and the late Pleistocene chronology of western Canada and Alaska. Current Anthropology 10:339- 365. 19 Campbell, T. D. 1925 Dentition and palate of the Australian Aboriginal. University of Adelaide Publications, no. 1. Carbonell, V. M. 1963 Variations in the frequency of shovel-shaped incisors in different populations. In Dental Anthropology. D. R. Brothwell, editor. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 211-234. Chappel, H. G. 1927 Jaws and teeth of ancient Hawaiians. Memoirs of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum 9:251-268. Chia, L. P. 1957 Notes on the human and other mammalian remains from Changyang, Hupei. Vertebrata Paleasiatica 3:252-257. Dahlberg, A. A. n.d. Materials for the establishment of standards for classifications of tooth characters,, attributes and techniques in morphological studies of the dentition. Mimeo (1957). 1951 The dentition of the American Indian. In Papers on the Physical Anthropology of the American Indian. W. S. Laughlin, editor. New York: The Viking Fund, pp. 138-176. 1963 Analysis of the American Indian dentition. In Dental Anthropology. D. R. Brothwell, editor. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 149-177. DeVoto, F. C. H., and N. H. Arias 1967 Shovel-shaped incisors in early Atacama Indians. Journal of Dental Research 46:1478. Diamond, Moses 1952 Dental Anatomy, Including Anatomy of the Head and Neck. New York: The MacMillan Company. Enoki, Kei, and A. A. Dahlberg 1958 Rotated maxillary central incisors. Orthodontic Journal of Japan 17:157-169. Goldstein, M. S. 1948 Hanihara, Kei 1967 1973 Dentition of Indian crania from Texas. Physical Anthropology 6:63-84. American Journal of Racial characteristics in the dentition. Journal of Dental Research 46:923-932. Dentition of the Ainu and the Australian Aborigines. Paper delivered at the IXth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Chicago. Harris, E. F., 1972 and G. R. Scott The dental morphology of the prehistoric inhabitants of Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico. (Abstract in Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 7: 10-11). Harris, E. F., J. H. Underwood, and C. G. Turner II n.d. Dental morphology of living Yapese, Micronesia. (in prep.) Hellman, Milo 1928 Racial characteristics in human dentition. Part I. A racial distribution of the Dryopithecus pattern and its modifications in the lower molar teeth of man. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 67:157-174. Heizer, R. F. 1949 The archaeology of Central California. Anthropological Records 12, 1. 1958 Radiocarbon dates from California of archaeological interest. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 44:1-16. Heizer, R. F., and S. F. Cook 1949 The archaeology of Central California: A comparative analysis of human bone from nine sites. University of California Anthropological Reports 12:85-111. Hooton, E. A. 1918 On certain Eskimoid characters in Icelandic skulls. Journal of Physical Anthropology 1:53-76. Hopkins, D. M., editor 1967 The Bering Land Bridge. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Howells, W. W. 1959 1966 Hrdligka, Alex 1907 Mankind in the Making; The Story of Human Evolution. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc. Craniometry and multivariate analysis: The Jomom population of Japan, a study of discriminant analysis of Japanese and Ainu crania. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 57:1-43. "Anatomy." Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Part I. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 30, pp. 53-56. Shovel-shaped teeth. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 3:429-465. Further studies on tooth morphology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 4:141-176. 20 American 1920 1921 vv Hrdlicka, Alevs 1940 Mandibular and maxillary hyperostoses. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 27:1-67. Jenks, A. E. 1936 Jorgensen, K. D. 1955 1956 Kennedy, K. A. E 1960 Kimura, K. 1962 Pleistocene Man in Minnesota, A Fossil Homo sapiens. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. The Dryopithecus pattern in recent Danes and Dutchmen. Journal of Dental Research 34:195-208. The deciduous dentition. A descriptive and comparative anatomical study. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica vol. 14, supplement 20, pp. 1-202. 1. The dentition of Indian crania of the Early and Late archaeological horizons in Central California. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 50:41-50. The Ainus, viewed from their finger and palm prints. Zeitschrift fur Morphologie und Anthropologie 52:176-198. Kochiyev, R. 1973 S. Odontological characteristics of Caucasion ethnic groups. Paper delivered at the IXth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Chicago. Kraus, B. S. 1951 Kraus, B. S., 1953 Carabelli's anomaly of on Mexicans and Papago inheritance. American 348-355. and M. L. Furr Lower first premolars. of discrete morphologic 32:554-564. the maxillary molar teeth. Observations Indians and on interpretation of the Journal of Physical Anthropology 9: Part I. A definition and classification traits. Journal of Dental Research Lasker, G. W. 1950 Leigh,$ R. W. 1928 1930 Genetic analysis of racial traits of the teeth. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 15:191-203. Dental pathology of aboriginal California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 23:399-440. Dental morphology and pathology of prehistoric Guam. Memoirs of the B. P. Bishop Museum 11, 3. 21 --- Ludwig, F. J. 1957 The mandibular second premolar: Morphologic variation and inheritance. Journal of Dental Research 36:263-273. Molnar, Stephen 1971 Human tooth wear, tooth function and cultural variability. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 34:175-190. Tooth wear and culture: A survey of tooth functions among some prehistoric populations. Current Anthropology 13:511-526. Moorrees, C. 1957 Morris, D. H. 1965 Morris, N. T. 1970 Movius, H. S. 1956 Omoto, K. 1972 F. A. The Aleut Dentition; A Correlative Study of Dental Characteristics in an Eskimoid People. Cambridge: University Press. Harvard The Anthropological Utility of Dental Morphology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson. The Occurrence of Mandibular Torus at Gran Quivira. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Arizona State University, Tempe. New Paleolithic sites near Ting T'sun on the Fen River, Shansi Province, North China. Quaternaria 3:13-26. Polymorphisms and genetic affinities of the Ainu of Hokkaido. Human Biology in Oceania 1:278-288. Pedersen, P. 0. 1949 The East Greenland Eskimo Dentition, Numerical Variation and Anatomy. A Contribution to Comparative Ethnic Odontography. Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzels. Pedersen, P. O., and H. Thyssen 1942 Den cervicale Emaljerands Forl6b hos Eskimoer. Odontologisk Tidskrift 50:444-492. Pei, W. C., and J. K. Woo 1957 Tzeyang Paleolithic man. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology Memoirs, no. 1. Ragir, Sonia 1972 The Early Horizon of the University Facility, No. 15. in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of California Archaeological Research University of California, Berkeley. IRiesenfeld, Alphonse 1956 Shovel-shaped incisors and a few other dental features among the native peoples of the Pacific. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 14:505-521. 22 1972 - Romano, Arturo 1970 Rothhammer, F., 1968 Preceramic human remains. In Handbook of Middle American Indians. Volume 9. T. D. Stewart, editor. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 22-34. E. Laserre, R. Blanco, E. Covarrubias, and M. Dixon Micro-evolution in human Chilean populations. IV. Shovel-shape, mesio-palatal version and other dental traits in. Pewenche Indians. Zeitschrift fur Morphologie und Anthropologie 60:162-169. Scott, J. H., and, N. B. Symons 1958 Introduction to Dental Anatomy. Edinburgh: E. and S. Livingstone, Ltd. Scott, G. R. 1972 1973 Seltzer, C. C. 1944 Stewart, T. D. 1973 Suzuki, Makoto, 1957 Thoma, A. 1973 Analysis of population and family data on Carabelli's trait and shovel-shaped incisors. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Lawrence, Kansas. Dental Morphology: A Genetic Study of American White Families and Variation in Living Southwest Indians. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Arizona State University, Tempe. Racial prehistory in the Southwest and the Hawikuh Zunis. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 23:1-37. The People of America. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. and Takuro Sakai The living Sakhalin Ainu dentition. Anthropological Reports 18:303-346. New evidence for the polycentric evolution of Homo sapiens. Journal of Human Evolution 2:529-536. Tratman, E. K. 1938 Three-rooted lower molars in man and their racial distribution. British Dental Journal 64:264-274. Turner, C. G., II n.d. New classifications of non-metrical dental variation: Cusps 6 and 7. Mimeo (1970). Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. 1967 The Dentition of Arctic Peoples. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison. 23 Turner, C. G., ] 1969 [I Microevolutionary interpretations from the dentition. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 30:421-426. Three-rooted mandibular first permanent molars and the question of American Indian origins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 34:229-242. Turner, C. G., 1973 II, and G. R. Scott Peopling of the Pacific. I. The dentition of living Easter Islanders, Eastern Polynesia. Paper delivered at the IXth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Chicago. Weidenreich, Franz 1939 The Upper Paleolithic man of the Upper Cave of Choukoutien and his bearing on the problem of the provenance of the American Indians. Proceedings of the VIth Pacific Science Congress 4:165-168. Woo3, J.0 1950 1959 Wormington, H. V 1964 Yamaguchi, B. 1967 Torus palatinus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 8:81-100. Human fossils found in Liukang, Kwangsi, China. Vertebrata Palaeasiatica 3:109-118. I. Ancient Man in North America. Fifth edition. Denver Museum of Natural History. Denver: A comparative study of the Ainu and Australian Aborigines. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Occasional Papers, no. 10. 24 1971 25 Table 1 Distribution of SJo-68 Sample by Age and Sex Sex M+F+? Age Male Female uncertain n % Infant (x-3 yrs.) 0 0 1 1 3.7 Child(4-6) 1* 0 3 4 14.8 Child (7-12) 0 0 5 5 18.5 Adolescent (13-17) 3 1 3 7 25.9 Subadult (18-20) 0 3 0 3 11. 1 Young Adult (21-35) 2 1 0 3 11. 1 Middle Aged (36-55) 2 2 0 4 14. 8 Totals 8 7 12 27 *Aex based on very large size of erupting first permanent molars. oq cq cqeq eq eq C> 0C) CQ C) Cm t- C C; CO~ CO CO C; L Q O o o o oCOC * * *ooo o o CO C00 *H o~~~~~% e q'do 0 eq mI 0 eq 0 (c 0 0 0 0 CD 00 t- LOMLO LOLO 00 00 t- 0 O O LO CD wCD OOQCD In C4 to 0- co CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; LO V-I 0 00 11 0 u:~~~~~C 0 00 0 a) 0 C0 Cd -DC. - - 4 0 B *d 0 PI) 4 0 Z F-4 E M S !lt 26 0 0 0 eq 0 0 '-, 0 0 eq to q- 0 CQ C4 cq 4-- a) eq a) ;: Qq Cd o Od > O 00 -) O E- 4-2) 0 4-) 4-) a)4 0 0 0 00 '-, 114 * a) 0 I B ; Qo cq m pc P 4R 4-4 -. 27 $4 w M H 6 a) * H 0 E- ? * C14 .~ 00 00 0 0; a)4 0 $4 a) ..Oft% 4) ,4 a ;8 0 pi E-4 cd Va4) I ;8 A a) 0 $4 P4 - - s 0 0, a) E-q $4 a) Q ,0 a0 04 0 Do 1-4 0 co l-~ O LOcq 0 La CQ CO C o o tO o0 cq C-0 Lqt '-I C.0 co r- LO r-Y b C C w Co a) Io:: .,,4 0a) o P ZOH E- *E CAO a) be Io Cd ;8 a) 0 a) ,0 z 'I. 28 Table 4 Maxillary Central Incisor Rotation (Individual count, sexes pooled) Individuals Form of Winging* n % Bilateral 0 0.0 Unilateral 1 12.5 Straight (none) 7 87. 5 Unilateral Counter- winging 0 0.0 Bilateral Counter- winging 0 0.0 Total 8 100.0 *After K. Enoki and A. A. Dahlberg, 1958. 29 Table 5 Tuberculum Dentale* (Tooth count, sexes pooled) Tooth, maxilla Left Right Sides Pooled Percent Canine 2 2 4/12 33.3 Lateral incisor 1 2 3/17 17.6 Central incisor 1 1 2/16 12. 5 *After C. Turner, 1967. 30 Table 6 Mandibular First Premolar Variation (Tooth count, sexes pooled) First Premolar Sides Characteristic* Left Right Pooled Percent la. No external lingual groove 4 2 6/15 40.0 lb. One external lingual groove 5 4 9/15 60.0 ic. Two external lingual grooves 0 0 0/15 0.0 2a. Interrupted sagittal sulcus 8 8 16/16 100.0 2b. Uninterrupted sagittal sulcus 0 0 0/16 0.0 3a. Lingual cusp is mesial 6 7 13/16 81.2 3b. Lingual cusp is distal 0 0 0/16 0.0 3c. Lingual cusp is medial 2 1 3/16 18. 8 4a. One lingual cusp 7 7 14/16 87.5 4b. Two lingual cusps 1 1 2/16 12.5 4c. Three lingual cusps 0 0 0/16 0.0 4d. Four lingual cusps 0 0 0/16 0.0 5a. Single medial occlusal ridge, buccal cusp 3 1 4/4 100.0 5b. Divergent medial occlusal ridge, buccal cusp 0 0 0/4 0.0 6a. One occlusal pit 2 1 3/16 18.8 6b. Two occlusal pits 6 7 13/16 81.2 7a. Fused lingual andbuccal cusp 6 8 14/16 87.5 7b. Independent lingual and buccal cusp 2 0 2/16 12.5 *After B. S. Kraus and M. L. Furr, 1953. 31 Table 7 Mandibular Second Premolar Variation (Tooth count, sexes pooled) Second Premolar Sides Characteristic* Left Right Pooled Percent la. One distal accessory ridge, buccal cusp 0 0 0/8 0.0 lb. One mesial accessory ridge, buccal cusp 0 1 1/8 12.5 Ic. Mesial and distal accessory ridge 3 4 7/8 87.5 2a. Single occlusal ridge, buccal cusp 0 2 2/6 33.3 2b. Divergent occlusal ridge, buccal cusp 2 2 4/6 66.6 3a. Lingual cusp is medial 0 3 3/13 23. 1 3b. Lingual cusp is mesial 5 4 9/13 69.2 3c. Lingual cusp is distal 0 1 1/13 7.7 4a. One lingual cusp 3 3 6/10 60.0 4b. Two lingual cusps 1 3 4/10 40.0 4c. Three lingual cusps 0 0 0/10 0.0 5a. Lingual cusp is independent 4 5 9/10 90.0 5b. Lingual cusp is fused 0 1 1/10 10.0 6a. Multiple lingual cusp is medial 0 0 0/4 0.0 6b. Multiple lingual cusp is distal 1 2 3/4 75.0 6C. Multiple lingual cusp is mesial 0 1 1/4 25.0 7a. Sagittal sulcus is interrupted 2 3 5/9 55.6 7b. Sagittal sulcus is not interrupted 1 3 4/9 44.4 After F. J. Ludwig, 1957. 32 00 a) -Cd E-4 w a) p4. Cd V P4 0 $4 + CO 4114 * a) S0 -0 0 0 H- Q O Q t o C>~ 0 1- CQ eq O 0C) co 0C' CLr 0 14 v-4 00 CQ CO~ 0 es cq 0)4 v-I T- CQ CQ r- 0 '-4 mcq0i-4 I-- C~ 'I- CO(=T- 0 $4 a) So -0 4 $4 a) S44 * a) 0 0 a) fr~ a) 0 0 0 ooocqoo c lll0'~ 00'- m -q0C eq~0 0 0 0~d Q C> c4 d q 0 0C C cq o o o o 0 0 cq1 0 0 0 011 dx 4 0 N- .5 > > 0 0 O p P .bD 33 .0- oo r- a 0 0 H E- 0 0q 0 0 0 b C4 0 4 0 14 * 0 34 Table 10 Protostylid Variation (Tooth count, sexes pooled) Ml M2 M3 Grade* n % n % n % No cusp, straight buccal groove 19/28 67.9 17/26 65.4 10/16 62.5 No cusp, pitinbuccalgroove 8/28 28.6 9/26 34.6 2/16 12.5 No cusp, curved buccal groove 0/28 0.0 0/26 0.0 0/16 0.0 Small cusp, buccal groove just beginning 0/28 0.0 0/26 0.0 0/16 0.0 Slight cusp 1/28 3.5 0/26 0.0 0/16 0.0 Moderate cusp 0/28 0.0 0/26 0.0 0/16 0.0 Strong cusp 0/28 0.0 0/26 0.0 4/16 25.0 *After A. A. Dahlberg, 1963, and elsewhere. 35 Table 11 Mandibular Molar Cusp Number* (Tooth count, sexes pooled) 4 5 6 Tooth n % n % n % Ml 0/23 0.0 22/23 95. 6 1/23 4.4 M2 1/27 3.7 22/27 81.5 4/27 14.8 M3 6/23 26.1 8/23 34.8 9/23 39.1 *Modified after W. K. Gregory, 1916: see C. Turner, 1967 and elsewhere. 36 Table 12 Mandibular Molar Groove Patterns (Tooth count, sexes pooled) Y + X H Tooth Pattern* n % n % n % n % Ml 21/23 91.3 2/23 8.7 0/23 0.0 0/23 0. 0 M2 0/27 0. 0 10/27 37. 0 17/27 63.0 0/27 0. 0 M3 0/23 0.0 3/23 13.0 17/23 73.9 3/23 13.0 *After W. K. Gregory, 1916; M. Hellman, 1928; and K. D. Jrgensen, 1955. cQ0LO ao oi to o Lo C9 - co 4o T- cq V- e1 cq eq cq C9 o cq cq 0 4 ci d4 4 8 C14 Cq L Q r4 dx4 r4 L8c V- LO %-I C N qc vc N- % -- C Q o c400 00000Hds * * * *00 eqcq L(H cx e0cH 0 c - -o o cq c o dx 4 L )0 La 00 ,--I om0 10 Z o 4-3 3 G 0 P4 Xd a) 37 0 LO :1 0 0 * mv 0- ,0 H-- 0 4 'o o 0 o 04 0 o ED 4 _) 4 '-4 * 0 IFlC m m Lo o o 0 LOOr-i-1 OO 0 WWMOOQOO 0 j4J U) S - ~ ~ ~ p 4C 3 Cd 4- o o o ce o dbp o 0 ooo Cd OI0 J 6d 00 o b 1 4 O 0 F I 38 ro a) p-4 a) ct0 a) a) m 0~ ._,I .*4 *o a) ,0 Po 0 0 0 1 O - r 0 a, (4a) $.4U '.4 Q) 4.21 .4 Cd 0 ro .5 ;8 0-r4I Co 0 U) 0 z ~0 U) ut * 4 4.) O 0 0; C/) Po '0 co 0i 0S U) U) '.4 Ua 0 co 0% C-4t '-4I '0 U3) $4. P4. * 4-) 0~ '.4 0 '.4 0 P4 a4z cvo 00o 0 ocs oo 000000000o o c c 000000000 * o o O o X e O co XIf 00000s 0c o Ho o 0 a Q o o I I I m Cd .A * e00 0 - - 0 0 4*0 0 0 0 I I I co 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0n00 I 1 IQ? ' co ; Cd Z e o e o o I I I 0 ~ 0 0~ ot r .0 - 0q c z P 0 t- 0 oo I I I m 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - H C4 H NO NO C o> II Cd ~ ~ rl T i s l E qi 0~~~~~~ 0 I0 0 ~~~..4 40C 0 0 0 0 HV 0400O I I I ~~0 LOLOLOLOO 00 0 0 r 0 00 00 0 0 0 p IL4 0 I I I 9 -I '-4%V- R 4. ks 1 7 .0 0 :4- z *- - - - qm Nc 41 Table 17 Palatine Torus in SJo-68 Sample (Individual count, sexes pooled) Individuals Grade n % Absent 15 75.0 Slight 5 25.0 Medium 0 0.0 Large 0 0.0 Very large* 0 0.0 Total 20 100.0 *As in some Eskimo 42 Table 18 Mandibular Torus (Individual count, sexes pooled) Individuals Grade* n % Absent 17/18 94.5 Very slight 1/18 5.5 Other 0/18 0.0 *After E. A. Hooton, 1918 and N. T. Morris, 1970. 43 Caption TABLE 19 Intergroup comparisons of morphologic dental traits. Trait selection is based on availability of data and between-observer comparability. Group selection is discussed in the text. Sexes are pooled in all samples. The SJo-68, Sakhalin Ainu, and Australian Aborigine series are tooth counts; the others are individual counts; only symmetric individuals are used for the Papago. Data sources: SJo-68 (present study), Sakhalin Ainu (Suzuki and Sakai, 1957), Australian Aborigine (Campbell, 1925), American White (Scott, 1973), Papago (D. H. Morris, 1965), Hopi and Navajo (Harris and Scott, 1972 and Scott, 1973), and Aleut (Turner, 1967). Grading scales: lingual shoveling (Hrdli~ka, 1920), hypocone size (Dahlberg, 1951), Carabelli's cusp (grades 6 and 7 of Dahlberg, 1963), cusp number (Gregory, 1916, Hellman, 1928 and J6rgensen, 1955), protostylid tubercle (grades 4, 5, and 6 of Dahlberg, 1963), palatine torus (Woo, 1950), mandibular torus (Hooton, 1918 and N. T. Morris, 1970). Frequencies equaling less than 1007% indicate that additional variants were scored. 0 CY Ln C . o o o ooN 00 cr 4 _I un c; cle O~ X Un CY) C1 % HC m L oo 0 4 0o 004 0 ul) on ^ oUrH Lf) 0C 00 0Lf C) o~ .4 4 00 C4 C; C) CS ) Ck4 Ck4 e 4 CS oo cf m cr) 04 00 _ n n 0 0 '-1. 03' 00 oY Cn CN -S M UnI C) L I 00 as' i-4 Ln3 N' C'J 00 Lr) ON t-I Lf) C'.3 C) O 0 C' 00 0 0 103 0 O Oc ' O C LUt 00 00 I I I I I I I 00 00 00 _-_ 00 r- c0 00C N-: CNI r-f00 O0O f 3' 0 0 4 00 -4 00 CN 00 0 C40" ;C e-N e-%eo- -3 -'- N-N- C' 4 c00 00 C D m J LI' IL v-Il-I r-4 u-r-4 I-f CNI C'N 4c _ _- _ _.3, %-.le _ _33, o3 ao -N 0 000000 0 0 0 CNII CNJ4CNI '03of '330 y-fvr-fir-f'.Q L', C'4 '-1 00 u-I %It 00 I I I I CN -4 00 I I I I % C"' I I I I C% * I C14 00 Lt 0 CY) I * 0 C' C', CC , '.0 0 CY C I I I I u-Il 0 0-I 0 .- 0 0 0 0 4 0 o3 Ch r- 0l_ .; 0-3" I I I I C4 % I-f %3-O OO0L', 00N- r CY') Ln '.0 O Oc'N- * *C -, O; O; e U) -4, 0 0 0 0 * T O- 00 H 0 0; ' %D % 0 0 L)co L' CN " CqN NJ C'.33Ncn'" -l-- -I ,-I r-4 CY)C, m C CNY)CY _ C _Z_. _ _- _ __O _-. _-O%01 -, % u-r-4N- f%0 N-N- Id' 0~ (', LI) 0 .4 0 0 03-% tko bo i- CU C) *,1 u- u- XU O. s-i CU~ '0 4-I o C 4 c- 0 -4 4. >/' C/4')0 O1 x- I-f r-1 's41 -*4 Cl) av) a) av) '-4 0 0 0 - v 1 + c) I + u I + D4 044 044e 4 1 z 44 G) I-' 0 0 0 U co .1 or4 .3-4 Co q4 Cl) 0 .-i4 .,4 O 0 *1 Cl) 0 C'3 00 03 0 .4 I- 3 I I I 0 0; 00 0 cl .r4 CU s-I 1-4 0 4- 0 0 EH co co 'a Cs) a C) C C") C CU C/) *-f C. -40 U) a to Ct 0 r4 C-1 1 I r-4 r-4 r-4 CN 0 %It r-f r4 r-4 00 Lr) Nt r-I r-I I I I I I OD cD C C uE~ -:- en L U- 0 r- Ln -3 - O) C * 0 - 00 Ce' - 0 00. LrN - C C~~J-c I I . . I oo -aO cn%- CD o O0 00 _ I- ,4 . 0-11 Cf. ' .O 00 \Dl CDl r~ J . * I cnU U-% I I I I I I 00 C -- I '.0 0 .D. I I I I I I . . .3 I I I I I I _z I (N 0.'0 I I (N L\ CN 0. 00 UN rl . I , cv cs CN I _zr r-co0 0 0 C) I I I r. nP- 33 3 U. I I I I I I .-.. .1,. 00 00 0 CN 000 * *o 0 0 I I I I I I II C.0 C.'.CD I I I .; .; C o, oV' o I I I 0 0 C) _ r MM _- r- Lr% 00 _-: 0 LC~ O @. r'Dc- .3 CN C14 C) .; * I 000 r-~ m ~r--.. - - l- .3 r I I I 3 I I I II I 3 I I I I 3I3 0 0 C> I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0) '.0 C - 0 I I I I 3 3 I I I I I I I I I 3 I I I I _:I- %.D 0) CIN( " m *- U) -o a- Eou~ Il C-, I".- CO LA ll_ P-00 L-. U) -o E Z .0 ULP-t CL C--) I C-4 V- (oz *~ *- -, CSn m 0 Cr C0 (N U) -o E a-) I eYN C U) 4-J 43-I U) CD3 (V.' 00' ;C - o 0. * * N CN MN >- + X C I,- 0 00 0 Cr0D C;r~eV; . r-- 0) r-- r--_ " r-- (NC% C a) 4-I 4-J CU 0- UL) 0 0 C.D 1 C a) 43-I 4-~J CU UL) 0 0 L. CD 1e. U) O g 0 -H O '-4 I 4~~~~~~~~.'4 0~~~~~~-001 4 %001 I 4N 0 0000~~~- , ^^ % 00 000 c',) u-I v-I " a r O; c". 004000C0L',)0 1-4 I I 4 N N n ~ C'4C.IL'4 V _-O _- 0 C.'J O0 0 10 4-J~ p4 001 01 00- L', Ln 0 0 0 r-4 C4 ' 14 C\IC'. o~~~~~~~~~~~-l -- -1 Lr) L',00 0 1-4 r- - - to ==i 4- 4- 4 = D@ 0 0 o o 01I (Co o SP 4 bO -r4 tk 0 E-4 aJ ba bo bo O U 4) *rl c la6 rl o ) co co con c co ,co to c Co Y-~~~~4 -H4 4-i Co -H C co > 1 co p-4 0 I44 cis co r., Co 0 -H 4i 0f4 co 4 o 0 rCo 0 4 J 04i Co -H Ca 4-i ,DI 0,0 $. '1. co C4-i ~ w- 0 Co 1 Co 04r-I P 4Co 4) 10 4-i *P4 c- p Co '4I V) U) Co3 0 10 10 .,{ co -H X 4- Cou) co p- '-4 la00 II II II ii U - - I 46 : r4- Co4 co t-H- 04 0 0. lro _/O '-4 1-4 0 0 C) 0 0% CY) Un U) 4-i -H, t3 0 co C.) -, 1 0 0N %01 0 U) Co Co b' -4 -H Co O c Zo P. -H4 C00 ~ U) 0 .r4 r-H co co .'H ?. 00 0 I-, 0 0; Cf4 4-i -rH Co H- 0) Po Co 5-4 C- r- r1 -4 r- r*'1 au *S- u 010 010 OH OH E 4 pd 4-i 0 0 EH