Re: Shovelling of the Incisors Attention: Lee

G Horvat wrote:
> (continuing a much earlier conversation...)
>
> Here is mention of "slight shovelling' of the incisors
>
> "Morphologically, E66a was distinctive from other crania in the
> sample. In addition to a degree of alveolar prognathism (Fig. 19), it
> also exhibited slight shovelling of the incisors, moderate to severe
> occlusal attrition (Fig. 20), and broader facial features. The latter
> three are generally assumed to be characteristics more commonly
> associated with someone of aboriginal American than of
> central-European origin. However, both standard biometrics and Fordisc
> 2.0, have not produced conclusive results. Erickson was left to ponder
> that E66A was the lone specimen that could not be excluded as
> aboriginal American. It is hoped that further analysis and the
> processing of DNA samples may help to further refine the conclusions."
>
> (RETRIEVING HISTORY: THE 18TH CENTURY MORTUARY
> HISTORY OF THE LITTLE DUTCH CHURCH, HALIFAX)
>
> http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/300/ont_archaeol_soc/annual_meeting_caa/33rd/williamsetal.pdf
>

Maybe they will send a tooth to Jason?


> So, there is such a thing. Would Christy Turner have considered this
> individual to have had or lacked shovelled incisors?

I would guess they will probably ask him.

I'm wondering
> if there is something like the "one drop rule" involved in the
> calculation of frequencies.


OK, back to Marmes conversation.

These are distinct and separate burial groups.

Early group-- c 10,000 BP. several individuals-- "shovel-shaped
incisors"

Middle group--c 8000 to 4000 BP 1 tooth "slightly shoveled"

Late group--- recent large population grouped "shoveled"

Now, does that lone tooth in the Middle Group get the designation "one
drop"?



>
> Gisele

.

Quantcast