Book contents
- Archaeological Science
- Archaeological Science
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Biomolecular Archaeology
- Part III Bioarchaeology
- 7 Human Osteology
- 8 Dental Histology
- 9 Geometric Morphometrics
- Part IV Environmental Archaeology
- Part V Materials Analysis
- Part VI Absolute Dating Methods
- Index
- References
9 - Geometric Morphometrics
from Part III - Bioarchaeology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2019
By
Book contents
- Archaeological Science
- Archaeological Science
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Biomolecular Archaeology
- Part III Bioarchaeology
- 7 Human Osteology
- 8 Dental Histology
- 9 Geometric Morphometrics
- Part IV Environmental Archaeology
- Part V Materials Analysis
- Part VI Absolute Dating Methods
- Index
- References
Summary
The ability to objectively compare shapes of skeletal remains, such as skulls and teeth, or artefacts, such as stone tools, is central to many questions in archeology and palaeoanthropology. Over the last decade, geometric morphometric (GMM) techniques have revolutionised the statistical analysis of shape and form. Statistical shape-analysis can be a helpful tool for answering many archeological questions. One might, for example, be interested in the population dynamics associated with changes in material culture. Studying the human skeletal remains from different archeological stratas using geometric morphometrics can provide insights into the population history. Based on artefacts alone it is often impossible to determine whether a cultural change was linked to the replacement of a local population, or whether this new set of behaviors and skills developed locally.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Archaeological ScienceAn Introduction, pp. 198 - 212Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Bookstein, F. L. 1989. Principal warps: Thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 11(6):567–585.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1997. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: Morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Medical Image Analysis 1(3):225–243.Google Scholar
Bulygina, E., Mitteroecker, P., and Aiello, L. 2006. Ontogeny of facial dimorphism and patterns of individual development within one human population. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 131(3):432–443.Google Scholar
Cardillo, M. 2010. Some applications of geometric morphometrics to archaeology. In: `Elews, A. M. T. (ed.) Morphometrics for Nonmorphometricians, pp. 325–341. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Frost, S. R., Marcus, L. F., Bookstein, F. L., Reddy, D. P., and Delson, E. 2003. Cranial allometry, phylogeography, and systematics of large-bodied papionins (primates: Cercopithecinae) inferred from geometric morphometric analysis of landmark data. The Anatomical Record. Part A, Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology 275(2):1048–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, P. I. 2005. Permutation, Parametric and Bootstrap Tests of Hypotheses. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Gunz, P., Bookstein, F. L., Mitteroecker, P., Stadlmayr, A., Seidler, H., and Weber, G. W. 2009a. Early modern human diversity suggests subdivided population structure and a complex out-of-Africa scenario. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(15):6094–6098.Google Scholar
Gunz, P., Mitteroecker, P., and Bookstein, F. L. 2005. Semilandmarks in three dimensions. In: `Slice, D. E. (ed.) Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology, pp. 73–98. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Gunz, P., Mitteroecker, P., Bookstein, F. L., and Weber, G. W. 2004 Computer aided reconstruction of incomplete human crania using statistical and geometrical estimation methods. In: Enter the Past: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, pp. 92–94. BAR International Series 1227. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Gunz, P., Mitteroecker, P., Neubauer, S., Weber, G.W., and Bookstein, F. L. 2009b. Principles for the virtual reconstruction of hominin crania. Journal of Human Evolution 57(1):48–62.Google Scholar
Gunz, P., Neubauer, S., Maureille, B., and Hublin, J.-J. 2010. Brain development after birth differs between Neanderthals and modern humans. Current Biology 20(21):R921–R922.Google Scholar
Harvati, K. and Weaver, T. D. 2006. Human cranial anatomy and the differential preservation of population history and climate signatures. The Anatomical Record. Part A, Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology 288(12):1225–1233.Google Scholar
Hublin, J.-J., Weston, D., Gunz, P., Richards, M., Roebroeks, W., Glimmerveen, J., and Anthonis, L. 2009. Out of the North Sea: The Zeeland Ridges Neandertal. Journal of Human Evolution 57(6):777–785.Google Scholar
Lycett, S. J., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., and Foley, R. A. 2006. A crossbeam co-ordinate caliper for the morphometric analysis of lithic nuclei: A description, test and empirical examples of application. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(6):847–861.Google Scholar
Maureille, B. 2002a. La redécouverte du nouveau-né néandertalien Le Moustier 2, Paléo (14):221–238.Google Scholar
Maureille, B. 2002b. A lost Neanderthal neonate found. Nature 419(6902):33–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitteroecker, P. and Gunz, P. 2009. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evolutionary Biology 36(2):235–247.Google Scholar
Mitteroecker, P., Gunz, P., Weber, G. W., and Bookstein, F. L. 2004. Regional dissociated heterochrony in multivariate analysis. Annals of Anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger: Official Organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft 186(5–6):463–470.Google Scholar
Paschetta, C., de Azevedo, S., Castillo, L., Martínez-Abadías, N., Hernández, M., Lieberman, D. E., and González-José, R. 2010. The influence of masticatory loading on craniofacial morphology: A test case across technological transitions in the Ohio valley. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141(2):297–314.Google Scholar
Richtsmeier, J. T., DeLeon, V. B., and Lele, S. R. 2002. The promise of geometric morphometrics. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Suppl 35:63–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlf, F. J. and Slice, D. 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks, Systematic Zoology 39:40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roseman, C. C. and Weaver, T. D. 2004. Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125(3):257–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roseman, C. C. and Weaver, T. D. 2007. Molecules versus morphology? Not for the human cranium. BioEssays: News and Reviews in Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology 29(12):1185–1188.Google Scholar
Schaefer, K., Lauc, T., Mitteroecker, P., Gunz, P., and Bookstein, F. L. 2006. Dental arch asymmetry in an isolated Adriatic community. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 129(1):132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, M. M., Gunz, P., Wood, B. A., Boesch, C., and Hublin, J.-J. 2009a. Discrimination of extant Pan species and subspecies using the enamel-dentine junction morphology of lower molars. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 140(2):234–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skinner, M. M., Gunz, P., Wood, B. A., and Hublin, J.-J. 2008. Enamel-dentine junction (EDJ) morphology distinguishes the lower molars of Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus robustus. Journal of Human Evolution 55(6):979–988.Google Scholar
Skinner, M. M., Gunz, P., Wood, B. A., and Hublin, J.-J. 2009b. How many landmarks? Assessing the classification accuracy of Pan lower molars using a geometric morphometric analysis of the occlusal basin as seen at the enamel-dentine junction. Frontiers of Oral Biology 13:23–29.Google Scholar
Stansfield Nee Bulygina, E. and Gunz, P. 2010. Skhodnya, Khvalynsk, Satanay, and Podkumok calvaria: Possible Upper Paleolithic hominins from European Russia. Journal of Human Evolution 60:129–144.Google Scholar
Stynder, D. D., Ackermann, R. R., and Sealy, J. C. 2007. Craniofacial variation and population continuity during the South African Holocene. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 134(4):489–500.Google Scholar
von Cramon-Taubadel, N. 2009. Congruence of individual cranial bone morphology and neutral molecular affinity patterns in modern humans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 140(2):205–215.Google Scholar
Weaver, T. D., Roseman, C. C., and Stringer, C. B. 2007. Were neandertal and modern human cranial differences produced by natural selection or genetic drift? Journal of Human Evolution 53(2):135–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziliak, S. T. and McCloskey, D. N. 2008. The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar