14 C- Archaeology & Anthropology
Practical activities to identify skeletal remains:
Ancestry of the skull remains present:
The aim of this examination was to determine the skull remains' ancestry by comparing the
skull features of European, Native Indian and Asian skull remains.
(The results of my analysis of the skull remains is identified on the Activity 1 Sheet -
Determining Ancestry)
The scientific techniques I used to determine the skull remains ancestry were comparing the
skull formation to control skull remains of European, Native Indian and African skull remains.
Depending on the ancestry of a person, will change the way in which their facial features
appear. There are many noticeable differences in facial features worldwide. By comparing
the control skull remains to the skull remains from my excavation, I was able to determine
the individual is likely to be of European descent.
In order to carry out my examination, I observed the skull remains from the excavation, and
viewed the similarities and differences identified in the skull, and if they matched to the
control remains. The skull from my excavation had a long narrow face, and a short cranial
vault. The remains did not have a facial prognathism, nor prominent cheekbones. The nasal
spine was not identified, however, the skull had a noticeable high nasal opening, and the eye
orbits appeared to be sloping. This information gathered from the excavated skull was then
compared to known characteristics of the control skull remains.
European, Native American and African skull remains have particularly unique
characteristics, meaning identification of the skull remains should be straightforward. As my
skull remains were in good condition, it allowed me to compare the entire skull
characteristics to the control samples. Meaning a full profile of the skull could be created. If
the skull was incomplete or severely damaged, the likelihood of misinterpreting the skull
ancestry is more likely. So, ancestry wouldn’t be a suitable technique due to inaccuracies
developing.
Within the activity sheet, it details unique characteristics of each sample skull. For example,
American Indian skull remains commonly have a flared heart shaped base nasal opening.
This characteristic is unique to this region. The remains I excavated did have characteristics
which were from the other two regions (American Indian and African), therefore, I cannot be
entirely sure that the remains are European by using visual examination solely.
Identifying ancestry is important, not only in assisting identification directly, but also allows
for other attributes such as stature and sex to be developed. By using visual examination of
the remains, I was able to first hand observe any differences or similarities between the
excavated skull features to the control sample skulls. Visual observation is useful in
understanding the unique features of regions worldwide, and to be compared to older
remains. This helps identify how facial features may have changes in regions over time, and
, can then allocate a time period in which the discovered remains were from. However, using
visual observations can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Naturally, people observe differently,
meaning a feature I believe to match European ancestry could be different to my colleagues
observations. With any visual examination, relying on one person's observations can lead to
inaccuracies. As interpretations will vary. To avoid any inaccurate determinations, a
compromised interpretation from multiple experts should be collected. Therefore, any
contradictory interpretations can be ignored, to give the best depiction of ancestry.
As I used visual representation, and I am not an expert in Anthropology, there is a higher
possibility that my results are inaccurate. Especially with the lack of scientific justification. In
contrast, an expert Anthropologist would have the extended knowledge on facial features,
meaning their identification of ancestry would be much more accurate. If DNA testing of the
remains is not possible to determine ancestry, then observations are the only expert opinions
to suggest the remains' ancestry. If these justifications could be supported by DNA evidence,
then it would be held as high value evidence. However, visual interpretations alone hold low
value in court.
Sex of pelvic and skull remains present:
The aim of this examination was to identify the skull and pelvic remains by comparing the
features of male and female skull and pelvic bones.
(The results of my analysis of the pelvic and skull remains is identified on the Activity 2
Sheet - Identifying age and sex)
The scientific techniques I used to determine the skull and pelvic remains sex were
comparing the skull and pelvic formation to controls of male and female skull and pelvic
remains. Female pelvic bones are very different to male bones, and have specific
characteristics to determine the sex of the remains. Additionally, female skulls are very
different to male skulls, and can be used to confirm sex, if pelvic bones are present
alongside skull remains.
If both skull and pelvic remains are present in a grave, it allows the anthropologists to
examine more unique sex remains, to gather a more accurate depiction of the individual's
sex. In some cases, pelvic bones and skull remains may be incomplete or damaged,
meaning an examination of those remains could be inconclusive. Therefore, if a skull bone
or pelvic bone is additionally found, it can suggest the sex.
By comparing the remains to the control samples, I was able to determine the sex of the 4
skeletons. The sex of the skeletons are detailed in the Activity 2 booklet, suggesting the
unique characteristics to explain my conclusion of the remains being female or male.
In order to carry out this examination, I visually examined the skull and pelvic remains of the
four skeletons, and viewed the characteristics of each, and compared these to the control
remains. By visually examining the skull remains, I was able to compare the skeletons to
control samples, meaning the features of each would be identified and compared, in order to
conclude the most accurate sex of the remains. However, as this method is relying on visual
Practical activities to identify skeletal remains:
Ancestry of the skull remains present:
The aim of this examination was to determine the skull remains' ancestry by comparing the
skull features of European, Native Indian and Asian skull remains.
(The results of my analysis of the skull remains is identified on the Activity 1 Sheet -
Determining Ancestry)
The scientific techniques I used to determine the skull remains ancestry were comparing the
skull formation to control skull remains of European, Native Indian and African skull remains.
Depending on the ancestry of a person, will change the way in which their facial features
appear. There are many noticeable differences in facial features worldwide. By comparing
the control skull remains to the skull remains from my excavation, I was able to determine
the individual is likely to be of European descent.
In order to carry out my examination, I observed the skull remains from the excavation, and
viewed the similarities and differences identified in the skull, and if they matched to the
control remains. The skull from my excavation had a long narrow face, and a short cranial
vault. The remains did not have a facial prognathism, nor prominent cheekbones. The nasal
spine was not identified, however, the skull had a noticeable high nasal opening, and the eye
orbits appeared to be sloping. This information gathered from the excavated skull was then
compared to known characteristics of the control skull remains.
European, Native American and African skull remains have particularly unique
characteristics, meaning identification of the skull remains should be straightforward. As my
skull remains were in good condition, it allowed me to compare the entire skull
characteristics to the control samples. Meaning a full profile of the skull could be created. If
the skull was incomplete or severely damaged, the likelihood of misinterpreting the skull
ancestry is more likely. So, ancestry wouldn’t be a suitable technique due to inaccuracies
developing.
Within the activity sheet, it details unique characteristics of each sample skull. For example,
American Indian skull remains commonly have a flared heart shaped base nasal opening.
This characteristic is unique to this region. The remains I excavated did have characteristics
which were from the other two regions (American Indian and African), therefore, I cannot be
entirely sure that the remains are European by using visual examination solely.
Identifying ancestry is important, not only in assisting identification directly, but also allows
for other attributes such as stature and sex to be developed. By using visual examination of
the remains, I was able to first hand observe any differences or similarities between the
excavated skull features to the control sample skulls. Visual observation is useful in
understanding the unique features of regions worldwide, and to be compared to older
remains. This helps identify how facial features may have changes in regions over time, and
, can then allocate a time period in which the discovered remains were from. However, using
visual observations can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Naturally, people observe differently,
meaning a feature I believe to match European ancestry could be different to my colleagues
observations. With any visual examination, relying on one person's observations can lead to
inaccuracies. As interpretations will vary. To avoid any inaccurate determinations, a
compromised interpretation from multiple experts should be collected. Therefore, any
contradictory interpretations can be ignored, to give the best depiction of ancestry.
As I used visual representation, and I am not an expert in Anthropology, there is a higher
possibility that my results are inaccurate. Especially with the lack of scientific justification. In
contrast, an expert Anthropologist would have the extended knowledge on facial features,
meaning their identification of ancestry would be much more accurate. If DNA testing of the
remains is not possible to determine ancestry, then observations are the only expert opinions
to suggest the remains' ancestry. If these justifications could be supported by DNA evidence,
then it would be held as high value evidence. However, visual interpretations alone hold low
value in court.
Sex of pelvic and skull remains present:
The aim of this examination was to identify the skull and pelvic remains by comparing the
features of male and female skull and pelvic bones.
(The results of my analysis of the pelvic and skull remains is identified on the Activity 2
Sheet - Identifying age and sex)
The scientific techniques I used to determine the skull and pelvic remains sex were
comparing the skull and pelvic formation to controls of male and female skull and pelvic
remains. Female pelvic bones are very different to male bones, and have specific
characteristics to determine the sex of the remains. Additionally, female skulls are very
different to male skulls, and can be used to confirm sex, if pelvic bones are present
alongside skull remains.
If both skull and pelvic remains are present in a grave, it allows the anthropologists to
examine more unique sex remains, to gather a more accurate depiction of the individual's
sex. In some cases, pelvic bones and skull remains may be incomplete or damaged,
meaning an examination of those remains could be inconclusive. Therefore, if a skull bone
or pelvic bone is additionally found, it can suggest the sex.
By comparing the remains to the control samples, I was able to determine the sex of the 4
skeletons. The sex of the skeletons are detailed in the Activity 2 booklet, suggesting the
unique characteristics to explain my conclusion of the remains being female or male.
In order to carry out this examination, I visually examined the skull and pelvic remains of the
four skeletons, and viewed the characteristics of each, and compared these to the control
remains. By visually examining the skull remains, I was able to compare the skeletons to
control samples, meaning the features of each would be identified and compared, in order to
conclude the most accurate sex of the remains. However, as this method is relying on visual
