AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
for the degree
Dean Yates
in
Interdisciplinary Studies:
Anthropology, Psychology, Statistics
Title:
Master of Arts
presented on
May 6, 1975
THE REFLECTION OF CULTURE IN BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
Redacted for Privacy
Abstract approved:
Kenneth L. Beals
Kelso's theory of Biocultural Evolution states that as culture
evolves, the variation between groups diminishes while the variation
within groups increases.
index and nasal index.
The theory is tested with stature, cephalic
Means and standard deviations for these traits
are examined for 237 ethnic groups.
The groups are organized accord-
ing to their stage of social organization: band, tribe, chiefdom and
state.
The theory is not verified for polygenic inheritance.
Problems
in the investigation of biocultural evolution are discussed,
The Reflection of Culture
in Biological Evolution
by
Dean Arnold Yates
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Arts
Commencement June 1975
APPROVED:
Redacted for Privacy
Beals, Assistant Professor of Anthropology
Redacted for Privacy
Donna F. Cruse, Assistant Professor of Psychology
Redacted for Privacy
Mogen. Petersen, Professor of Statistics
Redacted for Privacy
`Lavern J. Weber'/,' Chairman of Interdisciplinary Studies
Redacted for Privacy
Emery N. Castle, Dean of Graduate School
Date thesis is presented
Typed by Becky Gray for
May 6, 1975
Dean Arnold Yates
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend my thanks to the faculty of the department
Special
of Anthropology for their collective help and responsiveness.
thanks are due Dr. Ken Beals for his direction to Dr. Tom Hogg and
Dr. Robert Johnson for their personal advise and goading, and to Dr.
Courtland Smith for his financial support and technical aid.
I would like further to thank Dr. Robert Petersen of the Statistics department for his help and patience, and Dr. Donna Cruse of
Psychology for her critical commentary and moral support.
Most of all I want to thank my wife Sharon for all her time
and effort, patience and concern that went into the making of this
project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Biocultural Evolution
Purpose of the Study
Prior Work
II.
III.
Methods and Procedures
Polygenic Traits
Heterozygosity
Stature
Cephalic Index
Nasal Index
Social Organization
Geographic Areas
Data Collection
Social Data
Analysis
Results
Question One
Question Two
Question Three
Question Four
IV.
Conclusions and Discussion
Conclusions
Discussion
Bibliography
Appendix I
Appendix II
1
3'
7
8
11
11
12
13
14
15
16
19
20
22
23
25
25
26
28
29
39
39
41
45
52
70
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figures
1.
Heterographic areas of the world (after Beals 1975)
Page
21
Tables
The correlation between stature, cephalic index, and
nasal index, with mean heterozygosity
25
2.
The rankings used in the calculation of the Spearman rs
27
3.
Standard deviations of the four social levels for stature,
cephalic index and nasal index
28
Rankings used in the construction of the Spearman rs using
variances of mean trait values (by geographic area) and
mean social organization
30
Rankings used in constructing the Spearman rs using standard deviations from within each geographic area, and the
corresponding mean socia., organization of those groups ...
32
Variance of mean stature among bands, tribes, chiefdoms,
and states in heterographic areas
33
Variance of mean cephalic index among bands, tribes,
chiefdoms, and states in heterographic areas
34
Variance of mean nasal index among bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states in heterographic areas
35
F tests on variances between the four levels, using
variances of the total data
37
1.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
I. INTRODUCTION
THE REFLECTION OF CULTURE IN BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
Human variation is not simply a matter of genetic recombination.
The mechanism of transferal of variation is purely biological.
will not change.
That
But we recognize that something other than the urge
to reproduce draws us to a particular mate.
Variety is in itself an
influence, but there are social considerations that control physical
feelings and directives.
At times these considerations seem to add
little to the efficient working of the population, yet they remain and
guide daily actions.
We recognize that these social considerations are commonly refered to as culture.
Dillon (1973:294) calls culture the "dual combin-
ation of mind and hands
production of things."
a cooperative arrangement that results in the
Though it expresses the nature of culture, it
is far too incomplete.
Culture is a part of all of us.
As Pearson (1974:166) suggests,
"Culture is that part of us that expresses itself in behavior."
If we
see human behavior as inextricable from biology, we may feel that
evolution of one somehow inevitably affects the other in a like manner.
As an expression of behavior, culture influences mating in numerous
ways. This influence may come in the form of acceptable mating systems.
1
1
Mating system refers to the mechanisms used by a group for the selecSuch systems contain rules governing the marital elition of a mate.
gibility of each individual relative to others in the group, as well as
the pattern of selection, actual marriage, and residence requirements.
2
Such systems may vary depending on size and density of the population,
The general result
and the degree of opportunity for gene exchange.
is that human groups are much different from randomly mating units
(Oliver and Howells 1957; Shields and Gottesman 1971).
This is an acceptable concept.
terms of evolution.
Campbell draws it together in
He states (1966:289) that cultural evolution is
interdependent of all other human activities.
As a behavioral item,
culture is as subject to a selection process as are biological units.
Evolution is opportunistic, and any novel behavior
pattern with a selective advantage will under appropriate circumstances, be incorporated into the
behavior of the evolving deme.
Harris (1971) shows that where cultural evolution operates in a
manner analogous to biological evolution it is not bounded by the same
mechanical constraints.
Innovation, which might be considered as a
cultural counterpart of the gene, does not depend on the rate of reproduction of a particular group.
Its adaptive value is relative to the
group as a whole, rather than to an individual.
Importantly, cultural
items are not constrained like biological characters in that they are
accepted and travel between individuals within the same generation.
The point is that culture is a survival mechanism which does not
solely rely on breeding success or differential survival.
Accumula-
tion of successful cultural items increases a population's ability to
survive and grow in size and density (Harris 1971).
Human evolution is ceasing to be a biological process in a survival sense (Dillon 1973; Pearson 1974).
will not maintain the population.
But, logically culture alone
Culture should be seen as one of
3
several mechanisms of the process of evolution.
This is currently the case.
Human evolution is viewed as an
interplay of several parameters.
Biocultural Evolution, the term
which now identifies the human evolutionary process, suggests that
evolution revolves around the elements, biology, culture, and environment (Kelso 1974; Pearson 1974; Campbel 1966).
In Pearson's words (1974), this system is a triangle of interactions of these three elements.
As biology and culture now operate
to modify the environment, both elements must modify themselves to
adjust to the new environment they produced.
The rate of adaptive change is maintained by the ability to respond
culturally to the change in the environment.
But biological change as
part of the overall adaptive scheme can only progress at the rate of
the population's reproductive capacity (Campbell 1966).
Biocultural Evolution
The purpose of this study is to discover what relationship exists
between biocultural evolution and human variation.
Kelso (1974) in
explaining this relationship describes the process of evolution in
terms of increasing efficiency in the exploitation of environments. Increasing efficiency gradually led to the increase in species density,
the number of separate populations, contact between groups, and increased migration.
The processes affecting human genetic variability can be examined
by inspecting current information on human prehistory (Kelso 1974).
4
We would find that during the Paleolithic period (roughly 3,000,000
B. P.. to 15,000 B. P. ) the number of humans was small,
Population of the earth two million years ago was about 125,000
individuals, rising to roughly three million by 25,000 B, C.
B. C.,
the figure stood at 86.5 million (F.C. Howells 1970).
At 6,000
This
growth in population was irregular, moving in rapid expansions that
were the result of cultural innovation.2
(The most significant of
these was the domestication of plants and animals, between 12,000 and
6,000 B.C.)
Because populations were small, they were especially susceptable
to the effects of inbreeding and genetic drift (Dobzhansky 1962; Handler
1970).3
Inbreeding, the higher likelihood of close relatives marrying one
another, is a well developed concept of population genetics.
effect of inbreeding is two-fold.
The
There is a decline in genetic varia-
bility, and there is an increase in homozygosity, the increase in the
number of loci where corresponding alleles are the same (Handler 1970).
Genetic drift is the change in the genetic make-up of small
2
Barnett (No Date) describes innovations as the recombination of two or
more previously existing elements into a new element with some features
that are unique to itself. The primary acts essential to innovation
are mental ability. The process of innovation itself is a mechanism
of adaptation.
3
It must be pointed out here that others, notably Birdsell (1972:384)
and W.W. Howells (1966:624), take exception with the argument that inbreeding results in the reduction of heterozygosity in natural populations. Yet these sources also note that in certain instances inbreeding is important to the study of the genetics of families.
5
populations that are the result of chance occurances.
This type of
change has the greatest effect in small populations, the kind found
early in human evolution (Kelso 1974).
rection to the change.
There is no predictable di-
It is simply the result of chance deviations
between generations that are not found in large interbreeding units
(Dillon 1973; Dobzhansky 1962).
There are two consequences to this situation.
homogenization within the group.
The first is the
Inbreeding results in a decrease in
variability within the population; individuals become similar to each
other.
The second consequence deals with the difference between groups.
Kelso (1974) suggests that variability between groups has become
greater because the accidental changes in genetic strucutre, which are
chance occurances, serve to randomize these differences.
Examination of recorded history is proof of the rapid development of culture.
This process has led to the adaptive success of
humans at the species level.
mation of world population.
The best example of this is the estiBy the year 2000 A.D. that figure should
be almost seven billion (Pearson 1974).
The increase in cultural complexity and the resulting exploitive
efficiency has brought about a drastic change in size and density of
human populations.
On the basis of numbers alone it is possible to
assume that isolation would be less likely to occur now.
A breakdown
6
4
of isolation mechanisms,
migration
,
the result of increased transportation,
and communication, brings with it changes in variability.
It is expected that contact and the introduction of new genetic
materials causes populations to become more variable within themselves.
At the same time they would become more alike between each
other.
Since this reduction of isolation and change in variation are
thought of as products of cultural growth, Kelso (1974: 328) has
postulated a relationship between cultural evolution and human variation.
He has related this in terms of a biocultural hypothesis:
"As culture evolves, the biological variation within human populations
increases..." and "As culture evolves, the biological variability between human populations declines."
This hypothesis suggests that biocultural research is a well known
product.
4
Though the relationship between culture and biology
The breakdown of isolation is in part attributed to incest avoidance
One explanation for these mechanisms has been
and exogamous marriage.
that they avoid the deleterious physical effects of inbreeding. Harris
(1971) and Livingstone (1969) deny the idea that close inbreeding results in the accumulation of any dangerous recessive genes. They maintain that once a population overcomes a higher rate of homozygosity, it
will reach a genetic equilibrium that involves a lower number of fatal
The point they make is that there is no clearcut genetic adgenes.
vantage in the avoidance of inbreeding using these mechanisms. A
solely biological theory for incest avoidance and exogamy are dfficult to reconcile in view of present marriage practices, e.g., cross
(Harris 1971:287) Livingcousin versus parallel cousin marriage.
stone (1969:48-49) suggests that incest avoidance and exogamy are
cultural developments, relevant more to the development of lanaguage
than to any genetic characteristic.
7
has been debated for numerous years (Gerard, et. al. 1956; Oliver and
Howells 1957) little research has been undertaken to examine this relationship in depth (Beals 1975; Kelso 1974).
It appears that only in
the past few years that the direction of study of related materials has
begun in earnest (W.W. Howells 1970).
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to determine if a relationship exists between several physical characteristics and cultural evolution.
Beals (1974) has used blood group heterozygosity, a trait of known
inheritance, to demonstrate that an interchange relationship between
culture and biology exists.
This present study then will use several
traits of unknown inheritance (stature, cephalic index, and nasal
index) in a similar manner to test the applicability of Beals' results
to phenotypic features.
The biocultural hypothesis can be viewed as a four-part question.
These questions relate results obtained by Beals to the above designated traits, as well as organizing the examination of the hypothesis.
Questions:
1.
Do traits of unknown inheritance (in particular stature,
cephalic index, and nasal index) correlate with blood group
heterozygosity?
2.
Do these traits show any strong correlation to an increase
in cultural complexity?
3.
Does variation of the individual traits increase within
8
groups as cultural complexity increases?
4.
Does variation of the individual traits decrease between
groups as cultural complexity increases?
Answering these four questions should provide necessary information for determining the adequacy of the hypothesis of biocultural
evolution.
Prior Work
Previous work in this regard is strictly limited (Beals 1975;
Kelso 1974).
Initial attempts of comparison of cultural evolution
with its biological counterpart seems to have gotten underway only
about 20 years ago (Gerard,
et. al.
1956; Oliver and Howells 1957).
At best these attempts only draw analogies between culture and biology,
providing a workable model of cultural evolution, and precedent for
biocultural study.
Incipient work in the comparison of cultural phenomena and biological characteristics has begun in a degree with the extensive examination of culture change vis-a-vis blood group change.
Two illus-
trations include articles by Spielman, Migliazza, and Neel (1974),
dealing with the relationship of language change and blood group
characters of the Yanomama.
Also, the above mentioned work by Beals
(1975) comparing change in social levels of human populations with
change in blood group heterozygosity.
Spielman, et. al,
Spielman and his co-workers (1974) set out to compare biological
9
and linguistic divergence among Yanomama Indians of Brazil.
The bio-
logical component consisted of polymorphic blood group frequencies.5
The linguistic components were seven distinct dialects of the Yanomama
language.
Analysis of the data used a generalized distance approach,
where data were assigned positions in a multidimensional space.
Dis-
tances calculated between data points (biological and linguistic) were
used as a basis of comparison for divergence.
The examination showed a significant correspondance between
These results were
linguistic change and genetic differentiation.
used with genetic, linguistic, and historical information about the
Yanomama for the construction of a time depth scale of genetic microdifferentiation.
The point of the analysis was to show that linguis-
tic data inferences could potentially provide conclusions about genetic
processes (Spielman, Migliazza, and Neel 1974).
Beals
Beals (1975) has approached the concept of biocultural evolution
more directly.
Using some basic assumptions found in Kelso (1974) he
has attempted to determine the interrelationship of culture and biology
based on the respective levels of social organization of individual
groups, and their corresponding heterozygous
6
frequencies calculated
5
Polymorphic blood group frequencies refer to the frequency of occurance of several distinctive blood group phenotypes.
6
This refers to polymorphic blood group frequencies. Heterozygous
meaning that the individual contains two different alleles at a given
locus.
10
from blood group information.
The project examined 252 world populations and demonstrated that
a significant relationship exists between the increase in social complexity and increase in frequency of heterozygosity.
The increase in
heterozygosity has shown to be approximately three percent between
each of four levels of social evolution designated in the article.
What these articles demonstrate is that biocultural evolution may
be measurable if the proper cultural and physical parameters are examined together.
There is a need to check other physical parameters besides blood
frequencies in order to determine how extensive the apparent relationship is.
Blood groups represent traits of known inheritance, and a
reasonable extension of the examination would be to use polygenic
traits of unknown inheritance.
As this is what the present study
does, the expectation is that culture in terms of its designated
identifiers, will be reflected in biological differences.
11
II.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
In answering the questions posed by the biocultural hypothesis,
there are several variables and procedures that must first be defined
and described more fully.
The information below describes the procedures used in ordering
and collecting data.
It also gives a working definition of all the
variables, biological and cultural, that are important to this study.
Polygenic Traits
The four physical traits of concern are described as polygenic
which are called by Birdsell (1972:455) "genetically compli-
traits,
cated characteristics (that) are the expression of numbers of genes
located at more than one locus."
The indication is that no analysis
(in real situations) of these characteristics has been undertaken on
humans.
7
A polygenic characteristic involves two or more loci and falls
into a category of continuous phenotypic variation.
This variation,
as well as being resultant from genetic materials, is at times influenced by the environment.
Below, is a brief description and ex-
planation of the four main polygenic characters used in this study.
7Birdsell (1972) has stated that up to 1972, no polygenic characters
had been analysed in humans. This is due to the difficulty in analysis
in real situations. Study has been limited to mathematical problems.
12
Heterozygosity
Heterozygosity, or the containing in a genotype of two differing
allelic forms of a gene, is a convenient measure of biological variation of a population.
The amount of variation may be measured by the
frequency of the heterozygosity contained within a population (Beals
1975).
Lewontin (1967) suggests that the degree of genetic heterozygosity
of a population is fundamental to any investigation of population
genetics.
When determining a measure of heterozygosity, traits used
must necessarily have several qualities (Beals 1975).
First there must
be a commonality of the trait in a large number of people.
it must be consistent through time in the individual,
Second,
Last it should
be easy to detect and examine for heterozygosity.
The obvious choices for such traits are blood groups,
dividual has a definite blood type in a variety of systems.
Each inBlood
types are constant and are easily detectable by a laboratory test.
Because inheritance is known and the number of alleles small, prediction of a frequency is a simple counting procedure.
Heterozygosity as a measure of variability becomes useful and im-
portant as a benchmark for comparing variation of other physical
traits.
8
Further it provides stable data for correlation of non-
physical characteristics to biology.
8
Because other traits may be of unknown inheritance, and the number of
alleles large, calculation of a frequency of heterozygosity is not
possible.
Therefore the correlation of a more complex trait with blood
heterozygosity becomes an important part of polygenic analysis.
13
Values for blood heterozygosity are found in Beals (1975) for
252 populations,
Of these populations, the values of 64 are adapt-
able for use in this paper.
Stature
Birdsell (1972) states that among mammals, humans have far more
variation in body size than most.
Stature is a characteristic that
shows a continuous range of variation, running from less than 150 centi-
meters to just more than 180 centimeters (Barnett 1971).
Wide variation in stature occurs even among close neighbors,
though there is little indication why this is so.
It may be true
that much of the variation can be attributed to the environment (Birdsell 1972; Beals and Hoijer 1961).
Kelso (1974) however, indicates
that some studies of identical twins shows that for the most part
stature is under the control of genetic components.
This results in
conflict, though it is unlikely that it will soon be resolved.
Birdsell (1972) claims that little if any polygenic analysis of humans
has yet been done.
Barnett (1971:86) illustrates the conflict and its seemingly impossible solution when he states that,
... a good deal of this variation (in stature) reflects
differences of environment. But in so far as it is
genetically determined, the genes responsible are probably to be numbered in the hundreds, and each has only
a small effect.
In response to environmental effects on stature, it may be worthwhile to note that though there is a scarcity of data on prehistorical
14
populations, what data is available tends to indicate that little
change in stature has occurred since the development of the human
species (Beals and Hoijer 1965).
Cephalic Index
The cephalic index is a measure of relative head shape.
It is
easily calculated by dividing the head's maximum breadth by its maximum length.
The figure is normally multiplied by 100 for convenience.
Kelso (1974) points out that this index is useful in that it
expresses relative, as opposed to absolute differences in head shape.
These are: 1)
The index is usually divided into three groups.
brachycephalic, or short or broad; 2) mesocephalic, or intermediate
shape; and 3) dolichocephalic, or long or narrow.
Barnett (1971) points out that these classifications are very
arbitrary,
Election of figures is generally a matter of convenience.
Units for the three categories vary slightly but are generally as
follows:
more than 80 is brachycephalic; 75 to 80 is mesocephalic; and
less than 75 is dolichocephalic (Barnett 1971; Beals and Hoijer 1965).
Available data seems to demonstrate that the dolichocephalic head
is more primitive in form than the others.
But, there is no clear
significance to this if it is true (Beals and Hoijer 1965).
.cance of the variation is yet unclear.
Signifi-
Beals and Hoijer (1965) feel
that the environment might be most significant in causing variation,
.
though they admit that index size may indeed be determined by a large
number of genes.
(This is related to the large number of features of
the bones that make up the head.)
Kelso (1974) on the other hand,
15
cites twin studies indicating that the majority of variations are due
to genetic factors.
His conclusions are based on high heritability
coefficients
Nasal Index
The fourth measurement is the nasal index; relative nose shape,
As in the cephalic index, the nasal index is calculated by dividing
the width of the nose (Maximum width between the alae) by the maximum
length of the nose (from the suture of the nasal bones on top, to the
nasal septum at the bottom).
This is also usually multiplied by 100
for convenience.
Nasal index is divided into three categories, these being:
1)
platyrrhine, or broad flat nose; 2) mesorrhine, or intermediate nose;
and 3) leptorrhine, or long narrow nose.
Measurements (on living sub-
jects) are: above 85 are platyrrhine; 70 to 85 are mesorrhine; and
below 70 are leptorrhine.
Barnett (1971) feels the platyrrhine nose represents a more
primitive nose form, the emergence of the leptorrhine nose a result of
natural selection.
This selection, reflecting an advantage in colder
climates, where a longer nose better warms the air before it reaches
the lungs.
But, Beals and Hoijer (1965) show that while there is
probably some effect on nose form by temperature and humidity, correlations are not high.
The conclusion is that hereditary factors
9Heritability is the proportion of the total phenotypic variation (of
a trait) that is due to additive genotypic variation. The coefficient
is a representative measure of the degree to which a trait is inherited.
16
play a large role in determining nose size and form,
Social Organization
Social organization is the cultural characteristic of concern to
this study,
It is better suited than other cultural traits because it
is common to all human populations, and it includes several of the
other parameters often used as cultural identifiers.
10
In order to reduce inconsistancies of judgment, the criteria for
social organization were taken from Service's Primitive Social Organization (1962).
As a recognized authority in this subject, Service's
criteria provides an operational definition of social organization
for this study.
According to Service social organization is broken down into four
units.
These units from simple to complex take into account the inte-
grative elements found to be most distinctive of a particular level,
Service designates these four as Bands, Tribes, Chiefdoms, and States,
The levels are described below in terms of their most familiar features
(Service 1962; Haviland 1974).
Bands
Bands are at times considered the oldest form of social organization.
Regardless of that, they are the least complex form.
The gen-
eral characteristics are usually alike regardless of world locality,
environment, or cultural features (Haviland 1974).
10
For example, subsistence patterns,politicalorganization,kinstructurel class structure, population size and density, and levels of productivity.
17
A band is a small autonomous unit that is made up of a few
family groups that are integrated by a kinship structure.
Generally
they are hunters and gatherers, and at times are nomadic.
They are
small in size and density, this being a reflection of methods of substance they employ.
Bands have no special economic groups, no formal political
structure, no specialized labor, no authoritative unit or tank.
They
operate around a sort of informal authority and have a mutual dependence between individuals for subsistance and survival.
Tribes
Tribes, like bands are autonomous units, usually made up of more
than one smaller unit.
These smaller units are also kin based sets.
Thus the tribe is in part integrated on a kin basis.
Tribal economics typically centers on some type of horticulture,
agriculture, or herding.
A larger food production provides support
for a larger, denser population.
As in the band, leadership is informal.
by pantribal sodalities.
The group is integrated
Such factors generally include kin groups
such as clans as well as age grade associations, secret societies,
ceremonial groups, or territorial groups.
in causing the tribe to be self-regulating,
These factors have a role
Whereas leadership is
normally informal, the activities of the pantribal groups often have
institutional leaders whose functions are group and tribal regulation.
18
Chiefdoms
This next step is a more advanced one.
It is an intermediate
stage of social evolution that separates simple groups from the most
complex.
Chiefdoms are much larger and denser in population.
They are
marked by specialization of production, and have organized central
agencies that redistribute the products of the specialized labor.
The agencies are responsible for the control of social, economic, and
religious activity.
These attributes allow the chiefdom to expand by
internal growth, or by the absorbtion of outside groups.
An important characteristic that typically marks the chiefdom
is the emergence of two features.
First is the development of a
ranked, hierarchical class system with status usually marked by
descent group.
Second is the emergence of a ruling class of persons.
Authority is usually placed in the person of a chief who is a true
authority figure.
The position is not necessarily hereditary.
His
purpose is as an articulative and control mechanism of the redistributional process.
State
The last of the levels of social integration is the state,
It is
made up as was each prior level of more complex social and economic
activities.
Generally, it is marked by the growth of urban centers
surrounded by a rural population.
political classes.
There are divisions of social and
Often they are marked by a superior technology.
However, the most distinctive feature of the state is the concept
19
of a permanent government with which a state can augment legitimized
force to regulate its people and its affairs with other groups.
This
authority is reflected in a rigid system of laws, administrated by a
central authority which controls the delegation of power to maintain
order.
Geographic Areas
Once data from all parts of the world are collected
need for some type of organization of its comparison.
there is a
What is wanted
is a way to demonstrate whether the hypothesized pattern operates by
comparing units from within the total world sample.
That is, across
the world do similar groups display the same characteristic variations, and does variation between differing groups follow the hypothesized pattern from unit to unit.
One method of breaking down the world into classes is to do it
on the basis of geographical units such as continental land masses.
On review of the literature it is found that this type of delimitation
is frequent.
Human groups can be broken into what are refered to as
"geographical races."
These races are defined as collections of simi-
lar, and generally contiguous local populations which are set off by
major physical barriers and migration patterns that reduced transmission of genetic materials in given directions (Beals and Hoijer
1965; Pearson 1974).
Such barriers consist of oceans, deserts, and
mountains.
The number of such regions ranges from four to ten according to
20
one source (Beals and Hoijer 1965),
Stanley Garn (1961) has con-
structed nine categories of geographical races which closely follow
11
the major continental masses, and in part represent cultural regions.
The break-
This paper goes farther in breaking down these areas,
down is constructed by Beals (1975) who has divided the world into 13
units which he has designated as "heterographic areas."
This method
further divides Garn's units more finely by taking into consideration
the major deserts of Africa, the ocean separation of Asiatic regions,
Figure 1
and the isthmus that separates North from South America.
gives the outline and designations for each of these units.
Data Collection
Data were collected primarily from Biasutti's (1959) Razze e i
Populi Della Terra.
This source is exceptional.
It is a compilation
of data on a wide variety of human groups throughout the world.
Biasutti presents his data by geographical areas.
There are six
areas including, Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, North America and
South America.
Throughout the volumes are a number of tables which
give mean measurements of stature, cephalic index, and nasal index.
Further, the numbers of observations and original sources are included.
Because Biasutti is rich in anthropometric data, it is a logical
source.
But in a number of cases information is missing.
Such as the
11 In particular this refers to the areas of the Pacific Ocean.
Island
groups that may loosely be called Oceania, are often separated into
cultural units of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia.
Figure 1.
Heterographic areas of the world (after Beals, 1975).
KEY
Europe
2. Afro-Asia
3. Africa
4. Kalahari
5. India
6. Asia
1.
Indonesia
8. Micronesia
9. Melanesia
10. Australia
11. Polynesia
12. North America
13. South America
7.
22
There are two drawbacks also.
sample size or some of the measurements.
One is that Biasutti offers no tabular data for European groups.
Sec-
ond, there are no standard deviations accompanying the tabular measurements.
Some of this information is scattered through the text, but
is difficult to accureately determine.
Because of this, the source is supplemented by a variety of other
sources to provide more measurements in certain geographical units as
well as to provide some of the standard deviations which will be
necessary for examining variation within groups.
12
From the combined sources, 237 usable populations were assembled
together.
The use of any single population was limited by the avail-
ability of social information necessary for proper categorization,
and the amoung of anthropometric data.
If too much information was
lacking, the group was dropped from the analysis.
Social Data
The designation of social organization according to Service were
obtained from a variety of sources.
Only a small number of these
designations were provided by Service making it necessary to use other
ethnographic materials.
The designation of social organization was made by the author on
the basis of the ethnographic literature.
Designations that were not
determinable as well as checking of the designations were provided by
12
Because the sources are too numerous to list in the text of this
paper, the reader will find a complete list of the sources by population in appendix 1.
23
Drs. Beals, Smith and Hogg of the Oregon State University Department
of Anthropology.
Analysis
Groups have been arranged within the above defined geographical
units.
Breaking the data up into units by geography provided a
basis for comparison of differences in variation of social levels
across the world.
If the proposed hypothesis is true, differences
should be demonstrated in the parts as well as the whole.
Each social level is arbitrarily designed by a number.
Bands are
This
one, tribes are two, chiefdoms are three, and states are four.
is necessary in order to make group calculations and correlations that
require the social data.
The analysis of data was done by computer.
ever, was limited.
The actual work how-
The information required amounted to several cor-
relations, computation of variances of measurements, and the computations of variances of the social levels by area.
The computer computations were done using the Statistical Interactive Programming System (SIPS) (Guthrie, D., D. Avery and K. Avery
1973) at Oregon State University.
The system allows the examination
of data requiring only the use of a computer terminal and a basic
knowledge of the command system.
Testing data on within group variance utilized the available
standard deviations found throughout the literature.
The number was
small enough that the process of finding weighted standard deviations
24
for social levels was easily done by hand calculator.
Ths first test is a correlation of stature, cephalic index, and
nasal index with heterozygosity.
This examination is to determine
how closely these three polygenic traits follow the patterned change
of heterozygosity found by Beals (1975).
Test two uses the Spearman rs to rank values of population by
social level to discover whether traits show correlation to increased social organization.
The next test examines the standard deviations available to check
the expected increase in within group variation.
The Spearman rs
is used as a check.
The final test is to check for the expected decline in variation
between levels of social organization.
responding 13 geographical units.
Data is broken into its cor-
Examination of data used an F
test to determine significant differences between levels over the 13
units.
There was an examination of the direction of increase or
decline in variability by checking rise and fall of variation between
social levels.
A rank order test of the total population was done
also using the Spearman rs.
25
III. RESULTS
Question One
Question one checks trait correlation with blood group heteroThe results are found in Table 1.
zygosity.
Table 1.
The correlation between stature, cephalic index, and nasal
index, with mean heterozygosity.
r
n
stature
64
0.181
cephalic index
62
0.264
nasal index
59
-0.545
Stature.
The slight positive correlation between stature and hetero-
zygosity is below a significant figure (0.244 at the five percent
level).
The statistic indicates that there is little correlation.
Cephalic Index.
The value of the correlation between cephalic index
and heterozygosity is significant, though just barely at the five
percent level (r = 0.244, n = 65).
The index rises with heterozygosity
in a positive direction.
Nasal index.
relation.
In this case there is a reasonably strong negative cor-
As mean heterozygosity rises the nasal index decreases.
This is expected.
Kelso (1974) has found that a similar negative cor-
relation between latitude and nasal index occurs.
As one moves away
from the equator the nasal index becomes smaller.
In observing the
26
data, this trend is also found.
The broadest noses are found in
Austrailia and the Kalahari desert in southern Africa.
The narrowest
are found in Europe and northern Asia.13
Question Two
Question two examines trait correlation with increasing social
complexity.
Question two is similar to question one.
However, social
organization does not allow a correlation with the three polygenic
traits.
It cannot be assumed that social organization is a normally
distributed variable.
This is based on the fact that the scale of
social organization is strictly arbitrary (non-random) and is not a
continuously measureable numerical variable (Mendenhall 1971; Siegel
1956).
Since strict assumptions cannot be made about the populations,
analysis is done with a nonparametric device,
This allows fewer
qualifications to be made about a population and relies on counting
rather than on numerical values (Siegel 1956).
The particular nonparametric device is the Spearman rs (Mendenhall 1971), a rank order correlation coefficient.
This simple test
uses the squares of differences between two rankings,
The two rank-
ings are the expected or judged rank compared to the ranking from a
test score.
13
We note from the data that the occurance of greater heterozygosity
follows a similar pattern. Beals (1975) has indicated that this distribution of mean heterozygosity becomes larger with increasing levels
of social organization; the less complex are more often found in
equatorial areas.
27
In this case rank will correspond to level of social organization
xi.
Test rank, yi, corresponds to the order of variances of means cal-
culated from the world sample.
Table 2.
The rankings used in the calculation of the Spearman rs.
Nasal Index
Cephalic Index
Stature
Level
Table 2 illustrates the rankings.
x.
Yl .
xi
y.
1
1
4
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
tribe
3
3
3
3
3
1
band
4
4
4
2
4
4
xi
y.
state
1
chief
Using the formula supplied in Mendenhall (19717389),
rs=1-6Edi2
n
(where d. = x.-y.)
(n2-1)
we find that the correlations are 1.0 for stature, -0.4 for cephalic
index, and 0.4 for nasal index.
But this correlation relies only on four categories, and as might
be expected, only a perfect ordering of the units would result in a
significant correlation.14
In this case then only stature is signi-
ficant.
14
it is found that with
0n examining a table of critical values for r
an n value as small as four, any value less tha8 1,0 is not significant at either the five percent or one percent levels. For the values
corresponding to nasal and cephalic indices, n must equal 18 to be
significant at the five percent level.
,
28
Question Three
Question three examines the within group variance increase in
relation to social organization.
Determining increasing variation
within groups with rising social organization required the use of
standard deviations from individual samples.
Seventy-eight standard
deviations were located for stature, while 67 were found for cephalic
index, and 58 for nasal index.
The units of examination were the weighted standard deviations
for each level of social organization, state, chiefdom, tribe, and
These were used to compare each level of organization in order
band.
to check for any increase in variance within each level.
Because the
standard deviations came from groups of differing sample size they
were weighted by these respective sample sizes.
Table 3 gives the
resulting standard deviations of the groups for the three variables.
Table 3.
Standard deviations of the four social levels for stature,
cephalic index, and nasal index.
Trait
Band
Tribe
Chiefdom
State
stature
5.90
5.93
5.59
6.07
cephalic index
3.03
3.39
3.48
3.19
nasal index
8.12
7.55
7.07
7.68
Again, if the Spearman rs is used, the correlation must be perfect to be significant because of the small number of units,
The ex-
pected pattern would have the smallest standard deviations in the band
29
level, with the value growing larger at each successive step.
Table
3 shows that this pattern does not exist.
Question Four
Question four examines the decrease in variation between groups.
This examination relies on the calculations of variance from means of
the three polygenic variables.
Calculations were made using only
those means whose sample size were greater than or equal to 20.
This
was done to insure that each mean came from an approximately normally
distributed sample, reducing the need to weight each measurement by
sample size.
Here, a rank correlation coefficient (Spearman rs) was used to
determine change.
This was done for the data as they were broken in-
to geographic units.
Two different correlations were made.
The first of these used
mean social organization of the geographic units, and the variances
calculated from mean trait figures of each unit.
There are 13 cases;
the rankings of social organization and variances are shown in Table 4.
The results show a correlation of 0.386 for stature, -0.609 for
cephalic index, and 0.397 for nasal index.
and nasal index are not significant.
The values for stature
The figure for cephalic index
is significant at the 0.025 level. (The critical value is 0.566 for
thirteen cases at that level.)
The negative value of the head shape's correlation indicates a
decrease in variation between levels as the rankings for mean social
30
Table 4.
Rankings used in the construction of the Spearman r using
variances of mean trait values (by geographic area)sand
mean social organization.
Cephalic Index
Stature
xi
Y-
xi
yi
Nasal Index
yi
xi
7
13
2
5
6
11
3
13
4
1
11
1
2
11
5
8
5
12
12
7
12
10
12
9
11
13
11
1
11
10
Melanesia
8
12
8
7
8
7
Micronesia
3.5
5
3.5
3.5
3
North America
9
8
9
9
9
8
Polynesia
3.5
1
3.5
6
3.5
1
Africa
7
9
7
Afro-Asia
2
4
2
Asia
6
6
6
13
2
13
Eruope
1
3
India
5
Indonesia
Kalahari
Australia
South America
10
10
10
4.5
13
4.5
12
2
10
6
31
organization and variance are ordered from highest to lowest,
Thus,
a negative value indicates that as social organization is high, the
corresponding variation is low.
The second correlation uses only groups which have standard
deviation values for the three traits.
geographic unit as before.
Groups were separated by
For each unit a mean social organization
and average variance were calculated.
15
Rankings used in this cor-
relation are found in Table 5.
The values were correlated in the same manner as the previous
The resulting correlations were 0.041 for stature, -0.375 for
test.
cephalic index, and 0.435 for nasal index,
significant.
None of these figures are
Notice however, that for cephalic index the figure is
again negative, indicating the expected decrease in variation with
increasing social organization as proposed by the hypothesis.
We can look at the units in other ways to indicate the difference
in variation from bands to states.
The total data were broken up into the 13 geographical areas by
social organization level and a variance calculated for each social
level (based on mean trait values) where data were available.
Tables
6,7, and 8 illustrate this for stature, cephalic index, and nasal
index respectively.
Looking at each table (using figures that are calculated with n
1 5This
test is suggested by Beals as a further step in analyzing the
He has indicated that this
difference in variation between groups.
method of analysis is an appropriate measure of the degree of difference in variation between groups of differing social organization.
32
Table 5.
Rankings used in constructing the Spearman r, using standard
deviations from within each geographic area,aand the corresponding mean social organization of those groups.
Stature
Cephalic Index
Nasal Index
xi
yi
xi
yi
x.
y.
Africa
7
10
9
3
9
8
Afro-Asia
2.5
8
2
2
2
5
Asia
2.5
6
3
9
3
11
10.5
7
Australia
10.5
1
10.5
10
Eruope
1
9
1
8
1
3
India
3
5
5
11
5
4
Kalahari
10.5
11
10.5
6
10.5
9
Micronesia
3
1
5
5
5
1
North America
9
2
8
7
8
7
Polynesia
3
4
7
4
7
2
South America
8
3
5
10
5
6
33
Table 6.
Variance of mean stature among bands, tribes, chiefdoms,
and states, in heterographic areas.
N
Band
Africa
Australia
5.75
State
9.75
11
12.70
10
15.25
7
3.86
7
23.46
9
6.33
19
9.94
N
20
49.75
24
13
8
N
Tribe
Afri-Asia
Asia
Chiefdom
N
4.42
--
-
Europe
India
Mw
Indonesia
7
-16.38
8
22.84
-
Kalahari
Melanesia
7
37.99
Micronesia
--
8
11.45
17
30.18
7
1.26
88
28.67
INN 010
North
America
7
4.23
13
28.83
Polynesia
South
America
Total World
30
62.57
8
32.23
67
49.53
MO II=
52
18.27
34
Table 7.
Variance of mean cephalic index among bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states in heterographic areas.
N
Africa
Band
MN MN
Afro-Asia
--
Asia
--
Australia
8
Europe
-
7
13
-
6.56
4.05
24
3.68
11
4.89
10
7.36
7
27.19
7
5.39
9
6.00
18
10.18
--
Micronesia
-
--
13
12.55
7
2.08
Polynesia
-
-.
South
America
13.93
7.55
-
8
10.67
-
17
9.79
6.41
-
10.21
North
America
8
--
7
19
State
..
Melanesia
Total World
N
--
-
5.08
--
Kalahari
20
Chiefdom
N
-
....
India
Indonesia
2.54
Tribe
N
-
--
7
8
2.89
-
67
14.04
88
--
1.11
-
__
51
15.82
1= MO
11.68
35
Table 8.
Variance of mean nasal index among bands, tribes, chiefdoms,
and states in heterographic areas.
N
Band
Africa
--
Afro-Asia
--
Asia
--
Australia
8
Europe
-
India
-
Indonesia
6
Kalahari
-
20.42
Chiefdom
N
States
22
177.18
9
75.52
10
39.08
5
34.85
7
43,89
8
87.44
16
11.98
N
Tribe
N
19
52.56
--
8
-
24,76
--
-8
56.82
33.93
--
-
--
Melanesia
5
13.28
--
Micronesia
-
North
America
7
Polynesia
-
South
America
Total World
65.49
153.50
58.77
--
--
VW Mt
28
11
8
37.97
57
56.75
16
14.96
7
8.36
-
.11M,
79
113.16
44
103.16
36
greater than or equal to five) one finds the number of cases from the
total where variance decreases with increasing social organization.
In stature, of seven cases where decrease can occur, it does
three times while increasing four times,
For cephalic index, of
seven cases, decrease occurs in two and increases in.five.
For the
nasal index, again for seven cases, the decrease is four and the increase is three.
These figures (with decrease occurring nine times
and increasing 12 times) indicate that the pattern of decrease is
little more than a chance happening.
The data were examined using an F test on the total (world)
figures to see if there were any significant differences in the
variances of the four levels.
The test checks the three traits to determine if differences
occur between variances of bands and tribes, tribes and chiefdoms,
and chiefdoms and states.
A two tailed test was used, since the con-
cern was only with a difference between the two variances of each
case.
The critical F values were found using the most conservative
degrees of freedom.
Each of the nine tests used the ten percent
significance level, with any test found significant at that level
being tested as well as the two percent level.
Table 9 illustrates
the information used, and the results.
The results indicate that in three of the nine cases the differences are significant at the ten percent level.
These are between
tribes and chiefdoms for stature, and between bands and tribes and
tribes and chiefdoms for nasal index.
Further tests using the two
37
Table 9.
F tests on variances between the four levels, using variances
of the total data.
Cephalic Index
Nasal Index
30,60
60,30
24,60
Tribe v. Chiefdom
60,60
60,60
60,60
Chiefdom v. State
60,40
40,60
60,40
Band v. Tribe
1.65
1.74
1.74
Tribe v. Chiefdom
1.53
1.53
1.53
Chiefdom v. State
1.64
1.59
1.64
Band v. Tribe
1.263
1.007
2.704**
Tribe v. Chiefdom
1.727*
1.202
1.994**
Chiefdom v. State
1.569
1.354
1.090
Degrees of Freedom
Stature
Band v. Tribe
Critical F
Test Statistics
*
**
Significant at ten percent level.
Significant at two percent level.
percent significance level finds that only the two tests for nasal
index remain significant.
Note that in stature where a relation seems to exist, there is
only one significant difference between the variances of the successive steps.
Further, in nasal index where there was no apparent
relation, there are significant differences in two of the three
38
steps (at the two percent significance level). 16
There is no indica-
tion of significant difference between any of the three steps for
cephalic index.
16
The difference between bands and tribes shows a decrease from bands
to tribes. But the difference between tribes and
chiefdoms shows an
increase between the two.
This represents significant changes in
variation between groups apparently going in the opposite direction.
39
IV.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
Conclusions
The above study has attempted to determine if any relationship
exists between several measurable physical traits and cultural evolution which is expressed in terms of social organization.
The study is an extension of previous work by Beals (1975) which
demonstrated a measurable relationship vis-a-vis blood group heterozygosity.
The hypothesis is that as culture continues to evolve in
human populations, the biological variation of these populations will
increase within groups and decrease between groups.
Testing examines four items.
First, did the traits show a good
correlation to blood group heterozygosity?
Was there a correlation
Did variation
between the traits and levels of social organization?
within groups rise with social levels?
And last, was there a decline
in variation between groups with a corresponding rise in social
levels?
Correlation of blood group heterozygosity with polygenic characters reveals only one significant correlation, that with nasal index.
Yet, while that correlation was high, it fails to explain better than
2
70 percent of the variation (r
= 0.297) in the correlation.
Due to the nature of the variables a correlation of social organization with the polygenic characters is unreliable.
A rank order
analysis does indicate however, that a good correlation exists for
40
stature while none occur for the remaining indices.
Rank order correlation indicates further that there is no significant pattern of increase for variation within groups as social
level goes up.
A casual examination of weighted standard deviations
reveals no apparent pattern of increase.
The answer to the question concerning decline in variation between groups is not conclusive.
The several tests for difference
between variations and the direction of change overall yield no significant results.
The exception is in the first correlation which produced a significant figure for cephalic index.
This indicates a decline in
variation with a rise in social organization for that particular
trait.
Further testing however, does not support the same trend.
The results allow some general conclusions.
These might be
best viewed in terms of the four questions presented in Chapter one.
Stature
Stature reveals no definite relationship to heterozygosity.
There is a significant relationship to an increase in social organization.
strated.
A variation increase within groups for stature is not demonDecrease in variation between groups for stature is not
supported by the data.
Cephalic Index
Cephalic index does correlate with heterozygosity.
not correlate with an increase in cultural complexity.
But it does
Increased
41
variation within groups is not observed.
There is a significant
correlation with decline in between group variation.
Remaining tests
however, do not support this further.
Nasal Index
Nasal index does significantly correlate with heterozygosity,
though the variation explained by the correlation is not high.
index does not correlate strongly with an increase in social
zation.
The
organi-
For increasing variation within groups, nasal index offers
no conclusive evidence.
There is no significant indication that de-
cline in between group variation occurs with increasing social organization for this trait.
The results indicate that this set of data supplies no proof
strong enough to support the proposed hypothesis of biocultural evolution.
It must be concluded that for these three traits the hypo-
thesis is probably not correct.
Discussion
No particular population fits a typological definition of social
organization.
It is true that most groups fall generally into one
of several broad categories such as those supplied by Service (1962).
The problem in adopting any such typology has been to account for
those groups which fall somewhere outside the defined categories.
For example the apparent complexity of a group may differ from
its actual structure.
In such a case, groups may relate socially on
a low level, like the tribal level.
But the same groups may function
42
politically on a much higher level.
An attempt to resolve the situation might be to extend scale to
give broader definitions of social organization.
Broadening might re-
suit from extending an arbitrary scale to ten or more units.
categorization would increase the flexibility greatly.
A decimal
17
But, while this may extend the categorization and make social organization a more continuously measurable variable, the effort in itself
would be inhibitive.
Standardizaion of a finely graded social scale
would be slow in developing and scaling of individual groups would be
a large undertaking.
And, there is no guarantee that such elaboration
would solve the problem.
The system would remain arbitrary and com-
plexity would increase the error in decision making.
The answer may be a cultural designator easily defined within
each group, and relatively consistant.
Such an item might be a scale
of energy capture (White 1949), or degree of political force.
But
these alternatives may well be subject to the same objections.
Overall there may be no separately measurable cultural item.
Yet, as the cultural item may be enigmatic, perhaps physical characteristics offer the most problem to a study of this nature.
Oliver and Howells (1957) reveal with special interest to this
study, that the principles of genetics largely relate themselves to
the actions of single gene pairs.
POlygenic traits, subject to control
of various loci, are not well described by these principles.
17
Such ideas are expressed by Hogg, Oregon State University (personal
communication).
43
For traits governed by a single gene pair, heterozygosity has
a definite meaning.
For polygenic traits the concern is not one of
relative heterozygosity, but rather the variety of combinations of
these genes (Oliver and Howells, 1957).
For example, inbreeding as applied to humans, will not affect
polygenes in the manner of a single gene pair, because variation deals
with entire chromosomes of differing pairs.
Noting this, and the fact
that the estimate of human gene-loci is in the neighborhood of 20,000 42,000, the effect of inbreeding on polygenes would not result in a reduction of heterozygosity (Oliver and Howells, 1957).
Other complications in the study arise from a lack of control
over human data.
Aside from substandard procedures and measurement
errors that limit the value of anthropometric data (Comas 1971), the
problem of the specific expression of environment and diet on traits
must be considered.
The effect of these outside variables is not re-
flected to the same degree for each characteristic.
The study may indicate the relative effect of environmental
factors on the specific traits.
Stature is the only trait that tends
to display any respectable pattern relative to social organization.
Perhaps this is a result of stature's high heritability.
(1963) confirms this heritability.
Hiernaux
But, he also points out that the
heritability of cephalic index is also extremely high.
Thus there is
still no significant outcome in the results.
The concept of biocultural evolution may have been directly
measurable during the Paleolithic.
During that period, human groups
44
may have been more homogeneous in their subsistance patterns, and an
innovation that dramatically increased efficiency could have given a
definite survival advantage to its innovators (W.W. Howells 1970).
But cultural complexity is now at the point that each new addition does not dramatically increase the chances of survival, but
rather the exploitation of resources.
Such complexity, and present
world population, is limiting the examination of the biocultural
hypothesis.
The present example is the examination of micro-evolu-
tion of today's less complex human groups.
What we remain with is an understanding of the potential for
human variation and the concept of human adaptation in terms of culture.
We retain the feeling that the changes in culture and biologi-
cal variation are tied to each other.
feeling remains unresolved.
But with the present data this
Solution to the problem rests on a future
determination of the working of complex genetic characters and of the
existance of a more suitable measure of cultural evolution.
45
Bibliography
Andrew, J.M. IV
In Studies in the
Evolutionary Trends in Body Build.
1943
C.S.
Coon
and J.M. Andrews IV,
Anthropology of Oceania and Asia.
Papers, Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology 20:102eds.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
121.
Barnett, N.G.
No Date
Oregon.
The Innovative Process.
(Mimeographed)
Barnett, S.A.
The Human Species: A Biology of Man.
1971
and Row Publishers.
New York:
Beals, K.L.
Genetic Variation and Cultural Evolution.
1975
Anthropologist (in press).
Beals, R.L, and Harry Hoijer
An Introduction to Anthropology.
1965
The McMillan Company.
York:
Biasutti, Renato
Razze e i Populi Della Terra.
1959
Turin: Unione Tipografic-Editrice.
Birdsell, J.B.
Human Evolution.
1972
Harper
American
Third Edition,
Second Edition.
New
1-4.
Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.
Boas, Franz
Anthropometry of Shoshonian Tribes.
gist N.S. 1:751-758.
1899
University of
American Anthropolo-
Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants.
Reports of the Immigrations Commission. Senate Documents 64
(208). Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.
1911
Bowles, G.T.
In
Linguistic and Racial Aspects of the Munda Problem,
1943
C.S.
Coon
and
and
Asia.
Studies in the Anthropology of Oceania
Papers, Peabody Museum of Archeology and
J.M. Andrews IV, eds.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ethnology 20:81-101.
Campbell, Bernard G.
Human Evolution.
1966
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
46
Comas, Juan
Anthropometric Studies in Latin American Indian Populations.
In The Ongoing Evolution of Latin American Populations. F.M.
Charles C. Thomas.
Salzano, Ed. Springfield, III.:
1971
Coon, C,S.
Harvard African Studies. 9. Cambridge:
Tribes of the Riff.
Harvard University Press,
1931
1939
The Races of Europe.
New York: The Macmillan Company.
Craig, J.I.
Anthropometry of Modern Egyptians.
1911
Biometrika 8:66-78.
DaRocha, F.J. and F,M, Salzano
Anthropometric Studies in Brazilian Cayapo Indians.
1972
American Journal of Physical Anthropology N.S. 36:95-102,
Davenport, C.B. and A.G, Love
The Medical Department of the U.S. Army in the World War
1921
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
15(1).
Dillon, L.S.
1973
Evolution:
Moss Company.
Concepts and Consequences,
Dobzhansky, Theodosius
Mankind Evolving.
1962
St. Louis: The C.V.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Field, Henry
Contributions to the Anthropometry of the Caucasus.
Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology 48(1).
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
1953
Papers,
An Anthropological Reconnaissance in the Near East, 1950.
Papers, Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology
Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
48(2).
1956
An Anthropological Reconnaissance in West Pakistan, 1955.
Papers, Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology 52.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
1959
Fitzsimmons, Thomas, et.al,
USSR: Its People; Its Society; Its Culture,
1960
Human Relations Area File.
Garn, Stanley M,
Human Races,
1961
Springfield,
New Haven:
Charles C, Thomas.
47
Gerard, R.W., Clyde Kluckholn, and Anatol Rapoport
Biological and Cultural Evolution: Some Analogies and
1956
Explorations, Behavioral Science 1(1):6-34.
Guthrie, D., C. Avery and K. Avery
Statistical Interactive Programming System (*SIPS):
1973
Corvallis,
User's Reference Manual. Technical Report No. 36.
Oregon: Oregon State University Press,
Hambly, W.D.
Field Museum of Natural
Anthropometry of the Ovimbundu.
1938
History: Anthropological Series 25(2):23-79.
Handler, Phillip, Ed.
Biology and the Future of Man.
1970
sity Press,
Harris, Marvin
Culture, Man, and Nature.
1971
New York: Oxford Univer-
New York: Thomas Y. Crowell
Company.
Hastuck, M.M. and G.M. Mourant
1929
Measurement of Macedonian Men,
Haviland, W.A.
1974
Anthropology.
Biometrika 21:322-336.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Hiernaux, Jean
Heredity and Environment: Their Influence on Human Morphol1963
A Comparison of Two Independant Lines of Study. American
ogy.
Journal of Physical Anthropology N.S. 21:575-589.
Bruxelles:
La Diversite' Humaine en Afrique Subsaharienne.
1968
Editions de L'Institut de Sociologie, Universite' Libre de
Bruxelles,
Hogg, T.C.
1975
Personal Communication
Howells, F.C.
1970
Early Man.
New York: Time-Life Books.
Howells, W.W.
Anthropometry and Blood Types in Fiji and the Solomon
1933
Islands.
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History 33(4). New York: Museum Publication.
48
1937
Anthropometry of the Natives of Arnhemland and the Australian Race Problem. Papers, Peabody Museum of American Archeology
and Ethnology 15(1).
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
1966
Variability in Family Lines Vs. Population Variability.
Annals of the New York Academy of Science 134(2):624-631.
1970
Recent Physical Anthropology. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Sciences 389:116-126.
Hrdlicka, Ales
1925
The Old Americans: A Physiological Profile.
1970 Reprint
Edition.
New York: Arno Press and the New York Times.
Hsia, Hsiao, Ed.
1960
China: Its People; Its Society; Its Culture.
Human Relations Area File.
New Haven:
Hunt, E.E.
1950
A View of Somatology and Serology in Micronesia,
Journal of Physical Anthropology N.S. 8:157-183.
Kelso, A.J.
1974
Physical Anthropology.
Lippincott Company.
Second Edition,
American
New York: J.B.
Labar, Frank M. et. al.
1964
Ethnic Groups of Mainland Southeast Asia. New Haven: Human
Relations Area File.
Lessa, W.A. and Tracey Lay
1953
The Somatology of Ulithi Atoll.
Physical Anthropology N.S. 11:405-412.
American Journal of
Lewontin, R.C.
1967
An Estimate of Average Heterozygosity in Man,
Journal of Human Genetics 19:681-685.
American
Livingstone, Frank B.
1969
Genetics, Ecology and the Origins of Incest and Exogamy.
Current Anthropology 10(1):45-62.
MacDonnell, W.R.
1901-1902
On Criminal Anthropometry and the Identification of
Criminals.
Biometrika 1:177-227.
Mahalanobis, P.C.
1930
A Statistical Study of Certain Anthropometric Measurements
From Sweden. Biometrika 22:94-108.
49
A Revision of Risley's Anthropometric Data Relating to
1933
the Tribes and Castes of Bengal. Sanhya" 1:76-105.
Mahalanobis, P.C. and D.N. Majumdar, and C.R. Rao
Anthropometric Survey of the United Provinces, 1941: A
1949
Sanhya 9:90 -324.
Statistical Study.
Martin, Rudolf, and Karl Sailer
Lehrbuch der Anthropologie.
1962
Stuttgart: Gustaf Fisher.
Third Edition,
Band II.
McKennan, Robert A.
The Physical Anthropology of Two Alaskan Athabaskan
1964
American Journal of Physical Anthropology N.S. 22:43-52.
Groups.
McVey, R.T., Ed,
Indonesia. Southeast Asian Studies, Yale University.
1963
Human Realtions Area File.
New Haven:
Mendenhall, William
Introduction to Probability and Statistics,
1971
Belmont, Cal.: Duxbury Press.
Mendes-Correa, A.A.
Origins of the Portugese.
1919
Anthropology 2:117-145.
Third Edition.
American Journal of Physical
Murdock, G.P.
Africa: Its People and Their Culture History.
1959
McGraw-Hill.
New York:
Neel, J.V., et. al.
Studies on the Xavante Indians of the Brazillian Mato
1964
American Journal of Human Genetics 16:52-140.
Grosso.
Oliver, D.L. and W.W. Howells
Micro-Evolution: Cultural Elements in Physical Evolution.
1957
American Anthropologist 59:965-978.
Pearson, Roger
Introduction to Anthropology.
1971
and Winston, Inc.
New York: Holt, Rinehart
Peterson, Roger
Exercises in Statistical Inference. Corvallis, Ore.:
1972
Oregon State University Bookstores Inc., Publishers,
Schuster, E.
First Results from the Oxford Anthropometric Labor1911-1913
Biometrika 8:40-51.
atory.
50
Service, E.R.
Primitive Social Organization.
1962
Random House.
Second Edition. New York:
Shanklin, W.M.
Anthropometry of the Akeydat and the Maualy Bedouin.
1936
ican Journal of Physical Anthropology 21:217-252.
Amer-
Shapiro, H.L.
The Physical Characteristics of the Ontong Javanese: A
1933
Contribution to the Study of the Non-Melanesian Elements in MelanAnthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural
esia.
History 33(3). New York: Museum Publication.
Shapiro, H.L. and P.H. Buck
The Physical Characteristics of the Cook Islanders.
1936
Memoirs of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum 12(1). Honolulu: B.P.
Bishop Museum Press.
Shields, James and I.I. Gottesman
Man, Mind, and Heredity.
1971
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Press.
Shirokogoroff, S.M.
Anthropology of North China. Oosterhout N.B., The Nether1966
lands: Royal Asiatic Society, Anthropological Publications.
Siegel, Sidney
Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
1956
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc,
New
Smithsonian Institute
Handbook of South American Indians. Bureau of American
1959
Ethnology 143(1-7). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Spielman, R.S., E.C. Migliazza, and J.V, Neel
Regional Linguistic and Genetic Differences Among Yanomama
1974
Science 184:637-644.
Indians.
Steggerda, Morris
1932 Physical Measurement of Dutch Men and Women.
Journal of Physical Anthropology 16:309-337.
American
Sullivan, L.R.
1920 Anthropometry of Siouan Tribes. Anthropological Papers of
the American Museum of Natural History 23(3):81-174. New York:
The American Museum of Natural History Press.
51
Marquesan Somatology with Comparative Notes on Samoa and
1923
Memoirs of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum 9(2):141-249.
Tonga.
Honolulu: B.P. Bishop Museum Press.
Memoirs of the
Observations on Hawaiian Somatology.
Honolulu:
B.P. Bishop
Bernice P. Bishop Museum 9(4):269-342.
Museum Press.
1927
White, Leslie A.
The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Civilization.
1949
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1.
Group
The table below is a list of the data used in the above study.
It records,
by geographic area, the social organization (S. 0.) of each group, with the
corresponding mean measurements of stature (St.), cephalic index (C. I.), nasal
index (N. I.), and Heterozygosity (H.) of that group.
The table also contains
the sample sizes (N.) for each measurement, and gives the source from which the
measurements were taken.
(Heterozygosity based on ABO blood system.)
Sources
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
Ababda
3
62
163.6
62
73.7
62
75.1
Agni
4
171
167.5
171
76.3
Amhara
4
83
168.6
83
74.9
Antandroy
3
700
167.0
700
78.0
Ashanti
4
77
165.3
77
78.8
77
84.7
Azande
4
217
170.1
217
78.2
217
82.5
Hiernaux 1968
Bagiuni
2
28
165.4
28
75.6
28
75.8
Biasutti 1959
Bakongo
4
57
162.0
57
75.6
57
98.2
Biasutti 1959
Balese
2
36
158.5
36
76.3
36
95.1
Biasutti 1959
Bamun
3
71
171.5
71
79.8
71
89.2
Hiernaux 1968
Bangala
2
70
168.5
70
77.0
70
94.7
Biasutti 1959
H.
Africa
Biasutti 1959
Biasutti 1959
83
75.7
29.3
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
27.3
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
N
N.)
Group
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
Bapoto
2
26
163.9
26
78.0
26
90.0
Biasutti 1959
Basoko
2
24
165.6
24
81.3
24
95.2
Biasutti 1959
Basonghe
3
42
166.8
42
78.3
42
92.6
Biasutti 1959
Bateke
2
56
163.3
57
74.9
56
97.1
Hiernaux 1968
Batonga
3
23
171.2
23
72.3
23
90.9
Batwa
1
100
168.8
100
78.4
100
90.9
Hiernaux 1968
Baya
3
26
166.5
26
77.0
26
90.7
Biasutti 1959
Bon (Gelib)
1
27
169.4
27
72.8
27
83.0
Biasutti 1959
Cunama
3
60
165.4
60
74.9
60
70.2
Biasutti 1959
Dagari
3
71
169.0
71
75.3
39
107.8
Hiernaux 1968;
Biasutti 1959
Dembo
2
100
160.0
100
74.3
100
92.6
Biasutti 1959
Dinka
2
63
183.9
49
71.7
60
92.0
Hiernaux 1968
Duala
3
75
169.1
73
78.9
74
87.8
Hiernaux 1968
Efe
1
111
143.0
111
79.4
111
105.7
Biasutti 1959
Ekoi
3
20
166.9
20
75.3
20
92.6
Biasutti 1959
Falasha
3
58
168.0
58
77.4
58
63.0
H.
19.9
26.3
Sources
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
vi
co
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
H.
Sources
Fang
2
91
166.4
91
79.3
91
91.4
--
Hiernaux 1968;
Beals 1975
Galla (Oromo)
3
49
171.0
49
77.6
49
69.0
26.6
Hiernaux 1968;
Beals 1975
Ganda
4
288
167.3
288
73.5
288
85.3
Biasutti 1959
Hutu
3
254
167.4
254
75.2
254
82.5
Hiernaux 1968
Ibo (Ika)
2
173
163.3
173
75.4
Kamasaia (Eltuken)
2
20
171.9
20
74.2
20
86.0
Kamba
2
128
165.7
128
76.5
128
86.5
24.4
Biasutti 1959;
Hiernaux 1968;
Beals 1975
Kikuyu
2
384
164.0
384
76.0
384
87.1
24.7
Biasutti 1959;
Hiernaux 1968;
Beals 1975
Kran
3
105
164.9
105
75.3
105
95.8
19.0
Hiernaux 1968;
Beals 1975
Kru
3
40
165.4
40
75.8
40
98.9
19.0
Hiernaux 1968;
Beals 1975
Logo
2
146
166.2
146
76.7
146
83.7
Biasutti 1959
Lotuko
2
34
178.0
34
73.3
34
84.6
Biasutti 1959
Group
--
Hiernaux 1968
Biasutti 1959;
Hiernaux 1968
Group.
S.O.
Luena
3
101
Makua (Niassa)
3
Masai
Sources
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
168.5
101
77.0
101
97.4
Biasutti 1959
25
164.1
25
74.7
25
94.1
Biasutti 1959
2
147
172.7
148
72.8
149
72.0
Hiernaux 1968
Moru
2
20
170.7
20
77.0
20
86.3
Mossi
3
476
171.4
476
74.1
94
104.6
Mundang
3
26
175.3
26
74.0
26
97.0
Nuba (Eliri)
4
32
173.0
32
76.4
32
92.4
Biasutti 1959
Nuer
2
51
184.9
51
70.1
51
86.9
Hiernaux 1968
Nyoro
4
47
166.4
47
74.9
47
90.7
Hiernaux 1968
Ovimbundu
3
53
168.7
53
73.1
53
87.9
Hambly 1938
Rahawein
2
29
169.8
29
74.4
29
73.1
Biasutti 1959
Sandawi
1
100
164.6
100
75.2
100
80.2
Hiernaux 1968
Swahili
2
114
164.9
114
77.0
114
84.7
Hiernaux 1968
Somali (Hauiya)
3
42
173.2
42
74.5
42
65.0
28.0
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Tigre
3
85
164.0
85
73.9
85
63.2
27.6
Hiernaux 1968;
Beals 1975
N.
St.
H
--
Biasutti 1959
22.0
Biasutti 1959;
Hiernaux 1968;
Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
°I
un
Sources
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
Tikkar
4
21
168.4
21
80.1
21
93.4
Biasutti 1959
Tussi
4
119
175.2
119
72.9
119
71.1
Hiernaux 1968
Wolof
3
257
172.4
227
75.0
Hiernaux 1968
Yoruba
4
156
168.0
156
75.1
Hiernaux 1968
Zulu
4
106
166.1
Arab (Yemen)
3
41
161.3
41
80.1
41
65.3
Arab (Kish)
3
164
169.6
164
76.6
164
72.8
Biasutti 1959
Armenian
4
114
165.5
114
85.2
114
61.5
Biasutti 1959
Assyrian
4
360
168.9
360
84.0
360
65.1
Field 1956
Bakhtari
3
150
162.2
150
81.7
150
67.7
Field 1956
Barabra
3
89
89
76.6
89
80.4
Biasutti 1959
Bedouin (Ruala)
3
270
161.9
270
75.0
270
63.7
Bedouin (Akeydat)
3
120
168.5
120
76.4
116
66.0
Shanklin 1936
Bedouin (Mauley)
3
176
170.1
175
77.3
175
66.3
Shanklin 1936
Group
H
Hiernaux 1968
Afro-Asia
164
28.8
30.3
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Group
Berber
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
H.
3
73
165.2
73
77.3
73
63.8
27.5
Sources
Coon 1931; Beals
1975
Craig 1911
Egyptian (Cairo)
4
802
165.8
799
75.9
Egyptian (Kharga)
4
150
163.8
150
74.8
150
76.6
34.6
Kurd
3
50
167.3
50
78.7
50
56.4
--
Riffian
4
529
168.6
529
75.0
Taureg
3
143
172.5
143
71.8
143
66.5
Tunisian
4
49
165.0
49
80.8
49
71.9
Biasutti 1959
Turk
4
200
167.9
200
87.2
200
67.2
Hastuck 1929
Ainu
3
91
156.7
91
77.3
55
83.4
Beltir
2
78
160.7
78
79.6
78
78.0
106
163.7
106
82.0
106
70.0
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Field 1956
Biasutti 1959
29.6
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Asia
Burmese (North)
34.7
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
29.0
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Caren (Puo)
2
99
160.9
99
82.5
99
88.5
Biasutti 1959
Chagar-Mongol
3
52
164.0
52
81.7
52
71.7
Biasutti 1959
gL0112
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
H.
Sources
--
Shirokogoroff
1966
Chinese (Cih-li)
4
114
167.9
113
79.9
113
90.0
Chinese (Se-civan)
4
100
161.1
100
79.3
100
72.9
Chinese (Shan tung) 4
185
166.6
184
78.5
183
89.9
Chukchee
2
162
162.5
162
82.0
--
Japanese
4
6000
161.9
6000
80.8
-
Jenessei
2
104
158.7
104
83.1
104
76.3
Biasutti 1959
Kachin
3
60
161.5
60
79.0
60
68.3
Biasutti 1959
Kamchadal
2
63
160.1
63
78.5
Korean
4
142
162.9
141
83.7
141
Koryak
2
197
159.9
197
80.0
.....
Lollo
3
29
167.5
29
79.4
29
75.9
Biasutti 1959
Man
2
82
158.3
82
78.2
82
82.5
Biasutti 1959
Miao
3
44
158.5
44
79.9
44
69.3
Biasutti 1959
Moi
3
30
159.4
30
79.8
30
77.6
Biasutti 1959
Osete (North)
3
106
169.8
106
84.6
106
63.6
Field 1953
Biasutti 1959
30.9
Shirokogoroff
1966; Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
37.0
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
92.5
.,,
35.0
Shirokogoroff
1966; Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
TL0±21
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
H.
Sources
Ostyak
2
127
156.8
127
80.7
127
76.5
Samoyed
2
54
156.8
54
83.3
54
77.0
Selkup
2
29
158.1
29
82.1
29.
86.7
Thai (Central)
4
952
163.4
952
85.7
821
76.4
Tibetan
4
108
163.3
108
82.2
108
73.9
Biasutti 1959
Tungus
2
116
158.0
116
85.1
116
76.6
Biasutti 1959
Vietnamese
4
41
159.9
41
84.5
41
72.4
Biasutti 1959
Yakut
2
207
162.4
207
82.7
--
Biasutti 1959
Yukaghir
2
70
156.0
70
80.4
Arnhamland N.E.
1
77
167.0
77
70.4
77
103.9
Howells 1937
Arnhamland N.W.
1
98
169.6
98
73.0
98
98.1
Howells 1937
Central Aranda
1
20
166.3
20
74.7
20
95.3
Central-Meridian
Aranda
1
42
165.6
42
74.3
72
94.8
Biasutti 1959
Central Northern
1
21
172.5
21
72.1
21
106.6
Biasutti 1959
Melville-Bathurst
1
28
166.8
28
70.5
28
103.6
Howells 1937
Biasutti 1959
--
Biasutti 1959
Biasutti 1959
26.3
Shirokogoroff
1966; Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
Australia
Is.
26.4
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Group
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
H.
Sources
Northern
1
62
170.5
62
72.8
62
95.8
Biasutti 1959
Victoria River
1
28
169.3
28
73.5
28
98.5
Howells 1937
Bulgarian
4
100
167.9
100
83.3
100
65.8
Hastuck 1929
Danish
4
18,727
169.0
2000
80.6
Dutch
4
70
173.2
70
79.3
English
4
4202
172.1
3000
77.2
French
4
1457
168.6
56
79.8
German
4
7077
172.0
QM.
200
167.3
200
Europe
Greek
40
62.5
34.4
Hrdlicka 1925;
Coon 1939; Beals
1975
35.7
Steggerda 1932;
Beals 1975
33.6
Davenport 1921;
Beals 1975
1000
67.3
32.4
Hrdlicka 1925;
Davenport 1921;
Beals 1975
38
63.5
34.7
Hrdlicka 1925;
Davenport 1921;
Beals 1975
85.9
200
68.4
Hastuck 1929
Boas 1911;
Hrdlicka 1925
411.
Hungarian
4
143
166.1
143
84.2
50
70.4
Irish
4
6164
171.4
35
78.0
102
64.3
31.4
Hrdlicka 1925;
B evarM51921;
CD
Group
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
H.
Sources
Italian
4
3519
165.7
50
84.3
50
67.7
33.8
Hrdlicka 1925;
Davenport 1921;
Beals 1975
Norwegian
4
11,774
172.4
11,761
79.0
77
61.0
34.3
Coon 1939; Beals
1975
Polish
4
2408
169.4
113
82.3
50
70.6
36.0
Hrdlicka 1925;
Boas 1911; Davenport 1921; Beals
1975
Portugese
4
1444
164.5
1444
76.3
1444
65.1
Mendes-Correa
1919
Rumanian
4
50
169.8
50
85.9
50
69.0
Hrdlicka 1925
Russian
4
122
168.6
50
83.5
50
71.9
Hrdlicka 1925
Scott
4
2074
172.5
493
78.8
Spanish
4
6072
162.0
206
79.1
206
61.6
36.3
Coon 1931;
Beals 1975
Swedish
4
46,983
172.2
46,983
77.7
260
62.7
33.1
Mahalanobis
1930; Coon
1939; Beals 1975
Yugoslavian
4
50
171.6
50
85.2
50
69.0
Davenport 1921;
Schuster 19111913
Hrdlicka 1925
Sources
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
Baluchi
3
85
168.2
85
81.6
85
68.7
Bhil
3
186
162.9
186
75.6
187
77.5
Brahuis
3
150
169.9
151
78.0
147
69.5
Field 1959
Chenchus
2
23
165.0
23
72.9
23
81.4
Biasutti 1959
Coorg
3
287
167.1
287
80.6
287
65.2
Biasutti 1959
Kadar
2
25
157.7
25
72.9
25
89.8
Biasutti 1959
Kashmiri
4
50
166.0
50
76.2
50
66.5
Biasutti 1959
Khasi
3
71
158.2
71
77.1
71
73.6
Bowles 1943
Kui
3
71
159.7
71
76.2
71
79.3
Biasutti 1959
Kurumbar
2
30
156.2
30
77.6
30
90.7
Male
2
100
157.7
100
74.9
100
94.7
Mahalanobis 1933
Rajput
4
420
174.8
420
72.4
420
71.6
Biasutti 1959
Santal
3
53
159.4
53
76.2
53
82.2
Biasutti 1959
Sikh
4
76
172.1
76
73.8
76
64.8
Biasutti 1959
Grou
H.
India
Field 1959
32.0
26.9
Mahalanobis et
al 1949; Beals
1975
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
01
na
gy:2142
S.O.
Toda
3
N.
22
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
H.
168.9
22
73.1
22
76.0
32.9
147.5
97
82.1
97
77.8
149.3
30
83.1
30
88.2
154.0
104
77.6
161.8
59
73.2
59
80.6
158.7
31
80.0
31
90.2
154.6
27
77.8
--
152.0
78
78.5
78
90.2
153.6
53
77,8
53
83.3
157,3
25
82.2
25
100.2
155.8
21
76.3
21
109.2
24.5
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
164.6
101
75.6
101
93.3
20.5
Hiernaux 1968;
Beals 1975
177.0
57
75.1
48
93.4
Sources
Biasutti 1959
Indonesia
Aeta
Andamanese
Igorot
97
1
30
3
Krunesi (Flores)
Kubu
1
3
104
59
1
31
Loinang
1
27
Sakai (Ple)
1
78
Semang (Jahai)
Toala
1
1
53
25
Biasutti 1959
20.9
--
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
--
Biasutti 1959
Biasutti 1959
Biasutti 1959
Biasutti 1959
--
Biasutti 1959
Biasutti 1959
Kalahari
Bushman (Auni)
Bushman (Kung)
Hottentot (Korana)
1
1
2
21
101
66
Hiernaux 1969
Group
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
2
73
162.4
74
72.9
74
100.1
Biak (Mafur)
2
28
160.1
28
72.9
28
88.9
Jakumul
2
100
158.2
100
73.5
100
86.8
Biasutti 1959
Kiwai
2
50
162,5
50
82.0
50
81.0
Biasutti 1959
Loyalty
3
87
167.7
87
72.5
87
91.5
Shapiro 1933
Monte Hagen
(Papuan)
2
53
156.0
53
76.0
New Caledonian
3
250
166.4
250
76.5
Santa Cruz
3
34
160.3
34
76.5
Solomon
3
85
160.2
85
76.8
Hottentot (Nama)
H.
Sources
24.0
Hiernaux 1968;
Beals 1975
--
Biasutti 1959
Melanesia
Biasutti 1959
250
85
99.3
25.0
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
--
--
Biasutti 1959
87.1
--
W.W. Howells
1933
Tapiro (Papuan)
2
22
144.9
22
79.4
22
81.4
Biasutti 1959
Torricelli
(Papuan)
2
30
151.9
30
77.7
30
87.4
Biasutti 1959
Wahgi (Papuan)
2
31
161.0
31
77.0
Biasutti 1959
Group
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
33
85.7
H.
Sources
Micronesia
Kapingamaringa
3
33
171.1
33
78.5
Mortlock
3
59
163.5
59
73.6
Palua
3
134
160.9
134
80.9
Ponape
3
150
162.1
150
73.7
Saipan
3
186
162.9
186
80.1
--
Truk
3
164
161.6
164
73.4
164
77.7
Hunt 1950
Ulithi
3
56
163.5
56
74.6
56
82.0
Lessa and Lay
Biasutti 1959
Biasutti 1959
a
.....
21.2
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
--
Biasutti 1959
1953
Yap
3
347
160.3
347
79.6
Apache (San
Carlos)
2
43
169.6
43
84.9
Aztec
4
100
159.0
100
78.9
100
80.5
Chilcotin
2
36
165.0
36
85.9
36
74.2
35.1
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Chippewa
2
44
166.4
44
79.3
44
71.9
28.8
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
347
76.2
25.0
Hunt 1950;
Beals 1975
North America
WO V=
Biasutti 1959
Comas 1971
un
Group
S.O.
Choco
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
H.
2
100
156.2
100
80.5
100
80.3
29.1
Comas 1971;
Beals 1975
Chontal (Hoka)
3
80
159.8
80
83.2
80
77.2
24.2
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Creek
3
33
171,4
33
78.8
33
76.5
Biasutti 1959
Cuna
3
20
154.9
20
85.7
20
70.4
Biasutti 1959
Delaware
3
126
171.5
126
79.8
Eskimo (Lorenz)
1
63
163.3
63
79.7
63
71.8
Eskimo (Seward)
1
40
165.4
40
78.0
40
71.1
Hausteco
3
100
157.2
100
84.3
100
71.3
Iroquois
2
97
173.0
94
79.5
Kutchin (Chandalar) 1
44
164.6
44
79.5
44
67.9
Kwakuital
3
40
164.0
40
83.8
40
76.2
Biasutti 1959
Maidu
2
43
163.0
43
79,0
43
85.0
Biasutti 1959
Mame
3
61
156.0
61
78.8
61
74.5
Biasutti 1959
Maya
4
77
155.1
77
85.0
50
68.5
Sources
Biasutti 1959
--
Biasutti 1959
Biasutti 1959
30.2
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
23.6
31.8
McKennan 1964;
Beals 1975
Comas 1971;
Beals 1975
Group
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
H.
Sources
Mixtec
3
148
154.7
155
81.9
155
78.4
Comas 1971
Mohave
2
45
171.0
45
89.0
45
82.0
Biasutti 1959
Naskapi
1
41
166.2
41
80.6
41
73.0
20.4
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Otomi
3
284
158.1
284
80.1
111
78.9
20.5
Comas 1971;
Beals 1975
Papago
2
219
168.8
219
80.5
217
93.6
Pima
2
77
169.6
77
78.7
77
81.7
Pomo
2
32
164.0
32
80.0
32
91.0
Shoshoni-Ute
1
109
166.1
73
79.7
108
81.1
Sioux
2
537
172.4
537
79.6
536
68.8
Sullivan 1920
Tanada
1
33
169.9
33
82.5
33
70.8
McKennan 1964
Tarascans
3
116
159.9
116
76.7
100
82.6
Comas 1971
Totonac
3
100
158.0
100
88,2
100
73.0
Comas 1971
Trique
3
101
156.4
101
80.6
101
83.0
Comas 1971
Tsimshian
3
20
167.0
20
83.5
20
79.5
Biasutti 1959
Tzotzil
3
100
155.7
100
78.8
100
77.9
Comas 1971
Comas 1971
28.3
Comas 1971;
Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
24.0
Boas 1899;
Beals 1975
Group
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
H.
Sources
Yaqui
1
100
166.7
100
81.3
100
90.2
Comas 1971
Yuki
2
65
157.0
65
76.0
65
87.0
Biasutti 1959
Zapotec
3
50
155.4
50
81.1
50
78.3
Zendal
3
100
155.7
100
76.8
100
83.8
Biasutti 1959
Zoke
3
100
160.0
100
80.2
100
77.4
Biasutti 1959
Zuni
2
106
163.5
106
83.3
106
81.9
Biasutti 1959
Cook
3
416
170.8
416
82.8
416
75.4
Hawaii
3
205
169,5
206
84.0
175
78.4
Sullivan 1927
Marquesan
3
79
170,3
79
79.4
79
81.9
Sullivan 1923
Moari
3
424
170.6
424
77.7
424
75.9
Samoa
3
70
171.7
70
81.3
70
73,6
Sullivan 1923
Tahiti
3
85
171.4
85
84.9
85
80.3
Biasutti 1959
Tonga
3
117
173.0
117
81.1
117
77.6
30.0
Comas 1971;
Beals 1975
Polynesia
32.8
32.8
35.2
Shapiro and
Buck 1936;
Beals 1975
Shapiro and
Buck 1936;
Beals 1975
Sullivan 1923;
Beals 1975
Group
S.O.
N.
St.
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
Arawak
3
32
159.2
32
80.3
32
84.9
Comas 1971
Aueto
2
24
158.1
24
80.2
24
69.5
Biasutti 1959
Aymara
4
132
161.9
132
80.8
112
67.8
Bororo
2
20.
173.7
20
81.2
20
86.7
Biasutti 1959
Carib
2
104
156.8
104
80.2
104
71.0
Comas 1971
Cayapo
2
130
165.4
130
81.1
130
81.4
Chiriguano
3
40
163.4
40
80.2
40
79,8
Choroti
2
20
161.6
20
77.6
20
79,8
Nahuqua
2
65
161.8
65
79.5
65
75.4
Biasutti 1959
Ona
1
20
176.0
20
79.6
20
71.3
Biasutti 1959
Yahgan
1
67
158.1
--
--
Xavante
2
24
168.1
24
79.3
H.
Sources
South America
24
76.4
32.2
23.8
Comas 1971;
Beals 1975
DaRocha &
Salzano 1972;
Beals 1975
Biasutti 1959
29.6
39.3
Biasutti 1959;
Beals 1975
Comas 1971;
Beals 1975
Neel et al 1964
70
Appendix 2.
Standard Deviations of groups included
These groups are arranged
in the data.
according to their respective level of
social organization.
Stature
N.
C.I.
N.
N.I.
5.64
77
2.85
77
10.12
98
5.94
98
2.88
98
9.68
Batna
100
5.99
100
2.78
100
7.60
Bushman (Kung)
101
6.40
101
3.32
101
8.84
Kutchin
44
5.26
44.
2.27
44
7.46
Melville Island
28
4.56
28
2.25
28
11.00
100
6.01
100
2.66
100
6.65
33
4.74
33
2.35
33
6.47
109
5.92
28
6.09
28
3.54
28
7.96
67
5.23
100
6.57
100
3.96
100
5.15
Arawak
32
5.88
32
3.15
32
8.28
Bateke
56
6.58
57
2.84
56
9.25
Carib
104
6.09
104
3.09
104
6.24
Cayapo
130
5.10
Dinka
63
6.11
Fang
91
5.85
91
5.42
128
5.66
128
2.80
Bands
N.
Arnhamland N.E.
77
Arnhamland N.W.
Sandawi
Tanada
Ute
Victoria
Yahgan
Yaqui
River
--
Tribes
Kamba
--91
12.32
71
N.I.
Tribes
N.
Stature
N.
C.I.
N.
Arawak
32
5.88
32
3.15
32
8.28
Bateke
56
6.58
57
2.84
56
9.25
Carib
104
6.09
104
3.09
104
'6.24
Cayapo
130
5.10
....
Dinka
63
6.11
Fang
91
5.85
Kamba
128
Kikuyu
Masai
--
--
M MI
.N. .M
91
5.42
91
5.66
128
2.80
--
384
6.25
384
3.30
147
7.59
148
3.33
149
8.48
51
7.09
51
2.83
51
8.91
Papago
219
4.95
219
3.57
217
5.10
Sioux
537
5.65
537
3.20
536
7.05
Swaheli
114
5.79
114
3.65
114
6.86
Xavante
24
4.60
24
2.90
24
6.60
Baluchi
85
6.08
85
4.48
85
7.73
Bamun
71
6.50
71
2.92
56
8.06
Bedouin (Akeydat)
120
6.48
120
2.78
116
6.84
Bedouin (Maualy)
176
6.18
175
2.66
175
6.04
73
5.43
73
3.23
73
6.74
Bhil
186
5.48
186
2.82
187
7.43
Brahuis
150
5.77
151
4.18
147
6.59
Cook
416
5.70
416
4.20
416
6.70
Nuer
-12.32
Chiefdoms
Berber
72
Duala
75
6.50
73
3.21
74
3.06
Galla
49
5.01
49
2.81
49
7.66
Hawaii
205
6.03
206
3.66
175
7.24
Huasteco
100
5.03
100
4.20
100
6.93
Hutu
254
6.67
254
2.97
254
7.41
Khasi
71
4.86
71
3.69
71
5.32
Marquesan
79
5.12
79
3.52
79
7.75
Mixtec
148
4.92
155
2.88
155
7.20
Otomi
284
5.28
284
3.54
111
7.64
Ovimbundu
53
7.24
53
2.52
53
8.04
Samoan
70
5.25
70
3.53
70
5.86
Tarascans
116
4.98
--
Tongan
117
5.21
117
3.14
117
7.58
Totonac
101
4.74
100
4.10
100
7.80
Trique
101
4.43
101
3.45
101
9.08
Tzotzil
100
5.10
100
3.13
100
6.97
Ulithian
56
4.23
56
3.29
56
5.99
Zapotec
50
4.90
50
3.40
50
/7.50
Aymara
132
4.75
132
3.15
--
Bulgarian
100
5.70
100
4.01
100
5.88
Chinese
114
6.32
113
3.74
113
9.19
Chinese
185
5.96
184
3.74
183
10.26
70
7.24
70
3.85
--
--
States
Dutch
--
73
802
6.03
799
2.95
--
English
4,202
6.62
3,000
2.14
so Ow
French
1,457
6.50
56
3.84
German
7,077
6.61
Greek
200
5.79
200
3.97
200
Hungarian
143
6.50
143
3.20
--
Irish
6,164
*6.31
Italian
3,519
6.06
142
4.77
77
5.25
11,774
5.88
47
Egyptian
--
8.66
'MP 1m.
141
11.63
dm, MM
50
5.95
11,761
3.44
77
6.27
6.22
47
3.48
47
6.21
2,408
6.12
113
3.60
Thai
952
5.44
--
--
--
Turkish
200
6.10
200
3.50
200
8.11
Tussi
119
6.22
119
2.61
119
6.90
Scottish
2,074
6.39
493
2.79
M MD
Swedish
46,983
5.93
46,983
3.14
260
106
6.10
Korean
Maya
Norwegian
Nyoro
Polish
Zulu
141
OP ON
4.15
--
MN
01 NM
5.56
40 NO