Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 37 (1992) (Pécs, 1993)

Régészet - Finnegan, Michael–Szalay, Ferenc: Population Distance Between Late Roman Period to 11th Century Arpadiam Age Populations as Determined by Non-metric Trait Analysis

96 Table 4. Minimum and Maximum frequencies and range of frequency for traits used in this study of samples collected at Pécs in 1990. Cranial trait Minimum Maximum Range 1. Higest nuchal line 0.135 0.429 0.294 2. Coronal ossicles 0.000 0.036 0.036 3. Ossicle at bregma 0.000 0.029 0.029 4. Sagittal ossicles 0.000 0.136 0.136 5. Ossicle at lambda 0.069 0.308 0.239 6. Lambdoid ossicles 0.311 0.593 0.282 7. Os inca 0.000 0.014 0.014 8. Parietal for. 0.224 0.435 0.211 9. Parietal notch bone 0.000 0.083 0.083 10. Asterionic bone 0.022 0.212 0.190 11. Auditory torus 0.000 0.023 0.023 12. Malar tubercle 0.000 0.115 0.115 13. Os japon 0.000 0.000 0.000 14. Pterion form 0.000 0.034 0.034 15. Epiteric bone 0.032 0.188 0.156 16. Infra-orbital for. 0.000 0.151 0.151 17. Supra-orbital for. 0.036 0.164 0.128 18. Frontal for. present 0.053 0.166 0.113 19. Metopic suture 0.000 0.097 0.097 20. Mandibular torus 0.000 0.179 0.179 21. Mylohyoid groove 0.007 0.204 0.197 22. Mandibular torus 0.000 0.040 0.040 23. Mental foramen 0.000 0.076 0.076 24. Palatine torus 0.261 0.625 0.364 25. Ace. les palate for. 0.000 0.209 0.209 26. For. of Vesalius 0.035 0.391 0.356 27. For. ovale 0.000 0.130 0.130 28. For. spinosum 0.000 0.080 0.080 29. For. of huschke 0.075 0.191 0.116 30. Condylar facet 0.000 0.068 0.068 31. Post, condy for. 0.318 0.500 0.182 32. Precondy. tubercle 0.000 0.125 0.125 33. Anterior condy for. 0.111 0.294 0.183 34. Mastoid for. 0.696 0.924 0.228 35. Mastoid for. exsut. 0.288 0.500 0.212 36. Paramastoid process 0.000 0.114 0.114 37. Digastric groove 0.233 0.348 0.115 38. Stylomastoid for. 0.000 0.030 0.030 39. Zygo-max tuberös. 0.184 0.446 0.262 40. Zygo-facial for. 0.154 0.459 0.305 41. Ant. eth. for. ex. 0.600 0.931 0.331 42. Post ethmoid for. 0.000 0.348 0.348 Results Summary demographic data for the seven population samples are presented in Table 1. The frequencies for each trait in each population sample is presented in Table 2, while the sample size for each population and each trait is presented in Table 3. Table 4. presents the minimum and maximum frequency and the range in frequency for each trait in this study. Side Asymmetry Chi square values (see FINNEGAN, 1972) for each of the bilateral traits over the seven samples, tested left to right differences in the male sample. Eighteen of these values were significant at the .05 level or better, which exceeds the 12 significant differences expected due to chance alone. However, in 8 of the 18 cases the sample size (N) was less than 10 on one or both sides, and we expect that the sample size is one of the primary causes for these significant differences. Aside from this, 4 traits, Asterionic Bone, Accessory Infraorbital Foramen, Mandibular Foramen Double, and Posterior Ethmoid Foramen Absent showed a significant difference in more than one sample. In no case did a trait display significant side asymmetry in more than two samples. The remaining significant differences are scattered among the samples and among the traits tested. When compared to other samples tested for side asymmetry, we suggest that the present samples show a random distribution of these significant differences. In the female sample, 12 significant differences were generated at the .05 level or better. Chance expectation is 12.25 at the .05 level, so the generation of 12 significant differences is less than chance expectation. However, at the .01 level of significance we would expect less than three significant differences were actually found. While this exceeds chance expectation at the 0.01 level, three these are most probably due to small sample size (N=12 or less on one or both sides in a particular sample) which would bring the number of side asymmetry significant differences under chance expectation. As in the male sample, left to right side significant differences in females were randomly distributed with no trait showing a significant side asymmetry in more than one sample. It should here be pointed out that a number of researchers (SUCHEY, 1975; GREEN, SUCHEY and GOKHALE, 1979) have suggested using only one side in the analysis of population differences. However, in this set of samples, as we have seen in numerous other sets of samples, while few side to side differences are significant, they are often numerically much larger than zero. Indeed, this difference in itself has been used by FlNNEGAN and RUBISON (1980, 1984) and FINNEGAN and MCGUIRE (1979) in assigning one cranium (or infracranial skeleton) to its logical parental population. It is for these reasons that we beleivé the traits for both sides, in the case of bilateral traits, should be pooled in the final analysis.