CRANIOMETRIC VARIATION OF DIVERSE POPULATIONS IN FLORIDA: IDENTIFICATION CHALLENGES WITHIN A BORDER STATE

Meredith L. Tise · Erin H. Kimmerle · M. Katherine Spradley

28 citations0/0 files storedAnnals of Anthropological Practice

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies Forensic and Genetic Research Morphological variations and asymmetry

Abstract

The state of Florida is commonly ignored as a border state when it comes to issues and challenges in migrant death investigations. In the 2010 U.S. Census, Florida held the third largest Hispanic population in the United States, with almost 19 million individuals self‐identifying as Hispanic, following behind California and Texas (Ennis et al. ). Undocumented workers that arrive in the United States frequently migrate to Florida for labor, such as on produce farms, and many of these workers are children, traveling alone, or under circumstances that make them an at‐risk group. Endangered, missing, and unidentified persons in Florida are growing problems, with significant numbers of affected persons from the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America. This research explores the variation among six diverse groups that are found in Florida and throughout the United States, especially along the border. These groups include four groups considered Hispanic (Mexico, Guatemala, Puerto Rico, and Cuba), as well as American white and black. Based on canonical discriminant function and Mahalanobis distance (D2) analyses, the Mexican and Guatemalan samples are the two most similar groups when comparing only the four groups considered Hispanic (D2 = 2.581) and among all six groups (D2 = 2.645). Within the four groups considered Hispanic, the Puerto Rican and Cuban samples are the second most similar groups (D2 = 4.690). However, when comparing all six groups, the Cuban and American black samples are the second most similar groups (D2 = 3.289). These results reflect a shift in similarities in cranial morphology when including the American black and white samples. By improving our understanding of the historical and current biological relationships among diverse groups living in close proximity, forensic anthropologists can better utilize ancestry data into their biological profiles for human identification.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

References

1994Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains 2012Hispanic Population 2014Accuracy and reliability of measurements obtained from computed tomography 3D volume rendered images 2008Demographic Change and Forensic Identification: Problems in Metric Identification of Hispanic Skeletons*2008Identifying Southwest Hispanics Using Nonmetric Traits and the Cultural Profile*2008Identifying the Dead: Methods Utilized by the Pima County (Arizona) Office of the Medical Examiner for Undocumented Border Crossers: 2001–2006*2004Population Affinities of 19th Century Cuban Crania: Implications for Identification Criteria in South Florida Cuban Americans 2012Postcranial Sex Estimation of Individuals Considered Hispanic

Cited by

2019Sex and ancestry related differences between two Central European populations determined using exocranial meshes 2022What Are We Really Estimating in Forensic Anthropological Practice, Population Affinity or Ancestry?2016The vanishing Black Indian: Revisiting craniometry and historic collections 2023Caribbeanist casualties: Interrogating the application of structural vulnerability to forensic anthropology

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.