Human skulls exhibit diverse shapes and characteristics that can provide valuable insights into race and ancestry. Forensic anthropology, a field that combines anthropology, osteology, and skeletal biology, plays a crucial role in establishing the origins of different skulls. This article delves into the distinct features of African skull shapes and their significance in forensic analysis.
Based on meticulous analysis, skulls are commonly categorized into three basic groups: European, Asian, and African. The structural and dimensional differences between skulls of different races necessitate careful inspection and measurements of various parts of the skull for accurate characterization.
Key Skull Features and Racial Indicators
Several key features of the skull can help forensic anthropologists in determining race. These include:
- Mouth: Whites tend to have smaller teeth, often with significant crowding and impacted third molars, frequently exhibiting an overbite. Blacks rarely have crowding, and the upper teeth often project outwards due to the angled shape of the maxilla.
- The palate and palatine suture: The hard palate is the bony structure at the top of the mouth bordered by the upper teeth. In American Indians, the palate is elliptical, with the ‘U’ shape angling in at the back teeth. In blacks, the palate is hyperbolic-a perfect ‘U’ shape with straight lines. And in whites, the palate is parabolic with the ends of the ‘U’ flaring outwards.
- Incisors: The shape of the incisors is the most important indicator of race in the teeth. In American Indians (and East Asians, both of Mongoloid ancestry), the incisors are shovel-shaped, named because the inner surface is scooped or curved.
- The nose: The nose provides multiple race indicators. In whites, the nasal aperture is long and narrow, with a high bridge and a sharp nasal sill (the lower edge of the nasal aperture projects sharply outwards). In blacks, the nasal aperture is short and wide with a low bridge and a guttered or trough-like nasal sill.
- The mastoid process: The shape of the mastoid process differs between the races.
It is important to note that rarely do all of these indicators point firmly to a single race. Instead, it is the story told by the majority of physical characteristics that suggests the victim’s ethnic background.
Specific Characteristics of African Skulls
African skulls, sometimes referred to as Negroid, possess distinct characteristics:
Read also: Experience Fad's Fine African Cuisine
- Longer from front to back.
- More of a forward slope from forehead to chin, causing a protrusion of the jaw (prognathism).
- Rectangular eye orbits spaced farther apart.
- Wider nasal bridge, which is less pronounced than European or Asian types.
- Broader nasal opening.
Skull comparison chart showing European, Asian, and African skull shapes.
Archaic Homo Sapiens in Africa
The barrier between the so-called anatomically modern humans and the term archaic Homo sapiens is not clear, because of the poor record of fossils and the great morphological variability between them. The pattern of anatomically modern humans is typically seen in the high and rounded skull, the small face, the chin, the lighter-built skeleton with a narrow pelvis, etc.
There is growing evidence that the divergence of the Homo sapiens lineage with the Neanderthal lineage goes back a long way, and we need a term for Homo sapiens in Africa before we have the majority of modern human features. Here we can refer to archaic Homo sapiens in Africa for the early part of our lineage. The use of that term outside of Africa is meaningless.
Between 200-100 ka, a period of fragmentation and expansion, coalescence of groups and hybridization, which resulted in the emergence of morphologically derived populations: Herto, Skhul and Qafzeh are examples of that. But not all populations contributed equally to the ancestral lineage of modern humans. The morphology of the virtual last common ancestor is closer to this last phase than to the earliest one.
Examples of hominin skulls from the African Late Middle Pleistocene include:
Read also: The Story Behind Cachapas
- Omo II: This cranium is quite different from the other one found at the same location: Omo I was thought to be the earliest Homo sapiens fossil until the reassessment of the Jebel Irhoud materials in 2017, which predated that record. However, Omo II is less rounded, longer and narrower than Omo I. Actually, like occurs in Jebel Irhoud, many features are outside the variation of modern humans while others are fully modern. This mosaic makes really difficult to classify this cranium and shows the variability of the African Middle Pleistocene human groups, among which many of them would have probably become extinct.
- LH18
- Florisbad: This cranium shows a modern, high frontal bone although its roundness attenuates laterally and has a sagittal depression. It also shows a large supraorbital development, and the face is broad.
- KNM-ES 11693: This is a large skull with modern shape in its upper and rear view, very slight supraorbital development and absent transverse occipital torus.
- Irhoud 1: The human remains of Jebel Irhoud are considered the earliest representatives of our species since their reassessment in 2017.
- LES1: The skull of Homo naledi looks primitive, with features that resemble to those in Homo habilis, suggesting a very deep origin of its lineage. The cranial capacity is 610 cc. The teeth are also primitive in the increasing size towards the back of the tooth row, but modern in their small size and structure, as in the gracile mandible.
Homo naledi skull.
Except for the Homo naledi skull, all the rest could be considered representatives of an archaic Homo sapiens lineage. Given that Homo helmei is usually abandoned, we may use Homo rhodesiensis - or possibly Homo sapiens itself!
Challenges and Controversies in Ancestry Estimation
In forensic anthropological casework knowledge about the unknown individual is generated by situating the remains in a population. As one anthropologist puts it: ‘[F]orensic anthropology bought the roundtrip ticket, summoning the populational data back to infer the biological profile of isolated individuals’ (Cabo, 2012, p. 199). The unknown individual is categorized to belong to a population group based on a comparison of the skeletal remains with population-based reference data. In other words, to produce differences between individuals, anthropologists assume similarities within a population.
Attempts to undo race in the discipline of forensic anthropology took the shape of changes in discourse and terminology. Population categories were no longer considered indicative of race but rather of, for example, biogeographical ancestry (e.g. Shriver et al., 2003) or biological affinity (e.g. Berg & Ta’ala, 2014). Recently, the debate was stirred by Bethard and DiGangi (2020) in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, with a call to abandon the practice of ancestry estimation. Invoking forensic anthropology’s responsibility to society, they emphasize that ‘reinforcing the biological race concept is not compatible with Justice’ (DiGangi & Bethard, 2021, p.
Forensic Art - Facial Reconstruction Timelapse
The Role of Craniofacial Depiction
Facial images or sculptures based on the skull of an unknown individual have a place both in archeology, for example as part of museum displays, and forensic practice. In forensic cases, craniofacial depictions can be mobilized as a last resort to assist in the process of the identification of unknown deceased individuals when other technologies of identification such as a missing persons register, DNA databank and dentistry records, did not lead to a match. The aim is for the facial depiction to resemble the face of the individual to the extent that the person can be recognized by the people who knew them in life.
Read also: Techniques of African Jewellery
The methods used to produce forensic craniofacial depictions build on the premise that all skulls are unique and that these unique features of the skull form the basis for the unique facial features of every individual (Wilkinson, 2004). In the practice of forensic craniofacial depiction, the individual is embodied by the skull, considered to be a uniquely shaped object. But the skull does not make a face by itself. It is through population categories packaged in the biological profile, soft tissue depth data and standards for the prediction of facial features, amongst other things, that the skull can gain a face. As such, the production of a forensic facial depiction is an interplay between the individual skull and population data.
Although the skull comes with a forensic report based on the analysis of the remains in the forensic laboratory, practitioners also perform their own analysis of sex, age, and ancestry of skulls. On my first day of fieldwork in the lab I was presented with a pile of books to learn about craniofacial anatomy and analysis of the skull. Although some of the (older) literature I was given to study referred to the typological classification systems in terms of different human races, in the lab, and many other places I visited, I was told that this was not correct. Instead, differences were to be understood in terms of ‘ancestry’ and the different categories referred to as ‘skull types’.
In conclusion, understanding the characteristics of African skull shapes is crucial in forensic anthropology for ancestry estimation. While challenges and controversies exist in defining race, ongoing research and advancements in techniques continue to refine our understanding of human variation.
| Feature | European | Asian | African |
|---|---|---|---|
| Skull Shape | Long and narrow | Short and broad | Longer front to back |
| Cheek Bones | Less pronounced | Wide, flared | - |
| Eye Orbits | Rectangular, sloped | Rounded | Rectangular, wider spaced |
| Nasal Opening | Triangular | Flared | Broader |
| Jaw Slope | - | - | Forward slope (prognathism) |
