The Dentition of American Indians: Evolutionary Results and Demographic Implications Following Colonization from Siberia

Abstract

This chapter uses dental morphology to make inferences about how the New World was first colonized. The major emphasis is on the initial Macro-Indian migration based on dental traits observed in Paleo-Indian, Archaic, and more recent prehistoric crania. The major results are as follows: (1)

Population history of Brazilian south and southeast shellmound builders inferred through dental morphology

“…Corond o, dated to between 4 and 3 kya (Machado, 1984). In terms of dental morphology, individuals from Corond o differ from coastal shellmound builders (Turner II & Scott, 2013 (Okumura, 2007). Therefore, dental and cranial morphology show conflicting results about the biological affinities between individuals of the Itaipu tradition and shellmound builders.…”

“…Their morphology is largely influenced by neutral evolutionary processes, showing high correlations to neutral genetic signatures, and therefore can be used to reconstruct past migratory events and population histories (Hubbard et al, 2015;Irish et al, 2020;Rathmann et al, 2017;Rathmann & Reyes-Centeno, 2020;Scott & Irish, 2013). Dental nonmetric traits have been successful in assessing biological relatedness between worldwide populations (Scott & Turner II, 1997), large migratory expansions (Greenberg et al, 1986;Scott et al, 2018;Turner II & Scott, 2013), and population dynamics within specific regional and historical contexts (Irish et al, 2017;Rathmann et al, 2019;Sutter, 2009). So far, most studies that explore biological affinities among Brazilian coastal populations have focused on cranial analysis (Filippini, 2004;Filippini & Eggers, 2006;Hubbe et al, 2009;Neves, 1988; F I G U R E 1 Geographic units and archaeological sites included in this study.…”

“…Only one dissertation on regional biological variation exists, focusing on riverine and coastal populations of the South Coast, but without comparative series for the Southeast Coast (Bartolomucci, 2006). Other works involving dental morphology of Brazilian shellmound builders usually focus on broader topics, such as the peopling of the Americas (Greenberg et al, 1986;Huffman, 2014;Turner II & Scott, 2013). As a consequence, little attention has been paid to how the analysis of dental nonmetric traits contributes to regional debates that drive regional archaeological and anthropological inquiries.…”

New evidence on the spatiotemporal distribution and evolution of the Uto‐Aztecan premolar

“…Turner's research is the most farreaching in its conclusions about the meaning of this rare dental trait in Native Americans. Turner (2002) places the evolution and dispersal of UAP within his threewave model of the peopling of the Americas (Turner, 1984(Turner, , 1985Greenberg et al, 1986;Scott and Turner, 1997;Turner and Scott, 2007) and suggests that UAP developed because of a mutation brought to the New World by Paleoindians but not by the other waves of migrants, the ancestors of the Na-Dene and Eskimos and Aleuts. Scott and Turner (2006) suggest the occurrence of UAP at low frequencies in populations from North and South America and its absence in Aleut and Eskimo samples are evidence for at least two migrations into the New World, with an earlier Paleoindian migration followed by a later migration of Aleut and Eskimo ancestors.…”

“…Altogether, nine individuals were observable for UAP, and none exhibited the trait. Turner (Turner and Scott, 2007) has subsequently examined additional Paleoindian specimens (Sulphur Springs, Horn Shelter, and Wilson-Leonard II), but did not comment on UAP presence or observability. In contrast, Powell (2002Powell ( : 99, 2005 reports that ''nearly 18% of Paleoamerican skeletons'' exhibit P 3 UAP.…”