0 = absent 0 = absent

1 =notable thinning or small hole in tympanic plate

1 = slight suture or scarring

2 = medium hole in tympanic plate 2 = partial but significant suture

3 =large portion of tympanic plate malformed

3 =suture fully bisects mastoid process

Tympanic Dehiscence Mastoid Suture

Table 1. Scoring system for tympanic dehiscence & mastoid suture

Given the existing historic-al accounts of the incorporation of foreigners into Jerusalem monasteries, it was expected that the St. Stephen’s collection would exhibit similarities with various European or

Asian communities (Hirschfield 1992). Primary sources indicate that pilgrimage was taking place as early as the fourth century C.E. Two of the most well known accounts are that of Egeria, a nun who traveled from Spain, and the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (Wilkenson 1992). Even the founder of St. Stephen’s, the empress Eudocia, was a pilgrim to Jerusalem (Hunt 1982).In spite of these historical records, the data reflect a consistent similarity between Byzantine St. Stephen’s and other Near Eastern collections, such as Farar, Bab edh-Dhra’, and Lachish. Bab edh-Dhra’ and Lachish are both ancient those from

National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates (SES #0244096); Univ. of Notre Dame Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts) & Undergraduate Intellectual Initiative(Office of Undergraduate Studies); Paul Sciulli, Ph.D., The Ohio State University; Matthew Tocheri, MA, Arizona State Univ; L'École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem & Couvent St-Étienne

Tell sites, suggesting biological continuity in the area in general. The data collected at Tell Farar was from modern crania, which indicates that the people of Byzantine St. Stephen’s were part of the same gene pool that contributed to modern groups. On a whole, the results of this study reflect the conclusions of other studies on the genetic make-up of St. Stephen’s (Williams, et al. 2006; Ullinger, 2002).

Despite the differences seen between teeth from Egyptian samples and St. Stephen’s, cranial differences do not appear to be as great. Comparing tympanic dehiscence, absent mastoid foramen, mylohyoid bridging, and presence of supraorbital foramina, several Egyptian groups appear to be fairly closely related, including Badari (MMD=0.025) and Naqada B (MMD=0.025). Bab edh- Dhra’, an ancient group from modern-day Jordan is still the most closely related (MMD=0.003), and Teotihuacan, a clear outlier is the most distantly related (MMD=0.266). Although the MMD measures are fairly small between the Egyptian groups and Byzantine St. Stephen’s, the measure is relatively greater than that representing the distance between the two Levantine groups. Comparing presence of the metopic suture and tympanic dehiscence, the monks appear relatively similar to a group of Romans (MMD=0.056), a large Egyptian collection from several millennia (MMD=0.030), and seventh-century Lachish from the same region (MMD=0.061). Again, it is difficult to distinguish the monks either from Near Eastern or European groups. While we are confident that the monks are not composed of an enclave of European immigrants, we cannot speak at present to the amount of admixture from Mediterranean Europe, in particular. The repeated resemblance to other Near Eastern groups implies that the St. Stephen’s collection is relatively homogenous, and does not evince the heterogeneity that migration would introduce. Therefore, the consistently low MMD values with other Near Eastern groups suggest that the majority of monks were from the local region.

and Naqada B (MMD = 0.025,p<0.025) (Table 4). Meanwhile an anal-ysis of the same traits showed the Byzantine St. Stephens group to be clearly divergent from the outlier col-lection at Teotihuacan (MMD = 0.266, p<0.025) (Table 4). MMDs run with two traits (tympanic dehis-cence and metopic suture) showed that St. Stephen’s held no significant difference with Tell Farar or Bab edh Dhra’ and the closest significant differences were maintained with the Egyptian collection (MMD = 0.030, p<0.025), and a Levantine group at Lachish (MMD = 0.061, p<0.025) (Table 5). Additionally, St Stephen’s showed great differences from the Japanese (MMD = 0.322, p<0.025), Mongolian (MMD = 0.355, p<0.025), and Dutch (MMD= 0.23, p<0.025) collections (Table 6).

India Egypt Lach Tfar B e-D BSS

India 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001Egypt 0.014 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001Lach 0.091 0.107 0.003 0.003 0.004Tfar 0.062 0.007 0.060 0.000 0.000B e-D 0.047 0.035 0.108 0.000 0.000BSS 0.047 0.016 0.112 0.000 0.000

Table 4. Mean Measure of Divergence (MMD) matrix for metopic suture, tympanic dehiscence, absent mastoid process & mastoid foramen

India Mong Jpns Rom Dutch Abyd Badari Naq B Naq T Egypt Nubia Lach TFar B e-D BSS

India 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.006 0.007Mong 0.031 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.018 0.008 0.007 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.027 0.013 0.015Jpns 0.020 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.016 0.007 0.006 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.024 0.012 0.014Rom 0.016 0.120 0.101 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.002Dutch 0.008 0.011 0.005 0.049 0.011 0.004 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.016 0.007 0.008Abyd 0.225 0.512 0.473 0.157 0.379 0.002 0.001 0.019 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.001Badari 0.075 0.263 0.235 0.020 0.156 0.027 0.001 0.009 0.000 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000Naq B 0.067 0.263 0.236 0.056 0.181 0.019 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.001Naq T 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.001 0.286 0.124 0.096 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.022 0.013 0.015Egypt 0.015 0.147 0.126 0.004 0.077 0.100 0.003 0.016 0.041 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.001Nubia 0.000 0.099 0.082 0.036 0.068 0.138 0.052 0.015 0.000 0.010 0.001 0.009 0.004 0.006Lach 0.000 0.078 0.061 0.000 0.025 0.152 0.020 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.003 0.004Tfar 0.127 0.364 0.329 0.044 0.230 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.192 0.017 0.084 0.052 0.000 0.000B e-D 0.111 0.333 0.301 0.063 0.224 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.159 0.027 0.060 0.055 0.000 0.000BSS 0.130 0.355 0.322 0.056 0.230 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.190 0.030 0.090 0.061 0.000 0.000

Table 5. Mean Measure of Divergence (MMD) matrix for metopic suture & tympanic dehiscence

Teo Abyd Badari Naq B Naq T Keneh Nubia B e-D BSS

Teo 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.008 0.005 0.008 0.008 0.009Abyd 0.270 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.012 0.002 0.003 0.003Badari 0.239 0.091 0.000 0.004 0.017 0.001 0.000 0.001Naq B 0.209 0.089 0.000 0.003 0.015 0.001 0.000 0.001Naq T 0.233 0.139 0.085 0.067 0.013 0.000 0.005 0.005Keneh 0.087 0.410 0.453 0.401 0.242 0.012 0.019 0.017Nubia 0.196 0.068 0.052 0.038 0.000 0.257 0.002 0.003B e-D 0.297 0.120 0.000 0.000 0.125 0.512 0.092 0.001BSS 0.266 0.077 0.025 0.025 0.119 0.385 0.086 0.003

Table 6. Mean Measure of Divergence (MMD) matrix for tympanic dehiscence, absent mastoid foramen, mylohoid bridge, supraorbital foramen

This research sought to determine whether the St. Stephen’s community was composed of pilgrims who migrated to Jerusalem from various geographic regions, as indicated by the Byzantine literature. The collection was analyzed for the frequencies of cranial and vertebral non-metric traits. These “intrinsically innocuous minor skeletal variants” have no impact on the adaptability of an individual and therefore provide evidence for establishing biological relatedness (Hauser et al. 1989). The use of non-metric data did not enter mainstream anthropological discourse until the definitive work of Berry and Berry in the late 1960s. Over the years, more than two hundred variants have been identified on the cranium and mandible alone. Intrapopulation studies have been conducted at cemeteries to trace familial lineages and this research as lent validity to the use of non-metrics as a genetic marker (Brasili et al. 1999). Furthermore, mean measure of divergence analysis has been utilized to study biodistance (Birkby 1982).

There are many confounding variables that make the analysis of non-metric traits more complex than basic Mendelian genetics. Complications can arise in the expression of epigenetic traits due to the age, sex, and environment of an individual. Subadults pose a problem because many traits, like excess sutures and incomplete bone formation, occur more frequently but may resolve later in development. Certain developmental pressures may affect the expression of non-metric traits, including environment (Saunders 1989). In the case of the auditory torus, an excess growth in the external auditory meatus, it has been suggested that prolonged exposure to cold water produces a mechanical irritation leading to trait development (Hutchinson et al. 1997). On the other hand, opposing studies claim that “hereditary factors are most probably involved in these exostoses” (Campillo 1989). Sjovold’s (1977) vertebral non-metric study concluded that variations in traits seem largely independent of the environment and each other – implying that genetics plays the dominant role in expression and that the presence of one trait is unrelated to other variable traits.

Additionally, there is much debate as to the scoring of unilateral expression of a bilateral trait. Some researchers question whether a bilateral trait should be scored as present if only one side possesses the trait. Finally, non-metrics analysis has been criticized because it is prone to inter-observer error.

Most researchers agree that when coupled with several other skeletal variants the non-metric data gain significance (Kaul et al. 1984). This assertion is supported by the fact that many populations are subjected to similar environments. In addition to the general critiques of non-metrics, the St. Stephen’s collection had the added obstacle of being commingled. Since the majority of skeletal remains are catalogued by bone type and side, it is impossible to distinguish individuals. Despite these potentially limiting factors, cranial non-metrics, in conjunction with dental metric (Williams et al 2006) and

strontium isotope analysis (Cooper et al 2006) plus dental non-metrics

(Ullinger 2002), is a valuable tool for reconstructing a biocultural model

of migration to St. Stephen’s. Furthermore, analysis of the cervical vertebra helped strengthen the overall

non-metric results.

Tympanic Dehiscence[EBND 7.420]

Mastoid Suture[EBND 2.43]

Auditory Torus[EBND 1.223]

Accessory Mental Foramen[EBND 2.111]

Mylohyoid Bridge

[EBND 7.385]

Metopic Suture[EBND 3.101]

Mastoid Foramen[EBND 12.773]

Byzantine St. Stephen’s Project

Laboratory for Biocultural StudiesUniversity of Notre Dame

Department of Anthropology

The percent concordance of a blind test of inter-observer error was greater than 95% for all cranial non-metric traits surveyed. A chi-square test showed no significant difference (p<0.05) between right and left sides of the St. Stephen’smaterial for each trait scored. In order to avoid duplication of individuals from the commingled sample, left sides were usedfor all statistical analyses with comparative collections (Table 2).

Chi-square Analysis -- Chi-square results revealed that the St. Stephen’s collection exhibited the most significant difference (p 0.05) with the Asian, European and North America groups (Table 3). The Non Nak Ta community showed a significant difference from St. Stephen’s in all three traits that were compared (χ2 = 51.381, p<0.05 for the supraorbital notch, χ2 = 4.2837, p< 0.05 for the supraorbital foramen, and χ2 = 5.1834, p<0.05 for the accessory mental foramen) . Conversely, Tell Farar, showed no significant difference with St. Stephen’s for these four traits (p>0.05). Similarly the Bab edh Dhra’ material was compared for all ten cranial non-metric traits, with no significant differences found (p>0.05).

Analysis of the vertebral non-metric traits, including posterior and lateral atlas bridging, double facet form on the atlas, and transverse foramen bipartite on the C3-C7 vertebra yielded similar results. Using chi square for the posterior atlas bridging, the St. Stephen's collection showed the most significant difference with collections from Denmark (χ2 = 8.967, p<0.05) and Teotihuacan (χ2 =21.778, p<0.05).  Meanwhile, the most similar groups were those of neighboring communities of Bab edh Dhra' (χ2 = 0.149, p>0.05) and a local Jerusalem collection (χ2 = 0.617, p>0.05).  

Atlas facet form and the transverse foramen bipartite contradict the previous results.  For the atlas facet form, there is a significant difference between the Bab edh Dhra' and the St. Stephen's collection (χ2=9.58, p<0.05).  For the transverse foramen bipartite there is a significant difference between St. Stephen's and the Jerusalem collection (χ2=37.262, p<0.05). Following the scoring protocol of Case (2003), the curvature of the osseous extension was critical. However, the closest relation to St. Stephen's for this trait was Bab edh Dhra' which would suggest similarities between the two populations (χ2=0.008, p>0.05). 

Mean Measure of Divergence -- The mean measure of divergence statistics (MMD) reconfirmed many of the results of the chi square analysis. Using four cranial traits (tympanic dehiscence, absent mastoid foramen, mylohyoid bridging, and supraorbital foramen), St. Stephens showed the smallest significant difference with Bab edh Dhra’ (MMD = 0.003, p<0.025), Badari (MMD

p p p p p p p p p p

Non Nak Ta (Thailand) 4000 BCE- present -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 51.38 7.60E-13 4.28 0.04 5.18 0.02 -- -- --Nebira (Papau New Guinea) 11th-17th c. CE 0.69 0.41 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10.58 1.14E-03 4.18 0.04 -- -- -- -- -- --India (Punjab) modern 0.02 0.88 12.50 4.07E-04 0.05 0.83 0.01 0.91 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Mongolian modern 0.64 0.42 27.88 1.29E-07 -- -- -- -- -- -- 36.72 1.36E-09 14.96 1.10E-04 -- -- -- -- -- --Japanese modern 0.13 0.72 25.67 4.05E-07 -- -- -- -- -- -- 35.74 2.26E-09 9.55 2.00E-03 -- -- -- -- -- --Thai modern -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4.93 0.03 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --India modern -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5.83 0.02 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Japanese modern -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9.29 2.30E-03 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Teotihuacan (Mexico) 200-750 CE -- -- 4.77 0.03 8.45 3.64E-03 0.71 0.40 0.14 0.70 2.54 0.11 25.56 4.30E-07 2.09 0.15 -- -- -- --America (NW Coast) modern -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -- -- -- -- - - -- -- 5.53 0.02

Allegheny (Pennsylvania) 19th c. CE -- -- 4.04 0.04 -- -- -- -- 1.28 0.26 0.11 0.74 0.28 0.60 1.69 0.19 -- -- -- --

Romans (Italy) 100 CE 0.94 0.33 7.16 0.01 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Weingarten (Germany) 6th - 8th c. CE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 35.81 2.17E-09 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Mikulcice (Czech Republic) 9th c. CE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4.56 0.03 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Gray Friar (Denmark) 11th-16th c. CE 1.43 0.23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --St. Alban (Denmark) 11th-16th c. CE 2.69 0.10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --British modern 0.62 0.43 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Prague (Czech Republic) modern 0.92 0.34 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Dutch (Amsterdam) modern 1.72 0.19 20.06 7.50E-06 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2.54 0.11 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --French modern -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 64.88 7.90E-16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Wadi Halfa (Nubia/Egypt) 8000-11000 BCE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.97 0.16 4.85 0.03 2.05 0.15 2.47 0.12 -- -- -- --Abydos (Upper Egypt) 4000-3000 BCE 0.44 0.51 0.15 0.70 3.65 0.06 -- -- 1.41 0.23 -- -- 11.21 8.15E-04 5.36 0.02 -- -- -- --Badari (Upper Egypt) 4000-3000 BCE 0.25 0.62 1.27 0.26 0.95 0.33 -- -- 2.47 0.12 -- -- 3.50 0.06 3.05 0.08 -- -- -- --Naqada B (Egypt) 4000-3000 BCE 0.55 0.46 2.12 0.14 0.67 0.41 -- -- 1.76 0.19 -- -- 5.48 0.02 3.44 0.06 -- -- -- --Naqada T (Egypt) 4000-3000 BCE 0.02 0.88 14.73 1.24E-04 2.74 0.10 -- -- 0.16 0.69 -- -- 5.14 0.02 2.49 0.11 -- -- -- --Keneh (Luxor, Egypt) 3500-3000 BCE -- -- 17.11 3.52E-05 6.72 0.01 -- -- 6.28 0.01 -- -- 17.52 2.84E-05 -- -- -- -- -- --Egyptian ** spans 4000 yrs. 0.16 0.69 5.64 0.02 0.75 0.39 0.55 0.46 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Nubia (Egypt) 2000 BCE 0.41 0.52 5.37 0.02 1.93 0.17 -- -- 0.18 0.67 -- -- 9.52 2.03E-03 3.47 0.06 -- -- -- --

Kish (Iraq) 2700-600 BCE 3.27 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.31 0.57 0.00 0.96 -- -- -- -- -- --Lachish (ancient Palestine) 700 BCE 0.25 0.62 7.83 0.01 5.41 0.02 5.90 0.02 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Tel Halif (Negev) 19th c. CE 7.57 0.01 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Tel Sheba (Negev) 19th c. CE 4.99 0.03 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Bedouin historic -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.85 0.36 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Tell Farar (Palestine) modern 0.13 0.72 0.04 0.85 0.13 0.72 0.74 0.39 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Bab edh-Dhra' (Jordan) 3000-2300 BCE 0.07 0.79 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.95 1.46 0.23 2.98 0.08 0.17 0.68 0.53 0.47 0.17 0.68 0.17 0.68 1.79 0.18

Dothan (ancient Palestine) 1500-1000 BCE 1.32 0.25 -- -- -- -- -- 0.05 0.83 -- -- 0.73 0.39 -- -- 25.10 5.45E-07 3.28 0.07 -- --

Tympanic Dehiscence

Ab. Mastoid Foramen

Ex. Mastoid Foramen

Mylohyoid BridgeCOLLECTION DATE

Auditory Torus

Metopic Suture

Supraorbital Notch

Supraorbital Foramen

Acc. Mental Foramen

Mastoid Foramen

Table 3. Chi square comparisons of numerous skeletal collections to Byzantine St. Stephen’s

COLLECTION DATE

Metopic SutureTympanic DehiscenceAb. Mastoid ForamenEx. Mastoid ForamenMylohyoid

BridgeSupraorbital

NotchSupraorbital ForamenAcc. Mental Foramen

Squamomastoid

SutureAuditory Torus

Non Nak Ta (Thailand) 4000 BCE- present 0 (17) 0 (25) -- -- 0 (22) 8 (67) 5 (42) 2 (24) -- -- Pietrusewsky 1974Nebira (Papau New Guinea) 11th-17th c. CE 2 (22) -- -- -- -- 5 (16) 9 (16) -- -- -- Pietrusewsky 1976India (Punjab) modern 3 (53) 25 (106) 19 (106) 49 (106) -- -- -- -- -- -- Berry & Berry 1967Mongolian modern 16 (178) 67 (178) -- -- -- 54 (177) 108 (177) -- -- -- Dodo 1987Japanese modern 16 (180) 64 (179) -- -- -- 55 (177) 99 (180) -- -- -- Dodo 1987Thai modern -- -- -- -- 14 (273) -- -- -- -- -- Kaul 1984India modern -- -- -- -- 17 (350) -- -- -- -- -- Kaul 1984Japanese modern -- -- -- -- 6 (208) -- -- -- -- -- Kaul 1984- -- -

Teotihuacan (Mexico) 200-750 CE 0 (33) 12 (88) 2 (86) 46 (88) 14 (82) 42 (66) 54 (72) 5 (118) -- -- Sempowski 1994

America (NW Coast) modern -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 (149) Berry 1975

Allegheny (Pennsylvania) 19th c. CE -- 11 (88) -- -- 4 (59) 31 (42) 10 (41) 2 (58) -- -- Ubelaker 2003- -- -

Romans (Italy) 100 CE 61 (567) 90 (567) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Hauser 1989Weingarten (Germany) 6th - 8th c. CE -- -- -- -- -- 102 (303) -- -- -- -- Hauser 1989Mikulcice (Czech Republic) 9th c. CE -- -- -- -- -- 276 (606) -- -- -- -- Hauser 1989Gray Friar (Denmark) 11th-16th c. CE 23 (209) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Case 2003St. Alban (Denmark) 11th-16th c. CE 17 (123) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Case 2003British modern 6 (182) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Hauser 1989Prague (Czech Republic) modern 12 (122) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mottl 2005Dutch (Amsterdam) modern 54 (470) 138 (470) -- -- -- 430 (500) -- -- -- -- Hauser 1989French modern -- -- -- -- 4 (844) -- -- -- -- -- Kaul 1984- -- -

Wadi Halfa (Nubia/Egypt) 8000-11000 BCE -- -- -- -- 13 (49) 32 (56) 24 (56) 3 (64) -- -- Greene 1972Abydos (Upper Egypt) 4000-3000 BCE 1 (47) 2 (94) 30 (88) -- 18 (75) -- 54 (92) 7 (79) -- -- Prowse 1994Badari (Upper Egypt) 4000-3000 BCE 4 (54) 8 (106) 24 (96) -- 5 (89) -- 46 (101) 5 (89) -- -- Prowse 1994Naqada B (Egypt) 4000-3000 BCE 2 (76) 14 (154) 32 (136) -- 7 (101) -- 73 (150) 7 (113) -- -- Prowse 1994Naqada T (Egypt) 4000-3000 BCE 1 (29) 13 (46) 15 (46) -- 4 (24) -- 29 (57) 1 (24) -- -- Prowse 1994Keneh (Luxor, Egypt) 3500-3000 BCE 0 (42) 19 (63) 1 (59) -- 10 (24) -- 45 (66) 10 (24) -- -- Prowse 1994Egyptian ** spans 4000 yrs. 18 (250) 69 (494) 62 (496) 190 (496) -- -- -- -- -- -- Berry & Berry 1967Nubia (Egypt) 2000 BCE 1 (46) 17 (90) 10 (33) -- 21 (120) -- 67 (121) 8 (128) -- -- Prowse 1994- -- -

Kish (Iraq) 2700-600 BCE 1 (122) -- -- -- -- 42 (58) 20 (58) -- -- -- RathburnLachish (ancient Palestine) 700 BCE 4 (54) 17 (95) 41 (108) 25 (108) -- -- -- -- -- -- Berry & Berry 1967Tel Halif (Negev) 19th c. CE 17 (75) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Arensburg 1977Tel Sheba (Negev) 19th c. CE 13 (70) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Arensburg 1977Bedouin historic -- -- -- -- 52 (246) -- -- -- -- -- Kaul 1984Tell Farar (Palestine) modern 1 (18) 1 (33) 7 (36) 12 (36) -- -- -- -- -- -- Berry & Berry 1967- -

Bab edh-Dhra' (Jordan)* 3000-2300 BCE 9 (189) 4 (71) 13 (56) 27 (56) 7 (124) 94 (126) 47 (129) 2 (179) 32 (73) 2 (78)

Dothan (ancient Palestine)* 1500-1000 BCE 1 (9) 0 (4) 0 (3) 1 (3) 0 (4) 5 (6) 0 (6) 1 (7) 3 (4) 0 (3)

St. Stephens (Jerusalem)* 5th-7th c. CE 4 (59) 3 (67) 7 (37) 17 (37) 6 (37) 41 (52) 17 (53) 1 (67) 23 (55) 6 (66)

* frequencies for left sides only

* "Egyptian" includes remains from Morant (1925): Early & Late pre-dynatic, Naqada A & Q groups; 6 th-15th, 18th-21st & 26th to 30th dynasties; early and Middle dynasties (el Kubanieh South); Ptolemaic period;

Table 2. Comparative cranial non-metric frequencies for numerous skeletal collections worldwide

Anne Guappone1; Jennie Crate2; Jaime Ullinger, MA3; Dennis Van Gerven, Ph.D.4; Susan Guise Sheridan, Ph.D.1

1Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of Notre Dame; 2Dept. of Biology, Randolph Macon Woman’s College; 3Dept. of Anthropology, The Ohio State University; 4Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of Colorado

Cranial Non-Metric Analysis -- The study sample was composed of a few partially articulated crania with a majority of individual frontals, temporals, and mandibles from the St. Stephen’s collection. Only adult remains were used, as development can alter the expression of non-metric traits in sub-adults. Nine cranial non-metric traits were selected based on descriptions given in Buikstra (1994):

• Tympanic Dehiscence (also called Foramen of Huschke): incomplete formation of the tympanic plate. To be included, temporal bone portions had to possess the external auditory meatus as the tympanic plate forms the outer base of this canal.

• Mastoid Suture: runs longitudinally from the squamosal suture through the mastoid process. The scoring parameter was an intact mastoid process.

• Auditory Torus (auditory exostosis): a bony spicule or excess growth on the margin of the external auditory meatus. Again, the scoring parameter for the auditory torus was the presence of a complete external auditory meatus.

• Mastoid Foramen: located dorsal to the mastoid suture and can be embedded in the suture or located on the temporal bone. If the sample possessed a significant portion of temporal bone behind the mastoid process, the bone was scored.

• Accessory Mental Foramen: found adjacent to the standard single mental foramen, usually in the vicinity of the canine. Mandibles were scored for accessory foramina if they presented a significant portion from the mental eminence to the molars.

• Metopic Suture: an extension of the sagittal suture, which runs past the bregma along the medial frontal bone. The scoring parameter for this trait was the existence of a significant portion of the medial frontal bone.

• Mylohyoid Bridging: this appears as one or multiple portions of bone cover the mylohyoid groove. The scoring parameter for this trait was the presence of the ascending ramus.

• Supraorbital Notch & Foramen: occur on the medial side of the superior orbit. In order to be scored, a sample had to possess a large portion of the superior orbit and brow ridge.

A preliminary run was conducted to establish a consistent methodology for scoring the traits. Based on the literature, particularly Berry and Berry’s initial work (1967) it was decided that the majority of traits would be scored for presence or absence only. However, many of Berry’s comparative studies, including his 1974 and 1967 work, created a distinction for the mastoid suture as present, absent or exsutural, which was adopted for this study as well. Kaul and Pathak’s (1984) analysis of the mylohyoid bridge made a distinction between individuals with a single or partial bridging versus those with multiple bridging segments. We adopted their classification by distinguishing absent (0) from one bridge (1) and two bridges (2). In Hauser (1987), pictorial scales are provided for tympanic dehiscence and mastoid suture. These scales were converted into the numeric systems seen in Table 1.

Cervical Vertetbral Non-Metric Analysis -- The vertebral data were collected from 198 commingled adult cervical vertebra in the St. Stephens collection. These samples included complete vertebral specimens (both transverse processes attached to the neural arch) as well as broken or damaged portions with either a right or left transverse process. Four traits were scored for complete and partial presence and absence on the left and/or right sides. The following scoring criteria were used for each trait:

• Posterior atlas bridging: scored as: a) complete if there was a bony process connecting the superior articular facet and the neural arch; b) partial if there was evidence of an osseous protrusion or spiny growth extending from the superior articular facet, arching towards the neural arch; and, c) absent if no osseous protrusion was visible and there was no curvature of the articular facet. Following the scoring protocol of Case (2003), the curvature of the osseous extension was critical.

• Transverse foramen bipartite: a bony bridge extending completely across the transverse foramen, dividing the foramen into two sections. A partial bipartite has osseous extensions from the medial

and/or lateral side of the foramen, extending into the foramen, but not actually meeting the extension from the other side. An absent bipartite has no bony protrusions and the foramen is clear. For the bipartite, a minimum of three-quarters of the foramen was required to be present and undamaged in order to be scored.

• Lateral atlas bridging: used the same criteria as the posterior bridging, except the osseous extension extends from the superior articular facet towards the transverse process.

• Atlas double facet form: present on the superior articular facet. A complete double facet is characterized by Yamaguchi (1981) as having a complete osseous division that divides the facet into anterior and posterior facets. A partial facet has no osseous ridge, but has begun to pinch inward at the middle from both sides. An absent facet has no osseous ridge

and no pinching from both sides.

Statistical Analysis -- Inter-observer concordance tests were conducted to assure accuracy. Concordance was over 95%. Chi Square tests were run for the right and left side frequencies; the left side frequencies were chosen because there were generally a greater number of samples.

The St. Stephen’s frequencies were compared with the data from several other studies compiled from the literature. For each trait, a 2 x 2 Chi Square test with one degree of freedom was run for every comparison. The Yates correction for continuity was employed in order to show a more appropriate significance for expected frequencies under 5. The smaller the p value, the more significant difference between a given collection and St. Stephens, and the less likely that the monks were related to the comparative group.

Supraorbital Foramen[EBND 7.420]

Complete Posterior Bridge[EBND 7.177]

Complete/Partial Transverse Foramen Bipartite

[EBND 13.216]

Complete Double Facet

[EBND 27.188]

Partial Posterior Bridge

[EBND 5.367]

Partial Lateral Bridge

[EBND 9.345]

Supraorbital Notch

[EBND 7.420]