ANALYSIS EPIDERMAL RIDGE BREADTH: AN INDICATOR OF

Transkript

Variability and Evolution, 2003, Vol. 11: 5–30
ANALYSIS
MIROSLAV KRÁLÍK, VLADIMÍR NOVOTNÝ
Masaryk University Brno, Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Science
Kotlářská 2, 611 37 Brno, Czech Republic
EPIDERMAL RIDGE BREADTH: AN INDICATOR OF AGE
AND SEX IN PALEODERMATOGLYPHICS
KRÁLÍK M., NOVOTNÝ V. 2003. Epidermal ridge breadth: an indicator of age and sex in paleodermatoglyphics. Variability and Evolution, Vol. 11: 5–30, Tabs. 5, Figs. 9. Adam Mickiewicz University,
Faculty of Biology, Institute of Anthropology, Poznań.
Abstract: Epidermal ridge breadth of human fingerprints was investigated on ceramic artifacts
from contemporary ceramic workshops. Our investigation has shown that mean epidermal
ridge breadth (MRB) as observed on ceramics can be used as an indicator of age (from birth
to maturity) and sex of the artifact maker in adulthood. In this study, we suggest a new method
of scanning, measuring and data processing. The best age estimation method (using equation
proposed by Kamp et al. from Grinnell College, USA, and modified after shrinkage by 7.5%)
yielded results with mean error of estimates –0.18 years (SD = 2.36 years), median absolute
error of estimates was 1.71 years and only in 3.6% of cases the absolute errors were higher
than 5 years. Therefore, in a particular ethnic group epidermal ridge breadth of fingerprints
on ceramics is suitable for comparing of individuals’ ages. The number of fingerprints and
ridges per individual had no influence on estimation errors. In adults, sexual dimorphism was
clearly present even though artifacts were made from different types of ceramic clays. Ridge
breadth is 9% greater in males than in females. On the whole, MRB under 0.39 mm signifies
a sub-adult individual under 15 years of age and MRB values over 0.52 mm come solely from
adult males. However, age changes of ridge breadth in teenagers overlap with adult sexual
dimorphism and therefore, in case of MRB values between 0.39 and 0.52 mm, variability in
both age and sex should be taken into account. If this method is further developed, especially
the qualitative aspects of fingerprints and properties of ceramic clay, it has great potential for
illuminating the social background of ceramics-making in ancient cultures.
Key words: fingerprints, ceramics, epidermal ridge breadth, age estimation, sexual dimorphism, paleodermatoglyphics
6
M. Králík, V. Novotný
Introduction: Paleodermatoglyphics
Archeologists frequently find artifacts imprinted with human fingerprints. Ancient
fingerprints have been found on ceramics (e.g. Šikulová 1956; Pavelčík 1958; Klíma
1963; Šefčáková 1998; Einwögerer 2000), parchment (Bartsocas 1982), organic substance (Mania, Toepfer 1973; Koller et al. 2001) and other types of materials. Despite
the diversity of archeological materials, it is ceramic clay, which has the optimal
properties to be a transfer medium for fingerprints. Clay is sufficiently plastic for
imprinting, and finger molding is a direct part of many manufacturing procedures.
Fingerprints are mostly unintentional results of shaping, molding and touching wet
clay. Once dried and fired, the clay hardens and becomes chemically stable which
allows the prints to be preserved indefinitely; fingerprints on ceramics can even be
preserved in shipwrecks buried in seawater (Corey 2002). At the same time, ceramic
material is fragile, so the objects often break and need to be renewed. From the
Neolithic to recent times, ceramics, especially various pots, form a significant part
of the archeological record.
Epidermal ridges and their arrangement (dermatoglyphic patterns) exhibit a number
of properties that reflect the biology of an individual. Dermatoglyphic features statistically differ between the sexes, ethnic groups and age categories. Dermatoglyphs and
their components are both environmentally and genetically determined, although the
arrangement of ridges remains constant throughout life. Theoretically, it is possible
to use human fingerprints on archeological finds similarly to skeletal remains: for
estimation of interconnected biological properties of the people who left the prints.
However, opposed to the obvious dermatoglyphic cards (ink-method), fingerprints
on ceramics are fragmentary; they reflect heterogeneous regions of hand (friction skin,
papillary terrain) and are likely to reflect more than one individual on one artifact.
Studying such prints is more limited by the fragmentation and incompleteness of
natural biological units (hand, thenar, finger-ball), than skeletal remains in skeletal
anthropology. In reality, it is not possible to recognize particular area of the hand from
the small print of epidermal ridges, so the methods of the standard dermatoglyphics
are often inapplicable.
Although dermatoglyphics has been experiencing a boom for decades (bibliographies e.g. Mavalwala 1977; Figueiras 1993) and dactyloscopy (police fingerprinting) is still the most widely used method of police identification of individuals, the
study of fingerprints on archeological artifacts has not developed into a coherent
approach with goals and methods. Ancient prints still continue to be dismissed as
trivial curiosities even though the modern analysis of fingerprints first began after the
discovery of fingerprints on Japanese prehistoric ceramics at the end of nineteenth
century (Faulds 1880).
Despite this situation, several innovative works have appeared during the second
half of the twentieth century, frequently mutually unknown to the authors. Cummins
(1941) divided prints on ceramics into intentional prints, which signify a meaning or
Epidermal ridge breadth: an indicator of age and sex in paleodermatoglyphics
7
signature, and unintentional prints, which are accidental results of molding. Others
tried to identify fingerprints precisely and proceeded in dermatoglyphic analysis as far
as possible. Their approaches focused on minutiae and the remaining dermatoglyphic
patterns, while aiming to compare the character of ancient fingerprints with fingerprints
of recent populations (Valšík 1951; Vlček 1951, 1952; Cseplák 1982; Szilvássy 1983).
Sládek (1994) also reconstructed the shaping sequence of small figurines based on the
position of fingerprints on their “bodies”. Åström and Eriksson (1980) used frequencies of dermatoglyphic patterns on ancient ceramics as an indicator of the ceramists’
ethnicity. Finally, some works focused on epidermal ridge breadth and its biological
connections with sex and age (Basilidade, Rişcuţia 1974; Lička, Musil 1975; Primas
1975; Cseplák 1982; Kamp et al. 1999; Králík 2000; Králík, Novotný, Oliva 2002).
During the International Conference on Dermatoglyphics, Athens, Greece, September
20–30, 1981, Bartsocas suggested the term paleodermatoglyphics “to be used for
the study of dermatoglyphics through antiquity in archeological and anthropological
material (mummies), as well as in the ancient texts” (Bartsocas 1982). For the Czech
version of the paleodermatoglyphic history see Králík and Novotný (2003a, b). The
English version is being prepared for printing.
In contrast to other materials, the originator of a fingerprint on a ceramic item was
necessarily in direct contact with the artifact at the time of its origin; he/she directly
participated in its creation. A fingerprint on a potsherd is an example of direct association between culture and biology of an imprinted person. That is why we have
been focusing mainly on fingerprints on ceramics. We have studied dermatoglyphic
features that could be preserved in obvious fragmentary fingerprints on ceramics.
Among them, ridge breadth has been chosen as a convenient variable observable on
the majority of fingerprints. The present paper should be taken as a contribution to
improvement of paleodermatoglyphic methods based on epidermal ridge breadth.
Epidermal ridge breadth: definition and determination
After Memorandum on Dermatoglyphic Nomenclature (Penrose 1968, p. 1): “the
true breadth of a ridge is defined as the distance between the center of one epidermal
furrow and the center of the next furrow along a line at right angles to the direction of the
furrows.” The definition refers to classical black-ink fingerprints on white paper. Black
lines of a fingerprint are called epidermal ridges like the original structures of the skin.
With Penrose and others, we have to distinguish ridge breadth and printed ridge (line)
width since the black line is a mere negative of the ridge top (Fig. 1). Unfortunately some
authors used both terms – breadth and width – in the sense of Penrose’s breadth.
Since it is not possible to measure true ridge breadth from ink fingerprints (Penrose
1968), indirect methods (first used by Schlaginhaufen 1905) are used for determination of ridge breadth: the number of ridges crossing a defined line transversely is
counted and the ridge breadth is a result of dividing the two figures. The line can be
8
Fig. 1. Epidermal ridge breadth of the epidermis (upper row), in ink fingerprint (middle row) and in
plastic fingerprint on ceramics (bottom row). The left images are cross-sections and the right images are
looking from above
of a defined length and is placed upright on the stream of ridges, or in a defined position – located between standard dermatoglyphic landmarks. Some authors used the
line of a defined length and placed it transversely to the ridges on all dermatoglyphic
regions (Cummins et al. 1941; Ohler, Cummins 1942), or in a single region. A bulk of
works on dermatoglyphics determined ridge breadth as an additional variable to the
well established a–b ridge count (in the second interdigital area of the hand) (after
Penrose, Loesch 1967). Only the measure of distance between a and b triradius had
to be completed. Ridge breadth is obtained by calculating (DL+DR)/(CL+CR+2),
where D is distance and C is the ridge count. Two ridges are added because triradial
points are omitted in the ridge count. But the line joining a and b triradius may not be
perpendicular to dermal ridges, especially when it is close to the triradius. Therefore
the technique (a–b ridge breadth) does not fully conform to Penrose’s definition; in
a sense it measures the ridge density but not the ridge breadth in a defined region.
Another technique makes use of an equilateral triangle, whose apex lies in the center
of a dermatoglyphic pattern and the two sides of 10-mm lengths are perpendicular
to the stream of ridges of a distal parallel system (Loesch, Martin 1984a, b). Finally,
Acree (1999) counted all ridges in a defined area of 25 mm2 and Moore (1989)
measured “ridge to ridge distance” from the center of one ridge to the center of the
neighboring ridge.
9
Some authors expressed their results in mean ridge breadth (in mm or μm) and
others (predominantly in archeology and police fingerprinting) express their results
in density of ridges (for instance 21 ridges per 1 cm).
Epidermal ridge breadth: variability
Since various authors employed different methods of measurement, the results
are not completely comparable between the different studies. However, it is apparent
from the results that many tendencies appear universally even when using the different
methods, e.g. sexual dimorphism (Tab. 1).
The first author who presented extensive reports on adult human epidermal ridge
breadth on whole palm and fingers was Cummins and his co-workers (Cummins et
al. 1941; Ohler, Cummins 1942). From their results it is evident that the epidermal
ridge breadth varies considerably between different dermatoglyphic regions and also
between the sexes. Ridges on the palm were coarser than on the fingertips. Digit I
had a higher ridge breadth than all the other digits, the order of the decreasing ridge
breadth was: I > II > III > V > IV and in the palm: thenar – first inter-digital region
> hypothenar > inter-digital II > inter-digital IV > inter-digital III. The ridges on the
right hand are coarser.
Hecht was the first author who reported on ridge breadth growth (Hecht 1924,
cit. by Cummins et al. 1941). The average ridge breadth of single ridges in fingertip
patterns was as follows: 0.15 mm (three premature infants); 0.18 mm (7 newborn
infants); 0.30–0.35 mm (10-year olds); 0.40–0.50 mm (adult women); 0.50 mm (adult
men); the numbers of participating subjects were not given in the latter three categories.
Loesch and co-workers made the first equation of epidermal ridge breadth growth in
the second interdigital area (a–b ridge breadth) on a sample of Polish children from
0 to 12 years of age (Loesch, Godlewska 1971; Loesch, Czyżewska 1972). David
(1981) studied a–b ridge breadth and stated that at the age of more than 16 years the
increase in ridge breadth was small. The difference between 16–19 years olds and
adults over 20 years old was not significant in either sex.
In general, males have coarser ridges than females and the difference is approximately 10%. Ohler and Cummins (1942) were the first authors who exhaustively
investigated sexual dimorphism in the epidermal ridge breadth. Sexual differences in
a–b ridge breadth are significant from the category of 12–13 years of age (Loesch,
Czyżewska 1972). The a–b ridge breadth increases with the number of sex chromosomes (Penrose, Loesch 1967). The Y-chromosome affects the ridge breadth more
than the X-chromosome. The a–b ridge breadth in people with testicular feminization syndrome lies between the sexes although it tends to be closer to the values for
females (compared to the males) (Polani, Polani 1979).
Jantz, Parham (1978) studied the ethnic differences in the a–b ridge breadth among
Yoruba students (Nigeria), English (data from Penrose, Loesch 1967) and Jews (data
10
Table 1
Variability of epidermal ridge breadth with emphasis on sexual dimorphism. All results are converted
to micrometers. Differences between the sexes in each sample are presented also as percentages with
reference to males
Authors
Hecht 1924
Hecht 1924
Cummins et al. 1941
Ohler, Cummins 1942
Cummins et al. 1941
Ohler, Cummins 1942
Loesch, Martin 1984b
Cummins et al. 1941
Ohler, Cummins 1942
Penrose, Loesch 1967
Penrose, Loesch 1967
Losch, Czyżewska 1972
Katznelson, Ashbel 1973
Katznelson, Ashbel 1973
Jantz, Parham 1978
Jantz, Parham 1978
Polani, Polani 1979
Polani, Polani 1979
David 1981
David 1981
David 1981
David 1981
Stücker et al. 2001
Stücker et al. 2001
Moore 1989
Moore 1989
Primas 1975
Primas 1975
present data
present data
Comment
Sample
n
Fingers
Fingers
All regions combined
4/5 Euro Americans, 1/5 Jews 200
All regions combined
90% Euro Americans, 10% Jews 100
Ball of II-nd finger
Ball of II-nd finger
Triangle, finger IV
Australians of European origin
29
Triangle, finger IV
Polish, adults
34
Triangle, finger IV
Polish, adults
38
Triangle, finger III
Australians of European origin
28
Polish, adults
34
Polish, adults
37
II-nd interdigital area
II-nd interdigital area
A–b ridge breadth
English, over 20 years
60
A–b ridge breadth
English, over 20 years
60
A–b ridge breadth
Polish, from 12 to 13 years
25
A–b ridge breadth
25
A–b ridge breadth
25
A–b ridge breadth
25
A–b ridge breadth
Jews
100
A–b ridge breadth
Jews
100
A–b ridge breadth
Yoruba
119
A–b ridge breadth
Yoruba
52
A–b ridge breadth
48
A–b ridge breadth
62
A–b ridge breadth
20 years and more
259
A–b ridge breadth
20 years and more
381
A–b ridge breadth
From 16 to 19 years
86
A–b ridge breadth
From 16 to 19 years
96
Original method, fingers
Dactyloscopic database
472
30
10
10
Fingerprints on ceramics
20
20
Czech, adults
23
Czech, adults
27
Mean (SD)
[µm]
Diff. [%]
Males Females
500
400–500
483 (29)
56 12
427 (27)
469 (42)
56 12
413 (34)
460 (38)
439 (37)
9
2
430 (38)
489 (47)
459 (43)
32 7
427 (36)
522 (50)
55 11
467 (39)
565 (41)
51 9
514 (39)
489 (41)
21 4
467 (30)
548 (56)
52 10
496 (50)
558 (45)
51 9
507 (74)
605 (55)
49 8
556 (41)
574 (43)
38 7
537 (44)
541 (48)
49 9
493 (43)
534 (49)
47 9
487 (38)
513 (89)
44 9
469 (49)
460
50 11
410
481 (41)
50 10
431 (34)
494 (36)
44 9
450 (31)
from Katznelson, Ashbel 1973). Ethnic differences were substantial in both sexes.
Loesch and Martin (1984b) also discovered that the ridge breadth on fingers III and IV
in Polish and Australian males of European origin were different, i.e. 458.94 µm and
488.75 µm (for finger III), 438.71 µm and 460.1 µm (for finger IV), respectively.
The ridge breadth covaries with other dermatoglyphic features. In fingers the
ridges are coarser in the ulnar loops than in whorls (Cummins et al. 1941). There is
11
a negative correlation between the breadth of ridges and the number of minutiae of
the end type on fingers IV and III indicating that narrow ridges are more likely to be
interrupted by ends (Loesch, Martin 1984b). However, a–b ridge breadth and ridge
count of the first finger are entirely independent traits (Loesch, Lafranchi 1990). The
epidermal ridges, between which interstitial ridges are present, are significantly further
apart from each other than those without interstitial ridges (Stücker et al. 2001).
The epidermal ridge breadth also correlates with some anthropometrical parameters. Ridge breadth correlates with hand length, hand breadth and breadth of the distal
phalanx (Cummins et al. 1941). However, the authors discovered that the coefficient
of variation of the epidermal ridge breadth was much higher than the coefficient of
variation of hand length. Therefore, ridge breadth is subject to a wider variation than
hand size so there must be another factor than size of hand, that influences ridge
breadth. Loesch and Lafranchi (1990) showed that the a–b ridge breadth is closely
related to wrist width. In adults the coefficient of correlation between ridge density
and body height was –0.16 (Cummins et al. 1941) and because it is consistent in all
dermatoglyphic regions when considered separately, the authors regard the relation as
true. The a–b ridge breadth correlates positively with chest circumference but only
slightly positively with the body mass index (BMI) and negatively with the length of
the lower limbs. 30–50% of the variability in body measurements is accounted for by
the variability in breadth of individual’s ridges (Loesch, Lafranchi 1990).
On the whole, the variability of the epidermal ridge breadth in humans is substantial. The greatest changes in the ridge breadth occur between birth and maturity.
Sexual dimorphism in epidermal ridge breadth was also verified by many samples.
Nevertheless it must be noted that differences between single ridges in a limited area
of the epidermis may be higher than the variability between individuals and groups
described by mean values, regardless of the mean breadth determination method.
Ridge breadth values from prints on ceramics are closest to the values for finger balls
of distal phalanges, and this is the case for both the mean values and the variability
patterns (Tab. 1).
Ridge breadth of fingerprints on ceramics
The appearance of an epidermal ridge imprinted on ceramics is caused by the
contrast between light and shadows on a three-dimensional negative. The distance
between the edges of one shadow and the same point on the edge of the next shadow
vertical to the edges, corresponds to ridge breadth (as defined by Penrose). Therefore
the ridge breadth can be measured directly (Fig. 1). Clay, however, is not completely
homogenous – the dimensions of the mineral grains are often comparable to the ridge
dimensions. So, the mineral grains can distort details of the ridges and its borders.
Therefore it is better to measure a bundle of ridges. On the other hand, a fingerprint on
12
a ceramic piece is three-dimensional, frequently more or less concave. Hence the linear
measure is more a tangent of the curve, rather than the true length of the curve.
Moreover, “recording” haphazard fingerprints on ceramics is not standardized.
Since the epidermal ridge breadth varies considerably between various dermatoglyphic
regions of one individual, and even between sections of a particular dermatoglyphic
region, an uncontrolled set of tiny fingerprints is a rather questionable representation.
Besides, the epidermis is elastic so during imprinting it is temporarily deformed due
to the forces and their directions. The prints reflect the deformation event. This is
caused by factors such as softness of the epidermis and clay hardness. Fingerprints
just formed on the wet clay can be deformed by subsequent molding. Substantial
changes of the ridge breadth might occur as a result of the deformation. The ridge
breadth can increase or decrease especially in artifacts made “by free hand” or when
there is excessive amount of water in the clay. Therefore it is important to exclude
at least visibly deformed fingerprints from metrics. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to
distinguish deformed and non-deformed fingerprints.
Finally, the clay body changes during drying and burning – the absolute size of the
artifact as well as the impressions on its surface change. Linear shrinkage of ceramics varies between 0 and 20% (on average 7–10%) (Lach 1989), which is similar to,
for example, sexual dimorphism (see Tab. 1). However, at the present time a precise
estimation of the shrinkage of the finished ceramic matter is not possible.
To sum up, the biological variability of the ridge breadth as imprinted on ceramics
is confounded by many factors: shrinkage, pressure deformation, unknown application
of fingers and palms in molding. It is not certain if any reasonable metric estimation
is possible and if unknown factors do not destroy the useful biological trends.
Ridge breadth in retrospective estimations
In spite of these well-founded doubts, several works used epidermal ridge breadth
in paleodermatoglyphics. Primas (1975) evaluated fingerprints on pottery from Heuneburg (Germany) and she attempted to estimate sex of the creators based on the
epidermal ridge breadth. The material was from Iron Age, when, in many parts of
Europe, we can detect a transition from handmade domestic pottery, to pottery as
a specialized craft where the items were manufactured on the pottery wheel. In one
collection of fingerprints on pots with a stepped edge, Primas discovered that these
fingerprints had an average of 19.1 ridges per 1 cm. Based on reference values (according to the works of Cummins et al. 1941 and Ohler, Cummins 1942), and her
own experimental measurements of recent populations (females: 23.2 ridges per 1 cm,
males: 20.8 ridges per 1 cm), she attributed these prints to males. She concluded that
the Golasecca culture (9th century B.C. to the 4th century B.C.) can be noted for the
manufacture of advanced pottery by male craftsmen with all the social consequences
and influences it had on the neighboring cultures.
13
We can also mention the work of Basilidade and Rişcuţia (1974) who studied
ridge breadth of fingerprints on Romanian Neolithic ceramics. They attributed these
prints to males based on the mean ridge breadth of 0.55 mm. Lička and Musil (1975)
provided interesting information about the application of fingerprints, especially the
ridge breadth in archeology and criminalistics. Acree (1999) introduced a method
of sex assessment from fingerprints to criminalistics, also based on epidermal ridge
breadth. Cseplák (1982) published a report on finger and nail prints on fragments
of Neolithic pots 6500–7000 years old from Hungary. The epidermal ridge breadth
varied between 270 and 600 μm.
Kamp et al. (1999) published seminal research of exemplary quality that represents a new direction for future research in paleodermatoglyphics. This work involves
a critical theoretical approach based on extensive dermatoglyphic literature, suggested
method, experimental testing of methodology and the development of a model, application of the model to specific data and the interpretation of results, taking into
account all the relevant information. The authors obtained fingerprints by experiment
and measured the ridge breadth directly on the ceramics with digital calipers. They
developed a linear regression model of the growth of the epidermal ridge breadth during postnatal growth and maturation (from 5.4 to approx. 21 years of age). The model
was then applied to two artifact assemblages of Amerindian utilitarian and funerary
ceramics from northern Arizona. On the basis of the discovered differences the authors
demonstrated that one pottery type – the zoomorphic figurines – were manufactured
by children, and the second type – craftsman-quality pots – were manufactured by
adults. They also developed a model for the relationship between ridge breadth and
body height during postnatal growth. This is the best work in paleodermatoglyphics
so far and it represents great progress in this field.
In his Master’s thesis, Králík (2000) reviewed the current state of paleodermatoglyphics and experimentally attempted to find the best method for estimating age
from birth to adulthood based on the epidermal ridge breadth. The ridge breadth was
computer-measured from photographs. On a small sample of 140 prints on ceramic
artifacts from 13 individuals, the author tried to deal with the main unknown factors
affecting ridge breadth data and estimation. In 6 steps he generated several theoretical variants of shrinkage, selection of fingerprints, measurement method, mean value
counting and regression equations. By combination of all variants, 432 different protocols for age estimations were obtained. Differences between the age estimates and
the true ages from each protocol were subjected to statistical analysis. The equation
that originated from fingerprints on ceramics (Kamp et al. 1999) provided the best
estimations. The best estimations were achieved when the ridge breadth was multiplied
by a coefficient of 1.081 (according to common shrinkage of ceramic clay 7.5%). The
mean absolute difference between true age and estimates was 2.03 years and only in
3.3% estimations it was more than 5 years (Abstract – Králík 2003).
Králík, Novotný and Oliva (2002) rediscovered a forgotten fingerprint on the
Venus figurine from Dolní Věstonice (Gravettian, 25,000 B.P.) found in Moravia,
14
Czechoslovakia, in 1925. According to the ridge breadth (0.37 mm), the fingerprint
maker may have been a sub-adult individual or an adult female but probably not an
adult male. However, this one and only fingerprint available is very small in size and
therefore within the limit of observability. It might represent a point at the extreme
end of the range of variability. It is also possible that the wet clay was deformed with
the fingerprint. Moreover, the maker of the fingerprint may not be the creator of the
artifact. Research is currently continuing on fingerprints on Central European Gravettian ceramics from sites at Dolní Věstonice, Pavlov (Czech Republic) and Krems
(Austria). The results are expected to contribute to clarifying the origin and function
of these ceramics, the oldest ceramics in the world.
In this article we would like to test several equations for the estimations of age
from the ridge breadth on a larger sample of ceramics than was used by Králík
(2000), and attempt to evaluate the effect of age changes and sexual dimorphism on
ridge breadth. The natural character of fingerprints, unaffected by our presence, and
the large variability of “ceramic factors”, are emphasized at the expense of totally
controlled conditions and the statistical design of the sample.
Material
The material consists of recent artifacts (Fig. 2) made by three different groups (setting) of individuals of known age and sex. One group represents works of 56 children
from the Tišnov Primary School of Art (Moravia, Czech Republic). All artifacts were
created before our first contact with the school. The authors applied several techniques
during the creation process: shaping by free hand, lathing on potter’s wheel, cutting out
of kneaded plates, building from kneaded plates. Thus, with respect to hand and finger
mechanics, the fingerprints were the results of various printing conditions. Artifacts
were created from several types of clay. In the majority of artifacts, the type of clay
and its shrinkage was ascertained. Since artifacts were made during normal teaching
lessons with the children together in one classroom (workshop), an artifact made by
a particular child may also bear the fingerprints of his/her classmates.
The second group consists of works of 20 adult professional ceramists, 6 males
and 14 females, from 20 to 61 years of age. The artifacts were obtained at retail outlets
and were made (formed, dried and burnt) under real-life conditions of present day
ceramics production/creation. Thus, the artifacts were manufactured before our first
contact with the author or a particular ceramic studio so aspects of shrinkage could
not be ascertained. Various clays were used. The fingerprints from this group were
used to test sexual dimorphism.
By our special request, non-professionals unskilled in ceramic making produced
the third group of artifacts (small figurines and pots) from ceramic clay (provided by
us), while we were present. Adults from this group (17 males and 13 females from 19
to 77 years of age) were added to the adult professionals to test sexual dimorphism. In
15
Fig. 2. Examples of ceramic artifacts used for fingerprint analysis (children from Tišnov Primary School
of Art – row 1 and 2; professional ceramists – row 3 and 4)
this group, the sub-adults (15 persons) were added to illustrate the overall variability
of ridge breadth in relation to age and sex.
All artifacts were evaluated after ceramic shrinkage and burning. The fingerprints
of the three groups were automatic and unintentional results of the molding. All authors were of Czech origin and lived in western Moravia, near the town Tišnov. Age
of each subject at the time of molding was retrospectively ascertained in months and
recounted to years (i.e. 12.75 years). In some adult professionals the age was rounded
off to whole years.
Artifacts surfaces were complex. Fingerprints were fragmentary; frequently no
dermatoglyphic pattern was distinguishable. Preservation of ridges substantially varied
from one part of the fingerprint to another. Sometimes, two parts of one fingerprint
16
seemed to indicate two separate fingerprints. In other cases, several (two or more)
fingerprints were superimposed on each other. (We called this situation cross fingerprints.) In order to deal with this complex situation it was essential to define the
fingerprint as a unit of analysis. Our definition of a fingerprint is the part of ceramic
surface with friction skin negative that was naturally separated from the others of its
kind, or one that was artificially separated for the purpose of photography. In spite of
the above-mentioned complexities, the majority of the single fingerprints represented
one single imprinting event. The size of the fingerprints varied, from approximately
several square millimeters to several square centimeters.
Method
Only well-preserved fingerprints were recorded. Blurred, deformed and unclear
fingerprints were discarded. A total of 568 fingerprints were included in the study.
For scanning the fingerprints (Fig. 3) we used macro-photography – camera Nikon
Coolpix 4500, 4 Mpix. Artifacts were fixed by dipping in coarse sand or mustard
seeds in an appropriate container and photographed. Light was provided by a halogen lamp. Calibration of the images was provided with a square of calibrated paper
(3 × 3 mm) placed near each fingerprint parallel to its surface plane. To minimize lens
distortion near the margins of the field of vision, fingerprints and calibration were
situated in the center of the image. The axis of the camera was perpendicular to the
fingerprint surface. Photos were then processed on a personal computer via image
analysis software UTHSCSA ImageTool for Windows Version 3.00.
We measured the width of a bundle of ridges on the longest possible section
perpendicular to the stream of ridges and counted the number of involved ridges.
The mean value of ridge breadth from each measurement was a result of dividing the
Fig. 3. Schematic representation of the recording of fingerprints
17
Fig. 4. Depiction of epidermal ridge breadth and its measurement on a ceramic piece
two figures. The mean ridge breadth was calculated from several measurements on
each fingerprint (Fig. 4). The mean value for each artifact – the mean epidermal ridge
breadth of an individual (MRB) – was calculated from the values of all fingerprints
on a particular artifact. In the case of more artifacts being made by one individual,
the individual value was obtained from all fingerprints of the particular individual.
During these measurements the author’s identity was unknown.
For estimations of the age from MRB we used the following equations (Fig. 5):
LC – equation after Loesch and Czyżewska (1972): y = 11.94 · x + 344.24 (y – MRB in μm, x – age
in years). LCmod – equation after Loesch and Czyżewska (1972) modified by recounting according
to the mean ridge breadth ratio between hand and fingers in males (according data from Ohler, Cummins 1942) combined with shrinkage (7.5%), the ridge breadth in equation was multiplied by 1.261
x = (y · 1.261 – 344.24) / 11.94 (y – MRB in μm, x – age in years). KA – equation after Kamp et al.
(1999): y = 614 · x – 112 (y – age in months, x – MRB in mm). KAmod – equation after Kamp et al.
(1999) modified according to shrinkage rate of 7.5% (this estimation provided the best results on a
pilot sample, Králík (2000)), the ridge breadth was multiplied by 1.08108 y = 614 · 1.08108 · x – 112
(y – age in months, x – MRB in mm). PM1 – simple linear regression equation obtained directly
from our present data; MRB was the independent variable. PM2 – simple linear regression equation
obtained directly from our present data; MRB was the dependent variable. One assumption of the
least squares model is that the independent variable is measured without error. This is more likely
to be the case for age than epidermal ridge breadth. The second reason for introducing PM2 was
18
Fig. 5. The relationship between age and mean epidermal ridge breadth including the linear regression
models used for estimation
comparison with equation LC, where the age was also the independent variable. KAts – equation
after Kamp et al. (1999) modified according to true shrinkage of each ceramic matter, which were
empirically ascertained y = 614 · ts · x – 112 (y – age in months, x – MRB in mm, ts – true shrinkage).
True shrinkage varied between 7% and 12%, so ts is different in each case.
For each equation we calculated the differences between the true and estimated
age – errors of estimates, which were subjected to statistical analysis. Since sex assessment from fingerprints is not possible at present in the study of age differences,
we include boys and girls in the same group. Absolute errors (positive values of errors) of PM1 were used to study the relation between the number of measured units
(fingerprints, ridges) per individual, and the accuracy of estimation.
In adults, we compared the differences in MRB between sexes and between
professionals and non-professionals.
Statistical operations were performed in the STATISTICA version 6, StatSoft,
Inc. (2001) and Rundom Projects Version 1.1 (Jadwiszczak 2003).
Results
Age estimations
In a sample of 56 individuals aged between 5.92 and 19.33 years there was an
underrepresentation in younger categories and also a disproportion in sexes (13 boys
and 43 girls). Since this sample includes all children attending the ceramic workshop
it was a “natural” sample of young ceramic makers and the disproportion of sexes is
likely to reflect gender preferences for ceramic making.
19
Although our data did not fulfill all the assumptions for the parametric least
squares model (unequal number of subjects in individual age categories), we built
linear regression equations (sexes combined):
PM1:
y = 52.18087 · x – 7.89682 (y – age in years, x – MRB in mm).
(r = 0.681; r2 = 0.464; F(1;54) = 46.702; p = 0.0; Std. Err. of Estimate = 2.381)
PM2:
y = 0.008888 · x + 0.285972 (y – MRB in mm, x – age in years)
(Std. Err. of Estimate = 0.031)
Descriptive statistics of errors for all equations are given in Tab. 2 and Fig. 5.
Given the nature of the models there is no difference in means between PM1 and
PM2 (Tab. 3, Fig. 6). However, the variability of estimates is significantly greater
in PM2. Although the difference between KA and PM1 is significant, variances of
errors for KA and PM1 are identical because slopes of the models are almost identical (correlation coefficient between errors of KA and PM1 is 0.9998). Differences in
mean errors of LC and PM1 are substantial but differences between variances of LC
and PM1 errors are not significant. The mean for LCmod is close to zero and differs insignificantly from PM1 but its variability is higher than results from all other
equations, except PM2. Errors from KAmod differ only by –0,18 years from zero
and although this value is significantly different from PM1, variability around mean
is indistinguishable from PM1. Results of KAts are insignificantly higher than PM1
and the variance of KAts significantly differs only from LCmod and PM2.
Model PM1 yielded the best results. Since it was based directly on the data, we
consider KAmod the best equation for the estimation of age. Mean absolute error of
estimates of KAmod was 1.87 years (SD = 1.43), median absolute error was 1.71 years.
In 60% of cases absolute error was lower than 2 years, in 91% of cases lower than 4
years, and only in 3.6% of cases the absolute error was higher than 5 years.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of errors of estimates (in years). Negative errors are underestimations
Valid
n = 56
LC
LCmod
KA
KAmod
PM1
PM2
KAts
Mean
–8.23
0.55
–1.84
–0.18
0.00
0.00
0.09
Conf.
–95%
–8.95
–0.32
–2.48
–0.81
–0.63
–0.93
–0.56
Conf.
+95%
–7.50
1.43
–1.21
0.46
0.63
0.93
0.73
Median
–8.40
0.23
–1.61
0.08
0.25
–0.38
0.56
Var.
SD
7.33
10.61
5.57
5.58
5.56
12.00
5.80
2.71
3.26
2.36
2.36
2.36
3.46
2.41
St.
Error
0.36
0.44
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.46
0.32
Perc. Perc.
5
95
–12.60 –3.54
–3.72 6.30
–6.54 1.60
–4.82 3.14
–4.68 3.42
–5.03 6.14
–4.29 3.25
Min.
Max.
–13.62 –1.37
–6.85 8.76
–7.56 3.00
–5.85 4.93
–5.71 4.91
–8.11 8.64
–5.73 5.64
20
Fig. 6. Errors of estimates from different equations
Table 3
Comparison of means and variability of estimation errors obtained from applied equations (significant
differences highlighted)
n = 56
LC
LC
LCmod
S = –491.9
p=0
KA
KAmod
PM1
PM2
KAts
S = –357.54 S = –451.03 S = –460.84 S = –460.84 S = –465.7
p=0
p=0
p=0
p=0
p=0
S = 134.35
p=0
S = 40.86
p = 0.01
S = 31.05
p = 0.07
S = 31.05
p=0
S = 26.2
p = 0.101
S = –93.48
p=0
S = –103.3
p=0
S = –103.3
p=0
S = –107.2
p=0
S = –9.81
p=0
S = –9.81
p = 0.59
S = –14.67
p=0
S=0
p=1
S = –4.85
p = 0.14
LCmod
L = 1.71
p = 0.19
KA
L = 1.29 L = 5.57
p = 0.26 p = 0.02
KAmod
L = 1.34 L = 5.64
p = 0.25 p = 0.02
L = 0.001
p = 0.97
PM1
L = 1.31 L = 5.59
p = 0.26 p = 0.02
L = 0.0001
p = 0.99
L = 5.56
p = 0.98
PM2
L = 2.67 L = 0.13
p = 0.11 p = 0.72
L = 6.94
p = 0.01
L = 7.02
p = 0.01
L = 6.97
p = 0.01
KAts
L = 0.93 L = 4.76
p = 0.34 p = 0.03
L = 0.02
p = 0.88
L = 0.03
p = 0.85
L = 0.03
p = 0.87
S = –4.85
p = 0.77
L = 6.08
p = 0.01
Upper matrix: Fisher’s paired comparison randomization test (two-sided test), 100 000 randomizations, S (sum of pair differences) and p.
Lower matrix: Levene’s test for constant variance, randomization version, 100 000 randomizations, L (Levene’s F) and p
21
Mean error (PM1) for males is 1.11 years (SD = 1.578 years), for females
–0.335 years (SD = 2.466). The method overestimated the age of males and underestimated the age of females. The difference is of marginal significance (t-test:
p = 0.052; two-sample randomization test: p = 0.052), it may be due to the absence
of boys in the oldest age category where sexual dimorphism is well expressed.
The number of ridges of each individual varied from 27 to 287, the number of
fingerprints from 2 to 8. Outliers (363 and 447 ridges on 11 and 16 fingerprints respectively) were excluded from this analysis. We divided the cases into two groups
according to the success of the estimations (absolute errors) of PM1. In estimates
with absolute error lower than 1.57 years, each individual has an average of 4.62
fingerprints and an average of 126.59 ridges. In estimates with absolute error higher
than 1.57 years, each individual has an average of 4.33 fingerprints and an average
of 102.37 ridges. There is some tendency for better estimates when more ridges and
fingerprints were measured but it is not statistically significant for the number of
ridges (t-test: p = 0.14; two-sample randomization test: p = 0.14) nor the number of
fingerprints (t-test: p = 0.47; two-sample randomization test: p = 0.52).
Sexual dimorphism
Differences in mean ridge breadth (MRB) between sexes in adults (Fig. 7) were
tested using two-sample randomization tests for mean differences. For both groups,
the professionals (17 males and 13 females) and the non-professionals (23 males and
Fig. 7. Differences in mean ridge breadth (MRB) between
sexes
22
Table 4
Sexual dimorphism in MRB and differences between professionals and non-professionals
Males
professionals
non-professionals
Females
professionals
non-professionals
All
Mean
[mm]
0.494
0.480
0.499
0.450
0.439
0.461
0.470
n
SD
23
6
17
27
14
13
50
0.036
0.049
0.030
0.031
0.026
0.033
0.040
Table 5
Comparison of means and variability of MRB in adults (significant differences highlighted)
(1)
Males
Females
professionals (1)
non-professionals (2)
professionals (3)
non-professionals (4)
p = 0.12
p = 0.07
p = 0.23
(2)
p = 0.29
p = 0.80
p = 0.74
(3)
p = 0.02
p = 0.00
(4)
p = 0.31
p = 0.00
p = 0.08
p = 0.57
Upper matrix: p of two-sample randomization test, 100 000 randomizations. Lower matrix: p of Levene’s test for constant
variance, randomization version, 100 000 randomizations
27 females) significant differences between the sexes were found (Tab. 4, 5). When
the differences between the professionals and the non-professionals are considered
separately for each sex, they were not significant, so the combined mean value for
each sex was calculated as follows: males 0.494 mm (SD = 0.036), females 0.450
mm (SD = 0.031). The mean values were compared to the mean values (see Tab. 1)
obtained by Primas (1975). The differences were not significant for males (two-sided
t-test: p = 0.096; Fisher’s one-sample two-sided randomization test: p = 0.1) and
significant for females (two-sided t-test: p = 0.005; Fisher’s one-sample two-sided
randomization test: p = 0.006).
Combining “age” and “sex”
We can evaluate the overall variability of mean ridge breadth (MRB) (Fig. 8) according to sex and age, irrespective of the professional skills of authors and ceramic
clays being used. Sub-adults and adults from previous comparisons were combined
and 15 children (non-professionals) were added. (Imprints of two extremely young
children were obtained by putting small pieces of clay into their hands as a toy.)
All our subjects with MRB values below 0.39 mm were sub-adults under 15 years
of age, all those with MRB values over 0.52 mm were adult males. MRB values
between these two figures represent people of both sexes from an age of 8.83 years
23
Fig. 8. The relationship between age and mean epidermal ridge breadth, all groups combined
(a boy) to an old age. Therefore all estimations of age from MRB over 0.39 mm lie
in the zone of overlap with adults.
The difference between female subjects 15 to 20 years old (n = 12, mean =
0.428 mm, SD = 0.023) and adults (n = 27, mean = 0.450 mm, SD = 0.031) was
significant (100 000 permutations, two-sample randomization test: p = 0.039; two
sample bootstrap t-test: p = 0.039). In males, the difference was not tested due to the
small number of boys.
Discussion and conclusion
Our results are in agreement with most other studies, in that the measurement of
the epidermal ridge breadth of fingerprints on ceramics might be used as an indicator
of the ceramists’ age and sex. These biological trends are present not only on controlled
laboratory samples in experimental conditions but also in retrospectively ascertained
conditions of contemporary ceramic production. We have to note some disproportion
in sexes among present ceramists in favor of females, both in children and in adults.
The question is if this situation is specific only for our recent conditions or if it is
a general trend in ceramic manufacturing.
24
Concerning the age estimation, using the regression model by Kamp et al. (1999)
resulted in errors of the same variability as the model based directly on the present
data (PM1). After correcting for shrinkage of clay (7.5%) Kamp’s model (KAmod)
yielded results with mean value of errors near zero even though our sample came
from a different population and we used a different measurement technique. However,
we have to comment on a very surprising correlation (r = 0.9998) between errors of
the present model and the model by Kamp et al. (1999). Theoretically, if the sexes in
our sample were in proportion, the regression line for our model (PM1) would shift
slightly. The correlation coefficient would then be lower. Some differences between
the two samples are also apparent from the results based on true shrinkage (KAts
results). Let us assume an equal proportion of females and males in the study of Kamp
at al. (1999). The shrinkage rate assumed in the KAts model is based on empirical
values therefore it should be optimal. Thus, when the KAts model is applied to our
sample (overrepresented by females), it is more likely to underestimate age than to
overestimate it because of sexual dimorphism; lower values in females should lower
the estimations. Despite these expectations, the KAts model slightly overestimated
the age. This could indicate some systematic shift either due to differences between
the techniques and/or differences between the populations. So the above-mentioned
unusually high correlation coefficient is a result of an accidental interplay of several
factors; nevertheless, the similarity of the two models (KAmod and PM1) is a good
indicator of the applicability of this biological trend to age estimation. Since the actual
shrinkage rates of prehistoric ceramic artifacts are unknown we consider the equation
by Kamp et al. (1999), when corrected for shrinkage by 7.5% (Králík 2000), the best
tool for estimates of age in paleodermatoglyphics today. In future, it would be very
beneficial if methods allowing accurate detection of the shrinkage rate of a particular
piece of ancient ceramics, could be developed.
Equation by Loesch and Czyżewska (1972) severely underestimated the actual
age. After modifying this equation (from palm to fingers and from paper to ceramics), the estimations substantially improved the mean error so the compensation
was almost optimal. The slope of the regression line changed after correcting of the
equation (i.e. multiplying the ridge breadth); this increased the variability of errors.
At first sight it may seem that adding (rather than multiplying) a constant is a better
modification. Since the size of imprints on ceramics changes proportionally (i.e. we
cannot correct for it by adding a constant) the increase of variability after our correction may indicate actual differences between our sample and the Polish sample (this
also applies to the differences between KA and KAmod). From the available data it
is not possible to determine whether the low predictive power of LCmod is because
it was originally not developed for this purpose (i.e. fingerprints on ceramics), or
because it uses the MRB as the dependent variable. However, the similarity of the
LCmod regression line with the line of our second model (PM2) may also indicate
that using ridge breadth as dependent variable in regression is entirely inappropriate
for age estimates.
25
Changes in MRB connected with age during growing up consistently peter out
around the age when sexual differences are established. Tendencies for higher values
in boys are apparent from the age of ten. Based on the summary graph, women reach
adult values before men. However, the low number of men in our age sample 15–25
may cause this pattern. On average, ridge breadth is 9% thinner in women compared
to men, however the overlap is marked. The threshold between “children” and “maturity” seems to be the value of 0.4 mm. Above this value, MRB on its own is not
an adequate indicator of age. For example, a print with MRB value of 0.43 mm can
belong to an immature individual or an adult, but is more likely to be a female than
a male. The graph (Fig. 8) also shows that a 12 year-old female can have an MRB
value above 0.46 mm, even though we only know of one such case. Although it is
not out of question that some of these borderline cases can indicate the presence of
more than one subject, in our opinion, age estimates from MRB values higher than
0.4 mm will always be uncertain, because age and sexual dimorphism can be acting together. This is not only the case in estimates in individual artifacts but also in
a more general sense when comparing groups of prints or artifacts. It would be helpful
if the sex of the author of the prints could be determined.
Although the difference between professional ceramists and non-professionals
was not statistically significant, it is consistent in both men and women. This could
indicate that this is a real trend, regardless of whether it is caused by differences in
clay molding or actual biological differences. The oldest female subject in our sample,
who spent her life laboring on the land, had coarser ridges than the majority of the
male subjects. So the question is, to what extent can high loading on the hands over
a long-term period change the epidermal ridges. Can it be postulated that hard labor
was more common in past agricultural societies than today?
Our procedure assumes a simple relationship: 1 artifact = 1 individual, in other
words, in a particular artifact we expect to find prints of a single producer/creator.
Since several people usually work in a ceramic workshop together, this assumption
is somewhat uncertain. However, the biological trends in question were still apparent
even though we could not be quite certain whether all the prints on artifacts belong
to their respective authors. This could indicate that despite the presence of more than
one person in the workshop, the actual molding and shaping of soft printable clay
is a “one (wo)man show”. However, in ancient cultures this may not always be the
case, e.g. if the ceramic object is produced during a ritual.
Kamp et al. (1999) pointed out that “it is likely that certain fingers and finger
portions are preferentially represented”, in other words the homogeneity of MRB is
likely to be caused by similar use of fingers and palms in molding, which may be
related to a particular molding process. It is interesting then, that age changes and
sexual dimorphism in adults are still perceptible, even though the ceramists used
a variety of ceramic clays and molding procedures. If we compare the variability
in MRB in adults in our sample with previous research, it does not appear, that the
variability increases with greater variety of ceramic clays used.
26
Because the breadth of ridges varies even within a single individual, it can be
expected that estimates will be more accurate with a larger number of prints – the
mean value should closely approximate the representative value for a given individual. However, we found that when the number of prints on a particular artifact is
higher, it does not increase the accuracy of the age estimate. A more representative
sample does not approach the MRB value on the regression line, but it approaches
the “ideal” value of the subject in the sense of the biological variability of the ridge
breadth. However, a larger number of prints can limit the influence of outliers and
deformed prints.
Deeper insight and methodological treatment of the relationship between hierarchical levels of ridges, fingerprints, artifacts, individuals, local communities and
higher units would be appropriate. If we consider an artifact assemblage, where we
do not know how many people left the prints (and how many prints were left by
each individual), it is an unsatisfactory unit for statistical comparisons and biological considerations, as is an artifact with prints where we cannot be certain, that they
belong to the artifact maker.
In our research we completely disregarded ethnic differences, which can also have
substantial effects (Jantz, Parham 1978). Comparing prints between various societies
and time periods, the (unknown) ethnicity factor could be a confounding variable.
As Kamp et al. (1999) have pointed out: “the real strength of the method is in comparison of artifact assemblages within a single cultural unit, so there is a control of
ethnic variability”. We could overcome this problem because fingerprints are known
from archeological finds worldwide and the well-known variability in dermatoglyphs
offers an opportunity for studying ethnicity. Unfortunately, dermatoglyphics has focused on dermatoglyphic patterns but not so much on features observable on prints,
which commonly occur on ancient ceramics. That is why our current knowledge of
variability of the relevant features is inadequate and the methods for evaluating prints
are limited. We are convinced that with the increasing number of ancient prints being
found, there will be new developments in their analysis enabling the determination
of sources of their variability and comparisons. (It has not been so long since a find
from the Neander Valley was seriously considered to be a pathological skull of a Cossack, or the remains of different hominid species. It is in this “phase of development”
where we find paleodermatoglyphics today.)
Thus, even in estimating age from epidermal ridge breadth, we should not rely
solely upon the theoretical assumption of a homogenous set of fingerprints given that
“certain fingers and finger portions are preferentially represented”. In our sample, two
adult females had MRB values less than 0.4 mm (see Fig. 8). Checking the prints
again we realized that both were represented solely by “touching” fingerprints with
centers of finger patterns where the ridges are in general the finest. This was also the
case with an adult male who had the lowest MRB value in that group. “Touching”
or “grip” fingerprints have, in our opinion, different properties than “molding” fingerprints from fingertips and finger margins.
27
Fig. 9. Epidermal ridges from different regions of the hand
We should therefore attempt to identify a particular region of friction skin from
a fragmentary fingerprint (to localize the fingerprint). Although currently there is no
such existing procedure, ridges from distant dermatoglyphic regions are different in
many ways (Fig. 9) and therefore, some kind of localization is theoretically possible.
It requires studying more dermatoglyphic features, especially minutiae, dotted ridges,
incipient ridges, shapes of ridges in cross sections, flexion creases, composition of
dermatoglyphic patterns from curved ridge systems and other minute features. Because
the transfer medium and manufacturing procedure has an effect on the appearance
of the dermatoglyphic features, they must always be considered in the context of the
particular properties of ceramics, technological procedures and traceology. If prints
are localized to some extent, special equations for particular dermatoglyphic regions,
or at least groups of regions, may be developed. Sometimes, fingerprints are so large
that the dermatoglyphic landmarks present on them allow us to “anchor” measurements. Although this would not be possible for all fingerprints, better estimations in
some special cases could result.
Study of other dermatoglyphic features and their variability and biological interconnections may open the way not only for more accurate estimates of age, but also
to sex assessment, differentiation between more people imprinted on one artifact and
even ethnic comparisons. Even though this is only “music of the future” it might shift
paleodermatoglyphics from a simple description of fingerprints and the mere measurement of ridges, to a wide and effective retrospective application of human biological
28
and behavioral variability. If paleodermatoglyphics is developed further, it has a great
potential for illuminating the social factors of ceramics making in ancient cultures: the
work of children, division of labor by sex, etc. In every case, epidermal ridge breadth
will remain one of the most important paleodermatoglyphic features.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Ladislav Nejman (Australian National University, Canberra, archeology) for substantial help with the translation of this text.
References
Acree M.A. 1999. Is there a gender difference in fingerprint ridge density? Forensic Science International, 102: 35–44.
Åström P., Eriksson S.A. 1980. Fingerprints and Archaeology. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology,
28. Paul Åströms Förlag, Göteborg.
Bartsocas C.S. 1982. Paleodermatoglyphics. In: Progress in Dermatoglyphic Research (ed.) C.S. Bartsocas,
139–143, Alan R. Liss Inc., New York.
Basilidade G., Rişcuţia C. 1974. Studiu dactiloscopic şi traseologic pe o serie de fragmente de ceramică
neolitică. In: Istoria comunităţilor culturii Boian (ed.) E. Comsa, 255–258, Bucuresti.
Corey M. 2002. 450 year old Fingerprints found from ST. John’s Bahamas Wreck! Mel Fisher Maritime
Heritage Society (www.melfisher.org/fingerprints.htm).
Cseplák G. 1982. Anthropological analysis of the impressions originating from man’s hand on the neolithic
pottery fragments. Humanbiologia Budapestiensis, 10: 135–140.
Cummins H. 1941. Ancient Finger Prints in Clay. The Scientific Monthly, 52: 389–402.
Cummins H., Midlo C. 1961. Finger prints, palms and soles. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Cummins H., Waits W.J., McQuitty J.T. 1941. The Breadths of Epidermal Ridges on the Finger Tips and
Palms: A Study of Variation. The American Journal of Anatomy, 68: 127–150.
David T.J. 1981. Distribution, Age and Sex Variation of the Mean Epidermal Ridge Breadth. Human
Heredity, 31: 279–282.
Einwögerer T. 2000. Die jungpaläolithische Station auf dem Wachtberg in Krems, NÖ. Eine Rekonstruktion und wissenschaftliche Darlegung der Grabung von J. Bayer aus dem Jahre 1930. Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien.
Faulds H. 1880. On the Skin-Furrows of the Hand. Nature October 28, reprint in: Faulds H. 1994. On
The Skin-Furrows Of The Hand. The Print, 10: 8–9.
Figueiras I. 1993. Dermatoglifos: Bibliografia. Departamento de Antropologia, Universidade de Coimbra,
Coimbra.
Hecht A.F. 1924. Über das Hand- und Fussflächenrelief von Kindern. Zeitschrift für das Gesamte Experimentalmedizin, 39: 56–66 (Cited by Cummins, Midlo 1961).
Jadwiszczak P. 2003. Rundom Projects: an application for randomization and bootstrap testing, version
1.1. Computer program available from the web site http://pjadw.tripod.com.
Jantz R.L., Parham K.R. 1978. Racial Differences in Dermal Ridge Breadth. Human Biology, 50:
33–40.
Kamp K.A., Timmerman N., Lind G., Graybill J., Natowsky I. 1999. Discovering childhood: using fingerprints to find children in the archaeological record. American Antiquity, 64: 309–315.
Katznelson M., Ashbel S. 1973. Dermatoglyphics of Jews: I. Normal Ashkenazi populations. Zeitschrift
für Morphologie und Anthropologie, 65: 14–28 (Cited by Jantz, Parham 1978).
29
Klíma B. 1963. Dolní Věstonice. Výzkum tábořiště lovců mamutů v letech 1947–1952. Nakladatelství
Československé akademie věd, Praha.
Koller J., Baumer U., Mania D. 2001. High-tech in the middle Palaeolithic: Neandertal-manufactured
pitch identified. European Journal of Archaeology, 4: 385–397.
Králík M. 2000. Otisky prstů a dlaní na keramickém materiálu (Fingerprints and palm-prints on ceramics).
Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University Brno, 2000 (Master Thesis).
Králík M. 2003. Fingerprints and Palmprints on Ceramics. Antropologia Portuguesa (Abstract of Master
Thesis, in press).
Králík M., Novotný V. 2003a. Otisky prstů na keramickém materiálu: Rekonstrukce sociálních vzorců
keramické výroby (prostředky a možnosti). (Re)konstrukce a experiment v archeologii, 4, 40–52.
Králík M., Novotný V. 2003b. Paleodermatoglyfika: Využití otisků prstů a dlaní v retrospektivních vědách
o člověku. In: Ve službách archeologie IV (eds.) V. Hašek, R. Nekuda, J. Unger, 248–261, Muzejní
a vlastivědná společnost v Brně–Feodrill Brno–Archeologický ústav SAV Nitra, Brno.
Králík M., Novotný V., Oliva M. 2002. Fingerprint on the Venus of Dolní Věstonice I. Anthropologie
(Brno), 40: 107–113.
Lach V. 1986. Keramika I. Státní nakladatelství technické literatury (SNTL) Praha.
Lička M., Musil J. 1975. Určování pohlaví a věku na základě otisků papilárních linií v archeologii
a kriminalistice. Československá kriminalistika, 8: 185–193.
Loesch D., Czyżewska J. 1972. Szerokość listewek skórnych na odcinku a–b na dłoni u dzieci w wieku
0–14 lat. Folia Morphologica (Warszawa), 31: 249–254.
Loesch D., Godlewska J. 1971. Szerokość listewek skórnych na odcinku a–b u dzieci w wieku od 0 do
6 lat. Folia Morphologica (Warszawa), 30: 511–514.
Loesch D.Z., Lafranchi M. 1990. Relationship of Epidermal Ridge Patterns With Body Measurements
and Their Possible Evolutionary Significance. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 82:
183–189.
Loesch D.Z., Martin N.G. 1984a. Finger ridge patterns and tactile sensitivity. Annals of Human Biology,
11: 113–124.
Loesch D.Z., Martin N.G. 1984b. Relationships between minute characteristics of finger ridges and pattern size and shape. Annals of Human Biology, 11: 125–132.
Mania D., Toepfer V. 1973. Königsaue: Gliederung, Ökologie und mittelpaläolitische Funde der letzten
Eiszeit. Berlin.
Mavalwala J. 1977. Dermatoglyphics: An International Bibliography. Mounton Publishers, The Hague,
Paris.
Moore R.T. 1989. An Analysis of Ridge-to-Ridge Distance on Fingerprints. Journal of Forensic Identification, 39: 231–237.
Ohler E.A., Cummins H. 1942. Sexual Differences in Breadths of Epidermal Ridges on Finger Tips and
Palms. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 29: 341–362.
Pavelčík J. 1958. Úvalno-Šelenburk, okr. Bruntál, sídliště kultury lužické a slezské. Nálezová zpráva AU
AVČR Brno.
Penrose L.S. 1968. Memorandum on Dermatoglyphic Nomenclature. Birth Defects Original Article
Series, 4: 1–13.
Penrose L.S., Loesch D. 1967. A study of dermal ridge width in the second (palmar) interdigital area with
special reference to aneuploid states. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 11: 36–42.
Polani P.E., Polani N. 1979. Dermatoglyphics in the testicular feminization syndrome. Annals of Human
Biology, 6: 417–430.
Primas M. 1975. Fingerabdrücke auf Keramik der Eisenzeit im Tessin. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 5: 129–131.
Schlaginhaufen O. 1905. Das Hautleistensystem der Primatenplanta unter Mitberücksichtigung der Palma.
Morphologisches Jahrbuch, 33, 577–671 and 34, 1–125 (Cited by Cummins et al. 1941).
Sládek V. 1994. Keramika a keramické zbytky z mladopaleolitického naleziště Pavlov I (Ceramics and
Ceramic Remains from Upper-Paleolithic Locality Pavlov I). Department of Anthropology, Faculty
of Science, Masaryk University Brno (Master Thesis).
30
Stücker M., Geil M., Kyeck S., Hoffman K., Röchling A., Memmel U., Altmeyer P. 2001. Interpapillary
Lines – The Variable Part of the Human Fingerprint. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46: 857–861.
Szilvássy J. 1983. Hautleistenbefunde aus der jungpaläolithischen Station Pavlov (Südmähren, ČSSR).
Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 113: 61–64.
Šefčáková A. 1998. Eneolitické antropologické a archeozoologické nálezy z Pezinka-Tehelne. Zborník
Slovenského národného múzea XCII (Archeológia), 8: 27–31.
Šikulová V. 1956. Předběžná zpráva o archeologickém nálezu v Napajedlích. Zprávy krajského muzea
v Gottwaldově, 19.
Valšík J.A. 1951. K interpretaci otisků papilárních linií z Dolních Věstonic. Zprávy anthropologické
společnosti, 4: 94–95.
Vlček E. 1951. Otisky papilárních linií mladodiluviálního člověka z Dolních Věstonic. Zprávy anthropologické společnosti, 4: 90–94.
Vlček E. 1952. Empreintes papillaires d’un homme paléolithique. L’Anthropologie, 56: 557–558.

ANALYSIS EPIDERMAL RIDGE BREADTH: AN INDICATOR OF

Transkript

Podobné dokumenty

Návod na pokládku šindele KATEPAL

URL - Institute of Geonics of the CAS

Pavel novotny 2011

Pavel novotny 2011