Observer error, dental wear, and the inference of new world sundadonty.

Dental morphology provides important information on human evolution and interpopulation relationships. Dental wear is one of the major limitations of morphological data analysis. Wear figures heavily in existing debates about patterns of New World dental variation with some scholars finding evidence for a more generalized dentition in early New World populations (Powell: Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University, TX (1995)) and others questioning these findings based on the probable effects of dental wear on trait scores (Turner, The First Americans: the Pleistocene Colonization of the New World. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences (2002) 123-158; Turner: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 (2006) 455-461; Turner and Scott, Handbook of paleoanthropology, Vol. III: Phylogeny of Hominids. New York: Springer (2007) 1901-1941). Here we evaluate these competing claims using data from the Early Archaic Windover sample. Results confirm the dental distinctiveness of Windover with respect to other Old World Asian (i.e., sinodont/sundadont) populations. However, comparison of our results to those of Powell (1995) also highlights significant interobserver error. Statistical analysis of matched wear and morphology scores suggests trait downgrading for some traits. Patterns of missing data present a more challenging (and potentially serious) problem. Use of Little's MCAR test for missing data mechanisms indicates a complex process of data collection in which incidental and opportunistic recording of both highly worn and unerupted teeth introduce a "missing not at random" mechanism into our dataset that biases dental trait frequencies. We conclude that patterns of missingness and formal research designs for "planned missingness" are needed to help mitigate this bias.

Tracking down human contamination in ancient human teeth.

DNA contamination arising from the manipulation of ancient calcified tissue samples is a poorly understood, yet fundamental, problem that affects the reliability of ancient DNA (aDNA) studies. We have typed the mitochondrial DNA hypervariable region I of the only 6 people involved in the excavation, washing, and subsequent anthropological and genetic study of 23 Neolithic remains excavated from Granollers (Barcelona, Spain) and searched for their presence among the 572 clones generated during the aDNA analyses of teeth from these samples. Of the cloned sequences, 17.13% could be unambiguously identified as contaminants, with those derived from the people involved in the retrieval and washing of the remains present in higher frequencies than those of the anthropologist and genetic researchers. This finding confirms, for the first time, previous hypotheses that teeth samples are most susceptible to contamination at their initial excavation. More worrying, the cloned contaminant sequences exhibit substitutions that can be attributed to DNA damage after the contamination event, and we demonstrate that the level of such damage increases with time: contaminants that are >10 years old have approximately 5 times more damage than those that are recent. Furthermore, we demonstrate that in this data set, the damage rate of the old contaminant sequences is indistinguishable from that of the endogenous DNA sequences. As such, the commonly used argument that miscoding lesions observed among cloned aDNA sequences can be used to support data authenticity is misleading in scenarios where the presence of old contaminant sequences is possible. We argue therefore that the typing of those involved in the manipulation of the ancient human specimens is critical in order to ensure that generated results are accurate.

Error rates in buccal-dental microwear quantification using scanning electron microscopy.

Dental microwear, usually analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) techniques, is a good indicator of the abrasive potential of past human population diets. Scanning electron microscopy secondary electrons provide excellent images of dental enamel relief for characterizing striation density, average length, and orientation. However, methodological standardization is required for interobserver comparisons since semiautomatic counting procedures are still used for micrograph characterization. The analysis of normally distributed variables allows the characterization of small interpopulation differences. However, the interobserver error rates associated with SEM experience and the degree of expertise in measuring striations are critical to population dietary interpretation. The interobserver comparisons made here clearly indicate that the precision of SEM buccal microwear measurements depends heavily on variable definition and the researcher's expertise. Moreover, error rates are not the only concern for dental microwear research. Low error rates do not guarantee that all researchers are measuring the same magnitudes of the variables considered. The results obtained show that researchers tend to maintain high intrapopulation homogeneity and low measurement error rates, whereas significant interobserver differences appear. Such differences are due to a differential interpretation of SEM microwear features and variable definitions that require detailed and precise agreement among researchers. The substitution of semiautomatic with fully automated procedures will completely avoid interobserver error rate differences.

Error rates in dental microwear quantification using scanning electron microscopy.

There is a degree of correlation between dietary habits and dental microwear in extant primates, and this has enabled inferences to be made about prehistoric diets. Several techniques have been used to quantify microwear, but the comparability of results derived from each has not been demonstrated. Moreover, neither intra- nor interobserver error rates in microwear quantification have been documented to date. We here assess intra- and interobserver error using Microware 4.0, and evaluate intertechnique comparability using the three methods that have been most widely employed in the field. This study documents an overall intraobserver error rate of about 7%, and an overall interobserver error rate of some 9%. Both intra- and interobserver error appears to be influenced substantially by the nature of the micrograph being measured. In no instance did the results obtained by different observers using Microware 4.0 differ significantly, and there was a reasonable degree of interobserver consistency in the rank ordering of micrographs in relation to any given parameter. The results obtained through the use of different quantitative techniques differed significantly, with an overall intertechnique error rate of approximately 19%. Several variables, including differences in magnification factor, scanning electron microscope kV settings, and specimen-detector relationships undoubtedly contribute to the differences among the three methods, but we were not able to assess their relative importance. Microwear quantification permits distinctions between broad dietary categories, but the margin of intra- and interobserver error should be taken into account when defining pattern differences between populations (or species) or when documenting seasonally mitigated differences within a taxon. In view of the error introduced by the use of different methods, we suggest that a consistent technique, such as offered by the Microware software package, be adopted by current researchers to establish a common microwear database.