Stojanowski et al. 2013.2


7  

 

Geographic patterns of Early Holocene New World dental mor-
phological variation 
 

Christopher M. Stojanowski
1
, Kent M. Johnson

1
, William N. Duncan

2
 

 

1 Center for Bioarchaeological Research, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, 
Tempe, AZ 85287 
2 Department of Sociology and Anthropology, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN 37614-1702 

ABSTRACT      Dental anthropology played a 
seminal role in early studies of the peopling of the 
New World, and was a foundation of the early 
three wave model proposed by Greenberg, Turner 
and Zegura.  In recent years, however, develop-
ments in anthropological genetics, craniometry, 
and archaeological discoveries have largely omit-
ted dental anthropology from debates regarding 
Native American origins.  Here we consider this 
situation and reassert dental anthropology’s rele-
vance to the topic by presenting an inter-
individual analysis of Paleoindian and Paleoamer-
ican dentitions.  A small set of dental morphologi-
cal variables was used to estimate Gower similari-
ty coefficients between individual specimens. The 
resulting similarity matrix was ordinated using 

multidimensional scaling; all analyses were per-
formed in Clustan v. 7.05.  While results should be 
considered preliminary, patterns of variation sug-
gest morphological similarity along both coasts of 
North and South America with a somewhat dis-
tinct grouping of North American Paleoindians 
deriving from more inland portions of the conti-
nent. This pattern is consistent with recent genetic 
scenarios, notably the bicoastal model presented 
by O’Rourke and Raff (2010), which indicates that 
Paleoindians may have taken multiple migration 
routes from Beringia, moving along both coasts as 
well as through the ice free corridor.  Future stud-
ies may build on this work to reintegrate dental 
data and analysis into research concerning the 
peopling of the New World. 

Keywords: New World, Dental Morphology, Paleoindian, Paleoamerican  

 Dental morphology played a key role in the 
development of the tripartite model of New World 
population origins (Greenberg et al., 1985, 1986; 
Turner, 1971, 1983, 1984, 1985a, b, 1986). While this 
model still provides a viable explanation for the 
settlement of the Western Hemisphere (Estrada-
Mena et al., 2010; Reich et al., 2012), recent advanc-
es in anthropological genetic sampling protocols, 
amplification techniques, and analytical approach-
es have provided more nuanced understandings 
of New World population structure. These include 
models that propose a single origin from an Asian 
source population isolated in Beringia prior to col-
onization of the Americas (Estrada-Mena et al., 
2010; Fagundes et al., 2008; Kitchen et al., 2008; 
Mulligan et al., 2008; Schroeder et al., 2007, 2009; 
Tamm et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2007), dual origin 
models (Gilbert et al., 2008; Rasmussen et al., 
2010), and more complex scenarios involving one 
or more migrations from a heterogeneous source 
population – possibly via different migration 
routes – followed by bidirectional gene flow be-
tween Asia and the Americas that lasted several 
thousand years (González-José and Bortolini, 2011; 

Kumar et al., 2011; Mazières, 2011; O’Rourke and 
Raff, 2010; Perego et al., 2009, 2010; Ray et al., 
2010; Rubicz et al., 2010; Tamm et al., 2007). In ad-
dition, recent archaeological discoveries have 
largely supplanted the “Clovis First” model which 
dominated Paleoindian research for several dec-
ades (e.g., Adovasio and Pedler, 2004; Dillehay, 
1997; Goebel et al., 2008; Waters et al., 2011) and 
which coincided strongly with the predictions of 
the tripartite model. Discoveries of Early Holocene 
skeletal material from South America, combined 
with advances in phenotypic data analysis better 
grounded in evolutionary processes, have also 
generated new views on the peopling of the Amer-
icas (e.g., de Azevedo et al., 2011; Gonzalez et al., 
2010; González-José and Bortolini, 2011; González-

Correspondence to:   
Christopher M. Stojanowski 
900 S. Cady Mall 
School of Human Evolution and Social Change 
Arizona State University 
Tempe, AZ 85287 
cstojano@asu.edu 



8  

 

José et al., 2001, 2008; Mena L. et al., 2003; Neves et 
al., 2004, 2005; Perez et al., 2007, 2009; Pucciarelli 
et al., 2003, 2006, 2008, 2010).  
 Despite the historical importance of dental an-
thropology in the First Americans debate, recent 
synthetic surveys of the literature (e.g., Dillehay, 
2009; Fiedel, 2004; Goebel et al., 2008; González-
José and Bortolini, 2011; Mazières, 2011; O’Rourke, 
2011; O’Rourke and Raff, 2010; Pitblado, 2011) in-
dicate that dentition has lost its relevance in these 
discussions. In fact, the most recent literature re-
view fails to include a single citation for papers 
using dental morphology as a basis for inferring 
New World population history (Pitblado, 2011). 
There are many reasons why this may be. Howev-
er, one inescapable fact is that genetic, archaeolog-
ical, and craniometric specialists have adopted 
new research approaches and methods over the 
last decade, including more sophisticated types of 
data capture and analysis, which increase the 
specificity and nuance of their interpretations. This 
is evidenced by the incorporation of inferential 
analyses that access more complex evolutionary 
models in the analysis of phenotypic size and 
shape. Dental anthropology on the other hand has 
largely maintained a focus on population-based 
frequency analyses and, in particular, the sino-
dont/sundadont dichotomy (see Turner, 1990). 
 Our purpose here is not to engage existing de-
bates about the utility of the sinodont/sundadont 
model or the relationship between specific 
Paleoindian or Paleoamerican specimens and the 
morphological complex associated with sinodonty 
or sundadonty (e.g., Chatters, 2000; Haydenblit, 
1996; Lahr and Haydenblit, 1995; Powell, 1993, 
1995, 2005; Sutter, 1997, 2005; Turner, 2002). Here, 
we adopt a more paleontological focus that recog-
nizes the relative dearth of existing Early Holo-
cene material from North and South America and 
the singleton status of much of the North America 
Paleoindian record. Our primary goal in this paper 
is to move the field forward by demonstrating that 
fragmentary specimens and small data sets can be 
used to consider hypotheses about the temporal 
and spatial structure of New World phenotypic 
variation using a research approach distinct from 
frequency-based assessments. We make no claims 
that one approach is necessarily better than the 
other. We only demonstrate the potential of differ-
ent approaches for complementing one another 

and engaging new models of interpretation that 
add nuance to the literature.   
 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 

 Using existing morphological data, our purpose 
in this paper is to determine whether Early Holo-
cene (Paleoindian and Paleoamerican) inter-
individual dental morphological variation is geo-
graphically structured. That is, we consider 
whether inter-individual patterns of affinity repro-
duce geographic spatial structure, and if so, 
whether dental variation corresponds with recent 
hypothesized migration scenarios into the New 
World, such as the bi-coastal model proposed by 
O’Rourke and Raff (2010), which accommodates 
multiple, possibly contemporaneous migration 
routes from Beringia through the ice-free corridor 
and along both coasts. We mined published raw 
dental morphological data from confirmed 
Paleoindian and Paleoamerican dentitions (see 
Chatters, 2000; Jenks, 1937; Owsley et al., 2010; 
Potter et al., 2011; Powell and Rose, 1999; Turner, 
1992; Young, 1988) and verified the Early Holo-
cene age of these specimens (> 7500bp).  These 
data are summarized in Table 1.  Raw trait scores 
were used to generate inter-individual similarity 
statistics using Clustan v. 7.05 (Wishart, 2004). 
Gower coefficients were used because they allow 
for missing data (obviating data imputation) and 
mixed scale data types (ordinal and binary). Simi-
larities were ordinated and visualized using multi-
dimensional scaling in two dimensions set at 500 
runs and iterations. Variables were removed from 
the final analysis based on frequency of observa-
tion (variables that were too sparse were removed) 
and if the variable demonstrated insufficient trait 
score variability among individuals. Those varia-
bles that demonstrated no inter-individual varia-
tion or were autapomorphic were removed from 
the raw dataset prior to the calculation of similari-
ties. In addition, traits that were clearly redundant 
(for example, Carabelli’s scores for maxillary M1s 
and M2s) were reduced, where the trait that was 
kept was largely decided based upon data density 
rather than notions of key tooth representation. 
Individual Paleoindian or Paleoamerican denti-
tions were omitted if they preserved too few rec-
orded scores, although we note the rarity of North 
American specimens required more consideration 
of trait exclusion to maximize the coverage of the 
 



9  

 

 
T

A
B

L
E

 1
. 

E
a

rl
y
 s

k
e
le

ta
l 

re
m

a
in

s 
fr

o
m

 N
o

rt
h

 a
n

d
 S

o
u

th
 A

m
e
ri

c
a

a
 

S
a
m

p
le

/s
it

e
 

 
 

 
 

 
A

g
e
 (

1
4
C

 y
e
a
rs

 B
P

) 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

N
 

 

N
o

rt
h

 A
m

e
ri

c
a
n

 s
k

e
le

ta
l 

re
m

a
in

s 
in

c
lu

d
e
d

 i
n

 t
h

e
 p

re
se

n
t 

a
n

a
ly

si
s
 

W
a
rm

 M
in

e
ra

l 
S

p
ri

n
g
s,

 F
L

  
 

 
 

1
0

2
6

0
 +

/-
 1

9
0

  
 

 
 

  
 

 
1

 
 

A
rc

h
 L

a
k

e
, 

N
M

 
 

 
 

 
1

0
2

2
0

 +
/-

 5
0

; 
8

8
7

0
 +

/-
 4

0
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

1
 

 

H
o

rn
 S

h
e
lt

e
r,

 T
X

 
 

 
 

 
9

8
7

5
 +

/-
 1

1
0

 (
a
v

e
ra

g
e
) 

 
 

  
 

 
 

2
 

 

G
o

rd
o

n
 C

re
e
k

, 
C

O
 

 
 

 
 

9
4

5
5

 +
/-

 1
1

0
 (

a
v

e
ra

g
e
) 

 
 

  
 

 
 

1
 

 

T
e
h

u
a
c
á
n

 V
a
ll

e
y
 (

T
c
5

0
),

 M
e
x

ic
o
 

 
 

c
a
. 

8
5

0
0

-7
0

0
0

  
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

1
 

 

K
e
n

n
e
w

ic
k

, 
W

A
 

 
 

 
 

8
4

1
0

 +
/-

 6
0

 (
a
v

e
ra

g
e
) 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
1

 
 

P
e
li

c
a
n

 R
a
p

id
s,

 M
N

 
 

 
 

 
7

8
4

0
 +

/-
 7

0
  

 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

1
 

 

A
d

d
it

io
n

a
l 

N
o

rt
h

 A
m

e
ri

c
a
n

 s
k

e
le

ta
l 

re
m

a
in

s 
n

o
t 

in
c
lu

d
e
d

 i
n

 t
h

e
 p

re
s
e
n

t 
a
n

a
ly

s
is

 

U
p

w
a
rd

 S
u

n
 R

iv
e
r,

 A
K

 
 

 
 

~
1

1
5

0
0
 

 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

1
 

 

A
rl

in
g
to

n
 S

p
ri

n
g
s,

 C
A

 
 

1
0

9
6

0
 +

/-
 1

1
0

; 
1

0
0

8
0

 +
/-

 8
1

0
; 

1
0

0
0

0
 +

/-
 3

1
0

  
 

 
 

1
 

 
 

P
e
ñ

ó
n

 W
o

m
a
n

 I
II

, 
M

e
x

ic
o

 
 

 
 

1
0

7
5

5
 +

/-
7

5
 

 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

1
 

 

A
n

z
ic

k
, 

M
T

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
0

6
8

0
 +

/-
 5

0
 (

a
v

e
ra

g
e
) 

 
 

  
 

 
 

2
 

  

B
u

h
l,

 I
D

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
0

6
7

5
 +

/-
 9

5
 

 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

1
 

 

W
il

so
n

-L
e
o

n
a
rd

, 
T

X
 

 
 

 
 

1
0

5
0

0
-1

0
,0

0
0

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
1

 
 

C
h

im
a
lh

u
a
c
á
n

, 
M

e
x

ic
o

 
 

 
 

c
a
. 

1
0

5
0

0
 

 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

1
 

  

M
o

st
in

, 
C

A
 

 
 

 
 

1
0

4
7

0
 +

/-
4

9
0

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
1

 
 

T
la

p
a
c
o

y
a
 I

, 
M

e
x

ic
o

 
 

 
 

 
1

0
2

0
0

 +
/-

6
5

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
1

 
 

M
a
rm

e
s,

 W
A

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
0

1
3

0
 +

/-
 3

0
0

; 
9

8
4

0
 +

/-
3

0
0

; 
9

8
2

0
 +

/-
3

0
0

 
  

 
 

 
3

 

M
id

la
n

d
, 

T
X

 
 

 
 

 
 

c
a
. 

1
0

0
0

0
 

 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

1
 

  

W
h

it
e
 W

a
te

r 
D

ra
w

, 
A

Z
 

 
 

 
1

0
0

0
0

-8
0

0
0

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
1

 
 

J
.C

. 
P

u
tn

a
m

, 
T

X
 

 
 

 
 

-b
 

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
1

 
 

4
9

-P
E

T
-4

0
8

 (
O

n
 Y

o
u

r 
K

n
e
e
s 

C
a
v

e
),

 A
K

 
 

9
7

3
0

 +
/-

 4
0

 (
a
v

e
ra

g
e
) 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
1

 
 

G
ri

m
e
s 

P
o

in
t 

B
u

ri
a
l 

S
h

e
lt

e
r,

 N
V

 
 

 
9

4
7

0
 +

/-
6

0
 

 
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

1
 

S
p

ir
it

 C
a
v

e
, 

N
V

 
 

 
 

 
9

4
1

5
 +

/-
 2

5
 (

a
v

e
ra

g
e
) 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
1

 
 

W
iz

a
rd

’s
 B

e
a
c
h

, 
N

V
 

 
 

 
 

9
2

2
5

 +
/-

 6
0

 (
a
v

e
ra

g
e
) 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
1

 
 

 

B
ro

w
n

s 
V

a
ll

e
y
, 

M
N

 
 

 
 

 
9

0
4

9
-8

7
9

0
 +

/-
 1

1
0

/8
2

  
 

 
  

 
 

 
1

 
 

L
a
 B

re
a
, 

C
A

 
 

 
 

 
 

9
0

0
0

 +
/-

 8
0

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
1

 
  

M
e
tr

o
 B

a
ld

e
ra

s,
 M

e
x

ic
o

 
 

 
 

c
a
. 

9
0

0
0

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
1

 
 

C
u

e
v

a
 d

e
 T

e
c
o

lo
te

, 
M

e
x

ic
o

 
 

 
 

c
a
. 

9
0

0
0

-7
0

0
0

  
 

 
 

  
 

 
 

1
 

 

K
o

st
e
r 

(H
o

ri
z
o

n
 1

1
),

 I
L

 
 

 
 

c
a
. 

8
5

0
0

 
 

 
 

 
  

 
 

 
9

 

R
e
n

ie
r,

 W
I 

 
 

 
 

 
c
a
. 

8
5

0
0

-6
0

0
0

  
 

 
 

 
 

 
1

c
 



10  

 

T
A

B
L

E
 1

.,
 C

o
n

t’
d

 

F
is

h
b

o
n

e
 C

a
v

e
, 

N
V

 
 

 
 

 
8

3
7

0
 +

/-
 5

0
; 

8
2

2
0

 +
/-

 5
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
 

 
 

L
a
 J

o
ll

a
, 

C
A

 
 

 
 

 
 

8
3

5
0

 +
/-

9
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

2
 

G
o

re
 C

re
e
k

, 
B

C
 

 
 

 
 

8
2

5
0

 +
/-

 1
1

5
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
1

 
 

H
o

u
rg

la
ss

 C
a
v

e
, 

C
O

 
 

 
 

 
8

1
7

0
 +

/-
1

0
0

; 
7

9
4

4
 +

/-
8

4
; 

7
7

1
4

 +
/-

7
7

  
 

 
 

1
 

S
ti

c
k

 M
a
n

, 
W

A
 

 
 

 
 

8
1

2
5

 +
/-

5
0

 (
a
v

e
ra

g
e
) 

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
 

 

W
in

d
o

v
e
r,

 F
L

  
 

 
 

 
8

1
2

0
-6

9
9

0
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
1

6
8

 

L
’A

n
se

 A
m

o
u

r,
 L

a
b

ra
d

o
r 

 
 

 
7

5
3

0
 +

/-
1

4
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
 

T
e
x

c
a
l 

C
a
v

e
, 

M
e
x

ic
o

 
 

 
 

 
7

4
8

0
 +

/-
5

5
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
1

 
 

S
h

if
ti

n
g
 S

a
n

d
s,

 T
X

 
 

 
 

 
- 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
 

 

S
o

u
th

 A
m

e
ri

c
a
n

 s
k

e
le

ta
l 

re
m

a
in

s 
in

c
lu

d
e
d

 i
n

 t
h

e
 p

re
se

n
t 

a
n

a
ly

si
s 

C
e
rc

a
 G

ra
n

d
e
 6

 a
n

d
 7

, 
L

a
g
o

a
 S

a
n

ta
, 

B
ra

z
il

 
 

c
a
. 

1
1

0
0

0
-8

0
0

0
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

4
4

 
 

C
u

c
h

ip
u

y
, 

C
h

il
e
 

 
 

 
 

8
0

7
0

-6
1

0
5

; 
c
a
. 

8
0

0
0

-6
0

0
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

3
 

 

A
d

d
it

io
n

a
l 

S
o

u
th

 A
m

e
ri

c
a
n

 s
k

e
le

ta
l 

re
m

a
in

s 
n

o
t 

in
c
lu

d
e
d

 i
n

 t
h

e
 p

re
se

n
t 

a
n

a
ly

si
s
 

L
a
p

a
 V

e
rm

e
lh

a
 I

V
 (

L
u

z
ia

),
 B

ra
z
il

 
 

 
1

1
6

8
0

 +
/-

5
0

0
 –

 1
0

2
0

0
 +

/-
2

2
0

; 
9

3
3

0
 +

/-
6

0
 (

m
in

im
u

m
 a

g
e
) 

 
1

 

P
a
m

p
a
 d

e
 F

o
si

le
s 

1
3

, 
P

e
ru

 
 

 
 

1
0

2
5

0
 +

/-
1

8
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

2
 

 

S
u

e
v

a
 1

, 
C

o
lo

m
b

ia
 

 
 

 
 

1
0

0
9

0
 +

/-
9

0
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
1

 
 

Q
u

iq
c
h

e
 C

a
v

e
 T

o
m

b
 1

, 
P

e
ru

 
 

 
 

9
9

4
0

 +
/-

2
0

0
d
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
1

 

T
o

c
a
 d

o
s 

C
o

q
u

e
ir

o
s,

 B
ra

z
il

 
 

 
 

9
8

7
0

 +
/-

5
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
 

 

T
e
q

u
e
n

d
a
m

a
, 

C
o

lo
m

b
ia

 
 

 
 

9
7

4
0

 +
/-

1
3

5
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
9

 
 

T
o

c
a
 d

a
 J

a
n

e
la

 d
a
 B

a
rr

a
 d

o
 A

n
to

n
ia

o
, 

B
ra

z
il

  
9

6
7

0
 +

/-
1

4
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
 

S
a
n

ta
n

a
 d

o
 R

ia
c
h

o
 B

u
ri

a
l 

X
II

, 
B

ra
z
il

  
 

9
4

6
0

 +
/-

1
1

0
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
1

 
  

G
u

a
v

io
 1

, 
C

o
lo

m
b

ia
 

 
 

 
 

9
3

6
0

 +
/-

4
5

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
 

 

P
iu

q
u

e
n

e
s 

C
a
v

e
, 

C
h

il
e
 

 
 

 
8

9
9

0
 +

/-
4

0
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
3

 

A
c
h

a
-2

 a
n

d
 A

c
h

a
-3

, 
C

h
il

e
 

 
 

 
8

9
7

0
 +

/-
2

5
5

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

5
 

 

B
a
ñ

o
 N

u
e
v

o
-1

 C
a
v

e
, 

C
h

il
e
 

 
 

 
8

8
9

0
 +

/-
9

0
; 

8
8

8
0

 +
/-

5
0

; 
8

8
5

0
 +

/-
5

0
 

 
 

 
 

5
 

 

C
a
p

e
li

n
h

a
 B

u
ri

a
l 

II
 (

L
u

z
io

),
 B

ra
z
il

 
 

 
8

8
6

0
 +

/-
6

0
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
1

 
 

S
a
n

to
 D

o
m

in
g
o

 T
o

m
b

 1
, 

P
e
ru

 
 

 
8

8
3

0
 +

/-
1

9
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
 

P
a
li

 A
ik

e
, 

C
h

il
e
 

 
 

 
 

c
a
. 

8
8

0
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

4
 

  

S
a
n

ta
n

a
 d

o
 R

ia
c
h

o
, 

B
ra

z
il

 
 

 
 

8
2

8
0

 +
/-

4
0

; 
8

1
8

5
 +

/-
1

1
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

4
0

 
 

L
a
s 

V
e
g
a
s,

 E
c
u

a
d

o
r 

 
 

 
 

8
2

5
0

-6
6

0
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
9

2
 

 

H
u

e
n

te
la

u
q

u
é
n

-2
, 

C
h

il
e
 

 
 

 
8

0
8

0
 +

/-
7

0
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
1

 

In
ti

h
a
u

si
, 

A
rg

e
n

ti
n

a
 

 
 

 
 

8
0

6
0

 +
/-

1
0

0
; 

7
9

7
0

 +
/-

1
0

0
 

 
 

 
 

 
6

 
 



11  

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Fig. 1. Map of North and South American show-
ing the location of Paleoindian and Paleoamerican 
specimens used in this analysis: 1. Arch Lake; 2. 
Gordon Creek; 3. Horn Shelter No. 2; 4. 
Kennewick; 5. Pelican Rapids; 6. Tehuacán (Tc50-
2); 7. Warm Mineral Springs; 8. Cuchipuy; 9. La-
goa Santa. 

Fig. 2. Multidimensional scaling of Gower similar-
ity coefficients calculated from eight dental mor-
phological traits for confirmed North American 
Paleoindians. Icons represent geographic divi-
sions: circle = western North America 
(Kennewick), square = central North America, 
diamond = eastern North America (Warm Mineral 
Springs). 

T
re

s 
V

e
n
ta

n
a
s 

T
o
m

b
 1

, 
P

e
ru

 
 

 
 

8
0
3
0
 +

/-
1
3
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
 

S
u
m

id
o
u
ro

 C
a
v
e
, 

L
a
g
o

a
 S

a
n
ta

, 
B

ra
z
il

 
 

>
8
0
0
0

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
2
9
 

 

M
o
n
te

 H
e
rm

o
so

 1
-2

, 
A

rg
e
n
ti

n
a
 

 
 

7
8
6
6
 +

/-
7
5

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
 

 
 

A
rr

o
y
o
 S

e
c
o
, 
A

rg
e
n
ti

n
a
 

 
 

 
7
8
0
5
 +

/-
8
5
 –

 7
5
8
0
 +

/-
5
0

 
 

 
 

5
 

C
h
e
c
u
a
, 
C

o
lo

m
b
ia

 
 

 
 

 
7
8
0
0
 +

/-
6
0
 –

 6
8
0
0
 +

/-
4
0

 
 

 
 

4
 

 

S
a
n
to

 D
o
m

in
g
o
 T

o
m

b
 2

, 
P

e
ru

 
 

 
7
7
4
0
 +

/-
8
5

 
 

 
 

 
 

1
 

 

a
 R

e
fe

re
n
c
e
s 

fo
r 

e
a
rl

y
 A

m
e
ri

c
a
n
 s

k
e
le

ta
l 

re
m

a
in

s 
a
re

 l
is

te
d
 i

n
 S

to
ja

n
o
w

sk
i 

e
t 

a
l.

 (
2
0
1
3
).

 

b
 A

ss
o
c
ia

te
d
 w

it
h
 s

tr
a
tu

m
 t

h
o
u
g
h
t 

to
 d

a
te

 t
o
 t

h
e
 L

a
te

 P
le

is
to

c
e
n
e
 (

Y
o
u
n

g
 1

9
8
8
).

 

c
 T

h
e
 s

m
a
ll

 q
u
a
n
ti

ty
 o

f 
c
a
lc

in
e
d
 b

o
n
e
 f

ra
g
m

e
n
ts

 i
s 

su
g
g
e
st

iv
e
 o

f 
a
 s

in
g
le

 i
n
d
iv

id
u
a
l 

(M
a
so

n
 a

n
d
 I

rw
in

 1
9
6
0
).

 

d
 D

a
te

 i
s 

fr
o
m

 t
h
e
 l

e
v

e
l 

u
n
d
e
rl

y
in

g
 t

h
e
 s

k
e
le

ta
l 

re
m

a
in

s.
 

T
A

B
L

E
 1

.,
 c

o
n

t’
d

 



12  

 

terning. For example, the four central North 
American samples (non-coastal) form a weak 
cluster in the upper right quadrant while both 
coastal samples plot in the negative half of both 
axes. This could be consistent with a single pop-
ulation bifurcating and migrating quickly down 
the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of North America 
with a distinct population colonizing the middle 
of the continent.   
 Inclusion of South American Paleoamerican 
dentitions required using only six maxillary 
traits (UI1 shoveling, UM1 hypocone, UM1 Car-
abelli, UM1 enamel extension, UP1 root number, 
and UM2 root number). The sample included 
the same Paleoindian specimens as above (with 
the exception of Kennewick which had to be 
excluded), a single individual from Mexico 
(Tehuacán Tc50-2), two individuals from west-
ern South America (Cuchipuy), and seven indi-
viduals from eastern South America (Lagoa San-
ta). Results are presented in Figure 3. Although 
the clustering tendency was more abstract there 
does appear to be some geographic patterning 
evident in this figure. For example, the denti-
tions from western South America, eastern 
South America, Mexico, and eastern North 
America dominate the positive half of the di-
mension two axis, while dentitions from non-
coastal North American Paleoindians dominate 
the negative half of the dimension two axis. An-
other way to consider this is that coastal samples 
from both North and South America cluster in 
the positive half of the dimension two axis while 
interior samples (all from North America) plot 
in the negative half of the dimension two axis.  
Remarkably, the overall pattern of variation 
does not change with the addition of South 
American data. These analyses, therefore, may 
reflect a possible bi-coastal migration of Early 
Holocene populations along both the Pacific and 
Atlantic coasts of North and South America with 
a somewhat distinct population inhabiting the 
interior of North America (perhaps involving 
the ice-free corridor), consistent with O’Rourke 
and Raff’s (2010) model. 
 

CONCLUSION 
 
 Recent advances in archaeology, anthropologi-
cal genetics, and human craniometry have en-
hanced our understanding of New World popu-
lation origins and migration dynamics within 

Fig. 3.  Multidimensional scaling of Gower similarity 
coefficients calculated from six maxillary dental 
morphological traits for confirmed North and South 
American Paleoindians and Paleoamericans. Icons 
represent geographic divisions: circle = Mexico, dia-
mond = eastern North America, square = central 
North America, upward triangle = eastern South 
America, downward triangle = western South 
America. 

continent so that assessments of geographic structure 
were possible.  
 

RESULTS 
 
Because the majority of South American dentitions 
lacked paired maxillae and mandibles we first con-
sider patterns of inter-individual variation among 
North American Paleoindian specimens. Despite the 
number of possible Paleoindian specimens (see Table 
1) we were only able to include data from six individ-
uals: Pelican Rapids, Gordon Creek, Warm Mineral 
Springs, Arch Lake, Horn Shelter 2, and Kennewick. 
These six dentitions range from Washington to Flori-
da with most samples deriving from the middle of 
the continent (Figure 1). Based on data preservation, 
we included eight dental morphological traits in the 
calculation of Gower similarity coefficients (UI1 
shoveling, UM1 hypocone, UM1 Carabelli, UM1 
enamel extension, UP1 root number, UM2 root num-
ber, LM2 cusp number, and LM2 root number). Re-
sults of the multidimensional scaling are presented in 
Figure 2. There is some evidence for geographic pat- 



13  

 

the Western Hemisphere. For a variety of reasons, 
dentition has figured less prominently in recent 
First American debates to the point that the most 
recent literature review of this expansive literature 
ignores dentition entirely (Pitblado, 2011). This is 
unfortunate. Here we have tried to demonstrate 
that a specimen-specific approach to Paleoindian 
and Paleoamerican dental morphology may have 
some merit. In particular, using a small series of 
dentitions and morphological traits our results 
suggest a similar dental phenotype among coastal 
populations of the Early Holocene New World 
with a somewhat distinct morphology among cen-
tral, non-coastal North American dentitions. Here, 
we have emphasized population structure and 
evolution as the primary explanatory mechanism; 
however, differential selection pressures related to 
distinct coastal/inland diets should also be consid-
ered. In closing, we want to stress how prelimi-
nary these results are. As indicated in Table 1 
there is now an abundance of Paleoindian and 
Early Archaic period sites and specimens in the 
Americas and our analyses utilize only a small 
number of traits for a small number of individuals. 
Nevertheless, we hope our results show enough 
promise to justify a more comprehensive survey of 
dental morphology in these specimens, including 
the use of recent developments in three-
dimensional data capture and incorporation of 
evolutionary developmental principles in the as-
sessment of evolutionary signatures of human 
dentition.  
 

LITERATURE CITED 
 

Adovasio JM, Pedler DR. 2004. Pre-Clovis sites 
 and their implications for human occupation 
 before the last glacial maximum. In: Madsen DB, 
 editor. Entering America: Northeast Asia and 
 Beringia before the Last Glacial Maximum. Salt 
 Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press. p. 
 139-158.  
Chatters JC. 2000. The recovery and the first 
 analysis of an early Holocene human skeleton 
 from Kennewick, Washington. Am Antiq 65: 
 291-316. 
de Azevedo S, Nocera A, Paschetta C, Castillo L, 
 González M, González -José R. 2011. 
 Evaluating microevolutionary models for the 
 early settlement of the New World: the 
 importance of recurrent gene flow with Asia. 
 Am J Phys Anthropol 146:539-552. 

Dillehay TD. 1997. Monte Verde: A Late Pleisto-
 cene Settlement in Chile, vol. 2: The Archaeolo-
 gical Context and Interpretation. Washington, 
 D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.  
Dillehay TD. 2009. Probing deeper into first 
 American studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 
 971-978. 
Estrada-Mena B, Estrada FJ, Ulloa-Arvizu R, et 
 al. 2010. Blood group O alleles in Native 
 Americans: implications in the peopling of the 
 Americas. Am J Phys Anthropol 142:85-94. 
Fagundes NJR, Kanitz R, Eckert R, et al. 2008. 
 Mitochondrial population genomics supports a 
 single pre-Clovis origin with a coastal route for 
 the peopling of the Americas. Am J Hum Gen 
 82:583-592. 
Fiedel SJ. 2004. The Kennewick follies: “new” 
 theories about the peopling of the Americas. J 
 Anthropol Res 60:75-110. 
Gilbert MTP, Kivisild T, Grønnow B, et al. 2008. 
 Paleo-Eskimo mtDNA genome reveals matrilin-
 eal discontinuity in Greenland. Science 320:1787
 -1789. 
Goebel T, Waters MR, O’Rourke DH. 2008. 
 The Late Pleistocene dispersal of modern hu-
 mans in the Americas. Science 319:1497-1502. 
Gonzalez PN, Perez SI, Bernal V. 2010. Ontog-
 eny of robusticity of craniofacial traits in modern 
 humans: a study of South American popula-
 tions. Am J Phys Anthropol 142:367–379. 
González-José R, Bortolini MC. 2011. Integra-
 ting different biological evidence around some 
 microevolutionary processes: bottlenecks and 
 Asian-American arctic gene flow in the New 
 World settlement. Evolution: Education and 
 Outreach 4:232–243. 
González-José R, Bortolini MC, Santos FR, 
 Bonatto SL. 2008. The peopling of America: 
 craniofacial shape variation on a continental 
 scale and its interpretation from an interdiscipli-
 nary view. Am J Phys Anthropol 137:175–187. 
González-José R, Dahinten S, Hernández M. 
 2001. The settlement of Patagonia: a matrix cor-
 relation study. Hum Biol 73:233-248. 
Greenberg JH, Turner  CG II,  Zegura SL. 
 1985. Convergence of evidence for the peopling 
 of the Americas. Collegium Antropologicum, 9: 
 33-42. 
Greenberg JH, Turner CG II, Zegura SL.  1986. The 
 settlement of the Americas: a comparison
 son of the linguistic, dental, and genetic evi-
 dence. Curr Anthropol 27:477-497. 



14  

 

Haydenblit R. 1996. Dental variation among four 
 prehispanic Mexican populations. Am J Phys 
 Anthropol 100:225-246. 
Jenks AE. 1937. Minnesota’s Browns Valley Man 
 and Associated Burial Artifacts. Memoirs of the 
 American Anthropological Association, No. 49. 
 Menasha, WI, American Anthropological Asso-
 ciation. 
Kitchen A, Miyamoto MM, Mulligan CJ. 2008. A 
 three-stage colonization model for the peo-
 pling of the Americas. PLoS One 3:e1596. 
Kumar S, Bellis C, Zlojutro M, et al. 2011. Large 
 scale mitochondrial sequencing in Mexican 
 Americans suggests a reappraisal of Native 
 American origins. BMC Evol Biol 11:293. 
Lahr MM, Haydenblit R. 1995. Traces of  a ncestra l 
 morphology in Tierra del Fuego and Patagonia. 
 Am J Phys Anthropol  38: 128. 
Mason R, Irwin C. 1960. An Eden-Scottsbluff buri-
 al in Northeastern Wisconsin. Am Antiq 26:43-
 57. 
Mazières S. 2011. Towards a reconciling model 
 about the initial peopling of America. Comptes 
 Rendus Biologies 334:497-504. 
Mena LF, Reyes O, Stafford TW Jr., Southon J. 
 2003. Early human remains from Baño 
 Nuevo-1 cave, central Patagonian Andes, Chile. 
 Quat Intl 109-110: 113-121. 
Mulligan CJ, Kitchen A, Miyamoto MM. 2008. 
 Updated three-stage model for the peo-
 pling of the Americas. PLoS One 3:e3199. 
Neves WA, González-José R, Hubbe M, et al. 
 2004. Early Holocene human skeletal remains 
 from Cerca Grande, Lagoa Santa, Central Brazil, 
 and the origins of the First Americans. World 
 Archaeol, 36:479-501. 
Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, et al. 
 2005. A new early Holocene human skeleton 
 from Brazil: implications for the settlement of 
 the New World. J Hum Evol 48:403-414. 
O’Rourke DH. 2011. Contradictions and concor-
 dances in American colonization models. Evolu-
 tion: Education and Outreach 4:244-253. 
O’Rourke DH, Raff JA. 2010. The human ge-
 netic history of the Americas: the final frontier. 
 Curr Biol 20:R202-R207. 
Owsley DW, Jodry MA, Stafford TW Jr., Haynes 
Jr. CV, Stanford DJ. 2010. Arch Lake Woman: 
 Physical Anthropology and Geoarchaeology. 
 College Station, Texas A&M University Press. 
Perego UA, Achilli A, Angerhofer N, et al. 2009. 

 Distinctive Paleo-Indian migration routes from 
 Beringia marked by two rare mtDNA hap-
 logroups. Curr Biology 19:1-8. 
Perego U.A., Angerhofer N, Pala M, et al. 2010. 
 The initial peopling of the Americas: a growing 
 number of founding mitochondrial genomes 
 from Beringia. Genome Res 20:1174-1179. 
Perez SI, Bernal V, Gonzalez PN. 2007. Morpho-
 logical differentiation of Aboriginal human 

 populations from Tierra del Fuego (Patagonia): 
 implications for South American peopling. 
 Am J Phys Anthropol 133:1067–1079. 
Perez SI, Bernal V, Gonzalez PN, Sardi ML, Politis 
GG. 2009. Discrepancy between cranial and DNA 
 data of early Americans: implications  for Amer-
 ican peopling. PLoS ONE 4:1-11. 
Pitblado BL. 2011. A tale of two migrations: rec-
 onciling recent biological and archaeological 
 evidence for the Pleistocene peopling of the 
 Americas. J Archaeol Res 19:327-375. 
Potter BA, Irish JD,  Reuther JD, Gelvin- Reymiller 
C, Holliday VT. 2011. A terminal Pleistocene child 
 cremation and residential structure from eastern 
 Beringia. Science 331:1058-1062. 
Powell JF. 1993. Dental evidence for the peopling 
 of the New World: some methodological consid-
 erations. Hum Biol 65: 799-819. 
Powell JF. 1995. Dental Variation and Biological A- 
 ffinity Among Middle Holocene Human Popula-
 tions in North America. Ph.D. dissertation, De-
 partment of Anthropology, Texas A&M Univ-
 ersity.  
Powell JF. 2005. The First Americans: Race, Evol-
 ution, and the Origin of Native Americans. Ca-
 mbridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Powell JF, Rose JC. 1999. Report on the Oste-
 ological Assessment of the “Kennewick Man” 
 Skeleton (CENWW.97.Kennewick)”. US Depar-
 tment of the Interior Report. Available at http://
 nps.aad.kennewick.org/kennewick. 
Pucciarelli HM, Sardia ML, Jimenez López JC,  
Serrano Sanchez C. 2003. Early peopling and 
 evolutionary diversification in America. Quat- 
 ernary Intl 109-110:123–132. 
Pucciarelli HM, Neves WA, González-José R, Sar-
dia ML, Ramirez Rozzie F, Struck A, Bonilla MY. 
2006. East–West cranial differentiation in pre-
 Columbian human populations of South Ameri-
 ca. Homo 57:133-150. 
Pucciarelli HM, González-José R, Neves WA, Sar-
dia ML, Ramirez Rozzie F. 2008. East-West cranial 



15  

 

 differentiation in pre-Columbian populations 
 from Central and North America. J Hum Evol 
 54:296-308. 
Pucciarelli HM, Perez SI, Politis GG. 2010. 
 Early Holocene human remains from the Argen-
 tinean Pampas: additional evidence for distinc-
 tive cranial morphology of early South Ameri-
 cans. Am J Phys Anthropol 143:298–305. 
Rasmussen M, Li Y, Lindgreen S, et al. 2010. 
 Ancient human genome sequence of an extinct 
 Palaeo-Eskimo. Nature 463:757-762. 
Ray N, Wegman D, Fagundes NJR, et al. 2010.  A 
 statistical evaluation of models for the initial 
 settlement of the American continent empha-
 sizes the importance of gene flow with Asia. Mo-
 lec Biol and Evol 27:337-345. 
Reich D, Patterson N, Campbell D, et al. 2012. 
 Reconstructing Native American population 
 history. Nature 488:370-374. 
Rubicz R, Melton PE, Spitsyn V, Sun G, Deka R, 
 Crawford MH. 2010. Genetic structure of 
 native circumpolar populations based on 
 autosomal, mitochondrial, and Y chromosome 
 DNA markers. Am Phys Anthropol 143:62-74. 
Schroeder KB, Jakobsson M, Crawford MH, et 
 al. 2009. Haplotypic background of a private 
 allele at high frequency in the Americas. 
 Molec Biol and Evol 26:995-1016. 
Schroeder, KB, Schurr TG, Long JC, et al. 2007.  A 
 private allele ubiquitous in the Americas. 
 Biol Letters 3:218-223. 
Stojanowski CM, Johnson KM, Duncan WN. 2013. 
 Beyond sinodonty: hemispheric, regional, and 
 intracemetery approaches to studying dental 
 morphological variation in the New World.  In: 
 Scott GR, Irish JD, editors. Anthropological Per-
 spectives on Tooth Morphology: Genetics, Evo-
 lution, Variation. New York: Cambridge Univer-
 sity Press. p 408-453.  
Sutter RC. 1997. Dental Variation and Biocultural 
 Affinities Among Prehistoric Populations from 
 the Coastal Valleys of Moquegua, Peru, and Az-
 apa, Chile. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of 
 Anthropology, University of Missouri, Colum-
 bia. 
Sutter RC. 2005. The prehistoric peopling of 
 South America as inferred from epigenetic den-
 tal traits. Andean Past 7:183-217. 
Tamm E, Kivisild T, Reidla M, et al. 2007. 
 Beringian standstill and spread of Native 
 American founders. PLoS ONE 9:1-6. 

Turner CG II. 1971. Three-rooted mandibular 
 first permanent molars and the question of 
 American Indian origins. Am J Phys Anthropol 
 34:229-241. 
Turner CG II. 1983. Dental evidence for the peo-
 pling of the Americas. In: Shutler Jr. R, editor. 
 Early Man in the New World. Beverly Hills: 
 Sage Publications. p 147-157.  
Turner CG II. 1984. Advances in the dental 
 search for Native American origins. Acta Anth-
 ropogenetica, 8: 23-78.  
Turner CG II. 1985a. Dental evidence for the 
 peopling of the Americas. Nat Geog Soc 
 Res Rep 19: 573-596.  
Turner CG II. 1985b. The dental search for Native 

American origins. In: Kirk R, Szathmary E, edi-
tors. Out of Asia: Peopling the Americas and the 
Pacific. Canberra: Australia National University. 
p 31-78.  

Turner CG II. 1986. The first Americans: the dental 
evidence. Nat Geog Res 2:37-46. 

Turner CG II. 1990. Major features of Sundadonty
 and Sinodonty, including suggestions about East 
 Asian microevolution, population history, and 
 Late Pleistocene relationships with Australian 
 Aboriginals. Am J Phys Anthropol 82:295-317.  
Turner CG II. 1992. New World origins: new 
 research from the Americas and the Soviet Uni-
 on. In: Stanford D, Day J, editors. Ice Age Hun-
 ters of the Rockies. Niwot, CO: University 
 Press of Colorado. p 7-50.  
Turner CG II. 2002. Teeth, needles, dogs, and 
 Siberia: bioarchaeological evidence for the colo-
 nization of the New World. In: Jablonski N, edi-
 tor. The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colon-
 ization of the New World. San Francisco: 
 California Academy of Sciences. p 123-158.  
Wang S, Lewis CM Jr., Jakobsson M, et al. 2007. 
 Genetic variation and population structure in 
 Native Americans. PLoS Genetics 3:2049-2067. 
Waters MR, Forman SL, Jennings TA, et al. 2011. 
 The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the  origins 
 of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin site, Texas. 
 Science 311:1599-1603. 
Wishart D. 2004. Clustan Graphics Primer. Mid-
 dlesex: Allstar Services. 
Young DE. 1988. The double burial at Horn Shel-
 ter: an osteological analysis. Central Texas 
 Archaeologist 11:13-115.