TALUS

Welcome to Talus. Methods used by forensic anthropologists and bioarchaeologists to develop a biological profile from adult human skeletal remains are compiled here. Select an aspect to get started.

Many bioprofiling methods are population-specific. Assessing ancestry first allows greater confidence of sex, age, and stature. Metric and nonmetric methods are reviewed.


Sex is usually estimated nonmetrically (morphologically) using the skull and os coxae; metric methods can use a variety of elements.


Degenerative changes begin in early adulthood and contribute to age estimation. Cranial sutures, sternal rib ends, pubic symphyses, and auricular surface methods are reviewed.


Living stature can be calculated using long bones or all skeletal elements contributing to stature.


TALUS

Aspect

Header

TALUS

Acsádi G, and Nemeskéri J. 1970. History of human life span and mortality. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Find this book on WorldCat.

Auerbach BM, and Ruff CB. 2010. Stature estimation formulae for indigenous North American populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141:190-207. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Brooks S, and Suchey J. 1990. Skeletal age determination based on the os pubis: A comparison of the Acsadi-Nemeskeri and Suchey-Brooks methods. Human Evolution 5:227-238. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Buckberry J, and Chamberlain A. 2002. Age estimation from the auricular surface of the ilium: a revised method. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 119:231-239. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH, Aftandilian D, and Haas J. 1994. Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains: proceedings of a seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History, organized by Jonathan Haas. Fayetteville Ark.: Arkansas Archeological Survey. Find this book on WorldCat.

Del Angel A, and Cisneros HB. 2004. Technical note: Modification of regression equations used to estimate stature in Mesoamerican skeletal remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125:264–265. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

DiBennardo R, and Taylor JV. 1979. Sex assessment of the femur: A test of a new method. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 50:635-637. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Dudar JC. 1993. Identification of rib number and assessment of intercostal variation at the sternal rib end. Journal of forensic sciences 38:788-788. Access PubMed e-copy of this article.

Dwight T. 1894. Methods of estimating the height from parts of the skeleton. Med Rec N Y 46:293–296.

Fully MG. 1955. Une nouvelle method de determination de la taille. Ann. Med. Legale 35:266–273.

Galloway A. 1988. Estimating actual height in the older individual. J. Forensic Sci. 33:126-136. Access PubMed e-copy of this article.

Garvin HM, and Passalacqua NV. 2012. Current Practices by Forensic Anthropologists in Adult Skeletal Age Estimation. Journal of Forensic Sciences 57:427–433. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Genoves S. 1967. Proportionality of the long bones and their relation to stature among Mesoamericans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 26:67-77. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Giles E, and Elliot O. 1962. Race Identification from Cranial Measurements. Journal of Forensic Sciences 7:147-156.

Gill GW. 1998. Craniofacial criteria in the skeletal attribution of race. In: Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains. 2nd ed. Springfield Ill. U.S.A.: Charles C. Thomas. p 321-332. Find this book on WorldCat.

Hefner JT. 2009. Cranial Nonmetric Variation and Estimating Ancestry. Journal of Forensic Sciences 54:985-995. Find an e-copy of this article.

Goodman AH, and Armelagos GJ. 1996.The resurrection of race: the concept of race in Physical Anthropology in the 1990s. In: Race and other misadventures: essays in honor of Ashley Montagu in his nintieth year. pp. 174-185. Find this book on WorldCat.

Iscan MY, Loth SR, and Wright RK. 1984. Metamorphosis at the sternal rib end: A new method to estimate age at death in white males. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 65:147-156. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Iscan MY, Loth SR, Wright RK, et al. 1985. Age estimation from the rib by phase analysis: white females. Journal of Forensic Sciences 30:853. Access PubMed e-copy of this article.

Jantz RL, Hunt DR, and Meadows L. 1994. Maximum length of the tibia: How did Trotter measure it? American Journal of Physical Anthropology 93:525-528. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Jantz RL. 1992. Modification of the Trotter and Gleser female stature estimation formulae. J. Forensic Sci. 37:1230-1235. Access PubMed e-copy of this article.

Katz D, and Suchey JM. 1986. Age determination of the male os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 69:427–435. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Kelley MA. 1979. Sex Determination with Fragmentary Remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences 24:154–158.

Lovejoy CO, Meindl RS, Pryzbeck TR, and Mensforth RP. 1985. Chronological metamorphosis of the auricular surface of the ilium: a new method for the determination of adult skeletal age at death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68:15-28. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Lovell NC. 1989. Test of Phenice's technique for determining sex from the os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 79:117-120. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Lundy JK. 1985. The mathematical versus anatomical methods of stature estimate from long bones. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 6:73. Access PubMed e-copy of this article.

Lundy JK. 1988. A report on the use of Fully's anatomical method to estimate stature in military skeletal remains. J. Forensic Sci. 33:534-539. Access PubMed e-copy of this article.

MacLaughlin SM, and Bruce MF. 1990. The accuracy of sex identification in European skeletal remains using the phenice characters. J. Forensic Sci. 35:1384-1392. Access PubMed e-copy of this article.

Mann RW, Symes SA, and Bass W. 1987. Maxillary suture obliteration: aging the human skeleton based on intact or fragmentary maxilla. Journal of Forensic Sciences 32:148-157. Access PubMed e-copy of this article.

Manouvrier L. 1892. La détermination de la taille d’après les grands os des membres. Société d’anthropologie de Paris.

McKern T, and Stewart TD. 1957. The Innominate Bone. In: Skeletal age changes in young American males: analysed from the standpoint of age identification. Natick Mass.: Headquarters Quartermaster Research & Development Command. p 53-88. Find this book on WorldCat.

Meindl RS, and Lovejoy CO. 1985. Ectocranial suture closure: A revised method for the determination of skeletal age at death based on the lateral-anterior sutures. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68:57-66. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Meindl RS, and Lovejoy CO. 1989. Age changes in the pelvis: implications for paleodemography. In: Işcan MY, editor. Age markers in the human skeleton. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas. p 137–168. Find this book on WorldCat.

Nawrocki SP. 1998. Regression formulae for estimating age at death from cranial suture closure. In: Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains. 2nd ed. Springfield Ill. U.S.A.: Charles C. Thomas. p 276-292. Find this book on WorldCat.

Osborne DL, Simmons TL, and Nawrocki SP. 2004. Reconsidering the auricular surface as an indicator of age at death. Journal of Forensic Sciences 49:1–7. Access PubMed e-copy of this article.

Phenice TW. 1969. A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 30:297-301. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Raxter MH, Auerbach BM, and Ruff CB. 2006. Revision of the Fully technique for estimating statures. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 130:374-384. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Raxter MH, Ruff CB, and Auerbach BM. 2007. Technical note: revised fully stature estimation technique. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 133:817–818. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Rhine S. 1990. Non-metric Skull Racing. In: Gill GW, Rhine S, editors. Skeletal attribution of race. Anthropological Papers No. 4. Albuquerque, NM: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology. p 9-20. Find this book on WorldCat.

Rogers T, and Saunders S. 1994. Accuracy of sex determination using morphological traits of the human pelvis. J. Forensic Sci. 39:1047-1056. Access PubMed e-copy of this article.

Rogers TL. 2005. Determining the sex of human remains through cranial morphology. J. Forensic Sci. 50:493-500. Access PubMed e-copy of this article.

Rollet E. 1889. De la mensuration des os longs des membres dans ses rapports avec l’anthropologie, la clinique et la médecine judiciaire. Lyon: A. Storck.

Ross AH, and Konigsberg LW. 2002. New formulae for estimating stature in the Balkans. J. Forensic Sci. 47:165-167. Access PubMed e-copy of this article.

Sciulli PW, and Giesen MJ. 1993. An update on stature estimation in prehistoric native Americans of Ohio. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 92:395–399. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Sciulli PW, Schneider KN, and Mahaney MC. 1990. Stature estimation in prehistoric Native Americans of Ohio. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 83:275–280. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Siegel ND, and Passalacqua NV. 2012. A Test of the Mann Maxillary Suture Aging Method. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences:355–365.

Stewart T. 1979. Essentials of forensic anthropology, especially as developed in the United States. Springfield Ill.: Thomas. p 85–127. Find this book on WorldCat.

Todd TW. 1920. Age changes in the pubic bone. I. The male white pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 3:285–334. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Todd TW. 1921. Age changes in the pubic bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 4:1–70. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Trotter M, and Gleser GC. 1952. Estimation of stature from long bones of American Whites and Negroes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 10:463–514. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Trotter M, and Gleser GC. 1958. A re-evaluation of estimation of stature based on measurements of stature taken during life and of long bones after death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 16:79-123. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

Trotter M. 1970. Estimation of Stature from Intact Long Bones. In: Personal identification in mass disasters. Washington: National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution. p 71-82. Find this book on WorldCat.

Walker PL. 2005. Greater sciatic notch morphology: sex, age, and population differences. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 127:385–391. Find Wiley-Blackwell e-copy of this article.

White TD, and Folkens PA. 2005. The human bone manual. Boston: Elsevier Academic. Find this book on WorldCat.

TALUS

Talus is under development by Emily Niespodziewanski, a graduate student in the Michigan State University Department of Anthropology and is supported by the Michigan State University MATRIX Cultural Heritage Informatics Graduate Fellowship



Follow @SenseOfHumerus on Twitter
Email: niespod1@msu.edu
Mailing address: Baker 354, MSU Campus, East Lansing, MI 48824

TALUS

Talus is a mobile application that aids in the determination of the biological profile (bioprofile) from human skeletal remains. Forensic anthropologists, bioarchaeologists, and paleoanthropologists use methods such as those reviewed in Talus to assess sex, age, stature, and ancestry.

The most trusted methods are found in scholarly journals and books. Buikstra and Ubelaker’s Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains (1994), the acknowledged comprehensive guide in the field, is almost 20 years old and only available in analog. Talus compiles osteological literature in one application.

Talus is under development by Emily Niespodziewanski, a graduate student in the Michigan State University Department of Anthropology, and is supported by the Michigan State University MATRIX Cultural Heritage Informatics Graduate Fellowship.



Created using JQuery Mobile, Codiqa, and Phonegap Build.

Credit for homepage banner to Flickr user Chris_Dodds.

TALUS

This section provides reference materials for estimation of ancestry while recognizing that human variation is a spectrum with no discrete groups. In order to comply with NAGPRA regulations, it is imperative to identify Native American ancestry when working in North America.

TALUS

Biological sex of adults (male or female) may be determined by nonmetric assessment using features of the skull or os coxae (innominates/hip bones). Metric methods based on sexual dimorphism are available using many skeletal elements.

TALUS

Estimation of age-at-death from the skeleton is based on cumulative degenerative changes that begin when development is complete. Accurate age estimates include a range of two standard deviations around the mean (or 95% confidence interval). The methods are non-metric.

TALUS

Stature is estimated in two ways, originally defined by Dwight (1894). These alternate methods were further described and compared by Lundy (1985).

The anatomical (Fully) method sums the bony contributions to stature and adds a correction factor for soft tissue. It is more accurate than mathematical methods because it accounts for variation in body proportions. Only appropriate for nearly complete remains.

Mathematical models use statistically derived regression equations which predict stature based on one or more long bone measurements. They are population-specific and less accurate than the Fully method due to variation in limb proportions. Regression equations can be applied to incomplete remains.

TALUS

Ancestry

Craniometrics

For modern analysis of ancestry from cranial measurements, please refer to the FORDISC program (opens in new window), created and maintained by the Forensic Anthropology Center at the University of Tennessee Knoxville.

For historical reference, a journal article on discriminant function analysis is summarized here.

Giles & Elliot 1962

Discriminant function analysis applied to: American black, American white, and American Indian groups.

“The Negroes in this series are designated ‘Negro’ by cultural standards, not genetic ones. It seems reasonable to assume that any person showing any phenotypic evidence of Negroid admixture [in the morgue, where 'race' was recorded on the death certificate] was considered a ‘Negro’… our Negro sample has an indefinite white American and possibly Indian component” (148).

Cranial measurements

  • glabello-occipital length (g-op)
  • maximum width (eu-eu)
  • basion-bregma height (ba-b)
  • maximum diameter bi-zygomatic (zy-zy)
  • prosthion-nasion height (pr-n)
  • basion-nasion (ba-n)
  • basion-prosthion (ba-pr)
  • nasal breadth (al-al)

Plug each measurement into the equation and use the sectioning point to determine which group the specimen falls into.

The authors recommend metric determination of sex first.

Sex function

1.16(g-op) + 1.66(ba-n) + 3.98(zy-zy) – 1.00(ba-pr) + 1.54(pr-n) =

Sectioning point (82.9% accuracy):
Female < 891.12 < Male

(Giles 1962:153)

Ancestry functions

White/Negro male

3.06(ba-pr) + 1.60(g-op) – 1.90(eu-eu) – 1.79(ba-b) – 4.41(ba-n) – 0.10(zy-zy) + 2.59(pr-n) + 10.56(al-al) =

Sectioning point: White < 89.27 < Negro

White/Indian male

0.10(ba-pr) – 0.25(g-op) – 1.56(eu-eu) + 0.73(ba-b) – 0.29 (ba-n) + 1.75(zy-zy) – 0.16(pr-n) - 0.84(al-al) =

Sectioning point: White < 22.28 < Indian

White/Negro female

1.74(ba-pr) + 1.28(g-op) – 1.18(eu-eu) -0.14(ba-b) – 2.34 (ba-n) + 0.38(zy-zy) – 0.01(pr-n) + 2.45(al-al) =

Sectioning point: White < 9.22 < Negro

White/Indian female: 

3.05(ba-pr) – 1.04(g-op) – 5.41(eu-eu) + 4.29(ba-b) – 4.02(ba-n) + 5.62(zy-zy) – 1.00(pr-n) - 2.19(al-al) =

Sectioning point: White < 13.01 < Indian

(Giles 1962:151-152)

TALUS

Ancestry

Cranial nonmetrics

Nonmetric assessment of ancestry relies on morphological traits common to an ancestral region. Only cranial and dental traits are reviewed here. Nonmetric analysis is useful if there is no metric reference sample for the population in question.

Overlap is common for each trait between groups, but many are more common in certain groups. “As in the nonmetric assessment of age and sex of a skeleton, careful training and much experience can produce results which are replicable” (Rhine 1990:17).

Morphoscopic: Rhine 1990

At a meeting of the Mountain, Desert, and Coastal forensic anthropologists, the group noted that “...each of us used a somewhat different set of traits, many extracted from the older literature” (9). This study is intended to standardize visual analysis of ancestry in American Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics.

Morphoscopic: Gill 1998

Gill provides a list of cranial characteristics common to his identified ancestral groups. The nose and midface are the most useful areas for macroscopic determination of ancestry.

Review: Hefner 2009

Hefner quantitatively assesses the validity of specific nonmetric traits to comply with Daubert standards.

Traits tested:

  • anterior nasal spine
  • inferior nasal spine
  • interorbital breadth
  • malar tubercle
  • nasal aperture width
  • nasal bone contour
  • nasal overgrowth
  • postbregmetic depression
  • supranasal suture
  • transverse palatine suture
  • zygomaticomaxillary suture

No individual exhibited all 11 of the expected traits for his or her ancestral group. The “ideal” list is never 100% correct. Analysis of “mixed” ancestry is impractical - individuals always appear to have mixed ancestry because none contains all expected characteristics for their group.

TALUS

American Caucasoid

From Figure 1, Rhine 1990:10.

TALUS

Southwestern Mongoloid

From Figure 2, Rhine 1990:11.

TALUS

American Black

From Figure 3, Rhine 1990:12.

TALUS

Rhine 1990 Trait Definitions

Canine fossa

Depression in the maxilla at the root of the canine.

Dentition features

Carabelli's cusps

Accessory cusps located lingually, particularly on the first molars (see also paper by Hinkes).

Buccal pits

Small pits in the buccal surfaces of the lower molars about halfway up the crown.

Enamel extensions

Projection of the enamel downwards on the lower molars and upwards on the upper molars into the neck of the tooth between the roots.

Incisor rotation

A tendency for a slight medial rotation of the upper central incisors so that the lateral margins extend anteriorly beyond an alignment with the dental arcade.

Molar crenulations

A complex wrinkling of the molar crowns.

Shoveling of incisors

“Pronounced,” “slight,” or “none.” May also be shoveled labially as well as lingually (see also paper by Hinkes).

Dental arcade shape

Scored as “parabolic” (narrower and tapering), “elliptic” (wider and smoothly curving), or “hyperbolic” (approaching rectangular).

External auditory meatus features

External auditory meatus

Described as “round” or a vertically-oriented “elliptic.”

Inferior collar

A “ruff” of bone at the inferior rim of the external auditory meatus. It is not to be confused with exostoses, which project into the meatal opening.

Oval window visible

Either “visible” or “not visible” through the external auditory meatus (see paper by Napoli and Birkby).

Mandible features

Mandibular torus

Is a torus on the inside of the body of the mandible. Seen as a small “lump,” either unilateral or bilateral.

Ascending ramus

Either “pinched” (narrowed at about the midpoint), or “wide” (with a fairly uniform width.

Ascending ramus profile

“Vertical,” with the posterior border near 90 degrees, or “slanted,” with the angle greater than 90 degrees.

Gonial angle

“Inverted,” with the gonions slanting in slightly toward the midline, “straight,” with the gonion in line with the ramus, or “everted,” where the gonions flare outward (see also paper by Angel and Kelley).

Lower border of mandible

May be “straight,” “rocker” (rounded on the bottom), or “undulating,” a deviation of the border upwards from a plane surface in the vicinity of the anterior border of the ascending ramus. Best seen by placing the mandible on a flat surface. With undulation, the body of the mandible thins greatly at about M2.

Profile of chin

With the skull in the Frankfort plane and mandible articulated, the chin is either “vertical” or “prominent.”

Shape of the chin

Is “bilobate” (with a central sulcus), “blunt” (smoothly rounded), or “pointed,” as viewed from above.

Nasal aperture features

Nasal depression

The deepest point of curvature of the nasal bones just inferior to nasion is deeply depressed, slightly depressed, or straight.

Nasal form

Whether the nasal bones as viewed from a somewhat inferior position are high and steeply angled (steeple), wider and slightly concave (tented), or low and smoothly rounded (Quonset hut).

Nasal opening

The opening is triangular, flared widely in the base, or flared centrall, and at the base as well.

Nasal overgrowth

Projection of the ends of the nasal bones slightly beyond the maxillae.

Nasal sill

Where vertical maxillae create a sharp ridge separating the nasal cavity from the maxillae. If this ridge is high, it is scored as “deep,” if shallow, it is scored as “shallow,” and if a sharp ridge is lacking, it is “blurred.” A smooth curve leading from the maxillae into the nasal aperture without interruption is “guttered.”

Nasal spine

Large or small, depending upon the amount of projection.

Orbital Shape (obliquity of orbit)

Tendency towards a “rounded,” “rectangular,” or “sloping” orbit, the latter being a lateral inclination of the orbit.

Palatine suture

Is “straight,” or “bulging” if the central portion sweeps forward at the point of its intersection with the intermaxillary suture.

Palatine torus

A central ridge or ridges on the palate.

Prognathism

Scored “large,” “medium,” or “none,” depending upon the amount of alveolar prognathism.

Venous markings (frontal grooves)

Lineal depressions seen slightly superior to the temporal lines on the frontal, commonly centered between the orbits and coronal suture.

Vault shape features

Base angle

Is “high” or “low.” It is the angle formed by the basion-opisthion plane compared to a plane projected posteriorly from the palate.

Base chord

Scored “short,” “medium” or “long” based on the distance from basion to opisthocranion compared to the distance from basion to prosthion.

Inion hook

An inferior projection of the external occipital protuberance.

Longus capitis depression

Small usually bilateral depressions for insertion of the m. longus capitis. Lateral to the pharyngeal tubercle on the inferior and anterior area of the basalar potion of the occipital.

Keeling (gabling)

The tendency for the parietals to slope upwards toward the apex of the skull, rather than to form a smooth, uniform curve from the squamosal suture, over the apex to the opposite side.

Post-bregmatic depression

A thumb-sized depression immediately posterior to bregma centered on the sagittal suture

Vault suture features

Inca bone

Defined by a suture running from asterion to asterion dividing the squamous portion of the occipital approximately in half. Sutures cutting off smaller portions of the occipital are not scored as Inca bones.

Major sutures

Scored as “simple,” “medium” or “complex” on the basis of the sutures tracing a path deviating from a hypothetical straight line.

Metopic Trace (partial metopism)

An incomplete persistence of the metopic suture in the area immediately superior to nasion.

Os japonicum

Defined by a horizontal suture running from the zygomaticotemporal suture anteriorly to the zygomaxillary suture isolating an inferior section of the zygomatic (malar) bone.

Other ossicles

Bone islands at asterion, bregma, etc.

Wormian bones

Clearly defined small bone islands formed by the complexities of sutural coursing, particularly in the lambdoid and sagittal sutures.

Zygomatic features

Zygomatic hook

aka Inferior Projection of the Zygomatic. The tendency for the maxillary and zygomatic to form an inferior projection at the zygomaticomaxillary suture.

Zygomatic posterior tubercle

aka marginal process. Projection posteriorly of the zygomatic at approximately the mid orbit as viewed in norma lateralis.

Zygomatic projection

In norma lateralis, a line is dropped from the middle of the upper margin of the orbit to the middle of the lower margin; produces an angle of more than 90 degrees with the Frankfort plane is is “projecting,” 90 degrees is “vertical” and less than 90 degrees is “retreating.”

Zygomaticomaxillary suture

Either “curved” (a general “S” shape), or “angled” from orbit to cheek.

TALUS

Ancestry

Craniofacial Trait Variations Common to Each Geographic Race
From Table 1, Gill 1998:300.
Characteristics East Asian American Indian White Polynesian Black
Cranial form broad medium-broad medium highly variable long
Sagittal outline high, globular medium-low; sloping frontal high, rounded medium highly variable; post-bregmatic depression
Cranial sutures complex complex simple complex simple
Nose form medium medium narrow medium broad
Nasal bone size small medium/large large medium medium/small
Nasal bridge form flat medium/tented high/steeple-like medium low/quonset hut
Nasal profile concave concavo-convex straight concave/concavo-convex straight/concave
Interorbital projection very low low high, prominent low low
Nasal spine medium medium, tilted prominent, straight highly variable reduced
Nasal sill medium medium sharp dull/absent dull/absent
Incisor form shovelled shovelled blade blade/shovelled blade
Facial prognathism moderate moderate reduced moderate extreme
Alveolar prognathism moderate moderate reduced moderate extreme
Malar form projecting projecting reduced projecting reduced
Zygomaticomaxillary suture angled angled curved curved/angled curved/angled
Palatal form parabolic/elliptic elliptic/parabolic parabolic parabolic hyperbolic/parabolic
Palatine suture straight/jagged straight jagged highly variable arched/jagged
Orbital form round rhomboid rhomboid rhomboid round
Mastoid form wide wide narrow, pointed wide oblique, posterior tubercle
Mandible robust robust medium, cupped below incisors robust; rocker form gracile; oblique gonial angle
Chin projection moderate moderate prominent moderate reduced
Chin form median median bilateral median median

TALUS

Sex

Nonmetric: Skull

Acsadi & Nemeskeri 1970

This article was originally published by Ascadi and Nemeskeri (1970) and is included in the section on sex estimation in Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994).


Sexual dimorphism in the skull is variable by population. Below, five characteristics are demonstrated, all ranked on a 1 (most feminine) to 5 (most masculine) scale. Score each trait independently, ignoring other features.

Nuchal crest

View the lateral profile. Note surface rugosity attendant to nuchal musculature attachments on the occipital, ignoring underlying curvat ure of the bone. In the case of minimal expression, the external surface of the occipital is smooth with no bony projections visible when the lateral profile is viewed. Maximal expression defines a massive nuchal crest that projects a considerable distance from the bone.



"In the case of minimal expression (score = '1'), the external surface of the occipital is smooth with no bony projections visible when the lateral profile is viewed."


Female


Probable female


Ambiguous


Probable male


Male

"Maximal expression (score = '5') defines a massive nuchal crest that projects a considerable distance from the bone and forms a well-defined bony ledge or 'hook'."

Text from Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:19. Figures from Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

Mastoid process

Compare size of the mastoid process with surrounding structures like the external auditory meatus (EAM) and the zygomatic process of the temporal bone. The most important variable to consider is the volume of the mastoid process, not its length. Minimal expression is a very small mastoid process that projects only a small distance below the inferior margins of the EAM and the digastric groove. A massive mastoid process is one with lengths and widths several times that of the EAM.


"Minimal expression ('1') is a very small mastoid process that projects only a small distance below the inferior margins of the external auditory meatus and the digastric groove."



Female


Probable female


Ambiguous


Probable male


Male

A massive mastoid process with lengths and widths several times that of the external auditory meatus should be scored as '5.'"

Text from Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:19. Figures from Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

Supraorbital margin

Hold the edge of the orbit at the lateral aspect of the supraorbital foramen between your fingers to determine its thickness. In minimal expression, the border should feel extremely sharp, like the edge of a slightly dulled knife. A thick, rounded margin with a curvature approximating a pencil is extreme masculine expression.


"In an example of minimal expression ('1'), the border should feel extremely sharp, like the edge of a slightly dulled knife."


Female


Probable female


Ambiguous


Probable male


Male

"A thick, rounded margin with a curvature approximating a pencil should be scored as '5.'"

Text from Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20. Figures from Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

Glabella

In a minimal prominence of the glabella, the contour of the frontal is smooth, with little or no projection at the midline. Maximal expression involves a massive glabellar prominence, forming a rounded, loaf-shaped projection that is frequently associated with well-developed supraorbital ridges.


"In a minimal prominence of glabella/supraorbital ridges ('1') the contour of the frontal is smooth, with little or no projection at the midline."



Female


Probable female


Ambiguous


Probable male


Male

Maximal expression involves a massive glabellar prominence, forming a rounded, loaf-shaped projection that is frequently associated with well-developed supraorbital ridges."

Text from Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20. Figures from Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

Mental eminence

In examples of minimal expression, there is little or no projection of the mental eminence above the surrounding bone. Maximal expression is a massive mental eminence that occupies most of the anterior portion of the mandible.


"In examples of minimal expression ('1'), there is little or no projection of the mentla eminence above the surrounding bone."


Female


Probable female


Ambiguous


Probable male


Male

"A massive mental eminence that occupies most of the anterior portion of the mandible is scored as '5.'"

Text from Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20. Figures from Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

Results

Assign an individual to one of the following categories based on your observations.

0 = undetermined sex. Insufficient data are available for sex determination.

1 = female. There is little doubt that the structures represent a female.

2 = probable female. The structures are more likely female than male.

3 = ambiguous. Sexually diagnostic features are ambiguous.

4 = probable male. The structures are more likely male than female.

5 = male. There is little doubt that the structures represent a male.

Review: Rogers 2005

Rogers (2005) compiles 17 previously described cranial traits used for determination of sex and identifying the precision and accuracy levels of each.

“In general, the features of the face performed better than those of the calvarium” (6). The features which contributed most to an accurate assessment of sex were facial features such as zygomatic extension and zygomatic size/rugosity. Nasal aperture, orbits, frontal eminences and parietal eminences are not recommended as diagnostic traits.

TALUS

Sex

Nonmetric: Os coxae

The os coxae (innominates or coxal bones) are the clearest indicators of sex  in adults. Phenice identifies 3 traits of the anterior pubis that accurately determine sex. Buikstra & Ubelaker (1994) devised a scoring system for these three traits:

  • Blank = unobservable,
  • 1 = female,
  • 2 = ambiguous, and 
  • 3 = male.

Other nonmetric characteristics for assessing sex are the sciatic notch and the preauricular sulcus. Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994) devised a scoring system for these as well.

Phenice 1969

The three Phenice traits are originally described as only present or absent. They are all located on the anterior pubis. Published accuracy rate is 96%.

Ventral arc

Present in females. It is a ridge of bone on the anterior aspect of the pubis and the curve “cuts off” the infero-medial corner of the bone. If male bones exhibit a ridge, it does not have the same curve, angling instead infero-medially to conform with the edge of the bone.

A) Ventral arc on ventral surface of the female pubis. B) Slight ridge on ventral aspect of male pubis. From Figure 1, Phenice 1969:299.

Subpubic concavity

Present in females when viewed from an anterior aspect. The inferior border of the ischiopubic ramus is concave when this trait is present, as opposed to the straight or convex morphology seen in males.

C) Subpubic concavity seen from dorsal aspect of female pubis and ischio-pubic ramus. D) Dorsal aspect of male pubis and ischio-pubic ramus. From Figure 1, Phenice 1969:299.

Ischiopubic ramus

Thin in females when viewed from the medial aspect; noticeably thicker in males.

E) Ridge on medial aspect of female ischio-pubic ramus. F) Broad medial surface of male ischio-pubic ramus. From Figure 1, Phenice 1969:299.

Review: Lovell 1989

Lovell found that more experience did not greatly increase the accuracy of an observer. No significant difference was found between the three Phenice traits in terms of their relative importance to sex determination.

“An accuracy in determining sex of ~83% was obtained in this study, compared to 95% reported by Phenice. The technique was found to be reliable by replication of results, and its accuracy not affected by the observer’s previous experience in osteological analysis” (119).

Review: MacLaughlin & Bruce 1990

MacLaughlin and Bruce found a significant improvement in with increased experience among observers- up to 13% in one group.

Each of Phenice’s three traits was scored on a 1=female, 2=ambiguous, 3=male scale (1386). A stricter categorization of sex was in part responsible for the lower accuracy reported by MacLaughlin and Bruce.

Greater sciatic notch

The greater sciatic notch is scored with 1 representing the typical female morphology and 5 typically male with 2, 3, and 4 representing degrees of width in between.  Walker (2005:387) provides empirical probabilities of being male or female for a given sciatic notch score.


Location of the greater sciatic notch on the os coxae. From Figure 2, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:18.


Female.


Probable female.


Ambiguous.


Probable male.


Male.

From Figure 2, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:18.

Preauricular sulcus

The preauricular sulcus appears more commonly in females (Milner 1992, Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994). The first image shows where to find the preauricular sulcus on the ilium. Following are descriptions and figures describing each of the 5 scoring options (0-4).

Location of the preauricular sulcus anterior to the auricular surface on the ilium.

0 = (not illustrated) Absence of preauricular sulcus. "The surface of the ilium along the inferior edge of the auricular surface and continuing into the greater sciatic notch is generally smooth. In some specimens, this surface may be roughened slightly where ligaments attach during life" (Text and Figure 3, Buikstra and Ubelaker 19945:18).



1 = wide (>0.5cm) and deep. "The walls of the sulcus are transected by bony ridges that make the sulcus appear as if it is composed of a series of lobes. The preauricular sulcus typically extends along the enitre length of the inferior auricular surface, often undercutting it."


2 = wide (>0.5cm) and shallow. The base of the groove is slightly irregular, but bony ridges, if present, are not as marked as in Variant 1. The sulcus usually extends along the entire length of the inferior auricular surface."


3 = well-defined but narrow, <0.5cm deep. Its walls are either undulating or smooth. The sulcus extends along the entire length of the inferior auricular surface. A sharp, narrow bony ridge is typically present on the inferior edge of the preauricular sulcus, and it frequently extends along the entire inferior edge of the groove."


4 = narrow (<0.5cm), shallow, smooth-walled. "It lies below only the posterior part of the auricular surface. A sharp, bony ridge may be found on the inferior edge of the sulcus; if present, it does not extend the entire length of the sulcus."

Figures from Figure 3 and text - Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:19.

TALUS

Sex

Metric: Skull

For modern analysis of sex from cranial measurements, please refer to the  FORDISC program  (external link), created and maintained by the Forensic Anthropology Center at the University of Tennessee Knoxville.

TALUS

Sex

Metric: Femur

The femur is a postcranial element that is commonly referred to as a reliable predictor of sex. Two studies below provide ranges for each sex from femoral measurements. These should be used on the same population as the reference sample, however (white Americans).

Stewart 1979

Maximum femoral head diameter (120).

  • Female < 42.5 mm
  • Probably female = 42.5-43.5 mm
  • Indeterminate sex = 43.5-46.5 mm
  • Probably male = 46.5-47.5 mm
  • Male > 47.5mm

DiBennardo & Taylor 1979

Femur midshaft circumference (best single variable, accuracy = 82%, 635):

  • Males ≥ 86 mm
  • Females ≤ 85 mm

Maximum femoral length (from femoral head to medial condyle, 635):

  • Males ≥ 436 mm
  • Females ≤ 435 mm

TALUS

Sex

Metric: Os coxae

Kelley 1979

The relationship between the width of the greater sciatic notch and the diameter of the acetabulum is used below to estimate sex.

Apply to: all sexes and ancestries

Observation site

The greater sciatic notch (left) is measured from the base of the ischial spine (A) to the pyramidal process (B). The dashed line through the ischial spine indicates where it commonly breaks off. The vertical distance between the inferior (C) and superior (D) margins of the acetabulum (right) is measured as shown. Sliding calipers are used for both measurements.

From Figure 1, Kelley 1979:155.

Results

Index: greater sciatic notch width (mm) x 100 / vertical diameter of the acetabulum (mm)

  • Females > 88
  • Males < 86

Reported accuracy: about 90%

TALUS

Sex

Metric: Humerus

Stewart 1979

Vertical humeral head diameter (100-102).

  • Female < 43mm
  • Probably female = 43-45mm
  • Probably male = 45-47mm
  • Male > 47mm

TALUS

Age

Cranial sutures

Fusion of cranial sutures is highly variable. However, the skull is often the only element recovered. The studies below provide age estimates for different combinations of sutures. Sex and ancestry-specific equations are provided.

Vault: Meindl & Lovejoy 1985

“Sex and race contribute no measurable bias to age prediction using either system” (64).

Scoring system

0 = Open, no evidence of ecto-cranial closure at the site, 0% synostosis;

1 = Minimal Closure, some closure has occurred, 1-50% synostosis;

2 = Significant Closure, a marked degree of closure, 51-99% synostosis; and

3 = Complete Obliteration, the site is completely fused, 100% synostosis.

(Meindl and Lovejoy 1985:58).

Observation sites

The lateral-anterior system is a better predictor of age; use sites 6-10.

The vault system is more likely to be preserved archaeologically; use sites 1-7.

Ten observation sites (regions) at which suture closure is read. From Figure 1, Meindl and Lovejoy 1985:60.

Results

Add together the scores for either the cranial or lateral-anterior suites of traits. The below charts show the age estimate for that score.

Determination of age based on ectocranial lateral-anterior suture closure
From Table 6, Meindl and Lovejoy 1985:63
Total score n= Mean S.D. 90% range Range
0 (Open) 42 --- --- -43 -50
1 18 32.0 8.3 21-42 19-48
2 18 36.2 4.8 29-44 25-49
3, 4, 5 56 41.1 8.3 28-52 23-68
6 17 43.4 8.5 30-54 23-63
7, 8 31 45.5 7.4 35-57 32-65
9, 10 29 51.9 10.2 39-69 33-76
11, 12, 13, 14 24 56.2 6.3 49-65 34-68
15 (Closed) 1 --- --- --- ---
Determination of age based on ectocranial vault sutures
From Table 7, Meindl and Lovejoy 1985:63
Total score n= Mean S.D. 90% range Range
0 (Open) 24 --- --- -35 -49
1, 2 12 30.5 9.6 19-44 18-45
3, 4, 5, 6 30 34.7 7.8 23-45 22-48
7, 8, 9, 10, 11 50 39.4 9.1 28-44 24-60
12, 13, 14, 15 50 45.2 12.6 31-65 24-75
16, 17, 18 31 48.8 10.5 35-60 30-71
19, 20 26 51.5 12.6 34-63 23-76
21 (Closed) 13 --- --- 43- 40-

Maxilla: Mann et al 1987

Mann et al. describes the average age of fusion for the maxillary sutures.

Siegel and Passalacqua (2012) tested the Mann method on the Hamann-Todd collection and found that the range of variation in suture closure timing was too great to recommend its use in forensic contexts, but a broad separation of young and old adults is possible.

Scoring system

0 = 0% obliteration;

1 = 1-25% obliteration;

2 = 26-50% obliteration;

3 = 51-75% obliteration; and

4 = 76-100% obliteration.

From Table 2, Mann et al. 1987:151.

Observation sites

Observation sites: Incisive (I, 11), anterior median palatine (AMP, 12), transverse palatine (TP, 14) and posterior median palatine (PMP, 13).

“The maxilla is divided into [left and right] halves; the half exhibiting the least obliteration is used” (149).

Location of sites to be used to record palatal suture closure. From Figure 11b, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:33 (after Mann et al 1987).

Results

  • “Earliest age of complete obliteration of the incisive suture occurs at 25 years;
  • below 25 years of age there is no obliteration of the PMP suture;
  • below 43 years of age there is no obliteration of any segment of either the AMP or TP sutures; and
  • At 60+ years of age at least 2 of the 4 maxillary sutures are completely obliterated” (Mann et al. 1987:152).

Vault & Maxilla: Nawrocki 1995

The simplified equation (equation 2) defined uses only the three sutural areas most predictive of age: pterion left, interior bregma, and transverse palatine.

Mean error is least if the sex or ancestry of the individual is known.

Observation sites

Ectocranial

  • ASQ anterior sagittal
  • BRQ bregma
  • CLQ midcoronal left
  • CRQ midcoronal right
  • OLQ inferior sphenotemporal left
  • IRQ inferior sphenotemporal right
  • LAQ lambda
  • LLQ midlambdoid left
  • LRQ midlamboid right
  • OBQ obelion
  • PLQ pterion left
  • PRQ pterion right
  • SLQ sphenofrontal left
  • SRQ sphenofrontal right
  • TLQ superior sphenotemporal left
  • TRQ superior sphenotemporal right

Location of sites to be used to record endocranial suture closure. From Figure 11c, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:33.

Endocranial

  • BRZ bregma
  • CLZ midcoronal left
  • CRZ midcoronal right
  • LAZ lambda
  • LLZ midlambdoid left
  • LRZ midlambdoid right
  • SAZ midsagittal

From Figure 11c, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:33.

Palatine

  • AMP anterior median palatine
  • ICP incisive
  • PMP posterior median palatine
  • TRP transverse palatine

Location of sites to be used to record palatal suture closure. From Figure 11b, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:33 (after Mann et al 1987).

Results

Equations for Predicting Age from Cranial Suture Closure
From Table 3, Nawrocki 1995:280.
Sample n = Age = Adj. r^2 Inaccuracy Bias se
Equation 1 Summed sutures, all groups 100 0.71(SUMALL) + 25.3 0.51 10.6 years 0.0 years 12.9 years
Equation 2 All Groups 100 5.86(PLQ) + 6.42(BRZ) + 4.91(TRP) + 24.3 0.56 9.6 years 0.0 years 12.1 years
Equation 3 All Females 50 5.29(CRQ) + 7.38(PRQ) + 8.84(TRP) + 26.8 0.65 8.6 years 0.0 years 10.9 years
Equation 4 All Males 50 7.00(PLQ) - 6.08(ASQ) + 6.83(TRQ) + 9.12(BRZ) + 28.3 0.61 8.6 years 0.0 years 11.5 years
Equation 5 Black Females 25 8.11(PRQ) + 6.58(BRZ) - 7.61(ICP) + 9.25(TRP) +35.5 0.86 5.3 years 0.0 years 7.0 years
Equation 6 Black Males 26 9.50(ILQ) + 10.27(CRZ) - 14.00(ICP) + 7.34(AMP) + 50.8 0.72 6.8 years 0.0 years 10.3 years
Equation 7 White Females 25 9.78(LRQ) + 12.27(OBQ) + 9.93(SLQ) - 12.94(SAZ) + 40.0 0.8 5.9 years 0.0 years 8.2 years
Equation 8 White Males 24 15.01(PLQ) - 6.76(ASQ) + 37.9 0.61 8.2 years 0.0 years 11.0 years

Additional Equations for Callottes
From Table 4, Nawrocki 1995:284.
Sample n = Age = Adj. r^2 Inaccuracy Bias se
Equation 9 Summed sutures, all groups 100 1.02(SUMCAL) + 28.2 0.46 11.2 years 0.1 years 13.5 years
Equation 10 All Groups 100 5.56(CRQ) - 4.46(ASQ) + 4.76(LLZ) + 6.89(BRZ) + 29.3 0.53 10.0 years 0.0 years 12.6 years
Equation 11 All Females 50 7.39(CRQ) + 6.63(BRZ) + 29.3 0.54 9.8 years 0.0 years 12.3 years
Equation 12 All Males 50 8.35(LRQ) - 8.27(ASQ) + 6.53(LLZ) + 6.23(BRZ) + 29.6 0.61 8.7 years 0.0 years 11.6 years
Equation 13 Black Females 25 7.06(CRQ) + 8.78(BRZ) + 22.8 0.69 7.7 years 0.0 years 10.3 years
Equation 14 Black Males 26 10.13(LRQ) - 10.98(ASQ) + 5.02(LLZ) + 9.39(CRZ) + 27.0 0.71 7.2 years 0.0 years 10.5 years
Equation 15 White Females 25 7.68(OBQ) + 9.47(CLQ) + 7.84(LLZ) - 10.18(SAZ) + 41.7 0.74 6.2 years 0.0 years 9.4 years

TALUS

Age

Sternal rib ends

Ossification of the costo-chondral cartilage at the sternal ends of the ribs takes place at a regular rate. This makes it a good location for estimation of age of an unknown individual. A review by Geske (2012) determined that Iscan and Loth's method can be accurately applied to all ancestries.

Males: Iscan et al. 1984

Nine phases (0-8) are presented based on the formation of a pit, its depth and shape, and the shape and quality of the pit walls and rim.

Below phase descriptors from Iscan et al 1984:1096-1099).

Phase 0

The articular surface is flat or billowy with a regular rim and rounded edges. The bone itself is smooth, firm, and very solid.

Phase 1

There is a beginning amorphous indentation in the articular surface, but billowing may also still be present. The rim is rounded and regular. In some cases scallops may start to appear at the edges. The bone is still firm, smooth, and solid.

Phase 2

The pit is now deeper and has assumed a V-shaped appearance formed by the anterior and posterior walls. The walls are thick and smooth with a scalloped or slightly wavy rim with rounded edges. The bone is firm and solid.

Phase 3

The deepening pit has taken on a narrow to moderately U-shape. Walls are still fairly thick with tounded edges. Some scalloping may still be present but the rim is becoming more irregular. The bone is still quite firm and solid.

Phase 4

Pit depth is increasing, but the shape is still a narrow to moderately wide U. The walls are thinner, but the edges remain rounded The rim is more irregular with no uniform scalloping pattern remaining. there is some decrease in the weight and firmness of the bone, however, the overall quality of the bone is still good.

Phase 5

There is little change in pit depth, but hte shape in this phase is predominantly a moderately wide U. Walls show further thinning and the edges are becoming sharp. Irregularity is increasing in the rim. Scalloping pattern is completely gone and has been replaced with irregular bony projections. The condition of the bone is fairly good, however, there are some signs of deterioration with evidence of porosity and loss of density.

Phase 6

The pit is noticeably deep with a wide U-shape. The walls are thin with sharp edges. The rim is irregular and exhibits some rather long bony projections that are frequently more pronounced at the superior and inferior borders. The bone is noticeably lighter in weight, thinner, and more porous, especially inside the pit.

Phase 7

Pit is deep with a wide to very wide U-shape. The walls are thin and fragile with sharp, irregular edges and bony projections. The bone is light in weight and brittle with significant deterioration in quality and obvious porosity.

Phase 8

In this final phase the pit is very deep and widely U-shaped. In some cases the floor of the pit is absent or filled with bony projections. The walls are extremely thin, fragile, and brittle, with sharp, highly irregular edges and bony projections. The bone is very lightweight, thin, brittle, friable, and porous. "Window" formation is sometimes seen in the walls.

Results

White males
From Table 2, Iscan et al. 1984:1101.
Phase n= Mean S.D. 95% Range Range
1 4 17.3 0.50 16.5-18.0 17-18
2 15 21.9 2.13 20.8-23.1 18-25
3 17 25.9 3.50 24.1-27.7 19-33
4 12 28.2 3.83 25.7-30.6 22-35
5 14 38.8 7.00 34.4-42.3 28-52
6 17 50.0 11.17 44.3-55.7 32-71
7 17 59.2 9.52 54.3-64.1 44-85
8 12 71.5 10.27 65.0-78.0 44-85
Total 108 41.0 7.51 39.6-42.4 17-85

Females: Iscan et al. 1985

On differences between male and female patterns:

“In 70% of the males, calcification occurred along the superior and inferior margins of the costal cartilage, while only 11% of females exhibited this pattern. On the other hand, 76% of the females had a central pattern of bony deposition, as opposed to 12% of males” (854).

“…Females displayed a central arc extending from the anterior and posterior walls and bony extensions arising from the floor of the pit” (861).

Nine phases (0-8) are presented based on the formation of a pit, its depth and shape, and the shape and quality of the pit walls and rim. Below phase descriptions from Iscan et al. 1985:855-858.

Phase 0

The regular, rounded rim of the articular end is bordered externally by a bony overlay. The medial surface of the juvenile rib is ridged or billowy with no pit formation.

Phase 1

The still smooth, rounded rim is now slightly wavier. Initial pit indentation can be seen with billowing still present on the articular surface.

Phase 2

The rounded, wavy rim is first beginning to show some scallops forming at the edge. A side view of the now V-shaped pit is seen while the pit deepens and is surrounded by thick smooth walls.

Phase 3

The rounded rim now exhibits a pronounced, regular scallop pattern. The still V-shaped pit has widened as the walls flare and thin slightly, but there is only modest, if any, increase in depth.

Phase 4

The central scallops remain at the still rounded rim, bu the divisions are not as pronounced and the edges are somewhat worn down. The noticeably deeper, flared V- or U-shaped pit has again widened as the walls become thinner. A small plaque-like deposit may begin to form in the pit.

Phase 5

No regular scalloping remains at the now sharpening edge of the increasingly irregular edge. The central arc is still present. Not the smooth plaque-like deposit covering most of the interior of the pit which is now a very flared V or U with appreciably thinner walls.

Phase 6

The central arc is less ovious on the sharp rim which is starting to show irregular projections of bone. The U-shaped pit is noticeably deeper and wider, with thinning walls and roughening inside the pit. Porosity and deterioration of bone can also be seen inside the pit.

Phase 7

The rim is very sharp and irregular, the central arc is nearly obscured. The depth of the flared U-shaped pit appears slightly shallower than in the preceding phase. Bony projections can be seen arising from both the rim and floor of the pit, along with evident deterioration of the bone itself.

Phase 8

Extremely sharp, irregular rim with brittle projections of bone now prominent at the superior or inferior margins or both. Projections are also seen extending from the floor of the pit. These bony processes can be seen nearly filling the widely U-shaped pit surrounded by very thin, badly deteriorated, porous walls with “window” formation.

Results

White females
From Table 2, Iscan et al. 1985:860.
Phase n= Mean S.D. 95% Range Age Range
1 1 14.0 --- --- ---
2 5 17.4 1.52 15.5-19.3 16-20
3 5 22.6 1.67 20.5-24.7 20-24
4 10 27.7 4.62 24.4-31.0 24-40
5 17 40.0 12.22 33.7-46.3 29-77
6 18 50.7 14.93 43.3-58.1 32-79
7 16 65.2 11.24 59.2-71.2 48-83
8 11 76.4 8.83 70.4-82.3 62-90
Total 83 47.8 11.00 45.4-50.2 14-90

Review: Dudar 1993

Dudar finds that the Iscan and Loth sternal rib end aging method can be cautiously used on all typical ribs (ribs 3-10).

How to determine rib number

The unusual morphology of ribs 1, 2, 11, and 12 allow them to be individually identified. Once siding is complete, the second rib should be laid atop the unidentified rib – the unidentified rib most like the second rib will be the third rib, and so on.

Moving inferiorly, “each successive rib will demonstrate a slight increase in its horizontal angle (more open), a trend towards increasing the inferior angle in the vertical plane (points more down), and a change in the twist of the superior external border (border approaches the vertical plane). Typical ribs increase in length to a maximum at rib seven, and diminish thereafter” (791).

Ribs from 1-9 can be stacked to confirm that they have been correctly seriated. A correct set of ribs, with heads and tubercles vertically aligned, will rest evenly by itself. Missing ribs will be evident in the misalignment of two juxtaposed ribs in this stack.

TALUS

Age

Pubic symphyses

The pubic symphysis is a commonly used locus of age estimation in adults.

The Suchey-Brooks method (Brooks and Suchey 1990, Suchey and Katz 1986) is a modified version of the Todd system (Todd 1920, 1921) and uses phase analysis.

McKern and Stewart (1957), also attempting to improve the Todd system, propose a componential analysis.

Suchey-Brooks

The Suchey-Brooks method estimates age based on degenerative changes of the pubic symphyses. The 6 phases are decribed below. Garvin and Passalacqua (2012) found via survey of practicing American forensic anthropologists that Suchey-Brooks is the most popular method of age estimation in use. Phase descriptions below, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:23-34, from Brooks and Suchey 1990; Suchey and Katz 1986.

Phase 1

Symphyseal face has a billowing surface composed of ridges and furrows which includes the pubic tubercle. The horizontal ridges are well-marked. Ventral beveling may be commencing. Although ossific nodules may occur on the upper extremity, a key feature of this phase is the lack of delimitation for either extremity (upper or lower).

Phase 2

Symphyseal face may still show ridge development. Lower and upper extremities show early stages of delimitation, with or without ossific nodules. Ventral rampart may begin formation as extension from either or both extremities.

Phase 3

Symphyseal face shows lower extremity and ventral rampart in process of completion. Fusing ossific nodules may form upper extremity and extend along ventral border. Symphyseal face may either be smooth or retain distinct ridges. Dorsal plateau is complete. No lipping of symphyseal dorsal margin or bony ligamentous outgrowths.

Phase 4

Symphyseal face is generally fine-grained, although remnants of ridge and furrow system may remain. Oval outline usually complete at this stage, though a hiatus may occur in upper aspect of ventral circumference. Pubic tubercle is fully separated from the symphyseal face through definition of upper extremity. Symphyseal face may have a distinct rim. Ventrally, bony ligamentous outgrowth may occur in inferior portion of pubic bone adjacent to symphyseal face. Slight lipping may appear on dorsal border.

Phase 5

Slight depression of the face relative to a completed rim. Moderate lipping is usually found on the dorsal border with prominent ligamentous outgrowths on the ventral border. Little or no rim erosion, though breakdown possible on superior aspect of ventral border.

Phase 6

Symphyseal face shows ongoing depression as rim erodes. Ventral ligamentous attachments are marked. Pubic tubercle may appear as a separate bony knob. Face may be pitted or porous, giving an appearance of disfigurement as the ongoing process of erratic ossification proceeds. Crenelations may occur, with the shape of the face often irregular.

Results

Females (n=273)
Phase Mean n= S.D. 95% Range
I 19.4 48 2.6 15-24
II 25.0 47 4.9 19-40
III 30.7 44 8.1 21-53
IV 38.2 39 10.9 26-70
V 48.1 44 14.6 25-83
VI 60.0 51 12.4 42-87

Males (n=739)
Phase Mean n= S.D. 95% range
I 18.5 105 2.1 15-23
II 23.4 75 3.6 19-34
III 28.7 51 6.5 21-46
IV 35.2 171 9.4 23-57
V 45.6 134 10.4 27-66
VI 61.2 203 12.2 34-86

McKern & Stewart 1957

McKern and Stewart modify Todd’s ten phases by considering the symphyseal face as three main evolving components.

Stewart (1979:163) notes that this method is most useful for males 17-30 years of age.

Score the three elements below, add the scores together, and use the results chart to obtain an age estimate.

I - Dorsal Plateau

Scoring system:

0 = Dorsal margin absent;

1 = A slight margin formation first appears in the middle third of the dorsal border;

2 = The dorsal margin extends along entire dorsal border;

3 = Filling in of grooves and resorption of ridges to form a beginning plateau in the middle third of the dorsal demi-face;

4 = The plateau, still exhibiting vestiges of billowing, extends over most of the dorsal demi-face; or

5 = Billowing disappears completely and the surface of the entire demi-face becomes flat and slightly granulated in texture.

McKern and Stewart 1957:75-77.

II - Ventral Rampart

Scoring system:

0 = Ventral beveling is absent;

1 = Ventral beveling is present only at superior extremity of ventral border;

2 = Bevel extends inferiorly along ventral border;

3 = The ventral rampart begins by means of bony extensions from either or both of the extremities;

4 = The rampart is extensive but gaps are still evident along the earlier ventral border, most evident in the upper two-thirds; or

5 = The rampart is complete.

McKern and Stewart 1957:77-79.

III - Symphyseal Rim

Scoring system:

0 = The symphyseal rim is absent;

1 = A partial dorsal rim is present, usually at the superior end of the dorsal margin, it is round and smooth in texture and elevated above the symphyseal surface;

2 = The dorsal rim is complete and the ventral rim is beginning to form. There is no particular beginning site.

3 = The symphyseal rim is complete. The enclosed symphyseal surface is finely grained in texture and irregular or undulating in appearance;

4 = The rim begins to break down. The face becomes smooth and flat and the rim is no longer round but sharply defined. There is some evidence of lipping on the ventral edge; or

5 = Further breakdown of the rim (especially along superior ventral edge) and rarefaction of the symphyseal face. There is also disintegration and erratic ossification along the ventral rim.

McKern and Stewart 1957:79.

Results

Age estimates for males
From Table 27, McKern and Stewart 1957:85.
Score n= Mean S.D. Range
0 7 17.29 0.49 -17
1-2 76 19.04 0.79 17-20
3 43 19.79 0.85 18-21
4-5 51 20.84 1.13 18-23
6-7 26 22.42 0.99 20-24
8-9 36 24.14 1.93 22-28
10 19 26.05 1.87 23-28
11-13 56 29.18 3.33 23-29
14 31 35.84 3.89 29 +
15 4 41 6.22 36 +

TALUS

Age

Auricular surfaces

The auricular surface is not a highly reliable area of age determination, but enjoys a relatively high preservation rate. Osborne et al. (2004) presents adjusted age categories for the Lovejoy et al. (1985) method, allowing for greater accuracy and possible use in forensic casework.

Region used in auricular surface age determination. From Figure 1, Lovejoy et al. 1985:18.

Lovejoy et al. 1985

Lovejoy et al. propose a phase analysis for the auricular surface similar to the Todd or Suchey-Brooks methods for estimating age from the pubic symphysis. Indicators of less importance are apical and retroauricular activity.

Below phase descriptions from Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:25, from Meindl and Lovejoy 1989:165.

Phase 1 (age 20-24)

Transverse billowing and very fine granularity. Articular surface displays fine granular texture and marked transverse organization. There is no porosity, retroauricular or apical activity. The surface appears youthful because of broad and well-organized billows, which impart the definitive transverse organiztion. Raised transverse billows are well-defined and cover most of the surface. Any subchondral defects are smooth-edged and rounded.

Phase 2 (age 25-29)

Reduction of billowing but retention of youthful appearance. changes from the previous phase are not marked and are mostly reflected in slight to moderate loss of billowing, with replacement by striae. There is no apical actiity, porosity, or retroauricular activity. The surface still appears youthful owing to marked transverse organization. Granulation is slightly more coarse.

Phase 3 (age 30-34)

General loss of billowing, replacement by striae, and distinct coarsening of granularity. Both demifaces are largely quiescent with some loss of transverse organization. Bilowing is much reduced and replaced by striae. The surface is more coarsely and recognizably granular than in the previous phase, with no significant changes at apex. Small areas of microporosity may appear. Slight retroauricular activity may occasionally be present. In general, coarse granulation supersedes and replaces billowing. Note smoothing of surface by replacement of billows with fine striae, but distinct retention of slight billowing. Loss of transverse organization and coarsening of granularity is evident.

Phase 4 (age 35-39)

Uniform coarse granularity. Both faces are coarsely and uniformly granulated, with marked reduction of both billowing and striae, but striae may still be present. Transverse organization is present but poorly defined. There is some activity in the retroauricular area, but this is usually slight. Minimal changes are seen at the apex, microporosity is slight, and there is no macroporosity

Phase 5 (age 40-44)

Transition from coarse granularity to dense surface. No billowing is seen. Striae may be present but are very vague. The face is still partially (coarsely) granular and there is a marked loss of transverse organization. Partial densification of the surface with commensurate loss of granularity. Slight to moderate activity in the retroauricular area. Occasional microporosity is seen, bu this is not typical. Slight changes are usually present at the apex. Some increase in macroporosity, depending on degree of densification.

Phase 6 (age 45-49)

Completion of densification with complete loss of granularity. Significant loss of granulation is seen in most specimens, with replacement by dense bone. No bilows or striae are present. Changes at apex are slight to moderate but are almost always present. There is a distinct tendency for the surface to become dense. No transverse organization is evident. Most or all of the microporosity is lost to densification. There is increased irregularity of margins with moderate retroauricular activity and little or no macroporosity.

Phase 7 (age 50-59)

Dense irregular surface of rugged topography and moderate to marked activity in periauricular areas. This is a further elaboration of the previous morphology, in which marked surface irregularity becomes the paramount feature. Topography, however, shows no transverse or other form of organization. Moderate granulation is only occasionaly retained. The inferior face generally is lipped at the inferior terminus. Apical changes are almost invariable and may be marked. Increasing irregularity of margins is seen. Macroporosity is present in some cases. Retroauricular activity is moderate to marked in most cases.

Phase 8 (age 60+)

Breakdown with marginal lipping, macroporosity, increased irregularity and marked activity in periauricular areas. The paramount feature is a nongranular, irregular surface, with distinct signs of subchondral destruction. No transverse organization is seen and there is a distinct absence of any youthful criteria. Macroporosity is present in about one-third of all cases. Apical activity is usually marked but it is not requisite. Margins become dramatically irregular and lipped, with typical degenerative joint change. Retroauricular area becomes well defined with profuse osteophytes of low to moderate relief. There is clear destruction of subchondral bone, absence of tranverse organization, and increased irregularity.

Buckberry & Chamberlain 2002

In comparison with the pubic symphysis, the auricular surface shows age-related changes later in life. Each characteristic is scored independently. No significant differences are found between the sexes or sides of the body.

Transverse organization

Horizontally orientated billows and striae that run from the medial to lateral margins of the auricular surface (Lovejoy et al., 1985).

Scoring system:

1 = >90% of surface is transversely organized;

2 = 50-89% of surface is transversely organized;

3 = 25-49% of surface is transversely organized;

4 = Transverse organization is present on <25% of surface; or

5 = No transverse organization is present.

Surface texture

Surface texture corresponds to “grain” by Lovejoy et al. 1985. The texture of the auricular surface becomes more coarsely granular and densified in older individuals.

Finely granular bone = grains <0.5mm in diameter

Coarsely granular bone = grains >0.5mm in diameter

Dense bone = nodules or areas of bone which are compact and smooth, with no surface granularity.

Scoring system:

1 = >90% of surface is finely granular;

2 = 50-89% of surface is finely granular; replacement of finely granular bone by coarsely granular bone in some areas, no dense bone is present;

3 = 50% or more of surface is coarsely granular , no dense bone is present;

4 = Dense bone <50% of surface, may be just one small nodule of dense bone in very early stages; or

5 = >50% of surface is dense bone.

Microporosity

Porosity of the surface (or perforations of subchondral bone), pores <1mm in diameter. May be localized or spread across large areas. Lovejoy et al. 1985 regarded microporosity as a secondary aging feature.

Scoring system:

1 = No microporosity is present;

2 = Microporosity is present on one demiface only; or

3 = Microporosity is present on both demifaces.

Macroporosity

Holes >1mm in diameter. May be localized or spead across large areas. Should not be confused with cortical defects or postmortem damage.

Scoring system:

1 = No macroporosity is present;

2 = Macroporosity is present on one demiface only; or

3 = Macroporosity is present on both demifaces.

Apical changes

The apex of the auricular surface can develop small osteophytic growths, or lipping, which when more severe can alter the contour of the surface.

Scoring system:

1 = Apex is sharp and distinct; auricular surface may be slightly raised relative to adjacent bone surface;

2 = Some lipping present at apex, but shape of articular margin is still distinct and smooth (shape of outline of surface at apex is a continuous arc); or

3 = Irregularity occurs in contours of articular surface; shape of apex no longer a smooth arc.

Results

Age Estimates from composite (total) scores
From Table 12, Buckberry and Chamberlain 2002:237.
Auricular surface stage Total score n= Mean S.D. Median Range
I 5-6 3 17.33 1.53 17 16-19
II 7-8 6 29.33 6.71 27 21-38
III 9-10 22 37.86 13.08 37 16-65
IV 11-12 32 51.41 14.47 52 29-81
V 13-14 64 59.94 12.95 62 29-88
VI 15-16 41 66.71 11.88 66 39-91
17-19 VII 12 72.25 12.73 73 53-92

Osborne et al. 2004

Osborne et al. (2004) test Lovejoy et al. (1985) and make some modifications to the age phase system. Osborne et al. reduces the earlier eight age phases to only six. They also confirm that sex and ancestry have no effect on age estimation using the auricular surface. And by comparing the Hamann-Todd and Bass skeletal collections, they rule out secular change as a counfounding variable.

Scoring

Phase 1: Billowing with possible striae; mostly fine granularity with some coarse granularity possible

Phase 2: Striae; coarse granularity with residual fine granularity; retroauricular activity may be present

Phase 3: Decreased striae with transverse organization; coarse granularity' retroauricular activity present beginnings of apical change

Phase 4: Remnants of transverse organization; coarse granularity becoming replaced by densification; retroauricular activity present; apical change; macroporosity is present

Phase 5: Surface becomes irregular; surface texture is largely dense; moderate retroauricular activity; moderate apical change; macroporosity

Phase 6: Irregular surface; densification accompanied by subchondral destruction; severe retroauricular activity; severe apical change; macroporosity.

(Osborne et al. 2004:5).

Results

Age estimates (n=262)
From Table 8, Osborne et al. 2004:5.
Phase n= Mean S.D. 95% Range
1 11 21.1 2.98 ≤ 27
2 13 29.5 8.20 ≤ 46
3 37 42.0 13.74 ≤ 69
4 82 47.8 13.95 20-75
5 17 53.1 14.14 24-82
6 102 58.9 15.24 29-89

TALUS

Stature

Anatomical (Fully) method

Anatomical methods of stature estimate sum the heights of bony elements contributing to stature and add a soft tissue correction factor. A review of Fully 1955 is presented below for historical reference.

Use the revised method by Raxter et al. (2006, 2007) when a nearly complete skeleton is present.

Original: Fully 1955

Fully and his team used Rollet (1889) and Manouvrier’s (1892) long bone regression methods and checked these methods by comparing the Rollet-Manouvrier stature estimate with military documents or a living stature measurement. Fully notes that estimations of stature made from long bone regressions inherently rely on an ideally proportioned body (1955).

"This imprecision occurs in many cases and demonstrates the poor accuracy of [the Rollet-Manouvrier method]; the results obtained are too variable to serve as a valuable aspect of identification. They are at best an approximation. Nevertheless, they are the only useful approximation if one possesses an incomplete skeleton” (267, translation by SenseOfHumerus).

Measurements added together to determine "skeletal height", to which a "soft tissue correction factor" is added:

  • Basi-bregmatic height of the cranium
  • Heights of vertebral bodies C2-L5
  • Height of S1
  • Oblique femur length
  • Tibia length including medial malleolus but excluding intercondylar eminence
  • Articulated height of the talus and calcaneus
Table for converting skeletal height to living height
If skeletal height is, Add
≤153.5 cm 10.0 cm
153.6cm-165.4 cm 10.5 cm
≥165.5 cm 11.0 cm

Review: Lundy 1988

“While the application of the anatomical method is limited to those few cases where a nearly complete skeleton is available, preliminary indications are that it may be worth the time and effort to try Fully’s anatomical method the next time such a case presents itself” (538).

Lundy used nearly complete remains of American servicemen from the Vietnam War as three test case studies.

The Fully method is found to be at least as accurate as the Trotter & Gleser method in all three cases.

Revision: Raxter et al. 2006, 2007

Raxter et al. (2006) use a sample from the Terry collection to confirm the validity of the Fully (1955) method.

The authors clarify Fully’s original measurement instructions. Measurements from the right and left sides (where applicable) were averaged. Do not include arthritic or osteophytic growth in measurements.

Per Raxter et al. (2007), use an age adjustment whenever possible, even if it's the average of a broad age range. This will avoid systematic underestimation of stature.

Cranial height

The maximum length between bregma (confluence of coronal and sagittal sutures) and basion (anteroinferior margin of foramen magnum). This measure can be taken with calipers placed laterally or posteriorly, relative to the cranium (spreading calipers).

Hemi-skull, lateral view, demonstrating the measurements basion-bregma.

Superior view of skull, showing location of bregma at the intersection of the sagittal and coronal sutures.

Inferior view of foramen magnum, showing location of basion at the anteriormost margin of foramen magnum.

From Figure 3, Raxter 2006:382.

Vertebrae

Second cervical vertebra (C2/axis) : The most superior point of the odontoid process (dens) to the most inferior point of the anterioinferior rim of the vertebral body (sliding calipers).

3rd–7th cervical vertebrae (C3-C7) : The maximum height of the vertebral body, measured in its anterior third, medial to the superiorly curving edges of the centrum (sliding calipers).

Thoracic vertebrae (T1-T12) : The maximum height of the vertebral body, anterior to the rib articular facets and pedicles (sliding calipers).

Lumbar vertebrae (L1-L5) : The maximum height of the vertebral body, anterior to the pedicles, not including any swelling of the centrum due to the pedicles (sliding calipers).

First sacral vertebra (S1) : The maximum height between the anterior-superior rim of the body (i.e., the sacral promontory) and its point of fusion/articulation with the second sacral vertebra. This most commonly occurs in the midline. Measure with the calipers parallel to the anterior surface of S1 (sliding calipers).

Figures from Figure 4 and text- Raxter 2006:382.

Femur & tibia

Femoral physiological length: Place the condyles on the stationary end of the board, flat against the horizontal plane. Set the mobile end against the most superior aspect of the femoral head, parallel to the stationary end. Measure at maximum length (osteometric board).

Tibial length: Place the medial malleolus on the stationary end of the board, with the shaft of the tibia parallel to the long axis of the board. Set the mobile end of the board against the most superior aspect of the lateral condyle of the tibia, parallel to the stationary end. Raxter (2006) recommends a trackless osteometric board, to allow greater freedom of the mobile end(osteometric board).

From Figure 5, Raxter 2006:383.

Talus-calcaneus height

Articulate the talus and the calcaneus, using the right hand for the left tarsals and vice versa. Use one hand to stabilize the articulation, point the distal articulations away from your palm, with a thumb holding the bones together superior to the peroneal tubercle (where the talus and calcaneus meet), an index finger on the opposite side lateral to the trochlea of the talus, and a middle finger in the sustentacular sulcus. Place the trochlea against the stable end of the osteometric board, with both lateral and medial edges of the trochlea contacting the board. Position the trochlea of the talus so that the stable end of the board forms a tangent to the midpoint of the trochlear surface. Place the mobile end of the osteometric board against the most inferior point of the calcaneal tuber, parallel to the stable end (osteometric board.)

From Figure 5, Raxter 2006:383

Results

Known age living stature (cm) = 1.009 x skeletal height – 0.0426 x age + 12.1cm

Unknown age living stature (cm) = 0.996 x skeletal height + 11.7cm

TALUS

Stature

Mathematical methods


The mathematical method uses regression equations that predict living stature based on long bone measurements. Because these equations rely on body proportions, sex- and population- specific equations are required.

Population equations are necessary for different ancestries and time periods. Height also decreases with age, starting at about 45. See Galloway (1988) for age correction factor.

Calculate a point estimate using: mx+b=living stature(y).

+/- 2 standard deviations (SD) to define a 95% confidence interval.

Equations with the lowest standard deviations should be preferred.

Long Bone Measurements

From Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994:

Humerus: maximum length: "direct distance from the most superior point on the head of the humerus to the most inferior point on the trochlea. Humerus shaft should be positioned parallel to the long axis of the osteometric board" (80).

Radius: maximum length: "distance from the most proximally positioned point on the head of radius to the tip of the styloid process without regard for the long axis of the bone" (80).

Ulna: maximum length: "distance from the most superior point on the olecranon to the most inferior point on the styloid process" (81).

Ulna: physiological length: "distance between the most distal (inferior) point on the surface of the coronoid process and the most distal point on the inferior surface of the distal head of the ulna... Do not includ the styloid process or the groove between the styloid process and the distal surface of the head. Be certain that the proximal point is at the deepest concavity of the coronoid process" (81).

Femur: maximum length: "distance from the most superior point on the head of the femur to the most inferior point on the distal condyles... Place the medial condyle against the vertical endboard while applying the movable upright to the femoral head" (82). Shaft is parallel to the board.

Femur: physiological length: "distance from the most superior point on the head to a plane drawn along the inferior surfaces of the distal condyles... Place both distal condyles against the vertical endboard while applying the movable upright to the femoral head" (82). Shaft is oblique to the board.

Tibia: length: "Distance from the superior articular surface of the lateral condyle to the tip of the medial malleolus... Place the tibia on the board, resting on its poerior surface with the longitudinal axis parallel to the instrument. Place the lip of the medial malleolus on the vertical endboard and press the movable upright against the proximal articular surface of the lateral condyle" (83).

Fibula: maximum length: "maximum distance between the most superior point on the fibula head and the most inferior point on the lateral malleolus" (84).

Age changes

Galloway 1988

Loss of stature proceeds at a predictable rate beginning at age 45. Older individuals do not recognize their height changes as they age, and still tend to report their maximum adult height when asked, e.g., for a driver's license.

Height loss with age had previously been noted by Trotter, who suggested this formula: "Height loss (cm) = 0.06(age-30)" (1970:75). Galloway updates this using a modern forensic sample. Use the below correction factor when estimating stature of individuals of known age over 45.

Height loss (cm) = 0.16 (age - 45)

Standard deviation = ± 3.7cm

Americans

Trotter & Gleser 1952

Equations for males from Table 9 (483)
Use m*x+b ± 2*SD to find estimated stature y
Ancestry Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) S.D.
White Hum 3.08 70.45 4.05
White Rad 3.78 79.01 4.32
White Uln 3.70 74.05 4.32
White Fem 2.38 61.41 3.27
White Tib 2.52 78.62 3.37
White Fib 2.68 71.78 3.29
White Fem + Tib 1.30 63.29 2.99
Black Hum 3.26 62.10 4.43
Black Rad 3.42 81.56 4.30
Black Uln 3.26 79.29 4.42
Black Fem 2.11 70.35 3.94
Black Tib 2.19 86.02 3.78
Black Fib 2.19 85.65 4.08
Black Fem + Tib 1.15 71.04 3.53


Equations for males from Table 9 (483)
Use m*x+b ± 2*SD to find estimated stature y
Ancestry Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) S.D.
White Hum 3.36 57.97 4.45
White Rad 4.74 54.93 4.24
White Uln 4.27 57.76 4.30
White Fem 2.47 54.10 3.72
White Tib 2.90 61.53 3.66
White Fib 2.93 59.61 3.57
White Fem + Tib 1.39 53.20 3.55
Black Hum 3.08 64.67 4.25
Black Rad 2.75 94.51 5.05
Black Uln 3.31 75.38 4.83
Black Fem 2.28 59.76 3.41
Black Tib 2.45 72.65 3.70
Black Fib 2.49 70.90 3.80
Black Fem + Tib 1.26 59.72 3.28

Trotter & Gleser 1958

This study used data collected from members of the U.S. Armed Forces who died in the Korean War. Living stature as measured by the military and long bone length measured after death were used.

Leg bones are most useful in calculating living stature; Trotter and Gleser suggest that arm bones only be used if no leg bones are present (121).

From Table 12 (120)
All equations for males.
Use m*x+b ± 2*SD to find estimated stature y
Ancestry Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) S.D.
White Fem + Fib 1.31 63.05 3.62
White Fem + Tib 1.26 67.09 3.74
White Fib 2.60 75.50 3.86
White Fem 2.32 65.53 3.94
White Tib 2.42 81.93 4.00
White Hum + Rad 1.82 67.97 4.31
White Hum + Uln 1.78 66.98 4.37
White Hum 2.89 78.10 4.57
White Rad 3.79 79.42 4.66
White Uln 3.76 75.55 4.72
Black Fem + Fib 1.20 67.77 3.63
Black Fem + Tib 1.15 71.75 3.68
Black Fib 2.34 80.07 4.02
Black Fem 2.10 72.22 3.91
Black Tib 2.19 85.36 3.96
Black Hum + Rad 1.66 73.08 4.18
Black Hum + Uln 1.65 70.67 4.23
Black Hum 2.88 75.48 4.23
Black Rad 3.32 85.43 4.57
Black Uln 3.20 82.77 4.74
Asian Fem + Fib 1.22 70.24 3.18
Asian Fem + Tib 1.22 70.27 3.24
Asian Fib 2.40 80.56 3.24
Asian Fem 2.15 72.57 3.80
Asian Tib 2.39 81.45 3.27
Asian Hum + Rad 1.67 74.83 4.16
Asian Hum + Uln 1.68 71.18 4.14
Asian Hum 2.68 83.19 4.25
Asian Rad 3.54 82.00 4.60
Asian Uln 3.48 77.45 4.66
Mexican Fem 2.44 58.67 2.99
Mexican Fib 2.50 75.44 3.52
Mexican Tib 2.36 80.62 3.73
Mexican Rad 3.55 80.71 4.04
Mexican Uln 3.56 74.56 4.05
Mexican Hum 2.92 73.94 4.24

Revision: Jantz et al. 1994

Significant differences are present in the data sets between Trotter and Gleser 1952 and Trotter and Gleser 1958.

Jantz et al. 1994 recommend that researchers follow the measurement methods used by Trotter for each study: do not include the medial malleolus in tibial measurements when using the 1952 equations, but do include it when using the 1958 equations.

Trotter 1970

Trotter 1970 updates Trotter and Gleser 1958 by including females in the sample. Average of right and left long bone measurements is preferred.

Equations for males from Table 28 (77)
Use m*x+b ± 2*SD to find estimated stature y
Ancestry Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) S.D.
White Hum 3.08 70.45 4.05
White Rad 3.78 79.01 4.32
White Uln 3.70 74.05 4.32
White Fem 2.38 61.41 3.27
White Fib 2.68 71.78 3.29
Asian Hum 2.68 83.19 4.25
Asian Rad 3.54 82.00 4.60
Asian Uln 3.48 77.45 4.66
Asian Fem 2.15 72.57 3.80
Asian Fib 2.40 80.56 3.24
Black Hum 3.26 62.10 4.43
Black Rad 3.42 81.56 4.30
Black Uln 3.26 79.29 4.42
Black Fem 2.11 70.35 3.94
Black Fib 2.19 85.65 4.08
Mexican Hum 2.92 73.94 4.24
Mexican Rad 3.55 80.71 4.04
Mexican Uln 3.56 74.56 4.05
Mexican Fem 2.44 58.67 2.99
Mexican Fib 2.50 75.44 3.52


Equations for females from Table 28 (77)
Use m*x+b ± 2*SD to find estimated stature y
Ancestry Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) S.D.
White Hum 3.36 57.97 4.45
White Rad 4.74 54.93 4.24
White Uln 4.27 57.76 4.30
White Fem 2.47 54.10 3.72
White Fib 2.93 59.61 3.57
Black Hum 3.08 64.67 4.25
Black Rad 2.75 94.51 5.05
Black Uln 3.31 75.38 4.83
Black Fem 2.28 59.76 3.41
Black Fib 2.49 70.90 3.80

Jantz 1992

The sample from Trotter 1970 predates Jantz’ modern sample by 100 years. “Terry females are significantly shorter in all lengths in both whites and blacks” (1231) and that limb proportions of whites (but not blacks) are different due to secular change.

White Females (1233)
Use m*x+b ± 2*SD to find estimated stature y
Black females: see Trotter and Gleser 1952
Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) S.D.
Fem 2.47 54.74 3.72
Tib 2.90 59.24 3.66

Mesoamericans

Genovés 1967

Genovés first derives equations from the whole sample, with individuals ranging from “pure” indigenous to “pure” European. He then recalculates the regression equations narrowing the sample to individuals of “pure” indigenous heritage.

From Table 14 (76)
Use m*x+b ± 2*SD to find estimated stature y
*Subtract 2.5cm for living stature
Sex Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) S.D.
M Fem 2.26 66.379 3.417
M Tib 1.96 93.752 2.812
F Fem 2.59 49.742 3.816
F Tib 2.72 63.781 3.513

Revision: Del Angel & Cisneros 2004

This article revises Mesoamerican stature regression equations. “The analyses of Genovés’s (1967) suffered from an inconsistency… the results vary depending on whether one uses the regression estimates tabulated for each sex  or the equations proposed for the femur or tibia” (264.)

Note: Del Angel and Cisneros do not include standard deviation with their equations, providing only a point estimate of height.

Del Angel and Cisneros 2004
Male (n=98) equations from Table 1 (264)
Use m*x+b ± 2*(Standard Deviation) to find estimated stature y
Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept b) S.D.
Fem 2.262 63.89 none given
Tib 1.958 91.26 none given
Fib 1.919 94.09 none given
Hum 2.505 83.52 none given
Uln 2.615 94.8 none given
Rad 2.668 98.22 none given


Del Angel and Cisneros 2004
Female (n=29) equations from Table 1 (264)
Use m*x+b ± 2*(Standard Deviation) to find estimated stature y
Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept b) S.D.
Fem 2.588 47.25 none given
Tib 2.72 61.29 none given
Fib 2.988 54.55 none given
Hum 4.16 32.35 none given
Uln 3.991 58.72 none given
Rad 3.926 66.88 none given

Native Americans

Prehistoric Ohio

Sciulli & Giesen 1993

Sciulli et al. (1990) calculated living stature from a sample (n=64) of prehistoric Ohio Native Americans using the Fully (1955) method. They then used this living stature to determine regression equations for this population.

A few years later, two of the authors from this paper expanded the sample and published updated equations (Sciulli and Giesen 1993). Only the equations based on the larger sample (n=171) are presented below.

Prehistoric Ohio Males
From Table 2 (398)
Use m*x+b + soft tissue correction ± 2*(Standard Error) to find estimated living stature y
Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) SE
MaxFem + MaxTib 1.360 39.630 2.31
FemPhys + TibPhys 1.369 40.403 2.32
FemPhys 2.497 41.444 3.61
FemMax 2.443 42.805 2.66
TibMax 2.680 50.721 2.74
TibPhys 2.629 54.529 2.85
Hum + Rad 2.023 36.592 3.22
Hum 3.229 48.829 3.42
Rad 3.943 53.972 3.92
Ulna *no styloid 3.666 55.138 4.19


Prehistoric Ohio Females
From Table 2 (398)
Use m*x+b + soft tissue correction ± 2*(Standard Error) to find estimated living stature y
Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) SE
MaxFem + MaxTib 1.404 34.189 2.37
FemPhys + TibPhys 1.394 36.730 2.38
FemPhys 2.381 43.697 2.56
FemMax 2.336 44.253 2.54
TibMax 2.668 49.527 3.04
TibPhys 2.69 50.764 2.91
Hum 2.71 62.360 3.07
Rad 3.03 73.945 3.61
Ulna *no styloid 2.72 76.588 3.72

Prehistoric N. Americans

Auerbach & Ruff 2010

This article includes stature regression equations derived from indigenous North American skeletons (n=967, from 75 sites) using Raxter-Fully estimated stature. Groups are identified based on cultural region and associated body proportions (198). The authors suggest that future researchers use crural index to identify the most useful regression formulae for a sample.

The groups are a high latitude “arctic” group, a general “temperate” group, and a Great Plains group. Auerbach and Ruff refer readers to Genoves-Del Angel and Cisneros (2004) equations for prehistoric mesoamericans, but apply their own "temperate" equations to the American Southwest.

Auerbach and Ruff's equations have an unknown amount of error due to compounding error with the revised Fully method (197). Use of these equations in forensic cases is discouraged (205).

Figure 4, "General regional distributions of samples combined in generating broad stature estimation equations... "Arctic" (left-slanting diagonal lines), "Temperate" (dots), and "Great Plains" (right-slanting diagonal lines)" (202).

Prehistoric Arctic Native Americans
From Table 5 (203)
Use m*x+b ± 2*(Standard Error of Estimate) to find estimated living stature y
Sex Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) SEE
M FemPhys 0.225 62.73 2.90
M Tib 0.255 69.51 2.99
M FemPhys + Tib 0.128(FemPhys)+0.126(Tib) 59.86 2.62
F FemPhys 0.213 64.82 2.99
F Tib 0.231 74.71 3.01
F FemPhys + Tib 0.117(FemPhys)+0.120(Tib) 64.00 2.82


Prehistoric Temperate Native Americans
From Table 5 (203)
Use m*x+b ± 2*(Standard Error of Estimate) to find estimated living stature y
Sex Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) SEE
M FemPhys 0.254 52.85 2.55
M Tib 0.302 51.66 2.81
M FemPhys + Tib 0.160(FemPhys)+0.126(Tib) 47.11 2.35
F FemPhys 0.267 44.80 2.58
F Tib 0.296 52.30 2.90
F FemPhys + Tib 0.176(FemPhys)+0.117(Tib) 41.75 2.40


Prehistoric Great Plains Native Americans
From Table 5 (203)
Use m*x+b ± 2*(Standard Error of Estimate) to find estimated living stature y
Sex Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) SEE
M FemPhys 0.244 58.23 2.05
M Tib 0.249 72.23 2.77
M FemPhys + Tib 0.188(FemPhys)+0.076(Tib) 54.13 1.94
F FemPhys 0.244 55.85 2.58
F Tib 0.259 65.10 2.97
F FemPhys + Tib 0.168(FemPhys)+0.104(Tib) 50.55 2.41

Eastern Europeans

Ross & Konigsberg 2002

Due to the genocide and civil war in the Balkans (former Yugoslavia) in the early 1990s, forensic identification of individuals in mass graves is pertinent to this population. All equations for males.

Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) S.D.
Fem 2.3622 63.456 3.3
Tib 2.5712 75.185 3.39
Hum 3.0379 73.645 4.03

Ancient Egyptians

Raxter et al. 2008

Following the method of Sciulli et al. (1990), this article calculates regression equations based on the Fully estimated statures of 100 ancient Egyptians, ranging from the Predynastic to Coptic periods, but focused mainly in the Old Kingdom (2687-2191BC).

Raxter et al. suggest using an age correction factor to estimate stature when possible. They recommend Trotter and Gleser's (1952) equation: "Height loss (cm) = 0.06(age-30)."

Ancient Egyptian Males
From Table 2 (150)
Use m*x+b + soft tissue correction ± 2*(Standard Error of Estimate) to find estimated living stature y
Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) SEE
FemMax 2.257 63.93 3.218
FemPhys 2.253 64.76 3.226
TibMax 2.554 69.21 3.002
TibPhys 2.552 70.18 3.060
Hum 2.594 83.85 4.218
Rad 2.641 100.91 3.731
FemMax + TibMax 1.282 59.35 2.851
FemMax + TibPhys 1.276 60.64 2.900
Hum + Rad 1.456 83.76 3.353


Ancient Egyptian Females
From Table 2 (150)
Use m*x+b + soft tissue correction ± 2*(Standard Error of Estimate) to find estimated living stature y
Element, cm (x) Multiplier (m) Y-intercept (b) SEE
FemMax 2.340 56.99 2.517
FemPhys 2.341 57.63 2.511
TibMax 2.699 61.08 1.921
TibPhys 2.700 61.89 1.893
Hum 2.827 70.94 2.732
Rad 2.509 96.73 4.057
FemMax + TibMax 1.313 54.36 1.968
FemPhys + TibPhys 1.312 55.27 1.961
Hum + Rad 1.291 86.41 3.247

TALUS

Caucasoid skull, lateral view. From Figure 1, Rhine 1990:10.

TALUS

Caucasoid skull, anterior view. From Figure 1, Rhine 1990:10.

TALUS

Caucaoid skull, inferior view. From Figure 1, Rhine 1990:10.

TALUS

Southwestern mongoloid skull, lateral view. From Figure 2, Rhine 1990:11.

TALUS

Southwestern mongoloid skull, anterior view. From Figure 2, Rhine 1990:11.

TALUS

Southwestern mongoloid skull, inferior view. From Figure 2, Rhine 1990:11.

TALUS

American black skull, lateral view. From Figure 3, Rhine 1990:12.

TALUS

American black skull, anterior view. From Figure 3, Rhine 1990:12.

TALUS

American black skull, inferior view. From Figure 3, Rhine 1990:12.

TALUS

Location of nuchal crest on posterior skull. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Female" expression of nuchal crest. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Probable female" expression of nuchal crest. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

Ambiguous" expression of nuchal crest. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Probable male" expression of nuchal crest. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Male" expression of nuchal crest. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

Location of mastoid process of temporal bone on posterior skull. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Female" expression of mastoid process. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Probable female" expression of mastoid process. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

Ambiguous" expression of mastoid process. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Probable male" expression of mastoid process. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Male" expression of mastoid process. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

Location of supraorbital margin of frontal bone on skull. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Female" expression of supraorbital margin. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Probable female" expression of supraorbital margin. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

Ambiguous" expression of supraorbital margin. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Probable male" expression of supraorbital margin. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Male" expression of supraorbital margin. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

Location of glabella on frontal bone. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Female" expression of glabella. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Probable female" expression of glabella. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

Ambiguous" expression of glabella. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Probable male" expression of glabella. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Male" expression of glabella. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

Location of mental eminence on mandible. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Female" expression of mental eminence. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Probable female" expression of mental eminence. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

Ambiguous" expression of mental eminence. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Probable male" expression of mental eminence. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"Male" expression of mental eminence. From Figure 4, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:20.

TALUS

"The ventral arc (ventral arch ridge) is a slightly elevated ridge of bone across the ventral surface of the pubis. To facilitate scoring this feature, the pubis should be oriented with the ventral surface directly facing the observer" ( Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:17).

A) Ventral arc on ventral surface of the female pubis. B) Slight ridge on ventral aspect of male pubis. From Figure 1, Phenice 1969:299.

TALUS

"[Subpubic concavity] is found on the ischiopubic ramus lateral to the symphyseal face. In females the inferior border of the ramus is concave, in males it tends to be convex. This observation should be made while viewing the dorsal surface of the bone" (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:17).

C) Subpubic concavity seen from dorsal aspect of female pubis and ischio-pubic ramus. D) Dorsal aspect of male pubis and ischio-pubic ramus. From Figure 1, Phenice 1969:299.

TALUS

"The medial surface of the ischiopubic ramus immediately below the symphysis forms a narrow, crestlike ridge in females. This structure is broad and flat in males" (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:17).

E) Ridge on medial aspect of female ischio-pubic ramus. F) Broad medial surface of male ischio-pubic ramus. From Figure 1, Phenice 1969:299.

TALUS

Location of greater sciatic notch on os coxae, between the auricular surface and ischial spine. From Figure 2, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:18.

"The best results will be obtained by holding the os coae about six inches above the diagram so that the greater sciatic notch has the same otientation as the outlines, aligning the straight anterior portion of the notch that terminates at the ischial spine with the right side of the diagram. While holding the bone in this manner, move it to determine the closest match" (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:18).

TALUS

Female expression of greater sciatic notch. From Figure 2, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:18.

TALUS

Probable female expression of greater sciatic notch. From Figure 2, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:18.

TALUS

Ambiguous expression of greater sciatic notch. From Figure 2, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:18.

TALUS

Probable male expression of greater sciatic notch. From Figure 2, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:18.

TALUS

Male expression of greater sciatic notch. From Figure 2, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:18.

TALUS

Location of the preauricular sulcus (if present), anterior to the auricular surface of the ilium. From figure 3, Buikstra and Ubelaker 19945:18.

TALUS

Variation "1" of preauricular sulcus = wide (>0.5cm) and deep. "The walls of the sulcus are transected by bony ridges that make the sulcus appear as if it is composed of a series of lobes. The preauricular sulcus typically extends along the enitre length of the inferior auricular surface, often undercutting it." (Text and Figure 3, Buikstra and Ubelaker 19945:18).

TALUS

Variation "2" of preauricular sulcus = wide (>0.5cm) and shallow. The base of the groove is slightly irregular, but bony ridges, if present, are not as marked as in Variant 1. The sulcus usually extends along the entire length of the inferior auricular surface." (Text and Figure 3, Buikstra and Ubelaker 19945:18).

TALUS

Variation "3" of preauricular sulcus = well-defined but narrow, <0.5cm deep. Its walls are either undulating or smooth. The sulcus extends along the entire length of the inferior auricular surface. A sharp, narrow bony ridge is typically present on the inferior edge of the preauricular sulcus, and it frequently extends along the entire inferior edge of the groove." (Text and Figure 3, Buikstra and Ubelaker 19945:18).

TALUS

Variation "4" of preauricular sulcus = narrow (<0.5cm), shallow, smooth-walled. "It lies below only the posterior part of the auricular surface. A sharp, bony ridge may be found on the inferior edge of the sulcus; if present, it does not extend the entire length of the sulcus." (Text and Figure 3, Buikstra and Ubelaker 19945:18.)

TALUS

The greater sciatic notch (left) is measured from the base of the ischial spine (A) to the pyramidal process (B). The dashed line through the ischial spine indicates where it commonly breaks off. The vertical distance between the inferior (C) and superior (D) margins of the acetabulum (right) is measured as shown. Sliding calipers are used for both measurements.

From Figure 1, Kelley 1979:155.

TALUS

Ten observation sites (regions) at which suture closure is read. From Figure 1, Meindl and Lovejoy 1985:60.

  1. Midlambdoid
  2. Lambda
  3. Obelion
  4. Anterior sagittal
  5. Bregma
  6. Midcoronal
  7. Pterion
  8. Sphenofrontal
  9. Superior sphenotemporal

TALUS

Location of sites to be used to record palatal suture closure. 11) Incisive suture 12) Anterior median palatine suture 13) Posterior median palatine suture 14) Transverse palatine suture. From Figure 11b, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:33 (after Mann et al 1987).

TALUS

Location of sites to be used to record ectocranial suture closure. From Figure 11a, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:33.

  1. Midlambdoid
  2. Lambda
  3. Obelion
  4. Anterior sagittal
  5. Bregma
  6. Midcoronal
  7. Pterion
  8. Sphenofrontal
  9. Inferior sphenotemporal
  10. Superior sphenotemporal

TALUS

Location of sites to be used to record endocranial suture closure. 15) Sagittal 16) Left lambdoid 17) Left coronal. From Figure 11c, Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994:33.

TALUS

Region used in auricular surface age determination, found on the medial surface of the ilium. From Figure 1, Lovejoy et al. 1985:18.

TALUS

Hemi-skull, lateral view, demonstrating the measurements basion-bregma. From Figure 3, Raxter 2006:382.

TALUS

Superior view of skull, showing location of bregma at the intersection of the sagittal and coronal sutures. From Figure 3, Raxter 2006:382.

TALUS

Inferior view of foramen magnum, showing location of basion at the anteriormost margin of foramen magnum. From Figure 3, Raxter 2006:382.

TALUS

Second cervical vertebra (C2/axis) : The most superior point of the odontoid process (dens) to the most inferior point of the anterioinferior rim of the vertebral body (sliding calipers).

Figures from Figure 4 and text- Raxter 2006:382.

TALUS

3rd–7th cervical vertebrae (C3-C7) : The maximum height of the vertebral body, measured in its anterior third, medial to the superiorly curving edges of the centrum (sliding calipers).

Figures from Figure 4 and text- Raxter 2006:382.

TALUS

p>Thoracic vertebrae (T1-T12) : The maximum height of the vertebral body, anterior to the rib articular facets and pedicles (sliding calipers).

Figures from Figure 4 and text- Raxter 2006:382.

TALUS

Lumbar vertebrae (L1-L5) : The maximum height of the vertebral body, anterior to the pedicles, not including any swelling of the centrum due to the pedicles (sliding calipers).

Figures from Figure 4 and text- Raxter 2006:382.

TALUS

First sacral vertebra (S1) : The maximum height between the anterior-superior rim of the body (i.e., the sacral promontory) and its point of fusion/articulation with the second sacral vertebra. This most commonly occurs in the midline. Measure with the calipers parallel to the anterior surface of S1 (sliding calipers).

Figures from Figure 4 and text- Raxter 2006:382.

TALUS

Femoral physiological length: Place the condyles on the stationary end of the board, flat against the horizontal plane. Set the mobile end against the most superior aspect of the femoral head, parallel to the stationary end. Measure at maximum length (osteometric board).

Tibial length: Place the medial malleolus on the stationary end of the board, with the shaft of the tibia parallel to the long axis of the board. Set the mobile end of the board against the most superior aspect of the lateral condyle of the tibia, parallel to the stationary end. Raxter (2006) recommends a trackless osteometric board, to allow greater freedom of the mobile end(osteometric board).

From Figure 5, Raxter 2006:383.

TALUS

>

"Articulate the talus and the calcaneus, using the right hand for the left tarsals and vice versa. Use one hand to stabilize the articulation, point the distal articulations away from your palm, with a thumb holding the bones together superior to the peroneal tubercle (where the talus and calcaneus meet), an index finger on the opposite side lateral to the trochlea of the talus, and a middle finger in the sustentacular sulcus. Place the trochlea against the stable end of the osteometric board, with both lateral and medial edges of the trochlea contacting the board. Position the trochlea of the talus so that the stable end of the board forms a tangent to the midpoint of the trochlear surface. Place the mobile end of the osteometric board against the most inferior point of the calcaneal tuber, parallel to the stable end (osteometric board)"

From Figure 5, Raxter 2006:383.

TALUS

"General regional distributions of samples combined in generating broad stature estimation equations... "Arctic" (left-slanting diagonal lines), "Temperate" (dots), and "Great Plains" (right-slanting diagonal lines)" Figure 4, Auerbach and Raxter 2010:202.

TALUS

The "Race" Concept

Possible collapsible categories:

The purpose of this section is to elaborate on the concept of estimating ancestry from skeletal remains. Humans vary across a spectrum with no discrete categories separating one group from another. Although there may have been subspecies of humans in the past, such as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, modern humans are all part of the same group.

Early Western naturalists categorized humans into simplified groups such as Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid, without taking continuous variation into account and associating personality traits and inherent intelligence levels with these categories. Such thinking led to institutionalized racism in the Western world and continuing to label humans as one "race" or another contrasts with the scientific notion that biological race (meaning discrete categories of humans) does not exist.

The difficulty, for forensic anthropologists, arises from the fact that social categories of race do exist into the 21st century. On census records and other documentation, "race" is recorded as a descriptive characteristic of any individual. "Race" is certainly a feature of a missing person's report, and in order to more successfully match unidentified remains with a missing person, forensic anthropologists include ancestry.

Goodman and Armelogos (1996) take a hard stance on forensic anthropologists, insisting that the logistical need to identify the likely social category of a decendent perpetuates a racist system and denies the biological nonexistance of race. This article was published at a time when the term "ancestry" indicating likely geographic region of ancestral origin, had not yet been widely accepted as a term among forensic anthropologists. (This is opposed to "race," a loaded and socially-derived term associated with innate personal characteristics based on the color of one's skin.)

“The denial of race is not the denial of human diversity. Rather it is a stance that suggests that human diversity is too complex to be explained by types” (Goodman and Armelagos 1996:183).

Ousley SD, Jantz RL, and Freid D. 2009. Understanding race and human variation: why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139:68–76.

Kennedy KAR. 1995. But Professor, why teach race identification if races don’t exist? Journal of Forensic Sciences 40:797–800.

American Association of Physical Anthropologists. 1996. AAPA Statement on the Biological Aspects of Race. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 101:569–570.

Brace CL. 1995. Region does not mean “race” -- reality versus convention in forensic anthropology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40:171–175.

Edgar HJH, and Hunley KL. 2009. Race reconciled?: How biological anthropologists view human variation. American Journal of physical anthropology 139:1–4.

Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association. 1998. American Anthropological Association Statement on “Race.”

Kaszycka KA, and Strziko J. 2003. “Race”—Still an Issue for Physical Anthropology? Results of Polish Studies Seen in the Light of the US Findings. American anthropologist 105:116–124.

Sauer NJ. 1992. Forensic anthropology and the concept of race: If races don’t exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them? Social Science & Medicine 34:107–111.

Sauer NJ. 1993. Applied Anthropology and the Concept of Race: A Legacy of Linnaeus. Annals of Anthropological Practice 13:79–84.

Smay D, and Armelagos G. 2000. Galileo wept: a critical assessment of the use of race in forensic anthropology. Transforming Anthropology 9:19–29.