Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
of Europeans on 48 Chinese males,
Stevenson (1929)
concluded that general equations are not
feasible most likely as a result of variation in long bone proportions to stature. The influential
work of
Trotter and Gleser (1958)
cautioned against combining formulae from different pop-
ulations, investigators, generations, or geographic areas. Problems resulting from error in
bone measurement (especially the tibia) (
Jantz et al., 1995
) and in the accuracy of the ante-
mortem data have been discussed in several studies (
Giles and Hutchinson, 1991; Willey
and Falsetti, 1991; Ousley, 1995; Wilson et al., 2010
). More recently, it has been noted that there
is a high error when the reference sample and the estimated sample are genetically distinct,
requiring modification of the statistical methods (
Holliday and Ruff, 1997; Konigsberg et al.,
1998; Hens et al., 2000; Ross and Konigsberg, 2002
). Thus, despite numerous stature equa-
tions that have been developed for populations around the world, there is always the need
for additional population-specific reference data. However,
Komar and Buikstra (2009)
argue
for a more global approach and set of universal equations for stature estimation.
This chapter explores the history of stature estimation starting with the first mathematical
attempts during the middle of the eighteenth century by Jean Joseph Sue (
Stewart, 1979
) using
the ratio of the bone length to stature (also known as the femur/stature ratio). In 1899, the
Englishman Carl Pearson developed themodernmethod of using statistical regression (
Pear-
son, 1899
). This is the predominant mathematical model used today (also known as inverse
calibration), though it may be important to consider whether the individual's stature in ques-
tion is likely fromthe population fromwhich the formulawas derived (
Konigsberg et al., 1998
).
As an alternative to early mathematical proportions,
Dwight (1894)
recommended an
anatomical method of laying out the entire skeleton on an osteometric table to measure the
postmortem stature (being careful to account for soft tissue thicknesses and spinal curva-
ture).
Fully (1956)
proposed a similar but simpler method to estimate stature by measuring
the height of each skeletal element individually, the sum of which is combined with a stan-
dardized soft-tissue estimate. More recent improvements to the anatomical method by Raxter
and colleagues (2006) are included in this discussion. A method to estimate long bone length
from fragmentary remains was first introduced by
M¨ ller (1935)
. This method was later
improved by
Steele and McKern (1969)
and the process was then streamlined by Steele to
directly estimate stature from the bone fragment (
Steele, 1970
). The prominent work of
Trotter and Gleser (1952, 1958)
utilized individuals from the Robert J. Terry Anatomical
Skeletal Collection,
2
World War II dead, and KoreanWar dead. Their work produced regres-
sion equations still in use today, though often inappropriately, as they are based on historic
anatomical collections that may not be appropriate for contemporary forensic casework.
The correlation of fetal bone length is important for the estimation of the age of the fetus
and of the subadult (
Fazekas and K
´
sa, 1966a, b; Scheuer and Black, 2004
) but few studies
have undertaken stature estimation in children (
Telkka et al., 1962; Himes et al., 1977; Ruff,
2007; Smith, 2007; Abrahamyan et al., 2008; Cardoso, 2009
). Secular trends show an increase
in stature over the last few centuries, suggesting population-specific data must also be
temporally specific (
Trotter and Gleser, 1951b; Meadows and Jantz, 1995
). Establishing
population data for archaeological samples requires the anatomical method in addition to
a mathematical method (
Sciulli et al., 1990; Giannecchini and Moggi-Cecchi, 2008; Vercellotti
2
Curated by the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
