Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
et al., 2009; Auerbach and Ruff, 2010
). We will present the limitations of stature estimation to
help you avoid common pitfalls. Finally, two case studies of stature estimation by the authors
are presented to walk you through the process of how to conduct your own study.
MET
HODS IN STATURE ESTIMATION: THEN AND
NOW
Dwight (1894)
differentiated between two different methods for stature estimation: math-
ematical and anatomical. The mathematical methods calculated the proportion of each bone
length to stature (e.g., femur/living stature ratio). However, the early mathematical methods
were not reliable because body proportions vary from one population to another (
Ruff and
Walker, 1993
).
Dwight (1894)
recommended using the mathematical method only if the
anatomical method was not possible, due to the absence of various skeletal elements. The
anatomical methods combine the measured height of each bone, accounting for spinal curva-
ture and soft tissue thickness. Five years later,
Pearson (1899)
developed statistical regression.
The femur/stature ratio was overshadowed by regression theory, which is the predominant
method used today for two main reasons: (1) the ease of application (it requires only the
length of a single element), (2) the common incompleteness of skeletons from archaeological
sites and forensic cases, and (3) the relative accuracy of the stature estimations.
Mathematical Methods: Stature Ratio
Early mathematical models developed by French anatomists successfully explored allom-
etry (differential growth of body parts) in body proportions of bone length and stature, but
failed to coordinate amongst themselves a consistent measurement standard (e.g., metric vs.
imperial measurements). In 1755, Jean Joseph Sue, a professor at the Louvre, published
research comparing maximum imperial length of human bones, trunk length, and the
complete length of both the upper and lower extremities to stature. Sue came to two conclu-
sions. First, he found that trunk length is greater than lower extremity length until the age
of 14. Second, Sue determined that the length of the upper limb exceeds the lower limb until
birth. Unfortunately, Sue never specified how he took the measurements (maximum vs.
physiologic length, etc.) (
Stewart, 1979
). Another French Professor of Legal Medicine in Paris,
Matthieu Joseph Bonaventure Orfila, used the measurements of Sue and then took his own
metric measurements from 51 cadavers and 20 skeletons. Orfila then used cadaver stature
and attempted to estimate stature from the femur and/or the humerus. In 1823 in the United
States, T. R. Beck used the Sue-Orfila method with feet and inches, but failed to convert the
French imperial measurements to the Anglo-American feet and inches, which are not iden-
tical (
Stewart, 1979
).
Not long after Sue andOrfila, British anthropologists began their ownmathematical attempts
at stature estimation in bioarchaeological contexts. These anthropologists included John Ther-
nam, Sir George Humphrey, and John Beddoe. Both the British and the French methods simply
multiplied femur length by a constant number, which was the average proportion calculated
from the femur/stature ratio (
Dwight, 1894; Stewart, 1979
). See
Box 6.1
for the femur/stature
ratio. Standardization of the measurement methodology was finally introduced by Paul Broca.
Broca founded the Soci´t´ d'Anthropologie de Paris in 1859 and developed the osteometric
