Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
BOX 6.2
BOX 6.2
RULES LEARNED FROM TROTTER AND GLESER:
RULES LEARNED FROM TROTTER AND GLESER:
WHAT TO AVOID IN STATURE ESTIMATION
1. DO NOT combine formulae from
different populations, investigators,
geographic areas, or generations.
2. DO NOT determine the average from
several equations, which are based on
different bones or bone combinations.
3. DO NOT plot estimated stature to actual
(observed) stature to test precision.
actually
mismeasured
the tibia for the 1952 publication (
Trotter and Gleser, 1952
) by excluding
the medial malleolus, contrary to the published measurement description. Compounding the
error, two different methods were used for the 1958 publication (
Trotter and Gleser, 1958
),
which included the Korean War sample. Thus, any modern attempts to use the regression
equations of Trotter and Gleser must not rely on the 1958 formulae that include the tibia.
6
If using the 1952 formulae, the
tibia should be measured without the malleolus
(
Jantz
et al., 1995
).
Regression Formulae from Other Bones
After Pearson, stature studies using regression formulae sprang up for populations around
the world. Researchers began to test other bones of the skeleton in addition to the long bones.
The argument given for using other bones is the all too often scenario of poor preservation in
both bioarchaeological and forensic contexts. It is important to point out that not all of the
bones yield equally successful stature formulae.
Musgrave and Haneja (1978)
estimated stature
from physiologic length of each metacarpal for European males and females using hand
x-rays. The results from their equations were more variable for females (r
¼
0.49
e
0.84) than
for males (r
0.53
e
0.67).
Giroux and Wescott (2008)
provide excellent summary tables of
previous studies for the sacrum, cranium, vertebrae, metacarpals, metatarsals, talus, and calca-
neus. The best results for non-long bones are from the metatarsals, metacarpals, talus, and
calcaneus, but no correlations exceeded r
¼
¼
0.89. Pelvic dimensions provided no better stature
estimates (r
0.77) (
Giroux and Wescott, 2008
).
Singh and Sohal (1952)
and
Olivier and Pineau
(1957)
created regression equations from the scapula and clavicle. Stature estimation using the
clavicle does not seem to be a plausible option, because
Jit and Singh (1956)
reported errors of
as much as 32 cm. Correlations of stature with craniometrics and odontometrics have the least
success (not exceeding r
<
0.56) (
Kalia et al., 2008
).
In 1960, Fully and Pineau published a mathematical method that regressed the entire
length of the vertebral column on stature (
Fully and Pineau, 1960
). This method is a summa-
tion of the vertical body heights from the second cervical vertebra (C2) to the fifth lumbar
vertebra (L5). They found that the combined heights of the fifth through seventh thoracic
¼
6
In other words,
Trotter and Gleser (1952)
measured the tibiae
without
the malleolus and
Trotter and Gleser
(1958)
measured the Korean War sample tibiae
with
the malleolus (
Jantz et al., 1995
).
