Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
for White males. For all three cases, the Fully method outperformed the Trotter and Gleser
formulae. However, as mentioned previously, there is systematic bias of the Trotter and
Gleser formulae as a result of mismeasurement of the tibia.
Bidmos (2005)
tested the Fully
method on South African Blacks and Whites and found that it, too, had systematic bias
when estimating the stature of South African Black individuals. According to Raxter and
colleagues (2006), this bias might have been due to differences in the way in which the
cadaver stature was originally measured (
Raxter et al., 2006
).
The Fully method has been consistently recognized as more precise than any of the math-
ematical methods and has therefore become the standard for testing mathematical models in
bioarchaeological populations, for which a living stature is not known (
Sciulli et al., 1990;
Konigsberg et al., 1998; Bidmos, 2008; Auerbach and Ruff, 2010
).
Raxter et al. (2006)
state,
“Despite the sex/ancestry specificity of the regression formulae, there are always likely to
be some individuals with unusual body proportions.” Thus, by measuring every bone using
the anatomical method (e.g., femur, tibia, vertebral bodies), stature is personalized for the
proportions of each individual. This process is laborious and some researchers found the
instructions by Fully were unclear for a few bones (
Raxter et al., 2006
).
Revised Fully Method
Raxter and colleagues (2006) revised the Fully method by providing better instructions
for the measurements and by validating its accuracy and applicability. Like the Fully method,
Raxter et al. (2006)
recommended the addition of soft tissue corrections. One of the discrep-
ancies of the Fully method is that average distance of the second cervical vertebra (C2) to
basion is actually about 7 mm, but assumed by Fully to be null (
Raxter et al., 2006
). In addi-
tion, there is an average distance of 3.6 mm from the roof of the acetabulum to the first sacral
segment (S1), again unaccounted for by Fully. There is also an overlap of the medial malleo-
lus of the tibia by 1.5 cm, which counteracts part of the underestimation. Raxter and
colleagues therefore recommend an average soft tissue correction of 12.4 cm while Fully
had only recommended an average of 10.2 cm.
Further,
Bidmos (2005)
found the Fully method systematically underestimates living
stature by 2.4 cm (
Bidmos, 2005
). The difference in the soft tissue correction recommended
by Fully and that recommended by
Raxter et al. (2006)
may account for this 2.4 cm difference.
Fully also used a Broca osteometric board (with a hole in the stationary end to place the inter-
condylar eminence through) to measure the tibia, which is not always available. Using
a sample of African-American and European-American males and females from the Terry
Collection, Raxter and colleagues accounted for the effects of sex, ancestry, and age. Ancestry
and sex had no significant effect on the stature estimation, therefore Raxter and colleagues
(2006) contend that
universal equations are possible
,
10
contrary to Fully's recommendations.
Raxter et al. (2006)
created regression equations (that included the correction factors) to better
account for soft tissues and age. Using their equations, 95% of the estimated statures fall
within 4.4 cm of actual stature. Refer to
Box 6.5
for the revised Fully equations, as per
Raxter
et al. (2006)
.
10
According to Raxter and colleagues (2006), universal stature equations (with soft tissue corrections) are
possible when using the revised Fully method.
