Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
traits of the skull (
Clarke, 1987; Cool et al., 1995; Curtis, 2003
). Based on this, I decided
a contribution examining this area would be valuable.
When considering my research design, I chose three neurocranial elements for analy-
sis
d
the frontal, parietal, and temporal bones. Both the frontal and parietal have been previ-
ously discussed in relation to age estimations (
Clarke, 1987; Curtis, 2003
) so one purpose of
my research was to compare findings. Additionally, there was no evidence in previous liter-
ature that the temporal bone had been examined so another goal was to attempt an entirely
new approach.
Because of the paucity of neurocranial histological research, I decided to begin with basic
questions about the microstructure of these elements before considering too many vari-
ables. I chose to use European American males and females based on the demographics
of East Tennessee as well as the possibility of needing specific methodologies for different
ancestral groups. The bone samples were procured from autopsied individuals at the
University of Tennessee Medical Center in Knoxville. The existing literature was skewed
towards older individuals so my research addressed this gap and focused on age groups
below 50 years. I followed the embedding and sectioning procedures discussed earlier in
this chapter and utilized variables similar to
Curtis (2003)
as her study also focused on
the cranium.
I reached the following significant conclusions:
There are no differences in the histomorphometrics (or subvariables) between the internal
and external tables of the frontal, parietal, and temporal bones.
There are significant differences in the subvariable mean values between males and
females. Sex-specific analyses are necessary.
There are significant differences in the subvariable mean values between bones when
controlling for sex.
The correlations of subvariable mean values and age are similar to the trends found in
previous neurocranial studies.
These correlation trends are additionally comparable to long bone histomorphometric
research indicating similar processes of cortical remodeling.
As the conclusions indicated that sex-specific analyses were necessary for neurocranial
histology, I created a discriminant function analysis based on the collected histomorphomet-
rics to estimate sex. I used a combination of subvariables from the frontal, parietal, and
temporal bones for this purpose and was successful, with 80% correct classification for
females and 90% correct classification for males.
Finally, I was able to eventually return to that same professor and tell him that I could esti-
mate age and sex from those small cranial bone fragments that he had initially approached
me with.
Case Study 2
Bone histology proved to be pivotal in relation to a 1985 homicide investigation as pre-
sented by Owsley and colleagues (1985). Awoman was shot and killed by two shotgun blasts;
her humerus was fractured during the event leaving a portion of her diaphysis missing and
never recovered. During the course of
the investigation,
fragmentary remains were
