Activity 1.2.4: Height Estimation from Bone

Which approach seemed to give values closer to your actual height? The formula using only gender or the formula using both ethnicity and gender? Why do you think this is the case?

It is most likely the formula that used both ethnicity and gender that gave values closer to your actual height. The reason is that different ethnicities tend to have certain features in common, and one of those features is a unique relationship between bone length and height. Since the formulas that include ethnicity and gender will likely match more closely with the characteristics that are specific to your race (and therefore you), these formulas are more likely to work

How will the age of the sample population affect your results? Suggest a reason why the equations generated for males in the classroom may not be as accurate as they would be if we took these measurements ten years from now.

Most high school males are not finished growing by their sophomore or junior year. This growth may not be completely symmetrical either, which could mean that a sophomore boy's humerus (for example) is longer than would be predicted by his height simply because his humerus grew larger before some of the rest of his body. If we took the measurements ten years from now, then their bodies would be finished growing, and presumably, full growth has happened in all parts of the skeleton at this point.

What are the benefits and limitations of using ethnic origins as a factor in the analysis of bones?

The benefit is that it can help for those people who are mainly one race. The main limitation of using ethnic origins is that it will not help with people who come from more diverse backgrounds and cannot be classified as one particular race.

An anthropologist finds a 29-cm humerus in a remote site at a mountain resort. There was a missing person's report for a woman (approx. 5'5'' tall) placed just about a week ago. Could this bone possibly belong to her? Why or why not?

When the value for the MLH is plugged into the white female and black female equation, the height ranges are not as tall as 5'5". So the humerus most likely does not belong to the women

Measurements from which bone -- the femur, the radius or the humerus -- seemed to best approximate height? Why do you think this is?

Your femur, the best reason for this is simply because the femur (as part of the leg) actually plays a role in determining your height (as opposed to the radius and humerus, whose lengths are simply related to height).

Why do you think some equations did a better job predicting height than others? What are some of the sources of error in your analysis

the reason some equations did a better job of predicting height than others could have to do with how the data was picked. A good strategy could have been to pick data points that span the entire range of heights and tibia sizes found in the classroom (rather than picking points that are all very close together on the graph). So if a group did that, they may have gotten better results than a group that simply picked at random.

Why do you think most forensic anthropology textbooks also describe adjustments to height calculations for persons over 45?

Certain things contribute most to the loss of height for people over 45, including the compression of the discs between the vertebrae in the spine and the loss of arch in the foot. Since height is typically determined using the long bones (which are not usually the reason for height loss in older adults), then the formula has to be adjusted to take into account the height loss resulting from things other than the long bones (like spinal compression).