Methods of anthropology
I and II
Bi7351 a Bi8352
Study materials
Funding was provided by MUNI/FR/1440/2015 grant Inovace výuky metod antropologie
The courses Methods of anthropology I and II (Bi7351 and Bi8352) acquaint the students of
Anthropology – bachelor study program – with fundamental and advanced methods of skeletal
anthropology and anthropology of the living human. These newly created study materials emphasize
maximum usability and practical applicability by “graphically” simplifying the decision-making
process of choosing the material-adequate method out of the variety of the available ones.
In the annex, an .xls file Vek/vyska is available, containing a complex notion of the skeletal find’s age
and body height.
List of contents
Introduction – somatic characteristics evaluation in the living human
Fundamental anthropometric landmarks definition
Fundamental anthropometric measurements definition
Skeletal find documentation
Estimation of biological age in subadults (anthropology of living humans)
Sex assessment in the skeletal find
Population affinity assessment in the skeletal find
Nutritional status assessment
Body type assessment
Annex
Estimation of body height in the skeletal find
Estimation of age at death
Introduction to somatic characteristics assessment in Man
To measure and visually or electronically record human somatic characteristics (as well as any other
research of Man) requires a specific scientific approach. Man can never be an object of research, in
research of Man, he/she always has to be a subject of research. A participant in research always has
to be informed in detail with research goals and methods, understand them and must express
his/her consent (ideally by signing a written consent form approved by an ethical committee, in our
case Ethical committee for research, Masaryk University). When measuring and recording somatic
characteristics, methods used are strictly limited to non-invasive procedures which are painless when
correctly performed.
However, anthropological examination can be unpleasant for the participant also from the
psychological point of view with respect to the relationship between the participant and researcher –
such relationship is not equal. The participant is put in a position which can be uncomfortable from
the intimate point of view – to minimalize measurement (and recording) error the measurements
have to be performed on the bare skin (this is true for body surface recording as well) and therefore
it is necessary for the participants to be clad in their underwear or elastic exercise gear. In contrast to
historical experience it is nowadays therefore considered standard that female participants are
examined by female researchers and male participants by male researchers. Many anthropometric
landmarks are palpated by the researcher on the participant’s body which can further increase
his/her discomfort. It is desirable for the researcher to be able to assess the situation emphatically
and using a sensitive (or at times also resolute and self-confident or humorous and relaxed) approach
make the stressful situation more tolerable for the participant. This is not only matter of professional
courtesy; researching somatic characteristics requires overall relaxed feel. Contracted/cramped
muscles do not permit a reliable measurement and recording. An anthropologist should be able to
act in a professional way and establish a relationship of trust with the participant. The first and
easiest step is to utilize a white lab coat during examinations. It is true that the so called white coat
syndrome can manifest itself also during anthropological examinations and provoke the sensation of
nervousness in the participant yet the positive factors prevail – white lab coat signalizes professional
approach, respectability and meaningfulness of the research. Another element which heralds
professionalism is perfect research design and preparation – the methods must be well thought
trough and prepared in detail, designed with the goal of verification (or rejection) of beforehand
established working hypotheses. The approach of “peoplemetrics – measure everything and surely
there will be some results” in unacceptable. Working hypotheses must be established with good
theoretical knowledge in the field, acquired by literary research. Corresponding methods are
selected to fulfil a second major consideration – minimum time consumption, besides of course the
first major consideration – acquisition of data crucial to verify/reject the working hypothesis. The
question of time consumption is often crucial in the sample recruiting/motivation process. A tried
and trusted motivation factor is offering a compensation for the lost time. In most anthropological
research in our country the investigator/investigating team does not have funding available to
financially remunerate the participants; it is desirable to offer an attractive outcome connected to
the examination – for instance a facial or full-body 3D model in studies focusing on body surface
recording, a strongest hand-grip in physical condition studies or body composition assessment
(especially body fat percentage) in nutritional status-oriented studies.
An ethical approach of the researcher is a must – in no respect can the trust of the participant be
taken advantage of, be it in the tangible (treatment of personal data in scientific research is
regulated by the law 101/2000 Coll., on personal data protection) or in the intangible sphere.
In anthropology of the living Man (when measuring, recording or visually observing/assessing
somatic parameters) a standardized method exists which is based on precisely defined
anthropometric landmarks. Between these landmarks a battery of standard basic and specialized
dimensions can be measured. Further in the text a list of anthropometric dimensions with definitions
is included, also charts to help in the decision-making process when selecting basic and advanced
methods based on available material and instruments.
Definitions of fundamental anthropometric landmarks
Vertex - (v) The most superior point on the crown of the head oriented in the Frankfort horizontal
Suprasternale - (sst) - the deepest point in the hollow of the jugular notch lying at the middle of the
anterior-superior border of the sternal manubrium
Akromiale - (a) - The lateral-most point on the acromion of the scapula, with the upper limb in the
position of adduction.
Mesosternale - A reference point on the frontal surface of the chest, on the midsagittal line, in the
center of the sternum.
Thelion (th) – A reference point in the middle of the nipple.
Xiphosternale - A reference point on the frontal surface of the chest, on the midsagittal line where the
xiphoid process joins the body of the sternum.
Omphalion - (om) - A reference point in the middle of the navel.
Symphysion - (sy) - The uppermost point on the symphysis pubica, on the midsagittal line.
Radiale - (r) - The uppermost point on the radius head (upper limb in adduction position). The
landmark is palpated on the outer side of the limb, as the fissure (articular cavity) between the
humerus and radius is well defined.
Stylion - (sty) - A reference point located at the end of the processus styloideus of the radius. The
landmark is palpated at the radial side of the forearm.
Daktylion - (da) – A reference point located at the end of the finger which is the most distant on the
upper limb in adduction. Usually the third finger daktylion is used.
Metacarpale radiale (mr)
Metacarpale ulnare (mu)
Iliocristale - (ic) - The most lateral and superior point located on the iliac crest.
Iliospinale (anterius) - (is) - The anterior-most point located on the spina iliaca anterior superior.
When following the iliac crest forward the landmark can be palpated at its frontal extreme.
Trochanterion - (tro) - The superior-most point on the greater trochanter of the femur. Palpation of
the point is performed in a slight dorso-anterior direction on the largest hip breadth level.
Tibiale - (ti) - The upper-most point on the proximal end of the tibia (on the lateral border of the
lateral condyle of the tibia).
Sphyrion - (sph) – A reference point on the tip (the most distal in the upright position) of the inner
ankle (malleolus medialis).
Metatarsale fibulare (mtf)
Metatarsale tibiale (mtt)
Pternion - (pte) The most posterior point located on the heel of the foot when the subject is standing.
Akropodion - (ap) The most anterior (distal) point on the distal phalange of the longest toe when the
subject is standing.
Anthropometric landmarks on the head:
Glabella - (g) - The most anterior point on the forehead, above the nasal root, on a midsagittal plane
between the eyebrow ridges.
Opisthokranion - (op) - A reference point located on a midsagittal plane in the occipital part of the
head. Opisthokranion is the point most distant (when measuring straight distance – length of the
head) from the glabella landmark.
Euryon - (eu) The
lateral-most point on the side of the head (most often located on the parietal bone). The bilateral
points are established when head breadth is measured.
Nasion (n) – A reference point located on a midsagittal plane on the nasal root in the nasofrontal
suture (at the superior end of the nasal bones). This landmark is not always located in the lowest
depression of the nasal root, it is best located by palpation of the shallow ridge of the suture (a finger
nail can be used to distinguish the sutural ridge).
Zygion (zy) – The lateral-most point on the zygomatic arch. The bilateral landmarks are located when
the maximum face breadth is measured.
Gnathion (gn) – A reference point on the lower edge of the mandible located inferior-most on the
midsagittal plane. Palpation is performed from below up.
Gonion (go) –The most inferior and lateral point on the angle of the mandible.
Alare (al) –The lateral-most point on the ala of the nose. The bilateral landmarks are located when
the maximum nasal breadth is measured.
Ectocanthion - a reference point located in the lateral canthus where the upper and lower eyelids
meet.
Entocanthion – a reference point located in the lateral canthus where the upper and lower eyelids
meet.
Frontotemporale (ft) – A reference point located on the temporal line, front-most and closest to the
midsagittal plane; in the exact spot where the distance between bilateral temporal lines is the
smallest.
Stomion (sto) – A reference point on the intersection of the oral fissure with the midsagittal plane
(lips closed, neutral expression)
Subaurale (sba) – The inferior-most point on the lower extremity of the earlobe, head of the subject is
oriented in the Frankfort plane.
Subnasale (sn) – A reference point located in the angle between the base of the nasal septum and the
upper lip (its philtrum).
Superaurale (sa) –The superior-most point on the upper extremity of the auricle, head of the subject is
oriented in the Frankfort plane.
Tragion (t) –A reference point located at the notch just above the upper margin of the tragus of the
ear, in the spot where the cartilages connect.
Definition of fundamental anthropometric measurements
Body weight – weighed using a digital personal scale
Height characteristics – measured using the anthropometer, in the anatomic stance; the participant is
clad in underwear or in an elastic exercise clothing. Heels of the feet are positioned near each other,
toes slightly apart; back, buttocks and heels touch the wall; stance is upright yet relaxed to avoid
„stretching the height“. Lateral dimensions are measured on the right side.
Body height (stature) – vertical distance of the vertex landmark from the standing surface.
Suprasternale height – vertical distance of the suprasternale landmark from the standing surface.
Acromiale height – vertical distance of the acromiale landmark from the standing surface.
Elbow joint fissure height (radiale height) – vertical distance of the radiale landmark from the
standing surface.
Height of the radius styloid process (wrist height) - vertical distance of the stylion landmark from the
standing surface.
Height of the tip of the middle finger (dactylion height) - vertical distance of the dactylion landmark
from the standing surface.
Height of the iliac crest - vertical distance of the iliocristale landmark from the standing surface.
Height of the anterior superior iliac spine - vertical distance of the iliospinale landmark from the
standing surface.
Height of the great trochanter - vertical distance of the dactylion landmark from the standing surface.
Knee joint fissure height - vertical distance of the tibiale landmark from the standing surface.
Height of the symphysis upper margin - vertical distance of the symphysion landmark from the
standing surface.
Height of the navel - vertical distance of the omphalion landmark from the standing surface.
Sitting height – the measured person is seated in an actively upright straightened position, thighs
parallel in a horizontal position, lower legs at a right angle, head oriented in the Frankfurt horizontal
plane.
Breadths are measured using a pelvimeter (or the top part of an anthropometer can be used), limb
breadths are measured using a sliding caliper.
Biacromial breadth (shoulder breadth) – a direct distance between the right and left acromiale
landmarks.
Bideltoid breadth – the maximum horizontal distance between the lateral margins of the upper arms,
measured on the greatest expansion of the deltoid muscles (soft tissues are not to be compressed)
Transverse chest diameter – horizontal distance of the lateral-most points on the chest, measured at
mid-sternum height (mesosternale landmark). The instrument branches are lightly pressed on the
ribs, the chest in normal position (between inspiration and expiration).
Sagittal (fronto-dorsal) chest diameter – direct distance of the mesosternale landmark (mid-sternum)
from the spinal process of the thoracic vertebra on the same horizontal plane
Bicristal breadth – direct distance between the right and left iliocristale landmarks
Bispinous breadth – direct distance between the right and left iliospinale landmarks
Bitrochanterion breadth - direct distance between the right and left trochanterion landmarks
Span – distance between the right and left dactylion landmarks (on the third finger; arms are
maximally spread horizontally, palms facing forward
Ankle breadth (bimaleolar breadth) – distance between the medial and lateral sphyrion landmarks
Foot breadth – the maximum distance between the lateral and medial margin of the foot at the
metatarso-phalangeal joint.
Hand breadth – maximum distance between the lateral and medial margin of the hand at the
metacarpo-phalangeal joint.
Humeral bi-epicondylar breadth (humeral epiphyseal breadth) – direct distance of the most lateral
and medial points on epicondylus lateralis and epicondylus medials of the humerus. The arm and the
forearm are at right angle.
Wrist breadth (bi-styloid breadth) – distance of the stylion radiale and ulnare landmarks
Femoral bi-epicondylar breadth (femoral epiphyseal breadth) – direct distance of the most lateral and
medial points on epicondylus lateralis and epicondylus medials of the femur. The thigh and the lower
leg are at right angle.
Circumferences – measured by measuring tape
Chest circumference (on the thelion/mesosternale landmark) in normal position (between inspiration
and expiration) – on the back the tape runs slightly below the lower angles of the scapulae, in front
slightly above the nipples – in men; in women the circumference is measured at the mesosternale
landmark level
Chest circumference (on the xiphosternale landmark) in normal position (between inspiration and
expiration) – the circumference is measured at the level of the xiphosternale landmark
Abdominal circumference – a circumference measured horizontally at the level of the navel
Gluteal circumference (hip circumference) - a circumference measured horizontally at the level of the
maximum development of gluteal muscles
Relaxed arm circumference (extended arm circumference) – a circumference measured mid-distance
between the akromiale and olecranon landmarks on a freely suspended arm
Flexed arm circumference (arm in flexion) – maximum arm circumference when both flexor and
extensor muscles are fully contracted
Forearm circumference – a circumference measured where the forearm is the widest
Wrist circumference – a circumference measured at the processus styloideus ulnae level
Obvod stehna gluteální – obvod měřený v proximální partii stehna pod hýždní rýhou (M68).
Gluteal circumference of the thigh – a circumference measured horizontally in the proximal part of
the thigh, below the gluteal sulcus
Mid-thigh circumference – a circumference measured half-way between the trochanter major and the
lateral epicondyle of the femur
Maximum circumference of the calf – a circumference measured at the level of maximum
development of the triceps surae muscle
Neck circumference – a circumference measured horizontally at the level of the thyroid cartilage.
Waist circumference – a circumference measured horizontally at the narrowest spot, in the region
between the last rib and the iliac crest
Basic cephalometric characteristics (measurements of the human head)
Head circumference (measuring tape) – a circumference measured through the glabella and
opisthocranion landmarks
Transverse head arc (measuring tape) – an arc measurement connecting bilateral tragion landmarks
and the vertex landmark.
Sub-nasal arc (measuring tape) – an arc measurement connecting bilateral tragion landmarks and
the subnasale landmark
Mandible arc (measuring tape) – an arc measurement connecting bilateral gonion landmarks and the
gnathion landmark
Head length (cephalometer) – direct distance of the glabella landmark to the opisthokranion
landmark.
Head breadth (cephalometer) – direct distance of the right and left euryon landmarks
Smallest forehead breadth (cephalometer) – direct distance of the right and left frontotemporale
landmarks
Bi-zygomatic breadth (cephalometer) – direct distance of the right and left zygion landmarks
Mandible arc breadth (lower face breadth; cephalometer) – direct distance of the right and left
gonion landmarks.
Cranial base breadth (cephalometer) – direct distance of the right and left tragion landmarks
Distance of the outer corners of the eye (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the right and left
ektokanthion landmarks
Distance of the inner corners of the eye (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the right and left
entokanthion landmarks
Nasal breadth (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the right and left alare landmarks
Morphological height of the face (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the nasion and gnathion
landmarks
Nasal height (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the nasion and subnasale landmarks
Physiognomic height of the upper face (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the nasion and stomion
landmarks
Lower face height (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the subnasale and gnathion landmarks
Mandible height (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the stomion and gnathion landmarks
Mandible depth (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the gnathion and gonion landmarks
Upper face depth (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the nasion and tragion landmarks
Middle face depth (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the subnasale and tragion landmarks
Lower face depth (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the ganthion and tragion landmarks
Tragion – gonion distance (sliding caliper) – a direct distance of these two landmarks
Physiognomic auricle length (sliding caliper) – direct distance of the superaurale and subaurale
landmarks; maximum length of the auricle’s longitudinal axis
Skinfold thickness measurement (caliperation)
The skinfold thickness is measured using a caliper. There are various types, with Best and Harpenden
caliper being the most used (each body composition assessment, or somatotype, method requires a
different caliper).
The most frequently used skinfold locations are:
On the cheek
Below the chin
On the triceps
On the biceps
On the forearm
On the chest
On the chest II
Subscapular
Suprailiac
Abdominal
Patellar
On the thigh
On the calf
Biological age assessment
Biological age is a parameter which unlike the chronological (calendar) age characterizes the overall
growth and development status of an individual. In the majority of biological age assessment cases in
anthropology the age assessment of sub-adult (child or adolescent) individuals is concerned. In these
cases, the maturation stage of the developing organism is ascertained. Biological age can be
significantly different than chronological age (a plain number of days elapsed since birth). Same-age
(chronologically) individuals can vary in the measure of morphological and functional trait formation
– either within normal variation range or more markedly in case of disproportions outside
physiological growth and development course. Biological age is a unique indicator of somatic
development in many scientific disciplines (forensic anthropology and medicine, sports
anthropology, auxology…). Especially in auxology biological estimation is a primary diagnostic tool
when developmental disorders are suspected.
(Note: less frequently does an anthropologist come across biological age estimation in adult
individuals as these cases are usually reserved for so called anti-aging medicine. Biological age in
adults is basically a synonym of organism aging rate. Also in adults can biological age be significantly
different from chronological age. Owing to the influence of various internal and external factors an
individual can age either slower or faster than the calendar age would indicate. Ageing is
characterized as functional capacity decrease in an organism (usually is evaluated at the organ or
organ system level).
Adolescent individual’s biological age can be estimated with use of various methods. Each assess the
age of the individual based on different parameters; therefore, different scientific disciplines –
auxology, stomatology, forensic anthropology – require different methods. To select an appropriate
biological age estimation method one needs to understand the limits of respective methods – each
requires different material and equipment. See below a concise list of individual method principles
and a decision process flowchart when selecting a relevant method.
“Growth age” assessment (evaluates the somatic development stage of the individual based on
his/her position on a percentile graph for the relevant population)
Dental age assessment (methods ranging from a basic observation of tooth eruption to methods
assessing a complex of traits from a dental radiograph – an eruption stage, apical opening on the
root etc.)
“Proportional age” assessment (regards age-specific changes in somatic parameters proportionality;
so called KEI index – somatic development index – is one of the most frequently used methods)
Developmental age (assesses the development of the secondary sexual traits an evaluates the state
of sexual maturity)
Skeletal (bone) age assessment (assessment is based on ossification stages of various regions on the
sub-adult skeleton; the most frequent is the use of a complex of the distal parts of forearm bones,
wrist and hand bones x-rays in a comparative analysis with standards in form of the TW2 scoring
system or TW3 PC atlas)
Decision-making process
1) I plan to use the most reliable method to assess biological age (for example as a diagnostic tool in
auxology or stomato-surgery or to estimate adult height in sports anthropology)
 Do I have access to left wrist and hand x-rays of the research sample members? The
legislation in effect does not allow taking x-rays of the research sample members without
(medical cause) indication; ethical committee approval and parents’ informed consent are
necessary.
If x-rays are available, the most suitable skeletal age assessment method is the TW3 (Tanner JM,
Healy MJR, Goldstein H, Cameron N. 2001. Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of
adult height (TW3 method). London – Edinburg – New York – Philadelphia –St. Louis – Sydney –
Toronto or its predecessor version TW2: Tanner JM, Whitehouse RH, Cameron N, Marshall WA,
Healy MJR, Goldstein H. Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height, 2nd ed.
London: Academic Press, 1983.). The TW3/2 is the most accurate method (compared to other
methods) which assesses biological age based on a score attributed to individual bones on an xray
of the distal parts of the forearm bones, carpal bones and the bones of the hand according to
a detailed text description, x-ray photographs and schematic drawings of each developmental
stage. The method has high requirements on the investigators experience with skeletal age
assessment.
 Do I have access to x-rays of the head of the research sample members? The legislation in
effect does not allow taking x-rays of the research sample members without (medical cause)
indication; ethical committee approval and parents’ informed consent are necessary.
If x-rays are available, the most suitable method is the one by Demirjian: Demirjian A, Goldstein
H, Tanner JM. A new system of dental age assessment. Hum Biol. 1973 May; 45(2):211-227. The
method assesses a complex of traits on the oral cavity x-ray; it is highly demanding of the
evaluator’s experience.
 X-rays are not available – I need to look for alternative methods – see step 2
2) I plan to assess biological age using a relatively reliable method to evaluate the discrepancy
between the biological and chronological age on a population sample
 Do I have access to a sufficiently-sized research sample, ethical committee approval and
parents’ informed consent to measure (or acquire previously measured) somatic
characteristics which have a direct relation to age-specific growth and development
dynamics (i.e. body height, biacromial breadth, bispinal breadth, maximum arm
circumference (boys), maximum thigh circumference (girls) and Rohrer index values? If so, it
is recommended to assess the so called proportional age using a somatic development index
called KEI index by Brauer: Brauer, B. M.: Die Bestimmung des biologischen Alters in der
Sport und jugendärztlichen Praxis mit neuen anthropometrischen Methoden. Ärztl. Jugend.,
1982, vol. 73, s. 94-100.
3) Developmental age can be used to assess sexual maturity of an individual or a population sample
(for example to analyse a sexual maturation secular trend).
 Do I have at my disposal data on menarche (or first nocturnal emission in boys) or am I
conducting a questionnaire survey (or semi-structured interviews) with a sufficient number
of girls/women (men; and, do I have their informed consent, or an informed consent of their
parents, approved by the ethical committee? If so, puberty onset can be assessed based on
the date of menarche of first nocturnal emission. An alternative in boys would be testicular
volume measurement, albeit the ethical side of the problem is quite limiting.
 To assess sexual development and maturity also a visual assessment according to secondary
sexual traits visual schemes (so called Tanner scale) can be employed. Regarding the highly
sensitive ethical aspect this approach is not currently only scarcely used for biological
estimation (aside from the subjective nature of the method). This method finds limited use
as a supporting criterion in forensic anthropology in age estimation cases of actors in
suspected child pornography cases (as puberty onset and secondary sexual traits
development is individually highly variable this method is considered to be an auxiliary tool.
The main reason for caution is however the fact that this method assesses biological age
which can be significantly different from chronological age upon which the coming of
majority is based and therefore the usage of this method can be justified only by nonexistence
of an alternative). The assessment is performed by comparing the status quo of the
observed individual with illustrated scales and text description of the pubic hair development
in boys and girls, breast development in girls and external genital organ development in
boys. (See Marshall WA, Tanner JM (February 1970). "Variations in the pattern of pubertal
changes in boys". Arch. Dis. Child. 45 (239): 13–23. doi:10.1136/adc.45.239.13.; Marshall WA,
Tanner JM (June 1969). "Variations in pattern of pubertal changes in girls". Arch. Dis. Child.
44 (235): 291–303. doi:10.1136/adc.44.235.291).
4. In order to make an approximate biological age estimation linked to a target body height
approximation the so called “growth age” can be used.
 A measured value of body height can be implemented in a growth (percentile) chart (and
then the intersection of the measured body height and observed calendar age determine the
individual’s position on the chart which can be used for biological age assessment – in broad
terms of “within population-specific normal range”, “retarded growth/biological age” or
“accelerated growth/biological age”
 The estimate can be made more accurate by plotting the measured value on the 50th
percentile curve on the growth chart (population-specific) and then reading the
corresponding value on the “calendar age” axis. In a sufficiently large sample the correlation
between biological and calendar age is high enough so that we can acquire an approximate
assessment of the individual’s biological age.
 The above mentioned steps can be also carried out with weight-to-height ratio instead of
using plain body height – makes it possible to evaluate also the individual’s body build type.
 All such assessments are approximate estimations; it is better to take into account the
parent’s body height
 Further accuracy improvement can be obtained by using parental body height data in the
analysis
 Even better accuracy of the assessment can be obtained by using the following growth
assessment formulas by Riegorová (1982) or Przeweda (1981).
Percentile charts: PŘIDALOVÁ, Miroslava a Marie ULBRICHOVÁ. Aplikace fyzické antropologie v
tělesné výchově a sportu: (functional anthropology handbook). Edited by Jarmila Riegerová. 3. vyd.
Olomouc: Hanex, 2006.
The estimation of attained adult height
Body height is a quantitative trait with polygenic heredity which is significantly modulated by
external – environmental factors. There is no clear understanding among experts as to the
percentage influence of genetic and external factors on the resulting phenotypic trait – final attained
or “target” body height in adulthood. Adult height estimation for children and adolescents has
marked relevance in several disciplines – in clinical and functional anthropology, with especial
importance in anthropology of sports. For the coaches and parents of young athletes and especially
for the athletes themselves the time and financial investment spent from the beginning of training
until the peak of sports performance is substantial. Especially in the case of sports where extreme
body-build types are preferred (or, on the contrary, in case of sports where somatic parameters can
prove to be limiting factors of performance development) an accurate estimate/prediction of their
development is crucial.
In order to theoretically introduce the below stated practical procedures used to estimate attained
height at adulthood two important notions need to be mentioned – acceleration and secular trend.
Population studies and their results show that today children are generally taller and heavier than in
the past. The experts agree that the whole growth process is accelerated – the observed individual
approaches adult body size at a faster rate – thanks to improved nutritional, hygienic, health-care
and other external factors. A phenomenon termed secular trend describes the overall increase in the
adult population body height compared to the populations in the past (hundred years ago – secular
means long-term, centennial).
To estimate attained adult body height various methods were developed and these can be divided
into the following fundamental groups: predictions based on one-time measurement; predictions
based on the biological age of an individual; predictions based on repeated measurements, using
growth rate; predictions based on repeated measurements, using PHV (Peak Height Velocity);
predictions regarding the height of the parents. A comprehensive overview of the methods can be
found in Riegerová, Přidalová and Ulbrichová (2006). See below a flowchart of the decision-making
process (when taking into consideration the most widespread methods).
1. For use in anthropology of sports – when evaluating talent and assessing somatic traits
development in adulthood
 Do I have access to an x-ray of the left hand and the distal part of the forearm of the
examined individual? (The legislation in effect does not allow taking x-rays of the research
sample members without (medical cause) indication; ethical committee approval and
parents’ informed consent are necessary). Is the TW2 publication/TW3 software available to
me? The method of adult height estimation based on TW2 method (biological age) is
considered the most reliable (Tanner JM, Whitehouse RH, Cameron N, Marshall WA, Healy
MJR, Goldstein H. Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height, 2nd ed.
London: Academic Press, 1983). It is recommended to use the formulas stated in the
following paper: Prediction of adult height from height and bone age in childhood. A new
system of equations (TW Mark II) based on a sample including very tall and very short
children. J M Tanner, K W Landt, N Cameron, B S Carter, J Patel. Arch Dis Child 1983;58:10
 If x-rays are unavailable, a method from step 2. can be selected.
2. To create an estimation for the needs of interested parents or to estimate genetic growth
potential the following methods of prediction using one-time measurement can be used
 In our country the method of adjusted mid-parental height is often used:
Target height boys = (father’s height+(mother’s height + 13 cm))/2 ± 10 cm
Target height girls = (mother’s height+(father’s height - 13 cm))/2 ± 10 cm
 An updated BP (Bayley-Pinneau method) can be used (VIGNEROVÁ, Jana; BLÁHA, Pavel.
Sledování růstu českých dětí a dospívajících. Norma, vyhublost, obezita. 1. vyd. Praha: Státní
zdravotní ústav, 2001; in this monograph also the calculation of the P value is described):
Predicted body height = (current body height of the child)*100/P
3. To evaluate individual growth/development and predict body height of longitudinally monitored
children (therefore based on repeat measurements)
 the model approach Dynamic Phenotype can be used; this approach is based on physiological
principles of growth. Detailed information is located here or in a paper of the authors Čuta
M., Kukla L., Novák L. Modelování vývoje tělesné délky a výšky dětí s pomocí údajů o výšce
rodičů. Čes.-slov. Pediat., 2010, roč. 65, č. 4, s. 159–166.
Sex assessment
Original study Validation Method Variables Statistics Skeletal part Equipment Continent Origin Collection Time Groups Sc P Sc P m Sc P f Sc P Sc P m Sc P f
/ metric 2 dimensions os coxae caliper Europe Czech, German Pachner, Brno MU * 19th & 20th century M/F 97 % / / / / /
/ metric 4 dimensions os coxae
caliper, camera, image
processing software
Europe Czech, German Pachner, Brno MU * 19th & 20th century M/F 1 / / / / /
Acsádi & Nemeskéri 1970 visual 10traits pelvis / Europe Hungary NS NS M/F
Brůžek 2002 / visual 5 traits os coxae / Europe Portuguese, French Coimbra / Paris * 1820-1950 M/F 93.3 / 96.2 94.2 / 96.8 95.2 / 92.6 / / /
/ visual traits 3 traits os pubis / North America US european Terry * ca 1828-1943 M/F 96.55 95.5 100 / / /
/ visual traits 3 traits os pubis / North America US african Terry * ca 1828-1943 M/F 94.44 95 94.23 / / /
Ubelaker & Volk 2002 visual traits 3 traits os pubis / North America US african, US european, US HinduTerry * ca 1828-1943 M/F / / / 88.4 79.8 97
Lovell 1989 visual traits 3 traits os pubis / North America US cadavers (Cornell university) recent M/F / / / 83 / /
MacLaughlin & Bruce 1990 visual traits 3 traits os pubis / Europe UK cadavers (University of Aberdeen) recent M/F / / / 58.6 46.4 70.8
MacLaughlin & Bruce 1990 visual traits 3 traits os pubis / Europe UK St. Bride ca 1701-1900 M/F / / / 82.5 71.7 93.7
MacLaughlin & Bruce 1990 visual traits 3 traits os pubis / Europe UK cadavers (University of Leiden) recent M/F / / / 68 68 68.7
Sutherland & Suchey 1991 visual traits ventral arch os pubis / North America US cadavers (Los Angels coroner) recent M/F / / / 96 / /
McBride et al. 2001 visual traits 3 traits os pubis / North America US African, European? asian Terry (European, African, Asian) * ca 1828-1943 M/F / / / 89.2 / /
Kelley 1978 visual traits 3 traits os pubis / North America US native California, Berkley and Sacramento Universitynot specified M/F 99.98
/ Metric 10 dimensions os coxae calieper Europe, Africa,North America, Asiaworldwide
Olivier, Spitalfields, Tamagnini,
Garmus, Dart, Hammann-Todd, Terry,
cadavers (Asia)
1700 – 2000 M/F
99.63 (among
90.71 %)
/ / / / /
Chapman et al. 2014 Metric 10 dimensions os coxae caliper + CT Europe Belgium (NS) Universite ´ Libre de Bruxelles recent (NS) M/F / / / 81.81-100 / /
Mesteková et al. 2015 Metric 10 dimensions os coxae CT Europe France (NS) University North Hospital Marseilles recent (NS) M/F / / / / 100 % from 92.3 % 100 % from 97.2 %
/ Metric 7 dimensions os coxae Africa SA african Dart & Pretoria collections * ca 1827 - recent M / F 94.5 96 93 93.5 94.9 92
/ Metric 7 dimensions os coxae Africa SA european Dart & Pretoria collections * ca 1827 - recent M/F 94.5 94.1 94.9 94 93.1 94.9
/ Metric 7 dimensions os coxae Europe Greece Cretan collection + 1968 - 1998 M/F 94.8 97.7 91.9 94.1 97.7 90.5
HIP (Jungerová et al. 2015) / Metric 2D coordinates os coxae scanner, laptop Europe Czech Republic, Greece Pachner collection; Brno MU; Athens N / A M/F 97.6 98.8 96
Klales et al. 2012 ? Metric 3 traits (modified Phenice) os pubis North America US African, US European, US hispanic, Asian, MexixcanBass, Hamman-Todd M/F / / / 86.2 98 74.4
/ Metric 3 distances os sacrum caliper North America US white FDB * 1930 - M/F / / / 75 73.1 79.3
/ Metric 3 distances os sacrum caliper North America US black FDB * 1930 - M/F / / / 75 78.7 67.6
/ visual 8 traits cranium Europe Hungary NS NS M/F
Ramsthaler et al. 2007 visual multiple traits cranium CT Europe Germany CT Hamburg University recent M/F / / / 94 96.9 87.9
Novotný et al. 1993 / visual 9 traits cranium / / / / / M/F 98.2 97.2 100 / / /
Walrath et al. 2004 / visual 10 traits cranium North America US native University of Pennsylvania * 500-900 M / F / / / / / /
/ visual Multiple traits, logistic regression cranium / North America, Europe US African, US European, UK Hamann-Todd, Terry, St´Bride church 1750 – 1900 M/F N/A 88.4 86.4 / / /
Lewis & Garvin 2016 visual Multiple traits, logistic regression cranium / North America US african, US european Hamann-Todd + 1893-1938 M / F 76.7-90
Williams & Rogers 2006 / visual multiple traits cranium / North America US African, US European, US HispanicsN/A 1900 – modern M/F N/A 0.92 0.926 N/A N/A N/A
Kajanoja 1966 / metric 8 distances cranium caliper, spreading caliper Europe Finland Deparment of anatomy, University of Helsinky (disections), graves* ca 1900 - 1950 (NS) M / F / 0.794 0.791 / / /
/ metric 3D coordinates cranium digitizer, 3D Scanner multiple mupltiple 14 populations NS / / / / / / /
Urbanová et al. 2014 metric 11-14 landmarks cranium digitizer South America Br. African USP * ca 1850-1950 M/F / / / 63 59.3 68.4
Urbanová et al. 2014 metric 11-14 landmarks cranium digitizer South America Br. Euroepan USP * ca 1850-1950 M/F / / / 74.6 79.6 63.6
Urbanová et al. 2014 metric 11-14 landmarks cranium digitizer South America Br. Asian USP * ca 1850-1950 M/F / / / 75 93.3 44.4
Urbanová et al. 2014 metric 11-14 landmarks cranium digitizer South America Br. Admixed USP * ca 1850-1950 M/F / / / 63..6 74.5 50
Osipov et al. 2013 / metric distances, indices and angles temporal bone, bony labyrinthCT Europe Crete, Greece Cretan collection 1867 - 1956 M/F / / / 82.4 81.3 83.7
Lynnerup 2006 / Metric diameter os temporalis, ear canal drills Europe Germany forensic collection, SW Germany (NS) recent (NS) M/F 70.91 91.2 38.1 / / /
/ Metric Angle os temporalis, inner auditory meatuscast Europe Germany Institute of Forensic Medicine, Tübingen recent (NS) M/F 83.2 77 88.3 / / /
/ Metric Angle os temporalis, inner auditory meatuscast Europe Sweden Scania archeological sites Early medieval, 8th-11th centuryM/F 86.6 91.2 76.2 / / /
Gonçalves et al. 2011 Metric Angle os temporalis, inner auditory meatusCT Europe Portugal Lisbon collection * ca 1880-1975 (NS) M/F / / / 62.9 54.5 76.9
Morgan et al. 2013 Metric Angle os temporalis, inner auditory meatusCT Europe Denmark forensic cases, University of Coppenhagenrecent (NS) M/F / / / 62.3 64.3 60
Masotti et al. 2013 Metric Angle os temporalis, inner auditory meatuscast Europe Italy Ferrara crematorium recent, +2010-2011 M/F / / / 58.1 64.9 53.1
Jantz & Ousley 2005 (Fordisc 3) / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Ramsthaler et al. 2007 Metric 12 distance Cranium CT Europe Germany Frankfurt and Meinz Centrum of Forensic Medicinerecent (NS) FDB white male / female / / / 85.7 89.2 78.79
Guyomarch Bruzek 2011 Metric 12 distances Cranium MicroScribe Europe French George Olivier’s collection + 1960-1969 FDB white male / female / / / 77.8 70.8 85.7
Guyomarch Bruzek 2011 Metric 12 distances Cranium caliper, sliding caliper Asia Thailand Department of Anatomy, University of Chiang-Mairecent (NS) FDB asiatic male / female / / / 58.9 80.4 36.4
Urbanová et al. 2014 Metric 12 distances Cranium MicroScribe South America Br. Asian USP + 1917 - 1937 FDB / / / 66.6 66.6 66.6
Urbanová et al. 2014 Metric 12 distances Cranium MicroScribe South America Brazil Europe + 1917 - 1937 FDB / / / 57.7 46.9 81.8
Urbanová et al. 2014 Metric 12 distances Cranium MicroScribe South America Brazil Africa + 1917 - 1937 FDB / / / 50 25.9 84.2
Urbanová et al. 2014 Metric 12 distances Cranium MicroScribe South America Brazil Admixed + 1917 - 1937 FDB / / / 75,8 52,9 100
Jurda et al. 2013 Metric 13 distances Cranium MicroScribe Europe Greece Athens collection + 1960-1996 FDB / / / 77,63 70,89 84,93
Jurda et al. 2013 Metric 13 distances Cranium MicroScribe Europe Greece Athens collection + 1960-1996 Howells / / / 73,89 59,52 90,41
Jurda et al. 2013 Metric 13 distances Cranium MicroScribe Europe Portugal Coimbra collection + 1910-1936 FDB / / / 71.43 97.67 43.9
Jurda et al. 2013 Metric 13 distances Cranium MicroScribe Europe Portugal Coimbra collection + 1910-1936 Howells / / / 67.44 41.86 93.02
Jurda et al. 2013 Metric 13 distances Cranium MicroScribe Europe Portugal Lisbon collection + 1881-1975 FDB / / / 67.74 45.1 95.24
Jurda et al. 2013 Metric 13 distances Cranium MicroScribe Europe Portugal Lisbon collection + 1881-1975 Howells / / / 69.47 51.92 90.7
Jurda et al. 2013 Metric 13 distances Cranium MicroScribe Europe Czech rep. Institute of Criminalistic recent FDB / / / 75 72.4 86.36
Jurda et al. 2013 Metric 13 distances Cranium MicroScribe Europe Czech rep. Institute of Criminalistic recent Howells / / / 73.47 57.41 93.18
Jurda et al. 2013 Metric 13 distances Cranium MicroScribe Europe Czech rep. Pachner collection recent FDB / / / 71.11 48.98 97.56
Jurda et al. 2013 Metric 13 distances Cranium MicroScribe Europe Czech rep. Pachner collection recent Howells / / / 73.47 57.41 93.18
Jurda et al. 2013 Metric 13 distances Cranium MicroScribe South America Br. European, Br. African, mixedPachner collection recent FDB / / / 68.9 61 81.25
Jurda et al. 2013 Metric 13 distances Cranium MicroScribe South America Br. European, Br. African, mixedPachner collection recent Howells / / / 60.12 43.14 86.36
Urbanová & Králík 2008 (COLIPR) / Metric / Cranium / Europe Portugal, Czech republic Coimbra, Lisbon, Prague 19th and 20th century M/F / / / / / /
Urbanová et al. 2014 Metric 7 distances Cranium Digitizer South America Br. asian USP NS M/F, universal / / / 87.5 86.6 88.8
Urbanová et al. 2014 Metric 7 distances Cranium Digitizer South America Br. european USP NS M/F, universal / / / 60 58.7 63.2
Urbanová et al. 2014 Metric 7 distances Cranium Digitizer South America Br. african USP NS M/F, universal / / / 83.1 83.7 81.8
Urbanová et al. 2014 Metric 7 distances Cranium Digitizer South America BR. admixed USP NS M/F, universal / / / 84.4 76.5 93.3
Giles & Elliot 1963 / Metric 4-8 distances cranium caliper North America US european Terry & Hammann Todd 1893-1965 (NS) M/F, multiple functions pooled sample82-88 / / 78.4-91.9 / /
/ Metric 4-8 distances cranium caliper North America US african Terry & Hammann Todd 1893-1965 (NS) M/F, multiple functions pooled sample82-86 / / 80.3-88.7 / /
Guyomarch Bruzek 2011 Metric 5 distances cranium MicroScribe Europe French George Olivier’s reference collection 1960-1970 DF19 - US european / / / 60 / /
Guyomarch Bruzek 2011 Metric 5 distances cranium MicroScribe Asia Thailand Department of Anatomy, University of Chiang.MaiRecent DF19 - US european / / / 51.6 / /
Guyomarch Bruzek 2011 Metric 5 distances cranium MicroScribe Europe French George Olivier’s reference collection 1960-1970 DF20 - US african / / / 80 / /
Guyomarch Bruzek 2011 Metric 5 distances cranium MicroScribe Asia Thailand Department of Anatomy, University of Chiang.MaiRecent DF20 - US african / / / 62.6 / /
Kajonaja 1966 Metric 5 distances cranium Caliper Europe Finland Deparment of anatomy, University of Helsinky (disections), graves* ca 1900 - 1950 (not specified)DF19 - US european / / / 65 / /
/ metric 3-5 mesurements cranium caliper, spreading caliper Europe Czech Republic, Old Slavs Mikulčice - Valy, Kostelisko 9th and 10th century M/F 80.3-86.1 81.7-86.8 78-87.7 / / /
/ metric 3-5 mesurements cranium caliper, spreading caliper Europe Czech Republic, Old Slavs Prušánky 9th and 10th century M/F / / / 75-82 / /
Vertebrae / metric 8 distances C2 caliper North America US european Hammann- Todd & Terry N/A M/F, pooled sample functions/ / / 85-89.4 83.7-88.7 83.3-90.1
/ metric 8 distances C2 caliper North America US african Hammann- Todd & Terry N/A M/F, pooled sample functions/ / / 78.4-81.5 76-78.1 79.8-84.9
/ visual 1 trait ramus mandibulae / Africa RSA african Dart collection *1827-1980 (NS) M/F 99 99.1 98.8 / / /
/ visual 1 trait ramus mandibulae / Africa RSA african, pathologic Dart collection *1827-1980 (NS) M/F / / / 91 91.7 90
/ visual 1 trait ramus mandibulae / North America US european Terry & Hammann Todd + 1893-1965 NS) M/F / / / 91.7 91.5 92.1
/ visual 1 trait ramus mandibulae / North America US african Terry & Hammann Todd + 1893-1965 NS) M/F / / / 92.4 91.2 93.8
/ visual 1 trait ramus mandibulae / North America US natives Terry & Hammann Todd + 1893-1965 NS) M/F / / / 90.6 89.6 90.6
Balci et al. 2005 visual 1 trait ramus mandibulae / Europe Turkey forensic cases, Council of Forensic Medicine, Istanbulrecent M/F / / / 85.8 92.6 60
Balci et al. 2005 - modified visual 1 trait ramus mandibulae / Europe Turkey forensic cases, Council of Forensic Medicine, Istanbulrecent M/F / / / 90.9 95.5 60
Jantz & Ousley 2005 (Fordisc 3) / metric 2 distances postcranial caliper North America US african FDB 1930 - recent (NS) black M/F / / / 93.8 93.3 94.7
/ metric 2 distances postcranial caliper North America US european FDB 1930 - recent (NS) white M/F / / / 92.3 91.7 93.7
Dabbs & Moore-Jansen 2010 / metric 5 distances scapula caliper North America US african+european Hammann-Todd + 1893-1938 M/F 95.8 94.9 97.1 92.5 89.8 96.8
/ metric 5 distances scapula caliper North America US (NS) Wichita State University recent M/F / / / 84.4 88.9 78.6
Clavicle Jantz & Ousley 2005 (Fordisc 3) / metric 3 distances CVA clavicle caliper North America US african FDB 1930 - recent (NS) black M/F / / / 94 92.8 96.3
Brůžek & Velemínský 2006
Norén et al. 2005
3D-ID - Slice & Ross 2009
Walker 2008
Wescott et al. 2000
Sacrum
Acsádi & Nemeskéri 1970
Cranium
Loth & Hennenberg 1996
Steyn & Patriquin 2009
Murail et al. 2005
Phenice 1969
Novotný 1986
Os coxae
Scapula
Mandible
Fordisc 3
/ metric 3 distances CVA clavicle clavicle North America US european FDB 1930 - recent (NS) white M/F / / / 92.1 90.9 94.7
Králík et al. 2014 / metric 2-4 distances clavicle clavicle Europe Greeks (NS) Athens collection + 1960-1996 M /F / / / 92.2 92.4 92
Tise et al. 2013 / metric 1 distance DFA clavicle osteometric board (NS) North America US hispanic
FDB, Pima County
Office of the Medical Examiner
recent M/F / / / 87.29 93.33 81.25
Spradley & Jantz 2011 / metric 3 distances DFA clavicle caliper Nort America US european FDB * 1930 - recent white M/F / / / 93.6 90 97.2
Alcina et al. 2015 / metric 3 distances DFA clavicle caliper Europe Spain (NS) UCM collection + 1975-1985 (NS) M/F 85.7-94.8 / / / / /
Humerus Mall et al. 2001 / metric 3 distances humerus caliper, osteometric board Europe Germany (NS) Anatomical Institute Munich recent M/F 93.15 / / / / /
Jantz & Ousley 2005 (Fordisc 3) / metric 5 distances humerus caliper North America US european FDB 1930 - recent (NS) black M/F / / / 94.8 94.4 95
/ metric 5 distances humerus caliper North America US african FDB 1930 - recent (NS) white M/F / / / 95.9 93.8 94.5
Tise et al. 2013 metric 3 distances DFA humerus caliper North America US hispanic
FDB, Pima County
Office of the Medical Examiner
recent M/F / / / 88.96 87.5 90.41
Černý & Komenda 1980
Spradley & Jantz 2011 metric 4 distances humerus calliper Nort America US european FDB * 1930 - recent white M/F / / / 93.06 95.2 90.91
Radius Jantz & Ousley 2005 (Fordisc 3) / metric 3 distances CVA radius caliper North America US european FDB 1930 - recent (NS) white M/F / / / 92.9 92.3 94.2
/ metric 3 distances CVA radius calipers North America US african FDB 1930 - recent (NS) black M/F / / / 91.1 90.7 92
Mall et al. 2001 / metric 3 distances DFA radius caliper, osteometric board Europe Germany (NS) Anatomical Institute Munich recent M/F 94.93 / / / / /
Tise et al. 2013 / metric 2 distances DFA radius calliper North America US
FDB, Pima County
Office of the Medical Examiner
recent M/F / / / 89.43 81.82 97.04
Spradley & Jantz 2011 / metric 3 distances DFA Radius caliper Nort America US european FDB 1930 - recent (NS) white M/F / / / 94.34 92.24 96.43
Ulna Jantz & Ousley 2005 (Fordisc 3) / metric 5 distances CVA ulna caliper North America US european FDB 1930 - recent (NS) white M/F / / / 92.7 92.3 93.6
/ metric 5 distances CVA ulna caliper North America US african FDB 1930 - recent (NS) black M/F / / / 94.7 92.5 100
Mall et al. 2001 / metric 3 distances DFA ulna caliper, osteometric board Europe Germany (NS) Anatomical Institute Munich recent M/F 90.58 / / / / /
Femur Seidemann 1998 / metric 1 distance os femoris, femoral neck caliper North America US european Hammann-Todd + 1910-1940 (NS) caucasian M/F 92 90 94 92 90 94
Stojanowski & Seidemann 1999 metric 1 distance os femoris, femoral neck caliper North America US european University of New Mexic * after 1900 caucasian M/F / / / 83 83 83
Stojanowski & Seidemann 1999 / Metric 1 distance os femoris, femoral neck caliper North America US european University of New Mexico * after 1900 caucasian M/F 84 80 91 84 80 91
Jantz & Ousley 2005 (Fordisc 3) / Metric 9 distances os femoris caliper North America US african FDB 1930 - recent (NS) black M/F / / / 92.7 91 97.1
/ Metric 9 distances os femoris caliper North America US european FDB 1930 - recent (NS) white M/F / / / 91.9 90.7 94.6
Spradley & Jantz 2011 / metric 3 distances os femoris caliper North America US european FDB 1930 - recent (NS) white M/F / / / 93.54 95.87 91.21
Tibia Kranioti & Apostol 2015 / metric 3 distances tibia caliper Europe Greece, Cretans Cretan collection + 1968-1998 (NS) Crete M/F 85.9-88.5 88.2-89.4 83.1-87.3 85.9-87.8 88.2-89.4 83.1-87.3
/ metric 3 distances tibia caliper Europe Spain (NS) Madric (UCM) + 1975 – 1985 (NS) UCM M/F 86-93.5 84.8-95.2 87-92.5 85-93.8 82.6-95.3 87-92
/ metric 3 distances tibia Caliper Europe Italy (NS) Flaminio cemetery + 1970-1990 M/F 85.1-88.2 82.7-85.2 86.9-91.4 85.1-88.2 82.7-85.2 86.9-91.4
Kotěrová et al. 2016 metric 3 distances tibia CT Europe Czech (NS) CT examination recent (NS) M/F / / / 55.4 – 100 3.9 – 11.5
Kotěrová et al. 2016 / metric 9 distances LDA tibia CT Europe Czech (NS) CT examination recent (NS) M/F / / / 83.9 – 87.5 83.3 – 90 84.6
Jantz & Ousley 2005 (Fordisc 3) / metric 6 distances CVA tibia caliper North America US africa FDB * 1930 - recent (NS) black M/F / / / 94.5 92.4 100
Jantz & Ousley 2005 (Fordisc 3) / metric 6 distances CVA tibia caliper North America US european FDB * 1930 - recent (NS) white M/F / / / 92.5 91.5 94.7
Fibula Jantz & Ousley 2005 (Fordisc 3) / metric 2 distances CVA fibula caliper North America US european FDB 1930 - recent (NS) white M/F / / / 81 81.4 80.3
Foot Navega et al. 2015 / metric 18 distances decision treetarsal bones caliper Europe Portugal (NS) Coimbra collection + 1904 – 1939 M/F / / / 88.3 92.6 84.8
Jantz & Ousley 2005 (Fordisc 3) / metric 6 distances CVA calcaneus caliper North America US european FDB * 1930 - recent (NS) white M/F / / / 92.5 91.5 94.7
Complexes Albanese 2013 / metric 3-6 distances DFA upper limb – clavicle, humerus, radius, ulnacaliper North America, Europe US (NS), Portugal (NS) Terry & Coimbra collection * 1835-1930 M/F 89.2-93 86.9-91.5 91.1-94.2 87.4-91.9 88.2-96.6 84.9-91.2
/ metric 3-6 distances DFA upper limb – clavicle, humerus, radius, ulnacaliper North America US (NS) Grant collection + ca 1900-1950 M/F / / / 87.8-97.6 90-100 85.7-100
/ metric 3-6 distances DFA upper limb – clavicle, humerus, radius, ulnacaliper Europe Portugal Lisbon collection + 1880-1975 (NS) M/F / / / 77.8-88 88.9-100 55.6-75
Albanese et al. 2003 / Metric 3-5 distances DFA os femoris, os coxae caliper North America, Europe US (NS), Portugal (NS) Terry, Coimbra * 1832 – 1930 M/F 93-98 92-97.9 93.6-98.1 91.8-98.5 91-98.5 89.5-98.5
/
Population affinity assessment
Non-metric cranial traits – frequency among different populations
Nasal bone contour
Hefner 2009 Hefner 2015
Hefner 2016
Non-metric cranial traits – frequency among different populations
Nasal aperture width
Hefner 2009 Hefner 2015
Non-metric cranial traits – frequency among different populations
Anterior nasal spine
Slight Intermediate Marked
Hefner 2009 Hefner 2015
Non-metric cranial traits – frequency among different populations
Nasal sill morphology
Hefner 2009 Hefner 2015
Guttered Incipient gutterung Straight/Blunt
Semi-partial still Complete still
Hefner 2016
Non-metric cranial traits – frequency among different populations
Nasal overgrowth
Hefner 2009 Hefner 2015
Non-metric cranial traits – frequency among different populations
Interorbital breadth
Hefner 2009 Hefner 2015
Non-metric cranial traits – frequency among different populations
Postbregmatic depression
Hefner 2009 Hefner 2015
Non-metric cranial traits – frequency among different populations
Alveolar proghnatism
L´Abbé et al. 2011
Non-metric cranial traits – frequency among different populations
Expression of the malar tubercle
L´Abbé et al. 2011 Hefner 2009
Non-metric cranial traits – frequency among different populations
Zygomaxillary suture
L´Abbé et al. 2011 Hefner 2009
Non-metric cranial traits – frequency among different populations
Supranasal suture
Hefner 2009
Non-metric cranial traits – frequency among different populations
Palatine suture shape
Hefner 2009 L´Abbé et al. 2011
Groups Original study Validation Method Variables Statistics Skeletal part Equipment Continent Origin Collection Time
Black Hispanic White
cranium Black, Hispanic, White Hefner & Ousley 2014 / visual 6 traits
decision
tree
cranium /
Africa, Europe, North
America, Asia
US african, african, asian, US asian,
european
multiple collections
Late 18th and early 20th
century
91 % 58 % 80 %
cranium multiple Jantz & Ousley 2005 (Fordisc 3.0) / metric multiple distances CVA cranium caliper multiple multiple / / / / /
FDB; African, European, Asian Urbanová & Jurda 2014 metric 12-14 distances CVA cranium MicroScribe South America Br. european, Br. african, Br. asian USP + 1917-1937 overall 50 %; Br. asian 68 % / /
Howells; African, European, Asian Urbanová & Jurda 2014 metric 12-14 distances CVA cranium MicroScribe South America Br. european, Br. african, Br. asian USP + 1917-1937 overall 44,5 %; Br. asian 65% / /
Howells; Berg, Hokkaido, Santa Cruz,
Tasmanians, Zulu
Elliott & Collard 2012 metric 10-56 distances CVA cranium caliper
Europe, Asia, North
America, Africa
Europe, Japan, Santa Cruz,
Tasmania, Zulus
Howells database -1600-20th century under 40 % / /
FDB Ubelaker et al 2002 (Fordisc 2.0) Metric 20 distances CVA cranium caliper Europe Spain (NS) UCM 1500-1700 (NS) overall 53.68 / /
US european M/F US african M/F US natives M/F
cranium 3; US european, US african, US natives Gilles & Elliot 1963 / metric 8 distances CVA cranium caliper North America US african, US European, US natives Terry collection, Todd collection, Knoll site (natives) 1893-1965 (eur, afr); , 3 450 BC (natives)80.0 / 88.8 85.3 / 88.0 94.7 / 93.3
2; US european, US african İşcan & Steyn 1999 metric 8 distances CVA cranium caliper Africa, Europe, North America, AsiaRSA african, RSA european Dart collection, University of Praetoria collection * 1827-recent 83 / 76 95.5 / 97.7 /
3; US european, US african, US natives Snow et al. 1979 metric 8 distances CVA cranium caliper North America Oklahoma Oklahoma forensic cases +1976-1979 85 / 71.4 87.5 / 20 / 0
cranium / Slice & Ross 2009 (3DID / metric landmark coordinates CVA cranium digitizer multiple multiple 14 collections NS / / /
multiple populations; African, European, Asian Urbanová & Jurda 2014 metric landmark coordinates CVA cranium digitizer South America Br. european, Br. african, Br. asian USP +1917-1937 55 %; european 87% / /
US African M/F US European M/F
postcranial2; US european, US african Holliday & Falsetti 1999 / metric 7 distances multiple bones caliper North America US african, US european Terry collection +1920-1965 (NS) 88.4 / 100 85.7 /100
2; US european, US african / metric 7 distances multiple bones caliper North America US african, US european Pound Human Identification Laboratory - Florida, Maxwell Museum of Anthropologyrecent 100 / 75 / 57.14
cranium
African, Austro-Melanesian, East
Asian, European, US Natives,
Polynesian
Navega et al. 2015 / metric 23 distances machine learningcranium caliper multiple multiple Howells database NS / /
African (6 ref groups / 2 ref groups) European (6 ref groups / 2 ref groups)
2-6 reference groups / metric 23 distances machine learningcranium caliper Africa, Europe african, european
African slaves skeletal collection, Coimbra
collection
ca 14th century (african);
+1904-1938 (european)
75 / 93.75 79.17 / 93.75
African (CV) African-European (CV)
2, Afr. european, African İşcan & Steyn 1999 / metric 17 distances cranim + mandible caliper Africa African, Afr. european Dart collection, University of Praetoria collection * 1863-1951 97.7 (95.3) 97.8 (93.5)
African M/F (CV) African-European M/F (CV)
2, Afr. european, African Patriquin et al. 2002 / metric 13 distances pelvis caliper Africa African, Afr. european Dart collection, University of Praetoria collection * 1827-recent (NS) 89 (89) / 88 (88) 87 (86) / 82 (82
overall (observed) overall (CV)
2, US European, US African Holland 1986 / metric 8 distances cranial basis caliper North America US african., US european Terry collection * 1828-1943 (NS) 70-86 75-90
male / female male / female (CV)
2, Afr. european, African Bidmos 2006 / metric 8 distances calcaneus caliper Africa African, Afr. european Dart collection * 1827-1980 (NS) 87.8 / 81.1 86.7 / 80
US african + european M/F US natives M/F
2; US european + US african, US
native
Wescott & Srikanta 2008 /
metric, platymery
index
/ / os femoris caliper North America US african, US european, US natives,
American Museum of Natural Histor, Terry
collection, FDB, University of
Tennessee/Smithonian institute
presumably 1830-1983, US
natives ca 7000 BC
79 / 77 72 / 82
overall (observed)
3, US european, US african, US hispanicHefner et al. 2015 (Taala) / visual 8 traits SVM Cranium / North America US african, US american, US hispanics Terry collection, Bass collection, PCOME Tucson * 1800-recent 83.4
P
Assessment of nutritional status
Nutritional status assessment has world-wide importance. Despite (or maybe because) the current
extensive development of technology and the associated relative lifestyle improvement, the world
population is threatened by malnutrition pandemics. The ever-increasing gap between the “west”
and the “third” world manifests also in the nutritional status of these areas. On one hand an increase
in the incidence of individuals with over-nutrition which manifests, in cooperation with insufficient
amount of physical activity, as an epidemics of overweight and obesity in the countries of the
“western” world. On the other hand, in the geopolitical areas of southeast Asia and sub-Saharan
Africa up to 1 billion people suffer from chronical undernutrition. Both extremes on the scale of
human nutrition status negatively affect the individual’s quality of life and increase the population
levels of morbidity and mortality.
To evaluate nutritional status several methods have been developed. When individual nutritional
status, or, especially in cases of malnutrition risk situations, population samples nutritional status is
assessed, adequate method choice is crucial not only from the practical (timewise) aspect, but also
considering the aspect of results reliability and their comparability and correct diagnostics.
Nutritional status assessment methods can be divided into three fundamental categories: clinical
methods, anthropometrical methods and methods evaluating alimentation (nutritional intake and
habits). Clinical methods can further be divided into aspective and laboratory/onsite methods.
Alimentation evaluation methods are based on a recapitulation or immediate recording of the type
and amount of ingested food (dietary regimen evaluation). One of the recording options is a
“continuous” recording into a diet diary, another option is a retrospective recording, utilizing the so
called dietary recall (24 hour) repeated during several subsequent days. Anthropometric methods of
nutritional status assessment utilize several somatic parameters (height/weight, circumferences and
skinfold thicknesses) which are used to calculate basic indices or more complex body composition
approximations.
Body composition assessment (body mass fractionation; practical applications include both
anthropometrical and laboratory/onsite methods) plays an important role among nutritional status
assessment methods. Model approaches of body mass fractionation (body composition assessment)
can be historically speaking divided into two fundamental categories – a chemical model and an
anatomical model. An up-to-date detailed categorization is used with respect to the practical
application and according to respective model approach:
Atomic model is based on the human body being composed of individual chemical elements (98%
body mass is composed of 6 elements – C, O, H, N, Ca, P).
Molecular model fractionates the total body mass into these components: lipids, water, proteins,
minerals and glycogen.
Cellular model collates the total body mass from fatty tissue, muscle tissue, connective tissue,
epithelia and nerve cells, extracellular fluid and inorganic matter.
Tissue-systemic model fractionates the total body mass into organ system parts – musculoskeletal,
integument, nervous, respiratory, cardiovascular, digestive, urinary, reproductive and endocrine
systems.
Whole-body model is primarily based on anthropometric measurements which enable the estimation
of lean body mass and fatty tissue ratio to the total body mass. Today, biophysical and biochemical
methods can be included into this category. The whole-body model can be subdivided into these
categories:
Two-component model fractionates the human body mass into two components – body fat (FM – fat
mass) and lean body mass – (FFM – fat free mass).
Three-component model fractionates the human body mass into three components – body fat, body
water and dry matter (in practice, this fractionation can be simplified – the components represent
body fat, muscle tissue and osseous tissue).
Four-component model fractionates the human body mass into four components – body fat,
extracellular fluid, cells and minerals (Riegerová, Přidalová, Ulbrichová, 2006).
Despite the marked rise in advanced methods utilization in anthropological practice,
anthropometrical methods are still frequently used to assess body composition: worth mentioning is
certainly the three-component model based on height, breadth, circumference (corrected) somatic
parameters (including 6 skinfold thicknesses acquired using caliperation method). This method is
named after its author Jindřich Matiegka and fractionates the human body mass into the osseous
component, muscular component, integument and a residue. Also, anthropometric methods include
a variety of two-component models; particularly, these are regression formulas for body
(subcutaneous) fat calculation which are based on the thickness of several skinfolds. These methods
include for example Jackson-Pollock method based on three skinfolds (Jackson et al., 1980, Jackson,
Pollock, 1978), Durnin-Womersley method based on four skinfolds (Durnin, Womersley, 1974) and in
our country frequently used method by Pařízková (1962) based on 10 skinfolds.
In clinical practice, biophysical methods are most frequently used (the majority of them can be
categorized as two-component models). These include radiological methods (CT, DEXA),
densitometry, underwater weighing, plethysmography etc. Relatively low-cost and little timeconsuming,
bioelectric impedance method (or bioelectric impedance analysis – BIA) is used very
frequently. Body composition approximation is generated with regard to the principle of different
conductivities of body water and body fat. BIA apparatus measure the electric impedance of body
tissues against a distribution of low voltage, high frequency electric current. Fat free mass with high
water (and electrolyte) content is a good conductor (presents low impedance), fat mass with low
water content acts as an insulator. Based on regression formulas, the overall impedance (or
segmental impedance) is used to calculate the percentage of fat free mass and fat tissue.
Biompedance apparatus can be divided into two basic categories: bipolar machines (the current
passes only through the upper, or, in some cases, only through the lower, part of the body and
tetrapolar machines which use 4 sensors with up to eight electrodes; 2 sensors to for the upper
limbs, two sensors for the lower limbs.
When comparing the results obtained using various methods (or various machines makes), the
following potential problems have to be taken into account: measurement errors when using BIA
apparatus usually arise when the examination/operation conditions are not adhered to or when the
electrodes are incorrectly located; in anthropometrical methods, the measurement error most
frequently arises in insufficiently experienced examiners and the incorrect “lifting” (pinching) of the
skinfolds. With regard to the results comparability potential problems can arise when bioimpedance
machines with fix regression formulas are used inadequately (on a substantially distant population
research sample). Another possible source of comparison-related problems (especially when
comparing the results acquired through caliperation to the results acquired through BIA is the
difference in measurement/estimation. Caliperation methods can provide results on the amount of
subcutaneous fat while the bio-impedance machines operate with visceral fat also. Some authors do
state that there is some evidence of the increase of visceral fat amount with the increase in
subcutaneous fat percentage but that the relationship is affected by many confounding factors,
especially age.
Nutritional assessment decision process flow
A nutritional status assessment is needed with regard to the evaluation of diet – nutritional values of
ingested food and eating habits
 Some of the diet evaluation methods utilizing a diet diary or a questionnaire survey (recall
method) can be used
Body composition/nutritional status needs to be assessed with highest possible accuracy, using a
method considered a “gold standard”, with application in clinical anthropology/medicine, eventually
to verify a new method/method innovation.
 A DEXA (Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry) system evaluation can be used (access to these
machines is limited due to their high cost; moreover, they emit ionizing radiation and
therefore cannot be used without a physician’s indication
 Alternatively, BOD POD system evaluation can be used. Air displacement plethysmography
(air volume displaced by the mass of the human body in the closed space is measured).
Again, the machines are usually available only in specialized institutions.
 Underwater weighing is also considered to be relatively accurate, although it also requires
specific equipment.
Body composition/nutritional status needs to be assessed, using a quick method which utilizes
widespread and quite readily available, easy-to-use machines. The aim of the assessment could be as
an associated index in a complex anthropological examination or to assess the effect of a particular
factor (change in one of the lifestyle characteristics) on the nutritional status of an individual or a
group of individuals. Further, for inter-individual variation evaluation in body composition, if the
machine used in the reference sample is known.
 Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA or bioimpedance) method can be used. It is required
however that relatively strict conditions are adhered to (at least in some of the machines –
fast, no strenuous physical activity 24 hours prior etc.). Also, pregnant women and patients
with cardiac pacers can’t be examined. It is also important for comparison reasons to take
into account what type of machine is used – bipolar or tetrapolar.
Body composition/nutritional status needs to be assessed using a traditional method with wide range
of comparison/reference samples available. A method which still is widespread and its usability is
especially high when nutritional status needs to be assessed in less developed regions as it is lowcost
and time-effective. The disadvantage of the method lies in relatively high requirements on the
examiner’s experience.
 An anthropometric – caliperation – method is the method of choice. Many approaches are
available differing in the number of skinfolds (or other measured parameters) and resulting
regression formulas. The majority are two-component – fractioning body mass into FM and
FFM, but Matiegka’s method is an example of a three-component approach.
Body type assessment
Typology (scientific method based on categorizing objects according to a generalized model or type)
is applied in the anthropology of the living human basically in two forms. (Bearing in mind that it is
crucial to differentiate between “scientific” typology and so called anthropological biotypology
which, in short, is a pseudo-scientific, quasi-diagnostic approach. In part it is based on scientific
methods from biological and psychological disciplines but it leads to a belief that conclusions about
personality, intellectual, social and other traits, properties and skills can be made based on
generalized and often only popular relationships between the appearance – shape and development
– of the body and its parts and psychological properties).
Typology in anthropology of the living Man is utilized to evaluate individual and inter-population
variation of somatic characteristics. One typology application encompasses the evaluation of nonmetrical
traits on the human body and head. Individual characteristics are visually assessed and
verbally described based on the development of their size and shape, with the goal of individual
description (which can be applied e.g. in criminology) or with the goal of assessing the distribution
frequencies of said characteristics in the population. Some of the features (especially facial features)
are adaptive traits and their frequency in particular ethnic groups or populations is very high. This
chapter will, however, focus on the other typology application in the anthropology of the living
human, which focuses on body type assessment. Similarly, as in the non-metric trait evaluation on
the human head and body, body type assessment is utilized to evaluate individual variation and to
categorize the body type continuum as body type is associated with many functional and
physiological parameters.
Body type assessment methods
Body type is primarily assessed using traditional methods (aspective and metrical). Also advanced
methods of virtual anthropology allow body type assessment (for example BVI – Body Volume Index
method), it is however not their primary objective. These issues will be dealt with elsewhere.
Traditional methods of body type assessment underwent a complicated historical development. To
simplify, the methods developed from a somatoscopic evaluation (two extreme types are established
with a third type in between) to exact metric methods. Body build typology history dates back to
Hippocrates who defined two basic types – habitus phthisicus (lean, slim) and habitus apoplecticus
(rotund, short). Renewed interest in human body build type appeared after a long hiatus in the 19th
century; the French school founded by Hallé (4 types – abdominal, thoracic, muscular and cranial),
included authors Rostan, Sigaud, Viola and classified the human body types according to the organ
system most implied in individual body build. Viola’s method is relatively complex and complicated
(he introduced 18 body type categories), on the upside this method attempts to eradicate the
somatoscopic parameters (burdened by a considerable amount of subjective error) from the
evaluation. In anthropology of the living human we can also today encounter the use of aspective
body type classification according to Kretschmer; to have an introductory understanding of the body
type of individual participants in the majority of anthropometric surveys (the method contributes an
additional information value for the practical measurement procedure). Kretschmer uses distribution
into three body types (asthenic, athletic and pyknic); according to the author each type is associated
with biological affinity to different psychological disorders (interestingly, Hippokrates himself named
his types of body build according to their association to certain diseases – phthisis – consumption,
apoplexy – bleeding). The reliability of his conclusion, however, remains unclear despite the efforts
of other researchers.
Many subsequent studies focused on body type evaluation with regard to the relationship between
body height and weight, with regard to body mass development (hyper-, hypo- and normoplasia) and
with regard to the amount and distribution of body fat.
Anthropometric characteristics by themselves also provide information on body type. Without the
use of advanced methods the traditional metric procedures are not sufficient for body type
description purposes. For a basic idea some indices can be used which have a higher information
value on body type than isolated measurements. BMI, WHR or various body segment indices can be
used as an example.
A method called somatotype evaluation can be considered a “stand-alone” among the body type
assessment methods as it differs from all of the above mentioned ones. Somatotype is unlike the
other methods centered on individual body type description. The author of somatotype method was
William Sheldon with collaborators who invented the method in 1940. Sheldon introduced three
components of body composition to describe body type of each man/woman with maximum
accuracy. Each component is based on one of the three germ layers (and tissues developing in them).
The components are: endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy. The original Sheldon somatotype
calculation was very complicated and even after modifications the major part of the body type
assessment was affected by a high level of subjective error. Parnell modified the original Sheldon’s
method and created a foundation for the current, wide-spread somatotype adaptation by Heath and
Carter. This adaptation is bases exclusively on empiric data.
The up-to-date adaptation is based, of course, on the three original Sheldon’s components. The first
component, endomorphy, is associated to the relative fatness or leanness of the individual, i.e. it
evaluates the amount of subcutaneous fat. The second component, mesomorphy, relates the
musculoskeletal development to body height; i.e. mesomorphy evaluates the body mass without the
body fat to body height. The third component, ectomorphy, regards the relative length of individual
body segments. Table 1 contains the anthropometric measurements which are necessary for
somatotype evaluation.
Table 1
Endomorphy Mezomorphy Ectomorphy
Measurements
Triceps skinfold Arm circumference
(flexed)
Body height
Subscapular skinfold Calf circumference
(maximum)
Third root of body
weight
Suprailiac skinfold Biepicondylar breadth
of the humerus
Biepicondylar breadth
of the humerus
Calf skinfold (II)
The acquired data can be either input into the specific somatotype evaluation protocol (separate
protocols exist for adults and children) or into a somatotype calculator (in form of paid SW – eg.
Somatotype) or freeware, e.g. Biocalcul (available for download in IS study materials, course
Methods of Anthropology II). Utilizing a simple procedure the resulting numeric values of each
component can be extrapolated onto a somatograph (so called Sheldon’s triangle, fig. 1) for a visual
idea of the complex body build.
Fig. 1 Somatograph (Sheldon’s triangle)
Somatotype evaluation not only has importance in human body variation description, but also in
various practical applications. Somatotype evaluation has utmost importance in the anthropology of
sport. In various sports disciplines specific somatotypes (body types) are preferred. In order to
succeed in some of these disciplines “extreme” somatotype is basically a must. Somatotype
evaluation is also utilized in clinical practice or in medical genetics; a close association of specific
somatotypes to various hereditary diseases (e.g. Down syndrome or sclerosis multiplex) has been
observed.
Body build assessment decision process flow
A basic introductory body type of an individual is needed (e.g. before an anthropometric examination
or a somatic characteristics evaluation of any kind)
 One of the aspective/somatoscopic methods of body type assessment is the primary choice
(often, Kretschmer’s method is used which categorizes individual body types into three
categories – asthenic type: lean body proportion characteristics are predominant;
athletic/midtype: predominant characteristics include well developed musculoskeletal
system; pyknic type: markedly developed subcutaneous fat layer is the predominant
characteristic
A numeric, precise description of body build, based on empiric somatic characteristics of an
individual or a group of individuals is needed with application in sports or clinical
anthropology/medicine; or, with the goal to evaluate inter-individual body type variation.
Somatic parameters shown in Table 1 are available.
 Heath – Carter somatotype evaluation method is the method of choice.