Forensic Applicability of Femur Subtrochanteric Shape to Ancestry Assessment in Thai and White American Males

Abstract

Ancestry assessment from the postcranial skeleton presents a significant challenge to forensic anthropologists. However, metric dimensions of the femur subtrochanteric region are believed to distinguish between individuals of Asian and non-Asian descent. This study tests the discriminatory power of subtrochanteric shape using modern samples of 128 Thai and 77 White American males. Results indicate that the samples' platymeric index distributions are significantly different (p≤0.001), with the Thai platymeric index range generally lower and the White American range generally higher. While the application of ancestry assessment methods developed from Native American subtrochanteric data results in low correct classification rates for the Thai sample (50.8-57.8%), adapting these methods to the current samples leads to better classification. The Thai data may be more useful in forensic analysis than previously published subtrochanteric data derived from Native American samples. Adapting methods to include appropriate geographic and contemporaneous populations increases the accuracy of femur subtrochanteric ancestry methods.

Assessing the physical and pathological traits of human skeletal remains from cemetery localities at the Rakhigarhi site of the Harappan Civilization

“…We note that long bone diaphyseal shape reflects the personal history of mechanical loading, and thus can be used to evaluate the physical activity level of human populations (Larsen, 1987;Ruff, 1987). The femur platymeric index, indicating the general shape of proximal femur diaphysis, was classified into broad or platymeria (≤84.9), more rounded or eurymeria (85.0-99.9), and less frequently, anteroposteriorly broad or stenomeria (100.0≤) (Tallman and Winburn, 2015). When the presence of hard materials on the bones interfered with manual measurements, CT reconstructed images were used to calculate the indices of femoral diaphyseal shape (Stock and Shaw, 2007; see Appendix 2).…”

Towards a Method for Discerning Sources of Supply within the Human Remains Trade via Patterns of Visual Dissimilarity and Computer Vision

“…While various researchers have and continue to attempt to develop regression equations to estimate ancestry from various infracranial elements (e.g. Liebenberg et al 2015;Meeusen et al 2015;Wescott 2005;Tallman & Winburn 2015;Ünlütürk 2017;Swenson 2013), it is the collection of a battery of metric measurements and non-metric/macromorphoscopic traits from ideally intact crania that are considered the most reliable. Ideally ancestry estimation would occur as part of a suite of interdisciplinary research performed in collaboration with anthropologists and/or law enforcement to fully establish the biological profile and (as much as possible) the life history of the individual whose cranium was recovered from the market (e.g.…”

rASUDAS: A New Web-Based Application for Estimating Ancestry from Tooth Morphology

“…The more commonly used are based on craniometrics (Giles and Elliot 1962;Jantz and Ousley 2005) and cranial morphoscopics (Hefner 2009;Hefner and Ousley 2014;Rhine 1990). Many other skeletal elements have been studied as well, including the femur (Craig 1995;Gilbert 1976;Stewart 1962;Tallman and Winburn 2015;Wescott 2005), the metatarsals (Smith 1997), the hyoid (Kindschuh et al 2012), the vertebrae (Duray et al 1999;Marino 1997), the sagittal suture (Mann et al 2014), the mandible (Berg 2014), tooth size (Harris and Foster 2015;Kenyhercz et al 2014;Pilloud et al 2014), and postcranial measurements (Holliday and Falsetti 1999). While many of these methods have proven effective at differentiating ancestral groups -there is often little focus on biological development or the evolutionary reasons why various skeletal traits differentiate populations.…”