Stature estimation formulae for indigenous North American populations

Abstract

Stature estimation methods for adult indigenous humans from the Americas have generally relied on a limited number of regression equations. The available equations, however, are not broadly applicable to the diversity of the populations that lived in the New World prior to European colonization. Furthermore, some equations that have been used were originally derived from inappropriate reference samples, such as the "Mongoloid" group measured by Trotter and Gleser (Am J Phys Anthropol 16 [1958] 79-123). This study develops new stature estimation equations for long bones of the lower limb from a geographically diverse sample of North American archaeological sites. Statures were reconstructed from 967 skeletons from 75 archaeological sites using the revised Fully anatomical technique (Raxter et al., Am J Phys Anthropol 130 [2006] 374-384). Archaeological samples were grouped according to general body proportions, using relative tibia and femur length to stature as guides. On the basis of differences in these proportions, three broad groupings were identified: a high latitude "arctic" group, a general "temperate" group, and a Great Plains group. Sex-specific ordinary least squares regression formulae were developed based on femoral and tibial lengths for each of these groups. Comparisons of the new stature estimation equations with previously available equations were conducted using several archaeological test samples. In most cases, the new stature estimation equations are more precise than those previously available, and we recommend their use throughout most of North America. The equations developed by Genovés for Mesoamerican and US Southwest samples are a useful alternative for these regions. Applicability of the new equations to South American samples awaits further testing.

Assessment of an east-west phenotypic variation in body height, body form and body mass among prehistoric hunter-gatherers of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, chile

“…These comparisons showed that, when males and females are considered together, individuals from Fuego-Patagonia had a crural index that was most similar to that of the Temperate North American groups (Auerbach and Ruff 2010). Thus, the stature estimation formulae for Temperate groups (Auerbach and Ruff 2010) were applied in this study. Additionally, the formulae developed by Béguelin (2011) were also applied, to both male and Table 3.…”

“…The equations are developed based on specific populations that have characteristic body and intralimb proportions. Thus, population specific stature formulae are necessary, and a careful selection of the most appropriate formulae should be based on proportions, such as the crural index, as well as geographic region and genetic origins (Auerbach and Ruff 2010).…”

“…In particular, Auerbach and Ruff (2010) developed formulae for three different North American regions, whereas Angel and Cisneros (2004) developed formulae for groups from Central America. Among the few formulae developed for Native South American groups, are the ones for Andean peoples , and the population-specific formula for Patagonian males (Béguelin 2011).…”

“…In this study, selection of the formulae applied considered the fact that there are significant inter-population differences in body proportions (Ruff 2002). Following Ruff's (2010, 2004) recommendations, the average crural index for males and females in this study was compared to other reference New World populations before selecting the formulae to calculate stature (Auerbach and Ruff 2010;. All selected formulae used the femur, tibia and femur plus tibia dimensions.…”

The use of non‐adult vertebral dimensions as indicators of growth disruption and non‐specific health stress in skeletal populations

“…This method does not rely on calculating stature from a single long bone using regression formulae (the “mathematical method”), but instead produces an estimate based upon the measurement of all of those bones that contribute to height (Raxter et al, 2006, 2007; Maijanen, 2009; Auerbach and Ruff, 2010; Auerbach, 2011; Vercellotti et al, 2014). This provides a more accurate method of calculating living stature, as it is not biased by differences in bodily proportions (Maijanen, 2009; Auerbach and Ruff, 2010; Vercellotti et al, 2014). As studies of stature are increasingly beginning to incorporate vertebral components, it is also now prudent to consider the growth of these skeletal elements.…”