The utility of osteon shape and circularity for differentiating human and non‐human Haversian bone

Dados Bibliográficos

ID8314399
AutoresVictoria M Dominguez (0000-0002-2414-9673, Office of Chief Medical Examiner, autor correspondente), Christian M Crowder (Office of Chief Medical Examiner)
Ano2012
Volume149
Fascículo1
Páginas84-91
Data de publicação2012-09-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0002-9483 • E-ISSN: 1096-8644
EditoraWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/ajpa.22097
PMID22700390
OpenAlexW1969018323
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas10
Referências citadas28

Distinguishing human from non‐human bone fragments is usually accomplished by observation of gross morphology. When macroscopic analysis is insufficient, histological approaches can be applied. Microscopic features, like plexiform bone or osteon banding, are characteristic of non‐humans. In the absence of such features, distinguishing Haversian bone as either human or non‐human proves problematic. This study proposes a histomorphometric approach for classifying species from Haversian bone. Two variables, osteon area (On.Ar.) and circularity (On.Cr.), are examined. Measurements were collected from three species (deer, dog, human) represented by various skeletal elements; only ribs were available for humans (ribs: deer n = 6, dog n = 6, human n = 26; humeri: deer n = 6, dog n = 6; femora: deer n = 6, dog n = 6). Qualitative analysis comparing human to non‐human On.Ar. demonstrated that human ribs have larger mean On.Ar. (0.036 mm 2 ) than non‐human ribs (deer = 0.017 mm 2 , dog = 0.013 mm 2 ). On.Cr. in the ribs showed minor differences between species (deer = 0.877; dog = 0.885; human = 0.898). Results demonstrated no significant difference across long bone quadrants in long bones. Discriminant analyses run on the means for each sample demonstrated overlap in deer and dog samples, clustering the non‐human and human groups apart from each other. Mean On.Cr. proved a poor criterion (ribs only: 76.3%, pooled elements: 66.1%), while mean On.Ar. proved useful in identifying human from non‐human samples (ribs only: 92.1%, pooled elements: 93.5%). When variables were combined, accuracy increased to 100% correct classification for rib data and 98.4% when considering data from all elements. These results indicate that On.Ar. and On.Cr. are valuable histomorphometric tools for distinguishing human from non‐human Haversian bone. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Archaeology · Biology · Cortical bone · Forensic anthropology · Human bone · Human skeleton · Osteon · Rib cage · Anatomy · Bone health and osteoporosis research · Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies · Genetics · Morphological variations and asymmetry