Data for validation of osteometric methods in forensic anthropology

Many techniques in forensic anthropology employ osteometric data, although little work has been done to investigate the intrinsic error in these measurements. These data were collected to quantify the reliability of osteometric data used in forensic anthropology research and case analyses. Osteometric data (n = 99 measurements) were collected on a random sample of William M. Bass Donated Collection skeletons (n = 50 skeletons). Four observers measured the left elements of 50 skeletons. After the complete dataset of 99 measurements was collected on each of the 50 skeletons, each observer repeated the process for a total of four rounds. The raw data is available on Mendeley Data (DCP Osteometric Data, Version 1. DOI: 10.17632/6xwhzs2w38.1). An example of the data analyses performed to evaluate and quantify observer error is provided for the variable GOL (maximum cranial length); these analyses were performed on each of the 99 measurements. Two-way mixed ANOVAs and repeated measures ANOVAs with pairwise comparisons were run to examine intraobserver and interobserver error, and relative and absolute technical error of measurement (TEM) was calculated to quantify the observer variation. This data analysis supported the dissemination of a free laboratory manual of revised osteometric definitions (Data Collection Procedures 2.0[1], pdf available at https://fac.utk.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DCP20_webversion.pdf) and an accompanying instructional video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtkLFl3vim4). This manual is versioned and updatable as new information becomes available. Similar validations of scientific data used in forensic methods would support the ongoing effort to establish valid and reliable methods and protocols for proficiency testing, training, and certification.

The Data Collection Procedures (DCP) manual has served the forensic anthropology community since its inception in 1986. A grant from the National Institute of Justice (85-IJ-CX-0021) provided the funds to begin the work, resulting in the first edition of the DCP. The DCP established a means to amass a centralized data base of skeletal data on modern humans (the Forensic Data Bank, or FDB). These data provided the basis for deriving standards to determine age, sex, ancestry, and stature of unknown remains. Ultimately, the FDB became the reference database for the Fordisc software program used to estimate sex, ancestry, and stature. As of this writing, the FDB has just over 4,000 cases.
The DCP recording forms have served as a means of submitting cases to the FDB since the publication of the first edition, and many practitioners use the manual as a laboratory reference guide for osteometric definitions. The last update to the DCP was the third edition, released in 1994. Fordisc 3 was released in 2005. The most recent version of Fordisc is 3.1.307 (October 16, 2015), and the software is updated regularly as the reference sample increases. The 20-year interval since the DCP was last updated and the most recent Fordisc version led to an accumulation of inconsistencies between the DCP forms and the osteometric data used by Fordisc. The next release of the software will include an age estimation module, which will not be derived from the information in the DCP third edition. All of these factors, plus a growing concern for the reliability and repeatability of some of the FDB measurements, provided the impetus for a substantial revision of data collection protocols.
The National Institute of Justice funded the research effort that led to the significant revisions herein (Grant Number 2013-DN-BX-K038). Four observers took the 78 standard measurements (34 cranial and 44 postcranial) from Data Collection Procedures for Forensic Skeletal Material, 3 rd edition plus 20 additional measurements on a sample of 50 William M. Bass Donated Collection skeletons with standard osteometric equipment (sliding calipers, spreading calipers, an osteometric board, and a mandibulometer). The skeletons were measured four times by each observer. Observers measured all 50 skeletons once, then repeated a second round, followed by a third and fourth. Repeated measures ANOVA, scaled error index, and technical error of measurement were used to evaluate reliability and repeatability of the measurements. The results pinpointed a number of measurements requiring close examination of the landmarks and/or definitions. The new osteometric data protocols in DCP 2.0 are the product of this investigative effort.
Data Collection Procedures 2.0 is the first version of many to come. The DCP will be versioned, like the Fordisc software. Changes in newly released versions will be detailed in the introductory section of the manual. The DCP will correspond with the Fordisc software so that practitioners may use the manual in the field to collect data, seamlessly input the data into the software, and then send the data to the FDB (either via Fordisc or the DCP recording forms). The DCP is also accompanied by an instructional video. Links to the video and manual are available on the University of Tennessee's Forensic Anthropology Center webpage and on the Fordisc page of Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute's website. The results of the observer error calculations are available in Appendix C.
The amendments contained in the DCP 2.0 are listed at the beginning of this manual. They include changes to the measurements, references, and age estimation section. The age estimation materials were provided by George Milner and are designed to correspond to the Transition Analysis method incorporated in the next iteration of the Fordisc software program. Line drawings have been simplified and streamlined, and obvious measurements have been removed from figures. We urge the user to read the definitions and not rely solely on illustrations. The accompanying video is also a useful resource. In keeping with tradition we have included the prefaces to the first three editions of the DCP, as they provide an interesting history.
Adams and Byrd (2002) recognized the importance of this type of contribution in their study of measurement error in select postcranial measurements, observing that: 1. Procedures using skeletal measurements should favor measurements that are relatively easy to take.
2. Clear definitions of the measurements should be provided in any publications.
3. Problematic measurements such as pubis length are invalid due to the problem of locating a particular landmark (i.e. the center of the acetabulum); these measurements should not be used in analyses.
4. University training in osteometrics promotes continuity in data collection. Beyond the university, forensic laboratories should include detailed measurement descriptions in their standard operating procedures and provide osteometric training to new staff.
5. On account of the significant implications that the results of these metric analyses hold (e.g. the identification or exclusion of an unknown individual), it is of utmost importance that measurements used by forensic anthropologists can be accurately and reliably taken and that they are replicable between observers.
6. Significant interobserver measurement variation could compromise pooled datasets compiled from multiple researchers and, in turn, bias research based on these data. Interobserver error in reference data (such as that in the Forensic Data Bank) will increase the standard error and introduce potential bias in models to estimate stature, sex, or ancestry.
Ultimately, DCP 2.0 addresses demands put forward by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009): forensic disciplines must critically evaluate, validate, and establish error rates for methodologies commonly used to produce material for forensic case reports and conduct "rigorous systematic research to validate the discipline's basic premises and techniques" (p. 22). Many of the basic techniques in forensic anthropology are based on osteometric data., and this manual utilizes osteometric data that has been tested for repeatability and reliability.
An undertaking of this magnitude prompts us to thank many individuals. Heli Maijanen and Shauna McNulty tirelessly collected osteometric data. We are also grateful to Charlene Weaver in the University of Tennessee Anthropology Department and Carolyn Gulley and Melissa Miracle in the Lincoln Memorial University grants office for their assistance with administrating the grant. A huge thanks to Neil Ward, the graphic artist who did line drawings from bones and bone images, designed the layout of the manual, and met with us countless times in the dingy, poorly lit, and sometimes cold depths of Neyland Stadium. We appreciate his patience, creativity, and diligence. We also thank the unnamed individuals who donate their remains to the Forensic Anthropology Center and to the persistent practitioners who submit data to the Forensic Data Bank. We welcome your comments and questions as we move forward with this effort.

PREFACE
The Forensic Data Bank at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, now has information from over 1200 cases. Almost 900 of these are of certain race and sex. We believe that this guide and the accompanying forms are a sound basis for your own data collection as well as for contributions to the Forensic Data Bank. Analyses using this data base have been presented at the AAFS meetings (Meadows and Jantz 1992; Ousley and Jantz 1992, 1993; Willcox et al 1992; Marks 1990; Moore-Jansen 1991). Most of the discriminate functions from Ousley and Jantz (1992,1993) are found in Bennett (1993) and are also available upon request. Data from the Forensic Data Bank helped in the identification of remains from Operation Desert Storm and the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. The Forensic Data Bank is the foundation for FORDISC 1.0 (Jantz and Ousley 1993), a computer program that generates custom discriminant functions based on available cranial measurements. FORDISC 2.0 will include postcranial race (Black vs. White) and sex functions and stature estimation procedures based on the latest information (Meadows and Jantz 1992; Jantz 1994; Ousley 1994).
Recent works have questioned the metric and morphological standards derived from 19 th century collections such at the Terry and Hamann-Todd collections when applied to modern Americans (Ayers et al. 1989; Erickson 1982; Jantz and Moore-Jansen 1988, 1992; Meadows and Jantz 1992; Murray 1990; Ousley and Jantz 1992, 1993). The skeletal biology of Americans is changing due to secular changes, migrations, and gene flow. In the absence of large modern collections, a data bank is necessary to keep pace with the changing U.S. population. A data bank does naturally impose certain limits on research, since all possible data cannot be collected. But it does preserve data that would otherwise be lost when buried, and has the added possibility of including individuals from around the country and arond the world. We hope that you will share your case information with us so that we can assemble more comprehensive data sets and dvelop better methods of identifying skeletal materials. Sales of FORDISC and this manual have enabled data collection from several widespread locations.
In this edition of the manual, we have changed landmarks used for orbit breadth, biorbital breadth, and interorbital breadth. For orbital measurements, we now use dacryon and a definition of ectoconchion for Howells (1973) because these are easier to find and measure from. We have added more measurement tips and tried to make the measurement descriptions more clear. For example, Sagittal in many cases has been changed to Anterior-Posterior.
The vast majority of cases have come from our own efforts, though we thank especially Douglas Ubelaker and Ted Rathbun for continuing to contribute many cases. We also thank Michael Pietrusewsky, who contributed data from Vietnamese and Chinese individuals. We are especially grateful to William M. Bass for his continued enthusiastic support of the Forensic Data Bank.

PREFACE TO DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES, THIRD EDITION
The development of a National Forensic Data Base at the University of Tennessee has been under way for six years and is now a significant resource for skeletal biology research. Our purpose was to assemble a large enough data base which could provide a significant research data base for forensic anthropology. Once established, the data base would be maintained and increased by annual contributions of new case reports/data records from practitioners of forensic anthropology across the nation.
Our initial task was to standardize recording procedures and general recording formats. We feel the present manuscript has accomplished this. Our protocol is not meant to limit anyone from additional or alternate procedures. It has, however, established a standardized "core" data set which will be available to researchers upon request. A computerized data entry format was designed and distributed to several institutions who are currently applying it to their personal or institutional data collecting. It is currently under revision. It should be noted that the protocol (Moore-Jansen and Jantz 1986) was submitted to all members of the Physical Anthropology section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences for comments. The present edition is the result of our efforts to address resulting comments and questions.
Our major objective, yet to be fully acheived, is the participation of all practitioners and potential researchers in the field of forensic anthropology. At present the data base exceeds 850 records, of which about 60% are documetned forensic cases. All individuals were born during the 20th century and the vast majority died after 1960. To maintain and improve the data base, we rely entirely on the cooperation of those who observe and record forensic cases. In the last few years, contributions have been less than 30 per year. Exceptions include a one-time contribution of Larry Angel's forensic cases. Contributions have come from around the country, with major contributions coming from the Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., the Human Indentification Lab at the University of Arizona in Tuscon, and the Forensic Anthropology Center at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
At Knoxville, the main goal of our data colelction effort is to develop new identification methods for skeletal remains. We have already developed a discriminant function program for cranial and postcranial data ( Moore-Jansen and Jantz 1989).
We have also developed custom discriminant functions on several occasions to help forensics specialists identify remains. By Fall 1991, we also plant to make available a customizable discriminant function program that will run on any IBM compatible computer. To aid our efforts in computer-aided anthropology, the department of Anthropology at UT will soon purchase an 80386 computer, Paradox 3.0 database software, PC SAS statistical analysis software, and several programming languages packages. These hardware and software modernizations will help us to develop and process statistical analyses more rapidly.
In order to enhance these results and continue to improve the research facility that is now firmly established for forensic anthropology, we must encourage more contributions to the project as well as request for data. We are certain that the more the data is shared, the more practitioners will appreciate the importance of contributing to the data base. Up to now, virtually all research using the data has been conducted at the University of Tennessee. We are currently investigating various ways of making information available to researchers via modem, BITNET, and other electronic means.
With the help and guidance of a large number of individuals, we have established a significant and useful source of data, and feel that the success and enthusiasm for the project will continue. We wish to extend our deepest gratitude to all those who have participated in the data bank project over the past several years through suggestions and contributions. We wish again to acknowledge some of those people by name. We are especially indebted to William M. Bass for his financial support and encouragement since the project was first conceived. We are most grateful to Douglas H Ubelaker who has provided comments and suggestions for the project and contributed a great many case records. We especially appreciate his application and testing of our research conclusions in skeletal identification. We extend our sincere thanks to Judy Suchey and Michael Hoffman who responded immediately to our request for comments and questions on the previous edition. We thank Judy Suchey and Margaret Burch for providing us with copies of the templates for again pubic symphysis. The notion od systematically collecting information from forensic cases has been talked about for several years. Central to this idea is that data obtained from forensic cases would provide a more adequate basis for deriving standards, primarily for race, stature, sex and age determination, than the anatomical collections upon which many of the current standards rest. Accordingly, a committee was appointed under the Finnegan administration of the Physical Anthropology section of the American Association of Forensic Sciences consisting of Clyde Snow chair, Dick Jantz, Stan Rhine and Larry Angel. This committee met during the AAFS meeting in Orlando to discuss feasibility and direction in general terms. The committee (now consisting of Dick Jantz, chair, Stan Rhine, Larry Angel and Doug Ubelaker) met the following year in Cincinnati and drew up a tentative list of measurements and observations that might be incorporated into a forensic data bank.
At this point it became apparent that we would require funding. Bill Bass provided some start-up funds from the Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, enabling us to hire Peer H. Moore-Jansen, a Ph.D. student. Together we prepared a proposal to be submitted to the National Institute of Justice in their unsolicited research program. The proposal was funded and the project officially began September 1, 1986. The grant contains funds to purchase computer hardware and software and salary to support data base design and computerization. Peer Moore-Jansen has assumed the major responsibility for developing the protocol set forth here.
The present document is aimed at the recording of skeletal material and soft tissue cases of all ages, although specific instructions for recording young children are currently lacking. Until such guidelines are provided, we encourage everyone who chooses to follow the guidelines presented here, to apply them appropriately in each case as outlined in the instructions.
We have attempted to include measurements and observations which can readily be made on skeletonized remains and which are more or less standard. We have used Martin (1956;1957) as the reference for defining landmarks and measurements; the definitions which appear here are our translations. We have discovered that the definitions given in Singh and Bhasin (1968) are also essentially translations from Martin. Observations on age changes have been keyed to a variety of sources and are explained in the text.
The present document is a revised version of a preliminary draft distributed at the 1986 AAFS meeting in New Orleans. Although we regard the present document as a relatively permanent document it is certainly open to future revisions as they are deemed appropriate. Two important areas which are currently being considered for future revisions include 1) a more specific approach for recording skeletal data for young children, and 2) expansion of dental recording procedures.
The basic idea is that information available from forensic cases will be recorded on the data sheets and returned to us for entry onto the computerized data bank. We are prepared to make the information available to anyone who contributes. The information can be made available in a variety of forms appropriate to specific computer facilities.
We thank the members of the committee, Stan Rhine, Doug Ubelaker and the late Larry Angel for reading and commenting on a previous draft of this manuscript. Thanks also to Judy Myers Suchey, Sheilagh Brooks, Diane France, Frank Saul, P.S. Willey, Steven A. Symes and Henry W. Case for reading earlier drafts and providing comments. We are especially grateful to William Bass for providing support, both monetary and moral, which led to the realization of this project. The National Institute of Justice, grant number 85-IJ-CX-0021, provided the funds and we are indebted to Mr. Joe Kochanski for his help. Finally, our special gratitude goes to Ms. Kim Johnson who devoted herculean efforts to the typing and arrangement of this manuscript and to Mary Joe Hinton, who typed the revisions and additions to the second edition. FIgures 1,2,6,7, and 12-17 are reproduced with the permission of Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York. On account of the extensive changes in DCP 2.0 this list is not exhaustive. However, it is fairly detailed and calls the user's attention to pertinent issues.
The manual is arranged in 3 sections: 1. EPIPhySEAl unIon 2. TRAnSITIon AnAlySIS 3. FoREnSIC MEASuREMEnTS The age estimation section has been changed completely: •

INTRODUCTION
The collection of forensic data can be time consuming. This effort must be expended, however, to provide a sound foundation for research in forensic anthropology.
The skeletal observations should be a part of every forensic investigation. With some practice and an assistant, the cranial and postcranial measurements can take less than an hour to complete. The recording form has been compiled and revised by the authors, based in part on the assistance and suggestions of current practitioners in the field. Specific instructions for the completion of each section of the forensic recording sheet are presented in the following pages. A few general guidelines for recording data are discussed below.
• The fastest method involves an observer and a recorder.
In preparation for analysis, the available skeletal remains should be arranged in anatomical order. Indicate the side from which the measurement is taken by recording the measurement in the appropriate column. If time is at a premium, it would be better to record all bone measurements from one side rather than both sides on fewer bones. As a standard procedure, the left side measurement is used if only one side is measured. The right side should be substituted for the left when the latter is missing or cannot be observed for other reasons, such as a bone with pathological lesions.
• Measurements should be recorded in millimeters. Round to the nearest mm when a measurement is between two mm markings. Stages of Epiphyseal Closure: 1-No Union (with or without separate epiphyses) -The surface of the metaphysis has grooves and ridges and is granular in appearance (Figure 1.1).
2-Partial Union -Part of the epiphysis is attached to the diaphysis of the bone. (Figure 1.1).
3-Complete Union -Complete or nearly complete filling in and smoothing over the bone, finely granular in appearance ( Figure 1.1   Not all skeletal traits have to be present to generate an age estimate. That is, the procedure was designed to accommodate the possibility that only a partial skeleton may be available for observation.

Trait location
It is essential to score only what is happening in the location specified in each of the descriptions, and not be influenced by the appearance of the anatomical unit as a whole. That is because the ages of transition for the young to old stages pertain to specific parts of the anatomical units under consideration. Inattention to adhering to the scoring locations will produce nonsensical results.

Ambiguous skeletal features
On occasion it is difficult or impossible to distinguish between sequential stages in a particular anatomical feature. That can be a result of a pathological process or postmortem erosion. There is still information, however, in such characters, as long as something is visible. You should record whatever is observable, using two or more stage designations, as appropriate (e.g., Stages 3-4). Doing so allows one to take full advantage of the meager information available in the damaged bony structure. For example, a partly observable pubic symphysis ventral margin that has at least 1 cm of rim visible would be scored as Rim (6) and Breakdown (7). A 6-7 score acknowledges that a rim is present, so an earlier stage is not appropriate. However, there might have been sufficient antemortem marginal erosion to be classified as Breakdown (7) in the part of the bone that is missing. The 6-7 designation indicates the individual was at least in Stage 6, and might have been in the next higher one (i.e., Stage 7), but we will never know. Users of Transition Analysis can gain experience with the changes that take place in the pubic symphysis by closely examining the excellent casts in the McKern-Stewart and Suchey-Brooks pubic bone sets. For sake of convenience, the several parts of the roughly oval symphyseal face are described as superior, inferior, ventral (anterior), and dorsal (posterior), even though such terms are not entirely accurate when the bone is oriented in proper anatomical position.
Opposing pubic bones tend to resemble one another, but they often differ in specific details. Therefore, the left and right sides are scored separately to accommodate that variation.  earlier ridge and furrow system dominate the dorsal demiface, and the furrows look as if they have been filled partially with bone. Billows occupy most or all of the dorsal demiface, and in some individuals they extend anteriorly to reach the ventral margin.
4. Residual billowing: Billows are barely visible, being only slightly elevated above the symphyseal face (Figure 2.5). They tend to blend into one another to form low and indistinct raised areas that lack clearly defined furrows between them. The slightly raised areas occupy only part of the symphyseal face, typically about one-third of the middle to inferior portions of the dorsal demiface. Individual billows usually cross only part of the symphyseal face, typically less than one-half its width, being concentrated on the dorsal demiface. There must be two or more adjacent raised areas corresponding to billows to qualify as Residual Billowing. A single isolated bony elevation is not sufficient to be classified as Residual Billowing; instead, such specimens are considered Flat (see Stage 5 below).

LoCation
The terms for this feature generally follow those of McKern and Stewart (1957). Although the entire face should be considered, the billowing is typically most clearly seen in the dorsal half of the symphyseal face (Figure 2.1). In fact, low ridges of bone, the billowing, can be entirely absent from the ventral symphyseal face, beginning as early as the ventral beveling stage.

5.
Flat: More than one-half of the symphyseal face within well-defined margins is flat or slightly recessed, and is often surrounded by a well-developed rim (Figure 2.6). Occasionally small, low pillows of bone give the otherwise flat surface a slightly bumpy appearance, but the symphyseal face does not conform to Residual Billowing (i.e., there is no more than one discrete and well-defined low raised area corresponding to what had been a more extensive series of billows). If there is a gap where the ventral rampart has failed to extend along the entire ventral edge of the pubis (a ventral hiatus), the surface within the gap does not receive a score.
6. Irregular: Pitting, which can be deep, covers more than one-half of the symphyseal face, giving it an irregular and disfigured appearance (Figure 2.7). The pits can be accompanied by small, sharp exostoses scattered across the face. Occasionally, in older individuals an otherwise flat face is thickly covered by low but typically sharp exostoses that give the symphyseal surface a markedly irregular appearance. Pitting in such specimens might be minor, but the bone is still classified as Irregular. Similar to the Flat category, the scored part of the symphyseal face does not include the ventral gap, if present. In Irregular specimens, the margins of the symphyseal face are typically defined by the Rim and Breakdown stages of the Ventral and Dorsal Margin components.    4. Macroporosity: Deep pits cover over one-third of the dorsal demiface, giving it an irregular appearance (Figure 2.12). The pits are at least 0.5 mm in diameter, and generally are spaced close together. Sometimes the symphyseal surface is so irregular from pitting that it resembles the edge of a sponge. The surface looks like it was pierced by closely packed pinheads (the bulbous end of the same shirt or blouse pin in the previous description).

sCoring tips
In most instances it is difficult to identify the proper stage from photographs. So if the actual specimen is unavailable, it is generally best to score this feature as not observable.
The ventral part of the bone, when ventral beveling is present, is often pitted, giving it the appearance of microporosity. A porous ventral demiface should not be confused with what is happening in the dorsal demiface.
It is our impression that prehistoric Native American skeletons have microporosity more often and at an earlier age than medieval Scandinavians. More to the point, they differ from the modern Terry and Coimbra collection skeletons used to generate transition curves used when estimating age. Therefore, it is best not to rely heavily on this feature of the symphyseal face when examining Native American skeletons. In fact, it is prudent to record Symphyseal Texture stages for Native Americans, but treat them as missing data when estimating age with the computer program (i.e., do not enter the scores on the data entry page).

LoCation
The dorsal portion of the surface is examined (Figure 2.8).  2. Early protuberance: A distinct bony knob of variable dimensions with well-defined margins is visible in the superior part of the symphyseal face (Figure 2.15). It projects above the plane(s) defined by the immediately adjacent symphyseal face (i.e., the superior portions of the dorsal and ventral demifaces, where the latter can be characterized by ventral beveling). The surface of the bony protuberance is typically smooth to fine grained. In many specimens, the bony knob looks like a split pea stuck on the bone.
3. Late protuberance: The superior part of the symphyseal face is raised somewhat above the rest of the articulation surface (Figure 2.16). The elevated area is typically located mostly on the ventral side of the midline. The margins of the slightly raised area are poorly defined. These raised areas tend to look like a continuation of a relatively smooth symphyseal surface, except they slope slightly upward to meet the superior margin of the bone. Thus the Late Protuberance is more completely integrated with the rest of the symphyseal face than the distinctly knob-like Early Protuberance. Late Protuberance should not be confused with a narrow raised marginal rim that can border the cranial end of the symphyseal face in many specimens, especially females with narrow pubic symphyses. For a Late Protuberance to be scored as present, the slightly raised area must extend onto the symphyseal face; that is, it is not restricted to the rim alone. Occasionally, the superior part of the symphyseal face can be partly separated from the rest of the face by marked and extensive pitting of the middle symphyseal surface. Care must be taken not to confuse an isolated segment of the symphyseal face with a Late Protuberance stage. It is only Late Protuberance if the superior end of the symphyseal surface is elevated above the portions of the face not affected by the pitting.

CharaCteristiCs [stages]
1. no protuberance 2. Early protuberance 3. late protuberance 4. Integrated with the rest of the symphyseal face. That is, the smooth to irregular (usually pitted) symphyseal face is essentially flat. This stage, the absence of a raised area, is distinguishable from Stage 1, No Protuberance, because the superior portion of the symphyseal face is flat, not the ridge-and-valley surface typical of the initial No Protuberance stage. The Integrated stage also frequently has a narrow elevated rim demarcating the superior symphyseal surface, which is a continuation of the ventral or dorsal rims.

sCoring tips
Do not confuse a narrow rim bordering the superior margin of the symphyseal face, which commonly occurs in the terminal Integrated stage, with the earlier Late Protuberance stage. The two stages are distinguishable because the Late Protuberance raised area extends onto the upper part of the symphyseal face.
In the Integrated stage, a flat symphyseal face extends up to, and abuts, a narrow rim, which is commonly present.
Occasionally, a gap exists in the superior one-half of the ventral margin, but the ventral rampart is otherwise completely formed.
In that case, the presence of a protuberance is often not scored as the appearance of the bone can be confusing.   2. Beveled: Billows are flattened in the ventral half of the symphyseal face, a process that generally starts at the superior end (Figure 2.20). Flattening, or beveling, must extend along at least one-third of the ventral margin to be scored as present. There is often a reasonably well-defined margin where the beveled ventral portion meets the dorsal demiface immediately posterior to it.

TRANSITION ANALYSIS
3. Rampart incomplete: The ventral rampart, following McKern and Stewart (1957), refers to a distinct outgrowth of bone that ultimately forms the ventral aspect of the symphyseal face ( Figure 2.21). The rampart extends from one or both ends of the symphysis, and it often resembles a roll of wellchewed gum stuck on the ventral edge of the symphyseal face. The rampart does not extend along the entire ventral edge, and often some elements of a youthful symphyseal surface can be followed uninterrupted to the ventral edge of the smphysis. In the superior part of the ventral margin, the rampart forms on the Beveled surface. In the inferior part of the margin, remnants of the original irregular surface can often be seen dipping below a partially formed rampart, which looks as if it was lying on a shallowly furrowed surface. An incomplete rampart frequently extends inferiorly from the bony protuberance defining the cranial end of the face, sometimes forming a bony elevation that resembles a comma, with the rampart being the tail. 1 A rampart can also extend superiorly from the inferior end of the symphysis. Bony extensions from the superior and inferior ends of the symphysis, if both are present, typically leave a gap in the middle one-third of the ventral margin. An early Rampart Incomplete stage can consist of one or more bony knobs, commonly located in the middle one-third of the ventral margin. The knobs can occur with, or without, the formation of a bony rampart extending from the superior and inferior ends of the symphysis. If the rampart is more than two-thirds complete but there is a gap in the superior part of it, you should consider the possibility

LoCation
The ventral margin of the pubic symphysis is scored separately from the rest of the bone (Figure 2.18).

CharaCteristiCs [stages]
1. Serrated 2. Beveled 3. Rampart formation 4. Rampart completion with anterior sulcus 5. Rampart completion without sulcus 6. Rim 7. Breakdown 1 A well-developed bony protuberance at the cranial end of the face that lacks a distinct inferiorly projecting ventral rampart should not be coded as Ventral Rampart Formation; that is, the mere existence of a cranially located bony knob without bone being laid down along the ventral margin is not sufficient to score the ventral rampart as present.

Rampart Formation
TRANSITION ANALYSIS that the specimen is in the Rampart Complete with Anterior Sulcus or Rampart Complete without Sulcus stages. Occasionally a rampart never completely forms along the ventral margin.
4. Rampart Complete with Anterior Sulcus: Rampart Complete 4 and 5 are similar to one another. What distinguishes them is the appearance of the anterior surface of the bone immediately lateral to the symphyseal margin. In Rampart Complete with Anterior Sulcus [4], the ventral rampart is complete, but there is a shallow sulcus extending along much of the length of the ventral pubis immediately lateral to the symphysis (often more pronounced inferiorly). The groove is a residual feature related to rampart formation along the ventral margin. A reasonably flat symphyseal surface extends uninterrupted from the dorsal to ventral margins, so the face is unlike the somewhat furrowed appearance of many Rampart Incomplete specimens where there is a shallow groove just dorsal to an incomplete ventral rampart. Occasionally a gap exists in the ventral margin, usually in its superior half; the ventral rampart is otherwise completely formed. This stage is only occasionally found in most skeletal samples that have been examined. Typically the completed rampart is a Stage 5, Rampart Complete without Sulcus. The only difference between Stages 4 and 5 is the presence of the anterior sulcus in Stage 4.

Rampart Complete without Sulcus:
The ventral rampart is  (a) (c) (b) complete, and there is no shallow sulcus as described in Rampart Complete 4. A reasonably flat symphyseal surface extends uninterrupted from its dorsal to ventral margins, so the face is unlike the somewhat furrowed appearance of many Rampart Incomplete specimens where there is also a shallow groove just dorsal to the incomplete ventral rampart. Occasionally there is a gap in the superior half of the ventral margin, but the ventral rampart is otherwise complete ( Figure  2.27a). These specimens should be classified as Rampart Complete. With regard to Rampart Complete With and Without Anterior Sulcus (Stages 4 and 5), most specimens are in the later Stage 5. 6. Rim: A narrow, bony rim defining the ventral margin of the symphysis, perched on top of the ventral rampart, demarcates a usually flat or irregular face (Figure 2.22). The rim does not have to be complete, but it must be at least 1 cm long and readily visible as a raised ridge adjacent to a slightly recessed symphyseal face. The rim can be either a continuous ridge of bone or several segments, as long as 1 cm of an elevated border is present. The rim's crest can be low and rounded, or narrow and sharp. A ventral rim is always formed on top of a ventral rampart. Odd rim-like bone formations on gaps in a rampart or formed with no rampart at all are not scored as a ventral rim.
7. Breakdown: The ventral margin of the symphyseal face has begun to break down, as indicated by pitting and an erosion of the Rim (Figure 2.23). The breakdown of the ventral margin must exceed 1 cm (either in one spot, or when two or more areas of erosion are combined) to be scored as present. Care must be taken to distinguish antemortem degeneration -that is, true Breakdown -from postmortem damage. The latter, of course, can render the bone unscorable if it is extensive enough.

sCoring tips
In mature pubic symphyses there can be a gap in the ventral margin, as noted by McKern and Stewart (1957: 77, Fig.  40) who called it the "ventral hiatus (Figure 2.27a)". Gaps, when present, usually occur in the superior half of the pubic symphysis. In most instances, they are readily distinguishable from incomplete rampart formation because the remainder of the ventral rampart appears complete. That is, the ventral margin elsewhere has a rounded to angular edge, an anterior sulcus is typically absent, and a rim might have developed on the part of the rampart that is present. In addition, the symphyseal surface extends uninterrupted from the dorsal to ventral margins, and it is often flat. The appearance of the symphyseal face contrasts sharply with what is present in the typical Rampart Incomplete stage. In the earlier Rampart Incomplete 4 stage, a shallow depression is often present immediately dorsal to the newly formed and still rather narrow rampart, and much of the rest of the symphyseal face is marked by remnants of the original ridges and furrows.
Occasionally in the Rim or Breakdown stages, there is also a separate bony growth or collar, presumably ossified ligaments, adjacent to the ventral margin that is separated from the symphyseal face by a groove. It only occurs on old people, and it is more commonly found toward the superior end of the pubic symphysis. This bony structure is not scored and should not to be confused with what is happening on the symphyseal surface or its margin. 4. Rim: An elevated bony rim demarcates a flat or, infrequently, an irregular face (Figure 2.28). The rim projects slightly above the symphyseal face, and its crest can be blunt or sharp. The rim does not have to extend along the entire dorsal margin to be scored as present, but it must be at least 1 cm long. The 1 cm rule pertains to either a continuous rim or discontinuous segments that together sum to that length. A rim typically develops first along the superior part of the dorsal margin. It can, however, occur anywhere along the dorsal margin.

LoCation
The dorsal part of the pubic symphysis is scored separately from the ventral margin (Figure 2.24). In females, dorsally located characteristics can be partly or entirely obscured by large postpartum, or parity, pits.
Occasionally, such specimens cannot be scored properly.     The breakdown must exceed 1 cm in length either in one spot or when two or more areas of erosion are combined. Care must be taken to differentiate antemortem degeneration of the margin from postmortem damage, which is of no concern. Antemortem destruction attributable to large parity pits in females that can undercut the dorsal margin is not considered breakdown in the sense of the term as used here. It might not be possible to score those specimens; when that occurs, the component is simply missing data.

LoCation
The superior demiface is examined. The two demifaces (superior and inferior) are divided by a line extending posteriorly from the most anterior point of the apex to the posterior joint margin.

Undulating:
The surface is undulating in a superior to inferior direction. There is no centrally located and linear area of elevated bone (Median Elevation). When the entire articular surface is viewed in aggregate, the overall effect is of two or three low waves proceeding lengthwise along the joint (Figure 2.31).

Median elevation:
In the middle to posterior part of the demiface there is a broad raised area where the joint surface is elevated slightly above the rest of the joint (Figure 2.32). The elevation is flanked anteriorly, posteriorly, or both by one or two long, low areas. The elevated area takes the form of an elongated ridge with the long axis paralleling the main orientation of the demiface. It is not unusual for the elevated area to be restricted to a noticeably raised area that does not extend the entire length of the demiface. When that occurs, the raised area is typically located in the inferior portion of the demiface. To be scored as present, the elevated area must extend along at least one-third of the joint surface's length.
3. Flat to irregular: The surface is essentially flat or recessed, a result of marginal lipping, or it is irregular from degeneration of the joint or the formation of low, pillow-like exostoses (Figure 2.33).

sCoring tips
These comments pertain to Superior and Inferior Demiface Topography. The first thing to do is to place your thumb such that it masks the superior demiface, and then score the inferior part of the joint. The characteristics of the inferior demiface are generally easier to see, and to score reliably, than the superior demiface, especially with regard to the Median Elevation. Then move your thumb so it masks much of the inferior part of the joint so you just look at the superior part. The purpose of this exercise is to prevent being influenced by what is happening in the part of the joint that is not being scored.
When deciding which of the stages is represented, it is easiest to determine if a Median Elevation is present first. It will be generally more pronounced on the inferior demiface. If it is not present, the surface is typically in the Flat to Irregular stage. The Undulating variant is almost always found on the ilia of young people in their teens or twenties. The Superior Demiface Undulating and Median Elevation features are more subdued and harder to distinguish than those of the Inferior Demiface.
Most specimens are either Median Elevation [2] or Flat to Irregular [3]. Occasionally in young adults a median elevation appears to be in the process of forming on an otherwise undulating surface. The median elevation is short and typically centrally located on the superior demiface (rarely this occurs on the inferior demiface). Because the median elevation, if present, is poorly defined, these specimens are best coded as 1-2.

Superior
Inferior TRANSITION ANALYSIS        (c) The superior part of the face is examined. The joint surface is divided into superior, middle (apical), and inferior segments (Figure 2.37).

III. Superior Surface Characteristics
3. Billows cover <1/3 of the surface: Billows are a noticeable, but minor, component of the joint surface. The rest of the surface is flat or bumpy.

Bumps:
Most, or all, of the joint surface is covered by low, rounded bony exostoses, much like little irregular pillows (Figure 2.40). Part of the surface may be flat, but over onehalf of it is bumpy. One is often reminded of lentils squished onto the joint surface. The bumps can be discrete low elevations or confluent, in which case the raised areas have irregular margins Unscorable: If defects in the joint surface are so extensive they obscure much of the face, this characteristic is considered unscorable. The defects often take one of two forms. (1) Irregular and large pits can be present that are for the most part either separate or confluent with one another. The pits can be found anywhere on the joint face.
(2) Alternatively, the defects are linear grooves that occur in isolation or as multiple nearby grooves. In either case, they can be up to a centimeter long, and they generally extend in a transverse direction. For the linear defects in particular, the smooth bone of the joint surface frequently laps over into the defect for a short distance. That is, the lips of these defects are covered by smooth-surfaced bone. The grooves are more commonly found in the middle part of the joint surface than toward the superior or inferior parts. They are not to be confused with some form of anomalously deep billows.
Occasionally surface defects are sufficient to obscure the bracket the part of the auricular surface that includes the apex with your two thumbs. That defines the middle, or apical, portion. Then move one thumb to define the inferior margin of the superior portion. Finally, use a thumb to define the superior margin of the inferior surface. This simple masking procedure will help counteract the tendency to be influenced by what is present on adjacent parts of the auricular surface.
When scoring the surface characteristics, it is generally easiest to look for billows first. If present, then determine how abundant they are: there are only a few of them, they cover roughly one-half of the surface, or they spread out across much of the surface. If billows are not present, then look for bumps. The low and irregular bumps do not display the generally transverse organization of the billows. 5. Bumps: Most, or all, of the joint surface is covered by low, rounded bony exostoses, much like little irregular pillows (Figure 2.43). Part of the surface may be flat, but over onehalf of it is bumpy. One is often reminded of lentils squished onto the joint surface. The bumps can be discrete low elevations or confluent, in which case the raised areas have irregular margins.
Unscorable: If defects in the joint surface are so extensive they obscure much of the face, this characteristic is considered unscorable. The defects often take one of two forms. (1) Irregular and large pits can be present that are for the most part either separate or confluent with one another. The pits can be found anywhere on the joint face.
(2) Alternatively, the defects are linear grooves that occur in isolation or as multiple nearby grooves. In either case, they can be up to a centimeter long, and they generally extend in a transverse direction. For the linear defects in particular, it frequently appears as if the smooth bone of the joint surface laps over into the defect for a short distance. The grooves are more commonly found in the middle part of the joint surface than toward the superior or inferior ends. They are not to be considered a form of anomalously deep billows.
Occasionally the surface defects are sufficient to obscure the Superior and Inferior Demiface Topography, although they more often interfere with the proper scoring of the Superior, Middle, and Inferior Surface Characteristics.

LoCation
The middle part of the face is examined (see Figure 2.37). This area corresponds to the portion of the joint surface that includes the so-called apexthe curved part of the boomerang-shaped auricular surface.  2. Billows cover 1/3-2/3 of the surface: About one-half of the surface is covered by billows.
3. Billows cover <1/3 of the surface: Billows are a noticeable, but minor, component of the joint surface. The rest of the surface is flat or bumpy.

Bumps:
Most, or all, of the joint surface is covered by low, rounded bony exostoses, much like little irregular pillows (Figure 2.46). Part of the surface may be flat, but over onehalf of it is bumpy. One is often reminded of lentils squished onto the joint surface. The bumps can be discrete low elevations or confluent, in which case the raised areas have irregular margins.
Unscorable: If defects in the joint surface are so extensive they obscure much of the face, this characteristic is considered unscorable. The defects often take one of two forms. (1) Irregular and large pits can be present that are for the most part either separate or confluent with one another. The pits can be found anywhere on the joint face.
(2) Alternatively, the defects are linear grooves that occur in isolation or as multiple nearby grooves. In either case, they can be up to a centimeter long, and they extend in a generally transverse direction. For the linear defects in particular, it frequently appears as if the smooth bone of the joint surface laps over into the defect for a short distance. The grooves are more commonly found in the middle part of the joint surface than toward the superior or inferior ends. They are not to be considered a form of anomalously deep billows.
Occasionally the surface defects are sufficient to obscure the Superior and Inferior Demiface Topography, although they more often interfere with the proper scoring of the Superior, Middle, and Inferior Surface Characteristics.

LoCation
The inferior part of the face is examined. On most ilia this is the largest part of the auricular surface as it is defined here (see Figure 2.37).

LoCation
Only one part of the joint surface -the inferior area -is scored for texture (Figure 2.47). This part of the joint is 1 cm long, as measured in a superior to inferior direction. Occasionally there can be an elongated portion of the joint surface, often accompanied by marginal lipping, that extends well beyond the main body of the ilium. While it can occur in both sexes, it is more often seen in females. Do not score the auricular surface that extends beyond the margin of the ilium proper.     (Figure 2.51). It is located superior to the sacroiliac joint surface; that is, to a line that passes from the anterior superior iliac spine, to the most superior point of the joint surface (the superior angle), and on through the posterior part of the ilium. In some individuals, the bone is distinctly raised in this area, so care must be taken to differentiate jagged (or high) exostoses from rounded or pointed ones perched on top of a raised elevation of bone.

Cranial Sutures
The suture closure scores are similar to what osteologists have used for over a century. Ectocranial suture closure is recorded because it is often difficult to examine the interiors of archaeological crania, which can be dirty. Suture segment names conform to those commonly used by osteologists. Palatal sutures are included because they have been shown to be of some use in age estimation, even though they are often damaged (Mann et al. 1987 sCoring tips For sake of completeness, it is a good practice to record closure of both the left and right coronal, lambdoidal, and zygomaticomaxillary sutures, if present. When entering data, it is possible to list scores for both sides if they are different. Although Transition Analysis is based on the left side, the inclusion of scores for both bilateral sutures is conservative because it, in effect, increases the age interval. Because sutures are notoriously poor indicators of age, wider intervals are not a bad outcome.
The first stage, Open, is perhaps best seen in Lambdoidal Asterica. It is a common score for that suture segment, especially in young adults, but it even occurs in middle-aged adults. The Open category is distinguished from Juxtaposed by a noticeable gap between the two adjoining bones. The width of this gap varies from one suture to another, although it is generally greatest at Lambdoidal Asterica. While there is no bony bridging of the suture in the Juxtaposed category, the two adjacent bones are only separated by a narrow line, just as if a line was drawn on the bone by a pencil with a thin lead.

I. Coronal Pterica
LoCation Score the most inferior section of the coronal suture, a relatively straight part without a meandering appearance. It typically extends from the temporal line inferiorly to the sphenoid.

LoCation
Score the relatively straight part of the posterior sagittal suture near the parietal foramina. This ca. 3-4 cm long segment is in the vicinity of the parietal foramina.

LoCation
The relatively straight part of the lambdoidal suture adjacent to asterion is scored.

LoCation
The entire length of the facial, or anterior, part of the zygomaticomaxillary suture is scored. 2. Juxtaposed: The suture is visible along its entire length, but the suture is narrow because the bones are tightly juxtaposed (Figure 2.65). If there are any bony bridges they are rare and small, sometimes with a trace of the original suture still evident.

IV. Zygomaticomaxillary
3. Partially obliterated: The suture is partially obscured (Figure 2.66). There is no trace of the original suture in the bony bridges.
4. Punctuated: Only remnants of the suture are present (Figure 2.67). They appear as scattered small points or grooves each no more than two millimeters long.

5.
Obliterated: There is no evidence of a suture (Figure 2.68).
3. Punctuated: Only remnants of the suture are present. They appear as scattered small points or grooves, each no more than 2 mm long.

Obliterated:
There is no evidence of a suture.

LoCation
The suture located between the two opposing palatine bones is of interest (see Figure 2.69a). A small bony crest often forms along the midline of the palate that can make it difficult to record the extent of suture closure. In other specimens, the suture is barely visible in the depths of a deep and narrow groove. Both the ridge and groove make it hard or impossible to score the suture.     16. Lambda (l): The apex of the occipital bone at its junction with the parietals, in the midline (Figure 3.2). This is normally the meeting of the sagittal and lambdoid sutures, but must be placed in the midline. There is often an apical bone at the site, in which case lambda is to be found by extending the general curving course of each half of the lambdoid suture to their intersections with the midline; if these extensions do not meet the midline in a single point, lambda is halfway between such intersections. In occasional cases, the apex of the occipital makes an obvious forward excursion along the midline, away from the general course of the suture, and probably resulting from an apical bone joined to the occipital. The same procedure as immediately above is followed. The lambdoid suture itself may be very complex or composed largely of wormian bones. Trace a pencil line along the center of such an area on each side, to find lambda as above.

Zygomaxillare anterior (zma):
The intersection of the zygomaxillary suture and the limit of the attachment of the masseter muscle, on the facial surface (Figure 3.1). If obliteration makes the facial part of the suture difficult to follow, inspection of its course, if present, on the internal surface of the arch may help. In very rare cases, and in association with an os japonicum, the suture runs more posteriorly, and over a centimeter lateral to the anterior end of the masseter attachment. Zygomaxillare anterior is then likely to be located beyond the angle of the malar; in such cases it is recommended that the point be placed on the facial surface, on the masseter limit, not more than 6-8 mm from the anterior end of the masseter area. (Howells 1973: 170).

Zygoorbitale (zo):
The intersection of the orbital margin and the zygomaxillary suture (Figure 3.1). Since the orbital border is usually softly rounded here, the point should be found midway between the facial and orbital surfaces. A small process or sliver of the malar may extend several millimeters medially from the rest of the bone just here, pushing the suture and point well inward along the orbital margin. As a convention, the point is never placed medial to the plane of the medial border of the infraorbital foramen. (Howells 1973: 170). 2. Nasio-occipital length (NOL): Maximum length in the midsagittal plane, measured from nasion (n) (Figure 3.3).

Instrument: Spreading caliper
Comments: With the skull in position as for glabello-occipital length, place the one caliper point at nasion and move the other point along the occiput in the midline for the maximum reading. (Howells 1973: 171).

Maximum Cranial Breadth (eu-eu, XCB):
The maximum width of the skull perpendicular to the mid-sagittal plane wherever it is located with the exception of the inferior temporal line and the immediate area surround the latter (i.e. the posterior roots of the zygomatic arches and supramastoid crest) (Figure 3.4).

Instrument: sliding or spreading caliper
Comments: Place the skull on its occiput, base toward observer, and apply the blunt points of the caliper to the zygomatic arches and locate the maximum breadth perpendicular to the mid-sagittal plane. (Howells 1973: 173).

Instrument: spreading caliper
Comments: Place the skull on its occiput with the right side facing the observer. Apply the endpoint of one of the arms of the caliper at basion and support with fingers. Then apply the endpoint of the second arm of the caliper to bregma (Howells 1973: 172).

Instrument: sliding caliper
Comments: Place the fixed point of the caliper on nasion and apply the movable point to prosthion. If the alveolar process exhibits slight resorption or erosion at the point of prosthion, the projection of the process may be estimated when the alveolar process of the lateral incisors is still intact. When resorption or erosion is more pronounced this measurement should not be taken (Howells 1973: 174).

Minimum Frontal Breadth (ft-ft, WFB):
The distance between the right and left frontotemporale (Figure 3.6).

Instrument: sliding caliper
Comments: Place the skull on its base. The two endpoints of the caliper are placed on the temporal ridges at the two frontotemporale. When taking this measurement make certain that the least distance between both temporal lines on the frontal bone is recorded (Hrdlicka 1920: 15; Martin and Knussmann 1988: 170, #9).

Upper Facial Breadth (fmt-fmt):
The distance between the right and left frontomalare temporale (Figure 3.6).

Instrument: sliding caliper
Comments: The measurement is taken between the two external points on the frontomalar suture (Martin and Knussmann 1988: 179, #43).
14. Nasal Height (NLH): The average height from nasion (n) to the lowest point on the border of the nasal aperture on either side (Figure 3.6).

Instrument: sliding caliper
Comments: Place the skull on its occiput, base to the right, and measure the distance from nasion to the inferior border of the nasal aperture on each side and take the average of these two measurements to the nearest whole millimeter. The lower border of the aperture is well defined in most populations. It is not always the most anterior edge, but the beginning of the actual floor of the nasal cavity. It is the hinder border, not the forward border, of any prenasal gutter or fossa. (Howells 1973: 175).

Orbital Height (OBH):
The distance between the superior and inferior orbital margins perpendicular to orbital breadth and bisecting the orbit into equal medial and lateral halves. (Figure 3.7).

Instrument: sliding caliper
Comments: Orbital height is measured perpendicular to orbital breadth. Any notches or depressions on either superior or inferior borders should be avoided; if there is deep notching, move the caliper medially slightly. The inside jaws of the calipers are useful for this measurement.      here. When only one value is needed, average the right and left measurements. If the discrepancy between the sides is more than 2mm repeat as a check.

Instrument: Sliding caliper
Comments: With the skull resting so that the occiput is facing the observer, measure the distance using the sharp points of the calipers. (Howells 1973: 174; Martin and Knussmann 1988: 171, #12).

Instrument: sliding caliper
Comments: The endpoints of the measurement are located on the facial surface and not on the inferior aspect of the zygomaxillary suture. (Howells 1973: 177).

Minimum Ramus Breadth:
The minimum breadth of the mandibular ramus measured perpendicular to the height of the ramus (Figure 3.12).

Instrument: sliding caliper
Comment: The measurement should be taken on the superior articular surface of S1. When lipping of the articular surface is present approximate the original articular borders. This measurement is perpendicular to the AP Diameter of S1.
63. Anterior-Posterior Diameter of Sacral Segment 1: The distance between the anterior and posterior borders of the superior articular surface of S1, taken in the mid-sagittal plane. (Martin and Knussmann 1988: 195, #18).

Comment:
The measurement should be taken on the superior articular surface of S1. When lipping of the articular surface is present approximate the original articular borders. This measurement is perpendicular to the Transverse Diameter of S1. Comment: The measurement is taken to the rim itself (not inside or outside of the rim).

Minimum Pubis Length (WPL):
The distance between symphysion (the most superior point on the symphyseal face) to the closest point on the acetabular rim (Figure 3.19).
Comment: The measurement is taken to the rim itself (not inside or outside of the rim).

Ischial Length (ISL):
The distance from the point on the acetabular rim where the iliac blade meets the acetabulum to the most medial point on the epiphysis of the ischial tuberosity (Figure 3.20).
Comment: If the borders of the epiphysis cannot be determined, do not take this measurement.  NOTE: Although the next two measurements (#79 and #80) have higher than acceptable interobserver error values, they provide useful information for certain analyses, so they are included here.

Comment:
The transverse diameter is oriented parallel to the anterior surface of the femur neck. Close attention should be paid to assessing this plane in femoral necks with a significant degree of torsion. In cases where this cannot be determined (e.g. where the lateral surfaces remain parallel) this measurement is recorded in the region 2-5 cm below the lesser trochanter.

Instrument: osteometric board
Comment: An osteometric board with a hole for the intercondylar eminence makes this measurement easier to take. Place the tibia on the osteometric board resting on its posterior surface with the longitudinal axis of the bone parallel to the board (Hrdlicka 1920: 129). If using an osteometric board without a hole, place the tibia on the osteometric board so that it the long axis is parallel to the board. The measurement is take from the lateral condyle to the tip of the medial malleolus.

Maximum Proximal Epiphyseal Breadth of the Tibia:
The maximum distance between the two most projecting point on the margins of the medial and lateral condyles of the proximal epiphysis (Figure 3.25).

RECORDING FORM INFORMATION
The forensic recording forms consist of four pages with nine sections. The sections are for recording 1) General information including age, sex, race, state of preservation, pathological lesions, medical history, and time and manner of death (this section cannot be fully completed unless the case is a positive identification) 2) Skeletal inventory and research materials 3) Epiphyseal closure 4) Transition Analysis Age Information 5) Forensic Measurements. An optional dental recording form is include for use (Appendix B).
Several cases indentifying items are listed at the top of each page of the recording form for each forensic case. These items should be completed on each page to ensure that the data sheets of one case belong together in case of separation.
Collection I.D. /Case# : The label or number that uniquely references a particular forensic case and any associated records and research materials.
Curator/Address: List the name and/or address of the agency or institution responsible for processing and curating the forensic case in question. This should refer to the address where any records and research materials associated with the case may be located. However, if an individual is returned for burial, as is often the case, record the address of the agency or institution responsible for completing the forensic recording sheet.
Recorder: Enter the name of the person or persons participating in the observation and recording of the information provided on the forensic recording sheet.
Date: Enter the month, day, and year when the data are collected.
I.D. Name: List the name of the identified subject if in compliance with regulations for the release of such data.
Means of Identification: List the method or methods used to make a positive identification (visual, soft tissue, skeletal, fingerprints, dental records, dental or skeletal radiographs). Note that this may apply to positive, tentative, ad known sex and race identifications.
Positive Identification: Record the status of identification of the case in question. Write in "YES" or a checkmark to show that the subject has been positively identified. Some cases may warrant recording a tentative identification. Write in "NO" or leave blank to show that the subject has been neither positively nor tentatively identified. Several levels of identification are possible. While positive identification means the identity of the person is known, tentative identifications are applied to cases if sex and/or race can be determined from soft tissues or hair.
For example, a case may be recorded as Sex: M, Source: soft tissue; Race: N Source: Hair;. Cases with a definite sex and race can be as valuable for research as positive identification.
Date of Positive Identification: Enter the month, day, and year if the subject was positively identified.

Case Information
The first section of the recording form is designed to provide a profile of the subject (Appendix A: page 1). While some observations pertain to all cases, others (Medical History) may require that the forensic case has been positively identified. The individual items are listed on page 1 of the recording form  and are referenced by number and this manual.
Items 1 through 12 pertain primarily to positively identified subjects, whose medical and personal records, if available, may provide the information requested. Unidentified subjects including "tentative identifications," for whom age, sex, and race have been estimated should be recorded followed by a qualifying statement (e.g. skeletal estimate, soft tissue). Specific methods by which the estimates presented are obtained may be listed in the section for additional comments at the bottom of page 1 of the recording form.
The information requested in items 14 through 24 on page 1 of the recording form, pertain to the nature and circumstances of the forensic case whether or not positively identified and thus apply to all cases. Items 25-31 pertain to all cases to the extent the specified information is available.
The entries for General Information are to be completed as follows: 1. Sex: if the sex is definite, enter "M" or "F" accordingly.
If not a positive identification, list the criteria on the line immediately following (source: soft tissue-genitalia). In cases of unidentified specimens record the specific cranial or postcranial observations that were used for sex estimation.
2. Race: If subject is positively identified, record the racial classification. Determination of racial affiliation is often a complex matter and it is recommended that major racial classification be followed by ethnic affiliation or components of ethnic affiliation (e.g. "Amerindian-Navaho"; "Mongoloid-South Korean"). Other "catch all" terms (Hispanic, Oriental, etc.), should also be explained further if possible, List the source of the race determination on the line immediately following. If positive data are unavailable, record the specific cranial or postcranial observations used for race classification. 3