Advertisement

Human Evolution

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 227–238 | Cite as

Skeletal age determination based on the os pubis: A comparison of the Acsádi-Nemeskéri and Suchey-Brooks methods

  • S. Brooks
  • J. M. Suchey
Article

Abstract

After reviewing various systems of age determination based on analysis of the pubic bone, the discussion concentrates on the collection and preparation of an extensive autopsy sample (n=1225) of pubic bones from modern individuals with legal documentation of age at death (death and/or birth certificates). TheSuchey-Brooks method derived from this sample is described. TheAcsádi-Nemeskéri system is evaluated in terms of the documented collection and it is seen that their five stage method focuses only on the early and late morphological changes. The intermediate stages, in which the ventral rampart is in process of completion, are not described. Their suggested age ranges do not correspond with the documented modern sample. Based on these limitations of theAcsádi-Nemeskéri method, applications of theSuchey-Brooks system are discussed.

Key words

Pubic bone age determination demography 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acsádi G. &Nemeskéri J., 1970.History of Human Lifespan and Mortality. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks S.T., 1955.Skeletal age at death: the reliability of cranial and pubic age Indicators. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 13: 567–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cobb W.M., 1952.Skeleton. In: A.I. Lansing, ed. Cowdry's Problems of Ageing, 3rd Edition. Williams & Wilkins Co., Baltimore.Google Scholar
  4. de Arenosa D. & Suchey J.M. 1987.Determination of Age in the Male Os Pubis — Composition of the Sample. Poster presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  5. Gilbert B.M., 1973.Misapplication to Females of the Standard for Aging the Male Os Pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 38: 39–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilbert B.M. &McKern T.W., 1973.A method of aging the female os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 38: 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanihara K. &Suzuki T., 1978.Estimation of age from the pubic symphysis by means of multiple regression analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 48: 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Katz D. &Suchey J.M., 1986.Age determination of the male os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 69: 427–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McKern T.W. &Stewart T.D., 1957.Skeletal Age Changes in Young American Males. Natick, MA: Quartermaster Research and Development Command, Technical Report EP. 45.Google Scholar
  10. Meindl R.S., Lovejoy C.M., Mensforth R.M. &Walker, R.A., 1985.A revised method of age determination using the os pubis, with a review and tests of accuracy of other current methods of pubic symphyseal aging. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 68: 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nemeskéri J, Harsányi L. &Acsádi G., 1960.Methoden zur diagnose des lebensalters von skelettfunden. Anthropologischer Anzeiger 24: 70–95.Google Scholar
  12. Suchey J., 1979.Problems in the aging of females using the os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 51: 467–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Suchey J. M., Brooks S.T. & Rawson R.D., 1982.Aging the Female Os Pubis. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  14. Suchey J.M., Wiseley D.V. &Katz D., 1986.Evaluation of the Todd and McKern-Stewart Methods for Aging the Male Os Pubis. In: K.J. Reichs, Ed. Forensic Osteology, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield.Google Scholar
  15. Suchey J.M., Wiseley D.V., Green R.F. &Noguchi T.T., 1979.Analysis of dorsal pitting in the os pubis in an extensive sample of modern American females. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 51: 517–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Todd T.W., 1920. Age changes in the pubic bone. I The male White pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 3: 285–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Todd T.W., 1921. Age changes in the pubic bone. II: The Pubis of the male Negro-White hybrid, III: The Pubis of the White female. IV: The Pubis of the female Negro-White hybrid. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 4: 1–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Workshop of European Anthropologists,Recommendations for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons, 1980. Journal of Human Evolution, 9: 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Editrice Il Sedicesimo 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Brooks
    • 1
  • J. M. Suchey
    • 2
  1. 1.University of NevadaLas Vegas
  2. 2.California State UniversityFullerton

Personalised recommendations