Asymmetry of the Humerus: the Influence of Handedness on the Deltoid Tuberosity and Possible Implications for Osteometric Sorting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2012 Asymmetry of the humerus: The influence of handedness on the deltoid tuberosity and possible implications for osteometric sorting Carrie Brady LeGarde The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation LeGarde, Carrie Brady, "Asymmetry of the humerus: The influence of handedness on the deltoid tuberosity and possible implications for osteometric sorting" (2012). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 80. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/80 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ASYMMETRY OF THE HUMERUS: THE INFLUENCE OF HANDEDNESS ON THE DELTOID TUBEROSITY AND POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS FOR OSTEOMETRIC SORTING By CARRIE BRADY LEGARDE B.A. Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, 2009 B.A. Biology, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, 2009 THESIS Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Anthropology, Forensic Anthropology The University of Montana Missoula, MT May 2012 Approved by: Sandy Ross, Associate Dean of The Graduate School Graduate School Dr. Ashley McKeown, Chair Anthropology Dr. Randall Skelton Anthropology David Dyer Biology Dr. John Byrd JPAC-CIL © COPYRIGHT by Carrie Brady LeGarde 2012 All Rights Reserved ii LeGarde, Carrie B, M.A., Spring 2012 Anthropology Asymmetry of the humerus: The influence of handedness on the deltoid tuberosity and possible implications for osteometric sorting Chairperson: Dr. Ashley McKeown The identification of individuals from commingled human remains can be a difficult task. Osteometric sorting is often utilized for these purposes since it sorts remains based on size. This research investigates whether asymmetry of the humerus is present, if it is due to an individual’s hand preference, and if this asymmetry can adversely affect the osteometric sorting method. The osteometric sorting formulae for pair-matching was used to classify individuals as asymmetric when elements were considered significantly different in size. Significant asymmetry was seen in multiple measurements and the asymmetry could be due to handedness. This relationship appeared more consistent with breadth measurements than length measurements. The epicondylar breadth of the humerus was the most asymmetric with 12.8% of individuals considered asymmetric. Asymmetry of the maximum length of the humerus occurred in only 7.3% of individuals. These results did not appear to correlate with the results seen on the radius since less than 50% of the radii with asymmetry present were also asymmetrical at the level of the humerus. This indicates that asymmetry in the arm and forearm is not related. The measurements most likely related to handedness are discussed. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my committee for all their assistance with this research: Dr. Ashley McKeown, Dr. Randall Skelton, Dave Dyer, and Dr. John Byrd. Very special thanks to Dr. Ashley McKeown, my graduate advisor and mentor during my time at the University of Montana. I am thankful for her guidance and support in entering the graduate program. I would not have done it without her encouragement. Also, a special thanks to Dr. John Byrd for his expertise on this topic and allowing me to use the data previously collected for the osteometric sorting method. I would also like to thank the Anthropology Department at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville for access to the William M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection, which allowed me to collect all of the data analyzed in this thesis. I am truly grateful for all of this help, without which this thesis would not have been such a success. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………… vi LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………….. viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………… 1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………….. 6 Sorting Commingled Remains……………………………............... 7 Asymmetry…………………………………………………………. 18 Handedness………………………………………………………… 24 III. MATERIALS AND METHODS………………………………………….. 29 Methods……………………………………………………………. 32 Data Collection…………………………………………….. 32 Reliability…………………………………………………... 33 Osteometric Sorting…………………………………………33 IV. RESULTS………………………………………………………………….. 37 Outliers……………………………………………………………... 37 Humerus……………………………………………………………. 39 Radius.……………………………………………………………... 59 Femur………………………………………………………………. 70 Males and Females…………………………………………………. 72 V. DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………….... 80 Outliers……………………………………………………………... 80 Humerus……………………………………………………………. 81 Radius.……………………………………………………………... 83 Femur………………………………………………………………. 84 Males and Females…………………………………………………. 85 VI. CONCLUSIONS ………………………………………………………….. 87 REFERENCES CITED……………………………………………………………. 89 APPENDIX A: Significant Results for Each Analysis…………………………….. 92 APPENDIX B: Summary Table of Significant D-values………………………….. 101 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. The ancestry and sex information for each collection utilized in this study…. 30 2. The measurements utilized for each analysis with the number of individuals in the data set………………………………………………………………. 34 3. Results for the MDDT analysis……………………………………………….. 39 4. Results for the HML analysis, including the analysis when the outlier was removed……………………………………………………………………. 42 5. Results for the MDDT+HML analysis, including the analysis when the outlier was removed………………………………………………………... 45 6. Results for the HEB analysis………………………………………………….. 47 7. Results for the MDDT+HEB analysis………………………………………… 49 8. Results for the MDDT+HML+HEB analysis, including results when the outlier was removed………………………………………..………………. 52 9. Results for the MDDT+HML+HEB+HMiD analysis, including when the outlier was removed………………………………………...……………… 55 10. Results for the MDDT+HMiD analysis………………………………………. 57 11. Results for the RML analysis, including the analysis when the outlier was removed………………………………………………………..................... 60 12. Results for the MDRT analysis…………………………………...................... 63 13. Results for the RML+MDRT analysis, including the results when the outlier was removed……………………………………………................... 65 14. Results for the MDRT+RMiD+RMaD analysis…………………..................... 68 15. Results for the FML analysis, including the results when the outlier was removed………………………………………………………......................71 16. Results for the MDDT analysis with females only……………….................... 73 17. Results for the MDDT analysis with males only……………………………... 75 18. Results for the HML analysis with females only……………………………... 76 19. Results for the HML analysis with males only……………………………….. 77 20. Summary table of all analyses………………………………………………… 79 A1. Significant results for the MDDT analysis…………………………………… 92 A2. Significant results for the HML analysis, including the analysis when the outlier was removed……………………………………………………….. 93 vi A3. Significant results for the MDDT+HML analysis, including the analysis when the outlier was removed…………………………………………… 93 A4. Significant results for the HEB analysis…………………………………… 94 A5. Significant results for the MDDT+HEB analysis………………………….. 94 A6. Significant results for the MDDT+HML+HEB analysis, including results when the outlier was removed………………………………………..….. 95 A7. Significant results for the MDDT+HML+HEB+HMiD analysis, including when the outlier was removed………………………………………...…. 95 A8. Significant results for the MDDT+HMiD analysis………………………… 96 A9. Significant results for the RML analysis, including the analysis when the outlier was removed……………………………………………………… 96 A10. Significant results for the MDRT analysis…………………………………..97 A11. Significant results for the RML+MDRT analysis, including the results when the outlier was removed…………………………………………… 97 A12. Significant results for the MDRT+RMiD+RMaD analysis…………………98 A13. Significant results for the FML analysis, including the results when the outlier was removed……………………………………………………… 98 A14. Significant results for the MDDT analysis with females only……………...99 A15. Significant results for the MDDT analysis with males only………………..99 A16. Significant results for the HML analysis with females only………………..99 A17. Significant results for the HML analysis with males only…………………100 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Table 3 from Adams and Byrd (2006, pg 66) outlining the levels of confidence for different articulations……………………………………… 9 2. Humeral head exhibiting a pathology that affected the integrity of the measurements normally taken on a humerus, therefore, this particular individual was not measured (UT 67-05D)………………………………... 32 3. Distribution of the total sample set with the normal distribution curve for the analysis of MDDT……………………………………………………... 40 4. Distribution of the test sample with the D-cutoffs shown for the analysis of MDDT…………………………………………………………………... 40 5. Distribution of the total sample set with the normal distribution curve for the analysis of HML……………………………………………………….. 42 6. Distribution of the test sample with the D-cutoffs shown for the analysis of HML…………………………………………………………………….. 43 7. Distribution of the test sample