HUMAN EVOLUTION Vol. 5 - N.

3 (227-238) - 1990

S. Brooks Skeletal age determination based on the os

University o/ Nevada,
Las Vegas
J.M. Suchey
California State University,
Fullerton
Key words: Pubic bone, age
determination, demography.
pubis: a comparison of the Acsfidi-
Nemesk6ri and Suchey-Brooks methods
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).
The SUCHEY-BRooKsmethod derived from this sample is descri-
bed. The ACS~DI-NEMESKI~RIsystem 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 the ACSfi~DI-NEMESKt~RImethod, applications of the
SUCHEY-BROOKS system are discussed.

Introduction and Background

The first systematic study of age changes in the pubic bone, based on a large sample
(n= 306), was published by the anatomist TODD (1920) on a skeletal series collected
between 1912 and 1920 in Cleveland, Ohio (now called the HAMMAN-TODD Collection).
He stressed the total morphological pattern of the pubic bone and conducted separate
analyses of males and females. In his series some individuals had age recorded by hospital
death certificates, while others had ages given by relatives or estimated by the coroner
and/or anatomist postmortem. Later COBB, who wrote his doctoral thesis under Todd,
recognized that there were problems with their original research related to age documenta-
tion. Both TODD and COBB were aware that the graphed mortality chart (1920:290;
1952:799) showed erratically high peaks that occurred at certain five year age intervals.
They explain these peaks as resulting from the tendency of people to round off their ages
or the estimates being made in round figures.
COBB also was concerned with another aspect of age determination methodologies
and warned: <<Inthe study of the problems of ageing in the adult skeleton much difficulty
and confusion has resulted in the past from premature attempts to link age changes with
age in years. The patterns of ageing differentiation are one thing. Their association with
time is another. Individual variation in the progress of physiological and chronological
ageing in the same person is still a third consideration <<(1952:851).
Later TODD'S system was modified by BROOKS (1955) after she studied the HAMANN-
TODD Collection in Cleveland, Ohio. She suggested alternative morphological patterns in
the symphyseal face at certain ages and, in cooperation with the statistician Ahmed,
proposed a shift in the age ranges. Subsequently MCKERN & STEWART (1957) published
their three component age determination system for the male pubic symphysis, from a
sample (n=349) of Americans killed in the Korean War, with age documented from
military records.

9 Editrice II Sedicesimo - Firenze ISSN 0393-9375

228 BROOKS & SUCHEY

European research on the pubic symphysis resulted in the 1960 article by NEMESKt~-
RI, HARSANYI& ACSADI and the 1970 book by ACS~DI & NEMESKr~RIproposing their
combined sex system of five pubic phases. Their system was based on skeletal series from
105 autopsied individuals augmented by material from historic Hungarian cemeteries. In
their book they refer to the previous work of TODD, BROOKS,McKERN & STEWART,but
apparently did not consider those methods adequate for their purposes. By 1973 GILBERT
& McKERN had published a version of the three component system, based on a modern
female sample (n= 103) with known age at death.
Other research on the pubic bone concerned with age estimation was done by
Hanahari and Suzuki, focusing on regression analyses of single traits on a small (n = 70)
combined sex sample (1978). In 1980 the <~Workshop of European Anthropologists~>
published their <~Recommendations for Age and Sex Diagnoses of Skeletons>>where they
listed several secondary sources published in the U. S., but none of the primary papers by
TODD, BROOKS, McKERN & STEWART or GILBERT & MCKERN. Their sources for age
estimation using the pubic bone are either NEMESKI~RI,HARSANYI& ACS,~DI(1960) for the
pubic symphyseal methods or ACS~DI & NEMESKI~RI(1970) for their complex method
utilizing cranial suture closure, pubic symphyseal changes and loss of cancellous bone in
the heads of the humerus and femur.
Recently MEINDLet al. (1985) proposed a technique of age estimation on the pubic
symphysis, based on an analysis of a combined male and female subset (n = 96) of the
HAMMAN-TODD collection. This resulted in a <~basic modification of Todd's original ten
phase system~> MEINDL et al., 1985: 44).

Collection of the documented sample

From 1977 to 1979 SUCHEY collected an extensive (n= 1225) well-documented

sample of pubic bones for skeletal age determination research. This sample was derived
from modern individuals autopsied at the Office of the Chief Medical-Examiner, County
of Los Angeles. Age was derived from death certificates and/or birth certificates. Figure 1
shows the distribution of the study samples (male = 739; female = 273) which range from
age 14 to 99 years. The legal records provided information on race, occupation and socio-
economic class, with medical records being available for some individuals. For the females,
information was obtained on the number and spacing of children. Analysis of the records
indicated that this sample is representative of the general population in terms of socio-
economic class (de ARENOSA & SUCHEY, 1987).
Preparation of the bones involved soaking them in water until the soft tissues
sloughed off. No harsh chemical, boiling, or mechanical techniques were employed.
Although the preparation time was lengthy (two years) this conservative approach produ-
ced specimens in excellent condition, retaining such delicate features as ossific nodules.

Suchey-Brooks pubic age determination system

The male sample (n = 739) was studied first using linear regression analysis (KATz &
SUCHEu 1986). The three-component approach was rejected because the components do
not vary independently and the complexities of the technique were not found to be
warranted. The approach focusing on the total pattern is, for all practical purposes, as
PUBIC AGE DETERMINATION 229

MALE8
(n=739)
t--

E
L.t
lo

I-1 ,~
15 25 36 45 55 65 75 85 95
I I I AGE INIYEAR8 -- I I I

FEMALES
,(n:486)

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 " 1)9
I I. I t AaEIN'VEARS I I I
Figure 1 - Age distribution of the Los Angeles sample of pubic bones used in the age determination
studies. Number of individuals is indicated on the left margin. 739 males and 486 females are included in
the study sample. All 739 males were used to generate the male statistics but only those females with ages
derived from birth certificates (n= 273) were used to generate the female statistics. The shaded area
indicates the sample upon which the female statistics are based.

accurate and easier to use. Following the conclusions of the linear regression analyses, a
modified Todd method using six phases was recommended (Figures 2, 3).
Subsequent to this initial statistical research on the male pubic bone sample, Suchey
and Brooks began their combined research, focusing on refinements of the morphological
descriptions. Despite the problems with the ~&nown~ ages of TODD'S sample, his studies
(1920, 1921) were found to be a clear, comprehensive treatment of maturational changes
in the pubic bone; he had been able to unravel the progression of the key age changes
occurring in the pubic bone. Based on the statistical analyses of the modern documented
sample and interobserver error studies, certain of TODD'S ten phases were combined (1, 2
and 3; 4 and 5; 7 and 8) and his guidelines for age estimation were expanded to include
the variability seen in the modern well documented sample. Through these processes the
SUCHEY-BRoOKS age determination system was developed.
Descriptions of the six phases and their accompanying statistics were first made
available at conferences in 1986 along with the distribution of male casts. These casts,
made by D. France, consisted of a set of 12 models. Two bones were selected for each of
230 BROOKS & SUCHEY

0
o :~

~'~ ~
m ~

~ o ~

~.~ o~

o ~ . 0 ,..cl

>.o ff

"~ -~~ o 0~ 0

"0 0
~ 0

-~~.~

~ ~~
~ ~ 8

~=4s~ o
-~ u ~UN
,...~ ,-..M
JBIC AGE DETERMINATION 231

r-,

cJ3

o ~ U

~o ~ o~.~

e ~

~9 ~

~"~ ~ ~ 0
'.~
~,~~
' ~ ~ 0

, ~
~ ~, ~.~.

o~ "~
232 BROOKS & SUCHEY

the six phases; one illustrating an early pattern and one showing a later pattern. Currently
these casts are being used in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and
Australia.
Following the positive feedback from the male six phase system, emphasis was
concentrated on duplicating a similar system for the female. A sample of 273 female pubic
bones was studied on which the following information was available: 1) age obtained from
birth certificates, 2) number and spacing of children (derived from relatives, close friends
or persons responsible for the disposition of the remains). The system developed is
analogous to the one being used successfully in the male. Prior work (TODD, 1921;
GILBERT& McKERN, 1973; and GILBERT, 1973) indicated that morphology and rates of
maturation differ between the sexes. In the Los Angeles sample the female os pubis
showed these differences from the male in a number of important aspects and these
differences are reflected in the female models. In the female that part of the pubic bone
lying between the ventral aspect of the symphyseal rim and the ventral arc shows age
related changes; there is no such analogous area in the male. In many females dorsal
changes occur on the pubic bone relating either to pregnancy or other, unknown, factors
(SucHEY et al., 1979), which do not relate directly to age. In particular lipping of the
dorsal symphyseal rim cannot be relied on as an indication of increasing age in the female.
After the refinements of the male age determination system and the development of
the analogous female system, a set of unisex descriptions were developed. Although there
are morphological differences between the sexes, focus is centered on key age changes that
were observed in both male and female pubic bones, which allows a single set of
descriptions to be applied to both sexes. These descriptions stress the key features
distinguishing the phases in both males and females (Figures 2 and 3), while omitting
features which have proven to be problematic in application. Separate models are neces-
sary so researchers can correctly classify the pubic bones in the applicable phase (Figures 2,
3).
These refined descriptions are as follows:

Phase I

Symphyseal face has a billowing surface (ridges and furrows) which usually extends to
include the pubic tubercle. The horizontal ridges are well-marked and ventral beveling
may be commencing. Although ossific nodules may occur on the upper extremity, a key to
the recognition of this phase is the lack of delimitation of either extremity (upper or lower).

Phase II

The symphyseal face may still show ridge development. The/ace has commencing
delimitation of lower and/or upper extremities occurring with or without ossific nodules. The
ventral rampart may be in beginning phases as an extension of the bony activity at either
or both extremities.

Phase III
Symphyseal face shows lower extremity and ventral rampart in process o/completion.
There can be a continuation of fusing ossific nodules forming the upper extremity and
PUBIC AGE DETERMINATION 233

along the ventral border. Symphyseal face is smooth or can continue to show distinct
ridges. Dorsal plateau is complete. Absence of lipping of symphyseal dorsal margin; no
bony ligamentous outgrowths.

Phase I V

Symphyseal face is generally fine grained although remnants of the old ridge and
furrow system may still remain. Usually the oval outline is complete at this stage, but a hiatus
can occur in upper ventral rim. Pubic tubercle is fully separated from the symphyseal face by
definition of upper extremity. The symphyseal face may have a distinct rim. Ventrally,
bony ligamentous outgrowths may occur on inferior portion of pubic bone adjacent to
symphyseal face. If any lipping occurs it will be slight and located on the dorsal border.

Phase V

Symphyseal ]ace is completely rimmed with some slight depression o] the ]ace itself,
relative to the rim. Moderate lipping is usually found on the dorsal border with more
prominent ligamentous outgrowths on the ventral border. There is little or no rim erosion.
Breakdown may occur on superior ventral border.

Phase VI

Symphyseal ]ace may show ongoing depression as rim erodes. Ventral ligamentous
attachments are marked. In many individuals the pubic tubercle appears as a separate
bony knob. The face may be pitted or porous, giving an appearance of disfigurement with
the ongoing process of erratic ossification. Crenulations may occur. The shape of the face
is often irregular at this stage.

Table 1 compares the statistics of the female sample to those of the male. It is
apparent that the statistics for Phases I through VI in the female sample correspond fairly
closely to those for the male sample. The standard deviations are slightly higher in the
female and the female ranges more often extend into older ages. This is not surprising
considering the variability previously reported within this female sample (SocHEY,
BROOKS & RAWSON, 1982). Figure 4 compares the age distributions of the two samples.

TABLE 1 - Descriptive statistics related to the Suchey-Brooks pubic age determination system.
Female (n = 273) Male (n = 739)
Phase
mean S.D. 95O7o range mean S.D. 95O7o range
I 19.4 2.6 15-24 18.5 2.1 15-23
II 25.0 4.9 19-40 23.4 3.6 19-34
lII 30.7 8.1 21-53 28.7 6.5 21-46
IV 38.2 10.9 26-70 35.2 9.4 23-57
V 48.1 14.6 25-83 45.6 10.4 27-66
VI 60.0 12.4 42-87 61.2 12.2 34-86
234 BROOKS & SUCHEY

Evaluation of the Acsfidi-Nemesk6ri method in terms of the documented sample

Since the ACSXD>NElVIESKs method was recommended by the Workshop of Euro-

pean Anthropologists as the system for age estimation based on changes in the pubic bone,
comparison of this system with the Suchey-Brooks method and their respective data bases
is relevant to this discussion. SUCHEYand BROOKSjointly analysed the ACS~DI-NEMESKs
method using the photographs and descriptions in the 1970 publication. Several limita-
tions are of concern. 1) Casts were not available during this analysis. 2) No description
occurs in the 1970 publication as to sample size, sex, socio-economic class, or race. In their
1960 publication NEMESKs HARS,~NYI & ACS,~DI (Table 1:72) list the number of
autopsied individuals studied, 105, ranging from 23 to 93 years, and sex, males 61,
females 44. This sample, apparently amplified by skeletons excavated from Hungarian
cemeteries, was the basis for the Acsfidi-Nemesk6ri method (Preface, 1970). The problems
observed in utilizing the method may relate to the limited number of young individuals in
the autopsied series; only 13 females and 27 males were between 23 and 50 years, with
only one female falling in the 23 to 30 age range. The data upon which chronological ages
for the skeletons from the Hungarian cemeteries are based are not stated in the 1970
Preface.
This detailed review was made utilizing the well-documented sample from the Office
of the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner, County of Los Angeles (California). It is
immediately apparent that the five stage ACS~DI-NEMESKt{RImethod focuses only on the
early and late morphological changes (Table 2). The intermediate stages, in which the
ventral rampart is in process of completion, are not depicted or described. ACSKDI &
NEMESKI~RI do not appear to be interested in the morphological changes in the total
developmental sequence. When the Los Angeles sample of 739 males and 273 females is "
analyzed using this European system, 48% of the males and 47% of the females do not
correspond with any of the five phases but fall somewhere in between ACS~DI &
NEMESKI~RI'S Phase 3, 4.
ACS~.DI-NEMESKI~RI Phase 1 (showing the characteristic deep ridges and lack of
completion of lower and upper ends) is assigned to ages 23 to 40 years. The ACS~D>
NEMESKI~RIPhase 1 appearance of the symphyseal face occurs in individuals 24 years or
less in both the males and females in the Los Angeles sample.
ACS,~DI-NEMESKI~RIPhases 2, 3 (showing the definitive ossific nodules) are only seen
in younger individuals in the Los Angeles sample. Well-defined ossific nodules are most
frequent in individuals in the early twenties and rarely are observed in the Los Angeles
male and female samples in individuals less than 30 years of age. The age ranges which
ACS,~DI& NEMESKERIsuggest are 35 to 55 years for Phase 2 and 40 to 60 years for Phase 3.
These ranges do not correspond with the documented modern sample (Table 2).
Equally puzzling are examples two and four (see ACS~DI & NEMESKI~RI, 1970: 133-
134) where young symphyseal faces are reported for individuals with advanced chronologi-
cal ages. The documentation for the advanced age is not provided in the book (1970).
ACS~,DI-NEMESKI~RIPhases 4, 5 both correspond to SUCHEY-BRooKsPhase IV. As seen in
the histogram (Figure 4) modern individuals falling into this pattern are generally 40 years
or older. ACS~DI & NEMESKI~RIsuggest upper limits of 70 (Phase 4) and 80 (Phase 5), but in
the SUCHEY-BROOKS system no upper limit should be used in practical application.
In conclusion, use of the ACSADI-NEMESKt~RItechnique is not supported by the data
from the modern sample. The ACS~.DI-NEMESKt~RImethod focuses on the use of the
symphyseal face for calculating whether the individual is under 50, about 50, or above 50
years (1970:131). Instead, a study of the male and female age distributions in Figure 4
PUBIC AGE DETERMINATION 235

~P
-~ -t-t -tt -I-I -It

~z
o te~ o o o

<

9~ ~~
-tt -~ -I-I -~
<~

e~e~

~ ~~
236 BROOKS & SUCHEY

PHASE I

P H A S E II

P H A S E III

r~n I~1 R

J, r~
P H A S E IV

PHASE V

l o
15 25 35 45 55 65" 75 85 99
i __ 1 [ [ AGE IN Y E A R S I [ I
[ ] MALE
FEMALE

Figure 4 - Histograms comparing the age distribution of the female sample to the male sample for
Phases I through VI of the SUCHEY-BRooKs age determination system. For means, standard deviations,
and 95O7o ranges, consult Table 1.

suggests that the symphyseal face can best be used to separate young individuals (SuCHEY-
BROOKSPhases I, II) rather than older individuals. The Los Angeles sample on which the
SUCHEY-BRooKsmethod is based, is distributed from age 14 to 99 years and their method
is concerned with a description of the morphological maturational changes occurring
throughout this time span. This documented sample indicates the following guidelines,
based on single observations, to be useful:
1) Appearance of deep ridges and grooves (males 24 or less; females 24 or less).
 PUBIC AGE DETERMINATION 237

2) Appearance of ossific nodules, without development of the ventral rampart (males

3 0 or less; females 30 or less).
3) Lack of completion of the ventral rampart will generally indicate 40 years or less.
The Suchey-Brooks histogram (Figure 4), does indicate cases with this condition falling in
the older age ranges, but these cases are few and probably are due to interpretive errors
which relate to the difficulties in distinguishing bone buildup from breakdown.
A system of age determination from the pubic bone should stress the definitive
features which are found to be clearly delineated in the modern documented age at death
sample. Systems or methods that do not apply to modern human remains cannot be
expected to be useful for age determination on past skeletal materials.

Application of Suchey-Brooks method

A consideration related to age estimation methods based on the modern autopsy
sample, in addition to the direct utilization in forensic case work, is their application to
analyses of historic or prehistoric skeletal series. The SUCHEY-BRoo~s method is based on
a large multiracial sample of individuals of diverse socio-economic backgrounds. Although
the individuals died and were autopsied in Los Angeles, they were born throughout the
North American continent with a minority born in Europe, South America and Asia
(SUCHEY, WISELEY & KATZ, 1986). On this basis it is believed that it should be an
appropriate sample to use in prehistoric studies.
Also of concern is the wide range of variability of Phases III through VI (see Figure 4)
in the SUCHEY-BROOIr method. In modern forensic cases, this variability must be taken
into consideration in the age determination of each case. For prehistoric reconstruction
there is no legal framework and age identification can focus on the mean values. As seen in
Table 1, the mean values for the six Suchey-Brooks phases are similar in both males and
females and this may simplify attempts to apply the system in prehistoric mortality curves.
In practicality, the pubic bone does survive with reasonable frequency in historic or
prehistoric skeletal series, when other more friable bones as the ribs, scapulae, podials or
metapodials and phalanges are either lost or fragmented. For this reason, pubic bone age
determination may be essential to the reconstruction of many samples. An examination of
Figure 4 shows that SUCHEY-BRooI(S Phases I, II have narrow age distributions and will
often serve as the upper age limit with observations on epiphyseal union or dental
eruption and/or attrition serving as the lower limit (17 + ) . Suchey-Brooks Phases V and
VI can be used for lower limits in the age estimation of more mature individuals (30 + for
Phase V; 40 + for Phase VI).
Whenever possible multiple age indicators should be employed; cranial suture closu-
re, sternal rib end morphology, epiphyseal union, maturation changes in the auricular
surface of the sacroiliac joint, and occlusal attrition of the dentition. Multiple age
indicators are essential in obtaining the most precise age estimate available.
The Acs~I)I & NEMESKERImethod emphasizes the approach of multiple age indica-
tors but uses an averaging technique. Research on skeletal age determination at the Los
Angeles Coroner's Office indicates that the multiple age indicator approach is excellent,
but statistical averaging is not appropriate. Age assessment is based on each indicator,
used alone. Then the complex is studied, focusing on the indicator or indicators which
give the narrowest range, which should be stressed for the final conclusion. Indiscriminant
averaging, without an evaluation of the age distribution of each indicator, as well as an
evaluation of its reliability, is not found useful. This consideration is equally applicable to
forensic as well as historic or prehistoric researches.
238 BROOKS ~i SUCHEY

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under
-

Grant BNS78-13025 awarded to J. S. We wish to thank the entire Staff at the Department of Chief
Medical Examiner-Coroner, County of Los Angeles for their support and cooperation in this research.
Specifically we wish to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Dean V. Wiseley (now deceased) and Mrs. Anne
Ganley in the early years of the preparation and analysis of this sample. From 1985-1989, Dr. Darryl Katz
conducted an extensive statistical analysis of age related features in this sample, thereby laying the
foundation for the Suchey-Brooks pubic age determination system. Acknowledgment is due Mr. James
Njavro for the photography of the pubic bones and Mrs. Michelle Schreder for Figures 1 and 4. Dr.
Margaret Bruce and Dr. Torstein Sjovold provided helpful comments concerning an earlier draft of this
paper. Special thanks go to Dr. Richards Brooks for his support.

References

ACS~DIG. & NEMESKs J., 1970. History o~ Human Li[espan and Mortality, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.
BROOKSS.T., 1955. Skeletal age at death: the reliability o/cranial and pubic age Indicators. American Journal
of Physical Anthropology, 13: 567-597.
COBBW.M., 1952. Skeleton. In: A.I. Lansing, ed. Cowdry's Problems of Ageing, 3rd Edition. Williams &
Wilkins Co., Baltimore.
DE ARENOSAD. & SUCHEYJ.M. 1987. Determination o/ Age in the Male Os Pubis - - Composition o/the
Sample. Poster presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic
Sciences, San Diego, California.
GILBERT B.M., 1973. Misapplication to Females o~ the Standard for Aging the Male Os Pubis. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 38: 39-40:
GILBERTB.M. & McKERN T.W., 1973. A method o~ aging the female os pubis. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 38: 31-38.
HANIHARAK. & SUZUKIT., 1978. Estimation o~ age/rom the pubic symphysis by means of multiple regression
analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 48: 233-240.
KATZ D. & SUCHEY,J.M., 1986. Age determination o~ the male os pubis. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 69: 427-435.
McKERN T.W. & STEWARTT.D., 1957. Skeletal Age Changes in Young American Males. Natick, MA:
Quartermaster Research and Development Command, Technical Report EP.45.
MEINDL R.S., LOVEJOY C.M., MENSFORTH R.M. & WALKER, R.A., 1985. A revised method o~ age
determination using the os pubis, with a review and tests o~ accuracy o~ other current methods o~ pubic
symphyseal aging. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 68: 29-46.
NEMESK~RIJ, HARSXNYIL. & Acs~3i G., 1960. Methoden zur diagnose des lebensalters yon skelettfunden.
Anthropologischer Anzeiger 24: 70-95.
SUCHEY J., 1979. Problems in the aging o~ females using the os pubis. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 51: 467-470.
SUCHEYJ.M., BROOKSS.T. & RAWSONR.D., 1982. Aging the Female Os Pubis. Paper presented at the 34th
Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Orlando, Florida.
SUCttEY J.M, WISELEYD.V. & KATZ D., 1986. Evaluation of the Todd and McKern-Stewan Methods/or
Aging the Male Os Pubis In: K.J. Reicbs, Ed. Forensic Osteology, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher,
Springfield.
SUCHEXJ.M, WISELEYD.V., GREEN R.F. & NOGUCHIT.T., 1979. Analysis o~ dorsalpitting in the os pubis
in an extensive sample o~ modem American/emales. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 51:
517-540.
TODDT.W., 1920. Age changes in the pubic bone. I The male White pubis. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 3: 285-334.
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.
WORKSHOVOF EUROPEANANTHROPOLOGISTS,Recommendations/or age and sex diagnoses o/skeletons, 1980.
Journal of Human Evolution, 9: 517-549.

Received: 20 August 1989. Accepted: 25 November 1989.