International Journal of Osteoarchaeology

Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 18: 536545 (2008)

Published online 23 January 2008 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/oa.959

SHORT REPORT

A Summary of Epiphyseal Union

Timings in Bosnian Males
M. C. SCHAEFER*
Anatomy and Forensic Anthropology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dow
Street, Dundee DD1 5EH, UK

ABSTRACT Dry bone documentation of epiphyseal union times is scarcely represented within the literature
due to the difficulties in obtaining large sample sizes of known-age, juvenile osseous material.
The identified missing from the recent conflicts in the former Yugoslavia has become a source
for such a sample. This study investigates the union times of 26 epiphyses, in addition to union
of the sternebrae, in 256 identified Bosnian males between the ages of 14 to 30 years.
Progress of union was recorded by assigning each epiphysis to one of three phases denoting
open, active or complete union. Age/phase distributions are provided for each of the
epiphyses, as well as a summary table documenting overall age parameters. The results
of this analysis not only increase the disciplines overall understanding of the timings of
developmental changes, but will also assist in the process of age estimations, specifically
within the Balkans. Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: ageing; epiphyseal union; juvenile development; Bosnia; forensics

Introduction can not be used interchangeably (Stewart, 1979).

Fifty years have passed since McKern & Stewarts
publication of Skeletal age changes in young
American males (1957). The significance of this
report continues today, in that it remains the only
large-scale documentation of union timings
observed through visual assessment of dry bone.
While numerous radiographic analyses have been
conducted (Todd, 1937; Gruelich & Pyle, 1950;
Pyle & Hoerr, 1955; Hoerr et al., 1962; Pfau &
Sciulli, 1994; Crowder & Austin, 2005), the two
observational methods have been shown to
produce varying results, and thus their timings
* Correspondence to: University of Dundee, Anatomy and Forensic
Anthropology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Dow Street, Dundee DD1
5EH, UK.
e-mail: m.schaefer@dundee.ac.uk
Additional dry bone studies have also been
conducted (Szilvassy, 1980; Webb & Suchey,
1985; Albert & Maples, 1995; Black & Scheuer,
1996); however, these are generally limited in the
range of epiphyses included, with the majority
focusing on the union times of the medial
clavicle. Other studies have sought to increase
the range of epiphyses considered, but were
hampered by their small sample size (Stevenson,
1924), or their reporting of average development
rather than the range of variation (Todd, 1930).
Despite the importance of McKern & Stewarts
work (1957), significant gaps in the documen-
tation of epiphyseal union times still persist
within the literature, as the report was not able to
capture the entire window of fusing activity.
Their sample was restricted to males of military
age, with a lower age limit of 17 years; thus,

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 13 June 2007
Revised 21 August 2007
Accepted 11 September 2007
Epiphyseal Union Timings
neither the early uniting epiphyses nor the onset
times of the middle fusing epiphyses were
included. As such, further documentation in this
area is required.
The unfortunate circumstances of the recent
Bosnian conflict (19921995), in conjunction
with the extensive humanitarian investment to
identify the missing, have afforded the anthro-
pological community the unique opportunity to
collect a variety of data on sizeable samples of
known-age individuals. Much of this documen-
tation has focused on recording ageing data
associated with developmental or degenerative
changes, such as those occurring at the fourth
rib, the pubic symphysis and the medial clavicle
(Simmons, 1999; Simmons et al., 1999; Lagrou
& Simmons, 2001; Kimmerle, 2004; Sarajlic,
2006). The young age of many of the victims
surrounding the conflict also permits the docu-
mentation of developmental changes associated
with epiphyseal union (Schaefer & Black, 2005,
2007). Tragically, many of the victims were
non-combatants, so the age range extends to
younger than 17 years.
In addition to the widespread usage that the
Bosnian data can offer regarding the under-
standing of developmental timings, the data also
permit a more narrowly focused application, in
that they can be used to increase ageing precision
within the Balkans. Thus, data collected on the
identified missing can in return be used to help
identify the unknown missing. Population-
specific standards have repeatedly been recom-
mended for use in the Balkans, due to the unique
ageing profile of the Bosnians when compared
with parameters developed on other populations
(Simmons, 1999; Simmons et al., 1999; Lagrou &
Simmons, 2001; Kimmerle, 2004; Sarajlic, 2006).
Growth profiles of Bosnian and US samples have
also been shown to differ, thus substantiating
recalibration of stature estimation formulae (Ross
& Konigsberg, 2002; Sarajlic et al., 2006). Not
surprisingly, rates of epiphyseal union have also
been shown to differ when compared with
McKern & Stewarts US data. Schaefer & Black
(2005) found that the Bosnian sample displayed a
narrower window of fusing activity, so that,
although the US data could provide adequate
ageing accuracy, use of the Bosnian data would
increase ageing precision.
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
537
The aim of this brief paper is to provide a
summary of epiphyseal union timings within a
Bosnian male sample to assist in the process of age
estimation within the Balkans. In addition,
epiphyses for which little documentation is
available (Scheuer & Black, 2000, 2004) are also
included.
Materials and methods
Data collection took place at the Podrinja
Identification Project (PIP) morgue in Tuzla,
Bosnia, between November 2002 and November
2003, and again from May to June 2005. Data on
110 cases were collected during the 2002/2003
period, while 146 cases were added during the
later 2005 season. This provided a total of 256
cases. Additional epiphyses were considered
during the second season to those considered
during the first season, and as a result the
newly-added epiphyses display sample numbers
which are considerably smaller than epiphyses
that had been considered throughout both
seasons. Many of the individuals from whom
data were collected were also incomplete; thus
total numbers vary between epiphyses.
All individuals were Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim)
males who lost their lives during the fall of
Srebrenica and ranged in age at death from 14 to
30 years. Only individuals who had been
positively identified through DNA and anthro-
pological assessment were included in this study.
Once DNA analysis had confirmed the identity,
age at death was established through antemortem
records that had previously been verified with an
official document such as a birth certificate.
Despite having the actual date of birth, as
opposed to the year of birth, for nearly all
remains, only the year was utilised for age. This
approach was taken because the fall of Srebrenica
(1115 July 1995) occurred close to the middle of
the calendar year. In that way, using the year of
birth provides an age that represents half of the
year below and half of the year above the
individuals actual age. For example, a given age of
18 actually represents those individuals between
17.5 to 18.5 years old. This approach was
believed to be a better representation of age as
it provides the age to which an individual is
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 18: 536545 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
538 M. C. Schaefer

Table 1. Age distribution of the sample begins is difficult to ascertain, as the ramal
epiphysis develops as an extension of the
Age n % of total tuberous epiphysis. To promote scoring consist-
14 3 1 ency within this study, the inferior border of the
15 6 2 tuberosity was designated as the area in which the
16 15 6 epiphysis comes to a V, that is, the location in
17 20 8
18 24 9 which the bone begins to pinch to form the
19 20 8 beginning of the ramus (Figure 1).
20 26 10 Progress of union was recorded by assigning
21 26 10
22 13 5 each epiphysis one of three scores according to a
23 13 5 simplified version of the McKern & Stewarts
24 18 7 five-phased system (1957). McKern & Stewart
25 18 7
26 13 5 utilised three phases to differentiate between
27 11 4 fusion that is in the process of occurring, whereas
28 14 6 this paper utilises only one. Thus, the three
29 9 4
30 7 3 phases of union denote: phase 0 no fusion;
Total 256 100 phase 1 fusion in the process of occurring;
and phase 2 fusion which has been completed,
marked by obliteration of the epiphyseal line.
The presence of an epiphyseal scar, which can
closest (see Table 1 for an age frequency be retained for several years after fusion has
distribution of the sample). completed, sometimes confused the differen-
Data were collected on 26 epiphyses, including tiation between a late phase 1 and a completed
the proximal and distal humerus, radius, ulna, femur, phase 2. To classify the difference, consideration
tibia and fibula, the medial humerus, the greater and was taken as to whether union was required
lesser trochanters of the femur, the ischial anywhere deep within the epiphysis. If additional
tuberosity, iliac crest, anterior inferior iliac spine chondral ossification was required, the epiphysis
and tri-radiate complex of the innominate, the was scored as a phase 1. However, if only
auricular surface of the sacrum, the medial clavicle, periosteal ossification was required to infill the
the coraco-glenoid complex, angle of the coracoid, shallow indentation, the epiphysis was scored as a
acromion process, inferior angle and medial border phase 2.
of the scapula. Although not technically epiphyses, Both right and left elements were scored
data were also collected on the junctions between when available. In the rare situation that the
sternebrae 1 and 2, and 2 and 3. scores from the right and left side of an element
The two complexes for which data were differed, the most advanced stage was used for
collected (tri-radiate and coraco-glenoid) are com- analysis. This was done to ensure a standardised
posed of multiple epiphyses but they have been procedure, as many remains were lacking one
considered as one functional unit for the sake side and thus there could be no side consistency
of simplicity. In this research, the tri-radiate for collecting data. While differences between
complex comprises six epiphyses: the os acetabuli, bilateral elements did sometimes occur, the
superior and posterior epiphyses and the anterior, frequency of occurrence was so low that it is
vertical and posterior flange. Union considers both unlikely to affect the analysis.
pelvic and acetabular surfaces. The coraco-glenoid
complex comprises three components: fusion of
the coracoid to the body of the scapula, the Results
subcoracoid, and the glenoid epiphyses.
The boundaries that constitute most epiphyses Tables 2 to 12 display the age/phase distributions
are easy to recognise, with the exception of of all 26 epiphyses, in addition to the junction
the ischial tuberosity. The exact location in between sternebrae 1 and 2, and 2 and 3. Table 13
which the tuberosity terminates and the ramus displays summary parameters for each of the

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 18: 536545 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
Epiphyseal Union Timings 539

Figure 1. Inferior boundary of the ischial tuberosity as evaluated within this study. The arrow marks the location in which
the tuberal epiphysis terminates and the ramal epiphysis begins. This figure is available in colour online at www.
interscience.wiley.com/journal/oa.

Table 2. Age/phase distributions for union of the

humerus; frequencies are recorded as percentages Table 3. Age/phase distributions for union of the radius;
frequencies are recorded as percentages
Proximal Medial Humerus Distal Humerus
Humerus Proximal Radius Distal Radius

Stages of Union Stages of Union Stages of Union Stages of Union Stages of Union

Age n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2 Age n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2

14 3 100 3 100 2 100 14 2 100 2 100

15 6 100 6 100 3 33 67 15 6 67 33 6 100
16 12 92 8 11 45 10 45 7 14 86 16 8 38 24 38 8 75 25
17 19 63 37 19 10 16 74 8 100 17 17 12 23 65 17 70 18 12
18 20 30 55 15 20 5 95 10 10 90 18 20 5 5 90 20 50 20 30
19 19 89 11 19 100 11 100 19 19 100 19 16 42 42
20 22 5 40 55 22 100 10 100 20 21 100 21 33 67
21 25 16 84 25 100 12 100 21 24 100 24 100
22 11 100 11 100 7 100 22 10 100 10 100
23 12 100 13 100 11 100 23 13 100 13 100
24 83 100 82 100 50 100 24 83 100 83 100

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 18: 536545 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
540 M. C. Schaefer

Table 4. Age/phase distributions for union of the ulna; 28 elements to assist with age estimations;
frequencies are recorded as percentages for example, if an epiphysis is open it can be
Proximal Ulna Distal Ulna
estimated as younger than the oldest individual to
display no union, an epiphysis that is fusing can
Stages of Union Stages of Union be estimated using the range of fusion activity,
Age n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2
and an epiphysis that is closed can be aged as
older than the youngest individual to have
14 2 100 2 100 completed union.
15 6 83 17 6 100 The lower age limit of fusing activity associ-
16 10 30 70 10 100
17 19 16 84 19 74 5 21 ated with some of the early uniting epiphyses
18 20 5 95 20 55 15 30 must be applied with a certain degree of caution,
19 18 100 18 17 17 66 due to the limited number of individuals included
20 22 100 22 5 14 81
21 24 100 24 100 in the younger ages of the sample. The restricted
22 10 100 10 100 sample sizes associated with ages 14, 15, and even
23 13 100 13 100 16 years, preclude the ability to assess the initial
24 83 100 83 100

Table 5. Age/phase distributions for union of the femur; frequencies are recorded as percentage

Proximal Femur Greater Trochanter Lesser Trochanter Distal Femur

Stages of Union Stages of Union Stages of Union Stages of Union

Age n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2

14 3 100 3 100 3 100 3 100

15 6 100 6 100 6 100 6 100
16 15 33 60 7 14 57 36 7 13 30 62 8 14 93 7
17 17 18 35 47 18 22 28 50 18 22 28 50 18 61 22 17
18 24 8 17 75 24 8 29 63 24 8 13 79 24 21 50 29
19 20 5 95 20 5 95 20 5 95 20 5 25 70
20 24 4 96 25 4 96 25 4 96 25 8 92
21 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100
22 12 100 12 100 12 100 12 100
23 12 100 12 100 12 100 12 100
24 84 100 84 100 84 100 83 100

Table 6. Age/phase distributions for union of the tibia; Table 7. Age/phase distributions for union of the fibula;
frequencies are recorded as percentages frequencies are recorded as percentages

Proximal Tibia Distal Tibia Proximal Fibula Distal Fibula

Stages of Union Stages of Union Stages of Union Stages of Union

Age n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2 Age n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2

14 3 100 3 100 14 3 100 2 100

15 6 100 6 100 15 6 100 6 100
16 13 69 31 10 40 40 20 16 10 90 10 10 60 40
17 17 35 30 35 17 18 24 58 17 16 50 19 31 18 28 33 39
18 21 10 48 42 20 5 5 90 18 21 38 24 38 19 5 37 58
19 19 21 79 19 100 19 17 6 94 19 100
20 23 9 91 23 100 20 21 5 10 85 22 9 91
21 24 100 24 100 21 23 100 23 100
22 12 100 12 100 22 11 100 11 100
23 12 100 12 100 23 12 100 12 100
24 83 100 83 100 24 82 100 82 100

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 18: 536545 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
Epiphyseal Union Timings 541

Table 8. Age/phase distributions for union of the innominate; frequencies are recorded as percentages

Tri-radiate Complex Ant Inf Iliac Spine Ischium Iliac Crest

Stages of Union Stages of Union Stages of Union Stages of Union

Age n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2

14 2 100 2 100 3 100 3 100

15 3 100 3 100 6 100 6 100
16 11 64 36 11 37 18 45 15 53 47 14 100
17 7 29 71 6 17 83 15 33 60 7 17 53 47
18 12 17 83 12 17 83 24 13 74 13 24 42 54 4
19 10 100 10 100 18 67 33 19 89 11
20 13 100 13 100 25 32 68 25 4 48 48
21 13 100 13 100 25 100 25 24 76
22 8 100 8 100 12 100 12 100
23 10 100 10 100 12 100 12 100
24 83 100 51 100 83 100 83 100

going union of this epiphysis, it is highly likely

Table 9. Age/phase distributions for union of the clavicle; that the inclusion of additional 14-year-olds
frequencies are recorded as percentages would lead to the revelation of at least one
Medial Clavicle
proximal radius in an active state of union. As
such, the lower age limits should be applied with
Stages of Union a certain degree of caution and may require
Age n 0 1 2
further interpretation from the user. The upper
age limits, on the other hand, should instil greater
14 3 100 confidence in the estimate, due to their relatively
15 6 100 larger sample sizes.
16 13 100
17 20 95 5
18 22 82 18
19 18 55 45 Discussion
20 21 57 43
21 22 27 68 5
22 11 18 73 9 Previous research (Schaefer & Black, 2005)
23 12 16 67 17 comparing Bosnian fusing profiles to those of
24 16 56 44
25 17 59 41 North American soldiers (McKern & Stewart,
26 12 50 50 1957) killed during the Korean War revealed a
27 11 18 82 narrower window of fusing activity in the Balkan
28 13 46 54
29 9 11 89 sample. The finding was substantiated through
30 7 100 both direct observation and statistical analysis,
in which complete fusion of the entire Bosnian
sample was regularly found to occur earlier than
in the North American sample. While the older
timing of union onset confidently. Consider, for Bosnian individuals tended to display advanced
example, the proximal radius. The range of fusing maturity, the younger Bosnians within the sample
activity of this element has been summarised as displayed slightly retarded union in comparison
occurring between the ages of 15 to 18 years. The with the North American sample. This was
estimate is based on the fact that no 14-year-olds revealed through the relatively higher number of
within the sample displayed signs of union; young Bosnian individuals displaying no union, in
however, only two individuals were included in addition to the lower number of individuals
the 14-year age category. Considering that 33% displaying complete union. Direct comparison
of 15-year-old individuals were actively under- between the age of onset of union was not

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 18: 536545 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
542 M. C. Schaefer

Table 10. Age/phase distributions for union of the scapula; frequencies are recorded as percentages
Coraco-Glenoid Angle of Coracoid Acromion

Stages of Union Stages of Union Stages of Union

Age n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2

14 2 100 2 100 3 100

15 3 33 67 2 100 6 100
16 8 12 50 37 9 56 33 11 13 100
17 9 11 89 7 14 14 72 18 50 17 33
18 11 9 91 11 9 9 82 21 19 38 43
19 11 100 11 9 91 19 11 89
20 12 100 12 8 92 23 4 96
21 11 100 11 100 22 100
22 8 100 8 100 11 100
23 11 100 11 100 13 100
24 51 100 51 100 84 100

Inferior Angle Medial Border

Stages of Union Stages of Union

Yrs n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2

14 2 100 2 100
15 3 100 2 100
16 9 100 8 100
17 8 74 13 13 6 100
18 11 64 9 27 8 75 25
19 11 27 27 46 11 27 46 27
20 12 8 8 84 8 12 88
21 11 9 91 11 9 9 82
22 8 12 88 8 12 88
23 11 100 11 100
24 51 100 51 100

Table 12. Age/phase distributions for union of the ster-

Table 11. Age/phase distributions for union of the auri- nebrae; frequencies are recorded as percentages
cular epiphysis of the sacrum; frequencies are recorded
as percentages Sternebrae 12 Sternebrae 23

Auricular Surface of Sacrum Stages of Union Stages of Union

Stages of Union Yrs n 0 1 2 n 0 1 2

Age n 0 1 2 14 2 100 2 100

15 2 100 2 100
14 3 100 16 4 100 5 40 40 20
15 4 100 17 5 80 20 4 50 50
16 12 100 18 10 80 10 10 10 20 20 60
17 12 100 19 9 56 11 33 10 10 20 70
18 19 75 25 20 7 14 14 72 8 25 75
19 15 27 46 27 21 4 100 5 100
20 19 12 88 22 5 100 5 100
21 21 9 9 82 23 8 12 88 8 100
22 8 12 88 24 4 100 4 100
23 10 100 25 8 100 8 100
24 17 6 94 26 6 17 83 6 100
25 15 100 27 6 100 6 100
26 44 100 28 16 100 16 100

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 18: 536545 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
Epiphyseal Union Timings 543

Table 13. Summary ageing parameters of the various epiphyses

Epiphysis n Oldest No Fusion Youngest Complete Fusing Range

Proximal Humerus 232 20 18 1621

Medial Humerus 231 18 16 1618
Distal Humerus 131 14 15 1518
Proximal Radius 223 18 16 1518
Distal Radius 223 19 17 1620
Proximal Ulna 227 14 15 1518
Distal Ulna 227 20 17 1720
Proximal Femur 242 18 16 1620
Greater Trochanter 243 18 16 1620
Lesser Trochanter 242 18 16 1620
Distal Femur 242 19 17 1620
Proximal Tibia 233 18 17 1620
Distal Tibia 229 18 16 1618
Proximal Fibula 222 20 17 1620
Distal Fibula 224 18 17 1620
Tri-radiate Complex 141 16 ?18
Ant Inf Iliac Spine 139 18 16 1618
Ischial Tuberosity 238 18 17 1620
Iliac Crest 240 20 18 1721
Medial Clavicle 233 23 21 1729
Coracoid Complex 137 16 16 1518
Angle of Coracoid 135 18 16 1620
Acromion 233 20 17 1720
Inf Angle of Scapula 137 21 17 1722
Med Border of Scapula 126 21 18 1822
Aur Surface of Sacrum 199 21 18 1824
Sernebrae 12 96 23 17 1726
Sternebrae 23 99 19 16 1620

possible, however, due to the age restriction of boundaries of the fusing range. Results of the
the McKern & Stewart study which limited its two studies appear very similar (Table 14), with
sample to 17 years. The inclusion of additional both samples initiating union at 17 years of age,
individuals within this research appears to lend and the youngest individuals achieving complete
further support to these initial trends (Schaefer, union at 21 years of age. Minor differences occur
2007). in the oldest age to exhibit no union, recorded as
An additional study with which the Bosnian 23 years in the Bosnian sample and 24 years in the
results can be compared is Webb & Sucheys North American sample, and the oldest age in
(1985) analysis of the fusing times of the medial which union is still active (29 in the Bosnian
clavicle in modern North American males. This sample and 30 in the American). Webb &
study is ideal in that times reflecting the onset of Sucheys research also documented fusing times
union were well captured, thus permitting of the anterior iliac crest, but unfortunately is not
comparison of both the upper and lower directly applicable as union of the iliac crest as a
whole was recorded in this research.
Table 14. Comparison between the fusing times of the With such little comparable material, it is
medial clavicle in the Bosnian sample and a North Amer- difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions as
ican sample (Webb & Suchey, 1985) to the possible influences of secular change,
socio-economic status or genetic make-up on
Medial Oldest No Oldest Fusing
Clavicle Fusion Complete Range epiphyseal union timings. Unfortunately, direct
comparison with additional studies is not readily
Bosnian 23 21 1729 feasible as most research on epiphyseal union
American 24 21 1730
(Webb and Suchey) utilises radiographic assessment (Todd, 1937;
Gruelich & Pyle, 1950; Pyle & Hoerr, 1955; Hoerr

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 18: 536545 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
544
et al., 1962; Pfau & Sciulli, 1994; Crowder &
Austin, 2005) as opposed to dry bone evaluation,
and the two methods produce differing results
(Stewart, 1979). Of the few studies that
incorporate dry bone assessment of osseous
material, many do not include adequate sample
sizes (Stevenson, 1924), they focus on average
development rather than the full range of natural
variation (Todd, 1930), or males and females
have been combined into one overall analysis
(Szilvassy, 1980; Black & Scheuer, 1996) negating
any meaningful comparison with an all-male
sample.
Conclusion
This study adds information to the pre-existing
documentation of union times by including
individuals younger than was available to
McKern & Stewart, as well as including numerous
epiphyses that are not normally considered. In
addition, this study provides a full summary of
Bosnian-specific union times to help increase
ageing accuracy for those engaged in forensic
work in that geographical region.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the International Commis-
sion on Missing Persons for allowing me to
conduct my research, and Prof. Sue Black for
her guidance in my PhD thesis, upon which this
manuscript is partly based.
References
Albert AM, Maples W. 1995. Stages of epiphyseal
union for thoracic and lumbar vertebral centra as a
method of age determination for teenage and young
adult skeletons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40:
623633.
Black S, Scheuer L. 1996. Age changes in the clavicle:
from the early neonatal period to skeletal maturity.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 6: 425434.
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
M. C. Schaefer
Crowder C, Austin D. 2005. Age ranges of epiphyseal
fusion in the distal tibia and fibula of contemporary
males and females. Journal of Forensic Sciences 50:
10011007.
Gruelich W, Pyle I. 1950. A Radiographic Atlas of Skeletal
Development of the Hand and Wrist. Stanford University
Press: Stanford.
Hoerr NL, Pyle SI, Francis LC. 1962. Radiographic Atlas
of Skeletal Development of the Foot and Ankle: A Standard of
Reference. Charles C. Thomas: Springfield, IL.
Kimmerle E. 2004. Biological and statistical variation in
age estimation from pubic symphyseal morphology with
regard to individual identification and demographic
profiling. PhD dissertation, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.
Lagrou M, Simmons T. 2001. Age indicators are
population specific caution. Proceedings of the fifty-
third annual American Academy of Forensic Sciences. 7:
H52; 265266.
McKern TW, Stewart TD. 1957. Skeletal age changes in
young American males: analysed from the standpoint of age
identification. Environmental Protection Research
Division, Technical Report EP-45. Headquarters
Quartermaster Research and Development Com-
mand: Natick, MA.
Pfau R, Sciulli P. 1994. A method for establishing the
age of subadults. Journal of Forensic Sciences 39:
165176.
Pyle SI, Hoerr NL. 1955. Radiographic Atlas of
Skeletal Development of the Knee. C.C. Thomas:
Springfield, IL.
Ross A, Konigsberg L. 2002. New formulae for esti-
mating stature in the Balkans. Journal of Forensic
Sciences 47: 165167.
Sarajlic N. 2006. Age estimation based on sternal rib
ends changes in Bosnian male population. Medicinski
Arhiv 60: 343346.
Sarajlic N, Cihlarz Z, Klonowski E, Selak I. 2006.
Stature estimation for Bosnian male population.
Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences 6: 6267.
Schaefer M. 2007. Epiphyseal Union Timings in Bosnian
Males: An Investigation of their Application in the Identifi-
cation Process. PhD thesis, University of Dundee,
UK.
Schaefer M, Black S. 2005. Comparison of ages of
epiphyseal union in North American and Bosnian
skeletal material. Journal of Forensic Sciences 50:
777784.
Schaefer M, Black S. 2007. Epiphyseal union sequenc-
ing: aiding in the recognition and sorting of com-
mingled remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences 52:
277285.
Scheuer L, Black S. 2000. Developmental Juvenile Osteol-
ogy. Academic Press: London.
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 18: 536545 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/oa
Epiphyseal Union Timings
Scheuer L, Black S. 2004. The Juvenile Skeleton. Elsevier
Academic Press: London.
Simmons T. 1999. Revising age estimates standards
from a Bosnian forensic population: clavicle, ribs,
and pubic symphysis. Proceedings of the American Associ-
ation of Physical Anthropologists, Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract.
Simmons T, Cihlarz Z, Kesetovic R. 1999. Evaluating
age estimation in a Bosnian forensic population:
age-at-stage via probit analysis. Proceedings of the
fifty-first annual American Academy of Forensic Sciences,
Orlando, Florida. 5: H39; 226. Abstract.
Stevenson P. 1924. Age order of epiphyseal union
in man. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
7: 5393.
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
545
Stewart TD. 1979. Essentials of Forensic Anthropology:
Especially as Developed in the United States. Charles C
Thomas: Springfield, IL.
Szilvassy J. 1980. Age determination on the sternal
articular faces of the clavicula. Journal of Human
Evolution 9: 609610.
Todd TW. 1930. The anatomical features of epiphy-
seal union. Child Development 1: 186194.
Todd TW. 1937. Atlas of Skeletal Maturation. C.V.
Mosby: St. Louis.
Webb P, Suchey J. 1985. Epiphyseal union of the
anterior iliac crest and medial clavicle in a
modern multiracial sample of American males and
females. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68:
457466.
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 18: 536545 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/oa