Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I Theory and Methods
- 1 Evolutionary Theory
- 2 The Study of Human Adaptation
- 3 History of the Study of Human Biology
- 4 Genetics in Human Biology
- 5 Demography
- 6 History, Methods, and General Applications of Anthropometry in Human Biology
- 7 Energy Expenditure and Body Composition: History, Methods, and Inter-relationships
- 8 Evolutionary Endocrinology
- 9 Ethical Considerations for Human Biology Research
- Commentary: a Primer on Human Subjects Applications and Informed Consents
- Part II Phenotypic and Genotypic Variation
- Part III Reproduction
- Part IV Growth and Development
- Part V Health and Disease
- Index
- References
6 - History, Methods, and General Applications of Anthropometry in Human Biology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2012
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- Part I Theory and Methods
- 1 Evolutionary Theory
- 2 The Study of Human Adaptation
- 3 History of the Study of Human Biology
- 4 Genetics in Human Biology
- 5 Demography
- 6 History, Methods, and General Applications of Anthropometry in Human Biology
- 7 Energy Expenditure and Body Composition: History, Methods, and Inter-relationships
- 8 Evolutionary Endocrinology
- 9 Ethical Considerations for Human Biology Research
- Commentary: a Primer on Human Subjects Applications and Informed Consents
- Part II Phenotypic and Genotypic Variation
- Part III Reproduction
- Part IV Growth and Development
- Part V Health and Disease
- Index
- References
Summary
INTRODUCTION
If it is accepted that a core element of human evolutionary biology is about understanding the nature and meaning of morphological variation within and between the various species of primates that form our phylogenetic ancestors, then anthropometry is the essential tool used in describing morphological variation. Without a standardized form of measurement comparisons between the morphological characteristics of any two or more individuals is impossible. In the acceptance of that simple principle, the complexity of anthropometry is glimpsed. For anthropometry to be useful in describing morphology it must involve standardized instruments being applied to defined landmarks. The instruments must measure in the same units, to the same degree of precision, and the ability of the observer to repeat the measurement and obtain the same result must be within a range of error that does not significantly alter the outcome of the measurement.
So, modern anthropometry requires a universally understood terminology applied to morphological landmarks, universally applied units of measurement (or at worst units of measurement that have a constant relationship), and instrumentation that is appropriately designed to measure to a degree of precision that will be useful in describing similarities and differences in size. In addition, the anthropometrist must be able to use anthropometric instruments with an acceptable degree of reliability. It has taken over 350 years since a German physician, Johann Sigismund Elsholtz (1623–1688), submitted his graduate thesis entitled “Anthropometria” to the University of Padua in 1654 (Tanner, 1981) for us to be able to be reasonably certain that most of these requirements have been met.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Human Evolutionary Biology , pp. 92 - 112Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
(1966). Maturation of the skeleton. In Human Development, (ed.). Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
and (1999). Thirty-three cases of body dysmorphic disorder in children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38(4), 453–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (2006). Characterizing human shape variation using 3D anthropometric data. Visual Computer, 22, 302–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1940). Studies in the Development of Young Children. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
(1978). The methods of auxological anthropometry. In Human Growth, and (eds). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
(1983). The methods of auxological anthropometry. In Human Growth, 2nd edn, and (eds). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
(1892). Projet d'entente internationale au sujet des researches anthropometrique dans les conseils de revision. Bulletins et mémoires de la société d'anthropologie de Paris, 4, 186.Google Scholar
, , , et al. (1955). Design and accuracy of calipers for measuring subcutaneous tissue thickness. British Journal of Nutrition, 9, 133–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1874). On a series of measurements for statistical purposes recently made at Marlborough College. Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 4, 126–130.Google Scholar
(1933). Special report senior Medical Research Council, no. 190. In J. M. Tanner (1952), The assessment of growth and development in children. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 27, 10.Google Scholar
(1874). Notes on the Marlborough School Statistics. Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 4, 130–135.Google Scholar
, , , et al. (1989). 1987–1988 Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel. Methods and Summary Statistics. Natick/TR-89-044. Natick, MA: US Army Natick Research Development and Engineering Center.Google Scholar
(1970). Beobachtungen zur acceleration des langenwachstums in der zweiten hälfte des 18 jahrhunderts. Thesis, University of Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany.Google Scholar
(1968). The conference on standardization of anthropometric techniques and terminology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 28, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1977). Growth and Development of the Child: International Children's Centre Coordinated Studies Publications Index 1951–1976. Paris: International Children's Centre.
(1941). Physical measurements of young children. University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 18, 3.Google Scholar
, and (1992). Saltation and stasis: A model of human growth. Science, 258 (5038), 801–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1961). A new model of skinfold caliper. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 19, 98–99.Google Scholar
, and (1988). Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.Google Scholar
(2002). Digit Ratio: a Pointer to Fertility, Behavior, and Health. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
, and (2008). Hand asymmetry in heterosexual and homosexual men and women: relationship to 2D:4D digit ratios and other sexually dimorphic anatomic traits. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 37, 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1936). The reliability of anthropometric measurements taken on eight- and nine-year old white males. Child Development, 7, 262.Google Scholar
, , , et al. (2000). Comparative consistency of univariate measures from traditional and 3-D scan anthropometry. In Proceedings of the SAE International Digital Human Modelling for Design and Engineering International Conference and Exposition. Dearborn, MI: CD-ROM, PDF file 2145.Google Scholar
(1870). Anthropometrie, ou mesure des differentes facultés de l'homme. Brussels: Marquardt.Google Scholar
and (2006). Precision of the CAESAR scan-extracted measurements. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 259–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (1997). 3-D Surface Anthropometry: Review of Technologies. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: North Atlantic Treaty Organization Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development, Aerospace Medical Panel.Google Scholar
, , , et al. (2002). Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometry Resource (CAESAR). Final Report, Summary, vol. 1. AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2002-0169. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Human Effectiveness Directorate, Crew System Interface Division; and Warrendale, PA: SAE International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1971). Measurement of triceps skinfold thickness. British Journal of Preventative and Social Medicine, 25, 165–167.Google ScholarPubMed
(2007). Historical evolution of anatomical terminology from ancient to modern. Anatomical Science International, 82(2), 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1927). The first seriatim study of human growth. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 10, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1937). Sexual maturation and the physical growth of girls aged 6 to 19. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 2(5), serial no. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1944). The Brush Foundation study of child growth and development II. Physical growth and development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 9(1), serial no. 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1939). Studies from the Center for Research in Child Health and Development, School of Public Health, Harvard University: I. The center, the group under observation and studies in progress. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 4(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1952). The assessment of growth and development in children. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 27, 10–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1981). A History of the Study of Human Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
and (1955). The Harpenden skinfold caliper. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 13, 743–746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (1956). Aberdeen Growth Study 1. The prediction of adult body measurements from measurements taken each year from birth to five years. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 31, 372–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1999). Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status. British Journal of Nutrition, 82, 165–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1969). Human Biology: a Guide to Field Methods, IBP Handbook no. 9. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
, and (1974). Diurnal variation in stature and sitting-height in 12–14 year old boys. Annals of Human Biology, 1, 103–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed