Secondary osteon and Haversian canal dimensions as behavioral indicators

Abstract

Variation in the size of structures within mature cortical bone is relevant to our understanding of apparent differences between human samples, and it is relevant to the development of histologically based age-estimation methods. It was proposed that variation may reflect effects of physical activity, through biomechanical and/or metabolic mechanisms. If these factors are local, femoral osteon area (On.Ar) should be more histologically variable than On.Ar in ribs. Ribs should show a higher variation in Haversian canal area (H.Ar) if they are sites of more remodeling activity and hence of arrested refilling of secondary osteons at time of death. This study compares On.Ar and H.Ar of secondary osteons from femora (15) and ribs (29) from 44 Holocene (Later Stone Age) foragers from South Africa (M = 19, F = 25) to values from paired femora and ribs from historic samples (Spitalfields and St. Thomas, 20 pairs from each). Fixed-effects analysis of variance demonstrates rib On.Ar to be significantly smaller than femur, but with no sex or age effects. The femur-to-rib On.Ar ratio is lower for the Holocene foragers than for the two modern samples because of relatively large rib On.Ar. Femora and ribs from the same skeleton normally show femoral On.Ar larger than rib On.Ar (37/44 pairs). Mean femoral values of On.Ar are more diverse than rib On.Ar values, but within-sample coefficients of variation are similar. Values for H.Ar are highly variable and do not reflect anatomical site, age, sex, or population effects. The patterning of osteon size does not appear to be linked to physical activity or to different rates of metabolic activity within the skeleton, at least not in a straightforward way.

Cortical bone histomorphology of known‐age skeletons from the Kirsten collection, Stellenbosch university, South Africa

“…Variation has been reported at various organizational levels, from the bone to the population. A tendency for secondary osteons to be smaller in older people has been reported (Takahashi et al, 1965; Han et al, 2009), but the absence of this relationship has also been noted (Black et al, 1974; Burr et al, 1990; Pfeiffer et al, 2006; Lee et al, 2014). Recent study of cortical bone of the femoral neck region has reported a significant negative association between On.Ar and age (Tong et al, 2015), while another study reports a negative association between On.Ar and body weight, but not age (Britz et al, 2009).…”

“…On.Ar variability has been documented to vary among diverse samples (Takahashi et al, 1965; Takahashi and Frost, 1966; Pfeiffer et al, 2006), without clear causative factors being identified. Variation has been reported at various organizational levels, from the bone to the population.…”

Age regression for Malaysian males using cortical bone Histomorphometry

“…The existence of difference in patterns of bone microstructures has been an important concern in histological age estimation techniques. Bones with different size of osteons and haversian canals exhibits different osteon population densities and will reach to asymptotes at different stages of age [18]. Bone microstructures were identified to have difference with age [19], [20], [21], [22] and activity and varies with population and ancestry [18], [23], [24], [25].…”

“…Bones with different size of osteons and haversian canals exhibits different osteon population densities and will reach to asymptotes at different stages of age [18]. Bone microstructures were identified to have difference with age [19], [20], [21], [22] and activity and varies with population and ancestry [18], [23], [24], [25]. Some researchers reported the difference in bone microstructures especially osteons with gender [26] while other found no such difference [24].…”

A revised method for the preparation of dry bone samples used in histological examination: Five simple steps

“…Chinsamy & Raath, 1992;Hillier & Bell, 2007). Bone microscopy assessment is done in wide range of research, such as ontogeny (Chimsamy, 1995;Goldman et al, 2009), comparative anatomy (Hill, 2006;Cvetkovic et al, 2013), human-osteology (Cuijpers, 2006), forensic anthropology (Pfeiffer et al, 2006;Kim et al, 2007) and diagenesis studies (Bell, 2008;Kontopoulos et al, 2016), to name just a few. Thus, the production of readable thin sections for these diverse research purposes is an essential requirement in order to facilitate these fields of research.…”