Search

The Szeklers are a biologically and archaeologically understudied Hungarian cultural group who have occupied the Carpathian Basin since at least A.D. 1000. For most of their history, they were an autonomous group given special nontaxed status in exchange for their service to the Kingdom of Hungary as cavalrymen and defenders of the eastern front. Excavation of a church in Harghita County, Romania, has uncovered the remains of two adult males in a brick‐lined crypt beneath the pulpit of the church. The partial name 'FERE' was preserved in nails on the coffin lid of one of the interments. The Ferenczy family was the noble family for the area. Macroscopic observation of the skeletal remains showed several non‐normal skeletal characteristics. As a suite of traits, the characteristics suggest long‐term and frequent horseback riding per the clinical and archaeological literature. Skeletal indicators of horsemanship combined with the known responsibilities of Szekler noblemen support an interpretation of horse riding behaviour. This case study is important because it contributes to the growing understanding about skeletal modifications related to horseback riding and adds to the limited biological and archaeological literature regarding Szekler individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anatomists have been attempting to standardize anatomical terminology of the human body and in doing so created the Terminologia Anatomica as a standard language of anatomy. Despite developments such as the Terminologia Anatomica, a lack of consistency of anatomical terminology is still seen across and within disciplines. This study explores the variation in terminology for the hip bone through a literature review. In total, ten terms used to describe the hip bone were searched in PubMed, JSTOR, and EBSCO databases: "coxal bone," "hip bone," "innominate bone," "os coxa," "os coxae," "ossa coxa," "ossa coxae," "os innominatum," "os pelvicum," and "pelvic bone." Results found that the terms "hip bone" and "pelvic bone" were the most commonly used terms, with the most frequently used discipline being medicine. However, we argue against the use of these terms in favor of "coxal bone" or "innominate bone." "Hip bone" should be avoided due to its colloquial nature, and "pelvic bone" is not specific enough to the structure of the hip. Latin terms are often incorrectly conjugated (e.g., "os coxae"); therefore, the English equivalent should be used when possible. Regardless, standardization of anatomical terminology should be adopted through consensus by practitioners, researchers, and stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Identification of Missing Norwegian World War II Soldiers, in Karelia Russia," by I. Morild and colleagues in the 2015 issue.

To understand the implications of the forensic anthropological practice of "ancestry" estimation, we explore terminology that has been employed in forensic anthropological research. The goal is to evaluate how such terms can often circulate within social contexts as a result, which may center forensic anthropologists as constituting "race" itself through analysis and categorization. This research evaluates terminology used in anthropological articles of the Journal of Forensic Sciences between 1972 and 2020 (n = 314). Terminology was placed into two categories: classifiers and descriptors. Classifiers were standardized into one of five options: "race," "ancestry," "population," "ethnic," or "other." Descriptors included terms used to describe individuals within these classificatory systems. We also compared these terms to those in the NamUs database and the U.S. census. Our results found that the terms "ancestry" and "race" are often conflated and "ancestry" largely supplanted "race" in the 1990s without a similar change in research approach. The NamUs and census terminology are not the same as that used in forensic anthropological research; illustrating a disconnect in the terms used to identify the missing, unidentified, and in social contexts with those used in anthropological research. We provide histories of all of these terms and conclude with suggestions for how to use terminology in the future. It is important for forensic anthropologists to be cognizant of the terms they use in medicolegal contexts, publications, and in public and/or professional spaces. The continued use of misrepresentative and improper language further marginalizes groups and perpetuates oppression rooted in systemic racism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

R3537 --> Introduction: There is a history of attempting to standardize anatomical terminology; primarily to create a link between clinical and anatomical terminology. However, differences in anatomical terminology between disciplines and over time have not been well explored. The objective of this study was to perform a thorough literature review, using multiple databases to examine the variation in anatomical terminology relating to the pelvis, a complex bony structure often referred to with multiple anatomical terms. Method: Searches for scientific articles were conducted from PubMed, JSTOR, and EBSCO using six search terms: "innominate bone," "os coxa," "os coxae," "ossa coxae," "os innominatum," and "coxal bone." All journal articles, review articles, and conference proceedings available on these databases were examined from their earliest inclusions through December 2020. Initial search results were individually screened, duplicated entries were removed, and the remaining results were analyzed (n=1255). Descriptive statistics and plots were created in order to examine trends in term usage over time and between disciplines. A Random Forest Model (RFM; k=1000) was also used to examine the ability to correctly classify term using year, journal title, and journal audience. Results: There were clear differences in terminology used to describe the bony pelvis. The term "innominate bone" (n=468) was the most commonly used term, followed by "os coxae" (n=366). The other terms were used less frequently: "os innominatum" (n=129), "os coxa" (n=124), "coxal bone" (n=106), and "ossa coxae" (n=62). Trends related to the usage of certain terms over time were also observed. For example, use of the term "coxal bone" began recently, while the term "innominate bone" has been the primarily favored term, steadily increasing overtime since the late 1800s. The term "os innominatum" was used relatively infrequently, with its peak usage in the late 1800s. The main disciplinary audiences were medicine (n=374), anthropology and archaeology (n=236), forensic science (n=155), general science (n=115), and biology (n=83). Forensic science began using these terms with high frequency beginning in the early 2000s, while medicine, anthropology, and archaeology have longer, more steady usage histories. Publications related to medicine (to include anatomy) were the most frequent users of innominate (46%), "coxal bone" (36%), "os innominatum" (30%), and "ossa coxae" (21%) while forensic science most commonly used "os coxa" (38%) and "os coxae" (21%). Due to the large variability in term usage over time, between journals, and journal audience, the RFM did not perform well (accuracy of 35%). Importantly, this was largely due to misclassifying other terms as either "innominate bone"; "os coxae"; or to a lesser extent "os innominatum". Conclusions: Variation in the terminology used to describe the bony pelvis exists both within and between disciplines, as well as over time. Significance and implications: The language used to refer to the bony pelvis reflects a lack of consistency within and between disciplines, as well as shifts in term usage over time. Due to the often‐interdisciplinary nature of research, it is important to standardize terminology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]