Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 100. (Budapest 2008)

Bernert, Zs.: Data for the calculation of body height on the basis of extremities of individuals living in different historical periods in the Carpathian Basin

Table 1. (continued) Femur M

tibia ^tibia ^humerus •^humerus ^radius •^radius Martin 1 2655 2685 2344 433-435 354.36 119 316.14 120 239.05 114 436-438 355.38 128 316.15 128 240.92 111 439-441 357.48 125 318.76 122 242.87 113 442-444 360.5 152 322.06 149 243.53 135 445-447 362.78 156 324.11 155 245.47 133 448-450 365.32 142 324.49 151 246.20 130 451-453 369.06 126 326.40 134 248.01 115 454-456 369.64 158 328.10 162 248.88 133 457-459 372.23 111 331.10 114 250.91 95 460-462 376.28 123 331.97 123 251.47 106 463-465 377.88 107 332.43 101 253.61 93 466-468 378.08 91 335.10 95 254.66 80 469-471 383.42 87 337.67 95 255.29 74 472-474 383.29 77 339.01 83 257.45 67 475-477 386.21 73 340.48 69 257.98 70 478-480 389.18 59 343.38 55 259.22 57 481-483 391.77 41 346.50 36 260.98 30 484-486 395.41 47 346.12 47 261.93 41 487-489 393.68 30 348.03 30 260.23 28 490-492 402.77 26 346.48 25 266.05 21 493-495 397.67 23 350.48 20 263.72 18 496-498 401.04 13 349.73 13 265.90 10 499-501 402.54 13 354.33 12 270.08 6 502-504 412.93 7 355.31 8 270.81 8 505-507 411.11 10 354.30 9 270.83 10 508-510 421.79 7 358.08 6 275.75 6 511-513 412.33 3 360.00 3 260.50 1 514-516 425.90 5 358.33 3 286.00 3 N shows the number of individuals with comparable limb bone and femur. When the length of both the right and the left bone of the given type was known, I used the average of the two. I compared the femur category average in the table with the average length of the other four postcranial bones belonging to the same femur category. (By this method, data of the smaller number of tall and short individuals represented a greater weight.) In case of males (Table 1 ), the correlation was 0.997 when comparing the humerus, radius and tibia to the femur. (I have calculated only with table cells with an element number above 50). In case of females (Table 2), the correlation was 0.998 when comparing tibia to femur and humerus to femur but it was 0.990 when comparing the lengths of radius and femur. I prepared a graphic chart of data columns of Tables 1 and 2 (Figs 1-2).