Case #2 is from a site in in Oakley, California, formally entitled CA-CCO-138, Hotchkiss site. Remains and materials from the excavation are now being held at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at UC Berkeley. This case depicts a male (Phenice: 1969). It is possible the individual is anywhere between the ages of 19-34 years old based on the phasing of his pubic symphysis (Phase II, 19-34, Brooks and Suchey: 1990) and the phasing of the auricular surface (Phase II-III 25-34, Lovejoy et. al: 1985). It is estimated that the individual stood approximately 151.8 centimeters tall (4 feet 9 inches) (Auerbach and Ruff: 2009). This measurement was analyzed by using the femoral bicondylar length (FBL) and the tibial maximum length (TML) to obtain
…show more content…
The growth is large and had been a part of the individual for a very long because the growth actually changed the shape of the perpendicular plate.The growth is also large in perspective to the rest of the nasal passage. It extends from the ethmoid to the inferior nasal concha, though it does not seem to be within “bone on bone” contact with the inferior nasal concha. Case_Study_2d.jpg leads me to believe that the growth in 2 centimeters in length and possible 1 centimeter in width. However, it is difficult to tell in the photo, as the image seems to have a sort of fish eye aberration to it. It also looks as though it had grown larger over time. I say this because the bone itself appears “stretched” at an abnormal rate, unlike the growth of a femur over time. The bone is rough in appearance and seems like it may have a similar texture to that of osteomyelitis, though I do not think the nasal growth has any connection to osteomyelitis. The shape of the growth is similar to that of a bee hive.
It is my belief that the growth may fall into the category of a neoplastic condition (White et. al 2012: 452). Though, it could easily be argued the growth is sort of infectious disease it is unlikely. Most infectious diseases live little trace of their presence on the skeletal structure. However, chronic diseases do, in fact, leave evidence on bone so it would not be impossible for the growth to be the result of something infectious (White et. al. 2012: 443). I still believe it is much more likely that the individual suffered from a form of
The growth is large and had been a part of the individual for a very long because the growth actually changed the shape of the perpendicular plate.The growth is also large in perspective to the rest of the nasal passage. It extends from the ethmoid to the inferior nasal concha, though it does not seem to be within “bone on bone” contact with the inferior nasal concha. Case_Study_2d.jpg leads me to believe that the growth in 2 centimeters in length and possible 1 centimeter in width. However, it is difficult to tell in the photo, as the image seems to have a sort of fish eye aberration to it. It also looks as though it had grown larger over time. I say this because the bone itself appears “stretched” at an abnormal rate, unlike the growth of a femur over time. The bone is rough in appearance and seems like it may have a similar texture to that of osteomyelitis, though I do not think the nasal growth has any connection to osteomyelitis. The shape of the growth is similar to that of a bee hive.
It is my belief that the growth may fall into the category of a neoplastic condition (White et. al 2012: 452). Though, it could easily be argued the growth is sort of infectious disease it is unlikely. Most infectious diseases live little trace of their presence on the skeletal structure. However, chronic diseases do, in fact, leave evidence on bone so it would not be impossible for the growth to be the result of something infectious (White et. al. 2012: 443). I still believe it is much more likely that the individual suffered from a form of