International Journal of Osteoarchaeology

Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 338346 (2006)

Published online 11 April 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/oa.826

New Siding Techniques for the

Manual Phalanges: A Blind Test
D. T. CASEa* AND J. HEILMANb
a
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Box 8107,
Raleigh, NC 27695-8107, USA
b
1222 W. 1st Place, Mesa, AZ 85201, USA

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to conduct a blind test of siding techniques for the 14
phalanges of the human hand. A list of possible siding techniques was initially developed
using four loosely articulated hand skeletons from an anatomical supply company, was later
refined using ten skeletons with individually labelled hand bones from the Terry Anatomical
Collection, and then was field tested on protohistoric Arikara skeletons from South Dakota.
The most promising of these techniques were blind tested by the authors on a sample of 50
Terry collection individuals. For each bone, the first author selected a specimen from either
the right or left side, and the second author determined the side to which it most likely
belonged, based on a written description of each technique and a rough sketch. Accuracies
for the proximal phalanges (PP) were generally good, ranging from 100% for PP1 to 88% for
PP5. Among the intermediate phalanges (IP), accuracies clustered between 96% and 98%
except for IP4, which could only be correctly sided 78% of the time. Results for the distal
phalanges (DP) were generally poor. Although DP1 was correctly sided 94% of the time,
accuracies for the other distal phalanges ranged from a low of 52% to a high of 78%.
Copyright
2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: proximal phalanges; intermediate phalanges; distal phalanges; side

Introduction
The first step in almost any study of the human
skeleton is identification and siding of the bones
present. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that
no standardised techniques for siding the hand
phalanges have been published. Osteology textbooks typically treat the phalanges by type,
focusing on distinguishing the proximal, intermediate and distal phalanges of the hand from
one another, and from the analogous bones of the
feet (Steele & Bramblett, 1988; Bass, 1995; White,
2000). None provide techniques for siding
the phalanges, and only Scheuer & Black (2000:
31920) include relative length ratios as a guide
* Correspondence to: Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
North Carolina State University, Box 8107, Raleigh, NC 276958107, USA.
e-mail: dtcase@server.sasw.ncsu.edu

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

to placement of these bones into their correct

rays.
Scheuer & Black (2000) correctly point out
that the lack of attention to individual identification of the phalanges is due to the fact that
correct assignment to the proper ray and side
relies primarily on subtle changes in bone morphology. Furthermore, siding of phalanges cannot be done without knowledge of their position,
and attempts to position the phalanges in the
correct ray are much more likely to succeed when
all of the phalangeal bones of a particular type are
present. Such is rarely the case in archaeological
samples. Perhaps for this reason, bioarchaeologists often treat the phalanges either as a group
(e.g. Douglas et al., 1997; Kilgore et al., 1997)
or by row (e.g. Oxenham et al., 2005) when
performing skeletal analyses, counting the number of phalanges and noting obvious abnormalities without attempting to identify the specific
Received 31 May 2004
Revised 16 May 2005
Accepted 31 May 2005

Siding Techniques for the Manual Phalanges

ray involved. Such treatment may be adequate for
general studies of disease or trauma frequencies,
but is insufficient for researchers interested in
metric, non-metric, or palaeopathological studies
of particular digital bones.
Although siding of the phalanges has received
little attention in the literature, methods for assigning phalanges to the correct ray have been
published previously. Susman (1979) provided
relative length data for the proximal and intermediate phalanges in his study of the functional
morphology of hominoid fingers. He found a
phalangeal length pattern of III > IV > II > V
for both the proximal and intermediate rows in
36/40 human hands studied. He also described
morphological differences between phalanges in
the proximal row to assist with proper placement.
These features are particularly helpful in distinguishing phalanx II and IV, which can sometimes
be similar in length. Among the intermediate
phalanges, Susman indicated that phalanges III
and IV are most likely to be confused because of
variation in relative length. Scheuer & Black
(2000: 31920) provided relative length information for the proximal and intermediate phalanges
that agrees with the data from Susman (1979). In
addition, they note little difference in the relative
lengths of the distal phalanges (except for the
thumb), but point out that these bones can
be distinguished by robusticity, which follows
the pattern III > II > IV > V.
A search of the forensic literature did not
produce additional techniques for siding or placement of phalanges, although Smith (1996),
who published a metric method of sexing from
the hand bones, did note that it is possible to
determine the correct side and ray placement for
most hand phalanges, given enough practice.
Smith reported that siding is most difficult in
the intermediate and distal phalanges, and concurs with Susman (1979) and Scheuer & Black
(2000) that ray placement is most challenging for
phalanx III and IV of the intermediate and distal
phalanges.

Purpose
Scheuer & Black (2000:318) have commented
that although some authors have been bold
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

339
enough to identify individual phalanges, they
tend not to disclose their secret formula to the
rest of the academic community. The purpose of
this study is to disclose one such formula by
presenting new techniques for siding the phalanges of the hand, and reporting the results of a
blind test of these techniques on anatomical
skeletons in which the ray and side of each
phalanx is known.

Materials and methods

The siding techniques presented here were initially developed as part of a study of congenital
defects of the hands (Case, 1996), where the
ability to identify specific phalanges was an
important component of some diagnoses. The
initial step in developing these techniques was to
identify consistent morphological features that
differ by side among the phalanges. Such features
were identified using four loosely articulated
hand skeletons from an anatomical supply company. One drawback of using hands from an
anatomical supplier is the inability to guarantee
that all phalanges come from the same individual
or the correct side. Therefore, a non-blind test of
the accuracy of these initially identified features
was later conducted by the first author (DTC) on
the hand skeletons of ten individuals from the
Terry Anatomical Collection, housed at the
Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC.
The Terry collection is a known age and known
sex sample composed primarily of African- and
Euro-Americans who were born between 1822
and 1943 (Hunt, 1999), and who died in the St.
Louis area during the first half of the 20th
century. Most of the hand skeletons from this
collection have black lettering on all bones of the
right side, and red lettering on the left, so that the
two sides cannot be mistaken. These labels had to
be obscured for the blind test. The phalanges of
many of the skeletons are also labelled by ray, but
it is not clear how carefully the different rays of
each hand were kept separate from one another
during preparation of the skeletons (David
Hunt, personal communication), and a few fairly
obvious positioning errors have been identified
by the senior author while working with the
Terry Collection for other projects. However,
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 338346 (2006)

340
the labels on the phalanges used for this study
appear to be correct, and while the possibility of
positioning error must be acknowledged, the
number of errors is probably small.
The ten skeletons on which the siding techniques were initially evaluated included five
African-Americans and five Euro-Americans,
with both sexes represented. Those features
that appeared to work at least 65% of the time
were used singly or in combination to assist in the
siding of hand phalanges among Arikara skeletons from the Mobridge and Sully sites in South
Dakota (Case, 1996). A total of 165 skeletons
with one or more digital bones of the hands or
feet were examined, although hand phalanges
were not present for all individuals. Siding techniques were applied where appropriate, and particular attention was paid to their utility in
situations where the right and left sides could
be confidently distinguished, such as cases in
which only one of the two hands appeared to
have been recovered, or in which all of the bones
from one side were stained a different color than
those from the other side. Features that appeared
to distinguish one side from the other consistently among the Arikara sample were included in
the present study.
A total of 20 new siding techniques were blind
tested by the second author (JH) on 50 skeletons
from the Terry Anatomical Collection (Figures 1
& 2; Table 1). JH is a trained osteologist and has
considerable experience in working with skeletal
material, but no special expertise with the bones
of the hand. The sample included 27 AfricanAmericans (17 male, 10 female) and 23 EuroAmericans (15 male, 8 female). Only skeletons
with phalanges individually labelled by ray and
side were used. The hands of each skeleton were
laid out by ray, and the bones examined to verify
that all phalanges were present on both sides, and
that none exhibited trauma or disease that might
affect the test results. Skeletons with bone labels
on the articular facets were replaced in some
cases because the written labels could not be
effectively obscured without hampering some of
the siding techniques.
The two authors were separated from each
other by a small barrier, so that neither could
see what the other was writing. Beginning with
PP1, a right or left phalanx of each bone type was
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

D. T. Case and J. Heilman

selected by DTC and handed to JH with all
visible labelling obscured by a small strip of
paper. Most of the skeletons in the Terry collection have a somewhat greasy external surface that
acted like a weak adhesive, so obscuring the
labels in this way was relatively simple. JH was
informed of the type of phalanx and its number.
She then consulted the written techniques and
some rough sketches in order to determine a side.
For each phalanx, DTC recorded the bone and
side on one sheet of paper, while JH recorded her
assessment on another sheet of paper. No information about the results was exchanged during
the test. A side was assigned to a total of 50
phalanges of each type using the 20 techniques.
For bones with two different techniques available, only one was tested during a given round.
Once the first group of techniques had been
applied to a particular skeleton, a second group
was applied beginning again with PP1. The most
accurate of the tested techniques for each bone is
presented in Figures 1 and 2.

Results and discussion

Accuracies for the various bone rows were generally quite good. For the proximal phalanges,
the ability to assign bones to the correct side
ranged from 88100%, with a median accuracy of
94%. The intermediate phalanges could also be
accurately sided in most cases. Although the
technique for siding IP4 was only accurate 78%
of the time, those for all the other intermediate
phalanges were accurate for 9698% of the
phalanges examined. The distal phalanges showed
the greatest variability in siding accuracy.
Although the technique for DP1 worked 94%
of the time, and that for DP5 78% of the time, the
three central distal phalanges were only accurately sided between 52% and 68% of the time.
All three of the techniques that produced these
poor results for the central DPs required an
evaluation of the relative size of the two lobes
of the proximal facet (Figure 2). JH reported that
the two lobes were very difficult to see on many
of the Terry collection skeletons because of a
build-up of semi-transparent bone grease commonly found within the facet areas of the small
bones associated with these skeletons. The two
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 338346 (2006)

Siding Techniques for the Manual Phalanges

341

Figure 1. Most accurate siding techniques for the hand phalanges (PP1 to IP3). Any siding indicators described after
the word additionally in the above descriptions were identified after the blind test was completed, and were not
considered in determining technique accuracies.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 338346 (2006)

342

D. T. Case and J. Heilman

Figure 2. Most accurate siding techniques for the hand phalanges (IP4 to DP5). Any siding indicators described after
the word additionally in the above descriptions were identified after the blind test was completed, and were not
considered in determining technique accuracies.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 338346 (2006)

Siding Techniques for the Manual Phalanges

343

Table 1. Additional techniques from this study and Ricklan (1988)

Bone

Accuracy

Description of feature

Source

PP1

96%

Distal view: Place the bone on a flat surface on its palmar aspect, holding This study
the proximal end down firmly. The distal end does not contact the flat
surface opposite the side the bone is from

PP1

83%

Distal view: With the palmar aspect down, the largest part of the distal
articular surface is on the side the bone is from

PP2

94%

Distal view: Place the bone on a flat surface on its palmar aspect, holding This study
the proximal end down firmly. The distal end does not contact the flat
surface on the side the bone is from

PP2

82%

Distal view: With the palmar aspect down, the largest part of the distal
articular surface is opposite the side the bone is from

Ricklan (1988)

PP3

80%

Distal view: With the palmar aspect down, the largest part of the distal
articular surface is opposite the side the bone is from

Ricklan (1988)

PP5

98%

Palmar view: The most distal point on the bone is on the side the bone
is from

Ricklan (1988)

PP5

82%

Dorsal view: The mass of the proximal base is greater on the side the
bone is from

This study

IP2

93%

Proximal view: Looking at the proximal facet with the palmar aspect
down, the larger of the two facet areas is on the side the bone is from

Ricklan (1988)

IP2

90%

Proximal view: Lay the bone on a flat surface on its dorsal aspect. The This study
side of the proximal base highest above the flat surface is on the side the
bone is from

IP3

90%

Proximal view: Lay the bone on a flat surface on its dorsal aspect. The This study
side of the proximal base highest above the flat surface is on the side the
bone is from

IP3

85%

Proximal view: Looking at the proximal facet with the palmar aspect
down, the larger of the two facet areas is on the side the bone is from

IP5

96%

Dorsal view: The degree of curvature of the shaft margin is greater on the This study
lateral side, which is opposite the side the bone is from

DP2*

91%

Palmar view: A line tangent to the medial- and lateral-most edges of the Ricklan (1988)
proximal articular surface trends distally opposite the side the bone is
from (Figure 6)

DP3*

77%

Palmar view: A line tangent to the medial- and lateral-most edges of the Ricklan (1988)
proximal articular surface trends distally opposite the side the bone is
from (Figure 6)

DP4*

57%

Palmar view: A line tangent to the medial- and lateral-most edges of the Ricklan (1988)
proximal articular surface trends distally on the side the bone is from
(Figure 6)

DP5*

89%

Palmar view: A line tangent to the medial- and lateral-most edges of the Ricklan (1988)
proximal articular surface trends distally on the side the bone is from
(Figure 6)

Ricklan (1988)

Ricklan (1988)

*The tubercle on the palmar aspect of the distal phalangeal base (the insertion site for the flexor digitorum profundus
muscle) can also help with this technique. Imagine a best fit line drawn through the tubercle, and assess its trend in the
same way you would the tangent line described by Ricklan (1988). These lines are somewhat parallel, but the line
through the tubercle may be easier to visualise.

lobes may be easier to see in dry bones from

archaeological contexts, and in anatomical skeletons that are more intensively processed. Written descriptions and accuracies for the remaining
tested techniques are provided in Table 1.
Another study of phalanx siding techniques
was brought to the authors attention after the
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

blind test had been completed. The study was

part of a PhD dissertation by Ricklan (1988) from
the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa.
Ricklan initially used ten hands from five cadaver
skeletons that were carefully prepared so that
none of the bones would become mixed. These
bones were used to identify features that
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 338346 (2006)

344
appeared to vary by side. Ricklan later added the
left and right hands of 45 individuals whose hand
bones had been kept separate by side, for a total
sample of 50 individuals and up to 100 specimens
of each bone type.
Ricklans (1988) approach was to identify
features that tended to be asymmetrical in location or orientation on either side of the bones
midline, and then to score these features on all
the bones of each row. Many of the features are
similar or identical to those used in the present
study. Written summaries of some of the additional features reported by Ricklan are included
in Table 1. It should be noted that the accuracies
reported are from Ricklans own analysis and
were not blind tested by the authors. Some of
Ricklans descriptions have been rewritten to
match more closely the format of descriptions
in the present study, and only features that
resulted in an 80% or greater accuracy for a
particular bone, or which outperformed the
techniques used in the present study, are
included.
Among these additional techniques, those
with the greatest potential to improve siding
accuracy are the ones associated with DP2,
DP3 and DP5. Ricklans technique for DP2 has
an accuracy of 91%, versus 52% for the technique
tested in the present study; his DP3 technique
has an accuracy of 77%, versus 66% in the
present study; and his DP5 technique has an
accuracy of 89% versus 78% in the present study.
Ricklans techniques for DP4 only achieved 57
58% accuracy. However, Ricklans more accurate
distal phalanx techniques for DP2DP4 are
somewhat difficult to apply. We have included
Figure 3, which is based on a figure in Ricklans
dissertation, to assist in siding the distal phalanges using his approach.
With practice, the accuracies presented here
can probably be treated as minimum estimates.
Within a given skeleton, the ability to side a
phalanx correctly should improve if the same
bones are present from both sides, because errors
seem to result mostly from trait ambiguity, and
one of the sides is likely to show less ambiguity
than the other. Furthermore, Figures 1 and 2, and
Table 1, present additional information to assist
with siding these bones which was not taken into
account during the blind test.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

D. T. Case and J. Heilman

Figure 3. Palmar view of distal phalanges depicting

Ricklans (1988) best siding techniques (see Table 1 for
description). Drawing A represents DP2 & DP3 from the
left side, and DP4 & DP5 from the right side. Drawing B
represents DP2 & DP3 from the right side, and DP4 &
DP5 from the left side.

Positioning the phalanges

Application of the above techniques to museum
or forensic skeletons requires first that each
phalanx be assigned to its proper ray. Without
the ability to determine the appropriate position
for each phalanx, the siding techniques are
useless. As has been pointed out by previous
researchers (Susman, 1979; Scheuer & Black,
2000), one way to position phalanges is to assess
their lengths relative to the other bones of the
same row. Relative length ratios for the phalanges
usually follow a distinct pattern (Susman, 1979;
Ricklan, 1988):
Proximal phalanges:
Intermediate phalanges:
Distal phalanges:

III > IV > II > V > I

III  IV > II > V
I > III  IV > II > V

Among the bones of the proximal row, PP2

and PP4 are most likely to be similar in length.
In such cases, these bones can usually be distinguished by base robusticity: PP2 is normally
wider mediolaterally than PP4 at the proximal
end (Figure 4). Susman (1979) also noted that
PP2 has a more robust body and displays basal
asymmetry because of an enlarged radial tubercle. In contrast, PP4 is less robust and does not
display basal asymmetry, but the flexor sheath
ridges are more distinct on PP4 than PP2. Among
the intermediate phalanges, IP3 and IP4 are most
likely to be similar in length. In most individuals,
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 338346 (2006)

Siding Techniques for the Manual Phalanges

Figure 4. Proximal phalanges 15 (from left to right) of a

right hand showing relative lengths and robusticities.

345
When all phalanges of a particular row are present, accuracy of assignment to the correct ray is
probably highest for the phalanges of the thumb,
followed by the proximal, then the intermediate,
and finally the distal phalanges of the fingers.
When one or more phalanges are missing from a
bone row, positioning accuracy may decline
substantially. Missing bones are most likely to
affect positioning of PP3 and PP4, IP2 and IP4,
and DP2, DP3 and DP4.

Conclusion

Figure 5. Intermediate phalanges 25 (from left to right)

of a right hand showing relative lengths and robusticities.

IP3 will be more robust overall than IP4 (Figure 5)

and have a larger proximal facet. The distal
phalanges can be challenging even when all
bones are present (Figure 6). Length differences
between DP3 & DP4, and sometimes between
DP2 & DP5, may amount to only a few millimetres, and be difficult to assess visually. Furthermore, since position must be determined prior to
siding, length asymmetry between the left and
right sides may add additional difficulty in positioning the phalanges. As Scheuer & Black (2000)
have pointed out, DP3 typically has the most
robust shaft of all the medial DPs, followed by
DP2, DP4, and then DP5. In those cases where
robusticity does not seem to differ substantially,
one approach is to seriate the proximal articular
surfaces of each distal phalanx visually by relative
height and width (when viewed from the proximal aspect), and then match that pattern to the
heights and widths of the distal articular surfaces
of the intermediate phalanges.

Figure 6. Distal phalanges 15 (from left to right) of a

right hand showing relative lengths and robusticities.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

While not as reliable as siding indicators for

other bones of the skeleton, the techniques outlined in Figures 1 and 2, along with the supplementary techniques described in Table 1, should
allow physical anthropologists working with
unlabelled skeletal collections to study the hand
in a more detailed way than was previously
possible. With techniques such as these, trauma,
disease or congenital defects can be assessed for
their effects on specific rays or joints, at an
accuracy level no worse than that accepted for
many standard sexing techniques.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Joel Stein, Biology
Department, Scottsdale Community College,
for his drawings of the individual phalanges,
Robin Meadows from the School of Photographic Technology at Randolf Community College for taking the photos of the hand bones,
Billy Oliver of the Office of State Archaeology
Research Center in Raleigh, North Carolina, for
allowing use of the Centers photographic equipment, and David Hunt of the Smithsonian
Institution for his assistance with the Terry Anatomical Collection. We would also like to thank
Scott Burnett of Arizona State University for
bringing Ricklans dissertation to our attention.
Finally, our thanks to the anonymous reviewers
for their many helpful comments, and for suggesting additional features to help with the siding
of PP4 and DP1. These features were added to
Figures 1 and 2 as supplementary traits to consider when siding these phalanges.
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 338346 (2006)

346

References
Bass WM. 1995. Human Osteology: A Laboratory and
Field Manual (4th edn). Special Publication
No. 2. Missouri Archaeological Society: Columbia,
MO.
Case DT. 1996. Developmental Defects of the Hands and Feet
in Paleopathology. Masters thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe,
Arizona.
Douglas MT, Pietrusewsky M, Ikehara-Quebral RM.
1997. Skeletal biology of Apurguan: a precontact
Chamorro site on Guam. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 104: 291313.
Hunt DR. 1999. History and demography of the
Robert J. Terry Anatomical Collection [Abstract].
American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement 28:
156157.
Kilgore L, Jurmain R, Van Gerven D. 1997. Palaeoepidemiological patterns of trauma in a medieval
Nubian skeletal population. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology 7: 103114.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

D. T. Case and J. Heilman

Oxenham MF, Thuy NK, Cuong NL. 2005. Skeletal
evidence for the emergence of infectious disease
in bronze and iron age northern Vietnam.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 126: 359
376.
Ricklan DE. 1988. A Functional and Morphological Study of
the Hand Bones of Early and Recent South African Hominids.
PhD dissertation, Department of Anatomical
Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Scheuer L, Black S. 2000. Developmental Juvenile Osteology.
Academic Press: San Diego, CA.
Smith SL. 1996. Attribution of hand bones to sex and
population groups. Journal of Forensic Sciences 41:
469477.
Susman RL. 1979. Comparative and functional morphology of hominoid fingers. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 50: 215236.
Steele DG, Bramblett CA. 1988. The Anatomy and
Biology of the Human Skeleton. Texas A&M University
Press: College Station, TX.
White TD. 2000. Human Osteology (2nd edn).
Academic Press: San Diego, CA.

Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 16: 338346 (2006)