0
Amelia Earhart and the Nikumaroro Bones: A 1941 Analysis versus Modern Quantitative Techniques
Richard L. Jantz, 2018. Forensic Anthropology.
Compares Hoodless's measurements with estimates of Earhart's own bone lengths derived from her clothing and photographs, using modern reference samples, and finds the bones more similar to Earhart than to 99 per cent of the reference sample. Forensic Anthropology 1(2), 83–98.
What it's used for here
The strongest published case for the Nikumaroro bones being Earhart's; depends on the 1941 measurements and on reconstructed dimensions for Earhart.
Our copy
Research copy, for editors and curators. The work is the publisher's, so readers are sent to it. We keep this copy so the citation can be checked if the page changes or goes.
doi.org · fetched 27 Oct 2026Open the file
Loading…
Cited by on this site 5 records
EVD
The disappearance of Amelia Earhart
MYSThe mystery article
Cite it
Jantz, R. L. (2018). Amelia Earhart and the Nikumaroro Bones: A 1941 Analysis versus Modern Quantitative Techniques. Forensic Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.5744/fa.2018.0009
@article{jantz2018nikumaroro,
author = {Jantz, Richard L.},
title = {Amelia Earhart and the Nikumaroro Bones: A 1941 Analysis versus Modern Quantitative Techniques},
journal = {Forensic Anthropology},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.5744/fa.2018.0009},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5744/fa.2018.0009}
}TY - JOUR TI - Amelia Earhart and the Nikumaroro Bones: A 1941 Analysis versus Modern Quantitative Techniques AU - Jantz, Richard L. PY - 2018 JO - Forensic Anthropology DO - 10.5744/fa.2018.0009 UR - https://doi.org/10.5744/fa.2018.0009 ER -
Jantz, Richard L.. “Amelia Earhart and the Nikumaroro Bones: A 1941 Analysis versus Modern Quantitative Techniques.” Forensic Anthropology (2018). https://doi.org/10.5744/fa.2018.0009.