| Abstract: |
Papers provides a discussion on why there is a regular and systematic bias in the sexing of adult skeletons. Listed the results of 43 different populations across time and space and found that males averaged around 56% which in reality is a lot higher than what we know of documented populations. There are two basic methods from which to sex individuals-- metrically and morphologically. \bMetric\b assessments recognize that secondary sex characteristics on bone vary from individual to individual and from group to group. Because of this, comparison need to be made against well documented and analyzed populations. This method has an advantage over morphologic methods in they are objective and provide rigorous-defined, objective methods for determining sex with fewer ambiguous results. The problems however include a need for large "representative" samples, a good state of preservation, and fragementary remains only complicate matters. \bMorphologic\b methods can use a larger array of variables to point to a conclusion. A great temptation though is the "larger-smaller" nature of morphology. While there are a few traits in whihc presence indicates a female (pre-auricular sulcus), it seems that the "larger-smaller" traits are more often used. Sexing problems may also be biased as a result of differential burial customs (e.g, monastery graveyard), unrepresentive sites, or poorer preservation of female material. Differential preservation does not really seem to be a problem though as females seem to have just as good a chance in preservation as a males. A 56% male sex ratio for adults implies that there is higher juvenile morality among females
if that sex ration is accurate, it would indicate a population very different than those documented. If anything, evidence suggests the reverse of an excess female mortality.
|
