Luna, L. 2010. Alternative methodological procedures in sex determination of commingled and fragment by Leandro Luna

In: Trends in Physical Anthropology Editor: Kathryn E. Weiss

Chapter 1

ALTERNATIVE M ETHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES IN S EX D ETERMINATION OF COMMINGLED AND F RAGMENTARY HUMAN R EMAINS: AN EXAMPLE FROM THE ARGENTINE PAMPEAN R EGION Leandro Hernán Luna* CONICET, Museo Etnográfico J. B. Ambrosetti, Moreno 350 1091 Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina

ABSTRACT Sex determination of human skeletal and dental remains is a very important step in palaeodemographic reconstructions. This information can be easily obtained if skeletons are complete and well preserved, but problems arise when the sample contains fragmented and/or commingled remains. In these cases alternative methodological procedures must be achieved, taking into account the population-specific variability in sexual dimorphism and the degree of robustness of the skeletal sample. In this chapter an unconventional methodology applied to a sample of removed human remains from the Chenque I site (Lihué Calel National Park, La Pampa province, Western Pampean Region, Argentina) is described and * Corresponding author: E-mail lunaranda@gmail.com

Leandro HernĂĄn Luna analyzed. This site is a prehistoric cemetery used by hunter-gatherer societies during the Final Late Holocene, throughout 700 years. It has two clearly defined units with very different characteristics. The Superior Unit (0â&#x20AC;&#x201C;30 cm depth) contains thousands of bony and dental remains with different degrees of fragmentation, comminglement, arrangement and anatomic association. In the Inferior Unit (below 30 cm) 42 burials were detected, many of them associated with subsuperficial stone structures. To this moment a preliminary MNI of 216 was estimated. In order to obtain sex information from the commingled sample, metric techniques of numerous bones (for example, first rib, hand, foot and long bones) and teeth were applied. Previously, the applicability of each technique was tested in a control sample (complete burials from the Chenque I site and Tapera Moreira Locality) comparing the more reliable results obtained analyzing the morphology of the os coxae and the skull, and the diameters of the humerus and femur heads, with the alternative metric ones. The results are very satisfactory because it was possible to obtain data of 19 individuals, totaling 44 adults, with gender information for the whole site. As a consequence of this it is possible to affirm that the osteological samples that include elements of many individuals without anatomical integrity offer very important data to develop reliable mortality profiles.

INTRODUCTION Adult sex determination using human bones and teeth is, together with the estimation of the age at death, one of the first and more important aspects of any bioarchaeological analysis because the generation of adequate and representative mortality profiles depends on the reliability of the results obtained. In archaeology, the sex of the individuals is a fundamental variable that contributes to the knowledge of the demographic structure of the samples studied in each case. In order to obtain this set of information it is necessary to observe certain morphological and metric features in the remains, to compare the obser ved aspects with standards that show the dimorphic variation previously registered in contemporary samples of known origin, and to evaluate any possible source of variability that may distort the association between both sets of data (Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994; Kurki 2005; Ubelaker 1989). To determine the adult sex from the skeleton and the dentition, there exists a set of systematic procedures that offers the possibility of obtaining this

Alternative Methodological Procedures in Sex Determination…

information in a reliable way when the preservation of the human remains is good enough and a multifactorial estimation (also named “multiregional approach”) is performed, which implies the evaluation of all the methods available for each particular case to obtain a final estimated value that includes the variability of the partial results (Bedford et al. 1993; Buikstra & Mielke 1985; Isçan 1989; Lovejoy et al. 1985). However, in many cases the preservation and anatomical association of the elements do not allow development of this protocol of research, and the gender information obtained is minimal. Investigations with secondary burials all around the world tend to discard the samples that show a high degree of peri- and/or postdepositational modifications, due to the presumed poor quality and quantity of information that is offered. With very few exceptions, the bioarchaeological studies prefer samples that contain well-preserved remains, especially those that allow applying the traditional techniques for age at death estimation and sex determination. This tendency is mainly due to the fact that the recovery and analysis of samples with a high degree of fragmentation and/or removal is very time consuming (Luna 2003, 2008). Students who evaluate commingled and removed skeletal samples need to use alternative techniques for sex determination, which are in general available from forensic anthropology, though the relevance of applying them in assemblages from different geographical and/or temporal origin must be previously analyzed. When working with this sort of sample, disadvantages generally arise in the information about the sex of the individuals. In this chapter a methodological protocol developed to test the applicability of a series of alternative techniques not commonly used in bioarchaeology is presented. These techniques were tested in a sample of complete burials from the Chenque I site and Tapera Moreira Locality (Western Pampas, Argentina). Some of them allowed obtaining valuable information in a set of human fragmented and removed remains from the Chenque I site. The aim is to show the procedure designed for the analysis of this sample of numerous but disturbed remains, and to discuss the results taking into consideration its context of recovery and the whole bioarchaeological record recovered in that cemetery. When different human populations are compared the dimorphic patterns can be very variable, for which the application of some techniques developed with reference samples whose characteristics are different from those of the studied record must be carried out with precaution, evaluating the reliability of the results (Roberts & Manchester 1999). The sexual dimorphism of some morphological variables of the innominate tend to be much less variable

Leandro Hernán Luna

worldwide than skeletal metric variables, and for it they allow generation of a methodological anchorage for testing the application of alternative techniques that evaluate bones and teeth that are usually recovered in high frequencies in fragmented bioarchaeological samples.

PRINCIPAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHENQUE I SITE AND TAPERA MOREIRA LOCALITY This investigation is centered at the Chenque I site, a prehispanic cemetery located in the Lihué Calel National Park (La Pampa province, Western Pampean Region, Argentina) (Figure 1). Hunter-gatherer societies made use of it during the end of the Late Holocene, between 1030 and 370 14C years before the present. Due to the great quantity of information obtained, the Chenque I site is one of the most important hunter-gatherer’s mortuary sites in Argentina. Forty-nine square meters have been excavated, about 23% of the total area. It has two units clearly defined, with very different characteristics. The Superior Unit (0–30 cm depth) contains thousands of skeletal and dental remains with different degrees of fragmentation, comminglement, arrangement and anatomic association. In the Inferior Unit (below 30 cm), 42 burial structures have been detected. A lot of cultural material was recovered in both stratigraphic units. Most of the artifacts are beads manufactured in different raw mater ials (mollusks, bone, stone, etc.), but other ornaments have also been identified (for example metal pendants). No European elements were found. Considering the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) for each Unit, the final value is 216 individuals (127 in the Superior Unit and 89 in the Inferior Unit), both adults and subadults, surpassing any estimation previously known in the Pampean Region. So it is implied that several hundred bodies have been buried in this site, a specially interesting point because the societies that inhabited the area were hunter-gatherer groups with high logistic mobility and long-distance interaction networks (Aranda 2007; Berón 2004; Berón & Luna 2007; Berón et al. 2002, 2007; Luna 2003, 2008; Luna et al. 2004, 2008). Other burials were recovered from Tapera Moreira Locality, about 80 km south-southeast from the Chenque I site. It is located in the Lihué Calel district, on the Curacó river bank (Figure 1). This locality extends over a large surface of land where several discrete concentrations of surface and subsurface archaeological materials were recorded. Five archaeological sites have been identified, showing important differences in terms of topographical and

Alternative Methodological Procedures in Sex Determination…

archaeological contexts. In Site 3 the remains of two individuals were excavated, a male and a female. The La Lomita site is a distance of 200 m from the southeast in Tapera Moreira Locality. A male and a female were 14 recovered from this site. Two C dates locate these burials in the beginning of the Late Holocene (2630 ± 60 and 2960 ± 50 years BP; Beta 82558 and Beta 91934 respectively) (Berón 2004; Berón & Baffi 2003).

Figure 1. Location of La Pampa province (Argentina) and the archaeological sites from which the samples come.

Leandro HernĂĄn Luna

OSTEOLOGICAL DETERMINATION OF SEX When a human adult skeleton is complete and well preserved, the sex can be determined with almost 100% of reliability (Bass 1987; Buikstra & Mielke 1985; Krenzer 2006; Rosing et al. 2007). This is a far from common situation of recovery in archaeological cases, since in general the remains may be partly damaged, fragmented or removed. In addition, the phenotypic variability of the population from which the remains come from is not usually known, and except particular sets of variables such as the pelvic morphology, reference samples from which constructing worldwide techniques for sex determination are not available (Va n vark & Schaafsma 1992). Some populations are composed by more robust and taller individuals for both sexes, while others are characterized by an opposite trend, for what if methodological suitable tools are not used, the interpopulation differences may produce an important percentage of bias in the sexual assignment (Frayer & Wolpoff 1985; Hamilton 1982; White & Folkens 1991). Females show higher resistance than males to decelerate their growth in adverse socioambiental situations, since their reproductive function makes necessary the storage of corporal fat for future pregnancies. On the contrary, male corporal growth may be comparatively more retarded, diminishing the dimorphic differences in the phenotype. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s why in situations of long term metabolic stress during growth a decrease in skeletal sexual dimorphism may be produced, affecting principally the size of the bones (Frayer & Wolpoff 1985; Hamilton 1982; Pucciarelli et al. 1993, 1996; Stini 1969, 1985). In these cases pelvic morphology is little modified by stress situations, fact that allows sex determination of the individuals independently of the characteristics of the socioambiental context (Brothwell 1993; Bruzek & Murail 2006; Ortner 2003; White & Folkens 1991). This is a very important point for the development of bioarchaeological analyses, because evaluation of the hip is the unique methodological way that gives universal reliability to the results (Rosing et al. 2007). Moreover, another dimorphic indicator that is little influenced by environmental conditionings and whose growth is mainly ruled by gene information is dentition (BalciunienĂŠ & Jankauskas 1993; Hillson 1986, 1996; Huss-Ashmore et al. 1982; Stini 1985). Teeth offered very important gender data in this investigation because they are better preserved than the bones in the sample. Two different approximations of adult sex determination can be identified. One of them analyzes the morphologic characteristics of the pelvis and the skull, and the other, bone and teeth metrics (Krenzer 2006; Slaus & Tomicic

Alternative Methodological Procedures in Sex Determination…

2005). Some scholars evaluate only the morphological features since they are not size-dependant, whereas others choose the metric methods because of their objectivity and reproductibility (Bidmos & Asala 2004). Most of the usually applied methods have been generated with the Terry (Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC) and Hamann-Todd (Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Ohio) collections. From a series of studies it was possible to establish that three areas of the skeleton are more reliable to sex determination: first the coxal, then the cranium, and finally the measurements of some dimensions of the long bones, specially the maximum diameters of the femur and humerus heads (Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994; Ferembach et al. 1980; Krogman & Isçan 1986; Roberts & Manchester 1999; White & Folkens 1991). Most of the scholars (v.g., Brothwell 1993; Bruzek & Murail 2006; Buikstra & Mielke 1985; France 1997; Krogman & Isçan 1986; Rosing et al. 2007; Walker 2005) state that the coxal, whose anatomy is determined by the childbirth, is the most diagnostic bone, with percentages of correct assignments superior to 90%, when variables as the pubic ventral arch ridge, the subpubic concavity, the ischiopubic ramus ridge, the greater sciatic notch and the composite arch (Bass 1987; Bruzek 2002; Buikstra & Mielke 1985; Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994; Krogman & Isçan 1986; Phenice 1969; Ubelaker 1989) are analyzed. The skull has been also very used (Bruzek & Murail 2006; Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994; White & Folkens 1991), though it does not offer so satisfactory results (France 1997). Differences in robusticity may be identified since the muscular system of male is stronger and according to this, the insertions are more developed, as the nuchal crest, the mastoid process, the supra-orbital margin and the supraorbital ridge (Acsádi & Nemeskéri 1970; Buikstra & Mielke 1985; Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994; Ferembach et al. 1980; Rosing et al. 2007). On the other hand, the only metric techniques systematically used in postcranial skeleton are the vertical and transverse measurement of femoral and humeral head diameters (Buikstra & Ubelaker 1994; Krogman 1962; Thieme 1957). Despite its usual application, an important variation in the values registered for males and females in different samples of the world exists, for what it is important to keep in mind possible interpopulation variations when using these methods (Asala 2002; Asala et al. 2004; France 1997; Isçan & Shihai 1995; King et al. 1998; Mall et al. 2000; Purkait & Chandra 2004). Many studies were developed to evaluate whether hip morphologic and metric methods offered satisfactory results in samples of different origin. For example, Sutherland & Suchey (1991) applied the method of Phenice (1969) in a forensic documented sample from the United States (European and African ancestors) and obtained very satisfactory results, with 96% of the

Leandro Hernán Luna

cases correctly sexed. Most of the tests on the os coxae in different populations showed similar results (v.g., Lovell 1989; Patriquin et al. 2003; Walker 2005). Respect of the cranium, Gulekon & Turgut (2003) and Rogers (2005) identified important population differences in several variables, concluding that sex determination is only reliable in a low percentage of cases and that most of the skulls could not be sexed. Skull studies for sex determination suggest more variability compared with those focused in pelvis, and a higher incidence of environmental constraints in the manifestation of the dimorphic characteristics (Duric et al. 2005; Kjellstrom 2004; Walrath et al. 2004). This higher variability may be consequence of two different facts: first, the skull does not have a reproductive function, for what its morphology is not restricted to any structural limits, and second, the hardness of the diet deeply affects the muscular structure in the perimandibular area. Besides, women hormonal changes produced after the menopause also produce a “masculinization” of the female skulls (Duric et al. 2005; Kjellstrom 2004; Meindl et al. 1985). In conclusion, it can be stated that the pelvic girdle is the portion of the skeleton from which better results can be obtained, in any population; this means that the morphologic methods previously mentioned for the os coxae can be used with confidence in archaeological samples. On the contrary, results from skull are more variable, so when in any individual, os coxae and skull offer dissimilar results, the information of the first one is surely more reliable (Bruzek 2002; Kjellstrom 2004; Mays & Cox 2000; Murail et al. 1999; Walker 1995).

ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR SEX DETERMINATION IN ADULTS Many bioarchaeological samples contain a percentage of damaged, fragmented or mixed remains. Those elements that are usually studied for sex determination may be deteriorated due to its size, form and density, so often this information can be only obtained with a fraction of the whole sample (Alemán Aguilera et al. 2000; Luna 2008). Therefore, the generation and testing of alternative methods has been an area of very active investigation in the last two decades. Many investigations that evaluate alternative skeletal elements and generate formulae for sex determination have been developed. Most of them are based on metrics, though some also evaluate several

Alternative Methodological Procedures in Sex Determination…

morphological features (Bruzek & Murail 2006; France 1997; Wright & Yoder 2003). All these proposals highlight that each method has a high populational specificity; this means that they should not be applied directly and without previous testing in samples whose dimorphic characteristics are supposed to differ from those used to generate them (Bruzek & Murail 2006; Celbis & Agritmis 2006; Ferembach et al. 1980; Isçan et al. 1998; Mays & Cox 2000). The metric analysis of the dentition is especially important in this paper, since it is commonly stated that its size is not modified after the subadult formation and calcification phase (Garn et al. 1964; Harris et al. 2001; Hillson 1996). Several investigations have demonstrated that, though the linear variations between sexes are small, statistically significant differences exist in some of them, in populations of different regions of the world (i.e. Ling & Wong 2007). Nevertheless, this analysis is not very used in bioarchaeological samples for sex determination. The most important obstacle is that the degree of sexual dimorphism here also would present an important interpopulation variation, for what the applicability of the methodologies is again restricted to the same populations from which they were developed (Gonzalez Martín 1999; Hillson 1986; Kondo & Townsend 2004; Saunders et al. 2007; Schwartz & Dean 2005). In general, for the permanent dentition the canines and the second molars are the most dimorphic teeth (Acharya & Mainali 2007; Frayer & Wolpoff 1985; Garn et al. 1964; Isçan & Kedici 2003; Jagu 1987; Saunders et al. 2007). In addition, bucolingual diameters show higher sexual dimorphism than mesiodistal diameters (Ferembach et al. 1980; Frayer & Wolpoff 1985; Isçan & Kedici 2003; Kondo & Townsend 2004).

M ATERIAL AND M ETHODS Two different samples were analyzed in this paper, called “control” and “fragmented” samples. The control sample includes 24 individuals from the Inferior Unit of the Chenque I site and two burials from Tapera Moreira Locality site 3 and the La Lomita site (Table 1). These individuals were studied for sex determination using a multifactorial perspective, evaluating the sexual characteristics in all the anatomical dimorphic portions so that reliable results could be obtained.

Leandro Hernán Luna

Table 1. Sex, age and chronology of the burials included in the control sample (extracted from Berón et al. 2007 and Luna 2008) Site STM (Site 3) La Lomita

Chenque I

# Burial 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 7 10 12 13 15 16 17 19 20 Assemblage 21/23

22 24 25 26 27 (Ind. 1) 27 (Ind. 2)

Sex M F M F M F M F F M M M M M M F M M M M F F F F F M M

Age (years) Adult 35-40 24-26 Adult 40-44 35-40 50-59 25-30 30-39 40-50 40-44 22-24 30-39 17-19 40-49 40-49 30-39 30-40 > 60 40-50 Adult 21-24 27-30 40-50 25-28 40-49

C BP AMS 2630 ± 60 2960 ± 50 730 ± 50 — — — — 904± 43 — — — 830 ± 40 370 ± 40 990 ± 60 — —

Beta 82558 Beta 91934 UGA 02001 — — — — AA 35952 — — — UGA 10625 UGA 10626 UGA 2002 — —

320 ± 30

UGA 2003

— — — —

370 ± 30

UGA 2000

Lab. code

To determine the sex of the individuals in the control sample the most commonly used techniques were applied (the pubic ventral arch ridge, the subpubic concavity, the ischiopubic ramus ridge, the greater sciatic notch and the composite arch for the os coxae; and the nuchal crest, the mastoid process, the supra-orbital margin and the supra-orbital ridge for the skull (Acsádi & Nemeskéri 1970; Bass 1987; Bruzek 2002; Buikstra & Mielke 1985; Buikstra

Alternative Methodological Procedures in Sex Determination…

& Ubelaker 1994; Ferembach et al. 1980; Krogman & Isçan 1986; Phenice 1969; Ubelaker 1989). Priority was given to the results obtained from the observation of the os coxae. With this procedure, the information referred as to the "most reliable” sex of the individuals was obtained, summarized in Table 1. This information allowed to develop the second methodological step, which consisted in the comparison of this “reliable results” with those obtained from the application of a series of quantitative alternative methods for each individual, following the procedures proposed by Hamilton (1982), Murail et al. (1999), Ortner (2003) and Ortner & Putschar (1985), among others. The fragmented sample contains more than 50,000 fragments of osseous and dental human remains , recovered mainly from the Superior Unit of the Chenque I site, but also from around and below the burials. These elements were studied in previous papers to obtain information about the mortality profile, metabolic stress and corporal demands of the individuals buried in this cemetery, together with the other sample (Luna 2006, 2008; Luna & Aranda 2005, 2010). In this paper, only the fragments that could be measured were included in the analysis. The methodological procedure was as follows: first, measures required by every alternative method were taken and the original formulae were applied to the individuals included in the control sample. Measures lower than 10 cm were taken using a vernier caliper (0.02 mm of error), whereas longer ones were measured with an osteometric board. Sex was determined taking into account the original papers. Most of the formulae are discriminant functions whose results must be compared with a previously established section point to infer the probable sex (v.g., Asala 2001, 2002; Asala et al. 2004; Bidmos & Asala 2004; Isçan & Shihai 1995; King et al. 1998; Purkait & Chandra 2004; Steele 1976). The only exceptions are the formulae for metatarsals in Robling and Ubelaker (1997); here each value must be introduced in two formulae, one assigned to females and the other to males. The probable sex corresponds to that one that gives the highest final value (Luna 2008). Once inferred the sex with the alternative techniques for each individual, this group of results was compared with those obtained by the conventional methods, and the percentage of agreement was calculated. If for a method the percentage of cases correctly assigned was greater than 75% for each sex, it was considered that the results derived from it were reliable (Saunders 1992). Some scholars argue that when the precision of the results is high for one sex and low for the other, the application of that method is not usually satisfactory when applying it to another samp le of the same origin (Albanese et al. 2005). Here, if the percentage for males and/or females was lower than 75%, a new

Leandro Hernรกn Luna

section point was calculated for the original discriminant function, considering the actual dimorphic characteristics of the control sample. For the formulae generated by Robling & Ubelaker (1997), they were directly discarded. The new section point was calculated as the average of closer extreme and correct results of both sexes (the higher value for females and the lower value for males ). This new section point was used to recalculate the percentages of correct sex assignation. The outliers were excluded for each sex. This procedure follows the proposals stated by Albanese et al. (2005). Again, if the percentage was greater than 75% for both sexes, using this new discriminatory threshold, the formula was added to the reliable group, whereas if at least one sex showed lower percentages, it was definitively discarded (Luna 2008). The generation of a new section point, specific for each sample, is a procedure developed for the first time by Steele (1976). Using human remains from the Terry Collection, this author developed several formulae to determine sex by the calcaneus and talus, and could determine that the only isolated variable that offered high percentage of cases correctly identified was the maximum length of the talus, with a section point of 52 mm. Thereafter he tested the discriminant functions using a skeletal sample from the Arikara protohistoric village of Larson (United States). As the average of the lengths for the talus did not significantly differ from those of the Terry Collection, the same section point was used, and the sex could be correctly identified in 85% of the individuals. However, in a bioarchaeological sample from two Pueblo sites in the Southeast of the United States (Pueblo Bonito and Hawikuh) the section point was redefined in 47 mm, so that 80% of the individuals could be sexed. With this correction, the final precision was similar to the original one, reason why the author stated that for any population, the discriminant functions can work satisfactorily after recalculating a new section point if the sample differs from that used for the generation of the formulae. This procedure has been used in several other osteological studies (v.g., Calcagno 1981; Uytterschaut 1986). With this procedure a set of alternative formulae was identified in this paper, which offered reliably data about the sex of the individuals included in the control sample. This set of formulae was later used in the fragmented sample. Since several of them could sometimes be applied to a same bony element (v.g., for the metacarpals), the quantity of male and female results were compared in each case, and the sex was finally determined according to the higher one. When the quantity of determinations for both sexes was the same, that element was assigned as indeterminate. This is the most suitable procedure when it must be decided which functions may be used in a

Alternative Methodological Procedures in Sex Determination…

bioarchaeological sample, since the conjunction of the results from several functions contributes to a more reliable determination and diminishes the distorting effects that the structure of the origin sample may produce (Bruzek 1995; Purkait & Chandra 2004; Trancho et al. 1997). The results of the quantitative methods may be influenced by intraobserver error during the measure process. To evaluate this, 30 cases (or the total sample for those variables represented in less than 30 cases) for each variable were chosen for the statistical estimation of the intraobserver error using the ICC (Intraclass Coefficient of Correlation; Norman & Streiner 1992; Zar 1999), with the program R 1.9.1. (Paradis 2003). Each variable was measured twice, and each set of observations was made with one week of difference to the other. The elements were randomly measured. The alternative methods evaluated are described in the following sections and summarized in Table 2. These methods include 84 different formulae. The sample size varied for each method, so that the values are shown in that table for each particular case. Those elements that displayed any kind of pathology in the zones where the measurements had to be taken were excluded in this analysis.

Upper Limb Methodologies developed for diverse contemporary populations (Spanish, American and English) and for an archaeological sample (from Illinois, United States) have been chosen. These methods take into account most of the bones of the upper limb: the humerus (Alemán Aguilera et al. 2000), the radius (Berrizbeitia 1989; Trancho et al. 2000), the ulna (López-Bueis et al. 2000), the metacarpals and the first proximal phalange of the hand (Falsetti 1995; Scheuer & Elkington 1993; Stojanowski 1999; Wilbur 1998). These papers offer uni- and multivariate discriminate functions that take into consideration the diversity in the potential fragmentation of these elements. The humerus and the metacarpals are the more studied bones of the upper limb. For the first one, specific discriminant functions for contemporary populations of Guatemala (Ríos Frutos 2005), South Africa (Steyn & Isçan 1999) and Germany (Mall et al. 2001) have been developed. For metacarpals, Falsetti (1995) and Scheuer & Elkington (1993) generated discriminant functions based on multiple measurements, while Wilbur (1998) propose an univariate formula that only requires the measurement of the maximum length. The multivariate formulae developed by Stojanowski (1999) constitute an

Leandro Hernán Luna

important advance on these works because they evaluate some special areas of the metacarpals, so that fragments of those bones may be used in sex determinations.

Lower Limb Here the formulae developed for populations of different origins have been considered. In addition to some techniques generated with samples of Spaniards and contemporary Americans, others of Guatemalans peasants, historic Portuguese, and of archaeological sites from New Zealand and the state of Illinois (United States) are also included. This way, populations with very different sexual dimorphism are included (Table 2). Formulae for the femur (Ríos Frutos 2003; Seidemann et al. 1998; Trancho et al. 1997), tibia (Bruzek 1995; Holland 1991), fibula (Robledo et al. 2000), talus (Murphy 2002a; Silva 1995; Steele 1976; Wilbur 1998), calcaneus (Introna et al. 1997; Murphy 2002b; Silva 1995; Steele 1976; Wilbur 1998) and metatarsals (Robling & Ubelaker 1997; Wilbur 1998) were chosen (Table 2). Femur is the bone that more attention has received. The maximum diameter of the femoral head, a measure traditionally evaluated, varies significantly among populations (Asala 2002; France 1997), for what a previous testing of the method is needed when applied to archaeological samples, or the generation of population-specific regression formulae (v.g., Asala 2001, 2002; Asala et al. 2004; Isçan & Shihai 1995; King et al. 1998; Mall et al. 2000; Purkait & Chandra 2004). In the same way, Seidemann et al. (1998) and Ríos Frutos (2003) evaluate the sexual dimorphism of the vertical diameter of the femoral neck, the portion of the bone that is often better preserved. This variable also displays important population variations (AlunniPerret et al. 2003; Stojanowski & Seidemann 1999). Respect to the tibia, Bruzek (1995), González-Reimers et al. (2000) and Mall et al. (2001) identified different degrees of sexual dimorphism in contemporary samples and generated specific formulae for each case. For calcanei and talus, discriminant functions for different contemporary populations were generated (Bidmos & Dayal 2004; Gualdi- Russo 2007; Introna et al. 1997; Riepert et al. 1996; Steele1976). Moreover, Murphy (2002a and b) developed specific formulae for prehistoric groups of New Zealand. He analyzed an osteological sample with complete or almost complete skeletons, developed functions with a fraction of it and tested them with another one from the same origin.

Table 2. Alternative quantitative methods for adult sex determination tested in this chapter with the original information about the samples Male Reference Alemán Aguilera et al. (2000) Berrizbeitia (1989) Trancho et al. (2000) López-Bueis et al. (2000) Falsetti (1995) Stojanowski (1999) Wilbur (1998) Scheuer y Elkington (1993)

Procedence and location Contemporary Spaniards. Cemetery of San José of Granada, Granada, Spain. Contemporary Americans of European and African ancestors. Terry Collection. Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Contemporary Spaniards. Complutense University, Spain.

Bone HU

N 45 NA

% 62.596.9

Female N % 75.650 100

Total % 71.295 96.7

567

RA 266 UL

Contemporary Americans of European and African ancestors. Terry Collection. Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Contemporary Americans of European and African ancestors. University of New México. Four archaeological sites from Illinois (United States). University of Indiana (Bloomington).

Contemporary English.

MC and 1PHP

87.8100 84.295,9

76 76

93.6100 87.197.9

342 142

91.297.8 90.894.3

109

103

212

84.392

122

74-90

125

151

276

71.489.7

74-94

Table 2. (Continued) Reference Seidemann et al. (1998) RĂos Frutos (2003)

Holland (1991) Bruzek (1995) Robledo et al. (2000) Murphy (2002)

Silva (1995)

Procedence and location Contemporary Americans of European and African ancestors. Hamann-Todd Collection. Museum of Natural History, Cleveland. Contemporary Guatemalan peasants. Foundation of Forensic Anthropology of Guatemala. Contemporary Americans of European and African ancestors. Hamann-Todd Collection. Museum of Natural History, Cleveland. Preindustrial Portuguese. Anthropological Museum of the University of Coimbra. Contemporary Spaniards. Complutense University, Spain. Archaeological sites of New Zealand. Department of Anatomy and Structural Biology, Otago School of Medical Sciences, New Zealand Portuguese (XIX and XX c. AC.). Anthropological Museum of the University of Coimbra.

Bone

Male N %

Female N %

Total N %

102

101

203

94.9

86.7

114

89.5

120

85100

63-89.1

71.687.8

110

85.193.3

81.386.3

82.989.4

165

82.187.9

71.487.7 78.689.4

95 202

68.488.4 76.186.1

Table 2. (Continued) Reference Steele (1976) Wilbur (1998) Introna et al. (1997)

Murphy (2002)

Silva (1995)

Steele (1976) Wilbur (1998) Robling y Ubelaker (1997)

Procedence and location Contemporary Americans of European and African ancestors. Terry Collection. Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Four archaeological sites from Illinois (United States). University of Indiana (Bloomington). Italian contemporaries. Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Bari. Archaeological sites of New Zealand. Department of Anatomy and Structural Biology, Otago School of Medical Sciences, New Zealand. Portuguese (XIX and XX c. AC.). Anthropological Museum of the University of Coimbra. Contemporary Americans of European and African ancestors. Terry Collection. Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Four archaeological sites from Illinois (United States). University of Indiana (Bloomington). Contemporary Americans of European and African ancestors. Terry Collection. Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.

Bone

Male N %

Female N %

Total N %

120

127

155

282

88.493.5

78.189.7

85.995.1

165

82.192.6

119

125

170

295

66.796.8

100

50-100

100

40100

200

69.2100

83-88

66.7100 66.285

Table 2. (Continued) Reference Wilbur (1998) Marino (1995) Wescott (2000) Miller et al. (1998) Reesink et al. (1999) González Martín (1999) Isçan y Kedici (2003)

Procedence and location Four archaeological sites from Illinois (United States). University of Indiana (Bloomington). Contemporary Americans of European and African ancestors. Terry and Hamann-Todd Collections. Museums of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution and Cleveland. Contemporary Americans of European and Hispanic ancestors. Ventura County (California) Medical Examiner’s Office. Contemporary Americans. Department of Anatomy of the University of Leiden. Hispanomuslim Maqbara of San Nicolás (XI to XIII c. AC), Murcia, Spain. Unit of Anthropology of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Students of odontology of the University of Ankara, Turkey.

Male N %

Female N %

121

148

117

200

80.385.6

200

80.85.1

Total N % 63.6269 88 60.0234 92.0 81.7400 83.4

188

69.2

127

75.2

315

40.079.0

82.0

72.0

76.0

155

59.669.1

64.479.2

254

62.971.7

ALL

66.074.0

76.084.0

100

74.077.0

Bone AT

References: HU: Humerus; RA: Radius; UL: Ulna; MC: Metacarpals; 1PHP: First proximal hand phalange; FE: Femur; TI: Tibia; FI: Fibula; TA: Talus; CA: Calcaneus; MT: Metatarsals; AT: Atlas; AX: Axis; HY: Hyoid; C: Permanent canines; ALL: All dentition (except the third molar); N: Number of individuals ; %: Percentage of individuals correctly sexed; NA: Not available

Alternative Methodological Procedures In Sex Determination…

Rest of the Skeleton Four additional methods for sex determination with the atlas (Marino 1995), the axis (Wescott 2000) and the hyoid bone (Miller et al. 1998; Reesink et al. 1999) were chosen (Table 2). However, formulae for the atlas and the hyoids were later discarded because so few cases could be actually measured to establish whether or not the methods were reliable.

Dentition Most of the methods take into consideration measures from several teeth in the same formula (v.g., Black 1978; De Vito & Saunders 1990; Ditch & Rose 1972; Rosing 1983), reason why they were not useful in this case. For permanent dentition only two quantitative methods could be used, one developed by González Martin (1999) for the canines in an archaeological sample from the hispanomuslim Maqbara of San Nicolás (Murcia, Spain, centuries XI to XIII AC), and the other generated for all the teeth (except the third molar) with a sample of students of odontology of the University of Ankara, Turkey (Isçan & Kedici 2003) (Table 2). The direct measures of the mesiodistal and bucolingual diameters of the crown of the permanent dentition were also analyzed. With these measurements two indices commonly used in dental metrics were applied, the Crown Index (CI: bucolingual diameter/mesiodistal diameter x 100) and the Crown Robustness (CR: bucolingual diameter x mesiodistal diameter) (Hillson 1986, 1996; Mayhall 1992, 2000; Vodanovic et al. 2007). This measures and indices were also taken for the neck of each tooth. The same procedure was followed as in the skeletal elements to analyze the final values, but in addition a visual inspection of the results for each tooth was done. In this case, if a set of dental measurements displays sexual dimorphism, a bimodal distribution should be observable, with females in the lowest values, males in the highest, and few intermediate cases.

RESULTS All the statistical analyses done to evaluate the intraobserver error showed that the differences between the measures were not statistically significant,

Leandro Hernรกn Luna

which guarantees that the results are not significantly influenced by errors during the measure of the elements.

Testing of the Methods In Table 3 the information of the formulae that passed the tested is resumed. The size sample, the section point considered (original or reestimated in this paper) and the percentages of correct assignations are included for each case. All these formulae were then applied to the fragmented sample. The different types of teeth offer variable information about sexual dimorphism. Some measures present no bimodal distribution, or a bimodal curve in which some male teeth are located in the lower values and some female teeth in the higher values, or viceversa. Another set of measures offers a bimodal distribution, with male in the highest values and females in the lowest. The variables that display these last characteristics were accepted to be used in the fragmented sample, since they are the only on es that ensure a suitable sex characterization of the isolated teeth. In agreement with the conclusions of previous investigations who studied samples of different origin, canine in general and lower canine in particular are the most dimorphic teeth in this investigation, taking into account the formulae developed by Gonzรกlez Martin (1999) or by the direct metric evaluation. In this later case, many dimorphic variables could be identified. It is the case of second molar, for which the bucolingual and mesiodistal diameters of the crown, and the crown and neck robustness, are variables that discriminate between sexes in a high percentage. Other variables include measures of the upper first incisor, the inferior second premolar and the first and third molars (Table 3).

Results of the Application of the Methods for Sex Determination Table 4 shows the results of the application of all the methods that successfully passed the testing, in the fragmented sample. The quantity of individuals for each sex is included, considering the laterality of each element. That information, summarized, is detailed in Table 5. The presence of similar frequencies of males (52.63%) and females (47.37%) is observed.

Table 3. Formulae accepted, original and corrected section points for sex determination, and percentage of correct assignations with corrected section point in the control sample % of correct assignations Reference

# formula

Bone

3 4 Alemรกn Aguilera et al. (2000)

Trancho et al. (2000)

CSP

Total

0.72368* 1.88819*

100 92.85

80.00 100

92.85 95.00

0.05712* -0.05569* 0.09807*

0.60062* 1.01374* 0.59948*

100 81.81 100

83.33 80 75

95.24 81.25 91.66

0.07595*

0.46353*

100

75.00

90.90

Minimum midshaft diameter Vertical head diameter Transverse head diameter Vertical and transverse head diameter Maximum head diameter

22.50**

23.00**

85.71

80.00

81.81

2 2

Minimum head diameter Maximum head diameter

21.50** 0*

21.65** 0.99758*

77.77 100

80.00 80.00

78.57 93.75

4 5 7

Minimum shaft circumference Distal epiphysis breadth Minimum head diameter Circumference and maximum diameter of the head Minimum and maximum head diameters

0* 0* 0*

0.60475* 3.45880* 0.68178*

100 77.77 100

100 75.00 80.00

100 76.92 94.44

0.45825*

100

0.65605*

100

75.00

93.33

Minimum head diameter and bicipital tuberosity length Minimum diameter at the midshaft Proximal epiphysis length

100

0* 0*

0.51226* 0.93580*

100 75.00

6 7 8

10 11 12

Lรณpez-Bueis et al. (2000)

OSP 0.06612* 0.06136*

11 Berrizbeitia (1989)

Variables Upper limb Minimum shaft circumference Midshaft circumference

2 5

Table 3. (Continued) % of correct assignations Reference

Falsetti (1995)

# formula

Bone

2째MC

4째MC

5 2째MC Stojanowski (1999)

1 3째MC 3

Variables Upper limb Interarticular length, anteroposterior and mediolateral breaths of the midshaft, proximal and distal mediolateral breaths Maximum lengt h, maximum midshaft diameter, mediolateral base and antero-posterior head breadths Maximum length, maximum midshaft diameter, antero -posterior base and head breadth Maximum length, maximum midshaft diameter, antero -posterior and mediolateral base breadths Maximum length, maximum midshaft diameter and anteroposterior base, mediolateral base and antero-posterior head breadths Antero-posterior and mediolateral base breadths Antero-posterior and mediolateral base and head breadths

OSP

CSP

Total

3.18737*

100

-2.12955*

88.88

100

92.31

-0.86122*

100

-0.77377*

100

-0.65857*

100

-0.6974*

100

0.14560*

75.00

85.71

0.39750*

83.33

100

90.90

Table 3. (Continued) % of correct assignations Reference

# formula

Bone

3 4°MC

6 Wilbur (1998)

3°MC

Scheuer and Elkington (1993)

1 4

2°MC 1°PHP

4°MC

1 6 Trancho et al. (1997)

7 8

OSP

CSP

Total

100

Antero-posterior and mediolateral base and head breadths Maximum length, maximum midshaft diameter, mediolateral base and antero-posterior head breadths Maximum length, maximum midshaft diameter, antero -posterior and mediolateral base breadths Maximum length

0.31175*

75.00

80.00

76.92

0.75590*

85.71

80.00

83.33

0.55112*

100

62.9**

63.325**

100

Maximum length, antero -posterior and mediolateral widths of the base and the head, and maximum midshaft diameter

1.50* 1.50*

1.57269* 1.36854*

100 75.00

1.50*

1.26145*

75.00

1.37952*

88.88

85.71

87.50

1.43260*

100

1.52035*

100

2.00511*

100

Upper limb Antero-posterior and mediolateral base breadths

Variables

Lower limb Vertical head diameter Vertical head diameter and distal epicondylar breadth Horizontal head diameter and distal epicondylar breadth Anteroposterior subtrochanteric diameter and distal epicondylar breadth

Table 3. (Continued) % of correct assignations Reference

# formula

Bone

Lower limb Superoinferior femoral neck diameter (African ancestors)

1 Seidemann et al. (1998)

Bruzek (1995: Table 3)

Bruzek (1995: Table 4)

CSP

Total

0.70475*

100

85.71

95.45

Superoinferior femoral neck diameter (European ancestors)

0.2998*

86.66

85.71

86.36

Superoinferior femoral neck diameter (unknown ancestors)

0.42850*

100

85.71

95.45

Proximal epiphysis maximum breadth

15.9500*

4.1300*

90.90

100

92.85

Lateral condyle maximum breadth Proximal epiphysis maximum breadth, lateral and medial condyles maximum breadth

7.52410*

2.27739*

83.33

75.00

81.25

-0.0632*

5.58185*

88.88

100

91.66

-0.0632*

2.95453*

81.81

100

85.71

0.5*

0.87000*

90.90

100

92.85

0.5*

1.71029*

81.81

100

85.71

0.90507*

100

75.00

88.88

1.72241*

80.00

75.00

77.77

3 TI

Medial condyle maximum length and breadth Biarticular breadth Medial condyle articular breadth and lengt h

1 6 1 Robledo et al. (2000)

OSP

4 Holland (1991)

Variables

Maximum length Minimum circumference under proximal epiphysis and distal epiphysis maximum breadth

Table 3. (Continued) % of correct assignations Reference

# formula

Bone

Lower limb Maximum length and midshaft circumference

8 9 10 11 Silva (1995)

4 8 S/N 2 TA

Steele (1976)

3 4

Wilbur (1998) Introna et al. (1997)

4 1 CA 2

Variables

Maximum length and Minimum circumference under proximal epiphysis Maximum length and distal epiphysis maximum breadth Maximum length and proximal epiphysis maximum breadth Width and maximum length Width Maximum length Maximum length and maximum width Maximum length, width/length and trochlear width/trochlear length Maximum length, maximum width, body height and trochlear width/trochlear length Maximum length Maximum length, load arm width and breadth of facies articularis talaris post. Maximum length and breadth of facies articularis talaris post.

OSP

CSP

Total

1.85790*

80.00

75.00

77.77

1.60235*

100

75.00

88.88*

0.85134*

100

75.00

88.88

1.17988*

100

0* 0* 52.00**

2.90052* 2.25268* 58.05**

87.5 87.50 81.25

85.71 85.71 85.71

86.96 86.96 82.61

38.75*

42.43751*

93.75

85.71

91.30

75.44*

79.80612*

93.75

83.33

90.90

50.05*

54.12264*

93.75

83.33

90.90

4.65***

5.82***

86.66

85.71

86.36

31.89*

35.44140*

100

80.00

94.74

28.75*

31.15900*

100

80.00

94.74

Table 3. (Continued) % of correct assignations Reference

# formula 3

Lower limb Maximum length, breadth and height of facies articularis cuboidea

6 7

Load arm width and body height

Introna et al. (1997) 5

1 1 2

Murphy (2002: Table 4)

Variables

Maximum length, breadths of facies articularis talaris post. and o f facies articularis cuboidea Maximum length, breadth of facies articularis talaris post. and height of facies articularis cuboidea Maximum length and body height

Murphy (2002: Table 3)

Bone

Maximum length, body height, load arm length and load arm width Maximum lengt h Maximum length and body height

OSP

CSP

Total

25.72*

29.31345*

85.71

100

90.00

28.78*

31.22867*

100

83.33

94.44

29.24*

33.36370*

100

80.00

93.33

25.65*

27.84200*

78.57

100

85.71

25.30*

26.91287*

85.71

80.00

84.21

-0.21444*

2.46030*

100

75.00

94.11

-0.21415* -0.26245*

1.74638* 2.81556*

81.25 87.50

75.00 75.00

79.16 83.33

-0.19153*

1.18943*

100

75.00

94.12

-0.16616*

1.93748*

100

75.00

94.11

0.50657*

87.50

80.00

85.71

32.00*

34.76589*

86.66

80.00

88.88

Silva (1995)

Steele (1976)

Maximum length, load arm length and load arm width Body height, load arm length and load arm width Load arm width and maximum height Body height and load arm width

Wilbur (1998: Table 2)

Body height

4.31***

4.56750***

78.57

75.00

77.27

Wilbur (1998: Table 3)

Body height, maximum length and load arm length

0.109*

1.48854*

100

80.00

94.73

3 4

Table 3. (Continued) % of correct assignations Reference

# formula

Bone

1 2 Wescott 2000

AX 5

Gonzรกlez Martin (1999)

2 4 6 7

This paper

OSP

Rest of the skeleton Maximum sagittal length 0* Maximum sagittal length and 0* superior facet sagittal diameter Maximum sagittal length, superior facet sagittal diameter, superior facet transverse diameter, length of the 0* vertebral foramen and maximum height of the dens

CSP

Total

-0.33536*

80.00

100

87.50

0.17262*

80.00

100

87.50

-0.08473*

80.00

100

87.50

Dentition Bucolingual diameter (left) Bucolingual diameter (right) Bucolingual diameter (left) Mesiodistal diameter (right)

-0.085* -0.074* -0.123* -0.091*

-0.32200* 0.91600* 0.01200* 2.99500*

80.00 80.00 100 100

75.00 100 100 100

77.77 87.50 100 100

Bucolingual diameter (right)

-0.123*

0.37800*

100

1UM

Bucolingual diameter

-0.06905*

100

75.00

90.00

1UI UC

Mesiodistal crown diameter Crown index Crown Robustness Mesiodistal neck diameter Crown Robustness

8.93** 100.94* 124.94* 9.47* 104.09*

75.00 100 88.88 100 88.88

100 100 100 100 80.00

88.88 100 90.90 100 85.71

88.28* 67.79*

100 85.71

100 75.00

100 84.61

8 Isรงan and Kedici (2003)

Variables

1UM 2UM 3UM

Neck Robustness

Table 3. (Continued) % of correct assignations Reference

This paper

# formula

Bone

Variables

Dentition Mesiodistal diameter crown Bucolingual diameter crown

2LPM 2LM 3LM

Crown Robustness Bucolingual crown diameter Mesiodistal crown diameter Bucolingual diameter crown Neck index

OSP

CSP

Total

7.9000** 7.92000**

80.00 83.33

100 80.00

88.88 81.81

64.40500* 8.44** 10.88** 10.56** 96.64722*

80.00 75.00 90.00 87.50 80.00

100 80.00 75.00 100 75.00

88.88 76.92 85.71 92.30 77.77

References: OSP: Original section point; CSP: Corrected section point; HU: Humerus; RA: Radius ; UL: Ulna; 2ยบMC: Second metacarpal; 3ยบMC: Third metacarpal; 4ยบMC: Fourth metacarpal; 1ยบPHP: Proximal hand phalange; FE: Femur; TI: Tibia; FI; Fibula; TA; Talus; CA: Calcaneus; AX: Axis; UC; Upper canine; LC: Lower canine; 1UM: First upper molar; 1UI: First upper incisor; 2UM: Second upper molar; 3UM: Third upper molar; 2LPM: Second lower premolar; 2LM: Second lower molar; 3LM: Third lower molar; *: Result of the formula; **: Direct measure in mm; ***: Direct measure in cm

Alternative Methodological Procedures In Sex Determinationâ&#x20AC;Ś

In agreement with expectations, the elements that offered more information about male and female MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) are those that are smaller and have greater density (see Luna 2008 for details). This way, the importance of the evaluation of alternative elements for sex determination is emphasized, since otherwise an important quantity of relevant information would have remained hidden. For the upper limb, the fourth metacarpal allowed to identify the presence of ten males and nine females, in concordance with the general results. On the contrary, the long bones of that limb were much less represented. In the same way, for the lower limb the results of the talus contrast with those of long bones. The case of the calcaneus is showy, since only two males and two females could be identified. This can be due to the fact that, whereas the talus is a compact bone of regular size, the calcaneus is the biggest bone of the foot and has a relatively extended form, so it can be more easily broken. Regarding the axis, although it is a small bone it was mostly recovered in fragmentation, which diminished the possibility of identification and measuring of the variables required by the formulae (see Table 4).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The general results show that the maximum breadths of the epiphysis and the midshaft diameters and circumferences tend to be more dimorphic than the maximum lengths, which is consistent with the fact that in stress situations during growth the maintenance of morphology is prioritized despite the size. While many of the formulae that include this set of variables have been accepted (v.g., for the femur, humerus and radius), the only elements for which the maximum length offered satisfactory results are the third metacarpal and the fibula (see Table 3).

Table 4. Results of the application of all methods that successfully passed the testing in the fragmented sample

Element HU RA UL

2ยบMC

3ยบMC

4ยบMC

1ยบPHP

Reference Alemรกn Aguilera et al. (2000) Berrizbeitia (1989) Trancho et al. (2000) Lopez-Bueis et al. (2000) Falsetti (1995) Scheuer and Elkington (1993) Stojanowski (1999) Wilbur (1998) Falsetti (1995) Scheuer and Elkington (1993) Stojanowski (1999) Scheuer and Elkington (1993)

M R L IN R

Each method F IN Total L IN R L IN R L IN R

M L IN

11 4

7 3 2 5

3 0 1 4

0 0 0 0

2 7 2 2

0 4 3 3

0 1 0 0

0 2 0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0

9 12 4 7

3 5 5 7

0 1 0 0

10 5

14 0

10 10 0

13 2

All the methods F IN L IN R L IN

Total L IN 1

Table 4. (Continued) Element

TI FI TA

AX 1UI UC

Reference Seidemann et al. (1998) Trancho et al. (1997) Bruzek (1995) Holland (1991) Robledo et al. (2000) Silva (1995) Steele (1976) Wilbur (1998) Introna et al. (1997) Murphy (2002) Silva (1995) Steele (1976) Wilbur (1998) Wescott 2000 This paper Gonzรกlez Martin (1999) This paper

M R L IN R

Each method F IN Total L IN R L IN R L IN R

1 1

0 1

0 0

0 1

1 0

0 0

1 2

1 1

4 4 4

3 4 3

0 0 0

5 4 5

3 4 6

0 0 0

1 1 0

0 1 0

1 1 1 2 2 3

0 0 0 2

0 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 2 5

All the methods F IN L IN R L IN

M L IN

0 0

0 0 0

10 6 9 9 9 9

0 0 0

11 0

0 0 0 0

3 1 1 2 4 8

2 0 0 3

0 0 0 0 0 0

12 0

2 5

0 0 0

4 8

12 0

0 0

Total L IN

Table 4. (Continued) Element

1UM 2UM 3UM LC 2LPM 2LM 3LM

M R

F L IN R

Each method IN Total M L IN R L IN R L IN R

Isçan and Kedici (2003)

This paper

5 3 0

1 6 0

0 0 0

0 1 0

0 4 0

0 0 0

5 0 0

1 0 0

0 0 0

González Martin (1999)

This paper

2 3 2 0

3 1 1 0

0 0 0 0

2 1 1 0

4 3 0 1

0 0 0 0

0 0 3 0

0 0 1 1

0 0 0 0

Reference

F IN R

All the methods IN L IN R L

Total R L IN

0 0

3 0

6 0

0 0

1 0

4 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

3 2 0

1 1 0

0 0 0

1 1 0

3 0 1

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

4 3 0

4 1 1

0 0 0

References: HU: Humerus; RA: Radius; UL: Ulna; 2ºMC: Second metacarpal; 3ºMC: Third metacarpal; 4ºMC: Fourth metacarpal; 1ºPHP: Proximal hand ph alange; FE: Femur; TI: Tibia; FI; Fibula; TA; Talus; CA: Calcaneus; AX: Axis; 1UI: First upper incisor; UC; Upper canine; 1UM: First upper molar; 2UM: Second upper molar; 3UM: Third upper molar; LC: Lower canine; 2LPM: Second lower premolar; 2LM: Second lower molar; 3LM: Third lower molar; M: Male; F: Female; IN; Indeterminate; L: Left; R: Right

Alternative Methodological Procedures In Sex Determination…

Table 5. Resumed distribution of male and females adults identified according to the results of the sex determination Element/anatomical portion

Number of individuals M F IN Total

Fragmented sample HU RA UL 2ºMC 3ºMC 4ºMC 1ºPHP Total upper limb FE

4 6 6 7 3 10 5 10 4

4 7 4 2 7 9 5 9 2

2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1

10 13 10 9 12 19 10 19 7

TI FI TA CA Total lower limb AX Total Rest of the Skeleton 1UI UC 1UM 2UM 3UM LC 2LPM 2LM 3LM Total dentition Total of fragmented sample Total of control sample* Total (both samples)

1 2 4 2 4 2 2 3 3 5 6 0 3 3 2 0 6 10 15 25

1 1 6 2 6 2 2 9 5 0 4 0 4 3 1 1 9 9 10 19

0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 3 11 5 11 4 4 12 8 5 10 0 7 0 3 1 15 19 25 44

References: HU: Humerus; RA: Radius; UL: Ulna; 2ºMC: Second metacarpal; 3ºMC: Third metacarpal; 4ºMC: Fourth metacarpal; 1ºPHP: Proximal hand phalange; FE: Femur; TI: Tibia; FI; Fibula; TA; Talus; CA: Calcaneus; AX: Axis; 1UI: First upper incisor; UC; Upper canine; 1UM: First upper molar; 2UM: Second upper molar; 3UM: Third upper molar; LC: Lower canine; 2LPM: Second lower premolar; 2LM: Second lower molar; 3LM: Third lower molar; M: Male; F: Female; IN; Indeterminate; L: Left; R: Right*: only the burials from Chenque I site are included

Leandro Hernรกn Luna

These tendencies agree with previous considerations arose from other skeletal samples (Hamilton 1982). Although certain interpopulation variation exists, in most of the papers the humerus and femur head diameters, the maximum breadths of the epiphysis and the midshaft circumferences tend to be more dimorphic than the overall lengths, and therefore they are the variables that offer better results for sex determination (Isรงan & Miller Shaivitz 1986; Isรงan et al. 1998; Slaus et al. 2003). Relative to this fact, Purkait & Chandra (2004) establish that the epiphyses are areas where a greater proportion of muscles are inserted respect to the diaphysis, suffering a greater functional workload, which affects the differential robusticity in males and females. Those long bone measures traditionally used for sex determination were reliable when using the new section points in the fragmented sample. The vertical and transversal diameters of the humerus heads, and the vertical diameter of the femoral head, offered a high percentage of correct assignation when measured separately (75.00 to 91.66%; Table 3). On the other hand, although the values for the transverse diameter of the femoral head are low for males (71.42%), when this variable is associated with others the results improve. Several formulae for the bones of the hand (second, third and fourth metacarpals, and first proximal phalanges) offered very satisfactory results, whereas first and fifth metacarpals do not allow discrimination between the sexes (Table 3). Among the bones of the foot, the talus and the calcaneus are the more dimorphic. None of the formulae for the metatarsals (uni- or multivariate) passed the testing. Except for the metatarsals, in general the formulae that evaluate several variables (multivariate) offered better results that those that assess only one (univariate). This tendency is clearly seen for the proximal epiphysis of the tibia, fibula and the calcaneus (Table 3). However, the possibility of obtaining significant results in multivariate formulae is partly diminished since the application depends on the fact that the bone has to be recovered with little deterioration. The results obtained for those three bones exemplify clearly this disadvantage, since sex could be determined only in four tibiae, six fibulae and ten calcanea. Considering all the methods, two interrelated aspects are observed that deserve special attention. On one hand, most of the original proposals erroneously identify an important percentage of females as male in the control sample. On the other, the values of the new section points are greater than the original ones almost in all the cases. This is because the size and the robusticity of the bones studied in this paper come from native populations

Alternative Methodological Procedures In Sex Determinationâ&#x20AC;Ś

from the Argentine Pampas, are very different compared to those evaluated in the generation of the methods. A macroscospic evaluation of the rests from Chenque I site shows that in most of the cases the size and robusticity are much greater than those of skeletons of contemporary Western populations. This is the main reason why it was necessary to modify the section points. The only exception is the formula for the fifth metacarpal (Scheuer & Elkington 1993). Here the results are inverse: all the males were assigned as females. This could be due to a typing error in the publication of this section point, as previously stated by Burrows et al. (2003). Moreover, the high discriminant power of numerous dental elements is clear. Previous studies stated that bucolingual diameters show greater sexual dimorphism than mesiodistal diameters. The results support this suggestion because eight methods that passed the testing evaluate the bucolingual crown diameter, and only five the mesiodistal diameter (four of them of the crown). Since dental wear first affects the mesiodistal diameter, these results allowed obtaining excellent data from the bucolingual diameter of the crown in dental elements with high rates of wear. Another remarkable fact is that only four formulae for the dental neck gave reliable results, which restricted the quantity of teeth with gender information. Since three of these four methods include both the mesiodistal and bucolingual measures, a procedure that is usually used to improve the percentage of correct assignations, evidently the sexual dimorphism of the dental neck is lower than that of the crown. The application of the methodological procedure for testing the previous techniques in the sample allowed obtaining reliable data about the sex of 19 adult individuals in the fragmented sample from the Chenque I site. It is especially important to note that no information would have been obtained if only traditional morphological and metrical observations were used. The information obtained from both subsamples, complemented with age estimations, offered a more reliable mortality curve of the people buried in this cemetery. It was possible to infer interesting patterns related to significant differences in the prevalence of males and females in several age categories. These considerations are beyond the scope of this paper, and can be seen in Luna (2008). For example, a comparison of the mortality curves inferred only for the burials (just those from the Chenque I site) included in the control sample and for both subsamples are shown in Figures 2a and 2b (respectively). For the last one, subadult sex determination was obtained by the comparison and testing of several skeletal and dental methods, whereas age estimation was achieved evaluating the stages of dental formation and calcifications in subadults, and some dental variables like the radicular transparency,

Leandro Hernรกn Luna

periodontal retraction, size of the dental pulp and dental wear for adults (Luna 2006, 2008; Luna & Aranda 2005). When comparing both graphics (Figures 2a and 2b), clear differences in male and female percentages are observed for several groups of age, which emphasize in every bioarchaeological investigation the importance of the development of validation programs to obtain reliable data with samples that do not present optimal conditions of preservation.

Figure 2. Mortality curves from the Chenque I site. A: inferred only for the burials included in the control sample (MNI: 25); B: including both subsamples (MNI: 164)

Alternative Methodological Procedures In Sex Determination…

It is hoped that the results obtained in this paper will be used by scholars of areas adjacent to the Chenque I site as much to compare their own data as to use them as a departure point to apply some of the methods analyzed here in their own bioarchaeological samples. Moreover, it is expected that it may be a first step in developing reliable and complete mortality curves in bioarchaeological samples not only from Pampean and Northern Patagonian hunter gatherers societies but also from the rest of the world.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank Claudia Aranda, Mónica Berón and Inés Baffi for their comments on a previous version of this paper. I also especially appreciate the obser vations made by Luis Borrero, Ricardo Guichón and Mariano Bonomo. This research has been supported with the following Grants: PIP CONICET Nº 5167, PICT 26312 and UBACyT F 183.

REFERENCES Acharya, A. & Mainali, S. (2007). Univariate sex dimorphism in the Nepalese dentition and the use of discriminant functions in gender assessment. Forensic Science International, 173, 47-56. Acsádi, G. & Nemeskéri, J. (1970). History of human life span and mortality. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Albanese, J., Cardoso, H. & Saunders, S. (2005). Universal methodology for developing univariate simple-specific sex determination methods: an example using the epicondylar breadth of the humerus. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, 143-152. Alemán Aguilera, I., Botella López, I. & Ruiz Rodríguez, L. (2000). Determinación sexual mediante análisis discriminante del húmero. In L., Caro Dobón, H., Rodríguez Otero, E., Sánchez Compadre, B., López Martínez, & M. J., Blanco Villegas, (Eds.), Tendencias Actuales de Investigación en la Antropología Física Española (first edition, 159-164). León, Spain: University of León. Alunni-Perret, V., Staccini, P. & Quatrehomme, G. (2003). Reexamination of a measurement for sexual determination using the supero-inferior femoral

Leandro Hernán Luna

neck diameter in a modern European population. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(3), 1-4. Asala, S. (2001). Sex determination from the head of the femur of South African whites and blacks. Forensic Science International, 117, 15-22. Asala, S. (2002). The efficiency of the demarking point of the femoral head as a sex determining parameter. Forensic Science International, 127, 114118. Asala, S., Bidmos, M., & Dayal, M. (2004). Discriminant function sexing of fragmentary femur of South African blacks. Forensic Science International, 145, 25-29. Aranda, C. (2007) Evaluación de la variabilidad de las formas de inhumación en el sitio Chenque I (Parque Nacional Lihué Calel, provincia de La Pampa). In C., Bayón, I., González, N., Flegenheimer, A., Pupio & M., Frère, (Eds.), Arqueología en las Pampa (first edition, 109-128). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Sociedad Argentina de Antropología. Balciuniené, I., & Jankauskas, R. (1993). Odontometry of Lithuanian paleopopulations. Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 51 (1), 31-39. Bass, W. (1987). Human osteology. A laboratory and field manual. Special Pub. Nº 2. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society. Bedford, M., Russell, K., Lovejoy, C., Meindl, R., Simpson, S., & StuartMacadam, P. (1993). Test of the multifactorial aging method using skeletons with known ages-at-death from the Grant Collection. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 91, 287-297. Berón, M. (2004). Dinámica poblacional y estrategias de subsistencia de poblaciones prehispánicas de la cuenca Atuel-Salado-ChadileuvúCuracó, provincia de La Pampa. Unpublished Thesis dissertation. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, University of Buenos Aires. Berón, M., Aranda, C. & Luna, L. (2007). Variabilidad y tendencias temporales de las prácticas mortuorias en el Sitio Chenque I. In Tras las huellas de la materialidad. Resúmenes ampliados del XVI Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina (first edition, 247-253). San Salvador de Jujuy, Argentina: Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales , Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Berón, M., & Baffi, E. (2003). Procesos de cambio cultural en los cazadores recolectores de la provincia de La Pampa, Argentina. Intersecciones en Antropología, 4, 29-44. Berón, M., Baffi, E., Molinari, R., Aranda, C., Luna, L. & Cimino, A. (2002). El Chenque de Lihué Calel. Una estructura funeraria en las “Sierras de la Vida”. In D., Mazzanti, M. , Berón, & F., Oliva, (Eds.), Del Mar a los

Alternative Methodological Procedures In Sex Determination…

Salitrales. 10.000 de Historia Pampeana en el Umbral del Tercer Milenio (first edition, 87-106). Mar del Plata, Argentina: Laboratory of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities, Nacional University of Mar del Plata. Berón, M., Luna, L. & Curtoni, R. (2007). Serranías pampeanas meridionales. Investigaciones arqueológicas en el área de Lihué Calel. In G., Politis , (Ed.), Incuapa-10 años. Monographic Series of INCUAPA N° 4. Olavarría, Argentina, FACSO, UNICEN. In press. Berón M. & Luna, L. (2007). Modalidades de entierro en el sitio Chenque I. Diversidad y complejidad de los patrones mortuorios de los cazadores recolectores pampeanos. In C., Bayón, C., I., González, N., Flegenheimer, A. Pupio, & y M. Frér e, (Eds.), Arqueología en las Pampas (first edition, 129-142). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Sociedad Argentina de Antropología. Berrizbeitia, E. (1989). Sex determination with the head of the radius. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 34 (5), 1206-1213. Bidmos, M. & Dayal, M. (2004). Further evidence to show population specificity of discriminant function equations for sex determination using the talus of South African blacks. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49(6), 15. Black, T. (1978). Sexual dimorphism in the tooth-crown diameter of the deciduous teeth. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 48, 77-82. Brothwell, D. (1993). Desenterrando huesos. La excavación, tratamiento y estudio de restos del esqueleto humano. Madrid, Spain: Fondo de Cultura Económico. Bruzek, J. (1995). Diagnose sexuelle á l´aide de l´analyse discriminante appliquée au tibia. Antropología Portuguesa, 13, 93-106. Bruzek, J. 2002. A method for visual determination of sex, using the human hip bones. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 117 (2), 157-168. Bruzek, J. & Murail, P. (2006). Methodology and reliability of sex determination from the skeleton. In A., Schmitt, E., Cunha, & J., Pinheiro, (Eds.), Forensic Anthropology and Medicine. Complementary Sciences from Recovery to Cause of Death (first edition, 225-242). New Jersey, United States: Humana Press. Buikstra, J., & Mielke, J. (1985). Demography, diet and health. In R. Gilbert, & J. Mielke (Eds.), The Analysis of Prehistoric Diets (first edition, 360422). Orlando, United States : Academic Press. Buikstra, J., & Ubelaker, D. (1994). Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 44. Faytteville, Arkansas.

Leandro Hernán Luna

Burrows, A., Zanella, V. & Brown, T. (2003). Testing the validity of metacarpal use in sex assessment of human skeletal remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(1), 1-4. Calcagno, J. (1981). On the applicability of sexing human skeletal material by discriminant function analysis. Journal of Human Evolution, 10, 189-198. Celb is, O. & Agritmis, H. (2006). Estimation of stature and determination of sex from radial and ulnar bone lengths in a Turkish corpse sample. Forensic Science International, 158, 135-139. De Vito, C. & Saunders, S. (1990). A discriminant function analysis of deciduous teeth to determine sex. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 35, 845858. Ditch, L. & Rose, J. (1972). A multivariate dental sexing technique. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 37, 61-64. Duric, M., Rakocevic, Z. & Donic, D. (2005). The reliability of sex determination of skeletons from forensic context in the Balkans. Forensic Science International, 147, 159-164. Falsetti, A. (1995). Sex assessment from metacarpals of the human hand. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40(5), 764-776. Ferembach, D., Schwidetzky, I. & Stloukal, M. (1980). Recommendations for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons. Journal of Human Evolution, 9, 517549. France, D. (1997). Observational and metric analysis of sex in the skeleton. In K., Reichs, (Ed.), Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains (first edition, 163-186). Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Frayer, D. & Wolpoff, M. (1985). Sexual dimorphism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 14, 429-473. Garn, S., Lewis, A., & Kerewsky, R. 1964. Sex differences in tooth size. Journal of Dental Research,43, 306. González Martín, A. (1999). Infancia y adolescencia en la Murcia musulmana. Estudio de restos óseos. Unpublished Thesis dissertation. Madrid, Spain: Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Madrid. González-Reimers, E., Velazco-Vázquez, J., Arnay-de-la-Rosa, M. & Santolaria-Fernández, F. (2000). Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of the right tibia in the prehispanic population of the Canary Islands. Forensic Science International, 108, 165-172. Gualdi-Russo, E. (2007). Sex determination from the talus and the calcaneus measurement. Forensic Science International, 171, 151-156.

Alternative Methodological Procedures In Sex Determination…

Gulekon, I. & Turgut, H. (2003). The external occipital protuberance: can it be used as a criterion in the determination of sex? Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(3), 1-4. Hamilton, M. (1982). Sexual dimorphism in skeletal samples. In R., Hall, (Ed.), Sexual dimorphism in Homo Sapiens (first edition, 107-163). New York: Praeger. Harris, E., Hicks, J. & Barcroft, B. (2001). Tissue contributions to sex and race: Differences in tooth crown size of deciduous molars. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 115, 223-237. Hillson, S. (1986). Teeth. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hillson, S. (1996). Dental Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holland, T. (1991). Sex assessment using the proximal tibia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 85, 221-227. Huss-Ashmore, R., Goodman, A. & Armelagos, G. (1982). Nutritional inference from paleopathology. In M., Schiffer, (Ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5 (first edition, 395-474). New York: Academic Press. Introna, F., di Vella, G., Capobasso, C. & Dragone, M. (1997). Sex determination by discriminant analysis of calcanei measurements. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 725-728. Isçan, M. (1989). Research strategies in age estimation: the multirregional approach. In M., Isçan (Ed.), Age Markers in the Human Skeleton (first edition, 325-339). Springfield, Illinois: Ch. C. Thomas Publisher. Isçan, M. & Kedici, P. (2003). Sexual variation in bucco-lingual dimensions in Turkish dentition. Forensic Science International, 137, 160-164. Isçan, M., Loth, S., King, C., Shihai, D. & Yoshino, M. (1998). Sexual dimorphism in the humerus: a comparative analysis of Chinese, Japanese and Thais. Forensic Science International, 98, 17-29. Isçan, M. & Miller-Shaivitz, P. (1986). Sexual dimorphism in the femur and tibia. In L., Reichs , (Ed.), Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains (first edition, 101-111). Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Isçan, M. & Shihai, D. (1995). Sexual dimorphism in the Chinese femur. Forensic Science International, 74, 79-87. Jagu, D. (1987). Les vestiges dentaires. In H., Duday, & C. , Masset, (Eds.), Anthropologie physique et archeologie. Methodes d´etude des sepultures

Leandro Hernán Luna

(first edition, 201-297). Paris, France: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). King, C., Isçan, M. & Loth, S. (1998). Metric and comparative analysis of sexual dimorphism in the Thai femur. Journal of Forensic Science, 43(5), 954-958. Kjellstrom, A. (2004). Evaluations of sex assessment using weighted traits on incomplete skeletal remains. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 14, 360-373. Kondo, S. & Townsend, G. (2004). Sexual dimorphism in crown units of mandibular deciduous and permanent molars in Australian Aborigines. Homo, 55, 53-64. Krenzer, U. (2006). Compendio de métodos antropológico forenses para la reconstrucción del perfil osteo-biológico. Guatemala: CAFCA. Center for Forensic Analysis and Applied Sciences. Krogman, W. (1962). The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Krogman, W. & Isçan, M. (1986). The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Second edition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Kurki, H. (2005). Use of the first rib for adult age estimation: a test of one method. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 15, 342-350. Ling, J., & Wong, R. (2007). Tooth dimensions in Southern Chinese. Homo, 58, 67-73. López- Bueis, I., Robledo, B., Del Río, P. & Trancho, G. (2000). Identificación sexual del cúbito mediante funciones discriminantes. In L., Caro Dobón, H., Rodríguez Otero, E., Sánchez Compadre, B. , López Martínez, & y M. J., Blanco Villegas, (Eds.), Tendencias actuales de investigación en la antropología física española (first edition, 173-178). León, Spain: University of León. Lovejoy, C., Meindl, R., Mensforth, R., & Barton T. (1985). Multifactorial determination of skeletal age at death: A method and blind tests of its accuracy. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 68, 1-14. Lovell, N. (1989). Test of Phenice’s technique for determining sex from the os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 79, 117-120. Luna, L. (2006). Evaluation of uniradicular teeth for age-at-death estimations in a sample from a Pampean hunter-gatherer cemetery (Argentina). Journal of Archaeological Science, 33, 1706-1717. Luna, L. (2008). Estructura demográfica, estilo de vida y relaciones biológicas de cazadores-recolectores en un ambiente de desierto. Sitio

Alternative Methodological Procedures In Sex Determination…

Chenque I (Parque Nacional Lihué Calel, provincia de La Pampa). BAR International Series 1886. Oxford: Archaeopress. Luna, L. & Aranda, C. (2005). Evaluación de marcadores sexuales de individuos subadultos procedentes del sitio Chenque I (Parque Nacional Lihué Calel, provincia de La Pampa, República Argentina). Revista Española de Antropología Física, 25, 25-40. Luna, L. & Aranda, C. (2010). Asociación entre cantidad de indicadores dentales de estrés metabólico y edad de muerte en el Sitio Chenque I: su variación por sexo y patrones de inhumación. In M., Berón, L. , Luna, M. , Bonomo, C. , Montalvo, C., Aranda & M., Carrera Aizpitarte (Ed s.), Mamül Mapu: pasado y presente desde la arqueología pampeana (first edition, 211-226). Ayacucho, Pcia. de Buenos Aires, Argentina: Editorial Libros del Espinillo. Luna. L., Aranda, C., Bosio, L. & Berón, M. (2007). A case of multiple metastasis in hunter -gatherers from Argentine Pampean Region. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 18, 492-506. Luna, L., Baffi, E. & Berón, M. (2004). El rol de las estructuras formales de entierro en el proceso de complejización de las poblaciones cazadoras recolectoras del Holoceno Tardío. In G., Martínez, M., Gutiérrez, R. , Curtoni, M., Berón, & P., Madrid, (Eds.), Aproximaciones contemporáneas a la arqueología pampeana. Perspectivas teóricas, metodológicas, analíticas y casos de studio (first edition, 61-73). Olavarría, Argentina: FACSO, UNCPBA. Mall, G., Graw, M., Gehring, K. & Hubig, M. (2000). Determination of sex from femora. Forensic Science International, 113, 315-321. Mall, G., Hubig, M., Buttner, A., Kuznik, J., Penning, R. & Graw, M. (2001). Sex determination and estimation of stature from the longbones of the arm. Forensic Science International, 117, 23-30. Marino, E. (1995). Sex estimation using the first cervical vertebra. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 97, 127-133. Mayhall, J. (1992). Techniques for the study of dental morphology. In S., Saunders, & M. , Katzenberg (Eds.), Skeletal biology of past peoples: research methods (first edition, 59-78). New York: Wiley-Liss. Mayhall, J. (2000). Dental morphology: techniques and strategies. In M. , Katzemberg, & S., Saunders (Eds.), Biological anthropology of the human skeleton (first edition, 103-134). New York: Wiley-Liss. Mays, S., & Cox, M. (2000). Sex determination in skeletal remains. In Cox, M., & Mays, S. (Eds.), Human osteology in archaeology and forensic

Leandro Hernán Luna

sciences (first edition, pp. 117-130). London, England: Greenwich Medical Media. Meindl, R., Lovejoy, C., Mensforth, R., & Walker, R, (1985). A revised method of age determination using the os pubis with a review and tests of accuracy of other current methods of pubic symphyseal aging. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 68, 29-45. Miller, K., Walker, P., & O´Halloran, R. (1998). Age and sex-related variation in hyoid bone morphology. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46(6), 11381143. Murail, P., Bruzek, J. & Braga, J. (1999). A new approach to sexual diagnosis in past populations. Practical adjustments from Van Vark´s procedure. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 9, 39-53. Murphy, A. (2002a). The talus: sex assessment of prehistoric New Zealand Polynesian skeletal remains. Forensic Science International, 128, 155158. Murphy, A. (2002b). The calcaneus: sex assessment of prehistoric New Zealand Polynesian skeletal remains. Forensic Science International, 129, 205-208. Norman, G. & Streiner, D. (1992). Bioestadística. Buenos Aires: Mosby/Doyma Libros. Ortner, D. (2003). Identification of pathological conditions in human skeletal remains. Florida: Academic Press. Ortner, D., & Putschar, W. (1985). Identification of pathological conditions in human skeleton remains. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 28. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Paradis, E. (2003). R para principiantes. Paris, France: Institut des Sciences de l´évolutión, Universit Montpellier II. Patriquin, M., Steyn, M. & Loth, S. (2005). Metric analysis of sex differences in South African black and white pelves. Forensic Science International, 147, 119-127. Phenice, T. (1969). A newly developed visual method of sexing in the os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 30, 297-301. Pucciarelli, H., Carnese, F. & Guimarey, L. (1996). Desnutrición y dimorfismo sexual. Ciencia Hoy, 6(34), 53-59. Pucciarelli, H., Carnese, F., Pinotti. L., Guimarey, L. & Goicoechea, A. (1993). Sexual dimorphism in schoolchildren of the Villa IAPI neighborhood (Quilmes, Buenos Aires, Argentina). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 92, 165-172.

Alternative Methodological Procedures In Sex Determination…

Purkait, R. & Chandra, H. (2004). A study of sexual variation in Indian femur. Forensic Science International, 146, 25-33. Reesink, E., Van Immerseel, A., Brand, R. & Bruintjes, T. (1999). Sexual dimorphism of the hyoid bone? International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 9, 357-360. Riepert, T., Drechsler, T., Schild, H., Nafe, B. & Mattern, R. (1996). Estimation of sex on the basis of radiographs of the calcaneus. Forensic Sciences International, 77, 133-140. Ríos Frutos, L. (2003). Brief Communication: Sex determination accuracy of the minimum supero-inferior femoral neck diameter in a contemporary rural Guatemalan population. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 122, 123-126. Ríos Frutos, L. (2005). Metric determination of sex from the humerus in a Guatemalan forensic sample. Forensic Science International, 147, 153157. Roberts, C. & Manchester, K. (1999). The archaeology of disease. New York: Cornell University Press. Robledo, B., López- Bueis, I., Sánchez, J. & Trancho, G. (2000). Peroné: funciones discriminantes para la determinación sexual. In: L., Caro Dobón, H., Rodríguez Otero, E., Sánchez Compadre, B. , López Martínez & y M. J., Blanco Villegas, (Eds.), Tendencias actuales de investigación en la antropología física española (first edition, 179-186). Leon, Spain: University of León. Robling, A., & Ubelaker, D. (1997). Sex estimation from the metatarsals. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42 (6), 1062-1069. Rogers, L. (2005). Determining the sex of human remains through cranial morphology. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50 (3), 1-8. Rosing, F. (1983). Sexing immature human skeletons. Journal of Human Evolution, 12, 149-155. Rosing, F., Graw, M., Marré, B., Ritz-Timme, S., Rothschild, M., Rotzscher, K., Schmeling, A., Schroder, I. & Geserick, G. (2007). Recommendations for the forensic diagnosis of sex and age from skeletons. Homo, 58, 75-89. Saunders, S. (1992). Subadult skeletons and growth related studies. In S. , Saunders, & M. , Katzenberg, (Eds.), Skeletal biology of past peoples: research methods (first edition, 1-20). New York: Wiley-Liss. Saunders, S., Chan, A., Kahlon, B. & Kluge, H. (2007). Sexual dimorphism of the dental tissues in human permanent mandibular canines and third premolars. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 133, 735-740.

Leandro Hernán Luna

Scheuer, J., & Elkington, N. (1993). Sex determination from metacarpals and the first proximal phalanx. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38 (4), 769-778. Schwartz, G., & Dean, M. (2005). Sexual dimorphism in modern human permanent teeth. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 128, 312317. Seidemann, R., Stojanowsky, C. , & Doran, G. (1998). The use of the superiorinferior femoral neck diameter as a sex assessor. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 107, 305-313. Silva, A. (1995). Sex assessment using the calcaneus and talus. Antropología Portuguesa, 13, 107-119. Slaus, M., Strinovic, D., Skavic, J., & Petrovecki, V. (2003). Discriminant function sexing of fragmentary and complete femora: Standards for contemporary Croatia. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48 (3), 1-4. Slaus, M. , & Tomicic, Z. (2005). Discriminant function sexing of fragmentary and complete tibiae from medieval Croatian sites. Forensic Science International, 147, 147-152. Steele, D. (1976). The estimation of sex on the basis of the talus and calcaneus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 45, 581-588. Steyn, M. , & Isçan, M. (1999). Osteometric variation in the humerus: sexual dimorphism in South Africans. Forensic Science International, 106, 7785. Stini, W. (1969). Nutritional stress and growth: Sex difference in adaptive response. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 31(3), 417-426. Stini, W. (1985). Growth rates and sexual dimorphism in evolutionary perspective. In R. Gilbert, & J. Mielke, (Eds.), The analysis of prehistoric diets (first edition, 191-226). New York: Academic Press. Stojanowski, C. (1999). Sexing potential of fragmentary and pathological metacarpals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 109, 245-252. Stojanowski, C. & Seidemann, R. (1999). A re-evaluation of the sex prediction accuracy of the minimum supero-inferior femoral neck diameter for modern individuals. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44(6), 1215-1218. Sutherland, L., & Suchey, J. (1991). Use of the ventral arc in pubic sex determination. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36(2), 501-511. Thieme, F. (1957). Sex in negro skeletons. Journal of Forensic Medicine, 4, 72-81. Trancho, G., López-Bueis, I., Robledo, B. , & Sánchez, J. (2000). Diagnóstico sexual del radio mediante funciones discriminantes. In L., Caro Dobón, H., Rodríguez Otero, E., Sánchez Compadre, B. , López Martínez, & y M. J., Blanco Villegas, (Eds.), Tendencias actuales de investigación en la

Alternative Methodological Procedures In Sex Determination…

antropología física española (first edition, 165-172). Leon, Spain: University of León. Trancho, G., Robledo, B., López-Bueis, I. & Sánchez, J. (1997). Sexual determination of the femur using discriminant functions. Analysis of a Spanish population of known sex and age. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42(2), 181-185. Ubelaker, D. (1989). The estimation of age at death from immature human bone. In M., Isçan, (Ed.), Age markers in the human skeleton (first edition, 55-70). Springfield, Illinois: Ch. C. Thomas Publisher. Uytterschaut, H. (1986). Sexual dimorphism in human skulls: a comparison of sexual dimorphism in different populations. Human Evolution, 1, 243-250. Van vark, G., & Schaafsma, W. (1992). Advances in the quantitative analysis of skeletal morphology. In: Saunders, S. , y A., Katzemberg (eds.), Skeletal biology of past peoples: research methods (first edition, pp. 225-257). New York: Wiley- Liss. Vodanovic, M., Demo, Z., Njemirovskij, V., Keros, J. & Brkic, H. (2007). Odontometrics: a useful method for sex determination in an archaeological skeletal population? Journal of Archaeological Science, 34, 905-913. Walker, P. (1995). Problems of preservation and sexism in sexing: some lesions from historical collections for paleodemographers. In S., Saunders, & A., Herring, (Eds.), Grave reflections, portraying the past through cemetery studies (first edition, 31-47). Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars Press. Walker, P. (2005). Greater sciatic notch morphology: Sex, age, and population differences. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 127, 385-391. Walrath, D., Turner, P., & Bruzek, J. (2004). Reliability test of the visual assessment of cranial traits for sex determination. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 125, 132-137. Wescott, D. (2000). Sex variation in the second cervical vertebra. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45 (2), 462-466. White, T., & Folkens, P. (1991). Human osteology. San Francisco: Academic Press. Wilbur, A. (1998). The utility of hand and foot bones for the determination of sex and the estimation of stature in a prehistoric population from WestCentral Illinois. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 8, 180-191. Wright, L., & Yoder, C. (2003). Recent progress in bioarchaeology: Approaches to the osteological paradox. Journal of Archaeological Research, 11 (1), 43-69.

Leandro Hernรกn Luna

Zar, J. (1999). Biostatistical Analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.