Page 117

8
Sex Determination in Skeletal Remains
Simon Mays and Margaret Cox
Introduction
Reliable determination of sex from human skeletal remains is
clearly of fundamental importance, both for personal identification
in forensic work and for studies of earlier populations using
archaeological cemetery data. Sex is generally inferred using
skeletal morphology, but in recent years DNA has also been used
for this purpose in forensic work, and to a more limited extent in
archaeological settings. This chapter concentrates on sexing using
metric or non-metric recording of aspects of skeletal morphology,
while sexing using DNA is covered elsewhere.1
From the outset it is probably useful to clarify terminology,
specifically the difference between sex and gender. Sex is the
biological quality that distinguishes males and females. It is
fundamentally a chromosomal difference, females having two X
chromosomes and males an X and a Y. In the scientific literature
(e.g.2) the terms gender and sex are sometimes used
interchangeably; however, the two are not synonymous. Gender
may be defined as the social significance placed on the biological
differences between males and females. It is therefore a cultural
construct, linked to biological sex but not exclusively defined by it.
In work on archaeological burials it is particularly useful to
preserve this conceptual distinction between sex and gender, as the
biological sex inferred from the skeleton can be used as a reference
point from which to infer gendered differences in past societies.3,4
Hormone-related change is the means whereby sexual differences
manifest in many tissues, including bone. It is the tissue response
to these circulating levels of hormones that dictates the basics of
sexual dimorphism. The development of sex differences in the
skeleton reflects hormonal differences between males and females.
In males, it is the hormones principally secreted by the testes that
elicit the development of male physical features. In mammals, the
ovaries do not appear to be necessary for the development of most
female characters; the female phenotype is the one into which the
foetus will develop unless redirected by male hormones.5
Sex determination from the skeleton relies on the existence of
regular and recordable differences in skeletal morphology between
males and females. The greater the degree of
 Page 118
dimorphism, the more accurate will be the assignment of sex from
skeletal remains. In the male, androgen levels vary with age; in
particular they are much lower before puberty. This means that pre-
pubertal sexual dimorphism in the skeleton is slight, so
determination of sex in the remains of juveniles is much more
difficult than it is in adults. Much of the osteological work directed
at providing morphological sexing techniques for juveniles has
involved attempting to extend the use of morphological indicators
that work well in the adult to immature skeletons. Therefore, in this
chapter we first discuss sexing techniques for the adult, and then
proceed to consider immature remains. We have, unusually,
devoted as much discussion to sexing infants and juveniles as to
adults. This reflects the importance of understanding the difficult
and contentious area of sexing immature remains and its potential
importance in terms of understanding past lives and cultural
practices.

Sex Determination in the Adult Skeleton

When attempting to determine sex in adult skeletal remains it is
essential to examine the whole skeleton, or at least as much of it as
survives. The reliability of sex determination is contingent upon the
completeness of the remains,6 particularly in populations where
levels of sexual dimorphism are relatively low. The two areas of
the skeleton that exhibit sexual dimorphism most strongly in the
adult are the pelvis and the skull, so although the whole skeleton
should be assessed, indicators from these parts should be accorded
the most weight.
Skeletal Sex Indicators
Pelvis
Sexual dimorphism in the pelvis indicates both functional
modification and evolutionary adaptation. The male pelvis has
evolved to ensure successful bipedality. In females, pelvic structure
is modified to ensure that obstetric success is also possible.7,8
Generally, the male pelvis is a high and narrow structure, whereas
that in the female is transversely oval with a relatively wider inlet,
greater pelvic diameter and outlet. Aspects of these differences
provide osteological sex indicators. Phenice9 recognized several
morphological features of the pubic bone that are useful in sexing.
These comprise, for females, the developed ventral arc, subpubic
concavity and the ridged medial border of the inferior pubic ramus.
While the shape of the greater sciatic notch is influenced by the
elevation of the sacrum, a wide, shallow notch is considered to be a
female feature.10 All the above reflect the wider and more open
female pelvic girdle.11 In addition, criteria such as the morphology
of the sacroiliac joints and, in the sacrum, the relative width of the
body and alae are also considered sex indicators.12,13
In the pelvic bones, the presence of the cortical variables pre-
auricular sulci and pubic pitting have traditionally been considered
indicators of female sex.14 However, they are no longer thought to
indicate this; rather they have been shown to be associated with
pelvic shape and size, the large gynaecoid pelvis being associated
with their presence and the android pelvis with their absence.7,15
 Page 119
For the experienced osteologist, reliability of the pelvis in sex
determination in adults is generally good. Phenice's9 criteria were
tested by Sutherland and Suchey16 with 96% accuracy on a large
documented sample (n = 1284) aged between 11 and 99 years,
although they were found to work less well by Lovell17 who
reported 83% accuracy in a smaller collection (n = 50). Meindl et
al.,6 using a modern sample of North American Caucasoids (n =
100), obtained a 96% accuracy rate using a variety of pelvic
features. Some samples, however, are less dimorphic than others
and may challenge even the most experienced osteologist.
Variability in dimorphism between different samples has been
discussed by MacLaughlin and Bruce.18 They note that the greater
sciatic notch/acetabulum index rule of thumb devised by Kelley19
on Native American, Negroid and Caucasoid North American
material was a poor discriminator of sex in a sample comprising
documented British and Dutch material.
Researchers have also evaluated the use of discriminant function
analysis of pelvic measurements and various indices, with differing
success rates. Schulter-Ellis et al.20 examined a sample of 100
North American Caucasoids from the Terry collection and achieved
95% accuracy using an acetabulum/pubis index and 97% accuracy
when this was combined with femoral head diameter. Earlier
work21 on a sample of Negroids from the same collection produced
slightly less accurate results. It is important to remember that the
use of measurements in discriminant function analysis, as with
diagnostic criteria in any sexing method, is most safely employed
in cases or samples where the ancestry of the material under study
is the same as that of the reference sample on which the method
was developed.
Skull
Puberty in females occurs, on average, two years earlier than in
males. Consequently, males have an extra two years of somatic
growth, during which period there is acceleration in muscle mass.
As a consequence, changes occur both at direct sites of muscle
attachment to bone or as a response to the dissipation of forces. It is
these changes that result in sexual dimorphism in the face and
skull. Thus, sexual identification in adolescents depends upon the
timing and duration of puberty. Multifactorial influences also have
a bearing on this expression, including genetics, diet and disease.
In males, cranio-facial changes lead to an elongation of the face, an
enlargement of the supra-orbital ridges and mastoid processes, and
an accentuation of the chin. The upper orbital margins become
thicker and blunter and the orbits become squarer. Changes in the
angle of the ramus and the mandibular body also occur. Females do
not undergo such changes but retain the more gracile juvenile form.
Their foreheads are generally more vertical in profile with well-
defined frontal eminences, while the glabellar region is smoother
than in the male. Muscle markings on the nuchal crest, temporal
bone, temporal crest and around the zygomatic roots, are larger and
heavier in males. Various authors have advocated the use of such
features as sex indicators.13,14,2226
Many workers claim an accuracy for sex identification from the
adult cranium alone of about 80%,12 increasing to 90% if the
mandible is included. Meindl et al.6 found that sex could be
correctly inferred in 92% of skulls from a modern collection of
known sex.
 Page 120
Loth and Henneberg27 have recently attempted to derive a new
method for sexing the mandible. They studied a sample of 300
mandibles from documented adults (mainly Negroids) from the
Dart collection. They discovered a distinct angulation on the
posterior border of the mandibular ramus in adult males. The
overall accuracy of sex determination using this feature, ramus
flexure, was 94%. Koski,28 however, questions the value of ramus
flexure as a sex indicator. He draws attention to the subjective
nature of the feature and the likely problems of inter-observer error
in scoring it, as do Donnelly et al.29 who only achieved a success
rate of 62.5% using it to sex their sample.
Although sexing from the skull is potentially quite reliable,
problems may arise, particularly in weakly dimorphic populations.
For example, the skull may sometimes indicate one sex and the
pelvis the other; in an undocumented Dutch archaeological sample
(n = 202), the mandibles of 51% of those sexed on other criteria as
female, appeared male.30 In instances where sex indications from
the pelvis and the skull are in conflict, it is possible that the former
might be more reliable as dimorphism of the pelvis is directly
related to function. Clearly this hypothesis needs testing on an
appropriate sample of documented sex. Recently, one of the
authors (MC) examined a medieval skeleton from East Anglia
where the skull was characteristically male and the pelvis female.
DNA analysis suggested that the individual was female, but DNA
analysis is not totally reliable.
As with the pelvis, some workers have used discriminant functions
for sexing the skull. In a Japanese collection, Hanihara31 reported
an accuracy of 90% using only three dimensions from the skull,
while Giles32 demonstrated that a similar approach could also be
successfully applied to North American Negroid and Caucasoid
samples. Sexing from the mandible alone using discriminant
function analysis has also been attempted. Hanihara31 reported
85% accuracy from four dimensions, while work conducted by
Giles33 achieved 84% from eight measurements.
High accuracy rates for sex determination have been reported when
using the pelvis and skull combined. Meindl et al.6 achieved a
success rate of 97% on a modern North American sample, and
Molleson and Cox34 reported 98% correctly sexed in the
documented archaeological material of the 18th19th century from
Spitalfields, London.
Other Post-Cranial Elements
To enable fragmentary remains to be sexed, analysis of the
reliability of sex determination using a wide range of bones has
been conducted. Isçan et al.35,36 report 83% accuracy for sex
determination using dimensions of the sternal end of the fourth rib
in a sample of 230 autopsy specimens, and Cologlu et al.37
reported a success rate of 8690% using discriminant function
analysis. However, the problems of successfully identifying the
fourth rib in fragmented material seriously reduce the usefulness of
this method.
Sex differences in the appendicular skeleton have been examined
extensively using discriminant function analysis. Here is not the
place to review in detail this literature, but it is worth mentioning a
few examples. Lui38 examined 17 femoral dimensions, using a
range of statistical approaches in a Chinese sample (n = 141) and
concluded that femoral head diameter is the most reliable (85%).
Trancho et al.'s39 work, based on five measurements on
 Page 121
documented Spanish femora (n = 132), suggests a 99% accuracy,
while that of Seidemann et al.,4 looking at the supero-inferior
femoral neck diameter, achieved success rates of 8792% for
samples of different ancestral origin. It must, however, be
emphasized that approaches based on metrical variation cannot be
relied upon across the board; the value of each must be
demonstrated for the sample under examination.

Sex Determination in the Immature Skeleton

Bones
In the immature skeleton, much of the work that has been
conducted towards establishing criteria for sex determination from
bone morphology has been done on perinatal infants. The main
reason for this is that reference collections of perinatal material of
documented sex are more readily available than are those of older
infants and children. In addition, there are theoretical reasons to
expect that osteological sexual dimorphism will be more
pronounced in foetal and perinatal infants than in older pre-
pubescent individuals. Although always low compared with those
at adolescence, testosterone levels in prepubertal males do vary
during development. In the male foetus, testosterone levels start to
rise at about 8 weeks of gestation and maintain a relatively high
level until birth. Soon after birth, testosterone levels fall and remain
low until puberty.5 In theory then, although one would expect its
expression to be slight compared with that in adults, sexual
dimorphism in immature bones ought to be most readily detectable
in perinatal and foetal age groups.
Most work on osteological sexual dimorphism in non-adults has
concentrated on pelvic morphology, particularly the greater sciatic
notch. It has been noted since at least the last quarter of the 19th
century41 that, as in the adult, the infant sciatic notch is narrower
and deeper in males. Some more recent metric studies (generally
using an index composed of notch length and breadth) support this.
Boucher42 found sexual dimorphism in British Caucasoid (n =
107) and North American Negroid (n = 96) foetal remains, males
showing a deeper, narrower notch. Fazekas and Kósa,43 obtained
similar results from a study on Hungarian forensic foetal material
(n = 104). However, other assessments (e.g. Weaver44 on recent
US foetal and infant material, and Molleson and Cox34 on British
archaeological remains of documented sex) have found no such
dimorphism. Holcomb and Konigsberg,45 working with a
documented US collection (n = 122) of recent foetal material using
an image analysis technique, also failed to find a difference in the
sciatic notch depth:width ratio, although they did find that the
maximum depth of the notch was more anteriorly located in the
male.
Even in those studies where dimorphism in the greater sciatic notch
can be demonstrated in infant and/or foetal pelves, its degree is
slight compared with that seen in adults. For example, in the
Fazekas and Kósa study,43 the mean index (100 × notch
depth/notch width) for males was about 32, about 4 percentage
points greater than the female mean, with a large degree of overlap.
Figures for adults, reported by Hager10 give a mean of about 85 for
males and 63 for females, a difference of fully 22 percentage
points.
The small degree of dimorphism in greater sciatic notch
morphology poses problems when one attempts to develop the
observations of the existence of dimorphism in this feature into
 Page 122
practical techniques for sex determination. The fact that sexual
dimorphism varies between populations, coupled with the
relatively slight sex differences in infant pelves, means that for
archaeological remains, simply measuring infant pelvic bones and
inferring sex by determining whether they group with male or
female bones from a modern reference sample is unlikely to be a
reliable method. One possible approach, if large numbers of infant
bones are available from any one archaeological assemblage, is to
plot the data to determine whether they fall into two separate
clusters. If they do then the inference is that the two clusters
correspond to male and female infants. If they do not then the
degree of dimorphism in that particular population may be too low
for discrete male and female clusters to appear. Another, less likely,
explanation would be that all infants were of the same sex. This
approach was used with perinatal remains (n = 36) from the
mediaeval churchyard at Wharram Percy, England.23 The width
and the depth of the notch were measured using a moving stage
micrometer and a binocular microscope. The results (Figure 1)
showed some evidence for bimodality. There was no association
between individual age at death and sciatic notch index which
could have caused this, so the most likely conclusion is that the two
peaks correspond to male and female infants, the males being
represented by the group at the higher index value.
Some researchers have examined the value of auricular surface
form for sex determination in immature remains. In the adult, an
auricular surface showing elevation from the ilium is a female
character12 and can be considered a manifestation of the greater
width of the female pelvis. Weaver44 investigated dimorphism in
this feature in a sample of foetal/infant skeletal material (n = 153).
He found that a non-elevated surface characterized males (85%
showed this form) and an elevated surface was associated with
females (although the pattern here was less strong, with only 58%
of females showing this morphology). In an indirect test of
Weaver's method, Hunt46 applied it to immature skeletons (n =
275), ranging up to about 6.5 years of age, of undocumented sex
from archaeological sites in North America. He found an
association between auricular morphology and individual age, the
frequency of the non-raised form increasing markedly with age.
This suggested that the auricular surface

Figure 1
Distribution of the sciatic notch index for the
Wharram Percy perinatal infants.
From Mays.23
 Page 123
trait was primarily a manifestation of morphological variation
during the growth period rather than of sex. Mittler and Sheridan47
evaluated Weaver's method using a juvenile archaeological sample
from Sudanese Nubia (n = 58). The arid climate preserved soft
tissue, so that sex could be determined unambiguously from
preserved external genitalia. The ages ranged up to 18 years. In this
study, 85% of males showed non-elevated auricular surfaces and
58% of females had the elevated form. However, there was also an
age effect; the non-elevated pattern was so common in those < 9
years of age that among this subgroup a majority of both sexes
showed this form. In later childhood all males showed the non-
elevated form but only about two-thirds of the females displayed
the elevated morphology.
A little research has also been undertaken on sex indicators in the
juvenile skull. Schutkowski48 found some evidence for sexual
dimorphism in the mandible in the documented sex Spitalfields
juveniles (n = 44). This was confirmed by Molleson et al.,49 who
investigated the form of the mentum and gonial areas, together
with orbital morphology, and found that by combining these
features, sex could correctly be ascertained in 78% of the
Spitalfields juveniles. These morphological features of the facial
skeleton were scored for a group ofjuveniles of undocumented sex
from another archaeological site (Wharram Percy). To test the
success of this technique, the sex inferred by the facial morphology
was compared with permanent canine dimensions, since males tend
to have larger teeth than females (see below). In the Wharram
Percy sample, those inferred as male showed significantly larger
permanent canine dimensions than did those inferred as female,49
suggesting that, for this material, the sex inferred by facial
morphology was generally correct.
Teeth
It has been known for some time that within a population, the
dimensions of the crowns of the deciduous50 and the permanent51
dentition tend to be larger in males. It appears that the Y
chromosome promotes growth both of tooth enamel and dentine,
whereas the effect of the X chromosome seems to be confined to
enamel formation. It has been suggested52 that these differential
effects of the X and Y chromosomes may underlie the sexual
dimorphism in tooth size.
Tooth-crown sizes, and the degree of sexual dimorphism vary
between populations.5355 Sex differences in crown dimensions are
small. The most frequently taken measurements are bucco-lingual
and mesio-distal widths. In the permanent dentition these
characteristically show up to about a maximum 10% difference
between the sexes; this corresponds to a difference of < 1 mm
between male and female means.5658 The degree of dimorphism in
the deciduous tooth crowns in general seems less than in the
permanent teeth.50,59,60 The small and variable degree of
dimorphism means that, as with osteological metric methods,
measurement standards from recent populations cannot be reliably
used to determine sex in archaeological material. The best results
are likely to be obtained by using as a reference sample, a subgroup
of the assemblage under study that is of known sex (or at least one
for which sex can reliably be inferred). To use dimensions of the
deciduous dentition as a means of sex determination in this way in
an archaeological assemblage we would require that a subset of the
juveniles in that assemblage be of known sex. This of course is
hardly
 Page 124
ever the case, and for this reason sex determination in
archaeological assemblages using dimensions of the deciduous
dentition is rarely attempted. However, in adults for whom sex can
reliably be determined osteologically, the permanent teeth can be
used to provide a baseline from which to determine sex in those
juveniles for which at least some of the permanent tooth crowns
have formed (and indeed in adults for which osteological indicators
are missing or damaged).
In general, the canines (particularly the lower canines) are the most
dimorphic teeth,56 so measurements from them play an important
role in dental sexing. The canines erupt at about 1011 years of age,
although the crowns are complete for measurement purposes by
about 6 years.61 Consequently, if loose unerupted teeth are present
they may be measured in individuals from this age. Odontometry
of the permanent dentition therefore provides a potential sexing
method from middle-to-late childhood.
In some instances, the degree of dental dimorphism is sufficient
that measurements from a single tooth can provide an adequate
means of sex determination. For example, Molleson62 plotted
mandibular canine crown widths for male and female adult
skeletons from the Romano-British site at Poundbury, England, and
sexed the juveniles according to whether they lay in the male or
female ranges. However, for most archaeological assemblages the
degree of dimorphism is insufficient for sex to be determined in
juveniles in this way. In these circumstances sex determination may
be achieved by discriminant function analysis, using tooth
measurements of adults in the assemblage, who could be sexed
osteologically, to generate the function.
Archaeological examples of sexing from dental measurements
using discriminant function analysis generally report success rates
of between 75 and 95%.57,58,6366 It is worth emphasizing though,
that these are figures for the proportions of adults in the
assemblage which the discriminant function sexes correctly (or at
least places in the same sex group as the osteological indicators).
The success with children is, strictly speaking, unknown, as there
are no independent sex indicators for these individuals. In addition,
despite these apparently successful applications, it should be noted
that sexual dimorphism in dental dimensions sometimes proves to
be too low to permit sex determination, even by discriminant
function analysis (this was the case, for example, with the
Spitalfields skeletons34).
An assumption when using dental measurements to determine sex
injuveniles is that tooth dimensions in children in an archaeological
assemblage are similar to those in adults of the same sex. It is
possible that in some instances this assumption may be
problematic. Work with animals6771 indicates that tooth crown size
may be reduced in instances of suboptimal nutrition during
development. Generational differences observed in dental size in
human populations have been ascribed to nutritional factors.72
Individuals suffering most from poor nutrition and health may tend
to die early, so there is the potential for those who died in
childhood to have smaller teeth than did those who survived into
adult life. Some researchers claim to have identified this mortality
bias in archaeological material. Guagliardo73 found that juveniles
from a North American archaeological site had smaller teeth than
were seen in adults from the same assemblage. The adult sex ratio
was about 1:1, suggesting that the reduced dental dimensions in the
juveniles did not reflect an excess of
 Page 125
female deaths in childhood. Guagliardo argued that the reason why
juvenile teeth were smaller was because those who died in
childhood were more stressed than those who survived to maturity.
Simpson et al.74 noted a similar discrepancy in tooth size between
adults and juveniles from another North American site, and
likewise ascribed it to mortality bias. At Wharram Percy, Molleson
et al.49 found that thosejuveniles sexed on the basis of the
morphology of the facial skeleton showed smaller tooth size than
adults of the same sex, perhaps indicating mortality bias in dental
dimensions in this group also.
In the absence of archaeological assemblages with significant
numbers of juveniles of documented sex, it is not possible to
determine unequivocally whether this mortality bias in dental
dimensions is present. However, the circumstantial evidence cited
above suggests that in some assemblages it may be. When it is
present, it will tend to result in males being misidentified as
female, giving an erroneous impression of elevated female
mortality during childhood.

Conclusions
Compared with the task of attributing sex to infant and juvenile
skeletons, sexing adults is relatively straightforward and reliable.
However, there are limiting factors which are all too often
forgotten and which could usefully be mentioned here in order to
guard against over-confidence on the part of the osteologist when
sexing adult remains.
Disorders of sexual differentiation are rare but should be
considered. Some are chromosomal, others gonodal, endocrine or
phenotypic. They include conditions such as Klinefelter's
syndrome (47XXY), Turner's syndrome (45XO) and Testicular
Feminization syndrome (46XY). In such instances individual
phenotypes differ from the norm to varying degrees, although little
is known of the skeletal morphology in such cases.
Some disease processes may influence the morphology of the
pelvis and skull. Growth conditions, such as those affected by
somatotropin, can influence morphology, as can those due to
disorders of the parathyroid glands.75 Metabolic conditions such as
rickets and osteomalacia can effect both pelvic and cranial
morphology. The osteologist must be alert for the possibility of
such changes, particularly slight or moderate cases where
pathological alterations may not be immediately obvious.
Most of the sexually dimorphic features of the skull used in the
estimation of sex are simply correlated with robusticity, the male
being the more robust. However, dietary and other factors may
influence skull robusticity. A coarse, tough diet, requiring heavy
mastication, as was generally consumed by all peoples before
recent times, resulted in greater skull robusticity, particularly of the
facial skeleton.76,77 Archaeological skulls may, therefore, tend to
show a more 'masculine' appearance in these areas than modern
reference material. Cultural practices, for example the use of the
jaws in hide preparation by Eskimos,78 can also affect skull
robusticity.
Over-representation of males in some cemetery assemblages has
recently been attributed to errors in sexing due to increased cranio-
facial robusticity in post-menopausal females.79
 Page 126
The hypothesis of increasing cranio-facial robusticity in elderly
females is not supported by evaluation of material of known sex at
Spitalfields (mean age of females = 56 years) where 98% were
correctly sexed;34 however, this is still an issue which merits
further investigation.
For juveniles, osteological sex determination is very difficult. Of
the osteological features, greater sciatic notch morphology may be
the most promising, at least as far as perinatal remains are
concerned. However, one might expect the small differences that
exist perinatally to be quickly blurred by the growth process, and
this is supported by a radiographic study of living children.80
Nevertheless, if only to confirm this, further work on greater sciatic
notch morphology in skeletal material of older children and
adolescents is still needed. Other methods, such as Weaver's
auricular surface technique, have not yet provided results that
would encourage their routine use on juvenile skeletal remains.
Relatively less attention has been paid to the possibility of sexual
dimorphism in the juvenile skull. It may be worth testing further
the features identified by Molleson et al.49 using what few
collections of juvenile skeletons of known sex exist,81 and
replacing these criteria with new ones if they are found wanting.
In general, osteological techniques for sexing juveniles suffer from
the observation that sexual dimorphism is a relatively small
component of the bony morphological variability seen in the
juvenile cohort; the great majority of variation is due to the growth
process, although other things such as mechanical factors also
contribute. Multivariate statistical analyses may help us to tease out
elements of osteological variation injuvenile assemblages that
reflect sexual dimorphism rather than variation related to growth or
other factors. However, one suspects that it will be very difficult to
operationalize any insights thus gained into reliable methods that
can be used routinely for sexing immature material.
Since teeth do not grow or remodel once formed, odontometric
methods are perhaps likely to remain more useful as practical
techniques for sex determination injuvenile remains. At present,
odontometric techniques using discriminant functions generated
from dimensions of the permanent dentition may be the most
reliable morphological methods of sex determination in immature
skeletons. However, for archaeological remains, the potential
problems associated with mortality bias, which if present will tend
to give the erroneous impression of excess female mortality during
childhood, should be born in mind when using these techniques.
DNA analysis is potentially a tool that could aid sex determination.
However, it must be emphasized that DNA techniques have their
own problems and drawbacks.1 The difficulty and expense of
conducting such analyses means that sexing using ancient DNA is
unlikely to challenge the primacy of morphological techniques for
routine use on archaeological remains, even for fragmentary
material and immature skeletons where the techniques currently
available perform poorly.
It is possible that, in future, collection of morphometric data in
three dimensions using image analysis systems may provide a more
sensitive method of detecting skeletal sexual dimorphism than do
the use of non-metric morphological assessments or linear
measurements. In addition, there is a need for the examination of
further archaeological collections
 Page 127
of documented sex, in order to provide direct information on sexual
dimorphism in earlier human groups.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the referees for their valuable
comments. Sue Black is particularly thanked for her input.

References
1 Brown K. Ancient DNA applications in human
osteoarchaeology: achievements, problems and potential (Chapter
27this volume).
2 Sutton MQ, Malik M, Ogram A. Experiments on the
determination of gender from coprolites by DNA analysis. Journal
of Archaeological Science 1996; 23: 263267.
3 Sofaer-Derevenski J. Age and gender at the site of Tiszapolgár-
Basatanya, Hungary. Antiquity 1997; 71: 875889.
4 Lucy S. The Early Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of East Yorkshire.
British Archaeological Reports (British Series) No. 272. Oxford:
Archaeopress, 1998.
5 Wilson JD, George FW, Griffin JE. The hormonal control of
sexual development. Science 1981; 11: 12781284.
6 Meindl RS, Lovejoy CO, Mensforth RP, Carlos LD. Accuracy
and determination of error in the sexing of the skeleton. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 1985; 68: 7985.
7 Cox MJ. Evaluation of the significance of scars of parturition in
the Christ Church, Spitalfields sample. Unpublished PhD thesis,