Cardoso, H. F V. (2008). Sample-specific (universal) metric approaches for determining the sex of immature human skeletal remains using permanent tooth dimensions. J Archaeol Sci 35 (1). Vol 35(1), pp. 158-168.
 Title The title of the publication or report |
Sample-specific (universal) metric approaches for determining the sex of immature human skeletal remains using permanent tooth dimensions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Issue The name of the volume or issue |
J Archaeol Sci 35 (1) | ||||
Series The series the publication or report is included in |
Journal of Archaeological Science | ||||
Volume Volume number and part |
35 (1) | ||||
Page Start/End The start and end page numbers. |
158 - 168 | ||||
Biblio Note This is a Bibliographic record only. |
The ADS have no files for download on this page but further information is available online, normally as an electronic version maintained by the Publisher, or held in a larger collection such as an ADS Archive. Please refer to the DOI or URI listed in the Relations section of this record to locate the information you require. In the case of non-ADS resources, please be aware that we cannot advise further on availability. | ||||
Publication Type The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book |
Journal | ||||
Abstract The abstract describing the content of the publication or report |
Three approaches for developing sample-specific sex determination methods of immature skeletal remains based on permanent tooth dimensions are proposed and tested using a sample of identified skeletons comprising adult and subadult individuals selected from the collection at the National Museum of Natural History in Lisbon, Portugal. Faciolingual and mesiodistal diameters were the tooth dimensions utilized. In the first approach, sex-specific logistic regression formulae based on adult tooth dimensions are developed and used to determine the sex of the subadult sample. The second and third approaches are based on the sectioning point procedure, which uses the overall mean of a measurement (tooth diameter) collected from the sample as the discriminant criteria for determining the sex of the individuals in that sample. While in the second approach the adult overall mean of each dimension is used as the discriminant criteria for determining the sex of the subadults, in the third approach the subadult overall mean of each dimension comprises the discriminant criteria that is applied back to the subadults for determining sex. Results show that the canines are the teeth with the highest sexual dimorphism and methods of sex determination based on canine dimensions provide correct allocation accuracies between 58.8% and 100% depending on the diameter and the approach being used. Canine faciolingual dimensions provide the best overall results. Combinations of measurements from the same and different teeth do not increase significantly the accuracy of the methods and approaches. Some of the problems of subadult sex determination methods based on adult tooth dimensions result from differing levels of sexual dimorphism between the adult and subadult segment of the sample. Mortality or cultural bias may increase or decrease the sexual dimorphism of subadults compared to adults. Small subadult samples utilized in this study may also raise questions regarding the accuracy of the three different sample-specific approaches. However, high consistency of results using the canine and different approaches, suggests that adult and subadult canine dimensions can be reliable sex discriminators of immature skeletal remains in archaeological samples. It is argued that the major advantage of the approaches presented here is that they can be used to derive sample-specific methods and, therefore, eliminate the problem of applying morphological or metric methods to individuals originating from a population that differs from the one that contributed to the development of the method. | ||||
Year of Publication The year the book, article or report was published |
2008 | ||||
Locations Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published. |
|
||||
Source Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in. |
BIAB
(The British & Irish Archaeological Bibliography (BIAB))
|
||||
Relations Other resources which are relevant to this publication or report |
|
||||
Created Date The date the record of the pubication was first entered |
21 Jul 2008 |
