Introduction
Distinguishing between male and female skeleton is the one aspect of study that anthropologists, biological scientists and archeologist have incessantly researched and debated on (Delson, Tattersall & Van, 73-92). Anthropologists in particular have been faced with myriads of challenges in trying to determine the sexes of the human skeletons. Whether the skeleton in question belongs to a female or a male character has therefore been a matter of debates and speculations. As Francis Gurney substantiates on this claim, a one hundred percent (100%) method of determining skeleton sexes is yet to be found. Gurney also contends that many research findings that persist on the possible existence of clear distinctiveness between the skeleton sexes are all but assumptions and speculations (Gurney, 56-78). Such critical arguments indicate how controversial the methodologies applied to determine the gender of the skeletons may be. Also contributing significantly towards the debates and arguments on how to determine the sex of a skeleton are the theoretical and mythical aspects of it. For instance, the biblical myth which posits that naturally, a man has seven ribs, one of which he gives to a woman after marriage. Far from the biblical myth is the artists’ proportional theory which bases its findings on observations. Delson, Tattersall and Van Couvering note that it is not yet clear to what extent this biblical myth is true. They emphasize if it is, then separating between male and female skeletons would not have been difficult as such (Delson, Tattersal & Van, 73-92).In the long run, there are still no patent models and strategies particularly employed to distinguish between female and male skeletons. A variety of methods have been suggested across the anthropological divide, but all are prone to disapprovals and imprecision.
Aim and Objective
The aim of this paper is to discuss at length the anthropological perspectives on determining skeleton sexes. The paper seeks to address conflicting ideologies surrounding the skeleton anatomy based on gender. Its objective is to give a succinct distinction between what anthropologists hold to be right in determining skeleton sex and what other researchers in different fields of studies have put forward as the possible reality concerning this matter. It investigates the previous research findings and methods that had been employed to establish whether a skeleton belongs to a female or a male human being.
Results and Findings
The mature human skeleton is composed of 206 bones. The bones are varied in size, shape, weight, length and strength. Smallest of them all is the ossicle which forms part of the inner ear of a human being. The largest is known as the femora or the femur, measured at approximately 44 mm long (Ann & Shelley, 41-54, Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton). Distinctions between the skeleton bones make it relatively easy to identify individual bones.However; some of the bones may be very difficult to separate. These include those of the hands and feet, rib cage, and the vertebral column which need to be closely scrutinized before one can be able to separate or categorize them (Ann & Shelley, 41-54).
Generally, when dealing with an individual skeleton, not considering whether it belongs to a female or male human being, it is easy to identify and commend that it indeed belongs to a human being, and not to a Kangaroo which researchers have found to posses such skeletons almost identical to those of human beings (Ann & Shelley, 41-54). But when you have to discern between a female and a male skeleton of a human being, more scrutiny of the bones may be indispensable, as it is yet to be made possible and guaranteed whether there are any significant differences of skeletons based on gender (Gurney, 56-78).
Among the human skeleton bones that have largely been scrutinized by anthropologists and biological scientists in trying to determine the skeleton sexes are the sternum, pelvis, cranium, ribs, femur, mandible, humerus, radius and the ulna. According to the research findings of Robert Jurmin, Lynn Kilgore and Trevethan Wender, the overall size and proportion of the sternum can be used to tell skeleton sexes. Their research also indicated that sexual dimorphism in the rib dimensions may provide information useful in determining whether a skeleton could be that of a female or a male. Jurmin, Kilgore & Wender, 124-201, Essentials of Physical Anthropology).
The femur and the pelvis are the other bones that studies have found to be in common use when looking for information on the sex of a skeleton. In the journal titled, ” The Algometric Relationship of Skeleton weight to the Body weight”,its point out that distinction between female and male skeleton can easily be observed based on the overall size and weight of the pelvis ( William & Karlotski,160-163, The Algometric Relationship of Skeleton weight to the Body weight).
Erick Delson, John Tattersal, and Van Couvering also contributed by adding that generally, the male cranium is relatively elevated in comparison to the insignificant female skull. To emphasize on this, they noted unlike in females, the male cranium is present and forms “a well marked sagittal elevation” (Delson, Tattersall & Van, 73-92, Encyclopedia of Human evolution).These researchers concluded by comparing the male and the female cranial anatomy, highlighting the undeniable closeness in the similarity between the two cranial.
The use of cranial anatomy in describing and determining sex of a skeleton was grossly contested by “researchers of comparative and historical anthropology” (Delson, Tattersal & Van, 73-92). Aydın Tözeren in writing “Human body dynamics” argues that, “with reference to peculiarities of the female skull, there was no relation to the peculiarity of the cranial contour” (Tozeren, 6-10, Human body dynamics).Tozeren gave a summary of “the anatomical conditions” that described a female skeleton relative to the male’s. He states that the feminine skull had a slightly prominent cranium, flattening perpendicularly, and had a vertical forehead (Tozeren, 6-10).
In studying the difference between the male and female pelvis, a number of forensic and biological anthropologists have shown some striking differences that could help classify or categorize the two.i.e. male and female skeletons. They have commonly pointed at the appearance and proportionality of the pelvis in both sexes. Mary Ann, Shelley Saunders and their research colleagues found that the female pelvis was generally “large and delicately shaped” as compared to the pelvis of the male skeleton (Ann & Shelley, 41-54, Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton).They further pointed out that “the alae of the ilia” of the female skeleton extended “widely in the lateral direction” while in the male skeleton, the same parts rose more vertically upwards The pelvis brim of both skeletons were also notably different, with long diameter observed in the female skeleton brim relative to the male’s (Ann & Shelley, 41-54).
Considerably, Mary Ann and Shelley Saunders described the cavity of the male skeleton to be smaller, deeper and funnel shaped, with the sacrum straightened. The arch of the pubes was also found to be more angular as compared to the females in which case it was near the “perfection of an arch”. The female skeletons were, too, composed of smoother pubes on the inner surface, with an outward anterior edge. (Ann & Shelley, 41-54).
Generally, the male skeleton had all its bones heavier and firmer, and powerfully marked by” irregularities indicating their masculine attachments”. Their “thoracic cavities were relatively larger, with the acromia situated at extensive distances from each other”. In contrast, the female skeleton narrowed shoulders and protruding hips, making a significant distinction between the two sexes (Lesley, 56-72).
As per the research studies of Erick Delson, John Tattersal & Couvering Van, the brain weight of an adult male was about forty nine ounces where as that of the female weighed an average of forty three and a half ounces. These distinctive differences in the weights of the male and female brains could thus be useful in determining sexes of the skeletons (Delson, Tattersal & Van, 73-92, Encyclopedia of Human Evolution).This was a further indication that even though a universally recognized methodology for determining the sex of a skeleton was yet to be arrived at, there had been a number of practical and theoretical models put forward by different researchers various different fields of anthropology.
Research Methodologies
The beginning of skeleton studies and observations can be traced back to the 18th century. The study developed with the introduction of Forensic Anthropology between 18th and 19th century. Forensic Anthropology as defined by Ubelaker Douglas is the application of knowledge and scientific techniques in assessing the human skeleton. This subfield of Physical Anthropology basically deals with the study of human remains of the recent past. The study has largely been attributed to European scholars like Jean Joseph Sue, Paul Topinard, Etienne Rollet, Karl Pearson and others (Gurney, 56-78, American Journal of Anthropology).
Nearly all anthropologists agreed that there are no easier ways of telling whether a skeleton belongs to a female or a male. For such reasons, a plethora of methodologies have been applied in attempts to determine the sex of a skeleton. These are inclusive of the genetic analysis or biological applications, physical observations, application of the forensic anthropology, measurements and anatomical experiments, intra-oral incision, and mythical presumption.
In genetics, it has been held that the biological distinction between male and female characteristics could be used to determine the skeleton sexes. This follows the biological assertion that the male and female genes of XY and XX respectively can determine the shape and size of the skeleton (William & Karlotski, 160-163).Based on this analysis, the average male skeleton was generally larger and heavier compared to the female’s. It also held that unlike the “robust male bones”, the female bones were thinner and light in weight. This genetic analysis, however, pointed out a “considerable overlap in the skeleton size of the sexes”. This overlap implied there could be shorter males and taller females, therefore disapproving the claim that skeletons of taller heights could only belong to a man and not a woman (William & Karlotski, 160-163).. This portrayal of inaccuracy in genetic analysis also disapproved the authenticity of observational method as a way of determining the sex of a skeleton.
The application of forensic anthropology has been the common trend applied by most anthropologists and archaeologists in studying the human skeleton and the bones. Through this subfield of physical anthropology, the researchers study the human bones separately, trying to identify the slight or major distinctiveness that could exist between different bones to help determine the sex of the skeleton (Ann & Shelley, 41-54, Biological Anthropology of human skeleton).
Through the physical observation, the bones and the skull features vary between females and males, with a presumption that male characteristics are “more pronounced and well marked relative to the female features” (William & Karlotski,160-163). Francis Gurney contends that by simply observing the possible distinctive features of the human skeleton, it was easier to determine the possible sex of a skeleton by an accuracy of about 90% (Gurney, 56-79, American Journal of Anthropology).Gurney further notes that the “accuracy of the sex determination” would increase up to about 95 percent in the cases where the pelvis bone is used, followed by the skull at an accuracy of 92 percent then 80 percent for the use of mandible bones (Gurney, 56-79).
In measurements as a methodology of determining the sex of human skeleton, Jurmin et al notes that it is nearly not possible applying absolute metric values to determine what “features constitute the male skeleton and which ones constitutes the female skeleton(Jurmin, Kilgore & Wender,124-201, Essentials of physical Anthropology). Robert Jurmin, Lynn Kilgore & Wender also addressed the intricacy involved in determining the sex of the human skeleton, pointing at the problems of “subjectivity versus objectivity, description versus measurement, and experimental versus statistical” (Jurmin, Kilgore & Wender, 124-201).
Major inconsistencies have too been cited in the posterior of the cranium of both the male and the female skull. This contributes to the assumptions refuting any possibility of the existence of differences in the human skeletons. As Aydın Tözeren, confirms, “The ability to qualify measures of the skull for sex determination has been met with limited success”. He further posits that the success of sex determination of the human skeleton broadly based on a rather subjective process involving the “assessment of non- metric measurements” (Tozeren, 6-10).
The mythical methodology that have commonly been referred to in determining the sexes of human skeleton is the biblical myth which highlighted the existence of seven ribs on the skeleton of a male and six on the female skeleton (Lesley, 56-72). The argument behind this was pegged on the aspect of marriage, in which case, woman get married to men, after which they become in possession of their other ribs. However, this myth was nullified by the scientific experiments which sort to find out the existence of extra ribs in the male skeletons and not in the females (Lesley, 56-72).
Discussions
From the many researches and research findings, the existence of both the possibility and impossibility of determining the sex of human skeleton can clearly be outlined. The research findings also provide a number of techniques that have been used by anthropologists in their endeavors to finding better ways of determining the skeleton sexes. Talk of observation as a method, lab experiment, genetic analysis, measurements and descriptions, the principle aspects forensic anthropology, biblical myths. All these strategies have been utilized in determining the sexes of human skeleton, but none of these methodologies revealed 100% accuracy, as each of them had its own shortcomings. For instance, there seemed to be major shortcomings in both observation and genetical analysis.
The genetic analysis determined the sexes of the skeleton based on the gene characteristics of males and females, where by males are portrayed as tall while women are short. This finding was pertinent to the general physical observation of men and women. But the two paradigms failed to justify the fact that some females can be tall than women, possibly genetically or through physical observations. The accuracy of the measurements also varied significantly, and therefore they were prone to inaccuracies in determining which skeleton belongs to which gender.
As stated by Aydin Tozeren, even the use of cranial anatomy in describing and determining sex of a skeleton was grossly contested by “researchers of both the comparative and historical anthropology”.In his writing “Human body dynamics” Aydın Tözeren points out that there is no clear relation of gender to the peculiarity of the cranial contour”.
In the research findings, it has also been highlighted that nearly all anthropologists accept the difficulties experienced in the process of trying to determine or tell whether a skeleton belongs to a female or a male character.
A plethora of methodologies have been applied in attempts to determine the sex of a skeleton. Among them are the genetic analysis or biological applications, the physical observations, application of forensic anthropology, measurements and anatomical experiments, and the mythical presumption.
To Francis Gurney, by simply observing the possible distinctive features of the human skeleton, it was easier to determine the possible sex of a skeleton by an accuracy of about 90%.He further asserts that the “accuracy of the sex determination” was bound to go up to about 95% in the cases where the pelvis bone is used, followed by the skull at an accuracy of 92%, then 80% for the use of mandible bones. These statistical variations made the process of determining the skeleton sex more difficult and complex than mere observations.
Some significant inconsistencies were also revealed in the posterior of the cranium of both the male and the female skull. This contributes to the assumptions refuting any possibility of the existence of differences in the human skeletons. When it comes to measurements as one of the methodologies that were applied to determine skeleton sex, researchers like Jurmin and Kilgore this method was nearly not possible when applying the metric values to determine what characteristics constitutes the male skeleton and which ones portrayed a female skeleton anatomy. This too much difficulty in determining skeleton sex had been observed further by Robert Jurmin and his colleagues , pointing at the problems of “subjectivity versus objectivity, description versus measurement, and experimental versus statistical”.
Conclusion
With these controversies surrounding the study of human skeleton and determining the skeleton sexes, anthropologists may need to conduct more research and experiments to come up with more appropriate methods that can possibly ascertain more accurate findings. Even though extensive research has unfolded in forensic anthropology which is a subfield in physical anthropology, basically concerned with the study of the human remains of the recent past, more research may still be necessary done in this field.
Works Cited
Ann Katzenberg & Shelley Saunders. Biological Anthropology of Human Skeleton.2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2008. 41-54.
Delson, Erick; Tattersall, John & Van Couvering. Encyclopedia of Human Evolution & Pre-History.2ng Ed. New York. Garland Publishing, Inc.2000.73-92.
Gurney, Francis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: The Anthropological Review. Anthropological Society of London.Vol 5.1956.56-78.
Jurmin, Robert; Kilgore Lynn & Wender, Trevethan.Essentials of Physical Anthropology: Sexing and Aging the Skeleton. New York, NY. Cengage Learning, Inc.2009.124-201.
Lesley, Peter. Man’s Origin and Destiny. National Academy of the United States. London: N. Tiubncr and Co.1868. 56-72.
Tözeren, Aydın. Human Body Dynamics: Classical Mechanics and Human Movement. Springer.2000. ISBN 0-387-98801-7.
William, Reynolds & Karlotski, William. The Algometric Relationship of Skeleton Weight to Body Weight in Teleost Fishes: A Preliminary Comparison with Birds and Mammals. New York. Oxford University Press.1977. 160–163.