Molleson, 1998

8/17/2019 Molleson, 1998

1/10

Journal of Archaeological Science (1998) 25, 719–728Article No. as970215

SomeSexually Dimorphic Features of theHuman J uvenileSkull and their Valuein Sex Determination in Immature

Skeletal Remains

Theya M olleson and K aren Cruse

D epart ment of P alaeontology, T he N atural H istory M useum, L ondon SW 7 5BD , U .K.

Simon M ays

Ancient M onuments L aboratory, E nglish H erit age, 23 Savile R ow, L ondon W 1X 1AB, U .K.

(Received 20 December 1996, revised manuscript accepted 25 July 1997 )Discretetraits of theface and mandible haveproved useful in the determination of thesex of juvenile skulls. Since thepresentation of traitsvariesbetween populations, theapproach hasbeen to establishtheir dimorphismin theadult skulland extend theanalysis to increasingly young individuals of thesame group. This proved to be moderately successfulwhen tested on the Spitalfields sample of known sex juveniles. When tested on a mediaeval sample of juveniles of unknown sex, those showing male character had larger permanent canine widths as expected if cranial sex was, ingeneral, correct. 1998 Academic Press

Keywords: DIMORPHISM, JUVENILE, MANDIBLE, MENTUM, ORBIT, SEX, TOOTH SIZE.

Introduction

One of the most pressing problems in humanosteoarchaeology is the difficulty in deter-mining thesex of immature skeletons. Studies

(e.g. Boucher, 1957; Fazekas & K ósa, 1978) haveshown that there is often some sexual dimorphism inthe pelvic bones of perinatal infants, though it isgenerally slight. In addition, dimorphismwhichmay bepresent in the pelvis at birth is quickly blurred by thegrowth process (Reynolds, 1947).

In general, the dimensions of the permanent toothcrowns are slightly larger in males, and so measure-mentsof them havebeen used to sex juvenile skeletonspossessing at least some permanent teeth. Teeth of

adults whose sex can bereliably determined from theirbones are measured, and theresults used to generateadiscriminant function which is then used to infer sex in juveniles from the same assemblage. Although some(e.g. Rösing, 1983) have embraced this as a reliabletechnique which should be used routinely, one shouldprobably be more cautious. Often high figures arequoted for its reliability, of the order of 85–95%, butthesemay bemisleadingasthey arein fact based on thepercentage of adults correctly classified, and generallythese are mainly or entirely the same adults as wereused to generate the discriminant function in the firstplace. The use of discriminant functions generated on

adult skeletonsto sex juvenilesin thesame assemblagealso involves some assumptions which may be prob-

lematic, not least that thejuvenile permanent teeth areassumed to be the same size as those in adults of thesamesex (i.e. that thereis no mortality bias; discussionin Gugliardo, 1982).

DNA analysis of ancient bones in which this bio-molecule is preserved may potentially provide anadditional sexing method for juvenile remains, butthis expensive technique is unlikely to be available toarchaeologists for routineusein theforeseeable future.

In thelight of theabove, it would clearly beuseful if some new osteological sexing criteria could be devel-oped for juveniles. The present work presents theresults of a pilot study of the juvenile skull in orderto determine whether there are sexually dimorphicfeatures with potential for use as sex indicators forarchaeological material.

Materials

Two skeletal assemblages were used. The first is thecollection of 18–19th century skeletons from ChristChurch Spitalfields, London (M olleson et al ., 1993). Thesex and ageof theSpitalfields skeletons used in thepresent work are known from information on coffinplates.

7190305–4403/98/080719+10 $30.00/0 1998 Academic Press

8/17/2019 Molleson, 1998

2/10

Because patterns of skeletal sexual dimorphismvarybetween populations, it was decided to test any poten-tial juvenile sex indicators revealed in the Spitalfieldsmaterial on a second assemblage. Ideally, one wouldwish to do this on another archaeological assemblagethat included reasonable numbers of juvenile skeletonsof documented sex. However, no assemblages of thissort were available. Theaim was, therefore, to locatea

collection with large numbers of well preserved adultand juvenile skeletons for this part of the work. Theassemblage from Wharram Percy, North Y orkshire,fulfils these criteria. The site is a deserted village(Beresford & Hurst, 1990), and theburials datemainlyto the M ediaeval period (10–16th century).

Methods

When looking into the face of a living child, it isgenerally obvious whether the individual is a boy orgirl. It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that theunderlying bony architecture, the facial skeleton, may

show significant sexual dimorphism in children, andindeed there is some evidence to support this(Schutkowski, 1993). In this paper we therefore focuson thefacial bones.

The features investigated were the morphology of the orbit, and two aspects of the mandible, the man-dibular angle and the mentum. These aspects werenoted by Acsádi & Nemeskéri (1970) to be of particu-lar valuein sexingadults ( Table1). Thegeneral natureof the sexual dimorphism observed in these areas inadults, taken from Acsádi & Nemeskéri (1970), is asfollows. In females, the orbital aperture is rounded,with fairly narrow or sharp margins; in males it tends

to be more angular in shape with thicker, morerounded margins. In addition, thefemaleorbit is largerin relation to the whole face. In the female, themandibular angle is rounded, with a fairly even curva-ture; whereas, themaleangle is moreeverted. Themalementum is heavier and squarer than the female anddisplays more rugose muscular markings.

Each trait was scored on a five point scale based onthe classification of Acsádi & Nemeskéri (1970). Themorphological features corresponding to thescores forthethreetraits in thejuveniles in thestudy material aredescribed in more detail below, and are depicted inFigures 1 and 2.

The orbit

To assess theorbit theskull should beviewed from thefront, full-face, with the face vertical. The hyperfemi-nine (2) or hypermasculine (+2) grades of Acsádiand Nemeskéri are not often developed in juveniles;only feminine or masculine type orbits are generallyobserved. Also, features from both types may occur inthe one orbit. These should bescored ‘‘0’’.

T he 1 type orbit. The shapeof theorbit is approxi-mately symmetrical in both horizontal and verticalplanes. The rim is thin, and the roof is deep-setespecially in its lateral part. In three-quarter profiletheorbit does not interrupt theoutlineof theface. The2 type orbit is sharp-rimmed and symmetrical, andthe lateral part of the roof is particularly deep-set(Figure 1(a)).

The + 1 type orbit . The orbit is asymmetrical inoutline, particularly in the vertical plane. The rim isthickened, particularly the lower border, and the roof

is shallow. Thesurfaceof thebrow over thelateral partof theorbit may bulgeslightly. This, together with thethickening of the lower border in the cheek region,means that in three-quarter view the orbit interruptsthe lineof the face (Figure 2(a)).

The mandibular angle

Themandibleis viewed fromtheside, perpendicular totheramus rather than strictly laterally.

T he 1 type angle. The curve formed by the man-dibular body and theascending ramus is evenly devel-oped; the outline smooth, even where there is somedownward growth; and the angle moderate. The pos-terior border is straight. In the 2 type mandiblethe region of the mandibular angle is underdeveloped(Figure 1(b)).

The + 1 type angle. The ascending ramus appearshinged on the body and the angle formed is open. There can be a rugosity and thickening of the bone inthe region of the angle that approaches the +2 typeseen in adults. Growth of thelower border of thebodyhas extended the outline abruptly downwards in the

Table 1. A csádi & N emeskér i’s ( 1970) classification of sexually dimorphic aspects of orbit and mandible

Classification Orbital morphology M andibular angle M entum

2 (hyperfeminine) Very sharp margins; circular Smooth R ounded smooth1(feminine) Sharp margins; circular I ncipient eminences Medial slightly delimited

0 (indiff erent) Intermediate M oderate eminences M edial delimited+1 (masculine) Slightly rounded margins; slightly squared M arked eminences Inverted T-shaped; protruding+2(hypermasculine) Rounded edge; squared Strongly marked eminences Bilateral protuberance

720 T. Molleson et al.

8/17/2019 Molleson, 1998

3/10

F igure1. 1 (left) and 2 (right) trait scores for (a) orbit, (b) mandibular angle and (c) mentum in juveniles in thepresent study.

Sex Determinationin ImmatureHumanSkeletal Remains 721

8/17/2019 Molleson, 1998

4/10

Figure 2. +1 (left) and +2 (right) trait scores for (a) orbit, (b) mandibular angle and (c) mentum in juveniles in thepresent study. (Note: the+2 state was not observed in theorbit among juveniles in thematerial under study.)


8/17/2019 Molleson, 1998

5/10

region of the angle (this is most evident when a pencilis aligned between theangle and thecoronoid process)(Figure 2(b)).

T he mentum

The mandible should be placed horizontally andviewed from above. Themental fossaeon either side of themental prominence can bequite deep in either sex.In juveniles, the extremes of Acsádi and Nemeskéri,hyperfeminine (2) or hypermasculine (+2) are notusually developed; only a feminine type and a maletype are usually present and are scored 1 and +1,respectively.

T he 1 type mentum. The outline of themandibularbody, placed horizontally and viewed from above, issmooth and evenly curved. Tubercles on the lowerborder of themandibular body are only weakly devel-

oped and wide apart. The mental triangle, althoughit may be distinct, is narrow, close to the symphysis,and sometimes developed as a narrow low T-shapedridge pointing to alveolare. I t is not prominent and inlateral view does not protrude beyond the line of thesymphysis (Figure 1(c)).

The + 1 ty pe mentum. The outline of the mandible issquared off by the development of distinct tubercleseither sideof thementum. Themental triangle is oftenclearly delimited. It is broad and prominent; protrud-ing, in side view, beyond the line of thesymphysis. I nthe type +2 mentum the tubercles either side of thementum are pronounced and wide apart. CA S 2429,

illustrated on the right of Figure 2(c), approaches thisform most closely in a juvenile.

Analytical procedure

The strategy adopted was first to score these featureson theSpitalfieldsadults of documented sex in order toassess the dimorphism of each character in the adultpart of this group. For each individual, the scores forthecharacters were summed to givea ‘‘combined facialscore’’ (CFS). Thosewith a CF S greater than zero wereinferred to be male, those with a CF S less than zerowere inferred to be female. Individuals with CF S of

zero were classified as unsexed. The reliability withwhich sex could bedetermined on thebasis of CF S wasassessed by checking theresults against thetruesex of theindividual. Theseprocedures werethen repeated onthejuveniles. All scoringwas donewithout referring tothe documented sex of the skeleton.

The strategy for the Wharram Percy skeletonsechoed that taken for Spitalfields. Initially, the threefeatures were scored on adults whose sex could bereliably inferred fromthe pelvic bones to confirmtheirdimorphism and the utility of CF S for sexing in theadult part of thisassemblage. Somejuvenile skullswerescored for thesefeatures and sexes tentatively assigned

according to whether their CFS was greater or lessthan zero. The results were evaluated against somedental crown measurementswhich, in theadult part of the group, had proved to be sexually dimorphic. FortheWharramPercy material two crown measurementswere taken on each tooth. M aximum mesio-distalwidth was measured; bucco-lingual width was takenperpendicular to this. All measurements were takenparallel to the long axis of the tooth, using sliding

callipers with sharpened ends. Only teeth showingnegligible wear were selected, and any teeth which wereclearly imperfectly formed were excluded from study.M easurementswere madeon teeth from theleft side; if theleft sidewas missing then theright was substituted.Bucco-lingual and mesio-distal crown widths from thedentitions of 45 individuals (23 males, 22 females) weremeasured. Scoring of cranial traits was done withoutreference to the pelvic sex (adults) or the toothmeasurements (juveniles).

In order to test the repeatability of results thethreeaspects of the facial skeleton were rescored for theSpitalfields juveniles. Theresults are shown in Table2.

Results

Spitalfields

The adults. Fifty-three skulls (34 females, 19 males)were used. The results for individual characters areshown in Table 3, and for CFS in Table 4.

Table 4 indicates that in 89% of cases sex wascorrectly determined. A one-sample chi-squared testindicates that the proportion correct is better thanexpected by chancealone (chi-square=31·7, P

8/17/2019 Molleson, 1998

6/10

Wharram Percy

D imorphism in the facial skeleton of the adult s. Twenty-eight adults (14 males, 14 females), whosesex had beendetermined using pelvic criteria (Brothwell, 1981:62),were selected at random. The results are shown in Tables 7 and 8.

Table 8 shows that in 25 individuals (89%) sex asdeduced from thethree facial criteria agreed with thatdetermined from the pelvic bones. Work on skeletonsof documented sex has shown that thepelvic bones arehighly reliable indicators of sex in adult remains. For

example, using the T odd collection of known sexskeletons, Meindl et al . (1985) found that pelvic mor-phology correctly indicated sex in 96% of cases. Pelvicsex is thus a reliable indicator of true sex, and so

provides a useful check on the CF S method. CF Ssexing performs as reliably for the Wharram Percyadults as it did for the Spitalfields adults.

D ental dimorphism in the adult s. In man, the enamelcrowns of thepermanent dentition show sexual dimor-phism, the teeth of males generally being larger thanthose of females (M oss, 1978). In order to investigatethe pattern of sexual dimorphism in the dentition atWharram Percy, teeth from adult skeletons whose sexcould be determined using pelvic criteria (Brothwell,1981:62) were measured. Theresults ( Table 9) indicatethat the mandibular canine is the most dimorphic

Table 3. Scores on the three cranial criteria for the Spitalfields adults

Orbital morphology2 1 0 1 2

F emales 16 15 3M ales 1 7 11

M andibular angle2 1 0 1 2

F emales 14 17 4M ales 6 12

M entum2 1 0 1 2

F emales 13 16 4 1M ales 8 11

Table 4. Sexing from combined facial score for the Spitalfields adults ( N.B. there were no combined scores of zero)

Sex inferred from combined facial score

Correct I ncorrect

Females 29 5M ales 18 1

Total 47 6

Table 5. Scores on the t hree cranial criteria for the Spitalfields juvenil es


F emales 1M ales 2

M andibular angle2 1 0 1 2

F emales 1 2 3M ales 1 2 5 6

M entum2 1 0 1 2


Table 6. Sexing from combined facial score for the Spitalfields juvenil es ( t here were tw o skeletons, one f emale, one mal e, wit h a combined score of zero; these are omitted)

Sex inferred from combined facial score

Correct I ncorrect

M ales 11 2Females 3 2

Total 14 4

Table 7. Scores on the three cranial criteria for the Wharram Percy adults ( sexes inferred from the pelvic bones)


F emales 4 6M ales 1 1 3 9

M andibular angle 2 1 0 1 2


M entum2 1 0 1 2

F emales 9 4M ales 1 4 9

Table 8. Sex inferred f rom combined facial score versus pelvic sex f or the Wharram Percy adults

Pelvic sex

M ale Female

Cranial sex M ale 13 2F emale 1 12

There were no combined facial scores of zero.


8/17/2019 Molleson, 1998

7/10

tooth. M andibular canine measurements were used toprovide a test for the validity of CF S sexing in theWharramPercy juveniles.

Facial morphology in juveniles. Well-preserved skulls of juveniles possessing a lower permanent canine toothcrown available for measurement were used for thispart of thestudy. Thecrown of the mandibular canineis not complete enough for crown widths to bemeasured until 5–6 years of age, so only juveniles of this age and over were used, totalling 57. Their ages(determined using dental calcification (Schour &

M assler, 1941)) ranged from 5 to 17 years, but most(51) were under 12. In only 26 could all three facialfeatures be recorded; in 29 cases two could be scoredand in two skulls only one feature could be recorded.As with the Spitalfields juveniles, the most frequentlymissing observation was orbital morphology.

Our expectation wasthat if a particular facial featureis sexually dimorphic in the Wharram juveniles, thenthose showing male character (i.e. having scoresgreater than zero) should exceed those showing femalecharacter (i.e. having scores less than zero) in theirmandibular canine crown widths. Those that weresexed as males on the basis of their CF S should have

larger canines than thosesexed asfemales. Conversely,if there is no diff erence in canine size between thosesexed as male and those sexed as female, then thiswould cast doubt upon theefficacy of theCF S methodfor the Wharram Percy juveniles. Dental dimorphismcan be considered to a large extent an independentcheck on cranial sex, as the dental hard tissues arephysiologically very diff erent from bone. The resultsare shown in Tables 10–13. The details of mandibularcanine dimorphism in the adults are presented forcomparison in Table 14.

J uveniles scored into the male range on each indica-

tor havesignificantly greater mandibular caninebucco-lingual widths. The same applies to mesio-distalwidths, except for the orbital morphology, whereno significant diff erence exists, although it is worthnoting the small sample size for this indicator. Theseresults appear to support the contention that thethree features are sexually dimorphic in the WharramPercy juveniles. Consistent with this, those sexed onthe basis of their CF S as male show significantlylarger mean canine dimensions than those sexed asfemale. This provides good evidence of the validityof the CF S sexing method for the Wharram Percy juveniles.

Table 9. D ental measurements ( mm) for adult W harram P ercy skeletons

N(M ) X(M ) N(F) X(F) X(M )/X(F) % Rank t - test

M AX8M D 13 8·75 14 8·44 103·7 8M AX8BL 13 10·36 14 10·21 101·5 24M AX7M D 16 9·43 19 9·15 103·1 12M AX7BL 16 11.08 19 10·98 100·9 26M AX6M D 14 10·16 17 10·05 101·1 25M AX6BL 14 11·54 17 11·03 104·6 6 *M AX5M D 20 6·46 17 6·26 103·2 11M AX5BL 20 8·88 17 8·66 102·5 18M AX4M D 20 6·58 18 6·47 101·7 =22M AX4BL 20 8·78 18 8·54 102·8 =15M AX3M D 17 7·35 19 7·22 101·8 20M AX3BL 17 8·22 19 7·81 105·2 4 *M AX2M D 12 6·46 12 6·53 98·9 =31M AX2BL 12 6·26 12 6·08 103·0 =13M AX1M D 13 8·53 14 8·28 103·0 =13M AX1BL 13 7·16 14 6·82 105·0 5M AN8M D 10 9·98 15 10·07 99·1 30M AN8BL 10 9·17 15 9·27 98·9 =31M AN7M D 20 10·56 21 10·20 103·5 10M AN7BL 20 10·10 21 9·57 105·5 3 **M AN6M D 21 11·02 18 10·60 103·9 7 *

M AN6BL 21 10·52 18 10·24 102·7 17M AN5M D 22 6·76 20 6·78 99·7 28M AN5BL 22 7·97 20 7·84 101·7 =22M AN4M D 20 6·48 20 6·51 99·5 29M AN4BL 20 7·47 20 7·34 101·8 21M AN3M D 20 6·69 18 6·26 106·9 2 **M AN3BL 20 7·81 18 7·24 107·9 1 **M AN2M D 17 5·80 15 5·76 100·7 27M AN2BL 17 6·26 15 6·14 102·0 19M AN1M D 5 5·50 11 5·35 102·8 =15M AN1BL 5 6·00 11 5·78 103·8 8

N (M )=number of males, N (F)=number of females, X(M )=mean of measurement for males, X(F )=mean of measurement for females, Rank=rank of M /F ratio, t -test: *in thiscolumn indicates that thediff erencebetween thesexes is statistically significant at the0·05 level, and **at the0·01 level, according to theunpaired t - test.

Sex Determinationin ImmatureHumanSkeletal Remains 725

8/17/2019 Molleson, 1998

8/10

Table 10. C rown wi dths of mandibular permanent canines for those juveniles from W harram Percy showing orbit scores of less than zero ( i.e. female in character) and showing orbit scores greater than zero ( i.e. male in character)

Orbit score 0

t - value SigN X N X

M AN3BL 5 7·00 0·20 7 7·63 0·48 3·13 *M AN3M D 5 6·46 0·26 7 6·44 0·52 0·08

Table 11. Crown widths of mandibular permanent canines f or those juveniles f rom W harram Percy showing mandibular angle scores of less than zero ( i.e. female in character) and showing mandibular angle scores greater than zero ( i.e. male in character)

M andibular angle score 0

t -value SigN X N X

M AN3BL 25 7·08 0·29 30 7·60 0·54 4·57 ***M AN3M D 25 6·28 0·40 30 6·55 0·43 2·38 *

Table 12. C rown wi dths of mandibular permanent canines for t hose juveniles from W harram Percy showing mentum scores of less than zero ( i.e. female in character) and showing mentum scores greater t han zero ( i.e. male in character)

M entum score 0

t - value SigN X N X

M AN3BL 22 7·13 0·29 32 7·55 0·56 3·62 **M AN3M D 22 6·24 0·39 32 6·54 0·43 2·67 *

Table 13. C rown wi dths of mandibular permanent canines for t hose juveniles from W harram Percy sexed as females and those sexed as males using combined scores on the three facial criteria

Combined score 0(inferred males)

t -value SigN X N X

M AN3BL 25 7·06 0·28 31 7·62 0·52 5·03 ***M AN3M D 25 6·25 0·36 31 6·57 0·44 3·06 **

Table 14. Sexual dimorphism in the permanent canines in the Wharram Percy adults

Females M ales

t -value SigN X N X

M AN3BL 18 7·24 0·40 20 7·81 0·53 3·70 **M AN3M D 18 6·26 0·35 20 6·69 0·46 3·29 **

K ey to Tables 10–14. N =number of individuals; X =mean measurement; =standard deviation of measurement;t -value=result of unpaired t -test. N ormal probability plots showed that in each subgroup the measurement datawere normally distributed, permitting theuse of parametric statistics. Sig=significance of t value; *=significant atthe0·05 level; ** =significant at the0·01 level; *** =significant at the0·001level; blank=P >0·05. F or Tables 9–12thoseindividuals assigned scores of zero on theA &N criteria areomitted (therewas oneof thesefor theorbit, andnonefor themandibular angle or thementum), as, obviously, arethosewhereobservation of a particular indicatorcould not bemade. For Table12only thosejuveniles who could besexed aseither maleor femaleareincluded; oneindividual had a combined scoreof zero and so is omitted from this table.


8/17/2019 Molleson, 1998

9/10

Comparison of T ables 13 and 14 shows that themeancaninedimensions of thejuveniles whosesex wasinferred using CF S are less than themeasurements forthe adults of the same sex. A t -test shows that thediff erencereachesstatistical significancein onecaseoutof thefour possible comparisons(for thebucco-lingual

width for those sexed as female the t -value is 1·68,P

8/17/2019 Molleson, 1998

10/10

Boucher, B. J . (1957). Sex diff erences in the foetal pelvis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 15, 581–600.

Brothwell, D. R. (1981). Digging up bones (3rd edition). Oxford:Oxford University Press/British M useum (Natural H istory).

Bunyard, M . W. (1972). Eff ectsof high sucrosecariogenic diets withvaried protein-calorie levels on the bones and teeth of the rat.Cal cified T issue R esearch 8, 217–227.

Fazekas, I . G. & K ósa, F . (1978). Forensic Foetal Osteology .Budapest: Academiai K iado.

Garn, S. M ., Osborne, R. H. & M cCabe, K -D. (1979). T he eff ectof prenatal factors on crown dimensions. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 51, 665–678.

Gugliardo, M . F. (1982). T ooth crown size diff erences between agegroups: a possible new indicator of stress in skeletal samples.American Journal of Physical Anthropology 58, 383–389.

Holloway, P. J ., Shaw, J . H. & Sweeney, E. A. (1961). Eff ects of various sucrose: casein ratios in purified diets on the teeth andsupporting structures of rats. Archives of Oral Biology 3, 185–200.

M eindl, R. S., L ovejoy, C. O., M ensforth, R. P. & Carlos, L . D.(1985). Accuracy and direction of error in the sexing of theskeleton. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 68, 79–85.

M olleson, T., Cox, M ., Waldron, A . H . & Whittaker, D . K . (1993).The Spitalfields Project. Volume 2. The Anthropology . CBA

Research Report 86. Y ork: Council for British Archaeology.M oss, M . L . (1978). Analysis of developmental processes possibly

related to human dental sexual dimorphism. In (P. M . Butler &K . A. J oysey, Eds) D evelopment, Function and Evolution of the Teeth . L ondon: Academic Press, pp. 135–148.

Reynolds, E. L . (1947). The boney pelvis in pre-pubertal childhood.American Journal of Physical Anthropology 5, 165–200.

Rösing, F . W. (1983). Sexing immature human skeletons. Journal of H uman E volution 12, 149–155.

Schour, I. & M assler, M . (1941). The development of the humandentition. Journal of the American Dental Association 28, 1153–1160.

Schutkowski, H. (1993). Sex Determination of infant and juvenileskeletons. 1. M orphognostic features. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 90, 199–205.

Searle, A. G. (1954). Genetical studies on theskeleton of themouse.XI. The influence of diet on variation within purelines. Journal of Genetics 52, 413–424.

Simpson, S. W., Hutchinson, D. L . & L arsen, C. S. (1990). C opingwith stress: tooth size, dental defects and age at death. In (C. S.L arsen, Ed.) The Archaeology of the M ission Santa Catalina de Guale: 2 . Biocultural Papers of theA merican M useum of NaturalHistory No. 68. New Y ork: American M useum of NaturalHistory, pp. 66–77.

Tonge, C. H. & M cCance, R. A. (1965). Severe undernutrition ingrowingand adult animals. 15. Themouth, jaws and teeth of pigs.British Journal of Nutrition 19, 361–372.

Appendix 1. CombinedFacial Scores(CFS) forSpitalfields Adult Skulls

OrbitAnglemand. M entum CF S

Sexdet.

Truesex

+1 +2 +1 +4 M M+1 +1 +1 +3 M M1 1 1 1 F F2 2 1 5 F F2 2 2 6 F F1 1 1 3 F F1 1 1 3 F F+2 +2 +1 +5 M M+1 1 +1 +1 M F+2 +2 +2 +6 M M2 2 2 6 F F+2 +2 +2 +6 M M1 1 1 3 F F+1 +1 +2 +4 M M2 2 2 6 F F1 1 1 3 F F1 1 2 4 F F+1 +1 +1 +3 M M

+1 +2 +2 +5 M M+1 +1 +1 +3 M M+2 +2 +2 +6 M M+2 +1 +1 +4 M M+2 +2 +2 +6 M M1 1 1 3 F F1 1 1 3 F F+2 +2 +2 +6 M M1 1 +1 1 F M+2 +2 +2 +6 M M2 2 2 6 F F+2 +2 +2 +6 M M2 1 2 5 F F1 +1 +1 +1 M F2 1 2 5 F F2 2 2 6 F F1 1 1 3 F F+1 +1 +1 +3 M M

1 2 1 4 F F2 1 1 4 F F+1 +1 1 +1 M F2 1 1 4 F F+1 +1 +2 +4 M F+2 +2 +2 +6 F F1 1 1 3 F F1 +1 +1 +1 M F+2 +2 +2 +6 M M2 2 +1 3 F F+2 +2 +2 +6 M M2 2 2 6 F F2 2 2 6 F F2 2 2 6 F F2 2 2 6 F F1 2 1 4 F F1 1 1 3 F F


Documents

Molleson, 1998