Evaluating Morphological Methods for Sex Estimation on Isolated Human Skeletal Materials: Comparisons of Accuracies between German and South African Skeletal Collections

Abstract

Objectives: The focus of this research is to evaluate the sex estimation methods on isolated human materials by applying morphological methods published in various forensic and anthropological literature on different skeletal series. Materials and Methods: 165 individuals from the 19th to 20th century Inden skeletal series, 252 individuals from the 13th to 14th century Lübeck skeletal series of German ancestry housed at the Department of Historical Anthropology and Human Ecology, the University of Göttingen, Germany, and 161 individuals from the 19th and 20th century of South African African ancestry housed within the Raymond A. Dart collection of modern human skeletons at the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa, with crania, mandibles, and pelves, were assessed. The evaluation criteria are burial information on the Inden series, genetic sex on both the Inden and the Lübeck series, and previous demography on cadavers from the South African African series. Results and Discussion: The sex estimation with cranial traits perform better in Inden and South Africa samples and worse in Lübeck sample. The mandible accuracies for pooled sexes are not exemplary, but the individual traits perform better for males in the Inden, Lübeck, and South Africa samples, except for gonion and angle, which performs better in females. The pelvic traits perform better in the Inden and South Africa samples compared to the Lübeck sample. The statistical tests show that there is a huge difference in the accuracy rates and the performance between both population groups from Germany itself, considering that Inden and Lübeck samples share the same ancestry. The accuracy rates improve with the exclusion of ambiguous individuals.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.