The “Archaeological” and “Biological” Sex of an Individual – Why Do they Sometimes Differ?
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2020 |
| Type | Article in Proceedings |
| Conference | Multiple Identities in Prehistory, Early History and Presence : Proceedings of the SASPRO workshops in Klement (Austria) and Nitra (Slovakia) 2018. Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae - Communicationes, Tomus XXIV |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| web | http://archeol.sav.sk/files/Multiple-identities_na-internet.pdf |
| Keywords | Pohansko; southern suburb; burial ground; biological sex; archaeological sex; gender |
| Description | The determination of sex in archaeological skeletal findings, in this case those in the graves discovered at Pohansko, has been a matter of controversy since the outset of collaboration between archaeologists and anthropologists. Such discrimination depends on the scientific opinion of experts, the theoretical and practical knowledge they have at their disposal, and the methods they choose to approach the grave/skeleton. Four graves out of the 205 found in the early medieval stronghold of Břeclav-Pohansko (CZ), specifically in the Southern Suburb, presented discrepancies between ‘archaeological’ and ‘anthropological’ sex/gender. Two of these were child graves in which earrings appeared (graves JP/100, JP/155) and one belonged to an adult individual with the earrings in a functional position (grave JP/160). All these skeletons were determined to be male individuals on the basis of aDNA analysis. On the other hand, according to aDNA analysis, an axe accompanied one adult skeleton that was determined to be that of a female (grave JP/103). The present paper discusses the quality of the evidence used, together with the cogency and logical reasoning of the archaeological and anthropological approaches. When there is contradiction between the anthropological and archaeological sex determination of a particular individual, arriving at a consensus depends on several key points: the state of the environment surrounding the archaeological finding, the quality of documentation, the condition of the skeletal material, the anthropological (archaeological) methods employed, and the archaeologist’s (anthropologist’s) judgement. |
| Related projects: |