Cargando…

Sex bias in Neolithic megalithic burials

OBJECTIVES: A statistical study comparing osteological and ancient DNA determinations of sex was conducted in order to investigate whether there are sex biases in United Kingdom and Irish Neolithic megalithic burials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Genetic and osteological information from human individuals...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elliott, Elliot, Saupe, Tina, Thompson, Jess E., Robb, John E., Scheib, Christiana L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10092627/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24645
_version_ 1785023391519997952
author Elliott, Elliot
Saupe, Tina
Thompson, Jess E.
Robb, John E.
Scheib, Christiana L.
author_facet Elliott, Elliot
Saupe, Tina
Thompson, Jess E.
Robb, John E.
Scheib, Christiana L.
author_sort Elliott, Elliot
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: A statistical study comparing osteological and ancient DNA determinations of sex was conducted in order to investigate whether there are sex biases in United Kingdom and Irish Neolithic megalithic burials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Genetic and osteological information from human individuals from 32 megalithic sites in the UK and Ireland dating from 4000 to 2500 cal. BCE was collected and statistically analyzed to test whether there is a true over‐representation of males at these sites. The published dataset from the study by Sánchez‐Quinto et al. in 2019 was initially analyzed before being refined and included in a larger dataset. Osteological analysis of sex bias was limited to adults with available sex estimations, and genetic analysis limited to published data RESULTS: Two sites consistently returned significant p‐values suggesting a potential over‐representation in osteological males at one site (Knowe of Midhowe, Orkney) and genetic males in the other (Primrose Grange, Ireland). Cumulative statistical analyses point towards a male bias in the representation of sexes in Neolithic megalithic burials, but these results do not reflect the site‐by‐site and regional variation found in this study. DISCUSSION: The interpretation of sex bias, that is, the over‐representation of one sex over another ‐ depends on other socio‐cultural variables (e.g., kinship) and the emphasis placed on statistical significance. The trend towards males being over‐represented in Neolithic megalithic burials is not as clear as previously thought, and requires further testing and data collection to uncover.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10092627
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100926272023-04-13 Sex bias in Neolithic megalithic burials Elliott, Elliot Saupe, Tina Thompson, Jess E. Robb, John E. Scheib, Christiana L. Am J Biol Anthropol Brief Communications OBJECTIVES: A statistical study comparing osteological and ancient DNA determinations of sex was conducted in order to investigate whether there are sex biases in United Kingdom and Irish Neolithic megalithic burials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Genetic and osteological information from human individuals from 32 megalithic sites in the UK and Ireland dating from 4000 to 2500 cal. BCE was collected and statistically analyzed to test whether there is a true over‐representation of males at these sites. The published dataset from the study by Sánchez‐Quinto et al. in 2019 was initially analyzed before being refined and included in a larger dataset. Osteological analysis of sex bias was limited to adults with available sex estimations, and genetic analysis limited to published data RESULTS: Two sites consistently returned significant p‐values suggesting a potential over‐representation in osteological males at one site (Knowe of Midhowe, Orkney) and genetic males in the other (Primrose Grange, Ireland). Cumulative statistical analyses point towards a male bias in the representation of sexes in Neolithic megalithic burials, but these results do not reflect the site‐by‐site and regional variation found in this study. DISCUSSION: The interpretation of sex bias, that is, the over‐representation of one sex over another ‐ depends on other socio‐cultural variables (e.g., kinship) and the emphasis placed on statistical significance. The trend towards males being over‐represented in Neolithic megalithic burials is not as clear as previously thought, and requires further testing and data collection to uncover. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022-11-02 2023-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10092627/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24645 Text en © 2022 The Authors. American Journal of Biological Anthropology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Brief Communications
Elliott, Elliot
Saupe, Tina
Thompson, Jess E.
Robb, John E.
Scheib, Christiana L.
Sex bias in Neolithic megalithic burials
title Sex bias in Neolithic megalithic burials
title_full Sex bias in Neolithic megalithic burials
title_fullStr Sex bias in Neolithic megalithic burials
title_full_unstemmed Sex bias in Neolithic megalithic burials
title_short Sex bias in Neolithic megalithic burials
title_sort sex bias in neolithic megalithic burials
topic Brief Communications
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10092627/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24645
work_keys_str_mv AT elliottelliot sexbiasinneolithicmegalithicburials
AT saupetina sexbiasinneolithicmegalithicburials
AT thompsonjesse sexbiasinneolithicmegalithicburials
AT robbjohne sexbiasinneolithicmegalithicburials
AT scheibchristianal sexbiasinneolithicmegalithicburials