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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |