AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 685’9-85 (1985)

Accuracy and Direction of Error in the Sexing of the Skeleton:

Implications for Paleodemography
RICHARD S. MEINDL, C. OWEN LOVEJOY, ROBERT P. MENSFORTH,
AND LYDIA DON CARLOS
Departments o f Anthropology and Biology, Kent State Uniuersity, Kent,
Ohio 44242 (R.S. M., C. O.L., R.P.M.); Department of Orthopaedic Surgery,
Case Western Reserve University, Cuyahoga County Coroner’s Office, and
Cleveland Museum ofNatural History, Cleveland Ohio 44106 (C. 0.L.);
Department o f H u m a n Anatomy, Northeast Ohio Universities College of
Medicine, Rootstown, Ohio 44272 (C.O.L., L.D. C.)

KEY WORDS Forensic, Sex-determination, Sexing, Demography,

Paleodemography

ABSTRACT Determinations of sex by subjective assessment of the skulls

from a skeletal series of known sex were compared to fully independent assess-
ments based on pelves of the same specimens. Within-sex correlations of
cranial and pelvic morphologies measured on a n android-gynecoid scale were
smaller than expected. Subjective assessment by means of the skull compared
favorably to that of the linear discriminant functions of Giles and Elliot;
however, the direction of error was similar for both procedures. Of course,
estimations based on the pelves were generally superior to both in terms of
frequency and overall bias of error. The bias of sex estimation for paleodemo-
graphic purposes is contingent upon completeness of skeletal remains.

The correct determination of skeletal sex is metric determination of sex in paleodemo-

a critical requirement in physical anthropol-
ogy, paleodemography, and forensic medi-
cine. Accuracy is clearly contingent upon
skeletal completeness, and Krogman esti-
mates the accuracy of descriptive sexing to
be about 90% for the lone cranium, 95% for
the lone pelvis, and 98% if both are available
(Krogman, 1962). Others have generally not
been as optimistic and have advocated the
use of more “objective” metric discrimina-
tors, which are presumed to be more repeat-
able and more easily taught (Washburn,
1948; Thieme and Schull, 1957; Giles, 1970;
Acsadi and Nemeskeri, 1970; Weiss, 1973).
This paper presents the results of a blind test
of the accuracy of observational sexing of
skulls (crania plus mandibles) and, indepen-
dently, pelves (innominates plus sacra) by
assessors with above average experience in
skeletal identification. Its primary purposes
are (1)to report the nature of within-sex cor-
relation between these two separate discrim-
inators of sex, (2) to examine the likely
direction of error conditional upon age-at-
death and skeletal completeness, and (3) to
examine the implications of descriptive and
graphy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
One hundred adult skeletons from the Ha-
mann-Todd Collection (from Sample 11, see
Lovejoy, et al., 1985) with complete skulls
and pelves were selected. All but five also
had a complete femur, which was used as a n
approximate measure of body size. Age, sex,
and race of all specimens were unknown to
the primary assessors (R.S.M., C.O.L.)
throughout the tests as were the proportions
of age, sex, and race in the sample of 100.
Without examining the individual skulls,
the two assessors each arranged the com-
plete pelves on a continuum from most male
to most female on the qualititative basis of
(1)morphology of the pubic face and inferior
ramus (Phenice, 19691, (2) greater sciatic
notch and preauricular region, (3) shape of
the lesser pelvis, and (4)overall rugosity and
relative size of the acetabulum. Since the
rank-orders determined by the two assessors
Received August 11, 1983; revised May 1, 1985; accepted May
3, 1985.

0 1985 ALAN R. LISS. INC

80 R.S. MEINDL, C.O. LOVEJOY, R.P. MENSFORTH, AND L. DON CARLOS

were quite similar, the continua were com- RESULTS

bined without difficulty, and the pelves were
then arranged on a simple six-level ordinal
scale ranging from “very male” (score = 0 )
to “very female” (score = 5).
Skulls were later seriated without knowl-
edge of the associated pelves, independently
a t first by each assessor. Sex was determined
by (1) overall rugosity of the occipital, mas-
toid, and zygomatic regions; (2)relative depth
of the mandibular rami, morphology of the
chin, and degree of gonial eversion; (3) size of
the teeth and palate; (4)size of the pterygoid
plates; (5) prominence of the supraorbital
ridges; and (6)frontal profile. No postcranial
information was used. Interobserver discrep-
ancies were somewhat more numerous and
pronounced in the case of the skulls; how-
ever, the assessors eventually agreed on a
single six-level ordinal scale as above.
The independent sex continua based on
skulls and pelves were then compared, and a
final judgment was made for each case. This
usually posed no difficulty except in marked
failures of agreement between skull and pel-
vis scores. In such cases, the pelvis was
weighted more heavily.
After final sex determinations had been
made and notes on questionable cases pre-
pared, the actual sex of each specimen was
revealed by the population constructor
(R.P.M.). The sex ratio of the sample was 59
males to 41 females. Eight errors had been
made based on observations of only the skull.
Four errors had been made on only the pel-
vis. With both considered, a total of three
errors (3%)had been made. Table 1provides
verbatim notes for all specimens in the series
that were suspected to have been incorrectly
sexed. Of the 100 cases examined, six had
been considered questionable, and all three
errors occurred in this subsample of six.
Skull and pelvic sex were judged indepen-
dently so that the joint distribution of scores
could be examined and their correlations
within each sex estimated (Table 2). The six
ordinal levels reflect the degree of “female-
ness’’ in both the skull (rows) and pelvis (col-
umns). As a n example, 11actual males were
judged to be moderately male in skull mor-
phology (score = 1)and, independently, very
male in pelvic morphology (score = 0).

TABLE 1. Evaluations of questionable cases

Case Pelvis Skull Estimate Actual Comment
HT0854 Female? Female? Female Male “Very borderline case”
HT1312 Female Male? Female Male “Uncertain”
HT1366 Female Male? Female Male “Uncertain”
HT1443 Female? Male Male Male “Pelvis not
informative”
HT1476 Male? Female? Male Male “Uncertain”
HT1584 Female? Female? Female Female “Uncertain”

TABLE 2. Bivariate distribution of estimated sex by skull andpeluis, within actual sex classes
Score on pelvis
Male+ Male Male- Female- Female Female+
Score on skull (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Total
Males
Female+ (5) -_ -
Female (4) - -
Female- (3) 2 6
Male- (2) 8 14
Male (1) 11 19
Male+ (0) 13 20
Total 34 59
Females
Female+ (5) -.
19
Female (4) -. 4
Female- (3) -.
16
Male- (2) -.
1
Male (1) -.
1
Male+ (0) -~ -
Total -. - - 1 2 38 41
‘Accuracy of finai assessment doubted, but correct.
‘Accuracy of final assessment doubted, and incorrect.
 SEX DETERMINATION
Females displayed little variation on the
pelvic scale with the result that no female
was sexed incorrectly on the basis of the pel-
vis, and such judgments could not have been
overruled by any cranial morphology. Only
three of the females obtained less than ex-
treme scores on the pelvis. One of these was
over two standard deviations above the fe-
male mean for femoral length; the other two
were of very average stature yet possessed
intermediate morphologies on the ventral arc
and subpubic concavity (Phenice, 1969). The
males, on the other hand, were quite varia-
ble on both scales. Six (10.2%) would have
been incorrectly sexed on the basis of skull
morphology alone, and four (6.8%)on the ba-
sis of the pelvis alone.
The human pelvis plays a critical role in
both locomotion and in parturition. In evolu-
tionary perspective, the interacetabular di-
mension in females is subject to opposing
selection pressures. While the relatively
large brain of the fetus requires a n expanded
birth canal, locomotor needs of the female
limit the divergence of the hip joints. This
forms the very basis of the sex dimorphism
of the human pelvis, and results in the very
distinctive female subpubic concavity de-
scribed by Phenice (1969) and the informa-
tional content of the traditional ischiopubic
index as well. Equally important is that it
results in the extreme limitation of female
variability relative to that of the male. Since
neither female nor male skull anatomy is
held by selection in such a fine balance,
within-sex variations on that scale are equiv-
alent, and skull dimorphism itself is less de-
finitive. Yet the direction of error was the
same as it was for the pelves: 10.2% of the
males were sexed incorrectly, as compared to
4.9%of the females.
It was found that the sex-dependent mor-
phology of the skull was significantly af-
fected by age. A nonparametric correlation
between cranial score and age within the
TABLE 3. Correlations within sexes: Kendalt‘s
Sample (n) Variable pair
Females (41) Skull’iage
Males (59) Skull/age
Females (41) Pelvis’/age
Males (59) Pelvisiage
Females (41) Pelvisiskull
Males (59) Pelvidskull
Females (38) Skull/size2
Males (57) Skullisize
Females (38) Pelvis/size
Males (57) Pelvis/size
‘Scores ranged from 0 (very male) to 5 (very female) for both skull and pelvis
‘“Size” is the bicondylar length of the femur.
81
female sample was significant (Table 3). It is
negative (7 = - .39) because the females were
assigned the higher values. Thus these data
indicate that greater age produces a n in-
creasingly male morphology. The same pat-
tern obtained within the male subsample (7
= - .33). This implies that a n increase in the
accuracy of discrimination is possible if the
assessor considers some estimate of skeletal
age (see Giles, 1970; Israel, 1973, 1977).
“Most head and face measurements continue
to increase after adolescence steadily, though
very slowly, to at least age 60 years. The
increase from 20 to 60 years amounts to be-
tween 2% and 4% of the 20-year-old value”
(Harrison et al., 1977:317). In the present
study, the two peaks of the female skull dis-
tribution were clearly related to age since
the 16 “slightly female” skulls were of indi-
viduals who averaged 48.1 i 11.3 years of
age a t death, while the 19 “very female”
skulls were of individuals who average 36.5
f 7.9 years, a difference that is highly signif-
icant (t = 3.46, p < .01). Age bore no rela-
tionship to the morphology of the pelvis as
ranked by the assessors (Table 3).
At the start of this project, a strong associ-
ation between gynecoid features in skull and
pelvis within the female subsample was an-
ticipated. The results were equivocal. Since
true variation among the female pelves was
extremely limited, skull variation had noth-
ing with which to covary (7 = .09; Table 3).
Males were moderately variable in both skull
and pelvic anatomy: a little over half (57.6%)
exhibited “very male” pelves; about a third
(33.9%) had “very male” skulls. However,
the correlation between the sex scores on
skull and pelvis within the male subsample
only approached significance (7 = .16; Table
3). Body size (approximated by femoral
length) exhibited no measurable association
with the cranial or pelvic (subjective) assess-
ments within either sex (Table 3). Therefore,
controlling for body size would not have sig-
7
7 Significance
- .39 p < ,001
- .33 p < ,001
- .08 ns, p .25
- .03 ns, p > .25
+ .09 ns, p > .25
+.16 .10> p > .05
- .09 ns, p > .25
+ .07 ns, p > .10
-.lo ns, p > .10
+ .04 ns. n > -26
82 R.S. MEXNDL, C.O. LOVEJOY, R.P. MENSFORTH. AND L. DON CARLOS
nificantly affected the degree of within-sex
association between skull and pelvis.
METRIC DISCRIMINATION OF CRANIA
Following Giles and Elliot, nine standard
craniometrics of proven sex-discrimination
power were taken to the nearest millimeter
on each specimen (Giles and Elliot, 196358-
59): The measures were glabello-occipital
length, maximum width, basion-bregma
height, maximum bizygomatic diameter,
basion-prosthion length, prosthion-nasion
height, basion-nasion length, external
breadth of the palate, and mastoid height.
All are lengths, widths, and chords and are
defined in Giles and Elliot (1963) or in Hoo-
ten (1946). Nine discriminant functions were
selected from that study. Those functions
numbered 4-6 utilize eight measures; 7-9
use all but three; and 19-21 use only five.
The last of each group of three (i.e., discrimi-
nant functions 6, 9, and 21) were designed
for use with race unknown and were applied
to the entire sample in this study. The re-
maining six are race-specific and were ap-
plied to the appropriate subsamples.' The
sectioning points used for discrimination of
the specimens in this study were those deter-
mined by Giles and Elliot (1963).
The cranial discriminant functions were
less accurate than the simple observational
methods employed in this study, which was
partly due to our decision to incorporate sub-
jective information from the mandible (Table
4). Error rates for the linear functions were
remarkably close to those predicted by the
authors, except in the case of the black sub-
sample, which suffered misclassification
rates of about one in five (usually males
called females). This was probably a conse-
quence of a size discrepancy between the
TABLE 4. Error rates in sex discrimination
Discriminator
(function) Actual errors
6 (race unknown) 141100
9 (race unknown) 14/100
21 (race unknown) 16/100
4 (whites only) 4/29
7 (whites only) 4/29
19 (whites only) 3/29
5 (blacks only) 1817 1
8 (blacks only) 1717 1
20 (blacks only) 14/71
Cranium and 81100
mandible, subjective
'General error rate predicted by Giles and Elliot with application of functions to appropriate samples
(1963:631.
black male subsample of this study and the
one selected by Giles and Elliot. The average
discriminant function scores for females
within both races for both studies were quite
similar, and the average scores for the white
males in both studies were nearly as close
(Tables 5,6).However, the scores of the black
males in this study (especially on functions 5
and 8) were significantly different from those
in the original Giles and Elliot study. This
reflects a size differential between these sub-
samples that is most probably a function of
age. No control over race and age was exer-
cised in the selection of the 100 specimens in
the present sample, the black males of which
tended to be quite young (Table 7).
Had the subjective methods of this study
for sexing the skull also failed to include
mandibular data, the error rates might have
approached those of the linear functions. In
numerous instances the morphology of the
chin and the degree of gonial eversion re-
solved the status of otherwise difficult crania.
However, metric discriminators that cannot
adequately reflect these rather subjective
mandibular traits are not as useful. Giles
(1964) provides nine mandibular functions,
which were not used extensively in this study
for two reasons. First, the adult mandible is
perhaps the most environmentally modified
of all bones. It is subject to extensive remod-
eling, which makes it too sensitive for paleo-
demographic purposes. Second, remodeling
accelerates after the common event of tooth
loss, and quite a few of the Hamann-Todd
skeletons are functionally (post-canine) ed-
entulous. When the Giles mandible functions
'As an aid to these procedures, the assessors did not attempt
to estimate race; rather, appropriate functions were chosen only
after the revelation of race for each specimen.
Actual sex of errors
% Predicted %' (males; females)
14.0 14.5 10; 4
14.0 15.1 10; 4
16.0 15.9 10; 6
13.8 13.6 1;3
13.8 13.6 1; 3
10.3 15.1 1; 2
25.4 13.4 14; 4
23.9 13.5 13; 4
19.7 15.0 11; 3
8.0 6; 2
 SEX DETERMINATION 83

TABLE 5. Mean discriminant function scores, females

Discriminator Giles and Elliot Test sample, this study

(function) sample means Mean SD n
6 5,769.25 5,755.24 194.76 41
9 5,919.72 5,907.84 200.35 41
21 862.41 866.65 29.71 41
4 2,497.10 2,486.36 81.82 18 whites
7 1,248.86 1,245.80 42.59 18 whites
19 4,903.33 4,897.85 144.51 18 whites
5 3,935.03 3,922.74 151.81 23 blacks
8 2,423.22 2,430.06 92.36 23 blacks
20 2,485.22 2,492.79 90.64 23 blacks

TABLE 6. Mean discriminant function scores, males

Discriminator Giles and Elliot Test sample, this study

(function) sample means Mean SD n
6 6,174.82 6,140.96 194.51 59
9 6,319.28 6,288.32 192.35 59
21 920.55 919.22 31.25 59
4 2,687.53 2,663.03 76.70 11 whites
7 1,343.54 1,335.37 38.21 11 whites
19 5,230.05 5,199.00 138.24 11 whites
5 4,223.20 4,162.78 139.69 48 blacks
8 2,608.60 2,570.99 86.20 48 blacks
20 2,652.71 2,636.17 92.32 48 blacks

TABLE Z Ages of racesex classes

Giles and Elliot samples Samples, this study
Mean SD n Mean SD n
White males 44.6 13.7 75 49.9 6.3 11
White females 44.6 14.1 75 44.9 11.0 18
Black males' 44.3 14.1 75 34.6 9.6 48
Black females 43.9 14.3 75 40.3 10.4 23
'Black male means significantly different, p < ,001.

were applied only to those skulls incorrectly
sexed on one or more crania functions (and
provided they had teeth), the bias was pro-
nounced. Nearly all of the many incorrectly
sexed males remained so on the mandible
functions, while all of the fewer errors on
females were contradicted by the mandible
functions. Thus, systematic application of the
mandible discriminant functions would only
serve to increase the bias (i.e., males called
female) in this study. Giles and Elliot's (1963)
original decision to limit the metric discrim-
inators to crania is a sound one.
The results of the application of linear dis-
criminant functions to biological popula-
tions-from which they were derived and for
which they were intended to be used-has
several implications for their use in a paleo-
demographic context: (1) the power of the
battery of metric discriminators in current
use for skulls is limited compared to obser-
vational methods because important mandi-
bular information is not fully utilized; (2)
cranial dimensions appear to increase with
age, thereby affecting the discriminant func-
tion score; and (3)the direction of error in the
estimation of sex based on the Giles and El-
liot discriminant functions is the same as
that of descriptive sexing. That is, the crania
of young adult males, which constitute a siz-
able segment of those mortuaries that are
demographically useful, will probably be
misclassified at a higher rate than those of
other age-sex classes, regardless of the
method employed.'
'Movement of the sectioning point, a makeshift procedure
advocated by Henke (1977),would have resulted in only a small
material improvement in the results of our application of the
Giles and Elliot discriminant functions to the present sample.
The relocation of the discrimination boundaries for other popu-
lations remains difficult ta implement, largely untested, and
theoretically problematic.
84 R.S.MEINDL, C.O. LOVEJOY, R.P. MENSFORTH, AND L. DON CARLOS
DISCUSSION
The present study has demonstrated that
actual female skeletons are rarely misclassi-
fied, whereas males can on occasion be mis-
takenly called female. No single cranial
character emerged as a hallmark of gender.
This is fully expected since masticatory, fa-
cial, and calvarial characters play no sex-
specific role. However, there are definable
secondary characters that are present in even
the least dimorphic population, and these are
useful in descriptive sexing of the skull.
The statistical discriminant functions in
current use for crania derive nearly all of
their power from size and its allometric ef-
fects, which are environmentally labile and
therefore population specific. That a presum-
ably appropriate Giles and Elliot function
was unable to sex correctly more than 65%
of a series of Finnish crania (of known sex) is
a case in point (Kajanoja, 1966). It must be
emphasized that the material of the present
study was drawn from virtually the same
biological populations as those used by Giles
and Elliot (indeed, from one of the same skel-
etal collections). Yet because of an average
age differential in one of the sex-race classes,
the overall misclassification was biased.
The use of the complete skull overcomes
some but not all of these difficulties. Also
many of the secondary sexual traits present
measurement problems that would violate
the assumptions of traditional parametric dis-
criminant function analysis (i.e., continuity,
multivariate normality, and equal variances
and covariances). It is true that many of these
traits serve as primary evidence in the sub-
jective anatomical estimation of sex with the
skull. Other evidence is less liable to linear
measurement. It is not that the linear dis-
criminant functions in their present state of
development fail to formalize what the eye
discerns; rather, the two approaches utilize
overlapping but somewhat different sets of
cranial information.
Discrimination of sex of the pelvis is an
altogether different type of problem. There is
a marked functional difference between the
two pelvic anatomies that may be regarded
as primary sexual characters. Furthermore,
the basic elements of this dichotomy are com-
mon to all human populations. Even statis-
tical functions are very successful here (see
Thieme and Schull, 19571, but a s one experi-
enced forensic specialist has remarked, there
is not much point in their application other
than to allow beginners “to convey to others
a feeling of trust in their sexing of skeletal
remains” (Stewart, 1954). Our own numer-
ous attempts to resolve metrically the sex of
those very few cases in which the pelvic mor-
phology is indeterminant have never proved
more successful than ordinary observational
methods.
CONCLUSIONS
Any statistical technique that uses multi-
ple linear dimensions to establish a rule for
discriminating unknown specimens is popu-
lation-specific. The best such functions in
current use for the forensic analysis of the
cranium are the result of the extensive and
carefully controlled study of Giles and Elliot.
Certainly we were unable to improve upon
these types of discriminant functions (i.e.,
those dealing with the face and calvarium
only), despite considerable effort. However,
their functions appear to lose accuracy when
applied to statistical populations which differ
in some systematic way from the 300 speci-
mens in their core sample.
It is concluded that the overall sex-ratio
and specific age-class sex ratios of prehistoric
cemeteries must be estimated from only those
adult burials with fully preserved pelves.
Even so, anatomists who adhere to this rule
will probably underestimate the proportion
of adult males, while erring in very few of
their assessments of true females. This may
be a curious conclusion in the light of the
demographic survey by Weiss, who compared
the high sex ratios of extinct populations to
the consistently balanced ratios of living prim-
itives (1972). We have argued elsewhere (Lo-
vejoy et al., 1977) that extinct pre-urban pop-
ulations present distinctly different biological
and demographic conditions than those ob-
served in extant, ethnographic ones.3
While the direction of error in judging pre-
historic sex-ratios by means of either metric
realize that uneven sex-ratios frequently occur in the
recovery of skeletal populations. An important source of error
would he the disproportionate inclusion of one sex over the other
as a result of special mortuary practices. Given the results of
this study and Weiss’ survey (1972), we must conclude that of
the archeologicalsamples of reported high sex-ratios, many may
even represent underestimates of the excess of males. As sug-
gested in this study, a primary reliance on cranial sexing may
be responsible for some of the bias in paleodemographic studies.
Primary use of pelvic sexing can greatly reduce the estimation
error, and a careful analysis of archeological evidence can fre-
quently clarify actual imbalances. However, we wish to point
out that the accuracy of sex determination must he gauged on
tests such as those presented here, and not by comparison to
living ethnographic populations, which may well evince sub-
stantially different demographic parameters than the cemeter-
ies of extinct archaeological populations.
 SEX DETERMINATION
or descriptive assessment of skulls alone can-
not be determined, one aspect of cranial mor-
phology could produce a systematic bias in
some applications. Skulls of the oldest female
decedents are 2% to 5% larger in most linear
dimensions (Israel, 1973, 1977; Harrison et
al., 1977) and in our study appear to have
accumulated other qualitative male charac-
teristics as well. A likely result of using only
the skull for some specimens would be sex
ratios underestimated for the bottom of an
adult age pyramid, in the same fashion as
the overall error, but less so or even overes-
timated for the top of the pyramid. The dis-
tortion of the resulting sex differentials in
adult survivorship is one of the strongest ar-
guments to the paleodemographer for pri-
mary reliance on the pelvic determination of
sex.
The 6%of the adult skeletons in this study
that were not sex-distinctive (Table l),half of
which were sexed incorrectly, probably rep-
resents a n extreme figure. The late-Archaic
Carlston-Annis (Mensforth, unpublished) and
late-Woodland Libben skeletal populations
(Lovejoy et al., 1977) contained relatively
fewer of what we would have labeled “ques-
tionable” cases. Despite reduced average
body size, archaeological populations tend to
be more sex-dimorphic and genetically ho-
mogeneous than the racially and geographi-
cally mixed samples used in this and other
replicative forensic studies. Sex determina-
tions by descriptive methods may be re-
garded as sufficiently accurate so as not to
differ significantly from the actual sex ratios
of cemetery populations, so long as care and
skill are employed in the application of tra-
ditional anatomical methods.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported in this paper was
funded by the National Science Foundation,
Division of Behavioral and Neural Sciences,
Award No. BNS-77-07958. The Cleveland
Museum of Natural History generously
loaned skeletal material from the Hamann-
Todd Collection.
85
LITERATURE CITED
Acsadi, G, and Nemeskeri J (1970) History of Human
Life Span and Mortality. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
Giles, E (1964) Sex determination by discriminant func-
tion analysis of the mandible. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.
22:129-135.
Giles, E (1970) Sexing crania by discriminant function
analysis. Proc. 8th Int. Cong. Anthropol. Ethnol. Sci.
A-259-61.
Giles, E, and Elliot, 0 (1963) Sex determination by dis-
criminant function analysis of crania. Am. J. Phys.
Anthropol. 21:53-68.
Harrison, GA, Weiner, JS, Tanner, J M and Barnicot, NA
(1977) Human Biology, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Henke, W (1977) On the method of discriminant function
analysis for sex determination of the skull. J. Hum.
Evol. 6:95-100.
Hooten, EA (1946) Up From the Ape. New York:
Macmillan.
Israel, H (1973) Age factor and the pattern of change in
craniofacial structures. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 39:lll-
128.
Israel, H (1977) The dichotomous pattern of craniofacial
expansion during aging. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.
47:47-52.
Kajanoja, P (1966) Sex determination of Finnish crania
by discriminant function analysis. Am. J. Phys. An-
thropol. 24:29-34.
Krogman, WM (1962) The Human Skeleton in Forensic
Medicine. Springfield IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Lovejoy, CO, Meindl, RS, Mensforth, RP, and Barton, TJ
(1985)Multifactorial determination of skeletal age a t
death: A method and blind tests of its accuracy. Am. J.
Phys. Anthropol. 68:l-14.
Lovejoy, CO, Meindl, RS, Pryzbeck, TR, Barton, TS, Hei-
ple, KG, and Kotting, D (1977) Paleodemography of
the Libben site, Ottawa County, Ohio. Science 198:291-
293.
Mensforth, RP: Paleodemography of the Carlston Annis
BT-5 Skeletal Population. Unpublished manuscript,
Kent State University.
Phenice, TW (1969) A newly developed visual method of
sexing the 0s pubis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 30297-
301.
Stewart, TD (1954) Sex determination of the skeleton by
guess and by measurement. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.
I2:385-392.
Thieme, FP, and Schull, W J (1957) Sex determination
from the skeleton. Hum. Biol. 29242-273.
Washburn, SL (1948) Sex differences in the pubic bone.
Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 6:199-207.
Weiss, KM (1972) On the systematic bias in skeletal
sexing. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 37:239-250.
Weiss, KM (1973) Demographic models for anthropology.
Mem. Soc. Am. Archaeol. Am. Antiq. 38: (No. 2, Part
2).