Comparing morphological () and metric (long bone length) sex estimation methods in archaeological collections.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the internal consistency of sex estimation using metric (long bone length) and morphological () methodologies from different bones and across different archaeological populations from different regions. Sex was estimated using characteristics of the pelvis and compared with sex estimations using long bone length. Portuguese (659 females; 906 males) and English (141 females; 277 males) archaeological collections were analysed in this study. A set of long bone length functions were developed using one of the archaeological collections (531 females; 600 males) and its coincidence with sex estimated from the pelvis was compared to the coincidence between the pelvis and long bone length sex estimations using functions developed from contemporary collections. Intra- and inter-observer errors were calculated, as well as the sexual dimorphism index for each bone and osteological collection. The accuracy of the developed functions and the other methods tested is highly variable, ranging between 25 and 100%. The accuracy of the standard forensic methods varied between collections and analysed bones. This study reinforces that long bone length is highly population-specific, even between samples of close chronology and geography. Metric methods are good options to strengthen the sex estimations, but they need to be carefully chosen and always report the estimated probability of being male or female in either forensic or archaeological analysis.