One for the biology deniers

[Berthatydfil]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/18/forensic-investigation-reveals-headless-highland-body-young/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/18/forensic-investigation-reveals-headless-highland-body-young/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook

Yes, they can age skeletons very well and as the article points out these bones were age about 25-35 not 80, and the person was also considerably shorter than the reported 6fi of the person's they were originally (wrongly) attributed to.

What the skeleton can reveal is fascinating - have you ever seen the programme about the skeletons of the Mary Rose and how they could work out which if the bodies were the archers?

It does not however tell you much about gender. It a viable DNA sample can still be unearthed, then it will tell out if XX, XY or one of the several intersex possibilities. It will not tell you the epigenetics of sex expression in that particular person. Nor will it tell you anything about what gender the person.

It does not however tell you much about gender.

No of course it doesn’t as gender doesn’t exist without a society.
Can tell you the sex though.

You can sex a skeleton by the pelvis and if that doesn't exist, also by the head too (I was informed of the latter on these threads).

There was a great programme on BBC Four last night about neanderthals and the skeleton was male - the jaw bone and forehead were indicators. Most Europeans have neanderthal DNA.

What the skeleton can reveal is fascinating - have you ever seen the programme about the skeletons of the Mary Rose and how they could work out which if the bodies were the archers?

That is really interesting, how could they tell? I genuinely find it fascinating.

I have to say, however, gender is a result of socialisation according to your biological sex and how you are treated and expected to behave - it is constructed by society so naturally it wouldn't tell on a skeleton.

MadamMinacious It took years to train and develop the strength to use a medieval longbow, so much so that some of their bones show clear signs of unusual development, both in their size and where muscles and tendons attached.

It does not however tell you much about gender.

Although wouldn't it be amazing if it did. That sort of info would be archaeology gold.

Imagine being able to dig up a skeleton and report back on the society in which the person lived.

Amazing. But sadly impossible.

*society WRT sex role stereotypes (gender)

Thank you Ifailed so interesting.

Depending on how old it is, you can look at what a skeleton was buried with or look at parish records. But skeletons tell stories on their own.

Bone grows depending on muscle use which is a simplistic phrase but if you have bones that are very robust, then the person they belonged to was probably pretty muscular.

Depending on how old it is, you can look at what a skeleton was buried with or look at parish records. But skeletons tell stories on their own.

Yes, grave gods could tell you about the society the person lived in, so could the manner of their burial, and the way they died. It used to be thought that these factors could also tell you about gender roles but that seems to be more problematic now because many burials go against accepted wisdom.

So, skeletons can only give a limited idea of gender, but generally they will reveal biological sex.

I know. I used to study osteoarchaeology. Then I failed at being an academic. Still love bones though. And I still think that greater study needs to be done on the effect multiple pregnancies had on the public symphysis.

Not just multiple pregnancies, i.e. lots of pregnancies year after year, but also the stress of multiple pregnancies such twin and rarer triple pregnancies too on the pubic symphysis.

Sorry, yes, that's what I meant.

One of the most depressing things I read (was a newspaper article, and we know how shit they can be at misreporting scientific research, so take with a slight pinch of salt) was a story about osteoarchaeology suggesting domestic violence may have been very prevalent in some stone age societies. Both male and female skeletons borethe signs of healed broken bones, but in women, a lot of the breaks in the lower arm bones were consistent with the sort of breaks you'd get if a woman had her hands over her head to try to ward off blows. Massively depressing.

I would think violence against women was very common. Not just DV, but women as victims of wars and feuds, being kidnapped by rival tribes, or women transgressing societal norms.

It is depressing to think such injuries were common enough to warrant research :(

It's been discussed on the board before but for anyone who hadn't heard of it, a Viking skeleton was found in Sweden in a full, classic warrior grave. The archaeologists were completely confounded when they discovered the skeleton was that of a woman. They spent ages trying to work out how this woman had somehow got into a warrior's grave, had the bones been mixed up, was this a wife or a slave of the warrior etc - all around the houses avoiding the possibility now put forward that the bloody warrior just was a woman.

Biology has nothing to do with gender and gender roles, gender happens in a social situation and is to do with living, functional relationships, activities and roles in a social context. And frankly no one but you and the people who interact with you has the faintest interest in your gender role, expression and opinions: they're not relevant outside of a social living context and can change drastically in very short spaces of time. Your biology is a fixed fact. Your gender is mostly in your head and the head of other people.

This has reminded me that I was on reading this about 'Harper Road woman'

www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/ancient-dna-written-bone

Harper Road woman is a woman. There is little evidence regarding chromosomes in ancient archaeology it is probable that Harper Road Woman was very late roman, possibly intersex. Plus we know that women exist on the xxy category. Chromosomes deplete with age, DNA doesn't.

What really pisses me off in ancient theology and history, is that Lesbos was not a place for women to gather, rich women who refused to marry and were sent off with lots of other rich women to this place - they bought their designate slaves - this much is known. Now it's rather a place where intersex were sent to and looked after by women. Rubbish!

We also have to be reminded that homosexuality was not seen as a problem in Roman times - even with women if you were rich enough and had a patriarch and a mater who cared about you.

It was adopted from the Greek model. But updated to include women - women's rights in Rome were quite the modern thing then.

Can I point out that the terms 'male' and 'female' are not confined solely to describing gender? They are used to refer to the sex of something, eg "the skeleton of a young female". Baby/child/adolescent/boy/girl/woman/man are age-related terms with no clear boundary distinctions. 'Female' and 'male' are used as a blanket term to describe the sex.

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia:

"The word girl originally meant "young person of either sex" in English; it was only around the beginning of the 16th century that it came to mean specifically a female child."