Archaeologist here, maybe it’s just new wave training but widely taught that it’s not an easy task to sex skeletons on morphology alone.
Sure some features appear more commonly amongst men and some more commonly amongst women, but there is considerable overlap.
Pelvis are generally identifiable, but the bio-archaeologists I know prefer to say the skeleton displays female characteristics without providing a definitive biological sex. They have to have some great evidence before claiming for certain.
Also fun fact, you can’t measure this morphology when there’s still skin and muscle fucking attached.
The show Bones had a lot of weirdness, but I did appreciate that they consistently (at least the first few seasons when I was watching) stripped the bones down and even had a bug guy on staff to do it efficiently.
Archaeologist here, maybe it’s just new wave training but widely taught that it’s not an easy task to sex skeletons on morphology alone.
Sure some features appear more commonly amongst men and some more commonly amongst women, but there is considerable overlap.
Pelvis are generally identifiable, but the bio-archaeologists I know prefer to say the skeleton displays female characteristics without providing a definitive biological sex. They have to have some great evidence before claiming for certain.
Also fun fact, you can’t measure this morphology when there’s still skin and muscle fucking attached.
The show Bones had a lot of weirdness, but I did appreciate that they consistently (at least the first few seasons when I was watching) stripped the bones down and even had a bug guy on staff to do it efficiently.