Artigo de revisão
PARITY INDICATORS IN THE PELVIC BONES: A SCOPING REVIEW
Como citar: Dias NDM, Porto LT, Barreto NMPV. Indícios de paridade nos ossos pélvicos: uma revisão de escopo. Persp Med Legal Pericia Med. Vol. 10, 2025; 250521.
https://dx.doi.org/10.47005/250521Aceito em 04/09/2025
The authors report no conflict of interest.
PARITY INDICATORS IN THE PELVIC BONES: A SCOPING REVIEW
Resumo
INTRODUÇÃO: A gestação afeta os ossos e o parto pode ser traumático. Todavia, não há consenso sobre cicatrizes pélvicas de parturição. OBJETIVO: Identificar na literatura científica possíveis indícios de parto e/ou abortamento nos ossos da pelve. MÉTODOS: Conduziu-se uma revisão de escopo em junho–julho/2024 nas bases: SciELO, PubMed, BVS e CAPES, mediante buscas em inglês. Elegeram-se artigos relacionados, sem restrição temporal ou metodológica, excluindo-se aqueles sem enfoque em humanos modernos falecidos. RESULTADOS: Identificaram-se 303 artigos, sendo 31 duplicatas. Recuperaram-se 27 adicionais. Incluíram-se na revisão 23 estudos datados entre 1909–2021 e disponíveis em inglês. Relataram-se 05 possíveis marcadores pélvicos correlacionados à paridade: fossas na sínfise púbica, tubérculo púbico estendido, sulco pré-auricular ilíaco, extensão pré-auricular sacral e incisura pré-auricular sacral. DISCUSSÃO: Fossas na superfície posterior do osso púbico, adjacente à sínfise, podem indicar parto devido ao amolecimento ligamentar induzido pela relaxina. O sulco pré-auricular ilíaco pode ser mais proeminente em partos difíceis, diminuindo com a idade devido à remodelação óssea. A extensão sacral pré-auricular e a incisura pré-auricular sacral sugerem relação com eventos obstétricos, tal qual a extensão do tubérculo púbico. Inobstante, fatores como obesidade e trauma também são considerados etiologias. CONCLUSÃO: A natureza dinâmica dos ossos dificulta a precisão dos indícios sugestivos de paridade, que podem ser mais evidentes logo após o parto e durante a lactação, mas diminuem com o tempo. A gestação deve ser considerada entre as etiologias das marcas em fêmeas com múltiplos possíveis marcadores, refletindo o contexto sociocultural e de acesso à saúde obstétrica.
Palavras Chave: antropologia forense, paridade, ossos pélvicos.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pregnancy affects the bones and parturition can be traumatic. However, there is no consensus regarding pelvic parturition scars. OBJECTIVE: To identify in the scientific literature possible signs of childbirth in the pelvic bones. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in June-July 2024 in the SciELO, PubMed, BVS and CAPES databases, through searches in English. Related articles were selected, with no time or methodological restrictions, excluding those that did not focus on deceased modern humans. RESULTS: 303 articles were identified, 31 of which were duplicates. Additional 27 were retrieved. The review included 23 studies dated between 1909-2021 and available in English. Five possible pelvic markers correlated with parity were identified: pits in the pubic symphysis, extended pubic tubercle, iliac preauricular groove, sacral preauricular extension and sacral preauricular notch. DISCUSSION: Pits at the posterior surface of the pubic bone, adjacent to the symphysis, may indicate childbirth due to relaxin-induced ligament laxity. The preauricular iliac groove may be more prominent in difficult deliveries, decreasing with age due to bone remodeling. The preauricular sacral extension and the preauricular sacral notch suggest a possible correlation with obstetric events, as does the extension of the pubic tubercle. However, factors such as obesity and trauma are also considered etiologies. CONCLUSIONS: The dynamic nature of bones makes it challenging to determine the accuracy of parturition markers, which may diminish over time. Pregnancy should be considered one of the etiologies of pelvic alterations in females with several possible markers, reflecting the sociocultural context and access to obstetric care.
Keywords (MeSH): forensic anthropology, parturition, pelvic bones.
References
1. Lujano-Negrete AY, Rodríguez-Ruiz MC, Skinner-Taylor CM, Perez-Barbosa L, Cardenas de la Garza JA, García-Hernández PA, Espinosa-Banuelos LG, Gutierrez-Leal LF, Jezzini-Martínez S, Galarza-Delgado DÁ. Bone metabolism and osteoporosis during pregnancy and lactation. Arch Osteoporos. 2022 Feb 19;17(1):36. doi: 10.1007/s11657-022-01077-x.
2. Winter EM, Ireland A, Butterfield NC, Haffner-Luntzer M, Horcajada M-N, Veldhuis-Vlug AG, et al. Pregnancy and lactation, a challenge for the skeleton. Endocrine Connections. [Internet] 2020 [cited 2024 jul 1] Jun;9(6):R143–57. https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-20-0055
3. Gangakhedkar GR, Kulkarni AP. Physiological Changes in Pregnancy. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2021;25(Suppl 3):S189-S192. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24039
4. Bongiovanni R. Effects of Parturition on Pelvic Age Indicators. Journal of Forensic Sciences. [Internet] 2016 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Mar 22;61(4):1034–40.https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13085
5. Ubelaker DH, De La Paz JS. Skeletal Indicators of Pregnancy and Parturition: A Historical Review. Journal of Forensic Sciences. [Internet] 2012 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Feb 28;57(4):866–72. Skeletal Indicators of Pregnancy and Parturition: A Historical Review – Ubelaker – 2012 – Journal of Forensic Sciences – Wiley Online Library
6. Kemkes-Grottenthaler A. Aging through the ages: historical perspectives on age indicator methods. In: Hoppa RD, Vaupel JW, editors. Paleodemography: Age Distributions from Skeletal Samples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Internet] 2002 [cited 2024 Jul 1] p. 48–72. (Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology). Aging through the ages: historical perspectives on age indicator methods (Chapter 4) – Paleodemography (cambridge.org)
7. Gilbert BM, McKern TW. A method for aging the female Os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. [Internet] 1973 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Jan;38(1):31–8. A method for aging the female Os pubis – Gilbert – 1973 – American Journal of Physical Anthropology – Wiley Online Library
8. Kimmerle EH, Konigsberg LW, Jantz RL., Baraybar J P. Analysis of Age-at-Death Estimation Through the Use of Pubic Symphyseal Data. Journal of Forensic Sciences. [Internet] 2008 [cited 2024 Jul 1]; 53(3), 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00711.x
9. Suchey JM, Wiseley DV, Green RF, Noguchi TT. Analysis of dorsal pitting in the os publis in an extensive sample of modern American females. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1979 Nov;51(4):517-40. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330510404.
10. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, McInerney P, Godfrey CM, Khalil H. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020 Oct;18(10):2119-2126. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167.
11. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. [Internet] 2018 [cited 2024 Jul 01] Sep 4;169(7):467–73.https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
12. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil, H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (eds). [Internet] 2020 [cited 2024 Jul 01]. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Available from: https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
13. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: update methodology. J Adv Nurs [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2024 Jul 01];52(5):546-53. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x.
14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
15. Herrmann B; T. Bergfelder. Über den diagnostischen Wert des sogenannten Geburtstrauma am Schambein bei der Identifikation. Zeitschrift für Rechtsmedizin. [Internet] 1978 [cited 2024 Jul 1] ; Mar 1;81(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00200601
16. Lopreno GP, Santos F, Bruzek J. Is the preauricular groove, as defined by Bruzek (2002), an indicator of parity? A test using the SIMON identified skeletal collection (Vaud, Switzerland). Anthropologischer Anzeiger. [Internet] 2021 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Nov 9. https://doi.org/10.1127/anthranz/2021/1400.
17. Brůžek J, Santos F, Perréard Lopreno G. Grooves in the preauricular area of the human ilium as indicator of sex or traces of parturition: historical background with a test of Novotný’s method. Anthropologischer Anzeiger.[Internet] 2021 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Oct 18. https://doi.org/10.1127/anthranz/2021/1397.
18. Pany‐Kucera D, Spannagl‐Steiner M, Argeny S, Maurer‐Gesek B, Weninger WJ, Rebay‐Salisbury K. Sacral preauricular extensions, notches, and corresponding iliac changes: New terms and the proposal of a recording system. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. [Internet] 2019 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Sep 9;29(6): 1013–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2814
19. Pany‐Kucera D, Spannagl‐Steiner M, Desideri J, Rebay‐Salisbury K. Indicators of motherhood? Sacral preauricular extensions and notches in identified skeletal collections. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. [Internet] 2021 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Oct 13;32(1):64–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.3044
20. Waltenberger L, Pany-Kucera D, Rebay-Salisbury K, Mitteroecker P. The association of parturition scars and pelvic shape: A geometric morphometric study. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2021 Mar;174(3):519-531. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.24196.
21. Lorkiewicz W, Karkus J, Mietlińska J, Stuss M, Sewerynek E, Plażuk D, et al. Did parity affect bone mineral density of women in past populations? Parturition scars and BMD of Neolithic to modern skeletons from north-central Poland. Journal of Archaeological Science. [Internet] 2020 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Dec;124:105264.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105264.
22. Igarashi Y, Shimizu K, Mizutaka S, Kagawa K. Pregnancy parturition scars in the preauricular area and the association with the total number of pregnancies and parturitions. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2020 Feb;171(2):260-274. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23961
23. McFadden C, Oxenham MF. Sex, Parity, and Scars: A Meta-analytic Review. J Forensic Sci. [Internet] 2018 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Jan;63(1):201-206.https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13478
24. McFadden C. Parturition markers and skeletal sex estimation. Elsevier eBooks. [Internet] 2020 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Jan 1;131–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815767-1.00009-2
25. Stewart TD. Identification of The Scars of Parturition in The Skeletal Remains of Females. Seminar on Personal Identification in Mass Disasters. National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. [Internet] 1970 [cited 2024 Jul 1] p. 127-134.doi: 10.5479/sil.30678.39088001440254
26. Holt CA. A re-examination of parturition scars on the human female pelvis. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1978. Jul;49(1):91-4. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330490114.
27. Kelley M. Parturition and pelvic changes. American journal of physical anthropology. [Internet] 1979 [cited 2024 Jul 1]; 51 4, 541-6 . https://doi.org/10.1002/AJPA.1330510405.
28. Snodgrass JJ, Galloway A. Utility of dorsal pits and pubic tubercle height in parity assessment. J Forensic Sci. 2003. [Internet]; Nov;48(6):1226-30 [cited 2024 Jul 1]. JFS2003027_486.ps (pinniped.net)
29. James SL, Dillon S (eds). A Companion to Women in the Ancient World. 1ed. New Jersey, USA. Research Gate; [Internet] 2012.p. 125-140 [cited 2024 Jul 1]. Available from: someTitle (researchgate.net)
30. Navickas K. Rethinking Pelvic Morphological Variation and Its Relation to Parturition Status. Wellesley.edu. [Internet] 2019 [cited 2024 Jul 2]. Available from:Rethinking Pelvic Morphological Variation and Its Relation to Parturition Status. Wellesley College Digital Repository
31. Maass P, Friedling L. Scars of Parturition? Influences Beyond Parity. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. [Internet] 2016 [cited 2024 Jul 1]; 26, 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/OA.2402
32. Cox M, Scott A. Evaluation of the obstetric significance of some pelvic characters in an 18th century British sample of known parity status. American journal of physical anthropology. [Internet] 1992 [cited 2024 Jul 1]; 89 4, 431-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/AJPA.1330890404.
33. Houghton P. The relationship of the pre-auricular groove of the ilium to pregnancy. Am J Phys Anthropol. [Internet] 1974. [cited 2024 Jul 1] Nov;41(3):381-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330410305
34. Houghton, P. The Bony Imprint of Pregnancy. [Internet] 1975.[s.l: s.n.]. [cited 2024 Jul 1]. Disponível em: bullnyacadmed00161-0091.pdf (nih.gov)
35. Derry DE. Note on the innominate bone as a factor in the determination of sex: with special reference to the sulcus preauricularis. J Anat Physiol. [Internet] 1909; 43:266–76 [cited 2024 Jul 1]. Available from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1289186/pdf/janatphys00031-0072.pdf
36. De Silva JM, Rosenberg KR. Anatomy, Development, and Function of the Human Pelvis. The Anatomical Record. 2017 Mar 15;300(4):628–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.23561
37. Huseynov A, Zollikofer CP, Coudyzer W, Gascho D, Kellenberger C, Hinzpeter R, Ponce de León MS. Developmental evidence for obstetric adaptation of the human female pelvis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 May 10;113(19):5227-32. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1517085113.
38. Angel JL. The bases of paleodemography. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 1969 May;30(3):427–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330300314
39. Putschar WGJ. Entwicklung, Wachstum und Pathologie der Beckenverbindungen des Menschen, mit besonderer Berucksichtigung von Schwangerschaft, Geburt und ihren Folgen. Jena, Germany: Fischer, 1931.
40. Ullrich, H. Estimation of fertility by means of pregnancy and childbirth alterations at the pubis, the ilium and the sacrum. [Internet]. 1975 [cited 2024 jul 10]. Ossa 2. Vol 2, pp. 23-39.Ossa 2 (archaeologydataservice.ac.uk)
41. Ullrich, H. Zur Schätzung der Fertilität anhand von Schwangerschafts-und Geburtsveränderungen am Pubis, Ilium und Sacrum. Mitt. Sektion Anthropol. Biolog. Ges. [Internet]. 1976 [cited 2024 jul 10]. DDR, 32(33), 81-106.https://www.jstor.org/stable/26294868
42. Bruzek, J. A method for visual determination of sex, using the human hip bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 2002, 117(2), 157–168. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10012
43. Durham University. Estimating sex from the pelvis [Internet]. FutureLearn [cited 2024 jul 10]. Available from: https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/forensic-archaeology-and-anthropology/0/steps/67882
44. Aeby CT. Die Symphysis ossium pubis des Menschen: Nebst Beiträgen zur Lehre vom hyatinen Knorpel und seiner Verknöcherung [Internet]. Google Books. Heidelberg, C.F. Winter; 1858 [cited 2024 Jul 2]. Available from: Die Symphysis ossium pubis des Menschen, Nebst Beiträgen zur Lehre vom hyatinen Knorpel und seiner Verknöcherung – Google Play Livros
45. Brothwell DR. Digging up bones. Third edition, revised and updated. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. American Journal of Physical Anthropology [Internet]. 1982 [cited 2024 Jul 10];59(4):469–70. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/36808032/Digging_up_bones_By_D_R_Brothwell_Third_edition_revised_and_updated_Ithaca_New_York_Cornell_University_Press_1981_208_pp_figures_tables_bibliography_index_dollar_14_95_paper
46. Dunlap SS. A study of the preauricular sulcus in a cadaver population [dissertation]. East Lansing (MI): Michigan State University [Internet], 1981. www.proquest.com. [cited 2024 Jul 10]. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/openview/c65668e2fbcec2970e082235df749f97/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
47. Owsley DW, Bradtmiller B. Mortality of pregnant females in Arikara villages: Osteological evidence. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. [Internet] 1983 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Jul;61(3):331–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330610307.
48. Mahajan A, Gupta I, Verma P. Split apart postpartum: a case report of post partum pubic symphysis diastasis. International Journal of Medical Reviews and Case Reports.[Internet] 2019 [cited 2024 jul 10]. Available from: 172-1566373344.pdf (mdpub.net)
49. Becker I, Woodley SJ, Stringer MD. The adult human pubic symphysis: a systematic review. Journal of Anatomy [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Sep 14;217(5):475–87. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035856/
50. Stewart TD. Distortion of the pubic symphyseal surface in females and its effect on age determination. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. [Internet] 1957 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Mar;15(1):9–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330150109
51. Klein C. The role of relaxin in mare reproductive physiology: A comparative review with other species. Theriogenology. [Internet] 2016 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Jul;86(1):451–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2016.04.061
52. Moore K L, Dalley AF, Agur AMR. Anatomia orientada para a clínica. 7 Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan, 2014, p. 404.
53. Bergfelder T, Herrmann B. Estimating fertility on the basis of birth-traumatic changes in the pubic bone. Journal of Human Evolution. [Internet] 1980 [cited 2024 Jul 1], 9, 611-613. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(80)90091-3.
54. Barker C, Cox M, Flavel A, Laver J, Loe L. Mortuary procedures II—skeletal analysis I: basic procedures and demographic assessment. In: M Cox, A Flavel, I Hanson, J Laver, R Wessling, editors. The scientific investigation of mass graves: towards protocols and standard operating procedures. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2024 Jul 1]; 295–382. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261403480_Mortuary_procedures_II_-_Skeletal_analysis_I_Basic_procedures_and_demographic_assessment
55. Marshall SA, Senadheera SN, Parry LJ, Girling JE. The Role of Relaxin in Normal and Abnormal Uterine Function During the Menstrual Cycle and Early Pregnancy. Reproductive Sciences. [Internet] 2016 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Sep 27;24(3):342–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719116657189
56. Todd TW. Ages changes in the pubic bone. Am J Phys Anthropol 1921; 4: 1–76. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330040102
57. El-Najjar MY, McWilliams KR. Forensic anthropology: the structure, morphology, and variation of human bone and dentition. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1978.
58. Andersen BC. Parturition scarring as a consequence of flexible pelvic architecture [dissertation]. Vancouver (BC): Simon Fraser University. [Internet] 1986 [cited 2024 Jul 1]. Parturition scarring as a consequence of flexible pelvic architecture (core.ac.uk)
59. Andersen BC. Pelvic scarring analysis: parturition or excess motion [abstract]? Am J Phys Anthropol 1988; 75: 181. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330750205
60. Galloway A. Determination of parity from the maternal skeleton: an appraisal. Riv Antropol (Roma) 1995; 73: 83–98.
61. Galloway A, Snodgrass JJ, Suchey J. Markers of childbirth? Effect of body size and pubic morphological change [abstract]. Am J Phys Anthropol 1998; 26(Suppl): 102. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(1998)26+<100::AID-AJPA8>3.0.CO;2-7
62. Arraiza B, Merbs CF. Evidence of childbirth in the pelvis of prehistoric Andean women. Antropbio [Internet]. 30 de novembro de 2012 [cited 2024 Jul 1] ;5(1). Disponível em: https://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/eab/article/view/34601
63. Li Y, M.J C, Lai X, Zhao H, Ashutosh Parajuli, Tseng W, et al. Maternal bone adaptation to mechanical loading during pregnancy, lactation, and post-weaning recovery. Bone. [Internet] 2021 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Oct 1;151:116031–1.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2021.116031.
64. Grizzo FMF, Alarcão ACJ, Dell’ Agnolo CM, Pedroso RB, Santos TS, Vissoci JRN, et al. How does women’s bone health recover after lactation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporosis international: a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. [Internet] 2020 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Mar 1;31(3):413–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-019-05236-8
65. Schemmer D, White PG, Friedman L. Radiology of the paraglenoid sulcus. Skeletal Radiol. 1995 Apr;24(3):205-9. doi: 10.1007/BF00228925. PMID: 7610413.
66. Wescott DJ, Drew JL. Effect of obesity on the reliability of age-at-death indicators of the pelvis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. [Internet] 2014 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Dec 2;156(4):595–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22674.
67. Sylvester AD, Wescott DJ, Cunningham DL, Gleiber DS. Effects of obesity on talar micro‐ and macro‐morphology. Journal of forensic sciences. [Internet] 2023 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Jan 27;68(2):369–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15209.
68. Sylvester AD, Wojciech Zbijewski, Shi G, Meckel LA, Chu EY, Cunningham DL, et al. Macroscopic differences in adult human femora are linked to body mass index. The anatomical record. [Internet] 2024 [cited 2024 Jul 1] Jan 29. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.25397
69. Jurmain R. Stories from the skeleton: behavioral reconstruction in human osteology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Gordon and Breach Publishers, [Internet] 1999 [cited 2024 Jul 1]. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203727072
70 White TD. Human osteology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 2000.
71. Ashworth JT, Allison MJ, Gerszten E, Pezzia A. The pubic scars of gestation and parturition in a group of pre‐Columbian and colonial Peruvian mummies. American Journal of Physical Anthropology [Internet]. 1976 [cited 2024 Jul 1];45(1):85. Available from: (39) The pubic scars of gestation and parturition in a group of pre-Columbian and colonial Peruvian mummies | Alejandro Pezzia – Academia.edu
72. Suchey JM, Wiseley DV, Green RF, Noguchi TT. Analysis of dorsal pitting in the os publis in an extensive sample of modern American females. Am J Phys Anthropol. [Internet] 1979 [cited 2024 Jul 1]; Nov;51(4):517-40.: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330510404
73. Molleson T, Cox M. The Spitalfields Project. 2: the Anthropology (Council for British Archaeology Research Report 86). London, Council for British Archaeology. [Internet] 1993. [cited 2024 Jul 1]; https://doi.org/10.5284/1081778
