https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/16/possible-find-of-female-bones-in-mount-athos-raises-eyebrows
There have been cases of skeletons first seen as female being re-identified as adolescent or slightly-built males - here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1973.msg22724#msg22724)for instance - so I think I'll wait for the DNA work.
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 17, 2019, 08:55:24 AM
I think I'll wait for the DNA work.
Wise. :)
My first suspicion is: could they be eunuchs? Greeks had of course been producing eunuchs for centuries, and while they could not become priests it is quite likely that some would have become monks*.
*
Briefly checking for any correlation between monks and eunuchs, I was surprised to learn that Viking raids on monastic comunities were apparently at least in part motivated by the opportunity to obtain young males for castration to sell to Arabs as eunuchs. Indeed, any eunuchs who escaped the clutches of the Arabs might eventually have come full circle from, say, a Hebridean monastery to Mount Athos.
QuoteMy first suspicion is: could they be eunuchs?
I would suggest more research would be needed on the developmental effects on the skeleton of castration to pursue this. Would it cause changes in the skull, for example, or the pelvis, which are two of the main morphological indicators?
Quote from: Erpingham on December 18, 2019, 10:10:45 AM
QuoteMy first suspicion is: could they be eunuchs?
I would suggest more research would be needed on the developmental effects on the skeleton of castration to pursue this. Would it cause changes in the skull, for example, or the pelvis, which are two of the main morphological indicators?
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration#Medical_consequences) says that male castration prior to puberty causes a non-muscular build and often short stature, both of which would make misidentification as a woman more likely. That said, I can't readily make sense of the claim that short stature comes from sex hormones (of which castrates have less) stopping long bone growth during puberty, and I've read elsewhere that castrates are likely to grow
taller than other men.
On general principle I'd expect castrates to have boyish/feminine skulls, but I don't actually know. Neither do I know to what extent the pelvic differences arise in puberty or are inborn.
There are a number of historical studies picked up by a google search. These suggest castrated males were taller than average e.g. this study (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep28463) of the skeleton of the castrato Gaspare Pacchierotti . Other markers include failure of ephises and cranial sutures to fuse completely, osteoporosity and bone thinning and kyphosis (an arching of the vertebrae of the back). Alas, we don't have the detailed bone report to check any of this.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on December 18, 2019, 03:44:28 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on December 18, 2019, 10:10:45 AM
QuoteMy first suspicion is: could they be eunuchs?
I would suggest more research would be needed on the developmental effects on the skeleton of castration to pursue this. Would it cause changes in the skull, for example, or the pelvis, which are two of the main morphological indicators?
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration#Medical_consequences) says that male castration prior to puberty causes a non-muscular build and often short stature, both of which would make misidentification as a woman more likely. That said, I can't readily make sense of the claim that short stature comes from sex hormones (of which castrates have less) stopping long bone growth during puberty, and I've read elsewhere that castrates are likely to grow taller than other men.
From animals, the effects of castration are highly dependent on when it occurs. A lot of energy is spent on the growth of sex organs and their upkeep- as well as a lot of behavioral energy- which can be freed up for growth of the body. On the flip side, if you castrate a male too early, he never develops the secondary sexual characteristics often tied to large growth and musculature.
On general principle I'd expect castrates to have boyish/feminine skulls, but I don't actually know. Neither do I know to what extent the pelvic differences arise in puberty or are inborn.
An alternative interpretation, although one I would regard as extremely tenuous, would be that they were women who gained entry to the Mount Athos community by masquerading as men. Successful female impostures of masculine gender are attested, inter alia in the British Army, Royal Navy and, allegedly, even the Papacy.
That said, the matter would have come to light in a post-mortem examination, and the abbot would then have two choices:
1) Swear the infirmarer to silence and bury the 'brother' in standard fashion to avoid scandal.
2) Admit the monastery had been taken for a ride by an 'agent of the devil' and bury the corpse well outside the premises.
The skeletons in question being female would thus have to rely heavily on a succession of abbotal choices of Option 1.
My preference remains for the skeletons in question being those of eunuchs, the undeveloped stature conceivably being attributable to early castration and/or inadequate diet.
This will probably remain undecided until the remains are DNA tested.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 19, 2019, 07:47:15 PMThe skeletons in question being female would thus have to rely heavily on a succession of abbotal choices of Option 1.
Looking back at the original article, there may be only
one possibly-female skeleton, so no need for a succession of anything:
Quote"Among them were a forearm, shinbone and sacrum that were just so different in their morphology," added the academic. "While the others were more robust and had clearly belonged to the frames of men, these had measurements that noticeably fell in the range of a female. They were markedly different in size."
...
"If we are talking about a woman, or indeed more than one woman, it will raise a lot of questions,"
While it is not certain that the three anomalous bones belonged to the same one of the seven or more skeletons represented in this deposit, it certainly seems possible that they could.
Thanks for that clarification, Duncan.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 18, 2019, 05:03:12 PM
There are a number of historical studies picked up by a google search. These suggest castrated males were taller than average e.g. this study (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep28463) of the skeleton of the castrato Gaspare Pacchierotti . Other markers include failure of ephises and cranial sutures to fuse completely, osteoporosity and bone thinning and kyphosis (an arching of the vertebrae of the back). Alas, we don't have the detailed bone report to check any of this.
We do have, however, the statement that the suspectedly-female bones "were markedly different in size", which for the long bones ought mean they were short but with fused epiphyses; short ones with open epiphyses would surely be identified rather as the remains of still-growing teens. So it'd appear those bones, at least, where decidedly uneunuchlike.