Anthropological evaluation of Old Kingdom human burials from the pyramid field of Abusir

PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022, 28–81 An h opological e alua ion o Old Kingdom human bu ials om he py amid ield o Abusi Pe a B ukne Ha elko á– Ve onika Dulíko á– Šá ka Bejdo á– Pe Velemínský– Mi osla Bá a ABSTRACT An h opological esea ch has been going on a he a chaeological concession o he Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology in Abusi o nea ly 60 yea s. The i s bu ials da ed o he Old Kingdom, mo e speci ically o he Fi h and Six h Dynas ies (2510–2365 BC), we e ound in 1976. Ne e heless, i has aken almos o he p esen ime o ga he mo e han wo hund ed skele ons needed o ca y ou acomp ehensi e s udy o he Abusi skele al sample. This ask was p eceded by he c ea ion o he AnuBase, an ex ensi e and de ailed da abase o an h opological da a, and by he acquisi ion o asui able deposi o y space whe e he human skele al emains a e s o ed. The p esen s udy ocuses mainly on he paleodemog aphic p o ile o he indi iduals bu ied in Abusi ceme e ies and he me ic analysis o he skele ons da ing o he Old Kingdom. The esul s e ealed alowe numbe o bu ied emales compa ed o males and e y ew subadul s. Ve y p onounced sexual dimo phism was no ed be ween he male and emale skele ons in bo h skulls and he in a ‑c anial skele on. Male c ania a e longe bu lowe han emale c ania, while emales we e cha ac e ized by highe aces. Al hough male long bones we e longe and mo e obus han emale ones, hey do no di e in he p opo ionali y o he uppe and lowe ex emi ies. High sexual dimo phism in body heigh is consis en wi h he p esump ion o he highe s a us o indi iduals bu ied in Abusi . The esul s o bo h an h opological and paleodemog aphic analyses show aconnec ion wi h he social s a us o he indi iduals in ques ion. The low numbe o emales bu ied in he ceme e ies o Abusi and he almos missing subadul s could indica e speci ic bu ial s a egies in he a ea go e ned by s ic ules. Fu u e esea ch should add ess hese issues in de ail. KEYWORDS Egyp – Abusi – Old Kingdom– an h opology– paleodemog aphic indica o s– os eological measu emen s– social s a us– Fi h Dynas y– Six h Dynas y ريصوبأ ةنابج نم ةميدقلا ةلودلا نم ةيرشب تانفدل ىجولوبورثنأ مييقت اتراب ڤلاسوريم – ىكسنميليﭭ رتيب – اﭭوديب اكراش – اﭭوكيلود اكينوريﭭ – اﭭوكليﭭاه رينكورب ارتيب صخلملا فورعملا نمو .اًماع 60 نم برقي ام ذنم ريصوبأ ىف ةيرصملا راثلآل ىكيشتلا دهعملا ةثعب عقومب ةيجولوبورثنلأا ثاحبلأا ىرجت 2365–2510( ةسداسلاو ةسماخلا نيترسلأا ىلإ ًاديدحت ،ةميدقلا ةلودلا رصعب خرؤت ىتلا تانفدلا كلت لوأ ىلع روثعلا مت هنأ ،ىمظع لكيه ىتئام نم رثكأ عمجل رضاحلا انتقو ىتح اًبيرقت رملأا قرغتسا دقف ،كلذ نم مغرلا ىلعو .1976 ماع ىف ،)م .ق ةلصفمو ةعساو تانايب ةدعاق ىهو ، AnuBase ءاشنإ ةوطخلا كلت قبس .ريصوبأ نم ةلماش ةسارد ءارجلا مزلالا ددعلا وهو .ةيمظعلا لكيهلا اياقب نيزختل ةبسانم ةحاسم ريفوتو ،عقوملا نم ةيجولوبورثنلأا تانايبلل لكايهلل ىرتملا ليلحتلاو ريصوبأ ةنابجب نينوفدملا دارفلأل ةميدقلا ةيفارغوميدلا حملاملا ىلع ىساسأ لكشب ةيلاحلا ةساردلا زكرت اًددعو روكذلاب ةنراقم ثانلإا تانفد نم لقأ ددع دوجو نع جئاتنلا تفشك دقو اذه .ةميدقلا ةلودلا رصع ىلإ دوعت ىتلا ةيمظعلا 29P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA ىف ثانلإاو روكذلل ةيمظعلا لكايهلا نيب ىسنجلا لكشلا جاودزا رهاظ لكشب ظحول امك ، نيغلابلا صاخشلأا نم اًدج ً لايلق تاديسلا تزيمت امنيب ،ثانلإا مجامج نم لقأ اهنكلو لوطأ روكذلا مجامج نأ حضتأ ثيح .ىمظعلا اهينوكتو مجامجلا نم لك بسانتلا ىف فلتخت لا اهنأ لاإ ،ثانلإا ماظع نم ىوقأو لوطأ تناك ةليوطلا روكذلا ماظع نأ نم مغرلا ىلعو .ىلعأ هوجوب ايلعلا ةيعامتجلاا ةناكملا ضارتفا عم مسجلا لوط ىف ىسنجلا لكشلا ةيونثم عافترا قفاوتي امك .ةيلفسلاو ةيولعلا فارطلأا نيب .ريصوبأ ىف نينوفدملا دارفلأل .مهتسارد تمت نيذلا دارفلأل ةيعامتجلاا ةلاحلاب اًطابترا ةميدقلا ةيفارغوميدلاو ةيجولوبورثنلأا تلايلحتلا نم لك جئاتن رهظت ىلإ اًمامت ةدوقفملا هبش نيغلابلا صاخشلأا تانفد كلذكو ،ريصوبأ ةنابج ىف نينوفدملا ثانلإل ضفخنملا ددعلا ريشي نأ نكمي امك .ليصفتلاب اياضقلا هذه ةيلبقتسملا ثاحبلأا لوانتت نأ بجي ثيح .نفدلل ةمراص دعاوق اهمكحت ةقطنم ىف ةددحم نفد تايجيتارتسا ةلادلا تاملكلا – ةيعامتجلاا ةلاحلا – ةيمظعلا تاسايقلا – ةميدقلا ةيفارغوميدلا تارشؤملا – ايجولوبورثنلأا – ةميدقلا ةلودلا – ريصوبأ – رصم ةسداسلا ةرسلأا – ةسماخلا ةرسلأا The Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology’sa chaeological concession in Abusi co e s an a ea o ap‑ p oxima ely 2 km 2 , making i one o he la ges o eign concessions in Egyp (Bá ae al. 2020). Fo millennia, he en i e a ea was used a a ying in ensi ies p ima ily as abu ial g ound o indi iduals o di e en social s anding (Bá a 2020). F om he 1960s, when he explo a ion o he mas aba o Vizie P ahshepses (AC 8; Ve ne 1982; S ouhal– Ba eš 1993; K ejčí 2009; Dulíko á 2017; Dulíko á– Ji ásko á– Odle 2021) began, an h opological esea ch has been an in eg al pa o esea ch in o ancien Egyp ian socie y as e lec ed h ough mas abas, ombs and bu ials in Abusi . Un o una ely, no Old Kingdom bu ials we e ini ially ound du ing hese exca a ions excep o some spa se emains in he bu ial chambe o P ahshepses and dozens o in usi e bu ials in and a ound he mas aba da ing o he La e Pe iod (S ouhal– Ba eš 1993). Howe e , la e ex ension o he concession o o he a eas, i s o he shadow o Abusi ’ssou he nmos py amid (1976), hen o he a ea o he non ‑ oyal ceme e y a Abusi Sou h (1991) and e en ually o he Ceme e y o Ty (2018), yielded he skele ons om Old Kingdom ceme e ies o oyal amily membe s and non ‑ oyal o icials and p ies s; in he la e case, undis u bed by any la ge bu ial g ound om la e pe iods. Ac i e a chaeological and an h opological esea ch is cu en ly unde way a h ee main si es. Two o hem, Cen al and Sou h Abusi , we e impo an bu ial si es om he Old Kingdom pe iod (ca. 2700–2180 BC), mo e speci ically om he Fi h and Six h Dynas ies (2510–2365 BC), al hough some ombs, such as He epi (AS 20), he anonymous mas aba AS 33 (Bá a– Coppens– Vymazalo áe al. 2010) o I i (AS 10; Bá a 2001: 1–16), we e buil as ea ly as he u n o he Thi d and Fou h Dynas ies. Cen al o oyal Abusi , he a ea comp ising ombs in p oximi y o he py amids, includes he bu ials o membe s o he oyal amily; 34 ombs da ing back o he Thi d Millennium BC as well as many bu ials om he Fi s Millen‑ nium BC ha e been unco e ed he e so a . The second impo an a ea wi hin he concession is Abusi Sou h, he a ea be ween he py amids o Abusi and Saqqa a. I is ala ge bu ial si e o o icials who o en held signi ican adminis a i e posi ions. Mo e han ahund ed ombs o cul s uc u es ha e been explo ed in his pa o he concession, and mos o he skele al emains ha o m he basis o he assemblage unde s udy come om he e. The hi d a ea ep esen s ag oup o sha ombs da ed o he Twen y ‑Six h and Twen y ‑Se en h Dynas ies. 30 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 The cons uc ion o sha s mo e han 20 m deep wi h abu ial chambe a hei bo om is yp‑ ical o his pe iod. One o he mos signi ican disco e ies was he inding o he in ac bu ial chambe o he p ies Iu aa (AW 2) in a ichly deco a ed limes one sa cophagus (S ouhal– Němečko á– Kouba 2003; S ouhal 2004; Ba eš– Smolá iko á 2008). ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN ABUSIR The i s objec i e o his pape is o o e an o e iew o mo e han 60 yea s o an h opological esea ch in Abusi , om he i s disco e ies o Old Kingdom skele ons o he ime o ob aining pe manen deposi o y spaces whe e human skele al emains can be s o ed and, inally, he c ea ion o ade ailed an h opological da abase, he Anup -base. The second pa o he pape is ocused on he i s esul s o an h opological analyses based on he da a collec ed in he AnuBase, including he sex and age‑a ‑dea h dis ibu ion wi hin he sample and he esul s o me ical analysis o he skulls and in a ‑c anial skele ons. Thus, he pape summa izes he long jou ney om collec ing he ma e ial and da a o he i s esul s. The i s decades o he an h opological esea ch o he Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology a Abusi (and o he si es in Egyp ) we e associa ed wi h he name o Eugen S ouhal. Vik o Če ný con inued his wo k in he 1990s. In he ollowing yea s, he an h opological analysis o skele al emains in Abusi became he domain o women (Ma ina Kujano á, Pa la Zedníko á Malá). The coope a ion be ween he Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology and he Depa men o An‑ h opology o he Na ional Museum was es ablished in 2009 when Pe a B ukne Ha elko á became he esea ch coo dina o . Since 2012, an h opologis s om he Na ional Museum ha e been p o iding he comple e e alua ion o skele al emains housed in Egyp ; his some imes equi es he coope a ion o ex e nal an h opologis s, including especially Šá ka Bejdo á om he Facul y o Science o Cha les Uni e si y. The main ask o he an h opologis s in Abusi is acomp ehensi e p ocessing o all skel‑ e al emains ha ha e been unco e ed, ega dless o hei da ing o he social s a us o he indi idual. The esea ch ocuses mainly on basic an h opological cha ac e is ics, such as age‑a ‑dea h and sex es ima ion, me ic analysis o desc ip ion o heal h s a us. Al hough Abusi is pe cei ed p ima ily as abu ial g ound o he Old Kingdom eli e popula ion, mos skele al emains come om much la e pe iods. The la e bu ials, o en in s a ig aphic laye s, co e he whole o Cen al Abusi . They a e usually da ed o he Fi s Millennium BC (Thi d In e media e Pe iod, La e Pe iod, G eco ‑Roman Pe iod), when he a ea, especially he close icini y o he Abusi py amids and he al eady pa ially decayed and sil ed ‑up non ‑ oyal Old Kingdom ombs, was in ensi ely e ‑used o bu ials ( o aclus e o such bu ials a ound P ahshepses [AC 8], see S ouhal– Ba eš 1993; o aconglome a ion a ound We kau e [AC 26], see K ejčí– B ukne Ha elko áe al., o hcoming). The euse o he Old Kingdom py amid si es o new bu ials was common in he Memphi e nec opolis du ing hese la e pe iods (see e.g., Zi ie ‑Coche 1991; Myśliwiec 2008a and 2008b). By con as , la e bu ials occu spo adically in Abusi Sou h ceme e y, which is ela i ely dis an om oyal py amid complexes, bo h in Cen al Abusi and in Saqqa a. These we e simple bu ials o mummi ied bodies placed in wooden co ins, w apped in eed ma s o only in linen bandages and bu ied di ec ly in he sand (Smolá iko á– Pe e ko á Hloucho á 2020; Pe e ko á Hloucho á 2017). Due o he simplici y o he la e bu ials, hei p ecise da ing is almos impossible. In ou expe ience, skele al emains 31P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA om hese bu ials a e usually e y well p ese ed compa ed o skele ons om Old Kingdom ombs, which a e o en demine alized and, he e o e, conside ably decayed and p ese ed in poo condi ion. The eason p obably lies in he di e en aphonomic ac o s. The decomposi‑ ion o he body and subsequen p ocesses ake place di e en ly in an emp y space, such as he bu ial chambe o an Old Kingdom omb, and in he ill o ag a e in he sand (Man 1987; P okeš 2007; Duday 2009). Adi e en way o mummi ica ion can also play an impo an ole: esin was al eady widely used in la e bu ials, while mos Old Kingdom bu ials in Abusi we e only na u ally mummi ied and w apped in linen bandages. Asigni ican di e ence in da ing canno be o e looked, as hese une als a e s e ched o e up o wo housand yea s. Finally, i is wo h men ioning ha he disco e y o an in ac Old Kingdom bu ial is a e; he skele al emains o abu ied indi idual a e o en ound obbed and away om he sa cophagus, sca ‑ e ed in he back ill o he sha (e.g. he bu ial o Kai su, Bá a– Ji ásko áe al. 2020). Due o he p oblema ic da ing and he lack o u he in o ma ion abou indi iduals bu ied in la e pe iods, he p io i y o an h opological and a chaeological esea ch in Abusi is ocusing on he s udy o he Old Kingdom ombs and he skele al emains. The signi icance o hese bu ials lies, in mos cases, in hei clea da ing based on an assessmen o he omb a chi ec u e, w i en sou ces, omb deco a ion s yle, bu ial apa men , bu ial equipmen , ce amics, a e ac ypologies, e c. Un o una ely, ob aining as a is ically su icien numbe o indi iduals o agene al popula ion s udy o he Old Kingdom inhabi an s was almos impossible un il he yea s 2012 and 2013. THE HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS COLLECTION The i s skele al emains belonging o indi iduals om he Old Kingdom pe iod in he egion o Abusi we e ound in 1976; hey we e membe s o he oyal amily o King Djedka e, namely P incesses Kheke e neb y and he p esumed daugh e , Tise ho (AC 15) (S ouhal 1984). In 1987, he skele ons o u he h ee membe s o close ela i es o his oyal amily we e unco e ed: P incess Hedje nebu (AC 19), he skele on o “Lady L” (AC 20) and he sc ibe o oyal child en Faa Idu (AS 17) (S ouhal 1992; S ouhal– Gaballah 1993; S ouhale al. 2001; S ouhal– Klí – Němečko á 2002). O he skele al emains we e disco e ed in he 1990s, including he hand and a ew bones belonging o King Rane e e (AC 3) (S ouhal– Vyhnánek 2000; S ouhale al. 2001; Němečko á– S ouhal 2002; Ve ne e al. 2006). Ob aining skele al emains o apopula ion s udy has he e o e been ap ocess spanning se e al decades. I may ake an en i e exca a ion season ex ending o e se e al weeks o p ope ly explo e and documen he supe s uc u e and subs uc u e o a omb. The numbe o sha s wi hin a omb a ies, he e may be only one o wo, bu mo e o en he e a e mo e, as hese a e usually he so ‑called amily ombs. A he bo om o such asha is usually he en ance o he bu ial chambe whe e he pe son’sbu ial would be loca ed. Reg e ably, mos bu ials we e dis u bed by hie es al eady in an iqui y, esul ing in se e e agmen a ion o incomple eness o he skele al emains. The e o e, he numbe and p ese a ion o he Old Kingdom bu ials unco e ed du ing one a chaeological season a y conside ably each yea . Up o en skele ons a e usually added o he assemblage, bu no bu ials a all a e disco e ed o unco e ed in some yea s. The b eak h ough came wi h he unea hing o he bu ial complex o he high‑ anking digni a y Ne e and P incess 32 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 She e neb y (AS 68) be ween 2012 and 2014. A ha ime, 30 Old Kingdom skele ons we e unco ‑ e ed, anumbe ha co esponded o he s a is ical minimum o a ious sub ‑analyses; his is when he idea o s udying Old Kingdom indi iduals om apopula ion pe spec i e was bo n o he i s ime (Bá ae al. 2014). Howe e , no all skele ons we e su icien ly p ese ed. In o de o inc ease he numbe o Old Kingdom skele ons in he sample, he an h opol‑ ogis s who had p ocessed he Abusi ma e ial in he pas we e asked o supply hei da a. Thanks o ha con ibu ion, he da a collec ed om app oxima ely 80 Old Kingdom bu ials p e iously unco e ed and s udied we e included in he analysis. In he case o he oldes indings, howe e , he esul s o he pa ial s ages o sex and age ‑a ‑dea h es ima ion as well as speci ic analyses, o ins ance, o non ‑me ic ai s o en‑ heseal changes we e no pa o he p e ious e alua ion o skele al emains, o hei eco ds we e no p ese ed. Al hough almos e e y yea new skele al emains become a ailable o he s udy, he numbe o indi iduals s ill did no ma ch ou equi emen s. We ocused ou e o s on inding he skele al emains unco e ed in p e ious a chaeological campaigns in o de o pe o m a new and de ailed an h opological analysis. Since 2013, all skele al emains so a unco e ed a he si e ha e been s o ed and examined in adesigna ed place whe e hey can be made a ailable o u he s udied, i equi ed. A p esen , almos all skele al inds a e submi ed o pe manen s o age unless o he wise decided, which only happens in cases o insu icien da ing. In ha case, hey a e ebu ied back in o he sha . ANTHROPOLOGICAL DATABASE ANUBASE Wi h ag owing amoun o human skele al emains and da a collec ed, he e was aneed o inpu , s o e and compile he da a in he o m o adigi al da abase ha would allow da a p o‑ cessing. Howe e , no sui able kind o da abase exis ed. Since he Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology al eady had i s own a chi al da abases in FileMake , we decided o ollow in i s oo s eps. Slowly, ada abase co esponding o he an h opological equi emen s o he s udy o ancien Egyp ian popula ions was bo n. I now con ains mo e han 4,500 da abase en ies. The da abase is based on a o al o 14 in e connec ed layou s. The main layou b ings oge h‑ e in o ma ion abou he a chaeological con ex , he omb code, da ing, he social s a us o he indi idual, es ima es o he sex, age ‑a ‑dea h and he li ing s a u e, he cu en s o age loca‑ ion o he skele al emains, ab ie desc ip ion and links o o he layou s ha show whe he pa ial an h opological analyses could be ca ied ou ( ig. 1). Wi hin his main shee he e a e also abs de ailing he p ese a ion o he skele on and he cha ac e is ics by which he s a us o he indi idual is de e mined. Addi ional layou s ocus on de ailed in o ma ion on how he sex and age we e es ima ed, he me ic analyses including calcula ions o body indices and heigh , e alua ion o den al heal h, he desc ip ion and ca ego iza ion o pa hological con‑ di ions, e alua ion o c anial non ‑me ic ai s, ee h and in a‑c anial skele on, and amo e de ailed e alua ion o mani es a ions o physical s ess on he skele on. Whe e e possible, all sub ‑s ages o he assessmen a e en e ed o allow subsequen wo k wi h he da a ( ig. 2). Cu en ly, he AnuBase da abase con ains eco ds o 474 indi iduals (iden i ied by ind/ g a e numbe s) bu ied a Abusi , 220 o whom a e da ed o he Old Kingdom. The p ocessing o he skele al emains o hese indi iduals o ms he basis o he esul s o he p esen wo k. 33P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA Fig. 1 Example o he main layou om he AnuBase Fig. 2 Example o he sex es ima ion layou om he AnuBase wi h he sub ‑s ages o he assessmen 34 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH Unambiguous da ing was one o he basic c i e ia o he inclusion o an indi idual in he assemblage (see abo e). A o al o 220 Old Kingdom indi iduals we e included in he p esen s udy; eg e ably, he s a e o p ese a ion o some skele ons did no allow an es ima e o ei he sex o age ‑a ‑dea h. The comple e numbe s o indi iduals ca ego ized by sex and age‑ ‑a ‑dea h a e summa ized in ab.1. AGE GROUPS Males Females U To al [0–<1]   3 3 [1–4]   3 3 [5–9]   5 5 [10–14]   3 3 [15–19]  2 1 3 Imma u es 0 2 15 17 YA 16 17 1 34 MA 53 37 9 99 OA 32 17 2 51 A 1 1 17 19 Adul s 102 72 29 203 To al 102 74 44 220 Tab.1 Summa y o he absolu e numbe s o indi iduals acco ding o age and sex (F: emales; M: males; U: unde e mined; YA: young adul s; MA: middle adul s; OA: old adul s) The human skele al emains came om al oge he 74 ombs ha ha e been unea hed o e he pas 50 yea s. The codes o s uc u es ( ombs), he owne s’ names (whe e known), he numbe o males, emales and subadul s in he omb and a e e ence o he an h opological publica ion, i i exis s, a e gi en in supplemen a y ab. S1. As men ioned abo e, an h opological esea ch in Abusi began as ea ly as he 1970s. Human skele al emains, which we e con inuously unco e ed, we e p ocessed by a ious an h opologis s using well ‑es ablished an h opological me hods co esponding o he pe i‑ od o esea ch. Howe e , he sui abili y o he used me hods was e ised in 2009 when he coope a ion be ween an h opologis s om he Na ional Museum and he Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology began. Cu en an h opological me hods became he basis o he e alua ion o all subsequen ly disco e ed skele ons. Along wi h he collec ion o da a o he AnuBase, e isions o he sex and age ‑a ‑dea h es ima es o all p ese ed skele ons om p e ious su eys we e ca ied ou using he e ised me hods desc ibed below; howe e , he da a om he o iginal e alua ion we e en e ed in o he AnuBase as well. As some o he skele ons om he 1991 and 1993 exca a ions had been ebu ied, da a based on he o iginal an h opological eco d ca ds and published esul s we e included in he AnuBase. Howe e , sex and age ‑a ‑dea h es i‑ ma es o hese indi iduals we e al eady hen pa ly based on me hods ha a e used oday 35P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA (e.g., Fe embach– Schwide zky– S loukal 1980; B ůžek– Fe embach 1992). Sex es ima ion based on me ical analysis o pel ic bones (Mu aile al. 2005; B ůžeke al. 2017) was no pa o he me hods used hen, bu as he dimensions needed o he analysis a e p ese ed, he me hod can be applied also o bu ied indi iduals. The mos sui able bone s uc u e e lec ing he sexual dimo phism o he skele on is he pel ic bone, which is closely connec ed wi h ep oduc i e unc ion. The me ical app oach (Mu aile al. 2005; B ůžeke al. 2017) was used o p ima y sex es ima ion whe e possible, o‑ ge he wi h mo phological e alua ion o pel ic s uc u es (Fe embach– Schwide zky– S lou‑ kal 1980; Buiks a– Ubelake 1994; B ůžek 2002). Whe e he pel ic bones we e missing, he desc ip i e mo phological ea u es o he skull (Fe embach– Schwide zky– S loukal 1980; Buiks a– Ubelake 1994) and disc iminan unc ion analysis o isually assessed ai s o he skull (Walke 2008) we e used. Me ic s anda ds o es ima ing sex using adisc imi‑ nan unc ion based on selec ed measu emen s o long bones (Rax e 2007) we e used as auxilia y me hods. Di e en me hods we e used o assess he age ‑a ‑dea h wi h espec o he p ese a ion o bony s uc u es. The obli e a ion o he spheno ‑occipi al synchond osis in he skull de e ‑ mines adul hood (mo e han 19 yea s; Schae e e al. 2009). The mine aliza ion and e up ion o he ee h (Ubelake 1978; B own 1985), a usion o epiphyses and apophyses o he leng h o he long bones diaphysis and o he bone measu emen s (Schae e e al. 2009) we e used o de e mine he age o subadul s (imma u e skele ons). The es ima ion o age ‑a ‑dea h in adul indi iduals was based mainly on mo phoscopic e alua ion o he s uc u es o he pel ic bones: he au icula su ace was e alua ed acco ding o Lo ejoye al. (1985) and Schmi (2005) and mo phological changes o he pubic symphysis acco ding o he Todd (McKe n– S ewa 1957) and Suchey ‑B ooks me hods (B ooks– Suchey 1990). The Calce (2012) me hod o age ‑a ‑dea h es ima ion in adul s using he ace abulum was used as an addi ional me hod o he de ec ion o olde indi iduals (Na egae al. 2018; Zaz onilo á– Velemínský– B ůžek 2020) o whe e o he pel ic bone s uc u es we e missing. Se e al o he ea u es e lec ing he skele al age we e also aken in o accoun o acqui e complex in o ma ion abou he indi idual’sage ‑a ‑ ‑dea h. Changes o he s e nal end o he cla icle (Szil ássy 1980), degene a i e changes o he e eb al column (S loukal– Vyhnánek 1976) and he inne a chi ec u e ( he s uc u e o he spongy bone, ca i y o ma ion, e c.) o he p oximal emu and he hume us (Szil ássy– K i sche 1990) we e e alua ed whe e possible. In cases whe e only he skull o he mandible we e p esen , he deg ee o den al wea (ab asion, a i ion) was he main ma ke o he age ‑a ‑dea h es ima ion (Miles 1963; B o hwell 1981; Lo ejoy 1985). Fi e age g oups [0–1 yea ], [1–4 yea s], [5–9 yea s], [10–14 yea s], [15–19 yea s] we e used o in he case o subadul indi iduals. Adul indi iduals we e inally di ided in o h ee age ca ego ies: YA– young adul s [20–35 yea s], MA– middle adul s [35–50 yea s] and OA– old adul s [mo e han 50 yea s]. A o al o 41 measu emen s o he c anium and 74 dimensions o bones o he in a ‑c anial skele on (long bones, pel ic bones, scapulae, cla iculae, pa ellae, ali and calcanei) we e col‑ lec ed based on he de ini ions by Ma in and Salle (1957) and Knussman (1988). Addi ional measu emen s we e added om Buiks a and Ubelake (1994); hese measu emen s a e always indica ed by anumbe in pa en heses. Measu emen s o pel ic bones we e based on de ini ion in Mu ail e al. (2005). Subsequen ly, nine c anial and 10 in a ‑c anial indices we e calcula ed. 36 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 The leng h o he long bones was used o he li ing s a u e es ima ion. Th ee app oaches we e used o calcula e he indi idual’sli ing s a u e. The main me hod o es ima ion is based on Rax e e al. (2008), as udy ha was based on he ancien Egyp ian popula ion. The T o e and Glese (1952, 1958, 1977) o mulae o A ican Ame icans (which a e ecommended by Robins (1983) and Robins and Shu e (1986) as being mo e consis en wi h he skele ons o he ancien Egyp ians han hose o whi e Ame icans) we e included o ensu e con inui y wi h p e ious esea ch and o possible compa ison. The Sjø old (1990) me hod was used whe e sex was unknown. Howe e , esul s based on he o mulae acco ding o Rax e e al. (2008) we e p ima ily used o he pu poses o his publica ion. SEX AND AGE ‑AT ‑DEATH DISTRIBUTION OF OLD KINGDOM SKELETAL SAMPLE FROM ABUSIR Many bioa chaeological s udies dealing wi h a ious opics include human skele al ma e ial da ed o he Old Kingdom pe iod (e.g., Da ide 1972; Masali– Chia elli 1972; Sa ino 1972; Leek 1980; Kaczma ek 2002; Sa y El ‑Din– El Banna 2006; Rax e 2011; Zak zewski 2012; Zaki 2013; Ma low 2014; Habich e al. 2015; Re ai 2019). Howe e , mos o hese s udies a e based on he e alua ion o he human skele al emains s o ed in a ious museum collec ions o igina ing om a chaeological exca a ions ca ied ou mainly in he i s hal o he wen ie h cen u y. Due o hei a ailabili y, museum collec ions a e sui able o compa ing a ious an h opol‑ ogical cha ac e is ics, bu he e alua ion o he demog aphic dis ibu ion o he sample can be qui e p oblema ic gi en he equen selec ion o skele ons/bones associa ed wi h ea lie esea ch p io i ies. The e o e, sys ema ic bioa chaeological s udies ocused on he complex p ocessing o Old Kingdom ceme e ies a e a e. As was also he case wi h he esea ch in Abusi , he indings a e usually published g adually by single ombs and summa y da a abou he demog aphic p o ile o he ceme e y a e missing. One o he excep ions is esea ch by he Polish expedi ion in Saqqa a, which has long ocused no only on he comp ehensi e an h opol‑ ogical p ocessing o all human skele al emains ound bu also on hei summa y publica ion (Kaczma ek 2008; Kaczma ek– Kozie adzka ‑Ogunmakin 2013). O he Old Kingdom ceme‑ e ies whe e da a on o e all age ‑a ‑dea h and sex dis ibu ion a e a ailable include h ee bu ial g ounds a Giza unco e ed by a ious a chaeological expedi ions and he ceme e y a Mendes in he Nile Del a egion. The so ‑called Mino Ceme e y a Giza placed wes o he wes e n po ‑ ion o he oyal Khu u ceme e y was unco e ed in 1915 by Cla ence S. Fishe and is assumed o be in ended o he ombs o mino cou o icials (Fishe 1924). Two skele al assemblages s o ed in a acili y a Giza come om he Wes e n Ceme e y a Giza, which is conside ed he ceme e y o high ‑ anking o icials (Hawass 1996): he i s was exca a ed by Geo ge Reisne du ing he Hea s Expedi ion (1902–1945), he second by he Sup eme Council o An iqui ies (SCA) unde he di ec ion o Zahi Hawass (1989–1992) (Hawass 1996; Hussiene al. 2003). The las ceme e y in Giza, he Sou h Eas Ceme e y, is also pa o he SCA exca a ions; in con as o he p e ious wo ceme e ies, he wo ke s in ol ed in he cons uc ion o he py amids we e p obably bu ied he e (Hussiene al. 2003). The las compa ison sample comes om Mendes, asigni ican Old Kingdom adminis a i e and cul cen um in he Del a egion (Man 2014). The numbe s and equencies o males, emales and subadul s bu ied in he abo e ‑men ioned ceme e ies, including he a ios o male and emale skele ons a e summa ized in ab.2. 43P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA equency o imma u e skele ons a ound 20% was eco ded a he Giza Sou h Eas Ceme e y o wo ke s (23.5%; Hussiene al. 2003) and in Mendes, ap o incial cen e in he Del a Nile egion (19.2%; Man 2014; ab.2). Jus as ama e o in e es , o compa ison wi h an ea lie pe iod (ca. 3300–3150 BCE), 11% o subadul bu ials (172 o he o al o 1566 g a es) we e iden‑ i ied in he Naqada III ceme e y a Ta khan (Mawdsley 2000: 171). The appa en unde ‑ ep esen a ion o subadul s in ancien Egyp ian ceme e ies and he a chaeology o childhood and i s implica ions ha e been ecen ly summa ized by Lisa Ann Mawdsley (2000: 169–170, including ele an e e ences). The li e expec ancy and high in an mo ali y a es, issues o skele al p ese a ion, di e ing cul u al p ac ices including bu ial wi hin se lemen s and e en e idence o possible in an icide and sac i ice ha e all con ibu ed o he no ions o seg ega ion, exclusion and social in isibili y (Mawdsley 2000). Unde ‑ ep esen a ion o subadul s in mo ua y con ex s is o en a ibu ed o hei poo p ese a ion (Lewis 2009); al e na i ely, he skele ons o young child en, and pa icula ly in an s, migh be absen o poo ly ep esen ed because hey we e no bu ied wi h e e yone else (Milne – Wood– Boldsen 2018). Howe e , Ronika K. Powe (2012) iden i ied o e 1800 child, in an o oe al bu ials wi hin asu ey o published exca a ion epo s om he Ea ly Dynas ic Pe iod o he Middle Kingdom (ca. 3300–1650 BC), showing ha bu ials o subadul s do exis in signi ican numbe s in many ceme e ies. The ques ion he e o e emains as o why he e a e so ew eco ded subadul s in he Abusi ceme e y. Acompa ison o he p opo ion o subadul s in he ceme e ies o high ‑ anking o icials and wo ke s a Giza could indica e alink o adi e en social cha ac e o he ceme e ies (Hussiene al. 2003). As can be seen om he abo e ‑men ioned summa y o subadul s om Abusi ceme e y, almos all bu ials co esponded by hei cha ac e o o he adul indi iduals bu ied in he omb (excep o he omb owne ). Thus, hey did no di e signi ican ly in cha ac e om o he adul bu ials in he gi en omb. This is in line wi h he indings o Lisa Ann Mawdsley, who s a ed ha one key conclusion d awn om he analysis o Naqada III ceme e y a Ta khan is ha subadul s we e a o ded simila bu ials o hose o adul s (Mawdsley 2000: 201). Pu simply, he child’ssocial s a us e lec s he social s a us o his/he pa en s; his applies o he quali y o he die , access o medical ca e bu also o he cha ac e o his/he bu ial. Acco ding o Sonia R. Zak zewski (2020), while some ancien Egyp ian adul s may ha e been able make some decisions ega d‑ ing hei own bu ial, i is highly unlikely ha ancien Egyp ian child en we e able o make such decisions hemsel es. The di e ences in he demog aphic p o iles o di e en Old Kingdom ceme e ies, especially he numbe s o emales and subadul s, seem o be closely ela ed o he social s a ig aphy o he Old Kingdom socie y wi h i s adi ions and especially well ‑de ined une al cus oms. I canno be uled ou ha no only he cha ac e o he emale o subadul bu ials bu also hei numbe s co espond o he social s a us o he omb owne . Tha means ha di e ences be ween social g oups p obably exis ed also in he hie a chy o amily membe s and he selec ion o who is bu ied in he amily omb. Al hough i may seem ha Abusi was abu ial g ound designa ed exclusi ely o membe s o he eli e, he e is aclea s a ig aphy o ombs by social s a us, anging om membe s o he oyal amily o lowe ‑ anking indi iduals, p ob‑ ably household membe s o p ies s looking a e mo ua y cul s. Membe s o he highe eli e we e bu ied in s one ‑buil mas abas o ock cu ‑ ombs (e.g., AS 1, AS 16, AS 22, AS 31, AS67, AS68 a–d, AS 98), while mud ‑b ick mas abas o single sha s wi h asimple cul place we e 44 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 buil by low ‑ aking indi iduals a ound huge s one mas abas (e.g., he cou ya d o AS68, AS77, AS78, AS 79, AS 81, AS 84; o e e ences see Bá ae al. 2020a and ab.S1). While he ques ion o social s a us may be c ucial in s a i ied socie ies such as ha o Old Kingdom Egyp , he issue o he p ese a ion o skele al emains due o a ious ac o s, especially g a e obbe s, canno be igno ed. The de ailed esul s o a chaeological esea ch in he Mino Ceme e y a Giza show ha only 33% o he exca a ed sha s con ained human skele al emains (Fishe 1924). No subadul indi iduals we e eco ded. I may be due o he accu acy o he an h opological me hods and he p ocessing in he ea ly wen ie h cen u y (Mawdsley 2000: 173); possibly, he exca a o s migh no e en ecognize he bones o young child en, especially in an s, as human (Milne – Wood– Boldsen 2018). I canno be uled ou , he e o e, ha some o hese “emp y” sha s o iginally con ained he bu ials o emales and subadul s. Ade ailed analysis o he sha s wi hou bu ials, whe he alse, un inished, com‑ ple ely emp y o obbed, a he Abusi ceme e y is unde way; we belie e ha i will b ing mo e in o ma ion conce ning he missing bu ials in he u u e. OSTEOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS, BODY HEIGHT AND SEXUAL DIMORPHISM OF OLD KINGDOM SKELETONS FROM ABUSIR The esul s o basic s a is ical analyses a e summa ized in supplemen a y ab. S2 (c anial measu emen s) and supplemen a y ab. S4 (in a ‑c anial measu emen s), sepa a ely o males and emales. Gi en he signi ican sexual dimo phism (see below), he a e age alues o he indi idual dimensions ega dless o he sex we e no included because hey would be misleading. As was p e iously men ioned, he di e ences be ween males and emales we e s a is ically signi ican o mos o he measu ed dimensions. Thus, he ocus was mo e on dimensions ha do no show any sexual dimo phism and e eal he a eas ha a e he same o males and emales. O he o al numbe o 41 c anial measu emen s ( ab.S2), no di e ences we e ound in only 13 o hem. Excep o he basion ‑b egma heigh (M17), he ans e sal (M24) and sagi al (M28) a c and he occipi al cho d (M31), he e a e wo clea ly de ined a eas in which males and emales a e simila : he a ea o he c anial base (bo h leng h and b ead h o he o amen magnum and he basion ‑p os hion leng h)(M40) and he uppe acial a ea (M48) including o bi al dimensions (M50–52), he nasal leng h (M55) and he ha d pala e dimensions (M60, M62). The simila i y o he indi idual dimensions also co esponds o he calcula ed indices, o which no s a is ically signi ican di e ences we e ound in he case o he b ead h ‑heigh (I3), ans e sal on opa ie al (I13), o bi al (I42), nasal (I48) and mandibula indices (I64). This means ha sex does no appea o play asigni ican ole in hese c anial a eas, whe eas in all o he dimensions and indices, he sexual di e ences a e s a is ically signi ican . Di e ences in he shape o he c anium be ween males and emales a e bes cha ac e ized by c anial indices, which de ine he ela ionships be ween indi idual dimensions ( ab.S3). Al hough, on a e age, bo h male and emale c ania a e mainly medium ‑leng h (mesoc anial), iden ical o c ania om Old Kingdom Saqqa a (Kaczma ek– Kozie adzka ‑Ogunmakin 2013), males ha e asigni ican shi owa ds long c ania (dolichoc anial; mo e han 38%), while sho e c ania (b achyc anial; 24%) we e eco ded among emales. Simila esul s we e e ‑ co ded ega ding he leng h ‑heigh index (index e icalis). Bo h male and emale g oups 45P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA ea u ed amedium ‑high c ania (o hoc anial) on a e age, bu 38.5% o emale c ania we e high (hypsic anial) and 25% o male c ania we e low (chamaec anial). Di e ences in he acial a ea, cha ac e ized by he acial index, we e also signi ican . While he mos o emale c ania showed ahigh ace (70%), mo e han 60% o he male c ania had alow o medium ‑high ace. In gene al, i is possible o conclude ha males om Abusi ha e longe bu lowe c ania han emales, while emales a e cha ac e ized by ahighe ace. Sexual dimo phism is, howe e , much mo e p onounced ega ding he dimensions o he in a ‑c anial skele on ( ab. S4). The e a e only h ee measu emen s (on bo h sides) whe e no signi ican di e ences we e eco ded. Su p isingly, all o hem a e linked o he pel ic a ea, whe e highe sexual dimo phism is o be p esumed: he an e io ‑supe io b ead h o he sa‑ c um (S5), he spino ‑au icula leng h (SA) and he ace abulo ‑symphyseal pubic leng h (PUM). The las wo dimensions men ioned a e among he en dimensions used in he p obabilis ic sex diagnosis (Mu aile al. 2005). This only con i ms ha no single ai o he human skele on enables a eliable sex de e mina ion (B ůžek– Mu ail 2006), as some skele al dimensions a e sexually dimo phic wi h ega d o bo h size and shape (Ma low 2014). As in he case o c anial indices, in a‑c anial indices also be e e eal he di e ences in o e all p opo ionali y. Signi ican di e ences in single dimensions ell us ha male bones a e longe and mo e obus . This is in conco dance wi h bo h hume al and emo al obus ici y indices, whe e signi ican di e ences we e also eco ded. Howe e , all o he indices, which p ima ily conce n he p opo ions be ween/among long bones, e eal ha males and emales om Abusi had asimila a io be ween hei uppe and lowe ex emi ies. These esul s a e simila o he conclusions o Sonia R. Zak zewski (2003), who aced changes in s a u e and he pa e n o body p opo ions among he ancien Egyp ians om he P e ‑Dynas ic Pe iod o he Middle Kingdom o assess di e ences be ween he sexes and among a ious pe iods. While all long bone leng hs exhibi signi ican sexual dimo phism as a as long bone a ios and indices a e conce ned, his only applies o he in e memb al index, which may esul om di e en body plans (p opo ions o uppe and lowe limbs) in males and emales (Zak zewski 2003). Howe e , he esul s include indi iduals om all pe iods s udied, wi h only 25 o he 150 alling in o he Old Kingdom pe iod. The es ima ed body heigh is also an impo an ac o in econs uc ing heal h condi ions, se ing as an indica o o socioeconomic s a us (Habich e al. 2015). He i abili y alues o s a u e a e ~0.8–0.9, i.e. up o 80%–90% o i s a iance can be explained by gene ics (Ellison 2001). En i onmen al ac o s ha can a ec human g ow h include clima e, nu i ion, disease and socioeconomic ac o s (Mielke– Konigsbe g– Rele h o d 2010). S a u e and body size, and he sexual dimo phism exp essed wi hin hem, a e impo an as no only a e hey e ec s o childhood heal h, bu hey a e also linked o aspec s o gende ela ions and in e ac ions wi h social hie a chy and social anking (Zak zewski 2015). Male es ima ed s a u e in Abusi sample anged om app oxima ely 152 cm o 184 cm wi h amean o 167.7 cm, while emales eached aheigh be ween ca. 146 cm and 170 cm wi h amean o 153.4 cm ( ab.S4; las ow). Mo eo e , in his case, he di e ences be ween he sexes we e s a is ically signi ican . Ve y simila alues we e es ima ed in males (168.3 cm) and emales (155.4 cm) in he Old Kingdom popula ion g oup om Saqqa a (Kaczma ek– Kozie adzka‑ ‑Ogunmakin 2013). The compa ison o he body heigh o indi iduals bu ied a Abusi wi h he skele al samples om Giza and Meidum, whe e he es ima ed s a u es we e 168.8 cm in 46 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 males / 159.6 cm in emales (Zak zewski 2003) and 166.9 cm in males / 154.6 cm in emales (Rax e 2011), espec i ely, shows sligh di e ences especially in he case o emales. The s a u e coe icien o a ia ion (CV) was 3.2 in males and 2.6 in emales om Abusi , which is simila o he s a u e a ia ion in an Old Kingdom sample s udied by Rax e (2011) o bo h males (3.3) and emales (3.0). In compa ison o o he pe iods ( om P e ‑Dynas ic o Roman ‑Byzan ine), he Old Kingdom males exhibi he highes s a u e a ia ion while he emales he second lowes (Rax e 2011), along wi h he highes mean s a u e di e ence be ween he sexes (app oxima ely 12 cm). The mean s a u e di e ence be ween males and emales is e en highe (app oxima ely 14 cm) in he Abusi sample. As men ioned abo e, g ow h is highly sensi i e o en i onmen al ac o s such as social, nu i ional, economic and heal h condi ions, which may lead o sexual dimo phism i males and emales a e di e en ially a ec ed (S eckel 2009; Zak zewski 2015). Popula ions unde en i onmen al s ess may exhibi lowe sexual dimo phism while less s essed popula ions p oduce alle adul s and exhibi g ea e s a u e sexual dimo phism. The alle indi iduals and highe s a u e sexual dimo phism o Old Kingdom Egyp ians a e expec ed as hese g oups a e composed o highe s a a indi iduals om mo e socially s a i ied pe iods wi h lowe en i onmen al s ess (Rax e 2011). The esul s o ou s udy exhibi high sexual dimo phism in body heigh , which is consis en wi h he p esump ion o highe s a us o he indi iduals bu ied in Abusi . Al hough he indi iduals bu ied in Abusi may be seemingly pe cei ed as ahomogeneous g oup o highe ‑ anking indi iduals, he e a e s ill signi ican di e ences in hei social s a us cha ac e ized by he ype and deco a ion o he omb, i les, bu ial equipmen , e c. As men‑ ioned abo e, in ap e ious wo k (Ha elko á– Dulíko á 2020), we ocused on he compa ison o he main (highe s a us) and subsidia y ombs (lowe s a us). One o he obse ed ea u es was also he body heigh o he indi iduals bu ied in he Abusi ceme e y. S a is ically sig‑ ni ican di e ences be ween indi iduals om he main and subsidia y ombs we e eco ded, especially among he males. On a e age, he males bu ied in he main ombs, whe e highe social s a us o he owne s is p esumed, we e mo e han 170 cm all, while hei low ‑ anking con empo a ies a e aged only 165 cm. The end is exac ly opposi e in emales, al hough he di e ences a e no s a is ically signi ican . The emales in he main ombs we e smalle (154 cm on a e age) han hose in he subsidia y ombs (157 cm). An au ho eam led by Michael E. Habich compa ed body heigh es ima es o he gene al popula ion wi h he mummies o he membe s o oyal amilies om all pe iods o ancien Egyp ian his o y (Habich e al. 2015). Thei esul s co espond o ou indings. The kings we e gene ally alle han hei con empo a y subjec s, while he queens we e sho e han he a e age emales ac oss all s udied pe iods (Habich e al. 2015). Michelle H. Rax e (2011) e eals no signi ican mean s a u e di e ences be ween Old Kingdom eli es and non ‑eli es o bo h sexes. Howe e , he eli es o bo h sexes we e alle han hei non ‑eli e coun e pa s. The di e ences be ween he skele ons o wo ke s and high ‑ anking o icials om ceme e ies a Giza we e ex‑ amined by he eam o Zahi Hawass (Hussiene al. 2003; Hussiene al. 2006). They also e ealed signi ican di e ences in he body heigh : he mean s a u e o high ‑ anking o icials exceeded ha o wo ke s. Social s a us is he e o e s ongly connec ed wi h he inal body heigh in adul hood. Se e al heo ies a e conside ed, mos o hem e lec ing en i onmen al ac o s, such as 47P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA nu i ion o disease, and socioeconomic ac o s. One o hem p esumes ha male g ow h is mo e sensi i e o en i onmen al s esso s compa ed o emales, mainly du ing he p ena al pe iod ( o e e ences, see S inson 1985; Rax e 2011). F om an e olu iona y pe spec i e, i would be ad an ageous o emales o be be e bu e ed agains en i onmen al s ess due o hei g ea e in es men in ep oduc ion; howe e , he exac mechanisms ha lead o emales being less sensi i e o he en i onmen a e no ye ully unde s ood (S inson 1985). Sexual dimo phism hus gene ally dec eases in pe iods o c ises o ex e nal s ess, as he males do no each hei ull g ow h po en ial, while he emales a e less a ec ed (Robins– Shu e 1983). In addi ion, male child en in some socie ies a e a ou ed and ecei e be e nu i ional and medical esou ces, esul ing in adi e en ia ion be ween he sexes (S inson 2000). This heo y could explain no only he di e ences in body heigh be ween males and e‑ males bu also he di e ences obse ed in s a u e a ia ion, which is highe in males and lowe in emales, in di e en social g oups. The lowe s a us o indi iduals bu ied in Abusi may be associa ed wi h adi e en kind o nu i ion o medical ea men compa ed o highe social classes. When compa ing wo ke s and high ‑ anking o icials om ceme e ies a Giza, Fawzia Helmy Hussien and he colleagues (Hussein e al. 2003) p esumed physical s ess, especially du ing pube y when he long bones a e e y sensi i e o en i onmen al ad e se e ec s, along wi h di e en nu i ion and heal h o he wo ke s o be he main ac o s explaining he di e ences in he es ima ed s a u e. As o he Abusi sample, such signi ican di e ences in he deg ee o physical ac i i y be ween he indi iduals bu ied in he main and subsidia y ombs a e unlikely, as all o hem belonged o eli e indi iduals o some ex en . Ano he ac o wo h men ioning is he lowe body heigh o highe ‑ anking emales, as exhibi ed in ou s udy (Ha elko á– Dulíko á 2020); and when compa ing he gene al pop‑ ula ion wi h emale mummies om oyal amilies (Habich e al. 2015). The sho e s a u e o he oyal wi es may be explained by sexual selec ion: sho women a e conside ed mo e a ac i e by males, as has been p o ed in con empo a y Wes e n and A ican socie ies ( o de ailed e e ences see Habich e al. 2015). Mo eo e , i has been obse ed ha in some a‑ di ional popula ions, sho e women a e mo e ep oduc i ely success ul (Ki chengas 2000). The impo ance o he he i abili y o body heigh mus no be o e looked. Mos o he ombs in Abusi a e amily ombs. The esul s men ioned abo e may also indica e how im‑ po an a ole amily ies played in de e mining he social s a us o an indi idual (Ha elko á– Dulíko á 2020). Howe e , i we conside ed he social s a us as one o he impo an ac o s in luencing inal body heigh , i is impo an o ealize ha we a e alking abou he social s a us o he pa en s, a he han he s udied indi idual, as he body heigh in adul hood is mainly de e mined in he p ena al and childhood pe iods. Las bu no leas , he inc ease in sexual dimo phism o he long bone leng hs and he body heigh du ing he Old King‑ dom is ela ed o he cha ac e o asocie y ansi ioning om egali a ianism o asi ua ion cha ac e ized by ahie a chy, inequali y and unequal access o esou ces (Zak zewski 2003; Ma low 2014). 48 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 CONCLUSION I has aken se e al decades o a chaeological esea ch and he wo k o many an h opologis s o ob ain su icien an h opological ma e ial o acomp ehensi e s udy o he Old Kingdom indi iduals bu ied a Abusi . The an h opological analysis o he skele al emains o mo e han 200 indi iduals bu ied in Abusi yielded se e al in e es ing indings. The sex and age ‑a ‑dea h dis ibu ion o he Abusi sample exhibi s ewe emales compa ed o males and, abo e all, a e y low numbe o subadul bu ials. A e y p onounced sexual dimo phism was no ed be ween he male and emale skele ons in bo h skulls and he in a ‑c anial skele on. The male skulls a e longe bu lowe han he emale skulls, while emales we e cha ac e ized by highe aces. Al hough he male long limb bones we e longe and mo e obus han hose o emale bo h sexes do no di e in he p opo ionali y be ween he uppe and lowe ex emi ies. The esul s o ou s udy exhibi high sexual dimo phism in body heigh , which is consis en wi h he p esump ion o he highe s a us o indi iduals bu ied in Abusi . Howe e , he mos impo an knowledge gained om his ex ensi e esea ch does no lie in he an h opological igu es hemsel es bu in ela ion o his o ical and a chaeological indings, which a e c ucial o he in e p e a ion o he ob ained esul s. The indings based on he e alua ion o he Abusi sample and compa isons wi h o he Old Kingdom ceme e ies e lec he signi ican in luence o social s a us and ela ed cus oms wi hin he Old Kingdom socie y. The low numbe o emales bu ied in Abusi and he almos missing subadul s could indica e selec i e bu ying in an a ea go e ned by special ules, which seem o e lec he social s a us o he omb owne o he cha ac e o he whole ceme e y ( he equency o emale and subadul bu ials is highe in ombs/ceme e ies cha ac e ized by lowe s a us). Howe e , i canno be uled ou ha he missing emales and especially subadul s we e o iginally bu ied in he sha s ha we e obbed in an iqui y, which is why no bones we e disco e ed du ing he exca a ion. Lea ing aside he omb owne s and hei wi es, i should also be emphasized ha he documen ed emale and subadul bu ials do no di e in hei cha ac e om male bu ials om he same omb (in e ms o he design). Thus, hei social s a us was p obably pe cei ed simila ly o ha o he males bu ied in he same omb, excep o he owne . Since mo e ques ions han answe s ha e a isen du ing he p esen ed esea ch, we would like o ocus on es ing se e al hypo heses in de ail on he comple e se o indi iduals bu ied in Abusi in he u u e. As pa o his ollow ‑up esea ch, he ollowing majo scien i ic issues should be add essed: 1. E alua ion o paleopa hological changes which may indica e di e en li es yles and a ail‑ abili y o medical ca e wi h special ega d o ade ailed e alua ion o auma pa e ns, which bes indica e ce ain isk beha iou s wi hou being in luenced by in e nal ac o s such as he edi y. 2. Recons uc ion o speci ic physical ac i i y o high ‑ anking o icials in he Old Kingdom. This includes an e alua ion o skele al ma ke s connec ed wi h physical s ess and ha‑ bi ual ac i i y, especially o en heseal changes o in a ‑c anial mo phological ea u es as 49P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA accesso y ace s, ossae, imp in s, c es s, o ube cles, which e lec epe i i e o exces‑ si e physical s ess, and degene a i e changes o he e eb al column and appendicula skele on. 3. T acing possible biological a ini ies by an e alua ion o selec ed non ‑me ic (epigene ic) ai s, such as den al mo phology. 4. C ea ion o ada abase o 3D models o Old Kingdom skulls and mandibles which can la e be used o u he shape and size analyses using he me hods o geome ic mo phome y and hei di e ences be ween indi iduals om di e en social g oups. 5. De ailed analysis o he sha s wi hou emnan s o abu ial wi h an emphasis pu especially on he di e en ia ion be ween obbed, un inished, dummy and comple ely emp y sha s whe e possible. Such an analysis should shed mo e ligh on he issue o he missing emale and subadul bu ials wi hin he indi idual ombs and wi hin he ceme e ies on aglobal scale. Some o hese sub ‑ asks a e in ace ain s age o p ocessing al eady. An h opological esea ch o acomplex socie y such as Old Kingdom Egyp was closely ela ed o he cus oms, social s a i ica ion and bu ial ules. Social s a us no only a ec ed an indi idual’sli e and he way he o she was bu ied; i also a ec s ou pe cep ion o wha we disco e in he sand oday. Recen esea ch by ou eam membe s has p o ed ha anew and complex app oach o ade ailed s udy o ancien Egyp ian human skele al emains may lead o in e es ing esul s while showing di ec ion o u he esea ch ha is necessa y o add ess he issues ha ha e a isen. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like o hank Vik o Če ný, Ma ina Kujano á and Pa la Zedníko á Malá o p o id‑ ing an h opological da a ob ained du ing hei wo k a he concession o he Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology in Abusi . In addi ion o he au ho s and he abo e ‑men ioned an h opologis , Hana Píšo á, Eliška Maxo á and Pe a S ánská also pa icipa ed in he p ocessing o he human skele al emains. We would also like o hank bo h anonymous e iewe s o hei ime and e o ; hei commen s we e e y help ul and imp o ed he quali y o he p esen pape . The wo k on his scien i ic ou pu was enabled by he P og es Q11 g an “Complexi y and esilience. Ancien Egyp ian ci iliza ion in amul i‑disciplina y and mul i‑cul u al pe spec i e” a Cha les Uni e si y and he Minis y o Cul u e wi hin he amewo k o he ins i u ional unding o long ‑ e m concep ual de elopmen o he esea ch o ganiza ion Na ional Museum (DKRVO 2019–2023/7.I.c and 7.I.d; 00023272). 50 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 Tomb old code o objec yea owne iden i ied names IMM M F U To al an h opological e e ence AC003 I 1997 Rane e e Rane e e  1   1 Němečko á – S ouhal 2002; S ouhal – Vyhnánek 2000; S ouhal e al. 2001 AC015 B 1976 Kheke e neb y Kheke e neb y, Tise ho   2  2 S ouhal 1984, 1992; S ouhal – Gaballah 1993; S ouhal e al. 2002 AC017 D 1987 Faa (good name Idu) and Kheni Faa Idu  1   1 S ouhal e al. 2002 AC019 K 1987 Hedje nebu Hedje nebu   1  1 S ouhal 1992; S ouhal – Gaballah 1993; S ouhal e al. 2002 AC020 L 1987 Anonymous  “Lady L”   1  1 S ouhal 1992; S ouhal – Gaballah 1993; S ouhal e al. 2002 AC022 J 1994 Py amid complex Lepsius no. 24 Repu nub ?   1  1 Če ný e al. 2008; S ouhal e al. 2000 AC023 M 1987 Neb yemne e es Neb yemne e es   1  1 Če ný e al. 2008 AC030  2014 Khen aus III Khen kaus III   1  1 unpublished AC031  2016 anonymous    2  2 unpublished AC033  2018 Kai su Kai su  1  1 2 Bá a e al. 2020 AS001 AA 1991 Kaape Kaape  1   1 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS002 AA (Tomb 2) 1991 anonymous   1 4  5 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS003 CC 1991 He epi He epi  1 1  2 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS004 DD 1991 Raho ep and Isesiseneb Raho ep, Isesiseneb  1 1  2 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS005 BB 1991 Fe ek y and Me y Fe ek y, Me y  2   2 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS006 Tomb I 1993 anonymous  2 1 2 1 6 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS007 FF 1993 Gegi  1 3   4 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS008 Tomb III 1993 anonymous   2   2 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS009 Tomb IV 1993 anonymous   1 1  2 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS010 EE 1993 I i I i  1   1 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS012 Lake o Abusi 5, Tomb 2 1993 Shedu Shedu  5 4  9 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS014 Lake o Abusi 6, Tomb 4 1993 anonymous  1 1   2 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS015 Lake o Abusi 6, Tomb 1, 6 1993 anonymous   4 1  5 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS016 GG 1995 Qa ( izie ) Qa  2 2  4 Če ný 2009 AS017 HH, sha 2, B 2000 Qa Junio Qa Junio    2 2 Če ný 2009 Tab.S1 Summa y o unco e ed ombs con aining an h opological ma e ial including he names o he owne s, he iden i ied names wi hin he omb and he numbe s o indi iduals (IMM: imma u es skele ons; M: males; F: emales; U: uniden i ied) 51P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA Tomb old code o objec yea owne iden i ied names IMM M F U To al an h opological e e ence AC003 I 1997 Rane e e Rane e e  1   1 Němečko á – S ouhal 2002; S ouhal – Vyhnánek 2000; S ouhal e al. 2001 AC015 B 1976 Kheke e neb y Kheke e neb y, Tise ho   2  2 S ouhal 1984, 1992; S ouhal – Gaballah 1993; S ouhal e al. 2002 AC017 D 1987 Faa (good name Idu) and Kheni Faa Idu  1   1 S ouhal e al. 2002 AC019 K 1987 Hedje nebu Hedje nebu   1  1 S ouhal 1992; S ouhal – Gaballah 1993; S ouhal e al. 2002 AC020 L 1987 Anonymous  “Lady L”   1  1 S ouhal 1992; S ouhal – Gaballah 1993; S ouhal e al. 2002 AC022 J 1994 Py amid complex Lepsius no. 24 Repu nub ?   1  1 Če ný e al. 2008; S ouhal e al. 2000 AC023 M 1987 Neb yemne e es Neb yemne e es   1  1 Če ný e al. 2008 AC030  2014 Khen aus III Khen kaus III   1  1 unpublished AC031  2016 anonymous    2  2 unpublished AC033  2018 Kai su Kai su  1  1 2 Bá a e al. 2020 AS001 AA 1991 Kaape Kaape  1   1 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS002 AA (Tomb 2) 1991 anonymous   1 4  5 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS003 CC 1991 He epi He epi  1 1  2 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS004 DD 1991 Raho ep and Isesiseneb Raho ep, Isesiseneb  1 1  2 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS005 BB 1991 Fe ek y and Me y Fe ek y, Me y  2   2 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS006 Tomb I 1993 anonymous  2 1 2 1 6 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS007 FF 1993 Gegi  1 3   4 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS008 Tomb III 1993 anonymous   2   2 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS009 Tomb IV 1993 anonymous   1 1  2 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS010 EE 1993 I i I i  1   1 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS012 Lake o Abusi 5, Tomb 2 1993 Shedu Shedu  5 4  9 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS014 Lake o Abusi 6, Tomb 4 1993 anonymous  1 1   2 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS015 Lake o Abusi 6, Tomb 1, 6 1993 anonymous   4 1  5 Če ný – S ouhal 1995, 2001 AS016 GG 1995 Qa ( izie ) Qa  2 2  4 Če ný 2009 AS017 HH, sha 2, B 2000 Qa Junio Qa Junio    2 2 Če ný 2009 52 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 Tomb old code o objec yea owne iden i ied names IMM M F U To al an h opological e e ence AS018 HH, sha 1, A 2004 Senedjemib Senedjemib  1   1 Če ný 2009 AS019 HH, sha C 2002 Ikay ? Ikay ?  1   1 Če ný 2009 AS020 II 1999 He epi He epi  1   1 unpublished AS022 JJ 2000 In i Ankhem jenene , In i, In i Pepyanch  4   4 Če ný 2009 AS023 Lake o Abusi 2002, Tomb 1 2002 anonymous  1 1 6 4 12 Če ný 2009 AS025 Lake o Abusi 2002, Tomb 3 2002 anonymous   1   1 Če ný 2009 AS035 MM EAST II 2007 anonymous   1   1 Malá 2010 AS036 NN 2004 2012 P aho ep P ahho ep  1  1 2 unpublished AS037 OO 2006 2007 Ne e inpu Ne e inpu  3 2 1 6 Ha elko á 2014 AS038 OOsub 2010 Kaiem jenene Kaiem jenene 1 5 2 1 9 Zedníko á Malá 2011 AS039  2013 Shepseska ankh Shepseska ankh  1 5 1 7 unpublished AS041 KK IV 2007, 2016 anonymous    2  2 unpublished AS042 KK III 2007 anonymous    1  1 unpublished AS047 ASW 1 2007 anonymous    1  1 unpublished AS051 MM eas IV 2009 anonymous   1 1 1 3 Malá 2010 AS052 MM Eas V 2009 anonymous   4 1  5 Malá 2010 AS053 MM‑EII wes wall 2009 anonymous   1 1 1 3 Malá 2010 AS054  2010 anonymous   1 1  2 unpublished AS057  2010 anonymous   2 2  4 Zedníko á Malá 2011 AS059  2010 anonymous  3 2 1  6 Zedníko á Malá 2011 AS060  2010 anonymous    1  1 Zedníko á Malá 2011 AS061  2016 Kaape Junio Kaape Junio  4 2  6 unpublished AS062  2016 anonymous   1   1 unpublished AS065  2010 Ne e he p ah Ne e he p ah  1  1 2 Dulíko á e al. 2015; Dulíko á e al. 2011 AS067  2012 Ne e shepes Ne e ? Ne e shepes Ne e , Wese , Memy  2 1 1 4 A ias Ky na o á e al. 2013 AS068  2012, 2013 She e neb She e neb y , Se ekhu, Khai, He epuni  6 1 2 9 Ha elko á 2013 Tab.S1 Summa y o unco e ed ombs (con inua ion) 59P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA Index de ini ion F % M % To al % C anial index dolichoc anic 3 9.1 18 38.3 21 26.3 mesoc anic 22 66.7 25 53.2 47 58.8 b achyc anic 7 21.2 4 8.5 11 13.8 ul ab achyc anic 1 3.0 00.0 11.3 o al 33 100.0 47 100.0 80 100.0 Leng h‑heigh index chamaec anic 1 3.8 8 25.0 9 15.5 o hoc anic 15 57.7 21 65.6 36 62.1 hypsic anic 10 38.5 39.4 13 22.4 o al 26 100.0 32 100.0 58 100.0 B ead h‑heigh index apeinoc anic 6 24.0 9 28.1 15 26.3 me ioc anic 13 52.0 14 43.8 27 47.4 ak oc anic 6 24.0 9 28.1 15 26.3 o al 25 100.0 32 100.0 57 100.0 T ans e sal on opa ie al index s enome opic 17 58.6 15 35.7 32 45.1 me iome opic 8 27.6 14 33.3 22 31.0 eu yme opic 4 13.8 13 31.0 17 23.9 o al 29 100.0 42 100.0 71 100.0 Facial index low 00.0 2 15.4 2 8.7 middle 3 30.0 6 46.2 9 39.1 high 7 70.0 538.5 12 52.2 o al 10 100.0 13 100.0 23 100.0 Uppe acial index low 00.0 19.1 1 4.2 middle 2 15.4 8 72.7 10 41.7 high 11 84.6 2 18.2 13 54.2 o al 13 100.0 11 100.0 24 100.0 Nasal index meso hin 4 23.5 7 29.2 11 26.8 chamae hin 6 35.3 10 41.7 16 39.0 hype chamae hin 2 11.8 1 4.2 3 7.3 o al 17 100.0 24 100.0 41 100.0 Tab.S3 Dis ibu ion o he numbe o indi iduals acco ding o c anial index ca ego ies (M: males; F: emales) 60 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 In ac anial Males Females ‑ es Bone No. Measu emen /Index N Mean Min Max S d.De . N Mean Min Max S d.De . ‑ alue d p Scapula Sc1 L Mo phologic heigh ** 5 156.0 142.0 164.0 9.3 5129.6 118.0 147.0 11.1 4.08 8 0.004 Sc1 R   6 153.2 141.0 166.0 11.4 4 139.8 133.0 149.0 6.7 2.10 8 0.069 Sc2 L Mo phologic leng h ** 9 108.8 100.0 120.0 5.7 7 97.4 92.0 107.0 5.5 4.00 14 0.001 Sc2 R  * 15 107.4 95.0 124.0 8.7 698.0 85.0 105.0 7.2 2.35 19 0.030 Sc12 L Glenoid maximum heigh ** 40 37.1 32.0 41.0 2.1 26 32.2 23.5 39.0 3.3 7.28 64 0.000 Sc12 R  ** 42 37.5 32.0 42.0 2.2 23 32.0 23.0 38.0 2.9 8.59 63 0.000 Sc13 L Glenoid maximum b ead h ** 44 27.9 23.0 32.0 2.3 25 23.6 19.0 34.0 3.0 6.62 67 0.000 Sc13 R  ** 41 28.4 24.0 33.0 2.4 23 24.3 21.0 33.0 2.7 6.37 62 0.000 Cla icle Cl1 L Maximum leng h ** 28 153.9 129.0 172.0 11.2 20 136.7 126.0 160.0 8.1 5.85 46 0.000 Cl1 R  ** 26 154.3 136.0 176.0 10.6 23 136.0 122.5 159.0 9.3 6.39 47 0.000 Cl4 L Supe o‑in e io midsha diame e ** 51 11.3 9.0 16.0 1.5 35 9.3 7.0 13.0 1.3 6.38 84 0.000 Cl4 R  ** 47 11.2 9.0 14.0 1.2 32 9.1 7.0 12.0 1.2 8.05 77 0.000 Cl5 L Do so‑ en al midsha diame e ** 51 11.7 9.0 17.0 1.7 35 10.0 8.0 14.0 1.3 4.97 84 0.000 Cl5 R  ** 46 12.1 9.0 17.0 1.8 32 9.6 7.0 14.0 1.3 6.80 76 0.000 Hume us H1 L Maximum leng h ** 45 317.3 261.0 358.0 16.4 28 289.6 260.0 312.0 13.1 7.54 71 0.000 H1 R  ** 43 324.1 292.0 376.0 19.3 28 291.2 270.0 330.0 14.6 7.72 69 0.000 H2 L To al leng h ** 28 313.0 259.0 355.0 17.5 16 286.6 270.0 309.0 10.6 5.47 42 0.000 H2 L  ** 30 321.9 289.0 373.0 19.4 20 290.9 270.0 328.0 14.9 6.07 48 0.000 H3 L P oximal epiphysis b ead h ** 44 47.8 42.0 56.0 2.8 28 42.9 40.0 51.0 2.5 7.52 70 0.000 H3 R  ** 43 49.1 44.0 59.0 2.8 26 43.7 40.0 48.0 2.2 8.35 67 0.000 H4 L Epicondyla b ead h ** 60 61.1 53.6 70.0 3.1 34 53.1 46.0 61.0 2.8 12.25 92 0.000 H4 R  ** 62 62.1 51.0 70.0 3.5 43 54.5 50.0 64.0 3.5 10.97 103 0.000 H5 L Maximum midsha diame e ** 71 21.0 14.5 26.5 2.0 48 18.4 12.0 22.4 1.9 6.94 117 0.000 H5 R  ** 73 21.7 14.0 25.0 1.9 49 19.2 16.0 22.6 1.4 7.62 120 0.000 H6 L Minimum midsha diame e ** 71 16.8 13.4 22.0 1.7 47 14.2 11.0 19.0 1.5 8.40 116 0.000 H6 R  ** 73 17.2 13.0 22.0 1.7 49 14.0 12.0 17.0 1.2 11.49 120 0.000 H7 L Minimum sha ci cum e ence ** 48 59.4 52.0 69.0 4.3 28 50.6 38.0 65.0 5.3 7.86 74 0.000 H7 R  ** 47 61.0 52.0 69.0 4.4 32 51.4 43.0 59.0 3.9 9.92 77 0.000 H8 L Head ci cum e ence ** 22 137.0 125.0 159.0 7.7 12 122.4 106.0 134.0 8.7 5.05 32 0.000 H8 R  ** 26 139.7 127.0 160.0 7.8 15 121.2 105.0 137.0 9.0 6.92 39 0.000 H9 L T ans e sal head diame e ** 49 42.3 37.6 54.0 3.1 34 37.0 33.0 42.6 2.4 8.32 81 0.000 H9 R  ** 44 42.9 37.0 53.0 3.4 32 36.7 30.0 44.6 2.8 8.34 74 0.000 H10 L Ve ical head diame e ** 48 44.1 35.3 52.0 3.2 33 38.7 35.0 46.0 2.8 7.82 79 0.000 H10 R  ** 53 44.8 36.0 52.0 3.3 33 38.4 31.0 45.0 2.9 9.26 84 0.000 Tab.S4 Compa ison o in a ‑c anial measu emen s and indices be ween males and emales (No.: measu emen numbe ; N: alid numbe o cases; Min: minimal alue; Max: maximal alue; S d. De .: s anda d de ia ion; : ‑ es ; d : deg ees o eedom; p: p ‑ alue; * s a is ically signi ican alue a he p ‑le el o 0.05; ** s a is ically signi ican alue a he p ‑le el o 0.01) 61P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA In ac anial Males Females ‑ es Bone No. Measu emen /Index N Mean Min Max S d.De . N Mean Min Max S d.De . ‑ alue d p Scapula Sc1 L Mo phologic heigh ** 5 156.0 142.0 164.0 9.3 5129.6 118.0 147.0 11.1 4.08 8 0.004 Sc1 R   6 153.2 141.0 166.0 11.4 4 139.8 133.0 149.0 6.7 2.10 8 0.069 Sc2 L Mo phologic leng h ** 9 108.8 100.0 120.0 5.7 7 97.4 92.0 107.0 5.5 4.00 14 0.001 Sc2 R  * 15 107.4 95.0 124.0 8.7 698.0 85.0 105.0 7.2 2.35 19 0.030 Sc12 L Glenoid maximum heigh ** 40 37.1 32.0 41.0 2.1 26 32.2 23.5 39.0 3.3 7.28 64 0.000 Sc12 R  ** 42 37.5 32.0 42.0 2.2 23 32.0 23.0 38.0 2.9 8.59 63 0.000 Sc13 L Glenoid maximum b ead h ** 44 27.9 23.0 32.0 2.3 25 23.6 19.0 34.0 3.0 6.62 67 0.000 Sc13 R  ** 41 28.4 24.0 33.0 2.4 23 24.3 21.0 33.0 2.7 6.37 62 0.000 Cla icle Cl1 L Maximum leng h ** 28 153.9 129.0 172.0 11.2 20 136.7 126.0 160.0 8.1 5.85 46 0.000 Cl1 R  ** 26 154.3 136.0 176.0 10.6 23 136.0 122.5 159.0 9.3 6.39 47 0.000 Cl4 L Supe o‑in e io midsha diame e ** 51 11.3 9.0 16.0 1.5 35 9.3 7.0 13.0 1.3 6.38 84 0.000 Cl4 R  ** 47 11.2 9.0 14.0 1.2 32 9.1 7.0 12.0 1.2 8.05 77 0.000 Cl5 L Do so‑ en al midsha diame e ** 51 11.7 9.0 17.0 1.7 35 10.0 8.0 14.0 1.3 4.97 84 0.000 Cl5 R  ** 46 12.1 9.0 17.0 1.8 32 9.6 7.0 14.0 1.3 6.80 76 0.000 Hume us H1 L Maximum leng h ** 45 317.3 261.0 358.0 16.4 28 289.6 260.0 312.0 13.1 7.54 71 0.000 H1 R  ** 43 324.1 292.0 376.0 19.3 28 291.2 270.0 330.0 14.6 7.72 69 0.000 H2 L To al leng h ** 28 313.0 259.0 355.0 17.5 16 286.6 270.0 309.0 10.6 5.47 42 0.000 H2 L  ** 30 321.9 289.0 373.0 19.4 20 290.9 270.0 328.0 14.9 6.07 48 0.000 H3 L P oximal epiphysis b ead h ** 44 47.8 42.0 56.0 2.8 28 42.9 40.0 51.0 2.5 7.52 70 0.000 H3 R  ** 43 49.1 44.0 59.0 2.8 26 43.7 40.0 48.0 2.2 8.35 67 0.000 H4 L Epicondyla b ead h ** 60 61.1 53.6 70.0 3.1 34 53.1 46.0 61.0 2.8 12.25 92 0.000 H4 R  ** 62 62.1 51.0 70.0 3.5 43 54.5 50.0 64.0 3.5 10.97 103 0.000 H5 L Maximum midsha diame e ** 71 21.0 14.5 26.5 2.0 48 18.4 12.0 22.4 1.9 6.94 117 0.000 H5 R  ** 73 21.7 14.0 25.0 1.9 49 19.2 16.0 22.6 1.4 7.62 120 0.000 H6 L Minimum midsha diame e ** 71 16.8 13.4 22.0 1.7 47 14.2 11.0 19.0 1.5 8.40 116 0.000 H6 R  ** 73 17.2 13.0 22.0 1.7 49 14.0 12.0 17.0 1.2 11.49 120 0.000 H7 L Minimum sha ci cum e ence ** 48 59.4 52.0 69.0 4.3 28 50.6 38.0 65.0 5.3 7.86 74 0.000 H7 R  ** 47 61.0 52.0 69.0 4.4 32 51.4 43.0 59.0 3.9 9.92 77 0.000 H8 L Head ci cum e ence ** 22 137.0 125.0 159.0 7.7 12 122.4 106.0 134.0 8.7 5.05 32 0.000 H8 R  ** 26 139.7 127.0 160.0 7.8 15 121.2 105.0 137.0 9.0 6.92 39 0.000 H9 L T ans e sal head diame e ** 49 42.3 37.6 54.0 3.1 34 37.0 33.0 42.6 2.4 8.32 81 0.000 H9 R  ** 44 42.9 37.0 53.0 3.4 32 36.7 30.0 44.6 2.8 8.34 74 0.000 H10 L Ve ical head diame e ** 48 44.1 35.3 52.0 3.2 33 38.7 35.0 46.0 2.8 7.82 79 0.000 H10 R  ** 53 44.8 36.0 52.0 3.3 33 38.4 31.0 45.0 2.9 9.26 84 0.000 Tab.S4 Compa ison o in a ‑c anial measu emen s and indices be ween males and emales (No.: measu emen numbe ; N: alid numbe o cases; Min: minimal alue; Max: maximal alue; S d. De .: s anda d de ia ion; : ‑ es ; d : deg ees o eedom; p: p ‑ alue; * s a is ically signi ican alue a he p ‑le el o 0.05; ** s a is ically signi ican alue a he p ‑le el o 0.01) 62 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 In ac anial Males Females ‑ es Bone No. Measu emen /Index N Mean Min Max S d.De . N Mean Min Max S d.De . ‑ alue d p Radius R1 L Maximum leng h ** 41 253.0 226.0 286.0 12.3 21 221.3 194.0 250.0 14.6 9.01 60 0.000 R1 R  ** 34 254.4 232.0 287.0 12.1 29 225.8 199.0 265.0 12.9 9.03 61 0.000 R1b L Pa allel leng h ** 25 239.2 216.0 271.0 13.7 11 212.1 191.0 227.0 10.8 5.82 34 0.000 R1b R  ** 24 243.0 222.0 271.0 13.8 15 219.2 202.0 254.0 11.9 5.51 37 0.000 R4 L Maximum sha diame e ** 53 15.3 10.0 18.0 1.4 35 13.0 11.0 17.0 1.3 7.76 86 0.000 R4 R  ** 58 15.6 11.0 20.0 1.7 34 13.4 10.0 17.0 1.5 6.44 90 0.000 (47) L T ans e se diame e a midsha ** 47 14.7 12.0 17.0 1.2 27 12.4 10.0 17.0 1.4 7.17 72 0.000 (47) R  ** 48 15.0 11.0 18.5 1.4 32 13.0 10.0 16.0 1.4 6.04 78 0.000 R5 L An e o‑pos e io sha diame e ** 53 11.8 10.0 16.0 1.0 36 9.7 8.0 13.8 1.1 9.33 87 0.000 R5 R  ** 58 12.1 9.0 16.0 1.1 35 10.1 8.0 14.0 1.1 8.65 91 0.000 (46) L Sagi al diame e a midsha ** 47 11.9 9.4 14.0 1.0 26 9.6 8.0 13.0 1.0 9.32 71 0.000 (46) R  ** 49 11.8 9.0 14.0 1.0 31 9.8 8.0 11.3 0.9 8.92 78 0.000 R5_6 L Dis al epiphysis b ead h ** 48 33.1 29.1 38.0 2.3 23 28.3 24.0 30.5 1.4 9.35 69 0.000 R5_6 R  ** 40 33.7 29.1 37.0 2.1 34 29.1 23.0 37.0 2.6 8.51 72 0.000 Ulna U1 L Maximum leng h ** 30 275.8 244.0 311.0 13.7 23 241.7 213.0 263.0 13.4 9.03 51 0.000 U1 R  ** 36 274.2 246.0 311.0 16.4 26 243.0 218.0 265.0 13.7 7.89 60 0.000 U11 L An e o‑pos e io sha diame e ** 59 13.4 11.0 20.7 1.9 39 11.3 9.0 15.5 1.5 5.75 96 0.000 U11 R  ** 59 13.6 11.0 19.0 1.6 37 11.6 9.0 15.2 1.7 5.76 94 0.000 U12 L T ans e se sha diame e ** 58 16.3 10.0 21.1 2.3 40 13.9 10.0 18.2 1.8 5.57 96 0.000 U12 R  ** 59 16.2 10.5 21.2 2.0 39 14.0 10.0 18.2 1.9 5.25 96 0.000 Pel is DCOX L Maximum pel ic heigh ** 31 208.0 187.0 235.0 10.9 18 189.6 172.0 206.0 10.4 5.78 47 0.000 DCOX R  ** 30 209.6 194.0 235.0 11.8 20 190.4 170.0 222.0 13.6 5.31 48 0.000 SCOX L Iliac b ead h * 25 157.0 138.0 182.0 10.4 24 149.6 137.0 177.0 9.3 2.63 47 0.011 SCOX R  ** 32 155.4 140.0 175.0 9.4 22 147.5 134.0 162.0 7.9 3.25 52 0.002 SA L Spino‑au icula leng h  41 78.2 68.0 91.0 5.2 28 79.0 69.5 88.0 5.1 ‑0.65 67 0.519 SA R   42 78.7 68.0 90.0 5.0 32 76.8 65.2 89.0 5.7 1.46 72 0.148 SS L Spino‑scia ic leng h ** 42 73.3 64.0 84.0 5.0 27 65.3 53.0 78.0 4.9 6.54 67 0.000 SS R  ** 43 73.0 63.4 81.0 4.2 32 65.2 56.0 77.0 4.7 7.54 73 0.000 IIMT L Dep h o he g ea scia ic no ch ** 34 35.8 27.0 46.0 5.1 30 47.5 33.0 59.0 5.6 ‑8.80 62 0.000 IIMT R  ** 42 38.0 26.0 56.0 5.4 27 49.1 39.0 63.0 5.2 ‑8.44 67 0.000 VEAC L Ve ical ace abula diame e ** 44 54.2 49.0 61.0 2.9 26 46.8 43.0 52.0 2.3 11.11 68 0.000 VEAC R  ** 46 54.6 49.0 65.0 3.2 26 47.7 43.0 54.0 2.5 9.38 70 0.000 SPU L Co ylo‑pubic b ead h ** 34 29.6 23.4 35.0 2.8 24 23.7 18.5 37.0 3.7 6.91 56 0.000 Tab.S4 Compa ison o in a‑c anial measu emen s and indices be ween males and emales (con inua ion) 63P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA In ac anial Males Females ‑ es Bone No. Measu emen /Index N Mean Min Max S d.De . N Mean Min Max S d.De . ‑ alue d p Radius R1 L Maximum leng h ** 41 253.0 226.0 286.0 12.3 21 221.3 194.0 250.0 14.6 9.01 60 0.000 R1 R  ** 34 254.4 232.0 287.0 12.1 29 225.8 199.0 265.0 12.9 9.03 61 0.000 R1b L Pa allel leng h ** 25 239.2 216.0 271.0 13.7 11 212.1 191.0 227.0 10.8 5.82 34 0.000 R1b R  ** 24 243.0 222.0 271.0 13.8 15 219.2 202.0 254.0 11.9 5.51 37 0.000 R4 L Maximum sha diame e ** 53 15.3 10.0 18.0 1.4 35 13.0 11.0 17.0 1.3 7.76 86 0.000 R4 R  ** 58 15.6 11.0 20.0 1.7 34 13.4 10.0 17.0 1.5 6.44 90 0.000 (47) L T ans e se diame e a midsha ** 47 14.7 12.0 17.0 1.2 27 12.4 10.0 17.0 1.4 7.17 72 0.000 (47) R  ** 48 15.0 11.0 18.5 1.4 32 13.0 10.0 16.0 1.4 6.04 78 0.000 R5 L An e o‑pos e io sha diame e ** 53 11.8 10.0 16.0 1.0 36 9.7 8.0 13.8 1.1 9.33 87 0.000 R5 R  ** 58 12.1 9.0 16.0 1.1 35 10.1 8.0 14.0 1.1 8.65 91 0.000 (46) L Sagi al diame e a midsha ** 47 11.9 9.4 14.0 1.0 26 9.6 8.0 13.0 1.0 9.32 71 0.000 (46) R  ** 49 11.8 9.0 14.0 1.0 31 9.8 8.0 11.3 0.9 8.92 78 0.000 R5_6 L Dis al epiphysis b ead h ** 48 33.1 29.1 38.0 2.3 23 28.3 24.0 30.5 1.4 9.35 69 0.000 R5_6 R  ** 40 33.7 29.1 37.0 2.1 34 29.1 23.0 37.0 2.6 8.51 72 0.000 Ulna U1 L Maximum leng h ** 30 275.8 244.0 311.0 13.7 23 241.7 213.0 263.0 13.4 9.03 51 0.000 U1 R  ** 36 274.2 246.0 311.0 16.4 26 243.0 218.0 265.0 13.7 7.89 60 0.000 U11 L An e o‑pos e io sha diame e ** 59 13.4 11.0 20.7 1.9 39 11.3 9.0 15.5 1.5 5.75 96 0.000 U11 R  ** 59 13.6 11.0 19.0 1.6 37 11.6 9.0 15.2 1.7 5.76 94 0.000 U12 L T ans e se sha diame e ** 58 16.3 10.0 21.1 2.3 40 13.9 10.0 18.2 1.8 5.57 96 0.000 U12 R  ** 59 16.2 10.5 21.2 2.0 39 14.0 10.0 18.2 1.9 5.25 96 0.000 Pel is DCOX L Maximum pel ic heigh ** 31 208.0 187.0 235.0 10.9 18 189.6 172.0 206.0 10.4 5.78 47 0.000 DCOX R  ** 30 209.6 194.0 235.0 11.8 20 190.4 170.0 222.0 13.6 5.31 48 0.000 SCOX L Iliac b ead h * 25 157.0 138.0 182.0 10.4 24 149.6 137.0 177.0 9.3 2.63 47 0.011 SCOX R  ** 32 155.4 140.0 175.0 9.4 22 147.5 134.0 162.0 7.9 3.25 52 0.002 SA L Spino‑au icula leng h  41 78.2 68.0 91.0 5.2 28 79.0 69.5 88.0 5.1 ‑0.65 67 0.519 SA R   42 78.7 68.0 90.0 5.0 32 76.8 65.2 89.0 5.7 1.46 72 0.148 SS L Spino‑scia ic leng h ** 42 73.3 64.0 84.0 5.0 27 65.3 53.0 78.0 4.9 6.54 67 0.000 SS R  ** 43 73.0 63.4 81.0 4.2 32 65.2 56.0 77.0 4.7 7.54 73 0.000 IIMT L Dep h o he g ea scia ic no ch ** 34 35.8 27.0 46.0 5.1 30 47.5 33.0 59.0 5.6 ‑8.80 62 0.000 IIMT R  ** 42 38.0 26.0 56.0 5.4 27 49.1 39.0 63.0 5.2 ‑8.44 67 0.000 VEAC L Ve ical ace abula diame e ** 44 54.2 49.0 61.0 2.9 26 46.8 43.0 52.0 2.3 11.11 68 0.000 VEAC R  ** 46 54.6 49.0 65.0 3.2 26 47.7 43.0 54.0 2.5 9.38 70 0.000 SPU L Co ylo‑pubic b ead h ** 34 29.6 23.4 35.0 2.8 24 23.7 18.5 37.0 3.7 6.91 56 0.000 64 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 In ac anial Males Females ‑ es Bone No. Measu emen /Index N Mean Min Max S d.De . N Mean Min Max S d.De . ‑ alue d p Pel is (con .) SPU R  ** 39 29.3 23.0 38.0 3.0 26 23.2 20.0 27.0 1.9 9.12 63 0.000 SIS L Co ylo‑scia ic b ead h ** 45 37.9 32.0 45.0 3.0 29 33.1 28.0 41.0 3.6 6.21 72 0.000 SIS R  ** 46 38.1 30.0 44.0 3.1 32 33.4 27.0 43.0 3.5 6.40 76 0.000 PUM L Ace abulo‑symphyseal pubic leng h  18 68.4 61.0 78.0 4.3 16 66.6 48.0 78.0 6.9 0.92 32 0.367 PUM R   30 67.0 59.0 81.0 5.5 18 68.9 61.0 79.0 5.0 ‑1.20 46 0.236 ISMM L Pos ‑ace abula ischium leng h ** 38 107.7 98.0 117.0 5.2 23 95.5 88.0 109.0 5.5 8.66 59 0.000 ISMM R  ** 39 107.5 97.0 116.0 5.2 25 96.0 85.0 109.0 6.8 7.53 62 0.000 Femu F1 L Maximum leng h ** 42 462.1 418.0 536.0 25.7 22 419.3 379.0 487.0 22.3 6.62 62 0.000 F1 R  ** 41 460.0 423.0 542.0 28.3 28 418.8 377.0 485.0 21.8 6.49 67 0.000 F2 L Bicondyla leng h ** 37 459.0 416.0 535.0 27.0 23 411.4 376.0 486.0 23.5 6.96 58 0.000 F2 R  ** 39 455.6 420.0 542.0 28.7 29 411.5 373.0 485.0 22.5 6.86 66 0.000 F6a L An e o‑pos e io midsha diame e ** 75 29.7 23.0 37.0 2.6 51 25.1 21.0 33.0 2.3 10.20 124 0.000 F6a R  ** 72 29.9 23.8 37.0 2.7 45 25.1 21.0 34.0 2.5 9.60 115 0.000 F7a L T ans e se midsha diame e ** 75 26.6 21.2 31.0 2.1 51 23.2 20.0 29.0 2.0 9.06 124 0.000 F7a R  ** 71 26.2 20.8 32.0 2.1 44 22.6 19.0 29.0 1.9 9.16 113 0.000 F7b L Uppe ans e se sha diame e ** 52 30.2 25.0 36.0 2.5 31 26.1 21.0 35.0 3.0 6.64 81 0.000 F7b R  ** 51 29.7 24.0 35.0 2.2 33 25.6 21.0 35.0 3.3 6.90 82 0.000 F7c L Uppe an e o‑pos e io sha diame e ** 52 26.3 22.0 34.0 2.4 31 23.1 17.0 33.0 2.8 5.57 81 0.000 F7c R  ** 51 26.8 21.0 34.0 2.5 33 23.3 17.5 33.0 2.8 5.98 82 0.000 F7d L Lowe ans e se sha diame e ** 40 35.4 25.0 45.0 4.6 21 30.8 21.0 38.5 4.5 3.76 59 0.000 F7d R  ** 40 34.5 22.0 45.0 4.5 23 30.7 22.0 38.5 4.5 3.22 61 0.002 F7e L Lowe an e o‑pos e io sha diame e ** 39 29.6 22.0 35.0 2.4 21 25.8 22.0 32.0 2.6 5.69 58 0.000 F7e R  ** 38 29.8 25.0 34.0 2.2 23 25.3 22.0 33.0 2.6 7.40 59 0.000 F8 L Midsha ci cum e ence ** 52 87.4 75.0 107.0 6.7 31 75.5 64.0 100.0 6.5 7.88 81 0.000 F8 R  ** 44 87.4 74.0 108.0 7.0 27 76.1 67.0 102.0 7.0 6.62 69 0.000 F9 L T ans e se sub ochan e ic diame e ** 74 33.4 25.8 44.0 3.2 42 28.5 24.0 34.0 2.2 8.73 114 0.000 F9 R  ** 69 32.8 26.0 42.0 3.1 43 28.4 23.0 34.0 2.3 7.96 110 0.000 F10 L An e o‑pos e io subs ochan e ic diame e ** 74 25.7 21.0 34.0 2.5 42 22.2 19.2 30.0 2.3 7.47 114 0.000 F10 R  ** 68 25.6 21.0 33.0 2.3 43 22.6 18.9 30.0 2.4 6.50 109 0.000 F13 L P oximal epiphysis leng h ** 50 96.5 83.9 117.0 6.2 33 82.6 72.8 96.0 5.7 10.17 81 0.000 Tab.S4 Compa ison o in a‑c anial measu emen s and indices be ween males and emales (con inua ion) 65P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA In ac anial Males Females ‑ es Bone No. Measu emen /Index N Mean Min Max S d.De . N Mean Min Max S d.De . ‑ alue d p Pel is (con .) SPU R  ** 39 29.3 23.0 38.0 3.0 26 23.2 20.0 27.0 1.9 9.12 63 0.000 SIS L Co ylo‑scia ic b ead h ** 45 37.9 32.0 45.0 3.0 29 33.1 28.0 41.0 3.6 6.21 72 0.000 SIS R  ** 46 38.1 30.0 44.0 3.1 32 33.4 27.0 43.0 3.5 6.40 76 0.000 PUM L Ace abulo‑symphyseal pubic leng h  18 68.4 61.0 78.0 4.3 16 66.6 48.0 78.0 6.9 0.92 32 0.367 PUM R   30 67.0 59.0 81.0 5.5 18 68.9 61.0 79.0 5.0 ‑1.20 46 0.236 ISMM L Pos ‑ace abula ischium leng h ** 38 107.7 98.0 117.0 5.2 23 95.5 88.0 109.0 5.5 8.66 59 0.000 ISMM R  ** 39 107.5 97.0 116.0 5.2 25 96.0 85.0 109.0 6.8 7.53 62 0.000 Femu F1 L Maximum leng h ** 42 462.1 418.0 536.0 25.7 22 419.3 379.0 487.0 22.3 6.62 62 0.000 F1 R  ** 41 460.0 423.0 542.0 28.3 28 418.8 377.0 485.0 21.8 6.49 67 0.000 F2 L Bicondyla leng h ** 37 459.0 416.0 535.0 27.0 23 411.4 376.0 486.0 23.5 6.96 58 0.000 F2 R  ** 39 455.6 420.0 542.0 28.7 29 411.5 373.0 485.0 22.5 6.86 66 0.000 F6a L An e o‑pos e io midsha diame e ** 75 29.7 23.0 37.0 2.6 51 25.1 21.0 33.0 2.3 10.20 124 0.000 F6a R  ** 72 29.9 23.8 37.0 2.7 45 25.1 21.0 34.0 2.5 9.60 115 0.000 F7a L T ans e se midsha diame e ** 75 26.6 21.2 31.0 2.1 51 23.2 20.0 29.0 2.0 9.06 124 0.000 F7a R  ** 71 26.2 20.8 32.0 2.1 44 22.6 19.0 29.0 1.9 9.16 113 0.000 F7b L Uppe ans e se sha diame e ** 52 30.2 25.0 36.0 2.5 31 26.1 21.0 35.0 3.0 6.64 81 0.000 F7b R  ** 51 29.7 24.0 35.0 2.2 33 25.6 21.0 35.0 3.3 6.90 82 0.000 F7c L Uppe an e o‑pos e io sha diame e ** 52 26.3 22.0 34.0 2.4 31 23.1 17.0 33.0 2.8 5.57 81 0.000 F7c R  ** 51 26.8 21.0 34.0 2.5 33 23.3 17.5 33.0 2.8 5.98 82 0.000 F7d L Lowe ans e se sha diame e ** 40 35.4 25.0 45.0 4.6 21 30.8 21.0 38.5 4.5 3.76 59 0.000 F7d R  ** 40 34.5 22.0 45.0 4.5 23 30.7 22.0 38.5 4.5 3.22 61 0.002 F7e L Lowe an e o‑pos e io sha diame e ** 39 29.6 22.0 35.0 2.4 21 25.8 22.0 32.0 2.6 5.69 58 0.000 F7e R  ** 38 29.8 25.0 34.0 2.2 23 25.3 22.0 33.0 2.6 7.40 59 0.000 F8 L Midsha ci cum e ence ** 52 87.4 75.0 107.0 6.7 31 75.5 64.0 100.0 6.5 7.88 81 0.000 F8 R  ** 44 87.4 74.0 108.0 7.0 27 76.1 67.0 102.0 7.0 6.62 69 0.000 F9 L T ans e se sub ochan e ic diame e ** 74 33.4 25.8 44.0 3.2 42 28.5 24.0 34.0 2.2 8.73 114 0.000 F9 R  ** 69 32.8 26.0 42.0 3.1 43 28.4 23.0 34.0 2.3 7.96 110 0.000 F10 L An e o‑pos e io subs ochan e ic diame e ** 74 25.7 21.0 34.0 2.5 42 22.2 19.2 30.0 2.3 7.47 114 0.000 F10 R  ** 68 25.6 21.0 33.0 2.3 43 22.6 18.9 30.0 2.4 6.50 109 0.000 F13 L P oximal epiphysis leng h ** 50 96.5 83.9 117.0 6.2 33 82.6 72.8 96.0 5.7 10.17 81 0.000 66 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 In ac anial Males Females ‑ es Bone No. Measu emen /Index N Mean Min Max S d.De . N Mean Min Max S d.De . ‑ alue d p Femu (con .) F13 R  ** 50 95.9 84.0 116.0 7.0 31 83.2 74.0 94.0 4.4 9.08 79 0.000 F21 L Epicondyla b ead h ** 33 79.5 73.0 87.0 3.6 18 69.4 65.0 76.0 3.1 10.05 49 0.000 F21 R  ** 23 78.5 73.0 87.0 3.1 19 68.9 63.0 73.0 3.0 10.13 40 0.000 F18 L Ve ical head diame e ** 58 45.6 40.0 51.0 2.3 33 39.5 35.0 44.0 2.0 12.96 89 0.000 F18 R  ** 60 45.6 40.7 52.0 2.3 35 39.7 35.0 45.0 2.3 11.94 93 0.000 F19 L T ans e sal head diame e ** 47 45.3 40.6 49.0 2.0 30 38.7 34.8 43.0 1.9 14.78 75 0.000 F19 R  ** 48 45.1 40.0 50.0 2.1 35 39.3 35.0 45.0 2.2 12.09 81 0.000 Tibia T1 L Maximum leng h ** 35 383.5 350.0 454.0 21.5 24 341.9 310.0 410.0 22.0 7.25 57 0.000 T1 R  ** 36 384.9 346.0 452.0 20.8 22 343.2 313.0 415.0 20.5 7.45 56 0.000 T1b L Medial o al leng h ** 33 377.0 350.0 444.0 22.0 17 336.6 302.0 398.0 24.6 5.90 48 0.000 T1b R  ** 34 377.4 350.0 441.0 21.4 19 336.1 303.0 401.0 21.1 6.78 51 0.000 T3 L Maximum p oximal epiphyseal b ead h ** 34 74.6 67.0 85.0 3.8 21 65.6 59.0 74.0 3.3 8.99 53 0.000 T3 R  ** 34 74.8 69.0 87.0 3.8 23 66.3 61.0 74.0 3.6 8.61 55 0.000 T6 L Maximum dis al epiphyseal b ead h ** 37 48.0 42.0 55.0 3.4 25 41.5 36.0 48.0 2.7 7.88 60 0.000 T6 R  ** 30 47.4 41.6 54.0 3.1 21 42.5 37.1 48.0 3.1 5.63 49 0.000 T8 L Maximum midsha diame e ** 63 30.8 26.0 39.0 2.4 40 25.5 23.0 30.0 1.5 12.52 101 0.000 T8 R  ** 64 31.0 26.0 37.0 2.4 43 25.7 22.5 32.0 1.7 12.73 105 0.000 T8a L Maximum diame e a nu ien o amen ** 63 35.1 25.2 42.0 3.2 40 28.9 25.0 40.0 2.6 10.31 101 0.000 T8aR  ** 65 35.4 28.7 41.0 2.6 41 29.4 24.0 40.0 3.0 10.96 104 0.000 T9 L Minimum midsha diame e ** 63 20.5 17.0 24.0 1.8 40 17.3 14.0 20.0 1.5 9.25 101 0.000 T9 R ** 64 21.0 16.0 26.0 2.1 42 17.4 14.0 20.0 1.5 9.56 104 0.000 T9a L Minimum diame e a nu ien o amen ** 64 23.2 18.4 28.0 2.3 40 19.8 16.0 25.0 2.1 7.60 102 0.000 T9a R  ** 65 23.5 18.9 29.0 2.2 41 20.0 17.0 25.0 2.1 8.15 104 0.000 (74) L Ci cum e ence a nu ien o amen ** 41 93.8 71.0 107.0 8.0 23 79.1 65.0 90.0 6.0 7.66 62 0.000 (74) R  ** 45 94.6 82.0 110.0 7.0 26 80.2 68.0 97.0 6.6 8.54 69 0.000 Fibula Fi1 L Maximum leng h ** 17 366.9 338.0 434.0 22.1 14 337.8 307.0 367.0 17.4 4.00 29 0.000 Fi1 R  ** 16 368.7 341.0 428.0 20.9 14 333.4 309.0 357.0 13.6 5.39 28 0.000 (76) L Maximum diame e a midsha ** 35 16.0 11.0 21.0 2.2 21 13.1 10.0 16.0 1.8 4.95 54 0.000 (76) R  ** 33 16.2 12.0 21.0 2.0 22 13.3 11.0 17.0 1.5 5.84 53 0.000 Tab.S4 Compa ison o in a‑c anial measu emen s and indices be ween males and emales (con inua ion) 67P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA In ac anial Males Females ‑ es Bone No. Measu emen /Index N Mean Min Max S d.De . N Mean Min Max S d.De . ‑ alue d p Femu (con .) F13 R  ** 50 95.9 84.0 116.0 7.0 31 83.2 74.0 94.0 4.4 9.08 79 0.000 F21 L Epicondyla b ead h ** 33 79.5 73.0 87.0 3.6 18 69.4 65.0 76.0 3.1 10.05 49 0.000 F21 R  ** 23 78.5 73.0 87.0 3.1 19 68.9 63.0 73.0 3.0 10.13 40 0.000 F18 L Ve ical head diame e ** 58 45.6 40.0 51.0 2.3 33 39.5 35.0 44.0 2.0 12.96 89 0.000 F18 R  ** 60 45.6 40.7 52.0 2.3 35 39.7 35.0 45.0 2.3 11.94 93 0.000 F19 L T ans e sal head diame e ** 47 45.3 40.6 49.0 2.0 30 38.7 34.8 43.0 1.9 14.78 75 0.000 F19 R  ** 48 45.1 40.0 50.0 2.1 35 39.3 35.0 45.0 2.2 12.09 81 0.000 Tibia T1 L Maximum leng h ** 35 383.5 350.0 454.0 21.5 24 341.9 310.0 410.0 22.0 7.25 57 0.000 T1 R  ** 36 384.9 346.0 452.0 20.8 22 343.2 313.0 415.0 20.5 7.45 56 0.000 T1b L Medial o al leng h ** 33 377.0 350.0 444.0 22.0 17 336.6 302.0 398.0 24.6 5.90 48 0.000 T1b R  ** 34 377.4 350.0 441.0 21.4 19 336.1 303.0 401.0 21.1 6.78 51 0.000 T3 L Maximum p oximal epiphyseal b ead h ** 34 74.6 67.0 85.0 3.8 21 65.6 59.0 74.0 3.3 8.99 53 0.000 T3 R  ** 34 74.8 69.0 87.0 3.8 23 66.3 61.0 74.0 3.6 8.61 55 0.000 T6 L Maximum dis al epiphyseal b ead h ** 37 48.0 42.0 55.0 3.4 25 41.5 36.0 48.0 2.7 7.88 60 0.000 T6 R  ** 30 47.4 41.6 54.0 3.1 21 42.5 37.1 48.0 3.1 5.63 49 0.000 T8 L Maximum midsha diame e ** 63 30.8 26.0 39.0 2.4 40 25.5 23.0 30.0 1.5 12.52 101 0.000 T8 R  ** 64 31.0 26.0 37.0 2.4 43 25.7 22.5 32.0 1.7 12.73 105 0.000 T8a L Maximum diame e a nu ien o amen ** 63 35.1 25.2 42.0 3.2 40 28.9 25.0 40.0 2.6 10.31 101 0.000 T8aR  ** 65 35.4 28.7 41.0 2.6 41 29.4 24.0 40.0 3.0 10.96 104 0.000 T9 L Minimum midsha diame e ** 63 20.5 17.0 24.0 1.8 40 17.3 14.0 20.0 1.5 9.25 101 0.000 T9 R ** 64 21.0 16.0 26.0 2.1 42 17.4 14.0 20.0 1.5 9.56 104 0.000 T9a L Minimum diame e a nu ien o amen ** 64 23.2 18.4 28.0 2.3 40 19.8 16.0 25.0 2.1 7.60 102 0.000 T9a R  ** 65 23.5 18.9 29.0 2.2 41 20.0 17.0 25.0 2.1 8.15 104 0.000 (74) L Ci cum e ence a nu ien o amen ** 41 93.8 71.0 107.0 8.0 23 79.1 65.0 90.0 6.0 7.66 62 0.000 (74) R  ** 45 94.6 82.0 110.0 7.0 26 80.2 68.0 97.0 6.6 8.54 69 0.000 Fibula Fi1 L Maximum leng h ** 17 366.9 338.0 434.0 22.1 14 337.8 307.0 367.0 17.4 4.00 29 0.000 Fi1 R  ** 16 368.7 341.0 428.0 20.9 14 333.4 309.0 357.0 13.6 5.39 28 0.000 (76) L Maximum diame e a midsha ** 35 16.0 11.0 21.0 2.2 21 13.1 10.0 16.0 1.8 4.95 54 0.000 (76) R  ** 33 16.2 12.0 21.0 2.0 22 13.3 11.0 17.0 1.5 5.84 53 0.000 68 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 In ac anial Males Females ‑ es Bone No. Measu emen /Index N Mean Min Max S d.De . N Mean Min Max S d.De . ‑ alue d p Pa ella P 1 L Maximum heigh ** 39 41.9 34.0 49.0 3.1 14 36.4 32.0 43.0 3.0 5.76 51 0.000 P 1 R  ** 33 42.4 37.0 59.0 4.1 12 36.6 34.0 43.0 2.4 4.62 43 0.000 P 2 L Maximum b ead h ** 35 44.6 40.0 52.0 2.7 14 39.2 33.0 44.0 3.4 5.88 47 0.000 P 2 R  ** 31 45.1 39.0 51.0 2.7 13 39.9 33.0 45.0 3.7 5.21 42 0.000 P 3 L Maximum hickness ** 41 21.9 18.0 29.0 1.9 17 19.2 17.0 22.0 1.4 5.30 56 0.000 P 3 R  ** 37 22.1 18.0 27.0 1.8 15 18.9 17.0 22.0 1.6 6.05 50 0.000 Talus Ta1 L Physiological leng h ** 56 52.6 43.7 60.0 3.4 30 45.6 42.0 57.4 3.1 9.45 84 0.000 Ta1 R  ** 49 52.6 48.0 59.0 2.8 34 46.8 42.0 55.9 2.8 9.10 81 0.000 Ta1a L Maximum leng h ** 41 57.2 53.0 64.0 2.7 19 49.3 46.0 54.0 2.2 11.20 58 0.000 Ta1a R  ** 36 57.1 52.0 65.0 3.1 22 49.7 44.0 53.0 2.3 9.68 56 0.000 Ta2 L Maximum b ead h ** 47 40.4 27.3 46.0 4.5 29 33.4 23.6 40.0 5.2 6.19 74 0.000 Ta2 R  ** 40 40.5 28.3 47.0 4.5 28 35.3 25.2 40.0 3.9 4.94 66 0.000 Ta3a L Maximum heigh ** 49 30.7 18.5 37.0 3.5 26 25.5 17.1 30.0 3.7 6.11 73 0.000 Ta3a R  ** 46 30.8 19.4 36.0 3.6 30 26.2 17.9 31.0 3.4 5.53 74 0.000 Calcaneus Ca1a L Maximum leng h ** 48 78.0 65.9 93.0 5.5 29 66.7 60.1 80.0 4.8 9.19 75 0.000 Ca1a R  ** 52 77.9 63.0 91.0 6.0 27 67.5 59.0 79.0 4.3 8.03 77 0.000 Ca2 L Middle b ead h ** 33 43.0 39.0 50.0 2.6 19 36.7 23.0 43.0 4.2 6.62 50 0.000 Ca2 R  ** 36 42.9 38.0 48.0 2.4 16 37.4 33.0 44.0 3.0 7.20 50 0.000 Sac um S2 An e io leng h ** 26 115.9 91.0 134.0 10.9 13 100.8 84.0 113.0 8.5 4.37 37 0.000 S5 An e io ‑supe io b ead h  21 107.1 91.0 120.0 7.9 17 104.4 88.0 120.0 7.5 1.05 36 0.299 Indices L Robus ici y index (Hu) ** 30 18.8 16.9 21.2 1.3 15 17.5 15.1 20.4 1.2 3.01 43 0.004 R  ** 32 19.2 16.8 22.0 1.4 20 17.6 15.2 19.2 1.0 4.65 50 0.000 L Robus ici y index (Fe) ** 36 35.6 28.6 42.8 2.9 23 30.6 26.9 39.0 2.9 6.43 57 0.000 R  ** 38 35.7 29.4 43.0 2.7 28 30.6 26.7 40.0 2.9 7.33 64 0.000 L Index pla yme icus (Fe)  74 77.4 56.8 100.0 7.8 42 78.2 66.4 96.8 7.3 ‑0.50 114 0.618 R   68 78.3 57.1 96.7 7.7 43 79.8 63.2 100.0 9.4 ‑0.93 109 0.355 L Index cnemicus (Ti)  63 66.5 52.6 89.5 7.4 40 68.5 55.0 86.2 6.3 ‑1.48 101 0.143 Tab.S4 Compa ison o in a‑c anial measu emen s and indices be ween males and emales (con inua ion) 75P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA Be ween he S ep Py amid Complex and he D y Moa . Pa 2: Geology, An h opology, Finds, Conse a ion, Va so ie: Edi ions Ne i on, pp. 345–422. Ki chengas , S. 2000 “Di e en ial ep oduc i e success and body size in!Kung San people om no he n Namibia”, Col‑ legium An opologicum 24/1, pp. 121–132. Knussmann, Raine 1988 An h opologie. Handbuch de e gleichenden Biologie des Menschen (4. Au lage des Leh buchs de An h o- pologie beg ünde on Rudol Ma in), Bd. I–II, S u ga – Jena– New Yo k: Gus a Fische Ve lag. K ejčí, Ja omí 2009 The A chi ec u e o he Mas aba o P ahshepses, P ague: Cha les Uni e si y in P ague– Academia [Abusi XI]. K ejčí, Ja omí – B ukne Ha elko á, Pe ae al. o hcoming Tomb o We kau e. Vol. 2. Pos -Old Kingdom s a a, P ague: Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology, Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y [Abusi XXVII]. Lede mann, Sully 1969 Nou elles ables - ypes de mo ali é, Pa is: P esses uni e si ai es de F ance. Leek, F ank Filce 1980 “Obse a ions on acollec ion o c ania om he mas abas o he eign o Cheops a Giza”, Jou nal o Egyp ian A chaeology 66, pp. 36–45. Lewis, Ma y E. 2007 The Bioa chaeology o Child en: Pe spec i es om Biological and Fo ensic An h opology, Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. 2009 “The os eology o in ancy and childhood: misconcep ions and po en ial”, in: Moo e, A.– Lally, M. (eds.). (Re)Thinking he Li le Ances o : New Pe spec i es on he A chaeology o In ancy and Childhood, Ox o d: A chaeop ess, pp. 1–13. Lo ejoy, C. Owen 1985 “Den al wea in he Libben popula ion: i s unc ional pa e n and ole in he de e mina ion o adul skele al age a dea h”, Ame ican Jou nal o Physical An h opology 68/1, pp. 47–56. Lo ejoy, C. Owen– Meindl, Richa d S.– P yzbeck, Thomas R.– Mens o h, Robe P. 1985 “Ch onological me amo phosis o he au icula su ace o he ilium: anew me hod o he de e mi‑ na ion o adul skele al age a dea h”, Ame ican Jou nal o Physical An h opology 68/1, pp. 15–28. Malá, Pa la 2010 “Human skele al emains”, in: Bá a, Mi osla – Coppens, Filip– Vymazalo á, Hana (eds.). Tomb o He epi (AS20), ombs AS 33–35 and AS 50–53, P ague: Cha les Uni e si y in P ague, Facul y o A s [Abusi XIX], pp. 318–333. Man , A. K. 1987 “Knowledge acqui ed om pos ‑Wa exhuma ions”, in: Bodding on, A.– N., Ga land A.– Janaway, R. C. (eds.). Dea h, decay and econs uc ion: App oaches o a chaeology and o ensic science, Manches e : Manches e Uni e si y P ess. 76 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 Man , Madeleine 2014 “Palaeopa hology o human emains a ancien Mendes (Tell e ‑Rub’a), Egyp ”, Bioa chaeology o he Nea Eas 8, pp. 1–27. Ma low, Emily Jane 2014 The exp ession o sexual dimo phism in human skele al emains om ancien Egyp : egional and empo al di e ences and he impac on mode n and popula ion speci ic me ic sex es ima ion me hods, Manches e : Uni e si y o Manches e (unpublished Ph.D. hesis). Ma in, Rudol – Salle , Ka l 1957 Leh buch de An h opologie, S u ga : G. Fische ‑Ve lag. Masali, M.– Chia elli, B. 1972 “Demog aphic da a on he emains o ancien Egyp ians”, Jou nal o Human E olu ion 1/2, pp. 161–169. Mawdsley, Lisa Ann 2000 Mo ua y P ac ices and Social Rela ionship a he Naqada III Ceme e y o Ta khan in Egyp , Melbou ne: Monash Uni e si y (unpublished Ph.D. hesis). McKe n, Thomas W.– S ewa , T. D. 1957 Skele al Age Changes in Young Ame ican Males, Na ick, Mass.: Headqua e s, Qua e mas e Resea ch and De elopmen Command [Qua e mas e Resea ch and De elopmen Command Technical Repo EP–45]. Mielke, James H.– Konigsbe g, Lyle W.– Rele h o d, John H. 2010 Human Biological Va ia ion, Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. Miles, Albe Edwa d William 1963 “Den i ion in he Es ima ion o Age”, Jou nal o Den al Resea ch 42/1, pp. 255–263. Milne , Geo ge R.– Wood, James W.– Boldsen, Jespe L. 2018 “Paleodemog aphy: p oblems, p og ess, and po en ial”, in: Ka zenbe g, M. Anne– G aue , AnneL. (eds.). Biological An h opology o he Human Skele on, Hoboken: John Willey & Sons, pp. 593–633. Mu ail, Pascal– B ůžek, Ja osla – Houë , F ancis– Cunha, Eugénia 2005 “DSP: A ool o p obabilis ic sex diagnosis using wo ldwide a iabili y in hip ‑bone measu emen s”, Bulle ins e Mémoi es de la Socié é d’An h opologie de Pa is 17/3–4, pp. 167–176. Myśliwiec, Ka ol (ed.) 2008a Saqqa aIII. The Uppe Nec opolis. Pa 1: The ca alog. Va so ie: Edi ions Ne i on. 2008b Saqqa aIII. The Uppe Nec opolis. Pa 2: S udies. Va so ie: Edi ions Ne i on. Na ega, D.– Godinho, M.– Cunha, E.– Fe ei a, M. T. 2018 “A es and analysis o Calce (2012) me hod o skele al age ‑a ‑dea h es ima ion using he ace abulum in amode n skele al sample”, In e na ional Jou nal o Legal Medicine 132/5, pp. 1447–1455. Němečko á, Alena– S ouhal, E žen 2002 “Fa aon Rane e e ajeho s ředo ěký nájemník. His ologie, an opologie, egyp ologie– spolup áce zdálených obo ů”, Vesmí 81, pp. 156–158. 77P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA Neus upný, E žen 1983 Demog a ie p a ěkých pohřebišť, P aha: A cheologický ús a ČSAV, P aha. Odle , Ma in– A ias, Ka a ina– Honzl, Jiří– B ukne Ha elko á, Pe a– Sů o á, Zdeňka 2021 “In he shadow o Kaape . P elimina y epo on he anonymous Fi h Dynas y omb AS 88”, P ague Egyp ological S udies XXVII, pp. 7–42. Odle , Ma in– Pe e ko á Hloucho á, Ma ie– A ias Ky na o á, Ka a ína– Ha elko á, Pe a 2018a “New Egyp ian omb ype ound a Abusi Sou h? Repo on he exca a ions o mud b ick complex AS 103”, P ague Egyp ological S udies XXI, pp. 71–91. Odle , Ma in– Pe e ko á Hloucho á, Ma ie– Ha elko á, Pe a 2018b “Č yři domy změs a m ých. Předběžná zp á a o ýzkumu komplexu h obek AS 103 pod ch ámem zNo é říše jižním Abúsí u”, P ažské egyp ologické s udie XX, pp. 27–34. Odle , Ma in– Pe e ko á Hloucho á, Ma ie– Ha elko á, Pe a– Sů o á, Zdeňka– A ias Ky ‑ na o á, Ka a ína– B ůna, Vladimí – Ji ásko á, Lucie 2019a “Jedna h obka e d ou dynas iích. Předběžná zp á a o ýzkumu mas aby AS 104 jižním Abúsí u”, P ažské egyp ologické s udie XXII, pp. 21–41. Odle , Ma in– Pe e ko á Hloucho á, Ma ie– Ha elko á, Pe a– Sů o á, Zdeňka– A ias Ky ‑ na o á, Ka a ína– Ji ásko á, Lucie– B ůna, Vladimí 2019b “Anew omb o ansi ional ype om Abusi Sou h– Mas aba o Nyankhsesha (AS 104)”, P ague Egyp ological S udies XXIII, pp. 49–82. Pe e ko á Hloucho á, Ma ie 2017 “New inds o G eco‑Roman Pe iod deco a ed wooden co ins om Abusi Sou h”, in: Chyla, Julia M. – Dębowska‑Ludwin, Joanna – Rosińska‑Balik, Ka olina – Walsh, Ca l (eds.). Cu en Resea ch in Egyp ology 2016. P oceedings o he Se en een h Annual Symposium. Jagiellonian Uni e si y, K akow, Poland 4–7 May 2016, Ox o d: Oxbow Books, pp. 136–149. Pe e ko á Hloucho á, Ma ie– Bělohoubko á, Dana– Sů o á, Zdeňka– Ha elko á, Pe a 2017 “Ap elimina y epo on he exca a ions o omb AS 91 a Abusi Sou h (au umn season 2016)”, P ague Egyp ological S udies XIX, pp. 53–65. Powe , Ronika K. 2012 F om he c adle o he g a e: child, in an and oe al bu ials in he Egyp ian a chaeological eco d om he Ea ly Dynas ic Pe iod o he Middle Kingdom (ca. 3300–1650 BC), Sydney: Macqua ie Uni e si y (unpublished Ph.D. hesis). P okeš, Lubomí 2007 Posm né změny ajejich ýznam při in e p e aci pohřebního i u (ke z ahu mezi a cheologií a o enzními ědami), B no: ÚAM FF MU [A chaeologia mediae alis Mo a ica e Silesiana. Supplemen a 1]. Rax e , Michelle H. 2007 “Me ic Sex Es ima ion in an Ancien Egyp ian Skele al Sample”, SAS Bulle in. Newsle e o he Socie y o A chaeological Sciences 30/4, pp. 9–12. 2011 Egyp ian Body Size: ARegional and Wo ldwide Compa ison, Tampa: Uni e si y o Sou h Flo ida [G ad‑ ua e School Theses and Disse a ions]. 78 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 Rax e , Michelle H.– Ru , Ch is ophe B.– Azab, Ayman– E an, Moushi a– Soliman, Muham‑ mad– El ‑Sawa , Aly 2008 “S a u e es ima ion in ancien Egyp ians: anew echnique based on ana omical econs uc ion o s a u e”, Ame ican Jou nal o Physical An h opology 136/2, pp. 147–155. Re ai, Osama 2019 “En heseal changes in ancien Egyp ians om he py amid builde s o Giza– Old Kingdom”, In e ‑ na ional Jou nal o Os eoa chaeology 29/4, pp. 513–524. Robins, G. 1983 “Na u al and canonical p opo ions in ancien Egyp ians”, Go inge Miszellen 61, pp. 17–25. Robins, G.– Shu e, C. C. D. 1983 “The physical p opo ions and li ing s a u e o New Kingdom pha aohs”, Jou nal o Human E olu ion 12/5, pp. 455–465. 1986 “P edynas ic Egyp ian s a u e and physical p opo ions”, Human E olu ion 1/4, pp. 313–324. Sa y El ‑Din, Azza Mohamed– El Banna, Rokia Abd El ‑Sha y 2006 “Congeni al anomalies o he e eb al column: acase s udy on ancien and mode n Egyp ”, In e ‑ na ional Jou nal o Os eoa chaeology 16/3, pp. 200–207. Sa ino , Me onI. 1972 “S udy o he squa ing ace s o he alus and ibia in ancien Egyp ians”, Jou nal o Human E olu ion 1/2, pp. 209–212. Schae e , Mau een– Scheue , Louise– Black, SueM. 2009 Ju enile os eology. Alabo a o y and ield manual, Ams e dam– Bu ling on, MA: Else ie – Academic P ess. Schmi , Au o e 2005 “Une nou elle mé hode pou es ime l’âge au décès des adul es à pa i de la su ace sac o ‑pel ienne iliaque”, Bulle ins e Mémoi es de la Socié é d’An h opologie de Pa is 17/1–2, pp. 89–101. Sjø old, To s ein 1990 “Es ima ion o s a u e om long bones u ilizing he line o o ganic co ela ion”, Human E olu ion 5/5, pp. 431–447. Smolá iko á, K ě a – Pe e ko á Hloucho á, Ma ie 2020 “Abusi du ing he P olemaic and Roman Pe iod and in he la e an iqui y”, in: Bá a, Mi osla (ed.). Kings o he Sun. S udies, P ague: Na ional Museum – Cha les Uni e si y, pp. 157–165. S eckel, Richa d H. 2009 “Heigh s and human wel a e: Recen de elopmen s and new di ec ions”, Explo a ions in Economic His o y 46/1, pp. 1–23. S inson, Sa a 1985 “Sex di e ences in en i onmen al sensi i i y du ing g ow h and de elopmen ”, Ame ican Jou nal o Physical An h opology 28/S6, pp. 123–147. 79P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA 2000 “G ow h a ia ion: biological and cul u al ac o s”, in: S inson, Sa a– Bogin, Ba y– Huss ‑Ashmo e, R– O’Rou ke, Dennis (eds.). Human biology. An e olu iona y and biocul u al pe spec i e, New Yo k: Wiley ‑Liss. S loukal, Milan 1989 Paleodemog a ie s a oslo anských populací na území Českoslo enska, P aha: Uni e zi a Ka lo a (unpub‑ lished habili aion hesis). S loukal, Milan– Vyhnánek, Luboš 1976 Slo ané z elkomo a ských Mikulčic, P aha: Academia. S ouhal, Eugen 1984 “P incess Kheke e neb y and Tise ho : An h opological Analysis”, An h opologie (B no) 22/2, pp. 171–183. 1992 “An h opological and a chaeological iden i ica ion o an ancien Egyp ian Royal amily (5 h Dynas y)”, In e na ional Jou nal o An h opology 7/3, pp. 43–63. 2004 “Co ypo ídají pozůs a ky osob zIu ao y šach o é h obky Abúsí u”, P ažské egyp ologické s u‑ die III, pp. 134–149. S ouhal, Eugen– Ba eš, Ladisla 1993 Seconda y ceme e y in he mas aba o P ahshepses a Abusi , P aha: Ka olinum. S ouhal, Eugen– Gaballah, M. F. 1993 “King Djedka e Isesi and his daugh e s”, in: Da ies, W. V.– Walke , Roxie (eds.). Biological an h opology and he s udy o Ancien Egyp , London: B i ish Museum P ess, pp. 104–118. S ouhal, Eugen– Klí , Přemysl– Němečko á, Alena 2002 “An h opological e alua ion o human skele al emains om he mas abas o Djedka e Isesi’s amily ceme e y a Abusi ”, in: Ve ne , Mi osla – Callende , Vi ienne G. (eds.). Djedka e’sFamily Ceme e y, P ague: Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology, Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y– Se Ou [Abusi VI], pp. 119–132. S ouhal, Eugen– Němečko á, Alena– Kouba, Michal 2003 “Palaeopa hology o lu aa and o he pe sons ound beside his sha omb a Abusi (Egyp )”, In e ‑ na ional Jou nal o Os eoa chaeology 13/6, pp. 331–338. S ouhal, Eugen– Vyhnánek, Luboš 2000 “The iden i ica ion o he emains o King Ne e e a ound in his py amid a Abusi ”, in: Bá a, Mi‑ osla – K ejčí, Ja omí (eds.). Abusi and Saqqa a in he Yea 2000, P ague: Academy o Sciences o he Czech Republic– O ien al Ins i u e, pp. 551–560. S ouhal, Eugen– Vyhnánek, Luboš– Gaballah, M. F.– Saunde s, S. R.– Woel li, W.– Bonani, G.– Němečko á, Alena 2001 “Iden i ica ion o Royal Skele al Remains om Egyp ian Py amids”, An h opologie (B no) 39/1, pp. 15–23. Szil ássy, Johann 1980 “Age de e mina ion on he s e nal a icula aces o he cla icula”, Jou nal o Human E olu ion 9/8, pp. 906–910. 80 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 Szil ássy, Johann– K i sche , He be 1990 “Es ima ion o Ch onological Age in Man Based on he Spongy S uc u e o Long Bones”, An h o‑ pologische Anzeige 48, pp. 289–298. T o e , Mild ed– Glese , GoldineC. 1952 “Es ima ion o s a u e om long bones o Ame ican Whi es and Neg oes”, Ame ican Jou nal o Physical An h opology 10/4, pp. 463–514. 1958 “A e ‑e alua ion o es ima ion o s a u e based on measu emen s o s a u e aken du ing li e and o long bones a e dea h”, Ame ican Jou nal o Physical An h opology 16(1), pp. 79–123. 1977 “Co igenda o ‘Es ima ion o s a u e om long limb bones o Ame ican Whi es and Neg oes’, Ame ican Jou nal Physical An h opology (1952)”, Ame ican Jou nal o Physical An h opology 47/2, pp. 355–356. Ubelake , Douglas H. 1978 Es ima ing Sex, S a u e and Age. Human Skele al Remains. Exca a ion, Analysis, In e p e a ion, Chi‑ cago: Aldine publishing company. Ve ne , Mi osla 1982 The Mas aba o P ahshepses: Relie s, P ague: Cha les Uni e si y [Abusi I]. Ve ne , Mi osla – Callende , Vi ienne G. 2002 Djedka e’sFamily Ceme e y, P ague: Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology, Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e ‑ si y– Se Ou [Abusi VI]. Ve ne , Mi osla e al. 2006 The Py amid Complex o Rane e e . The A chaeology, P aha: Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology, Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y in P ague– Academia [Abusi IX]. Vymazalo á, Hana 2017 “Explo a ion o s uc u es AS 66 and AS 69 in Abusi Sou h: P elimina y epo on he 2015 and 2016 seasons”, P ague Egyp ological S udies XIX, pp. 66–80. Vymazalo á, Hanae al. 2011 The omb o Kaiem jenene (AS 38) and he su ounding s uc u es (AS 57–60), P ague: Cha les Uni e si y in P ague, Facul y o A s [Abusi XXII]. Vymazalo á, Hana– Ha elko á, Pe a 2019 “No es on he Tomb o Duap ah (AS 68 A)”, An h opologie (B no) 57/1, pp. 87–104. Walke , PhillipL. 2008 “Sexing skulls using disc iminan unc ion analysis o isually assessed ai s”, Ame ican Jou nal o Physical An h opology 136/1, pp. 39–50. Zaki, Moushi a E an 2013 “Success o long bone ac u e healing in ancien Egyp : apaleoepidemiological s udy o he Giza Nec opolis skele ons”, Ac a medico ‑his o ica ad ia ica 11/2, pp. 275–284. 81P. BRUKNER HAVELKOVÁ– V. DULÍKOVÁ– Š. BEJDOVÁ– P. VELEMÍNSKÝ– M. BÁRTA Zak zewski, Sonia 2012 “Den al Mo phology, Den al Heal h and i s Social Implica ions”, in: Kabaciński, J.– Chłodnicki, M.– Kobusiewicz, M. (eds.). P ehis o y o No heas e n A ica: New Ideas and Disco e ies, Poznań: Poznań A chaeological Museum [S udies in A ican A chaeology 11], pp. 125–140. Zak zewski, Sonia R. 2003 “Va ia ion in ancien Egyp ian s a u e and body p opo ions”, Ame ican Jou nal o Physical An h o‑ pology 121, pp. 219–229. 2015 “‘Behind e e y mask he e is a ace, and behind ha as o y’. Egyp ian bioa chaeology and ancien iden i ies”, in: Ik am, Salima– Kaise , Jessica– Walke , Roxie (eds.). Egyp ian Bioa chaeology: Humans, Animals, and he En i onmen , Leiden: Sides one P ess, pp. 157–167. 2020 “New pe spec i es in he s udy o ancien Egyp ian bioa chaeology”, Cla oscu o 19/2, pp. 1–32. Zaz onilo á, Eliška– Velemínský, Pe – B ůžek, Ja osla 2020 “Paleodemog a ická in e p e ace kos e ních soubo ů minulých populací: no é hodnocení aně s ředo ěkých pohřebišť u3. a6. kos ela Mikulčicích”, A cheologické ozhledy LXXII, pp. 67–101. Zedníko á Malá, Pa la 2011 “Human skele al emains”, in: Vymazalo á, Hana (ed.). The omb o Kaiem jenene (AS 38) and he su ounding s uc u es (AS 57–60), P ague: Cha les Uni e si y in P ague, Facul y o A s [Abusi XXII], pp. 121–156. Zi ie ‑Coche, Ch is ianeM. 1991 Giza Au P emie Millenai e: Au ou du emple d’Isis dame des py amides, Bos on: Museum o Fine A s, Bos on. Pe a B ukne Ha elko á Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology, Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y Depa men o An h opology, Na u al His o y Museum, Na ional Museum in P ague; pe a.ha elko [email protected] Ve onika Dulíko á Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology, Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y; e onika.duliko a@ .cuni.cz Šá ka Bejdo á Depa men o An h opology and Human Gene ics, Facul y o Science, Cha les Uni e si y; bejdo a@na u .cuni.cz Pe Velemínský Depa men o An h opology, Na u al His o y Museum, Na ional Museum in P ague; pe . [email protected] Mi osla Bá a Czech Ins i u e o Egyp ology, Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y; mi osla .ba a@ .cuni.cz