The paper was explicit about what the results could and could not establish. Genetic sex inference — the identification of an individual as having an XX or XY chromosomal pattern — is a biological finding. It does not establish how that individual presented themselves socially, what clothing conventions they followed, what roles they held, or how they identified. The study’s authors, particularly David Reich, emphasized this distinction in their public comments on the findings.
—
## The Gold Bracelet Individual: What DNA Found
The adult found holding a child in the House of the Golden Bracelet yielded ancient DNA that allowed genetic sex determination. The result was XY — genetically male.
This finding contradicted the long-standing interpretation that the bracelet-wearing individual was a woman and mother. The interpretation had rested on a set of interlocking assumptions: that the gold bracelet indicated feminine adornment; that the posture of an adult holding a small child suggested maternal relationship; and that the visual reading of the figure’s form, as preserved in the plaster, was consistent with a female body.
Each of these assumptions is individually questionable and collectively insufficient to establish biological sex or social identity. Men in Roman society wore gold jewelry, including elaborate bracelets. Child-rearing and child-protection roles in Roman households were distributed across multiple individuals including fathers, enslaved persons charged with childcare, tutors, and members of the extended household. The plaster cast preserves outline and posture but not the skeletal details that forensic osteology uses to estimate biological sex from remains — and even those methods carry uncertainty when applied to fragmentary material.