An elusive paleodemography? A comparison of two methods for estimating the adult age distribution of deaths at late Classic Copan, Honduras

Storey, Rebecca

doi:10.1002/ajpa.20502

Cited by 45 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bayesian approaches allow prior probabilities of age to be incorporated into models, allowing for more nuanced investigation of past populations and comparison of mortality profiles (e.g. Gowland and Chamberlain 2005;Nagaoka and Hirata 2008;Redfern and Chamberlain 2011;Storey 2007). The same approach can be used for individual age estimates (Boldsen et al 2002).…”

Section: Age Ranges and Probability Densitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The (mis)use of adult age estimates in osteology

Buckberry

2015

Annals of Human Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Adult age-at-death is presented in a number of different ways by anthropologists. Ordinal categories predominate in osteoarchaeology, but do not reflect individual variation in ageing, with too many adults being classified as 'middle adults'. In addition, mean ages (derived from reference samples) are overly-relied upon when developing and testing methods. In both cases, 'age mimicry' is not adequately accounted for.Objectives: To highlight the many inherent biases created when developing, testing and applying age-estimation methods without fully considering the impact of 'age mimicry' and individual variation.Methods: The paper draws on previously published research (Web of Science, Pub Med, Google Scholar) on age estimation methods and their use in anthropology.Results and Conclusions: There is a lack of consistency in the methods used to estimate age, and for the mode of combining them. Ordinal categories are frequently used in osteoarchaeology, whereas forensic anthropologists are more likely to produce case-specific age ranges. Mean ages reflect the age structure of reference samples, and should not be used to estimate age for individuals from populations with a different age-at-death structure. Individual-specific age ranges and/or probability densities should be used to report individual age. Further research should be undertaken on how to create unbiased, combined method age estimates. 2Age estimation of adults remains one of the most complex, yet essential, aspects of human skeletal analysis (Aykroyd et al. 1997;Bocquet-Appel and Masset 1982; Hoppa and Vaupel 2002a;Konigsberg and Frankenberg 1992;Milner et al. 2008). In a society ruled by numbers, we are eager to ascribe a specific age to skeletonised remains, either to facilitate the identification of unidentified remains in a forensic situation, or to better interpret the life, death and burial of archaeological humans. Yet many methods of age estimation, especially for adults but also for non-adults, are woefully inadequate at producing point age estimates. Over the last few decades, research into the development, refinement and testing of adult age-estimation methods has expanded, resulting in a plethora of techniques, and variants of techniques, available for application, with the aim of improving accuracy and precision.Age estimation in non-adults, where dental and skeletal maturation are employed to estimate chronological age, typically produces estimates that are both accurate and precise. Dental development in particular has been shown to be minimally affected by external factors such as disease or malnutrition (Elamin and Liversidge 2013) and thus less variation in age for a specific stage of development. Once skeletal maturity has been reached, age is typically estimated using degenerative changes of the skeleton, dental wear and (less frequently) microscopic analysis of bone and cementum. All of these, except tooth cementum annulations, have only a broad relationship with chronological age (Gauthier and Schutkowski 2013;Gro...

show abstract

Section: Age Ranges and Probability Densitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The (mis)use of adult age estimates in osteology

Buckberry

2015

Annals of Human Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Age estimation methods do not produce specific point estimates of estimated age, but rather, estimated intervals of age (e.g., [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. Thus, the extreme of the age range nearest to the chronological age was used to calculate the bias and the absolute error of the estimation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of three established age estimation methods on an adult Spanish sample

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most current methods for adult skeletal age-at-death estimation are based on American samples comprising individuals of European and African ancestry. Our limited understanding of population variability hampers our efforts to apply these techniques to various skeletal populations around the world, especially in global forensic contexts. Further, documented skeletal samples are rare, limiting our ability to test our techniques. The objective of this paper is to test three pelvic macroscopic methods (1-Suchey-Brooks; 2-Lovejoy; 3-Buckberry and Chamberlain) on a documented modern Spanish sample. These methods were selected because they are popular among Spanish anthropologists and because they never have been tested in a Spanish sample. The study sample consists of 80 individuals (55 ♂ and 25 ♀) of known sex and age from the Valladolid collection. Results indicate that in all three methods, levels of bias and inaccuracy increase with age. The Lovejoy method performs poorly (27%) compared with Suchey-Brooks (71%) and Buckberry and Chamberlain (86%). However, the levels of correlation between phases and chronological ages are low and comparable in the three methods (< 0.395). The apparent accuracy of the Suchey-Brooks and Buckberry and Chamberlain methods is largely based on the broad width of the methods' estimated intervals. This study suggests that before systematic application of these three methodologies in Spanish populations, further statistical modeling and research into the co-variance of chronological age with morphological change is necessary. Future methods should be developed specific to various world populations, and should allow for both precision and flexibility in age estimation. However, the levels of correlation between phases and chronological ages are low and comparable in the three methods (< 0.395). The apparent accuracy of the Suchey-Brooks and Buckberry and Chamberlain methods is largely based on the broad width of the methods' estimated intervals. This study suggests that before systematic application of these three methodologies in Spanish populations, further statistical modeling and research into the co-variance of chronological age with morphological change is necessary. Future methods should be developed specific to various world populations, and should allow for both precision and flexibility in age estimation.3

show abstract

“…In a number of applications it is shown that if an appropriate prior age-at-death distribution is used, then the method will provide accurate "coverages". Recent work in this field points to Bayesian inference-based methods, the utility and efficacy of which have already been demonstrated (Godde and Hens, 2012;Lucy et al, 1996;Rissech et al, 2006Rissech et al, , 2007Storey, 2007).…”

Section: Implications For the Mortality Profilesmentioning

confidence: 99%