Paleodemography of the Carlston Annis (Bt‐5) Late Archaic skeletal population

Abstract

The study presents a demographic assessment of the Carlston Annis (Bt-5) Late Archaic hunting and gathering population recovered from the banks of the Green River in west-central Kentucky. The shell midden habitation and cemetery site originally yielded the remains of 390 individuals. Radiocarbon dates place site occupation between 3,000 and 4,500 y.b.p. The skeletal sample consisted of 354 individuals ranging in age from 7 months in utero to 70 + years. Subadults were aged by seriation of dental and skeletal developmental criteria. Adult ages were determined by the multifactorial summary age method that employed 1) five indicators of adult skeletal age at death, 2) the procedure of age indicator seriation, and 3) differential weighting of age assessments as determined by principal components analysis. Adult sex diagnoses were based on qualitative assessment of pelvic and cranial morphological criteria. The Bt-5 life table analysis yields an E0 of 22.4 years, crude birth of 45, mean family size of 3.3, gross reproductive rate of 2.7, generation length of 26.6 years, and B of .076, indicating a healthy population with a substantial capability to replace succeeding generations. Survivorship profiles and demographic parameters that compare the Carlston Annis (Bt-5) and Indian Knoll (Oh-2) skeletal series are presented. Both populations display type II survivorship curves, with high infant mortality and early onset of elevated mortality rates in adults. Major differences between Bt-5 and Oh-2 demographic parameters concern adult sex ratio and adult age distribution over 30 years. These differences are interpreted to reflect census errors in the Oh-2 demographic reconstruction that were possibly introduced by selective methodological biases and/or taphonomic factors.

Estimation of skeletal adult age distribution of Okhotsk people in northern Japan

“…However, the method of Lovejoy et al (1985) has been criticized due to the difficulty of classifying individuals into eight stages (Buckberry and Chamberlain, 2002;Falys et al, 2006;Mulhern and Jones, 2005) and the systematic underestimation of age in older adults (Bocquet-Appel and Masset, 1982Walker et al, 1988;Mensforth, 1990;Konigsberg and Frankenberg, 1992). Buckberry and Chamberlain (2002: 232) have stressed, "The separate features of the auricular surface described by Lovejoy et al (1985), such as porosity, surface texture, and marginal changes, appear to develop independently of each other.…”

“…The reconstruction of age-at-death distribution of human skeletal remains reveals the paleodemographic traits from past human people themselves, but suffers from the persistent problem of the validity of adult age estimation techniques (Bocquet-Appel and Masset, 1982Buikstra and Konigsberg, 1985;Horowitz et al, 1988;Mensforth, 1990;Konigsberg and Frankenberg, 1992). Age estimation is fairly accurate for subadults, but not for adults (Murray and Murray, 1991;Bocquet-Appel and Bacro, 1997;Milner et al, 2000).…”

Did the Jomon people have a short lifespan? Evidence from the adult age-at-death estimation based on the auricular surface of the ilium

“…According to Howell (1982: 263), "the unusual and implausible features of the skeletal population structure can be interpreted as direct evidence on severe living conditions, or alternatively, as a caution that the skeletal population structure may include sources of error or bias." It is true that it could reflect the actual age-at-death distribution, but in recent decades the systematic underestimation of the ages of elderly adults has been criticized (Bocquet-Appel and Masset, 1982, 1996Buikstra and Konigsberg, 1985;Horowitz et al, 1988;Mensforth, 1990;Konigsberg and Frankenberg, 1992).…”

“…Mensforth (1990: 89) has stated, "Selective cultural biases and mortuary practices at the time of death, differential postmortem preservation, selective recovery and curation practices, and variation in the degree to which age can accurately be inferred from fragmentary skeletal remains all increase the vulnerability of skeletal series to sampling errors." In particular, infant under-representation has been cited as one source of census errors in age distributions from an archaeological sample (Angel, 1969;Weiss, 1973;Masset, 1982, 1985;Mensforth, 1990;Alesan et al, 1999;Jackes, 2000;Eshed et al, 2004;Curet, 2005).…”

“…Third and most importantly, the validity of age estimation techniques has been criticized (Bocquet-Appel and Masset, 1982, 1996Buikstra and Konigsberg, 1985;Horowitz et al, 1988;Mensforth, 1990;Konigsberg and Frankenberg, 1992). The first two problems are related to unavoidable reasons, but this third problem is related to methodological basis.…”