Data Entry: Please note that the research database will be replaced by UNIverse by the end of October 2023. Please enter your data into the system https://universe-intern.unibas.ch. Thanks
Age-at-death estimation in archaeological samples: Differences in population means resulting from different aging methods can be predicted from the mean ages of method-specific reference samples
JournalArticle (Originalarbeit in einer wissenschaftlichen Zeitschrift)
ID
4656903
Author(s)
Navitainuck, Denise U.; Vach, Werner; Pichler, Sandra L.; Alt, Kurt W.
Age-at-death estimation in archaeological samples: Differences in population means resulting from different aging methods can be predicted from the mean ages of method-specific reference samples
Journal
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Volume
32
Number
6
Pages / Article-Number
1226-1237
Keywords
palaeodemography, age mimicry, aging methods, population mean, reference sample
Abstract
Age mimicry is a well-known phenomenon in the application of osteological age-estimation methods. Age mimicry refers to the fact that predicting age-at-death from a specific trait (age indicator) based on the relation observed in a specific reference sample implies that age estimates to some degree reflect the age structure of the reference sample. In particular, the estimated population mean in a target population in which an age-estimation method is applied is shifted towards the mean in the method-specific reference sample. Consequently, differences in population means between different age-estimation methods in the same target population may be due to differences in mean age of the reference samples used to develop the age-estimation methods. We aim at quantifying the expected magnitude for such differences. Fifteen different traditional age-estimation methods were applied to a sample of 675 adult individuals from the early medieval cemetery of Mannheim-Seckenheim. The relation of the observed estimated population age means and the mean age in the reference samples was analyzed by linear regression. We find that up to 80% of the variation in the estimated population age means can be explained by the variation of the mean age in the reference samples. Furthermore, differences in the magnitude of 3 to 4 years in the mean age between two reference samples can imply a 1-year difference in estimated target population age means. Because large differences in mean age between reference samples used to develop different age-estimation methods are common, some care is needed in interpreting differences between individual age estimates or population mean age estimates in cases where different age-estimation techniques are used.
