Objectives
Determining the age at death of a skeleton can be complicated and possibly difficult dependant on state of preservation, bones present, or archaeological context. By using measurements of the present long bones and the data that correlates the fusion times of the distal and proximal epiphyseal unions, an age at time of death can be narrowed down to a less broad range. While this measurement method is not completely accurate, dentition ageing techniques and cross referencing of the data observed in conjunction with the charts of tooth formation times, eruption and morphology of the dentition, an accurate age of the specimen provided can be assessed. The skeleton of UC21 and the accompanied cranium and mandible of UC28, will provide …show more content…
The epiphyseal ends were present in the inventory and allowed for an accurate measurement of the diaphysis of each of the long bones. The adjacent descriptions in regards to the textbook charts provide the data necessary to narrow down the age at death of the specimen. Using the charts in Juvenile Osteology, A Laboratory and Field Manual(Schaefer, Black, and Scheuer 2009a) and Human Osteology (White, Black, and Folkens 2012), a correlation was determined and an age range was decided. However, due to the variability in growth patterns and epiphyseal fusion times to narrow down the age range, dental observations were employed to provide a more accurate age range. The work of Douglas Ubelaker (Ubelaker 1989), provide a detailed description of the types of features that are observable in the deciduous and permanent dentition that allow for an observer to narrow down an age range. By comparing these expected models of dental development with the radiographic images of the maxilla and mandible, an accurate age range was …show more content…
As observed, the alveolar bone is in process of resorption and therefore coincides with the age of 4 to 6 years old (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994).This age also allows for the possible variation in the population, nutrition and growth factors that cannot be observed or taken into consideration as we do not have the details of those specific features. The radiometric scans or x-rays allowed us to see the tooth development stages that correlate with the dental features of a 4 to 6-year-old child as Ubelaker points out (Ubelaker 1989). The observable M1 molar on the left and right of the mandible was determined to coincide with this age range. Dental formation of the M2 mandibular molar crowns provided a correlation of this age range. With 80% accuracy I would determine this to be a child of 4 to 6 years old at the time of death. There is a note however, in Ubelakers charts (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994), that provide a plus or minus of the ascribed age of the dentition as 16 months +/-. So to account for this variation it has been added to the original age estimate. The joined inventory sheets provide the measurements of the long bones and ilium, state of union of the epiphysis to the diaphysis and the dental
Determining the age at death of a skeleton can be complicated and possibly difficult dependant on state of preservation, bones present, or archaeological context. By using measurements of the present long bones and the data that correlates the fusion times of the distal and proximal epiphyseal unions, an age at time of death can be narrowed down to a less broad range. While this measurement method is not completely accurate, dentition ageing techniques and cross referencing of the data observed in conjunction with the charts of tooth formation times, eruption and morphology of the dentition, an accurate age of the specimen provided can be assessed. The skeleton of UC21 and the accompanied cranium and mandible of UC28, will provide …show more content…
The epiphyseal ends were present in the inventory and allowed for an accurate measurement of the diaphysis of each of the long bones. The adjacent descriptions in regards to the textbook charts provide the data necessary to narrow down the age at death of the specimen. Using the charts in Juvenile Osteology, A Laboratory and Field Manual(Schaefer, Black, and Scheuer 2009a) and Human Osteology (White, Black, and Folkens 2012), a correlation was determined and an age range was decided. However, due to the variability in growth patterns and epiphyseal fusion times to narrow down the age range, dental observations were employed to provide a more accurate age range. The work of Douglas Ubelaker (Ubelaker 1989), provide a detailed description of the types of features that are observable in the deciduous and permanent dentition that allow for an observer to narrow down an age range. By comparing these expected models of dental development with the radiographic images of the maxilla and mandible, an accurate age range was …show more content…
As observed, the alveolar bone is in process of resorption and therefore coincides with the age of 4 to 6 years old (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994).This age also allows for the possible variation in the population, nutrition and growth factors that cannot be observed or taken into consideration as we do not have the details of those specific features. The radiometric scans or x-rays allowed us to see the tooth development stages that correlate with the dental features of a 4 to 6-year-old child as Ubelaker points out (Ubelaker 1989). The observable M1 molar on the left and right of the mandible was determined to coincide with this age range. Dental formation of the M2 mandibular molar crowns provided a correlation of this age range. With 80% accuracy I would determine this to be a child of 4 to 6 years old at the time of death. There is a note however, in Ubelakers charts (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994), that provide a plus or minus of the ascribed age of the dentition as 16 months +/-. So to account for this variation it has been added to the original age estimate. The joined inventory sheets provide the measurements of the long bones and ilium, state of union of the epiphysis to the diaphysis and the dental