Linear growth of the long bones has and continues to be used by osteologists as a non-specific indicator of health. Studies of past populations use cross-sectional mortality samples to construct human skeletal growth profiles as a means of inferring the overall health of the population from which the skeletal series was drawn. Although all studies recognize that the growth profiles derived from skeletal samples may not be representative of the "true" path followed by the children who survived to adulthood, only recently have there been attempts to quantitatively examine this problem. This paper addresses the issue of biological mortality bias in subadult skeletal samples, focusing specifically on reduced or retarded linear growth. We begin with an overview of the general opinion on the subject within the osteological literature. A review of the child survival literature examines the interrelationships between malnutrition, morbidity, mortality, and linear growth, considering both indirect and direct studies of survivor-non-survivor growth data. This literature suggests that mortality samples are potentially biased, with linear growth of survivors often greater than that of non-survivors. The issues of stunting (the process of becoming small) and stunted growth (being small) are discussed with respect to biological mortality bias. It is concluded, that while the potential for such a bias exists within subadult skeletal collections, the effects are likely to be small at the aggregate level and error introduced by other methodological considerations (ageing, unknown sex, sample size, preservation, quality of excavation) is likely to outweigh any such error in interpretations of past population health. o 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc. It is paradoxical that the samples from which osteologists attempt to make interpretations regarding past health are in fact made up of those individuals who have not survived. While most studies of human skeletal collections, particularly studies of individuals who died before maturity, recognize the potential bias inherent in archaeological samples, until recently (Wood et al., 1992) few researchers made the attempt to examine how mortality samples might differ quantitatively and qualitatively from samples of those who did not succumb to an early death. The question is whether or not maturational and stress indicator data collected from the skeletons of deceased children accurately or even approximately represent the original biological parameters of the living population.We are not addressing the broader question of whether skeletal samples from archaeological sites can adequately represent interbreeding biological populations, 0 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

No abstract

No abstract

Estimations of age from tooth formation standards for a large (n = 282) sample of subadult skeletal remains from a 19th century historic cemetery sample were analyzed. The standards of Moorrees et al. (1963a,b) for the permanent and deciduous teeth, and Anderson et al. (1976) for the formation of permanent dentition were employed in a variety of combinations to calculate mean dental ages. Tests of accuracy and bias were made on a small sample (n = 17) of personally identified individuals, and age of attainment scores were compared to age of prediction scores for each individual. The resulting dental age distributions for the skeletal sample were compared to documented burial records for the cemetery to determine the representativeness of the skeletal sample. These comparisons showed little difference between age of attainment versus age of prediction methodologies. The standards of Moorrees et al. (1963a,b) were observed to provide the most accurate estimates of age with a standard deviation of one-half year. The standards of Anderson et al. (1976), while easier to use and more extensive, are problematic in that the original reference sample begins at three years of age, while the sample used by Moorrees and colleagues begins at birth. The skeletal age distributions compare well to the overall chronological age distribution for the cemetery. These results affirm that tooth formation age estimates for subadult skeletal remains from archaeological or forensic samples provide accurate assessments of age at both the individual and population level.

A fundamental assumption made by skeletal biologists is that both the pattern and rate of age-related morphological changes observed in modern reference populations are not significantly different than in past populations. In this brief exploration, the composition of a single reference and two independent, known-age, target samples are evaluated for the pubic symphysis. Differences in the timing of age-progressive changes between the reference and target samples are observed, and in particular, females demonstrated a pattern that was fundamentally different from the reference sample. These results serve as a cautionary note for the use of osteological aging criteria and issues of representativeness for modern standards.

Cross-sectional growth data were obtained from the skeletal remains of non-adults from the Raunds Anglo-Saxon site. Standard measurements of the diaphyseal lengths of the long bones of the upper and lower limbs and the maximum breadth of the ilium were recorded in order to construct skeletal growth profiles (SGP). In addition regression equations were used to estimate diaphyseal length from proximal and distal shaft widths, and epiphyseal breadth data for fragmentary remains. The skeletal measurements were then plotted against age estimates determined by the dental formation standards of Moorrees, Fanning and Hunt, and Anderson, Thompson and Popovich. The growth data were compared with sixth to seventh century German, ninth century Slavic and modern Caucasian data. With the exception of the ancient Slavic material, the Anglo-Saxon remains demonstrated the smallest rates of growth. Diaphyseal ageing curves derived from the Anglo-Saxon sample were tested for applicability on the non-adult cohorts of the Berinsfield and Exeter AngloSaxonlEarIy Medieval samples. Differences were observed between diaphyseal age as determined from the skeletal growth profiles for Raunds and calcification age assessed for individuals within the test samples. It is proposed that variation in long bone growth as well as dental age confounds consistent and reliable ageing of skeletal remains based on diaphyseal length. Assessment of changes in health and evaluation of methodological problems inherent to studies of skeletal growth from archaeological populations are discussed. Population comparisons for changes in general health are recommended over individual assessments.

No abstract

This study presents skeletal growth data for a nineteenth century church cemetery sample from Belleville, Ontario. Skeletal growth profiles (SGPs), plotting measurements of growth against age estimated by tooth formation, were constructed for the sample. Means and confidence intervals for l-year cohorts up to 12 years of age are presented for each of the long bones, the ilium and scapula. Comparison of the SGPs created for this sarnpte with modern and archaeological samples demonstrates that the nineteenth century Belleville children followed a growth pattern similar to their modern counterparts, at least until 12 years of age. It is recommended that these data can be used by other investigators as a comparative sample of nineteenth century children; they can also be used as standards of growth for the purpose of estimating age from diaphyseal lengths for other archaeological samples of similar temporal context and population affinities. It is argued that confidence intervals rather than standard deviations be used to report variation, as the former controls for sample size as well as variance.