Assessing the reliability of paleodemographic fertility estimators using simulated skeletal distributions

Abstract

The reliability of published paleodemographic fertility reconstruction methods was assessed using simulated age-at-death distributions and a published cemetery series from a population with known birth rates. In the first test, the Brass ([1971] Biological Aspects of Demography, pp. 69-110) LOGIT models were used to generate 180 simulated skeletal samples of various sizes (N = 50, 100, 250) from hypothetical populations with known demographic rates. The base populations were expanding (r = 0.01), stationary, or declining (r = -0.01), yet all had the same life expectancy. Growth differences resulted from different fertility rates. The simulated skeletal series were then analyzed using the model life table fitting procedure outlined by Paine ([1989a] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 79:51-62), three commonly employed age ratio tests (Bocquet-Appel and Masset [1892] J. Hum. Evol. 11:321-333; Buikstra et al. [1986] Am. Antiquity 51:528-546), and one age-at-death ratio not previously published. In the second test the model life table fitting procedure was used to estimate fertility for a historical population, the Newton Plantation, Barbados (Corruccini et al. [1989] Am. Antiquity 54:609-614), with known demographic characteristics.

Revisiting Hohokam Paleodemography

“…Nevertheless, survivorship curves can be compared for the period from 12 years forward. A minimum sample size of 100 individuals is recommended for paleodemographic reconstruction (Hoppa and Saunders 1998;Paine and Harpending 1996). Due to the limited number of sex-assessed individuals, dividing the sample further into Early and Late Classic samples would yield samples well below this threshold.…”

Isotopic evidence of weaning in hunter‐gatherers from the late holocene inLakeSalitroso,Patagonia,Argentina

“…There are only a few of studies performed on samples from hunter-gatherer populations (e.g., Fogel et al, 1989;Weber et al, 2002;Schurr and Powell, 2005;Clayton et al, 2006;Waster-Rist et al, 2011;Eerkens and Bartelink, 2013). The demographic properties, mobility patterns and mortuary behavior of forager societies usually result in a sparse and low den-sity bioarchaeological record, which makes it difficult to obtain skeletal samples large enough to evaluate hypotheses at a population level (Paine and Harpending, 1996). Additionally, most archaeological studies for which isotope data are available to discuss weaning have been carried out on samples that come either from huntergatherers in transition to agriculture (e.g., Fogel et al, 1989;Schurr and Powell, 2005) or comprise very long periods of time, sometimes ranging over a thousand years or more (e.g., Weber et al, 2002;Clayton et al, 2013).…”

Representativeness and Bias in Archaeological Skeletal Samples

“…We should suspect bias, and closely examine the context, in any archaeological cemetery sample in which the estimators indicate a total fertility rate of 12.5 or more. 1 In round terms, any J:A value over ∼ .380 and any MCM value over ∼ .135 needs to be examined for partial site excavation, for special -purpose burials, for incomplete life table totals, and for sample size (which should be 100 or more: Hoppa and Saunders 1998 ;Paine and Harpending 1996 ). Even if the estimates of fertility are lower than 12.5, it is necessary to consider whether fi gures approaching the maximum recorded or theoretical total fertility rates are reliable.…”