Cremation as limitation? A paleodemographic inquiry into the accuracy of macroscopic analysis of cremated human remains based on an East Lithuanian sample

Abstract

Capabilities of skeletal anthropology are limited when studying cremations. The paper assesses the pattern of these limitations and the probability of bias in the macroscopic analysis of cremated remains with an emphasis on its aspects in need of special attention. Biased analysis is viewed as a hazard not only to bioarchaeology, but also to a broad scale of topics in the archaeology of burial. As a methodological approach, a comparative paleodemographic inquiry is proposed. It parallels inhumation (n=72) and cremation (n=370) samples from the 3rd/4th-11th/12th centuries AD of East Lithuania. Life tables are created and mortality and reproductive profiles are calculated. Even though the analysed cremated bone material is fragmentary, a rather high correspondance of the profiles is registered, except for several aspects. Significant difference between inhumations and cremations is the lower subadult ratio in the latter. Underestimation of infants and young children distorts newborn life expectancy and reproductive profiles. Another ground for bias occurs in the probable identification of adolescents as adults when aging cremations. The third risk of bias, alghough somewhat obscure, is observed in aging adults related to the sex of the deceased. Differences of male and female mortality profiles between the samples suggest that the biases in aging and sexing cremated adults are interrelated .

Towards a new osteometric method for sexing ancient cremated human remains. Analysis of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age samples from Italy with gendered grave goods

“…The unpredictable and extremely variable number and nature of observable traits in the cremains has been seen as a limitation in standardizing analytical procedures, minimizing the reproducibility and comparability between different contexts and researchers. Indeed, the majority of anthropological contributions to archaeological research are insufficiently detailed to provide a clear understanding of the methods applied in sex assessment (see for instance [84]), and are frequently relegated to a brief “osteological appendix”. In this respect, Gonçalves and Pires [85] conducted a survey on the consistency of approaches and methodologies used among researchers in the analysis of cremation contexts.…”

Human mobility in a Bronze Age Vatya ‘urnfield’ and the life history of a high-status woman

“…Only very recently has bioarchaeological research undertaken the important challenge of filling this gap [e.g. [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. Relevant to the present study, several new methodologies have been developed, which increase the accuracy of sex estimations [37][38][39][40][41], extend strontium isotope analyses to cremated materials, and verify the reliability of 87 Sr/ 86 Sr data on the petrous portion of the temporal bone [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49].…”

Cremation under fire: a review of bioarchaeological approaches from 1995 to 2015

“…Guidelines, updates and recommendations for both archaeological and forensic examinations have been published (Arora et al 2010;Gómez Bellard 1996;Duday et al 2000;McKinley 2004;Symes et al 2008;Ubelaker 2009;Kurila, 2015) but none was able to influence the majority of researchers. What is apparent from this review is that guidelines tended to be followed regionally and in turn, this tended to prevent inter-regional comparisons as well as standardized examinations.…”