Life and death in ancient populations: Bones of contention in paleodemography

Greene, David L.; Gerven, Dennis P. Van; Armelagos, George J.

doi:10.1007/bf02436577

Cited by 33 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Palaeodemography is thus largely restricted to the study of relative chronological and geographical changes in population density, distribution and size, rather than the specific demographic variations that caused these changes (although some estimates of changes in fertility and mortality rates have been inferred from osteological remains; e.g. Buikstra and Konigsberg, 1985;Buikstra et al, 1986;Greene et al, 1986;Konigsberg and Frankenberg, 2005;cf. Bocquet-Appel and Masset, 1982;Corruccini et al, 1989;Petersen, 1975, and these parameters can be modelled; Bocquet-Appel and Degioanni, 2013;Sørensen, 2011;Surovell, 2000;Zubrow, 1989).…”

Section: Palaeodemography: How Do We Study Demography From the Archaementioning

confidence: 99%

The demography of the Upper Palaeolithic hunter–gatherers of Southwestern France: A multi-proxy approach using archaeological data

French

2015

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tDemographic change is increasingly cited as an explanation for many of the patterns seen in the Palaeolithic archaeological record, following the assumption of a relationship between population size and material culture espoused by dual inheritance theory. However, the empirical testing of this relationship relies on the ability to extract information about past population patterns from the archaeological record. Using the extensive and well-studied record of the Upper Palaeolithic (39,500-11,500 cal BP) hunter-gatherers of Southwestern France as a case-study, this paper compares the evidence for changes in relative population size as seen in three popular archaeological proxies for demographic change (site counts, site sizes, and occupation intensity estimates). These proxies present conflicting results across the sequence; a finding which is explored through the impact of taphonomic biases and past research agendas. Numbers of sheltered sites and quantities of retouched stone tools are suggested to be the most reliable demographic proxies. The problem of equifinality of interpretation in archaeological proxies for demography is examined for the Aurignacian and Gravettian periods in the region, with changes in lithic raw material, faunal acquisition strategies, and hunter-gatherer mobility all potentially contributing to the patterns documented.

show abstract

Section: Palaeodemography: How Do We Study Demography From the Archaementioning

confidence: 99%

The demography of the Upper Palaeolithic hunter–gatherers of Southwestern France: A multi-proxy approach using archaeological data

French

2015

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their ''Farewell to Paleodemography'' the authors argued that age determination was inaccurate and that age-at-death profiles tended to mirror the reference samples from whence they were derived (Bocquet-Appel and Masset, 1982). This latter criticism was addressed by many in favor of using more appropriate reference samples (Van Gerven and Armelagos, 1982;Buikstra and Konigsberg, 1985;Greene et al, 1986), though more recently it has been recognized that reference population mimicking remains a valid concern (Buikstra, 1997).…”

Section: Issues and Criticismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite numerous criticisms raised on each of these assumptions (Petersen, 1975;Bocquet-Appel and Masset, 1982Sattenspiel and Harpending, 1983;Horowitz et al, 1988), and a number of unsatisfactory attempts to address these criticisms (Van Gerven and Armelagos, 1982;Buikstra and Konigsberg, 1985;Greene et al, 1986;Milner et al, 1989;Frankenberg, 1992, 1994), there seems to be a reluctance in the field of paleodemography to let go of these assumptions and examine different approaches to overcoming these difficulties. Despite numerous criticisms raised on each of these assumptions (Petersen, 1975;Bocquet-Appel and Masset, 1982Sattenspiel and Harpending, 1983;Horowitz et al, 1988), and a number of unsatisfactory attempts to address these criticisms (Van Gerven and Armelagos, 1982;Buikstra and Konigsberg, 1985;Greene et al, 1986;Milner et al, 1989;Frankenberg, 1992, 1994), there seems to be a reluctance in the field of paleodemography to let go of these assumptions and examine different approaches to overcoming these difficulties.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the life history model to set the stage(s) of growth and senescence in bioarchaeology and paleodemography

Roksandić

Armstrong

2011

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paleodemography, the study of demographic parameters of past human populations, relies on assumptions including biological uniformitarianism, stationary populations, and the ability to determine point age estimates from skeletal material. These assumptions have been widely criticized in the literature and various solutions have been proposed. The majority of these solutions rely on statistical modeling, and have not seen widespread application. Most bioarchaeologists recognize that our ability to assess chronological age is inherently limited, and have instead resorted to large, qualitative, age categories. However, there has been little attempt in the literature to systematize and define the stages of development and ageing used in bioarchaeology. We propose that stages should be based in the human life history pattern, and their skeletal markers should have easily defined and clear endpoints. In addition to a standard five-stage developmental model based on the human life history pattern, current among human biologists, we suggest divisions within the adult stage that recognize the specific nature of skeletal samples. We therefore propose the following eight stages recognizable in human skeletal development and senescence: infancy, early childhood, late childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, full adulthood, mature adulthood, and senile adulthood. Striving toward a better prediction of chronological ages will remain important and could eventually help us understand to what extent past societies differed in the timing of these life stages. Furthermore, paleodemographers should try to develop methods that rely on the type of age information accessible from the skeletal material, which uses life stages, rather than point age estimates.

show abstract

“…A great deal of dental and skeletal research has focused on human archaeological populations [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. There have been relatively fewer dental and skeletal studies on wild ape populations [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Skeletal and Dental Evidence of Aging in Captive Western Lowland Gorillas: A Preliminary Report

Nichols¹,

Zihlman²

2002

Interdisciplinary Topics in Gerontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Life and death in ancient populations: Bones of contention in paleodemography

Cited by 33 publications

References 13 publications

The demography of the Upper Palaeolithic hunter–gatherers of Southwestern France: A multi-proxy approach using archaeological data

The demography of the Upper Palaeolithic hunter–gatherers of Southwestern France: A multi-proxy approach using archaeological data

Using the life history model to set the stage(s) of growth and senescence in bioarchaeology and paleodemography

Skeletal and Dental Evidence of Aging in Captive Western Lowland Gorillas: A Preliminary Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About