“…The estimation of age‐at‐death, and subsequently, the construction of population survival distributions, is an invaluable tool in bioarchaeology. Studies in age‐at‐death have informed knowledge of past demography (e.g., Fiorin et al, 2017; Gurri et al, 2015; Nagaoka et al, 2016; Redfern & Chamberlain, 2011; Warriner et al, 2012), health (e.g., Ash et al, 2016; DeWitte, 2014; Frelat & Souday, 2015), frailty (DeWitte, 2010, 2014, 2015; DeWitte & Hughes‐Morey, 2012; Flensborg, 2016; Yaussy et al, 2016), fertility (Klaus & Tam, 2009), and stress (e.g., Betsinger & DeWitte, 2017; DeWitte, 2017; Gamble et al, 2017; Kyle et al, 2018), among a variety of other sociobiological phenomena. Yet the inherent challenges of estimating age‐at‐death from skeletal remains, such as age mimicry (Bocquet‐Appel & Masset, 1982; Boldsen et al, 2002; Buckberry, 2015), variation in degenerative change (Boldsen et al, 2002), differential preservation (Cappella et al, 2017), and accuracy of anatomical region for different age groups (Boldsen et al, 2002; Buckberry & Chamberlain, 2002; Milner & Boldsen, 2012), have limited reconstruction of population‐level survival patterns.…”