Technical note: Applicability of tooth cementum annulation to an archaeological population

Abstract

The use of tooth cementum annulations for age determination has been deemed promising, exhibiting high correlations with chronological age. Despite its apparent potential, to date, the tooth cementum annulations method has been used rarely for estimating ages in archaeological populations. Here we examine the readability of cementum annulations and the consistency of age estimates using a sample of 116 adults from the Iron Gates Gorge Mesolithic/Neolithic series. Our examination of the method pointed to several sources of error that call into question the use of this method for estimating the chronological ages of archaeologically derived dental samples. The poor performance of the method in our analysis might be explained by taphonomic influences, including the effect of chemical and biological agents on dental microstructures.

Generalized individual dental age stages for fossil and extant placental mammals

“…Others use characters in the dentition, such as tooth eruption and wear (e.g., Nostrand and Stephenson 1964;Gustafson 1950;Lowe 1967;Goddard 1970;Habermehl 1975Habermehl , 1985Louguet 2006;Magnell and Carter 2007;Greenfield and Arnold 2008;Munro et al 2009;Kelley and Schwartz 2010) or the annual cementum layers on roots in teeth (e.g., Adams and Watkins 1967;Linhart and Knowlton 1967;Reimers and Nordby 1968;Wolfe 1969;Crowe 1972;Gasaway et al 1978;Bodkin et al 1997;Hamlin et al 2000;Costello et al 2004;Roksandic et al 2009). These age classifications are often very detailed and complex, but applicable only to the species on which they are based, e.g., Gazella gazella ), Diceros bicornis (Goddard 1970) or a very close relative (e.g., Adam 1994).…”

Age estimation by tooth/pulp ratio in canines by peri-apical X-rays: reliability in age determination of Spanish and Italian medieval skeletal remains

“…As Cunha et al (2009) noted, other dental methods such as that of Lamendin et al (1993) or cementum annulation (Kagerer and Grupe, 2001) are not recommended for identifying ancient skeletal remains. These technique have been tested unsuccessfully on samples which had been buried in soil for several decades and they should be used with caution on historical samples (Griffin et al, 2009;Megyesi et al, 2006;Roksandic et al, 2009;Rosing et al, 2007). The applicability and the reliability of cementum annulation has also been seriously questioned (Renz and Radlanski, 2006).…”

“…In addition, these specific skeletal structures are commonly subjected to taphonomic processes and are often not recovered or are too damaged to contribute to satisfactory osteological analysis. So it becomes necessary to check the validity of more accurate methods, less biased by other factors such as the degree of agerelated information contained within specific skeletal traits, as well as sampling strategies and statistical methods used to develop age estimation methods (Baccino et al, 1991;González, 2007;Igarashi et al, 2005;Jackes, 2000;Landa et al, 2009;Roksandic et al, 2009).…”

Assessing the application of tooth cementum annulation relative to macroscopic aging techniques in an archeological sample

“…More recently, Roksandic et al (2009) tested the readability of TCA and the consistency of counts between observers on an archeological assemblage from an Eastern European Mesolithic/Neolithic population. The reported poor performance was largely attributed to taphonomic alteration of the tooth microstructure and its effect on TCA visibility.…”