Age at death estimation by cementochronology: Too precise to be true or too precise to be accurate?
Age at death estimation by cementochronology: Too precise to be true or too precise to be accurate?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/ajpa.23849
复制
发表时间：
2019-07-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Hedouin, Valery
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bertrand, Benoit;Cunha, Eugenia;Hedouin, Valery
目标 基于脱细胞牙骨质年度沉积的牙骨质年代学因其在估计死亡年龄方面的优越性能而被认可，但也因其可疑的有效性而被忽视。本文旨在提供一个标准化框架来验证该技术并定义和测试水泥年代学的性能和局限性。材料和方法为了确定牙骨质老化技术的界限，我们对 200 只健康犬的样本应用了经过认证的方案，这些犬来自人类学和解剖学收藏中已知年龄、性别、死后和埋葬间隔的个体。我们对牙骨质的可读性和保存情况进行了评分，并测量了估计值之间的一致性，即精确度，并评估了估计值与实际年龄之间的一致性质量，即准确性。为了研究古代材料的适用性，还包括从考古组合中提取的另外 200 只犬齿。考虑到尸检间隔和埋藏条件，对每个年龄组的准确性和精确度进行了分析。结果发现实际年龄和估计值之间存在很强的相关性 (r = .927；p = .000)，但结果显示增量行的可读性与实际年龄之间存在关联 (p < .05)，并且 50 岁以下和 50 岁以上个体之间的精确度和准确度存在显着差异。结果还表明，埋藏法可能是一个严重的障碍，使不精确性增加三倍。讨论 如果采用不当，水泥年代学可能会导致精确但不准确的估计。如果将方法论、生理学和埋藏学因素考虑在内，那么，也只有这样，水泥年代学才能成为估计死亡年龄的多功能且强大的工具。
Objectives Cementochronology based on annual deposition of acellular cementum is acknowledged for its superior performance for estimating age-at-death but is also disregarded because of its suspicious effectiveness. This article aims to provide a standardized framework for the validation of the technique and to define and test cementochronology's performance and limitations. Materials and methods To determine the boundaries of the cementum aging technique, we applied a certified protocol on a sample of 200 healthy canines from individuals of known age, sex, postmortem, and inhumation intervals from anthropological and anatomical collections. We scored readability and preservation of cementum and measured the agreement between estimates, i.e., the precision, and assessed the quality of the accordance between estimates and chronological age, i.e., the accuracy. To investigate the applicability on ancient material, 200 additional canines extracted from archeological assemblages were included. Accuracy and precision were analyzed for each age group in considering postmortem intervals and taphonomical conditions. Results A strong correlation was found between chronological age and estimates (r = .927; p = .000) but results reveal an association between readability of incremental lines and chronological age (p < .05) and a notable difference in both precision and accuracy between individuals under and over 50 years. Results also demonstrate that taphonomy can be a serious obstacle increasing imprecision by a factor of three. Discussion Improperly adopted, cementochronology can lead to precise but inaccurate estimations. If methodological, physiological, and taphonomical factors are taken into account, then, and only then, cementochronology will serve as a versatile and powerful tool for age-at-death estimation.