ageing skeletal remains

by

Quick Tips: How To Estimate The Chronological Age Of A Human Skeleton – Sternal Rib End Method.

This Quick Tips post is the sixth in the series on age estimation on skeletal remains, if you haven’t read the previous post click here, or to start at the beginning click here. The previous post provides an overview of the pubic symphyseal surface method of ageing, whereas the first post covers the basics.

The method was primarily developed by Iscan and Loth (1986) who studied the metamorphosis of the sternal end of the fourth rib. They found that the metamorphosis corresponds to the age but does vary by sex.

In their study they examined the “form, shape, texture and overall quality” of the sternal end which is found at the anterior (ventral) end of the shaft. This end is a roughened, porous, cupped oval surface which attaches to the cartilage attached to the sternum.  From this they were able to define a series of phases that depict the metamorphism of the sternal rib end over time.

Rib anatomy

Anatomy of the rib cage. This method was primarily developed by Iscan and Loth (1986) who studied the metamorphosis of the sternal end of the fourth rib. They found that the metamorphosis corresponds to the age but does vary by sex.

At the start the sternal end is flat or billowy with regular and rounded edges, and over time its rim thins and become irregular, with the surface porosity increasing, and the end becomes irregular. This method can be applied cautiously to the 3rd or 5th ribs as well, but not the others.

References:

Iscan, M.Y., and Loth, S.R. 1986. Estimation of age and determination of sex from the sternal rib. In: K. J. Reichs (ed.) Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains. Springfield, Illinois. Pg 68-89.

White, T.D., Folkens, P.A. 2005. The Human Bone Manual. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pg 360-385.

If you’re new to the realm of archaeological, anthropological and forensic sciences (AAFS), or are a student needing sturdy and reliable references, or wondering “what archaeology or anthropology textbooks to buy?” Check out our new ‘Useful Literature’ page!

 

by

Textbook of the Week: The Archaeology of Human Bones.

Every week we highlight one archaeology/anthropology textbook from our suggested readings, a full list of our suggested resources can be found here, on our Useful Literature page.

51RSbxmUriL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

The Archaeology of Human Bones (UK/Europe Link)
The Archaeology of Human Bones (US/Worldwide Link)
by Simon Mays. Rating: *****

“This text book is a amazing to use as a reference, as its very thorough. It’s not as easy to follow as Human Remains in Archaeology: A Handbook by Charlotte Roberts, but is perfect for anthropology and archaeology students who want to get a full grasp on the subject, and learn everything there is to know!“

If you’re a student – check out our ‘Quick Tips’ posts where we breakdown topics of AAFS into bite-sized chunks. We’re currently covering how to age and how to estimate the biological sex of skeletal remains, and also how to identify dental diseases!

by

Quick Tips: How to Estimate the Biological Sex of a Human Skeleton – Pelvic Dimorphism.

This is the 3rd blog post in this Quick Tips series on estimating the biological sex of human skeletal remains. If you haven’t read the first post on the basics of sexing skeletal remains, click here to start at the beginning or if you skipped the 2nd post focusing on the skull method if sex estimation, click here.

When it comes to sexing skeletal remains by the pelvic elements there are a few trends, as stated in the first blog post in this series, the female pelvic bones, specifically the sacra and ossa coxa are smaller and less robust than their male counterparts.

Figure 1: Side by side size comparison of a male (left) and female (right) pelvis.

Figure 1: Side by side size comparison of a male (left) and female (right) pelvis.

Although the female pelvic components are smaller in general, many aspects of the female pelvis are wider than males. The pelvic inlets on a female are relatively wider than those of males, as well as the greater sciatic notches – which is thought to aid childbirth.

Figure 2: Basic annotated diagram of the pelvis.

Figure 2: Basic labelled diagram of the pelvic anatomy.

There are numerous features of the pelvic bones that are examined to identify the biological sex of an individual, alongside the trends stated about. These features are as follows;

  • The ventral arc.
  • The subpubic concavity.
  • The medial aspect of the ischiopubic ramus.
  • The greater sciatic notch.

The first three features listed above, are known as the Phenice method – which was proposed by T. W. Phenice in 1969. His paper, “A Newly Developed Visual Method of Sexing the Os Pubis”, contributed greatly to the method of visual determination of sex, as beforehand the methods were subjective and based largely on the osteologist’s experience. The Phenice method should only be used for fully adult skeletal remains, where it is 96 to 100% accurate.

The ventral arc is a slightly raised ridge of bone that sweeps inferiorly and laterally across the central surface of the pubis. It joins with the medial border of the ischiopubic ramus. The ventral arc is only present in females, although males may have raised ridges in this area, but these do not take the wide, evenly arching appearance of the ventral arc.

Figure 2: The ventral arc is characterised by a slightly raised ridge of bone. Males do not exhibit the ventral arc, where as females do.

Figure 3: The ventral arc is characterised by a slightly raised ridge of bone. Males (left) do not exhibit the ventral arc, where as females (right) do.

To observe the subpubic concavity, you should turn the pubis so that the convex dorsal surface if facing you. Then you should view the medial edge of the ischiopubic ramus. Females display a subpubic concavity here where the edge of the ramus is concaved, whereas males tend to have straight edges or very slightly concaved.

Figure 4: Females display a subpubic concavity here where the edge of the ramus is concaved, whereas males tend to have straight edges or very slightly concaved.

Figure 4: Females (right) display a subpubic concavity here where the edge of the ramus is concaved, whereas males (left) tend to have straight edges or very slightly concaved.

To observe the medial aspect of the ischiopubic ramus, you should turn the pubis 90° so that the symphyseal surface is directly facing you. View the part of the ramus that is directly inferior to the pubis symphysis. In females, the ramus has a sharp, narrow edge, whereas in males it is flat and blunt.

Figure 5: In females (right), the medial aspect of the ischiopubic ramus has a sharp, narrow edge, whereas in males (left) it is flat and blunt.

Figure 5: In females (right), the medial aspect of the ischiopubic ramus has a sharp, narrow edge, whereas in males (left) it is flat and blunt.

As with the five features of the skull used to sex a skeleton in the previous, the greater sciatic notch has also been given a numerical score from 1 to 5 relating to the level of expression. It has been generally found that female os coxae are more likely to exhibit a lower level of expression, whereas male os coxae are more likely to have higher levels of expression.

Figure 6:

Figure 6: It has been generally found that female os coxae are more likely to exhibit a lower level of expression, whereas male os coxae are more likely to have higher levels of expression, when it comes to the greater sciatic notch.

To obtain the best results whist examining the os coxae, it should be held in the same orientation as the pictured above. This allows you to match the angle of the greater sciatic to the closest expression that represents it. It should be noted that this method is usually used as a secondary indicator.

References:

Buikstra, J.E., Ubelaker, D.H. 1994. Standards for Data Collection From Human Skeletal Remains. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archaeological Survey Report Number 44.

Ubelaker, D.H. 1989. Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC: Taraxacum.

White, T.D., Folkens, P.A. 2005. The Human Bone Manual. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pg 392-398.

This is the third post of the Quick Tips series on sex determination of skeletal remains. The next post in this series will focus on the use of DNA to determine biological sex. To read more Quick Tips in the meantime, click here! 

by

Quick Tips: How To Estimate The Chronological Age Of A Human Skeleton – Using Dentition To Age Subadults.

This Quick Tips post is the third in the series on age estimation of human skeletal remains, if you haven’t read the first post click here to start at the beginning. The first post provides an overview of the different techniques utilised by archaeologists/anthropologists, which will each be covered in more detail in their own blog post, and the categories that human skeletal remains are placed under according to their chronological age. The second post examines the epiphyseal closure method, which you can find here.

The practice of using dentition to chronologically age human skeletal remains is split into two halves, depending on the whether the skeleton is that of a subadult or adult. This blog post is going to discuss using dentition to age subadults.

Due to the abundance of teeth found in many archaeological, forensic, paleontological, and anthropological contexts and because of the regular tooth formation and eruption times, dental development is the most widely used technique for aging subadult remains. As stated in my previous blog post, several elements of the human skeleton begin the stages of epiphyseal fusion alongside the conclusion of tooth eruption; these two techniques (dentition and epiphyseal closure) are often used complementary to each other to help age sub-adults. When it comes to subadult tooth emergence there are four stages:

Stage 1 is where most of the deciduous teeth, commonly referred to as ‘milk teeth’, emerge during the second year of life.

Stage 2, during this stage the two permanent incisors and the first permanent molar emerge, this stage typically occurs between the age of six and eight years.

Stage 3, occurs between the age of ten and twelve and it involves the emergence of the permanent canines, premolars, and second molars.

Stage 4, or the final stage involves the third molar emerging around the age of eighteen years.

When looking at dentition you must look at all aspects of emergence and not just at the fully erupted tooth, which includes the completeness of all roots and crowns (formation) and the position of each tooth relative to the alveolar margin (eruption). Ubelaker (1989) conducted a study on non-Native Americans and created a graphic summary of dental development and the correlating ages it occurs, see figure 1.

Figure 1: Ubelaker's (1989) diagram showing the dental development in correlation to age.

Figure 1: Ubelaker’s (1989) diagram showing the dental development in correlation to age.

It must be noted that the ages these stages occur at differ per individual so only act as a reference. Gustafson and Koch (1974) created a graph to illustrate the variation that could occur with dental development, see figure 2.

Figure 2: Gustafson and Koch's (1974) image showing the variation in timing of dental development. Colour key: Black highlights the age that crown mineralization begins, Dark grey shows the age of crown completion, Light grey shows the age of eruption, and White displays age of root completion.

Figure 2: Gustafson and Koch’s (1974) image showing the variation in timing of dental development. Colour key: Black highlights the age that crown mineralization begins, Dark grey shows the age of crown completion, Light grey shows the age of eruption, and White displays age of root completion.

References:

Gustafson, G. Koch, G. 1974. Age estimation up to 16 years of age based on dental development. Odontologisk Revy. 25. Pg 297-306.

Ubelaker, D.H. 1989. Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC: Taraxacum.

White, T.D., Folkens, P.A. 2005. The Human Bone Manual. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pg 360-385.

This is the third of a Quick Tips series on ageing skeletal remains, the next in this series will focus on the use of dentition to age adults and the use of cranial suture closure. To read more Quick Tips in the meantime, click here! 

To learn about basic fracture types and their characteristics/origins in their own Quick Tips series, click here!

 

by

Quick Tips: How To Estimate The Chronological Age Of A Human Skeleton – Epiphyseal Closure Method.

This Quick Tips post is the second in the series on age estimation on skeletal remains, if you haven’t read the previous post click here. The previous post provides an overview of the different techniques utilised by archaeologists/anthropologists, which will each be covered in more detail in their own blog post, and the categories that human skeletal remains are placed under according to their chronological age.

One of the methods frequently used by archaeologists/anthropologists to estimate the chronological age of human remains is by studying the level of epiphyseal fusions.

But first what is an epiphysis? An epiphysis is the cap at the end of a long bone that develops from a secondary ossification center. Over the course of adolescence the epiphysis, which is originally separate, will fuse to the diaphysis. The ages of which epiphyseal fusion begins and ends are very well documented, with the majority of epiphyseal activity taking place between the ages of fifteen and twenty-three.

Epiphyses

Diagram showing where the epiphysis is found.

As epiphyseal fusions are progressive they are often scored as either being unfused (non-union), united, and fully fused (complete union). Females often experience the union of many osteological elements before males, and every individual experience epiphyseal union at different ages.

Left: Diagram of a skeleton showing the position of the different epiphyseal elements. Right: A graph displaying the timing of fusion of epiphyses for various for various human osteological elements. The grey horizontal bars depict the period of time, in ages, when the fusion is occurring. All of the data is representative of males, except where it is noted. Data taken from Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994.

Left: Diagram of a skeleton showing the position of the different epiphyseal elements.
Right: A graph displaying the timing of fusion of epiphyses for various for various human osteological elements. The grey horizontal bars depict the period of time, in ages, when the fusion is occurring. All of the data is representative of males, except where it is noted. Data taken from Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994.

Archaeologists/anthropologists use standards that are well known and documented, such as Buikstra & Ubelaker’s (1994) depicted in the above graph. From the above data we know that, for example, the fusion of the femur head to the lesser trochanter is begins around the age of fifteen and a half and ends around the age of twenty. So if a skeleton has evidence of an unfused femur head/lesser trochanter, there is a possibility of the skeleton having a chronological age of < fifteen years. If there is full union of the epiphyses then the skeleton is more than likely being > twenty years old. But it should be noted that individuals vary in their development so numerous elements should be examined before coming to an accurate conclusion.

Different stages of epiphysis fusion of human tibias. Ages left to right: Newborn, 1.6 years old, six years old, ten years old, twelve years old and eighteen years old.

Different stages of epiphysis fusion of human tibias. Ages left to right: Newborn, 1.6 years old, six years old, ten years old, twelve years old and eighteen years old.

As several elements of the human skeleton begin the stages of epiphyseal fusion alongside the conclusion of tooth eruption, these two techniques (dentition and epiphyseal closure) are often used complementary to each other to help age sub-adults. The next post in this series on age estimation will focus on the use of dentition to aid with the chronological ageing of human remains.

References:

Buikstra, J.E., Ubelaker, D.H. 1994. Standards for Data Collection From Human Skeletal Remains. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archaeological Survey Report Number 44.

White, T.D., Folkens, P.A. 2005. The Human Bone Manual. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pg 360-385.

This is the second of a Quick Tips series on ageing skeletal remains, the next in this series will focus on the dentition method of ageing sub-adults. To read more Quick Tips in the mean time, click here! 

To learn about basic fracture types and their characteristics/origins click here!

by

Quick Tips: How To Estimate The Chronological Age Of A Human Skeleton – The Basics.

Estimation of age-at-death involves observing morphological features in the skeletal remains, comparing the information with changes recorded for recent populations of known age, and then estimating any sources of variability likely to exist between the prehistoric and the recent population furnishing the documented data. This third step is seldom recognized or discussed in osteological studies, but it represents a significant element. – Ubelaker, D. 1989.

There are numerous markers on a human skeleton which can provide archaeologists and anthropologists with an estimate age of the deceased. The areas of the skeletal remains that are studied are:

If the skeletal marker listed above is a link, it means that I have already covered it in an individual blog post and can be found by following the link.

We can age skeletal remains to a rough estimate, as over a lifetime a human skeleton undergoes sequential chronological changes. Teeth appear and bone epiphyseal form and fuse during childhood and adolescence, with some bone fusing, metamorphose and degeneration carrying on after the age of twenty. Buikstra and Ubelaker, 1994, developed seven age categories that human osteological remains are separated into. The seven age classes are; fetus (before birth), infant (0-3 years), child (3-12 years), adolescent (12-20 years), young adult (20-35 years), middle adult (35-50 years), and old adult (50+ years).

When it comes to ageing skeletal remains, there are numerous problems. This is because individuals of the same chronological age can show difference degrees of development. Therefore, this causes archaeologists and anthropologists to obtain an accurate age estimate, which may not be precise.

It should be noted that it is a lot easier to deduce a juvenile/sub-adult’s age, as the ends of the limb bones form and fuse at known ages and the ages of which tooth formation and eruption occur are very well documented, although somewhat variable. After maturity there is little continuing skeletal change to observe, this causes adult ageing to become more difficult.

References:

Buikstra, J.E., Ubelaker, D.H. 1994. Standards for Data Collection From Human Skeletal Remains. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archaeological Survey Report Number 44.

Ubelaker, D.H. 1989. Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC: Taraxacum.

White, T.D., Folkens, P.A. 2005. The Human Bone Manual. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pg 360-385.

This is the first of a Quick Tips series on ageing skeletal remains, the next in this series will focus on the epiphyseal closure method of ageing sub-adults. To read more Quick Tips in the mean time, click here! 

To learn about basic fracture types and their characteristics/origins click here!