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

Technical Note: Applicability of Tooth CementumAnnulation to an Archaeological Population

Mirjana Roksandic,1* Dejana Vlak,2 Michael A. Schillaci,3 and Diana Voicu4

1Department of Anthropology, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Canada2Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada3Department of Social Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Scarborough, Canada4Albion Library, Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada

KEY WORDS age determination; osteology; dental anthropology; histology; taphonomy; toothcementum annulations

ABSTRACT The use of tooth cementum annulationsfor age determination has been deemed promising,exhibiting high correlations with chronological age.Despite its apparent potential, to date, the toothcementum annulations method has been used rarely forestimating ages in archaeological populations. Here weexamine the readability of cementum annulationsand the consistency of age estimates using a sampleof 116 adults from the Iron Gates Gorge Mesolithic/Neo-

lithic series. Our examination of the method pointed toseveral sources of error that call into question the use ofthis method for estimating the chronological ages ofarchaeologically derived dental samples. The poor per-formance of the method in our analysis mightbe explained by taphonomic influences, including theeffect of chemical and biological agents on dentalmicrostructures. Am J Phys Anthropol 140:583–588,2009. VVC 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Accurate age determination from skeletal and dentalremains is an important goal for biological anthropolo-gists. Sequential changes during growth and develop-ment facilitate estimation of biological age in nonadults.Once growth is over, however, assessing age at deathbecomes more problematic as the degenerative process ofaging is variable and influenced by lifestyle and theenvironment.Since the publication of several articles critical of our

ability to accurately assess age in adult skeletons (e.g.,Bocquet-Appel and Masset, 1982; Jackes, 1992; Woodet al., 1992), more attention has been paid to improvingthe already existing methods of age determination anddeveloping new ones. One of the techniques deemedpromising utilizes tooth cementum annulations (TCA).Based on the hypothesis that the annual formation ofone dark and one light incremental line reflects a natu-ral metabolic rhythm of seasonal changes in diet andhormonal cycles (Laws, 1952; Grue and Jensen, 1979;Kay et al., 1984; Geiger, 1993), the TCA method involvescounting lines visible on the accelular cementum band ofthin root crossections. Histological age of the individualstudies is obtained by adding the number of observedlines to the age at which the tooth erupted (Wittwer-Backofen et al., 2004).Originally developed for nonhuman mammalian spe-

cies (e.g., Spinage, 1973; Grue and Jensen, 1979), theTCA technique was first applied to humans by Stott etal. (1982). Technical improvements (e.g., Naylor et al.,1985; Kvaal et al., 1996; Maat et al., 2006) which haveyielded high correlations with chronological age in analy-ses of known-age samples (e.g., Jankauskas et al., 2001;Kagerer and Grupe, 2001; Wittwer-Backofen et al., 2004)led to the suggestion that TCA might be superior toother methods of age estimation. Despite seeminglyexceptional results, several scholars (Lipsinic et al.,1986; Lucas and Loh, 1986; Miller et al., 1988; Renz and

Radlanski, 2006) have drawn attention to the method’sweaknesses.Given the reported high correlations with chronologi-

cal age, it is surprising that the application of the TCAmethod of age determination to past populations has notbeen more widely adopted (Großkopf, 1990; Cipriano-Bechtle et al., 1996; Geusa et al., 1999; Wittwer-Backo-fen et al., 2008). With the exception of two studies thathave reported problems with the TCA technique appliedto past populations (Geusa et al., 1999; Wittwer-Backo-fen et al., 2008), all previous studies have assumed themethod’s superior performance for age determination inadults.We analyzed the applicability of the TCA method for

estimating age in an archaeological population. Becausewe could not establish the correlation between histologi-cal and chronological age for archaeological specimens,we concentrated on evaluating inter- and intraobservererror, and consistency of results obtained by readingseveral segments of the same tooth. The influence ofprevious experience with the TCA method was alsoexamined.

Grant sponsors: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research,Connaught New Staff Matching Grant, University of Toronto.

*Correspondence to: Mirjana Roksandic, Department of Anthro-pology, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Canada, MB, R3B 2E9.E-mail: [email protected]

Received 2 January 2009; accepted 9 June 2009

DOI 10.1002/ajpa.21136Published online 28 July 2009 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com).

VVC 2009 WILEY-LISS, INC.

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 140:583–588 (2009)

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our sample consisted of 116 adults from the Iron GatesGorge skeletal collection (Serbia), representing bothMesolithic (Padina, Lepenski Vir, Vlasac, and HajduckaVodenica) and Early Neolithic (Velesnica) sites on theright bank of the Danube dating from 8500 BC to 5500BC calibrated (Bonsall et al., 2008). Of the 263 adults inthe collection, only 116 had at least one of the monoradi-cal teeth preserved. One tooth was extracted from eachindividual. Each tooth was measured, photographed,described, and processed at the TCA Laboratory at MaxPlanck Institute for Demographic Research (MPIDR) inRostock, Germany. Description included archaeologicalprovenience, tooth type, level of occlusal wear, hyperce-mentosis, and dental pathology (paradotosis, caries). Thecrowns and the upper third of the root were removedusing a microtome. The remaining two thirds of thetooth root were embedded in a two component epoxyresin and dried in a vacuum chamber. Three sequential70–80 lm undecalcified crossections were prepared foreach tooth from the middle third of the root using aLeica SP 1600 microtome fitted with a diamond coatedblade following the protocols of the MPIDR TCA lab(Wittwer-Backofen et al., 2004). Unstained sections weremounted on slides for further analysis. Visual scanningwas done at the laboratory of Paleoethnobotany atthe University of Toronto Mississauga using a Nikon1

LABOPHOT2-POL microscope at 4003 magnification.Segments that showed readable lines were captured asJPEG images (1,600/1,200 pixels) with a Nikon DS Cam-era Control Unit DS-L1 and DS Camera Head DS-5M,DS Cooled Camera Head DS-5Mc fitted on the micro-scope. Readings were done on selected segments inAdobe1 Photoshop1 CS2.Three observers were involved in the evaluation pro-

cess: one undergraduate student (DiV) with limited labexperience in biological anthropology (Observer 1), agraduate student (DeV) with substantial experience withboth forensic and archaeological populations, though noprevious experience with the TCA method (Observer 3),and the primary author (MR) with previous experienceusing the TCA method (Observer 2). Initially, threesegments were selected and evaluated by all threeauthors together, allowing the senior author to instructthe student observers. Subsequent readings were per-formed independently. To calculate intraobserver error,segments were scanned and read twice at 2-month inter-vals after the first reading.Statistical analyses included an evaluation of interob-

server error for three sets of readings, intraobservererror for each author, and differences in reading betweendifferent segments of the same tooth. Inter- and intraob-server error was tested using a normal approximation ofthe Wilcoxon sign-rank test of equal medians (Sokal andRohlf, 1995). For the tests of intraobserver error, welooked at the differences between original counts (T1)and counts taken during two additional data collectionsessions (T2 and T3) by each of the three observers inde-pendently. To evaluate differences between different seg-ments of the same tooth we used original counts (T1) forall three observers, reporting minimum and maximumdifference in line counts for nine teeth with multiplesections. The odds of teeth being excluded from the anal-ysis based on the presence of hypercementosis, periodon-tal disease, dental caries, or occlusal wear were assessed

using a bootstrapped odds ratio (OR). Statistical signifi-cance (i.e., the probability that OR 5 1) was estimatedusing a Fisher’s Exact test.

RESULTS

From 116 processed teeth, we selected 40 that hadat least one readable segment of any of the three cros-sections. On the remaining 76 teeth we could not identifyany sections that exhibited continuously visible linesfrom the cemento/dentine junction to the edge of theroot. Each of these 76 teeth contained segments of cros-sections that were visibly destroyed by diagenesis, seg-ments with faint to invisible lines, or segments wherelines were interspersed with pits and either vertical and/or horizontal breaks. In several cases saw marks parallelto TCAs (n 5 7), and/or breakage of cementum adjacentto the embedding medium (n 5 6), were observed in seg-ments where the lines were visible. Out of the remaining40 teeth for which photographs of selected segmentswere obtained, 23 teeth (represented by 40 segments)were judged by the first author to exhibit lines that wereclear enough to allow readings. These were read by allthree readers at three different times (Table 1). Giventhe conservative selection process resulting in a highnumber of teeth rejected prior to analysis, we expectedreasonably consistent results.The odds of teeth being excluded from the analysis

based on the presence of hypercementosis (OR 5 2.901,P 5 0.096), periodontal disease (OR 5 0.787, P 5 0.834),dental caries (OR 5 0.365, P 5 0.908), or level of occlu-sal wear (OR 5 0.460, P 5 0.194) were not significantstatistically. These odds ratio tests suggest that the pres-ence of dental pathology and attrition have not biasedthe study sample. The results of our intraobserver errortests revealed one significant comparison out of a total ofsix comparisons (Table 2). Mean differences between thereadings ranged from 1.333 to 4.8 years, while maximumdifference between readings ranged from 6 to 17 years.One out of nine of our tests of interobserver error wassignificant (Table 3). The results of these observer errortests indicate that observer error likely has not substan-tially affected the results of the study.More than one readable segment was available in only

9 out of the 23 teeth. Comparison of the variation in thenumber of lines counted between different segments forthese nine teeth, given in the Table 4, revealed a rangeof age estimates of up to 24 years. This level of uncer-tainty in age estimates is similar to that obtained usingstandard macroscopic methods of age determination.

DISCUSSION

In our study a large number of teeth were discarded(93 teeth, 80.17%) because cementum annulations withincrossections presented clear evidence of advanced diage-netic process, no visible lines (see Fig. 1), wavy linesinterspersed with ‘‘pits’’ (see Fig. 2), numerous impur-ities represented by bifurcating lines (see Fig. 3), par-tially obscured lines (see Fig. 4). Other studies onarchaeological samples have also reported problems withunreadable segments (Cipriano-Bechtle et al., 1996;Wittwer-Backofen et al., 2008). The determination ofreadability of a tooth segment is necessarily subjective.Such subjectivity was evident in recent research byWittwer-Backofen et al. (2008) where the senior authorrejected 14.1% of the teeth, while the second observer in

584 M. ROKSANDIC ET AL.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

the study rejected 22.3% of the specimens as unreadable.In our study, the decision to discard teeth was made sub-jectively by the senior author on the basis of clarity andcontinuity of observable annulations in each crossection.We suggest that in our archaeological sample poor mi-

croscopic preservation might be one of the contributingfactors leading to a large number of discarded teeth. Ithas been established that good macroscopic preservationof skeletal tissue does not necessarily mean good micro-scopic preservation as well (Schultz, 1997; Pfeiffer, 2000;Nonato do Rosario Marinho et al., 2006). Chemistry (e.g.,ground water ionic exchange and mineral deposition) and/or postmortem biological activity (e.g., bacteria and fungi)can alter microscopic tissue, yielding cloudy, incomplete,or structurally altered histological images (Pfeiffer, 2000).While water and microorganisms decompose the organiccomponents of bone (Henderson, 1987; Heuck, 1993), themineral portion undergoes intense chemical action anddegradation by microorganisms, which facilitates theimpregnation by minerals such as CaCO3, Fe2O3, andSiO2, leached from the soil. In many cases this results in

the formation of a mold of an original histological struc-ture (Retallack, 1984; Henderson, 1987; Francillon-Veil-liellot et al., 1990; Garland, 1993). Thus, despite the mac-roscopic morphology being maintained, there can be atotal or partial substitution of the components at a micro-scopic level (Lambert et al., 1979; Francillon-Veilliellotet al., 1990; Gilber, 1997; Gill-King, 1997).We suggest that cementum, like bone, is subject to

these same diagenic processes. Recent research analyz-ing animal teeth from an archaeological context by Stutz(2002: p 1343) has demonstrated that ‘‘chemical diage-netic processes of collagen leaching and apatite recrys-tallization can create bands that mimic true biogeneticgrowth increments in archaeological cementum.’’Our inability to get consistent results represents a

major problem in terms of applicability of the method toarchaeological populations. Similar to the findings byRenz and Radlinski (2006), we recognized problems in

TABLE 1. Reported readings for the 23 scanned and read teethrepresented by 40 segments

Observer 1 Observer 2 Observer 3

Slide T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3

HV13 12 8 8 8 11 10 13 9 8HV15 42 43 48 32 45 37 37 36 40LV2 38 38 38 34 38 32 29 30 34LV4 31 31 35 31 44 28 30 30 33LV8 34 34 45 42 48 43 47 47 47LV8 24 27 24 32 33 31 29 26 27LV8 36 35 38 45 41 40 42 45 40LV8 43 42 43 51 39 42 45 46 45LV39 40 46 42 60 54 49 41 42 44LV39 41 44 43 65 59 58 52 52 52LV39 57 61 57 64 60 56 57 56 55LV62 43 34 31 38 40 37 32 35 35LV69 83 67 70 70 78 69 82 89 79LV74 63 58 54 58 60 50 70 58 64LV83A 45 47 41 55 47 52 42 47 40LV83A 48 48 48 50 41 38 47 46 43LV88 49 52 52 48 53 49 53 56 58LV126 34 36 35 39 39 34 30 34 32P5A 37 38 38 32 30 44 37 38 34P5A 37 38 38 31 30 30 34 31 33P12 20 20 20 22 16 23 27 29 29P12 28 32 29 26 25 25 22 23 26P12 20 20 21 19 18 22 23 26 23P18 36 35 40 33 34 33 44 42 40P18 41 50 45 40 46 40 37 39 37P24 39 31 29 33 40 40 39 42 38VEL2B 37 34 42 29 35 36 40 43 36VEL2G 32 31 32 28 27 29 30 34 33VL26 39 39 31 36 36 33 34 37 30VL26 34 31 30 30 31 33 31 33 35VL26 41 41 41 40 48 36 37 39 54VL32 30 29 32 33 27 29 28 32 28VL45 88 81 83 77 81 76 78 82 77VL45 64 64 62 76 78 72 82 83 73VL45 86 72 67 75 87 88 86 86 83VL47 27 26 27 23 29 30 34 36 27VL55 42 28 31 35 38 37 37 40 36VL55 35 34 34 33 31 27 37 32 32VL55 29 31 29 28 34 34 37 35 33VL55 35 34 34 31 35 31 38 38 32

Repeat slides indicate more than one segment read per tooth.HV, Hajducka Vodenica; LV, Lepenski Vir; P, Padina; VEL,Velesnica; VL, Vlasac.

TABLE 2. Results for the tests of intraobserver error

T1 vs. T2 T1 vs. T3

Observer 1N 40 40Mean difference 1.25 1.325Max difference 16 19Wilcoxon (Z5) 0.936 0.421P-value 0.349 0.674



A significance level of a 5 0.05 was used for all tests.

TABLE 3. Results for the tests of interobserver error

T1 T2 T3

DiV-MR Z 5 0.841 Z 5 1.791 Z 5 0.094P 5 0.400 P 5 0.073 P 5 0.925

DiV-DeV Z 5 0.451 Z 5 2.079 Z 5 1.132P 5 0.652 P 5 0.038 P 5 0.258

MR-DeV Z 5 1.017 Z 5 0.606 Z 5 0.957P 5 0.309 P 5 0.544 P 5 0.339

A significance level of a 5 0.05 was used for all tests.

TABLE 4. Minimum and maximum difference in line countsassociated with observations of different tooth sections

Burial no. Observer 1 Observer 2 Observer 3

Lepenski Vir 8 2–19 (4) 3–19 (4) 3–18 (4)Lepenski Vir 39 1–17 (3) 1–5 (3) 5–16 (3)Lepenski Vir 83A 3 (2) 5 (2) 5 (2)Padina 5A 0 (2) 1 (2) 3 (2)Padina 12 0–8 (3) 3–7 (3) 1–5 (3)Padina 18 5 (2) 7 (2) 7 (2)Vlasac 26 5 (2) 4–10 (3) 3–6 (3)Vlasac 45 2–24 (3) 1–2 (3) 4–8 (3)Vlasac 55 0–13 (4) 2–7 (4) 0–1 (4)

Number of sections is given in parenthesis.

585TOOTH CEMENTUM ANNULATION


visually identifying a number of TCA lines: the first andthe last, faint, bifurcating, inconsistent, and other prob-lematic lines. Because previous experience does not seemto play a significant role, we suggest that the authors

who claim high performance and high reliability of themethod should provide a much more thorough descrip-tion of the expert knowledge guiding their decision tocount or discard problematic or ambiguous lines.Our strongest reservation regarding the method stems

from readings obtained from teeth where more than onesegment was available. A range of age estimates of up to24 years is comparable to ranges obtained by othermethods, and while certainly useful where no otherobservations are possible, the method does not warrantdestruction of archaeological material where othermeans of age assessment are available.

CONCLUSION

The results of our application of the TCA method to anarchaeologically derived dental sample pointed to several

Fig. 4. The portion of the segment closer to the dentine (a)shows clear regular lines, the top part (b) is much more difficultto read as lines are not clear and are at times overlapping.

Fig. 1. A segment with no clearly visible lines and substan-tial diagenic? destruction. The few faint lines can not be fol-lowed throughout the segment.

Fig. 2. Wavy lines (a) interspersed with ‘‘pits’’ (b). The por-tion closer to the dentine is not showing any clear and consist-ent lines (c); the upper portion of the segment shows lines (a)interspersed with pits (b) and vertical breaks (d).

Fig. 3. A segment showing a number of bifurcating lines ofunclear origin (indicated by letters a, b, c, and d). These linesappear as bands of varying width that obscure the flow of theannulations.



sources of error which might be related to taphonomicchanges at the microscopic level. What is troubling isthe fact that even when individual segments producedconsistent results between observers, differencesbetween readable segments of one tooth were substan-tial. When all ages obtained through the reading of mul-tiple crossections were taken into consideration, therange of age estimates was similar to that which can beobtained by standard macroscopic osteological methods.The destruction of archaeological specimens for TCA agedetermination, therefore, may not be warranted untilthe biology and diagenic processes influencing cementumannulations are fully understood. We suggest that futureresearch examine the effects of taphonomy on dental his-tological structures. Such research is needed before theTCA method can be applied to—especially rare and old—archaeological samples.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Prof. G. Crawford at the Universityof Toronto in Mississauga for use of his laboratory forprocessing the samples and the Faculty of Philosophy atthe University of Belgrade (Serbia) for access to the skel-etal material used in our analysis. We also wish to thankthe anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and con-structive comments.

LITERATURE CITED

Bocquet-Appel JP, Masset C. 1982. Farewell to paleodemogra-phy. J Hum Evol 11:321–333.

Bonsall C, Radovanovic I, Roksandic M, Cook G, Higham T,Pickard C. 2008. Dating burials and architecture at LepenskiVir. In: Bonsall C, Boroneant V, Radovanovic I, editors. Theiron gates in prehistory: new perspectives. Oxford: Archaeo-press. BAR International Series 1893. p 175–204.

Cipriano-Bechtle A, Grupe G, Schroter P. 1996. Ageing and lifeexpectancy in the early middle ages. HOMO 46:267–279.

Francillon-Veilliellot H, Buffrenil V, Castanet J, Geraudie J,Meunier FJ, Sire JY, Zylberberg L, Ricqules A. 1990. Micro-structure and mineralization of vertebrate skeletal tissues. In:Carter JG, editor. Skeletal biomineralization: patterns, proc-esses, and evolutionary trends (I). New York: Van NostrandReinhold. p 479–480.

Garland AN. 1993. An introduction to the histology of exhumedmineralized tissue. In: Grupe G, Garland AN, editors. Histol-ogy of ancient human bone: methods and diagnosis. NewYork: Springer-Verlag. p 1–16.

Geiger G. 1993. Vergleich verschiedener Methoden der Alter-sbeurteilung anhand von Zahnen und anderen morphologi-schen Merkmalen mit dem Lebensalter vorwiegend altersmar-kierter Wildtiere der Ordnungen Artiodactyla und Carnivora.Giessen: Habilitationsschrift Giessen.

Geusa G, Bondioli L, Capucci E, Cipriano A, Grupe G, SavoreC, Macchiarelli R. 1999. Osteodental biology of the people ofportus romae (Necropolis of Isola Sacra, 2nd-3rd Cent. AD).II. Dental cementum annulations and age at death estimates.Digital archives of human paleobiology, 2. Museo Nazionale‘‘L. Pigorini,’’ Roma. CD-ROM published by E-LISA, Milan.

Gilber RI. 1997. Applications of trace element research to prob-lems in archaeology. In: Blakey RL, editor. Biocultural adap-tation in prehistoric America. Athens: University of GeorgiaPress. p 85–100.

Gill-King H. 1997. Chemica and ultrastructural aspects ofdecomposition. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Forensictaphonomy: the postmortem date of human remains. BocaRaton: CRC Press. p 93–104.

Großkopf B. 1990. Individual age determination using growthrings in the cementum of buried human teeth. Z Rechtsmed103:351–359.

Grue H, Jensen B. 1979. Review of the formation of incrementallines in tooth cementum of terrestrial mammals. Dan RevGame Biol 11:1–48.

Henderson J. 1987. Factor determining the state of preservationof human remains. In: Boddington A, Garland AN, JanawayRC, editors. Death, decay and reconstruction: approaches toarchaeology and forensic science. Manchester: ManchesterUniversity. p 43–54.

Heuck FW. 1993. Comparative histological and microradio-graphic investigations of human bone. In: Grupe G, GarlandAN, editors. Histology of ancient human bone: methods anddiagnosis. New York: Springer-Verlag. p 125–136.

Jackes M. 1992. Paleodemography: problems and techniques.In: Saunders SR, Katzenberg MA, editors. Skeletal biologyof past peoples: research methods. New York: Wiley-Liss. p189–224.

Jankauskas R, Barakauskas S, Bojarun R. 2001. Incrementallines of dental cementum in biological age estimation. HOMO52:59–71.

Kagerer P, Grupe G. 2001. Age-at-death diagnosis and determi-nation of life-history parameters by incremental lines inhuman dental cementum as an identification aid. Forensic SciInt 118:75–82.

Kay RF, Rasmussen DT, Beard KC. 1984. Cementum annula-tions counts provide a means for age determination in Macacamulatta (Primates. Anthropoidea). Folia Primatol 42:85–95.

Kvaal S, Solhein T, Bjerketveld D. 1996. Evaluation of prepara-tion, staining and microscopic techniques for counting incre-menral lines in cementum of human teeth. Biotech Histochem71:165–172.

Lambert JB, Szpunar CB, Buikstra JE. 1979. Chemical analysisof excavated human bone from middle and late Woodlandsites. Archaeometry 21:115–129.

Laws RM. 1952. A new method of age determination for mam-mals. Nature 169:972.

Lipsinic F, Paunovich E, Houston G, Robinson S. 1986. Correla-tion of age and incremental lines in the cementum of humanteeth. J Forensic Sci 31:982–989.

Lucas P, Loh H. 1986. Are the incremental lines in humancementum laid down annually? Ann Acad Med Singapore15:384–386.

Maat G, Gerretsen R, Aarents M. 2006. Improving the visibilityof tooth cementum annulations by adjustment of the cuttingangle of microscopic sections. Forensic Sci Int 159:S95–S99.

Miller C, Dove S, Cottone J. 1988. Failure of use of cementalannulation of teeth to age determine the age of humans.J Forensic Sci 33:137–143.

Naylor J, Miller W, Stokes G, Stott G. 1985. Cemental annula-tion enhancement: a technique for age determination in man.Am J Phys Anthropol 68:197–200.

Nonato do Rosario Marinho A, Cardoso Miranda N, Braz V,Ribeiro-dos-Santos AK, Ferraz Mendonca de Souza SM. 2006.Paleogenetc and taphonomic analysis of human bones fromMoa, Beirada, and Ze Espinho Sambaquis, Rio de Janeiro,Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 101:15–23.

Pfeiffer S. 2000. Palaeohistology: health and disease. In:Katzenberg MA, Saunders SR, editors. Biological anthropol-ogy of the human skeleton. New York: Wiley-Liss. p 287–302.

Renz H, Radlanski R. 2006. Incremental lines in root cementumof human teeth—a reliable age marker? HOMO 57:29–50.

Retallack GJ. 1984. Completeness of the rock region andfossil record: some estimates using fossil soils. Paleobiology10:59–78.

Schultz M. 1997. Microscopic investigation of excavated skeletalremains: a contribution too paleopathology and forensic medi-cine. In: Haglund AH, Sorg M, editors. Forensic taphonomy:the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton: CRCPress. p 201–222.

Sokal RR, Rohlf JF. 1995. Biometry, 3rd ed. New York: W.H.Freeman and company.

Spinage CA. 1973. A review of the age determination of mam-mals by means of teeth, with especial reference to Africa.E Afr Wildlife J 11:165–187.

587TOOTH CEMENTUM ANNULATION


Stott GG, Sis RF, Levy BM. 1982. Cemental annulation as anage criterion in forensic dentistry. J Dent Res 61:814–817.

Stutz AJ. 2002. Polarizing microscopy identification of chemicaldiagenesis in archaeological cementum. J Arch Sci 29:1327–1347.

Wittwer-Backofen U, Buckberry J, Czarnetzki A, Doppler S,Grupe G, Hota G, Kemkes A, Larsen CS, Prince D, Wahl JJ,Fabig A, Weise S. 2008. Basics in paleodemography: a com-

parison of age indicators applied to the early medieval skele-tal sample of Lauchheim. Am J Phys Anthropol 137:384–396.

Wittwer-Backofen U, Gampe J, Vaupel J. 2004. Tooth cementumannulation for age estimation: results from a large known-agevalidation study. Am J Phys Anthropol 123:119–129.

Wood JW, Milner GR, Harpending HC, Weiss KM. 1992. Theosteological paradox. Problems of inferring prehistoric healthfrom skeletal samples. Curr Anthropol 33:343–370.



Documents

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