Published in

Elsevier, International Journal of Paleopathology, (15), p. 113-119, 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpp.2014.05.003

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Cementochronology, to cut or not to cut?

This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

One of the continuing problems in paleopathology and paleoepidemiology is an inability to accurately age adult skeletons. Accurate age estimations are critical to the proper evaluation of population health and are necessary in circumventing certain aspects of the osteological paradox. Cementochronology is most likely the only age indicator in anthropology that directly considers a continuously growing tissue and does not require either complex statistical manipulations or the use of a reference population. The major issues and recent advances linked to this technique are reviewed for its successful implementation. This review is a partial outcome of an international research program initiated in 2010 to develop and expand cementochronology. Because cementochronology is a reasonably straightforward histological protocol, it can be implemented in less than 24 h for one tooth at a relatively low cost. The only aspect of cementochronology that requires extensive previous experience is the counting of increments. These unique aspects largely justify the regular implementation of cementochronology in paleoepidemiology and paleopathology in the confident exploration of “population health” issues and demographic inferences.