Dear All

Not surprisingly I use Grant, and use it in the way that Sue Stallybrass has
suggested. Her response to this request for information is one of the most
sensible I have seen in relation to the use of tooth eruption and wear data.
I am very opposed to the publication of 'absolute' ages alone as these are
always subjective. While it is useful to suggest  ages, it is even more
important that the basic TWS/MWS data are also available for comparative
purposes.

Annie Grant

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Mary Stallibrass [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 02 October 2000 10:49
To: Marsha Levine
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ageing cattle teeth


Dear Marsha,

I, too, use Annie Grant's system.

But I don't use a set cross-correlation for age groups, 
although I concede that these are handy for crude 
analogies. 

Since one of the aspects that is of interest 
is the degree of variation in the rates of wear, I prefer 
to use the tooth data directly.

Instead of cross-correlation, I calibrate each collection 
using its own tooth eruption data. That is, using my 
records of the mandibles I can say that eg: M1 is erupting 
in jaws with Mandibular Wear Scores of xx - xx, 
M2 is erupting in jaws with Mandibular Wear Scores of xx - 
xx, and similarly for M3 and P4. Then, using 
Silver 1969, these Mandibular Wear Scores can be 
assigned an approximate age at death. Obviously, this is 
only relevant to immature jaws, but it is, at least, a 
direct method. For older animals, the only system I have 
any faith in (and it's not that strong!) is incremental 
growth lines. But this is destructive. Given a large 
collection, though, and an efficient choice of 
representative teeth to section, I do think that this is, 
again, a more direct method, and much more useful than 
applying a 'catch all' correlation based on animals that 
possibly derive from sites of a different period and a 
different geographical location (and, hence, potentially are
affected by dissimilar genetic and nutritional factors).

The only criticism that I have of Annie Grant's descriptive 
system is that, being originally based on real material 
from a British site, it is lacking in detail for some of 
the earliest stages. However, by the same token, these 
early stages are generally missing from British 
collections, and so the potential problem is seldom 
encountered. In other cultures, however, I can see that 
this might be a problem, but I'm sure it's possible to 
devise sub-divisions that can be utilised in more detailed 
studies of very young animals. 

Crown heights have never really caught on for cattle teeth 
in Europe to the same extent as tooth eruption and wear. 
Too few newly erupted teeth (especially M1) for baseline 
measurements? Too destructive? Too slow? 

Best wishes,

Sue Stalli





On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:58:31 +0100 Marsha Levine 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I have been away from cattle teeth for some years, so I would be
interested 
> to know what methods people are using these days for ageing them.
> 
> thanks,
> Marsha Levine
> --
> Dr. Marsha Levine, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
> University of Cambridge, Downing St, Cambridge, CB2 3ER, England
> tel: +44 (0)1223-339340 (after 1 Oct 339338)  /  fax: +44 (0)1223-339285
> http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/ml12/project/
> 

---------------------
[log in to unmask]

Dr. Sue Stallibrass
English Heritage Archaeological Science Advisor for North-West England
School of Archaeology, Classics & Oriental Studies (SACOS)
University of Liverpool
Hartley Building
LIVERPOOL L69 3GS


direct telephone: +44 (0)151 794 5046    departmental FAX: +44 (0)151 794
5057

e-mail: [log in to unmask]  OR [log in to unmask]


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%