2008_2 - Archeologický ústav AV ČR

344BRÒÎEK: Souãasná ãeská paleodemografie: fale‰né nadûje …will have time to get the usual signs of stress and pathology that accompany senescence. That paradoxicalappearance is misleading and conclusions would be drawn in the wrong way.Contemporary paleodemography has to face three main problems which do not allow an empiricaluse of skeletal data (for example: Chamberlain 2000; Jackes 2000). The first and common point is thefrequent lack of children, mostly the younger ones including newborns and infants, on the burial sites;there is a number of reasons that may be discussed with other archaeological data: Culture, environment,taphonomy. The second problem is the low figures of many assemblages and has to be relatedto the small size of the burial sites, to taphonomy and sometimes to the excavation itself; it is thusdifficult to appreciate the representativeness of such a small sample from the whole population viewpoint.The final and most important point is the low reliability of age at death assessments. The so-called„Rostock Manifesto“ (Hoppa – Vaupel 2002) has tried to propose a way out and to show new goals anddirection for paleodemography. The following can be considered as its basic requirements: Improvingthe osteological methods to assess age at death and peculiarly questioning the quality of the referencesample (known age and sex) the method is based on; To avoid anomalous results, those methods mustrest on Bayes’theorem; The last point of the Rostock Manifesto is a proposal for estimating the mortalityprofile of the archaeological population before assessing the individual age of the skeletons.While this line of reasoning appears convincing (Paine, 2008), it has not been accepted without reservations,mainly for the reason that it disregards the question of the representativeness of the skeletalsamples. If the mortality profile of the archaeological assemblage is estimated first, a primary assumptionis made that no demographic anomaly nor cultural filter is at work within the archaeologicalpopulation. The life span of individuals is adjusted in order to preserve the mortality pattern.The researchers dealing with paleodemographic analyses follow diverse approaches, falling basicallywithin two main ranges. On one side, the „optimists“ have every confidence in the reliability ofthe results about ages and demographic patterns through the calculation of life tables and they considerthe data obtained as actual facts, like the classic demography of contemporary populations. Inthe second camp, the „pessimists“ bear in mind the weaknesses of contemporary paleodemographyas outlined above, but they are themselves subdivided into two groups: The mathematically-orientedpaleodemographers believe they can solve the problems with the use of models; the „empiricists“ fromthe second subgroup, only use demographic tools in order to identify paleodemographic anomalies andto question the nature of the burial sample, for they consider that, in the strictest sense of the word,paleodemography of burial sites is beyond our reach.From the pessimists’ point of view, quantitative paleodemographic analysis of skeletons fromburial sites (especially in terms of assessing living and health conditions through the calculation oflife expectancies) is mere utopia, with respect to the accuracy and reliability of lifespan data. Nevertheless,the analysis of burial sites by biological anthropologists has to play a large part within thearchaeological interpretation. Despite the described limits, primary demographic assessments fromburial sites can provide valuable information for the reconstruction of the past (for instance: Socialfactors, homogeneity or heterogeneity of the dead in connection with burial rites, function of thelocality/settlement, peculiarities of the selection or recruitment of the buried individuals, etc.). Purebiological analyses of skeleton assemblages using special techniques and approaches (paleogenetics,biomechanics, nutritional paleobiology, residential mobility by means of stable isotopes, paleoepidemiology,etc.) are case-specific and need to take into account the estimated data of sex and age.English by Pascal SellierJAROSLAV BRŮŽEK, UMR 5199 CNRS, PACEA, Laboratoire d’Anthropologie des Populations du Passé,Université Bordeaux I, Avenue des Facultés, F-33405 TalenceKatedra antropologických a historických věd, Filozofická fakulta ZČU, Sedláčkova 38, CZ-306 14 Plzeň;j.bruzek@anthropologie.u-bordeaux1.fr