Homo 72/4 (2021), 263–280 Article

J. Comp. Hum. Biol.

Published online 23 July 2021, published in print December 2021

Age-at-death standards for Mesoamerican Prehispanic and

colonial infant, child, and juvenile skeletons

Allan Ortega-Muñoz1,*, Lourdes Márquez Morfín2

1 Centro INAH Quintana Roo, Av. Insurgentes No. 974, Col. Forjadores, 77025, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, Mexico
Escuela
2  Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Periférico sur y Zapote S/N, Col. Isidro Fabela, 14030, Ciudad de México,
Mexico
rlmorfin@gmail.com
* Corresponding author: allanortega@yahoo.com

With 10 figures and 8 tables

Abstract: This study aims to develop age-at-death standards for Valley of Mexico skeletal collections. Using 159 individu-
als, with a dental age-at-death between 0 to 15 years, we develop linear and quadratic inverse regression models of age-at-
death estimation between dental age and the diaphyseal length of the six long bones. A blind test for both regressions was
performed, also a regression developed for a Maya group was carried out. We also compared skeletal growth of our sample
by applying regressions developed for Maya and North American populations to assess the magnitude of the differences
among ethnically unrelated populations. Our regressions yielded a close correlation between the diaphyseal length and
dental age, especially femur and radius. It is noticeable that the disparities between younger and older age categories, the
latter presenting larger standard deviations. Quadratic regression fitted better than linear and Maya regressions, and the
differences of age-at-death distributions are significant. The skeletal growth curve of the Valley of Mexico is statistically
different from other Native American groups. We conclude that for the present standards, despite the high degree of vari-
ance, the quadratic regression is a better applicable age estimator, when it is applied to biologically close populations.

Keywords: biological age; age-at-death assessment; Valley of Mexico; colonial; Spanish contact

Introduction mirror the age-at-death of the standard group instead of the

In bioarchaeology, the most accurate estimation of age-
at-death in the subadult sector of the population (younger
than 15 years of age) rests on the relationship between the
development and emergence (or eruption) of dentition and
the chronological age (Willmot et al. 2013; Karki 2016).
However, in forensic and archaeological contexts, when we
are unable to estimate age-at-death from dental evidence,
the measurement of postcranial long bones, without epiphy-
ses, is the common methodology (Ubelaker 1978; Hoffman
1979; Ubelaker 1989; Ubelaker 2005; Rissech et al. 2008;
Danforth et al. 2009; Primeau et al. 2012; Rissech et al. 2013;
Cardoso et al. 2014; Stull et al. 2014). Because of variations
in stature between ethnically unrelated biological groups, the
standards of long bone measurements employed must be as
population-specific as possible (Byers 1994; Vercellotti et al.
2014; Malina et al. 2018). On the contrary, it is not suitable
to use standards developed for biological populations differ-
ent from the targeted one. Since we lack the critical knowl-
edge (biological or genetic) of those groups, results would
targeted one (Hoppa & Vaupel 2002). For this reason, we
consider of paramount importance the development of spe-
cific standards for each group.
The relationship between diaphyseal length and dental
development is commonly used in analyzing the skeletal
growth and development in ancient populations (Saunders &
Hoppa 1993; Mays 1999; Marchi & Borgognini Tarli 2002;
Harrington & Pfeiffer 2008; Krenz-Niedbala 2009) due to the
documented correlation between both variables (Danforth
et al. 2009; Stull et al. 2014). Age-at-death estimate from the
length of the long bones could be related to the dental matu-
ration pattern of the individuals in the same group. Dental
maturation is less altered by external factors (Lewis & Garn
1960; Cardoso 2007), than is the growth and development of
postcranial bones (Lovejoy et al. 1990; Saunders & Hoppa
1993), and presents a higher correlation with chronological
age (Lewis & Garn 1960; Green 1961). Johnston (1962: 249)
considered that skeletal diaphyseal lengths of ancient popu-
lations reflect the life and health conditions of the children,
as well as their genetic background. Stress factors produce

© 2021 E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 70176 Stuttgart, Germany www.schweizerbart.de

eschweizerbart_xxx

DOI: 10.1127/homo/2021/1474 0018-442X/2021/1474  $ 4.50

264     A. Ortega-Muñoz, L. Márquez Morfín
severe growth disruption in children, affecting their growth
rates, which for many individuals, could result in failing to
reach their full growth potential, or in the worst scenario,
suffer an early death. Therefore, using diaphyseal length
to estimate age-at-death of children who developed under
precarious living conditions and were negatively selected,
may potentially lead to underestimation of the age-at-death.
Nonetheless, Lovejoy et al. (1990: 540) stated that a great
proportion of illnesses affecting the infant and young seg-
ments of population is not related to chronic-degenerative
disruption, and acute illnesses are less likely to affect growth
and development than chronic ones (Cardoso 2007). Then,
gastrointestinal and respiratory infections impact the skeletal
growth of children in synergy with other stressing factors,
like lack of sanitation, poor nutrition, crowded living condi-
tions (Wilson et al. 1999; Moffat 2003).
In addition to the diaphyseal length of the six postcranial
long bones, many scholars also measure the bone’s width,
in order to have alternative parameters in case of skeletal
material that has been affected by taphonomic processes,
which compromises the measurement of the long bones. Yet,
the length remains the most used measure to calculate the
basic standard data (Rissech et al. 2008; López-Costas et al.
2012; Rissech et al. 2013; Stull et al. 2014). Studies con-
sider diaphyseal length growth as a constant across all ages
(Rissech et al. 2008). However, it has been recognized that
growth rate changes and increases with age, particularly after
birth and until around the age of 2 years (Humphrey 2003;
Cardoso et al. 2014), and from age eleven years on (López-
Costas et al. 2012; Stull et al. 2014; Burrell et al. 2018). The
increase in the rate of variability in the bone length by sex
is due to the earlier growth acceleration of girls compared to
boys (Eveleth & Tanner 1991). However, there is no signifi-
cant difference between sexes in respect of diaphyseal length
before puberty (Rissech et al. 2008; López-Costas et al.
2012: 207.e3; Cardoso et al. 2014: 813; Rissech et al. 2013;
Stull et al. 2014). Stull et al. (2014) agree with this point
and suggest that the increase of the variability in diaphyseal
lengths with the age is in response to other biological factors,
like genetics, activity patterns, change in hormonal balance,
or environmental influences (Johnston 1962; Hoffman 1979;
Lovejoy et al. 1990; Mays 1999). Ousley et al. (2013: 9) and
Stull et al. (2014: 377) proved that growth and development
is far greater among children randomly sampled from a pop-
ulation in a cross-sectional study, than in the same children
repeatedly sampled in a longitudinal study. Cross-sectional
studies have proved superior to longitudinal studies with
respect of the age indicators in subadult populations (Eveleth
& Tanner 1991; Roche 1992).
This study aims to develop age-at-death standards through
linear and quadratic regression models from the length of
the humeral, ulnar, radial, femoral, tibial, and fibular diaphy-
seal bones for infant, children and juvenile skeletons. These
three post-natal life history stages have measurable biologi-
cal and behavioral characteristics and different velocity of
eschweizerbart_xxx
growth and development (Crews & Bogin 2010: 128–135);
in bioarchaelogy, they are put together under the single
umbrella known as “subadults”. It must be stressed that now-
adays bioarchaeologists and skeletal biologists still apply to
Prehispanic and colonial populations from central México
standards that had been developed for biologically unrelated
populations. Two skeletal collections from sites of the Valley
of Mexico were selected for the analysis, named here San
Gregorio Atlapulco and San Jerónimo. These two skeletal
series were selected for several reasons. In first place, they
provide large numbers of skeletal individuals in every age
class since birth to 15 years of age. Second, they are in well
preserved conditions, which is uncommon for most of the
Mesoamerican skeletal collections (Ortega 2007; Weiss-
Krejci 2011), and third, they represent the commoners’ seg-
ment of the population in the Valley of Mexico.
San Gregorio Atlapulco (El Japón)
The ancient settlement of San Gregorio Atlapulco, better
known as “El Japon”, is located near the riverine channel of
Japón, 4.1 km northeast from downtown Xochimilco, at the
southern edges of Mexico City, close to one of the lakes of
the Valley of Mexico (Fig. 1) (González 1996). The archaeo-
logical site has been explored and studied since the decade of
1970s (Lechuga 1977; Parsons et al. 1982; González 1988),
and research efforts have intensified in more recent times
(Ávila López 1995; González 1996; McClung de Tapia &
Acosta 2015). The archaeological explorations dated this
small agricultural settlement all the way back to Playa period
(ca. 4200–4000 BCE) (Ávila López 1995; McClung de
Tapia & Acosta 2015). However, the peak of the settlement
occurred in the Late Postclassic period (AD 1325–1521),
and the people were peasant tributaries of food production
to the Mexican Empire. Exploration of the Postclassic settle-
ment yielded pottery linked to domestic activities and food
preparation, manufacturing art crafts and production of salt,
as well as lithics used for hunter-gathering and fishing activi-
ties that provided an important part of the inhabitant’s diet, in
addition to traditional food like domestic turkey (González
1996: 90–91).
During the early colonial time (after 1521 AD), San
Gregorio continued being inhabited (Parsons et al. 1982;
Ávila López 1995; Bullock et al. 2013; Acosta et al. 2018).
The community still employed the chinampa agricultural
system (Guzmán et al. 1994; Hernández 2007), which was
the main technique for the production of vegetables and
milpa (commonly corn, beans, and squash) in the region
(Calnek 1972; Parsons 1976). Faunal remains identified
with early contact Spanish settlers during colonial times
were also recovered at the site. In fact, the inhabitants of El
Japón included in their diet beef, pork, and lamb, which had
been introduced by Spaniards, in addition to their traditional
food inherited from Postclassic times (González 1996: 91).
Even today, the San Gregorio population continues growing
(Guzmán et al. 1994; González 1996).
 Age-at-death standards for Mesoamerican Prehispanic and colonial skeletons     265

Fig. 1.  Geographical location of the archaeological sites of El Japón (skeletal collection of San
Gregorio Atlapulco) and Convent of San Jerónimo (San Jerónimo skeletal collection), in current
Mexico City (inset shows the boundaries of modern day Mexico City) (elaborated by Efrain Flores
López).

The skeletal collection under study belongs to the time early as 10 to 14 years of age, linked to the chinampa agricul-
of contact with the Spaniards during the 16th century. The tural system (Medrano 2006). Infectious diseases and mild
analysis of the skeletal collection in El Japón revealed that malnutrition among children and young people were com-
the population underwent intense physical demands from as mon (Hernández & Márquez 2010). Some bioarcheological

eschweizerbart_xxx
266     A. Ortega-Muñoz, L. Márquez Morfín
studies report high levels of child mortality in references
to other Late Postclassic groups (Hernández 2007; Bullock
et al. 2013).
San Jerónimo convent
The convent of San Jerónimo was the sixth conventual
foundation in downtown Mexico City during colonial times
(Fig. 1). It was founded on September 29, 1585 (Schmidhuber
de la Mora 2019) and was located in the ward 9 of Mexico
City, an area with good urban infrastructure for the time
(Perez Castro 2019). The convent was in use until AD 1867,
when it was closed, as a result of the implementation of law
reforms that enabled the confiscation of church properties by
the ruling powers. The building was then used as barracks,
a theatre, a factory, and private homes in different periods
(Carrasco Vargas 1979; Fournier 1985).
The convent’s civic influence resulted in the construction
of a 12,520 m2 building. When in use, the convent benefitted
from relatively mild rules, allowing the nuns to live together
with relatives and servants (Ratto 2012; Schmidhuber
de la Mora 2019: 414). The social status of the nuns and
companions is described as middle class (Fournier 1985;
Ratto 2012; Schmidhuber de la Mora 2019). The number
of cloistered nuns varied over time, with a peak exceeding
one hundred, plus relatives and servants, during 1644 to
1651 (Schmidhuber de la Mora 2019: 415). Ratto (2012)
commented that the convent was built as its community
expanded. The property was rectangular, comprising two
sectors: its convent core and the section incorporating the
chambers occupied by the nuns. The core section of the con-
vent housed the chapel and related ecclesiastical and com-
munity facilities, representing 25% of the whole area. The
nuns’ chambers expanded in response to the number of nuns
that required housing, which resulted in constant modifica-
tions of the convent over time.
According to the Catholic custom of the time, the bor-
ough’s parishioners and their family members were gen-
erally buried in holy grounds inside and around churches.
The skeletal remains of children and young people were
unearthed from graves located under the floors within the
main Church or Temple building of the convent of San
Jerónimo. Those skeletal remains belonged to commoners
who lived during Colonial and Independence (since AD
1821) periods, mainly Spanish (69%), 16.7% of “castas”
[Castro (1983) defines as castas all those mixed individu-
als from diverse biological, ethnic and social backgrounds],
and a 12.7% of indigenous people (Márquez 1994: 67).
Detailed exploration of the site took place during the 1970’s
and 1980’s by the Archaeological Salvage Department of
the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH
in Spanish). The focus of the archaeological explorations
included the cloister, the church, and the sacristy, in addition
to surrounding houses and building extensions to the clois-
ter that were erected in the 18th and 19th centuries (Carrasco
1979; Fournier 1985).
eschweizerbart_xxx
Material and methods
The collections from San Gregorio Atlapulco and San
Jerónimo include respectively 117 and 42 individuals, total-
ing 159 skeletal remains (Table 1, Table 2), which range
between 0 to 15 years of age. Two-thirds (66%) were esti-
mated to be younger than five years of age-at-death (Fig. 2).
Márquez (1985; 1987) and Ortega (1998) conducted earlier
analyses on these subadult skeletons. In this paper, we merge
both San Jerónimo and San Gregorio Atlapulco in a single
collection. We selected those individuals that retained at
least one of their six postcranial long bones and correspond-
ing teeth (at least one dental arcade). This allowed us to pro-
vide a fairly complete dataset for each variable.
Whenever necessary, a radiographic technique was used
to assess the dental development of each skeleton (particu-
larly the San Jerónimo collection). To estimate the age-at-
death of the individual skeletons, dental development and
emergence (eruption) of our skeletal collection were com-
pared to Ubelaker’s (1978) chart of dental development in
Native Americans published in White & Folkens (2005:
366). Ubelaker’s chart has an accuracy of –0.8 year and a SD
of 1.27 years with respect to the known chronological age
(AlQahtani et al. 2014). It is worthy to stress that the pat-
tern of dental development and emergence is uniformly con-
sistent among human populations (Steggerda & Hill 1942;
Dahlberg & Menegaz-Boch 1958; Willmot et al. 2013; Karki
2016).
The diaphyseal lengths of each long bone (humerus,
ulna, radius, femur, tibia, and fibula), without any or partial
fusion of its epiphysis, were measured in millimeters. This
was undertaken using a sliding caliper for infants and chil-
dren (less than 140 mm of length) or an osteometric table for
juveniles (more than 140 mm of length). We measured both
left and right bones whereas available. We found no statisti-
cal differences (T test) between two sides of each long bone
(Table 3). Therefore, throughout the analysis, we select the
left side for each bony segment as the reference one. In those
instances where the left side was missing, the right side was
used.
Also, the lack of significant differences in long bone
length between the two archaeological collections (Table 3)
allowed us to combine them together and develop one single
standard and growth curve from the two collections, named
here as Valley of Mexico. We analyzed the growth curve of
Valley of Mexico by T test in reference to other curves calcu-
lated for North America (Arikara population data published
by Ubelaker 1978) and for the Maya region (data published
by Danforth et al. 2009).
Using age-at-death by dental standard and diaphyseal
length of each long bone, as respectively dependent and
independent variables, we developed statistical tables with
average (in millimeters), standard deviation and 25th and 75th
percentiles of diaphyseal length for each long bone. Adding
to this, we developed two inverse linear and quadratic regres-
 Age-at-death standards for Mesoamerican Prehispanic and colonial skeletons     267

Table 1.  Mean, standard deviation (SD), and 25th and 75th percentiles of humerus, ulna, and radius diaphyseal length (mm) by age.
Age in Humerus Ulna Radius
years N Mean SD P25 P75 n Mean SD P25 P75 n Mean SD P25 P75
0 11 78.5 9.9 68.0 86.0 12 67.4 10.3 61.3 74.8 10 58.3 10.6 51.5 68.5
1 31 99.3 6.2 94.0 103.0 24 86.1 5.4 83.0 88.8 23 77.5 3.8 75.0 81.0
2 10 110.6 5.9 106.8 115.0 8 96.3 4.8 94.3 99.8 9 86.4 6.8 82.5 91.0
3 17 119.0 8.0 114.5 123.5 11 100.8 7.6 98.0 106.0 11 90.9 8.0 88.0 94.0
4 10 141.0 10.9 130.5 153.5 9 117.7 14.4 112.0 129.0 8 111.0 9.3 101.0 119.0
5 2 146.5 0.7 146.0 147.0 2 115.5 14.8 105.0 126.0 2 108.0 7.1 103.0 113.0
6 5 161.2 15.4 148.0 177.0 4 128.5 12.9 116.8 141.3 4 119.5 9.8 113.3 129.8
7 5 178.6 3.6 175.0 182.0 5 150.2 5.2 146.5 155.5 4 133.8 4.3 129.8 138.0
8 4 189.3 19.7 170.5 208.3 3 141.0 7.9 132.0 147.0 3 130.0 1.7 129.0 132.0
9 1 202.0 202.0 202.0 1 179.0 179.0 179.0 1 163.0 163.0 163.0
10 1 222.0 222.0 222.0 1 186.0 186.0 186.0 1 169.0 169.0 169.0
11 1 236.0 236.0 236.0 1 195.0 195.0 195.0 1 182.0 182.0 182.0
12 5 230.0 14.8 218.0 242.5 5 191.6 8.4 184.5 200.0 4 174.5 9.3 168.0 184.0
15 3 256.7 4.0 253.0 261.0 3 221.7 11.0 213.0 234.0 7 200.9 5.5 198.0 205.0
Total 106 89 88
(67%) (56%) (55)%
N = number of cases; SD = standard deviation; P25 = percentile 25th of the values of the length; P75 = percentile 75th of the values of the
length

Table 2.  Mean, standard deviation (SD), and 25th and 75th percentiles of femur, tibia, and fibula diaphyseal length (mm) by age.
Age in Femur Tibia Fibula
years N Mean SD P25 P75 n Mean SD P25 P75 n Mean SD P25 P75
0 13 88.3 20.4 74.5 105.5 10 72.0 16.8 58.8 89.0 7 66.3 18.2 45.0 84.0
1 26 125.0 9.7 116.8 132.0 18 100.9 7.8 95.5 107.0 13 101.7 7.5 95.5 105.0
2 6 137.7 7.6 130.0 144.5 4 112.3 7.2 104.8 118.0 2 108.0 8.5 102.0 114.0
3 12 155.1 10.5 148.5 164.3 12 125.0 8.7 118.0 129.8 11 125.5 10.6 116.0 138.0
4 10 181.4 25.7 168.0 199.5 11 158.9 13.9 156.0 166.0 10 159.2 12.4 150.5 170.0
5 2 218.0 29.7 197.0 239.0 0 0
6 5 225.6 18.0 207.5 241.5 5 179.2 14.3 167.5 194.0 6 173.3 21.8 159.8 195.8
7 6 245.8 4.1 243.5 249.5 6 202.3 3.4 198.5 205.0 5 198.2 4.6 194.0 202.5
8 2 263.5 7.8 258.0 269.0 3 204.0 12.1 190.0 211.0 3 201.7 12.7 188.0 213.0
9 1 291.0 291.0 291.0 1 236.0 236.0 236.0 1 230.0 230.0 230.0
10 1 309.0 309.0 309.0 0 0
11 1 322.0 322.0 322.0 1 265.0 265.0 265.0 1 257.0 257.0 257.0
12 9 319.4 25.9 303.5 337.5 8 260.8 21.4 247.3 261.8 8 254.5 21.0 241.8 254.5
15 10 369.1 17.3 350.3 386.0 10 309.2 21.4 292.8 329.5 6 305.2 21.4 284.3 327.5
Total 104 89 73
(65%) (56%) (46%)
N = number of cases; SD = standard deviation; P25 = percentile 25th of the values of the length; P75 = percentile 75th of the values of the
length

eschweizerbart_xxx
268     A. Ortega-Muñoz, L. Márquez Morfín

45
40
35
30
25
Frequency

20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15
Age-at-death
SGA SJ
Total

Fig. 2.  Age-at-death (in years) distributions by collection and the two samples (SGA: San Gregorio Atlapulco; SJ: San
Jerónimo).

Table 3.  Student T-test between bone sides and collections of San Gregorio Atlapulco (SGA) and San Jerónimo (SJ) growth curves
by bone.
Bone Side t p Collection t p
Humerus Left-right 0.522 0.604 SGA - SJ 0.779 0.454
Ulna Left-right –1.689 0.098 SGA - SJ 1.208 0.255
Radius Left-right –2.353 0.022 SGA - SJ –0.031 0.976
Femur Left-right 2.538 0.013 SGA - SJ 0.495 0.631
Tibia Left-right 0.903 0.37 SGA - SJ –0.425 0.680
Fibula Left-right –0.945 0.351 SGA - SJ –0.241 0.817

sion analysis (length of each long bone (x) was regressed
on dental age (y)), using SPSS®15 software. A 95% con-
fidence interval for βi was calculated for both regressions
(see Lucy 2005), which gives researchers the possibility to
establish a range of age-at-death estimations by replacing the
coefficients (βi). We performed the normality and homosce-
dasticity tests to show the robustness of the regressions.
The outliers (possible mismeasurement of the length) were
excluded of the regressions. These were identified by 3-stan-
dard deviation in the residual’s analysis of each regression.
The humerus presented eight cases, seven for the femur, five
for the radius, three cases for tibia and fibula, and then two
cases for the ulna.
In the absence of a contemporary or historical subadults
skeletal collection of known sex and age, we conducted a
blind test using 9 randomly selected diaphyseal lengths of
the femora, which had been previously excluded from the
skeletal sample used to develop the regression analysis. The
reason to select only the femora for the blind test is twofold.
First, it is one of the segments that is better represented in the
collection, and we did not want to eliminate too many cases
from the rest of the long bones, seeking to perform a more
robust result in our regressions. Second, Danforth et al.’s
(2009: 9) paper is one of the few useful materials to assess
the accuracy of our regressions. Besides femoral regression,
the authors reported only regressions for the humerus and
tibia. The analysis of Ubelaker (1978) performed on Arikara
population, even though it is not a Mesoamerican popula-
tion, does not provide regression equations to compare with
our data. Therefore, based on the above considerations, we
have considered that the femur, which presents the highest
correlation, is sufficient to corroborate the regressions.

eschweizerbart_xxx
 Age-at-death standards for Mesoamerican Prehispanic and colonial skeletons     269
An additional accuracy test of the regressions was per-
formed by comparing the estimated age obtained with the
dental age for each long bone, analyzing the percentage of
individuals whose estimated age falls within the range of
dental age estimated using the chart by Ubelaker (1978).
Cardoso et al. (2014: 811) used the 95% confidence interval
(95 % CI) of the estimated age and evaluated if the chrono-
logical age falls inside of those intervals. However, we do
not have the known chronological age of each individual so
we used a different method to evaluate the accuracy. Also,
we evaluated the mean residuals (MR) and mean of the abso-
lute value of the residuals (MAR), as an estimate of bias and
accuracy, respectively, following the indications of Cardoso
et al. (2014).
Results
The mean, standard deviation, and 25th and 75th percentiles
of humerus, ulna, and radius bone lengths by age, are pre-
sented in Table 1, while Table 2 shows the same for femur,
tibia, and fibula. The bony segments that could be measured
most of the time were the humerus and femur (respectively
67% and 65% of the cases) (Tables 1 and 2). Tibia, radius,
and ulna could be scored only in about 50% of the individu-
als (Tables 1 and 2) and only 46% of the fibulas could be
analyzed (Table 2).
The linear and quadratic regressions are robust, and they
fulfill the normality and homoscedasticity requirements of
the regression analysis (Table 4). The equations of both
models are presented in Table 5 with the standard error of
the estimate (SEE), the βi from 95% confidence interval
(CI95%) [βi values for quadratic regression are listed in
Table 6], the hypothesis test (t-test and significance), and the
coefficient of determination (R2). Both regressions yielded
a close correlation between dental age and the diaphyseal
length of the sample (R2 from 0.972 to 0.984), even though
the quadratic regressions provide higher correlation values
(Table 5). In the linear regression analyses, femur, radius,
and tibia exhibited correlation with dental age with R2 val-
ues above 0.980, while in the quadratic regression, also the
humerus, exceeded this value (Table 5). From age 12–15
Table 4.  Normality and homoscedasticity tests for linear and quadratic models.
Residual Normality test Residual Independence
Bone
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test Durwin-Watson test
Humerus 0.706 p = 0.701 1.280
Ulna 1.050 p = 0.220 1.313
Radius 0.530 p = 0.941 1.038
Femur 0.881 p = 0.419 0.848
Tibia 0.569 p = 0.902 1.170
Fibula 0.620 p = 0. 837 1.332
eschweizerbart_xxx
years, the dispersion diagram of the diaphyseal length of
the bones varied more (Figs 3–8). This is corroborated by
the standard deviation that is greater for the individuals in
this age class, particularly for the humerus, femur, tibia, and
fibula. We noticed that variability increased (higher SD) for
the individuals aged at between birth and ages 4–6 years in
femur and fibula (only birth and age 6) (Tables 1 and 2).
With the coefficient βi estimates, calculated from CI95%
for both regressions, it is possible to estimate a range of pos-
sible age values. For example, with a femur whose length is
165 mm, when replacing this value in the linear regression
equation (–5.199 + 0.052(x = 165)) then we get an estimated
age of 3.4 years. If we want to know the possible range of
estimated ages, we must replace the value of 0.052 (β1) for
0.050 (Lower) and 0.054 (Upper), which produce a 3.1 and
3.7 years, respectively. In the case of the quadratic model
replacing the x by 165 in the equation (–2.709 + 0.025x +
0.00005x2) the estimated age will be 2.8 years. Applying
the alternative βi coefficients from Table 6 in the equa-
tion and replacing the values 0.025 (β1) with 0.0162, and
0.00005 (β2) with 0.00004 (Lower), and 0.025 with 0.0342
and 0.00005 with 0.00008 (Upper) by will get 1.1 and 5.1
years. With these intervals we have the 95% confidence that
the estimated age lies between 3.1 and 3.7 years with linear
regression, and 1.1 and 5.1 with quadratic regression.
The accuracy test of the regressions was performed by
calculating the percentage of the estimated ages that falls
within the range of dental age according to the dental emer-
gence chart by Ubelaker (1978), as well as the MAR and MR
values (Table 7). The estimated ages from fibula, radius, and
humerus fall closely within dental age (95.8, 95.3, and 94.2,
respectively) when linear regression is applied. Humerus,
tibia, and radius have the highest percentage in quadratic
models (97.1, 95.4, and 95.3, respectively). In this case,
the remarkably high percentage, above 90%, of individu-
als that could be estimated with any of the six long bones
with certain accuracy. MR values in both models are equal
to zero, which mean no bias, and it is corroborated by the
low values of the MAR. Humerus, ulna, and radius (linear)
and humerus, femur, and radius (quadratic) have the lowest
values, which means that when these models are applied to
those bones one should expect a lower bias.
Linear model Quadratic model
R2 >= R2 adjust p R2 >= R2 adjust p
0.955 >= 0.955 < 0.001 0.962 >= 0.961 < 0.001
0.944 >= 0.944 < 0.001 0.949 >= 0.948 < 0.001
0.959 >= 0.959 < 0.001 0.967 >= 0.966 < 0.001
0.960 >= 0.959 < 0.001 0.968 >= 0.967 < 0.001
0.960 >= 0.960 < 0.001 0.963 >= 0.962 < 0.001
0.946 >= 0.945 < 0.001 0.951 >= 0.949 < 0.001
270     A. Ortega-Muñoz, L. Márquez Morfín

Table 5.  Regression analysis models of diaphyseal length and dental age of the collection of Valley of Mexico.
Model
Bone βi CI95%
Regression Equations SEE t p R2
Lower Upper
Linear –6.439 + 0.077x 0.002 0.074 0.081 –28.349 < 0.001 0.977
Humerus 0.00950
Quadratic –3.623 + 0.037x + 0.0001x2 See Table 6 –5.269 < 0.001 0.981
0.00003
Linear –6.667 + 0.094x 0.002 0.089 0.099 –22.996 < 0.001 0.972
Ulna 0.0138
Quadratic –4.353 + 0.055x + 0.0001x2 See Table 6 –5.094 < 0.001 0.974
0.0001
Linear –6.738 + 0.104x 0.002 0.100 0.109 –25.704 < 0.001 0.980
Radius 0.01273
Quadratic –3.756 + 0.050x + 0.0001x2 See Table 6 –5.132 < 0.001 0.983
0.00005
Linear –5.199 + 0.052x 0.001 0.050 0.054 –23.110 < 0.001 0.980
Femur 0.00540
Quadratic –2.709 + 0.025x + 0.00005x2 See Table 6 –5.099 < 0.001 0.984
0.00001
Linear –5.028 + 0.063x 0.001 0.060 0.066 –20.371 < 0.001 0.980
Tibia 0.00706
Quadratic –3.724 + 0.046x + 0.00004x2 See table 6 –6.251 < 0.001 0.981
0.00002
Linear –5.048 + 0.063x 0.002 0.060 0.067 –15.706 < 0.001 0.973
Fibula 0.00852
Quadratic –3.364 + 0.042x + 0.00005x2 See Table 6 –4.687 < 0.001 0.975
0.00002
Note: Replace x with length in mm

Table 6.  βi Coefficients for quadratic regression at 95 % confidence interval by long bone.
β1 β2
Bone Lower Upper Lower Upper
Humerus 0.0211 0.0527 0.00008 0.00018
Ulna 0.0319 0.0549 0.00006 0.00023
Radius 0.0292 0.0715 0.00013 0.00029
Femur 0.0162 0.0342 0.00004 0.00008
Tibia 0.0338 0.0573 0.00002 0.00008
Fibula 0.0276 0.0560 0.00002 0.00010

Table 7.  Accuracy of the regressions according to the percentage of the estimated age with the dental age from the variation of the
age in the emergence chart of Ubelaker (1978).
Linear Quadratic
Bone N %Range MAR MR % Range MAR MR
Humerus 103 94.2 0.59 0.00 97.1 0.55 0.00
Ulna 86 90.7 0.70 0.00 94.2 0.68 0.00
Radius 85 95.3 0.71 0.00 95.3 0.67 0.00
Femur 101 92.1 0.74 0.00 95.0 0.66 0.00
Tibia 87 93.1 0.78 0.00 95.4 0.74 0.00
Fibula 71 95.8 0.86 0.00 94.4 0.82 0.00
MAR: Mean of the Absolute value of the Residuals; MR: Mean Residuals

eschweizerbart_xxx
 Age-at-death standards for Mesoamerican Prehispanic and colonial skeletons     271

Fig. 3.  Regression analysis for dental age in years by humeral diaphyseal length (linear [solid
line] and quadratic [discontinuous line]).

Fig. 4.  Regression analysis for dental age in years by ulna diaphyseal length (linear [solid line]
and quadratic [discontinuous line]).

eschweizerbart_xxx
272     A. Ortega-Muñoz, L. Márquez Morfín

Fig. 5.  Regression analysis for dental age in years by radial diaphyseal length (linear [solid line]
and quadratic [discontinuous line]).

Fig. 6.  Regression analysis for dental age in years by femoral diaphyseal length (linear [solid
line] and quadratic [discontinuous line]).

eschweizerbart_xxx
 Age-at-death standards for Mesoamerican Prehispanic and colonial skeletons     273

Fig. 7.  Regression analysis for dental age in years by tibia diaphyseal length (linear [solid line]
and quadratic [discontinuous line]).

Fig. 8.  Regression analysis for dental age in years by fibula diaphyseal length (linear [solid line]
and quadratic [discontinuous line]).

eschweizerbart_xxx
274     A. Ortega-Muñoz, L. Márquez Morfín

When regressions were applied in the blind test, we
noticed that linear regression generated slightly higher val-
ues of age than the quadratic one. Quadratic regression esti-
mated the closest value to dental age, mainly in age-specific
of 1, 2 and 6 years and older, and overestimated to as much
as 3.1 years in the age of 15 years (Table 8). The regression
developed by Danforth et al. (2009) for a Maya collection
generated age-at-death estimations over the linear and qua-
dratic regressions (Fig. 9). Differences between quadratic
and Danforth’s regression ranged between –1.7 and –2.6
years, while linear regression and Danforth’s one diverged
between –1.4 and –1.9 years (Table 8). The differences
between ours and Danforth’s estimations of age-at-death
are significant (Linear and Danforth: t = –29.567, d.f. = 9,
p < 0.001; Quadratic and Danforth: t = –10.971, d.f. = 9,
p < 0.001). Danforth’s regression overestimated the age-at-
death, except for the last age (15 years).
Growth curves among populations
The skeletal growth of the Valley of Mexico sample is statis-
tically different to the growth patterns found in the Arikara
(North America) population (Ubelaker 1978), when the
femoral diaphyseal lengths are used (t = –4.214, d.f. 12,
p = 0.001). It is also different in respect to a Maya population
(Danforth et al. 2009), when comparing the femur (t = 5.536,
d.f. 12, p < 0.001) and the humerus (t = 4.252, d.f. 12, p =
0.0001), but not when comparing the tibia (t = 1.344, d.f. 9,
p = 0.212). The femoral growth curves (Fig. 10) are higher
among the Arikara for almost all ages, while the Maya were
found to be the smallest of the three populations.
Discussion
The results of our study clearly indicate that the long bone
diaphyseal lengths of subadults (infant to juvenile individu-
als) have a high correlation with dental age. Therefore, it is
feasible to create tables and regression models for assess-
ment of age-at-death from diaphyseal lengths, as proposed
here. The regression models were robust, and it is noticeable
that quadratic regression calculates values (ages) closer to
the dental age and therefore to a chronological age of the
individuals than linear. Another important result is that bone
growth of individuals of the Valley of Mexico is quite differ-
ent from even other American and Mesoamerican popula-
tions, like the Mayas. This result supports the general idea
of using standards developed for biological populations
biologically or genetic related to the targeted one, as is sug-
gested by other scholars (Hoppa & Vaupel 2002; Cardoso
et al. 2014: 822). Because the age-at-death profile gives
context and meaning to ultimate research on diverse topics
of past societies like paleodemography, living and health
conditions, and other studies (Danforth 1999; Harrington &
Pfeiffer 2008; Bullock et al. 2013;).
The present study analyzed more individuals than the one
carried out in the Maya region (Danforth et al. 2009), and its
sample size is close to that of similar studies in other cultural
regions (Johnston 1962; Lovejoy et al. 1990; Burrell et al.
2018). The inverse regression models were developed in
excess of fifty percent of the collection for every bone (except
the fibula that was 46% of the sample). These numbers allow
us to state with confidence that this analysis is comparable
with other studies on this subject. The use of inverse regres-
sion has provided robust results, despite Cardoso et al. (2014)
statement that classical calibration fits better than inverse.
It is important to underline that regression and calibration
is quite similar, but is not the same (Aykroyd et al. 1997).
Kannan et al. (2007) pointed out that there is a debate about
the use of one over the other. Some studies assign the inverse
regression estimator to be superior to the classical regression
estimation (Krutchkoff 1967; Halperin 1970; Kannan et al.
2007), especially for large samples, and when the signal-to-

Table 8.  Age-at-death estimates by linear regression (proposal here) and Danforth’s et al. (2009) regression applied to femur in the
skeletal collection from the Valley of Mexico.
Age-at- Age-at- Age-at-
Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ
DA1 Length death death death
DA1-LR2 DA1-QR3 DA1-DR4 LR2-DR4 QR3-DR4
(LR)2 (QR)3 (DR)4
0 105 0.3 0.5 2.1 –0.3 –0.5 –2.1 –1.9 –1.7
1 113 0.7 0.8 2.5 0.3 0.2 –1.5 –1.8 –1.8
2 140 2.1 1.8 3.9 –0.1 0.2 –1.9 –1.8 –2.1
3 152 2.7 2.3 4.5 0.3 0.7 –1.5 –1.8 –2.2
4 214 5.9 4.9 7.6 –1.9 –0.9 –3.6 –1.6 –2.6
6 231 6.8 5.7 8.0 –1.6 2.4 –3.2 –1.6 –2.3
8 247 7.6 6.5 8.4 1.2 0.3 –0.4 –1.6 –1.9
12 333 12.1 11.2 13.5 –0.1 1.5 –1.5 –1.4 –2.4
15 345 12.7 12.7 14.1 2.3 3.1 0.9 –1.4 –2.3
1Dental Age, 2Linearregression, 3Quadratic regression, 4Danforth et al.’s 2009 regression

eschweizerbart_xxx
 Age-at-death standards for Mesoamerican Prehispanic and colonial skeletons     275
Fig. 9.  Age-at-death estimate by regression analysis [linear, quadratic and Danforth et al. (2009)
and dental age estimate].
noise ratio is moderate to large in the application of Pitman
closeness test (see Kannan et al. 2007: 85). For the imple-
mentation of inverse regression in our case, our sample is
large enough and it has been reported with good results by
other scholars in the issue of age estimator (Rissech et al.
2008; Primeau et al. 2012; Rissech et al. 2013; Primeau et al.
2016; Danforth et al. 2019).
The accuracy and bias test have shown that our estimates
fall within the limits of the dental age standards developed
by Ubelaker (1978). Cardoso et al. (2014) found a similar
percentage on average above the 90% for their inverse cali-
bration. With regard to the MR and MAR values calculated
for both regressions, they are quite closer to those reported
by Cardoso et al. (2014: 818) and in fact a quite lower for
the inverse calibration reported. Other studies that applied an
inverse regression, like Danforth et al. (2019), Primeau et al.
(2012; 2016), Rissech et al. (2008; 2013), did not report the
MR or MAR as a method accuracy.
The high correlation values between dental age and
diaphyseal length reported in this study are comparable
to other analyses undertaken on different populations
(Hoffman 1979: 467–468; Rissech et al. 2008: 6; Stull et al.
2014: 384; Burrell et al. 2018: 98). The positive and high
correlation of the six long bones considered in the pres-
ent analysis is a good indicator that the proposed regres-
eschweizerbart_xxx
sions and tables could estimate an age-at-death of subadult
individuals from the Valley of Mexico very close to their
chronological age.
Great variability occurs in the estimation of age-at-death
both in the early ages and in the older subadult ages, and it
occurs for every variable considered. This leads to a potential
error in the age-at-death estimation during those growth peri-
ods. However, similar standard deviations have been found
in other studies (Rissech et al. 2008; Danforth et al. 2009;
López-Costas et al. 2012; Rissech et al. 2013). Ubelaker
(2005) pointed out that there are great variations of diaphyseal
lengths of the limbs in all the populations across the world.
As we have previously highlighted, the rate of bone length
growth changes with the age of the individual (Danforth et al.
2009; López-Costas et al. 2012; Primeau et al. 2012; Stull
et al. 2014; Burrell et al. 2018). Danforth et al. (2009) and
Ubelaker (2005:101) state that the variations in bone length
are a result of the catch-up that occurs during growth and is
related to biological sex and genetic origin of the population.
However, other scholars found no differences in bone length
by sex using model regression data, when comparing age and
diaphyseal length (Rissech et al. 2008; López-Costas et al.
2012: 207.e3; Rissech et al. 2013; Stull et al. 2014). Stull
et al. (2014), in their study on modern children with known
sex and age, found larger variation in diaphyseal dimensions
276     A. Ortega-Muñoz, L. Márquez Morfín

Fig. 10.  Comparison of smoothed skeletal model growth of Valley of Mexico collection for
femoral with femoral unsmoothed growth curves for Maya and North American (Arikara)
populations (Source data from Danforth et al. 2009 and Ubelaker 1978). Dotted line repre-
sents the Maya group, dashed line the Arikara and solid line the Valley of Mexico.

of the older children with a univariate model, and the models
loses precision in children older than 10 years of age. They
interpreted that other biological factors, like ancestry, are
responsible for the increased bias with increasing age. We
have to keep in mind that, despite the two collections used in
this study from the same region and sharing a certain amount
of ancestry; they also have different biological and cultural
components. While, San Gregorio Atlapulco’ individuals
were eminently indigenous, pertaining to peasants’ house-
holds of the sixteenth century, the second group corresponds
to burials assembled during several centuries under the floor
of the convent of San Jerónimo. They pertained to Spaniard
and casta commoners’ households, engaged in craftsman-
ship, among other activities. It is therefore possible that this
ancestry may have had some effect on the variability of the
growth pattern of these samples, although the T-tests in the
length of the long bones between series did not show signifi-
cant differences. There are too wide variations in the lengths
of bone for the younger individuals, particularly noticeable
in ages between 0 and 2 years. Our research found signifi-
cant sensitivity to variations in postnatal period in compari-
son to the infants (less than 1 year). Martorell et al. (1994)
and Shrimpton et al. (2001:5) identify that in the individuals
younger than six months of age the linear growth is faltering,
which starts immediately after birth. This could be a result of
stressors during fetal development of the individuals, which
alter its future physiology during the individual’s life his-
tory (Crews & Bogin 2010: 127). Another explanation for
the variability of younger and older subadults is linked to the
response to environmental stressors (Gordon et al. 1967) and
the diverse timing for each individual passes into the pro-
cess of canalization after they cope with the environmental
stressors (Cameron 2002). Therefore, different timing in the
canalization and environmental stressors will be a possible
explanation to the variation of length of the long bone in this
segment of the population, when considering the prevalent
life conditions at that time (Lovejoy et al. 1990; Hernández
& Márquez 2010).

eschweizerbart_xxx
 Age-at-death standards for Mesoamerican Prehispanic and colonial skeletons     277
Our study identified clear differences between femoral
growth curves between the Valley of Mexico and the North
American and Maya populations. Danforth et al. (2009: 7–8)
previously reported such differences among the Maya popu-
lation and other North American groups and ascribe them to
“potential inter-observer differences in age determination to
stresses associated with changes in subsistence strategies”.
Márquez & Del Ángel (1997) and Danforth (1999) identi-
fied a decrease in stature among Maya populations during
the Prehispanic period. Chay-Vela (2017), in a study of
Maya group from Yucatan, stated that he did not find clear
results to support such decrease. These differences in the
rate of growth of young individuals amongst Mesoamerican
populations, particularly in Spanish Contact (16th century)
and Colonial periods, can be assumed to directly relate to
changes in diet and health conditions.
There are clear differences in age-at-death estimates
among equations. Danforth et al. (2009: 10) have reported
in their original paper negative values (age below of birth) in
the smaller diaphyseal lengths. Neither linear nor quadratic
regressions calculate negative values in the present study;
however, if shorter length segments were used, they could
return negative values Danforth et al.’s regression return
values that are higher than the linear and quadratic, and the
quadratic regression fitted better than linear. Primeau et al.
(2016) reached similar results in their comparison between
these two kinds of regressions with skeletal sub-adults from
the Danish medieval period. Because growth of long bones
is not linear (Crews & Bogin 2010; Cardoso et al. 2014), the
quadratic model should be employed rather than linear.
This suggests that the quadratic regression fitted bet-
ter with dental age than the linear and Danforth et al.’s
equations. Therefore, it is fundamental to apply standards
obtained from groups that are biologically as close as pos-
sible to the target population; which at the end, we will get
a more reliable age-at-death distribution, like other scholars
have stated (Byers 1994; Vercellotti et al. 2014; Malina et al.
2018).
Conclusions
Our aim was providing a contribution to the research on
reference methods for aging in skeletal collections that
are extremely necessary for bioarcheological research in
Mexico. The methods used to assess age-at-death of indi-
viduals of ancient populations under 15 years of age supports
the research undertaken on the paleodemography, living
and health conditions, and other biocultural studies of the
societies that they pertained to. The continual development
of these methods is critical in the aim of get an applicable
and reliable estimation of age-at-death for different ancient
groups. In this sense, the results of our study provide another
regression method that can be applied in both Mesoamerican
eschweizerbart_xxx
pre-Hispanic and colonial populations settled in the Valley
of Mexico.
The regression models presented here, in particular the
quadratic one, allow a reliable (within 95% confidence inter-
val) age-at-death estimate for subadults of populations that
are biologically related and geographically close with this
one of the Valley of Mexico, because the growth long bone
pattern seems to be specific. The variations of diaphyseal
bone length, especially in younger and older age inhabitants,
are a consequence of responses to environmental stressors
(like nutritional, illness and heavy workload) that possibly
disrupt their physical growth along prenatal and postna-
tal periods, as documented by many previous researchers.
Future research of prevalent divergence of age-at-death esti-
mations should apply the quadratic model in its investiga-
tions as our evidence shows this to be superior to the linear
model.
Data available statement
The data presented in this article are available at Laboratorio de
Osteología del Posgrado en Antropología Física of Escuela
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.
Declaration of interest
Nil.
Acknowledgements: The authors are indebted to Andres Del
Ángel for the guidance throughout of the regression analysis. We
recognize the review and suggestions made by Andrea Cucina,
Federico Dickinson, Rebecca Storey, and Vera Tiesler.
References
Acosta, G., McClung, E., Jiménez, G., & Hugo García, V. H.
(2018). El empleo de fotogrametría mediante vehículos aéreos
no tripulados (VANT/dron) como herramienta de evaluación del
patrimonio en riesgo: Chinampas arqueológicas de Xochimilco.
Revista Española de Antropología Americana, 47(0), 185–197.
https://doi.org/10.5209/REAA.61978
AlQahtani, S. J., Hector, M. P., & Liversidge, H. M. (2014).
Accuracy of dental age estimation charts: Schour and Massler,
Ubelaker and the London Atlas. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 154(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.
22473 PMID:24470177
Ávila López, R. (1995). Excavaciones arqueológicas en San
Gregorio Atlapulco Xochimilco. México: Informe de la
Subdirección de Salvamento Arqueológico. Archivo Técnico
del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Aykroyd, R. G., Lucy, D., Pollard, A. M., & Solheim, T. (1997).
Technical note: Regression analysis in adult age estimation.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 104(2), 259–265.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199710)
104:23.0.CO;2-Z PMID:9386831
Bullock, M., Márquez, L., Hernández, P., & Ruíz, F. (2013).
Paleodemographic age-at-death distributions of two Mexican
278     A. Ortega-Muñoz, L. Márquez Morfín
skeletal collections: A comparison of transition analysis and tra-
ditional aging methods. American Journal of Physical Anthro­
pology, 152(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22329
PMID:24037796
Burrell, C., Davenport, C., Carpenter, R., & Ohman, J. (2018).
Biological age estimation of non-adult human skeletal remains:
comparison of dental development with the humerus, femur and
pars basilaris. In M. Holst & M. Alexander (Eds.), Trends in
Biological Anthropology (Vol. 2, pp. 94–104). Oxford,
Philadelphia: Oxbow Books; https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1
dmwc.14
Byers, S. N. (1994). On stress and stature in the “Osteological
Paradox”. Current Anthropology, 35(3), 282–284. https://doi.
org/10.1086/204274
Calnek, E. E. (1972). Settlement pattern and chinampa agriculture
at Tenochtitlan. American Antiquity, 37(1), 104–115. https://doi.
org/10.2307/278892
Cameron, N. (2002). 1 – Human Growth Curve, Canalization, and
Catch-Up Growth. In N. C. Noël (Ed.), Human Growth and
Development (pp. 1–20). Academic Press. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-012156651-7/50002-2
Cardoso, H. F. V. (2007). Environmental effects on skeletal versus
dental development: Using a documented subadult skeletal sam-
ple to test a basic assumption in human osteological research.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 132(2), 223–233.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20482 PMID:17078036
Cardoso, H. F. V., Abrantes, J., & Humphrey, L. T. (2014). Age
estimation of immature human skeletal remains from the diaph-
yseal length of the long bones in the postnatal period.
International Journal of Legal Medicine, 128(5), 809–824.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-013-0925-5 PMID:24126574
Carrasco Vargas, R. (1979). Arqueología colonial en el exconvento
de San Jerónimo. Boletín de Monumentos Históricos, 1, 55–64.
Castro Morales, E. (1983). Los cuadros de castas de la Nueva
España. Jahrbuch für Geschichte Lateinamerikas, 20(1),
671–690.
Chay-Vela, S. A. (2017). Cambio en longitud de tibia y talla en dos
poblaciones mayas de la Península de Yucatán. Unpublished
master’s tesis, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados
del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mérida, México.
Crews, D. E., & Bogin, B. (2010). Growth, development, senes-
cence, and aging: a life history perspective. In C. S. Larsen
(Ed.), A companion to biological anthropology (pp. 124–152).
Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444
320039.ch7
Dahlberg, A.A., & Menegaz-Bock, R.M. (1958). Emergence of the
permanent teeth in Pima Indian children: a critical analysis of
method and an estimate of population parameters. Journal of
Dental Research, 37(6), 1123–1140. https://doi.org/10.1177/002
20345580370061201 PMID:13611126
Danforth, M. E. (1999). Coming up short: the stature and nutrition
among the ancient Maya of the southern lowlands. In C. D.
White (Ed.), Reconstructing Ancient Maya Diet (pp. 103–118).
Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
Danforth, M. E., Wrobel, G. D., Armstrong, C. W., & Swanson, D.
(2009). Juvenile age estimation using diaphyseal long bone
lengths among ancient Maya populations. Latin American
Antiquity, 20(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S10456635
00002480
eschweizerbart_xxx
Eveleth, P. B., & Tanner, J. M. (1991). World variation in human
growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9780511629105
Fournier, P. (1985). Arqueología histórica en la ciudad de México.
Boletin de Antropologia Americana, 11, 27–31.
González, C. J. (1988). Proyecto Arqueológico “El Japón”.
Unpublished. Archivo de la Subdirección de Estudios
Arqueológicos del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia,
México.
González, C. J. (1996). Investigaciones arqueológicas en “El
Japón”: Sitio chinampero en Xochimilco. Arqueología, 16,
81–93.
Gordon, J. E., Wyon, J. B., & Ascoli, W. (1967). The second year
death rate in less developed countries. The American Journal of
the Medical Sciences, 254(3), 357–380. https://doi.org/
10.1097/00000441-196709000-00012 PMID:6054538
Green, L. J. (1961). The Interrelationships Among Height, Weight,
And Chronological, Dental And Skeletal Ages. The Angle
Orthodontist, 31(3), 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-
3219(1961)0312.0.CO;2
Guzmán, A. M. E., Lazcano, A. J. C., & Pérez, E. G. (1994).
Chinampas y canales. In M. C. Serra Puche (Ed.), Xochimilco
Arqueológico (pp. 77–94). México: Patronato del Parque
Ecológico de Xochimilco, A.C.
Halperin, M. (1970). On inverse estimation in linear regression.
Technometrics, 12(4), 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/004017
06.1970.10488723
Harrington, L., & Pfeiffer, S. (2008). Juvenile mortality in southern
African archaeological contexts. South African Archaeological
Bulletin, 63(188), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/20475004
Hernández Espinoza, P. O. (2007). Los antiguos chinamperos de
Xochimilco: Su dinámica demográfica. Navegando, 1,
104–111.
Hernández Espinoza, P. O., & Márquez Morfín, L. (2010). Los
niños y las niñas del antiguo Xochimilco: Un estudio de mortali-
dad diferencial. Revista Española de Antropología Física, 31,
39–52.
Hoffman, J. M. (1979). Age estimations from diaphyseal lengths:
Two months to twelve years. Journal of Forensic Sciences,
24(2), 461–469. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS10853J PMID:
232122
Hoppa, R. D., & Vaupel, J. W. (2002). Paleodemography. Age dis­
tributions from skeletal samples. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542428
Humphrey, L. T. (2003). Linear growth variation in the archaeo-
logical record. In J. Thompson, G. Krovitz, & A. Nelson (Eds.),
Patterns of Growth and Development in the Genus Homo
(pp. 144–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; https://
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542565.006
Johnston, F. E. (1962). Growth of the long bones of infants and
young children at Indian Knoll. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 20(3), 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.
1330200309 PMID:13957892
Kannan, N., Keating, J. P., & Mason, R. L. (2007). A comparison of
classical and inverse estimators in the calibration problem.
Communications in Statistics. Theory and Methods, 36(1),
83–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610920600966225
Karki, R. K. (2016). Eruption pattern of dentition and its medico-
legal significance. Kathmandu University Medical Journal,
14(54), 103–106. PMID:28166063
 Age-at-death standards for Mesoamerican Prehispanic and colonial skeletons     279
Krenz-Niedbala, M. (2009). Skeletal health and growth indicators
in medieval children from Lednickj, Western-Central Poland.
L’Anthropologie, 47(3), 253–263.
Krutchkoff, R. G. (1967). Classical and inverse methods of calibra-
tion. Technometrics, 9(3), 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/004
01706.1967.10490486
Lechuga Solís, M.G. (1977). Análisis de un elemento de la estruc­
tura económica Azteca: la chinampa. Unpublished master’s the-
sis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Lewis, A. B., & Garn, S. M. (1960). The relationship between tooth
formation and other maturational factors. The Angle
Orthodontist, 30(2), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219
(1960)0302.0.CO;2
López-Costas, O., Rissech, C., Trancho, G., & Turbón, D. (2012).
Postnatal ontogenesis of the tibia. Implications for age and sex
estimation. Forensic Science International, 214(1-3), 207.
e1–207.e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.07.038
PMID:21862250
Lovejoy, C. O., Russell, K. F., & Harrison, M. L. (1990). Long bone
growth velocity in the Libben population. American Journal of
Human Biology, 2(5), 533–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.
1310020509 PMID:28520190
Lucy, D. (2005). Introduction to Statistics for Forensic Scientists.
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Malina, R. M., Little, B. B., Lanceta, J., Peña Reyes, M. E., & Bali
Chávez, G. (2018). Geographic variation in the growth status of
indigenous school children and youth in Mexico. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 167(4), 791–803. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ajpa.23706 PMID:30267403
Marchi, D., & Borgoginini Tarli, S. M. (2002). The skeletal biology
of two Italian peninsular Magna Graecia necropoles, Timmari
and Montescaglioso. Homo, 53(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/
10.1078/0018-442X-00038 PMID:12365356
Márquez Morfin, L. (1985). Determinación de la edad por medio de
la longitud de huesos largos infantiles de población colonial
mexicana. In Avances en Antropología Física, Cuaderno de
Trabajo 2, Memoria del Primer Congreso Interno de
Investigación en Antropología Física (pp. 147–157). México:
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Márquez Morfin, L. (1987). Determinación de la edad por medio de
la longitud de huesos largos infantiles de población colonial
mexicana. In Avances en Antropología Física, Cuaderno de
Trabajo 3, Tomo II (pp. 49–85). México: Dirección de
Antropología Física, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia.
Márquez Morfin, L. (1994). La desigualdad ante la muerte en la
ciudad de México. El tifo y el cólera. México: Siglo XXI
editores.
Márquez Morfín, L., & Del Ángel Escalona, A. (1997). Height
among prehispanic Maya of the Yucatan Peninsula: a reconsid-
eration. In S. L. Whittington & D. M. Reed (Eds.), Bones of the
Maya. Studies of Ancient Skeletons (pp. 51–61). Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Martorell, R., Khan, L. K., & Schroeder, D. G. (1994). Reversibility
of stunting: Epidemiological findings in children from develop-
ing countries. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
48(Suppl 1), S45–S57. PMID:8005090
Mays, S. A. (1999). Linear and appositional long bone growth in
earlier human populations: a case study from Mediaeval
England. In R. D. Hoppa & C. M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Human
eschweizerbart_xxx
Growth in the Past. Studies from Bones and Teeth (pp. 290–
312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McClung de Tapia, E., & Acosta Ochoa, G. (2015). Una ocupación
del periodo de agricultura temprana en Xochimilco (ca. 4200-
4000 A.N.E.). Anales de Antropologia, 49(2), 299–315. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0185-1225(15)30012-6
Medrano Enríquez, A. M. (2006). Jardines flotantes y actividad
ocupacional. Los chinamperos prehispánicos de San Gregorio
Atlapulco. In L. Márquez Morfín & P. O. Hernández Espinoza
(Eds.), Salud y Sociedad en el México Prehispánico y Colonial
(pp. 367–394). México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia.
Moffat, T. (2003). Diarrhea, respiratory infections, protozoan gas-
trointestinal parasites, and child growth in Kathmandu, Nepal.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 122(1), 85–97.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10258 PMID:12923907
Ortega Muñoz, A. (1998). La estimación de edad en restos óseos
subadultos mesoamericanos. Colección osteológica de San
Gregorio Atlapulco, Xochimilco. Unpublished Bachelor thesis,
Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Ortega Muñoz, A. (2007). Los mayas prehispánicos de El Meco. La
vida, la muerte y la salud en la costa oriental de la península de
Yucatán. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Ousley, S., Daly, S., Frazee, K., & Stull, K. (2013). A radiographic
database for estimating biological parameters in modern sub­
adults (Report 2008-DN-BXK152) (pp. 1–58). National Institute
of Justice. Available at https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/
242697.pdf
Parsons, J. R. (1976). The role of chinampa agriculture in the food
supply of Aztec Tenochtitlan. In C. Cleland (Ed.), Culture
Change and Continuity, Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin
(pp. 223–257). New York: Academic Press.
Parsons, J. R., Brumfiel, E., & Parsons, M. H. (1982). Prehispanic
Settlement Patterns in the Southern Valley of Mexico. The
Chalco-Xochimilco Region. Memoirs, 14. Ann Arbor, MI:
Museum of Anthropological Archaeology. https://doi.org/
10.3998/mpub.11395526
Pérez Castro Lira, G. (2019). Arqueología monacal: el monasterio
femenino de San Jerónimo, Ciudad de México (siglos XVI al
XIX). Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Cultura, Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Universidad del Claustro
de Sor Juana.
Primeau, C., Friis, L., Sejrsen, B., & Lynnerup, N. (2012). A method
for estimating age of Danish medieval sub-adults based on long
bone length. Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 69(3), 317–333.
https://doi.org/10.1127/0003-5548/2012/0168 PMID:22928354
Primeau, C., Friis, L., Sejrsen, B., & Lynnerup, N. (2016). A method
for estimating age of medieval sub-adults from infancy to adult-
hood based on long bone length. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 159(1), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.
22860 PMID:26397713
Ratto, C. (2012). La ciudad dentro de la gran ciudad. Las imágenes
del convento de monjas en los virreinatos de Nueva España y
Perú. Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, 31(94),
59–92. https://doi.org/10.22201/iie.18703062e.2009.94.2285
Rissech, C., Schaefer, M., & Malgosa, A. (2008). Development of
the femur – Implications for age and sex determination. Forensic
Science International, 180(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.06.006 PMID:18692331
Rissech, C., López-Costas, O., & Turbón, D. (2013). Humeral
development from neonatal period to skeletal maturity –
280     A. Ortega-Muñoz, L. Márquez Morfín
Application in age and sex assessment. International Journal of
Legal Medicine, 127(1), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00414-012-0713-7 PMID:22588220
Roche, A. F. (1992). Growth, maturation, and body composition:
the Fels longitudinal study, 1929-1991. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511661655
Saunders, S. R., & Hoppa, R. D. (1993). Growth deficit in survivors
and non-survivors: Biological mortality bias in subadult skeletal
samples. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 36(S17,
s17), 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330360608
Schmidhuber de la Mora, G. (2019). Los conventos de la Nueva
España del siglo XVII como espacios de desarrollo femenino:
El caso del Convento de San Jerónimo de México. Sincronía.
Año, XXIII (76), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.32870/sincronia.
axxiii.n76.21b19
Shrimpton, R., Victora, C. G., de Onis, M., Lima, R. C., Blössner,
M., & Clugston, G. (2001). Worldwide timing of growth falter-
ing: Implications for nutritional interventions. Pediatrics,
107(5), E75. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.107.5.e75 PMID:
11331725
Steggerda, M., & Hill, T. (1942). Eruption time of teeth among
whites, Negroes, and Indians. American Journal of Orthodontics
and Oral Surgery, 28(6), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0096-6347(42)90608-2
Stull, K. E., L’Abbé, E. N., & Ousley, S. D. (2014). Using multi-
variate adaptive regression splines to estimate subadult age from
diaphyseal dimensions. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 154(3), 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.
22522 PMID:24782395
Ubelaker, D. H. (1978). Human skeletal remains: Excavation, anal­
ysis, interpretation. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Ubelaker, D. H. (1989). The estimation of age at death from imma-
ture human bone. In M. Y. Iscan (Ed.), Age Markers in the
Human Skeleton (pp. 55–70). Springfield, Ill.: Charles C.
Thomas.
eschweizerbart_xxx
Ubelaker, D. H. (2005). Estimating age at death. In J. Rich, D. E.
Dean, & R. H. Powers (Eds.), Forensic Medicine of the Lower
Extremity. Human Identification and Trauma Analysis of the
Thigh, Leg, and Foot (pp. 99–112). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
Vercellotti, G., Piperata, B. A., Agnew, A. M., Wilson, W. M.,
Dufour, D. L., Reina, J. C., … Sciulli, P. W. (2014). Exploring
the multidimensionality of stature variation in the past through
comparisons of archaeological and living populations. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 155(2), 229–242. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ajpa.22552 PMID:24894916
Weiss-Krejci, E. (2011). The Formation of Mortuary Deposits.
Implication for Understanding Mortuary Behavior of Past
Populations. In S. C. Agarwal & B. A. Glencross (Eds.), Social
Bioarchaeology (pp. 68–106). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444390537.ch4
White, T. D., & Folkens, P. A. (2005). The Human Bone Manual.
Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Willmot, S. E., Hector, M. P., & Liversidge, H. M. (2013). Accuracy
of estimating age from eruption levels of mandibular teeth.
Dental Anthropology, 26(3), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.26575/
daj.v26i3.52
Wilson, W. M., Dufour, D. L., Staten, L. K., Barac-Nieto, M.,
Reina, J. C., & Spurr, G. B. (1999). Gastrointestinal parasitic
infection, anthropometrics, nutritional status, and physical work
capacity in Colombian boys. American Journal of Human
Biology, 11(6), 763–771. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-
6300(199911/12)11:63.0.CO;2-M PMID:11533992
Manuscript received: 05 March 2021
Revisions requested: 15 May 2021
Revised version received: 18 May 2021
Accepted: 24 May 2021