No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Sattenspiel and Harpending (1983, American Antiquity 48(3): 489-498) have stated that the life expectancy at birth (e0(0] which paleodemographers calculate from skeletal population data is actually the mean age at death (ad) of the population. Yet, only when a population is neither growing or declining (i.e., is stationary) are these two statistics equivalent. They further assert, that the mean age at the death (ad) is more accurately interpreted as a measure of the fertility of the population. While we support their statement that since paleodemographic calculations use skeletal evidence of death, these do not a priori produce life expectancy values, we disagree that the inverse of the birth rate is a substitute for the average age at death (ad). The following pages demonstrate that: 1) An exact expression for the relationship between ad and 1/b can be derived using standard stable population theory, wherein ad = 1/b is shown to be a special case. 2) There are only two cases when ad = 1/b is an identity. 3) Whereas empirically ad and 1/b appear to correspond closely, this is an artifact of heavy mortality at early ages, which is a characteristic of the populations being considered. 4) Without insights into the behavioral dynamics of the situation any assessment of the demographics of the population is questionable.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 45 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.