The (mis)use of adult age estimates in osteology

Adult age-at-death is presented in a number of different ways by anthropologists. Ordinal categories predominate in osteoarchaeology, but do not reflect individual variation in ageing, with too many adults being classified as "middle adults". In addition, mean ages (derived from reference samples) are overly-relied upon when developing and testing methods. In both cases, "age mimicry" is not adequately accounted for.

To highlight the many inherent biases created when developing, testing and applying age-estimation methods without fully considering the impact of "age mimicry" and individual variation.

The paper draws on previously published research (Web of Science, Pub Med, Google Scholar) on age estimation methods and their use in anthropology.

There is a lack of consistency in the methods used to estimate age and for the mode of combining them. Ordinal categories are frequently used in osteoarchaeology, whereas forensic anthropologists are more likely to produce case-specific age ranges. Mean ages reflect the age structure of reference samples and should not be used to estimate age for individuals from populations with a different age-at-death structure. Individual-specific age ranges and/or probability densities should be used to report individual age. Further research should be undertaken on how to create unbiased, combined method age estimates.