AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 119:231–239 (2002)
Age Estimation From the Auricular Surface of the Ilium:
A Revised Method
J.L. Buckberry* and A.T. Chamberlain
Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4ET, UK
KEY WORDS auricular surface; ilium; skeletal age at death; Spitalfields; forensic
anthropology; palaeodemography
ABSTRACT A revised method for estimating adult
age at death using the auricular surface of the ilium has
been developed. It is based on the existing auricular sur-
face aging method of Lovejoy et al. ([1985] Am. J. Phys.
Anthropol. 68:15–28), but the revised technique is easier
to apply, and has low levels of inter- and intraobserver
error. The new method records age-related stages for dif-
ferent features of the auricular surface, which are then
combined to provide a composite score from which an
estimate of age at death is obtained. Blind tests of the
method were carried out on a known-age skeletal collec-
tion from Christ Church, Spitalfields, London. These tests
The estimation of age at death of adult skeletal
material is one of the more difficult tasks under-
taken by physical anthropologists. Mays (1998, p.
50) stated that “at present the lack of a wholly
satisfactory technique for estimating age at death in
adult skeletons from archaeological sites is one of
the most thorny problems facing human osteoar-
chaeology.” The problem arises from the fact that
rates of skeletal remodeling and degeneration, from
which most methods of adult age estimation are
derived, can be highly variable between different
individuals and populations.
The life history of an individual will be an impor-
tant determinant of the rate of skeletal aging. Fac-
tors such as endocrine status, diet, disease, physical
activity, and cultural differences will contribute to
the range of variation between males and females,
old and young, and rich and poor within a site, and
also between populations from different sites
(Brothwell, 1981; Ubelaker, 1989; Schwartz, 1995;
Hillson, 1996; Aykroyd et al., 1999). Even with a
similar biological background and environmental
conditions, two individuals are likely to age at dif-
ferent rates.
Pubic symphysis age estimation was first applied
to adult males (Todd, 1920), and was subsequently
redefined and tested, especially with regard to cre-
ating separate systems for females (Brooks, 1955;
Nemeskéri et al., 1960; Gilbert and McKern, 1973;
Suchey, 1979; Katz and Suchey, 1986; Brooks and
Suchey, 1990). These methods were found to gener-
ate age distributions for different populations that
© 2002 WILEY-LISS, INC.
showed that the dispersion of age at death for a given
morphological stage was large, particularly after the first
decade of adult life. Statistical analysis showed that the
age-related changes in auricular surface are not signifi-
cantly different for males and females. The scores from the
revised method have a slightly higher correlation with age
than do the Suchey-Brooks pubic symphysis stages. Con-
sidering the higher survival rates of the auricular surface
compared with the pubic symphysis, this method promises
to be useful for biological anthropology and forensic sci-
ence. Am J Phys Anthropol 119:231–239, 2002.
© 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
mirrored the age structure of the reference series
from which the methods were developed (Bocquet-
Appel and Masset, 1982), and did not allow for the
variation normal to a skeletal population (Suchey et
al., 1986). When the Suchey-Brooks method (Brooks
and Suchey, 1990) was developed, this variation was
made explicit by the documentation of the disper-
sion of age at death for each morphological stage of
the pubic symphysis.
The auricular surface method of age estimation
has not been subject to the same levels of scrutiny as
pubic symphysis aging, and it is usually applied in
the form originally developed by Lovejoy et al.
(1985). Murray and Murray (1991) tested the auric-
ular surface method of Lovejoy et al. (1985) on a
sample of skeletons in the Terry Collection, to see
how reliable the method was for use in forensic
cases. They found that the method was “unbiased
regarding race and sex” (Murray and Murray, 1991;
Grant sponsor: Universities of Sheffield, York, and Leeds.
*Correspondence to: Miss Jo Buckberry, Research School of Archae-
ology and Archaeological Science, University of Sheffield, West Court,
2 Mappin St., Sheffield S1 4DT, UK.
E-mail: J.Buckberry@Sheffield.ac.uk
Received 23 July 2001; accepted 17 April 2002.
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.10130
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.
com).
232 J.L. BUCKBERRY AND A.T. CHAMBERLAIN
p. 1166). However, they also found that the method
consistently underestimated the age of older individ-
uals, and overestimated the age of younger individ-
uals in their sample. They felt that this might have
been attributable to differences in age structure be-
tween the Todd Collection, on which the method was
developed, and the Terry Collection (Murray and
Murray, 1991). Murray and Murray (1991) concluded
that the method was “too unreliable to be used as a
single aging technique for forensic science purposes.”
However, they conceded that the method would be
useful when used in conjunction with other methods
of age estimation.
The auricular surface method was also tested on
an archaeological sample of known age at death
from Belleville, Ontario (Saunders et al., 1992). The
system was found to underestimate age at death
especially for the older portion of the sample (over 45
years), although it predicted the ages of younger
adults reliably (Saunders et al., 1992). The authors
found that estimates of age at death for many indi-
viduals did not fall into the correct modal stages,
indicating that the method of Lovejoy et al. (1985)
may not allow adequately for individual variation in
skeletal aging. It was also noted that intraobserver
error was high (19.3%) (Saunders et al., 1992), and
this may be due to the difficulty found in applying
the method, especially when classifying “ambiguous
specimens . . . that cannot with certainty be as-
signed to one age category” (Saunders et al., 1992, p.
99).
Bedford et al. (1993) also tested the auricular sur-
face method on a sample of known-age skeletons
from the Grant Collection at the University of To-
ronto. As with other tests of the method, there was a
tendency to overestimate ages of younger adults and
to underestimate ages in categories above 60 years
old.
AURICULAR SURFACE METHOD OF AGE
ESTIMATION OF LOVEJOY ET AL. (1985)
The age-related changes seen on the auricular
surface of the ilium were first described by Sashin
(1930). He interpreted the changes seen in the ar-
ticular cartilage of the joint as osteoarthritic, and
found that they were “progressive, and increase in
extent and intensity with the age of the individual”
(Sashin, 1930, p. 909). However, the regularity of
these changes was not discussed. The age-related
changes of the auricular surface were not exploited
as a method of estimating age at death until Lovejoy
et al. (1985) developed their technique.
Lovejoy et al. (1985) described eight modal age
stages (typically encompassing 5 years), into which
each auricular surface could be placed using pri-
mary aging features. An age would then be esti-
mated from within this modal stage, using secondary
indicators of age (apical activity and retroauricular
activity).
Auricular surface age estimation increased the
range of methods that were available, and the au-
ricular surface area of the ilium is more durable
than the fragile pubic symphysis, with higher levels
of survival and recovery, particularly in archaeo-
logical populations (Lovejoy et al., 1985; Waldron,
1987). However, the separate features of the auric-
ular surface described by Lovejoy et al. (1985), such
as porosity, surface texture, and marginal changes,
appear to develop independently of each other. The
age of onset for each stage of different features of the
auricular surface appears to vary, and as a conse-
quence the 5-year age categories of Lovejoy et al.
(1985) tend to overlap. Early-appearing features
still present on the auricular surfaces of older indi-
viduals were described by Lovejoy et al. (1985) as
“residual.” The fact that this variation can occur
within a single auricular surface indicates that the
method of Lovejoy et al. (1985) oversimplifies the
changes seen, and that the 5-year intervals in their
scheme of age estimation may be optimistically nar-
row. This problem contributes to the difficulty found
with applying the method, as it leads to uncertainty,
and in some cases confusion, in assigning individual
auricular surfaces to a particular age stage.
A REVISED AURICULAR SURFACE METHOD
OF AGE ESTIMATION
In view of these problems, we believe that the
auricular surface age estimation technique would
benefit from the same level of reanalysis that has
been undertaken for pubic symphyseal age estima-
tion. A quantitative scoring system, which examines
each different feature of the auricular surface inde-
pendently, should not only be easier to apply but will
also accommodate the overlap often seen between
different stages. Our revised system has been devel-
oped from that of Lovejoy et al. (1985), and utilizes
their categories of age-related change seen on the
auricular surface. The features used were trans-
verse organization, surface texture, microporosity,
macroporosity, and changes in morphology of the
apex and retroauricular area. Each of the features
seen on the auricular surface was recorded indepen-
dently and assigned a series of numerical scores
corresponding to successive stages of degrees of ex-
pression. Although one feature might be obscured by
another, the use of standardized criteria (defined
below) allowed them to be assessed objectively. In
preliminary analyses, the retroauricular area was
found to be a poor estimator of age, and this led to its
exclusion from the revised method.
The surface is described using the same terminol-
ogy employed by Lovejoy et al. (1985). Figure 1
shows the locations used in describing the auricular
surface. Table 1 gives the descriptions of each loca-
tion, as defined in Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994).
Each of the features of the auricular surface is de-
scribed in detail, with a summary description of
each stage observed given in tabular form.
 REVISED AURICULAR SURFACE AGING METHOD
Fig. 1. Regions of the ilium used for auricular surface aging
(redrawn after Lovejoy et al., 1985).
TABLE 1. Definitions used to describe auricular surface
(after Buikstra and Ubelaker, 1994)
Definition Description of locations
Apex Portion of auricular surface that
articulates with posterior aspect of
arcuate line
Superior demiface Portion of auricular area above apex
Inferior demiface Portion of auricular area below apex
Retroauricular Region between auricular surface and
area posterior inferior iliac spine
TABLE 2. Scoring system for transverse organization
Score Description
1 90% or more of surface is transversely organized
2 50–89% of surface is transversely organized
3 25–49% of surface is transversely organized
4 Transverse organization is present on less than 25%
of surface
5 No transverse organization is present
Transverse organization
Transverse organization refers to the horizontally
orientated billows and striae that run from the me-
dial to the lateral margins of the auricular surface
(Lovejoy et al., 1985). It was difficult to distinguish
between billows and striae and to be consistent in
the recording of these features. Consequently, this
trait is scored in terms of what proportion of the
auricular surface is transversely organized. The pro-
portion is estimated by eye, rather than measured,
and is assigned to 1 of 5 easily distinguishable
stages defined in terms of the percentage of surface
covered. The scoring system for transverse organi-
zation is given in Table 2.
Surface texture
This feature corresponds to that described as
“grain” by Lovejoy et al. (1985). The texture of the
233
TABLE 3. Scoring system for surface texture
Score Description
1 90% or more of surface is finely granular
2 50–89% of surface is finely granular; replacement of
finely granular bone by coarsely granular bone in
some areas; no dense bone is present
3 50% or more of surface is coarsely granular, but no
dense bone is present
4 Dense bone is present, but occupies less than 50% of
surface; this may be just one small nodule of dense
bone in very early stages
5 50% or more of surface is occupied by dense bone
TABLE 4. Scoring system for microporosity
Score Description
1 No microporosity is present
2 Microporosity is present on one demiface only
3 Microporosity is present on both demifaces
auricular surface is finely grained in early life, and
becoming more coarsely granular and densified in
older individuals. As with transverse organization,
this feature is scored in terms of what proportion of
the surface is covered by a particular type of texture.
Finely granular bone is defined as having grains
predominantly less than 0.5 mm in diameter, and
coarsely granular bone consists of grains predomi-
nantly over 0.5 mm in diameter. Dense bone refers to
surface appearance, rather than the amount of bone
present. It is defined as nodules or areas of bone
which are compact and smooth, with no surface
granularity. The scoring system for surface texture
is given in Table 3.
Microporosity
In the revised system, microporosity was defined
as porosity of the surface (or perforations of sub-
chondral bone), with the pores having a diameter of
less than 1 mm. It is scored according to the presence
of microporosity on one or both of the two demifaces
of the auricular surface. Microporosity may be local-
ized or spread across large areas. Lovejoy et al.
(1985) regarded microporosity as a secondary aging
feature. The scoring system for microporosity is
given in Table 4.
Macroporosity
Macroporosity also perforates the surface of the
bone. We define macroporosity as holes greater than
1 mm in diameter. Like microporosity, it may be
localized or spread across large areas. Lovejoy et al.
(1985) also considered macroporosity a secondary
aging feature. Macroporosity is scored according to
its presence on one or both of the two demifaces of the
auricular surface, in the same manner as for micro-
porosity. The scoring system for macroporosity is
given in Table 5.
Macroporosity should not be confused with corti-
cal defects, which may be present at any age. Corti-
cal defects are areas where the cortex of the bone is
234 J.L. BUCKBERRY AND A.T. CHAMBERLAIN
TABLE 5. Scoring system for macroporosity
Score Description
1 No macroporosity is present
2 Macroporosity is present on one demiface only
3 Macroporosity is present on both demifaces
TABLE 6. Scoring system for apical changes
Score Description
1 Apex is sharp and distinct; auricular surface may be
slightly raised relative to adjacent bone surface
2 Some lipping is present at apex, but shape of articular
margin is still distinct and smooth (shape of outline
of surface at apex is a continuous arc)
3 Irregularity occurs in contours of articular surface;
shape of apex is no longer a smooth arc
TABLE 7. Spearman correlations between age and feature for
auricular surface photographs of Bedford et al. (1989)
Feature rs P don; Molleson and Cox, 1993), to assess how the
Transverse organization 0.942 ⬍0.01
Surface texture 0.930 ⬍0.01
Microporosity 0.654 ⬍0.01
Macroporosity 0.883 ⬍0.01
Apical changes 0.888 ⬍0.01
not complete. They are usually smooth-edged and do
not cover a significant area of the auricular surface.
Macroporosity may also be confused with areas of
postmortem damage, which are usually sharp-edged
and irregular, often have paler colored bone around
the edges, and may expose underlying trabecular
bone that is always unremodelled. Care should be
taken in recording this feature, to ensure that no
confusion with postmortem damage has arisen.
Apical changes
The apex of the auricular surface can develop
small osteophytic growths, or lipping, which when
more severe can alter the contour of the surface. This
change was regarded as a secondary aging feature
by Lovejoy et al. (1985), and was described in terms
of “activity.” The scoring system for apical changes is
given in Table 6.
Preliminary testing
The new scoring system was initially applied to
archaeological skeletal material of unknown age at
death from the Anglo-Norman site of Blackgate,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne (n ⫽ 56; held at the Depart-
ment of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of
Sheffield), to test for ease of use and to check for
reproducibility of results. The scoring system was
then applied to photographs of known-age auricular
surfaces distributed by Bedford et al. (1989) that
accompany the system of Lovejoy et al. (1985), to see
how well the individual features of the auricular
surface correlated with age (Table 7). Each feature
was found to have a high correlation with age, con-
sistent with the fact that the auricular surfaces pho-
TABLE 8. Multiple regression of age against features
Unstandardized
Feature coefficients t P
(constant) ⫺6.500 ⫺1.156 0.249
Transverse organization 4.316 2.527 0.012
Surface texture 7.105 4.115 ⬍0.001
Microporosity 5.572 3.680 ⬍0.001
Macroporosity 4.669 2.720 0.007
Apical changes 3.282 2.675 0.008
tographed were specifically chosen to illustrate the
typical appearance seen at a particular age.
Blind test on a known-age sample
The new scoring system was then tested by one of
the authors (J.L.B.) on a known-age skeletal popu-
lation (n ⫽ 180) from Christ Church, Spitalfields,
London (held at the Natural History Museum, Lon-
features related to chronological age. Each auricular
surface in the collection was recorded twice, with an
interval of 2 weeks between these analyses. Any
discrepancies between scores were noted, and if dis-
cordant, the surface was studied a third time. The
age and sex of the individual was not recorded on the
boxes, and care was taken that the observer did not
know this information prior to recording. While the
sex of strongly dimorphic individuals would be ap-
parent to the observer, it was not felt that this would
cause bias, as the recording criteria were rigorous,
and applied solely to the auricular surface and not to
the surrounding bone. The observer also avoided
examining other parts of the skeleton, which may
have given subjective clues to age at death. Color
photographs were taken of every auricular surface.
Once the study was completed, the photographs
were seriated for each feature, to check the consis-
tency of the recording. The scores were then entered
into a computer database along with the docu-
mented age and sex of each individual.
RESULTS
Although Kendall’s coefficient of concordance in-
dicates a reasonable measurement of agreement
among the five features (Wa ⫽ 0.691, P ⬍ 0.0005),
each feature supplies independent information
about age. This is seen in the results of a stepwise
multiple regression, which indicates that all five
features contribute to the prediction of age (Table 8),
and in the partial correlations between features af-
ter controlling for the effect of age (Table 9). The
partial correlations among the features are low and
mostly nonsignificant, confirming that the features
provide independent sources of information about
age.
The combination of transverse organization, sur-
face texture, microporosity, macroporosity, and api-
cal changes was found to give the highest correlation
with age (rs ⫽ 0.609; P ⬍ 0.01). This “composite
score,” calculated as the sum of the scores of the
 REVISED AURICULAR SURFACE AGING METHOD
TABLE 9. Partial correlation coefficients between features
controlling for effects of age1
TO ST MI MA
TO 0.381 0.136 0.217
ST ⬍0.001 0.138 0.316
MI 0.070 0.065 0.104
MA 0.004 ⬍0.001 0.164
AP 0.590 0.023 0.612 0.429
1
Coefficients above diagonal, p-values below, sample size n ⫽
180. TO, transverse organization; ST, surface texture; MI, micro-
porosity; MA, macroporosity; AP, apical changes.
Fig. 2. Plot of composite auricular surface scores against age
for Spitalfields sample. Spearman’s correlation coefficient of score
against age is given for males and females.
separate features, was used in all subsequent sta-
tistical tests.
A paired t-test was calculated for all individuals
with both left and right auricular surfaces present.
The results showed no significant difference for the
composite score between the left and right sides (t ⫽
0.6; df ⫽ 157; P ⫽ 0.550). Subsequently, the left side
was used for all analyses when both sides were
available, and the side available was used for all
other individuals.
Previous analyses had revealed no significant dif-
ference in age-related changes of the auricular sur-
face between males and females (Lovejoy et al.,
1985; Murray and Murray, 1991). The ages were
plotted against composite scores for males and fe-
males as a scatter plot, with a regression line for
both data sets (Fig. 2). The regression lines indicate
that there is little difference between sexes (males,
rs ⫽ 0.624, P ⬍ 0.01; females, rs ⫽ 0.626, P ⬍ 0.01).
A standard (two-sample, two-tailed) t-test was also
carried out to test for significant differences between
males and females for each of the score categories.
There were no significant differences between ages
for males and females (P ⬎ 0.05; see Table 10).
A scatter plot of score against age for each feature,
shown in Figure 3, reveals wide variation in the age
of appearance of the features. A Spearman’s corre-
lation coefficient was calculated for each feature
235
TABLE 10. Independent two-tailed t-tests between males and
females for each composite score
AP Composite Age
score stage t df P
0.040
0.169 5–6 I Sample size too small
0.038 7–8 II ⫺0.331 4 0.757
0.059 9–10 III ⫺1.825 20 0.083
11–12 IV 0.373 30 0.711
13–14 V ⫺0.005 62 0.996
15–16 VI ⫺0.142 39 0.888
17–19 VII ⫺1.125 10 0.287
with age (Table 11). Although the r values are rela-
tively low, all were significant at the 99% confidence
level. The scores were combined to produce a com-
posite score, which increased the correlation with
age (males, rs ⫽ 0.624; females, rs ⫽ 0.626; P ⬍ 0.01).
Several composite scores were found to have sim-
ilar ranges, distributions, and mean ages. These
scores were grouped together to produce seven au-
ricular surface stages for the purposes of age esti-
mation. The age ranges, means, and median ages for
these stages are given in Table 12. It should be noted
that the mean age for auricular surface stage is
affected by the age structure of the reference sam-
ple, which in this case is biased toward older ages
(Bocquet-Appel and Masset, 1982; Jackes, 1992). To
compensate for this, a Bayesian analysis was under-
taken, using uniform priors following the method of
Chamberlain (2000) to provide posterior probabili-
ties of age, given the auricular surface stage (Table
13).
Reliability testing
The method was tested for intraobserver error by
one of the authors (J.L.B.). Six well-preserved auric-
ular surfaces were recorded twice, at an interval of 2
weeks. A paired t-test showed no significant varia-
tion (P ⬎ 0.05) between the composite scores given
on each occasion (t ⫽ ⫺1.348; df ⫽ 5; P ⫽ 0.235). A
different group of six auricular surfaces was tested
for interobserver error by graduate students in os-
teology at the University of Sheffield and members
of the British Association of Biological Anthropology
and Osteoarchaeology. Cohen’s weighted kappa
measure of agreement for ordinal data indicated a
low level of interobserver error (␬ ⫽ 0.66) (Agresti,
1988).
The Spitalfields sample was also recorded using
the Suchey-Brooks pubic symphysis method, which
was applied using the casts for males and females
(Suchey et al., 1988; Brooks and Suchey, 1990). The
pubic symphysis was only present for 58.9% of the
sample. The rank order correlation between the six
Suchey-Brooks stages and age is rs ⫽ 0.58; P ⬍ 0.01.
This compared favorably with the correlation be-
tween the new seven-stage auricular surface aging
method and age (rs ⫽ 0.63; P ⬍ 0.01). This shows
that although the Suchey-Brooks system is thought
to be the most reliable skeletal indicator of age
(Mays, 1998), the new auricular surface aging
236 J.L. BUCKBERRY AND A.T. CHAMBERLAIN

Fig. 3. Scatter plots of scores against

age at death in Spitalfields sample for each
of five features: transverse organization,
surface texture, microporosity, macroporos-
ity, and apical changes.

TABLE 11. Spearman’s correlation with age for each feature
and for composite score
Feature rs P tion allows for a more realistic interpretation of the
Transverse organization 0.433 ⬍0.005
Surface texture 0.489 ⬍0.005
Apical changes 0.319 ⬍0.005
Microporosity 0.408 ⬍0.005
Macroporosity 0.533 ⬍0.005
Composite score 0.609 ⬍0.005
method has a higher correlation with age for the
Spitalfields sample.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Individual human skeletons show age-related
changes which progress at different rates. It would
appear that none of the current methods of skeletal
age estimation are able to provide age estimates
that are both precise (closeness of repeated mea-
surements) and accurate (closeness to true value)
(Sokal and Rohlf, 1995, p. 50), and that such precise
levels of age estimation are unlikely to be developed
in the foreseeable future. While precise age esti-
mates are desirable and will always be sought, it is
not feasible to attempt to provide them if they are
not a true reflection of the underlying biology. None
of the present age-estimation methods are able to
provide estimates within narrow age ranges, so con-
sequently age estimates need to be stated either as
broad ranges or as probability density functions
(e.g., Jackes, 1992; Chamberlain, 2000).
Multiple regression shows that the features of the
auricular surface age independently of each other,
indicating that each feature has to be interpreted
independently, rather than being grouped together
with other features into 5-year modal age stages.
Our revised auricular surface method of age estima-
changes. Although the age estimates produced by
our method are wider, this revised method is easier
to apply and may be more reliable than that of
Lovejoy et al. (1985).
The sample size used to develop the method was
small (n ⫽ 180), with younger individuals underrep-
resented due to the age structure of the Spitalfields
Collection. The method outlined here needs to be
tested and redefined, using large, multiracial, and
known-age modern and, if possible, archaeological
populations. This will lead to the redefinition of age
ranges and standard deviations. Although Murray
and Murray (1991) showed that the method of Love-
joy et al. (1985) was equally applicable for different
populations, this has not yet been demonstrated for
our revised method. Such a study is needed to de-
termine if the method is universally applicable
across human populations, and will have important
implications for the applicability of the method to
archaeological samples.
It has also been shown that there is no significant
difference between sexes and sides. The lack of sys-
tematic variation in the rate of aging between the
sexes was surprising, but allows the same method
and age estimates to be applied to both sexes, allow-
ing age to be assessed independently of sex.
The revised method generates scores that have a
higher correlation with age than the Suchey-Brooks
pubic symphysis system for the Spitalfields sample.
The age ranges produced by the revised auricular
surface method are similar to those given by Brooks
and Suchey (1990), regarded as one of the most
 REVISED AURICULAR SURFACE AGING METHOD 237
TABLE 12. Age estimates from composite scores and age stages
Composite score Auricular surface stage No. of specimens Mean age Standard deviation Median age Range
5–6 I 3 17.33 1.53 17 16–19
7–8 II 6 29.33 6.71 27 21–38
9–10 III 22 37.86 13.08 37 16–65
11–12 IV 32 51.41 14.47 52 29–81
13–14 V 64 59.94 12.95 62 29–88
15–16 VI 41 66.71 11.88 66 39–91
17–19 VII 12 72.25 12.73 73 53–92

TABLE 13. Posterior probability of age, given auricular surface sexes and potentially to different populations
stage, assuming uniform prior probability of age (Konigsberg and Frankenberg, 1992), and shows
Age I II III IV V VI VII older age-related changes than the pubic symphysis
15–24 0.86 0.33 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (Lovejoy et al., 1985).
25–34 0.14 0.42 0.18 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.00
35–44 0.00 0.21 0.20 0.07 0.19 0.02 0.00
45–54 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.04 0.27 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
55–64 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.20 0.18 0.11 0.00
65–74 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.26 0.10 0.24
75–84 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.20 0.07 0.27 0.49 We thank Dr. Louise Humphrey of the Natural
85–94 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.46 0.00 History Museum, London, for granting us access
to the Christ Church Spitalfields skeletal sample.
Comments by Dr. Humphrey and Dr. Pia Nystrom
important and reliable aging methods used at
of the Department of Archaeology and Prehistory,
present. This suggests that wide age estimates are
more realistic. Narrow age estimates will always University of Sheffield, on previous drafts of this
remain desirable, but by their nature do not allow paper and the suggestions made by anonymous
for the variation in age-related changes demon- referees are greatly appreciated. We also thank
strated by this study. By using narrower age esti- the osteology students and delegates of the British
mates, many individuals could be aged incorrectly, Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteo-
which may hinder identification in forensics cases. archaeology for taking part in the interobserver
This aging technique is important, because the error tests, and Alex Norman for drawing the il-
auricular surface is resistant to decay (Waldron, lustration. J.L.B. is currently funded by a White
1987), especially when compared with the fragile Rose Studentship from the Universities of Shef-
pubic symphysis. It is universally applicable to both field, York, and Leeds.

APPENDIX. Age and feature scores for known-age females (n ⫽ 94) and males (n ⫽ 86)
Age TO ST MI MA AP Age TO ST MI MA AP
Females 50 4 3 3 1 2
16 1 1 1 1 2 50 4 4 3 2 1
17 2 1 1 1 1 50 4 4 3 2 2
19 1 2 1 1 1 52 4 3 2 2 2
23 3 2 2 1 2 52 4 4 3 3 2
27 1 1 3 1 1 52 5 3 3 2 2
27 2 2 2 1 1 53 2 2 3 1 1
29 4 3 3 1 2 53 4 3 3 2 2
29 2 3 3 1 2 53 4 2 3 1 1
30 3 3 2 1 2 53 5 5 3 3 2
34 4 3 3 1 2 53 2 3 2 1 2
35 2 2 3 1 1 55 3 3 1 2 2
35 2 3 3 1 2 55 4 4 2 1 2
37 3 3 3 1 1 55 4 4 3 2 2
37 3 2 1 1 1 56 4 4 3 1 2
38 2 3 3 1 1 56 3 3 3 1 2
39 3 2 2 1 1 56 4 4 3 1 2
39 5 3 3 2 3 57 4 3 3 1 2
41 2 3 3 1 2 57 4 3 3 1 2
43 4 3 3 1 2 57 2 3 3 2 2
44 3 3 3 1 2 58 4 4 3 2 2
45 2 3 2 1 3 59 4 4 3 2 2
45 4 3 3 2 2 60 4 3 2 2 2
46 4 3 3 1 2 61 4 3 3 3 2
47 4 3 3 2 2 61 4 3 3 2 2
47 4 4 3 1 2 61 3 3 3 1 1
48 2 3 2 1 2 62 4 3 2 1 2
49 4 3 2 3 3 63 4 4 2 2 2
49 4 3 3 1 2 64 3 4 3 2 2
(continued)
238 J.L. BUCKBERRY AND A.T. CHAMBERLAIN
APPENDIX. Age and feature scores for known-age females (n ⫽ 94) and males (n ⫽ 86) (Continued)
Age TO ST MI MA AP Age TO ST MI MA AP
65 2 3 2 1 2 46 3 3 2 1 2
65 4 4 3 2 2 47 3 2 3 1 3
65 4 3 3 1 2 47 4 3 2 1 2
65 4 3 3 2 2 48 4 4 2 2 2
65 4 3 3 2 2 49 5 3 2 1 3
67 3 3 3 2 1 50 4 3 3 2 3
67 4 3 3 1 1 51 4 3 1 1 1
67 4 4 3 2 2 51 4 3 3 1 1
68 3 4 3 1 2 52 2 3 3 3 2
68 4 3 3 1 1 52 4 3 3 2 2
68 5 4 3 3 1 53 4 3 3 1 1
68 4 3 3 2 2 53 5 4 3 3 2
70 4 3 3 3 1 54 4 3 3 1 2
70 3 3 3 2 3 56 5 4 3 1 2
71 4 3 2 2 3 57 4 4 3 2 2
72 3 4 3 3 2 58 4 4 2 1 2
73 4 2 3 2 2 58 4 3 3 1 2
73 3 3 3 3 2 58 4 3 3 1 2
74 4 4 3 3 2 58 3 3 3 1 2
76 4 3 3 2 3 58 2 3 2 1 2
76 4 3 3 2 1 60 3 4 3 2 1
76 4 3 2 2 2 60 4 4 3 2 2
77 5 5 3 3 1 60 4 4 3 3 2
77 5 3 2 1 2 61 4 4 3 3 2
78 5 5 3 3 3 61 4 4 3 2 2
78 4 4 3 3 3 62 4 2 3 1 1
79 5 4 3 2 2 63 3 3 3 2 2
79 4 4 3 2 2 63 4 3 3 2 2
80 4 4 3 3 2 63 3 3 3 2 1
80 4 3 3 1 2 63 3 4 3 1 3
81 5 4 3 2 2 63 5 4 3 3 2
83 4 4 3 3 2 64 5 4 3 2 2
85 4 4 3 3 3 64 4 4 3 3 3
85 5 4 3 2 2 64 4 4 3 2 3
87 4 4 3 3 3 65 4 3 3 1 2
87 3 3 3 3 2 66 5 3 3 2 2
89 4 4 3 3 2 66 4 3 2 2 2
Males 66 4 4 3 1 3
16 2 2 1 1 3 67 4 3 3 1 2
18 4 3 1 1 1 67 5 4 3 2 2
21 2 3 1 1 1 68 4 3 3 3 2
22 3 3 2 1 1 68 5 5 3 3 2
25 2 3 1 1 2 69 4 4 3 1 2
26 2 1 3 1 1 69 5 4 3 3 2
27 3 2 1 1 2 69 3 4 3 2 2
32 3 3 3 1 2 70 4 3 3 1 3
32 4 3 3 2 2 70 4 3 3 2 2
32 5 3 2 1 2 70 4 3 3 2 2
34 2 2 2 1 2 71 5 3 3 3 1
34 3 3 2 1 1 71 4 3 3 1 2
34 4 2 3 1 2 71 4 4 3 2 2
34 4 3 2 1 1 72 4 4 3 2 3
36 3 2 3 1 1 72 4 3 3 2 2
36 2 3 1 1 2 75 3 3 3 2 2
37 2 4 3 1 2 76 2 3 3 1 3
38 2 2 2 1 1 77 4 3 1 1 2
39 2 2 3 1 2 78 5 4 3 2 2
39 2 3 3 1 1 79 4 3 3 3 2
39 4 3 3 1 2 81 3 3 3 1 2
40 4 3 2 1 1 88 4 3 3 1 2
44 2 3 3 1 1 91 4 4 3 1 3
45 5 3 3 2 1 92 4 4 3 3 3

Abbreviations as in Table 9.

LITERATURE CITED
Agresti A. 1988. A model for agreement between ratings on an
ordinal scale. Biometrics 44:539 –548.
Aykroyd RG, Lucy D, Pollard AM, Roberts CA. 1999. Nasty,
brutish, but not necessarily short: a reconsideration of the
statistical methods used to calculate age at death from adult
human skeletal and dental age indicators. Am Antiq 64:55–70.
Bedford ME, Russell KF, Lovejoy CO. 1989. The auricular surface
aging technique: 16 color photographs with descriptions. Kent,
OH: Kent State University.
Bedford ME, Russell KF, Lovejoy CO, Meindl RS, Simpson SW,
Stuart-MacAdam PL. 1993. Test of the multifactorial aging
method using skeletons with known ages-at-death fron the
Grant collection. Am J Phys Anthropol 91:287–297.
 REVISED AURICULAR SURFACE AGING METHOD
Bocquet-Appel JP, Masset C. 1982. Farewell to palaeodemogra-
phy. J Hum Evol 11:321–333.
Brooks ST. 1955. Skeletal age at death: the reliability of cranial
and pubic age indicators. Am J Phys Anthropol 13:567–598.
Brooks ST, Suchey JM. 1990. Skeletal age determination based
on the os pubis: a comparison of the Ascádi-Nemeskéri and
Suchey-Brooks methods. Hum Evol 5:227–238.
Brothwell D. 1981. Digging up bones. New York: Cornell Univer-
sity Press.
Buikstra J, Ubelaker DH. 1994. Standards for data collection
from human skeletal remains. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkan-
sas Archaeological Survey.
Chamberlain AT. 2000. Problems and prospects in palaeodemog-
raphy. In: Cox M, Mays S, editors. Human osteology in archae-
ology and forensic medicine. London: Greenwich Medical Me-
dia, Ltd. p 101–116.
Gilbert BM, McKern TW. 1973. A method for aging the female os
pubis. Am J Phys Anthropol 38:31–38.
Hillson S. 1996. Dental anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jackes M. 1992. Palaeodemography: problems and techniques.
In: Saunders SR, Katzenberg MA, editors. Skeletal biology of
past peoples: research methods. New York: Wiley Liss, Inc.
p 189 –224.
Katz D, Suchey JM. 1986. Age determination of the male os pubis.
Am J Phys Anthropol 69:427– 435.
Konigsberg LW, Frankenberg SR. 1992. Estimation of age struc-
ture in anthropological demography. Am J Phys Anthropol
89:235–256.
Lovejoy CO, Meindl RS, Pryzbeck TR, Mensforth RP. 1985. Chro-
nological metamorphosis of the auricular surface of the ilium: a
new method for the determination of adult skeletal age at
death. Am J Phys Anthropol 68:15–28.
Mays S. 1998. The archaeology of human bones. London: Rout-
ledge.
Molleson T, Cox M. 1993. The Spitalfields project, volume 2: the
anthropology. The middling sort. York: Council for British Ar-
chaeology.
239
Murray KA, Murray T. 1991. A test of the auricular surface
ageing technique. J Forensic Sci 36:1162–1169.
Nemeskéri J, Harsányi L, Acsádi G. 1960. Methoden zur Diag-
nose des Lebensalters von Skelettfunden. Anthropol Anz 24:
70 –95.
Sashin D. 1930. A critical analysis of the anatomy and the patho-
logical changes of the sacro-iliac joints. J Bone Joint Surg
28:891–910.
Saunders SR, Fitzgerald C, Rogers T, Dudar C, McKillop H. 1992.
A test of several methods of skeletal age estimation using a
documented archaeological sample. Can Soc Forensic Sci J
25:97–118.
Schwartz JH. 1995. Skeleton keys. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry, 3rd ed. New York: W.H.
Freeman and Co.
Suchey JM. 1979. Problems in the aging of females using the os
pubis. Am J Phys Anthropol 44:263–270.
Suchey JM, Brooks ST, Katz D. 1988. Instructions for use of the
Suchey-Brooks system for age determination of the female os
pubis. Instructional materials accompanying female pubic sym-
physial models of the Suchey-Brooks system. Fort Collins, Col-
orado: France Casting.
Suchey JM, Wisely DV, Katz D. 1986. Evaluation of the Todd and
McKern-Stewart methods for aging the male os pubis. In:
Reichs KJ, editor. Forensic osteology: advances in the identifi-
cation of human remains. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Todd TW. 1920. Age changes in the pubic bone I. The male white
pubis. Am J Phys Anthropol 3:285–334.
Ubelaker DH. 1989. Human skeletal remains: excavation, anal-
ysis, interpretation. Washington, DC: Taraxacum.
Waldron T. 1987. The relative survival of the human skeleton:
implications for palaeopathology. In: Boddington A, Garland
AN, Janaway RC, editors. Death, decay and reconstruction:
approaches to archaeology and forensic science. Manchester:
Manchester University Press. p 55– 64.