Abstract
Adult age estimation is a continuous challenge within biological anthropology. Lovejoy et al. (1985), Buckberry and Chamberlain (2002), and Osborne et al. (2004) have developed three auricular surface aging methods in an attempt to improve age estimation within adult specimens. This thesis analyzed the bias and inaccuracy within all three methods when applied to modern 20th century Americans Whites and Blacks. The data presented indicated a high degree of accuracy using the Buckberry and Chamberlain (2002) and Osborne et al. (2004) aging methods. In contrast, Lovejoy et al. (1985) performed with a low 26.74% accuracy. In agreement with other studies, Lovejoy et al. (1985) consistently overaged young individuals while under-aging older specimens. Between Buckberry and Chamberlain (2002) and Osborne et al. (2004), Buckberry and Chamberlain (2002) had the highest accuracy and lowest bias for the White, Female, White female, and Black female samples. Osborne et al. (2004) had the highest accuracy and lowest bias for the Blacks, Male, and Black male samples. Based on these data, Lovejoy et al. (1985) should not be used independently. If possible, more than one aging method should be used during age estimations. Survivorship curves generated from all three methods illustrate significant differences in survivorship depending on the method used. The chosen method has a significant impact on interpretations in paleodemographic and paleopathological contexts.