An overview of age estimation in forensic anthropology: perspectives and practical considerations

Abstract

Context: Information on methods of age estimation in physical anthropology, in particular with regard to age-at-death from human skeletal remains, is widely available in the literature. However, the practicalities and real challenges faced in forensic casework are not always highlighted.

Objectives: To provide a practitioner's perspective, regarding age estimation in forensic anthropology (both in the living as well as the dead), with an emphasis on the types of cases, the value of such work and its challenges and limitations.

Methods: The paper reviews the current literature on age estimation with a focus on forensic anthropology, but it also brings the author's personal perspective derived from a number of forensic cases.

Results and conclusions: Although much is known about what methods to use, but not always how to apply them, little attention has been given in the literature to the real practicalities faced by forensic anthropologists, for example: the challenges in different types of scenarios; how to report age estimations; responsibilities; and ethical concerns. This paper gathers some of these aspects into one overview which includes the value of such work and the practical challenges, not necessarily with the methods themselves, but also with regard to how these are applied in the different cases where age estimation is required.

• Age estimation
• forensic anthropology
• age-at-death
• ethics

Declaration of interest

The author reports no conflicts of interest. The author alone is responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Notes

¹For more detailed information of the methods employed see summaries in Klepinger (2006), Black et al. (2010a), Byers (2010), Latham and Finnegan (2010), Dirkmaat (2012), Shirley et al. (2013), İşcan and Steyn (2013); Christensen et al. (2014); and Villa and Lynnerup (2014).

²See Volume 1, Issue 1 (2011, page 2) FASE Newsletter, http://www.forensicanthropology.eu/images/stories/pdffiles/FASE_Newsletter_vol1_iss1_2011.pdf

³It must be said that social and cultural anthropologists have also acted as expert witness for the courts. For example, to comment on a ritual involving human remains; or in the case of asylum seekers see http://www.websedge.com/videos/education/#/expert_witnesses_2014_aaa_conference, accessed March 2015. Therefore, it has been suggested in discussions that maybe we should call our field “forensic physical anthropology” (this has also been the title of publications, e.g. see Belcher et al. 2012). However, on identifying a victim and during investigation we also take into account other aspects of anthropology too.

⁴Please note these definitions are simplified here, each one can be debatable and in my experience it also depends on the background of the examiner, whether a forensic pathologist, a medical doctor or a forensic anthropologist. For a recent summary insight see Ubelaker (2015).

⁵“Estimation” is preferred over “determination” as we can only estimate the “real”/”true” or chronological age of the individual. The word “estimation”, as Milner and Boldsen (2012a: 225) point out, “underscores the uncertainty inherent in inferring age from bones and teeth”.

⁶In many countries there will be a Code of Ethics and Practice for forensic anthropologists. For example, those of the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Anthropology (SWGANTH) in the US (http://www.swganth.org/) and of the British Association of Forensic Anthropology (BAFA) (https://therai.org.uk/forensic-anthropology).