The estimation of age-at-death is an important subject in osteoarchaeology, and new methods are constantly being created. However, these methods need to be analysed for their accuracy to understand...Show moreThe estimation of age-at-death is an important subject in osteoarchaeology, and new methods are constantly being created. However, these methods need to be analysed for their accuracy to understand the implications. Smith et al. (2021) created a new age estimation method which uses the measurements of seven bones of the skull to estimate the age through a regression model for individuals between the age of 0 and 12. This thesis uses the non-adult individuals of the Middenbeemster collection which have a known chronological age (n=52) to compare their archival age to the age that is estimated by this method. Furthermore, this thesis uses the same bones and measurements to create new regression models which could be more applicable to the Middenbeemster collection and the population of Dutch individuals. Statistical analysis shows however, that the Smith et al. (2021) method is not as accurate as their research paper suggest. Instead, merely ten of the twenty-eight estimation methods were reported to be as accurate as the study suggested. Several of these were most likely accurate as the entire estimation range encompassed the age range it is reported to estimate. The estimated ages were compared without standard deviation with a Wilcoxon signed rank test. This showed that the occipital basilar and the frontal bone were comparable for under 2 years, and the occipital squamous and occipital basilar were comparable for over 2 years of age. The regression formulae which were created on the basis of this study were also shown to be inaccurate, as nearly all failed to adhere to the assumptions of a regression model. The research showed that the basilar part of the occipital and the frontal bone are the most accurate bones to use for the Smith et al. (2021) method.Show less
