Emanuela Stan, Camelia-Oana Muresan, Ecaterina Daescu, Raluca Dumache, Veronica Ciocan, Stefania Ungureanu, Dan Costachescu, Alexandra Enache
{"title":"A Review of Histological Techniques for Differentiating Human Bone from Animal Bone.","authors":"Emanuela Stan, Camelia-Oana Muresan, Ecaterina Daescu, Raluca Dumache, Veronica Ciocan, Stefania Ungureanu, Dan Costachescu, Alexandra Enache","doi":"10.3390/mps7040051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The first step in anthropological study is the positive identification of human remains, which can be a challenging undertaking when bones are broken. When bone pieces from different species are mixed together, it can be crucial to distinguish between them in forensic and archaeological contexts. For years, anthropology and archaeology have employed the histomorphological analysis of bones to evaluate species-specific variations. Based on variations in the dimensions and configuration of Haversian systems between the two groups, these techniques have been devised to distinguish between non-human and human bones. All of those techniques concentrate on a very particular kind of bone, zone, and segment. Histomorphometric techniques make the assumption that there are size, form, and quantity variations between non-humans and humans. The structural components of Haversian bones are significant enough to use discriminant function analysis to separate one from the other. This review proposes a comprehensive literature analysis of the various strategies or techniques available for distinguishing human from non-human bones to demonstrate that histomorphological analysis is the most effective method to be used in the case of inadequate or compromised samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":18715,"journal":{"name":"Methods and Protocols","volume":"7 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11270420/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods and Protocols","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/mps7040051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The first step in anthropological study is the positive identification of human remains, which can be a challenging undertaking when bones are broken. When bone pieces from different species are mixed together, it can be crucial to distinguish between them in forensic and archaeological contexts. For years, anthropology and archaeology have employed the histomorphological analysis of bones to evaluate species-specific variations. Based on variations in the dimensions and configuration of Haversian systems between the two groups, these techniques have been devised to distinguish between non-human and human bones. All of those techniques concentrate on a very particular kind of bone, zone, and segment. Histomorphometric techniques make the assumption that there are size, form, and quantity variations between non-humans and humans. The structural components of Haversian bones are significant enough to use discriminant function analysis to separate one from the other. This review proposes a comprehensive literature analysis of the various strategies or techniques available for distinguishing human from non-human bones to demonstrate that histomorphological analysis is the most effective method to be used in the case of inadequate or compromised samples.