{"title":"Skeletal recovery rates in a New England environment","authors":"James T. Pokines PhD, Ashley Mainville MS","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.15706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The present research examined the recovery rates of skeletal elements from forensic anthropology case report inventories at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Massachusetts, with cases from 1979 through 2023 and from five contexts: terrestrial ground surface (<i>n</i> = 65), marine/freshwater (<i>n</i> = 49), cemetery burial (<i>n</i> = 67), recent burial (<i>n</i> = 5), and previous anatomical teaching specimens (<i>n</i> = 38). Element representation was highest in recent burial and terrestrial environments, followed by previous anatomical remains, marine/freshwater environments, and lowest in cemetery environments. The cranium was the highest represented element in all contexts (between 45.0% [marine] and 100.0% [burial]), and most contexts followed the same general patterns of element representation with high representation of the long bones, higher representation of the lower axial skeleton (os coxae, lumbar vertebrae) vs. the thoracic and cervical vertebrae, and overall low representation of the hyoid, sternal body, patellae, and elements of the hands and feet. These recovery rates are related to the typical taphonomic agencies encountered in these environments, recovery context and methods, and inherent bone properties. Knowledge of these differing patterns may aid in the determination of the origin of unknown remains, highlight recovery and identification methods in need of greater focus, and support the utilization of forensic anthropologists in medicolegal casework.</p>","PeriodicalId":15743,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":"70 2","pages":"669-683"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15706","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The present research examined the recovery rates of skeletal elements from forensic anthropology case report inventories at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Massachusetts, with cases from 1979 through 2023 and from five contexts: terrestrial ground surface (n = 65), marine/freshwater (n = 49), cemetery burial (n = 67), recent burial (n = 5), and previous anatomical teaching specimens (n = 38). Element representation was highest in recent burial and terrestrial environments, followed by previous anatomical remains, marine/freshwater environments, and lowest in cemetery environments. The cranium was the highest represented element in all contexts (between 45.0% [marine] and 100.0% [burial]), and most contexts followed the same general patterns of element representation with high representation of the long bones, higher representation of the lower axial skeleton (os coxae, lumbar vertebrae) vs. the thoracic and cervical vertebrae, and overall low representation of the hyoid, sternal body, patellae, and elements of the hands and feet. These recovery rates are related to the typical taphonomic agencies encountered in these environments, recovery context and methods, and inherent bone properties. Knowledge of these differing patterns may aid in the determination of the origin of unknown remains, highlight recovery and identification methods in need of greater focus, and support the utilization of forensic anthropologists in medicolegal casework.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) is the official publication of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). It is devoted to the publication of original investigations, observations, scholarly inquiries and reviews in various branches of the forensic sciences. These include anthropology, criminalistics, digital and multimedia sciences, engineering and applied sciences, pathology/biology, psychiatry and behavioral science, jurisprudence, odontology, questioned documents, and toxicology. Similar submissions dealing with forensic aspects of other sciences and the social sciences are also accepted, as are submissions dealing with scientifically sound emerging science disciplines. The content and/or views expressed in the JFS are not necessarily those of the AAFS, the JFS Editorial Board, the organizations with which authors are affiliated, or the publisher of JFS. All manuscript submissions are double-blind peer-reviewed.