Presentation Type
Poster Presentation
Abstract/Artist Statement
Forensic Anthropologists around the world use a variety of techniques to understand people using analysis of human remains. However, in instances when a researcher is given an incomplete set of remains it narrows the variety of methods that can be used as well as the accuracy of those methods. Therefore, information about the individual is restrained and can limit positive identification. At the University of Montana graduate students in the Forensic Anthropology program work together under the supervision of their professors to analyze skeletal remains cases. A Forensic Anthropology skeletal report consists of; minimum number of individuals (MNI), sex, age, stature, ancestry, pathology, taphonomy, and trauma. This report can be used by law enforcement to positively identify human remains in a forensic context. The accuracy and comprehensiveness of a skeletal report relies on the researcher having as much information, i.e. a complete skeleton, as possible. As a graduate student of Forensic Anthropology that has been assigned a case with limited skeletal material available for analysis, I have seen the limitations of only having fragmentary remains. This poster will compare and contrast the methodology of a forensic case that consisted of three skulls of varying completeness. This research will look at the differential findings based on the variety of methods of analysis between the skull that was 90% complete, to the two skull fragments that had less than 50% completeness. This evaluation is significant in understanding the limitations of current analyses on human remains in the field of Forensic Anthropology and pose questions on how that limitation can affect the positive identification of individuals. This research also highlights the need for new methods that work on fragmentary remains and the importance of interpretation of these types of analysis in law enforcement.
Mentor Name
Kirsten Mink
Analysis of Limited Skeletal Elements
UC North Ballroom
Forensic Anthropologists around the world use a variety of techniques to understand people using analysis of human remains. However, in instances when a researcher is given an incomplete set of remains it narrows the variety of methods that can be used as well as the accuracy of those methods. Therefore, information about the individual is restrained and can limit positive identification. At the University of Montana graduate students in the Forensic Anthropology program work together under the supervision of their professors to analyze skeletal remains cases. A Forensic Anthropology skeletal report consists of; minimum number of individuals (MNI), sex, age, stature, ancestry, pathology, taphonomy, and trauma. This report can be used by law enforcement to positively identify human remains in a forensic context. The accuracy and comprehensiveness of a skeletal report relies on the researcher having as much information, i.e. a complete skeleton, as possible. As a graduate student of Forensic Anthropology that has been assigned a case with limited skeletal material available for analysis, I have seen the limitations of only having fragmentary remains. This poster will compare and contrast the methodology of a forensic case that consisted of three skulls of varying completeness. This research will look at the differential findings based on the variety of methods of analysis between the skull that was 90% complete, to the two skull fragments that had less than 50% completeness. This evaluation is significant in understanding the limitations of current analyses on human remains in the field of Forensic Anthropology and pose questions on how that limitation can affect the positive identification of individuals. This research also highlights the need for new methods that work on fragmentary remains and the importance of interpretation of these types of analysis in law enforcement.