Documented Skeletal Collections and Their Importance in Forensic Anthropology in the United States

Abstract

Documented skeletal collections are the backbone of forensic anthropology due to their associated biohistories. This paper describes the identified skeletal collections and their relevance in forensic anthropological research, education and training in the US. The establishment of documented skeletal collections in the US can be distinguished into two modus operandi, depending on the stance towards the dead, legislation, and medical and forensic practices. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, anatomists amassed skeletons from cadaver dissections, shaped by European influences. Those skeletons compose the anatomical collections—such as the Robert J. Terry Anatomical Collection—predominantly representing impoverished and unclaimed individuals. Ethical concerns for the curation and research of African American skeletons without family consent are growing in the US. In contrast, since the 1980s, modern documented skeletal collections originated from body donations to human taphonomy facilities, such as the William M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection. The establishment and testing of osteological methods essential to establish one’s identity—such as age at death and sex—have been developed with skeletons from documented collections. Therefore, the analysis of identified skeletons has been crucial for the development of forensic anthropology in the US.

Inter-population differences in acetabular senescence: relevance in age-at-death estimation

“…Since North America and Europe have markedly different historical and legal background, their documented collections could have potential different sources: body donation programs, medical examiner or forensic cases, autopsies, dissection cadavers, archaeological sites, and/or modern cemeteries. Consequently, they can vary in the cultural, socioeconomical, and biological status of their subjects [ 94 ]. The economic and personal profits that body donations programs can provide to the individuals and families may bias the collection’s characteristics.…”

Twenty‐first century bioarchaeology: Taking stock and moving forward

“…This version might better allow people working with fragmentary and otherwise poorly preserved skeletal remains to link age (on an individual basis) to other variables of interest. Lastly, clarity regarding the mechanisms that lead to the formation of skeletal lesions and their association with heterogeneous frailty, and of expressions of co-morbid conditions (e.g., van Schaik et al, 2014), can be improved through further, ethically driven use of documented collections and dissemination of information about such collections available around the world (Campanacho et al, 2021).…”

Topical Collection “The Rise of Forensic Anthropology and Documented Human Osteological Collections”

“…Bibliometric trends disclosed that the most cited DHOCs were from (with a focal point at the University of Coimbra), the United States, and the United Kingdom, predominantly from biological profiling research. Campanacho and colleagues [8] discussed forensic anthropology's scientific and educational growth in the United States, first associated with anatomical collections in the 19th and early 20th centuries and later, with collections from body donation programs linked to human taphonomical research facilities since the 1980s.…”

“…For example, Belcastro et al [9] referred to the ethical issues of the Modena "Criminals" and Dart collections reflecting social and ethnic inequalities and the Sassari Collection's potential ties with living descendants in Italy. In Campanacho et al [8], ethical concerns revolved around the anatomical collections composed of impoverished and African American individuals without family consent, with calls for the repatriation of the latter. At the same time, L'Abbé et al [10] mentioned the ethical issues of the unclaimed individuals from the Pretoria Bone Collection, pointing out that family members can claim the remains back anytime.…”