“…Bone histological research within forensic anthropology has traditionally focused on analytical outcomes including the ability to accurately estimate age‐at‐death (Ahlqvist & Damsten, 1969; Bouvier & Ubelaker, 1977; Cho et al, 2002; Crowder, 2005; Ericksen, 1991; Kerley, 1965; Narasaki & Laughlin, 1990; Pfeiffer, 1992; Singh & Gunberg, 1970; Stout, 1986; Stout & Gehlert, 1982; Stout & Paine, 1992; Thompson, 1979), or differentiate human from nonhuman bone (Dominguez & Crowder, 2012; Hillier & Bell, 2007; Mulhern & Ubelaker, 2001; Mulhern & Ubelaker, 2003; Mulhern & Ubelaker, 2012). More recent research has focused on method improvement with an emphasis on validation (Crowder, 2005; Lagace, Verna, Adalian, Baccino, & Martrille, 2019; Maggio & Franklin, 2019; Milenkovic, Djukic, Djonic, Milovanovic, & Djuric, 2013), increasing accuracy and precision of current histological techniques (Heinrich, Crowder, & Pinto, 2012; Morris & Crowder, 2005), and the error generated in applying such methods (Christensen & Crowder, 2009; Christensen, Crowder, Ousley, & Houck, 2014). While these continue to remain important goals of bone histology research, efforts over the past decade have directed greater attention to linking bone histomorphometry to bone quality, fracture risk, mechanical loading history, and exploiting innovative technological modalities to explore bone microarchitecture in novel ways.…”