Manufactured populations: What do contemporary reference skeletal collections represent? A comparative study using the Maxwell Museum documented collection

Abstract

The extent to which archaeological or cemetery skeletal collections accurately represent the population from which they were drawn cannot be known. The creation of documented or forensic skeletal collections, derived from donation or autopsy, was intended to overcome many of the problems inherent in archaeological populations, yet it is misleading to assume such collections represent a specific or defined population. This study compares the documented skeletal collection curated at the Maxwell Museum to annual demographic information from three relevant populations: (i) the living population of New Mexico (NM), (ii) the deceased of NM, and (iii) the subset of decedents who undergo a medicolegal death investigation or autopsy. Results indicate that the Maxwell Documented collection differs significantly from all three populations in every variable examined: age, sex, ethnicity/race, cause, and manner of death. Collection development that relies on body donation or retention of unclaimed bodies under coroner/medical examiner statutes results in a biased sample, with significant overrepresentation of males, Whites, the elderly, those who die unnatural deaths and individuals with antemortem traumatic injury or surgical intervention. Equally problematic is the perception that the collection has documented race or ethnicity, when in fact only 17% was self-reported, while the affinity of the remaining individuals was determined by pathologists or other observers. Caution is warranted in how this and similar collections are used and interpreted by researchers. Although documented reference collections are useful in developing methods of estimating age or sex, they are not a proxy for modern or racially/ethnically defined populations.

Accuracy of mandibular measurements of sexual dimorphism using stabilizer equipment

“…Therefore, more studies are necessary in other population groups using the same methods to establish parameters for adequate measurements to elucidate sexual dimorphism in modern and archaeological collections. 20 Another aspect that should be discussed is that the Brazilian population is mixed, so there is a low probability of selecting mandibles from exclusively white, brown or black persons. In addition, when the genomic ancestry of Brazilian individuals was evaluated, low differences were observed among the regions of the country.…”

Postnatal ontogenesis of the tibia. Implications for age and sex estimation

“…In contrast, the equations of Trotter and GIeser systematically overestimate stature, in both female and male skeletons of Spanish and Italian origin [63,65,66]. In fact, there is a need to abandon the notion of the -universality‖ of osteological methodology and rather, promote the standardisation of methods [67]. Methodology should not be applied to skeletal material without regard for the secular and regional origin of the reference collection(s) used in the creation of the method.…”

Composition of the Kirsten Skeletal Collection at Stellenbosch University

“…The skeletal profile in general, despite differences in the age and sex composition of three population groups, reflects predominantly the profile of the Western Cape population. The Kirsten Skeletal Collection is unique compared to other known skeletal collections in South Africa 1,[3][4][5] in that the majority of the individuals are from the heterogeneous South African coloured population. …”

“…Current research using human skeletal collections includes developing new techniques to test and standardise regional-specific data regarding osteometric measurements and physical observations. [1][2][3][4][5] These reference points provide practical information for the estimation of biological profiles of unknown skeletons 6 in both forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology, including estimation of age, sex and stature. Detailed descriptions of skeletal remains of known populations are used to confirm or contradict archaeological and social theories for past and present communities.…”