Recovery Rates of Human Fetal Skeletal Remains Using Varying Mesh Sizes

Abstract

Human fetal skeletal elements of different gestational ages were screened with multiple mesh sizes (6.4 mm [1/4 inch], 3.2 mm [1/8 inch], 2.0 mm, and 1.0 mm) to determine their recovery rates. All remains were previously macerated, and no significantly damaged elements were used. The 6.4 mm mesh allowed a large loss of elements (63.2% overall), including diagnostic elements, while no diagnostic elements were lost when the 1 mm mesh (0.2%) was used. When using the 3.2 mm mesh, 16.2% of the bones were lost, including some diagnostic elements (primarily tooth crowns), while 7.5% were lost using the 2.0 mm mesh. The authors recommend that the potential loss of information incurred when utilizing larger mesh sizes be taken into consideration when planning recovery methods where fetal remains may be encountered and that a minimum of 1.0 mm mesh be utilized in recovery contexts known to include fetal remains.

Accuracy of Dental Age in Nonadults: A Comparison of Two Methods for Age Estimation Using Radiographs of Developing Teeth

“…However, others have cited differences in the environment and social economic status for differences in maturation rates (Saunders et al 1993, Olze et al 2004, Langley-Shirley & Jantz 2010, Shirley & Jantz 2011, Vucic et al 2014. Furthermore, due to the more fragile nature of immature bone and destructive taphonomic processes, as well as inadequate recovery techniques, non-adult individuals may only be partially represented (Gordon & Buikstra 1981, Pokines & De La Paz 2016Walker et al 1988. For this reason, methods that utilize more durable tissues, such as the dentition, are preferred to estimate age for non-adults, as there are more likely to survive destructive taphonomic processes (Algee-Hewitt 2013).…”

The past, present and future of skeletal analysis in palaeodemography

“…They suggested small size and additional intrinsic factors influenced representation, such as bone mineral density and structure. In support of this, Pokines & De La Paz [29] found that not only preservation but archaeological recovery, in the form of mesh size, contributed significantly to infant underenumeration. Walker et al [30] reported underrepresentation of both infants and the elderly, with historical records indicating 32% of the individuals interred were under the age of 18 years, but only 6% of the skeletal remains belonged to this age group.…”

Determinants of infant mortality and representation in bioarchaeological samples: A review

“…There have also been cases where subadult remains have been previously erroneously identified as animal bones (see Liston & Papadopoulos, 2004 for an example). Further, one recent study found that mesh size contributes significantly to the recovery of infant remains, with 1.0 mm mesh only causing a 0.2% loss, while 6.4 mm mesh caused a 63.2% loss (Pokines & De La Paz, 2016).…”