the forensic anthropology laboratory

TheForensicAnthropologyLaboratory

2320.indb 1 4/9/08 3:09:47 PM

2320.indb 2 4/9/08 3:09:47 PM

CRC Press is an imprint of theTaylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Boca Raton London New York

TheForensicAnthropologyLaboratoryEdited by

Michael W. WarrenHeather A. Walsh-Haney, Ph.D.Laurel E. Freas

2320.indb 3 4/9/08 3:09:48 PM

CRC PressTaylor & Francis Group6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government worksPrinted in the United States of America on acid-free paper10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-8493-2320-1 (Hardcover)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher can-not assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copy-right.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that pro-vides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The forensic anthropology laboratory / editors, Michael W. Warren, Heather A. Walsh-Haney, and Laurel E. Freas.

p. cm. -- (A CRC title)Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-0-8493-2320-1 (alk. paper)1. Forensic anthropology--United States. 2. Crime laboratories--United States.

I. Warren, Michael W. II. Walsh-Haney, Heather A. III. Freas, Laurel E.

GN69.8.F66 2008614’.17--dc22 2007048744

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site athttp://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site athttp://www.crcpress.com

2320.indb 4 4/9/08 3:09:48 PM

To Sgt. Nicholas R. Walsh, 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, 1980–2007.

2320.indb 5 4/9/08 3:09:48 PM

2320.indb 6 4/9/08 3:09:48 PM

vii

Contents

Preface ixEditors xiiiContributors xv

1 Introduction 1HeatHer WalsH-Haney

2 The Anthropology Research Facility: The Outdoor Laboratory of the Forensic Anthropology Center, University of Tennessee 7lee MeadoWs Jantz and ricHard l. Jantz

3 The Forensic Anthropology Laboratory in a Medical Examiner Setting 23dana austin and laura Fulginiti

4 Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command’s Central Identification Laboratory 47tHoMas Holland, JoHn Byrd, and Vincent saVa

5 The University of Indianapolis Archeology and Forensics Laboratory 65stepHen p. naWrocki

6 The Mass Fatality Incident Morgue: A Laboratory for Disaster Victim Identification 97paul s. sledzik and patricia J. kauFFMan

2320.indb 7 4/9/08 3:09:48 PM

viii contents

7 The Repatriation Osteology Laboratory, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution 117erica B. Jones and stepHen d. ousley

8 History and Collections of the Division of Physical Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution 149daVid r. Hunt

9 The Louisiana State University (LSU) Forensic Anthropology and Computer Enhancement Services (FACES) Laboratory 181Mary H. ManHein, n. eileen BarroW, and ginesse a. listi

10 The Working Forensic Anthropology Laboratory 195HeatHer WalsH-Haney, laurel Freas, and MicHael Warren

Index 213

2320.indb 8 4/9/08 3:09:48 PM

ix

Preface

Goals and Book Content

This book, The Forensic Anthropology Laboratory, was created as a survey of the various types of laboratories that support the practice of forensic anthro-pology. Our objective was to treat the reader, whether student, practitioner, educator, attorney, or forensic scientist, with an insider’s view of functioning forensic anthropology laboratories as reported by practitioners. To this end, we have assembled works from some of the most respected and prolific foren-sic anthropologists in clinical, research, and academic settings.

Lee Meadows Jantz and Richard Jantz are co-directors of the University of Tennessee’s Anthropological Research Facility. They discuss the motiva-tion behind the creation of Dr. William Bass’ research facility by highlight-ing Bass’ first case. These authors also provide detailed descriptions of how body donations are received and processed by the facility from the perspec-tive of the rules governing state regulations, the next-of-kin, students, and researchers. Jantz and Jantz also include extraordinary photos that document the steps taken to ensure that each body part is tracked from the moment it is transported to the facility through the decomposition and skeletonization processes. They have also provided information concerning the numbers of skeletons available for research and include the demographic data for each.

As full-time forensic anthropologists working within medical examiner’s offices, rather than as part-time consultants, Dana Austin and Laura Fulg-initi provide insights into how their daily activities and duties differ from their academic colleagues. Staffing, physical plant concerns, field recovery procedures, and laboratory processing of skeletal and decomposing remains are discussed. In order to have productive careers within medical examiner facilities, these authors stress the varied training they have been required to learn and use, which includes fingerprinting and other trace evidence pro-cedures. Austin and Fulginiti also describe staffing interactions that occur while medical examiner personnel work collecting and analyzing the mul-tiple lines of evidence used in medicolegal death investigations.

Thomas Holland and John Byrd and their colleague Vince Sava use their experiences within the Department of Defense’s Joint POW/MIA Accounting

2320.indb 9 4/9/08 3:09:49 PM

x preface

Command (JPAC) to shed light on the forensic anthropology standards they helped to design and implement in order to receive the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) accreditation. As the first forensic anthropology laboratory to undergo and receive accreditation, these forensic anthropologists provide a structured list of considerations for those laborato-ries with an eye towards accreditation. Importantly, these authors complete the accreditation process while fulfilling their JPAC mission—to achieve the fullest possible accounting of United States service personnel missing from past wars and conflicts. Holland and colleagues provide the history of the facility by underscoring the quality assurance, peer review, and research changes that occurred in the laboratory as a result of WW I, WW II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam Conflict so that each soldier’s identification would be the result of clear and convincing evidence.

The University of Indianapolis’ mission of “education through service” is at the epicenter of Stephen Nawrocki’s discussion of the policies and pro-cedures he uses in his capacity as laboratory director and undergraduate and graduate student mentor. Nawrocki presents the inner workings of his ~2600 square foot laboratory, from facilities management to recommendations con-cerning the utility of law enforcement training, in order to increase forensic anthropological participation in laboratory analysis and scene discovery and recovery. He also provides a superlative accounting of archeological prin-ciples that forensic anthropologists use when conducting scene recoveries that involve surface scattered or buried bodies. Nawrocki underscores the necessity of archaeological training especially with regard to capturing and deciphering the geophysical evidence from a scene.

Paul Sledzik and Patricia Kauffman provide information addressing how forensic anthropologists and pathologists work together as mass fatality responders. They discuss the practical issues that arise during most mass fatal-ity deployments and provide examples from the World Trade Center, Hur-ricane Katrina, and the Asian Tsunami disasters. These practitioners explain how and where the mobile disaster morgue can be used, provide morgue floor plans, and list the equipment and forensic scientists found within the mobile morgue. Sledzik and Kauffman have scrupulously presented the posi-tive effect that forensic anthropologists have on quality assurance measures used to establish positive identifications and noted the importance of mental health assistance for first responders and the victim’s next-of-kin.

Erica Jones and Stephen Ousley shed light on the concerns of the myriad stakeholders (e.g., forensic anthropologists, next-of-kin, tribal representatives) the Smithsonian Institution’s Repatriation Osteology Laboratory encounters in its effort to positively identify Native American skeletal remains. Jones and Ousley describe their data collection techniques, not only to share both new and established nonmetric and metric methods, but to draw attention to the legal and evidentiary importance of standard, testable, and credible

2320.indb 10 4/9/08 3:09:49 PM

preface xi

methods of skeletal analysis. Both forensic anthropologists present case stud-ies as varied as their investigations of skeletal remains believed to be of a “Sioux Giant,” a Nez Perce warrior, and a Modoc Indian prisoner, in order to provide real world examples of their repatriation work within the Smithso-nian Institution.

David Hunt, the physical anthropology collections manager for the Smithsonian Institution (SI), writes about the history and development of the museum’s skeletal collections. He also presents a history of SI forensic anthropologists with reference to each anthropologist’s work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other state agencies. Importantly, Hunt provides a cumulative list of available study specimens and procedural cues requisite in gaining access and collecting data on these priceless human skeletal col-lections. Any skeletal researcher interested in conducting research within the SI collections will benefit from Hunt’s information concerning destructive analysis, diagnostic imaging, casting, and all types of anthroposcopic and anthropometric data collection methods.

Mary Manhein and colleagues present their work within the FACES laboratory. In particular, they provide casework examples that document the technology they use to establish identifications through facial reconstruc-tion, photographic superimposition, and age progression. The FACES labora-tory sets the standard for age progression reconstruction.

Finally, the editors present a glimpse into a typical “working” forensic anthropology laboratory without the specialization illustrated by the authors and laboratory managers of the preceding chapters.

Therefore, what follows are overviews of the ways in which forensic anthropology practitioners run laboratories and collect data (e.g., the skel-etal remains are used to collect nonmetric, metric, radiographic, and his-tological data) in order to arrive at an identification of unknown human remains, establish time since death, and conduct trauma analyses of legal significance. We hope the reader enjoys this tour of the interesting world of forensic anthropology.

Heather Walsh-Haney

2320.indb 11 4/9/08 3:09:49 PM

2320.indb 12 4/9/08 3:09:49 PM

xiii

Editors

Michael Warren, PhD, received his PhD in 1997 from the University of Flor-ida, where he is currently associate professor of anthropology. His areas of interest include forensic identification and trauma analysis, human variation, and forensic examination of human cremated remains. He is a diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Anthropology and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Heather Walsh-Haney is an assistant professor at Florida Gulf Coast Uni-versity, in the College of Professional Studies, Division of Justice Studies. She is a fellow of American Academy of Forensic Sciences. As a DMORT (Disaster Mortuary Operations Response Team) member, she participated in the recovery of victims from the World Trade Center attacks and Hurricane Katrina. Additionally, she is the consulting anthropologist for the Bermuda Special Crimes Task Force and Florida Medical Examiner Districts 4, 17, 20, and 21, as well as a “mummy investigator” with the Discovery Channel’s tele-vision show Mummy Autopsy. As a mummy investigator, she has examined ancient remains from Egypt, Scotland, and the American West.

Laurel Freas received her BA from Cornell University and her MA from the University of Florida, where she is currently completing her doctoral stud-ies in biological anthropology. She is the laboratory technician at the C. A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory in the Department of Anthropol-ogy. Her research areas include human variation, osteometry, and forensic examination of saw marks in bone.

2320.indb 13 4/9/08 3:09:49 PM

2320.indb 14 4/9/08 3:09:49 PM

xv

Contributors

Dana Austin, PhD, D-ABFATarrant County Medical Examiners OfficeFort Worth, Texas

N. Eileen BarrowDepartment of Geography and

AnthropologyLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge, Louisiana

John Byrd, PhD, D-ABFAJoint POW/MIA Accounting CommandCentral Identification LaboratoryHickam Air Force Base, Hawaii

Laurel Freas, MADepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of FloridaGainesville, Florida

Laura Fulginiti, PhD, D-ABFAMaricopa County Forensic Science CenterPhoenix, Arizona

Thomas Holland, PhD, D-ABFAJoint POW/MIA Accounting CommandCentral Identification LaboratoryHickam Air Force Base, Hawaii

David R. Hunt, PhD, D-ABFADepartment of AnthropologyNational Museum of Natural HistoryWashington, D.C.

Lee Meadows Jantz, PhDDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville, Tennessee

Richard L. Jantz, PhDDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville, Tennessee

Erica B. Jones, MARepatriation Office/MRC 138Department of AnthropologyNational Museum of Natural HistoryWashington, D.C.

Patricia Kauffman, MA, MDDisaster Mortuary Operational Response

Team, Region IIIMid-Atlantic Forensic Identification GroupPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Ginesse A. Listi, PhD CandidateDepartment of Geography and


Mary H. Manhein, MADepartment of Geography and


Stephen P. Nawrocki, D-ABFADepartments of Biology and AnthropologyUniversity of IndianapolisIndianapolis, Indiana

Stephen D. Ousley, PhDRepatriation OfficeNational Museum of Natural HistoryWashington, D.C.

Vincent SavaJoint POW/MIA Accounting CommandCentral Identification LaboratoryHickam Air Force Base, Hawaii

Paul Sledzik, MSNational Transportation Safety BoardOffice of Transportation Disaster AssistanceWashington, D.C.

2320.indb 15 4/9/08 3:09:50 PM

xvi contributors

Heather Walsh-Haney, PhDFlorida Gulf Coast UniversityCollege of Professional StudiesDivision of Justice StudiesFort Myers, Florida

Michael Warren, PhD, D-ABFADepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of FloridaGainesville, Florida

2320.indb 16 4/9/08 3:09:50 PM

1

Introduction

HeatHer WalsH-Haney

Forensic Anthropology Defined by Kerley and Maples

As defined by Ellis Kerley (1978:160), forensic anthropology is “the special-ized subdiscipline of physical anthropology that applies the techniques of osteology and skeletal identification to problems of legal and public con-cern.” Yet, as editors, we trace our academic pedigrees to William R. Maples who was a forensic anthropologist keenly aware of the strengths and weak-nesses of working as consultant, curator, expert witness, mentor, and labo-ratory director (Figure 1.1). Through his scholar-practitioner philosophy we expand Kerley’s definition with Maples’ views of forensic anthropology as an applied anthropology field that promulgates the view that its practitioners are educated in the subfields of physical anthropology (human and nonhu-man primate anatomy, evolution, behavior), human osteology (the skeletal system on macroscopic and microscopic levels), and archaeology (analysis of material culture) in order to debate their findings concerning a decedent’s identification, time since death, and trauma analysis in a court of law.

Having worked as a consultant for the Central Identification Laboratory in Hawaii (now called the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command); having collected, analyzed, and archived prehistoric Native American remains for the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research and Florida Museum of Natu-ral History; having testified as an expert witness in congressional hearings and national and international courts; having worked as an undergraduate and graduate professor and as director of the C. A. Pound Human Identifica-tion Laboratory, Maples knew the collaborative role forensic anthropologists must assume. More specifically, Maples stressed the importance of unit-ing field workers/technicians with bench analysts and researchers in order

1Contents

Forensic Anthropology Defined by Kerley and Maples .................................... 1Caseload and Legal Considerations ..................................................................... 3References ................................................................................................................ 5

2320.indb 1 4/9/08 3:09:50 PM

2 Heather Walsh-Haney

to assist medical examiners in making correct judgments on issues of legal significance. This aspect of the practice of forensic anthropology is critical because many forensic bench scientists do limited fieldwork. Rather, crime scene technicians and investigators typically collect the physical and trace evidence in situ and then deliver these materials to the laboratory analyst.

Maples placed a premium on undergraduate and graduate student train-ing through student participation, under his direct supervision, in active forensic cases. During the 1996 American Academy of Forensic Sciences’ Physical Anthropology Section’s business meeting, Maples spoke in strong support of the importance of practitioner-based field and laboratory training for both undergraduate and graduate students because instruction required both student and mentor to have access to skeletal material from myriad con-texts. However, this philosophy was not met with universal approval among his peers as some believed that student involvement in forensic casework would inevitably lead to mistakes that would render the anthropological findings inadmissible.

The Maples perspective on training and practice in forensic anthropol-ogy arises from a niche other forensic scientists do not easily exploit—that

Figure 1.1 dr. Bill Maples holding a case of the Francisco pizarro skull. (photo provided by the William r. Maples special collections at Florida gulf coast university.)

2320.indb 2 4/9/08 3:09:50 PM

introduction 3

of the laboratory director in a university setting. The most widely accepted crime laboratory accrediting board in the United States, the American Soci-ety of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD-Lab) currently does not provide for the accreditation of facilities that allow for undergraduate and graduate training through participation in ongo-ing or open forensic cases. As a case in point, JPAC had a long history of hiring forensic anthropologists with terminal masters degrees. Yet, JPAC’s recent ASCLD-Lab accreditation required that the masters level practitioners acquire the PhD by attending universities with forensic anthropology labora-tories that are not accredited. Therein lays the crux of the importance of this book: a comprehensive presentation of laboratory procedures and standards employed by a collection of well-regarded and respected forensic anthropol-ogy practitioners. The need to establish the underlying validity of these pro-cedures and standards is central to the role that such laboratories occupy in the cross-disciplinary environment of forensic science.

Caseload and Legal Considerations

The forensic anthropologist’s caseload has quickly risen over the past twenty years (Galloway et al. 1990:62; Reichs 1995). In the five year period from 1977 to 1981, preeminent forensic anthropologist, Dr. William Bass, reported that his forensic anthropology casework doubled over the previous five-year period (Bass 1983:28). Similarly, Drs. Wienker and Rhine (1989:647), report-ing on a nationwide study, stated that the total number of cases handled in 1986 by forensic anthropologists who responded to their questionnaire “sur-passed the total reported from 1967 to 1978 by more than 12%.”

With the increase in the caseload of forensic anthropologists, there has been a significant upsurge in their court appearances as expert witnesses (Guthrie and Henderson 2007). However, the increase in courtroom appear-ances has not kept pace with the caseloads forensic anthropologists carry, even where the case has some juridical importance. This disparity has been explained either by the fact that lawyers may not be sufficiently familiar with forensic anthropology or by the forensic anthropologist’s report being subsumed into the final opinion of a medical examiner or a coroner. This unexpected growth in the caseload of forensic anthropologists and their con-comitant greater involvement in the legal process, both civil and criminal, have resulted in efforts to educate members of this scientific discipline to an awareness of their responsibilities within the legal system.

Recent court rulings have shed light on the need to for forensic anthro-pologists to follow generally accepted written protocols because the failure to do so may result in inadmissible evidence and preclude the case from pro-ceeding to trial (Murray v. State of Florida, 838 So.2d 1251; Higgins v. State of

2320.indb 3 4/9/08 3:09:51 PM


Florida, 899 So.2d 1251). Legal concerns regarding the efficacy of both the sci-entific evidence and subsequent expert witness testimony have been couched within rules of evidence that vary by state. The Frye opinion was the first to loosely establish the standard for novel scientific evidence (Frye v. United States, 54 APP. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013, No. 3968). In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court supplanted the Frye general acceptance test (of scientific standards) with their Daubert ruling (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579). Nevertheless, many states, including Florida, follow Frye and reject the Daubert standard. The former is considered a more stringent standard when the applicability of forensic techniques and procedures are called into question in court (Guthrie and Henderson 2007). Indeed, there is no dearth of publications that focus upon the aforementioned rules of evidence. Because we authors primarily work with forensic cases from Florida, we highlight the affect that Daubert has upon the handling of forensic anthropological evi-dence (e.g., the skeletal remains) within forensic anthropology laboratories from university, medical examiner, museum, and federal settings.

The Frye standard allows trace evidence and expert witness testimony into Florida courts when the following questions have been answered in the affirmative:

Will the forensic anthropologist’s testimony help the jury to understand •the evidence or to determine a fact in issue?Is the forensic anthropologist’s testimony based upon a scientific theory •or discovery that is known and accepted by his or her peers?Is the forensic anthropologist qualified, as evidenced by education, •experience, research, and peer-reviewed publications, to present evi-dence on the subject in issue?

If laboratory protocols and/or procedures used in the application of sci-entific principles are not followed, then expert witness testimony as well as the expert’s qualifications comes into question. Specifically, the probative value of the evidence is compromised when procedures are not followed. If the evidence is discredited because of sloppy work or unapproved standards than the court must decide whether it is better to (1) exclude the evidence or (2) present the evidence because it will help the jury to understand the facts of the case. Also of importance is the fact that handling and processing pro-cedures for the skeletal evidence have an impact on determining whether the forensic anthropologist’s credentials are acceptable to the court. For example, even the most eminently qualified forensic anthropologist may not be able to testify if he or she failed to follow acceptable collection, analysis, and stor-age procedures because the basis for the scientific opinion will be considered flawed. Thereby, the Frye criterion has a bearing upon accepted standards

2320.indb 4 4/9/08 3:09:51 PM

introduction 5

in the collection and storage of skeletal evidence that will be analyzed and presented in court.

The American Board of Forensic Anthropology has been primarily tasked with regulating and certifying its diplomats through certification and oversight procedures. Founded in 1977, the American Board of Forensic Anthropology (ABFA) stated objectives were and still are:

To encourage study and practice of forensic anthropology, establish sci-•entific standards, and advance the science of forensic anthropology.To promote a high standard of ethics and professional conduct.•To issue certificates to eligible individuals.•To inform government and private agencies of the activities of the ABFA •and its certified members.To maintain lists of individuals who are ABFA certified and available •for professional employment (Reichs 1995).

As such, forensic anthropologists collect their skeletal evidence with techniques acquired from osteology, histology, archaeology, and pathology in order to obtain findings that speak to the decedent’s identity, types of trauma inflicted on the skeletal remains, when death occurred, and in what order traumatic events occurred (e.g., whether before death, at or around the time of death, or after death; Kerley 1978; Walsh-Haney 2006). Therefore, what follows are systematic overviews of the most accepted means by which forensic anthropologists collect their data (e.g., the skeletal remains are used to collect nonmetric, metric, radiographic, and histological data) in order to arrive at an identification of unknown human remains, establish time since death, and conduct trauma analyses of legal significance.

ReferencesBass, W. M. 1995. Human osteology: A laboratory and field manual, 4th Ed. Spring-

field: MO Archaeological Society.Guthrie, K., and C. Henderson. 2007. Scientific evidence in civil and criminal cases.

In A. Moenssens, C. Henderson, and S. Gross-Portwood (eds.): Scientific evi-dence in civil and criminal cases, 5th Ed. Eagan, MN: Foundation Press, chap-ter 19.

Kerley, E. 1978. Recent developments in forensic anthropology. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 21:43–51.

Reichs, K. J. 1995. A professional profile of diplomats of the American Board of Foren-sic Anthropology: 1984–1992. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40(2):176–182.

Walsh-Haney, H. 2007. New advances and ethical issues in forensic and physical anthropology. Proceedings for the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting 18.

2320.indb 5 4/9/08 3:09:51 PM


Weinker, C., and S. Rhine. 1989. A professional profile of the physical anthropol-ogy section membership, American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Journal of Forensic Sciences 34(3):12.

2320.indb 6 4/9/08 3:09:51 PM

7

The Anthropology Research Facility: The Outdoor Laboratory of the Forensic Anthropology Center, University of Tennessee

lee MeadoWs Jantz and ricHard l. Jantz

Introduction

On a wooded lot near the Tennessee River in Knoxville, Tennessee covering almost two acres, lies the Anthropology Research Facility (ARF), a unique laboratory that allows for research into human decomposition. The Anthro-pology Research Facility is part of the Forensic Anthropology Center (FAC) at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. This facility was the brainchild of William M. Bass, then professor and head of anthropology at the Univer-sity of Tennessee (UT). Bass had two reasons for attempting to establish this facility: a badly missed estimate concerning time since death and evidence security issues at what was then the existing holding facility.

2

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7A Missed Time-Since-Death Estimate ...................................................... 8Security of Evidence ..................................................................................... 8The Facility Takes Form .............................................................................. 8Evolution of the Facility ............................................................................... 9

Body Donation Program ......................................................................................11From Donation to Skeletonization ............................................................14

Decomposition Research ......................................................................................16Skeletal Research ...................................................................................................18Training Courses ...................................................................................................18Summary and Future Prospects ........................................................................ 19Acknowledgments ................................................................................................ 20References .............................................................................................................. 20

2320.indb 7 4/9/08 3:09:51 PM

8 lee Meadows Jantz and richard l. Jantz

A Missed Time-Since-Death Estimate

The case of Colonel Shy, a Civil War casualty buried in Tennessee (Bass 1984; Bass and Jefferson 2003) caused Bass to recognize the lack of research con-cerning this critically important question: how long has this individual been dead? In 1977, a vandal had disturbed the Civil War era burial, but when investigators realized that there were actively decomposing remains in the grave, it was believed that a recent homicide victim had been placed in this old grave in order to hide the modern crime. When Bass examined both the grave and human remains in the field, he estimated that the death had occurred within the past year. However, once he and his students had recov-ered the remains and analyzed the evidence back in the lab, he realized that the remains were those of the Civil War colonel, whose death had occurred more than 100 years earlier! How could Bass’ estimate of time since death have been so far off the mark? The answer to this question was in the high quality of the embalming and casketing process. Indeed, the remains of Col-onel Shy had been embalmed and placed in a cast iron coffin that preserved the remains until vandals had broken into it. This case forced Bass to dive into the existing literature concerning how environmental factors (e.g., weather, soils, fauna, and scavengers) and human-induced variables (e.g., embalming, clothing, and body weight) affected human decomposition. To his surprise, very little time-since-death research had been done. As such, he recognized the urgent need to begin answering questions regarding the process of human postmortem change and garnering support for a decom-position research facility.

Security of Evidence

In order to store decomposing human remains, Bass had been given access to a barn on a remote farm owned by the University’s Institute of Agriculture. This space was utilized for the storage of human remains that came in dur-ing the course of Bass’ forensic anthropology casework. It was this location that began to cause Bass concern regarding security issues. The UT farm, which was located near the Holston River, was unfortunately situated next to a penal institution. Shockingly, the inmates were not under tight security and were known to trespass on UT farmland. The risk of loss or damage to the human remains stored within this facility was great, as were concerns regarding the maintenance of chain of custody.

The Facility Takes Form

As many forensic scientists have discovered, it can be very difficult to establish a research facility dedicated to the study of human decomposition. However,

2320.indb 8 4/9/08 3:09:52 PM

the anthropology research Facility 9

Bass approached the UT administration in the late 1970s with his formal request to establish an outdoor laboratory to address this very important and badly neglected subject (Bass personal communication). Bass’ facility came to fruition because the time was right and supportive administrators were in place. Indeed, if the UT administration had not been supportive of the facility’s research potential and had been more worried about the risk of bad publicity, the ARF would not have been founded. This is the unfortunate situ-ation in other institutions that have attempted to establish similar research facilities. Hopefully, in this day of increased focus on forensics, these fears will dissipate and new facilities in different environments will be established.

In 1980, ground was broken for the ARF on what had been the University hospital’s dump and incineration location. The location was covered over and its usefulness as a hospital incineration site had ceased several years prior, when burning was banned due to a particularly dry and rainless season. The site was located in the woods where a road and a small clearing had to be cut to allow access and space for the new facility. Dr. Bass and his students built the 16 ft2 concrete slab and storage shed. In addition, they enclosed the facility, even overhead, with chain-link fencing. With security in place, the only important items missing were the research subjects—the human bodies. Word was sent out via medical examiners throughout the state that human bodies were needed for decomposition research. In the spring of 1981, the first body donation was received. Thus, began the study of human decompo-sition and the program that has grown to house the largest modern Ameri-can skeletal collection to date.

Evolution of the Facility

Over the years, the facility has changed in size and shape. Originally, access to the facility required that one drive through a wooded area for approximately 50 yards after leaving the parking lot. In the late 1980s, the first increase in size came about indirectly from a request for virgin land necessary for a new research project. When Bass requested more land, the hospital leased the land reaching down to the parking lot (Figure 2.1). Chain-link fencing went up all around the facility. It was at this time that the concertina wire (e.g., razor wire) was added as another security measure. A relatively short time later, the hospital needed to reclaim the land given to the facility, but would make more land available (Figure 2.2). This was exciting news because the new land actually included more space. The less exciting part was that it was uphill. With the move, more fencing was required and obtained. An 8 ft pri-vacy fence was erected around the entire facility. This became our standard for security—the privacy fence, plus the chain-link fence topped with razor wire. In addition, the access gate to the facility was secured by a heavy chain and padlock.

2320.indb 9 4/9/08 3:09:52 PM


Figure 2.1 aerial view of the anthropological research Facility (arF). the square approximates the borders of the original space and the rectangle approxi-mates the first addition.

Figure 2.2 aerial view of the anthropological research Facility. the dark black lines approximate the third phase in the facility’s growth and the white lines approximate the last addition.

2320.indb 10 4/9/08 3:10:01 PM


The most recent addition to our facility occurred in 2003, when the east-ernmost boundary was extended towards the river’s edge and the northern boundary was extended in a northwesterly direction nearing the edge of the parking lot (Figure 2.2). Being closer to the water’s edge, the landscape slopes into a cliff. As such, the actual border for the facility does not extend down to the riverbank, but runs nearly parallel with it. Reasons for this last expansion included an increase in body donations and demand for training at the facil-ity. Due to this last expansion, the useable ARF land totals 1.3 acres.

After over 25 years of operation, the facility is now entering the most critical period in its history. The number of donations has been increasing almost exponentially over the last few years. Also, the number of training sessions at the facility has increased. These factors have placed an enormous burden on the limited space and made it essential to acquire more land in order to maintain our high standards of research and training.

Body Donation Program

Four individuals were donated in our inaugural body donation year. Over the years, two of those donations have been returned to the families. Within the last 25 years, numbers of donations per year have ranged from a low of one (in the second year) to a high of 107 in 2006 (Figure 2.3). White males make up the vast majority of our donations and are followed in descending order by white females and black males (Figure 2.4). Other groups are rep-resented by much smaller numbers. The ethnic and ancestry composition

120

100

80

60

40

20

01981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Figure 2.3 Histogram illustrating the numbers of donations received each year by the anthropological research Facility.

2320.indb 11 4/9/08 3:10:02 PM


of donations can be seen as an approximate reflection of the East Tennessee population and, to a lesser extent, the nation.

Body donations may originate by self-donation, family donation, or as unclaimed bodies from the State of Tennessee Medical Examiner (Figure 2.5). Occasionally donations may be made by a hospital or funeral home at the suggestion of the medical examiner. Tennessee law provides for the donation of unclaimed bodies to medical, dental, or anthropology schools (Table 2.1). Currently, our donations are located as follows: 69% are in the research skele-tal collection, 23% are at the research facility undergoing decomposition, 2% are in the process of being cleaned within the laboratory, and 6% have been

NativeAmerican F

Black FBlack MEastAsian F

Hispanic FHispanic MW FW M

EastAsian M

NativeAmerican M

Figure 2.4 demographic distribution of individuals that have been donated to the Forensic anthropology center.

120

100

80

60

40

20

01981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005

OtherSelfFamilyME

Figure 2.5 distribution of Forensic anthropology center donations by type (e.g., other, self, family, and medical examiner).

2320.indb 12 4/9/08 3:10:03 PM


returned to families. While the actual numbers change on a weekly basis, the distribution of the collection remains essentially the same.

Because ARF has been the subject of documentaries, news stories, and even novels, our program has received attention from all across the United States and Europe. People contact us regularly requesting information about body donation. As a result, we now have over 1000 individuals that have indicated their wishes to donate their bodies at death. Body donation forms arrive in the mail on a daily basis. Occasionally we receive a call from some-one asking “How much do you pay for bodies? I could use the money now, and I won’t be able to use it when I’m dead.” As the name of the program implies, we only accept legal donations and do not pay for bodies!

Table 2.2 Demographic Distribution of Individuals Donated to the Forensic Anthropology Center

Population Group Number of Males Number of Females

African American 52 15European American 497 199Hispanic 14 1East Asian 1 1Native American 1 1

Column Totals 565 217

Table 2.1 Tennessee Code Annotated for the Donation of Unclaimed Bodies

68-4-104. Distribution of bodies among medical, dental and anthropologic institutions — Receiving institution to pay expense. —

(a) The chief medical examiner, upon receiving the bodies or notification of the availability of the bodies as provided in this chapter, shall distribute them among the medical, dental and anthropologic institutions of this state regularly chartered and in active operation as prescribed in §§ 68-4-102 — 68-4-109, and shall not give, sell or deliver any body to any other person, firm, society, association or corporation.

(b) Bodies shall be distributed by the chief medical examiner to the institution that is closest to the location of the body and that has indicated a current need for bodies for the purposes authorized by this chapter.

(c) The institution receiving any body shall bear all the expense incident to the transportation of the body from the institution where death occurred, and its delivery to the institution receiving it.

[Acts 1947, ch. 163, § 3; C. Supp. 1950, § 2569.10 (Williams, § 5379.3); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 53-506; Acts 1984, ch. 525, § 5; 1990, ch. 598, § 5.]

2320.indb 13 4/9/08 3:10:03 PM


Another question often encountered by the ARF faculty and staff is, “Do we ever decline donations?” An individual with an infectious disease, such as HIV, hepatitis, tuberculosis, or antibiotic resistant infection, is not eligible for whole body donation; however, these bodies are accepted as cremains. It is requested that the cremains not go through the final cremation processing stage that grinds the bones into fine ash. As a result of this policy, we have a growing collection of documented cremains that is available for study.

From Donation to Skeletonization

When a donor dies, the ARF is notified by the legal next-of-kin or other agency representative (e.g., hospital or medical examiner’s office). In some instances, the decedent may have already arranged to donate his or her body to the facility after death. If this is the case, minimal paperwork is neces-sary and the process is relatively easy. However, if the potential donor did not make prior arrangements, the next-of-kin must provide the biological information (e.g., age, sex, ancestry, and stature) and medical history on the deceased, as well as sign a release formally donating the remains to the university. Upon receiving the release, the body is transported to ARF. If the decedent is within 200 miles of Knoxville and in the state of Tennessee, ARF personnel transport the decedent’s remains to the facility thereby tak-ing direct custody of the body donation. When death does not occur within these boundaries, the next-of-kin must make arrangements to have the body delivered to ARF via ground transport service or air cargo.

Regardless of whether a body is used in decomposition research or not, it is placed at the outdoor research facility and allowed to decompose in situ to facilitate skeletonization. If the body is not being used for a project at the ARF, then all clothing and jewelry is removed. Metal tags stamped with a unique identifying number are used to label the body on both an arm and a leg; plastic zip ties are used to attach the tags to the body (Figures 2.6 and 2.7). The cadaver’s recumbent stature is measured, and the body is photo-graphed. Any scars, marks, or tattoos are also photographed. Then, the body is placed on the ground’s surface in a prone position and covered with black plastic. If a donation is to be used in a decomposition project, then the body is tagged, measured, and photographed as described above, but body position-ing, location, and type of covering are dependent on the protocol for each project (Figure 2.8). The location of each body is recorded using Global Posi-tioning System (GPS) coordinates, and then these data are added to a central database that produces a map of all body locations within the facility.

After a body is skeletonized (Figure 2.9), the bones are collected and bagged. Then, the remains are taken for additional processing and cleaning. The extent of continued rendering may require only rinsing bones with water

2320.indb 14 4/9/08 3:10:03 PM


or more extensive heat soaking with mild detergent. After all of the soft tissue has been removed and the bones are clean, they are dried on racks.

Once the skeleton is clean and dry, it is accessioned into the donated collection for further study. A detailed inventory of the bones and teeth are taken and each element is labeled in India ink with the identification num-ber. Measurements of the bones are taken, and then the remains are included in the collection and are available for study.

Figure 2.6 tagging a body donation being placed within the grounds of the anthropological research Facility.

Figure 2.7 donation tag with unique identifying number.

2320.indb 15 4/9/08 3:10:04 PM


Decomposition Research

For many years, the research conducted at the ARF involved the basic study of the morphological changes associated with decomposition, with the focus being on how fast these changes occurred. Initial research involved examina-tion of the morphological changes that occur during surface decomposition and at what speed these changes occur (Rodriguez and Bass 1983). Studying the same changes in a burial environment followed suit (Rodriguez and Bass 1985). Because this was the only research facility of its kind, it was critical to identify which environmental factors played the most important roles in the rates of decomposition. Mann and coworkers (1990) describe these factors after many years of informal studies based on nearly daily observations.

Figure 2.9 one donated individual who has been skeletonized while on the grounds of the anthropological research Facility.

Figure 2.8 donated body placed in water, illustrating project placement within the grounds of the anthropological research Facility.

2320.indb 16 4/9/08 3:10:04 PM


Several theses have been based on research at the ARF. For example, Rodriguez (1982) observed the insect activity and its relation to human decay rates. Later, Cahoon (1992) examined the effects of clothing on decomposi-tion. In 1994, O’Brien placed bodies in human-made pools of water in order to study the soft tissue decomposition in an aquatic environment (O’Brien 1994; O’Brien and Kuehner 2007). More recently, Ritchie (2005) compared the human decomposition in an indoor setting to that of an outdoor environment.

Seminal studies by Vass (1991; Vass et al. 1992) produced a method of estimating length of time since death using the concentrations of the volatile fatty acids produced during the decomposition process. While this initial study was for a doctoral dissertation, Vass has expanded his studies into the biochemistry of death. In 2002, Vass and colleagues presented a new meth-odology of determining time since death by evaluating the changes in body chemistry during decomposition (Vass et al. 2002). Using eighteen bodies, tissue samples were taken over a period of time during the decomposition process. With various biomarkers and accumulated degree hours, Vass and coworkers established distinct changes in chemical patterns that can be cor-related to the length of time since death.

More recently, Vass and colleagues have documented the odor chemis-try of decomposition by establishing a database of the compounds (Vass et al. 2004). Love (2001) conducted the first study of odor from decomposing remains on the surface. It is not uncommon to use cadaver dogs in the search for bodies or clandestine graves, yet it was not well known what the dogs actually smell. Based on odor siphoned from four buried bodies (from fresh to over a decade old), the chemical compounds have been analyzed and iden-tified (Vass et al. 2004). Prior to the study, about a dozen compounds were known. By the date of publication, over 400 different compounds were dis-covered. This study is ongoing, and Vass and colleagues continue to identify new decomposition compounds that will help all forensic scientists deter-mine time since death.

Other fields of study that have found the ARF useful for research include entomology and criminalistics. In his graduate work, Haskell compared the use of pigs as models for humans in decomposition studies by using human cadavers at the ARF (Year). Arguments have been made that the ARF is a saturated environment and cannot produce reliable results in studies of decomposition, specifically the insect impacts (Haskell et al. 2001). Shahid and colleagues (2003) examined the hypothesis of insect saturation at the ARF by placing pig carcasses inside the facility, outside the facility and at various distances away from the facility. Results indicated that the presence or population of sarcosaprophagous arthropods (e.g., blow flies, flesh flies, skipper flies, carrion beetles, and rove beetles) was not significantly different in the facility than beyond the fence at various distances. In 2005, a follow-up study by Schoenly and colleagues examined the presence of predaceous

2320.indb 17 4/9/08 3:10:04 PM


arthropods at the ARF. They found that the environment at the ARF is “more representative of surrounding sites with respect to the sarcosaprophagous fauna than it is for the predatory and parasitic fauna that preys upon this forensically important group” (Schoenly et al. 2005:7-8).

Skeletal Research

If ARF provides unparalleled opportunities for decomposition research, so do the skeletons that originated within the ARF boundaries provide unparal-leled opportunities for skeletal research. The collection of skeletons resulting from the ARF donations, known as the William M. Bass Donated Collec-tion, is the largest such collection of modern Americans (birth years in the 20th –21st centuries) in existence. Information from the donated collection is included in the Forensic Anthropology Data Bank (FDB), also housed at the University of Tennessee.

Information from the Bass Donated Collection, together with the FDB has clearly demonstrated that 20th–21st century Americans are strikingly different from those of the 19th century contained in the anatomical collec-tions such as the Smithsonian Institution’s Robert J. Terry and Case Western Reserve University’s Hamann-Todd collections. These differences are seen in both the skull and postcrania (Meadows Jantz and Jantz 1999; Jantz and Meadows Jantz 2000; Ousley and Jantz 1997). It is clear from these studies that criteria for age, sex, height, and ancestry estimation must be based upon skeletons of modern people like those comprising the Bass Donated Skeletal Collection. Similarly, ARF has provided the donated skeletons for numerous theses and dissertations (e.g., Snow 2004; Christensen 2003; Meadows Jantz 1996; Rockhold 1998; Synstelien 2001). Many visiting scholars who require modern skeletons for a variety of purposes have also used the collection.

Training Courses

In the 1990s, Murray Marks began working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Emergency Response Teams (FBI–ERT) in a week-long train-ing course. The annual course involved classroom lectures and field training exercises at the ARF. Marks and colleagues specifically designed the course to simulate real-life forensic field experiences that involve locating a crime scene and excavating clandestine burials that contain actual human remains. The importance of locating and collecting forensic entomological evidence is introduced during this outdoor exercise as well.

In 2001, the National Forensic Academy (NFA) was founded as part of the Law Enforcement Innovation Center, University of Tennessee, and offers a

2320.indb 18 4/9/08 3:10:04 PM


ten-week course that focuses on training law enforcement in evidence collec-tion and preservation procedures. Three sessions per year take place. Train-ing session topics include arson investigation, blood spatter analysis, and forensic photography. Importantly, each session includes one week of class-room and field exercises (at ARF) in forensic anthropology, forensic odontol-ogy, and forensic entomology. Specifically, the ARF course includes one day focused upon search, mapping and recovery of surface scatter scenes and two days spent on the discovery, excavation, and recovery of clandestine burials. Each burial includes human remains and other types of associated physical evidence (e.g., clothing, spent and bullet casings). The human remains used in the outdoor “crime scenes” enable ARF to offer a unique training oppor-tunity for NFA students. Indeed, NFA students claim that the use of cadavers makes a significant difference in the effectiveness of the training.

The Forensic Anthropology Center began offering short courses, similar to those conducted on behalf of NFA, in 2006. One of the courses is an out-door recovery course that presents two primary crime scene scenarios—the surface scatter of human skeletal remains and the clandestine grave. Empha-sis is made on the collection and documentation of evidence and mapping. The excavation of the human remains is only available at the ARF.

Summary and Future Prospects

The ARF has been a unique research cantonment area until fairly recently. The facility has provided seminal and on-going research opportunities in the areas of human decomposition, forensic entomology, biochemistry, skeletal biology, and other areas of taphonomic study that had previously never been available. Many of these projects are conducted as graduate research, but many others are funded by grants and contracts for profes-sional research. The research conducted at the ARF adds to the growing body of information to be used in the investigation of time since death, which is often critical in criminal cases. All of these projects rely on the donated body program, which is a unique program in many ways. Algee-Hewitt and colleagues (2007) discuss the relationship between the donors, families, and FAC faculty and staff and, in so doing, defined the ARF net-work of stakeholders as nontraditional. Specifically, ARF functions in a non-traditional capacity of serving as the link between the program and the public in order to assure that information about the donation process and research is provided in an accurate and effective manner. The Anthropo-logical Research Facility faculty and staff function as consultants for those individuals that are contemplating donation and are often placed in the position of being grief counselors to the families of the deceased and must ensure the dignity and respect due to all parties. Finally, and of utmost

2320.indb 19 4/9/08 3:10:05 PM


importance, the ARF scientists and academics must assure the donor and next-of-kin that their heartfelt donation advances science and helps to train those tasked with the recovery of human remains (Algee-Hewitt et al. 2007). Ultimately, these donated individuals are accessioned into the William M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection, the largest collection of modern American skeletons available for study today. The research conducted here spans foren-sic anthropology, skeletal biology, and myriad scientific fields of study.

Although the ARF began in 1981 with the first donation, this genre of research is still in its infancy. Many more questions arise than can be answered. As technology advances, so does the need for continued forensic research. We hope that as our program grows, many other facilities of this nature will open. Indeed, it is simply not sufficient to have one such facility as it is limited by the environment in which it lies.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge and honor William M. Bass for his enormous contributions and accomplishments. The University of Tennessee and the Department of Anthropology have provided support. Finally, we thank the donors and their families without whom this endeavor would be impossible.

ReferencesAlgee-Hewitt, B., R. J. Wilson, and L. Meadows Jantz. 2007. The donation dilemma:

Academic ethics and public participation at the Anthropological Research Facil-ity. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 13:386–387.

Bass, W. M. 1984. Time interval since death. In T. A. Rathbun and J. E. Buikstra (eds.): Human identification: Case studies in forensic anthropology. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 136–147.

Bass, W. M., and J. Jefferson. 2003. Death’s acre: Inside the legendary forensic lab—the body farm—where the dead do tell tales. New York: Putnam.

Cahoon, S. E. 1992. Effects of clothing on human decomposition and deterioration of associated yarns. Masters thesis: University of Tennessee.

Christensen, A. M. 2003. An empirical examination of frontal sinus outline variabil-ity using elliptic Fourier analysis: Implications for identification, standardiza-tion, and legal admissibility. Doctoral dissertation: University of Tennessee.

Haskell, N., K. G. Schoenly, and R. D. Hall. 2001. Testing reliability of animal mod-els in research and training programs in forensic entomology, part II, final report. NCJ 192281, Final Grant Report.

Jantz, R. L., and L. Meadows Jantz. 2000. Secular change in craniofacial morphol-ogy. American Journal of Human Biology 12:327–338.

Love, J. C. 2001. Evaluation of decay odor as a time since death indicator. Doctoral dissertation: University of Tennessee.

2320.indb 20 4/9/08 3:10:05 PM


Mann, R. W., W. M. Bass, and L. Meadows. 1990. Time since death and decomposi-tion of the human body: Variables and observations in case and experimental field studies. Journal of Forensic Sciences 35:103–111.

Meadows Jantz, L. 1996. Secular change and allometry in the long limb bones of Americans from the mid 1700s through the 1970s. Doctoral dissertation: Uni-versity of Tennessee.

Meadows Jantz, L., and R. L. Jantz. 1999. Secular change in long bone length and proportion in the United States, 1800 to 1970. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 110:57–67.

O’Brien, T. G. 1994. Human soft-tissue decomposition in an aquatic environment and its transformation into adipocere. Masters thesis: University of Tennessee.

O’Brien T. G., and A. C. Kuehner. 2007. Waxing grave about adipocere: Soft tissue change in an aquatic context. Journal of Forensic Sciences 52:294–301.

Ousley, S. D., and R. L. Jantz. 1997. The forensic data bank: Documenting skeletal trends in the United States. In K. J. Reichs (ed.): Forensic osteology: Advances in the iden-tification of human remains. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 442–458.

Rockhold, L. A. 1998. Secular change in external femoral measures from 1840 to 1970: A biomechanical interpretation. Masters thesis: University of Tennessee.

Rodriguez, W. C. 1982. Insect activity and its relationship to decay rates of human cadavers in east Tennessee. Masters thesis: University of Tennessee.

Rodriguez, W. C., and W. M. Bass. 1983. Insect activity and its relationship to decay rates of human cadavers in east Tennessee. Journal of Forensic Sciences 28:423–32.

Shahid, S. A., K. G. Schoenly, N. H. Haskell, R. D. Hall, and W. Zhang. 2003. Carcass enrichment does not alter dcay rates or arthropod community structure: A test of the arthropod saturation hypothesis at the Anthropology Research Facility, Tennessee. Journal of Medical Entomology 40:559–569.

Schoenly, K. G., S. A. Shahid, N. H. Haskell, and R. D. Hall. 2005. Does carcass enrichment alter community structure of predaceous and parasitic arthro-pods? A second test of the arthropod saturation hypothesis at the anthropology research facility in Knoxville, Tennessee. Journal of Forensic Sciences 50:1–9.

Snow, F. J. 2004. Geometric morphometry analysis of the scapula: Implications for the determination of sex and ancestry. Doctoral dissertation: University of Tennessee.

Synstelien, J. A. 2001. Differences in the os coxae between blacks and whites: A muscu-loskeletal approach to human variation. Masters thesis: University of Tennessee.

Vass, A. A. 1991. Time since death determinations of human cadavers utilizing soil solution. Doctoral dissertation: University of Tennessee.

Vass, A. A. 2001. Beyond the grave: Understanding human decomposition. Micro-biology Today 28:190–192.

Vass, A. A., W. M. Bass, J. D. Wolt, J. E. Foss, and J. T. Ammons. 1992. Time since death determinations of human cadavers using soil solution. Journal of Foren-sic Sciences 37:1236–1253.

Vass A. A., S. A. Barshick, G. Sega, J. Caton, J. T. Skeen, J. C. Love, and J. A. Synstelien. 2002. Decomposition chemistry of human remains: A new methodology for determining the postmortem interval. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47:542–553.

Vass A. A., R. R. Smith, C. V. Thompson, M. N. Burnett, D. A. Wolf, J. A. Synstel-ien, N. Dulgerian, and B. A. Eckenrode. 2004. Decompositional odor analysis database. Journal of Forensic Sciences 49(4):760–769.

2320.indb 21 4/9/08 3:10:05 PM

2320.indb 22 4/9/08 3:10:05 PM

23

The Forensic Anthropology Laboratory in a Medical Examiner Setting

dana austin and laura Fulginiti

Introduction

Forensic anthropologists are well-established as a visible and necessary part of the medicolegal team that determines an unknown victim’s identity, ana-lyzes traumatic injuries, establishes time-since-death, differentiates human from nonhuman bone, creates a biological profile for unknown human remains, and testifies in court proceedings regarding these issues (Stewart 1979; Ubelaker 1999). Forensic anthropologists also provide support to law enforcement during the search and recovery phase, education to their peers, and outreach to the community. Most of these roles fall under the aegis of the medical examiner, coroner, or justice of the peace who has jurisdiction

3

Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 23The Facilities ........................................................................................................ 26Duties and Staff .....................................................................................................31Duties of the Forensic Anthropologist .............................................................. 34

Field Recovery ............................................................................................. 34Mechanisms of Case Assignment ............................................................ 37

Laboratory Analysis of Skeletal and Decomposing Remains ....................... 38Maceration ................................................................................................... 38Skeletal Analyses ......................................................................................... 39Trauma Analyses ........................................................................................ 40Positive Identification ................................................................................ 41Unidentified Cold Cases ............................................................................ 43Education of Pathologists and Law Enforcement .................................. 44

Summary ............................................................................................................... 45References .............................................................................................................. 46

2320.indb 23 4/9/08 3:10:05 PM

24 dana austin and laura Fulginiti

over the body and is mandated to certify the cause and manner of death (Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 11; Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 2003). While the forensic anthropologist may determine the mechanism of injury and whether the traumatic insult occurred ante-, peri-, or postmortem, the forensic pathologist is tasked with establishing the mechanism that caused death and ruling on the manner of death, that is, suicide, homicide, natu-ral, or accidental. In some jurisdictions, a hospital pathologist conducts the autopsy and provides findings to the coroner or justice of the peace who issues the death certificate. The forensic anthropologist can be called upon to supplement autopsy findings in a variety of ways.

Increasingly, pathologists are confronted with remains that are decom-posing, skeletal, severely traumatized, or conflagrated and these create spe-cial circumstances in which the pathologist will require the services of a forensic anthropologist. In our experience, the forensic anthropologist and pathologist often consult together on particular cases to decide which tissues will be cleaned and analyzed. The anthropologist then has the responsibility to macerate the remains and evaluate them for evidence of trauma, to estab-lish a biological profile to assist in the identification, or to complete an ante-mortem–postmortem comparison, usually involving medical radiographs to include or exclude positive identification.

A few medical examiner offices nationwide have forensic anthropologists on staff as full-time employees; some choose to retain forensic anthropology services on a contractual basis and some do not utilize the services of a foren-sic anthropologist. Table 3.1 shows medical examiner/coroner facilities in the United States that have an employment line for a forensic anthropologist. Some are employed full-time as a forensic anthropologist and others share duties as an investigator, administrator, or autopsy technician. A few of the positions are at the state level and one or more anthropologists will be responsible to respond to all medical examiners in that state. Kentucky and New Jersey developed full-time state anthropology lines in 1981 (Emily Craig and Donna Fontana, personal communication) and Georgia in 2002 (Rick Snow, personal commu-nication). A full- or part-time employee line requires funding for facilities and salary/benefits for the anthropologist. In larger jurisdictions, the funding is more readily available and a full-time position can be easily accommodated. The need to consult with formally trained anthropologists is becoming imper-ative as attorneys, pathologists, and families are better educated about the abilities of forensic anthropologists. Mass fatality and terrorism preparedness in many jurisdictions also play a part in the increased visibility of anthropolo-gists and consequently their use by pathologists. The Office of the Chief Medi-cal Examiner in New York City serves five separate boroughs and currently employs eight forensic anthropologists full-time to cover the city’s anthropol-ogy caseload, as well as to direct the ongoing recovery efforts related to the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (Bradley Adams,

2320.indb 24 4/9/08 3:10:06 PM

the Forensic anthropology laboratory in a Medical examiner setting 25

personal communication). Traditionally, forensic pathologists have sought an association with an academic anthropologist with skills in forensic analysis. This is beneficial in jurisdictions with limited budgets or in places where the perceived need for anthropology is lessened. In these cases, the anthropologist is gainfully employed by the local university or college and offers services on a fee basis or even gratis to the medical examiner; with a possible additional charge to the district/county attorney should testimony be required (Galloway et al. 1990).

The daily activities and duties of the full-time forensic anthropologist differ significantly from their academic colleagues. Once an anthropologist proves his or her competence in their jurisdiction, the caseload increases and becomes more regular. In some cases, an anthropologist previously paved the way and the caseload may be firmly established. Duties of the forensic anthropologist are extensive and training and experience in both fieldwork and laboratory analysis are critical. The anthropologist will lead the field recovery process, be present at the initial examination, prepare the

Table 3.1 Numbers of Medical Examiners Offices within the United States That Employ Forensic Anthropologists as Either Full-Time or with Shared Duties

LocationNumber

Full-TimeNumber

with Shared Duties

Phoenix, Arizona 1 0Tucson, Arizona 1 0Decatur, Georgia 1 0Fairview Heights, Illinois 1 0Frankfort, Kentucky 1 0Boston, Maine 1 0St. Louis, Missouri 0 1Hamilton, New Jersey 0 1Newark, New Jersey 1 0New York, New York 8 0Bismarck, North Dakota 0 1Eugene, Oregon 0 1Columbia, South Carolina 0 1Chattanooga, Tennessee 0 1Memphis, Tennessee 0 1Austin, Texas 0 2Fort Worth, Texas 1 0Houston, Texas 2 0

Seattle, Washington 1 0Total 19 9

2320.indb 25 4/9/08 3:10:06 PM


specimens, conduct the skeletal analysis, and often assist in the identification of the decedent. While academic anthropologists may take weeks or months to complete a skeletal analysis, the medical examiner-employed anthropolo-gist will often be asked to complete his or her examination in days to facili-tate the release of the remains. The anthropologist often races against the clock so that a body may be ready for release as soon as DNA results or other analyses are complete.

If the anthropology caseload is light, the anthropologist may be asked to take on additional duties. The forensic anthropologist in Maricopa County worked for a year as a medical investigator and the Tarrant County Medical Examiner (TCME) forensic anthropologist was required to train and work cases in the trace analyses laboratory for seven years including hair and fiber identification and comparison, processing of bodies in the morgue for trace materials, processing of evidence for trace materials, and identification of trace materials. She was relieved of those duties only after her anthropology caseload increased to over 75 cases per year. Other duties performed by the anthropologist include working autopsies by assisting with external exami-nations, drawing vitreous fluid and blood, accompanying transporters to the scene as a death investigator, management of human identification caseload, and teaching medical and law enforcement personnel.

The duties of the medical examiner’s office include identification of the decedent and certification of death. Both are necessary to complete the legal documentation that is required by vital statistics. When remains are not in a pristine state, the interaction of the pathologist and anthropologist are criti-cal aspects of the team approach to forensic casework. Other specialists that are often consulted to complete the work-up include forensic odontologists, fingerprint specialists, DNA specialists, pediatric radiologists, forensic neu-ropathologists, and neurosurgeons.

This chapter will incorporate the experiences of two forensic anthropol-ogists, both of whom maintain full-time status in their jurisdictions, albeit in different modalities. The facilities reviewed are the Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office in Fort Worth, Texas, and the Maricopa County Forensic Science Center in Phoenix, Arizona. In both instances, funding, equipment and space have been provided to accommodate anthropology on a full-time basis. This chapter will outline the facilities and duties of the forensic anthro-pologist in two different medical examiner systems.

The Facilities

The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Fort Worth, Texas serves Tar-rant, Parker, and Denton counties and other counties upon their request. The medical examiner district is located in North Texas and includes the larger

2320.indb 26 4/9/08 3:10:06 PM


cities of Fort Worth, Arlington, Denton, and Weatherford. Texas law requires that a medical examiner jurisdiction be formed by the county commission when a county reaches a population of more than one million (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 2003). Less populated counties are served by a jus-tice of the peace who will order an autopsy in certain required cases (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 2003). Some cases are contracted to hospital pathologists; however, many are outsourced to established medical exam-iner districts such as the TCME. The Tarrant County Office of Chief Medical Examiner currently receives 7000 death reports with approximately 2200 of those brought into the facility. The Texas medical examiner or justice of the peace may request the aid of a forensic anthropologist in the examination of a body or a body part. In these instances, the forensic anthropologist must hold a doctoral degree with emphasis in physical anthropology (Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 2003).

The Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office, operating at its cur-rent location since 1989, is housed in a two-story building. Reception, offices of the investigators and pathologists, records, secretarial staff, library, and conference room are located on the ground level. The morgues, body stor-age coolers, radiography facilities, garage/body transport area, incinerator, morgue staff offices, and evidence facilities are located beside these offices in an area with separate air handling capabilities. The radiography area has standard x-ray, dental x-ray, and fluoroscopy units. Within the next year den-tal and standard radiography are scheduled to be updated to digital systems. The morgues consist of a main morgue, teaching morgue, and a major case morgue. The main morgue has four autopsy stations with skylights to pro-vide natural lighting. The teaching morgue has elevated seating and is used for educational autopsies. The major case morgue is used to isolate homicide cases requiring trace material recovery prior to autopsy.

Laboratories are located on the second floor, accessed by a key card. Additional rented space houses the forensic biology, latent fingerprints, intoxilizer, and histology laboratories. Currently, the labs occupying the sec-ond floor include toxicology, solid dose chemistry, firearms, trace analyses, photography, and human identification/anthropology. The anthropology lab/office consists of a single room containing countertops on three sides and two stand-alone tables with storage underneath (Figure 3.1). A fume hood and sink with a garbage disposal are present.

The anthropology position was moved out of the crime laboratory and into a newly created Human Identification unit in 2006. The Human Identi-fication unit, led by the forensic odonotologist, consists of the anthropologist and a fingerprint examiner and is tasked with assuring a positive identity on bodies when possible. The crime laboratory line that led to anthropology at the TCME was initially occupied by a trace analyst with some training in forensic anthropology. This line later evolved into an anthropology line with

2320.indb 27 4/9/08 3:10:06 PM


duties in the trace section and eventually into a full-time forensic anthropol-ogy position. The evolution of this position reflects the increased demand for the services of a forensic anthropologist (Figure 3.2).

Maricopa County is in the central part of Arizona, a state governed by a medical examiner system (Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 11). Each county either provides its own medical examiner, or enters into an agreement with a county that has one in place. Currently the office performs over 5000 exami-nations a year. The Maricopa County Medical Examiner moved into a new facility and changed its name to the Forensic Science Center (MCFSC) in October, 2002. The forensic science center is a three-story edifice attached to a secure parking garage ultimately to be used by other county agencies. The three levels are divided by function with the basement dedicated to admit-ting and examination of decedents, administration on the first floor, and toxicology/histology on the third floor.

The main floor is divided into a public area and a secured area. The pub-lic area has a reception desk, separate offices for meetings with attorneys, and a family viewing area. In the front foyer, there is a state of the art confer-ence center for county-wide use. The secured portion houses offices for the administrative staff and the physicians. There is a small conference room and a doctor’s library, complete with closed circuit plasma screen televisions (for PowerPoint and viewing autopsies) and computers.

Figure 3.1 anthropology lab.

2320.indb 28 4/9/08 3:10:07 PM


The third floor is badge access only, with admittance permitted only for those individuals who work on that floor. Tissue specimens collected for his-tology and toxicological analyses are transported from the autopsy suite to the third floor via the elevator that is rendered inoperable to other users dur-ing transport. There is room on the third floor for trace evidence and DNA analysis and there are plans in place to add those functions in the next few years depending on funding.

The basement is the heart of the MCFSC building. The new facility has ten tables in the main examination room and two additional tables in the special procedures suite (for decomposed, contaminated or infectious cases). There is a separate examination table in the anthropology/dental laboratory (Figure 3.3). There are four walk-in coolers for the decedents and one smaller cooler for toxicology specimens. This floor also houses an admitting area, a radiography room, and a sterile operating room (for organ procurement). Due to the weather in Arizona, the rate of decomposition is very fast (e.g., decomposition in a few days during the summer and skel-etonization in as little as two weeks). To avoid cross-contamination with the other decedents, the decomposed remains and those suspected of car-rying disease are brought into the special procedures suite via a completely separate channel. They are weighed, admitted, and placed into a special cooler without entering the main admitting hallway. There is a separate observation room for the special procedures autopsy suite equipped with two cameras and telephones so that law enforcement and attorneys can communicate with the pathologist and staff. The bulk of the anthropology cases are initially examined in the special procedures examination room and then moved into the anthropology/dental laboratory for follow-up. The

Figure 3.2 dana austin, Marc krouse, and alyson allen look over an area of trauma on a cranium in the tcMe morgue.

2320.indb 29 4/9/08 3:10:08 PM


office of the medical examiner is charged with determining the cause and manner of death for all unattended or unexplained deaths and those dece-dents who comprise the majority of the Forensic Science Center (FSC) case-load are brought into a main hallway, weighed, and then placed into the admitting cooler. These include homicides, suicides, accidents, and natural deaths that are not decomposed, contaminated, or infectious. Once they are examined in the main autopsy suite, they are placed into the release cooler to await pick-up by a funeral director.

The main autopsy suite is configured so that each examination table has its own observation window, camera, and telephone to facilitate communi-cation with the staff. The pathologists have microphones and the observers (who include detectives and attorneys) can listen to the procedure via speak-ers in each cubicle. Segregation of the observers reduces the exposure risk to the observers and also cuts costs as they do not require personal protective equipment in the observation hallway.

The anthropology/dental laboratory is sandwiched between the admit-ting cooler and the special procedures suite. The lab is equipped with a metal examination table, overhead lighting, a moveable fluorescent light source, a portable unit for procuring dental radiographs (digital dental radiographs are under consideration), a wall-mounted light board for viewing radiographs, and a combination stove and fume hood that was designed specifically for maceration. The stove top is flat (induction) with five cooking surfaces and an automatic shut-off valve if the surface gets too hot, or if it has been on for

Figure 3.3 laura Fulginiti begins a preliminary examination of potential remains brought in by the Mohave county sheriff’s office.

2320.indb 30 4/9/08 3:10:09 PM


a long period of time. The fume hood was designed to work in conjunction with the stove surface and there are stove cupboards underneath for the stor-age of pots and other accessories. There is an office overlooking the labora-tory that is equipped with a telephone. The advantage to this system is that the anthropologist can monitor the maceration process occurring in the lab while completing paperwork in the office (Figure 3.4).

Duties and Staff

The Maricopa County Forensic Science Center is staffed according to func-tion. The office is divided into examination, administration, and toxicol-ogy. The chief medical examiner presides over 12 forensic pathologists (all of whom are either board certified or board eligible). Three photographers, fifteen forensic technicians, two medical investigators for each of three shifts, and one investigative assistant for each medical investigator at every scene, provide support for the forensic pathologists.

The deputy director of the MCFSC is responsible for the administrative side of the office. She commands a staff that includes the office manager, bud-get and payroll, facilities, computers, transcription, reception, custodian of records, human resources, and the admitting staff. The director of the tox-icology lab oversees the ten laboratory personnel and two histology tech-nologists. The forensic anthropologist and forensic odontologist are contract employees that answer directly to the pathologist on specific cases, and gen-erally to the chief medical examiner.

Figure 3.4 laura Fulginiti examining mummified human remains.

2320.indb 31 4/9/08 3:10:10 PM


The pathologists are responsible for conducting autopsies. At present, there are 13 pathologists. They are all licensed physicians and have passed either their board exams or are within a specified period to complete their boards. Additional duties include committee work (e.g., safety, trauma board), signing cremation authorizations, and communicating with organ donor companies.

The forensic technicians assist the pathologists during the autopsy, fingerprint the decedents, procure radiographs as necessary, and keep the written record of the procedure. They are also responsible for keeping the autopsy suites clean and stocked. The supervisor maintains adequate sup-plies for restocking. There are no cut and dry qualifications for becoming an autopsy technician, although many have funeral home or paramedic experience. The photographers obtain photographs as directed by the phy-sicians or law enforcement. Additional fingerprints are obtained as neces-sary by evidence technicians furnished by the agency with jurisdiction over the case.

The medical investigators travel to scenes as available. They are man-dated to attend all homicides and decomposed remains. They act as the “eyes and ears” of the medical examiners in the field. At the scene they procure photographs, interview law enforcement, and assist with the transport of the decedent. In the office they are responsible for handling next-of-kin inter-actions (excepting notification), obtaining medical records, and acting as a liaison with law enforcement. Within the MCFSC jurisdiction, some investi-gators have law enforcement or military background and all are required to pass the American Board of Medical Legal Death Investigators certification examination.

The investigative assistants are responsible for assisting the investiga-tors at scenes, acquiring photographs at the scene as directed, picking up decedents, taking specimens to and from the hospitals, and in some cases, retrieving medical records. The admitting staff is responsible for all incom-ing paperwork associated with the decedents and with the completion of the death certificate. They handle incoming phone calls and often interact with families and funeral homes. There are no particular qualifications for these positions although background checks and fingerprints are routinely conducted.

With the exception of the transcriptionists and the IT specialist, the administrative staff has no specialized qualifications for their positions, although prior experience with the public is prized. The transcriptionists typically have backgrounds in medical transcription and are vetted for their response to autopsy protocols. The records clerk and one transcriptionist both speak Spanish as an aid to their job duties. The custodian of records keeps the files, secures the files, and responds to subpoenas as necessary. There is a great deal of turnover in personnel, both in the examination and administrative

2320.indb 32 4/9/08 3:10:10 PM


portions of the office. The stress of the job, overwork, and emotional involve-ment are the major reasons cited for this phenomenon.

The toxicology staff is responsible for transporting specimens from autopsy to the third floor, cataloging, preparing and performing analyses of the specimens. They are also in communication with the pathologists con-cerning the results and the need for additional testing. The histology techni-cians prepare the slides for the pathologists and take care of special stains, or sending the specimens for additional testing outside of the lab. The lab personnel also communicate with the custodian of records regarding any subpoenas related to the specimens. All of the lab personnel have specialized training in toxicology.

There are ancillary individuals that enhance this core staff. In addition to the anthropologist and odontologist, there is a neurosurgeon that performs examination on fixed brains (although one of the newer pathologists on staff specializes in neuropathology), a pediatrician and a pediatric radiologist who are available to consult on child abuse cases, and evidence technicians from each law enforcement agency to fingerprint the decedents. Detectives are responsible for next-of-kin notifications, and for picking up and process-ing evidence acquired during the autopsy. They are routinely supplied blood from all homicide victims to compare to blood found at the scene. Photo-graphs of the autopsy are provided as well.

At the Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office, the chief medical examiner oversees a deputy chief medical examiner, two deputy medical examiners, a forensic pathology fellow, and a staff of approximately 55 indi-viduals that includes the crime laboratories, the toxicology and chemistry laboratories, and the human identification laboratories. Autopsy techni-cians staff the morgue with autopsy services performed seven days a week. Morgue photography, radiography, and fingerprinting of the decedents are duties assigned to the autopsy technician. The fingerprint specialist may be called to assist in cases of decomposition and mummification that make fingerprinting more difficult. Additionally, in homicide cases that involve trace evidence collection prior to autopsy, the staff photographer will assist by photographing the decedent. The anthropologist may assist in radiogra-phy, particularly on high volume days, in high profile cases, or in cases that are difficult to image.

The secretarial and records staff is responsible for case file management and storage, transcription of autopsy dictation by the pathologists, and cre-ation and filing of death certificates with the office of vital statistics.

The Investigations Department is the primary point of contact for law enforcement or hospital notification of death, and for families of decedents. A call is received and begins a chain of events that often leads to autopsy and issuance of a death certificate. The investigative staff is manned by a chief with eight investigators and four investigative clerks. In addition to staffing

2320.indb 33 4/9/08 3:10:10 PM


the reception area, investigators are dispatched to scenes of death with envi-ronments including home, hospital, highway, work and industry, and out-door settings. The investigator photographs the decedent as discovered and collects pertinent information that is necessary for a death certificate and next-of-kin notification. The investigative staff is the primary liaison with the family, notifies them of the death if necessary, and advises them of the need to make a funeral home selection.

The investigators liaison with a contractual body transport service and supervise both the loading of the body at the scene and unloading and log-ging in the body at the TCME facility. The receipt time, receiver, and trans-porter are recorded in a logbook as the body is considered evidence and a chain of custody is maintained. The bodies are placed into the “incoming” cooler to await autopsy and any other necessary processing.

When remains are skeletal and the anthropologist is responsible for the recovery, she will maintain the procedure of body transport by notifying the body transport service to retrieve and transport the remains. In this way, the body is logged into the morgue and the tracking of the body and liaison with the family proceeds as described above. This system is in place for the forensic anthropologist in Maricopa County as well.

Duties of the Forensic Anthropologist

Field Recovery

The TCME anthropologist is available to assist law enforcement in the loca-tion and recovery of skeletal and decomposing remains. Scene requirements range from the work of a single anthropologist for a few hours to multiple days, extensive search and recovery scenes. The level of support, including number of personnel and amount of equipment will depend on the needs of the requesting agency. An in-house field investigation team led by the anthro-pologist and consisting of laboratory personnel with years of crime scene and photography experience was formed in 2006. The local Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Evidence Response Team is also available to assist and is able to supply well-trained investigators and a good selection of equipment. Agencies outside of the medical examiner district are billed for anthropology services by the Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office.

Due to intensive training and in-services, in Maricopa County and other Northern Arizona counties, nearly all scattered skeletons and buried bodies are attended by the forensic anthropologist. In these instances, the investi-gating agency will contact the anthropologist directly to assist at the scene. The fee for these services is paid by the agency making the request. In rare

2320.indb 34 4/9/08 3:10:10 PM


instances, the county attorney will insist that the anthropologist be included in the recovery.

Field excavations are, by their nature, time intensive and exacting. The anthropologist maintains a field kit and a call list of possible assistants. In Maricopa County, key personnel are available in each local agency that has received training via an intensive three-day seminar focusing on the recovery of scattered and buried remains. Usually in these scenarios, there are enough personnel necessary to complete the excavation in one day. In instances when recovery is not completed, the scene is secured overnight by law enforcement.

Ordinarily, the scene is considered solely the responsibility of local law enforcement and the medical examiner does not become involved unless or until a body is discovered. In field recovery scenes involving both Maricopa and Tarrant counties, the anthropologist is the sole representative of the medical examiner present until transport is requested. In some instances in Tarrant County a death investigator may come to the scene to acquire the standard data for the investigator’s report.

Due to confidentiality and liability issues, only one anthropology gradu-ate student has ever been accepted for training in Maricopa County. She is involved in both examinations in the office and in field response. The law enforcement officers accept her as part of the team and thus far no issues have arisen regarding her participation in casework. Similarly, in Tarrant County graduate student volunteers from the University of Texas at Arlington that are well-trained in human osteology may accompany the anthropologist and assist in fieldwork.

During the processing of the scene, the anthropologist acts as the field commander, supervising the troops and assigning tasks to be completed. Scattered or buried remains are treated with a standard protocol. Initially, a survey of the scene is undertaken. If a cadaver dog is available, it sweeps the scene early in the day prior to other personnel entering. In cases of suspected buried bodies, the ground may be probed by the recovery team for the dual purposes of venting cadaver scent and evaluating areas of soft soil. In these cases the dog(s) will be run over the area a second time.

Once the dog(s) are out of the primary scene perimeter, a line search is undertaken. Depending on the staffing availability and size of the scene in question, the entire area is searched by hands and knees, walking, by horse-back, or on ATVs, and each piece of evidence is marked. The anthropologist acts as the coordinator of the search, confirming whether bony evidence is human or nonhuman prior to its inclusion in the evidence. The graduate stu-dents assisting in Tarrant County help considerably in identification of bone fragments and allow for the search team to be broken into smaller units, each led by an anthropologist. This is particularly helpful in searches that cover many acres and have low visibility due to ground cover (Figure 3.5).

2320.indb 35 4/9/08 3:10:10 PM


Once the evidence is marked, the anthropologist coordinates the docu-mentation and collection of the skeletal material and associated physical evi-dence. Each piece of evidence is photographed, measured into a coordinate system and documented prior to being bagged. In Tarrant County a total station is used to map surface scatter scenes. This land survey instrument utilizes a laser to measure distance from a control point to the item of evi-dence. The data are gathered on a laptop computer and a field map is created, which can be edited on the desktop at a later time. Once items deemed to be part of the case are carefully documented they can be collected and packaged in a manner that will preserve any evidence. Decisions are also made regard-ing the disposition of evidence, with some items transported to the medical examiner and other items retained in the custody of the police agency.

A buried body requires more intensive labor on the part of the anthro-pologist. A grid is constructed and procedures are followed for excavation according to accepted standards (Morse et al. 1983; Ubelaker 1999; Galloway et al. 2001; Dupras et al. 2006). Usually the anthropologist has the lead in this scenario with assistance from experienced detectives. In Maricopa County, the anthropologist has a core of individuals in various agencies that can be called upon to assist if necessary. Most agencies in her jurisdiction are more than willing to accept outside help from other sworn officers if necessary. The Sheriff’s Office also has multiple volunteers grouped into posses that can be called upon to assist in large scale searches. However, the volunteer posses do not usually assist in the recovery phase. In Tarrant County the anthro-pologist leads the recovery and is assisted by the in-house field recovery unit, graduate students, and in many cases the Dallas FBI Evidence Response

Figure 3.5 kristen Hartnett and laura Fulginiti sift for evidence and remains.

2320.indb 36 4/9/08 3:10:11 PM


Team. Staff transporters from the medical examiner’s office are dispatched once the remains have been recovered.

In Maricopa and Tarrant counties, the role of the anthropologist occa-sionally ends at this point. If the remains are fairly fresh with no trauma, the anthropologist is no longer involved. However, decomposed bodies are the norm and areas of suspected trauma need to be examined and the identity of the individual needs to be determined. The anthropologist assists in these matters in the procedures outlined below.

In Maricopa County, if the anthropologist is asked to complete an examination by the forensic pathologist assigned to the case, the scene investigation and the anthropological examination are considered to be two different services and are reimbursed individually. The scene response is paid for by the law enforcement agency requiring recovery assistance and the examination by the Office of the Medical Examiner according to a set fee schedule. The fee schedule ranges from identification of nonhuman bones to a complete examination of fleshed remains requiring maceration and traumata analyses.

Mechanisms of Case Assignment

The usual procedure in Maricopa and Tarrant counties is that the foren-sic pathologist makes a request to the anthropologist for assistance in the morgue. Cases vary widely from fresh bodies with bony trauma, to decom-posing bodies, to completely skeletonized bodies. In all cases, the forensic pathologist will issue the ruling on cause and manner of death. To meet this end, the pathologist will ask the anthropologist to complete specific exami-nations. These can include field recovery, evaluation of trauma, evaluation of the biological profile in cases where identity is unknown, and comparison of medical radiographs with postmortem films of the body for identification.

In Maricopa County, law enforcement will often request a secondary examination. Rarely, will the county attorney’s office will make the request. When a pathologist requires assistance from the anthropologist, he or she fills out a consultation request form that is subsequently vetted and approved by the Chief Medical Examiner. In both counties, an independent written report by the anthropologist is generated and added to the completed case file. This report is then subject to release to the attorneys for each side, and in Maricopa County, the general public.

In Maricopa County, payment is due upon completion of the written report and the office of the medical examiner is responsible for the bill. In July 2006, a sliding fee scale was approved and a charge sheet was developed. The charge sheet is created at the time of the consultation request and sub-mitted with a monthly invoice. Typically, nonhuman remains, brought in by law enforcement, are handled for a nominal fee and no report is generated.

2320.indb 37 4/9/08 3:10:11 PM


The fee scale ranges from the aforementioned nonhuman remains, an autopsy consultation or radiograph interpretation with no written report to full examination of skeletal or fleshed remains with a written report. The Tarrant County anthropologist is a salaried employee and receives the same pay regardless of the number or type of cases worked.

Laboratory Analysis of Skeletal and Decomposing Remains

Maceration

Due to a variety of fresh, decomposed, and mummified remains there will likely be a need to remove flesh for the purposes of determining age-at-death, sex, ancestry, stature, and trauma. The elimination of flesh requires special-ized techniques and equipment. The soft tissues need to be taken off without adding injury to the skeleton. Maceration, the process of tissue removal by water, is an acquired skill that requires training for proper implementation.

Maceration can be accomplished by long-term soaking, or by relatively quick boiling. In a busy medical examiner practice, the anthropologist will usually be required to resort to the quick reduction of the relevant skeletal elements in a case. The tissues are removed with a variety of tools includ-ing dissection tools such as scissors and forceps and less well-known tools such as nylon scrapers. In cases of a cutting injury to the body, scalpels and other cutting instruments are not used during the maceration process. The TCME anthropologist prefers dissection with scissors, pulling of the tissue away from the bone with forceps, and scraping of the bone with nylon scrap-ers. The Maricopa County anthropologist also uses forceps; however, in non-sharp implement cases she also employs a two-headed clay sculpting tool that has widened curved ends with studs on the molding surfaces. She also uses dental picks for foramina and difficult to reach tissues.

An odor elimination system is needed when macerating. Fume hoods are used both in Tarrant and Maricopa counties and should be considered in any laboratory facility dedicated to this purpose. While fume hoods are designed for chemical hazards, they also function as biological safety cabinets that work to shunt the malodorous maceration and decomposition smells out of the building with negative airflow. Stainless steel pots with lids are good heat conductors and will bring the materials to a high enough temperature to accomplish tissue loosening. A balance between the size of the heat source (hot plate or stove) and the bottom of the pot is critical. In an ideal laboratory, the fume hood will also cover a sink and garbage disposal so that the remains do not leave the fume hood area. This latter condition, however, is not part of a usual fume hood and may need to be preplanned and specially designed.

2320.indb 38 4/9/08 3:10:12 PM


A nearby sink equipped with a garbage disposal is critical and should not be overlooked and one must be sure to use a metal or plastic strainer that will catch errant teeth and smaller bones or bone fragments. Macerated soft tis-sues are also collected and incinerated.

In Maricopa and Tarrant counties, maceration is quickened by the addi-tion of an enzyme detergent. The detergent speeds the destruction of the soft tissue without harming or altering the bone. Once the remains have been completely macerated, they must be air dried. Therefore, an adequate space for laying them out is required usually a countertop near the sink, or on the examination table. A wire rack is essential to ensure even and thorough drying and to prevent mold development. The remains are not labeled until the drying process is complete; therefore, security is a preeminent concern. Each bone is labeled in black ink with the corresponding case number. Addi-tionally, the drying area must also be large enough to accommodate two or more cases without any possibility for commingling. In both Tarrant and Maricopa counties, multiple simultaneous cases are common, making this contingency of paramount importance.

Skeletal Analyses

Analysis of the remains begins once the drying process has been completed. The remains are laid out in anatomical position allowing for an inventory of the elements. Additionally, bones that are studied from a regional anatomy perspective will accentuate a single traumatic event that may mark more than one bony element. The evaluation of trauma requires microscopic analysis as well. A stereomicroscope with a high intensity light source is essential. In Maricopa and Tarrant counties, the anthropologist has a dissecting micro-scope available in the laboratory for immediate viewing. During the entire process from initial examination, through maceration, drying and the final examination, security of the remains is essential and is established through restricted access to the forensic anthropology suite.

In certain instances the body will have no tentative identification: no driver’s license is discovered, no vehicle or residence is associated with the case, and there are no leads to the identity. These cases are handled by gen-erating a biological profile of group characteristics such as age-at-death, sex, stature, ancestral affiliation, and individual characteristics such as osseous anomalies, pathological conditions that may have been medically recognized and/or treated, dental restorations, and evidence of disease processes, and even scars of pregnancy (Ubelaker 1999). The more detail that can be pro-vided by the anthropologist and odontologist, the more likely identification will ensue. All of these characteristics are used to generate a profile of the unidentified person.

2320.indb 39 4/9/08 3:10:12 PM


Trauma Analyses

In cases where the decedent has been subjected to trauma, be it blunt or sharp force, gunshot wounds, or postmortem insults, the anthropologist has the responsibility to provide an interpretation of the osseous involvement. The soft tissue provides a cover to the skeleton and both are subject to insult from force. Interpreting these patterns requires specialized training and a complex understanding of the ways in which bone reacts. As such, the pathologist is often dependent on the opinion of the anthropologist when it comes to bone and cartilage injuries.

Observation, maceration, reconstruction of fractured bones, and direct stereomicroscopic examination of areas of trauma can help to determine wound number, direction, and description. This can be critical in cases of suspected or confirmed homicide, auto pedestrian injuries, and child abuse cases. The Maricopa County anthropologist is frequently asked to perform reconstructions on traumatized skulls, be they from fresh, decomposed, or skeletonized remains. This procedure requires the careful removal and mac-eration of all bony elements, followed by painstaking reconstruction of the fragments. Duco® brand cement is the best adhesive for these types of delicate reassociations.

The TCME anthropologist is active in evaluating neck structures in cases of suspected neck trauma, largely manual and ligature strangulations, and hanging cases. This process involves removal of the neck block from the hyoid bone to the tracheal rings. High resolution radiographs utilizing mammography film are taken prior to maceration. Some information can be gleaned from radiographs involving obvious fractures. Occasionally, nondis-placed complete or incomplete fractures that are missed radiographically are detected after cold water maceration. This process can take upward of one week to clean the structures, due to the fact that heat cannot be applied to cartilaginous structures. After the hyoid bone is carefully dissected from the neck block, it can be macerated with heat.

The TCME benefits from a collaborative association between the anthro-pologist and the firearm/toolmark examiner. The firearm examiner has spe-cialized training in recognition and comparison of marks left by various tools including firearms and cutting implements. Incised trauma through cartilage and bone is documented with radiographs, photographed, and cleaned via cold water or heated maceration, respectively. After cleaning, the cartilage or bone is rephotographed, allowed to air dry at varying intervals and, any wound tracks are cast with Mikrosil® compound. The cast provides a permanent record of any stria left by the marking tool. After the casts are completed, a microscopic evaluation of the toolmarks is made to determine if any marks of value are detectable. If they are, comparison with a suspected tool can be completed if the tool is available.

2320.indb 40 4/9/08 3:10:12 PM


Gunshot wounds through bone are photographed, documented via radio-graph, excised, and macerated. The anthropologist can be useful in assessing the number of shots fired, the direction of the bullet path, the sequence of shots fired, and the designation of wounds as entry or exit (Berryman and Symes 1998). Pathologists are highly skilled in all of these assessments; how-ever, anthropology is able to contribute by cleaning the specimen and giving a detailed and slightly more accurate and descriptive documentation of the required measurements.

A careful cleaning and examination of bones affected by blunt force trauma will help determine the direction of force and the sequence of blows (Berryman and Symes 1998). This can be important in cases of auto–pedes-trian events in order to place the victim and the automobile in their exact positions at the time of impact (Galloway 1999; Tomczak and Buikstra 1999; Fulginiti et al. 2006). Bumper height can be determined from the location of the fracture. This can indicate whether or not braking was applied as a brake squat on the car will cause the front bumper to lower toward the ground. It may also help in identifying the class of vehicle when the driver leaves the scene (Smith et al. 2002).

Likewise, sharp force trauma can be evaluated for data regarding the path of the wound followed from clothing to bone, the minimum number of wounds, detailed location information, direction, and depth. A stereomi-croscope exam of cleaned specimens will aid in identifying all small nick-type injuries that would be missed without magnification applied to cleaned specimens. A detailed examination can also document characteristics of the wound tracks such as edges, ending marks, hesitation marks, and so forth (Berryman and Symes 1998).

Positive Identification

In Tarrant County, the anthropologist is part of the in-house Human Identi-fication Laboratory. At various times this team has taken on monthly meet-ings with local law enforcement missing person’s personnel and provided education to local law enforcement and the media. A primary function, however, is to provide a positive identification for every decedent processed in the morgue (Figure 3.6). The majority of identifications are accomplished through visual confirmation. This may include an affidavit statement by a personal acquaintance, or comparison by TCME personnel of a legal photo document such as driver’s license or INS card to the decedent’s face.

When bodies are not suitable for visual identification due to decomposi-tion or mutilation, the TCME has a standard protocol for accomplishing a scientifically sound positive identification. Fingerprint recovery and compar-ison is the first step. An Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) terminal is located at the TCME and is used to search for possible matches to

2320.indb 41 4/9/08 3:10:12 PM


an unidentified individual’s fingerprints. Additionally, if a tentative identifi-cation is known, the fingerprint technician can search the Texas Department of Public Safety driver’s license database to confirm identity. Other sources for known fingerprints include law enforcement and job security services. Fingerprint identification, where applicable, is also the first line of inquiry at the Maricopa County Forensic Science Center, although fingerprints for identification purposes are taken by the law enforcement agency and not by the staff of the Forensic Science Center.

If fingerprints are unavailable either postmortem or antemortem, the next step is to query family and friends about medical and dental records. Antemortem medical radiographs can be obtained by either law enforcement personnel or the medical investigators. Usually, whichever can be located the most quickly will determine the path for identification. Dental charts and radiographs from an individual’s known dentist are compared to records of a postmortem examination conducted by the on-staff forensic odontologist at TCME and by a contract odontologist in Maricopa County. Both anthro-pologists become involved on the rare occasion that the dentist is unavail-able and the comparison is straightforward. These instances are rare, and a board-certified forensic odontologist should be consulted for dental identi-fications whenever possible. Both anthropologists make all of the identifica-tions accomplished through comparison of antemortem radiographs of the body with postmortem films. Radiographs of the head, chest, and abdomen are obtained on all decedents at MCFSC prior to autopsy.

In Tarrant County any unidentified body will have anterior–posterior head and chest radiographs taken before the autopsy. This is standard protocol

Figure 3.6 paul coffman, Bill Walker, and dana austin review a fingerprint identification on an 18-year-old cold case in the aFis-ncic room at tcMe.

2320.indb 42 4/9/08 3:10:13 PM


in case the anthropologist needs to compare these areas later. The head and chest are cut at autopsy and it can be difficult to realign the structures exactly as they were in life. Other areas of the body, including hands, feet, and the pelvis can be used for identification purposes and radiographic films are made. Many times, the unknown person retains surgical hardware from a previously treated fracture or from other surgical procedures and repairs. Radiographs taken postimplantation can be compared to postmortem films and features such as size, number, and morphology of screws, plates, and staples can be exactly matched. Indeed, some orthopedic implants bear serial numbers that can be identified through online surgical implant catalogs or by follow-up with the company involved.

Unidentified Cold Cases

In Tarrant County an average of three bodies per year and in Maricopa County an average of ten bodies per year remain unidentified despite all efforts to determine the decedent’s legal name. In Texas, deceased persons of unknown identity must be entered into the unidentified person file of the National Crime Information Computer (NCIC) and be reported to the Texas Department of Public Safety Missing Persons Clearinghouse within 10 days of the reporting of the death (Texas Department of Public Safety [DPS] 2006). The information entered will include the biological profile data generally determined by the forensic anthropologist either through an anthropologi-cal exam or through review of the records, a description of clothing and per-sonal effects, and fingerprint and dental information. Digital dental images such as radiographs can be stored for future comparisons in the National Dental Image Repository (NDIR) (Herschaft et al. 2007).

The NCIC can be helpful in generating possible matches with persons that have been reported missing. The NCIC entry must be accomplished by a trained and certified operator. The TCME anthropologist along with all members of the human identification laboratory are certified and have clear-ance to make entries on the terminal located at the office. The Texas DPS Missing Person’s Clearinghouse provides frequent assistance with a NCIC entry, modification, and assemblage of missing person files that potentially match the decedent. NCIC access is available to medical examiner offices in the United States. However, the necessary security and user fees make this an expensive addition to the office. In offices with no direct NCIC access, local law enforcement or a state’s missing person’s clearinghouse will assist with entry of unidentified bodies.

Additional data acquired at TCME and MCFSC as part of an unidentified person medical examiner record include fingerprints and palm prints, dental charts and radiographs, DNA samples, frontal and lateral facial photographs with scale, full body radiographs, notation and photographs of scars, marks,

2320.indb 43 4/9/08 3:10:13 PM


tattoos, and personal effects including clothing, and notation of antemortem medical conditions, and observations regarding the postmortem interval. If it is possible, a facial reconstruction is completed on unidentified remains. TCME utilizes the services of a forensic artist, Suzanne Baldon, who prefers to provide pencil sketches in cases with a recognizable face and a clay recon-struction on decomposed and skeletal remains. At MCFSC, forensic artist and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office detective Bob Powers provide draw-ings on all unidentified decedents, regardless of jurisdiction. The forensic artist will add a clay rendition or cast the skull when time permits. Unidenti-fied bodies are buried at county expense in Tarrant and Maricopa counties after all required data are gathered and after exhaustive efforts are made to procure an identification.

The unidentified persons database creation and maintenance at TCME have been accomplished primarily by the anthropologist with assistance from investigative, records, and human identification laboratory personnel. Part-time temporary assistance was awarded with a grant receipt in 2007. This position was created with the specific intention to work solely on the cold identity cases. A similar database was created and is maintained by investi-gator Suzi Dodt at the Office of the Medical Examiner in Maricopa County with assistance from the anthropologist. A recently created unidentified per-sons search as part of their Web site (http://maricopa.gov/medex/) has been successful with several positive identifications made after family members or friends recognized one of the decedents. This bureau maintains decedents from the 1960s until present who can be sorted by sex and/or the timeframe in which they went missing. Each decedent is represented by a photograph, two or three dimensional rendition, and/or description of their personal effects as well as a brief physical description and how they were found. Tarrant County plans to implement a Web page using the Maricopa County Web page as a template in the near future. Currently, the Texas Department of Public Safety Missing Person’s Clearinghouse Web page contains the TCME cases with completed artwork (see www.txdps.state.tx.us/mpch).

Education of Pathologists and Law Enforcement

In any jurisdiction, one of the most important issues confronting the anthro-pologist is the constant reeducation of the personnel with whom they are in contact. Word of mouth assists this process once the anthropologist has established a reputation, however, due to the rotation of personnel in most law enforcement agencies and the addition of new pathologists and staff at the medical examiner’s offices, the anthropologist often finds herself in the unenviable position of edifying the inexperienced. Although this task can be frustrating and tiresome, it is crucial for the maintenance of good relation-ships with these agencies. Anthropology is becoming such a vital part of the

2320.indb 44 4/9/08 3:10:13 PM


medical examiner’s examination process that this particular part of the job cannot be overlooked.

One of the most effective mechanisms for training new personnel is to use the autopsy process as an opportunity to educate the officers who attend, and the pathologists who are conducting the examinations with you. In the field, you can reach more than the seasoned detectives by engaging the other officers present (for example, securing the scene or providing muscle) and educating them about what you do and why it is important. The major-ity of these individuals is fascinated by bones and provides a keen audience. A friendly demeanor, approachability, and the use of regular language are great ways to reach them, and you are repaid when they become detectives because they remember their initial encounter with you. The other effec-tive mechanism to reach a large number of individuals is through seminars directed specifically at your target audience. In-house lectures for the phy-sicians and staff aid in the development of rapport and knowledge about just what it is you are doing with your maceration pots. Similarly, lectures specifically targeted at scene recovery for law enforcement are invaluable in creating positive working relationships with the agencies in your jurisdic-tion. Of course, providing free service when possible does not hurt, but at some point you have to earn a living so the “seeding the clouds” approach should be used judiciously.

Summary

Formally trained forensic anthropologists bring an added perspective to the medicolegal investigation of death by performing a vital role as part of the identification, examination, and recovery teams. This chapter dis-cusses the varied role played by two forensic anthropologists in busy medi-cal examiner offices. Each of these women provides additional support to their medicolegal community acting as vital member human identification teams and important liaisons between law enforcement, missing person organizations, and families. The ability to provide these services stems from the anthropologist’s education and appreciation for cultural and lan-guage differences, training in archaeological technique, and specialized knowledge of ancillary forensic sciences such as dental and DNA analyses. Formal training and certification enable them to provide expert testimony with regard to their anthropological findings. This background allows the forensic anthropologist to fill an important and increasingly critical niche in the forensic community. The ongoing education of pathologists, law enforcement, and the public and the continued reliance by the patholo-gist on the skills of the forensic anthropologist will ensure that this role remains a vital component of medicolegal death investigation.

2320.indb 45 4/9/08 3:10:13 PM


ReferencesArizona Revised Statutes, Title 11, Chapter 3, Article 12.Berryman, H. E., and S. A. Symes. 1998. Recognizing gunshot and blunt cranial

trauma through fracture interpretation. In K. J. Reich (ed.): Forensic osteol-ogy: Advances in the identification of human remains, 2nd Ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Dupras, T. L., J. J. Schultz, S. M. Wheeler, and L. J. Williams. 2006. Forensic recovery of human remains: Archaeological approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Taylor & Francis.

Fulginiti, L. C., K. M. Hartnett, K. D. Horn, and R. E. Kohlmeier. 2006. Of butter-flies and spirals: Interpreting direction of force in pedestrian vs. motor vehicle accidents. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Galloway, A. 1999. Broken bones: Anthropological analysis of blunt force trauma. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Galloway, A., W. H. Birby, T. Kahana, and L. Fulginiti. 1990. Anthropology and the law: Legal responsibilities of forensic anthropologists. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 33:39–57.

Galloway, A., H. Walsh-Haney, and J. H. Byrd. 2001. Recovering buried bodies and surface scatter: The associated anthropological, botanical, and entomological evidence. In J. H. Byrd and J. L. Caster (eds.): Forensic entomology: The utility of arthropods in legal investigations. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Herschaft, E. E., M. E. Alder, D. K. Ord, R. D. Rawson, and E. S. Smith. (eds.) 2007. Manual of forensic odontology. Albany, NY: American Society of Forensic Odontology.

Morse, D., J. Duncan, and J. Stoutamire. 1983. Handbook of forensic archaeology and anthropology. Tallahassee, FL: Rose Printing Company.

Smith, O. C., E. J. Pope, and S. A. Symes. 2002. Look until you see: Identification of trauma in skeletal material. In D. W. Steadman (ed.): Hard evidence: Case stud-ies in forensic anthropology. Pearson Education.

Stewart, T. D. 1979. Essentials of forensic anthropology. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. 2003. Chapter 49. Texas Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle Handbook. Longwood, FL: Gould Publications of Texas.

Texas Department of Public Safety. 2006. State and Federal Missing Persons Statutes 2005–2006, Texas Department of Public Safety, Criminal Intelligence Service, Missing Persons Clearinghouse, Revised April 2006.

Tomczak, P. D., and J. E. Buikstra. 1999. Analysis of blunt trauma injuries: Vertical deceleration versus horizontal deceleration injuries. Journal of Forensic Sci-ences 44(2):253–262.

Ubelaker, D. H. 1999. Human skeletal remains: Excavation, analysis, interpretation. Manuals on Archaeology 2, Taraxacum, Washington, D.C.

2320.indb 46 4/9/08 3:10:14 PM

47

Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command’s Central Identification Laboratory

tHoMas Holland, JoHn Byrd, and Vincent saVa

Introduction

Sitting in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, in the most geographically isolated inhabited spot on the globe, is the world’s largest forensic skeletal identifi-cation laboratory. The Department of Defense, Joint POW/MIA Account-ing Command (JPAC) is a unique military organization with an inimitable mission: to achieve the fullest possible accounting of United States service personnel missing from past wars and conflicts. Almost 90,000 American service personnel remain missing: 5,000 from World War I; 78,000 from World War II; 8,100 from the Korean War; and almost 1,800 from the Viet-nam War. None of these individuals are officially designated as Prisoners of War (POW) or Missing In Action (MIA). Military review boards subse-quently amended the status of each individual to presumed dead, but none of them returned home. These are Americans who remain “unaccounted for.” Consequently, the JPAC mission actually works to conduct worldwide recoveries for the purpose of identifying missing U.S. service personnel. To

4

Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 47Historical Background ........................................................................................ 48Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 49Organization ......................................................................................................... 53Process and Procedures ....................................................................................... 54Accreditation and Quality Assurance (QA) ..................................................... 58Research ................................................................................................................. 61Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 62References .............................................................................................................. 62

2320.indb 47 4/9/08 3:10:14 PM

48 thomas Holland, John Byrd, and Vincent sava

achieve this goal, the JPAC relies on its scientific component, the Central Identification Laboratory (CIL).

The JPAC-CIL is charged with ensuring that remains recovery efforts and the subsequent forensic identification are conducted with the highest possible scientific standards. In addition, the CIL shoulders the responsibil-ity of being a national forensic resource. Accordingly, the CIL makes avail-able expert consultation services to a variety of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, provides humanitarian support to other federal agen-cies in the event of a mass casualty event, and conducts research intended to advance the science of forensic identification.

Historical Background

The United States has always taken an interest in the recovery of its war dead—more so than perhaps any other nation. Much of this commitment can be traced to the relative youth of the country. Unlike dominant nation-states of the past, such as Great Britain, the involvement of the United States in international wars coincides not only with the modern logistical ability to recover the remains of its war dead from distant battlefields, but also with the capability of repatriating those remains back to home soil. The extensive cemetery system that grew out of the Civil War, and which is symbolized so vividly today by Arlington National Cemetery, remains a tangible testament to the federal government’s commitment to care for its fallen war dead. What was missing, however, was the second component of today’s JPAC-CIL mis-sion—the ability to identify the remains once they were recovered. In reality, the scientific techniques necessary to achieve the identification component of this mission was not realized until World War II.

Today’s CIL has its roots in the U.S. Army’s Central Identification Labo-ratory that was established in Hawaii in 1947. Following the war, the Army acting as the “Executive Agent” for the recovery and identification of U.S. war dead, established two large laboratories to deal with the tens of thou-sands of U.S. war dead on foreign soils. One laboratory was located in France and mostly operated with European staff under the guidance of H.L. Sha-piro, then Curator of Physical Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. The second laboratory was situated on Scho-field [Army] Barracks in Hawaii. Unlike the European lab, the Hawaii CIL employed American personnel under the scientific guidance of Charles Snow, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Kentucky. When Snow returned to his teaching duties in 1948, he was replaced by Mildred Trot-ter, Professor of Anatomy at Washington University in St. Louis. It is at the Hawaii CIL, working with the remains of thousands of U.S. servicemen

2320.indb 48 4/9/08 3:10:14 PM

Joint poW/Mia accounting command’s cil 49

killed in the Pacific Theater, that Trotter collected the initial data on stature for which she is best remembered (Trotter and Gleser 1952, 1958).

Despite the enormous effort of the CIL—the remains of thousands of servicemen were examined at the Hawaii lab alone—the limits of science soon were reached, and in 1949 the Hawaii CIL was deactivated. Less than five years later, the Korean War once again established the need for a scien-tific laboratory capable of identifying war dead, and the U.S. Army Central Identification Unit (CIU) was established in Kokura, Japan. Led by notable anthropologists such as Ellis R. Kerley and Charles P. Warren, the CIU over-saw the identification of more than one thousand U.S. servicemen. It was here, as well, that T. Dale Stewart and Thomas W. McKern conducted their landmark study on skeletal age changes in young American males (McKern and Stewart 1957). As with the World War II labs, however, the CIU eventu-ally reached the limits of science for that time period and was deactivated.

The Vietnam War renewed the need to identify war dead recovered from foreign soil. During the war, battlefield casualties were identified through a mortuary system composed of two large in-country Army mortuaries—one outside Saigon at Tan Son Nhut Air Base and the other in Da Nang. These mortuaries were consolidated in Thailand following the American exodus from Vietnam, and it was soon recognized that the remaining cases were too challenging for the standard Army mortuary operation. Specifically, a scien-tific laboratory was needed to identify skeletonized remains retrieved from the battlefield by non-U.S. sources. (U.S. recovery teams were not allowed into Vietnam until 1986, and then only on a very controlled basis.) In 1976, the U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii (CILHI) was estab-lished for this purpose; however, in those early years the laboratory suffered from inadequate staffing, funding, and infrastructure, and it was not until the 1990s that anything resembling the laboratory of today emerged. It was during the 1990s that the commitment to scientific excellence that had char-acterized past CILs was renewed. In 2003, the U.S. Army relinquished con-trol of the CILHI, and the laboratory was incorporated into the newly created Department of Defense (DoD), Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command. The mission remains the same.

Infrastructure

The JPAC is located within the gated confines of Hickam Air Force Base, adjacent to Honolulu International Airport, on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. The location affords the laboratory a high level of security in that access to the base is tightly controlled. Additionally, military airlift capabilities and commercial airlines are easily available and serve to facilitate quick deploy-ments of scientists and recovery personnel to distant, worldwide locations.

2320.indb 49 4/9/08 3:10:14 PM


The JPAC building is operated 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by a military command-and-communications center that monitors daily situational input from deployed recovery teams as well as after-hours access to the building.

The CIL (Figure 4.1) currently occupies 11,500 square feet—approximately two-thirds of the larger JPAC building—and, as of this writing, is adding an additional 10,000 square feet. The laboratory facility includes a primary ana-lytical area with bench space to accommodate up to 20 individual skeletal cases simultaneously (Figure 4.2). A secure evidence-storage area is adjacent to the primary analytical floor. A secondary analytical area that includes an autopsy facility with a walk-in morgue refrigerator and DNA-sampling areas, one for dental samples and one for bone and soft-tissue samples (Figures 4.3 and 4.4), can accommodate an additional eight skeletal cases, or six full-body autopsies simultaneously, though this space is most commonly used to analyze nonbiological material evidence (e.g., aircraft wreckage, personal effects). Both of these analytical areas are access-controlled by magnetic-key cards with entry and exit points being alarmed during nonwork hours. Only members of the scientific staff and select support staff have unescorted access to these areas.

The CIL also includes separate work areas housing a histological thin-section laboratory, a scanning electron microscope (Figure 4.5), variable light source equipment, digital radiography (Figure 4.6), a library and con-ference room, administrative offices, a secure file room, a multimedia facility, photography studio, and staff offices.

Figure 4.1 the main laboratory floor of the Jpac-cil. (photograph by staff ser-geant charity Barrett.)

2320.indb 50 4/9/08 3:10:15 PM


Figure 4.2 remains analysis is predominantly conducted on the main labora-tory floor. (photograph by dr. William Belcher.)

Figure 4.3 dna samples are taken from bone specimens within a designated sampling space that is cleaned following each sampling episode. (photograph by staff sergeant charity Barrett.)

2320.indb 51 4/9/08 3:10:15 PM


Figure 4.4 dna samples are cut from bone according to standard procedures outlined in the cil manual.

Figure 4.5 the scanning electron microscope is used in case analysis as well as research. (photograph by staff sergeant charity Barrett.)

2320.indb 52 4/9/08 3:10:16 PM


Organization

The JPAC is a large and diverse military command. It is unique within the Department of Defense, or for that matter, within the world. Although per-sonnel numbers routinely fluctuate, regular staffing consists of approximately 400 personnel from all military branches, DoD civilians, private contractors, student interns, and postgraduate fellows.

To accomplish the mission of achieving the fullest possible accounting for missing U.S. servicemen, the JPAC conducts both field recoveries and laboratory analysis. The JPAC recognizes that the identification process often begins with the field recovery, which utilizes a unique blend of archaeologi-cal principles and crime scene investigation procedures. As such, the goal of the field operation is to recover evidence that is later legally defensible and to

Figure 4.6 digital radiography is used to examine skeletal morphology, pathol-ogies, antemortem fractures, gunshot residues and so forth. (photograph by staff sergeant charity Barrett.)

2320.indb 53 4/9/08 3:10:16 PM


successfully sort out evidence from site materials that have no probative value. To this end, JPAC has 18 standing recovery teams capable of deploying around the world for extended periods of time—usually 30 to 60 days at a time. Since 1976 the JPAC (and its predecessor organization, the CILHI) has conducted recoveries in more than 40 countries, ranging from the deserts of Iraq to the jungles of South America and Southeast Asia, from the frozen tundra of Sibe-ria to the beaches of the Solomon Islands, from the Himalaya Mountains of Tibet to the ocean depths of the Mediterranean Sea. In all, over 1500 U.S. men and women have been recovered, identified, and returned home.

A typical recovery team configuration consists of 12 to 14 personnel. The Recovery Leader is a civilian anthropologist from the CIL trained in archaeo-logical techniques, evidence handling procedures, and human osteology. The Recovery Leader is assisted by a military Team Leader, typically an Army or Marine Corps officer at the rank of captain or major, who is responsible for logistics and team order. An Assistant Team Leader is an Army or Marine Corps senior noncommissioned officer who functions as a foreman or crew chief. Most teams deploy with a medic and a linguist, as well as specialists in such areas as explosive–ordnance disposal, communications, aircraft wreck-age analysis, and photography. More specialized recovery missions require more specialized configurations of personnel. In addition to normal flatland terrestrial recoveries, the CIL has the personnel and equipment to conduct underwater archaeological recoveries as well as high-mountain excavations.

Once the recovery is completed, the resulting evidence, which includes all recovered human remains, is returned to Hawaii for laboratory analysis. The JPAC’s CIL is the largest skeletal identification laboratory in the world. Its varied staff, which at times numbers near 100, includes personnel with education and training in forensic anthropology, physical anthropology, zooarchaeology, archaeology, odontology, DNA analysis, quality assurance, evidence management, military aviation life-support equipment and wreck-age analysis, and photography. Presently, the CIL’s forensic dental staff is composed of active-duty military odontologists with firsthand knowledge of how the military dental system operates and how to interpret military dental records. Conversely, all of the forensic archaeologists and forensic anthro-pologists are civilians, most of whom are recruited from academic institu-tions and museums.

Process and Procedures

In the United States, human remains identification is a matter of civil, rather than criminal, jurisdiction. Accordingly, the burden of proof applied in most U.S. jurisdictions is preponderance of evidence. The Department of Defense, however, has dictated that the identification of remains of fallen U.S. service

2320.indb 54 4/9/08 3:10:16 PM


personnel should meet the more strenuous standard of clear and convincing. This is a national policy more easily articulated than implemented, in that typical JPAC cases often are decades old—many in excess of 50 years. As such, they are not directly analogous to the identification of the recently deceased when the remains are well preserved and the circumstances of death are well known. In recent-death cases, a single line of forensic evidence, such as a dental comparison or fingerprints or visual identification, might be found sufficient to close the case. A closer parallel to JPAC cases may be seen in mass disasters where victims’ remains are often damaged beyond visual rec-ognition and the possibility of errors in interpretations of forensic evidence is greater (e.g., random match probabilities with DNA or fingerprints are higher). For this reason, the CIL requires the synthesis of multiple lines of forensic evidence. Historically, the CIL has drawn primarily from two areas of specialization: forensic anthropology and forensic odontology.

When a case is received at the CIL, it undergoes the accessioning pro-cess that results in an internal chain of custody document. In many circum-stances chain of custody was initiated in the field, either by a JPAC recovery team or by an external agency (e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Naval Criminal Investigation Service, or medical examiner) submitting evi-dence for consultation. In these circumstances the existing chain of custody is incorporated into the CIL’s internal system. In all cases, the evidence is photographed upon receipt and assigned a case number that will accompany that case throughout the analytical process. Receipt of evidence is witnessed by at least one individual in addition to the CIL Evidence Manager. Follow-ing the assignment of a case number, a preliminary assessment is conducted and the evidence is triaged by a member of laboratory management, typi-cally a forensic anthropologist, in order to best route it through the analytical process. Most cases are assigned to two or more analysts who work indepen-dently of one another on separate aspects of the case: forensic odontology, forensic anthropology, and material evidence.

Dental remains, when present, are assigned to a forensic odontologist. Upon being assigned a case, the odontologists will inventory the dental remains, resolve commingled teeth as needed, and then identify and describe the dentition in as much detail as possible. The goal of the odontological analysis is to compile a dental profile that ultimately can be compared to the dental records of a missing person. Despite significant advances being made by the use of DNA, dental comparisons still constitute a primary line of evi-dence in the majority of CIL cases. These results, to a large degree, stem from the DoD’s recognition that prior to World War II dental characteristics were a primary means of identifying war dead. Accordingly, military dentists cre-ated detailed odontograms, charts, and descriptions of their patients. For this reason, the JPAC curates the medical and dental records of the 2,500 men missing or unaccounted for at the end of the Vietnam War; the 8,100 men

2320.indb 55 4/9/08 3:10:16 PM


unaccounted for from the Korean War, and has ready access to the archived records of the 78,000 men still missing from World War II. However, there are gaps in the archived dental records.

Many personnel files, including original dental records, from the Korean War missing were lost in 1973 when a fire destroyed the top floor of the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri. The files that subsequently were transferred to the JPAC for curation were acquired from other records and lack much of the required specificity of the origi-nal records. Additionally, the quality of the dental records has changed over time. Records generated during World War II and the Korean War consisted of dental charts and notations made by the examining dentist and these vary in content and quality of preparation. Very few dental radiographs were made during this era and even fewer have survived. To compensate for the lack of radiographs in these earlier cases, the CIL sponsored the creation of a data-base of almost 40,000 dental profiles. This database, and the accompanying computerized search engine called OdontoSearch, allows for the statistical weight of a records match to be calculated (Adams 2003a,b). Beginning dur-ing the Vietnam era, however, dental radiographs became a standard addi-tion to the files, especially for aircraft crews who underwent regular flight physicals. In contrast to the Korean War, for example, where casualties were primarily ground losses, the majority of the missing men from the Vietnam War were aircraft crew. Unlike written descriptions and drawn odontograms that support presumptive identifications, dental radiographs provide the forensic odontologist an opportunity to make a positive identification on as little as a single tooth.

Skeletal remains are examined by a forensic anthropologist. This analysis is conducted simultaneously, but independently, of any analysis being con-ducted by one of the odontologists. Unlike the work of the odontologists, who are provided access to all records and files, the anthropological analysis typically is conducted in the “blind”; that is, the anthropologist is not told the circumstances of the loss nor told any details that might be known or suspected about the case (such as the biological profiles of the individuals involved in the loss incident) until after their analytical report is written. By following this policy of blind analysis, the anthropologist is insulated from any preconceived conclusions that might impart bias into his findings. Consequently, this policy means that the anthropologist who conducted the field recovery is not typically allowed to analyze the biological remains in the laboratory. Thus, the field conclusions and the laboratory conclusions form separate and distinct lines of evidence.

The forensic anthropologist’s first task is to ensure that the skeletal remains have been completely and properly sorted. An initial sorting may have been accomplished during the preliminary assessment stage, but it is the responsibility of the forensic anthropologist to make sure that all of the

2320.indb 56 4/9/08 3:10:16 PM


nonbiological material evidence is segregated from the biological evidence (the nonbiological evidence is simultaneously analyzed as trace evidence). Once the nonbiological evidence has been separated from the skeletal remains, the forensic anthropologist will examine and, if necessary, cull any nonhuman bone from the case. This may require more specialized testing such as thin-section histology or scanning electron microscopy.

Once the remains are determined to be human, an estimate of the mini-mum number of individuals is made. Approximately half of all CIL cases involve some degree of commingling that must be resolved before the case can proceed. Once the discrete remains of one individual are segregated for analysis, a biological profile is developed. The goal of this step is to estimate the sex, age, race, and stature of the individual and to identify any trauma, skeletal abnormalities, or taphonomic factors that may aid in a subsequent identification. The precision and completeness of the biological profile depends upon the quantity and preservation of remains.

The majority of CIL cases now employ DNA testing to facilitate segrega-tion of elements and individuals or to provide another line of evidence for the purpose of identification. Historically, only mitochondrial DNA analysis has been used, though the use of Y-chromosomal and autosomal DNA test-ing will assume greater importance as nuclear DNA technology improves and becomes readily obtainable from human remains of the antiquity com-monly recovered by the CIL. Because of the increasing reliance on DNA test-ing, the forensic anthropologist and/or odontologist, in concert with the CIL management and DNA coordinator, must also decide when DNA analysis is feasible and productive for a given case. Once a decision has been made to sample a particular case for DNA, the forensic anthropologist and/or odon-tologist nominates specific skeletal fragments and elements for sampling and works closely with the DNA technicians to ensure that destruction of important bony landmarks and morphological features is minimized. Teeth are not consumed by the sampling process, but are sampled through a pro-cedure that leaves the enamel and root exterior intact. Once DNA results are received, the forensic odontologists and anthropologists compare their find-ings with the results of DNA testing. Inconsistencies are reported to labora-tory management for resolution.

All analytical reports at the CIL are peer reviewed by an analyst uncon-nected to the case. In addition, each report is reviewed by the Quality Assurance Manager (see section below) for administrative and procedural compliance and by a member of laboratory management for technical com-pliance and accuracy.

The JPAC-CIL Scientific Director is the ultimate authority that estab-lishes an identification of U.S. service personnel lost in past wars and con-flicts. By tradition, the director’s position is held by a forensic anthropologist. It is the Scientific Director’s responsibility to compile all of the independent

2320.indb 57 4/9/08 3:10:17 PM


lines of evidence (scientific and historical), synthesize them, and formulate a conclusion. This conclusion is shared with one or more forensic consultants external to the JPAC. The external consultants are senior board-certified forensic scientists who provide expert review of CIL cases before the findings are released. When all relevant aspects of the case have been considered and it is decided that the conclusion meets the threshold of “clear and convinc-ing,” then, and only then, are the remains officially identified.

Accreditation and Quality Assurance (QA)

In July 2003, the CIL became the first laboratory specializing in human skel-etal identification to be accredited by American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD-LAB). Since forensic anthropology and forensic odontology are not regular components of Ameri-can crime laboratories, the CIL’s accreditation was awarded in the disciplines of Crime Scene Investigations and Trace Evidence. Achieving accreditation in Crime Scene Investigation was relatively straightforward since JPAC field recoveries are forensic investigations, albeit ones that are heavily archaeo-logical in nature. Meeting the criteria for Crime Scene primarily involved restructuring the field procedures to place greater emphasis of evidence security and accountability than is common to most archaeological recov-eries. Meeting the ASCLD-LAB requirements for the Trace Evidence dis-cipline proved more involved in that individual procedures (for example, age estimation) had to be broken down and rewritten within the context of traditional trace evidence analysis. For example, while the term “trace evi-dence” generally is used to describe small, oftentimes microscopic physical evidence, a more generalized definition is requisite. As such, trace evidence involves the comparison of an unknown specimen of physical evidence to a known exemplar for the purpose of determining class characteristics or individual characteristics. This is largely what the forensic anthropologist or forensic odontologist does when comparing an unknown pubic symphysis to a known standard such as a McKern and Stewart (1957) cast or Suchey-Brooks (1990) phase (class characteristic) or an unknown tooth to a dental radiograph (individual characteristic), respectively.

Forensic anthropologists and odontologists might conduct trace evidence analyses in principle, but they have not traditionally done so in fact. Foren-sic anthropology, and to a lesser extent forensic odontology, at least as prac-ticed in the United States, remain deeply tied to academia. Casework which leads to identifications tends to be very idiosyncratic, with specific meth-ods and procedures passed from mentor/advisor to student. As such, what separates the practice of forensic anthropology and odontology from trace evidence analysis as practiced in the forensic laboratory is the application of

2320.indb 58 4/9/08 3:10:17 PM


standardized procedures. To achieve this end, the CIL rewrote its laboratory manual to create standard procedures among the varied staff (Figure 4.7), to bring the procedures more in line with traditional definitions and language common to forensic analysis, and to alter the traditional mindset of “this is how I’ve always done this.” This process has brought the practice of forensic anthropology and odontology in line with sister disciplines in forensic sci-ence and clinical medicine.

Accredited laboratories must outline their policies and procedures in a single source known as the “laboratory manual.” The structural hierarchy of the CIL’s laboratory manual begins with the ASCLD-LAB manual that sets baseline requirements for accreditation and the CIL QA Program. In effect, the laboratory manual is the “Quality Manual” in that elements per-taining to QA are found throughout the document. Design of the labora-tory manual is built around standard operating procedures (SOPs), each on a topic pertinent to the CIL mission. The result is a set of consistent policies, standards, and procedures that are explicit and shared between supervisors and subordinates. An important aspect of the laboratory manual is that the “spirit, purpose, and intent” of the SOP is expressed. This allows the staff to address and resolve problems that occur during remote operations when the CIL management cannot be reached. From the laboratory manual, all subsequent documentation is generated to include notes forms, checklists, training guides, CIL records, and other documentation.

Figure 4.7 part of the standard operating procedures concerns instruments, which must undergo periodic performance checks and calibration. (photograph by staff sergeant charity Barrett.)

2320.indb 59 4/9/08 3:10:17 PM


Restructuring the CIL’s laboratory manual was only the first step in the evolution to an accredited crime laboratory. The next step was the implemen-tation of a QA program. Accreditation sets minimum standards of quality; a QA program ensures that the minimum standards are met or exceeded. The end-state is not to guarantee that mistakes will never occur, but to greatly increase the chance that mistakes, when made, will be recognized in a timely manner and prevented in the future through a series of deliberately planned and monitored corrective actions.

The CIL QA program ensures that the CIL functions at all times in an objective and scientifically sound manner that utilizes reliable and accu-rate procedures that consistently generate reliable results. The QA program encompasses all the activities undertaken by the CIL in its permanent facili-ties, at sites away from its permanent facilities, or in associated temporary or mobile facilities. Thus, the CIL (and its clients) can be confident that the forensic findings of the CIL are impartial, scientifically and technically sound, thoroughly documented, and legally defensible.

Quality Assurance programs are commonplace in crime laboratories, but are still somewhat unusual in forensic anthropology settings where empha-sis is placed on the individual’s credentials rather than on the product they produce. This is unfortunate, as QA programs possess numerous qualities worthy of mention. For example, the CIL QA program is multifaceted. Mul-tiple QA measures exist for evaluating the quality of the product. The CIL continually seeks to improve the effectiveness of its QA program through the use of a multitude of mutually supporting and cross-validating QA mea-sures. These include but are not limited to:

Peer review of analytical reports•Annual internal audits of CIL operations (Figure 4.8)•Monitoring and critique of trial testimony•Maintenance of a positive work environment•Documentation to include a comprehensive laboratory manual con-•taining the standard operating proceduresRegular calibration and maintenance of equipment (Figure 4.7)•Competency and annual proficiency testing of staff•Evidence management and security procedures•Staff training and professional development•Safety, security, and maintenance of facilities•Selection and validation of analytical procedures•

The CIL QA program incorporates redundancy to ensure success in monitoring quality. Multiple cross-validating avenues for evaluating differ-ent aspects of field and laboratory operations are in place. Deficiencies not recognized by one QA measure may be detected by another. Furthermore,

2320.indb 60 4/9/08 3:10:17 PM


the QA program is proactive. QA measures are taken prior to and during every step of the analytical process to detect and correct deficiencies. It also is synchronized in that QA measures are interconnected and mutually supporting. One measure may be an indicator that another measure needs improvement. For example, deficiencies noted during an audit of a technical operation may indicate that written procedures and/or training programs may be inadequate.

The CIL’s QA program is personnel-based in that quality scientific and administrative staff with high morale is the basis for the success of the opera-tion. Individuals must be trainable, committed to the mission and work out-comes, and have a stake in the success of the final product. The QA program is only as good as the people that make it happen. As such, the CIL continu-ally encourages and funds professional development and certifications of its staff. Finally, the program is transparent, subject to outside oversight, and research oriented.

Research

Research is an integral component of the CIL mission for two primary rea-sons. The first is that CIL cases are typically difficult, and most brush the limits of the scientific technology and analyses currently available for foren-sic identification purposes. The CIL research has focused on the development of new methods for drawing analytical conclusions from what many would call “marginal” skeletal remains. A significant by-product of CIL research

Figure 4.8 periodic audits conducted by trained staff members are a critical component of the Qa program. (photograph by staff sergeant charity Barrett.)

2320.indb 61 4/9/08 3:10:18 PM


has been the development and compilation of large reference databases that can be used by other forensic scientists in their casework (Trotter and Gleser 1952, 1958; McKern and Stewart 1957; Adams 2002; Byrd and Adams 2003; Berg and Collins 2007). Many of the fundamental methods of forensic anthropology were developed in the CILs of the past, and that tradition con-tinues today. The second reason for CIL research is to support professional development. It is recognized that the modern forensic laboratory is no dif-ferent from academe in that the primary way that scientists maintain their professional standing is through research and publication.

Conclusion

The JPAC-CIL is a unique national forensic resource, despite its geographic location in the central Pacific. It is the largest permanent skeletal identifi-cation laboratory in the world, employing over 25 forensic anthropologists, three forensic odontologists, photographers, and other specialists. It is also the first forensic anthropology/odontology laboratory to be accredited by ASCLD-LAB. The CIL continues to focus its efforts on the identification of U.S. service personnel missing from past conflicts, in support of the U.S. gov-ernment’s commitment to the fullest possible accounting of missing person-nel. In addition, the CIL provides technical consultation to law enforcement agencies in the United States and overseas and conducts research aimed at advancing the science of forensic identification. It is expected that the CIL will continue the tradition of advancing the field of forensic anthropology by emphasizing the greater standardization and objectivity that are the hall-marks of ASCLD-LAB accredited laboratories.

ReferencesAdams, B. A. 2003a. Establishing personal identification based on specific patterns of

missing, filled, and unrestored teeth. Journal of Forensic Sciences 48:487–496.Adams, B. A. 2003b. The diversity of adult dental patterns in the United States

and the implications for personal identification. Journal of Forensic Sciences 48:497–503.

Berg, G. E., and R. S. Collins. 2007. Personal identification based on prescription eyewear. Journal of Forensic Sciences 52(2):406–411.

Brooks, S., and J. M. Suchey. 1990. Skeletal age determination based upon the os pubis: A comparison of the Acsádi-Nemeskéri and Suchey-Brooks methods. Journal of Human Evolution 5:227–238.

Byrd, J. E., and B. J. Adams. 2003. Osteometric sorting of commingled human remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences 48:717–724.

2320.indb 62 4/9/08 3:10:18 PM


McKern, T. W., and T. D. Stewart. 1957. Skeletal age changes in young American males. Quartermaster Research and Development Command Technical Report EP-45: Natick, MA.

Trotter, M., and G. C. Gleser. 1952. Estimation of stature from long bones of American whites and negroes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 10:463–514.

Trotter, M., and G. C. Gleser. 1958. A re-evaluation of estimation of stature based on measurements of stature taken during life and of long bones after death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 16:79–123.

2320.indb 63 4/9/08 3:10:18 PM

2320.indb 64 4/9/08 3:10:18 PM

65

The University of Indianapolis Archeology and Forensics Laboratory

stepHen p. naWrocki

Introduction

The University of Indianapolis Archeology and Forensics Laboratory (AFL) was established in 1992. The University is a private not-for-profit comprehen-sive undergraduate institution with a small selection of graduate programs, primarily in the clinical fields. Administratively, the AFL exists as a quasi-independent entity within the College of Arts and Sciences, although the Departments of Biology and Anthropology have served as important sources of support to the facility throughout the years. The AFL has its own modest budget that is used primarily for supplies and other operating expenses. In addition, any funds generated through forensic and archeological casework

5Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 65Facilities and Procedures .................................................................................... 66

Lab Protocol ................................................................................................ 70Collections ....................................................................................................74

Field Recovery ....................................................................................................... 75The Medicolegal System ............................................................................. 76Searches ........................................................................................................ 77Training Courses ........................................................................................ 79Scene Protocol ..............................................................................................81Field Strategies ............................................................................................ 82Methodology ............................................................................................... 84

Forensic Taphonomy ............................................................................................ 86Summary ............................................................................................................... 88Acknowledgments ................................................................................................ 89References .............................................................................................................. 89Appendix A ........................................................................................................... 92

2320.indb 65 4/9/08 3:10:18 PM

66 stephen p. nawrocki

are applied to major equipment purchases and can also be used to cover stu-dent and faculty travel to workshops and professional meetings.

The motto of the University of Indianapolis is “Education for Service.” As such, one of the primary purposes of the AFL is to serve the community by offering scientific expertise, lectures, and training workshops to students and practitioners. In addition, the AFL supports student and faculty research in osteology and archeology, houses research collections, and supports both undergraduate and graduate academic programs, including our Master of Science in Human Biology, through which students can specialize in forensic anthropology, bioarcheology, paleoanthropology, and anatomy.

This chapter outlines the operating procedures and philosophy of the AFL, with an emphasis on forensic anthropology. In particular, this chapter details our activities and research in the subfields of forensic archeology and forensic taphonomy (additional information can be found on the lab’s Web site (http://archlab.uindy.edu).

Facilities and Procedures

The AFL moved to its current location in 1994, on the wave of a significant campus construction phase. The facility is located in the basement of Good Hall, the oldest building on campus (built in 1904), in space that originally housed the campus maintenance unit. Later, the space was converted into the Art Department’s ceramics laboratory, requiring the installation of numer-ous sinks and cleaning areas which ultimately made the facility very useful as an archeology laboratory. Upon acquiring the space, we cleaned and painted the walls and floors but otherwise left most of the structure intact. A new drop-down ceiling with fluorescent lighting was also installed.

The ~2600 square feet of floor space is subdivided into a number of sub-areas and attached rooms. The central work area includes a dozen large tables arranged in two banks that comfortably seat 24 students (Figure 5.1). Power strips mounted to each table support the use of microscopes and portable light boxes, and incandescent swing-arm lamps at the corners of each table add extra light. There is plenty of quarter-inch thick white foam, purchased in large bulk rolls, available to place on the tabletops when bones and arti-facts are being examined (Figure 5.2). Additional table space, a large light table, storage cabinets, shelving units, display cabinets, and a video-linked stereoscopic microscope (Figure 5.3) are dispersed around the periphery of the main work area.

A number of smaller attached rooms and closets surround the labora-tory and open into the main work area. These include separate storage areas for hand tools, large excavation equipment, artifact collections, small animal bone collections, and large animal bone collections. Other rooms include a

2320.indb 66 4/9/08 3:10:19 PM

the university of indianapolis aFl 67

Figure 5.1 the main analytical area of the university of indianapolis archeol-ogy and Forensics laboratory. Human remains are stored in plastic and card-board boxes on the shelves to the left.

Figure 5.2 osteology students working on a laboratory exercise. note the fol-lowing: (a) the thick white foam on the tables, used to protect specimens being examined; (b) the task board at the back of the lab, on which osteology casework is listed and assigned to students for processing; (c) the rolling cadaver tray on the right, which is useful for setting out a skeleton for photography and analysis, and which can be wheeled into the evidence room at the end of the day.

2320.indb 67 4/9/08 3:10:19 PM


dedicated close-up photography closet, a cold storage room (with freezer and sink), a library with computer and printer, a director’s office, and a kitchen/lounge. Of special note is a dedicated maceration room that includes a large metal sink with built-in disposal unit, plus a fume hood, chemical cabinet, and two autopsy tables. This room has a separate outside door that opens onto the parking lot via a ramp, so potentially biohazardous remains can be wheeled in directly from outside, bypassing the main lab. In addition, a special evidence room houses all forensic case materials and evidence. Only three faculty members have keys to the deadbolt on the door of this room and its lock is not on the university master system. When we took possession of this space, we noticed that the concrete block walls of the evidence room were not load-bearing and only went as high as the lab’s drop-down ceiling. We had these walls extended two feet higher, to the bottom of the real floor above, to keep potential intruders from crawling over the walls.

Figure 5.3 graduate student sarah kiley using the most important piece of equipment in the aFl: a stereoscopic microscope, essential in osteological and taphonomic analysis. the image is also projected on the monitor at the top via a video camera.

2320.indb 68 4/9/08 3:10:19 PM


The entire facility is surrounded by a perimeter alarm that we activate whenever the lab is left unattended. All external doors and windows are protected by the alarm. Only the directors and second-year graduate osteol-ogy students are given alarm codes and keys to the facility. The doors remain locked during the day, and undergraduates taking courses that use the AFL can access collections and equipment only while a professor or graduate assis-tant is present. Doors to the peripheral rooms require a different key than the one that opens the main doors, effectively adding another layer of secu-rity. All students who use the facility must sign a form indicating that they have received and read a number of documents pertaining to lab safety and security, operating procedures, and confidentiality. These forms are perma-nently filed in binders that are kept in the evidence room, ostensibly so that medicolegal officials can verify those who potentially had access to forensic casework. However, because the AFL is a teaching lab as much as it is an analytical lab, we do not keep a daily log of individuals as they come and go.

In addition to the main lab, we have two small dedicated rooms located on the basement level. A graduate student office houses four desks and gen-erous shelving space. Our lecture room has 18 seats and contains slide and video projectors, a ceiling-mounted television, and display cabinets. These two rooms are not tied into the alarm system. In addition, the Department of Anthropology has separate office space, another photography room, lecture rooms, and additional lab space on the same level.

We typically allow qualified undergraduate and graduate students to participate in the various field and laboratory aspects of forensic casework. As a general rule, we consider a student to be “qualified” when he or she has successfully completed a combination of anatomy, osteology, and archeology coursework. Students who have assisted in laboratory research or who have taken an archeological field school may be assigned more complex tasks. For insurance reasons, only officially matriculated students and university employees are allowed to participate. We do not accept volunteers from the community, but in 1995 we established a courtesy Research Associate posi-tion for professionals working in the community who contribute significantly to the activities of the AFL. Former and current Research Associates include archeologists, entomologists, botanists, and dentists. These professionals participate in training sessions, give guest lectures, serve on graduate the-sis committees, help with collections management, and generally lend their expertise on casework. In return for their service, they are granted limited access to the lab and to campus facilities.

The Graduate Assistant to the AFL is responsible for all daily activities and maintenance. This position is awarded annually to a second-year student who has had a year to learn the procedures and policies of the lab. The Grad-uate Assistant coordinates the analytical process for skeletal cases, super-vising all steps from maceration and inventory to final curation. Students

2320.indb 69 4/9/08 3:10:19 PM


are assigned different portions of the laboratory analysis and their names are written on a task board (Figure 5.2). When all steps are completed, the author sits down with the student analysts and reviews findings, checks mea-surements, inspects all notes and forms, and takes photographs. Nothing is allowed into the final case file until it has been reviewed in this fashion.

Lab Protocol

Forensic cases coming into the laboratory are quarantined in the maceration room until we determine that they pose no health hazard. In our experience, the associated health hazards are usually fairly mundane—decomposing remains become the center of a complex biotic ecosystem that may include naturally-occurring fungi, mold, bacteria, and invertebrate parasites. Simple procedures such as the use of gloves and nuisance masks, applying proper ventilation, spraying with a bleach-water solution, rapid disposal of transport containers, and freezing will mitigate most of these problems. Communi-cable diseases such as HIV are unlikely to survive the initial stages of cel-lular breakdown. However, we make it a rule to refuse any remains that still include red blood or pink muscle unless the samples are small enough that we can quickly and easily put them into the boiling pot without any manual defleshing or disarticulation on our part. Larger specimens containing blood will only be handled at the properly equipped autopsy facility available at the coroners’ offices.

Of more critical concern are hazardous artifacts that may be hidden in the remains or in associated clothing (hypodermic needles, knives, live ammunition, and so forth). Investigators should never place their unpro-tected hands into pockets or body cavities. One should also be on the lookout for drugs and hazardous chemicals. Historic 19th century burials may con-tain heavy metals (arsenic, mercury) that were used in the embalming pro-cess. Mummified remains from that time period are particularly hazardous. Our testing of soft tissue from a juvenile medical teaching specimen revealed an arsenic content of 14,000 ppm or 1.4% by mass (Smith et al. 2002).

Generally, human remains that have gone through at least one hour of boiling in a bleach-water solution are deemed nonhazardous and, when dry, can be moved into the main lab area for analysis. Maceration of most remains is conducted by simmering in water over a gas flame in the fume hood (Fig-ure 5.4). Powdered borax is the main degreasing agent, and a cup of bleach is added to the first boil to help kill bacteria and mold. Multiple immersions interspersed with hand cleaning are generally necessary, and so the process is labor intensive, taking up to three days when there are extensive soft tissues. However, the results obtained with this process are excellent, with most fats and all surface tissues being removed. Most bones processed in this fashion

2320.indb 70 4/9/08 3:10:20 PM


can be stored indefinitely without any significant fat leaching or staining and without attracting dermestid beetles or other pests.

Burned, waterlogged, or highly eroded bones are put through an abbre-viated cleaning process and must sometimes be degreased using chemicals, such as xyol (xylene + ethyl alcohol in a 1:1 ratio). Because of potential expo-sure to chemicals, fire, and sharp implements, any student wishing to work in the maceration room must receive special training and undergo a supervi-sion period. In addition, any student helping on forensic casework must dem-onstrate proof of current tetanus and hepatitis-B vaccinations (see Nawrocki 1997a, for additional details on our maceration protocol).

After maceration, bones are allowed to dry at room temperature for at least a week before final measurements are taken, to minimize errors due to shrinkage. Each skeleton is then assigned a unique accession number to facilitate tracking in the lab. This number is written on each bone using a Micron™ Pigma pen with a 0.5 mm tip. Clear nail polish is sometimes painted over the numbers to keep them from wearing off under repeated handling. Labeling is never put on areas of a bone that display perimortem trauma or unique variation.

Very fragile elements are conserved with Acrysol™ WS-24, a water-based acrylic resin distributed by Rohm and Haas Company. The solution can be painted on with a brush, or the specimens can be soaked in a diluted solution to maximize penetration. The resulting coating is slightly shiny but, if applied properly, does not hide any surface detail. Bone fragments are reconstructed

Figure 5.4 our macerating setup in the fume hood. the gas burner provides plenty of heat to keep a large pot of water simmering.

2320.indb 71 4/9/08 3:10:20 PM


using Duco cement, a polyvinylacetate that can be dissolved or thinned in acetone. Drying specimens are temporarily held in position in plastic boxes containing dry white rice rather than sand, which has an annoying tendency to find its way into bone crevices and foramina.

Prior to maceration, a DNA sample may be taken and placed in cold stor-age. We typically remove a complete clavicle, which generally contains mar-row and enough cortical bone so that some DNA is likely to be preserved. The DNA laboratories used by our Indiana agencies have had relatively poor luck amplifying DNA from teeth or burned bone. Interestingly, our own experi-ments with pig bone suggest that our standard maceration procedure does not significantly reduce the quantity or quality of DNA that can eventually be retrieved from the bone (Latham et al. 2004). Indeed, we have found that DNA yield may actually increase after boiling, so returning to a previously cleaned specimen for additional samples is likely to be as successful as taking a sample in advance.

A number of self-designed, standardized forms are used to record osteo-logical and taphonomic information for each skeleton (Appendix A). We cur-rently employ a three-page inventory form, separate forms for craniometrics and postcraniometrics, separate forms for discrete traits used to determine sex, ancestry, and age at death, a dental scoring form, and a form for tapho-nomic observations. In addition, juvenile specimens have special forms for dental development and epiphyseal development and union. Digital photo-graphs are taken of each skeleton as a whole and of interesting or diagnostic features, although we normally do not attempt to photodocument all bones in detail. These images are stored on an external backup hard drive and are also hard-copied to compact disks for redundancy.

Separate reports are usually generated for field recoveries and laboratory analyses. We follow a standard, abbreviated report format that emphasizes final conclusions. An attempt is made to simplify or qualify technical ter-minology in order to help medicolegal professionals understand our find-ings more clearly. Procedures used to clean and prepare the remains are explained. Raw data (skeletal measurements, discrete trait observations) are not included but these can be provided to the consulting agency upon request. Photographs in reports are used only to clarify significant perimor-tem trauma or to depict important field excavation features.

Reports and the conclusions therein are viewed as the joint property of the AFL and the consulting agency. We will not release a report to any exter-nal entity or individual unless permission is obtained from the consulting agency or until a subpoena has been issued. Because of rigorous autopsy con-fidentiality laws in Indiana, we must be particularly careful not to release findings to the public or to the media, and we generally allow the coroner’s office to serve as the official communicator in these instances. Public access laws in Indiana exclude research data gathered by public universities and by

2320.indb 72 4/9/08 3:10:20 PM


private corporations in the course of conducting their business, which pro-vides us with a legal argument for denying Freedom of Information requests. During public presentations and training seminars, we do not divulge any identifying information on decedents or suspects and remove all identifying features from photographs. Students are instructed never to talk to reporters or to reveal details of active cases to persons not affiliated with the AFL.

Fees charged for skeletal analyses vary depending on the nature of the consultation, the agency involved, and the condition of the remains. We charge more on cases that require extensive maceration and less for isolated, dry elements. Bills typically range from $500 to $1000 per skeleton, and all funds received are diverted to the AFL operating budget. However, we waive our fee on as many as half of the human skeletal cases that we receive each year, primarily those involving historic and prehistoric remains that are discovered accidentally by landowners during construction activities. These cases typically come to us through the Indiana Department of Natu-ral Resources (DNR), which has no provision for hiring external osteology experts. However, such cases provide a wealth of scientific data and educa-tional opportunity. If further investigation by the DNR or the AFL suggests that additional burials are present at the site, a private archeological firm may be employed to conduct the excavation under permit, at the landowner’s expense. The general approach taken by the DNR during recent decades has been one of avoidance, and construction plans are altered to leave the cem-etery undisturbed whenever possible.

We do not charge for the identification of animal remains. In fact, in many cases the investigators e-mail us preliminary digital photographs (with scale) so that we can save them the time of transporting what turn out to be nonhuman bones. In our experience, the vast majority of isolated bone finds in Indiana turn out to be nonhuman (deer, raccoon, opossum, coyote, and domestic animals are especially common). These cases account for approxi-mately half of the consultations we give in a typical year. Local authorities often confirm actual forensic human remains at the scene when they recog-nize the unique human cranium or observe associated clothing and personal effects. However, we have been called to scenes that include intermingled animal bones and discarded clothing, illustrating how difficult it is for non-anthropologists to correctly identify postcranial elements.

All consulting anthropology labs should have a detailed accessioning and tracking system in place to avoid the loss and commingling of bones and evidence during analysis and curation. Sometimes remains are repatriated years or even decades after their original discovery, and in the intervening time the remains may have been examined by numerous individuals. For-mal chain-of-custody forms (Appendix A) should be used whenever remains are received or released by the facility. These forms should include signature lines for both the anthropologist and a duly authorized representative of the

2320.indb 73 4/9/08 3:10:20 PM


consulting agency, as well as, a detailed accounting of the items being trans-ferred. Dental and medical records can also be acknowledged on this form. We always include blank chain-of-custody forms in our field kits in the event that we are asked to take possession of bones at the scene.

Collections

Not all investigative agencies have the facilities or training to curate human remains and may not understand how to care for them properly. As such, Indiana agencies generally choose to leave unidentified skeletal remains within our secure facility, which allows us to continue to make compari-sons with missing persons records as they become available. While most positively identified individuals are eventually reburied, in a few circum-stances families have donated remains for permanent scientific study. We always ask the coroner to approach the family first with the proposal, and if interested, they will contact us for further information. Other remains in our collection include numerous anatomical, medical, cadaver, trophy, and unprovenienced specimens that law enforcement agencies and private citizens donated.

For teaching osteology, we were able to purchase a number of partially cleaned anatomical skeletons from an American biological supply company in the mid-1990s. These specimens were seen as “seconds” because they were still greasy, slightly incomplete, and unstrung. However, they proved to be a gold-mine of healed fractures, anatomical variants, and unusual pathological conditions. From contextual and documentary evidence, it appears that all of the remains came from Russia, and so they are larger and more robust than those that were commonly obtained from India prior to the mid-1980s.

Nonhuman skeletal collections are important in forensic casework because they provide comparative material for identifying fragmented and burned remains. A good comparative collection is comprised of complete, clean skeletons of identified species common to a particular region of the country in both recent and prehistoric times. We started our collection by searching for roadkill, obtaining carcasses from trappers, hunters, and fishermen, inquiring at zoos, game preserves, and farms, and even by trad-ing duplicate specimens with other museums and facilities (Figure 5.5). Surprisingly, our students have donated a number of excellent specimens; when offered extra credit in anatomy and osteology courses, they will query relatives and friends, sometimes obtaining exotic specimens stashed away in the attic or basement for years. Of course, many federal and state laws regulate the acquisition and curation of animal remains, particularly those of migratory birds and endangered species. Permit requirements and appli-cation procedures differ from state to state.

2320.indb 74 4/9/08 3:10:21 PM


Field Recovery

In any given year, we are called on to search for or recover human remains ten to fifteen times. We generally do not charge for our time on these cases as long as the recovery takes two days or less, although we do submit a reimbursement request for expenses (gas, food and lodging, consumable

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.5 Before and after shots of a gray fox donated by a trapper and prepared by one of our undergraduate students (Boyle 2004). the smaller bones of the fore- and hind-paws are not shown, but all came out perfectly. the trick is to boil each paw in a separate wire mesh screen.

2320.indb 75 4/9/08 3:10:21 PM


supplies). This no-charge policy has worked well in helping us to establish a professional connection with many rural coroners and police agencies, who not only have very small budgets for scientific experts but who also may be largely unfamiliar with academics working their crime scenes. In addition, because we always include students in our recoveries, the no-charge policy serves to underscore the teaching-oriented, service-focused philosophy of the University of Indianapolis. However, before detailing our field activities it would be appropriate to describe the broader medicolegal system in which our consulting work is embedded.

The Medicolegal System

Indiana operates under a coroner system. The elected coroners from each of Indiana’s 92 counties are not required to have any special training in the forensic sciences. Instead, coroners enlist the aid of forensic experts as needed. The state does not rigorously mandate or legislate the qualifi-cations of most forensic practitioners. However, the law does specify that a forensic autopsy must be conducted by a medical doctor who is board-certified in anatomic or forensic pathology. Most coroners contract with pathologists who are on staff at large regional hospitals or hired exclu-sively by one of the larger urban coroners’ offices (as in Indianapolis and Gary).

There is no provision for a state forensic anthropologist in Indiana. While the state archeologist at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources does have ultimate legal authority over human remains predating 1940, the county coroner has initial jurisdiction over all found human remains until such a time that their origin and forensic importance can be deter-mined. No other agency or person in Indiana, including law enforcement, can disturb or remove human remains at a potential crime scene without the authorization of the coroner. Of course, coroners, police officers, and forensic experts are not always able to reliably ascertain the temporal ori-gin of a set of human remains without the assistance of an anthropologist, particularly when the context has been disturbed. Therefore, we have found that our expertise is particularly relevant and useful at the scene in order to help clarify which agency has legal jurisdiction. Much of our outreach over the past decade has focused on interfacing with the coroner and police agencies at this very early stage in the investigation, before significant con-textual evidence is lost or destroyed. We have served as an intermediary between the coroner and the Department of Natural Resources, assisting both agencies in particularly vexing cases, such as when human remains are washed out of prehistoric or historic graves and are found far from their original burial contexts.

2320.indb 76 4/9/08 3:10:21 PM


Searches

Perhaps the most complex activities we engage in are searches for missing persons. Generally, it takes thorough and detailed investigative work by the police to track down leads and to sort through information that may point to the location of concealed remains. This work can be time consuming and frustrating. Various tools are available to the investigator to help search for a body once a potential location has been identified, including:

Cadaver dogs•Archeological hand survey methods (e.g., probing and shovel test pits) •(Figure 5.6)Remote sensing (e.g., ground penetrating radar (GPR), proton magne-•tometry, and infrared thermography)Mechanical excavation (e.g., test trenching and surface scraping with •bulldozers or backhoes)Visual ground search efforts (e.g., line searches)•

In our experience, the primary mechanism that triggers the eventual recovery of concealed remains is the reliable eyewitness testimony that comes in the form of a highly cooperative assailant or coconspirator. Most police agencies dramatically underestimate how much time, effort, and money it takes to search even small, well-defined, and clear areas of ground surface. The likelihood of success plummets when more than one acre is involved, when the surface is heavily wooded, when the scene has been disturbed and modified by erosion or construction activities, or when years have passed since the concealment of the remains. Even in cases where an assailant chooses to cooperate completely, his recollection of events and landmarks can be dramatically off target. On more than one occasion, an assailant has led us to the “exact spot” of a burial, only to find after considerable work that he was off by as many as 50 m! The terrain and plant life changes; trees, fences, and buildings are moved or removed by landowners; memories con-structed during the night and within the emotionally charged context of a crime can become distorted and confused with time. Some suspects have even made up stories of buried remains in order to manipulate the police, to abuse the system that incarcerated them, or simply to get out of jail and go for a ride, take a walk in the woods, and eat lunch at a fast-food restaurant. Of course, the police are highly motivated to find the human remains; therefore, the tendency for them to put more stock in the assailant’s story, memories, and observations can be much greater than is warranted. We have had police continue to dig in spots that we had previously cleared through a detailed examination of the stratigraphy simply because they could not believe that the assailant could be so wrong in his recollections.

2320.indb 77 4/9/08 3:10:21 PM


We have noted that sometimes agencies hesitate to engage in searches or to exhume remains because of the mistaken belief that no bones or evidence will be left to analyze after a certain number of years have passed, particularly when infants or children are involved. Even pathologists tend to be skeptical that newborn bones will survive the ravages of time. We often use prehistoric cases to illustrate the range of possibilities in these circumstances, usually with the positive effect of increasing the optimism of the investigators.

In our experience, cadaver dogs have not been consistently useful in locat-ing human remains. While certainly some of this failure is due to the fact that the remains are not always likely to be within the searched area, we have encountered many instances of (1) false positive hits and (2) dogs walking past and ignoring known remains. These instances erode our confidence in

Figure 5.6 perhaps the simplest and most effective tool for locating buried bod-ies is the steel t-probe. Here graduate student natalie Fleming is using the probe at a crime scene. the effort that she is obviously using to penetrate beyond 10 or 15 cm suggests that nothing is buried there and that the natural stratigraphy is compacted and intact. Just a foot to the left, however, the probe dropped quite quickly into the disturbed soil above a recent human burial.

2320.indb 78 4/9/08 3:10:22 PM


both the dogs’ abilities and their handlers’ training methods. We have noted a tendency for dog handlers to create what we consider to be rather mysti-cal or pseudoscientific explanations for false hits, including “the body may have been dragged through this area,” and “trees must be pulling the odors from further away up into the air.” This uncritical apologeticism probably hinders the development of a realistically critical approach to cadaver dog abilities within the field. Additionally, few dogs appear to be able to assist in the recovery of bones scattered widely on the surface (such as in agricultural fields), and most also seem to have difficulty with mummified soft tissues even when they encounter them directly. These criticisms aside, we always recommend that police agencies contact reputable cadaver dog handlers in their region and employ them prior to undertaking more intensive subsur-face surveys.

We should note that we never encourage police agencies to use psychics or other paranormal means of locating bodies (for example, divining rods), even though public or private pressure to employ these scientifically baseless techniques can be quite extreme. Some investigators have told us in con-fidence that they do not believe in the paranormal but feel that they must follow up on psychic leads, no matter how ridiculous, for fear that family members will think that the police are not making every possible effort to solve the case, or worse, that they are hiding the truth. In these cases, the forensic scientist is well advised to recall his or her role as a scientific advi-sor and, after making recommendations, allow the agencies that have been elected or appointed by the community to make the final political decisions.

Training Courses

For nearly a decade during the 1990s, we were heavily involved in training police, coroners, and pathologists to locate and recover scattered and buried human remains. These short courses were offered through various agencies and universities across the country, at local, state, and even federal levels. Typically, buried and scattered pig, deer, and plastic human skeletons were used to create mock scenes, which attendees then excavated. After consid-erable reflection and experience, we have now come to believe that these courses can be very detrimental to the forensic science process. Even in an intensive week-long field course run by highly qualified experts, it is simply not possible to train nonarcheologists to fully understand or correctly employ field techniques in order to be able to recover buried evidence on their own. The appreciation of stratigraphy, soil disturbances, and geotaphonomy that is required for a successful forensic excavation cannot be taught short of a formal archeological field school, considerable supervised excavation expe-rience, and coursework in archeological method and theory. Furthermore, the attendee cannot learn the requisite osteology and anatomy needed to

2320.indb 79 4/9/08 3:10:22 PM


recognize human remains when encountered in the field, particularly when fragmentation, weathering, or burning has occurred. While it can be argued that exposing the police to archeology is inherently valuable in a pedagogi-cal sense, even if these agencies are encouraged not to use these techniques themselves, it is difficult to understand why an agency would spend the time and money to send their investigators to intensive field courses unless they had, at some level, the expectation that their own people would become qual-ified to conduct their own recoveries. This lack of formal experience not only has the potential to sabotage an investigation by destroying, missing, or mis-interpreting crucial evidence, it also can become an embarrassment for the agency under cross-examination on the witness stand.

However, it may be possible to train nonspecialists to do adequate recov-ery of contained surface scatters, such as may be encountered when decom-position has not progressed to the point where skeletonization has occurred. Certainly, the measuring and mapping techniques that archeologists employ can be used in a number of investigative contexts that do not involve human remains. Each year we conduct a day-long forensic anthropology course for police enrolled in a month-long Integrated Law Enforcement Crime Scene Training Program offered by the Indiana State Police. As a part of this course, we provide brief lecture overviews of forensic archeology and botany so that the investigators understand how these scientific fields can be useful in medicolegal cases. During the afternoon, we take the attendees outside and teach them basic methods of surveying and mapping that they can use to map evidence on indoor scenes, crash sites, and outdoor surface scatters. Most are surprised to learn that their office-issued global positioning system (GPS) units are not sensitive enough to permit accurate mapping of small- or medium-sized scenes. Instead of teaching them to conduct excavations, we offer a limited number of techniques that they can apply to their own casel-oads and then encourage them to contact us for recoveries that lie outside of their formal expertise. In this fashion, we do not create any false expectations and help to prevent mistakes from being made on critical cases.

While some may complain that not all areas of the country have access to qualified forensic anthropologists, we do not believe that the solution to this problem is to pretend to train police or coroners to do the job. Begging the question, would we ask a police officer to perform a medicolegal autopsy when a pathologist is not immediately available? Instead, we should be encourag-ing agencies to contact the numerous academic and contract archeologists that work in every state, many of whom have considerable experience with buried, fragmented skeletal remains. Forensic anthropologists can help to facilitate this process by establishing professional guidelines and, perhaps, a separate certification process for forensic archeologists.

2320.indb 80 4/9/08 3:10:22 PM


Scene Protocol

When we are called to a forensic scene, we are generally given considerable latitude regarding techniques and procedures. Most agencies have learned to trust our expertise and are more than happy to follow our lead. We do, however, establish a clear cooperative relationship with both the coroner and the local crime scene technician and make sure that they are comfortable with our decisions. Local authorities understand the particular policies and specific parameters that shape their actions with respect to the chain-of-cus-tody, the impending prosecution, and the broader context of the criminal investigation as it unfolds. It is not possible for a visiting anthropologist to be fully aware of all of the nuances of a local medicolegal system. Therefore, it is essential that the anthropologist foster good communication with those legally in charge of the scene, especially in circumstances where the local authorities are very comfortable with the anthropology team and might trust their decisions without much forethought.

We generally ask the evidence technician to help identify what is relevant physical evidence at the scene (“Is this beer can just trash or is it important evidence?”), assign evidence numbers, and set minimum collection, bagging, and labeling guidelines. Sometimes evidence technicians have procedures that are specified by the parent agency; at other times they will look to us to take the lead. As a rule, we do not take possession of any nonbone evi-dence and we do not transport remains directly back to our laboratory unless they are fully skeletonized. We always ask that malodorous or biohazard-ous remains be transported for us. In many circumstances, the consulting pathologist will take the remains first so that he or she can initiate the scien-tific investigation (which may include lifting fingerprints, collecting hair and fiber evidence, and taking radiographs).

We usually ask evidence technicians to be in charge of photodocument-ing the scene. They know what types of pictures they will need for the inves-tigation and for the local prosecutor’s office. We explain that our pictures are merely taken to assist in the completion of our final report and for teach-ing and research purposes. Under this arrangement we can better focus our efforts on the actual remains rather than being concerned with aspects of the investigation that do not relate directly to the anthropological evidence. In a similar vein, unless the human remains are widely scattered, we generally ask that the local authorities be in charge of the larger scene examination, searching for other evidence that might be located away from the remains (for example, if they believe that the assailant may have disposed of a weapon somewhere in the vicinity).

Other investigators at the scene can play an important role even if they do not have formal training in evidence collection, such as:

2320.indb 81 4/9/08 3:10:22 PM


Searching the peripheries of the scene•Clearing brush•Transporting buckets of soil to the screens•Erecting tents and canopies•Arranging for lights and power generators•Securing food and drinks•Keeping the press at bay•

We also use field cases as opportunities to educate the local authorities about archeology, anthropology, and the forensic sciences, in general. We explain our techniques as we go, point out important soil features, and iden-tify bones to onlookers.

Field Strategies

The forensic anthropologist performs a number of essential tasks at the forensic scene (Nawrocki 1996). The most basic charge is to recover all skel-etal evidence. Small bones and teeth are easily missed by the untrained eye even when clean, and adhering dirt and debris makes recognition even more difficult. Therefore, it is essential that the individual conducting the recovery has an in-depth understanding of the human skeleton and an appreciation of the taphonomic alterations that typically occur in that particular geographic region. Soil and debris is generally screened through quarter-inch wire mesh in an elevated rocking frame which aids in the recovery of smaller items. The screen is as much a platform for close-up inspection as it is a tool for remov-ing dirt. However, not all evidence can be recovered in the field screen. For example, we have found fabric impressions and toolmarks in the soil imme-diately surrounding the grave; had the soil been indiscriminately shoveled into the screen without careful and tedious examination first, this ephemeral trace evidence would have been destroyed. In one case, we collected soil from around the shattered cranium of a decedent and bypassed the field screening process in favor of more careful water screening with geological sieves. The shotgun pellets that were eventually recovered during laboratory processing would have passed right through the wide mesh of the field screen, illustrat-ing the importance of adapting one’s field strategy to the specifics of the case at hand.

The forensic anthropologist must also work to limit postmortem dam-age to the remains. Clearly, uncontrolled excavation with shovels can damage fragile bones. In the laboratory, the anthropologist’s identification of peri-mortem trauma is made less difficult if the excavation was conducted care-fully with small tools, such as trowels, spoons, and wooden picks. The ability to identify any bone from only a small exposed portion and to predict where

2320.indb 82 4/9/08 3:10:22 PM


other bones are likely to lie within the grave significantly reduces the likeli-hood of excavation damage.

The forensic anthropologist must document the provenience of all evi-dence. Provenience refers to the coordinate location of an item in three-dimensional space, reflecting its latitude (north–south location), longitude (east-west location), and vertical position (depth or elevation). Recording provenience is crucial because the scene is essentially destroyed during pro-cessing; reconstructing the scene for the jury in the form of maps and dia-grams requires accurate provenience data.

The forensic anthropologist determines whether evidence is still in situ, or in the position in which it was originally deposited. The forces that move items out of position (for example, humans, animals, and water) must be explained and understood. For example, if the cranium is found 10 m from the rest of the skeleton, does that mean that the assailant had decapitated the decedent and placed the head in a different spot than the body? Which portion of the body, if any, is still in its original position? In cases of extreme surface scattering, it may be quite difficult to determine the body’s original point of deposition. We generally infer original location from (1) distribution patterns of bones across the site and (2) indications of soil staining and traces of soft tissues on surrounding plants and debris. However, after a year these stains begin to disappear.

The forensic anthropologist must clarify the stratigraphy of the site. Soils are normally subdivided into naturally occurring stratigraphic layers (or strata) that are distinguished by their color, texture, grain size, and material composition. The forensic anthropologist determines the original layering and reconstructs the sequence of events that may have disturbed those layers (Figure 5.7). Specific disturbances, such as a graveshaft or animal tunnels, are known as features (Figure 5.8). We identify and map each feature and determine how or if they are related to the case at hand.

When these tasks have been completed, the information obtained from the scene is linked together in order to elucidate the context and association of the evidence and remains. For example, in central Indiana, yellow clay subsoil found on the surface of the ground is frequently a sign that the natu-ral soil stratigraphy has been significantly disturbed and that a burial may be present in the immediate vicinity. In these circumstances, the subsoil is out of its normal context and has special meaning. Consider a shotgun shell found in the soil within the grave. Is the shell connected with the death of the decedent? Because shotgun shells are common in rural areas where sea-sonal hunting is permitted, it may be more likely that one was turned into the grave by accident during its construction. In this case, close physical proxim-ity does not necessarily imply that the items are truly associated. Unfortu-nately, in cases where nonarcheologist-trained investigators have excavated human remains, the most crucial mistakes are likely to be misinterpretations

2320.indb 83 4/9/08 3:10:22 PM


of context and association that could significantly affect the way that the case is prosecuted or resolved.

Methodology

When we are called to a scene, we generally follow a sequence of five basic steps (Nawrocki 1996). First, we establish a datum and construct a reference grid. The datum is a fixed point near the scene (such as a large tree or the corner of a building) that can be found again if needed. The subdatum is a stake placed close to the remains at a known distance from the datum. Lines running east–west or north–south through the subdatum are known as baselines. A reference grid is constructed outward from the subdatum or baseline and over the site, using stakes, surveyor’s chaining pins, and string. This grid serves to organize all subsequent collection and excavation activi-ties. It is subdivided into square units measuring one meter to a side and

Figure 5.7 a region of darker topsoil is sandwiched between two lighter strata, indicating a disturbance within the test pit. the darker layer is an intrusive feature created by a burrowing animal or long-decomposed tree root. during testing, the anthropologist must interpret soil features in order to determine whether buried evidence could be located in the area. in this case, the anomaly does not constitute evidence that the stratigraphy was disturbed by an assailant digging a grave, and so testing of this spot can cease.

2320.indb 84 4/9/08 3:10:24 PM


numbered in an orderly fashion. While not all units are necessarily strung at each scene, any point on the landscape can be given a precise provenience as long as the proper measurements are taken from the subdatum or baselines (Figure 5.9).

The second step is to expose the surface of the grid. Using rakes and trowels, all loose debris (leaves, sticks, and trash) is removed from the sur-face in order to recover scattered evidence and to define the exact boundar-ies of any discernable features. The uppermost centimeter of soil is removed with the debris during this stage and screened. Small or loose items of evi-dentiary value may be collected now so that they are not lost or trampled later. However, larger items such as bones and clothing are left in place as long as possible so that photography can document the relationships between all items.

Third, we excavate the remains. Disturbed soil covering the remains is systematically removed and screened. Again, bones and artifacts are usu-ally left in place until everything has been exposed. A field inventory form is completed in order to verify that all bones have been recovered, especially when they have been widely scattered (Appendix A).

Fourth, we collect and bag the remains in a controlled fashion. Prove-nience information is recorded directly on the bag, as well as in a master log

Figure 5.8 the sinuous chasms seen here were found along a rural roadside after removing a skeleton from the surface. they are crotovinas, or animal tun-nels, probably created by burrowing moles. some teeth and small bones from the decedent had slipped into these chasms to a depth of nearly 10 cm. these elements could have been missed through carelessness or could have been mis-interpreted as evidence of deliberate burial of the victim.

2320.indb 85 4/9/08 3:10:24 PM


listing all evidence as it is encountered. Those individuals collecting and bag-ging the evidence sign and date the bag as well.

Finally, we clean the scene. After the primary evidence has been removed, the soil beneath the remains is scraped down with trowels and flat-edged shovels and screened to recover any remaining items. A metal detector may be used to sweep for buried metallic objects. Additional information on field protocol, including lists of field equipment, can be found on our Web site.

Forensic Taphonomy

At the time of death and afterwards, numerous forces, events, and environ-mental conditions have the potential to alter the physical appearance and distribution of human remains (Nawrocki 1995). By examining the remains and the context in which they were recovered, the anthropologist generates

(1N, 3W)

(1S, 3W) (1S, 1W)

(0N, 0W)

(1N, 1W)

Skull

Feature 1

+0.28

3.0 2.0 1.5 1.0

–0.21

0.0Baseline

Baseline

+0.43+0.46+0.60

N

Figure 5.9 a simple but effective map of an excavation grid, in both plan (above) and profile (below) views. in this case, only the skull and loose teeth (triangles) were found at this location, but extensive decomposition fluid-staining (Feature 1) indicates that the body was once present as well. numbers in parentheses are pin coordinates relative to the datum (0n,0W) and the baseline, which was extended across the scene so that other clusters of remains could be mapped onto the same grid system. the lower (profile view) diagram illustrates the heights of the ground surface at points along the baseline.

2320.indb 86 4/9/08 3:10:25 PM


a taphonomic profile that describes the hypothesized perimortem and post-mortem history of the remains (Schultz et al. 2003). Taphonomic analysis falls at the intersection of osteology and archeology because it requires a syn-thesis of data obtained from both laboratory and field analyses.

Our research in taphonomy has included both experimental work and naturalistic observations. Extensive early involvement with historic cemeter-ies (Nawrocki 1991, 1995; Schultz et al. 2003) helped to frame some of the issues involved in excavating recent forensic burials (Hochrein et al. 1999; Nawrocki et al. 1998, 2002). In fact, it is conceptually useful to treat the grave as an entity unto itself that is subject to taphonomic alteration by the assailant, the environment, and even the human remains contained within (Figure 5.10). This specialized subfield has been called “geotaphonomy” (Hochrein 1997a,b).

The decomposition of soft tissues is affected by climate and depositional context. Megyesi and colleagues (2005) have shown that it is possible to take a more quantitative approach to measuring decomposition by scoring soft tissue changes on cumulative numeric scales. These numerical scores can then be correlated with time since death, or more effectively, with accumu-lated degree-days in the same fashion as is common in forensic entomology. These relatively straightforward steps can significantly improve the estima-tion of the postmortem interval from decomposed human remains. Our experiments with pig burials (Thew 2000) indicate that, contrary to popular belief, the use of lime in the grave actually helps to slow down the decompo-sition process, resulting in mummification. On more than one occasion we have received mummified remains that had been looted from aboveground mausoleums (Ritterskamp et al. 2003). The combination of a sealed, dry environment plus the use of embalming fluids can produce specimens that look remarkably fresh and may appear as recent deaths—even after a century of internment (Nawrocki et al. 1997). There are various methods that can be used to rehydrate mummified soft tissues in the laboratory, which can be useful in the analysis of preserved tattoos or scars, or for taking fingerprints (Schmidt et al. 2000). Other studies conducted by our students have focused on the long-term degradation of DNA molecules in buried or embalmed bone (Gabra 1999; Kuba 2001; Latham 2003; Smith et al. 2003).

Skeletal remains are frequently moved out of their primary contexts by natural and cultural forces. Moving water can transport bones and bury fragments in sediments, not only in highly dynamic riverine and marine contexts (Nawrocki et al. 1997; Parr et al. 2004; Reinhardt 1993), but also in secluded forested contexts where water flow is seasonal and fairly slow (Nawrocki and Baker 2001). In the Midwest, farming activities, such as plowing and cultivation, can disperse and damage human remains that are deposited on the surfaces of fields (Nawrocki and Clark 1994; Kiley 2008). Care must be taken not to misinterpret plow damage for perimortem knife

2320.indb 87 4/9/08 3:10:25 PM


wounds, as these damage patterns can look nearly identical. The distribution of wounds on the skeleton, as well as a thorough examination of the recovery context, can help to clarify the situation. Some of our work has focused on examining other patterns of alteration to bone, including rodent gnawing (Kiley et al. 2006; Fleming et al. 2005), burning (Nawrocki 2003; Baker 2004; Baker and Nawrocki 2005), and prehistoric trophy-taking (Emanovsky 2002; Nawrocki 1997b).

Summary

The success we have had during the past decade is due in large part to the strong relationships we have built with local law enforcement. The typical anthropologist, working within the confines of academia, can make the mistake of too narrowly focusing his or her efforts on laboratory analysis and on fostering professional relationships only with other forensic scien-tists. The language and culture of nonscientific medicolegal personnel can

Figure 5.10 susan nawrocki, botanist and aFl research associate, surveys a suspicious depression (arrow). during its construction, the “assailant” shoveled out the natural stratigraphic layers and mixed them into the backdirt pile (cir-cled), but did not refill the hole. the grave and associated features can be treated just like bones or artifacts that have been subjected to taphonomic alteration. in this case, sediments eventually washed into the hole during rainstorms and tree roots grew up into the backdirt pile, changing the shape, compaction, and stra-tigraphy of these features. no remains were found within the hole; did its maker have a change of heart, or was it just a prank?

2320.indb 88 4/9/08 3:10:25 PM


be somewhat different, and the anthropologist must try to find ways of com-municating with these important links in the investigative chain. After all, the first responders to a potential crime or death scene are usually nonsci-entists. Perhaps one of the best ways to build relationships with local law enforcement is to offer field-based assistance, including the search for and recovery of human remains and other items of evidentiary value that are buried or scattered on the ground surface. Certainly, the archeological, geo-logical, and taphonomic training that anthropologists obtain in graduate school can be quite valuable to local agencies in these cases. Training sessions and guest lectures can also help to orient investigators to the many facets of anthropological science. Of course, local laws and procedures governing the medicolegal investigative process will shape, and perhaps limit, the ways that the anthropologist can intersect with field investigators. We feel, however, that the AFL illustrates what is possible with a bit of hard work, creativity, and a commitment to community service.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my codirector, Dr. Gregory Reinhardt, for numerous suggestions and assistance in the preparation of this chapter. In addition, I owe a debt of gratitude to Drs. Christopher Schmidt and Matthew Wil-liamson, who as graduate students were instrumental in the early growth and work of the AFL. Together we thank the hundreds of students who have passed through its doors and who have contributed significantly to the repu-tation of our program and institution.

ReferencesBaker, A. 2004. A taphonomic analysis of human cremains from the Fox Hollow

Farm serial homicide site. Masters thesis: University of Indianapolis. Baker, A., and S. P. Nawrocki. 2005. A taphonomic analysis of burned remains from

the Fox Hollow serial homicide site. American Journal of Physical Anthropol-ogy 40:68–69.

Boyle, C. 2004. Maceration and preparation of mammal skeletons for long-term curation. Poster presented at the 11th Midwest Bioarcheology and Forensic Anthropology Association Conference, Norman.

Emanovsky, P. 2002. A taphonomic analysis of Ohio Hopewellian modified animal jaws from Tremper Mound. Masters thesis: University of Indianapolis.

Fleming, N., M. Schiel, and S. Nawrocki. 2005. Comparison of rodent gnawing of skeletal remains from indoor vs. outdoor contexts. Paper presented at the 12th Midwest Bioarcheology and Forensic Anthropology Association Conference, Terre Haute.

2320.indb 89 4/9/08 3:10:25 PM


Gabra, J. 1999. Using DNA technology to analyze historic skeletal remains. Masters thesis: University of Indianapolis.

Hochrein, M. 1997a. The dirty dozen: The recognition and collection of toolmarks in the forensic geotaphonomic record. Journal of Forensic Identification 47:171–198.

Hochrein, M. 1997b. Buried crime scene evidence: The application of forensic geota-phonomy in forensic archaeology. In P. Stimson and C. Mertz (eds.): Forensic dentistry. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 83–99.

Hochrein, M., J. Gabra, and S. Nawrocki. 1999. The buried body cases content analy-ses project: Patterns in buried body investigations. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 5:212–213.

Kiley, S. A. 2008. The taphonomic effects of agricultural practices on bone. Masters thesis: University of Indianapolis.

Kiley, S. A., N. M. Parr, and S. P. Nawrocki. 2006. Extensive rat modification of a human skeleton from central Indiana. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 12:306.

Kuba, C. 2001. Differences in DNA preservation between adult and subadult human skeletal remains as evidenced by individuals from two nineteenth century cemeteries. Masters thesis: University of Indianapolis.

Latham, K. 2003. The relationship between bone condition and DNA preservation. Masters thesis: University of Indianapolis.

Latham K., J. Harms, J. C. Zambrano, M. Ritke, and S. P. Nawrocki. 2004. The abil-ity to amplify skeletal DNA after heat exposure due to maceration. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 10:283.

Megyesi, M., S. Nawrocki, and N. Haskell. 2005. Using accumulated degree-days to estimate the postmortem interval from decomposed human remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences 50:618–626.

Nawrocki, S. 1991. Human taphonomy and historic cemeteries: Factors influenc-ing the loss and subsequent recovery of human remains. Electronic document on file at http:/archlab.uindy.edu. University of Indianapolis Archeology and Forensics Laboratory.

Nawrocki, S. 1995. Taphonomic processes in historic cemeteries. In A. Grauer (ed.): Bodies of evidence, John Wiley & Sons, 49–66.

Nawrocki, S. 1996. An outline of forensic archeology. Electronic document on file at http:/archlab.uindy.edu. University of Indianapolis Archeology and Foren-sics Laboratory.

Nawrocki, S. 1997a. Cleaning bones. Electronic document on file at http:/archlab .uindy.edu. University of Indianapolis Archeology and Forensics Laboratory.

Nawrocki, S. 1997b. Analysis of the human remains. In Hopewell in Mt. Vernon: A study of the Mt. Vernon Site (12-Po-885). General Electric Company, 11–66.

Nawrocki, S. 2003. Experimental burning of a dry human cranium. Paper presented at the 10th Midwest Bioarcheology and Forensic Anthropology Association Conference, Chicago.

Nawrocki, S., and A. Baker. 2001. Fluvial transport of human remains at the Fox Hollow serial homicide site. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 7:246–247.

Nawrocki, S., and M. Clark. 1994. Extreme dispersal and damage of human skeletal remains by farming equipment. American Academy of Forensic Sciences Pro-gram and Abstracts, 171.

2320.indb 90 4/9/08 3:10:26 PM


Nawrocki, S., J. Pless, J. D. Hawley, and S. Wagner. 1997. Fluvial transport of human crania. In W. Haglund and M. Sorg (eds.): Forensic taphonomy: The postmor-tem fate of human remains. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 529–552.

Nawrocki, S., C. Schmidt, M. Williamson, and G. Reinhardt. 1998. Excavation and analysis of human remains from the Fox Hollow serial homicide site, Ham-ilton County, Indiana. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sci-ences 4:205–206.

Nawrocki, S., M. Williamson, C. Schmidt, H. Thew, and G. Reinhardt. 2002. Exca-vation and analysis of four homicide victims from shallow graves in Bartho-lomew County, Indiana. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 8:219.

Parr, N., Erhart, and S. Nawrocki, 2004. Recovery and analysis of recent human remains from a riverbank in Allen County, Indiana. Paper presented at the 11th Midwest Bioarcheology and Forensic Anthropology Association Conference, Norman.

Reinhardt, G. 2003. Hydrologic artifact dispersals at Pingasagruk, North Coast, Alaska. Geoarchaeology 8:493–513.

Ritterskamp, I., A. Baker, P. Emanovsky, S. Nawrocki, and N. Haskell. 2001. Recov-ery and analysis of two vandalized mausoleum crypts in Northern Indiana. Paper presented at the 8th Midwest Bioarcheology and Forensic Anthropology Association Conference, Wichita, KS.

Schmidt, C., S. Nawrocki, M. Williamson, and D. Marlin. 2000. Obtaining finger-prints from mummified tissues: A method for tissue hydration adapted from the archeological literature. Journal of Forensic Sciences 45:874–875.

Schultz, J., M. Williamson, S. Nawrocki, A. Falsetti, and M. W. Warren. 2003. A taphonomic profile to aid in the recognition of human remains from historic and/or cemetery contexts. Florida Anthropologist 56:141–147.

Smith, E., K. Latham, S. Nawrocki, and S. Childress. 2002. An analysis of an embalmed 19th century juvenile mummy. Paper presented at the 9th Midwest Bioarcheol-ogy and Forensic Anthropology Association Conference, Indianapolis.

Thew, H. 2000 Effects of lime on the decomposition rate of buried remains. Masters thesis: University of Indianapolis.

2320.indb 91 4/9/08 3:10:26 PM


Appendix A AFL Skeleton Visual Impression Form

Case # ______ - ______ Individual # ______________

Analyst(s) ________________________ Date ___________________

Darkened areas are _ absent or present for analysis (check one).

NOTE: This form gives only a general impression of the remains, and not all bones or fragments may be pictured here. Refer to the Skeleton Inventory Form for further details.

Appendix A

AFL Skeleton Visual Impression Form

Case # __________ - ____________ Individual # ___________

Analyst(s) _____________________ Date _________________

2320.indb 92 4/9/08 3:10:28 PM


UIAFL Taphonomic Observations Form

Case # __________ - _________ Individual # ______________

Analyst(s) __________________ Date ___________________

Soft Tissues (skin, periosteum, hair, ligaments, tendons, muscle, cartilage, intervertebral discs, nails, brain tissue, meninges, internal organs, fats contained within the bone tissue, odor):

Color (note overall colors of bone surfaces, isolated deviations, metal staining):

Biotic Alterations (algae, fungus, mold, carnivore damage, rodent gnawing, root etching, insects):

Abiotic Alterations (weathering and drying cracks, erosion, abrasion, goug-ing and scratching, delamination, sunbleaching, fractures not caused by perimortem trauma or carnivores):

Cultural / Behavioral Alterations (blunt force trauma, incised wounds, sawing, puncture wounds, drilling, grinding, gunshot wounds, burning, pencil and pen markings, paint, candle wax, hardware; attach diagrams as appropriate):

(more detailed notes can be made on Casenotes forms if needed) (v. 1-8-07)

2320.indb 93 4/9/08 3:10:28 PM


UIAFL Chain of Custody/Transmittal of Remains Form

UIAFL Case Number UI -- _____ -- _____

Agency Case Number ________________

Item # Description________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Released by (print): _______________________________________________________________

Agency (print): ___________________________________________________________________

Received by (print): _______________________________________________________________

Agency (print): ___________________________________________________________________

________________________________ _________________________________ Signature of the person releasing the remains Signature of the person accepting the remains

Date: ______________ Type of Transfer(if known):

_______ permanent

Time: ______________ ______ temporary

(v. 6-1-07)

2320.indb 94 4/9/08 3:10:28 PM


UIAFL Human Remains Field Inventory Form

Case # ___________ - ___________ Date _______________

Location _________________________ Recorder _______________

_________ Cranium

_________ Mandible

Upper Teeth: ___________________

Lower Teeth: ___________________

_________ Hyoid Body

_________ L Wing

_________ R Wing

_________ C1

_________ C2

Cervicals: ___________________

Thoracics: ____________________

Lumbars: ___________________

R Ribs: ___________________

L Ribs: ____________________

_________ Manubrium

_________ Sternal Body

_________ Xiphoid

_________ L Clavicle

_________ R Clavicle

_________ L Scapula

_________ R Scapula

_________ L Humerus

_________ R Humerus

_________ L Ulna

_________ R Ulna

_________ L Radius

_________ R Radius

Carpals: ___________________

Metacarpals: ____________________

Manual Phalanges: _______________

_________ Sacrum

_________ Coccyx

_________ L Coxa

_________ R Coxa

_________ L Femur

_________ R Femur

_________ L Patella

_________ R Patella

_________ L Tibia

_________ R Tibia

_________ L Fibula

_________ R Fibula

_________ L Calcaneus

_________ R Calcaneus

_________ L Talus

_________ R Talus

Tarsals: ___________________

Metatarsals: ____________________

Pedal Phalanges: _________________

Pedal Sesamoids: _________________

Misc.: __________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

2320.indb 95 4/9/08 3:10:29 PM


DIRECTIONS: Place a check mark to the left of each individual bone when recov-ered, even if only part of it is found. For bones with multiple elements, place a hash mark on the right side line for each one recovered. Note that this form is for guiding search activities, not for creating a detailed record of items found at the scene.(v. 6-15-07)

2320.indb 96 4/9/08 3:10:29 PM

97

The Mass Fatality Incident Morgue: A Laboratory for Disaster Victim Identification

paul s. sledzik and patricia J. kauFFMan

Introduction

For the family and friends of those killed in disasters, an important mea-sure of dignity awarded them is manifested in the process of identifying the remains of the deceased. Because this process happens without the fami-ly’s direct involvement, the forensic and mortuary responders are granted a fragile trust. Families demand that remains be identified and returned to them quickly, and that they be kept informed throughout the process. The decedent’s family and friends also expect that responders share the desire to quickly and accurately identify the dead (Slater and Hall 1997; Final Report 1997; Sledge 2005).

The involvement of the forensic responder in decedent identification typ-ically occurs in the disaster morgue. This morgue, a temporary laboratory created for processing human remains, is not complex, but it is exception-ally focused. Each step in the morgue operation is carried out consistently and each analysis is thoroughly documented. Although the laboratory is

6

Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 97The Decedent Population .................................................................................... 99Antemortem Information ................................................................................. 100Condition of Human Remains ......................................................................... 100

Federal and State Mass Fatality Response Teams .................................101Incident Morgue ....................................................................................... 103

Role of the Forensic Anthropologist ................................................................ 109Family Assistance and Related Issues ..............................................................111Conclusion ...........................................................................................................112References .............................................................................................................113

2320.indb 97 4/9/08 3:10:29 PM

98 paul s. sledzik and patricia J. kauffman

transient, the work being conducted there can continue long after the initial phases of recovery and information gathering.

In the United States, the medical examiner or coroner is legally responsi-ble for identifying unknown remains. In a disaster situation, this responsibil-ity is maintained, but the office may require additional personnel, supplies, or equipment to complete the work (Wagner and Froede 1993; Jordan 1999). Localities with a mass fatality response plan, which includes the particulars of the identification process as required by that jurisdiction, use that plan to develop their response to a disaster event (Gilliland et al. 1986; Labovich et al. 2003; Randall 1991). The United States has a federal disaster mortuary response team (known as DMORT) and several state and local level teams (Saul and Saul 2003; Sledzik and Willcox 2003; Fixott et al. 2001). Trained in disaster morgue operations, these teams provide the local jurisdiction in need of assistance with experienced scientists, technicians, administrative staff, and logistical support to complete the victim identification process.

Disasters of such a magnitude as to result in large numbers of deaths can be categorized into three broad types: natural, criminal, and technologi-cal. Disasters caused by acts of nature include hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods. Those of a criminal nature include bombings and the use of biologi-cal, nuclear, or chemical weapons. Aviation accidents and structural fires are examples of technological disasters. The particular event dictates, to a large degree, the condition of remains and the type of the forensic science needed to complete the identification process (Sledzik and Rodriquez 2002; Kontanis et al. 2001). The legal requirements and humanitarian concerns of identify-ing the dead from mass fatality events require that standard processes be employed (Lain et al. 2003; Moody and Busuttil 1994; Sledzik et al. 2003). The uninitiated may be unaware that the processing of remains of victims killed in mass disasters comprises an orderly, well-considered, and thorough process. The initial chaos surrounding a disaster gives way to a managed response revealing a structured arena for forensic examination (Brannon and Kessler 1999).

Medicolegal requirements demand that for each mass fatality event the human remains are examined by forensic experts and that the condition of the remains be documented via photography and radiography (Kahana et al. 1997; Lichtenstein et al. 1988). The laboratory created for these examinations and documentary processes, although temporary, represents a convergence of intense activity and is often the focus of intense media and political atten-tion. The work accomplished in the mass disaster laboratory is important to the next-of-kin, the medicolegal community, and to society because each stakeholder becomes reassured of humanity writ large and the response pro-cess emblematic of our respect for the dead.

Three main issues impact the recovery operations, processing of remains and identification of decedents:

2320.indb 98 4/9/08 3:10:29 PM

the Mass Fatality incident Morgue 99

The number and type of decedent population involved in the event.•The availability and type of antemortem information.•The condition of the remains (e.g., complete, fragmentary, burned, etc.).•

The interplay of these details drive the type and number of personnel needed and the length of time and methods used to complete identification (Sledzik and Rodriquez 2002; Kontanis et al. 2001; Sledzik and Kontanis 2005). The various procedures used in the search for and recovery of remains is beyond the scope of this chapter. What follows is a discussion of the processing and identification procedures used in a variety of disaster responses involving both federal and state teams as experienced by the authors.

The Decedent Population

Based on the availability of immediate information about them, decedents can be categorized into “open” and “closed” populations. In a “closed pop-ulation,” the number of victims and their names are known. The singular example of a closed population is an aircraft accident, where positive iden-tification checks at airport security areas and ticket purchasing procedures allow forensic responders to rely on the accuracy of the flight manifest and its associated passenger name record to initiate antemortem record collection. By federal law, authorities such as the National Transportation Safety Board are provided with passenger names and related information within a matter of hours following an accident (NTSB 2000). Antemortem information col-lection begins soon after this information is received.

Conversely, an “open population” is one in which there is no definitive list of the numbers of victims or their names. As such, response personnel must focus their initial efforts on distinguishing those who are reported miss-ing (by friends and relatives) from those who are actually missing. This sort-ing process takes time. Only after a decedent is confirmed as missing can the process of obtaining and examining antemortem data begin. For example, in the initial days following the September 11 World Trade Center disaster the number of reported missing fluctuated between 3958 and 6453 (Simpson and Stehr 2003). As of June 2005, the total number of missing individuals was 2749 and total identified was 1591 (Mackinnon and Mundorff 2006). In an open population, since the number and names of dead are not known, all remains must be profiled for DNA so that the entirety of the decedent profiles is known.

Managing events involving open and closed populations compels foren-sic teams to assess the need for forensic specialties. In an event where remains are complete and the decedents are from a defined geographical area, post-mortem dental evidence may be easily obtained and antemortem dental

2320.indb 99 4/9/08 3:10:30 PM


records may be quickly acquired—if they are not destroyed or damaged by the disaster. As such, most positive identifications will be completed using dental means, calling for more forensic dentists over other forensic disciplines.

Antemortem Information

The process of identification requires comparing antemortem data with post-mortem information. Collecting the postmortem information is relatively simple and rapid, as the remains themselves are analyzed in the incident morgue as they are recovered from the scene. However, the availability and acquisition of antemortem records and radiographs greatly influences the identification process. Experience indicates the timely acquisition of accurate antemortem records and radiographs is a critical factor in the rapid comple-tion of the identification process (Kontanis et al. 2001; Brannon and Kessler 1999; Sledzik and Kontanis 2005). Dental and medical records and radio-graphs can be obtained rapidly if families and forensic personnel know how to contact the dentist and doctor of the decedent. However, factors such as the age, socioeconomic status, cultural practices, and religious beliefs of the dece-dent and the family impact antemortem record and radiograph availability.

Decedents of lower socioeconomic status may not have dental work, and subsequently no dental records. Many people have never been fingerprinted, or were printed through a process that may not allow the prints to be stored and retrieved. Some religions adhere to the belief that burial is unimport-ant, and, as such, these family members may be unreceptive to providing DNA samples for identification. The proximity of the disaster to the location of the decedent’s antemortem records also impacts access to these records. For example, if the majority of decedents are from the area where the disas-ter occurs, then access to records will be more rapid because of the close proximity of both families and dentists/doctors. Conversely, the antemortem record availability in an accident where decedents are not local (as happens with foreign aircraft passengers), the access to families, and thus to antemor-tem records, is more lengthy and complicated.

Condition of Human Remains

More rapidly processed than fragmented remains, whole bodies with con-cordant antemortem information can be identified quickly. Complete bod-ies generally bear the unique physical identifiers needed to presumptively identify the victim. As such, when a whole body is identified there has been an entire accounting of the decedent’s remains. Fragmented remains present more complex issues. Certain body parts may contain unique identifiers (for

2320.indb 100 4/9/08 3:10:30 PM


example, dental work, fingerprints, and prosthetic devices) and when identi-fied, the fragment indicates both proof of death and identification of the dece-dent. Importantly, the remainder of the fragments representing the decedent must be identified. DNA analysis is the method used to identify body parts having no unique physical identifiers, but despite the liberal application of this technology, not all analyses result in an adequate DNA profile to lead to an identification (Alonso et al. 2005; Budowle et al. 2005).

In a closed population, high-fragmentation event, forensic investigators work to identify all the victims, with an understanding that not all remains will be identified because of technological limitations of DNA analysis. In an open population, high-fragmentation event, the focus is on identifying all remains because the number and names of decedents are unknown. Remains that cannot be identified are referred to as “common tissue.” Common tissue must be managed carefully, and families must be informed of its existence and be involved in the decisions regarding its final disposition. The final disposition of remains depends on the wishes of the family, the condition of remains, and the identification status of the remains. In most situations, families will make decisions about final disposition of remains in accordance with their religious practices or the lack thereof. In the case of unidentified remains, group burials or interment at a memorial is common. Long-term curation within a mausoleum or in the medical examiner/coroner’s office may be required as new identification methods are developed. Mass graves and mass cremations of remains (identified or unidentified) are considered culturally insensitive and may preclude the use of additional identification methods that may arise as identification technologies advance (PAHO 2004). If remains cannot be decontaminated following a chemical, biological, or radiological disaster, mass graves may be used, but only as an interim step on the path to positive identification.

The interplay of these three considerations—condition of remains, dece-dent population, and antemortem record availability—influences the poten-tial for positive identifications and how they will be rendered. Forensic and morgue personnel must have a sound understanding of the interplay of these factors so that the morgue operation can proceed accordingly.

Federal and State Mass Fatality Response Teams

Since by definition a mass fatality event overwhelms the local jurisdiction’s ability to respond effectively to the forensic and mortuary needs of a disaster, support from federal and state government agencies with forensic capabili-ties is often required. The development of the Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT), similar state-level teams, and related volunteer forensic groups provides the local jurisdiction access to personnel, equip-ment, and experience.

2320.indb 101 4/9/08 3:10:30 PM


In the United States, DMORT has responded to or assisted in the recov-ery and identification of victims in a variety of disasters (Saul and Saul 2003; Sledzik and Willcox 2003). The Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team is a division of the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) and comprises federal medical and forensic responders housed under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Although DMORT has no federal mandate to direct mass fatality victim identification responses, it can assist local jurisdictions in these activities when requested through the appropriate procedures. Typically, DMORT is able to respond under a feder-ally declared disaster as defined in the federal National Response Plan (2004). Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team members work within the local jurisdiction’s medicolegal structure, usually reporting directly to the medical examiner or coroner and may provide the following:

Experienced forensic scientists•Administrative staff•Mortuary personnel•Standardized procedures•Specialized equipment•

All of the above work to assist medical examiner and coroners in the complex job of victim identification. Accompanied by a Disaster Portable Morgue Unit (DPMU), DMORT travels with all the supplies and equipment necessary to assemble a fully operational, free-standing, temporary morgue.

While a mass fatality event easily overwhelms a medical examiner and coroner office, normal casework will need to continue during the disaster response. Establishing a separate disaster incident morgue reduces confusion and increases efficiency. The incident morgue is effectively a “field”-based course of action because it operates under the jurisdiction of the medical examiner or coroner but in field conditions.

State disaster victim identification teams provide support in the event of nonfederally declared disasters and augment the DMORT teams. Often, members of state and local teams are members of DMORT. The knowledge of local assets and issues gives state and local teams an important advantage over federal teams. Local teams are also able to respond to fatality events not rising to the level of a federal response. Forensic odontologists have the most coordinated system of state and local identification teams (Fixott et al. 2001). The American Board of Forensic Odontology (www.abfo.org) tracks con-tact information for these teams. Another state-level mass fatality response team is the Florida Emergency Mortuary Response System (www.femors.org). Given their proximity to the disaster, state and local mass fatality teams can often respond more quickly than federal response teams. The DMORT

2320.indb 102 4/9/08 3:10:30 PM


responders typically take 24 to 36 hours to become operational while local teams can often be operational within a few hours.

Incident Morgue

Selecting the location to process decedent remains is the first step in the disaster morgue operation. The location of the disaster “incident morgue” is dependent on the numbers of fatalities and the number of forensic and support personnel involved in the response. Ideally, local authorities (and preferably the medical examiner or coroner) will have selected a site before the arrival of the forensic response team. Incident morgues have been suc-cessfully established in aircraft hangers, unused warehouses, armories, other securable nonpublic buildings, and medical examiner or coroner offices when space and procedures allowed. In the last case, care is taken to separate the daily casework from the disaster casework. Other considerations include proximity to the disaster scene, adequate floor space, placement of refriger-ated trucks for remains storage, and office space for workers and support personnel. Logistical considerations include adequate heating, cooling, ven-tilation; lighting; water supply; electrical capacity; telephone and high-speed Internet access; restrooms; drainage (for capturing biohazard); nonporous floors; and forklift accessibility. An 8,000 to 10,000 ft2 facility is adequate for most transportation disasters. Responders have learned from experience that certain places should not be used as incident morgues—schools or similar active public facilities, and hospitals—which have the potential for creating unintended emotional problems for children and other citizenry and may create confusion between nondisaster patients, those patients injured in the disaster, and attendant family members of these groups, respectively.

Since most jurisdictions in the United States do not have the supplies and equipment needed to create an incident morgue, DMORT has assembled caches of material, the Disaster Portable Morgue Unit or DPMU, containing the supplies and equipment for operating an incident morgue for large-scale fatality events. Transportable to the incident site via truck or aircraft, the DPMU is accompanied and supported by a team of trained responders who assemble, restock, and pack the DPMU equipment. Specialized cases house the equipment and supplies, which are categorized, labeled, and inventoried, and a load plan facilitates shipment. Once on site, the DPMU is operational in less than 24 hours. As cases in point, a DPMU was erected in an aircraft hangar following an aviation accident near Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in May 2000 and organized in an abandoned military gymnasium on an active military base following the crash of EgyptAir 990 in October of 1999 (Fig-ures 6.1 and 6.2, respectively). The DPMUs are currently housed in Maryland and California.

2320.indb 103 4/9/08 3:10:30 PM


Figure 6.1 the dMort morgue used during the identification of the victims of the egyptair 990 crash in 1999.

Figure 6.2 the morgue is situated in an abandoned gymnasium on a military base.

2320.indb 104 4/9/08 3:10:31 PM


The organization of the actual morgue operation—the analysis of remains and the use of methods to identify remains—is akin to an assembly line, albeit one in which the importance of the work and its impact on the next-of-kin is evident via the thoroughness and professionalism of those working within the incident morgue. There are several standard operating guidelines available for the disaster victim identification and morgue operations avail-able from the Web sites of organizations, including:

DMORT (http://www.dmort.org/FilesforDownload/Protocol_Flight_93 •.pdf)The National Association of Medical Examiners (http://thename.org)•The U.S. National Institutes of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/•pubs-sum/199758.htm) and (http://massfatality.dna.gov/)Interpol (http://www.interpol.int/Public/DisasterVictim/Guide)•Pan American Health Organization (http://www.paho.org/English/dd/•ped/DeadBodiesFieldManual.htm)

Before processing remains, the medicolegal authority must carefully consider the focus of the forensic efforts (e.g., will the focus be on identify-ing and accounting for all the victims or on the identification of all frag-mented human remains?) as this decision allows for efficient processing of the human remains and associated personal effects and avoids overwhelming the morgue team (Figure 6.3). Storing remains in refrigerator trucks permits morgue personnel to work with an optimal number of remains introduced into the morgue flow. For example, in an event with 100 whole-body fatali-ties, forensic examiners may choose to analyze only 10 bodies at once. Refrig-erator trucks or similar storage facilities are designated as “unprocessed” and “processed” to keep remains segregated and organized.

Once remains are brought from the unprocessed refrigerated unit into the morgue area, the remains are radiographed in the container (body bag, pouch, transfer case, and so forth). These radiographs help triage station personnel evaluate the material in the container before it is opened. In the case of complete bodies, these radiographs can point out ordnance, per-sonal effects, forensic evidence, the extent of trauma, and potential com-mingling. For fragmented remains, the radiograph reveals potentially identifiable body portions, evidence, personal effects, nonbiological mate-rial, and the extent of commingling.

The next step, triage, is typically reserved for use with fragmentary remains (Sledzik and Kontanis 2005). Whole bodies may be triaged to sort them by their potential for identification (e.g., presence of dental work). For fragmented remains, all are treated as commingled and only remains con-nected by anatomical tissues are considered a single specimen. Anatomically unattached remains found in proximity to one another, either at the disaster

2320.indb 105 4/9/08 3:10:31 PM


site or in a remains container, are assumed to be unrelated. Each remain is examined individually for its potential to be identified by applying a proba-tive index that systematically classifies human remains according to their identification potential or investigative value (Sledzik and Kontanis 2005). The probative categorization system relates the number of positive and pre-sumptive identifying features to the potential for a DNA, dental, fingerprint, or medical identification. The index is incident specific, as factors such as the availability and accuracy of antemortem information can impact the appli-cation of data. Typically, four categories of materials are separated: personal effects; wreckage or other types of evidence; remains with a potential for identification; and remains with little or no potential for identification (that is, common tissue). Nonhuman biological material, such as animal bones, is also removed from morgue flow during triage.

Triage can expose the taphonomic processes related to the disaster. By elucidating patterns in the types and condition of remains recovered, the

Unprocessed Remains Storage

Refrigerated Truck

RadiographRemains

Container

Family Assistance Center

Antemortem Data Collection

Evidence Law Enforcement/

NTSB

Personal Effects Law Enforcement/

Contractor Forensic

Examination Pathology

Anthropology Dental

Fingerprint DNA

Initial Documentation

Numbering Photography Radiography

TriageSort Remains,

Personal Effects,and Evidence.

Select Remainswith

Potential for ID

Remains withNo/Little

Potential for IDCommon

Tissue

Remains for Examination

ID Station Dental

Radiography DNA Prints

Medical Devices

Release of Remains to

Funeral Home Final ID Check

Reassociation of Fragmented

Remains

Embalming and Casketing

(If Required)

Processed Remains Storage

Refrigerated Truck or

Cold Storage

Notification toNext-of-KinDecision on

Future NotificationDecision on

Reassociation

Fatality Management Considerations

• Open or Closed Population • Fragmented or Complete Remains • Antemortem Data Availability • Role of DNA • ID of Remains or Decedents • Triage Probative Value • Family Decisions on Notification and Reassociation

Mass Fatality Morgue Operational Plan

Figure 6.3 a schematic representation of an efficient mass fatality morgue plan.

2320.indb 106 4/9/08 3:10:32 PM


multidisciplinary triage team can suggest changes in the recovery process, guide search and recovery efforts, and understand some aspects of incident causation. Effective triage is part of a feedback loop from the morgue to the search and recovery operation.

Following triage, a standard set of documents (for example, the case file) is created for each specimen at the admitting station. At this point, remains must be numbered as they enter the morgue operation. Experience has shown that a simple numbering system reduces confusion in morgue personnel and decreases administrative errors. Remains are assigned a consecutive whole number. For example, the first body, or body part, entering the morgue flow receives #1, the second receives #2, and the third #3. If during the course of the morgue analysis additional remains are found commingled (for example, they were not separated at triage), the new body part can be brought to the admitting station and assigned the next consecutive number. In the case of whole bodies, numbers are often assigned at the scene. Morgue personnel can preserve this numbering system if there is similar logic and simplicity behind the system. Data from the scene that is associated with the remains can be placed in the pertinent case file. After identification and reassociation, the coroner or medical examiner can assign an office case number to the remains comprising that individual. Using the unique numbers, each remain is accompanied by a folder with the postmortem analytical paperwork that will be completed in the other areas of the morgue operation.

New technology is being used to handle large numbers of remains and to reduce numbering errors and increase quality assurance. Recently, computer readable barcodes and radio frequency identification chips (RFIDs) have been used to manage remains in disaster morgue operations following the World Trade Center disaster, the Asian tsunami, and Hurricane Katrina.

Once numbered, remains are radiographed, photographed, and then escorted through the postmortem examination stations for analysis. Experts in each forensic discipline staff these stations—typically referred to as dental, pathology, anthropology, fingerprint, photography, and DNA. Requirements of the investigation dictate if all numbered remains are examined at each of these stations or if only pertinent remains will be examined at the station (for example, fragments of dental evidence would not be examined at the finger-print station). At each station, information is collected according to standard protocols created for the specific disaster response.

While the postmortem data is being collected at the morgue, antemor-tem information is being obtained from family members and friends of the deceased. This process happens at a family assistance center (FAC) where specialists in funeral service and forensic identification interview the family members by following a standard interview forms. The information they col-lect includes contact information for dentists and doctors, data on the unique biological aspects of the deceased, and information related to personal effects

2320.indb 107 4/9/08 3:10:33 PM


with the deceased. The DMORT responders and some medical examiner offices have a specialized team trained to conduct these often difficult, yet critical, interviews (Wright et al. 1999).

In most disaster situations, positive identifications are based on unique biological attributes (Weedn 1998). These unique biological attributes are recorded through methods that include DNA analysis, odontology, prints (e.g., fingerprints, handprints, toe prints, and footprints), radiology, and implanted medical devices with recorded serial numbers. In addition, distinctive physi-cal characteristics (e.g., ears, scars, moles, and tattoos) with appropriate ante-mortem photographic documentations can be used as positive identification if the procedures for that event dictate. Presumptive identification using personal effects, clothing, and the like is a preliminary step toward positive identifica-tion using some or all of the procedures listed above.

To complete the process of positive identification, regularly scheduled meetings are held between the medicolegal authority, fingerprint technicians, odontologists, radiologists, anthropologists, DNA analysts, and forensic pathologists. Details of the identification are documented, and the identifica-tion is presented to the medical examiner or coroner for his or her agreement and authorization. If the forensic team does not agree on an identification, the antemortem and postmortem evidence is reexamined. All disciplines must agree before the identification is finalized. Once remains are positively identified, the next-of-kin is notified via the local jurisdiction’s usual process for death notification.

Despite the fact that they deal with death regularly, the psychological impact of disaster work on forensic responders should not be underestimated. Disaster forensic work is physically and psychologically stressful (McCarroll et al. 1996; Webb et al. 2002). Effective disaster responders prepare by devel-oping support networks at home and at work, and by maintaining good phys-ical fitness and health practices to help carry them through the response.

Even with the familiarity of working with human remains, certain events increase stress for most forensic responders (Ursano and McCarroll 1994). These include handling personal effects, examining the remains of children, the condition of remains (particularly aspects of visual grotesqueness, odor, and tactile features), and exposure to a large number of victims. Identifying with or personalizing the victims increases the emotional attachment to the remains, may reduce objectivity, and may increase vulnerability to psycho-logical distress. Such stressors can result in normal emotional reactions, such as sadness, disgust, anger, pity, fear, and numbness. Physical reactions can include headache, sleep difficulties, intestinal problems, appetite changes, and fatigue (McCarroll et al. 2002).

The most effective coping strategies involve talking with trusted cowork-ers, appropriate use of humor, reflecting on the larger purpose of the work, avoiding media coverage of the event (particularly information about the

2320.indb 108 4/9/08 3:10:33 PM


victims), and being consistent about taking time off from the disaster work. Camaraderie and talking with colleagues, both during and after the event, has been shown to be an important source of positive feelings about a disaster response. Peer-support models, as found in fire/rescue and police agencies, are preferable for forensic responders, as outside mental health professionals typically do not understand the particular stressors of forensic work. Despite the stress, forensic responders report that disaster work is a valuable experi-ence, provides a sense of accomplishment, and increases their appreciation of life (Webb et al. 2002).

Role of the Forensic Anthropologist

Forensic anthropologists play a comprehensive role in decedent identifica-tion, from field recovery through the final stages of positive identification in the incident morgue and as quality assurance managers before the release of remains. Their skills fall into two broad categories: scene support and morgue operations (Saul and Saul 2003; Sledzik and Willcox 2003; Mackinnon and Mundorff 2006; Hinkes 1989; London et al. 2003; Mundorff and Steadman 2003; Mundorff 2003; Owsley et al. 1995; Sledzik and Hunt 1997; Stewart 1970; Ubelaker et al. 1995). With training in search, recovery, archeological methods, skeletal biology, and anatomy, the skills of the forensic anthropolo-gist are indispensable to the disaster victim identification effort.

At the disaster scene, the anthropologist uses knowledge of taphonomy and search technology to plan a thorough search, and archaeological training helps in determining the size and scope of the search. Often, the anthropolo-gist trains search and recovery personnel about the unique aspects of scenes where fragmentation, burning, and decomposition of remains are a concern. The ability to recognize otherwise unrecognizable (to the nonanthropolo-gist) remains allows for the recovery of remains that might otherwise be overlooked. An on-scene assessment of material can reveal if the items are human, nonhuman, or nonbiological. For example, forensic anthropologists involved in the World Trade Center disaster response were stationed at the Staten Island landfill to distinguish human remains from nonhuman mate-rial that originated from the many restaurants present in the area (Warren et al. 2002).

In the incident morgue, training in skeletal biology and anatomy allows the forensic anthropologist to conduct a number of important analyses, including:

Assist in triage•Separate commingled remains•Describe condition of remains (e.g., complete or fragmentary)•Determine sex, age, ancestry, stature, and unique characteristics•

2320.indb 109 4/9/08 3:10:33 PM


Interpret radiographs for age estimation and unique skeletal features•Determine minimum number of individuals•Analyze ante-, peri-, and postmortem injuries•Conduct quality assurance assessment before release of remains •from morgue

Because skeletal analyses are most useful in cases of fragmentation, burning, and decomposition, forensic anthropologists are integral for inter-preting anatomical structures presented in the triage area (Figure 6.3). Once identified as human, the skull, pelvic, and long bone structures are used to make interpretations about its biological attributes (for example, sex, age, ancestry, robusticity, and stature) and to interpret the viability of unique bio-logical features for use in identification. If remains are complete, forensic anthropologists can help determine the age of the decedent and interpret radiographs for identification.

Two unique, yet simple, applications of the forensic anthropological understanding of mass fatality identification took place at the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster (Mackinnon and Mundorff 2006; Mundorff 2003; Mundorff et al. 2005; Wiersema et al. 2003; Budimlija et al. 2003). Specifi-cally, the forensic anthropologist reexamined the human remains, associ-ated case file information, DNA results, and the extent of commingling before the remains are released from the morgue or interred. As a case in point, several methods were used to identify the thousands of human fragments from the World Trade Center, but DNA was the single largest method applied. The number of fragments and the immense administrative effort necessary to manage those data resulted in procedural errors such as misnumbering, incorrect data transcription, and siding errors (right ver-sus left). In addition, the building collapse, transport of the remains to the Staten Island landfill, and commingling resulted in DNA cross-contami-nation (e.g., similar DNA results might reveal that two right feet produced identical DNA profiles). But, it was the forensic anthropological review of 16,915 of the total 19,963 cases from the World Trade Center that resulted in new identifications and associations of previously unassociated remains (Mackinnon and Mundorff 2006).

Second, the “final anthropological review” provides a quality assurance procedure that reduces the possibility of misidentification. At the WTC, the final case review required the anthropologist to examine identified remains before release to ensure the biological attributes of the remains were congru-ent with the file and identification information. Problems were resolved by using document reviews, additional anthropological analysis, and reanaly-sis of DNA. MacKinnon and Mundorff (2006) indicate that the review was important to “resolve any final and outstanding issues of commingling and contamination, and ultimately provided the opportunity to reconfirm the

2320.indb 110 4/9/08 3:10:33 PM


correlation between the case files, the identification modality, and the physi-cal remains, before final repatriation of the victim occurred.”

Forensic anthropologists, like pathologists, bring the “big-picture” per-spective to the victim identification effort. They see the interplay of taphonomy, decedent population, culture, anatomy, and human biology and how these fac-tors interact during the process of victim identification. Interestingly, part of the training in anthropology involves learning and applying interview skills (from the realm of cultural anthropology) in order to gain and share informa-tion from people of similar or disparate backgrounds. Central to the cultural anthropological theory and practice is the anthropologist’s ability to ignore his or her own biases or ethnocentric feelings in order to discuss the interviewee’s thoughts concerning familial mores, concepts of time and economics, religion, and death. Needless to say, this training lends itself to assisting family mem-bers who have lost someone in a mass fatality incident.

Family Assistance and Related Issues

In the past several years the term “family assistance” (as it applies to mass fatality situations) has come to mean a standard of care and services pro-vided to the family members of the deceased (NTSB 1998). For example, the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996 established important rights for families of passengers who die in aircraft accidents. The law specifies the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), as the lead federal agency, to coordinate the resources of the airline, the federal agencies, the American Red Cross, and the local jurisdiction agencies in supporting family members (NTSB 2000). The support families receive encompasses travel to and from the accident site, lodging, informational briefings (including information on victim recovery and identification), mental health counseling, site visits, memorial services, and long-term information sharing.

Victim identification is a critical part of the family assistance process (Slater and Hall 1997; Final Report 1997). Although families are involved in the identification process from the standpoint of providing antemortem information, they are also asked to make decisions about death notification, final disposition, and other concerns related to the remains of the deceased. As the provider of this information and the person offering the choice, the medical examiner or coroner works closely with individual family members or in groups at family briefings (Robb 1999). The medical examiner or coroner reassures families that morgue personnel treat all remains with respect and provides information about the various identification methods being imple-mented. Families may ask for specific information regarding the particulars of an identification. The sometimes lengthy process of DNA identification is also explained, and families may be asked to provide DNA reference samples.

2320.indb 111 4/9/08 3:10:33 PM


The victim’s next-of-kin makes choices about the final disposition of pos-itively identified remains. In cases of severe fragmentation, where multiple fragments from one individual are identified over a lengthy period, families choose how often they wish to be notified of identifications (for example, initially or each time an identification of the decedent is made). Families also choose if remains will be released to them as they are identified or released when all the remains have been reassociated at the end of the identification process. Family preference regarding the disposition of remains is optimally determined upon the first fragment being identified.

Because not all fragmented remains are identified, a decision is made by the medical examiner or coroner about the disposition of common tis-sue. Families are informed of the presence of these unidentified remains, and preferably they work as a group to decide on the final disposition, which might involve an interfaith memorial service. If families cannot decide, the medicolegal authority takes action under the jurisdiction’s laws to dispose or otherwise deal with the remains.

For aviation accidents, discussions take place with family members regarding any proposed airline-sponsored memorial. Regardless of the length of time between the event and the memorial service, discussions take place with the families regarding the type of service, the location of the burial site, and the nature of the memorial marker.

Conclusion

The goal of the mass fatality victim identification process, whether on the federal or state level, is twofold: one to deal with legal requirements and the other to help the family members of the deceased move through the grief process. Managing the fatalities involves not only knowledge of human identification methods, but also an understanding of the emotional and reli-gious needs of family members of the deceased. The condition of remains, the numbers of living family members, and the availability of antemortem information will affect the process of identification and the number of posi-tive identifications.

Medical examiners and coroners maintain their legal responsibility to identify unknown victims following a disaster. Federal, state, and local teams specializing in forensic identification are available to assist the jurisdiction. These teams often comprise personnel, supplies, equipment, and the knowl-edge to successfully manage the identification process. Although disaster morgue operations are thorough and deliberate, each disaster presents unique problems that will impact morgue operations. Regardless of the nature of the disaster, all remains are documented, analyzed, and handled with care.

2320.indb 112 4/9/08 3:10:34 PM


The process of mass fatality victim identification is not insulated from the chaos of the disaster, nor from the family and friends of the deceased, the local community, media, and politicians. Although the work in the morgue is not public, the work greatly impacts public perceptions about the success of the overall disaster response. In this context, the forensic responders not only conduct accurate forensic examinations, but they serve as a source of professionalism that allows the families and community impacted by the disaster to grieve and recover.

The forensic anthropologist is an integral partner in the victim identifi-cation process. Apart from the skills they bring to the search for and recov-ery of remains, they are able to apply their knowledge of anatomy, human biology, taphonomy, and culture to the identification process.

ReferencesAlonso, A., P. Martín, C. Albarrá, P. García, L. Fernández de Simon, M. J. Itur-

ralde, A. Fernández-Rodríguez, I. Atienza, J. Capilla, J. García-Hirschfeld, P. Martínez, G. Vallejo, O. García, E. García, P. Real, D. Álvarez, A. León, and M. Sancho. 2005. Challenges of DNA profiling in mass disaster investigations. Croatian Medical Journal 46(4):540–548.

Brannon, R. B., and H. P. Kessler. 1999. Problems in mass disaster dental identifica-tion: A retrospective review. Journal of Forensic Sciences 44(1):123–127.

Budimlija, Z. M., K. P. Mechthild, A. Zelson-Mundorff, J. Wiersema, E. Bartelink, G. MacKinnon, B. L. Nazzaruolo, S. M. Estacio, M. J. Hennessey, and R. C. Shaler. 2003. World Trade Center human identification project: Experiences with individual body identification cases. Croatian Medical Journal 44(3):259–263.

Budowle, B., F. R. Bieber, and A. J. Eisenberg. 2005. Forensic aspects of mass disas-ters: Strategic considerations for DNA-based human identification. Legal Med-icine (Tokyo) 7(4):230–243.

Final report to President Clinton White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, Vice President Al Gore, Chairman. February 12, 1997.

Fixott, R. H., D. Arendt, B. Chrz, J. Filippi, J. McGivney, and A. Warnick. 2001. Role of the dental team in mass fatality incidents. Dental Clinics of North America 45(2):271–292.

Gilliland, M. G. F., E. T. McDonough, R. M. Fossum, G. P. Dowling, P. E. Besant-Matthews, and C. S. Petty. 1986. Disaster planning for air crashes: A retro-spective analysis of Delta Airlines Flight 191. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 7(4):308–316.

Hinkes, M. J. 1989. The role of forensic anthropology in mass disaster resolution. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 60(7):A18–25.

Jones, D. R. 1985. Secondary disaster victims: The emotional effects of recovering and identifying human remains. American Journal of Psychiatry 142:303–307.

Jordan, F. B. 1999. The role of the medical examiner in mass casualty situations with special reference to the Alfred P. Murrah building bombing. Journal of the Oklahoma State Medical Association 92(4):159–163.

2320.indb 113 4/9/08 3:10:34 PM


Kahana, T., J. A. Ravioli, C. L. Urroz, and J. Hiss. 1997. Radiographic identifica-tion of fragmentary human remains from a mass disaster. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 18(1):40–44.

Kontanis, E. J., F. A. Ciaccio, D. C. Dirkmaat, and M. I, Jumbelic. 2001. Variables affecting the success of victim identification in mass fatality events. Proceed-ings of the American Academy of Forensic Science, 7:188.

Labovich, M. H., J. B. Duke, K. M. Ingwersen, and D. B. Roath. 2003. Management of a multinational mass fatality incident in Kaprun, Austria: A forensic medi-cal perspective. Military Medicine 168:19–23.

Lain, R., C. Griffiths, and J. M. N. Hilton. 2003. Forensic dental and medical response to the Bali bombing: A personal perspective. Medical Journal of Aus-tralia 179(7):362–265.

Lichtenstein, J. E., J. J. Fitzpatrick, and J. E. Madewell. 1988. The role of radiology in fatality investigations. American Journal of Radiology 150:751–755.

London, M. R., D. M. Mulhern, L. T. Barbian, P. S. Sledzik, D. C. Dirkmaat, L. Fulg-initi, J. T. Hefner, and N. J. Sauer. 2003. Roles of the biological anthropologist in the response to the crash of United Airlines Flight 93. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 9:279–280.

MacKinnon, G., and A. Z. Mundorff. 2006. The World Trade Center - September 11th, 2001. In T. J. U. Thompson and S. M. Black (eds.): Forensic human identi-fication: An introduction. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Chapter 32.

McCarroll, J. E., C. S. Fullerton, R. J. Ursano, and J. M. Hermsen. 1996. Posttrau-matic stress symptoms following forensic dental identifications: Mt. Carmel, Waco, Texas. American Journal of Psychiatry 153:778–782.

Moody, G. H., and A. Busuttil. 1994. Identification in the Lockerbie air disaster. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 15(1):63–69.

Mundorff, A. Z. 2003. The role of anthropology during the identification of victims from the World Trade Center disaster. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 9:277–278.

Mundorff, A. Z., and D. W. Steadman. 2003. Anthropological perspectives on the forensic response at the World Trade Center Disaster. General Anthropology 10(1):2–5.

Mundorff, A. Z., R. Shaler, E. T. Bieschke, and E. Mar. 2005. Marrying of anthropol-ogy and DNA: Essential for solving complex commingling problems in cases of extreme fragmentation. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 11:315–316.

National Transportation Safety Board. September 28–29, 1998. International Sym-posium on Family and Victim Assistance for Transportation Disasters.

National Transportation Safety Board. 2000. Federal Family Assistance Plan for Aviation Disasters.

Owsley, D. W., D. H. Ubelaker, M. M. Houch, K. L. Sandness, W. E. Grant, E. A. Craig, T. J. Woltanski, and N. Peerwani. 1995. The role of forensic anthro-pology in the recovery and analysis of Branch Davidian Compound victims: Techniques of analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40(3):341–348.

Randall, B. 1991. Body retrieval and morgue operations in the crash of United flight 232. Journal of Forensic Sciences 36(2):403–409.

Robb, N. 1999. 229 people, 15,000 body parts: Pathologists help solve Swissair 111’s grisly puzzles. Canadian Medical Association Journal 160(2):241–243.

2320.indb 114 4/9/08 3:10:34 PM


Saul, F. P., and J. M. Saul. 2003. Planes, trains, and fireworks: The evolving role of the forensic anthropologist in mass fatality incidents. In D. W. Steadman (ed.): Hard evidence: Case studies in forensic anthropology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Chapter 20.

Simpson, D. M., and S. Stehr. 2003. Victim management and identification after the World Trade Center collapse. In Beyond September 11th: An account of post-disaster research. Program on Environment and Behavior Special Publication #39. Institute of Behavioral Science, Natural Hazards Research and Applica-tions Information Center, University of Colorado: 109–120.

Slater, R. E., and J. E. Hall. 1997. Final report: Task force on assistance to families of aviation disasters. Department of Transportation and National Transporta-tion Safety Board, Washington, D.C., October 29.

Sledge, M. 2005. Soldier dead: How we recover, identify, bury, and honor our military fallen. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sledzik, P. S., and D. R. Hunt. 1997. Disaster and relief efforts at the Hardin cem-etery. In D. A. Poirier and N. B. Bellantoni (eds.): In remembrance: Archaeology and death. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey, Chapter 11.

Sledzik, P. S., and J. E. Kontanis. 2005. Resolving commingling issues in mass fatality incidents. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 11:311.

Sledzik, P. S., and W. C. Rodriguez. 2002. Damnum fatale: The taphonomic fate of human remains in mass disasters. In W. D. Haglund and M. H. Sorg (eds.): Advances in forensic taphonomy: Methods, theories and archaeological perspec-tives. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Chapter 17.

Sledzik, P. S., W. Miller, D. C. Dirkmaat, J. L. de Jong, P. J. Kauffman, D. A. Boyer, and F. N. Hellman. 2003. Victim identification following the crash of United Airlines Flight 93. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 9:195–196.

Sledzik, P. S., and A. W. Willcox. 2003. Corpi aquaticus: The Hardin cemetery flood of 1993. In D. W. Steadman (ed.): Hard evidence: Case studies in forensic anthropology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Chapter 19.

Stewart, T. D. (ed.). 1970. Personal identification in mass disasters. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Ubelaker, D. H., D. W. Owsley, M. N. Houck, E. Craig, W. Grant, T. Woltanski, R. Fram, K. Sandness, and N. Peerwani. 1995. The role of forensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis of Branch Davidian Compound victims: Recovery pro-cedures and characteristics of victims. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40:335–340.

Ursano, R. J., and J. E. McCarroll. 1990. The nature of a traumatic stressor: Handling dead bodies. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 178(6):396–398.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2004. National Response Plan.Wagner, G. N., and R. C. Froede. 1993. Medicolegal investigation of mass disas-

ters. In W. U. Fisher (ed.): Spitz and Fisher’s medicolegal investigation of death: Guidelines for the application of pathology to crime investigation. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Chapter 15.

Weedn, V. W. 1998. Postmortem identification of remains. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 18(1):115.

Wiersema, J. M., E. J. Bartelink, Z. Budimlija, M. Prinz, R. Shaler, A. Z. Mundorff, and G. MacKinnon. 2003. The importance of an interdisciplinary review pro-cess in the World Trade Center mass disaster investigation. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 55:194.

2320.indb 115 4/9/08 3:10:34 PM


Wright, R. J., C. D. Peters, and R. B. Flannery. 1999. Victim identification and family support in mass casualties: The Massachusetts model. International Journal of Emergency Medical Health 1(4):237–242.

2320.indb 116 4/9/08 3:10:34 PM

117

The Repatriation Osteology Laboratory,National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

erica B. Jones and stepHen d. ousley

7

Contents

Introduction .........................................................................................................118Cultural Affiliation and Forensic Anthropology ............................................118Documentation ................................................................................................... 120Lab Operations ................................................................................................... 120Inventory ............................................................................................................. 123Age and Sex ......................................................................................................... 123Measurements ..................................................................................................... 124Taphonomy ......................................................................................................... 126Dentition ............................................................................................................. 128Skeletal Pathology .............................................................................................. 130Cranial Modification ......................................................................................... 132Nonmetric Traits ................................................................................................ 134Photographic and Radiographic Documentation ......................................... 134

Photography .............................................................................................. 134Radiography .............................................................................................. 135

Destructive Analysis .......................................................................................... 135Additional Resources ......................................................................................... 135Case Studies ........................................................................................................ 136

The “Sioux Giant” ..................................................................................... 136The Nez Perce Warrior ............................................................................. 138Curly Head Jack ........................................................................................ 140A Hawikku Priest? .....................................................................................141

Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 143References ............................................................................................................ 144

2320.indb 117 4/9/08 3:10:35 PM

118 erica B. Jones and stephen d. ousley

Introduction

In 1989, the 101st Congress passed Public Law 101-185, known as the National Museum of the American Indian Act (NMAIA) (20 United States Code [USC] 80q et seq.). Aspects of this legislation require the Smithsonian Insti-tution to inventory Native American human remains in its collections and, “using the best available scientific and historical documentation, identify the origins” or “cultural affiliation” of remains based on a preponderance of evi-dence (NMAIA Section 80q-9(a)(B)). If the remains are found to be those of an ancestor of living lineal descendants or related to an existing federally rec-ognized tribe, they are to be offered for repatriation upon request, with the rights of lineal descendents superseding those of tribes. The following year, Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 USC 3001-3013), which placed similar obligations on all U.S. institutions (including other federal agencies) receiving federal funding, thereby affecting most of the country’s museums and universities.

When the NMAIA and NAGPRA were written into law, the Smithso-nian’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) held approximately 18,000 catalog numbers of skeletal remains believed to be Native American. These collections were primarily assembled by museum curators and affili-ated researchers but include remains from large-scale, government-sponsored archaeological excavations, such as those performed by the Works Progress Administration, and remains transferred to the museum by other agencies, including an accession of approximately 2200 Native American remains from the Army Medical Museum (AMM), which was located near the Smithso-nian on the National Mall from 1865 to 1968 (Ousley et al. 2005).

The Repatriation Office of the NMNH was established in 1991 to com-ply with the NMAIA mandate. The staff is composed of archaeologists and physical anthropologists who attempt to determine the origin and cultural affiliation of human remains by examining historical, archival, and archaeo-logical materials as well as the remains themselves.

Cultural Affiliation and Forensic Anthropology

Unfortunately, the legal term “cultural affiliation” used in repatriation laws can be misleading. According to the NAGPRA regulations,

Cultural affiliation means that there is a relationship of shared group identity which can reasonably be traced historically or prehistorically between mem-bers of a present-day [federally recognized] Indian tribe . . . and an identifi-able earlier group. Cultural affiliation is established when the preponderance of the evidence—based on geographical, kinship, biological, archeological,

2320.indb 118 4/9/08 3:10:35 PM

the repatriation osteology laboratory, smithsonian institution 119

linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, historical evidence, or other information or expert opinion—reasonably leads to such a conclusion. (43CFR 10.2 (e): 197)

The NAGPRA regulations further explain that the relationship between the identifiable earlier group and the present-day tribe must be through descent (43 CFR 10.14(c)(3)). One key to identifying an individual’s cultural affiliation is to determine his or her ancestry; while this biological evidence is by no means the only type used to assess affiliation, it is often the only physi-cal evidence present and by law it is meant to play an important, and some-times deciding, role (Hollinger and Ousley 2007; Ousley et al. 2005, 2007).

A significant difference between the NMAIA and NAGPRA is that cul-tural affiliation is to be evaluated under NMAIA “using the best available scientific and historical documentation,” while under NAGPRA the required evaluation is “to the extent possible based on information possessed,” which can vary significantly among institutions (Lovis et al. 2004; NAGPRA Section 5(a); NMAIA Section 80q-9(a)(B)). Because the Smithsonian has established a Repatriation Office to assess cultural affiliation, comprehensive collection and assessment of the biological evidence can be performed in a dedicated office in the NMNH, the Repatriation Osteology Laboratory (ROL). The ROL uses standard analyses, including the assessment of age, sex, ancestry, tapho-nomic changes, cultural modifications, and pathology, to determine the ori-gins of human remains in fulfillment of the NMAIA and to comply with the Smithsonian Institution’s dedication in 1846 to the “increase and diffusion of knowledge” (Smithsonian Institution 1998).

According to T. D. Stewart’s classic definition, physical anthropology conducted under repatriation laws can be considered forensic anthropology:

Forensic anthropology is that branch of physical anthropology which, for forensic purposes, deals with the identification of more or less skeletonized remains known to be, or suspected of being, human. Beyond the elimination of nonhuman elements, the identification process undertakes to provide opin-ions regarding sex, age, race, stature, and such other characteristics of each individual involved as may lead to his or her recognition.” (Stewart 1979:ix)

The definition provided by the American Board of Forensic Anthropology and Murad (1996) is similar, but notes that this identification is important for both “legal and humanitarian reasons.” Thus, the work of the ROL is broadly within the realm of forensic anthropology, although the remains we analyze are not those of the recently deceased. The vast majority of individuals ana-lyzed died more than a century ago and may never be identified beyond the tribal level.

While criminal law requires the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of conclusions, that is, scientific certainty, NAGPRA and NMAIA are civil

2320.indb 119 4/9/08 3:10:35 PM


laws, and the standard for civil laws is the preponderance of evidence. Pre-ponderance essentially means more likely than not, and is defined as “evi-dence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not” (Black and Black 1990:1182). Because the repatriation laws are federal laws, both Daubert stan-dards and the Federal Rules of Evidence are applicable should disputes ever progress to court (Ousley et al. 2005). Thus, it is crucial that data be collected, analyzed, and reported in a manner consistent with standard scientific and legal inquiries.

Documentation

The quality and quantity of supporting documentation associated with remains at the NMNH varies significantly. Some remains were accessioned with detailed archaeological field notes, maps, and collection histories, while others are only accompanied by notations regarding the state, territory, or general region in which they were obtained. For example, documentation associated with AMM collections tends to be particularly sparse, and they may only be accompanied by a letter stating that they were excavated from a general area or were a surface find with a tentative tribal designation. In some cases, no accompanying documentation can be located, and only nota-tions on the skull, such as old field or catalog numbers, are present. In the cases where these remains are thought to be those of identifiable individuals, very thorough archival, genealogical, and osteological investigation must be undertaken to attempt to corroborate their identity, as the law stipulates they must be offered to lineal descendents. Archival material examined includes letters of transmittal or other documents from collectors or the agency or museum from which they originated, genealogies, historic accounts of battles or settler histories, and museum records such as accession files, cataloging information, and general museum correspondence. In many cases, records associated with the even the best-documented collections may be contradic-tory or incomplete, so a full examination of all information is necessary in the documentation process to confirm or disprove information currently in museum records and to determine cultural affiliation.

Lab Operations

In response to repatriation legislation, leading physical anthropologists collaborated to produce a set of data standards to be followed by osteolo-gists working with human remains that may be subject to the laws. These

2320.indb 120 4/9/08 3:10:35 PM


guidelines were set forth in Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). The data collected were to aid anthropologists in determining the biological and cultural affiliation of remains and to record information that will be useful to future researchers once the remains are no longer available for study. The osteological protocol in the ROL is based largely on the Standards, but methods of data collection have evolved in response to new challenges and opportunities presented in the course of repatriation casework.

The initial evaluation of remains, as in other forensic anthropology labo-ratories, is to determine whether or not the remains are human. The next important step is to decide if they are Native American; if so, further work involves assessing probable tribal identity. In some instances, characteris-tics of the remains (sometimes including known cause and circumstances of death) allow us to provisionally identify them as a specific person based on historic records.

Analysis of remains in the ROL is prioritized in the following manner: first, remains claimed by lineal descendants; followed by current claims from tribal groups; then by anticipated claims; and finally, remains from specific sites or states that may be subject to claims. At present, almost 11,000 catalog numbers have been analyzed by the ROL, approximately 5,500 have been offered to tribes for repatriation, and 3,500 have been repatriated.

Because of the high volume of cases in the ROL (approximately 800 cata-log numbers analyzed annually) and up to eight staff collecting data simul-taneously, a computerized data entry system was required, the design and implementation of which has been an important innovation of the ROL. Each staff member uses a PC to enter data into a network database. The database is on a file server that is regularly backed up to prevent loss of information. The vast majority of data is stored as alphanumeric codes or numbers, similar to those used in the Standards, but entered using text boxes, check boxes, or radio buttons with text explanations, which makes complicated observations, such as pathological conditions, much easier to enter (Figure 7.1). Addition-ally, comment fields are available for all data sets, allowing the osteologist to write further notes and additional observations concerning the remains. Thus, observations that cannot be coded into a database reside in records linked to the remains. The comments are typed in, precluding the need for later deciphering of handwriting. This manner of data collection is a major improvement over paper forms, which need to be entered into a database by another (sometimes inexperienced) worker later, and which can involve a significant time lag. It is also more efficient to find information through database queries rather than manually searching through paper forms. All aspects of data collection are tied into this system, including the recording of photographs and radiographs taken and the compilation of special requests for these services (Figure 7.2). The database is designed to store information

2320.indb 121 4/9/08 3:10:35 PM


Figure 7.1 pathology data entry screen.

Figure 7.2 data entry main menu.

2320.indb 122 4/9/08 3:10:36 PM


that will efficiently serve the needs of the office at the present time and for later research, as the ROL plans to make the data available to other research-ers in the future.

Each type of data, be it the skeletal inventory, taphonomic changes, or measurements, can play a decisive role in cultural/biological affiliation and provides information for museum staff, affiliated groups, and future study.

Inventory

Completing an osteological inventory of each catalog number is the first step in the documentation process. The information gleaned from the invento-ries not only serves standard osteological purposes, such as determining frequencies of pathological conditions, but also confirms the number of individuals that actually exist in a site or catalog number. When duplicated elements, differences in skeletal morphology (e.g., rugosity or shape), or dif-ferences in age within a catalog number are noted, then more than one indi-vidual is recognized within that catalog number. Such commingled remains may be due to burial practices (e.g., the use of an ossuary containing second-ary burials, the burial of more than one primary individual in a pit, or the presence of intrusive burials), natural disturbance of graves, collection prac-tices (e.g., researchers collecting only femora and tibiae), collections manage-ment decisions (e.g., separating all elements of the same type into one catalog number, rather than assigning a catalog number to an individual burial), or the accidental mixing of elements during the course of research or cata-loging. In these cases, the Lab staff separate the remains into discrete indi-viduals as well as possible, and estimate the number of individuals present. For example, the ROL recently documented some 300 crania and mandibles collected in California in the late 19th century. After evaluation, 80 of the mandibles cataloged with specific crania were found to originate from other individuals. After considerable effort, some were matched with other crania from the sites in question, but most could not be reassociated with any of the crania and were recatalogued as new individuals.

Age and Sex

Age indicators for each individual, such as the extent of dental development and epiphyseal fusion for subadults and the degree of morphological changes to the pelvis, cranial suture closure, dental wear, and age-related skeletal degeneration for adults, are scored using standard osteological techniques (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). Similarly, standard observations are made for sex-related characteristics, such as pelvic morphology and robusticity of the

2320.indb 123 4/9/08 3:10:36 PM


skeleton. An overall assessment of the age range and sex of each individual is recorded.

This data may be used for such purposes as constructing demographic profiles of a population or determining frequencies of pathological con-ditions or types of taphonomic changes by age and/or sex. It may also be used to generate new standards. For example, one common technique for aging subadults is the use of long bone lengths; however, the standard was developed using a relatively tall population from the Plains (Merchant and Ubelaker 1977) and is not applicable to groups that tend to have an overall shorter achieved stature at all ages, as is seen in the Southwest and Alaska, for example. Hollinger et al. (2004a) and Ousley et al. (2005) illustrated the importance of appropriate samples in their analysis of postcranial remains of a child recovered from the Birnirk site near Point Barrow, Alaska. Using the Merchant and Ubelaker (1977) standards, the age was estimated to be approximately six years. Using comparative dental development and long bone length data from Eskimo children rather than Plains individuals, they found the remains to be more consistent with an 11- to 13-year-old. Based on this assessment, the postcranial remains were able to be reassociated with one of two adjacent crania from the same pit.

It must also be noted that some native groups have culturally specific burial practices for individuals of different ages and/or sexes and request that the remains be separated into these categories before their repatriation.

Measurements

Extensive cranial and postcranial metric data are collected during the docu-mentation process. For the most part, the ROL follows the protocol for post-cranial measurements laid out in the Standards (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994), but also records additional data, such as vertebral and ankle heights, that can be used for stature estimation (Fully 1956; Lundy 1988). Since 1999, the authors have used a three-dimensional digitizer for recording cranial land-marks instead of traditional calipers (Figure 7.3), the advantages of which include increased recording speed; fewer errors; better archiving of the total morphology; more useful data recorded to aid in assessing cultural affilia-tion; and reasonable cost (Ousley and McKeown 2001, 2003). The landmark data can be used to calculate the traditional measurements of Howells (1973) as well as to calculate subsets of the approximately 5000 interlandmark dis-tances (ILDs) that can be calculated from the landmarks. Nontraditional ILDs have proven especially valuable when comparing groups that appear similar with traditional craniometrics (Ousley and Billeck 2001).

These digitized data are being more frequently employed in the ROL for assessing the cultural affiliation of individuals and groups as the reference

2320.indb 124 4/9/08 3:10:36 PM


samples have grown (Hollinger et al. 2004a; Houck et al. 2001; Mann and Ousley 2001; Mulhern et al. 2001; Ousley et al. 2000, 2003). A variety of statistical techniques are used, the most common of which is discriminant function analysis using SAS (SAS Institute Inc. 2001), SYSTAT (Systat Soft-ware Inc. 2004), and Fordisc 3 (Jantz and Ousley 2005). Other methods used to assess affiliation and test group cohesion include nearest neighbor and kernel probability density classification, and R-Matrix and cluster analysis (Hollinger et al., in press, 2004a, 2004b; Ousley et al. 2005). In assessing the cultural affiliation of individuals, comparisons using discriminant function analysis are made using samples with known affiliation, and cross-validated error rate estimates and posterior probabilities help address Daubert con-cerns with validity and reliability (Ousley et al. 2007). Analysts must be sure to use both the best available samples and most advanced or appropriate sta-tistical methods, as the lack of either may result in an improper affiliation. For example, a 1991 Smithsonian analysis of a number of individuals from the Plains used Giles and Elliot’s (1962) discriminant functions to assess ancestry, a system that classifies an unknown individual into one of three

Figure 7.3 digitizer.

2320.indb 125 4/9/08 3:10:37 PM


groups based on samples from 19th century American Blacks or Whites and Archaic period American Indians from Indian Knoll, Kentucky. One of the individuals was classified as White in the earlier analysis; however, a prelimi-nary reanalysis using more appropriate samples from the Plains indicates that this individual is more likely a Plains Indian. Obviously, one sample of American Indians from one area of the country and time period represent only a small part of American Indian variability and are not appropriate for all comparisons (Birkby 1966).

In an analysis of remains from the Point Barrow, Alaska region (Hol-linger et al. 2004a) in which historic period individuals were found to be affil-iated with the modern inhabitants, prehistoric individuals from the Birnirk culture (approximately 500 to 1000 a.d.) were found to be quite different craniometrically from the historic groups. These results suggest population replacement at Barrow rather than continuity, and the Birnirk individuals were therefore found to be culturally unaffiliated to the modern population. In fact, the craniometric results indicated that the descendants of the Birnirk groups were far more likely to be found in Greenland, and represented part of the Thule migration (approximately 1100 to 1300 a.d.), a finding that ampli-fied earlier archaeological and craniometric studies.

While craniometric analysis is most commonly used for affiliation, post-cranial metrics have also aided the ROL in assessment both when the cra-nium is missing (Arbolino and Eubanks 2007; Ousley and Berger 2001) and when the remains are of an unusual size, such as evaluation of the ancestry of an individual from a tribe known to have especially short stature based on data collected under Franz Boas in historic times (Hollinger et al. 2004b; Jantz 1995).

Taphonomy

The description and interpretation of taphonomy, the events or processes that affect an organism after death, have proven to be some of the greatest challenges faced by the lab. These changes may be the result of environmental conditions, such as exposure to the elements, mortuary practices, such as cremation, or curation-related treatments, such as the application of preservatives.

In the ROL, we are assigned the task of deciphering taphonomic changes to remains from all over the country, from environments as varied as the Arctic, the Southwest, and the southeastern United States. In addition to geo-graphical variation, we must also factor in cultural variation: not only did the burial practices of tribes often change over time, but the groups inhabit-ing an area changed as well. Thus, mortuary practices, and their sometimes diagnostic associated taphonomic changes, may be not only specific to an area, but also to a particular group during a particular period. The ROL must

2320.indb 126 4/9/08 3:10:37 PM


record the taphonomic observations, and, if possible, decipher the postmor-tem processes that affected the remains. These changes may, in turn, help to determine cultural affiliation.

First, remains are examined both grossly and, if necessary, under a dis-secting microscope. All information written on the remains or on paper asso-ciated with the bones is recorded. Observations are then entered into a data entry screen (Figure 7.4) from the following categories: bone color, which can range from white to black; staining from associated materials such as copper or ochre, or from soil and its components; the presence of adherent materials, such as desiccated tissue, textiles, hair or fur, lichens, pupae or other insect debris, soil, adipocere, roots, or other materials, such as calcium carbonate (Figure 7.5); cultural modifications, i.e., intentional activities produced after death, such as cut marks (often seen in cases of secondary burial) or drill-ing/cutting of the bone (often seen in the production of trophy materials); other postmortem alterations such as sunbleaching, plant, insect, or animal damage, warping, burning, or the presence of contact erosion (such as coffin wear); and curation modifications, unintentional damage related to excava-tion or maceration, such as scalpel marks or evidence of bleaching, or inten-tional changes such as attaching hardware for articulation, the application of preservatives or reconstructive materials, or sample removal. Weathering stages that record the degradation of bone, usually related to exposure to the elements, are noted using the system of Behrensmeyer (1978). Evidence of cut marks and burning are notoriously difficult to describe as different aspects

Figure 7.4 taphonomy data entry screen.

2320.indb 127 4/9/08 3:10:37 PM


of bone may be affected to different extents, and specialized data entry pro-grams are currently being designed for this purpose.

The taphonomic observations are synthesized into a written summary that records all noted changes, and the osteologist may attempt to associ-ate them with particular events or burial practices. For example, a combina-tion of advanced weathering, sunbleaching, and carnivore damage suggests that the individual was exposed to the elements, either unintentionally or as part of a normal mortuary procedure. The presence of copper staining would indicate that the individual lived in a time period and region where copper was used, suggesting (or ruling out) a particular cultural affiliation. If the staining is the result of contact with a copper alloy, for example, it would sug-gest that the remains are historic in origin. The use of an x-ray fluorescence (XRF) scanner, a nondestructive method of determining the elemental com-position of materials, aids the office in these determinations.

While some general mortuary practices may be inferred, it must be noted that while we try to be exhaustive in our descriptions of taphonomy, we are conservative in our interpretations, and avoid constructing elaborate scenarios based on little evidence.

Dentition

Documentation of the dentition includes an inventory, scoring of dental wear, and observations on the presence/absence of dental pathology, including the size and location of carious lesions and the location and type of abscesses and hypoplastic/hypocalcification defects. Most of the dental morphological traits suggested by Scott and Turner (1997) are also scored.

Analysis of this data has the potential to offer insight into cultural affili-ation as well as nutritional status, diet, and general health. For example,

Figure 7.5 cranium encrusted with calcium carbonate, california (nMnH p242319). (photo by Jane Beck, si.)

2320.indb 128 4/9/08 3:10:37 PM


groups may exhibit a similar pattern of high frequencies of abscessing and antemortem tooth loss resulting from completely different culturally related etiologies. In one instance, the pattern may be associated with the presence of caries, an often diet-related bacterial disease that destroys the enamel, lead-ing to tissue death and tooth loss, while in another it may be related to pulp pathology resulting from extremely rapid dental wear. Caries-related tooth loss is often seen in individuals eating a high-carbohydrate, low-abrasion diet, while wear-related loss is prevalent in areas where the diet is high in grit, or the teeth are used in paramasticatory behaviors, such as hide processing with the teeth. Caries rates can differ by time period, geographical region, gender, and biological affiliation (Larsen et al. 1991). Hyoplastic defects of the dentition, areas where enamel formation has been disrupted, may result from episodes of systemic stress in childhood, including malnutrition or infectious disease (Hillson 1996:177) and may reflect cultural practices, such as periodic starvation cycles related to the availability of foodstuffs or weaning ages.

Dental modifications, including intentional practices such as restora-tions, filing, or inlays, are noted in the documentation process, as are unin-tentional activities such as enamel chipping or changes related to artifact use, all of which may suggest cultural affiliation. For example, the use of labrets, or lip plugs, which are often made of abrasive materials, may leave distinc-tive patterns on teeth, usually in the form of planar wear (Figure 7.6). Labrets were common in Alaska, but showed wide variation in their use, with clear differences seen between and among regions, groups (i.e., Inupiaq, Yupik, Aleut, or Athabaskans), sexes, time periods, and placement of the labrets (unilateral or bilateral) (Jones 1997). This data has been used to assist in the determination of affiliation: the presence of labret wear on several individu-als from Barrow indicated that they were probably from the historic period and were culturally affiliated with a group making a repatriation request (Hollinger et al. 2004a).

Figure 7.6 labret wear with exposed dentin, st. Michael’s island, alaska (nMnH p248577). (photo by Jane Beck, si.)

2320.indb 129 4/9/08 3:10:38 PM


Skeletal Pathology

Each individual is carefully examined for evidence of skeletal pathology and each lesion, or group of lesions, is entered into the database and described in a comments field. While the general categories and types of lesions fol-low those in the Standards, the complicated coding procedure is bypassed by using data entry screens from which text descriptions are selected with check boxes and radio buttons. New codes can be added as needed, and the system continues to evolve as the ROL encounters conditions of significance that cannot be scored in the existing categories (Ousley et al. 2006). While the data collected tends to be descriptive, such as the appearance, size, and location of a particular lesion, attempts are made to research and describe evidence of a specific disease process or syndrome when possible. Certain pathological conditions may be prevalent in a particular geographical region, time period, or group, thus leading to potential cultural affiliation. For exam-ple, the presence of a perimortem gunshot wound clearly dates an individual to the historic period.

In other cases, we have found that the affiliation may be made more diffi-cult by the presence of unusual pathological conditions (Mulhern et al. 2001). For example, the cranium of NMNH P243156 (Figure 7.7), excavated in 1882 from the Tillar Mound in Drew County, Arkansas, shows a prematurely fused sagittal suture and an especially long and narrow cranium with a high and keeled vault, a condition known as scaphocephaly. The shape of the cranium, and possibly other features of the facial skeleton, such as prognathism, led Aleš Hrdlička, the Museum’s physical anthropology curator at the time, to note on the catalog card that this was the scaphocephalic cranium of a “Negro buried with Indians.” A later notation states that it was believed by curator T. D. Stewart to be a “scaphocephalic Indian.” Archaeological evidence sug-gests that the mound was part of the Tillar Complex, dating from ca. 1400 to 1650 a.d. (McKelway 1990), making it unlikely that this individual was of African ancestry. A discriminant function analysis using 18 cranial mea-surements and W. W. Howells’ worldwide male groups and Arkansas Indians found the cranium to be most similar to South Japan males, but with a typi-cality probability of only 0.003, the highest typicality probability among all groups. When typicality probabilities are that low or lower for all groups, the classification is virtually meaningless. The low typicality probabilities were due to the absolutely narrow, long, and high cranium, but many breadth vari-ables were affected. Another analysis with obviously affected measurements removed resulted in a classification into the male Arkansas Indian sample, with a typicality probability of 0.231. However, because so many affected variables were removed, very few of the Howells groups could be excluded based on typicality probabilities. The preponderance of evidence indicates

2320.indb 130 4/9/08 3:10:38 PM


that P243156 is Native American. This case illustrates the importance of the Daubert standards in that it is often necessary to reevaluate evidence even when there is a previous expert opinion from a well-qualified anthropologist, because we do not know what methods he used to form his opinion.

Another case illustrating the effects of pathology on cultural affiliation involves the remains of an adolescent female (NMNH P381243) (Figure 7.8) excavated from a mound at Quarai, New Mexico, probably dating to a.d. 1375–1450 (Killion et al. 2002), although there were historic components to the site, including burials removed from a Spanish mission church. Examina-tion of the cranium revealed some morphological features inconsistent with other individuals from the site and with Native American groups in general. These observations included a flat and shortened midface, absence of a nasal spine, and apparent prognathism, the latter of which is often seen in indi-viduals of African ancestry. Review of the clinical literature and comparative

Figure 7.7b scaphocephaly, lateral view, tillar Mound, arkansas (nMnH p243156). (photo by Jane Beck, si.)

Figure 7.7a scaphocephaly, anterior view, tillar Mound, arkansas (nMnH p243156). (photo by Jane Beck, si.)

2320.indb 131 4/9/08 3:10:38 PM


craniometric analysis resulted in a diagnosis consistent with Binder syn-drome, or maxillonasal dysplasia, a developmental defect characterized by a hypoplastic midface, which had previously been unreported in the paleo-pathological literature (Mulhern 2002). This diagnosis, and an analysis of craniometric data unaffected by the syndrome, support the archival and archaeological evidence suggesting Native American origin, thus avoiding misidentification of the affiliation of the individual.

Cranial Modification

Some Native American groups show striking modifications in the shape of their crania due to either intentional or unintentional cultural practices occurring during infancy. While many studies have attempted to define

Figure 7.8a Binder syndrome, anterior view, Quarai site, new Mexico (nMnH p381243). (photo by Jane Beck, si.)

Figure 7.8b Binder syndrome, left lateral view, Quarai site, new Mexico (nMnH p381243). (photo by Jane Beck, si.)

2320.indb 132 4/9/08 3:10:38 PM


different types of cranial modification (usually called cranial deformation in the anthropological literature) (e.g., Allison et al. 1981; Imbelloni 1937; Neumann 1942), confusing descriptions, ambiguous terminology, proposed etiologies, and taxonomies (such as “parallelo-front-occipital” or “tabular oblique”) have made these methods difficult to understand and employ. The ROL emphasizes descriptive rather than strict categorical analysis. Observa-tions are made, for example, on the apparent center of pressure, the angle of flattening to the Frankfurt plane, the symmetry of the modification, and the presence of various depressions and other changes often seen in conjunction with cranial modification.

While we use descriptive terminology, in some cases we do attempt to determine the manner in which certain types of modification were accom-plished. While an intentionally modified cranium, often a sign of status or group identity, from the United States is indicative of Native American ances-try in general, some groups employed methods such as strapping boards to the cranium or wrapping the head with cloth that produced distinctive results. In many cases the type of modification can be used in assessing cul-tural affiliation.

In other cases, the modification appears to be related to child-rearing practices and is not intentional. Cradleboards, in which a child was strapped for transport in many regions of the country, can cause planar flattening of the posterior aspect of the cranium. It is also not uncommon to see cra-nia exhibiting plagiocephaly (meaning “oblique head”), a pattern which shows flattening on one side of the occipital and posterior parietal, with contralateral flattening of the frontal, resulting in sometimes severe asym-metry (Figure 7.9). This is believed to result from the infant preferentially resting on one side of the cranium when sleeping on its back. Plagiocephaly

Figure 7.9 plagiocephaly, superior view, new Fort Hamilton, alaska (nMnH p345304). (photo by Jane Beck, si.)

2320.indb 133 4/9/08 3:10:39 PM


has been reported in recent clinical literature, as it is now often seen in mod-ern children as a result of the “back to sleep” movement (Turk et al. 1996); therefore, the presence of this condition should not be used to attribute Native American affiliation.

Nonmetric Traits

Epigenetic variants of both the skeleton (Hauser and De Stefano 1989) and dentition (Scott and Turner 1997) are scored, and although these data have tremendous potential, the ROL has not yet used them to assess cultural affili-ation. As Ossenberg (1992) has shown, nonmetric data can be quite valuable in assessing inter-group relationships in large-scale studies, but their value in classifying closely related groups using more sophisticated statistical meth-ods needs further exploration. Nonmetric traits may be especially valuable in assessing the ancestry of culturally deformed crania because the vast major-ity of the traits have been shown to be unaffected (Konigsberg et al. 1993). The ROL also collects nonmetric traits as outlined by Hefner (2003), which have proven valuable in assessing ancestry in traditional forensic cases.

Photographic and Radiographic Documentation

Graphic documentation of the remains is a priority during the examination protocol (see Bruwelheide et al. 2001, for a review of the process). While it is standard for most researchers to photograph or x-ray bones or features that are of special interest, such as unusual pathological conditions, the ROL con-ducts standardized documentation procedures for all remains. Not only does this process provide a standard image database for future researchers, it also supplements the collections management record.

Photography

Seven standard photographs are taken of each cranium: the anterior, left and right lateral, posterior, superior, and inferior views. If present, an occlusal view of the mandible is also taken, and the mandible is articulated with the cranium on the anterior and lateral views. A scale and the catalog number are included in each shot. Standard shots are not taken of postcranial remains. In addition to their archival value, photographs have proven valuable in con-sultations with Native Americans because many can view photographs if necessary but not the actual remains due to spiritual concerns.

Additional photographs of the crania and shots of the postcrania may be requested by the osteologists, often when cases of unusual (or exemplary)

2320.indb 134 4/9/08 3:10:39 PM


pathological or taphonomic conditions are encountered. Requests for photo-graphs are made through the integrated data entry program.

Each subject is shot twice with color film and once with black and white. Color slides are stored in two separate locations. A stereo microscope is avail-able for observing macro- and microscopic features on remains. A digital camera attached to the microscope is used when it seems likely that features will not be adequately recorded by standard photographic methods.

When necessary, supplementary drawings are made of sites of interest when it is determined they cannot be clearly documented by photographs, such as trauma involving radiating fractures or the presence of multiple cut marks. In these cases, the fracture lines or cut marks will be recorded on a standard line drawing of the affected bone.

Radiography

Radiographs are also an integral aspect of the documentation process. Three views of the cranium and mandible are taken: posterior–anterior, lateral, and superior–inferior. Oblique-lateral views are also taken of the dentition to allow proper scoring of dental development and pathology. Standard shots are taken of the left (or right, if better preserved) femur, tibia, and humerus in the posterior–anterior position. As with photographs, special radiographs may be requested by the staff, usually to assist in the evaluation of pathologi-cal conditions.

Developed radiographs are placed in acid-free, unbuffered envelopes and stored in metal cabinets.

Destructive Analysis

It is not the policy of the ROL to perform destructive analysis, such as some dating techniques, isotope analyses, or DNA testing, on human remains. However, it is becoming increasingly more common for tribal groups to express an interest in these methods, especially in DNA testing, which could prove especially useful when intertribal claims are being disputed.

Additional Resources

Resources are available within the Smithsonian as a whole that offer invalu-able assistance to the documentation process. The museum has a CT-scan-ner, a scanning-electron microscope (SEM), and other specialized equipment within its laboratories. In addition, some of the world’s most experienced physical anthropologists, archaeologists, botanists, entomologists, and faunal

2320.indb 135 4/9/08 3:10:39 PM


experts work in the museum and are often willing to assist with analysis. Historic links to the laboratories of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Gris-baum and Ubelaker 2000) facilitate collaboration with this agency (Houck et al. 2001). For example, on several occasions experts at the FBI have deter-mined whether or not hair samples were human.

The following case studies provide examples of the value of conducting biological assessments of human remains subject to repatriation as well as the complexities of assessing cultural affiliation. Additional case studies are to be found in Ousley et al. (2005).

Case Studies

The “Sioux Giant”

In some cases, information given by the collector and noted in museum records may be found to be inaccurate, or at least suspect, following osteolog-ical analysis (Ousley et al. 2000). Based on catalog records, P227508 (AMM 2136), the nearly complete skeleton of a male, represented a “full-blood” “Giant” Sioux who died in Indiana in 1878 and was “said to have been eight feet tall” (Figure 7.10).

Osteological examination suggested that the individual was a male between 30 and 40 years of age. Visual inspection of the skull revealed fea-tures usually not associated with Native Americans, such as a relatively nar-row bizygomatic breadth, cranium, nasal aperture, and interorbital distance; gracile and receding zygomatics; and a narrow and deep V-shaped palate

Figure 7.10 catalog card for nMnH p227508.

2320.indb 136 4/9/08 3:10:39 PM


(Figure 7.11). The extent of dental occlusal wear was comparatively less than that seen in a sample of Plains Indians from the same time period, indicating that he was not eating a traditional Plains diet. Overall, these characteris-tics were more representative of an individual of European rather than Sioux ancestry.

Discriminant function analyses using measurements and calculated shape variables from 19th-century Whites and Plains Indians were per-formed. The cranium was classified as White in both cases with a posterior probability greater than 0.98. Based on metric analysis, it is likely that the remains originated from an individual of predominately European ancestry.

Because the analysis indicated non-Native American ancestry, it was pos-sible that the museum records were incorrect, and the remains may have been misnumbered or had been otherwise wrongly identified. Visual examination revealed that the individual was extremely robust; the femoral head diameter,

Figure 7.11a “sioux giant,” anterior view (nMnH p227508). (photo by Jane Beck, si.)

Figure 7.11b “sioux giant,” lateral view (nMnH p227508). (photo by Jane Beck, si.)

2320.indb 137 4/9/08 3:10:40 PM


for example, was 61 mm. Although some ends of the long bones were dam-aged, estimation of the stature using the Fully (1956) method, in which the measurements of all bones contributing to height are used, suggested he was around 194 cm (6 ft. 4 in.) tall. Further examination of the skeleton showed additional features, such as an unusually enlarged mandible and secondary growth on the rib ends and terminal phalanges consistent with a tentative diagnosis of acromegaly (Ortner 2003:423). While not precisely a “giant,” he was probably perceived as being very large when alive.

While the physical examination suggested that the remains originated from the individual described in the museum records, evidence of incorrect designation of ancestry called for further investigation into the acquisition. Accession records revealed that the skeleton had been disinterred and sold to the AMM in 1882 by a local physician who claimed that it was that of “a gigantic Indian who had been exhibited through this region about four years ago.” Further research uncovered a news item from a Madison news-paper (Evening Courier, July 5, 1882) reporting that the remains of an Indian known as Joseph or “Injun Joe,” who was over seven feet tall and had “repre-sented himself as an Indian doctor and chief,” had been sent to Washington. This information suggests that he was exhibited at some point, possibly as part of a traveling show. As noted by Bogdan (1988:112), in such shows it was not unusual for a person with an anomaly to be cast in an exotic role, such as a warrior from a different civilization, and presented accordingly. Dressed in full “American Indian” regalia, he would probably have been an impressive sight. However, laboratory analysis shows that he was probably not what he was presented to be. Based on these findings, the remains will not be offered to a Native American group.

The Nez Perce Warrior

The following case illustrates how historic and osteological, especially taphonomic, evidence can be used to attempt to identify a potentially “known” individual.

The cranium and mandible of an adult male (NMNH P243672; AMM 2138) were sent to the AMM in 1882 by an Army surgeon stationed in Fort Ellis, Montana Territory, with a letter of transmittal noting that: “The owner of it when living was a Medicine Man, a Nez Perce Indian killed in General Gibbon’s battle at Big Hole, MT in 1877.” A report on Nez Perce remains generated by the Repatriation Office in 1996 suggested the possibility this skull might represent the remains of one of the Nez Perce known to have been unburied after the battle, but concluded that there was insufficient sup-porting evidence to make a determination (Molloy et al. 1996). Based on this

2320.indb 138 4/9/08 3:10:40 PM


report, a lineal descendent of Pahkatos Owyeen (Five Wounds), one of the individuals named in the report, requested repatriation of the remains. Since there is a large amount of historical material relating to the Battle of the Big Hole, the RO decided to further investigate the claim (Arbolino 2003).

Examination of the remains suggested that they originated from a male between 45 and 55 years of age. Some desiccated soft tissue, fine cutmarks, likely originating from a scalpel used to clean the remains, rodent gnaw-ing, and postmortem fractures were present. No adherent soil was noted, nor was there evidence of weathering or sun bleaching, although one side of the cranium was slightly lighter, suggesting possible short-term exposure to the elements. In summary, the taphonomic evidence suggests that the individual had been exposed to the elements briefly and collected before decomposi-tion was complete. The lack of soil may be the result of nonburial, burial in a wrapping, or cleaning of the remains at the museum, but the presence of desiccated tissue and evidence of defleshing argues that he was not interred for a significant length of time. The individual showed evidence of healed fractures to the right nasal area, left zygomatic arch, and cranial vault.

Historic accounts of the Battle of the Big Hole report a U.S. Army attack on a Nez Perce encampment on August 9, 1877, resulting in a conflict that left between 40 and 100 Nez Perce and 29 U.S. Army soldiers dead. Reports emphasize the haphazard and hasty nature of the burials after the battle, not-ing that while some occurred shortly after death, others were interred several days later, if at all. Several “known” individuals, including Pahkatos Owyeen, were reported to have been left unburied, although it is clear from accounts that other, unknown Nez Perce were also left exposed. A U.S. Army party visiting the site one month after the battle noted that Nez Perce remains were still visible; it seems likely that the skull was collected at this time. Bannock scouts accompanying this deployment were reported to have disinterred and mutilated the remains of many of the buried Nez Perce, thus exposing many of the previously buried individuals and further expanding the list of poten-tial candidates for the identity of this skull. The RO performed an extensive search of historical records to identify names, ages, and locations of death and burial of the Nez Perce men who died at this battle, and narrowed the list to 15 to 30 males over 45 years of age, seven of whom were of known identity. It was not possible to definitively match the skull held at the SI with any of these individuals. However, it is likely that it is not that of Pahkatos Owyeen, as his family reported him to be a significantly younger man. Based on these findings, the remains were not offered to the lineal descendent of Pahkatos Owyeen, but instead were offered jointly to the two tribes whose ancestors were engaged in this battle of the Nez Perce War.

2320.indb 139 4/9/08 3:10:40 PM


Curly Head Jack

In another case, archival records, historical reports, and osteological evi-dence were able to establish the probable identity of a set of remains held at the museum (Arbolino and Eubanks 2007).

The cranium, mandible, and postcrania of a male were sent to the AMM from California in 1873 by Army Surgeon Edwin Bentley. His July 15 letter reports that they were the

…[b]ones of Curly Head Jack who killed himself on Sunday June 8 while in Camp at Lost River, a prisoner with the Modoc Indians on route from the pen-insula on the Tule Lake to Fort Klamath… While at Lost River he appeared chagrined and melancholy said his heart was dead and after exhorting his Indian comrades to follow his example and die like men on the reservation which they fought to defend and what he had rather die on than leave he discharged a Colt’s revolver…through his head and soon after died. This is believed to be the only complete Modoc skeleton which has been preserved; it is forwarded in its present crude condition under the impression that it would be more desirable to be prepared at the Museum. (Army Medical Museum records: Section 1, 6287)

Riddle (1914) noted that Jack was buried almost immediately after death at the camp.

The postcranial skeleton was sent to the NMNH in 1898, where it was cat-alogued under the number P225299; the skull, with its gunshot wound, was apparently retained by the AMM. Since these remains potentially represent a known individual, the RO made it a priority to corroborate the museum records identifying them as those of Curly Head Jack and attempt to locate lineal descendents to offer the remains for repatriation.

Osteological examination revealed the nearly complete postcranial skel-eton of a male between 18 and 22 years of age. The bones are extremely well-preserved and costal cartilage is present. No evidence of adherent soil or soil staining was noted. Fine cutmarks are present on several bones, suggesting the some soft tissue was removed for museum preparation. The complete-ness, preservation, lack of evidence for long-term burial, and presence of probable scalpel marks related to defleshing suggest the body was recovered before decomposition was advanced. Statistical analyses using postcranial measurements from historic American Whites, Blacks, and American Indi-ans classify these remains as most likely originating from an Indian. The remains are consistent with those of Curly Head Jack.

Historic documents relating to Bentley show that he was in charge of the field hospital at the prison camp where Jack had been held, and would have had access to his burial place in the two weeks following his death. The noto-riety of Jack (he had been involved in the shooting of an Army officer), the

2320.indb 140 4/9/08 3:10:40 PM


presence of Bentley at the prison camp, his likely knowledge of Jack’s burial place, and his letter written to accompany the remains dated a month after Jack’s death suggest his identification was correct and that he did retrieve and send the remains to the AMM. Bentley described Jack as about 35 years old, but Riddle (1914) described Jack as a “young man” and a photograph of a youthful-appearing Jack as a prisoner shortly before his death suggests that he was probably younger than Bentley’s estimate.

The preponderance of the evidence, including museum and historical records and osteological assessment of age, sex, ancestry, and taphonomy indicates that these remains are those of Curly Head Jack. Because no lineal descendents were found, his remains were offered jointly to the two tribes descended from the 19th century Modoc.

A Hawikku Priest?

Remains from the Puebloan site of Hawikku, New Mexico (ca. 1300 to 1680 a.d.) represent a case in which at least one individual present in a site does not show affiliation with others from the group, showing the need for careful analysis of each catalog number.

European contact with the pueblo of Hawikku was initiated by the Span-ish in 1539, an inauspicious event that culminated in the death and dismem-berment of their scout. Despite continued hostilities, a small mission and church were established in 1629, destroyed in 1632, and rebuilt on a larger scale later in the century (possibly between 1642 and 1672), with final destruc-tion and abandonment of the site occurring in the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. The excavation of the site by Hendricks–Hodge Expedition between 1917 and 1923 included the removal of about 1000 burials, about 280 of which were transferred to the Smithsonian and represent the temporal and geographical span of the site.

Approximately 40 burials were excavated from the floor of the church, all but one of which were located in the nave, the main body of the church (Smith et al. 1966). The bodies were oriented with the heads facing northeast and the feet facing the altar. The exception to this was Burial 35 (NMNH P314297), interred in an adobe-lined grave facing the opposite direction, with the head towards and touching the original altar, suggesting the burial was contempo-raneous with the first phase of building and likely dates from the earliest Euro-pean occupation (Nusbaum in Smith et al. 1966:201). The isolated location of this burial and its placement in the most sacred area of the church suggests that this was an individual of religious and/or political importance.

Examination of the remains revealed the nearly complete skeleton of a gracile male, likely between 30 and 45 years of age. Morphological features of the cranium suggest European rather than Native American ancestry (Fig-ure 7.12), confirmed by a craniometric analysis, which when using reference

2320.indb 141 4/9/08 3:10:41 PM


samples of 19th century American Whites and nondeformed Pueblo samples, classified him as an American White with a posterior probability of 0.90. A note found with the remains, written by Aleš Hrdlička, the physical anthro-pology curator at the Smithsonian at that time, reads: “Not f-b [full-blooded] Indian/White/(partly or wholly).”

The individual shows evidence of probable rickets, evidenced by bowing of most of the long bones, and marked scoliosis (Figure 7.13), with associated asymmetry of the ribs, clavicles, and manubrium. A stature estimate using the method of Fully (1956) suggests a height of around 160 cm (5 ft. 3 in.), although the curvature of the spine would likely have reduced this by about 5 to 10 cm.

Nusbaum (Smith et al. 1966:202) suggests these might be the remains of one of two priests killed by the Zuni in a 1632 revolt. According to Hodge (1937:92) Fray Fransciso Letrado was killed at the mission after

Figure 7.12a european from Hawikku, anterior view (nMnH p314297). (photo by Jane Beck, si.)

Figure 7.12b european from Hawikku, lateral view (nMnH p314297). (photo by Jane Beck, si.)

2320.indb 142 4/9/08 3:10:41 PM


remonstrating with “idolators,” apparently being shot dead with arrows and scalped, although other accounts state that his head was crushed with war clubs (Hodge 1937:124, footnote 197). Fray Martín de Arvide, described as being “a little friar, who was very short,” visited Letrado shortly before his death, predicted the martyrdom of them both, and was killed on the road five days after Letrado. Hodge (1937:93) notes that his right hand was cut off and his scalp removed while he was still alive. Either or both bodies may have been recovered by soldiers sent a few weeks later to avenge the killing of Letrado, although the appearance of the remains in situ suggests the body was relatively well preserved at the time of burial.

While the skeletal remains show no evidence of trauma, it must be remem-bered that it was not unusual for the Church to exaggerate the extent of vio-lence inflicted on martyrs, and that the priests may actually have been killed in ways that did not leave marks on the skeleton. In any case, it seems likely that the individual in question was of European ancestry, relatively powerful within the Church, and was buried before extensive renovations were made to the mission. It is tempting to identify the individual as Letrado, who died at the site at the correct time, or Arvide, who was reported to be “very short,” but his identity may never be known. It is clear, however, that he represents a person of non-Native ancestry originating from a group that was in conflict with the Native population for most of their occupation, thus demonstrating a lack of cultural affiliation with the Native residents of Hawikku.

Conclusion

In addition to fulfilling the mandate of the NMAI Act for the Smithsonian’s collections and meeting the Smithsonian’s goal of the “increase and diffusion of knowledge,” data collected in the ROL will play an important part in foren-sic anthropology and repatriation issues. Skeletal remains will continue to be

Figure 7.13 scoliosis (nMnH p314297). (photo by Jane Beck, si.)

2320.indb 143 4/9/08 3:10:41 PM


found or confiscated by law enforcement personnel, excavated by archaeolo-gists and looters, bought and traded by collectors, and discovered in muse-ums and attics. The ROL’s data on historically established tribal groups will continue to be used to help determine the origin of unknown remains and assist with their proper disposition.

ReferencesAllison, M. J., E. Gerszten, J. Munizago, C. Santoro, and G. Focacci. 1981. La Prática

de la deformación craneana entre los Pueblos Andinos Precolombinos. Chun-gara 7:238–260.

American Board of Forensic Anthropology, Inc., and T. A. Murad. 1996. Forensic anthropology defined. Revised March 22, 2004. http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/ABFA.

Arbolino, R. D. 2003. Assessment of a lineal descendant request for the repatria-tion of human remains from the Big Hole Battle of the Nez Perce War at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Report and Recommendations for Repatriation Office, Smithsonian Institution.

Arbolino, R. D., and E. Eubanks. 2007. The human remains of “Curly Head Jack” in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution: Report and Rec-ommendations for Repatriation. Repatriation Office, Smithsonian Institution.

Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weath-ering. Paleobiology 4:150–162.

Birkby, W. H. 1966. An evaluation of race and sex identification from cranial mea-surements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 24:21–28.

Black, H. L., and H. C. Black. 1990. Black’s law dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West Pub-lishing Co.

Bogdan, R. 1988. Freak show: Presenting human oddities for amusement and profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bruwelheide, K. S., J. Beck, and S. Pelot. 2001. Standardized protocol for radio-graphic and photographic documentation of human skeletons. In Human remains: Conservation, retrieval and analysis. Proceedings of a conference held in Williamsburg, VA, Nov. 7–11th 1999, E. Williams (ed.). BAR International Series 934. Oxford: Archaeopress, 153–165.

Buikstra, J .E., and D. H. Ubelaker. 1994. Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 44. Fay-etteville: Arkansas Archeological Survey.

Evening Courier (Madison, Indiana). July 5, 1882.Fully, M. G. 1956. Une nouvelle méthode de détermination de la taille. Annales de

Médecine Légale 35(5):266–273.Giles, E., and O. Elliot. 1962. Race identification from cranial measurements. Jour-

nal of Forensic Sciences 7:147–157.Grisbaum, G. A., and D. H. Ubelaker. 2000. An analysis of forensic anthropology

cases submitted to the Smithsonian Institution by the Federal Bureau of Inves-tigation from 1962 to 1994. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 45. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

2320.indb 144 4/9/08 3:10:41 PM


Hauser, G., and G. F. De Stafano. 1989. Epigenetic variants of the human skull. Stutt-gart: Schweizerbart.

Hefner, J. T. 2003. Assessing nonmetric cranial traits currently used in the forensic determination of ancestry. Masters thesis: The University of Florida.

Hillson, S. 1996. Dental anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hodge, F. W. 1937. History of Hawikuh, New Mexico, one of the so-called cities of

Cíbola. Los Angeles: The Southwest Museum.Hollinger, R. E., E. Eubanks, and S. D. Ousley. 2004a. Inventory and assessment of

human remains and funerary objects from the Point Barrow region, Alaska. In the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Repatria-tion Office, Smithsonian Institution.

Hollinger, R. E., C. Botic, and S. D. Ousley. 2004b. Inventory and assessment of human remains potentially affiliated with the northwestern band of Shoshone in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Repa-triation Office, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Hollinger, R. E., and S. D. Ousley. 2007. The nature of evidence in the repatriation process: Evidence in practice. Paper presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin, TX, April 25–29.

Hollinger, R. E., S. D. Ousley, and C. Utermohle. (in press). The Thule migration: A new look at the archaeology and biology of the Point Barrow region popula-tions. In H. Maschner and J. Savelle (eds.): The Northern World A.D. 900–1400: The dynamics of climate, economy, and politics in hemispheric perspective. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

Houck, M., D. H. Ubelaker, and S. D. Ousley. 2001. D.B. or not D.B.? That is the question. Proceedings of the American Academic Forensic Science 7:250.

Howells, W. W. 1973. Cranial variation in man, Volume 67. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Imbelloni, J. 1937. Deformaciones intencionales del craneo en Sud America. Helm-intologia 6:330–406.

Jantz, R. L. 1995. Franz Boas and Native American biological variability. Human Biology 67:345–353.

Jantz, R .L., and S. D. Ousley. 2005. FORDISC 3: Computerized forensic discrimi-nant functions, version 3.0. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee.

Jones, E. B. 1997. Labret wear in Alaskan remains. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Paleopathology Association. St. Louis, MO.

Killion, T. W., E. Eubanks, and W. T. Billeck. 2002. Inventory and assessment of human remains from the Salinas Pueblo of Gran Quivira and Quarai, New Mexico. In the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Repatriation Office, Smithsonian Institution.

Konigsberg, L. W., L. A. P. Cohn, and J. M. Cheverud. 1993. Cranial deformation and nonmetric trait variation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 90:35–48.

Larsen, C. S., R. Shavit, and M. C. Griffin. 1991. Dental caries evidence for dietary change: An archaeological context. In M. A. Kelley and C. S. Larsen (eds.): Advances in dental anthropology. New York: Wiley-Liss, 179–202.

2320.indb 145 4/9/08 3:10:42 PM


Lovis, W. A., K. W. Kintigh, V. P. Steponaitis, and L. G. Goldstein. 2004. Archaeo-logical perspectives on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatria-tion Act: Underlying principles, legislative history and current issues. In J. R. Richman and M. P. Forsyth (eds.): Legal perspectives on cultural resources. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 165–184.

Lundy, J. K. 1988. A report on the use of Fully’s anatomical method to estimate stat-ure in military skeletal remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences 33(2):534–539.

Mann, M. M., and S. D. Ousley. 2001. Using nontraditional craniometrics to address museum, repatriation, and other forensic questions. Proceedings of the Ameri-can Academic Forensic Science 7:263.

McKelway, H. S. 1990. The McClendon site: A protohistoric cemetery in southeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archeologist 29:37–99.

Merchant, V. L., and D. H. Ubelaker. 1977. Skeletal growth of the proto-historic Arikara. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 46:61–72.

Molloy, P., P. E. Minthorn, G. P. Aronsen, and J. Urcid, with contributions by E. Miller. 1996. Inventory and assessment of human remains identified as Nez Perce in the National Museum of Natural History. Repatriation Office, Smith-sonian Institution.

Mulhern, D. M. 2002. Probable case of Binder Syndrome in a skeleton from Quarai, New Mexico. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 118:371–377.

Mulhern, D. M., S. D. Ousley, and E. B. Jones. 2001. The effects of pathology on bio-logical affiliation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 32:110.

National Museum of the American Indian Act, Pub. L. 101-185, Sec. 11, 28 Nov. 1989, 103 Stat. 1343.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Pub. L. 101-601, 16 Nov. 1990, 104 Stat. 3048.

Neumann, G. 1942. Types of artificial cranial deformation in the eastern United States. American Antiquity 7:306–310.

Nusbaum, J. L. 1966. Burials within the church. In W. Smith, R. B. Woodbury, and N. F. S. Woodbury (eds.): The excavation of Hawikuh by Frederick Webb Hodge: Report of the Hendricks-Hodge expedition, 1917–1923. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Vol. XX:199–202.

Ortner, D. J. 2003. Identification of pathological conditions in human skeletal remains, 2nd Ed. San Diego: Academic Press.

Ossenberg, N. S. 1992. Native people of the American Northwest: Population his-tory from the perspective of skull morphology. In T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, and T. Kimura (eds.): The evolution and dispersion of modern humans in Asia. Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha, 493–530.

Ousley, S. D., and A. E. Berger. 2001. Using postcranial discriminant functions to address museum, repatriation, and other forensic questions. Proceedings of the American Academic Forensic Sciences 7:265.

Ousley, S., and W. Billeck. 2001. Assessing tribal identity in the Plains using nontra-ditional craniometrics (interlandmark distances). American Journal of Physi-cal Anthropology 32:115–116.

Ousley, S. D., W. T. Billeck, and R. E. Hollinger. 2005. Federal repatriation legisla-tion and the role of physical anthropology in repatriation. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 48:2–32.

2320.indb 146 4/9/08 3:10:42 PM


Ousley, S. D., J. C. Dudar, E. B. Jones, M. R. London, G. Madden, D. Mulher, and C. A. Wilczak. 2006. Standardizing the Standards: Computerized documentation of skeletal pathology at the Smithsonian Institution. Workshop presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Paleopathology Association, Anchorage AK, March 7–8.

Ousley, S. D., R. E. Hollinger, and J. E. Byrd. 2007. The nature of evidence in the repatriation process: Evidence in theory. Paper presented at the 72nd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin, TX, April 25–29.

Ousley, S .D., and A. McKeown. 2001. Three dimensional digitizing of human skulls as an archival procedure. In E. Williams (ed.): Human remains: Conserva-tion, retrieval and analysis. BAR International Series 934. Oxford: Basingstoke Press, 173–184.

Ousley, S. D., and A. McKeown. 2003. A comparison of morphometric data and methods in classification. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 36:162.

Ousley, S., D. Owsley, and D. Mulhern. 2000. Lost and found in the museum: Repa-triation, ancestry, ethnicity, and history. American Journal of Physical Anthro-pology 30:243.

Ousley, S. D., J. L. Seebauer, and E. B. Jones. 2003. Forensic anthropology, repatria-tion, and the “Mongoloid” problem. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Science 9:245–246.

Riddle, J. C. 1914. The Indian history of the Modoc War and the causes that led to it. San Francisco: Marnell and Co.

SAS Institute Inc. 2001. SAS/SHARE 9 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Scott, G. R., and C. G. Turner II. 1997. The anthropology of modern human teeth:

Dental morphology and its variation in recent human populations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, W., R. B. Woodbury, and N. F. S. Woodbury. 1966. The excavation of Hawi-kuh by Frederick Webb Hodge: Report of the Hendricks-Hodge expedition, 1917–1923. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Vol. XX.

Smithsonian Institution. 1998. http://www.sil.si.edu/Exhibitions/Smithson-to-Smithsonian/intro.html.

Stewart, T. D. 1979. Essentials of forensic anthropology, especially as developed in the United States. Springfield: Charles C Thomas.

Systat Software Inc. 2004. Systat version 11. Point Richmond, CA: Systat Software Inc.

Turk, A. E., J. G. McCarthy, C. H. M. Thorne, and J. H. Wisoff. 1996. The “back to sleep campaign” and deformational plagiocephaly: Is there cause for concern? Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 7(1):12–18.

2320.indb 147 4/9/08 3:10:42 PM

2320.indb 148 4/9/08 3:10:42 PM

149

History and Collections of the Division of Physical Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

daVid r. Hunt

Introduction

The Smithsonian Institution has been a central location for skeletal biologi-cal research for nearly a century. The 30,000-plus cataloged remains housed in the collections within the Division of Physical Anthropology have been

8

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 149Aleš Hrdlička .............................................................................................151T. Dale Stewart .......................................................................................... 153J. Lawrence Angel ..................................................................................... 155Douglas H. Ubelaker ................................................................................ 157Douglas W. Owsley .................................................................................. 158David R. Hunt ........................................................................................... 159Bruno Frohlich .......................................................................................... 160

Forensic Application of Skeletal Biology by the Smithsonian ......................161Division Research and Activities ..................................................................... 163Physical Anthropology Division Collections ................................................. 164

Access Guidelines ......................................................................................174Equipment and Facilities ..........................................................................176Photography ...............................................................................................176Radiography ...............................................................................................176Destructive Sampling ............................................................................... 177Accommodations ...................................................................................... 178

Acknowledgments .............................................................................................. 178References ............................................................................................................ 178

2320.indb 149 4/9/08 3:10:42 PM

150 david r. Hunt

the foundation for morphological and metrical studies of the skeleton from which many of the standards for the estimations of sex, age, ancestry, dis-ease, and trauma have derived. The breadth of the comparative collections has provided for thousands of research studies by professionals, as well as students in the fields of human variation, skeletal biology, anthropomor-phics, anthropometrics, osteology, paleopathology, dentistry, and ortho-pedic medicine. And with the National Museum of Natural History’s close proximity to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice, the staff of the Division of Physical Anthropology have been integral in the formulation, development, and recognition that physical anthropologists can provide valuable contributions to forensic investigation of human remains.

With the establishment of the Division of Physical Anthropology in 1904, skeletal remains from archeological excavations by the Bureau of American Ethnology and anatomical collections transferred from the Army Medical Museum became the foundation of one of the premier human com-parative skeletal collections in the world. During the first half of the 20th century, the collections were augmented by the efforts of Aleš Hrdlička though archeological excavations and trading of collections from around the world. Subsequently, archeological investigations during the mid- to later 20th century by the auspices of the Works Projects Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, River Basin Survey, National Geographic Society, and various federal agencies greatly contributed to the size and diversity of the collections.

Thompson (1982) identifies three major eras in the development of forensic anthropology in the United States. The pre-1939 medical phase is highlighted by the involvement of physical anthropology within the medical sciences arena, focusing in aspects of skeletal variation and morphological changes/differences. The second period is marked by the publication of “A Guide to the Identification of Human Skeletal Material” by Krogman (1939), which marks the awareness by the forensic community that physical anthro-pology was a significant contributor in the identification and individua-tion of human skeletal remains. The growth during this period includes the expansion and training of anthropologists in skeletal biological techniques for personal identification. The third phase is benchmarked by the inception of the Physical Anthropology section of the American Academy of Foren-sic Sciences. With this recognition of physical anthropology as a viable par-ticipant in medicolegal investigations, the science expanded with vigor, and increased physical anthropology involvement in forensic casework ensued. As such, the research requirements that sprang from the demand for skeletal analyses produced numerous forensic anthropology articles in the Journal of Forensic Sciences and the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

At the Smithsonian Institution, a similar developmental progression is seen. However, the benchmark dates are slightly different than those

2320.indb 150 4/9/08 3:10:43 PM

History and collections of the division of physical anthropology 151

described by Thompson, and they generally correlate with the changes in staff and their responsibilities in the Division of Physical Anthropology. The history below follows this formative, developmental, and expanding pro-gression by highlighting the people, dates, and activities which hallmark the progress of forensic anthropology in the Division of Physical Anthropology, and how they coincide with social, legal, and federal needs for forensic con-sulting services.

Aleš Hrdlička

Aleš Hrdlička was hired as the Smithsonian’s first physical anthropologist in 1903 and is seen as one of the most prominent figures in the development of physical anthropology in the United States (Spencer 1997) (Figure 8.1). He was the founder of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology and the driving force for the formation of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in 1930. However, he is not usually identified as one of the pioneers of forensic anthropology. In Stewart’s (1940) biography of Hrdlička, he does not identify Hrdlička as having any involvement in the medicolegal aspects of physical anthropology. His omission may be because of the nar-row interpretation of forensic anthropology at that time. For example, when

Figure 8.1 aleš Hrdlička.

2320.indb 151 4/9/08 3:10:43 PM

152 david r. Hunt

Snow (1973) described forensic anthropology, it was strictly “the application of physical anthropology to problems of medical jurisprudence.” However, evidence of Hrdlička’s involvement in medicolegal investigations is reflected in his “Anthropometric Identifications” section from his 1939 edition of Practical Anthropometry. Therein, Hrdlička presents the use of skeletal mor-phology and the application of anthropometric measurements for the iden-tification of individuals in legal and medical situations. He also describes forensic methods of differentiating human and nonhuman remains, and cov-ers fingerprinting, serological, and anthropometric methods in family studies (Hrdlička 1939). It is interesting that this section of Practical Anthropometry is not recognized by Thompson (1982) as a benchmark in the progression of forensic anthropology in the same way as Krogman’s 1939 article, “A Guide to the Identification of Human Skeletal Material.”

Before arriving at the Smithsonian Institution, Hrdlička had worked at the Middletown State Homeopathic Hospital for the Insane in New York, the New York Pathological Institute, and the American Museum of Natural His-tory doing research in abnormal behavior and anthropometry. Hrdlička was involved in medicolegal investigations during his tenure at the Pathological Institute by performing and reporting autopsies on the criminally insane. He also provided testimony on questions concerning the insane and behav-ior abnormalities, and published on the medicolegal aspects of a case con-cerning the mental state of Maria Barbella, an epileptic accused of murder (Hrdlička 1897; Ubelaker 1999b).

The earliest records for medicolegal involvement identified in Hrdlička’s papers, which are curated at the National Anthropological Archives (NAA), indicate that while on a trip to South America, the Governor of the valley of Rio Negro, Argentina, asked Hrdlička to evaluate a skull assumed to be from a missing local rancher. On that same trip, Hrdlička examined, with Max Uhle (then Director of the Museo Nacional of Peru), the purported skeleton of the explorer Pizarro. Their determination was that the skeleton was not consistent with the expected age at death of Pizarro (Ubelaker 1999b).

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records indicate that Hrdlička’s involvement in forensic investigation began in 1932 with a skull from Phoe-nix, Arizona. In this particular case, Hrdlička used photographic super-imposition, thereby documenting earliest use of the technique (Ubelaker 1999b). From 1936 to 1943 there are no fewer than 14 letters of correspon-dence between Hrdlička and the FBI which document his consultations. It is worth mentioning that the relationship between the FBI and the SI closely coincides with FBI’s reorganization from the Division of Investigation in the Department of Justice. From records of the SI Office of the Secretary and the FBI, it appears that there were at least 37 official communications concerning Hrdlička’s involvement with identification matters (Ubelaker 2000). His ser-vice to the FBI was personally acknowledged by J. Edgar Hoover in a letter to

2320.indb 152 4/9/08 3:10:43 PM


Hrdlička’s widow, dated 8 September 1943, stating that, “He will always be remembered for his outstanding contributions to the science of crime detec-tion and for his gracious and spirited willingness to help us at every turn” (cited in Ubelaker 1999).

T. Dale Stewart

T. Dale Stewart was hired as a permanent employee in the Division of Physi-cal Anthropology in 1927 (Figure 8.2). Hrdlička promised that upon his retirement, Stewart would be given the head curator position. This advance-ment occurred in 1942 when, due to illness, Hrdlička retired. With this pro-motion, Stewart also inherited the role of physical anthropology consultant to the FBI. Stewart stated that he was not aware of Hrdlička’s involvement with the FBI until after Hrdlička’s retirement, most likely because Hrdlička considered these cases too confidential to be discussed—even with close col-leagues. However, there is a recording documenting that the FBI delivered a case to Stewart in 1937 to be passed on to Hrdlička, as well as a case in 1938 where Stewart was contacted to analyze cremated remains for the FBI (Ube-laker 2000).

Figure 8.2 t. dale stewart (foreground) and doug ubelaker (background) at a site in Maryland in the early 1970s.

2320.indb 153 4/9/08 3:10:43 PM

154 david r. Hunt

As sole consultant for the FBI, Stewart reported on no fewer than 169 cases between the years of 1943 to 1969. Additionally, he consulted on approx-imately 85 forensic cases for other law enforcement agencies (Ubelaker 2000). Stewart was distinctly aware of the responsibility that anthropologists accept when becoming involved in a legal investigation. In his publication Essentials of Forensic Anthropology (1979), he states that the role of the physical anthro-pologist must be one of objectivity and accuracy. In his own reports, Stewart was always concise and nonspeculative in his findings and summarization (Ubelaker 2000).

When Stewart was not available, records indicate that Marshall T. New-man (who was employed by the division from 1941–1942 and 1946–1962) was a consultant for some identification cases. Newman’s most active period was while Stewart was the Department of Anthropology chair during 1961–1962. Newman left the Smithsonian in 1962 to pursue a career in teaching and was involved with human skeletal identification during his tenure at Beloit Col-lege in Wisconsin and Indiana University.

In 1948, Stewart was requested by the Quartermaster’s Corps to assist in identification of soldiers from World War II. It was apparent to Stewart that the standards for making assessments for personal identification of these soldiers was based on population groups of previous generations which comprised older individuals, and that the methods used by the military did not have a high degree of scientific rigor. In an editorial in Science (1953), Stewart identified the need for physical anthropological research (which the military should provide) to revise and improve the accuracy in the determination of sex, age, and ancestry from the skel-eton by analysis of identified remains of the war dead. In 1954, the Army sponsored such a research project and studied 375 positively identified skeletons at Kokura, Japan. The results from this study were reported with Thomas McKern in the landmark publication, Skeletal Changes in Young Americans (1957).

During the Vietnam conflict, the military requested the assistance of Stewart to improve the Army’s identification methods. In 1968, Stewart orga-nized a second study into the problems of skeletal identification by involving a group of prominent physical anthropologists (J. Lawrence Angel, Eugene Giles, William Greulich, William Howells, Ellis Kerley, Thomas McKern, Gentry Steele, and Mildred Trotter). Their work culminated in the edited volume, Personal Identification in Mass Disasters (1970), and is still an essen-tial handbook for forensic anthropologists. It is inevitable that during the meeting of these prominent figures, Stewart, at the Department of Anthro-pology, and William Bass, an employee of the division at that time, were influenced by these fellow researchers and publication activities. Bass went on to hold teaching positions at University of Nebraska, University of Kansas,

2320.indb 154 4/9/08 3:10:44 PM


and University of Tennessee, where he taught, guided, and matriculated a majority of the physical anthropologists who identify themselves as forensic anthropologists today (Ubelaker and Hunt 1995).

J. Lawrence Angel

In 1962, Stewart was selected to be the Director of the National Museum of Natural History, a position he held until 1965. An additional curator was necessary in the Division of Physical Anthropology, and J. Lawrence Angel was hired in 1962 (Figure 8.3). Angel had been active in a career of teaching, holding positions at Berkeley, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Jef-ferson Medical College, Philadelphia (Ubelaker 1990). Although Angel had not previously worked as a forensic anthropologist, he was intimately familiar with pathology and autopsy from his anatomical teaching at Jefferson Medi-cal College and quickly adapted to the role Stewart gave him. Angel excelled as a forensic anthropologist to the point of being called “Sherlock Bones” by the popular press, and he was featured in The Washington Post, People Maga-zine, Science Digest, and Smithsonian Magazine (Ubelaker 1989). Angel was involved in no fewer than 565 cases and of his over 200 publications, approxi-mately 17% were focused on forensic anthropology topics (Ubelaker 1990).

Figure 8.3 lucile st. Hoyme (left), larry angel (center), and t. dale stewart (right) holding the world’s longest beard of Hans langseth. this photo was taken on the day of the donation of the beard to the department of anthropology, august 21, 1967. (this photo was on the front page of the Washington Post.)

2320.indb 155 4/9/08 3:10:44 PM

156 david r. Hunt

Despite his notoriety, Angel described his forensic anthropology work as “consultant work”—not as research or fieldwork. He clearly saw his forensic work as a public service. But Angel was cognizant of the research potential of his work as well. He considered the work a way to obtain a better understand-ing of contemporary population variation (see Angel 1976; Kelley and Angel 1987) since his primary skeletal biological research was founded in Middle Eastern and Mediterranean archeological cultures. Angel also felt the need to provide education concerning forensic anthropology. Each year, from the 1970s though the 1980s, Angel taught a course on the techniques and application of skeletal biology in forensic anthropology primarily targeted to pathologists, but it also included anthropologists and law enforcement per-sonnel. When he stopped teaching the year before his death, Angel estimated that over 50% of the medical examiners in the United States had taken his course (Ubelaker 1990).

Angel was always excited to do forensic cases and enjoyed involving oth-ers in the work. Donald Ortner was hired as Angel’s assistant in 1962 and was constantly involved in the forensic casework. In 1969, Ortner continued his graduate education at the University of Kansas in bone biology, histology, and paleopathology (Figure 8.4). Ortner returned to a curatorial position in 1971. In his professional career he has pursued these areas of research, rather than forensic anthropology, publishing over 200 articles including two of the seminal references for human paleopathology (see Ortner and Putschar 1985; Ortner 2003).

Lucile St. Hoyme was also an active participant in some of Angel’s foren-sic cases. Her experience as collections assistant under Hrdlička and Stewart (1939–1964) and as assistant curator (1964–1984) provided her with a broad knowledge of the division’s skeletal collections. St. Hoyme had also been

Figure 8.4 donald ortner in the 1980s. (photo taken by Bruno Frolich.)

2320.indb 156 4/9/08 3:10:44 PM


trained in radiographic techniques. These talents were requisite for her par-ticipation in some of Angel’s cases (Hunt et al. 2006). During her tenure, St. Hoyme was involved in a variety of research projects; her contributions were mostly concerned with skeletal morphological differences, but one article in particular (St. Hoyme and Ïşcan 1989) is still an excellent reference and cau-tionary article for skeletal biologists and forensic anthropologists.

Angel stepped down from his role as primary consultant to the FBI in 1977, when he chose to take a research sabbatical, and the forensic case-work became the responsibility of Douglas Ubelaker. On Angel’s return to the division, he decided to no longer carry the FBI caseload, but continued his involvement with regional law enforcement agencies. Angel continued his work and his yearly teaching of “Anthropology of the Skeleton” for the Department of Anthropology at the George Washington University until, due to complications from surgery, he died in 1986, leaving an unmistakable void in the Division of Physical Anthropology and the anthropological com-munity as a whole.

Douglas H. Ubelaker

Douglas Ubelaker was hired into the Division of Physical Anthropology in 1971, after receiving his PhD from the University of Kansas under the direc-tion of William Bass. Initially, his primary research interests were in bone histomorphology and skeletal biology in archeological populations, particu-larly those from South America. Ubelaker considers Stewart to be the guiding force in his professional development and he became interested, through Stewart, in the applications of skeletal biology to forensic investigation.

Ubelaker still is the exclusive contact for FBI cases for the division and has been involved in more than 750 cases through that agency alone. Upon the death of Angel, Ubelaker took over the non-FBI cases, as well. He has extensively published in skeletal biology research, the methods of skeletal analysis (e.g., Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994), and applied methods of skele-tal biology to forensic investigations. He is noted as publishing one of the most widely used references in human skeletal investigation, Human Skeletal Remains (1978, 1999a). Ubelaker also provides training for future physical anthropologists by teaching courses at George Washington University.

In an assessment of the FBI cases with which the Smithsonian has been involved between 1962 and 1994, Ubelaker discusses the fluctuations in the numbers of cases, especially between 1970 and the 1990s (Grisbaum and Ubelaker 2001). His observations showed an increase in case activity in the 1970s, which he associates with the inclusion of Physical Anthropology as a section in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and the increased awareness of medical examiner and law enforcement agencies to include anthropology in the forensic investigation. There was a noticeable decrease

2320.indb 157 4/9/08 3:10:44 PM

158 david r. Hunt

in cases coming from the FBI in the 1980s, which Ubelaker attributes to the growing number of forensic anthropologists in the United States who were consulted within their own region, rather than the FBI and the Smithso-nian being the clearinghouse for forensic investigations involving skeletal remains. In the early 1990s, the numbers of cases again increased. Ubelaker interprets this increase as a reflection of greater media attention in criminal investigation and identification of human remains, television programs with the same focus, and the changes in financial resources, and crime activities at the regional level, leading to the need for federal involvement (Grisbaum and Ubelaker 2001).

Douglas W. Owsley

In 1985, a new physical anthropology curator position was created. This posi-tion was filled in 1987 by Douglas Owsley, who left a teaching position at Lou-isiana State University. Owsley had been trained in forensic anthropological methodology by William Bass during his graduate career at the University of Tennessee and had been a practicing forensic anthropologist in Louisiana and the adjoining southern states, as well as teaching forensic anthropol-ogy courses. Owsley was interested in pursuing his own forensic anthropol-ogy caseload, and since Ubelaker had been working with the FBI for over a decade by this point, the non-FBI caseload became Owsley’s responsibility. Owsley has been diligent in reporting the results of his investigations as well as his other ongoing skeletal biological research at meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and in numerous publications in the journals of these professional organizations (Figure 8.5).

When Owsley took the position in the division, he hired Robert W. Mann as his assistant. Mann had finished training at the University of Ten-nessee and had been the assistant to William Bass. This assistantship directly involved Mann in most of Bass’s forensic cases and in the management of the Decay Rate Facility, the research facility for the systematic study of human decomposition in diverse situations. Mann’s supportive role with Owsley was significant. However, in 1992 Mann took a position at the Central Identifi-cation Laboratory, Hawaii (CIL-HI). Since that time he has progressed to Deputy Scientific Director at that facility. As a matter of note, the CIL-HI is the consequence of the relationship established by T. Dale Stewart with the Army for the identifications which led to the improvement of methods for identification of servicemen. (Chapter 4 discusses this is greater detail.)

When Mann left, Karin (Sandness) Bruwelheide was hired to assist Ows-ley. Bruwelheide (who received her training under Karl Reinhard at Univer-sity of Nebraska) is indispensable in her role as Owsley’s laboratory manager and research assistant. Her osteological and skeletal analysis skills are

2320.indb 158 4/9/08 3:10:45 PM


superb, and recording and reporting exacting. She collaborates with Ows-ley on forensic cases, investigations of mass graves in Croatia, and historic identification cases, such as the members of the Civil War submarine, The Hunley, and Jamestown settlers.

David R. Hunt

In late 1989, David Hunt was hired as Collections Manager of Physical Anthro-pology. His training was in human variation and skeletal biology, under the direction of Richard Jantz at the University of Tennessee. He also received instruction in forensic anthropology from William Bass, working directly with Bass on forensic cases, as well as assisting in research at the Decay Rate Facility. (Chapter 2 discusses the Decay Rate Facility in greater detail.) Hunt’s early involvement in forensic cases at the SI was through invitation by Doug-las Ubelaker to participate in some of his FBI cases, and provide assistance with some of the caseload of Owsley and Mann. As time passed, Hunt became increasingly involved in natural and mass disaster assistance and was an early

Figure 8.5 doug owsley digging at a colonial period archaeological site in Maryland. (photo taken by chip clark.)

2320.indb 159 4/9/08 3:10:45 PM

160 david r. Hunt

participant in the formation of the Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT) system. (Chapter 6 discusses the DMORT system in greater detail.) Since the late 1990s, Hunt has served as an on-call forensic anthro-pologist for the Washington, D.C., Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, U.S. Park Police (D.C. and vicinity) and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (Figure 8.6). Hunt teaches courses in skeletal biology and osteology for the Department of Anthropology at the George Washington University, participates as an instructor in the annual National Museum of Health and Medicine/Armed Forces Institute of Pathology’s forensic anthro-pology course, and provides training to law enforcement agencies.

Bruno Frohlich

Bruno Frohlich was hired as a permanent employee of the Department of Anthropology in 1992. Although his initial training is in archeology, Frohlich

Figure 8.6 david Hunt (right) and doug owsley in cadiz, spain. (photo taken by chip clark.)

2320.indb 160 4/9/08 3:10:45 PM


received physical anthropology and forensic anthropology training from Wil-liam Laughlin, a student assistant to Hrdlička in the late 1930s. In Frohlich’s early association with the department, he collaborated with Angel and Ort-ner and provided his archeological expertise to the division (Figure 8.7). Frohlich taught skeletal biology at the Department of Anatomy, University of Copenhagen and has been directly involved in forensic anthropological research. He is presently the forensic anthropology consultant for the state of Vermont as well as an adjunct educator in forensic anthropology for the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Sciences and for Hobart and Williams College. His multidisciplinary approach to research includes skeletal biology, statistics, and the use of computerized tomography.

Forensic Application of Skeletal Biology by the Smithsonian

With the increase in cult and terrorist activities throughout the world, the United States is no longer shielded from these events. Although America has experienced loss of life from anarchists’ bombs in the past, disasters on a mass scale have become more frequent since the early 1990s. Because of this, Smithsonian forensic anthropologists have been called upon to assist in sev-eral mass disaster situations.

In 1993, an incident in Waco, Texas, between the ATF, FBI, and the Branch Davidians, led by David Koresh, culminated in a fire and the deaths of 74 individuals. Ubelaker was contacted by the FBI to assemble a team to assist the federal and local authorities in the retrieval and identification of the remains from the compound. This mass disaster situation involved most

Figure 8.7 Bruno Frolich.

2320.indb 161 4/9/08 3:10:46 PM

162 david r. Hunt

of the department’s physical anthropologists (including Doug Owsley and Karin Bruwelheide), who engaged in field retrieval and laboratory analysis over several weeks. Resulting publications describe this difficult investiga-tion and the essential role of the forensic anthropologists (Owsley et al. 1995; Ubelaker et al. 1995).

In 1993, extreme flooding of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers lead to significant water erosion, unearthing cemeteries in the flooding. At a large cemetery outside Hardin, Missouri, the National Disaster Medical Services (NDMS) branch of Department of Health and Human Services established a multifaceted organization called the DMORT to deal with mortuary ser-vices. DMORT brought together specialists in mortuary care, personal effects documentation, family assistance, and radiography, and experts in forensic pathology, forensic odontology, fingerprinting (FBI), and forensic anthro-pology (including Hunt). Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team members and volunteers spent months retrieving skeletal remains and cas-kets located downstream from the cemetery. The results from the sorting and examination of the remains led to the identification of a significant number of the caskets and remains that came from post-1950 burials. The majority of the remains that came from the earlier part of the century were not identifi-able due to the lack of antemortem medical or family records (Sledzik and Hunt 1997).

One year later, flooding in Albany, Georgia, caused by hurricane weather resulted in overflowing of dams that had protected portions of Albany. The main city cemetery flooded, and over 769 caskets were disinterred from their sealed vaults. The DMORT responders were again activated to identify and return the remains to their proper burial places. The majority of the remains were positively identified and reinterred to their original resting places.

In 1994, the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina in Buenos Aires was blown up by an ammonium nitrate bomb placed inside a van. Three hundred people were injured and 85 people were killed in the blast, which became the largest single incident against Jewish people since World War II. The Argen-tinean government requested U.S. State Department assistance in the mortu-ary needs of this tragedy, including body retrieval and forensic investigation. The Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner (OAFME) sent a group of pathologists and anthropologists (including Hunt) to Buenos Aires, where they reassembled body parts and identified individuals from the burned and fragmentary remains.

Nine months later in Oklahoma City, an ammonium nitrate bomb in a van extensively damaged the Murrah Federal Building. Over 800 people were injured and 168 people were killed in the bombing. The magnitude and the national emotional devastation of this event prompted immediate action by federal agencies. All available specialists, including Smithsonian anthropolo-gists, were notified to assist in the efforts to search for survivors, investigate

2320.indb 162 4/9/08 3:10:46 PM


the incident, retrieve the bodies of the victims, and reassemble and identify the remains, mostly consisting of fragmentary or partial remains.

Another black day in recent American history is September 11, 2001, when all specialists and experts in mass fatality situations were called in to assist in New York (World Trade Towers), Washington, D.C. (Pentagon), and Somerset, Pennsylvania (United Flight 93). All members of the Division of Physical Anthropology were involved at some level in this disaster, from con-sultation to field retrieval and laboratory analysis. Owsley and Ubelaker were sent to Dover, Delaware, to work with remains from the Pentagon. Several physical anthropologists working in the Anthropology Department’s Physical Anthropology Laboratory of the Repatriation Office were activated through DMORT and sent to Somerset to provide their expertise in field retrieval and forensic anthropology. The efforts of Marilyn London, Dawn Mulhern, and Erica Jones were instrumental in the organization, implementation, and precision of the morgue operations in Somerset and in the field identifica-tion of remains from United Flight 93. Jones and London are presently work-ing in the Osteology Laboratory of the Repatriation Office, and Mulhern has moved on to teaching physical anthropology and forensic application of skeletal biology at Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado. London (who is the former student of Larry Angel when she studied at the George Wash-ington University) is also a lecturer in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Maryland, an instructor for the Anthropology Department at The George Washington University, and an on-call forensic anthropol-ogy consultant for the state of Rhode Island. Through DMORT, London had previously responded to the EgyptAir 990 crash in New England and the Executive Air Charter crash near Scranton, Pennsylvania. London has also held the position of Training Officer for DMORT Region III and is presently a member of DMORT Region V.

Division Research and Activities

Advances in forensic anthropology methods and technology figure promi-nently in the corresponding improvements in archaeology as both fields benefit by sharing the latest scientific developments. Employment of new chemical, electronic, and laboratory technology (CT scanning, DNA analy-sis, isotopic studies, pathological research, stereolithographic reproduction) have all provided new techniques for skeletal research. Recent investiga-tions performed at the Division of Physical Anthropology involving iron coffins from the mid-19th century (NMNH Annual Report 2005), historic remains from cemeteries (Ubelaker and Jones 2003), mummified remains from Mongolia (Frohlich et al. 2002; Frohlich et al. 2005), and even the noted Kennewick Man (Owsley et al. 2006) have all benefited from the use of new

2320.indb 163 4/9/08 3:10:46 PM

164 david r. Hunt

chemical, electronic, and laboratory technologies for the study, interpreta-tion, and preservation of these remains.

Physical Anthropology Division Collections

Physical Anthropology Division collections contain over 33,000 cataloged records of human skeletal remains from archeological, as well as anatomical sources, mummified remains and body parts (hair, dry, and wet tissues), and plaster and resin casts and molds of faces, body parts, and paleoanthropo-logical remains. The remains predominantly derive from archeological inves-tigations and are typically compared by researchers to other collections of excavated remains in order to uncover temporal or population differences in biological or cultural features. The anatomical collections (Robert J. Terry Collection and George S. Huntington Collection) are utilized primarily for research in human variation, growth and development, age changes, sex dif-ferences, and differences in ancestry used in bioanthropological and forensic anthropological applications (see Hunt and Albanese 2005, for information concerning these collections). The medical sciences utilize the anatomical collections as well for questions and assessment of the formation, expres-sion, and treatment of pathological conditions, as well as bone trauma (espe-cially for surgical procedures) and the design and surgical implantation of orthopaedic devices. There are also studies conducted in orthodontics and periodontics.

The collections span worldwide distribution. However, countries and geographic regions and temporal contexts may or may not be well represented in the NMNH collection. In the expeditions and trading of collections done predominantly in the first half of the 20th century, the curatorial staff influ-enced the collection scheme. Hrdlička’s primary focus was on the peopling of the New World and questions concerning American populations, so areas of Africa, Europe, and Asia are underrepresented. Another aspect of the times when the majority of the collections were amassed is seen in the types of bones preserved for an individual or for a population group. Approximately 49% of the collection consists of the cranium or skull only, with no postcra-nia. This is a common feature of collections made in the late 19th and 20th centuries. It was also a common occurrence in archeological excavations in the earlier part of the 20th century to retain the “best” representatives of the skeletal series and not save many of the smaller bones (hands and feet) or bones such as ribs or vertebrae, unless they were of particular interest. In the second half of the 20th century, advances in archeological theory and techniques lead to the desire for more complete retention of most materials from a site. About 20% of the NMNH skeletal collections are from these later excavations and they have more complete skeletal series.

2320.indb 164 4/9/08 3:10:46 PM


A general listing of the Division of Physical Anthropology holdings is provided (Table 8.1). The list is first sorted by present-day geopolitical country. The second level is, by and large, geopolitical province, state, and in lesser instances, a geographical location such as an island or a particu-lar city or town. The numeric counts represent the number of occurrences for each entry. This count may be one skull, one cranium, a fragmentary skeleton, a full skeleton or a group (or lot) of elements of bone assort-ments. It should not be assumed that the counts represent individuals. Additionally, the counts listed in Table 8.1 do not include paleoanthro-pological collections because the Physical Division’s paleoanthropologi-cal collections are almost exclusively specimen casts. A listing of these holdings can be obtained by request through The Division of Physical Anthropology Collections Manager (presently David Hunt), and use of these collections is scheduled though the paleoanthropological curator and staff.

Table 8.1 Index of Collections Count for the National Museum of Natural History, Department of Physical Anthropology, Physical Anthropology Collections

NMNH Geographic Location of RecordNumber of Specimens

(NMNH Count)Afghanistan 1Africa 9Algeria 1Algiers 1Argentina, Buenos Aires Province 10Argentina, Chubut Province 6Argentina, Patagonia 2Argentina, Rio Negro Province 56Argentina, Rio Negro and Buenos Aires Provinces 11Argentina, Salta Province 3Argentina, Santa Cruz Province 4Argentina, Santiago del Estero Province 1Argentina, Tierra del Fuego 1Argentina 12Armenia 2Australia, Central 4Australia, Northern Territory 8Australia, Queensland 6Australia, South Australia 11Australia, Victoria 7Australia, Victoria District 4

(continued)

2320.indb 165 4/9/08 3:10:46 PM

166 david r. Hunt

Table 8.1 (Continued)


(NMNH Count)Australia, Western Austraila 4Australia 9Austria, Salzburg Province 3Austria, Tirol Province 14Bahama Islands, Bahamas 1Bahama Islands, Exuma Islands Group 1Bahama Islands, Watling Island 4Bangladesh, Bengal 1Barbados 1Belgium, Brabant 1Belgium, Leige Province 1Belgium 1Bolivia, El Beni Department 1Bolivia, La Paz Department 18Bolivia 4Borneo, Kalimantan Province 2Borneo 1Brazil 1Cambodia 1Cameroon, South 1Cameroon 1Canada, British Columbia 13Canada, Hudson Bay 1Canada, Manitoba 2Canada, Northwest Territories 16Canada, Northwest Territories–Yukon Territory 3Canada, Ontario 43Canada, Quebec (Hudson Bay Territory) 1Canada 1Canary Islands, Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2Chile, Aisen Province 3Chile, Antofagasta Province 1Chile, Cautin Province 1Chile, Chiloe Province 2Chile, Coquimbo Province 2Chile, LLanquihue Province 1Chile, Magallanes Province (Patagonia) 2Chile, Santiago Region 3Chile, Tarapaca Province 2Chile, Tierra del Fuego 2

2320.indb 166 4/9/08 3:10:47 PM




(NMNH Count)Chile 2China, Fujian Province, Min River 1China, Liaoning Province 1China, Shansi Province 1China, Sikang Province 2China, Szechuan 1China, Szechuan Province, Kangting 1China, Tsinghai Province 1China, Xinjiang 1China 3Chukotka, Chukchi 2Colombia, Antioquia, Medellin 1Colombia, Atlantico Dept. 2Colombia, Bogota (Northwest of) 1Colombia, Cundinamarco 6Colombia, Sumapaz River Basin 3Colombia 2Congo Republic 2Cuba, Havana 4Cuba 6Czech Republic, Bohemia 72Czech Republic, Central Moravia 9Denmark 1Dominican Republic, Constanza 65Dominican Republic, National District 17Dominican Republic, Samana 17Ecuador, Azoques (Near) 2Ecuador, Guayas Province 36Ecuador 5Egypt, Thebes 1Egypt, Upper Egypt 749Egypt 2England, Greater London 37England, Oxfordshire 2England, West Sussex 1England, Yorkshire 1England 27Equatorial Guinea 1Fiji Islands, Kandavu Island 1

(continued)

2320.indb 167 4/9/08 3:10:47 PM

168 david r. Hunt



(NMNH Count)Fiji Islands, Levakua Island 1Fiji Islands, Muthuata Island 4Fiji Islands, Vanua Levu 1Fiji Islands 6France, Alpes-Maritimes 4France, Ande 1France, Brittany 1France, Morbihan (Brittany) 6France, Saone-et-Loire 4France, Seine-et-Marne 3France, Ville de Paris 5France 3Gabon 14Germany, Bavaria 8Germany, Elsass (Alsace) 1Germany, Lothringen (Lorraine) 4Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia 4Germany, Pommern (Pomerania) 1Germany, Rhineland Palinate 7Germany 64Ghana 3Ghana, Central District 1Greece, Peloponnese 47Greenland, Northwest 69Greenland, Southern 6Greenland, West District 17Greenland, Western 13Greenland 7Grenada, Grande Anse Bay 1Guatemala, Alta Verapaz 4Guatemala, Quetzalnatango 2Guyana, Courantine River 13Haiti, Sud Province 2Haiti 25Holland, North Holland 1Holland, Zeeland 7Honduras, Atlantida Department 2Honduras, Comayagua Department 4Honduras 2Hong Kong, Lama Island 1

2320.indb 168 4/9/08 3:10:47 PM




(NMNH Count)Iran, Khorasan State 2Israel, Hazafon 153Israel 4Italy, Siena Province 1Italy, Terni Province 1Italy, Viterbo Province 4Jamaica, Clarendon 10Jamaica, Hanover 5Jamaica, St. Elisabeth Parish 7Jamaica, St. James 1Jamaica 1Japan, Honshu 13Japan, Honshu Island 2Japan 1Java, Central Java Province 1Java 9Kenya, Central Province 21Kenya, Rift Valley Province 2Kenya 26Korea, Kiung-San Do Province 2Korea, Kyonggi Province 2Korea 1Lebanon 1Liberia 1Magadan Oblast, Chukot National Okrug 8Malay Archipelago, Amboina Island 3Malay Archipelago, Bali 2Malay Archipelago, Borneo 1Malay Archipelago, Madura Island 1Mauritius 1Mexico, Baja California 20Mexico, Campeche 3Mexico, Chihuahua State 111Mexico, Coahuila State 76Mexico, Durango State 1Mexico, Federal District (Valley of Mexico) 22Mexico, Mexico State 1Mexico, Michoacan State 3Mexico, Oaxaca State 11

(continued)

2320.indb 169 4/9/08 3:10:47 PM

170 david r. Hunt



(NMNH Count)Mexico, Puebla State 6Mexico, San Luis Potosi State 11Mexico, Sonora State 3Mexico, Vera Cruz State 1Mexico, Yucantan 7Mexico, Zacatecas State 1Mexico 32Mongolia, Outer Mongolia, Urga 208Nepal, Central Nepal 1Nepal, Western Nepal 1Nepal 4New Guinea, Papua 15New Guinea, Papua, East New Britain 30New Guinea, Papua, New Britain 5New Guinea 3New Zealand, Chatham Islands 12New Zealand, North Island 2New Zealand 25Nicaragua, Lake Nicaragua 7Norway, Finmark (Ost) 8Panama Canal Zone, Colon 1Panama Canal Zone, Herrera Province 7Panama Canal Zone, Venado Beach 70Panama Canal Zone 2Paraguay, Western Chaco 1Peru, Acabamba 14Peru, Ancash 2Peru, Ancash Department 2Peru, Anchicuya 1Peru, Arequipa 64Peru, Ayachucho 93Peru, Chachlacaya 8Peru, Chicama 1Peru, Coast 1Peru, Cuzco 7Peru, Huacapuna 3Peru, Huancavelica 2Peru, Ica 143Peru, Junin 35Peru, La Libertad 1161

2320.indb 170 4/9/08 3:10:48 PM




(NMNH Count)Peru, La Oroya 2Peru, Lima 3128Peru, Southern Coast 2Peru, Tacna 1Peru 144Philippine Islands, Bengoet 3Philippine Islands, Bohol Island 1Philippine Islands, Busuanga Island 1Philippine Islands, Dinagat Island 1Philippine Islands, Leyte 1Philippine Islands, Luzon Island 16Philippine Islands, Mindanao 1Philippine Islands, Mindanao Island 4Philippine Islands, Panay Island 2Philippine Islands, Sulu 4Philippine Islands 7Puerto Rico, Juegos De Bola 1Puerto Rico, Mayaguez 3Puerto Rico 2Samoa 2Senegal 1Siberia (East) 2Siberia (West) 2Siberia 53Society Islands 2Solomon Islands 6South Africa, Eastern Cape Province 5Sri Lanka 1Sulawesi (Celebes) 2Sulawesi (Celebes), Makassar 1Sumatra, Pagai (Pagi) Islands 11Sumatra 1Sweden 1Switzerland, Graubunden Canton (Grisons) 64Switzerland, Zurich Canton 1Switzerland 2Tahiti 1Taiwan 1Tibet 2

(continued)

2320.indb 171 4/9/08 3:10:48 PM

172 david r. Hunt



(NMNH Count)Tuamotu Archipelago 7Tunisia 1Virgin Islands, St. Croix 1Virgin Islands, St. John Island 16Virgin Islands, St. Thomas Island 1USA, Alabama 116USA, Alaska 1951USA, Arizona 735USA, Arkansas 381USA, California 981USA, Colorado 44USA, Connecticut 20USA, Delaware 101USA, District of Columbia 277USA, Florida 1576USA, Georgia 539USA, Guam 2USA, Idaho 9USA, Illinois 930USA, Indiana 22USA, Iowa 17USA, Kansas 63USA, Kentucky 167USA, Louisiana 189USA, Maine 2USA, Massachusetts 13USA, Michigan 32USA, Mississippi 140USA, Missouri 2009USA, Montana 37USA, Nebraska 64USA, Nevada 18USA, New Hampshire 1USA, New Jersey 86USA, New Mexico 1330USA, New York 3679USA, North Carolina 64USA, North Dakota 84USA, Ohio 729USA, Oklahoma 26

2320.indb 172 4/9/08 3:10:48 PM


When choosing any particular region or collection(s) for a research study, contact the Division of Physical Anthropology Collections Manager and be prepared to discuss the research design so that it can be determined whether the chosen collection(s) would be conducive or effective for proposed research. More specific delineation of collection location by site or other lev-els of identification and the materials represented in the collection can be obtained by contacting the Division of Physical Anthropology Collections manager and requesting this information.

Note of Clarification: It must be stressed to the reader that the counts rep-resented for the collection above are generated at the time of this writing. The effects of repatriation requests and decisions, especially on North American collections, will unquestionably lead to loss of skeletal collections. Research-ers should contact the Division of Physical Anthropology Collections



(NMNH Count)USA, Oregon 116USA, Pennsylvania 27USA, Rhode Island 3USA, South Carolina 3USA, South Dakota 1448USA, Tennessee 293USA, Texas 100USA, Utah 92USA, Vermont 3USA, Virginia 1862USA, Washington 49USA, West Virginia 36USA, Wisconsin 55USA, Wyoming 9USA 74Ukraine, Crimean Oblast 140Ukraine, Kiev 3Ukraine, Kiev Province 7Ukraine 50Vanuatu, Malampa Province 1Vanuatu, Malay, New Hebrides 1Venezuela 13Zimbabwe 1

2320.indb 173 4/9/08 3:10:48 PM

174 david r. Hunt

Manager to inquire whether any collections are restricted or no longer avail-able instead of assuming they are available for study.

The count for any country and/or state does not represent indigenous pop-ulation groups only. Rather, the counts are for ALL entries for that country or state. As an example, “USA, Missouri” has a count of 2009. This includes the 1728 individuals from the Robert J. Terry Anatomical Collection, a cadaver-based collection of American Whites and Blacks from the 20th century, and is not only Native Americans. The same is true for “USA, New York.” Over 3400 of the 3679 count is from the anatomical skeletal collection of Ameri-can immigrants coming from the New York City area, not Native American Indians. A noteworthy portion of the “USA, Maryland” count are Colonial Period skeletons from cemetery excavations (see Kelley and Angel 1987) and non-Native American Indian in ancestry. Approximately 60 of the “USA, Alaska” count are Chinese individuals who worked at the salmon canning factories on Kodiak Island and were excavated by Hrdlička (1944).

Access Guidelines

The Physical Anthropology collections are not loaned to institutions or uni-versities for research, so the researcher must come to the museum to do the work. Subsequently, no fewer than 60 student and professional researchers utilize the Physical Anthropology Collections per year. These research visits are generally for at least one week and often for longer periods of time. Addi-tionally, student training classes, lectures, and professional courses provided by the Physical Anthropology Division staff bring in 200 to 250 visitors to the Physical Anthropology Division in any given year. Due to this high volume of researchers and visitors, it is mandatory to schedule collections access arrange-ments well in advance, with approval through the collection manager.

Access to the Physical Anthropology Collections is arranged by appoint-ment by contacting the Division of Physical Anthropology collections manager (presently David Hunt). Regular post address or electronic communication address for the Physical Anthropology Collections Manager can be obtained from the Department of Anthropology Web site (http://www.nmnh.si.edu/anthro/). Access to the Physical Anthropology Collections at the NMNH is normally Monday through Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. The Physical Anthropology Division can only accommodate a lim-ited number of visitors due to staffing and space. It is advised to make your plans to visit at least two months in advance. When requesting a proposed schedule, have at least one to two alternative dates in case the initial schedule dates cannot be accommodated. Also, it is strongly requested that research-ers inform the collections manager of cancellations.

To aid the collections manager in determining whether the collec-tion will be advantageous for the research, a brief research description or

2320.indb 174 4/9/08 3:10:49 PM


prospectus should be included with the initial inquiry about the collection and possible scheduling for access. For students (undergraduate and gradu-ate), it is necessary to have a short letter (or e-mail) sent to the Division of Physical Anthropology collections manager from the thesis or dissertation advisor or primary professor. This letter should indicate support for the research at the Smithsonian and give some indication of the student’s famil-iarity working with skeletal collections. If the visit will involve a group of researchers, the number of people will need to be provided and access will be based on space restrictions. Researchers should be at least 18 years old. Special advanced arrangements must be cleared for any visitors aged 12 to 17 years and will require adult chaperones. Children under the age of 12 are not usually permitted.

Guidelines for handling procedures and proper use of the facilities will be provided, and the established collection handling and inventory proce-dures must be followed by the researcher. Improper handling of the collec-tions or failure to comply with the guidelines will result in denial of further access. If there is any doubt about proper procedures, the collections manager should be consulted. Planned research at the museum should be specific, and it is anticipated that the researcher will be limited to the focus of the initial request. Casual browsing and additional impromptu deviations in research cannot be accommodated due to staffing limitations.

Since the mandate of the Smithsonian Institution is the “Dissemination of Knowledge,” results and findings from the research performed in the Phys-ical Anthropology Collections should be provided to the Physical Anthropol-ogy Division in the following way: cleaned raw data sets, observations, and at the very least, a copy of any resulting publication, thesis, or dissertation. The latter materials will be retained either in the John Wesley Powell Anthropol-ogy Department Library or in the Physical Anthropology Collections Office. In all publications, it is necessary to indicate that the materials used are from the Division of Physical Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution.

Photographs of skeletal materials or artifacts in the collections may be taken by the researcher for personal research use only, and only with staff permission. The Division reserves the right to limit images taken if the object is evaluated to be too fragile for the handling or mounting necessary for pho-tography or radiographic imaging. Images obtained during research can be utilized in professional journal publication with credit as: Catalog number of the specimen; Courtesy of the Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution. The use of images in scholarly book publications, exhibitions, electronic transmission, or any general distribution in any medium, must be secured by submitting a written request to the attention of the collections manager, and will be evaluated by staff on a case-by-case basis.

2320.indb 175 4/9/08 3:10:49 PM

176 david r. Hunt

Equipment and Facilities

It is generally expected researchers will bring their own measuring instru-ments and computers. However, the Division of Physical Anthropology has the ability to provide some equipment, especially more nontransportable equipment, such as osteometric boards, sliding calipers (GPM, dial and digi-tal, blade, and needle type), spreading calipers (GPM, large and small), coor-dinate calipers, radiometer, measuring tape, mandibulometer, craniophor, pelvimeter, depth gauge, and volumetric flasks. Curatorial staff have elec-tronic three-dimensional digitizing equipment such as Polhemus and Micro-Scribe and digitized image reproduction by the computerized tomography. All special needs or requests to use division equipment must be pre-arranged to confirm that the correct equipment is present and to arrange the schedule for availability, especially concerning the radiographic equipment. There will be costs for use of the radiographic equipment and chemicals, and these costs must be negotiated prior to the researcher’s arrival.

Photography

The Physical Anthropology Division does have a small photographic work-space with direct or flash photographic light systems. Other photographic equipment that may be available for use includes: copy stands, tripods, back-grounds, and scales. Cameras (film and digital) may be available as well but must be prearranged by request with the collections manager.

Radiography

The department has a small three-stage (60kVp/30mA, 80kVp/20mA, 100kVp/15mA) plain film radiographic unit that can be made available for producing a reasonable number of images. There is an automatic film proces-sor on site. The use of the unit is department wide, and scheduling for its use must be coordinated through the curatorial staff. Additionally, the costs for its use and the chemicals for the film processing will have to be negotiated. The researcher must provide the film. Kodak Min-R 2000, Ektascan B/Ra, and X-Omat film have been determined to produce the best resolution with the museum’s film cassettes. The film cassettes available for use are in two sizes, 24 x 30 cm or 35 x 43 cm.

At this writing, the department has a Siemens Somatom Emotion CT scanner on site. This scanner provides spiral 1-mm slices and 3-D reconstruc-tion. This equipment has Smithsonian-wide applications and is in continuous use. Proposed use of this machine by outside researchers will require long range planning and scheduling by the researcher with the departmental staff who maintain the equipment. Costs for the use of the CT scanner (running

2320.indb 176 4/9/08 3:10:49 PM


and technician time) will have to be negotiated with the curator in charge of the CT scanner (presently, Bruno Frohlich).

Destructive Sampling

With the advances in bone chemistry and DNA research, there has been an increase in requests for destructive sampling. This type of research requires extensive arrangements with the Department of Anthropology. To be able to properly fill out the formal sampling request, the researcher will be expected to provide a listing of the desired specimens. The specimen selection cannot be assumed to be done by the curatorial staff. Instead, the researcher should plan to come and review the collection to make the selections of the speci-mens to be proposed in the sampling request, identified by catalog numbers and element(s). The sampling request forms and instruction for sampling are available online at the Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology Collec-tions Management Web site.

The sampling request must include a well-presented proposal for the research, and include proof that the researcher (or the chosen lab) has had experience in performing the proposed chemical or DNA techniques. The sampling request is reviewed by all Anthropology staff (archeology, physical, and ethnology) who have curatorial charge over the collection of interest. The results of their review are presented to the Collection Review Commit-tee for discussion. The curatorial staff and Review Committee rarely support sampling request of the collections for new or untested methodologies. There are serious concerns about the amount of sample to be taken and the damage to the element or object. The researcher should be cognizant of these con-cerns and provide justification for all aspects of the research in the formal request. Often, the Review Committee will offer a revised sampling selection, or request additional support or clarification of methodology, more informa-tion on the abilities and experience of the laboratory (and/or the staff at that facility), or further inquiry into the researcher’s experience. Resubmission of the sampling request will usually be expected in these instances. Therefore, the researcher should anticipate a lag time in the decision of the sampling proposal and should send the formal request for review no less than three to five months prior to the desired sampling date.

The Smithsonian Conservation Analytical Laboratory and the Anthro-pology Conservation Laboratory have determined that the introduction of chemicals from casting of objects and elements can be detrimental to the integrity and preservation of the NMNH collections. Therefore, a researcher wanting to make casts of elements or materials (e.g., dental casting or cra-nial endocasts) must submit a proposal of their work to be reviewed though the sampling request forms. This review allows the Conservation Laboratory to assess the type of commercial or special materials to be used for casting

2320.indb 177 4/9/08 3:10:49 PM

178 david r. Hunt

and the technique to be conducted by the researcher. The Conservation Laboratory may offer suggestions for alternative casting products or tech-niques for the implementation of the casting. Researchers should anticipate a lag time in this review; they should submit request no less than two to four months for review before planning the visit for casting.

Accommodations

The Smithsonian cannot directly endorse any specific accommodations due to legal and conflict of interest issues. There are a few independent and nationally recognized hotels within close walking distance from the Natural History Building, but not a large selection. The cost of accommodations can range greatly among these hotels and availability will be dictated by the sea-son (be especially aware of the Cherry Blossom Festival in late March/early April, July 4th, Memorial Day, or other major holidays). There are numerous hotels near Metro stations on the Metro Line. Consult your travel agency or Web sites for information.

For researchers seeking longer term accommodations, there are a few hostels in the Dupont Circle area of northwest Washington, D.C., that have affordable housing, and during school breaks The George Washington Uni-versity, Georgetown University, American University, and Catholic Univer-sity often make dorm rooms available for leasing.

Acknowledgments

I gratefully acknowledge the direction from and interviews with Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, whose published references and personal knowledge provided a significant part of this article. I also acknowledge the historical research and interviews from Dr. Donald Ortner, who has personally experienced the last 40-plus years of change in the Division of Physical Anthropology. And an acknowledgment should be given to Dr. Lucile St. Hoyme for her personal accounts of life and work in the Department of Anthropology from 1939 until her death in 2001. I also thank Marilyn London for editorial comments.

ReferencesAngel, J. L. 1976. Colonial to modern skeletal changes in the USA. American Journal

of Physical Anthropology 45:723–735.Buikstra, J. E., and D. H. Ubelaker. 1994. Standards for data collection from human

skeletal remains. Arkansas archeological survey research series no. 44. Fayette-ville: Arkansas Archeological Survey.

2320.indb 178 4/9/08 3:10:49 PM


Frohlich, B., N. Bazarsad, D. R. Hunt, and B. Batbold. 2005. Human mummified remains from the southern Gobi Desert. Preliminary report on the finds of ten executed individuals dating to the end of the great Mongolian Empire. Pro-ceedings of the 5th World Conference on Mummy Studies, Universita degli Studi di Turino, Turino, Aitalia.

Frohlich B., A. B. Harper, and R. Gilberg. 2002. To the Aleutians and beyond. National Museum Ethnographic Series 20. Department of Ethnology, National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, 137–167.

Grisbaum, G., and D. H. Ubelaker. 2001. An analysis of forensic anthropology cases submitted to the Smithsonian Institution by the Federal Bureau of Investiga-tion from 1962 to 1994. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 45.

Hrdlička, A. 1897. The medico-legal aspect of the case of Maria Barbella (with anthropometric data on twenty Calabrian women). State Hospital Bulletin, NY II:231–299.

Hrdlička, A. 1939. Practical anthropometry. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute of Anat-omy and Biology.

Hrdlička, A. 1944. The anthropology of Kodiak Island. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology.

Hunt, D. R., and J. Albanese. 2005. The history and demographic composition of the Robert J. Terry Anatomical Collection. American Journal of Physical Anthro-pology 127:406–417.

Hunt D. R., R. T. Koritzer, and M. L. Powell. 2006. Invisible hands: Women in bio-archeology. XVI. Lucile St. Hoyme (1924–2001). In J. E. Buikstra and L. A. Beck (eds.): Bioarcheology: The contextual analysis of human remains . Boston: Academic Press, 177–184.

Kelley, J. O., and J. L. Angel. 1987. Life stress of slavery. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 74:199–211.

Krogman, W. M. 1939. A guide to the identification of human skeletal material. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 8:3–31.

McKern, T. W., and T. D. Stewart. 1957. Skeletal age changes in young American males. Natick, MA: Quartermaster research and Development Center. Envi-ronmental Protection Research Division; Report No. EP-45.

National Museum of Natural History Annual Report 2005. 2005. Extraordinary team of experts unravels coffin mystery. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Insti-tution, 7.

Ortner, D. J. 2003. Identification of pathological conditions in human skeletal remains. Boston: Academic Press.

Ortner, D. J., and G. J. Putschar. 1985. Identification of pathological conditions in human skeletal remains. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 28. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Owsley, D. W., H. E. Berryman, K. S. Bruwelheide, D. R. Hunt, T. W. Stafford, Jr., C. W. Smith, and J. C. Chatters. 2006. Kennewick man: Nowhere near the last word. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 12:371.

Owsley, D. W., D. H. Ubelaker, M. M. Houck, K. L. Sandness, W. E. Grant, E. A. Craig, T. J. Woltanski, and N. Peerwani. 1995. The role of forensic anthropol-ogy in the recovery and analysis of Branch Davidian compound victims: Tech-niques of analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40(3):341–348.

2320.indb 179 4/9/08 3:10:49 PM

180 david r. Hunt

St. Hoyme, L. E., and M. Y. Ïşcan. 1989. Determination of sex and race: Accuracy and assumption. In M. Y. Ïşcan and K. A. R. Kennedy (eds.): Reconstruction of life from the skeleton. New York: Alan R. Liss, 53–93.

Sledzik, P. S., and D. R. Hunt. 1997. Disaster and relief efforts at the Hardin Cem-etery. In D. A. Poirier and N. F. Bellantoni (eds.): In remembrance: Archaeology and death. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey, 185–198.

Snow, C. C. 1973. Forensic anthropology. In A. Redfield (ed.): Anthropology beyond the university. Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, No.7. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 4–17.

Spencer, F. 1997. Aleš Hrdlička (1869–1943). In F. Spencer (ed.): History of physi-cal anthropology: An encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1:503–505.

Stewart, T. D. 1940. The life and writings of Dr. Aleš Hrdlička (1869–1943). Ameri-can Journal of Physical Anthropology 26:3–40.

Stewart, T. D. 1953. Research in human identification. Science 118(3061):3.Stewart, T. D. 1970. Personal identification in mass disasters. Washington, D.C.:

Smithsonian Institution.Stewart, T. D. 1979. Essential of forensic anthropology, especially as developed in the

United States. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.Thompson, D. D. 1982. Forensic anthropology. In F. Spencer (ed.): A history of Amer-

ican physical anthropology, 1930–1980. New York: Academic Press, 357–369.Ubelaker, D. H. 1978. Human skeletal remains. (1st Edition). Washington, D.C.:

Taraxacum.Ubelaker, D. H. 1989. J. Lawrence Angel, 1915–1986. American Antiquity 54:5–8.Ubelaker, D. H. 1990. J. Lawrence Angel and the development of forensic anthropol-

ogy in the United States. In J. E. Buikstra (ed.): A life in science: Papers in honor of J. Lawrence Angel. Kampsville, IL: Center for American Archeology, 191–200.

Ubelaker, D. H. 1999a. Human skeletal remains. (Third Edition). Washington, D.C.: Taraxacum.

Ubelaker, D. H. 1999b. Aleš Hrdlička’s role in the history of forensic anthropology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 44:724–730.

Ubelaker, D. H. 2000. The forensic anthropology legacy of T. Dale Stewart. Journal of Forensic Sciences 45:245–252.

Ubelaker, D. H., and D. R. Hunt. 1995. The influence of William M. Bass on the development of American forensic anthropology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40:729–734.

Ubelaker, D. H., and E. B. Jones. 2003. Human remains from Voegtly Cemetery, Pitts-burgh, Pennsylvania. Smithsonian Contribution to Anthropology 46. Washing-ton, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Ubelaker, D. H., D. W. Owsley, M. M. Houck, E. Craig, W. Grant, T. Woltanski, R. Fram, K. Sandness, and N. Peerwani. 1995. The role of forensic anthropology in the recov-ery and analysis of Branch Davidian compound victims: Recovery procedures and characteristics of the victims. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40(3):335–340.

2320.indb 180 4/9/08 3:10:50 PM

181

The Louisiana State University (LSU) Forensic Anthropology and Computer Enhancement Services (FACES) Laboratory

Mary H. ManHein, n. eileen BarroW, and ginesse a. listi

Introduction

The Forensic Anthropology Laboratory at Louisiana State University (LSU) opened in 1980. Its mission was to aid law enforcement agencies in the posi-tive identification and field recovery of human remains. Over the past 25-plus years, LSU anthropologists have assisted with more than 1000 forensic cases, including three major fires and explosions at industrial sites.

Since 1987, under the direction of Mary H. Manhein, the laboratory’s mission has expanded to include research, educational activities, and addi-tional public service work. In 1993, an imaging unit was added and the lab became known as FACES (Forensic Anthropology and Computer Enhance-ment Services). At that time, collaboration with the National Center for Miss-ing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) made it possible for the forensic artist on staff to receive special training in computer-assisted age progression.

Currently, the FACES Laboratory has a staff of five full-time anthropolo-gists and one part-time imaging specialist. The physical plant of the laboratory includes 2 wet labs with 5 fume hoods, a computer laboratory, a bioarchae-ology laboratory, a faunal comparative collection representing more than 35

9

Contents

Introduction .........................................................................................................181Facial Reconstruction ........................................................................................ 183Age Progression .................................................................................................. 183Photograph and Video Enhancement ............................................................. 186Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 188References ............................................................................................................ 193

2320.indb 181 4/9/08 3:10:50 PM

182 Mary H. Manhein, n. eileen Barrow, and ginesse a. listi

species of animals, and secure curation space for more than 100 active and inactive forensic cases (many of which are donations). The two wet labs contain state-of-the-art forensic equipment including, among others, a body cooler, a specimen freezer, an x-ray machine and film developer, various light micro-scopes, a Nomad (portal x-ray unit) and DEXIS for digital dental imaging, and a Leica motorized stereomicroscope system with Image Pro Plus and In-Focus software for extended depth of field at high magnifications. Also, the labora-tory’s location in the heart of the LSU campus places us in close proximity to scanning microscopy (SEM) labs, the Human Ecology Lab (textiles), and the Agronomy, Chemistry, Entomology, and Geology Departments.

Another important resource for our laboratory has been our collabora-tion for more than 20 years with the LSU Health Sciences Center’s Dental School in New Orleans, specifically Drs. Robert Barsley and Ronald Carr. Their expertise has had a significant impact on our ability to positively iden-tify persons in a timely manner.

In terms of education, the Department of Geography and Anthropology at LSU (in which the FACES Laboratory is domiciled) offers both a BA and an MA in anthropology. By emphasizing the four-field approach, our MA program pro-vides students with a solid education grounded in anthropological theory. Also, students who attend LSU for their MA in anthropology have every opportunity to get hands-on training in forensic anthropology if they choose. Over the years, thesis research has focused on a wide variety of topics, which have included col-laboration with departmental geographers in crime mapping using geographic information system (GIS), human protein studies, bioarcheological analysis of human remains from historic and prehistoric contexts, research projects ori-ented toward establishing biological origin, and many others.

In 2006, the FACES Lab added a new dimension to its work when the Loui-siana State Legislature passed House Bill No. 1140. This law (R.S. 15:561-662) established the FACES Lab as the Louisiana Repository for Unidentified and Missing Persons Information Program. The funding attached to this statute has allowed the lab to begin the development of a database of biological and DNA profiles on all persons who are unidentified in Louisiana and all of those who are missing from Louisiana. This endeavor is a collaboration between the FACES Lab and the North Louisiana Crime Laboratory where the DNA analysis is done. Currently, the unidentified persons who have been placed in the biological and DNA databases total more than 75. The missing persons portion of the database totals more than 300. Many of the missing persons cases are from outside the state of Louisiana and as yet do not have DNA profiles from family members.

Though the major portion of our work has been in traditional biological profiling and identification of human remains, over the last 15 years, our imag-ing unit has provided clay facial reconstructions, in-house age progressions, and photo and video enhancements to aid law enforcement agencies in solving cases of missing and unidentified persons and in capturing fugitives.

2320.indb 182 4/9/08 3:10:50 PM

the lsu Faces laboratory 183

Facial Reconstruction

Research at the FACES laboratory has provided new data to assist with some troubling issues in forensic imaging. One such project used ultrasound to measure tissue thickness on the faces of modern living children and adults (Manhein et al. 2000). By providing new information at previously unknown points, such as lateral eye orbit and mid-mandible, as well as updating infor-mation at traditional points, new standards have been developed. These stan-dards have been applied in recent facial reconstructions. Continuing research into facial tissue depths (Dumont 1986; Garlie and Saunders 1999; Hodson et al. 1985; Rhine and Campbell 1980; Rhine and Moore 1982; Wilkinson et al. 2003; Williamson et al. 2002) will assist in refining this traditional for the resolution of unidentified remains. Currently, research at the FACES Lab includes a master’s thesis on tissue depth measurements of Chinese Ameri-cans (Chan 2007) and a summer 2007 project in Canada to collect tissue depth data on Canadian Native Americans using ultrasound technology (Peckmann 2007).

The following examples define two cases where facial reconstructions were completed at the FACES Laboratory and positive identifications were made. Figures 9.1a and 9.1b demonstrate a facial reconstruction that was completed in 1997, and the image of the victim who was positively identified in 1999. In the second case (Figures 9.2a and 9.2b), the facial reconstruction was first publicized in 2000, then republicized in 2003, after which a positive identification was made.

The third facial reconstruction represents a cold case from St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. FACES anthropologists exhumed the body of a young, white female who was murdered in 1986 and buried as a Jane Doe. The exhu-mation was requested because of a potential identification; however, dental records did not match. At the time of publication, this case remains unidenti-fied. Figure 9.3 represents the computer enhanced clay facial reconstruction of the unidentified female.

Age Progression

Another imaging method useful in a forensic application is computer-assisted age progression. This technique can be applied to cases of missing children and adults. Photographs of the missing individual are scanned and manip-ulated to produce the age-appropriate image. The following cases provide examples of the broad spectrum in which this method can be used.

In the first example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) requested assistance from FACES Laboratory personnel in updating a photograph of an alleged felon who had been missing for 20 years. Figures 9.4a and 9.4b are

2320.indb 183 4/9/08 3:10:50 PM


Figure 9.1b photo of victim positively identified from reconstruction (Figure 9.1a).

Figure 9.1a Facial reconstruction of an unidentified victim.

2320.indb 184 4/9/08 3:10:51 PM


Figure 9.2a Facial reconstruction of an unidentified victim.

Figure 9.2b photo of victim positively identified from reconstruction (Figure 9.2a).

2320.indb 185 4/9/08 3:10:51 PM


of the subject and his age-progressed image. The age progression was used to aid in his apprehension. Figure 9.5 is his mug shot at the time of his arrest.

The second case involves a child who had been missing for two years. In an effort to republicize this case, local detectives asked for assistance in producing an age-enhanced image of the child. Figures 9.6a and 9.6b show the child at two years of age and then progressed to four. At time of this publication, the child has not been found. Extensive and long-term publicity in such instances is crucial to the possible recovery of a missing child.

Age progression can also be used in cases involving historical or contem-porary figures. In 2003, FACES Laboratory personnel created an age progres-sion of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy to coincide with the anniversary of his death. Figure 9.7a is a photograph of the president in his forties; Fig-ure 9.7b shows him age-progressed approximately 40 years. The image was published in the New York Post (Gorta 2003).

Photograph and Video Enhancement

The following two cases illustrate a third type of imaging handled at the FACES Laboratory. The first example shows a photograph taken from a convenience

Figure 9.3 computer-enhanced clay facial reconstruction of a Jane doe.

2320.indb 186 4/9/08 3:10:51 PM


Figure 9.4b the age-progressed image of the felon (above).

Figure 9.4a photo of a felon missing for 20 years.

2320.indb 187 4/9/08 3:10:52 PM


store security camera video tape. The distorted image shows the perpetrator during an armed robbery. Figure 9.8a is the original image; Figure 9.8b is the enhanced image. Figure 9.8c is the perpetrator after capture.

In the second case, the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) agency asked for help in clearing up a video of a suspected arsonist. Figure 9.9a is the freeze frame image of the suspect; Figure 9.9b is the enhanced image. Figure 9.9c is the perpetrator, who confessed to setting more than 30 fires.

Conclusion

Though traditional forensic cases continue to represent the majority of public service work handled by the FACES Lab, the FACES imaging unit has experi-enced tremendous success since its inception and now receives requests from across the country. The previously cited examples are a representative sample of imaging cases handled during the past decade. The science underlying the creative process is the basis upon which the images are built; however, the most accurate likeness works only if the right person sees the image.

Figure 9.5 the mug shot of the felon (Figure 9.4a) at his arrest.

2320.indb 188 4/9/08 3:10:52 PM


Figure 9.6a photo of a missing two-year-old child.

Figure 9.6b the age-progressed image of the child (above), portraying him at age four.

2320.indb 189 4/9/08 3:10:52 PM


Figure 9.7a photo of president John F. kennedy in his forties.

Figure 9.7b president John F. kennedy as he might have looked 40 years later.

2320.indb 190 4/9/08 3:10:53 PM


Figure 9.8a the distorted image of an armed robbery perpetrator from a conve-nient store video camera.

Figure 9.8b the enhanced image of a photo from a convenient store security camera (Figure 9.8a).

Figure 9.8c the perpetrator (Figures 9.8a and 9.8b) photographed after her capture.

2320.indb 191 4/9/08 3:10:53 PM


Figure 9.9b the enhanced image of a suspected arsonist (Figure 9.9a).

Figure 9.9a the distorted image of a suspected arsonist lifted from a video.

2320.indb 192 4/9/08 3:10:53 PM


ReferencesChan, W. N. J. 2007. In vivo facial tissue depth study of adult Chinese-Americans in

New York City. Master’s thesis. Louisiana State University.Dumont, E. R. 1986. Mid-facial tissue depths of white children: An aid in facial fea-

ture reconstruction. Journal of Forensic Sciences 31(4):1463–1469.Garlie, T. N., and S. R. Saunders. 1999. Midline facial tissue thicknesses of sub-

adults from a longitudinal radiographic study. Journal of Forensic Sciences 44(1):61–67.

Gorta, W. J. 2003. “Here’s JFK at 86: Cyber image 40 years later,” New York Post, November 21, 9.

Hodson, G., L. S. Lieberman, and P. Wright. 1985. In vivo measurements of facial tissue thicknesses in American caucasoid children. Journal of Forensic Sci-ences 30(4):1100–1112.

Manhein, M. H., G. A. Listi, R. E. Barsley, R. Musselman, N. E. Barrow, and D. H. Ubelaker. 2000. In vivo tissue depth measurements for children and adults. Journal of Forensic Sciences 45(1):48–60.

Peckmann, T. R. 2007. Utilizing ultrasound technology to measure facial tissue thickness in Canadian Aboriginal populations. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 13:191.

Rhine, J. S., and H. R. Campbell. 1980. Thickness of facial tissues in American blacks. Journal of Forensic Sciences 25:847–58.

Figure 9.9c the suspected arsonist (Figures 9.9a and 9.9b) after his arrest.

2320.indb 193 4/9/08 3:10:54 PM


Rhine, J. S., and C. E. Moore. 1982. Tables of facial tissue thicknesses of American caucasoids in forensic anthropology. Albuquerque, NM: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Technical Series No. 1.

Wilkinson, C. M., M. Motwani, and E. Chiang. 2003. The relationship between the soft tissues and the skeletal detail of the mouth. Journal of Forensic Sci-ences 48(4):728–732.

Williamson, M. A., S. P. Nawrocki, and T. A. Rathbun. 2002. Variation in midfacial tissue thickness of African-American children. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47(1):25–31.

2320.indb 194 4/9/08 3:10:54 PM

195

The Working Forensic Anthropology Laboratory

HeatHer WalsH-Haney, laurel Freas, and MicHael Warren

Over the course of this book, the astute reader will have noticed several com-mon themes emerge from the practices of the forensic anthropologists writ-ing herein and from the operations of their respective laboratories. These laboratories are disparate in scope and context, yet are identical in their mis-sion to identify the deceased and illuminate the circumstances of their death, and in so doing, to preserve or restore their human dignity. In each of these laboratories, there is a necessary emphasis on quality control and uniformity of practice. This consistency of operation is governed, in each laboratory, by formal lab-specific standard operating procedures and informal routine pro-tocols, and is achieved through the consistent application of standardized methodologies and thorough documentation of all aspects of the analytical process. Within the practice of each laboratory, there is the recurrent need to handle sensitive and emotionally charged issues—issues which, more often than not, have profound ethical and moral implications as well—with tact,

10Contents

Laboratory Description ..................................................................................... 197Laboratory Space and Personnel ............................................................ 198Receipt of Remains ................................................................................... 199Bone Preparation ...................................................................................... 201Specimen Labeling ................................................................................... 203Skeletal Inventory ..................................................................................... 204Data Recording Forms ............................................................................. 205Radiography .............................................................................................. 205Photography .............................................................................................. 208Case Disposition ....................................................................................... 208Safety Concerns ........................................................................................ 209

Conclusion ...........................................................................................................211References ............................................................................................................ 212

2320.indb 195 4/9/08 3:10:54 PM

196 Heather Walsh-Haney, laurel Freas, and Michael Warren

Heather Walsh-Haney, laurel Freas, and Michael Warren

grace, and aplomb, for the sake of all those concerned, be they the family of a homicide victim, the defendant on trial, the survivors of a mass disaster, or a Native American group seeking the repatriation of their ancestors’ remains. Above all else, forensic anthropologists are providing a service, rendered not only to the medicolegal system, but to the broader community as a whole. All of the work which has been detailed in this volume—each case that is ana-lyzed, each field recovery that is executed, each segment of expert testimony that is provided, each individual that is identified—results in the gaining of additional knowledge and experience, which is of immeasurable value to the disposition of future cases.

This volume represents a survey of some of the most respected and pro-ductive forensic anthropology laboratories in the United States. The labo-ratories represented in this book share one primary mission—to conduct osteological analyses in order to identify the remains of unknown individu-als, establish time since death, and detect trauma or pathology for both crim-inal and civil legal authorities. However, a secondary, but no less important, mission of a university-based laboratory is the education of students who will become the next generation of forensic practitioners and researchers. A department’s graduate students, especially those whose primary interests are forensic identification and trauma analysis, benefit from an active role in all phases of the laboratory’s casework, from field recoveries to analysis and documentation to generation of the final report. Many faculty members use a mentor–apprentice approach to their training of graduate students: mac-eration, skeletal inventories, analytical methods and theory, radiography and photography, documentation protocols, and general lab operations are learned by working closely with the faculty and more experienced gradu-ate students at the lab. As the students’ proficiency and experience increase, so too does the scope of their involvement in the processing and analysis of individual cases.

The very nature of the laboratory’s work inhibits, to a degree, the ability of the lab’s faculty and students to carry out research on the skeletal remains handled therein. Any research protocol involving human remains is subject to rigorous scrutiny by institutional review boards, and there are further ethical constraints preventing active research projects using forensic cases. However, a standardized body of data is collected during each investigation in order to accomplish the goals of personal identification and detection of trauma; institutional review permits the use of existing data, collected as part of the laboratory’s standard operating procedures, for research that furthers the goals and mission of the laboratory. Above all, forensic anthropologists do not do “experiments” on the human remains they examine!

Educational efforts also extend to lay persons. Indeed, educational out-reach permits the transparent dissemination of the forensic anthropologist’s scientific methods and theories that, in turn, allow for accountability to both

2320.indb 196 4/9/08 3:10:54 PM

the Working Forensic anthropology laboratory 197

peers and the public. Through scientific transparency and accountability, forensic anthropologists inevitably better the field by:

Sharing their knowledge with a broad range of practitioners which •helps to ensure responsible scientific conduct for all parties.Inspiring new methods, theories, and technologies.•Acquiring more casework as the field becomes more respected.•Promoting stringent standards and impartial science.•Providing each stakeholder the opportunity to make informed decisions.•

By continually striving for and meeting the scientific missions above, forensic anthropology will continue to be recognized as a legitimate scientific field that may provide the forensic expertise and evidence to the courtroom standards of Frye and Daubert, respectively. (Chapters 1 and 7 discuss the admissibility of scientific evidence and expert witness testimony.)

This chapter will detail the day-to-day operations of a typical human identification laboratory. Though the inner workings of practicing forensic anthropology laboratories are well known to the faculty, staff, and gradu-ate students who work there, this knowledge is often passed from mentor to student as an oral tradition and has rarely, if at all, been put to paper (unlike specific policies and procedures; see Chapter 4). It is our hope that, in doing so here, this chapter will prove to be a useful resource, not just for the faculty and students, but also for other interested readers.

Laboratory Description

The forensic anthropology laboratory is the site that defines the level of sci-entific skill and research potential that resides within its walls. The success therein depends upon the ability to create a facility that is safe and secure for the evidence and research materials, staff, students, public, and colleagues. True forensic anthropology laboratories are far different than the gleaming, backlit studio sets featured in the popular media. The bulk of work in foren-sic anthropology is relatively low-tech and, in most cases, lacks the glamour often associated with scientific crime fighting.

Any forensic laboratory must be secured so that access can be limited to a known set of individuals. The National Institute of Justice recommends that security measures include a sign-out log or badging system that records who is coming and going from the various secure areas within the labora-tory. Other security measures include an alarm system with motion detec-tors, duress alarm, and windows with reflective glazing to prohibit public view. The question of laboratory access will certainly arise in testimony, and

2320.indb 197 4/9/08 3:10:54 PM



an expert who cannot accurately recount who had access to the evidence will have a difficult time on the witness stand.

Laboratory Space and Personnel

Depending upon start-up packages and the stability of external funding, lab-oratory space and numbers of personnel vary between and within academic, federal and state, and private settings. Needless to say, laboratory space is a coveted commodity, so it is a lucky forensic anthropologist indeed that is pro-vided sufficient space to process and examine skeletal cases. A basic forensic anthropology laboratory would include office space for faculty, administra-tion, and students, conference room for meetings and depositions, restrooms, locker rooms, wet and dry bench space for the preparation and analysis of remains, storage space for case files and other pertinent documentary items (photographs, radiographs) and for curated skeletal remains, and additional storage space for recovery and analytical equipment. Some might also have a separate room devoted to radiography and photography. Laboratories with an educational mission may also have classroom or conference space nearby. Importantly, office, conference room, and other nonlaboratory spaces should allow employee access without traveling through the potentially hazardous wet and dry laboratory space.

The main work area should have enough bench space to allow several cases to be placed in anatomical position, so that each individual’s remains can be considered as a whole, a proper inventory taken, and the entire case photographed at one time. The National Institute of Justice and the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors recommend 15 linear feet of wet or dry bench space, per analyst. Floor space should accommodate sinks, fume hoods, biological safety cabinets, refrigeration, chemical storage, secure stor-age units for instrumentation and field gear, as well as shelving for manuals.

Personnel include scientific staff or faculty, administrative staff, volun-teers, interns, and visiting researchers or scholars, and in the case of univer-sity-based laboratories, graduate and undergraduate students. In the case of the latter, the majority of the graduate students who work in forensic anthro-pology laboratories tend to do so in a volunteer capacity, laboratory work constituting only one facet of their graduate training. Each semester, one or two graduate students may be assigned to the laboratory as research assis-tants, which often provides them with a waiver of tuition and a small stipend. Although all graduate students participate in all aspects of the laboratory’s case work and daily operations, students assigned as research assistants may have extra duties, such as looking after a particular area of the laboratory (e.g., the photography room) or performing a recurrent task such as auto-claving the lab’s biohazardous waste and restocking the personal protective equipment.

2320.indb 198 4/9/08 3:10:54 PM


Some forensic anthropology programs rely on a small cadre of gradu-ate students to assist with casework. Others assign cases to the graduate students on a rotating basis, also taking into account the demands of each individual case and the student’s level of experience and proficiency with dif-ferent aspects of the analytical protocol. In every case, students should work under direct and close supervision by faculty. Masters-level students “earn their stripes” by working on cases involving archeological remains and nonhuman bones. They also gain critical experience along the way by assist-ing the doctoral students and faculty with many aspects of the processing, documentation, and analysis of forensic cases. It would be highly undesirable for an inexperienced student to be served a subpoena to testify in a homicide case, however, it is a vital part of a graduate student’s professional develop-ment to be instructed in courtroom testimony during their doctoral studies.

Receipt of Remains

Because maintaining the chain of evidence is of utmost importance in all forensic investigations and because every step of the analysis of a given case may come under scrutiny during trial, the documentation for each case must be carefully tracked, from the time of receipt to the time of release of the remains. Upon the receipt of each new case, a set of standardized documen-tary protocols should be put into action, in order to track the case’s progress through the various stages of processing and analysis within the lab. These protocols must be adhered to without deviation, and therefore provide an important touchstone for monitoring the status of individual cases as they pass through the facility.

The first step in documenting each case is to assign it a unique case num-ber. For example, case numbers may comprise an alphanumeric code indicat-ing the month, year, and the order within each given month in which the case was received. This system not only allows for easy tracking of caseload trends, but also facilitates the recall of old cases, since it is fairly easy to remember what time of year a particular case was handled, and then to zero in on the exact case number from there. This number, along with a brief description of the case material, the referring medical examiner district or law enforcement agency, and that agency’s own case number are recorded in the case logbook. The logbook stands as an official record of all nonprivate cases handled by the laboratory, as well as a ready reference when looking up past cases. The logbook also serves as a historical document of sorts, recording the number and types of cases handled by the laboratory. A certain amount of discretion and circumspection is important when entering cases into the case logbook, as this volume may be considered public record and thus open to public scru-tiny. Descriptions of cases that might seem insensitive or unprofessional if considered out of context should be avoided. It is also imperative to avoid

2320.indb 199 4/9/08 3:10:55 PM



the temptation of entering information about group characteristics based on hasty or initial impressions. Skeletal remains logged in as a male may, after further analysis, be determined to be female. If the case logbook is deemed by law to be public record, this innocent inconsistency may become a point of contention during the trial.

The case logbook may, of course, be a digital file. However, many find the old-fashioned ledger to be a quick and portable reference. If the case logbook is a physical ledger, a computer database file may be used in conjunction to record the same information; this format allows rapid keyword searches, facilitates the generation of summary reports, and enhances the ability to conduct demographic research. Following completion of the final report for each case, a variety of information about the individual is entered into this database, including demographic information, information about the presence of trauma, pathology, or individuating skeletal characteristics, and unique taphonomic information. One of the greatest benefits of this database is that it allows laboratory personnel to search the database for previous cases that present examples of different types of trauma or pathology, which may in turn be used to aid in the analysis and differential diagnosis of trauma and pathology in subsequent active cases.

Once the case is logged, a case file is created. The case file represents the work product of the forensic anthropology laboratory and contains all of the paperwork and documentation pertinent to the processing and analysis of a given case. Each file is organized in a folder labeled with the laboratory case number, the name of the referring law enforcement agency or medical exam-iner’s district, and that agency’s own case number. These numbers, as well as a brief description of the case, correspond precisely to the information noted in the logbook. All case files should be uniform and standard in their com-position. Consistency in format enables laboratory workers to immediately locate specific elements of the case file, and note any omissions or discrepan-cies. For example, all evidence receipts may be attached, in reverse chrono-logical order, to the front jacket of the folder, and the case summary form might be attached to the back jacket. The case summary form can be designed to collect these data necessary for year-end reports that are submitted to the American Board of Forensic Anthropology (ABFA) by its diplomates. Simi-larly, the computerized case logbook should include the same fields to facili-tate the acquisition of ABFA data necessary to maintain certification.

The case file contains all of the documents related to the case, including but not limited to:

Laboratory processing forms•Records of receipt and release of evidence•Phone messages•Newspaper clippings•

2320.indb 200 4/9/08 3:10:55 PM


Notes pertaining to skeletal analyses•Osteological reports•Skeletal inventories•Statistical output of metric analyses•Notice of stored remains or other evidentiary materials•Radiographs•Photographs and videos•

When analysis of the case is concluded, all documents within the case folder can be sorted in a specific order and permanently attached to the folder for storage.

Bone Preparation

Most forensic anthropology cases are skeletonized upon receipt—meaning that any soft tissue present would be minimal, perhaps only some mummi-fied tendons and ligaments. Fresh or decomposing remains examined require defleshing in preparation for osteological analysis. (Chapters 1 and 5 discuss alternative methods of skeletal preparation.)

The method of skeletal preparation depends on the amount of time avail-able, the condition of the specimen, and the type of facilities and equipment available (Fenton et al. 2003). While museums and medical supply companies find dermestid colonies the most efficient method to use in skeletal prepara-tion, most forensic anthropology laboratories forego the method because the time, money, and space requirements necessary to maintain the colony. A second consideration is the awkward task of describing, probably in front of family members of the deceased, how colonies of insects were used to eat soft tissue from the skeleton. Rather, a more controlled, tried-and-true method relies upon nothing more than water, high heat, and a little bit of elbow grease. Specifically, chemistry burners and scientific grade pots of various sizes may be used in order to precisely control heating and prevent hot spots within the pots. Disposable tooth brushes, chemistry stirrers (long, spatulate tools), hemostats, and experience are the key ingredients in the successful processing of skeletal remains. Most budding forensic anthropologists view this particu-lar chore as a rite of passage, as well as an excellent way to study the relation-ship of bones to surrounding soft tissue. A bonus for students is that they are often the first to find evidence of traumatic lesions during maceration.

A critical first step in the processing of skeletal remains is to take pre-maceration photographs and radiographs in order to document the condition of the remains, detect foreign bodies and projectiles, and identify pathologies or identifying features so care can be taken during the maceration process to preserve or further document these features. (Chapter 6 discusses the use of photography and radiography in more detail.) Indeed, the skeletal

2320.indb 201 4/9/08 3:10:55 PM



preparation process and some types of analyses are by nature destructive, thereby requiring as much documentation as possible before the preprocess-ing evidence is inevitably lost.

It is general practice to remove as much tissue from the body as possible before submerging it into water. When macerating a complete or nearly com-plete set of remains, the remains are disarticulated at the joint complexes of the neck, shoulder, hip, knee, and ankle using, scissors, hands, and occasion-ally scalpels. The pelvis may also be separated from the thorax between lum-bar vertebrae. Sometimes, only age indicators (pubic symphysis or sternal end of the right fourth rib) or areas of traumatic injuries will be harvested with a bone saw. Skeletal preparation notes should include the location of prepa-ration dismemberment areas, especially when sharp tools are used. Cheese cloth may be secured around the hands and feet during the maceration pro-cess to facilitate removal from pots and to ensure phalanges and sesamoids (elements that are notoriously difficult to side) are kept together. The skull tends to be placed in its own pot because it is usually the most skeletonized of all body parts, in keeping with the typical head-down skeletonization pat-tern. The rest of the remains are placed in pots, and the pots are filled with tepid water. Many practitioners (including the current authors) simply add water and set the burner to 350°, and the water is allowed to boil. (Chapters 2 and 5 discuss chemical maceration alternatives.)

This process may continue for hours or days depending upon the level of decomposition, the age and build of the individual, and whether the remains were professionally fixed (e.g., in preparation for burial), buried, mummi-fied, or submerged in water prior to maceration. Changing out the water in the pots at regular intervals—usually every day in a multiday maceration—facilitates the maceration process and is more effective at leaching fats from the bones. During the boiling process, it is important to monitor the material integrity of the skeletal elements, as they can rapidly become soft and eas-ily damaged if left in the water too long. The vertebral bodies, the sternum, distal femur, proximal tibia, and the large tarsals are good indicators of the overall material integrity of the remains. If these bones are found to be soft-ened, then all the remains should be removed from the pots and processed immediately, without further boiling, to prevent damage (Figure 10.1).

After maceration, most anthropologists manually clean the bones using nylon-bristled toothbrushes, hemostats, and nylon chemistry stirrers. If needed, a 1:10 solution of degreaser can be used. The degreaser is typically sprayed onto a brush (never directly onto the remains) and brushed onto the bone. This technique is especially effective for loosening and removing soft tissue from areas of muscle insertion. Running water and bowls containing water are necessary to clean brushes throughout the process. Then, the bones are rinsed thoroughly with tepid water and placed on an elevated drying rack for one to two days or until the remains are cool to the touch. At no time

2320.indb 202 4/9/08 3:10:55 PM


are they fixed or impregnated with any chemicals. Rather, any fat left in the bone helps maintain the bone’s integrity (both the Terry and Cobb collec-tions were curated in the same fashion).

Soft tissues that are removed during the maceration process are stored in transparent evidence bags and frozen. Hair, fabric, or other trace materials should be placed on white paper or plastic Petri dishes and stored in a refrig-erator. Ideally, all materials are returned to the medical examiner’s office, and to the family, along with the skeletal remains. Dirt and other debris that is contaminated with biological fluids should be put in freezer storage until the case is adjudicated or for up to one year.

Specimen Labeling

Every skeletal element should be labeled with the laboratory case number as soon as practicable. Indelible India ink and a fine point calligraphy stylus are used to mark each bone. Every effort is made to make the marks legible, but unobtrusive. Yet, the bones are marked in a predictable manner if the bone is present and intact. For example, ribs are labeled on their cranial surfaces (rib numbers 1–4), anterior surfaces (rib numbers 5–9), and visceral surfaces (rib numbers 10–12). The cranium may be consistently labeled on the occipi-tal as well as the left mandibular ascending ramus, and left lamina of each vertebrae of the mandible. Following standard specimen curation, neither joint surfaces nor areas of pathology or trauma are labeled (unless there is no alternative). Small fragments of bones, sesamoids, or lose teeth are placed in acid-free bags and then the bag is labeled. Proper labeling cannot be stressed

Figure 10.1 katie skorpinski and laurel Freas (background) macerating.

2320.indb 203 4/9/08 3:10:56 PM



enough because this procedure anticipates the inevitable courtroom ques-tion, “How do you know the bone in question belongs to this case? Don’t you have a large number of bones in your laboratory?” The answer to this ques-tion is simple: It is standard procedure to mark each bone with an identifying case number before it is placed in proximity to other cases (Figure 10.2).

Skeletal Inventory

A thorough skeletal inventory is essential for documenting the extent of recov-ery of the remains, recording receipt of remains, and discovery of anatomical anomalies to be documented and noted in the final osteological report. The first step in this process is to lay the skeleton out in anatomical position. Slen-der dowels may be used to unite vertebrae, and plastic trays used to prevent commingling of each hand and foot. Cork rings (e.g., chemistry flask holders) are suitable for cranial support while the case is active, but because they are not acid free, are unsuitable for permanent curation. The initial inventory is also a good time to note antemortem and perimortem trauma, postmortem damage, and skeletal pathology. Several standard inventory forms integrating these elements are available and most perform adequately. These forms allow for coding of specific conditions, such as present, fragmented, absent, ante-mortem change, perimortem change, or postmortem change. Buikstra and

Figure 10.2 nicolette parr labeling each bone with the case number.

2320.indb 204 4/9/08 3:10:56 PM


Ubelaker (1994) provide one of the most comprehensive inventory forms in Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Moore-Jansen, Ousley, and Jantz (1994) offer a similar form in Data Collection Procedures for Forensic Skeletal Material. Chapter 5 provides an additional form. A den-tal inventory chart may be provided as a part of the inventory form, or as a separate component within the case file. One of several dental charts may be used, including those provided in the above citations, as well as similar forms used for input into WinID- and CAPMI-type data programs. Dental forms used as part of missing persons databases should be kept relatively simple so interobserver error in notations do not lead to missed opportunities for iden-tification. An outstanding form of simple charting and dental pattern analy-sis is OdontoSearch, which can be found on the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC) Web site (see Chapter 4).

Data Recording Forms

Most measurement forms record the variables used for the Fordisc 2.0 forensic database program (Ousley and Jantz 1993, 1996), as found in Moore-Jansen, Ousley, and Jantz’s (1994) Data Collection Procedures for Forensic Skeletal Material. This measurement form strictly follows the fields found in the data-base program, thereby making data entry easier. Of course, other forms may be used—specifically, forms detailing a laboratory research protocol using unconventional measurements. Additional forms may be used to facilitate recording of nonmetric skeletal attributes, such as ancestry, sex, disease, and trauma notations.

Radiography

Radiography is one of the most important tools available to the forensic anthropologist. Comparison of antemortem to postmortem radiographs is one of the primary means of determining personal identification. Forensic anthropologists help in this endeavor, along with forensic odontologists and radiologists. But, to the forensic anthropologist, postmortem radiography also allows for the identification and subsequent differential diagnosis of many forms of bone trauma and pathology. And radiography is invaluable for finding foreign bodies in and around bone, such as ballistic projectiles, personal artifacts, or various environmental adherents. Most cases require a standard set of radiographs (Chapter 7 contains a detailed list). Radiographs of any skeletal element that may contain bullet wipe or evidence of sharp-force trauma or dismemberment are also requisite before and after macera-tion. As with all documents, each radiograph should include the case number and an indicator of right or left sides.

2320.indb 205 4/9/08 3:10:56 PM



Radiography plays an important role in research and in the field. Fluoros-copy has been used in human rights missions as an initial screening mecha-nism to assist in locating embedded projectiles in situ. Biplanar radiography, computerized tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) play an important role in case documentation and resolution. However, bipla-nar radiography—the type of radiography used most often in the practice of forensic identification and trauma analysis—is the focus of this discussion.

Most forensic anthropology laboratories either have an x-ray machine in-house, or have ready access to one. Radiography machines used in forensic work are usually one of two types—a portable clinical machine or a cabi-net-type specimen machine. The portable machines are common in medical examiner’s offices and are the same type used in clinical medicine. Many medical examiners use the radiology service of an affiliated hospital. There are several drawbacks to this type of machine. The first is the awkward size of the machine. It is a huge, lumbering piece of equipment that can be difficult to negotiate while on the move. The radiographs are often taken and processed by x-ray technicians who may be unfamiliar with the proper exposure set-tings required for dry bone, or even decomposing bodies. A secondary prob-lem is the unfortunate exposure of the technician to the sights and sounds of forensic anthropology, which can be quite distressing to professionals that prefer to work with the living. A final problem involves film quality. Techni-cians working with clinical portable x-ray machines tend to favor screened film cassettes. These cassettes are designed to minimize x-ray exposure to living patients. Radiology departments that occasionally radiograph pathol-ogy specimens may have unscreened cassettes available, but these cassettes alter the exposure times and settings significantly. The result is that many technicians prefer to use the screened cassettes with which they are famil-iar. An additional problem with portable x-ray machines is that they require the operator to be shielded with a lead apron or other protection. Exposure to x-rays are, of course, cumulative. This requires radiation monitoring devices—an added expense and one more worry in a field where exposure to hazardous materials is already a concern. A principal advantage of the por-table x-ray machine is the ability to take larger film sizes by altering the focal distance of the tube from the film plane. This makes it easier to approximate clinical views, such as standard abdominal and chest films.

Cabinet-type x-ray machines eliminate several of the problems noted above. It is a closed system that minimizes the operator’s exposure to x-rays but that allows them to expose the film while standing near the machine (Figure 10.3). Several safety features prevent operator exposure to x-rays by insuring that the door is tightly closed and remains closed while the film is being exposed. Yearly inspections ensure that these safeguards are in work-ing order, and monitor the use of the machine via review of the radiography log (e.g., a journal that indicates date, user, case number, exposure settings,

2320.indb 206 4/9/08 3:10:56 PM


and numbers of radiographs taken.) Upon completion of inspection, a license or certification is issued and must be displayed in clear view.

Since dry bone specimens are relatively consistent in mass and density, calculation of exposure settings is easily established in the laboratory. Set-tings are specific to each type of x-ray machine and type of film used. The radiography machine should be calibrated at set intervals in order to record any parallax distortions that may affect measurement and comparisons with antemortem radiographs. Calibration can be as simple as measuring a penny, radiographing it, and measuring the penny as depicted on the biplanar film. One unique advantage of radiographing nonliving subjects is that one can always do multiple exposures until the desired film is produced. The expense of the film is the mitigating factor for this type of trial-and-error approach.

The newest generation of digital x-ray equipment is most desirable. While the initial expense is significant, digital and computed radiography negates the need for darkroom space and the toxic chemicals required for developing and fixing plain film radiographs. Digital (DR) and computed (CR) also has an added advantage of eliminating the need for plain film storage, as well as facilitating teaching of radiology to students.

Figure 10.3 Melissa gold placing a skull into a Faxitron x-ray machine.

2320.indb 207 4/9/08 3:10:57 PM



Photography

Photography is a critical step in documenting skeletal remains, and every case should be photographed thoroughly. Standard photographs include six views of the cranium (vertex, base, left lateral, right lateral, frontal, occipital), both dental arcades, lateral and anterior views of the skull in the Frankfort Horizontal Plane (which can facilitate photographic superimposition, should antemortem photos become available), as well as photographs of any trau-matic defects, skeletal pathologies, and any unique morphology that might lead to an identification (Figure 10.4). These images are stored for use in legal proceedings and serve as a visual historical record of the laboratory’s cases. Archived photographs have, therefore, been a very important component of the teaching mission at university-based forensic anthropology laboratories.

Most forensic scientists have converted from plain film prints and slide transparencies to digital images. Digital photography solves several prob-lems related to storage of images. It is always possible to print hard copies of the images, record images to CD-ROM or DVD, and to backup image files in multiple locations. An added advantage is that digital photographs do not degrade over time like 35-mm slides or prints (Figure 10.5).

Case Disposition

Once the final report has been submitted, the consulting medical examiner provides directions as to the disposition of the remains. Cases in which the decedent has been identified are returned to the family as soon as possible via the medical examiner’s office and funeral home. If evidence is to be retained pending trial or later identification efforts, the medical examiner may choose

Figure 10.4 a forensic image with scale and (pseudo) case number.

2320.indb 208 4/9/08 3:10:57 PM


to have the forensic anthropology laboratory store the case, or if storage facil-ities exist at the medical examiner’s office, the remains may be sent back for curation. (Storing and archiving skeletal evidence was discussed in several of the preceding chapters, as was skeletal donation and Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act [NAGPRA].)

Safety Concerns

The primary safety risks confronting persons working in forensic anthropol-ogy labs are exposure to biohazardous/infectious substances and to hazardous chemicals (Galloway and Snodgrass 1998). The primary biohazardous concerns are occupational exposures to bloodborne pathogens (BBP)—especially HIV and hepatitis B and C viruses—contained in decomposing remains. Occupa-tional exposures are defined by the Occupational Health and Safety Adminis-tration (OSHA) as “any reasonably anticipated skin, eye, mucous membrane, or parenteral (i.e., puncture wounds, cuts, and abrasions) contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that may result from the performance of an employee’s duties.” When dealing with human remains and tissues, OSHA advocates the philosophy of “universal precautions” which states that “all human blood and certain human body fluids are treated as if known to be infectious for HIV, HBV, and other bloodborne pathogens,” regardless of the individual’s actual infection status (available at http://www.osha.gov). Other potentially infectious materials (OPIM) include: (1) Semen, vaginal secretions, cerebrospinal fluid, syn-ovial fluid, pleural fluid, pericardial fluid, peritoneal fluid, amniotic fluid, saliva in dental procedures, any body fluid that is visibly contaminated with blood, and all body fluids in situations where it is difficult or impossible to differentiate between

Figure 10.5 alicia lusiardo taking a close-up photograph.

2320.indb 209 4/9/08 3:10:57 PM



body fluids. (2) Any unfixed tissue or organ (other than intact skin) from a human (living or dead). In addition to blood, OPIM of particular relevance to forensic anthropologists are cerebrospinal fluid and synovial fluid, which may still be pres-ent in substantial quantities within the cranium and vertebral column, and in the joint capsules, respectively, of decomposing remains.

The “universal precautions” approach to occupational bloodborne patho-gen exposure management is a two-pronged approach, stipulating the use of both engineering controls and work practices within the lab to minimize the chance of exposure. Engineering controls which should be present in any forensic anthropology lab include biological safety cabinets with fume hoods and Plexiglas splashguards; sharps containers for disposal of used scalpel blades; designated hand washing sinks, eyewashes, and safety showers; and proper biohazard placarding of all potentially contaminated areas. Work practices include proper hand washing techniques; observing the division between “clean” and “contaminated” areas of the lab (i.e., office and class-room space versus wet and dry lab space); and the provisioning and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The use of PPE in the forensic anthro-pology lab depends upon the nature of the remains being handled. Partially decomposed remains have a higher biohazardous potential, and therefore demand the use of disposable lab coats and aprons, sleeve protectors, double-gloving using latex or nitrile gloves (vinyl gloves are not rated for protection against BBP), face masks, eye shields/safety glasses, and shoe covers during the handling of these remains. Macerated and dry skeletal remains, archaeo-logical, and historic remains have a much lower biohazardous potential, and may be handled wearing gloves alone. Note that engineering controls and work practices are meant to be complimentary, not mutually exclusive; that is, handling decomposing remains in a fume hood with a Plexiglas splash-guard does not obviate the need for facemasks and eye protection. Laboratory personnel should be trained annually on the use and maintenance of engi-neering controls and PPE, and on the proper course of action in the event of an occupational exposure to potentially infectious materials. Addition-ally, OSHA recommends that all laboratory personnel be vaccinated against hepatitis B, unless they explicitly object to immunization.

In general, the hazardous chemicals used in a forensic anthropology lab are few and relatively common: usually, cleaning supplies (i.e., bleach, degreasers, general purpose cleaning solutions for wiping down lab tables and work surfaces); glues and solvents used during reconstruction of skeletal ele-ments; and photography chemicals used to develop radiographs and photo-graphs. OSHA regulations require the establishment of a laboratory-specific Chemical Hygiene Plan, detailing the engineering controls and work prac-tices employed in the lab to minimize exposure to hazardous chemicals. The Chemical Hygiene Plan should also include a full inventory of all chemicals used in the laboratory, along with their accompanying Material Data Safety

2320.indb 210 4/9/08 3:10:57 PM


Sheets (MSDSs); these should be kept in a centralized location within the lab and made available to all lab personnel. MSDSs for all commercially avail-able chemicals can be obtained directly from the manufacturer, or are readily available at any of several Web sites (see http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/HAZCOM/msds.htm). To minimize the risk to personnel and property, personal protec-tive equipment, safety showers, eyewashes, and fire extinguishers should be within easy reach, and all staff should be familiar with their locations and operation. Additionally, a fireproof “flammables cabinet” should be available for the storage of combustible materials, such as alcohols, acetone, and other solvents. Laboratory personnel should be trained annually on the proper han-dling, storage and disposal of chemicals, and the prevention and management of chemical exposures and spills, per OSHA, EPA, and institutional guide-lines and regulations (29 CFR 1910.1450; available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10106).

Conclusion

This volume has showcased the organization and practices of several of the most active forensic anthropology/osteology laboratories and field opera-tions, as overseen by a number of highly esteemed professionals in this field. Considered collectively, their contributions to this text should make it clear that there is no single “right way” to set up a forensic anthropology laboratory. The structure, organization, and operation of each individual laboratory will necessarily differ in accordance with the unique circumstances of the labo-ratory’s location and physical space, financial resources, personnel, volume of casework, and, of course, its overall mission. This flexibility allows prac-titioners to set up their labs in a way that makes maximum use of available resources, and that is tailored to demands of their caseload and the require-ments of the jurisdiction(s) in which they operate. The working forensic labo-ratories across the country can provide a wealth of information, from the broadest procedural questions to the tiniest technical details, for anyone who is interested in understanding the work executed therein.

These chapters have also demonstrated that regardless of the particulars of a given laboratory’s scope of operations, it is of the utmost importance that each lab strive for firm standards of quality control and uniformity of prac-tice. These goals can be obtained by establishing and adhering to a clearly defined set of laboratory-specific standard operating procedures and proto-cols which govern the tracking, documentation, and analysis of the human skeletal remains which pass through the lab. These in turn will underpin the laboratory’s scientific and legal reputation and its accountability to the agencies and communities it serves. For these, above all else, are the forensic anthropology lab’s most valuable assets.

2320.indb 211 4/9/08 3:10:58 PM



ReferencesBuikstra, J. E., and D. H. Ubelaker. 1994. Standards for data collection from human

skeletal remains. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series 44.Fenton, T. W., W. H. Birkby, and J. Cornelison. 2003. A fast and safe non-

bleaching method for forensic skeletal preparation. Journal of Forensic Sciences 48(2):274–276.

Galloway, A., and J. J. Snodgrass. 1998. Biological and chemical hazards of forensic skeletal analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences 43(5):940–948.

Moore-Jansen, P. M., S. D. Ousley, and R. L. Jantz. 1994. Data collection procedures for forensic skeletal material. Report of Investigations No. 48. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Department of Anthropology.

Ousley, S. D., and R. L. Jantz. 2005. FORDISC 3.0: Personal computer forensic dis-criminant functions. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1996.

2320.indb 212 4/9/08 3:10:58 PM

213

Index

A

ABFA; See American Board of Forensic Anthropology

Accreditation ASCLD-Lab, 3 CIL, 58AFIS; See Automated Fingerprint

Identification SystemAFL; See University of Indianapolis

Archeology and Forensics Laboratory

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), 188American Board of Forensic Anthropology

(ABFA), 5, 200American Board of Forensic Odontology,

102American Board of Medical Legal Death

Investigators certification examination, 32

American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, 198

American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD-Lab), 3

AMM; See Army Medical MuseumAnthropology Research Facility (ARF),

7–21 aerial view of, 10 body donation program, 11–15 cadaver dogs, 17 Civil War era burial, 8 crime scenes, 19 decomposition research, 7, 16–18 demographic distribution of donations,

13 documentation of evidence, 19 donation eligibility, 14 donation numbers, 11 donation tag, 15 evidence security issues, 7 evolution of facility, 9–11 facility evolution, 9

facility taking form, 8–9 Forensic Anthropology Data Bank, 18 missed time-since-death estimate, 8 origination of donations, 12 prospects, 19–20 security of evidence security, 7, 8 skeletal research, 18 skeletonized donor, 16 stakeholder network, 19 time-since-death estimate, 8 training courses, 18–19 training session topics, 19 William M. Bass Donated Skeletal

Collection, 18, 20ARF; See Anthropology Research FacilityArmy Medical Museum (AMM), 118ASCLD-Lab; See American Society of

Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board

Asian tsunami, 107ATF; See Alcohol, Tobacco, and FirearmsAutomated Fingerprint Identification

System (AFIS), 41Autopsy(ies) anthropologist work on, 26 educational, 27 evidence acquired during, 33 photographs, 33 stations, TCME, 27 suite configuration of, 30 special procedures, 29 technicians, 33 use of as educational tool, 45

B

BBP; See Bloodborne pathogensBinder syndrome, 132Biplanar radiography, 206Bloodborne pathogens (BBP), 209Blunt force trauma, 41Bone

2320.indb 213 4/9/08 3:10:58 PM

214 index

blunt force trauma to, 41 case number labeling, 204 DNA sampling of, 51, 52 gunshot wounds through, 41 preparation method, 201 reconstruction, 40 trauma to, 39

C

Cadaver, photography of, 14Cadaver dogs, 17, 35, 77Chemical Hygiene Plan, 210CIL; See Joint POW/MIA Accounting

Command, Central Identification Laboratory

Civil War era burial, 8Cold case(s) facial reconstruction, 183 unidentified, 43Computerized tomography (CT), 206Coroners, legal responsibility of, 112Court rulings, 3CT; See Computerized tomographyCultural affiliation; See also National

Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution), Repatriation Osteology Laboratory

complexities of assessing, 136 definition of, 118 dentition and, 128

D

Data recording forms, 205Database(s) dental profiles, 56 DNA, unidentified persons in, 182 missing persons, dental forms used in,

205 reference, CIL, 62 unidentified persons, 44Daubert ruling, 4, 120, 131, 197Decomposition models, 17 odor chemistry of, 17 rate, 29

research, 7, 16 smells, 38 soft tissue, 87 systematic study of, 158Dental evidence, postmortem, 99Dental images, digital, 43Dental modifications, ROL documentation,

129Dental profiles, database of, 56Dental scoring form, 72Disaster Mortuary Operational Response

Team (DMORT), 98, 101, 160, 162Disaster Portable Morgue Unit (DPMU),

102, 103Disaster victim identification; See Mass

fatality incident morgueDMORT; See Disaster Mortuary

Operational Response TeamDNA analysis, 101 medical examiner room for, 29 technological limitations of, 101 cross-contamination, 110 databases, unidentified persons in, 182 identification, mass fatality incidents

and, 111 sample, cold storage of, 72 testing, CIL, 57Donation(s) eligibility, 14 forms, 13 numbers, ARF, 11 program, ARF, 11–15 tag, 15 Tennessee law providing for, 12Donor biological information provided by next-

of-kin, 14 skeletonized, 16DPMU; See Disaster Portable Morgue Unit

E

Evidence buried, 79, 84 chain of custody, 34 collection of, 2, 5, 19 dental, postmortem, 99 documentation of, 19 efficacy of, 4

2320.indb 214 4/9/08 3:10:58 PM

index 215

historical, ROL, 118–119 identification of at scene, 81 in situ, 83 inadmissible, 3 photographed, 36 probative value of, 4 provenience, 83 receipts, 200 room, AFL, 67 rules of, 4 security issues, 7, 8 sifting for, 36 skeletal, 4, 5, 82 -storage area, CIL, 50 technicians, 32, 33 trace, 29, 58Excavation grid, AFL, 86Expert witness(es) congressional hearings and, 1 forensic anthropologists as, 3 testimony evidence and, 4 rules of evidence and, 4

F

FAC; See Forensic Anthropology CenterFACES Laboratory; See Forensic

Anthropology and Computer Enhancement Services Laboratory, LSU

FBI; See Federal Bureau of InvestigationFBI-ERT; See Federal Bureau of

Investigation Emergency Response Teams

FDB; See Forensic Anthropology Data BankFederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 152,

183 cases, exclusive contact for, 157 Evidence Response Team, 34, 36 FACES photograph upgrade for, 183Federal Bureau of Investigation Emergency

Response Teams (FBI–ERT), 18Fingerprint(s) known, sources for, 42 specialist, decomposition cases and, 33Forensic anthropologist(s) collaborative role of, 1 as expert witnesses, 3 TCME, 26

Forensic anthropology American Board of Forensic

Anthropology, 5 caseload and legal considerations, 35 collection of skeletal evidence, 5 court rulings, 3 definition of, 1–6, 119 expert witnesses, 3, 4 Frye criterion, 4 graduate student training, 2 Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command,

1 laboratory accreditation, 3 laboratory protocols, 4 laboratory training, 2 major eras in development of, 150 practitioner-based training, 2 skeletal evidence, 4Forensic Anthropology Center (FAC), 7;

See also Anthropology Research Facility

Forensic Anthropology and Computer Enhancement Services (FACES) Laboratory, LSU, 181–194

age progression, 183–186 DNA database, 182 facial reconstruction, 183 in-house age progressions, 182 photograph and video enhancement,

186–188Forensic Anthropology Data Bank (FDB),

18Forensic anthropology laboratory, working,

195–212; See also Medical examiner setting, forensic anthropology laboratory in

bone preparation, 201–203 case disposition, 208–209 case documentation, 199 chain of evidence, 199 Chemical Hygiene Plan, 210 data collection, 196 data recording forms, 205 digital case logbook, 200 digital x-ray equipment, 207 education of lay persons, 196 knowledge sharing, 197 laboratory space and personnel, 198–199 lab-specific standard operating

procedures, 195 maceration, 202 mentor–apprentice approach, 196

2320.indb 215 4/9/08 3:10:58 PM

216 index

photography, 208 radiography, 205–207 radiography machine types, 206 receipt of remains, 199–201 safety concerns, 209–211 skeletal inventory, 204–205 specimen labeling, 203–204Forensic odontologist, TCME, 42Frye standard, 4, 197

G

Geotaphonomy, 87Global positioning system (GPS), 14, 80GPR; See Ground penetrating radarGPS; See Global Positioning SystemGround penetrating radar (GPR), 77

H

HHS; See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Homicide scenes, photographs taken at, 32Hurricane Katrina, 107

I

ILDs; See Interlandmark distancesIntegrated Law Enforcement Crime Scene

Training Program, 80Interlandmark distances (ILDs), 124

J

Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC), 1, 47

Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, Central Identification Laboratory (JPAC-CIL), 47–63

accreditation and quality assurance, 58–61

Arlington National Cemetery, 48 chain of custody document, 55 dental radiographs, 56

digital radiography, 53 dental remains, 55 DNA-sampling areas, 50 DNA testing, 57 evidence-storage area, 50 forensic dental staff, 54 historical background, 48–49 infrastructure, 49–53 laboratory manual, 59 OdontoSearch, 56 organization, 53–54 peer-reviewed reports, 57 preponderance of evidence, 54 process and procedures, 54–58 QA program multifaceted, 60 personnel-based, 61 proactive, 61 SOPs, 59 recovery team configuration, 54 reference databases, 62 research, 61–62 trace evidence, 58 U.S. Army Central Identification Unit,

49 walk-in morgue refrigerator, 50JPAC; See Joint POW/MIA Accounting

Command

L

Law enforcement AFL relationships with, 88 agency(ies) CIL consultation services available

to, 48, 62 evidence technicians, 33 rotation of personnel in, 44 specimens donated by, 74 investigations department and, 33 liaison with, 32, 45 search and recovery support to, 23 secondary examination requested by, 37 TCME anthropologist assistance to, 34 training, ARF, 19Louisiana State University (LSU), 181; See

also Forensic Anthropology and Computer Enhancement Services Laboratory, LSU

2320.indb 216 4/9/08 3:10:59 PM

index 217

M

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 206Maricopa County Forensic Science Center

(MCFSC), 28, 31Mass fatality incident morgue, 97–116 American Board of Forensic

Odontology, 102 antemortem information, 100, 107 aviation accidents, 112 common tissue, 101 condition of human remains, 100–109 federal and state mass fatality

response teams, 101–103 incident morgue, 103–109 coping strategies, 108 decedent identification, 97 decedent population, 99–100 disaster victim identification, 109 DMORT morgue, 104 DNA analysis, 101 DNA cross-contamination, 110 documentation, 107 family assistance center, 107 family assistance and related issues,

111–112 family demand for identification of

remains, 97 final anthropological review, 110 fragmented remains, 100–101 humanitarian concerns, 98 identification based on biological

attributes, 108 identification process, 100 incident morgue, 102 issues impacting recovery operations,

98–99 mass graves, 101 need for forensic specialties, 99 next-of-kin, 112 open population, 99 peer-support models, 109 postmortem dental evidence, 99 refrigerator trucks, 105 role of forensic anthropologist, 109–111 schematic representation of morgue

plan, 106 triage, 105, 106 trust, 97 victim identification, 111Mass fatality preparedness, 24

Material Data Safety Sheets (MSDSs), 210–211

MCFSC; See Maricopa County Forensic Science Center

Medical examiner setting, forensic anthropology laboratory in, 23–46

administrative staff, 32 American Board of Medical Legal

Death Investigators certification examination, 32

antemortem–postmortem comparison, 24

autopsy photographs, 33 autopsy suite configuration, 30 badge-access-only floor, 29 bone reconstruction, 40 cadaver dogs, 35 child abuse cases, 33 confidentiality issues, 35 contract employees, 31 decomposition rate, 29 decomposition smells, 38 duties of forensic anthropologist, 34–38 field recovery, 34–37 mechanisms of case assignment,

37–38 duties and staff, 31–34 evidence technicians, 32, 33 facilities, 26–31 FBI Evidence Response Team, 34, 36 field excavations, 35 fingerprint identification, 42 fingerprint specialist, 33 forensic technicians, 32 in-house lectures, 45 investigations department, 33 investigative assistance, 32 laboratory analysis of skeletal and

decomposing remains, 38–45 education of pathologists and law

enforcement, 44–45 maceration, 38–39 positive identification, 41–43 skeletal analyses, 39 trauma analyses, 40–41 unidentified cold cases, 43–44 line search, 35 major case morgue, 27 mass fatality preparedness, 24 medical investigators, 32 Missing Person’s Clearinghouse, 43

2320.indb 217 4/9/08 3:10:59 PM

218 index

mummification, 33 next-of-kin notifications, 33 pathologists, 32 records staff, 33 sharp force trauma, 41 toxicology staff, 33 unidentified persons search, 44 walk-in coolers, 29Medical examiners, legal responsibility of,

112Missing persons database, dental forms used in, 205 NCIC matching of, 3Missing Person’s Clearinghouse, 43Morgue, major case, 27MRI; See Magnetic resonance imagingMSDSs; See Material Data Safety Sheets

N

NAA; See National Anthropological Archives

NAGPRA; See Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

National Anthropological Archives (NAA), 152

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), 181

National Crime Information Computer (NCIC), 43

National Dental Image Repository (NDIR), 43

National Disaster Medical System (NDMS), 102

National Forensic Academy (NFA), 18National Institute of Justice, 197, 198National Museum of the American Indian

Act (NMAIA), 118National Museum of Natural History

(NMNH), 118; See also National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution), Division of Physical Anthropology; National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution), Repatriation Osteology Laboratory

National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution), Division of Physical Anthropology, 149–180

American immigrants, 174 ammonium nitrate bomb, 162 Angel, J. Lawrence, 155–157 Army identification methods, 154 Bruno Frohlich, 160–161 Civil War submarine, 159 Collection Review Committee, 177 consultant work, 156 division research and activities, 163–164 FBI contact, 157 forensic application of skeletal biology,

161–163 guidelines for handling procedures, 175 Hrdlička, Aleš, 151–153 Hunt, David R., 159–160 Oklahoma City bombing, 162 Owsley, Douglas W., 158–159 Physical Anthropology Division

collections, 164–178 access guidelines, 174–175 accommodations, 178 destructive sampling, 177–178 equipment and facilities, 176 listing of holdings, 165–173 photography, 176 radiography, 176–177 skeletal research techniques, 163 Stewart, T. Dale, 153–155 Ubelaker, Douglas H., 157–158 Vietnam conflict, 154 Waco incident, 161National Museum of Natural History

(Smithsonian Institution), Repatriation Osteology Laboratory, 117–147

additional resources, 135–136 age and sex, 123–124 back to sleep movement, 134 Battle of the Big Hole, 139 Binder syndrome, 132 caries-related tooth loss, 129 case studies, 136–143 Curly Head Jack, 140–141 Hawikku priest, 141–143 Nez Perce warrior, 138–139 “Sioux Giant,” 136–138 copper staining, 128 cranial deformation, 133

2320.indb 218 4/9/08 3:10:59 PM

index 219

cranial modification, 132–134 cultural affiliation and forensic

anthropology, 118–120 data entry main menu, 122 database entry, 121 dental modifications, 129 dentition, 128–129 destructive analysis, 135 digitizer, 125 discriminant function analyses, 137 documentation, 120, 124 Federal Rules of Evidence, 120 historical evidence, 118–119 Injun Joe, 138 inventory, 123 lab operations, 120–123 martyrs, 143 measurements, 124–126 nonmetric traits, 134 pathology data entry screen, 122 photographic and radiographic

documentation, 134–135 photography, 134–135 radiography, 135 plagiocephaly, 133 population demographic profiles, 124 postcranial metrics, 126 potentially known individual, 138 Pueblo Revolt of 1680, 141 rickets, 142 ROL, 130 scaphocephalic Indian, 130 scoliosis, 143 skeletal pathology, 130–132 standard for civil laws, 119–120 statistical techniques, 125 taphonomy, 126–128 tribal identity, 121 Works Progress Administration, 118National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB), 111Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 118Native Americans; See National Museum

of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution), Repatriation Osteology Laboratory

NCIC; See National Crime Information Computer

NCMEC; See National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

NDIR; See National Dental Image Repository

NDMS; See National Disaster Medical System

NFA; See National Forensic AcademyNMAIA; See National Museum of the

American Indian ActNMNH; See National Museum of Natural

HistoryNTSB; See National Transportation Safety

Board

O

OAFME; See Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner

Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), 209, 211

OdontoSearch, 56, 205Office of the Armed Forces Medical

Examiner (OAFME), 162OPIM; See Other potentially infectious

materialsOSHA; See Occupational Health and Safety

AdministrationOther potentially infectious materials

(OPIM), 209

P

Personal protective equipment (PPE), 210Photograph(s) autopsy, 33 FACES Laboratory, 186 homicide scene, 32 skeletal materials, 175Photography cadaver, 14 CIL, 54 digital, 72, 73 value of in Native American

consultations, 134Plagiocephaly, 133PPE; See Personal protective equipment

2320.indb 219 4/9/08 3:10:59 PM

220 index

Q

QA; See Quality assuranceQuality assurance (QA), 58, 60

R

Radio frequency identification chips (RFIDs), 107

Radiography machines, types of, 206Recovery team configuration, CIL, 54Repatriation Osteology Laboratory (ROL),

119, 130; See also National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution), Repatriation Osteology Laboratory

RFIDs; See Radio frequency identification chips

ROL; See Repatriation Osteology Laboratory

S

Scanning-electron microscope (SEM), 135, 182

Scaphocephaly, 130, 131SEM; See Scanning-electron microscopeSeptember 11 (2001) World Trade Center

disaster, 107, 163 number of reported missing following,

99 recovery efforts, 24Sharp force trauma, 41, 205Skeletal biological research, central location

for, 149Skeletal inventory, 204Skeletal remains, processing of, 201Skeletal research, new techniques for, 163Smithsonian Institution; See National

Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution), Division of Physical Anthropology; National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution), Repatriation Osteology Laboratory

SOPs; See Standard operating proceduresStandard operating procedures (SOPs), 59,

195

T

Tarrant County Medical Examiner (TCME), 26, 27

AFIS terminal, 41 autopsy stations, 27 forensic odontologist at, 42 Human Identification unit, 27 morgue, 29 unidentified persons database, 44TCME; See Tarrant County Medical

ExaminerTime-since-death research, 8Training autopsy process used in, 45 courses AFL, 79 ARF, 18–19 graduate student, 2 incident morgue, 109 in-house lectures, 45 osteology, 74 practitioner-based, 2 search and recovery personnel, 109 session topics, ARF, 19

U

Unidentified persons database, 44University of Indianapolis Archeology

and Forensics Laboratory (AFL), 65–96

assailant cooperation, 77 blunt force trauma, 93 budget, 65 buried evidence, 79, 84 cadaver dogs, 77, 78, 79 chain-of-custody forms, 73, 94 collection of remains, 85 conservation of fragile elements, 71 coroner system, 76 digital photography, 72, 73 DNA samples, 72 evidence provenience, 83

2320.indb 220 4/9/08 3:11:00 PM

index 221

evidence room, 67 excavation grid, 86 facilities and procedures, 66–75 collections, 74–75 lab protocol, 70–74 field recovery, 75–86 field strategies, 82–84 medicolegal system, 76 methodology, 84–86 reports, 72 scene protocol, 81–82 searches, 77–79 training courses, 79–80 forensic taphonomy, 86–88 geotaphonomy, 87 GPS unit accuracy, 80 graduate assistant, 69 hazardous artifacts, 70 human remains field inventory form,

95–96 identification of animal remains, 73 laboratory exercise, 67 maceration room, 68 main analytical area, 67 movement of skeletal remains, 87 nonhuman skeletal collections, 74 photodocumentation of scene, 81 postmortem damage to remains, 82 recording of osteological information,

72 recovery of skeletal evidence, 82 reference grid, 84 relationships with law enforcement, 88 research associate position, 69 site stratigraphy, 83 skeletal analysis fees, 73

skeleton visual impression form, 92 soft tissue decomposition, 87 stereoscopic microscope, 68 taphonomic observations form, 93 teaching osteology, 74 T-probe, 78U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS), 102

V

Video enhancement, FACES Laboratory, 186

W

War veterans; See Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, Central Identification Laboratory

William M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection, 18, 20

World Trade Center attacks, 107, 163 number of reported missing following,

99 recovery efforts, 24

x

X-ray fluorescence (XRF) scanner, 128XRF scanner; See X-ray fluorescence

scanner

2320.indb 221 4/9/08 3:11:00 PM

2320.indb 222 4/9/08 3:11:00 PM

the forensic anthropology laboratory

Documents