Establishing the Forensic

Context
The first issue usually faced by forensic anthropologists involves
recognizing the forensic significance of osteological material. Forensic
significance refers to remains that the medicolegal community has
defined as needing investigation (i.e., persons who have died within the
last 50 years while not in the care of a physician). Given this, forensic
anthropologists first must determine if the osteological remains are from
a human, rather than a nonhuman animal. If the bones are from a
nonhuman that is unrelated to a forensic case, they can be discarded.
However, if they are human, the next step is to determine if they are
from a person who has died within the last 50 years.
Human versus Nonhuman
• Two aspects of bones help to make the distinction between human
and non-human possible: maturity and architecture. Maturity
helps to distinguish animals whose mature bones are
approximately the same size as subadult humans; subadult human
bones will have unfused or missing epiphyses, while those of
nonhumans will display fused epiphyses. When bones are
approximately the same size as adult humans, then architecture
(i.e., shape) can be used to make the distinction.
 • Maturity Distinctions
• Nonhuman bones are distinguishable from
human infants and children by the level of
osteological maturity. This immaturity in the
bones of subadults is expressed as nonunion
of the epiphyses with their diaphyses, which
gives them an unfinished appearance
Figure 2. (a) Ulna and radius of human • Figures 1 to 3 present the limb bones of a
infant compared to that of (b) a fox human infant compared with those of a
(Vulpes macrotis).
mature fox or coyote. Although the bones are
all approximately the same length, notice that
the lack of epiphyses on the human remains
makes them easily distinguishable from the
two animals
Figure 1. (a) Humerus
of human infant
compared with that of
(b) a fox (Vulpes Figure 3. Limb bones of a human infant compared with those
macrotis) of canids, (a) Femur of human infant (right) compared to
that of a coyote (Canis latrans); (b) tibia of human infant
(left) compared to that of a fox (Vulpes macrotis).
 Figure 1 presents half of the left side of a rib cage from an
infant compared with that of a coyote; the lack of
epiphyses on the human ribs (coupled with the
architectural difference of greater curvature)
distinguishes them from this creature. Figure 2 shows
the differences between an os coxa of a human infant and
that of a fox; the former manifests unfused ilium,
ischium, and pubis, while the latter is a single unit
without even a trace of the lines that originally separated
these three bones.

Figure 1. Half of a rib cage of (a) a Figure 2. Pelvis of (a) fox and (b)
human infant compared with that of human infant (Vulpes macrotis)
(b) a coyote (Canis latrans).
• Architectural Differences
• Architectural (shape) differences are the main method for distinguishing
human from nonhuman bones of equal size. Unfortunately, the process of
defining these differences is complicated by several factors. First, all
mammals (including humans) have the same bones, with only a few
additions and subtractions. Thus, humans, cows, sheep, deer, coyotes,
elk, and pronghorns (antelope), as well as canines (doglike animals),
felines (cat-like animals), and bears all have two femora, tibiae, humeri,
radii, and so forth. Consequently, there are only a few bones whose
presence indicates definitely nonhuman (e.g., penis bone) or whose size
indicates definitely human (e.g., large clavicle). Another complicating
factor is the large number of different animals that may be
encountered; to those mentioned, can be added the rest of the mammals,
as well as birds and reptiles.
• These two complications are counteracted by the fact that the
majority of nonhuman bones brought to forensic anthropologists
come from quadrupedal (four-footed) mammals, all of whom
share a similar bone architecture required by their four-footed
stance. This causes a number of skeletal similarities among these
otherwise different creatures, thereby simplifying the task of
identifying nonhumans. Also, to make matters easier, humans have
distinctive skeletal configurations related to their bipedal (two-
footed) stance that are readily distinguished from those of
quadrupeds.
• Cranial Skeleton
• As pointed out by Rhine (1998), the human skull is so distinctive that even
the uninitiated are unlikely to confuse it with the cranium of nonhumans.
This probably is due to the popularity of the skull as a symbol of death
(e.g., the skull and crossbones for poisons) and other terrors that makes it
a fairly commonly pictured structure. Also, the large braincase with small
face and the absence of a prominent snout makes the human skull
virtually unique in the animal kingdom. Even the crania of our closest
relatives, such as chimpanzees, are not easily mistaken for human (even in
the unlikely event that they are encountered in a forensic situation). Thus,
because of its notoriety and shape, little needs to be said about the human
skull and how it is distinguished from those of nonhumans.
 ` • Figure 1 and 2 displays anterior views of the
Figure 1. Front view of skulls: (a) deer (Odocoileus
hemionus); (b) wolf (Canis lupus)'
Figure 2. (c) human {Homo sapiens); (d) mountain
lion (Felis concolor).
skulls of deer, wolf, and mountain lion
compared to a human. The deer skull is
typical of many ungulates (hoofed animals),
while the coyote represents the canines and
the mountain lion represents felines. The
reader need only study these briefly to
notice the larger snouts and smaller
braincases of these quadrupeds when
compared to the human skull. Additionally,
the presence of projecting, saber-like teeth
on the felid (feline) and canid (canine)
distinguish these animals from humans.
• Axial Skeleton
• Unlike the skull, humans and nonhumans are not as easily
discerned on the basis of the bones of the axial skeleton,
despite their great differences. Thus, in this section, a
comparison of quadruped against human will be made for each
of the bones that comprise the axial skeleton, with an emphasis
on those differences that easily distinguished the two. Again it
is worth mentioning that forensic anthropologists should be
consulted whenever bones of unknown origin are encountered
in a forensic situation.

Figure 1. Vertebral column
of (a) human and (b) sheep
(Ovis canadensis). The
sheep is arranged vertically
to better demonstrate the
differences from the human
in both structure and form.
A line is drawn at the base
of the neck of each.
Starting with the vertebral column. Figure 1
illustrates this structure from the lateral aspect
in both a human and a sheep. Notice that the
quadruped has larger cervical vertebrae and
longer spinous processes than seen in the
human. Also, the sheep has two curves, one
through the neck, which is concave, and the
other between the head and the pelvis, which is
convex. However, in humans, a third exists in
the lower part (lumbar vertebrae) that is
concave. Figure 2 presents a human os coxa
Figure 2. Os coxa of (a) alongside that of an elk, illustrating the shorter
an elk compared with and wider configuration of the human ilium
that of (b) a human. when compared to the long and narrow shape
of this bone in the quadruped. Also, the
difference in size and configuration of the pubis
and ischium are well illustrated.
 • Figure 1 depicts the assembled pelvis of
Figure 1. Assembled pelvis of (a) a cow (Bos taurus) and
(b) a human.
Figure 2. Sacrum of (a) human and (b) sheep (Ovis
canadensis)
a cow compared to a human; the
differences in the shapes of the
individual bones and in the overall
configuration are conspicuous. Figure 2
illustrates the differences between the
human sacrum and that of a sheep.
Notice the somewhat triangular outline
of this structure in humans when viewed
anteriorly; this outline is less noticeable
in the sheep.
 The differences in the number and configuration of the
ribs between sheep on the left and human on the right is
shown in Figure 1a. Despite the similarity in size, the
human ribs are almost C-shaped, while those of the sheep
have only about half of this curvature. Figure 1b illustrates
the sternum of these two species in the anterior aspect;
notice the wider top (the manubrium) of the human bone
when compared with the more linear nature of the entire
sternum in the quadruped.

Figure 2. Scapula of
Figure 1. (a) Ribs of human (right) compared with those of a sheep (Ovis (a) human and (b)
canadensis). (b) Sternum of human (left) and sheep (Ovis canadensis). sheep (Ovis
canadensis) from
Figure 2 displays the scapulae of human and sheep, both in anterior and
anterior and posterior aspects. Although both are triangular, posterior aspects.
notice that the widest section of the bone is farthest from the
glenoid fossa in the sheep, while in humans this structure is
located on one of the corners of the widest part.
• Appendicular Skeleton
• Although most people will recognize nonhuman limbs when structures
such as claws, fur, or hooves are present, the bones of the quadrupedal
appendicular skeleton have been confused with those of humans. These
bones make up the arms and legs in people, which are analogous to those
of the forelimbs and hind limbs of quadrupedal animals. Humans and
quadrupeds have the same bones in these structures, albeit in different
configurations.
 Figure 1a displays the humeri of a human and four
quadrupeds: deer, sheep, cow, and elk. Notice at the
proximal end that the equivalent of the greater
tubercle in the quadrupeds is more developed and
projects beyond the head in this bone, while it is
small and low in humans. Notice also the weak S-
shape of the quadrupedal humeri, which is missing in
the more linear human equivalent. Figure 1b
compares the radii and ulnae of a human with those
of the same animals. Notice the major differences in
configuration of both of these bones in the human
when compared with those of the quadruped.
Figure 1. Limb bones of humans compared to quadrupeds, (a) Anterior view of humeri:
from left to right, deer (Odocoilem hemionus), sheep (Ovis canadensis), cow (Bos taurus),
elk (Cervus elephas), and human (Homo sapiens). (b) Ulnae and radii: from left to right,
sheep (Ovis canadensis), deer (Odocoileus hemionus), cow (Bos taurus), elk (Cervus
elephas), and human (Homo sapiens).
Figure 1 shows the carpals and metacarpals (called the metapodials) of these four
animals; since the concomitant bones in humans are so dissimilar, only a cursory
examination is necessary to avoid misidentification as human.

Figure 1. Front (b) and (a) back metapodials of four quadrupeds; from left to right, elk (Cervus elephas), cow
(Bos taurus), deer (Odocoileus hemionus), sheep (Ovis canadensis).
 Turning to the lower or rear limbs. Figure 1a illustrates the differences between the
femora of the same four ungulates and a human. Notice that the greater trochanter
projects above the head in each of the quadrupeds, but not in the bipedal human. Also,
the articular surface for the tibia continues higher on the shaft of the ungulates than it
does on humans. Finally, Figure 1b illustrates the differences in the tibiae. Notice the
multiple notches at the distal ends of the ungulates and the larger and more projecting
tuberosity on the four quadrupeds when compared to humans.

Figure 1. Limb bones of humans compared with quadrupeds, (a) Anterior views of femora: from left to right, deer (Odocoileus hemionus),
sheep (Ovis canadensis), elk (Cervus elephas), cow (Bos taurus), and human (Homo sapiens), (b) Anterior views of tibiae: from left to right,
deer (Odocoileus hemionus), sheep (Ovis canadensis), cow (Bos taurus), elk (Cervus elephas), and human (Homo sapiens)
• Bear Paws
• T. Dale Stewart (1979) was one of the
earliest workers to note the similarity
between the hands and feet of humans
and the front and hind paws of the
various bears (especially the North
American black bear, Ursus
americanus). Figure 1a displays the left
metacarpals and first two phalanges of
a human versus the same bones in the
black bear (Figure 1.b). Despite the
obvious similarities, the smallest digit in Figure 1. Posterior aspect of left-side metacarpals and
first two phalanges from (a) human and (b) North
the human is the first (i.e., the thumb), American black bear (Ursus americanus).
while the last digit is smallest in U.
americanus
• A similar situation is shown in Figure 1,
which displays (a) the metatarsals and
phalanges of a human left foot
compared with (b) the same bones in
the black bear. In the absence of claws,
the two can be distinguished on the
bases of the size of the metatarsals. The
first digit of the human is considerably
larger than the remaining metatarsals;
however, these bones are
approximately equal in length and
robustness in the bear. Finally, in both
structures, the distal ends of the Figure 1. Posterior aspect of left-side metatarsals and all
phalanges from (a) human and (b) North American black bear
phalanges are more grooved in bears (Ursus americanus).
than they are in humans
Pig’s Teeth
Less well known than bear paws is the similarity between the premolars of pigs and the
molar teeth of humans (Joel Irish, personal communication). Figure 1a displays the palates
of these two creatures. Although the differences in shape and size make it unlikely that the
full jaws of these two animals would be mistaken. Figure 1b shows human molars adjacent
to the premolars of a pig (Sus scrofa). Notice that they both are rectangular in outline and
have low cusps in each corner. These shared features make a misidentification possible, but
not probable.

Figure 1. Comparison of human dentition with those of a pig. (a) Palates of human (left) and
pig (Sus scrofa); (b) molars of human (left) compared with premolars of pig (Sus scrofa)
Contemporary versus Non-Contemporary

• Four aspects help to distinguish medicolegally

significant remains from those that are not:
1. state of preservation;
2. body modification,
3. personal belongings, and
4. conditions of interment.
A. State of Preservation
✓ refers to the physical status of the bones after the loss of soft
tissue (e.g., solid or broken, white or discolored).
✓ refers to the visible and measurable characteristics of the bones
being studied.

• Seven traits to distinguish contemporary from

noncontemporary:
✓Color, Texture, Hydration, Weight, Condition, Fragility, and
Amount of soft tissue
1. Color: When bone is in the body, it has a yellowish-white to yellowish-
brown tint due to saturation by body fats and fluids. After removal of soft
tissue, it begins to dehydrate and take on the well-known ivory (i.e., off-
white) color. However, over time bone may begin to change colors again
due to exposure to environmental factors.
✓In strong sunlight, bone will turn white and then gray, even after only a few
years;
✓Also, buried bone will take on the (usually) brown color of the surrounding soil;
✓Similarly, some prehistoric societies covered burials with red ochre, which
imparts a red tint to bones.
Although color changes may take only a few years, normally a
considerable time is necessary before bone loses its original hue. Thus,
except in special circumstances, discoloration is more indicative of age
than bone that has maintained its yellowish-brown or off-white shade
2. Texture. Generally, young bone has the same smooth surface as ivory.
However, with protracted exposure, climatic factors and soil acids erode
the surface, causing a loss of the original smoothness. Thus, grainy or
pitted osteological material means that a considerable amount of time has
passed since death.
Several factors can affect texture in contemporary remains.
✓Graininess usually increases with age such that persons who are 60 years of age
or older have lost the smoothness of cortical bone found in the young.
✓Diseases can cause bone loss that can affect the overall texture; a common effect
is raised striations along the long axes of long bones and pitting due to anemic
conditions.
3. Hydration: When in the body, bone contains body fluids that give
it a yellowish hue. In addition to coloration, these substances impart
a greasy look and feel when soft tissue is first removed. However,
with extended exposure to air, this moisture is lost, and the bone
appears dry and porous. Thus, hydrated and greasy bones usually
indicate that little time has passed since death. As a complication, in
burials, older bones will absorb groundwater, giving them a wet
appearance when first excavated. However, they will not have the
greasy look or feel of fresh bone.
4. Weight. When bone emerges from the body, the fats and fluids that are
part of its makeup give it a surprising amount of weight. Generally,
weight decreases as moisture evaporates and decreases still further
when decalcification (loss of calcium and other minerals) occurs,
particularly with long removal from the body and/or burial for extended
periods. This loss of both fluids and calcium salts causes bone to become
light in weight with the passage of time. Unfortunately, this inverse
relationship between weight and age can be confounded by the
accumulation of minerals in buried remains. The same groundwater that
helps to leach out calcium salts (causing decalcification) can also deposit
minerals that cause bone to gain weight. Thus, as with other factors, the
environment in which the remains are found must be taken into account
when determining the forensic significance of osteological material.
5. Condition. This factor refers to the level of fragmentation of a
bone. Generally, unless exposed to excessive crushing injuries as in
accidents involving aircraft and trains, contemporary bones are
whole with little (if any) fragmentation. However, with time and
rough handling, bones become broken and, in some cases, highly
fragmented. Such bones may be composed of many fragments that
require considerable restoration before they can be viewed in their
entirety. Many burials dating from ancient times are fragmented to a
degree not normally seen in fresh bone; thus, the degree of
fragmentation can be used as a general indication of age.
6. Fragility. This factor refers to the toughness of bone. Bone is a
strong substance that even after some years can absorb rough
handling without undue damage. However, during exposure and
burial as climatic factors weather it and soil acids leach through it,
bone can become fragile and friable. In some cases, it can disintegrate
when it is exposed to air. Thus, generally, bones that appear that they
would fall apart just to handle them indicate that the age may be
beyond that for medicolegal significance. Again, the circumstances in
which the remains were found can confound this simple situation.
Extremely caustic environments can cause fresh bones to disintegrate
to a degree seen only in bones many decades older.
7. Soft Tissue. The presence of soft tissue is one of the more
important characteristics indicating age. Large amounts of soft tissue
that are emanating the odor of decay normally indicate a
contemporary body that are of medicolegal significance. However,
older remains, except under unusual circumstances (e.g., freezing,
mummification, embalming), rarely display soft tissue other than
desiccated skin, muscle, internal organs, and so forth.
B. Body Modifications
✓Refers to changes to the normal structure of bone and teeth that is
preferred or required by society (e.g., amalgams in teeth, surgical
implants)
✓One of the most common forms of modification found in
prehistoric remains is cranial deformation. Many indigenous
people use cradleboards for their children's first years of life by
which the infants' heads are strapped down for safety.
Cradleboards have the effect of
deforming, to a greater or lesser
degree, the pliable bones of the child's
cranium. If the cradleboard is hard,
this effect is amplified. Thus, skulls
that have lost the normal round
contour of the cranial bones usually
indicate this practice. Figure 1 displays
a line drawing of a (a) normal skull
and (b) one exhibiting flattening of the
occipital bone. As can be seen, the
rounding that is usual for the rear
bone of the right-hand skull has been
reduced, causing a flattening of the
back of the head. Figure 1. Line drawing of skulls, from superior and
lateral aspect, (a) Skull manifesting the "normal"
condition; (b) skull exhibiting occipital flattening
• Another common area of personal modification
is the dentition. Some people in the past altered
the shape of their teeth for (apparently) esthetic
reasons. The wide range of variation in this
practice is well illustrated in Figure 1. The
presence of these forms usually indicates that
the human remains are not of medicolegal
significance. However, other dental
modifications can be used to establish the
forensic context. In industrialized countries, the
well-known gold and silver amalgams (i.e.,
fillings) and other odontological prosthetics,
such as bridges, caps (either plastic, porcelain,
or gold), implants, and dentures, are indicative
of a contemporary human.

Figure 1. Varying Types of Dental Modifications

 • This illustrates an upper jaw
that manifests most of these
dental features.

Figure 1. Upper jaw of a contemporary human showing dental

prosthetics. The incisors have plastic caps, both canines have gold
fillings, and all premolars and molars have silver amalgams
One last feature that can provide information
on the contemporary-non-contemporary
question is dental wear. Generally, persons
from modern societies do not show
appreciable wear even in later life. However,
persons from prehistoric times (as well as
those from nonindustrial societies) show so
much wear that the enamel on the occlusal
surface is worn away in parts, exposing the
underlying dentin. Beyond dentition, a variety
of prosthetics can be found in other areas of
the body, which offer information on
medicolegal significance. With advances in
surgery, hip replacements (Figure 1a),
surgical plates (Figure 1b), and other implants
can be encountered in human remains. Their
presence has a simplifying effect on
establishing the forensic context; devices such
Figure 1. Prosthetics implanted in human bone, (a) Hip replacement; plastic
as these indicate that the remains are insert in acetabulum with stainless steel femoral neck and head; (b) radius with
contemporary. surgical plate used to reinforce a broken wrist; pictured with normal bone.
C. Personal Belongings.
✓This refers are those nonosteological items found in association with the
remains that help to distinguish contemporary from noncontemporary (e.g.,
prehistoric tools, modern clothing).
✓It is well known that many people bury their dead with clothing, jewelry, and
other items of their society. This can leave important clues as to the age of
recovered remains because of the dramatic changes in technology that have
occurred over the last few hundred years. Thus, skeletal material found in
association with prehistoric objects such as stone tools, pottery, or basketry is
likely of prehistoric age and therefore too old to be of forensic significance.
Similarly, bodies found dressed in modern clothing and accompanied by
modern jewelry and other such items indicate recent remains that can be
forensically meaningful. Similarly, burial in wood or metal coffins is common
in industrialized countries but absent in most prehistoric societies.
D. Conditions of Internment
✓This refers to the circumstances surrounding bodies found in graves (e.g.,
formal burial, position of body).
✓For bodies recovered from graves, the last factor to consider is the conditions
surrounding the burial. Several factors of interment can be used to
distinguish forensically significant from nonsignificant finds. Generally,
persons who have died under normal circumstances receive a formal burial
that involves careful treatment of the deceased. By contrast, forensically
significant burials are more likely to appear as though the decedents were
simply thrown into a hole with no pretreatment or care. (This is a concession
to expediency; generally, perpetrators burying their murder victims do not want
to be in prolonged contact with the body because this increases the probability
of being caught.) Thus, the recognition of factors that suggest formal burial is
important for identifying medicolegally significant burials.
• The number of burial practices surrounding formal interments is too
diverse and complex to be discussed here. However, the main factors
that help to identify burials of persons who have died normal deaths
are arrangement, direction of face, pretreatment, and burial enclosure.
Arrangement refers to how the body is laid out within the burial pit;
Ubelaker (1989) summarizes the work of others when he describes
four forms:
✓tightly flexed,
✓flexed,
✓semiflexed, and
✓extended.
Tightly flexed refers to a position in
which bodies are put in the fetal
position as though they were inside
their mother's wombs (Figure 1a).
Specifically, the elbows are drawn into
the torso and flexed so that the hands
lie against the upper thorax, close to
the base of the neck. Similarly, the
knees are drawn up to the abdomen,
while the feet are in the proximity of
the buttocks. This position is favored
by many prehistoric societies and is
found as far back as the Neanderthals,
some 60,000 years ago. Figure 1. The three most common forms of burial: (a)
tightly flexed; (b) semiflexed; (c) extended
Flexed and semiflexed are relaxed versions of
tightly flexed (Figure 1b). In these positions,
the elbows are not as close to the torso and
the hands extend somewhat outward.
Similarly, the knees extend outward close to
right angles with the rest of the body, while
the feet, although at the level of the buttocks,
also extend somewhat away from the body.
The fourth arrangement, and the most
commonly recognized, is the extended
position where bodies are laid out with their
legs straight and their arms either extended
at their sides or crossed over their chests
(Figure 1c). This is the position favored by
most industrialized countries. Figure 1. The three most common forms of burial: (a)
tightly flexed; (b) semiflexed; (c) extended
Bodies can face either up, down, or sideways. Generally, persons buried in the
tightly flexed, flexed, and semiflexed positions lie on their sides with the skull
facing sideways, whereas in extended burials the usual facing is upward.
Deviations from these positions do occur; in some cases, the body can be placed
face down or (in rare cases) head down with the buttocks pointing to the sky. In
addition to arrangement and facing, pretreatment of remains can occur. This
entails both embalming, by which the body is infused with a preservative (this
tradition has been practiced for over a century in Western countries), and
cremation, by which all soft tissue and many osteological elements are burned
away, leaving only bone fragments. Finally, placement of the body within a
funerary enclosure can be favored; a coffin or mausoleum is usual in Western
societies, and stone-lined pits have been used (especially) in the past.
Bodies recovered from coffins are not likely to be of medicolegal
significance, nor are bodies that have been embalmed or treated in some
way with preservatives. Similarly, bodies arranged carefully in the grave
usually are from formal burials. Conversely, untreated bodies found in a
disorganized manner within a burial pit without a coffin are more likely
to indicate the hasty burial typical of most forensically significant
remains.
Conclusion
1. The important components of establishing the medicolegal
significance of skeletal remains involves determining if they are
human and if they are from a person who has died within the last 50
years.
2. Human bones can be distinguished from those of nonhumans by their
maturity and architecture
3. The state of preservation, body modifications, personal belongings
and conditions of internment should be considered to determine if
the skeletal remains are of forensic or medicolegal significance.