U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Survivability versus rate of recovery for skeletal elements in forensic anthropology

NCJ Number
307546
Journal
Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 67 Issue: 5 Dated: 2022 Pages: 1758-1765
Author(s)
Shelby Scott; Richard L. Jantz
Date Published
2022
Length
8 pages
Annotation

This paper assesses survivability versus rate of recovery for skeletal elements in forensic anthropology.

Abstract

This paper assessing survivability versus rate of recovery for skeletal elements in forensic anthropology presents empirical recovery rates and concludes that researchers should consider documented rates of recovery when providing rationale for forensic anthropology research endeavors, in addition to citing a rationale that is based on inferences of survivability. This ensures that the theoretical framework of future forensic anthropology research stems, primarily, from the premise of practical application. The research presents data derived from two different contexts: the Forensic Anthropology Data Bank based on cases performed by the late J. Lawrence Angel (1914–1986) and cases done by the University of Tennessee Knoxville (UTK). Survivability, the ability of a skeletal element to withstand taphonomic processes, is often equated to recoverability, the probability that an element will be recovered in a forensic context, and further misused to infer the likelihood that a forensic anthropologist will recover a particular element at a scene. Consequently, researchers have utilized notions of survivability to infer that a skeletal element may be recovered when justifying the necessity of various research endeavors. This is problematic because the factors impacting survivability are not always applicable in a forensic context; the ability of a bone to survive taphonomic processes may not align with the likelihood of recovery. Recovery rates may be influenced by factors beyond survivability. These data exemplify the conceptual differences between notions of survivability and rates of recovery in actual casework scenarios. Thus, it is proposed that researchers consider documented rates of recovery when providing rationale for forensic anthropology research endeavors, in addition to citing a rationale that is based on inferences of survivability. This ensures that the theoretical framework of future forensic anthropology research stems, primarily, from the premise of practical application. (Published Abstract Provided)