Forensic anthropology 139
When remains are presented to the anthropologist with no background
information whatsoever, the task is to perform the most thorough examina-
tion possible with the materials available. In some instances an anthropologist
may be asked to examine a skull, a set of postcranial remains, or some skeletal
component when additional remains are actually available. Experience dic-
tates that the better course of action is to insist upon examining all of the
materials available. In this way, the most complete and consistent report may
be rendered. This approach is particularly important when the remains may
be reexamined by subsequent investigators. If additional case-related remains
emerge during the course of investigation, these should be immediately made
available to the original examiner.
8.2.1 Animal vs. Human and Minimum Number of Individuals
The first steps in examination of skeletal remains will usually be determining
whether the specimen is animal or human, and if so, how many individuals
are represented. Differentiating animal remains from human remains usu-
ally amounts to an examination of the epiphyses of long bones, or simply the
recognition of a particular species as itself based upon the examiner’s skill
as a comparative osteologist. In practice, this task usually devolves to the
usual suspects, i.e., bear, pig, turtle, primate, or some species of bird, for the
latter are often confused with fetal bones by unskilled observers. When frag-
ments reveal little or no distinguishing anatomy, the examiner may resort to
histological/microscopic means or other distinguishing physical or chemical
properties (Stewart 1979, 45-58). If it is necessary to go beyond simply stating
that a specimen is nonhuman, comparative skeletal atlases, some region
specific, are readily available for those willing to do the necessary taxonomic
keying.10 –13 On occasion, the anthropologist is presented with a specimen
such as a small amulet or other artifact that is allegedly made of human
bone. The author recalls a scrub stone said to have been made from the
“ compressed sweepings from the ovens at Treblinka.” On another occasion,
the artifact was a small crucifix supposedly “carved from a human femur”
in one of the Nazi death camps. In the first instance, x-ray fluorescence and
mass spectroscopy revealed a combination of artist’s plaster and charcoal.
Under microscopic examination, the crucifix proved to be of walrus ivory,
and probably produced from a die. Based upon conversations with several
colleagues, there is apparently a significant prevalence of pseudobone objects
driven by underground marketing of “holocaust” artifacts. Anthropologists
in university settings will find an array of analytical equipment and tech-
niques applicable to these problems no more distant than a phone call to a
colleague in the chemistry or physics department.