Advertisement

Mass grave complexity effects on the minimum number of individuals estimation

  • Igor Vaduvesković
  • Marija DjuricEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This study analyses the accuracy of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) estimation in the context of commingled human remains recovered from secondary mass graves related to the war in Bosnia in 1995. It is based on data from five secondary mass grave sites of different sizes and different numbers of unassociated body parts. The study is centered on a comparison of MNI estimation from original excavations with the actual number of individuals buried in particular graves, obtained via DNA identification of excavated remains. The aim was to investigate how the complexity of a mass grave reflects on MNI estimation accuracy. In order to quantify mass grave complexity (level of commingling), a ratio between complete bodies and isolated body parts from the same context was introduced. Results show that, in the secondary mass graves involved in the study, MNI estimation inaccuracy varies in the range from 54% to 513% depending on the size of the grave itself and the amount of “loose elements” distributed in it. Correlation between MNI inaccuracy and body to body parts ratio shows a strong relationship indicating that MNI (in)accuracy is largely dependent on the number of loose elements related to complete bodies from the same context.

Keywords

Forensic science Forensic anthropology Minimum number of individuals Secondary mass graves Commingled human remains 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by ministry of science of republic of Serbia, grant no. 45005.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Human participants and/or animals

Living human participants and/or animals were not subjects of the conducted research.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not applicable to this study, only osteological material involved.

References

  1. 1.
    Stock C. A census of the Pleistocene mammals of Rando La Brea, based on the collections of the Los Angeles Museum. J Mammal. 1929;10:281–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Howard H. A census of the Pleistocene birds of Rancho La Brea from the collections of the Los Angeles Museum. Condor. 1930;32:255–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    White TE. A method of calculating the dietary percentage of various food animals utilized by aboriginal peoples. Am Antiq. 1953;4:396–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adams BJ, Konigsberg LW. Estimation of the most likely number of individuals from commingled human skeletal remains. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2004;125:138–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adams BJ, Konigsberg LW. How many people? Determining the number of individuals represented by commingled human remains. In: Adams BJ, editor. Recovery, analysis, and identification of commingled human remains. Totowa: Humana Press; 2008. p. 241–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byrd JE, Adams BJ. Osteometric sorting of commingled human remains. J Forensic Sci. 2003;48:717–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ubelaker DH. Approaches to the study of commingling in human skeletal biology. In: Haglund WD, editor. Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory, and archaeological perspectives. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2002. p. 355–78.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Konigsberg LW, Adams BJ. Estimating the number of individuals represented by commingled human remains: a critical evaluation of methods. In: Adams BJ, editor. Commingled human remains. Methods in recovery, analysis, and identification. Oxford: Academic Press; 2014. p. 193–220.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Byrd JE, Adams BJ. Analysis of commingled human remains. In: Ubelaker DH, editor. Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2016. p. 226–42.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burns K. The forensic anthropology training manual. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson Education; 2012. p. 196–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kontanis EJ, Sledzik PS. Resolving commingling issues during the medicolegal investigation of mass fatality incidents. In: Adams BJ, editor. Recovery, analysis, and identification of commingled human remains. Totowa: Humana Press; 2008. p. 317–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nikita E, Lahr MM. Simple algorithms for the estimation of the initial number of individuals in commingled skeletal remains. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2011;146:629–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lambacher N, Gerdau-Radonic K, Bonthorne E, Valle De Tarazaga Montero FJ. Evaluating three methods to estimate the number of individuals from a commingled context. J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2016;10:674–83.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jessee E, Skinner M. A typology of mass grave and mass grave-related sites. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;152:55–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haglund WD, Reay DT, Swindler DR. Tooth mark artifacts and survival of bones in animal scavenged human skeletons. J Forensic Sci. 1988;33:985–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ubelaker DH. Taphonomic application in forensic anthropology. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1997. p. 77–90.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ICTY report presented to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: The 2009 integrated report on Srebrenica missing including а progress report on DNA-based identification by Helge Brunborg, Ewa Tabeau and Arve Hetland. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiplO6fnuvkAhWOILcAHQA9BnAQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsrebrenica.sense-agency.com%2Fassets%2Flasting-consequences%2Fsg-7-01-ekspertski-en.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0U4HjoVOBLiIiuFtsKFtlR. Accessed 21 June 2019.
  18. 18.
    Yazedjian L, Kešetović R. The application of traditional anthropological methods in a DNA-led identification process. In: Adams BJ, Byrd JE, editors. Recovery, analysis, and identification of commingled human remains. Totowa: Humana Press; 2008. p. 271–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Djuric M. Dealing with human remains from recent conflict: mass grave excavation and human identification in sensitive political context. In: Blau S, Ubelaker DH, editors. Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2016. p. 532–45.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ICTY report presented to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: Update to the summary of forensic evidence exhumation of the graves and surface remains recoveries related to Srebrenica - June 2013 by Dusan Janc. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=2ahUKEwj2oqL1nuvkAhVf7HMBHUENCvMQFjAFegQIBxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsrebrenica.sense-agency.com%2Fassets%2Fexhumations%2Fsg-2-08-summary-eng.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2i_yNyS1QP6Hk1jP-138-e. Accessed 16 June 2019.
  21. 21.
    Tuller H. Mass graves and human rights: latest developments, methods, and lessons learned. In: Dirkmaat D, editor. A companion to forensic anthropology. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012. p. 157–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Tuller H, Đurić M. Keeping the pieces together. Comparison of mass grave excavation methodology. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;156:192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tuller H, Hofmeister U, Daley S. Spatial analysis of mass grave mapping data to assist in the reassociation of disarticulated and commingled human remains. In: Adams BJ, Byrd JE, editors. Recovery, analysis, and identification of commingled human remains. 1st ed. Totowa: Humana Press; 2008. p. 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Herrmann NP, Devlin JB, Stanton JC. Assessment of commingled human remains using a GIS-based and osteological landmark approach. In: Adams BJ, Byrd JE, editors. Commingled human remains. Methods in recovery, analysis, and identification. Oxford: Academic Press; 2014. p. 221–37.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Casteel RW. Characterization of faunal assemblages and the minimum number of individuals determined from paired elements: continuing problems in archaeology. J Archaeol Sci. 1977;4:125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grayson DK. Minimum numbers and sample size in vertebrate faunal analysis. Am Antiq. 1978;43:53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Turner A. Minimum numbers estimation offers minimal insight in faunal analysis. OSSA. 1980;7:199–201.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory for Anthropology, Institute of Anatomy, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations