Commingled Remains

Field Recovery and Laboratory Analysis
  • Bradley AdamsEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_144-2

Introduction and Definition

The term “commingling” refers to the intermixing of remains from more than one individual (Fig. 1) and, when present, is a challenging component of many anthropological analyses. The study of commingled remains may pertain to an archaeological context or a forensic context. Within the archaeological context, the focus of study could be faunal (i.e., nonhuman) remains or human remains. Within the forensic realm, discussions of commingling usually refer to the intermixing of human remains, such as may occur from a mass disaster or in cases of mass graves resulting from periods of political, ethnic, or religious violence. Regardless of whether the context is archaeological or forensic, commingling of remains will complicate every facet of the process from recovery to final disposition. The focus of this section will be an overview of field recovery and laboratory analysis of commingled humanremains, although there is clearly overlap with the recovery and...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adams, B.J., and J.E. Byrd, eds. 2008. Recovery, analysis, and identification of commingled human remains. Totowa: Humana Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, B.J., and J.E. Byrd, eds. 2014. Commingled human remains: Methods in recovery, analysis, and identification. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, B.J., and L.W. Konigsberg. 2004. Estimation of the most likely number of individuals from commingled human skeletal remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125: 138–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrd, J.E., and B.J. Adams. 2009. Analysis of commingled human remains. In Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology, ed. S. Blau and D.H. Ubelaker. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  5. Byrd, J.E., and C.B. Legarde. 2018. Evaluation of method performance for osteometric sorting of commingled human remains. Forensic Sciences Research 3: 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dirkmaat, D.C., and J.M. Adovasio. 1997. The role of archaeology in the recovery and interpretation of human remains from an outdoor forensic setting. In Forensic Taphonomy, ed. W.H. Haglund and M.H. Sorg. New York: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  7. Forensic Anthropology. 2019. Special issue: Commingled remains. Forensic Anthropology 2: 1–142.Google Scholar
  8. Goodman, N.R., and L.B. Edelson. 2002. The efficiency of an X-ray screening system at a mass disaster. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47: 127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haglund, W.D. 2002. Recent mass graves, an introduction. In Advances in forensic Taphonomy: Method, theory, and archaeological perspectives, ed. W.D. Haglund and M.H. Sorg. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  10. Konigsberg, L.W., and B.J. Adams. 2014. Estimating the number of individuals represented by commingled human remains: A critical evaluation of methods. Commingled human remains: Methods in recovery, analysis, and identification. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kontanis, E.J., and P. Sledzik. 2014. Resolving commingling issues during the medicolegal investigation of mass fatality incidents. In Commingled human remains: Methods in recovery, analysis, and identification, ed. B.J. ADAMS and J.E. BYRD. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Legarde, C. 2019. Preliminary findings from a visual pair-matching study in a large commingled assemblage. Forensic Anthropology 2: 65–71.Google Scholar
  13. Mundorff, A.Z., R. Shaler, E.T. Bieschke, and E. Mar-Case. 2014. Marrying anthropology and DNA: Essential for solving complex commingling problems in cases of extreme fragmentation. In Commingled human remains: Methods in recovery, analysis, and identification, ed. B.J. Adams and J.E. Byrd. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Osterholtz, A.J., K.M. Baustian, and D.L. Martin, eds. 2014. Commingled and disarticulated human remains: Working toward improved theory, method, and data. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Palmiotto, A., C. Brown, and C. Legarde. 2019. Estimating the number of individuals in a large commingled assemblage. Forensic Anthropology 2: 129–138.Google Scholar
  16. Schmitt, S. 2002. Mass graves and the collection of forensic evidence: Genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. In Advances in forensic Taphonomy: Method, theory, and archaeological perspectives, ed. W.D. Haglund and M.H. Sorg. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  17. Skinner, M.F., H.P. York, and M.A. Connor. 2002. Postburial disturbance of graves in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In Advances in forensic Taphonomy: Method, theory, and archaeological perspectives, ed. W.D. Haglund and M.H. Sorg. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  18. Snow, C. 1948. The identification of the unknown war dead. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 6: 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomas, R.M., D.H. Ubelaker, and J.E. Byrd. 2013. Tables for the metric evaluation of pair-matching of human skeletal elements. Journal of Forensic Sciences 58: 952–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ubelaker, D.H. 2002. Approaches to the study of commingling in human skeletal biology. In Advances in forensic Taphonomy: Method, theory, and archaeological perspectives, ed. W.D. Haglund and M.H. Sorg. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  21. Viner, M.D. 2014. The use of radiology in mass fatality events. In Commingled human remains: Methods in recovery, analysis, and identification, ed. B.J. Adams and J.E. Byrd. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Wagner, S. 2014. The social complexities of commingled remains. In Commingled human remains: Methods in recovery, analysis, and identification, ed. B.J. Adams and J.E. Byrd. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Warren, M.W., and J.J. Schultz. 2002. Post-cremation taphonomy and artifact preservation. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47: 656–659.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forensic AnthropologyOffice of Chief Medical ExaminerNew YorkUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Soren Blau
    • 1
  • Luis Fondebrider
    • 2
  • Douglas H. Ubelaker
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Forensic MedicineVictorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Monash UniversitySouthbankAustralia
  2. 2.The Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (Equipo Argentino de Antropología Forense, EAAF)Buenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.National Museum of Natural HistorySmithsonian InstitutionWashingtonUSA