The biological foundations of forensic anthropology

Os fundamentos biológicos da antropologia forense

ABSTRACT

Over the last few decades, forensic anthropology has been gaining more and more attention from both academics and the general public. In Brazil, particularly, growing interest in forensic anthropology has been quite strong and evident. At the same time, the inseparable link between biological anthropology and its forensic sister should not be forgotten. It is important to remember the significance of biological anthropology in the development of forensics anthropology and its pivotal role in the training of future forensic anthropologists. With this in mind, the present article underlines the connection between the two. It critically addresses topics of concern among biological anthropologists while being indiscriminately applied in a forensic context.

KEYWORDS
Biological anthropology; forensic anthropology; education; training

RESUMO

Ao longo das últimas décadas, a Antropologia Forense tem recebido cada vez mais atenção, tanto por parte dos estudiosos quanto por parte do público não especializado. No Brasil, particularmente, tem sido bastante forte e evidente o interesse crescente pela Antropologia Forense. Ao mesmo tempo, o elo inseparável entre a Antropologia Biológica e sua irmã forense não deveria ser esquecido. É importante lembrar da importância da Antropologia Biológica para o desenvolvimento da Antropologia Forense e do seu papel fundamental para a formação de futuros antropólogos forenses. Posto isso, o presente artigo salienta a conexão entre as duas ao mesmo tempo que, criticamente, trata de tópicos que levantam preocupação entre antropólogos biológicos enquanto são indiscriminadamente aplicados ao contexto forense.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE
Antropologia biológica; antropologia forense; educação; treinamento

INTRODUCTION

Forensic anthropology is pop. New courses offering certificates in forensic anthropology are springing up like mushrooms after the rain for anyone willing to pay the appropriate amount. Students are actively searching for formative options, often without much reflection on where they would find a job with such a background, as work opportunities in this field are relatively limited (Passalacqua et al., 2021). Forensic anthropology is cool. It deals with bones, with death, with mysteries, with tragedies. It stimulates our primal instincts. It is fascinating.

Forensic anthropology is science. It is hard work and involves years of study and practice. Forensic anthropology impacts lives. It influences the courts’ decisions. It can condemn someone or set them free. Forensic anthropology is a responsibility.

As recent as 23 years ago, forensic anthropology was a relatively niche discipline practiced chiefly by passionate professionals. In the public’s consciousness, it was almost invisible. But then came the boom, and in 2000, Ann Donahue, together with Anthony E. Zuiker, decided to put the spotlight on the work of crime scene investigators, creating the famous “CSI” TV series. Among them was a forensic anthropologist—Terri Miller, portrayed by Pamela Gidley. A few years later, a new show, “Bones,” was released by the FOX channel. This time, it focused exclusively on the work of forensic anthropologist Temperance Brennan, portrayed by Emily Deschanel. This character was inspired by the life and work of Kathy Reichs (Goldman, 2007), a forensic anthropologist, writer, and academic—professor of anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, US. Both series and many others that followed this trend lasted for over a dozen seasons and completely changed the perception of forensic sciences within common awareness worldwide (Houck, 2005). The so-called “CSI effect” (Willing, 2005) impacted enormously how the exaggerated portrait of the work of forensic specialists changed the perception of the real-life forensic context by the general population, including jurors and, consequently, law enforcement officials. Although the real effect of the shows on the police, prosecutors, and judges has later been challenged (Podlas, 2006), the impact it had and continues to have on the general public cannot be omitted (Houck, 2005; Samarji, 2012). The number of forensic courses worldwide and the enrollment of potential students have been constantly increasing (Samarji, 2012; Passalacqua et al., 2021). From my own experience during a professorship at the University of Wroclaw, Poland, I have witnessed an extraordinary student interest in topics related to forensic sciences, and due to my field of expertise, in forensic anthropology particularly.

The image of the work of forensic specialists in such shows is greatly unrealistic and exaggerated. It offers a mistaken notion that forensic laboratories are equipped with high-tech and cutting-edge tools and technologies, that a group of committed professionals is working effortlessly on one case, and that forensic science is fast, flawless, and always leads to the capture of the real criminal.

The reality of forensic practice, including or especially forensic anthropology, is quite distant from such idealized, far-fetched, Hollywoodized, and best-selling scenarios. There have been many reports regarding the situation of forensic anthropology in different regions of the world, e.g. in Portugal (Cunha & Pinheiro, 2007), Europe (Kranioti & Paine, 2011; Obertova et al., 2019), UK (Marquez-Grant et al., 2012; Cox, 2016), South Africa (L’Abbe & Steyn, 2012; Obertova et al., 2019), Italy (Cattaneo, 2016), France (Baccino, 2016), Spain (Prieto, 2016), South America (Fondebrider, 2016; Monteiro da Silva, 2019a), Canada (Skinner & Bowie, 2016), Australia (Donlon, 2016), Indonesia (Indriati, 2016), Philippines (Go, 2018), Argentina, Chile and Uruguay (Fondebrider, 2019); Brazil (Silva et al., 2019; Monteiro da Silva, 2019b; Górka & Plens, 2020a, 2020b; Calmon, 2020), Mexico (Marquez Morgin, 2019), East and Southeast Asia (Go et al., 2019); India (Baryah et al., 2019; Vaswani & Ahmed, 2020), Poland (Górka & Mazur, 2021). Despite acknowledging the expertise and commitment of the professionals working in this field, these reports also present challenges and difficulties that both the professionals and the discipline itself face in different corners of the world. Some are common, and others are country-specific. Nevertheless, the accounts clearly indicate the importance of consistent, standardized, and formalized education and training that practicing forensic anthropologists should undergo before starting a professional career.

As this Dossier intends to present an interdisciplinary outlook on biological anthropology, in this article, I will outline the biological foundations of forensic anthropology methods to demonstrate the importance of in-depth biological anthropology training among practitioners. This paper does not aim to analyze or theorize the field of forensic anthropology in Brazil. In turn, it will present universal and widely accepted biological mechanisms that give background to the methods applied in forensic anthropology.

ANTHROPOLOGY IN COURT

A detailed history of forensic anthropology can be found in textbooks and in many academic publications covering this discipline (e.g., Burns, 2012; Christensen et al., 2014; Dirkmaat, 2012; Klepinger, 2006; Ubelaker, 2018; 2020). Therefore, I will not focus on this particular aspect of this field herein. Instead, I would like to address a particular aspect of forensic anthropology that is sometimes overlooked amidst the general spotlight this discipline is currently under.

Forensic anthropology emerged as a result of applying the science of biological anthropology to legal cases dealing with mostly skeletonized human remains. Physical anthropologists or anatomists with specialist knowledge of osteology were called upon to testify in juridical cases, to confirm the origin of skeletal findings, to explain the mechanism of trauma, or to confirm the identity of skeletal remains (Lesciotto, 2015). This practice started becoming increasingly common as the forensic usefulness of biological anthropology knowledge was undeniable. However, the sole word of professional expertise began to be insufficient. The court and both the prosecutors and lawyers started to demand a scientific foundation and proof that would make an expert’s opinion irrefutable evidence. This led to the creation of initially the Frye (1923) and the Daubert (1993) principles, which constitute the primary rulings that regulate the admissibility of an expert witness testimony in the US and influenced the development and application of forensic anthropology methods (Christensen, 2004; Grivas & Komar, 2008; Dirkmaat et al., 2008; Christensen & Crowerd, 2009; Lesciotto, 2015).

Such rulings implied a creation of rigorous, reliable, and repeatable methodologies in all areas of forensic sciences that would be accepted and verified by the scientific community, subjected to testing, demonstrate error rate calculations, and be performed independently of the particular litigation (Grivas & Komar, 2008; Lesciotto, 2015). In the case of forensic anthropology, particularly in the case of analysis of skeletal remains, initial methodologies were, and in a certain way, continue to be largely interpretive, grounded in an expert’s opinion based on a subjective assessment of specific morphological features (Ubelaker, 2023). Consequently, such court requirements had become highly problematic for forensic anthropology evidence, as experts’ testimonies could be easily challenged. The Daubert ruling emphasized the quality of the expert’s methodology, simultaneously reducing the authority of the expert’s opinion based purely on experience and reputation (Ousley & Hollinger, 2012).

Despite a general disagreement within the scientific community, the supposed lack of theoretical and scientific grounds for forensic anthropology assessments started to be questioned, and its position as a scientific discipline began to be challenged (Adovasio, 2012). Nevertheless, the professional and scientific community gathered around forensic anthropology provided clear proof that such claims are not sustained (Clifford Boyd & Boyd, 2011, 2018).

The present article will offer an abridged bibliographic review of the biological foundations of forensic anthropology that provide a solid theoretical background for forensic applications. I will purposefully omit specialized jargon, as I intend to direct this paper to the general public, not only specialists in biological or forensic anthropology.

ANTHROPOLOGY IN PRACTICE

To explain the issue, we should first ask and answer the question: “What do forensic anthropologists do?”. For the purpose of this article, and the practical impossibility of addressing all aspects, I will deliberately limit the work of forensic anthropologists to its most recognized, thanks to forensic TV shows, area of expertise, which is the analysis of skeletal remains. Due to their knowledge of human biology and auxology, forensic anthropologists also work with living subjects, especially assessing the age of undocumented individuals, analyzing pornographic materials for pedophilic content, or analyzing CCTV footage for identity assessment (Cunha & Cattaneo, 2006) and the biological and methodological principles applied in such situations are analogous to those presented below. Nevertheless, the analysis of skeletal remains continues to be their flagship and most recognized area of expertise. Within this scope, forensic anthropologists participate in the recovery of human remains at crime scenes, determine the post-mortem interval, determine the human origin of the remains, approximate the biological profile of skeletonized, putrefied, burned, dismembered or otherwise unrecognizable remains, perform craniofacial reconstruction, perform personal identification of the remains, assist in determining the cause of death and participate in mass disasters, mass graves and war crimes investigations (Cunha & Cattaneo, 2006).

Once skeletal remains are found, and there is a suspicion that they may have resulted from a wrongful death, the expertise of forensic anthropologists is, or at least in theory should be, sought. Preferably, forensic anthropologists should go to the scene to evaluate not only the finding itself but also the context in which the remains were found, as once they are removed, their context that can provide insightful information is irreversibly lost (White & Folkens, 2005). The place, the way the remains are positioned, and the surrounding artifacts may all give clues to the questions “how” or “why” the remains were found where they were found.

Skeletal remains found either in a grave or on the surface, hidden or left to be found, complete or dismembered, can belong to any person who had likely disappeared sometime before. This person might have been sought or not, could have been tall or short. This individual could have been a man, a woman, a child, or a transsexual person. This person could have disappeared/died several weeks or several years ago. The potentiality of identity, at this point, is practically limitless. The main purpose of the work of forensic anthropologists is to narrow down the list of possible individuals who could be identified as this particular person whose skeletal remains have been found. And here is where biological anthropology comes to light.

HUMAN VARIATION

People are infinitely different. Even monozygotic twins, who are generally considered to be identical, usually differ in some more or less visible aspects (Silva et al., 2011; Zwijnenburg et al., 2010). As a result, our identity is highly unique, and the differences, both genotypic and phenotypic, between all individuals belonging to the same populations are referred to by biologists as variation (Brittanica, 2019). Human phenotypic variation is characterized by continuity (NIH, 2007), which means that it is impossible to distinguish sharp, clear boundaries between different aspects of the same feature, for example, eye color, height, second finger length, the shape of the earlobe, percentage of body fat, etc. Only a few phenotypic features fall under categorical type (e.g. blood type). The evolutionary, biological, biomechanical, and cultural background of human variation is what, among other aspects of human biology, forms the scope of expertise of biological anthropologists. Studying, analyzing, and interpreting human variation led biological anthropologists to establish a set of methods that can help to approximate certain features of physical appearance and biological conditions of an unidentified person. Despite analyzing many other relevant aspects (e.g., visible trauma, time since death, possible manner of death), the features that are initially most crucial for forensic anthropologists are also the ones people tend to notice first when looking at someone, and the same features that form the biological profile of a missing person: sex, age, height, and population of origin (also often referred to as population affinity or ancestry). They are pretty broad categories and, by themselves, do not allow for the identification of a particular individual. Nevertheless, they narrow down possible identity matches by excluding a significant part of the population. The possibility of assessing these features derives directly from principles of human biology and human variation that I will address below.

SEX ESTIMATION

One of the most important features that distinguish between people and simultaneously allow for the continuity of the species is sex. It is generally considered one of the categorical, binary features of human variation (male-female) (Goymann et al., 2022). Nevertheless, I consider it relevant to mention that there are accounts indicating a greater complexity regarding the binarity of sex (Ainsworth, 2015; Fusto-Sterling, 2015; Garofalo & Garvin, 2020; Flaherty et al., 2023). It is also crucial to distinguish between biological sex and gender, which are often incorrectly used, even in specialized literature, as synonyms. Sex is a term that defines the biological attributes that distinguish between males, females, and intersex individuals. Gender, on the other hand, is a term that describes the socially constructed psychological and social attributes of men, women, non-binary, and trans individuals (Miguel-Aliaga, 2022). The issue of biological sex estimation and the assumed gender identity of an individual has been recently brought up in the context of forensic anthropology (Schulz, 2021; Adams et al., 2023) as an urging matter in a situation in which they do not necessarily coincide, and the subject remains an open debate.

In biology, phenotypic, physiological, and behavioral differences between males and females are referred to as sexual dimorphism. Humans have relatively little dimorphism (~15%) compared to other species (Larsen, 2003). However, despite an inevitable overlap in phenotypic variation, in general terms, it is quite easy to distinguish a man from a woman while they are both alive. The problem arises when we have to define the sex of an unknown, skeletonized individual.

When people are born, their sexual dimorphism is very low (Greil, 2006). Despite the obvious difference in reproductive organs, boys tend to be born with higher body weight and length, and girls with a higher percentage of body fat (Antoszewska & Wolanski, 1992; Zatorska, 1992; Yankova, 2005). The differences in the skeletal constitution at this point are relatively minimal (Coussens et al., 2002; Lewis, 2018). The existence of different gonads that produce distinct hormones in the organisms of males and females is what determines the development of sex-specific features in an individual’s life (Rigby & Kulathinal, 2015). The process of the most intense changes regarding sexual development and the subsequent phenotypic differentiation between males and females is called puberty (Rogol et al., 2002). It is when the anabolic effects of steroid hormones (estrogens in females and androgens in males) influence the development of an organism and the appearance of more perceptible sexual dimorphism. Concerning forensic anthropology (within the scope presented herein), the morphological effects of steroids on the development of the skeleton are the most relevant.

While infancy is the period of the most rapid skeletal growth, the most accentuated sexual differences appear during puberty. It is a moment of an intense growth rate and termination of epiphyseal fusion growth regulated by the differentiated actions of androgens (stimulatory) and estrogens (inhibitory) on periosteal bone formation (Callewaert et al., 2010). As the average age of start and peak, as well as the velocity and duration of the pubertal growth spurt, is lower in girls than in boys, it results in an average higher bone mass, greater bone size, and, ultimately, a more robust skeleton in men compared to women (Fitzpatrick, 2004; Callewaert et al., 2010).

The process of adaptation to bipedalism has modified the structure and morphology of the human pelvis (Gruss & Schmitt, 2015). At the same time, natural selection favoring tool making, intelligence, learning, and elaborate cultural behavior led to a continuous brain expansion in a gene-culture co-evolution model, which works with the hypothesis that culture evolved based on the manipulation and use of tools and materials and that more advanced cognitive abilities allowing for further development, improvement and complication of tools and material culture were favored (Leong, 2006). These were inextricably connected with more extensive brain development. As a consequence of this process, human babies are born with a disproportionally large head, which creates an adversarial conflict with the pelvis adapted to bipedalism. Such a situation provoked additional changes in female skeletal anatomy that would ease the process of, often multiple, parturition. For this reason, natural selection favored a wider pelvis in females but did so at the expense of locomotion efficiency (Huseynov et al., 2016). In consequence, these partially antagonistic selective pressures created the female pelvis as a compromise between the most effective bipedal locomotion and the most suitable design for the parturition of large-brained offspring in the so-called Washburn’s obstetrical dilemma (Washburn, 1960). In this context, sexual dimorphism of the pelvis results from hormone-sensitive, sex-specific expression of autosomal genes (Callewaert et al., 2010; Parsch & Ellegren, 2013; Huseynov et al., 2016). As a consequence, when analyzing skeletonized remains, the pelvis is the most accurate and, therefore, the primary region to look at when estimating the sex of an individual (Christensen et al., 2014). According to Spradely and Jantz (2011), metric analysis of the postcranial skeleton (mainly specific dimensions of long bones) and morphoscopic assessment of the skull are the subsequent, most accurate methods.

The methods for sex estimation can be divided into two categories: qualitative (morphoscopic, visual, non-metric) and quantitative (metric). The morphoscopic approach is based on a careful visual observation and qualitative assessment of those skeletal features that tend to vary between men and women. On the other hand, metric analysis is based on qualitative measurement of specific dimensions that are clearly defined by precise landmarks and which vary in size between these two groups. Detailed information regarding all existing methodologies and techniques for sex estimation can be found in multiple textbooks (e.g., Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994; White & Folkens, 2005; Christensen et al., 2014) and will not be provided here.

While sexing a skeleton, it is relevant to consider inter-population variation. Some populations may exhibit more strongly marked sexual dimorphism, while in others, sexual differences may be less pronounced. Also, interpopulation differences in size and shape may lead to a situation in which men from one population can present morphological features characteristic of females from another population. Therefore, it is always advised to become familiar with the general osteological character of the population from which the unknown individual is from, should such information be available, and ideally, to use methods created or validated for this particular population.

AGE ESTIMATION

From the moment of conception, the human organism undergoes constant changes related initially to the process of growth and later, after reaching homeostasis, to the process of ageing. Growth is a continuous series of developmental, progressive changes in body structure that includes, among others, an increase in size, mineralization of skeletal structures, and modelling of shape until reaching their adult form (Christensen et al., 2014). It is controlled mainly by genetic and other intrinsic factors (Ogata, 2005; Schell & Rousham, 2022), and its direction and pace are relatively predictable (Christensen et al., 2014).

Homeostasis of an organism can be defined as a “self-regulating process by which biological systems maintain stability while adjusting to changing external conditions” (Billman, 2020). Homeostasis provides a relatively constant internal environment in an organism and allows for adaptation and appropriate reactions to changing external conditions. Once an organism reaches homeostasis, the constant effort to maintain this state produces degenerative changes, which determine the ageing process (Moldakozhayev & Gladyshev, 2023). The majority of researchers in this field consider that the onset of the ageing process starts once an organism reaches sexual maturity (Cohen et al., 2020). According to evolutionary theory, selective pressures act the strongest during growth and development until an individual reaches its reproductive potential. After that, because less of the lifelong fertility remains, the continuing survival of older individuals adds less and less to the reproductive fitness of a population. As a result, at older ages, natural selection produces a less pronounced effect on mortality (Lee, 2003). The ageing of organisms appears, therefore, as a consequence of the lack of programmed maintenance of its highest capacity once the costs of such a process reduce possible reproductive potential (Crews, 1993). The appearance, speed, and intensity of degenerative changes depend highly on external conditions such as diet, biomechanical loading, lifestyle, health status, etc. (Sgarbieri & Pacheco, 2017; Goldman & Sterner, 2023). As the selective forces do not act as strongly after an organism reaches adulthood, the pace of degenerative changes can vary among populations, individuals, and even among different structures of the same individual (Christensen et al., 2014). This way, the ageing process is not constant and universal but varies significantly between individuals and among populations (Crews, 1993; Rothermund et al., 2023).

Considering the differentiated factors that impact the development and ageing processes and the fact that biological age highly depends on a variety of factors such as nutrition, physical activity, genetics, external environment conditions, etc., the correlation of chronological age with biological age is not always perfect. This discrepancy is even more evident as people get older. Such a relationship, in which variation observed among older people is higher than the variation among younger individuals (Ice, 2005), is referred to in anthropology as the “trajectory effect” (Nawrocki, 2010) and creates circumstances through which the estimation of age-at-death, especially of older individuals, may have a somehow problematic result. For this reason, age categories for younger individuals are usually narrower (e.g., weeks, months, years), and those for older individuals are wider (several years), and the accuracy of estimation decreases with increasing age of analyzed individuals (Cunha et al., 2009; McFadden et al., 2019).

What concerns forensic anthropologists at the moment of estimating an unknown individual’s age are the changes in skeletal structure related to the process of an organism’s development and ageing. Once again, I would like to reiterate that in the present article, I focus on skeletal material and do not address the age estimation of living subjects, which, no less, constitutes the scope of work of forensic anthropologists.

Due to the differentiated conditions that affect the processes of growth and development in childhood and ageing in adulthood, the methods used for age-at-death estimation also differ depending on the individual being analyzed. What also differs is the accuracy of the methods. As the growth and development of the skeleton are strongly genetically controlled, they represent a reasonably predictable pace. Therefore, dental development appears to be the most accurate and predictable age indicator of young individuals, followed by bone development (e.g., longitudinal growth, epiphyseal union) (Ritz-Timme et al., 2000). They allow for highly accurate age estimation in fetuses, infants, toddlers, children, adolescents, and young adults. Once the process of growth and development is complete, the effort required to maintain homeostasis leads to slow degenerative changes in the skeleton. As external factors strongly influence this process, the accuracy of age-at-death estimation diminishes with the increasing age of the unknown individual. Ritz-Timme et al. (2000) indicate that, when teeth are available, the aspartic acid racemization in dentine is the method of choice for age-at-death estimation in adult individuals. Otherwise, pubic symphysis, auricular surface, and sternal rib ends should be used, ideally in a multiple-method approach (Ritz-Timme et al., 2000). Detailed information regarding all existing methodologies and techniques for age-at-death estimation can be found in multiple textbooks (e.g., Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994; White & Folkens, 2005; Christensen et al., 2014) and will not be provided here.

Despite the consensus regarding the reliability of methods applied in age-at-death estimation, new approaches, especially regarding pre-puberty and elderly individuals, are being continuously developed. Moreover, the sole ageing process, its mechanisms, and hallmarks remain continuously and intensively studied.

STATURE ESTIMATION

Stature is one of the main anthropometric measurements and one of the most common physical characteristics that is referred to when we talk about a missing person. For this reason, the possibility of estimating the approximate stature of unidentified human remains allows, at least partially, the narrowing of the pool of missing persons who could correspond to the remains in question, and consequently constitutes one of the four main characteristics of the biological profile estimated by forensic anthropologists. However, contrary to sex and age estimations, stature estimation only should not be used to exclude someone from further consideration unless the difference is really and considerably big (Christensen et al., 2014).

The possibility to estimate the stature of unidentified human skeletal remains is derived directly from the fact that a linear, mathematical relationship exists between a person’s standing height and specific dimensions of selected skeletal elements, especially the length of long bones. Numerous methods are available to estimate the stature from linear measurements of selected bones. This is possible thanks to multiple regression methods developed over the years. They are mainly based on the ordinary least square methodology and involve single or various measurements of a selected bone(s) that are introduced to existing regression equations. Nevertheless, the usefulness of the ordinary least squares regression methods has been questioned (Duyar & Pelin, 2010; Sierp & Henneberg, 2016; Sjøvold, 1990), as they are strongly dependent on the mean stature of the population on which they were created, and therefore are highly population specific (Zeman & Benus, 2020). In such a sense, they are also susceptible to secular trends, and if they were based on historical population, their use in current times may be subjected to an error. Zeman and Benus (2020) also explain that this phenomenon is independent of body proportions. Even if two populations share similar body proportions but their mean stature differs, the application of ordinary least square regression equations developed on one population on individuals from the other one may and probably will result in overestimation or underestimation, depending on whether the mean stature of the second group was respectively higher or lower than in the original population. As such, caution should always be taken at the moment of stature estimation, and whenever possible, regression methods developed or validated for a specific population from which the unknown individual is from should be used.

For this reason, anatomical or full skeleton methods come as an alternative. However, their application is usually troublesome as they are relatively time-consuming and require the presence and good preservation of all bones that contribute to an individual’s stature (cranium, vertebrae, femur, tibia, talus, and calcaneus) (Fully, 1956). Direct vertical measurements of these skeletal elements are then completed with a correction factor for soft tissue (Fully and Pineau, 1960). This way, only a small part of the stature is based on linear regression estimates (soft tissue corrective factor), and the result is more direct and less susceptible to estimation error. Therefore, when such an option is feasible, the anatomical approach is advised (Zeman & Benus, 2020).

When only a partially preserved skeleton is available, the regression equations are the only options. It is, however, crucial to remember that only the equations developed for a particular population from which the unknown individual is from, or at least one from a geographically and bio-historically close population, should be used. Zeman and Benus (2020) provide a comprehensive list of methods suitable for current populations and their respective population of reference. They are limited to only ten groups (American – USA, Chinese, Egyptian, Iranian, Indian, Italian, Japanese, Maya Thai, and Turks). As we can see, the demand for population-specific methods for stature estimation is immense. Ideally, each population should create its own reference for the best and most accurate application in forensic anthropology.

POPULATION AFFINITY/ANCESTRAL GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN

The existence of human morphological variation cannot be denied. It is obvious, it is visible, it is natural. It is related to the basic concepts of human evolutionary history shaped by natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, and gene flow. Nevertheless, whether it is called race, ethnicity, ancestry, population, or biological affinity, the idea behind the possibility of attributing certain morphological traits to socially constructed and defined concepts of someone’s geo-ancestral history challenges the work of biological and forensic anthropologists.

Morphological variation resulting from biological adaptations to diversified climatic conditions includes multiple phenotypic, physiological, and skeletal features. However, just as climatic conditions change gradually, human morphological variation represents a continuous gradient of changes (Rivera, 2019). By analyzing the human skeleton, especially the skull (Cunha & Ubelaker, 2019), of unknown individuals, anthropologists can approximate the geographic region from which they or their ancestors originated. However, independently correlating a group of morphological features with finitely defined categories is highly controversial (Spradley & Weisensee, 2013).

The 19^th and 20^th centuries were exceptionally fruitful in developing methodologies that served the categorization of human populations from different geographic regions into artificially created groups characterized by different combinations of morphological traits. Over the years, numerous classification methodologies have been developed (e.g., the somatoscopic method (already used in Antiquity), the cartographic method, the typological concept based on correlation coefficients, the mean difference method, the correlation sections method, the stochastic multiple correlation method, the population method, and the clinal model, to name only a few) (Malinowski, 1980; Plens & Górka, 2022). Moreover, all of these methods had two points in common: 1) there were always problems with determining the systematic affiliation of particular individuals and especially skeletal remains; 2) there was a continuous need to increase taxonomic units of different orders (‘races,’ ‘subraces,’ ‘major races,’ ‘minor races,’ etc.), as it was believed that the more detailed a group or race could be described, the better the taxonomic system would be (Malinowski, 1980). This, however, is directly related to the characteristic of continuous morphological variability, which, by definition, does not allow distinguishing certain groups represented by a series of morphological characteristics specific to just one. What is also pertinent to recognize is that, over time, racial categories have changed depending on social, political, and historical needs (AABA, 2019), proving their social and political conditioning rather than scientifically grounded concepts. All of this demonstrates how the concept of ‘race,’ as it has been understood for decades, is not scientifically sustainable in the face of the continued morphological variability of the human species and represents a socially and politically constructed ideology (Plens & Górka, 2022).

The current dominant bioanthropological thinking is that the idea of ‘race’ does not represent an accurate picture of human biological variation. Morphological traits are due to simple variations in specific regions and are the effect of climatic selective pressures and consequent adaptation to different environmental conditions (AABA, 2019). However, social, economic, or political implications and consequences resulting from the prolonged use of this concept are real and require urgent addressing in a comprehensive and coordinated manner (Plens & Górka, 2022).

As a consequence, attempts to establish methodologies that could classify human beings into certain, closed morphological groups related to specific geographic regions are being abandoned by most bioanthropologists (Ross et al., 2020; Ross & Willliams, 2021; Ross & Pilloud, 2021). However, within forensic anthropology, there is still a marked habit of including this categorization within an individual’s biological profile (Plens et al., 2021). This is mainly connected with police procedures and reporting forms that contain a limited number of categories regarding the information of the ancestral group of a missing individual. It is also noteworthy to emphasize that ancestry estimation constitutes a prerequisite for the estimation of the remaining features of the biological profile. This issue generates a heated debate. On the one hand, it is considered essential when limiting/eliminating/confirming possible identity matches, as well as increasing the accuracy of estimates of other biological profile features (Cunha & Ubelaker, 2019). On the other hand, it is based on a false assumption that such an attempt is biologically and scientifically supported (Plens & Górka, 2022).

Sauer (1990) emphasized that: “The identification of race by forensic anthropologists has little to do with the existence or not of biological races.” Nevertheless, it is difficult to defend the approach in which categorizing concepts are being used but without the intention of recognizing the categories’ existence. Therefore, it is pertinent to recognize that the concept of ancestry or biological/population/racial affinity, which still frequently forms part of the biological profile of individuals, estimated by professionals in the field of forensic anthropology, raises important debates and its use in the context of forensic anthropology is widely contested (Smay & Armelagos, 2000; Albanese & Saunders, 2006; Ross & Williams, 2021; Bethard & DiGangi, 2021; Cunha & Ubelaker, 2019; Dunn et al., 2020; DiGangi & Bethard, 2021; Flouri et al., 2023; Trevisan et al., 2021). This issue is even more relevant in the current socio-geographic context, as the extremely high mixing of populations creates a biological space that strongly supports the voices pointing out the lack of arguments and the meaninglessness of categorizing people into certain geographic groups based on sets of a priori defined morphological variables of continuous character (both metric and macroscopic) (Plens & Górka, 2022).

DISCUSSION

Forensic anthropology brings invaluable benefits to forensic investigation. The possibility of applying biological anthropology methods in a legal context to deliver the identity of unknown human skeletal remains, highly decomposed or otherwise unrecognizable corpses, created a space for the dynamic progress of this new branch of science. Its rapid theoretical and methodological advances prove the demand for more accurate, validated, and evidence-based approaches that can serve as irrefutable court evidence.

Despite the existence of numerous methods for the approximation of the biological profile of an unknown skeletonized individual, the urge for the development of new techniques persists. It is related to the fact that population-specific differences exist, and they impact the final result of the estimations (Ubelaker & DeGaglia, 2020; Ubelaker, 2023). The existing, most common techniques applied in forensic anthropology were created on already historical collections, and their application on modern populations can be erroneous due to, for example, secular changes (Langley & Jantz, 2020; Ubelaker, 2023). For this reason, these authors indicate the need to update and “re-calibrate” existing methods and equations with modern, ideally, population-specific data or alternatively create new, regionally-based methods and databases to account for possible environmental effects on skeletal morphology. This way, the applied techniques can deliver the most accurate biological profile of an unknown individual and serve the purposes of the forensic application better.

The presented, concise account of the biological principles of forensic anthropology demonstrates a clear perspective of the importance of a biological anthropology background in the practice of forensic anthropology. The sole knowledge of how to apply specific methods to analyse human remains does not automatically turn a forensic professional into an anthropologist. It is, therefore, imperative for practitioners not only to be able to apply forensic anthropology techniques correctly but also to understand the theoretical, evolutionary, biological, biomechanical, and cultural reasons behind human morphological variation (Christensen et al., 2014), as these factors highly influence the choice of techniques and impact the interpretation of the obtained results. This requires an in-depth formation in epistemological background, theories, and concepts of biological anthropology, as this advanced and specialized knowledge cannot be replaced by or taught during short-term forensic anthropology courses (Scheuer & Black, 2007; Cunha, 2010).

The intense development of forensic anthropology worldwide brings significant challenges related to the training of qualified professionals. Many authors have reported that the educational backgrounds of forensic anthropology practitioners in different regions of the world are often highly heterogeneous (Kranioti & Paine, 2011; Górka & Plens, 2020; Górka & Mazur, 2021). Regarding Brazil, the professionalization of forensic anthropology is quite complex (Górka & Plens, 2020). It is strongly related to historical circumstances that highly limited the teaching of biological anthropology in this country, somehow rejecting this branch of science viewed in some circles as a justification for racism. This resulted in the nearly total absence of biological anthropology in the Brazilian academic curriculum (Gaspar Neto, 2017). Consequently, it severely limits access to high-quality formal, bioanthropological background training for future forensic anthropologists, generating an important heterogeneity in the academic backgrounds among forensic anthropology professionals in this country (Górka & Plens, 2020; Trevisan et al., 2021). However, the consequences of the invisibility of biological anthropology in the Brazilian context are even more complex, as the somehow prejudiced opinion regarding this field in the mindset of academics and other professionals working in a forensic context often delegitimizes its use and diminishes the credibility of applying biological anthropology methods in this setting.

It is highly optimistic to observe the rise of a movement toward the increase of visibility of biological anthropology in Brazilian academic circles (Gaspar Neto, et al. 2019). This particular Dossier, as well as the presence of a biological anthropology working group during the 34th Brazilian Anthropology Meeting (Reunião Brasileira de Antropologia), constitute milestone steps toward restoring the importance of biological anthropology in Brazilian academia. Hopefully, more tangible actions toward developing new biological anthropology courses will also arise, providing highly needed access to the epistemological basis for future forensic anthropologists.

Despite being widely postulated (Cunha, 2010; Passalacqua et al., 2021a, b; Passalacqua & Pilloud, 2021; Ubelaker, 2023), so far, only a few countries have created certification systems that control the educational quality and background of forensic anthropology practitioners. It is equally positive to observe that the forensic anthropology community is taking action concerning the implementation of a certification system in Brazil (ABRAF, 2023) that will guarantee an equal training standard for forensic anthropology practitioners despite the general heterogeneous academic background¹.

Notwithstanding the generalized lack of a biological anthropology curriculum in Brazilian academia, researchers and specialists from different areas of knowledge have been contributing increasingly to the scientific production in this field, especially focusing on the forensic context (e.g. Almeida et al., 2020; Carvalho et al., 2013; Cuzzulin et al., 2022; Deitos et al., 2015; Ferreira et al., 2023; Galvão et al., 2022; Jacometti et al., 2023; Kasa et al., 2020; Lima et al., 2022; Martins et al., 2023; Menezes et al., 2021; Moura Junior et al., 2021; Pawlovski et al., 2020; Quintero et al., 2020; Rendeiro et al., 2020; Santos et al., 2020; Tinoco et al., 2016; to mention just a few). The scientific production in the field of forensic anthropology is significantly increasing in Brazil (Górka & Plens, 2020). According to these authors, who performed a detailed bibliographic analysis of academic production in this area in Brazil, almost 50% of contributions present a new approach for the estimation of biological profile or focus on the evaluation of existing methods on the Brazilian population, what is highly positive (Górka & Plens, 2020). At the same time, due to the previously mentioned circumstances, most of the publications (58%) are related to forensic odontology rather than forensic anthropology itself, and the research is concentrated mainly within the Faculties of Dentistry/Odontology (Górka & Plens, 2020). Boarder formative options, as well as wider acceptance of biological anthropology within the mindset of the general and specialized population, can also increase the interest in the development of scientific research in this area, resulting in new methods and adaptation of existing techniques to the particularities of the Brazilian biological context. Consequently, their application in forensic cases would become more accurate, reliable, and successful.

FUNDING

There are no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

¹

The first formal certification in forensic anthropology was introduced in 2024 during the VI CONAF. This development occurred while the present article was already in the publication process.

DATA AVAILABILITY

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

REFERENCES

• AABA. “Executive Summary: AAPA Statement on Race and Racism”. American Association of Biological Anthropologists 2019. Available at: https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/ (accessed on 11.02.2024).
  » https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/
• ABRAF. (2023). Associação Brasileira de Antropologia Forense, https://antropologiaforense.wixsite.com/abraf/certifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o-af (accessed on 06.02.2024).
  » https://antropologiaforense.wixsite.com/abraf/certifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o-af
• ADAMS, Donovan M., BLATT, Samantha H., FLAHERTY, Taylor M., HAUG, Jaxson D., ISA Mariyam I., MICHAEL, Amy R., & SMITH Ashley C. 2023 “Shifting the forensic anthropological paradigm to incorporate the transgender and gender diverse community”. Humans, 3(3):142–165. https://doi.org/10.3390/humans3030013
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/humans3030013
• ADOVASIO, James M. 2012. “An “outsider” look at forensic anthropology. A companion to forensic anthropology” In: DIRKMAAT, Dennis C. A companion to forensic anthropology Blackwell, pp. 683–689.
• AINSWORTH, Claire. 2015 “Sex redefined”. Nature, 518 : 288–291. https://doi.org/10.1038/518288a
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/518288a
• ALBANESE John, & SAUNDERS, Shelley R. 2006. “Is it possible to escape racial typology in forensic identification?” In SCHMITT, Aurore, CUNHA, Eugénia, PINHEIRO, João. (Eds.), Forensic anthropology and medicine: complementary sciences from recovery to cause of death Humana Press, pp. 281–315.
• ALFSDOTTER, Clara 2021. “Forensic archaeology and forensic anthropology within Swedish law enforcement: current state and suggestions for future developments”. Forensic Science International: Reports, 3, 100178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsir
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsir
• ALMEIDA, Salen M.D., DE CARVALHO, Marcus V.D., DE LYRA MENEZES, Maria C.T., PETRAKi, Gabriela G.P., CUNHA, Eugenia., & SORIANO, Evelyne P. (2020). Validation of the DSP2 Tool in a Contemporary Identified Skeletal Collection from Northeastern Brazil. Advances in Anthropology, 10(02): 169-180. 10.4236/aa.2020.102010
  » https://doi.org/10.4236/aa.2020.102010
• ANTOSZEWSKA A., & WOLAŃSKI, Napoleon. 1992. “Sexual dimorphism in newborns and adults”. Studies in Human Ecology, 10: 23–38. PMID: 1344725.
• BACCINO, Eric. 2016. “Forensic anthropology: perspectives from France”. In BLAU, Soren & UBELAKER, Douglas (Eds.), Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology. Routledge (2nd ed.) pp. 49–55.
• BARYAH, Neha, KRISHNAN, Kewel, & KANCHAN, Tanuj. 2019 „The development and status of forensic anthropology in India: A review of the literature and future directions”. Medicine, Science and the Law, 59: 61–69. https://doi:10.1177/0025802418824834
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0025802418824834
• BERTHARD, Jonathan D., & DIGANGI, Elizabeth A. 2020. “Letter to the editor—moving beyond a lost cause: Forensic anthropology and ancestry estimates in the United States”. Forensic Science International, 65(5): 1791–1792. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513
• BIELOUS, Silvia Dutrenit (Ed.). 2019 Forensic anthropology teams in Latin America. Routledge.
• BILLMAN, George, E. 2020. “Homeostasis: The underappreciated and far too often ignored central organizing principle of physiology”. Frontiers in Physiology, 11: 200. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.00200
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.00200
• BRITANNICA. 2019. Editors of Encyclopedia (2019, November 15). Variation. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/variation-biology (Accessed on 7.02.2024).
  » https://www.britannica.com/science/variation-biology
• BURNS, Karen Ramey 2012. Forensic anthropology training manual (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315664163
  » https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315664163
• CALLEWAERT, Filip, SINNESAEL, Mieke, GIELEN, Evelien, BOONEN, Steven, & VANDERSCHUEREN, Dirk. 2010. „Skeletal sexual dimorphism: relative contribution of sex steroids, GH–IGF1, and mechanical loading”. Journal of Endocrinology, 207(2): 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1677/JOE-10-0209
  » https://doi.org/10.1677/JOE-10-0209
• CALMON, Melina. 2020. “The rise and development of forensic anthropology in Brazil”. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 2: 46-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.09.008
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.09.008
• CARVALHO, Suzana P.M., BRITO, Liz M., PAIVA, Luiz A.S.D., BICUDO, Lucilene A.R., CROSATO, Edgar M., & OLIVEIRA, Rogério N.D. 2013. Validation of a physical anthropology methodology using mandibles for gender estimation in a Brazilian population. Journal of Applied Oral Science, 21(4): 358-362.
• CATTANEO, Cristina. 2016. “Forensic anthropology and archaeology: perspectives from Italy”. In: BLAU, Soren, UBELAKER, Douglas, (Eds.), Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology. Routledge. (2nd ed.) pp. 42–48.
• CHRISTENSEN, Angi M. 2004. “The impact of Daubert: implications for testimony and research in forensic anthropology (and the use of frontal sinuses in personal identification)”. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49(3): JFS2003185-4. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS2003185
  » https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS2003185
• CHRISTENSEN, Angi M., & CROWDER, Christian M. 2009. “Evidentiary standards for forensic anthropology”. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(6): 1211–1216. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01176.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01176.x
• COHEN, Alan A., KENNEDY, Brian K., ANGLAS, Ulrich, BRONIKOWSKI, Anne M., DEELEN, Joris, DUFOUR, Frédérick, FERBEYRE, Gerardo, FERRUCCI, Luigi, FRANCESCHI, Claudio, FRASCA, Daniela, FRIGUET, Bertrand, GAUDREAU, Pierrette, GLADYSHEV, Vadim N., GONOS, Efstahios S., GORBUNOVA, Vera, GUT, Philipp, IVANCHENKO, Mikhail, LEGAULT, Véronique, LEMAÎTRE, Jean-François, LIONTIS, Thomas, LIU, Guang-Hui, LIU, Mingxin, MAIER, Andrea B, NÓBREGA, Otávio. T., OLDE RIKKERT, Marcel G. M., PAWALEC, Graham, RHEAULT, Sylvie, SENIOR, Alistair M., SIMM, Andreas, SOO, Sonja, TRAA, A., UKRAINTSEVA, Svetlana, VANHAELEN, Qentin, VAN RAAMSDONK, Jeremy M., WITKOWSKI, Jacek M., YASHIN, Anatoliy I., ZIMAN, Robert & FÜLÖP, Tamàs. 2020. “Lack of consensus on an aging biology paradigm? A global survey reveals an agreement to disagree, and the need for an interdisciplinary framework”. Mech Ageing Dev 191: 111316. doi: 10.1016/j.mad.2020.111316
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mad.2020.111316
• COUSSENS, Anna, ANSON, Tim, NORRIS, Rachel M., & HENNEBERG, Maciej. 2002. “Sexual dimorphism in the robusticity of long bones of infants and young children”. Anthropological Review, 65: 3–16. https://doi.org/10.18778/1898-6773.65.01
  » https://doi.org/10.18778/1898-6773.65.01
• COX, Margaret. 2016. “Forensic anthropology and archaeology: past and present—a United Kingdom perspective”. In: Blau, Soren, Ubelaker, Douglas, (Eds.), Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology. Routledge, (2nd ed.) pp. 29–41.
• CREWS, Douglas E. 1993. “Biological anthropology and human aging: Some current directions in aging research”. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22: 395–423. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155854
  » http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155854
• CUNHA, Eugénia. 2010. “Some reflections on the popularity of forensic anthropology today”. Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris, 22(3): 190–193. doi : 10.1007/s13219-010-0025-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s13219-010-0025-8
• CUNHA, Eugénia, & CATTANEO, Cristina. 2006. “Forensic anthropology and forensic pathology: The state of the art”. In: SCHMITT, Aurore, CUNHA, Eugénia & Pinheiro, João. Forensic anthropology and medicine: complementary sciences from recovery to cause of death Humana (pp. 39–53). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-099-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-099-7
• CUNHA, Eugénia, & PINHEIRO, João. 2007. “Forensic anthropology in Portugal: from current practice to future challenges” In: BRICKLEY, Megan & FERLLINI, Roxanna. Forensic anthropology. Case studies from Europe Charles C. Thomas, pp. 38-58.
• CUNHA, Eugénia, & UBELAKER, Douglas H. 2019. “Evaluation of ancestry from human skeletal remains: a concise review”. Forensic Sciences Research, 5(2): 89–97. doi: 10.1080/20961790.2019.1697060
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2019.1697060
• CUNHA, Eugénia, BACCINO, Eric, MARTRILLE, Laurent, RAMSTHALER, Frank, PRIETO, José, SCHULIAR, Yves & CATTANEO, Cristina. 2009. “The problem of aging human remains and living individuals: a review”. Forensic Science International, 193(1-3): 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.09.008.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.09.008
• CUZZULLIN, Maria C., CURATE, Francisco, FREIRE, Alexandre R., COSTA, Sarah T., PRADO, Felippe B., DARUGE, Junior Eduardo, CUNHA, Eugénia & ROSSI, Ana C. 2022. Validation of anthropological measures of the human femur for sex estimation in Brazilians, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(1):61-74. DOI:10.1080/00450618.2020.1729411
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2020.1729411
• DEITOS, Alexandre R., COSTA, Claudio, MICHEL-CROSATO, Edgar, GALIĆ, Ivan, CAMERIERE, Roberto, & BIAZEVIC, Maria G.H. 2015. Age estimation among Brazilians: younger or older than 18? Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 33:111-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2015.04.016
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2015.04.016
• DIAMOND, Jared. 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies W.W. Norton & Company.
• DIGANGI, Elizabeth A, & BERTHARD, Jonathan. D. 2021. “Uncloaking a lost cause: decolonizing ancestry estimation in the United States”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 175: 422–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24212
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24212
• DIRKMAAT, Dennis C. 2012. A companion to forensic anthropology John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781118255377
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118255377
• DIRKMAAT, Dennis C, CABO, Luis L., OUSLEY, Stephen D., & SYMES, Steven A. 2008. “New perspectives in forensic anthropology”. American Journal of Physical Anthropolog, 137(S47): 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20948
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20948
• DONLON, Denise. 2016. “The development and current state of forensic anthropology: An Australian perspective”. In BLAU, Soren. & UBELAKER, Douglas. (Eds.), Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology, Routledge. (2nd Ed.), pp. 104–114.
• DUNN, Rhian R, SPIROS, Micayla C, KAMNIKAR, Kelly R., PLEMONS, Amber M., & HEFNER, Joseph T. 2020. “Ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology: A review”. WIREs Forensic Sciences, 2: e1369. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/wfs2.1369
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/wfs2.1369
• DUYAR, İzzet, & PELIN, Can. 2010. “Estimating body height from ulna length: need of a population specific formula”. Eurasian Journal of Anthropology, 1: 11–17.
• FAUSTO-STERLING, Anne. 2015. “Concept of multiple sexes is not new”. Nature, 519: 291. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/519291e
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/519291e
• FERREIRA, Gabriele P. SANTOS, Fernanda R.D., CORSINI, Wagner, ROSSI JUNIOR, Wagner C. & ESTEVES, Alessandra. 2023. Craniometric analysis of nasal index, area, perimeter, and shape of the piriform cavity of dry skulls from Southern Minas Gerais. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 7:33-44. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10045792
  » https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10045792
• FITZPATRICK, Lorraine A. 2004. “Sex differences in skeletal development”. Advances in Molecular and Cell Biology 34: 229-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-2558(03)34016-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-2558(03)34016-0
• FLAHERTY, Taylor M., JOHNSON, Liam J., WOOLLEN, Katharine C., LOPEZ, Dayanira, GADDIS, Katherine, HORSLEY, SaMoura L., & BYRNES, Jennifer F. 2023. “Speaking of sex: critical reflections for forensic anthropologists”. Humans, 3:251–270. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/humans3040020
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/humans3040020
• FLOURI, Despoina E., ALIFRAGKI, Angeliki, GÓMEZ GARCIA-DONAS, Julieta, & KRANIOTI, Elena F. 2023. “Ancestry estimation: advances and limitations in forensic applications”. Research and Reports in Forensic Medical Science, 12:13-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/RRFMS.S272224
  » https://doi.org/10.2147/RRFMS.S272224
• FONDEBRIDER, Luis. 2016. “The application of forensic anthropology to investigation of cases of political violence: perspectives from South America”. In: BLAU, Soren, & UBELAKER, Douglas. (Eds.), Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology. Routledge. (2nd ed.), pp. 67–75
• FONDEBRIDER, Luis. 2017. “The development of forensic anthropology in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay: A brief history”. In: UBELAKER, Douglas, & COLANTONIO, Sonia E., (Eds.), Biological anthropology of Latin America: historical development and recent advances Smithsonian Scholarly Press, pp. 325–330.
• FULLY, G. 1956. “Un nouvelle methode de determination de la taille”. Annales de Medicine Legale et de Criminologie, 36: 266-273.
• FULLY, G. & PINNEAU, H. 1960. “Determination de la stature au moyen de squelette”. Presse Medicale, 68(51): 145-154.
• GALVÃO, Rosane C.D.S., MAGALHÃES, Carolina P., GALVÃO, André P.O., LIRA, Viviane F., CARVALHO, Marcus V. D.D., SORIANO, Evelyne P. 2022. Morphological study of population affinity using dry skulls of contemporary identified Brazilians. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 5:129-140. https://doi.org/10.55332/bjfalm20225
  » https://doi.org/10.55332/bjfalm20225
• GAROFALO, Evan M., & GARVIN, Heather M. 2020. “The confusion between biological sex and gender and potential implications of misinterpretations”. In KLALES, Alexandra. (ed.), Sex estimation of the human skeleton Academic Press, (pp. 35–52).
• GASPAR NETO, Verlan Valle. 2017. “Biological anthropology in Brazil: A preliminary overview”. Vibrant – (Brasilla), 14(3), e14303. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-43412017v14n3p034
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-43412017v14n3p034
• GASPAR NETO, Verlan Valle, & DA GLORIA, Pedro. 2019. “Apresentação”. Ciência e cultura, 71:(2), 20–21.
• GO, Matthew C. 2018 “Appraising forensic anthropology in the Philippines: current status and future directions”. Forensic Sciences International, 288: E321–E329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.04.035
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.04.035
• GO, Matthew C., Tallman, Sean D., & Kim, Jieun. 2019. “Advances in forensic anthropological research in East and Southeast Asia”. Forensic Anthropology, 2: 197–203.
• GOLDA, Stephanie D. 2010. “A look at the history of forensic anthropology: tracing my academic genealogy”. Journal of Contemporary Anthropology, 1(1): 34-47.
• GOLDMAN, E. May 31, 2007. “Digging up secrets with the cast of Bones”. IGN. Retrieved June 4, 2007.
• GOLDMAN, Elisabeth A., & STERNER, Kirstin N. 2023. „Environment, epigenetics, and the pace of human aging”. Annual Review of Anthropology, 52(1): 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-090516
  » https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052721-090516
• GÓRKA, Katarzyna, & MAZUR, Malania. 2021. “The current status of forensic anthropology in Poland- assessment of the discipline”. Forensic Sciences, 1(2): 102–115. https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci1020010
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci1020010
• GÓRKA, Katarzyna, & PLENS, Claudia Regina. 2021. “In search of identity: The field of forensic anthropology in Brazil—Profession and practice”. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 66(1): 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14566
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14566
• GOYMANN, Wolfgang, BRUMM, Henrik, & KAPPELER, Peter M. 2023. „Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles”. BioEssays, 45: e2200173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202200173
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202200173
• GRIVAS, Christopher R., & KOMAR, Debra A. 2008. “Kumho, Daubert, and the nature of scientific inquiry: implications for forensic anthropology”. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(4): 771–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00771.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00771.x
• GRUSS, Laura T., & SCHMITT, Daniel 2015. „The evolution of the human pelvis: changing adaptations to bipedalism, obstetrics and thermoregulation”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1663): 20140063. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0063
  » https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0063
• ICE, Gillian H. 2005. “Biological anthropology and aging”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 20(2): 87–90. doi: 10.1007/s10823-005-9084-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10823-005-9084-6
• INDRIATI, Etty. 2016. “Historical perspectives on forensic anthropology in Indonesia”. In: BLAU, Soren, & UBELAKER, Douglas. (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology Routledge, (2nd ed.) pp. 115–125.
• JACOMETTI, Victor, GUIMARÃES, Marco A., DE MORAES, Luis O.C., MARQUES, Sérgio R., CUNHA, Eugenia, & SILVA, Ricardo H.A.D. 2023. Ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology: accuracy of the AncesTrees software in a Brazilian sample. Forensic Sciences Research, 8(3):202-210. https://doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad030
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad030
• KASA T.Y.P., PLENS, Claudia R., SOUZA, Camila D., PAIVA, Luiz A.S.D., LOPEZ-CAPP, Thais T. 2020. Estimativa sexual por meio da análise das suturas maxilares. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 2: 71-84.
• KLEPINGER, Linda L. 2006. Fundamentals of forensic anthropology John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/0470007729
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/0470007729
• KRANIOTI, Elena, & PAINE, Robert. 2011. “Forensic anthropology in Europe: an assessment of current status and application”. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 89:71–92. doi: 10.4436/jass.89002
  » https://doi.org/10.4436/jass.89002
• L’ABBE, Ericka N., & STEYN, Maryna. 2012. “The establishment and advancement of forensic anthropology in South Africa”. In DIRKMAAT, Dennis, (Ed.), A companion to forensic anthropology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 626–638. DOI:10.1002/9781118255377
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118255377
• LANGLEY, N. R., & JANTZ, R. L. 2020. “Secular change”. In: KLALES, Alexandra R. (Ed.), Sex estimation of the human skeleton Academic Press, pp. 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815767-1.00018-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815767-1.00018-3
• LEE, Ronald D. (2003). “Rethinking the evolutionary theory of aging: transfers, not births, shape senescence in social species”. PNAS, 100(16): 9637–9642. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1530303100
  » https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1530303100
• LEONG, Aaron. 2006. “Sexual dimorphism of the pelvic architecture: a struggling response to destructive and parsimonious forces by natural & mate selection”. McGill J Med, 9(1): 61–66. PMID: 19529812; PMCID: PMC2687900.
• LESCIOTTO, Kate M. 2015. “The impact of Daubert on the admissibility of forensic anthropology expert testimony”. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(3): 549–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12740
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12740
• LEWIS, Mary E. 2018. “Children in bioarchaeology: Methods and interpretations”. In: Katzenberg, M. Anne, & Grauer Anne L. (Eds.) Biological anthropology of the human skeleton John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp. 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119151647.ch4
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119151647.ch4
• LIMA, Thais S.D.A., DIAS, Maria E.C., CORSINI, Wagner, FERNANDES, Geraldo J.M., ROSSI JUNIOR, Wagner C., ESTEVES, Alessandra. 2022. Study of metric variations in mandibles of Southeastern Brazilians. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 5:39-50. https://doi.org/10.55332/bjfalm20225
  » https://doi.org/10.55332/bjfalm20225
• MALINOWSKI, A. 1980. Antropologia fizyczna. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Warszawa-Poznań.
• MARTINS, Ana C. OLIVEIRA, Isis G.D., ROSSI JUNIOR, Wagner C., ESTEVES, Alessandra. 2023. Use of the mastoid triangle and opisthion-bimastoideale craniometric techniques for biological sex identification in a sample from southern Minas Gerais. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 7: 53-65. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10045818
  » https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10045818
• MARQUEZ MORFIN, Lourdes. 2019. “Forensic anthropology in Mexico”. In: UBELAKER, Douglas, & COLANTONIO, Sonia E., (Eds.), Biological anthropology of Latin America: historical development and recent advances Smithsonian Scholarly Press, pp. 79–88.
• MARQUEZ-GRANT, Nicholas, LITHERLAND, Stephen, & ROBERTS, Julie. 2012. “European perspectives and the role of the forensic archaeologist in the UK”. In: DIRKMAAT, Dennis. (Ed.), A Companion to forensic anthropology John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 598–625. DOI:10.1002/9781118255377
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118255377
• MCFADDEN, Clare, CAVE, Christine M., & OXENHAM, Marc F. 2019. “Ageing the elderly: A new approach to the estimation of the age‐at‐death distribution from skeletal remains”. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 29(6): 1072–1078. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2820
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2820
• MENEZES, Maria C.T.D.L., ALMEIDA, Salen M.D., NASCIMENTO, Emília A.D., PEREIRA, Emilly A., CARVALHO, Marcus V.D.D, SORIANO, Evelyne P. 2021. Estimativa do sexo pelo método DSP2 em esqueletos humanos de uma coleção brasileira contemporânea. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 3: 1-15.
• MIGUEL-ALIAGA, Irene. 2022 “Let’s talk about (biological) sex”. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 23: 227–228. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-022-00467-w
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-022-00467-w
• MOLDAKOZHAYEV, Alibek, & GLADYSHEV, Vadim. N. 2023. “Metabolism, homeostasis, and aging”. Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, 34(3): 158–169. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2023.01.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2023.01.003
• MONTEIRO DA SILVA, Sergio Francisco. S. 2019 “Forensic anthropology and archaeology in Brazil”. In: UBELAKER, Douglas, & COLANTONIO, Sonja E. (Eds.), Biological anthropology of Latin America: historical development and recent advances. Smithsonian Scholarly Press, pp. 31–40.
• MONTEIRO DA SILVA, Sergio Francisco S. 2019. “Forensic anthropology in Northwestern South America (Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Peru)”. In: UBELAKER, Douglas, & COLANTONIO, Sonja E. (Eds.), Biological anthropology of Latin America: historical development and recent advances. Smithsonian Scholarly Press, pp. 238–248.
• MOURA JÚNIOR, José G.D., PETRAKI, Gabriela G.P., ANTUNES, Antônio A. 2021. Estudo da correlação da estatura com medidas antropométricas plantares para fins de identificação humana. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 4:73-100.
• NAWROCKI, Stephen P. 2010. “The nature and sources of error in the estimation of age at death from the skeleton”. In: LATHAM, Krista. E., & FINNEGAN, Michael (Eds.), Age estimation of the human skeleton Thomas, Springfield, pp. 79–101.
• NIH. National Institutes of Health (US); 2007. “Biological Sciences Curriculum Study”. NIH Curriculum Supplement Series [Internet]. Bethesda (MD). Understanding Human Genetic Variation Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20363/
  » https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20363/
• OBERTOVÁ, Zuzana, ADALIAN, Pascal, BACCINO, Eric, CUNHA, Eugénia, DE BOER, Hans. H., FRACASSO, Tony, KRANIOTI, Elena, LEFÉVRE, Philippe, LYNNERUP, Niels, & PETAROS, Anja. 2019. “The status of forensic anthropology in Europe and South Africa: Results of the 2016 FASE questionnaire on forensic anthropology”. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 64:1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14016
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14016
• OGATA Tsutomu. 2006. “Genetics of human growth”. Clin Pediatr Endocrinol, 15(2): 45–53. doi: 10.1297/cpe.15.45
  » https://doi.org/10.1297/cpe.15.45
• OUSLEY, Stephen D., & HOLLINGER, R. Eric. 2012. “The pervasiveness of Daubert”. In DIRKMAAT, Dennis C. (Ed.), A companion to forensic anthropology Blackwell, pp. 654–665. DOI:10.1002/9781118255377
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118255377
• PARSCH, John & ELLEGREN, Hans. 2013. “The evolutionary causes and consequences of sex-biased gene expression”. Nat Rev Genet, 14: 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3376
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3376
• PASSALACQUA, Nicholas V., & PILLOUD, Marin. A. 2021. “The need to professionalize forensic anthropology”. European Journal of Anatomy, 25:35–47.
• PASSALACQUA, Nicholas V., MULHOLLAND, Sean, PILLOUD, Marin. A., & KLALES, Alexandra R. 2021a. “The value of forensic anthropology in undergraduate anthropology programs”. American Anthropologist, 123: 603–616. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13638
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13638
• PASSALACQUA, Nicholas. V., PILLOUD, Marin. A., & CONGRAM, Derek. 2021b. “Forensic anthropology as a discipline”. Biology, 10:691. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/biology1008069
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/biology1008069
• PAWLOVSKI, L.P., FIAMINI, B.K., PLENS, Claudia R., DE PAIVA, Luiz A.S., LOPEZ-CAPP, Thais T. 2020. “Estimativa sexual por meio da análise métrica da Fossa Mandibular em Antropologia Forense”. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 2: 4-19.
• PLENS, Claudia, & GÓRKA, Katarzyna. 2022. “A intrínseca relação entre as antropologias biológica e forense”. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 5: 8-22. https://doi.org/10.55332/bjfalm20225
  » https://doi.org/10.55332/bjfalm20225
• PLENS, Claudia. R., SOUZA, Camila D., ALBANESE, John, CAPP, T.T.L., & SAAVEDRA, L.A. 2021. “Reflections on methods to estimate race and ancestry on reference osteological samples in the Brazilian context”. Ethics Med Public Health, 18:100680. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2021.100680
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2021.100680
• PRIETO, José L. 2016. “A history of forensic anthropology in Spain”. In: BLAU, Soren, & UBELAKER, Douglas. (Eds.), Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology Routledge, (2nd ed.), pp. 56–66.
• QUINTERO Yuli AL., DELWING Fábio, DARUGE JÚNIOR Eduardo. 2020. “Sexual dimorphism of the mandibular basis: A logistic regression analysis”. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 1: 58-71.
• RENDEIRO, Sarah L.M., QUEIROZ, Rodrigo A.D., CARVALHO, Marcus V.D.D., SORIANO, Evelyne P. 2020. “Dimorfismo sexual: análises métricas dos ramos e côndilos mandibulares”. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 2: 53-70.
• RIGBY, Nichole, & KULATHINAL, Rob J. 2015. “Genetic architecture of sexual dimorphism in humans”. Journal of Cellular Physiology, 230(10): 2304–2310. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.24979
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.24979
• RITZ-TIMME, Stefanie, CATTANEO, Cristine, COLLINS, Matthew J., WAITE, E. R., SCHÜTZ, H. W., KAATSCH, H. J., & BORRMAN, H. I. M. 2000. “Age estimation: the state of the art in relation to the specific demands of forensic practice”. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 113: 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004140050283
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s004140050283
• RIVERA, Michael B. 2019. “Race and human variation. Explorations”. In: SHOOK, Beth, NELSON, Katie, AGUILERA, Kelsie, & BRAFF, Lara. (Eds.), An open invitation to biological anthropology (pp. 489-515).
• ROGOL, Alan D., ROEMMICH, James N., & CLARK, Pamela A. 2002. “Growth at puberty”. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6): 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00485-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00485-8
• ROSS, Ann H., & PILLOUD, Marin. 2021. “The need to incorporate human variation and evolutionary theory in forensic anthropology: A call for reform”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 176:(4), 672–83. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ajpa.24384
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24384
• ROSS, Ann H., & WILLIAMS, Shanna E. 2021. “Ancestry studies in forensic anthropology: back on the frontier of racism”. Biology, 10(7): 602. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10070602
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10070602
• ROSS, Ann H., BETHARD, Jonathan D., & DIGANGI, Elizabeth A. 2020. “A call for a paradigm shift in the study of ancestry”. In: Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Feb 17-22; Anaheim, CA. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 222.
• ROTHERMUND, Klaus, ENGLERT, Christoph, & GERSTORF, Denis. 2023. „Explaining variation in individual aging, it’s sources, and consequences: A comprehensive conceptual model of human aging”. Gerontology, 69(12): 1437–1447. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000534324.
  » https://doi.org/10.1159/000534324
• SANTOS, Andrei D.S., FERNANDES, Anna C.D.S., CUNHA, Eugénia, MACHADO, Marcos P.S. 2020. “Sex vs. gender: the relevance of semantics differentiation from the perspective of Forensic Anthropology”. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 2: 85-98.
• SAUER, Norman J. (1992). “Forensic anthropology and the concept of race: if races don’t exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?” Soc Sci Med, 34(2): 107–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(92)90086-6
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(92)90086-6
• SCHELL, Lawrence. M., & ROUSHAM, Emily K. 2022. “Environmental effects on growth”. In: CAMERON, Noel, & SCHELL, Lawrence. M. (Eds.), Human growth and development Academic Press, (3rd ed.) pp. 261–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822652-0.00013-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822652-0.00013-4
• SCHEUER, Louise, & BLACK, Sue. 2007. “Osteology”. In: THOMPSON, Tim, & BLACK, Sue. (Eds.), Forensic human identification. An introduction. CRC Press, pp. 199–219.
• SCHULZ, Erik M. 2021. “Sex vs gender in a forensic anthropological analysis”. Nebraska Anthropologist, 29: 5–19.
• SGARBIERI, Valdemiro Carlos, & PACHECO, Maria Teresa Bertoldo. 2017. “Healthy human aging: intrinsic and environmental factors”. Brazilian Journal of Food Technology, 20: e2017007. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-6723.00717
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-6723.00717
• SIERP, Ingrid, & HENNEBERG, Maciej. 2016. “Reconstruction of body height from the skeleton: testing a dozen different methods for consistency of their results”. Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 73: 7–21. DOI: 10.1127/anthranz/2016/0562
  » https://doi.org/10.1127/anthranz/2016/0562
• SILVA, Mariluzio A. M., TOMÉ, Tiago P. F., & SILVA, Hilton P. 2019. „An overview of the field of forensic anthropology in Brazil: Perspectives and challenges for the XXI Century“. J. Forensic Leg. Investig. Sci, 5: 23. DOI: 10.24966/FLIS-733X/100023
  » https://doi.org/10.24966/FLIS-733X/100023
• SILVA, Sara, MARTINS, Yolanda, MATIAS, Alexandra, & BLICKSTEIN, Isaac. 2011. “Why are monozygotic twins different?”. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 39:(2), 195–202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm.2010.140
  » https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm.2010.140
• SJØVOLD, Torstein. 1990. “Estimation of stature from long bones utilizing the line of organic correlation”. Human Evolution, 5: 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435593
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435593
• SKINNER, Mark, & BOWIE, Kristina. 2016. “Forensic anthropology: Canadian content and contributions”. In: Blau, Soren, & Ubelaker, Douglas. (Eds.), Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology Routledge, (2nd ed.), pp. 87–103.
• SMAY, Diana, & ARMELAGOS, George. 2000. “Galileo wept: A critical assessment of the use of race in forensic anthropology”. Transform Anthropology, 9(2): 19–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/tran.2000.9.2.19
  » https://doi.org/10.1525/tran.2000.9.2.19
• SPRADLEY, M.Katherine, & WEISENSEE, Katherine. 2013. “Why do forensic anthropologists estimate ancestry, and why is it so controversial?” In: TERSIGNI-TARRANT Maria Teresa. A., & SHIRLEY, Natalie R. (eds.), Forensic anthropology: an introduction. CRC Press, pp. 231–244.
• TINOCO, Rachel L.R., LIMA, Laise N.C., DELWING, Fabio, FRANCESQUINI JR, Luiz, & DARUGE JR, Eduardo. 2016. “Dental anthropology of a Brazilian sample: Frequency of nonmetric traits”. Forensic Science International, 258: 102-e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.10.019
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.10.019
• TREVISAN, Thays, XAVIER, Thais & CUNHA Eugenia. 2021. “A realidade da estimativa da afinidade populacional nos Institutos Médico-legais brasileiros”. Brazilian Journal of Forensic Anthropology and Legal Medicine, 4: 28-45.
• UBELAKER, Douglas. H. 2023. “Forensic Anthropology: Current Issues”. In: LARSEN Clark Spencer (ed.), A companion to biological anthropology John Wiley & Sons, pp. 494-509. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119828075.ch29
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119828075.ch29
• UBELAKER, Douglas H. 2018. “A history of forensic anthropology”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 165: 915–923. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23306
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23306
• UBELAKER, Douglas H. 2020. “The historical development of forensic anthropology”. Forensic Anthropology, 3(3):164-170.
• UBELAKER, Douglas H., & DEGAGLIA, Cassandra M. 2020. “Factors of population variation in sex estimation methodology”. In: KLALES, Alexandra R. (Ed.), Sex estimation of the human skeleton Academic Press, pp. 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815767-1.00017-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815767-1.00017-1
• VASWANI, Vina, & AHMED, Mohammed Nasir. 2020. “Forensic anthropology education and training in India”. Med. Sci. Law, 60: 83–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0025802419879003
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0025802419879003
• WASHBURN, Sherwood L. 1960. “Tools and human evolution”. Scientific American, 203: 63–75. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24940615
  » https://www.jstor.org/stable/24940615
• WHITE, Tim D., FOLKENS, Pieter A. 2005. The human bone manual Elsevier.
• YANKOVA, Iskra. 2005. “Anthropological characteristics of Bulgarian newborns”. Rev Environ Health, 20:(1), 65–75. doi: 10.1515/reveh.2005.20.1.65. PMID: 15835499
  » https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh.2005.20.1.65
• ZATORSKA, Michalina. 1992. “Values of somatic traits and of body proportion indices in male and female newborns of Lublin”. Stud Hum Ecol.,10:75–82. PMID: 1344736.
• ZEMAN, Tomas, & BEÑUŠ, Radoslav. 2020. “Stature estimation”. In: OBERTOVA, Zuzana, STEWART, Alistair, & CATTANEO, Cristina. (Ed.), Statistics and probability in forensic anthropology Academic Press, pp. 249–256.
• ZWIJNENBURG, Petra J., MEIJERS‐HEJJBOER, Hanne, & BOOMSMA, Dorret I. 2010. “Identical but not the same: the value of discordant monozygotic twins in genetic research”. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 153(6): 1134–1149. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.31091
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.31091

Chief-Editor:

Guilherme Moura Fagundes

Associated Editor:

Marta Rosa Amoroso

Associated Editor:

Ana Claudia Duarte Rocha Marques

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  05 Oct 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  20 Feb 2024
• Accepted
  25 Oct 2025