Range of services
At the beginning there is often a basic question: is human material present or not? The human-or-animal distinction is therefore often the first decisive step. This is followed by the state of preservation, completeness, number of individuals, and the possibility of a biological profile. Where the material supports it, this includes assessments of sex, age at death, stature, as well as indications of pathological or treatment-related changes.
Not every bone find already supports personal identification. Often the first task is simply to clarify what evidential potential the material possesses at all and which additional records or comparison findings would be required.
The range of services therefore includes first the human-or-animal distinction, assessment of the number of individuals, a basic anthropological finding according to preservation, completeness, and abnormalities, and—where assessable—a biological profile with sex, age at death, and stature. In addition, there may be indications of pathological changes, fractures, traces of treatment, or other individualising features.
Identification context
Personal identification may be based, among other things, on dental status, disease- or treatment-related changes, fractures, or other individualising features. Here too, the methodological core does not lie in a spectacular single idea, but in the transparent comparison of findings whose evidential value is stated openly. Particularly important in this context are antemortem comparison records, for example dental documentation, radiological prior findings, or other medical records against which individualising findings can be compared reliably.
Reconstructive approaches or superimposition procedures may play a supplementary role, but they do not replace a sufficiently reasoned overall finding. The better the antemortem comparison records, the more sustainable the later classification becomes.
Helpful documents
For the later assessment, documentation of the find location, recovery records, indications of associated finds, and already available comparison records are central. Particularly helpful are dental, radiological, or other antemortem records that may support an individual allocation. The better these records are, the more sustainable the identification context later becomes as well.
Lost small finds, damaged dental or facial regions, and poorly documented positional relationships often reduce the later evidential value more strongly than any missing additional method.
Recovery and documentation
In skeletal finds it is especially clear that later evidential quality may be lost already at an early stage. For that reason, documentation of the find location is not a side issue. Position, orientation, stratification, the relationship of finds to one another, and careful handling of fragile regions often determine what can later be assessed at all. The practical evidential value of the later examination therefore often depends more on the quality of the early preservation than on any later supplementary method.
Practical core
The actual strength of osteological examination usually does not lie in a single spectacular feature, but in the clean linkage of several findings. A sustainable skeletal identification is therefore always also the result of early care: complete recovery, good documentation, intact comparison records.
Initial enquiry
In bone finds, early consultation, initial photographic documentation, and details of the find context, packaging, and steps already taken are particularly helpful. This makes it possible at an early stage to clarify whether initially a basic finding, a human-or-animal distinction, or already an identification-related in-depth examination is sensible. Even a few reliable details on the find context often avoid unnecessary loops in the further proceedings.