The role of forensic anthropology in Disaster Victim Identication (DVI)

Soren Blau
a,
*, Christopher A. Briggs
a,b
a
Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and the Department of Forensic Medicine, Monash University, 57-83 Kavanagh St, Southbank, VIC 3006, Australia
b
Department of Anatomy & Cell Biology, University of Melbourne, 3010, Australia
1. Introduction
The extreme weather conditions in Victoria, Australia leading
up to and on the 7th February 2009 resulted in the deaths of 173
people. A range of forensic medical and science experts were
required to manage the search, location and analysis of the human
remains in an attempt to positively identify individuals. The aimof
this paper is to examine the role of forensic anthropology in a DVI
process and discuss the contributions this discipline made to the
February 2009 Bushre investigations. In highlighting the con-
tributions and limitations made by forensic anthropology to DVI
the paper will serve to broaden the educational awareness about
forensic anthropology for police, coroners, lawyers, emergency
workers and others involved in the DVI process.
2. What is DVI?
Disaster Victim Identication (DVI) refers to the procedures
used to positively identify deceased victims of a multiple casualty
event. The DVI procedures consist of ve phases: Phase 1: the
scene; Phase 2: the mortuary; Phase 3: ante-mortem data
collection; Phase 4: reconciliation and Phase 5: debrief. These
phases cover the time directly following the disaster and up to the
identication of the deceased. See [1] for a review of each of the
ve DVI phases.
3. History of forensic anthropology in DVI
Forensic anthropology is dened as the eld of study concerned
with the examination of material believed to be human to answer
medico-legal questions including those related to identication.
While there has been much written on the role of the forensic
pathologist and odontologist in Disaster VictimIdentication(DVI)
[2], Stewarts edited volume Personal Identication in Mass
Disasters is the rst account of the role of a forensic anthropologist
in the management of multiple deceased following a disaster [3].
Since this time, there has been an increased recognition of the role
the anthropologist can play in the multidisciplinary effort that is
required to identify disaster victims [4,5]. For example, in North
America where institutions such as The Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology and the Disaster Mortuary Teams of the Public Health
Service employ forensic anthropologists [6,7] in Australia where
the Australasian Disaster Victim Identication manual includes
protocols for anthropologists [8]; and in the UK, where anatomy,
Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 2935
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 22 April 2010
Received in revised form 27 July 2010
Accepted 28 July 2010
Available online 24 August 2010
Keywords:
Forensic anthropology
DVI
Disasters
Identication
A B S T R A C T
This paper briey describes Disaster Victim Identication (DVI) and reviews the history of the use of
forensic anthropology in the identication process. The potential contributions made by forensic
anthropology are illustrated through the presentation of a case study. In February 2009 the state of
Victoria in south-eastern Australia experienced the most devastating bushres in its history, resulting in
catastrophic loss of life and public and private property. Within 48 h of the disaster, forensic teams
including pathologists, odontologists and anthropologists assembled at the Victorian Institute of
Forensic Medicine in Melbourne to begin the task of identifying the deceased. This paper reviews the part
played by forensic anthropologists in the identication process and outlines the important contribution
anthropologists can make to DVI, especially at the scene, in the mortuary and in the reconciliation
process. The anthropologists experience with differentially preserved human remains meant they
played an important role identifying and recovering heavily fragmentary human skeletal remains,
differentiating human from non-human remains, establishing basic biological information such as the
sex and age of the individuals and conrming or denying the possibility of re-associating body parts for
release to families.
Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Forensic medical response to the 2009 Victorian Bushres Disaster, Guest-

edited by Olaf H. Drummer and Stephen M. Cordner.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9684 4469; fax: +61 3 9682 7353.
E-mail address: sorenb@vifm.org (S. Blau).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Forensic Science International
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ f or sci i nt
0379-0738/$ see front matter. Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.07.038
forensic anthropology and DVI are brought together as part of
training for the UK National Disaster VictimIdentication (UK DVI)
team [9,10]. Criticism has been made of responses to mass
disasters, such as the Asian tsunami, which failed to incorporate a
forensic anthropologist [4].
In addition to the signicant contributions made by forensic
anthropologists to investigations of human rights violations [11
13] the skills of forensic anthropologists (see below) have been
used in the examination of a range of different scale disasters
including light plane accidents [14] train crashes [15]; sieges [5],
large scale terrorist attacks such as the 2001 World Trade Center
disaster [1618] and the Bali Bombings [19], as well as natural
disasters such as hurricanes [20] and bushres (see below).
4. The role of a forensic anthropologist in a DVI
Whether a result of human or natural circumstances, a disaster
is likely to involve a range of extreme forces such as heat (burning),
impact (G-force, wave), crushing (structure collapse), explosion,
freefall (impact) and/or environmental inuences (temperature;
humidity; waterwarm, cold, salt, fresh; carnivore/rodent activi-
ty) that all potentially impact on the condition of the body.
Consequently, disasters resulting in mass fatalities commonly
present a range of differentially preserved remains that may
include bodies and/or body parts that are: intact, fairly intact,
decomposed, fragmentary, commingled, burned or cremated;
partially burnt, distorted, buried or a combination of several of
these states of preservation [21] (see also [2]).
Practitioners involved in the location, recovery and analysis of
deceased individuals following a disaster must, therefore, have
expertise not only in human anatomy but the taphonomic and
diagenetic processes of different variables (including burial, re,
sun, salt, etc.) and the associated impact on the human body [22].
As part of routine casework, the forensic anthropologist commonly
examines remains in varying states of preservation: skeletonised
(with or without associated decomposing soft tissue, which is
sometimes mummied); burned or otherwise damaged or altered
including dismembered, or a combination of these conditions. The
forensic anthropologists experience dealing with a range of
differentially preserved skeletal remains means that they may
also play a role in assisting in the DVI process [23], specically in
Phases 1 (the scene), 2 (the mortuary) and 4 (reconciliation).
Involvement in Phase 3 (ante-mortemdata collection) is, however,
a regular feature of the forensic anthropologists role in human
rights and post-conict forensic investigations.
4.1. Phase 1: scene
While there are comments in the literature that forensic
pathologists and anthropologists are not involved in the crime
scene investigation; their activity is conned to the institute
premises [24], the benets of including both anthropologists and
pathologists at the scene are now well understood. Depending on
the type of disaster and associated levels of preservation, the
forensic anthropologist may assist at the scene rst by identifying
the presence of skeletal remains. While police have the core
responsibility for Phase 1 responses, the presence of forensic
anthropologists experienced in differential preservation working
at disaster scenes is important to ensure remains that might
otherwise be unrecognizable and therefore overlooked are
identied, collected and made available for further examination.
In the absence of this expertise the potential loss of evidence may
impact on later phases of the process, especially the reconstruction
of peri- and post-mortem events. Once skeletal remains have been
located the forensic anthropologist can assist in determining
whether the remains are in fact human. The forensic anthropolo-
gist may also play an important role in identifying the spatial-
temporal relationships between the bodies and associated
evidence, including the body position and in determining the
numbers of individuals present [5,25]. Establishing whether there
is more than one individual present and if the remains are
commingled is important for the recovery process.
4.2. Phase 2: mortuary
The role of the forensic anthropologist and his/her contribution
to the mortuary phase will depend on the preservation of the
deceased. When forensic anthropologists have assisted in the
investigation of mass disasters, they have been critical in a range of
analyses [16,26,27] including:
separation of osseous from non-osseous material (potentially
done in the eld and/or the mortuary);
separation of human from non-human and non-bone material;
(anthropologists were required to distinguish human from non-
human remains in the New York September 11 terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Centre where many restaurants were located
in the area of the destruction);
separation of recognizable vs. non-recognizable fragments that
require DNA analysis; (retrieval and identication of soft tissue
fragments in the 2002 Bali incident, especially from individuals
thought to be at the epicentre of the explosion, contributed to the
identication of many of the deceased);
separation of commingled remains;
analysis of small fragments of bone from any region in the body;
siding to left and right of skeletal fragments;
analysis of cross-sections of bone in soft tissue masses;
analysis of incinerated remains with no soft tissue;
Evaluation of the above enables the forensic anthropologist to:
determine the minimum numbers of individuals present,
establish a biological prole (ancestry, sex, age, and/or stature)
of those individuals, and
provide an opinion on ante-, peri- and post-mortem trauma.
5. The forensic anthropologist and DVI in an Australian
context: Bushre case study
5.1. Phase 1: the scene
Initial reports of numbers of individuals killed during the 7th
February 2009 Victorian bushres (referred to as the Black
Saturday res) were conicting with gures ranging from 14 to
3000 deaths, more than 3000 properties lost, 7000 people
displaced and several towns completely destroyed (Trevor Blake,
DVI CBR Police Unit, Personal Communication 2009). In less than
48 h following the most devastating res in Australias history
multidisciplinary teams including police, pathologists, anthropol-
ogists, odontologists, mortuary scientic and technical staff,
photographers and scribes assembled from throughout the state
and beyond and commenced examinations of the deceased in the
mortuary at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM).
Ideally attendance of forensic anthropologist at the scene would
have occurred in the days immediately following the Victorian
disaster. However, in the case of the 2009 Victorian Bushres
Disaster there were 145 disparate scenes spread over an area of
approximately 4000 hectares (over 1 million acres, or more than
1500 square miles) which meant there were multiple DVIs at one
time (Fig. 1). Much of the state was still burning and in addition,
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 2935 30
there were allegations that some res had been intentionally lit,
thus all sites had to be investigated as potential crime scenes.
The coordination of resources has been described as one of the
most challenging aspects of mass disaster scene processing [27].
Although there were numerous calls from police requesting the
presence of an anthropologist at scenes, provision of expertise in
the mortuary was given a higher priority, particularly in the early
stages when the total death toll was being recongured on a daily
basis and few anthropologists were available. Unlike medico-legal
institutions in countries such as the United States which employ
numerous forensic anthropologists [28] there are relatively few
practicing forensic anthropologists in Australia [29]. The situation
immediately following the 2009 Victorian Bushres Disaster was
made more difcult by the fact that three of the most experienced
forensic anthropologists were deployed overseas engaged in work
related activities. One of the briefs of the VIFM is to support the
international development of forensic medical/science services
and to this end one of these anthropologists was coordinating a
Disaster Victim Identication course in Nepal while another was
involved in the exhumation of human remains froma World War 2
plane crash in Papua NewGuinea. Therefore, because of the need to
maximize resources in the rst week a protocol was quickly
established in which it was decided an anthropologist would not
attend all primary scenes but would instead be based in the
mortuary. Some primary scenes that had not been completely
investigated by the police were visited by multidisciplinary
disaster teams, including an anthropologist, pathologist and
dentist, at the beginning of the second week when the pool of
available anthropologists had increased.
Because of the huge scale of the res and the multiple-scenes
(which included 1886 destroyed homes and 760 destroyed
vehicles) as well as the inability in the rst days to obtain a
denitive number of missing, within a week the Coroner issued a
Restricted Access Order on the six main re burn areas, which
required destroyed and partly destroyed structures to be searched
for possible human remains, that each scene should be re-visited
and no sites should be cleared or interfered with until police and
specialists were certain all remains had been recovered. A total of
86 re-visits were made, all of which included an anthropologist as
part of the multidisciplinary investigation team. These re-visits
continued until early March, more than a month after the res
started, and a total of 56 additional DVI numbers were generated as
a result.
5.2. Phase 2: the mortuary
The re-affected areas included not only bush land but also
heavily populated centers. Consequently, there were vast numbers
of completely and partially destroyed buildings, burnt-out
vehicles, and livestock and native animals killed by the re. While
the temperatures of the Black Saturday res were comparable to or
exceeded those reached during a cremation (c. 1000 8C), what was
remarkable was the length of time at which the res burned at
these or even higher temperatures. Unlike human remains in a
modern crematorium, which are subjected to intense heat for
approximately 1 h, after 45 h the bushres were still burning and
even after 24 h, temperatures recorded on some bodies were still
600700 8C (John Callaher, Arson Investigation Forensic Science
Centre personal communication 22/06/09) (see also [30] for
discussion on the effects on bone of time, temperature and oxygen
availably). In visiting one of the areas more than a week after the
res, an investigation team found burning embers under animal
remains at the entrance to a site and at another site the oor of the
destroyed house was still too hot to kneel on. These consistently
high temperatures, combined with the duration of burning, had a
signicant impact on the preservation of the remains.
5.3. Preservation of remains
As observed in many DVI situations [5] human remains
recovered from the bushres scenes were signicantly differen-
tially preserved and included relatively complete bodies, carbon-
ized body parts (especially the large muscle masses of the back and
thighs), identiable carbonized soft tissue blocks including heart
and lungs, as well as fully skeletonised remains. While some
skeletal elements were relatively intact others were heavily burnt,
often calcined, fragmentary and fragile (Fig. 2). Bones that
commonly survived and were subsequently available for identi-
cation included vertebrae, heads of radii, articular surfaces of
proximal aspects of femora and tibiae, as well as patellae and tali.
Why the head of the femur should survive is understandable given
it is deeply located within the large muscle mass of the proximal
thigh, however survivability of the head of the radius is more
difcult to explain and contrary to ndings elsewhere [5,31].
Carbonised remains were found in close proximity to calcined
elements, probably inuenced by the thickness of subcutaneous
tissue and body position in addition to proximity to the re. The
upper limbs commonly presented the pugilistic posture seen in
severe re-affected victims with related fractures of the mid-shaft
of the radius and ulna. Distal segments of the lower limbs were also
severely incinerated often with related fractures of the tibia and
bula. However, a high percentage of major joint complexes,
particularly the hip, were often intact and once opened up had
measurable articular surfaces.
5.4. Examination of remains
The role of the forensic anthropologist in a DVI is no different to
that in routine casework (see above). However, in order to deal
with large numbers of differentially preserved remains, it is
necessary to be able to quickly identify fragments which provide
the most useful information for personal identication. In the case
of the 2009 Victorian Bushres Disaster, anthropologists worked
closely with pathologists and odontologists analyzing differential-
ly burnt and fragmentary remains and frequently re-visiting their
initial estimates of sex and age when new information came to
light. Over the duration of the DVI process forensic anthropologists
examined 175 cases. Each case consisted of a body bag with a
unique DVI number, which may have contained anything from a
fragment of non-human bone to commingled human remains. In

Fig. 1. Map illustrating the widespread location of the res and associated numbers
of fatalities (Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feb_7_09_vic_bushres_
map.PNG).
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 2935 31
addition, the forensic anthropologists had to re-examine the
remains on several occasions especially in relation to those with
multiple deceased. The scenario was further complicated (and the
overall DVI process considerably lengthened) by the fact that 31
cases were commingled on presentation to the mortuary and eight
sets of remains were found to be non-human.
As part of the normal VIFM protocol, all cases admitted to the
mortuary were CT-scanned using a Toshiba Aquilion
TM
16 multi-
detector CT scanner. The utility of a CT scanner in a DVI situation
has been highlighted in a domestic DVI context [4] but this was the
rst time it had been used in a disaster of this magnitude. The
consultant radiologist viewed all cases prior to identication
commencing in the mortuary and prepared a brief report which
indicated the presence of metallic objects such as jewellery,
watches, mobile phones, prostheses as well as skeletal elements
including articular surfaces The forensic anthropologist worked
closely with the consultant radiologist in interpreting images,
commenting on, for example, numbers of individuals, and the
presence/absence of metallic artifacts, teeth, etc. [32].
It is well established that [b]urning can make many objects
look like bone that are not even biological in nature [33]. In some
cases the anthropologist had to differentiate non-osseous from
osseous material. Building materials such as oor tiles were burnt
to the extent that they resembled cranial elements and glues
mimicked the morphology of dentition (Fig. 3).
Because of the inability of forensic anthropologists to attend all
scenes, photographs taken by police at the scene/s of skeletal
remains suspected to be human were sent via a secure website to
the VIFM. This allowed the anthropologists to quickly determine
whether the remains were human or non-human. This innovation
proved to be an extremely efcient way of spreading a thin
resource over a wide area.
In some cases the determination of the minimum numbers of
individuals was straight forward, for example, where the torso of
an 8-month-old child was commingled with fragments of an adult.
In the majority of cases, however, where there was signicant
fragmentation of heavily burnt remains, the experience of the
anthropologists in distinguishing differentially preserved remains
to identify bony landmarks for individualization was essential. For
example, in one case the shape and size of the articular surfaces of
the tibial plateau was the only means of determining two left tibia
and hence two individuals.
5.5. Biological proles
Standard anthropological techniques for determining a biologi-
cal prole are well established [34,35]. However, in the case
of mass fatalities involving a large number of differentially
preserved, often heavily disrupted human remains, some techni-
ques will be more useful than others. A major contribution from
the anthropologist to the DVI process is the skill of being able
to locate and identify in a timely manner the most relevant
anatomical landmarks that may provide information about
ancestry, sex, age and/or stature (Table 1). While such information
will obviously not positively identify the individual, it facilitates
a triaging process for other practitioners such as the pathologist
and odontologists to then make their contributions.
In the Victorian bushres cases, ancestry and stature were not
seen as important criteria for narrowing the window of possible

Fig. 2. Differential preservation: (a) relatively intact skeletal elements and (b)
heavily fragmentary skeletal remains.

Fig. 3. Building materials that mimicked burnt (a) human cranium and (b) dentition.
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 2935 32
identication with the focus being on sex and age. Although
ancestry has been estimated in disaster contexts (e.g., [5]), the
analysis is often controversial [36]. Given the remains were
relatively poorly preserved and we were working in the context of
a multi-cultural country, ancestry data was not seen as a useful
variable for narrowing the range of possibilities for identication.
While it is possible to estimate the stature of an individual from
fragmentary human skeletal remains [37,38], height in living
people is rarely or accurately recorded in Australia. Consequently,
although stature has been seen as an important marker of personal
identication [39], such estimates were not deemed useful in the
investigation of identication of victims of the Victorian bushres.
Although the condition of the remains in the Victorian bushre
cases varied from carbonized to calcined it was generally feasible
to estimate sex and to provide a guide as to age. Age estimation was
always easier with juvenile or childrens remains. A signicant
complicating factor, however, was commingling at properties
where there were multiple deaths. At one scene the remains of
nine individuals, four adults and ve children, were recovered from
a destroyed house. From the original scene visits there was
estimated to be as much as 90% of some individuals remaining,
between 25 and 50% of others and in some cases less than 25% of
the individuals survived. There was considerable commingling
between the nine individuals with the possibility of non-human
remains as well (dogs were known to have been in the house).
Fromthe informationprovided, one of the deceased was thought to
be a young child. However four other older juveniles were also
suspected of having died in the property. Although the remains
were signicantly commingled it was possible to distinguish
several child lumbar vertebrae on evidence of markings (in the
form of radiating lines) of the annular epiphyses. Several of these
vertebrae were considerably smaller than the others and were
attributed to the 5-year-old (there was no supporting DNA
evidence).
In one case a bra under wire was found (and identied as such
on the CT images), indicating a female and there was evidence of an
unfused proximal femoral epiphysis. The femoral head was able to
be measured suggesting female, although sex determination is
notoriously unreliable in juveniles.
Additional commingled remains recovered from this site
included two fused upper lumbar vertebrae with loss of the
intervening disc space. The vertebrae showed no evidence of
surgical xation and on rst examination it was thought
osteophytic bony bars may have lead to the fusion. One of the
missing persons was thought to be an elderly male, a neighbor
who had retreated to the property when his own home was
threatened. Medical records were sought but were unable to
shed any light on a possible surgical fusion. However the son of
the deceased remembered that his father had injured his back
many years earlier and may have had surgery to address the
damage.
One unexpected nd occurred during a scene re-visit to a
property which had been destroyed by the re. In removing
sheets of galvanized iron, army personnel had come across
skeletal material in a corner of a room, close to where a window
ledge had previously been located. The anthropologist con-
rmed the remains were human and part of a skull. Careful
excavation of the surrounding area revealed additional frag-
ments of skull bones, with partial mandible containing some
teeth. The entire room was subsequently searched for additional
skeletal elements, in particular post-cranial remains; building
materials were sifted and the search extended to the outside of
the window in the unlikely event of disturbance when re
brigade personnel attended the scene. However, no evidence of
additional bones could be found and the search was called off
after several hours.
Information relating to the incomplete nature of the scene was
conveyed to the DVI Commander who subsequently contacted
members of the family. It transpired the owner had been looking
after a skull belonging to a local doctor and had left it on the
window ledge in his study! The skull had presumably become
dislodged when the house burnt down and was buried under the
Table 1
Some of the more useful anatomical features for the estimation of ancestry, sex, age and stature in fragmentary human skeletal remains.
Skeletal element Anatomical features Ancestry Sex Age Stature
Cranium Nasion morphology Yes
Glabella Yes
Occipital nuchal crest Yes
Mastoid process Yes
Supra orbital margin Yes
Zygomatic (suprameatal crest) Yes
Sphenooccipital synchondrosis Yes
Maxilla Nasal aperture (sill) Yes
Shovel-shaped incisors Yes
Maxillary dentition Yes
Mandible Ramus (gonion angle) Yes
Mental eminence Yes
Mandibular dentition Yes
Vertebra Presence of osteophytes Yes
Presence of ventral rings Yes
Pelvis Pubis (pubic symphysis, subpubic angle; size) Yes Yes
Ischio-pubic ramus Yes
Greater sciatic notch Yes
Pre-auricular surface Yes
Sacrum Sacrum Yes Yes
Femur Proximal femur Yes Yes Yes
Distal femur Yes Yes
Tibia Proximal tibia Yes Yes
Distal tibia Yes Yes
Humerus Proximal humerus Yes Yes Yes
Distal humerus Yes Yes
Radius Proximal radius Yes Yes
Clavicle Medial clavicle Yes
Ribs Sternal end Yes
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 2935 33
rubble. Interestingly none of the skeletal elements, ramus of the
mandible or temporal bones, had evidence of screws or hooks that
might have held the calvarium in place, common clues that such
nds were part of a teaching collection.
5.6. Pathology review
Anthropological input to identication continued long after all
remains had been examined in the mortuary. Pathology reviews
took place as briefs were assembled by the police for presentation
to the Identication Board chaired by the Coroner. In cases were
commingling had occurred scene photographs were scrutinized as
were details on the DVI pink forms in an attempt to conrm the
position of each individual. Where doubts were raised the
anthropologist routinely returned to the mortuary to re-examine
the contents of body bags.
5.7. Logistical issues
There were a number of occupational health and safety issues
that had to be dealt with prior to working at a scene. In addition to
assessing the integrity of walls in destroyed houses and having to
work on oor surfaces that were still extremely hot, some of the
scenes were contaminated by asbestos. None of the anthropolo-
gists had previous experience working in such conditions but were
professionally guided by the relevant agency (e.g. re authorities
and police DVI personnel) in working both at the scene and in the
mortuary in the appropriate personal protective clothing. Further,
some of the DVI teams stayed overnight when doing re-visits
therefore accommodation needed to be provided in areas that had
been devastated by the bushres.
5.8. Phase 4
Forensic anthropologists provided information at the pathology
reviews to assist in conrming or denying the possibility of re-
associating body parts for release to families. This consisted of
individual case reviews incorporating consideration of scene
photographs, pink Interpol DVI post-mortem forms and pathol-
ogists and radiologists reports. The anthropologist had not
provided an independent report at the initial mortuary examina-
tion and in the subsequent debrief this was considered a signicant
omission. The utility of separate anthropology reports in DVI
contexts is important not only for immediate cases reviews but
also for future analyses of the data in order to attempt improve
anthropology techniques [5,40].
Reassessments of diagrams drawn at the scene by the DVI
police ofcer were particularly helpful incases of commingling. As
new information came to light, particularly from the odontolo-
gists and from ante-mortem materials, the anthropologist was
required to re-examine body bags, predominantly in cases where
there were multiple commingleddeceasedtoseparate individuals
as far as possible, where families had indicated a desire for this to
occur.
6. Conclusion
Despite increased acknowledgement of the role forensic
anthropologists can play in DVI, there remains room for improve-
ment. For example, lessons learnt from forensic anthropologists
involved in large scale disasters such as the Boxing Day 2005
tsunami and the 2009 Victorian bushres include the need for
anthropology protocols in the INTERPOL forms and entry of
physical anthropology data in the DVI Sys
1
, Plassdata (a database
which stores and compares data to assist with the identication
process) [41].
While it has been argued that forensic anthropology in DVI
situations has been under-utilized [20], over the past 20 years the
medico-legal community has increasingly embraced forensic
anthropology [42]. Depending on the type of disaster and the
level of preservation of the deceased person/s, the specic role of
the forensic anthropologist in the DVI process will change. The
2009 Victorian bushres have highlighted the need to always
consider including a forensic anthropologist as part of the
multidisciplinary team managing a DVI. It was shown that the
anthropologist can play a crucial role in narrowing the initial
search and provide key information directing the pathologist (who
may have limited experience of differentially burnt skeletal
elements) to the right conclusions with regards to the sex and
age of the deceased. In addition, the anthropologists knowledge
and experience in separating human from non-human remains as
well as left and right elements greatly assisted in the determina-
tion of the minimum number of individuals at a scene and
signicantly reduced the overall time taken to nalize identica-
tion.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for comments provided by Luis
Fondebrider (EAAF) and two anonymous reviewers.
References
[1] S. Blau, A. Hill, Disaster VictimIdentication: a review, Minerva Medicolegale 129
(2009) 3546.
[2] D. Cristina Cattaneo, d.A. Marco Grandi, Mass disasters, in: E.C. Aurore Schmitt,
Joao Pinheiro (Eds.), Forensic Anthropology and Medicine: Complementary
Sciences from Recovery to Cause of Death, Human Press, New Jersey, 2006, pp.
431443.
[3] T.D. Stewart, in: T.D. Stewart (Ed.), Personal Identication in Mass Disasters,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1970.
[4] T. Kahana, J. Hiss, The role of forensic anthropology in mass fatality incidents
management, Forensic Science Policy and Management: An International Journal
1 (3) (2009) 144149.
[5] D.H. Ubelaker, et al., The role of forensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis
of Branch Davidian Compound victims: recovery procedures and characteristics
of the victims, Journal of Forensic Science 40 (3) (1995) 335340.
[6] P. Sledzik, Federal resources in mass disaster response, Cultural Resource Man-
agement 10 (1996) 1920.
[7] M.J. Hinkes, The role of a forensic anthropologist in mass disaster resolution,
Aviation Space Environment Medicine 60 (1989) A60A63.
[8] A. Buck, DVI forensic anthropology procedures (Appendix K), in: Australian DVI
Standards Manual, Emergency Management Australia and the Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra, 2004.
[9] J. Hunter, Domestic homicide investigation in the United Kingdom, in: S. Blau, D.H.
Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Anthropology, Left Coast Press, California,
2009, pp. 374387.
[10] S. Black, Disaster anthropology, in: S. Blau, D.H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook of
Forensic Anthropology, Left Coast Press, California, 2009, pp. 397406.
[11] M. Doretti, L. Fondebrider, Science and human rightstruth, justice, reparation
and reconciliation: a long way in third world countries, in: V. Buchli, L. Gavin
(Eds.), Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past, Routledge, London, 2001, pp.
138144.
[12] M. Doretti, C.C. Snow, Forensic anthropology and human rights: The Argentine
experience, in: D.W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic
Anthropology, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2003, pp. 290310.
[13] J.E.B. Debra Komar, Forensic Anthropology: Contemporary Theory and Practice.,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008.
[14] S. Blau, S. Robertson, M. Johnstone, Disaster victim identication: new applica-
tions for postmortem computed tomography, Journal of Forensic Science 53 (4)
(2008) 956961.
[15] S.U. Stratton, O.B. Beattie, Mass disasters: comments and discussion regarding the
Hinton Train Collision of 1986, in: S.J. Fairgrieve (Ed.), Forensic Osteological
Analysis, Charles C. Thomas, Springeld, 1999, pp. 267286.
[16] P. Sledzik, et al., Disaster victim recovery and identication: forensic anthropol-
ogy in the aftermath of September 11th, in: D.W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard Evidence:
Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 2009.
[17] A.Z. Mundorff, Anthropologist directed triage: three distinct mass fatality events
involving fragmentation of human remains, in: B.J. Adams, J.E. Byrd (Eds.),
Recovery, Analysis, and Identication of Commingled Human Remains, Humana
Press, Totowa, NJ, 2008, pp. 123144.
[18] G. Mackinnon, A.Z. Mundorff, The World Trade CenterSeptember 11, 2001, in:
T.J.U. Thompson, S.M. Black (Eds.), Forensic Human Identication: An Introduc-
tion, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2007, pp. 485499.
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 2935 34
[19] C. Briggs, A. Buck, The role of the anthropologist in Disaster Victim Identication:
the Bali incidents 2002 and 2004, in: S. Blau, D.H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook of
Forensic Anthropology, Left Coast Press, California, 2009, pp. 407415.
[20] D.C. Dirkmaat, Anthropology response to Hurricane Katrina, Proceedings of the
American Academy of Forensic Sciences (2006).
[21] S. Blau, Forensic anthropology and its contributions to police investigations,
Australian Police Journal 63 (1) (2009) 414.
[22] F.P. Saul, J.M. Saul, Planes, trains, and reworks: the evolving role of the forensic
anthropologist in mass fatality incidents, in: D.W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard Evidence:
Case Studies inForensic Anthropology, Prentice Hall, NewJersey, 2009, pp. 266277.
[23] T. Kahana, M. Freund, J. Hiss, Suicidal terrorist bombings in Israelidentication of
human remains, Journal of Forensic Sciences 42 (1997) 259263.
[24] S.I. Fairgrieve, Forensic Cremation: Recovery and Analysis, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
2008.
[25] R.W. Byard, J.A. Ross, J. Zuccollo, Potential confusion arising from material
presenting as possible human remains, The American Journal of Forensic Medi-
cine and Pathology 4 (2001) 391394.
[26] A.Z. Mundorff, Urban anthropology, case studies from the New York City Medical
Examiners Ofce, in: D.W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard Evidence: Case Studies in
Forensic Anthropology, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2003, pp. 5262.
[27] D.W. Owsley, et al., The role of forensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis
of Branch Davidian compound victims: techniques of analysis, Journal of Forensic
Sciences 40 (1995) 341348.
[28] R. Pickering, D. Bachman, The Use of Forensic Anthropology, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, 2009.
[29] D. Donlon, The development and current state of forensic anthropology: an
Australian perspective, in: S. Blau, D.H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic
Anthropology, Left Coast Press, California, 2009, pp. 104114.
[30] P.L. Walker, K.W.P. Miller, R. Richmand, Time, temperature, and oxygen availability:
an experimental study of the effects of environmental conditions on the color and
organic content of crematedbone, in: C.W. Schmidt, S.A. Symes (Eds.), TheAnalysis of
Burned Human Remains, Academic Press, London, 2008, pp. 129136.
[31] S.A. Symes, et al., Patterned thermal destruction of human remains in a forensic
setting, in: C.W. Schmidt, S.A. Symes (Eds.), The Analysis of Burned Human
Remains, Academic Press, London, 2008.
[32] C. ODonnell, et al., Contribution of postmortem multidetector CT scanning to
identication of the deceased in a mass disaster: experience gained fromthe 2009
Victorian bushres, Forensic Sciences International 205 (2011) 1528.
[33] C. Schmidt, S. Symes, in: C. Schmidt, S. Symes (Eds.), Preface in the analysis of
burned human remains, Academic Press, London, 2008.
[34] T. Simmons, W. Haglund, Anthropology in a forensic context, in: J. Hunter, M. Cox
(Eds.), Forensic Archaeology: Advances in Theory and Practice, Routledge, London,
2005, pp. 159176.
[35] D.H.U. Jane Buikstra, Standards for Data Collection fromHuman Skeletal Remains,
vol. 44, Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Arkansas, 1994.
[36] I. Tattersall, Race: scientic nonproblem cultural quagmire, The Anatomical
Record 278B (2004) 2326.
[37] D.G.a.M.T.W. Steele, A method for assessment of maximum long bone length and
living stature from fragmentary long bones, American Journal of Physical An-
thropology 31 (2) (1969) 215227.
[38] T. Simmons, R.L. Jantz, W.M. Bass, Stature estimation from fragmentary femora:
a revision of the Steele method, Journal of Forensic Science 35 (3) (1990) 628
636.
[39] J.K. Littleton, R. Kinaston, Ancestry, age, sex and stature: identication in a diverse
space, in forensic approaches to death, in: M. Oxenham (Ed.), Disaster and Abuse,
Australian Academic Press, Queensland, 2009, pp. 155176.
[40] D.W. Owsley, et al., The role of forensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis
of Branch Davidian Compound victims: techniques of analysis, Journal of Forensic
Science 40 (3) (1995) 341348.
[41] J.E. Buikstra, D.H. Ubelaker, Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal
Remains, in: Proceedings of the Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History,
Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series, 1994.
[42] K. Kieser, Silence of the limbsreinventing forensic anthropology, HOMOJour-
nal of Comparative Human Biology 60 (2009) 239290.
S. Blau, C.A. Briggs / Forensic Science International 205 (2011) 2935 35