Accurate and precise assessments of sex and age at death of human skeletal remains are the essential first steps in the bioarchaeological reconstruction of past human populations, including patterns of morbidity and mortality, demographic reconstruction, diet and health, mobility and social status. Identified skeletal collections have been indispensable for developing and testing the methods used to estimate age and sex.

The value of these collections is entirely based on the quality of the documentary information for any one individual and for a collection as a whole. However, there are limitations and pitfalls involved in research using identified collections. How does a researcher know if 'known ages' are indeed correct? If a collection has been curated over the course of many decades, does it constitute a population, or simply an assembly of individuals unrelated in time and space? How should such a collection be sampled? Further problems and limitations associated with each collection are context-specific; for instance, the politico-economic context of the collection process can have an enormous impact on the structure and composition of the collection. Why were some skeletons included in the collection and have the retained documentary data been assessed for accuracy? Drawing on our experience conducting research using various identified collections from around the world (Coimbra, Dart, Forensic Anthropology Databank, Grant, Huntington, Lisbon, Pretoria, Spitalfields and Terry), in this paper we present some practical suggestions for overcoming the possible problems with reference collections and maximizing their research potential.

Critical approaches to the study of human biology are built upon the premise that science is inextricably tied to social practice and should therefore be a vehicle for social and intellectual change. Social theory now plays an important role in the growth of the discipline into a more critical and humanistic science. Studies of identified human skeletal collections are playing an increasingly prominent role in the integration of social theory into skeletal biology studies.

The recognition of science as a social practice has guided the interrogation of researchers' subject positions more so than examining the research methodologies and questions used in skeletal biology studies as social constructs. As such, this paper examines normative temporal, spatial and ethnoracial frameworks to which identified skeletal populations are subjected.

Drawing upon our ongoing research on the W. Montague Cobb human skeletal collection, we demonstrate how these normativities undermine critical and humanistic approaches to studying human biology. For instance, we address how the continued privileging of normal population distributions obscure the social, political and historical moments reflected in non-random distributions within and between identified skeletal collections. We also consider how these frameworks impact the standard integration of repatriation and reburial into research designs.

A variety of human remains are held in collections (e.g., archaeological, ethnographic, and medical) across United Kingdom, but collection details are often limited. Fortunately, a semblance of organisation in collections is growing, although the process is slow. For example, some successful effort has been made to summarise collections in direct response to the 2005 publication Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums (i.e., applicable in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) and the 2011 publication Guidelines for the Care of Human Remains in Scottish Museum Collections. This paper will discuss what is known about current UK human remains collections, and then discuss improved access and use of collections among potential stakeholders.

In a variety of medico-legal circumstances (homicides, unattended natural deaths, mass disasters, natural catastrophes, human rights violations and war crimes/genocides) human remains are frequently found badly preserved or skeletonised. Such occasions present particular medico-legal, humanitarian and social problems. Firstly, the remains need to be identified and secondly, the cause of death of the individual and, perhaps more importantly, the manner of death (homicide, suicide, accident) need to be determined, relying on bone trauma analysis since the cadaver may not preserve sufficient soft tissue. The techniques and methods utilized by the forensic anthropologist to identification and trauma analysis rely heavily on collections of documented human skeletons and archaeological samples of bone pathology. However, most collections have been amassed over 100 years ago or represent late 19th century and early 20 century population groups. Therefore, estimates of sex, age, or stature obtained from those samples are likely to be biased when applied to modern populations due to secular changes. The project presented here wishes to build two up-to-date collections, as there is an urgent need to assemble new comparative samples more representative of modern populations, from which more appropriate inferences in forensic practice can be drawn. One collection of 200 full skeletons of known identity and another of 300 samples of skeletal and dental specimens from autopsy with known cause and manner of death are anticipated. Both will hopefully contribute to develop a serious of new methods for biological profile reconstruction and will aid in the determination of cause and manner of death by providing the core basis for bone trauma analysis.

Portuguese identified skeletal collections (ISC), i.e. the Lisbon Luis Lopes Collection and the Coimbra Identified Skeletal Collection, have long been used to test, and develop methods on the reconstruction of past health and behaviour since they contain biographical data from the death certificates associated with the skeletons, e.g. age at death, sex, occupation and cause of death are known . Known occupation has been significant in studies that use entheseal changes and osteoarthritis as indicators of activity related stress, in which skeletons are grouped according to "occupational categories", and inferences are drawn and used to interpret past behaviour. Amongst these we find discussion of the sexual division of labour. However, in these Portuguese collections biographical data classifies most women as "domésticas" (normally translated as housekeepers). This is an abstract term that provides no concrete data as to how classify women in relation to tasks performed, and life lived. Using an ethnographic approach of semi-structured and open interviews several women were interviewed. The interviews relied on questions related to health and occupational tasks, e.g. tasks performed, age at which work commenced, changing and seasonality of occupations, as well as descriptions of any hobbies. These data were used to flesh out the lives of women classified as "domésticas" in Portuguese society to better contextualize skeletal remains, and it highlights the important point that biographical data at death is not representative of a life history, and therefore should be use with caution.

Identified skeletal reference collections have been and can continue to be an invaluable source of data for developing and testing forensic methods (age at death, stature, sex). However, all reference collections, regardless of the source (anatomical, autopsy or cemetery), the age (late 19th, early 20th or late 20th century) or the format (skeletal or database), have various levels of bias that are derived from the historical context of the collector(s), the paradigm of the discipline at the time of collecting and the greater society within which the collecting has occurred. These three levels of bias have had an influence on which skeletons were included in the collection, and what documentary data were collected, cross-referenced and curated with the skeletal remains. Despite these biases, and in some cases because of these biases, identified skeletal collection can be used effectively in rigorous research that is forensically relevant in the 21st century. The key to the success of any research involving these collections is to assess the possible levels of bias and their influence (both positive and negative) on the research question that is addressed. Some of the possible problems and the research potential of reference collections are illustrated with examples using data from the Terry Collection (Smithsonian Institution, U.S.A.), Coimbra Collection (University of Coimbra, Portugal), Lisbon Collection (Bocage Museum, Portugal) and the Grant Collection (University of Toronto, Canada).

Since Todd's (1920) study new methods have been proposed for the estimation of age at death in adult human skeletal remains from degenerative changes in joints, such as the pubic symphysis. However, the existing macroscopic methods are considered unreliable. A possible solution to this problem involves better understanding the processes of bone degeneration prior to establishing new methods. Recently, we have carried out a study to assess the influence of occupation and physical activity on the rate of bone degeneration in the pubic symphysis, using a sample of identified skeletons of known occupation from Portugal. We have found that occupational and physical activity does not seem to influence the rate of bone degeneration. In this presentation we wish to highlight the importance of studying these collections for the study of bone degeneration and the factors that influence its relationship with age. These collections are of great importance, because: 1) they provide biographical data for each individual, such as age at death, sex, occupation and cause of death; 2) they are accessible and analyzable. Since it is not possible to observe prospectively the degenerative progression in living individuals, identified skeletal collections are of paramount importance for understanding bone degeneration, even if they represent a static reality.

Forensic anthropologists have long sought to develop ancestry determination methods using complete and fragmented skeletal elements. Ancestry is most commonly assessed using cranial traits, and few reliable postcranial indicators are known.

Skeletal collections pose restrictions on researchers due to the unequal representation of ancestral groups. The collections utilized in this study provided limited number of Hispanic skeletons for analysis. As a result, coroners' offices were sought out for skeletal specimens. Majority of skeletal collections are historic. This study dealt with post-1940 samples and using pre-1940 skeletal collections posed limitations for this research. Another disadvantage to using skeletal collections is the differences in curation standards. The coroner's office provided first hand experience in skeletal analysis. It also provided social and cultural information about the border crossers that could not be gained from a curation facility, classroom, or a textbook.

The literature is flooded with examples of ancestry determination with Caucasian, African, and Native American samples; however there are few studies assessing Hispanic ancestral characteristics. Until recently, the United States recognizes "Hispanic or Latino" as a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race (Humes et al., 2011; Ennis et al., 2011). This study will try to develop an alternative method and will use eight measurements taken from the superior and inferior articular surfaces of the atlas to distinguish individuals who are self-classified as Hispanic, Caucasian, and African American. These measurements will be taken from the William Bass Donated Skeletal Collection at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, the Maxwell Museum at the University of New Mexico-Albuquerque, and from the Pima County Coroner's Office-Pima County, Arizona.