RESUMO
Forensic anthropologists engage with numerous and diverse stakeholders in their casework. Regarding the recovery of human remains, these stakeholders may be interested in quantifying or qualifying the amount of remains recovered. How forensic anthropologists respond to such questions, whether verbally or in written reporting, has the potential to impact the trajectory of a case. However, communications about skeletal completeness are rarely discussed within the field. Current data-collection procedures recommend the use of inventories. This approach may be less feasible for complicated assemblages involving commingling or high degrees of fragmentation. Numerous methods exist to quantify the amount of skeletal remains present in complex or larger assemblages, but it remains unclear to what extent forensic anthropologists utilize these methods and whether factors like degree of expertise influence analysts' ability to report skeletal completeness consistently and precisely. A study was designed to examine differences between public and professional perceptions of skeletal completeness, presenting images of incomplete bones and skeletal remains. Survey participants were asked to assess the completeness of the remains in each image. Few patterns were observed regarding photographs of skeletal assemblages, but distinct differences were observed among individual bones between respondents with different degrees of expertise. These responses reflect potentially unexamined assumptions underlying assessments of incomplete bones and skeletal assemblages. This highlights the necessity of standardizing how we report estimates of completeness within the forensic anthropology community and how we discuss these results with external stakeholders. Completeness estimates must be either removed from reports and bench notes or annotated and cited clearly, as is standard with other aspects of forensic anthropological analysis. Several methods are summarized, with recommendations for integrating them into casework.