








































Forensic Anthropology Vol. 2, No. 2: iii–iv
DOI: 10.5744/fa.2019.1017

© 2019 University of Florida Press

This special issue of Forensic Anthropology is another con-
tribution to a growing literature aimed at solving what may 
be the most vexing problem in human identification: large- 
scale commingling of human remains. The contributors to 
this issue provide us with new ideas concerning method-
ological approaches, as well as insights emerging from the 
successful resolution of some of the world’s most difficult 
identification problems. While the applications center on 
anthropology, the lessons are more broadly applicable to 
current- day disasters in which large numbers of fragmented 
remains must be identified. The central theme running 
throughout this special issue is that no single discipline is the 
answer to the problem. Complex cases require sophisticated 
solutions.

The resolution of any case involving commingled human 
remains (CHR) requires the employment of a variety of skills, 
often from more than one forensic discipline. It is now com-
mon to select and submit DNA samples from remains early 
in the process and to defer further work until the DNA labo-
ratory results are in hand. Here we see a handoff from the 
anthropologist (or pathologist as the case may be) to the DNA 
scientists, and then back to the anthropologist. We need the 
expert understanding of anatomy and experience sorting 
remains to select the samples, along with DNA expertise to 
interpret the DNA findings. Large CHR cases (N > 4) create 
problems of scale that are not of general concern with small 
cases. Methods with modest error rates or random match 
probabilities (e.g., mtDNA) lose power rapidly as the num-
ber of individuals increases. Therefore, large CHR cases 
force the application of more methods simultaneously and 
motivate the development of new methods for sorting com-
mingled remains.

The fundamental challenge of estimating the number 
of commingled persons is addressed in this issue with the 

application of existing methods to a case in which the approx-
imate number is already known. This thoughtful analysis 
provides a direct assessment of performance for several 
approaches run against a large case. The most promising of 
these approaches relies heavily on pair- matching long bones, 
so another article addresses the accuracy of pair- matching 
methods directly. Here we see the impact of assemblage 
size on the power of visual pair- matching. Another method 
explored here is for predicting the pair- match of a long bone 
based on a set of bone measurements representing size and 
shape. While the predictive power exhibited is not so high as 
to be applied as is, it is demonstrated that there is significant 
information inherent in size and shape of bones that can be 
exploited for resolving commingling. All of this information 
should be exploited as far as possible.

Several articles describe ongoing large CHR problems 
from a variety of post- conflict scenarios. Each case has spe-
cial problems to resolve and unique lessons to teach. The USS 
Oklahoma case includes approximately four hundred sailors 
killed during the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, 
Hawai‘i. Due to the unique circumstances in the aftermath 
of the battle, the remains of all of the sailors were commin-
gled. The scale of this CHR problem presents great chal-
lenges. However, the preservation of the remains tends to be 
excellent, with most bones complete and in good condition. 
DNA testing has proven to be very successful. This case is 
ideal for the development and validation of new CHR meth-
ods, since it can support such a wide variety of tests. It is no 
accident that the computer application Commingled Remains 
Analytics (CoRA) was designed using the Oklahoma case as 
the testbed. Like the Oklahoma case, the Battle of Tarawa 
case involves a single loss incident. The approximately five 
hundred marines and sailors missing on Tarawa died in a sin-
gle battle on a small island. The similarities largely end 
there. The Tarawa case involves both remains buried as 
“unknown” in a military cemetery and remains excavated 
recently from the island. Thus, field provenience has a role 
to play along with DNA testing and other methods. In what 
might seem an ironic twist, DNA is readily profiled from the 
excavated remains, which look worse to the eye, but it can 

PREFACE

Preface
Commingled Remains Special Issue

John E. Byrda*

aDefense POW/MIA Accounting Agency— Laboratory, Joint Base 
Pearl Harbor– Hickam, Hawai’i 96853, USA

*Correspondence to: John E. Byrd, Defense POW/MIA Accounting 
Agency— Laboratory, 590 Moffet St., Bldg. 4077, Joint Base Pearl 
Harbor– Hickam, Hawai’i 96853, USA 

E- mail: john . e . byrd . civ@mail . mil



iv Preface

only be read from the “unknown” remains if next- generation 
sequencing (NGS) is employed. Therefore, every attempt is 
made to link partial remains from the field to remains from 
the cemetery. Remains from a former Japanese POW camp, 
Cabanatuan, pose greater challenges than the aforementioned 
as a result of their having poor preservation, mostly frag-
mented remains, and special DNA challenges that necessi-
tate NGS testing as the standard test. Field provenience is 
somewhat useful, helping to limit the believed- to- be groups 
to more manageable sizes. Finally, the massive identification 

efforts undertaken in Bosnia and Herzegovina are well 
known to all in the field of forensic identification, but what 
is less well known are the ongoing challenges with regard to 
CHR cases in the extant mortuaries. The ordered reexamina-
tion of the cases by forensic anthropologists, which led to 
additional DNA sampling, has resulted in a substantial 
increase in identifications of remains that had hitherto been 
unidentifiable. The multidisciplinary approach described will 
serve as a useful guide to those contemplating DNA- led iden-
tification efforts in the future.


