Forensic anthropology and, more broadly, the forensic sciences have only recently begun to acknowledge the importance of lived gender identity in the resolution of forensic cases, the epidemic of anti-transgender violence, and the need to seek practical solutions. The current literature suggests that forensic anthropologists are becoming aware of these issues and are working toward efforts to improve identification of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) persons. The scope of the problem, however, is not limited to methodology and instead can be traced to systemic anti-trans stigma ingrained within our cultural institutions. As such, we call on forensic anthropologists to counteract cisgenderism and transphobia and promote gender equity and inclusion in their practice. In this paper, we identify three areas in which forensic anthropologists may be positioned to intervene on cisgenderist practices and systems: in casework, research, and education. This paper aims to provide strategies for forensic anthropologists to improve resolution of TGD cases, produce more nuanced, gender-informed research, and promote gender equity and inclusion in the field.

Anthropologists are often the custodians of long-term unidentified human remains though their positions as curators of university or museum skeletal collections. Various factors decrease the solvability of these legacy cases including the passage of time, the loss of provenience for specific cases, and lack of documentation or case records. While anthropologists can contribute important information toward identification, it is often necessary to explore novel and cross-disciplinary strategies to resolve difficult cold cases. In long cold cases, the postmortem interval, in particular, may be difficult to estimate leading to further challenges in achieving identification. Modern advances in radiocarbon bomb pulse dating, isotope analysis, and actualistic studies have contributed to positive identification of unidentified human remains in some legacy cases, but may not be available to all forensic practitioners and law enforcement from resource-poor agencies. Pooling resources, as well as collaborating with professionals outside of forensic anthropology, is a useful strategy to pursue when anthropological methods are exhausted.The case study presented here demonstrates a collaborative approach between forensic anthropologists, forensic genetic genealogists, and law enforcement in a century-old homicide. The dismembered and mummified parts of a male body were recovered in a remote cave in 1979 and again in 1991. Despite forensic anthropologists creating and updating the biological profile over the decades from recovery to present, no identification was made until the application of forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) to the case in 2019. New interpretations of bone microstructure and trauma analysis are presented for the case, alongside the historical documentation and “proof of life” evidence used by the genealogy team. A review of the FGG methods underscores the challenges in this case (e.g. significant endogamy, multiple aliases used by the victim) and the steps taken toward resolution. Ultimately, a combined anthropology and genealogy approach resulted in a confirmed identity for a man who was murdered in 1916. Key PointsForensic scientists should leverage a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach toward human identification.When combined with forensic anthropology methods, forensic genetic genealogy is a valuable tool linking biological and cultural-historical aspects of identity.Forensic anthropologists should review challenging cases in their labs as new methods are introduced and new resources become available.

Forensic anthropology is in the midst of its latest reckoning with the concept of ancestry, particularly insofar as its role in the development of biological profiles for unidentified decedents and the effects that these estimations have on broader investigative processes. As anthropologists who collaborate with forensic genomics experts, we are interested in considering how debates within anthropological circles might inform—or be informed by—detailed biogeographical ancestry estimates generated as part of forensic genomic analyses. Although such analyses are clearly rooted in the natural sciences, we believe that explorations of what practitioners and the public do with this genomic data—and how this relates to issues of identity—must ultimately be a social science pursuit. In this article, we summarize the history of the race concept in anthropology and contemporary debates about ancestry estimation occurring more specifically among forensic anthropologists. We will also review some of the literature from the emerging field of social science perspectives on genomics and identity.

Forensic anthropologists and bioarchaeologists (FAs/BAs) are often the curators (and researchers) of the most difficult types of unidentified human remains: skeletonized, fragmented, mummified, burned, and commingled individuals, whose remains may sit shelved with lost history among collections and whose identity may not be recovered without interdisciplinary partnerships. In turn, analyses of the remains of unidentified decedents by FAs/BAs can assist forensic genetic genealogists and genomic scientists in pursuit of human identification. In this study, we present an overview of the breadth and applicability of the holistic contributions that FAs/BAs make in decedent identification. Through a forensic case study, we demonstrate how leveraging a multidisciplinary team effort, which we have coined the triad approach, successfully and efficiently identifies individuals and can aid in repatriation.