This study evaluates the reliability of osteometric data commonly used in forensic case analyses, with specific reference to the measurements in Data Collection Procedures 2.0 (DCP 2.0). Four observers took a set of 99 measurements four times on a sample of 50 skeletons (each measurement was taken 200 times by each observer). Two-way mixed ANOVAs and repeated measures ANOVAs with pairwise comparisons were used to examine interobserver (between-subjects) and intraobserver (within-subjects) variability. Relative technical error of measurement (TEM) was calculated for measurements with significant ANOVA results to examine the error among a single observer repeating a measurement multiple times (e.g. repeatability or intraobserver error), as well as the variability between multiple observers (interobserver error). Two general trends emerged from these analyses: (1) maximum lengths and breadths have the lowest error across the board (TEM<0.5), and (2) maximum and minimum diameters at midshaft are more reliable than their positionally-dependent counterparts (i.e. sagittal, vertical, transverse, dorso-volar). Therefore, maxima and minima are specified for all midshaft measurements in DCP 2.0. Twenty-two measurements were flagged for excessive variability (either interobserver, intraobserver, or both); 15 of these measurements were part of the standard set of measurements in Data Collection Procedures for Forensic Skeletal Material, 3rd edition. Each measurement was examined carefully to determine the likely source of the error (e.g. data input, instrumentation, observer's method, or measurement definition). For several measurements (e.g. anterior sacral breadth, distal epiphyseal breadth of the tibia) only one observer differed significantly from the remaining observers, indicating a likely problem with the measurement definition as interpreted by that observer; these definitions were clarified in DCP 2.0 to eliminate this confusion. Other measurements were taken from landmarks that are difficult to locate consistently (e.g. pubis length, ischium length); these measurements were omitted from DCP 2.0. This manual is available for free download online (https://fac.utk.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DCP20_webversion.pdf), along with an accompanying instructional video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtkLFl3vim4).

The skeletal sex and ancestry of unidentified human crania can be inferred both from physical and from molecular features. This paper depicts and discusses the experiences of physical and molecular anthropologists on a set of commingled crania from the largest Mediterranean shipwreck disaster on 18 April 2015, in order to facilitate identification of human crania. Twenty-one disarticulated crania that were recovered from the above-mentioned shipwreck were analyzed to estimate skeletal sex and ancestry, following a physical and a molecular pipeline. The physical analyses applied morphological and metric methods that provided posterior probabilities for the crania to be classified into a sex or ancestral group. The molecular analyses were performed on petrous bones via a shotgun sequencing approach that allowed us to determine the sex of each individual and to retrieve the complete mitochondrial genome, Y chromosome single nucleotide polymorphisms, up to 597573 SNPs across the human genome from each individual. The morphometric sex analyses showed that most crania belonged to male individuals, although some estimations remained uncertain or undetermined. Inconsistent results were obtained for ancestry estimation as well, since morphological methods classified the crania mostly as European/White, in contrast to the most numerous African forms determined by craniometric analyses. This quite agreed with molecular analyses that identified only African males. Overall, undetermined and contrasting results were obtained between disciplines, preventing the creation of reliable and sound biological profiles that could provide guidance on the sex and ancestral group of the victims. Therefore, the times may not be mature for a merger of physical and molecular anthropology. However, future investigations of this research avenue would pave the way to the possible development of novel tools, methods, and wider reference databases that could address the limitations of both disciplines.