Due to its complex ossification during development, the superior region of the human occipital bone is a frequent site of supernumerary bones known as interparietal bones. Interparietal bones have been extensively studied across various disciplines, resulting in multiple classification schemes using icon‐like graphics to represent categories of interparietal variants. However, disparities across these classification schemes reveal the need for a standardized system to facilitate comparisons and permit data pooling across studies. Based on an extensive literature review and the examination of physical specimens, a graphic library of 80 evidence‐based graphics capturing interparietal variants was designed for community use. It provides five graphics of different morphologies of the lambdoid suture, 64 graphics of interparietal bones, six of ossicles at lambda, three of mendosal suture variants, and two of intrasutural ossicles. This approach allows additional graphics to be added in the future as needed. Graphics are compared to those from existing classification schemes and an exercise using the graphics to classify crania was performed. In the broadest sense, this research establishes a model for improved practices in representing and sharing morphological data.

Unprovenanced skeletal remains housed in anatomy laboratories, medical schools, and museums present a persistent ethical challenge when the human skeletal remains potentially represent historically marginalized or legally protected populations. Reliance on a single line of evidence, like epitaphonomic indicators or population affinity estimates, may result in incomplete or misleading assessments. Herein, we present a structured, non-destructive protocol integrating epitaphonomic signatures and an estimation of population affinity (including assessing biocultural indicators of affinity) to support ethical decision-making regarding unprovenanced crania in institutional collections. Our proposed protocol was applied to 16 unprovenanced crania curated in a university anatomy collection. Epitaphonomic signatures associated with anatomical preparation were assessed using categorical scores; craniometric data were analyzed using FORDISC 3.1 following the standard approach therein and using a custom reference dataset imported into the program. Additional exploratory analyses were conducted using a Factor Analysis of Mixed Data (FAMD) to visualize concordance and discordance between epitaphonomic and craniometric variables. Results indicate most individuals exhibit epitaphonomic signatures consistent with anatomical preparation; however, when those data are integrated with craniometric analysis, we identified individuals warranting removal from teaching collections based on elevated ethical concerns. Case examples demonstrate how our protocol supports transparent ethical triage distinguishing between likely anatomically prepared human remains, human remains requiring repatriation, and indeterminate cases requiring further evaluation. This protocol provides a practical, nondestructive framework for the responsible stewardship of unprovenanced skeletal collections.

Documented skeletal collections provide many of the samples necessary for forensic anthropological research, including the creation and validation of skeletal analytical methods. Although modern collections are considered more representative of the current living population, they often differ significantly from each other by geographic location, organization, and procurement strategies. As these factors influence which donors are included in a particular collection, they also create collection-specific sample bias. This research aims to identify how that bias impacts skeletal variation across collections and whether it obscures normal patterns of human skeletal variation. Craniometric and demographic data were collected from a sample of individuals from eight modern United States-based documented skeletal collections (n = 1161). The results indicate that collection-specific sample bias influences average cranial morphology, but to a lesser extent than sex or population. Across analyses, samples consistently and preferentially clustered with individuals from similar population and sex groups rather than with individuals from the same collection of origin. These analyses suggest that normal patterns of human variation are not obscured by collection origin and that documented skeletal collections therefore remain valid and reliable sources of data for understanding population diversity and sex differences, even when some level of collection-specific bias is present.