Survivability, the ability of a skeletal element to withstand taphonomic processes, is often equated to recoverability, the probability that an element will be recovered in a forensic context, and further misused to infer the likelihood that a forensic anthropologist will recover a particular element at a scene. Consequently, researchers have utilized notions of survivability to infer that a skeletal element may be recovered when justifying the necessity of various research endeavors. This is problematic because the factors impacting survivability are not always applicable in a forensic context; the ability of a bone to survive taphonomic processes may not align with the likelihood of recovery. Empirical recovery rates are presented from two distinct contexts, with data derived from the Forensic Anthropology Data Bank based on cases performed by the late J. Lawrence Angel (1914-1986) and cases done by the University of Tennessee Knoxville (UTK). Recovery rates may be influenced by factors beyond survivability, though we do not investigate the many considerations that might explain recovery rate variation between datasets. Rather, these data exemplify the conceptual differences between notions of survivability and rates of recovery in actual casework scenarios. Thus, it is proposed that researchers consider documented rates of recovery when providing rationale for forensic anthropology research endeavors, in addition to citing a rationale that is based on inferences of survivability. This ensures that the theoretical framework of future forensic anthropology research stems, primarily, from the premise of practical application.
Keywords: Forensic Anthropology Data Bank; J. Lawrence Angel; forensic anthropology; recoverability; survivability; taphonomy.
© 2022 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.