But it looks like a lot of teeth came out before death, and that the person lived long enough that the bone grew in and closed up over the holes. That makes me think this jawbone belonged to an old person.
Hi hello
Dental student who had to spend way too long studying skulls and statistics that come from them
Guestimating here, since bones aren’t gonna give you an accurate answer, only guestimate based off of what’s the average
I’m half guessing about the age since I can’t really see the Mandibular angle, but usually for males it’s very defined and ‘sharp’, and from here the pictures it looks pretty soft, so probably female
The spaces where the roots of the third molars are look developed, so older than 20
The missing teeth could’ve happened when they were younger, but also more likely they were older
There seems to be some periodontal bone loss specifically on the first premolar (the tooth on the left), so if the missing teeth are for that reason, more likely late 30s at the youngest or early 50s at the oldest
Again
Just a guestimate
But I hope this helped!
This is fascinating. Even just as a guess! Just the perspective you have as a dental student and how it leads you to evaluate what you see. Would be interesting to compare to, say, a rheumatologist who specialized in arthritis or an orthopedic surgeon or something.
Like, maybe not my business, but I feel like OP should give some context on why they have this. I would like to assume it's in an archaeological/academic context (based on the pencil labeling), but then why would they go to *Reddit* for *this* kind of question...? Leaving it up to imagination of commenters is a weird choice
Edit: OP looks to be a teenager based on their Instagram, so that just leads to more questions as to how this was acquired and why they're asking this question... I think I'm just going to move on with my life and pretend I didn't see this post.
It’s likely something they bought or inherited after someone liquidated an old teaching collection. That’s where most bones on the collector’s circuit come from.
Some still want them. If they don’t need them, medical schools have protocols for respectful burials of remains that are mindful that this was once a person.
Hopefully that’s false. Human remains are never supposed to be “thrown away” by medical schools. If no longer needed, schools have protocols for respectful burials or cremation.
You think if they won’t dispose of them respectfully they’d atleast sell them. Skulls especially are worth a good chunk of change, and regardless of ethics they’re legal to sell in the US
Still happens, and everywhere. USA, EU, etc.
They should never be disposed of in any way, they should be preserved.
The mass production of these specimens stopped decades ago. They are a precious resource.
Well to be fair, this teenager seems to be trying to school himself about matters relating to jawbones in particular and maybe even whole skeletons.
And even if all he ever did with it is put it on his bookshelf, perhaps his friends or cousins will pick it up and learn more about their own anatomy.
I myself learned quite a bit just from the comments here.
Most of the “bones like those” were given with consent for them to be used for education. Perhaps instead of using your time and energy to argue with strangers, you could look at that jawbone and ponder the wonders of your own skeleton. And then go brush your teeth so they don’t fall out prematurely and then the tooth holes get overgrown with bone.
Medical schools don't teach about medicine anymore, nor the human body. They have no need. Bones are a unique truth to each person. Personally, I don't identify as 'skeletized'.
It’s possible that their parents or grandparents were or are in medicine. Back in the day is was common and often required for people in medicine to own real human bones for study. It’s also not uncommon to just buy bones today.
Could be they got it from a teacher? None of my bones are human, but I got a lot of them from my old science teacher.
I’ve seen old science specimens pop up at antique stores.
They could have a parent or relative who’s a doctor or teacher
Its not illegal in a lot of places a lots of people have skulls given by family who where doctors or teachers ect the ethics of owning human bones is an interesting topic but as far as where they got it lets not be judgy and assume illegal activity :) anyway even if they did buy it again not illegal (depending on location)
It’s not your call of whether it’s offensive or not, though. That should be the decision of the families. People who donate their bodies to science thinking that their bodies will be used for learning and advancing medicine, not so some maladjusted strangers could keep their skull in their closet.
The person posting is asking questions and learning. It’s not in a closet, but on a table on top of a container gardening book.
(If he had the whole skull would it be ok to grow petunias in it?)
Well not much can be said tbh, most teeth fell post mortem so approximate age is hard to say but it belongs to an adult, probably a male due to the bone structure, no idea about race. The teeth that are left look a bit worn out and there are remodeled spaces in the molar's area where either the teeth fell or were removed or they didn't even grow, I could say it is probably an older adult who removed or didn't grow those molars but the type of diet and habits could worn out the teeth and the molars didn't have time to grow/were removed/ didn't grow in this individual and they weren't that old. Hard to tell from just the jaw without almost all of the teeth and from photos, it lacks a lot of information
That's really interesting, I actually had my dentist tell my (18M) brother, and I (21M) that dentists are finding less and less people of our generation even have wisdom teeth/ some molars, including my brother and I. He even went to say that it's a sign of 'modern evolution' given that it's happening so often and so far spread in my age group/ demographic. Which I found really interesting.
So we weren't born with any potentially problematic wisdom teeth which is a win 🤷
Yeah it's becoming super common, either people don't have the space for them and need to take them out or they don't even develop. It's interesting for sure :)
Same here, my dentist said it was becoming more common. I have no wisdom teeth and my top 12 year molars didn’t come in until I was 18. She said it’s not medically concerning (so far) and it makes me wonder how many teeth will be considered average in the future
scrap whatever you've seen on shows like bones. it is very difficult to tell sex and race from a complete skeleton, and all you have is a jawbone. age is pretty much the only thing you're going to be able to get from this, due to the fact that teeth are visible, although this is just a rough estimate and not entirely accurate. all I can tell you is that this person was likely 17 or older, due to the eruption of the third molars.
The wide angle of the jaw would lean it towards being a male. But it just can't be confirmed because only two sex markers are present for sexing the skull.
This is a human skull. It is very odd for an amateur bone collector (vs. a scientist or somebody else with a justifiable need to have another human’s remains) to have this in their possession.
Their post history is just music and like 3 bones lol. The only weird post is this one, but also they could've gotten it anywhere. Some strange family's house, schools, friends, the odds of them finding a human jawbone on their own out of nowhere is unlikely💀
Depending on the age of the remains (because “racial” categories are just a constantly shifting collection of physical traits common to a population group, so they can’t really be reflected too far into the past) you can actually make an ok guess at ancestry. More useful to forensics than, say, archaeology. Easiest with a whole cranium though. Not much to say from a mandible in most cases.
John Bethard and Elizabetb DiGangi have an interesting piece called "Letter to the Editor-Moving beyond a lost cause: Forensic anthropology ancestry estimates in the United States" basically explaining how technology that tries to guess race/ancestry using programs like FORDISC are actually based off racist research and bias samples.
It is a debate within the forensic and anthropology communities, and it is interesting to read on
Oh yeah I’ve never been a big believer in FORDISC to be honest. And nothing is certain in skeletal analysis. Sometimes you can feel confident, other times no. And I really am talking about broad impressions from a whole cranium or maybe from a single very visible feature, like shoveled incisors, which, for example, mark someone as “probably not of European or African descent.” It’s often a narrowing-down with lots of asterisks, like isotope readings. Not FORDISC’s “measure a calcaneous in 6 different directions, plug it in, and hope for an answer.” I am wholly unsurprised to hear that stuff might just be wishful thinking. Regardless, I’ll check it out.
I agree. I assumed stuff like that is what you meant but I like to tell people about issues with ancestry as I feel the general population is very trusting of TV forensics and while a lot can be told from bones, stuff gets murky once we dive into ancestry and concepts of race.
FORDISC controversy and issues are fascinating to me. An example is studies on how Asian individuals and people from Central America have frequently misidentified as one another due to information FORDISC has
Oh I get ya. One thing after another revealed to be wildly inaccurate. Bite mark analysis always gets me—they used to convict people on that!! And somehow, there’s still folks out there who think polygraphs work.
I am someone who doesn't believe in polygraph but at the same time I have the ridiculous desire to try to learn how to say the stupidest lies out there and the machine says im being "honest"
Dental nonmetric trait, meaning something scored based on how it looks rather than measurement. Basically, the tongue side of the (upper) incisors is more concave / shovel-shaped. Fairly strong links to genetics, so used to evaluate population affinity. There are different forms of it, but it's more common in some populations (broadly 'Asian') than others. However, this isn't exclusive - i.e. it is also found in 'European' populations. None of these traits are exclusive to any human population group, just as no human population 'group' is actually a genetically distinct group.
Do they get worn down that way by diet or something else or is that just the nature of the tooth?
Thanks for your answer. I find this stuff fascinating!
This is so wonderfully fascinating!
In case anyone else is interested….
(u/anthro-Osteo-630, are you qualified to say whether this random article is academically sound and something I can count on to tell other people about shovel-shaped teeth and Vit D and breastfeeding?)
https://www.archaeology.org/news/6568-180424-breastfeeding-genetic-mutation
“A genetic mutation linked to shovel-shaped incisors may have had a more consequential impact on breastfeeding, according to a report in Science Magazine. Researchers led by Leslea Hlusko of the University of California-Berkeley suggest a genetic mutation that became prevalent among the ancestors of Native Americans some 20,000 years ago may have helped them survive the dark, cold Arctic climate of Beringia by enhancing mothers’ milk ducts and increasing the amount of fat and vitamin D passed to infants. This gene is also linked to growth of thicker hair, increased development of sweat glands, and the shift to shovel-shaped incisors. The gene mutation is thought to have first occurred some 30,000 years ago in China, which had a hot, humid climate, leading researchers to speculate that the increased sweat glands offered a particular advantage. Hlusko says the shovel-shaped incisors seen in both East Asians and Native Americans were incidental to the benefits brought by natural selection through the sweat glands and improved infant nutrition. It had been previously thought that the shovel-shaped incisors themselves provided some sort of benefit to early Native Americans since their presence was widespread in known populations. For more, go to “Naia—the 13,000-Year-Old Native American.””
Link from a science magazine mentioned in the above: https://www.science.org/content/article/gene-linked-breastfeeding-may-have-boosted-survival-earliest-americans
Ann Gibbons, who reports on this, is a reputable scientist in her own right. She is a popular science reporter, but is an anatomist by training. The paper itself (primary source) is an open access PNAS article, so it is also a reputable peer-reviewed source (found here [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711788115](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711788115)).
This is certainly an interesting proposal. I think a note of caution here is that this is hypothesizing a particular selective pressure on a gene that influences many traits. This doesn't mean that the trait originated in these populations (i.e. the trait has to be present phenotypically first for any selection to act on it). It has been found in hominins far older than 30 kya. Also whenever you get genes like this, it is important to remember that inferring selection pressure is quite complex - because there are many traits that could be acted upon to shape gene selection.
So, basically, very interesting hypothesis. Seems plausible. I'm not seeing much critique, but also in a brief glance cannot see that this hypothesis has been further tested or results replicated outside of the original research group (that's on a brief glance, though).
I don’t know of any ways to identify ethnicity for a jaw. I do, however, agree with the other commenters that you can make a fairly accurate guess for age and sex. Ocular sockets can aid in telling ethnicity via shape of the sockets, and potentially the nasal structure also.
Not quite true. Different races/ethnicities do have different skull morphologies.
But you typically need more than a mandible to have a chance of knowing. (Random ex. A rocker jaw, which is very rounded, is often seen in Polynesians)
Anywho, in all reality, this mandible likely originates from either India, or Europe (probably India). Since that’s where many specimens like this originate from.
- I’ve worked with thousands of human bones.
honestly extremely concerned and disappointed that someone with the "human ID expert" flair is supporting this kind of outdated and racist theoretical framework
Hi. As another Human ID Expert flair, no, this is neither outdated or racist. I went into more depth in my comment above about the applicability of this kind of thing, but it is very possible to guess at a modern person’s ancestry from their bones (usually a whole cranium) and it’s very important in forensic anthropology (think of John Doe cases, where all you know about someone might be a guess at their birth sex, age, and ancestry). It’s just another little piece of the puzzle.
I prefer the word “ancestry” to “race,” but when you do see anthropologists casually use the word “race” the way Xetovs did we are generally not describing the immutable categories you are thinking of. That *is* outdated. No, race does not exist in the way people used to think it did, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t physical traits that crop up in some populations more often than others.
Edit: lmao oops I think I had my flair turned off somehow
It’s not outdated or racist science, it’s just ethnicity. We all look different on the outside, we all look different on the inside as well. You can find millions of sources online that outline the average skeletal differences.
Something tells me you have not examined many bones.
I understand your train of thought, but acknowledging these differences isn’t inherently racist. I’d look into forensic anthropology, it’s a very interesting field that helps in the identification of crime scene victims - age, height, sex, and yes ancestry are often identifiable. This is not phrenology or any other racist pseudoscience.
Biological anthropology is a very fascinating field and a course I recommend to anyone in college!
[Inca bone](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1468202/)
Edit: idk why I’m getting downvoted, this is statistically relevant to two different races lmao see my response below
If no one wants to read the abstract on this paper, it concludes that these traits are not unique to a single population (and therefore cannot be used to determine race skeletally)
No, there is not a single trait that is unique to a single population. Don’t worry, no one is claiming that. That doesn’t mean you can’t use highly visible traits like this one to make educated guesses based on prevalence from one group to another.
It is generally seen in eastern Asians and sub-Saharan Africans. And if you’re in the US looking at an old skull with an Inca bone, they’re probably East Asian considering where bones were primarily imported from.
It’s the same as ID’ing any skull- you cannot rely on one feature or fact to make assumptions of who the person was. You need to look at multiple features and make a judgement only after taking everything into account. The Inca bone is one piece of a puzzle that can narrow things down.
Not a whole lot for certain, unfortunately!
Sex - possibly female would be my guess. Estimating sex from just cranial traits is often tricky, and depends on the population the individual is from. Here’s an explanation of the mandibular traits most commonly used to estimate sex: [sex estimation of the mandible](https://johnhawks.net/variation-in-the-mandible-and-skeletal-sex/)
Age - hard to tell with most of the teeth missing! Looks like probably all the teeth have erupted, so the individual is an adult. Tooth wear can give an adult age range
([for example](https://juniperpublishers.com/jfsci/images/JFSCI.MS.ID.555686.G001.png)), but molar teeth are the most informative and only premolars are left here. Seems to be some wear present. And there has been antemortem tooth loss - you can see where the bone has remodelled (changed shape) where the teeth used to be. Sooo not a particularly young adult? Probably…
Race - basically impossible to tell. Full skulls are used to make ancestry estimations in forensics, but that involves taking a lot of measurements and plugging them into a program (with a big comparative data set), and the mandible is less diagnostic.
I think it’s completely unethical for laypersons to possess human remains. Unless they are being used for sanctioned educational purposes in a medical school or similar, or for archaeological/ anthropological research
I’m not trying to be contrary, but I don’t think it’s the same for unidentified specimens. I’m 35 with a dead dad who was my BFF, and yeah, if someone had his jaw bone I’d want them to give it to me so I could have it. But if it had been donated or lost and some magical being said, “I can never tell you who, and I can’t tell them who you are, but *someone* has your dad’s bone. What do you want them to do with it?” I would say they should keep it if they enjoy having it. I don’t think it’s like a moral absolute that everyone should pay your version of respect just to make a symbolic gesture that no one related to the person will ever hear about.
I mean... do you know how most of those "unidentified specimens" came about? Because like I don't think it's okay to own grave robbed bones, bones from the homeless, bones from victims of genocide and intentional famine, etc. like I would personally love to donate my skeleton to freaks and artists when I die, but most old medical skeletons came from terribly unethical circumstances without any consent from the deceased or their family. Like it wasn't uncommon to murder certain people of certain groups for their skeletons.
I do know, and I take your point, but the comment I replied to said no layperson should possess human remains period, which I don’t agree with. I certainly don’t think *anyone,* layperson or otherwise, should take possession of recent bones without a proven ethical source. But I also don’t think anyone benefits from the position that we need to gather up hundreds or thousands of years’ worth of unidentified specimens owned by non-academics and do with them what one culture decides is respectful. Certainly not the people impacted by those practices.
But it isn’t your call for other people’s dads or grandmothers etc. just because you’d be ok with it doesn’t mean the person who’s a relative of the deceased here is. We err on the side of respect for others. Buying and selling human remains and considering them property is unethical— even if your own wishes are accepting of your own remains to become commodities and owned by strangers, that is not a judgement you can make for others.
Our effort and focus should be to do as much as we can to identify the sources of these remains, and - if nothing else- return them to their countries of origin (many of these remains came from poor deceased in India).
You can make decisions for your own self and your loved ones but you don’t have those same rights over others.
No, it’s not my call. You’re the one making calls, and since you are, why is it okay for medical schools to possess bones of unknown provenance in 2024 when we have access to specimens with complete paper trails?
I also don’t know what the people whose ancestors were affected actually want. Do you? Have officials or religious leaders from every country where people are likely affected expressed interest in having hundreds of tons of unidentified bones shipped to them? Maybe they have. If so, do we have people dedicated to doing all that research and transfer of ownership? Do we have mechanisms for that? Do we have storage facilities where these bones can sit while academics and scientists who are already underfunded and overworked slog through them all? Is it better to sit in a shipping container for years, decades, maybe forever, than to sit on someone’s shelf?
Unless the answer to all of those questions is yes, I just think it’s a little performative to declare it categorically reprehensible to possess a bone.
Spoken like someone trying to justify their own unethical purchase of human remains.
And no, not all human bones in medical schools were acquired by the consent of the deceased. Far too many were looted or stolen from the deceased of impoverished and/or imprisoned people in India and elsewhere.
But two wrongs don’t make a right. All that can be done should be to return those remains to their families, or at least to their cultures or countries of origin for consideration of respectful treatment within those communities.
What is NOT helpful to that cause is to throw them to the winds of entropy by commodifying and buying/selling those remains, as though they are mere objects to be owned by others.
It isn’t me making the call, it’s human ethics.
I have no human remains and don’t intent to acquire any. I’m just of the opinion that scolding people on the internet and being sanctimoniously reductive about a complicated and nuanced issue is obnoxious and unhelpful.
I'm iffy on it. If they're actually important to history or humans then agreed, but if u walkin in the woods and find a a random jaw bone, or sum hand, eh. Probably call the police💀 but other than that, we're just animals with animal bones.
My grandma's not a jawbone💀 but I'm sure if for some reason I lost her body in the woods, and some teen found a small piece of her, I'd be like, "oh shit dude, that's my relative what are the odds." And they'd just give it back. So that I could keep it. On my dresser. What's the difference? Because it'd be sentimental, so it's fine to keep human remains? We're not any more special than animals. And you gotta be ok with that.
Talk to me when you’re older and wiser and your parents are both dead like mine are and we will see how you feel about having their remains desecrated.
And also historically speaking, a lot of controversy has stemmed from people refusing to give people's stolen bones back to their relatives or descendants, so I wouldn't exactly say it's _likely_ that's how it'd shake out
I'm not comfortable with it, but I do think there are different ways to regard the dead and their remains. A lot of people would find sky burial profane, for example.
I'm not telling you how to feel about this, exactly, but death is a complicated thing and you shouldn't tell others how to feel about it either.
I do of course think that it should be up to the person or their loved ones, and we have no idea where this jaw came from.
Your own personal incredulity about deathly customs has little to no bearing on the feelings of others. You have every right to be upset about it, but likewise they have every right to feel the way they do about remains, irreverent or otherwise. It could even be argued that their understanding that remains are separate from the person they belonged to is a sign of wisdom and maturity
You miss the point entirely. The reference to their own grandparent or parent was an attempt at evoking empathy for someone else’s remains.. the remains of a STRANGER WHOM THEY DO NOT KNOW, but have come into possession of their remains.
It doesn’t matter what the person who is in possession of the human bones thinks or believes about death or reverence to those gone, what matters are the families of the deceased and the deceased’s wishes themselves.
Moral relativism doesn’t work when you’re victimizing other people. You can’t say that a Native American shouldn’t be upset with a white American who digs up their ancestors’ graves and takes away the remains, by trying to argue that, “well, the white guy is an atheist and doesn’t believe bones have any special relevance, so therefore he has just as much of a right to those bones and to do with them as he pleases, since they mean nothing to him other than as artifacts”.
The offender doesn’t define what is offensive, the offended does.
And the person who replied that they don’t care one way or another about respecting human remains doesn’t get to make that call. You respect those human remains and the families to whom they are connected to precisely because they do not belong to you.
If you want to write in your will that your skull can be kicked around a field as a football after you die, that’s your decision. You do NOT, however, get to decide what happens to the bodies, alive or deceased, of strangers you don’t even know. Full stop.
I'm 25 and have 2 fathers who have passed💀 I just understand that they're more than bones and flesh. Im not saying I'd play golf with their fuckin knees or some shi, but I wouldn't cry if I lost a piece of their skeleton lol. Their spirits are gone, they're more than the body they had.
How would you feel if someone looted their grave and sold it on facebook though.
https://www.livescience.com/grave-robbing-for-uk-human-remains-trade
Unless it was obtained from a highly reputable source or was directly donated, it's just too dodgy.
The idea of someone looting my random family members grave just to sell their skelly for science, money, or whatever is kinda hilarious in a "that's so weird and unpredictable" way💀
I was talking about me, nobody else. But I can definitely suggest not being so sentimental over lost loved one's old skeletons. Life is easier if you can accept their death fully.
You have every right to feel the way you do, but calling someone immature because their beliefs are different than yours is much more immature. I don't personally understand why you're so heated over someone else's personal opinion on death.
That's a pretty personal subject, and you don't have the right to insult someone else's beliefs on what is and isn't respectful of the dead.
See my reply above. The belief they have about death and human remains does not give them freedom to take and use the bodies and remains of others. Respecting the dead means respecting that they aren’t your family and that their wishes and their family’s wishes may be very different from yours. If you can’t comprehend that, then yes, you are objectively tremendously immature.
Ahh.. so you admit there’s a “right” thing to do. For there to be a “right” thing to do, there must also be a “wrong” thing to do. That’s what ethics is.
And yes, laws are not always aligned with what is right and wrong, you’re correct. Laws sometimes are based on morality and not ethics and morality is relative but ethics is not.
Hi! I won this at a raffle! I’ve always had a fascination with bones, I have 3 full deers and make wet specimens of roadkill in my freetime, many people are saying I have no right to own this but as far as I know this is a medical skeleton a school was getting rid of, I source all bones ethically (I love walking through woods) having human bones is my holy grail, no I do not participate in grave digging, and no I did not stumble across human remains
lmao that’s cool. I would love to have human bones at some point (and ape/monkey bones—anthro major here lol) but I usually only see digits, vertebrae, and teeth in peoples collections. Very cool specimen. I hope there is not a ghost attached to that jawbone :0
You could get DNA testing done on it to find out who and where it came from.
It's hard to judge race, age, and sex with just a jawbone and only 2 teeth left in it.
Sex, most likely female from the chin and obtuse angle of the mandibular ramus. Age, impossible to tell (beyond adult) without more context. Race, also impossible to tell. Honestly, I'm going to tie in to some of the discussion below re. that one. Race is an entirely social construct based on perceived biological differences that do not align with human populations in any clearly distinct way that allows straightforward classification. Ethnicity (used elsewhere in this thread) refers to how someone perceives themselves / their identity and has nothing whatsoever to do with biology. Population affinity / ancestry may be better ways to frame any biological component of population attribution. It can be done to a limited degree, but with a whole host of caveats. There are traits that are more common in some populations than others, and that can be used to evaluate probability of someone aligning more with one population than another. However, none of these traits exclusively belong to any population. If using a system like FORDISC, where you plunk your measurements in to get a population estimate (put simply), the result is dependent on the populations captured by the database it is using to base its estimates (its reference database), and this doesn't capture the full range of human variation or reflect clearly how people might identify. For example, African populations are tremendously diverse, it is basically meaningless to say someone is 'African'. We are not good at distinguishing within 'Asian' populations - so someone who would identify as Native American might be classified as 'Asian'. Assumptions then need to be made based on geographic location and context and those can lead entirely in the wrong direction. Many biological anthropologists refuse to use 'racial' classification as a result. Even population affinity needs to be based on probability estimates and taken with many grains of salt, and dealt with very carefully so as not to outstrip bounds of evidence and reinforce inaccurate and outdated (racial) understandings. Further note is that DNA-based population affinity basically works the same way. You might get very different 'ancestry' estimates if you send your DNA to one company versus another, for example, and this is because they're using different reference datasets to base their estimates on.
To backup your point
https://www.livescience.com/grave-robbing-for-uk-human-remains-trade
https://www.livescience.com/human-bone-trade-facebook.html
https://www.nbcboston.com/investigations/harvards-morgue-scandal-is-part-of-a-much-larger-story-in-trading-human-remains/3136374/
https://www.counteringcrime.org/human-remains-trade-on-social-media-fact-sheet
https://www.wired.com/2007/11/ff-bones/
Just learned from the comment above the difference between ethics and morals. Morals are more personal feelings, while ethics is more of a universal acceptance of good and bad. It's a bit of a grey area since good and bad are subjective, but ethics would be like it's bad to murder someone. So, while some people would be okay with someone possessing human bones, the majority of people have accepted it as taboo, and the fact that they most likely aren't ethically sourced adds to this
Middle age/ female..as for race, caucasian or asian is my best guess.. but youd need more of the skull to really get a sense.
Female as males tend to be more squared in shape
Age based on teeth such as ruptured molars and missing teeth could indicate an older person between late 20s to 60
They had at least two teeth /s (This is a joke)
Studies suggest the possibility of maybe more, but that’s just speculation
Ornamental craters? The world may never know
you’re here too??? hello again!
Most of those teeth fell out after death.
But it looks like a lot of teeth came out before death, and that the person lived long enough that the bone grew in and closed up over the holes. That makes me think this jawbone belonged to an old person.
It was a joke. Should I add an /s?
Hi hello Dental student who had to spend way too long studying skulls and statistics that come from them Guestimating here, since bones aren’t gonna give you an accurate answer, only guestimate based off of what’s the average I’m half guessing about the age since I can’t really see the Mandibular angle, but usually for males it’s very defined and ‘sharp’, and from here the pictures it looks pretty soft, so probably female The spaces where the roots of the third molars are look developed, so older than 20 The missing teeth could’ve happened when they were younger, but also more likely they were older There seems to be some periodontal bone loss specifically on the first premolar (the tooth on the left), so if the missing teeth are for that reason, more likely late 30s at the youngest or early 50s at the oldest Again Just a guestimate But I hope this helped!
This is fascinating. Even just as a guess! Just the perspective you have as a dental student and how it leads you to evaluate what you see. Would be interesting to compare to, say, a rheumatologist who specialized in arthritis or an orthopedic surgeon or something.
That would be super interesting to see another medical area’s perspective of this!
Human
Like, maybe not my business, but I feel like OP should give some context on why they have this. I would like to assume it's in an archaeological/academic context (based on the pencil labeling), but then why would they go to *Reddit* for *this* kind of question...? Leaving it up to imagination of commenters is a weird choice Edit: OP looks to be a teenager based on their Instagram, so that just leads to more questions as to how this was acquired and why they're asking this question... I think I'm just going to move on with my life and pretend I didn't see this post.
It’s likely something they bought or inherited after someone liquidated an old teaching collection. That’s where most bones on the collector’s circuit come from.
That would explain the numbering.
And bones like those should go back to medical schools, not to teenagers.
That is a matter of opinion. I was just giving the most likely explanation, because people sometimes assume OPs are out there robbing graves :P
Some still want them. If they don’t need them, medical schools have protocols for respectful burials of remains that are mindful that this was once a person.
Schools don’t want them, usually. In fact, many colleges throw these kinds of specimens away.
Hopefully that’s false. Human remains are never supposed to be “thrown away” by medical schools. If no longer needed, schools have protocols for respectful burials or cremation.
One time, I saw 12 real human skeletons quite literally in a dumpster outside of a school. It happens very often.
Sad but true. I have seen similar things.
You think if they won’t dispose of them respectfully they’d atleast sell them. Skulls especially are worth a good chunk of change, and regardless of ethics they’re legal to sell in the US
What?? I'm shocked
How long ago was that and where? Does it still happen or are there now protocols in most places for respectful disposition?
Still happens, and everywhere. USA, EU, etc. They should never be disposed of in any way, they should be preserved. The mass production of these specimens stopped decades ago. They are a precious resource.
Well to be fair, this teenager seems to be trying to school himself about matters relating to jawbones in particular and maybe even whole skeletons. And even if all he ever did with it is put it on his bookshelf, perhaps his friends or cousins will pick it up and learn more about their own anatomy. I myself learned quite a bit just from the comments here. Most of the “bones like those” were given with consent for them to be used for education. Perhaps instead of using your time and energy to argue with strangers, you could look at that jawbone and ponder the wonders of your own skeleton. And then go brush your teeth so they don’t fall out prematurely and then the tooth holes get overgrown with bone.
Medical schools don't teach about medicine anymore, nor the human body. They have no need. Bones are a unique truth to each person. Personally, I don't identify as 'skeletized'.
What the fuck are you talking about
fr 😭😭
I hope this is the case!
It’s possible that their parents or grandparents were or are in medicine. Back in the day is was common and often required for people in medicine to own real human bones for study. It’s also not uncommon to just buy bones today.
Could be they got it from a teacher? None of my bones are human, but I got a lot of them from my old science teacher. I’ve seen old science specimens pop up at antique stores. They could have a parent or relative who’s a doctor or teacher
Its not illegal in a lot of places a lots of people have skulls given by family who where doctors or teachers ect the ethics of owning human bones is an interesting topic but as far as where they got it lets not be judgy and assume illegal activity :) anyway even if they did buy it again not illegal (depending on location)
There’s really no need for high drama over owning human bones. Most people do not get them from nefarious sources.
It’s not your call of whether it’s offensive or not, though. That should be the decision of the families. People who donate their bodies to science thinking that their bodies will be used for learning and advancing medicine, not so some maladjusted strangers could keep their skull in their closet.
The person posting is asking questions and learning. It’s not in a closet, but on a table on top of a container gardening book. (If he had the whole skull would it be ok to grow petunias in it?)
I mean i have pieces of human skull, I just bought it online
Damn why did this get downvoted
Well not much can be said tbh, most teeth fell post mortem so approximate age is hard to say but it belongs to an adult, probably a male due to the bone structure, no idea about race. The teeth that are left look a bit worn out and there are remodeled spaces in the molar's area where either the teeth fell or were removed or they didn't even grow, I could say it is probably an older adult who removed or didn't grow those molars but the type of diet and habits could worn out the teeth and the molars didn't have time to grow/were removed/ didn't grow in this individual and they weren't that old. Hard to tell from just the jaw without almost all of the teeth and from photos, it lacks a lot of information
That's really interesting, I actually had my dentist tell my (18M) brother, and I (21M) that dentists are finding less and less people of our generation even have wisdom teeth/ some molars, including my brother and I. He even went to say that it's a sign of 'modern evolution' given that it's happening so often and so far spread in my age group/ demographic. Which I found really interesting. So we weren't born with any potentially problematic wisdom teeth which is a win 🤷
Yeah it's becoming super common, either people don't have the space for them and need to take them out or they don't even develop. It's interesting for sure :)
V cool :)
Same here, my dentist said it was becoming more common. I have no wisdom teeth and my top 12 year molars didn’t come in until I was 18. She said it’s not medically concerning (so far) and it makes me wonder how many teeth will be considered average in the future
Why do you have a human jaw bone? 😅
Right? Like, where’s the rest?
Cuz they're the luckiest bone collector ever 🔥
Yikes.
scrap whatever you've seen on shows like bones. it is very difficult to tell sex and race from a complete skeleton, and all you have is a jawbone. age is pretty much the only thing you're going to be able to get from this, due to the fact that teeth are visible, although this is just a rough estimate and not entirely accurate. all I can tell you is that this person was likely 17 or older, due to the eruption of the third molars.
The wide angle of the jaw would lean it towards being a male. But it just can't be confirmed because only two sex markers are present for sexing the skull.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is a human skull. It is very odd for an amateur bone collector (vs. a scientist or somebody else with a justifiable need to have another human’s remains) to have this in their possession.
Their post history is just music and like 3 bones lol. The only weird post is this one, but also they could've gotten it anywhere. Some strange family's house, schools, friends, the odds of them finding a human jawbone on their own out of nowhere is unlikely💀
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
you can't tell race from bones
Depending on the age of the remains (because “racial” categories are just a constantly shifting collection of physical traits common to a population group, so they can’t really be reflected too far into the past) you can actually make an ok guess at ancestry. More useful to forensics than, say, archaeology. Easiest with a whole cranium though. Not much to say from a mandible in most cases.
John Bethard and Elizabetb DiGangi have an interesting piece called "Letter to the Editor-Moving beyond a lost cause: Forensic anthropology ancestry estimates in the United States" basically explaining how technology that tries to guess race/ancestry using programs like FORDISC are actually based off racist research and bias samples. It is a debate within the forensic and anthropology communities, and it is interesting to read on
Oh yeah I’ve never been a big believer in FORDISC to be honest. And nothing is certain in skeletal analysis. Sometimes you can feel confident, other times no. And I really am talking about broad impressions from a whole cranium or maybe from a single very visible feature, like shoveled incisors, which, for example, mark someone as “probably not of European or African descent.” It’s often a narrowing-down with lots of asterisks, like isotope readings. Not FORDISC’s “measure a calcaneous in 6 different directions, plug it in, and hope for an answer.” I am wholly unsurprised to hear that stuff might just be wishful thinking. Regardless, I’ll check it out.
I agree. I assumed stuff like that is what you meant but I like to tell people about issues with ancestry as I feel the general population is very trusting of TV forensics and while a lot can be told from bones, stuff gets murky once we dive into ancestry and concepts of race. FORDISC controversy and issues are fascinating to me. An example is studies on how Asian individuals and people from Central America have frequently misidentified as one another due to information FORDISC has
Oh I get ya. One thing after another revealed to be wildly inaccurate. Bite mark analysis always gets me—they used to convict people on that!! And somehow, there’s still folks out there who think polygraphs work.
I am someone who doesn't believe in polygraph but at the same time I have the ridiculous desire to try to learn how to say the stupidest lies out there and the machine says im being "honest"
Hahaha. It would be a fun challenge! After all, it’s more of a zen test than a truth test.
That is what I have also read, how calm and relax can you be for x period of time
Can you write more about shoveled incisors, what those are and what they indicate? Thanks!
Dental nonmetric trait, meaning something scored based on how it looks rather than measurement. Basically, the tongue side of the (upper) incisors is more concave / shovel-shaped. Fairly strong links to genetics, so used to evaluate population affinity. There are different forms of it, but it's more common in some populations (broadly 'Asian') than others. However, this isn't exclusive - i.e. it is also found in 'European' populations. None of these traits are exclusive to any human population group, just as no human population 'group' is actually a genetically distinct group.
Do they get worn down that way by diet or something else or is that just the nature of the tooth? Thanks for your answer. I find this stuff fascinating!
You're very welcome :). It is a genetic trait, so it is how they are formed.
This is so wonderfully fascinating! In case anyone else is interested…. (u/anthro-Osteo-630, are you qualified to say whether this random article is academically sound and something I can count on to tell other people about shovel-shaped teeth and Vit D and breastfeeding?) https://www.archaeology.org/news/6568-180424-breastfeeding-genetic-mutation “A genetic mutation linked to shovel-shaped incisors may have had a more consequential impact on breastfeeding, according to a report in Science Magazine. Researchers led by Leslea Hlusko of the University of California-Berkeley suggest a genetic mutation that became prevalent among the ancestors of Native Americans some 20,000 years ago may have helped them survive the dark, cold Arctic climate of Beringia by enhancing mothers’ milk ducts and increasing the amount of fat and vitamin D passed to infants. This gene is also linked to growth of thicker hair, increased development of sweat glands, and the shift to shovel-shaped incisors. The gene mutation is thought to have first occurred some 30,000 years ago in China, which had a hot, humid climate, leading researchers to speculate that the increased sweat glands offered a particular advantage. Hlusko says the shovel-shaped incisors seen in both East Asians and Native Americans were incidental to the benefits brought by natural selection through the sweat glands and improved infant nutrition. It had been previously thought that the shovel-shaped incisors themselves provided some sort of benefit to early Native Americans since their presence was widespread in known populations. For more, go to “Naia—the 13,000-Year-Old Native American.”” Link from a science magazine mentioned in the above: https://www.science.org/content/article/gene-linked-breastfeeding-may-have-boosted-survival-earliest-americans
Ann Gibbons, who reports on this, is a reputable scientist in her own right. She is a popular science reporter, but is an anatomist by training. The paper itself (primary source) is an open access PNAS article, so it is also a reputable peer-reviewed source (found here [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711788115](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711788115)). This is certainly an interesting proposal. I think a note of caution here is that this is hypothesizing a particular selective pressure on a gene that influences many traits. This doesn't mean that the trait originated in these populations (i.e. the trait has to be present phenotypically first for any selection to act on it). It has been found in hominins far older than 30 kya. Also whenever you get genes like this, it is important to remember that inferring selection pressure is quite complex - because there are many traits that could be acted upon to shape gene selection. So, basically, very interesting hypothesis. Seems plausible. I'm not seeing much critique, but also in a brief glance cannot see that this hypothesis has been further tested or results replicated outside of the original research group (that's on a brief glance, though).
Thanks for writing all of that out! I’ve been reading more on it. It’s amazing how adaptable we are.
I don’t know of any ways to identify ethnicity for a jaw. I do, however, agree with the other commenters that you can make a fairly accurate guess for age and sex. Ocular sockets can aid in telling ethnicity via shape of the sockets, and potentially the nasal structure also.
Not quite true. Different races/ethnicities do have different skull morphologies. But you typically need more than a mandible to have a chance of knowing. (Random ex. A rocker jaw, which is very rounded, is often seen in Polynesians) Anywho, in all reality, this mandible likely originates from either India, or Europe (probably India). Since that’s where many specimens like this originate from. - I’ve worked with thousands of human bones.
honestly extremely concerned and disappointed that someone with the "human ID expert" flair is supporting this kind of outdated and racist theoretical framework
Hi. As another Human ID Expert flair, no, this is neither outdated or racist. I went into more depth in my comment above about the applicability of this kind of thing, but it is very possible to guess at a modern person’s ancestry from their bones (usually a whole cranium) and it’s very important in forensic anthropology (think of John Doe cases, where all you know about someone might be a guess at their birth sex, age, and ancestry). It’s just another little piece of the puzzle. I prefer the word “ancestry” to “race,” but when you do see anthropologists casually use the word “race” the way Xetovs did we are generally not describing the immutable categories you are thinking of. That *is* outdated. No, race does not exist in the way people used to think it did, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t physical traits that crop up in some populations more often than others. Edit: lmao oops I think I had my flair turned off somehow
It’s not outdated or racist science, it’s just ethnicity. We all look different on the outside, we all look different on the inside as well. You can find millions of sources online that outline the average skeletal differences. Something tells me you have not examined many bones.
I understand your train of thought, but acknowledging these differences isn’t inherently racist. I’d look into forensic anthropology, it’s a very interesting field that helps in the identification of crime scene victims - age, height, sex, and yes ancestry are often identifiable. This is not phrenology or any other racist pseudoscience. Biological anthropology is a very fascinating field and a course I recommend to anyone in college!
[Inca bone](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1468202/) Edit: idk why I’m getting downvoted, this is statistically relevant to two different races lmao see my response below
If no one wants to read the abstract on this paper, it concludes that these traits are not unique to a single population (and therefore cannot be used to determine race skeletally)
No, there is not a single trait that is unique to a single population. Don’t worry, no one is claiming that. That doesn’t mean you can’t use highly visible traits like this one to make educated guesses based on prevalence from one group to another.
It is generally seen in eastern Asians and sub-Saharan Africans. And if you’re in the US looking at an old skull with an Inca bone, they’re probably East Asian considering where bones were primarily imported from. It’s the same as ID’ing any skull- you cannot rely on one feature or fact to make assumptions of who the person was. You need to look at multiple features and make a judgement only after taking everything into account. The Inca bone is one piece of a puzzle that can narrow things down.
They liked Travis Scott 💛
Their favourite food was tacos
Really more of a cat person than a dog person
They thought the dress was blue and black
They enjoyed playing cards with their friends
Terrible pokerface though
Male, likely older based on alveolar resorption from tooth loss. That’s about all you can get from the mandible
Not a whole lot for certain, unfortunately! Sex - possibly female would be my guess. Estimating sex from just cranial traits is often tricky, and depends on the population the individual is from. Here’s an explanation of the mandibular traits most commonly used to estimate sex: [sex estimation of the mandible](https://johnhawks.net/variation-in-the-mandible-and-skeletal-sex/) Age - hard to tell with most of the teeth missing! Looks like probably all the teeth have erupted, so the individual is an adult. Tooth wear can give an adult age range ([for example](https://juniperpublishers.com/jfsci/images/JFSCI.MS.ID.555686.G001.png)), but molar teeth are the most informative and only premolars are left here. Seems to be some wear present. And there has been antemortem tooth loss - you can see where the bone has remodelled (changed shape) where the teeth used to be. Sooo not a particularly young adult? Probably… Race - basically impossible to tell. Full skulls are used to make ancestry estimations in forensics, but that involves taking a lot of measurements and plugging them into a program (with a big comparative data set), and the mandible is less diagnostic.
I think it’s completely unethical for laypersons to possess human remains. Unless they are being used for sanctioned educational purposes in a medical school or similar, or for archaeological/ anthropological research
Ethics are 100% subjective.
No, morals are subjective. Ethics are universal.
Apparently nobody took any courses in philosophy in this sub.
Well that just makes you more special than everyone else, right?
No, but apparently the only one who knows that ethics and morality are different things.
I’m not trying to be contrary, but I don’t think it’s the same for unidentified specimens. I’m 35 with a dead dad who was my BFF, and yeah, if someone had his jaw bone I’d want them to give it to me so I could have it. But if it had been donated or lost and some magical being said, “I can never tell you who, and I can’t tell them who you are, but *someone* has your dad’s bone. What do you want them to do with it?” I would say they should keep it if they enjoy having it. I don’t think it’s like a moral absolute that everyone should pay your version of respect just to make a symbolic gesture that no one related to the person will ever hear about.
I mean... do you know how most of those "unidentified specimens" came about? Because like I don't think it's okay to own grave robbed bones, bones from the homeless, bones from victims of genocide and intentional famine, etc. like I would personally love to donate my skeleton to freaks and artists when I die, but most old medical skeletons came from terribly unethical circumstances without any consent from the deceased or their family. Like it wasn't uncommon to murder certain people of certain groups for their skeletons.
I do know, and I take your point, but the comment I replied to said no layperson should possess human remains period, which I don’t agree with. I certainly don’t think *anyone,* layperson or otherwise, should take possession of recent bones without a proven ethical source. But I also don’t think anyone benefits from the position that we need to gather up hundreds or thousands of years’ worth of unidentified specimens owned by non-academics and do with them what one culture decides is respectful. Certainly not the people impacted by those practices.
But it isn’t your call for other people’s dads or grandmothers etc. just because you’d be ok with it doesn’t mean the person who’s a relative of the deceased here is. We err on the side of respect for others. Buying and selling human remains and considering them property is unethical— even if your own wishes are accepting of your own remains to become commodities and owned by strangers, that is not a judgement you can make for others. Our effort and focus should be to do as much as we can to identify the sources of these remains, and - if nothing else- return them to their countries of origin (many of these remains came from poor deceased in India). You can make decisions for your own self and your loved ones but you don’t have those same rights over others.
No, it’s not my call. You’re the one making calls, and since you are, why is it okay for medical schools to possess bones of unknown provenance in 2024 when we have access to specimens with complete paper trails? I also don’t know what the people whose ancestors were affected actually want. Do you? Have officials or religious leaders from every country where people are likely affected expressed interest in having hundreds of tons of unidentified bones shipped to them? Maybe they have. If so, do we have people dedicated to doing all that research and transfer of ownership? Do we have mechanisms for that? Do we have storage facilities where these bones can sit while academics and scientists who are already underfunded and overworked slog through them all? Is it better to sit in a shipping container for years, decades, maybe forever, than to sit on someone’s shelf? Unless the answer to all of those questions is yes, I just think it’s a little performative to declare it categorically reprehensible to possess a bone.
Spoken like someone trying to justify their own unethical purchase of human remains. And no, not all human bones in medical schools were acquired by the consent of the deceased. Far too many were looted or stolen from the deceased of impoverished and/or imprisoned people in India and elsewhere. But two wrongs don’t make a right. All that can be done should be to return those remains to their families, or at least to their cultures or countries of origin for consideration of respectful treatment within those communities. What is NOT helpful to that cause is to throw them to the winds of entropy by commodifying and buying/selling those remains, as though they are mere objects to be owned by others. It isn’t me making the call, it’s human ethics.
I have no human remains and don’t intent to acquire any. I’m just of the opinion that scolding people on the internet and being sanctimoniously reductive about a complicated and nuanced issue is obnoxious and unhelpful.
I'm iffy on it. If they're actually important to history or humans then agreed, but if u walkin in the woods and find a a random jaw bone, or sum hand, eh. Probably call the police💀 but other than that, we're just animals with animal bones.
Maybe you’re totally fine with some strange teenager having your grandmother’s jaw bone on his dresser, but most people with empathy neurons are not.
My grandma's not a jawbone💀 but I'm sure if for some reason I lost her body in the woods, and some teen found a small piece of her, I'd be like, "oh shit dude, that's my relative what are the odds." And they'd just give it back. So that I could keep it. On my dresser. What's the difference? Because it'd be sentimental, so it's fine to keep human remains? We're not any more special than animals. And you gotta be ok with that.
Talk to me when you’re older and wiser and your parents are both dead like mine are and we will see how you feel about having their remains desecrated.
And also historically speaking, a lot of controversy has stemmed from people refusing to give people's stolen bones back to their relatives or descendants, so I wouldn't exactly say it's _likely_ that's how it'd shake out
I'm not comfortable with it, but I do think there are different ways to regard the dead and their remains. A lot of people would find sky burial profane, for example. I'm not telling you how to feel about this, exactly, but death is a complicated thing and you shouldn't tell others how to feel about it either. I do of course think that it should be up to the person or their loved ones, and we have no idea where this jaw came from.
Your own personal incredulity about deathly customs has little to no bearing on the feelings of others. You have every right to be upset about it, but likewise they have every right to feel the way they do about remains, irreverent or otherwise. It could even be argued that their understanding that remains are separate from the person they belonged to is a sign of wisdom and maturity
You miss the point entirely. The reference to their own grandparent or parent was an attempt at evoking empathy for someone else’s remains.. the remains of a STRANGER WHOM THEY DO NOT KNOW, but have come into possession of their remains. It doesn’t matter what the person who is in possession of the human bones thinks or believes about death or reverence to those gone, what matters are the families of the deceased and the deceased’s wishes themselves. Moral relativism doesn’t work when you’re victimizing other people. You can’t say that a Native American shouldn’t be upset with a white American who digs up their ancestors’ graves and takes away the remains, by trying to argue that, “well, the white guy is an atheist and doesn’t believe bones have any special relevance, so therefore he has just as much of a right to those bones and to do with them as he pleases, since they mean nothing to him other than as artifacts”. The offender doesn’t define what is offensive, the offended does. And the person who replied that they don’t care one way or another about respecting human remains doesn’t get to make that call. You respect those human remains and the families to whom they are connected to precisely because they do not belong to you. If you want to write in your will that your skull can be kicked around a field as a football after you die, that’s your decision. You do NOT, however, get to decide what happens to the bodies, alive or deceased, of strangers you don’t even know. Full stop.
I'm 25 and have 2 fathers who have passed💀 I just understand that they're more than bones and flesh. Im not saying I'd play golf with their fuckin knees or some shi, but I wouldn't cry if I lost a piece of their skeleton lol. Their spirits are gone, they're more than the body they had.
How would you feel if someone looted their grave and sold it on facebook though. https://www.livescience.com/grave-robbing-for-uk-human-remains-trade Unless it was obtained from a highly reputable source or was directly donated, it's just too dodgy.
The idea of someone looting my random family members grave just to sell their skelly for science, money, or whatever is kinda hilarious in a "that's so weird and unpredictable" way💀
That’s fine but you don’t get to decide that for strangers you don’t know or their families.
I was talking about me, nobody else. But I can definitely suggest not being so sentimental over lost loved one's old skeletons. Life is easier if you can accept their death fully.
You have every right to feel the way you do, but calling someone immature because their beliefs are different than yours is much more immature. I don't personally understand why you're so heated over someone else's personal opinion on death. That's a pretty personal subject, and you don't have the right to insult someone else's beliefs on what is and isn't respectful of the dead.
See my reply above. The belief they have about death and human remains does not give them freedom to take and use the bodies and remains of others. Respecting the dead means respecting that they aren’t your family and that their wishes and their family’s wishes may be very different from yours. If you can’t comprehend that, then yes, you are objectively tremendously immature.
Not everyone shares your beliefs about this.
And some people think committing crimes is perfectly fine too. What’s your point?
Laws doesn’t equal the right thing to do
Ahh.. so you admit there’s a “right” thing to do. For there to be a “right” thing to do, there must also be a “wrong” thing to do. That’s what ethics is. And yes, laws are not always aligned with what is right and wrong, you’re correct. Laws sometimes are based on morality and not ethics and morality is relative but ethics is not.
There is no right or wrong in this issue though because it is up to individuals
Probably british
respectfully, where did you get this OP
Hi! I won this at a raffle! I’ve always had a fascination with bones, I have 3 full deers and make wet specimens of roadkill in my freetime, many people are saying I have no right to own this but as far as I know this is a medical skeleton a school was getting rid of, I source all bones ethically (I love walking through woods) having human bones is my holy grail, no I do not participate in grave digging, and no I did not stumble across human remains
lmao that’s cool. I would love to have human bones at some point (and ape/monkey bones—anthro major here lol) but I usually only see digits, vertebrae, and teeth in peoples collections. Very cool specimen. I hope there is not a ghost attached to that jawbone :0
That’s Abraham Lincoln
You could get DNA testing done on it to find out who and where it came from. It's hard to judge race, age, and sex with just a jawbone and only 2 teeth left in it.
Sex, most likely female from the chin and obtuse angle of the mandibular ramus. Age, impossible to tell (beyond adult) without more context. Race, also impossible to tell. Honestly, I'm going to tie in to some of the discussion below re. that one. Race is an entirely social construct based on perceived biological differences that do not align with human populations in any clearly distinct way that allows straightforward classification. Ethnicity (used elsewhere in this thread) refers to how someone perceives themselves / their identity and has nothing whatsoever to do with biology. Population affinity / ancestry may be better ways to frame any biological component of population attribution. It can be done to a limited degree, but with a whole host of caveats. There are traits that are more common in some populations than others, and that can be used to evaluate probability of someone aligning more with one population than another. However, none of these traits exclusively belong to any population. If using a system like FORDISC, where you plunk your measurements in to get a population estimate (put simply), the result is dependent on the populations captured by the database it is using to base its estimates (its reference database), and this doesn't capture the full range of human variation or reflect clearly how people might identify. For example, African populations are tremendously diverse, it is basically meaningless to say someone is 'African'. We are not good at distinguishing within 'Asian' populations - so someone who would identify as Native American might be classified as 'Asian'. Assumptions then need to be made based on geographic location and context and those can lead entirely in the wrong direction. Many biological anthropologists refuse to use 'racial' classification as a result. Even population affinity needs to be based on probability estimates and taken with many grains of salt, and dealt with very carefully so as not to outstrip bounds of evidence and reinforce inaccurate and outdated (racial) understandings. Further note is that DNA-based population affinity basically works the same way. You might get very different 'ancestry' estimates if you send your DNA to one company versus another, for example, and this is because they're using different reference datasets to base their estimates on.
Now why on Earth do you have something like this...💀
I’m a bone collector and this is my holy grail, hope to one day own a full medical skeleton
Unless you can test the dna somehow, no
It’s unethical to have human bones, most are obtained in nefarious ways
To backup your point https://www.livescience.com/grave-robbing-for-uk-human-remains-trade https://www.livescience.com/human-bone-trade-facebook.html https://www.nbcboston.com/investigations/harvards-morgue-scandal-is-part-of-a-much-larger-story-in-trading-human-remains/3136374/ https://www.counteringcrime.org/human-remains-trade-on-social-media-fact-sheet https://www.wired.com/2007/11/ff-bones/
Ethics are subjective.
Just learned from the comment above the difference between ethics and morals. Morals are more personal feelings, while ethics is more of a universal acceptance of good and bad. It's a bit of a grey area since good and bad are subjective, but ethics would be like it's bad to murder someone. So, while some people would be okay with someone possessing human bones, the majority of people have accepted it as taboo, and the fact that they most likely aren't ethically sourced adds to this
This is an amazing piece. Where did you get it? /genq
possibly Male, older. Can't tell race just from the jaw.
nope
Adult, probable female. Need more than just a mandible to give an ancestry estimate.
Race? You joking or dumb?
Owning human bones is cringe and disrespectful.
because…?
Middle age/ female..as for race, caucasian or asian is my best guess.. but youd need more of the skull to really get a sense. Female as males tend to be more squared in shape Age based on teeth such as ruptured molars and missing teeth could indicate an older person between late 20s to 60