Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Though radiocarbon dating has been common practice in archaeology, it has yet to be regularly and consistently applied in forensic anthropology. Rather, forensic anthropologists analyze human remains using methods established on the basis of skeletal biology, such as estimating ancestry using characteristics that vary between breeding populations and estimating time-since-death based on the degree and pattern of weathering on the bones. Time since death is an essential question because this is what will determine whether the remains have forensic or historical significance. However, these methods are dependent on many extrinsic factors that include preservation and available contextual information regarding how and where the individual was placed or buried, as well as any personal effects included within the burial. In addition, the postmortem interval based on weathering is inaccurate and very difficult if not impossible to assess with any accuracy. Therefore, traditional methods such as skeletal weathering are not recommended. Thus, we recommend adopting radiocarbon dating as standard forensic practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fournier et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: