We would like to thank Dr. Garcia (2025) for her reply and to the American Journal of Biological Anthropology for the opportunity to respond to her letter concerning our article “New Challenges and Perspectives on the Long-Term Study and Curation of the Collection of Identified Human Skeletons Housed at the National Museum of Natural History and Science, Lisbon, Portugal” (Cardoso et al. 2025). Our purpose in publishing that article was to bring attention to structural and systemic challenges affecting the conservation of the documented skeletal collection curated at the National Museum of Natural History and Science in Lisbon that we believe are of shared concern to the wider biological anthropology community. We also meant to recommend constructive measures for assessing its integrity, ensuring its long-term scientific value and ethical stewardship, and begin a dialogue on issues relevant to the curation of human skeletal remains everywhere. We are encouraged to see that our article has “prompted” the Museum to “review procedures and reinforce safeguards already in place” (p. 2) and we welcome any changes in procedures and policies aimed at protecting the integrity of the Lisbon Identified Skeletal Collection and similar collections. In our original article, we specifically avoided singling out the actions of specific individuals, as such an approach is unlikely to be constructive. The issues we raised are systemic, are not due to the actions of any one person, are inherent to other collections, and need to be identified and addressed to maintain collection integrity and the validity of research conducted on them (e.g., Albanese 2018). In this context, we consider it important to clarify our position in response to statements that shift the discussion away from these systemic concerns. At the outset, we note that Garcia's (2025) reply frames the discussion in personal terms and attributes responsibility to individual researchers, rather than primarily addressing the factual basis of the concerns we raised. Our paper did not seek to assign personal responsibility. Instead, it focused on the documented issues related to curation—principally the dissociation of adult remains and the conservation of juvenile skeletons. These problems have direct implications for the integrity, usability, and reliability of one of the world's most significant documented skeletal collections, as well as for the institutional responsibilities of the National Museum of Natural History and Science in Lisbon. Of particular note in Garcia's (2025) letter is the personalization of her response. Cardoso, Albanese, or Quintino, are named repeatedly, and responsibility is discussed at the level of individual roles or actions—for example, by noting that “H.C. was curator … between 1998 and 2011 and supervised the curation process between 2011 and 2013” (p. 1). This is a misrepresentation of H.C.'s role at the Museum. While H.C. formally remained pro bono curator until 2013, after 2011 he no longer resided in Lisbon and held a full-time professorship in Porto. Daily management of the collection and all decisions regarding labeling, conservation, and access, including the supervision of staff, were the responsibility of Museum personnel, including Dr. Garcia who assumed full curatorial duties from 2013 onward. Garcia (2025) also describes J.A.'s contribution by stating he has had “no active involvement with the collection” (p. 1). However, J.A. has direct research experience with collecting and analyzing data from the Lisbon Collection (e.g., Albanese 2013) and has, for several decades, conducted research identifying and addressing similar curatorial and documentation problems with identified skeletal collections from Portugal, Canada, the United States, Brazil, and South Africa (e.g., Albanese 2018, 2021; Hunt and Albanese 2005). Garcia (2025) further describes the authors' contributions, by noting that Y.Q. has “only collected data on non-adults” (p. 1). This focus reflects her specific area of expertise and is directly relevant to the conservation concerns raised, which specifically affect this segment of the collection. Our paper did not assign responsibility to Dr. Garcia or to any individual. Instead, it documented challenges that affect the integrity of the collection, irrespective of who held or currently holds curatorial responsibility, or of past and current institutional structures and leadership. Shifting the focus from the problems themselves to questions of individual and even institutional responsibility risks diverting attention from the real issue: the collection requires transparent, systematic, and well-documented curatorial practice. Our paper indicated a potentially widespread dissociation problem among the collection—mismatches between the documented and actual biographical data due to a switch of identities, for which we provided evidence. Rather than providing a systematic analysis to demonstrate the absence of dissociation, Dr. Garcia acknowledges that dissociation occurs but minimizes it and characterizes it as a matter of “random” mismatches that are “neither systematic nor the result of recent labeling or curatorial practices” (Garcia 2025, 1). This statement does not rebut our concern; it confirms it. In her reply, Garcia (2025) confirms cases of dissociation when she notes that both her own earlier paper (S. Garcia 2012) and her PhD student's thesis (Magno 2022) included individuals later identified as having the “wrong” sex and age, respectively. Dr. Garcia interprets these mismatches as evidence that the biographical information itself is inaccurate. However, she does not explain how she determined the biographical records to be wrong—something that would not be possible in cases of switched identities, as we outlined in our paper (Cardoso et al. 2025). By definition, dissociation leads to situations where the documented sex does not match the individual, and thus these examples reinforce, rather than contradict, our findings. When noting that her 2012 paper (S. Garcia 2012) included individuals with the “wrong” sex, she does not specify how many individuals in her sample came from the accession numbers affected by dissociation (#760-1674). Consequently, doubts about the extent and severity of the dissociation persist. The case cited from Magno (2022) follows a similar pattern: Garcia (2025) claims dissociation based on a discrepancy between documented and estimated age, rather than through comparison with earlier pre-2011 osteological or archival records. This approach is problematic, since variation in the association between skeletal and chronological age (and between biological and skeletal sex) is well known and cannot, by itself, establish dissociation. This is further problematic, because Garcia (2025) seems to suggest that improvements in skeletal age estimation (citing Milner and Boldsen 2012, and Navega et al. 2022) can “support the validation of individual associations” (p. 1). In effect, Garcia (2025) implies that the archival data are unreliable and that skeletal estimates should serve as confirmation of biographical information. This approach denotes circular reasoning and lacks empirical support. If applied broadly, it could lead to the identification of apparent cases of dissociation that may not accurately reflect actual inconsistencies in the collection. If, as Garcia (2025) stated, dissociation is “random throughout the collection,” then its full extent remains undetermined and potentially large. However, Garcia (2025) does not provide quantified data, audit results of the affected accession numbers, or a detailed report of the methods used to “systematically correct” (p. 1) provenance-related issues. Without transparent documentation, these assertions cannot be independently verified. Moreover, Garcia (2025) attributes most of the dissociation to “commingling due to burial practices” and “transcription errors from cemetery records” (p. 1). However, these issues with commingling and their resolution were discussed in detail in our previous paper (Cardoso et al. 2025). More importantly, they are not the source of the dissociation issues we bring forward and can be readily resolved, as we have also detailed (Cardoso et al. 2025). On the other hand, Garcia (2025) does not provide indication as to how dissociation cases were concluded to be the result of “transcription errors” from the cemetery. She does not provide supporting evidence that cemetery or previous collection records were ever reviewed, indicate whether municipal archives were consulted, or explain of how such attributions were reached. In addition, no further information is provided about the 29 individuals who were identified as being dissociated and why they are embargoed. These cases may be associated with “commingling due to burial practices,” or the may they represent cases where skeletal sex/age estimates are inconsistent with documented sex/age, or there may be another explanation. Thus, Garcia's (2025) response provides limited evidence and does not fully address the nature and extent of dissociation in the collection. This was precisely the problem our article sought to highlight. Our article also raised concerns about the condition of the juvenile segment of the collection, based on repeated observations and a conservation report submitted internally by Y.Q. to the Museum administration in 2019. Garcia's (2025) reply addresses these concerns, by stating that no supporting data were provided and that the use of internal conservation records lacked formal authorization (p. 2). However, the report was formally submitted to the Museum, was available for review, and documented the fragile condition of many juvenile skeletons. Furthermore, there appears to be a contradiction when Garcia (2025) notes that there is “no record of Y.Q. requesting permission to use the internal conservation records” (p. 2), while also identifying Y.Q. as the researcher who implemented the MoU between the Museum and the University of Burgos on behalf of the university to address “conservation concerns” (p. 2). The above MoU “had the primary goal of 3D scanning part of the juvenile collection to allow virtual access and reduce handling needs” (Garcia 2025) (p. 2), and the Museum was in charge of selecting the specimens to be digitized. As the curator, Dr. Garcia decided that only bones without pathological conditions or visible deterioration would be scanned. Beforehand, this required an inventory of the entire juvenile segment of the collection, to establish their preservation and conservation status. Garcia (2025) states that it “was later agreed that a detailed conservation condition report would accompany each scanned skeleton” and that “these condition reports were primarily completed by an intern, with the occasional collaboration of Y.Q.” (p. 2). A separate project, however, was implemented by Y.Q. to systematically assess the preservation and conservation status of the juvenile collection prior to digitization, and its results were incorporated into Y.Q.'s 2019 report. Preservation was measured by the number of bones present relative to what would be expected for each age, revealing significant bone loss since 2006, especially in individuals aged 0–3 years (Cardoso et al. 2025). Conservation was evaluated through the completeness of each preserved element, using a standardized index to quantify bone integrity. This work was, therefore, not limited to producing individual “condition reports (…) completed by an intern” (p. 2) but represented a comprehensive evaluation of the collection by Y.Q. Given Garcia's (2025) reference to the MoU between the Museum and the University of Burgos, it is worth noting that the other goal of the agreement was to make the digital scans available through a research-accessible database, a goal that has not yet been realized. This raises questions regarding access. If, as Garcia (2025) maintains, the juvenile skeletons have not undergone significant deterioration, it is unclear why access to 92 juvenile individuals has been increasingly restricted due to preservation concerns, and why the scanned images have not been made available to the broader research community as stipulated in the MoU. Garcia (2025) further asserts that “independent researchers” have documented high levels of preservation (p. 2). However, no internal assessments are mentioned and the studies she cites are vague, limited in scope, and not referenced with sufficient detail for verification. For example, Garcia (2025) refers to an “intern conservation report” (p. 2) from a PhD researcher at the University of Granada assessing cranial bones in 69 individuals, and another from a PhD researcher at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona evaluating appendicular remains in infants. These reports have not been published, neither their methodologies nor data are available, and both are based on a reduced/limited number of accessioned individuals. It is therefore impossible to assess their utility. Furthermore, Garcia's (2025) argument seems to conflate presence of bones with preservation. As Y.Q.'s report emphasized, preservation refers to number of bones present relative to those expected. And that number has been going down since 2011. It is unclear whether Garcia (2025) is referring to the proportion of bones present even if badly preserved, or to preservation as an average of the percentage preserved of each bone. In either case, the lack of systematic and transparent documentation leaves the issue open. The issues remain unaddressed in Garcia's (2025) reply, and are further confirmed: the state of juvenile preservation has not been documented in a systematic or transparent way and remains unknown, and the Museum has not provided open access to the data required to settle the matter. As a public institution, the responsibility lies with the Museum to provide supporting documentation for its practices. In the interest of clarification and transparency, and given Garcia's (2025) reference to the MoU with the University of Burgos, we respectfully invite the curator and Museum to make publicly available the full conservation inventory produced under the MoU, the independent reports and the 2019 report submitted to the Museum administration by Y.Q. Finally, we note that Garcia's (2025) reply was published behind a paywall and is only accessible to journal subscribers. Given that the concerns involve a public institution and a publicly held scientific resource, with heightened ethical and legal sensitivities—wider accessibility would ensure that researchers, stakeholders, and other museums can fully review and engage with the claims presented. Restricting access limits the ability of interested parties without institutional subscriptions to evaluate the response. Garcia's (2025) reply does not disprove or fully address the problems we raised. She acknowledges that dissociation exists but does not provide systematic evidence of its extent, nor detailed information of any corrective measures implemented or planned. Conservation concerns are contested with reference to unpublished reports from external researchers that cannot be independently verified. Our original article (Cardoso et al. 2025) sought to highlight the need for systematic investigation, documentation, transparency, and proactive measures to ensure the Lisbon Identified Skeletal Collection remains a reliable and ethically sourced scientific resource. Garcia's (2025) reply highlights the very same problems we identified: limited evidence, absence of systematic analysis, lack of transparency, and limited engagement with stakeholders. At present, the full extent and severity of the issues remain unclear. We therefore reaffirm our position that the dissociation and preservation concerns are real, unresolved, and deserving of urgent, systematic, and open investigation and rectification. Assigning responsibility or minimizing the issues does not serve the scientific community and institutions or support institutional accountability. What is needed is constructive, transparent collaboration and evidence-based solutions. As before and given our collective previous experience with this and other collections, we remain committed to open dialogue, to assist the Museum in this task and to working collaboratively toward solutions. Hugo F. V. Cardoso: conceptualization, writing – original draft. John Albanese: writing – review and editing. Yuliet Quintino: writing – review and editing. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Cardoso et al. (Sun,) studied this question.