Jankauskas Rimantas
Department of Anatomy, Histology and Anthropology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Lithuania.
Anthropol Anz. 2009 Dec;67(4):391-405. doi: 10.1127/0003-5548/2009/0030.
Forensic anthropology (in Lithuania, as everywhere in Eastern Europe, traditionally considered as a narrower field--forensic osteology) has a long history, experience being gained both during exhumations of mass killings during the Second World War and the subsequent totalitarian regime, investigations of historical mass graves, identification of historical personalities and routine forensic work. Experts of this field (usually a branch of forensic medicine) routinely are solving "technical" questions of crime investigation, particularly identification of (usually dead) individuals. Practical implementation of the mission of forensic anthropology is not an easy task due to interdisciplinary character of the field. On one hand, physical anthropology has in its disposition numerous scientifically tested methods, however, their practical value in particular legal processes is limited. Reasons for these discrepancies can be related both to insufficient understanding of possibilities and limitations of forensic anthropology and archaeology by officials representing legal institutions that perform investigations, and sometimes too "academic" research, that is conducted at anthropological laboratories, when methods developed are not completely relevant to practical needs. Besides of answering to direct questions (number of individuals, sex, age, stature, population affinity, individual traits, evidence of violence), important humanitarian aspects--the individual's right for identity, the right of the relatives to know the fate of their beloved ones--should not be neglected. Practical use of other identification methods faces difficulties of their own (e.g., odontology--lack of regular dental registration system and compatible database). Two examples of forensic anthropological work of mass graves, even when the results were much influenced by the questions raised by investigators, can serve as an illustration of the above-mentioned issues.
法医人类学（在立陶宛，如同东欧各地一样，传统上被视为一个较窄的领域——法医骨学）有着悠久的历史，在第二次世界大战期间及随后的极权政权下大规模杀戮事件的挖掘、历史乱葬岗的调查、历史人物的身份鉴定以及日常法医工作中积累了经验。该领域的专家（通常是法医学的一个分支）经常解决犯罪调查中的“技术”问题，特别是（通常是已死亡的）个体的身份鉴定。由于该领域的跨学科性质，法医人类学使命的实际执行并非易事。一方面，体质人类学拥有众多经过科学检验的方法，然而，它们在特定法律程序中的实际价值有限。这些差异的原因既可能与进行调查的法律机构官员对法医人类学和考古学的可能性及局限性理解不足有关，也可能与有时在人类学实验室进行的过于“学术”的研究有关，即所开发的方法与实际需求不完全相关。除了回答直接问题（个体数量、性别、年龄、身高、人群亲缘关系、个体特征、暴力证据）外，重要的人道主义方面——个人的身份权、亲属了解其亲人命运的权利——不应被忽视。其他鉴定方法的实际应用也面临自身的困难（例如，牙科学——缺乏常规的牙齿登记系统和兼容的数据库）。大规模坟墓法医人类学工作的两个例子，即使结果受调查人员提出的问题影响很大，也可作为上述问题的例证。
