Content uploaded by Penny McCardle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Penny McCardle on Mar 16, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
TECHNICAL NOTE
ANTHROPOLOGY
Penny McCardle,
1
B.A. (Hons); and Elizabeth Stojanovski,
2
Ph.D.
Identifying Differences Between Cut Marks
Made on Bone by a Machete and Katana: A
Pilot Study
ABSTRACT: The aim of this research was to identify characteristics specific to a machete and katana on three different bone types. One
machete and two katanas were used to produce cut marks on Sus scrofa rib, flat and long bones. Fifty-nine cuts were produced by the katanas
and 38 by the machete. The presence of flaking, feathering, peeling, micropeeling, chattering, microcurvature, scoop defect, and exit notch was
noted, and bivariate associations between each characteristic and weapon type were assessed using Pearson’s chi-square tests for independence
and logistic regression models developed. Significant predictors for machete cut marks are scoop defect for rib bones (correct classification
93%), micropeeling in flat bones, chattering on flat and long bones (all p<001) and for the katana, microcurvature (p<004) and exit notch
on flat and long bones (p<001; correct classification 96% and 100%, respectively). The identified bivariate associations and final logistic
regression models may be utilized in forensic investigations when identifying hacking trauma.
KEYWORDS: forensic science, forensic anthropology, katana, machete, cut marks, bone, crime, war crimes, genocide
The use of different weapons in contemporary crime, war crime,
and genocide (particularly in recent history) has led to the funda-
mental need to better identify cut marks on bones made by specific
weapons and to develop standard investigation processes that may
assist with the identification of weapon types used in such crimes,
particularly in the absence of eyewitness accounts. As the produc-
tion process, terminology and maintenance of the machetes and
katanas are not standardized between manufacturers across coun-
tries and continents, the tool marks for the different variations of
machetes and katanas are similarly unstandardized.
Furthermore, the research to date in relation to cuts produced
by both weapons has focused on using long bones (and the skull
in archeological human remains). Hacking trauma caused by
implements such as machetes, katanas, cleavers, and broad-
swords remains relatively understudied (1–5). With the exception
of one study, all research relating to the katana and associated
cut marks on skeletal remains derive from archeological human
skeletal remains with assumptions of weapon type based on
dating of the sites and likely weapon used during that era (2, 4,
6–11). The archeological research identified cut marks made by
a katana as being gashes, incisions, and scratches (11). Lewis
(3) examined hacking trauma caused by six types of hacking
implements (including a katana and a machete) and identified
eight characteristics (length, shape, flaking, feathering, cracking,
breakage, shards, and aspect) that assist in the identification of
weapon class. Previous research identified characteristics of
katana cut mark morphology to include the presence of unilateral
flaking, feathering, and as being ellipsoid in shape and those
identified on cuts produced by a machete are described as hav-
ing a clean entry wound with chattering, a wider cut mark, frac-
tures originating from the kerf floor on the obtuse-angled side of
the cut (greater than 90
0
but less than 180
0
to the surface of the
bone), and to have bone fragments associated with these frac-
tures (1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11). Additionally, when the machete pene-
trated through the bone, the exit wounds exhibited fractures with
small to medium pieces of fractured bone present (1).
Although some traits described in the research are also present
on cut marks made by other hacking implements (1, 3), it is
often possible to distinguish cut marks on bone produced by dif-
ferent large bladed hacking implements. While hacking weapons
can produce a wide range of morphologies, they are nonetheless
distinguishable from other classes of bladed weapons and often
within their own class. The identification of machete and katana
variants of hacking implements by further examining tool marks
on bone becomes even more varied, and hence, further research
is needed.
Additionally, the research to date has yet to include other bone
types such as flat bones and ribs, which are also commonly present
in crime scenes, and the research has focused on obtaining the per-
fect sample to obtain clear results, at the exclusion of imperfect
cuts marks which are more commonly encountered in forensic
cases. Given this current state of research, there is a need to use
standardized processes and protocols that may be able to provide
unique information about machete and katana tool marks such that
these may be distinguished from tool marks left by other weapons
or implements and/or other hacking implements.
The first aim of this study was to devise an experiment as
close to a realistic forensic setting as possible and to utilize
1
Faculty of Health, Department of Forensic Medicine Newcastle, Univer-
sity of Newcastle, University Drive, Callighan, NSW 2308, Australia.
2
School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle,
University Drive, Callighan, NSW 2308, Australia.
Received 26 Aug. 2017; and in revised form 9 Oct. 2017, 7 Dec. 2017;
accepted 15 Jan. 2018.
1©2018 American Academy of Forensic Sciences
J Forensic Sci,2018
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13754
Available online at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com
equipment available to the forensic practitioner in New South
Wales (NSW), Australia. The second aim was to identify dis-
tinct visual diagnostic traits in cut marks made on bones by the
machete with those made by the katana and to identify whether
some traits were more likely to present when cuts were made
with the machete or katana. As part of the second aim, statisti-
cal models were developed that can be used in the clinical set-
ting to enable the prediction of weapon type based on traits
present in cut marks. Finally, as multiple bone types are likely
to present in a forensic setting, three different bone types were
included in this research (rib, flat, and long) to examine and
compare cut mark characteristics between the different bone
types.
Materials and Methods
Materials
Juvenile domestic male pig carcasses (Sus scrofa), each
weighing 45–50 kg, were used to simulate an attack as they are
commonly used in forensic anthropology experimental research.
One whole carcass was used for each weapon, which was pur-
chased from the commercial sector (butcher) and consequently
gutted (standard NSW abattoir practice prior to sale to butchers).
To ensure the internal cavity was stabilized during the simulated
attack, the cavity was filled with PPS Loosefill Packing Peanuts
(Styrofoam), and the carcasses were suspended from a stable
frame to simulate a standing attack.
Two katanas and one machete were used as the weapons
under investigation in the study. The katanas included a tradi-
tionally made katana and a factory manufactured factory katana
(Katana 1 and Katana 2 in Table 1). As only one type of
machete was available commercially at the time of investiga-
tion, only one factory-made machete was also used as a
weapon of investigation. Traits of these weapons are listed in
Table 1.
Each individual performing the hacking with only one of the
three weapons was randomly allocated to one pig-carcass. On
their allocated pig-carcass, each individual was instructed to pro-
duce a minimum of six cuts to each of the three bone types
(ribs, flat, and long bones), producing a total of at least 18 cuts
per carcass. All cuts were included in the study, regardless of
their condition (fractured, broken, crushed, or incomplete).
Across the three pig carcasses, the total number of cuts made
included seven by a machete and 21 by a katana on the rib
bone; 15 machete and 16 katana cut marks on the flat bone, and
16 machete and 22 katana cut marks on the long bone.
The specimens containing the cut marks on each carcass
were extracted with caution from the carcasses using a scalpel
to remove the surrounding soft tissue and then boiled in water
to remove all remaining soft tissues and left to air-dry for
4 weeks. Ant cuts, broken or crushed were reconstruction and
visual observations of all cut marks were then undertaken and
all characteristics described. Each cut mark was assessed based
on the morphological analysis of eight characteristics (Table 2;
Figs 1–8) being absent or present (unilateral or bilateral).
Features of cut marks such as cut length, width, and depth
were excluded as they were dependent on many factors, includ-
ing, but not limited to, the strength of the person wielding the
weapon, the partial closure of the wound due to elasticity of the
bone when the weapon was withdrawn on live flesh or fresh
bone, victim health, postmortem interval, and associated environ-
mental factors (12–14). The presence or absence of shards was
also excluded as shards are typically easily lost during decompo-
sition and the defleshing/cleaning process. Shape was also
excluded as this was considered a relatively subjective trait when
shape is not so clearly defined on bone that has been subjected
to trauma and fractures.
TABLE 1–– Weapon characteristics.
Weapon Description
Katana 1 Katana (Praying Mantis Katana)
Overall length: (104.14 cm) 41″
Blade length: (73.66 cm) 29″
Handle length: (27.94 cm) 11″
Weight: 1.27 kg (2 lb 8 oz)
Blade material: high carbon steel
Traditional forging: L6/Bainite Shobu Zukuri Blade
Sharpening: hand polished using both modern “sand”
papers and traditional stones (live blade)
Katana 2 Katana (Mountain Sage Katana katana)
Overall length: 104 cm (40.95″)
Blade length: 73 cm (28.74″)
Handle length: 27 cm (10.63″)
Weight: 1.27 kg (2 lb 8 oz)
Blade material: AISI 1060 carbon steel
Forge/construction Style: Maru
Sharpening: polished using multiple grade stones
Machete Machete single-bladed Latin sable 18″
Overall length: (45.72 cm) 23 5/8″
Blade length: (60 cm) 18″
Handle length: 14.29 (5 5/8″Polypropylene)
Weight: 0.43 kg (14.9 oz)
Blade material: 1055 carbon steel
Blade thickness: 2 mm
Sharpening: primary grind established at factory
TABLE 2–– Cut mark characteristics.
Feature Description
Flaking Records the breaking off of pieces of bone
next to the cut mark and is defined by a
flake scar present or a flake piece that fits
the scar.
See Fig. 1
Feathering Records the lateral rising up of the external
bone in layers of a type of feathering
pattern and is still attached
See Fig. 2
Peeling Records the lateral raising or peeling away
from the external bone surface next to the
cut mark and is still attached to the bone.
An infraction (incomplete fracture) that is
still attached at an unnatural angle. Also
referred to as a hinge fracture
See Fig. 3
Micropeeling Records the micro (<1 mm) lateral raising
or peeling away from the external bone
surface along the entry of the cut mark and
is still attached to the bone. Microhinge
fractures.
See Fig. 4
Microcurvature Records the lateral uniform microcurvature
of the external bone, curving away from the
cut mark at the entry of the cut mark
See Fig. 5
Scoop defect Records the presence of a fragment or
wedge of bone removed during the removal
of the blade, resulting in a concave defect
with multiple facets
See Fig. 6
Exit notch Records the presence of a fragment or
wedge of bone removed at the posterior of
a complete cut mark
See Fig. 7
Chattering Records breaking off of small fragments or
chips of bone (microfracturing) of the edges
of the bone
See Fig. 8
2JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were undertaken using the statistical pack-
age SPSS v.23.0. The presence or absence of each cut character-
istic was compared between weapon types using counts and
percentages. These bivariate associations were assessed
statistically using Pearson’s chi-square test of independence, or
Fisher’s exact test, when the assumptions of Pearson’s chi-square
test were not satisfied. Cut mark characteristics that were statisti-
cally significantly related to weapon type in the bivariate analy-
ses at the 0.25 level of significance for each bone type were
entered into the multiple logistic regression model. Multiple
FIG. 1–– Example of flaking.
FIG. 2–– Example of feathering.
FIG. 3–– Example of peeling.
FIG. 4–– Example of micropeeling.
FIG. 5–– Example of microcurvature.
FIG. 6–– Example of a scoop defect.
MCCARDLE AND STOJANOVSKI .DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CUT MARKS:MACHETE AND KATANA 3
linear regression enables adjustment for the other cut mark char-
acteristics in the model and can be used to predict the odds that
the cut was made with each weapon type based on the presence
of various cut mark characteristics. A multiple logistic regression
using backwards elimination was then performed to determine
the significant traits of weapon type. The Hosmer and Leme-
show goodness-of-fit test was used to evaluate the fit of the
resulting model, with the significance level set at 0.05. The cor-
rect classification rate was calculated for the final model indicat-
ing the proportion of weapons that were correctly classified
based on the predicted model as an additional evaluation mea-
sure of the model.
Results
A total of 59 cut marks were produced by the katana (21 on
the rib bone; 16 on the flat bone; and 22 on the long bone,
respectively), and a total of 38 cut marks were produced by the
machete (seven on the rib bone; 15 on the flat bone; and 16 on
the long bone, respectively).
Bivariate Analyses of Morphological Traits by Bone Type
Rib Bone—Scoop defect was present in 71% of cut marks
made by the machete and was absent in all cut marks made by
the katana (Table 3). This difference was statistically significant
(p<001). Unilateral chattering was present in 29% of cut marks
made by the machete and was absent in all cuts made by the
katana, a difference that approached borderline statistical signifi-
cance (p=0.06). Unilateral microcurvature was more likely
observed with katana cut marks (48%) compared with machete
cut marks (14%); however, this difference was not statistically
significant (p=0.19). Flaking, feathering, peeling, unilateral
micropeeling, and exit notch were not statistically or clinically
significantly associated with weapon type for the rib bone and
so are not displayed in Table 3.
Flat bone—Unilateral chattering was present in 53% of cuts
made with a machete and was absent in all cuts made by the katana
(Table 3). This difference in proportions was statistically signifi-
cant (p<0.01). Similarly, unilateral micropeeling was present in
73% of cuts made with a machete and was absent in all katana cut
marks. This difference in proportions was also statistically signifi-
cant (p<0.01). Unilateral microcurvature, on the other hand, was
present in 31% of the cut marks made by the katana and
was absent in all machete cuts (p=0.04). Similarly, exit notch
was present in all katana cut marks compared to only 7% of
machete cuts (p<0.01). Flaking feathering, peeling, and scoop
defect were not statistically or clinically significantly associated
with weapon type for flat bones and so are not reported in Table 3.
Long Bone—Consistent with the other two bones, chattering
was present in cuts produced only by the machete (44%) and
was absent in all katana cut marks (p=0.01). A bilateral exit
notch was present in 96% of all katana cut marks compared to
only 6% of machete cut marks (p<0.001), while unilateral
microcurvature was present only in 23% of katana cut marks
and absent in all machete cut marks (p=0.06).
Multiple Logistic Regressions
Rib Bone—Cut characteristics that were statistically signifi-
cantly associated with weapon type at the 0.25 level of
FIG. 7–– Example of an exit notch.
FIG. 8–– Example of chattering.
TABLE 3–– Bivariate results of weapon type (machete v katana) by cut
characteristic.**
Bone Cut Characteristic
Machete Katana
p-value*N(%) N(%)
Rib Chattering Unilateral 2 (29) 0 0.06
Absent 5 (71) 21 (100)
Microcurvature Unilateral 1 (14) 10 (48) 0.19
Absent 6 (86) 11 (52)
Scoop defect Present 5 (71) 0 <0.001
Absent 2 (29) 21 (100)
Flat Chattering Unilateral 8 (53) 0 <0.01
Absent 7 (47) 16 (100)
Micropeeling Unilateral 11 (73) 0 <0.01
Absent 4 (27) 16 (100)
Microcurvature Unilateral 0 5 (31) 0.04
Absent 15 (100) 11 (69)
Exit notch Unilateral 1 (7) 16 (100) <0.01
Absent 14 (93) 0
Long Chattering Unilateral 7 (44) 0 0.01
Absent 9 (56) 22 (100)
Microcurvature Unilateral 0 5 (23) 0.06
Absent 16 (100) 17 (77)
Exit notch Bilateral 1 (6) 21 (96) <0.001
Absent 15 (94) 1 (5)
*p-value from Fisher’s exact test reported.
**Numbers expressed in each cell are the frequency (percentage).
4JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
significance from the bivariate analyses for the rib bone (scoop
defect, chattering, and microcurvature) were considered for
inclusion in the multiple logistic regression model. A backward
stepwise logistic regression procedure enabled all three predic-
tors to be simultaneously entered into the model. In the fitted
logistic regression models, scoop defect remained the only statis-
tically significant predictor of weapon type where the odds of
the cut having been made with a machete relative to a katana
were modeled (b=4.55, odds ratio (OR) =95, standard error
(SE) =1.76, p=0.01). The resulting equation of the logistic
regression model is presented in Eq. 1 where log (p/1-p) repre-
sents the log odds of the cut having been made with a machete
relative to a katana.
Log (p/1-p) ¼2:15 þ4:55 Scoop defect ð1Þ
A correct classification rate of 93% was achieved when this
model was used for weapon prediction purposes. The strong
association of scoop defect with the katana outcome resulted in
cells with low frequencies, as was evident from the bivariate
results presented in Table 3. This can bias the estimated coeffi-
cients and can be addressed using Firth’s bias-adjusted estimate
(15). Using Firth’s method, the odds of the cut having been
made with a machete remained significantly higher than the odds
of the cut having been made with a katana in the presence of a
scoop defect (OR =44, p<0.001), supporting findings from
the model presented in Eq. 1.
Flat Bone—All characteristics that were statistically signifi-
cant at the 0.25 level of significance from the bivariate analyses
were entered into the logistic regression model (unilateral chat-
tering, unilateral micropeeling, unilateral microcurvature, and
exit notch) using Firth’s method. An assessment of the phi coef-
ficient between these potential predictors indicated a moderate
positive association between exit notch and curvature (Ф=0.40,
p=0.03) and between micropeeling and chattering (Ф=0.5,
p≤0.01). As these are dichotomous variables, these measures
suggest potential multicollinearity which is likely contributing to
the model comprising all potential predictors failing to converge.
Backward stepwise logistic regression sequentially removed vari-
ables until only those that were statistically significant remained
in the model. Each possible pair of predictors was also consid-
ered separately for inclusion in the original model due to the
potential redundancy between variables and resulted in the same
final model with only exit notch as a significant predictor
(b=5.77, OR =0.003, SE =1.73, p<0.001). The resulting
model can be expressed as Eq. 2 and achieved an overall correct
classification rate of 97% when used to predict weapon type.
Log (p/1-p) ¼3:37 5:77 Exit notch ð2Þ
The odds of an exit notch being present for a machete cut
mark are 0.3% of the odds of the odds of a katana showing an
exit notch.
Long Bone—Unilateral chattering, bilateral exit notch, and
unilateral microcurvature were included in the original multiple
logistic regression model based on results from the bivariate
results. The phi coefficient between notch and chattering was
0.6 (p<0.01), suggesting potential multicollinearity. This is
also evident from Table 3, particularly for the katana for which
associated cuts had mainly chattering absent while exit notch
was mainly present. Reduced models with all possible subsets of
predictor variables were hence also considered. A backward
stepwise logistic regression model resulted in exit notch as the
only statistically significant predictor (Eq. [3]):
log (p/1-p) ¼2:34 5:00 Exit notch ð3Þ
(b=5.00, OR =0.007, SE =1.23, df =1, p<0.001) after
adjusting for the other predictors, with an overall correct classifi-
cation rate of 95%, indicating this simpler model as preferable
for prediction purposes given the additional two predictors did
not add substantially to the model’s prediction ability. The odds
ratio of 0.007 implies that the odds of a scoop being present in
a cut made by a machete are only 0.7% of the odds of a scoop
being present in a cut made by a katana.
Discussion
The use of different types of weapons to commit contemporary
crime, war crimes, and genocide necessitates the need to assess cut
marks in an effort to facilitate forensic investigations especially in
the absence of eyewitnesses. A review of available literature has
shown that cut marks resulting from hacking implements (ma-
chete, katana, broadswords, and cleavers) are widely understudied.
In particular, numerous studies focus on cut marks on archeologi-
cal skeletal remains. The cut mark characteristics broadly identi-
fied for hacking implements include length, depth, shape, flaking,
feathering, cracking, breakage, shards, and aspect (identified on
long bones). While these may identify a hacking weapon, it does
necessitate the need to employ standardized processes and proto-
cols that are capable of identifying and providing additional
unique details of cut marks regarding machete and katana weapons
(as well as other hacking implements).
The study sought to identify and compare various morphologi-
cal features of cuts inflicted by machete and katana on three
types of bones which included the rib, flat, and long bones using
readily available tools. Particularly, the study sought to devise a
replica of forensic setting that corresponds to standard proce-
dures in NSW, Australia. The ribs, flat, and long bones were
examined to compare and contrast the cut mark features. Both
qualitative (morphological traits) and quantitative (statistical)
methods were used to identify variations in cut marks on the
bones produced by both and utilized to achieve the primary
objectives of the study. The morphological examination relied
on visual observations and logging the presence or absence of
traits, while the statistical analysis involved the application of
logistic regression models to achieve the results.
The pilot study revealed that of the eight identified morphologi-
cal traits, chattering has been identified as unique to the machete
in all three bone types, and as it was a commonly present trait in
cuts made by the machete, it serves of high practical importance
in the identification of weapon type. Unique to the katana, and
also present on all three bone types, is microcurvature. Both of
these traits were statistically significant predictors of weapon type.
Applying a logistic regression model, other traits produced by
the machete and identified as statistically significant included a
scoop defect on rib bones and micropeeling on flat bones. It was
found that the presence of a scoop defect is a significant predic-
tor of weapon identification on a rib bone and micropeeling for
flat bones. Additional traits identified as statistically significant
indicators for cut produced by a katana include an exit notch on
flat and long bones. It was found that an exit notch is a statisti-
cally significant predictor if present in cuts produced by a katana
on flat bones.
MCCARDLE AND STOJANOVSKI .DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CUT MARKS:MACHETE AND KATANA 5
The results of this pilot study have identified additional traits
on cut marks produced by both the machete and the katana that
are unique to each weapon type. In the absence of eyewitnesses
and weapon(s), this may assist investigations into a weapon type
used in a crime using the defined two staged procedure (mor-
phological examination and statistical analysis) that may be
refined to include other weapon types.
The small sample size is a limiting factor in this pilot study,
and it is likely a larger sample size may increase the validity,
reliability, and credibility of the study results.
Conclusion
It is possible to distinguish cut marks on bone produced by
different large bladed hacking implements. While hacking weap-
ons can produce a wide range of morphologies, they are distin-
guishable from other classes of bladed weapons and often within
their own class. A katana is distinguished by the presence of
microcurvature and/or an exit notch, traits that have not been
previously identified. The machete is distinguished by the pres-
ence of chattering, a scoop defect, and/or micropeeling.
In the absence of eyewitness accounts, class and individual
characteristics of tool marks may play a major role in weapon
identification. This pilot study may further assist in the distinction
between a machete and a katana and other trauma caused by hack-
ing implements and provides a standardized method that may be
refined to include a variety of weapon types. Such information
has the potential to add another level of scientific inquiry when
examining evidence at trial. Additionally, the identification of
traits on flat and rib bones allows for such bones to be included in
future research and forensic cases rather than excluded based on
an assumption they are not likely to hold any information.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks go to Ms Viki Gordon Dr. Rexon Tse and Dar-
ius Wingate-Pearce, the swordsmen, Dr Timothy Lyons (Clinical
Director, Department Forensic Medicine Newcastle, Forensic
and Analytical Science Service and Conjoint Professor, Univer-
sity of Newcastle) and Professor Adam McCluskie (School of
Environment and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science and Informa-
tion Technology, University of Newcastle, NSW), for their sup-
port. Thank you also to the University of Newcastle, NSW
Research School of Medicine and Public Health, Higher degrees
Funding of my PhD research of which this article derives.
References
1. Humphrey JH, Hutchinson DL. Macroscopic characteristics of hacking
trauma. J Forensic Sci 2001;46(2):228–33.
2. Karasulas A. Zaimokuza reconsidered: the forensic evidence, and classi-
cal Japanese swordsmanship. World Archaeol 2004;36(4):507–18.
3. Lewis JE. Identifying sword marks on bone: criteria for distinguishing
between cut marks made by different classes of bladed weapons. J
Archaeol Sci 2008;35(7):2001–8.
4. Shackley M. Arms and the men; 14th Century Japanese swordsmanship
illustrated by skeletons from Zaimokuza, near Kamakura, Japan. World
Archaeol 1986;18(2):247–54.
5. Wenhan SJ. Anatomical interpretations of Anglo-Saxon weapon injuries.
In: Hawkes SC, editor. Weapons and warfare in Anglo-Saxon England.
Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1989;123–
39.
6. Sakaue K. A case report of human skeletal remains performed “Tameshi-
giri (test cutting with a Japanese sword)”. Bull Natl Mus Nat Sci Ser D
2010;36:27–36.
7. Nagaoka T, Mikiko A. Human skeletal remains from the Osaka Castle
site in Japan: metrics and weapon injures. Anthropol Sci 2007;115:163–
8.
8. Nagaoka T, Hirata K. A decapitated human skull from medieval Kama-
kura. Anthropol Sci 1992;100:349–58.
9. Nagaoka T, Uzawa K, Hirata K. Weapon-related traumas in human
skeletons from Yuigahama Chusei Shudan Bochi, Japan. Anat Sci Int
2009;84(3):170–81.
10. Morimoto I. Note on the technique of decapitation in medieval Japan. J
Anthrop Soc Nippon 1987;95(4):477–86.
11. Nihon JG. Medieval Japanese skeletons from the burial site at Zaimo-
kuza, Kamakura City. Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Shoten, 1956.
12. Maples WR. Trauma analysis by the forensic anthropologist. In:
Reichs KJ, editor. Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of
human remains, 2nd edn. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas,
1999;218–28.
13. Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH, editors. Standards for data collection from
human skeletal remains. Fayetteville, AR: Archaeological Survey
Research Series 44, 1994.
14. Sauer NJ. The timing of injuries and manner of death: distinguishing
among antemortem, perimortem, and post mortem trauma. In: Reichs KJ,
editor. Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human
remains, 2nd edn. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1998;321–32.
15. Firth D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika
1993;80(1):27–38.
Additional information and reprint requests:
Penny McCardle, B.A.
Faculty of Health
Department of Forensic Medicine Newcastle
University of Newcastle
University DRive
Callighan
NSW 2308
Australia
E-mail: mcheritage@iprimus.com.au
6JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
