Epiphyseal union sequencing: aiding in the recognition and sorting of commingled remains

The presence of accessory osseous material within a seemingly single individual assemblage has the potential to result in misidentification of the remains. Detection of nonrelated material relies on the anthropologist being able to recognize incongruities among the elements. Inconsistencies in developmental status provide evidence to suggest that commingling may have occurred. Analyzing the sequence in which the various epiphyses unite can help to identify outlying elements that do not match the predicted developmental pattern of the remaining skeleton, thus indicating that the element may not belong to that individual. This paper considers the sequence in which 21 various epiphyses of the body unite to serve as a reference for identifying incongruent fusing patterns within a commingled assemblage. Two hundred and fifty-eight male individuals of Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) descent between the ages of 14 and 30 years were included for analysis. Sequence order was determined for both "beginning" and "complete" union by comparing the fusing status of each epiphysis with each of the other 21 epiphyses. Considering both sequence patterns provides a wider spectrum of evidence from which to recognize incongruities than either sequence pattern could provide in isolation. Variations to the majority sequence pattern were also included to ensure that skeletons displaying less popular but acceptable sequence patterns would not be mistakenly considered as two individuals when using this research as a reference. Although substantial variation in the order in which epiphyses initiate and complete union was discovered within the sample, most epiphyseal relationships did not display any variable patterns. These "unvaried" relationships will be most useful in recognizing the presence of incongruent material if the pattern within an assemblage does not conform to the pattern documented in this study. Figures demonstrating the two sequence patterns are provided for easy application in the field.     

Relationship Abuse and Victims’ Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms: Associations with Child Behavior Problems

This study examined associations among male-to-female physical and psychological relationship aggression, female partners’ PTSD symptoms, and behavior problems among the children (n = 62) of men enrolled in a treatment program for relationship abuse perpetration. Psychological aggression was a stronger predictor of child behavior problems than physical assault. Restrictive engulfment and hostile withdrawal behaviors evidenced the strongest bivariate associations with child behavior problems, and were the strongest predictors of this outcome when considering four distinct forms of psychological aggression together. Victim PTSD symptoms largely mediated the effects of psychological aggression on child behavior. Findings suggest that male-to-female psychological aggression and victim PTSD symptoms play an important role in understanding behavior problems among children living with male relationship abuse perpetrators. Portions of this work were presented at the annual convention of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New Orleans, Louisiana, November, 2004.     

Regulatory Conversations

The article proposes a new site of analysis for the study of regulation: regulatory conversations, and a new theoretical approach: discourse analysis. Regulatory conversations, the communicative interactions that occur between all involved in the regulatory 'space', are an important part of most regulatory systems. Discourse analysis, the study of the use of language and communication, suggests that such interactions are constitutive of the regulatory process, that they serve important functions, that they can be the basis of co-ordinated action, and that they are important sites of conflict and contestation. The article explores five key contentions of discourse analysis, considering how each may shed light on aspects of regulatory processes. These are, first as to the meaning of language and co-ordination of social practices; second, as to the construction of identities; third, the relationship of language, thought, and knowledge; fourth, the relationship of language and power, and finally, that meaning, thought, knowledge, and power are open to contestation and change.