Where Did the Hands and Teeth Go? A Practical Analysis of Systematic Loss of Diagnostic Elements in Burial Recovery in Different Excavation Scenarios

Skeletal completeness is essential for robust bioarchaeological interpretation, yet cemetery assemblages are often shaped by structured loss that may reflect not only burial environment but also recovery and post-excavation workflows. We quantified representation and preservation in 150 individuals from three burial contexts in the Milan area (Italy), spanning the Roman period (MiUC) to the 7th century AD (LV) (two necropolises) and the 15th–16th centuries AD (one cemetery context, MtNAP), and compared archaeological outcomes with seven forensic recoveries performed under an osteologist’s supervision. Concerning the ancient necropolises and cemeteries, MiUC is a Roman-period assemblage recovered within a university field-training excavation, conducted primarily for teaching purposes under archaeological supervision. LV is a 7th-century assemblage excavated within a commercial, contract archaeology framework. MtNAP (15th–16th centuries) derives from a rescue excavation linked to construction works, carried out under stricter time constraints. Completeness was summarized using the Bone Representation Index (BRI; observed/expected elements ×100) and an Anatomical Preservation Index reported as the proportion of wellpreserved elements among observed elements (API_obs; absence excluded). Adults showed moderate representation (mean BRI 52.0–61.5%), whereas subadults were consistently less represented (28.4–38.3%). In contrast, forensic recoveries approached near-complete representation (mean BRI 94.1%). Among recovered elements, preservation was generally high in all groups (mean API_obs 85.5–95.7% in archaeological contexts; 98.6% in forensic cases), indicating that the main limitation in archaeological assemblages is often element absence rather than fragmentation of recovered bones. Missingness was anatomically patterned, with recurrent deficits in dentition and limb extremities, and it disproportionately affected subadults. These findings highlight the need to report representation and preservation separately and support targeted recovery strategies, particularly for small and developmentally informative elements, to reduce bias in palaeodemography and pathological reconstruction.