new perspectives in forensic anthropology

Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23468325

NewPerspectivesinForensicAnthropology

ARTICLEinAMERICANJOURNALOFPHYSICALANTHROPOLOGY·JANUARY2008

ImpactFactor:2.51·DOI:10.1002/ajpa.20948·Source:PubMed

CITATIONS

43

DOWNLOADS

184

VIEWS

648

4AUTHORS,INCLUDING:

DennisCDirkmaat

MercyhurstUniversity

29PUBLICATIONS113CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

LuisCabo

MercyhurstUniversity

27PUBLICATIONS66CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:LuisCabo

Retrievedon:16August2015

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23468325_New_Perspectives_in_Forensic_Anthropology?enrichId=rgreq-77b42c82-6191-4c16-8400-cc2fe4b2c01c&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNDY4MzI1O0FTOjEwMzU2NDg3MzU2ODI3MEAxNDAxNzAzMTk4ODI2&el=1_x_2

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23468325_New_Perspectives_in_Forensic_Anthropology?enrichId=rgreq-77b42c82-6191-4c16-8400-cc2fe4b2c01c&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNDY4MzI1O0FTOjEwMzU2NDg3MzU2ODI3MEAxNDAxNzAzMTk4ODI2&el=1_x_3

http://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-77b42c82-6191-4c16-8400-cc2fe4b2c01c&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNDY4MzI1O0FTOjEwMzU2NDg3MzU2ODI3MEAxNDAxNzAzMTk4ODI2&el=1_x_1

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dennis_Dirkmaat?enrichId=rgreq-77b42c82-6191-4c16-8400-cc2fe4b2c01c&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNDY4MzI1O0FTOjEwMzU2NDg3MzU2ODI3MEAxNDAxNzAzMTk4ODI2&el=1_x_4


http://www.researchgate.net/institution/Mercyhurst_University?enrichId=rgreq-77b42c82-6191-4c16-8400-cc2fe4b2c01c&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNDY4MzI1O0FTOjEwMzU2NDg3MzU2ODI3MEAxNDAxNzAzMTk4ODI2&el=1_x_6


http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luis_Cabo?enrichId=rgreq-77b42c82-6191-4c16-8400-cc2fe4b2c01c&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNDY4MzI1O0FTOjEwMzU2NDg3MzU2ODI3MEAxNDAxNzAzMTk4ODI2&el=1_x_4


http://www.researchgate.net/institution/Mercyhurst_University?enrichId=rgreq-77b42c82-6191-4c16-8400-cc2fe4b2c01c&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNDY4MzI1O0FTOjEwMzU2NDg3MzU2ODI3MEAxNDAxNzAzMTk4ODI2&el=1_x_6


New Perspectives in Forensic Anthropology

Dennis C. Dirkmaat,* Luis L. Cabo, Stephen D. Ousley, and Steven A. Symes

Department of Applied Forensic Sciences, Mercyhurst College, Erie, PA 16546

KEY WORDS forensic anthropology; forensic taphonomy; forensic archaeology; trauma analysis

ABSTRACT A critical review of the conceptual andpractical evolution of forensic anthropology during thelast two decades serves to identify two key externalfactors and four tightly inter-related internal methodo-logical advances that have significantly affected thediscipline. These key developments have not onlyaltered the current practice of forensic anthropology,but also its goals, objectives, scope, and definition. Thedevelopment of DNA analysis techniques served toundermine the classic role of forensic anthropology as afield almost exclusively focused on victim identification.The introduction of the Daubert criteria in the court-room presentation of scientific testimony accompaniedthe development of new human comparative samplesand tools for data analysis and sharing, resulting in avastly enhanced role for quantitative methods inhuman skeletal analysis. Additionally, new questionsasked of forensic anthropologists, beyond identity,

required sound scientific bases and expanded the scopeof the field. This environment favored the incipient de-velopment of the interrelated fields of forensic taphon-omy, forensic archaeology, and forensic trauma analy-sis, fields concerned with the reconstruction of eventssurrounding death. Far from representing the mereaddition of new methodological techniques, these disci-plines (especially, forensic taphonomy) provide forensicanthropology with a new conceptual framework, whichis broader, deeper, and more solidly entrenched in thenatural sciences. It is argued that this new frameworkrepresents a true paradigm shift, as it modifies notonly the way in which classic forensic anthropologicalquestions are answered, but also the goals and tasks offorensic anthropologists, and their perception of whatcan be considered a legitimate question or problem tobe answered within the field. Yrbk Phys Anthropol51:33–52, 2008. VVC 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

It has been two decades since the publication in thesepages of an influential article by Mehmet Yas�ar Is�can(Is�can, 1988) discussing the then current and futurestate of forensic anthropology. In that article, Is�canreviewed the key trends and landmarks in the develop-ment of forensic anthropology during the 1970s and1980s, highlighting the main problems potentiallythreatening the future development of the field. Muchof the article is devoted to a rather comprehensivereview of developments in the construction of the basicbiological profile from skeletal tissues (age, sex, stat-ure). Very little discussion was devoted to the relevanceof crime scene evidence, and there was no discussionrelative to estimates of postmortem interval and recon-structions of events surrounding the death. Clearly,issues beyond the laboratory-derived observations ofthe bones themselves were not considered to fall underthe purview of what a forensic anthropologist did atthat point in time. Is�can did stress the need forresearch aimed specifically at forensic anthropologyapplications, which at the time were hampered by inap-propriate sample materials and strategies, poor analyti-cal standards, and the lack of specific training of foren-sic anthropology practitioners. He indicated that thecommon source of many of the problems within forensicanthropology could be traced to a lack of definition ofthe still nascent field. As of 1988, the role of the foren-sic anthropologist had ‘‘yet to be fully understood androutinely accepted by both the anthropological commu-nity and the medicolegal system’’ (Is�can, 1988, p. 222).At this juncture, one might ask how this situation haschanged in the intervening years. This article focuseson the course taken by forensic anthropology sinceIs�can’s (1988) assessment of the state of the field, itsstrengths, deficiencies, needs, and problems ahead.

In a sense, the key question to be posed today iswhether forensic anthropology, as a scientific and profes-sional discipline, is healthier and more robust nowadaysthan it was 20 years ago. At first glance, it may seem so,at least according to the number of practitioners and theexplosion in the quantity of publications in the field. The91 members of the Anthropology section of the AmericanAcademy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) in 1987 increasedto 323 in 2007, many of whom were students. Anotherindicator of the relative health of the field is that dupli-cating Is�can’s (1988) comprehensive review of the foren-sic anthropological literature produced during the 20years previous to his article would be quite the monu-mental task today due to the tremendous increase in thenumber of publications and the diversification of topicsdiscussed by the field in the last two decades. In an opti-mistic interpretation, these developments would seem todocument a healthy, vigorous field. However, such a rosyportrayal of the field may not be the only plausible inter-pretation of the raw figures provided above.For example, the high proportion of student affiliates

in the AAFS Anthropology section, almost three timeshigher than in any other section (30.65% in Anthropol-ogy, versus 11.31 in the General section in 2007), mayreflect instead a difficulty for anthropology graduates to

*Correspondence to: Dennis C. Dirkmaat, Department of AppliedForensic Sciences, Mercyhurst College, Erie, PA 16546, USA.E-mail: [email protected]

DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20948Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com).

VVC 2008 WILEY-LISS, INC.

YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 51:33–52 (2008)

progress eventually into the professional practice of thefield.Perhaps a better way to evaluate the current state of

the field of forensic anthropology is to ponder a few otherquestions: What role does forensic anthropology playwithin the forensic sciences in general and law enforce-ment in particular (i.e., have forensic anthropologistsacquired any new, unique skills significantly improvingforensic investigation? If so, are they widely and rou-tinely realized and utilized in forensic investigations?)What is its role relative to physical anthropology (i.e.,does conventional physical anthropology training fullyqualify an individual—if you can stomach the smell—asa forensic practitioner, or has forensic anthropologyacquired a level of specialization and sophisticationrequiring special training?). Is forensic anthropology afully legitimate scientific discipline, requiring its own ba-sic research, or is it better described as an applied field,feeding exclusively from methods and research con-ducted within physical anthropology proper?As will be discussed below, these questions cannot be

answered through a mere inventory of the individualcontributions to the literature in the last two decades(on the other hand, as mentioned above, due to thegrowth of the field this task probably would be impossi-ble today without incurring unfair and unfortunateomissions). To the contrary, far from a simple process ofaccumulating new knowledge and information, thechanges experienced by forensic anthropology in the last20 years represent a shift in the whole contextual frame-work of the discipline. This shift involves not only theway in which we answer some questions or problems,but also which of these can be considered legitimatequestions within the scope of forensic anthropology.We have identified six key developments that have sig-

nificantly altered the trajectory of forensic anthropology.Two of these key developments, representing essentialchanges to the forensic framework itself, arose externalto forensic anthropology: the astounding improvementsin DNA analysis, and the establishment of Daubert crite-ria with regard to admissibility of scientific evidence inthe courtroom.In addition to these two external developments, four

significant developments occurred within forensic an-thropology in the last 20 years: 1) the pervasive use ofimproved quantitative methods drawn from modern com-parative samples; 2) the re-emphasis on forensic contextthrough the implementation of forensic archaeologicalrecovery methods; and the construction of scientificallybased event reconstructions drawn from 3) forensictaphonomy, and 4) forensic skeletal trauma analysis.Daubert requires forensic anthropologists to substanti-

ate their assertions with scientifically tested methodsand, in particular, with probability assessments. Thishas further promoted an improvement and strongerfocus on quantitative methods for hypothesis testing andprobability estimation. Key to this improvement is theidentification and compilation of more appropriate mod-ern comparative samples.Apart from this stronger emphasis in quantitative

methods and models, perhaps the most significant devel-opment altering the field of forensic anthropology is theintroduction of forensic taphonomy methods and princi-ples for data collection and analysis. Much as taphonomyaltered human paleoanthropology, forensic taphonomyhas provided a more solid scientific underpinning to thediscipline, from both a methodological and theoretical

point of view, serving as the link to integrate and harmo-nize other subdisciplines within forensic anthropology. Inparticular, the scope and methodological principles devel-oped within forensic taphonomy allowed for the full con-solidation of forensic skeletal trauma analysis, andrequired the inclusion of forensic archaeology, as keynew members of the conceptual framework of forensicanthropology.It will be argued that these changes in the conceptual

framework, paired with the emergent properties arisingfrom the solidification of these new perspectives in thefield, have resulted in a genuine paradigm shift, in theKuhnian (Kuhn, 1970) sense of the term. That is to say,these developments have changed not only forensic an-thropology practice and methodologies, but also ‘‘thestandards by which the profession determine(s) whatshould count as an admissible problem, or as a legiti-mate problem–solution’’ (Kuhn, 1970, p. 6). One of themain consequences of this paradigm shift is the diversifi-cation of the goals and scope of the field, which in turnhas affected its own essence and definition, providingforensic anthropology with a much stronger and ambi-tious conceptual framework, scientific and methodologi-cal armamentarium, and brighter future.

SIGNIFICANT EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ONFORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY 1: DNA AND PCR

Perhaps the developments most decisively affectingforensic anthropology since 1988 did not arise within thefield itself, but from molecular biology and the legal sys-tem: the development of polymerase chain reaction(PCR) DNA analytical methods, and the establishmentof Daubert criteria for admissibility of scientific evidencein the courtroom. In the next two sections, we examinethese issues and their impact on forensic anthropology.PCR is a method of DNA amplification based on the

substitution of the enzymatic complex responsible for theinitiation phase of in vivo DNA replication, by in vitrothermal separation (denaturation) of the complementaryDNA strands. The process, devised by Kary Mullin, ismade possible by the utilization in the DNA elongationprocess of a thermostable DNA polymerase (Taq DNAPolymerase), originally obtained from the thermophilicbacterium Thermus aquaticus. The first application ofthe method was published in 1985 (Saiki et al., 1985),and the first comprehensive description of the protocolappeared almost as Is�can was completing his review(Saiki et al., 1988). It is difficult to over-emphasize theimportance of the development of PCR for modern foren-sic sciences and the biomedical sciences at large. Still,its relevance for forensic anthropology, at least as it wasdefined in the late 1980s, may be even greater. Actually,the development of PCR and subsequent rapid improve-ment of DNA sequencing methods may force a change—not only in forensic anthropological practice, but also inthe definition and goals of the discipline—if it is toremain a viable field.The classic definition of the field, as proposed by Stew-

art (1979) and as understood by Is�can (1988), indicatedthat the primary, if almost exclusive goal of forensic an-thropology was aiding in the identification of humanremains in forensic contexts. This goal was attainedthrough the estimation of biological profiles (chronologi-cal age, sex, ancestry, stature, and antemortem bonemodification), which served to reduce the list of potentialvictim identities. The amplification of DNA through PCR

34 D.C. DIRKMAAT ET AL.

Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

relates to this goal, as it allows for the sequencing ofDNA even from trace samples. What is more importantis that it allows researchers to perform a virtually infi-nite number of DNA comparisons, rendering match prob-abilities several orders of magnitude higher than thatcan be attained through biological profiles.It may appear initially that DNA analysis does not

necessarily imply a fundamental change from past condi-tions regarding the goals, functions, and perspective offorensic anthropology. After all, providing positive identi-fication (positive ID) from the bones has not commonlybeen one of the primary court-accepted tasks of forensicanthropologists, which instead has fallen to other foren-sic specialists such as forensic pathologists and forensicodontologists. In addition, DNA analysis is still a rela-tively expensive and slow procedure, and the number ofDNA samples routinely submitted for analysis over-whelms forensic laboratories. From this perspective, theclassic goal of biological profile estimation from boneswithin forensic anthropology still remains a unique andsignificant role in simplifying the task of narrowingdown the missing person list.The contribution of forensic anthropologists to the

United States Disaster Mortuary Response Teams(DMORT) may serve as an example to support this opti-mistic view. DMORT was constructed in the mid 1990sto serve as rapidly deployable multidisciplinary humanidentification teams, involving the whole spectrum of for-ensic ID professionals (Sledzik, 1996, 1998; Saul andSaul, 1999) in cases of mass fatalities overwhelminglocal resources. Since its implementation, DMORT teamshave proven effective in a wide variety of mass disasterscenarios, from plane crashes to mass suicides and large-scale floods (see for example, Ubelaker et al., 1995; Sled-zik and Hunt, 1997). Given that most of the biologicalremains at these sites typically consist of commingled,fragmented, and often burned or badly decomposed tis-sues, it is only natural that the contribution of partici-pant forensic anthropologists soon became vital in mostof these scenarios (Sledzik and Rodriguez, 2002). How-ever, the recent emplacement of DNA collection teams,and especially the steep increase in the biological itemssubject to DNA analysis (rapidly nearing 100% in manyscenarios), suggest that the role of all forensic specialistsin these mass disaster teams may change dramaticallywithin the next few years.As a matter of fact, when the current trends in DNA

analysis are closely examined, it soon becomes clear thatthe current state of affairs is inevitably bound to change.In the last two decades, the limiting steps of DNA analy-sis have rapidly shifted from DNA amplification to DNAsequencing, and thence to sample comparison and match-ing, resulting in a rapid decrease in DNA processingtimes and costs. PCR has become an almost routine pro-cedure, available in most biomedical research and prac-tice centers. Visual comparison from electrophoresis inagarose and polyacrylamide gels has been replaced byautomated capillary electrophoresis in the modern DNAsequencers, allowing the processing and sequencing of alarge number of samples simultaneously. More impor-tantly, robust DNA databases for sample comparison havebeen created and made available to the forensic commu-nity, with the reference samples growing at an astoundingrate. As of October 2007, the Combined DNA Index Sys-tem (CODIS) contained 194,785 forensic profiles (fromcrime scenes) and 5,070,473 convicted offender profiles(http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/national.htm).

At present, the only issues preventing routine andwidespread victim identification solely based on DNAcomparisons are the costs and time required for amplifi-cation, sequencing and comparison, as well as the needto provide potential matches, currently based on samplescollected ad hoc from the family members of the poten-tial victims. Overcoming these limitations only requiresan improvement in sequencing techniques to an extentmuch smaller than what has transpired during the lasttwo decades, and the inclusion of the DNA sequences offamily members of all missing persons in CODIS orequivalent databases. The question is not whether thiswill happen, but when. When this point is reached, ifpositive ID remains as the main and almost exclusivegoal of forensic anthropology, forensic anthropologists(and odontologists) may become mostly superfluous inmost cases, other than those involving commingledremains, where element matching will still result in asignificant decrease of sampling, amplification, andsequencing efforts (see Adams and Byrd, 2008).Therefore, if forensic anthropology is to remain a use-

ful, vibrant scientific discipline, it is necessary to shiftthe scope of the field from mere identification to a largerrange of problems. As will be discussed below, this shiftof scope has already begun to take place during the lasttwo decades, not necessarily as a direct result of theimprovement in DNA analysis, but as a natural develop-ment derived from an increased focus in taphonomy, for-ensic archaeological techniques, and trauma analysis.

SIGNIFICANT EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ONFORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY 2:

THE IMPACT OF DAUBERT

Is�can (1988) stressed the dual nature of the forensicanthropologist as a scientist and as a professional. Withregard to the scientific end of the discipline, he discussedextensively the necessity of improving research stand-ards and complained about the obsolescence and inad-equacy of the available comparative osteological collec-tions. As will be discussed below, the lack of appropriatesamples has been somewhat remediated in the last deca-des with the collection and curation of modern samplesand data. On the other hand, Is�can could hardly haveimagined the Copernican shift that the legal systemwould experience in the ensuing years regarding thetreatment of scientific evidence presented in court.Recent court cases beginning with the Supreme Court

decision in Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals(113 S.Ct. 2786) have dramatically changed approachesto research, evidence, analysis, and expert witness testi-mony in forensic anthropology (Feinberg et al., 1995;Steadman et al., 2006). Daubert stressed that testable,replicable, reliable, and scientifically valid methods areto be used to justify scientific opinions. Testing and repli-cation of the methods and conclusions are an essentialpart of reliability. Reliability, the ability to produce con-sistent results, can also be judged by the use of testedscientific methods, described in peer-reviewed publica-tions, and enjoying general scientific acceptance. Valid-ity, or the measure of how well test results produce cor-rect answers, is to be measured when possible bydirectly estimated error rates. Innovative methods canbe employed if they can be independently tested (Fein-berg et al., 1995). Forensic scientists, including forensicanthropologists, have responded to the Daubert decisionby publishing validation studies of previously accepted

35NEW PERSPECTIVES IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY


methods, some of which were found wanting (Benjamin,2001; Harrington et al., 2003; Olson, 2003; Christensen,2004; Steadman et al., 2006).The impact of the Daubert decision is most strongly

expressed in changes in the Federal Rules of Evidence(FRE), which are evidence guidelines applicable to fed-eral civil and criminal cases and are also followed bymany states. The Daubert decision was primarily aresponse to situations generated by ‘‘professional’’ expertwitnesses, whose specialty was testifying in class actionlawsuits, most often involving ‘‘toxic torts’’ (e.g., detri-mental effects of drugs or treatments that were allegedto cause birth defects or fatalities). In many of thesecases, ‘‘experts’’ though possessing academic credentials,would deliver opinions based on circumstantial correla-tions and unpublished results. Most importantly, the sci-entific and statistical significance of possible causal linksbetween drug use and symptoms were left to theseexperts. Furthermore, the recognition of a person as anexpert depended on academic credentials and experiencerather than the reliability and validity of the methodsapplied to the facts of the case.In 2001, after other cases affirmed the changes result-

ing from Daubert (such as Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmi-chael, (119 S.Ct. 1167 [1999]), FRE Rule 702 wasappended to emphasize the connection between the dataand methods used and served to focus on the admissibil-ity of the conclusions, rather on the credentials of theexperts. Replicable methods are essential and specifydirect results, rather than analogies. In that vein, dataanalyses using quantitative methods are preferred overthose employing qualitative methods (Feinberg et al.,1995). The testability and reliability of methods are nec-essary to establish that the conclusions are objectivelyarrived at rather than subjectively determined. Inessence, Rule 702 merely reminds us that scientific con-clusions must be based on accepted scientific principles.It can be said that the Daubert case moved the spot-

light from the expert’s experience back to the expert’smethods. Because of the focus on methods, Daubert rein-forced the view that forensic anthropologists should bescientists first and professionals second. One concreteexample of the impact of these judicial rulings is thegreater use of quantitative methods in all aspects of thediscipline of FA today, representing one of the four keyinternal developments that have altered significantly thefield during the last two decades.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FORENSICANTHROPOLOGY 1: IMPROVEMENTS IN

QUANTITATIVE METHODS

To the extent to which they represent scientific crite-ria, the Daubert standards seem to have increased theurgency of improving analytical methods in forensic an-thropology, previously called for by Is�can (1988) andothers. One of the main arguments posed by Is�can atthat time was that there was an urgent need to improveprobability assessments of biological profile techniques.Critical to these improvements was the need to assemblenew comparative samples that were more representativeof modern populations. Both issues can be considereddifferent aspects of the same problem. The availablesamples were outdated, and hardly represented the mod-ern populations from which forensic inferences weredrawn. Estimates of sex, age, or stature obtained from

those samples were biased when applied to modern pop-ulations due to secular changes in overall body size,health, activity, and nutritional status. Ancestry esti-mates were even more inappropriate, due to the absencein those samples of new significant ancestry groupswhose numbers increased in the last decades, as well asto the often biased methods used to assign the individu-als to the ancestry groups when the samples werecollected.

Creating new modern comparative samples: TheBass Collection and Forensic Data Bank

These biases also represented a serious limitation forquantitative studies, affecting not only forensic inferencebut also forensic anthropology research. The collectionand curation of new forensic databases during the lasttwo decades has served to alleviate this problem, provid-ing much more accurate estimates and boosting quanti-tative research. The best example of this solution in thelast 20 years has been the establishment of the ForensicAnthropology Center at the University of Tennessee(UT), Knoxville, which includes the AnthropologyResearch Facility (ARF), the William M. Bass SkeletalCollection (BSC), and the Forensic Data Bank (FDB).ARF was originally established to study human decom-position, but ARF has been so successful at requestingvoluntary body donations that it has become the primarycontributor to the BSC, the most up-to-date collection oflate twentieth century human skeletons in the UnitedStates. The Bass collection currently includes the skele-tal remains of over 600 individuals, and will likely over-take the Terry collection (�1,600 individuals) within adecade.The BSC is a substantial component of the FDB,

which was started in 1986 with a grant from theNational Institute of Justice (Jantz and Moore-Jansen,1988). The FDB contains extensive demographic infor-mation from the BSC and from forensic cases conductedby UT Department of Anthropology personnel and otheranthropologists from around the country. Extensive in-formation in the FDB includes age, sex, ancestry, stat-ure, weight, place of birth, medical history, occupation,and other demographic information. The skeletal infor-mation in the FDB includes cranial and postcranial met-rics, suture closure information, various aging criteriascores, nonmetric cranial information, perimortemtrauma, congenital traits, and dental observations. Atthis writing, the ARF has �225 bodies in its care andhas a waiting list of 1,400 individuals who havearranged to have their remains donated after death (LeeMeadows-Jantz, personal communication). The FDB cur-rently has information from over 2,600 individuals,�1,100 of which are from forensic cases with definite sexand ancestry attribution. Approximately 750 of these1,100 have been positively identified.The BSC and the FDB offer the novelty of being repre-

sentative of the populations confronted by forensicanthropologists at two levels. First, they are drawn fromcontemporary populations, reducing the bias derivedfrom secular changes. Second, the FDB is largely com-posed of and updated from actual forensic cases, in thisway representing not only the contemporary Americanpopulation, but also in a sense, the exact subset of thatpopulation actually studied by forensic anthropologistsin their day-to-day work.



(Daubert and) quantitative methods in forensicanthropology: Fordisc

Data from the FDB were initially used to test forensicmethods developed from the Terry Collection (Smithso-nian Institute, Washington, D.C.) and Hamann-Todd col-lection (Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleve-land, Ohio), including the pioneering Giles and Elliott(1963) discriminant functions (Ayers et al., 1990). Theseskeletal collections (composed largely of unclaimedbodies from the early twentieth century), have beenshown to be inadequate as a basis for analyzing modernforensic cases due to secular changes and other factors.In fact, discriminant function analysis using postcranialelements (Is�can and Cotton, 1990), which were based onthe Hamann-Todd collection, have been shown to beinaccurate when applied to modern groups, especially‘‘White’’ males, due to secular increases in their lowerlimbs (Ousley and Jantz, 1993). As a result, new statisti-cal methods have been developed based on more-recentdata from the FDB, which also includes more middle-class individuals (Jantz and Moore-Jansen, 1988; Ousleyand Jantz, 1992, 1993; Jantz and Ousley, 2000). Fordiscis a computer program that analyzes measurementsfrom unknown skeletal remains and classifies them intoknown sex and ancestry samples from the FDB usingmultivariate statistical techniques (Jantz and Ousley,1993, 2005; Ousley and Jantz, 1996). Fordisc is currentlyused by nearly all practicing American forensic anthro-pologists, and is a logical extension of the need to de-velop new forensic statistical techniques in light of mor-phological changes in American groups in the last 150years.Given that Fordisc uses well-established methods of

multivariate analysis that were developed in the 1930s,the focus rightfully belongs to the samples used in com-parisons, and more samples are needed for finer grainedanalyses that may well be of increasing importance inhuman identification, independently of the time periodconsidered. An example of the utility of these fine-grained analyses is related to determining affiliation ofprehistoric Native American remains under the NativeAmerican Graves Protection and Repatriation Act(NAGPRA). Along with archaeological context, quantita-tive methods have been extensively used to link individ-ual remains to a specific tribe having been at times theprimary source for assessing tribal identity (Ousley andBilleck, 2001; Hollinger et al., 2005; Ousley et al., 2005).In the last 20 years, forensic anthropology has pro-

vided extensive empirical results to refute the typologi-cal concept in examining variation within groups such asAmerican ‘‘Whites’’ (Ousley and Jantz, 2002), Africangroups (Spradley, 2006; Spradley et al., 2008), ‘‘Hispanic’’groups (Ross et al., 2004; Slice and Ross, 2004; Spradleyand Jantz, 2005), and East Asian groups (Ousley et al.,2003). Furthermore, this research in quantitative meas-ures has prompted a re-evaluation of nonmetric charac-teristics previously used in the assessment of ancestry(Hefner and Ousley, 2006; Hefner, 2007; Hefner et al.,2007).In the last decade, the use of geometric morphometric

methods in forensic anthropology to analyze landmarkdata has greatly increased, as it has in paleoanthropol-ogy, having been used to investigate and understand var-iation in modern groups (Ross et al., 1999; Slice andRoss, 2004; Ousley and Martinez, 2006). Applications inhuman identification have been limited, but will no

doubt increase as more departments begin using three-dimensional digitizers (Ousley and McKeown, 2001).The buildup of modern skeletal collections and data-

bases, as well as of new analytical methods derived fromthem predated the Daubert decision. However, Daubertreinforced the need for modern samples as a basis fortesting traditional analytical methods as well as develop-ing new methods, and the evolution from experience-based analyses to replicable methods, often involvingstatistical analysis. Statistics is the science of predictionand certainty, and Daubert demands estimates of scien-tific certainty in conclusions.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FORENSICANTHROPOLOGY 2: FORENSIC TAPHONOMY

According to Thomas Kuhn, the key developments in ascientific discipline that represent true turning pointsare those producing a ‘‘shift in the problems available forscientific scrutiny’’ (Kuhn, 1970, p. 6). In this sense, ifwe are to search for key developments that have takenplace within forensic anthropology during the past twodecades, few issues would fit Kuhn’s description as per-fectly as the evolution of forensic taphonomy.Forensic taphonomy has dramatically changed the

entire playing field of forensic anthropology. The neces-sity of acquiring contextual data for proper taphonomicinterpretation has been a leading force to transform for-ensic anthropology from an essentially laboratory-basedsubject, into a scientific discipline with a strong fieldcomponent. In a sense, taphonomic analysis has allowedforensic anthropologists to mature into full-blown foren-sic professionals, with a definite and irreplaceable rolenot only in the laboratory, analyzing skeletal remains,but also during customary crime scene investigations.Today less than at any point in the past, forensic anthro-pologists cannot be considered forensic ‘‘sidekicks,’’ whomay be useful advisors when forensic pathologists or lawenforcement step into an unusual case or situation, butthe most appropriate, and most logical first choice pro-fessionals in cases involving all manner of outdoor crimescenes and commingled or severely altered humanremains. It remains one of the main challenges for thefield to convey this fact to the law enforcement commu-nity and, alas, to many forensic anthropologists. It is ourbelief that promoting a better understanding of the im-portance, objectives, and rationale of forensic taphonomyis a key element to attain this goal.In particular, the dramatic and rapid impact of tapho-

nomic method and theory on forensic anthropologicaltheory and practice can be explained by the striking sim-ilarities in the main goals of both disciplines, whichmake taphonomy an extremely powerful and useful toolfor forensic inference. Comparing and understandingthese shared goals requires at least a brief historicalreview of the development of vertebrate taphonomy,especially during the last three decades.

A brief history of taphonomyand forensic taphonomy

Taphonomy was born as a branch of paleontology. Itwas originally defined as the study of the transition (inall its details) of animal remains from the biosphereto the lithosphere or geological record (Efremov, 1940,p. 86). Taphonomy was therefore initially orientedtoward the study of transport, fossilization, and diagenetic



processes affecting biological organisms, particularly withrespect to those aspects most influential in introducingbias in the fossil record. The differential preservationpotential of some structures and organisms, as well astheir transport and deposition in locations away from theirhabitation areas, severely affect community studies, esti-mates of species abundances, and paleoenvironmentalreconstruction. Taphonomy was primarily aimed at detect-ing and controlling these biases.Even though Efremov (1940) repeatedly stressed the

unique relevance of the new discipline for the study ofterrestrial and vertebrate assemblages, it was not untilthe decades from the late 1960s to the 1980s that thediscipline reached full development in vertebrate paleon-tology. This was probably due to the initial focus on dia-genesis and the mineralization process, more relevantfor the preservation of invertebrate structures than ver-tebrate structures.The 1970s witnessed a sharp quantitative and qualita-

tive increase in vertebrate taphonomy research and pub-lications. The new literature focused initially on classicsubjects, such as transport (e.g., Voorhies, 1969; Wolff,1973), bone weathering and preservation processes (Boazand Behrensmeyer, 1976; Behrensmeyer, 1978), and, ingeneral, site formation issues (Voorhies, 1969; Brain,1970; Patterson et al., 1970; Isaac et al., 1971). Signifi-cantly, the new momentum of vertebrate taphonomyresearch was largely linked to its successful applicationto hominid sites (e.g., Brain, 1970; Isaac et al., 1971;Boaz and Behrensmeyer, 1976; and the collection ofarticles in Behrensmeyer and Hill, 1980). The new trendwas therefore almost immediately adopted and champ-ioned by physical anthropology, as exemplified by theboom in volumes published on the subject in the early1980s (notably Behrensmeyer and Hill, 1980; Binford,1981; Brain, 1981; Shipman, 1981).The growth and maturation experienced by vertebrate

taphonomy during the 1970s, brought about two keydevelopments, particularly relevant for physical and for-ensic anthropology, during the following decade. First,taphonomy went from a strictly paleontological disciplineto become an essential and universally accepted compo-nent of archaeological practice. Unmistakably tapho-nomic manuals such as Grayson (1984) and Klein andCruz-Uribe (1984) referred to archaeology even in theirtitles. Gifford (1981) considered taphonomy and paleoe-cology as sister disciplines of archaeology. The conse-quences of this association may not look particularly im-pressive or dramatic to modern practitioners, but inessence it meant that assemblage analysis and site anal-ysis could no longer be approached as independent activ-ities, to be performed by different professionals operatingindependently in different observational venues (i.e.,field and laboratory). Osteological analysis required fielddata, specifically collected with that analysis in mind. Ata deeper level, apart from gradually (and sometimespainstakingly) dragging osteologists out of their labora-tories, this change brought archaeology (and anthropol-ogy with it) closer to its origins as a geological discipline(for a discussion on the early development of archaeologyin relation to geology, see Adovasio, 2003).The second key development derived from the mar-

riage of anthropology and taphonomy was the introduc-tion of a new approach to taphonomic studies. As men-tioned above, the classic approach to the treatment oftaphonomic information from faunal vertebrate assemb-lages resulted in the reconstruction of site depositional

histories and the paleoecological and environmental con-ditions of the living community. From this viewpoint,which can be termed the paleontological approach (Ring-rose, 1993), the role of taphonomy was to strip the paleo-ecological information from that overprint derived fromsite formation and postmortem alteration processes.When applied to anthropological sites, however, some

taphonomic variables acquire prime importance as thefingerprint of past hominid behavior and subsistencepatterns. In other words, whenever humans becometaphonomic agents, the study of the resulting tapho-nomic effects and processes becomes a primary goal, notin order to control for biases derived from taphonomicalteration, but as a vehicle to infer human behavior.Ringrose (1993) refers to this second scope as thezooarchaeological approach in taphonomy.The zooarchaeological approach resulted in an

increased number of studies analyzing cutmarks andbone fractures (e.g., Bromage and Boyde, 1984; Lewin,1984; Villa et al., 1986; White, 1986). Other studies com-bined both approaches, and focused on differentiatinghuman from nonhuman bone alterations (e.g., Shipmanand Rose, 1984; Behrensmeyer et al., 1986; Blumen-schine and Selvaggio, 1988; Olsen and Shipman, 1988;Bonnichsen and Sorg, 1989).Stripping the postmortem influences from the evidence

is equivalent to assessing forensic significance in thetrauma methods described below. Assessment of humanversus nonhuman causation in archaeological assemb-lages is identical to the forensic objectives, methods, andmaterials required to assign forensic significance. Con-versely, forensic trauma analysis is essentially the infer-ence of human behavior based on marks left on bone.The taphonomic approach provides a wealth of experi-ence and information on the biomechanics of degradedbone, as well as on postmortem alteration by differentphysical and biological agents, not available from themedical framework.

Forensic taphonomy and its impact onforensic anthropology

The virtually identical goals of forensic anthropologyand taphonomy explain the relatively rapid and dra-matic impact that taphonomy had on forensic anthropol-ogy. Lyman (1994) can be considered the landmark refer-ence with respect to the generalization and normaliza-tion of vertebrate taphonomy theory and practices,permitting its direct application to archaeological sites.Among other merits, this reference served to standardizethe confusing and sometimes misleading terminology ofthe field, including the definitions of the main tapho-nomic processes and quantitative indices. Particularlyimportant and permeating throughout the entire book isthe assumption that taphonomy is an essential compo-nent in the analysis not only of paleontological, but alsoof archaeological sites. Still, with respect to forensic an-thropology—a field that has traditionally been particu-larly resistant to fundamental changes, remaining faith-ful to positive ID as its main and almost exclusive goalfor decades—the first monograph on forensic taphonomy(Haglund and Sorg, 1997a), including original research,postdated Lyman (1994) by only 3 years.The apparent eagerness of forensic anthropology to

adopt taphonomic principles and techniques is especiallysignificant in view of its drastic consequences not onlyfor the praxis of forensic anthropology, but also for its



principles, goals, and objectives. Essentially, forensictaphonomy—and its right-hand companion forensicarchaeology—expanded the goals of forensic anthropol-ogy far beyond its original definition and the positive IDparadigm.Is�can (1988) did not include a discussion on forensic

taphonomy or even mention the word taphonomy once.What he described as ‘‘postmortem assessment’’ was pri-marily a discussion of trauma analysis and issues rele-vant to resolving cause and manner of death, and not ofcircumstances surrounding death. As evidenced by thebulk of the paper, the focus of the field was squarely inthe arena of providing evidence (primarily, a biologicalprofile) that may help to identify the victim. Forensic an-thropology was clearly considered by her practitioners asa laboratory-based discipline.This view, and the analytical questions derived from

it, contrast with the range of questions and analyticalapproaches populating Haglund and Sorg’s seminaledited volumes (1997a 2002) in the field of forensictaphonomy. Rather than simply focusing on the biologi-cal profile, the different contributions in these volumeshighlight issues such as tissue decomposition, scaveng-ing, bone transport, and site formation as key considera-tions in forensic anthropology (Haglund and Sorg, 1997a,2002). Their definition of the field stands as a guidepostthat anticipates significant change in perspective in thefield of forensic anthropology. For them, forensic taphon-omy is defined as the ‘‘use of taphonomic models,approaches, and analysis in forensic contexts to estimatethe time since death, reconstruct the circumstancesbefore and after deposition, and discriminate the prod-ucts of human behavior from those created by the earth’sbiological, physical, chemical, and geological subsystems’’(Haglund and Sorg, 1997b, p. 3).

Addressing issues beyond identity

This new approach does not originate from an out-of-the-blue theory, or as an attempt to expand the forensicanthropology market for egotistical or employment pur-poses. It emanates from current forensic practice and isthe natural consequence of the evolution of the field, asit embraced novel and more powerful methods to serveits original goals. Taphonomic methods offered signifi-cant advances in subjects such as the analysis of com-mingled remains, within the classic goal of aiding in pos-itive ID and assessing forensic significance. The applica-tion of taphonomic methods and consequent research inforensic anthropology inevitably resulted in new‘‘emergent properties’’ that provide completely new datasets, reconstructions, and tasks. This led to an expansionof the range of questions that could be answered by for-ensic anthropology ‘‘beyond its traditional and largelyself-imposed boundaries of skeletal identification’’ (Snow,1982, p. 97).As will be discussed below, although forensic taphon-

omy is more closely related to the zooarchaeologicalapproach to the analysis of skeletal assemblages, it alsobenefits from the classic paleontological approach andtechniques. Both zooarchaeological and paleontologicalstudies require essentially the same contextual data andrecordation techniques (Lyman, 1994). Therefore, whileretrieving field data necessary for trauma analysis andassessing forensic significance, the forensic anthropolo-gist will collect information useful for reconstructingdepositional history and site formation (see Hochrein,

1997, 2002). In other words, the application of tapho-nomic techniques to forensic scene processing impliesthe collection of information relevant to reconstructingthe events surrounding death, body disposal, and place-ment at the scene. In this way, forensic taphonomy inevi-tably adds these elements to the primary goals of foren-sic anthropologists, resulting in improved and refinedclassic tasks, while adding new tasks, resulting in anewly defined, more relevant role in forensic investiga-tions.Among the new outcomes derived from forensic tapho-

nomic analysis, three are particularly relevant and com-monly sought: 1) scientifically grounded estimates ofpostmortem interval (time-since-death), based on decom-positional factors (primarily soft tissue, but in laterstages may include bone modification factors), entomo-logical evidence, chemical methods, and associated physi-cal evidence modification; 2) reconstructions of the origi-nal position and orientation of the body; and 3) charac-terizations of the role played by human intervention (asa taphonomic agent) on the remains, through the processof ‘‘stripping away’’ (Gifford, 1981) all other ‘‘natural’’agents affecting the remains.These new goals and analyses require new data and

data sources. As mentioned above, most of these newdata come directly from the crime scene, and are notlimited to the human remains. As a matter of fact, thescope and methodological background underlying theanalyses oriented toward these outcomes cannot be prop-erly explained without providing an overview of the datacollection strategies that make them possible. Thisserves to illustrate the key importance of forensicarchaeology, and its intimate relationship with tapho-nomic analysis.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FORENSICANTHROPOLOGY 3: FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGY

(FORENSIC TAPHONOMY IN PRACTICE)

Forensic archaeology is not exactly a newcomer to theforensic anthropology world. Is�can included a rathershort section on ‘‘Crime Scene Archaeology,’’ which hedescribed as ‘‘techniques to search the area and collectthe remains’’ (Is�can, 1988, p. 219). His descriptions ofthe field and the uses for archaeological recovery, how-ever, were quite limited, suggesting only that theemployment of archaeological methodology could be usedfor ‘‘analyzing and reconstructing the environmentwhere human remains are found’’ (Is�can, 1988, p. 219).Pioneering articles by Brooks (1975), Bass and Birkby(1978), Skinner and Lazenby (1983), and especiallyMorse et al. (1983), indicated that forensic archaeologywas far more than just collecting remains. Snow (1982,p. 118) even wrote that ‘‘spatial distribution of bones,teeth, and other items recovered in surface finds canhelp in determining the original location and position ofthe body.’’ However, forensic archaeology to theseauthors was still considered to be a field or subfield sep-arate from forensic anthropology proper, which was con-ducted by physical anthropologists. Forensic archaeologyinvolved ‘‘the application of simple archaeological recov-ery techniques in death scene investigations involving aburied body or skeletal remain’’ (Morse et al., 1983,p. 1). These efforts would maximize recovery of evidenceand minimize subsequent damage to the bodies andskeletons.



Despite the recognition of the utility of forensicarchaeology, up until the mid 1980s recovery of contextat forensic scenes through archaeological practices wasneither common nor particularly rigorous. Law enforce-ment officials were charged with processing all outdoorcrime scenes, often merely collecting the remains andshipping them to the appropriate experts. This lack ofboth rigor and success is probably related to a lack ofdefinite analytical goals and objectives, as well as the ab-sence of training in recovery and documentation proto-cols. Why go to all that trouble if the only reward is a‘‘nice’’ map of the scene?The introduction and recognition of forensic taphon-

omy represented a pivotal change, since it provides theconceptual and analytical framework for forensic archae-ology. As discussed above, among the most importantoutputs of forensic taphonomic analysis is determiningwhether humans played a role in emplacing the body inthat location and/or subsequently modifying the remainsat the scene. This information can sometimes be partlydrawn from the laboratory analysis of the humanremains, especially with respect to surface modificationof the bones related to animal gnathic activity, staining,and sun bleaching. However, comprehensive, ‘‘accurate’’determinations rely heavily on the analysis and identifi-cation of all of the ‘‘natural’’ agents (animals, plants,gravity, soils, etc.) affecting the remains in situ. Can nat-ural agents explain the distribution of the remains? Isthere any evidence of animal activity, or can gravity and/or water flow alone explain the disarticulation and scat-tering of the remains? Is the distribution of the burnedbone fragments in a fire pit consistent with an unat-tended fire, or were the human remains repositionedduring combustion to promote faster cremation? Is thehead (with no evidence of carnivore activity) foundupslope instead of down-slope? Does the stratigraphicposition of a particular piece of potential evidence placeit at the scene after, during, or before victim placement?Additionally, bone degradation, soft tissue decomposi-

tion, and consequently postmortem interval estimates,depend decisively on natural factors such as tempera-ture, humidity, light exposure, vegetation coverage, soilcomposition, or burial depth, factors that cannot beinferred from the laboratory analysis of the humanremains. All this information is also pertinent and neces-sary for trauma analysis, and requires the recordation ofdata not only from the human remains, but also fromthe scene itself. Proper handling and on-site documenta-tion of the remains also simplifies data analysis, byreducing and documenting recovery-related additionalpostmortem trauma.

The evolution of forensic archaeology

Apart from the conceptual and methodological frame-work provided by forensic taphonomy, since the late1980s another four key developments have led to thecurrent configuration of forensic archaeology: 1) meth-odological improvements in contemporary field archaeol-ogy, 2) implementation of new technology into archaeol-ogy, 3) development of analytical techniques that cantake advantage of spatial data generated by forensicarchaeological recovery, and 4) development of archaeo-logical recovery methods specific to forensic contexts.

Archaeological method and theory. During the lasttwo decades, improvements to archaeological excavationmethodologies have been developed and implemented at

a number of American sites, led by J.M. Adovasio andthe excavation of Meadowcroft Rockshelter in southwest-ern Pennsylvania (Carlisle and Adovasio, 1982; Adova-sio, 2007). The presentation of Meadowcroft as an exam-ple of pre-Clovis occupation of North America was ini-tially met with extreme criticism and cynicism becauseit flew in the face of conventional wisdom. However, Ado-vasio’s attention to exacting excavation methods of thedeposits of the rockshelter at microstratigraphic levels,and extremely careful attention to context and associa-tion ultimately helped convince the archaeological com-munity of the validity of an early occupation of NorthAmerica, as best emplified by Meadowcroft. This was fol-lowed by state-of-the-art investigations at open sites likeMonte Verde in Chile (Dillehay, 1989, 1997) and theWindover Bog near Titusville, Florida (Doran, 2002); col-lectively, these studies have set the standards in fieldarchaeology today.

Technology in archaeology. Associated with and fun-damental to a renewed focus on how to excavate anarchaeological site was the implementation of technologyinto the field documentation process in two areas: sitemapping and remote sensing. Previously, noting the dis-tribution of artifacts and physical evidence was com-pleted through detailed, hand-drawn plan and profilemaps. Technological innovations applied to outdoor crimescenes have revolutionized the recordation of spatialdata (McPherron and Dibble, 2002). Instruments such asthe electronic total station allow for the very precisenotation of exact relative position and orientation ofeach item on the crime scene. Global positioning system(GPS) instruments permit precise absolute location ofthe scene on the earth. As in paleontological taphonomy,the often tedious effort of documenting the precise loca-tion and orientation of each bone is greatly facilitated bythe routine use of these instruments, especially whenfield work is carried out by the same specialists perform-ing the laboratory analyses, who are, therefore, aware ofthe variables relevant to the analysis, and the way inwhich these must be recorded and coded.Nowadays, total stations are a common tool in most

law enforcement agencies, who use them in varied tasks,but mainly for mapping and reconstructing vehicle acci-dents. In archaeology, they were first used in the 1980s(McPherron and Dibble, 2002; Adovasio, 2007), and onforensic archaeological sites in the 1990s (Dirkmaat,1998b). In 1994, total stations were used for the firsttime to carefully map the distribution of evidence andhuman remains at the USAir Flight 427 crash site(Dirkmaat and Quinn, 1995; Dirkmaat and Adovasio,1997), proving that their implementation allows fortimely comprehensive recording of all spatial data evenin complex situations, with thousands of evidentiaryitems scattered across a large area. The collection of evi-dence distributional data by the total station is now astandard part of all enhanced forensic crime recoveryprotocols, both small scale (Dirkmaat, 2001; Dirkmaatand Cabo, 2006) and large scale, including plane crashes(Dirkmaat and Hefner, 2001; Reineke and Hochrein,2008). Data collection procedures are further enhancedtoday through the use of in-field and hand-held com-puters, computerized data recording forms, digital pho-tography, and wireless data transmission protocols.

Analytical techniques for the analysis of the spatialdistribution of evidence. Whereas most forensic inves-tigators are aware of the state-of-the-art improvements



in data acquisition techniques and instrumentation (e.g.,GIS, GPS, total stations, hand-held scanners, etc.), thesame awareness is certainly not as common regardingrecent developments in analytical techniques. Knowledgeof these analytical improvements plays an importantrole in the design of field protocols, since these techni-ques, apart from being capable of addressing a widerrange of questions, also require a greater amount ofmore precisely recorded data.During the last few decades, advancements in com-

puter programming and availability have dramaticallyincreased the number of techniques and analytical toolsavailable for statistical analysis. Spatial analysis techni-ques commonly employed in the fields of physics, engi-neering, biochemistry, physiology, and forest ecologyallow the researcher to test theoretical models regardingdifferent aspects of the spatial data collected in the field.These models can be contrasted with the observed distri-bution either under parametric assumptions or throughempirically obtained distributions, allowing them to suc-cessfully confront an almost endless range of problemswith great flexibility.At present, these incipient techniques are restricted to

the analysis of scenes with multiple victims, such asmass graves and mass disasters, and have been mainlyoriented toward the classic problem of victim identifica-tion, especially with respect to solving comminglingissues. For example, Tuller et al. (2008) report successrates close to 100% in matching commingled remainsthrough spatial techniques, by applying the nearestneighbor criterion in mass graves with large numbers ofindividuals. Dirkmaat et al. (2005) showed that the basicassumption of spatial association underlying this analy-sis still holds in severely altered features, such as pre-historic ossuaries or secondary mass burials.The current limitation to larger scale scenes is derived

from the large amount of data required by these analyti-cal techniques. Still, they can also be applied in inter-scene comparison, in which each individual forensic casewould be analogous to an experimental replica. Conse-quently, a wider range of application is expected as spa-tial data from individual scenes pile up. In this sense, amore important effort is required, not only to popularizeand refine forensic anthropology, but also to normalizeand enhance data integrity, recording and sharing, inorder to make possible proper data analysis.

Archaeological methodologies specific to forensiccontexts. When the term forensic archaeology is dis-cussed, it is most often in the context of recovery of bur-ied remains alone. Obviously, much of contemporaryarchaeology is devoted to the recovery of buried deposits,understanding and interpreting stratigraphy, and rigor-ously applying Steno’s Laws in efforts to understandhow and when artifacts entered the archaeological re-cord. The goals of archaeological investigation also fitexactly with those of forensic scene investigation. Theevidentiary value of any item at the scene will dependon its relative position and contextual relationships withother evidence and elements at the scene. In the case ofburials, fire, or even surface-scattered remains, thesecontextual relationships are essentially stratigraphic innature, and are subject to the same alterations and nat-ural influences as archaeological materials. It is, there-fore, logical that many archaeological techniques and,especially, basic archaeological principles can be directlyapplied to forensic contexts. Still, some fundamental dif-

ferences do exist between archaeological sites and foren-sic scenes, requiring the modification of conventionalarchaeological techniques, and the development of newmethodologies outside the purview of archaeology.Apart from the time and legal constraints discussed

above, the main difference between conventional archae-ology and forensic archaeology resides in the presence ofsoft tissues at forensic scenes. This requires the develop-ment and implementation of additional sampling proto-cols for the collection of organic evidence. For example,although the forensic anthropologist will not be analyz-ing entomological evidence or DNA, as the primary sceneprocessor it will be necessary to collect this type of evi-dence as carefully and efficiently as the geneticist or for-ensic entomologist would.Soft tissue also adds additional time and legal con-

straints to the outdoor crime recovery, as soft tissues areevidence undergoing degradation. To avoid further dete-rioration and loss of evidence, as well as to maintain thechain of custody, forensic anthropologists must processthe site as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Anyalteration that the remains may experience from thescene to its deposit at the autopsy facilities must be care-fully documented and appropriate conservation/preserva-tion measures taken.Archaeological principles are also employed in the sys-

tematic and comprehensive search for archaeological evi-dence, in what is termed ‘‘archaeological surveying’’ (seeBanning et al., 2006 for an updated review of the sub-ject). These same principles can be applied in the docu-mentation of surface-scattered human remains at bothsmall scenes involving one or small numbers of victimsor fatal fire scenes, as well as large-scale scenes, such asplane crashes. Searches for unlocated scenes in the pastrelied upon efforts conducted by law enforcement offi-cials (Miller, 2003; Swanson et al., 2006; Lee, 2007;Saferstein, 2007). The incorporation of archaeologicalsearch methods (Joukowsky, 1980; Feder, 1997) hasresulted in efficient and effective pedestrian searches forsurface remains in forensic cases (Dirkmaat and Adova-sio, 1997). Because of the presence of soft tissues or freshorganic matter, cadaver dogs have also played a role inlocating evidence when both the trainer and the dog areproperly trained (Rebmann et al., 2000). The combina-tion of cadaver dogs and systematic search techniquesresults in near 100% probability of locating humanremains on the surface within a search corridor.The detection of clandestine graves is a much more

difficult task. In recent years, a wide variety of newtechnologies and search techniques have been utilized tolocate buried features (Killam, 1990). Particularly, suc-cessful efforts have been obtained with multidisciplinaryapproaches that utilize geophysicists, archaeologists, andforensic anthropologists (France et al., 1992, 1997).Remote sensing, such as Ground Penetrating Radar, con-ductivity meters, resistivity meters, and even metaldetectors have certainly aided the search for buried fea-tures (Dupras et al., 2006). Research derived from theUT Decomposition Research Facility has provided usefuldata (Rodriguez and Bass, 1985).Reference to, and training in archaeology and archaeo-

logical methods has led to dramatic improvement in therecovery of evidence associated with burial features(Carlisle and Adovasio, 1982; Dirkmaat et al., 1993;Dirkmaat and Cabo, 2006). Hochrein (2002) has dis-cussed an ‘‘autopsy of the grave’’ in which ‘‘geotapho-nomic’’ evidence in the form of geophysical characteris-



tics associated with the grave feature are carefullynoted. These geophysical characteristics include stratifi-cation evidence, toolmarks on the burial pit edge, biotur-bation of the deposits, sedimentation factors, surfacecompression and depression of the burial pit deposits,and internal compaction of the burial pit deposits(Hochrein et al., 2000). The key concept in the recoveryof the buried body feature is that all of the materialassociated with the burial, from the back dirt pile to theburial fill and not just the body in the grave, should beconsidered as evidence and handled accordingly.

But won’t it take too long?

The foregoing discussion clearly indicates that biologi-cal profiling, taphonomic analysis, and forensic archaeol-ogy can therefore be considered as inseparable aspects ofthe same analysis, rather than independent subdisci-plines. When properly implemented and combined, theycan provide extremely relevant forensic information,simplifying and relieving law enforcement of some cru-cial, but unpleasant tasks. If this is the case, the ques-tion is why forensic archaeology in particular is notmore widely utilized. The answer to this question ismainly related to a common misconception, seeminglywidespread among law enforcement and even someanthropologists: forensic archaeological techniques arenot realistically applicable at many case scenes due totime (and personnel) constraints. This assumption isfundamentally wrong: indeed, when properly imple-mented, and with the aid of technology, forensic archaeo-logical techniques are as quick and efficient as any otheron-site forensic technique, and result in a significantgain in relevant data.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FORENSICANTHROPOLOGY 4: HUMAN SKELETAL

TRAUMA ANALYSIS

The fourth important turning point in the field of for-ensic anthropology (following Kuhn’s logic) in the last 20years has been a fundamental change in how we dealwith forensically relevant bone trauma and the resultingenhanced range of trauma questions that can beaddressed by the discipline. Importantly, osteologicaltrauma analysis is now considered as part of the stand-ard professional expertise of forensic anthropologists.Only 20 years ago, interpretation of all forms of

trauma to forensic victims was conducted almost exclu-sively by forensic pathologists in the morgue. Traumaanalysis to bone was neither commonly perceived as partof their tasks, nor routinely practiced by forensic anthro-pologists. For example, Is�can (1988) only discussedtrauma very briefly, primarily with respect to what hecalled ‘‘postmortem assessment.’’ Descriptions focused onchild abuse (what was then described as battered infantsyndrome) and little else. Is�can briefly mentioned incipi-ent research in trauma drawn from forensic cases,described in Maples (1986), and work done in medicalexaminer’s offices in which anthropologists were just be-ginning to assist forensic pathologists (Smith et al.,1987). Most of the baseline information regarding trau-matized bone at that time was derived from paleopathol-ogy (e.g., Ortner and Putschar, 1981).Paleopathologists have described many different types

and general characteristics of trauma, generally basedon the study of historic materials. References to forensic

pathology and trauma cases involving soft tissue arelargely absent in most of the major bibliographical refer-ences of the field (e.g., Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Mar-tin, 1998; Bennike, 2008). With respect to trauma analy-sis, paleopathologists suggest that ‘‘it is difficult and of-ten impossible to make a distinction between fracturesoccurring at the time of death and those that occur sub-sequent to death and burial’’ (Ortner and Putschar,1981, p. 72). Further, distinguishing trauma resultingfrom an accident and that resulting from intentional vio-lence is problematic in archaeologically derived skele-tons. The study of historic materials, with little room forcorroboration of the proposed hypotheses, carried there-fore a large weight of uncertainty and, at best, educatedguessing, inappropriate for forensic contexts (especiallyconsidering the watchful eye of Daubert standards).Additionally, it was perceived that training in clinical

traumatology better equipped forensic pathologists to an-alyze all forms of trauma, from soft tissue damage totraumatized bones. The role of the forensic anthropolo-gist regarding trauma analysis was supposed to be atbest ‘‘simply describe any evidence of bone damage, pointout its location in relation to vital centers, explain thepossibility of it having been sustained at the time ofdeath or otherwise, and discuss the likely types ofobjects that produce damage’’ (Stewart, 1979, p. 76).Limiting the forensic anthropologist’s role in traumaanalysis to merely providing descriptive procedureslargely perpetuating the maxim (still almost a mantra inthe profession) that anthropologists are not allowed tocontribute official opinions with regard to cause andmanner of death.This perception of bone trauma analysis as a discipline

extraneous to forensic anthropology, and within theexclusive sphere of forensic pathology and traumatology,would change as a result of three major events in the an-thropological study of skeletal trauma: 1) research in themorgue alongside the forensic pathologist; 2) incorpora-tion of bone biomechanics research drawn from a varietyof disciplines, in conjunction with routine microscopic ex-amination; and 3) the rise of forensic taphonomy.

Research in the medical examiner’s office

In the early 1980s, some progressive minded forensicpathologists and medical examiner’s hired forensicanthropologists to work as full-time employees in themorgue documenting decomposition, identifying isolatedbones, and serving as death investigators. This situationwas best exemplified in the Memphis, Tennessee, Medi-cal Examiner’s Office under the guidance of Dr. J.T.Francisco and, later, Dr. O.C. Smith. The forensicanthropologists were able to assist autopsy examinationsand even participate in the processing of outdoor scenes.Anthropologists, thus, were part of the multidisciplinaryteam investigating a wide variety of cases, includingthose involving significant soft tissue in various stages ofdecomposition, sorting animal from human bones, andidentifying fragmented osteological materials (Smithet al., 1990; Symes and Smith, 1998; Galloway et al.,1999). As mentioned above, many of these areas wereconsidered far outside of the purview of forensic anthro-pology, and beyond what forensic anthropologists alleg-edly could, and even should do.It was quickly realized that forensic pathological ex-

amination of trauma cases benefited greatly from a morein depth analysis of the underlying skeletal elements



(Smith et al., 1987). These forensic anthropological anal-yses typically included maceration of soft tissue, micro-scopic examination of the bones and, eventually, reten-tion of traumatized bone elements as evidence in futuretrials. In essence, multidisciplinary efforts by forensicpathologists and anthropologists served to highlight thelimitations of clinical traumatology, and the advantagesof an anthropological perspective for some key aspects offorensic inference (Smith et al., 1990; Symes and Smith,1998).Clinical trauma analysis focuses on living tissues, and

is primarily oriented toward fracture treatment andreduction rather than to the analysis of the relationshipsbetween trauma defects, inflicting agents or forces, andresulting bone modification patterns. Pathologists, there-fore, are ill-equipped to answer certain forensic ques-tions, including those related to fracture timing. Sincedetermining whether a defect under examination wasinflicted perimortem (thus, being forensically significant)or postmortem is an essential question in forensictrauma interpretation. The key element required tomake this distinction is an understanding of the differ-ent responses of fresh, organic bone, and dry, denatur-ized bone, to stress and strain. A combination of biome-chanical research and taphonomic analyses helpedaddress that methodological gap.

Incorporating bone biomechanics research

After death, the biochemical composition of bonechanges with time, especially in terms of the amountand preservation of its organic matrix. From a biome-chanical point of view, the main consequence of thesechanges is a reduction in the elasticity of bone materials(elastic decay) that occurs as bone goes from the fresh(perimortem) to the dry (postmortem/taphonomic) state,in the parlance of classic anthropological literature(Johnson, 1985; Harkess et al., 1991). Fresh bone con-tains normal physiological quantities of organic matrix.When subjected to stress, it will react in a predictablemanner (following Young’s modulus) with a significantelastic component before fracturing. Therefore, as the or-ganic matrix is degraded after death, the bone progres-sively becomes an increasingly plastic material, produc-ing completely different patterns of fracture and defor-mation. This is particularly relevant for traumaanalysis, as interpretation of skeletal trauma is essen-tially based on what is observable as a result of the bonehaving been plastically deformed.The consideration of the evolving biomechanical char-

acteristics of the degrading bone transfers the analysisfrom clinical traumatology to the realms of vertebratetaphonomy, for which forensic anthropologists are betterprepared. The transcendence and utility of this migra-tion can probably be better understood in light of thechanges that it implies for the concepts of ante-, peri-,and postmortem intervals themselves.As a consequence of elastic decay, there is a temporal

discrepancy between the concepts antemortem, perimor-tem, and postmortem (taphonomic), as used by anthro-pologists and pathologists in medicolegal settings. Ante-mortem can readily be categorized as occurring beforedeath, or more specifically identifiable as a visible vitalreaction from living tissue. The concepts of perimortemand postmortem, however, are not so easily delineatedbetween the medical and anthropological communities.In the case of sharp force trauma examination, an

anthropologist’s assessment of a dismemberment case isessentially performed within the theoretical perimortemcontext, as the skeletal material will retain nearly allthe same properties as it showed in life (Symes et al.,2002). However, the dismemberment of a body beforedeath would clearly be an unusual circumstance and,therefore, medical personnel would consider the actpostmortem.As a result, anthropologists must consider skeletal

trauma primarily in a taphonomic context. Defectsoccurring in bone must be excluded as taphonomic in na-ture before they can be considered to have occurred inthe perimortem interval. Although careful taphonomicinterpretations can reveal information concerning cir-cumstances surrounding death and postmortem interval(Dirkmaat and Adovasio, 1997), perimortem traumainterpretation is often essential to coroners and patholo-gists burdened with the death certificate. Therefore,‘‘accurate and conservative interpretation of contextualtaphonomic data ultimately reduces confusion by simpli-fying key variables (. . .) regarding cause and manner ofdeath’’ (Symes et al., 2002 p. 430).The biomechanical approach also affects trauma classi-

fication, shifting category criteria from the inflicting toolto physical factors such as force and speed. The biome-chanical properties of bone influence its ability to absorbenergy, as well as its stiffness, density, and fatiguestrength. Bone fractures are also decisively dependenton extrinsic factors including the rate, duration, magni-tude, and direction of force (Evans, 1973; Gozna et al.,1982; Frankel and Nordin, 1989; Harkess et al., 1991;Berryman and Symes, 1998). For example, during animpact at meters per second scale, such as a gunshot,the combination of force and speed will promote localenergy release (fracture) before plastic deformation canoccur. On the other hand, a sharp instrument, such as aheavy knife or an axe, can produce plastic deformationbetter described as blunt force trauma, depending on thedirection of impact, the impacting tool surface, and thearea inflicted.In addition, the morphology of the fracture rarely

reflects information specific to the inflicting tool in bluntforce trauma. Therefore, trauma can be better analyzedand interpreted by focusing on determining the exactdirection, orientation, and patterning of fracture initia-tion and propagation, as they pertain to the directionand speed (energy) associated with the inflicting force.This requires detailed and meticulous microscopic exami-nation of minute evidentiary details, with methods ofteninvolving casting of skeletal material, particularly whenanalyzing and interpreting sharp force trauma (Symes etal., 1999). It may also involve the adoption of entirelynew photo-documentary and analytical technologies suchas polynomial textural mapping (Malzbender et al.,2001).

New perspectives on the analysis of humanskeletal trauma

In 1996, a multidisciplinary workshop presented atthe AAFS, best exemplified the impact of this reconsider-ation of skeletal trauma from an anthropological per-spective, as opposed to a paleopathological perspective(Symes et al., 1996). Recent research in newly definedkey areas of forensically relevant trauma, are brieflysummarized below.



Blunt force trauma. Blunt force trauma is perhaps themost difficult area of skeletal trauma to interpret on thebasis of skeletal characteristics alone. Although patholo-gists can use skin alteration and damage characteristicsto accurately estimate the number of blows, forensicanthropologists must estimate numbers of blows by bonefracture patterns that are always difficult to interpret.Recent research, however, indicates that old notions ofhow bone breaks as a result of slow loading impacts(blunt force) are highly inaccurate (e.g., Gurdjian et al.,1950). Characteristics of the bones have been shown toprovide some information with respect to: 1) exactimpact location; 2) angle of impact; and 3) number ofimpacts. However, as noted above, fracture shape anddimensions rarely indicate much about the shape of theimpacting weapon (Symes et al., 1996).

Ballistics trauma. Despite the fact that ballistictrauma is dissimilar to other skeletal trauma and pro-duces characteristic pattern of fractures, confusion com-monly arises in ballistic interpretation due to underesti-mates of velocity, or a lack of understanding of how bul-lets travel at final velocity (e.g., they do not ricochet atsteep angles off of bone surfaces).Because of the high velocity of the projectile involved,

the damage imparted by ballistic trauma is immense. Abullet initially creates a ‘‘plug-and-spall,’’ which producesdiagnostic entrance and exit wounds in bone. Withenough energy, subsequent radiating fractures are exten-sive and may indicate the direction of the bullet. If thebullet possesses enough kinetic energy, concentric heav-ing fractures will form. These concentric fractures arecharacterized by an outward bevel, as opposed to theinward bevel found in concentric fractures caused byblunt trauma (Smith et al., 1987; Symes et al., 1996; DiMaio, 1999; Hart, 2005). By recognizing and properlyinterpreting these patterns of modification to bone, theforensic anthropologist can reconstruct the path of thebullet, provide a range of bullet calibers based on the di-ameter of the defect (Berryman et al., 1995; Ross, 1996),determine the number of shots fired, and even distin-guish in which order these shots entered the body.

Sharp force trauma. Perhaps the best-researched areaof trauma in the new era of forensic anthropology is thatof sharp force trauma resulting from a wide variety ofimplements, from knives to saws, and ranging fromactivities as disparate as stabbings to dismemberments.Lethal knife wounds are second only to gunshot woundsas a cause of homicidal deaths (see Martin, 1999) and,as such, have received considerable attention in the for-ensic literature (Di Maio and Di Maio, 1993, p. 191;Spitz, 1993, p.252). Unfortunately, knife wound analysishas rarely been effective due to the employment of dubi-ous categories such as ‘‘sharp’’ or ‘‘single-edged,’’ as wellas other misleading or errant descriptive terminologylike ‘‘hesitation marks’’ (Symes et al., 1999, 2002).With respect to saw marks in bone, until recently, the

rarity of this evidence often led to the assumption ofthem being of little use in forensics (see Bonte, 1975;Andahl, 1978; Symes, 1992). Saw marks were seldomgiven more notice than a presence or absence assess-ment by the forensic examiner. In the last two decades,research in saw mark analysis (Symes, 1992; Symeset al., 1998, 2002, 2007; Saville et al., 2007) has revealedthat much can be learned through a careful analysis ofthe marks left on the bone by the saw tool, especiallywhen utilizing low power microscopic examination. This

key information includes: 1) the dimensions and shape ofthe blade and teeth of a saw; 2) how the tool was pow-ered, mechanically or manually; and 3) how a tool wasused (including direction of cut) to accomplish the dis-memberment or mutilation (Symes, 1992; Symes et al.,1998, 2002).Two additional areas of trauma analysis benefit

greatly from an anthropological perspective: the recogni-tion of child and elder abuse, and the distinctionbetween perimortem and postmortem trauma (discussedbelow). With respect to trauma analysis in abuse cases,the comprehensive documentation of skeletal trauma(healed and unhealed) in the clean and processed bonehas lead to more definitive assessments of trauma tim-ing, critical to defining whether abuse is substantiated.

Trauma analysis and taphonomy: Conjoined twins

In the descriptions of trauma analysis above, it isassumed that the defects under examination resultedfrom intentional human intervention. We described ear-lier how the changes in biomechanical properties experi-enced by bone as it degrades aid in the assessment ofthe forensic significance of a bone defect. This criterionis useful in determining forensic significance of thetrauma on the basis of fracture timing. Those defectsinflicted on fresh, highly organic (perimortem) bone aremore likely to have a forensic value than those inflictedon dry bone (postmortem fractures, in the anthropologi-cal sense). However, forensic significance does notdepend solely on defect timing. There are multiple natu-ral agents that can alter the human remains after theyare placed at the scene, including scavengers, humans,and environmental factors (water, temperature, soilcharacteristics and slope, sunlight, etc.).As stressed above, the key element to explain the

advantages of the anthropological approach to traumaanalysis is that the study and correct interpretation ofall of these factors (including the biochemical changeslinking bone degradation and biomechanics) does not fallwithin the field of expertise of forensic pathology, butrather pertains to forensic taphonomy. Even more impor-tantly, the data necessary for the interpretation of all ofthese elements do not come exclusively from the humanremains, but also from the context in which they arefound, and require careful archaeological recovery.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

The following will highlight key new areas of forensicanthropological research where the intersection oftaphonomy, archaeological recovery, trauma analysis,and new quantitative methods has both expanded therange of questions to be answered by forensic anthropol-ogists, and fundamentally changed the analytical frame-work from which the classic questions are approached.

New perspectives on human rights cases andmass fatality incidents

The benefits of a forensic taphonomic mindset withregard to what is expected of the data collected, andaffecting how they are collected, are certainly relevant tocases involving single or small numbers of individuals inoutdoor contexts, but are also well documented in newarenas only recently populated by forensic anthropolo-gists: human rights investigations (HRI) and mass fatal-ity incidents (MFI).



Modern, scientific HRI trace back to the work of ClydeSnow and the Argentinean Forensic Anthropology teamearly in the 1980s (Doretti and Snow, 2003, and refer-ences therein). In spite of the clear and sound forensicscope of the pioneering Argentinean team, other earlyefforts at recovering HRI victims from mass graves weresoon focused on what was termed ‘‘humanitarian’’ efforts(Steadman and Haglund, 2005), in which victim identifi-cation was the primary and almost exclusive focus. How-ever, quickly removing victims from mass graves inorder to speed victim identification and restitution (e.g.,Williams and Crews, 2003) flies in the face of the letterand spirit of the modern human rights concept (Dorettiand Snow, 2003; Dirkmaat et al., 2005). This is becausethe forensic value of the remains is greatly diminishedby the absence of the appropriate contextual informa-tion, which, in turn, adversely affects subsequent prose-cutorial efforts. Recently, the proper archaeological re-covery of mass graves (assisted by the latest technologi-cal advances in spatial data collection and analysis) haspermitted forensic taphonomic reconstructions of eventssurrounding the emplacement of the victims, establishedspatial patterning of the evidence, and assisted in thesorting and positive identification of commingledremains (Schmitt, 2002; Dirkmaat et al., 2005; Tuller etal., 2008). Further, the application of new techniques inthe analysis of human skeletal trauma and quantitativemethods in the analysis of the skeletal material(described above) solidifies the forensic value of this evi-dence.Recent advances in quantitative methods derived from

modern populations (especially Fordisc) have benefitedthe analysis of victim remains (often severely frag-mented and commingled) in large scale MFI (Sledzik,1996, 1998; Saul and Saul, 1999, 2003; Dirkmaat andMiller, 2003, Sledzik et al., 2003; Adams and Byrd,2008). However, it is only recently that advances in therecovery of evidence associated with the disaster site(bombing or plane crash) have been implemented.Archaeological documentation and recovery methodsadapted to large-scale mass disaster scenes and utilizingtechnological advances in spatial and contextual datacollection have been shown to outperform traditionalscene recovery protocols, not only in terms of the amountof evidence and information recovered, but also reducingscene processing times by almost one half (Dirkmaat andHefner, 2001; Reineke and Hochrein, 2008).

Case in point: Recovery of the fatal fire victim

Perhaps the best illustration of the intimate, almostinextricable relationship between forensic taphonomy,archaeology, and bone trauma, and the resulting per-spectives, goals, objectives, data collection, and analyti-cal techniques inherent in the new forensic anthropology,is achieved through a discussion of another area of for-ensic investigation in which forensic anthropologists nowplay an important role: the analysis and interpretationof fatal fire scene victims.Fire is a powerful and extreme taphonomic influence

that can damage, alter, or destroy bone and associatedevidence (Mayne Correia, 1997; Mayne Correia andBeattie, 2002), and is consequently a common means ofconcealing evidence of a crime (Schmidt and Symes,2008). Since fire often results in extensive damage, oralmost complete destruction of soft tissues, forensicanthropologists—with their expertise in examining bone

tissues—are frequently asked to take part in fatal fireinvestigations.Put simply, there are two primary goals for the foren-

sic anthropologist to accomplish at these scenes. Thefirst is identifying the remains, both at the anatomicaland the individual level. The anatomical level refers tofinding and identifying all of the individual bone ele-ments and fragments at the scene. The individual levelmeans assessing the number of victims and solving com-mingling issues if multiple individuals are involved. Thesecond primary goal is to distinguish perimortem bonetrauma from heat-induced bone alteration. Theextremely modified conditions of fatal fire scenesseverely compromise and make difficult these goals, pro-viding an excellent illustration of the tightly knit rela-tionship between taphonomic influence, scene recovery,and laboratory analysis of the remains.Victim remains at fatal fire scenes are typically more

difficult to detect, recover, and handle (Dirkmaat, 1991,1998b; Mayne Correia, 1997; Mayne Correia and Beattie,2002). All of the burned materials at the scene, includingbiological tissue, are often modified to a similar appear-ance, and bones, in particular, become discolored, brittle,and highly fragmented. As a consequence, these remainsare often missed, disturbed, altered, or even destroyedduring scene processing utilizing existing protocols.The added postmortem fracturing, fragmentation, and

bone loss resulting from currently employed recoverytechniques hinder the already difficult task of autopsyand laboratory analysis of burned human remains.Establishing the number of victims and solving commin-gling issues in these cases will be more difficult—and,arguably, impossible in some cases—if skeletal elementsare missed, mixed, or further altered during the recov-ery. These problems are particularly acute for bonetrauma analysis, as its most immediate goal is distin-guishing perimortem (forensically significant) trauma,from postmortem (not forensically significant) alteration.The substantial addition of trauma features created byfire and then recovery can result in a daunting analyti-cal task.For example, it is difficult to detect and characterize

atypical, potentially forensically significant trauma if theextent of exposure of individual portions of the body tofire is unknown (Symes et al., 1999, 2008). Exposure fac-tors will depend on the location and body positioning atthe scene, information that can only be retrievedthrough careful recovery and documentation (includingcareful mapping) at the scene (Dirkmaat, 1991, 1998a).The homogeneous coloration of the remains and theirsurroundings make mere scene photographs inadequatefor the task.

DISCUSSION

After reviewing the main trends and developmentsaffecting the field in the last decades, it is time to returnto our original question: Is the current state and futureperspectives of forensic anthropology any better todaythan they were 20 years ago? Considering all of thedevelopments described above, the answer seems clearlyaffirmative. The last two decades witnessed a diversifica-tion of the goals and objectives of the field, extendingand enhancing the role of forensic anthropologists incustomary forensic investigations. Analytical methodsand research sources in forensic anthropology have beenvastly improved through the rejuvenation of available



comparative samples and an increased emphasis inquantitative methods, as opposed to the classical verbalmodel approach, which led to commonplace misconcep-tions. Even more important is the establishment of solidconceptual and methodological foundations to integrateand guide the future development of the field. The adop-tion of paleontological, archaeological, and biomechanicalprinciples (not merely techniques), and transformed intoforensic taphonomy, forensic archaeology, and traumaanalysis, provides a conceptual framework much supe-rior and solidly entrenched in the natural sciences thanthe almost technical (when considered as an isolatedgoal) enterprise of biological profile estimation fromosteological remains.Is�can’s (1988) account of forensic anthropology as a

laboratory-based field, squarely focused in providing evi-dence for victim ID from the naked bones, fails, not sur-prisingly, to describe the activities of modern forensicanthropologists. Answers to many more questions arerequired from forensic anthropologists nowadays, besidescharacterization of biological profile: Is there any evi-dence with respect to how the individual died? How longhas the body been at the scene? Why are some bonesmissing and others ‘‘out of place?’’ What role did humansplay in altering the bones? Why are these bones brokenand can we tell anything about these saw and cutmarks? When the bones are brought to the laboratory bylaw enforcement in boxes, with limited documentation ofcontext, these questions are difficult, and often impossi-ble to address ‘‘responsibly’’ (that is, in a scientificallydefendable way). In the past, forensic anthropology wasdefined and configured exclusively as an ‘‘applied’’ field,seriously limiting basic research within its realms. Con-sequently, the answers for these questions were soughtin other scientific disciplines. Broken bones in the boxedassemblage led inexorably to the paleopathology litera-ture. Other marks on bone, such as animal tooth impres-sions, or stained bones indicated a search of the paleoan-thropology and bioarchaeology literature was in order.However, a critical review of this literature revealed adearth of solid scientific background for many of these‘‘answers.’’ None addressed issues related to time sincedeath. None dealt with soft tissue. Actualistic studieswere rare, if not entirely absent. Assessment of skeletalmarkers of age, sex, and stature were based in 1988 onhuman collections from the early part of the century, oron prehistoric Native American samples.In 1988, forensic anthropologists often deferred to the

‘‘years of experience’’ argument to provide opinionsregarding these tough questions. Then, as describedabove, along came Daubert. No longer would appeals toexperience or authority hold up under the scrutiny ofscientific validity in court. Forensic anthropology had tochange as a field to meet these scientific criteria. Part ofthat transformation required an emergence from the‘‘applied field’’ collar, since no other discipline providedthe basic research necessary to specifically address manyissues in forensic anthropology. In retrospect, and as dis-cussed in this review, forensic anthropology seems tohave adapted well to this changing landscape. The com-bination of all the external factors and field develop-ments described above has resulted in a paradigm shift,which represents a transition from the self-inflicted defi-nition of forensic anthropology as a merely applied(almost technical) laboratory-based field, to a full-grownscientific discipline. This implies shaking off outdatedlimiting assumptions, such as the focus on ‘‘applied’’

methods, with basic research falling to other sister disci-plines from which forensic anthropology would simplyborrow off-the-shelf methods to make wishful extrapola-tions.

Redefining forensic anthropology

Forensic anthropology has flirted with many differentdefinitions applied to various contexts. If we accept thatthe medicolegal context represents the primary focus—though deviations into the study of historical (e.g.,Maples and Browning, 1994), and even prehistoric indi-viduals is acceptable within the realm of forensic anthro-pology—we can uncover a common theme. Namely, alldefinitions include a focus on details of the individual.This was duly noted by Stewart (1979) and Is�can (1988).Another common thread that links most past defini-

tions of the field of forensic anthropology is the focus onextracting details of the individual’s life and conditionsat death. Saul and Saul (1989) coined the fortunate term‘‘osteobiography’’ to refer to this aim of the forensicdescription of the individual. A biological biography canbe extracted by reconstructing specific biological parame-ters such as chronological age at death, sex, ancestry,stature, pathologies, healed trauma, and even individualanomalies.In a forensic setting, however, forensic anthropologists

are expected to go beyond the reconstruction of the lifeof the individual, and consider specifics surrounding thecircumstances of their death and the alteration of thebody after death. These inferences require more thanjust the determination of biological parameters from theremains. They require an analysis of the spatial distribu-tion of the remains at their location of discovery, a care-ful consideration of the environmental setting in whichthe body resided after death, analysis of the soft tissueremaining, insect and animal interaction with the body,and a thorough analysis of bone modification, from stain-ing to trauma. This endeavor is termed forensic taphon-omy (Haglund and Sorg, 1997b), which ‘‘concentrates onhow external factors affect the skeleton’’ (Is�can, 1988, p.207) and relies on careful documentation of contextthrough archaeological recovery methodologies.Is�can (1988) characterized forensic anthropology as an

‘‘applied subfield of physical anthropology,’’ although hequestioned the nature of the relationship between thedisciplines. However, given the increased focus on scenedocumentation and interpretation, it may be reasonableeven to ponder whether forensic anthropology shouldstill be considered simply as a subdiscipline of physicalanthropology (Dirkmaat, 1993, 1998a). Scene interpreta-tion and reconstruction of past events requires the utili-zation of methodological principles drawn partly fromphysical anthropology, but also from other disciplines,such as archaeology and paleontology. Consequently, for-ensic anthropology could be even viewed as a unique,applied field within the broader discipline of anthropol-ogy at large; a sister, rather than a daughter disciplineof physical anthropology. However, this view can onlyseem as reasonable if physical anthropology is equatedsolely with human skeletal biology or paleoanthropology.Unique analyses that are not often considered or wellresearched in typical skeletal biology or physical anthro-pological analyses are those related to taphonomic issues(perimortem trauma and postmortem modification tobone including burning, weathering, and animal activ-ity), soft tissue decomposition and modification and, ulti-



mately, reconstruction of events surrounding and subse-quent to death, heavily reliant upon contextual data col-lected at the site (Dirkmaat and Adovasio, 1997). Thefocus of forensic anthropology in obtaining informationabout the individual from the population (basically theopposite goal of physical anthropology) and its medico-legal aspects also support this view.A working description of the field previously presented

by one of the authors (Dirkmaat and Adovasio, 1997)stressed the relationship of forensic anthropology notonly with physical anthropology, but also with other an-thropological disciplines:‘‘Forensic Anthropology involves the application of

principles utilized in the anthropological subfields ofarchaeology and physical anthropology to forensic inves-tigations. Archaeological principles are employed duringthe search for, recovery, and preservation of physical evi-dence at the outdoor scene, and emphasize documenta-tion of contextual relationships of all evidence to its dep-ositional environment. Physical anthropological princi-ples are employed during the laboratory analysis ofhuman remains and focus on reconstruction of identityand events surrounding and subsequent to death, oftenheavily reliant upon contextual data collected at thesite.’’ (Dirkmaat and Adovasio, 1997, p. 58).As articulated above, we currently would also suggest

that another important discipline from which forensicanthropology draws its principles is paleontology. Still,physical anthropology is defined and understood as aholistic field, with a conceptual and methodological flexi-bility that allows the definition above to fall well withinits conceptual framework. Historical considerations, andthe training and background of forensic practitionersalso justify the inclusion of forensic anthropology as adiscipline clearly entrenched in the physical anthropol-ogy tradition and framework. However, rather thanpointing to the phylogeny of the field, the description offorensic anthropology above points to a key element thatIs�can (1988) already identified as a major problemendangering the future development of the field: Foren-sic anthropology is more than just the direct applicationof generic physical anthropology techniques to medico-legal contexts. Is�can (1988) complained about physicalanthropologists, with no forensic training, occasionallyassuming the role of forensic anthropologists almost as aside activity or pastime. The diversification and matura-tion experienced by forensic anthropology during the lastdecades exacerbates this problem. Even though forensicanthropology is a subdiscipline of physical anthropology,it is a well-derived one, requiring comprehensive specifictraining and study. The distinction with paleoanthropol-ogy or bioarchaeology goes beyond the medico-legalaspects of the field, and cannot be abridged merely bygetting support and advice on judicial/forensic issuesfrom the prosecutors or the defense, prior to taking thestand in a court of law. The perception that training andexperience in paleoanthropology or bioarchaeology pro-vides the necessary background to successfully performforensic investigations, can only be derived from a com-plete lack of understanding of the role, tasks, and obliga-tions of forensic anthropologists. This lack of under-standing by itself disqualifies the aspiring forensicexpert to act as a forensic anthropologist.This cautionary note applies even to practicing foren-

sic anthropologists. Along with growth and diversifica-tion comes specialization. It is unlikely that a single for-ensic anthropologist can master all the different forensic

anthropological techniques and areas of expertiserequired in many forensic cases. It is therefore becomingincreasingly frequent and important to seek advice andcooperation from other colleagues better versed in somespecific techniques. College boards of directors and pub-lic agencies should also become aware of this fact, imple-menting the adequate hiring and funding policies neces-sary to alleviate the pain of the professionals commonlyforced to work in isolation as the only forensic anthropol-ogist in a university department or medical examiner’soffice.

. . .and the definition, please!

How then should we define forensic anthropology in2008 from a formal point of view? The working descrip-tion of forensic anthropology, provided above, is similarto classic definitions, such as those provided by Stewart(1979) and Is�can (1988), in that they represent adescription of the duties and activities performed by for-ensic anthropologists at the moment of writing. It hasbeen stressed that these classic definitions no longerserve to accurately describe the current activities per-formed by forensic anthropologists. Just as with any sci-entific discipline, the tasks, scope and analytical tools offorensic anthropologists must also change and evolve, ifthe field is to grow and advance. Therefore, any defini-tion based merely on current duties and activities is des-tined to become obsolescent very quickly. This utilitarianapproach to defining the field is also related to the clas-sic view of forensic anthropology as a limited, appliedfield, and is not appropriate for defining scientific disci-plines. A proper definition of a scientific field must alsoprovide a conceptual framework based on its study sub-ject, and the dimension and scope from which it isapproached. In other words, a proper and appropriatedefinition is aimed at providing neither a daily schedulefor forensic practitioners, nor a field guide for the identi-fication of forensic anthropologists, but is a basic requi-site for the establishment of legitimate basic researchgoals and objectives and to allow for the future develop-ment of the field. In the view of the authors, as origi-nally suggested by Stewart (1979) and Is�can (1988), thedefining subject of study of forensic anthropology is theindividual. Although paleoanthropology or biodemogra-phy try to infer populational characteristics through theanalysis of individuals, forensic analysis drives in the op-posite direction. All the components of forensic anthro-pology, from the estimation of the biological profile totaphonomic or trauma analysis, are aimed at recon-structing the effects of different processes on the life orpostlife of a single individual. In its purely anthropologi-cal component, forensic anthropology looks into the pop-ulational parameters to answer questions regarding aspecific individual, rather than the opposite. Althoughcommon questions and methods obviously persist, focuson processes surrounding and subsequent to death, andon individual predictions of skeletal biological profile,raise legitimate and specific research questions andrequire uniquely configured methodological approaches,extraneous to other anthropological disciplines.In the final analysis then, we will define forensic an-

thropology as the scientific discipline that focuses on thelife, the death, and the postlife history of a specific indi-vidual, as reflected primarily in their skeletal remainsand the physical and forensic context in which they areemplaced.



FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY:A SUMMARY

Forensic anthropology in the last two decades hasbeen at an impasse. The old definitions and practices ofthe field limited practitioners to part-time (and infre-quent) roles in the forensic sciences, providing clues toidentify the victim from skeletal remains. With the ubiq-uitous research and implementation of DNA, the pri-mary role of identifier of unidentified skeletal remainhas been largely usurped, at least in regular forensiccases not involving commingled remains. However, as itdid in other geological and anthropological disciplines,the emplacement of a taphonomic perspective to the ‘‘evi-dence’’ produced a revolutionary reevaluation of thegoals, perspectives, operating methods, range of work,and research potential in the field of forensic anthropol-ogy. With the addition of forensic taphonomy, whichrequires the careful consideration of context and allowsfor scientific-based reconstructions of past events, foren-sic anthropology can now take its rightful place along-side other healthy and vigorous scientific disciplinesboth within and beyond physical anthropology. Forensicanthropological analyses address many diverse and com-plicated issues beyond biological profile, such as post-mortem interval, trauma (timing, biomechanical factorsand even implements used) and, ultimately, aspects ofcircumstances of death.This elevation of status comes with responsibilities for

those who profess to practice it. As the laboratory-only,bones-only field of past conceptions, individuals with anyamount of osteological experience could rather comfort-ably operate in the capacity of an on-call, as-needed lawenforcement resource in those rare cases when isolatedbones were found, or when the medical examiner ran outof options for identifying the human remains.Today, however, forensic anthropology goes far beyond

osteological analysis. Forensic taphonomy requires muchmore than the examination of displaced (and out of con-text) bones in the laboratory. Training in the archaeolog-ical recovery of a wide variety of evidence found at out-door scenes, including human skeletal remains, decom-posing soft tissue, entomological evidence, clothing andother human artifacts, botanical evidence, geological andenvironmental evidence, and three-dimensional position-ing data of that evidence, is absolutely required.Forensic taphonomic reconstructions drawn from

exacting data collection methods at the crime scenemesh perfectly with an important alteration of court-room evidence presentation: Daubert. As discussedabove, courtroom assertions of what happened at the sitecan no longer be based on ‘‘years of experience,’’ or un-documented, random observations. They must be basedon well-founded scientific reconstructions.At the other end of the forensic anthropological experi-

ence, in the laboratory, Daubert also impacts forensic an-thropological analysis by diminishing or even dismissing‘‘experience’’ arguments, and educated guesses based onvisual assessment. It requires data analysis and compar-ison through scientifically validated studies of all pre-sented conclusions (from biological identity to traumainterpretations). The creation of the Bass Collection(modern comparative sample), the Forensic Databank(virtual comparative sample), and the computer programFordisc provide excellent examples of new and moreappropriate quantitative approaches to unique issues inforensic anthropology.

Another important aspect of forensic anthropologythat has arisen in the last 20 years is the primary roleplayed by forensic anthropologists in the analysis oftrauma in forensic cases. In the past, reference wasmade to paleopathological descriptions and interpreta-tions of broken bones, which themselves were based onvery little modern clinical trauma research. With thecombination of multidisciplinary efforts in the forensicmorgue, critically evaluating skeletal trauma from a bio-mechanical perspective and overlaying forensic tapho-nomic understanding of site formation and past eventsat the scene, trauma emerges from the shadow of paleo-pathology as the new leader in this field of research.All of these new roles, duties, and expectations of the

forensic anthropologist in the forensic arena, emphati-cally suggest that forensic anthropology is a unique, so-phisticated, scientific discipline in its own right, conduct-ing basic research in a wide variety of arenas, fromtaphonomy to skeletal biology; research that is in turnbeneficial to other scientific disciplines, including sub-fields of physical anthropology. As such, it cannot andshould not be conducted on a part-time basis by individ-uals who are not specifically trained to deal with all ofthese issues.Is�can (1988, p. 203) lamented—in the first sentence of

his review—that ‘‘for years many anthropologistsassisted the medicolegal profession and law enforcementagencies but did so without any official standards ofqualifications.’’ Twenty years later, it can be said thatthose ‘‘standards of qualifications’’ are finally cominginto focus.As for the future development of the field, forensic an-

thropology must follow the lead of paleoanthropology inmore ways than just the incorporation of taphonomy.Given the complexity of outdoor scenes and the varietyof factors that can impinge upon, and modify humanremains, a concerted multidisciplinary effort is required.Just as the Louis and Mary Leakey model of conductingresearch as lone jack-of-all-trades is long gone (sweptaside by the Leakeys themselves), forensic anthropolo-gists must realize that the lone researcher cranking outreports based on a 3-h examination of decomposing tis-sue and bone brought to a small crowded coroner’s office,is an outdated model. The amount of information thatcan be gleaned from human remains recovered from avariety of forensic scenes requires more than a cursoryexamination. Context and taphonomy must be consid-ered and incorporated into the final forensic anthropolog-ical assessment. If that entails returning to the site andexamining the scene and searching for the ‘‘missed’’ bonepieces, or working closely with a trained archaeologist,then that needs to be done. Each case requires multipleexpertise in osteology, archaeology, and trauma analysis,whether that expertise represents one person or multipleindividuals. Each case requires multiple eyes from multi-ple perspectives. And it requires obsessing over theremains in the laboratory until the most parsimoniousexplanation of the observations is established.As discussed earlier, the aim of this article is neither

to provide a comprehensive review of current practices ofthe majority of forensic anthropology practitioners, norof the latest methods to analyze human bone features.Instead, our intent was to step back, look at the biggerpicture, and provide a presentation of our perceptions ofthe key elements (most already in place) driving thefuture of the field of forensic anthropology. We feel thatthis trajectory will lead to a viable and vibrant scientific



discipline, allowing forensic anthropology not only tocontinue, but also to greatly enhance its role as a viableplayer in the forensic sciences and in forensic investiga-tions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors express their gratitude to James M. Ado-vasio, Director, Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute andthe graduate students in the Forensic and Biological An-thropology Master’s program at Mercyhurst College fortheir comments and suggestions. The article greatly ben-efited from the comments of the Editor of the Yearbookand three anonymous reviewers.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams BJ, Byrd JE, editors. 2008. Recovery, analysis, and iden-tification of commingled human remains. Totowa: HumanaPress.

Adovasio JM. 2003. The first Americans. NY: Random House.Adovasio, JM. 2007. Closed site investigation in the American

Northeast: the view from Meadowcroft. In: Kornfeld M, Vasi-l’ev SA, Miotti L, editors. On shelter’s ledge: histories, theo-ries and methods of rockshelter research. BAR 1655. Oxford,England: Archaeopress. p 181–190.

Andahl RO. 1978. The examination of saw marks. J ForensicSci Soc 18:31–46.

Aufderheide AC, Rodriguez-Martin C. 1998. The Cambridge en-cyclopedia of human paleopathology. Cambridge UK: Cam-bridge University Press.

Ayers HG, Jantz RL, Moore-Jansen PH. 1990. Giles and Elliotrace discriminant functions revisited: a test using recent for-ensic cases. In: Gill GW, Rhine S, editors. Skeletal attributionof race: methods for forensic archaeology. Albuquerque: Max-well Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 4.p 65–71.

Banning EB, Hawkins AL, Stewart ST. 2006. Detection func-tions for archaeological survey. Am Antiq 71:723–742.

Bass WM, Birkby WH. 1978. Exhumation: the method couldmake the difference. FBI Law Enforcement Bull 47:6–11.

Behrensmeyer AK. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic informationfrom bone weathering. Paleobiology 4:150–162.

Behrensmeyer AK, Gordon KD, Yanagi GT. 1986. Trampling asa cause of bone surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks. Nature319:768–771.

Behrensmeyer AK, Hill AP. 1980. Fossils in the making. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

Benjamin DM. 2001. Are pharmacologists/toxicologists withoutmedical degrees or MDs best qualified to testify about drugs?[Abstract] Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 7:150–151.

Bennike P. 2008. Trauma. In: Pinhasi R, Mays S, editors.Advances in human paleopathology. West Sussex, England:Wiley. p 309–328.

Berryman HE, Smith OC, Symes SA. 1995. Diameter of cranialgunshot wounds as a function of bullet caliber. J Forensic Sci40:751–754.

Berryman HE, Symes SA. 1998. Recognizing gunshot and bluntcranial trauma through fracture interpretation. In: ReichsKJ, editor. Forensic osteology. II. Advances in the identifica-tion of human remains. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. p333–352.

Binford L. 1981. Bones: ancient men and modern myths. NewYork: Academic Press.

Blumenschine RJ, Selvaggio M. 1988. Percussion marks on bonesurfaces as a new diagnostic of human behavior. Nature333:763–765.

Boaz NT, Behrensmeyer AK. 1976. Hominid taphonomy: trans-port of human skeletal parts in an artificial fluviatile environ-ment. Am J Phys Anthropol 45:53–60.

Bonnichsen R, Sorg MH, editors. 1989. Bone modification.Orono, Maine: Center for the study of the first Americans,University of Maine.

Bonte W. 1975. Tool marks in bones and cartilage. J ForensicSci 20:315–323.

Brain CK. 1970. New finds at the Swartkrans australopithecinesite. Nature 225:1112–1119.

Brain CK. 1981. The hunters or the hunted? An introductionto African cave taphonomy. Chicago: Chicago UniversityPress.

Bromage TG, Boyde A. 1984. Microscopic criteria for the deter-mination of directionality of cutmarks on bone. Am J PhysAnthropol 65:359–366.

Brooks ST. 1975. Human or not? A problem in skeletal identifi-cation. J Forensic Sci 20:149–153.

Carlisle RC, Adovasio JM, editors. 1982. Meadowcroft: collectedpapers on the archaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter of theCross Creek drainage. Pittsburgh: Dept. of Anthropology, Uni-versity of Pittsburgh.

Christensen AM. 2004. The impact of Daubert: implications fortestimony and research in forensic anthropology (and the useof frontal sinuses in personal identification). J Forensic Sci49:1–4.

Di Maio DJ, Di Maio VJM. 1993. Forensic pathology. New York:CRC Press.

Di Maio VJM. 1999. Gunshot wounds: practical aspects of fire-arms, ballistics, and forensic techniques, 2nd ed. Boca Raton,FL: CRC Press.

Dillehay TD. 1989. Monte Verde: a late Pleistocene settlementin Chile, Vol. 1. Paleoenvironment and site context. Washing-ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Dillehay TD. 1997. Monte Verde: a late Pleistocene settlementin Chile, Vol. 2. The archaeological context and interpretation.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Dirkmaat DC. 1991. Applications of forensic anthropology: cre-mated remains [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 43rdAnnual Meeting p 154.

Dirkmaat DC. 1993. The role of archaeology in the forensicinvestigation: ‘start spreading the news’ [Abstract]. Proc AmAcad Forensic Sci 45th Annual Meeting p 141.

Dirkmaat DC. 1998a. Forensic anthropological recovery andinterpretation of the fire victim [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad For-ensic Sci 4:207.

Dirkmaat DC. 1998b. Reconsidering the scope of forensic an-thropology: data collection methodologies prior to the labora-tory [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 4:204.

Dirkmaat DC. 2001. Crime scene archaeology: better ways to‘recover physical evidence at the death scene’ [Abstract]. ProcAm Acad Forensic Sci 7:241–242.

Dirkmaat DC, Adovasio JM. 1997. The role of archaeology inthe recovery and interpretation of human remains from anoutdoor forensic setting. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors.Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains.New York: CRC Press. p 39–64.

Dirkmaat DC, Cabo LL. 2006. The shallow grave as an optionfor disposing of the recently deceased: goals and consequences[Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 12:299.

Dirkmaat DC, Cabo LL, Adovasio JM, Rozas V. 2005. Massgraves, human rights and commingled: considering the bene-fits of forensic archaeology [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad ForensicSci 11:316.

Dirkmaat DC, Hefner J. 2001. Forensic processing of the terres-trial mass fatality scene: testing new search, documentationand recovery methodologies [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Foren-sic Sci 7:241.

Dirkmaat DC, Miller W. 2003. Scene recovery efforts in Shanks-ville, PA: the role of the coroner’s office in the processing ofthe crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 [Abstract]. ProcAm Acad Forensic Sci 9:279.

Dirkmaat DC, Pedler DR, Adovasio JM, Pedler CL, Hyland DC,Herbstritt JT, Buyce R, Thomas J. 1993. Archaeological andbioanthropological investigations at the Orton Quarry Site(36ER243), North East Township, Pennsylvania [Abstract].Proc Soc Am Archaeol, Vol 40. SAA 58th Annual Meeting.



Dirkmaat DC, Quinn A, Adovasio JM. 1995. New methodologiesfor search and recovery. Disaster Manag News (December)1–2.

Doran GH, editor. 2002. Windover: multidisciplinary investiga-tions of an Early Archaic Florida cemetery. Gainesville: Uni-versity Press of Florida.

Doretti M, Snow CC. 2003. Forensic anthropology and humanrights: the Argentine experience. In: Steadman DW, editor.Hard evidence: case studies in forensic anthropology. UpperSaddle River: Prentice Hall. p 290–310.

Dupras TL, Schultz JJ, Wheeler SM, Williams LJ. 2006. Foren-sic recovery of human remains: archaeological approaches.Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, CRC Press.

Efremov IA. 1940. Taphonomy: new branch of paleontology. PanAm Geologist 74:81–93.

Evans F. 1973. Mechanical properties of bone. Springfield, IL:Charles C. Thomas.

Feder KL. 1997. Site survey. In: Hester TR, Shafer HJ, FederKL, editors. Field methods in archaeology. Mountain View,CA: Mayfield Publishing.

Feinberg SE, Krislov SH, Straf ML. 1995. Understanding andevaluation statistical evidence in litigation. Jurimetrics 36:1–32.

France DL, Griffin TF, Swanburg JG, Lindemann JW, Daven-port GC, Trammell V, Travis CT, Kondratieff B, Nelson A,Castellano K, Hopkins D. 1992. A multidisciplinary approachto the detection of clandestine graves. J Forensic Sci 37:1445–1458.

France DL, Griffin TF, Swanburg JG, Linderman JW, Daven-port GC, Trammell V, Travis CT, Kondratieff B, Nelson A,Castellano K, Hopkins D, Adain T. 1997. Necrosearch revis-ited: further multidisplinary approaches to the detection ofclandestine graves. In: Haguland WD, Sorg MH, editors.Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory, and anthro-pological perspectives. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p 497–509.

Frankel VH, Nordin M. 1989. Basic biomechanics of the muscu-loskeletal system. Philiadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Galloway A, Symes SA, Haglund WD, France DL. 1999. Therole of forensic anthropology in trauma analysis. In: GallowayA, editor. Broken bones, anthropological analysis of bluntforce trauma. Springfield, IL: CC Thomas. p 5–31.

Gifford DP. 1981. Taphonomy and paleoecology: a critical reviewof archaeology’s sister disciplines. In: Schiffer MB, editor.Advances in archaeological method and theory, Vol 4. NewYork: Academic Press. p 365–438.

Giles E, Elliot O. 1963. Sex determination by discriminant func-tion analysis of crania. Am J Phys Anthropol 21:53–68.

Gozna ER, Harrington IJ, Evans DC. 1982. Biomechanics ofmusculoskeletal injury. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

Grayson DK. 1984. Quantitative zooarchaeology: topics in theanalysis of archaeological faunas. Orlando: Academic Press.

Gurdjian ES, Webster JE, Lissner HR. 1950. The mechanism ofskull fracture. Radiology 54:313–339.

Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. 1997a. Forensic taphonomy:the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton: CRCPress.

Haglund WD, Sorg MH. 1997b. Introduction to forensic taphon-omy. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Forensic taphonomy:the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton: CRCPress. p 1–9.

Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. 2002. Advances in forensictaphonomy: method, theory, and archaeological perspectives.Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Harkess JW, Ramsey WC, Harkess JW. 1996. Principles of frac-tures and dislocations. In: Rockwood CA Jr, Green DP, edi-tors. Fractures in adults. 4th edition. Philadelphia: JB Lippin-cott Company. p 3–210.

Harrington RJ, Swift B, Huffine EF. 2003. Introducing Daubertto the Balkans [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 9:246–247.

Hart GO. 2005. Fractural pattern interpretation in the skull:differentiating blunt force trauma from ballistics traumausing concentric fractures. J Forensic Sci 50:1276–1281.

Hefner JT. 2007. The statistical determination of ancestry usingcranial nonmetric traits. PhD dissertation. University of Flor-ida, Gainesville.

Hefner JT, Emanovsky PD, Byrd J, Ousley SD. 2007. The valueof experience, education, and methods in ancestry prediction[Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 13:360–361.

Hefner JT, Ousley SD. 2006. Morphoscopic traits and the statis-tical determination of ancestry II [Abstract]. Proc Am AcadForensic Sci 12:282–283.

Hochrein M, Dirkmaat DC, Adovasio JM. 2000. Beyond thegrave: applied archaeology for the forensic sciences [Abstract].Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 6:116.

Hochrein MJ. 1997. Buried crime scene evidence: the applica-tion of forensic geotaphonomy in forensic archaeology. In:Stimson PG, Mertz CA, editors. Forensic dentistry. BocaRaton, Florida: CRC Press. p 83–98.

Hochrein MJ. 2002. An autopsy of the grave: recognizing, col-lecting, and processing forensic geotaphonomic evidence. In:Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Advances in forensic taphon-omy: method, theory, and anthropological perspectives. BocaRaton, FL: CRC Press. p 45–70.

Hollinger RE, Botic C, Ousley SD. 2005. Inventory and assess-ment of human remains potentially affiliated with the north-western band of Shoshone in the National Museum of NaturalHistory, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.: Repatria-tion Office, National Museum of Natural History, SmithsonianInstitution.

Isaac GL, Leakey REF, Behrensmeyer AK. 1971. Archaeologicaltraces of early hominid activities, east of Lake Rudolf, Kenya.Science 173:1129–1134.

Is�can MY. 1988. Rise of forensic anthropology. Yearb PhysAnthropol 31:203–230.

Is�can MY, Cotton TS. 1990. Osteometric assessment of racial af-finity from multiple sites in the postcranial skeleton. In: GillGW, Rhine S, editors. Skeletal attribution of race: methods forforensic anthropology. Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of An-thropology, Anthropological Papers No. 4. p 83–90.

Jantz RL, Moore-Jansen PH. 1988. A database for forensic an-thropology: structure, content and analysis. In: Report ofinvestigations No. 47. Knoxville: Department of Anthropology,University of Tennessee.

Jantz RL, Ousley SD. 1993. FORDISC 1.0: computerized foren-sic discriminant functions. Knoxville: University of Tennessee.

Jantz RL, Ousley SD. 2000. The future of the Forensic DataBank: new data, new technologies. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci48th Annual Meeting.

Jantz RL, Ousley SD. 2005. FORDISC 3: computerized forensicdiscriminant functions, Version 3.0. Knoxville: University ofTennessee.

Johnson E. 1985. Current developments in bone technology. In:Schiffer MB, editor. Advances in archaeological method andtheory, Vol 8. London: Academic Press. p 157–235.

Joukowsky M. 1980. A complete manual of field archaeology:tools and techniques of field work for archaeologists. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Killam EW. 1990. The detection of human remains. Springfield,IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Klein RG, Cruz-Uribe K. 1984. The analysis of animal bonesfrom archaeological sites. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Kuhn T. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lee GD. 2007. Practical criminal evidence. Upper Saddle Creek,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lewin R. 1984. Cutmarked bones: look, no hands. Science226:428–429.

Lyman RL. 1994. Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge University Press.

Malzbender T, Gelb D, Wolters H. 2001. Polynomial texturemaps. Hewlett-Packard Laboratories. Available at http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/ptm/papers.

Maples WR. 1986. Trauma analysis by the forensic anthropolo-gist. In: Reich KJ, editor. Forensic osteology. Springfield: C.C.Thomas. p 218–228.



Maples WR, Browning M. 1994. Dead men do tell tales: thestrange and fascinating cases of a forensic anthropologist.New York: Doubleday.

Martin JR. 1999. Identifying osseous cut mark morphology forcommon serrated knives. Master’s Thesis. Department of An-thropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Mayne Correia P. 1997. Fire modification of bone: a review ofthe literature. In: Haglund W, Sorg M, editors. Forensictaphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains. BocaRaton, FL: CRC Press. p 275–293.

Mayne Correia PM, Beattie O. 2002. A critical look at methodsfor recovering, evaluating, and interpreting cremated humanremains. In: Haglund WH, Sorg M, editors. Advances in for-ensic taphonomy: method, theory, and archaeological perspec-tives. Baton Rouge: CRC Press, p 435–450.

McPherron SP, Dibble HL. 2002. Using computers in archaeol-ogy: a practical guide. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Miller MT. 2003. Crime scene investigation. In: James SH,Nordby JJ, editors. Forensic science: an introduction to scien-tific and investigative technique. Boca Raton: CRC Press.p 115–135.

Morse D, Duncan J, Stoutamire J. 1983. Handbook of forensicarchaeology and anthropology. Tallahassee, FL: Rose PrintingCo.

Olsen SL, Shipman P. 1988. Surface modification on bone: tram-pling versus butchery. J Archeol Sci 15:535–553.

Olson LA. 2003. Daubert update for questioned documentsexaminers [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 9:299.

Ortner DJ, Putschar WGJ. 1981. Identification of pathologicalconditions in human skeletal remains. Smithsonian Contribu-tions to Anthropology No. 28. Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution.

Ousley SD, Billeck WT. 2001. Assessing tribal identity in thePlains using nontraditional craniometrics (interlandmark dis-tances) [Abstract]. Am J Phys Anthropol Suppl 32:115–116.

Ousley SD, Billeck WT, Hollinger RE. 2005. Federal repatria-tion legislation and the role of physical anthropology in repa-triation. Yearb Phys Anthropol 48:2–32.

Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 1992. The Forensic Data Bank: someresults after 5 years and 1000 cases [Abstract]. Proc Am AcadForensic Sci 44th Annual Meeting. p 164.

Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 1993. Postcranial racial discriminantfunctions from the Forensic Data Bank [Abstract]. Proc AmAcad Forensic Sci 45th Annual Meeting. p 153.

Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 1996. FORDISC 2.0: personal computerforensic discriminant functions. Knoxville: University of Ten-nessee.

Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 2002. Social races and human popula-tions: why forensic anthropologists are good at identifyingraces [Abstract]. Am J Phys Anthropol Suppl 34:121.

Ousley SD, Martinez LM. 2006. Morphological, metric, and mor-phometric variation in the midface [Abstract]. Proc Am AcadForensic Sci 12:280–281.

Ousley SD, McKeown A. 2001. Three dimensional digitizing ofhuman skulls as an archival procedure. In: Williams E, editor.Human remains: conservation, retrieval, and analysis. BritishArchaeological Reports, International Series 934. Oxford:Basingstoke Press. p 173–184.

Ousley SD, Seebauer JL, Jones EB. 2003. Forensic anthropol-ogy, repatriation, and the ‘‘Mongoloid’’ problem [Abstract].Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 9:245–246.

Patterson B, Behrensmeyer AK, Sill WD. 1970. Geology andfauna of a new Pliocene locality in north-western Kenya. Na-ture 226:918–921.

Rebmann A, David E, Sorg MH. 2000. Cadaver dog handbook:forensic training and tactics for the recovery of humanremains. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Reineke GW, Hochrein MJ. 2008. Pieces of the puzzle: F.B.I.Evidence Response Team approaches to scenes with com-mingled evidence. In: Adams BJ, Byrd JE, editors. Recovery,analysis, and identification of commingled human remains.Totowa: Humana Press. p 31–56.

Ringrose TJ. 1993. Bone counts and statistics: a critique. JArchaeol Sci 20:121–157.

Rodriguez WC, Bass WM. 1985. Decomposition of buried bodiesand methods that may aid in their location. J Forensic Sci30:836–852.

Ross AH. 1996. Caliber estimation from cranial entrance defectmeasurements. J Forensic Sci 41:629–633.

Ross AH, McKeown AH, Konigsberg LW. 1999. Allocation of cra-nia to groups via the ‘‘new morphometry.’’ Technical report. JForensic Sci 44:584–587.

Ross AH, Slice DE, Ubelaker DH, Falsetti A. 2004. Populationaffinities of 19th century Cuban crania: implication for identi-fication criteria in Cuban Americans in South Florida. J For-ensic Sci 49:11–16.

Saferstein R. 2007. Criminalistics: an introduction to forensicscience, 9th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Saiki RK, Gelfand DH, Stoffel S, Scharf SJ, Higuchi R, HornGT, Mullis KB, Erlich HA. 1988. Primer-directed enzymaticamplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase.Science 239:487–491.

Saiki RK, Scharf S, Faloona F, Mullis KB, Horn GT, Erlich HA,Arnheim N. 1985. Enzymatic amplification of b-globingenomic sequences and restriction site analysis for diagnosisof sickle cell anemia. Science 230:1350–1354.

Saul FP, Saul JM. 1989. Osteobiography: a Maya example. In:Iscan MY, Kennedy KAR, editors. Reconstruction of life fromthe skeleton. New York: Alan R Liss, p 287–302.

Saul FP, Saul JM. 1999. The evolving role of the forensicanthropologist as seen in the identification of the victims ofthe Comair 7232 (Michigan) and KAL 801 (Guam) aircrashes[Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 5:222.

Saul FP, Saul JM. 2003. Plane, trains and fireworks: the evolv-ing role of the forensic anthropologist in mass incidents. In:Steadman DW, editor. Hard evidence: case studies in forensicanthropology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p 266–289.

Saville PA, Hainsworth SV, Rutty GN. 2007. Cutting crime: theanalysis of the ‘‘uniqueness’’of saw marks on bone. Int J LegalMed 121:349–357.

Schmidt CW, Symes SA, editors. 2008. The analysis of burnedhuman remains. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.

Schmitt S. 2002. Mass graves and the collection of forensic evi-dence: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. In:Haglund WH, Sorg M, editors. Advances in forensic taphon-omy: method, theory, and archaeological perspectives. BatonRouge: CRC Press. p 277–292.

Shipman P. 1981. Life history of a fossil. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press.

Shipman P, Rose JJ. 1984. Cutmark mimics on modern and fos-sil bovid bones. Curr Anthropol 25:116–117.

Skinner M, Lazenby RA. 1983. Found! Human remains. Bur-naby, BC: Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press.

Sledzik PS. 1996. Physical anthropology’s role in identification ofdisaster facilities. In: Proceedings of the Second National Sym-posium on Dentistry’s Role and Responsibility in Mass DisasterIdentification. Chicago: American Dental Association. p 62–64.

Sledzik PS. 1998. Anthropology and mass fatality response. Pa-per presented at the International Symposium on Family andVictim Assistance for Transportation Disasters sponsored bythe National Transportation Safety Board, September 28–29,Arlington, Virginia.

Sledzik PS, Hunt DR. 1997. Disaster and relief efforts at theHardin Cemetery. In: Poirier DA, Bellantoni NB, editors. Inremembrance: archaeology and death. Westport, CT: Berginand Garvey. p 185–198.

Sledzik PS, Miller W, Dirkmaat DC, de Jong JL, Kauffman PJ,Boyer DA, Hellman FN. 2003. Victim identification followingthe crash of United Airlines Flight 93 [Abstract]. Proc AmAcad Forensic Sci 9:195.

Sledzik PS, Rodriguez WC. 2002. Damnum fatale: the tapho-nomic fate of human remains in mass disasters. In: HaglundW, Sorg M, editors. Advances in forensic taphonomy: method,theory, and archaeological perspectives. Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress. p 321–330.

Slice DE, Ross AH. 2004. Population affinities of ‘‘Hispanic’’ cra-nia: implications for forensic identification [Abstract]. ProcAm Acad Forensic Sci 10:280–281.



Smith O, Berryman HE, Lahren C. 1987. Cranial fracture pat-terns and estimate of direction from low velocity gunshotwounds. J Forensic Sci 32:1416–1421.

Smith OC, Berryman HE, Symes SA. 1990. Changing role forthe forensic anthropologist. [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad ForensicSci 42nd Annual Meeting. p 132.

Snow CC. 1982. Forensic anthropology. Annu Rev Anthropol11:97–131.

Spitz WU, editor. 1993. Spitz and Fisher’s medicolegal investi-gation of death: guidelines for the application of pathology tocrime investigation, 3rd ed. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

Spradley MK. 2006. Biological anthropological aspects of theAfrican diaspora: geographic origins, secular trends, and plas-tic versus genetic influences utilizing craniometric data. PhDdissertation. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Spradley MK, Jantz RL. 2005. Biological variation among His-panic (Spanish-speaking) peoples of the Americas [Abstract].Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 11:293.

Spradley MK, Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 2008. Evaluating cranialmorphometric relationships using discriminant function anal-ysis [Abstract]. Am J Phys Anthropol Suppl 46:199.

Steadman DW, Adams BJ, Konigsberg LW. 2006. Statistical ba-sis for positive identification in forensic anthropology. Am JPhys Anthropol 131:27–32.

Steadman DW, Haglund WD. 2005. The scope of anthropologicalcontributions to human rights investigations. J Forensic Sci50:23–30.

Stewart TD. 1979. Essentials of forensic anthropology: especiallyas developed in the United States. Springfield: CC Thomas.

Swanson CR, Chamelin NC, Territo L, Taylor RW. 2006. Crimi-nal investigation, 9th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Symes S, Williams J, Murray E, Hoffman J, Holland T, Saul J,Saul F, Pope E. 2002. Taphonomic context of sharp-forcetrauma in suspected cases of human mutilation and dismem-berment. In: Haglund W, Sorg M, editors. Advances in foren-sic taphonomy: method, theory, and archaeological perspec-tives. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p 403–434.

Symes SA. 1992. Morphology of saw marks in human bone:identification of class characteristics. PhD dissertation.Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knox-ville.

Symes SA, Berryman HE, Smith OC. 1998. Saw marks in bone:introduction and examination of residual kerf contour. In:Reichs KJ, editor. Forensic osteology. II. Advances in theidentification of human remains. Springfield, IL: CC Thomas.p 389–409.

Symes SA, Rainwater CW, Chapman EN, Gipson DR, Piper AL.2008. Patterned thermal destruction of human remains in aforensic setting. In: Schmidt CW, Symes SA, editors. Theanalysis of burned human remains. Amsterdam: Elsevier.p 15–54.

Symes SA, Rainwater CW, Myster SMT. 2007. Standardizingsaw and knife mark analysis on bone [Abstract]. Proc AmAcad Forensic Sci 13:336.

Symes SA, Smith OC. 1998. It takes two: combining disciplinesof pathology and physical anthropology to get the rest of thestory [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 4:208.

Symes SA, Smith OC, Berryman HE, Peters CE, Rockhold LA,Haun SJ, Francisco JT, Sutton TP. 1996. Bones: bullets,burns, bludgeons, blunders, and why. Workshop conducted forthe American Academy of Forensic Sciences [Abstract]. ProcAm Acad Forensic Sci 2:10–11.

Symes SA, Smith OC, Gardner CD, Francisco JT, Horton GA.1999. Anthropological and pathological analysis of sharptrauma in autopsy [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci5:177–178.

Tuller H, Hofmeister U, Daley S. 2008. Spatial analysis of massgrave mapping data to assist in the reassociation of disarticu-lated and commingled human remains. In: Adams BJ, ByrdJE, editors. Recovery, analysis, and identification of com-mingled human remains. Totowa: Humana Press. p 7–30.

Ubelaker DH, Owsley DW, Houck MM, Craig E, Grant W, Wol-tanski T, Fram R, Sandness K, Peerwani N. 1995. The role offorensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis of BranchDavidian compound victims: recovery procedures and charac-teristics of the victims. J Forensic Sci 32:335–340.

Villa P, Bouville C, Courtin J, Helmer D, Mahieu E, Shipman P,Belluomini G, Branca M. 1986. Cannibalism in the Neolithic.Science 233:431–437.

Voorhies M. 1969. Taphonomy and population dynamics of anearly Pliocene vertebrate fauna, Knox County, Nebraska. Con-tributions to Geology Special Paper 69.

White TD. 1986. Cutmarks on the Bodo cranium: a case of pre-historic defleshing. Am J Phys Anthropol 69:503–509.

Williams ED, Crews JD. 2003. From dust to dust: ethical andpractical issues involved in the location, exhumation, andidentification of bodies from mass graves. Croat Med J44:251–258.

Wolff RG. 1973. Hydrodynamic sorting and ecology of a Pleis-toncene mammalian assemblage from California (U.S.A.).Paleogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 13:91–101.



new perspectives in forensic anthropology

Documents

forensic trauma

forensic anthropologydennis

ment of forensic anthropology

new frameworkrepresents

key developments

new conceptual framework

key externalfactors

key trends