Dirkmaat Et Al., 2008

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 and
practical evolution of forensic anthropology during the
last two decades serves to identify two key external
factors and four tightly inter-related internal methodo-
logical advances that have signicantly affected the
discipline. These key developments have not only
altered the current practice of forensic anthropology,
but also its goals, objectives, scope, and denition. The
development of DNA analysis techniques served to
undermine the classic role of forensic anthropology as a
eld almost exclusively focused on victim identication.
The introduction of the Daubert criteria in the court-
room presentation of scientic testimony accompanied
the development of new human comparative samples
and tools for data analysis and sharing, resulting in a
vastly enhanced role for quantitative methods in
human skeletal analysis. Additionally, new questions
asked of forensic anthropologists, beyond identity,
required sound scientic bases and expanded the scope
of the eld. This environment favored the incipient de-
velopment of the interrelated elds of forensic taphon-
omy, forensic archaeology, and forensic trauma analy-
sis, elds concerned with the reconstruction of events
surrounding death. Far from representing the mere
addition of new methodological techniques, these disci-
plines (especially, forensic taphonomy) provide forensic
anthropology with a new conceptual framework, which
is broader, deeper, and more solidly entrenched in the
natural sciences. It is argued that this new framework
represents a true paradigm shift, as it modies not
only the way in which classic forensic anthropological
questions are answered, but also the goals and tasks of
forensic anthropologists, and their perception of what
can be considered a legitimate question or problem to
be answered within the eld. Yrbk Phys Anthropol
51:3352, 2008. V VC 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
It has been two decades since the publication in these
pages of an inuential article by Mehmet Yas ar Is can
(Is can, 1988) discussing the then current and future
state of forensic anthropology. In that article, Is can
reviewed the key trends and landmarks in the develop-
ment of forensic anthropology during the 1970s and
1980s, highlighting the main problems potentially
threatening the future development of the eld. Much
of the article is devoted to a rather comprehensive
review of developments in the construction of the basic
biological prole from skeletal tissues (age, sex, stat-
ure). Very little discussion was devoted to the relevance
of crime scene evidence, and there was no discussion
relative to estimates of postmortem interval and recon-
structions of events surrounding the death. Clearly,
issues beyond the laboratory-derived observations of
the bones themselves were not considered to fall under
the purview of what a forensic anthropologist did at
that point in time. Is can did stress the need for
research aimed specically at forensic anthropology
applications, which at the time were hampered by inap-
propriate sample materials and strategies, poor analyti-
cal standards, and the lack of specic training of foren-
sic anthropology practitioners. He indicated that the
common source of many of the problems within forensic
anthropology could be traced to a lack of denition of
the still nascent eld. As of 1988, the role of the foren-
sic anthropologist had yet to be fully understood and
routinely 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 has
changed in the intervening years. This article focuses
on the course taken by forensic anthropology since
Is cans (1988) assessment of the state of the eld, its
strengths, deciencies, needs, and problems ahead.
In a sense, the key question to be posed today is
whether forensic anthropology, as a scientic and profes-
sional discipline, is healthier and more robust nowadays
than it was 20 years ago. At rst glance, it may seem so,
at least according to the number of practitioners and the
explosion in the quantity of publications in the eld. The
91 members of the Anthropology section of the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) in 1987 increased
to 323 in 2007, many of whom were students. Another
indicator of the relative health of the eld is that dupli-
cating Is cans (1988) comprehensive review of the foren-
sic anthropological literature produced during the 20
years previous to his article would be quite the monu-
mental task today due to the tremendous increase in the
number of publications and the diversication of topics
discussed by the eld in the last two decades. In an opti-
mistic interpretation, these developments would seem to
document a healthy, vigorous eld. However, such a rosy
portrayal of the eld may not be the only plausible inter-
pretation of the raw gures provided above.
For example, the high proportion of student afliates
in the AAFS Anthropology section, almost three times
higher than in any other section (30.65% in Anthropol-
ogy, versus 11.31 in the General section in 2007), may
reect instead a difculty for anthropology graduates to
*Correspondence to: Dennis C. Dirkmaat, Department of Applied
Forensic Sciences, Mercyhurst College, Erie, PA 16546, USA.
E-mail: ddirkmaat@mercyhurst.edu
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20948
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com).
V VC
2008 WILEY-LISS, INC.
YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 51:3352 (2008)
progress eventually into the professional practice of the
eld.
Perhaps a better way to evaluate the current state of
the eld of forensic anthropology is to ponder a few other
questions: What role does forensic anthropology play
within the forensic sciences in general and law enforce-
ment in particular (i.e., have forensic anthropologists
acquired any new, unique skills signicantly improving
forensic 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 fully
qualify an individualif you can stomach the smellas
a forensic practitioner, or has forensic anthropology
acquired a level of specialization and sophistication
requiring special training?). Is forensic anthropology a
fully legitimate scientic discipline, requiring its own ba-
sic research, or is it better described as an applied eld,
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 individual
contributions to the literature in the last two decades
(on the other hand, as mentioned above, due to the
growth of the eld this task probably would be impossi-
ble today without incurring unfair and unfortunate
omissions). To the contrary, far from a simple process of
accumulating new knowledge and information, the
changes experienced by forensic anthropology in the last
20 years represent a shift in the whole contextual frame-
work of the discipline. This shift involves not only the
way in which we answer some questions or problems,
but also which of these can be considered legitimate
questions within the scope of forensic anthropology.
We have identied six key developments that have sig-
nicantly altered the trajectory of forensic anthropology.
Two of these key developments, representing essential
changes to the forensic framework itself, arose external
to forensic anthropology: the astounding improvements
in DNA analysis, and the establishment of Daubert crite-
ria with regard to admissibility of scientic evidence in
the courtroom.
In addition to these two external developments, four
signicant developments occurred within forensic an-
thropology in the last 20 years: 1) the pervasive use of
improved quantitative methods drawn from modern com-
parative samples; 2) the re-emphasis on forensic context
through the implementation of forensic archaeological
recovery methods; and the construction of scientically
based event reconstructions drawn from 3) forensic
taphonomy, and 4) forensic skeletal trauma analysis.
Daubert requires forensic anthropologists to substanti-
ate their assertions with scientically tested methods
and, in particular, with probability assessments. This
has further promoted an improvement and stronger
focus on quantitative methods for hypothesis testing and
probability estimation. Key to this improvement is the
identication and compilation of more appropriate mod-
ern comparative samples.
Apart from this stronger emphasis in quantitative
methods and models, perhaps the most signicant devel-
opment altering the eld of forensic anthropology is the
introduction of forensic taphonomy methods and princi-
ples for data collection and analysis. Much as taphonomy
altered human paleoanthropology, forensic taphonomy
has provided a more solid scientic underpinning to the
discipline, from both a methodological and theoretical
point of view, serving as the link to integrate and harmo-
nize other subdisciplines within forensic anthropology. In
particular, the scope and methodological principles devel-
oped within forensic taphonomy allowed for the full con-
solidation of forensic skeletal trauma analysis, and
required the inclusion of forensic archaeology, as key
new members of the conceptual framework of forensic
anthropology.
It will be argued that these changes in the conceptual
framework, paired with the emergent properties arising
from the solidication of these new perspectives in the
eld, have resulted in a genuine paradigm shift, in the
Kuhnian (Kuhn, 1970) sense of the term. That is to say,
these developments have changed not only forensic an-
thropology practice and methodologies, but also the
standards by which the profession determine(s) what
should count as an admissible problem, or as a legiti-
mate problemsolution (Kuhn, 1970, p. 6). One of the
main consequences of this paradigm shift is the diversi-
cation of the goals and scope of the eld, which in turn
has affected its own essence and denition, providing
forensic anthropology with a much stronger and ambi-
tious conceptual framework, scientic and methodologi-
cal armamentarium, and brighter future.
SIGNIFICANT EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON
FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY 1: DNA AND PCR
Perhaps the developments most decisively affecting
forensic anthropology since 1988 did not arise within the
eld itself, but from molecular biology and the legal sys-
tem: the development of polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) DNA analytical methods, and the establishment
of Daubert criteria for admissibility of scientic evidence
in the courtroom. In the next two sections, we examine
these issues and their impact on forensic anthropology.
PCR is a method of DNA amplication based on the
substitution of the enzymatic complex responsible for the
initiation phase of in vivo DNA replication, by in vitro
thermal separation (denaturation) of the complementary
DNA strands. The process, devised by Kary Mullin, is
made possible by the utilization in the DNA elongation
process of a thermostable DNA polymerase (Taq DNA
Polymerase), originally obtained from the thermophilic
bacterium Thermus aquaticus. The rst application of
the method was published in 1985 (Saiki et al., 1985),
and the rst comprehensive description of the protocol
appeared almost as Is can was completing his review
(Saiki et al., 1988). It is difcult to over-emphasize the
importance 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 was
dened 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 in
the denition and goals of the disciplineif it is to
remain a viable eld.
The classic denition of the eld, as proposed by Stew-
art (1979) and as understood by Is can (1988), indicated
that the primary, if almost exclusive goal of forensic an-
thropology was aiding in the identication of human
remains in forensic contexts. This goal was attained
through the estimation of biological proles (chronologi-
cal age, sex, ancestry, stature, and antemortem bone
modication), which served to reduce the list of potential
victim identities. The amplication of DNA through PCR
34 D.C. DIRKMAAT ET AL.
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology
relates to this goal, as it allows for the sequencing of
DNA even from trace samples. What is more important
is that it allows researchers to perform a virtually in-
nite number of DNA comparisons, rendering match prob-
abilities several orders of magnitude higher than that
can be attained through biological proles.
It may appear initially that DNA analysis does not
necessarily imply a fundamental change from past condi-
tions regarding the goals, functions, and perspective of
forensic anthropology. After all, providing positive identi-
cation (positive ID) from the bones has not commonly
been one of the primary court-accepted tasks of forensic
anthropologists, which instead has fallen to other foren-
sic specialists such as forensic pathologists and forensic
odontologists. In addition, DNA analysis is still a rela-
tively expensive and slow procedure, and the number of
DNA samples routinely submitted for analysis over-
whelms forensic laboratories. From this perspective, the
classic goal of biological prole estimation from bones
within forensic anthropology still remains a unique and
signicant role in simplifying the task of narrowing
down 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 1990s
to serve as rapidly deployable multidisciplinary human
identication teams, involving the whole spectrum of for-
ensic ID professionals (Sledzik, 1996, 1998; Saul and
Saul, 1999) in cases of mass fatalities overwhelming
local resources. Since its implementation, DMORT teams
have proven effective in a wide variety of mass disaster
scenarios, from plane crashes to mass suicides and large-
scale oods (see for example, Ubelaker et al., 1995; Sled-
zik and Hunt, 1997). Given that most of the biological
remains 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 most
of these scenarios (Sledzik and Rodriguez, 2002). How-
ever, the recent emplacement of DNA collection teams,
and especially the steep increase in the biological items
subject to DNA analysis (rapidly nearing 100% in many
scenarios), suggest that the role of all forensic specialists
in these mass disaster teams may change dramatically
within the next few years.
As a matter of fact, when the current trends in DNA
analysis are closely examined, it soon becomes clear that
the 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 amplication to DNA
sequencing, and thence to sample comparison and match-
ing, resulting in a rapid decrease in DNA processing
times and costs. PCR has become an almost routine pro-
cedure, available in most biomedical research and prac-
tice centers. Visual comparison from electrophoresis in
agarose and polyacrylamide gels has been replaced by
automated capillary electrophoresis in the modern DNA
sequencers, allowing the processing and sequencing of a
large number of samples simultaneously. More impor-
tantly, robust DNA databases for sample comparison have
been created and made available to the forensic commu-
nity, with the reference samples growing at an astounding
rate. As of October 2007, the Combined DNA Index Sys-
tem (CODIS) contained 194,785 forensic proles (from
crime scenes) and 5,070,473 convicted offender proles
(http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/national.htm).
At present, the only issues preventing routine and
widespread victim identication solely based on DNA
comparisons are the costs and time required for ampli-
cation, sequencing and comparison, as well as the need
to provide potential matches, currently based on samples
collected ad hoc from the family members of the poten-
tial victims. Overcoming these limitations only requires
an improvement in sequencing techniques to an extent
much smaller than what has transpired during the last
two decades, and the inclusion of the DNA sequences of
family members of all missing persons in CODIS or
equivalent databases. The question is not whether this
will happen, but when. When this point is reached, if
positive ID remains as the main and almost exclusive
goal of forensic anthropology, forensic anthropologists
(and odontologists) may become mostly superuous in
most cases, other than those involving commingled
remains, where element matching will still result in a
signicant decrease of sampling, amplication, and
sequencing efforts (see Adams and Byrd, 2008).
Therefore, if forensic anthropology is to remain a use-
ful, vibrant scientic discipline, it is necessary to shift
the scope of the eld from mere identication to a larger
range of problems. As will be discussed below, this shift
of scope has already begun to take place during the last
two decades, not necessarily as a direct result of the
improvement 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 ON
FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY 2:
THE IMPACT OF DAUBERT
Is can (1988) stressed the dual nature of the forensic
anthropologist as a scientist and as a professional. With
regard to the scientic end of the discipline, he discussed
extensively 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 appropriate
samples has been somewhat remediated in the last deca-
des with the collection and curation of modern samples
and data. On the other hand, Is can could hardly have
imagined the Copernican shift that the legal system
would experience in the ensuing years regarding the
treatment of scientic 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 approaches
to 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 scientically valid methods are
to be used to justify scientic opinions. Testing and repli-
cation of the methods and conclusions are an essential
part of reliability. Reliability, the ability to produce con-
sistent results, can also be judged by the use of tested
scientic methods, described in peer-reviewed publica-
tions, and enjoying general scientic acceptance. Valid-
ity, or the measure of how well test results produce cor-
rect answers, is to be measured when possible by
directly estimated error rates. Innovative methods can
be employed if they can be independently tested (Fein-
berg et al., 1995). Forensic scientists, including forensic
anthropologists, have responded to the Daubert decision
by publishing validation studies of previously accepted
35 NEW 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 by
many states. The Daubert decision was primarily a
response to situations generated by professional expert
witnesses, whose specialty was testifying in class action
lawsuits, most often involving toxic torts (e.g., detri-
mental effects of drugs or treatments that were alleged
to cause birth defects or fatalities). In many of these
cases, experts though possessing academic credentials,
would deliver opinions based on circumstantial correla-
tions and unpublished results. Most importantly, the sci-
entic and statistical signicance of possible causal links
between drug use and symptoms were left to these
experts. Furthermore, the recognition of a person as an
expert depended on academic credentials and experience
rather than the reliability and validity of the methods
applied to the facts of the case.
In 2001, after other cases afrmed the changes result-
ing from Daubert (such as Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmi-
chael, (119 S.Ct. 1167 [1999]), FRE Rule 702 was
appended to emphasize the connection between the data
and methods used and served to focus on the admissibil-
ity of the conclusions, rather on the credentials of the
experts. Replicable methods are essential and specify
direct results, rather than analogies. In that vein, data
analyses using quantitative methods are preferred over
those employing qualitative methods (Feinberg et al.,
1995). The testability and reliability of methods are nec-
essary to establish that the conclusions are objectively
arrived at rather than subjectively determined. In
essence, Rule 702 merely reminds us that scientic con-
clusions must be based on accepted scientic principles.
It can be said that the Daubert case moved the spot-
light from the experts experience back to the experts
methods. Because of the focus on methods, Daubert rein-
forced the view that forensic anthropologists should be
scientists rst and professionals second. One concrete
example of the impact of these judicial rulings is the
greater use of quantitative methods in all aspects of the
discipline of FA today, representing one of the four key
internal developments that have altered signicantly the
eld during the last two decades.
KEY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FORENSIC
ANTHROPOLOGY 1: IMPROVEMENTS IN
QUANTITATIVE METHODS
To the extent to which they represent scientic crite-
ria, the Daubert standards seem to have increased the
urgency of improving analytical methods in forensic an-
thropology, previously called for by Is can (1988) and
others. One of the main arguments posed by Is can at
that time was that there was an urgent need to improve
probability assessments of biological prole techniques.
Critical to these improvements was the need to assemble
new comparative samples that were more representative
of modern populations. Both issues can be considered
different aspects of the same problem. The available
samples were outdated, and hardly represented the mod-
ern populations from which forensic inferences were
drawn. 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 absence
in those samples of new signicant ancestry groups
whose numbers increased in the last decades, as well as
to the often biased methods used to assign the individu-
als to the ancestry groups when the samples were
collected.
Creating new modern comparative samples: The
Bass Collection and Forensic Data Bank
These biases also represented a serious limitation for
quantitative studies, affecting not only forensic inference
but also forensic anthropology research. The collection
and curation of new forensic databases during the last
two 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 the
last 20 years has been the establishment of the Forensic
Anthropology Center at the University of Tennessee
(UT), Knoxville, which includes the Anthropology
Research Facility (ARF), the William M. Bass Skeletal
Collection (BSC), and the Forensic Data Bank (FDB).
ARF was originally established to study human decom-
position, but ARF has been so successful at requesting
voluntary body donations that it has become the primary
contributor to the BSC, the most up-to-date collection of
late twentieth century human skeletons in the United
States. 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 a
decade.
The BSC is a substantial component of the FDB,
which was started in 1986 with a grant from the
National Institute of Justice (Jantz and Moore-Jansen,
1988). The FDB contains extensive demographic infor-
mation from the BSC and from forensic cases conducted
by UT Department of Anthropology personnel and other
anthropologists 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 criteria
scores, nonmetric cranial information, perimortem
trauma, congenital traits, and dental observations. At
this writing, the ARF has 225 bodies in its care and
has a waiting list of 1,400 individuals who have
arranged to have their remains donated after death (Lee
Meadows-Jantz, personal communication). The FDB cur-
rently has information from over 2,600 individuals,
1,100 of which are from forensic cases with denite sex
and ancestry attribution. Approximately 750 of these
1,100 have been positively identied.
The BSC and the FDB offer the novelty of being repre-
sentative of the populations confronted by forensic
anthropologists at two levels. First, they are drawn from
contemporary populations, reducing the bias derived
from secular changes. Second, the FDB is largely com-
posed of and updated from actual forensic cases, in this
way representing not only the contemporary American
population, but also in a sense, the exact subset of that
population actually studied by forensic anthropologists
in their day-to-day work.
(Daubert and) quantitative methods in forensic
anthropology: Fordisc
Data from the FDB were initially used to test forensic
methods 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). These
skeletal collections (composed largely of unclaimed
bodies from the early twentieth century), have been
shown to be inadequate as a basis for analyzing modern
forensic cases due to secular changes and other factors.
In fact, discriminant function analysis using postcranial
elements (Is can and Cotton, 1990), which were based on
the Hamann-Todd collection, have been shown to be
inaccurate when applied to modern groups, especially
White males, due to secular increases in their lower
limbs (Ousley and Jantz, 1993). As a result, new statisti-
cal methods have been developed based on more-recent
data from the FDB, which also includes more middle-
class individuals (Jantz and Moore-Jansen, 1988; Ousley
and Jantz, 1992, 1993; Jantz and Ousley, 2000). Fordisc
is a computer program that analyzes measurements
from unknown skeletal remains and classies them into
known sex and ancestry samples from the FDB using
multivariate statistical techniques (Jantz and Ousley,
1993, 2005; Ousley and Jantz, 1996). Fordisc is currently
used 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 150
years.
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 ner grained
analyses that may well be of increasing importance in
human identication, independently of the time period
considered. An example of the utility of these ne-
grained analyses is related to determining afliation of
prehistoric Native American remains under the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA). Along with archaeological context, quantita-
tive methods have been extensively used to link individ-
ual remains to a specic tribe having been at times the
primary source for assessing tribal identity (Ousley and
Billeck, 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 as
American Whites (Ousley and Jantz, 2002), African
groups (Spradley, 2006; Spradley et al., 2008), Hispanic
groups (Ross et al., 2004; Slice and Ross, 2004; Spradley
and 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 landmark
data 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 and
Ross, 2004; Ousley and Martinez, 2006). Applications in
human identication 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 from
them predated the Daubert decision. However, Daubert
reinforced the need for modern samples as a basis for
testing traditional analytical methods as well as develop-
ing new methods, and the evolution from experience-
based analyses to replicable methods, often involving
statistical analysis. Statistics is the science of prediction
and certainty, and Daubert demands estimates of scien-
tic certainty in conclusions.
ANTHROPOLOGY 2: FORENSIC TAPHONOMY
According to Thomas Kuhn, the key developments in a
scientic discipline that represent true turning points
are those producing a shift in the problems available for
scientic scrutiny (Kuhn, 1970, p. 6). In this sense, if
we are to search for key developments that have taken
place within forensic anthropology during the past two
decades, few issues would t Kuhns description as per-
fectly as the evolution of forensic taphonomy.
Forensic taphonomy has dramatically changed the
entire playing eld of forensic anthropology. The neces-
sity of acquiring contextual data for proper taphonomic
interpretation has been a leading force to transform for-
ensic anthropology from an essentially laboratory-based
subject, into a scientic discipline with a strong eld
component. In a sense, taphonomic analysis has allowed
forensic anthropologists to mature into full-blown foren-
sic professionals, with a denite and irreplaceable role
not 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, who
may be useful advisors when forensic pathologists or law
enforcement step into an unusual case or situation, but
the most appropriate, and most logical rst choice pro-
fessionals in cases involving all manner of outdoor crime
scenes and commingled or severely altered human
remains. It remains one of the main challenges for the
eld to convey this fact to the law enforcement commu-
nity and, alas, to many forensic anthropologists. It is our
belief that promoting a better understanding of the im-
portance, objectives, and rationale of forensic taphonomy
is a key element to attain this goal.
In particular, the dramatic and rapid impact of tapho-
nomic method and theory on forensic anthropological
theory and practice can be explained by the striking sim-
ilarities in the main goals of both disciplines, which
make taphonomy an extremely powerful and useful tool
for forensic inference. Comparing and understanding
these shared goals requires at least a brief historical
review of the development of vertebrate taphonomy,
especially during the last three decades.
A brief history of taphonomy
and forensic taphonomy
Taphonomy was born as a branch of paleontology. It
was originally dened as the study of the transition (in
all its details) of animal remains from the biosphere
to the lithosphere or geological record (Efremov, 1940,
p. 86). Taphonomy was therefore initially oriented
toward the study of transport, fossilization, and diagenetic
processes affecting biological organisms, particularly with
respect to those aspects most inuential in introducing
bias in the fossil record. The differential preservation
potential of some structures and organisms, as well as
their transport and deposition in locations away from their
habitation areas, severely affect community studies, esti-
mates of species abundances, and paleoenvironmental
reconstruction. 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 of
terrestrial and vertebrate assemblages, it was not until
the decades from the late 1960s to the 1980s that the
discipline reached full development in vertebrate paleon-
tology. This was probably due to the initial focus on dia-
genesis and the mineralization process, more relevant
for 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 classic
subjects, such as transport (e.g., Voorhies, 1969; Wolff,
1973), bone weathering and preservation processes (Boaz
and Behrensmeyer, 1976; Behrensmeyer, 1978), and, in
general, site formation issues (Voorhies, 1969; Brain,
1970; Patterson et al., 1970; Isaac et al., 1971). Signi-
cantly, the new momentum of vertebrate taphonomy
research was largely linked to its successful application
to hominid sites (e.g., Brain, 1970; Isaac et al., 1971;
Boaz and Behrensmeyer, 1976; and the collection of
articles in Behrensmeyer and Hill, 1980). The new trend
was therefore almost immediately adopted and champ-
ioned by physical anthropology, as exemplied by the
boom in volumes published on the subject in the early
1980s (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 key
developments, particularly relevant for physical and for-
ensic anthropology, during the following decade. First,
taphonomy went from a strictly paleontological discipline
to become an essential and universally accepted compo-
nent of archaeological practice. Unmistakably tapho-
nomic manuals such as Grayson (1984) and Klein and
Cruz-Uribe (1984) referred to archaeology even in their
titles. 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 in
essence it meant that assemblage analysis and site anal-
ysis could no longer be approached as independent activ-
ities, to be performed by different professionals operating
independently in different observational venues (i.e.,
eld and laboratory). Osteological analysis required eld
data, specically collected with that analysis in mind. At
a deeper level, apart from gradually (and sometimes
painstakingly) 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 archaeology
in 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 of
taphonomic 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 from
site formation and postmortem alteration processes.
When applied to anthropological sites, however, some
taphonomic variables acquire prime importance as the
ngerprint of past hominid behavior and subsistence
patterns. In other words, whenever humans become
taphonomic agents, the study of the resulting tapho-
nomic effects and processes becomes a primary goal, not
in order to control for biases derived from taphonomic
alteration, but as a vehicle to infer human behavior.
Ringrose (1993) refers to this second scope as the
zooarchaeological approach in taphonomy.
The zooarchaeological approach resulted in an
increased number of studies analyzing cutmarks and
bone fractures (e.g., Bromage and Boyde, 1984; Lewin,
1984; Villa et al., 1986; White, 1986). Other studies com-
bined both approaches, and focused on differentiating
human from nonhuman bone alterations (e.g., Shipman
and Rose, 1984; Behrensmeyer et al., 1986; Blumen-
schine and Selvaggio, 1988; Olsen and Shipman, 1988;
Bonnichsen and Sorg, 1989).
Stripping the postmortem inuences from the evidence
is equivalent to assessing forensic signicance in the
trauma methods described below. Assessment of human
versus nonhuman causation in archaeological assemb-
lages is identical to the forensic objectives, methods, and
materials required to assign forensic signicance. 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 degraded
bone, as well as on postmortem alteration by different
physical and biological agents, not available from the
medical framework.
Forensic taphonomy and its impact on
forensic anthropology
The virtually identical goals of forensic anthropology
and 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 standardize
the confusing and sometimes misleading terminology of
the eld, including the denitions of the main tapho-
nomic processes and quantitative indices. Particularly
important and permeating throughout the entire book is
the assumption that taphonomy is an essential compo-
nent in the analysis not only of paleontological, but also
of archaeological sites. Still, with respect to forensic an-
thropologya eld that has traditionally been particu-
larly resistant to fundamental changes, remaining faith-
ful to positive ID as its main and almost exclusive goal
for decadesthe rst 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 especially
signicant in view of its drastic consequences not only
for the praxis of forensic anthropology, but also for its
principles, goals, and objectives. Essentially, forensic
taphonomyand its right-hand companion forensic
archaeologyexpanded the goals of forensic anthropol-
ogy far beyond its original denition and the positive ID
paradigm.
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 of
circumstances surrounding death. As evidenced by the
bulk of the paper, the focus of the eld was squarely in
the arena of providing evidence (primarily, a biological
prole) that may help to identify the victim. Forensic an-
thropology was clearly considered by her practitioners as
a laboratory-based discipline.
This view, and the analytical questions derived from
it, contrast with the range of questions and analytical
approaches populating Haglund and Sorgs seminal
edited volumes (1997a 2002) in the eld of forensic
taphonomy. Rather than simply focusing on the biologi-
cal prole, the different contributions in these volumes
highlight 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 denition of the eld stands as a guidepost
that anticipates signicant change in perspective in the
eld of forensic anthropology. For them, forensic taphon-
omy is dened as the use of taphonomic models,
approaches, and analysis in forensic contexts to estimate
the time since death, reconstruct the circumstances
before and after deposition, and discriminate the prod-
ucts of human behavior from those created by the earths
biological, 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 forensic
anthropology market for egotistical or employment pur-
poses. It emanates from current forensic practice and is
the natural consequence of the evolution of the eld, as
it embraced novel and more powerful methods to serve
its original goals. Taphonomic methods offered signi-
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 signicance. The applica-
tion of taphonomic methods and consequent research in
forensic anthropology inevitably resulted in new
emergent properties that provide completely new data
sets, reconstructions, and tasks. This led to an expansion
of the range of questions that could be answered by for-
ensic anthropology beyond its traditional and largely
self-imposed boundaries of skeletal identication (Snow,
1982, p. 97).
As will be discussed below, although forensic taphon-
omy is more closely related to the zooarchaeological
approach to the analysis of skeletal assemblages, it also
benets from the classic paleontological approach and
techniques. Both zooarchaeological and paleontological
studies require essentially the same contextual data and
recordation techniques (Lyman, 1994). Therefore, while
retrieving eld data necessary for trauma analysis and
assessing forensic signicance, the forensic anthropolo-
gist will collect information useful for reconstructing
depositional history and site formation (see Hochrein,
1997, 2002). In other words, the application of tapho-
nomic techniques to forensic scene processing implies
the collection of information relevant to reconstructing
the 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 rened
classic tasks, while adding new tasks, resulting in a
newly dened, 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) scientically grounded estimates of
postmortem interval (time-since-death), based on decom-
positional factors (primarily soft tissue, but in later
stages may include bone modication factors), entomo-
logical evidence, chemical methods, and associated physi-
cal evidence modication; 2) reconstructions of the origi-
nal position and orientation of the body; and 3) charac-
terizations of the role played by human intervention (as
a taphonomic agent) on the remains, through the process
of 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 new
data come directly from the crime scene, and are not
limited to the human remains. As a matter of fact, the
scope and methodological background underlying the
analyses oriented toward these outcomes cannot be prop-
erly explained without providing an overview of the data
collection strategies that make them possible. This
serves to illustrate the key importance of forensic
archaeology, and its intimate relationship with tapho-
nomic analysis.
ANTHROPOLOGY 3: FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGY
(FORENSIC TAPHONOMY IN PRACTICE)
Forensic archaeology is not exactly a newcomer to the
forensic anthropology world. Is can included a rather
short section on Crime Scene Archaeology, which he
described as techniques to search the area and collect
the remains (Is can, 1988, p. 219). His descriptions of
the eld and the uses for archaeological recovery, how-
ever, were quite limited, suggesting only that the
employment of archaeological methodology could be used
for analyzing and reconstructing the environment
where human remains are found (Is can, 1988, p. 219).
Pioneering articles by Brooks (1975), Bass and Birkby
(1978), Skinner and Lazenby (1983), and especially
Morse et al. (1983), indicated that forensic archaeology
was far more than just collecting remains. Snow (1982,
p. 118) even wrote that spatial distribution of bones,
teeth, and other items recovered in surface nds can
help in determining the original location and position of
the body. However, forensic archaeology to these
authors was still considered to be a eld or subeld sep-
arate from forensic anthropology proper, which was con-
ducted by physical anthropologists. Forensic archaeology
involved the application of simple archaeological recov-
ery techniques in death scene investigations involving a
buried body or skeletal remain (Morse et al., 1983,
p. 1). These efforts would maximize recovery of evidence
and minimize subsequent damage to the bodies and
skeletons.
Despite the recognition of the utility of forensic
archaeology, up until the mid 1980s recovery of context
at forensic scenes through archaeological practices was
neither common nor particularly rigorous. Law enforce-
ment ofcials were charged with processing all outdoor
crime scenes, often merely collecting the remains and
shipping them to the appropriate experts. This lack of
both rigor and success is probably related to a lack of
denite 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 the
conceptual and analytical framework for forensic archae-
ology. As discussed above, among the most important
outputs of forensic taphonomic analysis is determining
whether humans played a role in emplacing the body in
that location and/or subsequently modifying the remains
at the scene. This information can sometimes be partly
drawn from the laboratory analysis of the human
remains, especially with respect to surface modication
of the bones related to animal gnathic activity, staining,
and sun bleaching. However, comprehensive, accurate
determinations rely heavily on the analysis and identi-
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? Is
there any evidence of animal activity, or can gravity and/
or water ow alone explain the disarticulation and scat-
tering of the remains? Is the distribution of the burned
bone fragments in a re pit consistent with an unat-
tended re, or were the human remains repositioned
during combustion to promote faster cremation? Is the
head (with no evidence of carnivore activity) found
upslope instead of down-slope? Does the stratigraphic
position of a particular piece of potential evidence place
it 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, soil
composition, or burial depth, factors that cannot be
inferred from the laboratory analysis of the human
remains. All this information is also pertinent and neces-
sary for trauma analysis, and requires the recordation of
data not only from the human remains, but also from
the scene itself. Proper handling and on-site documenta-
tion of the remains also simplies data analysis, by
reducing and documenting recovery-related additional
postmortem trauma.
The evolution of forensic archaeology
Apart from the conceptual and methodological frame-
work provided by forensic taphonomy, since the late
1980s another four key developments have led to the
current conguration of forensic archaeology: 1) meth-
odological improvements in contemporary eld archaeol-
ogy, 2) implementation of new technology into archaeol-
ogy, 3) development of analytical techniques that can
take advantage of spatial data generated by forensic
archaeological recovery, and 4) development of archaeo-
logical recovery methods specic to forensic contexts.
Archaeological method and theory. During the last
two decades, improvements to archaeological excavation
methodologies have been developed and implemented at
a number of American sites, led by J.M. Adovasio and
the 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 because
it ew in the face of conventional wisdom. However, Ado-
vasios attention to exacting excavation methods of the
deposits 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 North
America, as best emplied by Meadowcroft. This was fol-
lowed by state-of-the-art investigations at open sites like
Monte Verde in Chile (Dillehay, 1989, 1997) and the
Windover Bog near Titusville, Florida (Doran, 2002); col-
lectively, these studies have set the standards in eld
archaeology today.
Technology in archaeology. Associated with and fun-
damental to a renewed focus on how to excavate an
archaeological site was the implementation of technology
into the eld documentation process in two areas: site
mapping and remote sensing. Previously, noting the dis-
tribution of artifacts and physical evidence was com-
pleted through detailed, hand-drawn plan and prole
maps. Technological innovations applied to outdoor crime
scenes have revolutionized the recordation of spatial
data (McPherron and Dibble, 2002). Instruments such as
the electronic total station allow for the very precise
notation of exact relative position and orientation of
each item on the crime scene. Global positioning system
(GPS) instruments permit precise absolute location of
the 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 by
the routine use of these instruments, especially when
eld work is carried out by the same specialists perform-
ing the laboratory analyses, who are, therefore, aware of
the variables relevant to the analysis, and the way in
which 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 rst used in the 1980s
(McPherron and Dibble, 2002; Adovasio, 2007), and on
forensic archaeological sites in the 1990s (Dirkmaat,
1998b). In 1994, total stations were used for the rst
time to carefully map the distribution of evidence and
human remains at the USAir Flight 427 crash site
(Dirkmaat and Quinn, 1995; Dirkmaat and Adovasio,
1997), proving that their implementation allows for
timely comprehensive recording of all spatial data even
in complex situations, with thousands of evidentiary
items scattered across a large area. The collection of evi-
dence distributional data by the total station is now a
standard part of all enhanced forensic crime recovery
protocols, both small scale (Dirkmaat, 2001; Dirkmaat
and Cabo, 2006) and large scale, including plane crashes
(Dirkmaat and Hefner, 2001; Reineke and Hochrein,
2008). Data collection procedures are further enhanced
today through the use of in-eld and hand-held com-
puters, computerized data recording forms, digital pho-
tography, and wireless data transmission protocols.
Analytical techniques for the analysis of the spatial
distribution 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.), the
same awareness is certainly not as common regarding
recent developments in analytical techniques. Knowledge
of these analytical improvements plays an important
role in the design of eld protocols, since these techni-
ques, apart from being capable of addressing a wider
range of questions, also require a greater amount of
more precisely recorded data.
During the last few decades, advancements in com-
puter programming and availability have dramatically
increased the number of techniques and analytical tools
available for statistical analysis. Spatial analysis techni-
ques commonly employed in the elds of physics, engi-
neering, biochemistry, physiology, and forest ecology
allow the researcher to test theoretical models regarding
different aspects of the spatial data collected in the eld.
These models can be contrasted with the observed distri-
bution either under parametric assumptions or through
empirically obtained distributions, allowing them to suc-
cessfully confront an almost endless range of problems
with great exibility.
At present, these incipient techniques are restricted to
the analysis of scenes with multiple victims, such as
mass graves and mass disasters, and have been mainly
oriented toward the classic problem of victim identica-
tion, especially with respect to solving commingling
issues. For example, Tuller et al. (2008) report success
rates close to 100% in matching commingled remains
through spatial techniques, by applying the nearest
neighbor criterion in mass graves with large numbers of
individuals. Dirkmaat et al. (2005) showed that the basic
assumption 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 case
would 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, a
more important effort is required, not only to popularize
and rene forensic anthropology, but also to normalize
and enhance data integrity, recording and sharing, in
order to make possible proper data analysis.
Archaeological methodologies specic to forensic
contexts. 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 contemporary
archaeology is devoted to the recovery of buried deposits,
understanding and interpreting stratigraphy, and rigor-
ously applying Stenos Laws in efforts to understand
how and when artifacts entered the archaeological re-
cord. The goals of archaeological investigation also t
exactly with those of forensic scene investigation. The
evidentiary value of any item at the scene will depend
on its relative position and contextual relationships with
other evidence and elements at the scene. In the case of
burials, re, or even surface-scattered remains, these
contextual relationships are essentially stratigraphic in
nature, and are subject to the same alterations and nat-
ural inuences as archaeological materials. It is, there-
fore, logical that many archaeological techniques and,
especially, basic archaeological principles can be directly
applied to forensic contexts. Still, some fundamental dif-
ferences do exist between archaeological sites and foren-
sic scenes, requiring the modication of conventional
archaeological techniques, and the development of new
methodologies 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 of
soft 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 scene
processor it will be necessary to collect this type of evi-
dence as carefully and efciently 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 are
evidence undergoing degradation. To avoid further dete-
rioration and loss of evidence, as well as to maintain the
chain of custody, forensic anthropologists must process
the site as quickly and as efciently as possible. Any
alteration that the remains may experience from the
scene 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 (see
Banning 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 both
small scenes involving one or small numbers of victims
or fatal re scenes, as well as large-scale scenes, such as
plane crashes. Searches for unlocated scenes in the past
relied upon efforts conducted by law enforcement of-
cials (Miller, 2003; Swanson et al., 2006; Lee, 2007;
Saferstein, 2007). The incorporation of archaeological
search methods (Joukowsky, 1980; Feder, 1997) has
resulted in efcient and effective pedestrian searches for
surface remains in forensic cases (Dirkmaat and Adova-
sio, 1997). Because of the presence of soft tissues or fresh
organic matter, cadaver dogs have also played a role in
locating evidence when both the trainer and the dog are
properly trained (Rebmann et al., 2000). The combina-
tion of cadaver dogs and systematic search techniques
results in near 100% probability of locating human
remains on the surface within a search corridor.
The detection of clandestine graves is a much more
difcult task. In recent years, a wide variety of new
technologies and search techniques have been utilized to
locate buried features (Killam, 1990). Particularly, suc-
cessful efforts have been obtained with multidisciplinary
approaches that utilize geophysicists, archaeologists, and
forensic anthropologists (France et al., 1992, 1997).
Remote sensing, such as Ground Penetrating Radar, con-
ductivity meters, resistivity meters, and even metal
detectors have certainly aided the search for buried fea-
tures (Dupras et al., 2006). Research derived from the
UT Decomposition Research Facility has provided useful
data (Rodriguez and Bass, 1985).
Reference to, and training in archaeology and archaeo-
logical methods has led to dramatic improvement in the
recovery 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 carefully
noted. These geophysical characteristics include strati-
cation evidence, toolmarks on the burial pit edge, biotur-
bation of the deposits, sedimentation factors, surface
compression and depression of the burial pit deposits,
and internal compaction of the burial pit deposits
(Hochrein et al., 2000). The key concept in the recovery
of the buried body feature is that all of the material
associated with the burial, from the back dirt pile to the
burial ll and not just the body in the grave, should be
considered as evidence and handled accordingly.
But wont it take too long?
The foregoing discussion clearly indicates that biologi-
cal proling, taphonomic analysis, and forensic archaeol-
ogy can therefore be considered as inseparable aspects of
the same analysis, rather than independent subdisci-
plines. When properly implemented and combined, they
can 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 not
more widely utilized. The answer to this question is
mainly related to a common misconception, seemingly
widespread among law enforcement and even some
anthropologists: forensic archaeological techniques are
not realistically applicable at many case scenes due to
time (and personnel) constraints. This assumption is
fundamentally wrong: indeed, when properly imple-
mented, and with the aid of technology, forensic archaeo-
logical techniques are as quick and efcient as any other
on-site forensic technique, and result in a signicant
gain in relevant data.
ANTHROPOLOGY 4: HUMAN SKELETAL
TRAUMA ANALYSIS
The fourth important turning point in the eld of for-
ensic anthropology (following Kuhns logic) in the last 20
years has been a fundamental change in how we deal
with forensically relevant bone trauma and the resulting
enhanced range of trauma questions that can be
addressed by the discipline. Importantly, osteological
trauma 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. Trauma
analysis to bone was neither commonly perceived as part
of their tasks, nor routinely practiced by forensic anthro-
pologists. For example, Is can (1988) only discussed
trauma very briey, primarily with respect to what he
called postmortem assessment. Descriptions focused on
child abuse (what was then described as battered infant
syndrome) and little else. Is can briey mentioned incipi-
ent research in trauma drawn from forensic cases,
described in Maples (1986), and work done in medical
examiners ofces 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 based
on the study of historic materials. References to forensic
pathology and trauma cases involving soft tissue are
largely absent in most of the major bibliographical refer-
ences of the eld (e.g., Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Mar-
tin, 1998; Bennike, 2008). With respect to trauma analy-
sis, paleopathologists suggest that it is difcult and of-
ten impossible to make a distinction between fractures
occurring at the time of death and those that occur sub-
sequent to death and burial (Ortner and Putschar,
1981, p. 72). Further, distinguishing trauma resulting
from an accident and that resulting from intentional vio-
lence is problematic in archaeologically derived skele-
tons. The study of historic materials, with little room for
corroboration of the proposed hypotheses, carried there-
fore a large weight of uncertainty and, at best, educated
guessing, inappropriate for forensic contexts (especially
considering 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 to
traumatized bones. The role of the forensic anthropolo-
gist regarding trauma analysis was supposed to be at
best simply describe any evidence of bone damage, point
out its location in relation to vital centers, explain the
possibility of it having been sustained at the time of
death or otherwise, and discuss the likely types of
objects that produce damage (Stewart, 1979, p. 76).
Limiting the forensic anthropologists role in trauma
analysis to merely providing descriptive procedures
largely perpetuating the maxim (still almost a mantra in
the profession) that anthropologists are not allowed to
contribute ofcial opinions with regard to cause and
manner of death.
This perception of bone trauma analysis as a discipline
extraneous to forensic anthropology, and within the
exclusive 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 the
morgue alongside the forensic pathologist; 2) incorpora-
tion of bone biomechanics research drawn from a variety
of disciplines, in conjunction with routine microscopic ex-
amination; and 3) the rise of forensic taphonomy.
Research in the medical examiners ofce
In the early 1980s, some progressive minded forensic
pathologists and medical examiners hired forensic
anthropologists to work as full-time employees in the
morgue documenting decomposition, identifying isolated
bones, and serving as death investigators. This situation
was best exemplied in the Memphis, Tennessee, Medi-
cal Examiners Ofce under the guidance of Dr. J.T.
Francisco and, later, Dr. O.C. Smith. The forensic
anthropologists were able to assist autopsy examinations
and even participate in the processing of outdoor scenes.
Anthropologists, thus, were part of the multidisciplinary
team investigating a wide variety of cases, including
those involving signicant soft tissue in various stages of
decomposition, sorting animal from human bones, and
identifying fragmented osteological materials (Smith
et al., 1990; Symes and Smith, 1998; Galloway et al.,
1999). As mentioned above, many of these areas were
considered 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 beneted greatly from a more
in 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 future
trials. In essence, multidisciplinary efforts by forensic
pathologists and anthropologists served to highlight the
limitations of clinical traumatology, and the advantages
of an anthropological perspective for some key aspects of
forensic inference (Smith et al., 1990; Symes and Smith,
1998).
Clinical trauma analysis focuses on living tissues, and
is primarily oriented toward fracture treatment and
reduction rather than to the analysis of the relationships
between trauma defects, inicting agents or forces, and
resulting bone modication patterns. Pathologists, there-
fore, are ill-equipped to answer certain forensic ques-
tions, including those related to fracture timing. Since
determining whether a defect under examination was
inicted perimortem (thus, being forensically signicant)
or postmortem is an essential question in forensic
trauma interpretation. The key element required to
make 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 helped
address that methodological gap.
Incorporating bone biomechanics research
After death, the biochemical composition of bone
changes with time, especially in terms of the amount
and preservation of its organic matrix. From a biome-
chanical point of view, the main consequence of these
changes 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 predictable
manner (following Youngs modulus) with a signicant
elastic 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 trauma
analysis, as interpretation of skeletal trauma is essen-
tially based on what is observable as a result of the bone
having been plastically deformed.
The consideration of the evolving biomechanical char-
acteristics of the degrading bone transfers the analysis
from clinical traumatology to the realms of vertebrate
taphonomy, for which forensic anthropologists are better
prepared. The transcendence and utility of this migra-
tion can probably be better understood in light of the
changes 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 before
death, or more specically identiable as a visible vital
reaction from living tissue. The concepts of perimortem
and postmortem, however, are not so easily delineated
between the medical and anthropological communities.
In the case of sharp force trauma examination, an
anthropologists assessment of a dismemberment case is
essentially performed within the theoretical perimortem
context, as the skeletal material will retain nearly all
the same properties as it showed in life (Symes et al.,
2002). However, the dismemberment of a body before
death would clearly be an unusual circumstance and,
therefore, medical personnel would consider the act
postmortem.
As a result, anthropologists must consider skeletal
trauma primarily in a taphonomic context. Defects
occurring in bone must be excluded as taphonomic in na-
ture before they can be considered to have occurred in
the perimortem interval. Although careful taphonomic
interpretations can reveal information concerning cir-
cumstances surrounding death and postmortem interval
(Dirkmaat and Adovasio, 1997), perimortem trauma
interpretation is often essential to coroners and patholo-
gists burdened with the death certicate. Therefore,
accurate and conservative interpretation of contextual
taphonomic data ultimately reduces confusion by simpli-
fying key variables (. . .) regarding cause and manner of
death (Symes et al., 2002 p. 430).
The biomechanical approach also affects trauma classi-
cation, shifting category criteria from the inicting tool
to physical factors such as force and speed. The biome-
chanical properties of bone inuence its ability to absorb
energy, as well as its stiffness, density, and fatigue
strength. Bone fractures are also decisively dependent
on 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 an
impact at meters per second scale, such as a gunshot,
the combination of force and speed will promote local
energy release (fracture) before plastic deformation can
occur. On the other hand, a sharp instrument, such as a
heavy knife or an axe, can produce plastic deformation
better described as blunt force trauma, depending on the
direction of impact, the impacting tool surface, and the
area inicted.
In addition, the morphology of the fracture rarely
reects information specic to the inicting tool in blunt
force trauma. Therefore, trauma can be better analyzed
and interpreted by focusing on determining the exact
direction, orientation, and patterning of fracture initia-
tion and propagation, as they pertain to the direction
and speed (energy) associated with the inicting force.
This requires detailed and meticulous microscopic exami-
nation of minute evidentiary details, with methods often
involving casting of skeletal material, particularly when
analyzing and interpreting sharp force trauma (Symes et
al., 1999). It may also involve the adoption of entirely
new photo-documentary and analytical technologies such
as polynomial textural mapping (Malzbender et al.,
2001).
New perspectives on the analysis of human
skeletal trauma
In 1996, a multidisciplinary workshop presented at
the AAFS, best exemplied 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 dened
key areas of forensically relevant trauma, are briey
summarized below.
Blunt force trauma. Blunt force trauma is perhaps the
most difcult area of skeletal trauma to interpret on the
basis of skeletal characteristics alone. Although patholo-
gists can use skin alteration and damage characteristics
to accurately estimate the number of blows, forensic
anthropologists must estimate numbers of blows by bone
fracture patterns that are always difcult to interpret.
Recent research, however, indicates that old notions of
how 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 to
provide some information with respect to: 1) exact
impact location; 2) angle of impact; and 3) number of
impacts. However, as noted above, fracture shape and
dimensions rarely indicate much about the shape of the
impacting weapon (Symes et al., 1996).
Ballistics trauma. Despite the fact that ballistic
trauma 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 nal velocity (e.g., they do not ricochet at
steep angles off of bone surfaces).
Because of the high velocity of the projectile involved,
the damage imparted by ballistic trauma is immense. A
bullet initially creates a plug-and-spall, which produces
diagnostic entrance and exit wounds in bone. With
enough energy, subsequent radiating fractures are exten-
sive and may indicate the direction of the bullet. If the
bullet possesses enough kinetic energy, concentric heav-
ing fractures will form. These concentric fractures are
characterized by an outward bevel, as opposed to the
inward bevel found in concentric fractures caused by
blunt trauma (Smith et al., 1987; Symes et al., 1996; Di
Maio, 1999; Hart, 2005). By recognizing and properly
interpreting these patterns of modication to bone, the
forensic anthropologist can reconstruct the path of the
bullet, 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 red, and even distin-
guish in which order these shots entered the body.
Sharp force trauma. Perhaps the best-researched area
of trauma in the new era of forensic anthropology is that
of sharp force trauma resulting from a wide variety of
implements, from knives to saws, and ranging from
activities as disparate as stabbings to dismemberments.
Lethal knife wounds are second only to gunshot wounds
as 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 analysis
has rarely been effective due to the employment of dubi-
ous categories such as sharp or single-edged, as well
as other misleading or errant descriptive terminology
like 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 of
them being of little use in forensics (see Bonte, 1975;
Andahl, 1978; Symes, 1992). Saw marks were seldom
given 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; Symes
et al., 1998, 2002, 2007; Saville et al., 2007) has revealed
that much can be learned through a careful analysis of
the marks left on the bone by the saw tool, especially
when utilizing low power microscopic examination. This
key information includes: 1) the dimensions and shape of
the blade and teeth of a saw; 2) how the tool was pow-
ered, mechanically or manually; and 3) how a tool was
used (including direction of cut) to accomplish the dis-
memberment or mutilation (Symes, 1992; Symes et al.,
1998, 2002).
Two additional areas of trauma analysis benet
greatly from an anthropological perspective: the recogni-
tion of child and elder abuse, and the distinction
between perimortem and postmortem trauma (discussed
below). With respect to trauma analysis in abuse cases,
the comprehensive documentation of skeletal trauma
(healed and unhealed) in the clean and processed bone
has lead to more denitive assessments of trauma tim-
ing, critical to dening whether abuse is substantiated.
Trauma analysis and taphonomy: Conjoined twins
In the descriptions of trauma analysis above, it is
assumed that the defects under examination resulted
from intentional human intervention. We described ear-
lier how the changes in biomechanical properties experi-
enced by bone as it degrades aid in the assessment of
the forensic signicance of a bone defect. This criterion
is useful in determining forensic signicance of the
trauma on the basis of fracture timing. Those defects
inicted on fresh, highly organic (perimortem) bone are
more likely to have a forensic value than those inicted
on dry bone (postmortem fractures, in the anthropologi-
cal sense). However, forensic signicance does not
depend solely on defect timing. There are multiple natu-
ral agents that can alter the human remains after they
are placed at the scene, including scavengers, humans,
and environmental factors (water, temperature, soil
characteristics and slope, sunlight, etc.).
As stressed above, the key element to explain the
advantages of the anthropological approach to trauma
analysis is that the study and correct interpretation of
all of these factors (including the biochemical changes
linking bone degradation and biomechanics) does not fall
within the eld of expertise of forensic pathology, but
rather pertains to forensic taphonomy. Even more impor-
tantly, the data necessary for the interpretation of all of
these elements do not come exclusively from the human
remains, but also from the context in which they are
found, and require careful archaeological recovery.
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
The following will highlight key new areas of forensic
anthropological research where the intersection of
taphonomy, archaeological recovery, trauma analysis,
and new quantitative methods has both expanded the
range 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 and
mass fatality incidents
The benets of a forensic taphonomic mindset with
regard to what is expected of the data collected, and
affecting how they are collected, are certainly relevant to
cases involving single or small numbers of individuals in
outdoor contexts, but are also well documented in new
arenas only recently populated by forensic anthropolo-
gists: human rights investigations (HRI) and mass fatal-
ity incidents (MFI).
Modern, scientic HRI trace back to the work of Clyde
Snow and the Argentinean Forensic Anthropology team
early in the 1980s (Doretti and Snow, 2003, and refer-
ences therein). In spite of the clear and sound forensic
scope of the pioneering Argentinean team, other early
efforts at recovering HRI victims from mass graves were
soon focused on what was termed humanitarian efforts
(Steadman and Haglund, 2005), in which victim identi-
cation was the primary and almost exclusive focus. How-
ever, quickly removing victims from mass graves in
order to speed victim identication and restitution (e.g.,
Williams and Crews, 2003) ies in the face of the letter
and spirit of the modern human rights concept (Doretti
and Snow, 2003; Dirkmaat et al., 2005). This is because
the forensic value of the remains is greatly diminished
by 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) has
permitted forensic taphonomic reconstructions of events
surrounding the emplacement of the victims, established
spatial patterning of the evidence, and assisted in the
sorting and positive identication of commingled
remains (Schmitt, 2002; Dirkmaat et al., 2005; Tuller et
al., 2008). Further, the application of new techniques in
the analysis of human skeletal trauma and quantitative
methods in the analysis of the skeletal material
(described above) solidies the forensic value of this evi-
dence.
Recent advances in quantitative methods derived from
modern populations (especially Fordisc) have beneted
the analysis of victim remains (often severely frag-
mented and commingled) in large scale MFI (Sledzik,
1996, 1998; Saul and Saul, 1999, 2003; Dirkmaat and
Miller, 2003, Sledzik et al., 2003; Adams and Byrd,
2008). However, it is only recently that advances in the
recovery of evidence associated with the disaster site
(bombing or plane crash) have been implemented.
Archaeological documentation and recovery methods
adapted to large-scale mass disaster scenes and utilizing
technological advances in spatial and contextual data
collection have been shown to outperform traditional
scene recovery protocols, not only in terms of the amount
of evidence and information recovered, but also reducing
scene processing times by almost one half (Dirkmaat and
Hefner, 2001; Reineke and Hochrein, 2008).
Case in point: Recovery of the fatal re victim
Perhaps the best illustration of the intimate, almost
inextricable 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 now
play an important role: the analysis and interpretation
of fatal re scene victims.
Fire is a powerful and extreme taphonomic inuence
that can damage, alter, or destroy bone and associated
evidence (Mayne Correia, 1997; Mayne Correia and
Beattie, 2002), and is consequently a common means of
concealing evidence of a crime (Schmidt and Symes,
2008). Since re often results in extensive damage, or
almost complete destruction of soft tissues, forensic
anthropologistswith their expertise in examining bone
tissuesare frequently asked to take part in fatal re
investigations.
Put simply, there are two primary goals for the foren-
sic anthropologist to accomplish at these scenes. The
rst is identifying the remains, both at the anatomical
and the individual level. The anatomical level refers to
nding and identifying all of the individual bone ele-
ments and fragments at the scene. The individual level
means assessing the number of victims and solving com-
mingling issues if multiple individuals are involved. The
second primary goal is to distinguish perimortem bone
trauma from heat-induced bone alteration. The
extremely modied conditions of fatal re scenes
severely compromise and make difcult these goals, pro-
viding an excellent illustration of the tightly knit rela-
tionship between taphonomic inuence, scene recovery,
and laboratory analysis of the remains.
Victim remains at fatal re scenes are typically more
difcult to detect, recover, and handle (Dirkmaat, 1991,
1998b; Mayne Correia, 1997; Mayne Correia and Beattie,
2002). All of the burned materials at the scene, including
biological tissue, are often modied to a similar appear-
ance, and bones, in particular, become discolored, brittle,
and highly fragmented. As a consequence, these remains
are often missed, disturbed, altered, or even destroyed
during scene processing utilizing existing protocols.
The added postmortem fracturing, fragmentation, and
bone loss resulting from currently employed recovery
techniques hinder the already difcult task of autopsy
and laboratory analysis of burned human remains.
Establishing the number of victims and solving commin-
gling issues in these cases will be more difcultand,
arguably, impossible in some casesif skeletal elements
are missed, mixed, or further altered during the recov-
ery. These problems are particularly acute for bone
trauma analysis, as its most immediate goal is distin-
guishing perimortem (forensically signicant) trauma,
from postmortem (not forensically signicant) alteration.
The substantial addition of trauma features created by
re and then recovery can result in a daunting analyti-
cal task.
For example, it is difcult to detect and characterize
atypical, potentially forensically signicant trauma if the
extent of exposure of individual portions of the body to
re is unknown (Symes et al., 1999, 2008). Exposure fac-
tors will depend on the location and body positioning at
the scene, information that can only be retrieved
through careful recovery and documentation (including
careful mapping) at the scene (Dirkmaat, 1991, 1998a).
The homogeneous coloration of the remains and their
surroundings make mere scene photographs inadequate
for the task.
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the main trends and developments
affecting the eld in the last decades, it is time to return
to our original question: Is the current state and future
perspectives of forensic anthropology any better today
than they were 20 years ago? Considering all of the
developments described above, the answer seems clearly
afrmative. The last two decades witnessed a diversica-
tion of the goals and objectives of the eld, extending
and enhancing the role of forensic anthropologists in
customary forensic investigations. Analytical methods
and research sources in forensic anthropology have been
vastly improved through the rejuvenation of available
comparative samples and an increased emphasis in
quantitative methods, as opposed to the classical verbal
model approach, which led to commonplace misconcep-
tions. Even more important is the establishment of solid
conceptual and methodological foundations to integrate
and guide the future development of the eld. The adop-
tion of paleontological, archaeological, and biomechanical
principles (not merely techniques), and transformed into
forensic taphonomy, forensic archaeology, and trauma
analysis, provides a conceptual framework much supe-
rior and solidly entrenched in the natural sciences than
the almost technical (when considered as an isolated
goal) enterprise of biological prole estimation from
osteological remains.
Is cans (1988) account of forensic anthropology as a
laboratory-based eld, squarely focused in providing evi-
dence for victim ID from the naked bones, fails, not sur-
prisingly, to describe the activities of modern forensic
anthropologists. Answers to many more questions are
required from forensic anthropologists nowadays, besides
characterization of biological prole: Is there any evi-
dence with respect to how the individual died? How long
has the body been at the scene? Why are some bones
missing and others out of place? What role did humans
play in altering the bones? Why are these bones broken
and can we tell anything about these saw and cut
marks? When the bones are brought to the laboratory by
law enforcement in boxes, with limited documentation of
context, these questions are difcult, and often impossi-
ble to address responsibly (that is, in a scientically
defendable way). In the past, forensic anthropology was
dened and congured exclusively as an applied eld,
seriously limiting basic research within its realms. Con-
sequently, the answers for these questions were sought
in other scientic disciplines. Broken bones in the boxed
assemblage 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 a
dearth of solid scientic background for many of these
answers. None addressed issues related to time since
death. None dealt with soft tissue. Actualistic studies
were rare, if not entirely absent. Assessment of skeletal
markers of age, sex, and stature were based in 1988 on
human collections from the early part of the century, or
on prehistoric Native American samples.
In 1988, forensic anthropologists often deferred to the
years of experience argument to provide opinions
regarding these tough questions. Then, as described
above, along came Daubert. No longer would appeals to
experience or authority hold up under the scrutiny of
scientic validity in court. Forensic anthropology had to
change as a eld to meet these scientic criteria. Part of
that transformation required an emergence from the
applied eld collar, since no other discipline provided
the basic research necessary to specically address many
issues in forensic anthropology. In retrospect, and as dis-
cussed in this review, forensic anthropology seems to
have adapted well to this changing landscape. The com-
bination of all the external factors and eld develop-
ments described above has resulted in a paradigm shift,
which represents a transition from the self-inicted de-
nition of forensic anthropology as a merely applied
(almost technical) laboratory-based eld, to a full-grown
scientic discipline. This implies shaking off outdated
limiting assumptions, such as the focus on applied
methods, with basic research falling to other sister disci-
plines from which forensic anthropology would simply
borrow off-the-shelf methods to make wishful extrapola-
tions.
Redening forensic anthropology
Forensic anthropology has irted with many different
denitions applied to various contexts. If we accept that
the 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-
pologywe can uncover a common theme. Namely, all
denitions 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 deni-
tions of the eld of forensic anthropology is the focus on
extracting details of the individuals life and conditions
at death. Saul and Saul (1989) coined the fortunate term
osteobiography to refer to this aim of the forensic
description of the individual. A biological biography can
be extracted by reconstructing specic biological parame-
ters such as chronological age at death, sex, ancestry,
stature, pathologies, healed trauma, and even individual
anomalies.
In a forensic setting, however, forensic anthropologists
are expected to go beyond the reconstruction of the life
of the individual, and consider specics surrounding the
circumstances of their death and the alteration of the
body after death. These inferences require more than
just the determination of biological parameters from the
remains. 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 which
the body resided after death, analysis of the soft tissue
remaining, insect and animal interaction with the body,
and a thorough analysis of bone modication, from stain-
ing to trauma. This endeavor is termed forensic taphon-
omy (Haglund and Sorg, 1997b), which concentrates on
how external factors affect the skeleton (Is can, 1988, p.
207) and relies on careful documentation of context
through archaeological recovery methodologies.
Is can (1988) characterized forensic anthropology as an
applied subeld of physical anthropology, although he
questioned the nature of the relationship between the
disciplines. However, given the increased focus on scene
documentation and interpretation, it may be reasonable
even to ponder whether forensic anthropology should
still be considered simply as a subdiscipline of physical
anthropology (Dirkmaat, 1993, 1998a). Scene interpreta-
tion and reconstruction of past events requires the utili-
zation of methodological principles drawn partly from
physical anthropology, but also from other disciplines,
such as archaeology and paleontology. Consequently, for-
ensic anthropology could be even viewed as a unique,
applied eld within the broader discipline of anthropol-
ogy at large; a sister, rather than a daughter discipline
of physical anthropology. However, this view can only
seem as reasonable if physical anthropology is equated
solely with human skeletal biology or paleoanthropology.
Unique analyses that are not often considered or well
researched in typical skeletal biology or physical anthro-
pological analyses are those related to taphonomic issues
(perimortem trauma and postmortem modication to
bone including burning, weathering, and animal activ-
ity), soft tissue decomposition and modication 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). The
focus of forensic anthropology in obtaining information
about the individual from the population (basically the
opposite goal of physical anthropology) and its medico-
legal aspects also support this view.
A working description of the eld previously presented
by one of the authors (Dirkmaat and Adovasio, 1997)
stressed the relationship of forensic anthropology not
only with physical anthropology, but also with other an-
thropological disciplines:
Forensic Anthropology involves the application of
principles utilized in the anthropological subelds of
archaeology and physical anthropology to forensic inves-
tigations. Archaeological principles are employed during
the 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 of
human remains and focus on reconstruction of identity
and events surrounding and subsequent to death, often
heavily reliant upon contextual data collected at the
site. (Dirkmaat and Adovasio, 1997, p. 58).
As articulated above, we currently would also suggest
that another important discipline from which forensic
anthropology draws its principles is paleontology. Still,
physical anthropology is dened and understood as a
holistic eld, with a conceptual and methodological exi-
bility that allows the denition above to fall well within
its conceptual framework. Historical considerations, and
the training and background of forensic practitioners
also justify the inclusion of forensic anthropology as a
discipline clearly entrenched in the physical anthropol-
ogy tradition and framework. However, rather than
pointing to the phylogeny of the eld, the description of
forensic anthropology above points to a key element that
Is can (1988) already identied as a major problem
endangering the future development of the eld: Foren-
sic anthropology is more than just the direct application
of generic physical anthropology techniques to medico-
legal contexts. Is can (1988) complained about physical
anthropologists, with no forensic training, occasionally
assuming the role of forensic anthropologists almost as a
side activity or pastime. The diversication and matura-
tion experienced by forensic anthropology during the last
decades exacerbates this problem. Even though forensic
anthropology is a subdiscipline of physical anthropology,
it is a well-derived one, requiring comprehensive specic
training and study. The distinction with paleoanthropol-
ogy or bioarchaeology goes beyond the medico-legal
aspects of the eld, and cannot be abridged merely by
getting support and advice on judicial/forensic issues
from the prosecutors or the defense, prior to taking the
stand in a court of law. The perception that training and
experience in paleoanthropology or bioarchaeology pro-
vides the necessary background to successfully perform
forensic 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 disqualies the aspiring forensic
expert to act as a forensic anthropologist.
This cautionary note applies even to practicing foren-
sic anthropologists. Along with growth and diversica-
tion comes specialization. It is unlikely that a single for-
ensic anthropologist can master all the different forensic
anthropological techniques and areas of expertise
required in many forensic cases. It is therefore becoming
increasingly frequent and important to seek advice and
cooperation from other colleagues better versed in some
specic 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 commonly
forced to work in isolation as the only forensic anthropol-
ogist in a university department or medical examiners
ofce.
. . .and the denition, please!
How then should we dene forensic anthropology in
2008 from a formal point of view? The working descrip-
tion of forensic anthropology, provided above, is similar
to classic denitions, such as those provided by Stewart
(1979) and Is can (1988), in that they represent a
description of the duties and activities performed by for-
ensic anthropologists at the moment of writing. It has
been stressed that these classic denitions no longer
serve to accurately describe the current activities per-
formed by forensic anthropologists. Just as with any sci-
entic discipline, the tasks, scope and analytical tools of
forensic anthropologists must also change and evolve, if
the eld is to grow and advance. Therefore, any deni-
tion based merely on current duties and activities is des-
tined to become obsolescent very quickly. This utilitarian
approach to dening the eld is also related to the clas-
sic view of forensic anthropology as a limited, applied
eld, and is not appropriate for dening scientic disci-
plines. A proper denition of a scientic eld must also
provide a conceptual framework based on its study sub-
ject, and the dimension and scope from which it is
approached. In other words, a proper and appropriate
denition is aimed at providing neither a daily schedule
for forensic practitioners, nor a eld guide for the identi-
cation of forensic anthropologists, but is a basic requi-
site for the establishment of legitimate basic research
goals and objectives and to allow for the future develop-
ment of the eld. In the view of the authors, as origi-
nally suggested by Stewart (1979) and Is can (1988), the
dening subject of study of forensic anthropology is the
individual. Although paleoanthropology or biodemogra-
phy try to infer populational characteristics through the
analysis of individuals, forensic analysis drives in the op-
posite direction. All the components of forensic anthro-
pology, from the estimation of the biological prole to
taphonomic or trauma analysis, are aimed at recon-
structing the effects of different processes on the life or
postlife of a single individual. In its purely anthropologi-
cal component, forensic anthropology looks into the pop-
ulational parameters to answer questions regarding a
specic individual, rather than the opposite. Although
common questions and methods obviously persist, focus
on processes surrounding and subsequent to death, and
on individual predictions of skeletal biological prole,
raise legitimate and specic research questions and
require uniquely congured methodological approaches,
extraneous to other anthropological disciplines.
In the nal analysis then, we will dene forensic an-
thropology as the scientic discipline that focuses on the
life, the death, and the postlife history of a specic indi-
vidual, as reected primarily in their skeletal remains
and the physical and forensic context in which they are
emplaced.
FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY:
A SUMMARY
Forensic anthropology in the last two decades has
been at an impasse. The old denitions and practices of
the eld limited practitioners to part-time (and infre-
quent) roles in the forensic sciences, providing clues to
identify the victim from skeletal remains. With the ubiq-
uitous research and implementation of DNA, the pri-
mary role of identier of unidentied skeletal remain
has been largely usurped, at least in regular forensic
cases not involving commingled remains. However, as it
did in other geological and anthropological disciplines,
the emplacement of a taphonomic perspective to the evi-
dence produced a revolutionary reevaluation of the
goals, perspectives, operating methods, range of work,
and research potential in the eld of forensic anthropol-
ogy. With the addition of forensic taphonomy, which
requires the careful consideration of context and allows
for scientic-based reconstructions of past events, foren-
sic anthropology can now take its rightful place along-
side other healthy and vigorous scientic disciplines
both within and beyond physical anthropology. Forensic
anthropological analyses address many diverse and com-
plicated issues beyond biological prole, such as post-
mortem interval, trauma (timing, biomechanical factors
and even implements used) and, ultimately, aspects of
circumstances of death.
This elevation of status comes with responsibilities for
those who profess to practice it. As the laboratory-only,
bones-only eld of past conceptions, individuals with any
amount of osteological experience could rather comfort-
ably operate in the capacity of an on-call, as-needed law
enforcement resource in those rare cases when isolated
bones were found, or when the medical examiner ran out
of options for identifying the human remains.
Today, however, forensic anthropology goes far beyond
osteological analysis. Forensic taphonomy requires much
more 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 and
other human artifacts, botanical evidence, geological and
environmental 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 scene
mesh perfectly with an important alteration of court-
room evidence presentation: Daubert. As discussed
above, courtroom assertions of what happened at the site
can no longer be based on years of experience, or un-
documented, random observations. They must be based
on well-founded scientic 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 on
visual assessment. It requires data analysis and compar-
ison through scientically validated studies of all pre-
sented conclusions (from biological identity to trauma
interpretations). The creation of the Bass Collection
(modern comparative sample), the Forensic Databank
(virtual comparative sample), and the computer program
Fordisc provide excellent examples of new and more
appropriate quantitative approaches to unique issues in
forensic anthropology.
Another important aspect of forensic anthropology
that has arisen in the last 20 years is the primary role
played by forensic anthropologists in the analysis of
trauma in forensic cases. In the past, reference was
made to paleopathological descriptions and interpreta-
tions of broken bones, which themselves were based on
very little modern clinical trauma research. With the
combination of multidisciplinary efforts in the forensic
morgue, critically evaluating skeletal trauma from a bio-
mechanical perspective and overlaying forensic tapho-
nomic understanding of site formation and past events
at the scene, trauma emerges from the shadow of paleo-
pathology as the new leader in this eld 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, scientic discipline in its own right, conduct-
ing basic research in a wide variety of arenas, from
taphonomy to skeletal biology; research that is in turn
benecial to other scientic disciplines, including sub-
elds of physical anthropology. As such, it cannot and
should not be conducted on a part-time basis by individ-
uals who are not specically trained to deal with all of
these issues.
Is can (1988, p. 203) lamentedin the rst sentence of
his reviewthat for years many anthropologists
assisted the medicolegal profession and law enforcement
agencies but did so without any ofcial standards of
qualications. Twenty years later, it can be said that
those standards of qualications are nally coming
into focus.
As for the future development of the eld, forensic an-
thropology must follow the lead of paleoanthropology in
more ways than just the incorporation of taphonomy.
Given the complexity of outdoor scenes and the variety
of factors that can impinge upon, and modify human
remains, a concerted multidisciplinary effort is required.
Just as the Louis and Mary Leakey model of conducting
research as lone jack-of-all-trades is long gone (swept
aside by the Leakeys themselves), forensic anthropolo-
gists must realize that the lone researcher cranking out
reports based on a 3-h examination of decomposing tis-
sue and bone brought to a small crowded coroners ofce,
is an outdated model. The amount of information that
can be gleaned from human remains recovered from a
variety of forensic scenes requires more than a cursory
examination. Context and taphonomy must be consid-
ered and incorporated into the nal forensic anthropolog-
ical assessment. If that entails returning to the site and
examining the scene and searching for the missed bone
pieces, or working closely with a trained archaeologist,
then that needs to be done. Each case requires multiple
expertise in osteology, archaeology, and trauma analysis,
whether that expertise represents one person or multiple
individuals. Each case requires multiple eyes from multi-
ple perspectives. And it requires obsessing over the
remains in the laboratory until the most parsimonious
explanation of the observations is established.
As discussed earlier, the aim of this article is neither
to provide a comprehensive review of current practices of
the majority of forensic anthropology practitioners, nor
of the latest methods to analyze human bone features.
Instead, our intent was to step back, look at the bigger
picture, and provide a presentation of our perceptions of
the key elements (most already in place) driving the
future of the eld of forensic anthropology. We feel that
this trajectory will lead to a viable and vibrant scientic
discipline, allowing forensic anthropology not only to
continue, but also to greatly enhance its role as a viable
player in the forensic sciences and in forensic investiga-
tions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their gratitude to James M. Ado-
vasio, Director, Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute and
the graduate students in the Forensic and Biological An-
thropology Masters program at Mercyhurst College for
their comments and suggestions. The article greatly ben-
eted from the comments of the Editor of the Yearbook
and three anonymous reviewers.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams BJ, Byrd JE, editors. 2008. Recovery, analysis, and iden-
tication of commingled human remains. Totowa: Humana
Press.
Adovasio JM. 2003. The rst Americans. NY: Random House.
Adovasio, JM. 2007. Closed site investigation in the American
Northeast: the view from Meadowcroft. In: Kornfeld M, Vasi-
lev SA, Miotti L, editors. On shelters ledge: histories, theo-
ries and methods of rockshelter research. BAR 1655. Oxford,
England: Archaeopress. p 181190.
Andahl RO. 1978. The examination of saw marks. J Forensic
Sci Soc 18:3146.
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 Elliot
race discriminant functions revisited: a test using recent for-
ensic cases. In: Gill GW, Rhine S, editors. Skeletal attribution
of race: methods for forensic archaeology. Albuquerque: Max-
well Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 4.
p 6571.
Banning EB, Hawkins AL, Stewart ST. 2006. Detection func-
tions for archaeological survey. Am Antiq 71:723742.
Bass WM, Birkby WH. 1978. Exhumation: the method could
make the difference. FBI Law Enforcement Bull 47:611.
Behrensmeyer AK. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information
from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4:150162.
Behrensmeyer AK, Gordon KD, Yanagi GT. 1986. Trampling as
a cause of bone surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks. Nature
319:768771.
Behrensmeyer AK, Hill AP. 1980. Fossils in the making. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Benjamin DM. 2001. Are pharmacologists/toxicologists without
medical degrees or MDs best qualied to testify about drugs?
[Abstract] Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 7:150151.
Bennike P. 2008. Trauma. In: Pinhasi R, Mays S, editors.
Advances in human paleopathology. West Sussex, England:
Wiley. p 309328.
Berryman HE, Smith OC, Symes SA. 1995. Diameter of cranial
gunshot wounds as a function of bullet caliber. J Forensic Sci
40:751754.
Berryman HE, Symes SA. 1998. Recognizing gunshot and blunt
cranial trauma through fracture interpretation. In: Reichs
KJ, editor. Forensic osteology. II. Advances in the identica-
tion of human remains. Springeld, IL: Charles C. Thomas. p
333352.
Binford L. 1981. Bones: ancient men and modern myths. New
York: Academic Press.
Blumenschine RJ, Selvaggio M. 1988. Percussion marks on bone
surfaces as a new diagnostic of human behavior. Nature
333:763765.
Boaz NT, Behrensmeyer AK. 1976. Hominid taphonomy: trans-
port of human skeletal parts in an articial uviatile environ-
ment. Am J Phys Anthropol 45:5360.
Bonnichsen R, Sorg MH, editors. 1989. Bone modication.
Orono, Maine: Center for the study of the rst Americans,
University of Maine.
Bonte W. 1975. Tool marks in bones and cartilage. J Forensic
Sci 20:315323.
Brain CK. 1970. New nds at the Swartkrans australopithecine
site. Nature 225:11121119.
Brain CK. 1981. The hunters or the hunted? An introduction
to African cave taphonomy. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.
Bromage TG, Boyde A. 1984. Microscopic criteria for the deter-
mination of directionality of cutmarks on bone. Am J Phys
Anthropol 65:359366.
Brooks ST. 1975. Human or not? A problem in skeletal identi-
cation. J Forensic Sci 20:149153.
Carlisle RC, Adovasio JM, editors. 1982. Meadowcroft: collected
papers on the archaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter of the
Cross Creek drainage. Pittsburgh: Dept. of Anthropology, Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh.
Christensen AM. 2004. The impact of Daubert: implications for
testimony and research in forensic anthropology (and the use
of frontal sinuses in personal identication). J Forensic Sci
49:14.
Di Maio DJ, Di Maio VJM. 1993. Forensic pathology. New York:
CRC Press.
Di Maio VJM. 1999. Gunshot wounds: practical aspects of re-
arms, ballistics, and forensic techniques, 2nd ed. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.
Dillehay TD. 1989. Monte Verde: a late Pleistocene settlement
in Chile, Vol. 1. Paleoenvironment and site context. Washing-
ton, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Dillehay TD. 1997. Monte Verde: a late Pleistocene settlement
in 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 43rd
Annual Meeting p 154.
Dirkmaat DC. 1993. The role of archaeology in the forensic
investigation: start spreading the news [Abstract]. Proc Am
Acad Forensic Sci 45th Annual Meeting p 141.
Dirkmaat DC. 1998a. Forensic anthropological recovery and
interpretation of the re 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]. Proc
Am Acad Forensic Sci 7:241242.
Dirkmaat DC, Adovasio JM. 1997. The role of archaeology in
the recovery and interpretation of human remains from an
outdoor forensic setting. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors.
Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains.
New York: CRC Press. p 3964.
Dirkmaat DC, Cabo LL. 2006. The shallow grave as an option
for 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. Mass
graves, human rights and commingled: considering the bene-
ts of forensic archaeology [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic
Sci 11:316.
Dirkmaat DC, Hefner J. 2001. Forensic processing of the terres-
trial mass fatality scene: testing new search, documentation
and 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 coroners ofce in the processing of
the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 [Abstract]. Proc
Dirkmaat DC, Pedler DR, Adovasio JM, Pedler CL, Hyland DC,
Herbstritt JT, Buyce R, Thomas J. 1993. Archaeological and
bioanthropological 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 methodologies
for search and recovery. Disaster Manag News (December)
12.
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 human
rights: the Argentine experience. In: Steadman DW, editor.
Hard evidence: case studies in forensic anthropology. Upper
Saddle River: Prentice Hall. p 290310.
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. Pan
Am Geologist 74:8193.
Evans F. 1973. Mechanical properties of bone. Springeld, IL:
Charles C. Thomas.
Feder KL. 1997. Site survey. In: Hester TR, Shafer HJ, Feder
KL, editors. Field methods in archaeology. Mountain View,
CA: Mayeld Publishing.
Feinberg SE, Krislov SH, Straf ML. 1995. Understanding and
evaluation statistical evidence in litigation. Jurimetrics 36:1
32.
France DL, Grifn TF, Swanburg JG, Lindemann JW, Daven-
port GC, Trammell V, Travis CT, Kondratieff B, Nelson A,
Castellano K, Hopkins D. 1992. A multidisciplinary approach
to the detection of clandestine graves. J Forensic Sci 37:1445
1458.
France DL, Grifn 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 of
clandestine 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. The
role of forensic anthropology in trauma analysis. In: Galloway
A, editor. Broken bones, anthropological analysis of blunt
force trauma. Springeld, IL: CC Thomas. p 531.
Gifford DP. 1981. Taphonomy and paleoecology: a critical review
of archaeologys sister disciplines. In: Schiffer MB, editor.
Advances in archaeological method and theory, Vol 4. New
York: Academic Press. p 365438.
Giles E, Elliot O. 1963. Sex determination by discriminant func-
tion analysis of crania. Am J Phys Anthropol 21:5368.
Gozna ER, Harrington IJ, Evans DC. 1982. Biomechanics of
musculoskeletal injury. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Grayson DK. 1984. Quantitative zooarchaeology: topics in the
analysis of archaeological faunas. Orlando: Academic Press.
Gurdjian ES, Webster JE, Lissner HR. 1950. The mechanism of
skull fracture. Radiology 54:313339.
Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. 1997a. Forensic taphonomy:
the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton: CRC
Press.
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: CRC
Press. p 19.
Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. 2002. Advances in forensic
taphonomy: 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 3210.
Harrington RJ, Swift B, Hufne EF. 2003. Introducing Daubert
to 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 trauma
using concentric fractures. J Forensic Sci 50:12761281.
Hefner JT. 2007. The statistical determination of ancestry using
cranial nonmetric traits. PhD dissertation. University of Flor-
ida, Gainesville.
Hefner JT, Emanovsky PD, Byrd J, Ousley SD. 2007. The value
of experience, education, and methods in ancestry prediction
Hefner JT, Ousley SD. 2006. Morphoscopic traits and the statis-
tical determination of ancestry II [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad
Forensic Sci 12:282283.
Hochrein M, Dirkmaat DC, Adovasio JM. 2000. Beyond the
grave: 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. Boca
Raton, Florida: CRC Press. p 8398.
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. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press. p 4570.
Hollinger RE, Botic C, Ousley SD. 2005. Inventory and assess-
ment of human remains potentially afliated with the north-
western band of Shoshone in the National Museum of Natural
History, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.: Repatria-
tion Ofce, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution.
Isaac GL, Leakey REF, Behrensmeyer AK. 1971. Archaeological
traces of early hominid activities, east of Lake Rudolf, Kenya.
Science 173:11291134.
Is can MY. 1988. Rise of forensic anthropology. Yearb Phys
Anthropol 31:203230.
Is can MY, Cotton TS. 1990. Osteometric assessment of racial af-
nity from multiple sites in the postcranial skeleton. In: Gill
GW, Rhine S, editors. Skeletal attribution of race: methods for
forensic anthropology. Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of An-
thropology, Anthropological Papers No. 4. p 8390.
Jantz RL, Moore-Jansen PH. 1988. A database for forensic an-
thropology: structure, content and analysis. In: Report of
investigations 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 Data
Bank: new data, new technologies. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci
48th Annual Meeting.
Jantz RL, Ousley SD. 2005. FORDISC 3: computerized forensic
discriminant functions, Version 3.0. Knoxville: University of
Tennessee.
Johnson E. 1985. Current developments in bone technology. In:
Schiffer MB, editor. Advances in archaeological method and
theory, Vol 8. London: Academic Press. p 157235.
Joukowsky M. 1980. A complete manual of eld archaeology:
tools and techniques of eld work for archaeologists. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Killam EW. 1990. The detection of human remains. Springeld,
IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Klein RG, Cruz-Uribe K. 1984. The analysis of animal bones
from archaeological sites. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Kuhn T. 1970. The structure of scientic 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. Science
226:428429.
Lyman RL. 1994. Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Malzbender T, Gelb D, Wolters H. 2001. Polynomial texture
maps. 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. Springeld: C.C.
Thomas. p 218228.
Maples WR, Browning M. 1994. Dead men do tell tales: the
strange and fascinating cases of a forensic anthropologist.
New York: Doubleday.
Martin JR. 1999. Identifying osseous cut mark morphology for
common serrated knives. Masters Thesis. Department of An-
thropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Mayne Correia P. 1997. Fire modication of bone: a review of
the literature. In: Haglund W, Sorg M, editors. Forensic
taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press. p 275293.
Mayne Correia PM, Beattie O. 2002. A critical look at methods
for recovering, evaluating, and interpreting cremated human
remains. In: Haglund WH, Sorg M, editors. Advances in for-
ensic taphonomy: method, theory, and archaeological perspec-
tives. Baton Rouge: CRC Press, p 435450.
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-
tic and investigative technique. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
p 115135.
Morse D, Duncan J, Stoutamire J. 1983. Handbook of forensic
archaeology and anthropology. Tallahassee, FL: Rose Printing
Co.
Olsen SL, Shipman P. 1988. Surface modication on bone: tram-
pling versus butchery. J Archeol Sci 15:535553.
Olson LA. 2003. Daubert update for questioned documents
examiners [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 9:299.
Ortner DJ, Putschar WGJ. 1981. Identication of pathological
conditions in human skeletal remains. Smithsonian Contribu-
tions to Anthropology No. 28. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution.
Ousley SD, Billeck WT. 2001. Assessing tribal identity in the
Plains using nontraditional craniometrics (interlandmark dis-
tances) [Abstract]. Am J Phys Anthropol Suppl 32:115116.
Ousley SD, Billeck WT, Hollinger RE. 2005. Federal repatria-
tion legislation and the role of physical anthropology in repa-
triation. Yearb Phys Anthropol 48:232.
Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 1992. The Forensic Data Bank: some
results after 5 years and 1000 cases [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad
Forensic Sci 44th Annual Meeting. p 164.
Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 1993. Postcranial racial discriminant
functions from the Forensic Data Bank [Abstract]. Proc Am
Acad Forensic Sci 45th Annual Meeting. p 153.
Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 1996. FORDISC 2.0: personal computer
forensic discriminant functions. Knoxville: University of Ten-
nessee.
Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 2002. Social races and human popula-
tions: why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying
races [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 Acad
Ousley SD, McKeown A. 2001. Three dimensional digitizing of
human skulls as an archival procedure. In: Williams E, editor.
Human remains: conservation, retrieval, and analysis. British
Archaeological Reports, International Series 934. Oxford:
Basingstoke Press. p 173184.
Ousley SD, Seebauer JL, Jones EB. 2003. Forensic anthropol-
ogy, repatriation, and the Mongoloid problem [Abstract].
Patterson B, Behrensmeyer AK, Sill WD. 1970. Geology and
fauna of a new Pliocene locality in north-western Kenya. Na-
ture 226:918921.
Rebmann A, David E, Sorg MH. 2000. Cadaver dog handbook:
forensic training and tactics for the recovery of human
remains. 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 identication of commingled human remains.
Totowa: Humana Press. p 3156.
Ringrose TJ. 1993. Bone counts and statistics: a critique. J
Archaeol Sci 20:121157.
Rodriguez WC, Bass WM. 1985. Decomposition of buried bodies
and methods that may aid in their location. J Forensic Sci
30:836852.
Ross AH. 1996. Caliber estimation from cranial entrance defect
measurements. J Forensic Sci 41:629633.
Ross AH, McKeown AH, Konigsberg LW. 1999. Allocation of cra-
nia to groups via the new morphometry. Technical report. J
Ross AH, Slice DE, Ubelaker DH, Falsetti A. 2004. Population
afnities of 19th century Cuban crania: implication for identi-
cation criteria in Cuban Americans in South Florida. J For-
ensic Sci 49:1116.
Saferstein R. 2007. Criminalistics: an introduction to forensic
science, 9th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Saiki RK, Gelfand DH, Stoffel S, Scharf SJ, Higuchi R, Horn
GT, Mullis KB, Erlich HA. 1988. Primer-directed enzymatic
amplication of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase.
Science 239:487491.
Saiki RK, Scharf S, Faloona F, Mullis KB, Horn GT, Erlich HA,
Arnheim N. 1985. Enzymatic amplication of b-globin
genomic sequences and restriction site analysis for diagnosis
of sickle cell anemia. Science 230:13501354.
Saul FP, Saul JM. 1989. Osteobiography: a Maya example. In:
Iscan MY, Kennedy KAR, editors. Reconstruction of life from
the skeleton. New York: Alan R Liss, p 287302.
Saul FP, Saul JM. 1999. The evolving role of the forensic
anthropologist as seen in the identication of the victims of
the Comair 7232 (Michigan) and KAL 801 (Guam) aircrashes
Saul FP, Saul JM. 2003. Plane, trains and reworks: the evolv-
ing role of the forensic anthropologist in mass incidents. In:
Steadman DW, editor. Hard evidence: case studies in forensic
anthropology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p 266289.
Saville PA, Hainsworth SV, Rutty GN. 2007. Cutting crime: the
analysis of the uniquenessof saw marks on bone. Int J Legal
Med 121:349357.
Schmidt CW, Symes SA, editors. 2008. The analysis of burned
human 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. Baton
Rouge: CRC Press. p 277292.
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 25:116117.
Skinner M, Lazenby RA. 1983. Found! Human remains. Bur-
naby, BC: Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press.
Sledzik PS. 1996. Physical anthropologys role in identication of
disaster facilities. In: Proceedings of the Second National Sym-
posium on Dentistrys Role and Responsibility in Mass Disaster
Identication. Chicago: American Dental Association. p 6264.
Sledzik PS. 1998. Anthropology and mass fatality response. Pa-
per presented at the International Symposium on Family and
Victim Assistance for Transportation Disasters sponsored by
the National Transportation Safety Board, September 2829,
Arlington, Virginia.
Sledzik PS, Hunt DR. 1997. Disaster and relief efforts at the
Hardin Cemetery. In: Poirier DA, Bellantoni NB, editors. In
remembrance: archaeology and death. Westport, CT: Bergin
and Garvey. p 185198.
Sledzik PS, Miller W, Dirkmaat DC, de Jong JL, Kauffman PJ,
Boyer DA, Hellman FN. 2003. Victim identication following
the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 [Abstract]. Proc Am
Acad Forensic Sci 9:195.
Sledzik PS, Rodriguez WC. 2002. Damnum fatale: the tapho-
nomic fate of human remains in mass disasters. In: Haglund
W, Sorg M, editors. Advances in forensic taphonomy: method,
theory, and archaeological perspectives. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press. p 321330.
Slice DE, Ross AH. 2004. Population afnities of Hispanic cra-
nia: implications for forensic identication [Abstract]. Proc
Smith O, Berryman HE, Lahren C. 1987. Cranial fracture pat-
terns and estimate of direction from low velocity gunshot
wounds. J Forensic Sci 32:14161421.
Smith OC, Berryman HE, Symes SA. 1990. Changing role for
the forensic anthropologist. [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic
Sci 42nd Annual Meeting. p 132.
Snow CC. 1982. Forensic anthropology. Annu Rev Anthropol
11:97131.
Spitz WU, editor. 1993. Spitz and Fishers medicolegal investi-
gation of death: guidelines for the application of pathology to
crime investigation, 3rd ed. Springeld: Charles C. Thomas.
Spradley MK. 2006. Biological anthropological aspects of the
African diaspora: geographic origins, secular trends, and plas-
tic versus genetic inuences utilizing craniometric data. PhD
dissertation. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Spradley MK, Jantz RL. 2005. Biological variation among His-
panic (Spanish-speaking) peoples of the Americas [Abstract].
Spradley MK, Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 2008. Evaluating cranial
morphometric 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 identication in forensic anthropology. Am J
Phys Anthropol 131:2732.
Steadman DW, Haglund WD. 2005. The scope of anthropological
contributions to human rights investigations. J Forensic Sci
50:2330.
Stewart TD. 1979. Essentials of forensic anthropology: especially
as developed in the United States. Springeld: 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-force
trauma 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 403434.
Symes SA. 1992. Morphology of saw marks in human bone:
identication 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 the
identication of human remains. Springeld, IL: CC Thomas.
p 389409.
Symes SA, Rainwater CW, Chapman EN, Gipson DR, Piper AL.
2008. Patterned thermal destruction of human remains in a
forensic setting. In: Schmidt CW, Symes SA, editors. The
analysis of burned human remains. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
p 1554.
Symes SA, Rainwater CW, Myster SMT. 2007. Standardizing
saw and knife mark analysis on bone [Abstract]. Proc Am
Acad Forensic Sci 13:336.
Symes SA, Smith OC. 1998. It takes two: combining disciplines
of pathology and physical anthropology to get the rest of the
story [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 for
the American Academy of Forensic Sciences [Abstract]. Proc
Symes SA, Smith OC, Gardner CD, Francisco JT, Horton GA.
1999. Anthropological and pathological analysis of sharp
trauma in autopsy [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci
5:177178.
Tuller H, Hofmeister U, Daley S. 2008. Spatial analysis of mass
grave mapping data to assist in the reassociation of disarticu-
lated and commingled human remains. In: Adams BJ, Byrd
JE, editors. Recovery, analysis, and identication of com-
mingled human remains. Totowa: Humana Press. p 730.
Ubelaker DH, Owsley DW, Houck MM, Craig E, Grant W, Wol-
tanski T, Fram R, Sandness K, Peerwani N. 1995. The role of
forensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis of Branch
Davidian compound victims: recovery procedures and charac-
teristics of the victims. J Forensic Sci 32:335340.
Villa P, Bouville C, Courtin J, Helmer D, Mahieu E, Shipman P,
Belluomini G, Branca M. 1986. Cannibalism in the Neolithic.
Science 233:431437.
Voorhies M. 1969. Taphonomy and population dynamics of an
early 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 deeshing. Am J Phys Anthropol 69:503509.
Williams ED, Crews JD. 2003. From dust to dust: ethical and
practical issues involved in the location, exhumation, and
identication of bodies from mass graves. Croat Med J
44:251258.
Wolff RG. 1973. Hydrodynamic sorting and ecology of a Pleis-
toncene mammalian assemblage from California (U.S.A.).
Paleogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 13:91101.

Dirkmaat Et Al., 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dirkmaat Et Al., 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Perspectives in Forensic Anthropology

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

You might also like