Forensic Anthropology E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Serie: Forensic Science in Focus
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 717

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017

Beschreibung

Provides comprehensive coverage of everything that students and practitioners need to know about working in the field of forensic anthropology Forensic anthropology has been plagued by questions of scientific validity and rigor despite its acceptance as a section in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences nearly half a century ago. Critics have viewed it as a laboratory-based applied subfield of biological anthropology, and characterised it as emphasising methodology over theory. This book shows that these views are not only antiquated, but inadequate and inaccurate. Forensic Anthropology: Theoretical Framework and Scientific Basis introduces readers to all of the theoretical and scientific foundations of forensic anthropology -- beginning with how it was influenced by the early theoretical approaches of Tyler, Morgan, Spencer and Darwin. It instructs on how modern forensic science relies on an interdisciplinary approach -- with research being conducted in the fields of archaeology, physics, geology and other disciplines. This modern approach to theory in forensic anthropology is presented through the introduction and discussion of Foundational, Interpretive and Methodological theories. Sections cover: Bias and Objectivity in Forensic Anthropology Theory and Practice; The Theory and Science Behind Biological Profile and Personal Identification; Scientific Foundation for Interpretations of Antemortem, Perimortem, and Postmortem Processes; and Interdisciplinary Influences, Legal Ramifications and Future Directions. * Illustrates important aspects of the theory building process and reflects methods for strengthening the scientific framework of forensic anthropology as a discipline * Inspired by the "Application of Theory to Forensic Anthropology" symposium presented at the 67th annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences * Chapters written by experts in the field who were presenters at the symposium Forensic Anthropology: Theoretical Framework and Scientific Basis is ideal for university courses in anthropological science, forensic science, criminal science and forensic archaeology.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title Page

About the Editors

Notes on contributors

Foreword

Series preface

Acknowledgments

CHAPTER 1: The theoretical and scientific foundations of forensic anthropology

1.1 Introduction

1.2 A selective history of theory in forensic anthropology

1.3 A modern perspective on forensic anthropology theory

1.4 Forensic anthropology theory and modern practice

1.5 Final comments

References

PART 1: Bias and objectivity in forensic anthropology theory and practice

CHAPTER 2: Subjective with a capital S? Issues of objectivity in forensic anthropology

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Objectivity, subjectivity, and forensic anthropological theory

2.3 Subjectivity in science

2.4 Mitigated objectivity: A path forward…

2.5 Conclusion

References

CHAPTER 3: Navigating cognitive bias in forensic anthropology

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Types of cognitive bias

3.3 Research

versus

applied science

3.4 Recommended solutions to mitigate confirmation bias

3.5 Challenges unique to forensic anthropology

3.6 An example of how bias affects procedures

3.7 Workable solutions

3.8 Summary

References

CHAPTER 4: Theoretically interesting: Different perspectives of the application of theory to forensic anthropology practice and research

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Practising in context

4.3 Ethical considerations for the development of theory

4.4 Can theories be applied universally?

4.5 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

References

PART 2: The theory and science behind biological profile and personal identification

CHAPTER 5: From Blumenbach to Howells: The slow, painful emergence of theory through forensic race estimation

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Race as a concept and theory

5.3 Anthropology and race

5.4 Forensic anthropology and race

5.5 Race and the future

Acknowledgments

References

CHAPTER 6: The application of theory in skeletal age estimation

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Skeletal age

6.3 Historical context

6.4 Forensic anthropology and evolutionary biology

6.5 Potential solutions to the problem of age estimation

6.6 Final comments

References

CHAPTER 7: Theory and histological methods

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Foundational theory in bone biology

7.3 Interpretive theory in bone biology

7.4 Methodological theory in bone biology

7.5 Conclusions

References

CHAPTER 8: Forensic applications of isotope landscapes (“isoscapes”): A tool for predicting region‐of‐origin in forensic anthropology cases

8.1 Introduction

8.2 What are isotopes?

8.3 Why do isotope compositions of human tissues differ?

8.4 How do we interpret isotope data collected for forensic human identification?

8.5 Examples of the application of isotope analysis to unidentified remains

8.6 What are the future applications of isotope analysis?

Acknowledgments

References

PART 3: Scientific foundation for interpretations of antemortem, perimortem, and postmortem processes

CHAPTER 9: The anatomical basis for fracture repair: Recognition of the healing continuum and its forensic applications to investigations of pediatric and elderly abuse

9.1 Introduction: Diagnosing pediatric and elderly non‐accidental injury

9.2 Theoretical basis for fracture healing and TSI estimation

9.3 Anatomical basis for fracture healing

9.4 Factors affecting the rate of bone healing

9.5 Fracture healing stages and dating systems

9.6 A new model for fracture repair

9.7 Expanding and refining TSI estimation through the Antemortem Fracture Archive

9.8 Theory and the future of TSI estimation

References

Appendix A: Major fracture repair stages and TSI estimations

CHAPTER 10: Theoretical foundation of child abuse

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Case study

10.3 Anthropologists and child abuse

10.4 Foundational theory

10.5 Interpretive theory

10.6 Methodological theory

10.7 Conclusion

References

CHAPTER 11: Bone trauma analysis in a forensic setting: Theoretical basis and a practical approach for evaluation

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Theory

11.3 Fundamental principles in bone fracture interpretation

11.4 A practical approach to bone trauma evaluation and hypothesis building

11.5 Conclusion

References

CHAPTER 12: Thinking outside the box: Theory and innovation in sharp trauma analysis

12.1 Introduction

12.2 Transfer of evidence

12.3 Theory connections

12.4 The human skeleton as transfer evidence

12.5 A primer on saws and dismemberment

12.6 Geographic information system

12.7 Applications of GIS in forensic anthropology and human osteology

12.8 GIS: innovation in cut mark striation interpretation

12.9 Locard and the twenty‐first century: It’s all a matter of scale

References

CHAPTER 13: The forensic anthropologist as broker for cross‐disciplinary taphonomic research related to estimating the postmortem interval in medicolegal death investigations

13.1 Introduction

13.2 Taphonomy and taphonomic theory

13.3 Forensic taphonomy

13.4 Taphonomy and the estimation of time since death

13.5 The necrobiome

13.6 Cross‐disciplinary research

13.7 Overcoming barriers to cross‐disciplinary research

13.8 Forensic anthropologists as brokers for unified theories in forensic taphonomy

13.9 Conclusions

Acknowledgments

References

PART 4: Interdisciplinary influences, legal ramifications, and future directions

CHAPTER 14: Archaeological inference and its application to forensic anthropology

14.1 Introduction

14.2 Agency and nonlinear systems theories

14.3 Nonlinear modeling of the decomposition process

14.4 Discussion

References

CHAPTER 15: Arrows of influence: The give and take of theory between forensic anthropology, archaeology, and geophysics

15.1 Introduction

15.2 Influences of archaeology on forensic anthropology

15.3 Influences of geophysics on forensic anthropology

15.4 “Backflow” to other disciplines: Site formation processes in archaeology

15.5 Backflow: Interpretation/understanding of geophysical signatures

15.6 Conclusion

References

CHAPTER 16: Forensic anthropology, scientific evidence, and the law: Why theory matters

16.1 Introduction: Theory in practice

16.2 Science and the law: The disconnect

16.3 Science and the law: Commonalities

16.4 Forensic anthropologists as expert witnesses

16.5 Admissibility of forensic anthropology evidence in the post‐

Daubert

world

16.6 The legal application of forensic anthropology: Why theory matters

16.7 Final comments

Acknowledgments

References

CHAPTER 17: Epilogue: Theory and science in forensic anthropology: Avenues for further research and development

17.1 The science of forensic anthropology

17.2 Looking forward

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 09

Table 9.A.1 Major fracture repair stages for adults

Table 9.A.2 Major fracture repair staging systems for juveniles

Table 9.A.3 Fracture repair processual observations

Chapter 12

Table 12.1 GIS metrics

Table 12.2 GIS metrics for the 11‐ and 32‐teeth‐per‐inch saw blade cut surfaces

Chapter 13

Table 13.1 Cross‐disciplinary approaches to research

Chapter 14

Table 14.1 Model input data from Megyesi

et al.

(2005)

Table 14.2 Predicted TBS for model cases

Table 14.3 Predicted TBS for cumulative cooling degree days

Table 14.4 Models applied to excluded outdoor cases from Megyesi

et al.

(2005)

List of Illustrations

Chapter 01

Figure 1.1 The interrelationships between forms of theory and logic in scientific research and theory building.

Chapter 05

Figure 5.1 Biological race beliefs of some American anthropologists and scientists. The

x

‐axis is a continuum from not discussing biological race on the far left, believing in human differences in the middle, to eugenics on the far right. The

y

‐axis represents a scale from scientific at the top to pseudoscientific at the bottom–arrows show the connections between professor and student.

Chapter 08

Figure 8.1

Fractionation processes affect the O (and H) isotopes of water.

(a) The standard used for O isotope measurements is Standard Mean Ocean Water (SMOW), with a defined

δ

‐value of 0‰ for O isotopes (as well as H isotopes). The ocean contains H

2

O molecules comprising both “heavy” and “light” isotopes. Water molecules containing “light” isotopes (

16

O or

1

H) are more likely to evaporate than those containing “heavy” isotopes, resulting in water vapor that has lower (more negative)

δ

‐values than that of the ocean. That water vapor moves inland and cools, forming a cloud; the water molecules that precipitate from the cloud are more likely to contain “heavy” isotopes. The result is precipitation that has higher (more positive)

δ

‐values than the cloud, but lower (more negative)

δ

‐values that the ocean. The water vapor remaining in the cloud is characterized by even lower

δ

‐values. (b) Fractionation processes in the water cycle create a systematic, predictable pattern of water isotope ratios across land surfaces. These patterns can be displayed in an isotope landscape or

isoscape

. As you move from the coastlines and inland or up latitudinal or elevational gradients, water isotope ratios typically decrease.

Figure 8.2

Sr isotopic composition varies based on bedrock identity.

Variations in

87

Sr/

86

Sr ratios as predicted based on bedrock characteristics (e.g., type, age, etc.) and modeled following Beard and Johnson (2000). Distinct breaks in predictions at state borders are artifacts related to differences in the classification of bedrock between state geological surveys.

Figure 8.3

Salt Lake County Jane Doe’s travel history is reconstructed using oxygen isotopes.

Three distinct isotope ranges are identified in the 18‐month sequence of hair strands analyzed during casework. The identified ranges suggest that the individual resided in an “iso‐region” for a sufficient period of time that her hair achieved isotopic equilibrium with local drinking water.

Figure 8.4

Geographic locations consistent with hair keratin

δ

18

O values measured for Salt Lake County Jane Doe.

See Figure 8.3 for the identification of three “iso‐regions.” Geographic Information System (GIS) software was used to spatially represent drinking water predictions made from hair keratin

δ

18

O values.

Figure 8.5

Geographic locations consistent with tooth enamel apatite

δ

18

O values measured for Salt Lake County Jane Doe.

The average drinking water

δ

18

O value was calculated from the analysis of three teeth. Geographic Information System (GIS) software was used to spatially represent drinking water predictions made from enamel

δ

18

O values.

Figure 8.6

Geographic locations consistent with tooth enamel

δ

18

O values and

87

Sr/

86

Sr ratios measured for the Siskiyou County mandible.

Geographic Information System (GIS) software was used to represent geographic locations that are consistent with tooth enamel apatite

δ

18

O values (darker gray),

87

Sr/

86

Sr ratios (lighter gray), and both isotopes (red).

Figure 8.7

Geographic locations consistent with tooth enamel and bone apatite

δ

18

O values measured for the Siskiyou County mandible.

Geographic Information System (GIS) software was used to represent geographic locations that are consistent with tooth enamel apatite

δ

18

O values (black) and bone apatite

δ

18

O values (blue). There were no regions of overlap.

Chapter 09

Figure 9.1

Subperiosteal new bone formation (SPNBF)

: early osteoblastic‐driven bone deposition may be seen microscopically or macroscopically as early as 4 days, or may not be seen at all (rib fracture, 27‐day old male, 30×).

Figure 9.2

Fibrocartilage formation and bridging

are seen as a fibrocartilaginous scaffolding derived from the subperiosteum that initially stabilizes the fracture, but may disintegrate upon maceration (rib fracture, 27‐day old male, 30×).

Figure 9.3

Woven bone development

is characterized by the mineralization of the fibrocartilaginous scaffold to form woven bone (tibial fracture in a 13‐month‐old female, 20×).

Figure 9.4

Lamellar bone developmen

t is characterized by the replacement of immature and disorganized woven bone with mature, organized lamellar bone (radius fracture in a 13‐month old female, 30×).

Figure 9.5

Fracture margin rounding/resorption

reflects the osteoclastic resorption of necrotic fracture margins, leading to potential obliteration of the original fracture line (rib fracture, 27‐day old male, 30×).

Figure 9.6

Fibrocartilage to woven bone conversion

reflects resorption of the fibrocartilage in favor of woven bone deposition (mineralization) (rib fracture in a 10‐month‐old male, 40×).

Figure 9.7

Woven to lamellar bone conversion

reflects the conversion of woven to lamellar bone at the fracture site (rib fracture, 10‐month old male, 40×).

Figure 9.8

Remodeling/lamellar resorption

(contouring) involves larger‐scale regional resorption of mature lamellar bone (rib fracture, 4‐year old male, 20×).

Figure 9.9 (a) Model of anabolic (solid line)/catabolic (dotted line) bone healing response in a normal fracture. (b) Model of deficient anabolic bone healing response resulting in lower than normal bone production.

Figure 9.10

Moderate fracture margin resorption and rounding

in day 15 individual (rib fracture, 3‐month old male, 30×).

Figure 9.11

Fracture line obliteration

in 27‐day old male (rib fracture, 40×).

Figure 9.12

SPNBF development

in 27‐day old male (rib fracture, 30×).

Figure 9.13

Advanced woven bone development

in day 15 individual (rib fracture, 3‐month old male, 30×).

Figure 9.14

Lamellar Conversion

in 27‐day old male (rib fracture, 20×).

Chapter 11

Figure 11.1 Cantilevered material with (a) initial fracture occurring under tension at the site of least resistance and (b) shear forces directing the fracture toward the fixed end of the material.

Figure 11.2 The fracture path in material is directed by shear force, with the active end of the fracture continuing to fail under tension as the fracture propagates.

Figure 11.3 Tension and shear forces acting upon bone. (a) Cantilevered tubular bone fracturing under tension with shear forces directing the fracture. (b) Gunshot entrance wound to the cranial vault (cross‐sectional view) with the dynamic load of a bullet depressing the bone upon impact, the surrounding vault acting as a cantilever, and shear forces directing the fracture, just as in tubular bone, to produce the classic internal bevel.

Figure 11.4 Illustration of the development of secondary fractures. (a) The formation and termination of a primary fracture. (b) Dynamic loading on the free end of the bone forces it downward, building tensile forces on the exposed surface of the primary fracture until stress risers build at the weakest point and a new fracture opens. (c) The new fracture is a continuation of the primary fracture and the short portion of the primary fracture that terminated remains as the secondary fracture.

Figure 11.5 The fracture assessment triad provides a simplified approach that facilitates trauma analysis.

Figure 11.6 An example of a simple thought experiment in which a malleable cylinder with a static load (a) is compressed with a dynamic load (b). The circumference of the cylinder expands, causing increased tensile forces on the external surface perpendicular to the axial load, producing radiating fractures (c). As the dynamic load continues, tensile forces continue to increase on the external surface parallel to the axial load, producing concentric fractures (d).

Figure 11.7 Blunt trauma to cranium by (a) a blunt object with a broad striking surface results in the vault being deformed and the fracture initiating at a point distant to the impact site, while trauma inflicted with (b) a blunt object with a narrow striking surface fractures the vault at the impact site and results in fractures radiating away from the site of impact.

Chapter 12

Figure 12.1 Kerf wall striations created by an 11‐teeth‐per‐inch saw blade.

Figure 12.2 Kerf wall striations created by a 32‐teeth‐per‐inch saw blade.

Figure 12.3 Screenshot from ArcGIS unsupervised classification of the 11‐teeth‐per‐inch saw blade striations (jpeg image).

Figure 12.4 Screenshot from ArcGIS unsupervised classification of the 32‐teeth‐per‐inch saw blade striations (jpeg image).

Chapter 13

Figure 13.1 Variation in decomposition between two individuals placed on the ground surface in Central Texas. The body on the left is seen at 7‐day PMI and is mainly skeletonized with desiccated skin. This body was uncaged and therefore available to large scavengers. The body on the right is seen 20‐day PMI and is still in wet decomposition with a significant amount of soft tissue remaining. This body was caged and protected from large scavengers. The difference between the two bodies illustrates the importance of reconstructing the taphonomic history of human remains in medicolegal death investigations to accurately estimate the PMI.

Figure 13.2 Cartoon illustration of the multidisciplinary approach. Researchers work together, but on separate projects related to the estimation of the PMI and rarely collaborate or examine the interaction between taphonomic processes.

Chapter 14

Figure 14.1 Changes in the rate of decay per accumulated maximum temperatures over time based on fetal pig data (Boyd

et al.

, 2015).

Figure 14.2 LOESS regression, with 90% CI, of observed TBS values versus their cumulative cooling degree days for outdoors, clothed contexts. The smoothing parameter was 0.6.

Figure 14.3 LOESS regression, with 90% CI, of observed TBS values versus their cumulative cooling degree days for outdoors, not clothed contexts. The smoothing parameter was 0.9.

Figure 14.4 Comparative LOESS regressions of clothed versus not clothed contexts.

Figure 14.5 LOESS regression, with 90% CI, of observed TBS values versus their cumulative cooling degree days for outdoors, clothed contexts not included in the model‐building sample.

Figure 14.6 LOESS regression, with 90% CI, of observed TBS values versus their cumulative cooling degree days for outdoors, clothed contexts not included in the model‐building sample.

Figure 14.7 Modeled rates of decay expressed as expected TBS value per cumulative cooling degree days. Similar to Figure 14.1

Figure 14.8 Approximation of the rate of change in TBS as cumulative cooling degree days increase.

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

ii

iii

iv

v

xv

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

Published and forthcoming titles in the Forensic Science in Focus series

Published

The Global Practice of Forensic ScienceDouglas H. Ubelaker (Editor)

Forensic Chemistry: Fundamentals and ApplicationsJay A. Siegel

Forensic MicrobiologyDavid O. Carter, Jeffrey K. Tomberlin, M. Eric Benbow and Jessica L. Metcalf

Forensic Anthropology: Theoretical Framework and Scientific BasisC. Clifford Boyd Jr and Donna C. Boyd

Forthcoming

The Future of Forensic ScienceDaniel A. Martell

Humanitarian Forensics and Human IdentificationPaul Emanovsky and Shuala M. Drawdy

Forensic Anthropology

Theoretical Frameworkand Scientific Basis

EDITED BY

C. Clifford Boyd Jr

Department of Anthropological Sciences, Radford University Forensic Science Institute Radford University, USA

Donna C. Boyd

Department of Anthropological Sciences, Radford University Forensic Science Institute, Radford University, USADepartment of Biomedical Science, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, USA

This edition first published 2018© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of C. Clifford Boyd Jr and Donna C. Boyd to be identified as the author(s) of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Office(s)John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USAJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial OfficeThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyIn view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of experimental reagents, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each chemical, piece of equipment, reagent, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names: Boyd, C. Clifford, Jr, 1952– editor. | C. Boyd, Donna, 1960– editor.Title: Forensic anthropology : theoretical framework and scientific basis / edited by C. Clifford Boyd Jr, Donna C. Boyd.Other titles: Forensic anthropology (Boyd)Description: First edition. | Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2017044528 (print) | LCCN 2017041632 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119226383 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119226406 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119226420 (epub)Subjects: | MESH: Forensic Anthropology–methodsClassification: LCC RA1055 (ebook) | LCC RA1055 (print) | NLM W 750 | DDC 614/.17–dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017044528

Cover Design: WileyCover Images: Microscopic images courtesy of Donna C. Boyd

We dedicate this book to our children, Merritt, Emily, and Forrest, because butterflies taste with their feet.

About the Editors

C. Clifford Boyd Jr, PhD, RPA, received his PhD in Anthropology from the University of Tennessee–Knoxville in 1986, with a specialty in archaeology. Since 1986, he has taught at Radford University, Virginia, and is currently professor of anthropological sciences, codirector of the RU Forensic Science Institute, and consultant for the Virginia Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. He has conducted archaeological and skeletal analyses of remains from prehistoric, historic, and forensic sites in Tennessee and Virginia for 38 years. In 1998, he was named Professional Archeologist of the Year by the Archeological Society of Virginia. In 2008, he received an Outstanding Faculty Award from the State Council of Higher Education in Virginia. In 2016, he was awarded the Ellis R. Kerley Foundation Research Award for excellence in forensic anthropology research. His research interests include prehistoric and historic archaeology of the southeastern United States, human osteology, forensic archaeology, and anthropological theory.

Donna C. Boyd, PhD, D‐ABFA, is eminent professor of anthropological sciences at Radford University, codirector of the Radford University Forensic Science Institute, professor of biomedical science at Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, and consultant for the Virginia Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (VOCME). Dr. Boyd received her PhD in Anthropology in 1988 from the University of Tennessee–Knoxville and has taught at Radford University since 1989. She is the recipient of numerous awards honoring her teaching and research, including the Donald N. Dedmon Professorial Excellence Award for outstanding teaching at Radford University (1998), the Outstanding Faculty Award from the State Council of Higher Education in Virginia (2006), and the United States CASE/Carnegie Outstanding Professor of the Year Award (2006). She is a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), secretary for the AAFS Standards Board (Anthropology Consensus Group), and secretary and public information officer for the American Board of Forensic Anthropology Board of Directors. She is also a member of the US Department of Health and Human Service’s National Disaster Medical System’s Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT), through which she was deployed to Haiti in February 2010, to recover, analyze, and identify American and Haitian–American earthquake victims. Her current research is on the macroscopic and microscopic skeletal signatures of antemortem and perimortem pediatric and elderly trauma, the estimation of time since injury in pediatric death investigations, and microevolutionary change in the human mandible.

Notes on contributors

Janna M. Andronowski, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Biology, University of Akron, Akron, Ohio. She was formerly a research intern with the Forensic Anthropology Unit at the Office of Chief Medical Examiner in New York City, a research assistant at Simon Fraser University’s Center for Forensic Research, and a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Saskatchewan.

William W. Baden, PhD (retired), worked in the Information Technology and Institutional Research Units of Indiana University–Purdue University Fort Wayne. His research focuses on the application of quantitative approaches to anthropological questions, specifically developing nonlinear models of cultural phenomena and, in particular, prehistoric maize agriculture in the Southeastern United States and Mexico.

Eric J. Bartelink, PhD, D‐ABFA, has taught for 11 years at California State University, Chico, where he is currently a full professor and director of the Human Identification Laboratory. His research interests focus on the bioarchaeology of Native California, dietary reconstruction using stable isotope analysis, and applications within forensic anthropology. He is a coauthor of Essentials of Physical Anthropology and Forensic Anthropology: Current Methods and Practice and has authored and coauthored numerous articles in scientific journals.

Hugh E. Berryman, PhD, D‐ABFA, is a research professor with the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and director of the Forensic Institute for Research and Education at Middle Tennessee State University. Since 1997, Dr. Berryman has provided forensic anthropology consultation to the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency‐Central Identification Laboratory in Hawaii and the Office of the Metropolitan and Davidson County Medical Examiner. He serves on the Crime Scene Subcommittee of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC). His research interests include bone trauma, bone fracture interpretation, and skeletal crime scene processing. In 2012, he received the T. Dale Stewart Award for lifetime achievement.

John F. Berryman, MS, holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Tennessee, Martin, and an MS in aerospace engineering from Virginia Tech, Blacksburg. His research interests have varied from the use of finite element analysis to examining bone fracture propagation to software development including coauthoring a book entitled Relevant Search: With Applications for Solr and Elasticsearch.

Soren Blau, PhD,is the senior forensic anthropologist at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM) where she has been employed since 2005. She is an adjunct associate professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine at Monash University, a founding fellow of the Faculty of Science of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, and a recipient of a Churchill Fellowship (2013). She has undertaken consultancies for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and participated in the recovery and analysis of human remains from archaeological and forensic contexts in numerous countries. She is the coeditor of the Handbook of Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology (2009, 2016).

Lesley A. Chesson, MS, is the president of IsoForensics, Inc., a private analytical services and research firm located in Salt Lake City, UT, that focuses on forensic applications of stable isotope techniques. She was approved as a forensic practitioner by the Forensic Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry Network (FIRMS) in 2013 and is a member of the FIRMS Steering Group. She has applied stable isotope analysis for more than 14 years to examine drugs, explosives, foods, and beverages. One of her current areas of focus is assisting law enforcement in investigations via the stable isotope analysis of unidentified human remains.

Christian M. Crowder, PhD, D‐ABFA, is director of the Forensic Anthropology Division for the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences in Houston, Texas. Previously, he was the chief anthropologist for the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner and deputy director of Forensic Anthropology Unit for the Office of Chief Medical Examiner in New York City. He has also worked as an anthropologist for the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency in Hawaii and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In addition to his practitioner duties, he is adjunct faculty at Pace University in New York City and at the University of Toronto, Ontario.

Ronald W. Davis, PhD, is a former assistant professor of Geosciences and Natural Resources and National Resource Conservation and Management at Western Carolina University. His research interests include wildlife ecology and management, GIS, and remote sensing.

Victoria M. Dominguez, MA, spent 4 years with the Forensic Anthropology Unit of the Office of Chief Medical Examiner in New York City. Currently, she is a PhD candidate in the Division of Anatomy at the Ohio State University (OSU). She is also the laboratory manager for the Skeletal Biology Research Laboratory, a part of the Injury Biomechanics Research Center at OSU. Her principal research interest is in bone histology, particularly the use of histology for human versus nonhuman differentiation, age‐at‐death estimation, and the influence of microarchitecture on bone mechanics.

Beatrix Dudzik, PhD, is an assistant professor of anatomy at the DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine of Lincoln Memorial University. She received her PhD in biological anthropology at the University of Tennessee. Her research interests and publications focus on morphological variation of the skull in Asian populations, forensic age estimation methods, and forensic taphonomy.

James R. Ehleringer, PhD, is a distinguished professor at the University of Utah, where his research focuses on ecological, environmental, and forensic applications of naturally occurring stable isotopes (nature’s natural recorders) in water, atmospheric gases, and biological materials. He is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and a recipient of the Rosenblatt Prize for Excellence. He is also senior scientist at IsoForensics, Inc.

Amanda N. Friend, MA, is a PhD student in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Florida and is a forensic anthropology assistant in the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory (CAPHIL) where she also currently serves as the senior analyst. Her research interests include undocumented border crosser deaths in Florida, ancestry assessment, and isotopic variation.

Joseph T. Hefner, PhD, RPA, D‐ABFA, is currently an assistant professor of anthropology at Michigan State University. His research interests focus on morphological variation in cranial form within and between modern human populations. In particular, he works with morphoscopic traits, parametric and nonparametric classification statistics, and machine learning methods useful for the assessment of ancestry in forensic anthropology.

Richard L. Jantz, PhD (emeritus professor), has taught at the University of Tennessee since 1971, serving as director of the UT Forensic Anthropology Center from 2000 to 2011. His research interests mainly include quantitative human variation with an emphasis on American populations, both early and recent. In the mid‐1980s, he established the forensic anthropology data bank and, along with Steve Ousley, developed ForDisc software that automates estimation of sex, ancestry, and height from skeletal measurements. His primary research in forensic anthropology deals with improving estimates of sex, ancestry, and height and documenting the changes occurring in the American population during the twentieth century. He is now an emeritus professor and is enjoying working on research that has been put off for decades.

Cheryl A. Johnston, PhD, D‐ABFA, is a Lecturer at the Center for Life Sciences Education at the Ohio State University. She has worked as a consultant in forensic anthropology since 1991 for numerous agencies in North Carolina and Ohio, including the Ohio Attorney General’s Office Consumer Protection Division, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Her interests in forensic anthropology include cultural modification of human bone, decomposition, and thermally altered bone.

Natalie R. Langley, PhD, D‐ABFA, is a senior associate consultant in the Department of Anatomy at the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine in Scottsdale, AZ, and an adjunct faculty member in the University of Tennessee Anthropology Department and the DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine Anatomy Department. Her research interests include skeletal maturation in modern populations, age and sex estimation from the human skeleton, secular changes in skeletal biology, currency of forensic standards, skeletal trauma, and anatomy education. In 2007, the AAFS Forensic Sciences Foundation awarded her the Emerging Forensic Scientist Award for her research in skeletal maturation.

Jennifer C. Love, PhD, D‐ABFA, is currently the forensic anthropologist and identification unit supervisor for the Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) in Washington, DC. Prior to joining the OCME, she served as the forensic anthropology director at the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences in Houston, TX. She is a member of the Anthropology Subcommittee of the Organization for Scientific Area Committees (OSAC). Her research interests are bone trauma, bone pathology, and decedent identification. In 2011, she coauthored the textbook Skeletal Atlas of Child Abuse.

Miriam E. Soto Martinez, PhD, received her PhD in biological anthropology from the University of Tennessee in 2015. She has been working at the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences since 2013. Her research interests include child abuse, growth and development, and sexual dimorphism in subadults.

Stephen Ousley, PhD, has been a professor at Mercyhurst University in Erie, Pennsylvania, since 2007. From 1998 to 2007, he was the director of the Repatriation Osteology Laboratory in the Repatriation Office of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution, where he developed multivariate statistical methods to estimate ancestry of human remains in the Smithsonian’s collections. Most of his professional activities involve anthropological databases, computer programming, and statistical approaches to biological anthropology. His research interests include forensic anthropology, human growth and development, and human variation. With Richard Jantz, he coauthored ForDisc, discriminant function software for sex, ancestry, and height estimation.

Todd Park is a cold‐case investigator for the Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake, Utah.

Deborrah C. Pinto, PhD, D‐ABFA, is a forensic anthropologist with the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences in Houston, Texas, and has been with the agency since 2010. Her research and publications focus on adult and pediatric trauma as well as anthropological methods using bone histology.

Tiffany B. Saul, PhD, is currently a research assistant professor with the Forensic Institute for Research and Education at Middle Tennessee State University. Her research interests include the use of stable isotopes and trace elements for the identification of human remains, trauma analysis, and the role of anthropologists in humanitarian and human rights responses, including disaster response and human rights investigations.

John F. Schweikart, MA, RPA, is an archaeologist with Search Recovery Consultants, LLC, with over 20 years’ field and laboratory experience working collaboratively with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification (BCII), North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), the Franklin County (Ohio) Coroner, and various county law enforcement agencies in Ohio, North Carolina, and West Virginia. He has served as guest instructor for forensic anthropology training courses for the York Regional Police, Ontario, Canada.

Michala K. Stock, MA, is a PhD candidate in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Florida and a forensic anthropology analyst in the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory (CAPHIL). Her research focuses on the growth and development of sexual dimorphism in the crania of humans and apes.

Brett J. Tipple, PhD, is a senior research scientist at IsoForensics, Inc. in Salt Lake City, Utah, and a research assistant professor within the Department of Biology at the University of Utah. His research interests are in the fields of isotope geochemistry, plant ecology, and social geochemistry. Some of his current areas of research are plant ecophysiology and applications of heavy isotopes from human tissues for provenancing.

Douglas H. Ubelaker, PhD, D‐ABFA, is a curator and senior scientist at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC, where he has been employed for nearly four decades. He is also a professorial lecturer with the Departments of Anatomy and Anthropology at the George Washington University, Washington, DC, and is an adjunct professor with the Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University. He has published extensively in the general field of human skeletal biology with an emphasis on forensic applications. He served as the 2011–2012 president of the AAFS and was named Distinguished Fellow in 2016. He has received numerous honors, including the Memorial Medal of Dr. Aleš Hrdlička, Humpolec, Czech Republic; the Anthropology Award of the Washington Academy of Sciences; the T. Dale Stewart Award of the Physical Anthropology Section of AAFS; the FBI Director’s Award for Exceptional Public Service; and a special recognition award from the FBI.

Michael W. Warren, PhD, D‐ABFA (retired), was director of the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory at the University of Florida. His research areas of interest include forensic identification and trauma analysis, human variation, and forensic examination of cremated human remains. He is coeditor of The Forensic Anthropology Laboratory.

Daniel J. Wescott, PhD, is associate professor in the Department of Anthropology and the director of the Forensic Anthropology Center at Texas State University. His forensic anthropological research focuses on developing and testing methods for defining biological profiles, interpreting the postmortem interval, and reconstructing trauma from human skeletal remains. He is a recipient of the Ellis Kerley Award for excellence in forensic anthropology research.

John A. Williams, PhD, D‐ABFA, is a professor of anthropology at Western Carolina University. His primary interests are in the interpretation of bone trauma, especially dismemberment. He has consulted with medical examiners, various law enforcement agencies, and the FBI.

Allysha Powanda Winburn, PhD, is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of West Florida. She has worked previously as a forensic anthropologist at the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency and as quality assurance coordinator of the University of Florida’s C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory. In addition to the study of ethics, error, and objectivity in forensic anthropology, her research interests include pelvic age estimation and medicolegal interpretations of ritual remains used in African diaspora religious practices.

Foreword

As the field of forensic anthropology has advanced and flourished, critics have emerged. During the formative years of the discipline, some anthropology colleagues, who were not engaged in forensic applications, contrasted forensic casework and research with more traditional endeavors, labeling the former as “police work” largely devoid of a theoretical foundation. Those of us active in forensic anthropology at that time simply shrugged these comments off, viewing them as reflective of ignorance of the reality of the field and also a bit of jealously regarding its visibility. With time, these critiques have waned. Fueled by surging student interest in forensic anthropology and administrative responses, some of these former critics now find themselves involved with teaching courses in forensic applications.

Today, forensic anthropology is recognized as an important subdiscipline of anthropology. Emerging forensic anthropologists can find jobs in university faculties, medical examiners’ offices, human rights organizations, government facilities, and many other sites. Anthropologists are integrated into recovery teams. Anthropological analysis of recovered remains is sought after and highly valued. Data and interpretations offered by forensic anthropologists have contributed in critical ways to the solutions of many medicolegal problems.

In spite of this progress, some concern lingers, especially among the older generation of anthropologists, regarding the robusticity of method and theory within forensic anthropology. Today, much like before, such doubts remain rooted in ignorance of the complexity of the modern practice of forensic anthropology. Some concerns reflect criticism of the overall field of forensic science and its perceived needs of more robust methodology, error analysis, assessment of cognitive bias, and related issues.

This volume addresses such concerns in a comprehensive manner. Forensic anthropology, like other forensic science disciplines, is case‐driven but also represents applied science. The quality of these applications reflects advances, as well as knowledge of the underlying science. To address issues presented by a particular case or set of evidence, the forensic anthropologist turns to the relevant science at hand. At the general level, the available science reflects method and theory in the studies of evolution, growth and development, anatomy, physics, engineering, chemistry, archaeology, and of course the broad fields of anthropology and physical anthropology. In addition, certain methods and theories derived from research and casework experience are specific to the unique forensic applications. This book presents detail on the many different levels of method and theory in forensic anthropology.

Nonlinear systems theory is included in this discussion. Throughout its history, progress in the field of forensic anthropology has been distinctly nonlinear. Promising new methods have emerged from research on specific samples. However, in many cases, enthusiasm for these methods has waned when testing on different samples has revealed reduced accuracy. Although irregular, progress has been sustained by increasingly critical research and the growing availability of new documented collections. Research has become increasingly interdisciplinary and international. Simultaneously, anthropologists have eagerly taken on issues of error analysis, cognitive bias, and many of the concerns that ripple through forensic science today.

In my view, this volume represents a welcomed addition to the scientific literature in forensic anthropology and the more general field of forensic science. The book documents in a comprehensive and exhaustive manner what forensic anthropologists have known all along; method and theory are alive and well in the dynamic and rapidly growing field of forensic anthropology.

Douglas H. Ubelaker

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, DC, USA

Series preface

The forensic sciences represent diverse, dynamic fields that seek to utilize the very best techniques available to address legal issues. Fueled by advances in technology, research and methodology, as well as new case applications, the forensic sciences continue to evolve. Forensic scientists strive to improve their analyses and interpretations of evidence and to remain cognizant of the latest advancements. This series results from a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) and Wiley to publish a select number of books that relate closely to the activities and Objectives of the AAFS. The book series reflects the goals of the AAFS to encourage quality scholarship and publication in the forensic sciences. Proposals for publication in the series are reviewed by a committee established for that purpose by the AAFS and also reviewed by Wiley.

The AAFS was founded in 1948 and represents a multidisciplinary professional organization that provides leadership to advance science and its application to the legal system. The 11 sections of the AAFS consist of Criminalistics, Digital and Multimedia Sciences, Engineering Sciences, General, Pathology/Biology, Questioned Documents, Jurisprudence, Anthropology, Toxicology, Odontology, and Psychiatry and Behavioral Science. There are over 7000 members of the AAFS, originating from all 50 States of the United States and many countries beyond. This series reflects global AAFS membership interest in new research, scholarship, and publication in the forensic sciences.

Douglas H. Ubelaker

Senior Scientist

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, DC, USA

Series Editor

Acknowledgments

The editors wish to thank the chapter contributors who accepted the challenge of exploring theoretical applications of their expertise in the discipline of forensic anthropology. They are particularly indebted to Dr. Douglas H. Ubelaker and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences for soliciting and supporting this project. Many thanks also to Jenny Cossham, Elsie Merlin, and P. Sathishwaran at Wiley Blackwell for their many helpful edits and suggestions.

CHAPTER 1The theoretical and scientific foundations of forensic anthropology

C. Clifford Boyd Jr1 and Donna C. Boyd1,2

1Department of Anthropological Sciences, Radford University Forensic Science Institute, Radford University, Radford, VA, USA

2Department of Biomedical Science, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA, USA

1.1 Introduction

Despite its acceptance as a section in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences over 45 years ago (Thompson, 1982; Ubelaker, 2009), forensic anthropology has continued to be plagued by questions of scientific validity and rigor (Nordby, 2002). The legitimacy of forensic anthropology as a science and as a stand‐alone discipline has been challenged repeatedly due to its perceived lack of a “grounding body of theory” (Adovasio, 2012). Viewed as a laboratory‐based applied subfield of biological anthropology, it has been characterized as emphasizing methodology over theory, with a narrow focus on reconstructing the biological profile and establishing human identification (Adovasio, 2012).

The authors of this volume aim to show that this view of forensic anthropology is not only antiquated but also inadequate and inaccurate. This volume is an outgrowth of a symposium entitled “Application of Theory to Forensic Anthropology,” presented at the 67th annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in 2015, and all of the presenters in this symposium are also chapter authors. As will be seen in the following chapters, forensic anthropology, a discipline that examines various aspects of the physical environment and material remains contained in that environment that are of legal significance, is firmly grounded in well‐established scientific, logical theory. The goal of this chapter (and volume) is to explicate the theoretical bases for various specialized fields of inquiry in forensic anthropology and, through this process, define the basic elements of forensic anthropology theories, their interrelationships, and their relation to the logical reasoning process of the legal system in which they interact. The ultimate focus of the volume is to illustrate how these theoretical approaches form the scientific foundation for the discipline and shape the data collected and results obtained in forensic anthropological research.

1.2 A selective history of theory in forensic anthropology

Theories are explanations—answers to “why?” questions (Howard, 1993:7; Johnson, 1999:2; Hage, 2007:124–127; Boyd and Boyd, 2011). Scientific theories are explanations of observable, quantifiable phenomena (Salmon, 1982:158). They allow the construction of models to better understand dynamic events and their physical material consequences. As Johnson (1999:7) notes, “Facts are important, but without theory they remain utterly silent.” Scientific theories are, importantly, amenable to testing by means of quantification and analysis of new observations.

Because of its strong applied nature, as noted earlier, it may be asked why scientific theories are important for forensic anthropology. As will be seen in the following chapters, theories provide a basis for generating and testing new hypotheses regarding forensic events and the evaluation of their likelihood and probability. They influence and direct every aspect of forensic anthropology, from field search and recovery to laboratory analysis to the courtroom. Clearly stating one’s theoretical focus and methodology can reduce bias and mitigate unfounded, unsubstantiated statements in legal reports and testimony. Theory consequently strengthens arguments for plausibility, reliability, and relevance of data introduced in the courtroom—without it, forensic anthropologists risk having their credibility as expert witnesses dismissed and admissibility of their scientific evidence denied.

In order to fully understand the theoretical underpinnings of forensic anthropology, it is important to briefly review theoretical developments within its parent discipline, anthropology. Anthropologists have attempted to explain all aspects of what it means to be human; their theories have accommodated humans as biocultural creatures—dependent on behavior and social interactions as much as their biology for their ultimate adaptability and survivability. Any discussion of theory development in forensic anthropology must consider these broader historical influences.

Anthropology began as a recognized discipline in the mid‐late nineteenth century, with the writings of Lewis Henry Morgan, Sir Edward Tylor, Herbert Spencer, and Karl Marx (McGee and Warms, 2012), who all expressed, in one form or another, an evolutionary view of human cultural development. These early writers felt that human cultures had evolved over time from primitive to more complex forms, adapting to their environments with new technologies and new forms of social organization.

This early cultural evolutionary view, although discredited due to its simplistic and inherently racist connotations, dovetailed nicely with the contemporaneous theoretical proposal of biological evolution by means of natural selection from Charles Darwin (1859). These evolutionary theories all considered adaptation, reproductive success and consequent population growth, and a progression of change over time as important elements in any explanation of humans’ current social and biological condition.

As the subfield of cultural anthropology developed in the twentieth century, its focus on human social and behavioral characteristics fluctuated between the later evolutionists’ (e.g., Julian Steward, Leslie White) materialist perspective and that of the idealists. Materialists emphasized the roles of technology, modes of production and trade, and adaptation to the environment, while idealists (mentalists) focused on psychological, linguistic, and mental developments and their resultant influence on perceptions of reality as major theories explaining human behavior.

This theoretical dichotomy was also expressed in archaeology in the second half of the twentieth century. Prior to this, archaeology was initially focused on recovering material remains from impressive ancient sites and civilizations. Theoretical orientation was largely inductive and was primarily focused on descriptive culture history—dating artifacts, sites, and civilizations and organizing them into a chronology. In America and Britain, this approach began to change in the 1960s and 1970s, with the advent of the “New Archaeology.”

Theory was at the heart of this revolution. Lewis Binford (1977, 1983), Michael Schiffer (1976), and many others championed this “New Archaeology,” which explicitly recognized the hidden theoretical basis of archaeology and the building of theory through actualistic (middle‐range) studies. These researchers sought to establish a firmer foundation for archaeological theory, with the goal of developing scientifically‐based broad foundational laws, models, and explanations of human behaviors.

An important publication within archaeology during this time with implications for forensic anthropological theory was Michael Schiffer’s (1988) “The Structure of Archaeological Theory,” which described “three great realms” (Schiffer, 1988:464) of archaeological theory applicable to the study of human behavior—social, reconstruction, and methodological. Within these categories, he also described the presence of three levels of theory—high, middle‐range, and low. Schiffer’s high‐level theories were broad and comprehensive, while middle‐range theories served to link these high‐level theories to empirical generalizations (low‐level theories). An example of high‐level social theory would be diffusion theory, as espoused by many anthropologists in the early twentieth century. Independent inventions spread from their centers of origin over a period of time, and this explained culture change and adoption of new traits (Harris, 1968:380–383). Perhaps more obvious is the role of reconstruction theory (often considered “middle‐range”), which attempts to link the static archaeological (or forensic) record to the dynamic forces that produced it. Here, theory is clearly more applied, focusing on the development of observation‐based explanations and improved inferences about events of significance. Schiffer’s (1988) discussion of lithic use‐wear analysis and its application toward reconstructing stone tool use in the past serves as a good archaeological example. Microscopic use‐wear analysis helps to identify the raw materials processed by lithic tools by comparing the edge wear on archaeological specimens to the wear on experimentally produced stone tools used on known, specific raw materials (Vaughan, 1985). Finally, Schiffer (1988) originally defined methodological theory as a separate “realm” in his hierarchical model. Within this category, he included what he called recovery theory (e.g., protocols for conducting an archaeological survey or excavating a burial) and analytic theory (methods of analysis); these were considered to be low‐level because they are “… more empirical in content…” (Schiffer, 1988:462).

This acknowledgement of a theoretical foundation based on actualistic and experimental studies became a major aspect of archaeological research, leading to the recognition of archaeology as a science (at least as it was practiced by many archaeologists). The “positivist” science‐oriented materialist view of the past became a hallmark of archaeology and related disciplines during this time. However, beginning in the late twentieth century, this positivist (Giddens, 1974; Comte, 1975; Mill, 2009) or (to use an archaeological term) processualist view of science as an objective, unbiased method of study that explains natural phenomena through the careful analysis of material physical objects began to be criticized (Robson, 2002; Wylie, 2002). Post‐processualist archaeological theorists emphasized a focus on uncovering the mental attributes of past peoples and meanings they assigned to artifacts and features. It was also recognized by postpositive, post‐processual critics that scientists’ own biases and theoretical orientations can influence and color the results of their research. Although sometimes viewed as antiscience, it can be argued that this postpositive approach offers a sobering and perhaps more realistic perspective regarding research by consciously recognizing the biases that may influence scientists. By actively recognizing and controlling these biases, scientists may make more progress toward the positivist goal of objectivity (see Chapters 2, 3, and 5 of this volume for a more thorough discussion of how cognitive bias affects forensic anthropology research).

In the midst of twentieth‐century theory development in other areas of anthropology, forensic anthropology was in its infancy. Although considered by many to be a “subdiscipline” of biological anthropology, it can trace its roots to the fields of medicine and anatomy in the nineteenth century, as some practitioners in these fields began to apply anatomical knowledge to the task of human identification (Ubelaker, 2009; Tersigni‐Tarrant and Shirley, 2013). In this clinical context, the importance of theory was not recognized or emphasized. Although still predominantly housed within anthropology departments (at least in the United States), this close relationship of forensic anthropology with clinical medicine continues to the present, with many forensic anthropologists currently employed in university or medical school anatomy departments or medical examiner’s offices (Bethard, 2017). Early twentieth‐century practitioners of forensic anthropology were primarily anatomists or physical anthropologists who engaged only in “laboratory‐based and episodic involvement in forensic cases” (Dirkmaat and Cabo, 2012:6). This also has, perhaps, contributed to the perception of a dearth of theory in forensic anthropology today, where its practice is often seen as providing a technical service to medical examiners, coroners, and law enforcement when decomposed or skeletal remains of a decedent are present.

A review of all research articles, case studies, and technical notes (n = 644) with significant forensic anthropology content or relevance from the Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) from 1995 to 2014 recorded thematic content, theoretical foundation, methodological approach, and research focus across this 20‐year period (Boyd and Boyd, 2015). A recent expansion of this study also includes JFS articles from 2015 to November, 2017 (n = 182). Identification of decedents through their biological profile and antemortem conditions (e.g., facial reconstruction), relying on evolutionary principles of human variation, still comprises the majority of published research. However, papers on perimortem (trauma) and postmortem (taphonomic) processes have become more prominent since 2010, and, in the last 3 years (2015–2017), there has been a notable increase in articles relating to trauma, taphonomy, and recovery methods. The frequencies of these topics are greater than the frequency of articles on any specific aspect of the biological profile. The great majority of researchers employ the scientific method, relying on macro‐ or microevolutionary theory (including natural selection); however, the exact nature of their theoretical foundation is rarely discussed, and explicit statements regarding hypotheses being tested are inconsistent and often absent. Although often not explicitly discussed in the publications, interpretive theories linking theoretical concepts to observed phenomena (e.g., principles of physics to explanations of blunt force trauma fracture propagation) and methodological theory discussions on archaeological search and recovery or new laboratory analysis techniques are primarily correlated with the previously noted research on perimortem and postmortem processes.

In sum, although it is clear that a firm theoretical (and, scientific) foundation underlies the majority of forensic anthropology research, this theoretical basis has not been explicitly recognized, developed, or communicated. Evolutionary theory (as per Darwin) and its explanatory power for interpreting human skeletal variation are still at the heart of much of what forensic anthropologists study, but modern forensic anthropology research has significantly expanded this foundation, particularly through its interdisciplinary engagement with aspects of physics, engineering, biology, chemistry, geology, anatomy, and other sciences. Eclectic borrowing of theoretical ideas from these and other disciplines serves to strengthen our theoretical base and scientific framework.

1.3 A modern perspective on forensic anthropology theory

It is apparent from the aforementioned discussion that forensic anthropology has not historically had a distinctive, unifying theory of its own and when theoretical approaches are borrowed from other disciplines, they are not overtly recognized. In response to this conundrum, in 2011, Boyd and Boyd incorporated many elements of the Schiffer (1988) model into an exploration of forensic anthropology theory, and they applied his hierarchy of high‐level, middle‐range, and low‐level theoretical concepts to forensic anthropological research. They also illustrated the relevance of several theoretical models derived from archaeology (e.g., agency theory, nonlinear systems theory) to interpretation of the more recent (forensic) past and emphasized the importance of the case study in initial theory building and hypothesis testing.