YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 51:3352 (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 required sound scientic bases and expanded the scope of the eld. This environment favored the incipient development of the interrelated elds of forensic taphonomy, forensic archaeology, and forensic trauma analysis, elds concerned with the reconstruction of events surrounding death. Far from representing the mere addition of new methodological techniques, these disciplines (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 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
C

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 methodological 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 courtroom 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,

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 development 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, stature). Very little discussion was devoted to the relevance of crime scene evidence, and there was no discussion relative to estimates of postmortem interval and reconstructions 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 inappropriate sample materials and strategies, poor analytical standards, and the lack of specic training of forensic 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 forensic anthropologist had yet to be fully understood and routinely accepted by both the anthropological community 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.
C 2008 V

In a sense, the key question to be posed today is whether forensic anthropology, as a scientic and professional 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 duplicating Is  cans (1988) comprehensive review of the forensic anthropological literature produced during the 20 years previous to his article would be quite the monumental 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 optimistic 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 interpretation 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 Anthropology, 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).

WILEY-LISS, INC.

34

D.C. DIRKMAAT ET AL. point of view, serving as the link to integrate and harmonize other subdisciplines within forensic anthropology. In particular, the scope and methodological principles developed within forensic taphonomy allowed for the full consolidation 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 anthropology practice and methodologies, but also the standards by which the profession determine(s) what should count as an admissible problem, or as a legitimate problemsolution (Kuhn, 1970, p. 6). One of the main consequences of this paradigm shift is the diversication 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 ambitious conceptual framework, scientic and methodological armamentarium, and brighter future.

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 enforcement in particular (i.e., have forensic anthropologists acquired any new, unique skills signicantly improving forensic investigation? If so, are they widely and routinely 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 basic research, or is it better described as an applied eld, feeding exclusively from methods and research conducted 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 impossible 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 framework 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 signicantly 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 criteria with regard to admissibility of scientic evidence in the courtroom. In addition to these two external developments, four signicant developments occurred within forensic anthropology in the last 20 years: 1) the pervasive use of improved quantitative methods drawn from modern comparative 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 substantiate 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 modern comparative samples. Apart from this stronger emphasis in quantitative methods and models, perhaps the most signicant development altering the eld of forensic anthropology is the introduction of forensic taphonomy methods and principles 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 Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

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 system: 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 forensic 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 improvement 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 Stewart (1979) and as understood by Is  can (1988), indicated that the primary, if almost exclusive goal of forensic anthropology was aiding in the identication of human remains in forensic contexts. This goal was attained through the estimation of biological proles (chronological age, sex, ancestry, stature, and antemortem bone modication), which served to reduce the list of potential victim identities. The amplication of DNA through PCR

NEW PERSPECTIVES IN FORENSIC 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 innite number of DNA comparisons, rendering match probabilities 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 conditions regarding the goals, functions, and perspective of forensic anthropology. After all, providing positive identication (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 forensic specialists such as forensic pathologists and forensic odontologists. In addition, DNA analysis is still a relatively expensive and slow procedure, and the number of DNA samples routinely submitted for analysis overwhelms 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 optimistic view. DMORT was constructed in the mid 1990s to serve as rapidly deployable multidisciplinary human identication teams, involving the whole spectrum of forensic 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 largescale oods (see for example, Ubelaker et al., 1995; Sledzik and Hunt, 1997). Given that most of the biological remains at these sites typically consist of commingled, fragmented, and often burned or badly decomposed tissues, it is only natural that the contribution of participant forensic anthropologists soon became vital in most of these scenarios (Sledzik and Rodriguez, 2002). However, 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 analysis have rapidly shifted from DNA amplication to DNA sequencing, and thence to sample comparison and matching, resulting in a rapid decrease in DNA processing times and costs. PCR has become an almost routine procedure, available in most biomedical research and practice 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 importantly, robust DNA databases for sample comparison have been created and made available to the forensic community, with the reference samples growing at an astounding rate. As of October 2007, the Combined DNA Index System (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).

35

At present, the only issues preventing routine and widespread victim identication solely based on DNA comparisons are the costs and time required for amplication, 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 potential 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 useful, 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 development derived from an increased focus in taphonomy, forensic 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 standards and complained about the obsolescence and inadequacy of the available comparative osteological collections. As will be discussed below, the lack of appropriate samples has been somewhat remediated in the last decades 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 testimony 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 replication of the methods and conclusions are an essential part of reliability. Reliability, the ability to produce consistent results, can also be judged by the use of tested scientic methods, described in peer-reviewed publications, and enjoying general scientic acceptance. Validity, or the measure of how well test results produce correct answers, is to be measured when possible by directly estimated error rates. Innovative methods can be employed if they can be independently tested (Feinberg et al., 1995). Forensic scientists, including forensic anthropologists, have responded to the Daubert decision by publishing validation studies of previously accepted Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

36

D.C. DIRKMAAT ET AL. those samples were biased when applied to modern populations due to secular changes in overall body size, health, activity, and nutritional status. Ancestry estimates 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 individuals to the ancestry groups when the samples were collected.

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 federal 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., detrimental 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 correlations and unpublished results. Most importantly, the scientic 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 resulting from Daubert (such as Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, (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 admissibility 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 necessary to establish that the conclusions are objectively arrived at rather than subjectively determined. In essence, Rule 702 merely reminds us that scientic conclusions must be based on accepted scientic principles. It can be said that the Daubert case moved the spotlight from the experts experience back to the experts methods. Because of the focus on methods, Daubert reinforced 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.

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, providing much more accurate estimates and boosting quantitative 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 decomposition, 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 skeletal remains of over 600 individuals, and will likely overtake 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 information from the BSC and from forensic cases conducted by UT Department of Anthropology personnel and other anthropologists from around the country. Extensive information in the FDB includes age, sex, ancestry, stature, weight, place of birth, medical history, occupation, and other demographic information. The skeletal information in the FDB includes cranial and postcranial metrics, 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 currently 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 representative 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 composed 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.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY 1: IMPROVEMENTS IN QUANTITATIVE METHODS

To the extent to which they represent scientic criteria, the Daubert standards seem to have increased the urgency of improving analytical methods in forensic anthropology, 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 modern populations from which forensic inferences were drawn. Estimates of sex, age, or stature obtained from Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

NEW PERSPECTIVES IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY

37

(Daubert and) quantitative methods in forensic anthropology: Fordisc

Data from the FDB were initially used to test forensic methods developed from the Terry Collection (Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.) and Hamann-Todd collection (Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, 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 statistical methods have been developed based on more-recent data from the FDB, which also includes more middleclass 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 anthropologists, and is a logical extension of the need to develop new forensic statistical techniques in light of morphological 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 comparisons, 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 negrained 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, quantitative methods have been extensively used to link individual 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 provided extensive empirical results to refute the typological 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 measures has prompted a re-evaluation of nonmetric characteristics 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 paleoanthropology, having been used to investigate and understand variation 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 threedimensional digitizers (Ousley and McKeown, 2001). The buildup of modern skeletal collections and databases, 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 developing new methods, and the evolution from experiencebased analyses to replicable methods, often involving statistical analysis. Statistics is the science of prediction and certainty, and Daubert demands estimates of scientic certainty in conclusions.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FORENSIC 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 perfectly as the evolution of forensic taphonomy. Forensic taphonomy has dramatically changed the entire playing eld of forensic anthropology. The necessity of acquiring contextual data for proper taphonomic interpretation has been a leading force to transform forensic 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 forensic 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 anthropologists 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 professionals 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 community and, alas, to many forensic anthropologists. It is our belief that promoting a better understanding of the importance, objectives, and rationale of forensic taphonomy is a key element to attain this goal. In particular, the dramatic and rapid impact of taphonomic method and theory on forensic anthropological theory and practice can be explained by the striking similarities 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 Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

38

D.C. DIRKMAAT ET AL. histories and the paleoecological and environmental conditions of the living community. From this viewpoint, which can be termed the paleontological approach (Ringrose, 1993), the role of taphonomy was to strip the paleoecological 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 taphonomic 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 combined both approaches, and focused on differentiating human from nonhuman bone alterations (e.g., Shipman and Rose, 1984; Behrensmeyer et al., 1986; Blumenschine 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 assemblages is identical to the forensic objectives, methods, and materials required to assign forensic signicance. Conversely, forensic trauma analysis is essentially the inference of human behavior based on marks left on bone. The taphonomic approach provides a wealth of experience 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.

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, estimates of species abundances, and paleoenvironmental reconstruction. Taphonomy was primarily aimed at detecting 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 paleontology. This was probably due to the initial focus on diagenesis and the mineralization process, more relevant for the preservation of invertebrate structures than vertebrate structures. The 1970s witnessed a sharp quantitative and qualitative increase in vertebrate taphonomy research and publications. 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). Signicantly, 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 championed 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 forensic anthropology, during the following decade. First, taphonomy went from a strictly paleontological discipline to become an essential and universally accepted component of archaeological practice. Unmistakably taphonomic manuals such as Grayson (1984) and Klein and Cruz-Uribe (1984) referred to archaeology even in their titles. Gifford (1981) considered taphonomy and paleoecology as sister disciplines of archaeology. The consequences of this association may not look particularly impressive or dramatic to modern practitioners, but in essence it meant that assemblage analysis and site analysis could no longer be approached as independent activities, 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 laboratories, this change brought archaeology (and anthropology 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 marriage of anthropology and taphonomy was the introduction of a new approach to taphonomic studies. As mentioned above, the classic approach to the treatment of taphonomic information from faunal vertebrate assemblages resulted in the reconstruction of site depositional Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

Forensic taphonomy and its impact on forensic anthropology

The virtually identical goals of forensic anthropology and taphonomy explain the relatively rapid and dramatic impact that taphonomy had on forensic anthropology. Lyman (1994) can be considered the landmark reference with respect to the generalization and normalization 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 taphonomic processes and quantitative indices. Particularly important and permeating throughout the entire book is the assumption that taphonomy is an essential component in the analysis not only of paleontological, but also of archaeological sites. Still, with respect to forensic anthropologya eld that has traditionally been particularly resistant to fundamental changes, remaining faithful 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

NEW PERSPECTIVES IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY principles, goals, and objectives. Essentially, forensic taphonomyand its right-hand companion forensic archaeologyexpanded the goals of forensic anthropology 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 primarily a discussion of trauma analysis and issues relevant 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 anthropology 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 biological prole, the different contributions in these volumes highlight issues such as tissue decomposition, scavenging, bone transport, and site formation as key considerations 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 taphonomy 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 products of human behavior from those created by the earths biological, physical, chemical, and geological subsystems (Haglund and Sorg, 1997b, p. 3).

39

1997, 2002). In other words, the application of taphonomic techniques to forensic scene processing implies the collection of information relevant to reconstructing the events surrounding death, body disposal, and placement at the scene. In this way, forensic taphonomy inevitably adds these elements to the primary goals of forensic anthropologists, resulting in improved and rened classic tasks, while adding new tasks, resulting in a newly dened, more relevant role in forensic investigations. Among the new outcomes derived from forensic taphonomic analysis, three are particularly relevant and commonly sought: 1) scientically grounded estimates of postmortem interval (time-since-death), based on decompositional factors (primarily soft tissue, but in later stages may include bone modication factors), entomological evidence, chemical methods, and associated physical evidence modication; 2) reconstructions of the original position and orientation of the body; and 3) characterizations 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 properly 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 taphonomic analysis.

Addressing issues beyond identity

This new approach does not originate from an out-ofthe-blue theory, or as an attempt to expand the forensic anthropology market for egotistical or employment purposes. 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 signicant advances in subjects such as the analysis of commingled remains, within the classic goal of aiding in positive ID and assessing forensic signicance. The application 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 forensic anthropology beyond its traditional and largely self-imposed boundaries of skeletal identication (Snow, 1982, p. 97). As will be discussed below, although forensic taphonomy 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 anthropologist will collect information useful for reconstructing depositional history and site formation (see Hochrein,

KEY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FORENSIC 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, however, 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 separate from forensic anthropology proper, which was conducted by physical anthropologists. Forensic archaeology involved the application of simple archaeological recovery 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. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

40

D.C. DIRKMAAT ET AL. a number of American sites, led by J.M. Adovasio and the excavation of Meadowcroft Rockshelter in southwestern Pennsylvania (Carlisle and Adovasio, 1982; Adovasio, 2007). The presentation of Meadowcroft as an example of pre-Clovis occupation of North America was initially met with extreme criticism and cynicism because it ew in the face of conventional wisdom. However, Adovasios attention to exacting excavation methods of the deposits of the rockshelter at microstratigraphic levels, and extremely careful attention to context and association ultimately helped convince the archaeological community of the validity of an early occupation of North America, as best emplied by Meadowcroft. This was followed 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); collectively, these studies have set the standards in eld archaeology today. Technology in archaeology. Associated with and fundamental 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 distribution of artifacts and physical evidence was completed 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 location 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 performing 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 accidents. 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 evidence 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 computers, computerized data recording forms, digital photography, and wireless data transmission protocols. Analytical techniques for the analysis of the spatial distribution of evidence. Whereas most forensic investigators are aware of the state-of-the-art improvements

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 enforcement 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 absence of training in recovery and documentation protocols. Why go to all that trouble if the only reward is a nice map of the scene? The introduction and recognition of forensic taphonomy represented a pivotal change, since it provides the conceptual and analytical framework for forensic archaeology. 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 identication of all of the natural agents (animals, plants, gravity, soils, etc.) affecting the remains in situ. Can natural 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 scattering of the remains? Is the distribution of the burned bone fragments in a re pit consistent with an unattended 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 decomposition, and consequently postmortem interval estimates, depend decisively on natural factors such as temperature, 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 necessary 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 documentation 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 framework provided by forensic taphonomy, since the late 1980s another four key developments have led to the current conguration of forensic archaeology: 1) methodological improvements in contemporary eld archaeology, 2) implementation of new technology into archaeology, 3) development of analytical techniques that can take advantage of spatial data generated by forensic archaeological recovery, and 4) development of archaeological 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 Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

NEW PERSPECTIVES IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY 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 techniques, 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 computer programming and availability have dramatically increased the number of techniques and analytical tools available for statistical analysis. Spatial analysis techniques commonly employed in the elds of physics, engineering, 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 distribution either under parametric assumptions or through empirically obtained distributions, allowing them to successfully 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 identication, 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 analysis still holds in severely altered features, such as prehistoric ossuaries or secondary mass burials. The current limitation to larger scale scenes is derived from the large amount of data required by these analytical techniques. Still, they can also be applied in interscene comparison, in which each individual forensic case would be analogous to an experimental replica. Consequently, a wider range of application is expected as spatial 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 discussed, it is most often in the context of recovery of buried remains alone. Obviously, much of contemporary archaeology is devoted to the recovery of buried deposits, understanding and interpreting stratigraphy, and rigorously applying Stenos Laws in efforts to understand how and when artifacts entered the archaeological record. 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 natural inuences as archaeological materials. It is, therefore, logical that many archaeological techniques and, especially, basic archaeological principles can be directly applied to forensic contexts. Still, some fundamental dif-

41

ferences do exist between archaeological sites and forensic 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 archaeology and forensic archaeology resides in the presence of soft tissues at forensic scenes. This requires the development and implementation of additional sampling protocols for the collection of organic evidence. For example, although the forensic anthropologist will not be analyzing entomological evidence or DNA, as the primary scene processor it will be necessary to collect this type of evidence as carefully and efciently as the geneticist or forensic entomologist would. Soft tissue also adds additional time and legal constraints to the outdoor crime recovery, as soft tissues are evidence undergoing degradation. To avoid further deterioration 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 carefully documented and appropriate conservation/preservation measures taken. Archaeological principles are also employed in the systematic and comprehensive search for archaeological evidence, in what is termed archaeological surveying (see Banning et al., 2006 for an updated review of the subject). These same principles can be applied in the documentation 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 ofcials (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 Adovasio, 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 combination 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, successful 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, conductivity meters, resistivity meters, and even metal detectors have certainly aided the search for buried features (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 archaeological 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 discussed an autopsy of the grave in which geotaphonomic evidence in the form of geophysical characterisYearbook of Physical Anthropology

42

D.C. DIRKMAAT ET AL. pathology and trauma cases involving soft tissue are largely absent in most of the major bibliographical references of the eld (e.g., Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin, 1998; Bennike, 2008). With respect to trauma analysis, paleopathologists suggest that it is difcult and often impossible to make a distinction between fractures occurring at the time of death and those that occur subsequent to death and burial (Ortner and Putschar, 1981, p. 72). Further, distinguishing trauma resulting from an accident and that resulting from intentional violence is problematic in archaeologically derived skeletons. The study of historic materials, with little room for corroboration of the proposed hypotheses, carried therefore 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 analyze all forms of trauma, from soft tissue damage to traumatized bones. The role of the forensic anthropologist 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 anthropological study of skeletal trauma: 1) research in the morgue alongside the forensic pathologist; 2) incorporation of bone biomechanics research drawn from a variety of disciplines, in conjunction with routine microscopic examination; and 3) the rise of forensic taphonomy.

tics associated with the grave feature are carefully noted. These geophysical characteristics include stratication evidence, toolmarks on the burial pit edge, bioturbation 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 biological proling, taphonomic analysis, and forensic archaeology can therefore be considered as inseparable aspects of the same analysis, rather than independent subdisciplines. When properly implemented and combined, they can provide extremely relevant forensic information, simplifying and relieving law enforcement of some crucial, but unpleasant tasks. If this is the case, the question 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 implemented, and with the aid of technology, forensic archaeological techniques are as quick and efcient as any other on-site forensic technique, and result in a signicant gain in relevant data.

KEY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY 4: HUMAN SKELETAL TRAUMA ANALYSIS

The fourth important turning point in the eld of forensic 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 standard professional expertise of forensic anthropologists. Only 20 years ago, interpretation of all forms of trauma to forensic victims was conducted almost exclusively by forensic pathologists in the morgue. Trauma analysis to bone was neither commonly perceived as part of their tasks, nor routinely practiced by forensic anthropologists. 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 incipient research in trauma drawn from forensic cases, described in Maples (1986), and work done in medical examiners ofces in which anthropologists were just beginning to assist forensic pathologists (Smith et al., 1987). Most of the baseline information regarding traumatized bone at that time was derived from paleopathology (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 Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

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, Medical 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 anthropology, and beyond what forensic anthropologists allegedly could, and even should do. It was quickly realized that forensic pathological examination of trauma cases beneted greatly from a more in depth analysis of the underlying skeletal elements

NEW PERSPECTIVES IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY (Smith et al., 1987). These forensic anthropological analyses typically included maceration of soft tissue, microscopic examination of the bones and, eventually, retention 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, therefore, are ill-equipped to answer certain forensic questions, 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 different responses of fresh, organic bone, and dry, denaturized bone, to stress and strain. A combination of biomechanical research and taphonomic analyses helped address that methodological gap.

43

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 biomechanical 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 contains 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 organic matrix is degraded after death, the bone progressively becomes an increasingly plastic material, producing completely different patterns of fracture and deformation. This is particularly relevant for trauma analysis, as interpretation of skeletal trauma is essentially based on what is observable as a result of the bone having been plastically deformed. The consideration of the evolving biomechanical characteristics 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 migration 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, perimortem, and postmortem (taphonomic), as used by anthropologists and pathologists in medicolegal settings. Antemortem 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 nature before they can be considered to have occurred in the perimortem interval. Although careful taphonomic interpretations can reveal information concerning circumstances surrounding death and postmortem interval (Dirkmaat and Adovasio, 1997), perimortem trauma interpretation is often essential to coroners and pathologists burdened with the death certicate. Therefore, accurate and conservative interpretation of contextual taphonomic data ultimately reduces confusion by simplifying key variables (. . .) regarding cause and manner of death (Symes et al., 2002 p. 430). The biomechanical approach also affects trauma classication, shifting category criteria from the inicting tool to physical factors such as force and speed. The biomechanical 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, magnitude, 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 initiation and propagation, as they pertain to the direction and speed (energy) associated with the inicting force. This requires detailed and meticulous microscopic examination 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 reconsideration of skeletal trauma from an anthropological perspective, 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. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

44

D.C. DIRKMAAT ET AL. key information includes: 1) the dimensions and shape of the blade and teeth of a saw; 2) how the tool was powered, mechanically or manually; and 3) how a tool was used (including direction of cut) to accomplish the dismemberment or mutilation (Symes, 1992; Symes et al., 1998, 2002). Two additional areas of trauma analysis benet greatly from an anthropological perspective: the recognition 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 timing, critical to dening whether abuse is substantiated.

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 pathologists 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 produces characteristic pattern of fractures, confusion commonly arises in ballistic interpretation due to underestimates of velocity, or a lack of understanding of how bullets 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 extensive and may indicate the direction of the bullet. If the bullet possesses enough kinetic energy, concentric heaving 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 diameter of the defect (Berryman et al., 1995; Ross, 1996), determine the number of shots red, and even distinguish 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 forensic 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 dubious 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 assessment 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 Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

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 earlier how the changes in biomechanical properties experienced 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 anthropological sense). However, forensic signicance does not depend solely on defect timing. There are multiple natural 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 importantly, 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 anthropologists, and fundamentally changed the analytical framework 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 anthropologists: human rights investigations (HRI) and mass fatality incidents (MFI).

NEW PERSPECTIVES IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY 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 references 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 identication was the primary and almost exclusive focus. However, 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 information, which, in turn, adversely affects subsequent prosecutorial efforts. Recently, the proper archaeological recovery of mass graves (assisted by the latest technological 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 evidence. Recent advances in quantitative methods derived from modern populations (especially Fordisc) have beneted the analysis of victim remains (often severely fragmented 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).

45

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 perspectives, goals, objectives, data collection, and analytical techniques inherent in the new forensic anthropology, is achieved through a discussion of another area of forensic 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 forensic 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 elements and fragments at the scene. The individual level means assessing the number of victims and solving commingling 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, providing an excellent illustration of the tightly knit relationship 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 appearance, 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 commingling issues in these cases will be more difcultand, arguably, impossible in some casesif skeletal elements are missed, mixed, or further altered during the recovery. These problems are particularly acute for bone trauma analysis, as its most immediate goal is distinguishing 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 analytical 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 factors 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 diversication 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 Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

46

D.C. DIRKMAAT ET AL. methods, with basic research falling to other sister disciplines from which forensic anthropology would simply borrow off-the-shelf methods to make wishful extrapolations.

comparative samples and an increased emphasis in quantitative methods, as opposed to the classical verbal model approach, which led to commonplace misconceptions. Even more important is the establishment of solid conceptual and methodological foundations to integrate and guide the future development of the eld. The adoption of paleontological, archaeological, and biomechanical principles (not merely techniques), and transformed into forensic taphonomy, forensic archaeology, and trauma analysis, provides a conceptual framework much superior 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 evidence for victim ID from the naked bones, fails, not surprisingly, 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 evidence 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 impossible 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. Consequently, the answers for these questions were sought in other scientic disciplines. Broken bones in the boxed assemblage led inexorably to the paleopathology literature. Other marks on bone, such as animal tooth impressions, or stained bones indicated a search of the paleoanthropology 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 discussed in this review, forensic anthropology seems to have adapted well to this changing landscape. The combination of all the external factors and eld developments described above has resulted in a paradigm shift, which represents a transition from the self-inicted denition 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 Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

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 individuals is acceptable within the realm of forensic anthropologywe 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 denitions 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 parameters 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 distribution of the remains at their location of discovery, a careful 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 staining to trauma. This endeavor is termed forensic taphonomy (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 interpretation and reconstruction of past events requires the utilization of methodological principles drawn partly from physical anthropology, but also from other disciplines, such as archaeology and paleontology. Consequently, forensic anthropology could be even viewed as a unique, applied eld within the broader discipline of anthropology 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 anthropological analyses are those related to taphonomic issues (perimortem trauma and postmortem modication to bone including burning, weathering, and animal activity), soft tissue decomposition and modication and, ulti-

NEW PERSPECTIVES IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY mately, reconstruction of events surrounding and subsequent to death, heavily reliant upon contextual data collected 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 medicolegal 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 anthropological disciplines: Forensic Anthropology involves the application of principles utilized in the anthropological subelds of archaeology and physical anthropology to forensic investigations. Archaeological principles are employed during the search for, recovery, and preservation of physical evidence at the outdoor scene, and emphasize documentation of contextual relationships of all evidence to its depositional environment. Physical anthropological principles 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 exibility 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 anthropology 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: Forensic anthropology is more than just the direct application of generic physical anthropology techniques to medicolegal 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 maturation 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 paleoanthropology 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 provides the necessary background to successfully perform forensic investigations, can only be derived from a complete lack of understanding of the role, tasks, and obligations of forensic anthropologists. This lack of understanding by itself disqualies the aspiring forensic expert to act as a forensic anthropologist. This cautionary note applies even to practicing forensic anthropologists. Along with growth and diversication comes specialization. It is unlikely that a single forensic anthropologist can master all the different forensic

47

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 public agencies should also become aware of this fact, implementing the adequate hiring and funding policies necessary to alleviate the pain of the professionals commonly forced to work in isolation as the only forensic anthropologist 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 description 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 forensic anthropologists at the moment of writing. It has been stressed that these classic denitions no longer serve to accurately describe the current activities performed by forensic anthropologists. Just as with any scientic 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 denition based merely on current duties and activities is destined to become obsolescent very quickly. This utilitarian approach to dening the eld is also related to the classic view of forensic anthropology as a limited, applied eld, and is not appropriate for dening scientic disciplines. A proper denition of a scientic eld must also provide a conceptual framework based on its study subject, 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 identication of forensic anthropologists, but is a basic requisite for the establishment of legitimate basic research goals and objectives and to allow for the future development of the eld. In the view of the authors, as originally suggested by Stewart (1979) and Is  can (1988), the dening subject of study of forensic anthropology is the individual. Although paleoanthropology or biodemography try to infer populational characteristics through the analysis of individuals, forensic analysis drives in the opposite direction. All the components of forensic anthropology, from the estimation of the biological prole to taphonomic or trauma analysis, are aimed at reconstructing the effects of different processes on the life or postlife of a single individual. In its purely anthropological component, forensic anthropology looks into the populational 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 anthropology as the scientic discipline that focuses on the life, the death, and the postlife history of a specic individual, as reected primarily in their skeletal remains and the physical and forensic context in which they are emplaced. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

48

D.C. DIRKMAAT ET AL.

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 infrequent) roles in the forensic sciences, providing clues to identify the victim from skeletal remains. With the ubiquitous research and implementation of DNA, the primary 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 evidence produced a revolutionary reevaluation of the goals, perspectives, operating methods, range of work, and research potential in the eld of forensic anthropology. With the addition of forensic taphonomy, which requires the careful consideration of context and allows for scientic-based reconstructions of past events, forensic anthropology can now take its rightful place alongside other healthy and vigorous scientic disciplines both within and beyond physical anthropology. Forensic anthropological analyses address many diverse and complicated issues beyond biological prole, such as postmortem 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 comfortably 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 context) bones in the laboratory. Training in the archaeological recovery of a wide variety of evidence found at outdoor scenes, including human skeletal remains, decomposing soft tissue, entomological evidence, clothing and other human artifacts, botanical evidence, geological and environmental evidence, and three-dimensional positioning 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 courtroom evidence presentation: Daubert. As discussed above, courtroom assertions of what happened at the site can no longer be based on years of experience, or undocumented, random observations. They must be based on well-founded scientic reconstructions. At the other end of the forensic anthropological experience, in the laboratory, Daubert also impacts forensic anthropological analysis by diminishing or even dismissing experience arguments, and educated guesses based on visual assessment. It requires data analysis and comparison through scientically validated studies of all presented 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. Yearbook of Physical 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 interpretations 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 biomechanical perspective and overlaying forensic taphonomic understanding of site formation and past events at the scene, trauma emerges from the shadow of paleopathology 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, emphatically suggest that forensic anthropology is a unique, sophisticated, scientic discipline in its own right, conducting basic research in a wide variety of arenas, from taphonomy to skeletal biology; research that is in turn benecial to other scientic disciplines, including subelds of physical anthropology. As such, it cannot and should not be conducted on a part-time basis by individuals 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 anthropology 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 anthropologists must realize that the lone researcher cranking out reports based on a 3-h examination of decomposing tissue 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 considered and incorporated into the nal forensic anthropological 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 multiple 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

NEW PERSPECTIVES IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY 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 investigations.

49

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their gratitude to James M. Adovasio, Director, Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute and the graduate students in the Forensic and Biological Anthropology Masters program at Mercyhurst College for their comments and suggestions. The article greatly beneted from the comments of the Editor of the Yearbook and three anonymous reviewers.

LITERATURE CITED
Adams BJ, Byrd JE, editors. 2008. Recovery, analysis, and identication 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, Vasilev SA, Miotti L, editors. On shelters ledge: histories, theories 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 encyclopedia of human paleopathology. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Ayers HG, Jantz RL, Moore-Jansen PH. 1990. Giles and Elliot race discriminant functions revisited: a test using recent forensic cases. In: Gill GW, Rhine S, editors. Skeletal attribution of race: methods for forensic archaeology. Albuquerque: Maxwell Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 4. p 6571. Banning EB, Hawkins AL, Stewart ST. 2006. Detection functions 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. Chicago: 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 identication 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: transport of human skeletal parts in an articial uviatile environment. 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 determination of directionality of cutmarks on bone. Am J Phys Anthropol 65:359366. Brooks ST. 1975. Human or not? A problem in skeletal identication. 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, University 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 rearms, 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. Washington, 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: cremated 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 Forensic Sci 4:207. Dirkmaat DC. 1998b. Reconsidering the scope of forensic anthropology: data collection methodologies prior to the laboratory [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 benets of forensic archaeology [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 11:316. Dirkmaat DC, Hefner J. 2001. Forensic processing of the terrestrial mass fatality scene: testing new search, documentation and recovery methodologies [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 7:241. Dirkmaat DC, Miller W. 2003. Scene recovery efforts in Shanksville, PA: the role of the coroners ofce in the processing of the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 9:279. 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.

Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

50

D.C. DIRKMAAT ET AL.

Hefner JT. 2007. The statistical determination of ancestry using cranial nonmetric traits. PhD dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville. Hefner JT, Emanovsky PD, Byrd J, Ousley SD. 2007. The value of experience, education, and methods in ancestry prediction [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 13:360361. Hefner JT, Ousley SD. 2006. Morphoscopic traits and the statistical 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 application 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, collecting, and processing forensic geotaphonomic evidence. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory, and anthropological perspectives. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p 4570. Hollinger RE, Botic C, Ousley SD. 2005. Inventory and assessment of human remains potentially afliated with the northwestern band of Shoshone in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.: Repatriation 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 afnity 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 Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 4. p 8390. Jantz RL, Moore-Jansen PH. 1988. A database for forensic anthropology: 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 forensic 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: Cambridge 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 anthropologist. In: Reich KJ, editor. Forensic osteology. Springeld: C.C. Thomas. p 218228.

Dirkmaat DC, Quinn A, Adovasio JM. 1995. New methodologies for search and recovery. Disaster Manag News (December) 12. Doran GH, editor. 2002. Windover: multidisciplinary investigations of an Early Archaic Florida cemetery. Gainesville: University 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. Forensic 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, Davenport 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, Davenport GC, Trammell V, Travis CT, Kondratieff B, Nelson A, Castellano K, Hopkins D, Adain T. 1997. Necrosearch revisited: further multidisplinary approaches to the detection of clandestine graves. In: Haguland WD, Sorg MH, editors. Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory, and anthropological perspectives. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p 497 509. Frankel VH, Nordin M. 1989. Basic biomechanics of the musculoskeletal 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 function 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 taphonomy. 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 fractures and dislocations. In: Rockwood CA Jr, Green DP, editors. Fractures in adults. 4th edition. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott 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.

Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

NEW PERSPECTIVES IN FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY

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 Anthropology, 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 forensic taphonomy: method, theory, and archaeological perspectives. Baton Rouge: CRC Press, p 435450. McPherron SP, Dibble HL. 2002. Using computers in archaeology: a practical guide. Boston: McGraw Hill. Miller MT. 2003. Crime scene investigation. In: James SH, Nordby JJ, editors. Forensic science: an introduction to scientic 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: trampling 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 Contributions to Anthropology No. 28. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Ousley SD, Billeck WT. 2001. Assessing tribal identity in the Plains using nontraditional craniometrics (interlandmark distances) [Abstract]. Am J Phys Anthropol Suppl 32:115116. Ousley SD, Billeck WT, Hollinger RE. 2005. Federal repatriation legislation and the role of physical anthropology in repatriation. 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 Tennessee. Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 2002. Social races and human populations: why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying races [Abstract]. Am J Phys Anthropol Suppl 34:121. Ousley SD, Martinez LM. 2006. Morphological, metric, and morphometric variation in the midface [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 12:280281. 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 anthropology, repatriation, and the Mongoloid problem [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 9:245246. Patterson B, Behrensmeyer AK, Sill WD. 1970. Geology and fauna of a new Pliocene locality in north-western Kenya. Nature 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 commingled 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.

51

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 crania to groups via the new morphometry. Technical report. J Forensic Sci 44:584587. Ross AH, Slice DE, Ubelaker DH, Falsetti A. 2004. Population afnities of 19th century Cuban crania: implication for identication criteria in Cuban Americans in South Florida. J Forensic 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 [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 5:222. Saul FP, Saul JM. 2003. Plane, trains and reworks: the evolving 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 evidence: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. In: Haglund WH, Sorg M, editors. Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory, and archaeological perspectives. Baton Rouge: CRC Press. p 277292. Shipman P. 1981. Life history of a fossil. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shipman P, Rose JJ. 1984. Cutmark mimics on modern and fossil bovid bones. Curr Anthropol 25:116117. Skinner M, Lazenby RA. 1983. Found! Human remains. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press. Sledzik PS. 1996. Physical anthropologys role in identication of disaster facilities. In: Proceedings of the Second National Symposium on Dentistrys Role and Responsibility in Mass Disaster Identication. Chicago: American Dental Association. p 6264. Sledzik PS. 1998. Anthropology and mass fatality response. Paper 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 taphonomic 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 crania: implications for forensic identication [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 10:280281.

Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

52

D.C. DIRKMAAT ET AL.

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 Am Acad Forensic Sci 2:1011. 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 disarticulated and commingled human remains. In: Adams BJ, Byrd JE, editors. Recovery, analysis, and identication of commingled human remains. Totowa: Humana Press. p 730. Ubelaker DH, Owsley DW, Houck MM, Craig E, Grant W, Woltanski 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 characteristics 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. Contributions to Geology Special Paper 69. White TD. 1986. Cutmarks on the Bodo cranium: a case of prehistoric 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 Pleistoncene mammalian assemblage from California (U.S.A.). Paleogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 13:91101.

Smith O, Berryman HE, Lahren C. 1987. Cranial fracture patterns 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 investigation 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 plastic versus genetic inuences utilizing craniometric data. PhD dissertation. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Spradley MK, Jantz RL. 2005. Biological variation among Hispanic (Spanish-speaking) peoples of the Americas [Abstract]. Proc Am Acad Forensic Sci 11:293. Spradley MK, Ousley SD, Jantz RL. 2008. Evaluating cranial morphometric relationships using discriminant function analysis [Abstract]. Am J Phys Anthropol Suppl 46:199. Steadman DW, Adams BJ, Konigsberg LW. 2006. Statistical basis 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. Criminal 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 dismemberment. In: Haglund W, Sorg M, editors. Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory, and archaeological perspectives. 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, Knoxville. 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.

Yearbook of Physical Anthropology