Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23468325
CITATIONS
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
43
184
648
4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Dennis C Dirkmaat
Luis Cabo
Mercyhurst University
Mercyhurst University
27 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
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,
C 2008
V
WILEY-LISS, INC.
34
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.
35
36
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.
37
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.
38
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.
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.
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,
40
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.
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.
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
43
44
45
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
methods, with basic research falling to other sister disciplines from which forensic anthropology would simply
borrow off-the-shelf methods to make wishful extrapolations.
47
48
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.
49
50
51
52
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.
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.