Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
The second is that forensic anthropological investigations no longer focus on remains that
are exclusively skeletal. Forensic anthropologists are used in cases where soft tissues are
still present but have been altered, e.g., decomposed and burned remains (
Komar and
Buikstra, 2008
).
Given the varied tasks involved in today's forensic anthropology, the field seems to be
moving out from being relegated as an applied subfield of biological anthropology and
perhaps into a fully fledged subdiscipline of anthropology in its own right (
Dirkmaat
et al., 2008
). Dirkmaat and colleagues (2008) state that this evolution is a result of several
developments that have occurred both inside and outside the field over the past several
years. These developments include the advent of DNA analysis that has removed identifica-
tion as being the primary task of forensic anthropologists. Other developments have
included legal requirements
18
for increased accuracy and rigor with analyses and this has
in part led to improved quantitative statistical methods (
Komar and Buikstra, 2008; Dirkmaat
et al., 2008
). In addition, stress on the importance of the archaeological context has emerged
and this has had an impact on the development of other areas of analysis, such as
taphonomy.
19
Finally, trauma analysis has become a specialty in its own right, with forensic
anthropologists being trained in bone biomechanics in order to assess the effect that a variety
of traumatic forces have on bone (
Dirkmaat et al., 2008
).
20
In addition, the recent publication by the National Research Council of the National Acad-
emies (2009) regarding the (poor) state of the forensic sciences in the United States has begun
to spur changes. Specifically, recommendations include that all forensic laboratories be certi-
fied by some qualified agency, and research to improve methods should be a major focus. For
forensic anthropology, this would include increasing our ability with determining how
unique any given skeletal trait is that we use for identification, as well as with ascertaining
the probability of identifications given the particular biological profile and other skeletal
features in an individual case. Evidence of how this report has influenced the field can be
seen with the recent creation of the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Anthropology
(SWGANTH - www.swganth.org), charged with creating minimum standards and best
practices for forensic anthropology.
Most recently,
Boyd and Boyd (2011)
united several theoretical perspectives for forensic
anthropology, essential for any scientific discipline. They divided these into three hierarchical
levels of theory. The first level of theory is that evolutionary forces affect human variation
21
and therefore affect secular change,
22
as well as skeletal growth, development, and
18
In the United States, this includes the Daubert criteria, which essentially state that expert witnesses must
demonstrate that scientific methods used to analyze evidence are reliable and accepted by the scientific
community (
Christensen, 2004
). See Moore (Chapter 4), this volume for more information. Further, the
Scientific Working Group for Forensic Anthropology (SWGANTH) was recently created to set best
practices and minimum standards for forensic anthropology.
www.swganth.org
19
See Marden et al. (Chapter 9), this volume.
20
See Kroman and Symes (Chapter 8), this volume.
21
See Cabana et al. (Chapter 16), this volume.
22
See Moore and Ross (Chapter 6) and McKeown and Schmidt (Chapter 12) for discussions of secular
change.
