Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
degeneration (
Boyd and Boyd, 2011
). This is the same level of theory used for biological
anthropology in general. It is also essential for forensic anthropology, as biological profiles
(age-at-death, sex, ancestry, stature, etc.) are estimated for individuals. Generating such
a profile requires a prior understanding of the processes that have affected human variation
and therefore skeletal features.
The second level of theory has as its goal the interpretation of the archaeological (forensic)
record (context) to determine what created it and therefore asks “who, what, where, when,
how” to connect human behavior and explanations for that behavior with the material and
organic remains (
Boyd and Boyd, 2011
). As such, several manifestations of theory can be
applied to this goal: (1) taphonomy (what happens to remains after death), (2) agency (each
individual's actions taken into account), (3) behavior (different agents and their activities
and interactions with each other and with materials [i.e., tools]), and (4) nonlinear systems
(the consequences arising from the interaction of multiple variables) (
Boyd and Boyd,
2011
:1408
e
1409). Applying these four theories in combination leads to a robust interpretation
and understanding of the archaeological context.
Forensic anthropologists are involved with interpreting each of the above theoretical areas
even if they may be unaware of it (
Boyd and Boyd, 2011
). While taphonomic interpretations
seem obvious in terms of being part of the forensic anthropology toolkit, nonlinear systems
and therefore agency and behavior are also considered when interpreting traumatic injuries
from a mass graves site (for example). Multiple variables caused the site to be created,
taphonomy is involved with the preservation of the remains, and perpetrators were osten-
sibly involved with the creation of the grave and the injury patterns on the remains.
Finally, the lowest level of theory as it relates to forensic anthropology involves forensic
archaeological recovery and statistical induction (
Boyd and Boyd, 2011
). Regardless of what
popular forensic science television shows depict, you probably already know that digging
up a clandestine grave without using archaeological methods is taboo. There exists a standard-
ized methodology for assessing and processing sites, from the scene confirmation to the scene
excavation stage. Several texts have been published in this area (e.g.,
Cox et al., 2007; Hester
et al., 2008
). As a myriad number of techniques exist, justifying one excavation technique over
another given a certain set of circumstances is known as recovery theory (
Boyd and Boyd, 2011
).
Statistical induction is the final theory that can be applied to forensic anthropology (
Boyd
and Boyd, 2011
). As mentioned above, the increase in quantitative analyses is one of the
aspects defining current forensic anthropology. We use standards for age-at-death, sex,
ancestry, and stature based on our analyses of modern skeletal collections. These standards
are then applied statistically to unknown remains in order to establish a biological profile.
However, as will be discussed throughout this volume, it is essential that the standards
are population specific, i.e., standards developed on one population should not be applied
to another due to human variation and biological distance between populations, as errors
may result in the accuracy of the results. When standards are properly applied, the results
of the statistical analysis have a scientifically defensible theoretical foundation (
Boyd and
Boyd, 2011
).
It is important to note that the goals of bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology are
different within the framework of skeletal biology. The bioarchaeologist is concerned with
reconstructing population history from a skeleton or group of skeletons, whereas the forensic
anthropologist is attempting to individuate the skeleton, and to make statements about
