Forensic Anthropology

Theoretical Framework and Scientific Basis

C. Clifford Boyd, Donna C. Boyd, C. Clifford Boyd, Donna C. Boyd

• Editorial: Wiley
• Año: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781119226420
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Medicine
• Categoría: Forensic Medicine

Provides comprehensive coverage of everything that students and practitioners need to know about working in the field of forensic anthropology

Forensic anthropology has been plagued by questions of scientific validity and rigor despite its acceptance as a section in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences nearly half a century ago. Critics have viewed it as a laboratory-based applied subfield of biological anthropology, and characterised it as emphasising methodology over theory. This book shows that these views are not only antiquated, but inadequate and inaccurate.

Forensic Anthropology: Theoretical Framework and Scientific Basis introduces readers to all of the theoretical and scientific foundations of forensic anthropology — beginning with how it was influenced by the early theoretical approaches of Tyler, Morgan, Spencer and Darwin. It instructs on how modern forensic science relies on an interdisciplinary approach — with research being conducted in the fields of archaeology, physics, geology and other disciplines. This modern approach to theory in forensic anthropology is presented through the introduction and discussion of Foundational, Interpretive and Methodological theories. Sections cover: Bias and Objectivity in Forensic Anthropology Theory and Practice; The Theory and Science Behind Biological Profile and Personal Identification; Scientific Foundation for Interpretations of Antemortem, Perimortem, and Postmortem Processes; and Interdisciplinary Influences, Legal Ramifications and Future Directions.

• Illustrates important aspects of the theory building process and reflects methods for strengthening the scientific framework of forensic anthropology as a discipline
• Inspired by the "Application of Theory to Forensic Anthropology" symposium presented at the 67th annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
• Chapters written by experts in the field who were presenters at the symposium

Forensic Anthropology: Theoretical Framework and Scientific Basis is ideal for university courses in anthropological science, forensic science, criminal science and forensic archaeology.

CHAPTER 1
The theoretical and scientific foundations of forensic anthropology

C. Clifford Boyd Jr¹ and Donna C. Boyd^1,2

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

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

1.1 Introduction

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

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

1.2 A selective history of theory in forensic anthropology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This acknowledgement of a theoretical foundation based on actualistic and experimental studies became a major aspect of archaeological research, leading to the recognition of archaeology as a science (at least as it was practiced by many archaeologists). The “positivist” science‐oriented materialist view of the past became a hallmark of archaeology and related disciplines during this time. However, beginning in the late twentieth century, this positivist (Giddens, 1974; Comte, 1975; Mill, 2009) or (to use an archaeological term) processualist view of science as an objective, unbiased method of study that explains natural phenomena through the careful analysis of material physical objects began to be criticized (Robson, 2002; Wylie, 2002). Post‐processualist archaeological theorists emphasized a focus on uncovering the mental attributes of past peoples and meanings they assigned to artifacts and features. It was also recognized by postpositive, pos...