Recentering forensic anthropology within a multifaceted body of evolutionary theory: Strengthening method by making theory explicit

Abstract

The discipline of forensic anthropology has been critiqued for its lack of a theoretical basis. In response, practitioners often assert that their analyses are implicitly grounded in evolutionary theory. However, the nature of this theoretical grounding is little discussed in the forensic anthropology literature, beyond, for example, statements indicating that sex‐based pelvic differences have evolved in response to increasing encephalization within the genus Homo, or that clinal variation in features like limb proportions have evolved within our species due to environmental pressures that differ on a gradient. Further, while the role of natural selection in shaping the morphologies analyzed in biological profile estimation is undeniable, adaptation in response to environmental pressures does not explain all variation within our species. Evolutionary theory is not monolithic; different perspectives on the primacy of functional adaptation versus factors like drift and phenotypic plasticity lead to differences in skeletal interpretations and lead researchers to novel approaches in creating new or improving current methodologies. Various theoretical perspectives underpin forensic anthropological analyses, and in order for forensic anthropology to be truly grounded in evolutionary theory, these theoretical perspectives must be not only made explicit but also interrogated in terms of how they inform forensic anthropological interpretations.

Investigating identification disparities in forensic anthropology casework

“…Adams and Pilloud (7) explored instances of misappropriation of psychology and biological anthropology research by white nationalists to justify their racist beliefs, and documented ways in which biological anthropology research was used to argue for the existence of racial typology and urged researchers to consider the broader implications of their research beyond their discipline and intended application. Other recent works [10,11,[29][30][31][32] recommend moving towards a practice of estimating population affinity, which advances beyond continental allocations often associated with ancestry estimations, and incorporates a comprehensive understanding of population histories as well as ongoing dynamics (sociopolitical, economic) that can influence local patterns of biological variation. In turn, this approach considers how categories and terms used to describe the reference samples represent social meaning relevant to local communities [17,30,31].…”

Speaking of Sex: Critical Reflections for Forensic Anthropologists

“…Language and methods in modern forensic anthropological practice fail to accurately capture the variation observed in human skeletons [86], influenced not only by one's ASAB, but also individual genetics, environment, and cultural experiences. To move forward, it is imperative that we understand how the field has progressed regarding assigned sex.…”

Macro-Scale Population Patterns in the Kofun Period of the Japanese Archipelago: Quantitative Analysis of a Larger Sample of Three-Dimensional Data from Ancient Human Crania

“…Furthermore, morphometric research offers unique advantages compared to DNA studies: it is easier to obtain larger and less biased samples, especially in the context of Japanese prehistory. Therefore, anthropologists continue to investigate human morphological traits to glean clues regarding human evolutionary pathways [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12].…”