Dirkmaat Dennis C, Cabo Luis L, Ousley Stephen D, Symes Steven A
Department of Applied Forensic Sciences, Mercyhurst College, Erie, PA 16546, USA.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008;Suppl 47:33-52. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.20948.
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 significantly affected the discipline. These key developments have not only altered the current practice of forensic anthropology, but also its goals, objectives, scope, and definition. The development of DNA analysis techniques served to undermine the classic role of forensic anthropology as a field almost exclusively focused on victim identification. The introduction of the Daubert criteria in the courtroom presentation of scientific 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, required sound scientific bases and expanded the scope of the field. This environment favored the incipient development of the interrelated fields of forensic taphonomy, forensic archaeology, and forensic trauma analysis, fields concerned with the reconstruction of events surrounding death. Far from representing the mere addition of new methodological techniques, these disciplines (especially, forensic taphonomy) provide forensic anthropology with a new conceptual framework, which is broader, deeper, and more solidly entrenched in the natural sciences. It is argued that this new framework represents a true paradigm shift, as it modifies not only the way in which classic forensic anthropological questions are answered, but also the goals and tasks of forensic anthropologists, and their perception of what can be considered a legitimate question or problem to be answered within the field.
对过去二十年法医人类学的概念和实践演变进行批判性回顾，有助于识别两个关键外部因素和四个紧密相关的内部方法学进展，这些因素和进展对该学科产生了重大影响。这些关键发展不仅改变了法医人类学的当前实践，还改变了其目标、宗旨、范围和定义。DNA分析技术的发展削弱了法医人类学作为几乎完全专注于受害者身份识别领域的经典作用。在法庭上呈现科学证词时引入多伯特标准，伴随着新的人类比较样本以及数据分析和共享工具的发展，使得定量方法在人类骨骼分析中的作用大幅增强。此外，除了身份识别之外，向法医人类学家提出的新问题需要坚实的科学基础，并扩大了该领域的范围。这种环境有利于法医埋藏学、法医考古学和法医创伤分析等相关领域的初步发展，这些领域关注死亡周围事件的重建。这些学科（尤其是法医埋藏学）远非仅仅增加了新的方法技术，而是为法医人类学提供了一个新的概念框架，这个框架在自然科学中更广泛、更深入且根基更稳固。有人认为，这个新框架代表了一种真正的范式转变，因为它不仅改变了回答经典法医人类学问题的方式，还改变了法医人类学家的目标和任务，以及他们对该领域内可被视为合理问题或有待回答问题的认知。
