As the field of forensic anthropology has advanced and flourished, critics have emerged. During the formative years of the discipline, some anthropology colleagues, who were not engaged in forensic applications, contrasted forensic casework and research with more traditional endeavors, labeling the former as “police work” largely devoid of a theoretical foundation. Those of us active in forensic anthropology at that time simply shrugged these comments off, viewing them as reflective of ignorance of the reality of the field and also a bit of jealously regarding its visibility. With time, these critiques have waned. Fueled by surging student interest in forensic anthropology and administrative responses, some of these former critics now find themselves involved with teaching courses in forensic applications.

Today, forensic anthropology is recognized as an important subdiscipline of anthropology. Emerging forensic anthropologists can find jobs in university faculties, medical examiners’ offices, human rights organizations, government facilities, and many other sites. Anthropologists are integrated into recovery teams. Anthropological analysis of recovered remains is sought after and highly valued. Data and interpretations offered by forensic anthropologists have contributed in critical ways to the solutions of many medicolegal problems.

In spite of this progress, some concern lingers, especially among the older generation of anthropologists, regarding the robusticity of method and theory within forensic anthropology. Today, much like before, such doubts remain rooted in ignorance of the complexity of the modern practice of forensic anthropology. Some concerns reflect criticism of the overall field of forensic science and its perceived needs of more robust methodology, error analysis, assessment of cognitive bias, and related issues.

This volume addresses such concerns in a comprehensive manner. Forensic anthropology, like other forensic science disciplines, is case‐driven but also represents applied science. The quality of these applications reflects advances, as well as knowledge of the underlying science. To address issues presented by a particular case or set of evidence, the forensic anthropologist turns to the relevant science at hand. At the general level, the available science reflects method and theory in the studies of evolution, growth and development, anatomy, physics, engineering, chemistry, archaeology, and of course the broad fields of anthropology and physical anthropology. In addition, certain methods and theories derived from research and casework experience are specific to the unique forensic applications. This book presents detail on the many different levels of method and theory in forensic anthropology.

Nonlinear systems theory is included in this discussion. Throughout its history, progress in the field of forensic anthropology has been distinctly nonlinear. Promising new methods have emerged from research on specific samples. However, in many cases, enthusiasm for these methods has waned when testing on different samples has revealed reduced accuracy. Although irregular, progress has been sustained by increasingly critical research and the growing availability of new documented collections. Research has become increasingly interdisciplinary and international. Simultaneously, anthropologists have eagerly taken on issues of error analysis, cognitive bias, and many of the concerns that ripple through forensic science today.

In my view, this volume represents a welcomed addition to the scientific literature in forensic anthropology and the more general field of forensic science. The book documents in a comprehensive and exhaustive manner what forensic anthropologists have known all along; method and theory are alive and well in the dynamic and rapidly growing field of forensic anthropology.