Forensic social anthropology: an Australian perspective

If forensic physical anthropology is the science of biological processes and related medico-legal investigations, then social cultural socio-legal investigations. This article lays out terms, definitions, application specialization in as it practised Australia. The objective this exercise to equip both anthropologists with a consilient model for joint engagement their parent discipline legal proceedings where are deemed relevant by court or other legally empowered body. As demonstrated Australia, potential applications range across variety matters involving civil criminal investigation. Such include systematic land expropriation, child removal, forced population movement, modern-day slavery, unlawful detention, important phenomena. questionable legality these kinds phenomena not isolated Australia but is, rather, international significance. Anthropologie sociale forensique : l'expérience australienne Résumé Si l'anthropologie physique est la des processus biologiques et examens médicolégaux y afférents, celle culturels études sociolégales correspondantes. Le présent présente le glossaire, les définitions mise en de spécialisation anthropologie sociale, telle qu'on pratique Australie. l'exercice doter anthropologues, aussi bien physiques que sociaux, d'un modèle souple permettant une approche commune leur mère au cours procédures légales dont un tribunal, ou autre organe disposant pouvoirs similaires, estime qu'elles mettent jeu culturels. Ainsi cela été démontré Australie, peut être à contribution dans domaines d'enquête très divers, comme pénal expropriations systématiques, enlèvement d'enfants, déplacements forcés populations, esclavage moderne, détention abusive autres phénomènes sociaux importants. Il n'y pas qu'en Australie l'on s'interroge sur légalité ces phénomènes. Au contraire, ce questionnement pris importance internationale. Social have acted expert witnesses many decades (Rosen 1977; Stewart 1979). However, throughout that period, tension has persisted between anthropologists’ readiness accept assignation ‘expertise’ courts, typical manner which courts characterize such expertise an established scientific field (Clarke 2020). Forensic any given relates investigation subject proceedings, often frequently (but exclusively) activities led death. (often confusingly shortened simply ‘forensic anthropology’) specialized branch developed provide evidence most commonly relation police investigations into casualty events, typically skeletal remains one more casualties amenable biometric study, including mainly osteological taphonomic analysis (Ubelaker 2018). By contrast, at time rather than matters, culture parties’ relations sociometric analysis. Because anthropological tribunals involved instead addition courts. Although extant Europe United States primarily asylum claims (Holden 2019; Sarat & Rodriguez 2018), uncommon outside used predominantly resolution litigation negotiation connected Indigenous community land, waters, natural resources following historical colonial expropriation British Commonwealth (Morphy 2006; Smith Morphy 2007). In article, broader assessment key principles presented order wider audience perspective may be existing frameworks internationally. requires level generalization. While examples Australian Federal Court decisions been cited several points current illustrative purposes, together views judges familiar evidence, survey For type, readers recommended expertly executed volume Trigger al. (2013), well below. Since 1960s, there broad consensus among scientists defined, briefly, discrete area research (a) object, within scope (b) set spatiotemporal parameters, supported (c) theoretical causality (Barkow, Cosmides Tooby 1992; Kuhn 1962; Slingerland Collard 2012; E.O. Wilson 1998). There others object variation human communities. also parameters measurable geographical space time, so construes communities occurring on axis defined distinctive variations can linked specific region (Leaf Read Richerson Boyd 2008; D.S. 2007; consistent disciplines, each confined delimited space-time part its paradigmatic definition, ranging along continuum subatomic cosmic scales. deviates from disciplines causality, being explanatory predicts outcome empirically observable processes. physics, example, root causal focuses interactions matter energy; chemistry, interaction electromagnetic forces; biology, cellular function. anthropology, no unified predicting Instead, single discipline, communities, splits two fields:1 distinct models. We refer ‘transition’ field, visualized shown Figure 1. At inception 1870s, evolution was assumed exclusive cause suitable physicality sociality. origins assumption reside autochthonous anthropology's respective North American founders, Edward Burnett Tylor (1871) Lewis Henry Morgan (1871), event article. effect monothematic influence administrative policy late nineteenth early twentieth centuries profound, remaining broadly unquestioned until revelations genocide committed during Second World War, justification using concepts (Bashford Levine Mulvaney 1993). From 1950s onwards, models emerged previously based (Kuklick 2012). distinction source binomial titles fields known ‘biological anthropology’ ‘cultural anthropology’, especially States. bifurcation models, while enveloped various sciences biology formed common model, remained embedded humanities. Following postwar efflorescence Claude Lévi-Strauss (1949) France, Raymond Firth (1951) Britain, George Murdock States, appeared moving closer towards professional formalism empiricism 1970s (Gluckman 1961; 1966; White 1969; Tindale 1974), mainstream ultimately metamorphosed philosophy culture, (Clifford Marcus 1986; Geertz 1973; Gupta Ferguson 1992). To day, definition point contention (de Munck 2020; Ingold 2002), even accepted system (Austin-Broos Despite drift philosophy, scientifically oriented formal empirical continues taught University Paris, School Advanced Science Studies, National Scientific Research Centre jointly support Laboratory Anthropology. Kingdom, Anthropology Computing Kent contributes Centres division Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) consortium, affiliated Yale Also universities promoting Department California Los Angeles, Sciences Irvine, Economic, Political, Policy Texas, others. Anthropological Association home robust growing Society Sciences. What implications three-part – comprising generally, particular? first, clarifies Sociality attribute behaviour individuals, relationships types relationship. all objects, sociality intuitively people, people able clearly classify intersecting spheres own according domains experience, ‘family’, ‘friends’, ‘school’, ‘work’, ‘commerce’, ‘sport’, ‘religion’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘nationality’, on. elaborates intuitive understanding formalizing introducing data methodologically technologies harness formalization make measurements. sociality, measurement made much reliable meaningful purposes research, judicial systems particular. With respect metric powerful measurements distribution real linking individuals time. Hägerstrand (1968; 1970), obvious example individual life path, relationship form different starting child's mother, followed primary carers, siblings, school friends, teachers, colleagues, ideological allies enemies, lovers, These exhibit spatial distributions reflect individual's movements over course life, lives those whom they interact. result course, extensive theoretically continuous networks spanning entire planet history (Nooy, Mrvar Batagelj technological basis makes possible collect data, build conduct analyses leading-edge (Hamberger, Houseman 2014; 1997; 2002; 1998; 2013; Johansen 2006). One unusual features notably low-tech despite existence relevant, cheap, computer hardware software twenty-five years. includes relational database management systems, network software, geospatial information accompanying communication technologies, opened door fine-grained very large-scale modelling complex dynamics. Each when combination, provides means measuring space, only paths one-to-one infinite number types, exists periods regions space. Finally, patterns theory currently (Dengah, Snodgrass, Polzer Nixon Freeman, Romney 2017; Kronenfeld, Bennardo, Fischer 2011; Leaf 2011) constitutes process cumulative feedbacks collectively held ideas about instantiation formation real-world relationships. comprise motivation forming relationships, pre-existing generation ideas. ongoing feedback gives rise characteristic regional we ‘culture’. Using previous carers responsible explaining idea family later school. Once begins attending forms teachers students, propagated reinforce elaborate extend them anticipate working goes once finish Ideological emerge nexus experience. Thus, uses predict brings high relief insignificance distinctions names either ‘social’ ‘cultural’ since whether focus reality inherent whole. field's setting. Legal inquiries become determination commence court-directed agreement participating parties facts inquiries. involves defining objects inquiry, turn consequently link agreed inquiry opinions provided specialist. inform arguments representatives court's matter. visualization 1 above, 2 illustrates further transition cladistic branching specialization. case results subset occasioning death issues. whichever inquiry. discussions persist internationally future direction 2020), context Australia's environment proven highly functional. setting, academy propagates system, through enforcement collection codified conditions structure function considers. societies rights interests area, lands, resources; so-called ‘laws customs’, what might properly call ‘idea systems’ Read, 2012), observed instantiated members society regenerating itself claimed; persistence society, laws customs, moment Britain asserted sovereignty native title claim lodged. Under circumstances, bound rules aforementioned Evidence Act, impose must take admissible court, duty On last point, engaged submission explicitly above beyond employers clients. Given partisan statutory obligation provoked some between, hand, (although all) anthropologists, who perceive themselves advocates claimants, and, Court, obliged ensure impartiality considering proceedings. circles, open accusations exclusively academia ‘applied’ somehow subordinate subfield now thirty-year-old role introduction Native Title Act 1993, certification framework uniformly guidelines exist ensuring minimum required standards practitioners Act. Society, voluntary learned does offer practice kind. offers guided courses, writing programmes, workshops under stewardship experienced practitioners, training replicated university, nor adopted regulatory authorities kind framework. absence absent. theoretical, methodological ethical demonstration proving interests, terms ‘law custom’ (Glaskin 2007), ‘society’ (Burke 2010; Palmer 2009; Sutton 2001), ‘continuing connection’ areas water (Martin 2004; significant innovation occurred parts regard (e.g. Tribunal Rose 2017), mechanism sector considered adoption standard practice. vacuum stands marked contrast regulation February 2020, New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency's Institute released second edition Guidelines (ANZPAA NIFS ANZPAA service providers directorate ANZPAA, state, territory, federal forces Police. NIFS’ 2020 represent follow conducting examinations, producing reports, providing (see Wilson-Wilde 2021). clear definitions setting limits generally. Most importantly, require practising hold doctoral degree anatomy institutes approved Executive Committee, represents government Zealand. twenty-eight pages, document clear, concise, powerfully A similar governed code (Royal Regulator backed 2020) continuing development Institute, detail expected undertaking Crown Defence casework jurisdictions Kingdom. striking difference regulations, however, UK national Royal (RAI), Not RAI maintain standing committee but, 2018 2022, presidency renowned anthropologist Professor Dame Sue Black. out, ‘In necessarily widespread how requirements confront aspects [social] practice’ (2013: 10). substantive reason regulated law illustration expect provision evidence. resonant Judge Justice Selway his 2005 decision regarding Arnhem Land far Northern Australia: least problems seem recur [social anthropological] concerning aboriginal rights. first perceived problem partiality … [where] ring convinced advocate dispassionate [and which] affect admissibility written reports prepared. book conclusions interesting informative way [but] methodology (be observation, discussions, reference published literature expression opinion) apparently factual stated report. Presumably appropriate (Federal (Selway J) 2005). anthropologist's evidentiary] Report did conform witnesses, approach taken had Applicants; 2. [The anthropologist] expressed opinion general reasoning underlying report insufficiently clear; 3. Parts contained advocacy (Jango v Territory (No. 4) [M]y advice you write consider for, taking account target [Y]ou yourself; Ultimately, purpose proceeding, your judge will decide Judges things. So vitally concerned know dispute Sometimes get impression, rightly wrongly, see (Rangiah 2016: 2-3). peculiarity situation highlighted indirectly Dominguez Ross (2016) foreword special subsection anthropology. interviews four whom, Dr Soren Blau, long-serving member Victorian Medicine Melbourne, NIFS-approved referred above. journal conducted framed sort intercultural exchange cases apparent awkward misunderstanding subtexts behind questions asked interviewers.8 Nowhere interview Blau indication aware pre-existence publications phrase title. demonstrates her gracious responses Ross's sometimes provocative concise articulation expectations latter's efforts regulate discipline. unsuspecting participants possibly experiment unilateral academic Anglophone go