Sharp force trauma relating to cultural anthropology

1 Introduction: interpreting violence

in the ancient and modern world when

skeletonized bodies are all you have

debra l. martin and

cheryl p. anderson

1.1 Introduction

If this collection of studies on interpreting violence has a single raison d’être it

is that bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology make good bedfellows in

thinking about the reasons and context for interpersonal violence. Bioarchaeol-

ogy has emerged as an important and integrated approach to understanding

human skeletal biology in the past. It combines analysis of skeletonized human

remains with archaeological reconstruction of the grave and habitation site,

and other aspects of the environment in which individuals lived. Forensic

anthropology is the application of methods from bioarchaeology, but usually

in a more recent historic or contemporary setting. The data from the skeleton

are usually used in a legal setting while working with police, coroners, or

human rights organizations. Both bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology

share complex methodologies for gleaning every piece of scientific data from

the human remains and the context in which they are found. Yet these two

subdisciplines within biological anthropology often are separated in edited

volumes, within departments, and across national conferences.

This is among the first organized symposia that we are aware of that

presents a thematic set of case studies coming from both subdisciplines. At

the 81st Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical

Anthropologists in Portland OR (April 11–14, 2012) the initial poster session

focused on case studies that revealed sometimes surprising or counterintuitive

interpretations of violence because a more nuanced approach was taken to

understand both the bones and the context. The focus is on the theories and

methods that are used to interpret violent interactions by identifying both the

Bioarchaeological and Forensic Perspectives on Violence: How Violent Death is Interpreted from

Skeletal Remains, ed. D. L. Martin and C. P. Anderson. Published by Cambridge University Press.

© Cambridge University Press 2014.

3

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051409.002 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Central Florida, on 01 Dec 2021 at 17:29:07, subject to the Cambridge Core

perpetrators of violence and those who suffered as a result of their actions. The

chapters in this volume all reveal how violence is reconstructed from skeletal

and contextual information. However, they provide a range of approaches to

foster multiple perspectives with regard to documenting and interpreting

the meaning of violence. Individual chapters demonstrate how this can be

operationalized on many different levels. In particular, the focus of these case

studies is to identify the different participants in violent encounters (victims,

witnesses, aggressors) in order to provide more detailed and nuanced interpret-

ations of human behavior.

1.2 The complementarity of bioarchaeology and forensic

anthropology

Bioarchaeology focuses on reconstructing ancient and historic cultures from

burials and other archaeological evidence in an academic setting. Forensic

anthropology deals primarily with more recent (and, most times, violent)

deaths in local, national, and international arenas, and it is carried out within

a framework that includes law enforcement, medical examiners, human rights

organizations, lawyers, and surviving family members. Although both do work

that involves excavation and analysis of skeletonized human remains, the

career trajectory of bioarchaeologists and forensic anthropologists can be very

different.

Bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology have largely developed in the

USA as distinctively different career tracks, but there have been many scholars

who practice both professionally and this has been the case for a long time

(Buikstra and Beck 2006; Komar and Buikstra 2008). Physical (or biological)

anthropology historically started out with individuals trained in anatomy and/

or medicine. Both Hooton and Hrdlička (dubbed the “father of physical

anthropology”) worked on forensic cases (Thompson 1982). Ubelaker (1999:

728) writes that Hrdlička worked directly with the FBI on solving cases for

them in the 1930s. Thus there is a long and illustrious history of melding

biological anthropology and forensic work.

Bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology present complementary perspec-

tives for examining violence in both past and contemporary societies. An

important goal of any investigation of conflict and trauma is to place the

skeletal data into the larger social, political, or historical context. One way to

get a deeper understanding of the motivations and consequences of violence

for different categories of participants (e.g. victims, aggressors, captives,

warriors) is to examine the different roles that individual agents and groups

play and how they interact in a specific location.

4 Introduction

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051409.002 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Central Florida, on 01 Dec 2021 at 17:29:07, subject to the Cambridge Core

An example of this approach is teasing out the victims from the attackers in

cases of indigenous or colonial warfare or sectarian conflicts. Careful analysis

of the human remains, detailed observations on the burial context, and ethno-

graphic or witness reports all can aid in providing a more accurate and nuanced

reconstruction of past events. Chapters in this volume highlight case studies of

antemortem and perimortem trauma in contemporary, historic, and ancient

contexts. These integrated bioarchaeological–forensic approaches are useful

in constructing the contexts in which violence takes place. Ultimately, both

subdisciplines aim to reconstruct and explain complex human behavior and so

can benefit from directly sharing case studies, methods of analysis, and

theoretical approaches to interpretation.

There is currently no umbrella term that would subsume both the work of

forensic anthropologists, forensic archaeologists, and bioarchaeologists,

although "forensic bioarchaeology" might be something to consider in the

future. Increasingly, the work of the forensic anthropologist is highly varied,

from work in academic settings and local homicide cases, to working at mass

disasters and places where large numbers of people have perished from

sectarian warfare and genocide (Crossland 2009). Bioarchaeologists are

increasingly volunteering to aid in a wide variety of contexts that involve

skeletonized remains, from historic cemeteries to mass disasters (Blau and

Skinner 2005). This blurring of the roles of bioarchaeology and forensic

anthropology is breaking down the largely artificial divisions between those

who study the ancient dead and those who assist with the more recently dead.

Another reason why this is the moment to blend theory, method, and data

from bioarchaeology with forensic anthropology is that bioarchaeology itself is

emerging in a relatively new configuration (see Martin et al. 2013). Modern

bioarchaeology is integrated into broader anthropological agendas of engage-

ment and ethical action. Many bioarchaeologists incorporate theories about

human behavior into their work and this has broadened and deepened the

interpretations derived from human remains (Martin et al. 2013). Forensic

anthropologists have provided a profound sense of what is at stake for the

living when the dead cannot be located or identified (Sanford 2004). In

addition, many forensic anthropologists also examine the direct impact of

violent acts on the communities from which the victims were taken, and on

eye-witnesses to the violence.

One of the issues facing the relatively young discipline of forensic anthropol-

ogy is the need to create a balance between specialized knowledge embedded in

the forensic sciences and training in the other subfields of anthropology.

Through interdisciplinary inquiry and engagement across the subfields, anthro-

pology provides a way to view the diversity of opinions about violence, warfare,

and human rights issues that often result in death, trauma, and social upheaval.

Debra L. Martin and Cheryl P. Anderson 5

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051409.002 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Central Florida, on 01 Dec 2021 at 17:29:07, subject to the Cambridge Core

1.3 A blended forensic–bioarchaeological approach

A variety of forms of violence, covert and vicious types of warfare, and a

broad range of activities regarding surveillance or the elimination of human

rights have created work for anthropologists that could not have been

imagined 100 years ago. Future forensic anthropologists and bioarchaeolo-

gists will need to continue training not just in the fundamentals of excavation

and skeletal analysis. They also will need training in all four subfields of

anthropology to broaden their theoretical and practical approach to dealing

with everyday violence. In this way, bioarchaeology (which is already

deeply embedded in anthropological inquiry) and forensic anthropology

can engage in an interdisciplinary inquiry of the theoretical and empirical

issues within the study of violence, warfare, surveillance, and human rights.

The approach and perspective that anthropology brings to the study of

violence is a critical, self-reflective, and non-reductionist perspective that

allows for a holistic examination of the dynamics that have led to the wide

array of human atrocities committed throughout the world. It is this strength

that is needed to keep forensic archaeology from falling into a trap of

creating highly specialized technicians who are disconnected from the rest

of anthropology.

Forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology may be considered two sides of

the same coin (i.e. human osteology); however, this does not always have to be

the case. The two applications of human skeletal analysis may have very

different objectives and yet they are fundamentally inseparable in terms of

methodology, theories about violence, and, sometimes, ultimate goals. The

biggest difference between the two subdisciplines is that forensic analysis

tends to focus on the individual while bioarchaeological analysis is more

concerned with populations (although individuals can be a focus as well).

Furthermore, forensic analysis may not have as much concern for skeletal

evidence of events over the life course of the individual, something that has

been more recently incorporated into broader bioarchaeological interpretation

of individuals and their role within the population.

Bioarchaeology has the depth and cross-cultural breadth to help shape and

understand the profound and complicated ways that humans think about and

use violence and bodies. Bioarchaeologists use human remains as a lens

through which to examine cultural processes. The ways that dead bodies are

discussed, hidden, and displayed are used as a point of departure for examining

the forms of violence that contributed to the deaths under study. Many of the

most horrific genocidal events in the past 100 years demonstrate the relation-

ship between violence and the expressive function that such acts and images

have as vehicles of universal human communication. Covert operations are

6 Introduction

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051409.002 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Central Florida, on 01 Dec 2021 at 17:29:07, subject to the Cambridge Core

designed with the goal of unraveling culturally constructed webs of trust. Thus,

the bodies have both real and symbolic properties.

1.4 Encompassing and cross-cutting themes

To continue building bridges and meshing methods and theory, the chapters in

this book provide case studies that highlight the larger intellectual context

within which this kind of scholarship falls. There are three broad sections, each

with an emphasis on a particular approach and a particular contribution to new

uses of methods and theories. While there is overlap among the sections, each

provides a particularly nuanced set of case studies that show that there is no

one way to interpret the meaning of violence – rather, there are many different

pathways to getting at a more complete picture based on initial examination of

human remains. The first section provides a variety of new approaches and

methodologies for analysis of human remains. The next section provides a

wide range of cases that fall into the broad category of ritual and performative

violence. The last section takes up issues of identity and its dynamic interplay

with a range of cultural factors. We end the volume with a thought-provoking

chapter on what it means to do the kind of work that scholars in this book do in

dealing with death and violence.

1.4.1 Innovative methodologies in forensic anthropology

and bioarchaeology

Stefan Flohr, Ute Brinker, Elena Spanagel, Annemarie Schramm, Jörg

Orschiedt, and Uwe Kierdorf (Chapter 2) investigate the demography of a

commingled skeletal collection, located near the Tollense River in Germany,

suspected to represent the victims of a battle. To accomplish this, Flohr and

colleagues examine the cross-sectional properties of adult femora from this

site to test whether the battlefield hypothesis is appropriate. Their results show

the demography of the assemblage is largely consistent with what would be

expected from a battlefield, mostly young and middle adult males, but that some

females were also among the victims at this site. They discuss the important

roles that women may have played during battles in the past, providing empir-

ical evidence for the presence of females on the battlefield in this study. The

approach taken by these authors contributes to understanding gender roles in

violent events and how they may be identified bioarchaeologically.

Anna Kjellström and Michelle D. Hamilton (Chapter 3) reconstruct the

events on the Royal Swedish Navy warship Kronan that led to sharp force

Debra L. Martin and Cheryl P. Anderson 7

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051409.002 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Central Florida, on 01 Dec 2021 at 17:29:07, subject to the Cambridge Core

trauma on some individuals using a forensic anthropological approach. They

apply a detailed methodology to examine the sharp force defects present in this

commingled collection. The authors demonstrate that the defects are not

consistent with wounds resulting from explosions or combat, but rather reflect

postmortem taphonomy. They show that the most likely scenario is that these

remains, which would have been well preserved at the bottom of the ocean,

were affected by the recovery of the cannons from the ship several years after it

sank. This research demonstrates the utility of careful analysis of taphonomy,

patterning, and context for providing nuanced interpretations of trauma and

violence.

Vincent H. Stefan (Chapter 4) discusses the complexities associated with

determining manner of death in cases of gunshot trauma. In this chapter he

establishes criteria for the identification of victims of homicide vs. suicide,

including examination of the context of the remains (buried, unburied,

restrained, not restrained). He also suggests criteria based on location of

wounds and number of gunshot wounds that will contribute to future investi-

gations of gunshot trauma. He cautions, however, that, while these different

criteria may be more consistent with homicide or suicide, in the end it is all of

the observations about the trauma made by an investigator that will lead to

determining the cause of death. This chapter provides an important, detailed

method for considering key aspects of context and patterns of trauma for

differentiating victims in both forensic and bioarchaeological investigations

of gunshot trauma.

Andrew C. Seidel and Laura C. Fulginiti (Chapter 5) investigate victims and

perpetrators of dismemberment cases in forensic contexts. This chapter pro-

vides important insight into trends in the nature of relationships between

victims and perpetrators. They demonstrate that often in dismemberment cases

the victims and perpetrators know each other prior to the violent act and also

explore the degree of those relationships for Maricopa County (intimate rela-

tionships or not intimate). Significantly, this work also offers a unique analysis

of sex differences among perpetrators of dismemberments. For example, they

provide evidence that female perpetrators of dismemberments are far

more likely to have intimate relationships with their victims. In considering

the connections between victims and aggressors, this research illuminates the

social patterning of this unique type of violence.

Cheryl P. Anderson (Chapter 6) examines commingled remains from a cave

burial site in Northern Mexico to investigate whether the deceased represent

victims or venerated ancestors. This research utilizes ethnographic and ethno-

historic information to investigate Rarámuri burial practices and beliefs about

the dead. It also reconstructs some aspects of the political and social environ-

ment from Spanish accounts of groups living in the region. Based on the

8 Introduction

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051409.002 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Central Florida, on 01 Dec 2021 at 17:29:07, subject to the Cambridge Core

available evidence, the author concludes that, while most individuals likely

were not victims of violence, at least one, and possibly a total of three, shows

evidence of trauma that is more consistent with violence then burial ritual or

ancestor veneration. This chapter demonstrates how consideration of these

sources of information may be useful for identifying victims of violence in

complex mortuary assemblages.

1.4.2 Ritual and performative violence

Ryan P. Harrod and Debra L. Martin (Chapter 7) examined the human remains

from populations living in the ancient Southwest and found that some exhibit

the “signature” of captivity and slavery on their bodies. Multiple healed head

wounds, healed fractured bones, nutritional anemias, and infections all point to

a life of violent beatings and inadequate living conditions. The violent acts

involved with taking captives are usually very ritualized and performative,

with males being murdered, and females and children being taken captive. The

trauma on their bodies suggests multiple beatings across the course of the

lifetime. From these case studies of captives who died young and with many

traumatic and pathological injuries, a more detailed understanding of how

captives were treated, as well as their symbolic and ritualized use as a show

of power and domination, is gained.

Rebecca Storey (Chapter 8) explores the relationships between victims and

aggressors in Maya warfare and sacrifice. This research discusses evidence for

the importance of warfare among elite males in Maya society and the signifi-

cance of trophies of war, specifically skull masks that were decorated and then

worn by the aggressors. The author provides bioarchaeological evidence for

the existence of these trophies and confirms that they likely represent elite

victims of ritual violence. These trophies would have bestowed greater prestige

to the perpetrators during life and the significance of these violent acts

continued to link them to their victims after death. This contribution provides

unique insight into considering the complex relationships between victims and

perpetrators of ritual violence and how they may extend beyond the actual

violent event.

Christina Torres-Rouff and Laura M. King (Chapter 9) consider patterns of

cranial trauma, in particular nasal fractures, as evidence for face-to-face con-

flict at oases in the San Pedro de Atacama during the Middle Period. They

demonstrate a higher incidence of nasal fractures among males, although some

females were also affected, and argue that this form of violence may have had

social significance. The antemortem nature of these wounds provides evidence

that, while this face-to-face violence was an important part of society, it was

Debra L. Martin and Cheryl P. Anderson 9

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051409.002 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Central Florida, on 01 Dec 2021 at 17:29:07, subject to the Cambridge Core

often non-lethal. This case may not have victims and perpetrators in the usual

sense; rather the authors suggest that these fractures may result from some sort

of culturally approved violence for resolving problems between adult individ-

uals. This contributes to furthering our understanding of how violence may

potentially be used for addressing social problems within a culture and how

this type of violence may exhibit different patterns.

William N. Duncan and Christopher M. Stojanowski (Chapter 10) provide

an analysis of a sixteenth-century calvaria from Georgia thought to belong to a

martyred Spanish priest, Pedro de Corpa. Through the process of trying to

determine whether or not this calvaria does in fact belong to Pedro de Corpa,

the authors explore why some bodies are of greater interest to forensic

anthropologists and bioarchaeologists than other bodies. They demonstrate

that in this case there are two important factors leading to the high degree of

interest. The first is that defacement of the body of the deceased has increased

the degree to which it is held sacred. The second reason is that anthropological

investigation of this calvaria has amplified the mystery surrounding it as well

as the meaning associated with it. This chapter carefully considers how

different groups within a community may be impacted differently by bioarch-

aeological and forensic research and represents an example of positive inter-

action between the anthropologists and the larger public.

1.4.3 Violence and identity

Heidi J. Bauer-Clapp and Ventura R. Pérez (Chapter 11) examine signs of

structural and direct violence on the remains of Yaqui individuals killed in a

massacre. The results of their analysis, demonstrating both trauma and signs of

physiological stress, illuminate the extensive violence against the Yaqui per-

petrated by the Mexican government during the nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries. Through the repatriation of these remains to the Yaqui, the authors

also aided in the transformation of the bodies of the victims into part of the

Yaqui heritage, continuing to tell the story of violence and sacrifice to future

generations. This research exemplifies how bioarchaeological and forensic

research may further the understanding of violence while positively engaging

the communities who are affected.

Kathryn M. Baustian (Chapter 12) explores signs of violence at the Ances-

tral Pueblo site Grasshopper Pueblo, finding evidence for antemortem trauma

as well as scalping, and questions prior views of a peaceful community. The

author considers a number of possibilities to explain the clear signs of violence

on some of the remains, including warfare and raiding and different types of

intra-community violence. She concludes that external violence likely played

10 Introduction

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051409.002 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Central Florida, on 01 Dec 2021 at 17:29:07, subject to the Cambridge Core

a role, especially among those with evidence for scalping, but cautions that

identification of specific perpetrators is problematic based on the available

evidence. The careful analysis presented in this chapter demonstrates the utility

of considering the patterning of skeletal trauma when interpreting relationships

between victims and perpetrators.

Elizabeth M. DeVisser, Krista E. Latham, and Marisol Intriago Leiva

(Chapter 13) consider the impact of violence perpetrated by the Pinochet

regime on Chilean national identity through the examination of the victims

from the Patio 29 mass grave. The authors discuss the efforts put forward by

the forensic anthropologists working on these human rights cases to use all

available lines of evidence to identify victims correctly and provide closure

for their families. They highlight the challenges associated with victim identi-

fication in the Patio 29 cases, but also the profound importance of these

identifications for the families and the community impacted by the violence.

This example demonstrates how forensic anthropologists, through identifica-

tion of the remains of victims, can assist with the restoration of national

identity.

Danielle Kurin (Chapter 14) discusses violence before and after the collapse

of the Wari Empire in Peru through the examination of cranial trauma and how

it affected different social groups, seen through different types of cranial

modification. The results presented by the author show a relationship between

social identity and trauma among the Chanka for both adults and subadults,

suggesting that some groups may have been more at risk for violence and

recidivism. This demonstrates that practices of violence changed following the

Wari collapse, including the identification of a specific subgroup(s) among the

Chanka to be targeted as the victims of violence. This chapter significantly

contributes to growing literature that seeks to understand the social patterning

of violence in different cultural contexts.

Melissa Scott Murphy, Brian Spatola, and Rick Weathermon (Chapter 15)

examine colonial period violence and consider the ways trauma patterning

might be used for inferring the potential identities of perpetrators. In this study,

they compare injuries present on colonial period indigenous Andean human

remains from Peru to different types of trauma in order to understand the types

of weapons that may have been used on the victims. The authors point out that

even the identification of weapon type may not lead to a clear picture of the

identities of the perpetrators. In this case, while the victims from this site could

have been killed by Spanish individuals they may also have been the victims of

other native peoples, some of whom were aligned with the Spanish. Through

their careful analysis, the authors demonstrate the utility of careful trauma

comparison but show the necessity for researchers of violence to be cautious

in their interpretations and consider the potential alternatives. They also

Debra L. Martin and Cheryl P. Anderson 11

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051409.002 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Central Florida, on 01 Dec 2021 at 17:29:07, subject to the Cambridge Core

demonstrate that individuals may have shifting roles as victims and aggressors,

which must be considered in contexts of violence.

John J. Crandall, Ryan P. Harrod, Cheryl P. Anderson, and Kathryn M.

Baustian (Chapter 16) present a historic double murder and suggest ways in

which the events on the Kiel ranch may be interpreted. Originally thought

to represent a murder–suicide, the authors confirm a previous anthropo-

logical analysis that these are the victims of a double murder. The results

presented suggest an interpretation of the attack as possibly consistent with

an ambush attack, with one victim being struck by both long-distance and

close-range gunshot wounds and the other with a likely close-range shot.

The violence at this ranch is then considered in the broader context of

historic period violence on the American frontier. Through a comparative

approach, the authors contribute to understanding aspects of ambush and

massacre situations, their social significance, and their potential skeletal

correlates.

1.5 Conclusions

Strong themes of ritual, performance, and identity run throughout these chapters

and these tie violence to interpretive frameworks because of the multiple lines of

evidence used. Various interpretations about the victims as well as the perpetra-

tors were brought into focus with the use of innovative methodologies combined

with theories about the ways that violence is shaped by cultural ideology,

symbolism, and politics. From forensic cases to population–level studies of

past peoples, violence is never a simple phenomenon to interpret. While the

skeletons can reveal that some form of violence occurred, multiple lines of

evidence are necessary to reconstruct the rich and detailed context within which

the violent acts took place. Anthropology as a holistic approach to human

behavior provides the “glue” that binds both forensic as well as archaeological

approaches to understanding violence and explaining the role of culture and

ideology in the use of violence. Alison Galloway (Chapter 17) provides the

concluding thoughts for this volume on violence. In her chapter, she provides

thoughtful commentary on what it means to work with the remains of the dead,

and how this type of work is experienced by anthropologists.

References

Blau, S. & Skinner, M. (2005). The use of forensic archaeology in the investigation of

human rights abuse: unearthing the past in East Timor. The International Journal

of Human Rights, 9, 449–63.

12 Introduction

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051409.002 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Central Florida, on 01 Dec 2021 at 17:29:07, subject to the Cambridge Core

Buikstra, J. E. & Beck, L. A. (eds.) (2006). Bioarchaeology: The Contextual Analysis of

Human Remains. Burlington: Academic Press.

Crossland, Z. (2009). Of clues and signs: the dead body and its evidential traces.

American Anthropologist, 111, 69–80.

Komar, D. A. & Buikstra, J. E. (2008). Forensic Anthropology: Contemporary Theory

and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martin, D. L., Harrod, R. P. & Pérez, V. R. (2013). Bioarchaeology: An Integrated

Approach to Working with Human Remains. New York: Springer.

Sanford, V. (2004). Buried Secrets: Truth and Human Rights in Guatemala. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Thompson, D. D. (1982). Forensic anthropology. In: Spencer, F. (ed.) A History of

American Physical Anthropology, 1930–1980. New York: Academic Press, 357–65.

Ubelaker, D. H. (1999). Aleš Hrdlicka’s role in the history of forensic anthropology.

Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44, 724–30.

Debra L. Martin and Cheryl P. Anderson 13

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051409.002 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Central Florida, on 01 Dec 2021 at 17:29:07, subject to the Cambridge Core

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051409.002 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Central Florida, on 01 Dec 2021 at 17:29:07, subject to the Cambridge Core