In Daubert (1993), the Supreme Court superseded the “Frye” ruling in Federal courts by establishing judges, rather than the scientific community, as the gatekeepers for determining the credibility of scientific evidence. In 1999, the lesser known but equally important Kumho decision held that technical expert testimony must use the same rigor as outlined in Daubert; however, experts can develop theories based on observation and apply such theories to the specific case before the court. Anthropology has never been defined as a hard science. Yet many recent publications have modified existing techniques of forensic anthropology to meet the Daubert criteria, but none have discussed the significance of Kumho for anthropological testimony. Failure to understand and tailor testimony to the Kumho criteria may result in forensic anthropologists struggling to meet unattainable standards for their testimony, potentially undermining its admissibility. A recent survey of practicing forensic anthropologists found that most of their testimony focuses on trauma and pathology, collection of evidence and investigation at the crime scene, or the postmortem interval, all of which can fall under the standards established by Kumho. Thus, Kumho, rather than Daubert, has a greater impact on most anthropological testimony. The Kumho decision allows anthropologists latitude in presenting evidence that cannot be empirically tested, provided the analysis is both scientific and rigorous. 3 tables and 74 references