Abstract
The excavation of an archaeological site in many ways mimics that of crime scene examination. A forensic archaeologist acts in the dual role of outside expert and crime scene investigator when excavating a clandestine grave as part of a criminal investigation. As such, it is beneficial for the forensic archaeologist to have completed awareness training in a number of forensic fields. Are current degree programs meeting this need? If not, in what forensic techniques should a forensic archaeologist be trained to ensure optimal performance in the field?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
National Research Council. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009. The full text of this report is available online and is worth reading.
- 2.
The NIST OSAC website is a very useful resource for anyone interested in forensic science standards and best practice. The full OSAC structure and list of subcommittees is available there.
- 3.
That has now changed. In 2015, NIST announced the formation of a CSI subcommittee. The subcommittee first met in 2016 but has lagged behind the other subcommittees in terms of work product. The reasons are twofold: first, the late start of the subcommittee. The other subcommittees had been formed and working together for almost a year and a half by the time the CSI subcommittee was formed. The second was that many of the subcommittees had been derived from previously existing SWGs. Those SWGs already had drafted a number of standards and guides for their fields. Reformed as OSAC subcommittees, they were able to repurpose existing documents into new drafts of standards. Crime scene investigation never had a SWG so the new subcommittee was starting from zero.
- 4.
One of the documents currently being drafted by the OSAC CSI subcommittee is a standard for the education and training of CSI personnel.
- 5.
The Daubert criteria is derived from three cases, often known as the “Daubert Trilogy.” Together they define the standards under which expert witness testimony must operate in order to be called “science.” Prior to Daubert, experts operated under the Frye rule that considered a technique “science” if it was “generally accepted” by the relevant scientific community. The Daubert criteria raised the bar and includes the concept of “reliability” to scientific evidence. The elements of the Daubert criteria are more thoroughly discussed in the chapter by Susan White in this volume. Under both Frye and Daubert, archaeological methodology fully meets all requirements.
- 6.
As noted in the chapter by Mires in this volume, the Quincy, Massachusetts police dive team was open to lending there side-scan sonar in exchange for an opportunity to train their divers.
References
Dirkmaat, D., Adovasio, J. M., & Cabo, L. L. (2013). SAA conference paper. The Two Faces of Forensic Archaeology.
Gardner, R. M., & Bevel, T. (2009). Practical crime scene analysis and reconstruction. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Wortley, R., & Mazerolle, L. G. (2011). Environmental criminology and crime analysis. London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Moran, K.S. (2019). Forensic Archaeologist or Crime Scene Investigator?. In: Moran, K.S., Gold, C.L. (eds) Forensic Archaeology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03291-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03291-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03289-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03291-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)