Advertisement

The Human Side of Forensic Archaeology

  • Ann Marie MiresEmail author
  • Randi Scott
Chapter

Abstract

The benefits of archaeological methods and technologies are becoming increasingly important and valuable in crime scene and forensic investigations as a whole. Forensic archaeology encompasses many different areas including scene recovery, ground-truthing investigative leads, establishing chain of custody of evidence, and expert witness testimony. One area of importance that crosses all facets and tends to be overlooked is the forensic archaeologists’ involvement with the families impacted by this type of work. This paper will explore these deeper social issues that forensic archaeologists encounter with families and communities, during and after an incident utilizing forensic archaeological expertise. Although forensics is thought of as primarily a science, we as archaeologists and anthropologists know that our disciplines combine science with humanities and that casework often requires interfacing with survivors of the case or incident. The question that this chapter explores is: Whether it is necessary and part of the forensic archaeologists’ responsibility to act as facilitator or contributor in the healing and/or closure process for the living? Is there a human side to forensic archaeology, and how do we manage that involvement for ourselves, as well as for those parties involved, namely, the families?

Keywords

Forensic identification Families of the missing NAGPRA Disaster response Human rights archaeology Station nightclub Forensic archaeology recovery 

References

  1. Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 2006 (2006). House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 2d session, Report 104–793.Google Scholar
  2. Blau, S. (2009). More than just bare bones: Ethical considerations for forensic anthropologists. In S. Blau & D. H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook for forensic archaeology and anthropology (pp. 457–467). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blau, S. (2014). Working as a forensic archaeologist and/or anthropologist in post-conflict contexts: A consideration of professional responsibilities to the missing, the dead and their relatives. Ethics and the Archaeology of Violence, 2, 215–228.Google Scholar
  4. Blau, S., & Ubelaker, D. H. (2009). Forensic anthropology and archaeology: Introduction to a broader view. In S. Blau & D. H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook for forensic archaeology and anthropology (pp. 21–25). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ferrandiz, F. (2013). Rapid response ethnographies in turbulent times. Anthropology Today, 29(6), 18–22.Google Scholar
  6. Fondebrider, L. (2002). Reflections on the scientific documentation of human rights violations. IRRC, 84(848), 885–891.Google Scholar
  7. Gonzalez-Ruibal, A. (2008). Time to destroy an archaeology of supermodernity. Current Anthropology, 49(2), 247–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gould, R. A. (2007). Disaster archaeology. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gould, R. A., & Scott, R. (2007). Ethnoarchaeology and the aftermath: The process of memorialization. In R. A. Gould (Ed.), Disaster archaeology (pp. 69–92). Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hanson, I. (2007). Psycho-social issues and approaches in forensic archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 22(2), 1–19.Google Scholar
  11. Hoffman, S., & Oliver-Smith, A. (2002). Catastrophe and culture: The anthropology of disaster. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hofmeister, U., & Navarro, S. (2017, November). A psychosocial approach in humanitarian forensic action: The Latin American perspective. Forensic Science International, 280, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koff, C. (2004). The bone woman. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  14. Morse, D., Cursoe, D., & Smith, H. G. (1976). Forensic archaeology. Journal of Forensic Science, 21(2), 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Poirier, D. A., & Bellantoni, N. F. (1996). Forensic archeology a humanistic science. CRM 10.Google Scholar
  16. Sarkin, J. (2017). How developments in the science and technology of searching, recovering and identifying the missing/disappeared are positively affecting the rights of victims around the world. Human Remains and Violence, 3(1), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sledzik, P. S. (2009). Forensic anthropology in disaster response. In S. Blau & D. H. Ubelaker (Eds.), Handbook for forensic archaeology and anthropology (pp. 374–387). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  18. Steadman, D. W., & Haglund, W. D. (2005). The scope of anthropological contributions to human rights investigations. Journal of Forensic Science, 50(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. (1990) (Public Law 101–601; 25 U.S.C. 3001–3013).Google Scholar
  20. Tidball-Binz, M. (2006). Forensic investigations into the missing: Recommendations and operational best practices. In A. Schmitt, E. Cunha, & J. Pinheiro (Eds.), Forensic anthropology and medicine. Totowa: Humana Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Molly Bish CenterForensic Criminology, Anna Maria CollegePaxtonUSA
  2. 2.Independent ArchaeologistBeniciaUSA

Personalised recommendations