The Language of Forensic Archaeology: Discourses in Field and in Court

  • Anna S. ChausséeEmail author


Testifying at trial is a linguistic event. Currently forensic archaeological reporting, in whatever guise, assumes that a codified lexicon exists and is accepted within the wider forensic archaeological community. Forensic archaeology has incorporated standard terminology from the conventional discipline. However, nontechnical but familiar words have also been appropriated and are perceived as possessing a similar standing as technical terminology because other forensic archaeologists have come to use them. It has become clear from peer reviews of forensic reports, case examples, and during cross-examination that linguistic diversity exists within the discipline. Moreover, practitioners may not currently possess a full awareness of the reasons that account for and the difficulties created by apparent linguistic diversity across the linguistic genres forensic archaeologists engage with. The following argues for greater standardization of oral and written evidence within forensic archaeology in the UK and USA. It also demonstrates that a greater understanding of the epistemological identity of forensic archaeology would benefit the development of a clear and communally accepted lexicon that seeks to represent all the activities taking place within this field of study.


Archaeology Court testimony Forensic discourse Linguistic diversity Communication Performativity 


  1. Bachy, R., Dias, J., Alleysson, D., & Bonnardel, V. (2012). Hue discrimination, unique hues and naming. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 29(2), A60–A68. Scholar
  2. Berliner, D. (2003). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31, 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhatia, V. (1993). Analysing genre. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  5. Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57–76). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler, J. (1995). Burning acts: Injurious speech. In A. Parker & E. Kosofsky Sedgwick (Eds.), Performativity and performance (pp. 197–228). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, J. (1999). Performativity’s social magic. In R. Shusterman (Ed.), Bourdieu: A critical Reader (pp. 113–128). Oxford: Blackwell publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Butler, J. (2015). U.S. initiatives to strengthen forensic science & international standards in forensic DNA. Forensic Science International Genetics, 18, 4–20. Scholar
  10. Cabo, L., & Dirkmaat, D. (2015). Forensic archaeology in the United States. In W. Groen, N. Márquez-Grant, & R. Janaway (Eds.), Forensic archaeology: A global perspective (pp. 255–270). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, B. (2001). Strategies for improving communication between scientists and the public. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 8, 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cole, S. A. (2013). Forensic culture as epistemic culture: The sociology of forensic science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(1), 36–46. Scholar
  13. Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crown Prosecution Service. (2018). CPS disclosure manual. Retrieved from
  15. Evis, L. (2016). Forensic archaeology: The application of comparative excavation methods and recording systems. Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Federal Judicial Center. (2011). Reference manual on scientific evidence (3rd Edn).Google Scholar
  17. Forensic Science Regulator. (2017). Codes of practice and conduct for forensic science providers and practitioners in the Criminal Justice System, (4).
  18. Gibbons, J. (1994a). Language and disadvantage before the law. In J. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the law (pp. 195–198). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  19. Gibbons, J. (1994b). Language constructing law. In J. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the law (pp. 3–10). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. Groen, W., Márquez-Grant, N., & Janaway, R. (2015). Concluding remarks. In Forensic archaeology: A global perspective (pp. 517–536). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Hay, D. (Ed.). (2007). Words and phrases legally defined: Volume 1 A-K (4th ed.). London: Lexis Nexis Butterworths.Google Scholar
  22. Heffer, C. (2013). Revelation and rhetoric: A critical model of forensic discourse. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 26(2), 459–485. Scholar
  23. Henneberg, M. (2009). The expert witness and the court of law. In S. Blau & D. Ublelaker (Eds.), Handbook of forensic archaeology and anthropology (pp. 490–494). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  24. HMSO (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office). (1996). Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  25. HMSO (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office). (2003). Criminal Justice Act. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  26. Hodder, I. (1986). Reading the past: Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Howes, L. M. (2015). The communication of forensic science in the criminal justice system: A review of theory and proposed directions for research. Science and Justice, 55(2), 145–154. Scholar
  29. Hunter, J., & Cropper, C. (2015). Introduction to forensic archaeology in the United Kingdom. In W. Groen, N. Márquez-Grant, & R. Janaway (Eds.), Forensic archaeology: A global perspective (pp. 189–195). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Hunter, J., Simpson, B., & Sturdy Colls, C. (2013). Forensic approaches to buried remains. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 17–45). Frankfort: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackson, G., Aitken, C., & Roberts, P. (2015). Practitioner guide no 4 case assessment and interpretation of expert evidence guidance for judges, lawyers, forensic scientists and expert witnesses. London: Royal Statistics Society.Google Scholar
  33. Joyce, R. (2002). The languages of archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kempton, W. (1981). The folk classification of ceramics: A study of cognitive prototypes. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  35. Locke, J., & Wynne, J. (1700). An abridgment of Mr. Locke’s essay concerning humane understanding (2nd. ed.). London: A. & J. Churchil.Google Scholar
  36. Lyman, R. L. (2012). A historical sketch on the concepts of archaeological association, context, and provenience. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 19(2), 207–240. Scholar
  37. Marquis, R., Biedermann, A., Cadola, L., Champod, C., Gueissaz, L., Massonnet, G., et al. (2016). Discussion on how to implement a verbal scale in a forensic laboratory: Benefits, pitfalls and suggestions to avoid misunderstandings. Science and Justice, 56(5), 364–370. Scholar
  38. Ministry of Justice UK. (2015). Code of practice for victims of crime. Retrieved June 18, 2018, from
  39. Mnookin, J., Cole, S., Dror, I., Fisher, B., Houck, M., Inman, K., David, H., Kaye, D., Koehler, J., Glenn Langenburg, G., Risinger, D., Rudin, N., Siegel, J., & Stoney, D. (2011). The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences. UCLA Law Review, 58(3), 725–779.Google Scholar
  40. Peters, H. (2008). Scientists as public experts: Expectations and responsibilities. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 70–258). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Röling, N. (2007). Towards an interactive agricultural science. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2(4), 35–48. Scholar
  42. Roux, C., Talbot-Wright, B., Robertson, J., Crispino, F., & Ribaux, O. (2015). The end of the (forensic science) world as we know it? The example of trace evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 370, 1–8. Scholar
  43. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor, J. (2003). Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. The Royal Society. (2017a). Forensic DNA analysis: A primer for courts. Retrieved from
  47. The Royal Society. (2017b). Forensic gait analysis: A primer for courts. Retrieved June 18, 2018, from
  48. Willis, S., Mc Kenna, L., Mc Dermott, S., O’Donnell, G., Barrett, A., Rasmusson, B., Höglund, T., Nordgaard, A., Berger, C., Sjerps, M., Molina, J., Zadora, G., Aitken, C., Lovelock, T., Lunt, L., Champod, C., Biedermann, A., Hicks, T., Taroni, F. (2015). ENFSI guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science.

Cases Cited

  1. Hainey (Kimberley Mary) v Her Majesty's Advocate. (2013). HCJAC 47.Google Scholar
  2. Jones V Kaney. (2011). UKSC 13.Google Scholar
  3. R v Cannings (Angela). (2004). EWCA Crim 1.Google Scholar
  4. R v Mark Anthony Dallagher. (2002). EWCA Crim 1903.Google Scholar
  5. R v Rosenberg. (1906) 70 JP 264.Google Scholar
  6. R. v Clark (Sally) (Appeal against Conviction) (No.2). (2003). EWCA Crim 1020.Google Scholar
  7. The General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow v Her Majesty's Attorney General. (2006). EWCA Civ 1390.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WinchesterWinchesterUK

Personalised recommendations