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?
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 2006 (2006). House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 2d session, Report 104–793.
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.
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.
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.
Ferrandiz, F. (2013). Rapid response ethnographies in turbulent times. Anthropology Today, 29(6), 18–22.
Fondebrider, L. (2002). Reflections on the scientific documentation of human rights violations. IRRC, 84(848), 885–891.
Gonzalez-Ruibal, A. (2008). Time to destroy an archaeology of supermodernity. Current Anthropology, 49(2), 247–279.
Gould, R. A. (2007). Disaster archaeology. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.
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.
Hanson, I. (2007). Psycho-social issues and approaches in forensic archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 22(2), 1–19.
Hoffman, S., & Oliver-Smith, A. (2002). Catastrophe and culture: The anthropology of disaster. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Hofmeister, U., & Navarro, S. (2017, November). A psychosocial approach in humanitarian forensic action: The Latin American perspective. Forensic Science International, 280, 35–43.
Koff, C. (2004). The bone woman. New York: Random House.
Morse, D., Cursoe, D., & Smith, H. G. (1976). Forensic archaeology. Journal of Forensic Science, 21(2), 323–332.
Poirier, D. A., & Bellantoni, N. F. (1996). Forensic archeology a humanistic science. CRM 10.
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.
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.
Steadman, D. W., & Haglund, W. D. (2005). The scope of anthropological contributions to human rights investigations. Journal of Forensic Science, 50(1), 1–8.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. (1990) (Public Law 101–601; 25 U.S.C. 3001–3013).
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.
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
Mires, A.M., Scott, R. (2019). The Human Side of Forensic Archaeology. In: Moran, K.S., Gold, C.L. (eds) Forensic Archaeology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03291-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03291-3_5
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)