Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeolo

AN42CH08-Crossland ARI 13 July 2013 15:52
V I E W
E
Review in Advance first posted online
R
S
on July 24, 2013. (Changes may
still occur before final publication
online and in print.)
C E
I N
A
D V A
Evidential Regimes of
Forensic Archaeology
Zoe Crossland
Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027;
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2013.42. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
email: zc2149@columbia.edu
by Columbia University on 08/02/13. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2013. 42:12137 Keywords

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at evidence, exhumation, history, human rights, law, science
anthro.annualreviews.org
This articles doi: Abstract

10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155513
Evidence excavacated from mass graves and clandestine burials has played
Copyright c 2013 by Annual Reviews. an important role in the international prosecution of human rights abuses as
All rights reserved
well as in individual criminal cases. The archaeological dimension of forensic

This article is part of a special theme on anthropological work is focused on the grave site and its immediate surround-
Evidence. For a list of other articles in this theme,
see http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/ ing environment, making the work very visible and sometimes contentious.
10.1146/annurev-an42. This review traces the ways in which forensic archaeological evidence is
composed and evaluated, exploring how anthropologists have negotiated the
sometimes competing demands and claims of the courts, scientic practice,
and relatives of the dead.
121
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
INTRODUCTION
In the United States forensic archaeology is emerging as a distinct eld. Archaeology provides a
necessary set of methods for dealing with buried remains and for assessing and recording a grave
site and its immediate surrounding environment (Haglund 2001, Schmitt 2002, Tuller 2012,
Wright et al. 2005). In the past, archaeology has been deployed primarily as a technique by prac-
titioners trained in physical anthropology, and debate is ongoing about its status within forensic
anthropology and its relationship to the rest of the eld. However, the potential contribution
of archaeology for mass disaster recovery and for complex crime scenes has become increasingly
clear (Dirkmaat et al. 2008, Sledzik 2012). The Physical Anthropology section of the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) recently voted on a name change to Anthropology, ac-
knowledging the growing role of forensic archaeology in the United States; the Scientic Working
Group for Forensic Anthropology has also been discussing the issue (see http://swganth.org).
This situation contrasts with other parts of the world, particularly the United Kingdom, where
forensic archaeology is more established as a eld in its own right (Hunter & Cox 2005). The
growth of forensic archaeology has encouraged new perspectives on the study of the recent past
(Buchli & Lucas 2001) and has opened up signicant new possibilities for theorizing archaeo-
logical practice. In this review, I trace some of these emergent issues by exploring the evidential
regimes that govern how forensic archaeological work is carried out and understood.
Forensic archaeology is located at the intersection of multiple evidential regimes that articu-
late different and often conicting expectations for archaeological practice. For example, Haglund
(2002) outlines ve dimensions to the exhumation of mass graves as part of human rights inves-
tigations. These include the search for legal evidence, the identication of the dead, the creation
of an accurate historical record, the work of advocacy, and the need to recognize the dignity of
human life (2002, p. 245). In this review I explore the tensions that arise from the troubling
collective performance of exhumation (Ferrandiz 2008, p. 177) and reect on how forensic ar-
chaeology negotiates the various needs and desires of participants. I consider three broad elds
within which archaeological evidence is produced as part of forensic investigations, each of which
is heterogeneous and often also fragmented. These may be glossed as the evidential regimes of
archaeological practice (whether scientic or historiographic in nature); of criminal investigation
and legal testimony; and of relatives, survivors, and their advocates.
This review concentrates on the different expectations at work in dening archaeological evi-
dence within a broadly forensic context, rather than reviewing the state of contemporary forensic
archaeological practice. Several volumes have been written by practitioners themselves to cover
the latter comprehensively (Adams & Byrd 2008, Blau & Ubelaker 2008, Dirkmaat 2012, Ferllini
2007, Haglund & Sorg 2002, Hunter & Cox 2005), as have recent guides for the forensic recovery
of human remains (Connor 2007, Dupras et al. 2012). Important themes that the wider eld of
forensic anthropology is addressing at the moment, which I do not treat here, encompass ques-
tions of legal and ethical responsibilities and the professionalization of the discipline (France 2012,
Marquez-Grant & Fibiger 2011, Thompson 2001), improvements in methods and reporting, and
the impact of DNA testing (Baraybar 2008, Cabo 2012, Dirkmaat et al. 2008, Steadman 2013).
Other relevant issues that I do not develop in any detail in this article include the positioning of
forensic evidence as a form of testimony (Dawes 2007), forensic anthropologys relationship to
human rights discourse (Goodale 2009, Mitchell & Wilson 2003), and the material agency and
symbolic power of human remains (Verdery 1999, Harrison 2012). My approach in this review is
to foreground the question of evidence in order to tease out some of the ways in which it is com-
posed within forensic archaeological practice. Engelke (2008) has suggested that the concept of
evidence provides a means to negotiate the apparent bifurcation of anthropology into scientic
122 Crossland
and poetic camps (p. S7). I argue that this may be seen precisely through the complex work that
forensic archaeologists undertake. Although forensic archaeology holds an undeniable fascina-
tion for the mass media and undergraduates alike, it remains a small and somewhat marginalized
eld within the discipline of anthropology. However, forensic archaeologists address questions at
the cutting edge of archaeological practice, and I suggest here that the theoretical space that is
emerging around their work shows ways to reimagine anthropology for the twenty-rst century.
The rst section of this article locates forensic archaeological evidence within the broader
literature on evidence in anthropology. I begin by considering the evidential demands of forensic
archaeology, outlining how practitioners have articulated the difference between forensic archaeo-
logical evidence and the wider archaeological eld. I then turn to the tension between the evidential
regimes of legal and scientic practice in the United States, before addressing international human
rights law and looking at how anthropologists negotiate the competing demands of courts, archae-
ological practice, and the relatives of the dead. I situate forensic archaeological investigations as
historical inquiry as much as scientic investigation and then consider the evidential expectations
of relatives and human rights organizations. I conclude by reecting on the location of forensic
archaeology within anthropology and by calling for a more sustained and critical engagement
across the subelds of the discipline. Before turning to these themes, I provide a brief overview
of the history of forensic archaeology in the United States and Argentina, two key locales for the
development of the eld.
FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES

AND ARGENTINA
Although forensic anthropology emerged as a eld during the early to middle twentieth century
(papers in Blau & Ubelaker 2008, Ubelaker 1997), forensic archaeology is a more recent develop-
ment. Within the United States, it developed as a technique used by forensic anthropologists in
the recovery of human remains (e.g., Bass & Birkby 1978, Krogman 1943, Morse et al. 1976). The
rst handbooks for the forensic archaeological recovery of human remains appeared in the early
1980s (Morse et al. 1983, Skinner & Lazenby 1983); these were aimed primarily at investigators
with a limited background in archaeology. Over time it became clear that trained archaeologists
could contribute a great deal to understanding the crime scene and that forensic work could also
make an important contribution to archaeological knowledge (Mant 1987, Sigler-Eisenberg 1985,
Skinner 1987). This notion led to the development and renement of excavation strategies and an
expanded role for archaeology (Dirkmaat & Adovasio 1997, Haglund 1998, Hunter et al. 1996).
However, a recent review by Dirkmaat & Cabo (2012) suggests that it remains a peripheral rather
than an integral activity of forensic anthropology in the United States (p. 20). It was with the
large-scale investigation of human rights abuses outside the United States that forensic archaeo-
logical inquiry came to greater public awareness and has subsequently started to emerge as a eld
in its own right (Ferllini 2007).
Important in this development was the work of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team
(EAAF), established in 1984 with the help of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (Snow et al. 1984). The EAAF excavated the graves of those disappeared and murdered
during the military dictatorship of Argentina from 1976 to 1983 (Bernadi & Fondebrider 2007,
Doretti & Snow 2003). Originally this work was undertaken as part of a national investigation
and prosecution of human rights abuses (CONADEP 1986), but over time it took on a broader
remit to identify the dead and contribute to the reconstruction of historical memory. Given the
fraught politics of human rights investigations, the EAAF contrasts with forensic archaeology in
www.annualreviews.org Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology 123
the United States in placing more emphasis on developing relationships with families and survivors
of political violence and on the importance of historical inquiry, including both documentary and
oral sources, to accompany and precede the work of exhumation (Fondebrider 2012). The EAAF
have played a key role in developing forensic anthropological expertise elsewhere in Latin America
(Doretti & Fondebrider 2001), as well as in other parts of the world. Early interventions included
investigations for truth commissions in Guatemala and El Salvador (Binford 1996, pp. 12434;
EAAF 1992, 1993), as well as Iraqi Kurdistan (Stover 1992) and Ethiopia (EAAF 1994).
Multidisciplinary international teams including archaeologists have undertaken large-scale ex-
cavations under the auspices of the United Nations to provide evidence to prosecute human rights
violations at the International Criminal Tribunals in Rwanda (ICTR) (Ferllini 1997, Haglund
et al. 2001) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (Hayden 1994, Klinkner 2012, Saunders 2002).
Archaeologists have now been involved in the investigation of human rights abuses in many parts
of the world (Ferllini 2007, Hanson 2008, Steadman & Haglund 2005), and they have also con-
tributed to the recovery and identication of human remains after mass disasters and violent
attacks by political militants (Black et al. 2011, Gould 2007, Sledzik 2012). Outside these ad hoc
contexts archaeology remains a small part of forensic work, with the notable exception of the
US militarys work to locate and repatriate the remains of missing members of the armed forces
(Emanovsky & Belcher 2012, Mann et al. 2003). The expansion of exhumation as part of human
rights investigations has led to a growing interest in the wider repercussions of forensic archaeo-
logical practice. Authors have started to explore the social, political, ethical, and logistical issues
that are caught up with domestic criminal investigations (Cox 2001, Duhig & Turnbull 2007,
Gould 2007), as well as the complexities of working in post conict situations both domestically
(Bernadi & Fondebrider 2007, Gassiot Ballbe & Steadman 2008, Mitrovic 2008) and as part of
international investigations (Congram & Steadman 2008, Fondebrider 2002, Hunter & Simpson
2007, Klonowski 2007, Skinner 2007, Steele 2008, Wright & Hanson 2009).
EVIDENCE AND FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGY

In a 2001 issue of Historical Archaeology Connor & Scott drew attention to the different paradigms
at work in forensic archaeology, observing that to work in forensic science as an archaeologist is
to work between two disciplines. They contrasted forensic evidence with that collected by most
archaeologists because it is not gathered to uncover the broad patterns of human behavior, but
rather to reconstruct the specics of a single event (2001, p. 3). Although forensic archaeology
shares techniques and methods with archaeology as a whole, Haglund remarked in the same issue
(2001) that switching from an archaeological paradigm to one that is medico-legal demands a
different mode of practice. Forensic work includes a rigorous attention to the chain of custody
and condentiality as well as an awareness that archaeological eldwork and inferences may be
closely scrutinized and possibly challenged in court (2001, p. 28). These concerns make visible
an issue that is present for all of anthropology: the question of how evidence is constituted in
relation to particular goals, and the possible repercussions of this work of representation. As
Hastrup emphasizes (2004), evidence cannot usefully be considered as external to the context
of the situation (p. 455). Rather, evidence is situated within different regimes that govern what
is allowed to enter in as material fact and how it is evaluated. Csordas (2004) suggests that these
paradigmatic considerations bring into view the different assumptions underpinning evidence
within various elds, whether journalistic, judicial, anthropological, or historical (p. 474)all
domains that touch on the work of forensic archaeology. Evidence is always collected with a
particular end in mind, but paradoxically it is also understood as independent of intention, able to
stand against and contradict false truth claims (Daston 1994). As Csordas outlines, this peculiar
124 Crossland
double aspect means that evidence is both what establishes fact in a situation of uncertainty,
while also being understood as unmediated and certain (p. 478). This dimension of evidence is
particularly important in the forensic context, where although it is marshaled in the service of
justice, its ability to stand aside and independent of this goal is also crucial to the truth claims that
are made around and through it. In this way, the evidence of exhumation is often positioned as
self-evident, able to challenge the lies and mistruths told by those responsible for the deaths of
those exhumed (Grandmaison & Durigon 2001; Schmitt 2002, p. 280).
In challenging (mis)representations made about criminal acts, forensic evidence also mediates
knowledge about the past. This faculty highlights another dimension to the evidential relationship
aside from its orientation toward a future goal. We cannot begin to talk about the evidence,
observes Lewontin (1994), until we talk about what it is we are trying to produce evidence of
(p. 504). This may be specied in vague terms, for example as evidence of past events pertinent to
a legal case, but as Csordas (2004) remarks, evidence is always of or for something (p. 475). Here
Id like to emphasize the integrated and necessary nature of these three dimensions to evidence.
Forensic evidence (or a material fact) stands as a sign of something, and this relationship is in turn
deployed in the service of a particular end. Excavated bodies and artifacts are used as evidence
of to point to past events and, in so doing, deployed as evidence for different goals, whether
legal, scientic, historical, or personal (cf. Peirce 1955). From this perspective it is necessary to
think critically about not only the ways in which the dead are presented as factual evidence, but
also the modalities through which they become evidence both of and for something. In attending
to archaeological evidence as a tripartite sign relationship as much as a material thing, the ways
in which these different modes of knowing are recognized and elaborated come more clearly into
view. Engelke (2008) has remarked that evidence concerns questions of both epistemology and
methods (p. S2). This insight is illustrated by forensic archaeologys protocols, which are closely
tied to its particular objectives (Hunter 1999, p. 211) and so become part of the way in which
forensic evidence is both assessed and constituted (Ranson 2009, pp. 5002). As Lewontin puts it,
. . . the very method which we use is itself a form of evidence (1994, p. 504).
The methods deployed by forensic archaeologists are therefore an important part of the consti-
tution of evidence for different contexts, which can create some tension between different evidential
goals. Maintenance of the chain of custody, restrictions on access, archaeological qualications,
and experience: All of these are part of the constitution of archaeological evidence as medico-
legal evidence. Equally, certain kinds of evidential relationships are privileged and can come into
conict with the expectations of different evidential regimes. For example, evidence that can be
shown to index certain past events (in the Peircean sense of being linked with or affected by what
happened in the past) is accepted within a medico-legal framework. The soil color change left by
digging and lling a trench, the disposition of bodies within a grave: These evidential traces retain
something of the actions that caused them and must be collected carefully to demonstrate and
maintain this existent relationship (Crossland 2009). Without these indexical links, evidence that
is understood to be in a relationship of resemblance (a coat that looks like one worn by a missing
brother, a gap-toothed smile reminiscent of a close relative) can be less available to be accepted
as legal testimony, as I discuss below. Moreover, a language must be found that presents these
results as clearly and as unambiguously as possible for court, but this may not be suitable for other
situations. As archaeologists we tend to think about how material facts are deployed as evidence
for an argument or to test a hypothesis. However, the debates around forensic archaeology show
how human remains can provoke powerful and compelling emotional responses, and not simply
because of the shock of seeing something that is normally kept out of view (cf. Kristeva 1982). The
dead are recognized as evidence of death, of the passing of someone who is missing and missed.
This evidence evokes a feeling or prompts action as much as it is used to write history or prosecute
a court case (cf. Peirce 1955). In exploring the tensions that emerge in these contexts, one can see
the affective and nondiscursive aspects of archaeological work more clearly.
SCIENCE AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE

In the context of US judicial processes, forensic anthropology as a whole has been drawn into recent
debates about the use of scientic evidence in court. The issue was thrown into relief by a series of
federal trial rulings that have worked to clarify when scientic ndings can be admitted as evidence
(Kiely 2006). These have provoked some discussion in forensic anthropology (Holobinko 2012),
particularly with respect to the evaluation of forensic osteological evidence, including the need to
establish known error rates and to standardize measurement and reporting (Christensen 2004a,
Christensen & Crowder 2009, Grivas & Komar 2008). Relevant for this review, perhaps the most
interesting dimension of the wider debate has been the way in which it has pointed to important
differences in modes of argumentation and the constitution of evidence within scientic and legal
practice. The evidential regimes of science and law are governed by different goals, affecting what
may or may not be admitted as evidence in the search for knowledge about the world. The long-
term and evolving nature of scientic inquiry can be contrasted with the nal judgment of facts
that must be made in a court case (Foster & Huber 1999, p. 253). It is this uncertainty around
some scientic ndings that have not yet stabilized as uncontested facts (cf. Latour 1987) that can
lead to the exclusion of scientic evidence from testimony (Berger & Solan 2008). The kind of
speculative and ampliative inference (cf. Wylie 2002, pp. 2022) that might be acceptable in the
context of the ancient past will not stand up in court. Foster & Huber (1999) observe that the very
question of admissibility contrasts with scientic practice because scientists can use more varied,
intuitive, and open-ended criteria to decide what counts as evidence. Conversely, when deciding
whether evidence can be presented to the court a legal trial must make a binary and (for the
litigants purposes) utterly nal choice between one side and the other (Foster & Huber 1999,
pp. 1718). Kennedy (2003) gives another example in which relevant anthropological evidence
was excluded by a defense attorney because it risked opening his client to further criticism. Here
decisions over evidence are based on the goal of reaching a nal adjudication of guilt or innocence,
rather than on what the evidence potentially contributes to more complete knowledge of the past.
Important to assessing forensic evidence are the rhetorical strategies used in the forum of the
court. The evidential regime of courtroom testimony allows attacks to be made on expert witnesses
that can be more aggressive and more personal than usual scientic critique (Henneberg 2009).
These can include encouraging doubts over the qualications and experience of the witnesses, the
validity of the methods used, and the interpretation of the results of those methods (Dilley 2005,
pp. 196201; Kiely 2006, p. 10). Brodsky (1989, p. 261) observes that the adversarial nature of
the trial process can stand in conict with what he characterizes, perhaps somewhat sanguinely,
as sciences more collaborative mode of truth nding. Important to this enterprise is the expres-
sion of doubt where warranted (Peirce 1877); in a legal context this can be used to damage the
witnesss credibility, depending on the circumstances. Roberts (1992) has described the battles
over the interpretation of genetic evidence in the early 1990s, showing how the legal system can
leave little room for ambiguity or nuance in discussions of scientic ndings. He outlines how in
some extreme cases the usual processes of scientic debate, peer review, and even funding awards
can be used to undermine the credibility of the expert witness. The courtroom context therefore
demands tight control over archaeological methods and handling of evidence, and this extends to
the recording and reporting of the excavation process and results. All site records can be interro-
gated as part of the defense; this and the time constraints of forensic investigation place limits on
the kind of recording that can take place (Hunter & Cox 2005, pp. 2021; Skinner et al. 2003).
126 Crossland
These demands would seem to leave little space for reexive and experimental eld practices
that entertain multivalency and dissonance or which encourage dialogue between conicting
viewpointsall approaches that are an increasingly important part of archaeological practice
(e.g., Bender et al. 2007, Hamilakis & Anagnostopoulos 2009, Hodder 1997). However, develop-
ments in forensic archaeology, particularly in human rights contexts, reveal the imaginative ways
in which archaeologists are reecting critically on their practice and searching for ways to work
within the difcult and dynamic circumstances of mass grave exhumation.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGY

As forensic archaeology has moved into the arena of international human rights, law and advocacy
practitioners have noted the different expectations and evidential demands of this work in com-
parison with domestic criminal investigations (Burns 1998). The goals of excavation for human
rights prosecution affect what kind of evidence is brought into view and collected and so can also
prompt changes in recovery methods (Schmitt 2002, p. 279). The international legislation that is
at issue when forensic archaeologists are brought in to investigate human rights violations includes
war crimes (where the laws governing warfare are not respected), crimes against humanity, and
genocide (Cerone 2007, Schmitt 2002). To prove that crimes against humanity have taken place,
evidence is needed of widespread or systematic attacks on civilians. Similarly, prosecution of the
crime of genocide requires evidence of the intent to destroy a targeted population, on the basis of
their perceived ethnic, racial, religious, or national identity (Komar 2008).
The investigations that took place in the former Yugoslavia demonstrate some of the com-
plexities of this work. In most domestic criminal cases within the United States, the interests of
the dead, their family, and the search for justice generally align; however, in the prosecution of
mass human rights abuses, these goals may not be compatible (Crossland 2002, Rosenblatt 2010,
Sassoli & Tougas 2002). For example, the exhumations of those killed after the fall of Srebrenica
in July 1995 recovered the remains of thousands of men (Klonowski 2007). However, the evidence
needed for prosecutions at the ICTY did not stretch to include the identication of all the dead.
Instead, evidence of unlawful execution or of targeting a specic group was at issue. The huge
numbers of people killed and buried led to a situation in which those exhumed had to be placed in
storage without the necessary resources to identify and repatriate them (Stover & Shigekane 2002,
Vollen 2001). Here, the legal needs of the ICTY were met, but those of family members and sur-
vivors were not. This discrepancy is often framed as a conict between the legal and humanitarian
dimensions of exhumation (Stover et al. 2003) or between justice and identication (Cordner &
McKelvie 2002). However, practitioners also observe that both identication and legal redress are
part of the same broad goal of justice (Congram & Sterenberg 2009, pp. 44748; Fondebrider
2002) and that, even in cases of humanitarian exhumation, evidence should be recorded in ways
that facilitate its use in future prosecution.
Another aspect to the humanitarian recognition of the dead is the acknowledgment of forms
of evidence that would not be recognized within either a medico-legal or scientic framework.
Kwon (2008) describes how the search for the remains of the Vietnamese war dead usually begins
with a communication with the missing dead to ask for the location of their bodies before the
costly eld trip to the site is initiated (p. 50). Here the evidence of the dead is not restricted to the
physical traces of the corpse but can extend to include messages passed on from the spirit world.
Kwon writes of Communist party ofcials in Vietnam who are involved with the search. These
ofcials transition between . . . forms of expertise, moving from archaeology to forensic work,
but also drawing on local historical knowledge and acting as specialists in funerary ritual and other
associated ceremonies (2008, pp. 4445). This movement between modes of expertise is an aspect of
forensic archaeological work that is shared across widely disparate contexts. Sanford has described
how excavated mass graves in Guatemala became a site of mourning and of improvised funerary
ritual for relatives and survivors, who placed candles and owers in the grave (Sanford 2003). The
burial site can become an important location for mourning and memory (Stover & Shigekane 2004,
p. 88), as can sites of mass disaster and other places of death. The interaction between archaeologists
and local publics at such locales has contributed to a willingness among forensic practitioners to
engage with broader questions outside of narrowly conceived methodological issues.
In a strikingly honest review of his own experiences in Afghanistan, Skinner (2007) describes
problems that emerged from the contrasting treatment of the dead as scientic and legal evidence
and the needs of families, survivors, and others. Time constraints led him to sample one burial site,
laying out a trench within the area of the mass grave and removing only those remains found in the
sampled area. His Afghan coworker was uncomfortable with this, concerned that the corner posts
of the trench would penetrate the bodies below. The technique also left partial remains behind in
the wall of the excavation trench. Skinner explains that he planned to retrieve them at a later date
but that he was ultimately unable to return to nish the excavation, leaving some bodies partially
exhumed. Each set of excavated remains was numbered for future reference, and the remains were
reinterred with their heads to the north, according to local practice (2007, pp. 24649). Afghan
workers treated each reburial like a proper grave, Skinner observes (p. 249), remarking also that
I realized that my unfamiliarity with local material culture and burial customs was detrimental to
good forensic archaeology (p. 246). This recognition of the beliefs and practices about the dead
that are imbricated in exhumation takes a broad view of archaeology as an anthropological project
that attends to human relationships, past and present, as much as to archaeological technique.
Stover & Shigekane have described the different demands and expectations of the courts and
families as a tension between the need for evidence and the need for bodies (cf. Domanska 2006,
p. 344). However, here I would like to think about the search by families for the remains of the dead
as a search for another kind of evidence. Stover (Stover & Peress 1998) describes how after the
1995 Dayton Peace accords for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC) assembled a list of the missing and issued attestations of death in cases
where a presumption of death could be made. He describes the anger and mistrust felt by families
and survivors toward ofcials and agencies involved in the work of postwar reconstruction (1998,
pp. 19499). The ICRCs certication of death was particularly criticized; relatives demanded
proof of death, one family member and activist asking, Where is the evidence? Where is the
body? (Stover 1998, p. 196). This was partly an expression of doubt that missing relatives were
dead at all, but also a personal search for meaning and an effort at historical understanding. Families
called for the evidence of the senses, in a work of grief and mourning that was also a political project,
demanding the presence of the body, in all its personal, physical particularity, as evidence of the
life and death of the missing. Commenting on her forensic work in Cambodia, Jarvis (2002) notes
that one way to heal psychological scars is through recognition of the material scars left by
political violence, acknowledging incontestably that the wounds were real. Another way is to
call those responsible to account for their crimes (2002, p. 100). To demand the presence of
absent bodies is to do both at once in a search for justice and for a different telling of history
that puts pressure on those responsible, precisely through their refusal and inability to return the
missing alive (cf. Crossland 2002).
HISTORY AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE

The emphasis on forensic work as science within English language media can disguise the historical
dimensions of forensic excavation. Indeed, the work is doubly historical, both as archaeological
128 Crossland
narrative and as courtroom testimony. Kiely (2006) observes that a trial is an exercise in history,
in establishing a truthful account of past events (p. 48). This idea becomes especially clear in
the context of investigations into human rights abuses ( Juhl 2005). In these cases, one of the
goals of forensic excavation is to document past crimes and clarify historical memory (e.g., papers
in Tamm 2008). Doing so can include efforts to correct the historical record, which may have
been deliberately falsied to obscure and deny past abuses. One clear example is the case of the
Former Yugoslavia, where efforts had been made by Bosnian Serbs to disguise and deny massacres
and mass graves by exhuming and reburying remains (Pollack 2003, Skinner et al. 2002). In
establishing the sequence of events and evidence of criminal acts, the ICTY built a narrowly
focused historical account that conicted with the need for identication and return of the dead.
Here history was being narrated under different evidential regimes. The courts were looking
for a precise accounting for the purposes of prosecution, whereas relatives and human rights
organizations demanded an accounting that would also acknowledge the pain and injustices of the
past.
It is perhaps in the context of exhumations in Latin America and Spain that the idea of exca-
vation as a work of history and memory has been explored most fully. This notion is captured in
the name of the Guatemalan Historical Clarication Commission (Comision para el Esclarecimiento
Historico), established to investigate human rights abuses in Guatemala, and the Spanish advocacy
organization, the Association for the Recovery of Historical Memory (Asociacion para la Recu-
peracion de la Memoria Historica), which was established primarily to investigate the abuses carried
out under Franco (Ferrandiz 2008, Renshaw 2011). A similar concern with the broader historical
context has led the Argentinian EAAF to undertake wider historical investigations alongside ex-
humation. One dimension of this inquiry has been the effort to establish the operating patterns
of the security forces in Argentina, including the study of 18 clandestine detention centers, their
relationships with cemeteries, and the passage of prisoners through them (EAAF 1993, p. 5). It
is perhaps in this last aspect that the scope and objectives of forensic work in Argentina seem
to diverge most from the way in which this work is imagined in the United States. Similarly,
Guatemalan forensic anthropologists Suasnavar & Moscoso Moller (1999) observe that forensic
anthropology in Guatemala developed in the context of social struggle, terror, and impunity and
that their investigations were not simply accounts of isolated incidents of violence. Rather, they
uncovered the social processes that generated widespread political violence and mass graves and, in
so doing, produced a historical interpretation of them. This approach has opened up possibilities
for historical archaeologists to explore the intersections between forensic work and other forms
of archaeological inquiry into the contemporary past (e.g., Funari et al. 2009, Hidalgo 2012).
Archaeologists working in Latin America and Spain have been a driving force in this endeavor,
enabling forensic archaeological evidence to be situated as part of a more broad-based inquiry
into recent violence (Gassiot Ballbe 2008; Gonzalez-Ruibal 2007; Renshaw 2007, 2010a; Vilches
2011), including working with survivors to excavate the clandestine detention centers where they
were held (San Francisco et al. 2010, Zarankin & Funari 2008, Zarankin & Salerno 2008). These
studies are part of a growing interest in the archaeology of the recent past (Buchli & Lucas
2001, Harrison & Schoeld 2009), creating fruitful new avenues to connect forensic research
with the wider archaeological eld (e.g., Myers & Moshenska 2011, Schoeld et al. 2002, Weiss
2010).
EVIDENCE FOR FAMILIES AND SURVIVORS

Evidence is procured by archaeologists within a humanitarian framework to identify and repatriate
the dead, but for families it is usually sought as a way to come to terms with the loss of their loved
ones. Here the goal is not and cannot be explicitly articulated; it is a search for a feeling as much
as for any historical narrative, a quest to understand and recognize their loss (cf. Krmpotich et al.
2010). This need is not always satised by the simple presence of human remains themselves.
Sant Cassia (2005) writes of the lack of recognition by relatives of excavated skeletal remains
(2005, p. 203; 2006), and Renshaw (2010b) outlines how for many relatives of those exhumed in
post-Franco Spain, the identity of the dead could be perceived only in the facial features of the
skull rather than the osteological indices used by anthropologists which are too far removed from
a vernacular notion of recognition (p. 130). For relatives, personal artifacts and items of clothing
can come into view more powerfully as evidence of personal identity and history, signs of life in
a grave, as Koff puts it (2004, p. 62). Wagner (2008) writes of the objects recovered from graves
and collected as part of work by the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) to
identify those killed at Srebrenica. A coffee pot, a clock, letters and photographs, a leather-bound
Koran: all evoke a person and a story (pp. 14144). Objects such as these can mediate and renew
relationships with the dead, just as they had maintained links with home for those separated
from their families (Parkin 1999). The personhood of the missing is distributed through such
artifactual evidence in ways that are powerful both for relatives and for archaeologists. Mitrovic
(2008) describes how, while excavating in Serbia, he felt transposed into a different, disturbing
reality through his close interaction with decomposing bodies and artifacts from the grave (cf.
Buchli & Lucas 2001, pp. 912). Brkic (2004) has written similarly of how washing excavated
clothes called to mind the mothers and wives who had washed them before her (p. 77). Here
personal possessions evoke an affective and embodied moment of recognition, demonstrating
another dimension to how such objects mediate relationships between the dead and the living.
The ways in which these personal effects work as evidence and are drawn into processes of
identication and mourning are an important area of study for anthropology that has only recently
begun to be explored (see Baraybar 2008, Renshaw 2011, Sanford 2003, Thompson & Puxley
2007).
In the search for those killed from Srebrenica, the ICMP and ICRC compiled photographs
of clothing and possessions found with the dead to show to relatives. Although some items
were recognized, only a small number of the identications made this way were conrmed
with DNA analysis. Some were shown to have been made in error (Hufne et al. 2001, p. 274;
Wagner 2008, pp. 99100). Wagner (2008) recounts how men who ed from the violence at
Srebrenica swapped clothing or were given identity cards and photos by the wounded (p. 99).
These actions led to confusion over presumptive identications made on the basis of clothing.
In early exhumations before the ICMP introduced a program of DNA testing, Klonowski
(2007) witnessed situations in which two different families claimed the same remains because
of recognition of familiar clothing or shoes (p. 1667). Here the doubts about evidence based
on a relation of resemblance demonstrate the importance of indexicality in forensic practice.
To make a credible forensic claim about the past, a conrmable and existing relationship
must be established, whether linking crime scene and perpetrator, or human remains and
the missing. These concerns can be seen in the recent debates over how to assess degrees of
similarity between osteological remains and antemortem photographs (Christensen 2004b). To
be used as legal evidence, the photograph must be shown to be in a noncoincidental relation of
resemblance. As with ngerprint and DNA evidence, this becomes a question of probability and
of estimating the likelihood that the resemblance would occur by chance (Steadman et al. 2006).
In circumstances in which DNA analysis and antemortem records are not available, a looser
presumptive identication may stand in for a more denite proof (Renshaw 2011; Sanford 2003,
pp. 23435).
130 Crossland
CONCLUSIONS
Tracing the relationships articulated around forensic evidence makes visible the complex networks
of the living and the dead that are held together by the material revelations of mass graves, but it also
illustrates how the production of evidence refuses any easy separation into facts and interpretation.
Rather, the conceptual apparatus of interpretation is embedded in the composition of evidence,
whether in the denition of how things and bodies are understood to work as evidence of past events
or of personal identity or in what is brought into view as evidence in the rst place. Furthermore,
the methods used to record and translate evidence for different goals are themselves constitutive
of evidence. Within these shifting relations are the excavated bodies and artifacts, material things
that take up particular coordinates in time and space, and which have a strong degree of persisting
continuity. In acting as a point of articulation for very different relations, the same material facts
move between different constellations of goals and histories. In this way, the material presence of
the body links different actors but can also intrude into evidential relationships and force them
to recalibrate. Wylie (2002, pp. 20510) has discussed how these corrective powers are not
located in material evidence alone, however, but also come from the ways in which they are
situated within different and independent relationships. Insofar as evidence is a minimally triadic
relationship through which the dead are known, then the body as evidence shifts with context
and can be understood properly only through these changes in its constitution. A body may be
evidence of crime for a prosecution and also evidence of a life and a death for a relative searching for
release from the painful doubt evoked by their missing. It is in shifting between these different and
sometimes apparently incommensurate evidential regimes that we come to a better understanding
of the body and person and how they hold together these relations. This need not, and probably
cannot, resolve into a unied and homogeneous account. Attempts to describe what happened
to the dead, whether through the testimony of text, images (e.g., Ferrandiz & Martnez 2011,
Stover & Peress 1998), or spoken words, may be incompatible and even destructive of memory in
some cases (Renshaw 2011, p. 127), even while producing a fuller discursive picture of the past.
This is a problem of representation (Ferrandiz 2008, Renshaw 2007, Thompson 2008), but also
one of recognizing the affective and performative dimensions of archaeological work (Edgeworth
2006). In confronting these issues on the ground, forensic archaeology is nding context-specic
forms of practice that can negotiate these complexities (Crossland 2011). The multidisciplinary
nature of exhumation (Cox 2003, France et al. 1992) encourages an orientation that is open to
other perspectives and which acknowledges the network of relationships in which exhumation is
caught up. Archaeologists are exploring these issues in concert with ethnographers, historians,
writers, photographers, and others (e.g., Anstett & Dreyfus 2012, Ferrandiz 2009, Ferrandiz &
Martnez 2011, Perez-Sales & Garca 2007, Stover & Weinstein 2004, Tamm 2008). In tracing
the network of evidential relations around the dead they create a hybrid space in which new forms
of scholarship can be imagined, which cut across old disciplinary divisions, including those of our
own anthropological eld.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any afliations, memberships, funding, or nancial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Derek Congram and Hugh Tuller for helpful comments and perceptive criticisms on
this paper. All errors remain my own.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams BJ, Byrd JE, eds. 2008. Recovery, Analysis, and Identication of Commingled Human Remains. Totowa, NJ:
Humana
Anstett E, Dreyfus J-M, eds. 2012. Cadavres Impensables, Cadavres Impenses. Approches Methodologiques du Traite-
ment des Corps dans les Violences de Masse et les Genocides. Paris: Ed. Petra
Baraybar JP. 2008. When DNA is not available, can we still identify people? Recommendations for best
practice? J. Forensic Sci. 53(3):53340
Bass WM, Birkby WH. 1978. Exhumation: the method could make the difference. FBI Law Enforc. Bull.
47:611
Bender B, Hamilton S, Tilley C. 2007. Stone Worlds: Narrative and Reexivity in Landscape Archaeology. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast
Berger MA, Solan LM. 2008. The uneasy relationship between science and law: an essay and introduction
[Symposium: A Cross-Disciplinary Look at Scientic Truth]. Brooklyn Law Rev. 73(3):84754
Bernadi P, Fondebrider L. 2007. Forensic archaeology and the scientic documentation of human rights
violations: an Argentine example from the early 1980s. See Ferllini 2007, pp. 20532
Binford L. 1996. The El Mozote Massacre: Anthropology and Human Rights. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Black S, Sunderland G, Hackman L, Mallett X. 2011. Disaster Victim Identication: Experience and Practice. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press
Blau S, Ubelaker DH. 2009. Handbook of Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast
Brkic CA. 2004. The Stone Fields. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
Brodsky SL. 1989. Advocacy in the guise of scientic objectivity: an explanation of Faust and Ziskin. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 5:26164
Buchli V, Lucas G. 2001. Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past. London/New York: Routledge
Burns KR. 1998. Forensic anthropology and human rights issues. In Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identi-
cation of Human Remains, ed. K Reichs, WM Bass, pp. 6385. Springeld, IL: Charles C. Thomas. 2nd
ed.
Cabo LL. 2012. DNA analysis and the classic goal of forensic anthropology. See Dirkmaat 2012, pp. 44761
Cattaneo C. 2007. Forensic anthropology: developments of a classical discipline in the new millennium. Forensic
Sci. Int. 165(2):18593
Cerone J. 2007. The nature of international criminal law and implications for investigations. See Ferllini 2007,
pp. 2454
Christensen AM. 2004a. The impact of Daubert: implications for testimony and research in forensic anthro-
pology. J. Forensic Sci. 49(3):42730
Christensen AM. 2004b. Testing the reliability of frontal sinuses in positive identication. J. Forensic Sci.
50:1822
Christensen AM, Crowder CM. 2009. Evidentiary standards for forensic anthropology. J. Forensic Sci.
54(6):121116
CONADEP (Comision Nacional sobre la Desaparicion de Personas). 1986. Nunca Mas (Never Again): A Report
by Argentinas National Commission on Disappeared People. London: Faber and Faber
Congram D, Steadman DLW. 2008. Distinguished guests or agents of ingerence: foreign participation in
Spanish Civil War grave exhumations. Complutum 19(2):16173
Congram D, Sterenberg J. 2009. Grave problems in Iraq. See Blau & Ubelaker 2009, pp. 44153
Connor MA. 2007. Forensic Methods: Excavation for the Archaeologist and Investigator. Lanham, MD: AltaMira
Connor MA, Scott DD. 2001. Paradigms and perspectives. Hist. Archaeol. 35(1):16
Cordner S, McKelvie H. 2002. Developing standards in international forensic work to identify missing persons.
Int. Rev. Red Cross 48(848):86784
Cox M. 2001. Forensic archaeology in the UK: questions of socio-intellectual context and socio-political
responsibility. See Buchli & Lucas 2001, pp. 14557
Cox M. 2003. A multidisciplinary approach to the investigation of crimes against humanity, war crimes and
genocide: the Inforce Foundation. Sci. Justice 43(4):22527
Crossland Z. 2002. Violent spaces: conict over the reappearance of Argentinas disappeared. See Schoeld
et al. 2002, pp. 11531
132 Crossland
Crossland Z. 2009. Of clues and signs: the dead body and its evidential traces. Am. Anthropol. 111(1):6980
Crossland Z. 2011. The archaeology of contemporary conict. In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of
Ritual and Religion, ed. T Insoll, pp. 285306. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Csordas TJ. 2004. Evidence of and for what? Anthropol. Theory 4(4):47380
Daston L. 1994. Marvelous facts and miraculous evidence in early modern Europe. In Questions of Evidence:
Proof, Practice and Persuasion across the Disciplines, ed. J Chandler, AI Davidson, H Harrootunian, pp. 243
74. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Dawes J. 2007. That the World May Know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Dilley R. 2005. Legal matters. See Hunter & Cox 2005, pp. 177203
Dirkmaat DC, ed. 2012. A Companion to Forensic Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell
Dirkmaat DC, Adovasio JM. 1997. The role of archaeology in the recovery and interpretation of human
remains from an outdoor forensic setting. In Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains,
ed. WD Haglund, MH Sorg, pp. 3964. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
Dirkmaat DC, Cabo LL. 2012. Forensic anthropology: embracing the new paradigm. See Dirkmaat 2012,
pp. 339
Dirkmaat DC, Cabo LL, Ousley SD, Symes SA. 2008. New perspectives in forensic anthropology. Yearb. Phys.
Anthropol. 137(S47):3352
Domanska E. 2006. The material presence of the past. Hist. Theory 45(3):33748
Doretti M, Fondebrider L. 2001. Science and human rights: truth, justice, reparation and reconciliation, a
long way in Third World countries. See Buchli & Lucas 2001, pp. 13844
Doretti M, Snow C. 2003. Forensic anthropology and human rights: the Argentine experience. See Steadman
2003, pp. 290310
Duhig C, Turnbull R. 2007. Crime scene management and forensic anthropology: observations and recom-
mendations from the United Kingdom and international cases. See Ferllini 2007, pp. 76100
Dupras TL, Schultz JJ, Wheeler SM, Williams LJ. 2012. Forensic Recovery of Human Remains: Archaeological
Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 2nd ed.
EAAF. 1992. Annual Summary of National and International Activities ( January 1991February 1992).
Buenos Aires: Argent. Forensic Anthropol. Team/Equipo Argent. Antropol. Forense (EAAF). http://
eaaf.typepad.com/ar_1991/AnnualReport1991.pdf
EAAF. 1993. 1992 Annual Report. Buenos Aires: Argent. Forensic Anthropol. Team/Equipo Argent. Antropol.
Forense (EAAF). http://eaaf.typepad.com/ar_1992/AnnualReport1992.pdf
EAAF. 1994. 1993 Annual Report. Buenos Aires: Argent. Forensic Anthropol. Team/Equipo Argent. Antropol.
Forense (EAAF). http://eaaf.typepad.com/ar_1993/AnnualReport1993.pdf
Edgeworth M, ed. 2006. Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice: Cultural Encounters, Material Transformations.
Lanham, MD: Altamira
Emanovsky PD, Belcher WR. 2012. The many hats of a recovery leader: perspectives on planning and executing
worldwide forensic investigations and recoveries at the JPAC Central Identication Library. See Dirkmaat
2012, pp. 56792
Engelke M. 2008. The objects of evidence: anthropological approaches to the production of knowledge. J. R.
Anthropol. Inst. 14(S1):S121
Ferllini R. 1997. Rwanda: political conict and genocide. Torture: Q. J. Rehab. Torture Vict. Prev. Torture
7(3):7276
Ferllini R. 2007. Forensic Archaeology and Human Rights Violations. Springeld, IL: Charles C. Thomas
Ferrandiz F. 2008. Cries and whispers: exhuming and narrating defeat in Spain today. J. Span. Cult. Stud.
9(2):17792
Ferrandiz F. 2009. Fosas comunes, paisajes del terror. Rev. Dialect. Trad. Pop. LXIV(1):6194
Ferrandiz F, Martnez C, eds. 2011. Kept Awake. Photographs by Clemente Bernad. Pamplona, Spain: Alkibla
Fondebrider L. 2002. Reections on the scientic documentation of human rights violations. Int. Rev. Red
Cross 84(848):88591
Fondebrider L. 2012. The application of forensic anthropology to the investigation of cases of political violence.
See Dirkmaat 2012, pp. 63948
Foster KR, Huber PW. 1999. Judging Science: Scientic Knowledge and the Federal Court. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press
France DL. 2012. Ethics in forensic anthropology. See Dirkmaat 2012, pp. 66682
France DL, Grifn TJ, Swanburg JG, Lindemann JW, Davenport GC, et al. 1992. A multidisciplinary approach
to the detection of clandestine graves. J. Forensic Sci. 37(6):144558
Funari PPA, Zarankin A, Salerno MA. 2009. Memories from Darkness: Archaeology of Repression and Resistance in
Latin America. New York: Springer
Gassiot Ballbe E. 2008. Arqueologa de un silencio. Arqueologa forense de la Guerra Civil y del Franquismo.
Complutum 19(2):11930
Gassiot Ballbe E, Steadman DLW. 2008. The political, social and scientic contexts of archaeological inves-
tigations of mass graves in Spain. Archaeologies 4(3):42944
Goodale M. 2009. Surrendering to Utopia: An Anthropology of Human Rights. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
Press
Gonzalez-Ruibal A. 2007. Making things public: archaeologies of the Spanish Civil War. Public Archaeol.
6(4):20326
Gould RA. 2007. Disaster Archaeology. Salt Lake City: Univ. Utah Press
Grandmaison GL, Durigon M. 2001. Do medico-legal truths have more power than war lies? About the
conicts in the Former Yugoslavia and in Kosovo. Med. Sci. Law 41:3014
Grivas CR, Komar DA. 2008. Kumho, Daubert, and the nature of scientic inquiry: implications for forensic
anthropology. J. Forensic Sci. 53(4):77176
Haglund W. 2001. Archaeology and forensic death investigations. Hist. Archaeol. 35(1):2634
Haglund WD. 1998. The scene and context: contributions of the forensic anthropologist. In Forensic Osteology
II, ed. KJ Reichs, pp. 4162. Springeld, IL: Charles C. Thomas. 2nd ed.
Haglund WD. 2002. Recent mass graves: an introduction. See Haglund & Sorg 2002, pp. 24361
Haglund WD, Connor M, Scott DD. 2001. The archaeology of contemporary mass graves. Hist. Archaeol.
35(1):5769
Haglund WD, Sorg MH, eds. 2002. Advances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory, and Archaeological Per-
spectives. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
Hamilakis Y, Anagnostopoulos A. 2009. Archaeological Ethnographies. Leeds, UK/Cambridge, MA: Maney.
[Public Archaeol. 8(23)]
Hanson I. 2008. Forensic archaeology: approaches to international investigations. In Forensic Approaches to
Death, Disaster and Abuse, ed. M Oxenham, pp. 1728. Bowen Hills, Qld: Aust. Acad. Press
Harrison R, Schoeld J. 2009. After Modernity: Archaeological Approaches to the Contemporary Past. Oxford:
Oxford Univ. Press
Harrison S. 2012. Dark Trophies: Hunting and the Enemy Body in Modern War. New York: Berghahn
Hastrup K. 2004. Getting it right: knowledge and evidence in anthropology. Anthropol. Theory 4(4):45572
Hayden RM. 1994. Recounting the dead: the rediscovery and redenition of wartime massacres in Late- and
Post-Communist Yugoslavia. In Memory, History, and Opposition under State Socialism, ed. RS Watson,
pp. 16784. Sante Fe, NM: Sch. Am. Res. Press
Henneberg M. 2009. The expert witness and the court of law. See Blau & Ubelaker 2009, pp. 49094
Hidalgo EB. 2012. Argentinas former secret detention centres: between demolition, modication and preser-
vation. J. Mater. Cult. 17(2):191206
Hodder I. 1997. Always momentary, uid and exible: towards a reexive excavation methodology. Antiquity
71(273):691700
Holobinko A. 2012. Forensic human identication in the United States and Canada: a review of the law,
admissible techniques, and the legal implications of their application in forensic cases. Forensic Sci. Int.
222(1):394.e113
Hufne E, Crews J, Kennedy B, Bomberger K, Zinbo A. 2001. Mass identication of persons missing from
the break-up of the Former Yugoslavia: structure, function, and the role of the International Commission
on Missing Persons. Croat. Med. J. 42:27175
Hunter J. 1999. The excavation of modern murder. In The Loved Bodys Corruption: Archaeological Contributions
to the Study of Human Mortality, ed. J Downes, T Pollard, pp. 20923. Glasgow: Cruithne
Hunter J, Cox M. 2005. Forensic Archaeology: Advances in Theory and Practice. London/New York: Routledge
Hunter JR, Roberts CA, Martin A. 1996. Studies in Crime: An Introduction to Forensic Archaeology. London:
Batsford
134 Crossland
Hunter JR, Simpson B. 2007. Preparing the ground: archaeology in a war zone. See Ferllini 2007, pp. 26692
Jarvis H. 2002. Mapping Cambodias killing elds. See Schoeld et al. 2002, pp. 91102
Juhl K. 2005. The Contribution by (Forensic) Archaeologists to Human Rights Investigations of Mass Graves. Sta-
vanger, Nor.: Arkeol. Mus. Stavanger
Kennedy KAR. 2003. Trials in court. The forensic anthropologist takes the stand. See Steadman 2003, pp. 77
86
Kiely TF. 2006. Forensic Evidence: Science and the Criminal Law. Boca Raton FL: Taylor and Francis. 2nd ed.
Klinkner M. 2012. Improving international criminal investigations into mass graves: synthesizing experiences
from the former Yugoslavia. J. Hum. Rights Pract. 4(3):33464
Klonowski E-E. 2007. Forensic anthropology in Bosnia and Herzegovina: theory and practice amidst politics
and egos. See Ferllini 2007, pp. 14869
Koff C. 2004. The Bone Woman: A Forensic Anthropologists Search for Truth in the Mass Graves of Rwanda, Bosnia,
Croatia, and Kosovo. New York: Random House
Komar DA. 2008. Variables inuencing victim selection in genocide. J. Forensic Sci. 53(1):17277
Kristeva J. 1982. Powers of Horror. An Essay on Abjection. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Krmpotich C, Fontein J, Harries J. 2010. The substance of bones: the emotive materiality and affective
presence of human remains. J. Mater. Cult. 15(4):37184
Krogman WM. 1943. Role of the physical anthropologist in the identication of human skeletal remains. FBI
Law Enforc. Bull. 12(1):729

Kwon H. 2008. Ghosts of War in Vietnam. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Latour B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press
Lewontin RC. 1994. A rejoinder to William Wimsatt. In Questions of Evidence: Proof, Practice, and Persuasion
across the Disciplines, ed. J Chandler, AI Davidson, H Harootunian, pp. 5049. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Mann RW, Anderson BE, Holland TD, Rankin DR, Webb JE Jr. 2003. Unusual crime scenes: the role of
forensic anthropology in recovering and identifying American MIAs. See Steadman 2003, pp. 10816
Mant AK. 1987. Knowledge acquired from post-war exhumations. In Death, Decay and Reconstruction: Approaches
to Archaeology and Forensic Science, ed. A Boddington, AN Garland, RC Janaway, pp. 6578. London:
Manchester Univ. Press
Marquez-Grant N, Fibiger L. 2011. The Routledge Handbook of Archaeological Human Remains and Legislation. An
International Guide to Laws and Practice in the Excavation and Treatment of Human Remains. London/New
York: Routledge
Mitchell JP, Wilson RA, eds. 2003. Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights, Claims
and Entitlements. London/New York: Routledge
Mitrovic S. 2008. Fresh scars on the body of archaeology: excavating mass-graves at Batajnica, Serbia. In Past
Bodies: Body-Centered Research in Archaeology, ed. D Boric, J Robb, pp. 7988. Oxford: Oxbow
Morse D, Crusoe D, Smith HG. 1976. Forensic archaeology. J. Forensic Sci. 21(2):32332
Morse D, Duncan J, Stoutamire J. 1983. Handbook of Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology. Tallahassee: Fla.
State Univ. Found.
Myers A, Moshenska G. 2011. Archaeologies of Internment. New York: Springer
Parkin D. 1999. Mementoes as transitional objects in human displacement. J. Mater. Cult. 4(3):30320
Peirce CS. 1877. The xation of belief. Pop. Sci. Mon. 12(Nov.):115
Peirce CS. 1955. Logic as semiotic: the theory of signs. In Philosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. J Buchler,
pp. 98119. New York: Dover
Perez-Sales P, Garca SN, eds. 2007. Resistencias Contra el Olvido: Trabajo Psicosocial en Procesos de Exhumaciones.
Barcelona: Gedisa
Pollack CE. 2003. Burial at Srebrenica: linking place and trauma. Soc. Sci. Med. 56(4):793801
Ranson D. 2009. Legal aspects of identication. See Blau & Ubelaker 2009, pp. 495508
Renshaw L. 2007. The iconography of exhumation: representations of mass graves from the Spanish Civil
War. In Archaeology and the Media, ed. T Clack, M Brittain, pp. 23752. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast
Renshaw L. 2010a. Missing bodies near-at-hand: the dissonant memory and dormant graves of the Spanish
Civil War. In An Anthropology of Absence: Materializations of Transcendence and Loss, ed. M Bille, F Hastrup,
TF Srensen, pp. 4561. New York: Springer
Renshaw L. 2010b. The scientic and affective identication of Republican civilian victims from the Spanish
Civil War. J. Mater. Cult. 15(4):44963
Renshaw L. 2011. Exhuming Loss: Memory, Materiality and Mass Graves of the Spanish Civil War. Walnut Creek,
CA: Left Coast
Roberts L. 1992. Science in court: a culture clash. Science 256:73235
Rosenblatt A. 2010. International forensic investigations and the human rights of the dead. Hum. Rights Q.
32:92251
Sanford V. 2003. Buried Secrets: Truth and Human Rights in Guatemala. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
San Francisco A, Fuentes M, Sepulveda J. 2010. Hacia una arqueologa del estadio Vctor Jara. Campo de
detencion y tortura masiva de la dictadura en Chile (19731974). Rev. Arqueol. Hist. Argent. Latinoam.
4:91116
Sant Cassia P. 2005. Bodies of Evidence: Burial, Memory and the Recovery of Missing Persons in Cyprus. Oxford:
Berghahn
Sant Cassia P. 2006. Recognition and emotion: exhumations of missing persons in Cyprus. In Divided Cyprus:
Modernity, History and an Island in Conict, ed. Y Papadakis, N Peristianis, G Welz, pp. 194213.
Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press

Sassoli M, Tougas M-L. 2002. The ICRC and the missing. Int. Rev. Red Cross 48(848):72750
Saunders R. 2002. Tell the truth: the archaeology of human rights abuses in Guatemala and the former
Yugoslavia. See Schoeld et al. 2002, pp. 10314
Schmitt S. 2002. Mass graves and the collection of forensic evidence: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against
humanity. See Haglund & Sorg 2002, pp. 27792
Schoeld J, Beck C, Johnson WG. 2002. Materiel Culture: The Archaeology of 20th Century Conict. London/New
York: Routledge
Sigler-Eisenberg B. 1985. Forensic research: expanding the concept of applied archaeology. Am. Antiq.
50(3):65055
Skinner M, Lazenby RA. 1983. Found! Human Remains: A Field Manual for the Recovery of the Recent Human
Skeleton. Burnaby, BC: Archaeol. Press, Simon Fraser Univ.
Skinner MF. 1987. Planning the archaeological recovery of evidence from recent mass graves. Forensic Sci. Int.
34:26787
Skinner MF. 2007. Hapless in Afghanistan: forensic archaeology in a political maelstrom. See Ferllini 2007,
pp. 23365
Skinner MF, Alempijevic D, Djuric-Srejic M. 2003. Guidelines for international forensic bioarchaeology
moniters of mass grave exhumations. Forensic Sci. Int. 134:8192
Skinner MF, York HP, Connor MA. 2002. Postburial disturbance of graves in Bosnia-Herzegovina. See
Haglund & Sorg 2002, pp. 293308
Sledzik PS. 2012. Forensic anthropology in mass disasters. In Forensic Anthropology: An Introduction, ed. MA
Tersigni-Tarrant, NR Shirley, pp. 43950. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
Snow CC, Levine L, Lukash L, Tedeschi LG, Orrego C, Stover E. 1984. The investigation of the human
remains of the disappeared in Argentina. Am. J. Foren. Med. Pathol. 5(4):29799
Steadman DLW, ed. 2003. Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic Anthropology. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall
Steadman DLW. 2013. The places we will go: paths forward in forensic anthropology. In Forensic Science:
Current Issues, Future Directions, ed. DH Ubelaker, pp. 13158. Chichester, UK: Wiley
Steadman DLW, Adams BJ, Konigsberg LW. 2006. Statistical basis for positive identication in forensic
anthropology. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 131:1526
Steadman DLW, Haglund WD. 2005. The scope of anthropological contributions to human rights investi-
gations. J. Forensic Sci. 50(1):118
Steele C. 2008. Archaeology and the forensic investigation of recent mass graves: ethical issues for a new
practice of archaeology. Archaeologies 4(3):41428
136 Crossland
Stover E, Haglund WD, Samuels M. 2003. Exhumation of mass graves in Iraq: considerations for forensic
investigations, humanitarian needs and the demands of justice. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 290:66366
Stover E, Middle East Watch, Phys. Hum. Rights. 1992. Unquiet Graves: The Search for the Disappeared in Iraqi
Kurdistan. New York: Hum. Rights Watch
Stover E, Peress G. 1998. The Graves: Srebrenica and Vukovar. Zurich: Scalo
Stover E, Shigekane R. 2002. The missing in the aftermath of war: When do the needs of victims families
and international war crimes tribunals clash? Int. Rev. Red Cross 84(848):84566
Stover E, Shigekane R. 2004. Exhumation of mass graves: balancing legal and humanitarian needs. See Stover
& Weinstein 2004, pp. 85103
Stover E, Weinstein HM. 2004. My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass
Atrocity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Suasnavar JS, Moscoso Moller F. 1999. La arqueologa en el esclarecimiento historico. In Simposio de Inves-
tigaciones Arqueologicas en Guatemala, 1998, ed. JP Laporte, HL Escobedo, pp. 85875. Guatemala City:
Mus. Nac. Arqueol. Etnol.
Tamm J, ed. 2008. Poliitilised Repressioonid. 1940. ja 1950. aastatel. Tallinn, Est.: Eesti Muinsuskaitse Seltsi
Thompson TJU. 2001. Legal and ethical considerations of forensic anthropological research. Sci. Justice
41(4):26170
Thompson TJU. 2008. The role of the photograph in the application of forensic anthropology and the
interpretation of clandestine scenes of crime. Photogr. Cult. 1(2):16382

Thompson TJU, Puxley A. 2007. Personal effects. In Forensic Human Identication, Forensics and Criminal
Justice, ed. TJU Thompson, S Black, pp. 36577. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
Tuller H. 2012. Mass graves and human rights: latest developments, methods, and lessons learned. See
Dirkmaat 2012, pp. 15774
Ubelaker DH. 1997. Forensic anthropology. In History of Physical Anthropology: An Encyclopedia (Vol. 1), ed.
F Spenser, pp. 39296. New York: Garland
Verdery K. 1999. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and Postsocialist Change. New York: Columbia Univ.
Press
Vilches F. 2011. From nitrate town to internment camp: the cultural biography of Chacabuco, northern Chile.
J. Mater. Cult. 16(3):24163
Vollen L. 2001. All that remains: identifying the victims of the Srebrenica massacre. Cambridge Q. Healthc.
Ethics 10(3):33640
Wagner SE. 2008. To Know Where He Lies: DNA Technology and the Search for Srebrenicas Missing. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Weiss LM. 2010. Terra incognita: the material world in international criminal courts. In Archaeology and
Memory, ed. D Boric, pp. 18495. Oxford: Oxbow
Wright R, Hanson I. 2009. How to do forensic archaeology under the auspices of the United Nations and
other large organizations. See Blau & Ubelaker 2009, pp. 46878
Wright R, Hanson I, Sterenberg J. 2005. The archaeology of mass graves. See Hunter & Cox 2005, pp. 13758
Wylie A. 2002. Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif.
Press
Zarankin A, Funari PPA. 2008. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: archaeology and construction of
memory of military repression in South America (19601980). Archaeologies 4(2):31027
Zarankin A, Salerno MA. 2008. Despues de la tormenta: arqueologa de la repression en America Latina.
Complutum 19(2):2132

Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeolo

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeolo

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AN42CH08-Crossland ARI 13 July 2013 15:52

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2013. 42:12137 Keywords

This articles doi: Abstract

FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES

www.annualreviews.org Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology 123

EVIDENCE AND FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGY

www.annualreviews.org Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology 125

SCIENCE AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE

HUMAN RIGHTS AND FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGY

www.annualreviews.org Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology 127

HISTORY AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE FOR FAMILIES AND SURVIVORS

www.annualreviews.org Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology 129

www.annualreviews.org Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology 131

www.annualreviews.org Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology 133

Law Enforc. Bull. 12(1):729

www.annualreviews.org Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology 135

Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press

interpretation of clandestine scenes of crime. Photogr. Cult. 1(2):16382

www.annualreviews.org Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology 137

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi