D a vid A . Poirier and Nicholas F. B e l l a n t o n i Fo rensic A rc h e o l ogy A Humanistic Science rcheologists have often been h a r s h l y, and perhaps justifi- a b l y, criticized by the n a t i o n ’s Native Americans as “graveA robbers” for the discipline’s callous cultural groups, and the religious community t h r ough their respectful and professional handling A decorative 18th- t reatment of their ancestors. Fort u n a t e l y, the last century coffin lid decade has witnessed a significant transform a t i o n of these difficult situations. In this re g a r d, it is from Cornwall,CT, is of attitude and approach within the arc h e o l o g i c a l imperative that forensic archeologists establish a carefully uncovered. community re g a r ding osteological remains. The f o r thright, face-to-face dialogue with all intere s t e d Brass tacks were majority of today’s professional archeologists do p a r ties. A diversity of spiritual, social, cultural, commonly emotional, and political considerations needs to employed to indi- not focus scientific inquiry upon the explicit dis- cate the initials and c o v e ry and examination of human remains. In be explicitly recognized and professionally han- the age at death of c o n c e r t with the spirit and intent of the Native dled. Archeologists must facilitate the re c o g n i t i o n the deceased.Photo American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of mutual goals, articulate the unique perspective by William Keegan. of 1990, most archeologists acknowledge the crit- of forensic arc h e o l o g y, and re s t o r e the sanctity of ical importance of working in partnership with the grave. the descendants of the cultures whose arc h e o l o g i - F o r ensic archeologists also are scientific cal remains they study. p a r tners within the medico-legal system. Fro m N e v e rtheless, construction and other land c e m e t e r y desecration to horrific crime investiga- modification activities continue to result in the tions to natural disasters, the technical training u n f o reseen and accidental disturbance of and expertise of the forensic specialist offers sig- unmarked burials and cemeteries. With incre a s i n g nificant insights concerning the identification of f re q u e n c y, such discoveries date from the 18th and human remains, interpretation of past cultural 19th centuries and are abandoned rural family actions, and the recognition of taphonomic alter- burial grounds or forgotten institutional cemeter- ations. Archeological methods and techniques ies. In most states, legislative mandates pro v i d e often enhance and complement the data gathering a r cheologists with the critical responsibility for the investigations of local, state, and federal police identification of the deceased, coordination with agencies. Remote sensing is frequently employed descendants and other interested parties, and the to locate buried murder victims; interpretations of respectful treatment of the remains. soil and stratigraphic data provide reliable infor- R a rely do archeologists encounter a disinter- mation on the relative sequence of events. ested public in these cases. Public reaction often F o r ensic archeological analysis also may yield ranges from emotional distress to vocal hostility. i m p o rtant contributions re g a rding the age, sex, These unfortunate and sensitive situations and race of the deceased, and the time of burial as demand diplomacy, extreme professionalism, and well as the interrelationship between osteological humanistic compassion. Forensic arc h e o l o g i s t s remains, the surrounding natural enviro n m e n t , s e r ve to provide an important bridge between past and pertinent cultural material (i.e., “physical evi- and present populations. d e n c e ” ) . On-site and laboratory analysis of the osteo- F o r ensic anthropology brings a specialized logical evidence, associated funerary remains, bur- training in the osteological identification of human ial accouterments, archival re c o r ds, family remains developed out of studies of arc h e o l o g i c a l histories, and comparative databases often sheds samples from mort u a r y complexes, human gro w t h i m p o rtant light on the identification of the and development, and evolutionary specimens, to deceased, causes of death, and familial or gro u p assist modern criminal investigations. relationships. Equally paramount, forensic arc h e - Comparative skeletal materials re p r esenting vari- ologists can offer emotional closure for descen- ous biological populations, pathological condi- dants, concerned neighbors, related ethnic or tions, and traumatic injuries provide the necessary CRM No 10—1996 3 dataset that permits scientific analyses of fore n s i c Cultural re s o u r ce managers are only infre- cases that reflect the best interest of the public. quently called upon to assist with forensic arc h e o- With increased federal and state legislation logical investigations as part of site development p r oviding for the reburial and repatriation of or pro j e c t - r elated mitigation and indeed, may human skeletal collections to their appro p r i a t e never partake in a criminal or disaster investiga- descendants, archeologists and anthro p o l o g i s t s tion. However, an increasing number of cultural have struggled with the ethical questions of bal- re s o u r ce management projects involve the pro f e s - ancing the respect for traditional belief systems of sional removal and re c o r ding of human burials. As specific peoples toward their dead and the inter- a result, physical anthropologists and osteoarc h e - ests of humanity through science. These issues ologists often provide technical guidance for those raise emotional and complex questions that have sensitive projects which deal with human re m a i n s . been discussed in the anthropological and native All cultural re s o u r ce managers should familiarize communities for over a decade. As scientists, we themselves with the appropriate state and federal recognize the importance of comparative collec- laws that pertain to the professional treatment of tions and appropriate methodologies for analysis. unmarked burials and forensic inquiries. As anthropologists, we recognize the humanistic G o v e r nment officials, who are mandated with n a t u re of our studies—not amoebas under a responsibilities for cemetery protection, should be m i c roscope, or stars throughout a galaxy—but identified and state-specific pro c e d u r es for notifi- humans analyzing the remains of other humans. cation understood before a crisis-related situation We are not callous individuals holding on to the occurs. State Historic Pre s e r vation Offices and i n t e r est of our scientific method at the expense of O f fices of State Archeologists are obvious sourc e s human emotional feelings toward the dead. of such information. Cultural re s o u r ce managers Reburial and repatriation are appropriate healing may be asked to participate as part of coord i n a t e d m e a s u r es in the correction of past insensitivities. teams for investigative purposes. Familiarization H o w e v e r, our science is not merely an esoteric, with laws and officials can expedite pro c e d u re s intellectual investigation of the past, but pro v i d e s during emergency situations. This thematic issue a practical scientific application in dealing with of CRM p r ovides important information concern- some of the most sensitive human issues in mod- ing those federal agencies with the appro p r i a t e e rn societies: identification and re c o v e r y of victims e x p e rtise in forensic studies, and examines pro- of war, mass disasters, criminal activities, and jects where forensic archeological and anthro p o - missing persons. As forensic anthropological scien- logical techniques have contributed to the tists, we seek to strike a sensitive balance between respectful treatment of historic burial grounds as the importance of re s e a r ch re g a r ding human well as the investigative processes used for crimi- remains and the application of that re s e a r ch for nal activities and disaster re l i e f . the re c o v e r y and emotional closure of distre s s f u l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ situations. Dr. David A. Poirier is Staff Archeologist and F o r ensic scientists contribute their unique Environmental Review Coordinator for the training and experience to both the day-to-day Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office. Dr. o s t e o l o g i c a l - r elated inquiries that occur in their Poirier also served as guest co-editor with Dr. local communities and state, as well as horr i f i c Kenneth L. Feder for a 1995 thematic issue of CRM crimes or large scale disasters which affect the which focused on Archeology and the Public.