In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

ChaptEr Four When the Site is a Scene Battlefield Archaeology and Forensic Sites mElissa a. Connor introduCtion Archaeologists are continually stretching the time limits in which they can effectively examine battlefields. Initially, a domain of historic archaeology, more and more prehistoric archaeologists are identifying and examining fields of conflict created before the historic record. Other archaeologists are working on the other end of the time continuum, examining evidence from ever more recent fields of conflict. This latter research is the subject of this paper. On historic battlefields, archaeological work is completed for many reasons, but mainly for the purposes of generating information in greater detail than exists in the historic record or verifying that record. While work on modern fields of conflict is also conducted to add greater detail to and verify the existing historic record, more importantly it is often conducted to create a legal record that serves as a key part of a forensic criminal investigation. The techniques used on modern battlefields grew from archaeological techniques developed to explore historic battlefields. The differences between the two are both paradigmatic and methodological. They are significantly different, in fact, allowing some to argue that forensic battlefield archaeology is a sub-discipline unto itself. This paper will explore these similarities and differences. thE history oF ForEnsiC arChaEoloGy Clyde Snow once said that “. . . having a policeman excavate a skeleton . . . was a bit like having a chimpanzee perform a heart transplant” (Snow 1995:17). Snow insisted on having archaeologists, not just archaeologically-trained physical anthropologists or investigators, complete forensic exhumations. In 1983, Morse et al. (1983) wrote a guide to archaeological field techniques for the non-archaeologist that was aimed at criminal investigators who were exhuming skeletons. The publication of this guide was a statement of the interest in the use of archaeological techniques in investigation. However, the role of archaeology was limited to the use of field techniques, and was taught as something easily learned by nonprofessionals . The concept of archaeological context in forensic work was emphasized by Brenda Sigler-Eisenberg (1985). She expanded the use of archaeology from techniques of recovery only to include the theory directing the process. She called attention to the idea that it is difficult to work under an archaeological paradigm without the entire constellation of skills and abilities gained through an archaeological education and extensive field experience. She stressed that archaeologists do not work alone in a forensic investigation , but are team players who need to know the overall picture in order to understand their role. In the last two decades, the need to conduct recent mass grave exhumations has greatly expanded the role and use of archaeology and archaeologists in forensic investigations, moving forensic archaeologists onto modern battlefields. The excavation of complex masses of co-mingled individuals in Latin America, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia extensively required and used sophisticated archaeological techniques. This trend began with the appointment of Dr. Clyde 32 melissa a. connor Snow by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, to train Argentine medical and archaeological students in forensic investigation (Snow et al. 1984, 1985; Stover 1985; Joyce and Stover 1991; Stover and Ryan 2001). The Argentine forensic team, Equipo Argentino de Antropologia Forense, works in a number of countries in addition to Argentina and trains others in forensic investigation. They have assisted forensic investigations not only in Argentina, but also in Bolivia, Brazil, Columbia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, the former Yugoslavia, French Polynesia, Guatemala, Haiti, and the Republic of South Africa (Equipo Argentino de Antropologia Forense 2005). In the beginning of this new millennium, forensic archaeology is a small, but growing, subfield of archeology . International teams sent to investigate human rights abuses now routinely include archaeologists or anthropologists with archaeological training. In 2001, Steadman and Haglund (2005) estimated that between 1990 and 1999, 134 anthropologists from 22 countries were involved in human rights investigations in 33 different countries around the globe. Between 2004 and 2006, archaeological teams assisted the Iraqi Special Tribunal in investigating charges of war crimes against the regime of Saddam Hussein. The field is growing and can both learn from, and contribute to, anthropological battlefield archaeology. Paradigmatic Difference: The Legal Context In North America, archaeologists are trained first as anthropologists and work within an anthropological paradigm. This means that the reason they are examining a site is so they can understand the people who created the site and answer questions about the way they lived. In forensic work...

Share