“Interpreters of the Dead: Forensic Knowledge, Human Remains and the Politics of the Past” by Claire Moon

In this article, sociologist Claire Moon presents a clear outline of the practice of forensic anthropology, how it developed and how it differs from other fields of forensics, and what role it plays in dealing with atrocities. She discusses several ways in which forensic anthropology can be employed and motivated, such as in legal settings, through political motivations, and by using human remains for humanitarian goals. This introduction to forensic anthropology at large serves well to illustrate the increasing importance of this field, its strengths, and its underlying assumptions. Ultimately, this allows her to engage productively with one of the field’s contested aspects. Moon argues that, contrary to the prevalent belief that forensics provide a relatively objective account of atrocities, a belief which is derived from the scientific nature of the process, forensic knowledge is actually firmly situated in its historical, social, and political contexts. By illustrating the different uses of forensic knowledge depending on who is using it and towards what end, Moon argues that while bones may not lie, those who interpret the bones are certainly not immune to social and political influences. She further argues that even scientific norms are not objective, but dependent on the context in which they originate. 

In order to show the situatedness of forensic knowledge, Moon categorizes human remains as boundary objects, which means that human remains stretch across several boundaries and social groups, who each have their own stakes in and interpretations of these remains, and these objects thereby serve as points of negotiations between these differing groups. Forensic knowledge, with its claim to science, originally assured that it could resolve any potential conflicts between different interpretations between groups, by precisely calling on its scientific objectivity, but Moon exposes this to be impossible. Moon uses two case studies to illustrate how forensic knowledge is subject to political, historical, and social norms. The first case study focuses on the necessity of racializing human remains as dictated by the Genocide Convention, where she discusses the conflict between many forensic experts who have become critical of assigning racial categories to human remains, and the expectation of especially courts to continue this practice. These racial categories are of themselves socially constructed, and the legal rules requiring these distinctions are as well. The professionalism of forensics as a field is thus jeopardized by the expectancies of a legal case, and its inner social workings, such as the historical prominence of raciology (the study of human race) in forensics, is questioned. The second case study discusses exhumations of Junta victims, and explains how the exhumation is politically motivated by the Argentinean government, and how the human remains carry different meanings for surviving family members, which results in a conflict with which the forensic anthropologist must necessarily engage. Clearly, bones cannot speak for themselves, but are given different voices by specific groups. In their function as boundary objects, it becomes evident that investment in human remains is structured differently across groups, and that the significance and use of human remains is subsequently contested. 

Moon’s article thus provides an excellent introduction to the field of forensic knowledge. She discusses its history and form, as well as its main characteristics. She immediately brings to light one of its main contested aspects and engages with the difficulties and possible benefits of forensic knowledge when it comes to dealing with atrocities, and addresses precisely how challenging including and conducting forensic knowledge can be. For researchers and readers interested in the forensic turn, forensic knowledge, and forensic anthropology specifically, who want to be informed about the complexities of the biggest concerns and questions for the field today, this article forms an excellent and necessary introduction. 

Author of this entry: Nienke Veenstra

Moon, C. “Interpreters of the Dead: Forensic Knowledge, Human Remains and the Politics of the Past.” Social & Legal Studies, 2013, 22.2, p. 149-169.