Conclusion
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5284396 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sarah Wagner (0000-0003-2659-900X, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Publication date | 2019-07-10 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Forensic Anthropology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2573-5020 • E-ISSN: 2573-5039 |
| Publisher | University Press of Florida (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.5744/fa.2019.1020 |
| OpenAlex | W4234330136 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 3 |
Individual identification is a primary goal for forensic anthropologists who work in medicolegal and humanitarian contexts," Palmiotto et al. set out in the opening of their technicalnote on methods of estimating the minimum number of individuals among commingled remains. No doubt they are right, but their claim has context, as does the more general practice of disentangling and piecing back together bodies-more precisely, their skeletal elements, however partial or fragmented-that the eight contributions to this special issue address. Simply put, individually identifying war dead, or victims of violent conflict, natural disaster, or whatever incident of mass fatality, is a relatively modern phenomenon. As historian Thomas Laqueur argues, "We live in an age of necronominalism; we record and gather the names of the dead in ways, and in places, and in numbers as never before. We demand to know who the dead are. Wefind unnamed bodies and bodiless names-those of the disappeared-unbearable" (2015:366; emphasis added
Archaeology · Context (archaeology · Criminology · Dead end · Epistemology · Genealogy · Geography · Identification (biology · Natural (archaeology · Natural disaster · Phenomenon · Political science · Sociology · Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies · History · Law · Philosophy
| Highly cited | No |
|---|