The first group to develop specifically with a forensic archaeological interest or com-ponent was NecroSearch International (above) founded in Colorado in 1991 by a group of like-minded individuals who recognised the importance and relevance of utilising archaeological and anthropological techniques in search and recovery contexts. By then, however, an Argentine forensic team specialising in anthropology and recovery had already emerged in the early 1980s but was more concerned with issues of human rights,
and excavations undertaken by Professor Richard Wright in the Ukraine in 1990 had set the scene for the systematic archaeological excavation of mass graves. The Colorado group was more concerned with individual homicide events and expanded to include the disciplines of geophysics, entomology and criminalistics, and its evolution has been well documented (Jackson 2002). NecroSearch has its own research and experi-mental site near Denver and maintains a high profile in police work throughout the USA and abroad. Its members now number over 20 and meet monthly to discuss case work, technical developments and research plans. Known as ‘the pig people’ as a result of their experimental work with buried pig carcasses (France et al. 1997), they support police work through invitation and reputation and have developed a deliberate scientific detachment from the emotional aspects of case involvement. One of their operatives described his case contribution as ‘a scientist working on a problem, not a cause’ (Jackson 2002: 221) – a comment which reflects much on an objective analysis of a situation and on operational maturity.
NecroSearch served as the model for the Forensic Search Advisory Group (FSAG) which was established in the UK in the mid-1990s to fulfil a similar role. A small number of forensic archaeologists working on a commissioned basis for police forces realised independently that general awareness of search techniques tended to be extremely limited, technological capabilities were often misunderstood, and that the concept of using sequences of search techniques was rarely appreciated. It was not always recog-nised that different scene contexts required different approaches, and that the various methods that could be deployed had significant limitations as well as positive advantages (Chapter 2). More crucially, there was no central point from which up-to-date advice or support could be gathered. Simple questions such as ‘What are the range of suitable techniques available?’ or ‘Which are the best techniques for this particular scenario?’
were unanswered simply because there was no-one to ask. Forces had their own lists of ‘support’ personnel but these were not always geared to forensic application and were often directed elsewhere. Typical support was often derived from military or engi-neering contexts whose motives were genuine enough but whose experience was vested in the detection of mines, fractures in reinforced concrete, or depth of landfill sites for contamination purposes. Their understanding of, and familiarity with, detection signals from decaying human remains were minimal, and forces ran the very real danger of eliminating sites on the basis of inexperience. A particular case in point was the use of radar which received high profile as a consequence of investigations in Cromwell Street, Gloucester, and which was avidly applied to a number of subsequent scenarios, irrespective of its value or feasibility in the physical environments in question.
Setting up the FSAG was a response to this situation. The original group included specialists in archaeology, aerial interpretation (military), crime detection (SIOs), physical anthropology, geophysics, scene of crime examination, cadaver dog handling, and decay biochemistry (taphonomy), but experience has since allowed the Group to expand to include specialists in pathology, ecology, entomology and POLSA Officers.
Nevertheless, the purpose remains the same, namely, to provide a central service to police forces by means of a 24-hour facility which was originally set up in 1996 and which has been operative ever since. The small number of members provide a free advisory service to anyone who requires it, as well as being a point of contact for the National Crime and Operations Faculty (CENTREX) at the National Police Training College, Bramshill. The group promotes search methodologies, instigates research
programmes, discusses case studies with a view to improving its services, and works to a specified Code of Conduct. ‘Mission’ is still a major feature of the work under-taken and although advice normally consists of identifying appropriate techniques for the search in question, it often has the aim of encouraging a more fundamental methodology. Since the foundation of the FSAG, other groups have been established with similar purpose, notably the Swedish Arbetsgruppen for Forensic Arkeologi (AFFA), and the Belgian Disaster Victim Identification Unit (DVI) which originally emerged as a result of the Zeebrugge disaster.
In the late 1990s individual expertise which had been applied in clandestine burials or disasters was adapted and put to good use in the excavation of mass graves, initially in Rwanda, and later in the Balkans as a result of civil war and associated alleged genocide (see Chapter 5). It built on work already carried out by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) established in 1986. This generated further organisational arrangements in order to provide evidence for the International Criminal Court in The Hague and resulted directly in the formation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) which arranged and undertook excavations. The number of buried victims runs into tens of thousands and, despite best intentions, and for reasons of sheer practicality, this total is unlikely ever to be exhumed purely for the purpose of con-victing offenders. Resulting pressure on resources together with prevailing political conditions has inevitably resulted in exhumation undertaken locally with the prime intention of identifying individuals and returning remains to their families. This is now being co-ordinated by the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) – an organisation established by former US President Clinton – which employs archaeologists to monitor the excavation work, and which has undertaken a massive programme of DNA analysis for identification purpose.
Conflict in the Balkans was also directly responsible for the establishment of two British-based groups concerned with the wider remit of the recovery and identifica-tion of mass graves: the Centre for Internaidentifica-tional Forensic Assistance (CIFA); and the International Forensic Centre of Excellence for the Investigation of Genocide (INFORCE). CIFA has the aims of providing forensic science expertise in the investi-gation of war crimes, mass disasters, and individual cases of a criminal nature and of human rights abuse, world-wide at any time. Its database of personnel covers a wide range of expertise, including forensic archaeology and anthropology, and CIFA also seeks to promote training and dissemination of the relevant disciplines. INFORCE is an independent, charitable institution concerned with the location and recovery of victims of unlawful killing, particularly genocide, but with an emphasis on humanitarian needs, ethics and legislation. It also promotes an educational base for teaching and research in appropriate areas as well as capacity building in post-conflict areas. Like CIFA, it has access to a wide range of experts and case experience.
References
Aitchison, K. 1999. A Survey on Archaeological Jobs in the UK, Council for British Archaeology, English Heritage, Reading: Institute of Field Archaeologists.
Boudreaux, M.C., Lord, W.D. and Dutra, R.L. 1999. ‘Child abduction: aged-based analyses of offender, victim, and offence characteristics in 550 cases of alleged child disappearance’, Journal of Forensic Sciences 44:3, 539–553.
Britton, P. 1997. The Jigsaw Man, London: Bantam Press.
Brown, A.G., Smith, A. and Elmhirst, O. 2002. ‘The combined use of pollen and soil analyses in a search and subsequent murder investigation’, Journal of Forensic Sciences 47:3, 614–
618.
Buck, S.C. 2003. ‘Searching for graves using geophysical technology: field tests with ground penetrating radar, magnetometry, and electrical resistivity’, Journal of Forensic Sciences 48:1, 5–11.
Connor, M. and Scott, D.D. 2001. ‘Paradigms and perpetrators’, Journal of Historical Archaeology 35:1, 1–6.
Cox, M. 2001a. ‘Forensic archaeology: a United Kingdom perspective’, in Godwin, M.G. (ed.) Criminal Psychology and Forensic Technology, New York: CRC Press, pp. 1–14.
Cox, M. 2001b. ‘Forensic archaeology in the UK: questions of socio-intellectual context and socio-political responsibility’, in Buchli, V. and Lucas, G. (eds) Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 145–157.
Cox, M. and Bell, L. 1999. ‘Recovery of human skeletal elements from a recent UK murder enquiry: preservational signatures’, Journal of Forensic Sciences 44:5, 945–950.
Crist, T.A.J. 2001. ‘Bad to the bone? Historical archaeologists in the practice of forensic science’, Journal of Historical Archaeology 35:1, 39–56.
Darvill, T. and Russell, B. 2002. Archaeology after PPG16: Archaeological Investigations in England 1990–1999, Bournemouth: Bournemouth University, School of Conservation Sciences Research Report 10, English Heritage and Bournemouth University.
Davenport, G.C. 2001. ‘Remote sensing applications in forensic investigations’, Journal of Historical Archaeology, 35:1, 87–100.
Davis, J.L., Heginbottom, J.A., Annan, A.P., Daniels, R.S., Berdal, B.P., Bergan, T., Duncan, K.E., Lewin, P.K., Oxford, J.S., Roberts, N., Skehel, J.J. and Smith C.R. 2000. ‘Ground penetrating radar surveys to locate 1918 Spanish flu victims in permafrost’, Journal of Forensic Sciences 45:1, 68–76.
Dirkmaat, D.C. and Adovasio, J.M. 1997. ‘The role of archaeology in the recovery and interpretation of human remains from an outdoor forensic setting’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H. (eds), Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 39–64.
DoE, 1990. Planning Policy Guideline 16, London: HMSO.
Ebsworth, E.A.V. 2000. ‘The Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners’, Science and Justice 40:2, 134–137.
ECPAH 1992. European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, Valetta.
Erzinclioglu, Z. 2000. Maggots, Murder and Men, Colchester: Harley Books.
France, D.L., Griffin, T.J., Swanburg, J.G., Lindemann, J.W., Davenport, G.C., Trammell, V., Travis, C.T., Kondratieff, B., Nelson, A., Castellano, K., Hopkins, D. and Adair, T. 1997.
‘NecroSearch revisited: further multidisciplinary approaches to the detection of clandestine graves’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H. (eds) Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press, pp. 497–509.
Haglund, W.D. 2001. ‘Archaeology and forensic death investigation’, Journal of Historical Archaeology 35:1, 26–34.
Haglund, W.D. 2002. ‘Recent mass graves, an introduction’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H.
(eds), Advances in Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 242–261.
Haglund, W.D., Connor, M. and Scott, D.D. 2001. ‘The archaeology of contemporary mass graves’, Journal of Historical Archaeology 35:1, 57–69.
Haglund, W. D., Connor, M. and Scott, D.D. 2002. ‘The effect of cultivation on buried human remains’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H (eds) Advances in Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 133–150.
Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H. (eds) 1997. Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H. (eds) 2002. Advances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory and Archaeological Perspectives, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Hall, D.W. 1997. ‘Forensic botany’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H. (eds) Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 353–363.
Hey, G. and Lacey, M. 2001. Evaluation of Archaeological Decision Making Processes and Sampling Strategies, Reading: English Heritage and the IFA.
Hochrein, M.J. 2001. ‘An autopsy of the grave: recognising, collecting and preserving forensic geotaphonomic evidence’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H (eds) Advances in Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 45–70.
Hoshower, L.M. 1998. ‘Forensic archaeology and the need for flexible excavation strategies:
a case study’, Journal of Forensic Science, 43, 53–56.
Hunter, J.R. 1994. ‘Forensic archaeology in Britain’, Antiquity 68, 758–769.
Hunter, J.R. 1999. ‘The excavation of modern murder’, in Downes, J. and Pollard, T. The Loved Body’s Corruption, Glasgow: Cruithne Press, 209–223.
Hunter, J.R. 2001. ‘Foreword from Archaeology: A pilgim in forensic archaeology – a personal view’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H (eds) Advances in Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. xxv–xxxii.
Hunter, J.R. and Ralston, I.B.M. 1993. Archaeological Resource Management in the UK: An Introduction, Stroud: Alan Sutton.
Hunter, J.R., Brickley, M.B., Bourgeois, J., Bouts, W., Bourguignon, L., Hubrecht, F., De Winne, J., Van Haster, H., Hakbijl, T., De Jong, H., Smits, L., Van Wijngaarden, L. and Luschen, M. 2001. ‘Forensic archaeology, forensic anthropology and human rights in Europe’, Science and Justice, 41:3, 173–8.
Hunter, J.R, Roberts, C.A and Martin, A. 1996. Studies in Crime: An Introduction to Forensic Archaeology, London: Routledge.
Jackson, S. 2002. No Stone Unturned, New York: Kensington.
Janaway, R.C. 2002. ‘Degradation of clothing and other dress materials associated with buried bodies of both archaeological and forensic interest’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H. (eds) Advances in Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 379–402.
Kershaw, A. 2001. ‘Expressing a standard’, Science and Justice 41:3, 226–8.
Killam, E.W. 1990. The Detection of Human Remains, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Kittichaisaree, K. 2001. International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Melbye, J. and Jimenez, S.B. 1997. ‘Chain of custody from the field to the courtroom’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H. (eds) Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 65–75.
Morse, D., Duncan, J. and Stoutamire, J. 1983. Handbook of Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology, Tallahassee, FL: Rose Printing.
Morton, R.J. and Lord, W.D. 2002. ‘Detection and recovery of abducted and murdered children:
behavioral and taphonomic influences’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H. (eds), Advances in Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 151–171.
Niquette, C.M. 2001. ‘Europe, archaeology and professionalism: a transatlantic view’, The Archaeologist 40, 14–16.
Owsley, D.W. 2001. ‘Why the forensic anthropologist needs the archaeologist’, Journal of Historical Archaeology 35:1, 35–38.
Royal Commission on Criminal Justice 1993. Report Cm 2263, London: HMSO.
Schmitt, S. 2002. ‘Mass graves and the collection of forensic evidence: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H. (eds) Advances in Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 277–292.
Scott, D.D. 2001. ‘Firearms identification in support of identifying a mass execution at El Mozote, El Salvador’, Journal of Historical Archaeology 35:1, 79–86.
Scott, D.D. and Connor, M. 2001. ‘The role and future of archaeology in forensic science’, Journal of Historical Archaeology 35:1, 101–104.
Sonderman, R.C. 2001. ‘Looking for a needle in a haystack: developing closer relationships between law enforcement specialists and archaeology’, Journal of Historical Archaeology 35:1, 70–78.
Stevens, J.A. 1997. ‘Standard investigatory tools and offender profiling’, in Jackson, J.L. and Beckerian, D.A. (eds) Offender Profiling: Theory, Research and Practice, Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 77–91.
Stover, E. and Peress, G. 1998. The Graves: Srebrenica and Vukovar, New York: Scala.
Stover, E. and Ryan, M. 2001. ‘Breaking bread with the dead’, Journal of Historical Archaeology 35:1, 7–25.
Ubelaker, D.H. 2001 ‘Artificial radiocarbon as an indicator of recent origin of organic remains in forensic cases’, Journal of Forensic Sciences 46:6, 1285–1287.