News and press interest – 15th June 2008

In the United States, forensic archaeology is generally looked at as a sub-discipline of forensic anthropology with minor importance. While great efforts are made to analyse skeletal human remains in the laboratory, the recovery using proven archaeological methodologies is often neglected. To make a first step towards changing this attitude, California State University, Chico, the Inforce Foundation (UK), and the Cranfield Forensic Institute (UK) ran the first short course in ‘Forensic Archaeology: Field Recovery Methods’.

California State University, Chico, was represented (amongst others) by Prof Turhon A. Murad and Dr Eric Bartelink, two anthropologists with extensive experience in the use of forensic anthropology in domestic crime investigations as well as disaster victim identification, such as the 9/11 operation. Cranfield and Inforce were represented by Roland Wessling, Inforce's Forensic Science & Operations Manager, whose main speciality is in atrocity crime investigations and the use of simulation exercises in forensic training and exercising.

Within a few days of announcing the course, 25 students and professionals had already booked all available places. The short course consisted of two days of lectures and practical workshops. This was followed by a one-day exercise in surface recovery techniques and finally by a two day exercise on a separate site where four groups had to find, excavate and document a simulated shallow grave containing a plastic skeleton and many clues regarding the ‘killing’ and ‘burial’ of the ‘victim’.

The five days were packed with different aspects of forensic sciences, ranging from anthropology and archaeology to photography and surveying. A mixture of theory, case studies and practical sessions ensured that the group had a balanced educational experience.

After building up a solid theoretical base through all the lectures and practical laboratory sessions, the group was split into two for the surface remains exercise. In California and neighbouring states, surface remains are the most common type of case forensic anthropologists would be confronted with. But just because remains are not buried, does not mean that forensic archaeological methodologies are not essential during the recovery. A proper understanding of the context in which the remains are found and how they got into this context over time is crucial for a complete and forensically valuable interpretation. Surveying is one of the methods that are essential in documenting a scene adequately and for being able to interpret the scene sufficiently later. In difficult conditions, due to a steep slope and high-contrast differences between light and shade, the groups had to work very hard to complete the task within the timeframe given.

This prepared them well for the final phase of the short course: the shallow grave excavation. In temperatures of over 30 degrees Celsius, the group had to first conduct a line search to identify surface anomalies, such as disturbed ground. At the same time, they had to carry out a full site risk assessment, essential in establishing a safe working environment.

After the four main anomalies had been identified, groups of 6-7 students started with a detailed fingertip search of the immediate area before cleaning of the surface and establishing the precise outline of the grave. While constantly documenting their progress and methods used, the grave was carefully excavated and all evidence correctly logged and recovered. However, the emphasis of this exercise was not to retrieve objects correctly (items of evidence) but to use forensic archaeologycal methods to learn about the actual grave and the person who dug that grave. Each team member played the role of the crime scene officer, archaeologist and photographer, etc. during the two days. The groups all completed their graves on time and with very high quality results, despite a massive forest fire close by!