Fossickings

2015

The aim of this volume is to present forensic archaeology as a stand-alone discipline, complementary but distinct from forensic anthropology as well as to demonstrate the multidiscipline nature of forensic archaeological practice. This book hopes to achieve this by looking beyond basic excavation methods and skeletal analyses towards novel theories and applications from active practitioners. Many of the chapters present new approaches and methods not previous covered in other forensic archaeology books, some of which may be of direct use to those conducting criminal investigation. The contributors to this volume are all actively involved in the field of forensic archaeology and regularly aid law enforcement. The chapters are derived from papers presented at the Society for American Archaeology’s Annual meeting. The document here is the book proposal accepted by the publisher Springer.

Prehistoire Art Et Societes Bulletin De La Societe Prehistorique De L Ariege, 2010

“The chess board is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature.” Thomas Huxley Why involve archaeologists in forensics? This chapter discusses practical reasons why. Archaeologists have begun to be used for excavation and recovery in crime scene and other forensic investigations as they demonstrate they have expertise in untangling the seemingly chaotic structure of scattered and buried features, artefacts and deposits. With Huxley’s chess board view of the world in mind, archaeologists have specifically developed strategies for managing and organising the spatial and temporal control and analysis of complex sites- playing the chess game of investigating buried landscapes with rules utilising the laws of nature. Few agencies historically in charge of crime scene and forensic cases have realised both the complexities of these buried environments and the need for archaeologist’s specialist skills in winning the game of uncovering ‘hidden’ evidence; the pathologist Sir Sydney Smith in 1924 saw ‘something of the worries of an archaeologist’ when excavating a mass grave during a murder investigation in Cairo (Smith 1959:71). The pathologist Keith Mant realised the spatial control required in exhumations and the effects of taphonomy on remains and evidence while recovering missing servicemen in post war Germany (Mant 1987). Stuart Kind (1987) of the Forensic Science Service noted the similarities between crime investigation and archaeology; both reasoning hypotheses from fragmentary evidence, determining events along time lines and understanding principles of evidential identification, deterioration and change. Such realisation globally is still limited, but has spread as professional archaeologists and anthropologists have applied themselves to forensic questions (for example Hunter et al 1996, Spennemann and Franke 1994, Davis 1992, Iscan 1988, Skinner 1987, Bass 1978, Morse et al 1976). entering mainstream forensic and media consciousness in N., C. and S. America, the UK, Australia and in some international war crimes investigations. What is clear is that any archaeologist or anthropologist engaging in forensic work must adapt to a medico-legal framework, which may involve time constraints, evidential and information controls that are outside their usual realm of experience.

2016

Geology Today, 2013

Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, Third Edition, 2023

This article was originally published in the Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, Third Edition published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for non-commercial research and educational use, including without limitation, use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution's administrator.

Fifty Years of Forensic Science, 2010

Since Darwin’s work on the movement of objects in the soil due to earthworm action, interest has continued in determining how bioturbation affects the archaeological record. The work of Darwin is being continued with an additional focus on forensic implications of evidence moving over time. The actions of earthworms and the rates at which they cause small objects to sink into a given soil environment is predictable. Objects can accumulate over time on buried horizons, where once the horizon is identified they can be recovered. Small objects disappear from view in certain outdoor environments in a short timeframe with respect to forensic considerations. Experiments are being undertaken to test rates of sinking. Normal visual search techniques do not locate such evidence. As well as earthworm action, maggot masses feeding on a cadaver can rapidly cause small objects and bone to sink from view. The effects on vegetation growth and soil colour from decomposition of a body can indicate the primary deposition site of the body, even if it has been moved or dispersed. Case studies demonstrate how specific archaeological techniques have been used to maximise location and recovery of important evidence. Methods for consideration by Senior Investigating Officers suggest specialist professional support for some crime scene examinations will benefit forensic investigations.