Forensic archaeology in Britain.

Forensic archaeology in Britain. Forensic archaeology Forensic archaeology is the application of a combination of archaeological techniques and forensic science, typically in law enforcement.Forensic archaeologists are employed by police to excavate gravesites and reconstruct events that took place prior to the burial of the is a relatively recent development in the UK buthas already shown its worth on a number of scenes of crime; it has aparticular role to play in the location and recovery of buried remains,notably in homicide investigations. This paper explores the overlapbetween archaeology and criminal investigation and considers areas ofmutual interest, experience and potential.BackgroundIn December 1962 William Jennings William Jennings is the name of several historical figures including: William Jennings (mayor) (1923-1886), a mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. William Dale Jennings, American author of "The Cowboys", "The Ronin", and "The Sinking of the Sarah Diamond" William M. beat to death his 3-year-old sonStephen at their home in West Yorkshire West Yorkshire,former metropolitan county, N central England. Created in the 1974 local government reorganization, the county largely embraced the Leeds conurbation and comprised five metropolitan districts: Calderdale, Bradford, Leeds, Wakefield, and Kirklees. . He wrapped the body in a sack,carried it to the edge of woodland and laid it against the base of adrystone See Dhrystones. wall. Having covered it with stones he went home and laterreported the boy missing. Despite an intensive search the followingwinter the boy's fate was unknown, until in 1988 his remains werepartially exposed by a dog. They were subsequently excavated andrecorded by an integrated team which included specialists inarchaeology, forensic science The application of scientific knowledge and methodology to legal problems and criminal investigations.Sometimes called simply forensics, forensic science encompasses many different fields of science, including anthropology, biology, chemistry, engineering, genetics, and forensic pathology Noun 1. forensic pathology - the branch of medical science that uses medical knowledge for legal purposes; "forensic pathology provided the evidence that convicted the murderer"forensic medicine , as well as seniordetectives and a scene of crime unit. The recovery of the boy'sremains and surviving clothing marked an important stage in theapplication of archaeological techniques in forensic contexts inBritain. When William Jennings was convicted of murder, his trial set aprecedent for the use of archaeological evidence in a British court.Archaeological methodologies have been successfully applied in anumber of investigations, including the Moors Murders The Moors murders were committed around the Greater Manchester area in England between 1963 and 1965 by Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. The Moors murders are named as such because four of the victims were buried to the north of the A635, Greenfield Road, over Saddleworth Moor between enquiry of 1986.In other investigations, however, it has been conspicuously absent: inthe 1953 murders at Rillington Place; in the 1983 Nilsen murders atMuswell Hill Coordinates: Muswell Hill is a suburb of north London, mostly in the London Borough of Haringey It is situated 6.2 miles (10 km) north of Charing Cross. ; and in a well publicized enquiry centred on CromwellStreet, Gloucester in 1994 -- all reminiscent of earlier Americanexperiences in which surface skeletons were 'collected with agarden rake and buried bodies with a backhoe' (Morse et al. 1984:53).Forensic archaeology, a distinctive area of study which conjoinsarchaeology and criminal investigation and a relatively recentdevelopment in the UK (see Boddington et al. 1987), has been the subjectof some research (Martin 1991) and comment (Davis 1992). In the USforensic archaeology is both better grounded and further advanced with auseful volume of case studies for comparison; the annual number ofhomicides (20,000) is much greater than in the UK (around 450 accordingto according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. Home Office figures), and the demand for archaeological supportproportionally higher. Only approximately one murder in fifty involvesburial. Much early American expertise originated from within thediscipline of physical anthropology whose forensic application has beenwell documented in papers (e.g. Snow 1982; Iscan 1988). Most featurelandmark identification cases, notably Dwight's work in the Parkmanmurder of 1849 and Dorsey's identification of the remains of LouiseLuetgert in the vats of her husband's Chicago sausage factory in1897 (Stewart 1978). Britain's best recorded contribution occurredsome 40 years later when Buck Ruxton The case of Dr. Buck Ruxton is one of the UK's most infamous murder cases of the mid-1930s, and gripped the nation at the time. The case is famous not so much because of the nature of the crime, but because of the innovative new forensic techniques employed in solving it. , a Lancaster GP, dismembered hiswife and housekeeper before (unsuccessfully) removing their identifyingfeatures and dumping their remains over a bridge (Glaister & Brash1937). The Second World War, Korean and Vietnam Wars, whilst providingskeletal material on which methods of identification were later based,created a new need for victim identification, and the skills ofbiological anthropologists subsequently became engraved in textbooks(e.g. Krogman 1962; Stewart 1979). Snow notes the wider acceptance ofthe term 'forensic anthropology' in US literature of that time(1982: 107), subsequently reinforced by its application to the ChicagoDC-10 disaster of 1979 and in attempts to identify the remains of JosefMengele Josef Mengele (March 16 1911– February 7, 1979), was a German SS officer and a physician in the German Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. He gained notoriety chiefly for being one of the SS physicians who supervised the selection of arriving transports of prisoners, and Mozart.Much of the relevant US literature, from a physical anthropologicalbase, has come to notice the importance of field recovery and theapplication of archaeological techniques (e.g. Snow 1982: 117;Sigler-Eisenberg 1985). Snow's work in the Argentine with a team ofanthropologists, doctors and archaeologists -- the Equipo Argentine deAnthropologia Forense -- in a human rights recovery of individuals frommass burials clearly identifies archaeology's role. In the USA,where this type of co-operation has occurred, practical crime-scenearchaeology has shown positive advantages (e.g. Rathbun & Buikstra1984; Morse & Dailey 1985; Haglund et al. 1990), especially withrespect to evaluating the elapsed interval since death. The firsttextbook in this field, the Handbook o f forensic archaeology andanthropology (Morse et al. 1983), effectively covers the whole remit ofarchaeological field skills for crime scene personnel, particularly inlocating and recovering buried human remains. It is the onlycomprehensive field guide; Killam (1990) and France et al. (1992)discuss specialist topics.Although there are clear benefits in providing archaeologicalawareness for law enforcement groups, there is an equal demand for lawenforcement studies for archaeologists, recognized first in the coursesrun at Florida State University Florida State University,at Tallahassee; coeducational; chartered 1851, opened 1857. Present name was adopted in 1947. Special research facilities include those in nuclear science and oceanography. (Morse et al. 1976). The limitedBradford experience has also shown that archaeologists have an equalobligation to understand, and work within, a much wider system ofoperations and methodologies in which 'standard'archaeological procedures may be at variance with the recovery ofdifferent types of forensic evidence. In the UK, although there is now agrowing police awareness of the usefulness of archaeology in forensiccontexts, archaeologists are still mostly unfamiliar both with theprocedures of crime scenes and of the type of evidence that may survive.Learning forensic archaelogy is a two-way process.Scenes of crimeIn the UK, scenes of serious crime, controlled by a SeniorInvestigating Officer (SIO SIO Scripps Institution of OceanographySIO Studentsamskipnaden i OsloSIO Serial Input/OutputSIO Social Investment Organization (Canada)SIO Senior Intelligence OfficerSIO Service Information Octet (SS7)), require strict protocol and rules ofoperation in order that evidence can be presented in a manner whichsatisfies the judicial process. The scene of a homicide case involves afocal team of investigating officers, scene of crime officers (SOCOs), atask force, a forensic scientist and a forensic pathologist. Most policeforces also employ a Scientific Support Manager, usually in a civiliancapacity, to advise the SIO on specialist services or equipment.Accordingly, in the event of buried remains an archaeologist may beintroduced to the 'front line' team. Scenes of crime are notlike archaeological sites, although both share the common themes of dueconsideration before intervention and of detailed recording. Access isdefined, movement controlled and material (exhibits) recorded in arigorous 'chain of custody' with many similarities to that offinds recording on archaeological sites. Routine scene work (sampling,photography, recording, planning etc.) is undertaken by SOCOs (nownormally civilian) whose duties are sufficiently close to those of thearchaeologist for elements of common training to be considered.Ostensibly os��ten��si��ble?adj.Represented or appearing as such; ostensive: His ostensible purpose was charity, but his real goal was popularity. , the archaeological excavation of a grave presents asimple operation in that the grave fill represents a single layer inwhich the body can be envisaged as an artefact See artifact. . In practice, forensicexcavation presents a more complex picture in which discrete layers(including those of decomposition) may indicate method and duration ofdeposition. A legal precedent using stratigraphy stratigraphy,branch of geology specifically concerned with the arrangement of layered rocks (see stratification). Stratigraphy is based on the law of superposition, which states that in a normal sequence of rock layers the youngest is on top and the oldest on the was set in a WestYorkshire Crown Court in 1991 (Regina v Mohammed Saleen and Abdul Hak).Associated but unfamiliar archaeological materials (e.g. wrappers withbatch numbers) or traces (e.g. blood or foot impressions) may survivewithin the grave, as may diagnostic implement markings in a grave wall(Morse et al. 1976: 746).A modern burial also brings with it a contemporary ground surface andassociated standing features belonging to the context of the burial;these require a dimension of study in which most archaeologists arewholly inexperienced. Some archaeological aids, notably the use of anElectronic Distance Measurer (EDM (Engineering Data Management) An information system that maintains the details of all engineering data while the product is in the design and concept phase. This includes geometry and changes to geometry. See PLM. EDM - Electronic Data Management ) for multiple point recording, arestill rare on crime scenes of this type. Such shortcomings are welldocumented in the USA literature, but the techniques are now covered inmanuals (e.g. Skinner & Lazenby 1983; Stoutamire 1983), and inpapers carrying valuable case study experience (e.g. Morse et al. 1976;1984; Brooks & Brooks 1984). The general principles of recording arealso expounded in works more strictly concerned with forensicanthropology (e.g. Bass & Birkby 1978; Krogman & Iscan 1986;Wolf 1986).Activities at scenes of crime are undertaken in awareness of theprevailing judicial system and of the associated constraints imposed onthe collection and use of evidence; there are numerous introductions tothe English legal system (e.g. Barnard 1979; McConville & Baldwin1981; Hampton 1982), including a guide intended for forensic scientists(Priston 1985a; 1985b; 1985c). Any archaeological records made duringthe recovery process, however crude, preliminary or subjective(photographs, notes, plans, sketches, sections etc.) automaticallybecome part of the body of evidence for that particular investigation.Even if the records are not used as part of the formal prosecution case,they come within the category of 'unused material' and aremade available to the Defence.Homicide cases are normally heard in a Crown Court where thearchaeologist may be expected to give evidence in the capacity of anexpert witness. This is an unfamiliar role in an unfamiliar place. Inthe USA much has been written of the pit-falls and problems encounteredin giving archaeological evidence (e.g. Snow 1982; Iscan 1988), while inthe UK similar hazards have been identified in giving scientificevidence generally (e.g. Cato 1974; Mildred 1982; Knight 1987). Evidenceis presented to a lay audience (the jury) and can be subject tostringent cross-examination by defence counsel. The Defence is entitledto commission another archaeologist to act on its behalf and to whom allthe necessary records are made available for scrutiny and comment.RecoveryClandestine graves are unlikely to be evenly dug, particularly ifexecuted in a hurry, and the edges are unlikely to have a regularprofile. Various techniques have been devised for their excavation (e.g.Stoutamire 1983: 39) which differ slightly from 'traditional'methods by an increased reliance on spits, sections across the grave,and on the use of residual fill as well as the need to remove part ofthe grave wall for better access. There are many manuals on skeletalrecovery (e.g. Skinner & Lazenby 1983; Ubelaker 1989; Bass 1987;McKinley & Roberts 1993) although a forensic context provides somescope for innovation (e.g. Stoutamire 1983: 44; Krogman & Iscan1986: 21). It may also be necessary to return to the grave after thepost-mortem examination of the victim. Although stratigraphically thegrave floor marks the point at which the evidence stops, it may havebeen penetrated in a visually unrecognizable manner, by bullets firedthrough the victim or by the permeation of toxic substances.The anxieties shown by many forensic anthropologists in the USA,where police are directly responsible for the recovery of remains, areless acute in the UK where the work is carried out by pathologists wellversed in criteria for establishing gender, age, identification andpost-mortem interval. Although each homicide act is different andpresents different circumstances, a general set of predeterminedobjectives needs to be met: whether the remains are animal or human; thenumber of individuals represented; the identification of theindividual(s); the time-interval since burial; and the cause and mannerof death. These objectives, at the core of physical anthropology, areoften encountered by anthropologists dealing on a day-to-day basis withdry bone; there is also a high degree of archaeological relevance,particularly in evaluating the elapsed time since death. Other relevantburied factors and evidence types may lie in association with the victimand are subjects of study in their own right: the field of entomology entomology,study of insects, an arthropod class that comprises about 900,000 known species, representing about three fourths of all the classified animal species. (Erzinclioglu 1983) in which some researchers have undertaken controlledexperiments using human cadavers (Rodriguez & Bass 1983; Mann et al.1990); branch growth and the development of root rings (Vanezis et al.1978; Willey & Heilman 1988); and the importance of burial factorsin rates of decay (Knight 1968; Knight & Lauder 1969; Angel 1985;Henderson 1987). A relatively substantial literature on decay phenomenanow includes associated death scene materials (Morse 1983), climaticfactors (Galloway et al. 1989), and the effects of scavenging andscatter (e.g. Haglund et al. 1989). All individuals concerned with therecovery of the victim, including the archaeologist, need to ensure thattheir evidential ev��i��den��tial?adj. LawOf, providing, or constituting evidence: evidential material.ev needs and sampling requirements are satisfied withoutjeopardising the needs of others.In USA medico-legal cases the distinction between animal and humanremains has been a considerable source of confusion, notably withrespect to bears (e.g. Owsley & Mann 1990: 623); the problem isroutinely faced on many archaeological cemetery sites. Research hasshown radiography radiography:see X ray. to provide some discrimination (Chilvarquer et al.1991); antigens from powdered teeth have demonstrated potential forproviding species identification in both archaeological and forensiccontexts, as well as at natural disasters or accidents (Whittaker &Rawle 1987). Physical anthropologists are often faced with collectionsof skeletal remains which are commingled and fragmentary, for example onthe Mary Rose (Stirland 1984) and in numerous plague pits and charnel char��nel?n.A repository for the bones or bodies of the dead; a charnel house.adj.Resembling, suggesting, or suitable for receiving the dead. houses (e.g. Roberts 1984). In urban cemeteries more recent graves mayintercut older graves, often with the consequences that burials becomemixed and scattered; in these instances there is little technicaldifference between archaeological routines and the procedures necessaryon some scenes of crime or at disasters where individuals are scattered.In the USA, the recovery, analysis (age, sex, stature, race, etc.)and identification of skeletal remains relies heavily on the work ofcertified physical anthropologists who are utilized by most lawenforcement, coroner and medical examiner A public official charged with investigating all sudden, suspicious, unexplained, or unnatural deaths within the area of his or her appointed jurisdiction. A medical examiner differs from a Coroner in that a medical examiner is a physician. systems (Reichs 1992), but whoplay no part per se in the UK forensic process. Their reports, togetherwith the limitations of the methods used, constitute legal documents forpresentation in court (Galloway et al. 1990). Many UK archaeologistswith osteological training are familiar with the osteometric criterianecessary for determining sex (e.g. WEA WEA WeatherWEA World Evangelical AllianceWEA Washington Education AssociationWEA Wilderness Education AssociationWEA Workers' Education AssociationWEA WebSphere Everyplace Access (IBM)WEA Wisconsin Education Association 1980) and age at death (e.g.Iscan 1989). Both determinations involve a vast anthropological andforensic literature for both ancient and modern populations, with anequally wide research base for the determination of stature and race.In forensic contexts, a fuller identification is needed; thisrepresents a fundamental difference between the two areas ofapplication. In archaeological contexts the anthropologist is onlyrarely able to suggest an identity for specific individuals (e.g.Stirland 1990; Roberts et al. 1992), although research on more modernpopulations, for example at Christ Church, Spitalfields Christ Church, Spitalfields is an Anglican church built between 1714 and 1729 to a design by Nicholas Hawksmoor. Situated on Commercial Street, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, on the eastern border and facing the City of London, it was one of the first (and arguably one of (Molleson &Cox 1993) has shown the forensic potential of excavating historicallydocumented archaeological human remains. Notable advances in theidentification characteristics of archaeological populations include:dentition dentition,kind, number, and arrangement of the teeth of humans and other animals. During the course of evolution, teeth were derived from bony body scales similar to the placoid scales on the skin of modern sharks. (Bennike 1985; Zias 1987); the interpretation of factorsindicating occupation, disease, activity or stress (e.g. Merbs 1983);and biological methods including both blood analysis (Gruspier 1985) andDNA DNA:see nucleic acid. DNAor deoxyribonucleic acidOne of two types of nucleic acid (the other is RNA); a complex organic compound found in all living cells and many viruses. It is the chemical substance of genes. (Richards et al. 1993). Additionally, the developing field of facialreconstruction is equally strong on both forensic and archaeologicalfronts (e.g. Iscan & Helmer 1993; Neave 1986).Determination of the time elapsed since death is normally derivedfrom the remains of the victim by a pathologist, often supported byentomological en��to��mol��o��gy?n.The scientific study of insects.ento��mo��log evidence (e.g. Erzinclioglu 1983). Contextual orstratigraphic stra��tig��ra��phy?n.The study of rock strata, especially the distribution, deposition, and age of sedimentary rocks.strat factors are not always used, nor is the weight ofarchaeological literature covering environmental factors and decay rates(below). However, only in certain instances would conventionalarchaeological dating techniques become applicable, for example inconfirming that a skeleton is more than 70-100 years old (since time ofdeath), and thus arguably not related to a recent crime. Radiocarbondating of the prehistoric 'Ice Man' recently found on theItalian-Austrian border and originally thought to be a soldier from thelast war is a good, if extreme, case (Spindler 1994: 77).In the majority of cases, approaches rely on time-dependent change inbone tissue. These phenomena, summarized by Knight and co-workers inearly forensic papers (e.g. Knight 1968; 1969), have also foundarchaeological relevance, in nitrogen dating (Ortner et al. 1972), inamino acid amino acid(əmē`nō), any one of a class of simple organic compounds containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and in certain cases sulfur. These compounds are the building blocks of proteins. loss (Schoeninger et al. 1988), in bone fluorescence(Piepenbrink 1986) and in methods which detect low levels ofhaemoglobin haemoglobinor US hemoglobinNouna protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues [Greek haima blood + Latin globus ball]Noun 1. , now evidenced in archaeological samples (Cattaneo et al.1992). More recently, a new level of sophistication so��phis��ti��cate?v. so��phis��ti��cat��ed, so��phis��ti��cat��ing, so��phis��ti��catesv.tr.1. To cause to become less natural, especially to make less naive and more worldly.2. has been achieved byrelating body decomposition products to the chemistry of the surroundingsoil solution (Vass et al. 1992) -- a method which may bear somearchaeological potential given the detection of enhanced levels ofcholesterol beneath an Angle-Saxon burial (Davies & Pollard 1988).These biochemical methods, however, are extremely sensitive toenvironmental conditions. Radiometric dating may also be of forensicvalue in recent periods on the basis of changes in atmospheric carbonsince 1950 AD (Taylor et al. 1989) and in radiostrontium from nucleartesting (MacLaughlin-Black et al. 1992).Decay phenomenaThe quality of evidence relating to a buried cadaver cadaver/ca��dav��er/ (kah-dav��er) a dead body; generally applied to a human body preserved for anatomical study.cadav��ericcadav��erous ca��dav��ern. (archaeologicalor forensic) depends on the degree of degradation in the period betweendeposition and investigation. Archaeological interest has beenstimulated principally by phenomena causing differential preservationresulting in either extensive soft-tissue preservation or extensivedegradation of skeletal elements (Janaway 1987), for example atBarton-on-Humber (Rodwell & Rodwell 1982), St Bees, Cumbria (Tapp& O'Sullivan 1982), Christchurch, Dorset (Jarvis 1983), and inGreenland (Hansen et al. 1991), or extreme states of survival in thecase of an American Civil War veteran (Bass 1984), at Sutton Hoo(Bethell 1991), at Christ Church, Spitalfields (Reeve & Adams 1993),but notably with individuals recovered from peat bogs (below). Deathchemistry is complex and well discussed in forensic literature (e.g.Mant 1984; Gee & Knight 1985; Knight 1991). After initialdecomposition, generalized soil chemistry may have a greater directeffect on the corrosion of associated metals or in bone diagenesis diagenesisSum of all processes, chiefly chemical, that produce changes in a sediment after its deposition but before its final lithification. Usually, not all the minerals in a sediment are in chemical equilibrium, so changes in interstitial water composition or in thaneither soil biology or the gaseous composition of the burial atmosphere-- factors which have been studied both archaeologically (Henderson1987; Garland & Janaway 1989; Johansson 1987) and forensically(Janssen 1984; Mant 1953; 1987).The local factors known to affect the rate and nature of theinteraction between the body and associated buried materials (Janaway1987) include the specific nature of the soil, its oxygenation oxygenation/ox��y��gen��a��tion/ (ok?si-je-na��shun)1. the act or process of adding oxygen.2. the result of having oxygen added. , watercontent, redox redox(rē`dŏks): see oxidation and reduction. potential, ion-exchange capacity and pH variation as wellas the character of the body itself -- the age at death, itsbiochemistry, fat content and the effects of any trauma. Other variablesinclude the cause of death, the seasonal temperature, whether the bodyis clothed, unclothed, or wrapped in a polythene pol��y��thene?n. Chiefly BritishVariant of polyethylene.[poly- + (e)th(yl)ene. sheet; and the depth ofthe burial. Processes such as the conversion of fat to adipocere adipocere/ad��i��po��cere/ (ad��i-po-ser?) a waxy substance formed during decomposition of dead animal bodies, consisting mainly of insoluble salts of fatty acids.adipocer��atous ad��i��po��ceren. havebeen covered in the forensic, geochemical, microbiological andarchaeological literature (den Dooren de Jong 1961; Bergmann 1963;Takatori & Yamaoka 1977a; 1977b; Cotton et al. 1987; Evershed 1992).These variables can also present major difficulties in recoverypotential (Waldron 1987), and have considerable forensic implications inestablishing time since death.The shorter the time between interment and recovery, the more likelysoft tissue is to be preserved, although there are well-known examplesof soft tissue preservation over archaeological time-scales. The peatbogs of northern Europe have produced over 1300 complete or partiallycomplete archaeological bog bodies (Glob glob - /glob/, *not* /glohb/ To expand wild card characters in a path name.In Unix the file name wild cards are:* = zero or more characters (E.g. UN*X)? = any single character[] any of the enclosed characters 1969; Brothwell 1986; Stead etal. 1986) the preservation of which can now be attributed to a range offactors (Painter 1991a; Painter 1991b) -- factors which also combined topreserve the soft tissue of Pauline Reade, the latest Moors Murdervictim to be recovered after a burial period of some 20 years onSaddle-worth Moor (Topping 1989: 173). Natural mummification by rapiddrying of the tissues is also well attested in forensic (Poison et al.1985: 26-9) and archaeological examples (El-Naajjar & Mulinski1980).The deterioration of associated buried materials, an integralcomponent of archaeological study (e.g. Cronyn 1990), is littlerecognized in forensic investigation. In general, inorganic materialssurvive better than organic materials over archaeological time-scales,although organic materials such as wood, leather and textiles willrequire a specific set of burial conditions to be preserved (e.g.MacGregor 1982; Coles 1984; Morrison 1985; Hall 1984). However, as faras more modern materials are concerned, there is little archaeologicalexperience in dealing with, for example, decayed synthetic polymers(Morse 1983). The relative degradation of different 'plastic'materials in soil is a complex issue, depending to a large extent on thecomposition of polymers, chain length, number of cross links, andproportion of plasticizers; the 'garbage project' study ofmodern city dumps as archaeological deposits now assists knowledge ofthis (Rathje et al. 1992).USA studies have identified a useful correlation between time sincedeath and extent of disarticulation disarticulation/dis��ar��tic��u��la��tion/ (dis?ahr-tik?u-la��shun) exarticulation; amputation or separation at a joint. dis��ar��tic��u��la��tionn. in scattered surface remains (e.g.Haglund et al. 1989: table 1; Morse 1983: table 6.1), although degree ofscatter is more a working guide than an absolute measure of elapsedtime. Other controlling factors include clothing (or wrapping), climate(see Galloway et al. 1989), season, population density and environment,not to mention species and size of predators. Study has been made ofscavenged animal material in Africa (e.g. Blumenschine 1986), where thepredators are larger than those in northern Europe (e.g. lions) and theprediction of specific bone groups being scavenged in single units lessapplicable. Archaeological research has also distinguished animalgnawing from human workmanship, and useful sets of control data havebeen derived (e.g. Morse 1983: 148-53; Krogman & Iscan 1986: table2.3). Although these contain some species not present in the UK --notably alligators, bears and vultures -- many species are relevant,most commonly dogs (coyotes), rodents and crows, and the general scattertrends are presumably pre��sum��a��ble?adj.That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster. also similar.LocationThe locating of buried human remains occupies an important part ofthe forensic anthropology literature in the USA (e.g. Krogman &Iscan 1986); other works have a more archaeological bias (e.g. Morse etal. 1983) the most recent (Killam 1990) providing a detailed discussionof individual methods. A succinct guide to the location of buriedremains (France et al. 1992) has since been based on the controlledburial and systematic detection of pig carcasses in Colorado. As thetotal US literature is based on a larger case load, the developedmethodology resulting for example in Killam's 'dump-site'analysis (1990: 15f), warrants attention. The discovery of both buriedand surface remains is aided by remote prospection, but the basictechniques are otherwise those of field-craft which lie at the core ofthe archaeologist's experience and training: the understanding ofgeology, landscape and environment; and the identification of buriedsites from topographical, vegetational and shadow anomalies for whichinnovative search pattern systems have been devised for forensic work(e.g. Killam 1990: figure 3.4). However, most UK police forces useclose-contact line searches which have the potential for destroyingtopographical or vegetational evidence in the very process of searching.In the UK the primary archaeological input in locating buried remainsis likely to be landscape appraisal so as to limit target areas for moredetailed search. Requiring appropriate maps and photographs, it mayinvolve some trial excavation in order to ascertain soil character,chemistry and depth and lead to more detailed investigation of thetarget areas, for example by specific geophysical survey techniques,augering, aerial photography or excavation.Unless the area is conveniently small the first aim is locating thebody, and this departs from accepted archaeological thinking. Recoveryand the maximization of the available evidence becomes secondary; inlarge searches cost is critical. This also reflects the USA experiencein which searching is seen to progress 'from completelynon-destructive to increasingly invasive procedures such that evidencecollection is optimized while evidence disturbance is minimised'(France et al. 1992: 1454); the same philosophy underlay the latter partof the Moors Murders inquiry.Aerial photography has an important part to play in locating buriedremains (Killam 1990: chapter 8). However, its underlying principlesrely on factors of seasonality and lighting -- yet in instances of veryrecent crime a suspect can only be held for a limited period.Nevertheless, in the experience of the author the majority of requestsfor advice normally occur months or even years after the crime at a timewhen the suspect has passed through the committal com��mit��tal?n.1. The act of entrusting: committal of the property to an attorney.2. The act or an instance of committing to confinement.3. stage or is serving asentence without the victim's body having yet come to light.Extensive searching using a task force or equivalent has already takenplace, and the time factor is less critical. In cases which are manyyears old comparison between runs of photographs taken at differenttimes can show the extent to which landscapes have changed in order thatsearch areas can be defined accordingly. In the re-opening of the MoorsMurders inquiry in 1986, aerial photographs were taken to assess changesin moorland moor��land?n.Land consisting of moors.moorlandNounBrit an area of moorNoun 1. topography since the original investigation and photographyof 1963 (Topping 1989: 70).Recent developments in archaeology have shown the usefulness ofmultispectral image survey in standing buildings analysis and in soilsdifferentiation (Brooke 1986; Brooke 1989: 6f), although this has notbeen widely utilized in aerial work. Thermal analysis of soil to locatearchaeological features, which has a longer history, can identifydifferential in heat loss at the ground surface between disturbed andundisturbed soils (Scollar et al. 1990: 591f) as well as identifyingarchaeological features (Perisset & Tabbagh 1981); it has also beenused to detect heat emitted from the biological decay of buried victimsor animals (e.g. Dickinson 1977). Controlled experimentation with buriedhuman remains has shown that heat generated by decomposition can liewell within the detectable limits of infra-red thermal scanning(Rodriguez & Bass 1985).Geophysical survey is a more familiar method with attested forensicapplication. Archaeological prospection methods, now particularly usedin evaluation (Gaffney et al. 1991; Gaffney & Gater 1993), have along history of applied technical development (e.g. Scollar et al.1990). Their forensic application in the USA has also been discussed andranked (Killam 1990: chapter 5). As it is both highly cost-effective andunobtrusive, the method has a valuable role to play in the close studyof target areas. The two most common methods, soil resistance andmagnetometry (fluxgate A detector which gives an electrical signal proportional to the intensity of the external magnetic field acting along its axis. Also called fluxvalve. gradiometry), rely on the difference (ie theanomaly) between the grave-fill and the surrounding undisturbed soilrather than detecting the body itself. Both methods are also useful inproviding negative evidence in an enquiry. In two recent cases in theEast Midlands geophysics and trial trenching were used, in one case todisprove disprove,v to refute or to prove false by affirmative evidence to the contrary. a witness account that a body had been buried in a particularplace, and in the other to eliminate the grounds of a house from beingthe burial-place of the two missing householders.Some other survey methods are not sufficiently sophisticated orappropriate for forensic purposes: seismic refraction is better suitedto geological and large archaeological features (Goulty et al. 1990);induced polarization proved largely unsuccessful in defining test gravesduring Home Office experiments (Lynam 1970: 199ff); and the detection ofsoil gas (methane), although useful, is limited to the period ofdecomposition and warmer temperatures. Thermal probing, as yet unrefinedfor forensic purposes, shows some potential in development (Bellerby etal. 1990); trials at Verulamium indicated that the probe could detectthermophysical anomalies such as walls at depths of up to 1.3 m,although the detection of individual graves is currently beyondtechnical capability.Significant developments in geophysical prospection for botharchaeological and forensic purposes occurred in ground penetratingradar (GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) A UWB-based technology that locates objects buried underground. It is used to locate buried lines, storage tanks, pipes and conduits as well as to determine the structural integrity of the ground underneath a road or runway. ) during the 1970s (e.g. Bevan & Kenyon 1979). Althoughnot originally devised for archaeological prospection GPR has beenapplied to subterranean chambers at the ancient city of Sepphoris,Israel (Batey 1987), burial vaults in Japan (Imai et al. 1987), complexurban sites in York (Stove & Addyman 1989) and graves at a16th-century Basque whaling station in Labrador (Vaughan 1986).Elsewhere, recent archaeological work at Gloucester was able to identifyintact skulls as target points but only with hindsight and re-processingand it was admitted that it was not possible to locate skeletons as suchbelow 1.3 m. The practicalities and problems of GPR (including costimplications) for archaeological purposes have been reviewed (Atkin& Milligan 1992), but no public assessment of the technique forlocating buried human remains by UK police forces has been made. Itsapparent and well-publicized success leading to the recovery of nineburied victims in Cromwell Street, Gloucester may change this situation.GPR was used to locate a hoard of bank notes (around [pounds]150,000) buried in a Lincolnshire field. The recovery of the money, aransom for the safe return of estate agent Stephanie Slater in 1992, wasa classic example of landscape search and the pinpointing of a targetarea. West Yorkshire police West Yorkshire Police is the Home Office police force responsible for policing West Yorkshire in England. It is the fourth largest force in England and Wales by number of officers, with 5671 officers. used evidence of the suspect's knownmovements and witness accounts as well as a psychologist's reportand both military and archaeological advice regarding feasibility ofburial site. The search area was narrowed down to a thin strip of landwhich appeared to satisfy all the information and advice given, thehoard being found by systematic GPR transects.Forensic science and archaeological scienceIn the laboratory, archaeological science may have an unrecognizedrole to play in the forensic arena -- an arena broadly defined as'the application of science to the analysis and interpretation ofphysical evidence in criminal and civil litigation' (Sensabaugh1986: 129). Since 1991 Forensic Science Laboratories in the UK have heldexecutive agency status and operate from a number of regional centres.Each provides a full range of analytical services for toxins, biologicaland pathological materials, explosives, paint, glass, metals, soils andgeological samples. The range of problems and techniques are reflectedin the dedicated literature: Journal of Forensic Science (USA); ForensicScience International (USA); and Journal of the Forensic Science Society(UK).A similarly increasing range of scientific techniques in archaeologyhas been well documented (e.g. Tite 1991), although other publicationshave also examined the theoretical position of the discipline, and therole of scientific method in interpreting past human action (e.g.Trigger 1989; Hodder 1992; Yoffee & Sherratt 1993a). Inevitably, themore specific contribution of scientific techniques to archaeology hasbeen increasingly scrutinized (e.g. Thomas 1991); even the elevation ofscientific analysis in archaeology has been compared to 'thereading of a murder mystery in which the pathologists have ousted thedetective'. (Bradley 1987: 118). One criticism made ofarchaeological science is that many studies 'seem to be conductedin the absence of any archaeological problem requiringinvestigation' (Yoffee & Sherratt 1993b: 4-5), a comment alsoechoed in a forensic context (Kind 1987: 3).Both archaeological science and forensic science mark the point ofconvergence of a wide range of disciplines; in forensic science thisincludes chemistry, biology, physics, psychology, anthropology and anumber of medical fields (Saferstein 1982; Davies 1986). Over half thecases each year undertaken in Forensic Science Laboratories in the UKinvolve matching different items or substances to a common source(Williams 1991: 9f quoting a Home Office Study) following Locard'sexchange principle of the transfer of materials (1928). The strikingsimilarity between archaeological science and forensic science,particularly in provenance studies, in compositional analysis and indating (above), can be extended to include a growing interest inarchaeological human materials (Hedges & Sykes 1992; Thomas 1993).There is now an unequivocal argument for greater mutual awareness in therespective literatures to match the need for greater mutual awareness inthe field.The broad application of forensic archaeology has enabled this authorto provide operational support at scenes of crime throughout the UK, andto make regular presentations within national detective trainingcourses. The University of Bradford The University of Bradford is a university in Bradford, West Yorkshire in the United Kingdom. HistoryThe university has its origins in the Bradford Schools of Weaving, Design and Building which in 1882 became the Bradford Technical College. now also offers an undergraduatemodule in forensic archaeology; and this paper pre-empts the publicationof the first textbook on the subject, to be available in 1995 (Hunter etal. in press).ReferencesAITKEN, M.J. 1990. Science-based dating in archaeology. London:Longmans.ANGEL, J.I. 1985. The forensic anthropologist's examination,Pathologist 39(5).ATKIN, M. & R. MILLIGAN. 1992. Ground-probing radar inarchaeology -- practicalities and problems, Field Archaeologist 16:288-91.BARNARD, D. 1979. The criminal court in action. 2nd edition. London:Butterworths.BASS, W.M. 1984. Time interval since death, in Rathbun & Buikstra(1984): 136-47.1987. Human osteology osteology/os��te��ol��o��gy/ (os?te-ol��ah-je) scientific study of the bones. os��te��ol��o��gyn.The branch of anatomy that deals with the structure and function of bones. : a laboratory and field manual of the humanskeleton. 3rd edition. Columbia (MI): Missouri Archaeological Society.BATEY, R.A. 1987. Subsurface interface radar at Sepphoris, Israel,1985, Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 1-8.BELLERBY, T.J., M. NOEL & K. BRANIGAN. 1990. A thermal method forarchaeological prospection: preliminary investigations, Archaeometry32(2): 191-203.BENNIKE, P. 1985. Palaeopathology of Danish skeletons: a comparativestudy of demography, disease and injury. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.BETHELL, P.H. 1991. Inorganic analysis of organic residues at SuttonHoe, in P. Budd et al. (ed.), Archaeological sciences 1989: proceedingsof a conference on the application of scientific techniques toarchaeology. Bradford, September 1989: 316-18. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Oxbow Monograph 9.BERGMANN, W. 1963. Geochemistry of lipids, in I.A. Berger (ed.),Organic geochemistry: 503-42. Oxford: Pergamon Press.BEVAN, B. & J. KENYON. 1979. Ground probing radar for historicalarchaeology, MASCA MASCA Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology (University of Pennsylvania Museum)MASCA Miniature Australian Shepherd Club of America (Winter Park, FL)MASCA Middle Atlantic States Correctional Association Newsletter: 11: 2-7.BLUMENSCHINE, R.J. 1986. Carcass consumption sequences and thearchaeological distinction of scavenging and hunting, Journal of HumanEvolution 15(8): 639-59.BODDINGTON, A., A.N. GARLAND & R.C. JANAWAY. (ed.). 1987. Death,decay and reconstruction: approaches to archaeology and forensicscience. Manchester: Manchester University Press.BRADLEY, R. 1987. Against objectivity, in C.F. Gaffney & V.L.Gaffney (ed.), Pragmatic archaeology: theory in crisis: 115-19. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports. British series 167.BROOKE, C.J. 1986. Ground-based remote sensing for the archaeologicalstudy of churches, in L.A.S. Butler & R.K. Morris (ed.), TheAngle-Saxon church: 210-17. London: Council for British Archaeology The Council for British Archaeology is a British organisation based in York that promotes archaeology within the United Kingdom. Since 1944 the Council has been involved in publicising and generating public support for British archaeology; formulating and disseminating .Research report 60.1989. Ground-based remote sensing. Birmingham: Institute of FieldArchaeologists The Institute of Field Archaeologists is a professional organisation for archaeologists in the United Kingdom. Its headquarters are at the School of Human and Environmental Science, in the University of Reading. . Technical paper 7.BROOKS, S.T. 1981. Teaching of forensic anthropology in the UnitedStates, Journal of Forensic Science 26(4): 627-31.BROOKS, S.T. & R.H. BROOKS. 1984. Problems of burial exhumation,historical and forensic aspects, in Rathbun & Buikstra (1984):64-86.BROTHWELL, D. 1986. The bog man and the archaeology of people.London: British Museum Publications.CATO, B.H. 1974. The presentation of scientific evidence in thecourts -- improving its effectiveness, Journal of the Forensic ScienceSociety 14: 93-7.CATTANEO, C., K. GELSTHORPE, P. PHILLIPS & R.J. SOKAL. 1992.Reliable identification of human albumin in ancient bone using ELISA ELISA(e-li��sah) Enzyme-Linked Immuno-Sorbent Assay; any enzyme immunoassay using an enzyme-labeled immunoreactant and an immunosorbent. ELISAn. andmonoclonal antibodies, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 87:365-72.CHILVARQUER, I., J.O. KATZ, D.M. GLASSMAN, T.J. PRIHODA & J.A.COTTONE. 1991. Comparative radiographic radiographic (rā´dēōgraf´ik),adj relating to the process of radiography, the finished product, or its use. study of human and animal longbone patterns, Journal of Forensic Science 32(6): 1645-54.COLES, J. 1984. The archaeology of wetlands. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press Edinburgh University Press is a university publisher that is part of the University of Edinburgh in Edinburgh, Scotland. External linksEdinburgh University Press .COTTON, G.E., A.C. AUFDERHEIDE & V.G. GOLDSCHMIDT. 1987.Preservation of human tissue immersed for five years in fresh water ofknown temperature, Journal of Forensic Science 32(4): 1125-30.CRONYN, J.M. 1990. The elements of archaeological conservation.London: Routledge.DAVIES, G. (ed). 1986. Forensic science. 2nd edition. Washington(DC): American Chemical Society.DAVIES, G.R. & A.M. POLLARD. 1988. Organic residues in anAngle-Saxon grave, in E.A. Slater & J.O. Tate (ed.), Science andarchaeology Glasgow 1987: 391-402. Oxford: British ArchaeologicalReports. British series 196(ii).DAVIS, J. 1992. Forensic archaeology, Archaeological Review fromCambridge 11(1): 151-6.DEN DOOREN DE JONG, L.E. 1961. On the formation of adipocere fromfats, contribution to the microbiology of systems containing two liquidfats, Antonie van Leeuvenhoek Journal of Microbiology and Serology SerologyThe division of biological science concerned with antigen-antibody reactions in serum. It properly encompasses any of these reactions, but is often used in a limited sense to denote laboratory diagnostic tests, especially for syphilis. 27:337-61.DICKINSON, D.J. 1977. The aerial use of an infra-red camera in apolice search for the body of a missing person in New Zealand New Zealand(zē`lənd), island country (2005 est. pop. 4,035,000), 104,454 sq mi (270,534 sq km), in the S Pacific Ocean, over 1,000 mi (1,600 km) SE of Australia. The capital is Wellington; the largest city and leading port is Auckland. , Journalof the Forensic Science Society 16: 205-11.DWIGHT, T. 1878. The identification of the human skeleton: amedico-legal study. Boston (MA): Massachusetts Medical Society.(Reprinted 1978.)EL-NAJJAR, M.Y. & T.M.J. MULINKSI. 1980. Mummies andmummification practices in the southwestern and southern United States,in A. Cockburn & E. Cockburn (ed.), Mummies, disease and ancientcultures: 10317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). .ERZINCLIOGLU, Y.Z. 1983. The application of entomology to forensicmedicine forensic medicine:see medical jurisprudence. forensic medicineScience of applying medical knowledge to legal questions, recognized as a specialty since the early 19th century. Its primary tool has always been the autopsy, to identify the dead (e.g. , Medical Science Law 23(1): 57-63.EVERSHED, R.P. 1992. Chemical investigation of a bog body adipocere,Archaeometry 34(2): 253-65.FRANCE, L., T.J. GRIFFIN, J.G. SWANBURG, J.W. LINDEMANN, G.C.DAVENPORT, V. TRAMMELL, C.T. ARMBRUST, B. KONDRATIEFF, A. NELSON, K.CASTELLANO & D. HOPKINS. 1992. A multidisciplinary approach to thedetection of clandestine graves, Journal of Forensic Science 37(6):1435-750.GAFFNEY, C.F. & J.G. GATER. 1993. Practice and method in theapplication of geophysical techniques in archaeology, in Hunter &Ralston (ed.): 205-14.GAFFNEY, C.F., J.G. GATER & S.M. OVENDEN. 1991. The use ofgeophysical techniques in archaeological evaluations. Birmingham:Institute of Field Archaeologists. Technical paper 9.GALLOWAY, A., W.H. BIRKBY, A.M. JONES, T.E. HENRY & B.O. PARKS.1989. Decay rates of human remains in an arid environment, Journal ofForensic Science 34(3): 607-16.GALLOWAY, A., W.H. BIRKBY, T. KAHANA & L. FULGINITI. 1990.Physical anthropology and the law: legal responsibilities of forensicanthropologists, Yearbook of Forensic Anthropology 33: 39-57.GARLAND, A.N. & R.C. JANAWAY. 1989. The taphonomy ta��phon��o��my?n.1. The study of the conditions and processes by which organisms become fossilized.2. The conditions and processes of fossilization. of inhumationburials, in C.A. Roberts, F. Lee & J. Bintliff (ed.), Burialarchaeology: current research, methods and developments: 15-37. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports. British series 211.GLAISTER, J. & J.C. BRASH. 1937. Medicolegal medicolegal/med��i��co��le��gal/ (med?i-ko-le��g'l) pertaining to medical jurisprudence. med��i��co��le��galadj.Of, relating to, or concerned with medicine and law. aspects of theRuxton case. Edinburgh: Livingstone.GLOB, P.V. 1969. The bog people. London: Faber & Faber.GOULTY, N.R., J.P.C. GIBSON, J.G. MOORE, & H. WELFARE. 1990.Delineation of the vallum at Vindobals, Hadrian's Wall, by ashear-wave seismic refraction survey, Archaeometry 32(1): 71-82.GRUSPIER, K. 1985. Paleoserology: history and new application to theCasa San Vincenzo skeletal material. Unpublished MA thesis, Universityof Sheffield The University of Sheffield is a research university, located in Sheffield in South Yorkshire, England. ReputationSheffield was the Sunday Times University of the Year in 2001 and has consistently appeared as their top 20 institutions. .HAGLUND, W.D., D.T. REAY, & D.R. SWINDLER SWINDLER, criminal law. A cheat; one guilty of defrauding divers persons. 1 Term Rep. 748; 2 H. Blackst. 531; Stark. on Sland. 135. 2. Swindling is usually applied to a transaction, where the guilty party procures the delivery to him, under a pretended . 1989. Canidscavenging/disarticulation sequence of of human remains in the PacificNorthwest, Journal of Forensic Science 34(3): 587-606.HAGLUND, W.D., D.G. REICHERT, & D.T. REAY. 1990. Recovery ofdecomposed and skeletal human remains in the Green River murderinvestigation: implications for medical examiner/coroner and police,American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 11(1): 35-43.HALL, R. 1984. The Viking dig: the excavations at York. London:Bodley Head.HAMPTON, C. 1982. Criminal procedure. London: Sweet & Maxwell.HANSEN, J.P., J. MELDGAARD & J. NORDQVIST (ed.). 1991. TheGreenland mummies. London: British Museum Publications.HEDGES, R.E.M. & B.C. SYKES. 1992. Biomolecular archaeology:past, present and future, in A.M. Pollard (ed.), New developments inarchaeological science, a joint symposium of the Royal Society and theBritish Academy, February 1991: 267-83. Oxford: British Academy.Proceedings of the British Academy 77.HENDERSON, J. 1987. Factors determining the state of preservation ofhuman remains, in Beddington et al. (1987): 43-54.HODDER, I. 1992. Theory and practice in archaeology. London:Routledge.HUNTER, J.R. & I.B.M. RALSTON (ed.). 1993. Archaeologicalresource management in the UK: an introduction. Stroud: Alan Sutton.HUNTER, J.R., A. MARTIN & C.A.R. ROBERTS (ed.). In press. Anintroduction to forensic archaeology. London: Seaby/Batsford.HUNTER, W. 1990. Digging for victory, Police Review 23: 2306-7.IMAI, T., T. SAKAYAMA & T. KANEMORI. 1987. Use of ground-probingradar and resistivity resistivityElectrical resistance of a conductor of unit cross-sectional area and unit length. The resistivity of a conductor depends on its composition and its temperature. surveys for archaeological investigations,Geophysics 52(2): 137-50.ISCAN, M.Y. 1988. Rise of forensic anthropology, Yearbook of PhysicalAnthropology 31: 203-30.1989. Research strategies in age estimation: the multiregionalapproach, in M.Y. Iscan (ed.), Age markers in the human skeleton:325-39. Springfield (IL): Charles Thomas.ISCAN, M.Y. & R.P. HELMER. 1993. Forensic analysis of the skull.New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY): Wiley-Liss.JANAWAY, R.C. 1987. The preservation of organic materials inassociation with metal artefacts deposited in inhumation graves, inBeddington et al. (1987): 127-48.JANSSEN, W. 1984. Forensic histopathology his��to��pa��thol��o��gyn.The science concerned with the cytologic and histologic structure of abnormal or diseased tissue.HistopathologyThe study of diseased tissues at a minute (microscopic) level. . Berlin: Springer Verlag.JARVIS, K.S. 1983. Excavations in Christchurch 1969-1980. Dorchester:Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society. Monograph 5.JOHANSSON, L.U. 1987. Bone and related materials, in H.W.M. Hedges(ed.), In situ In place. When something is "in situ," it is in its original location. archaeological conservation: 132-7. Century City (CA): J.Paul Getty Trust The J. Paul Getty Trust is the world's wealthiest art institution with an estimated endowment of $5.8 billion. Based in Los Angeles, it operates two museums: the J. Paul Getty Museum in Brentwood and the Getty Villa in Malibu, California. , Getty Conservation Institute and Institute Nacional deAntropologiae Historia de Mexico.KILLAM, E.W. 1990. The detection of human remains. Springfield (IL):Charles C. Thomas.KIND S.S. 1987. The scientific investigation of crime. Harrogate:Forensic Science Society.KNIGHT, B. 1968. Estimation of time since death: a survey ofpractical methods, Journal of the Forensic Science Society 8: 91-6.1969. Methods of dating skeletal remains, Medical Science Law 9:247-52.1987. Murder in the laboratory, New Scientist (25 December): 59-63.1991. Forensic pathology. London: Edward Arnold.KNIGHT, B. & I. LAUDER. 1969. Methods of dating skeletal remains,Human Biology 41(3): 322-41.KROGMAN, W.M. & M.Y. ISCAN. 1986. The human skeleton in forensicmedicine. Springfield (IL): Charles C. Thomas.LOCARD, E. 1928. Dust and its analysis: an aid to criminalinvestigation, Police Journal 1: 177-92.LYNAM, J.T. 1970. Techniques of geophysical prospection as applied tonear surface structure determinations. Unpublished Ph.D thesis,University of Bradford.MACGREGOR, A. 1982. Anglo-Scandinavian finds from Lloyds Bank,Pavement, and other sites. London: York Archaeological Trust The York Archaeological Trust for Excavation and Research Limited is a large private archaeological organisation operating in the United Kingdom, based in the city of York. and Councilfor British Archaeology.MACLAUGHLIN-BLACK, S.M., R.J.M. HERD, K. WILLSON, M. MYERS & I.E.WEST. 1992. Strontium-90 as an indicator of time since death: a pilotinvestigation, Forensic Science International 57: 51-6.MCCONVILLE, M. & J. BALDWIN. 1981. Courts, prosecution andconviction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.MCKINLEY, J.I. & C.A. ROBERTS. 1993. Excavation andpost-excavation treatment of cremated and inhumed human remains.Birmingham: Institute of Field Archaeologists. Technical paper 12.MANN, R.W., W.M. BASS & L. MEADOWS. 1990. Time since death anddecomposition of the human body: variables and observations in case andexperimental field studies, Journal of Forensic Science 35: 103-11.MANT, A.K. 1953. Recent work on post-mortem changes and timing death,in K. Simpson (ed.), Modern trends in forensic medicine: 147-62. London:Butterworth.(Ed.) 1984. Taylor's principles and practice of medicaljurisprudence medical jurisprudenceor forensic medicine,the application of medical science to legal problems. It is typically involved in cases concerning blood relationship, mental illness, injury, or death resulting from violence. . 13th edition. Edinburgh & New York (NY): ChurchillLivingstone.1987. Knowledge acquired from post-war exhumations, in Beddington etal. (1987): 65-78.MARTIN, A. 1991. The application of archaeological methods andtechniques to the location, recovery and analysis of buried humanremains from forensic contexts. Unpublished MA dissertation, Universityof Bradford.MERBS, C. 1983. Patterns of activity induced pathology in an Inuitpopulation. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.MILDRED, R.H. 1982. The expert witness. London: Godwin.MOLLESON, T. & M. Cox. 1993. The Spitalfields project 2: Theanthropology. The middling sort. York: Council for British Archaeology.Research report 86.MORRISON, I. 1985. Landscape with lake dwellings. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.MORSE, D. 1983. Studies on the deterioration of associated deathscene materials, in Morse et al. (1983): Appendix A.MORSE, D., D. CRUSOE & H.G. SMITH. 1976. Forensic archaeology,Journal of Forensic Science 21(2): 323-32.MORSE, D. & R.C. DAILEY. 1985. The degree of deterioration ofassociated death scene material, Journal of Forensic Science 30(1):119-27.MORSE, D., R.C. DAILEY, J. STOUTAMIRE & J. DUNCAN. 1984. Forensicarchaeology, in Rathbun & Buikstra (1984): 53-63.MORSE, D., J. DUNCAN & J. STOUTAMIRE (ed.). 1983. Handbook offorensic archaeology and anthropology. Tallahassee (FL): Rose Printing.MORSE, D., J. STOUTAMIRE & J. DUNCAN. 1976. A unique course inanthropology, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45(3): 743-8.NEAVE, R.A.H. 1986. The reconstruction of skulls for facialreconstruction using radiographic techniques, in A.R. David (ed.),Science in Egyptology: 329-333. Manchester: Manchester University Press.ORTNER, D., D.W. VON ENDT & M.S. ROBINSON. 1972. The effect oftemperature on protein decay in bone: its significance in nitrogendating of archaeological specimens, American Antiquity 37: 514-20.OWSLEY, D.W. & R.W. MANN. 1990. Medico-legal case involving abear paw, Journal of the American Podiatric Association 80(11): 623-5.PAINTER, T.J. 1991a. Preservation in peat, Chemistry and Industry (17June): 421-24.1991b. Lindow Man, Tollund Man and other peat-bog bodies: thepreservative preservativeAny of numerous chemical additives used to prevent or slow food spoilage caused by chemical changes (e.g., oxidation, mold growth) and maintain a fresh appearance and consistency. Antimycotics (e.g. and antimicrobial action of spagnan, a reactiveglycuronoglycan with tanning and sequestering properties, CarbohydratePolymers 15: 123-42.PERISSET, M.C. & A. TABBAGH. 1981. Interpretation of thermalprospection on bare soils, Archaeometry 23(2): 169-87.PIEPENBRINK, H. 1986. Two examples of biogenous dead bonedecomposition and their consequences for taphonomic interpretation,Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 417-30.POLSON, C.J., D.J. GEE & B. KNIGHT. 1985. The essentials offorensic medicine. 4th edition. London: Pergamon Press.PRISTON, A. 1985a. A forensic scientist's guide to the Englishlegal system. Part 1, Journal of the Forensic Science Society 25(4):269-80.1985b. A forensic scientist's guide to the English legal system.Part 2, Journal of the Forensic Science Society 25(5): 329-42.1985c. A forensic scientist's guide to the English legal system.Part 3, Journal of the Forensic Science Society 25(6): 415-24.RATHBUN, T.A. & J.E. BUIKSTRA (ed.). 1984. Human identification:case studies in forensic anthropology. Springfield (IL): Charles C.Thomas.RATHIE, W.L., W.W. HUGHES, D.C. WILSON, M.K. TANI, G.H. ARCHER, R.G.HUNT & T.W. JONES. 1992. The archaeology of contemporary landfills,American Antiquity 57(3): 437-47.REEVE, J. & M. ADAMS. 1993. The Spitalfields project 1: Thearchaeology. York: Council for British Archaeology. Research report 85.REICHS, K.J. 1992. Forensic anthropology in the 1990s, AmericanJournal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 13(2): 146-53.RICHARDS, M., K. SMALLEY, B. SYKES, & R. HEDGES. 1993.Archaeology and genetics: analysing DNA from skeletal remains, WorldArchaeology 25(1): 18-28.ROBERTS, C.A. 1984. Analysis of some human femora fem��o��ra?n.A plural of femur. from a medievalcharnel house at Rothwell Parish Church, Northamptonshire, Ossa 9-11:119-34.ROBERTS, C.A., K. MANCHESTER & A. STOREY. 1992. MargaretClitherow: skeletal identification of an historical figure, ForensicScience International 57: 63-71.RODRIGUEZ, W.C. & W.M. BASS. 1983. Insect activity and itsrelationship to decay rates of human cadavers in East Tennessee, Journalof Forensic Science 28(2): 423-32.1985. Decomposition of buried bodies and methods that may aid intheir location, Journal of Forensic Science 30(3): 836-52.RODWELL, W. & K. RODWELL. 1982. St. Peter's Church St. Peter's Church, or variations on that name, may refer to:In Austria: Peterskirche, Vienna In Belgium: St. Peter's Church, Leuven In Canada: St. Peter's Lutheran Church, Ottawa St. , Bartonon Humber: excavation and structural study, 1978-81, Antiquaries Journal62(2): 283-315.SAFERSTEIN, R. (ed.). 1982. Forensic science handbook. EaglewoodCliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall.SCHOENINGER, M.J., K.M. MOORE, M.L. MURRAY & J.D. KINGSTON. 1988.Detection of bone preservation in archaeological and fossil bone,Applied Geochemistry 4: 281-92.SCOLLAR, I., A. TABBAGH, A. HESSE & I. HERZOG. 1990.Archaeological geophysics and remote sensing. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.SENSABAUGH, G.F. 1986. Forensic science research: who does it andwhere is it going?, in G. Davies (ed.), Forensic science: 129-40. 2ndedition. Washington (DC): American Chemical Society.SIGLER-EISENBERG, B.B. 1985. Forensic research: expanding the conceptof applied archaeology, American Antiquity 50(3): 650-55.SKINNER, M. & R.A. LAZENBY. 1983. Found! Human remains. BurnabyBC: Simon Fraser University Simon Fraser University,main campus at Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada; provincially supported; coeducational; chartered 1963, opened 1965. The Harbour Centre campus in downtown Vancouver opened in 1989. Archaeology Press.SNOW, C.C. 1982. Forensic anthropology, Annual Review of Anthropology11: 97-131.SPINDLER, K. 1994. The man in the ice. London: Weidenfeld &Nicolson.STEAD, I.M., J.B. BOURKE & D. BROTHWELL. 1986. Lindow Man: thebody in the bog. London: British Museum Publications.STEWART, T.D. 1978. George A. Dorsey's role in the Luetgertcase: a significant episode in the history of forensic anthropology,Journal of Forensic Science 23(4): 786-91.1979. Essentials of forensic anthropology. Springfield (IL): CharlesC. Thomas.STIRLAND, A. 1984. A possible correlation between os acromiale andoccupation in the burials from the Mary Rose, Proceedings of thePalaeopathology Association: 327-34. 5th European Meeting, Siena.1990. The late Sir Thomas Reynes: a medieval identification, Journalof the Forensic Science Society Society 30: 39-43.STOUTAMIRE, J. 1983. Excavation and recovery, in Morse et al. (1983):20-47.STOVE, G.C. & P.V. ADDYMAN. 1989. Ground-probing impulse radar:an experiment in archaeological remote sensing at York, Antiquity 63:337-42.TAKATORI, T. & A. YAMAOKA. 1977A. The mechanism of adipocereformation I. Identification and chemical properties of hydroxy hy��drox��y?adj.Containing the hydroxyl group.[From hydroxyl.]hydroxy?Containing the hydroxyl group (OH).Adj. 1. fattyacids in adipocere, Forensic Science International 9: 63-73.1977b, The mechanism of adipocere formation II. Separation andidentification of oxo fatty acids in adipocere, Forensic ScienceInternational 10: 117-25.TAPP, E. & D. O'SULLIVAN. 1982. St Bees Man: the autopsy,Proceedings of the Paleopathology Association: 178-82. 4th EuropeanMeeting, Middelberg.TAYLOR, R.E., J.M. SUCHEY, L.A. PAYNEN & P.J. SLOTA JNR JnrJuniorNoun 1. Jnr - a son who has the same first name as his fatherJr, Juniorson, boy - a male human offspring; "their son became a famous judge"; "his boy is taller than he is"Jnr . 1989.The use of radiocarbon (14C) to identify human skeletal materials offorensic science interest, Journal of Forensic Science 34: 1196-205.THOMAS, J. 1991. Science versus anti-science? Archaeological Reviewfrom Cambridge 10(1): 27-36.THOMAS, K.D. 1993. Molecular biology molecular biology,scientific study of the molecular basis of life processes, including cellular respiration, excretion, and reproduction. The term molecular biology was coined in 1938 by Warren Weaver, then director of the natural sciences program at the Rockefeller and archaeology: a prospectusfor interdisciplinary research, World Archaeology 25 (1): 1-17.TITE,M.S. 1991. Archaeological science -- past achievements andfuture prospects, Archaeometry 33(2): 139-51.TOPPING, P. 1989. Topping: the autobiography of the police chief inthe Moors Murder case. London: Angus & Robertson.TRIGGER, B.G. 1989. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.UBELAKER, D. 1989. Human skeletal remains: excavation, analysis andinterpretation. Washington (DC): Taraxacum Press.VANEZIS, P., B. GRANT SIMS & J.H. GRANT. 1978. Medical andscientific investigations of an exhumation in unhallowed ground, MedicalScience Law 18(3): 209-21.VASS, A.A., W.M. BASS, J.D. WOLT, J.E. Foss & J.T. AMMONS. 1992.Time since death determinations of human cadavers using soil solution,Journal of Forensic Science 37: 1236-53.VAUGHAN, C. J. 1986. Ground-penetrating radar surveys used inarchaeological investigations, Geophysics 51(3): 595-604.WALDRON, T. 1987. The relative survival of the human skeleton:implications for palaeopathology, in Boddington et al. (1987): 55-64.WEA. 1980. Workshop for European Anthropologists: recommendations forage and sex diagnosis of skeletons, Journal of Human Evolution 9:517-49.WHITTAKER, D. & L. RAWLE. 1987. The effect of conditions ofputrefaction putrefaction:see decay of organic matter. on species determination in human and animal teeth,Forensic Science International 35: 209-12.WILLEY, P. & A. HEILMAN, 1988. Estimating time since death usingplant roots and stems, Journal of Forensic Science 32: 1264-71.WILLIAMS, J. 1991. The modern Sherlock Holmes: an introduction toforensic science today. London: Broadside Books.WOLF, D.J. 1986. Forensic anthropology scene investigations, in K.J.Reichs (ed.), Forensic osteology: 3-23. Springfield (IL): Charles C.Thomas.YOFFEE, N. & A. SHERRATT. 1993a. Archaeological theory: who setsthe agenda? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1993b. Introduction: the sources of archaeological theory, in Yoffee& Sherratt (1993a): 1-9.ZIAS, J. 1987. Operative dentistry operative dentistry,n the branch of dentistry that deals with the esthetic and functional restoration of the hard tissues of individual teeth. in the 2nd century BC, Journal ofthe American Dental Association The Journal of the American Dental Association, or JADA, is a monthly journal of reliable, peer-reviewed information on dentistry, and is published by the American Dental Association (ADA).The current editor is Dr. 114: 665-6.ZIMMERMAN, M.R. & J.L. ANGEL. (ed.). 1986. Dating and agedetermination of biological materials. London: Croom Helm.