fORum

FORENSIC RESEARCH: EXPANDING THE CONCEPT OF

APPLIED ARCHAEOLOGY

Brenda Sigler-Eisenberg

Anthropology, along with chemistry, geology, physics, medicine, and mathematics, consists of scientific modes
of inquiry and techniques that have application for the public good beyond the boundaries of the respective
disciplines. Within the past few decades the application of these sciences has emerged as a major force in scientific
police investigations. The methods and techniques of archaeology are increasingly being applied by physical
anthropologists and police investigators to the excavation of bodies buried during the course of criminal activity.
It is argued that the potential for substantive and methodological contributions to archaeology, as well as to the
criminal justice system, warrants increased participation and support of forensic research by forensically trained
professional archaeologists.

Forensic analysis has been conducted in this country since the end of the last century. As a result
of pioneering efforts in the last 45 years by T. D. Stewart (Smithsonian), W. Krogman (Pennsylvania)
C. E. Snow (Kentucky), T. McCown (Berkeley), and especially E. R. Kerley (Maryland), physical
anthropology is well established among the forensic sciences. Typically, the role of physical an-
thropology in forensic analysis centers on trauma or postmortem damages, as well as on age, sex,
race, stature, and positive identification of partially or fully skeletonized human remains. A few
physical anthropologists who are highly skilled in archaeological field techniques also conduct
excavations of human remains (Bass 1981; Ubelaker 1978). More commonly, however, human
remains are brought to the laboratories of forensic physical anthropologists after being excavated
under less than optimum conditions (Bass 1983; Maples 1982; Stewart 1979). This situation often
generates problems for forensic analysis (particularly in distinguishing between perimortem trauma
and postmortem damage), and provides little or no information for the interpretation of depositional
histories.
This is in marked contrast to the normal procedures employed during a crime scene search. When
a crime has occurred recently the search is planned and coordinated by federal, state, or local police
in a highly structured way in order to protect the physical and spatial integrity of the evidence.
Access to the scene is severely restricted while being photographed, sketched, and processed for
foot, finger, shoe or tire prints, blood, hair, bullets, etc., thereby preserving evidence for analysis
(Federal Bureau of Investigation 1975:9-12). Buried bodies, however, seldom receive such careful
treatment.
In Florida, as in other places, attempts have been made to instruct law enforcement personnel in
archaeological mapping and excavation techniques (Morse et al. 1976b; Sigler-Lavelle 1981). My
experience indicates that this approach is adequate for many surface-deposited bodies (where as-
sociations between skeletal and nonskeletal material are already questionable), but that such training
only generates the illusion of precision in the excavation of buried bodies—if one starts with the

Brenda Sigler-Eisenberg, Department of Anthropology, Florida State Museum, University of Florida, Gaines-
ville, FL 32611

American Antiquity, 50(3), 1985, pp. 650-655.

Copyright © 1985 by the Society for American Archaeology

650
 FORUM 651

premise that archaeology is more than just digging a neat square hole. The archaeologically trained
police specialist, and many physical anthropologists, simply do not have the skills or perspective
that comes with an archaeological education and extensive field experience. Hence, during the
recovery of a buried body the archaeologist is far more likely to note the significance and association
of a wider variety of nonskeletal data than the other investigators.
The basic requirements of forensic archaeological excavations are identical to those of any burial
excavation, namely, careful in situ exposure to promote preservation and contextual integrity of
nonskeletal evidence, minimal disturbance to human skeletal tissue, and interpretation based on
reconstruction. These requirements cannot be met unless the investigator has command of the total
constellation of archaeological procedures and the logic of their use, and has extensive experience in
excavations in variable soil matrices.
This is not to suggest that significant differences do not exist between certain aspects of forensic
and anthropological archaeology. Differences can be most apparent in the site search techniques,
the nature of the physical evidence, and the chain of custody. Archaeological training usually does
not prepare one to anticipate fingerprints, nonskeletal decomposing soft tissue, necrophagus insects,
blood samples, and modern weapons. These are but a few of the items that are atypical by normal
archaeological standards but that may be encountered in a forensic case. Field specimens such as
these are of the utmost importance to other members of the forensic team and must be properly
collected, handled, and packaged. Samples for specialized analysis should be packaged according to
specifications set forth by crime scene analysts at the time of recovery, otherwise Whirl-Packs, pill
jars, plastic vials, and even small lunch bags may be used. The chemical and physical tests that will
be conducted on the various types of evidence must not be hampered by recovery techniques. For
example, abrasion that can result from water-screening or dry-sifting through our standard wire-
mesh screens can destroy unique markings on bullets that would allow them to be traced to a specific
weapon. Pedestrian search techniques with probes that use methane gas as a primary source for
verification, and aerial search methods using thermal infra-red photography (still in the experimental
stage) have also been useful tools (State of Florida, Department of Criminal Law Enforcement 1976:
7-9). The archaeologist must also consider the seriousness of keeping detailed descriptions of evi-
dence and the need on the part of officials to trace the location and custody of such evidence (it is
recommended that the archaeologist not become involved with the chain of custody unless absolutely
necessary). As a result, forensic archaeologists must have a detailed knowledge of federal, state, and
local crime-scene analysis and laboratory procedures for both collection and preservation of field
specimens (Sigler-Lavelle 1982). Knowledge of courtroom procedures and the obligations of the
expert witness are also beneficial.
Although there is a dearth of forensic archaeological literature, archaeologists can begin to fa-
miliarize themselves with topics related to forensic investigations through the Journal of Forensic
Sciences and the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. In addition, numerous informative
articles and books treat the structure and process of crime scene and death investigations (Goddard
1977; Harris 1973), the development of forensic anthropology (Kerley 1978; Krogman 1943, 1978;
Maples 1983; Peterson 1975; Steward 1979), the role of the expert witness (Kogan 1978), and the
geologic aspects of forensic science (Murray and Tedrow 1975). Within the last year two books on
forensic anthropology that include some of the fundamentals of recovery and analysis of buried
bodies have become available (Morse et al. 1983; Skinner and Lazenby 1984).
Archaeologists and forensic specialists can fruitfully work together to resolve methodological
conflicts and substantive problems in the search for and recovery of homicide victims, and in
examination of the burial site. This reciprocal exchange provides an opportunity, through problem
focus, to move beyond the more or less conventional descriptive analysis of burial sites. Data
generated from case-by-case documentation of the variable rates and features of decomposition, as
related to postmortem burial treatment, exposure conditions, and soil characteristics, are particularly
promising. It is the identification of a broader range of methodological, substantive, and technical
research questions generated by an emphasis on data collection, however, that will expand forensic
archaeology's contribution to the wider field of archaeology, as well as to the criminal justice system.
Certainly anthropology has already benefited from feedback situations with forensic science analysis.
652 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 50, No. 3, 1985]

E-W Lint Level

limit of
excavation

sw z o "•
Figure 1. Final disposition of bodies in relationship to changing feature contours.

The corpus of data on skeletal identification of age, sex, race, and skeletal pathologies that has
resulted from forensic studies has had a positive impact on physical anthropology (Kerley 1978;
Maples 1978, 1983), as well as on archaeology. Physical data from experimental cremations (Baby
1954; Krogman 1943) and seasonal assessment of the time of burial from insect casings have also
had important application to archaeological investigations of aboriginal burials (Bass et al. 1971;
Gilbert and Bass 1967).
Although there is a clear need to expand the nature of the data collected during excavations of
buried bodies, conventional descriptive analysis of such sites is still an important aspect of forensic
archaeology. One dramatic illustration of the usefulness of archaeological involvement in the ex-
cavation of a buried crime scene was recently demonstrated by a case that involved the simultaneous
murder and burial of three individuals who were reportedly on the losing end of a dispute between
drug smugglers three years before. The investigation of this archaeological site-cum-crime scene was
an interdisciplinary effort that included the district medical examiner, the investigators and pros-
ecuting attorney from the Florida Office of State Attorney (OSA), the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement crime-scene investigation units, the localfiredepartment who provided water necessary
for screening, and William Maples and me, who represented forensic anthropology and archaeology,
respectively, at the Florida State Museum. The location (through informant directive) of the burial
site in March 1981, was the culmination of a two-year investigation by the Florida OSA.
On the basis of information obtained during the lengthy investigation we expected to find three
 FORUM 653

adult males who were reportedly beaten for two or three days prior to their final shooting and
interment within a common grave. Out of enlightened self-interest, the cadre of individuals who
witnessed the entire brutal sequence either suffered from total amnesia, or remembered remarkably
different experiences regarding each other's graveside behavior, not to mention memories of the
days immediately preceding. Because of the disparity between witness declarations, there were
specific issues to be addressed by the final interpretation of the archaeological field data. In addition
to descriptions of body position and clothing, these issues included detailed injuries prior to death,
the exact nature of the grave facility, whether the individuals could walk or stand, whether the
victims had been shot in the grave or elsewhere, the number of shooters and the direction of the
shots, and finally the sequence in which the men were shot and buried.
We used standard archaeological techniques for careful in situ exposure of the bodies and location
and mapping of all nonskeletal material to establish events that provided reference points and cross-
checks for the witnesses' testimony. All procedures and our daily progress were carefully recorded
by the archaeologist and police investigators, not only in map and note form, but by photography
and video-tape as well.
Upon conclusion of the field portion of the investigation we unquestionably had established five
points. First, no skeletal damage had occurred as a result of thefieldinvestigation and body removal.
Every archaeologist (some of whom are more deserving than others) has had to endure the same
tired jokes about post-depositional injury to skeletal material. The issue was particularly important
for trauma analysis in this case because of the freshness of the exhumed skeletal tissue. Any damage
caused as a result of excavation or removal would have seriously affected the ability of the other
forensic specialists to substantiate or refute the nature and source (other than gunshot) of trauma
inflicted on these individuals. Second, in addition to standard observations on grave dimensions
and description of soil and debris characteristics, we determined that the grave facility consisted of
a reexcavated and enlarged depression that had originally been created by mechanical tree removal.
Third, by locating and mapping plastic shot-holders directly on the victim's bodies and shot-gun
and bullet fragments in the grave soil, we provided archaeological evidence for shooting within the
grave itself. Fourth, on the basis of superposition we documented the order of final interment (C
first, B second, and A last), but could not conclusively determine the actual order of shooting. If
one assumed that the victims were shot in the order that they were interred, the order of interment
contradicted one of the few points upon which the witnesses were in agreement. That is, victim C,
who at the end of his endurance asked to be shot first, was made to witness the death of his other
two companions, victims A and B. Based on archaeological evidence, however, C was the first in
the grave. If the witnesses are correct, victim C was alive at the bottom of the grave as one companion,
B, was shot and fell across him, while the next, A, was tossed in and then shot. The two information
sets were not necessarily contradictory, but it is an excellent example of the caution that needs to
be exercised in drawing simplistic behavioral conclusions on the basis of archaeological data. Fifth,
and finally, because the bodies were exposed in-place, the bindings on the arms and legs of each
victim were still tightly secured. These bindings proved that it would have been impossible for
victim A to have walked to the grave, and he certainly could not have tossed himself in unaided.
After the bodies had been properly pedestaled and all observations and measurements completed,
the physical anthropologist and the medical examiner removed them to the morgue laboratories to
conduct the autopsies. All non-biological evidence remained in the custody of the Department of
Law Enforcement. Since that time all reports have been submitted and the investigation and trials
concluded. This case resulted in the conviction of 10 individuals on charges ranging from murder
and kidnapping to racketeering and narcotics possession.
The preceding discussion highlights some considerations of the application of archaeology to
forensic investigations. For the archaeologist contemplating even limited involvement in this aspect
of applied anthropology I also offer the following observations:
1) The utility of archaeological participation should be predicated upon a division of labor such
that the field tasks of the archaeologist are complementary rather than overlapping to those of the
forensic pathologists, physical anthropologists, police investigators, etc. It is essential that archae-
ologists know the limits of their expertise and defer to other investigators when appropriate.
2) The buried body that the archaeologist will be called upon to investigate is often, but not
654 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 50, No. 3, 1985]

always, a homicide victim and may be recently buried (e.g., a matter of days) and in various stages
of decomposition. Although violent death is not unknown in the archaeological record, its immediacy
in forensic archaeology may involve a certain unpleasantness. The wisdom of individual partici-
pation will, therefore, be tested on a case-by-case basis.
3) The archaeologist will have the responsibility of obtaining and reporting the pertinent, properly
collected, physical evidence, which will probably involve him or her in a criminal trial. Off-handed
comments and preliminary judgments that are not supported by final evaluation of the evidence
can be used to confuse and undermine the validity of one's final report. And, the archaeologist
needs to be aware that his or her knowledge, archaeological judgment, and evidence of association
will be tested, not by an archaeologist, but by an attorney whose interrogation of the expert witness
may lack the subtleties of even the most critical archaeologist. A pre-trial conference with the lawyers
for whom one is presenting evidence is strongly advised.
4) For archaeologists to become involved in crime scene investigations, their services must be
requested by investigative authorities, e.g., state and local police, state attorneys, or district medical
examiners. Most of these officials, however, are unaware of the information obtainable from the
archaeological record and its usefulness in reconstructing the sequence of events at a crime scene.
Archaeological participation may require education efforts through public lectures and police work-
shops so that a network for collaboration and mutual education is created.
5) The standard site report is a useful format for reporting the archaeological data. Categories
that should be included are descriptions of the environment, soil characteristics, distance to ground
water; descriptions of and justification for the techniques and methods employed; evidence of
association between skeletal and nonskeletal material using both manuscript and maps; and, an
interpretation of the facts that does not go beyond one's evidence. Courtroom presentation of
archaeological evidence contained in the final report must also be clear, concise, and convincing.
Overlay maps are particularly useful in these reports and are quite effective for illustrating difficult
three dimensional aspects of the excavation during trial testimony (Figure 1).
Although forensic archaeology is in its infancy, I suggest that with increased support and partic-
ipation by forensically trained professional archaeologists significant contributions will be made to
the criminal justice system.

Acknowledgments. I am grateful to Kathleen Deagan, John Eisenberg, William Maples, William Marquardt,
Pru Rice, Donna Ruhl, and Michael Russo for their comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.

REFERENCES CITED
Baby, R. S.
1954 Hopewell Cremation Practices. Papers in Archeology, Number 1, Ohio Historical Society.
Bass, W. M.
1981 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual of the Human Skeleton. Missouri Archaeological
Society, Columbia, Missouri.
Bass, W. M., D. Evans, and D. H. Ubelaker
1971 The Leavenworth Site Cemetery: Archaeology and Physical Anthropology. In Anthropology, Number
2. University of Kansas Publications.
Bass, W. M., and P. A. Driscoll
1983 Summary of Skeletal Identification in Tennessee 1971-1981. Journal of Forensic Sciences 28(1):159-
168.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
1975 Handbook of Forensic Science. F.B.I. Laboratory.
Gilbert, B., and W. M. Bass
1967 Seasonal Dating of Burials from the Presence of Fly Pupae. American Antiquity 32:534-535.
Goddard, K. D.
1977 Crime Scene Investigation. Reston Publishing Company, Reston, Virginia.
Harris, R.
1973 Outline of Death Investigation. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, 111.
Kerley, E.
1978 Recent Developments in Forensic Anthropology. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 21:160-173.
Kogan, J. D.
1978 On Being an Expert Witness in a Criminal Trial. Journal of Forensic Sciences 23(1): 190-200.
 FORUM 655

Krogman, W. M.
1943 Role of the Physical Anthropologist in the Identification of Human Skeleton Material. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin 12(4): 17-40; 12(5): 12-28.
1978 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, 111.
Maples, W.
1978 An Improved Technique Using Dental Histology for Estimation of Adult Age. Journal of Forensic
Sciences 23(4):764-770.
1982 Introducing the Archeologist to Forensic Anthropology. Paper presented at the 39th Annual South-
eastern Archeological Conference, Memphis, Tenn.
1983 Forensic Applications of Physical Anthropology. Florida Journal of Anthropology, vol. 8 (2), Pt. 2.
Morse, D., D. Crusoe, and H. G. Smith
1976a Forensic Archeology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 21(2):323-332.
Morse, D., J. Stoutamire, and J. Duncan
1976b A Unique Course in Anthropology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45:743-747.
Morse, D., J. Duncan, and J. Stoutamire (editors)
1983 Handbook of Forensic Archeology and Anthropology. Rose Printing Co., Tallahassee.
Murray, R. C, and J. C. F. Tedrow
1975 Forensic Geology: Earth Sciences and Criminal Investigation. Rutgers University Press, New Bruns-
wick.
Peterson, J. L.
1975 Forensic Science: Scientific Investigation in Criminal Justice. AMS Press, New York.
Sigler-Lavelle, B. J.
1981 Familiar Concepts in Unfamiliar Ways: The Application of Archaeological Concepts to Scientific Police
Investigation. Invited paper presented at Identification of Human Remains Workshop, Department of
Governmental Services, Vallencia Community College, Orlando, Florida.
1982 Archeology and Forensic Investigation. Paper presented to the 39th Southeastern Archeological Con-
ference, November.
Skinner, M., and R. Lazenby
1984 Found! Human Remains. Department of Archeology, Simon Fraser University, Publication 12.
State of Florida
1976 Investigative Resources—Buried Bodies. Department of Law Enforcement.
Stewart, T. D.
1979 Essentials of Forensic Anthropology Especially As Developed in the United States. Charles C Thomas,
Springfield, 111.
Ubelaker, D.
1978 Human Skeleton Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation. Aldine Press, Chicago.