1887
Volume 8, Issue 6
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Determining the effectiveness and limitations of near‐surface, non‐invasive geophysical techniques is imperative when attempting to locate clandestine burials. Unlike in archaeology, there has been limited forensic research with regard to optimum methodologies, with most emphasis to date being on metal detectors and ground‐penetrating radar. However, these techniques may not be suitable in certain soil types (e.g., conductive or highly magnetic) or for certain non‐metallic targets. Therefore, in this study, magnetic and electrical resistivity detection techniques have been utilized over different aged (0.25–1 year) simulated clandestine burials with no buried metal, in contrasting depositional environments. These environments included semi‐rural, urban, woodland and a parkland medieval grave site acting as an archaeological analogue.

The magnetic surveys showed mixed success in detecting clandestine burials. Elevated magnetic gradient readings, with respect to background values, were observed over very shallow burials, whereas deeper burials displayed a reduction in gradient and/or no associated magnetic anomalies. Magnetic anomalies were observed over surface‐burials and validated by simple 2D forward modelling. Magnetic anomalies were also observed in the control data set. Electrical resistivity surveys produced anomalies over all the simulated burial positions, including surface burials but did not produce anomalies at the archaeological analogue site.

Laboratory analysis of fluid retrieved from simulated graves showed an overall increase in iron levels over a year post‐burial, which may account for the observed magnetic anomaly variation. There was also a corresponding increase in grave ‘fluid’ conductivity, which was interpreted to be the cause of the observed low resistivity anomalies.

This research suggests that, as a technique for locating clandestine burials, bulk ground resistivity is more successful than the tested magnetic methods. Moreover, magnetic techniques are more effective when used as part of a multi‐technique study over rural and semi‐rural sites that are relatively low in magnetic and electrical ‘noise’. These results have important implications for the use of geophysical techniques when searching for clandestine burials. We emphasize that local depositional environment, soil type, likely style of burial and search area size should all be considered when choosing forensic geophysical detection techniques. We also provide evidence to show that geophysical data can assist in locating a primary deposition site even when no physical evidence remains.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010041
2010-07-01
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BrooksT.R., BodkinT.E., PottsG.E. and SmullenS.A.2006. Elemental analysis of human remains using ICP‐OES to classify legitimate and contaminated remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences51, 967–973.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BuckS.2003. Searching for graves using geophysical technology: field tests with ground penetrating radar, magnetometry and electrical resistivity. Journal of Forensic Sciences48, 5–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. CarterD.O. and TibbettM.2009. Cadaver decomposition in soil: processes. In: Soil Analysis in Forensic Taphonomy (eds M.Tibbett and D.O.Carter ), pp. 29–52. CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CheethamP.2005. Forensic geophysical survey. In: Forensic Archaeology: Advances in Theory and Practice (eds J.Hunter and M.Cox ), pp. 62–95. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DaleR.2006. Magnetic signatures of buried materials – Forensic applications. Unpublished MSc thesis, Keele University.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DavisJ.L., HeginbottomJ.A., AnnanA.P., DanielsR.S., BerdalB.P. and BerganT.2000. Ground penetrating radar surveys to locate 1918 Spanish flu victims in permafrost. Journal of Forensic Sciences45, 68–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. EvansM.E. and HellerF.2003. Environmental Magnetism: Principles and Applications of Enviromagnetics.Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. FassbinderJ.W.E. and IrlingerW.E.1994. Aerial magnetic prospection of an eleventh to thirteenth century motte in Bavaria. Archaeological Prospection1, 65–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. FenningP. and DonnellyL.2004. Geophysical techniques for forensic investigation. In: Forensic Geoscience Principles, Techniques and Applications (eds K.Pye and D.Croft ), pp. 11–20. Geological Society of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. GaffneyC. and GaterJ.2003. Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists.Tempus Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. JervisJ.R., PringleJ.K., CassellaJ.P. and TuckwellG.T.2009a. Using soil and groundwater data to understand resistivity surveys over a simulated clandestine grave. In: Criminal and Environmental Soil Forensics (eds K.Ritz , L.Dawson and D.Miller ), pp. 271–284. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. JervisJ.R., PringleJ.K. and TuckwellG.T.2009b. Time‐lapse resistivity surveys over simulated clandestine burials. Forensic Science International192, 7–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. KlempererW. and BoothroydN.B.2004. Excavations at Hulton Abbey, Staffordshire, 1987‐1994.Maney Publishing, Society for Medieval Archaeology, Monograph series 21.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. KoppenjanS.K., SchultzJ.J., FalsettiA.B., CollinsM.E., OnoS. and LeeH.2003. The application of GPR in Florida for detecting forensic burials. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), 6‐10 April, San Antonio, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 139–143.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. LinfordN.2004. Magnetic ghosts: Mineral magnetic measurements on Roman and Anglo‐Saxon graves. Archaeological Prospection11, 167–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. ManheinM.H.1996. Decomposition rates of deliberate burials: A case study of preservation. In: Forensic Taphonomy: The Post‐mortem Fate of Human Remains (eds W.D.Haglund and M.H.Sorg ), pp. 469–181. CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. MilsomJ.2003. Field Geophysics. Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. NobesD.C.1999. Geophysical surveys of burial sites: A case study of the Oaro Urupa. Geophysics64, 357–367.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. NobesD.C.2000. The search for “Yvonne”: A case example of the delineation of a grave using near‐surface geophysical methods. Journal of Forensic Sciences45, 715–721.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. NotterS., StuartB., RoweR. and LangloisN.2009. The initial changes of fat deposits during the decomposition of human and pig remains. Journal of Forensic Sciences54, 195–201.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. PringleJ.K., CassellaJ.P. and JervisJ.R.2010. Preliminary soilwater conductivity analysis to date clandestine burials of homicide victims. Forensic Science International198, 126–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. PringleJ.K. and JervisJ.R.2010. Electrical resistivity survey to search for a recent clandestine burial of a homicide victim, UK. Forensic Science International. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.04.023
    [Google Scholar]
  23. PringleJ.K., JervisJ., CassellaJ.P. and CassidyN.J.2008. Time‐lapse geophysical investigations over a simulated urban clandestine grave. Journal of Forensic Sciences53, 1405–1417.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. RezosM.M., SchultzJ.J., MurdockIIR.A. and SmithS.A.2010. Controlled research utilizing a basic all‐metal detector in the search for buried firearms and miscellaneous weapons. Forensic Science International195, 121–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. RuffellA. and MckinleyJ.2005. Forensic geoscience: Applications of geology, geomorphology and geophysics to criminal investigations. Earth‐Science Reviews69, 235–247.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. RuffellA. and McKinleyJ.2009. Geoforensics.John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. SchmidtA.2007. Archaeology, magnetic methods. In: Encyclopedia of Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism (eds D.Gubbins and E.Herrero‐Bervera ), pp. 23–31. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. ScottJ. and HunterJ.2004. Environmental influences on resistivity mapping for the location of clandestine graves. In: Forensic Geoscience Principles, Techniques and Applications (eds K.Pye and D.Croft ), pp. 33–38. Geological Society of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. VaasA.A., BassW.M., WoltJ.D., FossJ.E. and AmmonsJ.T.1992. Time since death determinations of human cadavers using soil solution. Journal of Forensic Sciences37, 1236–1253.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. WesselP. and SmithW.H.F.1998. New improved version of Generic Mapping Tools released. EOS Transactions79, 579.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. WittenA., BrooksR. and FennerT.2000. The Tulsa race riot of 1921: A geophysical study to locate a mass grave. The Leading Edge20, 655–660.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010041
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010041
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error