Homicide Studies

Volume 12 Number 4
November 2008 399-413
2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/1088767908324430
The Contribution of Forensic http://hs.sagepub.com
hosted at
Archaeology to Homicide http://online.sagepub.com

Investigations
John J. Schultz
Tosha L. Dupras
University of Central Florida, Orlando

Collecting and processing forensic evidence during a death investigation has become
an endeavor that may incorporate numerous personnel from many disciplines. During
death investigations, specialized forensic experts regularly consult with law enforce-
ment agencies at city, state, and federal levels, and with medical examiner and coroner
offices. These forensic experts can also provide training, specialized laboratory analy-
ses of forensic evidence, and services for which law enforcement may have very little
or no training. Forensic archaeology is one such discipline that can provide specialized
expertise at the crime scene. In addition to discussing the differences between forensic
anthropology and forensic archaeology, this article presents a summary of the contri-
butions that forensic archaeology can make during the search for and processing of
crime scenes involving human remains.

Keywords: forensic archaeology; forensic anthropology; skeletal recovery; homicide

investigations

C rime scenes involving human remains can be very complicated to process given
the nature of the forensic evidence. As a result, it is not uncommon for law
enforcement agencies to involve external forensic experts to assist in the processing
of such crime scenes. Anthropologists are commonly asked to aid law enforcement
with forensic consultations because many crime scene personnel have limited train-
ing or experience processing death scenes involving decomposing bodies and skele-
tal remains. There are two different subdisciplines within anthropology that are
commonly involved in forensic consultationforensic anthropology and forensic
archaeology. Although the focus of this article concerns the contribution of forensic
archaeology, it is important to discuss the overlap and the distinctiveness of these
two areas of anthropology as they pertain to crime scene investigations.

Authors Note: Special thanks to Mary Rezos for critical comments to this manuscript. The authors also
thank their reviewers for their valuable comments which helped to make this a stronger manuscript.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John J. Schultz, Department of
Anthropology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32816-1361;
e-mail: jschultz@mail.ucf.edu.

399
400 Homicide Studies

Forensic Anthropology and Forensic Archaeology:

What is the Difference?

Forensic anthropology is the application of physical anthropological methods to the

analysis of skeletal material from forensic contexts. Forensic anthropologists are phys-
ical anthropologists who specialize in human osteology (the study of the skeleton).
When forensic anthropologists use osteology in a legal context, they are applying
methods of skeletal analysis to examine and interpret skeletal material. Traditionally,
practitioners of forensic anthropology in the United States are regularly involved in
assisting law enforcement, medical examiners, and coroners with skeletal analysis.
They may be called as a consultant by different agencies, and if so, the role they play is
usually different. For example, if called in by the medical examiner/coroner, it usually
means that remains have already been located (the forensic anthropologist may or may
not assist in the recovery), and the forensic anthropologist will provide a laboratory
analysis of the remains. If called by homicide detectives, the consultation may involve
many different aspects, including search, recovery, analysis of the remains, and testify-
ing in a court of law.
Because forensic anthropologists who come from a focused background may
have little or no experience with archaeological excavation, their role in the field
may be limited (see Table 1 for a comparison of the skills associated with forensic
anthropology and forensic archaeology at a crime scene). If human remains have
been previously discovered, a forensic anthropologist may assist in some capacity
during the recovery phase. However, if called to the scene, the forensic anthropolo-
gist can determine whether the remains are human or nonhuman, provide an on-site
inventory, and suggest possible search methods. If it is determined that skeletal ele-
ments are missing, they can then indicate to the crime scene investigation unit which
bones are missing and suggest possible search methods to assure the best possible
recovery. In special cases, an anthropologist may be willing to provide an initial
biological assessment.
Once remains are removed from the scene, and if the forensic anthropologist first
becomes involved in the case at the medical examiners office, he or she will initially
analyze the material to determine whether the material is actually bone and whether
the skeletal remains are human. The next step is to determine whether the remains
are from a recent and potentially forensic context or from a nonforensic context.
Nonforensic contexts include remains that are deemed to be historical, archaeologi-
cal, war trophies, or prepared anatomical teaching specimens. If the identification of
the remains is unknown, the analysis of human remains from a forensic context will
begin with the construction of a biological profile. This includes the determination
of sex, ancestry, age at death, and stature, as well as noting any individualizing char-
acteristics of the skeleton (e.g., old injuries, surgical procedures, diseases, and skele-
tal anomalies) that can be important for identification. In addition to the biological
profile, the skeletal analysis will also include the analysis of perimortem (at or
 Schultz, Dupras / Forensic Archaeologys Contribution to Homicide Investigations 401

Table 1
Comparison of Those Skills Associated With Forensic Anthropology
Versus Forensic Archaeology at the Scene
At the Scene

Forensic Anthropologya Forensic Archaeology

Differentiation of nonhuman vs. Ground search methods (environmental changes associated

human remains with burials)
Skeletal inventory Survey techniques (e.g., theodolite, total station)
Search methods for missing elements Geophysical search methods (e.g., GPR, electromagnetic
Initial field assessment of biological survey, metal detector)
information Site formation analysis and description
Mapping techniques
Archaeological recovery techniques including spatial
control (establishing datum points, GPS, establishing
grids)
Uses of heavy equipment
Basic recognition of skeletal anatomy
Artifact collection, documentation, and preservation
Site recording (casting of features, digital and still
photography, and documentation)
Sample collection (e.g., soil, botanical, and entomological)
Collection and preservation of skeletal remains and
associated evidence

a. Skills associated with traditionally trained forensic anthropologists who have little or no training in
archaeological techniques.

around the time of death) trauma and postmortem or taphonomic (after death)
modification (Byers, 2005; Stewart, 1979).
In the United States, anthropologists may take two different routes to become a
forensic archaeologist. Many forensic archaeologists begin as field archaeologists
who have experience excavating burials from archaeological contexts and historic-
period cemeteries, whereas others are forensic anthropologists who have received
training in archaeological field methods. In the United States, the field of forensic
archaeology was integrated into the forensic sciences as a skill of physical anthro-
pologists who were forensic anthropology consultants. Because forensic anthropol-
ogists were already involved with the skeletal analysis, the next logical step was to
be involved in the excavation and recovery to collect all of the skeletal material and
document the context of the scene. Conversely, in Europe, most physical anthropol-
ogists do not have training in the archaeological field methods because anthropology
and archaeology are treated as two separate disciplines. As a result of the archaeo-
logical and osteological training of physical anthropologists in the United States, the
field of forensic archaeology in the 1970s and 1980s grew somewhat out of the field
of forensic anthropology. For example, the first publications that emphasized the
402 Homicide Studies

importance of forensic archaeology appeared in the mid-to-late 1970s and were

dominated by practicing forensic anthropologists (Bass & Birkby, 1978; Morse,
Crusoe, & Smith, 1976; Rhine, 1979; Ubelaker, 1978). By the 1980s there was a
growth in the number of publications that emphasized the importance of forensic
archaeology field methods as a service that could be provided by forensic anthro-
pologists and archaeologists (e.g., Berryman & Lahren, 1984; Brooks & Brooks,
1984; Levine, Campbell, & Rhine, 1984; Morse, Duncan, & Stoutamire, 1983;
Skinner & Lazenby, 1983; Snow, 1982; Wolf, 1986). Generally, practitioners of
forensic archaeology are involved in three different areas. First, they assist law
enforcement in the field with searches, excavations, and recoveries of decomposing
human remains and skeletonized remains from recent contexts. Many forensic
anthropologists have formed cooperative consulting relationships and formalized
partnerships with law enforcement agencies and medical examiners for the purpose
of forensic anthropology and forensic archaeological consultations. Second, foren-
sic archaeologists can also be involved in processing scenes that are the result of
mass fatality or terrorist incidents (Sledzik & Wilcox, 2003; Ubelaker, 1995), exca-
vating mass graves of victims of war crimes or human rights violations (Connor &
Scott, 2001; Skinner, 1987; Skinner, Alempijevic, & Djuric-Srejic, 2003) as well as
searching for and recovering the remains of United States servicemen from prior
conflicts (Bunch & Shine, 2003; Hoshower, 1998). Last, they are regularly involved
in teaching and research. Forensic archaeology training and education for law
enforcement, crime scene technicians, crime scene investigators (CSI), death inves-
tigators, and undergraduate and graduate students is conducted by forensic archae-
ologists through lectures and short courses (Berryman & Lahren, 1984; Morse et al.,
1976). Controlled research is conducted to improve forensic archaeology field
methods, particularly in the area of nondestructive search methods (e.g., France
et al., 1992; Schultz, Collins, & Falsetti, 2006).

Forensic Archaeology and the Crime Scene

In the United States, law enforcement, medical examiners, and coroners occasion-
ally seek the assistance of personnel trained in forensic archaeology or crime scene
archaeology to process death scenes involving decomposing and skeletonized human
remains. Forensic archaeology can be defined as the application of archaeological
theories and recordation and recovery methods to processing of criminal scenes
(Crist, 2001, p. 41). A criminal investigation can benefit by having the assistance of a
forensic archaeologist at a crime scene involving human remains to provide a more
detailed recovery and documentation of evidence than law enforcement has been his-
torically trained to provide (Crist, 2001). The fundamental contribution of forensic
archaeology is the documentation and delineation of context (Dirkmaat & Adovasio,
1997). According to Crist (2001), Spatial analysis and the sequence of events that
 Schultz, Dupras / Forensic Archaeologys Contribution to Homicide Investigations 403

resulted in the crime scene assemblage can be more effectively reconstructed using
archaeological methodology than through most standard evidence collection tech-
niques (p. 42). Processing a crime scene is a destructive process akin to excavating an
archaeological site. Proper archaeological methods are essential when reconstructing
events, or the depositional relationship, at a crime scene because reliable inferences
about human behavior (e.g., between a killer and a victim) can be drawn from recon-
structing the context and association of evidence at a crime scene (Dirkmaat &
Adovasio, 1997; Melbye & Jimenez, 1997; Scott & Connor, 1997; Sigler-Eisenberg,
1985). Archaeological documentation methodologies are used at a crime scene to
locate, record the provenience (horizontal and/or vertical position of an object in rela-
tion to a set of spatial coordinates), identify, and recover all of the forensic evidence.
These methods ensure that proper reconstruction and interpretation of events can be
determined after the crime scene has been destroyed through processing. The absence
of a forensic archaeologist at a crime scene involving human skeletal remains can
result in the destruction of valuable evidence by inexperienced death scene personnel
(Howard, Reay, Haglund, & Fligner, 1988; Sigler-Eisenberg, 1985; Wolf, 1986). This
can make the job of the forensic anthropologist more difficult when they are analyzing
human remains because their opinions can be hampered by information not properly
documented at the time the remains were recovered (Melbye & Jimenez, 1997); for
example, if an area is not properly excavated the chances of missing evidence and
skeletal material is very high. Missing skeletal material can hinder interpretation of
events and even affect biological analysis of the individual (see Dupras, Schultz,
Wheeler, & Williams, 2006 for specific examples).
Forensic archaeologists possess all the skills associated with traditional archaeol-
ogy field and documentation methods, in addition to having an understanding of how
to apply these skills in a forensic context (see Table 1). Also, forensic archaeologists
must be more flexible in their search and excavation approaches than traditional
archaeologists and must be able to adapt their field methods to each crime scene
(Dupras et al., 2006; Hoshower, 1998). The authors have encountered, on many
occasions, crime scenes that would not allow for the use of traditional archaeologi-
cal techniques. For example, the search for the missing remains of a female victim
in a dormant, sealed city septicholding tank, proved to be very challenging.
Although not functioning for more than 12 years, the holding tank presented a poten-
tially lethal chemical environment. In addition, the tank was underground with a
very confined entrance, proving to be a difficult location. It was necessary for the
authors to work closely with homicide detectives, crime scene personnel, and city
workers to formulate a plan to search, exhume, and examine the contents of the hold-
ing tank (see Figure 1). Due to the nature of the tank, it was impossible to set up a
traditional excavation grid. The decision was made to extract the material in the tank
into a large vacuum truck, then deposit the soil into a holding area where they would
then be sifted through. The holding tank was divided into four areas, and materials
were removed from each area separately. This search and excavation allowed the
404 Homicide Studies

Figure 1
(A) Forensic Search for the Remains of a Female Victim in a
Dormant City Septic Holding Tank; (B) Tripod Over Entrance
Into Holding Tank. The Large Hoses Were Used to Remove Soil
From the Bottom of the Holding Tank; (C) Author John Schultz Walking
by Temporary Holding Area for Soil. The Large Vacuum Truck Behind Was
Used to Remove the Materials From the Holding Tank; (D) Author Tosha
Dupras Sifts Through Material From the Holding Tank.

investigators to maintain some context throughout the search. This approach was
definitely adapted to fit the circumstances.
The proper application of archaeological field methods is imperative when con-
structing taphonomic history of the death scene. For example, proper taphonomic
analysis allows the investigator to distinguish perimortem trauma from postmortem
 Schultz, Dupras / Forensic Archaeologys Contribution to Homicide Investigations 405

modifications such as animal chewing and bone breakage, weathering patterns, esti-
mation of postmortem interval, environmental reconstruction, and sequence of post-
mortem events (Haglund & Sorg, 1997; Ubelaker, 1997). The results of taphonomic
events will be the first thing that is encountered by the team of investigators, and the
interpretation of these transformations can be vital during the search and recovery
process. For example, after a body is deposited, there are many taphonomic
processes that will scatter the skeletal elements such as gravity if the body is
deposited on a slope, or fluvial transport if the body is deposited in a riverine envi-
ronment. This type of environment would cause the skeleton to be dispersed in var-
ious locations. Taphonomic knowledge of such processes allows forensic
archaeologists to search the most likely locations for the deposition of materials that
experience these types of taphonomic forces. For the most part, forensic archaeolo-
gists generally expect to see dispersion of skeletal remains by, for example, carniv-
orous animals in almost any open outdoor setting. Locating additional skeletal
elements generally requires a very specific understanding of the taphonomic
processes that scatter the remains and proper application of archaeological search
methods by the forensic archaeologist.

Search, Excavation, and Recovery

Homicide or CSIs are often faced with the daunting task of searching a large area
for bodies buried in clandestine graves, scattered skeletal remains on the ground sur-
face, and associated forensic evidence. A forensic search is performed to not only
locate the items in question, but to also clear suspected areas so investigations can
be directed elsewhere. Forensic archaeologists regularly offer valuable assistance to
law enforcement during both the planning phase of searches and the actual field
search. In many instances, the success of a search will depend on the planning phase;
therefore, it is important to consult the forensic archaeologist prior to conducting the
search. The forensic archaeologist can suggest the methods most applicable to the
site conditions (terrain, tree and brush cover, and the type of equipment and person-
nel required). The planning phase may also require a trip to the search location with
the forensic archaeologist prior to the actual search.
Search methods are commonly divided into two general categories: (a) nonintru-
sive and (b) intrusive (Dupras et al., 2006; Killam, 1990). Nonintrusive methods do
not disturb the soil or ground surface and include methods such as a line search,
employing cadaver dogs, and geophysical tools such as metal detectors and ground-
penetrating radar (GPR). Common destructive methods include methods such as
T-bar probes, digging with shovels, excavating with trowels, and using a backhoe
(Table 2). The disadvantages of using intrusive methods is the destruction of the
crime scene, the potential destruction of forensic evidence, and loss of context and
association of evidence that may limit the possibility of reconstructing events at the
scene. The forensic archaeologist will use the least destructive methods to first deter-
mine the areas to be excavated and then to perform the excavation. For example,
406 Homicide Studies

Table 2
Common Intrusive and Nonintrusive Methods Used
to Search for Human Remains
Nonintrusive Methods Intrusive Methods

Visual searches (survey line) Probes (e.g., T-bar, soil coring)

Cadaver dogs Shovel (digging or scraping)
Geophysical tools (e.g., GPR and metal detectors) Hand trowels (excavating)
Heavy equipment (e.g., backhoe)

Note: GPR = ground-penetrating radar.

Source: After Dupras et al. (2006) and Skinner et al. (2003).

most forensic archaeologists will bring along a T-bar probe when searching for a
clandestine burial. If a questionable area, which may or may not be a grave, has been
located via a nonintrusive method, the forensic archaeologist will generally use a
probe before digging to determine the extent of the disturbed soil.
Because of the importance of using nonintrusive methods, forensic archaeologists
have conducted controlled research that tests the applicability of using different
search methods. In particular, a variety of studies have shown the utility of using
GPR (see Figure 2) to locate bodies and associated evidence from forensic contexts
(France et al., 1992; Schultz, 2007; Schultz et al., 2006). In recent years, the number
of published case studies that have successfully used GPR to locate buried bodies
from forensic contexts (e.g., Daniels, 2004; Davenport, 2001; Mellett, 1992; Nobes,
2000; Reynolds, 1997; Schultz, 2007) or to clear suspected areas (e.g., Buck, 2003;
Ruffell, 2005) has been steadily increasing. Preexcavation geophysical testing can
provide investigators with an undisturbed view of subsurface features to assist in
identifying the location of target areas. By identifying target areas with noninvasive
geophysical techniques, these areas can then be further investigated with invasive
excavation techniques resulting in significantly less destruction of the crime scene.
When feasible, forensic searches will have greater success when employing multi-
ple search methods (Dupras et al., 2006; France et al., 1992). If possible, searches
should always first consist of using nonintrusive methods to minimize destruction of
the scene and any potential evidence. Intrusive methods should then be used as fol-
low-up methods to nondestructive methods when smaller areas are highlighted for
further investigation or when nonintrusive methods are not successful.
When excavations for human remains are performed, there are many advantages for
law enforcement when including a forensic archaeologist as a team member. First and
foremost, a forensic archaeologist will utilize proper archaeological field methods dur-
ing the excavation and recovery process, and adapt these methods for each type of
scene. The use of proper archaeological field methods is imperative because post-
mortem damage to human skeletal remains will be minimized. There can be significant
 Schultz, Dupras / Forensic Archaeologys Contribution to Homicide Investigations 407

Figure 2
Author John Schultz Operating a GPR Unit While Searching for
a Missing Female Victim

Note: GPR = ground-penetrating radar.

postmortem damage to skeletal remains if proper field methods are not used, which can
limit some of the conclusions of the skeletal analysis. In particular, postmortem damage
can mask or obfuscate perimortem trauma. In addition, forensic archaeologists are also
trained in meticulous documentation methodology (see Figure 3). These skills permit
the forensic archaeologist to record detailed scene maps, allowing for contextual docu-
mentation of the environment, skeletal remains, and associated evidence. Furthermore,
although not trained in the analysis of botanical and entomological evidence, forensic
archaeologists may also collect this material, which can be important evidence during
excavation. For example, when excavating a buried body using archaeological methods,
forensic archaeologists methodically remove soil layer by layer, thus preserving the
skeleton and context. This allows for the construction of detailed field maps, which in
turn allows for scene reconstruction and permits investigators to continue field investi-
gations months or years later if necessary. Furthermore, this detailed documentation is
pertinent for field reports and expert witness testimony in court. When proper archaeo-
logical methods are not used to exhume human remains, it is common for CSI and law
enforcement to dig up remains quickly with spade shovels. This method inevitably
destroys the context, has the potential to damage evidence and skeletal remains, and can
result in missed evidence, bones, and teeth.
408 Homicide Studies

Figure 3
Forensic Archaeologists Sandra Wheeler (Left) and Lana Williams (Right)
Record and Map a Forensic Scene Before the Beginning of Excavation

Other Applications: Mass Disaster, Human Rights, and Missing in

Action (MIA)
Not only do forensic archaeologists possess skills useful for small-scale crime
excavations involving human remains, they also have other skills useful in many
other contexts. As mentioned previously, forensic archaeologists have become
important team members in the investigation of human rights violations, mass
disasters, domestic terrorism, and the identification of individuals associated with
sanctioned military conflict. In all cases, these situations require the technical skills
of search, excavation, and recovery of human remains. An understanding of the
taphonomic events in many cases can be vital for understanding what happened at
these scenes.
During the 1980s, the application of forensic archaeology to the investigations of
human rights violations (ethnic, political, and religious genocide) came to light with
the work of Clyde Snow in Argentina and the development of the Equipo Argentine
de Anthropologia Forense (EAAF; Steadman & Haglund, 2005). Since this time,
 Schultz, Dupras / Forensic Archaeologys Contribution to Homicide Investigations 409

forensic archaeology practitioners have been active members of groups such as

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), the International Commission on Missing
Persons (ICMP), and the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal. These
groups have investigated human rights violations in such countries as Argentina
(Steadman & Haglund, 2005), Guatemala (Lloyd, 2002), El Salvador (Geiger &
Cook-Deegan, 1993), Croatia and Serbia (Stover, 1997), Bosnia-Herzegovina
(Smiley, 1999), Kosovo (Koff, 2005), Sri Lanka (Snow, 1999), Rwanda (Koff, 2005),
Ethiopia (Collins, 1995), East Timor (Blau & Skinner, 2005), Cambodia (Taala,
Berg, & Haden, 2006), and Iraq (Barber & Epstein, 2004). In human rights cases,
forensic archaeologists assist in the search, excavation, and recovery of remains
associated with these atrocities. In many of these cases, a familiarity with mass
graves is essential, and the proper recovery and interpretation of these graves can
greatly assist in the reconstruction of events associated with the graves and the vio-
lent deaths of their occupants. The assistance with human identifications and the col-
lection of contextual evidence by forensic archaeologists have been central to many
criminal investigations and tribunals in the conviction of those responsible for
human rights violations.
Most state and federal mass disasterresponse teams (such as DMORTDisaster
Mortuary Operational Response Teams) have forensic archaeologists listed on their
rosters in the case of any mass disaster. These disasters can include events such as
tsunamis (such as the tsunami in Southeast Asia in December of 2004), earth quakes,
mud slides, airline crashes (e.g., TWA Flight 800), and domestic terrorism (e.g., the
Oklahoma City bombing, the 9/11 New York CityWorld Trade Center attack, etc.).
As with the investigation of human rights violations, forensic archaeologists can
assist in the search, excavation and recovery of human remains associated with all
mass disasters.
The US militarys Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC) also employs
forensic archaeologists in its mission to account for all the American citizens gone
missing as a result of any sanctioned military conflicts involving the United States.
Forensic archaeologists assist in the search and recovery of human remains in
countries where there are believed to be the mortal remains of military service
personnel (e.g., Vietnam, Korea). The US military has recognized the importance of
the skills of forensic archaeology and are noted as the largest single employer of
forensic anthropologists/archaeologists in the United States.

Teaching and Research

Many forensic archaeologists hold positions at institutes of higher education;
therefore, there is a natural expectation that these individuals will participate in
teaching and research as part of their employment. Although teaching may involve
the construction of classes that cater to the students enrolled at their institutions,
forensic archaeologists may also participate in courses and lectures specifically
410 Homicide Studies

designed for law enforcement and crime scene personnel (e.g., Berryman & Lahren,
1984; Morse et al., 1976; Schultz, 2007). For example, the authors have given lec-
tures and taught courses for local law enforcement officials as a way of introducing
the specialty to those who are not familiar with forensic archaeology and for those
who want to hone their skills. The authors have also developed a forensic archaeol-
ogy partnership with one of the local law enforcement agencies that includes train-
ing and joint research (Schultz, 2007). As mentioned previously, research is an
integral part of most forensic archaeologists employment, and many conduct
research into questions that pertain to crime scene search, excavation, and interpre-
tation (e.g., France et al., 1992; Schultz et al., 2006). This research contributes to our
understanding of crime scene interpretation and investigation.

Summary and Conclusions

The field of forensic archaeology has made significant contributions to homicide

investigations including local crime scenes, mass disaster scenes, and human rights
violations. Forensic archaeology practitioners also regularly participate in the train-
ing of law enforcement officials and crime scene personnel. Death scenes consisting
of decomposing human bodies and skeletal remains, which can involve homicide
victims, should be processed using archaeological search, excavation, and mapping
methods to properly locate and document all of the associated evidence. Those indi-
viduals trained in forensic archaeology (or forensic anthropologists who are also
cross-trained in archaeological techniques) can be of significant importance when
included as part of the investigative team on crime scenes where human remains are
found. Forensic archaeologists bring skills that can assist in the search for human
remains, potentially including knowledge of noninvasive search techniques that min-
imize damage to the scene, as well as proper recovery and documentation methods.
Law enforcement personnel should be aware that qualifications of different special-
ists can vary, and not all forensic anthropologists are trained in all of the skills men-
tioned in this article. When law enforcement seeks the assistance of a forensic
archaeologist, they should inquire about their experience and expertise before
including them as a team member.

References
Barber, B., & Epstein, S. (2004). Iraqs legacy of terror: Mass graves (pp. 1-13). Washington, DC: US
Agency for International Development.
Bass, W. M., & Birkby, W. H. (1978). Exhumation: The method could make the difference. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 47, 6-11.
Berryman, H. E., & Lahren, C. H. (1984). The advantages of simulated crime scenes in teaching forensic
anthropology. Journal of Forensic Science, 20, 699-700.
 Schultz, Dupras / Forensic Archaeologys Contribution to Homicide Investigations 411

Blau, S., & Skinner, M. (2005). The use of forensic archaeology in the investigation of human rights
abuse: Unearthing the past in East Timor. International Journal of Human Rights, 9, 449-463.
Brooks, S. T., & Brooks, R. H. (1984). Problems of burial exhumation, historical and forensic aspects. In
T. A. Rathbun & J. E. Buikstra (Eds.), Human identification: Case studies in forensic anthropology
(pp. 64-86). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Buck, S. C. (2003). Searching for graves using geophysical technology: Field tests with ground penetrat-
ing radar, magnetometry, and electrical resistivity. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48, 5-11.
Bunch, A. W., & Shine, C. C. (2003). Science contextualized: The identification of a U.S. MIA of the
Vietnam War from two perspectives. In D. W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard evidence: Case studies in foren-
sic anthropology (pp. 278-289). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Byers, S. N. (2005). Introduction to forensic anthropology: A textbook (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Collins, N. (1995). Giving a voice to the dead. Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights
and Responsibilities, 22(1), 28-48.
Connor, M., & Scott, D. D. (2001). Paradigms and perpetrators. Historical Archaeology, 35, 1-6.
Crist, T. A. J. (2001). Bad to the bone?: Historical archaeologist in the practice of forensic science.
Historical Archaeology, 35, 39-56.
Daniels, D. J. (2004). Ground penetrating radar. London: Institution of Electrical Engineers.
Davenport, C. G. (2001). Remote sensing applications in forensic investigations. Historical Archaeology,
35, 87-100.
Dirkmaat, D. C., & Adovasio, J. M. (1997). The role of archaeology in the recovery and interpretation of
human remains from an outdoor setting. In W. D. Haglund & M. H. Sorg (Eds.), Forensic taphonomy:
The postmortem fate of human remains (pp. 39-64). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Dupras, T. L., Schultz, J. J., Wheeler, S. M., & Williams, L. J. (2006). Forensic recovery of human
remains: Archaeological approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
France, D. L., Griffin, T. J., Swanburg, J. G., Lindemann, J. W., Davenport, G. C., Trammell, V., et al.
(1992). A multidisciplinary approach to the detection of clandestine graves. Journal of Forensic
Sciences, 37, 445-1458.
Geiger, H., & Cook-Deegan, R. (1993). The role of physicians in conflicts and humanitarian crises.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 616-620.
Haglund, W. D., & Sorg, M. H. (1997). Forensic taphonomy: The postmortem fate of human remains.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Hoshower, L. M. (1998). Forensic archaeology and the need for flexible excavation strategies: A case
study. Journal of Forensic Science, 43(1), 53-56.
Howard, J. D., Reay, D. T., Haglund, W. D., & Fligner, C. L. (1988). Processing of skeletal remains: A
medical examiners perspective. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 9, 258-264.
Killam, E. W. (1990). The detection of human remains. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Koff, C. (2005). The bone woman: A forensic anthropologists search for the truth in the mass graves of
Rwanda, Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. New York: Random House.
Levine, L. J., Campbell, H. R., Jr., & Rhine, J. S. (1984). Perpendicular forensic archaeology. In
T. A. Rathbun & J. E. Buikstra (Eds.), Human identification: Case studies in forensic anthropology
(pp. 87-95). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Lloyd, M. (2002). Exhuming a painful past: Anthropologists dig up Guatemalan massacre sites as
victims families watch. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(29), A42.
Melbye, J., & Jimenez, S. B. (1997). Chain of custody from the field to the courtroom. In W. D. Haglund
& M. H. Sorg (Eds.), Forensic taphonomy: The postmortem fate of human remains (pp. 65-74). Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Mellett, J. S. (1992). Location of human remains with ground-penetrating radar. In P. Hanninen &
S. Autio (Eds.), Fourth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (Special Paper No. 16,
pp. 359-365). Espoo: Geological Survey of Finland.
412 Homicide Studies

Morse, D., Crusoe, D., & Smith, H. G. (1976). Forensic archaeology. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 21,
323-332.
Morse, D., Duncan, J., & Stoutamire, J. (1983). Handbook of forensic archaeology and anthropology.
Tallahassee: Florida State University Foundation.
Nobes, D. C. (2000). The search for Yvonne: A case example of the delineation of a grave using near-
surface geophysical methods. Journal of Forensic Science, 45, 715-721.
Reynolds, J. M. (1997). An introduction to applied and environmental geophysics. New York: John Wiley.
Rhine, J. S. (1979). Bones in the backyard: Physical anthropology and medicolegal investigation.
Pathologist, 33, 300-306.
Ruffell, A. (2005). Searching for the IRA disappeared: Ground-penetrating radar investigation of a
churchyard burial site, Northern Ireland. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50, 1-6.
Schultz, J. J. (2007). Using ground penetrating radar to locate clandestine graves of homicide victims:
Forming forensic archaeology partnerships with law enforcement. Homicide Studies, 11, 1-15.
Schultz, J. J., Collins, M. E., & Falsetti, A. B. (2006). Sequential monitoring of burials containing large
pig cadavers using ground penetrating radar. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51, 607-616.
Scott, D. D., & Connor, M. (1997). Context delecti: Archaeological context in forensic work. In W. D. Haglund
& M. H. Sorg (Eds.), Forensic taphonomy: The postmortem fate of human remains (pp. 27-38). Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Sigler-Eisenberg, B. (1985). Forensic research: Expanding the concept of applied archaeology. American
Antiquity, 50, 650-655.
Skinner, M. (1987). Planning the archaeological recovery of evidence from recent mass graves. Forensic
Science International, 34, 267-287.
Skinner, M. F., Alempijevic, D., & Djuric-Srejic, M. (2003). Guidelines for international forensic bio-
archaeology monitors of mass grave exhumations. Forensic Science International, 134, 81-92.
Skinner, M., & Lazenby, R. A. (1983). Found! Human remains: A field manual for the recovery of the
recent human skeleton. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University, Archaeology
Press.
Sledzik, P. S., & Wilcox, A. W. (2003). Corpi aquaticus: The Harden Cemetery flood of 1993. In
D. W. Steadman (Ed.), Hard evidence: Case studies in forensic anthropology (pp. 256-265). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Smiley, B. (1999). Probing a landscape of death. Archaeology, 52, 58.
Snow, C. C. (1982). Forensic anthropology. Annual Reviews of Anthropology, 11, 97-131.
Snow, C. C. (1999, May/June). A murder must be foul. The Science, pp. 16-20.
Steadman, D. W., & Haglund, D. (2005). The scope of anthropological contributions to human rights
investigations. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50, 23-80.
Stewart, T. D. (1979). Essentials of forensic anthropology. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Stover, E. (1997). The grave at Vukovar. Smithsonian, 27, 40-53.
Taala, S. C., Berg, G. E., & Haden, K. (2006). Blunt force cranial trauma in the Cambodian killing fields.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51, 996-1001.
Ubelaker, D. H. (1978). Human skeletal remains. Washington, DC: Taraxacum Press.
Ubelaker, D. H. (1995). The role of forensic anthropology in the recovery and analysis of Branch
Davidian Compound victims: Recovery procedures and characteristics of the victims. Journal of
Forensic Sciences, 40, 335-340.
Ubelaker, D. H. (1997). Taphonomic applications in forensic anthropology. In W. D. Haglund &
M. H. Sorg (Eds.), Forensic taphonomy: The postmortem fate of human remains (pp. 77-90). Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Wolf, D. J. (1986). Forensic anthropology scene investigations. In K. Reichs (Ed.), Forensic osteology:
Advances in the identification of human remains (pp. 3-23). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
 Schultz, Dupras / Forensic Archaeologys Contribution to Homicide Investigations 413

John J. Schultz is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Central Florida where he
has been teaching since 2003. He is a coauthor (with Tosha Dupras, Sandra Wheeler, and Lana Williams)
of Forensic Recovery of Human Remains: Archaeological Approaches (2006, CRC Press). His current
research interests focus on the application of ground-penetrating radar methods for forensic and archae-
ological contexts and the use of geophysical tools for locating buried weapons.

Tosha L. Dupras is an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Central Florida where she
has been teaching since 1999. She is a coauthor (with John Schultz, Sandra Wheeler, and Lana Williams)
of Forensic Recovery of Human Remains: Archaeological Approaches (2006, CRC Press) and The
Osteology of Infants and Children (with Brenda Baker and Matthew Tocheri, 2005, Texas A&M Press).
Her current research interests focus on juvenile osteology, bioarchaeology, and forensic archaeology.