Forensic archaeology in Britain.

Hunter, J.R. ; Heron, C. ; Janaway, R.C. 等

Forensic archaeology is a relatively recent development in the UK but has already shown its worth on a number of scenes of crime; it has a particular role to play in the location and recovery of buried remains, notably in homicide investigations. This paper explores the overlap between archaeology and criminal investigation and considers areas of mutual interest, experience and potential.

Background

In December 1962 William Jennings beat to death his 3-year-old son Stephen at their home in West Yorkshire. He wrapped the body in a sack, carried it to the edge of woodland and laid it against the base of a drystone wall. Having covered it with stones he went home and later reported the boy missing. Despite an intensive search the following winter the boy's fate was unknown, until in 1988 his remains were partially exposed by a dog. They were subsequently excavated and recorded by an integrated team which included specialists in archaeology, forensic science and forensic pathology, as well as senior detectives and a scene of crime unit. The recovery of the boy's remains and surviving clothing marked an important stage in the application of archaeological techniques in forensic contexts in Britain. When William Jennings was convicted of murder, his trial set a precedent for the use of archaeological evidence in a British court.

Archaeological methodologies have been successfully applied in a number of investigations, including the Moors Murders enquiry of 1986. In other investigations, however, it has been conspicuously absent: in the 1953 murders at Rillington Place; in the 1983 Nilsen murders at Muswell Hill; and in a well publicized enquiry centred on Cromwell Street, Gloucester in 1994 -- all reminiscent of earlier American experiences in which surface skeletons were 'collected with a garden rake and buried bodies with a backhoe' (Morse et al. 1984: 53).

Forensic archaeology, a distinctive area of study which conjoins archaeology and criminal investigation and a relatively recent development in the UK (see Boddington et al. 1987), has been the subject of some research (Martin 1991) and comment (Davis 1992). In the US forensic archaeology is both better grounded and further advanced with a useful volume of case studies for comparison; the annual number of homicides (20,000) is much greater than in the UK (around 450 according to Home Office figures), and the demand for archaeological support proportionally higher. Only approximately one murder in fifty involves burial. Much early American expertise originated from within the discipline of physical anthropology whose forensic application has been well documented in papers (e.g. Snow 1982; Iscan 1988). Most feature landmark identification cases, notably Dwight's work in the Parkman murder of 1849 and Dorsey's identification of the remains of Louise Luetgert in the vats of her husband's Chicago sausage factory in 1897 (Stewart 1978). Britain's best recorded contribution occurred some 40 years later when Buck Ruxton, a Lancaster GP, dismembered his wife and housekeeper before (unsuccessfully) removing their identifying features and dumping their remains over a bridge (Glaister & Brash 1937). The Second World War, Korean and Vietnam Wars, whilst providing skeletal material on which methods of identification were later based, created a new need for victim identification, and the skills of biological anthropologists subsequently became engraved in textbooks (e.g. Krogman 1962; Stewart 1979). Snow notes the wider acceptance of the term 'forensic anthropology' in US literature of that time (1982: 107), subsequently reinforced by its application to the Chicago DC-10 disaster of 1979 and in attempts to identify the remains of Josef Mengele and Mozart.

Much of the relevant US literature, from a physical anthropological base, has come to notice the importance of field recovery and the application of archaeological techniques (e.g. Snow 1982: 117; Sigler-Eisenberg 1985). Snow's work in the Argentine with a team of anthropologists, doctors and archaeologists -- the Equipo Argentine de Anthropologia Forense -- in a human rights recovery of individuals from mass burials clearly identifies archaeology's role. In the USA, where this type of co-operation has occurred, practical crime-scene archaeology has shown positive advantages (e.g. Rathbun & Buikstra 1984; Morse & Dailey 1985; Haglund et al. 1990), especially with respect to evaluating the elapsed interval since death. The first textbook in this field, the Handbook o f forensic archaeology and anthropology (Morse et al. 1983), effectively covers the whole remit of archaeological field skills for crime scene personnel, particularly in locating and recovering buried human remains. It is the only comprehensive field guide; Killam (1990) and France et al. (1992) discuss specialist topics.

Although there are clear benefits in providing archaeological awareness for law enforcement groups, there is an equal demand for law enforcement studies for archaeologists, recognized first in the courses run at Florida State University (Morse et al. 1976). The limited Bradford experience has also shown that archaeologists have an equal obligation to understand, and work within, a much wider system of operations and methodologies in which 'standard' archaeological procedures may be at variance with the recovery of different types of forensic evidence. In the UK, although there is now a growing police awareness of the usefulness of archaeology in forensic contexts, archaeologists are still mostly unfamiliar both with the procedures of crime scenes and of the type of evidence that may survive. Learning forensic archaelogy is a two-way process.

Scenes of crime

In the UK, scenes of serious crime, controlled by a Senior Investigating Officer (SIO), require strict protocol and rules of operation in order that evidence can be presented in a manner which satisfies the judicial process. The scene of a homicide case involves a focal team of investigating officers, scene of crime officers (SOCOs), a task force, a forensic scientist and a forensic pathologist. Most police forces also employ a Scientific Support Manager, usually in a civilian capacity, to advise the SIO on specialist services or equipment. Accordingly, in the event of buried remains an archaeologist may be introduced to the 'front line' team. Scenes of crime are not like archaeological sites, although both share the common themes of due consideration before intervention and of detailed recording. Access is defined, movement controlled and material (exhibits) recorded in a rigorous 'chain of custody' with many similarities to that of finds recording on archaeological sites. Routine scene work (sampling, photography, recording, planning etc.) is undertaken by SOCOs (now normally civilian) whose duties are sufficiently close to those of the archaeologist for elements of common training to be considered.

Ostensibly, the archaeological excavation of a grave presents a simple operation in that the grave fill represents a single layer in which the body can be envisaged as an artefact. In practice, forensic excavation presents a more complex picture in which discrete layers (including those of decomposition) may indicate method and duration of deposition. A legal precedent using stratigraphy was set in a West Yorkshire Crown Court in 1991 (Regina v Mohammed Saleen and Abdul Hak). Associated but unfamiliar archaeological materials (e.g. wrappers with batch numbers) or traces (e.g. blood or foot impressions) may survive within 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 and associated standing features belonging to the context of the burial; these require a dimension of study in which most archaeologists are wholly inexperienced. Some archaeological aids, notably the use of an Electronic Distance Measurer (EDM) for multiple point recording, are still rare on crime scenes of this type. Such shortcomings are well documented in the USA literature, but the techniques are now covered in manuals (e.g. Skinner & Lazenby 1983; Stoutamire 1983), and in papers carrying valuable case study experience (e.g. Morse et al. 1976; 1984; Brooks & Brooks 1984). The general principles of recording are also expounded in works more strictly concerned with forensic anthropology (e.g. Bass & Birkby 1978; Krogman & Iscan 1986; Wolf 1986).

Activities at scenes of crime are undertaken in awareness of the prevailing judicial system and of the associated constraints imposed on the collection and use of evidence; there are numerous introductions to the English legal system (e.g. Barnard 1979; McConville & Baldwin 1981; Hampton 1982), including a guide intended for forensic scientists (Priston 1985a; 1985b; 1985c). Any archaeological records made during the recovery process, however crude, preliminary or subjective (photographs, notes, plans, sketches, sections etc.) automatically become 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 are made available to the Defence.

Homicide cases are normally heard in a Crown Court where the archaeologist may be expected to give evidence in the capacity of an expert witness. This is an unfamiliar role in an unfamiliar place. In the USA much has been written of the pit-falls and problems encountered in giving archaeological evidence (e.g. Snow 1982; Iscan 1988), while in the UK similar hazards have been identified in giving scientific evidence generally (e.g. Cato 1974; Mildred 1982; Knight 1987). Evidence is presented to a lay audience (the jury) and can be subject to stringent cross-examination by defence counsel. The Defence is entitled to commission another archaeologist to act on its behalf and to whom all the necessary records are made available for scrutiny and comment.

Recovery

Clandestine graves are unlikely to be evenly dug, particularly if executed in a hurry, and the edges are unlikely to have a regular profile. 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 of the grave wall for better access. There are many manuals on skeletal recovery (e.g. Skinner & Lazenby 1983; Ubelaker 1989; Bass 1987; McKinley & Roberts 1993) although a forensic context provides some scope for innovation (e.g. Stoutamire 1983: 44; Krogman & Iscan 1986: 21). It may also be necessary to return to the grave after the post-mortem examination of the victim. Although stratigraphically the grave floor marks the point at which the evidence stops, it may have been penetrated in a visually unrecognizable manner, by bullets fired through 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, are less acute in the UK where the work is carried out by pathologists well versed in criteria for establishing gender, age, identification and post-mortem interval. Although each homicide act is different and presents different circumstances, a general set of predetermined objectives needs to be met: whether the remains are animal or human; the number of individuals represented; the identification of the individual(s); the time-interval since burial; and the cause and manner of death. These objectives, at the core of physical anthropology, are often encountered by anthropologists dealing on a day-to-day basis with dry bone; there is also a high degree of archaeological relevance, particularly in evaluating the elapsed time since death. Other relevant buried factors and evidence types may lie in association with the victim and are subjects of study in their own right: the field of entomology (Erzinclioglu 1983) in which some researchers have undertaken controlled experiments 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 factors in rates of decay (Knight 1968; Knight & Lauder 1969; Angel 1985; Henderson 1987). A relatively substantial literature on decay phenomena now includes associated death scene materials (Morse 1983), climatic factors (Galloway et al. 1989), and the effects of scavenging and scatter (e.g. Haglund et al. 1989). All individuals concerned with the recovery of the victim, including the archaeologist, need to ensure that their evidential needs and sampling requirements are satisfied without jeopardising the needs of others.

In USA medico-legal cases the distinction between animal and human remains has been a considerable source of confusion, notably with respect to bears (e.g. Owsley & Mann 1990: 623); the problem is routinely faced on many archaeological cemetery sites. Research has shown radiography to provide some discrimination (Chilvarquer et al. 1991); antigens from powdered teeth have demonstrated potential for providing species identification in both archaeological and forensic contexts, as well as at natural disasters or accidents (Whittaker & Rawle 1987). Physical anthropologists are often faced with collections of skeletal remains which are commingled and fragmentary, for example on the Mary Rose (Stirland 1984) and in numerous plague pits and charnel houses (e.g. Roberts 1984). In urban cemeteries more recent graves may intercut older graves, often with the consequences that burials become mixed and scattered; in these instances there is little technical difference between archaeological routines and the procedures necessary on 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 of certified physical anthropologists who are utilized by most law enforcement, coroner and medical examiner systems (Reichs 1992), but who play no part per se in the UK forensic process. Their reports, together with the limitations of the methods used, constitute legal documents for presentation in court (Galloway et al. 1990). Many UK archaeologists with osteological training are familiar with the osteometric criteria necessary for determining sex (e.g. WEA 1980) and age at death (e.g. Iscan 1989). Both determinations involve a vast anthropological and forensic literature for both ancient and modern populations, with an equally wide research base for the determination of stature and race.

In forensic contexts, a fuller identification is needed; this represents a fundamental difference between the two areas of application. In archaeological contexts the anthropologist is only rarely able to suggest an identity for specific individuals (e.g. Stirland 1990; Roberts et al. 1992), although research on more modern populations, for example at Christ Church, Spitalfields (Molleson & Cox 1993) has shown the forensic potential of excavating historically documented archaeological human remains. Notable advances in the identification characteristics of archaeological populations include: dentition (Bennike 1985; Zias 1987); the interpretation of factors indicating occupation, disease, activity or stress (e.g. Merbs 1983); and biological methods including both blood analysis (Gruspier 1985) and DNA (Richards et al. 1993). Additionally, the developing field of facial reconstruction is equally strong on both forensic and archaeological fronts (e.g. Iscan & Helmer 1993; Neave 1986).

Determination of the time elapsed since death is normally derived from the remains of the victim by a pathologist, often supported by entomological evidence (e.g. Erzinclioglu 1983). Contextual or stratigraphic factors are not always used, nor is the weight of archaeological literature covering environmental factors and decay rates (below). However, only in certain instances would conventional archaeological dating techniques become applicable, for example in confirming that a skeleton is more than 70-100 years old (since time of death), and thus arguably not related to a recent crime. Radiocarbon dating of the prehistoric 'Ice Man' recently found on the Italian-Austrian border and originally thought to be a soldier from the last war is a good, if extreme, case (Spindler 1994: 77).

In the majority of cases, approaches rely on time-dependent change in bone tissue. These phenomena, summarized by Knight and co-workers in early forensic papers (e.g. Knight 1968; 1969), have also found archaeological relevance, in nitrogen dating (Ortner et al. 1972), in amino acid loss (Schoeninger et al. 1988), in bone fluorescence (Piepenbrink 1986) and in methods which detect low levels of haemoglobin, now evidenced in archaeological samples (Cattaneo et al. 1992). More recently, a new level of sophistication has been achieved by relating body decomposition products to the chemistry of the surrounding soil solution (Vass et al. 1992) -- a method which may bear some archaeological potential given the detection of enhanced levels of cholesterol beneath an Angle-Saxon burial (Davies & Pollard 1988). These biochemical methods, however, are extremely sensitive to environmental conditions. Radiometric dating may also be of forensic value in recent periods on the basis of changes in atmospheric carbon since 1950 AD (Taylor et al. 1989) and in radiostrontium from nuclear testing (MacLaughlin-Black et al. 1992).

Decay phenomena

The quality of evidence relating to a buried cadaver (archaeological or forensic) depends on the degree of degradation in the period between deposition and investigation. Archaeological interest has been stimulated principally by phenomena causing differential preservation resulting in either extensive soft-tissue preservation or extensive degradation of skeletal elements (Janaway 1987), for example at Barton-on-Humber (Rodwell & Rodwell 1982), St Bees, Cumbria (Tapp & O'Sullivan 1982), Christchurch, Dorset (Jarvis 1983), and in Greenland (Hansen et al. 1991), or extreme states of survival in the case 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). Death chemistry is complex and well discussed in forensic literature (e.g. Mant 1984; Gee & Knight 1985; Knight 1991). After initial decomposition, generalized soil chemistry may have a greater direct effect on the corrosion of associated metals or in bone diagenesis than either soil biology or the gaseous composition of the burial atmosphere -- factors which have been studied both archaeologically (Henderson 1987; Garland & Janaway 1989; Johansson 1987) and forensically (Janssen 1984; Mant 1953; 1987).

The local factors known to affect the rate and nature of the interaction between the body and associated buried materials (Janaway 1987) include the specific nature of the soil, its oxygenation, water content, redox potential, ion-exchange capacity and pH variation as well as the character of the body itself -- the age at death, its biochemistry, fat content and the effects of any trauma. Other variables include the cause of death, the seasonal temperature, whether the body is clothed, unclothed, or wrapped in a polythene sheet; and the depth of the burial. Processes such as the conversion of fat to adipocere have been covered in the forensic, geochemical, microbiological and archaeological 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 recovery potential (Waldron 1987), and have considerable forensic implications in establishing time since death.

The shorter the time between interment and recovery, the more likely soft tissue is to be preserved, although there are well-known examples of soft tissue preservation over archaeological time-scales. The peat bogs of northern Europe have produced over 1300 complete or partially complete archaeological bog bodies (Glob 1969; Brothwell 1986; Stead et al. 1986) the preservation of which can now be attributed to a range of factors (Painter 1991a; Painter 1991b) -- factors which also combined to preserve the soft tissue of Pauline Reade, the latest Moors Murder victim to be recovered after a burial period of some 20 years on Saddle-worth Moor (Topping 1989: 173). Natural mummification by rapid drying of the tissues is also well attested in forensic (Poison et al. 1985: 26-9) and archaeological examples (El-Naajjar & Mulinski 1980).

The deterioration of associated buried materials, an integral component of archaeological study (e.g. Cronyn 1990), is little recognized in forensic investigation. In general, inorganic materials survive better than organic materials over archaeological time-scales, although organic materials such as wood, leather and textiles will require a specific set of burial conditions to be preserved (e.g. MacGregor 1982; Coles 1984; Morrison 1985; Hall 1984). However, as far as more modern materials are concerned, there is little archaeological experience 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 the composition of polymers, chain length, number of cross links, and proportion of plasticizers; the 'garbage project' study of modern city dumps as archaeological deposits now assists knowledge of this (Rathje et al. 1992).

USA studies have identified a useful correlation between time since death and extent of disarticulation in scattered surface remains (e.g. Haglund et al. 1989: table 1; Morse 1983: table 6.1), although degree of scatter is more a working guide than an absolute measure of elapsed time. 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 of scavenged animal material in Africa (e.g. Blumenschine 1986), where the predators are larger than those in northern Europe (e.g. lions) and the prediction of specific bone groups being scavenged in single units less applicable. Archaeological research has also distinguished animal gnawing from human workmanship, and useful sets of control data have been derived (e.g. Morse 1983: 148-53; Krogman & Iscan 1986: table 2.3). 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 scatter trends are presumably also similar.

Location

The locating of buried human remains occupies an important part of the forensic anthropology literature in the USA (e.g. Krogman & Iscan 1986); other works have a more archaeological bias (e.g. Morse et al. 1983) the most recent (Killam 1990) providing a detailed discussion of individual methods. A succinct guide to the location of buried remains (France et al. 1992) has since been based on the controlled burial and systematic detection of pig carcasses in Colorado. As the total US literature is based on a larger case load, the developed methodology resulting for example in Killam's 'dump-site' analysis (1990: 15f), warrants attention. The discovery of both buried and surface remains is aided by remote prospection, but the basic techniques are otherwise those of field-craft which lie at the core of the archaeologist's experience and training: the understanding of geology, landscape and environment; and the identification of buried sites from topographical, vegetational and shadow anomalies for which innovative search pattern systems have been devised for forensic work (e.g. Killam 1990: figure 3.4). However, most UK police forces use close-contact line searches which have the potential for destroying topographical or vegetational evidence in the very process of searching.

In the UK the primary archaeological input in locating buried remains is likely to be landscape appraisal so as to limit target areas for more detailed search. Requiring appropriate maps and photographs, it may involve some trial excavation in order to ascertain soil character, chemistry and depth and lead to more detailed investigation of the target areas, for example by specific geophysical survey techniques, augering, aerial photography or excavation.

Unless the area is conveniently small the first aim is locating the body, and this departs from accepted archaeological thinking. Recovery and the maximization of the available evidence becomes secondary; in large searches cost is critical. This also reflects the USA experience in which searching is seen to progress 'from completely non-destructive to increasingly invasive procedures such that evidence collection is optimized while evidence disturbance is minimised' (France et al. 1992: 1454); the same philosophy underlay the latter part of the Moors Murders inquiry.

Aerial photography has an important part to play in locating buried remains (Killam 1990: chapter 8). However, its underlying principles rely on factors of seasonality and lighting -- yet in instances of very recent crime a suspect can only be held for a limited period. Nevertheless, in the experience of the author the majority of requests for advice normally occur months or even years after the crime at a time when the suspect has passed through the committal stage or is serving a sentence without the victim's body having yet come to light. Extensive searching using a task force or equivalent has already taken place, and the time factor is less critical. In cases which are many years old comparison between runs of photographs taken at different times can show the extent to which landscapes have changed in order that search areas can be defined accordingly. In the re-opening of the Moors Murders inquiry in 1986, aerial photographs were taken to assess changes in moorland topography since the original investigation and photography of 1963 (Topping 1989: 70).

Recent developments in archaeology have shown the usefulness of multispectral image survey in standing buildings analysis and in soils differentiation (Brooke 1986; Brooke 1989: 6f), although this has not been widely utilized in aerial work. Thermal analysis of soil to locate archaeological features, which has a longer history, can identify differential in heat loss at the ground surface between disturbed and undisturbed soils (Scollar et al. 1990: 591f) as well as identifying archaeological features (Perisset & Tabbagh 1981); it has also been used to detect heat emitted from the biological decay of buried victims or animals (e.g. Dickinson 1977). Controlled experimentation with buried human remains has shown that heat generated by decomposition can lie well within the detectable limits of infra-red thermal scanning (Rodriguez & Bass 1985).

Geophysical survey is a more familiar method with attested forensic application. Archaeological prospection methods, now particularly used in evaluation (Gaffney et al. 1991; Gaffney & Gater 1993), have a long history of applied technical development (e.g. Scollar et al. 1990). Their forensic application in the USA has also been discussed and ranked (Killam 1990: chapter 5). As it is both highly cost-effective and unobtrusive, the method has a valuable role to play in the close study of target areas. The two most common methods, soil resistance and magnetometry (fluxgate gradiometry), rely on the difference (ie the anomaly) between the grave-fill and the surrounding undisturbed soil rather than detecting the body itself. Both methods are also useful in providing negative evidence in an enquiry. In two recent cases in the East Midlands geophysics and trial trenching were used, in one case to disprove a witness account that a body had been buried in a particular place, and in the other to eliminate the grounds of a house from being the burial-place of the two missing householders.

Some other survey methods are not sufficiently sophisticated or appropriate for forensic purposes: seismic refraction is better suited to geological and large archaeological features (Goulty et al. 1990); induced polarization proved largely unsuccessful in defining test graves during Home Office experiments (Lynam 1970: 199ff); and the detection of soil gas (methane), although useful, is limited to the period of decomposition and warmer temperatures. Thermal probing, as yet unrefined for forensic purposes, shows some potential in development (Bellerby et al. 1990); trials at Verulamium indicated that the probe could detect thermophysical anomalies such as walls at depths of up to 1.3 m, although the detection of individual graves is currently beyond technical capability.

Significant developments in geophysical prospection for both archaeological and forensic purposes occurred in ground penetrating radar (GPR) during the 1970s (e.g. Bevan & Kenyon 1979). Although not originally devised for archaeological prospection GPR has been applied to subterranean chambers at the ancient city of Sepphoris, Israel (Batey 1987), burial vaults in Japan (Imai et al. 1987), complex urban sites in York (Stove & Addyman 1989) and graves at a 16th-century Basque whaling station in Labrador (Vaughan 1986). Elsewhere, recent archaeological work at Gloucester was able to identify intact skulls as target points but only with hindsight and re-processing and it was admitted that it was not possible to locate skeletons as such below 1.3 m. The practicalities and problems of GPR (including cost implications) for archaeological purposes have been reviewed (Atkin & Milligan 1992), but no public assessment of the technique for locating buried human remains by UK police forces has been made. Its apparent and well-publicized success leading to the recovery of nine buried 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, a ransom for the safe return of estate agent Stephanie Slater in 1992, was a classic example of landscape search and the pinpointing of a target area. West Yorkshire police used evidence of the suspect's known movements and witness accounts as well as a psychologist's report and both military and archaeological advice regarding feasibility of burial site. The search area was narrowed down to a thin strip of land which appeared to satisfy all the information and advice given, the hoard being found by systematic GPR transects.

Forensic science and archaeological science

In the laboratory, archaeological science may have an unrecognized role to play in the forensic arena -- an arena broadly defined as 'the application of science to the analysis and interpretation of physical evidence in criminal and civil litigation' (Sensabaugh 1986: 129). Since 1991 Forensic Science Laboratories in the UK have held executive agency status and operate from a number of regional centres. Each provides a full range of analytical services for toxins, biological and pathological materials, explosives, paint, glass, metals, soils and geological samples. The range of problems and techniques are reflected in the dedicated literature: Journal of Forensic Science (USA); Forensic Science International (USA); and Journal of the Forensic Science Society (UK).

A similarly increasing range of scientific techniques in archaeology has been well documented (e.g. Tite 1991), although other publications have also examined the theoretical position of the discipline, and the role of scientific method in interpreting past human action (e.g. Trigger 1989; Hodder 1992; Yoffee & Sherratt 1993a). Inevitably, the more specific contribution of scientific techniques to archaeology has been increasingly scrutinized (e.g. Thomas 1991); even the elevation of scientific analysis in archaeology has been compared to 'the reading of a murder mystery in which the pathologists have ousted the detective'. (Bradley 1987: 118). One criticism made of archaeological science is that many studies 'seem to be conducted in the absence of any archaeological problem requiring investigation' (Yoffee & Sherratt 1993b: 4-5), a comment also echoed in a forensic context (Kind 1987: 3).

Both archaeological science and forensic science mark the point of convergence of a wide range of disciplines; in forensic science this includes chemistry, biology, physics, psychology, anthropology and a number of medical fields (Saferstein 1982; Davies 1986). Over half the cases each year undertaken in Forensic Science Laboratories in the UK involve matching different items or substances to a common source (Williams 1991: 9f quoting a Home Office Study) following Locard's exchange principle of the transfer of materials (1928). The striking similarity between archaeological science and forensic science, particularly in provenance studies, in compositional analysis and in dating (above), can be extended to include a growing interest in archaeological human materials (Hedges & Sykes 1992; Thomas 1993). There is now an unequivocal argument for greater mutual awareness in the respective literatures to match the need for greater mutual awareness in the field.

The broad application of forensic archaeology has enabled this author to provide operational support at scenes of crime throughout the UK, and to make regular presentations within national detective training courses. The University of Bradford now also offers an undergraduate module in forensic archaeology; and this paper pre-empts the publication of the first textbook on the subject, to be available in 1995 (Hunter et al. in press).

References

AITKEN, 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 in archaeology -- 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: a laboratory and field manual of the human skeleton. 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 for archaeological prospection: preliminary investigations, Archaeometry 32(2): 191-203.

BENNIKE, P. 1985. Palaeopathology of Danish skeletons: a comparative study of demography, disease and injury. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

BETHELL, P.H. 1991. Inorganic analysis of organic residues at Sutton Hoe, in P. Budd et al. (ed.), Archaeological sciences 1989: proceedings of a conference on the application of scientific techniques to archaeology. 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 historical archaeology, MASCA Newsletter: 11: 2-7.

BLUMENSCHINE, R.J. 1986. Carcass consumption sequences and the archaeological distinction of scavenging and hunting, Journal of Human Evolution 15(8): 639-59.

BODDINGTON, A., A.N. GARLAND & R.C. JANAWAY. (ed.). 1987. Death, decay and reconstruction: approaches to archaeology and forensic science. 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 archaeological study of churches, in L.A.S. Butler & R.K. Morris (ed.), The Angle-Saxon church: 210-17. London: Council for British Archaeology. Research report 60.

1989. Ground-based remote sensing. Birmingham: Institute of Field Archaeologists. Technical paper 7.

BROOKS, S.T. 1981. Teaching of forensic anthropology in the United States, 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 the courts -- improving its effectiveness, Journal of the Forensic Science Society 14: 93-7.

CATTANEO, C., K. GELSTHORPE, P. PHILLIPS & R.J. SOKAL. 1992. Reliable identification of human albumin in ancient bone using ELISA and monoclonal 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 study of human and animal long bone patterns, Journal of Forensic Science 32(6): 1645-54.

COLES, J. 1984. The archaeology of wetlands. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

COTTON, G.E., A.C. AUFDERHEIDE & V.G. GOLDSCHMIDT. 1987. Preservation of human tissue immersed for five years in fresh water of known 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 an Angle-Saxon grave, in E.A. Slater & J.O. Tate (ed.), Science and archaeology Glasgow 1987: 391-402. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British series 196(ii).

DAVIS, J. 1992. Forensic archaeology, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 11(1): 151-6.

DEN DOOREN DE JONG, L.E. 1961. On the formation of adipocere from fats, contribution to the microbiology of systems containing two liquid fats, Antonie van Leeuvenhoek Journal of Microbiology and Serology 27: 337-61.

DICKINSON, D.J. 1977. The aerial use of an infra-red camera in a police search for the body of a missing person in New Zealand, Journal of the Forensic Science Society 16: 205-11.

DWIGHT, T. 1878. The identification of the human skeleton: a medico-legal study. Boston (MA): Massachusetts Medical Society. (Reprinted 1978.)

EL-NAJJAR, M.Y. & T.M.J. MULINKSI. 1980. Mummies and mummification practices in the southwestern and southern United States, in A. Cockburn & E. Cockburn (ed.), Mummies, disease and ancient cultures: 10317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ERZINCLIOGLU, Y.Z. 1983. The application of entomology to forensic medicine, 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 the detection of clandestine graves, Journal of Forensic Science 37(6): 1435-750.

GAFFNEY, C.F. & J.G. GATER. 1993. Practice and method in the application of geophysical techniques in archaeology, in Hunter & Ralston (ed.): 205-14.

GAFFNEY, C.F., J.G. GATER & S.M. OVENDEN. 1991. The use of geophysical 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 of Forensic Science 34(3): 607-16.

GALLOWAY, A., W.H. BIRKBY, T. KAHANA & L. FULGINITI. 1990. Physical anthropology and the law: legal responsibilities of forensic anthropologists, Yearbook of Forensic Anthropology 33: 39-57.

GARLAND, A.N. & R.C. JANAWAY. 1989. The taphonomy of inhumation burials, in C.A. Roberts, F. Lee & J. Bintliff (ed.), Burial archaeology: current research, methods and developments: 15-37. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British series 211.

GLAISTER, J. & J.C. BRASH. 1937. Medicolegal aspects of the Ruxton 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 a shear-wave seismic refraction survey, Archaeometry 32(1): 71-82.

GRUSPIER, K. 1985. Paleoserology: history and new application to the Casa San Vincenzo skeletal material. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Sheffield.

HAGLUND, W.D., D.T. REAY, & D.R. SWINDLER. 1989. Canid scavenging/disarticulation sequence of of human remains in the Pacific Northwest, Journal of Forensic Science 34(3): 587-606.

HAGLUND, W.D., D.G. REICHERT, & D.T. REAY. 1990. Recovery of decomposed and skeletal human remains in the Green River murder investigation: 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. The Greenland 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 in archaeological science, a joint symposium of the Royal Society and the British Academy, February 1991: 267-83. Oxford: British Academy. Proceedings of the British Academy 77.

HENDERSON, J. 1987. Factors determining the state of preservation of human 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. Archaeological resource management in the UK: an introduction. Stroud: Alan Sutton.

HUNTER, J.R., A. MARTIN & C.A.R. ROBERTS (ed.). In press. An introduction 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-probing radar and resistivity surveys for archaeological investigations, Geophysics 52(2): 137-50.

ISCAN, M.Y. 1988. Rise of forensic anthropology, Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 31: 203-30.

1989. Research strategies in age estimation: the multiregional approach, 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 (NY): Wiley-Liss.

JANAWAY, R.C. 1987. The preservation of organic materials in association with metal artefacts deposited in inhumation graves, in Beddington et al. (1987): 127-48.

JANSSEN, W. 1984. Forensic histopathology. 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 archaeological conservation: 132-7. Century City (CA): J. Paul Getty Trust, Getty Conservation Institute and Institute Nacional de Antropologiae 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 of practical 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 forensic medicine. Springfield (IL): Charles C. Thomas.

LOCARD, E. 1928. Dust and its analysis: an aid to criminal investigation, Police Journal 1: 177-92.

LYNAM, J.T. 1970. Techniques of geophysical prospection as applied to near 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 and Council for 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 pilot investigation, Forensic Science International 57: 51-6.

MCCONVILLE, M. & J. BALDWIN. 1981. Courts, prosecution and conviction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

MCKINLEY, J.I. & C.A. ROBERTS. 1993. Excavation and post-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 and decomposition of the human body: variables and observations in case and experimental 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 medical jurisprudence. 13th edition. Edinburgh & New York (NY): Churchill Livingstone.

1987. Knowledge acquired from post-war exhumations, in Beddington et al. (1987): 65-78.

MARTIN, A. 1991. The application of archaeological methods and techniques to the location, recovery and analysis of buried human remains from forensic contexts. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Bradford.

MERBS, C. 1983. Patterns of activity induced pathology in an Inuit population. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.

MILDRED, R.H. 1982. The expert witness. London: Godwin.

MOLLESON, T. & M. Cox. 1993. The Spitalfields project 2: The anthropology. 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 death scene 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 of associated death scene material, Journal of Forensic Science 30(1): 119-27.

MORSE, D., R.C. DAILEY, J. STOUTAMIRE & J. DUNCAN. 1984. Forensic archaeology, in Rathbun & Buikstra (1984): 53-63.

MORSE, D., J. DUNCAN & J. STOUTAMIRE (ed.). 1983. Handbook of forensic archaeology and anthropology. Tallahassee (FL): Rose Printing.

MORSE, D., J. STOUTAMIRE & J. DUNCAN. 1976. A unique course in anthropology, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45(3): 743-8.

NEAVE, R.A.H. 1986. The reconstruction of skulls for facial reconstruction 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 of temperature on protein decay in bone: its significance in nitrogen dating of archaeological specimens, American Antiquity 37: 514-20.

OWSLEY, D.W. & R.W. MANN. 1990. Medico-legal case involving a bear paw, Journal of the American Podiatric Association 80(11): 623-5.

PAINTER, T.J. 1991a. Preservation in peat, Chemistry and Industry (17 June): 421-24.

1991b. Lindow Man, Tollund Man and other peat-bog bodies: the preservative and antimicrobial action of spagnan, a reactive glycuronoglycan with tanning and sequestering properties, Carbohydrate Polymers 15: 123-42.

PERISSET, M.C. & A. TABBAGH. 1981. Interpretation of thermal prospection on bare soils, Archaeometry 23(2): 169-87.

PIEPENBRINK, H. 1986. Two examples of biogenous dead bone decomposition and their consequences for taphonomic interpretation, Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 417-30.

POLSON, C.J., D.J. GEE & B. KNIGHT. 1985. The essentials of forensic medicine. 4th edition. London: Pergamon Press.

PRISTON, A. 1985a. A forensic scientist's guide to the English legal 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: The archaeology. York: Council for British Archaeology. Research report 85.

REICHS, K.J. 1992. Forensic anthropology in the 1990s, American Journal 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, World Archaeology 25(1): 18-28.

ROBERTS, C.A. 1984. Analysis of some human femora from a medieval charnel house at Rothwell Parish Church, Northamptonshire, Ossa 9-11: 119-34.

ROBERTS, C.A., K. MANCHESTER & A. STOREY. 1992. Margaret Clitherow: skeletal identification of an historical figure, Forensic Science International 57: 63-71.

RODRIGUEZ, W.C. & W.M. BASS. 1983. Insect activity and its relationship to decay rates of human cadavers in East Tennessee, Journal of Forensic Science 28(2): 423-32.

1985. Decomposition of buried bodies and methods that may aid in their location, Journal of Forensic Science 30(3): 836-52.

RODWELL, W. & K. RODWELL. 1982. St. Peter's Church, Barton on Humber: excavation and structural study, 1978-81, Antiquaries Journal 62(2): 283-315.

SAFERSTEIN, R. (ed.). 1982. Forensic science handbook. Eaglewood Cliffs (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: Cambridge University Press.

SENSABAUGH, G.F. 1986. Forensic science research: who does it and where is it going?, in G. Davies (ed.), Forensic science: 129-40. 2nd edition. Washington (DC): American Chemical Society.

SIGLER-EISENBERG, B.B. 1985. Forensic research: expanding the concept of applied archaeology, American Antiquity 50(3): 650-55.

SKINNER, M. & R.A. LAZENBY. 1983. Found! Human remains. Burnaby BC: Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press.

SNOW, C.C. 1982. Forensic anthropology, Annual Review of Anthropology 11: 97-131.

SPINDLER, K. 1994. The man in the ice. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

STEAD, I.M., J.B. BOURKE & D. BROTHWELL. 1986. Lindow Man: the body in the bog. London: British Museum Publications.

STEWART, T.D. 1978. George A. Dorsey's role in the Luetgert case: a significant episode in the history of forensic anthropology, Journal of Forensic Science 23(4): 786-91.

1979. Essentials of forensic anthropology. Springfield (IL): Charles C. Thomas.

STIRLAND, A. 1984. A possible correlation between os acromiale and occupation in the burials from the Mary Rose, Proceedings of the Palaeopathology Association: 327-34. 5th European Meeting, Siena.

1990. The late Sir Thomas Reynes: a medieval identification, Journal of 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 adipocere formation I. Identification and chemical properties of hydroxy fatty acids in adipocere, Forensic Science International 9: 63-73.

1977b, The mechanism of adipocere formation II. Separation and identification of oxo fatty acids in adipocere, Forensic Science International 10: 117-25.

TAPP, E. & D. O'SULLIVAN. 1982. St Bees Man: the autopsy, Proceedings of the Paleopathology Association: 178-82. 4th European Meeting, Middelberg.

TAYLOR, R.E., J.M. SUCHEY, L.A. PAYNEN & P.J. SLOTA JNR. 1989. The use of radiocarbon (14C) to identify human skeletal materials of forensic science interest, Journal of Forensic Science 34: 1196-205.

THOMAS, J. 1991. Science versus anti-science? Archaeological Review from Cambridge 10(1): 27-36.

THOMAS, K.D. 1993. Molecular biology and archaeology: a prospectus for interdisciplinary research, World Archaeology 25 (1): 1-17.

TITE,M.S. 1991. Archaeological science -- past achievements and future prospects, Archaeometry 33(2): 139-51.

TOPPING, P. 1989. Topping: the autobiography of the police chief in the 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 and interpretation. Washington (DC): Taraxacum Press.

VANEZIS, P., B. GRANT SIMS & J.H. GRANT. 1978. Medical and scientific investigations of an exhumation in unhallowed ground, Medical Science 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 in archaeological 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 for age and sex diagnosis of skeletons, Journal of Human Evolution 9: 517-49.

WHITTAKER, D. & L. RAWLE. 1987. The effect of conditions of putrefaction on species determination in human and animal teeth, Forensic Science International 35: 209-12.

WILLEY, P. & A. HEILMAN, 1988. Estimating time since death using plant roots and stems, Journal of Forensic Science 32: 1264-71.

WILLIAMS, J. 1991. The modern Sherlock Holmes: an introduction to forensic 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 sets the agenda? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1993b. Introduction: the sources of archaeological theory, in Yoffee & Sherratt (1993a): 1-9.

ZIAS, J. 1987. Operative dentistry in the 2nd century BC, Journal of the American Dental Association 114: 665-6.

ZIMMERMAN, M.R. & J.L. ANGEL. (ed.). 1986. Dating and age determination of biological materials. London: Croom Helm.