• Ancient Digger teaches Archaeology and History to all Ages!

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Forensic Archaeology - San Bernardino County (CA) Unidentified Person Project




For nearly 100 years (1908-2008), unidentified human remains – known as John & Jane Doe’s – in San Bernardino County (California) have been buried in a three acre plot of land located in one of the county’s many cemeteries. Many of these individuals were the victims of foul play, others were simply forgotten by society. All, however, have one thing in common: forensic science was unable to identify who they were using the methods available at the time.

In 2001, the California Senate passed Bill 297, which asked counties such as San Bernardino to apply modern DNA analysis to these decades-old cold cases. This field school will conduct forensic work to assist in such identification.

Students will excavate burials in forensic contexts, perform preliminary analysis of the remains and help collect remains to send for further laboratory analysis before documenting and reburying the remains.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

A23 medieval bones were "accidentally dumped"


Medieval bones found by the side of the A23 are thought to have been accidently dumped there during the building of the road in the seventies.

A huge police operation was launched last May after road workers found a human jaw near Slaugham.

Now experts believe the remains were dropped there with the bodies of others as part of topsoil from cemeteries.

Forensic archaeologists were drafted in to discover whether the remains belonged to someone who had been reported missing or a murder victim.

But the police file was closed just weeks later after experts said they were of “ancient origin”.

Lucy Sibun, from Archaeology South East, led the investigation on behalf of Sussex Police.

In her report to the coroner she said: “When I began careful investigation and excavation of this topsoil further fragments of human bone were located within it but none of them represented an in situ grave but rather a disarticulated jumble of several individuals.

“Mixed in with them were frag- ments of butchered animal bone and badly degraded ironwork.”

Speaking to The Argus she said that the ironwork was more than likely some form of coffin furniture such as handles or hinges.

She added that the degraded nature of the metal pointed towards the bones being from the medieval to post-medieval period, sometime between the 14th and 18th century.

In her report she explained that the remains, which had all the characteristics of an “archaeological deposit”, appeared to have been in their broken and fragmented state before ending up at their final resting place.

She explained: “They most likely ended up at that site due to the building of the road in the 1970s.

“The topsoil, which is where we found the remains, probably came from a medieval churchyard.

“That could never happen nowadays because if a church wanted to expand or get rid of topsoil we would carry out a thorough search first.”

Without further investigation and a significant amount of funding it is difficult to provide specific details on the remains.

Their true origin will be a mystery as the coroner ordered that the bones should be disposed of.

[Source: Argus]

Friday, June 10, 2011

UCF Forensic Anthropologist Dr. John Schultz Takes the Stand in Casey Anthony Trial


University of Central Florida Professor Dr. John Schultz took the stand today in the Casey Anthony trial. As an Anthropology student at UCF with an Archaeological Methods class scheduled for next Fall semester, I was interested to see Dr. Schultz’s testimony.

Forensic Recovery of Human Remains: Archaeological ApproachesDr. Schultz attended University of Florida for his PhD and University of Indianapolis and University of Stonybrook, New York. Dr. Schultz is an associate professor who specializes in biological anthropology. His research interests include forensic anthropology, taphonomy, and ground-penetrating radar methods for forensic and archaeological contexts. Recent publications have focused on the application of ground-penetrating radar for detecting controlled forensic graves, taphonomy of commercial cremations, and taphonomy of skeletal remains from historic contexts. Dr. Schultz also works with local law enforcement agencies on the search, recovery and identification of human skeletal remains. He recently published a book titled Forensic Recovery of Human Remains: Archaeological Approaches (with co-authors T. Dupras, S. Wheeler and L. Williams, CRC Press, 2005). Dr. Schultz was recently featured on the Discovery Channel's series, "Mummy Autopsy".

Dr. Schultz Testimony

Dr. Schultz assisted the Medical Examiner in the case findings. Schultz describes how Caylee's bones were dispersed at the scene.

Some bones of the arm, hand bones and lower legs were found in Area A along with the left foot. Chest and humorous bones were found in Area B. In Area F we see the trunk of the body showing that the lower legs were dragged to this area. Carnivore damage was evident on clavicles, shafts of femurs (proximal), and parts of the pelvis found in this area. The trunk evidently was deposited in that area because of carnivores.

At this point the trunk was carried away from Area A to Area F. In Area D we found the right foot with carnivore damage. One hand bone was found in Area E and in Area G the spinal columns with ribs detached from distal end were discovered. When we started to separate out the bottom of spinal column we discovered it was consistent with animal damage. That part of the spinal column is attached to the pelvis.

Ribs, which were dislocated, were found in Area H. At this point we haven’t seen most of the spine. In Area I, Dr. Schultz found Cervical Vertebrae #12 and Lumbar Vertebrae #5. Overall, Dr. Schultz explains that 20 vertebrae were found.

The bones were dispersed in several areas, leading Dr. Schultz to concur that “As the trunk was being dragged, bones were not being held on by certain ligaments and they dropped to the ground. Some vertebrate are in two parts because the bones have not fused yet in the body.”

The Skeleton Dispersals

When the skeleton was deposited in Area A, it may have been relatively intact. “We did not see any use of tools to dismember the body prior to dumping”, Schultz explains.

The hip bone, known as the “Ilium”, was buried in such a way that would allow for a significant amount of time for it to dry out completely.

Schultz explains, “Many of the bones were located under the leaf fall. It was a swampy area, so it’s quite possible that when the area was filled up with water, actions from the water, silt suspended in the water, would have buried the bone. The bone was found close to palmetto trunk.”

Dr. John Schultz was also surprised to find the mandible still attached by some hair fragments.

Response From Findings

“When we were trying to figure out the time of death, overall the bones were dry with no marrow or tissue. This process would take time.” Schultz replied.

The importance of this testimony means the body had been there since mid summer.

“The body must have been there for at least 6 months for that type of decomposition to take place.” Dr Schultz explains.

The Defense then asked about x-rayed bones and whether or not Dr. Schultz x-rayed the bones. The findings were that there was no evidence of trauma. No childhood fracture or abuse. This doesn’t of course rule out the use of Chloroform, to slowly and lethally kill the child over time.

Defense: “Any evidence to you that the child had traumatic evidence prior to death?”

Dr. Schultz : “No.”

Defense: “How far was Area A from the paved road? Did you participate in the measurement at all.”

Dr. Schultz: “A 3D scanner was brought in and the measurements were provided to me by Ronald Murdock”.

The Defense was trying to explain that the majority of the bones in the bags recovered were from Area A. However, there was no way to determine if there were bones missing since field crews were surveying different areas at different times, and all results had not been compiled.

The discussion of duct tape concluded that the tape was not covering the entire nasal aperture. The nose was decomposed, therefore it was impossible to determine whether that particular area was covered by the tape. Dr. Schultz explains that the mouth would have been covered.

After a review of the dispersal of bones in the various areas Dr. Schultz was dismissed for the day.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

The Darker Side of Archaeology: Use of GPR at the L’Ambiance Plaza Disaster


L’Ambiance Plaza was a 16 story residential project that was under construction in Bridgeport, Connecticut at the corner of Washington Avenue and Coleman Street when its partial frame collapsed on April 23, 1987. There were 28 workers that were killed, caught between the sandwiched concrete floors of the collapsed building. The site was immediately swarmed by many of the construction workers from other projects in Bridgeport who tried to save trapped workers. From the start it was quite apparent that finding any survivors would be a miracle.

This photo taken at the scene of the disaster illustrates what kind of problems we faced using GPR.
(This photo taken at the scene of the disaster illustrates what kind of problems we faced using GPR.)

Shortly after the accident we received a phone call from the Bridgeport Police requesting us to come to the accident scene as soon as possible with our Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) to join in the search for survivors. As soon as we arrived at the scene of the collapse we set up our GPR unit and quickly discovered that although our unit had the capability of penetrating several feet into the ground, it was unable to penetrate the concrete used in the construction of L'Ambiance Plaza.

The construction methods that were used totally defeated the GPR because the floors were reinforced with rebar and heavy wire mesh. It was impossible to penetrate the concrete and get any meaningful images as a result of the very strong echoes from the steel reinforcements.

Strangely, the next job we received was determining if there were sufficient reinforcements of rebar in a construction project in the neighboring city of Norwalk, Connecticut. In this case the GPR was effective because the rebar was far enough apart, so the solar radar beam did not pick up any conflicting echoes.

This brings up the question of where you can't use GPR, and there are several different natural conditions that can block the radar beam.

The GPR is virtually useless in the following conditions:
  • In concrete that is heavily enforced with rebar or wire mesh or any combination of both.
  • If the soil is contaminated with salt; the salt will have a tendency to break up the radar beam causing a very shallow penetration that at times can be measured in millimeters making the use of GPR virtually impossible.
  • The presence of excessive clay serves practically the same purpose since the penetration of the radar beam through clay can also be measured in millimeters.

Forensic-gpr-subsurface-inspection

(This shows a GPR unit at work at a forensic site)

Fortunately there are other places where GPR can be used to great effect. It can be used very effectively in penetrating solid stone. One of the early trials we conducted with ground penetrating radar was the Palisade Sill in New Jersey across the river from New York City. The radar beam penetrated to about 300 feet and showed the deposits of chromite that had settled through the molten basaltic magma from which the sill is composed.

5_areas_of_concern1a
(This is a readout showing five areas of interest that might be human remains. )

We have also used GPR to detect cavities in limestone underlying a stretch of Interstate 80 in western New Jersey. Some of these cavities were as small as a teacup and others were as large as a small house. The average depth of penetration in ordinary soil is about 12 feet, but that can very according to the amount of clay minerals the soil contains. The more clay that is present the less penetration.

GPR does not present a photo like image of conditions below the surface of the ground but rather a readout of geometric shapes and lines that require interpretation by a trained operator. It requires several weeks to train someone in the ability to properly interpret the readout from GPR on an environmental or archaeology site.

Author Bio John Carter is a geologist that paid his way through college as a commercial helicopter pilot in the NY Metro area. He has had extensive experience as a prospector, and operated an environmental consulting firm specializing in environmental site assessments and is certified by the State of Connecticut as an Environmental Analyst III. In his early life he worked as an experimental machinist on aircraft and electronic parts before receiving his degree as a geologist.

Read more: Ancient Digger Archaeology: The Environmental Site Assessment as an Archeological Study  
References:
  1. L‘Ambiance Plaza, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Ambiance_Plaza
  2. GSSI, http://www.geophysical.com/?gclid=CNf24rf056gCFYfe4AoduGyGDg
  3. Personal Experience of John Carter
Illustrations:
  1. Photot taken at the scene of the disaster illustrates what kind of problems we faced using GPR.
  2. GPR unit at work at a forensic site Photo by Vadams
  3. This is a readout showing five areas of interest that might be human remains. Photo by Matomj

Like Ancient Digger? Why Not Follow Us?


Subscribe Via RSS Feed Follow Ancient Digger on Facebook Follow Ancient Digger on Twitter Subscribe to Ancient Digger Via Email

Get widget

Search

 

Ancient Digger Archaeology Copyright © 2015 LKart Theme is Designed by Lasantha