Forensic Archaeology

The Application of Comparative Excavation Methods and Recording Systems

Laura Evis

• Publisher: Archaeopress
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781784914844
• eBook ISBN: 9781784914851
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

Archaeological excavation has been widely used in the recovery of human remains and other evidence in the service of legal cases for many years. However, established approaches will in future be subject to closer scrutiny following the announcement by the Law Commission in 2011 that expert evidence will in future be subject to a new reliability-based admissibility test in criminal proceedings. This book evaluates current archaeological excavation methods and recording systems – focusing on those used in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australasia, and North America – in relation to their use in providing forensic evidence, and their ability to satisfy the admissibility tests introduced by the Law Commission, and other internationally recognised bodies. In order to achieve this aim, two analyses were undertaken. First, attention was directed to understanding the origins, development, underpinning philosophies, and current use of archaeological excavation methods and recording systems in the regions selected for study. A total of 153 archaeological manuals/guidelines were examined from archaeological organisations operating in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This research indicated that the Stratigraphic Excavation method and Single Context Recording system, the Demirant Excavation method and Standard Context Recording system, the Quadrant Excavation method and Standard Context Recording system, and the Arbitrary Level Excavation method and Unit Level Recording system were the approaches most often used to excavate and record graves. Second, the four defined methodological approaches were assessed experimentally, using a grave simulation of known properties to test the excavation, recording, and interpretation of material evidence, the definition of stratigraphic contexts, and understanding of stratigraphic relationships. The grave simulation also provided opportunities to measure archaeologists' narratives of the grave formation process against the known properties of the grave simulation, and to assess whether archaeological experience had any impact on evidence recovery rates. Fifty repeat excavations were conducted. The results obtained from this experimental study show that the Quadrant Excavation method and Standard Context Recording system was the most consistent, efficient, and reliable archaeological approach to use to excavate and record clandestine burials and to formulate interpretation-based narratives of a grave's formation sequence. In terms of the impact that archaeological experience had on evidence recovery rates, archaeological experience was found to have little bearing upon the recovery of evidence from the grave simulation. It is suggested that forensic archaeologists use the Quadrant Excavation method and Standard Context Recording system to excavate and record clandestine burials. If this approach is unable to be used, the Demirant Excavation method and Standard Context Recording system, or the Stratigraphic Excavation method and Single Context Recording system should be used. Both of these aforementioned techniques proved to be productive in terms of material evidence recovery and the identification and definition of stratigraphic contexts. The Arbitrary Level Excavation method and Unit Level Recording system should not be used, as this method proved to have an extremely poor evidence recovery rate and destroyed the deposition sequence present within the simulated grave.

Table of contents

• Cover
• Copyright Information
• Contents
• Figure 1: Illustrates the process of Stratigraphic Excavation © Evis and Goddard 2016.
• Figure 2: Illustrates the process of Demirant Excavation © Evis and Goddard 2016.
• Figure 3: Illustrates the process of Quadrant Excavation © Evis and Goddard 2016.
• Figure 4: Illustrates the process of Arbitrary Level Excavation © Evis and Goddard 2016.
• Figure 5: An example of data entry into the spreadsheet system © Evis 2016.
• Figure 6: Illustrates the excavation methods that are currently being used in field archaeology to deal with negative features © Evis 2016.
• Figure 7: Illustrates the design of the grave simulation © Evis 2016.
• Figure 8: The Harris Matrix of the grave simulation © Evis 2016.
• Figure 9: Illustrates the material evidence items E1-E9 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 10: Illustrates the stages of the grave formation process © Evis 2016.
• Figure 11: Archaeological sector from which the manuals/guidelines originate © Evis 2016.
• Figure 12: Overall sector distribution from which the manuals/guidelines originate © Evis 2016.
• Figure 13: Overall manual/guideline usage © Evis 2016.
• Figure 14: Timeframe in which the manuals/guidelines were created © Evis 2016.
• Figure 15: Overall timeframe distribution of the manuals/guidelines © Evis 2016.
• Figure 16: Manuals/guidelines general content © Evis 2016.
• Figure 17: Overall objectives of the manuals/guidelines © Evis 2016.
• Figure 18: Manuals/guidelines applicability on different site types © Evis 2016.
• Figure 19: Justifications for the excavation and recording methods advocated in the manuals/guidelines © Evis 2016.
• Figure 20: Members of the archaeological team responsible for identifying and recording stratigraphy © Evis 2016.
• Figure 21: Manuals/guidelines’ definition of a positive stratigraphic unit © Evis 2016.
• Figure 22: Manuals/guidelines’ definition of a negative stratigraphic unit © Evis 2016.
• Figure 23: Manuals/guidelines’ approaches to recording stratigraphic units © Evis 2016.
• Figure 24: Manuals/guidelines’ approaches to recording stratigraphic relationships © Evis 2016.
• Figure 25: Manuals/guidelines’ approaches to representing and verifying stratigraphic sequences © Evis 2016.
• Figure 26: Purpose of recording stratigraphy © Evis 2016.
• Figure 27: Use of section drawings © Evis 2016.
• Figure 28: Data that is recorded on section drawings © Evis 2016.
• Figure 29: Section drawing conventions © Evis 2016.
• Figure 30: Use of plan drawings © Evis 2016.
• Figure 31: Data that is recorded on plan drawings © Evis 2016.
• Figure 32: The use of pro-forma recording sheets © Evis 2016.
• Figure 33: Excavation sampling strategies © Evis 2016.
• Figure 34: Excavation sampling strategies for archaeological features © Evis 2016.
• Figure 35: Use of different excavation methods © Evis 2016.
• Figure 36: Interview results for question 7: When conducting archaeological fieldwork, do you, or the organisation with which you are affiliated, follow a set of established archaeological guidelines? © Evis 2016.
• Figure 37: Interview results for question 8: Are you, or the organisation with which you are affiliated, required to report the findings of an archaeological investigation to a governing body? © Evis 2016.
• Figure 38: Interview results for question 10: Do the excavation methods you use vary according to the type of archaeological site you are working on? © Evis 2016.
• Figure 39: Interview results for question 11: Do you, or the organisation with which you are affiliated, have an excavation manual? © Evis 2016.
• Figure 40: Interview results for question 12: When excavating an archaeological site, do you follow the excavation procedures outlined in your organisation’s excavation manual, or do you excavate according to your own methodological preferences? © Evis 20
• Figure 41: Interview results for question 13: Please rate each of the following factors by the extent to which they influence your selection of an excavation method 1= Most influence. 5= Least influence © Evis 2016.
• Figure 42: Interview results for question 15: Do the recording techniques you use vary according to the type of archaeological site you are working on? © Evis 2016.
• Figure 43: Interview results for question 16: Do you, or the organisation with which you are affiliated, have an archaeological recording manual? © Evis 2016.
• Figure 44: Interview results for question 17: When recording an archaeological site, do you follow the recording procedures outlined in your organisation’s recording manual, or do you record according to your own methodological preferences? © Evis 2016.
• Figure 45: Interview results for question 18: Do you, or the organisation with which you are affiliated, use pro-formas when recording archaeological data? © Evis 2016.
• Figure 46: Interview results for question 19: When recording the excavation of a negative feature, which of the following recording techniques would you choose to use? © Evis 2016.
• Figure 47: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 01 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 48: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 01 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 49: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 02 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 50: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 02 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 51: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 03 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 52: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 03 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 53: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 04 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 54: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 04 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 55: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 05 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 56: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 05 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 57: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 06 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 58: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 06 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 59: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 07 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 60: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 07 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 61: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 08 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 62: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 08 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 63: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 09 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 64: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 09 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 65: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 10 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 66: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 10 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 67: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 11 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 68: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 11 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 69: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 12 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 70: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 12 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 71: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 13 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 72: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 13 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 73: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 14 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 74: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 14 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 75: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 15 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 76: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 15 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 77: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 16 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 78: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 16 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 79: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 17 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 80: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 17 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 81: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 18 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 82: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 18 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 83: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 19 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 84: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 19 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 85: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 20 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 86: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 20 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 87: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 21 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 88: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 21 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 89: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 22 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 90: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 22 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 91: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 23 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 92: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 23 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 93: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 24 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 94: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 24 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 95: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 25 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 96: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 25 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 97: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 26 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 98: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 26 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 99: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 27 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 100: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 27 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 101: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 28 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 102: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 28 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 103: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 29 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 104: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 29 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 105: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 30 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 106: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 30 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 107: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 31 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 108: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 31 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 109: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 32 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 110: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 32 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 111: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 33 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 112: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 33 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 113: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 34 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 114: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 34 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 115: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 35 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 116: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 35 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 117: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 36 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 118: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 36 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 119: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 37 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 120: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 37 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 121: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 38 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 122: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 38 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 123: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 39 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 124: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 39 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 125: Material evidence identified by Archaeologist 40 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 126: Contexts identified by Archaeologist 40 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 127: Material evidence identified by Control 01 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 128: Contexts identified by Control 01 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 129: Material evidence identified by Control 02 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 130: Contexts identified by Control 02 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 131: Material evidence identified by Control 03 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 132: Contexts identified by Control 03 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 133: Material evidence identified by Control 04 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 134: Contexts identified by Control 04 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 135: Material evidence identified by Control 05 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 136: Contexts identified by Control 05 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 137: Material evidence identified by Control 06 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 138: Contexts identified by Control 06 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 139: Material evidence identified by Control 07 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 140: Contexts identified by Control 07 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 141: Material evidence identified by Control 08 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 142: Contexts identified by Control 08 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 143: Material evidence identified by Control 09 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 144: Contexts identified by Control 09 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 145: Material evidence identified by Control 10 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 146: Contexts identified by Control 10 © Evis 2016.
• Figure 147: Stratigraphic Excavation material evidence identification averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 148: Demirant Excavation material evidence identification averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 149: Quadrant Excavation material evidence identification averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 150: Arbitrary Level Excavation material evidence identification averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 151: Control Excavation material evidence identification averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 152: Recovery rates of material evidence items for each excavation method © Evis 2016.
• Figure 153: In situ recovery rates of material evidence items for each excavation method © Evis 2016.
• Figure 154: Overall recovery rates of material evidence for each excavation method © Evis 2016.
• Figure 155: Stratigraphic Excavation context identification averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 156: Demirant Excavation context identification averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 157: Quadrant Excavation context identification averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 158: Arbitrary Level context identification averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 159: Control Excavation context identification averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 160: Identification of individual contexts for each excavation method © Evis 2016.
• Figure 161: Overall identification of contexts for each excavation method © Evis 2016.
• Figure 162: Stratigraphic Excavation formation sequence averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 163: Demirant Excavation formation sequence averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 164: Quadrant Excavation formation sequence averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 165: Arbitrary Level Excavation formation sequence averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 166: Control Excavation formation sequence averages © Evis 2016.
• Figure 167: Overall identification of each stage in the feature’s formation process for each excavation method © Evis 2016.
• Figure 168: Overall performance of each excavation method against all analytical criteria © Evis 2016.
• Figure 169: Overall performance of each excavation method against all analytical criteria (statistical analysis).
• Figure 170: Individual time taken and average time taken to investigate the grave simulation © Evis 2016.
• Figure 171: Time spent investigating the grave simulation against overall performance © Evis 2016.
• Figure 172: Time spent investigating the grave simulation against overall performance (linear regression analysis) © Evis 2016.
• Figure 173: Years of archaeological experience against overall performance © Evis 2016.
• Figure 174: Years of archaeological experience against overall performance (linear regression analysis) © Evis 2016.
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• Chapter 2 Background
• Chapter 3 Methodology
• Chapter 4 Archaeological Manual/Guideline Analysis
• Chapter 5 Archaeological practitioner interviews
• Chapter 6 Excavation experiment
• Chapter 7 Conclusion
• Chapter 8 Recommendations
• Glossary
• Bibliography
• Appendix A: List of contributors
• Appendix B: Archaeological manual/guideline analytical criteria
• Appendix C: Interview questions
• Appendix D: Grave excavation experiment locations
• Back Cover