To put all of this material into context, it has to be re-emphasised that the use of geophysical survey in forensic situations should not be considered simply as a bolt-on, stand-alone, technique (see Chapter 2). Within archaeology, geophysical survey has always been integrated into wider search and excavation strategies, working in parallel with complementary techniques, as this is when it offers most benefit. Archaeology provides a good model of how geophysical survey should be incorporated into forensic search. The aim of this chapter has been to stimulate further research and also to provide some guidelines for operational use, but these are no more than reasonable starting points. In respect of the latter there are no hard and fast procedures to adopt. As with the recovery of forensic remains (see Chapter 4), such a mechanistic approach has no place in a situation where every case is different and where adaptation and flexibility are the rule rather than the exception. The ability to integrate geophysical survey into search and recover requires the user to be conversant with many other techniques and methodologies to ensure the geophysicist’s specialist expertise can contribute most effectively within an investigation as a whole. Table 3.3 gives a brief summary of key aspects of the topic in the form of a checklist. Some items on the list have been barely touched upon in this chapter, but the forensic geophysicist should be aware of and familiar with them all.
Table 3.3 A forensic geophysics checklist
To be competent in the application of geophysical survey in a forensic context the forensic geophysicist should:
• be appropriately competent in, and knowledgeable of, the technical aspects and forensic application of the techniques employed so as to be able to be considered an expert in the eyes of the court.
• be able to communicate this expertise effectively in operational, media and courtroom contexts.
• fully understand both the legal and law enforcement operational frameworks within which they are required to operate.
• appreciate the role of geophysical approaches within the wider universe of search and recovery strategies, techniques and methodologies.
• make themself aware of all local conditions that might influence the effectiveness of the proposed geophysical survey strategy, e.g. former land use.
• be aware of likely geophysical response(s) and the possible changes of this response over time.
• understand both the strengths and weaknesses of employing control or calibration graves to investigate potential geophysical responses.
• aim to undertake surveys when conditions are optimal for that particular technique.
• employ reading intervals and instrument configurations appropriate for the detection of the target sought.
• avoid employing techniques or methodologies that do not have a proven record of success.
• recommend and use multiple complementary techniques whenever possible.
• understand both the strengths and weaknesses of geophysical survey in providing negative evidence.
• be aware of the need of, and be able to undertake, discreet or clandestine searches effectively.
• appreciate the likely media responses to the use of geophysical techniques.
• appreciate that instrument data, field notes, plots, and reports are disclosable evidence.
• have considered the courtroom presentation of geophysical evidence
References
Aitken, M.J. 1974. Physics and Archaeology 2nd edn, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Alongi, A.V. 1973. ‘A short-pulse high-resolution radar for cadaver detection’, Proceedings of the 1st International Electronic Crime Counter-measures Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 18–20, 1973, University of Kentucky Press, pp. 79–87.
Aspinall, A. and Crummett, J.G. 1997. ‘The electrical pseudosection’, Archaeological Prospection 4:1, 37–48.
Aspinall, A. and Lynam, J.T. 1970. ‘An induced polarisation instrument for the detection of near surface features’, Prospezioni Archeologiche 5, 67–75.
Atkin, M. and Milligan, R. 1992. ‘Ground-probing radar in archaeology – practicalities and problems’, The Field Archaeologist 16, 288–291.
Beavis, J. and Barker, K. (eds) 1991. Science and Site: Evaluation and Conservation, Proceedings of the Archaeological Sciences Conference 1993, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth.
Bevan, B.W. 1991. ‘The Search for Graves’, Geophysics 56, 1310–1319.
Bevan, B.W. 2000. ‘An early geophysical survey at Williamsburg, USA’, Archaeological Prospection 7, 51–58.
Bray, E. 1996. ‘The use of geophysics for the detection of clandestine burials: some research and experimentation’, unpublished MSc dissertation, Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford, UK.
Breiner, S. 1973. Applications Manual for Portable Magnetometers, Sunnyvale, CA: GeoMetrics.
Buck, S.C. 2003. ‘Searching for graves using geophysical technology: field tests with ground penetrating radar, magnetometry, and electrical resistivity’, Journal of Forensic Science 48:1, 5–11.
Cheetham, P.N. 2001. ‘A symmetrical response, high resolution and reduced near-surface noise multiple potential electrode earth resistivity array for archaeological area survey’, in Doneus, M., Edler-Hinterleitner, A. and Neubauer, W. (eds) Archaeological Prospection, Vienna:
Austrian Academy of Sciences, pp. 79–80.
Clark, A.J. 1990. Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology, London:
Batsford.
Clark, A.J. 1996. Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology, 2nd edn, London:
Batsford.
Cole, M.A., Linford, N.T., Payne, A.W. and Linford, P.K. 1995. ‘Soil magnetic susceptibility measurements and their application to archaeological site investigation’, in Beavis, J. and Barker, K. (eds) Science and Site, Proceedings of the Archaeological Sciences Conference 1993, Bournemouth University, pp. 144–162.
Conyers, L.B. and Goodman, D. 1997. Ground-Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Archaeologists, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Davenport, G.C. 2001a. Where Is It? Searching for Buried Bodies and Hidden Evidence, Maryland: SportsWork.
Davenport, G.C. 2001b. ‘Remote sensing applications in forensic applications’, Historical Archaeology 35, 87–100.
David, A. 1995. Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation, English Heritage Research and Professional Guidelines, No. 1, London: English Heritage.
Davis, J.L., Heginbottom, J.A., Annan, A.P., Daniels, R.S., Berdal, B.P., Bergan, T., Duncan, K.E., Lewin, P.K., Oxford, J.S., Roberts, N., Skehek, J.J. and Smith, C.R. 2000. ‘Ground penetrating radar surveys to locate 1918 Spanish flu victims in permafrost’, Journal of Forensic Sciences 45:1, 68–76.
Doneus, M., Edler-Hinterleitner, A. and Neubauer, W. 2001a. Archaeological Prospection in Austria, in Doneus, M., Edler-Hinterleitner, A. and Neubauer, W. (eds), Archaeological Prospection, Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, pp. 11–33.
Doneus, M., Edler-Hinterleitner, A. and Neubauer, W. (eds) 2001b. Archaeological Prospection:
Fourth International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna.
Donnelly, L. 2002. ‘Finding the silent witness’, Geoscientist 12:5, 16–17.
France, D.L., Griffin, T.J., Swanburg, J.G., Lindermann, J.W., Davenport, G.C., Trammell, V., Armbrust, C.T., Kondratieff, B., Nelson, A., Castellano, K. and Hopkins, D., 1992. ‘A multi-disciplinary approach to the detection of clandestine graves’, Journal of Forensic Science, 37:6, 1445–1458.
France, D.L., Griffin, T.J., Swanburg, J.G., Lindermann, J.W., Davenport, G.C., Trammell, V., Trammell, C.T., Kondratieff, B., Nelson, A., Castellano, K., Hopkins, D. and Adair, T. 1997.
‘NecroSearch revisited: further multidisciplinary approaches to the detection of clandestine graves’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H. (eds) Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press, pp. 479–509.
Freeland, R.S., Miller, M.L., Yoder, R.E. and Koppenjan, S.K. 2003. ‘Forensic application of FM-CW and pulse radar’, Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 8:2, 97–103.
Gaffney, C. and Gater, J. 2003. Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists, Stroud:
Tempus.
Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H. (eds) 1997. Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Hammon, W.S., McMechan, G.A. and Zeng, X. 2000. ‘Forensic GPR: finite-difference simulations of responses from buried remains’, Journal of Applied Geophysics 45, 171–186.
Herz, N. and Garrison, E.G. 1998 Geological Methods for Archaeology, New York: Oxford University Press.
Hildebrand, J.A., Wiggins, S.M., Henkart, P.C. and Conyers, L.B. 2002. ‘Comparison of seismic reflection and ground-penetrating radar imaging at the controlled archaeological test site, Champaign, Illinois’, Archaeological Prospection, 9, 9–21.
Home Office, 1997a. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice, London: The Stationery Office.
Home Office, 1997b. Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Code of Practice, London:
The Stationery Office.
Killam, E. 1990. The Detection of Human Remains, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.
Kirby, A. forthcoming. ‘Conductivity changes in decomposing remains’, unpublished MSc dissertation, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, UK.
Kvamme, K. 2003. ‘Multidimensional prospecting in North American Great Plains village sites’, Archaeological Prospection 10:2, 131–142.
Leckebusch, J. 2003. ‘Ground-penetrating radar: a modern three-dimensional prospection method’, Archaeological Prospection 10:4, 213–240.
Lynam, J.T. 1970. ‘Techniques of geophysical prospection as applied to near surface structure determination’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bradford, UK.
Marshall, A. 1998. ‘Visualising burnt areas: patterns of magnetic susceptibility at Guiting Power 1 round barrow (Glos., UK)’, Archaeological Prospection 5, 159–177.
Mellett, J.S. 1996. ‘GPR in forensic and archaeological work: hits and misses’, Symposium on the Applications of Geophysics to Environmental and Engineering Problems, SAGEEP ’96 Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Keystone, CO, 487–491.
Millar, M.L., Freeland, R.S. and Koppenjan, S.K. 2002. ‘Searching for concealed human remains using GPR imaging of decomposition’, Ninth International Conference on Ground-penetrating Radar, Proceedings of SPIE, 4758, 539–544.
Milligan, R. and Atkin, M. 1993. ‘The use of ground-probing radar within a digital environment on archaeological sites’, Computing the Past: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology CAA92, 21–32.
Milsom, J. 1989. Field Geophysics, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Milsom, J. 2003. Field Geophysics 3rd edn, Chichester: John Wiley.
Morse, D., Duncan, J. and Stoutamire, J. 1983. Handbook of Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology, Tallahassee, FL: Rose Press.
Neubauer, W., Edler-Hinterleitner, A., Seren, S. and Melichar, P. 2002. ‘Georadar in the Roman civil town Carnuntum, Austria: an approach for archaeological interpretation of GPR data’, Archaeological Prospection 9:3, 135–156.
Neubauer, W., Edler-Hinterleitner, A., Seren, S., Becker, H. and Fassbinder, J. 2003. ‘Magnetic survey of the Viking Age settlement of Haithabu, Germany’, Archaeologia Polona 41, 239–241.
Nishimura, Y. and Goodman, D. 2000. ‘Ground-penetrating radar survey at Wroxeter’, Archaeological Prospection 7, 101–105.
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 Sciences 45:3, 715–721.
NRC, (National Research Council) 2000. Seeing into the Earth, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Piro, S., Goodman, D. and Nishimura, Y. 2003. ‘The study and characterisation of emperor Traiano’s villa (Altopiani di Arcinazzo, Roma) using high-resolution integrated geophysical surveys’, Archaeological Prospection 10:1, 1–25.
Reynolds, J.M. 1997. An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics, Chichester:
John Wiley.
Rodriguez, W.C. and Bass, W.M. 1985. ‘Decomposition of buried bodies and methods that may aid in their location’, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 30:3, 836–852.
Rowan, M. 1991. Guide to the Eagle Spectrum and Engineers Report, Inverness: Whites UK.
Schmidt, A. 2002. Geophysical Data in Archaeology: A Guide to Good Practice, Oxford:
Archaeology Data Service Oxbow [also available online at: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/
goodguides/geophys/].
Schmidt, A. and Marshall, A. 1997. ‘Impact of resolution on the interpretation of archaeological data’, Archaeological Sciences 1995: Proceedings of a Conference on the Application of Scientific Techniques to the Study of Archaeology, Liverpool, July 1995, Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 343–348.
Scollar, I. 1990. Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, D. D. and Connor, M. 1997. ‘Context delicti: archaeological context in forensic work’, in Haglund, W.D. and Sorg M.H. (eds), Forensic Taphonomy, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 27–38.
Stove, G.C. and Addyman P.V. 1989. ‘Ground probing impulse radar: an experiment in remote sensing at York’, Antiquity 63, 337–342.
Strongman, K.B. 1992. ‘Forensic applications of ground penetrating radar’, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 90–4, 203–211.
Sutherland, T. and Schmidt, A. 2003. ‘An integrated approach to battlefield archaeology’, Landscapes 4:2, 15–25.
Turner, B. and Wiltshire, P. 1999. ‘Experimental validation of forensic evidence: a study of the decomposition of buried pigs in a heavy clay soil’, Forensic Science International 101, 113–122.
Vingerhoets, R. 2004. ‘A study of bullet penetration into soil in the context of forensic archaeology’, unpublished MSc dissertation, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, UK.
Watters, M. and Hunter, J.R. 2004. ‘Geophysics and burials: field experience and software development’, in Pye, K. and Croft, D. (eds) Forensic Geosciences, London: Geological Society of London, pp. 21–31.