Riesgo operacional

One of the crucial factors that remains with the interpretation of those burials is the determination of postmortem interval viz. the time since the death. Several measuring techniques have been developed for this purpose in forensic anthropology during the last

50 years (eg. Cook and Heizer 1952; Berg and Specht 1958; Knight 1968; Knight and Lauder

1969; Yoshino et al. 1991; Taylor et al. 1989; Ubelakar 2001; Tuniz, Zoppi and Hotchkis 2004).

When traversing different methods and techniques discussed and presented during that period by the forensic community, four major categories could be outlined.

(i). morphological methods (ii). chemical methods

(iii). immunological methods and (iv). radioisotopic methods

(Forbes and Nugent 2009)

Except radioisotopic methods, the other approaches are prone to results concluding in different degrees of errors. One of the notable pitfalls is the lesser concentration focused on the anomalies that caused on the hard tissues of the forensic materials by different natural agents under local environmental conditions.

Several case studies (Ajie and Kaplan 1990; Grun e al. 2005; Pike, Hedges and Van Calsteren 2002; Van Calsteren and Thomas 2006) have proved that the radiometric methods are the most reliable way of calibrating the forensic materials. For instance, lipids from the bone and the bone marrow have been shown to provide a more reliable estimate of the time of death

for recent bone samples using 14C measurement (Wild et al. 1998, 2000).

Determination of the postmortem interval(s) of our present skeletons is a vital factor. Radiometric assaying of the skeletons will further strengthen the conditional time periods of the inhumation proposed by other morphological observations such as postmortem staining that emerges on the bone surface of skeletons.

I hereby recommend to obtaining several bone samples from well preserved skeleton for

radiometric assaying through Radiocarbon Bomb-pulse Method (RBM) (Papworth and

Vennart 1984; Maclaughlin-Black et al. 1992; Neis et al. 1999) which needs a small sample and has a high degree of reliability to date the forensic materials especially that has a recent origin.

Living things absorb radiocarbon from the atmosphere during their life-time. At any given time, the radiocarbon levels of living things and the atmosphere are ideally similar. The proliferation of atmospheric thermo-nuclear testing in the early 1950s until 1963 addeded vast amount of artificial radiocarbon called ‘bomb carbon’ in to the atmosphere, increasing the global radiocarbon levels by almost 100% compared to the level that prevailed before 1950.

By signing the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) by the United States, United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union in 1963 CE, it was agreed that the testing of nuclear weapons would no longer be performed above the ground surface. Since then, the global radiocarbon level of the atmosphere has decreased through the uptake in the oceans and the biological systems - e.g. the 1970s had higher radiocarbon levels in the air than the 1990s.

Sample sizes of the forensic materials required for RBM is as follows;

(a). Bone (non-cremated) 2 – 10 grams

(b). Bone (cremated) 4 – 40 grams

(c). Teeth 1- 2 nos.

Recommended container Ziplock polythene bag

Contact details of the laboratory coordinator in South Asian Region; Beta Analytic Inc.

4th Floor, Rectangle 1 Commercial Complex D4 Saket, New Delhi 110017 India

Contact: Mr. Andrew Pal Tel: +(91) 90-13-020788 Fax: +(91) 11 40514052 Email: [email protected]

2.10 Conclusion

the time and the space of the inhumation. The nature of the burial event is straightforward as suggested by the forensic investigations in both the anthropological and archaeological perspectives. The relative time periods that have been proposed were accorded stylistic comparison with the artifacts as well as the data pertaining to their depositional micro- environments.

As suggested by the dates of the manufacture of artifacts, this inhumation has been carried out at a time not earlier than the year 1986 and not later than the year 1990. Here I have used the concept of ‘chronological sandwich’ (Renfrew et al 1991) to frame the burial event within

two temporal polar ends viz. the earliest date of manufacture of the artifacts found and the

latest possible date of their abandonment.

It has to be mentioned here that the artifacts used in this case to assume the relative age of the inhumation have been recovered mainly from the two garbage pits that are spatially associated with the burial ditch.

Apart from outlining this time bracket, it is difficult to make any further resolution to assign that event to any particular year within this range and to fulfill such a requirement; it is necessary to obtain a couple of absolute dates to the samples collected from the burial as indicated in section 10 above.

The modus operendi of the entire burial shown by the arrangement of individual skeletons

suggests that it is not compatible with the accepted cultural norms of treating the dead by any ethnic or religious group living in the country. Some of the physical deformations visible on the skeletons (see Jayasena 2013) advocate that such were results of neither a natural disaster nor an epidemic. They were forcibly induced and non-reflexive.

Finally, I would say that there is no physical evidence that remains in the burial ditch I have investigated to formulate a complete narrative about the agency and the motives of the inhumation. But, thinking beyond my professional horizons, I am personally inclined to feel that, in this case, by whom so ever for whatever reason there has been an infringement of the fundamental right of 154 individuals to demise themselves on their freedom of will.

Acknowledgements – I owe very much to Professor Jagath Weerasinghe, Director of the Postgraduate Institute to provide me facilities to reach the site. Thanks must also goes to Dr. Ajith Jayasena for his kindness to help in the field. Number of officers of the Police Department and the Criminal Investigation Department has helped me in different ways. I owe them very much.Dr. Ranjana Piyadasa in the Department of Geography in Colombo University and Mr. V.A. Waduge in the Atomic Energy Authority have made their best to provide me the analysis. I indebted them all.

Finally I greatly appreciate the work done by Ms. Anusha Wanninayake and Mr. Dinesh Devage in the field and the time when this report was processed.