Swinging the blue lamp: The forensic archaeology of contemporary child and animal burial in the UK

Abstract

This paper examines strategies of memorialisation in contemporary illicit infant and informal domestic animal burials as recorded by the activity of forensic archaeologists in the UK. The focus is upon case studies experienced by the authors during work as forensic archaeologists between 2004 and 2009. It is hoped that this discussion will shed light upon unofficial, and in many cases illegal, activity within the contemporary burial record while also forging stronger links between the currently divergent disciplines of forensic and contemporary/burial archaeology.

Keywords:

• animal
• burial
• clandestine
• forensic
• infant

Notes

Forensic archaeology applies archaeological principles and techniques within a legal context (Hunter & Cox, 2005).

While definitions of domestic animals are relatively broadly accepted (Davis, 1987; Gautier, 1990; Gentry, Clutton-Brock, & Groves, 2004; O'Connor, 2000; Outram et al., 2009), the term ‘infant’ reveals inconsistency between archaeological and forensic applications (for discussions on the application of the term infant see Armstrong, 1986; Barr & Beck, 2008; Garrett, Galley, Shelton, & Woods, 2007; Molleson, 1991; Pakis et al., 2008; Scheuer & Black, 2000).

Such improvements and adaptations would include case studies of complex crime scenes (e.g. Congram, 2008) or technical advances in areas such as geophysical prospection (e.g. Schultz, Collins, & Falsetti, 2006).

The earliest acknowledged application of archaeological techniques on a UK crime scene being Hunter's recovery of the remains of Stephen Jennings in 1988 (Hunter, Roberts, & Martin, 1996, p. 57).

In its current state, the dataset associated with forensic archaeology is small and as such unsuitable for observing broad patterns. General observations of behaviour based on patterns perceived in the case studies presented here would currently be meaningless. It is hoped that with further gathering of data, forensic archaeology might be able to present patterns of behaviour in the future, but for now the authors believe it is important enough to allow these case studies to be presented as narratives that delineate the extremes of non-normative deposition practices.

Since the drafting of this paper, the authors have been engaged on at least two cases which deal with themes directly relevant to this paper but cannot be included due to legal constraints.

It is interesting to note that the authors disagreed whether the cross was painted or incised prior to reference to the original scene photograph. Without diligent recording the anecdotes of forensic archaeology are just as subject to the vagaries of oral history. An expression referred to in police parlance as ‘war stories’ or ‘swinging the blue lamp’ (Fletcher, 1996).

For a full discussion on burial law in England and Wales see Smale, 2002.

The exact wording has been omitted from this paper to protect the identity of the victim.

For a detailed consideration of the anthropomorphism of pet animals in modern society, see Milton, 2005.

The ‘givenness’ of history, as conceptualised by Boorstin, 1987, pp. 76–77.

The opening line of L.P. Hartley's 1953 novel The Go-Between has long since been absorbed into common consciousness: ‘The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there’.

The authors' ability to read material culture and the landscape prior to excavation in this case is in contrast to topographical features erroneously fitting police intelligence in Case Study 3. See below for a full discussion.

It might also be argued that the dim reflection of earlier folklore regarding horse-and-man burials played a role in the myth's development. Such exotic depositions are retained in legend, as is the case with King Sil of Silbury Hill (Jackson, 1862, p. 332), as recounted by Aubrey in 1663; and have a material reality preserved in archaeology, such as the human and associated horse burial under Mound 17 at Sutton Hoo (Carver, 1992).

‘Living in the present of things from the past’ (Shils, 1981, p. 34).

‘Landscape as mythical space’ (Hernando Gonzalo, 1999, p. 261).

‘Meaningful constitution’ in the terms of ethnoarchaeology (David & Kramer, 2001, p. 56).