st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i Ali obstaja razlika med metodami in tehnikami, ki se uporabljajo v arheologiji in forenzični arheologi-
ji? Opisan je grob z arheološkega najdišča Josipovac - Verušed pri Osijeku (Slavonija, Hrvaška) odkrit 
leta 2007, ki prepleta oz. povezuje obe področji. Med zaščitnimi arheološkimi izkopavanji na trasi avto-
ceste (A 5) Beli Manastir - Osijek so odkrili grob neznanega vojaka iz druge svetovne vojne. Pojasnjen 
je pomen poudarjanja konteksta, ki je omogočil umestitev odkritij oz. najdb v forenzični okvir. Po pri-
merjavi metod, tehnik in tehnologij, ki jih uporabljata arheologija in forenzična arheologija, smo posku-
šali ugotoviti, kaj pomenita etika in bioetika za obe disciplini ter kako razmišljati o teh pojmih v arheo-
loškem smislu.
Ključne besede: forenzična arheologija, grob, etika, druga svetovna vojna
Is there a difference between the methods and techniques used in archeology and forensic archaeology? 
A grave from archaeological site Josipovac – Verušed near Osijek (Slavonia, Croatia) in 2007, which per-
meates both areas was described. The burial pit of an unknown soldier from World War II was revealed 
during an archaeological rescue excavation on the route of the highway (A 5) Beli Manastir – Osijek. 
The importance of giving emphasis to the context, which enabled classification of the findings in the fo-
rensic framework, was explained. After the comparison of methods, techniques and technologies used 
by both archaeology and forensic archaeology, we have tried to determine what meaning have ethics for 
the two disciplines, as well as how to think about these concepts in the archaeological sense. 
Key words: forensic archaeology, grave, ethics, World War II
Forensics and Archaeology:  
The Ethical Approach to Graves Excavation and Research
Zdravka Hincak, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences 
Krešimir Filipec, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
47
Development of the archaeological field methods and techniques did not fol-low the interest of beautiful, antique, 
valuable objects that interested antiquarians 
from the very beginning. Indeed, since the pre-
historic times, archaeological sites’ and graves’ 
robbers have mercilessly devastated the world 
heritage. But if we mention the history of ar-
chaeological research we also need to mention 
the first archaeological excavations of the civi-
lizations that left their ruins in the Mediterra-
nean, in the Middle East and later, in Ameri-
cas. 
The first organized archaeological excava-
tions were carried out in Croatia at the 19th cen-
tury and they slowly laid foundations for today’s 
surveys, introducing the very base of archaeolog-
ical methods of the field research: setting up a 
one-meter grid square for excavation or a base-
line offset. Together with classical tools for man-
ual excavating, such as shovels, digging spades or 
mattocks, there are also mentioned small excava-
tion tools for fine digging and cleaning, a simple 
trowel or a brush to sweep the dirt.
The archaeological field research shows 
not only what has remained after people who 
doi: ht t ps://doi .org/10. 26493/2350-54 43.5(2)47-57
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 2
48
lived in a certain area, but also, using the phys-
ical traces of past societies, reconstructs events, 
examines what people did in a particular area, 
how did they think, and lived. All this can be 
read from an archaeological site; it is important 
to leave findings in situ, to record them, to doc-
ument all the small pieces that later, put togeth-
er, will give much more data. Similar to piecing 
together evidence in forensics. The archaeologi-
cal field methods became a part of the forensic 
investigation tools before archaeologists did. Ac-
cording to the definition, the forensic archaeol-
ogy is an application of the archaeological par-
adigms, methods and goals to the questions of 
medico-legal significance.1 
But a possible problem for an archaeologist 
involved in forensics, the medico-legal investi-
gation, are not different methods or new tech-
nologies in the field work. Huglund explains it 
well: “Archaeological context in a forensic case 
includes the rules of evidence, the chain of cus-
tody, the potential that a court testimony may 
be required, and the fact that the activities and 
work of archaeologists may be subjected to le-
gal scrutiny.“2 Archaeologists got involved and 
became more frequent members of forensic 
teams during the 1990s, often united with phy-
sicians, odontologists, radiologists and criminal-
ists in the investigations of human rights’ viola-
tions, or revealing the evidence of mass murders 
as in Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia. 
With a strong contribution in developing recov-
ery techniques at crime scenes and knowledge to 
elaborate techniques for the excavation of sites, 
forensic archaeology has a possibility to become 
a sub-discipline. Today, the unwritten criteria 
for a forensic archaeologist is to spend at least 
three full years of fieldwork on sites encompass-
ing open sites, structural sites, burial sites, caves, 
and well or latrine sites.3 
1 Melissa Connor and Douglas D. Scott, “Paradigms and Perpetra-
tors,” Historical Archaeolog y 35, no. 1 (2001): 1-6.  
2 William D. Haglund, “Archaeology and Forensic Death Investiga-
tions,” Historical Archaeolog y 35, no. 1 (2001): 26-34.  
3 Douglas D. Scott and Melissa Connor, “The Role and Future of 
Archaeology in Forensic Science,” Historical Archaeolog y 35, no. 1 
(2001): 101-104.
Material and methods 
The archaeological site Josipovac – Verušed is 
situated southwest of Josipovac (AN 15) in Slavo-
nia region, Croatia. In the past, it was a village, 
and today it is a suburb of the town of Osijek in 
Osijek – Baranja County. Rescue excavations 
were performed on this site from 2007 to 2008, 
on the route of the highway Beli Manastir – Osi-
jek. The excavated area occupied 171 000 m2 (Fig 
1). During the excavation of this large prehistor-
ic and medieval settlement, a grave of a soldier 
from World War II was discovered. This finding 
was unexpected for an archaeological site, so all 
standard procedures that precede an excavation 
had already been made. Following the sequenc-
es of archaeological layers, contours of a possible 
burial pit emerged as a darker layer of earth (Fig 
2). Analysis of its relations to other geological 
and cultural layers showed that it was not an old 
cultural layer from the Prehistoric, Roman or 
Medieval period. Immediately a doubt emerged, 
it was possible that the finding was a recent bur-
ial (in archaeological terminology recent burials 
are about 50-60 years old, up to a maximum of 
100 years old). The appearance pattern of burial 
pits from past wars (World War II and the Cro-
atian War of Independence) is well known in 
that part of Slavonia, from previous archaeolog-
ical excavations. It is a consequence of taphono-
my – decomposition of the body and other nat-
ural processes.
Deposits of earth were removed by machine 
and lately by hand. It is important to mention 
that in the stratigraphic sequences, after expo-
sition of human remains in double graves, trace 
boundaries between each skeleton or anatomi-
cal element were set. The excavation of the spe-
cific burial pit was carried out using tradition-
al archaeological methodology, removing layer 
after layer and documenting each stage of work 
with photographs and drawings. From the pho-
tographs it is evident that the excavation and the 
exhumation did not just blindly follow the stra-
tigraphy, but also the body extension, which was 
later of a great help to the anthropologist, pro-
viding an opportunity to obtain additional data 
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
fo
r
en
si
c
s 
a
n
d
 a
rc
h
a
eo
lo
g
y:
 t
h
e 
et
h
ic
a
l 
a
pp
ro
a
c
h
 t
o
 g
r
av
es
 e
xc
av
a
t
io
n
 a
n
d
 r
es
ea
rc
h
49
on the individual. At the end of the research, the 
position of the skeleton and the burial pit were 
recorded with a total station or TST (TST Leica 
TCR805 and multi-element array antennas for 
GPS recording Leica System 900 GNSS), a dis-
tance measuring and diverse mapping electron-
ic theodolite. TST is also used for precise meas-
uring of objects in small excavations. Now, the 
find ng – the skeleton and the burial pit – were 
located in the area in relation to the geographical 
points. The documentation was extensive, with 
complete burial sheets and application forms. 
The grave was given a number, it was marked as 
VE ‘07, grave 10 with excavation data 18th Oc-
tober 2007 and basic information on its orien-
tation, circumstances of the finding and basic 
anthropological analysis (approximate age at 
death and sex). In the forms were written data 
about the method of excavation. After a thor-
ough cleaning of the burial pit and the skeleton 
in situ, the finding was drawn and photographed 
with a digital camera. Selected targets, the photo 
points, were recorded with a total station and fed 
into the GIS system (Geographical Information 
System) that covers the entire site and a wider re-
gion, as well as the whole county. Several times 
during the excavation, after finishing each major 
phase of the research, photogrammetric survey-
ing of the site was made, using light aerial plat-
forms. In this specific research, it included a sys-
tem with helium-filled balloons and a Picavet 
platform (NCP case), and also the help of a par-
aglider (Fig 1,2). In both cases, photographs were 
taken with a professional digital camera Canon 
EOS 1D. Photographs are stored in the Photote-
que of Department of Archaeology (Faculty of 
Humanities and Social Sciences, University in 
Zagreb). 
Figure 1. Aerial view of the archaeological rescue excavation on the site Josipovac – Verušed (Phototeque, Department 
of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University in Zagreb, 2007).
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 2
50
Results
The described possible finding of a recent age on 
the site Josipovac – Verušed was treated as a real 
archaeological, historical layer, since prior the 
excavation there was no information that could 
confirm its age. Cleaning began and after remov-
ing the topsoil layers at the earth surface, soil 
with specific characteristics was revealed, such 
as dark colour, greasy appearance and consisten-
cy, affirming it was very probably a burial (Fig 2). 
This burial was not deep, in fact, it was very shal-
low and layer contours emerged immediately af-
ter removing layers of ploughing (approximate-
ly on thirty to forty centimetres of depth). After 
defining the entire pit on the surface, only a part 
was sorted out to see its content. Therefore, the 
grave was not being excavated all at once, first, 
a smaller probe was made in the part where the 
best results were calculated. In a small probe that 
had scarcely 20 cm in width and about 10 cm in 
depth human remains were found. They were a 
part of a badly preserved shin (tibia), due to the 
shallowness of the grave. The probe encircled the 
area near the legs. The entire outline of the dark 
soil had a north-south orientation and there was 
no longer any doubt that it was a burial pit. After 
that, the whole pit was defined so that its entire 
surface was lowered and the layer of soil slightly 
removed. A bigger surface of the grave was cov-
ered with dark soil and a smaller one with light-
er soil or subsoil, which was transferred from the 
deeper layers to the surface. That lighter layer 
differed from the real subsoil just in a hardness 
degree. 
After the entire burial pit was defined, its 
final form was seen as a form of a fairly broad 
and rectangular grave. This was in contrast to 
our original thesis that it was an emergency bur-
ial. During further cleaning of the grave’s sur-
face, and removing of a layer of earth 2 to 3 cm 
Figure 2. Aerial view of the polished surface of the ground before escavation on the site Josipovac – Verušed (Photote-
que, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University in Zagreb, 2007).
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
fo
r
en
si
c
s 
a
n
d
 a
rc
h
a
eo
lo
g
y:
 t
h
e 
et
h
ic
a
l 
a
pp
ro
a
c
h
 t
o
 g
r
av
es
 e
xc
av
a
t
io
n
 a
n
d
 r
es
ea
rc
h
51
thick, several iron items were found, close to 
the skeleton, at the level of its legs. There was 
a tube that looked like a barrel of an automat-
ic firearm, or as a fragment of a firearm used in 
World War II. So when, after defining skeleton 
remains, remains of a firearm emerged from the 
soil, the Ministry of the Interior, the police, had 
to be informed, because it was obvious that the 
skeleton belonged to a victim of World War II 
or the post-war period. Indications for dating 
the grave at that time were indisputable, due to 
the typization of armament found in it. The ex-
cavation continued according to the archaeolog-
ical methodology, starting from the legs’ posi-
tion. In archaeological research skeletal remains 
are cleaned from the feet to the head. According 
to the preliminary anthropological analysis, the 
skeleton belonged to a male person aged 30-40 
years at the time of death. In its grave, the skel-
eton was laid on the back and close to it more 
small metal objects were detected (Fig 3). 
In the shoulder area, close to the upper part 
of the chest, a small iron emblem was found. It 
was quite corroded, yet it still had clear outlines 
reminiscent of a bird of prey, maybe an eagle. 
The skeleton was completely cleaned according 
to archaeological research methods. Metal but-
tons were detected at several positions close to 
the skeleton: three at the level of both shoulders, 
two at the chest level, two on the right humeral 
bone and six more, almost in line near the spine 
on both sides, from the suprasternal notch to the 
waist level (Fig 4). The soil around and close to 
it was also removed and levelled with the skele-
ton. Since the grave was shallow, when a plough-
ing layer of 30 cm was removed, a very thick layer 
of about 10-15 cm for the burial itself remained. 
The skeleton was very poorly preserved, so it was 
more like a medieval burial than from the years 
1941-1945. Each segment of the work was care-
fully performed, checking several times so as not 
to miss anything. Each phase was documented 
with description, photographs and drawings.  A 
detailed plan and profile (cross-sectional) maps 
of the skeleton were made before it was removed. 
In the end, the final image, a photograph of the 
entire burial pit with the skeleton was enclosed 
in the documentation. After being stabilized 
and raised, the skeletal remains were taken to the 
pathologist of the Department of Pathology and 
Forensic Medicine (Clinical Hospital Osijek) 
for further analysis. Afterwards, the excavation, 
Figure. 3. Grave 10- the skeleton of a German soldier in 
situ (Photo: Krešimir Filipec, 2007).
Figure. 4. Grave 10- the upper part of the skeleton of a 
German soldier in situ (Photo: Krešimir Filipec, 2007).
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 2
52
or better, cleaning, was continued, because it was 
obvious that at the bottom of the defined grave 
new pits emerged as a dark layer – black oily soil, 
organic residues or maybe humus – which from 
the upper layers could have reached the lower 
ones. The first layer was located close to the right 
leg, the second close to the left hand, and the 
third around the place where the skull of the de-
ceased person was placed. In the empty pit, close 
to the bones of the right leg, small metal objects 
were found, but with no potential for further 
analysis. A similar composition was found close 
to the bones of the left hand, the pit was dug to 
the bottom but no other artefacts were detect-
ed; if there was any organic material laid in the 
pit, it had not been preserved. In the third pit, 
discovered under and near the skull, immediate-
ly after the raising of the skeleton, corroded iron 
objects were found. Deeper digging revealed 
firearms’ ammunition: about twenty anti-air-
craft bullets and twice as many bullets of various 
calibers for machine guns and rifles. The ammu-
nition was unused, spent shells were not found. 
Close to the bullets, some organic material was 
found, remnants of the leather cases for ammu-
nition and parts of a belt. All the ammunition 
was documented, measured and photographed. 
As all the ammunition was unused and poten-
tially very dangerous to the environment, an of-
ficial pyrotechnist arrived on the archaeological 
site and destroyed it near the grave (Fig 5). After 
the third pit was completely emptied, it was pos-
sible to come to some conclusions. 
Discussion and Conclusion
The grave was excavated in a field and according 
to preliminary data the body was placed within 
during the last century. The burial pit was shal-
low and it had unusual orientation. Somewhat 
similar situations were described at other ar-
chaeological locations, such as on the site Stari 
Perkovci – Debela šuma in Brod-Posavina coun-
ty, but at first glance, this was a slightly different 
case. In Stari Perkovci – Debela šuma the dis-
covered person was killed and buried in a shal-
low pit. The pit configuration was quite irregu-
lar, and it was clear that digging and burial had 
been done in haste.4 But the burial pit was spa-
cious enough to throw the body into, positioned 
on its side, and cover it with earth. That case 
also appertains to the victims of World War II 
or the post-war period. But there are a few no-
ticeable differences between the two cases. The 
burial pit from Josipovac – Verušed near Osi-
jek is also located not in the cemetery but in a 
field, yet its contours show a neat, precise digging 
work, though indeed shallow. However, this pit 
is wide and long enough to lay the body on its 
back in extended position. Metal buttons were 
detected at several positions close to the skele-
ton, as it was mentioned before: three at the lev-
el of both shoulders, two at the chest level, two 
on the right humeral bone and six more, almost 
in line near the spine on both sides, from the su-
prasternal notch to the waist level. The position 
of the buttons indicates remains of the short up-
per part of a military uniform with epaulettes. 
Also, after further research, a thesis was set 
about the iron, corroded emblem in the shape of 
an eagle. This emblem was most probably posi-
tioned on the cap or was a part of the military 
uniform. The burial was preliminarily defined 
as a burial of an unknown soldier. The person 
who buried his dead body first dug a grave with 
4 Krešimir Filipec and Marija Šiša-Vivek, „Report on the archaeolo-
gical site Debela šuma,“ Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak no. 3 (2006): 69-
71.
Figure. 5. Storing of ammunition from the burial pit be-
fore its safe destruction (Photo: Krešimir Filipec, 2007).
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
fo
r
en
si
c
s 
a
n
d
 a
rc
h
a
eo
lo
g
y:
 t
h
e 
et
h
ic
a
l 
a
pp
ro
a
c
h
 t
o
 g
r
av
es
 e
xc
av
a
t
io
n
 a
n
d
 r
es
ea
rc
h
53
three smaller pits inside, into which he laid am-
munition, parts of the holster with bullets, and 
any other object of organic origin. The organic 
material, including soft tissues of the body, de-
composed very quickly, not only because of the 
shallow burial and the effects of the weather 
conditions but also because of the high acidity 
of the soil. The gravedigger put ammunition and 
organic material in the pit, which had to be col-
lected from the wider area, obviously after a bat-
tle. Over it, he laid the dead body and next to 
him the fragments of destroyed weapons. After 
the archaeological excavation and research, this 
is beyond dispute. All phases of the work were 
documented and photographed so that nothing 
misses. The skeletal remains of the deceased, the 
weapon components, the metal buttons and the 
corroded emblem were stored under the proto-
col for possible subsequent analysis that could 
get more information about the person and the 
circumstances of his burial. On this archaeolog-
ical site, no similar burial pits were found. How-
ever, about a thousand meters eastward, towards 
Osijek, a military bunker from World War II is 
still preserved. It was an assumption that may-
be the death of the buried person was related 
to broader events in the area at that time. With 
subsequently conducted archival research we 
found out what probably happened in that mar-
ginal area of the town of Osijek, west of Josipov-
ac. The theory was set that it was the grave of a 
soldier from World War II. For a moment, con-
sider the corroded iron emblem with, most prob-
ably, depiction of an eagle. In the archive files, it 
was mentioned that the 11th German Air Force 
Division was situated in Osijek and participated 
in the battles for the city. With advancing of the 
People’s Liberation Army and Partisan Detach-
ments of Yugoslavia toward Osijek, in the last days 
of World War II, a combat began in which many 
soldiers were killed. On the photograph pub-
lished in the book of Petrov, in descriptions and 
on additional photographs, captured German 
soldiers in the underwear can be seen.5 Some-
5 Marinko Petrov, Pakao na Dravi Belišće 1944-1945 Bistrinci (Bački Pe-
trovac: Mesno udružnje boraca NOR-a Belišće, 1979), 142-147.
how the situation could be similar to the case of 
Josipovac – Verušed: a soldier that was killed in 
a battle, or executed after it, and then buried by a 
villager in his plough-field or along its edge. 
As mentioned earlier, at the very beginning, 
the orientation of the grave was North-South. 
Such grave orientation follows the orientation 
of the plough-fields in that area. It indicates that 
the soldier was buried in a part of the field not 
used for cultivation, to avoid unpleasant situ-
ations. It is quite possible that the villager who 
burried him was an owner of that plough-field 
where the battle occurred. Afterwards, he might 
have collected all explosive and unexploded am-
munition scattered around and buried them be-
neath the killed soldier. Unfortunately, it was 
not possible to do any further research, a survey, 
about this case with the locals, because the ma-
jority of the inhabitants of the village Josipov-
ac were expelled after the end of World War II. 
Namely, in Josipovac had lived members of the 
German minority in Slavonia. These are assump-
tions after the archaeological excavation and re-
search were done. 
The described methods of research belong 
to archaeology, from the preparation of a site to 
the fieldwork. But in this particular case some 
very important phases of forensic archaeology 
are missing, such as the area location, the site lo-
cation and the confirmation, because this grave 
was found by chance on an archaeological site. 
These phases include not only location and con-
firmation but also a determination of its nature. 
Both archaeological sites and forensic crime 
scenes, f.e. mass grave’s vicinity, contain valuable 
evidence like fragments of clothing, various ob-
jects or personal items. 
While in archaeological field research the 
use of modern methods and techniques de-
pends largely on financial possibilities, in foren-
sics they are a must. Development of nonintru-
sive or non-destructive tools gives a possibility 
to see through the layers of the ground, with-
out destroying the site. In the area and site lo-
cation, forensic archaeologists use several tools 
like area imagery taken by the aerial reconnais-
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 2
54
sance platforms. From the air, it is possible to ex-
plore anomalies in the ground, such as the dis-
turbed land of mass grave trenches. So, instead 
of described helium balloons with a platform 
in the case of the unknown soldier from Josi-
povac, it is possible to use drones. On the site, 
soil geochemistry could be analyzed by the use 
of a handheld  X-ray fluorescence spectrometer 
(XRF). It detects traces of human and animal 
activities (like faeces) in the ground measuring 
the elemental composition of the soil or an arte-
fact/evidence. On the site, it is possible to deter-
mine the extent of an activity or an object using 
radar pulses to image the ground, with a ground 
penetrating radar (GPR) and other geophysical 
techniques. Tools for the shallow geophysics on 
the site measure ground resistivity and thus can 
reveal buried structures just like the electrical re-
sistant survey.6 Other alternative techniques are 
time-lapse resistivity and remote sensing. The 
last one includes several very popular technol-
ogies, like  aerial photographs, ultraviolet (UV) 
and infrared (IR) photography, satellite and hy-
perspectral imagery, light detection and ranging 
(LiDAR). LiDAR in a fraction of time gives de-
tailed 3D maps of the site surface and can easily 
locate clandestine and mass graves. 
Documentation, as it was explained in the 
case, is of great importance during this work. Fo-
rensic forms are even more detailed: about pres-
ervation degree, taphonomic processes (a body 
or a part of a body, clothes), other evidence on 
human remains (tattoos, ligatures, a blindfold, 
position). This is called in situ evidence. The ex-
cavated earth has to be sifted, as in the case of 
material from the burial pit of the unknown sol-
dier from Josipovac. After the excavation of the 
skeleton in the case, the profile and the floor of 
the grave was checked for possible trace evidence 
– in forensics these are often strands of hair, fi-
bres, paint or fingerprints. The end of the exca-
vation means that all the evidence are recorded, 
photographed, and put in an appropriate stor-
6 Lewis Somers, „Resistivity Survey,“ in Remote Sensing in Archaeolog y, 
ed. Jay K. Johnson (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 
2006), 109-131; Anthony Clark, Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospection 
Methods in Archaeolog y (London: B.T. Batsford; 1990).
age. Upon the completion of the excavation, the 
grave pit is refilled and the place is left safe. All 
equipment has to be cleaned under supervision, 
and cleaning should be documented as a stand-
ard, to ensure that cross-site contamination can-
not occur.
Differences in archaeology and forensic ar-
chaeology may be considerable, but basic meth-
ods of the field research do not differ. In foren-
sic archaeology, especially when it embraces the 
study of mass graves, the term ‘exhumation’ is 
used, not just like a medico-legal term. The term 
‘exhumation’ accentuates special attention and 
emphasis given to human remains, because of 
their identification and later, returning to the 
families.7 This does not mean that attention is 
not given to the context, in the sense of contex-
tual evidence that may be relevant to the case. 
During the field work on individual or mass 
graves on archaeological sites, the term ‘excava-
tion’ is used. The archaeological fieldwork has 
more humanistic approach and gives equal at-
tention to the human remains and the context. 
The interpretation of the results will be thus 
somewhat different than in forensics. Now, the 
distinction between forensic excavation and fo-
rensic exhumation is clear as the difference in 
volume results. As archaeologists are dealing 
with vast time spans, it is important to detect 
chronology of a site, how old the findings are. 
Together with research of a necropolis, it is very 
important to reconstruct possible settlements 
of that precise period, and also its environmen-
tal history. Finally, one of the major questions is 
how people were functioning in that particular 
time, what can be told about their life. The dat-
ing of recent mass or individual graves also par-
tially belongs to the field of archaeology. Since 
the best-known method for determining abso-
lute age in archaeology – radiocarbon dating 14C 
– will not give adequate results for recent find-
ings, the classical archaeological methods of rel-
ative dating are used. Objects described in the 
case of an unknown soldier, such as fragments 
7 Melissa Connor and Douglas D. Scott, “Paradigms and Perpetra-
tors,” Historical Archaeolog y 35, no.1. (2001): 1-6. 
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
fo
r
en
si
c
s 
a
n
d
 a
rc
h
a
eo
lo
g
y:
 t
h
e 
et
h
ic
a
l 
a
pp
ro
a
c
h
 t
o
 g
r
av
es
 e
xc
av
a
t
io
n
 a
n
d
 r
es
ea
rc
h
55
of clothing, emblems, arms and ammunition, 
help to locate this finding in a specific time pe-
riod. Indeed, a number of such findings can nar-
row time span dating. Development of forensic 
taphonomy in the sense of burial environment 
analysis, f. e. soil analysis, opens up possibilities 
for a more precise dating of findings, a determi-
nation of the post-burial interval and sometimes 
also of the post-mortem interval. In general, dif-
ferent biological markers like botanical remains 
can be used in determination of the period be-
tween the time of deposition in the burial site 
and the time of recovery.8 A more specific and 
a very potent tool to establish the burial time in 
extended post-mortem period, but also to reveal 
possible clandestine graves, is the use of the post-
putrefaction fungi.9 Unfortunately, in the case 
of an unknown soldier from Josipovac soil sam-
ples were not taken from his grave for analysis. 
Such an analysis could give us the information 
in which season of the year the body was placed 
in the burial pit.
As in the case of the unknown soldier, 
there is an intertwining of archaeology and do-
main of police powers when it becomes foren-
sic archaeology. In archaeology, it is a moment 
when anthropological osteological remains from 
World War II or younger period are revealed on 
a site. Then the police has to be informed about 
the finding, which stays in a domain of foren-
sic medicine. Also, if the police specialists find 
human remains and assume they are not recent, 
they often call archaeologists for help to resolve 
8 Shari L. Forbes, „Potential Determinants of Postmortem and 
Postburial Interval of Buried Remains,“ in Soil Analysis in Foren-
sic Taphonomy, eds. Mark Tibbett and David O. Carter (Boca Ra-
ton: CRC Press, 2008), 225-2; Heather C. Miller, Cheng-Lung Lee, 
Wen-Yu Lin, Henry C. Lee and Timothy M. Palmbach, „Forensic 
Botany: Using Plant Evidence to Aid in Forensic Death Investiga-
tion,“ Croatian Medical Journal 46, no. 4 (2005): 606-612.
9 David L. Hawksworth and Patricia E.J. Wiltshire, „Forensic myco-
logy: the use of fungi in criminal investigations,“ Forensic Scien-
ce International 206, no. 1-3 (2011): 1-11; Shari L. Forbes, „Potential 
Determinants of Postmortem and Postburial Interval of Buried 
Remains,“ in Soil Analysis in Forensic Taphonomy, eds. Mark Tibbett 
and David O. Carter (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2008), 225-246; Ma-
sahito Hitosugi, Kiyoshi Ishii, Takashi Yaguchi, Yuichi Chigusa, 
Akira Kurosu, Masahito Kido, Toshiaki Nagai and Shogo Toku-
dome, „Fungi can be a useful forensic tool,“ Legal Medicine 8, no. 4. 
(2006): 240-242.
the dilemma. As it was said before, for archae-
ologists, the findings in the graves are in gener-
al more important than the skeleton and greater 
importance is given to them. Archaeologists ad-
mit that if they were to choose between saving an 
artefact or skeleton remains, they would choose 
the artefact. Finally, if you ask an archaeologist 
if there is a clearly written ethical and bioethi-
cal code that must be respected during the re-
search, he will recognize there is not. Young-
er archaeologists learn from the older ones, and 
from the elders, they also adopt unwritten ethi-
cal rules important in their work. They are aware 
that excavation irreversibly destroys the possi-
bility of another approach to the research, and 
that often no one can refute their interpretation 
because the ground has been already excavated, 
destroyed for further research. The same can be 
said for forensic archaeology – an exhumation 
will forever destroy the site or the crime scene; 
it is thus important to work according to spe-
cific protocols, methods, techniques and availa-
ble technologies. The forensic excavation follows 
all the rules of the traditional archaeological ex-
cavation, but all steps are elaborated and elevat-
ed on a higher level with protocols and standard 
operating procedures (SOP’s).10 This helps in re-
solving every day and also more unusual ethical 
dilemmas during the work.
Everybody claims that there should not be 
double standards, that skeletal remains from any 
historical period should be treated in the same 
way, with the same respect, as those from the re-
cent wars. But then the awareness of the whole 
society should be at a significantly higher level. 
It is clear that the dead can no longer be hurt but 
there are still strong reasons for treating them 
with respect, respect for the individual.
What archaeology tells us about the fu-
ture of the skeletal burials? The calculation is 
simple. On average, one hundred million peo-
10 Anderson Auson, Margaret Cox, Ambika Flavel, Ian Hanson, Mi-
chael Hedley, Joanna Laver, Auson Perman, Mark Viner and Ri-
chard Wright, „Protocols for the investigation of mass graves“ in 
The Scientific Investigation of Mass Graves: Towards Protocols and Stan-
dard Operating Procedures, eds.Margaret Cox, Ambika Flavel, Ian 
Hanson, Joanna Laver and Roland Wessling (Cambridge: Cambri-
dge University Press, 2008) 39-102.
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
st
u
d
ia
 u
n
iv
er
si
ta
t
is
 h
er
ed
it
a
t
i, 
le
t
n
ik
 5 
(2
01
7)
, š
t
ev
il
k
a
 2
56
ple are born annually and forty million dies. If 
those forty million were buried in a necropolis, 
in a classic graveyard with skeletal burials, they 
would take up an area of  20 km2. One day, not in 
the distant future, this will become a huge prob-
lem. Will we throw our dead into the sea, or fer-
tilize the soil with them, will we burn them? 
What yesterday was ethics, today may no 
longer be. The rule about preserving, what we 
must and what we want to preserve, and our 
choice will represent our civilization. Whatever 
we thought yesterday we would preserve, if pos-
sible all of it, today has a completely different di-
mension. Where are the areas in which we will 
preserve all that? In the whirlwind of events in 
the recent years, more and more raises the ques-
tion of how to survive, how to provide enough 
space and food for all, but also how to preserve 
everything of value? Archaeology will offer an 
answer based on the long history of human ex-
perience. 
Povzetek
Predstavljeno delo raziskuje, do kakšne mere obstaja 
razlika v raziskovalni metodologiji in tehniki arheologi-
je in forenzične arheologije. Iz zelo osnovnega razliko-
vanja med „izkopavanjem grobov“, pojmom, ki je bliže 
arheološkemu smislu in „ekshumacijo človeških ostan-
kov“, tesno povezano s forenzično arheologijo, do no-
vih modelov, ki bi lahko v prihodnosti omogočili bolj-
šo kakovost raziskav in preiskav. V zadnjih tridesetih 
letih so bili kot del multidisciplinarnih forenzičnih stro-
kovnih ekip povabljeni arheologi, še posebej ob raziska-
vah skrivnih grobov in množičnih grobišč iz nedavnih 
vojn, ko je šlo za vprašanja človekovih pravic. Dobra štu-
dija prekrivanja forenzičnih in arheoloških primerov je 
skrivni grob neznanega vojaka iz druge svetovne vojne 
iz arheološkega najdišča Josipovac - Verušed pri Osije-
ku (Slavonija, Hrvaška). Odkrit je bil med zaščitnimi ar-
heološkimi izkopavanji, leta 2007, na trasi avtoceste (A 
5) Beli Manastir - Osijek. Najdba je bila na tem arheo-
loškem najdišču nepričakovana, zato so bili vsi standar-
dni postopki izvedeni že pred izkopom. Obravnavana je 
bila kot arheološki kontekst, saj pred izkopavanji ni bilo 
informacij, ki bi lahko potrdile starost, obdobje ali sta-
tus pokojnika. Ko so se po opredelitvi kostnih ostankov 
v raziskanem kontekstu pojavili ostanki strelnega orož-
ja, pa so se glede na to razvrstili in analizirali tudi drugi 
predmeti iz groba, kar je pomagalo pri kronološki, kul-
turni in individualni identifikaciji umrle osebe. Pomen 
poudarjanja konteksta je zelo pomemben, saj je omogo-
čil razvrstitev ugotovitev v forenzični okvir. Pomembno 
je tudi izpostaviti razpravo o etičnih vprašanjih, saj so 
človeški ostanki lahko izhajajo iz arheoloških konteks-
tov ali pa so del uradnega postopka, ki lahko prinese po-
membne dokaze za sodišče.
Summary
The present work explores to which extent the differ-
ence between research methodology and techniques 
of archaeology and forensic archaeology exists. From 
the very basic distinction between “graves excavation”, 
a term closer to archaeological sense, and “exhumation 
of human remains”, closely related to forensic archaeol-
ogy, to the new models that could give better quality of 
both research and investigations in the future. During 
the last thirty years, archaeologists have been called, as 
part of the multidisciplinary forensic expert teams in 
human rights cases, to investigate clandestine graves 
and especially mass graves from recent wars. A good 
case study of overlapping forensic and archaeological 
cases is the clandestine grave of an unknown soldier 
from the World War II, from the archaeological site Jo-
sipovac – Verušed near Osijek (Slavonia, Croatia). The 
grave was revealed during an archaeological rescue ex-
cavation in 2007, on the route of the highway A 5, Beli 
Manastir – Osijek. This finding was unexpected for 
an archaeological site, so all standard procedures that 
precede the excavation had already been made. It was 
treated as a real archaeological, historical layer because 
before excavation, there was no information that could 
confirm its age, period or status. So when, after defin-
ing the skeleton remains, remains of a firearm emerged 
from the soil, classifying and analyzing the objects from 
the grave helped to give chronological, cultural and in-
dividual identifiers of the deceased person. The impor-
tance of giving emphasis to the context, which enabled 
the classification of findings in the forensic framework, 
was accentuated. It is crucial to mention and discuss the 
ethical issues of whether the human remains are part of 
an archaeological period, or they are part of a case that 
could provide evidence for the court. 
st
ud
ia universitatis
he
re
d
it
at
i
fo
r
en
si
c
s 
a
n
d
 a
rc
h
a
eo
lo
g
y:
 t
h
e 
et
h
ic
a
l 
a
pp
ro
a
c
h
 t
o
 g
r
av
es
 e
xc
av
a
t
io
n
 a
n
d
 r
es
ea
rc
h
57
Bibliography
Clark, Anthony. Seeing Beneath the Soil: 
Prospection Methods in Archaeology. 
London: B.T. Batsford, 1990.
Connor, Melissa and Douglas D. Scott. 
“Paradigms and Perpetrators.” Historical 
Archaeology 35, no. 1 (2001): 1-6. 
Cox, Margaret. Ambika Flavel, Ian 
Hanson, Joanna Laver and Roland 
Wessling. The Scientific Investigation 
of Mass Graves: Towards Protocols 
and Standard Operating Procedures. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 
2008.
Filipec, Krešimir and Marija Šiša-Vivek. 
„Report on the archaeological site Debela 
šuma.“ Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak no. 
3 (2006): 69-71.
Forbes, Shari L. „Potential Determinants 
of Postmortem and Postburial Interval 
of Buried Remains.“ In Soil Analysis in 
Forensic Taphonomy, eds. Mark Tibbett 
and David O. Carter, 225-246. Boca Raton: 
CRC Press, 2008.
Haglund, William D. “Archaeology and 
Forensic Death Investigations.” Historical 
Archaeology 35, no. 1 (2001): 26-34. 
Hawksworth, David L., and Patricia E.J. 
Wiltshire. „Forensic mycology: the use of 
fungi in criminal investigations.“ Forensic 
Science International 206, no. 1-3 (2011): 
1-11.
Hitosugi, Masahito, Kiyoshi Ishii, Takashi 
Yaguchi, Yuichi Chigusa, Akira Kurosu, 
Masahito Kido, Toshiaki Nagai and Shogo 
Tokudome. „Fungi can be a useful forensic 
tool.“ Legal Medicine 8, no. 4. (2006): 240-
242.
Miller, Heather C., Cheng-Lung Lee, Wen-
Yu Lin, Henry C. Lee and Timothy 
M. Palmbach. „Forensic Botany: Using 
Plant Evidence to Aid in Forensic Death 
Investigation.“ Croatian Medical Journal 
46, no. 4 (2005): 606-612.
Petrov, Marinko. Pakao na Dravi Belišće 1944-
1945 Bistrinci. Bački Petrovac: Mesno 
udružnje boraca NOR-a Belišće, 1979.
Scott, Douglas D., and Melissa Connor. 
“The Role and Future of Archaeology 
in Forensic Science.” Historical 
Archaeology 35, no. 1 (2001): 101-04.
Somers, Lewis. „Resistivity Survey.“ In Remote 
Sensing in Archaeology, ed. Jay K. Johnson, 
109-131. Tuscaloosa: The University of 
Alabama Press, 2006.
Tibbett, Mark and David O. Carter, eds. Soil 
Analysis in Forensic Taphonomy. Boca 
Raton: CRC Press; 2008.
Abbreviations
Hist Archaeol.=Historical Archaeology
Croat Med J = Croatian Medical Journal
Forensic Sci It = Forensic Science International 
Legal Med = Legal Medicine