Forensic Science International 152 (2005) 55–59

www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint

A typology of mass grave and mass grave-related sites

Erin Jessee *, Mark Skinner
Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6
Received 19 April 2004; accepted 25 February 2005
Available online 3 May 2005

Abstract

Mass graves are archaeological features with humanitarian and forensic import. Their creation and subsequent modification
by natural and human agents reflect complex site histories and site formation processes that create a diversity of mass graves that
must be captured with adequate terminology. The purpose of this paper is to encourage specialized research within the newly
emerging discipline of forensic bioarchaeology of mass grave and mass grave-related sites as they occur internationally. In doing
so, the authors present a typology for describing several types of mass grave and mass grave-related sites according to their
archaeologically distinctive characteristics. Several definitions are provided to synthesize the experiences of internationally
active forensic bioarchaeologists. A series of standardized definitions will ease communication between the forensic
bioarchaeology and international human rights communities. We distinguish among the following basic types: surface and
grave execution sites, permanent and temporary deposition sites, primary and secondary inhumation sites and, finally, looted
instances of the latter. This endeavor is intended to promote communication with legal agencies such as the International
Criminal Tribunals (ICTY/ICTR) and International Criminal Court (ICC).
# 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mass grave; Mass grave-related site; Standardized nomenclature; Forensic bioarchaeology

1. Introduction
This article addresses the need for a typology for the
classification of mass grave and mass grave-related sites
according to their archaeologically distinctive characteris-
tics so as to better promote the contribution of the inter-
nationally active community of forensic bioarchaeologists to
the humanitarian and legal agencies involved with interna-
tional human rights and justice. The last decade has seen a
steady increase in the number and types of both professional
and lay people assisting the various processes involved in
revealing and communicating the social, political and cul-
tural contexts presented by mass graves [1–3]. The result of
this, however, is the realization that current terms to describe
* Corresponding author. Present address: 14-1249 Rockland
Avenue, Victoria, BC, Canada V8V 3J3. Tel.: +1 250 382 7700.
E-mail address: edjessee@uvic.ca (E. Jessee).
mass gravesites are not sufficient for all professional realms
involved in the investigations, especially the International
Criminal Courts and forensic bioarchaeologists. For exam-
ple, the primary concern of the International Criminal Courts
is to define mass graves in terms of criminal motive, while
the archaeologist is more concerned with recognizing, doc-
umenting and interpreting site formation processes and their
effect on the resulting material culture preserved within so as
to reconstruct behaviors by perpetrators and their assistants.
It may be necessary in the coming years for these two
disciplines to produce complementary but distinctive defini-
tions in order to better serve their unique interests. This
article attempts to provide definitions that serve primarily
archaeological interests in mass gravesites.
The recent application of ‘‘forensic bioarchaeology’’ [4]
to the investigation of mass grave and mass grave-related
sites for international humanitarian law proceedings against
perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and

0379-0738/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.02.031
56 E. Jessee, M. Skinner / Forensic Science International 152 (2005) 55–59
genocide requires the creation of a series of definitions that
directly relate to this professional community. As an emerging
discipline, however, there are several serious problems
becoming discernible from the activities of internationally
active forensic bioarchaeologists, including a lack of inter-
nationally standardized archaeological field protocol, a lack of
scientific research pertaining to the understanding and ana-
lysis of mass grave and mass grave-related sites and a lack of
communication and publication of knowledge among experts
in the discipline [1]. While each of these issues is interrelated
in terms of providing the International Criminal Courts with a
high standard of evidence, the most pressing of these is the
issue of publication and communication of knowledge. In
order to ensure that the community of internationally active
professionals is able to produce legally valid interpretations of
the evidence recovered, steps must first be taken towards
providing standardized terminology for classifying the many
varieties of mass grave and mass grave-related sites. This
article provides a typology for the classification of mass grave
and mass grave-related sites according to their archaeologi-
cally distinctive characteristics.
2. Defining the mass grave
A variety of terms relating to mass graves have emerged,
with little concern for nomenclatural clarity—some graves
are ‘‘expedient’’, others ‘‘clandestine’’ or ‘‘sanitary’’. Ter-
minological exactitude is desirable in law; similarly, scien-
tific concern with process demands clear definitions.
Conflicting definitions have emerged from two quite dis-
parate emphases: one on the number of bodies it takes to
constitute a ‘‘mass’’; and, secondly, the motive behind the
creation of the mass grave.
As to the number of individuals present in the grave in
order for it to qualify as a mass grave, Mant [5] suggested in
1987 that it need only contain two or more bodies that are in
contact with each other. His definition is based on the work
he conducted in the late 1940s as part of an investigation into
the various war crimes committed by Nazi leaders. Notably
his definition is silent as to motive. Skinner [6] published a
conflicting definition in the same year based on his review of
investigations in Korea, Vietnam and Argentina. He suggests
that a mass grave is any single burial unit containing at least
half a dozen tightly packed, yet indiscriminately placed
bodies. The emphasis placed on the nature of the bodies
deposition within the burial unit is intended to reflect the
disrespect with which the victims are handled; and, so,
allows for a distinction to be made from other mass burials
in which bodies are carefully placed, suggesting a degree of
care, or at least forethought. It should be noted, however, that
due to the simple practical challenge posed by commingled
remains, both definitions placed more emphasis on the
number of individuals and their physical relationship to
each other than the legal or archaeological context behind
their deaths.
The legal concern with mass graves would not be merged
with imprecise historical antecedents until 1996 when the
UN Special Rapporteur released a new definition, defining a
mass grave as any location where three or more victims have
died as a result of extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary
executions, not including individuals who died in combat
or armed confrontations [7]. One excellent aspect of this
definition – with its use of the phrase ‘‘any location’’ – is that
it allows for the inclusion of body masses interred in
different types of features, such as village wells, natural
ravines and graves. Clearly the definition presupposes a prior
investigation, which has established to the prosecutor’s
satisfaction the motive behind the creation of the mass
grave. From a legal perspective the definition usefully
focuses on the criminal context of the site, presenting the
legal team with a series of potential motives and charges
with which to confront alleged perpetrators. These may
include genocide based on the ethnic, religious, national
or political identity of conflicting groups, war crimes or
crimes against humanity, all of which can lead to the
prosecution of individual perpetrators [8]. That said, this
definition fails to acknowledge both the formational com-
plexity evident in various contexts as well as the common
disrespect with which the remains are interred, and thus fails
to communicate adequately the evidentiary complexity of
commingled and disturbed remains.
In many instances, mass graves are used as an efficient
means of hiding human rights abuses and war crimes
committed by the very institutions that are, in theory,
designed to protect their civilians. The victims in these cases
are generally not combatants, but neutral civilians who are
protected by international humanitarian law in times of war,
whether it exists within a single nation or expands to an
international scale [9]. Ultimately, both the number of
individuals and the criminal context behind their execution
is of extreme importance. Thus, we offer to the legal
community the following definition:
A mass grave is any location containing two or more
associated bodies, indiscriminately or deliberately placed,
of victims who have died as a result of extra-judicial,
summary or arbitrary executions, not including those indi-
viduals who have died as a result of armed confrontations or
known major catastrophes.
To the community of forensic archaeologists, with those
tasks we are more familiar, we offer the following discus-
sion, which deconstructs the more general definition to
create a typology that captures the physical signals of site
formation processes.
2.1. Types of mass graves and mass grave-related sites
In the past, archaeologists have distinguished among
common types of burials encountered in traditional mortuary
contexts; e.g., platform, interment, sky burial, vaults, con-
 E. Jessee, M. Skinner / Forensic Science International 152 (2005) 55–59
tainerized, etc. Such terms are rarely useful to describe
taphonomically affected forensic inhumations. A review
of site reports, newspaper and journal articles describing
the exhumation of mass gravesites, shows that there are
several major varieties of mass grave and mass grave-related
sites with which forensic bioarchaeologists should be famil-
iar. Efforts have been made to distinguish among grave types
according to the number of individuals interred within or
whether the remains represent primary or secondary burials;
for example Skinner et al. provide instances of innocent and
clandestine disturbance of graves in Bosnia and Herzegovina
[10]. However, we conclude that the forensic community has
failed to create a comprehensive and consistent set of
definitions according to which the different behavioral con-
texts leading to the creation of each mass grave might be
adequately summarized and communicated. Nonetheless,
distinctions can be made based on the archaeological sig-
natures of site formation processes so as to reconstruct the
sequence of events affecting the remains. Fig. 1 presents our
typology to describe site creation and subsequent modifica-
tions.
The first type of mass grave-related site is the execution
site (ES), where multiple individuals are executed. The
archaeological manifestations of this type of site may be
visible on the ground surface or may be obscured by a grave
pit or similar feature intended to inter the resulting human
remains. Evidence of this site type relates primarily to the
mode of execution, such as bullet cartridges or shredded
clothing as well as human blood and tissue fragments. It is
important to distinguish surface execution sites (SES) from
grave execution sites (GES) in which victims are killed in a
previously dug grave.
Several behaviors by perpetrators may intervene to affect
the remains prior to recovery. For example, bodies may not
be interred immediately after execution. They may be
transported and dumped together on the ground and left
until the necessary heavy machinery and personnel are
available to better dispose of the remains. This temporary
Fig. 1. A flow chart for mass grave and mass grave-related sites.
57
surface deposition site (TDS) may be recognizable once the
bulk of the body mass is removed by the presence of residual
clothing, personal effects, blood and bone fragments. This
type of prior event may not be immediately evident as having
occurred when analyzing the human remains recovered later
from a mass grave. Nevertheless, a body mass that has lain
exposed for days or weeks prior to interment should be
sufficiently taphonomically altered for this to be detectable
in the interred remains and so allow the inference of the
existence of a TDS. On the other hand, a site with significant
amounts of taphonomically altered human bone but lacking
extraneous evidence pertaining to the method of execution,
such as bullet casings, likely represents a permanent surface
deposition site (PDS). It can be expected that at a PDS, the
degree of scatter of bones and other evidence will be much
greater than at a TDS.
We can now turn our attention to inhumations. It is not
unlikely that in some instances the perpetrators may choose
to use natural features, such as ravines or caves, to inter a
body mass [11,12]. It is most common, however, for the
perpetrators to construct a simple rectangular pit in which to
dispose of bodies using heavy machinery. Gravesites that,
for whatever reason, fail to be used to inter bodies are still
detectable from the presence of a ramp leading into the grave
to assist heavy machinery in dumping the victims. Recogni-
tion of such diagnostic features of the pit is important to
establish an element of premeditation in the crimes com-
mitted by an individual or organization. Heavy machinery
could leave tooth marks remnant of an individual bucket
along the walls of the grave, however, this important char-
acteristic is likely only observable by means of careful
archaeological excavation [13]. Likewise, a grave feature
constructed using heavy machinery is liable to have more
regular walls than those constructed by hand. These features
are archaeologically distinguishable and should be appro-
priately distinguished as either a machine-made grave fea-
ture or a manually made grave feature.
The first episode of interment can be most easily referred
to as the primary inhumation site (PIS). In previous works,
this type of site has been termed a primary mass grave,
roughly referring to a grave containing multiple individuals
who have been executed and interred soon after death and
who shared a related cause and manner of death [5,6,8,13].
In some instances, a primary inhumation site may also be a
grave execution site. Conversely, the inhumation may occur
in a location far from where the victims were killed. Primary
inhumation sites are distinguishable by the nature of the
interred remains. For example, while the bodies may be
deposited in the grave in a disorderly fashion, it is likely that
they will remain somewhat articulated and that any sloughed
soft tissue, such as the fingernails and hair, will be present
with the bodies. It is also likely that evidence pertaining to
the method of execution, such as bullets or shrapnel, will
remain either within or close to the host body. Regarding the
taphonomic alteration of the remains, there will be no
noticeable disruption in the decomposition of the remains.
58 E. Jessee, M. Skinner / Forensic Science International 152 (2005) 55–59
This feature is indicated by the presence of uninterrupted
‘‘feather-edging’’ around the body mass [14]. ‘‘Feather-
edging’’ refers to the slower rate of decomposition that affects
the edge of a body mass in relation to its center when the body
mass is allowed to decompose without disruption, by heavy
machinery for example. If the bodies have lain at a TDS
sufficiently long so as to decompose badly, then the act of
gathering them up, for example with the bucket of a piece of
heavy machinery for transport to a PIS may result in a PIS that
contains incomplete and commingled parts which resemble
those seen in secondary inhumation sites (see next).
The next common type of mass gravesite is the secondary
inhumation site (SIS). This type of mass grave has also been
previously termed a secondary mass grave. It is defined as a
grave that is created, usually clandestinely, from a primary
grave at a remote location [12,13]. Severely disarticulated
and commingled bodies are the most easily recognized
indicators of a secondary inhumation site, and are the result
of the use of heavy machinery to scoop up the partially
decomposed remains, transport them to the secondary loca-
tion and inter them again using heavy machinery. The use of
heavy machinery will also result in the mixing of soil and
artifacts from the primary inhumation site. Easily disarti-
culated elements and sloughed soft tissue, such as upper and
lower limbs and fingernails and hair, might be missing;
presumably left behind in at the primary inhumation site.
It should be noted that both primary and secondary inhu-
mation sites might contain one or multiple depositional
events, resulting in a stratigraphic series of body masses
separated by soil or contextual and orientation differences.
Depending on the time period, and the physical and chemical
events impacting each layer between deposits, these body
masses may demonstrate oddly variable stages of decomposi-
tion and biological evidence (insects, pollen) at layer inter-
faces, as one excavates from the surface down to sterile soil.
These layers should be appropriately numbered and the over-
all site classified as a multiple deposit interment site (MDIS).
The robbed or looted inhumation site (LIS) denotes not the
theft of grave goods but the clandestine removal of human
remains from the grave by the perpetrators or their designates
for the purpose of creating a secondary inhumation site known
to a minimum number of potential informants. Looted mass
graves may be important from the perspective of the inter-
national tribunals; thus it is important for the forensic bioarch-
aeologist to have a general idea of the physical evidence left
behind in the perpetrators’ haste at this type of site. As seen in
the Former Yugoslavia, the ability of investigators to link the
Petkovci Dam looted site with the secondary site of Liplje 2
was crucial to reconstructing the sequence of events experi-
enced by the victims [12]. Important evidence left at a looted
inhumation site includes the grave feature, as well as residual
items such as clothing, hair and ballistics evidence. These
types of evidence often remain at the primary burial site and
can provide valuable evidence pertaining to the formation of
an overall sequence of events concerning the individuals
recovered from a particular body mass.
3. Conclusion
While the International Criminal Courts/tribunals pri-
marily rely upon informant testimony in determining the
guilt of alleged perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide, it nonetheless remains that physical
evidence has a role to play in supporting and supplementing
any information that emerges from these sources. From a
review of the literature emerging from the international
investigation of mass gravesites, it becomes clear that there
are several types of mass grave and mass grave-related sites
among which forensic bioarchaeologists need to distinguish.
A typology of mass grave definitions created specifically
with the theoretical and practical interests of forensic
bioarchaeologists in mind can only serve to improve the
quality of communication within this discipline, an event
which can then translate into better understanding between
the various disciplines involved in the prosecution of alleged
perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and
genocide. Furthermore, such definitions encourage the inter-
nationally active community of forensic bioarchaeologists to
explore the many contexts of the average mass gravesite,
focusing not only on the taphonomic context, but the crim-
inal, legal, political and social contexts as well.
Acknowledgment
A Bora Laskin National Fellowship in Human Rights
Research to M.F.S. contributed to the writing of this con-
tribution.
References
[1] E. Jessee, Exhuming Conflict: Some Recommendations for a
Series of Experimental Mass Grave and Mass Grave-related
Sites. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology,
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
[2] M. Skinner, personal communication, 2002.
[3] J. Sterenberg, personal communication, 2002.
[4] M. Skinner, D. Alempijevic, M. Djuric-Srejic, Guidelines for
international forensic bio-archaeology monitors of mass grave
exhumations. Forensic Sci. Int. 134 (2003) 81–92.
[5] A.K. Mant, Knowledge acquired from post-war exhumations,
in: A. Boddington, A.N. Garland, R.C. Janaway (Eds.), Death,
Decay and Reconstruction: Approaches to Archaeology and
Forensic Science, Manchester University Press, Manchester
UK, 1987, pp. 65–78.
[6] M.F. Skinner, Planning the archaeological recovery of evi-
dence from recent mass graves, Forensic Sci. Int. 34 (1987)
267–287.
[7] International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
(ICTY), 1996.
[8] S. Schmitt, Mass graves and the collection of forensic evi-
dence: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, in:
W.D. Haglund, M.H. Sorg (Eds.), Advances in Forensic Taph-
 E. Jessee, M. Skinner / Forensic Science International 152 (2005) 55–59
onomy: Method, Theory and Archaeological Perspectives,
CRC Press, New York, 2002, pp. 277–292.
[9] W.D. Haglund, Recent mass graves: an introduction, in: W.D.
Haglund, M.H. Sorg (Eds.), Advances in Forensic Taphonomy:
Method, Theory and Archaeological Perspectives, CRC Press,
New York, 2002, pp. 243–261.
[10] M.F. Skinner, H.P. York, M.A. Connor, Postburial disturbances
of graves in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in: W.D. Haglund, M.H.
Sorg (Eds.), Advances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, The-
ory and Archaeological Perspectives, CRC Press, New York,
2002, pp. 293–308.
[11] T. Simmons, Taphonomy of a karstic cave execution site at
Hrgar, Bosnia-Herzegovina, in: William D. Haglund, Marcella
59
H. Sorg (Eds.), Advances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method,
Theory and Archaeological Perspectives, CRC Press, USA,
2001, pp. 263–308.
[12] D. Manning, Srebrenica investigation, summary of forensic
evidence. ICTY Evidence Report, Unpublished document
Property of the United Nations, International Criminal Tribu-
nal for the Former Yugoslavia, 2000.
[13] J. Sterenberg, Archaeological Techniques and Methods for the
Excavation and Recording of Contemporary Primary and
Secondary Mass Graves. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis from
Bournemouth University, UK, 2002.
[14] A.K. Mant, A Study of Exhumation Data. Ph.D. Thesis from
London University, 1950.