What clues do they look for?
The fourth point matters more than the technology. The areas are huge, while the methods work over hectares, not square kilometers - so archival research and interviews do most of the work.
The second clue is especially useful. Aerial-imagery archives, including military ones, cover many regions over several decades - and let researchers see the landscape as it looked soon after the events.
What happens after a find
Then identification begins. Comparing genetic profiles with relatives' samples can restore people's names decades later - and this, rather than the discovery itself, is most often the main goal of the work.
This work takes time. Collecting samples from relatives, some of whom have already died or moved away, can be harder than finding the burial itself - and it takes years.
It also helps that the ground over such an area sinks. Over time, the soil compacts unevenly, and a barely noticeable depression appears on the surface, clearly visible in oblique light at sunrise or sunset.
Mixed remains are another challenge. In mass burials, bones are jumbled together, and reconstructing individual people becomes a painstaking task of matching fragments.
What share of the time in these searches goes to the excavation itself - the rest goes to archives, interviews, and later identification
There is also a legal aspect. What is found becomes physical evidence, and the procedures for handling it are strictly regulated - this determines whether the results can be used in court.
What gives away disturbed soil decades later?
What matters most in these searches?
Sources
- The search for mass-burial sites relies on analysis of archival aerial photographs, differences in vegetation over disturbed soil, geophysical methods, and interview data
- remains are identified by comparing genetic profiles with relatives' samples, a process that takes a long time
Next in the “Forgotten Crimes” series
2 articles in full on the site, 2 more in the app
