The acquisition of biological information and assessment of the most probable geographic origin of unidentified individuals for obtaining positive identification is central in forensic sciences. Identification based on forensic DNA, however, varies greatly in relation to degradation of DNA. Our primary aim is to assess the applicability of a petrous bone sampling method in combination with Next Generation Sequencing to evaluate the quality and quantity of DNA in taphonomically degraded petrous bones from forensic and cemetery cases. A related aim is to analyse the genomic data to obtain the molecular sex of each individual, and their most probable geographic origin. Six of seven subjects were previously identified and used for comparison with the results. To analyse their probable geographic origin, samples were genotyped for the 627.719 SNP positions. Results show that the inner ear cochlear region of the petrous bone provides good percentages of endogenous DNA (14.61–66.89%), even in the case of burnt bodies. All comparisons between forensic records and genetic results agree (sex) and are compatible (geographic origin). The application of the proposed methodology may be a powerful tool for use in forensic scenarios, ranging from missing persons to unidentified migrants who perish when crossing borders.

No abstract

in this paper i consider the consequences of the use of different concepts of time in archaeology. i make an attempt to deconstruct our understanding of time in modern culture and find the ways in which it influences archaeological narratives. The common idea of time regarded as a universal and physical factor derives from the interpretation of Newtonian physics. it is also closely related to terms such as empiricism, inevitability and causation. in that interpretation linear time becomes a measure, and influences all occurring phenomena in an equal way. That understanding of time is frequently used by archaeologists for chronological ordering of artefacts. in fact it separates time from space. i argue that physical/universal time and time understood as the experience of a human being are completely different qualities. The first restrains the interest of archaeologists to evolutional variations of the physical forms of artefacts while the second approach allows us to interpret them through the prism of their cultural contents. cultural time becomes meaning subjected to cultural rules instead of an objective measure that in the end lacks a time phenomenon.

No abstract

No abstract