INTRODUCTION
The use of canines as Remote Sensors in the field of Archeology / Anthropology is a relatively new concept. Archeologists can now study sites with a new technology, canine remote sensors, also known as historical remains detection dogs, with little environmental disturbance of the site. The canine is a unique tool. The nose of a working canine has approximately 220 million olfactory cells. The human nose has approximately 5 million olfactory cells. It is estimated that 1/8 of the dog’s brain and over 50% of the internal nose is committed to olfaction. (1)

The specialized training of the Historical Grave Detection (HGD) dog, the newest discipline of dogs working in detection, involves new and old training techniques. Many of these dogs come from a human remains detection (HRD) background. The HRD dogs are imprinted with decomposed tissue, blood and body fluids. This is the foundation of the HRD dog training. These dogs are trained to search small areas under handler control and have their nose very close to the ground in order to detect the scent of a tooth, a drop of blood or buried decomposed human remains.

A new and more efficient method to train dogs for historical work is to imprint/train the dog on very old historic bones and teeth as a foundation. The dog may never encounter decomposed human remains. Once the foundation is laid, the dog is trained to find the scent source under a few inches of earth and then the depth is gradually increased. The next step is training in cemeteries with known historical graves and then moving to the unmarked graves.

(1) Scent and the Scenting Dog by William G. Syrotuck

HISTORY
The Bayley House, Historic State Park, is located on Highway 49, Pilot Hill, CA.
Alcandra Bayley was an attorney and State Assembly member; as such, he lived part time in Sacramento and part time in Pilot Hill. The house is said to have been 10,000 square feet, and had 22 rooms, including a grand ballroom on the third floor. Some 300,000 bricks were manufactured on the property and some of the lumber was milled there as well. There were six fireplaces and a basement wine cellar where Mr. Bayley, one of California’s first wine makers, stored wine from his vineyards. The house was located on 640 acres of rolling hills, surrounded by fruit trees, vineyards, cattle and poultry.

Alcander believed the rumors that the Central Pacific Railroad would be constructed along an established stagecoach and freight hauler route, now Highway 49, which passed through Pilot Hill. This motivated him to build this lavish, expensive hotel mansion that he envisioned would be the only stop along the railroad route to Sacramento. Unfortunately the railroad did not follow the Highway 49 route, but was routed through Auburn and Dutch Flat. This was an expensive mistake and a great disappointment to Alcander.

The Georgetown Recreation District now owns the Bayley House and 10 acres of land surrounding the house. The house is badly weather damaged and vandalized. The restoration project is being done by a non-profit organization named “Friends of Bayley House”.

THE ICF PROJECT
John Crane, Chairman of the Friends of the Bayley House, contacted the Institute for Canine Forensics (ICF) requesting our canines to locate the family burial plot of Alcander and Elizabeth Bayley and possibly other family members that might include their son James and Elizabeth’s sister. Folk rumors suggested that there could be anywhere from 4 –7 persons buried there. The Friends of the Baylay House plan to have a memorial created and placed on the burial site to honor Alcander & Elizabeth Baylay.

THE FIRST SEARCH
The Institute for Canine Forensics (ICF) and John Crane settled on the date of November 22, 2004 to begin the search for the cemetery. It was a sunny, cool, windy day in November when the four ICF canine teams and 3 ICF support persons arrived at the Bayley House Parking lot. John Crane, chairman of the Friends of Bayley House, was unable to attend, but nearly all of the committee members were on hand as well as media from the Mountain Democrat and Auburn Journal.

This was an unexpected happening and there did not appear to be any one person in charge. The press wanted an interview and that became the first order of business. Later different members of the Friends Committee offered maps of the area as well as their opinion as to where we should search. It took a little while to prioritize where they wanted our dogs to search.

After much discussion it was decided that the most important areas to search were around the Baylay house and the North knoll. This was thought to be the most probable areas. The third area that they thought was a possibility was across Highway 49. This was part of the Baylay estate in the late 1800s. Searching this property across Highway 49 would have presented a problem, as it is not part of the Georgetown Recreation District. Permission would need to be obtained from the private owners.

SEARCH METHADOLOGY
The few pictures we had seen of the area did not provide enough information to develop a search plan until we arrived. The Friends of Bayley House had various maps and folk information of the area. This was helpful in developing a plan. Strategy was discussed and it was decided that there was not enough time to search all possible areas. To perform the most efficient search it was decided that the four handlers would be split into two teams. One team, consisting of two handlers and two dogs, would search around the mansion and the other team, two handlers and two dogs, would begin searching the knoll and then exchange search sites. Each team would be made up of two handlers and dogs and an ICF support person.

SEARCH AROUND BAYLEY HOUSE
The search area around the Baylay House included the area inside and outside of the fence that had been installed to minimize any future vandalism. One team searched inside the fence and one team searched outside the fence and then they switched assignments. When the two teams completed their search assignment they discussed the search area. There were no alerts by either dog. The consensus was that no burials were detected in this area.

SEARCH AROUND THE KNOLL
The knoll was divided into two search sectors. Each team searched their sector and then traded search sectors. Each team had different colored flags to mark any alert locations. This knoll was a very heavily contaminated area by reporters, photographers and the Bayley friends with metal detectors. The knoll was considered by many as the area of highest probability for finding the burial plot.

Our historic detection dogs are not accustomed to working in this confusing environment. They must stay very focused performing a methodical search in order to detect the presence of the very faint scent of historical bones. The large number of people moving around the area compromised the search of this sector. It was far from ideal searching conditions, yet the Friends of the Bayley House needed this publicity in order to get community support and more funds to restore the Bayley House. Our teams did the best they could under the circumstances.

When the first team had completed their search of the area they met and discussed the search and the distractions. Their concerns were that the search area was compromised by the all distractions and they did not flag any areas. When these handlers left the search area many of the observers left the knoll, including the reporters and photographers, so the area was less confusing for the next team to search. When the second team had completed their search of the knoll ICF Support Staff measured and documented all the alerts. The first team then returned and searched the area again. The dog’s alerts were flagged. The ICF Support Staff measured and documented all of these alerts. When the all the measuring and documentation was completed the handlers met and discussed the search and the flagged alerts. The ICF Support staff conferred with the handlers and compared the documentation of both teams. The results were very similar.

THE CONCLUSIONS
ICF teams met with Jamie Tafoya and Colleen Moore, Friends Of Bayley House Committee, and discussed the events of the day including all the distractions and the dog alerts. The conclusion was that the ICF teams wanted to come back on another day, perhaps during the week, and search the area under more optimum conditions before committing to a location. Jamie & Colleen agreed to take this proposal to the group.

THE SECOND SEARCH TWO MONTHS LATER
January 22, 2005 ICF teams arrived at the Baylay house and were met by John Crane, Colleen Moore & Sue Mickus and guest Aloha Adams from the Pioneer Cemetery Commission was present.

It was foggy and cold, 46 degrees. A light wind swirled the fog around the area. The ground was damp and the dry creek now had slow moving water from the recent rain.

John Crane and Sue Mickus informed us of new information about 5 burials, A.J. Baylay, his wife Elizabeth and son James were buried there. It was believed that there were two other graves, perhaps one may have belonged to Elizabeth’s sister and the other is unknown. One of the missing head stones was recovered by law enforcement at the site of a drug arrest. It was placed in the museum and has since disappeared.

The search strategy was discussed with John and Colleen. The knoll was divided into a high and low sector. Two handlers and the canines began searching at the same time, one high and one low. Each handler had different colored flags to mark any alerts. ICF support followed each team to film or video the search. When they completed their original sector they switched sectors and searched until it was completed. The ICF support team documented 7 flags, some of which were overlapping with other flags at the completion of their search.

The last two handlers that were standing by and waiting to begin their search as soon as all the documentation had been completed. They searched their sectors and switched sectors and completed the search. The ICF support team documented 6 flags, some of which were overlapping with other flags.

CONCLUSIONS OF SEARCH
The map from the November search and the January search were compared. The two maps clearly showed, despite the adverse conditions of the November search, the dogs had delineated the same target area two months apart. The Friends of Baylay House do not intend further exploration of the site to confirm the dog alerts at this time.

This is just one example of canine remote sensing detection. These canine teams are capable of discovering the resting place of the long forgotten buried with little or no disturbance to the environment.

A NEW TOOL FOR ARCHEOLOGIST