Taphonomy as a goal

Taphonomy as an integrating principle in forensic anthropology

What is the goal of a forensic archaeologist in the “American” school?

→ forensic archaeology is one of the key constituents of forensic anthropology

What is the goal of a forensic archaeologist in the “British” school?

→ forensic archaeology is a standalone discipline

Classic taphonomy — original definition:

the transition of animal remains from biosphere to lithosphere or geological record (Efremov, 1940)

What was the goal of classic taphonomy?

reconstruction of paleo-communities and paleo-environments, with a focus on site formation, diagenesis, and fossilization of invertebrates

What types of questions were proposed by classic taphonomy?

• Does the absence of a particular species in a faunal assemblage mean that the taxon was absent from the living community?

• Does the lack of an anatomical structure mean that the structure had not developed, or was lost through preservation factors?

What is the scope of classic taphonomy?

taphonomic processes introduce biases that must be inferred and removed from the analysis

The 1970s — Rise of Vertebrate Taphonomy:

• early works on site formation, bone weathering, and bone preservation processes, many of them linked to early hominid sites

• key questions:

  • synchronism and allochthonous vs. autochthonous origin

  • bone transport, species and skeletal part preservation potentials

The 1980s — Taphonomy volumes start focusing on purely anthropological and archaeological subjects:

• Bone modification

• Human vs. non-human origin

Key consideration:

→ Taphonomic modification is no longer a burden to be removed from the data, but the primary source of interest, as it reflects human behavior

Archaeology adopts vertebrate taphonomy:

• manuals start routinely presenting vertebrate taphonomy as a constituting component of archaeological practice

• Zooarchaeology (also archaezoology and environmental archaeology in the UK)

The goal of the Zooarchaeological Approach (Ringrose 1993):

→ Reconstructing human behavior

Taphonomic processes become interesting in themselves, as they are reflecting human behavior, bringing new questions:

• Bone modification

  • human activity or natural processes?

  • surface marks and fracture patterns

• Site formation → additions to the classic subjects

  • intentional or natural deposit?

  • burial rituals and demographic patterns

  • skeletal part representation and utility patterns

Mid 1990s — Fully mature field, as understood today:

• standardization of terminology and quantitative indices

• integration of the paleontological and archaeological methods, literature and research

• definition of the main study subjects and key questions that can be legitimately posed within the field

Key consequences of the evolution of vertebrate taphonomy from the 1970s:

• archaeology and taphonomy became intimately entrenched disciplines

• assemblage analysis and site analysis could no longer be approached as independent activities

→ Proper taphonomic analysis requires field data collection and analysis!

Context (continued improvement of indoor scene techniques)

strict, regimented and comprehensive in-situ documentation of all the aspects of the undisturbed scene

T/F: In the 1980s, the techniques applied in the investigation of outdoor scenes still did not differ too much from those employed 50 years earlier

True

Questions beyond the biological profile:

• how long was the body there?

• why are some parts missing?

• why are the bones scattered?

• did the bones break during or after the death event?

• do you like movies about gladiators? lol

Direct equivalence of forensic anthropology’s and taphonomy’s questions and goals:

Site Formation → Forensic Reconstruction

• natural process

• burial practices

• skeletal part representation

• quantitative taphonomy

• forensic significance

• PMI

• body deposition

• sample integrity and modification

• ID and commingling issues

Bone Modification → Trauma Analysis

Vertebrate Taphonomy book by R. Lee Lyman was published when?

1994

Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains by Haglund and Sorg was published when?

1997

When was the Physical Anthropology Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences created?

1972

• all founders were physical anthropologists and adopted that name for the section

• archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, and linguists were excluded

• Forensic anthropology was seen as:

  • an applied subfield of physical anthropology

  • aimed solely at victim identification (sex, age, ancestry, and stature)

  • strictly laboratory-based

Most normalized valuation of skill sets:

• taphonomy

• human anatomy and physiology

• archaeology and mapping

• vertebrate zoology

• statistical methods

• stratigraphy and context

Forensic archaeology as the tool to document the contextual setting results:

• 78% preferred processing the scene themselves

• 78% considered archaeological methods the most appropriate to recover the remains

Laboratory and field analyses are not independent because pre-laboratory skeletal trauma analysis work requires:

• the maximum recovery of biological tissue, including tiny, hard to find, hard to identify fragments of bone often associated with traumatized bone

• thorough documentation at the scene (base of a cliff, near the wood chipper…)

• documentation of the damaged bones in situ (prior to recovery)

• ensuring that no further damage is inflicted on the skeletal material through recovery, transport, or subsequent analysis

T/F Trauma analysis begins in the field

True

Forensic archaeology and forensic taphonomy are _____ _____ disciplines

intimately entrenched

T/F Osteological analysis and scene analysis can no longer be approached as independent activities

True

Proper taphonomic analysis requires what?

careful scene documentation and analysis

Beyond trauma

• reconstruction of past events as depositional history

  • post mortem interval (PMI)

  • feature creation and characteristics

  • positioning and deposition sequences

  • post mortem disturbances (transport, scattering, missing elements, etc.)

• context as an aid to identification

  • commingling issues

  • MNI and missing elements

  • DNA preservation and retrieval strategies

Name changed to Anthropology Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in 2014:

• acknowledgment of the role of forensic archaeology and forensic taphonomy

• new questions and scope:

  • reconstructions of events surrounding death

  • field and laboratory components (not independent from one another)

  • expands beyond victim ID, but also acknowledges context information and taphonomic analysis as important for ID (commingling, mass disasters, etc.)

Differences with classic “standard” archaeology:

Sedimentological context absent or extremely simple:

• forensic burials represent single events from the archaeological point of view

• quick depositional episodes not involving true sedimentologic processes

• complex stratigraphic interpretation is very rarely required

• the significant depositional processes are of a different nature: leaf litter, organic soil horizons, etc.

• the feature must be considered in continuity with the current above-ground environment:

  • living vegetation type ad coverage, temperature regimes, etc. are key for post-mortem interval or interpreting the degree of decomposition of the remains

  • altered vegetation, upturned soils, soil surface impressions, etc. represent potential evidence

• recognizing and being able to assess different types of relevant evidence in order to:

  • avoid missing or damaging it

  • documenting it in a manner allowing for comprehensive analysis

• it imposes not only being able to recognize certain materials, but also features or alterations at those materials that may confer them their forensic significance

• handicapped if we lack analytical goals specific of the scientific field and profession

If we were to apply the British model textually:

• risk of promoting or producing a professional profile of a technician exclusively devoted to excavate the evidence and map the scene under instructions from other professionals

• this profile and training is virtually identical to those described for the archaeology assistant degrees offered in some European countries… as vocational high school certificates

What taphonomy brings to forensic anthropology and archaeology:

• seven decades of research, observations and experience on problems and questions virtually identical to those posed to the modern forensic anthropologist

• wealth of comparative data, and an experimental framework from other taxa

• conceptual framework for the development of forensic anthropology and archaeology

• opportunity to observe actual, ongoing, depositional, diagenetic and modification processes

• ability to contrast hypotheses with actualistic data

  • environmental conditions and timing of the deposition and alteration processes

  • influence and behavior of soft tissues

  • the real tools used to inflict the injury

  • reliable descriptions of the events