Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Marshall, 1989; Cruz-Uribe and Klein, 1994; Ubelaker, 1997a; Sauer, 1998; Shipman and
Rose, 1988; Saul and Saul, 2002
).
The study of taphonomy thus extends beyond the natural processes of
diagenesis
(chem-
ical changes to bone
in situ
, such as fossilization) to also include the effects of discovery,
recovery, handling, and storage. This is the only means by which these latter effects can be
discriminated from natural processes, trauma, or pathological conditions. Although many
researchers do not like to admit it, “scratches, nicks and cuts from trowels frequently occur
and can later be mistaken for perimortem trauma
The impacts of excavation and curation
cannot be underestimated and both must be treated as important taphonomic variables”
(
Nawrocki, 1995
:55). Therefore, the usage of the term “taphonomy” has shifted over time
to encompass the full range of “natural and the cultural events, processes, and agents that
modify human remains from the time of death until the time of analysis” (
Stodder,
2008
:72).
Mortuary treatment
of the corpse is also considered a taphonomic variable, as
the way a body is prepared after death will affect its preservation and the impact of subse-
quent taphonomic forces (
Ubelaker, 2000
:55).
Taphonomic effects are sequential and cumulative, and they may affect each other. Human
osteological remains “are a surviving sample of a dynamic system involving processes that
added, modified and subtracted items of evidence” (
Bunn, 1981
:576). Myriad factors can
influence the composition and condition of human bone assemblages recovered from
forensic or archaeological contexts. It is critical to observe all of the layers of information
in order to discriminate among them, and to perform research that encompasses disease
processes that occurred during life as well as skeletal evidence of perimortem trauma
(damage occurring at or around the time of death), and postmortem treatment of the body
(
Marden, 2011b; Sauer, 1998; Hackett, 1976; Wells, 1964
). A comprehensive approach is
necessary to consider the sum total of factors that might affect an assemblage
d
both human
and nonhuman. See
Table 9.1
.
It seems straightforward that one would want to differentiate changes to bones that
occur after death from skeletal features characteristic of the once-living individual, but
it is not always easy to do so. Processes that change bone after death can mimic
antemortem
(before death) processes, generating “
pseudopathology
.” The term for such
mimicry is “
equifinality
,” when the etiology (cause) is different, but the result is the
same. In addition, postmortem processes (those occurring after death) can hide or distort
biological characteristics. For example, scavengers can alter or completely remove signs of
perimortem trauma. At the same time, pathological changes in life can weaken bone,
making it more susceptible to destructive taphonomic agents and effectors. Therefore, it
is essential that we study and understand the postmortem processes that might otherwise
confound us, and to design research that adequately controls or accounts for these factors.
Although the field of taphonomy is over 70 years old, research advances continue to illu-
minate these complex issues. Human skeletal biologists have contributed a great deal to the
field, building a substantial body of research, particularly in bioarchaeology, paleoanthro-
pology, paleopathology, and forensic anthropology. But there is much that remains to be
done. This chapter reviews the types of taphonomic research that have been conducted,
focusing on methodological themes, and highlights some of the resulting implications for
research design.
.
