Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
where the body was found would contribute to understanding its taphonomic condition.
Careful and comprehensive taphonomic documentation of the scene should include
a wide range of ecological information about the microenvironment. Particularly important
are those factors that either concentrate or limit the body's access to heat, moisture, and
scavenging.
Perhaps the most important outcome of taphonomic research is the unequivocal demon-
stration that postmortem processes are context specific. Again, this seems straightforward,
but may be inadequately appreciated by inexperienced skeletal biologists. As scientists,
we look for patterns; we want to identify processes so that we can recognize and predict their
results across many settings. But the lesson learned from 70 years of taphonomic research is
that we must expand our models to address a wider range of specific environmental and
contextual factors. Weathering processes, for example, will differ in the rate, the sequence,
and the appearance of resulting changes to bone dependent upon relative moisture, solar
radiation, and temperature. More holistic research is needed that can encompass and model
variation that is microenvironmentally, regionally, and temporally specific (
Marden and
Sorg, 2011; Sorg, 2011
,
Sorg et al., 2012
). To the extent that these perspectives are incorporated
into taphonomic research, the result can yield much more accurate information about skeletal
biology, when that taphonomic “overprint” is “stripped away” or “controlled” methodolog-
ically. Done properly, taphonomic research can also tell us more about the death event and
about past environments, factors that contribute to understanding the organism's biological
makeup and the events related to its death and deposition.
METHODOLOGY IN TAPHONOMIC RESEARCH
Focus: Taphonomic Interpretation of Bone Damage and Marks on Bone
A wealth of information can be gleaned from taphonomic analysis of osteological mate-
rials, the basis of which lies in the correct interpretation of bone modification (
Bonnichsen
and Sorg, 1989
). For example, a vital function of forensic anthropology is “to properly inter-
pret taphonomical factors (postmortem changes in the tissues) and distinguish them from
evidence of foul play” (
Ubelaker, 1997b
:109). However, the reconstruction of past human
behavior based upon marks on bone
2
depends heavily upon the accurate assessment of
marks that are often grossly similar. Precise distinction between one type of mark and
another is imperative for osteological analysis to be of any interpretative value, yet the reli-
able identification of human and nonhuman bone modifications has proven much more
complex than originally presumed, and the body of knowledge remains dynamic.
Like archaeology, taphonomy is essentially a historical science, in that it requires recon-
structing past events from currently observable evidence (
Shipman, 1988
). This ”retrodiction”
of unobservable actions and agents results in a somewhat inverted methodology wherein one
2
“Marks” on bone refer to any observable change in bone color, texture, or surface contiguity relative to
unmodified skeletal material. Note that virtually all skeletal material has “marks,” even pristine medical
specimens, which are often “marked” or modified by fixative or bleaching.
