Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
represent the surface damage to each bone, and for the pattern of representation and damage
to the bones at the assemblage level, must be investigated (
Schrenk and Maguire, 1988
).
Recognizing and Interpreting Marks on Bone
The first step toward the accurate interpretation of marks on bone is to observe their pres-
ence, analyze their morphology, and record their distribution pattern. Human skeletal
remains must be interpreted as the result of a complex interaction of factors, which can
add, modify, and remove evidence (
Bunn, 1981
). The potential confusion of the signatures
of numerous and varied processes necessitates a rigorous methodological approach to
bone modification, as previously stated. For example, the fact that cutmarks are rare even
in assemblages generated by known butchering events highlights how radically the incorrect
classification of marks on bone can skew the taphonomic analysis. The misidentification of
even a few marks on human bone may result in a gross misinterpretation of taphonomic
events (
Behrensmeyer et al., 1986
), and in the worst case scenario, can lead to a gross miscar-
riage of justice when applied in a forensic context. The most appropriate methods of analysis
of marks on bone must be applied, allowing accurate comparison with experimental refer-
ence collections.
It has been well demonstrated that macroscopic similarities between markings of radically
divergent origins can result in the misinterpretation of marks (
Andrews and Cook, 1985;
Shipman, 1988; Bunn, 1989; Bromage et al., 1991
). The recognition of the potential for such
macro-level similarities between bone modifications resulted in the development of research
protocols involving microscopy, sometimes including high-resolution microscopic tech-
nology, to discern between the different taphonomic causes of marks on bone (
Brothwell,
1969
). It is argued that inspection with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) “reveals features
that are unclear or invisible under the light microscope even when the magnifications are the
same” (
Shipman, 1981
:360). Researchers have performed numerous actualistic experiments
to produce a reference collection of ”micromorphological profiles” to discern between
various classes of marks on bone (
Potts and Shipman, 1981; Shipman, 1981; Bromage,
1984; Bromage and Boyd, 1984; Behrensmeyer et al., 1986; Bromage et al., 1991
).
However, it has also been shown that even at such a high level of resolution, the
morphology of marks could bear striking similarities across classes. For example, abrasion
marks could manifest the internal striae previously deemed the hallmark of stone tool cut-
marks, and the shape of a mark in basal cross-section is not as diagnostic as once believed,
as cutmarks, tooth scores, and abrasion scratches could all present as either V-shaped or
U-shaped in cross-section (
Behrensmeyer et al., 1986
). Prevalent standards for analysis of
bone markings are continually being tested, and some widely accepted diagnostic micro-
scopic criteria have, over time, been discarded as overly simplistic (
Shipman, 1988
). Thus,
although minute examination of markings on bone is indeed useful for identifying the
taphonomic agent that produced the marks, such analysis can, in itself, prove misleading
(
Bunn, 1989
).
Therefore, gross investigation using low magnification by hand lens or optic light micros-
copy remains not only the primary, but also the preferred technology used by microtaphono-
mists in the classification of marks on bone (
Bromage et al., 1991
). In comparison with other,
“high-tech” methods like SEM, low magnification is less expensive, less labor intensive, and
