Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
FIGURE 9.5
Oval-shaped black marking on anterior distal left femur that is consistent with Pepper's desig-
nation of the femur in Room 32 (“Left O” in his plan view sketches).
compatible age, sex, and cortical characteristics exhibited similar damage. Moreover,
a distinctive ovoid mark drawn in black ink on the distal anterior left femoral shaft was
noticed after these bones were reassociated to this individual. This mark appears to be the
letter “O” consistent with the words “Left O” with which Pepper labelled the femur in
Room 32 in his field sketch of these remains. See
Figure 9.5
. No other long bone in the assem-
blage was marked in ink in this way. This femur is an excellent morphological
antimere
for
the right, leaving little doubt that the two bones are from the same individual.
Documenting the Condition of Remains: Taphonomic Signatures of Scavenger
Modification and Mummification
Taken together, the skeletal and archival evidence indicates that part of this individual was
recovered from Room 32, while the remainder was found in Room 33. The partial set of
remains found in Room 32 consists of precisely the parts that are missing from the partial
individual from Room 33 with which they have been reassociated; and the two partial skel-
etons are consistent in age, sex, and overall condition. The preponderance of evidence
supports the interpretation that the remains in Room 32 and partial Skeleton #10 in Room
33 are the same individual.
Since partial Skeleton #10 and the partial remains from Room 32 almost certainly represent
a single individual, it seems most likely that the body was first entombed in Room 33. The
remains in Room 32 were found with a mass of cloth wrapped about them that Pepper
concluded was their burial wrappings. This mass of cloth trailed into the doorway leading
to Room 33, suggesting that it may have been dragged from that roomwith the bones. Actual-
istic evidence gleaned from forensic contexts has demonstrated the importance of under-
standing the potential of scavenging to destroy or scatter body parts, to alter or destroy
evidence of the original context of the body's placement, and to create diagnostic damage
to the remains (
Haglund, 1997
:367). All of these effects seem to have taken place in the
case of the partial remains in Room 32. The sacrum, os coxa (pelvic bones), and femora of
this individual show marks consistent with chewing, although this analysis did not attempt
to identify the ribs among the large commingled lot. The most parsimonious explanation for
